GILA COUNTY
SMALL AREA TRANSPORTATION STUDY

FINAL REPORT

OCTOBER 2006
Partners for Strategic Action, Inc.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF FINDINGS .................................... 1
PURPOSE AND VISION ........................................................................ 1
BACKGROUND................................................................................... 1
STUDY PROCESS ................................................................................ 3
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS..................................................................... 3
RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................................................... 6
2. REVIEW OF PREVIOUS STUDIES AND PLANS ....................................... 7
PREVIOUS STUDIES AND PLANS .......................................................... 7
STATEWIDE AND AREA PROGRAMMED IMPROVEMENTS ..................... 18
3. SUMMARY OF EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS..........................
NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ................................................................
SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT ......................................................
CURRENT LAND USE........................................................................
CURRENT ROADWAY FACILITY CHARACTERISTICS.............................
MULTIMODAL INVENTORY...............................................................
FUTURE SOCIOECONOMIC AND TRANSPORTATION CONDITIONS ..........
FIRST ROUND OF PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ...........................................

24
24
24
51
51
67
73
80

4. MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN........................................... 82
EVALUATION OF DEFICIENCIES AND NEEDS ...................................... 82
SECOND ROUND OF PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ....................................... 88
PRIORITIZATION OF TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS .............................. 90
TRANSIT AND NON-MOTORIZED MODES ............................................ 93
RAIL HIGHWAY CROSSINGS ............................................................. 101
GILA COUNTY ACCESS MANAGEMENT PRACTICES............................. 101
5. BEST PRACTICES IN RURAL TRANSPORTATION ............................... 105
INTRODUCTION .............................................................................. 105
ANALYSIS OF LOW VOLUME DIRT ROADS ......................................... 105
PERFORMANCE MEASURES FOR RURAL TRANSPORTATION
SYSTEMS................................................................................... 106
ANALYSIS OF HIGHWAY-RAIL GRADE CROSSINGS ............................. 108
ACTIVITY BASED BUDGETING.......................................................... 108
NEW PARADIGMS FOR RURAL AND SMALL URBAN TRANSIT
SERVICE DELIVERY .................................................................... 110
RURAL TRANSIT ITS........................................................................ 111

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
6. RECOMMENDATIONS AND IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES ............. 114
RECOMMENDATION AND STRATEGY ................................................ 114
FUNDING AND REVENUE ESTIMATES ............................................... 114
APPENDIX A. ESTIMATING TRANSIT DEMAND..................................... 125
APPENDIX B. REVENUE SOURCES ....................................................... 129
REFERENCES ..................................................................................... 142

ii

LIST OF TABLES
Page
2-1. CAAG’S ROADS OF REGIONAL SIGNIFICANCE IN GILA COUNTY ......... 9
2-2. GILA COUNTY PROJECTS INCLUDED IN GLOBE-MIAMI AREA
TRANSPORTATION STUDY............................................................ 12
2-3. GILA COUNTY NEEDS ESTIMATED BY ROADWAY NEEDS STUDY
UPDATE ..................................................................................... 15
2-4. PINAL CREEK CORRIDOR MAJOR DESIGN ALIGNMENT
DIFFERENCES AND COST ESTIMATES ............................................ 17
2-5. PUBLIC WORKS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
FY 2004 – 2005 ............................................................................. 18
2-6. DRAFT CAAG TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
FY 2006 - 2010 – PROJECTS IN GILA COUNTY ................................... 20
2-7. TENTATIVE 2006 - 2010 ADOT FIVE-YEAR TRANSPORTATION
FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM – GILA COUNTY PROJECTS ... 22
2-8. MOVEAZ PROJECTS WITHIN GILA COUNTY .................................... 23
3-1. SUMMARY OF GILA COUNTY DEMOGRAPHIC DATA........................ 25
3-2. FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION OF GILA COUNTY MAINTAINED
ROADWAYS ................................................................................ 54
3-3. DAILY ROADWAY CAPACITIES USED IN DETERMINING LEVEL OF
SERVICE IN GILA COUNTY ........................................................... 57
3-4. LEVEL OF SERVICE...................................................................... 58
3-5. CURRENT AADT PER LANE AND LEVEL OF SERVICE OF GILA
COUNTY ROADWAYS................................................................... 59
3-6. SUMMARY OF TRAFFIC CRASHES IN GILA COUNTY ....................... 63
3-7. SUMMARY OF ADOT BRIDGE INSPECTIONS FOR COUNTYMAINTAINED STRUCTURES ......................................................... 65
3-8. PAVEMENT CONDITION OF GILA COUNTY ROADWAYS .................. 69
3-9. POPULATION PROJECTIONS FOR GILA COUNTY COMMUNITIES ....... 73

iii

LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Page
3-10. PARTICIPANTS IN THE FIRST ROUND OF PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT.... 81
4-1. PARTICIPANTS IN THE SECOND ROUND OF PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT .. 89
4-2. MINIMUM DRIVEWAY SPACING ................................................... 103
4-3. SUGGESTED MINIMUM ACCESS SPACING BASED ON ROADWAY
SPEED AND FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION .................................. 104
5-1. SAMPLE LOW VOLUME UNPAVED ROADS EVALUATION MATRIX .... 107
6-1. TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PLAN PROJECT
LIST - PHASE I............................................................................ 115
6-2. TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PLAN PROJECT
LIST - PHASE II........................................................................... 116
6-3. IMPLEMENTATION ACTION PLAN ................................................ 117
6-4. MATRIX OF FUNDING SOURCES ................................................... 118
6-5. ARIZONA HIGHWAY USER REVENUE FUND DISTRIBUTIONS TO GILA
COUNTY AND LOCAL JURISDICTIONS, FY 2001 – 2005 ..................... 121
6-6. GILA COUNTY HALF-CENT TRANSPORTATION TAX REVENUE......... 121
6-7. CASH FLOW ANALYSIS – PHASE I ................................................. 124
6-8. CASH FLOW ANALYSIS – PHASE II ................................................ 124

iv

LIST OF FIGURES
Page
1-1. STUDY AREA ................................................................................ 2
1-2. STUDY PROCESS ........................................................................... 4
3-1-A.CURRENT TOTAL POPULATION PER SQUARE MILE
(BY CENSUS BLOCK) .................................................................. 27
3-1-B. CURRENT TOTAL POPULATION PER SQUARE MILE
(BY CENSUS BLOCK) – GLOBE AREA DETAIL ................................ 28
3-1-C. CURRENT TOTAL POPULATION PER SQUARE MILE
(BY CENSUS BLOCK) – PAYSON AREA DETAIL .............................. 30
3-2-A.OCCUPIED DWELLING UNITS PER SQUARE MILE
(BY CENSUS BLOCK) .................................................................. 31
3-2-B. OCCUPIED DWELLING UNITS PER SQUARE MILE
(BY CENSUS BLOCK) – GLOBE AREA DETAIL ................................ 32
3-2-C. OCCUPIED DWELLING UNITS PER SQUARE MILE
(BY CENSUS BLOCK) – PAYSON AREA DETAIL .............................. 33
3-3-A.AGE 65 AND OLDER POPULATION PER SQUARE MILE
(BY CENSUS BLOCK) .................................................................. 35
3-3-B. AGE 65 AND OLDER POPULATION PER SQUARE MILE
(BY CENSUS BLOCK) - GLOBE AREA DETAIL................................. 36
3-3-C. AGE 65 AND OLDER POPULATION PER SQUARE MILE
(BY CENSUS BLOCK) - PAYSON AREA DETAIL............................... 37
3-4-A.MINORITY POPULATION PER SQUARE MILE
(BY CENSUS BLOCK) .................................................................. 38
3-4-B. MINORITY POPULATION PER SQUARE MILE
(BY CENSUS BLOCK) - GLOBE AREA DETAIL................................. 39
3-4-C. MINORITY POPULATION PER SQUARE MILE
(BY CENSUS BLOCK) - PAYSON AREA DETAIL............................... 40

v

LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)
Page
3-5-A.POPULATION BELOW POVERTY LEVEL PER SQUARE MILE
(BY CENSUS BLOCK GROUP) ....................................................... 42
3-5-B. POPULATION BELOW POVERTY LEVEL PER SQUARE MILE
(BY CENSUS BLOCK GROUP) - GLOBE AREA DETAIL...................... 43
3-5-C. POPULATION BELOW POVERTY LEVEL PER SQUARE MILE
(BY CENSUS BLOCK GROUP) - PAYSON AREA DETAIL.................... 44
3-6-A.MOBILITY-LIMITED POPULATION PER SQUARE MILE
(BY CENSUS BLOCK GROUP) ....................................................... 45
3-6-B. MOBILITY-LIMITED POPULATION PER SQUARE MILE
(BY CENSUS BLOCK GROUP) - GLOBE AREA DETAIL...................... 46
3-6-C. MOBILITY-LIMITED POPULATION PER SQUARE MILE
(BY CENSUS BLOCK GROUP) - PAYSON AREA DETAIL.................... 47
3-7-A.HOUSEHOLDS WITHOUT AUTOMOBILES PER SQUARE MILE
(BY CENSUS BLOCK GROUP) ....................................................... 48
3-7-B. HOUSEHOLDS WITHOUT AUTOMOBILES PER SQUARE MILE
(BY CENSUS BLOCK GROUP) - GLOBE AREA DETAIL...................... 49
3-7-C. HOUSEHOLDS WITHOUT AUTOMOBILES PER SQUARE MILE
(BY CENSUS BLOCK GROUP) - PAYSON AREA DETAIL.................... 50
3.8 EXAMPLES OF GILA COUNTY ROADWAYS ..................................... 53
3-9. FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION ASSIGNED TO
COUNTY ROADWAYS................................................................... 55
3-10. SIMULATION OF LEVELS OF SERVICE.......................................... 56
3-11. EXAMPLES OF ROADWAY SAFETY ISSUES ................................... 62
3-12. EXAMPLES OF AT-GRADE RAIL CROSSINGS IN GLOBE AREA .......... 66
3-13. EXAMPLES OF PAVEMENT CONDITIONS ...................................... 68
3-14. CASINO TRANSPORTATION SERVICES.......................................... 72
3-15. TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ZONES ........................................................ 75

vi

LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)
Page
3-16-A. LEVEL OF SERVICE – GILA COUNTY ROADWAYS – 2030............... 76
3-16-B. LEVEL OF SERVICE – GILA COUNTY ROADWAYS – 2030 –
GLOBE DETAIL ....................................................................... 77
3-16-C. LEVEL OF SERVICE – GILA COUNTY ROADWAYS – 2030 PAYSON DETAIL ..................................................................... 78
4-1-A.LEVEL OF SERVICE – GILA COUNTY ROADWAYS –
2030 ACCELERATED GROWTH SCENARIO..................................... 85
4-1-B. LEVEL OF SERVICE – GILA COUNTY ROADWAYS –
2030 ACCELERATED GROWTH SCENARIO – GLOBE DETAIL ............ 86
4-1-C. LEVEL OF SERVICE – GILA COUNTY ROADWAYS –
2030 ACCELERATED GROWTH SCENARIO – PAYSON DETAIL .......... 87
4-2. PHASE I PROJECTS....................................................................... 91
4-3. PHASE II PROJECTS...................................................................... 92
4-4 DIFFERENT TYPES OF BUS SERVICE .............................................. 97
4-5. HYPOTHETICAL BUS TRANSIT ROUTES .......................................... 98

vii

1. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
This document presents the Transportation Plan for Gila County as a result of the Small
Area Transportation Study conducted between February 2005 and June 2006. The study
was developed by Gila County cooperatively with the Arizona Department of
Transportation (ADOT), Central Arizona Association of Governments, and the Tonto
National Forest. In addition, area residents’ and stakeholder input was solicited and
incorporated in the study through public participation efforts.
PURPOSE AND VISION
The purpose of the study has been to develop a 20-year transportation plan and
implementation program to guide Gila County in meeting transportation needs into the
future. Roadway and multimodal improvements were identified to address deficiencies and
needs to improve mobility and safety in the County. The study also identified how and
when these improvements should be implemented and funded. This long-range multimodal
transportation plan is intended for use in day-to-day programming and funding of
transportation improvements.
In addition, transportation improvements have been
prioritized to maximize project benefits within budget limitations. Funding strategies and
sources have been included to aid the County in pursuing local, regional, state, and federal
funding. The Study Area is shown in Figure 1-1.
Study Vision
The County’s transportation system developed in cooperation with Federal, State, Tribal,
and Local Jurisdictions, together with County residents and businesses. It will be efficient
and safe and will meet Gila County’s current and future transportation needs. Gila County
will be served by a system of roadways providing connectivity between communities and
rural areas throughout the County. The system will incorporate multimodal components
such as ride-sharing, transit, bicycle, pedestrian, and airport access in addition to the needs
of motorists. As a result, closer coordination between land use and transportation
improvements will support future development and ensure roadway capacity for long-term
reduction of delays.
BACKGROUND
Gila County is located in central Arizona east and northeast of the Phoenix metropolitan
area. The County covers nearly 4,800 square miles with 55.5 percent of the land within
the Tonto National Forest, 37 percent within the Fort Apache and San Carlos reservations,
and the remaining 7.5 percent is owned by the Bureau of Land Management, by the State
Lands, or privately. Gila County is rich in topographic variety, ranging from 2,000 to

Lima & Associates

Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 1

FIGURE 1-1. STUDY AREA

7,000 feet in elevation; the lower regions are referred to as the Copper Region and the
higher elevations as the Timber Region.
The primary road network includes two US routes and four State Routes. The County
road system is comprised of 644.05 miles of roadways, of which 155.38 miles are
currently paved and 488.67 are unpaved. These mileages include roadways in the
unincorporated areas of Gila County as well as Forest Service roads for which the US
Department of Agriculture has contracted with the County for maintenance.
The majority of traffic in Gila County is concentrated on the US and State Routes. Transit
service within Gila County is limited to dial-a-ride type programs. These programs,

Lima & Associates

Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 2

provided by local communities or organizations, primarily serve the senior and disabled
populations with access to medical facilities, senior programs, and other daily needs.
STUDY PROCESS
The study process is illustrated in Figure 1-2. The study was guided by a Technical
Advisory Committee comprised of representatives from the County, ADOT, Central
Arizona Association of Governments (CAAG), and the Tonto National Forest. An
intensive public participation process was undertaken, including two rounds of stakeholder
meetings and open houses to identify issues, solicit comments, and receive feedback on the
study process and recommendations.
The first step of the technical analysis was to analyze the existing conditions and
Environmental Justice concerns. A first stakeholder workshop was held to identify issues
and vision components for the transportation plan. Stakeholders included County
Supervisors, County Public Works Department personnel, elected officials from the City
of Globe and the Towns of Miami and Payson, city and town staffs, business community
representatives, Tribal representatives, and citizens.
An Open House was then held with the general public to present existing conditions,
issues, and transportation vision. The next major step in the technical process was to
analyze alternative roadway improvements. Based on the results of this analysis, a draft
transportation plan was developed including a transit element. A second stakeholder
workshop was held to review the draft transportation plan and identify constraints to the
plan. The draft transportation plan was then presented to an Open House of the general
public.
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
•

Gila County is a beautiful, largely undeveloped area with dramatic desert and
mountain scenery, lakes, rivers, and trails that has significant existing and future
tourism potential.

•

Gila County is projected to have a population growth rate significantly slower than
other parts of Arizona, including neighboring Pinal County.

•

The Arizona Department of Economic Security (DES) projects that County
population will increase from 51,634 in 2005 to 66,378 in 2030.

•

The percentage of County residents who are over age 65, live below the poverty
level, or are disabled is higher than the State average. The percentage of County
residents who are minority is lower than the State average.

Lima & Associates

Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 3

FIGURE 1-2. STUDY PROCESS
Existing Conditions

First Stakeholders Meeting

Future Conditions

Define Vision and Goals
First Open House
Draft
Transportation Plans

Second Stakeholders Meeting
Second Open House
Capital Improvement
Program

Short-, Mid-, & Long Range
Transportation Plans

Implementation Plan
Draft/Final Report

•

Nearly half the County population lives in the six incorporated communities of
Globe, Hayden, Miami, Payson, Star Valley, and Winkelman. Much of the
remainder lives in the unincorporated areas of Pine, San Carlos, Strawberry, Tonto
Basin, Young, the newly-incorporated community of Star Valley, and several
Mogollon Rim communities along SR 260 east of Star Valley. The remainder of
the County is a virtual wilderness.

•

Gila County’s roadway network is linked together by and dependent on two US
Highways and five State Routes. The County also maintains 500 miles of
roadways, including 256 miles of Forest Service Roadways. Overall, the paved
roadways are in very good condition.

•

The majority of the traffic in Gila County travels on the US and State Routes.

•

None of the County owned or maintained roadways operate near capacity.

•

From January 1999 through December 2003, 4,489 traffic crashes occurred in the
County; most crashes occurred on state highways.

•

Several awkward intersections on County roadways exist where motorists must
make difficult turning movements or where sight-distances are limited.

•

Transit service in the County is limited to dial-a-ride programs operated by the
Town of Miami and the Payson Senior Center. Other than shuttles connecting

Lima & Associates

Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 4

Payson with the Phoenix airport, no intercity service exists. County residents and
visitors are almost entirely dependent on private automobile travel, the maintenance
of good roads, and the availability of affordable gasoline.
•

The Arizona Eastern Railway, in cooperation with the Globe Mainstreet Program
and the Apache Gold Casino Resort, experimented with excursion rail service
between downtown Globe and the Casino during the spring of 2006.

•

Highway-rail crossings in the Globe-Miami area appear to be in need of
reconstruction.

•

The County is in the process of implementing a computerized pavement
management system and a County-wide roadway geographic information system.

•

A sketch model planning process forecasts degraded levels of service on State
Routes within the County.

•

Participants in the First Round of Public Involvement called for expanded public
transit service, regional planning and coordination, and alternate routes for use in
case of emergencies such as high water and wildfires.

•

Best practices followed by peer jurisdictions that are reviewed and summarized
include practices for:
[ Analysis of Low Volume Dirt Roads
[ Performance Measures for Rural Transportation Systems
[ Analysis of Highway-Rail Grade Crossings
[ Activity Based Budgeting
[ New Paradigms for Rural and Small Urban Transit Service Delivery
[ Rural Transit Intelligent Transportation Systems Technology (ITS)

•

During the conduct of the Small Area Transportation Study, deficiencies and needs
were evaluated in the following seven general areas:
[ Paving and Geometry Improvements
[ Bridge Construction and Design
[ Roadway Reconstruction
[ Intersection Improvements
[ Hazard Elimination and Safety
[ Highway Rail Crossings
[ Multimodal Studies

•

The consultant proposes the adoption of a phased transportation plan that
incorporates projects in each of the above areas. Seventeen short-term projects are
included in Phase I to be completed by 2010 and seventeen additional projects are
included in Phase II to be completed by 2030.

•

The consultant believes that the DES 2030 population estimate of 66,378 is low and
therefore has modeled an “Accelerated Growth” scenario that results in a forecasted
2030 population of 95,880. Under this scenario, several County roadways are

Lima & Associates

Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 5

forecasted to be at or above capacity, including Chamberlain Trail and Pinal Creek
Road.
•

Participants in the Second round of Public Involvement approved the draft Phase I
and Phase II plans and called for improved roadways to the community of Young
and additional funding for transportation projects.

•

Regional transit demand by 2030, exclusive of urban dial-a-ride and circulator
services, is forecasted to be between 123 and 275 persons per day.

•

Gila County access management policies are consistent with those employed by
peer jurisdictions.

RECOMMENDATIONS
The consultant team recommends that Gila County:
•

Program the recommended Phase I and Phase II transportation improvements into
the Capital Program

•

Establish a process to coordinate County land use and transportation decisions on a
regular basis

•

Designate a transportation coordinator

•

Conduct a regional bus service study

•

Conduct a San Carlos Airport upgrade study

•

Coordinate with the Town of Miami, the City of Globe, and the Town of Payson on
local transit studies

•

Conduct a Miami-Globe-San Carlos excursion passenger rail study

•

Initiate a County bicycle and pedestrian plan

•

Implement the street functional classifications and roadway design guidelines for
new development

•

Ensure that County access management policies are adhered to by new
developments

•

Coordinate with ADOT and CAAG on a regular basis on multimodal transportation
improvements

•

Establish a process to coordinate transit services with private and public agencies

•

Monitor and update transportation plan and transit element

Lima & Associates

Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 6

2. REVIEW OF PREVIOUS STUDIES AND PLANS
This chapter presents a review of pertinent studies and plans that have previously been
conducted concerning Gila County transportation. Also included is a review of area and
statewide plans and programs including Gila County projects.
PREVIOUS STUDIES AND PLANS
SR 88 SR 188 Profile Corridor Study
The SR 88 SR 188 Profile Corridor Study was completed in November 1999 by SR Beard
& Associates for ADOT. The study profiled communities served by these two roadways
and summarized the key issues in the corridor. Regional issues discussed include the
traffic generated by the tourist appeal of corridor attractions such as the series of reservoirs
on the Salt River, the designation of Gila County as an Enterprise Zone, and the projected
population growth of Apache Junction. The physical and natural environment in the
corridor was described, together with existing transportation facilities and services.
Existing and projected needs and deficiencies were described and evaluated and future
travel demand was estimated. By 2017, the average annual daily traffic (AADT) on SR 88
in the Globe vicinity was projected to reach 22,423, up from 8,915 in 1997.
The Study evaluated a number of alternative recommendations for corridor improvements.
Two major categories of criteria were used to prioritize the alternative recommendations:
Transportation Utility and Project Impacts. Transportation Utility criteria included person
trips served, travel time impacts, vehicle operations cost/motor vehicle usage, operation
and maintenance costs, traffic accident rates, person hours of delay, and vehicle miles
traveled. Project Impacts criteria included impact with respect to Title VI issues, impact
on public land, impact on historic or archaeological sites, impact on visual resources,
potential noise generation, and community support. These criteria were used to give
potential projects a priority ranking.
State Route 88 between Roosevelt and Globe was renumbered as SR 188 to provide
continuity from SR 87 to Globe effective August 1999. In 2001, SR 188 from Globe to
the SR 87 junction was designated the Senator Hardt Highway in memory of A. V. “Bill”
Hardt, a well-respected Globe business owner and political activist who served several
terms as the City’s mayor and 30 years in the Arizona Legislature. The highway is being
improved and realigned as recommended in the study, with the work nearing completion as
of March, 2006.
The study also recommended Daily round trip bus service between Superior and
Miami/Globe and weekly bus service between Payson and Phoenix, which have not been
implemented.

Lima & Associates

Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 7

Regional Transportation Plan for the Central Arizona Association of Governments
The Regional Transportation Plan for the CAAG was completed by David Evans and
Associates in April 2000. The project was conducted to identify deficiencies along the
regionally significant roadways and recommend necessary improvements for CAAG’s
short-term, mid-term, and long-term transportation plans. The plan consists of three standalone technical memorandums that document the existing conditions, levels of service, and
recommended improvements, and selected projects and funding sources.
In Technical Memorandum #1, existing conditions of the regionally significant roadways
are identified. An inventory that covered pavement condition, lane configuration traffic
control, speed limit, on-street parking, terrain land use, Average Daily Traffic (ADT0
volumes, safety issues, right-of-way, and the presence of curbs, gutters, or sidewalks was
conducted for the regionally significant roadways. Existing deficiencies are also identified
in this memorandum.
As part of the planning process, David Evans and Associates conducted an inventory of
regionally significant roadways indicated by CAAG. The definition of a regionally
significant roadway is one that links population centers, employment centers, and major
highways, or is necessary for the efficient vehicular flow between intercity attractions.
This inventory covered roadway systems in Gila County and Pinal County. The following
characteristics were analyzed and/or obtained for the existing conditions inventory:

•
•
•
•
•
•

Pavement Condition
Lane Configuration
Traffic Control
Speed Limit
On-Street Parking
Terrain

• Development
• Average Daily Traffic Volumes
• Safety Issues (sight distance, railroad
crossing, accidents)

• Right-of-way
• Sidewalks

The purpose of the regional transportation plan was to identify deficiencies along the
significant roadways, and to recommend necessary improvements for CAAG’s short term,
mid-term, and long-term transportation improvement plans. Regionally significant
roadways identified by the project located in Gila County are shown in Table 2-1.
Program improvements for CAAG during the fiscal year 1999 to the fiscal year 2003 were
presented in Technical Memorandum #1. Gila County projects included in the current
CAAG Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) are presented in the following section of
this chapter.
Technical Memorandum #2 analyzed existing and future traffic operations. This
memorandum also identified improvement projects during each horizon year that would
improve safety, increase Level of Service (LOS), or improve pavement conditions. The
regionally significant routes analyzed in this report indicated roadway deficiencies that can
be classified into three major categories: capacity deficiencies, safety deficiencies,
pavement deficiencies.

Lima & Associates

Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 8

TABLE 2-1. CAAG’S ROADS OF REGIONAL SIGNIFICANCE
IN GILA COUNTY
Roadway

Jurisdiction

Classification

Houston Mesa Rd.
Gila County
Rural Major Collector
Colcord-Young Rd.
Gila County
Rural Minor Collector
Gisela Rd.
Gila County
Rural Major Collector
Fossil Creek Rd.
Gila County
Rural Minor Collector
Jesse Hayes Rd./Pioneer Rd./Six Shooter Gila County
Urban Minor Arterial/
Rd./Ice House Rd.
Urban Collector
Russell Rd.
Gila County
Urban Collector
Highland St./Walliman Rd.
Gila County
Urban Minor Arterial
Broad St.
Globe
Minor Arterial
Yuma St.
Globe
Local
Cedar St.
Globe
Local
Hackney Ave.
Globe
Local
Blake St.
Globe
Local
Sycamore St.
Globe
Local
Main St.
Globe/Gila Co. Local
Sullivan St.
Miami
Local
Keystone Ave.
Miami
Urban Collector
Airport Rd.
Payson
Urban Minor Arterial
McLane Rd.
Payson
Urban Minor Arterial
Main St.
Payson
Urban Minor Arterial
Mud Springs Rd.
Payson
Urban Collector
Country Club Dr.
Payson
Urban Collector
Vista Rd.
Payson
Urban Collector
Aero Dr.
Payson
Urban Collector
Granite Dells Rd.
Payson
Urban Collector
Phoenix St.
Payson
Local
Tyler Parkway
Payson
Local
Velasco Ave.
Hayden
Rural Minor Collector
Lower Rd./San Pedro/ Canyon Rd./5th
Hayden
Local
St./ Hayden Ave.
Golf Course Rd.
Hayden
Local
Quarelli St./Giffen Ave.
Winkelman
Local
Source: Regional Transportation Plan for the CAAG, David Evans and Associates, April 2000

The capacity analysis performed indicates that 66 percent of the CAAG regionally
significant routes will operate at an acceptable LOS in the twenty-year horizon of 2018.
This document addresses the necessary roadway improvements required for the remaining
33 percent to operate at an acceptable LOS in the future.
Accident rates were obtained from ADOT for the roadways of regional significance.
Roadways examined for safety related improvements were listed, and those with accident
rates in excess of the national standard were addressed with proposed solutions to decrease
the high accident rates. Insufficient traffic control devices exist at many of the highwayrailroad crossings in the roadways evaluated.

Lima & Associates

Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 9

Pavement condition was analyzed for each individual roadway and was classified on a scale
ranging from excellent to poor. The majority of the roadways surveyed typically fell in
the category of good and fair. Recommended improvements were identified for the
roadways exhibiting poor and fair pavement conditions.
Technical Memorandum #3 identified short-term, mid-term, and long-term transportation
improvement projects and corresponding funding sources. The Memorandum analyzed the
potential projects listed in Technical Memorandum #2 and prioritized them based on
safety, capacity, and pavement condition criteria. Due to projected funding shortfalls, only
those roadways that would experience significant safety, capacity, and/or pavement
problems were identified for transportation improvements in The Memorandum. The
study notes that the estimated costs for each of these projects do not include additional
costs for right-of-way acquisition or utility relocation.
Payson Small Area Transportation Study Update
The Payson Small Area Transportation Study Update was prepared for the Town of Payson
by ASL Consulting Engineers in association with Lima & Associates and Partners for
Strategic Action. The Study was completed in December 1999. An inventory of the area
roadway network was conducted including roadway widths and number of lanes, types of
intersection traffic control, average daily traffic count data, and crash data.
A transportation vision was developed and key opportunities and constraints were
identified. Goals and policies were developed with regard to traffic safety, mobility
improvement, land use integration, and economic development. Future socioeconomic and
transportation conditions were forecast by means of a transportation modeling process that
used current socioeconomic data and traffic analysis zones created using existing Payson
area roadways and 1990 Census Block boundaries. By 2020, area population was
projected to increase to 28,000 and area full-time employment to approximately 9,000.
Traffic volumes for the 2002, 2007, and 2020 horizon years were forecast, and roadway
segments predicted to have unacceptable levels of service in each of these years were
identified. Roadway projects were recommended to be completed by each horizon year
that include widening of existing roadways, construction of extensions to existing
roadways, and construction on new alignments. The most significant roadway construction
recommended outside of Town limits was the Southeast Bypass that would connect SR 87
south of Payson with SR 260 east of Town. The study also recommended transit plan and
non-motorized circulation-related improvements; however, these would take place within
the limits of the Town of Payson. The report concluded with an implementation program
and recommended policies and guidelines.

Lima & Associates

Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 10

Globe-Miami Area Transportation Study
The Globe-Miami Area Transportation Study was conducted by DMJM in association with
Lima & Associates. The study was completed in June 1998. The study inventoried the
Globe-Miami area’s transportation system, developed a transportation and circulation plan
for the area, and identified available sources of matching funds for transportation projects
from Federal, State, County, and other sources. Four elements were developed as a result
of the study: an executive summary, the Globe-Miami Transportation Study, the GlobeMiami Area Initial Drainage Study, and the Globe-Miami Transportation Study Transit
Element.
Prioritized roadway projects recommended by the Globe-Miami Transportation Study in
which Gila County was expected to participate are listed in Table 2-2.
The Transit Element recommendations included the following:
•
•
•

Establishment of a transportation advisory committee with members from each
funding agency and other community groups that would meet at least four times
annually
Establishment of frameworks for the sharing of vehicles and drivers between the
two existing transit operators in the area
Expansion of general public transit service to 24 hours per day by October 1999

Gila County Comprehensive Master Plan
The Gila County Comprehensive Master Plan was developed by a consultant team
comprised of LVA Urban Design Studio and Kimley-Horn and Associates. The Plan was
adopted by the County Board of Supervisors in November 2003 and contains three primary
elements: a Land Use Element, a Transportation Element, and a Community Facilities
Element.
The Transportation Element inventories existing circulation facilities within the County,
noting that the “primary routes within Gila County consist of State Routes, including: US
60, US 70, SR 87, SR 188, SR 288, and SR 260.” The alternative modes inventory
includes descriptions of pedestrian facilities, local and intercity transit services, rail freight
services, and airports.
The Plan lists the following transportation related issues that were identified by County
residents:
•
•
•
•
•

Adequacy of emergency access
All weather property accessibility
Lack of alternative transportation mode facilities
Unimproved roadway/dust control
Deficiency in roadway construction and maintenance funding

Lima & Associates

Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 11

TABLE 2-2. GILA COUNTY PROJECTS INCLUDED IN
GLOBE-MIAMI AREA TRANSPORTATION STUDY
Project
No.

Project Name
(Jurisdiction)

Five-Year Component
T-3
Sixshooter
Canyon Rd
Bridge No. 8193
T-7

Miami Gardens
link

T-10

Pavement
Rehabilitation

Ten-Year Component
P-15
Jesse Hayes
Sidewalk (Gila
Co., Globe)

Twenty-Year Component
P-12
Midlands – Focal
Nodes
(ADOT/Gila Co.)
P-13
Midlands –
Intersection
Enhancements
(ADOT/Gila Co.)
P-14
Midlands –
Bicycle Path
(ADOT/Gila Co.)
T-18
Chaparral Loop
(Alt 1) (Gila Co.)
T-19

Chaparral Loop
(Alt 2) (Gila Co.)

T-20

Pueblo Street
(Globe/ Gila Co.)

Lima & Associates

Description and
Length

Justification/Purpose
/ Funding Source

Cost (1997
Dollars)

Construct bridge on
Sixshooter Canyon Rd just
north of Icehouse Canyon
Rd. Intersection.
Construct 2-lane roadway,
extending Railroad Ave.
from Ragus Rd. to Miami
Gardens Rd. (0.27 mi.)
Pavement rehabilitation
based on pavement
condition survey.

Improved access to area
during flooding.
(Federal)

$600,000

Alternate bypass to US
60. Would provide
second access to hospital.
(Local)
Preserve investment in
pavements. (Local)

$260,000

Provide sidewalk on east
side of Jesse Hayes,
Pioneer, and Sixshooter
Canyon from Ruiz Canyon
Rd. to Eastern Arizona
College. (2.2 mi.)

Improve comfort and
safety level of
pedestrians. (Local)

$165,000

Install lighting, vegetation,
paving, and shelters at
three intersections.
Install lighting, vegetation,
paving, and shelters at
three intersections.

Enhance pedestrian
environment. (Local,
State, Federal)
Improve pedestrian and
bicyclist crossings at
intersections. (Local,
State, Federal)
Provide connectivity for
bicyclists. (Local, State,
Federal)
Alternate bypass route to
US 60. Recommend
either T-18 or T-19.
(Local)
Alternate bypass route to
US 60. Recommend
either T-18 or T-19.
(Local)

$100,000

Construct a bicycle path
on north side of US 60.
(1.85 mi.)
Construct new 2-lane
roadway along east side of
railroad from Murphy St.
to Pinaleno Pass. (1.6 mi)
Construct new 2-lane
roadway along Pinal
Creek to connect to
Escudillo or Main St.
Most of road is already
present. (0.85 mo.)
Construct new 2-lane
roadway from Sixshooter
Canyon Rd. near Pueblo
St. to a point on SR 77,
south of US 70. (1.9 mi.)

Alternate bypass route.
Recommend either T-20
or T-21. (Local)

$200,000

$100,000

$75,000
$1,500,000

$800,000

$1,800,000

Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 12

TABLE 2-2. GILA COUNTY PROJECTS INCLUDED IN
GLOBE-MIAMI AREA TRANSPORTATION STUDY (Continued)
Project
No.
T-21

Project Name
(Jurisdiction)
Sixshooter
Canyon Road
Extension

Drainage Projects
D-9
Box culvert
crossing of
Russell Gulch at
Washburn Rd.
(Gila Co.)
D-10
Box culvert at
Pineway St./US
60 (Gila Co.)
D-11
Culvert at Grover
Canyon and US
60 (Gila Co.)
D-12
Culvert at New
Street and US 60
(Gila Co.)
D-13

Culvert at
Railroad Avenue
and Calle de
Loma (Hill
Street) (Gila Co.)

D-14

Description and
Length

Justification/Purpose
/Funding Source

Cost (1997
Dollars)

Construct paved roadway,
extending Sixshooter
Canyon Rd. using existing
alignments of primitive
roads. (4.2 mi.)

Alternate bypass route.
Recommend either T-20
or T-21. (Local)

$4,000,000

Realign Washburn Rd.
and construct multi-span
bridge over Russell
Gulch.

Move Washburn Rd. out
of the 100-year flood
plain. (Local)

$2,300,000

ADOT reconstructed box
culvert (project complete)

Increase culvert capacity
to alleviate flooding on
US 60. (State)
Alleviate flooding
problems on US 60.

$57,600

Increase capacity and
alleviate drainage from
crossing railroad tracks
and US 60. (State, Local)

$60,000

Prevent flows from
crossing US 60. (State,
Local)

$30,000

Install additional culvert
crossing.
Construct culvert across
US 60 to Bloody Tanks
Wash. Requires
modification of US 60 and
New Street profiles.
Construct drop inlet and
install two 30-inch pipes
to inlet. May need to
raise the profile on US 60
to accommodate
improvements.
Construct on-site storm
drain system. Further
study required to
determine outlet design.

$17,000

On-site storm
Alleviate ponding along
$400,000
drain system on
median. (State, Local)
US 60 between
Latham Blvd. and
New St. (Gila
Co.)
Source: Globe-Miami Area Transportation Study, DMJM is association with Lima & Associates, June 1998.

•
•

Need for regional transportation planning
Inadequate roads and rights-of-way

The goal of the Transportation Element is “A safe, efficient and cost effective multi-modal
circulation system that provides for adequate mobility and access.” To support this goal,
the following objectives are contained in the Plan:

Lima & Associates

Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 13

Objective 5.0: Adopt a roadway classification system that is responsive to existing and
projected traffic access and mobility demands and that compliments the
County‘s land use planning efforts.
Objective 5.1: Provide a balanced transportation system that promotes multi-modal
transportation opportunities and ensures adequate emergency access
Objective 5.2: Maximize the public benefit of limited roadway funding and optimize the
expenditure of funds for roadway maintenance and construction.
Objective 5.3: Encourage the formation of informal partnerships to coordinate mutually
beneficial transportation improvements.
Objective 5.4: Actively work to reduce fugitive dust levels due to vehicular traffic on
unimproved roadways.
Payson Area Public Transit Feasibility Study
The Payson Area Public Transit Feasibility Study was conducted by Lima & Associates
during 2004. Payson has higher than average percentage of senior population, significant
tourist appeal, and is geographically isolated from other urban areas. Accordingly, public
transportation both to and from and within the Town of Payson has been included in the
potential needs examined by local and regional transportation studies and plans.
The Town of Payson General Plan Update completed in 2003 suggested that both
additional intercity bus service serving Payson and a local transit system would be needed
by 2007. The Town of Payson Parking Plan, prepared in 2001, included “transit
planning” as a goal to reduce parking needs, and the Payson Small Area Transportation
Study Update included an evaluation and recommendation of transit alternatives.
Local transit services in Payson are currently provided by several carriers including the
Senior Center, two area nursing homes, a limousine service, and the Mazatzal Casino.
With the exception of the limousine service, all of these services are designed for special
use only. The limousine service and shuttles serving Phoenix Sky Harbor Airport
constitute the services currently available to the general public.
Unmet needs were identified through the conduct of a Community Transit Workshop and a
Public Open House and transit demand for Payson was estimated at 30,177 person trips per
year using the Transit Cooperative Research Project (TCRP) Report 3, “Workbook for
Estimating Demand for Rural Passenger Transportation.”
The recommended transit service scenario consists of two loop routes. Each of the routes
is structured as a “Figure 8” that intersects at the corner of Beeline and SR 260. Portions
of the loops operate over the same roadways in opposite directions and other parts of the
loops serve different areas of Town. The schedules are structured to facilitate transfer
between loops at the Basha’s shopping center, enabling passengers originating from stops
served by only one route to reach destinations only served by the other route.
Lima & Associates

Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 14

The draft funding scenario estimated a first year administration and operating cost of
$200,442, of which the local share would be $70,615. The three vehicles required for the
system would cost an estimated $180,000 to purchase, of which the local share would be
$36,000. Following the conduct of a follow-up transit implementation study, the Town
Council voted in December 2004 not to pursue transit implementation in the short-term.
Year 2004 Roadway Needs Study Update
According to the Arizona Association of County Engineers Year 2000 Roadway Needs
Study Update, the 2001 - 2010 Gila County road needs was estimated at $104.1 million.
Of the total needs, $46.4 million were for new roads, $27.3 million were for maintenance
and operating, and $14.8 million were for upgrading existing new roads. The total 2001 2010 estimated revenues were approximately $70.0 million, leaving an unmet need in the
County of $34.0 million. Table 2-3 lists the estimated dollar amounts needed.
TABLE 2-3. GILA COUNTY NEEDS ESTIMATED
BY ROADWAY NEEDS STUDY UPDATE
Gila County Need
Maintenance
Existing Bridges
New Bridges on Existing Roads
Upgrade Existing Roads
New Roads
Safety
Operating
Total

2005 - 2009
$14,187,763
405,720
3,944,000
30,999,410
43,966,000
9,492,167
1,418,776
$104,413,836

2010 - 2014
$14,187,763
405,720
-0575,634
10,726,000
2,731,389
1,418,776
$30,045,283

2005 - 2014
$28,375,526
$811,440
$3,944,000
$31,575,044
$54,692,000
$12,223,556
$2,837,552
$134,459,119

Source: Arizona Association of County Engineers Year 2004 Roadway Needs Study Update, January 2005,
Tables 5A, 5B, and 5C

US 60 – Superior to Globe – Final Feasibility Report
This engineering feasibility study was completed for ADOT by Jacobs Civil in October
2004. The purpose of the study was to identify candidate routes for a four-lane divided
facility between the Superior and Globe areas (from MP 223.8 near the Boyce Thompson
Arboretum west of Superior to MP 258 northeast of the intersection of US 60 and US 70 in
Globe).
Such a facility is deemed necessary to enhance safety and operational
characteristics of the roadway and to provide an adequate LOS, given projected increases
in traffic by the design year of 2025.
The study area was divided into six segments and several potential alignments were
evaluated in each segment. Due to the estimated $500 million cost of the entire project,

Lima & Associates

Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 15

the feasibility study recommended that two separate design-concept reports be conducted,
one in Pinal County and one in Gila County. The dividing line between the two segments
would be near the community of Top of the World where the different route scenarios
come together.
Tonto Creek Bridge Location Study
The US Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE), acting upon a request and supporting
appropriation arranged through First District Congressman Rick Renzi’s office, conducted
a “reconnaissance level” evaluation of candidate sites for a bridge across Tonto Creek in
the area of Tonto Basin between Roosevelt Lake and Gun Creek. A comprehensive
document published by the ACOE in September 2004 presents the findings of the
preliminary study. The purpose of the study was to identify candidate sites for a bridge,
identify socioeconomic, environmental, and engineering issues relating to each of the sites,
and to develop a management plan for progressing to an environmental assessment of the
sites, followed by a site selection and design-build process.
The five candidate sites evaluated were:
•
•
•
•
•

New crossing site near the confluence of Gun Creek and Tonto Creek
New crossing site “Kayler Crossing” between the Gun Creek site and the Upper
Crossing
Upper Crossing (“Punkin/Sheeps” Crossing)
Middle Crossing (“Bar-X Road” Crossing)
Lower Crossing (“A-Cross Road” Crossing)

The bridge is needed for the following reasons:
•
•
•
•

Tonto Basin has some of the largest undeveloped tracts of deeded (privately held)
land in Gila County
Area population is projected to increase more rapidly than any other parts of the
County except Payson and Globe-Miami
Existing low-water crossings are hazardous to motorists and closed for extensive
amounts of time during both periods of winter runoff and summer monsoon rains
Steps taken after rainy periods to reopen the low water crossings may be adversely
impacting the ecology of the area

Stakeholders and citizens who participated in the public involvement activities related to
the ACOE project preferred the “Punkin/Sheeps” location over the other four. The project
to assess, design, and construct a bridge at this location is estimated to cost $18.3 million.
The ACOE projected that the southern-most of the existing low-water crossings, A-Cross
Road, will be under several feet of water if the water level of Roosevelt Lake reaches the
level enabled by the recent enlargement of Roosevelt Dam.

Lima & Associates

Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 16

Pinal Creek Corridor Study
The Pinal Creek Corridor Study was conducted in 2004 for the City of Globe and the Gila
County Public Works Division by C. L. Williams Consulting, Inc. The corridor evaluated
is located southeast of the limits of the City of Globe between Beer Tree Crossing on the
West and US Highway 70 and State Route 77 on the East.
The overall purpose of the
project was to respond to emergency access needs and forecasted future traffic demand due
to regional growth and the need for access to future power transmission systems.
Five alternative alignments were evaluated. The major design alignment differences and
cost estimates of the five alternatives are listed in Table 2-4.
TABLE 2-4. PINAL CREEK CORRIDOR MAJOR
DESIGN ALIGNMENT DIFFERENCES AND COST ESTIMATES

Alternative
1. Beer Tree Crossing to SR 70

Length of
Project
(ft)
9,000

Impact to
Residential
Structures*
Possibly 1 Major

Earthwork
(yd2)
600,000

2. Beer Tree Crossing to SR 77

11,000

Possibly 1 Major

440,000

$5,243

3. Walliman Road to SR 77

10,500

1 Major, 12 Minor

340,000

$5,139

4. Walliman Road to SR 70

8,500

1 Major, 12 Minor

N/A

N/A

5. Jess Hayes Road to SR 70

9,500

2 Major, 3 Minor

600,000

$5,594

Estimate
of Cost
$ 000s
$5,294

*Major Structure is generally a dwelling while a Minor structure may be a detached garage.
Source: City of Globe in Cooperation with the Gila County Public Works Division, Pinal Creek Corridor
Study, C. L. Williams Consulting, Inc., September 2004

The alignment recommended by the study was Alternative 1, Beer Tree Crossing to SR 70.
The consultant found that this alignment presented the fewest conflicts to design criteria
elements and to surrounding structures. Alternative 1 was also preferred by the public,
based on feedback obtained during the public involvement process. The consultant noted
that the Pinal Creek crossing included in Alternative 5 would also benefit the project and
should be considered for inclusion in the construction project.
An 8-step planning guide outline for completing the project was provided by the
consultant. At the time the Final Report was drafted, City of Globe staff projected that
between 6 and 10 years would be needed to construct the facility due to funding
constraints.

Lima & Associates

Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 17

STATEWIDE AND AREA PROGRAMMED IMPROVEMENTS
Gila County
The County has been working toward improving the regionally significant roads as well as
other County roads. Table 2-5 presents the FY 2004 - 2005 Capital Improvement Program
for County roads.
TABLE 2-5. PUBLIC WORKS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
FY 2004 – 2005
Project
Dollar Amount
Capital Projects Funded by HELP. Loan*
Fossil Creek Phase I
262,963
Six Shooter Road
963,181
Capital Projects Funded by HELP. Matching Funds
Six Shooter Road
114,218
Ice House Bridge
160,206
Total HELP. Funded Capital Projects
1,500,568
Engineering CIP Capital Projects
Pine Creek Canyon
Aerial Mapping
Small Area Transportation Study
Star Valley Yard Turn Lane
Fairgrounds Road
Bradshaw Road
Kellner Canyon Road
Professional Services
General Plan Update
Emergency CIP Reserve
Total Engineering Capital Projects

100,000
100,000
30,000
247,826
500,000
75,000
165,000
400,000
42,699
25,000
1,690,525

Total Capital Projects

3,191,093

Source: Gila County Road Budget FY 2004-2005
*Highway Expansion and Extension Loan Program (HELP), explained in a subsequent
section of this chapter

Fossil Creek Phase I has been constructed and Phase II is currently under design. Ice
House Bridge is also under design and going though Section 404 clearance. The design
for Sixshooter Canyon Road has been completed and the construction project is scheduled
for bidding in October 2006.

Lima & Associates

Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 18

Regional Planning
The CAAG 2000 Regional Transportation Plan identified four regionally significant roads
under Gila County jurisdiction. Houston Mesa Road runs from SR 87 in Payson to the
north. The road is primarily used to access campgrounds and has very limited residential
and commercial development. Fossil Creek road is a two-lane paved road that serves as
the major road in Strawberry, with significant residential and commercial development
along the road. The paved section ends approximately 2.5 miles west of SR 87, and
continues as a gravel road for another 50 miles. Colcord-Young Road is a gravel road
providing a connection between SR 260 and the community of Young. Development along
the road is limited. Gisela Road is a narrow roadway connecting the community of Gisela
to SR 87. The Regional Plan recommended installing guardrail on Gisela Road and
addressing narrow sections with poor sight distance on Colcord-Young Road. The CAAG
Transportation Improvement Program includes $1.25 million for the replacement of Ice
House Canyon Bridge and $0.625 million for a hazard elimination/safety project for Jesse
Hays Road as shown in Table 2-6.
ADOT Gila County Projects
The ADOT Five Year Transportation Facilities Construction Program (FY 2005–FY 2009)
includes approximately $89.2 million of projects for US 60, SR 70, SR 77, SR 87, SR
188, and SR 260 in Gila County. The bulk of the funds, approximately $62.7 million, are
allocated for improvements to SR 260. Ten million dollars are allocated for constructing
four miles of SR 188 and $5.5 million is allocated to improve six miles of SR 77. Table 27 lists the projects.
State Infrastructure Bank Loans
In 1995, as a provision of the National Highway System Designation Act, Congress
authorized states to establish State Infrastructure Banks to serve as funding mechanisms to
bridge the gap between transportation improvement needs and available revenues. Arizona
was one of the first states to take advantage of this program and, in 1998, established the
Highway Expansion and Extension Loan Program (HELP) to facilitate the completion of
transportation construction projects. Infrastructure banks function much as other banks do,
lending monies on eligible projects. As the principal and interest on the loans are repaid,
the bank is replenished and the repaid funds become available, in turn, for financing
subsequent projects.
As of April 2006, HELP roadway reconstruction loans totaling $3,425,000 on four
projects located in Gila County were in various stages of maturity. Of this amount,
$1,100,000 was committed to the Town of Payson for the reconstruction of McLane Road
within the Town. The remainder of $2,325,000 in HELP financing was committed for
three projects sponsored by the County.

Lima & Associates

Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 19

TABLE 2-6. DRAFT CAAG TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FY 2006 - 2010 –
PROJECTS IN GILA COUNTY
Sponsor / Project
Miami - Sullivan St. Ph. II
Miami - (Design /
Engineering) Adonis
Globe - (Design / Engineering)
Broad Phase III
Globe - Walliman Road
(Broad Phase II)*De
Globe - Walliman Road
(Broad Phase II)*Co
Globe - Broad Street
(Phase III)* Construction
Gila County Six Shooter Canyon Road*
CAAG Technology Transfer
Regional Traffic Counting
TOTAL PROGRAMMED
Miami - Adonis Avenue*
Payson - McLane Road Ph IV*
CAAG Technology Transfer
Regional Traffic Counting
TOTAL PROGRAMMED

2005
340000
45,000

2006

Fiscal Year
2007
2008

2009

2010

Programmed
(OA)

Projected
Available (OA)

25,650
60,000
340,000
145,350
200,000
10,000
50,000
$1,216,000
255,000
500,000
10,000
50,000
$815,000

Gila County Fossil Creek Road Phase II*
Payson - S. St. Philips
Regional Traffic Counting
CAAG Technology Transfer
TOTAL PROGRAMMED

500,000

1,335,768
To Program

3,398,724
2,062,956

895,272
To Program

1,591,850
696,578

1,054,554

1,591,850

400000
50,000
10,000
$960,000

* = Highway user Revenue Fund (HURF) exchange project

Lima & Associates

Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 20

TABLE 2-6. DRAFT CAAG TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FY 2006 - 2010 –
PROJECTS IN GILA COUNTY (Continued)
Sponsor / Project
Gila Co. Ice House Canyon Rd.
CAAG Technology Transfer
Regional Traffic Counting
TOTAL PROGRAMMED

2005

2006

Fiscal Year
2007
2008
50,0000

2009

2010

Programmed
(OA)
To Program

Projected
Available (OA)
537,296

10,000
50,000
$560,000
10,000
$10,000

CAAG Technology Transfer
TOTAL PROGRAMMED

500,000.00

Gila Co Broadway/Old Oak Rd
Payson E. Bonita Street - Phase I
CAAG Technology Transfer
TOTAL PROGRAMMED

615,156

1,591,850

10,985
To Program

1,591,850
1,580,865

854,628
To Program

1,591,850
737,222

Total (OA):
Total Dollars:

11,357,974
$4,339,000

268,000.00
10,000
$778,000

Sources: Gila County Public Works Department, Central Arizona Association of Governments
* = HURF exchange project
Working assumptions:
CAAG is 19.0215 % of rural state population
Average obligation authority is 91.033767761% over 5 year period 12/01/05
HURF exchange rate is 90% of obligation authority per ARS 28-6993

Lima & Associates

Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 21

TABLE 2-7. TENTATIVE 2006 - 2010 ADOT FIVE-YEAR TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION
PROGRAM – GILA COUNTY PROJECTS
Dollars in Thousands ($000)

Route

BMP

Location

Length

60

236.2

3.30

60

236.2

70

253.4

70

253.4

77

141.0

77

145.0

87

263.0

260

258.0

260

263.1

260

269.0

260

269.0

260

269.0

County Line –
Pinto Valley
County Line –
Pinto Valley
Railroad
Overpass to Jct.
SR 77
Railroad
Overpass to Jct.
SR 77
Gila River
recreational sites
MP 145 – MP
147
Tonto Natural
Bridge
Lion Springs
Section
Little Green
Valley
Doubtful
Canyon Section
Doubtful
Canyon Section
Doubtful
Canyon Section

3.30
1.0

Type of Work
RR 3” + ARFC &
passing lane
RR 3” + ARFC &
passing lane
Design roadway &
railroad structure

Funding

FY
2006

FY
2007

FY
2008

FY
2009

FY
2010

HES

$2,450

$0

$0

$0

$0

STP

$4,033

$0

$0

$0

$0

State

$0

$0

$0

$0

$340

1.0

Construct roadway &
railroad structure

STP

$0

$0

$0

$0

$3,400

3.50

Intersection
improvements
Roadway construction

GVT

$421

$0

$0

$0

$0

STP

$5,000

$0

$0

$0

$0

State

$775

$0

$0

$0

$0

2.00

Construct road, Phase
II
Design (Roadway)

State

$0

$0

$0

$1,300

$0

6.90

Reconstruct roadway

NH

$0

$0

$21,700

$0

$0

0.20

Utility Relocation

State

$0

$0

$0

$30

$0

3.50

Construction water

State

$0

$0

$0

$1,300

$0

3.50

Reconstruct roadway

NH

$0

$0

$0

$31,100

$0

2.0
0.10

Source, ADOT, Tentative 2006-2010 Five-Year Transportation Facilities Construction Program

Lima & Associates

Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 22

MoveAZ
MoveAZ is the Arizona Long Range Transportation Plan that is comprised of the findings
of numerous planning studies previously conducted by ADOT, together with a
comprehensive effort to identify transportation needs, develop solutions, and recommend
specific roadway projects to address these solutions. MoveAZ was adopted by the
Transportation Board on December 17th, 2004. MoveAZ identified eight projects that are
either completely within or cross into Gila County. Projects range from major widening
projects on US 60 and SR 260 to passing lane projects on US 60 and adding shoulders for
a portion of SR 73. These projects are listed in Table 2-8.
TABLE 2-8. MOVEAZ PROJECTS WITHIN GILA COUNTY
Route
US 60
SR 260
SR 77
US 70
US 60
SR 73
US 60
US 60

Milepost
223-254
256-282
153-171
253-287
252-337
310-335
241-242
-

Proposed Project Type
Widen to 4 lanes
Widen to 4 lanes
Climbing lanes
Widen to 5 lane cross-section
Climbing Lanes, Passing Lanes
Shoulders
Passing lanes
Passing/Climbing Lanes

Cost (Millions)
392.05
15.41
10.50
66.30
28.25
13.10
6.94
2.25

Note: MoveAZ was adopted by the Transportation Board on December 17th, 2004.

The recently completed ADOT Passing Lane/Climbing Lane Study conducted by Lima &
Associates includes three projects in Gila County: US 60 Eastbound, MP 277; US 60
Westbound, MP 308; and US 60 Westbound, MP 356.

Lima & Associates

Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 23

3. SUMMARY OF EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS
This chapter presents information regarding the existing and future socioeconomic,
physical, and transportation conditions in Gila County. First the natural environment is
summarized briefly. Next, a more comprehensive evaluation of the socioeconomic
environment is described and illustrated with maps of the area developed using ArcView
GIS. The current roadway facility characteristics including traffic volumes, crash data,
and other safety concerns are summarized and a multimodal inventory is presented.
Projected future population, employment, and roadway conditions are described, including
the use of a sketch planning model in forecasting traffic volumes. The chapter concludes
with a summary of the first round of the public involvement process.
NATURAL ENVIRONMENT
Geologists divide Arizona into three provinces: The Basin and Range Province includes
the Sonoran and Mohave Desert areas in the southern and western portions of the State and
the Colorado Plateau covers the northeastern part of the State. The Central Highlands, in
which Gila County is located, lies in between the other two geologic provinces. The
Mogollon Rim, a dramatic escarpment that extends from northwest to southeast across
much of Arizona, defines both the boundary between the Central Highlands and the
Colorado Plateau, and a portion of the northern boundary of Gila County.
Central Highlands' topography is characterized by a series of mountain ranges separated
by narrow valleys. This topography has historically made the construction of highways
and railroads within the area challenging and has also provided the County with dramatic
scenery. The geological forces that formed the mountain ranges are also responsible for
developing the mineral deposits upon which the County’s important mining industry has
been based.
SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT
Gila County contains 4,796 square miles and has a 2003 estimated population of 53,555,
for a county-wide average of just over 11 persons per square mile. Moreover, a 2003
estimated 25,785 persons, or nearly half the total, live in the five incorporated
communities of Globe, Hayden, Miami, Payson, and Winkelman. As these five
jurisdictions comprise a small fraction of the total land area within the County, the
remainder of the County is sparsely populated. Another 9,791 persons live on the San
Carlos Apache Reservation in the southeastern part of the County, many within or near the
Tribal communities of Peridot and San Carlos. Other communities in the County include
Claypool, Gisela, Pine, Rye, Strawberry, and Young. Much of the remainder is virtually
wilderness. Table 3-1 presents a summary of County demographics.
In more heavily populated counties, proposals for transportation improvements must
consider the adverse effect that widening a highway, for example, may have on the persons
Lima & Associates

Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 24

TABLE 3-1. SUMMARY OF GILA COUNTY DEMOGRAPHIC DATA

Total
Population
5,130,632
51,335

Total
Housing
Units
2,189,189
28,189

Percentage
Age 65+
13.02%
19.79%

Percent
Minorities
36.2%
31.1%

% Population
With Income
Below Poverty
13.9%
17.4%

% Households
With Income
Below Poverty
11.8%
14.8%

16.7%
12.1%
11.2%
11.4%
27.3%
23.6%
9.9%
58.9%
9.3%
58.8%
10.8%
18.3%
27.2%
20.5%

15.8%
12.7%
13.2%
11.4%
22.3%
24.1%
9.9%
48.0%
9.4%
56.5%
9.8%
18.9%
27.4%
21.5%

Arizona
Gila County
Local Communities
Central HeightsMidland City CDP
2,694
1,175
16.67%
27.4%
Claypool CDP
1,794
786
15.72%
44.3%
Gisela CDP
532
295
20.11%
8.1%
Globe city
7,486
3,172
15.62%
38.5%
Hayden town
892
334
14.13%
86.7%
Miami town
1,936
930
17.10%
57.6%
Payson town
13,620
7,033
29.18%
8.7%
Peridot CDP
1,266
346
5.53%
98.7%
Pine CDP
1,931
2,242
22.89%
3.8%
San Carlos CDP*
3,716
994
5.36%
95.6%
Strawberry CDP
1,028
1,165
25.97%
5.4%
Tonto Basin CDP
840
726
32.74%
4.8%
Winkelman town
443
194
14.45%
76.3%
Young CDP
561
446
21.03%
5.2%
*Note: San Carlos “Census Designated Place” (CDP) is partially located in Graham County
Source: Census 2000 Summary Files 1 and 3

Lima & Associates

% Mobility Limited
(Aged 16 – 64)
Percent
Total
With
16 - 64
Disability
3,169,173
18.83%
29,181
24.78%
1,596
1,098
309
4,152
510
1,093
7,441
711
1,190
2,222
633
482
284
327

21.55%
22.86%
63.43%
21.41%
21.76%
21.87%
24.27%
16.74%
19.58%
23.85%
20.22%
52.07%
25.00%
31.80%

Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 25

living in the corridor. However, in many parts of Gila County, avoiding adverse impacts
to the ecology and natural beauty of the area may be the primary concern.
Following are a series of maps created using the ArcView geographic information systems
(GIS) application. Census data regarding seven key socioeconomic factors was obtained
and depicted on the maps. The seven factors examined are: total population, occupied
dwelling units (DU), population aged 65 and over, minority population, population living
below the poverty level, mobility-limited population, and households without automobiles.
Data for the first four factors is presented by census block. For privacy reasons, data for
the last three is only available at the census block group level. For graphical presentation
purposes, all of the data are normalized by square mile. For each factor, three maps are
presented, one that depicts the entire County, one that presents a detail of the Globe-Miami
area, and one that presents a detail of the Payson area. Note that Census 2000 data was
used for these maps as 2003 estimates for the different factors other than total population
were not available.
County Population Growth and Distribution
Table 3-1 includes total population estimates obtained from the Arizona Department of
Economic Security (DES) for Arizona, Gila County, and Census-designated places (CDBs)
including the five incorporated jurisdictions within the County. The DES estimates that an
estimated 25,895 persons, or approximately 48 percent, of the County’s residents lived
within incorporated communities. The other 52 percent live in unincorporated areas.
Significant unincorporated areas include Tribal communities such as San Carlos and
Peridot, as well as the communities of Claypool, Gisela, Pine, Strawberry, Young, and the
Tonto Basin area. The DES estimates that, between the conduct of the April 2000 Census
and July 2004, the population of the State as a whole increased by 13.7 percent while that
of Gila County increased by 5.3 percent. Payson is the only community in the County
with a growth rate approaching that of the State.
Figure 3-1-A shows the distribution of the current total population per square mile
Countywide. The western half of the County is more populated than the east, although
none of the County areas outside of Claypool, Globe, Hayden, Miami, Payson, Pine, San
Carlos, Strawberry, or Winkelman has more than 1,000 persons per square mile.
According to 2000 Census data, the County has an average population density of 10.8
persons per square mile.
Figure 3-1-B presents a detail of the Globe-Miami area. Note that portions of the
unincorporated Claypool area are as densely populated as are the City of Globe or the
Town of Miami. The urbanized area is clustered along the US 60 corridor, with few
populated areas lying more than a mile from the highway. In several cases, these
urbanized areas abut areas with no population such as the copper mining area north of the
highway in Miami and an area within Globe city limits south of US 70 and centered on SR
77. The downtown areas of Globe and Miami are the most densely populated parts of the
region.
Lima & Associates

Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 26

FIGURE 3-1-A. CURRENT TOTAL POPULATION PER SQUARE MILE
(BY CENSUS BLOCK)

Lima & Associates

Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 27

FIGURE 3-1-B. CURRENT TOTAL POPULATION PER SQUARE MILE (BY CENSUS BLOCK) –
GLOBE AREA DETAIL

Lima & Associates

Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 28

Figure 3-1-C presents a detail of the Payson area. Three principal areas of population
concentration exist. The first, in the southern portion of town, ranges from the Green
Valley Park area on the West to east and south of the Medical Center. The second is an
area to the west of and served by McLane Road; and the third is an area north and east of
the town hall complex. A smaller relatively dense area lies north and east of the airport
and an outlying concentration exists in the far western part of Payson.
Number and Distribution of Dwelling Units
Table 3-1 lists the numbers of dwelling units in Arizona, Gila County, and the local
communities within the County. The County percentage of vacant units, 28.6, is more
than twice that for the state as a whole. This discrepancy is likely due to the large
numbers of second homes in the County. Note that the mountain communities likely to
serve as summer refuges for Phoenix area residents—Payson, Pine, and Strawberry—have
the highest vacancy rates. The average number of persons per DU for the County, 2.50, is
slightly less than the average for the entire state of 2.64. Note that the Tribal communities
of San Carlos and Peridot have significantly higher average numbers of persons per DU
than other County communities.
Figures 3-2-A, 3-2-B, and 3-2-C depict the distribution of occupied DU per square mile
Countywide, in the Globe-Miami area, and in the Payson area respectively. The pattern
shown in Figure 3-2-A is essentially identical to that in Figure 3-1-A. One can infer from
the similarity of the two figures that the average number of persons per dwelling unit does
not vary greatly from one region of the County to another with the exception of the Tribal
communities discussed above.
Comparison of Figures 3-1-B and 3-2-B shows that, in most neighborhoods in the GlobeMiami area, the average number of persons per dwelling unit does not vary. Close
examination of the Claypool area, however, shows that in several blocks immediately
south of US 60 and west of Golden Hill Road, the numbers of persons living in each
dwelling unit appears to be higher. Similar situations exist in parts of Miami as well as in
the extreme eastern part of the urban area within a half-mile of the US 70/SR 77 junction.
Comparison of Figures 3-1-C and 3-2-C also show that, within the Town of Payson, the
average numbers of persons living in each dwelling unit varies somewhat from one
neighborhood to another. Areas with higher numbers of persons living in each of the DU
include the neighborhood west of Beeline and south of Longhorn, the area east of Beeline
along Cedar in the southern part of Town, and the neighborhood east of McLane and north
of Saddle in the northern end of Town.

Lima & Associates

Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 29

FIGURE 3-1-C. CURRENT TOTAL POPULATION PER SQUARE MILE (BY CENSUS BLOCK) –
PAYSON AREA DETAIL

Lima & Associates

Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 30

FIGURE 3-2-A. OCCUPIED DWELLING UNITS PER SQUARE MILE
(BY CENSUS BLOCK)

Lima & Associates

Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 31

FIGURE 3-2-B. OCCUPIED DWELLING UNITS PER SQUARE MILE (BY CENSUS BLOCK) –
GLOBE AREA DETAIL

Lima & Associates

Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 32

FIGURE 3-2-C. OCCUPIED DWELLING UNITS PER SQUARE MILE (BY CENSUS BLOCK) –
PAYSON AREA DETAIL

Lima & Associates

Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 33

County Senior Population
As Table 3-1 shows, the median age of Gila County residents is slightly higher than that of
the state as a whole. The communities with the highest median age are those that have
become popular with retirees such as Payson, Pine, Strawberry, and Tonto Basin. Note
that the Tribal communities of Peridot and San Carlos have median ages significantly
lower than those of the other County communities.
Figure 3-3-A depicts the total population per square mile of persons aged 65 and over
Countywide. Comparison of Figure 3-3-A with Figure 3-1-A shows that seniors are
relatively evenly distributed compared with the total population. Exceptions are the part of
the San Carlos Apache Reservation directly east of Globe, as well as the area south of
Globe and east of SR 77, both of which have comparatively few seniors.
Comparison of Figure 3-3-B, which shows the distribution of persons aged 65 and over in
the Globe-Miami area, with Figure 3-1-B reveals that seniors are fairly evenly distributed
throughout the area. Figure 3-3-C shows the concentration of seniors 65 years of age and
older in the Payson area. Within the same central corridor along SR 87, the pattern for
seniors seems to emulate that of the total population. Some of the highest densities occur
in the neighborhoods near McLane Road and Longhorn Road and SR 87 and Frontier
Street. Also, the outlying population concentration in the western part of Payson does not
have a concentration of seniors
Minority Population
Table 3-1 also presents the numbers of minority persons in Arizona, Gila County, and the
local communities within the County. Gila County actually has a slightly lower percentage
of minority persons than the state as a whole. While the percentages of minority persons
living in the Globe-Miami area are similar to those statewide, the communities in the
northern part of the County such as Payson, Pine, Strawberry, and the Tonto Basin area
have very low numbers of minorities.
Figures 3-4-A, 3-4-B, and 3-4-C show distribution of minority population per square mile
Countywide, in the Globe-Miami area, and in the Payson area. Comparison of Figure 3-4A with Figure 3-1-A reveals that minority populations are fairly evenly distributed
Countywide except that northern portions of the County, specifically the Payson and Tonto
Basin areas, have below average numbers of minorities. Comparing Figure 3-4-B with
Figure 3-1-B reveals that the distribution of minority population in the Globe-Miami area
closely mirrors that of the total population. However, a comparison of Figure 3-4-C with
3-1-C shows that the distribution of the minority population in Payson varies significantly
from that of the general population. More of a minority population exists in the southern
half of Payson, concentrated especially near SR 87 between Frontier Street and Bonita
Street. The eastern portion of Payson is virtually devoid of a minority population.

Lima & Associates

Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 34

FIGURE 3-3-A. AGE 65 AND OLDER POPULATION PER SQUARE MILE
(BY CENSUS BLOCK)

Lima & Associates

Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 35

FIGURE 3-3-B. AGE 65 AND OLDER POPULATION PER SQUARE MILE (BY CENSUS BLOCK) GLOBE AREA DETAIL

Lima & Associates

Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 36

FIGURE 3-3-C. AGE 65 AND OLDER POPULATION PER SQUARE MILE (BY CENSUS BLOCK) PAYSON AREA DETAIL

Lima & Associates

Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 37

FIGURE 3-4-A. MINORITY POPULATION PER SQUARE MILE
(BY CENSUS BLOCK)

Lima & Associates

Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 38

FIGURE 3-4-B. MINORITY POPULATION PER SQUARE MILE (BY CENSUS BLOCK) GLOBE AREA DETAIL

Lima & Associates

Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 39

FIGURE 3-4-C. MINORITY POPULATION PER SQUARE MILE (BY CENSUS BLOCK) PAYSON AREA DETAIL

Lima & Associates

Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 40

Low Income Persons
The average percentages of persons and households living below the poverty level in Gila
County are higher than those for the state as a whole, as displayed in Table 3-1. The
Tribal communities of Peridot and San Carlos have the highest percentages, while the
communities of Payson, Pine, and Strawberry have the lowest. Concentrations of low
income persons are shown by census block group in Figures 3-5-A, 3-5-B, and 3-5-C.
Figure 3-5-A, which depicts the locations of low-income persons Countywide, shows a
concentration of this population north of the San Carlos area, in the southeast portion of
the County. While difficult to see on the Figure, the concentration of low-income persons
in the Hayden area is significant. Figure 3-5-B shows significant concentrations of lowincome individuals in central Miami and also in the Claypool area. Figure 3-5-C shows
that the block group that comprises most of west-central Payson also has an average of
between 214 and 458 persons per square mile living below the poverty level. The average
income levels are higher in the outlying portions of the Town.
Mobility-Limited Populations
Table 3-1 also shows that 24.78 percent of the persons between the ages of 16 and 64
living in Gila County reported having disabilities to the Census Bureau, compared with
18.83 percent of those statewide. Note that over 60 percent of the 309 residents of Gisela
report having disabilities, as do 52 percent of those living in the Tonto Basin area. The
Tribal community of Peridot is the only reporting community that has a percentage of
disabled persons lower than the statewide figure.
Figures 3-6-A, 3-6-B, and 3-6-C depict the concentrations of mobility-limited persons
Countywide, in the Globe-Miami area, and in the Payson area respectively. Comparisons
of these figures with the previous series of figures 3-5-A, 3-5-B, and 3-5-C, show that the
locations of mobility-limited populations closely match those of low-income populations.
Indeed, many mobility-limited persons have lower incomes, particularly in rural or smallurban areas because of the comparative lack of alternative transportation services and the
consequent inability to commute to work.
Not surprisingly, Figures 3-7-A, 3-7-B, and 3-7-C show that households without
automobiles are located mostly in the same areas as the low income and mobility-limited
persons. A comparison of Figures 3-5-B, 3-6-B, and 3-7-B shows that many persons who
live in the Globe-Miami area who are low income and/or mobility-limited nevertheless do
have automobiles, particularly in the area between Miami and Claypool and the portion of
the Claypool area north of US 60. Comparison of 3-5-C, 3-6-C, and 3-7-C reveals
significant differences between the locations of low-income persons, mobility-limited
persons, and households without automobiles in Payson, however. For example, the area
of Town east of Beeline, north of SR 260, and south of Forest has an average of over 900
persons per square mile with mobility limitations but no households without automobiles.
In west-central Payson, between Beeline and McLane, the concentrations of low-income

Lima & Associates

Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 41

FIGURE 3-5-A. POPULATION BELOW POVERTY LEVEL PER SQUARE MILE
(BY CENSUS BLOCK GROUP)

Lima & Associates

Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 42

FIGURE 3-5-B. POPULATION BELOW POVERTY LEVEL PER SQUARE MILE (BY CENSUS BLOCK GROUP) GLOBE AREA DETAIL

Lima & Associates

Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 43

FIGURE 3-5-C. POPULATION BELOW POVERTY LEVEL PER SQUARE MILE (BY CENSUS BLOCK GROUP) PAYSON AREA DETAIL

Lima & Associates

Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 44

FIGURE 3-6-A. MOBILITY-LIMITED POPULATION PER SQUARE MILE
(BY CENSUS BLOCK GROUP)

Lima & Associates

Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 45

FIGURE 3-6-B. MOBILITY-LIMITED POPULATION PER SQUARE MILE (BY CENSUS BLOCK GROUP) GLOBE AREA DETAIL

Lima & Associates

Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 46

FIGURE 3-6-C. MOBILITY-LIMITED POPULATION PER SQUARE MILE (BY CENSUS BLOCK GROUP) PAYSON AREA DETAIL

Lima & Associates

Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 47

FIGURE 3-7-A. HOUSEHOLDS WITHOUT AUTOMOBILES PER SQUARE MILE
(BY CENSUS BLOCK GROUP)

Lima & Associates

Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 48

FIGURE 3-7-B. HOUSEHOLDS WITHOUT AUTOMOBILES PER SQUARE MILE (BY CENSUS BLOCK GROUP) GLOBE AREA DETAIL

Lima & Associates

Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 49

FIGURE 3-7-C. HOUSEHOLDS WITHOUT AUTOMOBILES PER SQUARE MILE (BY CENSUS BLOCK GROUP) PAYSON AREA DETAIL

Lima & Associates

Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 50

and mobility-limited persons are consistent from one end of Town to the other. However,
the number of households without automobiles increases significantly south of Longhorn.
CURRENT LAND USE
Of the nearly 4,800 square miles that comprise Gila County, only 3.5 percent is privately
owned—or deeded—land. Of that, about 2 percent is owned by the mines, leaving about
1.5 percent for residential, commercial, and other industrial usage. Over 55 percent of the
County lies within the Tonto National Forest, another 37 percent is Tribal land, and the
remaining 5 percent is either Arizona State Trust land or owned by the US Bureau of Land
Management.
The Tonto National Forest occupies nearly three million acres of land and is the fifth
largest forest in the United States with approximately 5.8 million visitors annually. The
San Carlos Apache Indian reservation encompasses 1,826,541 acres and is the fourth
largest reservation in Arizona while the Fort Apache Reservation covers more than 1.6
million acres.
The Gila County General Plan outlines land usage for the deeded land portions of the
County including the unincorporated rural communities of Pine and Strawberry, Young,
Tonto Basin, Gisela, and Christopher Creek. Nearly all of the residential land is shown as
being planned for 3.5 dwelling units or fewer per acre. Some higher density residential
usage is planned for portions of the Claypool area abutting the City of Globe, planned
communities near Roosevelt Lake, and within the communities of Pine and Gisela.
Multifunctional corridor or Public Facilities areas are shown abutting some of the more
heavily traveled State Routes and County roads.
Nearly all of the commercially planned or zoned land lies within local incorporated
jurisdictions with the exception of a few parcels in Claypool, Gisela, Pine, Roosevelt, Star
Valley, and Tonto Basin.
CURRENT ROADWAY FACILITY CHARACTERISTICS
The existing Gila County transportation system consists of a network of primary roads
connecting communities and providing access to the local and secondary roadways that
serve land uses throughout the region. The primary road network includes two US routes:
US 60 and US 70, and five State Routes: SR 77, SR 87, SR 188, SR 288, and SR 260.
All US and State Routes are paved except significant portions of SR 288 between SR 188
and Young. The secondary road system branches off the primary routes to access private
land in both rural areas and developed communities. Currently, 155.38 miles of the
County’s 644.05-mile roadway network are paved while the remaining 488.67 miles are
unpaved. These mileages include roadways in the unincorporated areas of Gila County as
well as Forest Service roads that the US Department of Agriculture has contracted with the
County to maintain.
Lima & Associates

Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 51

The majority of traffic in Gila County is concentrated on the US and State Routes. State
Route 87 carries traffic volumes between 11,000 and 12,000 vehicles per day in the
vicinity of Payson, and US 60 carries between 11,000 and 17,000 vehicles per day in the
vicinity of Globe-Miami. State Route 288 carries the lowest traffic volume of the US and
State Routes. County and Forest roads provide access to pockets of private land within the
Tonto National Forest. Forest routes also provide access to recreational areas in the
Forest. Traffic volumes in the County are the highest during summer months and the
lowest during the winter months. Examples of County-maintained roadways are shown in
Figure 3-8.
Roadway Functional Classification
Different types of roadways are classified according to their function—the specific role that
they perform in the vehicular mobility of the region. Generally, a roadway is classified
based upon the extent to which it is designed to facilitate vehicular travel from one area, or
neighborhood, to another, as opposed to facilitating access to abutting properties. Arterial
roadways are designed for travel over longer distances, with access to or from abutting
properties managed through the use of driveway spacing, center medians, or other means,
or, in the case of freeways, limited to specific traffic interchanges. Local streets provide
relatively unlimited access to the residential or commercial properties that abut them, but
are comparatively inefficient routes for longer trips. Collector streets link the arterial
streets that traverse an area with the area network of local streets, performing an
intermediate role.
The Gila County Roadway Design Standards Manual includes five classes of rural roads:
•
•
•
•
•

Rural Major Arterial
Rural Arterial
Rural Collector
Rural Local
Rural Very Low Volume Road

The Manual indicates different “cross section” specifications for each class of roadway
that address the speed and traffic volume for which the roadway is designed, together with
the maximum allowable grade, the width of the travel lanes, the width and design of the
shoulders, and the thickness of pavement. The details of these specifications for the five
rural classifications are listed in Table 3-2. Figure 3-9 depicts a draft assignment of the
classifications to current County roadways by the consultant.

Lima & Associates

Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 52

FIGURE 3-8. EXAMPLES OF GILA COUNTY ROADWAYS
Forest Road 64, the Control
Road, is unpaved for much of its
length. The Control Road, if
improved, would provide a bypass
around the Payson area for
travelers between the Verde
Valley and the Rim Country. The
road also provides access to
summer
home
communities,
including Tonto Village and
Whispering Pines.
—Lima & Associates photo

Forest Road 512, also known as
the Young-Heber Road, is
unpaved for most of its length.
The County-maintained roadway
is programmed to be paved by
2010, providing improved access
to the community of Young. The
other access to Young, SR 288, is
also unpaved for most of its
length between the Young area
and a junction with SR 188 south
of Roosevelt.
—Lima & Associates photo

Ice House Canyon Road is paved
and chip-sealed between its origin
near the City of Globe and the
National Forest boundary in the
foothills of the Pinal Mountains.
The road forms part of a loop
route through the foothills that, if
improved throughout its length,
would provide an alternative route
in case of a blockage of US 60.
The roadway also serves as an
escape route from area wildfires.
—Lima & Associates photo

Lima & Associates

Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 53

TABLE 3-2. FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION OF GILA COUNTY MAINTAINED ROADWAYS

Description

Design Speed
(mph)
Design ADT
Max. Longitudinal
Grade (percent)

Min. R-O-W Req.
Travel lane surface

Functional Classification
Rural Collector
Road
Rural Local Road
Two-lane roadway Two-lane roadway
providing traffic
providing direct
movement between access to abutting land
arterial and local
uses and connecting
streets
with collector roads
45
35

Rural Major
Arterial Road
Four-lane roadway
providing regional
continuity in rural
areas

Rural Arterial
Road
Two-lane roadway
providing regional
continuity in rural
areas

65

65

>15,000
6

3,000 – 15,000
6

1,000 – 5,000
9

55’ X 2
4” min. AC over
10” min. ABC

35’ X 2
3” min. AC over
10” min. ABC

55’ X 2
4” min. AC over
10” min. ABC

175 – 1,000
12%
< 4,000’ elev.
10%
> 4,000’ elev.
30’ X 2
3” min. AC over 8”
min. ABC

Rural Very Low
Volume Road
Two-lane roadway
designed to carry
ADT of 175 VPD
or less
25
< 175
12%
< 4,000 elev.
10%
> 4,000 elev.
30’ X 2
See Note 1.

ADT = average daily traffic. AC = asphaltic concrete; ABC = aggregate base course; VPD = vehicles per day.
Note 1. Bituminous penetration and double chip seal over 8’ min. ABC < 4,000’ elevation; 3” min. AC over 8” min. ABC >4,000’ elevation.
Source: Gila County Roadway Design Standards Manual, Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., December 2001

Lima & Associates

Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 54

FIGURE 3-9. FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION ASSIGNED
TO COUNTY ROADWAYS

Source: Lima & Associates, Inc.

Traffic Volumes and Current Levels of Service
Roadway Level of Service is a measurement of how well a roadway operates. An LOS of
“A” indicates a free flow condition and an LOS of “F” indicates forced traffic flow or
breakdown. In rural areas of Gila County, LOS B is a logical goal. Figure 3-10 depicts

Lima & Associates

Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 55

FIGURE 3-10. SIMULATION OF LEVELS OF SERVICE

Source: Jacobs Civil, Inc., SR 89 to Wickenburg Interim Bypass Study, August 2005

Lima & Associates

Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 56

simulations of the different levels of service on an Arizona roadway. Perceived and actual
roadway congestion occur due to a number of factors, including the number of lanes the
roadway has; its functional classification; and whether it traverses a rural area, an urban
area, or a city center. For example, a motorist expects to travel more slowly on a
neighborhood street than on a rural highway. Drivers also expect more delays when
driving through the central business district of an urban area than they do when driving in
rural areas. Hence, the directional capacity of a roadway segment is based on the
roadway’s functional classification and is expressed in vehicles per day.
Note that in Table 3-2, the “Design ADT,” or the average daily traffic for which the
roadway is designed, is expressed in a range of numbers. For the purposes of determining
current levels of service on County roadways in this project as well as estimating future
levels of service it was necessary to assign specific per-lane capacities for each functional
class of roadway. These are listed in Table 3-3.
TABLE 3-3. DAILY ROADWAY CAPACITIES USED IN DETERMINING
LEVEL OF SERVICE IN GILA COUNTY
Functional
Classification
Principal Arterial
Minor Arterial
Collector
Principal Arterial
Minor Arterial
Major Collector
Major Collector
Minor Collector
Minor Collector

Area Type
Urban
Urban
Urban
Rural
Rural
Rural
Rural
Rural
Rural

Surface
Type
Paved
Paved
Paved
Paved
Paved
Paved
Unpaved
Paved
Unpaved

Per Lane
Capacity
10,000
8,000
5,300
9,000
6,500
5,500
3,000
4,000
3,000

Source: Lima & Associates

Once the functional classification and the corresponding per-lane capacity for a roadway
segment have been identified, the LOS on the segment can be estimated from the
volume/capacity ratio (V/C), which is the average daily traffic volume divided by the daily
capacity of the roadway. The relationship between LOS and the V/C ratio is provided in
Table 3-4.

Lima & Associates

Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 57

TABLE 3-4. LEVELS OF SERVICE
LOS
A
B
C
D
E
F

Maximum V/C
0.29
0.54
0.75
0.90
1.00
>1.00

Source: Transportation Research Board,
Highway Capacity Manual

Table 3-5 lists the current per-lane Annual ADT (AADT) and levels of service for major
Gila County roadways. To obtain these figures, recent-year traffic counts for the
roadways were factored up to 2005 levels, based on County population growth, and the
functional classification of each roadway segment was used to determine the per-lane
capacity. None of the locations counted indicates a near-capacity situation. Not
surprisingly, the highest counts are in the Payson and Globe areas. The highest Payson
area location is Moonlight Drive at SR 260, with an estimated 2005 V/C ratio of 0.36 and
an LOS of “B.” All other locations tested have an LOS of “A.”
The location in the Globe area having the highest estimated 2005 per-lane AADT is
Shooter Canyon Road at the Globe City Limits just south of Ice House Canyon Road, with
1,286. However, Old Oak Street actually has a higher V/C ratio due to being classified as
an Urban Collector as opposed to an Urban Minor Arterial and thus having a lower perlane capacity. Houston Mesa Road has a comparatively high per-lane AADT based on a
count taken near its intersection with SR 87, as does Golden Hill Road based on a count
taken at its intersection with US 60.
Current LOS issues that do exist in Gila County are limited to state highways, major
arterials within local jurisdictions or— in most cases—major arterials within local
jurisdictions that also function as state highways. Gila County is a tourist attraction in its
own right and also has two corridors, the SR 87 route and the US 60 route, that connect
the metro Phoenix area with the White Mountains. Tucson area residents use SR 77 in
conjunction with US 60 to access the White Mountains in large numbers as well. Of
course, these roadways are also used by Gila County residents traveling to and from the
Phoenix and Tucson areas. However, these roadways are not maintained by the County
and, hence, are not the primary focus of this project.

Lima & Associates

Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 58

TABLE 3-5. CURRENT AADT PER LANE AND LEVEL OF SERVICE OF GILA COUNTY ROADWAYS
2005
AADT
Per Lane
1,421.0
1,310.0
1,286.0

Capacity
Per
Lane
4,000
5,500
6,500

Fun
No. of
V/C
Location
Class
Lanes
Surface
Ratio
At SR 260
R Min C
2
Paved
0.36
At Town Limits near SR 87
R Maj C
2
Paved
0.24
At City Limits just south of
U Min A
2
Paved
0.20
Ice House Canyon Rd.
Golden Hill (at US 60)
Atlas Sheet 17
U Min A
2
1,278.0 Paved
6,500
0.20
Russell Rd.
South of Golden Hill Rd.
R Maj C
2
1,016.0 Paved
5,500
0.18
Old Oak St.
At Railroad Ave.
UC
2
944.5 Paved
4,000
0.24
Golden Hill (at 1st Street)
Atlas Sheet 17
UC
2
901.0 Paved
4,000
0.23
Roberts Rd.
At Russell Rd.
U Min A
2
838.0 Unpaved
8,000
0.10
Fossil Creek Road
At SR 87
R Min C
2
791.0 Paved
4,000
0.20
Whispering Pines Road
At SR 87
R Min C
2
738.0 Paved
4,000
0.18
Hardscrabble Mesa Road
At SR 87
R Maj C
2
714.5 Paved
5,500
0.13
Pineway St.
At Railroad Ave.
2
681.5
3,000
0.23
Ragus Road
At US 60
UC
2
550.5 Paved
5,300
0.10
Ice House Canyon Drive
At Six Shooter Rd.
R Maj C
2
548.0 Paved
5,500
0.10
Roberts Drive
At Russell
U Min A
2
518.0 Unpaved
8,000
0.06
Old SR 88
At SR 188 South End
R Min C
2
502.0 Paved
4,000
0.13
Bixby Rd. N. of RR tracks
1/4 mile N. of SR 188
R Min C
2
494.0 Paved
4,000
0.12
Bixby Road (North of SR 188)
At SR 188
R Min C
2
457.0 Paved
4,000
0.11
Old Oak St.
North of Wilson St.
UC
2
429.5 Paved
4,000
0.11
Pine Creek Canyon Rd.
At SR 87
R Maj C
2
390.5 Paved
5,500
0.07
Cherry Drive
Atlas Sheet 17
2
359.0
3,000
0.12
Baker Ranch Road
At SR 288
2
358.5
3,000
0.12
Mistletoe Drive
Atlas Sheet 118
R Min C
2
355.0 Unpaved
4,000
0.09
Bixby Road (South of Pinal Creek)
At Kelly Rd.
R Min C
2
352.5 Paved
4,000
0.09
New Street
At Railroad Ave.
2
337.0
3,000
0.11
Stagecoach Trail
At SR 188
2
342.0
3,000
0.11
Control Road North of SR 260
At SR 260
R Min C
2
341.0 Paved
4,000
0.09
Gisela Road
At SR 87
R Maj C
2
320.5 Paved
5,500
0.06
FDR 71 (Greenback Road)
At Old Hwy. 188
R Min C
2
281.0 Unpaved
4,000
0.07
Roosevelt Estates Blvd.
At SR 188
R Min C
2
264.0 Paved
4,000
0.07
Milky Way
At SR 260
2
257.0
3,000
0.09
Calle De Loma
At US 60
2
256.0
3,000
0.09
Tonto Creek Drive
At Gisela Rd.
R Min C
2
254.5 Paved
4,000
0.06
*Gila County Street Atlas page that depicts location of count. U Min A = Urban Minor Arterial; UC = Urban Collector; R Maj C = Rural Major
Collector; R Min C = Urban Minor Collector. Sources: Gila County Public Works Department, ADOT, CAAG.
Roadway
Moonlight Drive
Houston Mesa Road
Six Shooter Canyon Road

Lima & Associates

LOS
B
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A

Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 59

TABLE 3-5. CURRENT AADT PER LANE AND LEVEL OF SERVICE OF GILA COUNTY ROADWAYS (Continued)

Roadway

Location
Atlas Sheet 17
At US 60
At SR 188
At SR 87
At SR 87
Atlas Sheet 115

Fun
Class

No. of
Lanes

2005
AADT
Per Lane
253.5
250.0
250.0
231.5
211.5
206.5

Surface

Capacity
Per
Lane
3,000
4,000
3,000
3,000
4,000
4,000

V/C
Ratio
0.08
0.06
0.08
0.08
0.05
0.05

Arbor Avenue
2
Fairgrounds Road
R Min C
2
Paved
FDR 470 (Bar X Crossing)
2
Pine Canyon Drive
2
Bradshaw Drive
R Min C
2
Paved
East Verde Estates Entrance Road
R Min C
2
Paved
from SR 87
Beaver Flat Road
At Houston Mesa Rd.
2
203.0
3,000
0.07
Kellner Canyon Road
At Ice House Canyon Rd.
R Maj C
2
196.0 Paved
5,500
0.04
Rimwood Drive
At Fossil Creek Rd.
R Min C
2
195.5 Paved
4,000
0.05
Hicks Drive
At Old SR 88
R Min C
2
194.5 Paved
4,000
0.05
Store Crossing Near Old 188
Near Old Hwy. 188
2
184.0
3,000
0.06
Walliman Road
Atlas Sheet 14
UC
2
182.0 Paved
5,300
0.03
Copper Hills Road
At City Limits
R Min C
2
160.5 Paved
4,000
0.04
Randall Place
At SR 87
2
158.0
3,000
0.05
Bar X Road near SR 188
Near SR 188
2
146.5
3,000
0.05
Grover Canyon Rd.
At Railroad Ave.
2
137.0
3,000
0.05
Strawberry Drive
Atlas sheet 120
2
123.0
3,000
0.04
FDR 60 (A Cross)
At SR 188
R Min C
2
114.0 Unpaved
3,000
0.04
Winchester Rd.
At Six Shooter Canyon Rd.
UC
2
108.5 Paved
5,300
0.02
Colcord Road
At SR 260
R Min C
2
103.5 Unpaved
3,000
0.03
Dealer's Choice
At SR 260
2
94.5
3,000
0.03
Control Road
At SR 87
R Min C
2
85.5 Unpaved
3,000
0.03
Control Road East of SR 87
At SR 87
R Min C
2
66.0 Unpaved
4,000
0.02
A Cross Road @ SR 188 Cattle Guard At SR 188
R Min C
2
58.5 Unpaved
4,000
0.01
Sleepy Hollow Drive (Beaver Valley)
At Forest Rd 199A
2
58.5
3,000
0.02
Ralls Drive
At SR 87
R Min C
2
58.0 Paved
4,000
0.01
Control Road
West side Forest Rd. 32
R Min C
2
47.5 Unpaved
3,000
0.02
San Carlos Drive
At US 60
R Min C
2
45.5 Paved
4,000
0.01
Strawberry Hollow North of Apache
Atlas Sheet 118
2
31.5
3,000
0.01
N. Strawberry Drive
Atlas Sheet 120
2
30.0
3,000
0.01
Fuller Road
At Fossil Creek Rd.
R Min C
2
29.5 Paved
4,000
0.01
*Gila County Street Atlas page that depicts location of count. U Min A = Urban Minor Arterial; UC = Urban Collector; R Maj C = Rural Major
Collector; R Min C = Urban Minor Collector. Sources: Gila County Public Works Department, ADOT, CAAG.

Lima & Associates

LOS
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A

Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 60

Hazard Elimination and Safety Issues
This section summarizes hazard elimination and safety issues on County roadways.
Examples of sites with safety issues are shown in Figure 3-11. Three specific safety areas
are discussed below: crashes, bridge inspections, and highway-rail crossings.
Crashes
From January 1999 through December 2003, 4,489 traffic crashes occurred in Gila
County. Most of the crashes occurred on state highways, as the first segment of Table 3-6
shows. According to the Accident Location Identification Surveillance System (ALISS)
Database, 61 crashes, or 13 percent of the total, took place on Tonto National Forest
service roads within the County. Another 26 crashes, or 5.63 percent of the total,
occurred on Bureau of Indian Affairs Roadway (BIA) 6, the roadway on the San Carlos
Apache Reservation that serves as a short cut between the Tribal community of San Carlos
and the Globe-Miami area. In the Payson area, 21 crashes occurred on Control Road
during the time period, and 18 crashes occurred on Houston Mesa Road. In the Globe
area, 13 crashes took place on both Broad Street and Russell Avenue. Just over 10 percent
of the crashes took place on County roads. The remaining segments of Table 3-5 present
data exclusively related to crashes on County roads.
Depending upon the speed involved, roadway geometrics at the crash location, road and
weather conditions, driver reaction, and other issues, a traffic crash may involve one or
more phases. For example, two cars may first collide; subsequently one or both may
overturn, strike a third vehicle, or strike a fixed object. The First Harmful Definition is
the first action that causes damage to a motor vehicle, its occupants, a pedestrian, or a
fixed object.
Of the crashes reported during the time period, 181, or 39.18 percent, began as a collision
of a motor vehicle with a fixed object. The second most frequent “first harmful
definition” was a collision between two motor vehicles, of which 140 crashes, or 30.30
percent of the total, were recorded.
Most crashes on Gila County roads did not take place at intersections. However, 16.67
percent of the crashes were intersection related and another 6.49 percent were driveway
access related. Over a third of the motorists involved in crashes were cited for “Speed
Too Fast for Conditions” and another 17.75 percent were cited for “Inattention.” Over 9
percent were not cited.
In summary, 55.63 percent of the crashes were caused by either overturning or collision
with a fixed object and that 72.51 percent of the crashes were of the single vehicle type.
“Speed Too Fast for Conditions” was the most common violation listed.

Lima & Associates

Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 61

FIGURE 3-11. EXAMPLES OF ROADWAY SAFETY ISSUES
Houston Mesa Road is the only
paved route between Payson and
the Whispering Pines area.
When either of two low-water
crossings such as this are
flooded, motorists must make a
lengthy detour over the largelyunpaved
Control
Road.
However, bridge construction
would also close the road for
weeks, necessitating the same
detour.
—Lima & Associates photo

Heading west, pavement on the
Control Road ends at the east end
of Tonto Village. Note that the
narrow bridge further limits the
ability of motorists heading east
on Control Road to make the
acute left turn into the Tonto
Village area. The street sign,
which implies that the roadway
entering from the right in the
foreground is “Tonto Village,”
adds to the confusion.
—Lima & Associates photo

Shown
here
is
the
“T”
intersection with Ice House
Canyon Road, as seen from the
Kellner Canyon Road approach.
Vegetation at right, together with
the steep grade of the approach,
limits sight distance so that a
motorist turning left onto Ice
House Canyon Road must pull
nearly half way out into the
roadway to see whether the way
is clear.
—Lima & Associates photo

Lima & Associates

Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 62

TABLE 3-6. SUMMARY OF TRAFFIC CRASHES IN GILA COUNTY
Jurisdiction Where Crash Occurred
No. of Crashes
Percentage
First Harmful Definition
Crashes on City Streets
551
12.27%
Overturning
Crashes on County Roadways
462
10.29%
Collision with other Motor Vehicle
Crashes on State Highways
3,476
77.43%
Collision with Pedestrian
Collision with Animal or Livestock
Total
4,489
100.00%
Collision with Fixed Object
No. of Crashes
Percentage
Relationship of Crash to Intersection
Occurred at Intersection
77
16.67%
Miscellaneous
Non-Intersection Related
355
76.84%
Total
Driveway Access Related
30
6.49%
Injury Severity
Non-injury Crashes
Total
462
100.00%
Injury Crashes
Predominant Violation
No. of Crashes
Percentage
Speed Too Fast for Conditions
166
35.93%
Fatal Crashes
Inattention
82
17.75%
Total
Unknown
76
16.45%
Type of Crash
No Improper Driving
42
9.09%
Single Vehicle
Failed to Yield Right-Of-Way
22
4.76%
Angle
Other
22
4.76%
Backing
Drove in Opposing Traffic Lane
16
3.46%
Head-on
Exceeded Lawful Speed
13
2.81%
Left Turn
Followed Too Closely
9
1.95%
Other
Ran Stop Sign
6
1.30%
Rear-End
Made Improper Turn
5
1.08%
Sideswipe (Opposite Direction)
Knowingly Operated with Faulty or
Missing Equipment
1
0.22%
Sideswipe (Same Direction)
Other Unsafe Passing
1
0.22%
U-Turn
Unsafe Lane Change
1
0.22%
Total
Total
462
100.00%
Source: Accident Location Identification Surveillance System (ALISS) Database for ADOT (Jan 1999-Dec 2003)

Lima & Associates

No. of Crashes
76
140
3
16
181
46
462
No. of Crashes
368
82
12
462
No. of Crashes
335
25
19
13
4
16
24
18
6
2
462

Percentage
16.45%
30.30%
0.65%
3.46%
39.18%
9.96%
100.00%
Percentage
79.65%
17.75%
2.60%
100.00%
Percentage
72.51%
5.41%
4.11%
2.81%
0.87%
3.46%
5.19%
3.90%
1.30%
0.43%
100.00%

Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 63

Bridge Inspections
Every two years, ADOT Bridge Management conducts inspections of Gila Countymaintained bridges. The results of the most recent inspections, conducted in April 2004,
are summarized in Table 3-7. Four of the structures, Icehouse Canyon Bridges 1 and 2,
Star Valley Bridge, and Thompson Draw Bridge, were found to be in need of repairs.
However, as of June 2005, none of the minor repairs recommended had been performed.
Rail Highway Crossings
A total of ten at-grade railroad crossings in the Globe-Claypool area were reviewed. This
area is served by the Arizona Eastern Railway, a short line railroad that operates from
Miami through Claypool and Globe to Safford and connects with the Union Pacific at
Bowie, Arizona. The day-to-day operations are managed by clerical personnel from an
office in Claypool and by the train crews themselves. The project team was unable to
contact railroad management. The Railway and the County both informed the consultant
that, due to the low volume of both train traffic and motor vehicle traffic on the cross
streets, few incidents have occurred at the crossings.
All of the ten crossings examined appear to be in poor condition. Examples of the
crossings are shown in Figure 3-12. The protection provided at the crossings ranges from
cross bucks only to cross bucks with flashing lights and gates. In some cases, asphalt
appears to have been spread between the rails in lieu of installing a crossing. In the case
of Silver Hill Road, which was recently accepted as a country dirt road by the County, the
crossing area looks as if dirt were simply spread between the rails. In order for the gravel
ballast upon which the railroad tracks rest to function properly in holding the ties and rails
in place, and in order to prolong the useful life of the crossties, it is essential for proper
drainage to occur. Piling dirt on top of the ballast degrades the ballast material and
inhibits drainage, accelerating crosstie failure. Such crossings must be crossed by
motorists at very low speeds to avoid motor vehicle damage and can be dangerous for
motorcyclists or bicyclists to cross. Options for rail-highway crossing repairs or
reconstruction will be discussed in a subsequent chapter.
Pavement Conditions
Gila County’s computerized pavement management system is based on “Street Saver”
software developed by the Bay Area Metropolitan Transportation Commission. The
software is designed to be used as a tool to help the County make informed and timely
decisions about pavement conditions, to prevent problems through appropriate maintenance
procedures, and to identify and repair defective pavement cost effectively.
The county is upgrading its pavement management approach, including the acquisition of
additional computer software that has the potential for more integration of pavement

Lima & Associates

Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 64

TABLE 3-7. SUMMARY OF ADOT BRIDGE INSPECTIONS FOR COUNTY-MAINTAINED STRUCTURES
Struc.
Date of
No. Inspection
Structure Name
7862
4/27/2004 Pine Creek Bridge

Road Name
Cedar Meadow Lane

7871
7880

4/27/2004
4/27/2004

E. Verde River Bridge
Bray Creek Bridge

7881

4/27/2004

E. Verde River Bridge

7882

4/27/2004

Thompson Draw Bridge

8193
8194
8197

4/21/2004
4/21/2004
4/21/2004

Icehouse Canyon Bridge
Pinal Creek RCB
Icehouse Canyon Bridge 2

8198

4/21/2004

Icehouse Canyon Bridge 1

8604

4/21/2004

Pinal Creek Bridge

Location
0.25 mi. S of Cedar
Lane
Houston Mesa Rd.
6.9 mi. N of SR 87
Geronimo Estates Rd. 0.1 mi. S. of Control
Rd.
Rim Trail Estate Rd.
0.5 mi. S of Int. Rte.
199
Johnson Blvd.
1.1 mi. N of SR 260
MP 267
Sixshooter Canyon Rd. 1 mi. S Jct. US 60
Sixshooter Canyon Rd. 3.6 mi. S of US 60
Pinal View Drive
0.8 mi. S of
Sixshooter Rd. Jct.
Albany Drive
0.5 mi. S of
Sixshooter Rd. Jct.
Dickison Drive
1.6 mi. S of US 60

8605

4/21/2004

Pinal Creek RCB

Bixby Road

8706

4/21/2004

Pinal Creek Bridge

Hicks Rd.

8914
8995

4/21/2004
4/27/2004

Icehouse Canyon Bridge 3
Star Valley Bridge

Alamo Way
Rainbow Drive

Sufficiency Maintenance/
Rating
Repair
88.68
None required

0.5 mi. E of
Old SR 88
0.1 mi. E of
Old SR 88
3.8 mi. S of US 60
0.82 mi. SE of Jct.
SR 260

98.96
62.78

None required
None required

76.00

None required

21.27

See Note 1

60.21
75.97
54.96

None required
None required
See Note 2

89.23

See Note 3

66.12

None
recommended
None required

99.92
91.78
97.97
91.24

None
recommended
None required
See Note 4

Note 1. Repair/replace the loose rail posts on the S. side and E. end of North side. (Bridge No. 7882)
Note 2. Fill and seal the erosion/scour under the grouted bank protections on the N side, especially the NE (Bridge No. 8197)
Note 3. Fill the scoured area below and under the outlet apron with rocks and cap with concrete. (Bridge No. 8198)
Note 4. Fill the erosion/void under the downstream end of the outlet apron and seal with concrete. (Bridge No. 8995)
Source: Arizona Department of Transportation, Bridge Inspection Reports for Gila County, April 2004

Lima & Associates

Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 65

FIGURE 3-12. EXAMPLES OF AT-GRADE RAIL CROSSINGS IN GLOBE AREA

The Old Oak Road crossing is
protected by gates and flashing
lights; however, the crossing is in
poor condition. The pavement has
deteriorated and portions of the
pavement at the edges of the
roadway have eroded. The rough
crossing represents a potential
hazard to motorists.
—Gila County Public Works photo

The Pinal Creek Road crossing is
protected by cross bucks only. The
pavement in the crossing area has
deteriorated. The condition of the
rail line itself suggests that some
bad cross ties in need of
replacement may exist beneath the
crossing. If warranted by roadway
traffic volume, this crossing would
be a candidate for reconstruction.
—Gila County Public Works photo

Silver Hill Road has now been
accepted as a country dirt road.
The intersection of the roadway and
the railroad is protected by cross
bucks, but no actual crossing has
been installed. Instead, dirt has
simply been dumped on top of the
cross ties. The result is a rough
crossing for motorists and a
potentially dangerous one for
bicycle and motorcycle riders. If
roadway traffic increases, an
approved crossing should be built.
—Gila County Public Works photo

Lima & Associates

Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 66

condition tracking and other roadway maintenance and improvement issues into an
integrated GIS-based system. As a result of periodic field view, the County assigns each
pavement segment an index number from 1 to 100. Numbers 1 through 24 are in the
“Very Poor” range, 25 through 49 fall within the “Poor” range, 50 through 69 fall within
the “Good” range, and any index number of 70 or higher is considered “Very Good.”
Figure 3-13 provides examples of these different conditions.
Gila County currently maintains over 127 miles of paved roads. Overall, the roadways are
in very good condition. The average pavement condition index assigned to the roadways is
71.57, in the “Very Good” range. Table 3-8 lists the roadway mileage indexed in the four
categories.
The most recent field view of the roadway surfaces for index assignment purposes was
conducted in 2002, and the more heavily traveled portions of the roadways have likely
deteriorated somewhat since then, except where maintenance has been performed in the
meantime.
MULTIMODAL INVENTORY
Alternative transportation modes within Gila County are currently very limited and
opportunities for alternative modes are limited by the disconnected County Road System.
Transit service within Gila County is limited to dial-a-ride type programs. These programs
provided by local communities or organizations, primarily serve the senior and disabled
populations with access to medical facilities, senior programs, and other daily needs.
Bicycle and pedestrian facilities are limited within the County, and located almost entirely
within local communities. The Tonto National Forest provides a number of hiking trails.
This section summarizes multimodal services and facilities within the County including
intercity bus service, dial-a-ride, special need services, and Casino-oriented bus and
excursion rail services.
Intercity Bus Service
Until March 2005, Greyhound Lines provided intercity bus service along the US 70-US-60
corridor connecting Globe and Miami with Safford and points east as well as with the
Phoenix metro area. Effective March 2005, Greyhound Lines implemented a service
restructuring that resulted in the elimination of bus service to approximately half of the
Arizona communities that had been served, including Globe and Miami. Currently, no
intercity passenger transportation serves Globe or Miami.
Two shuttle services currently operate between Phoenix Sky Harbor Airport and Payson,
and between Payson and Show Low, Pinetop-Lakeside, and Springerville. White
Mountain Passenger Lines provides one round trip six days per week, and Timberline VIP
operates one round trip daily.
Lima & Associates

Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 67

FIGURE 3-13. EXAMPLES OF PAVEMENT CONDITIONS

Very Good
Pavement Structure is stable, with no
cracking, no patching, and no
deformation evident. Roadways in this
category are usually fairly new.
Riding qualities are excellent. Nothing
would improve the roadway at this
time.
Good
Stable, minor cracking, generally
hairline and hard to detect. Minor
patching and possibly some minor
deformation evident. Dry or light
colored appearance. Very good riding
qualities. Rutting less than ½”.
Poor
Areas of instability, marked
evidence of structural deficiency,
large crack patterns (alligatoring),
heavy and numerous patches,
deformation
very
noticeable.
Riding
qualities
range
from
acceptable to poor. Rutting greater
than ¾”.
Very Poor
Pavement
is
in
extremely
deteriorated condition. Numerous
areas of instability. Majority of
section is showing structural
deficiency.
Riding quality is
unacceptable (probably should slow
down).
Source: Oregon Department of Transportation

Lima & Associates

Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 68

TABLE 3-8. PAVEMENT CONDITION OF GILA COUNTY ROADWAYS
Pavement Condition
Index
100
90 and above
70 and above
50 and above
25 and above
Below 25
Total

Linear Miles of
Roadway
1.69
10.26
68.96
28.44
16.83
1.69
127.86

Percentage
of Total
1.32%
8.02%
53.64%
22.24%
13.16%
1.32%
100.00%

Source: Gila County Public Works Department

White Mountain Passenger Lines provides passenger bus and express package delivery
service from Arizona White Mountain communities to the Phoenix metro area. The firm
has been operating since 1937. White Mountain Passenger Lines operates daily except
Sundays and the following Holidays: Memorial Day, July 4th, Labor Day, Thanksgiving,
Christmas Day and New Years Day.
The bus line’s only Gila County stop is in Payson at Payson Packaging. The one-way fare
from Payson to Mesa, Phoenix, Show Low, or Snowflake is $25. The fare from Payson to
Heber is $20; Payson to Forest Lakes, $15; and Payson to Christopher Creek or Kohl’s
Ranch, $10. A Senior Citizen Discount of 10 percent is available for seniors age 62 and
over. Children under 10 years of age pay half fare when riding with an adult. The
company charges an additional $5.00 for pick-up at Sky Harbor Airport and asks that
passengers wishing to be picked up at the airport call ahead to confirm.
Timberline VIP makes round trips daily, including weekends and holidays, between
Springerville, Arizona, and Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport. Several scheduled
stops are made along the way, including Scottsdale and Mesa. The Gila County
community served is Payson.
The fare between Payson and Phoenix Sky Harbor is $25.00. Timberline VIP uses a
shuttle vehicle manufactured by Mercedes Benz that Timbeline claims is quieter, roomier,
safer, and more comfortable than a typical 15-passenger van. Passenger luggage is carried
in a trailer painted to match the vehicle’s distinctive paint scheme.
Dial-a-Ride and Special Needs Services in the Globe-Miami Area
One dial-a-ride system, the Cobre Valley Community Transit, operates within the County.
In addition, the Globe and Miami Senior Centers provide transportation and related
services for qualifying seniors who have enrolled at their programs. Several private senior
care facilities in the area also provide transportation services for residents.

Lima & Associates

Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 69

Cobre Valley Community Transit, also known as “Miami Dial-a-Ride,” provides
demand-response transit services throughout the Globe-Miami area. The system serves the
general public. The rate charged is $1.00 for pick-ups scheduled in advance and $2.00 for
same day calls. Fees are for round trips. The vans are air conditioned and equipped with
wheel chair lifts for handicapped and elderly customers.
Globe Senior Center has a new 8-passenger van that is wheelchair lift equipped. The Van
is used to bring clients to the Center in the morning, for meals and activities, and return
them home in the afternoon. During the middle of the day, the vehicle is used to transport
“meals on wheels” to those who are homebound. They are able to provide meals to a
maximum of 35 persons because of the topographical constraints of the area.
The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Section 5310 program, which was used to
purchase the new van, provides capital funds only, and funds for operating expenses such
as fuel and drivers’ wages must be raised through other means. The Center had been using
volunteer drivers; however, using volunteers now makes insurance rates prohibitively
expensive. The Center believes that sufficient need for transportation to the Center and for
meals on wheels services exists to justify the purchase of another vehicle and funding is
likely available.
Miami Senior Center also offers both congregate meals at the center as well as “meals on
wheels” type service for homebound seniors.
Copper Mountain Inn is an elder care facility that has approximately 90 residents. The
Inn has a wheelchair lift-equipped Ford van that is used for medical transportation for
residents. Residents are taken to local clinics or to specialists in the Phoenix area as
needed for treatment. The Inn recently purchased a 2005 Cutaway bus on a Ford chassis
that has two wheelchair positions and 12 seats for ambulatory passengers. The bus is used
for resident activities such as shopping trips, trips to the ice cream parlor, and other tours
and events.
Heritage Health Care Center is an elder care facility that has 96 residents. The Center
has a cutaway minibus with 10 seats and four wheelchair positions that is used for both
medically related trips as well as tours. Favorite tour activities include picnics, holiday
lights tours in season, and shopping trips.
Special Needs Services in the Payson Area
Local special needs transit services in Payson are currently provided by several carriers.
Safe Ride Services provides transportation services for the disabled. The senior center
operates a bus and a van that are used to bring seniors to the center for meals and activities
and to deliver meals to shut-ins. The Senior Center has received funding to expand their
hours of transportation service to all day from mornings only. During the twelve months
ended July 31, 2004, an average of 364 persons was carried to other destinations monthly
by the Senior Center, and an average of 220 persons per month were brought to the Center
for lunch.
Lima & Associates

Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 70

Two nursing homes in Payson, the Payson Care Center and Rim Country North, use
vehicles to transport their residents. The Payson Care Center vehicle has 17 seats plus
room for two wheelchairs. Activities for which the bus is used include shopping, scenic
drives, and transporting residents to and from their homes or families in nearby
communities. The bus is also used to transport patients from the Medical Center to the
Care Center, or to their homes.
Rim Country North operates a 15-passenger van for the use of residents only. The
vehicle can only handle one wheelchair bound passenger at a time. The van is used
primarily for medical trips paid for by patients’ insurance coverage, although occasional
shopping trips are made. A third nursing home in the community, the Powell House, does
not possess a vehicle for transporting residents, but relies on those provided by the Senior
Center.
Touch of Class Limousine Service operates two Lincoln Town Cars with capacities of
eight and ten persons. They charge $10 for any trip within the Payson town limits. The
firm also provides service to/from Phoenix Sky Harbor Airport for $75.00 each way per
carload. Touch of Class has expressed an interest in being a contract operator of a transit
service for the Town of Payson.
Casino Transportation
Native American communities operate casinos in both the Globe and Payson areas. The
San Carlos Apache Tribe operates the Apache Gold Casino east of Globe and the Tonto
Apache Tribe operates the Mazatzal Casino south of Payson. Both Casinos offer
transportation as a means of attracting patrons to their facilities. Example of Casinorelated transportation services are shown in Figure 3-14.
The Apache Gold Casino operates a comprehensive schedule of “Fun Bus” trips departing
from various locations in the Phoenix and Tucson metro areas. In addition, group tours
and charters can be arranged.
The Mazatzal Casino operates a bus on a demand-response basis to bring tourists from
Payson area motels and residences to the Casino. Mazatzal Casino also operates group
tours to bring patrons from the Phoenix area to Payson and vice versa. No scheduled
service is provided.
Demonstration Excursion Rail Service
The Arizona Eastern Railway, in cooperation with the Historic Globe Mainstreet
Program and the Apache Gold Casino Resort, is operating a demonstration excursion rail
service between downtown Globe and the Apache Gold Casino in early 2006 to evaluate
the feasibility of implementing permanent excursion rail service between those two points.

Lima & Associates

Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 71

FIGURE 3-14. CASINO TRANSPORTATION SERVICES
“Spike,” the 1930 rail car used for
the
demonstration
excursion
service between Globe and the
Apache Gold Casino, prepares to
depart from the Globe depot. The
car is reminiscent of the old
electric “interurban” cars that were
early 20th Century precursors to
modern suburban rail services such
as those operated in Philadelphia
and Chicago.

—Lima & Associates photo

The San Carlos Apache Tribe
constructed a solidly-built covered
platform to serve as a depot. The stop
is located approximately 50 yards from
the entrance to the casino. The Tribe is
interested in evaluating rail as a
commuter service between the Tribal
communities of Bylas and San Carlos
and the Globe-Miami area.
—Lima & Associates photo

The Mazatzal Casino just south of
the Town of Payson operates this
bus to pick-up and drop off casino
patrons anywhere in the Payson
area free of charge.
The bus
operates on an “on call” basis.
Trips to the metro Phoenix area are
also made periodically.

—Lima & Associates photo

Lima & Associates

Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 72

The equipment used for the runs is a restored self-propelled 38-passenger gas-mechanical
rail car originally manufactured by the Brill Company in 1930.
The rail car, nicknamed “Spike” for the duration of the demonstration, makes four round
trips on Thursdays, Fridays, Saturdays, and Sundays. Fares of $5 one-way and $10 round
trip are charged. According to Arizona Eastern Railway, the operation is not profitable,
and would likely need to receive some sort of subsidy in order to become permanent.
However, the trips are becoming increasingly popular, and many of the weekend runs sell
out. In addition to the casino excursions, the concept of regional passenger rail service
along the US 60 – US 70 corridor between Bylas, Globe, and Miami is also being
evaluated.
FUTURE SOCIOECONOMIC AND TRANSPORTATION CONDITIONS
This section summarizes the projected socioeconomic and transportation conditions and
includes an explanation of the sketch planning model process used to forecast future traffic
volumes on County roadways.
Future Socioeconomic Conditions
Table 3-9 presents future population projections for Gila County and for communities
within the County. The data was obtained from the DES.
TABLE 3-9. POPULATION PROJECTIONS
FOR GILA COUNTY COMMUNITIES
ARIZONA
Gila County
Central HeightsMidland City CDP
Claypool CDP
Globe city
Hayden town
Miami town
Payson town
Peridot CDP
San Carlos CDP
Winkelman

2005
2010
2015
2020
2025
2030
5,553,849 6,145,108 6,744,754 7,363,604 7,993,039 8,621,114
51,644
54,603
57,613
60,757
63,757
66,378
Local Communities
3,436
2,215
7,841
911
2,079
15,565
1,541
3,428
420

3,558
2,216
8,107
912
2,094
17,427
1,784
3,534
422

3,681
2,218
8,378
912
2,110
19,320
2,027
3,643
423

3,809
2,219
8,661
913
2,127
21,297
2,248
3,755
425

3,932
2,221
8,931
914
2,143
23,184
2,450
3,863
426

4,039
2,222
9,167
914
2,157
24,833
2,634
3,957
428

Source: Arizona Department of Economic Security, Population Statistics Unit

Lima & Associates

Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 73

By 2030, the State of Arizona is projected to increase in population by 55.23 percent, from
5,553,849 to 8,621,114, while Gila County is projected to grow by 28.53 percent, from
51,644 to 66,378. However, the projected population growth rates vary widely among the
communities within the County. The smaller mining communities such as Hayden, Miami,
and Winkelman are forecast to experience minimal growth over the next 25 years. Other
communities, such as Payson and Peridot, are expected to grow even faster than the state
as a whole. Payson is projected to increase in size by over 59 percent, while Peridot is
predicted to grow by over 70 percent.
Future Transportation Conditions
The consultant team developed forecasted traffic volumes for roadways within Gila County
for the 2030 horizon year. Both “Base” conditions, which assume a rate of population
growth based on Arizona Department of Economic Security population projections for the
County, and “Accelerated Growth” conditions, which assume a faster rate of population
growth, were evaluated. The Accelerated Growth approach will be discussed in the next
chapter.
A Countywide sketch planning model was developed using TransCAD integrated GIS and
travel demand model software. The product of this process is a representation of a
transportation network depicting Year 2030 traffic volumes on network segments in Gila
County.
For the development of the model, 72 draft Transportation Analysis Zones (TAZs) were
defined to spatially represent the current land use and socioeconomic conditions for the
communities including: Payson, Pine/Strawberry, Globe-Miami, and Young. Figure 3-15
shows the draft TAZ structure. Delineation of the zone boundaries was based on the
alignments of principal roadways, together with topographical constraints that impact
travel patterns such as watercourses, lakes and reservoirs, and mountain ranges. The
extents of current urban areas and rural communities were also considered.
Land use data obtained from the County and Census 2000 data obtained from the US
Census Bureau were used in the development of the 2030 projected socioeconomic data.
In addition, socioeconomic projections from the most recent Payson and Globe-Miami area
transportation studies were used. All data was apportioned to the respective TAZs.
The underlying GIS database includes US and State Highways and all the roads maintained
by the County. However, the planning sketch model was developed based primarily on the
state highways and selected major county and forest roads. Given the TAZ system and
highway network, vehicle trips were estimated and assigned to the network. Trips
generated by “External” origins or destinations—places outside of Gila County such as
metropolitan Phoenix, Tucson, the White Mountains, Northern Arizona, and the upper
Gila Valley—were important elements in the development of the model.

Lima & Associates

Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 74

FIGURE 3-15. TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ZONES

Lima & Associates

Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 75

Figures 3-16-A, 3-16-B, and 3-16-C present the forecasted levels of service derived from
the sketch-planning model for Gila County and for the Globe and Payson areas. The
figures show that essentially all County roadways will remain at LOS “A” in the 2030
horizon year, due in large part to the moderate growth rates forecasted for most non-urban
areas of the County. These forecasts suggest that issues such as safety, mobility, and air
quality should be given precedence over capacity when improvements to the County
roadways are planned or programmed.
FIGURE 3-16-A. LEVEL OF SERVICE – GILA COUNTY ROADWAYS - 2030

Lima & Associates

Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 76

FIGURE 3-16-B. LEVEL OF SERVICE – GILA COUNTY ROADWAYS – 2030 – GLOBE DETAIL

Lima & Associates

Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 77

FIGURE 3-16-C. LEVEL OF SERVICE – GILA COUNTY ROADWAYS – 2030 – PAYSON DETAIL

Lima & Associates

Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 78

While County roads are expected to remain at LOS “A,” levels of service over significant
portions of the County’s US and State Highways are projected to degrade as population
and vehicle traffic increase.
In particular, the levels of service on US 60 between Gila County and the Phoenix area are
forecasted to deteriorate, as are portions of US 70 between the Globe-Miami area and the
Upper Gila Valley. Most significantly, SR 188 between the Globe-Miami area and its
junction with SR 87 north of Punkin Center is projected to be at LOS “D” for most of its
length, with portions between Globe and Roosevelt at LOS “F.” Even though the
connecting County roadways are projected to remain at LOS “A,” the degraded LOS on
the State Route is likely to impact these roads—particularly at their junctions with SR 188.
Traffic signals, roundabouts, or other strategies may be needed to ensure continued access
to SR 188 from these adjoining roadways, and, of course, any widening of the State Route
that is programmed in an effort to maintain mobility will have a residual effect on all
roadways in the area.
Unpaved Roadways and Air Quality
The maintenance of acceptable air quality is particularly important in Gila County because
of the natural scenic beauty that exists throughout the County and the consequent
importance of tourism to the economy of the area. Clean air is important for the health
and quality of life of County residents as well.
An important means of preserving air quality is the mitigation of fugitive dust generation.
Fugitive dust is dust that does not occur naturally, but is generated directly by human
activity—such as high traffic volumes on unpaved roadways. Fugitive dust can also be
created by failing to restore protective ground cover to disturbed areas such as slag piles or
plowed fields, but these activities are not transportation related and are outside the scope of
this study.
In Maricopa County, fugitive dust has become a critical issue because the County has
failed to attain the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for PM-10, or
particulate matter of 10 microns or less in diameter, which is a significant component of
fugitive dust. Hence, Maricopa County has implemented a number of measures aimed at
reducing the levels of PM-10, including a program to pave all of the roads in the County
with significant traffic volumes. The roadways are prioritized for paving based on the
daily traffic volumes.
The Payson area was once in non-attainment of the PM-10 standards, as well, and is
currently considered a “PM-10 maintenance area” by the Environmental Protection
Agency and the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality. Air quality is monitored
closely in Payson to ensure that the levels of PM-10 remain within acceptable levels.

Lima & Associates

Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 79

As population and traffic volumes in Gila County increase, portions of unpaved roadways
are forecasted to exceed the 150-vehicles-per-day threshold for paving currently employed
by the Maricopa County PM10 Roads Program. Unpaved roadways projected to carry
more than 150 vehicles per day by 2030 include large sections of SR 288, the YoungHeber Road, and the Control Road.
FIRST ROUND OF PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
The first round of public involvement included a series of two Stakeholders Workshops,
and a series of two Public Open Houses. Stakeholders Workshops were scheduled for both
Globe and Payson on Wednesday, May 18, 2005. Prior to that date, flyers were mailed to
a list of County stakeholders that was provided by the County. Seven persons attended the
Globe Workshop—in addition to three members of the consultant team—and two persons
attended the Payson Workshop. The top three issues identified at the Globe Workshop
were:
1. Need for regional planning to ensure future needs are met
2. Expand public transit service
3. Insufficient funding despite existence of ½ cent sales tax
Due to the small number of persons participating, the Payson Workshop was less formal.
Key issues discussed included the need for bridges to replace low-water crossings on
Houston Mesa Road, the need to pave Control Road between SR 87 and SR 260, and the
need for a bridge across Tonto Creek in the Tonto Basin area.
In addition to consultant team members, 17 persons attended the Globe Public Open House
conducted on June 1, 2005, and 12 persons attended the Payson Public Open House held
the following day. Participants in the first round of public involvement are listed in Table
3-10.
The top three issues identified at the Globe Open House were:
•
•
•

Expand public transit
Need for regional planning to ensure future needs are met
Access roads improved to campgrounds in the Pinal Mountains

The top three issues identified at the Payson Open House were:
•
•
•

Need for coordination among ADOT, County, Tribes, and local jurisdictions
Need for all-weather emergency access
Need for regional planning to ensure future needs are met

A Report summarizing the findings of the First Round of Public Involvement was sent to
the County Project Manager and the TAC for review and comment.
Lima & Associates

Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 80

*Members of consultant team

Lima & Associates

&

Town of Payson
Gila County

&
&
&
&

Gila County
Payson

Payson EDC
City of Globe
Gila County
AZDES
Copper Country News
CAAG
Town of Miami
Gila County
Town of Miami
Chamber/EDC
Chamber/EDC
Town of Payson
ADOT
Gila County consultant
Town of Payson
Arizona Silver Belt
Gila County

&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&

&

&
&
&
&
&
&
&

&
&
&
&
&
&

&

AZDES
Lima & Associates
Tetra Tech
PSA
Tetra Tech

Payson
Open House

Affiliation

Globe Open
House

Participant
G.L. Bellesteris
Fred Carpenter
Tina Chaffin
Edd Dawson
Shirley Dawson
Martin deMasi
Gordon Ellis
Charlotte Farr
Jerry Farr
Scott Flake
Mayor Stanley Gibson
Sherry Grice
Renee Hartman
Rita Hussard
Mitchell Hutch
Bill Leister
Mayor Paul Licano
Tommie Martin
Robert Mawson
Mary Anne Moreno
Mikis Nyt
Cliff Potts
Richard Powers
Ingo Radicke
Dick Reese
Larry Richardson
Shirley Rittenbach
Steve Sanders
Sue Sanders
Dennis Stevenson
John R. Whesen
Rob Bohannan*
Ralph Bossert*
Peggy Fiandaca*
Forrest Switzer*

Globe
Stakeholders
workshop

TABLE 3-10. PARTICIPANTS IN THE FIRST ROUND OF PUBLIC
INVOLVEMENT

&
&
&

&
&

&
&
&
&

&
&
&

&
&
&
&

Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 81

4. MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN
This chapter presents a draft Multimodal Transportation Plan for Gila County based upon
the recommendations of previous plans and studies, consultant research and field views,
input from the public involvement process, and additional input from County officials.
First, the process of evaluating transportation system deficiencies and needs is
summarized. Next, candidate short-term (Phase I) and long-term (Phase II) projects are
presented. A summary of the second round of public involvement is presented, followed
by an estimation of transit demand and a discussion of access management techniques.
EVALUATION OF DEFICIENCIES AND NEEDS
During the conduct of the Small Area Transportation Study, deficiencies and needs were
evaluated in the following seven general areas:
•
•
•
•

Paving and Geometry Improvements
Roadway Reconstruction
Hazard Elimination and Safety
Multimodal Studies

•
•
•

Bridge Construction and Design
Intersection Improvements
Highway Rail Crossings

The consultant team made the following observations regarding existing deficiencies and
needs in the County transportation system:
•

With the exception of urban areas and State Highway segments, the assessment of
which was outside the scope of this study, no significant traffic congestion or level
of service issues exist on roadways within the County in 2006.

•

The mobility of County residents is dependent upon the maintenance and
improvement of the State Highways that traverse the County and function as
“spines” that tie the County roadway network together.

•

In many areas of the County, alternative routes are inconvenient or non-existent.
This causes problems when the main route is closed due to a traffic crash or natural
causes such as high water, floods, accumulated snow, or wildfires. Specific areas
of concern are:
[ Alternative ingress or egress to summer homes and year-round residences in the
areas south of Globe and north of Payson in case of wildfires
[ Low water crossings on Houston Mesa Road and in the East Verde Estates area
[ The need for a bridge across Tonto Creek above Roosevelt Lake

•

The County Public Works Department is well-informed regarding the deficiencies
and needs of the roadway system and programs maintenance, improvement, or
reconstruction projects as funding permits.

•

In accordance with the “Environmental Justice” provisions of Title VI, efforts are
made to ensure that potential disruption of disadvantaged populations is avoided

Lima & Associates

Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 82

when new construction, such as the proposed Pinal Creek Parkway, is contemplated
in developed areas.
•

All of the subgroups living within the County will benefit from the roadway
projects already programmed by the County, as well as additional projects proposed
in this Report.

•

Continued levels of mobility for County residents and visitors are almost entirely
dependent on private automobile travel, the maintenance of good roads, and the
availability of affordable gasoline.

•

Intersections on County roadways exist, as previously depicted in Figure 3-10,
where motorists must make difficult turning movements or where sight-distances
are limited.

•

Highway-rail crossings in the Globe-Miami area appear to be in need of
reconstruction. However, due to the low volume of both train traffic and motor
vehicle traffic on the cross streets, few incidents have occurred at the crossings.

•

The County is in the process of implementing a computerized pavement
management system and a County-wide roadway geographic information system.
Both of these will facilitate the efficient prioritization and management of roadway
pavement and reconstruction projects.

•

Intercity transit services provided by Greyhound Lines along the US 60/US 70
corridor through Globe Miami and by White Mountain Passenger Lines along the
US 60 corridor have ceased. No alternative transportation is provided.

•

No public transportation exists between Payson, the County’s second largest urban
area, and Globe, the County seat.

•

Unmet needs for additional local transit service may exist in the Globe-Miami area.
Unmet transit needs also exist in the Payson area.

•

The potential may exist for excursion rail service in the Globe-Miami area. This
will be examined in another report.

The Potential for Accelerated Population Growth in Gila County
A key factor affecting the future transportation related deficiencies in the County is the real
possibility that population growth will occur at a much faster rate than anticipated. In the
“Future Socioeconomic and Transportation Conditions” section of Chapter 3, the
development and use of the Sketch Planning Model was explained and a 2030 Base
Scenario based on DES projections was presented. Under this scenario, Gila County
would grow from a 2000 population of 51,335 living in 20,140 dwelling units to a 2030
population of 70,284 living in 27,777 dwelling units—an increase in population of
approximately 37 percent.
While the DES projections are based on historical trends, they may be unrealistically low
given the demographic changes forecasted to take place elsewhere in Arizona. Within the
Lima & Associates

Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 83

same time frame, neighboring Pinal County is projected to grow from a 2000 population of
179,727 to over 1.9 million persons by 2030. The metropolitan Phoenix area is also
expected to add several million inhabitants by 2030. From a 2006 perspective,
opportunities exist in Pinal and Maricopa Counties for additional freeways and/or the
potential implementation of high-capacity transit services that do not appear feasible in Gila
County given the mountainous topography that is present between Gila County urban areas
and the Phoenix area. By 2030, however, alternative sources of power for motor vehicles
may exist that will make commuting from Gila County more attractive, particularly if US
60 is completed as a four-lane roadway connecting metropolitan Phoenix with the GlobeMiami area.
One constraint in Gila County that may retard population growth compared with that of
neighboring counties is the relative lack of developable acreage. Much of the undeveloped
land in the County is owned by the National Forest, Native American Tribes, and other
agencies and is unlikely to be developed. However, significant blocks of privately-owned
acreage do exist, and an “Accelerated Growth” scenario was developed to examine the
impact of development in these areas as follows:
•

Locations of available deeded land parcels in the County were determined

•

The proximity of these parcels to existing or planned communities was evaluated

•

For every two acres of deeded land near existing or planned communities, a
minimum of one dwelling unit was forecasted

•

In deeded land parcels located near existing or planned communities, a minimum of
one dwelling unit for every two acres was forecasted

•

In deeded land parcels located in more remote areas of the County, a minimum of
one dwelling unit for every 10 acres of deeded land was forecasted

•

An occupancy rate of approximately 2.5 persons to each dwelling unit was assumed

Application of this Accelerated Growth Scenario to the traffic forecasting process results in
a projected population of 95,880 living in 38,282 dwelling units. In the future, large
undeveloped privately owned parcels (e.g. ranches) will be offset by densities significantly
higher than one dwelling unit for every two acres near communities. Figures 4-1-A, 4-1B, and 4-1-C depict the 2030 levels of service forecasted for the segments of the roadway
network in the County as a result of modeling this scenario. Note that abrupt changes in
level of service reflect changes in roadway functional classification as well as changes in
forecasted traffic volumes.
The results of the traffic forecasting using both the 2030 Base Scenario and the 2030
Accelerated Growth Scenario were presented to County stakeholders and the general public
during the second round of public involvement in March 2006.

Lima & Associates

Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 84

FIGURE 4-1-A. LEVEL OF SERVICE – GILA COUNTY ROADWAYS –
2030 ACCELERATED GROWTH SCENARIO

Source: Lima & Associates

Lima & Associates

Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 85

FIGURE 4-1-B. LEVEL OF SERVICE – GILA COUNTY ROADWAYS –
2030 ACCELERATED GROWTH SCENARIO – GLOBE DETAIL

Lima & Associates

Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 86

FIGURE 4-1-C. LEVEL OF SERVICE – GILA COUNTY ROADWAYS –
2030 ACCELERATED GROWTH SCENARIO – PAYSON DETAIL

Lima & Associates

Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 87

SECOND ROUND OF PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
The second round of public involvement, like the first, included a series of two
Stakeholder Workshops and a series of two Public Open Houses.
At these events, attendees were given a presentation explaining roadway functional
classification and the application of the sketch modeling process using both the Base and
Accelerated Growth scenarios. The consultant team presented a draft map of candidate
Phase I and Phase II projects and solicited comments and suggestions.
Stakeholder Workshops were scheduled for both Globe and Payson on Wednesday,
February 15, 2006. Prior to that date, flyers were mailed to a list of County stakeholders
that was provided by the County. Seven persons attended the Globe Workshop and five
persons attended the Star Valley Workshop.
Key concerns raised at the Globe Workshop were:
•
•
•

Need for improving access to the community of Young
Need for providing alternative or emergency roadways in the Globe-Miami area
Sources of funding for proposed projects

Key concerns raised at the Star Valley Workshop were:
•
•

Need to add future Payson area projects, such as a Loop Road and transit service to
the Plan
Need to improve access to Young

In addition to consultant team members, 21 persons attended the Globe Public Open House
conducted on February 22, 2006, and 9 persons attended the Payson Public Open House
held the following day. Table 4-1 lists the participants in the Second Round of Public
Involvement and indicates the event or events attended by each participant.
The key concerns raised at the Globe Open House were the same as those that had been
brought up at the Globe Stakeholder Workshop the week before, with additional issues
being raised regarding the non-motorized trails in the Globe Miami area.
The issues raised at the Star Valley Open House related to the improvement of mobility
and roadway connectivity in the Payson area, including improved access to the hospital and
safety improvements to area intersections.
Input from the public involvement process was used in refining the maps of short-term
(Phase I) and long-term (Phase II) transportation projects presented in the following
section.
A Report summarizing the findings of the Second Round of Public Involvement was sent to
the County Project Manager and the TAC for review and comment.
Lima & Associates

Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 88

*Members of consultant team

Lima & Associates

Gila County
Town of Payson
Globe Mainstreet
Senior Center
PREDC
Town of Payson
City of Globe

Star Valley
Open House

Affiliation
Forest Service
Verde Glen
Phelps Dodge

Globe Open
House

Participant
Ed Armenta
Don Ascoli
Morris Ashki
Jim Atterby
John Beene
Fred Carpenter
Liza Carrillo
Margaret Celix
Kip Culver
Gordon Ellis
Barbara Ganz
LaRon Garrett
Mayor Stanley Gibson
Liz Gipple
Tom Goodman
Robert Henley
Roger Hopt
Bill Leister
Mayor Paul Licano
Mitch Malkovich
Robert Mawson
Clay Mills
Mary Anne Moreno
Brandon Parker
Richard Powers
Ingo Radicke
Larry Richardson
Steve Sanders
Diana Sexton
Irene Sommers
Phon D. Sutton
Manoj Vyas
Cindy Walters
Irv Wilson
Rob Bohannan*
Ralph Bossert*
Peggy Fiandaca*
Forrest Switzer*

Globe
Stakeholders
workshop
Star Valley
Stakeholders
workshop

TABLE 4-1. PARTICIPANTS IN THE SECOND ROUND
OF PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

&
&
&
&
&
&

&
&
&
&
&
&
&

&
&

Town of Payson
ADOT
CAAG
Town of Miami

&
&
&
&
&

Town of Miami
Chamber/EDC
ADOT
Gila County consultant

&
&

Gila County

&

&

&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&

&
&

&
City of Globe
Lima & Associates
Tetra Tech
PSA
Tetra Tech

&
&
&
&
&

&
&
&

&
&
&
&
&

&
&
&

Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 89

PRIORITIZATION OF TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS
As soon as the study was initiated, the Consultant Team, the County Project Manager, and
the Technical Advisory Committee began to identify candidate projects for inclusion in the
short-term and long-term transportation programs. As has been pointed out, State Routes
and US Highways form spines in the County’s roadway network and perform an essential
function of tying the County-maintained roadways together. Hence, it was necessary to
evaluate the current and future performance of these roadways during the course of the
project. However, the Project Team was given a clear directive to consider improvements
to County roadways only, together with multimodal projects. In the short term, ADOT
plans to study the State Highways within Gila County in the context of Regional
Transportation Profiles that will identify deficiencies and recommend improvements.
Candidate Transportation Projects
Candidate projects were identified by considering the need and the feasibility of
implementation. The following criteria were evaluated:
Need
•
•
•

Feasibility
Potential to address travel demand
Potential to serve residents
Potential to provide connectivity
and/or improve mobility between
places and major roads

•
•
•

Environmental and physical impacts
Topographical constraints
Constructability

Concurrent with the first round of public involvement, the consultant conducted a field
view of key candidate project sites identified by the County Project Manager. These
include the area south of Globe and Miami, the Tonto Basin and Young areas, and portions
of Control and Houston Mesa Roads. A draft transportation plan was developed, and
candidate short-term and long-term projects were plotted and presented to the County
Project Manager and the TAC. The draft plan was revised based on TAC input for
presentation at the second round of public involvement. After the findings of the second
round of public involvement had been summarized, the consultant team and the County
Project Manager met to review the recommendations of the stakeholders and others who
had participated in the public involvement sessions, together with the observations of the
consultant team and the County Public Works Department itself. The selection of Phase I
and Phase II transportation projects was refined for incorporation in this Report. Figure 42 presents the locations of the 17 proposed Phase I projects. Figure 4-3 presents the
locations of the 17 proposed Phase II projects.

Lima & Associates

Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 90

FIGURE 4-2. PHASE I PROJECTS

Source: Lima & Associates, Inc.

Lima & Associates

Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 91

FIGURE 4-3. PHASE II PROJECTS

Source: Lima & Associates, Inc.

Lima & Associates

Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 92

Discarded Candidate Projects
Subsequent to the development of the draft transportation project map, based on the results
of the traffic forecasting process, additional field views were made to compare field
conditions with selected model forecasts. In particular, several rural roadways that
traverse rugged and/or mountainous terrain had been recommended for upgrading and
paving by the forecasting process, based solely on the projected future development of the
land abutting these roadways. However, as a practical matter, roads such as Old Rye
Creek Road and Chamberlain Trail may never be paved—at least not in their entirety or
along their existing alignments. The output of the forecasting process with respect to such
roadways can be properly interpreted as indicating that, when area development and
population warrant, some sort of additional or improved roadway access into the area will
be needed. Most likely, these will be roadways constructed on partially or completely new
alignments. Hence, candidate projects appearing on the draft project map dealing with
proposed paving or improvement to existing roadways with curves and grades severe
enough to preclude cost-effective upgrading were eliminated.
Additional Projects
At the suggestion of stakeholders, additional projects were added to the transportation plan
that had not appeared on the draft map. These projects included a future truck route loop
connecting SR 87 south of Payson with SR 260 east of Payson, as well as a future update
of the Payson Public Transit Feasibility Study. Note that projects already included in the
CAAG transportation plan are not shown on Figure 4-2 but are included on the list of
projects presented in the following chapter. Where possible, the County should strive to
preserve rights-of-way for future transportation corridors as these are identified.
Improvements to State Routes
The scope of this project specified an emphasis on County owned or maintained roads
only. However, during the conduct of the study it became clear that some of the most
pressing future needs will exist on the State Routes that traverse the County. State Routes
188 and 260, in particular, will become increasingly congested.
TRANSIT AND NON-MOTORIZED MODES
The multimodal plan provides recommendations regarding transit and non-motorized
modes of travel in Gila County, including types of transit and associated cost and funding
mechanisms. The Plan also includes recommendations for incorporating bicycle and
pedestrian travel into the Plan and supports ways to accommodate these modes as the
circulation system of the County and local jurisdictions evolve.

Lima & Associates

Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 93

Transit Element
Existing special needs transportation services within Gila County were summarized in
Chapter 3. This section suggests and describes potential services, facilities, and equipment
and presents the findings of an estimation of 2030 demand for intercity transit. Some best
practices for rural transit operation are summarized in Chapter 5, and Federal, State, and
local sources of transit funding are summarized in Chapter 6.
Potential Services and Facilities
This section presents the options for area public transportation to be considered by the
County. Two general forms of public transportation have been identified as being
particularly suitable for meeting the local and regional needs of Gila County residents over
the next twenty-five years: Transportation Demand Management (TDM) alternatives and
four types of transit service.
Transportation Demand Management consists of a wide range of programs and services
that enable people to get around without driving alone. Included are alternative
transportation modes such as carpooling, vanpooling, transit, bicycling, and walking, as
well as programs that alleviate traffic and parking problems such as telecommuting,
variable work hours, and parking management.
Transportation Demand Management can address the needs of those traveling long
distances with rideshare options such as vanpools and carpools. These types of services
are vital in moving people around large areas, whether for work or for traveling to
regional centers that have special services, medical facilities, or retail stores.
Rideshare Matching Programs provide service by identifying people who live and work
close to each other and then facilitate carpooling and vanpooling. Matching services can
pair full-time partners, or simply someone to call in an emergency. Rideshare matching
can be done by individual employers or on a community-wide basis. In addition to
commute trips, travelers can be matched with others participating in the same
extracurricular school function, medical-related trip, shopping trip, or community activity.
Rideshare matching is typically done through a computerized system. A variety of vendors
have created inexpensive, effective software that makes this process easy to use.
Rideshare services can also be offered on-line.
Two common forms of ridesharing are carpools and vanpools.
Carpool participation is higher than the national average in rural Arizona, suggesting that a
potential for developing additional carpools in the area exists. Strategies for formalizing
and increasing carpooling in Gila County follow:
Lima & Associates

Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 94

•

The carpooling that is already established needs to be quantified and documented.
This process could be an employer-based registration system that provides an
incentive for filling out an information/registration card. Incentives might be as
simple as a chance to be entered in a drawing for dinner for two at a popular
restaurant. Periodic updates and opportunities for future carpooling incentives
would be an option for carpoolers.

•

A benefit of registering carpools is that the informal carpools might be able to serve
another commuter who works the same shift, or an additional participant in the
same periodic activity. The baseline data forms the beginning of destination-driven
ride matching.

•

Once the baseline data quantifies a level of carpool usage, goals for increasing
participation and incentives to attract more new carpools can be identified and
implemented.

Vanpools are also an alternative to be considered for area commuting. The methodology
described above for carpools is one way to begin building a database for informal
vanpools. By asking vehicle capacity on the registration card, the information helps
organizers build an “excess capacity” database.
This type of vanpool is very informal and maintains its schedule based on employee needs.
Matching commuters from the same or other businesses is the growth potential. Again,
the object is to quantify and document existing vanpool commuters and build the program
where possible.
Another option is to provide businesses with an incentive to let the vehicle be used for a
formal vanpool program with a wider group of employees. If the vehicle becomes a part
of a formal program, maintenance, insurance and vehicle upkeep can be offered as an
incentive. Such a fleet of vanpool vehicles can be used as “guaranteed ride home”
vehicles for bus/rideshare commuters who have an unscheduled midday need to get home.
There are a few issues that arise with shared-use vehicles as described above. If the driver
of the vanpool is an employee who is also commuting to work, the type of insurance
needed is different than if the driver is paid or if the vehicles are used for other service
during the day. As with any formal bus service, vanpools need back-up vehicles or a plan
for alternate service.
Coordinating Local Human Services Transportation Programs
Arizona Rides is a statewide effort to coordinate provision of human services
transportation within counties or regions of counties to increase efficiency, limit service
duplication and confusion, and save costs. Arizona Rides was initiated in response to the
federal “United We Ride” program established in 2004. “Pinal Rides,” a pilot project of
the program, funded a study of the concept in Central Pinal County. The Final Report of

Lima & Associates

Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 95

the pilot project was published in December 2005. The pilot project consisted of two
phases. In the first phase, existing human services transportation providers in Pinal
County were inventoried and potential areas of service duplication and inefficiency were
identified. In the second phase, specific implementation objectives were identified,
together with impediments to service coordination, and key service providers were selected
for participation in a model coordination project. Recommendations included the
establishment of a transit coordinating council for the study area and the implementation of
service along two regional corridors. Future transit studies in the Globe-Miami and
Payson areas should assess ways in which special needs transit providers can coordinate
services and avoid duplication and inefficiency.
Different Types of Transit Service
A number of roadway-based and fixed-guide way forms of transit service exist, including
bus service, light rail, commuter rail, subways, and monorail. Four modes of transit have
been identified as likely candidates for eventual implementation in Gila County:
•
•
•
•

Dial-A-Ride and Paratransit Service
Deviated Fixed Route Service
Fixed Route Service including local, express, and limited stop services
Scheduled or Excursion Rail Service

Figure 4-4 summarizes the features of the three types of bus services listed above. The
scheduled and excursion rail service issues will be evaluated and described in detail in a
separate report.
Estimating Transit Demand
Estimating demand for transit in Gila County provides a general idea of what type of
services may be feasible and how many people may be expected to use a transit system. To
estimate possible demand for transit service in the County, TCRP Report 3, Workbook for
Estimating Demand for Rural Passenger Transportation, was utilized. This workbook
provides a methodology for estimating transit demand for rural systems, using population
data for the year of proposed service start-up and assumptions of service area size and
route lengths.
Note that this procedure results in estimated demand for regional bus service only. The
Globe-Miami area is already served by the Cobre Valley Community Transit (CVCT) diala-ride system. Estimating the future level of demand for increases in the Cobre Valley
service area, or for adding a deviated fixed route element to the CVCT service, are beyond
the scope of this study and should be addressed in a separate transit feasibility study. A
Transit feasibility study addressing the issue of local service in the Payson area was
conducted in 2004 as discussed in Chapter 2. Potential demand for rail transit services in
the Globe area will be addressed in a future report.
Lima & Associates

Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 96

FIGURE 4-4. DIFFERENT TYPES OF BUS SERVICE
“Dial-a-Ride” Service is a demand-response
service. Vehicles do not operate on a fixed route
or schedule, but pick-up patrons at their origins
and deliver them directly to their destinations.
Before the trip begins, and during the course of
the trip, the driver receives information from a
dispatcher concerning pick-up and drop-off
requests.
This cutaway vehicle, comprising a minibus
body constructed on a recreational vehicle
chassis, is used by Valley Metro for paratransit
services. However, similar vehicles are typically
used in both deviated fixed route and downtown
—Lima & Associates photo
or neighborhood circulator services.
Deviated Fixed Route Service, sometimes
referred to as “checkpoint” service, is
considered an intermediate step between dial-aride, which targets transit dependent riders, and
fixed route service, which is more efficient in
larger cities having significant volumes of transit
ridership.
A deviated fixed route stops at
scheduled “time points”—or “checkpoints”—
much as a fixed route service does. However,
the route taken between points can vary from trip
to trip. This mid-size transit coach is also used
for fixed route service in smaller cities—as is
—Flagstaff Mountain Line photo being done in Flagstaff.
Fixed Route Buses follow a route and schedule
that never varies from one week to the next.
Variations such as reduced or extended weekend
hours and weekend route differences are
published in advance. Fixed route systems are
typically structured either as radial systems with
routes radiating out from a central transit center
to different residential or commercial areas, as
grid systems with routes operating on the major
arterial streets, or as some combination of the
two structures. Such systems comprise the
dominant form of public transit in most major
—Lima & Associates photo metro areas in North America.

Lima & Associates

Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 97

The demand methodology outlined in TCRP Report 3 required that a hypothetical system
be developed for analysis purposes only. A system developed for this procedure is
depicted in Figure 4-5. Note that the routes depicted in Figure 4-5 are for demandestimating purposes only and do not necessarily represent a recommended system. Even if
the methodology did not require the identification of such a hypothetical system, the sparse
population of large portions of the County, including the National Forest areas, would
necessitate this approach in order to obtain realistic results. To conduct the demand
estimation procedure, the following assumptions were made:
FIGURE 4-5. HYPOTHETICAL BUS TRANSIT ROUTES

Lima & Associates

Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 98

•
•
•
•
•
•

The service area for the hypothetical system is defined as the TAZs that abut or are
traversed by any of the roadway segments depicted as being transit served
Every resident of the universe of transit-served TAZs is a potential user of the
system
The percentages of County residents aged 65 and over, having mobility limitations,
or living below the poverty level will be the same in 2030 as they were in 2000
The population figures forecasted under the “Accelerated Growth” scenario are
used
Demand estimates are based on route mileage and population within Gila County
only
It was assumed that service would be provided twice daily between Globe and
Payson, and twice daily along the US 60/US 70 Corridor through Globe. One
round trip daily would be made connecting the Young area with Payson via the
Young-Heber Road and SR 260.

Documentation of the transit demand estimating process is provided in Appendix A.
Summary of Transit Demand Estimation
The demand methodology in TCRP Report 3 included both base and alternative methods of
demand estimation. The consultant conducted both procedures to compare the results from
each. The base and alternative methods of transit demand estimation resulted in daily
estimates of 126 and 282 trips, respectively. Given the distances involved and the low
service frequencies used in the hypothetical example, the lower estimate of 126 trips per
day is probably more accurate.
While 126 trips per day is not a large number, consider how such a ridership level might
affect the hypothetical system shown in Figure 4-5. If the system were operated with
vehicles having, for example, 12-passenger capacities (e.g. seating for 10 and two
wheelchair positions), the total “seats per day” that would be offered would be 168, or 12
times the 14 vehicle trips. If the 126 daily riders were distributed evenly among the 14
vehicle trips, each vehicle would be approximately three-fourths full. Note that the
demand procedure estimated the number of riders originating or terminating in Gila
County only. Schedules on the US 60/US 70 corridor would likely be carrying passengers
to and from Safford and other “external” destinations. The Phoenix-Payson routes might
extend east along SR 260 to White Mountain destinations, in which case these schedules
would also be carrying passengers beyond Gila County.
Non-motorized Modes
The development of the transportation system within Gila County should, where
practicable, accommodate bicycle, equestrian, and pedestrian travel as it grows.
Incorporating multiuse paths and trails into roadway corridor plans and development plans
ensures ongoing improvement in conditions for those who wish to bike, ride, or hike in
this scenic county.
Lima & Associates

Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 99

Bicycle Travel
Bicycle travel within the County can be accommodated through the inclusion of bike lanes
as roadways are paved or widened. The cross-sections for urban arterials and urban
collectors in the Gila County Roadway Design Standards Manual all include six-foot bike
lanes as a standard feature. However, accommodating regional bicycle travel is important
as well. Rising fuel prices may cause many persons to consider using bicycles for shorter
trips, and consideration should be given to providing alternate rural arterial and collector
cross-sections that provide for safe bicycle use as traffic volumes increase.
Equestrian Trails
Gila County is traversed by the Arizona Trail, which connects Mexico with Utah, and also
has many local trails used for horseback riding, hiking, and mountain biking. Many of
these trails are maintained by the U.S. Forest Service, with much of the day-to-day trail
improvement and preservation conducted by volunteer groups and associations of trail
users. These trails do cross County roadways, and, as roadways are paved, widened, or
improved, the enjoyment and safety of trail users can be adversely affected. Horseback
riding, hiking, and mountain biking are all popular ways to access the scenic beauty of the
County, and preserving the utility of these trails is vital to County tourism. Safe trail
crossings and, in high traffic volume areas, even grade separated crossings should be
considered. Such crossings could also preserve wildlife corridors as roads are paved.
Pedestrians
To accommodate walking the urban arterial and collector street cross-sections in the Gila
County Roadway Design Standards Manual include five-foot sidewalks as a standard
feature. However, these sidewalks are not separated from the back of the curb.
Separating the sidewalks from the back of the curb, would keep pedestrians a comfortable
distance from auto traffic—particularly along higher speed or busier arterials, and
encourage walking. In addition to the sidewalk network, The County and local
jurisdictions should investigate opportunities for developing, improving, or preserving offstreet paths or trails. These may be located in or along natural features like washes and
could be an opportunity to connect neighborhoods, parks, and provide recreation.
Recommended Actions Related to Transit and Non-motorized Modes
•
•
•
•

Designate a County Transportation Coordinator and consider the establishment of a
Countywide regional ride-sharing program
Construct initial park-and-ride facilities for use by the car pools and van pools
Monitor number of citizens requesting dial-a-ride and/or transit service both
Countywide and in different areas of the County
Conduct follow-up studies to address the following:

Lima & Associates

Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 100

[ Feasibility and implementation of replacement for previous Greyhound service
along the US 60/US 70 Corridor
[ Expansion of Cobre Valley Transit dial-a-ride service and addition of deviated
fixed route service
[ Feasibility of future transit service between the Globe and Payson areas
[ Future update of the Payson Area Public Transit Study
• A study of excursion rail service on the Arizona Eastern Railway in the MiamiGlobe-San Carlos corridor is already programmed as an add-on to this project.
RAIL HIGHWAY CROSSINGS
As the population of the Globe-Miami area increases, the motor vehicle traffic on
roadways that cross the Arizona Eastern Railway will likely increase. At the same time,
increases in mining activity, the development of additional rail-served industries, and/or
the possible implementation of future passenger excursion service could increase the
number of daily train movements. These traffic increases should be monitored and
warrant studies conducted to upgrade the crossings by the addition of signals, gates, or
other devices as appropriate. As roadway segments are improved or widened, rebuilding
the surfaces of the crossings themselves should be programmed.
GILA COUNTY ACCESS MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
This section includes a definition of access management and a brief summary of the access
management policies adopted by Gila County.
Definition of Access Management
Access management is defined as the regulation of vehicular access to public roadways
from adjoining property. It is provided through legal, administrative, and technical
strategies available to a political jurisdiction under its police powers in order to maintain
the health, safety, and welfare of the jurisdiction's residents. It also regulates the level of
access control on roadways and is needed to help retain the capacity of public highways,
access to private land, and maintain public safety.
In general, property owners have a right of reasonable access to an adjacent roadway.
However, governments may restrict the use of private property to protect or advance the
public safety and general welfare to prevent public injury or where demanded by public
interest. Private rights of abutting landowners to access their property are generally
subservient to the rights of the public to free and safe use of the public street system.
Different types of roadways are administered by different entities, such as the State, a
municipality, or a county. The land use decisions made by the local jurisdiction a roadway
is passing through will influence the functionality of that particular roadway. An example
is the functionality of State Route 188, which is administered by ADOT. The functionality
Lima & Associates

Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 101

is very much dependent on the land use decisions made by the City of Globe as well as
existing and future communities and developments that abut the highway through the Tonto
Basin area and north to its junction with SR 87. ADOT is preparing statewide access
management guidelines to address issues on State Highways.
All agencies and jurisdictions responsible for transportation systems and land use planning
should adopt formal access management guidelines. These may be published as a separate
document, contained in zoning codes, established in roadway planning and development
procedures, or in some combination. The implementation of the guidelines or regulations
should be a shared responsibility of both the planning and engineering departments. The
regulations should be approved by the jurisdiction's elected body and be readily available
for use by developers, real estate agents, and the general public.
Gila County Practice
The Consultant reviewed the provisions relating to access management contained in the
Gila County Roadway Design Standards Manual. The Manual includes specific standards
relating to the following:
•
•
•
•
•

Median types and spacing
Access control by functional classification
Driveway types
Location and spacing of driveways
Driveway design

In each of these categories, the adopted standards are consistent with those employed by
peer jurisdictions as well as those recommended by the consultant for adoption by
jurisdictions without existing access management policies.
Current Driveway Spacing Practice
The minimum amount of spacing allowed by the County between adjacent driveways,
depending upon the land use and street type, are listed in Table 4-2.
According to the Gila County Roadway Design Standards Manual, a new driveway or a
driveway with changed access will not be allowed under the following conditions:
•
•
•
•

Within 10 feet of any commercial property line, except when it is a joint-use
driveway serving two abutting commercial properties and access agreements have
been exchanged and recorded by the two abutting property owners.
Within 25 feet of a guardrail ending.
Within 100 feet of a bridge or other structure, except canal service roads.
Within the minimum spacing as established in Table 5-8

Lima & Associates

Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 102

TABLE 4-2. MINIMUM DRIVEWAY SPACING
Driveway
Type*
S-1

Min. Spacing
(ft)
50**

M-1
M-2

165
330

Minor Collector/Local
Major Collector/Minor Arterial
Major Arterial

CL-1
CH-1
CH-1
CH-2, CH-3

165
330
660
1320

Minor Collector/Local
Major Collector/Minor Arterial
Major Arterial

CL
CH-1
CH-1
CH-2, CH-3
CH-2, CH-3

165
330
660
1320
1320

Land Use
Single Family

Street Type
All

Multi-family

All

Commercial

Commercial

Parkway/Expressway

Source: Gila County Roadway Design Standards Manual
*Refers to driveway designs depicted on pages 48 through 52 of the Manual
**Spacing required for more than one driveway per parcel only

•

When adequate sight distance cannot be provided for vehicles on the driveway
attempting to access the street, since those movements will be prohibited.

•

When the nearest edge of any driveway flare or radius must be at least 2 feet from
the nearest projection of a fire hydrant, utility pole, drop inlet and/or
appurtenances, traffic signal, or light standards.
For parking or loading areas that require backing maneuvers in a public right-ofway, except for single-family or duplex residential uses on local roads.

•

The Manual further provides
If a property has frontage on more than one street, access will be permitted only on
those street frontages where standards contained in this manual and other County
Regulations can be met.
If a property cannot be served by any access point meeting these standards, the
County may designate one or more access point(s) based on traffic safety,
operational needs, and conformance to as many of the requirements of these
guidelines as possible. This does not constitute a guarantee by the City to provide
access to a property.
Variances for residential developments may be made by the Gila County
Engineering Department where the application of these standards would create an
undue hardship to the abutting property owners and good traffic engineering
practice can be maintained. Variances for commercial and industrial development
must be made by the Gila County Board of Supervisors.
Lima & Associates

Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 103

Recommended Access Management Practice
In many peer jurisdictions, the speed and functional classification of the roadway, as well
as the abutting land use, are taken into consideration. Table 4-3 presents some basic
guidelines for spacing of access points from roadways to abutting properties depending
upon the functional classification and design speed of the roadway. Note that the proposed
standards for Rural Very Low Volume Roads provide for future increases in traffic volume
and the consequent reclassification of the roadway.
TABLE 4-3. SUGGESTED MINIMUM ACCESS SPACING
BASED ON ROADWAY SPEED AND FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION

Speed
35-45 mph
50-60 mph
60+ mph

Public
Road
Spacing
660 feet
0.25 mile
0.50 mile

Private
Private
Direct
Access
Access
Spacing
Allowed 250 feet min.
Limited 450 feet min.
Limited 660 to 1,320
feet min.*

Private
Access
Geometrics
Right turns
allowed, turn
lanes may be
required.

Rural
Arterial

35-45 mph
50-60 mph
60+ mph

660 feet
0.25 mile
0.50 mile

Allowed 330 feet min.
Limited 450 feet min.
Limited 660 feet min.

Right turns
allowed, turn
lanes may be
required.

Rural
Collector

35-45 mph

660 feet

Allowed

Right turns
allowed, turn
lanes may be
required.

Rural
Local

25-35 mph

660 feet

Allowed 50 feet min.**

Right turns
allowed.

Rural
Very
Low
Volume

25-35 mph
35-45 mph

660 feet
660 feet

Allowed 50 feet min.**
Allowed 150 feet min.

Right turns
allowed.

Roadway
Category
Rural
Major
Arterial

165 feet min.

Private Access
Remarks
One access per
parcel, two large
development when
spacing standards can
be met.
One access per
parcel, two large
development when
spacing standards can
be met.
One access per
parcel, two for large
development when
spacing standards can
be met.
One per parcel

One per parcel

Source: Lima & Associates, Inc., adapted from Nevada Draft Access Management System and Standards
*660 ft. for CH-1 driveways; 1,320 ft. for CH-2 and CH-3 driveways
**Spacing required for more than one driveway per parcel only

As population increases and additional development abutting County roadways occurs, the
County should continue to enforce access management policies as part of the permitting
process.

Lima & Associates

Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 104

5. BEST PRACTICES IN RURAL TRANSPORTATION
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this chapter is to present selected transportation practices that Gila County
may want to consider for improving the planning and programming of transportation
options. These practices include the following:
•
•
•
•
•
•

Analysis of Low Volume Dirt Roads
Performance Measures for Rural Transportation Systems
Analysis of Highway-Rail Grade Crossings
Activity Based Budgeting
New Paradigms for Rural and Small Urban transit Service Delivery
Rural Transit ITS

ANALYSIS OF LOW VOLUME DIRT ROADS
Gila County maintains approximately 124 miles of unpaved roads. As the County
population increases, keeping a concise inventory of unpaved roadway segments and
prioritizing paving of these segments in order to handle increased traffic volumes or
control dust will become critical. The following describes a methodology to inventory data
for unpaved roads and prioritize paving projects.
Maricopa County Department of Transportation (MCDOT) has initiated a program to pave
low volume unpaved roads throughout the entire county. The county has a current paving
program focused on roadways within the PM10 non-attainment area to help control dust
within the metropolitan parts of the county. The Transportation Advisory Board (TAB)
recommended an annual program of $3 million, which, based on past experience, would
allow for paving between seven and eight miles of roadway per year. The County initiated
a study to provide a comprehensive GIS inventory of unpaved roadways and to use adopted
evaluation criteria for selecting future paving projects. The results of the study are
documented in the Final Candidate Assessment Report: Identification and Analysis of Low
Volume Dirt Roads, completed in 2005 for MCDOT by Lima & Associates. The required
work included developing a set of detailed maps of the county unpaved road system and a
complete listing of the entire roadway inventory with detail on all evaluation criteria. The
key components of the methodology to analyze dirt roads include:
Unpaved Roads Map Atlas - Detailed maps covering the entire county were developed
from existing data sources based on recorded surface type with additional unpaved roads
added from aerial photography. The maps can be used to understand, for any given area,
how many and what type of unpaved roads are present.
Low Volume Unpaved Roads Evaluation Matrix – The MCDOT Transportation Advisory
Board adopted a specific set of evaluation criteria, including:
Lima & Associates

Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 105

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

What Supervisor District the segment is located in.
Length of the roadway segment (miles).
If the road segment is located inside or outside the PM10 area.
If the road segment is County maintained or not.
The Major Streets and Routes Plan classification.
Average Daily Traffic (ADT) count.
If the road segment connects to an existing paved road.
The percent of Right-of-Way that exists.
If the segment serves a public facility.
If there are any safety concerns (high accident rate for instance).
The cost per mile.
The total project cost

Low Volume Unpaved Roads Data – A report on the data includes all of the adopted
evaluation criteria and additional data items to provide MCDOT even more detailed
information on each roadway segment. This information can help in sorting and
prioritizing roads for paving projects. Table 4-1 lists an inventory for a sample of dirt
roads along with priority for paving.
PERFORMANCE MEASURES FOR RURAL TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS
Performance measures can be used to evaluate the performance of the Gila County
transportation system. A guidebook is under development by the California Department of
Transportation for measuring, assessing, and improving the performance of a rural
transportation system. The development of the guidebook was described in a presentation
made to the California Association for Coordinated Transportation Conference, held
October 6, 2005. The guidebook is scheduled for completion by the end of May 2006.
Performance measures that have been identified include:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Mobility/Reliability/Accessibility
Productivity
System Preservation
Environmental Quality
Coordinated Transportation and Land Use
Economic Development
Equity
Return on Investment
Customer Satisfaction
Transit Cost Effectiveness
Provide Alternative Modes of Transportation

Lima & Associates

Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 106

TABLE 5-1. SAMPLE LOW VOLUME UNPAVED ROADS EVALUATION MATRIX

Source: Maricopa County Department of Transportation, Final Candidate Assessment Report: Identification and Analysis of Low Volume Dirt
Roads, Lima & Associates, 2005.

Lima & Associates

Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 107

Rural counties in California have been categorized by population, population growth rate,
and ratio of peak month to average annual daily traffic. The guidebook with identify
performance data, develop definitions, and describe data collection procedures.
ANALYSIS OF HIGHWAY-RAIL GRADE CROSSINGS
One tool for Gila County to use in evaluating the impact of at-grade railroad crossings
along the Arizona Eastern Railway is the Federal Rail Administration (FRA)
GradeDEC.NET highway-rail grade crossing investment analysis tool. This tool was
developed to provide grade crossing investment decision support. GradeDEC.NET is a
web-based application that has been available to the public since 2003
(http://gradedec.fra.dot.gov/). The application provides a full set of standard benefit/cost
metrics for a rail corridor, a region, or an individual grade crossing. The model output
allows a comparative analysis of grade crossing alternatives that are designed to mitigate
highway-rail grade crossing accident risk and other components of user costs including
highway delay and queuing, air quality, and vehicle operating costs. The application
calculates the economic rate of return by comparing the streams of expected economic
benefits over time with the streams of investment, operation and maintenance, and other
life-cycle costs. The model discounts later year benefits and costs to reflect the
opportunity cost of capital. This process of discounting converts all values to present value
equivalents, thus enabling the comparison of benefits and cost realized in different time
periods.
GradeDec.NET is a stand-alone software package that enables the analysis of impacts from
grade crossing improvements and supports resource allocation and investment decisions.
The application evaluates the benefit cost of grade crossing improvements while explicitly
reporting the results for each grade crossing and each benefits category including safety,
time savings, vehicle operating costs, reduced emissions, network benefits, and local
benefits. GradeDec.NET’s analysis of grade crossing improvements can be performed
both at the individual grade crossing and at the corridor or regional level within separate
modules in the application. The corridor analysis module evaluates crossing improvements
along a single rail alignment and accounts for impacts on the adjacent highway network
and shifts by motorists to routes with improved crossings. The module for regional
analysis evaluates crossing improvements in a region regardless of the crossings being
located on single or multiple rail alignments. Outputs of the model include result metrics
for the individual grade crossings and for the corridor or region as a whole.
ACTIVITY BASED BUDGETING
The Roads Division of Clackamas County, Oregon uses a “Road Fund Activity-Based
Budget” to allocate limited revenues to road maintenance activities. Instead of traditional
line item budgeting, the Division created a system for prioritizing work activities by
identifying value added activities balanced against rising service demand and declining

Lima & Associates

Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 108

resources. This system focuses on required activities, expected service level or outcomes,
and coordination of resources to budget $31 million worth of services. The purpose of
creating the “Road Fund Activity Based Budget” was to increase the accountability,
effectiveness, and credibility of the budget process. To achieve this goal, Clackamas
County worked to develop and implement a budget process using existing resources. The
County involved all staff levels, ranging from department managers to field employees, in
creating benchmarks for each activity.
Activity Documentation
The “Road Fund Activity Based Budget” details each activity performed within the road
fund and resources required to produce expected results. The budget process details all
activities required to maintain service levels in the Clackamas County Road Fund Strategic
Plan. The budget is structured with descriptions of each activity. Activity documentation
with expected outcomes provides managers a tool for adjusting expenditures to achieve the
greatest value from varied revenue scenarios. The elements used to describe an activity are
the following:
•

Description of Activity: A description of each activity is developed providing
general overview information regarding the activity or process.

•

Regulatory Requirements: A description of any mandate or agency regulation
required by the activity.

•

Benefits of Maintaining Present Level of Service: The benefits of continuing to
fund a specific activity at the current level-of-service.

•

Consequences of Reduction in Activity: Description of the consequences by
reducing funding for a specific activity.

•

Expected Outcomes: Description of the product achieved, as a result of funding this
activity.

•

Expenditures/Revenue at Present Level of Activity: A detail of all resources and
materials required to fund the activity. Any revenue generated by completing this
activity is documented.

Responsiveness to Public
One of the County’s main goals of creating a new budget process was to more effectively
communicate to voters, legislators, and policy makers expected specific budget outcomes.
The “Activity Based” budget process has become an effective communication tool to show
citizens, as well as their own staff, why funds are allocated to certain areas and not
allocated to others. The activity based budget helped identify and reduce competition for
available dollars between divisions within the Transportation Department.

Lima & Associates

Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 109

Success of Program
Clackamas County considers the “Road Fund Activity-Based Budget” a very successful
program, praised alike by managers, policy makers, county commissioners, citizens, and
County employees. Clackamas County describes the success of the program by the
following measures:
Effective Communication Tool - The Road Fund Activity-Based Budget has been used
successfully in public meetings to communicate the Road Fund output goals. It has become
a document that can be used to inform the public and policy makers what level-of-service
can be provided under varied funding scenarios.
Reduced Interdepartmental Competition for Funds - The Activity Based Budget process
has identified activities that have traditionally over allocated resources and increased fund
variances. Large complex activities require the involvement of numerous functional units
within County government. This created situations where one functional area did not know
what the other was doing.
Increased Accountability and Stewardship of Resources by all Stakeholders – The
documentation of detailed clear descriptions of expenditures and outcomes for each activity
has established performance benchmarks for each activity. Employees involved with each
activity have been consulted and informed of the budget restraints and expected outcomes.
Increased Accuracy of Budget Projections - Fund variance and overall accuracy of the
budget has improved from prior years.
More Efficient Process which increases Staff Efficiency - The activity-based budget
process has achieved a 20 percent reduction in staff time required to complete the annual
budget process.
NEW PARADIGMS FOR RURAL AND SMALL URBAN TRANSIT SERVICE
DELIVERY
The Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) Report 99 Embracing Change in a
Changing World, published in 2004 documents four case studies of transit systems that
have adapted to the changing and growing rural areas. Rural transit operators need to
adapt transit service strategies to deliver effective service. Development is pushing farther
into rural areas and businesses are moving to the urban fringes. The four case studies that
were documented are: 1) Advance Transit serving communities in New Hampshire and
Vermont; 2) COAST providing transit service in Colfax, Washington; 3) Hill County
Transit District (HCTD) providing transportation in nine counties of central Texas; and 4)
Capital Area Rural Transportation System (CARTS) providing transportation services for a
nine-county area surrounding Austin, Texas. The new paradigms reflected by these
systems are:

Lima & Associates

Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 110

•

Serving as Community Agents of Change by understanding changes in the
community and adapting to these changes through active involvement with the
community.

•

Optimizing Rural Resources by stretching resources, sharing costs, and contracting
using innovative approaches to providing more service.

•

Adopting Technology by implementing intelligent transportation systems (ITS) for
rural areas to benefit the transit system operations and users.

•

Acting as Entrepreneurs by operating as businesses seeking to provide services to
both the private and public sectors reducing reliance on governmental funding.

•

Providing Effective Service by attracting ridership, bringing in significant revenue,
and enhancing quality of life.

•

Maintaining Multiple Functions and Fiscal Diversity by doing more such as selling
advertising, maintain other organization’s vehicles, operating maintenance services.

RURAL TRANSIT ITS
Best practices in rural ITS were documented in the US DOT Final Report, Rural Transit
ITS Best Practices, March 2003. The following information is cited in the final report.
Project objectives were to:
•

Identify rural transit operators that exhibit best practices for ITS User Services in
operating their transit systems using ITS technology;

•

Target case study sites to cover a range of rural transit services using ITS
technology including, to the extent possible, fixed route, flexible routes and
paratransit services;

•

Report functional and limited technical information on the technologies and
applications that the case study sites have applied to their rural transit services;

•

Report on the lessons learned by the case study participants; and

•

Summarize overall considerations for the application of ITS to rural transit learned
from the case studies.

The report documented the following case studies:
River Valley Transit: Located in Williamsport, Pennsylvania, the agency provides realtime customer information at its transit center. River Valley Transit installed automatic
vehicle location (AVL) and mobile data terminals (MDT) on its fixed-route buses to
provide real-time, in-terminal customer information. The technology allows the agency to
inform customers both visually and audibly as to which of the 10 loading bays buses will
arrive at and depart from. It also gives customers a 20-second notification before buses
Lima & Associates

Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 111

depart on their next trip. The system even notifies drivers when they have pulled into the
wrong bus bay. River Valley Transit is looking at ways to extend the utility of the system
and has investigated other ITS technologies.
Florida Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged (CTD): Through the CTD,
a number of primarily rural counties have created low-cost ITS applications using seed
funding from the FTA. The deployments are part of a statewide Rural ITS initiative. The
project has been implemented in two phases. In addition to information from the CTD, the
case study also includes information gathered during site visits at two of the Phase I
counties (St. Johns and Putnam), and one of the Phase II counties (Marion). Marion and
St. Johns counties have been using a demand-response software suite developed by
RouteLogic. The software has a range of modules including vehicle scheduling, staff
scheduling, trip scheduling, call-intake, and payroll. As of February 2002, the system had
been in place for over a year in these two counties. It has turned the operation in St. Johns
County from a struggling service to a thriving, cost-effective one. Putnam County, by
contrast, has opted to use a proprietary software system it had developed and integrated
with AVL. The RouteLogic application is being used as the model to improve the
operations and management of other rural transit operators in the state.
Capital Area Rural Transit System (CARTS): Providing rural transit service in a large
area outside of Austin, Texas, CARTS is a partner in the Lower Colorado River
Authority's (LCRA) communications system. The system provides CARTS with voice
channels on LCRA's 900MHz radio system, which replaced the patchwork of unreliable
radio links CARTS used previously. This new communication system has allowed CARTS
to reorganize and more efficiently provide its paratransit service. CARTS's agreement
with LCRA was negotiated to provide enough communication capacity in the future so that
CARTS could add AVL/MDT or other ITS technologies. The agency has started work on
deploying AVL/MDT technology.
Ottumwa Transit Authority (OTA): OTA is responsible for providing bus service in
Ottumwa, Iowa and the surrounding 10-county area covering 5,000 square miles. After
attempting to share resources with nearby Linn County, OTA installed a four-tower, 150
MHz radio system to provide communications for its AVL/MDT system throughout its
large service area. At the time of the site visit, the package had been in place for about 18
months. One unique feature of OTA's system is a form-based MDT log-on/pre-trip
procedure that requires drivers to transmit information to central dispatch regarding the
mechanical condition of a vehicle. This feature is especially useful for the approximately
40 vehicles that are garaged at drivers' homes, some of which are over 50 miles away
from OTA headquarters. The OTA uses the pre-trip information to determine if
maintenance should be scheduled at the agency's central garage or could be repaired by
one of its subcontracted, out-of-county mechanics.
New Mexico Statewide Rural Internet-Based Ridership and Financial Tracking
System: Led by the Alliance for Transportation Research Institute (ATRI), this project is
an interagency effort that includes the New Mexico Human Services Department Income

Lima & Associates

Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 112

Support Division and rural transit service providers. The project was chosen because it is
a statewide, multifunctional, Web-based application that has a number of unique features.
The project is being deployed in three parts. During part one, ATRI developed a Webbased software program to authorize and schedule trips, track riders, bill trips, and
generate reports. The Web-based application is designed to save costs of and the time
required to install, troubleshoot, and upgrade the software by having a single application
reside on a Web server that is accessible to users over the Internet. Part two involves
establishing the Internet connections between the central server and the rural agencies so
they can report trips and expenditures to a central server. This phase was completed in
October 2002. Part three of the project currently is procuring a multipurpose electronic
fare card system and card readers for transit vehicles and integrating them with the
software system. The system will use the state's electronic benefits transfer (EBT) card to
track transportation benefits for clients. General public riders will also be able to buy
disposable, magnetic stripe passes that can be used on transit vehicles.

Lima & Associates

Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 113

6. RECOMMENDATIONS AND IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES
This chapter presents findings and recommendations, together with implementation
strategies. Funding sources that may be applicable for the recommended projects are
summarized.
RECOMMENDATION AND STRATEGY
Working with the TAC and the County Project Manager, the consultant team developed
cost estimates for both the 17 proposed Phase I and the 17 proposed Phase II transportation
projects presented in the previous chapter.
Phase I projects are recommended for completion during the short-term (2006 – 2010) time
frame. In addition, CAAG has seven projects programmed for the same time frame,
which are listed in Table 6-1, but not shown in Figure 5. The estimated costs of the 17
Phase II projects recommended for completion during the long-term (2011 – 2030) time
frame are presented in Table 6-2.
The consultant recommends that the County program the projects for implementation
following the action plan outlined in Table 6-3, provided that sufficient funding can be
identified. Included in the following section are funding sources and revenue estimates.
The following section also includes a cash flow analysis that projects a shortfall between
the monies needed to complete the projects and the funds projected to be available during
the time frame of each Phase.
FUNDING AND REVENUE ESTIMATES
This section summarizes multimodal revenue sources and estimates that are applicable to
Gila County, together with financial constraints and opportunities pertaining to needed
roadway improvements. A number of funding mechanisms exist that could be used to fund
multimodal improvements for Gila County. These include federal, state, regional, and
local sources, as shown in Table 6-4. Additional information is provided in Appendix A.
Likely sources of funding include
•
•
•
•
•

Surface Transportation Program (STP) funds
Highway User Revenue Fund (HURF)
Local Transportation Assistance Fund (LTAF I and LTAF II)
Gila County Half-Cent Transportation Tax
Potential Sources of Additional Funding

A summary of each source follows.

Lima & Associates

Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 114

TABLE 6-1. TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PLAN PROJECT LIST - PHASE I
Project Name
Location
Work Type
Adonis Avenue
Miami
McLane Road Phase IV*
Payson
Fossil Creek Road - Phase II* Gila County –Globe area
S. St. Philips
Payson
Ice House Canyon Road
Gila Co. - Globe area
Broadway/Old Oak Road
Gila Co. - Globe area
E. Bonita Street - Phase I
Payson
Bradshaw/SR 87
Pine
Deceleration and turn lanes*
Cline Boulevard
A Cross - Greenback Valley
Paving / Geometry
Control Road Tonto Village
Tonto Village
Reconstruct intersection
Copper Hills Road
Connect to US 60
Provide Connection
Copper Spike Rail Study
Miami - Apache Gold
Study Permanent Service
Fairground Road
Globe
reconstruct entrance, WMS
Gisela Road
SR 87 - Gisela
Improve Alignment and Geometry
Greenback Valley Road
Cline Blvd. - SR 188
Paving / Geometry
Houston Mesa Road
Mesa de Caballos
Improve Geometry
Miami Dial-a-Ride Study
Superior - Globe
Study Service Expansion*
Pine Creek Canyon Road
Pine
Widen and reconstruct roadway
Rail - Roadway Crossings
Claypool
Repair or Rebuild
Regional Bus Service Study
US 60 - US - 70 corridor
Study Greyhound Replacement*
San Carlos Airport Study
Cutter Airport
Study facility upgrade
SR 260
Star Valley
Deceleration and turn lanes*
Tonto Creek Bridge I
TBD - Tonto Creek
Select Site and design Bridge
Young - Heber Road
Young - SR 260
Reconstruct and Pave
Total Phase I Projects
*ADOT has ultimate responsibility for projects involving State Highways.

Lima & Associates

Comments
Included in CAAG 2006 TIP
Included in CAAG 2006 TIP
Included in CAAG 2007 TIP
Included in CAAG 2007 TIP
Included in CAAG 2008 TIP
Included in CAAG 2010 TIP
Included in CAAG 2010 TIP

Estimated
Cost
$255,000
$500,000
$500,000
$400,000
$500,000
$500,000
$268,000
$135,000
$1,532,000
$400,000
$2,000,000
$26,160
$500,000.
$1,150,000
$624,000
200,000
$87,600
Not Available
$750,000
$86,640
$95,760
$135,000
$3,400,000
$12,000,000
$23,100,160

Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 115

TABLE 6-2. TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PLAN PROJECT LIST - PHASE II
Project Name
Location
Work Type
A Cross Road
SR 188 - SR 288
Reconstruct and Pave
Arizona Trail
Gila County Passages
Signing / Improvements
Control Road - East
Houston Mesa - SR 260
Paving / Geometry
Control Road - West
SR 87 - Houston Mesa
Reconstruct and Pave
East Verde Estates Road
Low Water Crossing
Construct Bridge
Globe - Miami Trail system
Globe - Miami area
Signing / Improvements
Highline Trail
N. of Control Road
Improve
Houston Mesa Road
Low Water Crossings
Construct Two Bridges
Kellner Canyon Road
S. of Globe
Paving / Geometry
Pinal Creek Corridor
SE Globe area
Design and Construct Roadway
Russell Gulch Road
S. of Globe
Paving / Geometry
SR 288
Jct. SR 188 - Young
Complete Paving*
Tonto Creek Bridge II
TBD - Tonto Creek
Construct Bridge
Bradshaw/SR 87
Pine
Deceleration and turn lanes*
Payson Transit Study Update
Payson
Update Study of local system
SR 87 - SR 260 Truck Loop
Payson area
Design and Construct Roadway*
Total Phase II Projects
*ADOT has ultimate responsibility for projects involving State Highways.

Lima & Associates

Comments

Estimated Cost
$18,430,000
$575,000
$4,932,000
$16,940,400
$540,000
$100,000
$255,000
$1,080,000
$288,000
$5,300,000
$1,488,000
$13,320,000
$18,300,000
$135,000
$100,000
$30,000,000
$111,783,400

Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 116

TABLE 6-3. IMPLEMENTATION ACTION PLAN
Implementation Strategy
Adopt the Gila County Small Area Transportation
Plan and Transit Element

Responsible Entities
County Board of Supervisors

Program the recommended Phase I and Phase II
transportation improvements into the Capital
Program

County Public Works Department

Establish a process to coordinate County land use
and transportation decisions on a regular basis

County Public Works and Community
Development Departments

Designate a Transportation Coordinator

County Board of Supervisors

Conduct a Regional Bus Service Study

County Public Works Department,
CAAG, ADOT

Conduct a San Carlos Airport Upgrade Study

County Public Works, CAAG, San
Carlos Apache Tribe, ADOT

Coordinate with the Town of Miami, the City of
Globe, and the Town of Payson on local transit
studies

County Public Works Department

Conduct a Miami-Globe-San Carlos excursion
passenger rail feasibility study

ADOT, County Public Works
Department

Initiate a County Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan

County Board of Supervisors

Implement the street functional classifications and
roadway design guidelines for new development

County Public Works Department

Ensure that County access management policies are
adhered to by new developments

County Planning and Zoning and
Public Works Departments

Coordinate with ADOT and CAAG on a regular
basis on multimodal transportation improvements

County Public Works Department

Establish a process to coordinate transit services
with private and public agencies

County Public Works Department,
CAAG, ADOT

Monitor and update plan Transportation Plan and
Transit Element

County Public Works Department,
CAAG, ADOT

Lima & Associates

Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 117

TABLE 6-4. MATRIX OF FUNDING SOURCES
Fund Name
Federal
STP

Description

Eligible Uses

Application Process

Sample Project

Federal funds, administered
by FHWA and ADOT

Variety of capital projects
including highways, bridges,
transit and enhancement projects
Used for bridge replacement or
rehabilitation for eligible bridges
located on public roads
Local jurisdictions and private
non-profit agencies
Used for rural transit services
and communities of less than
50,000 population including
Tribal communities
Correct safety problems on
roadways classified as rural
major collectors, rural minor
collectors and rural local roads
sidewalk, traffic calming and
speed reduction improvements,
pedestrian and bicycle crossing
improvements, traffic diversion
improvements near schools

Programmed and distributed
through CAAG and ADOT
District
Programmed through ADOT

Fairgrounds entrance,
highway-rail crossings

Programmed through ADOT
Public Transportation Division
Programmed through ADOT
Public Transportation Division

Mini-bus for Senior
Center
Dial-A-Ride Services

Programmed through ADOT

Correct safety problems
on rural roads

Programmed through ADOT

Traffic calming
improvement in school
zone

Nearly any capital project related
to roadway improvements

Funds allocated to jurisdiction
as proportion of population

Improvements to County
Road

General transportation
improvements
Used as local matching funds for
FTA transit funds

Funds allocated to jurisdiction
as proportion of population
Funds allocated to jurisdiction
as proportion of population

Extension of County
Road
Match 5311 funds for
provision of dial-a-ride
service

Bridge Replacement
and Rehabilitation

Federal funds, administered
by FHWA and ADOT

FTA Section 5310
funds
FTA Section 5311
funds

Federal funds administered
by ADOT
Federal funds administered
by ADOT

High Risk Rural
Roads

Federal funds, administered
by FHWA and ADOT

Safe Routes to
School Program

Federal funds, administered
by FHWA and ADOT

State
HURF
LTAF
LTAF II

Lima & Associates

State funds, derived from
fuel tax and VLT,
administered by ADOT
State funds derived from
lottery sales
State funds derived from
PowerBall lottery sales

Gila County Small Area Transportation Study- Page 118

TABLE 6-4. MATRIX OF FUNDING SOURCES (Continued)
Fund Name
County
Gila County
Transportation Tax
Impact Fees*
Development
Stipulations*

Description

Eligible Uses

Application Process

Sample Project

½ cent sales tax dedicated
to road improvements
within Gila County
Fee imposed by local
jurisdiction on development
on per unit basis
Requirements that
developers dedicate
appropriate ROW and build
streets adjacent to project

General transportation
improvements

Funds allocated to jurisdiction
by proportion of population

Gila County Roads

Used to fund a variety of
infrastructure needs including
transportation
Benefits are derived by offsetting
cost of acquiring ROW and
building infrastructure

Locally administered

Gila County Roads

Locally administered

ROW dedication
adjacent to new Tonto
Basin developments

*If Enacted

Lima & Associates

Gila County Small Area Transportation Study- Page 119

Federal Funds
The Federal government funds a variety of transportation programs, most applicable to the
County would be the Surface Transportation Program (STP) funds. Arizona receives
about $152 million in STP funds per year. These funds can be used on state highways or
for bridge rehabilitation, transportation enhancements, and safety projects. The County
would work through ADOT and CAAG to utilize STP funds.
Arizona State Shared Revenue
Highway User Revenue Fund (HURF)
One of the main sources of State transportation funds are derived from the Highway User
Revenue Fund. These funds are comprised of gasoline taxes, use fuel tax, motor carrier
fees, vehicle license taxes, and other registration fees. The estimated revenue for HURF
in 2006 is over $1.2 billion dollars. HURF funds are allocated through ADOT and
distributed as an entitlement to cities, towns, and counties based on population. Gila
County received $3,923,590 of HURF funds in 2005. Table 6-5 lists the funds received
by the County and local jurisdictions from Fiscal Year 2001 through Fiscal Year 2005. As
the population of the County increases, the proportion of HURF funds for the County are
expected to increase as well.
Local Transportation Assistance Fund (LTAF I and LTAF II)
Other State funding programs include LTAF I, which is funded by Arizona Lottery
receipts other than PowerBall, and LTAF II, which is funded by PowerBall receipts.
These funds are also distributed based on population. Larger cities, those over 300,000,
must use LTAF I revenue for public transit; smaller communities can use the funds for
other transportation projects. LTAF II monies must be used for transit by nearly all
jurisdictions. The State also administers Federal transit funding within the Section 5311
and 5310 programs. These programs provide for small urban and rural transit services as
well as special needs transit services.
Gila County Half-Cent Transportation Tax
Gila County has an existing transportation tax, the revenue from which is used for road
construction, improvement, and preservation throughout the County. The revenue
generated by this tax for the last five fiscal years is shown in Table 6-6.
Potential Sources of Additional Funding
In Gila County, the half-cent tax described above generates revenue for the County only.
However, in Maricopa and Pinal Counties, the County half-cent transportation taxes are
Lima & Associates

Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 120

TABLE 6-5. ARIZONA HIGHWAY USER REVENUE FUND DISTRIBUTIONS TO
GILA COUNTY AND LOCAL JURISDICTIONS, FY 2001 - 2005
Distributions
Jurisdiction
FY 2001
FY 2002
FY 2003
FY 2004
Total Counties in State
$192,222,098 $194,432,532 $200,465,084 $214,601,120
Gila County
$3,248,195
$3,177,018
$3,202,973
$3,629,075
City of Globe
$775,522
$706,297
$702,573
$834,605
Town of Hayden
$99,675
$84,039
$83,626
$99,384
Town of Miami
$222,188
$182,611
$181,828
$216,082
Town of Payson
$1,228,322
$1,287,910
$1,279,669
$1,517,334
Town of Winkelman
$71,834
$41,139
$41,304
$49,175
Source: Arizona Department of Transportation, Financial Management Services, May 17, 2006

FY 2005
$226,464,153
$3,923,590
$912,020
$108,740
$236,408
$1,659,435
$53,794

TABLE 6-6. GILA COUNTY HALF-CENT TRANSPORTATION TAX REVENUE
Fiscal Year
FY 2002
FY 2003
FY 2004
FY 2005
FY 2006*

Revenue
$2,684,235.24
$2,634,919.85
$2,717,227.54
$2,755,933.64
$2,243,565.73

Source: Office of the Arizona Treasurer, May 16, 2006
*Ten months ended April 30, 2006

structured so that local jurisdictions within the counties receive distributions that can be
used as local matching funds for transportation projects. When the tax is next up for
renewal by the voters, the County may want to work with the local jurisdictions to develop
an approach similar to that used in Maricopa and Pinal Counties. Alternatively, additional
local taxes could be enacted to provide monies for Area Road Funds in the Globe-Miami
and Payson urban areas.
Impact Fees, Right-of-Way, Facilities In-Lieu
Traffic impact fees, development impact fees, dedication of right-of-way, and/or
construction of facilities in-lieu are additional local funding sources. As areas of Gila
County with available deeded land develop, the improvement of County roads to and
within these areas may require additional rights-of-way. In order to acquire additional
rights-of-way in these areas, private developers should be required to incorporate potential
rights-of-way into their plans. In addition, right-of-way exactions from developers should
be sought through the coordination with planning and zoning authorities in local
jurisdictions as areas are annexed or incorporated.
Lima & Associates

Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 121

Cash Flow Analysis
The consultant conducted a cash flow analysis comparing the estimated costs of the
projects in Phases I and II with the funds likely to be available from the various sources
during the time-frames of the phases. Table 6-7 presents the result for Phase I and Table
6-8 presents the result for Phase II. As mentioned in the previous chapter, a shortfall
between the funds needed for the projects, together with on-going maintenance, and the
funds available exists in both phases.
Methodology
The cost of each of the projects was estimated by the consultant team, with input from the
County Project Manager, based on the known costs of similar projects. Where available,
dollar amounts from existing reports were used (e.g. the Pinal Creek Parkway).
Revenues were forecasted as follows:
•

HURF: Arizona’s share of the HURF appears to increase at a little over one
percent annually, and Gila County’s share of the Arizona HURF is approximately
1.67 percent. However, since 2006 dollars were used to estimate the project costs,
a constant 2006 level HURF revenue figure of $3.9 million was used for
consistency. The Phase I figure represents five years of revenue and the Phase II
figure represents 20 years of revenue. In the cash flow analysis, monies received
by the City of Globe and the Town of Payson were not used. However, these are
significant amounts and are likely applied to segments of projects located within
these jurisdictions.

•

Gila County ½ Cent Transportation Tax: The County ½ Transportation Tax
also increases at the rate of approximately one percent per year. However, for the
sake of consistency with the project cost numbers, a constant 2006 level sales tax
revenue figure of $2.8 million was used. Five years and 20 years of revenue were
assumed for Phases I and II respectively.

•

STP: Transportation Enhancement Funds are shown for the Fairgrounds Road and
Section 130 funds are shown for the highway-rail crossings in Phase I. When
analyzing cash flow, it was not possible to estimate with certainty the amount of
FLEX funds that could be counted on annually, hence FLEX funds were not
counted. If Gila County’s average share of these funds equals 1.67 percent of the
State total, as is the case with the HURF funds, then the average annual revenue
from STP FLEX funds would be approximately $2 million.

•

The Tonto Creek Bridge was assumed to be funded by a separate Congressional
earmark.

•

The source of matching funds for the multimodal studies was not specified,
although an 80-20 match ratio was assumed.

Lima & Associates

Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 122

•

Future levels of LTAF funds are difficult to predict. Hence, LTAF funds were not
considered.

•

The Maintenance Estimate was derived from the County’s Road Maintenance and
Repair Budget. Gila County’s budget for this section also appears to be increasing
at the rate of approximately one percent per year. In this instance, the one percent
factor was applied. As projects in the Phases are completed, a greater percentage
of the roadway miles for which the County is responsible will be paved, and paved
roadways cost more per mile to maintain than unpaved ones.

The dollar amounts shown in Tables 6-7 and 6-8 are preliminary amounts for internal
discussion only and are not intended to represent a definitive finding with regard to future
monies that might be available to implement the recommended Phases of the project.
Funding devices such as impact fees, the use of which could become common in the
future, were not considered. Other devices for funding or accelerating the completion of
projects such as bonding, the passage of specific initiatives by the voters, or the use of the
State Infrastructure Bank HELP funds were not considered. In reality, any or all of these
devices will likely be employed at the time that the projects are actually programmed.
Summary
If STP FLEX funds can be used for projects such as the reconstruction and paving of the
Young-Heber Road, then programming most or all of the projects recommended for Phase
I may be feasible. If, on the other hand, HURF monies themselves are the only source of
funds for the paving of SR 288 and the design and construction of the SR-87 – SR-260
truck loop in Phase II, then the shortfall for that Phase will be significantly higher.

Lima & Associates

Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 123

TABLE 6-7. CASH FLOW ANALYSIS – PHASE I
Projects and Roadway Maintenance Costs
Phase I Projects
Five-year Maintenance Estimate
Estimated Costs
Five Year Revenue Projection - 2006 - 2010
HURF
Gila 1/2 Cent Tax
Matching Funds/Other
Trans. Enhancement Funds - Fairground
Road
ADOT/FTA - Miami DAR Study
ADOT/FHWA Sec. 130 - Grade Crossings
ADOT/FTA - Regional Bus Service Study
ADOT/FAA - San Carlos Airport Study
ADOT match - Copper Spike Rail Study
Tonto Creek Bridge I - Earmark

$ 23,100,160
23,300,000
$

46,400,160

$

33,500,000

$
$
$

4,886,928
38,386,928
8,013,232

$ 19,500,000
14,000,000
$

500,000
70,080
750,000
69,312
76,608
20,928
3,400,000

Total Revenue Projections
Shortfall
Source: Lima & Associates, Inc.

TABLE 6-8. CASH FLOW ANALYSIS – PHASE II
Projects and Roadway Maintenance Costs
Phase II Projects
20-year Maintenance Estimate
Estimated Costs
Twenty Year Revenue Projection - 2011 - 2030
HURF
Gila 1/2 Cent Tax

$ 111,783,400
105,500,000
$ 217,283,400
$ 78,000,000
56,000,000
$ 134,000,000

Matching Funds/Other
ADOT - SR 288
Tonto Creek Bridge II
ADOT/FTA - Payson Transit Study Update
ADOT - SR 87 - SR 260 Truck Loop
Total Revenue Projections
Shortfall

$ 11,988,000
18,300,000
80,000
27,000,000
$ 57,368,000
$ 191,368,000
$ 25,915,400

Source: Lima & Associates, Inc.

Lima & Associates

Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 124

APPENDIX A. ESTIMATING TRANSIT DEMAND

ESTIMATING TRANSIT DEMAND
The TCRP estimations were developed based on specific population groups within the
hypothetical service area presented in Figure 4-5. These population groups are typically
referred to as transit dependent populations, and statistically are the most likely to use
transit if available. The groups include (as defined by the Census); person aged 65 or over,
persons aged 16 to 64 with mobility limitations, and persons aged 64 or under, residing in
households with incomes below the poverty level. Table A-1 shows the total 2030
forecasted populations for each group in the hypothetical service area.
TABLE A-1. 2030 POPULATION OF SERVICE GROUPS IN SERVICE AREA
2030 AG*
Population
18,212

Service Group
Persons aged 65 or over
Persons aged 16 to 64 with mobility limitations

12,018

Persons aged 64 or under, residing in households
with incomes below the poverty level

16,012

Source: Lima & Associates, Inc.
*Accelerated Growth Scenario

The TCRP workbook also requires estimations of vehicle miles per year, and subsequently
vehicle miles per square mile. These estimations are used to understand the level, or
amount of transit that will be available to a defined service area. Preliminary assumptions
for the number of trips per day, service days per year, and length of the transit routes were
also made. It was assumed that service would be provided twice daily between Globe and
Payson, and twice daily along the US60/US70 Corridor through Globe. One round trip
daily would be made connecting the Young area with the Globe-Payson line. These trips
would result in 632 vehicle miles per day. Assuming that service was provided six days
per week, or 312 service days per year, the annual vehicle miles for the hypothetical
system would be 197,184. Table A-2 shows the process used for calculating the vehicle
miles per square mile.
TABLE A-2. CALCULATION OF VEHICLE MILES PER SQUARE MILE
Calculations
Estimated vehicle miles per day =
Estimated service days per year =
Estimated vehicle miles per year =
Size of service area (square miles) =
vehicle miles / service area =
Vehicle miles per square mile =

Data
632
X 312
197,184
3,885
197,184 / 3,885
51

Source: Lima & Associates, Inc.

Lima & Associates

Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 126

The calculations from Table A-2, specifically the vehicle miles per square mile, are input
into a formula provided in the TCRP workbook to create a service factor for each
population group. These formulas rely on given factors which are related to the vehicle
miles per square mile. Table A-3 shows the calculation of the service factors needed for
calculating the estimate of transit demand.
TABLE A-3. SERVICE FACTOR CALCULATIONS

Population Group
Over 65

Vehicle Miles
per Square
Mile
51

Multiplied by
TCRP Factor
1
2.682

Plus
TCRP
Factor 2
376

Equals
Service
Divided by
Factor
1 million
1,000,000
0.000512782

Mobility Limited

51

1.57

1010

1,000,000

0.00109007

Below Poverty

51

2.45

525

1,000,000

0.00064995

Source: Lima & Associates, Inc.

These derived service factors, based on the frequency of service and size of the service
area, are part of the final calculations to estimate demand. Table A-4 shows the formula
provided in the TCRP workbook, which includes a standard factor, population of each
group, and the service factor. Table A-4 shows the estimated demand for each population
group and the total estimated demand for transit. This methodology estimates a total
yearly demand (all trips made during a year period) for Gila County of 39,416 trips, an
average of about 126 trips per day (assuming 312 days of service).
TABLE A-4. ESTIMATION OF TRANSIT DEMAND

x
x

Service
Factor
0.000512782

=
=

Estimated
Annual
Demand
11,206

x

0.00109007

=

15,721

15,641
x
0.00064995 =
x
Total Estimated Annual Transit Demand =

12,489
39,416

TCRP
factor
1,200

x
x

Mobility Limited

1,200

x

Below Poverty

1,200

Population Group
Over 65

Population
17,790
11,740

Source: Lima & Associates, Inc.

The TCRP workbook includes an alternative method for estimating demand. This
alternative method provides a secondary demand estimate that can be compared against the
first. This alternative method is based on pre-calculated trip rate curves created from
research and analysis of other rural transit programs. The chart compares vehicle miles per
square mile (as derived in Table A-2) against annual trips per person as shown in Figure
A-1.

Lima & Associates

Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 127

FIGURE A-1. TRIP RATES FOR ALTERNATIVE ESTIMATION PROCEDURE
10
9

Annual Trips per Person

8
7
Over 65

6
5
Mobility Limited

4

2.1

3

2.0

2
1
0

Below Poverty

1.6
Gila County = 51

0

200

400

600

800

1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000

Annual Vehicle-Miles per Square Mile

Source: Adapted from: TCRP Report 3, Workbook for Estimating Demand for Rural Passenger
Transportation, Figure 6, pg 45.

The estimated trip rates for the hypothetical Gila County service based on 51 vehicle miles
per square mile for each population group are overlaid on the chart taken from the TCRP
workbook, and shown above in Figure A-1.
The estimated trip rates taken from Figure A-1 are used to estimate the demand for each
population group as shown in Table A-5. The total estimated demand, using this alternative
method, is 87,901 annual trips, or 282 trips per day (assuming 312 service days).
TABLE A-5. ESTIMATION OF TRANSIT DEMAND - ALTERNATIVE METHOD
Population Group
Over 65
Mobility Limited
Below Poverty

Population in
Trip Rate
Service Area
(from Figure A-1)
17,790
2.1
11,740
2.0
15,641
1.6
Total Estimated Trip Demand =

Estimated Demand
(Pop. x Trip Rate)
38,425
24,037
25,620
87,901

Source: Lima & Associates, Inc.

Lima & Associates

Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 128

APPENDIX B. REVENUE SOURCES

REVENUE SOURCES
This Appendix presents an overview of sources of revenue for capital improvements,
annual operating, and maintenance expenses for roadway and other modes on a statewide
level. Federal Transportation Funds are introduced, followed by an overview of Arizona’s
Highway User Revenue Fund. The last section presents a summary of other available
funding sources.
FEDERAL TRANSPORTATION FUNDS
This section briefly summarizes key provisions of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible,
Efficient Transportation Equity Act - A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), which
authorizes federal highway and transit programs through Fiscal Year (FY) 2009. The bill
was signed into law on August 10, 2005.
Highway Trust Fund (HTF) is composed of the Highway Account and the Mass Transit
Account, and is the source of funding for most of the programs in SAFETEA-LU.
Specific funding levels depend on how much revenue is generated for the Highway Trust
Fund. Federal motor fuel taxes are the major source of income into the Highway Trust
Fund. SAFETEA-LU allocates funding based on four major goals: improving safety,
rebuilding America’s infrastructure, protecting our environment, and advancing research
and technology.
Arizona has been allocated a total of $1.57 billion between 2005 and 2007. The estimated
funding levels for Arizona are summarized in Table B-1 for Fiscal Years 2004 - 2005,
2005 - 2006, and 2006 - 2007. The distribution of these apportionments to Metropolitan
Planning Organizations (MPOs) is also shown. Table B-2 shows the detailed distribution
of federal revenue sources for Fiscal 2004. Major funding categories of federal funds in
SAFETEA-LU include the following:
Surface Transportation Program (STP) is federal funds allocated to ADOT that may be
programmed on any segment of the interstate system or state highway. Portions of this
fund may also be used for bridge rehabilitation, transportation enhancements, and safety
projects, such as hazard elimination and environmentally related activities. A new
provision permits a portion (up to 15 percent) of funds reserved for rural areas to be spent
on rural minor collectors. Apportioned funds are to be distributed based on the following
factors:
• 25 percent based on total lane miles of Federal-aid highways
• 40 percent based on vehicle miles traveled on lanes on Federal-aid highways
• 35 percent based on estimated tax payments attributable to highway users in the
States into the Highway Account of the Highway Trust Fund (often referred to as
“contributions” to the Highway Account
Each State is to receive a minimum of one-half percent of the funds apportioned for STP.
Lima & Associates

Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 130

TABLE B-1. ESTIMATED FEDERAL AID HIGHWAY APPORTIONMENTS AND
ALLOCATION FOR ARIZONA (In Millions of Dollars)
Estimated Apportionments
FY 04-05
FY 05-06
FY 06-07

Description
Apportionments
Interstate Maintenance
National Highway System
Surface Transportation
Bridge
Congestion Air Quality
Recreational Trails
Highway Planning and Research
Metro Planning
Equity Bonus (Minimum Guarantee)
Subtotal
Apportionment Distribution by Entity
MAG
PAG
ADOT
Optional Use by MAG, PAG, Other Locals
Other Locals
Subtotal

$115.9
125.5
142.3
14.3
41.5
1.2
10.4
4.5
70.2
$525.80

$115.9
125.5
142.3
14.3
41.5
1.2
10.4
4.5
70.2
$525.80

84.1
84.1
16.3
16.3
399.6
399.6
14.7
14.7
11.1
11.1
$525.80
$525.80
Grand Total FY 05 - 07

$115.9
125.5
142.3
14.3
41.5
1.2
10.4
4.5
70.2
$525.80
84.1
16.3
399.6
14.7
11.1
$525.80
$1,577.4

Source: Arizona Department of Transportation, State Transportation Improvement Plan, 2005 – 2007
Portion of State Transportation Funds are flexed to FTA for Transit projects Statewide

The total funding for the STP over the three fiscal years shown in Table B-1 for Arizona is
$426.9 million. Arizona’s allocation is based on the state’s lane-miles of Federal-aid
highways; total vehicle-miles traveled on those Federal-aid highways, and estimated
contributions to the Highway Account of the HTF.
The National Highway System (NHS) funds are for improvement to the National Highway
System which consists of an interconnected system of principal arterial routes which serve
major population centers, international border crossings, airports, public transportation
facilities, and other intermodal transportation facilities as well as major travel destinations.
The NHS funding level for Arizona over the three fiscal years in shown Table B-1 is
$376.5 million. Arizona’s share is based the state’s lane-miles of principal arterials
(excluding Interstate), vehicle-miles traveled on those arterials, diesel fuel used on the
state’s highways, and per capita principal arterial lane-miles.
Interstate Maintenance (IM) funds are for reconstruction of bridges, interchanges, and
over crossings along existing Interstate routes, acquisition of right-of-way, and
preventative maintenance. These funds are not to be used for the construction of new travel
lanes other than high occupancy vehicle lanes or auxiliary lanes. The IM funding level for
Arizona over the three fiscal years shown in Table B-1 is $347.7 million. The allocation

Lima & Associates

Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 131

TABLE B-2. FY 2005 ADOT REVENUE SOURCES - FEDERAL
(In Millions of Dollars)
Description
National Highway System (NH)
Interstate Maintenance (IM)
Surface Transportation Program (STP)
Safety (STP)
Enhancement (STP)
Equity Bonus
Congestion Mitigation & Air Quality Program
(CMAQ)
High Priority Projects
Bridge Replacement Program
Safe Routes to School
Safety Incentives (0.08 BAC)
Recreational Trails Program
Coordinated Border Infrastructure Program
State Planning & Research (SPR)
Metropolitan Planning
Motor Carrier Safety Assistance
Intelligent Transportation System
Local Technical Assistance Program
Miscellaneous Allocations

FY 05 Arizona
Obligation Authority

FY 05 National
Apportionments

$140.3
$128.3
$122.2
$15.3
$15.3
$71.6

$5,525.0
$4,522.5
$5,173.9
$646.7
$646.7
$5,702.8

$43.1
$19.1

$1,578.1
$1,201.7
$3,863.7

$1.0
$1.2
$1.3

$51.0
$89.0
$59.2

$5.9

$123.0

$6.5

$10.4

N/A

$5.6

$293.9

$0.3
$0.01
$0.1
$7.8

N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

Source: Arizona Department of Transportation, Financial Management Services, May 17, 2006

of these funds is based on the state’s lane-miles of Interstate routes open to traffic, vehiclemiles traveled, and contributions to the Highway Account of the Highway Trust Fund
attributable to commercial vehicles. A State may transfer up to 50 percent of its IM
apportionment to its NHS, STP, CMAQ, Highway Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation,
or Recreational Trails apportionment.
Equity Bonus ensures that the State will have a guaranteed return on its contributions to the
Highway Account of the Highway Trust Fund. The specified percentages are 90.5 percent
for 2005 and 2006, 91.5 percent for 2007, and 92 percent for 2008 and 2009. Arizona’s
State Transportation Improvement Plan estimates the amount of $210.6 million for Fiscal
Years 2004 - 2007 for the Equity Bonus funding itself. This SAFETEA-LU program
replaces TEA-21’s Minimum Guarantee program.
Congestion Mitigation & Air Quality (CMAQ) funds in the amount of $124.5 million are
allotted to Arizona between Fiscal Years 2004 and 2007 for projects likely to contribute to
attainment of national ambient air quality standards and congestion mitigation. These
funds are programmed for both freeway management projects, demand management
projects, as well as other related air quality projects including bicycles facilities.
Currently, CMAQ funds are only spent in Maricopa County.
Lima & Associates

Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 132

Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation funds in the amount of $42.9 million are
authorized for Arizona.
This allotment can be used for bridge replacement or
rehabilitation for eligible bridges located on any public road. The State has the option to
transfer up to 50 percent of its bridge funds to NHS or STP funds.
The Hazard Elimination System (HES) is a program that was previously identified as the
Candidate Locations for Operations and Safety Evaluations (CLOSE) program. The
primary objective of the HES program is for reducing the number and severity of traffic
crashes and decreasing the potential for crashes on state highways.
Authorized funding for the HES program is under Section 924 of the Highway Safety
Improvement Program of Title 23 of U.S.C. 105(f), 152, 315, and 402; Section 203 of the
Highway Safety Act of 1973, as amended; 49 CFR 1.48(b). The program is funded for
the amount of $50.5 million for FYs 2003-2007 based on the ADOT Five-Year
Transportation Facilities Construction Program.
Most types of public surface transportation facility improvement may be approved for
funding, provided that the sole purpose of the improvement is to substantially improve
safety or to eliminate traffic hazards. However, improvements primarily for capacity
enhancements with safety as a by-product will not be approved.
Federal Lands Highways (FLH) funds can be used for Indian Reservation Roads, Park
Roads and Parkways, Public Lands Highways, and Refuge Roads. FLH funds also can be
used for transit facilities within public lands, national parks, and Indian reservations. The
funds can also be used as the State/local match for most types of Federal-aid highway
funded projects. Program authorizations through 2009 total $4.5 billion for projects
nationwide.
Transportation Enhancement funds are one type of federal funds, which are available
directly for local projects. These funds are set aside in order to add community or
environmental value to a completed or ongoing transportation project. Currently, Arizona
receives about $13.9 million per year for transportation enhancement projects that are
divided between ADOT and local government projects. The Arizona State Transportation
Board retains fifty percent of the Transportation Enhancement funds for ADOT projects.
The remaining enhancement funds are available for local projects recommended by the
MPOs and rural councils of governments (COGs).
Metropolitan Planning Funds in Arizona are funded with $13.5 million over the 3-year
horizon. These funds are used to improve the planning process to meet metropolitan and
State transportation needs.
Funds for the Recreation Trails Program are provided by the Federal Highway
Administration in apportionments to the Recreational Trails Program, with an allocation of
$3.6 million over the next three years to Arizona. A state recreational trails advisory
committee represents both motorized and non-motorized recreational trail users. The

Lima & Associates

Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 133

allocated funds are split into 30 percent for motorized use, 30 percent for non-motorized
use, and 40 percent for diverse trails.
New SAFETEA-LU Programs
In addition to continuing the programs outlined above, SAFETEA-LU created a number of
new transportation programs. Three programs of particular interest to counties are
summarized below by Robert Fogel, the Senior Legislative Director for the National
Association of Counties (NACo):
Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) replaces the safety set-aside that
was formerly part of the Surface Transportation Program. Over the next four years,
an average of $1.265 billion will be distributed by formula to the states that can be
used on a broad array of safety improvement projects to reduce the number and
severity of highway-related crashes and to decrease the potential for projects on all
highways. That means on any road owned by county government. This includes
projects aimed at intersection safety improvement, pavement and shoulder
widening, rumble strips, signage, and guardrails. County officials need to get
involved in this program at an early stage and document the projects they want
funded. Every state is required to develop a Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP)
that involves a comprehensive, collaborative and data drive approach of highway
safety. This plan is required to lay out projects and strategies for which the federal
will be used to reduced or eliminate safety hazards. For counties, it is important to
note that the SHSP must be developed in collaboration with key safety stakeholders
in the State, which includes local officials, and the SHSP must be data driven. The
presumption is that the federal safety funds must be invested in projects where the
data (fatalities, crashes, police records, etc.) supports the need for investment.
As a part of the HSIP, there is a specific set aside for High Risk Rural Roads. This
was a NACo priority. While any of the $1.2 billion annually can be spent on rural
roads, $90 million is specifically targeted for safety problems on roadways
classified as rural major collectors, rural minor collectors and rural local roads.
The funds can be used for construction and operational improvements related to
safety but must be used on roads that have a crash rate and for fatalities and
incapacitating injuries that exceeds the statewide average for those functional
classes of roads. A second set aside on the HSIP program is for Railway-Highway
Grade Crossing. At $220 annually, this program is increased by approximately $65
million beyond TEA-21 levels. This program is basically unchanged and is aimed at
funding projects on any public road that eliminates hazards at rail grade crossings,
including the separation or protection, reconstruction and relocation of grade
crossings.
The Safe Routes to School Program is a totally new program focused on enabling
and encouraging children to safely walk and bicycle to school. This is another

Lima & Associates

Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 134

program for which counties and all the roads they own are eligible. County leaders
should work vigorously to get their projects at the top of the funding list. An
average of $122 annually will be distributed by formula to each State to be used by
state, counties and cities, and regional agencies, including non-profit organizations,
to further this objective. Each state has to designate a coordinator for this new
program, a person county officials should contact. Project eligible include sidewalk
improvements, traffic calming and speed reduction improvements, pedestrian and
bicycle crossing improvements, traffic diversion improvements near schools, and a
variety of projects to encourage the use of bicycles. Each State must use between
10—30 percent of the funds for non-infrastructure related activities, such as public
awareness campaigns, traffic education and enforcement near schools and student
sessions on [pedestrian and bicycle safety.
ARIZONA HIGHWAY USER REVENUE FUND
Monies from the Highway User Revenue Fund (HURF) are intended for the improvement
of the State’s highways and bridges. Once collected, the HURF revenues are distributed to
ADOT, and in turn distributed as an entitlement share to cities, towns, and counties in
proportion to population and to the Economic Strength Project Fund. HURF distributions
may be used as debt service for revenue bond projects. The principal sources of revenue
are presented in Table B-3:
TABLE B-3. FY 2005 ADOT REVENUE SOURCES - STATE
(In Millions of Dollars)
Description
Gasoline Tax
Use Fuel Tax
Motor Carrier Fee
Vehicle License Tax
Registration
Other
Total

FY-05 Actual
$ 481.3
194.4
38.0
328.2
154.1
33.0
$1,245.6

Source: Arizona Department of Transportation, Financial Management Services,
May 17, 2006

•

Gasoline Taxes. Arizona’s motor vehicle fuel tax of 18 cents per gallon is the
largest source of revenue for HURF.

•

Use Fuel Taxes. Use fuel taxes are taxes on diesel fuel and range between 18 cents
per gallon for passenger cars to 26 cents per gallon for commercial trucks and
buses. These taxes provide the third largest source of revenue.

Lima & Associates

Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 135

•

Motor Carrier Fees. These fees, based on the weight of the vehicle, are the
smallest source of funding for HURF.

•

Vehicle License Taxes (VLT). Vehicle license taxes are linked to the value of the
vehicle being taxed and are the second largest source of funds for HURF. These
VLT funds are the only one of the four major HURF revenue sources that are tied
to inflation and increase as vehicle prices increase. In recent years, the VLT tax
rate has been reduced to be more in line with that of neighboring states.

•

Other fees include: motor vehicle registration fees, border crossing fees, and other
miscellaneous fees.

The HURF is the primary source for state highway funding and HURF funds are limited to
highway use by the Arizona Constitution. Table B-4 presents the HURF revenue forecast
for FY 2006 - 2015. Table B-5 presents the HURF distribution forecast for the same fiscal
years.
TABLE B-4. HIGHWAY USER REVENUE FUND REVENUE FORECAST
(IN MILLIONS OF DOLLARS)
Fiscal
Year

Gasoline

Use Fuel

Motor
Carrier

VLT

2006

$497.20

$205.00

$40.30

$350.30

$160.30

$53.20

$1,306.30

2007

528.8

211

39.7

378.9

162.3

54.4

1,375.10

2008

550.5

218.9

40.8

409.3

167.1

56.7

1,443.30

2009

572.3

226.7

42

441.5

171.8

59

1,513.30

2010

594.6

234.2

43.3

474.5

176.9

61.3

1,584.80

2011

616.4

241.9

45

510.9

182.7

63.7

1,660.60

2012

639.7

249.8

46.9

550.4

189

66.2

1,742.00

2013

663.9

258.3

48.9

592.5

195.4

68.9

1,827.90

2014

689.8

267.1

51.3

637.9

202.7

71.7

1,920.50

2015

717.8

276.8

53.6

688.7

210.2

74.6

2,021.70

Registration

Other

HURF
Total

Source: Arizona Department of Transportation, Financial Management Services, May 17, 2006

OTHER FUNDING SOURCES
Several other funding sources exist and are summarized below.
Local Transportation Assistance Fund (LTAF)
The LTAF is funded by the Arizona Lottery for use by cities and towns requesting the
funds. The LTAF funds are allocated in proportion to the relative population of all
Lima & Associates

Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 136

TABLE B-5. HIGHWAY USER REVENUE FUND DISTRIBUTION FORECAST
(IN MILLIONS OF DOLLARS)

Fiscal
Year

HURF

DPS/ESP

Net
HURF

Forecast Distribution
Cities/
Cities
Towns
Over
300k
DPS
3%
Parity
27.5%

ADOT 50.5%
ADOT

2006
$1,306.30
$64.80
$1,241.50
$624.30
$2.70
$341.40
$37.20
2007
1,375.10
11
1,364.10
686
2.9
375.1
40.9
2008
1,443.30
11
1,432.30
720.2
3.1
393.9
43
2009
1,513.30
11
1,502.30
755.3
3.4
413.1
45.1
2010
1,584.80
11
1,573.80
791.2
3.6
432.8
47.2
2011
1,660.60
11
1,649.60
829.2
3.9
453.6
49.5
2012
1,742.00
11
1,731.00
870
4.2
476
51.9
2013
1,827.90
11
1,816.90
913
4.5
499.6
54.5
2014
1,920.50
11
1,909.50
959.4
4.9
525.1
57.3
2015
2,021.70
11
2,010.70
1,010.20
5.3
552.9
60.3
Source: Arizona Department of Transportation, Financial Management Services, May 17, 2006

Counties
19%
$235.90
259.2
272.1
285.4
299
313.4
328.9
345.2
362.8
382

Arizona cities and towns. Each requesting municipality is guaranteed a minimum of ten
thousand dollars. Currently, $23 million may be deposited in the LTAF from the State
lottery fund each fiscal year. Cities and towns with a population of more than 300,000
persons must use LTAF funds for public transportation. In addition, up to 10 percent of
funds may be used for the arts, or for disabled and handicapped assistance.
In 2000, the Arizona Legislature enacted the LTAF II program, with revenues derived
from the Arizona’s share of the multi-state Powerball lottery. These funds are apportioned
in a manner similar to LTAF funds, except that any jurisdictions receiving more than
$2,500 in LTAF II funds are required to use all of the funds received for transit-related
purposes including provision of local matching funds for FTA programs, operating funds,
and transit planning. However, Powerball revenues have fluctuated widely and LTAF II
has not proved to be a stable source of funding for operations.
Public Transit
The Federal Government funds transit capital and operating assistance programs for
systems in designated urban areas. In some instances, the MPOs such as those in Flagstaff
and Yuma, serve as conduits for this funding to local operators. However, larger cities
including Phoenix and Tempe receive their funding directly. Two federal public transit
programs administered by ADOT primarily fund Arizona's small urban and rural transit
services. One is the Section 5311 program for general public service in rural areas. The
other transit program is the Section 5310 program which funds vehicles for organizations
providing specialized transportation services for the elderly or disabled.

Lima & Associates

Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 137

SAFETEA-LU significantly increases funding levels for these programs. A new formula
based on land area addresses the needs of low-density states. Indian tribes are now eligible
recipients of Section 5311 funds, and a portion of funding is set aside each year for Tribal
projects. Currently, the total funding in Arizona for general public systems in rural and
small urban areas is approximately $4.9 million annually.
Additional sources of revenue available for transit services include the following:
•
•
•
•
•
•

Welfare to Work Act
Older American Act Title III funds, Department of Economic Security
Division of Developmental Disability funds
Transportation funding through Medicaid administered through the Arizona Health
Care Cost Containment System
Head Start, Behavioral Health Funding
Transit fares

A total of $40 million in small urban and rural transit revenue is expected to be generated
in the next decade.
Economic Strength Projects Fund
Local governments are eligible sponsors and co-sponsors of transportation projects
financed by the Arizona Economic Strength Projects fund. This fund is sponsored by the
Arizona Department of Commerce and funded by HURF. A local match must provide at
least 10 percent of the project cost. The fund finances selected road projects that support
economic development objectives.
Governor’s Office of Highway Safety
Federal funds are allocated to finance state and local government highway safety projects.
These program funds, in the form of reimbursable contracts, are administered by the
Governor’s Office of Highway Safety. Funds are provided under the National Highway
Safety Act and funded through grants from the FHWA and the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHSTA). The safety priority areas are listed below:
NHSTA Priority Program areas:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Police traffic services
Impaired driving
Traffic records
Pedestrian/bicycle safety
Emergency medical services
Occupant protection
Motorcycle safety

Lima & Associates

Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 138

FHWA Priority Program areas:
•
•
•
•
•
•

Corridor safety improvement programs
Safety studies of specific safety problems
Outreach programs
Rural and local technical assistance programs
Pedestrian and bicycle safety
Safety management systems

Pedestrian/Bicyclist Funding
Revenue sources for bicycle facilities primarily for transportation are available from the
following sources:
•

Federal funds are available to construct bicycle transportation facilities and
pedestrian walkways on land adjacent to any highway on the NHS.

•

Federal Lands Highway Funds are available to construct bicycle facilities and
pedestrian walkways in connection with roads, highways, and parkways. These
funds are at the discretion of the department administering the funds.

Other funds for bicycle and pedestrian facilities are:
•
•
•
•

National Recreational Trails Fund, which provides funds for recreational programs
for bicyclists and pedestrians.
Scenic Byways Program can fund bicycle facilities along highways.
Federal Transit Funds can be used to provide bicycle and pedestrian access to
transit facilities including shelters and bicycle parking facilities.
Additional funding is available through the new “Safe Routes to Schools” program
explained in the previous section.

Another potential funding source for trails is the Heritage Fund. The Arizona State Parks
Board Heritage Fund legislation stipulated the use of Arizona Lottery Fund revenues for
trails. Eligible projects are trail land acquisition, design, engineering, development and
renovation activities, and trail support facilities.
Community Development Block Grants
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) is funds provided by the Federal Office of
Housing and Urban Development. The CDBG funds can be used in the construction of
capital improvement projects such as sewer, streets, water and wastewater treatment
plants, housing, and parks that benefit low to medium income groups. Projects that
Lima & Associates

Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 139

alleviate slums or address an urgent need such as circumstances caused by a natural
disaster can also use CDBG funds. For a transportation improvement to be eligible for
CDBG funding, the project must be located in a census tract or block group with at least
51 percent of the population in the low and moderate-income group.
REVENUE ESTIMATES
The 2001 Governor’s Transportation Vision 21 Task Force Report estimated that $41
billion from existing sources of transportation related revenue in Arizona will be received
between 2000 and 2020. Of this amount, $33,783.8 billion is roadway related, $4,106.1 is
derived from transit related sources, and $3,164.3 from aviation. The comparison of
needs and revenues is shown in Table B-6.
TABLE B-6. COMPARISON OF NEEDS AND REVENUES STATEWIDE
(IN MILLIONS OF CONSTANT 2000 DOLLARS)
Sources
Revenue From
Existing Sources

Use
Roadway
Transit
Aviation
Total Revenue

FY 20012005
$7,955.1
$1,133.3
$846.7
$9,935.1

FY 20062010
$8,432.6
$1,050.9
$795.5
$10,279.0

FY 20112015
$8,580.1
$986.8
$771.0
$10,337.9

FY 20162020
$8,816.0
$935.1
$751.1
$10,502.3

Total
$33,783.8
$4,106.1
$3,164.3
$41,054.3

Needs

Roadway
Transit
Aviation
Total Needs

$12,601.0
$1,705.0
$1,027.8
$15,333.8

$12,601.0
$1,705.0
$1,027.8
$15,333.8

$12,601.0
$1,705.0
$1,027.8
$15,333.8

$12,601.0
$1,705.0
$1,027.8
$15,333.8

$50,404.0
$6,820.0
$4,111.0
$61,335.0

Additional
Roadway
$4,645.9
$4,168.4
$4,020.9
$3,785.0
$16,620.2
Revenue Required Transit
$571.7
$654.1
$718.2
$769.9
$2,713.9
to Meet Needs
Aviation
$181.0
$232.3
$256.8
$276.6
$946.7
Total Additional Revenue Required
$5,398.6
$5,054.8
$4,995.9
$4,831.4
$20,280.7
Source: Revenue Consultant Report to Governor’s Transportation Vision 21 Task Force, Wilbur Smith
Associates, November 2001

ADOT’s Five-year Transportation Facilities Construction Program
Table B-7 lists ADOT’s Five-year Transportation Facilities Construction Program
allocations for the five-year period covering Fiscal Years 2005 through 2009. For this
period, ADOT has allocated a total of $764 million for highway system preservation, $2.7
billion for system improvements, and $354 million for system management for a total of
$3.78 billion.

Lima & Associates

Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 140

TABLE B-7. ADOT FIVE-YEAR TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES
CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM RESOURCE ALLOCATIONS
(In Thousands of Dollars)
FY 2005

FY 2006

FY 2007

FY 2008

FY 2009

Total

System
Preservation

$149,800

$152,148

$155,718

$153,190

$153,290

$764,146

System
Management

$76,727

$70,393

$68,818

$68,818

$68,878

$353,634

$863,672

$730,090

$377,388

$377,181

$320,863

$2,669,194

System
Improvements

Total Resource
Allocations
$1,090,199
$952,631
$601,924
$599,189
$543,031 $3,786,974
Source: Arizona Department of Transportation, Five-year Transportation Facilities Construction Program

The five-year program also includes an allocation for District minor projects that is used
by the ADOT Districts for minor improvement projects such pavement widening,
shoulders, guardrail, drainage improvements, intersection improvements, and other minor
improvements. The total five year allocation in the FY 2005 – 2009 Program for District
minor projects is approximately $104 million, approximately $10 million per District.
Funding for Railroad Crossing Improvements
The Utility and Engineering Services Section of ADOT has developed criteria for
prioritizing the expenditure of funds for the construction of new highway-rail crossings,
the improvement of existing crossings, or the construction of grade separated facilities.
Federal funds are provided for these purposes through Title 23 United States Code, Section
130 (Section 130 Funds) and also in SAFETEA-LU. The intent of allocating these funds is
expressly for the purpose of reducing or eliminating the hazards represented by the
crossings. The funds are allocated on a 90/10 basis, with the federal share being 90
percent and a 10 percent match provided by the local jurisdiction or the railroad. In some
cases the Federal Government will pay 100 percent of the cost. ADOT administers the
Section 130 Funds in Arizona provided by the FHWA.
Under SAFETEA-LU, the Surface Transportation Program also provides for $560,000 to
be set aside each year to fund Operation Lifesaver, an outreach program conducted jointly
by railroads and law enforcement agencies. Operation Lifesaver teaches the public about
the dangers of highway-rail crossings and the importance of obeying highway-rail crossingrelated traffic laws.

Lima & Associates

Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 141

REFERENCES
American Public Transportation Association, A Guide to Transit Related Provisions of
SAFETEA-LU, Washington, DC, 2006.
Arizona Association of County Engineers Year 2004 Roadway Needs Study Update,
January 2005.
Arizona Department of Economic Security, Population Statistics Unit.
Arizona Department of Transportation, Accident Location Identification Surveillance
System.
Arizona Department of Transportation, Highway Expansion and Extension Loan Program.
Arizona Department of Transportation, MoveAZ.
Arizona Department of Transportation, SR 88 SR 188 Profile Corridor Study, SR Beard &
Associates, November 1999.
Arizona Department of Transportation, Tentative 2006-2010 Five-Year Transportation
Facilities Construction Program.
Arizona Eastern Railway, telephone interview with Henry Weller, Vice President –
Operations, February 27, 2006.
Central Arizona Association of Governments, Regional Transportation Plan for the
Central Arizona Association of Governments, David Evans and Associates, April 2000.
City of Globe in Cooperation With the Gila County Public Works Division, Pinal Creek
Corridor Study, C. L. Williams Consulting, Inc., September 2004.
Fact Sheets for Highway Provisions in SAFETEA-LU, Federal Highway Administration,
Office of Legislation and Strategic Planning, Program Analysis Team, August 31, 2005
Federal Railroad Administration, GradeDEC.NET highway-rail crossing analysis tool,
http://gradedec.fra.dot.gov/.
Fogel, Robert, “Two New Safety Programs Counties Can Use in SAFETEA-LU”,
National Association of Counties, 2005.
Gila County Comprehensive Master Plan, LVA Urban Design Studio and Kimley Horn
and Associates.
Gila County Public Works Department, Gila County Road Budget FY 2002-2003 and FY
2003-2004.
Gila County Public Works Department, Gila County Street Atlas.
Globe-Miami Area Transportation Study, DMJM in association with Lima & Associates,
June 1998.
Greyhound Lines, www.greyhound.com.
Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc., www.itcaonline.com/tribes_tonto.html.

Lima & Associates

Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 142

REFERENCES (Continued)
Maricopa County Department of Transportation, Final Candidate Assessment Report:
Identification and Analysis of Low Volume Dirt Roads, Lima & Associates, 2005.
Payson Area Public Transit Feasibility Study, Lima & Associates and Partners for
Strategic Action, Inc., December 2004.
Payson Senior Center
San Carlos Apache Tribe, Apache Gold Casino
Timberline VIP
Tonto Apache Tribe, Mazatzal Casino.
Town of Payson, Payson Small Area Transportation Study Update, ASL Consulting
Engineers in association with Lima & Associates and Partners for Strategic Action,
Inc., February 1999.
Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) Report 3, Workbook for Estimating
Demand for Rural Passenger Transportation.
Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) Report 99 Embracing Change in a
Changing World, 2004.
Transportation Research Board, Highway Capacity Manual.
U. S. Census Bureau
US Department of Transportation, Final Report, Rural Transit ITS Best Practices, March
2003.
White Mountain Passenger Lines

Lima & Associates

Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 143