GILA COUNTY
SMALL AREA TRANSPORTATION STUDY

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

OCTOBER 2006
Partners for Strategic Action, Inc.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................. 1
PURPOSE AND VISION............................................................................. 1
BACKGROUND ....................................................................................... 1
STUDY PROCESS .................................................................................... 3
RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................. 4
FUTURE SOCIOECONOMIC AND TRANSPORTATION CONDITIONS................. 5
MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN ................................................... 8
RECOMMENDATION AND IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY...........................20
FUNDING AND REVENUE ESTIMATES ......................................................21
REFERENCES ...........................................................................................30

i

LIST OF TABLES
Page
1.

POPULATION PROJECTIONS FOR GILA COUNTY COMMUNITIES ............. 5

2.

TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PLAN PROJECT
LIST - PHASE I ..................................................................................22

3.

TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PLAN PROJECT
LIST - PHASE II .................................................................................23

4.

IMPLEMENTATION ACTION PLAN.......................................................24

5.

MATRIX OF FUNDING SOURCES .........................................................25

6.

CASH FLOW ANALYSIS – PHASE I .......................................................28

7.

CASH FLOW ANALYSIS – PHASE II ......................................................28

ii

LIST OF FIGURES
Page
1.

STUDY AREA .................................................................................. 2

2.

STUDY PROCESS.............................................................................. 3

3.

TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ZONES ............................................................... 7

4-A. LEVEL OF SERVICE – GILA COUNTY ROADWAYS –
2030 ACCELERATED GROWTH SCENARIO ..........................................11
4-B. LEVEL OF SERVICE – GILA COUNTY ROADWAYS –
2030 ACCELERATED GROWTH SCENARIO – GLOBE DETAIL..................12
4-C. LEVEL OF SERVICE – GILA COUNTY ROADWAYS –
2030 ACCELERATED GROWTH SCENARIO – PAYSON DETAIL ...............13
5.

PHASE I PROJECTS ..........................................................................15

6.

PHASE II PROJECTS .........................................................................16

iii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This document presents an Executive Summary 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. Complete documentation of the Study is provided in
the Final Report.
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.
Study Vision
The County’s transportation system was 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 ridesharing, 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. 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, provided

Lima & Associates

Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 2

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 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.
FIGURE 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

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.

Lima & Associates

Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 3

The next major step in the technical process was to analyze alternative roadway improvements.
County access management procedures were also analyzed.
Best practices in rural
transportation as followed by peer jurisdictions were researched and documented, including
practices for analyzing low volume dirt roads, measuring performance of rural transportation
systems, and activity-based budgeting.
A draft transportation plan was then 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 a second Open House of the
general public. Short- and long-range transportation projects were recommended, an
implementation schedule was developed, and potential funding sources were documented.
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 4

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 1 presents future population projections for Gila County and for communities within the
County. The data was obtained from the DES.
TABLE 1. 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

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.

Lima & Associates

Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 5

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 section.
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 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 shows the 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.
Figures presenting the forecasted levels of service derived from the sketch planning model for
Gila County and for the Globe and Payson areas are included in the Final Report. 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.
However, the consultant believes that the County population will increase more rapidly than
these base 2030 projections indicate. Hence, the recommended Transportation Plan is based
on an Accelerated Growth Scenario.

Lima & Associates

Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 6

FIGURE 3. TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ZONES

Lima & Associates

Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 7

MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN
This section summarizes the 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 when

Lima & Associates

Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 8

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 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
previous section of this Summary, 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
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
Lima & Associates

Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 9

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 Globe-Miami 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-A, 4-B, and 4C 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 10

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

Lima & Associates

Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 11

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

Lima & Associates

Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 12

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

Lima & Associates

Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 13

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 shortterm 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 5 presents the locations of the 17
proposed Phase I projects. Figure 6 presents the locations of the 17 proposed Phase II
projects.

Lima & Associates

Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 14

FIGURE 5. PHASE I PROJECTS

Source: Lima & Associates, Inc.

Lima & Associates

Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 15

FIGURE 6. PHASE II PROJECTS

Source: Lima & Associates, Inc.

Lima & Associates

Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 16

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 5, but are included on the list of projects
presented in the following section. 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 17

Transit Element
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, together with Federal, State, and local sources of transit funding are
summarized in detail in the Final Report.
Potential Services and Facilities - Options for area public transportation to be considered by
the County are presented below. 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 fulltime 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.
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 the pilot project was
published in December 2005. Recommendations included the establishment of a transit

Lima & Associates

Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 18

coordinating council for the study area and the implementation of service along two regional
corridors.
Types of Transit Vehicles - A number of roadway-based and fixed-guideway 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

The specific features of the three types of bus services are detailed in the Final Report. 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.
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.
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.
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

Lima & Associates

Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 19

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 off-street 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.
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.
RECOMMENDATION AND IMPLEMENTATION 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.

Lima & Associates

Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 20

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 2, but not shown on 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 3.
The consultant recommends that the County program the projects for implementation
following the action plan outlined in Table 4, 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 5.
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

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
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.

Lima & Associates

Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 21

TABLE 2. 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 22

TABLE 3. 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 23

TABLE 4. 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 Transportation Plan and
Transit Element

County Public Works Department,
CAAG, ADOT

Lima & Associates

Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 24

TABLE 5. 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 25

TABLE 5. 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 26

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.
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 timeframes of the phases. Table 6 presents the result for Phase I and Table 7 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.

Lima & Associates

Gila County SATS Executive Summary – Page 27

TABLE 6. 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 7. 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 SATS Executive Summary – Page 28

•

STP: Transportation Enhancement Funds are shown for the Fairgrounds Road and
Section 130 funds are shown for the highway-rail crossings in Phase I. During the
draft exercise, 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.
•

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 and 7 are draft 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 SATS Executive Summary – Page 29

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 SATS Executive Summary – Page 30