NORTHWEST COCHISE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION PLANNING STUDY FINAL REPORT Prepared by: 5460 West Four Barrel Court Tucson, AZ 85743 July 29, 2005 NORTHWEST COCHISE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION PLANNING STUDY Prepared for: Cochise County, Arizona FINAL REPORT Prepared by: Curtis Lueck & Associates 5460 West Four Barrel Court Tucson, AZ 85743 (520) 743-8748 FAX (520) 743-4210 Project No. 2004.04 Curtis Lueck, P.E., AICP, Principal Marcos Esparza, P.E., Senior Associate Cheryl Rader, Senior Planner/Analyst July 29, 2005 DISCLAIMER AND COPYRIGHT NOTICE This study has been prepared using available traffic data and forecasts, as well as limited field data collected specifically for this study. It is intended for use in making a determination regarding the transportation infrastructure needs of the study area. It is not intended for use as a design document, nor does it represent a standard or specification. The document is copyrighted by Cochise County, AZ and Curtis Lueck & Associates, 5460 West Four Barrel Court, Tucson, AZ 85743, telephone 520-743-8748. All rights are reserved pursuant to United States copyright law. The document may not be reproduced digitally or mechanically, in whole or in part, without the prior written approval of CLA, except as noted in the following. (1) Limited quotations may be made, for technical purposes only, as long as proper citation to the authors is provided. (2) Governmental agencies to which this report is submitted for rev iew may make limited copies for internal use and to fulfill formal public requests under the Freedom of Information Act. Table of Contents 1. PROJECT OVERVIEW ............................................................................................................. 1 Study Area................................................................................................................................ 1 Project Setting........................................................................................................................... 2 Major Development in the Study Area....................................................................................... 5 Related Studies ........................................................................................................................ 6 2. EXISTING TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM ................................................................................ 7 Study Area Roadways .............................................................................................................. 7 Description of Existing Routes................................................................................................... 9 Freeway, Traffic Interchanges, and Frontage Roads ..................................................................9 State, County and City Arterials............................................................................................. 13 Major Intersections.................................................................................................................. 15 SAFETY ISSUES ................................................................................................................... 15 Alternate Modes...................................................................................................................... 16 Analysis of Existing Conditions................................................................................................ 16 Existing Traffic Volumes and Levels of Service........................................................................ 16 Future Rights-of-Way and Development Standards................................................................. 21 ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS AND PLANNING STUDIES................................................... 22 ADOT Projects ................................................................................................................... 22 PAG Projec ts...................................................................................................................... 22 Benson and Cochise County Projects.................................................................................... 22 3. FUTURE CONDITIONS ANALYSIS ........................................................................................ 23 Overview................................................................................................................................. 23 Travel Demand Model............................................................................................................. 23 Roadway Network............................................................................................................... 23 Traffic Analysis Zones.......................................................................................................... 24 Trip Generation/Travel Characteristics ................................................................................... 24 Future Alternatives.................................................................................................................. 27 Alternative 1: One Way Frontage Roads................................................................................. 29 Alternative 2: Local Collector Connections .............................................................................. 30 Alternative 3: Additional East-West Connection ....................................................................... 30 Comparative Analysis of Freeway Volumes ............................................................................ 34 4. FUNDING OPTIONS............................................................................................................... 35 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT FUNDING OPTIONS................................................. 35 Private Sector Funding......................................................................................................... 35 Public Sector Funding.......................................................................................................... 36 Fair Share Analysis ............................................................................................................. 42 5: RECOMMENDATIONS........................................................................................................... 43 Development of Preferred Alternative...................................................................................... 43 Hybrid 1 Alternative ............................................................................................................. 43 Hybrid 2 Alternative (Preferred) ............................................................................................. 44 Plan Implementation ............................................................................................................... 44 Plan Phasing........................................................................................................................... 45 Implementation Costs .......................................................................................................... 48 Phasing by Horizon Year...................................................................................................... 48 List of Exhibits Exhibit 1 Exhibit 2 Exhibit 3 Exhibit 4 Exhibit 5 Exhibit 6 Exhibit 7 Exhibit 8 Exhibit 9 Exhibit 10 Exhibit 11 Exhibit 12 Exhibit 13 Exhibit 14 Exhibit 15 Exhibit 16 Exhibit 17 Exhibit 18 Exhibit 19 Exhibit 20 Exhibit 21 Exhibit 23 Exhibit 24 Exhibit 25 Exhibit 26 Exhibit 27 Exhibit 28 Exhibit 29 Exhibit 30 Study Area.................................................................................................................. 2 Project Setting............................................................................................................. 4 Area Roadways........................................................................................................... 5 Regional Map.............................................................................................................. 8 FDOT LOS C and D Criteria for Roadway Types within the Study Area ............................. 17 Existing Roadway Traffic Data Inventory........................................................................ 18 Existing I-10 Ramps Daily Volumes .............................................................................. 18 Existing Intersection Level of Service at Village Loop/SR 90............................................. 19 Summary of Volumes and LOS.................................................................................... 20 Summary of Socioeconomics for Existing and Future Conditions ...................................... 24 Calibrated Existing Conditions Model............................................................................ 25 Travel Statistics......................................................................................................... 26 Distribution of Northwest Area Trips ............................................................................. 26 Trips Between Districts............................................................................................... 27 Alternative 1.............................................................................................................. 31 Alternative 2.............................................................................................................. 32 Alternative 3 ............................................................................................................. 33 I-10 Traffic Volume Trends ......................................................................................... 34 HURF Funding Diagram.............................................................................................. 40 Example Traffic Proportionality Test............................................................................. 42 Hybrid 1 Alternative ................................................................................................... 46 Approximate Unit Costs .............................................................................................. 48 List of Year 2015 Projects and Costs ............................................................................ 50 Year 2015 Projects..................................................................................................... 51 List of Year 2025 Projects and Costs ............................................................................ 52 Year 2025 Projects..................................................................................................... 53 List of Build Out Projects and Costs.............................................................................. 54 Build Out Projects ...................................................................................................... 55 Future I-10 Volumes................................................................................................... 56 APPENDIX Community Profiles Benson Cochise County Pima County HURF Distribution FY 2004 State Highway System Log Excerpts I-10 SR 90 Recorded Traffic Volumes (CLA) Recorded January 2004 Recorded February, 2003 Florida DOT Capacity Charts LOS Worksheet Right of Way/ Plats Existing and Future Conditions Socioeconomic Data by Zone Model Statistics / Travel Characteristics Existing Conditions Calibration Map Existing Conditions TAZ Map/Census Blocks Overlay TAZ Map – Future Conditions (BUILDOUT) Alternate 1 Alternate 2 Alternate 3 FINAL REPORT 1. NORTHWEST COCHISE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION PLANNING STUDY Project Overview Cochise County Highway & Floodplain Department has undertaken this Northwest Cochise County Transportation Study as a sub-regional assessment of existing roadway conditions and future needs within the project study area. The analysis is the first of its kind for this region of the County. It provides recommendations for transportation system improvements in the northwest region of Cochise County. The study also provides a framework for addressing the impacts of proposed land development within the study region. The purpose of this report is to identify a transportation system, and its elements, that will be needed to accommodate the anticipated future development in the northwest Cochise County study area described in this report. The study covers a 36 square mile area between the Pima/Cochise County line, State Route 90, one mile north of I-10, and south to the Forest Service boundary. The study examines future roadway options including arterial and collector streets, frontage roads, and freeway improvements. The objectives of this study are to: § Document existing conditions in the project area; § Inventory land uses and transportation plans and programs; § Prepare a travel demand model for the study area; § Evaluate alternative improvements and recommend a preferred alternative; § Provide a transportation infrastructure and phasing plan; § Coordinate with the Arizona Department of Transportation, Southeastern Arizona Governments Organization (SEAGO) the City of Benson, Pima County, Pima Association of Governments, and US Forest Service; § Involve the public through two open house meetings and a study session; § Prepare a final report for future use by Cochise County and other affected jurisdictions, and § Summarize socioeconomic data, the results of analyses and mapping in a clear format to provide reviewers and users with useful illustrations of sufficient size for clarity and understanding. Study Area Exhibit 1, here and on the report cover, illustrates the project location in northwest Cochise County. The eastern boundary is within the incorporated City of Benson. The area is mostly rural, but includes commercial development at the SR 90 interchange, the Benson Municipal Airport, a community college campus, and motorist services. I-10 is the only continuous east-west corridor in the study area. There are no continuous northsouth corridors through the area because SR 90 terminates at I-10. © 2005 Curtis Lueck & Associates Tucson, Arizona Page 1 NORTHWEST COCHISE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION PLANNING STUDY FINAL REPORT Exhibit 1 Study Area Project Setting Benson, with a population of about 5,000, is on the eastern section of the study area. The Community Profile for this municipality is provided in the appendix. Tourist accommodations and freeway services have recently evolved in the vicinity of the State Route 90/I-10 traffic interchange mainly because of the opening of Kartchner Caverns State Park about 8 mile south of -I 10 on SR 90. Other than -I 10, this area currently experiences the heaviest traffic volumes within the project area. A motel, fast food restaurants, gas stations and truck stops are located on the south side of I-10 at the interchange. According to the Arizona Department of Commerce, the year 2002 Cochise County population was 121,040, and the Year 2002 labor force was 42,149 persons. The major industries in the county are service, retail trade and construction. Cochise County is also an important agricultural area. For all of Cochise County, individual and corporate ownership account for 40 percent of the land; the state of Arizona, 34.6 percent; the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management, 22.2 percent; and other public lands comprise the remaining 3.2 percent. The Cochise County seat is located in the Town of Bisbee, located approximately 50 miles south of the project limit. Specific demographic data for the study area were determined based on year 2000 census block data. The data shows about 1,700 people in the study area, and based on a 2.3 percent county-wide population growth rate, the current (2004) population estimate is about 1,900 people. The western limit of the study area is the Pima County/Cochise County line. On the Pima County side of the county line, the land is designated as Medium Intensity Rural (MIR) in the Pima County Comprehensive Plan. On the Cochise County side of the county line, the Cochise County Comprehensive Plan identifies the area as Rural Residential. The western section of the study area is now mostly undeveloped or low density residential. © 2005 Curtis Lueck & Associates Tucson, Arizona Page 2 NORTHWEST COCHISE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION PLANNING STUDY FINAL REPORT The Tucson metropolitan area is about 30 miles west of the study limits. Tucson is fast growing. With almost a half million residents, it has major employment in the manufacturing, government, and tourism sectors. Tucson was the nation’s 34th largest city in 1990 and the 30th largest in 2000. The Tucson Metropolitan Statistical Area, which includes eastern Pima County, has almost 1 million people and is the 57th largest MSA in the country. Many future residents will be drawn to the study area because it its proximity to Tucson. Newcomers will rely mainly on Tucson and Sierra Vista for jobs and services until they are provided within the area. The northern limit includes a portion of the community of Mescal, north of the JSix Ranch traffic interchange. The community of Mescal is the home of Old Tucson’s second movie set location, located approximately 5 miles north of I-10. South of the movie set location are residential parcels with single family residences including mobile homes. An abandoned Southern Pacific Railroad bed lies roughly parallel to I-10 along the northern limit of the project area. The abandoned rail grade crosses SR 90 approximately ½ mile north of the I-10 interchange. The southern limit of the study area is the northern boundary of a portion of the Coronado National Forest. The Sierra Vista Ranger District of the Coronado National Forest contains approximately 310,000 acres including the Huachuca, Patagonia and Whetstone Mountains. This area is a draw for recreational activities including hiking, camping and fishing. The Whetstone Mountains are an isolated range which lies approximately 30 miles north of Sierra Vista. Due to the remote location, rocky terrain and steep slopes, most of the Whetstones remain unreachable by motor vehicle. The USFS would like to see a public access road to the Whetstones. Exhibit 3 shows the main roads in the area, distances to nearby communities, and roadway ownership. © 2005 Curtis Lueck & Associates Tucson, Arizona Page 3 NORTHWEST COCHISE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION PLANNING STUDY FINAL REPORT Exhibit 2 Project Setting © 2005 Curtis Lueck & Associates Tucson, Arizona Page 4 NORTHWEST COCHISE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION PLANNING STUDY FINAL REPORT Exhibit 3 Area Roadways Major Development in the Study Area There are three master planned developments in the area south of I-10, two of which are approved. The third is now under review. One is on the east, one in the middle, and one on the west side of the area. Whetstone Ranch is an approved master planned development located along both sides of State Route 90 (SR 90) between Interstate 10 (I-10) on the north and Kartchner Caverns State Park on the south. The entire development contains about 15,500 acres and is planned have about 19,000 homes at completion. The original planning commenced while Whetstone Ranch was in unincorporated Cochise County. It was subsequently annexed into Benson, and the entire site is now within city limits. Traffic reports have been prepared recently for the beginning phase of the development. © 2005 Curtis Lueck & Associates Tucson, Arizona Page 5 NORTHWEST COCHISE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION PLANNING STUDY FINAL REPORT The center of the Northwest Cochise County study area includes the proposed 2,120 acre Smith Ranch project site, whic h is also shown in Exhibit 2. A traffic report for the Smith Ranch Master Development Plan was submitted to Cochise County by Benson Land Investor, LLC in July 2004. That report recommends phasing of access improvements to the Smith Ranch development, including the improvement of the Skyline interchange ramps, and potential access from the J-Six interchange and existing county roads. The Empirita Ranch master planned development straddles the county line, which is a main reason why Pima County is a partic ipant in this study. Both Cochise County and Pima County approved the development. Pima County voters recently approved open space acquisition bonds, including a project to rehabilitate historic buildings on the ranch. Land swaps to preserve open space are also contemplated. Related Studies Although this is the first transportation planning study for the area, there are numerous plans, reports, and resource documents including but not limited to the following: • Cochise County Comprehensive Plan • Benson General Plan • Smith Ranch Master Development Plan Traffic Report • Statewide Freeway Interchange Improvement Prioritization • ADOT Transportation Improvement Program • I-10 Corridor Study, I-19 to Cochise/Pima County Line • ADOT Vision 21 (Ongoing) • Benson Small Area Transportation Study (Ongoing) These documents are hereby incorporated by reference. © 2005 Curtis Lueck & Associates Tucson, Arizona Page 6 NORTHWEST COCHISE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION PLANNING STUDY FINAL REPORT 2. Existing Transportation System Study Area Roadways Benson originated as a transportation hub in the late 1800’s, although the pony express, stage coaches, and steam engines are long gone. The existing transportation system in the study area is predominately public roadways. There are no public transit services, although Amtrak provides infrequent long haul passenger service from Benson. This service does not accommodate commuter travel to Tucson.1 Interstate 10 and State Route 90 are the primary arterials in the area. I-10 begins on the west coast and continues to Florida. It is a major interstate and international trucking route, and it is common for I-10 to have more than 40% heavy trucks in the traffic stream. The regional and state highway system emanating from Benson makes it a gateway to southeastern Arizona. U.S. Highway 80 and State Route 90 originate in Benson and extend south to the principal cities of Cochise County. These highways also provide access to many of the tourist attractions of southeastern Arizona. The Union Pacific Railroad's main line extends through the City of Benson allowing for the shipment of materials and products by rail. The line extends east to El Paso and beyond and west to Tucson, Phoenix, Los Angeles, and San Francisco. In conjunction with I-10, the study area is traversed by two major freight corridors. Exhibit 4 shows the major roadways in the area. Alternatives for east-west travel in the I-10 corridor are non existent. If the freeway needs to be closed due to a crash or for other reasons, there would be a detour about 65 miles long, using SR 82. Since there are no alternative routes, bicycles are allowed to use the shoulder of I-10, which is neither safe nor desirable. 1 The Sunset Limited departs Benson westbound at 6:53 PM on T, Th, and Sat. Eastbound departures are M, Th, and Sat at 9:37 AM. The round trip fare to Tucson is about $20. © 2005 Curtis Lueck & Associates Tucson, Arizona Page 7 NORTHWEST COCHISE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION PLANNING STUDY FINAL REPORT Exhibit 4 Regional Map © 2005 Curtis Lueck & Associates Tucson, Arizona Page 8 NORTHWEST COCHISE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION PLANNING STUDY FINAL REPORT Description of Existing Routes Freeway, Traffic Interchanges, and Frontage Roads Interstate 10 Interstate 10 is a federal facility operated and maintained by ADOT using federally allocated funds. It is a four-lane facility extending through Cochise County with two 12foot travel lanes in each direction and a 76-foot-wide median. Within the project area the Federal Highways Administration (FHWA) classifies I-10 as a “Rural Principal Interstate.” There are three freeway interchanges within the project study area, the Mescal/JSix Ranch TI, the Skyline TI, and the SR 90 (Whetstone) TI. The J-Six Ranch TI is located one mile east of the Pima County Line, and 2.2 miles west of Skyline Road. The SR 90/Whetstone TI is located 3 miles east of the Skyline TI. There are no continuous frontage roads connecting any of these three interchanges. The 2002 recorded average annual daily traffic (AADT) along the project area of I-10 varied from 27,000 vehicles per day (vpd) to 33,000 vpd with a capacity of about 62,600. The posted speed limit along this rural section is 75 mph. SR 90 (Whetstone) Traffic Interchange The Whetstone Traffic Interchange is located at milepost 302.39, about three miles east of the Skyline Traffic Interchange. The only access to this interchange from Smith Ranch currently is via I-10. The interchange connects to SR 90 to provide access to the Kartchner Caverns State Park, about eight miles south of the interchange and to Sierra Vista, about 25 miles south. The ramps are stop-controlled at SR 90 with an exclusive right-turn lane on the eastbound off-ramp and on northbound SR 90 at the eastbound on-ramp. There is an estimated 18,000 vehicles per day total on all four ramps at this interchange, according to recent data recorded by CLA, with an approximate capacity for more than 32,000 vehicles per day. The design of this interchange, along with the alignment of the I-10 mainline is problematic, and ADOT has begun to plan and program improvements. The interchange is sufficient for current traffic volumes, but it will need to be reconstructed eventually to © 2005 Curtis Lueck & Associates Tucson, Arizona Page 9 NORTHWEST COCHISE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION PLANNING STUDY FINAL REPORT accommodate the commercial development just south of I-10 and all of the anticipated development in the Benson and Sierra Vista areas. Skyline Traffic Interchange (MP 299.35) The Skyline traffic interchange provides the sole paved vehicular access to properties to the north and south. Smith Ranch property is also accessed from this rural interchange, which was constructed in 1961 to serve the surrounding ranches. The single-lane underpass is a 14-foot +/- wide concrete box culvert with 14ft -2in vertical clearance. The on- and off-ramps are short and steep, and merge lanes on the mainline are short in both directions. Traffic signs indicating “one lane tunnel” and “sound horn” are posted on each side of the box structure. The sound horn sign is placed apparently due to the restricted sight distances for vehicles turning from the ramps into the culvert to provide auditory warning of an approaching vehicle. There is no assignment of right-of-way at the underpass (stop or yield signs) and so the basic right-of-way rule applies. This interchange clearly does not meet contemporary design standards. In recent years, the property north of the freeway has been divided into smaller parcels and, according to the 2000 census there are about 40 homes located on the north side of -I 10 that use this interchange. Its capacity is constrained by the one lane box structure, and cannot be estimated with current analytical tools because of this unique configuration. Recent ramp counts show that about 300 vehicles per day travel through the single lane box structure. ADOT’s statewide inventory of interchanges describes this interchange as being structurally and operationally deficient.2 J-Six Ranch TI (MP 297.17) The J-Six Ranch TI provides access from I-10 to the community of Mescal and several large ranches on the north, and to J-Six Ranch Road south of I-10. ADOT’s 2 Traffic Interchange Improvement Prioritization Process Update, Lima and Associates, October 1999. © 2005 Curtis Lueck & Associates Tucson, Arizona Page 10 NORTHWEST COCHISE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION PLANNING STUDY FINAL REPORT interchange prioritization report, cited earlier, shows this interchange as 24th. The interim improvements recommend in the study have already been implemented by ADOT. The TI was recently improved by ADOT to include a cantilever pedestrian walkway on the east side of J-Six Ranch Road. Additional improvements have been recommended to mitigate sight distance issues on J-Six Ranch Road at the TI, and to lengthen merging areas onto I-10 from the on-ramps. The two-lane overpass is the main capacity constraint, and the two-way frontage roads result in intersections closely spaced with the ramps, posing operational constraints. Exit 300 – US Air Force Exit Ramp Until recently, an exit ramp was located at milepost 300 to allow access to a Titan II missile site. Military traffic from the site used the frontage road (also called Titan Road) to return to Davis-Monthan Air Force Base in Tucson. The Air Force decommissioned the site in the early 1980’s, sold the land it was on, and the off ramp was recently removed by ADOT. I-10 Frontage Roads Several roads act as discontinuous frontage roads to I-10 within the project area. Some of them are located within the ADOT right of way, and some are not. Most of them provide the only vehicular access to homes and vacant land in the area. At the J-Six Ranch/Mescal Interchange, there is an existing frontage road north of I-10.. It is a two-lane, two-way roadway with a posted speed limit of 50 mph. The roadway provides access to commercial uses near the interchange and local streets along the route. West of this interchange, the frontage road continues approximately 2/3-mile. The frontage road becomes the Benson Highway west of the Pima County line and continues west to Empire Road where it ends. The west end of the frontage road provides access to several properties west of the County Line, in Pima County. East of the J-Six Ranch interchange the frontage road continues ½ mile east where it ends at Cherokee Trail, also providing access to residential parcels in the area. A jurisdictional transfer to Cochise County is underway, pending concurrence by the Cochise County Board of Supervisors and pavement rehabilitation by ADOT. There are no frontage roads connecting to J-Six Ranch Road on the south side of I-10. On the north side of the Skyline Road TI, Skyline Road parallels I-10 for ¾ mile west of the interchange and approximately 3 miles east of the interchange. This frontage road is outside the ADOT right of way and provides access to residential parcels north of I-10. The City of Benson General Plan shows an extension of Whetstone Commerce Drive, a roadway on the east side of SR 90 near Gas City, to intersect with 4th Avenue (SR 80) just south of the Benson TI about one and one-quarter miles east of SR 90. On the north side of I-10, SR 90 turns into Dark Star Road and curves to the west. It ends approximately 2.5 miles west of the I-10/SR 90 TI. A paved two-lane roadway, it provides access to Spear Ranch Road and few residential lots. A small farm products store is located at the end of Dark Star Road. On the east side of SR 90, north of I-10, a very short frontage road provides access to a private residence. Titan Road Titan Road is the existing two-lane, two-way frontage road south of -I 10 from State Route 90 to the west. The easternmost segment of the roadway is a City of Benson street, and the rest is owned by ADOT. ADOT has proposed a possible jurisdictional transfer of the frontage road to the City and Cochise County. © 2005 Curtis Lueck & Associates Tucson, Arizona Page 11 NORTHWEST COCHISE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION PLANNING STUDY FINAL REPORT Titan Road currently ends at the entrance to a decommissioned Titan 2 missile site. As mentioned, until recently there was a slip ramp to I-10 that served the missile site. Just west of SR 90 it connects to Village Loop, a city street that extends south and then east to intersect with SR 90 at a signalized intersection. The Village Looking north along Village Loop to intersection with Titan Road Loop is also a two-way, two-lane roadway. Recent traffic counts show current average daily traffic on the frontage road west of Village Loop at 160 vehicles per day and about 1300 vpd on Village Loop west of SR 90. Skyline Road This road extends a short distance north from the interchange as a paved twolane roadway. On the north side of I-10, the roadway continues in an east-west alignment parallel to I-10 as an unpaved road providing access to about 40 homes in the area. The road ends about one mile east and about one-quarter mile west of the interchange. There is also a church and a USPS gang mailbox at the northwest quadrant of the Skyline interchange. Looking east along Skyline Rd on north side of I-10 Skyridge Road On the south side of the Skyline Road TI, Skyridge Road is a short ¼ mile segment of “frontage road” that parallels I-10 on the south and is the connection between Smith Ranch on the east and the Benson Equipment Rental yard on the west. Upon inspection, it appears to be an ADOT facility, however it may be Cochise County’s based on the (1) street name sign and the (2) lack of reference as a state facility in ADOT’s system log. Cochise County staff state it is not a county road, and the street sign may be Looking east along Skyridge Rd on placed for addressing reasons only. Based on south side of I-10 existing roadway as-builts, it appears that ADOT has jurisdiction up to the location of the cattle guards. Since this issue needs to be further clarified, and since the road appears to be within ADOT’s right of way fence, we assume that it remains an ADOT facility. There is also documentation that this road and portions of I-10 are in an easement versus dedicated right-of-way. © 2005 Curtis Lueck & Associates Tucson, Arizona Page 12 NORTHWEST COCHISE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION PLANNING STUDY FINAL REPORT State, County and City Arterials State Route 90 SR 90 is a state highway that extends from I-10 on the north to Sierra Vista and then east from Sierra Vista to SR 80 near Bisbee. It is a four-lane, divided roadway from south of I-10 to SR 82 with a 300-foot right of way, where it continues through Sierra Vista as a four-lane, undivided roadway. Within the project area the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) classifies I-10 as a “Rural Principal Other” roadway. There is a short section of raised median through the commercial area at the Whetstone traffic interchange (inside the Benson city limits). The road is paved with rubberized asphalt that provides an exceptionally smooth and quiet surface. South of the commercial area near I-10, left-turn bays are provided at the existing median openings with a storage length of about 550 feet. It has a broad median to accommodate future roadway widening. Left turning traffic has stop control in the median. SR 90 also provides access to Fort Huachuca and Kartchner Caverns State Park. Mescal Road/J-Six Ranch Road J-Six Road, looking north from Williams Road area This county roadway is a two-lane major north-south collector that changes names at the I-10 corridor. Mescal Road continues north from the I-10 interchange, crossing the Southern Pacific Railroad tracks and north toward the Rincon Mountains. This road serves a low density rural residential area between the railroad tracks and I-10 and recreational activities toward the north. It has a posted speed of 50 mph. This road also provides access to a western movie town set location. J-Six Ranch Road extends from the Mescal Road interchange to Deer Run Road, about three miles south. J-Six is a two-lane roadway, with a 15-mph reverse curve just south of the interchange. It serves large lot rural residential areas, and is intersected © 2005 Curtis Lueck & Associates Tucson, Arizona Page 13 NORTHWEST COCHISE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION PLANNING STUDY FINAL REPORT by Williams, Clark, and Joseph Road, which extend east of J-Six to tie into Crazy Woman Road adjacent to state lands. Williams, Clark, Joseph, Crazy Woman and Navajo Trail These five roads are all low volume east-west County rural local streets, except for Crazy Woman Road which is on a north-south alignment. All are paved (chip seal) two-lane roads with unimproved shoulders, and none can be considered all-weather access. Each is posted as 25 mph except Navajo Trail (35 mph). Joseph Road abuts private land on the south. Navajo Trail continues west from J-Six Ranch Road into Pima County and ends within the Empirita Ranch area. Joseph Road, looking west from Crazy Woman. Whetstone Road This roadway is located on state land west of SR 90, about 1.5 miles south of I-10. It aligns with Jenella Road at a full median opening in SR 90 and extends in a southwesterly direction to connect to Canary Springs Road, a dedicated county roadway located southwest of the state trust land. There are about seven homes in that area according to the 2000 census. We contacted the State Land Department and Cochise County Right-of-Way Department to try and determine what the legal status of this road is and were not able to find a dedicated public right-of-way. © 2005 Curtis Lueck & Associates Tucson, Arizona Page 14 NORTHWEST COCHISE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION PLANNING STUDY FINAL REPORT The only road access is a state lease to Qwest in addition to a transmission line easement. According to County staff, the road may be considered a public right-of-way by virtue of ARS 28-7041 or ARS 28-7042 as described below. Major Intersections All of the intersections in the study area are unsignalized and controlled by either stop signs or right-of-way rule. The exception is the Village Loop/SR 90 intersection. This intersection, shown in the photo below, has a simple three-phase operation with permissive/protected left turn phasing for traffic on SR 90. Left turns on Village Loop are permitted during the single east-west phase. Right-turn on red in permitted on all four approaches, and pedestrian activation (call buttons) are present. Eastbound approach of the Village Loop/SR 90 signalized intersection SAFETY ISSUES Traffic accident data was obtained from ADOT’s Phoenix staff for ADOT facilities between milepost 298 and 302. In the three-year period of October 1, 1999 through September 30, 2002 there have been four accidents at the Skyline interchange and three on the (south) frontage road east of the project site. There have been an inordinately high number of accidents (111) on the mainline. The data are summarized below. • • • Skyline Interchange 1 accident SB on the crossing at the intersection with the WB ramps Single Vehicle Accident, roadway under construction, wet surface, 10:45 at night - Violation - speed too fast for conditions. 1 accident on the WB Off Ramp at the crossing: two-vehicle angle accident - The violation was "running a stop sign" 2 accidents on the EB On Ramp (towards Benson): 1 was a semi on fire (single vehicle); and the other was an unusual two-car accident (It appears one vehicle was rolling backwards on the ramp) - violation is listed as "other" Frontage Road Between SR 90 and Old Missile Base Road © 2005 Curtis Lueck & Associates Tucson, Arizona Page 15 NORTHWEST COCHISE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION PLANNING STUDY FINAL REPORT • • • 1 Single Vehicle Accident –listed as “speed too fast for conditions” 1 single Vehicle Accident – Vehicle overturned; no violation listed 1 rear-end accident – violation listed as “speed too fast for conditions” Whetstone TI • 9 accidents on the EB Off Ramp • 4 accidents on the EB On Ramp • 1 accident on the WB Off Ramp • 2 accidents on the WB On Ramp • 1 accident on the crossing I-10 Mainline • A total of 111 accidents were reported • 63% were single vehicle accidents • 18% were sideswipe accidents (same direction) • 12% were rear-end accidents • There were a total of 4 fatalities Alternate Modes There are no existing sidewalks on any of the study area roadways, except on the Mescal interchange overpass, and the built up areas of Benson. SR 90 is considered a bikeable route on the ADOT system maps due to its paved shoulders. There are no other bike routes posted in the area at this time. Bicycles are allowed to use I-10 shoulders due to the lack of continuous frontage roads or parallel surface streets. There is no public transit service available. Catholic Social Service provides limited transportation services through local vans and mini-buses to hospitals, nutrition centers and shopping. This service is provided through Local Transportation Assistance Fund (LTAF II) funding. Rail passenger service is available via Amtrak’s Sunset Limited line from the Benson station. The train operates three times per week in each direction. However service may someday be eliminated due to ongoing Amtrak budget problems. Analysis of Existing Conditions Existing Traffic Volumes and Levels of Service Currently, all of the roads and intersections in the study area perform acceptably according to our analysis. Performance of study area roads was evaluated under existing conditions based on Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) assessment methods3, which are widely used for planning applications. 4 The FDOT methods are based on the most recent version of the Highway Capacity Manual. Estimated capacities for the different roadway types based on the FDOT criteria are shown below in Exhibit 5 for both Level of Service (LOS) C and LOS D conditions. Level of service is a qualitative description of how well a facility (roadway, intersection, ramp junction, etc.) operates under prevailing traffic conditions. A grading system of A through F, similar to academic grades, is used to assess the operational performance of the facility. LOS A represents free-flowing traffic, whereas LOS F is forced flow and extreme congestion. In rural areas, LOS C is the general standard for 3 This discussion applies to roadway segments only; intersections are analyzed with HCS operational methods. Florida is recognized nationally as a trendsetter in transportation planning, access management, and traffic engineering in high growth areas. Unlike Florida, ADOT has not yet adopted its own analytical methods for development projects. 4 © 2005 Curtis Lueck & Associates Tucson, Arizona Page 16 NORTHWEST COCHISE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION PLANNING STUDY FINAL REPORT acceptable roadway performance, and LOS D is generally considered acceptable for peak period intersection operations. For roadways in areas transitioning from rural, such as the Smith Ranch area, LOS D may be considered acceptable for peak periods. The FDOT assessment methods apply level of service standards from the Highway Capacity Manual for freeways and highways based on criteria such as density, volume to capacity ratios and free-flow speeds. There are a limited number of assessment tools for estimating daily level of service on roadways. FDOT assessment methods have been applied throughout the country by state and local agencies for estimating roadway performance. The LOS standards and assessment methods are available online at www.dot.state.fl.us/planning/. Arizona and Florida have similar driver populations with many older drivers and tourists. The two states also have similar growth trends, development patterns, and economies. In addition, both Arizona and Florida have military facilities which in Arizona include Fort Huachuca, a military base accessed in part by SR 90. Based on this, it is reasonable to apply the FDOT assessment methods on Arizona roadways. Exhibit 5 FDOT LOS C and D Criteria for Roadway Types within the Study Area LOS C Daily Capacity LOS D Daily Capacity Freeway (4 Lanes) 52,500 62,200 State Two-Way Arterials (4 Lane Divided, Class 1*) 32,800 34,200 5,600 10,880 Facility Type Non-State Roadway (2 Lane Undivided, no Left Turn Lanes) *Class 1 arterials have >0.00 to 1.99 signalized intersections per mile We recorded roadway volumes in the study area in 2003 and 2004. Daily volumes for I-10 are ADOT data from 2002. Exhibit 6 shows the recorded average weekday volumes, as well as other roadway data including levels of service, for the roadways in the Phase 1 study area. The area roadways currently operate at LOS C or better. Capacity at LOS C and D is derived from FDOT Generalized Annual Average Daily Volumes for Areas Transitioning into Urbanized Area, FDOT Level of Service Handbook. A copy of the table from the handbook is provided in the appendix. © 2005 Curtis Lueck & Associates Tucson, Arizona Page 17 NORTHWEST COCHISE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION PLANNING STUDY FINAL REPORT Exhibit 6 Existing Roadway Traffic Data Inventory Roadway Segment Titan Road West end to Village Loop Village Loop Road Titan Road to SR 90 State Route 90 North of Village Loop South of Village Loop Mescal Road SPRR Railroad to I-10 J-Six Ranch Road I-10 to Deer Run Williams Road J-Six Ranch Rd to Crazy Woman Rd Clark Road J-Six Ranch Rd to Crazy Woman Rd Joseph Road J-Six Ranch Rd to Crazy Woman Rd Navajo Trail West of J-Six Ranch Rd Skyline Road at I-10 Whetstone Road East of SR 90 Dark Star Road SR 90 to East End Interstate 10 Pima County Line to J-Six Ranch Rd J-Six Ranch Rd to Skyline TI Skyline TI to SR 90 East of SR 90 Frontage Rd (Benson Hwy) Cherokee Trail to Mescal Rd Mescal Rd to Pima County Line Skyridge Road Smith Ranch to Equipment Yard Existing Daily Traffic Count Source Year Speed Daily Daily No. Limit Capacity Capacity Lanes (mph) (LOS C) (LOS D) LOS Right-ofWay 160 CLA 2004 2 25-50* 5,600 10,880 C In I-10 R/W 1,300 CLA 2004 2 25 7,000 13,600 C 50 est 18,900 8,600 CLA CLA 2004 2004 4 4 35 55 24,400 24,400 30,600 30,600 C C 300 300 1,350 CLA 2003 2 50 5,600 10,880 C 50 FT 2,350 CLA 2003 2 15-25 5,600 10,880 C 50 FT 180 CLA 2003 2 25 3,520 7,520 C 50 FT 160 CLA 2003 2 25 3,520 7,520 C 50 FT 100 CLA 2003 2 25 3,520 7,520 C 50 FT*** 1,230 CLA 2003 2 35 4,620 9,870 C 80 FT 280 CLA 2003 2 NP 3,520 7,520 C ADOT 100 EST current 2 NP 1,000* 1,000* A 80 160 CLA 2003 2 NP 3,520 7,520 C ADOT 27,400 28,500 33,000 19,900 ADOT ADOT ADOT ADOT 2002 2002 2002 2002 4 4 4 4 75 75 75 75 52,500 52,500 52,500 52,500 62,200 62,200 62,200 62,200 B B B B 300 300 300 300 1,750 1,000 ADOT 2002 EST current 2 2 50 50 4,000 4,000 9,440 9,440 C C ADOT ADOT 2 NP 3,520 7,520 C ADOT esmt 50 EST current * - This roadway is posted at 25 mph in the westbound (dead end) direction and 50 mph in the eastbound direction at the westernmost section. **- Estimate of capacity for unpaved 2-lane local roadway. *** Some sections of Joseph Road have no recorded right-of-way Ramp Volumes We also recorded ramp volumes on the study area I-10 ramps in 2003 and 2004. Exhibit 7 shows the average weekday ramp volumes for the three project area -I 10 interchanges. Exhibit 7 Existing I-10 Ramps Daily Volumes Ramp Volumes - Daily (Highest Peak Hour) Interchange J-Six/Mescal Skyline SR 90 © 2005 EB ON 1,250 (150) 202 (17) 3,835 (294) EB OFF 1,000 (120) 165 (20) 5,149 (375) Curtis Lueck & Associates Tucson, Arizona WB ON 850 (95) 131 (14) 5,482 (481) WB OFF Year of Count 1,450 (130) 2003 175 (21) 2004 3,287 (266) 2004 Page 18 NORTHWEST COCHISE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION PLANNING STUDY FINAL REPORT SR 90/Village Loop Intersection As shown in Exhibit 8, the existing performance at the intersection is LOS A with an average intersection delay of 9.7 seconds/vehicle in the AM peak hour and LOS B with an average delay of 10.2 seconds/vehicle in the PM peak hour. All of the approaches operate at LOS C or better during both periods. The current Highway Capacity Software methodology for analyzing signalized intersections was applied to estimate delay and LOS. Exhibit 8 Existing Intersection Level of Service at Village Loop/SR 90 AM Pk Hr PM Pk Hr EB Approach LOS/Delay (sec) C/24.3 C/25.1 WB Approach LOS/Delay (sec) C/21.9 C/22.3 NB Approach LOS/Delay (sec) A/8.0 A/8.4 SB Approach LOS/Delay (sec) A/6.8 A/6.9 Intersection LOS/Delay (sec) A/9.7 B/10.2 Exhibit 9 on the next page summarizes traffic volumes and levels of service in the study area on a map. © 2005 Curtis Lueck & Associates Tucson, Arizona Page 19 FINAL REPORT NORTHWEST COCHISE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION PLANNING STUDY Exhibit 9 Summary of Volumes and LOS © 2005 Curtis Lueck & Associates Tucson, Arizona Page 20 NORTHWEST COCHISE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION PLANNING STUDY FINAL REPORT Future Rights-of-Way and Development Standards Cochise County and Benson have adopted right-of-way standards for various roadway classifications. Cochise County has published roadway design standards based on MCDOT standards. The following information is from the Cochise County Subdivision Regulations – Article 4, General Requirements and from Road Construction Standards for Public Improvements, Section D – Cochise County Road Cross Sections and Other Details. Street Class R/W width Arterial Rural Major Collector Urban Major Collector Rural Minor Collector (1) Rural Minor Collector (2) Urban Minor Collector Rural Local Road (3) Rural Local Road (4) Urban Local Residential 150 100 80 80 80 60 60 50 50 Roadway Surface (Minimum) 68 38 52 28 28 40 24 20 32 Roadway Surface (With L/T) 48 52 42 Curb/Gutter Sidewalk* Yes (C) If required per (D) If required per (B) If required per (B) If required per (A) or (D) Yes (RCS) If required per (D) If required per (D) Yes (RCS) (1) = ADT is > 2,000 (2) = ADT is < 2,000 (3) = ADT is > 400 (4) = ADT is < 400 RCS = Road Construction Standards *Section 405.04 Sidewalks, Curbs and Gutters and Other Access (A) Sidewalks, curbs and gutters are required in all non-residential subdivisions along the front of the buildings and connecting all separate buildings and parking areas (B) (C) (D) Sidewalks, curbs and gutters are required on local and collector streets for residential subdivisions when the lot size is ½ acre or smaller. Sidewalks, curbs and gutters are required on streets that are identified or function as arterial streets. Sidewalks, curbs and gutters are required in residential subdivisions when required by the County Engineer for storm water management and may be required when recommended by a city located within three (3) miles of the subdivision. City of Benson Subdivision Regulations – Section 16-108, Street Planning Street Class R/W width Major Arterial Minor Arterial Major Collector Minor Collector Major Local Street Minor Local Street 110 80 80 60 60 50 Roadway Surface 68 68 48 40 32 32 Curb/ Gutter Yes Yes Yes Yes (1) (1) Sidewalk Yes Yes Yes Yes (2) (2) (1) Not required where the actual density is less than 1 residence per acre (2) Not required where the smallest actual lot size is greater than 14,520 sf © 2005 Curtis Lueck & Associates Tucson, Arizona Page 21 NORTHWEST COCHISE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION PLANNING STUDY FINAL REPORT ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS AND PLANNING STUDIES The study area is mostly in unincorporated Cochise County, close to Benson, and within ADOT’s Safford Engineering District. The ADOT District Engineer has the responsibility and authority to champion improvements within the district, and to participate with local jurisdictions on all issues impacting the State Highway System. Traffic engineering support to the district comes from the “Baja Traffic Engineering” staff in Tucson, which also serves the Tucson District. ADOT Projects ADOT’s proposed projects are identified in the Five-Year Bid Date Report. ADOT proposes to reconstruct the Whetstone interchange to im prove vertical clearance at the underpass and to improve the geometry of the mainline. Signalization of the ramp/cross road intersections is also anticipated. This project has not yet been funded for construction. Last year, ADOT selected an engineering consultant (URS) to conduct a design concept report for I-10 from the I-19 system interchange to the county line. The work began in January 2003, and was expected to take up to 18-months to complete. However, a delay in travel demand modeling at PAG has set back the project’s schedule. A DCR includes an inventory of existing conditions, forecasts of future conditions, recommendations for improvements, and preliminary plans for future detailed design projects. The DCR could be extended east to Benson using information from this study as a base. ADOT’S Safford District Active Project Status Report lists one project within the study area. This is construction of a passing lane on I-10 between SR 90 and Ocotillo TI in Benson. This project is currently scheduled for FY 2006. PAG Projects The Pima Association of Governments is undertaking an extensive study of arterial roadways in the area bounded by I-19 on the west, the Sonoita Highway (SR 83) on the east, I-10 and Valencia Road on the north, and Sahuarita Road on the south. The Sonoita Highway is about 17 miles west of Smith Ranch, which shows how the Tucson area is expanding east towards Benson. Benson and Cochise County Projects The City of Benson has approved the commission of a “Small Area Transportation Study” in partnership with the Arizona Department of Transportation. This study will typically examine current and future roadway and transit needs in the City’s sphere of influence. The developers of Whetstone Ranch are currently constructing an improved connection of Jenella Road at State Route 90. This connection will eliminate the need for east-west through traffic to pass through the Cochise Community College parking lot. When completed, this improvement will provide a viable alternate connection between SR 90 and SR 80 (Main Street) in Benson. ADOT and the developer of Whetstone Ranch are also proposing a future traffic signal at the intersection of SR 90/Jenella Road. Cochise County has no programmed improvements in the study area. © 2005 Curtis Lueck & Associates Tucson, Arizona Page 22 NORTHWEST COCHISE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION PLANNING STUDY FINAL REPORT 3. Future Conditions Analysis Overview This study utilizes a computer-based simulation model of travel in the study area rather than the more traditional manual forecasts used for small-scale analysis projects. 5 The model used is QRSII, developed originally for the United States Department of Transportation by AJH Associates. The model has been used widely in Southern Arizona by the City of Sierra Vista, CLA and others. A brief description of the model is provided below. More detailed information about the model is available at http://my.execpc.com/~ajh/index.html and related links. The user manual is also available on the Internet. The City of Benson recognized a need for traffic forecasts for the circulation element of the Benson General Plan. CLA was commissioned to prepare a model using the QRS II software. After the General Plan was adopted, the Pima Association of Governments began to include the Benson area in its model for eastern Pima County. The Benson model differs from PAG’s regional travel demand model in two fundamental ways. First, the Benson model has much more detail within the study area, and can therefore be used for operational as well as planning-level studies. Second, the model has more up to date socio-economic, land use, and roadway network information. The Benson model was then updated and expanded for the Northwest Cochise County Transportation Planning Study. The County also purchased the software and can use the output for future analysis, if desired. The future conditions models used for this study incorporate proposed and committed land development that have not yet been built, for example Whetstone Ranch, Smith Ranch, and Empirita Ranch are all included, along with commercial developments. It also includes probable land uses consistent with the General Plan and the County’s Comprehensive Plan. City and County staff and other project participants provided critical input regarding the future conditions, both for roadway improvements and land use. The land development added to the model is expected to be built within about 30 years, and so the models represent a horizon year of about 2035. Travel Demand Model The Quick Response System II (QRSII) for Windows is a computer program for forecasting impacts of urban developments on highway traffic and for forecasting impacts of highway projects on travel patterns. In addition, QRSII has complete transit ridership forecasting capabilities, which are not used in this report. Quick Response System II runs the four-step planning process – trip generation, trip distribution, mode split, traffic assignment – for highway forecasting QRSII has two components - QRSII, the numerical model, and the General Network Editor (GNE). GNE is a graphical user interface that permits the user to draw a network on the monitor screen, enter verbal descriptions and numerical data about each element of the network, edit the network and its data, compute intermediate results though a series of worksheets, and search for network elements that meet certain criteria. GNE can also be used for displaying results from QRSII. All data for QRSII are entered through GNE. Roadway Network QRSII uses networks, nodes, and links to describe the transportation system and land use setting. The highway system is described by a network. A network consists mainly of representations of streets and intersections. Streets are shown as links. © 2005 Curtis Lueck & Associates Tucson, Arizona Page 23 NORTHWEST COCHISE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION PLANNING STUDY FINAL REPORT Intersections are shown as nodes. Streets and intersections have attributes that are important to QRSII such as the number of lanes and travel speed. Traffic Analysis Zones Traffic analysis zones , or TAZ’s, are geographical subdivisions of the modeled area that contain a centroid, which is a node that contains socioeconomic data, such as the number of homes and employees within the TAZ. The centroid is connected to the roadway network with centroid connectors. A detailed model, such as the one used for this study will generally include roadways down to the local collector street serving a subdivision, but not the local access streets. The centroid is usually connected to the lowest level streets serving the TAZ. The model then distributes this traffic to the hierarchy of the roadway network to distribute trips between dwellings, and commercial and employment centers. Maps are provided in the appendixes that identify the TAZ boundaries, socioeconomics, and the connections to the roadway network for both the existing condition and the future condition. We have also provided a table that lists the number of homes and jobs in each TAZ for both the existing and future conditions. The table in Exhibit 10 shows the summary of socioeconomics by subregion for the two conditions. Exhibit 10 Summary of Socioeconomics for Existing and Future Conditions Existing Non Retail 970 0 135 Benson Whetstone Ranch Northwest Cochise CO Retail 605 150 30 Dwelling 2,473 18 2,360 Benson Whetstone Ranch Northwest Cochise CO Number Increase Retail Non Retail Dwelling 1,440 3,720 14,915 1,435 1,055 8,765 405 385 9,485 Retail 2,045 1,583 435 Future Non Retail Dwelling 4,690 17,389 1,055 8,784 520 11,843 Percent Increase Retail Non Retail Dwelling 238% 384% 603% 955% 48700% 1350% 285% 402% Trip Generation/Travel Characteristics Existing Conditions In order to determine the travel and trip generation characteristics of the study area, an existing conditions model was developed using the existing roadways as identified in Exhibit 6, Existing Roadway Traffic Data Inventory and socioeconomic data derived from information provided by Cochise County and the 2000 Census Data. The study area was appended to an existing conditions model that was developed for the City of Benson in 2002 for the Benson General Plan. The existing conditions in the study area are depicted on the map provided in the appendix entitled “Existing Conditions TAZ Map/Census Blocks Overlay”. We then ran the model and made adjustments to QRS II parameters and trip generation by zone to calibrate the model output to the recorded volumes that we had taken in the field at several locations. The original Benson model had been calibrated to recorded field data and, so it was necessary to maintain the original travel characteristics of that area. We were able to calibrate the model very closely to field conditions as shown below in Exhibit 11, Calibrated Existing Conditions Model. © 2005 Curtis Lueck & Associates Tucson, Arizona Page 24 NORTHWEST COCHISE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION PLANNING STUDY FINAL REPORT Exhibit 11 Calibrated Existing Conditions Model Red text = recorded volumes Black text = model output Trip Generation Information from the model output was analyzed to determine the travel characteristics of the area including travel between subregions (districts) and surrounding areas and trips made between the home for employment and non-employment purposes. These trips are classified as “Home Based Work” (HBW) and “Home Based Nonwork” (HBNW) trips. These home based trips represent driveway traffic at each dwelling unit. A third category of trips is the “Non-Home Based” (NHB) trip and represents pass-by and diverted link trips that occur as a secondary trip to the home based trip. Some of these non home based trips take place outside of the study area. For example, a resident of the study area may be employed in Tucson and make stops along the way or run errands from the office. The table in Exhibit 12 provides the system-wide and study area (northwest) statistics for the current and future condition. These tables show that the system average residential trip rate at the dwelling is about 11.3 and the northwest area rate is about 7.0. This lower trip rate, which is still within the ITE trip generation range for single family dwelling units 6 is typical for the more rural, remote areas. There are minimal employment and commercial opportunities in these areas and, so the residents don’t make as many trips on a daily basis as do residents of more urbanized areas. They tend to link and consolidate trips and run fewer single purpose errands. The statistics for the future condition show that the home based trip rates increases to about 8.4 in the northwest area and the NHB rate decreases. This is largely due to development of planned commercial and employment centers located closer to the residential areas of the 6 The daily range of rates for Land Use Category 210 – Single Family Detached Housing – is 4.31 to 21.85 © 2005 Curtis Lueck & Associates Tucson, Arizona Page 25 NORTHWEST COCHISE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION PLANNING STUDY FINAL REPORT northwest area. This includes some business growth near the Mescal/J-Six Ranch TI and commercial development within the Smith Ranch area plan. Exhibit 12 Total Dwelling Units Persons per Household Total Population TOTAL PERSON TRIPS Person Trips per dwelling Home based work (HBW) trips HBW Percent of Total Home based non-work (HBNW) trips HBNW Percent of Total Non-home based (NHB) trips NHB Percent of Total HBW Average Occupancy Rate HBNW Average Occupancy Rate NHB Average Occupancy Rate Average Person Trips/Person (Productions) TOTAL RESIDENTIAL TRIPS Average Vehicle Trips per dwelling (Inc NHB) Avg Vehicle Trip ends at Dwelling Avg HBW Vehicle Trips per dwelling Avg HBNW Vehicle Trips per dwelling Avg NHB Vehicle Trips per dwelling Avg Vehicle Trip ends per Employee Travel Statistics Current Condition System Wide Northwest 3,645 1,065 2.5 2.5 9,110 2,660 82,620 18,491 23 17 22,664 4,545 36% 25% 39,511 6,586 43% 36% 20,446 7,360 22% 40% 1.30 1.30 1.67 1.67 1.60 1.60 9.1 7.0 53,872 12,040 14.8 11.3 11.3 7.0 4.8 3.3 6.5 3.7 3.5 4.3 11.4 24.5 Future Condition System Wide Northwest 38,704 14,007 3 3 96,760 35,020 927,280 221,524 24 16 259,858 55,718 35% 25% 415,423 125,036 42% 56% 226,794 65,979 23% 30% 1.30 1.30 1.67 1.67 1.60 1.66 9.6 6.3 590,393 157,478 15.3 11.2 11.6 8.4 5.2 3.1 6.4 5.3 3.7 2.8 66.3 51.6 Trip Distribution Exhibit 13 provides a table that shows the distribution of the Northwest Area trips to the Tucson, Benson, and Sierra Vista areas and Exhibit 14 is a more detailed table showing the trips between districts. The tables illustrate that the distribution will likely shift from Tucson to Benson over time and that, because of proposed commercial development and employment in the study area and nearby Benson community, more trips will remain within the northwest area. Exhibit 13 Total Northwest Area Trips To Tucson (WEST) To Benson (EAST) To Sierra Vista (SOUTH) Remaining in Study Area © 2005 Distribution of Northwest Area Trips Current Condition Number Percent 5,720 100% 1,765 31% 1,285 22% 520 9% 2,150 38% Curtis Lueck & Associates Tucson, Arizona Future Condition Number Percent 39,745 100% 6,415 16% 9,435 24% 1,280 3% 22,615 57% Page 26 NORTHWEST COCHISE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION PLANNING STUDY FINAL REPORT Exhibit 14 NORTHWEST AREA NW NW Cochise Cochise Freeway north south Commercial 50 390 785 5 920 3355 CURRENT CONDITIONS TOTAL TRIPS BETWEEN DISTRICTS NW Cochise north NW Cochise south Freeway Commercial Tucson East of Benson Benson Sierra Vista/Bisbee FUTURE CONDITIONS TOTAL TRIPS BETWEEN DISTRICTS NW Cochise North NW Cochise South Freeway Commercial Smith Ranch Tucson Eastof Benson Benson Whetstone Sierra Vista/Bisbee Trips Between Districts NW Cochise North 915 1150 3625 2530 1865 10 4000 1985 30 NORTHWEST AREA NW Cochise Freeway Smith South Commercial Ranch 1,150 3,625 2,530 1705 5,795 2,530 590 5795 14,080 2530 14080 6595 4550 3415 3415 10 30 30 5415 26975 15180 3105 13770 8565 50 80 135 Tucson 835 930 1,050 N/A Tucson 1,865 2,675 150 3,415 N/A 29065 2115 795 6400 East of Benson 30 30 625 15,000 N/A East of Benson 10 10 245 30 56,000 170 340 90 4200 Benson 380 845 2,935 2,515 750 7220 Sierra Vista/Bisbee 410 110 1,120 6,400 2,100 1,145 N/A Benson Whetstone 4,000 1,985 5,415 3,105 26,975 13,770 7,775 8,565 2,115 795 340 90 68375 35,375 35375 19025 755 680 Sierra Vista / Bisbee 30 50 80 135 6,400 4,200 755 680 N/A Future Alternatives There are opportunities for roadway extensions, new roadways as part of new development, and capacity expansion of existing roads. Our field inventory shows three possible corridors north of I-10 that could take advantage of existing rights-of-way and easements. The approximate alignments are shown in Exhibit 9. The first is the abandoned rail bed that extends through the area. This also has a parallel overhead power line, as shown in the photo below. The second is an El Paso Natural Gas easement, and the third is the UPRR mainline right-of-way. Use of any of these corridors would require additional planning and engineering analysis, as well as coordination with the owners of these facilities. © 2005 Curtis Lueck & Associates Tucson, Arizona Page 27 NORTHWEST COCHISE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION PLANNING STUDY FINAL REPORT Abandoned rail bed (top), EPNG easement (center) and UPRR mainline right-of-way (bottom). Using land use and transportation input from the participants and other sources, the study team produced and reviewed a series of preliminary alternatives. Many of the alternatives conceptually used an existing alignment on the north side (discussed above) to connect Mescal Road with the SR 90 area. All of the alternatives also had one or more connections between J-Six Ranch Road and SR 90, which would connect with proposed roadway extensions into Benson. These connecting alignments are already on Benson’s General Plan Circulation Element at Jennella Road, Whetstone Commerce Drive, and Post Road. These would connect the SR 90 corridor with Benson and with SR 80 in the heart of Benson. All of the alternatives also include a new or replacement Skyline traffic interchange, new interchanges at Mescal and Whetstone, and the extension of the SR 90 corridor north to Aviation Way. The award winning Benson Municipal Airport is located just outside the study area, north of I-10 and west of Ocotillo Road. The airport has poor accessibility, and is now served only by a three mile long driveway that extends west from Ocotillo Road. The airport is near I-10 and the UPRR mainline and has potential for a regional Intermodal center. The Benson General Plan shows the airport area as a major employment center. Accordingly, Benson representatives requested that a hypothetical extension of the SR 90 corridor north to the airport industrial area be included in the analysis, and then carried forward in the alternatives if it appeared viable. The connection was evaluated and carried almost enough traffic for a four-lane roadway, provided an interconnection between the SR 90 and Ocotillo interchanges, and so it was included in all the subsequent models. © 2005 Curtis Lueck & Associates Tucson, Arizona Page 28 NORTHWEST COCHISE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION PLANNING STUDY FINAL REPORT After review and discussion, three alternatives were further refined and selected for continued analysis and evaluation. The following discussion provides interpretation of the model results. The exhibits supporting each alternative show the roadway cross section as color-coded. Black represents two-lane, red represents four lanes, and blue represents six lanes of capacity. The daily two-way traffic volumes are also shown rounded to the nearest 100 vehicles. Model statistics are provided n the appendix. In all cases, the new alignments should be considered very conceptual. Prior to implementation, additional alignment, right-of-way, environmental, and design studies would be needed. These could take three or more years to fund and implement. The traffic volumes on the I-10 ramps are shown in the exhibits above their actual location. All of the alternatives indicate that the three interchanges will need to be replaced with higher capacity contemporary facilities, and the off-ramp/cross road intersections will likely need to be signalized or have roundabouts.7 These interchange projects could cost about $10 million or more each, and take up to eight years to implement, assuming funding will be available for construction. All of the alternatives provide interconnectivity between the freeway interchanges either via frontage roads or east-west collector roadways tying in to current north-south routes. This provides alternatives for travel on the freeway for shorter trips, and would permit safer use of bicycles and walking for shorter trips. Major arterial/arterial and arterial/collector intersections will very likely meet traffic signal warrants. The collector/collector intersections may need signalization, but they could also be designed as contemporary roundabout to negate the expense and delay associated with traffic signals. Signals should only be installed and activated when warrants contained in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices are met, and an engineering analysis demonstrates their need. Alternative 1: One Way Frontage Roads This alternative emphasizes a pair of one-way frontage roads adjacent to I-10 to serve east-west movements, and two additional local collector corridors connecting the Skyline interchange to SR 90 at Jennella and Post Road, thus connecting into existing Benson. Frontage roads would need to be either outside ADOT’s right-of-way or a jurisdictional transfer of right-of-way from ADOT to local jurisdictions would need to take place. The Jennella connection could occur through State Trust land, which should be acceptable to the Arizona State Land Department. The Post Road connection would require Sate and private land, as well as modification to the Whetstone Ranch master plan in Benson. This alternative has relatively obscure east-west connectivity, and the one-way frontage roads are not conducive for use by alternate modes due to the circuitous travel. However, the one-way operation would result in efficient interchange operation. Local vehicular access for parcels along the frontage roads would also become more circuitous. The SR 90 and J-Six interchanges would function better with one-way versus the existing two-way frontage road operations. This is due to the potential for minimizing the number of intersections by joining the ramps with the frontage roads. The Skyline interchange would need to be reconstructed for capacity and safety, and the frontage roads could become part of the re-design effort. 7 ADOT has a policy to assess the potential feasibility of roundabouts at all new or reconstructed intersections on the state system. © 2005 Curtis Lueck & Associates Tucson, Arizona Page 29 NORTHWEST COCHISE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION PLANNING STUDY FINAL REPORT Alternative 2: Local Collector Connections This alternative has two local collector roadways in east-west alignment (one north of I-10, the other south) and a north-south connection between them at the Skyline interchange. The southern route is a two-lane collector roadway following the Joseph alignment that connects J-Six Ranch Road to a four-lane Post Road connection. It utilizes State land between Smith Ranch and the existing Joseph Road right-of-way, which would need to be upgraded to County standards. The Post Road connection is the same as in Alternative 1. The collector on the north could follow any of the three existing alignment options discussed above, be in new right-of-way, or some combination. It would need only two lanes of capacity. The north south connector would have different cross sections north and south of the freeway. This alternative provides interconnection between the freeway interchanges via the new east-west collectors’ that tie into existing north-south routes. Alternative 3: Additional East-West Connection This alternative is very similar to Alternative 2, except an additional east-west connection between J-Six Ranch Road and SR-90 is provided. The southern connection extends though Empirita Ranch, south of Smith through state and private land, and Whetstone Ranch, ultimately to Post Road. As in Alternative 2, this alternative provides interconnection between the interchanges via the new east-west collectors’ that tie into existing north-south routes. © 2005 Curtis Lueck & Associates Tucson, Arizona Page 30 FINAL REPORT NORTHWEST COCHISE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION PLANNING STUDY Exhibit 15 Alternative 1 © 2005 Curtis Lueck & A3131ssociates Tucson, Arizona Page 31 FINAL REPORT NORTHWEST COCHISE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION PLANNING STUDY Exhibit 16 Alternative 2 © 2005 Curtis Lueck & A3232ssociates Tucson, Arizona Page 32 FINAL REPORT Exhibit 17 © 2005 Curtis Lueck & A3333ssociates Tucson, Arizona NORTHWEST COCHISE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION PLANNING STUDY Alternative 3 Page 33 NORTHWEST COCHISE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION PLANNING STUDY FINAL REPORT Comparative Analysis of Freeway Volumes The travel demand model will typically provide credible results, but it is always a good idea to check key results with other methods. For this study, we obtained historic traffic data for I-10 east of the Tucson metropolitan area for the past 45 years and extrapolated it forward using a trend line analysis. Then, we added projected traffic associated with expected development in the study area. The results are shown in Exhibit 13. The graph indicates that the capacity of a four lane freeway between Tucson and Benson would be exceeded about 15-years sooner than if Benson area growth did not occur. The forecasts for I-10 in the chart for 2035 are generally consistent with the model output, although the model results are a little higher. I-10 Traffic Volume Trends 80,000 60,000 50,000 40,000 Volume 30,000 10,000 2045 2035 2025 2010 2000 1990 1980 1970 0 2055 Four-Lane Freeway Capacity Volume with Benson Growth 20,000 1960 Daily Volume 70,000 Year Exhibit 18 © 2005 I-10 Traffic Volume Trends Curtis Lueck & Associates Tucson, Arizona Page 34 NORTHWEST COCHISE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION PLANNING STUDY FINAL REPORT 4. Funding Options TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT FUNDING OPTIONS There are several options for funding transportation improvements in the study area. They include the following, but many other innovative strategies are also possible. These revenues are described alphabetically, without prioritization of their applicability or the local jurisdictions’ potential support for use of any of the sources. The prevalent local funding sources for transportation projects in southern Arizona include development impact fees, construction sales tax, developer exactions, improvement districts, and community facility districts. Because of their successful use by neighboring jurisdictions, we recommend that these four sources be further considered. Private Sector Funding Improvement Districts: This is a special taxation district formed to build or repair a public facility such as a road. The statutory requirements are different for Arizona municipalities and counties. Formation of county IDs is much more difficult than for cities and towns. Community Facilities Districts: A CFD is a special taxation district that funds the infrastructure within a new development. The costs are typically funded with general obligation bonds repaid by future tax receipts based on the improved property within the district. A CFD requires a board of directors, which is usually the municipal elected officials, but can be others. The financing is a hybrid form of tax increment financing and improvement district. Dove Mountain is a local example of a CFD. This is primarily an option for cities because counties can form CFDs for school purposes only. Development Impact Fees: Arizona counties and municipalities are authorized to impose development impact fees that are levied against new construction projects. Arizona’s Growing Smarter legislation updated and combined the DIF laws pertaining to all jurisdictions. The fees are typically collected at time of construction permitting or building occupancy, and they can only be used for infrastructure capacity augmentation. Pima County, Marana, Oro Valley, and Sierra Vista, among many others in Arizona have development fees, but Benson and Cochise County do not. The pertinent statutes state the following: 11-1102. County development fees A. If a county has adopted a capital improvements plan, the county may assess development fees within the covered planning area in order to offset the capital costs for water, sewer, streets, parks and public safety facilities determined by the plan to be necessary for public services provided by the county to a development in the planning area. B. Development fees assessed under this section are subject to the following requirements: 1. Development fees shall result in a beneficial use to the development. 2. Monies received from development fees shall be placed in a separate fund and accounted for separately and may only be used for the purposes authorized by this section. Interest earned on monies in the separate fund shall be credited to the fund. © 2005 Curtis Lueck & Associates Tucson, Arizona Page 35 NORTHWEST COCHISE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION PLANNING STUDY FINAL REPORT 3. The county shall prescribe the schedule for paying the development fees. The county shall provide a credit toward the payment of the fee for the required dedication of public sites and improvements provided by the developer for which that fee is assessed. The developer of residential dwelling units shall be required to pay the fees when construction permits for the dwelling units are issued. 4. The amount of any development fees must bear a reasonable relationship to the burden of capital costs imposed on the county to provide additional necessary public services to the development. In determining the extent of the burden imposed by the development, the county shall consider, among other things , the contribution made or to be made in the future in cash by taxes, fees or assessments by the property owner toward the capital costs of the necessary public service covered by the development fee. 5. Development fees shall be assessed in a nondiscriminatory manner. 6. In determining and assessing a development fee applying to land in a community facilities district established under title 48, chapter 4, article 6, the county shall take into account all public infrastructure provided by the district and capital costs paid by the district for necessary public services and shall not assess a portion of the development fee based on the infrastructure or costs. C. Before assessing or increasing a development fee, the county shall: 1. Give at least one hundred twenty days' advance notice of intention to assess a new or increased development fee. 2. Release to the public a written report including all documentation that supports the assessment of a new or increased development fee. 3. Conduct a public hearing on the proposed new or increased development fee at any time after the expiration of the one hundred twenty day notice of intention to assess a new or increased development fee and at least fourteen days before the scheduled date of adoption of the new or increased fee. D. A development fee assessed pursuant to this section is not effective for at least ninety days after its formal adoption by the board of supervisors. E. This section does not affect any development fee adopted before the effective date of this section. 11-1103. Development fees; intergovernmental agreements; purposes A county may enter into an intergovernmental agreement to accept or disburse development fees for construction of a public facility pursuant to a benefit area plan, including an agreement with a city or special taxing district for the joint establishment of a needs assessment, the adoption of a benefit area plan and the imposition, collection and disbursement of development fees to implement a joint plan for development . Developer Exactions: When private land is rezoned for development, governmental agencies usually require an evaluation of the development’s impact on offsite facilities and services. The jurisdiction may require the developer to dedicate land for public use, build or expand certain facilities, or pay money in lieu of the dedications or improvements. When the rezoning is approved, these special conditions become effective. Exactions occur on a case-by-case basis, usually as the result of negotiation. All local jurisdictions impose exactions of some type. Public Sector Funding Construction Sales Tax: This is merely an increased sales tax rate applied to the materials used in contracted construction activities within a community. It applies to specific businesses that contract or sell building-related services or goods. It does not apply to individual consumer purchases at retail establishments. As examples, Marana, © 2005 Curtis Lueck & Associates Tucson, Arizona Page 36 NORTHWEST COCHISE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION PLANNING STUDY FINAL REPORT Oro Valley, and Sahuarita now have construction sales taxes, and Tucson is contemplating the idea. The Town of Benson is considering a 4% construction sales tax to fund transportation improvements. County General Excise (Sales) Tax: All Arizona counties, except Maricopa, may impose a sales tax up to 10% of the state tax rate, i.e., up to ½ percent. The tax may be imposed upon unanimous approval of the Board of Supervisors. The tax receipts may be used for any government purpose. All authorized Arizona counties with the exception of Pima have adopted this tax, and many use a portion of the proceeds for transportation projects. (See ARS 42-6103.) Cochise County originally used their sales tax for solid waste projects and may potentially have funding available for improvements in the area, particularly if sales tax revenues are generated by the projec t. County Property Tax Levy for Roads: All Arizona counties are allowed by state law to impose a 25-cent per hundred-dollar property tax, the proceeds of which are dedicated to county roads. It is not known if any Arizona counties have enacted this tax. The levy can be imposed with a simple majority vote by the board of supervisors. 28-6712. Tax levies for county roads A. For road purposes the board of supervisors may levy a real and personal property tax of not more than twenty-five cents per one hundred dollars of property in the county as valued for tax purposes. The board of supervisors shall levy and collect the tax at the same time and in the same manner as other primary property taxes are levied and collected. B. The monies shall be paid into the county treasury for the benefit of the highways in the county and shall be spent by the board with other monies received for purposes of improvement of county roads. C. Notwithstanding any other law, in counties with an assessed valuation of two hundred million dollars or more, an amount of not more than twenty-five cents per one hundred dollars assessed valuation may be budgeted, levied, collected and spent for road purposes independently of and in addition to any other amounts lawfully available for road purposes. This levy is in lieu of the levy permitted under subsection A. County Transportation Tax for Roads: Unlike municipalities, Arizona counties have virtually no authority to impose sales taxes. However, counties with a population less than 400,000 are authorized to request voters to approve up to a ½ cent sales tax for roads. The authorizing statute states the following. 42-6107. County transportation excise tax for roads; counties with population of four hundred thousand or less A. If a majority of the qualified electors voting at a countywide special election, or a majority of the qualified electors voting on the ballot proposition at a general election, approves the transportation excise tax, a county with a population of four hundred thousand or fewer persons shall levy and the department shall collect a tax: 1. At a rate of not more than ten per cent of the transaction privilege tax rate as prescribed by section 42-5010, subsection A applying, as of January 1, 1990, to each person engaging or continuing in the county in a business taxed under chapter 5, article 1 of this title. 2. In the case of persons subject to the tax imposed under section 425352, subsection A, at a rate of not more than .305 cents per gallon of jet fuel sold. © 2005 Curtis Lueck & Associates Tucson, Arizona Page 37 NORTHWEST COCHISE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION PLANNING STUDY FINAL REPORT 3. On the use or consumption of electricity or natural gas by retail electric or natural gas customers in the county who are subject to use tax under section 42-5155, at a rate equal to the transaction privilege tax rate under paragraph 1 applying to persons engaging or continuing in the county in the utilities transaction privilege tax classification. If a majority of the qualified electors in the county approved the transportation excise tax under this section before 1998, a tax under this paragraph may be approved by resolution adopted by a majority of the board of supervisors. B. The net revenues collected under this section within a county shall be deposited in the county's regional area road fund pursuant to title 28, chapter 17, article 3. C. The tax shall be levied under this section beginning January 1 or July 1, whichever date occurs first after approval by the voters, and may be in effect for a period of not more than twenty years. County Capital Projects Tax: All Arizona counties except for Maricopa are allowed to impose up a ½ cent countywide sales tax for capital purposes. Laws require a unanimous vote of the board of supervisors, followed by a countywide election. Cochise County has a similar ½ cent tax already, but it was imposed under prior legislation. 42-6111. County capital projects tax A. The board of supervisors of a county with a population of less than two million persons, on a unanimous vote, may submit a proposed county capital projects tax for approval at a countywide special election or at a general election. If a majority of the qualified electors voting on the proposition approves the tax, the board of supervisors may levy and the department shall collect a tax, in addition to all other taxes, at a rate that, by itself or together with any tax imposed pursuant to section 42-6106 or 42-6107, does not exceed ten per cent of the transaction privilege tax rate prescribed by section 42-5010, subsection A applying, as of the date of its initial levy, to each person engaging or continuing in the county in a business taxed under chapter 5, article 1 of this title. B. If a tax is levied under subsection A of this section, a tax shall also be levied on the use or consumption of electricity or natural gas by retail electric or natural gas customers in the county who are subject to use tax under section 425155 at a rate equal to the transaction privilege tax rate under subsection A of this section applying to persons engaging or continuing in the county in the utilities transaction privilege tax classification. C. The tax shall be levied under this section beginning on January 1 or July 1, whichever date first occurs at least forty-five days after the election. The tax may be in effect for a period of not more than twenty years. D. The state treasurer shall deposit the net revenues collected pursuant to this section in a fund designated as that county's transportation and capital projects fund. The state treasurer shall hold the monies in the fund as trustee for the county. The county has the beneficial interest in the fund. The state treasurer shall invest the monies in the county transportation and capital projects fund and shall credit to the fund all interest and other income earned from investments. E. Each month the state treasurer shall distribute the monies in the transportation and capital projects fund to the county in a manner prescribed by the board of supervisors. The county may only use the revenues for capital projects and to purchase, construct and lease buildings, structures, facilities, roads, highways and other real and personal property, including open space and development rights, for the use or benefit of the county. F. The ballot in the election described in subsection A of this section shall list each project to be financed with the tax collected and the estimated costs of © 2005 Curtis Lueck & Associates Tucson, Arizona Page 38 NORTHWEST COCHISE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION PLANNING STUDY FINAL REPORT each project. The tax terminates if and when the total amount of estimated costs for all of the projects has been raised. Federal Funds: Are allocated to the States by formula. There are several funding pots applicable to freeway improvements within the study area. High Priority Projects Funding provides designated funding for specific projects (commonly referred to as demonstration projects or even “pork barrel funds”). Last year Arizona received about $10 million in these funds. Bridge Program (BR) funds provide for replacement of a structurally deficient or functionally obsolete highway bridge or to rehabilitate the structural integrity of a bridge. Last year Arizona received about $14 million in these funds. Interstate Maintenance (IM) provides funding for various projects on the Interstate System. Projects including resurfacing, restoration, and rehabilitation. Also, includes reconstruction of bridges, interchanges, and over crossings along existing Interstate routes, design, acquisition of right-of-way and preventive maintenance. In 2002, Arizona received $111 million. General Funds: Myriad taxes, fees, and revenue sharing sources can be used at the discretion of the elected officials for any public purpose. These revenue sources do not require special accounting. General funds are sometimes used for transportation purposes such as labor, maintenance, public transit, or capital equipment acquisition. General funds are also used to retire general obligation bonds. General Obligation (GO) Bonds: This bonded indebtedness is repaid using secondary property taxes versus the revenues created by the services or facilities provided by the bonds. Arizona statutes limit the level of debt for municipalities and counties. Highway Expansion and Extension Loan Program (HELP): HELP was enacted on August 21, 1998 as Arizona's State Infrastructure Bank, which provides loans and financial assistance for eligible highway projects in Arizona. The HELP fund is capitalized with federal and state dollars, as well as Board Funding Obligations that provide the capital for loans. As borrowers repay principal and interest on loans, the HELP fund is replenished and monies can be re-loaned. The fund is a self-sustaining mechanism to accelerate critical transportation projects. Due to the State budget deficit and other reasons, this fund should be considered bankrupt and unavailable statewide. Highway User Revenue Funds (State and Local): This is the primary transportation revenue source in Arizona for local jurisdictions. It is also a major source for ADOT, but they also receive substantial federal funding. The HURF generated about $1.1 billion last year from Arizona’s 18 cent per gallon gas tax, the vehicle license tax, and other minor sources. Revenues are allocated according to formula and can be used only for roadway purposes. The State Legislature is expected to continue to cut the VLT and to continue transferring HURF creatively to offset the very sizable State deficit. Most local jurisdictions use HURF first for maintenance and staffing. If funds are left over, they will be used for new construction. In FY 2003, Cochise County received $7.1 million in HURF from the 19% allocated to counties. Benson received $369,000 from the 27.5% set aside for municipalities. On average, each new resident in Cochise County generates about $56 per year in HURF. The figure is about $78 for each new resident in Benson. The complex structure of HURF is shown in the diagram on the next page. The boxes for city and county distribution are highlighted. © 2005 Curtis Lueck & Associates Tucson, Arizona Page 39 NORTHWEST COCHISE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION PLANNING STUDY FINAL REPORT Exhibit 19 HURF Funding Diagram Accumulation and Distribution of HURF FY 2003 (Actual, Millions of Dollars) Derived from ADOT Financial Management Services 3-2-2004 HURF portion only; VLT also supports local and State general funds This tax is 18 cents per gallon and collected at supplier level. Vehicle License Tax $282.0 Motor Vehicle Fuel (Gas) Tax $446.9 ARS 28-5801 ARS 28.5606 Appropriation to Airport Fund to provide grants for certain small community air service and airport upgrades (VLT funds were redirected to the Airport Fund instead of HURF) per laws 2002 Chapter 22 (SB 1372) This tax is 26 cents per gallon for "use class" and 18 cents for "non-use class" vehicles. Jet fuel is not taxed. Registration Fees $141.3 Use Fuel $166.7 ARS 28-5720 Motor Carrier $32.9 ARS 28-5854 ARS 28-2003 HURF Collections $1,111.3 Operators Licenses $14.5 ARS 28-3002 Transfer to DPS $54.5 Airport Fund $0.5 Other $27.0 Statutory limit is $10 million ARS 28-6537 ARIZONA HIGHWAY USER REVENUE FUND $1,110.8 ARS 28-6501 et seq. Economic Strength Fund $0.5 ARS 28-6534 Statutory limit is $1 million Appropriation to MVD for vehicle registration enforcement program. MVD $0.7 $1,055.1 Remaining State Highway Fund (50.5%) $532.8 Counties (19%) $200.5 ARS 28-6538(A)2 ARS 28-6538(A)1 Urban Controlled Access (12.6% & 2.6%) $81.0 Includes both 12.6% statutory and 2.6% discretionary funds Cities and Towns (27.5%) $290.1 Cities over 300,000 Pop. (3%) $31.7 ARS 28-6538(A)3 ARS 28-6538(A)4 ADOT Discretionary Fund (84.8%) $451.8 ARS 28-6538(B) ARS 28-6538 MVD 3rd Parties $8.2 PAG (25%) $20.3 MAG (75%) $60.7 ARS 28-6538(B)2 ARS 28-6538(B)1 © 2005 Curtis Lueck & Associates Tucson, Arizona With the elimination of the VLT distribution to the state highway fund, a distribution is made from the state highway fund to MVD Third Parties for the collection of VLT, per HB2055. Page 40 NORTHWEST COCHISE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION PLANNING STUDY FINAL REPORT Improvement Districts (ID): This is a special taxation district formed to build or repair a public facility such as a road. The statutory requirements are different for Arizona municipalities and counties. Formation of county IDs is much more difficult than for cities and towns. Property Tax: Property taxes are based on the assessed value of real and personal property and tax rates per unit of value. The value of property is determined by the County Assessor, and the tax rate is set by the political body or governing board of the taxing entity. State law and the Department of Revenue establish assessment and rate procedures. Revenue Bonds: These are bonds repaid by the revenues generated by the public services or facilities funded by the bonds. For example, toll roads might be funded through revenue bonds that are repaid from the tolls. Note that some jurisdictions have committed their HURF to repay construction bonds and refer to the bonds as “HURF Revenue Bonds.” These are technically not revenue bonds because they are not repaid with funds created by the new roadways. Sales Tax Earmarked for Transportation: Some communities will establish an sales tax increment and earmark it for transportation improvements. For example, Marana’s Town Council recently adopted a ½ cent sales tax for transportation improvements with the Town. The Town utilized a steering committee to research the viability of the fee, and a citizen vote was not required. The additional half-cent sales tax begins October 1, 2004 and will generate over $3 million per year for Marana. Transaction Privilege Tax (Sales Tax): Arizona has a transaction privilege tax (commonly called a sales tax) of 5.6%. Municipalities may impose an additional rate as they see appropriate, consistent with their charter. In some cases, an incremental tax rate may be earmarked for special purposes such as transportation. Numerous cities around the state have already done so. Many of the cities in Maricopa County, Glendale being one of the most recent, have such a tax. Statutes do not require a citizen vote on the matter, however many elected bodies ask for the vote anyhow. 42-6006. Municipal elections on tax issues A city or town may submit any issue relating to a transaction privilege tax, sales, use, franchise or other similar tax or fee, however denominated, to the qualified electors of the city or town at any regular or special municipal election, and may spend public monies of the city or town to cover the expenses of the election on that issue. Toll Roads: The state and counties are allowed by law to establish toll roads, although none currently exist. Cities do not seem to have specific enabling legislation, but probably could establish a toll road in consort with ADOT or a county. Utility Districts: Municipalities may form utility districts pursuant to Title 9, Arizona Revised Statutes. The statutes do not specifically include transportation facilities other than off-street parking, and so transportation utility districts may not be viable under © 2005 Curtis Lueck & Associates Tucson, Arizona Page 41 NORTHWEST COCHISE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION PLANNING STUDY FINAL REPORT current law. For instance, Oro Valley has created a storm water utility to deal with controlling storm water runoff and surface water quality. Fair Share Analysis The report shows that although the roadway system performs acceptably in the study area, improvements and travel options are already necessary. All three interchanges have major operational and safety problems that ADOT recognized years, but has been unable to fund improvements. The ultimate solution is to replace these interchanges and upgrade other facilities in a rational manner that shares costs equitably between current and future users. Further, there are no east-west routes other than I-10, which forces traffic onto the truck laden freeway, degrades interchange performance, and discourages travel by alternate modes. Current users have paid for the existing infrastructure, portions of which are obsolete or worn out. Future users will overtax some of the facilities unless they are expanded to meet their travel needs. With cooperation and commitment between public agencies and private developers, improvements can be funded and implemented in a timely manner. Local and state agencies, as well as developers and the public, always express interest in how much they are asked to pay, and what is their fair share for improvements. There are numerous ways to calculate the fair share -- computer modeling is one – but the best ways are usually the easiest to understand. The proportionate share of public sector contribution could be the cost for curing deficiencies, less the private sector share for the new capacity provided by the cure used by new development. The private sector would also fund capacity expansion beyond what’s provided by the project cure. For instance, if an expanded roadway will in the future carry 50% current traffic and 50% new traffic, the share would be 50/50. Most regulatory agencies require traffic impact analysis for new development. Although these studies are not the appropriate venue for financial analysis, they do contain traffic information for current and future conditions. The data and forecasts can help define the fair share for project participants. ADOT and Cochise County already require traffic studies, but Benson apparently does not. Exhibit ZZ shows how the traffic report data can be used in a simplistic yet reasonable and defensible test of proportionality. Exhibit 20 Example Traffic Proportionality Test Private Project Traffic 23,255 Other Traffic 103,800 Total Traffic 127,055 Private Project Share 18% State Arterial A 2,584 63,752 66,336 4% State Arterial B 5,168 29,009 34,177 15% State Arterial C) 18,087 29,009 47,096 38% Local Collector A 7,752 4,385 12,137 64% Local Collector B 2,584 215 2,799 92% Facility Freeway A © 2005 Curtis Lueck & Associates Tucson, Arizona Page 42 NORTHWEST COCHISE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION PLANNING STUDY 5: Recommendations Development of Preferred Alternative In developing this regional transportation plan, three alternatives were developed and refined for continued analysis and evaluation. The three alternatives emphasize east-west connectivity which is lacking throughout the study area, I-10 bypass opportunities, new north-south connections to I-10, connections from major developments to existing communities, the extension of existing I-10 frontage roads and a new road providing access to recreation activities in the Whetstone Mountains. All of the alternatives included the reconstruction or relocation of the three freeway interchanges due to current deficiencies and in anticipation of the need for higher capacity facilities meeting contemporary design standards. The off-ramp/cross road intersections will likely need to be signalized or be reconstructed as roundabouts. These interchange projects could cost about $10 million each, and take up to eight years to implement, assuming funding will be available for construction. All of the alternatives included interconnectivity between the freeway interchanges either via frontage roads or east-west collector roadways tying in to current and proposed north-south routes. This provides alternatives for travel on the freeway for shorter trips, and would permit safer use of bicycles and walking for shorter trips. A “hybrid” alternative, Hybrid 1, incorporating the best elements of the three was established. Following public and agency review, modifications to the Hybrid 1 alternative were made and the final alternative, Hybrid 2, was established as the preferred alternative. A description of the two Hybrid alternatives follows. Hybrid 1 Alternative Following agency review of the three alternatives the Hybrid 1 alternative, shown conceptually in Exhibit 21, was developed that included the following major elements, 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) A new east-west route on the north side of I-10 that that would provide a connection between Mescal Road and an extension of SR 90 to the north, which ties in to the Benson Airport area and supports Benson’s General Plan for that area, Another new east-west route that would connect J-Six Ranch Road through the proposed Smith Ranch development to SR 90, A potential third connection that would extend J-Six Ranch Road to the southeast on an alignment south of the Smith Ranch MDP area and intersect with SR 90 along the Post Road alignment. A new north-south roadway that would connect the new east-west roadways closest to I-10 through a reconstructed or relocated Skyline Interchange. An extension of the frontage road on the south side of I-10 from SR 90 east to SR 80. The widening of SR 90 to six lanes from I-10 to south of Post Road. The reconstruction of the J-Six Ranch/Mescal, Skyline and SR 90 interchanges at I-10. Additional elements include the signalization of arterial-arterial and arterialcollector intersections where warranted (in the future) and planning studies (location reports, change of access analysis and other traffic studies) that would prepare for the specific improvements suggested in the Hybrid alternative. The City of Benson is preparing to manage its first city transportation study to identify project needs over a © 2005 Page 43 NORTHWEST COCHISE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION PLANNING STUDY future period. This study is included in the list of projects recommended for this planning study. The collector/collector intersections may need signalization, but they could also be designed as modern roundabouts to negate the expense and delay associated with traffic signals. Signals should only be installed and activated when warrants contained in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices are met, and an engineering analysis demonstrates their need. The Hybrid 1 alternative did not include direct access by new development to Titan Road, nor were new frontage roads included in the Hybrid 1 Alternative. Hybrid 2 Alternative (Preferred) Following the receipt of public comments and another agency review period, a final and preferred alternative, Hybrid 2, was developed and further analyzed. This alternative is very similar in concept to the Hybrid 1 alternative. However, three significant modifications were made. The east-west connector north of I-10 is now envisioned to be more northern and the direct east-west connection from Smith Ranch to J-Six Ranch Road was removed. The eastern connection from Smith Ranch Road was also realigned to intersect SR 90 at a location about ½-mile north of the concept shown in the Hybrid 1 Alternative. This eastern roadway is tentatively named Nueva Jenella Road. All of these adjustments were made based on public and agency concerns about the impacts of future roads through existing rural neighborhoods, and incorporation of the zoning stipulations for the approved Smith Ranch Master Development Plan. The roadway alignments identified in the Hybrid 2 alternative should be considered very conceptual. Prior to implementation, additional alignment, right-of-way, environmental, and design studies will be needed. The new roadways could take three or more years to fund and construct. Exhibit 22 illustrates the Hybrid 2 alternative. Plan Implementation The projects associated with the recommended Hybrid 2 alternative will have wide ranging costs, opportunities for cost sharing, and varying implementation lead times. The most complex projects will be those related to I-10 because of the Federal and State environmental requirements and access control regulations of the Federal Highway Administration. These will also be among the most expensive projects. Lead times could be eight years or more for new interchanges, assuming funds are committed and made available in a timely manner. The easier improvements will likely be those along existing rights -of-way or across easily attainable rights-of-way. For instance, access across State land should be attainable if the State Land Department sees a benefit to the State Trust. Private land owners may dedicate land free, if access to their property (and therefore value) is enhanced. Planning studies will be required for most improvements that are recommended. Locations studies will be necessary to identify specific alignments for new roadways. These studies will require environmental documentation and permitting, design concepts and public involvement. Pre-design efforts may require up to two years before actual design and construction occurs. Since the new major corridors in the study area do not need to follow the section line, there are opportunities for the corridors to respond to terrain, natural resources, and cultural resources (if any) along their path. Guidelines on environmentally sensitive roadway design are contained in Pima County’s Roadway Design Manual (Chapter 4) which could be a useful reference document when the corridor planning is undertaken by Cochise County. ADOT should aggressively pursue its planning and design concepts for I-10 into Cochise County. The studies currently stop at the Cochise/Pima County line. Digital © 2005 Page 44 NORTHWEST COCHISE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION PLANNING STUDY orthophotography will be available in calendar year 2005 from the Pima Association of Governments, which should be suitable for planning and preliminary design purposes. New funding sources dedicated to improvements of the existing roadways and network expansion will be needed. This report recommends using a new Cochise County roadway impact fee and the recently adopted City of Benson construction sales tax for these purposes, in addition to traditional sources like the Highway User Revenue Fund. Most of the revenue generated by these two sources will come from new development, and will be used for new roadways and capacity improvements. It is anticipated that the projects identified in this study will take at least 25 years, possibly as long as 35 years, to fully implement. The status of development in the area, and the roadways needed to serve the development, should be monitored regularly by local and state agencies. This study should be updated periodically, perhaps every five years. The cost of plan implementation should include expansion of Cochise County staff to oversee the effective completion of recommended projects. It is reasonable to expect the need for additional staff to manage, monitor and inspect the proposed plan. Plan Phasing The phasing of the roadway network improvements within the project area was based on two specific horizon years and a “Build out” year. The two horizon years, 2015 and 2025, represent periods when expected additions and improvements to the northwest Cochise County roadway system should be in place to accommodate anticipated growth and development, and so that the roadway network performance is satisfactory at different stages of area development. Inadequate roadway development supporting fast growing areas is a challenge. It is difficult to implement projects in areas where the existing traffic exceeds the capacity of the roadways, and public demand for short term solutions is high. However, short term solutions may be both costly and counterproductive in the implementation of permanent solutions. Therefore, Cochise County must monitor its infrastructure needs continually to ensure that projects are programmed and funding is identified prior to infrastructure elements exceeding their capacities. © 2005 Page 45 NORTHWEST COCHISE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION PLANNING STUDY Exhibit 21 © 2005 Hybrid 1 Alternative Page 46 NORTHWEST COCHISE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION PLANNING STUDY Exhibit 22 Hybrid 2 Alternative © 2005 Page 47 NORTHWEST COCHISE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION PLANNING STUDY Implementation Costs A preliminary work-up of project costs was developed from a basic set of unit costs for each type of facility construction or improvement. The typical unit costs which jurisdictions within the project area can expect to pay are consistent with current improvement costs experienced in nearby jurisdictions. Importantly, any of these costs could be reduced by as much as 30% if constructed by the private sector rather than as publicly bid projects. These average costs presented in current year (2005) dollars include: Exhibit 23 Approximate Unit Costs 3 lane collector 4 lane divided arterial 6 lane divided arterial Upgrade 2 lane divided to 4 lane divided Upgrade 4 lane divided to 6 lane divided Interchange $2,500,000/Mile $4,500,000/Mile $6,500,000/Mile $3,500,000/Mile $5,000,000/Mile $10,000,000/Each The above arterial and collector improvement costs include the cost of right of way, together with standard costs for drainage and utility improvements. It is expected that interchange improvements would occur within existing ADOT right of way. The costs for local roads (most collectors, residential streets, alleys, etc) are not included in the costs in the table because these roads are generally constructed by the land developer. Phasing by Horizon Year The following section identifies the recommended projects that should be in place by the horizon year (2015, 2025, Build Out). A list of projects with a map key and a map showing the location and type of project is shown for each horizon year. Between 2005 and Year 2015 Major projects through the year 2015 include a new road from the Smith Ranch development to SR 90. This road, tentatively name Nueva Jenella Road would intersect at SR 90 along an existing County section line. Nueva Jenella Road would continue east toward the City of Benson where it would tie into the existing City roadway system, thus providing a direct connection from the Smith Ranch development to the existing Benson area. Also, based on expected growth within Smith Ranch and along SR 90, the acceptable capacity of SR 90 is projected to be exceeded and SR 90 should be widened to a six-lane cross section north of the Nueva Jenella Road intersection. An extension of the frontage road south of I-10 from SR 90 east to Benson is included in these projects to be completed by 2015. Exhibit 24 is a table that describes the projects that are recommended to be in place by 2015 and the costs of implementation. Exhibit 25 illustrates the projects. The cost of the projects listed and shown is approximately $54 million in current (2005) year dollars. © 2005 Page 48 NORTHWEST COCHISE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION PLANNING STUDY Between 2016 and Year 2025 By the year 2025, recommended projects include a new east-west roadway from Mescal Road north of I-10 to a new roadway extending northward from a reconstructed or relocated Skyline interchange. Growth along SR 90 will increase, potentially requiring its widening to a six lane cross section south of Nueva Jenella Road. Exhibit 26 is a table that describes the projects that are recommended to be in place by 2025. Exhibit 27 illustrates the projects. The estimated cost of the projects listed and shown is approximately $27 million in current (2005) year dollars. The total cost of plan implementation through the year 2025 is about $81 million. Build Out – After 2026 Projects forecast for the build out year include an extension of the new east-west roadway north of I-10 to SR 90. If a regional need for an additional southern east-west collector roadway develops, a new roadway would potentially extend from J-Six Ranch Road southeasterly and intersect with SR 90 at Post Road. SR 90 would also be widened south to Post Road. This could be a rural collector, depending on future travel demand. An extension of SR 90 north of I-10 to provide access to the Benson Airport is included in the project list. Exhibits 28 and 29 show the roadway network at build out. The total cost of plan implementation through build out is about $166 million. © 2005 Page 49 NORTHWEST COCHISE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION PLANNING STUDY Exhibit 24 List of Year 2015 Projects and Costs Proposed Roadway Network by 2015 Map Key* A B C D E Project Description New Jennella/ Whetstone Connection - 4 Lanes Construct/Improve 3-lane Jennella Whetstone Connection Widen SR 90 to 6 lanes Reconstruct SR-90 Interchange Construct South Side Frontage Road Connector Project Limits Studies Needed** Ultimate Length Existing Functional (Miles) Lanes Class Estimated Cost ($M) Potential Funding Sources Advanced Planning Location Study Design/ Construction SR 90 - Smith Ranch 4.2 Arterial N/A $ 18.90 X X X SR 90 to Benson 1.4 Arterial 2, Partial $ 3.50 X X X 3.0 Arterial 4 $ 15.00 X X N/A Interchange N/A $ 10.00 X X 1.5 Collector N/A $ 3.75 X I-10 to Jennella Interchange Area SR 90 east to City of Benson F Skyline Interchange Skyline Design Concept Interchange Report Area N/A N/A N/A $ 0.15 X G Traffic Signal Nueva Jennella/ SR Intersection 90 N/A N/A N/A $ 0.15 X N/A Benson Transportation Study N/A N/A N/A $ 0.15 N/A Pima Cochise I-10 Corridor Study County Line to N/A East of Benson N/A N/A $ 0.20 N/A Advance Planning, Improved or Location and Traffic New Routes/ Reports** Facilities N/A N/A $ 2.00 Benson Sphere of influence N/A Costs ($M) by 2015 X Federal State County (1) City (2) Private (3) X X X X X X X X Included in Benson General Plan and Circulation Element X X X X X X X X $ 53.80 © 2005 X Previously identified as deficient by ADOT. Page 50 This design concept report will address interchange design, location, and interstate access control issues. X X X X X X X Comments Conduct traffic engineering and transportation planning study for City of Benson under ADOT's Small Area Transportation Study Program X This is a continuation of an ongoing study in Pima County (I-10 from I19 to County line.) X X X NORTHWEST COCHISE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION PLANNING STUDY Exhibit 25 Year 2015 Projects © 2005 Page 51 NORTHWEST COCHISE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION PLANNING STUDY Exhibit 26 List of Year 2025 Projects and Costs Proposed Roadway Network by 2025 Map Key* Project Description Project Limits Studies Needed** Ultimate Length Existing Functional (Miles) Lanes Class Estimated Cost ($M) Potential Funding Sources Advanced Planning Location Study Design/ Construction Federal State County (1) City (2) H Construct North Side Connector Mescal Road to Skyline Extension 2.5 Collector N/A $ 6.25 X X X I Reconstruct or Relocate Skyline Interchange Interchange Area N/A Interchange N/A $ 10.00 X X X X X J Widen SR 90 to 6 lanes 1.5 Arterial 4 $ 7.50 X X X X K North-South Interconnect 1.2 Collector N/A $ 3.00 X L Traffic Signals - SR 90 and Skyline Interchanges Interchanges N/A N/A N/A $ 0.60 X Jennella to Connector Road Skyline Interchange to new East West Connector north of I-10 Costs ($M) by 2025 - Includes 2015 Projects © 2005 X X X $ 81.15 Page 52 X X X X X X X X Private (3) X X X NORTHWEST COCHISE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION PLANNING STUDY Exhibit 27 Year 2025 Projects © 2005 Page 53 NORTHWEST COCHISE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION PLANNING STUDY Exhibit 28 List of Build Out Projects and Costs Proposed Roadway Network by Buildout Map Key* M N O P Q R S T U Project Description Reconstruct Mescal/J-Six Interchange Project Limits Interchange Area I-10 to North of Connector Widen SR 90 to 6 Road to lanes South of Post Road Skyline Construct North Extention Side Connector Road to SR 90 Extension SR 90 to Widen Jennella Prickly Pear Road to 4 lanes (Benson) I-10 to New Widen J-Six Ranch Southern Road to 4 lanes East/West Connector Whetstone Jennella Mountains Extension to Recreational Forest Access Boundary Southern EastJ-Six Ranch West Connector - 4 Road to SR Lanes 90/Post Road State Route 90 I-10 to Airport Corridor Extension Road Traffic Signals Mescal, J-Six TIs, Interchanges SR90/Post Road Length (Miles) Studies Needed** Ultimate Existing Functional Lanes Class Estimated Cost ($M) Advanced Planning Location Study Potential Funding Sources Design/ Construction Federal N/A Interchange N/A $ 10.00 X X X X 2.6 Arterial 4 $ 13.00 X X X X 3.4 Collector N/A $ 8.50 X 1.5 Collector 2 $ 5.25 1.1 Collector 2 $ 1.5 Collector N/A 7.3 Arterial 1.7 N/A X City (2) Private (3) X X X X X X 3.85 X X X X $ 3.75 X X X X X N/A $ 32.85 X X X Arterial N/A $ 7.65 X X X X X N/A N/A $ 0.45 X X X X Costs ($M) by Build Out - Includes 2015, 2025 Projects $ 166.45 © 2005 State County (1) Page 54 X X X X X X X X X X X X NORTHWEST COCHISE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION PLANNING STUDY Exhibit 29 Build Out Projects © 2005 Page 55 NORTHWEST COCHISE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION PLANNING STUDY Freeway volumes in the vicinity of the study area are projected to exceed the current capacity of I-10. In general, when daily volumes on a 4-lane freeway exceed 50,000 vehicles per day (vpd), the acceptable capacity of the freeway is reached. Exhibit 30 shows that by 2015, I-10 will exceed this threshold. In fact, the acceptable capacity of a six-lane freeway is approximately 80,000 vpd, and most segments may be over this threshold by 2025. The provision of alternate east-west corridors within the project vicinity will alleviate some of the congestion at build out. However, the Arizona Department of Transportation must monitor traffic volumes on -I 10 to plan for future widening and system improvements. Accordingly, this study further recommends that ADOT aggressively pursue its planning and design concepts for I-10 into Cochise County. The studies currently stop at the Cochise/Pima County line. Digital orthophotography will be available in calendar year 2005 from the Pima Association of Governments, which should be helpful for planning and preliminary design purposes. Exhibit 30 Future I-10 Volumes Segment West of Mescal Mescal to Skyline Skyline to SR 90 East of SR 90 EB 27,800 34,600 35,300 31,200 © 2005 2015 WB 27,800 34,700 35,300 30,800 Total 55,600 69,300 70,600 62,000 EB 33,400 41,100 50,300 40,500 2025 WB 33,000 41,000 49,600 41,000 Total 66,400 82,100 99,900 81,500 EB 37,100 40,600 44,400 44,300 BUILDOUT WB 37,000 34,600 41,300 46,900 Total 74,100 75,200 85,700 91,200 Page 56 NORTHWEST COCHISE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION PLANNING STUDY APPENDIX Community Profiles Benson Cochise County Pima County HURF Distribution FY 2004 State Highway System Log Excerpts I-10 SR 90 Recorded Traffic Volumes (CLA) Recorded January 2004 Recorded February, 2003 Florida DOT Capacity Charts LOS Worksheet Right of Way/ Plats Existing and Future Conditions Socioeconomic Data by Zone Model Statistics / Travel Characteristics Existing Conditions Calibration Map Existing Conditions TAZ Map/Census Blocks Overlay TAZ Map – Future Conditions (BUILDOUT) Alternate 1 Alternate 2 Alternate 3 Community Profiles Benson Cochise County Pima County Appendix - 1 HURF Distribution FY 2004 Appendix - 2 State Highway System Log Excerpts I-10 SR 90 Appendix - 3 Recorded Traffic Volumes (CLA) Recorded January 2004 Whetstone TI WB Off Ramps End Time EB WB 1:00 AM 0 37 2:00 AM 0 44 3:00 AM 0 39 4:00 AM 0 28 5:00 AM 0 58 6:00 AM 0 87 7:00 AM 0 126 8:00 AM 0 157 9:00 AM 0 204 10:00 AM 0 185 11:00 AM 0 228 12:00 PM 0 245 1:00 PM 0 198 2:30 PM 0 209 3:00 PM 0 242 4:00 PM 0 244 5:00 PM 0 255 6:00 PM 0 174 7:00 PM 0 146 8:00 PM 0 136 9:00 PM 0 101 10:00 PM 0 68 11:00 PM 0 65 12:00 AM 0 42 0 3318 Total 37 44 39 28 58 87 126 157 204 185 228 245 198 209 242 244 255 174 146 136 101 68 65 42 3318 K 1% 1% 1% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% 6% 7% 7% 6% 6% 7% 7% 8% 5% 4% 4% 3% 2% 2% 1% 100% Appendix - 4 Whetstone TI WB On Ramp End Time EB WB 1:00 AM 0 44 2:00 AM 0 31 3:00 AM 0 37 4:00 AM 0 46 5:00 AM 0 71 6:00 AM 0 156 7:00 AM 0 236 8:00 AM 0 279 9:00 AM 0 362 10:00 AM 0 463 11:00 AM 0 365 12:00 PM 0 319 1:00 PM 0 331 2:30 PM 0 341 3:00 PM 0 363 4:00 PM 0 385 5:00 PM 0 401 6:00 PM 0 349 7:00 PM 0 275 8:00 PM 0 173 9:00 PM 0 150 10:00 PM 0 132 11:00 PM 0 85 12:00 AM 0 54 Total 44 31 37 46 71 156 236 279 362 463 365 319 331 341 363 385 401 349 275 173 150 132 85 54 5448 K 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 3% 4% 5% 7% 8% 7% 6% 6% 6% 7% 7% 7% 6% 5% 3% 3% 2% 2% 1% 100% Appendix - 5 Whetstone EB Off Ramp End Time EB WB 1:00 AM 84 0 2:00 AM 59 0 3:00 AM 54 0 4:00 AM 53 0 5:00 AM 61 0 6:00 AM 116 0 7:00 AM 198 0 8:00 AM 288 0 9:00 AM 297 0 10:00 AM 279 0 11:00 AM 291 0 12:00 PM 268 0 1:00 PM 283 0 2:30 PM 299 0 3:00 PM 292 0 4:00 PM 309 0 5:00 PM 339 0 6:00 PM 341 0 7:00 PM 261 0 8:00 PM 188 0 9:00 PM 163 0 10:00 PM 158 0 11:00 PM 128 0 12:00 AM 111 0 Total 84 59 54 53 61 116 198 288 297 279 291 268 283 299 292 309 339 341 261 188 163 158 128 111 4920 K 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 2% 4% 6% 6% 6% 6% 5% 6% 6% 6% 6% 7% 7% 5% 4% 3% 3% 3% 2% 100% Appendix - 6 Whetstone TI EB On Ramp End Time EB WB 1:00 AM 42 0 2:00 AM 37 0 3:00 AM 52 0 4:00 AM 37 0 5:00 AM 61 0 6:00 AM 82 0 7:00 AM 155 0 8:00 AM 219 0 9:00 AM 237 0 10:00 AM 222 0 11:00 AM 241 0 12:00 PM 221 0 1:00 PM 218 0 2:30 PM 231 0 3:00 PM 289 0 4:00 PM 238 0 5:00 PM 265 0 6:00 PM 249 0 7:00 PM 198 0 8:00 PM 145 0 9:00 PM 123 0 10:00 PM 73 0 11:00 PM 68 0 12:00 AM 70 0 Total 42 37 52 37 61 82 155 219 237 222 241 221 218 231 289 238 265 249 198 145 123 73 68 70 3773 K 1% 1% 1% 1% 2% 2% 4% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 8% 6% 7% 7% 5% 4% 3% 2% 2% 2% 100% Appendix - 7 North Frontage Road (Dark Star Road) End Time NB SB Total 1:00 AM 1 2 3 2:00 AM 0 0 0 3:00 AM 0 0 0 4:00 AM 0 0 0 5:00 AM 3 1 4 6:00 AM 4 0 4 7:00 AM 4 1 5 8:00 AM 4 2 6 9:00 AM 5 5 10 10:00 AM 4 8 12 11:00 AM 7 6 13 12:00 PM 5 5 10 1:00 PM 4 8 12 2:30 PM 8 7 15 3:00 PM 9 8 17 4:00 PM 5 9 14 5:00 PM 7 11 18 6:00 PM 6 7 13 7:00 PM 4 12 16 8:00 PM 3 6 9 9:00 PM 10 2 12 10:00 PM 5 4 9 11:00 PM 1 2 3 12:00 AM 0 4 4 209 K 1% 0% 0% 0% 2% 2% 2% 3% 5% 6% 6% 5% 6% 7% 8% 7% 9% 6% 8% 4% 6% 4% 1% 2% 100% Appendix - 8 SR 90 s/o I-10 End Time EB 1:00 AM 83 2:00 AM 45 3:00 AM 79 4:00 AM 100 5:00 AM 136 6:00 AM 304 7:00 AM 419 8:00 AM 574 9:00 AM 596 10:00 AM 694 11:00 AM 610 12:00 PM 556 1:00 PM 537 2:30 PM 553 3:00 PM 637 4:00 PM 612 5:00 PM 703 6:00 PM 621 7:00 PM 562 8:00 PM 373 9:00 PM 279 10:00 PM 229 11:00 PM 169 12:00 AM 153 WB 144 123 111 102 118 220 367 517 556 524 538 549 486 484 544 578 619 597 487 355 314 287 229 203 Total 227 168 190 202 254 524 786 1091 1152 1218 1148 1105 1023 1037 1181 1190 1322 1218 1049 728 593 516 398 356 18676 K 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 3% 4% 6% 6% 7% 6% 6% 5% 6% 6% 6% 7% 7% 6% 4% 3% 3% 2% 2% 100% Appendix - 9 South Frontage Road ( Titan Drive) End Time EB WB Total 1:00 AM 0 0 0 2:00 AM 0 0 0 3:00 AM 0 0 0 4:00 AM 0 0 0 5:00 AM 0 0 0 6:00 AM 7 1 8 7:00 AM 10 3 13 8:00 AM 10 5 15 9:00 AM 4 3 7 10:00 AM 8 5 13 11:00 AM 8 5 13 12:00 PM 6 7 13 1:00 PM 2 2 4 2:30 PM 4 6 10 3:00 PM 2 3 5 4:00 PM 5 5 10 5:00 PM 5 8 13 6:00 PM 7 12 19 7:00 PM 5 11 16 8:00 PM 2 3 5 9:00 PM 4 5 9 10:00 PM 1 3 4 11:00 PM 1 0 1 12:00 AM 0 0 0 178 K 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 4% 7% 8% 4% 7% 7% 7% 2% 6% 3% 6% 7% 11% 9% 3% 5% 2% 1% 0% 100% Appendix - 10 Village Loop End Time 1:00 AM 2:00 AM 3:00 AM 4:00 AM 5:00 AM 6:00 AM 7:00 AM 8:00 AM 9:00 AM 10:00 AM 11:00 AM 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 2:30 PM 3:00 PM 4:00 PM 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 7:00 PM 8:00 PM 9:00 PM 10:00 PM 11:00 PM 12:00 AM EB 0 2 0 1 3 15 37 43 50 65 68 78 82 59 77 57 64 63 38 28 19 16 5 4 WB 5 1 0 2 3 5 6 14 13 20 28 34 39 36 41 30 25 29 17 20 16 11 6 3 Total 5 3 0 3 6 20 43 57 63 85 96 112 121 95 118 87 89 92 55 48 35 27 11 7 1278 K 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2% 3% 4% 5% 7% 8% 9% 9% 7% 9% 7% 7% 7% 4% 4% 3% 2% 1% 1% 100% Appendix - 11 SR 90 at MP 297 End Time EB 1:00 AM 20 2:00 AM 10 3:00 AM 11 4:00 AM 14 5:00 AM 49 6:00 AM 80 7:00 AM 142 8:00 AM 216 9:00 AM 258 10:00 AM 296 11:00 AM 268 12:00 PM 264 1:00 PM 268 2:30 PM 298 3:00 PM 290 4:00 PM 311 5:00 PM 344 6:00 PM 276 7:00 PM 180 8:00 PM 122 9:00 PM 86 10:00 PM 70 11:00 PM 50 12:00 AM 32 WB 51 30 27 28 43 104 221 309 310 288 320 305 280 262 299 339 332 325 201 176 146 123 110 61 Total 71 40 38 42 92 184 363 525 568 584 588 569 548 560 589 650 676 601 381 298 232 193 160 93 8645 K 1% 0% 0% 0% 1% 2% 4% 6% 7% 7% 7% 7% 6% 6% 7% 8% 8% 7% 4% 3% 3% 2% 2% 1% 100% Appendix - 12 Recorded February, 2003 Appendix - 13 Appendix - 14 Appendix - 15 Appendix - 16 I-10 Eastbound Off Ramp @ Mescal TI 02/18/2003 End Time EB WB Total K 1:00 AM 20 0 20 0.02 2:00 AM 13 0 13 0.01 3:00 AM 6 0 6 0.01 4:00 AM 11 0 11 0.01 5:00 AM 10 0 10 0.01 6:00 AM 11 0 11 0.01 7:00 AM 18 0 18 0.02 8:15 AM 22 0 22 0.02 9:15 AM 38 0 38 0.04 10:15 AM 41 0 41 0.04 11:15 AM 42 0 42 0.04 12:15 PM 25 0 25 0.03 1:15 PM 34 0 34 0.04 2:15 PM 49 0 49 0.05 3:15 PM 52 0 52 0.05 4:15 PM 82 0 82 0.08 5:15 PM 119 0 119 0.12 6:15 PM 103 0 103 0.11 7:15 PM 90 0 90 0.09 8:15 PM 53 0 53 0.05 9:15 PM 47 0 47 0.05 10:15 PM 47 0 47 0.05 11:15 PM 32 0 32 0.03 12:00 AM 0 0 0 0.00 965 0 965 1.00 I-10 Eastbound On Ramp End Time EB WB 1:00 AM 9 2:00 AM 8 3:00 AM 2 4:00 AM 6 5:00 AM 12 6:00 AM 25 7:00 AM 45 8:15 AM 98 9:15 AM 86 10:15 AM 78 11:15 AM 93 12:15 PM 85 1:15 PM 89 2:15 PM 83 3:15 PM 75 4:15 PM 84 5:15 PM 85 6:15 PM 72 7:15 PM 70 8:15 PM 35 9:15 PM 36 10:15 PM 25 11:15 PM 17 12:00 AM 0 1218 Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 8 2 6 12 25 45 98 86 78 93 85 89 83 75 84 85 72 70 35 36 25 17 0 1218 K 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.08 0.07 0.06 0.08 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.06 0.07 0.07 0.06 0.06 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.00 1.00 Appendix - 17 I-10 Westbound Off Ramp End Time EB WB 1:00 AM 0 8 2:00 AM 0 4 3:00 AM 0 4 4:00 AM 0 4 5:00 AM 0 2 6:00 AM 0 8 7:00 AM 0 20 8:15 AM 0 61 9:15 AM 0 63 10:15 AM 0 75 11:15 AM 0 81 12:15 PM 0 98 1:15 PM 0 87 2:15 PM 0 108 3:15 PM 0 98 4:15 PM 0 110 5:15 PM 0 134 6:15 PM 0 133 7:15 PM 0 106 8:15 PM 0 77 9:15 PM 0 79 10:15 PM 0 51 11:15 PM 0 25 12:00 AM 0 0 0 1436 I10 Westbound On Ramp End Time EB WB 1:00 AM 0 2 2:00 AM 0 4 3:00 AM 0 2 4:00 AM 0 9 5:00 AM 0 23 6:00 AM 0 59 7:00 AM 0 128 8:15 AM 0 95 9:15 AM 0 74 10:15 AM 0 44 11:15 AM 0 50 12:15 PM 0 44 1:15 PM 0 26 2:15 PM 0 35 3:15 PM 0 38 4:15 PM 0 44 5:15 PM 0 36 6:15 PM 0 31 7:15 PM 0 24 8:15 PM 0 15 9:15 PM 0 17 10:15 PM 0 16 11:15 PM 0 3 12:00 AM 0 0 0 819 Total 8 4 4 4 2 8 20 61 63 75 81 98 87 108 98 110 134 133 106 77 79 51 25 0 1436 Total 2 4 2 9 23 59 128 95 74 44 50 44 26 35 38 44 36 31 24 15 17 16 3 0 819 K 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.06 0.08 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.09 0.07 0.05 0.06 0.04 0.02 0.00 1.00 K 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.07 0.16 0.12 0.09 0.05 0.06 0.05 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.00 1.00 Appendix - 18 Mescal Bridge over I-10 End Time EB WB 1:00 AM 8 10 2:00 AM 10 9 3:00 AM 4 3 4:00 AM 7 6 5:00 AM 6 14 6:00 AM 32 38 7:00 AM 44 77 8:15 AM 132 74 9:15 AM 107 65 10:15 AM 106 45 11:15 AM 117 59 12:15 PM 117 31 1:15 PM 116 49 2:15 PM 125 51 3:15 PM 115 59 4:15 PM 132 72 5:15 PM 139 79 6:15 PM 130 78 7:15 PM 123 71 8:15 PM 64 29 9:15 PM 67 28 10:15 PM 46 27 11:15 PM 26 22 12:00 AM 0 0 1773 996 Total 18 19 7 13 20 70 121 206 172 151 176 148 165 176 174 204 218 208 194 93 95 73 48 0 2769 K 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.04 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.06 0.05 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.08 0.07 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.00 1.00 Mescal WB Frontage Rd East End End Time EB WB Total 1:00 AM 3 1 4 2:00 AM 1 1 2 3:00 AM 1 0 1 4:00 AM 0 2 2 5:00 AM 0 0 0 6:00 AM 1 7 8 7:00 AM 0 9 9 8:15 AM 3 29 32 9:15 AM 9 19 28 10:15 AM 8 8 16 11:15 AM 9 22 31 12:15 PM 9 19 28 1:15 PM 10 6 16 2:15 PM 6 8 14 3:15 PM 8 16 24 4:15 PM 10 16 26 5:15 PM 4 15 19 6:15 PM 18 11 29 7:15 PM 14 15 29 8:15 PM 5 8 13 9:15 PM 5 6 11 10:15 PM 6 5 11 11:15 PM 1 2 3 12:00 AM 0 0 0 131 225 356 K 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.02 0.03 0.09 0.08 0.04 0.09 0.08 0.04 0.04 0.07 0.07 0.05 0.08 0.08 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.01 0.00 1.00 Appendix - 19 WB Frontage Road e/o Mescal Road End Time EB WB Total 1:00 AM 9 5 14 2:00 AM 10 11 21 3:00 AM 5 6 11 4:00 AM 9 9 18 5:00 AM 6 11 17 6:00 AM 15 21 36 7:00 AM 20 37 57 8:15 AM 45 74 119 9:15 AM 55 60 115 10:15 AM 53 52 105 11:15 AM 68 66 134 12:15 PM 58 55 113 1:15 PM 57 0 57 2:15 PM 49 0 49 3:15 PM 70 42 112 4:15 PM 71 55 126 5:15 PM 77 77 154 6:15 PM 75 60 135 7:15 PM 58 46 104 8:15 PM 36 27 63 9:15 PM 38 34 72 10:15 PM 27 20 47 11:15 PM 19 14 33 12:00 AM 0 0 0 930 782 1712 K 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.07 0.07 0.06 0.08 0.07 0.03 0.03 0.07 0.07 0.09 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.00 1.00 Mescal Rd 1000 n/o Frontage End Time EB WB 1:00 AM 8 4 2:00 AM 5 4 3:00 AM 3 3 4:00 AM 3 2 5:00 AM 1 8 6:00 AM 4 24 7:00 AM 15 57 8:15 AM 25 85 9:15 AM 30 59 10:15 AM 25 55 11:15 AM 39 58 12:15 PM 46 23 1:15 PM 49 0 2:15 PM 58 0 3:15 PM 55 0 4:15 PM 58 32 5:15 PM 83 38 6:15 PM 73 44 7:15 PM 64 40 8:15 PM 30 18 9:15 PM 34 18 10:15 PM 22 12 11:15 PM 20 5 12:00 AM 0 0 750 589 K 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.08 0.07 0.06 0.07 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.07 0.09 0.09 0.08 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.00 1.00 Total 12 9 6 5 9 28 72 110 89 80 97 69 49 58 55 90 121 117 104 48 52 34 25 0 1339 Appendix - 20 Mescal Rd 1000' n/o MP1 End Time EB WB 1:00 AM 0 0 2:00 AM 2 1 3:00 AM 1 2 4:00 AM 3 1 5:00 AM 1 3 6:00 AM 5 9 7:00 AM 7 20 8:15 AM 9 24 9:15 AM 9 15 10:15 AM 13 14 11:15 AM 19 12 12:15 PM 13 5 1:15 PM 21 0 2:15 PM 16 0 3:15 PM 15 10 4:15 PM 23 11 5:15 PM 32 9 6:15 PM 32 8 7:15 PM 23 11 8:15 PM 10 4 9:15 PM 12 5 10:15 PM 9 6 11:15 PM 5 0 12:00 AM 0 0 280 170 Rice Road w/o Mescal Rd End Time EB WB 1:00 AM 6 4 2:00 AM 3 2 3:00 AM 1 1 4:00 AM 1 0 5:00 AM 1 5 6:00 AM 1 11 7:00 AM 6 19 8:15 AM 13 41 9:15 AM 13 24 10:15 AM 11 25 11:15 AM 14 22 12:15 PM 22 14 1:15 PM 23 0 2:15 PM 35 0 3:15 PM 31 0 4:15 PM 31 22 5:15 PM 39 21 6:15 PM 36 25 7:15 PM 31 23 8:15 PM 18 15 9:15 PM 12 9 10:15 PM 12 9 11:15 PM 8 4 12:00 AM 0 0 368 296 Total 0 3 3 4 4 14 27 33 24 27 31 18 21 16 25 34 41 40 34 14 17 15 5 0 450 Total 10 5 2 1 6 12 25 54 37 36 36 36 23 35 31 53 60 61 54 33 21 21 12 0 664 K 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.06 0.07 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.04 0.05 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.09 0.09 0.08 0.03 0.04 0.03 0.01 0.00 1.00 K 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.08 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.03 0.05 0.05 0.08 0.09 0.09 0.08 0.05 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.00 1.00 Appendix - 21 Appendix - 22 Florida DOT Capacity Charts LOS Worksheet Adjustments Roadway Segment Titan Road West end to Village Loop Village Loop Road Titan Road to SR 90 State Route 90 North of Village Loop South of Village Loop Mescal Road SPRR Railroad to I-10 J-Six Ranch Road I-10 to Deer Run Williams Road J-Six Ranch Rd to Crazy Woman Rd Clark Road J-Six Ranch Rd to Crazy Woman Rd Joseph Road J-Six Ranch Rd to Crazy Woman Rd Navajo Trail West of J-Six Ranch Rd Skyline Road at I-10 Whetstone Road East of SR 90 Dark Star Road SR 90 to East End Interstate 10 Pima County Line to J-Six Ranch Rd J-Six Ranch Rd to Skyline TI Skyline TI to SR 90 East of SR 90 Frontage Rd (Benson Hwy) Cherokee Trail to Mescal Rd Mescal Rd to Pima County Line Skyridge Road Smith Ranch to Equipment Yard Classification Divided Left-turn Lanes LOS C LOS D Divided / No Left- Adjustment Undivided turn lanes Factor Non-State N N 7000 13600 0% -20% 0.80 Non-State N Y 7000 13600 0% 0% 1.00 State II State II Y Y Y Y 24400 24400 30600 30600 0% 0% 0% 0% 1.00 1.00 Non-State N N 7000 13600 -20% 0.80 Non-State N N 7000 13600 -20% 0.80 Other N N 4400 9400 -20% 0.80 Other N N 4400 9400 -20% 0.80 Other N N 4400 9400 -20% 0.80 Other Y N 4400 9400 Other N N 4400 9400 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 5% 0% 0% Other N N Other N N 4400 9400 Freeway Freeway Freeway Freeway Y Y Y Y N/A N/A N/A N/A 52500 52500 52500 52500 62200 62200 62200 62200 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% State III State III N N N N 5000 5000 11800 11800 Other N N 4400 9400 1.05 -20% 0.80 -20% 0.80 0% 0% 0% 0% 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0% 0% -20% -20% 0.80 0.80 0% -20% 0.80 Appendix - 23 Right of Way/ Plats Appendix - 24 Existing and Future Conditions Socioeconomic Data by Zone Appendix - 25 Appendix - 26 Appendix - 27 Appendix - 28 Model Statistics / Travel Characteristics Appendix - 29 Existing Conditions Calibration Map Red text is recorded volume Black text is model output volume Existing Conditions TAZ Map/Census Blocks Overlay TAZ Map – Future Conditions (BUILDOUT) Alternate 1 Appendix - 2 Alternate 2 Appendix - 3 Alternate 3 Appendix - 4