City of Winslow PARA North-South Transportation Plan Task Assignment MPD 23-10 April 30, 2012 This page intentionally left blank. Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction ........................................................................................ 1 1.1 Study Area Characteristics ....................................................................... 1 1.2 Community Outreach ............................................................................. 3 1.3 Key Issues .............................................................................................. 3 2.0 Previous and Current Studies ................................................................. 5 3.0 Existing Transportation System Conditions ............................................... 7 3.1 Key Study Area Roads ............................................................................. 7 3.2 Road Functional Classification ................................................................. 8 3.3 Existing Traffic Conditions ..................................................................... 10 3.4 LOS Analysis ........................................................................................ 12 3.5 Bridges and Structures .......................................................................... 14 3.6 Crash Data Analysis ............................................................................. 16 3.7 Transit ................................................................................................. 25 3.8 Non-Motorized .................................................................................... 26 4.0 Land Use and Socioeconomic Conditions.............................................. 27 4.1 Land Use ............................................................................................. 27 4.2 Title VI and Environmental Justice .......................................................... 30 4.3 Traffic Analysis Zones ........................................................................... 32 4.4 Population and Housing ....................................................................... 32 4.5 Employment ......................................................................................... 35 4.6 Population and Employment Growth Projections...................................... 37 5.0 5.1 Future Transportation System Conditions ............................................... 40 Planned Study Area Improvements ......................................................... 40 City of Winslow North-South Transportation Plan i 5.2 Traffic Assignments ............................................................................... 43 5.3 Network Deficiencies ............................................................................ 43 5.4 Circulation System Improvement Needs .................................................. 43 5.5 Transit and Non-Motorized Transportation .............................................. 45 6.0 North–South Railroad Crossing Evaluation ............................................ 46 6.1 Railroad Crossing Evaluation Criteria ..................................................... 47 6.2 Coopertown Bypass - West Winslow Industrial Spur ................................. 47 6.3 Transcon Lane Alternatives .................................................................... 50 6.4 Williamson Avenue (SR 87) Underpass ................................................... 56 6.5 Leupp Traffic Interchange (Junction I-40/SR99) ....................................... 57 6.6 New West Winslow Traffic Interchange ................................................... 59 6.7 Traffic Interchange Connection Alternatives............................................. 59 6.8 Railroad Crossing Evaluation ................................................................. 59 6.9 Recommended Railroad Crossing Priorities ............................................. 63 7.0 Implementation Plan........................................................................... 65 7.1 Roads ................................................................................................. 65 7.2 Public Transit ....................................................................................... 71 7.3 Sidewalks, Trails, and Paths ................................................................... 73 8.0 Transportation Revenue Sources........................................................... 76 9.0 Policies and Guidelines....................................................................... 81 9.1 Typical Road Cross Sections .................................................................. 81 9.2 Access Management............................................................................. 83 10.0 Conclusion ....................................................................................... 85 City of Winslow North-South Transportation Plan ii List of Appendices Appendix A Environmental Scan Appendix B Improvement Cost Estimates City of Winslow North-South Transportation Plan iii List of Figures Figure 1 Study Area and Influence Area Map .................................................................2 Figure 2 Road Functional Classification.........................................................................9 Figure 3 Road Lanes .................................................................................................11 Figure 4 Current Traffic Conditions .............................................................................13 Figure 5 Bridges and Structures ..................................................................................15 Figure 6 Number and Severity of Crashes by Year ........................................................17 Figure 7 Crash Types.................................................................................................19 Figure 8 High Crash Locations ...................................................................................24 Figure 9 Land Ownership ..........................................................................................28 Figure 10 Future Land Use Map ...................................................................................29 Figure 11 2006 Estimated Population Density by TAZ .....................................................34 Figure 12 2006 Estimated Employment Density by TAZ...................................................36 Figure 13 2030 Estimated Population Density by TAZ .....................................................38 Figure 14 2030 Projected Employment Density by TAZ ...................................................39 Figure 15 Planned Improvements - 2030 Traffic Conditions ............................................44 Figure 16 North–South Railroad Crossing Alternatives ....................................................49 Figure 17 Transcon Lane Crossing Option 1 .................................................................52 Figure 18 Transcon Lane Crossing Option 2 .................................................................53 Figure 19 Transcon Lane Crossing Option 3 .................................................................54 Figure 20 Transcon Lane Crossing Option 4 .................................................................55 Figure 21 Leupp TI BNSF Crossing Options ...................................................................58 Figure 22 Road Improvement Needs .............................................................................69 Figure 23 Public Transit Improvements ..........................................................................72 Figure 24 City of Winslow Trails and Paths System .........................................................75 Figure 25 Road Cross Sections .....................................................................................82 City of Winslow North-South Transportation Plan iv List of Tables Table 1 Crash Locations ...........................................................................................16 Table 2 Fatal Crashes ..............................................................................................18 Table 3 Crashes by Collision Type .............................................................................19 Table 4 Crashes by Environmental Conditions ............................................................20 Table 5 Crash Types at High Crash Intersections .........................................................21 Table 6 High Crash Segments ...................................................................................22 Table 7 Title VI and Environmental Justice Population Percentages, Winslow, Navajo County, and Arizona .....................................................................................31 Table 8 Occupied Housing .......................................................................................33 Table 9 Civilian Employment by Industry.....................................................................35 Table 10 Population and Employment Growth Projections .............................................37 Table 11 Programmed and Planned Transportation Improvements..................................41 Table 12 Annual Transit Trip Rates for Select Demographic Groups ................................45 Table 13 Railroad Crossing Evaluation Summary ..........................................................60 Table 14 Railroad Crossing Evaluation Summary Ranking ..............................................62 Table 15 Road Improvement Needs .............................................................................66 Table 16 Non-Motorized Trails and Paths System Needs ................................................74 City of Winslow North-South Transportation Plan v Acronyms and Abbreviations ADA Americans with Disabilities Act ADEQ Arizona Department of Environmental Quality ADOT Arizona Department of Transportation ADT average daily traffic APTNA Arkansas Public Transportation Needs Assessment ARRA American Reinvestment and Recovery Act ASLD Arizona State Land Department BIA Bureau of Indian Affairs BLM Bureau of Land Management BNSF Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway CIP Capitol Improvement Program CMAQ Congestion Management and Air Quality EPA Environmental Protection Agency FAA Federal Aviation Administration FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FHWA Federal Highway Administration FY fiscal year HCM Highway Capacity Manual HDR HDR Engineering, Inc. I Interstate ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers LOS level of service LRTP Long Range Transportation Plan NCCRTS Navajo County Central Region Transportation Study NACOG Northern Arizona Council of Government NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NHTSA National Highway Transportation Safety Administration NHPA National Historic Preservation Act City of Winslow North-South Transportation Plan vi Acronyms and Abbreviations NRHP National Register of Historic Places PARA Planning Assistance for Rural Arizona SR State Route TAC Technical Advisory Committee TAZ traffic analysis zone TI traffic interchange TIP Transportation Improvement Program TRB Transportation Research Board USACE U.S. Army Corp of Engineers USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service USFS U.S. Forest Service VMT vehicle miles of travel WCHD Winslow Commercial Historic District WRHD Winslow Residential Historic District City of Winslow North-South Transportation Plan vii 1.0 Introduction The City of Winslow (City) North–South Transportation Plan (Plan) is a multimodal plan, addressing improvements to the vehicular road network within and around the City of Winslow in addition to transit, bicycling, and pedestrian facilities. The need for new facilities is predicated on the growth that is occurring within the City of Winslow, Navajo County, Coconino County, and the region as a whole. While this growth has slowed considerably as a result of the economic downturn, the factors that led to this growth remain in place and long-term it is expected that population and employment in the City of Winslow will continue to grow. This study is being funded by the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) Multimodal Planning Division’s Planning Assistance for Rural Areas (PARA) program. The PARA program is funded through the Federal Highway Administration’s State Planning and Research program to non-metropolitan communities for the purpose of conducting transportation planning studies. PARA funds may be applied to address a broad range of planning issues related to road and non-motorized transportation modes. 1.1 Study Area Characteristics Located on Interstate 40 (I-40) along historic Route 66, the iconic mother road, the City of Winslow has its roots in the Santa Fe Railway. An early railroad division point because of its reliable water from Clear Creek and the Little Colorado River, the City is said to be named after railroad company president Edward Winslow. The City has been immortalized in modern culture and continues to be an important tourism draw for the area. Several historic sites remain as a testament to Winslow’s role as both a trading post and an important stop on both the railroad and Route 66, including the Lorenzo Hubbell Trading Post and Warehouse, the La Posada Historic District, and the Winslow Commercial Historic District. Winslow is located in northeast Arizona within Navajo County. Situated along I-40 and the boundary between Navajo and Coconino Counties, Winslow is approximately 55 miles east of Flagstaff and 30 miles west of Holbrook. To the south, State Route (SR) 87 connects Winslow to the Mogollon Rim, Payson, and the Phoenix-Mesa metropolitan area. The Hopi Tribe and the Navajo Nation lie to the north. Winslow’s corporate limits encompass nearly 8,300 acres. It is surrounded by private and tribal lands and lands held by the Arizona State Land Department (ASLD). The City is a member of the Northern Arizona Council of Governments (NACOG ). Figure 1 shows the study area and the wider influence area for this long range transportation plan. The study area is the focus of transportation issue identification and alternative development. The influence area will be used to capture possible impacts that would affect the study area. Potential growth areas extend west from Winslow toward the Leupp traffic interchange (TI) and east toward the Aztec Land & Cattle Company area. The purpose of the influence area is to ensure that the impact of growth in the Winslow region is considered within the study area. City of Winslow North-South Transportation Plan 1 Tucson _ ^ Winslow City of Winslow boundary Influence area Study area Phoenix Flagstaff ) " 87 Æ x ) " Arizona State Prison Complex 99 Æ x ilroad McClaws R oad BNSF Ra x Æ 87 40 § ¨ ¦ 40 § ¦ ¨ Influence Area 87 Æ x 40 ¦ ¨ § 1.5 3 ± 6 Miles 77 x Æ 180 £ ¤ Holbrook 2 December 30, 2011 | HDR Source: City of Winslow (2007), HDR (2011) Figure 1 | Study Area and Influence Area 0 377 x Æ Aztec Land & Cattle Co. Navajo County 99 Æ x 87 x Æ Aztec Land & Cattle Company Coconino County To Flagstaff Winslow VICINITY MAP CITY OF WINSLOW NORTH-SOUTH TRANSPORTATION STUDY Point of interest ) " Winslow Memorial Hospital ) " Homolovi Ruins State Park Winslow Amtrak ) " ) " Winslow-Lindbergh Regional Airport City of Winslow Aztec Land & Cattle Company property 40 § ¨ ¦ Leupp Traffic Interchange Park Drive Navajo Indian Reservation boundary To Pa ys on 1.2 Community Outreach An important part of the study process involved pubic outreach with stakeholders and the community to establish factors to be considered as the Plan developed. A Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) was established and met regularly through the study to assist in the study process. A stakeholder meeting was held on June 27, 2011, and included key representatives from the City of Winslow, business community, and Hopi and Navajo Communities. The format of the meeting was a presentation with question and answer session followed by small group discussions to identify issues and opportunities in the study area. A total of nine stakeholders participated in the meeting. A public information meeting, followed by a City Council Work Session occurred on July 12, 2011, to present existing and future conditions and gather additional input on study issues. On November 8, 2011, a second public information meeting and City Council Work Session were held to discuss the proposed improvement projects. A Public Involvement Summary Report was prepared by the Public Involvement Consortium for this project. 1.3 Key Issues This section identifies the key topics addressed in the Plan. Where appropriate, the sections addressing these topics are identified. North–South Access The Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad (BNSF) tracks are a barrier that limits interaction to the planned industrial development areas around the Winslow-Lindbergh Regional Airport south of the tracks, and the residential and commercial areas to the north of the tracks. Existing access across the BNSF tracks is limited to the SR 87 underpass and the West Winslow Industrial Spur overpass west of town. Improved access across the BNSF tracks is needed to support planned growth and development both around the airport and west of town. Improved north-south access is also needed from the downtown to the commercial development area along I-40. Berry Avenue, a two-lane road that provides a connection between North Park Drive and Route 66 is the most frequently traveled north-south route. This route passes through an established residential neighborhood and by Washington Elementary School, causing safety concerns among the community. Population and Employment Growth Over the past ten years, Winslow has experienced population growth as increasing rents in the Flagstaff area have made Winslow a more attractive housing alternative for some. The 2010 U.S. Census counted the City of Winslow’s population at 9,655, up from the Census 2000 count of 9,520. Of Winslow’s total population, approximately 1,500 are institutionalized at the Arizona State Prison Complex on SR 87. In addition, the Arizona State Prison Complex plans to expand in size creating a need for additional housing for the employees. City of Winslow North-South Transportation Plan 3 The U.S. Census Bureau’s ZIP Code Business Patterns database showed 2,900 paid employees within Winslow in March 2008. The 2006 to 2010 American Community Survey 5-Year estimates shows that education, health care, and social assistance is the largest industry in Winslow, employing almost 24 percent of the workforce. Retail trade and the arts, entertainment and recreation industries are the next largest employers. Population and employment projections developed for the Plan are discussed in Section 4.0, Land Use and Socioeconomic Conditions. Economic Development Retention and expansion of existing businesses and the attraction of new businesses is a key priority for the City of Winslow. East of the downtown has limited economic development opportunities because of floodplain constraints. Because of this, the City has identified areas to the west of the City and south of I-40 as better suited for economic development. The City is seeking to diversity its economic base south of the railroad tracks and has targeted this area for future employment and housing growth. Downtown continues to be a focus of redevelopment and revitalization efforts. Another focus of economic development is the area north of I-40 along Mike’s Pike between Hipkoe Drive and North Park Drive. Transportation improvements are vital to support both priorities. Multimodal Public transportation in Winslow is provided for elderly and disabled under a Section 5310 program operated by the Winslow Council on Aging. Amtrak and Greyhound provide commercial passenger rail and bus services. Analyses of transit demand show that a significant portion of the Winslow population could benefit from basic transit services. The analyses are discussed further in Section 3.0, Existing Transportation System Conditions and Section 5.0, Future Transportation System Conditions. The community also expressed a desire to add basic transit service during the stakeholder and public outreach meetings. Winslow is completing its Renaissance sidewalk and streetscape projects to make the historic downtown and Route 66 corridor more walkable. In addition the City has a trails and path plan to connect many of its activity centers. This planning effort brings these plans forward and recommends new connections to provide better north-south pedestrian connectivity. Transit and non-motorized modes and plans for improvements are discussed in Section 3.0, Existing Transportation System Conditions and also in Section 7.0, Implementation Plan. City of Winslow North-South Transportation Plan 4 2.0 Previous and Current Studies This section identifies previous and current transportation studies reviewed for the preparation of this document. City of Winslow General Plan, 2002 The planning vision established by the General Plan emphasizes a safe, relaxed, wholesome quality of life that includes cultural diversity, preservation of the distinct regional heritage, and appreciation of the natural environment. For economic development, the City seeks broad-based employment with balanced housing opportunities. Key land use recommendations include revitalizing underutilized and high-visibility properties with urban in-fill and encouraging mixed use areas in the downtown area. The circulation element recommends evaluating residential streets for traffic calming, continuing airport restoration, expanding public transit for medical trips and elderly, and implementing a multipurpose path system. ADOT Navajo County Central Region Transportation Study, 2010 This multi-jurisdictional transportation plan outlines the region’s transportation priority projects and provides a plan for ultimate implementation. It was a joint effort of Navajo County, the City of Holbrook, the City of Winslow, and ADOT. Regional recommendations include a Holbrook-WinslowFlagstaff public transit connection. Within the Winslow area, the plan recommends: a study on 2nd Street and 3rd Street to improve mobility and traffic safety; a detailed evaluation of Flying J truck stop geometry; an examination of local circulator transit service; the restoration of the Amtrak Station; bicycle guide signing to use routes other than 2nd and 3rd Streets; an evaluation of an additional BNSF crossing; and a detailed examination of Hipkoe Drive traffic interchange. Winslow-Lindbergh Regional Airport Master Plan, 2010 This study evaluated future aviation demand and infrastructure development needs and provided systematic guidelines for the airport’s overall development, maintenance, and operation. The Master Plan estimated 21Winslow-based aircraft with 12,480 total annual flight operations for the long-term planning horizon. The Master Plan focuses on meeting Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) design and safety standards, improving Runway 4-22 and Taxiway B to accommodate the Lockheed P-3 Orion fire fighting aircraft, and identifying locations for hangar and apron development. Full implementation of the planned improvements is estimated to cost $65.2 million. More than $60.2 million of the estimated cost is eligible for grant funding from FAA or the ADOT Aeronautics Group. Access to the airport is provided from Airport Road, a paved two-lane road connected to SR 87. The Master Plan identifies aCoopertown bypass corridor south of the Coopertown community northeast of the airport. This corridor is intended to help remove heavy semi-truck traffic from downtown Winslow with minimal impact on the airport. ADOT Arizona Rural Transit Needs Study, 2008 The purpose of this study was to develop regionally based needs and solutions for rural transit service in Arizona. Transit demand in rural Arizona is projected to grow from 7.8 million passenger trips in 2007 to 10.5 million in 2016, an increase of 34 percent. Using the Arkansas Public Transportation City of Winslow North-South Transportation Plan 5 Needs Assessment (APTNA) method, Winslow’s unmet need in 2005 was 47,500 annual trips. By 2016, the unmet need increases to 62,300 annual trips. The study identified the following steps to address the transit needs of rural Arizona: add rural public transit service within cities, towns, and tribal reservations to assure service needs of the elderly, persons with disabilities, and the general public are met; connect rural and urban communities, which represents a growing Arizona need; increase funding at all levels of government to support these services, with cooperation from private and non-profit sectors; and, establish clearly defined roles and responsibilities between the State, councils of governments, local governments, tribal governments and transit operators. Regional Connector Service Analysis, 2008 This study analyzes potential regional connector transit services in two White Mountain corridors. One corridor connects Show Low and Holbrook via SR 77. The other corridor connects Show Low and Springerville and Eager. It includes transit demand analysis, analysis of service options, and an implementation plan. O’Haco Ranch Master Plan, 2007 This Master Plan establishes a comprehensive plan for development of over 1,000 acres located north of I-40 and the historic downtown area of Winslow. The development will include a mix of low-, medium-density, multi-family residential, commercial, and parks and open space. The current zoning of this largely undeveloped land is mostly agricultural-residential with some commercial, multi-family residential, and mobile home/multi-family areas. The traffic circulation plan includes major arterials, designed to be placed at the median openings along Mike’s Pike Road. The plan incorporates approximately 3 miles of trails and bikeways in and around the project boundary. Best of the West Estates Traffic Impact Study, 2007 This study was conducted to evaluate the traffic impacts from the proposed 187-acre single-family detached housing development situated west of SR 87 and east of Ruby Wash. The proposed development includes 556 single-family units. The development is projected to generate 5,321 daily, 428 morning peak, and 567 afternoon peak trips. Access will be from Boles Boulevard and Metzger Road off of Airport Road. The study suggests that the SR 87 and Airport Road intersection may need to be signalized by 2017. The intersections of Airport Road with Boles Boulevard and Metzger Road may require traffic signals by 2027. Winslow Residential/Commercial Historical District, 1989 The documents from the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) by the United States Department of the Interior were reviewed for the residential and commercial historic districts within Winslow. These documents identified Winslow historic residences from 1892 to 1910 and the commercial historic structures from 1883 to 1935. City of Winslow North-South Transportation Plan 6 3.0 Existing Transportation System Conditions This section describes the City of Winslow’s existing multimodal transportation system. It provides details on road networks, bridges and structures, public transit system, and bicycle and pedestrian facility characteristics. 3.1 Key Study Area Roads This section provides an overview of the key facilities in the Winslow road network. North–South Routes Hipkoe Drive Hipkoe Drive is a two-lane road with a center two-way left turn lane that provides access to Winslow’s western I-40 traffic interchange. It connects between Mike’s Pike and the Frontage Road north of I-40 to the 2nd Street and 3rd Street couplet south of I-40. Average daily traffic on this road was 1,340 in 2010. North Park Drive North Park Drive provides access between central Winslow, I-40, and the Navajo Nation to the north. North Park Drive is connected to US 66 by Berry Avenue. North Park Drive provides access to the commercial centers located both north and south of I-40. North Park Drive also provides access to the Little Colorado Medical Center via Hillview Street. North Park Drive is four lanes between Henderson Street and Mike’s Pike, narrows to two lanes north of Mike’s Pike, and is two lanes south of Henderson Street. Average daily traffic on the segment between Hillview Street and Henderson Street was 9,880 in 2010. Berry Avenue Berry Avenue is a two-lane collector road that provides a connection between North Park Drive and Route 66. SR 87 (Williamson Avenue) SR 87 is a two-lane state highway that connects Winslow to Payson and the Phoenix-Mesa metropolitan area. It provides access to the Winslow-Lindbergh Regional Airport and the Arizona State Prison Complex. Currently, the SR 87 underpass is one of two options to cross the BNSF tracks that traverse the City. This historic structure is functionally deficient in terms of vertical clearance, width, and approaches to the underpass. These functional deficiencies in the railroad underpass crossing limit the road’s ability to accommodate large commercial vehicles. Average daily traffic on the segment between 2nd Street and 3rd Street was 9,000 in 2010. Transcon Lane Transcon Lane is a two-lane road with a center two-way left turn lane that provides access to Winslow’s eastern I-40 traffic interchange. It connects between the Frontage Road north of I-40 to the City of Winslow North-South Transportation Plan 7 2nd Street and 3rd Street couplet south of I-40. It serves the Flying J Travel Plaza. Average daily traffic on the segment between Route 66 and I-40 was 9,000 in 2010. SR 99 SR 99 is a two-lane state highway that connects SR 87, Clear Creek Reservoir, and the ApacheSitgreaves National Forest. It also provides access to McLaws Road. East–West Routes Mike’s Pike Mike’s Pike connects Hipkoe Drive and North Park Drive. It provides access to the Walmart Supercenter and other businesses in the commercial center north of I-40 at Park Drive. It is four lanes between North Park Drive and the Walmart and two lanes to the west of the Walmart. It is the principal access route for the planned O’Haco Ranch development. Average daily traffic on the segment between Hipkoe Avenue and North Park Drive was 2,060 in 2010. Interstate 40 Part of the Eisenhower Interstate Highway System, I-40 is the third longest east-west Interstate Highway in the United States. It spans from Barstow, California, in the west, to Wilmington, North Carolina, in the east. Much of the western portion from Oklahoma City to Barstow follows the route of historic Route 66. At Winslow, I-40 is two lanes in each direction. It carries 16,000 vehicles per day, of which 44 percent are commercial trucks. Winslow is served by traffic interchanges at Hipkoe Drive, North Park Drive, and Transcon Lane. Historic Route 66 Historic Route 66 runs through the heart of historic downtown Winslow as a one-way couplet: 3rd Street runs in the westbound direction; 2nd Street runs in the eastbound direction. Each direction of the couplet has two lanes. The road connects Hipkoe Drive on the west to Transcon Lane on the east. This route also provides access to the BNSF overcrossing west of town. Average daily traffic on the couple is as high as 8,300 on the segment between Simmons Avenue and the Transcon Lane. 3.2 Road Functional Classification Winslow roads are classified using the FHWA 1 functional classification system. Functional classification is the grouping of highways, roads, and streets into classes based on mobility and land access. In general, arterials provide greater mobility with less direct access to land, while local roads and collectors provide more access to land with less mobility. Functional classification also serves as a basis for establishing speed limits, parking restrictions, design standards and access controls. Figure 2 shows the road functional classification for the Winslow area. 1 Federal Highway Administration. (1989). FHWA Functional Classification Guidelines. Retrieved February16, 2011, from FHWA Web site, http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/fctoc.htm City of Winslow North-South Transportation Plan 8 N 0 Rural interstate Rural major collector Rural minor collector Urban interstate 0.25 0.5 Miles N 0 0.5 City boundary Railroad 0.25 Mercury Lane 1 Miles Arizona State Prison Winslow-Lingbergh Regional Airport " d n Roa rtow Coop e ( ! " Airport Access Road Fleming Street Hillview Street Desmond Street ( ( ( ! !! North Road Cher ry Av enue Map le St reet " Winslow Amtrak ( ! Oak Road BNS F Ra ilroa d 9 December 30, 2011 | HDR Source: HPMS (2005), FHWA (1989), ALRIS (2009) Figure 2 | Road Functional Classification ! ( ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ! ( Winslow Memorial "Hospital " Homolovi Ruins State Park CITY OF WINSLOW NORTH-SOUTH TRANSPORTATION STUDY Urban minor arterial Urban collector Local road Traffic interchange Leupp Traffic Interchange W Ind est W u str insl ial ow Sp ur BVD Road Hipkoe Drive !! ( ( Mikes Pike North Park Drive y Av enue Berr Aven ue son Willia m ET Aven ue Cott onw ood Sunset Road SEE IN S Tran scon Lane ANGE - ERCH P INT LEUP Bales Avenue 3.3 Existing Traffic Conditions This section provides the key physical and operating characteristic of the major road network in the Winslow study area. Road Lanes Figure 3 shows total travel lanes for Winslow roads. Level of Service Level of Service (LOS) is a quantitative measurement of operational characteristics of traffic and the perception of the traffic conditions by both motorists and passengers. There are six levels of service defined by the Transportation Research Boards’ Highway Capacity Manual 2000 (HCM), published by the Transportation Research Board (TRB). Each level of service is given a letter designation from A to F, with A representing the optimal or best condition and F the worst. Road segment level of service is characterized by the HCM as follows: LOS A: Best, free flow operations (on uninterrupted flow facilities) and very low delay (on interrupted flow facilities). Freedom to select desired speeds and to maneuver within traffic is extremely high. LOS B: Flow is stable, but presence of other users is noticeable. Freedom to select desired speeds is relatively unaffected, but there is a slight decline in the freedom to maneuver within traffic. LOS C: Flow is stable, but the operation of users is becoming affected by the presence of other users. Maneuvering within traffic requires substantial vigilance on the part of the user. LOS D: High density but stable flow. Speed and freedom to maneuver are severely restricted. The driver is experiencing a generally poor level of comfort and convenience. LOS E: Flow is at or near capacity. All speeds are reduced to a low, but relatively uniform value. Freedom to maneuver within traffic is extremely difficult. Comfort and convenience levels are extremely poor. LOS F: Worst, facility has failed, or a breakdown has occurred. LOS A, B, and C are generally considered to be satisfactory service levels, though driver expectations in rural areas may be a LOS B. The influence of congestion becomes more noticeable at LOS D. LOS E is undesirable and is considered by most agencies to be the limit of acceptable delay, and LOS F conditions are considered to be unacceptable to most drivers. Most jurisdictions strive to attain a LOS of at least D or better on all roads and signalized intersections in urban areas while LOS C is targeted for rural conditions. Table 103.2A of the ADOT Roadway Design Guidelines(February 2010) shows that the design LOS for urban/fringe urban highways is LOS C-D, noting that one-way couplets or alternative bypass routes should be considered as an alternative to LOS D. City of Winslow North-South Transportation Plan 10 N 0 4 lanes 2 lanes 0.25 City boundary Railroad 0.5 Miles N 0 0.25 0.5 Mercury Lane 1 Miles Arizona State Prison Winslow-Lingbergh Regional Airport " d n Roa rtow Coop e ( ! " Airport Access Road Fleming Street Hillview Street Desmond Street ( ( ( ! !! North Road Cher ry Av enue Map le St reet " Winslow Amtrak ( ! ! ( ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ! ( Winslow Memorial "Hospital Oak Road F Ra ilroa d 11 December 30, 2011 | HDR Source: HPMS (2005), ALRIS (2009) Figure 3 | Road Lanes BNS " Homolovi Ruins State Park CITY OF WINSLOW NORTH-SOUTH TRANSPORTATION STUDY Leupp Traffic Interchange W Ind est W u str insl ial ow Sp ur BVD Road Hipkoe Drive !! ( ( Mikes Pike North Park Drive y Av enue Berr Aven ue son Willia m ET Aven ue Cott onw ood Sunset Road SEE IN S Tran scon Lane ANGE - ERCH P INT LEUP Bales Avenue 3.4 LOS Analysis Two types of LOS analysis were used to evaluate current traffic operational conditions in the study area. First, a generalized segment level of service analysis was conducted using volume thresholds by functional classification and number of through travel lanes. The volume thresholds for urbanized areas from the Florida Department of Transportation 2009 Quality/Level of Service Handbook, used for this analysis, are based on planning applications of the HCM. Second, a LOS analysis for signalized intersections was conducted for 16 key intersection locations using SYNCHRO, a micro-simulation software that evaluates traffic operations on road systems using methods described in the HCM. Peak hour traffic volumes and peak hour factors, intersection lane configurations, and traffic control parameters were coded into the SYNCHRO model to determine intersection LOS for weekday AM and PM peak hours. Figure 4 shows current traffic conditions including traffic counts collected in 2010 by the City and from ADOT’s 2009 traffic count database and LOS. With the lone exception of Berry Avenue north of Hillview Street, all road segments within the study area operate at Level of Service B or better and all key intersections operate at LOS B or better. City of Winslow North-South Transportation Plan 12 0 0.25 ! XXX XXX 0.25 0.5 Mercury Lane BVD Road 1 Miles 2010 Daily traffic (City of Winslow) 2009 AADT (ADOT) City boundary Railroad 0 1,100 1,300 Hipkoe Drive Fleming Street 1,100 ! !(4,000 ! 200 0 1,50 00 4,6 ! ! ( ( ( ! !! 1,500 1,000 00 5,4 Hillview Street Airport Access Road 0 90 2, Notes: 1. LOS is only shown for segments and intersections where counts are available. 2. AADT - Annual Average Daily Traffic Æ d ( ! n Roa !! ( ( rtow Coop e 0 1,50 2,100 0 15,80Desmond Street Mikes Pike North Park Drive 1,200 North Road 00 ! ( ( ! ( ! 3,7 ( ! BNS F Ra ilroa d 1,300 16,2 00 Figure 4 | Current Traffic Conditions ( ! ! ( 500 Oak Road 13 December 30, 2011 | HDR Source: City of Winslow Daily Traffic Counts (2010), ADOT Traffic Division (2009), HDR (2011) 1,200 Cher ry Av enue Map le St reet 2,400 CITY OF WINSLOW NORTH-SOUTH TRANSPORTATION STUDY Intersection (PM Peak) LOS A LOS B Signalized intersection 0.5 Miles N 00 15,9 Bales Avenue Level of Service (LOS) Segment (daily) LOS A LOS B LOS C N Leupp Traffic Interchange ET W Ind est W u str insl ial ow Sp ur 2,300 6, 9,900 Berr 10 y Av 0 enue 4 Willia,000 mso n Av enue SEE IN S 2,000 Aven ue Cott onw ood 700 Sunset Road ANGE - ERCH P INT LEUP T 15 ran 9,0 scon Lan 00 e 0 ,80 3.5 Bridges and Structures Figure 5 shows the bridges and structures within the study area that have been identified in ADOT Bridge Management Section inspection records. This figure shows the current bridge sufficiency rating and identifies which structures are eligible for rehabilitation. Structures with a sufficiency rating of 80 or greater are in good condition. Structures with a rating less than 80 are eligible for rehabilitation while structures with a rating less than 50 are eligible for replacement. Of the 33 ADOT structures identified, 24 are in good condition, eight are eligible for rehabilitation, and one, the SR 87 railroad underpass, was not available. Ten City of Winslow structures were also identified. Eight are in good condition and two are eligible for reconstruction. None of the structures are eligible for replacement. City of Winslow North-South Transportation Plan 14 0 0.25 " " N 0 0.5 Mercury Lane City boundary Railroad 0.25 W Ind est W u str insl ial ow Sp ur BVD Road " 1 Miles " d ( ! n Roa rtow Coop e Hipkoe Drive "! ! ( ( " " Hillview Street Airport Access Road Fleming Street " " Desmond Street Mikes Pike " " " ( ( ( ! !! " " " ) Cher ry Av enue Map le St reet ( ! ! ( ( ! ( ! ( ! " " North Road ( ! ! ( "" " " BNS F Ra ilroa d " " " " " " 15 December 30, 2011 | HDR Source: ADOT, Winslow (2010) Figure 5 | Bridges and Structures " Oak Road Sunset Road CITY OF WINSLOW NORTH-SOUTH TRANSPORTATION STUDY City of Winslow Structure Good condition Eligible for rehabilitation 0.5 Miles Sufficiency Rating ADOT Structure Good condition " Eligible for rehabilitation " Rating not available " N " Leupp Traffic Interchange ET SEE IN S North Park Drive y Av enue Berr Aven ue son Willia m ANGE - ERCH P INT Aven ue Cott onw ood 4 LEUP Tran scon Lane " Bales Avenue 3.6 Crash Data Analysis A crash analysis was conducted for this study to identify crash patterns, trends, and classifications during the five year period from January 1, 2005 to December 31, 2009 using crash data provided by ADOT. The data provided by ADOT contains information regarding incident date and time, crash location, crash severity, crash type, collision manner, environmental conditions, and crash causes. The analysis was done to identify crash patterns and trends that may indicate locations where additional study and possible mitigation is needed to improve road safety for motor vehicles and pedestrians. Crash Summary Data A total of 862 crashes involving 1,344 vehicles were reported within the study area during the five years of analysis period. During this period, 36 percent of the reported crashes occurred at intersections, 59 percent at mid-block locations and driveway access points, and 1 percent at railroad grade crossing. Crash locations were unknown or unreported for 4 percent of the crashes. Crashes that occurred within a 250-foot radius of an intersection were analyzed as intersection crashes. Crashes at mid-block locations occurred along road sections, at driveway access, or at alleys. Table 1 shows the crashes by location and percentage. Table 1 Crash Locations Location Number of Crashes Percent of Crashes 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 5-Yr Total Mid-Block 114 107 129 83 82 515 60 Intersection 72 76 66 60 33 307 36 Unknown 7 5 16 6 6 40 4 Total 193 188 211 149 121 862 100 Source: ADOT Traffic Safety Division, data from January 1, 2005 to December 31, 2009 Crash Trend and Crash Severity Figure 6 presents the yearly crash trend and severity for the analysis period. There were a total of 193 crashes in 2005, 188 in 2006, 211 in 2007, 149 in 2008, and 121 in 2009, respectively. Out of 862 total crashes during the five-year period, 11 crashes (1 percent) resulted in fatalities, and 201 (23 percent) resulted in injuries (both incapacitating and possible injury). The remaining 650 crashes (76 percent) were non-injury, property damage only, or unreported. The number of annual crashes decreased through the analysis period. This is likely the result of several factors. The I-40 urban interchange completed in 2007 at North Park Drive traffic improved safety at what was historically a high crash location. Also, traffic has decreased with the slowdown in the economy. City of Winslow North-South Transportation Plan 16 Figure 6 Number and Severity of Crashes by Year 180 160 Number of Crashes 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 Fatal Incapacitating Injury 2005 2006 2007 Other Injury 2008 Property Damage Only 2009 Source: ADOT Traffic Safety Division, data from January 1, 2005 to December 31, 2009 Fatal Crash Locations A total of 11 fatal crashes occurred in the study area during the analysis period. The data shows there were five fatal crashes involving pedestrians, three due to overturning, two due to collision with fixed object, and one due to a collision with a parked vehicle. Six crashes were the result of the influence of alcohol, either by driver or the pedestrian. Table 2 shows the detailed information about all of the fatal crashes during the five-year analysis period. There were two additional fatal crashes in 2010 which occurred outside the five-year data analysis period. Both crashes involved a single vehicle where the driver was under the influence of alcohol and the vehicle overturned. Table 2 does not include these fatal crashes. City of Winslow North-South Transportation Plan 17 Table 2 Fatal Crashes Date Location Crash Type Harmful Action Physical Condition* 5-Mar-05 I-40 at North Park Drive Single vehicle Pedestrian involved Under influence of alcohol 21-Feb-05 I-40 at Leupp TI Single vehicle Overturn No apparent influence 1-Jul-05 On Route 66 at Indiana Avenue Other Pedestrian involved Under influence of alcohol 25-Jan-06 I-40 at Transcon Lane Rear-end Parked vehicle No apparent influence 2-Mar-06 Coopertown Road at Gorman Avenue Single vehicle Collision with utility pole Alcohol/drug involved 14-Jun-06 I-40 at Leupp TI Single vehicle Overturn Inattention 11-Aug-06 On westbound I-40 between Park Drive and Maple Street Other Collision with guardrail No apparent influence 16-Mar-07 I-40 at SR-87 Single vehicle Pedestrian involved Under influence of alcohol 7-Jun-07 I-40 at Hipkoe Drive Single vehicle Pedestrian involved Under influence of alcohol 15-Mar-08 I-40 at SR-87 Single vehicle Pedestrian involved Under influence of alcohol 12-Jun-08 On eastbound I-40 between Park Drive and Maple Street Single vehicle Overturn No apparent influence Crash Type Figure 7 shows the various crash types that occurred during the analysis period. Single vehicle and rear-end crashes were the predominant crash types that occurred in the study area with 244 (28 percent) and 231 (27 percent) crashes respectively. Sideswipe crashes accounted for 171 (20 percent) of the total crashes followed by angle (161 or 19 percent), head-on (13 or 2 percent) and other crash types (42 or 4 percent). City of Winslow North-South Transportation Plan 18 Figure 7 Crash Types Head-on 2% Other 4% Single vehicle 28% Angle 19% Rear-end 27% Sideswipe 20% Source: ADOT Traffic Safety Division, data from January 1, 2005 to December 31, 2009. Harmful Collision Event The majority of the crashes were due to a collision with other motor vehicles (52 percent). Other collision types included parked vehicle (20 percent), fixed object (13 percent), collision with bike or pedestrian (6 percent), overturn (3 percent), collision with non-fixed object (2 percent) and unknown collision type (4 percent). Table 3 summarizes the number of crashes by collision type. Table 3 Crashes by Collision Type Harmful Event Number of Crashes Percent Total Crashes Collision with other motor vehicle 448 52 Collision with parked vehicle 170 20 Collision with fixed object 111 13 Collision with bike/pedestrian 49 6 Overturn 30 3 Collision with non-fixed object 16 2 Unknown 38 4 862 100 Total Source: ADOT Traffic Safety Division, data from January 1, 2005 to December 31, 2009. City of Winslow North-South Transportation Plan 19 Environmental Conditions Table 4 shows the lighting and weather conditions existing when the crashes occurred. As shown in the table, the majority of the crashes occurred under day light conditions (67 percent) followed by the number of crashes that occurred during dark or unknown lighting conditions (27 percent), crashes at dawn (5 percent), or unreported conditions (1 percent). Weather Conditions Statistics for the crash data indicated that 85 percent of crashes occurred during clear weather conditions, whereas 7 percent, 3 percent, 3 percent and 2 percent of the crashes occurred during cloudy, snowy, rainy and other weather conditions, respectively. Table 4 Crashes by Environmental Conditions Light Conditions Number of Crashes Percent Total Crashes Daylight 580 67 Dark/Unknown Lighting 228 27 Dawn 46 5 Not Reported 8 1 862 100 Total Weather Conditions Number of Crashes Percent Total Crashes Clear 729 85 Cloudy 63 7 Snow 27 3 Rain 22 3 Other 21 2 Total 862 100 Source: ADOT Traffic Safety Division, data from January 1, 2005 to December 31, 2009. City of Winslow North-South Transportation Plan 20 High Crash Intersections and Segments Table 5 shows the intersections with two or more crashes reported during the analysis period. Intersection crash rates were not calculated because they require traffic count data that was not available for all locations. Intersection improvements were made recently at Williamson Avenue and 2nd Street and Williamson Avenue and 3rd Street which are anticipated to improve the operational safety at these locations. Table 5 Crash Types at High Crash Intersections Intersection Crashes Single Vehicle Rear-end Sideswipe Angle Other Williamson Avenue and 2nd Street 22 5 (23%) 8 (36%) 4 (18%) 5 (23%) 0 (0%) Williamson Avenue and 3rd Street 13 2 (15%) 3 (23%) 4 (31%) 4 (31%) 0 (0%) North Park Drive and I-40 12 1 (85%) 9 (75%) 0 (0%) 2 (17%) 0 (0%) North Park Drive and Mike’s Pike 11 0 (0%) 3 (27%) 1 (9%) 7 (64%) 0 (0%) Berry Avenue and 3rd Street 10 1 (10%) 5 (50%) 0 (0%) 4 (40%) 0 (0%) Kinsley Avenue and 2nd Street 9 1 (11%) 1 (11%) 3 (33%) 4 (45%) 0 (0%) I-40 and SR 87 TI 8 2 (25%) 1 (13%) 3 (37%) 2 (25%) 0 (0%) Cherry Street and Berry Avenue 7 0 (0%) 5 (71%) 0 (0%) 2 (29%) 0 (0%) Kinsley Avenue and Maple Street 7 1 (14%) 1 (14%) 1 (14%) 4 (58%) 0 (0%) Williamson Avenue and Cherry Street 7 0 (0%) 2 (29%) 1 (14%) 4 (57%) 0 (0%) Colorado Avenue and 2nd Street 6 0 (0%) 1 (17%) 4 (66%) 1 (17%) 0 (0%) Park Drive and Desmond Road 6 0 (0%) 1 (17%) 0 (0%) 4 (66%) 1 (17%) Park Drive and Hillview Street 5 1 (20%) 2 (40%) 0 (0%) 2 (40%) 0 (0%) SR 87 and SR 99 2 1 (50%) 0 (0%) 1 (50%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) I-40 and Leupp TI 2 1 (50%) 1 (50%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) Source: ADOT Traffic Safety Division, data from January 1, 2005 to December 31, 2009. City of Winslow North-South Transportation Plan 21 High Crash Segments To understand the different crash characteristics at these high crash locations, crash type was analyzed at each location. Segment crashes occurred along the road segment, mid-block, at driveways or alleys, but not at the intersection. Roads with five or more crashes were identified as high crash segments. Table 6 presents the segments ranked in descending order by the crash rate or number of crashes per million vehicle miles traveled over the five-year analysis period. The average crash rate for all statewide roads between 2005 and 2009 was 2.12. The crash rate for Williamson Avenue between Maple Street and Elm Street was over ten times the statewide average. The crash rate for Maple Street between Snider Avenue and Colorado Avenue was almost eight times the state average. In total, the analysis identified twelve road segments in Winslow with crash rates higher than the state average. Table 6 High Crash Segments Location Crashes Single vehicle Rearend Sideswipe Angle Other ADTa Length (miles) Rate b Williamson Avenue: Maple Street to Elm Street 6 1 (17%) 1 (17%) 4 (66%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 2,147 0.07 21.9 Maple Street: Snider Avenue to Colorado Avenue 5 0 (0%) 3 (60%) 1 (20%) 1 (20%) 0 (0%) 2,398 0.07 16.3 2nd Street: Winslow Avenue to Warren Avenue 8 2 (25%) 1 (13%) 4 (50%) 1 (12%) 0 (0%) 6,581 0.07 9.5 3rd Street: Williamson Avenue to Apache Avenue 6 0 (0%) 4 (67%) 2 (33%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 5,388 0.07 8.7 3rd Street: Douglas Avenue to Prairie Avenue 6 2 (33%) 0 (0%) 3 (50%) 1 (17%) 0 (0%) 5,388 0.07 8.7 3rd Street: Winslow Avenue to Warren Avenue 5 3 (60%) 0 (0%) 1 (20%) 1 (20%) 0 (0%) 5,388 0.07 7.3 2nd Street: Warren Avenue to Kinsley Avenue 6 0 (0%) 3 (50%) 3 (50%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 6,581 0.07 7.1 North Park Drive: Henderson Street to Hillview Street 6 1 (17%) 1 (17%) 1 (17%) 2 (32%) 1 (17%) 9,881 0.07 4.8 City of Winslow North-South Transportation Plan 22 Table 6 High Crash Segments (continued) Location Crashes Single vehicle Rearend Sideswipe Angle Other ADTa Length (miles) Rate b Winslow Industrial Spur: Bvd Road to Route 66 5 5 (100%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1,464 0.53 3.5 North Park Drive: I-40 to Willmae Street 5 0 (0%) 2 (40%) 1 (20%) 1 (20%) 1 (20%) 9,881 0.08 3.5 Transcon Lane: I-40 to Route 66 11 2 (18%) 4 (36%) 0 (0%) 5 (46%) 0 (0%) 9,011 0.3 2.2 Mike’s Pike Boulevard: Papago Boulevard to North Park Drive 10 3 (30%) 0 (0%) 3 (30%) 4 (40%) 0 (0%) 2,056 1.5 1.8 North Park Drive: I-40 to North City Limit 5 0 (0%) 3 (60%) 0 (0%) 1 (20%) 1 (20%) 2,323 0.95 1.2 Route 66: Fleming Street to ADOT Lane 5 2 (40%) 1 (20%) 1 (20%) 0 (0%) 1 (20%) 2,638 1 1 I-40: Transcon Lane to North Park Drive 47 26 (56%) 9 (19%) 9 (19%) 0 (0%) 3 (6%) 15,800 2.15 0.8 I-40: North Park Drive to Hipkoe Avenue 30 15 (50%) 7 (23%) 8 (27%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 15,800 1.5 0.7 I-40: SR 87 to Transcon Lane 38 19 (50%) 7 (18%) 8 (21%) 0 (0%) 4 (11%) 16,200 2 0.6 I-40: Hipkoe Avenue to West City Limit 15 9 (60%) 4 (27%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 2 (13%) 15,900 1.5 0.3 Source: ADOT Traffic Safety Division, data from January 1, 2005 to December 31, 2009 Notes: a) average daily traffic; b) Crashes per million vehicle miles traveled. Segment crash rates are a function of length and ADT. A higher number of crashes does not always result in a higher crash rate. Figure 8 summarizes the high crash intersection locations identified including the traffic interchanges and identifies the fatal crash locations during the analysis period. Two high crash areas are illustrated on the graphic. These areas have segment crash rates above the state average and numerous intersection collisions. One high crash area is at the I-40/North Park Drive traffic interchange. The other is in downtown Winslow in the historic commercial district. City of Winslow North-South Transportation Plan 23 0 0.25 0.5 Miles 0 0.5 City boundary Railroad 0.25 Mercury Lane Miles # d n Roa ( ! Airport Access Road High Crash Area 8.7 Hillview Street # Fleming Street 1.0 0.7 Desmond Street 1.8 ( ( ( ! !! 9.5 7.3 ! ( ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ! ( # # North Road Cher ry Av enue Ma1p6.3 le St reet 8.7! ( # Notes: 1. Locations with crashes 5 or more crashes during the 5-year study period (2005-2009) are shown. 2. Crash rates are only calculated for segments. Crash rates were not calculated for intersections due to insufficient traffic volume data. 3. Crash rate is defined as number of crashes per million vehicle miles traveled. 4. Average statewide crash rate for all facilities for the 5-year study period is 2.12. 1 Hipkoe Drive !! ( ( rtow Coop e ## Mikes Pike BNS F Ra ilroa d 0.6 24 December 30, 2011 | HDR Source: ADOT (2009), Winslow (2010) Figure 8 | High Crash Locations # Oak Road Sunset Road CITY OF WINSLOW NORTH-SOUTH TRANSPORTATION STUDY Segment Crash Rate 2.12 and higher Less than 2.12 (x.x=crash rate) N W Ind est W u str insl ial ow Sp ur BVD Road # 0.3 Bales Avenue Intersection Crashes > 15 11 - 15 6 - 10 # Fatal crash location (study period) # Fatal crash location (year 2010) N Leupp Traffic Interchange ET 1.2 North Park Drive 4.8 Berr y Av enue Willia mso21.9 n Av enue SEE IN S Aven ue Cott onw ood ANGE - ERCH P INT LEUP Tran scon Lane 0.8 3.7 Transit Public transportation in Winslow is provided for elderly and disabled under a Section 5310 program operated by the Winslow Council on Aging. Amtrak and Greyhound provide commercial passenger rail and bus services. Elderly and Persons with Disabilities Section 5310 Program The Winslow Council on Aging operates an Elderly and Persons with Disabilities Program using Federal Transit Administration Section 5310 funds. Administered in partnership with the NACOG and ADOT, this program provides transportation services for the elderly and disabled. Transportation is provided for: • • • • • • • Medical appointments Nutrition appointments Adult day care facilities Education and training Service appointments such as banking and social services Shopping trips Employment Amtrak The Southwest Chief Amtrak provides daily east-west passenger rail service to the City of Winslow, stopping at the historic train station located next to La Posada Hotel. This service provides connection to Los Angeles, Albuquerque, and Chicago. Winslow is the only passenger stop between Flagstaff and Gallup, New Mexico. Greyhound The Greyhound bus line provides regional service with daily connections to Flagstaff, Holbrook, the Phoenix area as well as access to Greyhound’s nationwide system. The bus station is located at the McDonalds at North Park Drive and I-40. Transit Demand The 2008 ADOT Arizona Rural Transit Needs Study shows that Winslow has a significant population that could benefit from public transit service: • • • 11.7 percent of Winslow’s households have no automobile 2.5 percent of the City’s population is age 60 or older More than 18 percent of the population under age 60 lives in poverty Using the APTNA method, the unmet need in 2005 was 47,500 annual trips. By 2016, the ADOT study shows this unmet need increasing to 62,300 annual trips. City of Winslow North-South Transportation Plan 25 3.8 Non-Motorized The City of Winslow continues to invest in upgrades to its sidewalk system. The City Neighborhood Walkways and Streets program in Winslow’s five year capital improvement plan identifies an investment in sidewalks, curb, gutter, and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliant ramps in four different neighborhoods of $1.7 million. Recent investments have been made to downtown sidewalks improving drainage and adding ADA ramps. Walkways with streetscaping and lighting are planned along a portion of Mike’s Pike. The Winslow Renaissance projects on Route 66 have focused on streetscape enhancements to the historic downtown core to make the community more walkable. Phase I included a multiuse pathway and pedestrian improvements along First Street in downtown Winslow. These improvements provide a pedestrian connection between La Posada Hotel, downtown, and the Hubbell Trading Post. Later phases of the project will improve sidewalks and streetscape on 2nd Street and 3rd Street. City of Winslow North-South Transportation Plan 26 4.0 Land Use and Socioeconomic Conditions This section provides an overview of land use together with estimates of population and employment within the City of Winslow influence area. It also contains a discussion of protected populations (Title VI and Environmental Justice). The demographic information used in this analysis is from the 20062010 American Community Survey (ACS) 5-year estimates and the Navajo County Regional Travel Demand Model. Demographic information is important in developing a profile of the City’s residents and households. A comparative analysis with data from the state and county is included to illustrate how Winslow relates to the state. 4.1 Land Use Land Ownership Parcel-level data was compiled from Navajo County and Coconino County to identify public and private land ownership in the study area and influence area. Figure 9 identifies lands owned by the City of Winslow, the Navajo and Hopi Tribes, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), ASLD, and the BNSF. The figure also shows a portion of Red Gap Ranch, which is owned by the City of Flagstaff and the Aztec Land & Cattle Company lands, located in the southeast corner of the study influence area. Future Land Use The City of Winslow General Plan Future Land Use map identified ten land uses that include residential, commercial, mixed use, industrial, commerce park, public facilities, and open space categories. Figure 10 shows the Winslow General Plan Land Use Map. City of Winslow North-South Transportation Plan 27 N 0 Arizona State Land Department Navajo County N 0 0.5 Railroad City boundary 0.25 Mercury Lane 1 Miles d n Roa rtow Coop e ( ! Airport Access Road Fleming Street Hillview Street Desmond Street ( ( ( ! !! Cher ry Av enue Map le St reet ! ( ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ! ( North Road Oak Road Sunset Road F Ra ilroa d 28 December 30, 2011 | HDR Source: HDR (2011), City of Winslow (2011), Coconino County (2011) Figure 9 | Land Ownership BNS CITY OF WINSLOW NORTH-SOUTH TRANSPORTATION STUDY Federal City of Winslow Navajo Nation Hopi Tribe 0.5 Miles Private 0.25 Leupp Traffic Interchange W Ind est W u str insl ial ow Sp ur BVD Road Hipkoe Drive !! ( ( Mikes Pike North Park Drive y Av enue Berr Aven ue son Willia m ET Aven ue Cott onw ood SEE IN S Tran scon Lane ANGE - ERCH P INT LEUP Bales Avenue Figure 10 Future Land Use Map City of Winslow North-South Transportation Plan 29 4.2 Title VI and Environmental Justice The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and FHWA define environmental justice as the “fair treatment for people of all races, cultures, and incomes, regarding the development of environmental laws, regulations, and policies.” Environmental justice principles and procedures are followed to improve all levels of transportation decision making. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin. The 1994 Executive Order 12898 on environmental justice addresses minority and low-income populations. The rights of women, the elderly, and the disabled are protected under related statutes. These Presidential Executive Orders and other related statutes fall under the umbrella of Title VI. There are three fundamental environmental justice principles applicable to the transportation project development process: • to avoid, minimize, or mitigate disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental effects, including social and economic effects, on minority populations and low-income populations • to ensure the full and fair participation by all potentially affected communities in the transportation decision-making process • to prevent the denial of, reduction in, or significant delay in the receipt of benefits by minority and low-income populations Effective transportation decision making depends on understanding and properly addressing the unique needs of different socioeconomic groups. Properly implemented, environmental justice principles and procedures improve all levels of transportation decision making. The five minority groups addressed by Title VI and Executive Order 12898, Environmental Justice, are: • • Black (a person having origins in any of the black racial groups of Africa) Hispanic (a person of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Central or South American, or other Spanish culture or origin, regardless of race) • Asian American (a person having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, the Indian subcontinent, or the Pacific Islands) • American Indian and Alaskan Native (a person having origins in any of the original people of North America and who maintains cultural identification through tribal affiliation or community recognition) • Some other race, or persons of more than one race A member of the low-income population is defined as “a person whose household income is at or below the Department of Health and Human Services poverty guidelines.” The Department of Health and Human Services poverty guidelines state that the poverty level for a family of four in 2009 is $22,050 (note, however, that this income level cannot be compared directly with current income levels because the value of money changes year to year). Other protected populations include concentrations of elderly, the disabled, and female heads of households. These populations for the City of Winslow, Navajo County, and Arizona are shown in Table 7. City of Winslow North-South Transportation Plan 30 Table 7 Title VI and Environmental Justice Population Percentages, Winslow, Navajo County, and Arizona Population Group Hispanic or Latino Arizona Navajo County Winslow 29.6% 10.8% 29.9% Black or African American 4.1% 0.9% 5.7% American Indian or Alaskan Native 4.6% 43.4% 25.7% Asian 2.8% 0.5% 1.0% Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander 0.2% 0.1% 0.1% 11.9% 3.4% 9.0% 3.4% 2.5% 5.2% 15.3% 24.4% 16.2% 5.6% 7.3% 6.5% Age 65 and older 13.8% 13.3% 10.2% Female heads of household 12.4% 17.1% 21.4% Some other race More than one race Persons living below the poverty level Go-outside-home disability Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2006-2010 American Community Survey; U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census; Census 2000 Summary File 3 (SF 3) – Sample Data. The protected populations considered in this analysis are described below: • • • • • Minority populations include people who identify themselves as Hispanic or Latino, Black or African American, American Indian and Alaskan Native, Asian, Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander, persons of some other race, or persons of more than one race. Low-income populations include people living in households with an income at or below the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services poverty guidelines. Low-income populations may have greater difficulty locating replacement housing in the area. They may rely on public services and facilities, such as public transit and public recreational amenities, to a greater extent than the general population. Elderly populations consist of people who are age 65 and older. While elderly citizens often drive, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) reports that both highspeed and high-traffic routes may present a problem for some (NHTSA, 2007). In addition, the elderly may have a need for transit service or may opt to use transit if it is offered. Disabled populations are civilian, non-institutionalized persons aged 5 and over with disabilities (such as sensory, physical, mental, self-care, and going outside of home disabilities). Female head-of-household populations consist of households headed by a female with no husband present and with her own children under the age of 18. These households tend to City of Winslow North-South Transportation Plan 31 have lower incomes than households headed by married couples or a single man and oftentimes have a greater need for affordable housing. The City of Winslow Hispanic population (29.9%) is almost equal to that of Arizona (29.6%), though it is significantly higher than Navajo County (10.8%). A large percentage of the Navajo County population is American Indian (43%). Navajo County and Winslow (25.7%) both have considerably higher American Indian population than Arizona (4.6%). Winslow has a higher female head of household population (21.4%) than both Navajo County (17.1%) and Arizona (12.4%). The percentage of persons living in poverty in Winslow (16.2%) is higher than the Arizona percentage (15.3%) but lower than Navajo County (24.4%). Overall Winslow has a large percentage of Title VI and Environmental Justice Populations living in the city limits or adjacent in Navajo County compared to the State. The transportation improvements proposed as part of this Plan would help to serve these communities by providing greater access throughout the City. Each of these populations could benefit from transit services or non-motorized transportation options. 4.3 Traffic Analysis Zones Traffic analysis zones (TAZ) are geographic areas generally bounded by roads, railroads, major watercourses or other easily identifiable physical features. These TAZs were established by the Navajo County Central Region Transportation Study (NCCRTS). City of Winslow socioeconomic data is tabulated by TAZ geography. Using the Navajo County Travel Demand Model, traffic is generated by each land use within the TAZ, distributed, and then assigned to the road network. Subsequently, using projected land use data, future traffic forecasts can be derived. The model was developed before the release of the 2010 Census numbers; therefore, 2006 Census numbers were used in the model as they were the most up-to-date numbers at the time. 4.4 Population and Housing The U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census counted the City of Winslow’s population at 9,655, up from the Census 2000 count of 9,520. The median age of the City of Winslow population is 33.4, compared with 35.9 for Arizona. Over 26 percent of Winslow’s population is under 18 years of age; 10.2 percent of the population is 65 years or older. Figure 11 shows the 2006 estimated population density by TAZ for the study area and influence area. The 2010 Census shows 3,362 total housing units in Winslow; an estimated 2,914 were occupied. The Census showed the total population living in households at 8,121. The average household size in Winslow is 2.79 persons per household, slightly lower than that of Navajo County (average household size is 2.95; slightly higher than Arizona as a whole, which is 2.76).Table 8 shows a comparison of key housing statistics for Winslow, Navajo County, and Arizona. City of Winslow North-South Transportation Plan 32 Table 8 Occupied Housing Description Arizona Navajo County Winslow Occupied housing units 83.7% 62.6% 86.7% Owner-occupied housing units 66.0% 71.9% 56.9% Renter-occupied housing units 34.0% 28.1% 43.1% 2.63 2.91 2.74 2.62 3.05 2.84 Average household size of owner-occupied units Average household size of renter-occupied units Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census. City of Winslow North-South Transportation Plan 33 No households 400 - 799 360 Che 139 North Road 84 Airport Access Road rry A 433 venu e Map 153 le Street 106 37 250 101 Fleming Street 536 Hillview Street Desmond Street Mikes Pike 86 14 128 0 BNS F Ra ilroa d 3 231 59 34 December 30, 2011 | HDR Source: Navajo County Travel Demand Model, HDR (2011), bqAZ Study (2009) Figure 11 | 2006 Estimated Household Density by Traffic Analysis Zone 62 Oak Road 0 CITY OF WINSLOW NORTH-SOUTH TRANSPORTATION STUDY xx = estimated number of households (not density) Railroad Miles >1,500 1 200 - 300 0.5 0 d n Roa rtow Coop e 182 City boundary 0.25 Mercury Lane BVD Road 200 800 - 1,500 0 0 North Park Drive y Av enue Berr 402 on A venu e Hipkoe Drive Household Density (per square mile) <200 N 79 Coconino County Willia ms W Ind est W u str insl ial ow Sp ur Navajo County Aven ue Cott onw ood Sunset Road 25 Tran scon Lane 0 Bales Avenue 4.5 Employment For 2008, the Census Bureau’s ZIP Code Business Patterns database reported 2,922 paid employees working in 209 establishments within Winslow’s 86047 ZIP Code. Table 9 shows the portion of the civilian employed population 16 years and over by industry for Winslow. Figure 12 shows the 2006 estimated employment density by TAZ. Table 9 Civilian Employment by Industry Industry Percent of civilian workforce Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, and mining 1.6 Construction 8.9 Manufacturing 0.8 Wholesale trade 1.2 Retail trade 15.9 Transportation, warehousing, and utilities 10.1 Information 0.3 Finance and insurance, and real estate and rental and leasing 3.8 Professional, scientific, management, administrative, waste management services 5.0 Educational services, and health care and social assistance 24.8 Arts, entertainment, recreation, and accommodation and food services 17.8 Other services, except public administration 3.3 Public administration 6.5 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2006-2010 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates. City of Winslow North-South Transportation Plan 35 0 0.25 0.5 1 Miles Mercury Lane BVD Road 219 No employment 1,000 - 1,999 Airport Access Road 27 130 Fleming Street 40 474 119 506 ry Av enue Map le St reet Ch516 er 509 North Road 12 0 1 0 BNS F Ra ilroa d 31 82 0 36 December 30, 2011 | HDR Source: Navajo County Travel Demand Model, HDR (2011), bqAZ Study (2009) Figure 12 | 2006 Estimated Employment Density by Traffic Analysis Zone 9 Oak Road 0 CITY OF WINSLOW NORTH-SOUTH TRANSPORTATION STUDY xx = estimated number of jobs (not density) Railroad >3,500 500 - 999 400 d n Roa rtow Coop e 141 1,393 Hillview Street Desmond Street Mikes Pike North Park Drive y Av enue Berr 0 269 on A venu e 370 City boundary Coconino County Willia ms W Ind est W u str insl ial ow Sp ur Navajo County Aven ue Cott onw ood Sunset Road Hipkoe Drive 2,000 - 3,499 Employment Density (per square mile) <500 N 0 28 Tran scon Lane 0 Bales Avenue 4.6 Population and Employment Growth Projections Three population and employment growth scenarios were developed for the 2030 planning horizon. City staff and the Technical Advisory Committee directed the study team to use a medium growth scenario to prepare the forecasts of future traffic conditions using the Navajo County Travel Demand Model. This medium growth scenario reflects population and employment growth expected by the City to occur by 2030. It anticipates the addition of new prisons, industrial and commercial growth, and residential growth. Table 10 shows the 2006 population and employment estimates from the Navajo County Travel Demand Model together with the City of Winslow 2030 medium growth scenario. Table 10 Population and Employment Growth Projections Category 2006 1 2030 2 Population in households 8,300 15,400 In group quarters 1,900 12,200 Total 10,200 27,600 439 3,143 Service 3,814 8,801 Retail 1,095 2,593 Total 5,348 14,537 Population Employment Industrial Notes: 1) Navajo County Travel Demand Model; 2) City of Winslow Medium Growth Projections. Figure 13 shows the estimated 2030 population density by TAZ for the City of Winslow. Figure 14 shows the estimated 2030 employment density by TAZ. City of Winslow North-South Transportation Plan 37 No households 400 - 799 Che360 r 173 North Road 134 Airport Access Road ry Av 433 enue Map 153 le Street 106 37 250 101 Fleming Street 892 Hillview Street Desmond Street Mikes Pike 86 14 327 0 BNS F Ra ilroa d 3 302 59 38 December 30, 2011 | HDR Source: Navajo County Travel Demand Model, HDR (2011), bqAZ Study (2009) Figure 13 | 2030 Estimated Household Density by Traffic Analysis Zone 62 Oak Road 0 CITY OF WINSLOW NORTH-SOUTH TRANSPORTATION STUDY xx = estimated number of households (not density) Railroad Miles >1,500 1 200 - 300 0.5 54 d n Roa rtow Coop e 182 City boundary 0.25 Mercury Lane BVD Road 200 800 - 1,500 0 0 North Park Drive y Av enue Berr 952 on A venu e Hipkoe Drive Household Density (per square mile) <200 N 628 Coconino County Willia ms W Ind est W u str insl ial ow Sp ur Navajo County Aven ue Cott onw ood Sunset Road 43 Tran scon Lane 0 Bales Avenue 0 0.25 0.5 1 Miles Mercury Lane BVD Road 666 No employment 1,000 - 1,999 Airport Access Road 29 138 Fleming Street 548 42 596 169 563 Cher ry Av enue Map le St reet 580 North Road 12 0 1 480 BNS F Ra ilroa d 139 154 0 39 December 30, 2011 | HDR Source: Navajo County Travel Demand Model, HDR (2011), bqAZ Study (2009) Figure 14 | 2030 Estimated Employment Density by Traffic Analysis Zone 9 Oak Road 0 CITY OF WINSLOW NORTH-SOUTH TRANSPORTATION STUDY xx = estimated number of jobs (not density) Railroad >3,500 500 - 999 2,238 d n Roa rtow Coop e 246 1,647 Hillview Street Desmond Street Mikes Pike North Park Drive y Av enue Berr 0 1,255 on A venu e 859 City boundary Coconino County Willia ms W Ind est W u str insl ial ow Sp ur Navajo County Aven ue Cott onw ood Sunset Road Hipkoe Drive 2,000 - 3,499 Employment Density (per square mile) <500 N 0 43 Tran scon Lane 0 Bales Avenue 5.0 Future Transportation System Conditions To prepare forecasts of future traffic conditions for the City of Winslow, the study team utilized the 2030 Navajo County Travel Demand Model. The study team updated the county model with the City of Winslow population and employment projections discussed in Section 4.6 to estimate travel demand for the study area. This update included reviewing the forecasts for traffic entering and leaving the model area to ensure that they reflected the projected growth in the Winslow area. Figure 15 shows 2030 traffic volume estimates and level of service for the study roads. 5.1 Planned Study Area Improvements This section identifies planned and programmed study area transportation improvements identified from City of Winslow, Navajo County, and ADOT sources. Programmed improvements include sidewalks, curb and gutter, ADA ramps, drainage improvements, lighting, and streetscapes. Planned transportation improvements include access management plans, new north-south road access, and improvements at the Winslow-Lindbergh Regional Airport. Table 11 shows the programmed and planned transportation improvements for Winslow. City of Winslow North-South Transportation Plan 40 Table 11 Programmed and Planned Transportation Improvements Item Description Cost (1,000s) Timeline Source City neighborhood walkways and streets Sidewalk, curb, gutter, and ADA ramps improvement in 4 specific neighborhoods $1,700 FY-2015 City of Winslow CIP, FY 2011-15 Citywide walkways and streets Sidewalk, curb, gutter, and ADA ramps improvement throughout the City $340 FY-2013 City of Winslow CIP, FY 2011-15 Mike's Pike East – North Park to Ice House Wash Storm drainage, walkways, streetscaping, and lighting improvements $450 FY-2012 City of Winslow CIP, FY 2011-15 First Street - Hubbell to City Hall Completion of sidewalk, lighting, and streetscaping between Renaissance 1 and 2. $300 FY-2013 City of Winslow CIP, FY 2011-15 Corridor Study/Access Plan Access management on Route 66 within the City limits Navajo County Central Region Transportation Study, 2010 Monitor for future traffic control needs Need for traffic control at the intersections of Fleming Street and Route 66, Hipkoe Avenue and Route 66, Maple Street and Taylor Avenue, Transcon Lane TI at I-40 Navajo County Central Region Transportation Study, 2010 Potential BNSF undercrossing Potential north-south BNSF railroad track underpass connecting to Williamson Avenue Potential Maple Street corridor Potential new road corridor connecting Route 66 with Maple Street Navajo County Central Region Transportation Study, 2010 Potential Oak Road corridor Potential new road corridor connecting Route 66 with Oak Road via Transcon TI at I-40 Navajo County Central Region Transportation Study, 2010 Winslow-Lindbergh Regional Airport improvements Improve airport operations with new runways Navajo County Central Region Transportation Study, 2010 and WinslowLindbergh Regional Airport Master Plan, 2010 SR 87 corridor improvements Add passing lanes, additional BNSF crossing, and shoulder improvements on SR 87 between Payson and Winslow City of Winslow North-South Transportation Plan 2030 $65,200 2030 Navajo County Central Region Transportation Study, 2010 Navajo County Central Region Transportation Study, 2010 41 Programmed and Planned Transportation Improvements (continued) Table 11 Cost (1,000s) Item Description Conduct 2nd and 3rd Streets corridor assessment Mobility and safety improvement along 2nd and 3rd Streets through access management Transcon Lane and Flying J Truck Stop Widen Transcon Lane, realign the driveway accessing Flying J facility, and modify the intersection of SR 87/US 66/Transcon Lane. Bicycle guide-signing Provide bicycle guide-signing to encourage cyclists to use parallel roads to 2nd and 3rd Streets to include 1st, 4th and Aspinwall Streets Navajo County Central Region Transportation Study, 2010 Hipkoe Drive interchange A detailed examination of the Hipkoe Drive interchange, the Hipkoe Drive and 2nd Street intersection, and the 2nd Street corridor assessment Navajo County Central Region Transportation Study, 2010 Coopertown Road improvements Potential two-lane overpass over the BNSF at Coopertown Road Transit service feasibility study between Winslow and Holbrook; and between Winslow and Flagstaff Examine transit service feasibility through White Mountain Connection and Mountain Lion transit service providers, respectively Traffic signal control at the intersection of Airport Road and SR 87 Monitor need for new signalized intersection 2017 Best of the West Estates Traffic Impact Study, 2007 Widen Airport Road to 4 lanes Evaluate need for widened road 2012 Best of the West Estates Traffic Impact Study, 2007 New bikeways and trails New 3-mile bikeway and trail around the O’Haco Ranch project boundary City of Winslow North-South Transportation Plan $1.5 million Timeline Source 2030 Navajo County Central Region Transportation Study, 2010 FY 2013 NACOG TIP, City of Winslow CIP, 2012 2020 Navajo County Central Region Transportation Study, 2010 Navajo County Central Region Transportation Study, 2010 O’Haco Ranch Master Plan, 2007 42 5.2 Traffic Assignments The study team used the 2030 Navajo County Travel Demand Model with the updated socioeconomic projections and the planned network improvements to prepare a base future traffic forecast for the City of Winslow. Figure 15 shows selected 2030 traffic volume estimates and segment LOS. 5.3 Network Deficiencies The generalized LOS analysis shows that City of Winslow roads are expected to operate at LOS C or better under 2030 daily traffic conditions. 5.4 Circulation System Improvement Needs The 2030 traffic forecasts show no capacity deficiencies on the City of Winslow road system. The existing transportation system is adequate to accommodate the projected 2030 population and employment growth. While no new road capacity appears warranted, the City of Winslow and ADOT should continue to monitor traffic conditions as growth occurs. City of Winslow North-South Transportation Plan 43 0 0.25 Level of Service (LOS) Segment (daily) LOS A LOS B LOS C N XXX N 0 0.25 W Ind est W u str insl ial ow Sp ur 0.5 Mercury Lane BVD Road 1 Miles 2,3 00 Æ d 00 7,1 ( ! n Roa rtow Coop e Hipkoe Drive !! ( ( Airport Access Road Fleming Street ( ( ( ! !! 1,900 1,500 400 12, Hillview Street Desmond Street 4,300 5,900 400 12, 000 ( ! ! ( ( ! ( ! ( ! ! ( Cher ry Av enue Map le St reet 7,200 ( ! 3,800 2,800 North Road Oak Road BNS F Ra ilroa d 2,300 24,3 00 44 December 30, 2011 | HDR Source: HDR (2011) Figure 15 | 2030 Traffic Conditions - Programmed Improvements 0 Mikes Pike 0 4,00 3,500 6, CITY OF WINSLOW NORTH-SOUTH TRANSPORTATION STUDY 2030 Average daily traffic estimate City boundary Railroad 0.5 Miles Leupp Traffic Interchange 00 23,9 13,20 Aven ue Cott onw ood North Park Drive Berr 50 y Av 0 enue 8,7 Willia 00 mso n Av enue 1,600 Sunset Road ET T SEE IN S ran 14, scon Lan 400 e ANGE - ERCH P INT LEUP Bales Avenue 5.5 Transit and Non-Motorized Transportation Walking and bicycling is an important part of the Winslow transportation system. Demand for transit and non-motorized transportation is expected to increase with population growth. Transit Demand An evaluation using the APTNA method 2 estimated a demand of more than 63,000 annual one-way transit trips for the City of Winslow in 2010. To determine the potential demand for transit services, the APTNA assessed trip rates based on census information, which was reported as an annual trip rate for each group. The APTNA trip rates are reported in Table 12. Table 12 Annual Transit Trip Rates for Select Demographic Groups Demographic Group Trip Rates: Annual One-Way Passenger Trips Elderly persons Age 60 and Over 6.79 Persons with Disability Under Age 60 4.49 Persons living in Poverty Under Age 60 20.5 Source: Northwest Arkansas Transit Assessment Study, University of Arkansas, 2000. Using the APTNA method, populations of elderly persons age 60 and over, persons with a disability under the age of 60, and persons living in poverty under age 60 are considered transit dependent populations. Census 2000 population characteristics suggested that 40 percent of the Winslow population could be defined as transit dependent using these APTNA measures. Based on the population growth anticipated by the City, this annual demand would grow up to 96,700 annual oneway transit trips in 2030. While the community expressed an interest in transit service, the greatest challenge to meeting this estimated demand is funding for transit operations. While federal grant money is available for the capital and operations costs for starter transit service, local matching funds are required. As the City has other more pressing funding priorities, it may be some time before the City could consider a grant application. Non-Motorized Transportation The City of Winslow is committed to improving its sidewalk system. In addition to completing the Renaissance projects on 2nd Street and 3rd Streets, it has committed funding to improve sidewalks in several neighborhoods. The City of Winslow General Plan identifies a system of existing and proposed multiuse trails that connect its activity centers. This trail system should be expanded as growth occurs. 2 The Arkansas Public Transportation Needs Assessment (APTNA) method represents the demand for transit service by applying trip rates to three population groups: elderly persons ages 60 and over, persons with disabilities under age 60, and persons living in poverty under age 60. City of Winslow North-South Transportation Plan 45 6.0 North–South Railroad Crossing Evaluation The BNSF railroad is a transportation corridor that creates a physical barrier for other transportation facilities and thus restricts access – including emergency access – to portions of the study area. A railroad grade separation provides a crossing of the railroad where the roadway crosses over or under the railroad so that there is no conflict between the train and vehicles. A grade-separated crossing provides a safety benefit and reduces delay compared to an at-grade crossing. The BNSF Railroad also requires that any new crossing of the tracks be a grade-separated crossing. The City currently has only two grade-separated crossings of the railroad tracks, one downtown along SR 87/Williamson Avenue and the other to the west of the City limits along West Winslow Industrial Spur/BVD Road. Limited north-south crossings have hobbled economic development south of the tracks and created bottleneck issues during emergencies. The study team identified five concepts, shown in Figure 16, to add new grade separated crossings and improve existing access: • • • • • Coopertown Bypass – West Winslow Industrial Spur Old Clear Creek Road – Transcon Lane Connection Williamson Avenue Underpass New West Winslow I-40 Traffic Interchange Leupp Traffic Interchange Improvements Other possible rail crossings were initially reviewed during the plan development in addition to those presented as part of the more detailed evaluation process, however, it was determined that crossings with significant negative impacts were not feasible for further study . For example, a vehicular bridge crossing at Berry Avenue was identified early on in the study process and vetted through the TAC. However, an additional crossing anywhere near the current Williamson Avenue undercrossing would result in significant impacts. The impacts include the acquisition of right-of-way north and south of the tracks to meet the vertical clearance and grade requirements for a railroad underpass or overpass; wider and longer structures to clear existing obstructions; and, impacting traffic circulation both north and south of the tracks through the realignment and closure of streets and limiting access in other areas. An underpass or overpass at Berry Avenue would need mitigation of the BNSF rail switching yard involving the crossing of up to 10 rail tracks resulting in significant costs. The Berry Avenue crossing would also directly impact the First Street Pathway and park that links the historic sites of La Posada Hotel and the Hubbell Trading Post. Subsequently, based on discussions with the TAC and City staff, rail crossings, other than those detailed in the report, were not carried through for further consideration. City of Winslow North-South Transportation Plan 46 6.1 Railroad Crossing Evaluation Criteria The study team conducted a planning level evaluation of each concept using six general evaluation criteria. The purpose of this planning level evaluation was to identify potential benefits, impacts, and constraints. More detailed analysis of the criteria would be required during the scoping, concept development, and design phase of a project. The criteria are described below: Cost: Detailed project costs are not listed for the improvement alternatives due to the conceptual nature of this planning effort. However, the study did consider the general impact of costs by potential alternatives and if the proposed project would have a large benefit compared with its cost. Given that most transportation projects that involve the railway are very costly, the cost criteria evaluated the railroad projects based on which may be the most cost effective. Emergency and Truck Access: Emergency vehicles have limited choice for north-south access across the railroad tracks, causing concerns about emergency response times. Also, increasing overhead clearances along with narrow lanes and lack of shoulders make it so the downtown underpass is not always functional for truck traffic. The alternatives were evaluated on whether they provided an additional truck or emergency access point. Economic Development: The economic benefit of potential improvements was evaluated. Economic benefits include decreased travel time and cost savings to residents and businesses, increased value of land, and improved access to the downtown and future industrial area near the airport. System Performance: Alternative improvements were evaluated if they might improve traffic flow or might be located to better serve anticipated land development plans. The connectivity of a proposed route to an existing route along with connectivity to targeted growth areas was also evaluated. Environmental Considerations: An environmental scan was completed and potential impacts of improvements on environmental and cultural resources were considered in the evaluation of alternatives. Consideration was also taken if the proposal was located in the 100-year Flood Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) flood zone. Appendix A includes the results of the environmental scan. Community Support: The proposed alternative was evaluated if it was supported by existing plans and policies, such as the Winslow General Plan and the Navajo County Central Regional Transportation Study, and if it was supported during public outreach. 6.2 Coopertown Bypass - West Winslow Industrial Spur Figure 16 shows the conceptual Coopertown bypass alignment, labeled as ID 1. The purpose of this bypass is to provide an alternate route for trucks and other vehicles traveling across the tracks through downtown Winslow. Trucks and other heavy vehicles using SR 87 and SR 99 currently avoid the existing narrow underpass and instead travel through Coopertown to cross the tracks and access I-40 City of Winslow North-South Transportation Plan 47 at the West Winslow Industrial Spur. The bypass will remove this heavy truck traffic from the Coopertown residential area and route traffic on a new alignment between the airport and Coopertown. This improvement would also provide access to a proposed intermodal yard located between Coopertown and the West Winslow Industrial Spur on the south side of the tracks. This bypass is also shown in the Lindbergh Regional Airport Master Plan (Coffman Associates, Inc., 2010.) City of Winslow North-South Transportation Plan 48 ET SEE IN S 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 6 N 0 Traffic interchange with railroad crossing N 8 7 0 0.25 W Ind est W u str insl ial ow Sp ur 0.5 9 Mercury Lane BVD Road 1 Miles d ( ! n Roa rtow Coop e Hipkoe Drive !! ( ( 1 Airport Access Road Fleming Street Hillview Street Desmond Street Mikes Pike ( ( ( ! !! ( ! ! ( ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ! ( 2 Oak Road BNS F Ra ilroa d 49 December 30, 2011 | HDR Source: City of Winslow (2007), HDR (2011) Figure 16 | North-South Railroad Crossing Alternatives 3 Cher ry Av enue Map le St reet North Road Sunset Road CITY OF WINSLOW NORTH-SOUTH TRANSPORTATION STUDY Railroad 5 Planned roadway improvements 6 City boundary 0.5 Miles 4 New corridor 0.25 5 Leupp Traffic Interchange Coopertown Bypass-West Winslow Industrial Spur Transcon Lane Overpass Williamson Avenue (SR 87) Underpass Leupp TI Improvement Leupp TI to Winslow frontage road alignment Leupp TI to Winslow southern alignment New West Winslow Traffic Interchange Coopertown connection to new West Winslow TI South Winslow connection ID Improvement Description ANGE North Park Drive y Av enue Berr Aven ue son Willia m ERCH Aven ue Cott onw ood P INT Tran scon Lane LEUP Bales Avenue 6.3 Transcon Lane Alternatives Figure 16 shows the conceptual Old Clear Creek Road-Transcon Lane bypass alignment, labeled as ID 2. This roadway improvement alternative provides a north–south connection across the railroad tracks, south of the existing Transcon Lane interchange. The study team considered both underpass and overpass options. The underpass option would be more costly because of the shoofly railroad track detour needed during construction and drainage considerations. The study team identified four preliminary crossing options that could either be connected to Old Clear Creek Road or further extend south to connect to SR 99. These options are identified in Figures 17 to 20. Option 1: Extend Transcon Lane under BNSF This is a high-cost option where an underpass would be constructed by lowering the existing Transcon Lane vertical profile and passing under the tracks and Route 66. The access between Transcon Lane and Route 66 would be maintained by constructing a new connection. The Transcon Lane alignment would pass under existing Route 66 and BNSF tracks and tie into Old Clear Creek Road or extend south to connect to SR 99. Figure 17 shows a conceptual layout of this underpass option. Option 2: New alignment under BNSF This high-cost option would provide an underpass connection on a new alignment connecting to Transcon Lane near the existing Flying J Travel Plaza. This option would preserve the existing connection between Transcon Lane and Route 66. A new roadway link would start approximately at the existing northern driveway of the Flying J Travel Plaza traversing through the Navajo Nation’s property in the northwest corner of the Transcon Lane and Route 66 intersection. The alignment would pass under existing Route 66 and BNSF tracks and tie into Old Clear Creek Road or extend south to connect to SR 99. Managing drainage for the underpass would add to the cost of this option. Figure 18 shows a conceptual layout of this underpass option. Option 3: New alignment over BNSF Similar to Option 2, but instead of going under the tracks, this option would bridge Route 66 and BNSF tracks. The existing connection between Transcon Lane and Route 66 would be preserved. A new roadway link would start approximately at the existing northern driveway of the Flying J Travel Plaza traversing through the Navajo Nation’s property in the northwest corner of the Transcon Lane and Route 66 intersection. The alignment would pass over existing Route 66 and BNSF tracks and tie into Old Clear Creek Road or extend south to connect to SR 99. Figure 19 shows a conceptual layout of this overpass option. Option 4: Extend Transcon Lane over BNSF Similar to Option 1, this crossing would bridge Route 66 and BNSF tracks. The Transcon Lane alignment would pass over existing Route 66 and BNSF tracks and tie into Old Clear Creek Road or extend south to connect to SR 99. Figure 20 shows a conceptual layout of this overpass option. City of Winslow North-South Transportation Plan 50 Transcon Lane Alternatives Summary/Conclusion While all of these railroad crossing options appear feasible, more detailed engineering study is needed to select a preferred solution. Option 3 and 4, the overpass options, are recommended for further study because the underpass options would be more costly because of the track work required for construction. City of Winslow North-South Transportation Plan 51 No scale N to Old Cle ar Creek Rd n BNS F Railr oad Rou te 52 December 30, 2011 | HDR Source: HDR (2011) Figure 17 | Transcon Lane Crossing Option 1 66 CITY OF WINSLOW NORTH-SOUTH TRANSPORTATION STUDY Extend Transcon Lane south with an underpass under Route 66 and BNSF tracks 2n dS t 99 to SR 3rd St Tran scon L No scale N n BNS F Railr oad Rou te 53 December 30, 2011 | HDR Source: HDR (2011) Figure 18 | Transcon Lane Crossing Option 2 66 CITY OF WINSLOW NORTH-SOUTH TRANSPORTATION STUDY New roadway link with an underpass under Route 66 and BNSF tracks to Old Cle ar Creek Rd 2n dS t 99 to SR 3rd St Tran scon L No scale N n BNS F Railr oad Rou te 54 December 30, 2011 | HDR Source: HDR (2011) Figure 19 | Transcon Lane Crossing Option 3 66 CITY OF WINSLOW NORTH-SOUTH TRANSPORTATION STUDY New roadway link with an overpass over Route 66 and BNSF tracks to Old Cle ar Creek Rd 2n dS t 99 to SR 3rd St Tran scon L No scale N to Old Cle ar Creek Rd n BNS F Railr oad Rou te 55 December 30, 2011 | HDR Source: HDR (2011) Figure 20 | Transcon Lane Crossing Option 4 66 CITY OF WINSLOW NORTH-SOUTH TRANSPORTATION STUDY Extend Transcon Lane south with an overpass over Route 66 and BNSF tracks 2n dS t 99 to SR 3rd St Tran scon L 6.4 Williamson Avenue (SR 87) Underpass Figure 16 shows the Williamson Avenue (SR 87) Underpass labeled as ID 3. This BNSF crossing alternative would reconstruct the existing underpass at Williamson Avenue to four lanes improving it to meet current design standards. A widened underpass would support economic development around and within the airport industrial area while bringing more traffic into downtown. While this alternative has the advantage of using the existing road network, improvements at Central Street/SR 87 may be required. Improvements in 2011 to Williamson Avenue at 2nd Street and 3rd Street were designed to accommodate eventual widening of the underpass. This underpass reconstruction would require a temporary ‘shoofly’ track to detour train traffic away from the underpass construction. BNSF Railway-Union Pacific Railroad Guidelines for Railroad Grade Separation Projects (January 24, 2007) state that shoofly tracks must be designed for maximum authorized timetable speed. 3 This means that any detour track would require a horizontal and vertical profile similar to the existing mainline. While BNSF is willing to work with Winslow to improve north-south access, the shoofly construction at the Williamson Avenue Underpass would be very costly, and it might be difficult to meet BNSF operating standards at this location. 4 The BNSF has been discussing the need for additional capacity and the addition of a third track. Adding a third track would impact the Williamson Avenue Underpass and could provide an opportunity to improve this structure. 3 Retrieved from http://www.uprr.com/aboutup/operations/specs/attachments/grade_separation.pdf. 4 Melvin Thomas (BNSF), interview, September 28, 2011. City of Winslow North-South Transportation Plan 56 6.5 Leupp Traffic Interchange (Junction I-40/SR99) Figure 16 shows the conceptual Leupp TI reconstruction labeled as ID 4. Extending Leupp Road (SR 99) over the BNSF tracks would provide a direct connection to lands available for development and a truck route to the airport industrial area to help spur economic development. Furthermore, a railroad grade separation at Leupp Road would take advantage of an existing I-40 traffic interchange, so no federal interstate change of access approval would be needed. Unfortunately, the railroad closely parallels I-40 at this location (both horizontally and vertically) and the existing interchange was never built to accommodate a future crossing over the railroad. The profile of Leupp Road over I-40 has been set to only provide the required minimum vertical clearance (16.5 feet) over I-40. Roadways crossing over railroads must have a minimum of 23.5 feet of vertical clearance. Because the distance between the existing I-40 bridge and the proposed BNSF bridge would be fairly short, insufficient length exists to raise the Leupp Road profile over the railroad while retaining the existing I-40 bridge. As a result, an interchange reconstruction is necessary that elevates Leupp Road high enough to pass over the railroad, which will result in reconstructing the eastbound ramps to match. Because the westbound ramps swing wide to the north, it is assumed that they would not be impacted. Figure 21 shows two potential interchange reconstruction options available for accommodating a new BNSF crossing at Leupp Road. Option 1: Raise the Leupp Road TI Under this option, the horizontal alignment of the Leupp Road TI would be maintained, but elevated sufficiently to provide the required clearance over the railroad. This option may require the interchange be closed during construction because the existing I-40 bridge would have to be removed and replaced in the same location, but at a higher elevation – not something that is conducive to safely maintaining traffic during construction. Option 2: Reconstruct the Leupp Road TI Under this option, the horizontal alignment of Leupp Road and the eastbound ramps would be realigned and reprofiled to achieve the required height to pass over the BNSF. Much of this option could be built while keeping the existing interchange operational, though some short term closures of the eastbound ramps would eventually be required to make the final connections. Further study of this option could also result in consideration of realigning SR 99 along with the relocation of the traffic interchange to address the safety issues of a 90 degree turn on SR 99 west of the existing TI. There may also be opportunity then to take advantage of existing grade differences between the interstate and railroad when reconstructing the TI Option 2 would be slightly more expensive than Option 1 because more embankments would be required and because maintenance of traffic cost would be incurred, but otherwise, no major cost differential would exist since both options essentially include the same amount of new pavement and new bridge area. City of Winslow North-South Transportation Plan 57 No scale N BNSF ad Railro 58 December 30, 2011 | HDR Source: HDR (2011) Figure 21 | Leupp TI BNSF Crossing Options CITY OF WINSLOW NORTH-SOUTH TRANSPORTATION STUDY Option 2: Reconstruct the Leupp Road traffic interchange Option 1: Raise the Leupp Road traffic interchange Rd Leupp 6.6 New West Winslow Traffic Interchange Figure 16 shows the conceptual new West Winslow TI labeled as ID 7. Compared to the cost of total reconstruction of the existing Leupp TI likely needed to cross the BNSF tracks, a new West Winslow TI located two miles west of the existing Hipkoe Interchange may be a more cost effective solution to provide north-south access. A West Winslow TI would be closer to the airport industrial area meaning that the required new connections from I-40 would be shorter and less costly than the connections to the Leupp TI. A road new connection between the West Winslow Industrial Spur, labeled as ID 8 in Figure 16, would be needed. 6.7 Traffic Interchange Connection Alternatives Whether the Leupp TI is improved to cross the BNSF or a new, closer, TI is proposed to provide access to the airport industrial area south of the BNSF tracks, new road connections will be needed from I-40. The study team considered two potential alignments shown in Figure 16. Option 1: Frontage road alignment Shown in Figure 16 as ID 5 the new corridor would be constructed parallel to and south of the BNSF tracks as a frontage road to I-40 and connect to Bvd Road (West Winslow Industrial Spur) with either the Leupp TI or a new West Winslow TI. Option 2: Southern alignment Shown in Figure 16 as ID 6, the new corridor would cut diagonally from I-40 to connect to Mercury Lane southwest of Winslow and continue east along the north of the existing levee south of the airport. The alignment would ultimately connect to SR 87. 6.8 Railroad Crossing Evaluation The study team prepared an evaluation of each railroad crossing alternative using the criteria described in Section 6.1 and the results of the environmental scan shown in Appendix A. Table 13 presents a summary of the evaluation factors for each of the BNSF railroad crossing alternatives. Table 14 provides a summary ranking of the railroad crossing evaluation criteria. City of Winslow North-South Transportation Plan 59 Table 13 Railroad Crossing Evaluation Summary Evaluation Criteria Coopertown Bypass – West Winslow Industrial Spur (ID 1) • • Cost • Emergency and Truck • Access • Economic Development • • Transcon Lane Overpass (ID 2) Low cost Uses existing overpass Floodplain • • Improves existing truck bypass route Removes trucks from Coopertown residential area • Reduces truck impacts to downtown Provides access to proposed intermodal facility and Hopi industrial site • • • • • City of Winslow North-South Transportation Plan Williamson Avenue (SR 87) Underpass (ID 3) New West Winslow TI (ID 7) Leupp TI (ID 4) Medium cost Potential impacts to Flying J Travel Plaza Floodplain • • Highest cost, if feasible Impacts to BNSF, historic downtown, existing street system • Medium cost Creates truck bypass route away from downtown Creates another northsouth access point for emergency vehicles • Truck traffic and hazardous materials would continue to go through downtown Could improve emergency response times though does not create another northsouth access point • Creates truck bypass • route - more direct route than Leupp TI alternative Improves emergency • access to future airport industrial area Could create truck bypass route - though long detour route Improves emergency access to future airport industrial area Reduces truck impacts to downtown but could also divert vehicle traffic from downtown Less direct access to airport industrial area No direct access to Route 66 • Increases traffic into downtown, supporting revitalization of downtown Improves access to airport industrial area • • Provides access to south side industrial area around airport Opens land for new development • • • • Provides most direct access to south side industrial area around airport Opens land for new development • • • High cost Maintenance of traffic 60 Railroad Crossing Evaluation Summary (continued) Table 13 Evaluation Criteria System Performance Coopertown Bypass – West Winslow Industrial Spur (ID 1) • Bypass will improve connectivity to airport industrial area Transcon Lane Overpass (ID 2) • • Environmental • • No known cultural sites, biological resources, or hazmat sites Potential floodplain issues • • Williamson Avenue (SR 87) Underpass (ID 3) Follows existing Transcon Lane alignment - would improve network continuity with connection to I-40 Closer to existing activity centers • No known cultural sites, biological resources, or hazmat sites Drainage and floodplain issues • • • • Community Support • • Supported by the City Council Top community priority • City of Winslow North-South Transportation Plan Supported during • public outreach, specifically by police and fire who would like another north-south access point New West Winslow TI (ID 7) Leupp TI (ID 4) Increases traffic into downtown which could impact pedestrian safety and traffic flow Provides additional capacity for traffic to travel north-south to downtown • Improves connectivity to airport industrial park No known cultural sites, biological resources, or hazmat sites Portions of alignment in 100-year FEMA floodplain Potential impacts to historic districts • Potential cultural • resources No known biological resources or hazmat sites Supported in Navajo County Plan and during public outreach • • Not mentioned by public during public outreach • • Improves connectivity to airport industrial park No known cultural sites, biological resources, or hazmat sites Not mentioned by public during public outreach; mentioned by agencies 61 Table 14 Railroad Crossing Evaluation Summary Ranking Evaluation Criteria Coopertown Bypass – West Winslow Industrial Spur Transcon Lane Overpass Williamson Avenue (SR 87) Underpass New West Winslow TI Leupp TI Cost Emergency and Truck Access Economic Development System Performance Environmental Community Support Excellent Good City of Winslow North-South Transportation Plan Moderate/Neutral Fair Poor 62 6.9 Recommended Railroad Crossing Priorities The following recommendations are based on input from the public and stakeholders, the railroad crossing evaluation matrix, and the environmental scan. Highest Priorities Coopertown Bypass The Coopertown bypass is the City of Winslow’s priority north-south access project. This project will improve truck access and safety by removing trucks and other heavy vehicles from the Coopertown neighborhood. It will locate a new road between the existing Coopertown neighborhood and the Winslow airport. Compared to other options for improving north-south access, this option has a relatively low cost. It has public support and has been endorsed by the Winslow City Council. Williamson Avenue Underpass Widening of the Williamson Avenue Underpass is the City’s preferred solution for improving north-south access across the railroad. BNSF is open to the underpass improvement provided that its design requirements for a shoofly track to detour the mainline during construction are met. These design requirements present significant engineering challenges that make this north-south mobility solution the most expensive of any considered. Secondary Priorities Transcon Lane Overpass A new overpass connecting Transcon Lane to Old Clear Creek Road or SR 99 would be a more cost effective solution for meeting the City’s goals of improving north-south access compared to the Williamson Avenue Underpass. It would create additional redundancy in Winslow’s transportation system by providing a third point of access and a direct connection to I-40 at an existing traffic interchange. It would improve emergency access and overall system performance. New West Winslow TI and Leupp TI Additional access to I-40 west of Winslow would support the City’s long term economic development goals west of the airport. A potential new traffic interchange and railroad crossing two miles west of the existing Hipkoe traffic interchange would provide direct access to this growth area. As growth occurs over the long term, a new railroad crossing at the Leupp TI may also be warranted to accommodate increased travel demand. These long-term improvements should be implemented in partnership with land developers as new access for land is warranted by market conditions. Conclusion The next step for implementing crossing improvement is a more detailed engineering and environmental study that advances design for the concepts to the point where more defined cost estimates can be prepared. This more detailed engineering and environmental study would identify the footprint, right-ofway needs, environmental issues, and other costs. The Williamson Avenue Underpass study should City of Winslow North-South Transportation Plan 63 include preliminary design and engineering of the shoofly detour needed for the widening. Costs of each concept could then be compared side-by-side to assist the community in prioritizing and funding the projects. City of Winslow North-South Transportation Plan 64 7.0 Implementation Plan This section of the document lays out the improvements identified to maintain and enhance multimodal mobility and safety. Improvements have been prioritized for roads, transit and nonmotorized systems. These improvements were primarily based on input and suggestions from the City, stakeholders, and existing plans. 7.1 Roads Table 15 shows the recommended road improvement priorities through the 2030 planning horizon together with planning level cost estimates. These priorities include new links to improve system continuity and support economic development as well as improve safety and operations on existing roads. These priorities and recommendations are based on previous studies and public and stakeholder outreach. Figure 22 shows the locations of these recommended improvements. Appendix B provides additional detail on the cost estimates. Near-Term Priorities Near-term priorities are identified in the City of Winslow five-year capital improvement plan and the ADOT five-year work program. Funding had been identified for these improvements and construction is planned. This section also includes near-term recommendations for additional study at Transcon Lane, the Hipkoe Traffic Interchange, and Route 66. The City in partnership with ADOT and BNSF should conduct a design concept report to advance engineering design for railroad crossing alternatives at Williamson Avenue and Transcon Lane. City of Winslow The City of Winslow has obtained federal funding to extend existing Transcon Lane north of the I-40 interchange to Oak Road. This project is in the City’s CIP. The Coopertown Bypass to the West Winslow Industrial Spur is also identified in the CIP. ADOT ADOT has not identified any road capacity improvements within the City of Winslow in its 2012 – 2016 Five-Year Transportation Facilities Construction Program. City of Winslow North-South Transportation Plan 65 Table 15 Road Improvement Needs Item Description Jurisdiction Unit Cost (2010$) Source 1 Coopertown Bypass – West Winslow Industrial Spur Reconstruct existing road and build new 2 lane Coopertown Bypass Winslow 5.57 miles $8.5 million 5 2 Transcon Lane – Oak Road connection New 2 lane road Winslow 0.4 miles $1.1 million 1 3 East End Railroad Crossing Study Design concept study ADOT, Winslow, BNSF Lump Sum $200,000 4 Route 66 Corridor Study/Access Study Access management plan for Route 66 within City limits Winslow Lump Sum $50,000 1 5 Transcon Lane Truck Access Study Evaluation of road geometry to improve truck operations Winslow Lump Sum $35,000 4 6 Hipkoe Drive Traffic Interchange Traffic Operations Study Examination of traffic operations at Hipkoe Drive and I-40 ADOT Lump Sum $50,000 1 Transcon Lane Truck Access Study Widen Transcon Lane, realign the driveway accessing Flying J facility, and modify the intersection of SR87/US66/Transcon Lane Winslow 2,000 feet $1.5 million 4 8 Bales Avenue Connection New 2 lane road Winslow 425 feet $240,000 1 9 Airport Road Realignment New 2 lane road Winslow 2,500 feet $830,000 2 10 North Park Drive/Berry Avenue Improvements Safety and operations improvements Winslow Lump Sum $90,000 3 11 Williamson Avenue Improvements Safety and operations improvements Winslow Lump Sum $90,000 3 Priority Near-Term 7 Mid-Term City of Winslow North-South Transportation Plan 66 Table 15 Road Improvement Needs (continued) Priority Item Description Jurisdiction Unit Cost (2010$) Source 12 Hillview Street from North Park Drive to Williamson Avenue Safety and operations improvements Winslow Lump Sum $90,000 1 13 Improvements at Hipkoe Drive and I-40 Implement recommendations of Hipkoe Drive Traffic Interchange Traffic Operations Study ADOT Contingent on study findings 3 14 Route 66 Access Management Implement recommendations of Route 66 Corridor Study/Access Plan Winslow Contingent on study findings 1 Transcon Lane Overpass New railroad overpass and 2 lane road Winslow Contingent on design concept study findings 3 Williamson Avenue (SR 87) Underpass Widen to 4 lanes ADOT Contingent on design concept study findings 1 SR 87 Winslow to Payson Passing lanes and shoulder improvements ADOT To be determined through future study 1 18 New interchange west of Winslow New traffic interchange ADOT, Developer To be determined through future study 3 19 Coopertown connection to new West Winslow TI New 2 lane road Winslow, Developer To be determined through future study 3 South Winslow connection New 2 lane road Winslow, Developer To be determined through future study 3 Leupp Traffic Interchange railroad overpass Rebuild existing traffic interchange ADOT, Developer To be determined through future study 3 Long -Term 15 16 17 20 21 City of Winslow North-South Transportation Plan 67 Table 15 Road Improvement Needs (continued) Unit Cost (2010$) Priority Item Description Jurisdiction Source 22 Leupp Traffic Interchange to Winslow access road New 2 lane road Winslow, Developer To be determined through future study 3 23 Leupp TI to Southern Winslow New 2 lane road Winslow, Developer To be determined through future study 3 Sources: 1) Navajo County Central Region Transportation Plan, 2010; 2) Winslow-Lindbergh Regional Airport Master Plan, 2010; 3) HDR Engineering, Inc., 2012; 4) ADOT State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) FY 2011-2014; 5) City of Winslow, 2012. City of Winslow North-South Transportation Plan 68 ET SEE IN S 12 13 14 15 16 7 8 9 10 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 N 0 0.5 1 Miles 1 Railroad 17 8 13 Hillview Street Fleming Street 4 Desmond Street Mikes Pike Airport Access Road City boundary d ( ! n Roa rtow Coop e Hipkoe Drive !! ( ( 6 12 9 ( ( ( ! !! 10 11 16 Cher ry Av enue Map le St reet 7 ( ! ! ( ( ! ( ! ( ! 3 15 Oak Road 2 BNS F Ra ilroa d 5 14 69 December 30, 2011 | HDR Source: City of Winslow (2007), HDR (2011) Figure 22 | Road Improvement Needs ( ! ! ( North Road Sunset Road CITY OF WINSLOW NORTH-SOUTH TRANSPORTATION STUDY Transcon Lane Truck Access Study Hipkoe Drive Traffic Interchange Traffic Operations Study 0.25 Traffic interchange with railroad crossing 0 Route 66 Corridor Study/Access Study N SR 87 Winslow to Payson New West Winslow TI TI west of Winslow Coopertown connection to new West Winslow TI South Winslow connection Leupp TI improvement railroad overpass Leupp TI to Winslow fronatage access roadroad alignment Leupp TI to southern Winslow Leupp TI Winslow southern alignment Planned roadway improvements 22 20 21 22 23 23 17 18 19 (cont from left) East End Railroad Crossing Study 0.5 Miles 23 21 20 Mercury Lane BVD Road ID Improvement Description 19 18 W Ind est W u str insl ial ow Sp ur New corridor 0.25 23 22 Leupp Traffic Interchange Coopertown Bypass-West Winslow Industrial Spur Transcon Lane-Oak Road connection East End Railroad Crossing Study Route 66 Corridor Study/Access Study Transcon Lane Truck Access Study Hipkoe Drive Traffic Interchange (TI) Traffic Operations Study Bales Avenue connection Airport Road realignment North Park Drive/Berry Avenue improvements Williamson Avenue (SR 87) underpass Hillview Street from North Park Drive to Williamson Avenue Improvements at Hipkoe Drive and I-40 Route 66 access management Transon Lane improvements Transon Lane overpass Williamson Avenue (SR 87) underpass (cont below right) ID Improvement Description ANGE North Park Drive y Av enue Berr Aven ue son Willia m ERCH Aven ue Cott onw ood P INT Tran scon Lane LEUP Bales Avenue Mid-Term Priorities Mid-term priorities will be added to the City of Winslow’s five-year capital improvement program during the next cycle of updates. City of Winslow Mid-term priorities for the City include the Bales Avenue connection, realignment of Airport Road, and safety and operational improvements on key collector roads. The City should also implement recommend access management improvements to 2nd Street and 3rd Street along Route 66. Operational and Safety Improvements Based on the public outreach, this study recommends operational and safety improvements on key collector roads including Williamson Avenue, North Park Drive, Berry Drive, and Hillview Street. As a first step studies will be conducted for each of the key collector road corridors to identify mobility and traffic safety needs. These study will make recommendations to improve operations and safety that could include consolidating commercial drives to right-in right-out only driveways, adding signage, reviewing school zone signing, redefining on-street parking on selected segments, adding pedestrian crosswalk and related signing and others improvements within the existing right of way. Airport Road Realignment The Winslow-Lindbergh Regional Airport Master Plan identified a need to realign Airport Road so that it does not encroach into the Runway 29 Runway Protection Zone (RPZ). The recommended improvement bends Airport Road to the southeast and intersects with SR 87 south of the existing intersection. Bales Avenue Connection Identified in the Navajo County Central Region Transportation Study (Wilson & Company, 2010), this extension of Bales Avenue would provide an alternative link to Route 66 from creating a new east-west connection between Maple Street and Route 66. ADOT In partnership with the City, ADOT should implement recommended improvements to the Transcon Lane TI and the Hipkoe TI. Long-Term Priorities Long-term priorities are planned improvements that have not yet been identified for funding, but are next on the priority list. City of Winslow Through the end of this 20-year planning horizon, the City of Winslow should continue to monitor traffic operations at key intersections to identify new traffic control needs as growth occurs. The City should also implement the recommendations of the East End Railroad Crossing Design Concept Study. This City of Winslow North-South Transportation Plan 70 may be a grade-separated railroad crossing at Transcon Lane or a widening of the existing Williamson Avenue underpass. The City should partner with ADOT and land developers to establish new access from I-40 west of Winslow. Access to I-40 should be provided first at a new traffic interchange two miles west of the existing Hipkoe Drive Traffic Interchange. Additional access could be provided at the Leupp Traffic Interchange as warranted by traffic and market conditions. These long term priorities require additional study. ADOT As traffic between Winslow and Payson grows, ADOT should evaluate the need for additional passing lanes and shoulder improvements to maintain safe and efficient operations on SR 87. 7.2 Public Transit There is a growing unmet demand for transit services within the City of Winslow, as described in Section 5.5. The public feedback that the study team received regarding additional transit service was generally positive. Local Demand Responsive Service Transit service to meet this growing need should include demand responsive service that operates a limited number of subscription services such as scheduled daily or weekly trips to and from a community/senior center or to a local destination such as a supermarket or Walmart. These are advanced reservation/demand response trips, but the community knows which day the van will be going to the specified destination and many people will schedule their trips accordingly because it is reliable. This also helps keep the operator’s cost down because they can get several people to go on the same day and share a van as opposed to the van making multiple trips throughout the day/week. Figure 23 identifies activity centers within Winslow that would be served by this service. Transit service can increase the attractiveness of a community to potential investors. Through the 20-year planning horizon, the City should continue to evaluate its budget priorities and identify a funding stream to serve as a local match for federal grant money to implement a demand responsive service that would help meet its residents’ mobility needs. Regional Transit Service The City of Winslow should also participate in and implement the recommendations of a regional transit feasibility study that examines the potential for connections between Winslow and Holbrook and Winslow and Flagstaff. The opening of the new Navajo Nation casino at Twin Arrows in 2013 would create a new activity center that might improve the feasibility of new regional service. This study would be conducted in partnership with ADOT and NACOG, including the Hopi Tribe and the Navajo Nation. City of Winslow North-South Transportation Plan 71 ID 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 !! Willia m son A ve ! Railroad City boundary Activity centers !6 27 ! Map le St 26 ! ! 28 W Ind est W u str insl ial ow Sp ur Mercury Lane BVD Road Hipkoe Drive d n Roa rtow Coop e ( ! 2 Airport Access Road 24 5 11 N 29 Hillview Street Fleming Street 10 Desmond Street 16 0 0.25 0.5 Downtown Inset ( ! 1 Miles 15 Oak Road 23 BNS 9 F Ra ilroa d 32 MIL ES TO HOLBR OOK 72 December 30, 2011 | HDR Source: HDR (2011) Figure 23 | Public Transit Improvements ! ( ( ! ( ! ( ! 17 ( ! ! ( North Road Cher ry Av enue Map le St reet 19 14 7 ( ( ! !! 21 ( Sunset Road CITY OF WINSLOW NORTH-SOUTH TRANSPORTATION STUDY Future demand responsive transit service area ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Arizona Dept of Economic Security Arizona State Prison Complex Bonnie Brennan Elem School City Hall Coopertown Fire Dept Greyhound Bus Station Historic Commercial District Homolovi Ruins State Park Indian Health Center A typical transit vehicle is a small bus or van Jefferson Elem School La Posada and Amtrak Station Lincoln Elem School Little Colorado Medical Center McHood Park 22 13 North Park Plaza Shopping Center Northland Pioneer College 30 Post Office Public Library Senior Citizen Center WalMart Supercenter 8 Washington Elem School 18 Whippel Memorial Park 1 Winslow-Lindbergh Regional Airport 25 3rd S 20 t Winslow City Economic Development 4 2nd St Winslow City Park Coop 12 Winslow High School ertow n Rd Winslow Junior High School Winslow Police Dept Winslow School District Offices Downtown Inset ID Activity Centers 3 (! ! ( Mikes Pike North Park Drive y Av enue Berr STAFF 54 M son Aven ue Willia m FLAG IL E S TO P AYS ON Aven ue Cott onw ood LES TO Tran scon Lane 55 MI Bales Avenue 7.3 Sidewalks, Trails, and Paths The City of Winslow continues to invest in its non-motorized sidewalks, trails, and paths system. Table 16 shows several near-term sidewalk improvements identified in the City’s capital improvement program. In addition to maintaining its existing sidewalks, the City should implement the proposed trails and paths identified in Figure 24. As new roads are constructed, the City should continue to require developers to provide sidewalks as identified in its typical road cross sections, which are shown in Figure 25. Near-Term Priorities Near-term priorities include sidewalk improvements on existing neighborhoods. The proposed historic and heritage destination trail identified in the City of Winslow General Plan for Coopertown Road should be implemented together with the Coopertown Bypass project. The City should begin planning studies for a new west end pedestrian bridge across the BNSF tracks to improve pedestrian mobility between the Hopi Tribe residential area on the West Winslow Industrial Spur and activity centers, such as the Indian Health Care Center, in central Winslow. Mid-Term Priorities In the mid-term, the City should implement the west end pedestrian bridge across the BNSF. The proposed historic and heritage destination trail to the airport identified in the City of Winslow General Plan should be implemented together with the relocation of Airport Road. Long-Term Priorities Over the long term, the City should complete the implementation of the trails and paths shown in Figure 24. The east end railroad crossing improvements will provide new pedestrian access across the BNSF tracks. City of Winslow North-South Transportation Plan 73 Table 16 Non-Motorized Trails and Paths System Needs Priority Item Description Jurisdiction Unit Cost Source City neighborhood walkways and streets Sidewalk, curb, gutter, and ADA ramp improvements in four neighborhoods Winslow Lump Sum $1.7 million 1 Citywide walkways and streets Sidewalk, curb, gutter, and ADA ramp improvements in throughout the City Winslow Lump Sum $340,000 1 3 Mike’s Pike East – North Park Drive to Ice House Wash Walkways, streetscape, lighting, and drainage improvements Winslow Lump Sum $450,000 1 4 First Street - Hubbell Center to City Hall Complete sidewalk, lighting, and streetscape between Renaissance 1 and 2. Winslow Lump Sum $300,000 1 5 Coopertown Road – West Winslow Industrial Spur Trail Implement trail identified in General Plan concurrent with Coopertown Road improvement Winslow 5.57 miles $420,000 2 6 West End Pedestrian Bridge New pedestrian bridge over BNSF tracks at Kell Place Winslow, BNSF 900 feet $3.6 million 3 7 Airport Road Trail Implement historic and heritage destination trail identified in General Plan concurrent with Airport Road realignment Winslow 1.45 miles $110,000 2 East End Pedestrian Crossings New pedestrian crossings with Williamson Avenue widening and Transcon Lane overpass ADOT, Winslow Near-Term 1 2 Mid-Term Long-Term 8 3 Contingent on design concept study findings Sources: 1) City of Winslow Capital Improvement Plan, FY 2011-15; 2) City of Winslow General Plan, 2002; 3) HDR Engineering, Inc., 2012. City of Winslow North-South Transportation Plan 74 N 0 Trail of the Ancient Ones (alternate) Local service and links trails Historic and heritage destinations trails - existing Historic and heritage destinations trails - proposed d n Roa rtow Coop e Hipkoe Drive City boundary Proposed trail connections Hillview Street Airport Access Road Fleming Street Street or sidewalk based trail section Paved trails - all uses/users Future pedestrian crossing, Priority 2 ( ! Desmond Street Cher ry Av enue Map le St reet Future pedestrian crossing, Priority 1 ! ( ( ! ( ! ( ! Oak Road BNS F Ra ilroa d Railroad 75 December 30, 2011 | HDR Source: ALRIS (2009), HDR (2011) Figure 24 | City of Winslow Trails and Paths System ( ! ( ! ! ( North Road Sunset Road CITY OF WINSLOW NORTH-SOUTH TRANSPORTATION STUDY Trail of the Ancient Ones Miles Equestrian (hiking and mountain bike all terrain) trails 1 Levee based trail 0.5 All weather surfaced trail: “Roadside” multiuse 0.25 Mercury Lane BVD Road W Ind est W u str insl ial ow Sp ur North Park Drive y Av enue Berr Aven ue son Willia m !! ( ( Aven ue Cott onw ood ( ( ( ! !! Tran scon Lane Mikes Pike Bales Avenue 8.0 Transportation Revenue Sources The following section summarizes the revenue sources that are currently available for funding road transportation projects in the City of Winslow. It should be noted that in the current environment the funding of significant transportation projects is complex and, in most cases, requires multiple sources. Also, transportation funding is dynamic and there is a need to continuously monitor the existing sources and new sources that may become available as state and federal legislation changes. Innovation has become the mainstay of successful transportation funding. Federal Funding Sources There are a number of federal funding programs that can be used to address transportation needs within the study area. These funds are typically distributed through and by ADOT. In some cases, such as Transportation Enhancement Funds, regional Councils of Governments (COGs) rank the local applications. The Winslow area is represented by NACOG. American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) Funds Since the recent economic downturn, the ARRA has also provided “stimulus funding” for projects including transportation, though additional ARRA funds beyond those already obligated are uncertain. While these funds are most welcome, the requirements for rapid obligation and expenditure of these funds, while mandating adherence to all federal project requirements, makes it difficult to use these resources for projects that would require federal environmental clearance. Environmental reviews to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) can be quite lengthy, and since such reviews are not required for state and local projects in Arizona, it can be difficult to use these funds for many desired projects, especially those that include right of way acquisition, utility relocation, and capacity expansion. Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) The purpose of the HSIP is to achieve a significant reduction in traffic fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads. Each State's apportionment of HSIP funds is subject to a set aside for construction and operational improvements on high-risk rural roads. High-risk rural roads are roads functionally classified as rural major or minor collectors or rural local roads with a fatality and incapacitating injury crash rate above the statewide average for those functional classes of roads; or likely to experience an increase in traffic volume that leads to a crash rate in excess of the average statewide rate. The funds are distributed through ADOT to the various regional COGs, and then to the local agencies for use on specific safety projects. Interstate Maintenance Funds These funds are restricted to maintenance costs for the existing Interstate Highway System. National Highway System (NHS) Program The program provides funding for improvements to rural and urban roads that are part of the NHS, including the Interstate System, and designated connections to major intermodal terminals. For this City of Winslow North-South Transportation Plan 76 study, NHS money would be primarily used for I-40 improvements. Under certain circumstances, NHS funds may also be used to fund transit improvements in NHS corridors. Safe Routes to School (SRTS) Program The purpose of the Federal SRTS Program is to make walking and bicycling to school a safe and routine activity. The program provides reimbursable funds for elementary and middle schools to implement projects that encourage children to walk and bicycle to school. The program has averaged $2.2 million per year in funding in Arizona and is administered by ADOT. Eligible projects include, but are not limited to: • • • • • • Sidewalk improvements Traffic calming and speed reduction improvements Pedestrian and bicycle crossing improvements On-street bicycle facilities Off-street bicycle and pedestrian facilities Traffic diversion improvements in the vicinity of schools Surface Transportation Program (STP) The STP provides flexible funding that may be used by States and localities for projects on any Federalaid highway, including the NHS, bridge projects on any public road, transit capital projects, and intracity and intercity bus terminals and facilities. For projects programmed with STP funds from a COG Transportation Improvement Program, local project sponsors may exchange STP funds for a reduced amount of Highway User Revenue Fund (HURF) funds from ADOT, enabling the project sponsor to assume greater control over project development and implementation. The exchange program is currently on hold by ADOT until the HURF gains are shown for the revenue stream. State Funding Sources State funding for transportation is somewhat limited. Gasoline tax, vehicle fees, and lottery proceeds are the only revenue sources. As vehicles become more fuel efficient, and roadway costs increase, the buying power of the fuel tax is diminishing. The state gasoline tax has not been raised for many years. Forty of the fifty states have higher gasoline taxes than Arizona. In addition to these constraints, a portion of the fuel tax revenues is being used to support the operation of the Department of Public Safety, which patrols the State Highway System. Current state funding sources are as follows: Arizona Gaming Sources (Proposition 202) Proposition 202 was passed in November 2002 and set the stage for new gaming compacts between the State and the respective tribes. A provision of Proposition 202 was the sharing of gaming revenues with the State and local governments. Proposition 202 allows an Indian tribe to make twelve percent of its total annual contribution to cities, towns, or counties for government services that benefit the general public, including public safety, mitigation of the impacts of gaming, or promotion of commerce and economic development. City of Winslow North-South Transportation Plan 77 Greater Arizona Development Authority (GADA) The GADA was created by the Arizona State Legislature to assist local and tribal governments and special districts with the development of public infrastructure. GADA leverages its funds to lower the costs of financing and help accelerate project development for public facilities owned, operated, and maintained by a political subdivision, special district or Indian tribe. GADA has both financial and technical assistance programs. Highway Extension Expansion and Loan Program (HELP) House Bill 2488, enacted into law on August 21, 1998, established a comprehensive loan and financial assistance program for eligible highway projects in Arizona. The program, designated as HELP, provides communities in Arizona a new financing mechanism to stretch limited transportation dollars and bridge the gap between the needs and available revenues. HELP provides the State and its communities with an innovative financing mechanism to accelerate the funding of road construction projects and has proven to be a significant tool for financing the construction of highway projects throughout the State. Similar to bond funds, the HELP is a loan, hence there are payback obligations. The major advantage is there are no application fees and the rate under statute is “below market.” Currently, HELP loan applications are not being accepted due to state budget issues. Highway User Revenue Fund (HURF) HURF represents the most significant source of transportation funds in the State of Arizona. Funds are derived primarily from motor vehicle fuel taxes and vehicle license taxes. HURF funds are shared with and allocated through ADOT and distributed as an entitlement to cities, towns, and counties based on population. These funds may be “swept” into the general fund during a state fiscal crisis. These are typically expended for maintenance rather than capital improvements. Statewide Planning and Research Funds These federal highway funds are distributed by ADOT. They can be used for a broad number of transportation projects, including transit. Transportation, Community, and System Preservation Program (TCSP) The TCSP Program is intended to address the relationships among transportation, community, and system preservation plans and practices and identify private sector-based initiatives to improve those relationships. States, metropolitan planning organizations, local governments, and tribal governments are eligible for TCSP Program discretionary grants to plan and implement strategies which improve the efficiency of the transportation system, reduce environmental impacts of transportation, reduce the need for costly future public infrastructure investments, ensure efficient access to jobs, services and centers of trade, and examine development patterns and identify strategies to encourage private sector development patterns which achieve these goals. Transportation Enhancement Program (TE) These federal funds are distributed by ADOT and may be used for bicycle, pedestrian, and aesthetic enhancements to transportation projects. These funds are limited and in high demand. Individual project City of Winslow North-South Transportation Plan 78 funding limits are $943,000 for state system projects and $750,000 for local projects, supplemented by local matching funds in the minimum amount of 5.7% of the total project value. Local Funding Sources There is a wide range of options available for local funding sources. State enabling legislation varies as well as some, but not all, jurisdictions have been empowered by state statutes to levy things such as dedicated sales taxes. Local funding sources overlap to some degree with private funding options since they rely on resident funding and sometimes developers. Local funding sources include: Bonding Funding for capital projects from the sale of bonds by a public agency. Bond programs must be approved by a vote of the public. Bonding is actually a financing tool rather than a funding source. A revenue stream, typically from a secondary property tax, is needed to retire general obligation bond debt service. Development Impact Fees An increasing number of growing Arizona communities are relying on transportation development impacts fees for both residential and commercial development. Development impact fees are onetime payments for public facilities based on a pro-rata share of costs incurred for facilities needed to accommodate new development. Development fees relate to only capital facility expansions benefiting new development and are not to be utilized for rehabilitation efforts or operating expenses. General Fund The Capital Improvement Program (CIP) identifies city general fund monies used for improvements, operations, and maintenance. Improvement Districts Improvement districts are authorized by the State legislature for the construction of a wide range of public works facilities. They are formed to fund repaving projects, construction of roads or sidewalks, installation of landscaping, and other public improvements within a defined geographic area. The districts are initiated by property owners who combine resources with the City to finance the improvements. Property owners are assessed over a several year timeframe to repay their share of the cost of the improvement. Transit Funding Assistance Transit services are funded through a variety of federal, state, and local programs, as well as farebox revenue, advertising, and other nongovernmental sources. Most local government funding for transit service is provided by general fund revenues of municipalities and/or counties. Sources of potential transit funding include: Section 5311 Formula Funds This funding supports capital expenditures (based on an 80/20 match with municipality or other entity), operating expenses (50/50 match), and administrative expenses (80/20 match). The funding is City of Winslow North-South Transportation Plan 79 allocated through an annual competitive application process. These monies are used to support public transit service in non-metropolitan (rural) areas such as the study area. These funds can be used for both capital and operating costs Section 5310 Funds This program provides capital funds for vehicles for agencies providing transit service to the elderly and persons with disabilities. The primary target recipients are non-profit agencies and Native American Indian tribes. Local public agencies can apply for these funds if no “willing and able” nonprofit agencies are available in a service area. These funds are available to both urban and rural recipients. Funds can be used to cover 80% of vehicle costs, but recipients must fund the costs of operating service. Surface Transportation Program (STP) Flex Funds These federal highway funds are available through ADOT in support of the Section5311 Program. Typically these funds are used to augment the capital procurement process. STP funding levels for local governments are determined annually by the State Transportation Board. Public-Private Partnerships (P3) A public-private partnership refers to the contractual agreement between a public agency and a private sector entity that allows the private sector entity to have greater participation in the delivery of a transportation project. House Bill (HB) 2396, signed into law in 2009, allows ADOT to use publicprivate partnerships as a tool to address Arizona’s transportation requirements. This law grants ADOT broad authority to partner with the private sector to build or improve Arizona transportation facilities. Under the law, public- private partnerships include any project in which the private partner takes on risk and responsibility for transportation improvements that would have previously been borne solely by ADOT. City of Winslow North-South Transportation Plan 80 9.0 Policies and Guidelines 9.1 Typical Road Cross Sections The design requirements of a given street depend, in part, upon the function of the facility as well as the magnitude and characteristics of the projected traffic volumes. Road widths and rights-of-way width based on City standards are recommended for future roads located within the incorporated area. Figure 25 illustrates typical street sections for minor streets, collector streets, and arterial streets showing the provision of multimodal facilities. The key element of these cross sections is the increased or reduced right-of-way width depending upon the road function. The City will continually assess existing road cross sections for unique circumstances that could require modification of the accepted right-of-way widths. The proposed typical road cross sections for the City of Winslow were formulated based on traditional transportation planning methodologies, community goals and values, network continuity, provision of a balanced transportation system, land access, and projected population and employment growth. Additional right-of-way may be reserved to accommodate features such as: • • • Future traffic needs Space for efficient vehicle operations Adequate room for turning movements Border areas are provided on both sides of each cross section for utilities, such as water, sewer, telephone, and electric services. Border areas are typically included within the right-of-way of each cross section, but the City may permit a developer to dedicate the border area during the plat approval process rather than include the border area within the right-of-way. Additionally, right-of-way requirements for arterial and collector facilities may increase at intersections or major driveways to provide room for turn lanes, turn-bays, and traffic signalization. In addition, for roads which are maintained by ADOT, additional right-of-way may be required to accommodate future expansion of the state highway system. While street classification reflects the functions that roads serve as part of the street and highway network, road design standards are related to traffic volume, design capacity, and level of service. Typical cross sections identify the recommended minimum dimensional criteria for right-of-way and pavement width, and configurations for number of travel lanes, medians, and on-street parking. Recommended road cross sections for the City were developed based on local conditions and preferences, emergency vehicle access requirements, cross section standards for other Arizona cities, and other sources. City of Winslow North-South Transportation Plan 81 R/W OPT. SLOPE AND DRAINAGE ESMT. CL R/W OPT. SLOPE AND DRAINAGE ESMT. 5’ MIN. 36’ 1’ 4’ WALK 2’ 6’ PARKING 12’ TRAVEL LANE 12’ TRAVEL LANE 6’ PARKING 2’ 4’ 1’ WALK 5’ MIN. 25’ 25’ 50’ MIN. R/W OPT. SLOPE AND DRAINAGE ESMT. OPT. SLOPE AND DRAINAGE ESMT. CL R/W MINOR STREET 40’ RAISED MEDIAN (OPTIONAL) 5’ MIN. 2.5’ 5’ WALK 2’ 14’ TRAVEL LANE 12’ SHARED TURN LANE 30’ 14’ TRAVEL LANE 2’ 5’ WALK 2.5’ 5’ MIN. 30’ 60’ MIN. R/W CL R/W COLLECTOR STREET 70’ RAISED MEDIAN (OPTIONAL) 6’ 2’ 5’ WALK 2’ 4’ BIKE LANE 12’ TRAVEL LANE 12’ TRAVEL LANE 14’ SHARED TURN LANE 50’ 12’ TRAVEL LANE 12’ TRAVEL LANE 50’ 4’ BIKE LANE 2’ 5’ WALK 2’ 6’ 100’ MIN. ARTERIAL STREET Figure 25 | Road Cross Sections Source: City of Winslow (2006), HDR (2011) December 30, 2011 | HDR CITY OF WINSLOW NORTH-SOUTH TRANSPORTATION STUDY 82 9.2 Access Management Access management is the process that provides access to land development while simultaneously preserving the flow of traffic on the surrounding road system in terms of safety, capacity, and speed. Access management attempts to balance the need to provide good mobility for through traffic with the requirements for reasonable access to adjacent land uses. ADOT defines access management as the control of the location and design of all vehicular approaches to the state highway system including driveways and public and private roads. This control includes the option to deny a direct highway connection when it is appropriate. The most important concept in understanding the need for access management is that through movement of traffic and direct access to property are in mutual conflict. No facility can move traffic effectively and provide unlimited access at the same time. In many cases, accidents and congestion are the result of street operations attempting to serve both mobility and access at the same time. The challenge of access management is creating and maintaining a balance between land development plans and the functional integrity of the roads that serve these developments and the region. An effective access management program will accomplish the following: 1) Limit the number of conflict points at driveway locations. Conflict points are indicators of the potential for accidents. The more conflict points that occur at an intersection, the higher the potential for vehicular crashes. When left turns and cross street through movements are restricted, the number of conflict points are significantly reduced. 2) Separate conflict areas. Intersections created by streets and driveways represent basic conflict areas. Adequate spacing between intersections allows drivers to react to one intersection at a time, and reduces the potential for conflicts. 3) Reduce the interference of through traffic. Through traffic often needs to slow down for vehicles exiting, entering, or turning across the road. Providing turning lanes, designing driveways with large turning radii, and restricting turning movements in and out of driveways allows turning traffic to get out of the way of through traffic. 4) Provide sufficient spacing for at-grade, signalized intersections. Good spacing of signalized intersections reduces conflict areas and increases the potential for smooth traffic progression. 5) Provide adequate on-site circulation and storage. The design of good internal vehicle circulation in parking areas and on local streets reduces the number of driveways that businesses need for access to the major road. Source: Transportation Access Management Guidelines for the City of Tucson (2003) Traffic signal spacing is among the most important access management components. According to the Access Management Manual decreasing signal spacing from four to two per mile decreases total delay by nearly 60 percent and vehicle-hours of travel by nearly 50 percent (TRB, 2003). City of Winslow North-South Transportation Plan 83 The City of Winslow does not have access management plans or policies in place. An access management plan for Route 66 within the City limits was recommended in the 2010 Navajo County Central Regional Transportation Study. In addition to classifying roads according to function and then planning, designing, and maintaining them based on these hierarchical classifications (as the City does today), a comprehensive access management plan would: 1. Detail acceptable levels of access and volume levels of road classifications and establish criteria for spacing of signals and access points 2. Apply appropriate geometric design and engineering standards at access points that relate to the road classification 3. Establish policies, regulations, and permitting procedures to implement the management plan An access management plan is a comprehensive study of existing and planned transportation infrastructure and land use within a defined study area that establishes a plan for providing reasonable access to all properties, while restoring or preserving the integrity of the transportation system. The primary benefit of having such a plan is that it lays the foundation for correcting existing access management problems and preventing others from occurring in the future. Adopting these types of guidelines would make them much more enforceable. In addition to road regulations, the City may wish to incorporate guidelines into the land development regulations such as subdivision controls or lot dimension requirements that can influence access issues. City of Winslow North-South Transportation Plan 84 10.0 Conclusion As noted in the Introduction of this Plan, the need for new facilities is predicated on the growth which is occurring within the City of Winslow, the surrounding area, and the region as a whole. The factors that make the City of Winslow a desirable place to live remain in place, and long-term it is expected that population and employment in the City of Winslow and the region will continue to grow. By taking the recommendations as outlined in this Plan, the City of Winslow will be prepared to meet the multimodal transportation demands of the next generation. City of Winslow North-South Transportation Plan 85 Appendix A: Environmental Scan This appendix provides information on a high-level environmental scan completed of the study area. The environmental scan was developed to identify and describe environmentally sensitive areas that might constitute fatal flaws for potential north-south railroad crossing alternatives. This scan includes analysis of cultural resources, floodplains, biotic communities, and sites with active leaking underground storage tanks. Cultural Resources The cultural resources information presented is intended to identify prehistoric and historic sites that would be avoided during the development of alternatives to improve north-south access across the BNSF railroad. Figure A.1 identifies the cultural resources sites within the study area. Regulatory Considerations In accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), federal agencies must take into account the affects of proposed projects on historic properties. Historic properties are defined as any prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in, or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The NHPA, as amended (16 United States Code § 470) and its implementing regulations (36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800) provide the process and guidelines for historic property evaluations. To be determined eligible for inclusion in the NRHP, properties must be important in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, or culture. They also must possess integrity of location, design, settings, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association, and meet at least one of the following four criteria: Criterion A: are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history Criterion B: are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past Criterion C: embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or represent the work of a master, or possess high artistic values, or represent a significant distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction Criterion D: have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history Properties can be of local, state, or national importance. Typically, historic properties are at least 50 years old. Younger properties can be considered if they are of exceptional importance. Under Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act, FHWA can approve use of publicly owned land designated as a public park or recreation area, wildlife or waterfowl refuge of national, state, or local significance, or a historic site of national, state, or local significance only if there is no prudent and feasible alternative and the project includes all possible planning to minimize harm to such lands. If a historic site is determined “not eligible” for the NRHP, but an official (Mayor, President of the local historic society, etc.) formally provides information to indicate that the historic site is of local significance, FHWA may determine that it is appropriate to apply Section 4(f). With respect to historic bridges or highways, Section 4(f) only applies when the structure will be demolished, or if the historic City of Winslow North-South Transportation Plan A-1 quality for which the structure was determined to be NRHP eligible is adversely affected by the proposed action. For the purposes of Section 4(f) and this study, a historic site is defined as any historic property eligible under Criteria A, B, or C. City of Winslow North-South Transportation Plan A-2 ET SEE IN S 12 13 14 15 16 7 8 9 10 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 N 0 Historical sites 0.25 23 22 0.5 Miles 23 21 1 Miles 17 8 9 ( ( ( ! !! 10 11 ( ! Railroad City boundary 16 Cher ry Av enue Map le St reet 7 ! ( ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ! ( North Road 2 BNS F Ra ilroa d 5 14 A-3 December 30, 2011 | HDR Source: HDR (2011), AZSite (2011) Figure A.1 | Cultural Resources 3 15 Oak Road Sunset Road CITY OF WINSLOW NORTH-SOUTH TRANSPORTATION STUDY Transcon Lane Truck Access Study Hipkoe Drive Traffic Interchange Traffic Operations Study 0.5 Traffic interchange with railroad crossing 0.25 Airport Access Road Route 66 Corridor Study/Access Study 0 SR 87 Winslow to Payson New West Winslow TI TI west of Winslow Coopertown connection to new West Winslow TI South Winslow connection Leupp TI improvement railroad overpass Leupp TI to Winslow fronatage access roadroad alignment Leupp TI to southern Winslow Leupp TI Winslow southern alignment 1 13 Hillview Street Fleming Street 4 Desmond Street Mikes Pike Planned roadway improvements N 20 21 22 23 23 17 18 19 (cont from left) d ( ! n Roa rtow Coop e !! ( ( 6 12 East End Railroad Crossing Study 22 20 Mercury Lane BVD Road W Ind est W u str insl ial ow Sp ur ID Improvement Description 19 18 Hipkoe Drive New corridor Leupp Traffic Interchange Coopertown Bypass-West Winslow Industrial Spur Transcon Lane-Oak Road connection East End Railroad Crossing Study Route 66 Corridor Study/Access Study Transcon Lane Truck Access Study Hipkoe Drive Traffic Interchange (TI) Traffic Operations Study Bales Avenue connection Airport Road realignment North Park Drive/Berry Avenue improvements Williamson Avenue (SR 87) underpass Hillview Street from North Park Drive to Williamson Avenue Improvements at Hipkoe Drive and I-40 Route 66 access management Transon Lane improvements Transon Lane overpass Williamson Avenue (SR 87) underpass (cont below right) ID Improvement Description ANGE North Park Drive y Av enue Berr Aven ue son Willia m ERCH Aven ue Cott onw ood P INT Tran scon Lane LEUP Bales Avenue Discussion of Cultural Resources in the Study Area This section presents a preliminary assessment of the cultural resources in the study area and does not constitute a formal Class I overview. Data were obtained from a variety of sources: Arizona State Museum (ASM), the ADOT Historic Preservation Portal, the ADOT Bridge Group’s Arizona State Highway System Bridge Record (1997), the Arizona Local and Federal Highway System Bridge Record (1997), and the AZSITE and NRHP online databases. Table A.1 lists the 22 cultural resource surveys that have been performed within the study area. The majority of the study area has not been surveyed for cultural resources. Furthermore, several previous surveys were performed over 10 years ago. According to the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) guidelines, resurvey would likely be required in those areas if included in the project footprint. Located on the Colorado Plateau, Winslow is at 4,856 feet above mean sea level. The average maximum temperature is 70 degrees, the average minimum 39.5 degrees; annual precipitation averages 8 inches (www.climate-zone.com). Winslow is situated within the floodplain of the Little Colorado River, which borders the eastern edge of the study area. All of these factors affect human settlement patterns. At least six projectile points dating to the Paleo-Indian Period (about 9500 to 7000 B.C.) have been documented adjacent to or within 15-30 miles of the study area. Two Archaic Period (about 7000 to 1500 B.C.) sites (one early, one late) have been documented immediately adjacent to the study area. Based on this information, there is potential for encountering Paleo-Indian or Archaic sites or projectile points within the study area. Within the study area, 27 archaeological sites have been documented, 11 of which are NRHP eligible and 2 of which would require archaeological testing to evaluate NRHP eligibility. Site AZ J: 14:18 (ASM), also referred to as the Sunset Crossing Site, is listed on the Arizona Register of Historic Places (AR); its NRHP eligibility has not been evaluated. Table A.2 lists the archaeological sites identified in the study area. Roughly 50 percent of the archaeological sites in the study area are prehistoric, probably Anasazi, and the majority are artifact scatters, which may be indicative of seasonal/limited activity or earlier settlement. Earlier prehistoric occupation is evidenced by below ground pit houses rather than the later above ground masonry structures. Taking into consideration the aforementioned factors and results of previous research, additional prehistoric sites are likely to be encountered in the study area. Winslow and the surrounding region have long served as a transportation corridor for Euroamerican travelers. The Whipple and Sitgreaves trails, both of which extended through the region, were established in the mid 1850s as early routes of exploration. The U.S. Military traveled through the same corridor, building the Beale Wagon Road to transport troops and goods. The route, which served stage freight, also was used by the Mormons during colonization (Walker and Bufkin 1986). A total of 45 bridges are located in the study area. The majority are less than 50 years old and are, therefore, not eligible for NRHP consideration. Three bridges are listed on the NRHP, however. Additionally, two bridges would require NRHP eligibility evaluations if affected by the proposed project. Table A.3 identifies the bridges in the study area and their NRHP status. City of Winslow North-South Transportation Plan A-4 The earliest Euroamerican settler arrived in Winslow in 1880. Two years later, the post office was established (Barnes 1980). More settlers followed. Three historic districts are within the Winslow city limits. The Winslow Commercial Historic District (WCHD), which encompasses 17 buildings, is roughly bounded by 3rd Street, Williamson Avenue, 1st Street, and Warren Avenue; 112 Kinsley Avenue was added in 2002. Buildings within the WCHD were built between 1898 and 1935. The Winslow Residential Historic District (WRHD), with 12 houses dating from 1897 to 1910, is located along Kinsley Avenue from Oak Street to Aspinwall Street. The La Posada Historic District (LPHD), which is comprised of 6 buildings—the La Posada Hotel, Winslow Train Depot, a barn, microwave antenna tower, associated features and landscaping—dates to 1930, and is located along 2nd Street. All three are listed on the NRHP. Table A.4 identifies the historic buildings in the study area. There are six properties in the study area listed in the NRHP. Additional cultural resources eligible for NRHP listing that have not been evaluated as of yet are likely present. A comprehensive review of NRHP properties, which would involve a visit to the SHPO’s office to examine NRHP county maps, falls outside the scope of the current study. Table A.5 identifies the properties in the study area that are listed on the NRHP. Based on the preliminary research, the minimum number of potential Section 4(f) properties is 45. These are mostly situated in and around Winslow’s historic downtown area and along the old Route 66 corridor. More intensive and comprehensive research may result in the identification of additional Section 4(f) properties. City of Winslow North-South Transportation Plan A-5 Table A.1 Previous Cultural Resource Surveys within the Study Area Project Number Project Name Reference 1984-213.ASM Winslow State Prison Survey Madsen 1984 1985-45.ASM Homol’ovi IV Land Exchange Unknown 1988-219.ASM AT&T Fiber Optic Route from Flagstaff to New Mexico State Line Landis 1989a; Landis 1989b 1989-132.ASM Sunshine to Winslow 69kV Rebuild Irwin 1989 1990-43.ASM US West Fiber Optic Line Winslow to Joseph City Chenault and Greenwald 1990 1990-130.ASM Winslow Frontage Road Survey Weaver 1990 1991-188.ASM Materials Pit #8109 Survey Weaver 1991 1996-457.ASM LWCF Replacement Parcels survey Weaver 1997 1997-440.ASM Winslow: SR 87 Alternatives DeMaagd 1998 1998-474.ASM SR 87 S. of Winslow MP 330.4-340.8 Spaulding 1998 2000-150.ASM SR 99 Courtright 2000 2001-446.ASM Winslow Cell Kober 2001 2003-331.ASM Holbrook Maintenance District: I-40 Addendum Lonardo 2002 2003-322.ASM SR 87 Breen 2002 2003-321.ASM I-40: Holbrook Maintenance District Lonardo et al. 2003 2003-323.ASM Business 40: Holbrook Maintenance District Webb 2002 2003-513.ASM Little Colorado River Bridge Unknown 2004-162.ASM I-40, North Park TI Strohmayer 2004 2004-741.ASM Winslow Crossing Survey Purcell 2004 SHPO-2002-904 American Tower Corporation Site Number FS024, " Felkins" Unknown SHPO-20003043 American Tower Corporation Site Number FS024, " Felkins" Unknown SHPO-20011847 SpectraSite Communications, Inc. New Lattice Tower Wireless Telecommunications - WINSLOW Unknown City of Winslow North-South Transportation Plan A-6 Table A.2 Archaeological Sites within the Study Area Site Number Description NRHP Eligibility Reference Potential 4(f) Property? Yes (Criterion) AZ I:15:156(ASM) Historic Route 66 Eligible (A, C, D) Jacobs 2002 AZ J:13:5(ASM) Prehistoric ceramic scatter Unknown AZSITE AZ J:13:21(ASM) Prehistoric and historic artifact scatter Requires testing Jacobs 2002 AZ J:13:22(ASM) Historic foundation and artifact scatter Requires testing Jacobs 2002 AZ J:13:23(ASM) Prehistoric artifact scatter Eligible Jacobs 2002 AZ J:13:26(ASM) Historic structure and foundation Not eligible Lonardo 2002 Lonardo 2003 AZ J:14:8(ASM) Prehistoric lithic scatter Unknown AZSITE AZ J:14:16(ASM) Lithic quarry of unknown temporal affiliation Unknown AZSITE AZ J:14:17(ASM) Ballinger’s Camp/Brigham City Listed (A, D) NR Yes AZ J:14:18(ASM)/ Sunset Crossing Site Rocky ledge used to cross Little CO River in 19th century Listed AR Yes AZ J:14:340(ASM) Historic house foundation and associated trash Unknown AZSITE AZ J:14:341(ASM) Prehistoric lithic scatter Unknown AZSITE AZ J:14:344(ASM) Historic trash scatter Eligible DeMaagd 1998 AZ J:14:345(ASM) Historic land fill Eligible DeMaagd 1998 AZ J:14:346(ASM) Historic trash scatter Eligible DeMaagd 1998 AZ J:14:349(ASM) Prehistoric artifact scatter Eligible DeMaagd 1998 AZ J:14:350(ASM) Prehistoric lithic quarry and historic landfill Eligible DeMaagd 1998 AZ J:14:355(ASM) Prehistoric and historic artifact scatter Eligible DeMaagd 1998 AZ J:14:356(ASM) Fire pit of unknown temporal affiliation Unknown DeMaagd 1998 AZ P:2:42(ASM) Prehistoric feature; historic feature and artifact scatter Unknown AZSITE City of Winslow North-South Transportation Plan A-7 Table A.2 Archaeological Sites within the Study Area Site Number Description NRHP Eligibility Reference Potential 4(f) Property? (Criterion) AZ P:2:43(ASM) Prehistoric artifact scatter Unknown AZSITE AZ P:2:44(ASM) Prehistoric artifact scatter and petroglyph Unknown AZSITE AZ P:2:45(ASM) Prehistoric and historic artifact scatter and feature Unknown AZSITE AZ P:2:46(ASM) Prehistoric lithic scatter Unknown AZSITE AZ P:2:63(ASM) Prehistoric and historic artifact scatter Eligible DeMaagd 1998 AZ P:2:64(ASM) Historic trash scatter Eligible DeMaagd 1998 AZ AA:6:63(ASM) Historic State Route 87 Eligible (D) Jacobs 2009 Source: AZSITE, January 2011. City of Winslow North-South Transportation Plan A-8 Table A.3 Bridges in Study Area ADOT Structure Number Name Year Built Route Milepost Eligibility (Criterion) 1317 Leupp TI UP SR 999 1969 I-40 245.39 Not eligible 5963 RCB EB & WB 1948 I-40 246.95 Not eligible 336 Tucker Flat Bridge EB 1949 I-40 248.99 Not eligible 1318 Tucker Flat Bridge WB 1969 I-40 248.99 Not eligible 6717 RCB 1974 I-40 251.46 Not eligible 1650 West Winslow TI UP 1974 I-40 252.12 Not eligible 1810 Cemetery Wash Bridge WB 1980 I-40 253.07 Not eligible 1809 Cemetery Wash Bridge EB 1980 I-40 253.07 Not eligible 6691 RCB EB & WB 1979 I-40 253.27 Not eligible 1651 North Park TI OP EB 1979 I-40 253.62 Not eligible 1652 North Park TI OP WB 1974 I-40 253.62 Not eligible 6692 Channel A RCB 1979 I-40 253.8 Not eligible 1781 Ruby Wash Bridge EB 1979 I-40 254.64 Not eligible 1782 Ruby Wash Bridge WB 1979 I-40 254.64 Not eligible 1777 Maple Street OP EB 1979 I-40 255.1 Not eligible 1778 Maple Street OP WB 1979 I-40 255.1 Not eligible 6693 RCB EB & WB 1979 I-40 255.37 Not eligible 1779 East Winslow OP TI EB 1979 I-40 255.75 Not eligible 1780 East Winslow OP TI WB 1979 I-40 255.75 Not eligible 6694 RCB 1979 I-40 256.21 Not eligible 1596 Little Colorado River Bridge EB 1972 I-40 256.95 Not eligible 1597 Little Colorado River Bridge WB 1972 I-40 256.95 Not eligible 4254 Icehouse Wash Culvert EB 1934 I-40B 253.31 Not eligible City of Winslow North-South Transportation Plan A-9 Table A.3 Bridges in Study Area ADOT Structure Number Name Year Built Route Milepost Eligibility (Criterion) 4255 Icehouse Wash Culvert WB 1953 I-40B 253.31 Not eligible 4256 Ruby Wash Culvert EB 1932 I-40B 254.28 Not eligible 4257 Ruby Wash Culvert WB 1953 I-40B 254.28 Not eligible 4258 Culvert 1939 I-40B 255.19 Not eligible 275 Ruby Channel Bridge 1944 SR 87 341.82 Eligible (C) 4677 Icehouse Channel Culvert 1944 SR 87 341.91 Not eligible 194 Winslow Underpass 1936 SR 87 342.1 Listed (A, C) 4260 Culvert NB 1954 SR 87 344.14 Not eligible 4261 Culvert SB 1954 SR 87 344.14 Not eligible 4263 Culvert 1954 SR 87 344.32 Not eligible 4262 Culvert 1939 SR 87 344.32 Not eligible 229 Winslow Bridge 1939 SR 87 344.95 Listed (A, C) 1038 Clear Creek Arch Bridge 1951 SR 99 38.19 Eligible (C) 1036 Jacks Canyon Bridge 1949 SR 99 38.9 Not eligible 8489 West Mahoney Street RCB 1900 N/A N/A Unknown 9495 Hillview Street RCB 1965 N/A N/A Not eligible 9496 Fleming Street-Timber Bridge 1930 N/A N/A Unknown 9498 Aspinwall Street RCB 1977 N/A N/A Not eligible 9899 Channel A Bridge 1981 N/A N/A Not eligible 9900 Ruby Drain Bridge 1979 N/A N/A Not eligible 9903 Maple Street RCB 1987 N/A N/A Not eligible Source: AZSITE, January 2011. Notes: OP – overpass; EB – eastbound; WB – westbound; UP – underpass; TI – traffic interchange; RCB – reinforced concrete box. City of Winslow North-South Transportation Plan A-10 Table A.4 Historic Buildings within the Study Area Property Number Description Location Potential 4(f) Property? MPAEXP-3154 Brick building (1916-1927) 209 Williamson Avenue (WCHD) Yes MPAEXP-3155 La Prade Building/Winslow Hotel (1898) 122 E. 2nd Street (WCHD) Yes MPAEXP-3156 Campbell & Hubbard Building (1911) 114 E. 2nd Street (WCHD) Yes MPAEXP-3157 Dye, T. E., Building/Post Office (1910) 108 E. 2nd Street (WCHD) Yes MPAEXP-3158 Dye, T. E., Building #2 (1912) 106 E. 2nd Street (WCHD) Yes MPAEXP-3159 Elks Building (1912) 100-104 E. 2nd Street (WCHD) Yes MPAEXP-3162 Woods, Charles, Building (1898) 100 W. 2nd Street (WCHD) Yes MPAEXP-3163 Penney, J. C., Building (1916-1927) 102-106 W. 2nd Street (WCHD) Yes MPAEXP-3164 Winslow Post Office (1935) 219 Williamson Avenue (WCHD) Yes MPAEXP-3166 Navajo County Bank Building (1904) 128 Kinsley Avenue/103 W. 2nd Street (WCHD) Yes MPAEXP-3167 Rialto Theater (1920-1927) 115 Kinsley Avenue (WCHD) Yes MPAEXP-3171 Bruchman Indian Trading Post (1923) 113 W. 2nd Street (WCHD) Yes MPAEXP-3172 Hunter Garage/Old Trails Garage (1914) 118 E. 2nd Street (WCHD) Yes MPAEXP-3173 F. T. La Prade Building #2 (1912) 116 E. 2nd Street (WCHD) Yes MPAEXP-3174 Lathrop Opera House (1912)a 110-112 E. 2nd Street (WCHD) Yes MPAEXP-3176 J. B. Drumm Building (1912) 110 W. 2nd Street (WCHD) Yes MPAEXP-3177 Breed Building Addition (1898) 109 Kinsley Avenue (WCHD) Yes MPAEXP-3181 Charles Stegmier House (1901-1910) 100 E. Aspinwall Street (WRHD) Yes MPAEXP-3182 Wood building (1901-1910) 508 Kinsley Avenue (WRHD) Yes MPAEXP-3183 W. A. Parr Rental Cottage (1898) 514 Kinsley Avenue (WRHD) Yes MPAEXP-3184 W. A. Parr Rental Cottage (1898) 518 Kinsley Avenue (WRHD) Yes MPAEXP-3185 J. X. Woods/Friend House (19011910) 521 Kinsley Avenue (WRHD) Yes MPAEXP-3186 Brick building (1892-1901) 519 Kinsley Avenue (WRHD) Yes City of Winslow North-South Transportation Plan A-11 Table A.4 Historic Buildings within the Study Area Property Number Description Location Potential 4(f) Property? MPAEXP-3187 Brick building (1901-1910) 517 Kinsley Avenue (WRHD) Yes MPAEXP-3188 Brick building (1901-1910) 513 Kinsley Avenue (WRHD) Yes MPAEXP-3189 Norman William House (1897) 509 Kinsley Avenue (WRHD) Yes MPAEXP-3190 Frank Newton House (1897) 505 Kinsley Avenue (WRHD) Yes MPAEXP-3191 U.Z. Rand/Dr. Sprankle House (1897) 501 Kinsley Avenue (WRHD) Yes MPAEXP-3192 W. A. Parr Rental Cottage (1898) 522 Kinsley Avenue (WRHD) Yes MPAEXP-7204 La Posada Hotel (1930) 200 E. 2nd Street (LPHD) Yes MPAEXP-7205 Winslow Train Depot (1930) 200 E. 2nd Street (LPHD) Yes MPAEXP-7206 Barn Storage Building 200 E. 2nd Street (LPHD) Yes MPAEXP-7207 Site wall and associated features 200 E. 2nd Street (LPHD) Yes MPAEXP-7208 Site landscaping (1930) 200 E. 2nd Street (LPHD) Yes MPAEXP-7209 Microwave antenna tower 200 E. 2nd Street (LPHD) Yes Source: AZSITE, January 2011. City of Winslow North-South Transportation Plan A-12 Table A.5 National Register Listed Properties in Winslow Property Name Description Criterion Potential 4(f) Property? Ballinger’s Camp/Brigham City Founded 1876 by Latter Day Saints; 3 miles north of Winslow on Little CO River A Yes La Posada Historic District Built 1930, Architect: Mary Jane Colter; 200 E. 2nd St A, C Yes Winslow Bridge Built 1939, steel cantilever plate deck girder A, C Yes Winslow Commercial Historic District Bounded by 3rd St, Williamson Ave., 1st St, and Warren Ave.; increased to 112 Kingsley Ave A, C Yes Winslow Residential Historic District Along Kinsley Avenue from Oak to Aspinwall A, C Yes Winslow Underpass Located at AT&SF RR and SR 87 intersection A, C Yes Source: AZSITE, January 2011. City of Winslow North-South Transportation Plan A-13 Flood Hazard The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) provides flood hazard information. The information presented is intended to identify potential floodplain and drainage issues associated with the identification and development of alternatives to improve north-south access across the BNSF railroad. FEMA identifies floodplains depending on the varying level of flood risk. Within the 100-year floodplain, there is a 1 percent annual chance of flooding. Within the 500-year floodplain there is a 0.2 percent annual chance of flooding. Figure A.2 shows that much of downtown Winslow north of the BNSF tracks is within FEMA’s 100-year floodplain. South of the railroad, the FEMA data shows that Coopertown and the Winslow-Lindbergh Regional Airport are within the 500-year floodplain. City of Winslow North-South Transportation Plan A-14 ET SEE IN S 12 13 14 15 16 7 8 9 10 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 N 0 17 8 9 ( ( ( ! !! 10 11 Railroad City boundary 16 Cher ry Av enue Map le St reet 7 ! ( ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ! ( North Road 2 F Ra ilroa d Figure A.2 | Floodplain BNS 5 14 A-15 December 30, 2011 | HDR Source: HDR (2011), City of Winslow (2011), Coconino County (2011) 3 15 Oak Road Sunset Road CITY OF WINSLOW NORTH-SOUTH TRANSPORTATION STUDY Transcon Lane Truck Access Study Hipkoe Drive Traffic Interchange Traffic Operations Study Miles Traffic interchange with railroad crossing 1 Possible flood hazard 0.5 Route 66 Corridor Study/Access Study 0.25 Planned roadway improvements 0 Airport Access Road 500-year floodplain N SR 87 Winslow to Payson New West Winslow TI TI west of Winslow Coopertown connection to new West Winslow TI South Winslow connection Leupp TI improvement railroad overpass Leupp TI to Winslow fronatage access roadroad alignment Leupp TI to southern Winslow Leupp TI Winslow southern alignment 1 13 Hillview Street Fleming Street 4 Desmond Street Mikes Pike East End Railroad Crossing Study 22 20 21 22 23 23 17 18 19 (cont from left) d ( ! n Roa rtow Coop e !! ( ( 6 12 New corridor 0.5 Miles 23 21 20 Mercury Lane BVD Road W Ind est W u str insl ial ow Sp ur ID Improvement Description 19 18 Hipkoe Drive 100-year floodplain 0.25 23 22 Leupp Traffic Interchange Coopertown Bypass-West Winslow Industrial Spur Transcon Lane-Oak Road connection East End Railroad Crossing Study Route 66 Corridor Study/Access Study Transcon Lane Truck Access Study Hipkoe Drive Traffic Interchange (TI) Traffic Operations Study Bales Avenue connection Airport Road realignment North Park Drive/Berry Avenue improvements Williamson Avenue (SR 87) underpass Hillview Street from North Park Drive to Williamson Avenue Improvements at Hipkoe Drive and I-40 Route 66 access management Transon Lane improvements Transon Lane overpass Williamson Avenue (SR 87) underpass (cont below right) ID Improvement Description ANGE North Park Drive y Av enue Berr Aven ue son Willia m ERCH Aven ue Cott onw ood P INT Tran scon Lane LEUP Bales Avenue Biological Resources The study area is located in a transition between the Plains and Great Basin Grassland (Grassland) and Great Basin Desert Scrub (Desert Scrub) biotic communities. The Grassland community typically occurs in open country from 5,000 to 7,000 feet above mean sea level (amsl) and is dominated by mixed or short-grass vegetation. Heavy grazing has altered much of this biotic community. Typical grasses include, but are not limited to, gramas (Bouteloua spp.), buffalo grass (Buchloe dactyloides), and Indian rice grass (Oryzopsis hymenoides). Shrubs may include four-wing saltbush (Atriplex canescens) or sagebrush (Artemisia spp.), among others. The Desert Scrub community typically occurs at elevations between 4,000 and 6,000 feet amsl and is dominated by cold-adapted sagebrush, saltbush, and winterfat (Ceratoides lanata). Characteristic warm weather species include rabbitbrush (Chrysothamnus spp.) and hopsage (Grayia spinosa). Cacti (Opuntia spp.), including prickly pear and cholla, are characteristic but tend to be of short stature and are sparse within this community (Brown, 1994). Figure A.3 shows the biotic communities in the study area. Cottonwood-Willow Communities This is a riparian community associated with the Little Colorado River. Mature Fremont cottonwood (Populus fremontii) and Gooding willow (Salix gooddingii) are the dominant species. Other aquatic species such as, but not limited to, cattail (Typha spp.) and seep willow (Baccharis salicfolia) may also be present. Pinyon-Juniper Communities The pinyon-juniper communities are typified by moderate density of pinyon pine (Pinus edulis) and oneseed juniper (Juniperus monosperma) that encroached into the Grassland and Desertscrub communities of the study area as a result of human development and livestock grazing in the last century. The pinyonjuniper community here appears among sloped, exposed rocky land. Sacaton Grass Communities The sacaton grass community is commonly associated with riparian areas; it is dominated by the deeprooted sacaton grass (Sporobolus wrightii). Within the study area, this community is located adjacent to the cottonwood-willow community associated with the Little Colorado River. Shrub-Grass Disclimax Communities A stable, shrub-grass community is a result of livestock overgrazing that reached a disturbance climax, or disclimax. It consists of moderately dense under stories of rabbitbrush and sagebrush, but may also include four-wing saltbush and grasses such as gramas. Prickly pear and cholla are common cacti species in a grassland and desert scrub disclimax. City of Winslow North-South Transportation Plan A-16 ET SEE IN S 12 13 14 15 16 7 8 9 10 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 N 0 17 8 9 ( ( ( ! !! 10 11 ( ! Railroad City boundary 16 Cher ry Av enue Map le St reet 7 ! ( ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ! ( North Road 2 BNS F Ra ilroa d 5 14 A-17 December 30, 2011 | HDR Source: ALRIS (2009), HDR (2011) Figure A.3 | Biotic Communities 3 15 Oak Road Sunset Road CITY OF WINSLOW NORTH-SOUTH TRANSPORTATION STUDY Transcon Lane Truck Access Study Hipkoe Drive Traffic Interchange Traffic Operations Study Miles Traffic interchange with railroad crossing 1 Shrub-Grass Disclimax 0.5 Route 66 Corridor Study/Access Study 0.25 Planned roadway improvements 0 Airport Access Road Sacaton Grass N SR 87 Winslow to Payson New West Winslow TI TI west of Winslow Coopertown connection to new West Winslow TI South Winslow connection Leupp TI improvement railroad overpass Leupp TI to Winslow fronatage access roadroad alignment Leupp TI to southern Winslow Leupp TI Winslow southern alignment 1 13 Hillview Street Fleming Street 4 Desmond Street Mikes Pike East End Railroad Crossing Study 22 20 21 22 23 23 17 18 19 (cont from left) d ( ! n Roa rtow Coop e !! ( ( 6 12 New corridor 0.5 Miles 23 21 20 Mercury Lane BVD Road W Ind est W u str insl ial ow Sp ur ID Improvement Description 19 18 Hipkoe Drive Cottonwood-Willow 0.25 23 22 Leupp Traffic Interchange Coopertown Bypass-West Winslow Industrial Spur Transcon Lane-Oak Road connection East End Railroad Crossing Study Route 66 Corridor Study/Access Study Transcon Lane Truck Access Study Hipkoe Drive Traffic Interchange (TI) Traffic Operations Study Bales Avenue connection Airport Road realignment North Park Drive/Berry Avenue improvements Williamson Avenue (SR 87) underpass Hillview Street from North Park Drive to Williamson Avenue Improvements at Hipkoe Drive and I-40 Route 66 access management Transon Lane improvements Transon Lane overpass Williamson Avenue (SR 87) underpass (cont below right) ID Improvement Description ANGE North Park Drive y Av enue Berr Aven ue son Willia m ERCH Aven ue Cott onw ood P INT Tran scon Lane LEUP Bales Avenue The Arizona Game and Fish Department’s On-Line Environmental Review Tool identified seven special status species in the project vicinity. Shown in Table A.6, additional study together with coordination with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the U.S. Forest Service (USFS), the BLM and the State will be required to determine the affect of planned transportation improvements on these species and their habitat. Table A.6 Special status species occurrences/critical habitat/tribal lands within five miles of project vicinity Name Common Name USFWS Aquila chrysaetos Golden Eagle BGA Astragalus xiphoides Gladiator Milk Vetch SC Athene cunicularia hypugaea Western Burrowing Owl SC S S Catostomus sp. 3 Little Colorado Sucker SC S S WSC Errazurizia rotundata Roundleaf Errazurizia S SR Gymnogyps californianus 10J area for California condor Haliaeetus leucocephalus (wintering pop.) Bald Eagle - Winter Population S WSC SC, BGA USFS BLM State SR S Source: Arizona Game and Fish Department, 2011. Notes: BGA – Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act: Prohibits take of bald and golden eagles without prior USFWS permit. SC – Species of Concern: The terms "Species of Concern" or "Species at Risk" should be considered as terms-of-art that describe the entire realm of taxa whose conservation status may be of concern to the US Fish and Wildlife Service, but neither term has official status (currently all former C2 species). S – Sensitive: those taxa occurring on BLM Field Office Lands in Arizona which are considered sensitive by the Arizona State Office. SR - Salvage Restricted: collection only with permit. WSC - Wildlife of Special Concern in Arizona. Species whose occurrence in Arizona is or may be in jeopardy, or with known or perceived threats or population declines, as described by the Arizona Game and Fish Department's listing of Wildlife of Special Concern in Arizona (WSCA, in prep). Species indicated on printouts as WSC are currently the same as those in Threatened Native Wildlife in Arizona (1988). City of Winslow North-South Transportation Plan A-18 Contamination/Hazardous Materials The location of hazardous materials sites is another important factor in evaluating transportation improvement alternatives. Figure A.4 shows the location of underground storage tanks, leaking underground storage tanks, and brownfield grant sites within the City of Winslow study area that have been identified by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ). City of Winslow North-South Transportation Plan A-19 ET SEE IN S 12 13 14 15 16 7 8 9 10 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 N 0.25 Leaking underground storage tanks (active) 0 23 22 0.5 Miles 1 Miles 9 ( ( ( ! !! 16 Railroad City boundary 10 11 Cher ry Av enue Map le St reet 7 ( ! 3 15 Oak Road 2 BNS F Ra ilroa d 5 14 A-20 December 30, 2011 | HDR Source: HDR (2011), ASLD (2010) Figure A.4 | Active Leaking Underground Storage Tanks ! ( ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ! ( North Road Sunset Road CITY OF WINSLOW NORTH-SOUTH TRANSPORTATION STUDY Transcon Lane Truck Access Study Hipkoe Drive Traffic Interchange Traffic Operations Study 0.5 Traffic interchange with railroad crossing 0.25 17 8 13 Hillview Street Fleming Street 4 Desmond Street Mikes Pike Airport Access Road Route 66 Corridor Study/Access Study 0 SR 87 Winslow to Payson New West Winslow TI TI west of Winslow Coopertown connection to new West Winslow TI South Winslow connection Leupp TI improvement railroad overpass Leupp TI to Winslow fronatage access roadroad alignment Leupp TI to southern Winslow Leupp TI Winslow southern alignment 1 Planned roadway improvements N 20 21 22 23 23 17 18 19 (cont from left) d ( ! n Roa rtow Coop e !! ( ( 6 12 East End Railroad Crossing Study 22 20 Mercury Lane BVD Road W Ind est W u str insl ial ow Sp ur ID Improvement Description 19 18 Hipkoe Drive New corridor 23 21 Leupp Traffic Interchange Coopertown Bypass-West Winslow Industrial Spur Transcon Lane-Oak Road connection East End Railroad Crossing Study Route 66 Corridor Study/Access Study Transcon Lane Truck Access Study Hipkoe Drive Traffic Interchange (TI) Traffic Operations Study Bales Avenue connection Airport Road realignment North Park Drive/Berry Avenue improvements Williamson Avenue (SR 87) underpass Hillview Street from North Park Drive to Williamson Avenue Improvements at Hipkoe Drive and I-40 Route 66 access management Transon Lane improvements Transon Lane overpass Williamson Avenue (SR 87) underpass (cont below right) ID Improvement Description ANGE North Park Drive y Av enue Berr Aven ue son Willia m ERCH Aven ue Cott onw ood P INT Tran scon Lane LEUP Bales Avenue Environmental Scan Evaluation Matrix None of the potential north-south BNSF railroad crossings appear to have environmental fatal flaws. Two of the potential crossings are located in flood zones and the Williamson Avenue underpass could potentially affect historic route 66 along with nearby historic properties. Table A.7 below ranks the environmental conditions for each of the five recommended railroad crossings. Table A.7 Ranking of Environmental Conditions Environmental Scan Coopertown Bypass – West Winslow Industrial Spur Transcon Lane Overpass Williamson Avenue Underpass West Winslow TI Leupp TI Cultural Resources Flood Hazards Biotic Communities Contamination/ Hazardous Materials Excellent Good City of Winslow North-South Transportation Plan Moderate/Neutral Fair Poor A-21 Appendix B: Improvement Cost Estimates Road Improvement Cost Estimates Priority Near-Term Item Description Unit Cost Comments - Source for Cost 1 CooperTown Bypass - West Winslow Industrial Spur Reconstruct the existing road and new 2 Lane CopperTown Bypass 5.57 miles $8,500,000 City of Winslow 2 Transcon Lane - Oak Road Connection New 2 Lane Roadway 0.4 miles $1,100,000 @$1.1M per lane mile (HDR SRPMIC LRTP Estimate), 25% constingency added 3 East End Railroad Crossing Study Design Concept Study Lump Sum $200,000 Speedway UPRR underpass Study, 50% contingency added 4 Route 66 Corridor Study/ Access Study Access Management plan for Route 66 within City limits Lump Sum $45,000 Route 66, 4.6 miles roadway, 1 traffic signal, 6,100 ADT. Cost Source: City of Tucson Downtown Links Access Study/Sedona Route Transfer Study, $35,000 per study with 25% constingency added 5 Transcon Lane Truck Access study Evaluation of road geometry to improve truck operations Lump Sum $35,000 Speedway UPRR Uunderpass Study,25% contingency added Hipkoe TI - 2,500 ADT. Cost Source: City of Tucson Downtown Links Access Study/Sedona Route Transfer Study, $35,000 per study with 25% constingency added 6 Hipkoe Drive Interchange Traffic Operations Study Evaluation of traffic operations at Hipkoe Drive and I-40 Lump Sum $45,000 7 Transcon Lane Improvements Implement recommendations of Transcon Lane Truck Access Study 2,000 feet $1.5 million 8 Bales Avenue Connection New 2 Lane Roadway 425 feet $240,000 @$1.1M per lane mile (HDR SRPMIC Estimate LRTP), 35% constingency added 9 Airport Road Realignment New 2 Lane Roadway 2500 feet $830,000 airport master plan cost - $746,325, 10% contingency added City of Winslow, NACOG TIP Mid-Term City of Winslow North-South Transportation Plan B-1 Road Improvement Cost Estimates Priority Mid-Term 10 Item North Park Drive/Berry Avenue Improvements Description Safety and operations improvements Unit Lump Sum Cost $90,000 Comments - Source for Cost North Park Drive/Berry Avenue 1.1 mile roadway, 1 traffic signal, 6,100 ADT. Cost Source: City of Tucson Downtown Links Access Study/Sedona Route Transfer Study, $50,000 for study and traffic control improvement $20,000 with 20% constingency added Williamson Avenue 1 mile roadway, 2 traffic signals, 4,000 ADT. Cost Source: City of Tucson Downtown Links Access Study/Sedona Route Transfer Study, $50,000 for study and traffic control improvement $20,000 with 20% constingency added Hillview Street from North Park Drive to Williamson Avenue 0.35 mile roadway, 1,100 ADT. Cost Source: City of Tucson Downtown Links Access Study/Sedona Route Transfer Study, $50,000 for study and traffic control improvement $20,000 with 20% constingency added 11 Williamson Avenue Improvements Safety and operations improvements Lump Sum $90,000 12 Hillview Street from North Park Drive to Williamson Avenue Safety and operations improvements Lump Sum $90,000 13 Implement recommendations of Improvements at Hipkoe Drive and Hipkoe Drive Traffic Interchange I-40 Traffic Operations Study na na costs contingent upon the findings of the study 14 Route 66 Access Management Implement recommendations of Route 66 Corridor Study/Access Plan na na costs contingent upon the findings of the study City of Winslow North-South Transportation Plan B-2 Non-Motorized Priority Near-Term Item Description Unit Cost Comments - Source for Cost City neighborhood walkways and streets Sidewalk, curb, gutter, and ADA ramp improvements in four neighborhoods -- $1,700,000 City of Winslow CIP, FY 2011-2015 2 Citywide walkways and streets Sidewalk, curb, gutter, and ADA ramp improvements throughout the City -- $340,000 City of Winslow CIP, FY 2011-2015 3 Mike's Pike East - North Park Drive Walkways, streetscape, lighting to Ice House Wash and drainage improvements -- $450,000 City of Winslow CIP, FY 2011-2015 4 First Street - Hubbell to City Hall -- $300,000 City of Winslow CIP, FY 2011-2015 5 Implement trail identified in Coopertown Road - West Winslow General Plan concurrent with Industrial Spur Trail Coopertown Road improvement 5.57 miles $420,000 Source: San Xavier District Pedestrian Access and Safety Study. 8' trail, 10% contingency, $67000 per mile includes trail, drainage, amenities, crosswalks 900 feet $3,570,000 1 Complete sidewalk, lighting, and streetscape between Renaissance 1 and 2 Mid-Term 6 7 West End Pedestrian Bridge New pedestrian bridge over BNSF tracks at Kell Place Airport Road Trail Implement historic and heritage destination trail identified in General Plan concurrent with Airport Road realignment City of Winslow North-South Transportation Plan 1.45 miles $110,000 Source: San Xavier Pedestrian Bridge estimate. $275 per sq ft, 20% contingency Source: San Xavier District Pedestrian Access and Safety Study. 8' trail, 10% contingency, $67000 per mile includes trail, drainage, amenities, crosswalks B-3