Southern Navajo/Apache County Sub-Regional Transportation Plan Final Report Prepared for: Navajo County 100 East Carter Drive Holbrook, AZ 86025 Apache County P.O. Box 238 St. Johns, AZ 85936 Town of Pinetop-Lakeside 1360 N. Niels Hansen Lane Lakeside, AZ 85929 City of Show Low 550 N. 9th Place Show Low, AZ 85901 Town of Snowflake 81 West 1st South Snowflake, AZ 85937 Town of Taylor P.O. Box 158 Taylor, AZ 85939 Prepared by: 410 North 44th Street, Suite 480 Phoenix, AZ 85008 (Project Numbers: 06-100-10400; 06-100-10800) September 2007 Southern Navajo/Apache County Sub-Regional Transportation Plan Table of Contents Section 1.0 Page INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................................1-1 1.1 STUDY CONTEXT ...................................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 STUDY AREA OVERVIEW ........................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.3 COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT ....................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.4 STUDY GOALS AND OBJECTIVES................................................................................................................ 1-4 1.5 REPORT ORGANIZATION............................................................................................................................ 1-4 2.0 METHODOLOGIES AND STANDARDS.......................................................................................2-1 2.1 LEVEL OF SERVICE CONCEPT .................................................................................................................... 2-1 2.2 FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION ................................................................................................................... 2-1 2.3 LEVEL OF SERVICE THRESHOLDS .............................................................................................................. 2-2 3.0 CURRENT CONDITIONS..............................................................................................................3-1 3.1 CURRENT SOCIOECONOMIC CONDITIONS.................................................................................................... 3-1 3.1.1 3.1.2 3.1.3 2006 POPULATION AND DWELLING UNIT ESTIMATE ..................................................................................................3-1 YEAR 2006 EMPLOYMENT ESTIMATE ......................................................................................................................3-1 SCHOOL ENROLLMENT ...........................................................................................................................................3-3 3.2 EXISTING ROADWAY NETWORK ................................................................................................................. 3-3 3.3 ROADWAY CHARACTERISTICS ................................................................................................................... 3-5 3.3.1 3.3.2 3.3.3 3.3.4 3.4 4.0 JURISDICTIONAL RESPONSIBILITY............................................................................................................................3-5 ROADWAY FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION .................................................................................................................3-5 NUMBER OF LANES ................................................................................................................................................3-6 TRAFFIC COUNTS...................................................................................................................................................3-6 MULTI-MODAL TRANSPORTATION............................................................................................................... 3-6 TRAVEL DEMAND MODEL DEVELOPMENT..............................................................................4-1 4.1 MODEL CONSTRAINTS ............................................................................................................................... 4-1 4.2 MODEL DEVELOPMENT PROCESS .............................................................................................................. 4-1 4.3 MODEL CALIBRATION AND VALIDATION ...................................................................................................... 4-2 4.4 TRIP GENERATION .................................................................................................................................... 4-2 4.5 EXTERNAL TRIPS ...................................................................................................................................... 4-4 5.0 SOCIOECONOMIC PROJECTIONS.............................................................................................5-1 5.1 PREVIOUS PLANS AND STUDIES................................................................................................................. 5-1 5.2 PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS AND LAND OWNERSHIP PATTERNS .................................................................... 5-1 5.3 POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT PROJECTIONS .......................................................................................... 5-3 5.4 POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT ALLOCATION ............................................................................................ 5-3 6.0 ANALYSIS OF IMPROVEMENT ALTERNATIVES.......................................................................6-1 6.1 6.1.1 6.1.2 BASIS FOR DEFINING IMPROVEMENT ALTERNATIVES................................................................................... 6-1 ROADWAY CROSS-SECTIONS .................................................................................................................................6-1 ROADWAY LEVEL OF SERVICE ................................................................................................................................6-1 SEPTEMBER 2007 i FINAL REPORT Southern Navajo/Apache County Sub-Regional Transportation Plan 6.1.3 6.1.4 6.2 COMMITTED AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ..............................................................................................................6-1 EXTERNAL TRAFFIC FORECASTS .............................................................................................................................6-2 EXISTING-PLUS-COMMITTED ROADWAY NETWORK ..................................................................................... 6-2 6.2.1 6.2.2 6.3 CUT-LINE ANALYSIS PROCESS................................................................................................................................6-5 CUT-LINE ANALYSIS RESULTS ................................................................................................................................6-5 COMMITTED-PLUS-PLANNED ROADWAY NETWORK .................................................................................... 6-5 6.3.1 PLANNED ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS ......................................................................................................................6-7 Arizona Department of Transportation ...........................................................................................................................6-7 Navajo County..............................................................................................................................................................6-11 Apache County.............................................................................................................................................................6-11 Town of Pinetop-Lakeside............................................................................................................................................6-11 City of Show Low .........................................................................................................................................................6-12 Town of Taylor .............................................................................................................................................................6-12 Town of Snowflake.......................................................................................................................................................6-12 6.3.2 COMMITTED-PLUS-PLANNED CUT-LINE ANALYSIS ..................................................................................................6-13 6.4 IMPROVEMENT ALTERNATIVE 'A' .............................................................................................................. 6-13 6.4.1 6.4.2 6.5 PROPOSED CAPACITY ENHANCING IMPROVEMENTS ...............................................................................................6-13 ALTERNATIVE 'A' CUT-LINE ANALYSIS ...................................................................................................................6-17 ALTERNATIVE 'A' 2015 PHASED CAPACITY IMPROVEMENTS ...................................................................... 6-20 6.5.1 2015 IMPROVEMENTS ..........................................................................................................................................6-20 Arizona Department of Transportation .........................................................................................................................6-20 Navajo County..............................................................................................................................................................6-20 Apache County.............................................................................................................................................................6-23 Town of Pinetop-Lakeside............................................................................................................................................6-23 City of Show Low .........................................................................................................................................................6-23 Town of Taylor .............................................................................................................................................................6-23 Town of Snowflake.......................................................................................................................................................6-23 6.5.2 YEAR 2015 PHASED IMPROVEMENTS CUT-LINE ANALYSIS .....................................................................................6-23 6.6 INTERSECTION ANALYSIS ........................................................................................................................ 6-25 6.6.1 ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY ....................................................................................................................................6-25 6.6.2 INTERSECTION ANALYSIS RESULTS .......................................................................................................................6-27 Year 2015 Intersection Analyses .................................................................................................................................6-27 Year 2030 Intersection Analysis...................................................................................................................................6-27 7.0 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN............................................................................................................7-1 7.1 FUTURE ROADWAY FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION PLAN ............................................................................. 7-1 7.2 YEAR 2030 ROADWAY IMPROVEMENT PLAN............................................................................................... 7-3 7.3 IMPROVEMENT PLAN COST ESTIMATES ...................................................................................................... 7-3 7.4 TRANSPORTATION REVENUE OUTLOOK ..................................................................................................... 7-3 7.5 IMPLEMENTATION ACTION ITEMS ............................................................................................................... 7-7 7.5.1 7.5.2 7.5.3 7.5.4 7.5.5 7.5.6 STAKEHOLDER COORDINATION ............................................................................................................................... 7-7 CORRIDOR STUDIES ...............................................................................................................................................7-7 ROADWAY SAFETY REVIEW ....................................................................................................................................7-8 TRAFFIC DATA COLLECTION ...................................................................................................................................7-8 HOUSEHOLD TRAVEL SURVEY ................................................................................................................................7-8 MONITOR AND UPDATE TRAVEL DEMAND MODEL AND TRANSPORTATION PLAN .........................................................7-8 SEPTEMBER 2007 ii FINAL REPORT Southern Navajo/Apache County Sub-Regional Transportation Plan 8.0 POLICIES AND GUIDELINES ......................................................................................................8-1 8.1 ROADWAY FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION ................................................................................................... 8-1 8.2 ROADWAY CROSS-SECTIONS .................................................................................................................... 8-1 8.2.1 PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL..............................................................................................................................................8-1 Cross-Section Design ....................................................................................................................................................8-1 Access Management......................................................................................................................................................8-3 8.2.2 MINOR ARTERIAL ...................................................................................................................................................8-3 Cross-Section Design ....................................................................................................................................................8-3 Access Management......................................................................................................................................................8-3 8.2.3 MAJOR COLLECTOR ...............................................................................................................................................8-3 Cross-Section Design ....................................................................................................................................................8-3 Access Management......................................................................................................................................................8-3 8.2.4 MINOR COLLECTOR................................................................................................................................................8-3 Cross-Section Design ....................................................................................................................................................8-3 Access Management......................................................................................................................................................8-3 8.3 INTERSECTION FLARE ............................................................................................................................... 8-4 Appendix A: Appendix B: Appendix C: Appendix D: Appendix E: Appendix F: Appendix G: Appendix H: Appendix I: Florida Department of Transportation 2002 Quality/Level of Service Manual Tables Year 2006 Population and Employment Estimates by Community Year 2006 Traffic Count Data by Community Model Validation Summary Community Population and Employment Projections by Traffic Analysis Zone: 2015 & 2030 Committed-Plus-Planned Roadway Network: Study Area Communities Alternative 'A' Roadway Network: Study Area Communities 2015 & 2030 Phased Roadway Improvements: Study Area Communities 2015 & 2030 Intersection Lane Configurations and Traffic Counts SEPTEMBER 2007 iii FINAL REPORT Southern Navajo/Apache County Sub-Regional Transportation Plan List of Figures Figure Page Figure 1-1 Vicinity Map ..............................................................................................................................1-2 Figure 1-2 Study Area and Major Roadway Network.................................................................................1-3 Figure 3-1 Year 2006 Estimated Population Density by Traffic Analysis Zone ..........................................3-2 Figure 3-2 Year 2006 Estimated Employment Density by Traffic Analysis Zone .......................................3-4 Figure 3-3 Year 2006 Roadway Network and Traffic Counts.....................................................................3-7 Figure 4-1 Travel Demand Model Development Process ..........................................................................4-1 Figure 4-2 Year 2006 Model Validation Summary .....................................................................................4-3 Figure 5-1 Land Ownership and Planned Developments ..........................................................................5-2 Figure 5-2 Year 2015 Estimated Population Density by Traffic Analysis Zone ..........................................5-4 Figure 5-3 Year 2030 Estimated Population Density by Traffic Analysis Zone ..........................................5-5 Figure 5-4 Year 2015 Estimated Employment Density by Traffic Analysis Zone .......................................5-6 Figure 5-5 Year 2030 Estimated Employment Density by Traffic Analysis Zone .......................................5-7 Figure 6-1 Existing-Plus-Committed Roadway Network ............................................................................6-3 Figure 6-2 Year 2030 Traffic Assignment: Existing-Plus-Committed Roadway Network ..........................6-4 Figure 6-3 Forecast 2030 Level of Service: Existing-Plus-Committed Roadway Network ........................6-6 Figure 6-4 Committed-Plus-Planned Roadway Network............................................................................6-8 Figure 6-5 Year 2030 Traffic Assignment: Committed-Plus-Planned Roadway Network..........................6-9 Figure 6-6 Forecast 2030 Level of Service: Committed-Plus-Planned Roadway Network.....................6-14 Figure 6-7 Alternative ‘A’ Roadway Network ...........................................................................................6-15 Figure 6-8 Year 2030 Traffic Assignment: Alternative ‘A’ Roadway Network..........................................6-16 Figure 6-9 Forecast 2030 Level of Service: Alternative 'A' Roadway Network........................................6-18 Figure 6-10 Phased Roadway Improvements: 2015 and 2030...............................................................6-21 Figure 6-11 Year 2015 Traffic Assignment ..............................................................................................6-22 Figure 6-12 Forecast 2015 Level of Service ............................................................................................6-24 Figure 6-13 Study Area Intersections ......................................................................................................6-26 Figure 6-14 Possible Interchange Designs ..............................................................................................6-29 Figure 7-1 Future 2030 Roadway Functional Classification Plan...............................................................7-2 Figure 7-2 Year 2030 Roadway Improvement Plan ...................................................................................7-4 Figure 8-1 Typical Roadway Cross-Sections.............................................................................................8-2 SEPTEMBER 2007 iv FINAL REPORT Southern Navajo/Apache County Sub-Regional Transportation Plan List of Tables Table Table 2-1 Table 2-2 Table 3-1 Table 3-2 Table 4-1 Table 4-2 Table 5-1 Table 6-1 Table 6-2 Table 6-3 Table 6-4 Table 6-5 Table 6-6 Table 7-1 Table 7-2 Table 8-1 Page Roadway Capacity by Functional Classification ........................................................................2-2 Levels of Service .......................................................................................................................2-2 Southern Navajo/Apache County Study Area 2006 Total Employment .....................................3-3 roadway Functional Classification Characteristics.....................................................................3-6 Vehicle Trip Generation Characteristics ....................................................................................4-4 Year 2006 Study Area External Daily Vehicle Trips...................................................................4-4 Study Area Population and Employment Estimates based on April 1 Occupancy.....................5-3 Current and Future External Daily Traffic Volumes ...................................................................6-2 Year 2030 Existing-Plus-Committed Roadway Network Cut-Line Evaluation............................6-7 Year 2030 Committed-Plus-Planned Roadway Network Cut-Line Evaluation .........................6-13 Cut-Line Evaluation: Comparison of Committed-Plus-Planned and Alternative 'A' Roadway Networks (2030)......................................................................................................................6-19 Alternative 'A' Year 2015 Roadway Improvements Cut-Line Evaluation..................................6-25 Traffic Control At Study Area Intersections: Existing, 2015, & 2030 .......................................6-28 Estimated Roadway Improvement Costs by Major Jurisdiction .................................................7-3 Project Cost Detail: Year 2030 Roadway Improvement Plan....................................................7-5 Roadway Design Criteria by Functional Classification...............................................................8-4 SEPTEMBER 2007 v FINAL REPORT Southern Navajo/Apache County Sub-Regional Transportation Plan 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 STUDY CONTEXT Navajo and Apache Counties are located in the central portion of eastern Arizona, as shown in Figure 1-1. This region, which is a major destination in Arizona’s “White Mountains,” is experiencing rapid population and economic growth. The recent intensification of development activity coupled with anticipated natural regional growth has led to the need for an updated transportation plan to address the issues and infrastructure needs of key growth centers located within the White Mountains. 1.2 STUDY AREA OVERVIEW This Southern Navajo/Apache County Sub-Regional Transportation Plan specifically addresses the needs of the Town of Pinetop-Lakeside, the City of Show Low, the Town of Snowflake, and the Town of Taylor. It also addresses the unincorporated areas of southern Navajo and Apache Counties, including the communities of Concho and Vernon. The focus of this sub-regional study is the roadway system in an area of southern Navajo and Apache Counties bounded by the Town of Pinetop-Lakeside in the south, the Town of Snowflake in the north, Pulp Mill Road to the west, and the Concho area in Apache County to the east (Figure 1-2). The approximately 1,900 square-mile Study Area is served by one major east-west Federal highway and four Arizona State Highways. 1.3 COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT The Southern Navajo County/Apache County Sub-Regional Transportation Plan was developed in collaboration with a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) comprised of the following participants representing local and regional governmental entities: Tom Thomas, Town of Pinetop-Lakeside Ken Patterson, City of Show Low Gary Fenstermaker, Town of Snowflake Dick Prior, Town of Taylor Ron Solomon, Town of Taylor Dusty Parsons, Navajo County Dave Swietanski, Navajo County Montana Slack, Navajo County Jim Matteson, Navajo County Ferrin Crosby, Apache County TAC meetings were held at major project milestones to review study results and provide guidance to the planning process: • • • May 11, 2006 September 21, 2006 January 11, 2006 These meetings included workshops that helped shape the scope of this project in terms of goals and deliverables. They also provided a source for valuable data regarding the existing conditions of the municipalities and unincorporated communities of the Study Area, including previous studies, comprehensive planning documents, and submitted development proposals. In addition, coordination was maintained with the standing White Mountain Regional Transportation Committee (WMRTC). The recommended roadway transportation improvement plan was presented to the White Mountain Regional Transportation Committee on May 11, 2007. The plan was presented to the Navajo County Board of Supervisors on May 1, 2007. SEPTEMBER 2007 1-1 FINAL REPORT Southern Navajo/Apache County Transportation Plan WINSLOW Ð ? $ e " ! APACHE COUNTY HOLBROOK NAVAJO COUNTY c A Study Area Boundary ¥ I SNOWFLAKE COCONINO COUNTY è C ù A ô A ¹ ? TAYLOR Ä ? v I SHOW LOW PAYSON PINETOP-LAKESIDE v I ô A GILA COUNTY Á ? State Overview ARIZONA Detail Area GRAHAM COUNTY . Not to Scale THATCHER FIGURE 1-1 VICINITY MAP Rd Navajo/Apache County Study Area Overview Ha y o Hwy APACHE COUNTY Rd Ra nc h Rd 7 SR Rd Rd Jurisdiction County Arizona Dept of Transportation Municipality 61 Base Map Features Cities/Towns Rd ³ Not to Scale 0 26 Sky SR PINETOP-LAKESIDE Hi R d d 60 Rd Na ry R od ter Por in nta Mo u US 60 onMc nr Pe SHOW LOW 0 Ver n US 6 US SR Hw y 7 Bu rto n P ed in e al n CR 3148 Pulp SR 260 rd o Stanford Dr M ill Bo u Al t Con cho SR 277 Sources: ADOT, Navajo County, Apache County, and Municipalities 180 Hunt Rd Conch SNOWFLAKE TAYLOR STUDY AREAAND MAJOR ROADWAY NETWORK 18 0 US NAVAJO COUNTY Ho l SR 77 lo w US Southern Navajo/Apache County Sub-Regional Transportation Plan FIGURE 1-2 Southern Navajo/Apache County Sub-Regional Transportation Plan 1.4 STUDY GOALS AND OBJECTIVES Five goals were set to be addressed within the context of this planning study: (1) Understand key stakeholder issues and needs; (2) Identify imminent and future developments within the Study Area; (3) Develop a customized travel demand model to facilitate forecasting land use and associated transportation volumes; (4) Produce growth forecasts for each municipality and the unincorporated areas of Navajo and Apache Counties; and (5) Analyze feasible alternatives for improving the roadway network in the Study Area. 1.5 REPORT ORGANIZATION This Sub-Regional Transportation Plan provides details on the study process and findings for the entire Southern Navajo/Apache County Study Area. The following subjects are addressed in this report: • • • • • • • Chapter 2 – Methodologies and Standards Chapter 3 – Current Conditions Chapter 4 – Travel Demand Model Development Chapter 5 – Socioeconomic Projections Chapter 6 – Analysis of Improvement Alternatives Chapter 7 – Implementation Plan Chapter 8 – Policies and Guidelines In addition to this report, providing comprehensive documentation of the study, a separate Executive Summary has been prepared for wide distribution. Also, separate Community Transportation Plans have been prepared for the four municipalities participating in the study. These separate planning reports highlight pertinent study findings associated with each municipality. SEPTEMBER 2007 1-4 FINAL REPORT Southern Navajo/Apache County Sub-Regional Transportation Plan 2.0 METHODOLOGIES AND STANDARDS This chapter identifies the procedures and standards used to evaluate existing and future roadway segment performance. 2.1 LEVEL OF SERVICE CONCEPT Level of Service (LOS) is a quantitative measurement of the operational characteristics of traffic and the perception of traffic conditions by both motorists and passengers. There are six levels of service defined by the Highway Capacity Manual, published by the Transportation Research Board (TRB). Each LOS is given a letter designation from 'A' to 'F', with 'A' representing the optimal or best traffic conditions and 'F' the worst traffic conditions. Roadway segment LOS is characterized by the Highway Capacity Manual as follows: LOS 'A': Best or Optimal – 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': Stable Flow – 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': Stable Flow – presence of other users is affecting driver’s operations. Maneuvering within traffic requires substantial vigilance on the part of the user. LOS 'D': Stable Flow – high density of traffic is noticeable. Speed and freedom to maneuver are severely restricted. Driver is experiencing a generally poor level of comfort and convenience. LOS 'E': Near Capacity Flow – the speed for all drivers is 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. A total breakdown in traffic flow has occurred; stop-and-go traffic operations are the norm. For typical long-range transportation planning studies in urbanized areas, LOS 'D' usually is adopted as the operational standard, because it allows for a generally accepted quality of service. To maintain consistency with other area plans in the region, this standard was adopted for determining future need for roadway facilities. Relationship of Functionally Classified Systems in ser ving Tr affic Mobility and Land Ac c ess Pr opor tion of Ser vic e Mobility Ar ter ials 2.2 FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION Roads are classified according to generally accepted design and traffic characteristics (see graphic at right). The functional classification system categorizes roads by how they perform in regard to providing access and mobility. A principal arterial, for example, provides mobility for longer distance trips with high speeds and minimal access to adjoining properties. Conversely, the function of a local street is to serve neighborhoods with direct access SEPTEMBER 2007 2-1 Collec tor s Local Ac cess Loc als Source: Safety Effectiveness of Highway Design Features, Volume I, Access Control, FHWA, 1992 FINAL REPORT Southern Navajo/Apache County Sub-Regional Transportation Plan at lower speeds. The functional classification system relevant to the Study Area includes three primary classifications: Urban Arterial, Rural Arterial, and Collector. Because of the sub-regional focus of this study, local streets were not analyzed. 2.3 LEVEL OF SERVICE THRESHOLDS The analysis of roadway segment LOS is based on the number of lanes in the segment, the functional classification of the roadway, the maximum desired capacity of the roadway, and the existing or forecast average daily traffic (ADT) volume. The planning-level daily roadway capacities used for the Sub-Regional Transportation Plan Study Area were based on arterial capacities published in 2002 Quality/Level of Service Manual published by the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) (refer to Appendix A). Values presented in the FDOT publication were adjusted to reflect local conditions, based on conversations with Navajo County Public Works Department staff. Table 2-1 identifies the daily per lane capacity adopted for modeling purposes for each functional classification applicable to the Study Area roadway network. TABLE 2-1 PLANNING-LEVEL ROADWAY CAPACITY BY FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION Functional Classification Urban Arterial Rural Arterial Rural Arterial Collector Number of Lanes 2–4 2 4 2 -4 Daily Per Lane Capacity 8,900 11,150 14,575 7,500 LOS at Theoretical Maximum E E E E Source: Generalized Level of Service Volume Tables, 2002 Quality/Level of Service Handbook, Florida Department of Transportation, 2002. The LOS thresholds in Table 2-1 were identified to permit analysis of roadway segment performance. This was accomplished by establishing volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratios for each LOS. The daily per lane capacities in each direction for each roadway were used in conjunction with daily traffic volume estimates in the evaluation year to determine V/C ratios for Study Area roadways. Table 2-2 shows how the V/C ratios relate to the standard LOS classifications. The LOS standard of 'D' provides the basis for determining whether an operational deficiency potentially exists on an Arterial or Collector facility. That is to say, if existing or projected traffic volumes exceed the LOS 'D' volume threshold (i.e., greater than 0.90), it is concluded that the facility is approaching capacity, and the roadway’s ability to accommodate traffic operations is considered deficient. Therefore, consideration of potential solutions (e.g., widening, new turn lanes, access management actions, new alignments, etc.) is appropriate and justified. TABLE 2-2 LEVELS OF SERVICE LOS A B C D E F Maximum V/C 0.00 - 0.30 0.30 – 0.54 0.54 – 0.75 0.75 – 0.90 0.90 – 1.00 >1.00 Source: Maricopa County Transportation System Plan, 2006. SEPTEMBER 2007 2-2 FINAL REPORT Southern Navajo/Apache County Sub-Regional Transportation Plan 3.0 CURRENT CONDITIONS This section provides an overview of existing conditions within the Sub-Regional Transportation Plan Study Area. It includes an updated estimate of the Study Area’s population and employment in 2006, an inventory of roadway facilities, and an overview of current transit operations. 3.1 CURRENT SOCIOECONOMIC CONDITIONS An estimate of 2006 population and employment in the Study Area was developed from several sources, including: Census 2000 population data; historic building permit activity; and a commercial employment database. 3.1.1 2006 POPULATION AND DWELLING UNIT ESTIMATE Significant growth has occurred within the Study Area, since the year 2000. The 2000 Census identified over 22,900 dwelling units (DUs) within the Study Area. It recorded over 35,600 people living in 13,000 households. Approximately 57 percent of the total DUs were occupied on census day, which was April 1, 2000. This low occupancy rate reflects the large number of seasonal summer homes in the Study Area. In addition to variations in seasonal occupancy, the number of persons living in each household also varied by location with the Study Area. The average number of persons per household for the Study Area was 2.74. A review of building permit data from Navajo County, Apache County, Pinetop-Lakeside, Show Low, Snowflake, and Taylor indicated that nearly 5,400 new dwelling units were added between January 1, 2000, and May 31, 2006, putting the total estimated number of DUs in 2006 at 28,300. This growth increment amounted to a nearly five percent annual increase in dwelling units between 2000 and 2006. The 2006 Study Area population was estimated by applying the observed seasonal occupancy patterns and household size to the updated estimated of DUs. Based on these factors, the 2006 Study Area population was estimated at 43,870. Figure 3-1 shows the estimated population density by traffic analysis zone (TAZ) in the Study Area in 2006. Figures displaying the 2006 population density for each of Study Area municipality are presented in Appendix B. 3.1.2 YEAR 2006 EMPLOYMENT ESTIMATE The 2006 employment estimate for the Study Area was developed using the White Mountain Regional Transportation Plan, 1999, coupled with information from a commercial database purchased for this study. The commercial database provided information on business location, number of employees, and industry type. Focusing on major employers, the database information then was cross-checked against employer information included in the White Mountain Regional Transportation Plan, 1999. The study team verified the validity of the updated employment database with study participants and the TAC. Through this process, over 15,000 jobs were documented as currently in the Study Area. Table 3-1 shows the job totals by employment sector. SEPTEMBER 2007 3-1 FINAL REPORT n telo p e Road 89 19 60 SR 2 Penr o d Ln Rd US 6 0 67 174 Rd tain oun M ter Por 100 W 98 h 327 it e 934 M ou 105 PINETOP-LAKESIDE 101 nt ai 804 107 n 703102 Rd 8 792 112 108 118 893 1,468 296 113 114 628 115 116 333 442 1,797 od nr Sources: 2000 Census Data and 2000-2006 Residential Buiilding Permits From Navajo County, Apache County, and Municipalities Distributed to TAZs by Wilson & Company, January 2007. CR 5525 White A LOW Population Density per Square Mile wy 0 - 1,500 1,500 - 4,000 4,000 - 6,500 SR 47 251 61 Base Map Features Arterials 57 502 62 126 CR 3148 US 60 Rd 63 0 74 105 93 SHOW 90 106 11 94 354 95 654 52 108 46 1,309 Stanford Dr Rd on Bu rt Rd ho H 68 25 Cities/Towns US 60 69 140 CR 3144 104 121 XX Traffic Analysis Zone X,XXX Popoulation Estimate 86 323 Pe 21 1,030 96 626 56 696 77 65 1,402 79 1,266 53 183 anc h on R 58 450 64 172 51 652 55 161 nc Co n c 12 59 6,500 + rd Bo u SR 260 Blvd L ake SR 66 22 59 375 Silver on h 60 99 Rd 54 0 45 120 Ra 0 e esa LBno YEAR 2006 ESTIMATED POPULATION DENSITY BY TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ZONE 33 658 38 64 Blac k M 44 96 10 120 APACHE COUNTY d ur P al ed in 9 27 i Rd 41 477 39 166 Sky H Willow Ln Hu n t Rd 11 22 29 82 16th Ave Pulp 35 860 TAYLOR Saw Mill Rd 61 357 25 209 40 838 43 207 50 S 177 R 26 d 7 8 11 38 2 223 14 210 Central Ave M ill Rd 34 22 Mill R 26 0 18 17 20 19 87956 456 75 7th St 7th St 23 27 16 30 1,353 170 Frontier Dr Pape r Freeman Hollow Rd SNOWFLAKE 16 58 42 128 13 452 3 431 A lt 6 567 1 196 4 290 80 NAVAJO COUNTY 5 213 1 US Navajo/Apache County Study Area Overview 99 160 Southern Navajo/Apache County Sub-Regional Transportation Plan ³ Not to Scale FIGURE 3-1 Southern Navajo/Apache County Sub-Regional Transportation Plan TABLE 3-1 SOUTHERN NAVAJO/APACHE COUNTY STUDY AREA 2006 TOTAL EMPLOYMENT Sector Retail Office Government General Total Employment 5,028 7,164 1,273 1,761 15,226 Sources: InfoUSA, 2006; White Mountain Regional Transportation Plan, 1999; & Wilson & Company, May 2007. Figure 3-2 shows the estimated employment density by TAZ in the Study Area in 2006. Figures showing the employment density of each Study Area municipality are presented in Appendix B. 3.1.3 SCHOOL ENROLLMENT School enrollment was verified through the area school districts including: • • • Blue Ridge Unified School District (Pinetop-Lakeside); Snowflake Unified School District; and Show Low Unified School District. The school districts reported total elementary and junior high school enrollment in 2006 was 5,111. Total reported high school enrollment in 2006 was 2,446. 3.2 EXISTING ROADWAY NETWORK State and Federal highways form the arterial backbone of the existing sub-regional roadway system in southern Navajo and Apache Counties (refer to Figure 1-2). These facilities, maintained by the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT), provide intra-regional mobility between the communities of Pinetop-Lakeside, Show Low, Taylor, and Snowflake. The State and Federal roadways also provide inter-regional linkages between the Study Area and other major population centers, including the Phoenix metropolitan area. The sub-regional roadways that are the focus of this study include: US 60: US 60 (aka Deuce of Clubs in Show Low) is part of the National Highway System (NHS) and, as such, its function is to provide access between an arterial and a major port, airport, public transportation facility, or other intermodal transportation facility. US 60 functions as a State Principal Arterial and provides connectivity between Show Low and Globe and the Phoenix metropolitan area to the southwest and Springerville/Eager in Apache County to the east, as well as New Mexico. Through Show Low, between SR 260 (S. Clark Road) and SR 77 (N. Penrod Road) US 60 is a four-lane facility with a continuous center left-turn lane. In rural portions of the Study Area, this facility exists as a two-lane highway. US 60 is coincident with SR 260 and SR 77 in central Show Low. SR 260: SR 260 is a State Major Regional Principal Arterial providing access between Show Low and Payson to the west and Pinetop-Lakeside to the southeast, as well as Springerville/Eager to the east. SR 260 is coincident with US 60 and SR 77 through central Show Low. North of US 60, on the west side of Show Low, SR 260 is known as S. Clark Road. South of US 60, on the east side of Show Low, SR 260 is White Mountain Road. In the urbanized portions of Show Low and Pinetop-Lakeside, SR 260 is a four-lane facility with a continuous center left-turn lane. In rural portions of the Study Area (west of Show Low and south of Pinetop-Lakeside), this facility exists as a two-lane highway. SEPTEMBER 2007 3-3 FINAL REPORT Road n telo p e Frontier Dr 11 0 67 0 62 0 89 0 Rd ain unt o M Sky H Rd 100 20 105 542 M ou 581 101 nt ai n 107 102 Rd PINETOP-LAKESIDE 364 107 118 108 0 112 0 61 1,002 113 114 115 13 177 116 700 168 47 0 61 57 0 CR 3148 US 60 SR Base Map Features Arterials i Rd od nr ter Por 46 0 Stanford Dr 52 0 LOW Pe US 6 0 Rd 63 60 74 352 93 SHOW 138 90 94 274 70 95 1,767 98 Whi te 60 SR 2 Sources: White Mountain Regional Transportation Plan, 1999, and INFOUSA Employer Data Distributed to TAZs by Wilson & Company, January 2007. 0 - 500 1001 - 3000 53 3 Rd 56 11 77 16th Ave Rd on Bu rt 51 78 55 15 65 91 38 0 85 134 21 0 96 171 79 111 d nc anc h on R 64 19 Employment Density per Square Mile 501 - 1000 rd Bo u SR 260 ke Blv h 59 104 wy 3001 - 6000 SR 66 0 La Silver 58 19 ho H 33 0 on Ra 60 4 54 4 APACHE COUNTY 12 0 d 0 45 4 YEAR 2006 ESTIMATED EMPLOYMENT DENSITY BY TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ZONE ur P e al ed in B esa Lon Penr o d Ln M ill Blac k M 44 7 Co n c 38 4 41 7 Rd 10 0 9 0 CR 5525 White A Hu n t Rd 8 0 2 0 29 0 Central Ave Rd 7 0 14 0 23 22 27 0 165 342 30 0 Willow Ln 39 TAYLOR 22 40 1 Saw Mill Rd 61 2 13 12 26 25 0 Pape r Mill R 21 d 34 31 0 0 43 0 50 S 0 R 26 SNOWFLAKE 18 17 20 19 0 770 0 34 7th St 7th St Pulp 42 0 3 15 1 0 US 1 80 A lt 16 5 6 420 4 4 80 NAVAJO COUNTY 5 72 1 US Navajo/Apache County Study Area Overview 104 28 68 0 Cities/Towns US 60 69 0 CR 3144 XX Traffic Analysis Zone X,XXX Employment Estimate 86 0 99 0 Southern Navajo/Apache County Sub-Regional Transportation Plan ³ Not to Scale FIGURE 3-2 Southern Navajo/Apache County Sub-Regional Transportation Plan SR 77: SR 77 (aka Penrod Road north of US 60) is a State Principal Arterial providing connectivity between the communities of Show Low and Taylor/Snowflake to the north. Beyond Snowflake to the north, SR 77 provides a connection with Holbrook, the Navajo County seat, and Interstate 40 (I-40). SR 77, which is coincident with US 60 and SR 260 through central Show Low, connects Show Low with Globe and Tucson to the south. In the urbanized portion of central Show Low, SR 77 is a four-lane facility with a continuous center left-turn lane. In rural portions of the Study Area northeast of Show Low, this facility is a two-lane highway. SR 277: SR 277 is a State Principal Arterial that provides access between Snowflake and Heber/Overgaard in western Navajo County, as well as Payson in Gila County via SR 377 and SR 260. This rural facility exists as a two-lane highway. Bourdon Ranch Road: This north-south roadway is a County Minor Arterial that provides access to growing development in the White Mountain Lakes area between Show Low and Taylor. It is anticipated that this facility will become a significant reliever to SR 77 as growth occurs in this corridor between these two communities. The roadway exists as a rural two-lane highway. Lone Pine Dam Road: This roadway is a County Minor Arterial (Old Highway 60) that provides access between the Linden area west of Show Low and SR 77 near the White Mountain Lakes area. Navajo County anticipates this roadway will serve in the future as a key bypass facility to relieve SR 77. It exists as a rural two-lane highway. Penrod Road: This north-south roadway is a Municipal Minor Arterial that parallels SR 260 south of Show Low and provides access between Pinetop -Lakeside and SR 77 at US 60 east of Show Low. It exists as a rural two-lane highway. 3.3 ROADWAY CHARACTERISTICS The primary roadway characteristics of interest for this study are: jurisdictional responsibility, roadway functional classification, number of lanes or roadway cross-section, and traffic volumes. 3.3.1 JURISDICTIONAL RESPONSIBILITY ADOT is responsible for maintaining all State and Federal routes in the Study Area. Navajo County and Apache County administer all roadways in the unincorporated portions of their respective counties. The Town of Pinetop-Lakeside, City of Show Low, Town of Snowflake, and Town of Taylor administer all roadways within their corporate limits that are not the responsibility of other entities. Refer to Figure 1-2 for the specific jurisdictional responsibility for the Study Area’s major roadways. 3.3.2 ROADWAY FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION The Study Area roadway network is defined by four roadway functional classifications. Table 3-2 summarizes the principal characteristics of each of these functional classifications. As noted earlier, the level of access generally increases and capacity decreases as functional classification changes from Arterial roadway to Local roadway. Also, the purpose of the roadway changes from efficiently moving large volumes of traffic to providing direct property access. Chapter 8 presents the roadway cross-sections associated with each roadway functional classification SEPTEMBER 2007 3-5 FINAL REPORT Southern Navajo/Apache County Sub-Regional Transportation Plan TABLE 3-2 ROADWAY FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION CHARACTERISTICS Functional Classification Principal or Major Arterial Minor Arterial Major Collector Minor Collector Characteristics Provides regional mobility with limited direct access. Direct commercial access can occur, but access is infrequent to preserve capacity and mobility. Provides access between Major Arterial and Major Collector routes. The level of access generally is less than seen on a Major Arterial, but more than a Major Collector. Direct commercial access is typically provided on Minor Arterial routes. Provides access between Minor Collector and Minor Arterial routes. The level of access generally is less than on a Minor Collector, but more than a Minor Arterial. Provides access between local streets and Major Collector routes Source: Wilson & Company, May 2007 3.3.3 NUMBER OF LANES Most roadways in the Study Area are two-lane facilities with one travel lane in each direction, i.e., there are two directional travel lanes. Most four-lane facilities have two travel lanes in each direction (four directional travel lanes) with a continuous center left-turn lane. Figure 3-3 shows the number of directional travel lanes associated with major Study Area roadways. Figures providing detailed travel lane information for each Study Area municipality are presented in Appendix C. 3.3.4 TRAFFIC COUNTS A traffic count database for the year 2006 was compiled from ADOT, Navajo County, Apache County, and municipal sources. Where necessary, historic traffic count data were adjusted based on recent growth trends, to provide a reliable approximation of current (2006) traffic levels. Refer to Figure 3-3 for current traffic counts on major roadways in the Study Area. Figures providing traffic counts on major roadways in each Study Area municipality are presented in Appendix C. 3.4 MULTI-MODAL TRANSPORTATION Through the Four Seasons Connection Public Transit System, the City of Show Low and Town of Pinetop-Lakeside provide deviated fixed-route public bus service between the two communities. This service includes scheduled service and a pick-up service for disabled individuals, who are not able to access the transit system at existing bus stops. Two 16-passenger buses operate Monday through Saturday, beginning at 6:30 a.m. and ending at 6:30 p.m. Presently, there are 57 scheduled stops along the route serving the two communities, linking both residential areas and high traffic commercial and retail centers. This service also provides access to the Show Low Regional Airport (northeast of Show Low) and Hon-Dah Resort and Conference Center (south of Pinetop-Lakeside). Four Seasons Connection also provides direct service to the County health and welfare facilities, Department of Economic Security offices, and local medical offices, including the Navapache Regional Medical Center. Four Seasons Connection served approximately 107,000 passenger trips in Fiscal Year 2005-2006. This is up from 31,000 annual passenger trips when the service was initiated in 1997. SEPTEMBER 2007 3-6 FINAL REPORT Navajo/Apache County Study Area Overview Hunt Rd NAVAJO COUNTY 1,076 APACHE COUNTY 11,200 1,594 Hw y 2,476 Directional Lanes TAYLOR 1,594 2,374 11,600 10,500 Base Map Features Cities/Towns US 60 US 60 5,628 2,138 US 60 9,230 4,710 168 o nr Pe 3,040 2,588 dR d 3,372 8,994 d 25,100 Traffic Count ry R SHOW LOW 2 Lanes 61 Ver non -M c Na 1,562 SR d 26 0 398 1,200 790 Stanford Dr Rd Burton 314 77 SR SR 500 10,470 108 X,XXX iR le da e n Pi Rd 500 Sky H 1,470 Con cho 1 Lane 588 SR 260 4,502 US 60 SR 277 2,588 3,484 4,164 2,480 768 US 180 Alt SNOWFLAKE YEAR 2006 ROADWAY NETWORK AND TRAFFIC COUNTS 23,070 ³ Not to Scale PINETOP-LAKESIDE Sources: ADOT, Navajo County, Apache County, and Municipal Traffic Data Southern Navajo/Apache County Sub-Regional Transportation Plan FIGURE 3-3 Southern Navajo/Apache County Sub-Regional Transportation Plan The acquisition of most capital items, such as buses and maintenance buildings, is supported through grants from the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) through ADOT. ADOT and FTA also provide matching grants to Show Low and Pinetop-Lakeside to fund route operations, vehicle maintenance, and administration. SEPTEMBER 2007 3-8 FINAL REPORT Southern Navajo/Apache County Sub-Regional Transportation Plan 4.0 TRAVEL DEMAND MODEL DEVELOPMENT Building from the legacy of the travel demand model developed and applied for the White Mountain Regional Transportation Plan, 1999, a new travel demand model was developed for this study using the TransCAD travel demand modeling software platform. The Southern Navajo/Apache County Travel Demand Model was developed using Geographic Information Systems (GIS) data provided by study participants and incorporated socioeconomic and traffic count data for the year 2006, as discussed above. 4.1 MODEL CONSTRAINTS The quick response travel demand modeling capability developed for this study was a highway-only model and did not permit consideration of modal split between automobile and transit modes. However, as patronage on the Four Seasons Connection transit system grows, mode split will become an increasingly important part of the mobility solution for the heavily traveled corridor connecting Pinetop-Lakeside and Show Low. Therefore, consideration should be given to including a mode choice step in the travel demand modeling process when future updates of this transportation plan are contemplated. Also, it is important to note that the travel demand model developed for this study was not responsive to radical changes in traffic during the peak tourism season. The adopted model replicates ADT conditions on roadway segments, as represented by the year 2006 traffic counts presented in the previous chapter. These ADT conditions are consistent with the April 1, 2000, seasonal dwelling unit occupancy patterns identified by the Census 2000 data. 4.2 MODEL DEVELOPMENT PROCESS The travel demand model of the White Mountain Regional Transportation Plan, 1999, was adapted for this study. Figure 4-1 depicts the traffic model development process employed in preparation of that model. A brief summary of the modeling process used for forecasting future travel demand and traffic levels on streets and highways for this sub-regional study is presented below. FIGURE 4-1 TRAVEL DEMAND MODEL DEVELOPMENT PROCESS • • Land Use Trip Generation Calculate number of trips Roadway Network Survey & Traffic Counts External Trip Estimation Through Trips External-Internal Trips SEPTEMBER 2007 Trip Distribution Where do trips go? Modal Split Estimate auto & non-auto trips Trip Assignments Southern Navajo/Apache Travel Demand Model • • • Input Traffic Volume Projections • Mid-term • Long-term Which routes do trips take? 4-1 FINAL REPORT Southern Navajo/Apache County Sub-Regional Transportation Plan The travel demand model developed for the Southern Navajo/Apache County Sub-Regional Transportation Plan follows a four-step process to determine/forecast traffic volumes for a defined roadway network based on specified inputs and estimates of external trips. The Trip Generation Module converts household information into vehicle trips between TAZs. Each household generates an average of approximately ten trips daily – five separate round-trips. Employment information is used in the Trip Distribution Module to determine where the trips generated by households want to go. The model process allows for a Modal Split Module to determine the number of trips or parts of trips by automobile versus transit as part of a trip (this function was not applied for this study). Finally, the Trip Assignment Module then makes a determination as to which routes would be taken by trips originating at Study Area households. The fundamental criteria applied within the Trip Assignment Module are the shortest path in the shortest amount of time. Trip assignment takes into account speed, functional classification of the roadway, capacity of the roadway, and the amount of traffic using that route. If a route is too congested, the model will assign trips to a different route that offers a shorter travel time. The final result is a forecast of anticipated traffic flows, based on Study Area socioeconomic characteristics and the capacity of the available roadway network. However, before a forecast can be made, a current year model is built to calibrate the model based on existing traffic counts. 4.3 MODEL CALIBRATION AND VALIDATION Model validation is a process involving iterative adjustment of model parameters until model-simulated traffic volumes reasonably agree with actual traffic counts. Several measures to evaluate model performance are provided in the Federal Highway Administration’s (FWHA) Travel Model Validation and Reasonableness Checking Manual, February, 1997. For this study, traffic volume estimates generated for key Study Area roadway segments for 2006 were compared to actual 2006 traffic counts. Results of the comparison are illustrated in Figure 4-2. Appendix D presents the FHWA model calibration parameters together with a tabular comparison of the model-generated 2006 volumes on key roadway segments. Figure 4-2 and the tables in Appendix D show that the majority of roadway segments meet the FHWA deviation criteria, with the exception of the following locations: • • • • • • SR 260 from Old Linden Road to US 60; US 60 from Rim Road to SR 260; US 60 from Bourdon Ranch Rd to SR 61; Lone Pine Dam Road, west of SR 77; Silver Lake Boulevard from SR 77 to Bourdon Ranch Road; and Penrod Road from Porter Mountain Road to US 60. The analysis indicates the model performed well with respect to key Study Area arterials. While there are some higher deviations on low-volume rural facilities, the model, in general, adequately replicated year 2006 ADT counts. Therefore, the model was determined to be a suitable forecasting tool for future travel demand in the Study Area. 4.4 TRIP GENERATION Table 4-1 shows the trip-generation characteristics of socioeconomic units by land use category. These quick response trip-generation rates used in the travel demand model were based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation, 7th Edition, 2001. Trip-generation rates were adjusted on a zone-by-zone basis during model validation to fit Study Area trip-making characteristics. SEPTEMBER 2007 4-2 FINAL REPORT Navajo/Apache County Study Area Overview 2,1 7th St 7th St ou nt ain Rd Stanford Dr 00 CR 3144 ] Arterials Cities/Towns US 60 PINETOP-LAKESIDE Rd 0] [1,60 0 0 4 , 1 Na ry M US 60 ,6 [2 Ba se M ap Fe atures -Mc M ter Por 0 61 d in R ta oun 90 2, CR 3148 Central Ave 16th Ave Model Volume (2006 Traffic Count) ³ Not to Scale Ver non R d 0] od 70 nr [4, Pe 00 7,5 hi te d ] 77 W US 6 0 ch R SR [9,200] 11,800 US 6 0 ] [5,600 8,400 SR i Rd Rd rto n Bu Ran , 400 0 [2 0] SHOW LOW ] rdon Bo u 60 [11, ] SR 260 00 2,80 00 90 [4 10,8 [4, 3 lvd ake B 35 4 Sky H ] [ 590 760 L Silver 0] 00 FH W A M odel Volume -Traffic C ount Difference Target Within FHWA Target Exceeds FHWA Target esa Ln 7 [10,4 4,3 Black M 8,800 26 0 YEAR 2006 MODEL VALIDATION SUMMARY X,XXX ] SR Rd e l da ] ne i P 08 [1 60 Hw y Penro d Ln Mill R d TAYLOR Co n c ho APACHE COUNTY Willow Ln 0 0, 47 0 [1 Saw Mill Rd CR 5525 Old W oodru ff R d Frontier Dr d 0] 8,80 Pulp Freeman Hollow Rd Mill R 3 0 [3,5 0 0 6 , Hunt Rd Alt 180 80] [2,4 2,500 [2,600] Paper 80 00 SNOWFLAKE SR 277 SR 260 US SR 7 7 NAVAJO COUNTY US 1 Sources: Travel Demand Model Volumes by Wilson & Company, January, 2007; 2006 Traffic Counts From ADOT, Navajo County, Apache County, and Municipalities Southern Navajo/Apache County Sub-Regional Transportation Plan FIGURE 4-2 Southern Navajo/Apache County Sub-Regional Transportation Plan TABLE 4-1 VEHICLE-TRIP GENERATION CHARACTERISTICS Land Use Category Residential Retail Office General Government Office Primary School Secondary School Socioeconomic Unit Dwelling Units Employee Employee Employee Employee Student Student Average Daily Vehicle Trips per Unit 11.0 21.0 11.0 7.0 10.0 0.5 0.8 Source: Trip Generation, 7th Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2001 and Wilson & Company, 2007. 4.5 EXTERNAL TRIPS External trips are trips with one or more trip ends outside the Study Area. There primarily are two types of external trips. The first are external-internal, internal-external trips. These are regional trips with one trip end inside the Study Area and the other outside the Study Area. This would include travel between the cities of Show Low and Holbrook, for example. The other type of external trip does not stop within the Study Area – a trip between St. Johns in Apache County and Payson in Gila County, for example. Updated external trip estimates were based on traffic counts at Study Area cordon crossings at the outer boundaries of the Study Area. National Cooperative Highway Research Program Report (NCHRP) 365, Travel Estimation Techniques for Urban Planning, published by the Transportation Research Board in 1998, provides guidelines for estimating through-trip percentages based on roadway functional classification and facility type. These guidelines were used to develop the year 2006 external trip estimates shown in Table 4-2. TABLE 4-2 YEAR 2006 STUDY AREA EXTERNAL DAILY VEHICLE TRIPS Location US 180, West of SR 180A US 180, East of SR 180A SR 61, East of Concho US 60, East of Vernon SR 260, South of Rim Rd US 60, West of Show Low SR 260, West of Paper Mill Rd SR 277, West of Paper Mill Rd SR 77, North of Snowflake 2006 Traffic Count 710 460 2.480 2,140 3,720 3,040 4,390 2,590 4,500 Share of Through Vehicle Trips 29% 29% 29% 29% 29% 29% 29% 29% 29% No. of Through Vehicle Trips 206 134 718 620 1,077 882 1,273 751 1,306 Internal-External Vehicles 504 328 1,759 1,519 2,638 2,158 3,117 1,838 3,197 Source: Wilson & Company, May 2007. SEPTEMBER 2007 4-4 FINAL REPORT Southern Navajo/Apache County Sub-Regional Transportation Plan 5.0 SOCIOECONOMIC PROJECTIONS Urban growth in southern Navajo and Apache counties within the Study Area is expected to continue through 2030, driven by a rising demand for the lifestyle and recreational opportunities offered by the White Mountains. Population and employment forecasts for 2015 and 2030 were developed in consultation with the TAC. The process included a review of growth projections from previous plans and studies. Land ownership patterns within the Study Area also were assessed. A workshop then was conducted with the TAC to identify planned and approved developments and long-range growth areas. Through this process, Study Area population and employment growth projections were established. This chapter outlines the approach used to develop future population and employment projections and present the results of this process. 5.1 PREVIOUS PLANS AND STUDIES General Plans, county Comprehensive Plans, and other planning studies provided a context for the year 2030 growth scenario developed for the Study Area. These sources provided information on land use, circulation, as well as actual and potential growth areas for input into existing and future socioeconomic forecasts. Plans referenced for this study included: • • • • • • • • • • White Mountain Regional Transportation Plan, Lima & Associates, et al., April 1999. Navajo County Comprehensive Plan, May 2004. Apache County Comprehensive Plan, August 2004. Town of Snowflake General Plan, July 1999. Town of Taylor 2015 General Plan, December 2003. City of Show Low General Plan, CSC/Counts, October 1999. City of Show Low Major Streets and Routes Plan, Olsson Associates, January 2002. Town of Pinetop-Lakeside/Navajo County Regional Plan, BRW, March 2001. Pinetop-Lakeside Population Projection Report, July 2005. Traffic Impact Study for Show Low Bluff Planned Unit Development (PUD), Ironside Engineering & Development, Inc., December 2004. 5.2 PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS AND LAND OWNERSHIP PATTERNS At a workshop held with the TAC, each participating jurisdiction provided the study team with information relating to known, active developments and subdivisions. Representatives from the jurisdictions identified approximately 23,000 new residential lots, 232 acres of commercial development, 15 acres of office park, and 160 acres of industrial development within the Study Area that were part of an entitlement process that was either started or about to start. Figure 5-1 shows the locations of new or pending planned developments and potential future development areas within the Study Area relative to the overall context of land ownership defined by a mosaic of State, Federal, Indian reservation, and private lands. Similar maps were prepared and included in the Community Transportation Plans for the four municipalities in the Study Area. SEPTEMBER 2007 5-1 FINAL REPORT Willow Ln Rd Pulp Pin ed ale Rd 400 140 US 180 Alt Indian Reservation Arizona Game and Fish Department Private Land State Trust Land 61 Future Developments XXX CR 3148 80 US 60 Base Map Features Cities/Towns 42 40 PINETOP-LAKESIDE 31 Rd Rd nt ai n Hi W 85 hi te M ou 70 US 60 SR 260 Ri m Rd r Ve M nno cN y ar New/Pending Development with Potential Dwelling Units Potential Development Area d US 60 47 3,500 dR 250 500 SHOW LOW o nr Pe 1,360 US 60 Sky 16th Ave Central Ave 700 540 400 Bureau of Land Management 500 77 26 0 Sources: Land Ownership-Arizona State Land Department, Arizona Land Resources Information System; Future Development-Technical Advisory Committee and Wilson & Company, January 2007. CR 5525 h nc 294 SR SR SR Blvd 282 Lake Silver 1,620 Rd Burton Land Ownership 321 Ra P y 47 d ke Blv ver La 54 Sil 800 Hw National Forest n do ur Bo e al ed in 1,100 Rd Con cho APACHE COUNTY TAYLOR 580 0 650 SR 260 White A 600 LAND OWNERSHIP AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS CR 3140 d 800 200 7th St 1,000 800 cho Con Hunt Rd y Hw Stanford Dr Mill R Rd Paper 800 Mill 277 Old W oodr uff SNOWFLAKE NAVAJO COUNTY SR SR 77 Freeman Hollow Rd Frontier Dr Navajo/Apache County Study Area Overview Rd Southern Navajo/Apache County Sub-Regional Transportation Plan Arterials ³ Not to Scale FIGURE 5-1 Southern Navajo/Apache County Sub-Regional Transportation Plan 5.3 POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT PROJECTIONS Forecasts of DU growth were based on a projected compound annual growth rate of five percent between 2006 and 2030. This means the growth rate would be more gradual at first but would increase as the Study Area population base expands. This annual rate is consistent with the growth shown by historic building permit data from 2000 to 2006 discussed above. Between 2006 and 2030, an average of 2,700 new DUs is expected annually. Population estimates for 2030 were developed by applying growth rates for both seasonal DU occupancy and number of persons per household to the DU projections. As noted above, these rates vary by location throughout the Study Area. Employment growth was projected to increase at the same pace as population growth. In 2006, the Study Area reported less than one job per household. This low jobs/housing balance means that many persons living in the Study Area may rely on outside sources of income or jobs outside the Study Area. This is an indicator of the higher number of retirement and second homes in the Study Area. For planning purposes, it is expected that this demographic characteristic will not change significantly through the 2030 planning horizon, and that the overall ratio of jobs per household in 2006 will be similar to 2030. Table 5-1 shows the Study Area population and employment projections for 2015 and 2030 compared to the 2000 Census data and the population and employment estimates estimated for 2006. TABLE 5-1 STUDY AREA POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT ESTIMATES BASED ON APRIL 1 OCCUPANCY Year Dwelling Units 2000 2006 2015 2030 22,904 a 28,299 c 44,300 e 93,500 e Occupied Dwelling Units 13,010 a 16,135 26,500 61,200 Population Employment 35,653 a 43,870 74,200 177,000 9,502 b 15,300 d 23,800 e 51,704 e Sources: a) U.S. Census Bureau b) US Census Bureau ZIP Code Business Patterns, 2000. c) Includes 5,400 single- and multi-family building permits issued between January 1, 2000, and May 31, 2006. d) Estimate by Wilson & Company based on July 2006 InfoUSA employment data. e) Estimate by Wilson & Company based on growth projection. 5.4 POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT ALLOCATION Working with the TAC, population growth for each forecast horizon year (2015 and 2030) was allocated to private lands throughout the Study Area. This allocation was based on the currently planned and approved developments and the land use densities and intensities shown in the various General Plans and Comprehensive Plans. Figures 5-2 and 5-3 show the expected change in estimated population density in the Study Area by TAZ for the years 2015 and 2030, respectively. Figures 5-4 and 5-5 show the expected change in estimated employment density in the Study Area by TAZ for the years 2015 and 2030, respectively. Most employment growth is expected to occur in the urbanized areas of Pinetop-Lakeside, Show Low, Taylor, and Snowflake. However, some new employment was allocated to the new growth areas in anticipation of retail and service jobs that invariably accompany new developments. Population and employment density maps for each municipality in the Study Area are presented in Appendix E. SEPTEMBER 2007 5-3 FINAL REPORT 2 unt Rd 7 8 223 H 9 11 11 38 30 25 14 210 Hw y 12 202 YEAR 2015 ESTIMATED POPULATION DENSITY BY TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ZONE Population Density per Square Mile 0 - 1500 33 1,235 38 289 1501 - 4000 4001 - 6500 6500 - 20000 63 0 65 70 74 91 2,5231,102 105 1,030 93 90 SHOW 92 356 464 21 474 94 96 1,030 626 660 95 1,350 Stanford Dr US 60 67 591 LOW89 47 635 62 126 148 100 98 102 614 1,748 103 1,556 105 61 804 107 108 8 2,253 112 110 118 117 1,181 1,319 5511,538 113 114 115 116 PINETOP-LAKESIDE 561 1,229 785 1,797 104 121 rn Ve Base Map Features Arterials 68 25 Cities/Towns CR 3140 64 172 61 69 317 86 677 US 60 i Rd 79 2,538 58 984 SR 57 922 Sky H 59 845 56 696 46 1,606 52 227 53 406 US 60 66 22 26 0 161 77 SR 45 1,009 Blvd Lake Silver 51 1,212 55 44 118 Rd le da e n Pi 54 52 Sources: Wilson & Company, January 2007 10 240 Con cho APACHE COUNTY 29 82 SR 61 357 43 382 60 99 3 431 41 1,480 Rd 48 131 50 177 13 922 18 17 20 280 991 204 26 27 25 24 23 Paper 88 Mill R 858129 219 2,903 d 31 30 34 204 744 35 107 1,514 39 TAYLOR 565 40 1,210 rto n SR 260 Pulp 42 128 Mill Rd SR 277 SNOWFLAKE Bu 16 58 5 738 6 681 1 196 US 180 Alt NAVAJO COUNTY 4 290 CR 5525 Navajo/Apache County Study Area Overview -M on a cN ry 99 186 Rd Southern Navajo/Apache County Sub-Regional Transportation Plan XX Traffic Analysis Zone X,XXX Population Estimate ³ Not to Scale FIGURE 5-2 66 26 26 0 59 3,253 79 5,939 58 3,360 64 647 161 56 696 63 0 65 70 74 91 2,6293,791 105 90 1,030 82 93 4,782 SHOW 576 3,928 21 96 94 1,030 626 959 95 3,618 46 1,606 Stanford Dr 45 11,236 Blvd Lake Silver 51 1,753 55 nro Pe dR 52 364 53 1,377 US 60 US 180 Alt 0 - 1500 1501 - 4000 4001 - 6500 LOW89 SR 61 47 3,010 62 126 1,066 US 60 104 121 rn Ve -M on Base Map Features Arterials 67 4,165 100 98 102 976 2,669 103 3,287 105 61 804 107 108 4 2,253 112 110 118 117 1,181 1,319 6991,538 113 115 116 PINETOP-LAKESIDE 561 114 785 2,549 1,797 d Sources: Wilson & Company, January 2007 Population Density per Square Mile 33 1,958 38 361 Cities/Towns 57 1,203 68 21 CR 3140 SR y 6500 - 20000 77 60 99 44 118 Rd 54 52 APACHE COUNTY Hw 12 1,473 69 1,168 86 677 US 60 i Rd P 10 566 Con cho YEAR 2030 ESTIMATED POPULATION DENSITY BY TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ZONE 41 9,587 SR 61 357 le da e in 39 3,963 Rd 48 131 50 177 43 493 2 unt Rd 7 8 223 H 9 8 11 38 22 18 29 82 TAYLOR rto n SR 260 Pulp 42 128 40 2,245 13 2,336 3 431 14 210 20 19 18 17 1,815 2,8262,662 991 23 27 25 26 4,743 9,012 1,249 6,981 34 31 30 35 777 1,0206,375 1,514 Mill Rd SR 277 SNOWFLAKE Bu 16 58 5 5,315 6 681 1 196 Sky H NAVAJO COUNTY 4 290 CR 5525 Navajo/Apache County Study Area Overview a cN ry 99 186 Rd Southern Navajo/Apache County Sub-Regional Transportation Plan XX Traffic Analysis Zone X,XXX Population Estimate ³ Not to Scale FIGURE 5-3 63 89 65 73 91 250 70 74 177 515 160 38 93 90 SHOW 85 288 349 21227 96 94 0 143 156 95 1,827 79 213 US 180 Alt 0 - 500 33 21 501 - 1000 1001 - 3000 3000 + 52 18 53 41 46 21 US 60 47 33 61 Sources: Wilson & Company, January 2007 Base Map Features Arterials 57 35 67 97 LOW89 SR 62 3 39 68 0 86 19 69 5 Cities/Towns CR 3140 56 25 Employment Density per Square Mile US 60 XX Traffic Analysis Zone X,XXX Employment Estimate d 64 211 51 138 y YEAR 2015 ESTIMATED EMPLOYMENT DENSITY BY TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ZONE ry R 59 323 55 248 Hw 12 18 100 98 101 102 35 515 441 392 105 103 848 107 304 108 0 87 110 118 112 259 363 117 113 114 191 1,221 PINETOP-LAKESIDE 21 161 115 116 853 224 104 28 99 6 US 60 66 0 26 0 APACHE COUNTY Ver non -M c Na SR 10 16 Con cho 38 39 45 267 58 79 14 5 77 60 4 54 4 8 0 Stanford Dr P 44 6 Rd 2 7 Hunt Rd 9 11 2 2 i Rd le da e in 3 19 7 0 29 3 SR 61 11 43 13 Rd 49 2 48 50 3 4 rto n SR 260 Pulp 42 3 Mill Rd SR 277 13 68 20 19 17 89 116 18 686 26 251 23 24 25 27 Paper 29 Mill R 146 45 71 376 d 31 30 34 28 21 122 35 256 23 39 TAYLOR 463 40 95 51 41 203 Bu 16 4 6 SNOWFLAKE 5 143 464 1 6 Sky H NAVAJO COUNTY 4 10 CR 5525 Navajo/Apache County Study Area Overview Southern Navajo/Apache County Sub-Regional Transportation Plan ³ Not to Scale FIGURE 5-4 56 66 52 58 53 132 63 193 US 60 1001 - 3000 47 114 61 Sources: Wilson & Company, January 2007 Base Map Features Arterials 57 116 67 323 LOW89 SR 62 10 132 68 2 86 63 69 16 Cities/Towns CR 3140 51 328 46 69 Stanford Dr 55 800 65 73 771 70 72 387 693 256 76 93 90 SHOW 322 85 501 933 21534 96 94 0 192 402 95 3,147 79 521 501 - 1000 US 60 XX Traffic Analysis Zone X,XXX Employment Estimate d 64 671 0 - 500 3000 + 45 883 58 229 Employment Density per Square Mile ry R 59 902 y 100 98 101 102 84 814 1,291 700 105 103 1,859 107 906 108 0 190 110 111 112 259 1,523 117 118 114 636 2,400 240 115 PINETOP-LAKESIDE1,207 116 113 1,679 468 52 104 28 99 20 US 60 66 2 26 0 Hw 12 60 YEAR 2030 ESTIMATED EMPLOYMENT DENSITY BY TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ZONE 33 74 Ver non -M c Na SR 10 52 Con cho 38 120 77 60 7 54 8 Hunt Rd APACHE COUNTY i Rd P 44 9 Rd Rd le da e in 9 5 29 10 SR 61 33 43 39 rto n 49 7 48 50 9 11 Bu SR 260 Pulp 42 9 34 80 8 2 14 17 18 17 20 19 297334 23 838 1,014 27 26 25 234 684 104 453 31 30 28 69 402 35 846 39 TAYLOR 877 279 40 41 168 666 Mill Rd SR 277 2 21 11 5 Sky H 16 6 13 209 3 39 7 0 US 180 Alt 6 SNOWFLAKE 5 356 846 1 19 CR 5575 NAVAJO COUNTY 4 25 CR 5525 Navajo/Apache County Study Area Overview Southern Navajo/Apache County Sub-Regional Transportation Plan ³ Not to Scale FIGURE 5-5 Southern Navajo/Apache County Sub-Regional Transportation Plan 6.0 ANALYSIS OF IMPROVEMENT ALTERNATIVES The purpose of this chapter is to present the evaluation of future roadway network improvement alternatives. This evaluation includes a series of traffic assignments generated with the 2015 and 2030 socioeconomic projections. These travel demand model assignments were developed to test different network improvement scenarios. The output of the model permits evaluation and analysis of both roadway segments and key Study Area intersections. 6.1 BASIS FOR DEFINING IMPROVEMENT ALTERNATIVES 6.1.1 ROADWAY CROSS-SECTIONS The maximum roadway cross-section was limited to two travel lanes in each direction per instructions received from study participants. Specifically, urban arterials were limited to a five-lane cross-section with two travel lanes in each direction and a continuous center left-turn lane. Rural arterials were limited to a four-lane cross-section with two travel lanes in each direction. This policy reflects the community desire to meet mobility needs with transportation facilities that maintain the Study Area’s rural character. This means that, when all existing routes have been widened to the maximum cross-section, new alternative alignments must be considered to accommodate travel demand generated by the projected 2030 population and employment growth increment. 6.1.2 ROADWAY LEVEL OF SERVICE The goal of a typical long-range transportation planning study is provide for LOS 'C' on new roadways and LOS 'D' on existing roadways. The planning goal for rural State highways is LOS 'B'. The 1999 White Mountain Regional Transportation Plan accommodated 2020 travel demand estimates at a desirable LOS. However, as urbanization of the Study Area continues, it will be increasingly difficult to plan a roadway system that maintains the higher LOS expected in a transitioning rural area. As noted in Section 2.1, LOS 'D' was adopted as the prime guideline, because it allows for a generally acceptable LOS and is consistent with other plans in the region. Nevertheless, constraints to capacity improvements, such as physical barriers, policy decisions, or funding limitations, can limit the ability of a plan to accommodate future travel demand estimates at a desirable LOS. Thus, the daily, per-lane capacity adopted for planning-level modeling purposes was set for LOS 'E' (refer to Table 2-1). 6.1.3 COMMITTED AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT Alternative network improvement scenarios were developed by identifying possible and potential improvement projects from several sources: • • • Committed (i.e., in the “pipeline”) roadway improvement projects; Planned roadway improvements, identified through past planning; and Improvements revealed with evaluation of roadway network deficiencies. Each of these sources provided the framework for selecting appropriate roadway network improvement options to be included for modeling purposes. SEPTEMBER 2007 6-1 FINAL REPORT Southern Navajo/Apache County Sub-Regional Transportation Plan 6.1.4 EXTERNAL TRAFFIC FORECASTS An important component of future year travel demand forecasts is external traffic growth. The estimate of external traffic growth was based on historic traffic and population growth trends. Table 6-1 shows the TABLE 6-1 CURRENT AND FUTURE EXTERNAL DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES Location US 180, West of SR 180A US 180, East of SR 180A SR 61, East of Concho US 60, East of Vernon SR 260, South of Rim Rd (Pinetop-Lakeside) US 60, West of Rim Rd (Show Low) SR 260, West of Paper Mill Rd SR 277, West of Paper Mill Rd SR 77, North of Snowflake Total 2006 Traffic Count 710 460 2,480 2,140 9,570 3,040 4,390 2,590 4,500 29,880 Year 2015 Estimate 930 610 7,600 4,200 15,900 5,900 6,900 5,080 6,900 54,020 Year 2030 Estimate 1,750 1,130 13,950 7,600 36,800 10,800 12,800 9,300 12,600 106,730 Sources: 2006 – ADOT, Navajo County, Apache County, & municipal planning and published data, adjusted to reflect current development trends; 2015 & 2030 –Wilson & Company Travel Demand Model results, May 2007. existing (2006) ADT counts and 2015 and 2030 daily traffic volume forecasts at nine external stations located at the perimeter of the Study Area. In 2006, there were close to 30,000 average weekday vehicle trips with at least one trip end in the Study Area. Weekday external daily vehicle trips are forecast to grow at five percent per year over the 24-year planning horizon of this study. Thus, in 2030, it is estimated there will be over 106,000 average weekday vehicle trips traveling to, from, and through the Study Area. 6.2 EXISTING-PLUS-COMMITTED ROADWAY NETWORK As the sub-region of southern Navajo and Apache Counties grow, new roadway facilities are being added to provide access to new developments and meet additional travel demand. When a roadway capacity improvement is added to a jurisdiction’s five-year capital improvement program (CIP), it is considered a “committed” improvement. In the case of the Study Area, two committed roadway improvements were identified: • Woolford Extension, SR 260 to Penrod Road – New two-lane road; and • Scott Ranch Road, SR 260 to Penrod Road – New two-lane road. These two roadway improvement projects primarily are developer-funded and related to growth in the SR 260 corridor between Pinetop-Lakeside and Show Low: Five-year programmed roadway improvements were inputs for a 2030 “Existing-Plus-Committed” roadway network (Figure 6-1). The Southern Navajo/Apache County Travel Demand Model then was used to forecast average 2030 daily traffic volumes, based on trips generated from the 2030 population and employment growth projections (Figure 6-2). This traffic forecast reflects the seasonal occupancy rates associated with the Census 2000 population and DU data. As no major new roadway improvement projects are anticipated under the 2030 Existing-Plus-Committed roadway network, it essentially represents a “No-Build” or “Do-Nothing” improvement scenario. SEPTEMBER 2007 6-2 FINAL REPORT Navajo/Apache County Study Area Overview Mill R d Mill R d Paper Frontier Dr 7th St 7th St Co n c ho Hw y APACHE COUNTY Willow Ln Improvement Scenario Base Map Features Cities/Towns US 60 CR 3144 Penro d Ln SR 260 Woodland Rd PINETOP-LAKESIDE Not to Scale Na ry Rd ³ -M c d Sky H R od i Rd nr Pe 60 61 Woolford Extension (Ongoing) Scott Ranch Rd (Ongoing) US 0 SR Ve rno n rto n Central Ave US 6 d 16th Ave ch R SHOW LOW Ran Bu 77 260 d e Blv rdon Bo u Rd Lak Silver CR 3148 Rd esa Ln SR SR 1 Lane Existing-PlusCommitted Stanford Dr Pulp le da e n Pi Directional Lanes 2 Lanes TAYLOR Black M Saw Mill Rd CR 5525 Old W oodru ff R Hunt Rd Larson Rd SR 277 Freeman Hollow Rd SNOWFLAKE US 180 Alt NAVAJO COUNTY d SR 7 7 EXISTING-PLUS-COMMITTED ROADWAY NETWORK Sources: Navajo and Apache Counties Capital Improvement Projgrams Southern Navajo/Apache County Sub-Regional Transportation Plan FIGURE 6-1 Navajo/Apache County Study Area Overview 18 0 11,278 0 19 ,54 Directional Lanes 1 Lane 2 Lanes X,XXX - Daily Volume Estimate 54 ,8 19 SR 61 Base Map Features Cities/Towns 24 7,8 11,463 849 23 ,4 80 CR 3148 2,791 55 ,5 17 7,966 7,623 8 CR 3144 US 60 26 ,15 09 12,9 Rd Na ry 13 ,4 37 Penro d Ln SR 260 1,94 1 0 Woodland Rd Larson Rd 6 PINETOP-LAKESIDE 31 ,0 30 Not to Scale -M c d ,89 51 68 15,6 ³ Ve rno n R od 42 15,6 i Rd Central Ave Stanford Dr 1,574 20 ,3 35 16th Ave 0 US 6 5 81 8, nr Pe 14,3 91 d 51,526 ch R 0 37,71 18,689 1 24,44 Sky H 5,4 10 Bu Ran SHOW LOW 0 81,493 U 0 S6 CR 5525 689 d 9,378 12,836 Frontier Dr 9,4 96 Rd rdon Bo u 77 rto n 20 ,8 41 81 45,5 38,568 759 Blvd SR 260 ,060 43 36 ,8 21 4 20 ,4 39 Lake 7 20 ,95 SR esa Ln Silver 19 ,6 96 YEAR 2030 TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENT: EXISTING-PLUS-COMMITTED ROADWAY NETWORK * Based on 2030 Socioeconomic Data ,81 41 33 676 55 13,9 13 ,1 18 6,249 15 ,6 27 Hw y 6 e al ed n Pi Saw Mill Rd Co n c ho APACHE COUNTY Willow Ln 95 28,9 12,780 9,638 7th St 7th St Black M 5,3 Rd 9,7 23 12,364 TAYLOR Pulp Old W oodru ff R Freeman Hollow Rd d 9, 378 d 10,02 4 ,45 20 Mill R Mill R 450 Hunt Rd US 180 Alt Paper 10,534 ,042 2 11 ,54 1 1 0 12,163 9,324 71 7,7 13,014 00 7,0 SNOWFLAKE 126 SR 277 SR 7 7 NAVAJO COUNTY 34 ,6 12 12,648 3,351 1,129 71 1,7 Sources: Wilson & Company, May 2007. Southern Navajo/Apache County Sub-Regional Transportation Plan FIGURE 6-2 Southern Navajo/Apache County Sub-Regional Transportation Plan 6.2.1 CUT-LINE ANALYSIS PROCESS Forecast traffic volumes were evaluated to determine whether the Existing-Plus-Committed roadway network would have adequate capacity to accommodate the forecast 2030 travel demand. The evaluation consisted of a “cut-line” analysis that focused on key travel corridors. Cut-line analysis is a technique that allows a broader assessment of the relationship between network capacity and travel demand. Traffic volumes on specific facilities may be high or low, due to variances in the model assignment process. The cut-line analysis permits evaluation of traffic volumes as the total demand for travel in a given direction over a broader portion of the network. The capacity of a given link in the network is a function of the number of lanes and the functional classification of a roadway. Each roadway crossed by the cut-line is reviewed to determine the daily capacity threshold associated with its functional classification. Capacity values for each individual roadway crossing the cut-line are added together to arrive at a total capacity value for each cut-line. This total capacity value then is compared to the total traffic volume crossing the cut-line. The comparison yields a volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratio, which provides a basis for assessing the adequacy of network capacity of a travel corridor relative to network travel demand. 6.2.2 CUT-LINE ANALYSIS RESULTS As shown in Figure 6-3, an imaginary line was drawn across all major roadway facilities in nine travel corridors. The cut-line analysis and the resulting V/C ratios reveal areas within the roadway network that would experience volume demand in excess of the network capacity provided. Thus, cut-lines with a projected V/C value greater than one (1.0) represent locations with insufficient network capacity, and additional or expanded facilities would be needed to fully accommodate future demand in the corridor. The V/C ratios provide another tool for understanding the corridor-level, roadway capacity needs to accommodate the potential impact of more than 130,000 new people in the Study Area through 2030. The “cut-line” analysis results summarized in Table 6-2 (see also inset table of Figure 6-3) shows that the majority of the sub-regional arterial roadway network is forecast to carry daily traffic volumes in 2030 that will exceed the capacity of Study Area roadways, assuming a No-Build improvement scenario. Five of the nine cut-lines are forecast to have V/C ratios exceeding 1.0 (red highlight). Two others (Cut-Lines 1 and 7) will be just below capacity. In particular, the north-south corridors connecting Pinetop-Lakeside, Show Low, Taylor, and Snowflake (Cut-Lines 2 – 5) exhibit the highest over-capacity conditions and, therefore, the greatest need for enhanced connectivity. The east-west routes supporting travel principally in the Show Low area also exhibit over capacity conditions, but to a lesser extent (see values for Cut-Lines 7 and 8). Clearly, the existing Study Area roadway network will not have adequate capacity to handle the forecast 2030 travel demand without significant improvement to existing facilities and the addition of new subregional transportation facilities in these critical corridors. 6.3 COMMITTED-PLUS-PLANNED ROADWAY NETWORK Information in the previous section provides evidence that forecast travel demand in 2030 would overwhelm the Existing-Plus-Committed roadway network. The information provides a definitive case for improving existing facilities and identifying new improvements in the major travel corridors, particularly to accommodate north-south travel between the Pinetop-Lakeside, Show Low, Taylor, and Snowflake. Additional capacity also is needed on east-west routes serving the City of Show Low, which is the largest community in the Study Area. Therefore, a second sub-regional roadway network was defined and tested. SEPTEMBER 2007 6-5 FINAL REPORT yH Ha Rd 3 Base Map Features Cities/Towns US 60 CR 3144 in PINETOP-LAKESIDE Rd SR 2 Cut Line Over Capacity US 60 !! !! !! !! Cut Line Under Capacity ³ cN a ry Rd i Rd Sky H ou nt a Cut Line Reference Number 1 on -M Central Ave 16th Ave d 5 M d hi te dR ro 60 61 4 W US U S 60 8 SHOW LOW n Pe Estimated Roadway Volume-toModel Volume Capacity Capacity Ratio 34,000 35,600 0.96 1.31 49,000 37,300 1.77 66,000 37,300 2.15 115,000 53,400 1.25 63,000 50,600 25,000 32,800 0.76 21,000 22,300 0.94 1.11 55,000 49,600 22,300 0.81 18,000 ch R SR 260 SR Ve rn Frontier Dr Freeman Hollow Rd CR 5525 * Based on 2030 Socioeconomic Data CR 3148 h Stanford Dr nc d e Blv U S 60 LOS E LOS F d Bu rt o nR !! ! ! ! ! ! ! r L ak Silve Ra !! on !! Bo ur d 9 R an ! ! LOS C LOS D 2 Rd LOS A - B !! Rd APACHE COUNTY 1 !! Level of Service y !! Mill !! Hw !! Pulp !! rdon Bou ! !! 77 SR ! !! Con ch o !! !! ! !! Willow Ln !! 7 !! !! 0 !! 80 FORECAST 2030 LEVEL OF SERVICE: EXISTING-PLUS-COMMITTED ROADWAY NETWORK !! !! ne Pi le da !! US 1 Al t !! !! Existing-Plus-Committed Network Year 2030 Cut Line Summary 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 180 !! 7th St 7th St TAYLOR Saw Mill Rd 26 6 !! Paper Mill R d SR Cut Line US Hunt Rd SNOWFLAKE 77 SR 260 ol lo w SR 77 NAVAJO COUNTY 2 SR Rd Navajo/Apache County Study Area Overview Not to Scale 60 Sources: Wilson & Company, May 2007. Southern Navajo/Apache County Sub-Regional Transportation Plan FIGURE 6-3 Southern Navajo/Apache County Sub-Regional Transportation Plan TABLE 6-2 YEAR 2030 EXISTING-PLUS-COMMITTED ROADWAY NETWORK CUT-LINE EVALUATION Cut-line 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Location Year 2030 Daily Volume North-South Roadways Town of Snowflake 34,000 Town of Taylor 49,000 Between Towns of Taylor and Show-Low 66,000 City of Show Low 115,000 Town of Pinetop-Lakeside 63,000 East-West Roadways West of Snowflake/Taylor 25,000 West of Show Low 21,000 East of Show Low and Pinetop-Lakeside 55,000 SR 61 West of Concho Highway 18,000 Roadway Capacity V/C Ratio 35,600 37,300 37,300 53,400 50,600 0.96 1.31 1.77 2.15 1.25 32,800 22,300 49,600 22,300 0.76 0.94 1.11 0.81 Red highlighting indicates Cut-Line is over capacity. Source: Wilson & Company, May 2007. The “Committed-Plus-Planned” roadway network includes the two capacity improvements incorporated in the Existing-Plus-Committed network (Figure 6-4). Under the Committed-Plus-Planned improvement scenario, the No-Build scenario, is augmented with new alignment and widening proposals presented in earlier planning studies. The Committed-Plus-Planned improvement scenario also includes new proposals for widening some existing facilities. Appendix F includes detailed, larger scale maps showing the Committed-Plus-Planned roadway system improvements for each Study Area municipality and the communities of Vernon and Concho in Apache County. 6.3.1 PLANNED ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS The improvements identified in this section were incorporated in the Committed-Plus-Planned roadway network (refer to Figure 6-4). The Existing-Plus-Committed roadway network was modified to incorporate the improvements, then the sub-regional Southern Navajo/Apache County Travel Demand Model was used to generate a second traffic assignment, based again on 2030 population and employment growth data (Figure 6-5). The travel demand forecast from this second model run provided the basis for identifying any remaining roadway network deficiencies that were not exposed during earlier planning efforts. Appendix F includes detailed, larger scale figures showing improvements and forecast 2030 traffic assignments associated with the Committed-Plus-Planned roadway network for each study area municipality and the communities of Vernon and Concho. ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION State and Federal highways are the backbone of the roadway transportation network within the Study Area. To accommodate the travel demand forecast for 2030, significant widening will be needed on these facilities to provide additional capacity. Many improvements were identified in the 1999 White Mountain Regional Transportation Plan. However, the Committed-Plus-Planned improvement scenario extends the recommendations for State highway improvements beyond those found in earlier studies. SEPTEMBER 2007 6-7 FINAL REPORT yH Ha Rd CR 5525 US 60 Improvement Scenario Existing-PlusCommitted 61 CR 3144 Bluff Rd (Future) Base Map Features Cities/Towns US 60 in Scott Ranch Rd (Ongoing) PINETOP-LAKESIDE Rd SR 2 Rd a ry Not to Scale cN ou nt a ³ on -M d M Sky H dR ro i Rd n Pe US hi te 1 Lane 2 Lanes Woolford Extension (Ongoing) Rim Rd (Future) 60 y Ve rn Central Ave d U S 60 W Summit Trail (Future) U S 60 ch R 16th Ave R an Bu rt o nR 77 SR SHOW LOW SR 260 SR Vernon-McNary Rd Extension (Future) d e Blv h Hw Committed-PlusPlanned CR 3148 ak nc d rL Silve Ra Stanford Dr Frontier Dr Freeman Hollow Rd Rd Mill Pulp 0 ne Pi le da Rd Con ch o CR 8500 Extension (Future) Stanford Dr Extension (Future) on 80 Al t Willow Ln Bo ur d US 1 COMMITTED-PLUS-PLANNED ROADWAY NETWORK Directional Lanes APACHE COUNTY rdon Bou 26 180 SR 7th St 7th St TAYLOR Saw Mill Rd US SR 260 Hunt Rd SNOWFLAKE Paper Mill R d 77 ol lo w SR 77 NAVAJO COUNTY 2 SR Rd Navajo/Apache County Study Area Overview 60 Sources: Wilson & Company, April 2007. Southern Navajo/Apache County Sub-Regional Transportation Plan FIGURE 6-4 0 llo w Ho Directional Lanes 11,100 CR 5525 40 0 Hw y 5, 30 0 00 14,0 13 ,20 0 APACHE COUNTY 0 SR 17,900 0 12,0 00 * Based on 2030 Socioeconomic Data 500 US 60 Rd Na ry -M c ³ Not to Scale 3,800 260 15,90 0 X,XXX - Daily Volume Estimate Cities/Towns 800 Stanford Dr 2,500 CR 3148 16th Ave CR 3144 i Rd RdPINETOP-LAKESIDE 10 19, 10,1 00 ain 2 Lanes Base Map Features Ve rno n ou nt 1 Lane 61 US 60 7,500 0 3,90 7, 40 0 M 600 11 ,20 0 d 11,00 0 00 7,0 R od hi te 0 ,00 10 SR 0 nr Pe 20,4 00 00 ,0 10 00 ,0 6 1 W 100 00 ,5 13 21,000 US 6 0 d 0 54,30 US 6 0 0 0 60 ch R Central Ave Ran 0 90 55, 0 30 11, US 1,100 YEAR 2030 TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENT: COMMITTED-PLUS-PLANNED ROADWAY NETWORK 00 ,9 11 Sky H 7, 10 0 Rd rto n rdon Bo u 5, 30 0 SHOW LOW 22 ,3 00 77 SR 260 d SR 11, 90 0 e Blv 00 72,5 1,900 ,900 00 35 1,7 11 ,80 0 Ha y r Lak Silve Bu 2,900 100 d R 0 11 ,70 0 ,70 58 26 0 Rd 0 800 300 18,70 0 0 SR Co n c ho 00 1,2 4,700 Pulp ,40 56 le da e n Pi Saw Mill Rd 100 12,700 100 22,700 d Willow Ln 00 ,0 19 TAYLOR Mill R 27,400 0 80 0 SR 260 12,8 00 4,100 3,700 7th St 7th St 7, 60 0 Frontier Dr Freeman Hollow Rd d 4,600 0 Hunt Rd 70 19, 2,80 0 Mill R 5,800 US 1 Alt 9,500 6,500 00 2 , 7 400 77 9,300 Paper 00 5,3 10,400 16,600 180 00 ,7 12 SNOWFLAKE US SR 7 7 NAVAJO COUNTY 2 SR 3,400 Navajo/Apache County Study Area Overview Sources: Wilson & Company, April 2007. Southern Navajo/Apache County Sub-Regional Transportation Plan FIGURE 6-5 Southern Navajo/Apache County Sub-Regional Transportation Plan US 60 Several projects were identified that would improve the capacity of US 60, which will be impacted not only by traffic volume increases associated with projected population and employment growth but also by other roadway improvements: • • • • US 60 (West) – between Rim Road and Summit Trail: The paving of Rim Road between US 60 and Pinetop-Lakeside is expected to provide relief to SR 260 (White Mountain Road) and, thereby, reduce traffic through central Show Low on US 60. Bypass traffic from Rim Road, however, is expected to increase traffic volume on this segment of US 60 to more than 20,000 vehicles per day in 2030. Widening to four lanes will be required to accommodate this volume US 60 (West) – between Summit Trail and SR 260 (N. Clark Road): The planned Summit Trail Bypass in the City of Show Low between US 60 and SR 260 (White Mountain Road) is expected to increase traffic volume on this segment of US 60 to more than 35,000 vehicles per day in year 2030. Widening to four lanes with strict access management control will be required to accommodate this volume US 60 (East) – between SR 77 and Bourdon Ranch Road: The traffic volume on this segment of US 60 is forecast to increase to more than 54,000 vehicles per day by 2030. This volume is more typical of a limited access expressway than an arterial. Widening to four lanes together with strict access management control will be required to accommodate this volume. US 60 (East) – between Bourdon Ranch Road and SR 61: Population growth in the Concho and Vernon areas of Apache County is expected to result in increasing traffic volumes on US 60 between Bourdon Ranch Road and SR 61 to almost 32,000 vehicles per day in 2030. Widening US 60 to four lanes together with strict access management control will be required to accommodate this volume. SR 77 • • SR 77 (N. Penrod Road) – between US 60 and Silver Lake Boulevard: Traffic volume on this segment of SR 77 is estimated to exceed 72,000 vehicles per day in 2030. This volume is more typical of a limited access expressway than an arterial. Widening to four lanes together with strict access management control will be required to accommodate this volume. SR 77 (S. Main Street) – between Silver Lake Boulevard and Pinedale Road in Taylor: Traffic volume on this segment of SR 77 is expected to exceed 58,000 vehicles per day in the year 2030. This volume is more typical of a limited access expressway than an arterial. Widening SR 77 to four lanes together with strict access management control will be required to accommodate this volume. SR 260 • SR 260 (N. Clark Road) – between Burton Road and Old Linden Road: Due to population growth pressures on the west side of Show Low, the volume on this segment of SR 260 is expected to exceed 35,000 vehicles per day. Widening to four lanes together with strict access management control will be required to accommodate this volume. Improvements to State and Federal highways in the Study Area can be made only after in-depth planning and engineering studies are conducted by ADOT, and upon approval of the State Transportation Board. The recommendations for improvements to State facilities presented through this study can serve only as suggestions for further study. SEPTEMBER 2007 6-10 FINAL REPORT Southern Navajo/Apache County Sub-Regional Transportation Plan NAVAJO COUNTY Navajo County transportation facilities will have an increasing role in the sub-regional mobility solution as population growth occurs. In addition to providing access to growth areas, such as White Mountain Lakes, County roads will become more heavily used as sub-regional bypass routes as the State Highway System becomes more congested. • • • Bourdon Ranch Road (South) – between US 60 and Silver Lake Boulevard: This roadway segment provides access to the growing White Mountain Lakes area. It also serves as a sub-regional bypass to SR 77. Traffic volumes are forecast to be more than 27,000 vehicles per day in 2030. Widening to four lanes will be required to accommodate this volume at an acceptable LOS. Bourdon Ranch Road (North) – between Silver Lake Boulevard and the Town of Taylor: This roadway segment, like the one to the south (above), provides access to the growing White Mountain Lakes area. It also serves as a sub-regional bypass to SR 77. Traffic volumes are forecast to be more than 19,000 vehicles per day in 2030. Widening to four lanes will be required to accommodate this volume at an acceptable LOS. Silver Lake Boulevard – between White Mountain Lakes and SR 77: This roadway segment provides direct access to White Mountain Lakes. Traffic volumes on this facility are forecast to grow to more than 29,000 vehicles per day in 2030. Widening to two travel lanes in each direction will be required to accommodate this volume at an acceptable LOS. APACHE COUNTY While steady population growth is forecast in Apache County through the year 2030 planning horizon, existing County facilities are expected to accommodate forecast 2030 travel demand. However, several new roads have been identified during previous planning efforts that would improve access within the Study Area. • • • Stanford Drive Extension – from existing terminus to new CR 8500: A new two-lane north-south extension of Stanford Drive to a new CR 8500 (see below) is planned to establish a direct connection to Concho Highway to improve access into this growing rural residential area. CR 8500 (New) – between Stanford Drive extension and SR 61: This new two-lane east-west roadway is planned to improve access into this growing rural residential area. Vernon-McNary Road – between SR 61 and US 60: A new two-lane extension of this roadway is planned to improve access to the growing Vernon area. TOWN OF PINETOP-LAKESIDE Three improvements included in the Committed-Plus-Planned roadway network are located in the Town of Pinetop-Lakeside. • • Rim Road – between US 60 in Show Low and White Mountain Road (SR 260) in Pinetop-Lakeside: The improvement of this two-lane roadway is expected to provide an alternative to the congested US 60 and SR 260 highway corridors. The eastern portion of this two-lane facility is forecast to carry more than 19,000 vehicles per day in 2030. Penrod Road – between Porter Mountain Road and US 60: This parallel facility to White Mountain Road (SR 260) provides sub-regional connectivity. Traffic volumes between Porter Mountain Road and US 60 are expected to exceed 50,000 vehicles per day in 2030. This level of traffic is more SEPTEMBER 2007 6-11 FINAL REPORT Southern Navajo/Apache County Sub-Regional Transportation Plan • typical of a limited access expressway than an arterial. Widening to four lanes together with strict access management control will be required to accommodate this volume at an acceptable LOS. Porter Mountain Road – between White Mountain Road (SR 260) and Penrod Road: This roadway segment is an important link in the corridor providing sub-regional connectivity between Pinetop-Lakeside and Show Low. Traffic volumes are forecast to exceed 42,000 vehicles per day in 2030. Widening to four lanes together with strict access management control will be required to accommodate this volume at an acceptable LOS. CITY OF SHOW LOW Roadway capacity improvements included in the Committed-Plus-Planned within the City of Show Low involve widening existing facilities and constructing new bypass alignments to provide relief to the congested central business district (CBD). • • • • Penrod Road – between Porter Mountain Road and US 60: This parallel facility to White Mountain Road (SR 260) provides sub-regional connectivity between Pinetop-Lakeside and Show Low. Traffic volumes are forecast to exceed 50,000 vehicles per day in 2030. This volume is more typical of a limited access expressway than an arterial. Widening to four lanes together with strict access management control will be required to accommodate this volume at an acceptable LOS. Summit Trail – between US 60 and White Mountain Road: A planned four-lane extension of this roadway will provide relief to US 60 (Deuce of Clubs) and White Mountain Road (SR 260) in the central portions of Show Low. This bypass is forecast to carry more than 21,000 vehicles per day in 2030. Rim Road – between US 60 in Show Low and White Mountain Road (SR 260): Improvement of the portion of this roadway in Pinetop-Lakeside in conjunction with improvements in Show Low is expected to provide an alternative to the congested US 60 and SR 260 highway corridors. The western portion of this two-lane facility is forecast to carry more than 11,000 vehicles per day. Bluff Road (New) – between Penrod Road and US 60: This new two-lane collector, planned as part of the Show Low Bluff Planned Unit Development (PUD) will provide access to developments in the southeast quadrant of the Penrod Road/US 60 intersection. It also will provide some relief to the US 60/SR 77 intersection. This facility is forecast to carry 16,000 vehicles per day in 2030. TOWN OF TAYLOR Two improvements incorporated in the Committed-Plus-Planned roadway network are located within the Town of Taylor. • • Paper Mill Road – between Freeman Hollow Road and SR 77: Forecast 2030 traffic volumes on is roadway segment are expected to exceed 10,000 vehicles per day. This facility would require widening to four lanes to accommodate forecast 2030 travel demand at an acceptable LOS. Airport Access Road (New) – between SR 77 and Airport Road: This new two-lane access roadway is planned to improve access to Taylor Airport and the industrial park around the railroad spur. It also will serve to relieve the congested Paper Mill Road/SR 77 intersection. TOWN OF SNOWFLAKE While steady population growth is projected to occur in Snowflake through the 2030 planning horizon, existing roadway facilities are expected to accommodate future travel demand; no new sub-regional Committed-Plus-Planned improvement needs were identified. SEPTEMBER 2007 6-12 FINAL REPORT Southern Navajo/Apache County Sub-Regional Transportation Plan 6.3.2 COMMITTED-PLUS-PLANNED CUT-LINE ANALYSIS The cut-line analysis was revised to evaluate the overall performance of the Committed-Plus-Planned roadway network (Figure 6-6). Table 6-3 summarizes the results of the cut-line analysis conducted to evaluate the Committed-Plus-Planned roadway network. As indicated in the figure and table, planned improvements would address many of the deficiencies identified within the Existing-Plus-Committed roadway network. In particular, sufficient capacity is provided along each of the east-west cut-lines. Three key north-south corridors (Cut-Lines 1, 3, and 4) still are forecast to have 2030 traffic volumes in excess of planned capacities (red highlight). However, the V/C ratios have been reduced significantly from the conditions forecast under the No-Build assumptions of the Existing-Plus-Committed roadway network. TABLE 6-3 YEAR 2030 COMMITTED-PLUS-PLANNED ROADWAY NETWORK CUT-LINE EVALUATION Cut-line 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Location Year 2030 Daily Volume North-South Roadways Town of Snowflake 37,000 Town of Taylor 75,400 Between Towns of Taylor and Show-Low 94,000 City of Show Low 133,000 Town of Pinetop-Lakeside 71,000 East-West Roadways West of Snowflake/Taylor 28,000 West of Show Low 12,000 East of Show Low and Pinetop-Lakeside 43,500 SR 61 West of Concho Highway 12,000 Roadway Capacity V/C Ratio 35,600 88,300 88,300 89,000 71,200 1.04 0.85 1.06 1.49 0.99 47,800 22,300 88,300 22,300 0.59 0.54 0.49 0.54 Red highlighting indicates Cut-line is over capacity. Source: Wilson & Company, May 2007. 6.4 IMPROVEMENT ALTERNATIVE 'A' As evidenced by the cut-line analysis of the Committed-Plus-Planned roadway network, even with implementation of a large number of major improvements, there still will be the need to increase network capacity and connectivity to facilitate north-south travel throughout the Study Area in 2030. In consultation with the TAC, possible new Navajo County highway corridors were identified and specific roadway improvements were added to the Committed-Plus-Planned roadway network to address this need. The potential new roadway facilities together with improvements included in the Committed-Plus-Planned roadway network constitute Alternative 'A' (Figure 6-7). A third traffic assignment was modeled to provide a basis for evaluating Alternative 'A', using the same 2030 population and employment growth data used for the previous travel demand model runs. Figure 6-8 shows the forecast traffic counts for major roadways in the Study Area. Appendix G contains detailed, larger scale figures showing Alternative 'A' roadway system improvements and 2030 traffic assignments for each study area municipality and the communities of Vernon and Concho. 6.4.1 PROPOSED CAPACITY ENHANCING IMPROVEMENTS Five potential new roadway alignments were identified for inclusion in the Alternative 'A' roadway network. SEPTEMBER 2007 6-13 FINAL REPORT !! Ho CR 5525 2 !! ! !! !! !! !! !! !! * Based on 2030 Socioeconomic Data CR 3148 !! !! !! SR !! !! !! !! !! Rd !! Na ry !! !! !! -M c i Rd Sky H PINETOP-LAKESIDE Rd !! !! !! Cut Line Under Capacity ³ !! 60 !! !! !! !! Cut Line Over Capacity !! !! !! CR 3144 !! ain Cut Line Reference Number US 60 !! 5 !! US 60 Ve rno n rto n Bu !! !! !! Stanford Dr !! Central Ave !! d US !! ch R ou nt Cities/Towns 1 !! d M Base Map Features !! R od hi te 61 1 4 W SR 8 SHOW LOW nr Pe Estimated Roadway Volume-toModel Volume Capacity Capacity Ratio 1.04 37,000 35,600 75,400 88,300 0.85 1.06 94,000 88,300 1.49 133,000 89,000 71,000 71,200 0.99 28,000 47,800 0.59 12,000 22,300 0.54 43,500 88,300 0.49 60 12,000 22,300 0.54 US US 6 0 US 6 0 !! Ran !! 3 77 !! d SR 260 Committed-Plus-Planned Network Year 2030 Cut Line Summary 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 e Blv SR Rd 7 r Lak Silve rdon Bo u 26 0 !! SR Rd 16th Ave le da e n Pi Saw Mill Rd Cut Line LOS E LOS F Pulp SR 260 LOS D 9 !! Frontier Dr LOS C !! d LOS A - B !! !! Mill R Level of Service Hw y !! !! Willow Ln TAYLOR 80 FORECAST 2030 LEVEL OF SERVICE COMMITTED-PLUS-PLANNED ROADWAY NETWORK !! Freeman Hollow Rd !! d Co n c ho APACHE COUNTY 1 !! Mill R 7th St 7th St !! 77 6 !! Paper US 1 Alt Ha y 180 Hunt Rd SNOWFLAKE !! 2 SR US NAVAJO COUNTY llo w SR 7 7 Rd Navajo/Apache County Study Area Overview Not to Scale 260 !! ! Sources: Wilson & Company, April 2007. Southern Navajo/Apache County Sub-Regional Transportation Plan FIGURE 6-6 Bluff Rd (Future) 2 Lanes CR 5525 Stanford Dr Vernon-McNary Rd Extension (Future) 61 US 60 CR 3144 Committed-PlusPlanned Alternative A US 60 ain Rd Scott Ranch Rd (Ongoing) PINETOP-LAKESIDE Rd ³ Not to Scale SR 2 60 Penro d Ln ou nt Rd Na ry d M in unta -M c R od Rim Rd (Future) hi te P Mo orter Base Map Features Cities/Towns Ve rno n nr Pe US 6 0 1 Lane Woolford Extension (Ongoing) W Summit Trail (Future) Sky Hi Rd Extension (Future) SR CR 3148 Central Ave 16th Ave d Relocated Lone Pine Dam Rd (Future) US 6 0 Directional Lanes Existing-PlusCommitted US 6 0 ch R SHOW LOW Ran 26 0 Hw y Improvement Scenario i Rd rto n 77 SR SR Rd r Lak Silve Mazatzal Rd Extension (Future) d e Blv rdon Bo u 26 0 le da e n Pi 80 CR 8500 Extension (Future) Stanford Dr Extension (Future) Bu Saw Mill Rd Rd Co n c ho APACHE COUNTY Bourdon Ranch Road Extension (Future) Willow Ln New North-South Rd (Future) Pulp Mill R d TAYLOR 7th St 7th St Sky H Frontier Dr d Freeman Hollow Rd Mill R US 1 ALTERNATIVE A ROADWAY NETWORK Alt Ha y 180 Ho US Paper SR Hunt Rd SNOWFLAKE 77 R2 SR 260 llo w SR 7 7 NAVAJO COUNTY S Rd Navajo/Apache County Study Area Overview Sources: Wilson & Company, April 2007. Southern Navajo/Apache County Sub-Regional Transportation Plan FIGURE 6-7 0 llo w 0 Ho Ha y 11,200 CR 5525 60 0 ain Rd 40 17, 0 4,700 16,700 0 13 ,00 12,8 00 X,XXX - Daily Volume Estimate * Based on 2030 Socioeconomic Data 700 Stanford Dr 1,100 2,000 0 ,50 13 Base Map Features 14,100 600 US 60 7,600 CR 3144 US 60 0 3,50 PINETOP-LAKESIDE SR 2 Lanes 61 7, 50 0 ou nt 3,000 M 00 ,2 14 SR 4, 70 0 8, 40 0 d 10,60 0 R od 0 hi te 1 Lane 00 ,6 12 i Rd nr Pe 0 00 9,7 W 00 6,4 00 14,0 0 5, 10 0 YEAR 2030 TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENT: ALTERNATIVE A ROADWAY NETWORK Directional Lanes 0 30,300 Central Ave 0 30 6, 16th Ave d 0 47,10 21,100 US 6 0 0 ,30 14 90 61, 18,9 00 ch R SHOW LOW US 6 0 1,100 500 Ran 0 80 Sky H 13,200 Rd rto n 500 14 ,8 00 rdon Bo u 00 41,8 US 60 d 77 Bu e Blv SR SR 260 Hw y 100 CR 3148 7,3 00 0 13, 50 Pulp 1,200 Lak lver 2,700 Si 0 11, 50 0 300 12,10 0 00 73,4 11 ,40 0 APACHE COUNTY 0 30 0 11 ,20 0 00 1,000 Co n c ho 9,900 0 ,30 54 26 0 Rd 0 800 17,100 9,600 0 SR 3,900 3,800 Willow Ln 11,400 le da e n Pi Saw Mill Rd 2,1 Rd 100 12,700 0 ,30 44 SR 260 12,8 00 3,7 00 00 ,3 12 Mill R d TAYLOR 4,700 Hunt Rd 7th St 7th St 7,300 Frontier Dr d Freeman Hollow Rd 1,10 0 Mill R US 1 Alt 9,300 11,900 5,900 400 SR 7 27 9,200 Paper 00 3,6 6,600 00 2 , 7 180 00 ,5 12 SNOWFLAKE US SR 7 7 NAVAJO COUNTY 3,400 Navajo/Apache County Study Area Overview Cities/Towns ³ Not to Scale 260 14,90 0 Sources: Wilson & Company, April 2007. Southern Navajo/Apache County Sub-Regional Transportation Plan FIGURE 6-8 Southern Navajo/Apache County Sub-Regional Transportation Plan • • • • • Bourdon Ranch Road Extension – between Old Woodruff Road at Concho Highway in northeast Snowflake to Bourdon Ranch Road southeast of Taylor: Extension of Bourdon Ranch Road was identified as a potential new north-south, two-lane Minor Arterial east of the Towns of Taylor and Snowflake. Connectivity also would be provided to the existing street network in Snowflake and Taylor to the west of this alignment. This new alignment would help to relieve congestion along SR 77 in Taylor and Snowflake forecast for 2030. Connectivity would be enhanced with extension of the city streets to this new roadway. Year 2030 traffic volumes on the Bourdon Ranch Road Extension are forecast to exceed 18,000 vehicles per day on some sections. North-South Road – between Centennial Boulevard at Paper Mill Road in the north to Lone Pine Dam Road in the south: The possibility of a new “North-South Road” west of the Town of Taylor was identified. This proposed two-lane Minor Arterial roadway generally would follow the existing Forest Road 133 (FR 133) alignment between Lone Pine Dam Road and Pinedale Road. This new facility would serve to relieve congestion along SR 77 between Show Low and Taylor. Traffic volumes on this new roadway are forecast to exceed 13,000 vehicles per day in 2030 on some sections. Lone Pine Dam Road – between SR 260 (S. Clark Road) and SR 77: This is an important Navajo County Minor Arterial that provides a north-south bypass around Show Low. This facility also forms the southern section of the new “North-South Road” described above. Traffic volumes on Lone Pine Dam Road are forecast to exceed 13,000 vehicles per day. As part of upgrading Lone Pine Dam Road to handle this increase in bypass traffic volume, it is proposed that the roadway be relocated west of its existing alignment away from the growing residential neighborhood at the SR 260/Lone Pine Dam Road intersection. A detailed corridor study should be conducted to select an appropriate new alignment to begin right-of-way protection. Sky Hi Road Extension – between US 60 east of Bourdon Ranch Road and Porter Mountain Road: The unused Apache Railroad right-of-way offers a potential opportunity for a new north-south, two-lane roadway in Apache County. This facility would enhance connectivity between Pinetop-Lakeside in the south and residential growth areas in Apache County. It also would serve to relieve congestion in the Penrod Road/White Mountain Road (SR 260) corridor. Year 2030 traffic volumes are forecast to exceed 7,000 vehicles per day. Mazatzal Street Extension – between Bourdon Ranch Road in Navajo County and Stanford Drive in Apache County: This potential new east-west, two-lane Collector roadway would provide new connectivity between White Mountain Lakes and residential developments in the Stanford Drive area. The 2030 traffic volume on the proposed Mazatzal Street Extension is forecast to be 500 vehicles per day. 6.4.2 ALTERNATIVE 'A' CUT-LINE ANALYSIS Figure 6-9 shows the results of the cut-line analysis performed for Alternative 'A' and indicates the LOS for each roadway segment under Alternative ‘A’ based on the traffic assignment. Table 6-4 compares the results of the cut-line analysis for the Committed-Plus-Planned roadway network with the Alternative 'A' roadway network. As indicated in Table 6-4, the additional improvements proposed under Alternative 'A' would provide the best network performance based on projected 2030 growth projections. However, even with the additional north-south capacity from the new alignments, some deficiencies would persist: • The SR 260 corridor in central Pinetop-Lakeside (Cut-Line 5) is forecast to have a V/C ratio of 1.00, meaning this corridor will be at or close to capacity in 2030; SEPTEMBER 2007 6-17 FINAL REPORT Navajo/Apache County Study Area Overview Ha y Ho SR 7 7 NAVAJO COUNTY llo w Rd FORECAST 2030 LEVEL OF SERVICE: ALTERNATIVE A ROADWAY NETWORK Frontier Dr !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! CR 5525 1 !! Hw y !! LOS A - B !! Willow Ln !! LOS C LOS E !! !! !! !! !! ! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! Pulp !! Mill R LOS D 9 !! d TAYLOR 2 Level of Service !! Freeman Hollow Rd !! Co n c ho APACHE COUNTY 7th St 7th St !! d !! Mill R !! Paper !! SR 277 6 US 180 Alt Hunt Rd SNOWFLAKE LOS F * Based on 2030 Socioeconomic Data !! !! CR 3144 !! !! !! !! !! Woodland Rd Larson Rd !! !! !! !! !! !! ! !! !! Rd Sky H !! SR 260 !! PINETOP-LAKESIDE !! !! Na ry i Rd !! !! !! !! !! Cut Line Under Capacity ³ !! !! Cut Line Over Capacity US 60 !! Central Ave !! 16th Ave !! 60 !! d 5 Cut Line Reference Number 1 4 d US Base Map Features Cities/Towns 8 !! 0 R od 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 US 6 nr Pe Cut Line SHOW LOW ch R Alternative A Network Year 2030 Cut Line Summary Estimated Roadway Volume-toModel Volume Capacity Capacity Ratio 52,000 53,400 0.97 72,000 106,000 0.68 100,000 106,000 0.94 1.48 132,000 89,000 71,000 71,200 1.00 27,000 47,800 0.56 11,000 22,300 0.49 43,500 88,300 0.49 13,000 22,300 0.58 3 !! !! !! -M c !! !! !! !! 61 Ve rno n !! !! !! CR 3148 !! !! SR Stanford Dr Rd rto n !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! Ran !! !! !! !! 260 !! !! !! lvd rdon Bo u SR Silv ke B er La SR 7 7 7 Rd Bu le da e n Pi Saw Mill Rd Not to Scale Sources: Wilson & Company, April 2007. Southern Navajo/Apache County Sub-Regional Transportation Plan FIGURE 6-9 Southern Navajo/Apache County Sub-Regional Transportation Plan TABLE 6-4 CUT-LINE EVALUATION: COMPARISON OF COMMITTED-PLUS-PLANNED AND ALTERNATIVE 'A' ROADWAY NETWORKS (2030) Cut-line Location 1 2 3 4 5 Town of Snowflake Town of Taylor Between Town of Taylor and City of Show Low City of Show Low Town of Pinetop-Lakeside 6 7 8 9 West of Snowflake/Taylor West of Show Low East of Show Low and Pinetop-Lakeside SR 61, West of Concho Highway Committed-Plus-Planned Network 2030 Daily V/C Roadway Capacity Volume Ratio North-South Roadways 37,000 35,600 1.04 75,400 88,300 0.85 94,000 88,300 1.06 133,000 89,000 1.49 71,000 71,200 0.99 East-West Roadways 28,000 47,800 0.59 12,000 22,300 0.54 43,500 88,300 0.49 12,000 22,300 0.54 Alternative 'A' Network 2030 Daily Volume Roadway Capacity V/C Ratio 52,000 72,000 100,000 132,000 71,000 53,400 106,000 106,000 89,000 71,200 0.97 0.68 0.94 1.48 1.00 27,000 11,000 43,500 13,000 47,800 22,300 88,300 22,300 0.56 0.49 0.49 0.58 Source: Wilson & Company, May 2007. SEPTEMBER 2007 6-19 FINAL REPORT Southern Navajo/Apache County Sub-Regional Transportation Plan • • • The SR 260/Penrod Road corridor between Pinetop-Lakeside and Show Low (Cut-Line 4) is forecast to be over capacity with a V/C ratio of 1.48, which would be undesirable; The SR 77/Bourdon Ranch Road corridor between Show Low and Taylor (Cut-Line 3) is forecast to have a V/C ratio of 0.94, meaning this corridor will be close to capacity in 2030; and The SR 77/Bourdon Ranch Road Extension corridor in Snowflake (Cut-line 1) is forecast to have a V/C ratio of 0.97, meaning this corridor also will be close to capacity in 2030. 6.5 ALTERNATIVE 'A' 2015 PHASED CAPACITY IMPROVEMENTS Figure 6-10 shows the anticipated phasing of roadway network improvement projects incorporated in Alternative 'A'. Roadway capacity improvements to be implemented by 2015 and 2030 are shown for the Study Area. Figure 6-11 displays the forecast traffic volumes in the Study Area in 2015 with the above cited improvements. The next two subsections provide discussions of the specific improvements slated for 2015 and the roadway levels of service expected from these improvements. 6.5.1 2015 IMPROVEMENTS Specific improvements to be phased in by 2015 are described below by responsible jurisdiction. ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Three roadway improvements, involving SR 77 and US 60, have been identified for implementation by the State by 2015. • • • US 60 – between SR 77 and Bourdon Ranch Road: The traffic volume on this roadway segment is forecast to increase to more than 21,000 vehicles per day by 2015. The existing two-lane facility would operate at LOS 'D' or worse. This facility should be widened to four lanes and appropriate ADOT access management guidelines for this principal arterial should be applied to consolidate driveway and access points to enhance operations and safety on this segment. US 60 – between Bourdon Ranch Road and SR 61: Traffic volumes are expected to increase to more than 15,000 vehicles per day in 2015 on this roadway segment. The existing two-lane facility would operate at LOS 'C' or worse. This facility should be widened to four lanes and appropriate ADOT access management guidelines for this principal arterial should be applied to consolidate driveway and access points to enhance operations and safety on this segment. SR 77 – between SR 60 and Silver Lake Boulevard: The forecast traffic volume for this roadway segment is estimated to exceed 16,000 vehicles per day in 2015. The existing two-lane facility would operate at LOS 'D' or worse. This facility should be widened to four lanes and appropriate ADOT access management guidelines for this Principal Arterial should be applied to consolidate driveway and access points to enhance operations and safety on this segment. Improvements to the Federal and State Highway System can be made only after in-depth planning and engineering studies are conducted by ADOT, and upon approval of the State Transportation Board. The recommendations made by this study for improvements to State facilities can serve only as suggestions for further study. NAVAJO COUNTY Existing Navajo County facilities are expected to function at an acceptable LOS through 2015. SEPTEMBER 2007 6-20 Ho Ha y Vernon-McNary Rd Extension (Future) US 60 CR 3144 Year 2030 Base Map Features US 60 ain Rd Scott Ranch Rd (Ongoing) PINETOP-LAKESIDE Cities/Towns ³ Na ry Rd i Rd Central Ave 16th Ave Sky Hi Rd Extension (Future) SR Year 2015 61 -M c ou nt US 6 0 Sky H M Penro d Ln US 6 0 d Rim Rd (Future) hi te Improvement Phase Bluff Rd (Future) R od W 1 Lane 2 Lanes Ve rno n Bu nr Pe Woolford Extension (Ongoing) Summit Trail (Future) d Relocated Lone Pine Dam Rd (Future) US 6 0 ch R SHOW LOW Ran 26 0 Hw y Directional Lanes Existing-PlusCommitted CR 3148 rto n 77 SR SR Rd r Lak Silve rdon Bo u 26 0 le da e n Pi Mazatzal Rd Extension (Future) d e Blv 80 CR 8500 Extension (Future) Stanford Dr Extension (Future) New North-South Rd (Future) Pulp Mill R d TAYLOR Rd CR 5525 Bourdon Ranch Road Extension (Future) Willow Ln Co n c ho APACHE COUNTY 7th St 7th St Stanford Dr Frontier Dr d Freeman Hollow Rd Mill R US 1 PHASED ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS: 2015 AND 2030 Alt SR Hunt Rd SNOWFLAKE Paper Saw Mill Rd 180 SR 260 US S llo w SR 7 7 NAVAJO COUNTY 77 R2 Rd Navajo/Apache County Study Area Overview Not to Scale Sources: Wilson & Company, April 2007. Southern Navajo/Apache County Sub-Regional Transportation Plan FIGURE 6-10 0 Rd 0 llo w 0 Ho Ha y 1,500 4,200 CR 5525 0 CR 3148 US 60 6,900 Rd Rd ar y cN PINETOP-LAKESIDE SR 0 * Based on 2015 Socioeconomic Data Cities/Towns ³ -M ain Not to Scale Ve r ou nt 500 M 400 Daily Volume Estimate Base Map Features no n 00 2,4 2 Lanes 300 Stanford Dr 900 CR 3144 i Rd Central Ave 16th Ave 61 0 00 5, 1, 20 0 d 500 0 hi te R od 0 US 60 SR US 60 4,400 100 1 Lane 0 30 5, 900 nr Pe W 8,20 0 d 0 18,10 US 6 0 ,40 29 8,90 0 ch R 00 14,5 SHOW LOW 0 9,500 US 6 0 00 5,7 Sky H 1, 00 0 0 50 Ran SR 260 200 0 40 6, 500 rto n Rd rdon Bo u 77 Bu 1, 30 0 SR 600 6,5 00 0 10 6,4 00 0 d 00 15,1 6,3 00 0 26 0 e Blv 3, 60 0 X,XXX - 200 r Lak Silve Directional Lanes 00 6,1 300 0 40 ,20 13 1,400 0 SR 100 d R Hw y 5,50 0 700 100 7, 00 0 d Pulp Mill R 6,900 1,000 Frontier Dr Willow Ln Co n c ho APACHE COUNTY 100 ,00 12 le da e n Pi 2,700 2,800 7th St 7th St TAYLOR Saw Mill Rd 4,300 Hunt Rd 0 2,90 6,900 0 90 3,1 00 2,500 Freeman Hollow Rd 0 300 1,50 0 d 80 Alt Mill R 180 5,100 US 1 YEAR 2015 TAFFIC ASSIGNMENT: YEAR 2015 PHASED IMPROVEMENTS 0 5,500 Paper 00 2,6 4,800 4,900 5,500 6,200 00 8 , 6 00 12,2 SR 260 US SNOWFLAKE SR 0 60 SR 7 7 NAVAJO COUNTY 7 27 1,800 Navajo/Apache County Study Area Overview 260 800 0 Sources: Wilson & Company, April 2007. Southern Navajo/Apache County Sub-Regional Transportation Plan FIGURE 6-11 Southern Navajo/Apache County Sub-Regional Transportation Plan APACHE COUNTY Existing Apache County facilities are expected to function at an acceptable LOS through 2015. Nevertheless, there are three roadway improvement projects identified for implementation by 2015: • • • Stanford Drive Extension – from existing terminus to new CR 8500: A new two-lane north-south extension of Stanford Drive to a new CR 8500 (see below) is planned to establish a direct connection to Concho Highway to improve access into this growing rural residential area. CR 8500 (New) – between Stanford Drive extension and SR 61: This new two-lane east-west roadway is planned to improve access into this growing rural residential area. Vernon-McNary Road – between SR 61 and US 60: A new two-lane extension of this roadway is planned to improve access to the growing Vernon area. TOWN OF PINETOP-LAKESIDE Year 2015 improvement priorities within the Town of Pinetop-Lakeside include Porter Mountain Road and Penrod Road. • • Penrod Road – between Porter Mountain Road and US 60: This parallel facility to White Mountain Road (SR 260) provides sub-regional connectivity. Traffic volumes between Porter Mountain Road and US 60 are expected to exceed 14,000 vehicles per day in 2015. The existing two-lane facility would operate at LOS 'D' or worse. This facility should be widened to four lanes, and efforts should begin to close driveway openings and consolidate access points to enhance operations and safety on this segment. Porter Mountain Road – between White Mountain Road (SR 260) and Penrod Road: This roadway segment is an important link in the corridor providing sub-regional connectivity between Pinetop-Lakeside and Show Low. Traffic volumes are forecast to exceed 18,000 vehicles per day in 2015. The existing two-lane facility would operate at LOS 'D' or worse. This facility should be widened to four lanes, and efforts should begin to close driveway openings and consolidate access points to enhance operations and safety on this segment. CITY OF SHOW LOW The key roadway improvement priority for the City of Show Low by 2015 is Penrod Road (south of US 60). This is a parallel facility to White Mountain Road (SR 260). It provides sub-regional connectivity between Pinetop-Lakeside and Show Low. Traffic volumes between Porter Mountain Road and US 60 are forecast to exceed 20,000 vehicles per day in 2015. The existing two-lane facility would operate at LOS 'D' or worse without improvement. This facility should be widened to four lanes, and efforts should begin to close driveway openings and consolidate access points to enhance operations and safety on this segment. TOWN OF TAYLOR Existing Town of Taylor facilities are expected to function at an acceptable LOS through 2015. TOWN OF SNOWFLAKE Existing Town of Snowflake facilities are expected to function at an acceptable LOS through 2015. 6.5.2 YEAR 2015 PHASED IMPROVEMENTS CUT-LINE ANALYSIS Figure 6-12 shows the forecast level of service with 2015 roadway improvements and the results of the cut-line analysis. In Show Low, a short segment of US 60, between E. Old Linden Road and SR 260, is. SEPTEMBER 2007 6-23 FINAL REPORT Navajo/Apache County Study Area Overview llo w Rd FORECAST LEVEL OF SERVICE: YEAR 2015 IMPROVEMENTS Ha y Ho NAVAJO COUNTY !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! APACHE COUNTY 1 LOS A - B LOS C !! !! 2 !! ! !! LOS D 9 !! !! LOS E LOS F !! !! !! !! !! Pulp !! d !! Willow Ln TAYLOR Mill R !! !! Frontier Dr !! !! Level of Service Hw y !! Freeman Hollow Rd 7th St 7th St Co n c ho !! !! d !! Mill R 6 !! Paper CR 5525 Hunt Rd SNOWFLAKE !! !! !! !! Central Ave 16th Ave !! !! !! Cut Line Over Capacity CR 3144 !! !! !! !! Woodland Rd Larson Rd !! !! !! Cut Line Under Capacity ³ !! PINETOP-LAKESIDE !! !! !! !! Rd !! Na ry !! !! !! -M c Sky H d 5 !! !! !! Ve rno n !! !! !! i Rd !! !! !! !! 60 !! 4 !! Cut Line Reference Number 1 !! !! US !! d !! R od 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Cities/Towns 8 !! !! nr Pe Cut Line ch R Year 2015 Network Cut Line Summary Estimated Roadway Volume-toModel Volume Capacity Capacity Ratio 18,700 35,600 0.53 15,100 37,300 0.40 18,700 73,300 0.26 43,700 71,200 0.61 36,900 50,600 0.73 7,800 32,800 0.24 6,400 22,300 0.29 18,700 88,300 0.21 5,500 22,300 0.25 SHOW LOW Base Map Features CR 3148 !! 3 !! !! !! !! !! Stanford Dr Rd !! !! d rto n !! !! !! !! !! !! e Blv Ran !! r Lak Silve rdon Bo u 7 Rd Bu le da e n Pi Saw Mill Rd Not to Scale !! !! !! !! ! Sources: Wilson & Company, April 2007. Southern Navajo/Apache County Sub-Regional Transportation Plan FIGURE 6-12 Southern Navajo/Apache County Sub-Regional Transportation Plan forecast to operate at LOS 'F', and a segment of the Woolford Extension, east of SR 260, is forecast to operate at LOS 'E'. In Pinetop-Lakeside, SR260 at the N. Woodland Road intersection is forecast to operate at LOS 'F', and segments of SR 260 on both sides of this intersection would operate at LOS 'E'. Appendix H presents graphics showing proposed 2015 improvements and traffic assignments for each municipality and the Vernon and Concho communities in Apache County. Cut-line analysis was used to analyze network performance with the major Study Area roadways comprising the 2015 roadway network in place. Table 6-5 shows the results of the cut-line analysis for the phased 2015 Roadway Improvement Needs Network under Alternative 'A'. The 2015 roadway improvements identified above to address LOS deficiencies on key facilities were included in this analysis. This table shows that with implementation of the segment improvements described above by 2015, the roadway network of the Study Area will accommodate forecast year 2015 travel demand. No cut-lines have a V/C ratio exceeding 0.73. TABLE 6-5 ALTERNATIVE 'A' YEAR 2015 ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS CUT-LINE EVALUATION Cut-line 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Location Year 2015 Daily Volume North-South Roadways Town of Snowflake 18,700 Town of Taylor 15,100 Between Towns of Taylor and Show-Low 18,700 City of Show Low 43,700 Town of Pinetop-Lakeside 36,900 East-West Roadways West of Snowflake/Taylor 7,800 West of Show Low 6,400 East of Show Low and Pinetop-Lakeside 18,700 SR 61 West of Concho Highway 5,500 Roadway Capacity V/C Ratio 35,600 37,300 73,300 71,200 50,600 0.53 0.40 0.26 0.61 0.73 32,800 22,300 88,300 22,300 0.24 0.29 0.21 0.25 Source: Wilson & Company, May 2007. 6.6 INTERSECTION ANALYSIS As traffic volumes on Study Area roadways increase as a direct result of projected population and employment growth, intersection upgrades will be an important part of the overall sub-regional mobility solution. The study team conducted planning-level analyses to identify lane configuration and traffic control type at key existing and future intersection locations in the Study Area. The analyses included an assessment of intersection operations for the year 2030 Alternative 'A' improvement scenario and the interim year 2015 subset of improvement needs. Figure 6-13 shows the location of 45 intersections in the Study Area selected for these planning-level analyses. 6.6.1 ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY Peak-hour traffic volume forecasts were based on the daily travel demand model volume forecasts for the Alternative 'A' roadway system improvements. The daily model volume estimates were converted to peak-hour/peak-direction volumes using K- and D-factors. The K-factor is the ratio of the hourly two-way traffic to the two-way daily traffic volume estimate. The Directional Distribution (D) factor is the percentage SEPTEMBER 2007 6-25 FINAL REPORT d Frontier Dr llo w Ho Ha y CR 5525 Freeman Hollow Rd 3 6 5 9 7 9A Co n c ho 80 Legend Hw y APACHE COUNTY 4 TAYLOR Mill R 1 2 US 1 8 2 Travel Lanes 4 Travel Lanes 35 XX Study Area Intersection 10 Pulp 11 Base Map Features Rd 13 15 SR Cities/Towns 61 SR 77 16 SHOW LOW 30 29 SR 31 32 0 26 PINETOP-LAKESIDE Rd 27 ³ Na ry 26 28 US 60 Not to Scale 18 24 38 39 40 -M c 25 22 21 37 Ve rno n 23 19A 36 US 60 Rd 20A 19B 19 17A 17 US 6 0 Hi 20 US 6 0 SR 260 Sk y Rd 14 rto n 26 0 le da e n Pi Bu Saw Mill Rd Stanford Dr 12 SR STUDY AREA INTERSECTIONS Alt SR 260 180 d Hunt Rd Rd Mill R 7th St US ff odru S SNOWFLAKE Paper 77 R2 o Old W SR 7 7 NAVAJO COUNTY Rd Navajo/Apache County Study Area Overview Rim Rd 33 34 Sources: Wilson & Company, April 2007. Southern Navajo/Apache County Sub-Regional Transportation Plan FIGURE 6-13 Southern Navajo/Apache County Sub-Regional Transportation Plan of the total, two-way peak hour traffic traveling in the peak direction. For these planning-level analyses, a K-factor of nine (9) was used to estimate two-way, peak-hour traffic. For rural intersections, a D-factor of 60 was used; at urban intersections, the D-factor was 55. Turning movements at each intersection were estimated using methodology detailed in NCHRP 255, Highway Traffic Data for Urbanized Area Project Planning and Design, and implemented in the TurnsW32 software package by Dowling Associates.1 The Synchro 6 software package by Trafficware® was used to evaluate intersection operations and develop recommendations for lane configuration and traffic control type to accommodate traffic at LOS 'D' or better at the 45 intersections examined. 6.6.2 INTERSECTION ANALYSIS RESULTS Table 6-6 shows the existing year (2006) traffic control type together with anticipated 2015 and 2030 traffic control types, based on the intersection analyses described above. Diagrams showing required lane configurations, recommended turning movement patterns, and estimated peak-hour traffic volumes for existing and future intersections in the four Study Area municipalities and the unincorporated areas of Navajo and Apache Counties are presented in Appendix I. YEAR 2015 INTERSECTION ANALYSES Most existing Study Area intersections should continue to function acceptably under traffic conditions anticipated in 2015. As shown in Table 6-6, nine major sub-regional facilities in the Study Area will require traffic signals to accommodate traffic growth through 2015. Four other facilities will require the installation of “stop” signs. YEAR 2030 INTERSECTION ANALYSIS Forecast traffic volumes associated with projected 2030 population and employment growth data for the Study Area indicate significant intersection upgrades will be required. As shown in Table 6-6, nearly every major intersection analyzed in Navajo County will require signalization. It should be noted that the majority of intersections evaluated also will require exclusive left-turn and/or right-turn lanes (refer to diagrams in Appendix I). Two key intersections in the Study Area will require construction of grade-separated traffic interchanges (TIs). US 60/SR 77/Penrod Road In 2030, over 230,000 vehicles per day are expected to pass through the intersection of US 60, SR 77/N. Penrod Road, and Penrod Road (south of US 60). This major intersection of key sub-regional routes will require a grade-separated interchange solution to accommodate forecast travel demand. Figure 6-14 presents one possible concept – a modified diamond interchange, which would serve traffic movements at this intersection. The interchange design includes a loop ramp in the southeast quadrant to reduce potential impacts to businesses on US 60 west of Penrod Road. While a detailed engineering study will be required to identify the best interchange solution to accommodate travel demand, this concept shows the magnitude of the investment needed to accommodate anticipated year 2030 travel demand. SR 77/White Mountain Lake Road Growth around White Mountain Lake will require a grade-separated intersection at the SR 77/White Mountain Lake Road intersection to accommodate traffic moving between development around White 1 Highway Traffic Data for Urbanized Area Project Planning and Design, Chapter 8, Report 255, National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Transportation Research Board, December 1982. SEPTEMBER 2007 6-27 FINAL REPORT Southern Navajo/Apache County Sub-Regional Transportation Plan TABLE 6-6 TRAFFIC CONTROL AT STUDY AREA INTERSECTIONS: EXISTING, 2015, & 2030 No. Intersection Existing 2015 2030 Snowflake/Taylor 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 9A 10 11 Concho Hwy/Old Woodruff Rd SR 77/Concho Hwy 7th St/Bourdon Ranch Rd Extension (Future) Rodeo Dr/Bourdon Ranch Rd Extension (Future) Paper Mill Rd/SR 77 New North-South Rd/Paper Mill Rd (Future) Willow Ln/Bourdon Ranch Rd Willow Ln (or Center St)/Bourdon Ranch Rd Extension (Future) SR 77/Pinedale Rd SR 77/Airport Road (Future) Bourdon Ranch Rd/Bourdon Ranch Rd Extension (Future) New North-South Rd/Pinedale Rd (Future) Stop Signal N/A N/A Signal Stop Stop N/A Stop N/A N/A N/A Signal Signal N/A N/A Signal Stop Stop N/A Signal N/A N/A N/A Signal Signal Signal Signal Signal Signal Stop Signal Signal N/A * Signal Signal 12 13 14A 14B 15 16 17 17A 18 Black Mesa Ln/Bourdon Ranch Rd Silver Lake Blvd/Bourdon Ranch Rd SR 77/White Mountain Lake Rd SR 77/Lone Pine Dam Rd Burton Rd/Relocated Lone Pine Dam Rd (Future) SR 260/Relocated Lone Pine Dam Rd (Future) US 60/Bourdon Ranch Rd US 60/Sky Hi Rd Extension (Future) Sky Hi Rd/Porter Mtn Rd Stop Stop Stop Stop N/A N/A Stop N/A Stop Stop Stop Signal Signal Stop N/A Signal N/A Stop Stop Signal Grade-Separated Intersection Signal Signal Signal Signal Signal Signal 19 19A 19B 20 20A 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 US 60/SR 77 US 60/Woolford Extension (Future) Deuce of Clubs (US 60)/White Mountain Rd (SR 260) Clark Rd (SR 260)/Old Linden Rd Clark Rd (SR 260)/Deuce of Clubs (US 60) SR 77/Penrod Rd (Future) White Mountain Rd (SR 260)/Woolford Rd US 60/Summit Trail White Mountain Rd (SR 260)/Summit Trail (Future) US 60/Rim Rd (Future) White Mountain Rd (SR 260)/Show Low Lakes Rd Scott Ranch Rd/Penrod Rd White Mountain Rd (SR 260)/Scott Ranch Rd Signal N/A Signal Stop Signal N/A Signal Stop N/A N/A Signal N/A Stop Signal N/A Signal Signal Signal Signal Signal Signal N/A N/A Signal Stop Signal Grade-Separated Intersection Signal Signal Signal Signal Signal Signal Signal Signal Signal Signal Signal Signal 29 30 31 32 33 34 Penrod Rd/Porter Mountain Rd White Mountain Rd (SR 260)/Show Low Lakes Rd White Mountain Rd (SR 260)/Porter Mountain Rd White Mountain Rd (SR 260)/Woodland Rd White Mountain Rd (SR 260)/Buck Springs Rd White Mountain Rd (SR 260)/Rim Rd Stop Stop Signal Signal Signal Stop Signal Stop Signal Signal Signal Stop Signal Signal Signal Signal Signal Signal 35 36 37 38 39 40 SR 180A/Concho Hwy SR 61/Stanford Rd US 60/CR 3148 US 60/Vernon-McNary Rd (Future) US 60/CR 3154 CR 3154/CR 3144 Stop Stop Stop N/A Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Navajo County Show Low Pinetop-Lakeside Apache County Note: Shading indicates change from the previous period. * Intersection solution not resolved in time to be included in this study. Source: Wilson & Company, May 2006. SEPTEMBER 2007 6-28 FINAL REPORT Trumpet Interchange Southern Navajo/Apache County Sub-Regional Transportation Plan Modified Diamond Interchange Navajo/Apache County Study Area Overview FIGURE 6-14 POSSIBLE INTERCHANGE DESIGNS Southern Navajo/Apache County Sub-Regional Transportation Plan Mountain Lake and Show Low. Figure 6-14 provides an example of the type of facility required to accommodate the forecast traffic volumes at this location. The trumpet interchange design, with a loop in the northwest quadrant, would move the nose of the southbound on-ramp further north than a standard diamond interchange and, potentially, provide an adequate weave distance between the ramp and Lone Pine Dam Road. While requiring more right-of-way than a standard diamond, this alternative would not require a signal on the west side of the interchange. A detailed engineering study will be required to identify the best solution to accommodate access between White Mountain Lake Road and the Lone Pine Dam Road traffic and SR 77. However, this concept shows the level of investment required to accommodate forecast 2030 travel demand. SEPTEMBER 2007 6-30 FINAL REPORT Southern Navajo/Apache County Sub-Regional Transportation Plan 7.0 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN The findings of the previous chapter provided the foundation for formulating the Southern Navajo/Apache County Sub-Region Transportation Plan. This plan contains the following recommendations for implementation: • Future Roadway Classification Plan • Year 2030 Roadway Improvement Plan • Transportation Revenue Outlook • Implementation Action Items. Recommendations for implementing each of these long-range transportation planning system elements are based on technical analyses of existing and future conditions as well as input from the TAC, as presented in previous chapters of this document. 7.1 FUTURE ROADWAY FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION PLAN The Future Roadway Functional Classification Plan (Figure 7-1) is based on the 1999 White Mountain Regional Transportation Plan and the 2030 travel demand analysis performed for this study. The Plan identifies four principal roadway classifications that are appropriate to the Study Area’s future transportation needs: Principal Arterial, Minor Arterial, Major Collector, and Minor Collector. In addition to identifying future roadway classification, Figure 7-1 also shows the two TIs that will be required to accommodate forecast 2030 traffic in the central portion of the Study Area. The importance of the Future Roadway Functional Classification Plan is that the concept of functional classification establishes a decision/design framework for future transportation facilities. The level of service required to fulfill [each] function for the anticipated volume and composition of traffic provides a rational and cost-effective basis for the selection of design speed and geometric criteria within the range of values available to the designer (for the specified functional classification). The use of functional classification as a design type should appropriately integrate the highway planning and design process.2 The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) provides elaboration of this concept as a roadway network design tool: Once the functional classification of a particular roadway has been established, so has the allowable range of design speed. With the allowable range of design speed defined, the principal limiting design parameters associated with horizontal and vertical alinement are also defined. Similarly, a determination of functional classification establishes the basic roadway cross section in terms of lane width, shoulder width, type and width of median area, and other major design features.3 An important aspect of future roadway network is right-of-way preservation or protection. This is critical to implementation of roadway improvements, as it permits the flexibility in facility design and development and 2 3 A Policy on the Geometric Design of Highways and Streets (Green Book), American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), Chapter 1, pg. 17. Flexibility in Highway Design, Federal Highway Administration SEPTEMBER 2007 7-1 FINAL REPORT Rd w l lo Ho ay H CR 5525 White Antelop a Rd 0 Mazatzal Rd Extension (Future) SHOW LOW ! . SR US 6 0 Major Collector 61 US 60 Sky Hi Rd Extension (Future) Bluff Rd (Future) Base Map Features Cities/Towns ! . US 60 CR 3144 ounta in ³ Not to Scale Rd iR yH PINETOP-LAKESIDE Mc on - r Na y Ve rn Rim Rd (Future) t er M Rd Traffic Interchange d Por Roadway Classifications Minor Arterial Woolford Extension (Ongoing) Summit Trail (Future) Scott Ranch Rd (Ongoing) US 60 Sk Relocated Lone Pine Dam Rd (Future) wy Principal Arterial Vernon-McNary Rd Extension (Future) ! . L Silver d ke Blv ho H Minor Collector Stanford Dr nc h h Rd a nc nR rd o 26 do nR Bo u Bu Rd ur 77 SR SR Bo Rd rt o n ne d a le New North-South Rd (Future) Pulp Pi Con c CR 8500 Extension (Future) Stanford Dr Extension (Future) a SR 26 0 Bourdon Ranch Road Extension (Future) TAYLOR Mill Rd SR Hunt Rd APACHE COUNTY Pap er Mill Rd 277 0 Alt SNOWFLAKE US 1 8 FUTURE 2030 ROADWAY FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION PLAN 80 NAVAJO COUNTY 1 US SR 77 e Road Navajo/Apache County Study Area Overview US 60 Sources: Wilson & Company, May 2007. Southern Navajo/Apache County Sub-Regional Transportation Plan FIGURE 7-1 Southern Navajo/Apache County Sub-Regional Transportation Plan assures the community that the facility can be developed to accommodate forecast 2030 travel demand. The Future Roadway Functional Classification Plan provides the framework for identifying right-of-way requirements for the existing and future roadway network. Thus, specific right-of-way requirements for each planned roadway facility should be considered when reviewing future development proposals. To help guide right-of-way protection in the Study Area, Chapter 8 identifies the appropriate cross-section for each functional classification shown in the Future Roadway Functional Classification Plan. 7.2 YEAR 2030 ROADWAY IMPROVEMENT PLAN The Year 2030 Roadway Improvement Plan (Figure 7-2) includes the Alternative 'A' roadway improvements detailed in Chapter 6. These improvement recommendations were developed to assure adequate roadway system capacity to handle forecast 2030 travel demand generated by the Study Area’s future permanent population and economic activity. Nevertheless, as the sub-region experiences its seasonal influx of visitors in the summer and autumn months, the Study Area roadway network is expected to operate over capacity in several key corridors. 7.3 IMPROVEMENT PLAN COST ESTIMATES Table 7-1 provides a summary of the total estimated Study Area improvement costs (2006 dollars) for the Year 2030 Roadway Improvement Plan. Table 7-2 presents the roadway capacity improvements for each participating jurisdiction together with a planning-level capital cost estimate and the recommended timeframe for implementation. The cost estimates are based on cost data presented in the Transportation System Plan Update, 2006, published by the Maricopa County Department of Transportation (MCDOT). Cost estimates assume an average cost per lane mile of $1,270,000, which includes planning, design, construction management, and right-of-way. When an existing two-lane roadway showed a need to be upgraded to four travel lanes, it was assumed that the entire facility would be reconstructed. TABLE 7-1 ESTIMATED ROADWAY IMPROVEMENT COSTS BY MAJOR JURISDICTION Navajo County Apache County ADOT Municipalities Needed Lane Miles 137 70 131 103 Estimated Improvement Cost $ 174 million $ 89 million $ 226 million $ 131 million Total 441 $ 620 million Jurisdiction Source: Wilson & Company, May 2007. 7.4 TRANSPORTATION REVENUE OUTLOOK Existing and potential revenues available for funding recommended transportation improvements within the Study Area are outlined below: • Highway User Revenue Fund (HURF). This is the principal source of funding for roadway construction and maintenance in Arizona. HURF revenues come from a variety of sources including state motor fuel taxes, motor carrier taxes, vehicle registration fees and a portion of SEPTEMBER 2007 7-3 FINAL REPORT Rd w l lo Ho ay ! . SR SHOW LOW 11th St ! . Future Network Improvement 61 US 60 Cities/Towns US 60 CR 3144 d 2 60 ³ Not to Scale Rd Mc on - ry Na Ve rn PINETOP-LAKESIDE yH Rim Rd (Future) ounta in R iR d t er M Por New Traffic Interchange Base Map Features Bluff Rd (Future) SR 60 4 Lanes Woolford Extension (Ongoing) Summit Trail (Future) Scott Ranch Rd (Ongoing) Sky Hi Rd Extension (Future) Sk Relocated Lone Pine Dam Rd (Future) 2 Lanes ! . CR 3148 0 US CR 5525 Mazatzal Rd Extension (Future) Central Ave 26 Existing Roadway Network 4 Lanes 16th Ave SR wy 2 Lanes Stanford Dr rt o n H White Antelop Stanford Dr Extension (Future) Rd Rd ho H CR 8500 Extension (Future) Vernon-McNary Rd Extension (Future) Dewitt St Bourdon Ranch Road Extension (Future) New North-South Rd (Future) d Pi Con c APACHE COUNTY Bu l Rd S a w M il a le ne SR 2 6 0 Hunt Rd 7th St TAYLOR Pulp Mill Rd 77 0 YEAR 2030 ROADWAY IMPROVEMENT PLAN Alt Pap er Mill Rd US 1 8 80 SNOWFLAKE 1 US SR 77 NAVAJO COUNTY 2 SR e Road Navajo/Apache County Study Area Overview Sources: Wilson & Company, April 2007. Southern Navajo/Apache County Sub-Regional Transportation Plan FIGURE 7-2 Southern Navajo/Apache County Sub-Regional Transportation Plan TABLE 7-2 PROJECT COST DETAIL: YEAR 2030 ROADWAY IMPROVEMENT PLAN Street Name From To Length Number of Travel Lanes Existing Future Improvement Cost Estimate (2006 $) Recommended Priority Navajo County North-South Facilities Western North-South Bypass Forest Rd 133 Lone Pine Dam Rd Bourdon Ranch Rd Bourdon Ranch Rd Bourdon Ranch Rd Extension Porter Mountain Rd Sky Hi Rd Extension East-West Facilities White Mountain Lake Rd Mazatzal Rd Extension Pinedale Rd Lone Pine Dam Rd SR 260 (Clark Rd) US 60 (Deuce of Clubs) Silver Lake Blvd Bourdon Ranch Rd SR 260 (White Mountain Rd) Porter Mountain Rd Paper Mill Rd Pinedale Rd Forest Rd 133 Silver Lake Blvd Bourdon Ranch Rd Extension Concho Hwy Penrod Rd US 60 3.50 5.50 3.20 8.20 7.00 5.60 0.90 4.50 SR 77 Bourdon Ranch Rd Silver Creek Dr Apache County Line 3.25 7.60 0 0 0 2 2 0 2 0 2 2 2 4 4 2 4 2 2 4 0 2 Total Estimated Improvement Need $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 8,890,000 13,970,000 8,128,000 41,656,000 35,560,000 14,224,000 4,572,000 11,430,000 Long Range Long Range Long Range Long Range Long Range Long Range Long Range Long Range $ 16,510,000 $ 19,304,000 $ 174,244,000 Long Range Long Range $ 20,828,000 Long Range $ 2,540,000 $ 40,640,000 $ 25,400,000 $ 89,408,000 Long Range Long Range Long Range Apache County North-South Facilities Vernon-McNary Rd Extension East-West Facilities Mazatzal Rd Extension CR 8500 CR 8500 US 60 SR 61 8.20 Navajo/Apache County Line Stanford Rd New East-West Rd Stanford Rd SR 61 Concho Hwy 1.00 16.00 10.00 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 Total Estimated Improvement Need State of Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) North-South Facilities SR 77 SR 77 East-West Facilities SR 260 (Clark Rd) US 60 (Deuce of Clubs) US 60 (Deuce of Clubs) US 60 New Traffic Interchanges US 60 (Deuce of Clubs) at SR 77 SR 77 at Silver Lake Blvd Deuce of Clubs (US 60) White Mountain Lakes Rd White Mountain Lake Rd Pinedale Rd 8.00 7.00 2 2 4 4 $ 40,640,000 $ 35,560,000 Mid Range Long Range Burton Rd Rim Rd SR 77 Bourdon Ranch Rd Old Linden Rd Clark Rd (SR 260) Bourdon Ranch Rd SR 61 5.00 1.96 4.80 5.90 2 2 2 2 4 4 4 4 $ 25,400,000 $ 9,956,800 $ 24,384,000 $ 29,972,000 Long Range Long Range Mid Range Long Range $ 30,000,000 $ 30,000,000 $ 225,912,800 Long Range Long Range Total Estimated Improvement Need SEPTEMBER 2007 7-5 FINAL REPORT Southern Navajo/Apache County Sub-Regional Transportation Plan TABLE 7-2 PROJECT COST DETAIL: YEAR 2030 ROADWAY IMPROVEMENT PLAN (CONTINUED) Street Name From To Length Porter Mountain Rd Penrod Rd Rim Rd SR 260 (White Mountain Rd) Porter Mountain Rd SR 260 (White Mountain Rd) Penrod Rd Show Low City Limits Show Low City Limits Woolford Extension Summit Way Scott Ranch Rd Penrod Rd Rim Rd SR 260 (White Mountain Rd) US 60 (Deuce of Clubs) SR 260 (White Mountain Rd) Pinetop-Lakeside City Limits Pinetop-Lakeside City Limits Penrod Rd SR 260 (White Mountain Rd) Penrod Rd US 60 (Deuce of Clubs) US 60 Willow Ln (or Center St) Extension Paper Mill Rd Airport Rd Bourdon Ranch Rd Freeman Hollow Rd Willow Ln Bourdon Ranch Rd Extension SR 77 SR 77 7th St Hatch/Rodeo Dr SR 77 SR 77 Bourdon Ranch Rd Extension Bourdon Ranch Rd Extension Number of Travel Lanes Existing Future Improvement Cost Estimate (2006 $) Recommended Priority Pinetop-Lakeside 1.75 1.50 11.40 2 4 2 4 0 2 Total Estimated Improvement Need $ 8,890,000 $ 7,620,000 $ 28,956,000 $ 45,466,000 Mid Range Mid Range Long Range 1.22 2.30 1.94 4.60 5.00 0 2 0 4 0 2 2 4 0 2 Total Estimated Improvement Need $ $ $ $ $ $ 3,098,800 11,684,000 4,927,600 23,368,000 12,700,000 55,778,400 Short Range Long Range Short Range Mid Range Long Range 1.00 3.33 1.30 0 2 2 4 0 2 Total Estimated Improvement Need $ 2,540,000 $ 16,916,400 $ 3,302,000 $ 22,758,400 Long Range Long Range Long Range 1.14 1.33 0 2 0 2 Total Estimated Improvement Need $ $ $ Long Range Long Range Show Low Taylor Snowflake Total Sub-Region Estimated Improvement Need 2,895,600 3,378,200 6,273,800 $ 619,841,400 Source: Wilson & Company, May 2007. SEPTEMBER 2007 7-6 FINAL REPORT Southern Navajo/Apache County Sub-Regional Transportation Plan • • • • vehicle license taxes. These funds are distributed by formula to every city and county in the State and to ADOT. The State Constitution earmarks HURF funds exclusively for street and highway purposes. Local Transportation Assistance Fund (LTAF). The LTAF provides State Lottery proceeds to cities and towns for transportation improvements. LTAF funds are allocated using a population-based formula. Federal Highway Funds. Federal Highway Funds are apportioned in accordance with the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) enacted by Congress in 2005. Developer Impact Fees. Navajo County has initiated the process to establish a development impact fee to help fund roadway infrastructure needed to accommodate growing travel demand. The Town of Pinetop-Lakeside has a development impact fee ordinance in place. The City of Show Low and Town of Snowflake are considering a development impact fee for transportation. Half-Cent Sales Tax. Another funding alternative is a half-cent sales tax dedicated to transportation improvements. It is authorized in Arizona Revised Statute 42-1484: County Transportation Excise Tax for Roads; Counties with Population of Four Hundred Thousand or Fewer Persons. This revenue stream could have a significant role in funding the transportation improvements identified in this study. 7.5 IMPLEMENTATION ACTION ITEMS The principal action items required to support implementation of key elements of the Sub-Regional Transportation Plan include on-going stakeholder coordination, maintaining a current database of traffic information, conducting key corridor studies, participation in regional planning efforts, and periodically updating this transportation study. The following section elaborates on these implementation action items. 7.5.1 STAKEHOLDER COORDINATION An important part of the long-term Year 2030 Roadway Improvement Plan is continued coordination between the counties, municipalities, and the State. The White Mountain Regional Transportation Committee is an effective forum for coordinating timely improvements to the State Highway System to ensure regional mobility as growth occurs. 7.5.2 CORRIDOR STUDIES Protection of right-of-way is essential to maintaining the integrity of the planned high-capacity regional and sub-regional roadways identified in this long-range transportation plan. Corridor studies typically identify the required right-of-way, intersection configuration, bridge and other drainage needs, and potential environmental concerns. It is recommended that study participants, in partnership with key stakeholders, undertake detailed planning and engineering studies to define and evaluate the following corridors: • • • • • SR 77 – between US 60 and White Mountain Lake Road; US 60 – between SR 77 and Bourdon Ranch Road; Summit Trail – between US 60 and White Mountain Rd (SR 260); Rim Road – between US 60 southwest of Show Low and SR 260 south of Pinetop-Lakeside; New North-South corridor – including a relocated Lone Pine Dam Road, Forest Road 133, and Pinedale Road; SEPTEMBER 2007 7-7 FINAL REPORT Southern Navajo/Apache County Sub-Regional Transportation Plan • • • Bourdon Ranch Road Extension – between Bourdon Ranch Road and Concho Highway; Scott Ranch Road – between SR-260 to Penrod Road, proximate to the Pinetop-Lakeside and Show Low boundary; and Sky Hi Road Extension – between US 60 and Porter Mountain Road on Apache Railroad right-of-way. These studies will provide essential tools for facilitating coordination between adjacent jurisdictions, the counties, ADOT, and the development community to maintain the integrity of future transportation corridors. 7.5.3 ROADWAY SAFETY REVIEW Study participants should conduct periodic reviews of roadway accident data to identify safety trends. 7.5.4 TRAFFIC DATA COLLECTION Permanent traffic count stations should be established at strategic locations to collect data on the daily, weekly, and annual variations in traffic volumes. Data from permanent count stations would be a valuable resource to engineers and planners establishing transportation infrastructure needs. Study participants should continue updates of roadway and traffic conditions through periodic roadway inventories and/or an annual system-wide traffic count program. 7.5.5 HOUSEHOLD TRAVEL SURVEY Study participants should undertake a regional household travel survey to provide a reliable foundation of travel data to support more accurate travel demand forecasts. This household travel survey would seek to measure sub-regional trip-making characteristics. It would facilitate collection of data on trip generation, trip length, and modal choice for both the permanent and seasonal Study Area population. These data would enable future studies to establish peak season travel demand forecasts. Public transit service will have an important role in the future mobility solution of the Study Area; data from a travel survey would facilitate analysis of mode choice. 7.5.6 MONITOR AND UPDATE TRAVEL DEMAND MODEL AND TRANSPORTATION PLAN Study participants should maintain current DU and employment databases to support periodic updates of the Southern Navajo/Apache County Travel Demand Model and guide prioritization of roadway improvement projects. Significant changes in development patterns should trigger an update of the travel demand forecasts for the Study Area. At a minimum, a major review of this transportation plan should be undertaken every five years. SEPTEMBER 2007 7-8 FINAL REPORT Southern Navajo/Apache County Sub-Regional Transportation Plan 8.0 POLICIES AND GUIDELINES The principal policies and guidelines needed to implement the recommendations of this Sub-Regional Transportation Plan are (1) roadway functional classification, as this guides decisions regarding the type and character of facilities to be developed, and (2) roadway cross-sections, as these guide planners and decisionmakers regarding the necessary protection of rights-of-way to assure facilities can be developed when needed. 8.1 ROADWAY FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION The Future Roadway Functional Classification Plan (as discussed in the previous chapter) classifies roadways according to specific design and traffic characteristics. Functional classification categorizes roads by how they perform in regard to providing mobility and access. The full functional classification definitions defined below should be treated as policy guidance for understanding, defining, and developing the Study Area’s future roadway network in conjunction with the Future Roadway Functional Classification Plan. • • • • Principal Arterial: This facility serves regional circulation needs. It moves traffic at moderate speeds, while providing limited access to adjacent land. Access is controlled through raised medians and through spacing and location of driveways and intersections. In the Study Area, a Principal Arterial is a two- or four-lane State highway. Minor Arterial: The primary purpose of the Minor Arterial is to serve regional/sub-regional traffic circulation needs by moving traffic at moderate speeds, while providing limited access to adjacent land. Typically, a Minor Arterial generally is a four-lane highway, although this facility also can be a two-lane roadway. Major Collector: This facility serves shorter trips within the Study Area, generally less than three miles. A Major Collector primarily functions to collect and distribute traffic between key traffic generators, local streets, and arterial streets. Major Collectors facilitate direct access to fronting properties. Minor Collector: Minor Collectors serve shorter trips than a Major Collector, generally less than one mile. They provide direct access to fronting properties and collect and distribute traffic between key traffic generators, local streets, and arterial streets. 8.2 ROADWAY CROSS-SECTIONS Roadway cross-sections for the functional classes of highways were adopted for this Sub-Regional Transportation Plan from the 2002 City of Show Low Major Streets and Routes Plan. Specific descriptions of roadway cross-sections by functional classification are presented below. Figure 8-1 shows the physical design and dimensions of each cross-section. 8.2.1 PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL CROSS-SECTION DESIGN A Principal Arterial cross-section, as shown in Figure 8-1, is constructed within 100 feet of right-of-way. In urban areas, there typically are four travel lanes (two in each direction) and a 12-foot median that could be SEPTEMBER 2007 8-1 FINAL REPORT Southern Navajo/Apache County Sub-Regional Transportation Plan Principal Arterial 14’ 12’ 12’ 12’ 14’ 18 ft 18 ft 100 ft ROW Minor Arterial: Two-Lane Cross-Section Bike Lane 5’ 8 ft Bike Lane 11’ 5’ 11’ Sidewalk Sidewalk 32 ft 6 ft 6 ft 120 ft ROW Minor Arterial:Four-Lane Cross-Section Bike Lane 8 ft 14’ 12’ 5’ Sidewalk 6’ Sidewalk 6 ft 32 ft 32 ft 6 ft Bike Lane 12’ 14’ 28 8 ft 120 ft ROW Minor Arterial: Six-Lane Cross-Section Bike Lane 6’ 8 ft 12’ Sidewalk 12’ 12’ 4’ 4’ 12’ 12’ 46 ft 6 ft 12’ 6’ Sidewalk 6 ft 46 ft 8 ft 120 ft ROW Major Collector Bike Lane 12’ 6’ 12’ Bike Lane 6’ 12’ Sidewalk Sidewalk 10 ft 6 ft 6 ft 10 ft 80 ft ROW Minor Collector Bike Lane 6’ 6 ft 12’ Bike Lane 6’ 6 ft 6 ft Sidewalk 12’ 60 ft ROW 6 ft Sidewalk SOURCE: 2002 City of Show Low Streets and Routes Plan FIGURE 8-1 TYPICAL ROADWAY CROSS-SECTIONS Southern Navajo/Apache County Sub-Regional Transportation Plan either a raised median or a continuous center two-way left-turn lane. The two outside lanes are 14 feet in width, measured to the face of curb. In rural areas, there typically are two 12-foot travel lanes with a paved shoulder. ACCESS MANAGEMENT Access to Principal Arterials generally is limited to intersecting arterials and collectors. Access to/from fronting properties generally is not allowed. On-street parking is not allowed; however, the cross-section will accommodate emergency stopping. 8.2.2 MINOR ARTERIAL CROSS-SECTION DESIGN A Minor Arterial cross-section, shown in Figure 8-1, has two or four directional travel lanes constructed within 120 feet of right-of-way. Travel lanes are divided by either a continuous center two-way left-turn lane or a raised median. Bike lanes and sidewalks are included in the cross-section of the Minor Arterial. An optional six-lane cross-section is shown in Figure 8-1 should study participants decide in the future to utilize the full right-of-way set aside for this functional class of roadway. ACCESS MANAGEMENT Access to Minor Arterial streets is limited to intersections with Major Collectors at quarter-mile spacing and driveways of major developments, such as large commercial, industrial, or office complexes, or master-planned communities. On-street parking is not allowed. 8.2.3 MAJOR COLLECTOR CROSS-SECTION DESIGN A Major Collector has two directional travel lanes constructed within 80 feet of right-of-way. As shown in Figure 8-1, opposing travel directions are separated by a continuous center two-way, left-turn lane or a raised median. Bike lanes are included in the cross-section. ACCESS MANAGEMENT Access to Major Collector streets is limited to intersections at eighth-mile spacing and driveways to developments on fronting properties. All vehicles entering the traffic stream must be driving forward; no backing into traffic is allowed. On-street parking is not allowed. 8.2.4 MINOR COLLECTOR CROSS-SECTION DESIGN The Minor Collector cross-section, as shown in Figure 8-1, includes two directional travel lanes constructed within 60 feet of right-of-way. The 36-foot roadway consists of one12-foot travel lane and one 6-foot bike lane in each direction. ACCESS MANAGEMENT Access to Minor Collector streets should be restricted except for large contiguous lots. SEPTEMBER 2007 8-3 FINAL REPORT Southern Navajo/Apache County Sub-Regional Transportation Plan 8.3 INTERSECTION FLARE The right-of-way width for roadway cross-sections must expand at intersections to accommodate left-turn and right-turn lanes. Therefore, additional right-of-way, measuring 20 feet by 150 feet, should be protected and procured for each approach at the following intersections: Principal Arterial/Principal Arterial; Principal Arterial/Minor Arterial; and Major Collector/Principal or Minor Arterial. Table 8-1 presents a summary of the roadway width, right-of-way width, and number of lanes for the four functional classifications outlined above. TABLE 8-1 ROADWAY DESIGN CRITERIA BY FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION Classification Roadway Width Principal Arterial Minor Arterial Major Collector Minor Collector 64 feet 32 to 92 feet 48 feet 36 feet Right-of-Way Width 100 feet 120 feet 80 feet 60 feet Number of Lanes 4 2 to 4 2 2 Center Lane or Median Yes Yes Yes No Bike Lanes No Yes Yes Yes Sidewalks No Yes Yes Yes Source: City of Show Low Major Streets and Routes Plan, Olsson Associates, 2002; Wilson & Company, July 2007 SEPTEMBER 2007 8-4 FINAL REPORT Southern Navajo/Apache County Sub-Regional Transportation Plan APPENDIX A FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 2002 QUALITY/LEVEL OF SERVICE MANUAL TABLES SEPTEMBER 2007 FINAL REPORT TABLE 4 - 1 GENERALIZED ANNUAL AVERAGE DAILY VOLUMES FOR FLORIDA’S URBANIZED AREAS* UNINTERRUPTED FLOW HIGHWAYS Level of Service Lanes Divided A B C D 2 Undivided 2,000 7,000 13,800 19,600 4 Divided 20,400 33,000 47,800 61,800 6 Divided 30,500 49,500 71,600 92,700 STATE TWO-WAY ARTERIALS Class I (>0.00 to 1.99 signalized intersections per mile) Level of Service Lanes Divided A B C D 2 Undivided ** 4,200 13,800 16,400 4 Divided 4,800 29,300 34,700 35,700 6 Divided 7,300 44,700 52,100 53,500 8 Divided 9,400 58,000 66,100 67,800 Class II (2.00 to 4.50 signalized intersections per mile) Level of Service Lanes Divided A B C D 2 Undivided ** 1,900 11,200 15,400 4 Divided ** 4,100 26,000 32,700 6 Divided ** 6,500 40,300 49,200 8 Divided ** 8,500 53,300 63,800 FREEWAYS Interchange spacing > 2 mi. apart E 27,000 70,200 105,400 E 16,900 *** *** *** E 16,300 34,500 51,800 67,000 Class III (more than 4.5 signalized intersections per mile and not within primary city central business district of an urbanized area over 750,000) Lanes Divided 2 Undivided 4 Divided 6 Divided 8 Divided A ** ** ** ** B ** ** ** ** Level of Service C D 5,300 12,600 12,400 28,900 19,500 44,700 25,800 58,700 E 15,500 32,800 49,300 63,800 Class IV (more than 4.5 signalized intersections per mile and within primary city central business district of an urbanized area over 750,000) Level of Service Lanes Divided A B C D E 2 Undivided ** ** 5,200 13,700 15,000 4 Divided ** ** 12,300 30,300 31,700 6 Divided ** ** 19,100 45,800 47,600 8 Divided ** ** 25,900 59,900 62,200 NON-STATE ROADWAYS Major City/County Roadways Level of Service Lanes Divided A B C D 2 Undivided ** ** 9,100 14,600 4 Divided ** ** 21,400 31,100 6 Divided ** ** 33,400 46,800 Other Signalized Roadways (signalized intersection analysis) Level of Service Lanes Divided A B C D 2 Undivided ** ** 4,800 10,000 4 Divided ** ** 11,100 21,700 Source: Lanes 4 6 8 10 12 A 23,800 36,900 49,900 63,000 75,900 Level of Service B C D 39,600 55,200 67,100 61,100 85,300 103,600 82,700 115,300 140,200 104,200 145,500 176,900 125,800 175,500 213,500 E 74,600 115,300 156,000 196,400 237,100 Interchange spacing < 2 mi. apart Lanes 4 6 8 10 12 A 22,000 34,800 47,500 60,200 72,900 Level of Service B C D 36,000 52,000 67,200 56,500 81,700 105,800 77,000 111,400 144,300 97,500 141,200 182,600 118,100 170,900 221,100 E 76,500 120,200 163,900 207,600 251,200 BICYCLE MODE (Note: Level of service for the bicycle mode in this table is based on roadway geometrics at 40 mph posted speed and traffic conditions, not number of bicyclists using the facility.) (Multiply motorized vehicle volumes shown below by number of directional roadway lanes to determine two-way maximum service volumes.) Paved Shoulder/ Bicycle Lane Coverage 0-49% 50-84% 85-100% A ** ** 3,100 B ** 2,500 7,200 Level of Service C D 3,200 13,800 4,100 >4,100 >7,200 *** E >13,800 *** *** PEDESTRIAN MODE (Note: Level of service for the pedestrian mode in this table is based on roadway geometrics at 40 mph posted speed and traffic conditions, not number of pedestrians using the facility.) (Multiply motorized vehicle volumes shown below by number of directional roadway lanes to determine two-way maximum service volumes.) Level of Service Sidewalk Coverage A B C D E 0-49% ** ** ** 6,400 15,500 50-84% ** ** ** 9,900 19,000 85-100% ** 2,200 11,300 >11,300 *** BUS MODE (Scheduled Fixed Route) (Buses per hour) (Note: Buses per hour shown are only for the peak hour in the single direction of the higher traffic flow.) E 15,600 32,900 49,300 E 12,600 25,200 Florida Department of Transportation 02/22/02 Systems Planning Office 605 Suwannee Street, MS 19 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0450 http://www11.myflorida.com/planning/systems/sm/los/default.htm Sidewalk Coverage 0-84% 85-100% Lanes 2 2 Multi Multi A ** >6 B >5 >4 Level of Service C D >4 >3 >3 >2 E >2 >1 ARTERIAL/NON-STATE ROADWAY ADJUSTMENTS DIVIDED/UNDIVIDED (alter corresponding volume by the indicated percent) Median Left Turns Lanes Adjustment Factors Divided Yes +5% Undivided No -20% Undivided Yes -5% Undivided No -25% ONE-WAY FACILITIES Decrease corresponding two-directional volumes in this table by 40% to obtain the equivalent one directional volume for one-way facilities. *This table does not constitute a standard and should be used only for general planning applications. The computer models from which this table is derived should be used for more specific planning applications. The table and deriving computer models should not be used for corridor or intersection design, where more refined techniques exist. Values shown are two-way annual average daily volumes (based on K100 factors) for levels of service and are for the automobile/truck modes unless specifically stated. Level of service letter grade thresholds are probably not comparable across modes and, therefore, cross modal comparisons should be made with caution. Furthermore, combining levels of service of different modes into one overall roadway level of service is not recommended. The table’s input value defaults and level of service criteria appear on the following page. Calculations are based on planning applications of the Highway Capacity Manual, Bicycle LOS Model, Pedestrian LOS Model and Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, respectively for the automobile/truck, bicycle, pedestrian and bus modes. **Cannot be achieved using table input value defaults. ***Not applicable for that level of service letter grade. For automobile/truck modes, volumes greater than level of service D become F because intersection capacities have been reached. For bicycle and pedestrian modes, the level of service letter grade (including F) is not achievable, because there is no maximum vehicle volume threshold using table input value defaults. 85 TABLE 4 – 2 GENERALIZED ANNUAL AVERAGE DAILY VOLUMES FOR FLORIDA’S AREAS TRANSITIONING INTO URBANIZED AREAS OR AREAS OVER 5,000 NOT IN URBANIZED AREAS* UNINTERRUPTED FLOW HIGHWAYS Lanes Divided 2 Undivided 4 Divided 6 Divided A 2,100 18,600 27,900 Level of Service B C D 6,900 12,900 18,200 30,200 43,600 56,500 45,200 65,500 84,700 FREEWAYS E 24,900 64,200 96,200 Lanes 4 6 8 10 A 23,500 36,400 49,100 61,800 STATE TWO-WAY ARTERIALS Class I (>0.00 to 1.99 signalized intersections per mile) Lanes Divided 2 Undivided 4 Divided 6 Divided A ** 4,600 6,900 Level of Service B C D 4,000 13,100 15,500 27,900 32,800 34,200 42,800 49,300 51,400 Lanes 2 4 6 Divided Undivided Divided Divided A ** ** ** E 69,100 106,700 144,400 182,000 BICYCLE MODE E 16,300 *** *** Class II (2.00 to 4.50 signalized intersections per mile) Level of Service B C D ** 10,500 14,500 3,700 24,400 30,600 6,000 38,000 46,100 Level of Service B C D 38,700 52,500 62,200 59,800 81,100 96,000 80,900 109,600 129,800 101,800 138,400 163,800 E 15,300 32,200 48,400 (Note: Level of service for the bicycle mode in this table is based on roadway geometrics at 40 mph posted speed and traffic conditions, not number of bicyclists using the facility.) (Multiply motorized vehicle volumes shown below by number of directional roadway lanes to determine two-way maximum service volumes.) Paved Shoulder/ Bicycle Lane Coverage 0-49% 50-84% 85-100% A ** ** 3,200 B 1,900 2,500 7,100 Level of Service C D 3,300 13,600 4,000 >4,000 >7,100 *** E >13,600 *** *** PEDESTRIAN MODE Class III (more than 4.5 signalized intersections per mile) Lanes Divided 2 Undivided 4 Divided 6 Divided A ** ** ** B ** ** ** Level of Service C D 5,000 11,800 11,700 27,200 18,400 42,100 E 14,600 30,800 46,300 % Sidewalk Coverage 0-49% 50-84% 85-100% NON-STATE ROADWAYS Major City/County Roadways Lanes Divided 2 Undivided 4 Divided 6 Divided A ** ** ** B ** ** ** Level of Service C D 7,000 13,600 16,400 29,300 25,700 44,100 E 14,600 30,900 46,400 Other Signalized Roadways (signalized intersection analysis) Lanes Divided 2 Undivided 4 Divided Source: A ** ** B ** ** Level of Service C D 4,400 9,400 10,300 20,200 (Note: Level of service for the pedestrian mode in this table is based on roadway geometric at 40 mph posted speed and traffic conditions, not number of pedestrians using the facility.) (Multiply motorized vehicle volumes shown by number of directional roadway lanes to determine two-way maximum service volumes.) E 12,000 24,000 Florida Department of Transportation 02/22/02 Systems Planning Office 605 Suwannee Street, MS 19 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0450 http://www11.myflorida.com/planning/systems/sm/los/default.htm A ** ** ** B ** ** 2,200 Level of Service C D ** 6,300 ** 9,800 11,200 >11,200 E 15,400 18,800 *** ARTERIAL/NON-STATE ROADWAY ADJUSTMENTS DIVIDED/UNDIVIDED Lanes Median Left Turn Lanes Adjustment Factors 2 2 Multi Multi Divided Undivided Undivided Undivided Yes No Yes No +5% -20% -5% -25% ONE-WAY FACILITIES Decrease corresponding two-directional volumes in this table by 40% to obtain the equivalent one directional volume for one-way facilities. *This table does not constitute a standard and should be used only for general planning applications. The computer models from which this table is derived should be used for more specific planning applications. The table and deriving computer models should not be used for corridor or intersection design, where more refined techniques exist. Values shown are two-way annual average daily volumes (based on K100 factors) for levels of service and are for the automobile/truck modes unless specifically stated. Level of service letter grade thresholds are probably not comparable across modes and, therefore, cross modal comparisons should be made with caution. Furthermore, combining levels of service of different modes into one overall roadway level of service is not recommended. The table’s input value defaults and level of service criteria appear on the following page. Calculations are based on planning applications of the Highway Capacity Manual, Bicycle LOS Model, and Pedestrian LOS Model, respectively for the automobile/truck, bicycle and pedestrian modes. **Cannot be achieved using table input value defaults. ***Not applicable for the level of service letter grade. For automobile/truck modes, volumes greater than level of service D become F because intersection capacities have been reached. For bicycle and pedestrian modes, the level of service letter grade (including F) is not achievable, because there is no maximum vehicle volume threshold using table input value defaults. 87 TABLE 4 – 3 GENERALIZED ANNUAL AVERAGE DAILY VOLUMES FOR FLORIDA’S RURAL UNDEVELOPED AREAS AND CITIES OR DEVELOPED AREAS LESS THAN 5,000 POPULATION* RURAL UNDEVELOPED AREAS CITIES OR RURAL DEVELOPED AREAS LESS THAN 5000 FREEWAYS Lanes 4 6 8 A 21,300 33,100 44,700 B 35,300 54,300 73,600 Level of Service C D 47,900 56,600 73,900 87,400 100,000 118,400 E 63,000 97,200 131,400 UNINTERRUPTED FLOW HIGHWAYS Lanes Divided 2 Undivided 4 Divided 6 Divided A 2,600 17,500 26,200 B 5,300 28,600 42,800 Level of Service C D 8,600 13,800 40,800 52,400 61,200 78,600 E 22,300 58,300 87,400 PASSING LANE ADJUSTMENTS (alter corresponding two-lane LOS A-D volumes indicated percent) Passing Lane Spacing 5 mi. 10 mi. Adjustment Factors +25% +10% ISOLATED SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Lanes 2 4 6 A ** ** ** B 1,900 2,900 4,500 Level of Service C D 8,000 10,700 17,400 23,000 27,100 35,500 E 12,100 25,200 43,100 BICYCLE MODE (Note: Level of service for the bicycle mode in this table is based on roadway geometrics at 55 mph posted speed and traffic conditions, not number of bicyclists using the facility.) (Multiply motorized vehicle volumes shown below by directional roadway lanes to determine maximum service volume.) Paved Shoulder/ Bicycle Lane Coverage 0-49% 50-84% 85-100% Source: A ** ** ** B ** ** ** C ** ** 3,900 02/22/02 Florida Department of Transportation Systems Planning Office 605 Suwannee Street, MS 19 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0450 http://www11.myflorida.com/planning/systems/sm/los/default.htm D ** ** >3,900 E 6,200 17,600 *** FREEWAYS Level of Service Lanes A B C D E 4 21,300 35,300 47,900 56,600 63,000 6 33,100 54,300 73,900 87,400 97,200 8 44,700 73,600 100,000 118,400 131,400 UNINTERRUPTED FLOW HIGHWAYS Level of Service Lanes Divided A B C D E 2 Undivided 2,500 7,200 12,700 17,300 23,500 4 Divided 17,800 28,900 41,800 54,100 61,500 6 Divided 26,800 43,300 62,700 81,200 92,200 INTERRUPTED FLOW ARTERIALS Level of Service Lanes Divided A B C D E 2 Undivided ** 2,200 11,000 13,900 14,900 4 Divided ** 5,300 25,500 29,400 31,200 6 Divided ** 8,400 39,400 44,200 46,800 NON-STATE SIGNALIZED ROADWAYS (signalized intersection analysis) Level of Service Lanes A B C D E 2 ** ** 1,900 7,600 10,100 BICYCLE MODE (Note: Level of service for the bicycle mode in this table is based on roadway geometrics at 45 mph posted speed and traffic conditions, not number of bicyclists using the facility.) (Multiply motorized vehicle volumes shown below by number of directional roadway lanes to determine maximum service volumes.) Paved Shoulder/ Bicycle Lane Coverage 0-49% 50-84% 85-100% A ** ** 2,800 B ** 2,100 4,000 Level of Service C D 2,800 6,900 3,500 >3,500 >4,000 *** E >6,900 *** *** PEDESTRIAN MODE (Note: Level of service for the pedestrian mode in this table is based on roadway geometric at 45 mph posted speed and traffic conditions, not number of pedestrian using the facility.) (Multiply motorized vehicle volumes shown by number of directional roadway lanes to determine maximum service volumes.) Level of Service Sidewalk Coverage A B C D E 0-49% ** ** ** 4,400 14,200 50-84% ** ** ** 8,000 18,000 85-100% ** ** 9,400 >9,400 *** NON-FREEWAY AND SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION ANALYSES DIVIDED/UNDIVIDED ADJUSTMENTS Lanes 2 2 Multi Multi (alter corresponding volumes by the indicated percent) Median Left Turn Lanes Divided Yes Undivided No Undivided Yes Undivided No Adjustment Factors +5% -20% -5% -25% *This table does not constitute a standard and should be used only for general planning applications. The computer models from which this table is derived should be used for more specific planning applications. The table and deriving computer models should not be used for corridor or intersection design, where more refined techniques exist. Values shown are two-way annual average daily volumes (based on K100 factors) for levels of service and are for the automobile/truck modes unless specifically stated. Level of service letter grade thresholds are probably not comparable across modes and, therefore, cross modal comparisons should be made with caution. Furthermore, combining levels of service of different modes into one overall roadway level of service is not recommended. The table’s input value defaults and level of service criteria appear on the following page. Calculations are based on planning applications of the Highway Capacity Manual, Bicycle LOS Model, and Pedestrian LOS Model, respectively for the automobile/truck, bicycle and pedestrian modes. **Cannot be achieved using table input value defaults. ***Not applicable for the level of service letter grade. For bicycle and pedestrian modes, the level of service letter grade (including F) is not achievable, because there is no maximum vehicle volume threshold using table input value defaults. 89 Southern Navajo/Apache County Sub-Regional Transportation Plan APPENDIX B YEAR 2006 POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT ESTIMATES BY COMMUNITY SEPTEMBER 2007 FINAL REPORT 98 934 97 30 wL w Lo Sho Pinetop-Lakeside Overview ake 101 703 NAVAJO COUNTY Rd 102 792 YEAR 2006 ESTIMATED POPULATION DENSITY BY TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ZONE 100 327 Population Density per Square Mile 0 - 1,500 1,500 - 4,000 103 61 4,000 - 6,500 109 171 PINETOP-LAKESIDE Base Map Features Arterials Cities/Towns 26 118 117 296 1,538 0 113 333 111 117 SR Woodland Rd 110 1,239 107 8 Sky Hi R d 106 327 Larson Rd 108 1,468 6,500 + 105 804 114 628 112 893 115 442 Rim Rd 116 1,797 Sources: Wilson & Company, January 2007. Southern Navajo/Apache County Sub-Regional Transportation Plan XX Traffic Analysis Zone X,XXX Population Estimate ³ Not to Scale FIGURE B-1 Show Low Overview 58 450 59 375 76 93 79 1,266 85 1,468 21 1,030 82 395 Central Ave 91 1,030 70 498 77 1,359 80 84 454381 88 424 92 364 75 44 83 887 87 312 74 105 1,500 - 4,000 4,000 - 6,500 6,500 + US 60 73 3 78 203 81 126 SHOW LOW 89 19 Arterials 90 11 Cities/Towns 93 106 94 354 95 654 Rd Lake 101 703 Lo w 97 30 w Sho 98 934 Rd Sources: Wilson & Company, January 2007. Base Map Features XX Traffic Analysis Zone X,XXX Population Estimate od nr Pe 96 626 72 298 0 - 1,500 d 71 146 77 SR Thornton St 65 1,402 White Mountain Rd 63 0 R anch 64 172 16th Ave n Pi Population Density per Square Mile don R B our L e on am eD NAVAJO COUNTY Rd YEAR 2006 ESTIMATED POPULATION DENSITY BY TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ZONE 103 PINETOP-LAKESIDE ³ Not to Scale 102 792 61 Southern Navajo/Apache County Sub-Regional Transportation Plan FIGURE B-2 Snowflake-Taylor Overview 1 196 4 290 7th St 23 16 24 0 30 170 31 78 TAYLOR druff R d 22 769 28 462 32 35 44 36 860 37 0 296 Pin ed ale Base Map Features Arterials Cities/Towns 39 166 Ln es a Bo u la ck B 45 120 rd o n XX Traffic Analysis Zone X,XXX Popoulation Estimate ³ 41 477 44 96 54 0 6,500 + 27 1,353 M Pulp Mill R d Sources: Wilson & Company, January 2007. 4,000 - 6,500 13 452 17 956 77 SR 43 207 Population Density per Square Mile 1,500 - 4,000 Rd 40 838 42 128 18 87 Centennial St 25 209 19 456 Frontier Dr 34 22 Rd Malapai/Freeman Hollow Rd Paper Mill 26 0 SR 277 20 75 y SR 77 NAVAJO COUNTY 16 58 ho Hw 0 - 1,500 Old Wo o 6 567 Conc 5 213 SNOWFLAKE YEAR 2006 ESTIMATED POPULATION DENSITY BY TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ZONE Ra nc Not to Scale hR d Southern Navajo/Apache County Sub-Regional Transportation Plan FIGURE B-3 102 364 M ou nt ai 103 n R 66 d 89 0 ain R ount M r e t Por NAVAJO COUNTY d Employment Density per Square Mile 1001 - 3000 107 0 3001 - 6000 109 216 Woodland Rd 110 259 501 - 1000 105 581 106 169 118 0 117 0 114 177 Rim Arterials Cities/Towns 112 1,002 115 700 Base Map Features 104 28 PINETOP-LAKESIDE 260 SR Hart Lake Ln 111 516 n Penrod L 113 13 Sources: Wilson & Company, January 2007. 100 20 0 - 500 Larson Rd 108 61 YEAR 2006 ESTIMATED EMPLOYMENT DENSITY BY TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ZONE Rd W hi te d nro Pe 101 107 90 274 95 1,767 d Lake R 98 542 97 867 Low Show 96 171 Sky Hi R d Pinetop-Lakeside Overview XX Traffic Analysis Zone X,XXX Employment Estimate ³ 116 168 Not to Scale Rd 104 28 Southern Navajo/Apache County Sub-Regional Transportation Plan FIGURE B-4 Show Low Overview 55 15 Thornton St 85 134 21 0 82 217 72 133 73 74 121 352 0 US 6 92 135 1001 - 3000 3001 - 6000 SHOWLOW Base Map Features 93 138 94 70 95 1,767 90 274 Arterials 89 0 Cities/Towns dR d US 6 0 98 542 Sources: Wilson & Company, January 2007. XX Traffic Analysis Zone X,XXX Employment Estimate o nr Pe 96 171 501 - 1000 US 60 75 77 243 78 328 839 81 80 83 139 201 84 151 87 343 68 88 29 Whit e Mo untain Rd 76 28 16th Ave 260 SR 71 51 91 0 79 111 70 166 0 - 500 US 60 Central Ave 65 38 Employment Density per Square Mile Rd 63 60 53 3 anch 64 19 NAVAJO COUNTY don R m Da Bour ne Lo ne Pi 58 19 Rd 77 SR 59 104 YEAR 2006 ESTIMATED EMPLOYMENT DENSITY BY TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ZONE 56 11 97 867 101 107 103 66 PINETOP-LAKESIDE 102 364 105 581 100 20 107 0 Southern Navajo/Apache County Sub-Regional Transportation Plan ³ Not to Scale FIGURE B-5 Snowflake-Taylor Overview 1 0 4 4 7th St 30 0 31 0 druff R d 28 32 4 94 36 35 37 203 399 117 13 12 Base Map Features 27 342 Arterials Cities/Towns Ln 44 7 Bo u M la ck 54 4 45 4 rd o n XX Traffic Analysis Zone X,XXX Employment Estimate ³ 41 7 B Sources: Wilson & Company, January 2007. 1001 - 3000 3001 - 6000 Rd Pin ed ale 43 0 501 - 1000 39 22 77 SR Pulp Mill R d 40 1 Employment Density per Square Mile 17 770 22 165 23 0 24 0 TAYLOR 42 0 18 0 y 0 - 500 es a 25 21 19 34 Frontier Dr 34 0 Rd Freeman Hollow Rd Paper Mill 26 0 SR 277 20 0 ho Hw SR 77 NAVAJO COUNTY 16 5 Malapai/Freeman Hollow Rd Old Wo o 6 420 Conc 5 72 SNOWFLAKE YEAR 2006 ESTIMATED EMPLOYMENT DENSITY BY TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ZONE Ra nc Not to Scale hR d Southern Navajo/Apache County Sub-Regional Transportation Plan FIGURE B-6 Southern Navajo/Apache County Sub-Regional Transportation Plan TABLE B-1 YEAR 2006 POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT ESTIMATES BY TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ZONE TAZ Dwelling Units Households Population 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 109 189 213 134 76 155 6 23 15 98 13 30 245 120 0 36 358 29 217 17 0 229 6 0 68 0 441 129 125 49 25 16 361 11 278 0 132 44 56 309 82 96 167 107 62 140 4 15 10 49 8 24 176 76 0 26 315 44 149 17 0 218 6 0 59 0 392 125 43 47 23 16 252 8 254 0 116 30 51 272 196 223 431 290 213 567 11 38 27 120 22 59 452 210 0 58 956 87 456 75 0 769 16 0 209 0 1353 462 82 170 78 44 658 22 860 0 296 64 166 838 SEPTEMBER 2007 Retail 0 0 3 0 49 299 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 177 0 17 0 0 62 0 0 0 0 105 0 0 0 0 83 0 0 190 79 91 0 2 0 Employment Sector Office General Government 0 0 3 0 21 63 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 215 0 17 0 0 94 0 0 1 0 205 4 0 0 0 8 0 0 135 58 12 1 20 1 0 0 9 4 2 58 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 263 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 20 0 25 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 35 66 14 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 109 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 39 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 0 15 4 72 420 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 0 5 770 0 34 0 0 165 0 0 21 0 342 4 0 0 0 94 0 0 399 203 117 4 22 1 FINAL REPORT Southern Navajo/Apache County Sub-Regional Transportation Plan TABLE B-1 YEAR 2006 POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT ESTIMATES BY TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ZONE (CONTINUED) TAZ Dwelling Units Households Population 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 165 49 113 31 50 1158 132 33 39 52 528 89 107 33 285 361 399 156 154 53 275 112 0 116 779 49 110 24 102 155 50 262 1 43 14 70 573 98 799 271 144 38 72 30 41 560 96 32 30 46 281 40 76 477 128 207 96 120 1309 251 107 99 177 652 108 183 72 260 213 133 130 30 144 44 161 696 502 450 375 99 357 126 74 555 8 59 9 53 146 46 103 1 39 13 44 479 88 483 196 172 1402 22 174 25 140 498 146 298 3 105 44 93 1359 203 1266 454 SEPTEMBER 2007 Retail Office 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 0 0 3 3 1 0 1 12 4 0 0 54 2 0 0 0 0 0 3 25 9 52 99 127 15 43 288 5 128 4 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 37 0 3 0 11 10 0 5 35 0 2 0 3 10 20 0 0 0 0 163 23 58 45 182 106 5 27 286 82 41 Employment General Government 3 0 0 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 25 0 0 1 1 0 0 13 54 0 0 0 0 7 18 0 0 0 0 0 3 4 24 58 10 8 53 32 24 32 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 62 0 13 0 0 205 233 0 0 Total 7 0 0 7 4 0 0 0 0 0 78 0 3 4 15 11 0 19 104 4 2 0 60 19 38 0 0 0 0 166 51 133 121 352 243 28 328 839 111 201 FINAL REPORT Southern Navajo/Apache County Sub-Regional Transportation Plan TABLE B-1 YEAR 2006 POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT ESTIMATES BY TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ZONE (CONTINUED) TAZ Dwelling Units Households Population 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 45 280 351 131 822 206 125 216 18 4 1048 133 48 358 485 554 14 701 122 294 297 484 51 176 482 292 4 989 101 1032 497 697 223 494 954 3004 1005 193 0 0 44 157 302 124 570 132 111 174 7 4 485 133 39 148 217 252 11 356 61 122 249 294 28 45 289 124 3 539 79 494 298 353 134 257 200 739 603 116 0 0 126 395 887 381 1468 323 312 424 19 11 1030 364 106 354 654 626 30 934 160 327 703 792 61 121 804 327 8 1468 171 1239 117 893 333 628 442 1797 1538 296 0 0 Retail Office 65 154 13 86 1 0 9 0 0 31 0 5 84 48 295 3 754 193 0 0 65 44 25 0 96 54 0 27 76 1 240 380 5 90 111 0 0 0 0 0 72 63 101 241 113 0 58 26 0 57 0 19 46 20 1384 168 113 229 0 6 33 216 33 2 462 88 0 14 117 48 189 478 4 76 523 114 0 0 0 0 Employment General Government 2 0 19 15 20 0 1 3 0 132 0 111 3 2 84 0 0 101 0 14 9 15 8 15 23 27 0 20 23 20 87 45 4 11 3 28 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 1 0 0 0 0 0 54 0 0 5 0 4 0 0 19 0 0 0 89 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 190 0 99 0 0 63 26 0 0 0 0 Total 139 217 151 343 134 0 68 29 0 274 0 135 138 70 1767 171 867 542 0 20 107 364 66 28 581 169 0 61 216 259 516 1002 13 177 700 168 0 0 0 0 Source: Wilson & Company, 2006. SEPTEMBER 2007 FINAL REPORT Southern Navajo/Apache County Sub-Regional Transportation Plan APPENDIX C YEAR 2006 TRAFFIC COUNT DATA BY COMMUNITY SEPTEMBER 2007 FINAL REPORT # Pinetop-Lakeside Overview o nr Pe 706 dR SHOW LOW t Por d 9,460 La Low Show # 21,840 d # 838 # NAVAJO COUNTY 3,372 d ke R Directional Lanes # XXX Mo un tai # nR 2 Lanes Traffic Count Location d 23,000 # Woodland Rd Larson Rd Wh ite 1 Lane 8,994 Sky Hi R d # R ain unt o er M YEAR 2006 ROADWAY NETWORK AND TRAFFIC COUNTS 23,100 # PINTEOP-LAKESIDE Base Map Features Cities/Towns # 4,496 23,070 # 260 SR Hart Lake Ln # Rim Rd 9,568 ³ Not to Scale # Sources: Wilson & Company, January 2007 Southern Navajo/Apache County Sub-Regional Transportation Plan FIGURE C-1 Show Low Overview YEAR 2006 77 SR #ROADWAY NETWORK AND TRAFFIC COUNTS NAVAJO COUNTY SR 260 11,600 # SHOW LOW Central Ave 250 # 3,186 US 60 3,814 # 3,716 # 10,500 # # 1,614 # # 5,272 US 60 # 3,040 # 624 # 25,100 952 # 9,230 21,610 1 Lane X,XXX # # Directional Lanes # 2 Lanes Traffic Count Location 11th St 16th Ave Thornton St #800 8,408 Base Map Features 4,710 # # Cities/Towns 21,600 # o nr Pe dR d 60 9,460 US # Sources: Wilson & Company, January 2007 21,840 # ³ Not to Scale PINETOP-LAKESIDE Southern Navajo/Apache County Sub-Regional Transportation Plan # FIGURE C-2 Snowflake-Taylor Overview YEAR 2006 ROADWAY NETWORK AND TRAFFIC COUNTS NAVAJO COUNTY Old W oodr SR 77 Mill Rd 1,076 # Centennial St Paper 7th St Frontier Dr 2,588 Freeman Hollow Rd # # 1,100 # 4,502 600 # # X,XXX # 2 Lanes Traffic Count Location # Base Map Features #11,030 # Cities/Towns 1,416 # # 1,594 ed ale R d 11,140 Pin ill Rd 1 Lane 11,200 77 Pulp M Directional Lanes # ³ SR 588 # 3,484 #11,140 11,000 # TAYLOR wy #4,502 4,164 3,052 # #1,766 # 1,238 77 SR 2 ho H Conc uff R d SNOWFLAKE 500 # Bo u rd o n Ra nc hR Not to Scale d 500 # Sources: Wilson & Company, January 2007 Southern Navajo/Apache County Sub-Regional Transportation Plan FIGURE C-3 Southern Navajo/Apache County Sub-Regional Transportation Plan APPENDIX D MODEL VALIDATION SUMMARY SEPTEMBER 2007 FINAL REPORT Southern Navajo/Apache County Sub-Regional Transportation Plan TABLE D-1 MODEL CALIBRATION PARAMETERS Average Annual Daily Traffic FHWA Desirable Percent Deviation <1,000 1,000-2,500 2,500-5,000 5,000-10,000 10,000-25,000 25,000-50,000 >50,000 60 47 36 29 25 22 21 Source: Model Validation and Reasonableness Checking Manual, FHWA, February 1997. SEPTEMBER 2007 FINAL REPORT Southern Navajo/Apache County Sub-Regional Transportation Plan TABLE D-2 YEAR 2006 INDIVIDUAL LINK MODEL VOLUME/TRAFFIC COUNT VALIDATION SUMMARY Facility From SR 260 SR 260 SR 260 SR 260 US 60 US 60 US 60 US 60 US 60 US 60 SR 61 SR 180 SR 77 SR 77 SR 77 SR 277 SR 277 Pinedale Road Old Linden Road Show Low Lake Rd Woodland Lake Rd Rim Road SR 260 SR 73 SR 77 Bourdon Ranch Rd SR 61 US 60 US 60 US 60 Silver Lake Blvd Paper Mill Rd Paper Mill Rd Clay Springs Rd Bourdon Ranch Rd Bourdon Ranch Rd Bourdon Ranch Rd Bourdon Ranch Rd North of US 60 South of Silver Lake Blvd North of Silver Lake Blvd South of Willow Lane SEPTEMBER 2007 To 2006 Traffic Count State Facilities Burton Road 4,390 US 60 10,500 Woolford Rd 21,800 Woodland Rd 23,000 SR 260 3,040 SR 73 20,200 SR 77 21,600 Bourdon Ranch Rd 9,200 SR 61 5,600 Vernon-McNary Rd 3,900 CR 3148 2,600 US 180 2,480 Silver Lake Blvd 11,600 Pinedale Rd 10,470 SR 277 11,100 SR 77 1,200 Paper Mill Rd 2,600 County Facilities 2,400 400 500 1,400 Model Volume Estimate Acceptable Model Deviation Actual Model Deviation Meets FHWA Target? 4,300 14,200 23,800 18,100 4,350 20,200 21,000 11,800 8,400 3,700 2,900 2,100 10,800 8,800 11,500 1,600 2,500 36% 25% 25% 25% 36% 25% 25% 29% 29% 36% 36% 47% 25% 25% 25% 47% 36% 2% 35% 9% 21% 43% 0% 3% 28% 50% 5% 12% 15% 7% 16% 4% 33% 4% Yes No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 2,800 354 400 1,000 47% 60% 60% 47% 17% 12% 20% 29% Yes Yes Yes Yes DRAFT FINAL REPORT Southern Navajo/Apache County Sub-Regional Transportation Plan TABLE D-2 YEAR 2006 INDIVIDUAL LINK MODEL VOLUME/TRAFFIC COUNT VALIDATION SUMMARY (CONTINUED) Facility From Lone Pine Dam Rd Pinedale Rd Pulp Mill Rd Porter Mountain Rd Silver Lake Blvd Concho Highway Penrod Rd SR 77 Old Woodruff Rd Old Linden Rd Penrod Rd Woolford St Sierra Pines Trl 16th Ave Porter Mountain Rd Central Ave US 60 Woodland Rd Paper Mill Rd Paper Mill Rd West of SR 77 North of SR 260 North of Saw Mill Rd South of SR 73 West of SR 77 Malapai/Freeman Hollow Rd To 2006 Traffic Count County Facilities (Cont’d) 790 108 590 Sky Hi Rd 1,600 Bourdon Ranch Rd 1,200 White Antelope Rd 3,500 Show Low Central Ave 3,800 US 60 4,700 SR 73 8,400 Central Ave 620 Pinetop-Lakeside 9,000 Taylor 4,500 Freeman Hollow Rd 1,100 Model Volume Estimate Acceptable Deviation Percent Deviation Meets FHWA Target? 260 60 760 60% 60% 60% 67% 44% 29% No Yes Yes 1,400 2,000 3,600 47% 47% 36% 13% 67% 3% Yes No Yes 4,600 7,500 8,900 380 36% 36% 29% 60% 21% 60% 6% 39% Yes No Yes Yes 8,250 29% 8% Yes 5,400 1,560 36% 47% 20% 42% Yes Yes Source: Wilson & Company, May 2007. SEPTEMBER 2007 DRAFT FINAL REPORT Southern Navajo/Apache County Sub-Regional Transportation Plan APPENDIX E COMMUNITY POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT PROJECTIONS: 2015 & 2030 SEPTEMBER 2007 FINAL REPORT Southern Navajo/Apache County Sub-Regional Transportation Plan TABLE E-1 YEAR 2015 AND YEAR 2030 POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT PROJECTIONS BY TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ZONE Year 2015 TAZ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Dwelling Units Households Population 109 189 213 134 262 186 6 23 17 196 14 103 498 120 0 36 378 151 436 80 0 259 141 83 278 57 82 96 167 107 215 168 4 15 11 98 9 82 359 76 0 26 235 109 358 46 0 247 80 47 242 32 196 223 431 290 738 681 11 38 30 240 25 202 922 210 0 58 721 280 1189 204 0 871 219 129 858 88 SEPTEMBER 2007 Year 2030 Employment Retail Office General 2 2 4 0 97 330 0 0 1 5 1 6 0 2 0 4 152 94 58 30 0 98 23 15 0 10 2 3 4 0 42 70 0 0 1 7 1 8 51 2 0 0 192 86 58 42 0 149 34 22 7 14 1 1 11 10 4 64 0 0 0 2 0 2 17 1 0 0 238 71 0 10 0 14 8 5 139 3 Government 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 104 0 0 7 0 0 6 3 0 2 Total 6 7 19 10 143 464 0 0 2 16 2 18 68 5 0 4 686 251 116 89 0 261 71 45 146 29 Dwelling Units Households Population 109 189 213 134 1884 186 6 23 17 462 14 749 1263 120 0 36 369 1395 1037 718 0 259 1809 1163 2265 800 82 96 167 107 1548 168 4 15 11 231 9 599 910 76 0 26 325 868 851 409 0 247 1031 663 1968 456 196 223 431 290 5315 681 11 38 30 566 25 1473 2336 210 0 58 991 2662 2826 1815 0 871 4743 1817 6981 1249 Employment Retail Office General 6 7 8 0 242 602 0 1 2 17 2 20 0 6 0 6 211 313 167 99 0 224 78 50 0 35 9 10 8 0 104 127 0 1 2 25 2 28 157 8 0 0 283 288 167 141 0 339 111 71 22 49 2 2 23 25 10 117 0 0 1 6 1 7 52 2 0 0 356 237 0 33 0 33 26 17 431 12 Government 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 5 0 1 0 0 164 0 0 24 0 0 19 12 0 8 Total 19 21 39 25 356 846 0 2 5 52 5 60 209 17 0 6 1014 838 334 297 0 597 234 150 453 104 FINAL REPORT Southern Navajo/Apache County Sub-Regional Transportation Plan TABLE E-1 YEAR 2015 AND YEAR 2030 POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT PROJECTIONS BY TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ZONE (CONTINUED) Year 2015 TAZ 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 Dwelling Units Households Population 945 193 125 216 66 44 678 54 492 67 132 200 188 271 513 49 210 38 422 1420 333 40 39 52 982 188 841 188 43 206 60 25 473 39 450 38 118 135 173 238 447 38 133 37 345 687 243 39 30 46 522 84 2903 695 82 744 204 68 1235 107 1524 104 390 289 565 733 1480 128 382 118 1009 1606 635 131 99 177 1212 227 SEPTEMBER 2007 Year 2030 Employment Retail Office General 115 38 1 40 7 177 7 8 221 122 210 0 9 0 0 1 4 4 0 7 11 1 1 2 28 6 226 196 2 58 10 17 10 11 157 90 27 10 86 51 116 2 6 0 67 10 16 2 1 2 66 8 27 22 0 14 2 6 2 2 40 102 32 29 0 0 87 0 2 2 200 2 4 0 0 0 44 2 Government 8 0 0 10 2 0 2 2 45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 Total 376 256 3 122 21 200 21 23 463 314 269 39 95 51 203 3 13 6 267 21 33 3 2 4 138 18 Dwelling Units Households Population 2934 193 125 1852 330 232 1075 494 489 67 132 250 1321 828 3320 49 271 38 4693 1420 1579 40 39 52 1419 300 2611 188 43 1766 300 132 750 353 447 38 118 1200 1214 729 2896 38 172 37 3840 687 1152 39 30 46 755 258 9012 695 82 6375 1020 488 1958 777 1514 104 390 2566 3963 2245 9587 128 493 118 11236 1606 3010 131 99 177 1753 697 Employment Retail Office General 210 125 3 134 23 450 25 27 418 274 548 0 25 0 0 3 13 6 0 23 38 3 2 4 67 19 410 646 5 191 32 42 35 38 298 201 72 30 254 168 381 4 19 0 221 32 54 4 3 5 156 28 50 75 1 45 8 17 8 9 76 229 84 90 0 0 285 1 4 3 662 8 13 1 1 1 105 6 Government 14 0 1 32 6 0 6 6 85 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 0 6 9 1 1 1 0 5 Total 684 846 10 402 69 509 74 80 877 704 704 120 279 168 666 9 39 9 883 69 114 9 7 11 328 58 FINAL REPORT Southern Navajo/Apache County Sub-Regional Transportation Plan TABLE E-1 YEAR 2015 AND YEAR 2030 POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT PROJECTIONS BY TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ZONE (CONTINUED) Year 2015 TAZ 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 Dwelling Units Households Population 237 33 285 361 732 343 348 53 275 112 13 116 1403 49 373 24 231 343 115 481 1 43 14 174 600 98 169 19 72 260 391 291 293 30 144 44 7 74 999 8 201 9 120 323 105 189 1 39 13 110 502 88 406 52 161 696 922 984 845 99 357 126 19 172 2523 22 591 25 317 1102 334 548 3 105 44 233 1424 203 SEPTEMBER 2007 Year 2030 Employment Retail Office General 0 3 50 2 12 4 37 4 0 1 79 22 0 0 32 0 2 3 40 18 76 145 125 59 43 262 41 0 182 23 17 21 109 0 11 2 5 111 132 0 46 0 2 157 37 120 66 266 104 20 27 259 0 1 16 0 4 54 167 0 0 0 0 78 118 0 11 0 1 0 5 8 35 85 10 32 53 29 Government 0 0 0 0 2 0 10 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 128 0 19 0 0 205 211 Total 41 4 248 25 35 79 323 4 11 3 89 211 250 0 97 0 5 160 82 274 177 515 239 111 328 761 Dwelling Units Households Population 804 33 285 361 954 1170 1341 53 275 112 0 439 1462 49 2623 24 850 1180 440 600 1 43 14 800 940 98 573 19 72 260 510 994 1128 30 144 44 7 74 1041 8 1416 9 442 1111 403 236 1 39 13 504 502 88 1377 52 161 696 1203 3360 3253 99 357 126 19 172 2629 26 4165 21 1168 3791 1282 684 3 105 44 1067 1424 203 Employment Retail Office General 0 6 160 6 39 12 104 7 0 3 173 71 0 1 108 1 5 5 92 47 166 317 203 172 43 392 132 0 587 60 55 60 304 0 33 5 10 353 406 1 153 1 8 251 84 302 144 582 170 58 27 388 0 2 53 0 13 157 468 0 0 1 0 247 365 0 36 0 2 0 10 21 77 186 16 92 53 43 Government 0 0 0 0 9 0 26 0 0 1 10 0 0 0 26 0 1 0 0 323 0 42 0 0 205 317 Total 132 8 800 66 116 229 902 7 33 10 193 671 771 2 323 2 16 256 186 693 387 1127 389 322 328 1140 FINAL REPORT Southern Navajo/Apache County Sub-Regional Transportation Plan TABLE E-1 YEAR 2015 AND YEAR 2030 POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT PROJECTIONS BY TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ZONE (CONTINUED) Year 2015 TAZ 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 Dwelling Units Households Population 1600 271 58 280 466 271 860 431 248 399 138 228 1183 303 211 668 1000 554 211 1310 142 551 452 952 51 176 968 196 57 157 401 256 597 277 220 321 54 130 548 173 171 276 448 252 162 666 71 229 378 578 28 45 2538 454 163 395 1178 787 1537 677 618 783 148 356 1164 474 464 660 1350 626 444 1748 186 614 1068 1556 61 121 SEPTEMBER 2007 Year 2030 Employment Retail Office General 10 141 165 333 23 135 2 6 54 0 13 33 13 8 213 107 305 2 739 183 2 0 268 47 115 0 157 45 182 136 181 378 191 9 343 273 18 60 18 30 116 44 1431 141 110 218 2 10 136 233 152 2 46 35 5 0 34 24 34 2 6 31 5 138 4 180 7 5 87 0 0 96 1 25 37 16 37 15 Government 0 0 0 0 32 2 0 2 0 0 3 57 3 0 13 0 4 0 0 18 1 0 0 96 0 11 Total 213 221 352 469 270 539 227 19 403 304 39 288 38 218 349 156 1827 143 849 515 6 35 441 392 304 28 Dwelling Units Households Population 3745 271 58 409 466 305 860 431 564 534 1475 3051 595 1110 1792 970 2680 554 211 2000 142 878 452 2013 51 176 2265 196 57 157 401 288 597 277 500 430 574 1739 548 633 1449 401 1201 252 162 1017 71 364 378 1221 28 45 5939 454 163 395 1178 886 1537 677 1405 1049 1066 4782 1164 1734 3928 959 3618 626 324 2669 186 976 1068 3287 61 121 Employment Retail Office General 23 255 441 852 56 308 4 21 163 0 44 57 42 18 568 276 525 3 1206 290 7 0 784 85 343 0 385 82 488 348 435 860 450 30 1048 866 62 104 59 69 311 114 2465 189 181 344 9 25 398 415 453 2 113 64 14 0 82 54 80 7 18 100 15 241 14 415 20 12 150 0 0 152 2 59 109 29 110 15 Government 0 0 0 0 78 4 0 5 0 0 11 99 10 0 34 0 7 0 0 28 2 0 0 171 0 11 Total 521 401 943 1200 651 1226 534 63 1229 966 132 501 125 502 933 402 3147 192 1387 814 20 84 1291 700 906 28 FINAL REPORT Southern Navajo/Apache County Sub-Regional Transportation Plan TABLE E-1 YEAR 2015 AND YEAR 2030 POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT PROJECTIONS BY TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ZONE (CONTINUED) Year 2015 TAZ 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 Dwelling Units Households Population 482 292 4 1517 101 1100 677 921 376 966 1712 3004 1005 352 0 0 289 124 3 827 79 526 409 467 226 503 358 739 978 201 0 0 804 327 8 2253 171 1319 1042 1181 561 1229 791 1797 3993 551 0 0 Year 2030 Employment Retail Office General 140 94 0 38 117 1 333 463 9 82 135 0 64 121 0 0 674 154 0 20 180 48 262 582 6 69 638 152 90 172 0 0 34 47 0 29 35 20 121 55 6 10 3 38 22 40 0 0 Government 0 0 0 0 0 190 0 121 0 0 77 34 15 30 0 0 Total 848 295 0 87 332 259 716 1221 21 161 853 224 191 363 0 0 Dwelling Units Households Population 482 292 4 1517 101 1100 677 921 376 2005 1695 3004 175 448 0 0 289 124 3 827 79 526 409 467 226 1043 355 739 170 255 0 0 804 327 4 2253 171 1319 1042 1181 561 2549 785 1797 694 699 0 0 Employment Retail Office General 307 224 0 84 264 1 708 910 20 122 266 0 212 402 0 0 1478 366 0 44 406 48 558 1145 16 103 1255 318 302 573 0 0 74 112 0 62 80 20 257 108 16 15 7 78 71 134 0 0 Government 0 0 0 0 0 190 0 237 0 0 151 72 51 98 0 0 Total 1859 702 0 190 750 259 1523 2400 52 240 1679 468 636 1207 0 0 Source: Wilson & Company, May 2007. SEPTEMBER 2007 FINAL REPORT Southern Navajo/Apache County Sub-Regional Transportation Plan APPENDIX F COMMITTED-PLUS-PLANNED ROADWAY NETWORK: STUDY AREA COMMUNITIES SEPTEMBER 2007 FINAL REPORT Pinetop-Lakeside Overview nr Pe R od COMMITTED-PLUS-PLANNED ROADWAY NETWORK SHOW LOW d Por M ter R tain oun d NAVAJO COUNTY Scott Ranch Rd (Ongoing) Directional Lanes 1 Lane Hi R d 2 Lanes Sky Improvement Scenario Committed-PlusPlanned d Base Map Features PINETOP-LAKESIDE Cities/Towns Penrod Ln SR APACHE COUNTY 260 ³ Not to Scale ar y Rd Rd -M cN Rim no n ain R Ve r ou nt Existing-PlusCommitted Woodland Rd Rim Rd (Future) hit eM Larson Rd W Sources: Wilson & Company, April 2007. Southern Navajo/Apache County Sub-Regional Transportation Plan FIGURE F-1 Pinetop/Lakeside Overview SHOW LOW 15,300 Level of Service 0 ke Rd LOS A - B LOS C 41,500 0 3,000 Hi Rd X,XXX - Daily Volume Estimate * Based on 2015 Socioeconomic Data Sk y 10,900 19 ,00 40,600 7,400 6,600 00 ,2 41 PINETOP-LAKESIDE 00 ,8 43 10,1 00 nR d 56,800 Larson Rd 11,000 0 LOS F 42,700 00 4,1 Mo un tai LOS E 10 19, 0 43,900 0 Rim Rd Cities/Towns Not to Scale 19,500 00 22,3 17 ,9 00 n Penrod L 0 5,300 ,70 39 00 19,7 8,600 Base Map Features ³ 0 26 SR Woodland Rd Wh it e 3,600 38 ,5 00 0 12,000 45 ,2 00 LOS D 13 ,30 00 ,1 47 100 4,300 NAVAJO COUNTY 50 38, a ow L 51,300 Rd ain t n ou 7,000 Hart Lake Ln 8,500 5,500 10,40 0 M ter r o P Rd 0 L Show 11,300 0 od nr Pe ,90 55 8,700 FORECAST LEVEL OF SERVICE: COMMITTED-PLUS-PLANNED ROADWAY NETWORK 00 3,9 Sources: Wilson & Company, April 2007. Southern Navajo/Apache County Sub-Regional Transportation Plan FIGURE F-2 Show Low Overview ch Ran Rd Dam rdon Bou 77 SR ne e Pi Lon NAVAJO COUNTY Ownes St Existing-PlusCommitted Mc Neil St Committed-PlusPlanned Bluff Rd (Future) Base Map Features Cities/Towns Woolford Extension (Ongoing) od nr Pe Summit Trail (Future) Improvement Scenario US 60 Whipple St sT r 2 Lanes 11th St ntain R d McNeil St Rd Scott Ranch Rd (Ongoing) ³ Not to Scale 60 US Directional Lanes 1 Lane US 60 White Mou Old Linden Rd Central Ave 16th Ave Thornton St Sie rra Pin e Rd SHOW LOW COMMITTED-PLUS-PLANNED ROADWAY NETWORK Rim Rd (Future) PINETOP-LAKESIDE Sources: Wilson & Company, April 2007. Southern Navajo/Apache County Sub-Regional Transportation Plan FIGURE F-3 Show Low Overview ch Ran rd 19,0 00 54,800 0 16 ,00 od nr Pe 60 Rd Not to Scale 15,300 PINETOP-LAKESIDE 50 38, 0 a ow L d ke R 00 47,1 100 11,300 wL Sho 260 SR 0 5,50 51,300 0 00 ,9 55 17 ,80 ³ 0 20,4 00 Cities/Towns 8,700 0 12 ,0 00 Daily Volume Estimate Base Map Features ,20 50 21,7 00 US X,XXX - 33,60 0 lfo LOS F * Based on 2030 Socioeconomic Data 41,200 sT r 00 LOS E 20,500 11th St 16,300 Whipple St W oo 4 4,300 35 ,40 3,900 Sie rra Pin e 0 500 7,500 LOS D 54,600 2,100 22,7 00 Central Ave 16th Ave 2,500 9,400 Mc Neil St 00 80,1 LOS C 14,300 McNeil St Ownes St 0 0 57,40 0 US 6 54,300 00 71,8 37,6 0 7,500 LOS A - B 0 31,80 00 70,9 3,400 0 26 SR 00 13,7 0 1,600 8,200 Level of Service 27,800 SHOW LOW 00 72,5 Thornton St Rd 0 3,80 0 rdon Bou Rd Dam 00 1,7 35, 90 77 SR ne e Pi Lon4,100 0 60 4, 00 2,4 NAVAJO COUNTY FORECAST LEVEL OF SERVICE: COMMITTED-PLUS-PLANNED ROADWAY NETWORK 7,000 Sources: Wilson & Company, April 2007. Southern Navajo/Apache County Sub-Regional Transportation Plan FIGURE F-4 Snowflake-Taylor Overview COMMITTED-PLUS-PLANNED ROADWAY NETWORK nc Co H ho wy Old Woo druf f Rd SNOWFLAKE Hillcrest Dr Committed-PlusPlanned 7th St Centennial St Dewitt St 7th St Improvement Scenario R an ch R d Base Map Features R an c TAYLOR Cities/Towns don Willow Ln Bour Frontier Dr Freeman Hollow Rd Paper Mill R d Malapai/Freeman Hollow Rd SR 277 SR 277 h Rd da Pin e ill Rd le R d ³ 7 SR 7 Pulp M 1 Lane 2 Lanes SR 77 NAVAJO COUNTY Directional Lanes Not to Scale Black Mesa L n Sources: Wilson & Company, April 2007. Southern Navajo/Apache County Sub-Regional Transportation Plan FIGURE F-5 Snowflake-Taylor Overview 12,700 SR 77 NAVAJO COUNTY SNOWFLAKE Level of Service LOS A - B 7,2 00 druff R d Old Wo o 12,70 0 6,500 LOS C 27,400 10,900 LOS D LOS E 7th St LOS F 5,300 7th St Hatch/Rodeo Dr X,XXX - Casa Linda Dr Rd * Based on 2030 Socioeconomic Data Cattle Ln Willow Ln Base Map Features 00 19,7 0 50 2, Cities/Towns da le 00 ,4 56 100 ³ 0 2,3 00 Pin e ll Rd 19 ,00 77 SR Pulp Mi Daily Volume Estimate 7,300 Ran ch TAYLOR 2,900 5,100 3,000 Dewitt St 6,000 16,600 h nc o C wy H o 38,5 00 10,200 SR 277 Rd 10,600 Frontier Dr 8,900 ill Rd 1,900 Paper M Freeman Hollow Rd 5,500 Malapai/Freeman Hollow Rd 10,800 400 2,8 00 9,500 8,700 5,700 SR 277 0 5,20 1,800 5,300 9,300 FORECAST LEVEL OF SERVICE: COMMITTED-PLUS-PLANNED ROADWAY NETWORK n Black Mesa L Not to Scale 18 ,70 0 ,70 58 0 Sources: Wilson & Company, April 2007. Southern Navajo/Apache County Sub-Regional Transportation Plan FIGURE F-6 Stanford Dr Vernon Overview NAVAJO COUNTY COMMITTED-PLUS-PLANNED ROADWAY NETWORK APACHE COUNTY Directional Lanes US 60 Vernon-McNary Rd Extenstion (Future) US 60 61 CR 3148 SR 1 Lane 2 Lanes Improvement Scenario Committed-PlusPlanned 1 CR 3 US 60 US 60 45 Base Map Features rte Po r t un o M ain Rd Vernon-McNary Rd CR 3144 Sources: Wilson & Company, April 2007. Southern Navajo/Apache County Sub-Regional Transportation Plan Cities/Towns ³ Not to Scale FIGURE F-7 APACHE COUNTY SR 61 Level of Service LOS A - B LOS C 500 3,800 0 ,00 10 00 ,5 3 1 3,5 00 NAVAJO COUNTY FORECAST LEVEL OF SERVICE: COMMITED-PLUS-PLANNED ROADWAY NETWORK 800 Stanford Dr Vernon Overview 13,6 00 LOS F 14,100 14,000 12,800 1 CR 3 US 60 0 80 2, 200 100 CR 3144 US 60 11,200 r 7,400 3,9 te or P 00 in ta n u Mo X,XXX - Daily Volume Estimate Base Map Features Cities/Towns 0 600 9,700 7,700 7,500 45 10,000 LOS E CR 3140 US 60 9,300 0 31,80 21,0 00 LOS D 3148 US 60 3,700 CR 00 13,7 Rd ³ Not to Scale Sources: Wilson & Company, April 2007. Southern Navajo/Apache County Sub-Regional Transportation Plan FIGURE F-8 Concho Overview Ha yH ol lo NAVAJO COUNTY APACHE COUNTY 180 US White A nte lope Ro ad w Rd COMMITTED-PLUS-PLANNED ROADWAY NETWORK US 1 8 0 Directional Lanes Alt 1 Lane 2 Lanes Hunt Rd Committed-PlusPlanned CR 5525 Concho Hwy Improvement Scenario Base Map Features Cities/Towns Stanford Dr Extension (Future) SR 61 CR 8500 Extension (Future) Sources: Wilson & Company, April 2007. Southern Navajo/Apache County Sub-Regional Transportation Plan ³ Not to Scale FIGURE F-9 Concho Overview Ha yH ol lo APACHE COUNTY NAVAJO COUNTY FORECAST LEVEL OF SERVICE: COMMITTED-PLUS-PLANNED ROADWAY NETWORK 1, 10 0 US 1 8 180 US White A nte lope Ro ad w 0 Rd 5, 60 0 0 Hunt Rd Concho Hwy 4,100 LOS E LOS F X,XXX - 11,100 3,700 5,30 0 0 10 100 12,0 00 SR 61 00 14,0 Cities/Towns ³ Not to Scale 11 ,90 0 00 1,2 Daily Volume Estimate Base Map Features 0 ,20 13 2,500 3, 80 0 CR 5525 4,200 LOS D 600 4,600 LOS C 0 500 5,800 40 0 5,700 LOS A - B 00 6,7 100 800 Alt Level of Service Sources: Wilson & Company, April 2007. Southern Navajo-Apache County Sub-Regional Transportation Plan FIGURE F-10 Southern Navajo/Apache County Sub-Regional Transportation Plan APPENDIX G ALTERNATIVE 'A' ROADWAY NETWORK: STUDY AREA COMMUNITIES SEPTEMBER 2007 FINAL REPORT Pinetop-Lakeside Overview nr Pe Scott Ranch Rd (Ongoing) R od SHOW LOW ALTERNATIVE A ROADWAY NETWORK d Por M ter R tain oun d NAVAJO COUNTY Directional Lanes Hi R d 1 Lane Sky 2 Lanes Improvement Scenario ou nt ain R Existing-PlusCommitted d Committed-PlusPlanned Base Map Features PINETOP-LAKESIDE Cities/Towns Penrod Ln APACHE COUNTY SR 260 ar y Rd Rd ³ Not to Scale no n -M cN Rim Ve r Woodland Rd Rim Rd (Future) hit eM Larson Rd W Sources: Wilson & Company, April 2007. Southern Navajo/Apache County Sub-Regional Transportation Plan FIGURE G-1 Pinetop/Lakeside Overview YEAR 2030 TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENT AND FORECAST LEVEL OF SERVICE: ALTERNATIVE A ROADWAY NETWORK 00 3,5 8,400 LOS C 43,300 LOS D 44,600 0 LOS F w La ke D r 41,600 PINETOP-LAKESIDE Woodland Rd 00 ,8 44 17, 20 X,XXX - 00 4,4 4,900 Rain bo Larson Rd LOS A - B LOS E 0 2,500 Daily Volume Estimate * Based on 2030 Socioeconomic Data Base Map Features Cities/Towns ,70 40 00 17,4 0 8,200 Ri m 0 Rd 14, 90 0 19,000 APACHE COUNTY 260 SR 16 ,7 00 45,000 5,300 00 23,4 Hart Lake Ln 00 3,0 10,600 34 ,10 Level of Service 7,50 0 d ke R 00 ,6 45 200 0 51,500 ,00 40 a ow L Rd ain 00 9,7 6,400 43 ,5 00 9,700 NAVAJO COUNTY Sky Hi R d L Show 0 unt Mo Rd it e Wh od nr Pe 00 ,9 61 0 2,40 11 ,3 00 te Por d in R a t n u r Mo ³ Not to Scale 37,400 0 Sources: Wilson & Company, April 2007. Southern Navajo/Apache County Sub-Regional Transportation Plan FIGURE G-2 Show Low Overview Whipple St sT r 60 Rim Rd (Future) 2 Lanes Improvement Scenario Existing-PlusCommitted Committed-PlusPlanned Woolford Extension (Ongoing) Base Map Features Cities/Towns Rd US 1 Lane US 60 od nr Pe Summit Trail (Future) 11th St ntain R d Ownes St 60 US Mc Neil St White Mou Central Ave 16th Ave McNeil St Sie rra Pin e Rd 26 0 Directional Lanes SHOW LOW US 60 Old Linden Rd SR ch Ran 77 SR Rd Dam Thornton St rdon Bou ne e Pi Lon NAVAJO COUNTY ALTERNATIVE A ROADWAY NETWORK Scott Ranch Rd (Ongoing) PINETOP-LAKESIDE ter Por M tain n u o Rd ³ Not to Scale Sources: Wilson & Company, April 2007. Southern Navajo/Apache County Sub-Regional Transportation Plan FIGURE G-3 Show Low Overview 0 30,3 00 11th St 20,400 49,000 49,800 LOS D LOS E 49,700 LOS F X,XXX - Base Map Features 44,500 0 18,9 00 Cities/Towns ,50 45 23,5 00 od nr Pe Rd 8,400 00 6,4 PINETOP-LAKESIDE ,00 40 0 a ow L d ke R 00 45,6 11 ,3 00 200 7,300 wL Sho 9,700 11,400 0 51,500 0 00 ,9 61 16 ,20 Daily Volume Estimate * Based on 2030 Socioeconomic Data 40,20 0 34 ,80 0 1,70 0 5,300 20,9 00 LOS C 47,100 18,600 10,300 Central Ave 16th Ave 2,700 t McNeil St Mc Neil S 1,900 Ownes St 46 ,0 Whipple St 00 W Sie oo rra lfo Pin rd 400 es Tr LOS A - B 14,300 3,500 0 0,90 0 8 58,20 Level of Service 0 33,70 00 72,7 0 0 0 200 8,000 00 73,2 80 41, 40,6 0 8,300 Rd SHOW LOW 00 73,4 00 3,7 Thornton St Old Linden Rd 0 ne Lo m Da ch Ran 28,700 ne Pi Rd rdon Bou 18,900 0 NAVAJO COUNTY YEAR 2030 TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENT AND FORECAST LEVEL OF SERVICE: ALTERNATIVE A ROADWAY NETWORK e Port unta r Mo in Rd Sources: Wilson & Company, April 2007. Southern Navajo/Apache County Sub-Regional Transportation Plan ³ Not to Scale FIGURE G-4 Snowflake-Taylor Overview ALTERNATIVE A ROADWAY NETWORK NAVAJO COUNTY druf f Rd SNOWFLAKE wy Old Woo nc Co H ho Directional Lanes 1 Lane SR 77 7th St Committed-PlusPlanned R an ch R d don R an c TAYLOR Willow Ln Alternative A Base Map Features Cities/Towns Pin e da ³ 7 SR New North-South Rd (Future) 7 Pulp M ill Rd le R d h Rd Bourdon Ranch Rd Extension (Future) Centennial St Hillcrest Dr Dewitt St 7th St Improvement Scenario Bour Frontier Dr Paper Mill R d Freeman Hollow Rd SR 277 Malapai/Freeman Hollow Rd 2 Lanes Black Mesa L n Sources: Wilson & Company, April 2007. Southern Navajo/Apache County Sub-Regional Transportation Plan Not to Scale FIGURE G-5 Snowflake-Taylor Overview 12,500 SR 77 SNOWFLAKE Level of Service LOS A - B 7,2 00 druff R d Old Wo o 19,100 6,600 LOS C LOS D 17,100 LOS E 18,200 LOS F X,XXX - 9,600 14,000 9,900 10 ,4 00 Base Map Features Cities/Towns 12 ,30 0 ³ 0 10, 00 Rd e 11,400 n Black Mesa L 12 ,10 Not to Scale 0 30 54, Pi ne da l 00 ,3 44 1,200 13 ,5 00 77 SR 7,3 00 0 7,50 TAYLOR 36, 00 0 0 Daily Volume Estimate * Based on 2030 Socioeconomic Data Cattle Ln Willow Ln 4,100 0 ,60 11 ll Rd 6,300 3,000 Rd 4,500 Dewitt St 2,900 Ran ch 0 6,30 Pulp Mi 7th St 7th St h nc Co wy H o 10,600 8,600 34,600 10,400 Frontier Dr 9,900 10,700 8,800 ill Rd 4,800 14,300 Hatch/Rodeo Dr 2,100 Paper M Freeman Hollow Rd 5,600 300 1,1 00 9,200 0 2,40 9,500 5,500 SR 277 SR 277 6,900 0 3,50 1,800 3,600 Malapai/Freeman Hollow Rd 12,70 0 NAVAJO COUNTY 9,300 YEAR 2030 TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENT AND FORECAST LEVEL OF SERVICE: ALTERNATIVE A ROADWAY NETWORK 0 Sources: Wilson & Company, April 2007. Southern Navajo/Apache County Sub-Regional Transportation Plan FIGURE G-6 APACHE COUNTY SR US 60 US 60 Directional Lanes Vernon-McNary Rd Extenstion (Future) NAVAJO COUNTY ALTERNATIVE A ROADWAY NETWORK 61 CR 3148 Stanford Dr Vernon Overview 1 Lane 2 Lanes Improvement Scenario Committed-PlusPlanned 1 CR 3 US 60 US 60 45 Sky Hi Rd Extension (Future) rte Po r a nt u Mo in Rd Vernon-McNary Rd CR 3144 Sources: Wilson & Company, April 2007. Southern Navajo/Apache County Sub-Regional Transportation Plan Alternative A Base Map Features Cities/Towns ³ Not to Scale FIGURE G-7 00 ,2 14 61 LOS A - B LOS C 500 2,000 0 ,50 13 SR Level of Service 80 0 NAVAJO COUNTY APACHE COUNTY YEAR 2030 TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENT AND FORCAST LEVEL OF SERVICE: ALTERNATIVE A ROADWAY NETWORK 700 Stanford Dr Vernon Overview 11,3 00 LOS E LOS F 1 CR 3 US 60 7,600 0 80 2, 200 100 CR 3144 US 60 X,XXX - Daily Volume Estimate * Based on 2030 Socioeconomic Data Base Map Features Cities/Towns 0 600 9,700 7,700 45 4,700 14,100 CR 3140 US 60 4,100 0 34,40 21,1 00 3148 US 60 1,000 CR 00 15,5 LOS D 8,400 7,500 r Rd ³ Vernon-McNary Rd 0 30 6, rte o P nt u Mo ain Not to Scale Sources: Wilson & Company, April 2007. Southern Navajo/Apache County Sub-Regional Transportation Plan FIGURE G-8 Concho Overview APACHE COUNTY US 1 8 0 Alt Directional Lanes 1 Lane 2 Lanes Hunt Rd CR 5525 Concho Hwy Improvement Scenario Committed-PlusPlanned Base Map Features Cities/Towns CR 8500 Extension (Future) Stanford Dr Extension (Future) SR 61 Ha yH ol lo NAVAJO COUNTY 180 US White A nte lope Ro ad w Rd ALTERNATIVE A ROADWAY NETWORK Sources: Wilson & Company, April 2007. Southern Navajo/Apache County Sub-Regional Transportation Plan ³ Not to Scale FIGURE G-9 Ha yH oll o APACHE COUNTY NAVAJO COUNTY YEAR 2030 TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENT AND FORECAST LEVEL OF SERVICE ALTERNATIVE A ROADWAY NETWORK 5, 60 0 1, 10 0 US 1 8 180 US White A nte lope Ro ad w 0 Rd Concho Overview 0 300 3,600 Concho Hwy 3,800 LOS E LOS F X,XXX - 11,200 60 0 5,10 0 Daily Volume Estimate * Based on 2030 Socioeconomic Data 0 Base Map Features 00 14,0 SR 61 0 ,00 13 0 30 12,8 00 3, 70 0 CR 5525 4,300 LOS C LOS D 400 4,700 LOS A - B 00 6,7 100 800 Alt 5,800 0 Hunt Rd 5,900 Level of Service 100 1,100 00 ,6 2 1 Sources: Wilson & Company, April 2007. Southern Navajo-Apache County Sub-Regional Transportation Plan Cities/Towns ³ Not to Scale FIGURE G-10 Southern Navajo/Apache County Sub-Regional Transportation Plan APPENDIX H 2015 & 2030 PHASED ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS: STUDY AREA COMMUNITIES SEPTEMBER 2007 FINAL REPORT Pinetop-Lakeside Overview nr Pe SHOW LOW R od NAVAJO COUNTY d Show Por M ter R tain oun PHASED ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS: 2015 AND 2030 d Low Scott Ranch Rd (Ongoing) Lake Directional Lanes Rd Hi R d 1 Lane Sky 2 Lanes Improvement Phase ou nt ain R Existing-PlusCommitted d Year 2015 PINETOP-LAKESIDE Base Map Features Cities/Towns Penrod Ln APACHE COUNTY SR 260 Rd Rd ³ Not to Scale Ve r no n -M cN Rim ar y Woodland Rd Year 2030 Hart Lake Ln Rim Rd (Future) hit eM Larson Rd W Sources: Wilson & Company, April 2007. Southern Navajo/Apache County Sub-Regional Transportation Plan FIGURE H-1 Pinetop/Lakeside Overview od nr Pe 00 ,4 29 500 0 2,400 LOS A - B 500 14,900 Hi Rd 18,300 LOS E 34,700 X,XXX - 6,800 00 ,9 28 Woodland Rd Daily Volume Estimate * Based on 2015 Socioeconomic Data 25,600 500 Base Map Features PINETOP-LAKESIDE Cities/Towns ,50 27 0 0 LOS F Sk y nR d 2,800 30,300 3,100 20, 10 0 00 1,3 Rim 0 11,500 Rd 800 260 SR Hart Lake Ln Mo un tai LOS C LOS D 00 34,6 0 Wh it e Larson Rd 20 ,5 00 M Level of Service d ke R 00 ,9 27 28 ,4 00 ter Por FORECAST LEVEL OF SERVICE: YEAR 2015 IMPROVEMENTS Rd 80 14, a ow L 0 NAVAJO COUNTY 3,700 200 L Show 00 23,2 29,300 SHOW LOW Rd 0 400 tain oun APACHE COUNTY ³ Not to Scale 20,300 0 Sources: Wilson & Company, April 2007. Southern Navajo/Apache County Sub-Regional Transportation Plan FIGURE H-2 Show Low Overview rdon Bou Rd 77 SR Rd Dam ch Ran ne e Pi Lon NAVAJO COUNTY SHOW LOW Thornton St Directional Lanes 1 Lane Ownes St Whipple St sT r 2 Lanes US 60 Improvement Phase Existing-PlusCommitted Bluff Rd (Future) 11th St ntain R d McNeil St 60 US Mc Neil St White Mou Central Ave 260 SR 16th Ave US 60 Old Linden Rd Sie rra Pin e PHASED ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS: 2015 AND 2030 Year 2015 Year 2030 Woolford Extension (Ongoing) Base Map Features Summit Trail (Future) Cities/Towns od nr Pe US 60 Rd Rim Rd (Future) PINETOP-LAKESIDE ter Por M tain n u o Rd ³ Not to Scale Scott Ranch Rd (Ongoing) Sources: Wilson & Company, April 2007. Southern Navajo/Apache County Sub-Regional Transportation Plan FIGURE H-3 Show Low Overview 10 0 sT r or d 3,600 LOS D 20,900 LOS E LOS F X,XXX - 00 11,1 Base Map Features Cities/Towns ,30 14 od nr Pe 5,9 00 0 Rd 0 26 SR 500 PINETOP-LAKESIDE ter Por ain unt o M Rd ³ Not to Scale 80 14, 00 27,9 0 0 29,300 6,400 0 20 60 0 US Daily Volume Estimate * Based on 2015 Socioeconomic Data 7,000 Whipple St W oo 700 lf 18,100 US 60 1,600 18,0 00 Central Ave 2,500 Mc Neil St 00 28,6 21,200 29,400 8,90 0 12 ,40 0 4,100 Sie rra Pin e 11,300 11th St 400 8,100 LOS A - B LOS C 23,50 0 Ownes St 3,700 McNeil St 2,400 4,700 0 Level of Service 0 15,80 00 16,7 1,000 0 26 SR Old Linden Rd ,600 4,300 10 17, 50 16th Ave 700 0 0 SHOW LOW 00 15,1 Thornton St Rd 0 1,30 Rd 0 NAVAJO COUNTY ch Ran m Da 14, 50 77 SR e Pin 0 50 rdon Bou ne Lo600 0 40 1, FORECAST LEVEL OF SERVICE: YEAR 2015 IMPROVEMENTS 2,400 Sources: Wilson & Company, April 2007. Southern Navajo/Apache County Sub-Regional Transportation Plan FIGURE H-4 Snowflake-Taylor Overview PHASED ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS: 2015 AND 2030 NAVAJO COUNTY druf f Rd SNOWFLAKE wy Old Woo nc Co H ho 1 Lane Improvement Phase 7th St Year 2030 R an ch R d don R an c TAYLOR Willow Ln Base Map Features Cities/Towns da Pin e 7 SR New North-South Rd (Future) 7 Pulp M ill Rd le R d h Rd Bourdon Ranch Rd Extension (Future) 7th St Centennial St Hillcrest Dr Dewitt St SR 77 2 Lanes Bour Frontier Dr Freeman Hollow Rd Paper Mill R d Malapai/Freeman Hollow Rd SR 277 Directional Lanes Black Mesa L n Sources: Wilson & Company, April 2007. Southern Navajo/Apache County Sub-Regional Transportation Plan ³ Not to Scale FIGURE H-5 Snowflake-Taylor Overview 6,900 FORECAST LEVEL OF SERVICE: YEAR 2015 IMPROVEMENTS NAVAJO COUNTY SNOWFLAKE 6,8 00 LOS E 7th St 17, 20 0 LOS F * Based on 2015 Socioeconomic Data Cattle Ln 0 Willow Ln Base Map Features Cities/Towns 12,2 00 ³ 1,300 1,2 00 Rd da le Daily Volume Estimate 400 Rd 0 80 3, Pin e X,XXX - Casa Linda Dr 00 ,0 12 100 LOS D 0 2,90 ll Rd LOS C 2,500 SR 77 500 Dewitt St 1,600 Ran ch Level of Service LOS A - B 77 SR Pulp Mi 6,200 Hatch/Rodeo Dr TAYLOR 1,400 11,900 4,800 6,500 7th St 1,300 800 Frontier Dr 3,500 500 ill Rd Freeman Hollow Rd 900 Paper M 0 1,5 00 3,000 277 500 5,500 3,600 SR 400 SR 277 3,100 1,000 5,100 0 2,40 300 2,600 Malapai/Freeman Hollow Rd Old Wo o druff R d h nc o C wy H o Not to Scale n Black Mesa L 20 13, 0 Sources: Wilson & Company, April 2007. Southern Navajo/Apache County Sub-Regional Transportation Plan FIGURE H-6 APACHE COUNTY SR US 60 US 60 Directional Lanes Vernon-McNary Rd Extenstion (Future) NAVAJO COUNTY PHASED ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS: 2015 AND 2030 61 CR 3148 Stanford Dr Vernon Overview 1 Lane 2 Lanes Improvement Phase Year 2015 Year 2030 1 CR 3 US 60 US 60 45 CR 3144 Base Map Features Cities/Towns rte Po r t un o M ain Rd Vernon-McNary Rd Sky Hi Rd Extension (Future) ³ Not to Scale Sources: Wilson & Company, April 2007. Southern Navajo/Apache County Sub-Regional Transportation Plan FIGURE H-7 Vernon Overview 0 40 6, Level of Service 70 0 NAVAJO COUNTY APACHE COUNTY 300 Stanford Dr FORECAST LEVEL OF SERVICE: YEAR 2015 IMPROVEMENTS 1,500 SR 0 LOS D LOS E 3148 8,20 0 8,600 8,500 7,000 1 CR 3 100 4,900 US 60 4,200 4,400 45 0 50 2, 1,200 LOS F 0 CR 3144 US 60 CR 3140 1,000 CR US 60 1,100 0 15,80 9,50 0 LOS A - B LOS C 5,700 0 7,10 US 60 61 r 500 400 rte Po t un o M Daily Volume Estimate * Based on 2015 Socioeconomic Data Base Map Features Cities/Towns ³ 900 ain X,XXX - Rd Not to Scale Sources: Wilson & Company, April 2007. Southern Navajo/Apache County Sub-Regional Transportation Plan FIGURE H-8 Concho Overview w APACHE COUNTY US 1 8 0 Alt Hunt Rd 1 Lane Improvement Phase CR 5525 Concho Hwy Directional Lanes 2 Lanes Year 2015 Base Map Features Cities/Towns CR 8500 Extension (Future) Stanford Dr Extension (Future) SR 61 Ha yH ol lo NAVAJO COUNTY 180 US White A nte lope Ro ad Rd PHASED ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS: 2015 AND 2030 ³ Not to Scale Sources: Wilson & Company, April 2007. Southern Navajo/Apache County Sub-Regional Transportation Plan FIGURE H-9 Concho Overview w 0 Ha yH ol lo NAVAJO COUNTY FORECAST LEVEL OF SERVICE: YEAR 2015 IMPROVEMENTS 00 APACHE COUNTY Alt 180 US ,600 3 US 1 80 600 Level of Service LOS A - B LOS C Hunt Rd 0 100 LOS F X,XXX - 4,200 Concho Hwy 2,700 2,800 LOS E 3,60 0 Daily Volume Estimate * Based on 2015 Socioeconomic Data Base Map Features Cities/Towns 0 6,1 0 200 ³ Not to Scale 0 0 40 300 SR 6 5,50 1 0 100 5,3 0 00 CR 5525 0 3, 1 LOS D 0 4,300 900 5,500 90 0 White A ntelope Road 700 0 Rd 3, 0 Sources: Wilson & Company, April 2007. Southern Navajo-Apache County Sub-Regional Transportation Plan FIGURE H-10 Southern Navajo/Apache County Sub-Regional Transportation Plan APPENDIX I 2015 & 2030 INTERSECTION LANE CONFIGURATIONS AND TRAFFIC COUNTS SEPTEMBER 2007 FINAL REPORT STOP 12 1 13 1 Black Mesa Ln and Bourdon Ranch Rd Silver Lake Blvd and Bourdon Ranch Rd 16 1 15 Burton Rd and Relocated Lone Pine Dam Rd (Future) Relocated Lone Pine Dam Rd and SR 260 (Future) 14B 1 14A 1 Silver Lake Blvd and SR 77 Lone Dove Dam Rd and SR 77 17A 1 17 US 60 and Bourdon Ranch Rd US 60 and Sky Hi Rd Extension (Future) 18 1 Porter Mountain Rd and Sky Hi Rd (Future) Source: Wilson & Company, May, 2007. X = Key Study Area Intersection XX [XX] = AM Peak Hour Volume = PM Peak Hour Volume No Scale YEAR 2015 LANE CONFIGURATION NAVAJO COUNTY SOUTHERN NAVAJO-APACHE COUNTY SUBREGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN 790 [498] 25 [16] 99 [102] 594 [378] 31 [18] 50 [28] 58 [57] 10 [1] 102 [99] 221 [136] [50] 28 12 1 13 1 Black Mesa Ln and Bourdon Ranch Rd Silver Lake Blvd and Bourdon Ranch Rd 53 [35] 15 [15] 515 [788] [158] 101 [15] 15 [833] 549 [53] 35 [65] 56 [15] 15 [790] 498 [26] 25 Lone Pine Dam Rd and SR 77 30 [31] 833 [549] [515] 788 15 1 31 [30] 158 [101] 15 [15] Silver Lake Blvd and SR 77 [15] 15 16 1 Burton Rd and Relocated Lone Pine Dam Rd (Future) [25] 26 14B 1 14A 1 65 [56] 15 [15] [221] 136 [594] 378 [36] 37 [31] 18 [25] 16 [37] 36 [58] 57 [11] 15 [15] 11 [10] 15 17A 1 17 1 Relocated Lone Pine Dam Rd and SR 260 (Future) US 60 and Bourdon Ranch Rd US 60 and Sky Hi Rd Exterior (Future) 24 [16] 29 [20] 29 [20] [15] 15 15 [15] [24] 16 18 1 Porter Mountain Rd and Sky Hi Rd (Future) Source: Wilson & Company, May, 2007 X = Key Study Area Intersection XX [XX] = AM Peak Hour Volume = PM Peak Hour Volume No Scale YEAR 2015 AM/PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC ESTIMATES NAVAJO COUNTY SOUTHERN NAVAJO-APACHE COUNTY SUBREGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN STOP Grade Separated Intersection 12 1 13 1 Black Mesa Ln and Bourdon Ranch Rd Silver Lake Blvd and Bourdon Ranch Rd 16 1 15 Burton Rd and Relocated Lone Pine Dam Rd (Future) Relocated Lone Pine Dam Rd and SR 260 (Future) 14B 1 14A 1 Silver Lake Blvd and SR 77 Lone Dove Dam Rd and SR 77 17A 1 17 US 60 and Bourdon Ranch Rd US 60 and Sky Hi Rd Extension (Future) 18 1 Porter Mountain Rd and Sky Hi Rd (Future) Source: Wilson & Company, May, 2007. X = Key Study Area Intersection XX [XX] = AM Peak Hour Volume = PM Peak Hour Volume No Scale YEAR 2030 LANE CONFIGURATION NAVAJO COUNTY SOUTHERN NAVAJO-APACHE COUNTY SUBREGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN 1351 [763] [280] 207 634 [908] 104 [136] 1175 [1826] [80] 37 [104] 136 [36] 7 [829] 523 [7] 36 15 1 [1175] 1826 16 1 117 [120] 321 [176] Burton Rd and Relocated Lone Pine Dam Rd (Future) 371 [223] 974 [1481] [739] 1128 [1546] 1011 [974] 1481 [138] 151 17B 1 17A 1 Relocated Lone Pine Dam Rd and SR 260 (Future) 1546 [1011] 114 [114] [8] 9 [10] 9 Lone Pine Dam Rd and SR 77 [371] 223 10 [9] 114 [114] Silver Lake Blvd and SR 77 739 [1128] 19 [21] 80 [37] 21 [19] 14B 1 14A 1 [151] 138 Silver Lake Blvd and Bourdon Ranch Rd 19 [21] Black Mesa Ln and Bourdon Ranch Rd 8 [9] 13 1 829 [523] 12 1 [3468] 2247 [2101] 1521 [9] 25 [280] 227 [427] 623 [207] 280 [805] 539 [16] 15 [15] 16 [81] 105 [105] 81 [64] 37 [7] 23 [1351] 763 [15] 14 3468 [2247] 204 [327] 9 [25] 88 [52] 64 [37] 7 [23] 327 [204] 2101 [1521] 7 [3] 427 [623] 77 [207] 805 [539] 15 [14] 3 [7] US 60 and Bourdon Ranch Rd US 60 and Sky Hi Rd Exterior (Future) 120 [117] 175 [100] 159[84] [159] 84 [68] 64 [64] 68 [321] 176 [88] 52 [175] 100 18 1 Porter Mountain Rd and Sky Hi Rd (Future) Source: Wilson & Company, May, 2007 X = Key Study Area Intersection XX [XX] = AM Peak Hour Volume = PM Peak Hour Volume No Scale YEAR 2030 AM/PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC ESTIMATES NAVAJO COUNTY SOUTHERN NAVAJO-APACHE COUNTY SUBREGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP 35 1 36 1 Concho Hwy and SR 180A 38 1 37 1 Stanford Rd and SR 61 US 60 and CR 3148 US 60 and Vernon-McNary Rd STOP STOP 40 1 39 1 US 60 and CR 3154 CR 3154 and CR 3144 Source: Wilson & Company, May, 2007 X = Key Study Area Intersection XX [XX] = AM Peak Hour Volume = PM Peak Hour Volume No Scale YEAR 2015 LANE CONFIGURATION APACHE COUNTY SOUTHERN NAVAJO-APACHE COUNTY SUBREGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN 25 [26] 77 [91] 26 [25] 214 [141] 403 [262] 419 [279] 15 [15] 28 [29] 36 1 Concho Hwy and SR 180A 15 [15] Stanford Rd and SR 61 360 [236] [15] 25 [28] 29 [25] 15 38 1 37 1 86 [127] 35 1 [22] 14 [15] 15 [403] 262 [419] 279 [79] 35 [214] 141 [19] 13 [15] 15 [14] 22 [61] 26 [15] 15 79 [35] 19 [13] 1 [1] 91 [77] 15 [15] 145 [143] 61 [26] 143 [145] US 60 and CR 3148 US 60 and Vernon-McNary Rd 127 [86] 19 [19] 15 [15] [106] 68 [15] 15 [19] 19 [15] 15 [68] 106 [360] 236 40 1 39 1 US 60 and CR 3154 CR 3154 and CR 3144 Source: Wilson & Company, May, 2007 X = Key Study Area Intersection XX [XX] = AM Peak Hour Volume = PM Peak Hour Volume No Scale YEAR 2015 AM/PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC ESTIMATES APACHE COUNTY SOUTHERN NAVAJO-APACHE COUNTY SUBREGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP 35 1 36 1 Concho Hwy and SR 180A 38 1 37 1 Stanford Rd and SR 61 US 60 and CR 3148 US 60 and Vernon-McNary Rd STOP STOP 40 1 39 1 US 60 and CR 3154 CR 3154 and CR 3144 Source: Wilson & Company, May, 2007 X = Key Study Area Intersection XX [XX] = AM Peak Hour Volume = PM Peak Hour Volume No Scale YEAR 2030 LANE CONFIGURATION APACHE COUNTY SOUTHERN NAVAJO-APACHE COUNTY SUBREGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN 36 1 Concho Hwy and SR 180A 10 [10] [24] 13 [4] 23 [27] 46 [23] 4 38 1 37 1 Stanford Rd and SR 61 656 [435] [190] 130 [14] 5 [372] 257 [109] 19 77 [115] 35 1 [594] 394 24 [13] [62] 18 [19] 109 [251] 95 [86] 30 [30] 86 372 [257] 190 [130] [436] 320 [107] 71 13 [8] 436 [320] [10] 10 594 [394] 8 [13] 92 [74] 251 [96] [430] 457 14 [5] 10 [10] 15 [15] 74 [92] 62 [18] 27 [46] 15 [15] 107 [71] 430[457] US 60 and CR 3148 US 60 and Vernon-McNary Rd 115 [77] 21 [21] 34 [23] [10] 10 [34] 23 [21] 21 [91] 58 [58] 91 [656] 435 40 1 39 1 US 60 and CR 3154 CR 3154 and CR 3144 Source: Wilson & Company, May, 2007 X = Key Study Area Intersection XX [XX] = AM Peak Hour Volume = PM Peak Hour Volume No Scale YEAR 2030 AM/PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC ESTIMATES APACHE COUNTY SOUTHERN NAVAJO-APACHE COUNTY SUBREGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN Pinetop-Lakeside Overview Pe PINETOP-LAKESIDE PLANNING AREA INTERSECTIONS o nr dR ter Por 27 Show 28 SHOWLOW d 26 M d in R ta oun Low Legend Lake Scott Ranch Rd (Ongoing) 2 T ra v e l L a n e s Rd d 4 T ra v e l L a n e s Sky Hi R 29 30 S tu d y A re a I n t e r s e c t io n Base M ap F eatures d Cities/Towns 31 32 PINETOP-LAKESIDE Penrod L ³ n 33 SR Not to Scale Rd y Rd 260 Rim ar 34 cN nR -M tai no n Larson Rd Rim Rd (Future) un Ve r Mo Woodland Rd ite Hart Lake Ln Wh XX Sources: Wilson & Company, April 2007. Southern Navajo/Apache County Sub-Regional Transportation Plan 29 1 Penrod Rd and Porter Mountain Rd 33 1 White Mountain Rd and Buck Springs Rd 30 1 32 1 31 1 White Mountain Rd and Show Low Lake Rd White Mountain Rd and Porter Mountian Rd White Mountain Rd and Woodland Rd 34 1 White Mountain Rd and Rim Rd Source: Wilson & Company, May, 2007. X = Key Study Area Intersection XX [XX] = AM Peak Hour Volume = PM Peak Hour Volume No Scale YEAR 2015 LANE CONFIGURATION PINETOP-LAKESIDE SOUTHERN NAVAJO-APACHE COUNTY SUBREGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN 60 [56] 15 [15] 14 [17] 78 [78] 15 [15] 15 [15] 78 [78] 676 [1025] 15 [15] 1020 [1529] 40 [65] 512 [786] 65 [40] 15 [15] 1802 [1183] 569 [864] 18 [16] 79 [83] 29 1 30 1 341 [202] [79] 83 [15] 15 32 1 White Mountain Rd and Woodland Rd 701 [1056] White Mountain Rd and Show Low Lake Rd White Mountain Rd and Porter Mountian Rd [283] 178 [178] 283 [569] 864 31 1 15 [15] 202 [341] 16 [15] 477 [771] Penrod Rd and Porter Mountain Rd [676] 1025 [18] 16 [1020] 1529 [60] 56 [512] 786 [14] 17 [1802] 1183 8 [10] 251 [241] [16] 15 33 1 White Mountain Rd and Buck Springs Rd [701] 1056 [32] 34 [34] 32 [251] 241 [15] 19 [19] 15 [15] 15 [477] 771 [8] 10 34 1 White Mountain Rd and Rim Rd Source: Wilson & Company, May, 2007. X = Key Study Area Intersection XX [XX] = AM Peak Hour Volume = PM Peak Hour Volume No Scale YEAR 2015 AM/PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC ESTIMATES PINETOP-LAKESIDE SOUTHERN NAVAJO-APACHE COUNTY SUBREGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN 29 1 Penrod Rd and Porter Mountain Rd 33 1 White Mountain Rd and Buck Springs Rd 30 1 32 1 31 1 White Mountain Rd and Show Low Lake Rd White Mountain Rd and Porter Mountian Rd 34 1 White Mountain Rd and Rim Rd Source: Wilson & Company, May, 2007. X = Key Study Area Intersection XX [XX] White Mountain Rd and Woodland Rd = AM Peak Hour Volume = PM Peak Hour Volume No Scale YEAR 2030 LANE CONFIGURATION PINETOP-LAKESIDE SOUTHERN NAVAJO-APACHE COUNTY SUBREGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN 275 [279] 358 [355] 796 [512] 597 [522] 42 [27] 355 [358] 809 [1270] 190 [183] 1537 [2313] 55 [51] 1338 [2048] 151 [66] 1254 [1944] 14 [13] 29 1 30 1 560 [332] [2714] 1645 32 1 White Mountain Rd and Woodland Rd 1000 [1192] White Mountain Rd and Show Low Lake Rd White Mountain Rd and Porter Mountian Rd [271] 98 [98] 271 [1254] 1944 31 1 25 [36] 332 [560] 456 [762] Penrod Rd and Porter Mountain Rd [809] 1270 [27] 13 [1537] 2313 [275] 279 [1338] 2048 [597] 522 421 [415] 33 1 White Mountain Rd and Buck Springs Rd [1000] 1192 [833] 543 [543] 833 [421] 415 [456] 762 [25] 36 34 1 White Mountain Rd and Rim Rd Source: Wilson & Company, May, 2007. X = Key Study Area Intersection XX [XX] = AM Peak Hour Volume = PM Peak Hour Volume No Scale YEAR 2030 AM/PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC ESTIMATES PINETOP-LAKESIDE SOUTHERN NAVAJO-APACHE COUNTY SUBREGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN Show Low Overview Thornton St McNeil St Ownes St 20A 0 US 6 2 T ra v e l L a n e s XX S tu d y A re a I n t e r s e c t io n 19A Base Map Features Bluff Rd (Future) Cities/Towns Whipple St W oo lfo rd 21 Woolford Extension (Ongoing) 22 23 24 od nr Pe Summit Trail (Future) Scott Ranch Rd (Ongoing) Rd 25 26 60 US 17 US 60 19B 11th St 60 Central Ave 16th Ave 2 SR 20 19 US 60 Legend 4 T ra v e l L a n e s SHOW LOW Old Linden Rd d ch R Ran rdon Bou 77 SR NAVAJO COUNTY SHOW LOW PLANNING AREA INTERSECTIONS Rim Rd (Future) 27 t Por Rd n i a t oun M r e 28 PINETOP-LAKESIDE Sources: Wilson & Company, April 2007. Southern Navajo/Apache County Sub-Regional Transportation Plan ³ Not to Scale 19 1 19A 21 1 20A 25 1 Summit Trail and White Mountain Rd (SR 260) SR 260 (White Mountain Rd) and Woolford Rd. Summit Trail and US 60 (Future) 27 1 26 1 US 60 and Rim Rd (Future) SR 260 (Clark Rd) and Old Linden Rd (Future) 23 1 22 1 Bluff Rd and SR 77 (Future) SR 260 (Clark Rd) US 60 (Duece of Clubs) 24 1 US 60 (Duece of Clubs) and SR 260 (White Mountain Rd) Bluff Rd and US 60 (Future) US 60 and SR 77 20 1 1 19B White Mountain Rd (SR 260) and Show Lakes Rd Scott Ranch Rd and Penrod Rd 28 1 White Mountain Rd (SR 260) and Scott Ranch Rd Source: Wilson & Company, May, 2007 X = Key Study Area Intersection XX [XX] = AM Peak Hour Volume = PM Peak Hour Volume No Scale YEAR 2015 LANE CONFIGURATION SHOW LOW SOUTHERN NAVAJO-APACHE COUNTY SUBREGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN 33 [18] 1391 [803] 18 [33] 157 [174] 212 [113] 329 [329] [367] 215 [157] 174 288 [487] [50] 50 [10] 10 [50] 50 [442] 222 [903] 528 [473] 391 23 1 112 [177] 1004 [1519] 23 [18] White Mountain Rd and Woolford Rd. Summit Trail and US 60 (Future) 177[112] 537 [803] 22 1 Bluff Rd and SR 77 (Future) SR 260 (Clark Rd) US 60 (Duece of Clubs) [288] 487 15 [15] 21 1 [10] 20 [15] 15 [50] 50 50 [50] [15] 15 [391] 473 [489] 846 [50] 10 [10] 10 [50] 10 [15] 10 [15] 10 [351] 312 20A 179 [160] 442 [222] [231] 237 [10] 50 [489] 490 15 [15] 160 [179] 15 [15] 50 [10] [247] 402 SR 260 (Clark Rd) and Old Linden Rd 10 [10] 15 [15] 15 [15] 247 [402] 489 [846] 351 [312] 973 [615] 10 [10] US 60 (Duece of Clubs) and SR 260 (White Mountain Rd) Bluff Rd and US 60 US 60 and SR 77 615 [973] 20 1 1 19B 10 [20] 19A [212] 113 [648] 702 903 [528] 19 1 [702] 648 [329] 329 [320] 559 [559] 320 [230] 236 [1391] 803 [524] 300 231 [237] 789 [490] 216 [221] 230 [236] 367 [215] 221 [216] 524 [300] 12 [11] 25 1 24 1 13 [25] 835 [1333] Summit Trail and White Mountain Rd (SR 260) 27 1 26 1 US 60 and Rim Rd (Future) [37] 25 [537] 803 [12] 11 [15] 15 [1004] 1519 [15] 15 [25] 37 [15] 15 [23] 18 White Mountain Rd )SR 260) and Show Lakes Rd Scott Ranch Rd and Penrod Rd 25 [13] [284] 251 [835] 1333 284 [251] 28 1 White Mountain Rd (SR 260) and Scott Ranch Rd Source: Wilson & Company, May, 2007 X = Key Study Area Intersection XX [XX] = AM Peak Hour Volume = PM Peak Hour Volume No Scale YEAR 2015 AM/PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC ESTIMATES SHOW LOW SOUTHERN NAVAJO-APACHE COUNTY SUBREGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN Grade Separated Intersection 19 1 19A 21 1 20A 25 1 Summit Trail and White Mountain Rd (SR 260) SR 260 (White Mountain Rd) and Woolford Rd. Summit Trail and US 60 (Future) 27 1 26 1 US 60 and Rim Rd (Future) SR 260 (Clark Rd) and Old Linden Rd (Future) 23 1 22 1 Bluff Rd and SR 77 (Future) SR 260 (Clark Rd) US 60 (Duece of Clubs) 24 1 US 60 (Duece of Clubs) and SR 260 (White Mountain Rd) Bluff Rd and US 60 (Future) US 60 and SR 77 20 1 1 19B White Mountain Rd (SR 260) and Show Lakes Rd Scott Ranch Rd and Penrod Rd 28 1 White Mountain Rd (SR 260) and Scott Ranch Rd Source: Wilson & Company, May, 2007 X = Key Study Area Intersection XX [XX] = AM Peak Hour Volume = PM Peak Hour Volume No Scale YEAR 2030 LANE CONFIGURATION SHOW LOW SOUTHERN NAVAJO-APACHE COUNTY SUBREGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN 172 [80] 1753 [1305] 151 [173] 298 [241] [316] 237 [92] 406 [39] 39 18 [18] 98 [96] 25 1 24 1 218 [265] Summit Trail and White Mountain Rd (SR 260) 27 1 26 1 US 60 and Rim Rd (Future) [116] 64 [1309] 2114 [18] 18 [1875] 2304 [98] 96 [304] 474 [2069] 1676 [1023] 819 [819] 1023 [64] 116 [535] 483 [141] 142 1519 [2556] [617] 852 [425] 325 [352] 306 Summit Trail and US 60 (Future) 1309 [2114] 631[411] 241 [298] White Mountain Rd and Woolford Rd. 1875 [2304] 411 [631] 304 [474] 2069 [1676] 141 [142] 23 1 22 1 Bluff Rd and SR 77 (Future) SR 260 (Clark Rd) US 60 (Duece of Clubs) [39] 39 535 [483] 21 1 20A [325] 425 [1243] 990 [56] 163 [100] 99 [149] 341 [151] 173 [196] 225 [134] 139 [149] 106 [162] 117 56 [163] 92 [406] [580] 531 [1568] 1995 [1385] 874 [804] 421 [421] 804 801[680] 352 [302] 100 [99] [439] 439 680 [801] 115 [126] 617 [852] 110 [202] 1568 [1995] 580 [531] 149 [106] SR 260 (Clark Rd) and Old Linden Rd 149 [341] US 60 (Duece of Clubs) and SR 260 (White Mountain Rd) 458 [355] [1831] 469 20 1 1 19B Bluff Rd and US 60 1385 [874] 439 [439] [545] 388 [388] 545 19A US 60 and SR 77 316 [237] [1753] 1305 [298] 221 [357] 388 20 [72] 19 1 292 [273] [2237] 2343 [398] 351 [172] 80 [210] 499 [499] 210 [2048] 452 [2032] 1628 [2107] 1490 273 [292] 298 [221] 1831 [1469] 2237 [2343] 1243 [990] [1037] 1281 2032 [1628] 134 [139] 525 [247] 2048 [1452] 1037 [1281] 247 [525] 2107 [1490] White Mountain Rd )SR 260) and Show Lakes Rd Scott Ranch Rd and Penrod Rd 265 [218] [284] 258 [1519] 2556 284 [258] 28 1 White Mountain Rd (SR 260) and Scott Ranch Rd Source: Wilson & Company, May, 2007 X = Key Study Area Intersection XX [XX] = AM Peak Hour Volume = PM Peak Hour Volume No Scale YEAR 2030 AM/PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC ESTIMATES SHOW LOW SOUTHERN NAVAJO-APACHE COUNTY SUBREGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN Snowflake-Taylor Overview SNOWFLAKE PLANNING AREA INTERSECTIONS druf f Rd SR 77 wy Old Woo SNOWFLAKE NAVAJO COUNTY 6 XX 3 Centennial St R an ch R d 4 5 Willow Ln 9 7 4 Tra v e l L a n e s 1 7th St 7th St 2 Tra v e l L a n e s 8 Bourdon Ranch Rd Extension (Future) Hillcrest Dr Dewitt St 2 Frontier Dr Paper Mill R d Freeman Hollow Rd SR 277 Malapai/Freeman Hollow Rd Co nc h oH Legend Cities/Towns d al eR 7 New North-South Rd (Future) Pin e Pulp M ill Rd d ³ 10 7 SR 11 Bl ac I n t e r s e c t io n Ba se M ap Fe atures 9A TAYLOR S tu d y A re a Not To Sclae k M es aL n 12 Sources: Wilson & Company, April 2007. Southern Navajo/Apache County Sub-Regional Transportation Plan 1 2 1 4 1 3 1 STOP 6 1 5 Paper Mill Rd and SR 77 9 8 1 Willow Lane and Bourdon Ranch Rd 10 9A Pinedale Rd and SR 77 STOP 7 1 New North-South Rd and Paper Mill Rd (Future) SR 77 and Airport Rd Rodeo Dr and Bourdon Ranch Rd Extension (Future) 7th St and Bourdon Rd Extension (Future) SR 77 and Concho Hwy Concho Hwy and Old Woodruff Rd Bourdon Ranch Rd and Bourdon Ranch Rd Extension (Future) Willow Lane and Bourdon Ranch Rd Extension (Future) 11 Pinedale Rd and New North-South Rd (Future) Source: Wilson & Company, May, 2007 X = Key Study Area Intersection XX [XX] = AM Peak Hour Volume = PM Peak Hour Volume No Scale YEAR 2015 INTERSECTION LANE CONFIGURATION SNOWFLAKE/TAYLOR SOUTHERN NAVAJO-APACHE COUNTY SUBREGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN 73 [73] 259 [163] 26 [25] 15 [15] 73 [73] 49 [47] 432 [219] 480 [304] [176] 81 [167] 109 [49] 47 [109] 167 2 1 42 [64] 35 [12] 64 [42] 2 [2] 640 [642] Rodeo Dr and Bourdon Ranch Rd Extension (Future) 7th St and Bourdon Ranch Rd Extension (Future) SR 77 and Concho Hwy Concho Hwy and Old Woodruff Rd 358 [167] 4 1 3 1 21 [7] 1 [259] 163 [26] 25 [432] 219 [480] 304 176 [81] 15 [15] 181 [273] [2] 2 [640] 642 [16] 344 [344] 16 [109] 108 6 1 5 1 8 1 7 1 New North-South Rd and Paper Mill Rd Willow Lane and Bourdon Ranch Rd Willow Lane and Bourdon Ranch Rd Extension (Future) 820 [522] 130 [144] Paper Mill Rd and SR 77 [35] 12 [21] 7 [181] 273 [108] 109 [358] 167 [820] 522 [26] 45 [45] 26 [130] 144 9 1 10 1 9A 1 Pinedale Rd and SR 77 SR 77 and Airport Rd (Future) 1 11 Bourdon Ranch Rd and Bourdon Ranch Rd Extension (Future) Source: Wilson & Company, May, 2007 X = Key Study Area Intersection XX [XX] Pinedale Rd and New North-South Rd (Future) = AM Peak Hour Volume = PM Peak Hour Volume No Scale YEAR 2015 AM/PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC ESTIMATES SNOWFLAKE/TAYLOR SOUTHERN NAVAJO-APACHE COUNTY SUBREGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN 1 2 1 Rodeo Dr and Bourdon Ranch Rd Extension (Future) 7th St and Bourdon Rd Extension (Future) SR 77 and Concho Hwy Concho Hwy and Old Woodruff Rd 4 1 3 1 STOP 6 1 5 Paper Mill Rd and SR 77 9 Willow Lane and Bourdon Ranch Rd SR 77 and Airport Rd Willow Lane and Bourdon Ranch Rd Extension (Future) 11 10 9A Pinedale Rd and SR 77 8 1 7 1 New North-South Rd and Paper Mill Rd (Future) Bourdon Ranch Rd and Bourdon Ranch Rd Extension (Future) Pinedale Rd and New North-South Rd (Future) Source: Wilson & Company, May, 2007 X = Key Study Area Intersection XX [XX] = AM Peak Hour Volume = PM Peak Hour Volume No Scale YEAR 2030 INTERSECTION LANE CONFIGURATION SNOWFLAKE/TAYLOR SOUTHERN NAVAJO-APACHE COUNTY SUBREGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN 796 [512] 178 [109] [796] 512 868 [605] [868] 605 [40] 50 [50] 40 [65] 74 [250] 143 [62] 83 [351] 234 [143] 250 8 1 7 1 Willow Lane and Bourdon Ranch Rd Extension (Future) 25 [25] 327 [212] 71 [70] Willow Lane and Bourdon Ranch Rd 70 [71] 476 [316] [335] 475 [73] 91 [68] 70 [215] 140 351 [234] 65 [74] New North-South Rd and Paper Mill Rd [423] 327 [781] 496 335 [475] [90] 130 [196] 225 20 [72] 68 [70] 110 [202] 73 [91] 90 [130] [1385] 874 [804] 421 215 [140] 1971 [1227] 487 [315] Paper Mill Rd and SR 77 72 [20] 501 [886] [501] 886 [225] 196 Rodeo Dr and Bourdon Ranch Rd Extension (Future) 7th St and Bourdon Ranch Rd Extension (Future) 202 [110] 6 1 5 1 [327] 423 4 1 SR 77 and Concho Hwy 1385 [874] 439 [439] [421] 804 [163] 155 3 1 Concho Hwy and Old Woodruff Rd [439] 439 [178] 109 62 [83] 2 1 [172] 103 [155] 163 [107] 85 [267] 161 [85] 107 [247] 144 [443] 240 [117] 42 [223] 225 [254] 176 [109] 41 [575] 335 267 [161] [195] 139 1 781 [496] 183 [190] 117 [42] 247 [144] [255] 223 172 [103] 190 [183] 575 [335] 254 [176] 55 [51] 443 [240] 195 [139] 51 [55] 109 [41] 502 [325] 9 1 Pinedale Rd and SR 77 SR 77 and Airport Rd [476] 316 11 1 10 1 9A [318] 479 [502] 325 [327] 212 [1971] 1227 [103] 106 [106] 103 [479] 318 [25] 25 [487] 315 Bourdon Ranch Rd and Bourdon Ranch Rd Extension (Future) Pinedale Rd and New North-South Rd (Future) : Source: Wilson & Company, May, 2007 X = Key Study Area Intersection XX [XX] = AM Peak Hour Volume = PM Peak Hour Volume No Scale YEAR 2030 AM/PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC ESTIMATES SNOWFLAKE/TAYLOR SOUTHERN NAVAJO-APACHE COUNTY SUBREGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN