Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................... XI Community Involvement and Engagement............................................................................................... xii Summary of Recommended Projects & Improvements............................................................................xiii Trails & Bicycle Facilities............................................................................................................................xiii Transit........................................................................................................................................................xiv 1. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Study Purpose ................................................................................................................................... 3 1.2 Study Objectives ............................................................................................................................... 3 2. COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT & ENGAGEMENT ............................................................... 4 2.1 Community Workshop Summary ..................................................................................................... 5 th 2.1 (A) Roving Mobile Workshop – Show Low 60 Anniversary Celebration .....................................................5 2.1 (B) Plan of Improvement Open House – Santa & the Shoppes on Gingerbread Lane Community Event .....7 2.1 (C) Survey Efforts & Feedback Received .......................................................................................................7 2.2 Trails Survey...................................................................................................................................... 7 2.3 Notable Trails Survey Observations & Findings .............................................................................. 13 2.4 FSC and WMC On-Board Ridership Survey ..................................................................................... 15 2.5 Notable Transit Survey Observations & Findings ........................................................................... 19 3. STUDY AREA CHARACTERISTICS & EXISTING CONDITIONS.............................................. 21 3.1 Show Low Community Setting ........................................................................................................ 23 3.2 Land Ownership .............................................................................................................................. 24 3.3 Land Use ......................................................................................................................................... 27 3.3 (A) Existing Land Uses ..................................................................................................................................27 3.3 (B) Residential Land Uses ............................................................................................................................28 3.3 (C) Commercial & Employment Uses ..........................................................................................................30 3.4 Education ........................................................................................................................................ 33 3.5 Recreation & Open Space Amenities .............................................................................................. 35 3.6 Trails ............................................................................................................................................... 36 3.7 Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest ................................................................................................ 37 3.8 Show Low City Park & Aquatic Center ............................................................................................ 39 i 3.9 Golf .................................................................................................................................................. 39 3.10 Winter Sports................................................................................................................................... 40 3.11 Future Land Use............................................................................................................................... 40 3.12 Existing Vehicular Traffic Patterns in Show Low.............................................................................. 43 3.13 Crash Data Analysis ......................................................................................................................... 47 3.14 Climate............................................................................................................................................. 49 4. COMMUNITY CHARACTERISTICS – A DEMOGRAPHIC AND SOCIOECONOMIC REVIEW .... 49 4.1 Population ...................................................................................................................................... 50 4.2 Age .................................................................................................................................................. 55 4.3 Environmental Justice..................................................................................................................... 60 4.4 Race and Ethnicity .......................................................................................................................... 60 4.5 Income ............................................................................................................................................ 65 4.6 Commuting Habits .......................................................................................................................... 68 5. REVIEW OF RELEVANT LOCAL PLANS AND STUDIES ....................................................... 73 6. EXISTING & FUTURE CONDITIONS: TRANSIT .................................................................. 78 6.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 78 6.2 FTA-ADOT-5311 Program ............................................................................................................... 79 6.3 Federal, State and Local Transit Funding Sources .......................................................................... 81 6.4 Four Seasons Connection ............................................................................................................... 82 6.5 White Mountain Connection .......................................................................................................... 84 6.6 Other Transit Providers in the White Mountains ........................................................................... 85 6.7 Transit Stop Inventory .................................................................................................................... 85 6.8 Operating Characteristics – FSC &WMC ......................................................................................... 87 6.9 Definitions....................................................................................................................................... 88 6.10 Analysis ............................................................................................................................................ 89 6.11 Cost per Revenue Hour.................................................................................................................... 90 6.12 Cost per Revenue Mile .................................................................................................................... 90 6.13 Average Fare .................................................................................................................................... 91 6.14 Operating Cost per Boarding ........................................................................................................... 91 6.15 Subsidy per Boarding ....................................................................................................................... 92 ii 6.16 Farebox Recovery Ratio ................................................................................................................... 92 6.17 Boardings per Revenue Hour........................................................................................................... 93 6.18 Boardings per Revenue Mile ........................................................................................................... 93 6.19 Annual Boardings............................................................................................................................. 94 6.20 Fleet Assets and Capital Infrastructure ........................................................................................... 95 6.21 Fare Structure .................................................................................................................................. 96 6.22 Operational Revenue Sources ......................................................................................................... 97 6.23 Capital Revenue Sources ................................................................................................................. 98 6.24 Coordination with Other Providers ................................................................................................. 98 6.25 Study Area Population ................................................................................................................... 100 6.26 Population 60 Years and Older ...................................................................................................... 100 6.27 Disabled Population under 60 years.............................................................................................. 101 6.28 Poverty Population under 60 Years ............................................................................................... 101 6.29 Transit Demand Estimate .............................................................................................................. 101 7. EXISTING & FUTURE CONDITIONS: TRAILS ................................................................... 103 7.1 Resource Documents .................................................................................................................... 103 7.2 Relationship to the Current Show Low Trails Master Plan ........................................................... 104 7.3 Bikeway and Pedestrian Facility Definitions ................................................................................. 105 7.4 Path & Trail Types ......................................................................................................................... 106 7.5 Bikeway Facilities .......................................................................................................................... 109 7.6 Types of Bicyclists ......................................................................................................................... 113 7.7 Other Definitions .......................................................................................................................... 114 7.8 Federal Highway Administration Four E’s .................................................................................... 115 7.9 Existing & Future Conditions: Show Low Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities ................................... 115 7.10 TRACKS........................................................................................................................................... 116 7.11 Forest Service Trails ....................................................................................................................... 117 7.12 Other Notable Off-Road Trails in Show Low.................................................................................. 122 7.13 Non-Motorized Mobility on Key Roadways in Show Low ............................................................. 126 7.14 Evaluation & Summary of Existing Sidewalks on Local Streets ..................................................... 131 7.15 Off Highway Vehicle Trails ............................................................................................................. 132 iii 7.16 Organized Events, Competitions and Eco-Tourism Draws ............................................................ 133 8. TRANSIT SYSTEM DEFICIENCIES ...................................................................................... 135 8.1 Transit Routes ............................................................................................................................... 135 8.1.A System Performance ................................................................................................................................135 8.1.B Headways .................................................................................................................................................135 8.1.C Hours of Operation ..................................................................................................................................136 8.1.D Locations ..................................................................................................................................................136 8.1.E Coordination with Other Systems ............................................................................................................137 8.2 Fares .............................................................................................................................................. 138 8.2.A Transfers ..................................................................................................................................................138 8.2.B Average fare .............................................................................................................................................138 8.2.C Ticket Sales ...............................................................................................................................................139 9. TRANSIT STOPS DEFICIENCIES ......................................................................................... 139 10. TRANSIT-TRAILS INTERCONNECTIVITY & DEFICIENCY REVIEW ....................................... 142 11. PATHS & TRAILS SYSTEM DISCONNECTS ....................................................................... 174 12. BIKEWAY FACILITY DEFICIENCIES .................................................................................. 177 13. SIDEWALK DEFICIENCIES .............................................................................................. 179 14. SUPPORTING POLICIES & DESIGN ELEMENTS – PATHS, TRAILS, AND BIKEWAYS............. 183 14.1 Bike Routes/Shared Roadways ...................................................................................................... 183 14.2 Paved Shoulders ............................................................................................................................ 185 14.3 Bike Lanes ...................................................................................................................................... 186 14.4 Shared Use Paths ........................................................................................................................... 187 14.5 Multiuse Trails ............................................................................................................................... 189 14.6 Sidewalks ....................................................................................................................................... 190 14.7 ADOT Bicycle Policy Overview ....................................................................................................... 192 14.8 Signage........................................................................................................................................... 193 14.9 Pedestrian Crossings...................................................................................................................... 195 15. EVALUATION CRITERIA ................................................................................................. 196 15.1 Evaluation Criteria & Their Importance to the Show Low Trails & Transit Connectivity Study Process........................................................................................................................................... 196 iv 16. PLAN OF IMPROVEMENTS INTRODUCTION ................................................................... 199 17. PATHS, TRAILS & BIKEWAYS PLAN OF IMPROVEMENTS ................................................ 201 17.1 Paths, Trails & Bikeways Plan of Improvements .......................................................................... 201 17.2 Review of Proposed Path, Trail and Bikeways for Significant Show Low Roadways....................... 227 17.2.1 Deuce of Clubs (US 60) ...............................................................................................................................228 17.2.2 White Mountain Road ................................................................................................................................230 17.2.3 Clark Road (SR 260) ....................................................................................................................................232 17.2.4 Penrod Road ...............................................................................................................................................234 17.2.5 Whipple Road .............................................................................................................................................235 17.2.6 Central Avenue/Woolford Road .................................................................................................................237 17.2.7 Old Linden Road .........................................................................................................................................239 17.3 Planning Level Cost Estimates – Paths, Trails and Bikeways ........................................................... 240 17.3.1 Bike Routes .................................................................................................................................................241 17.3.2 Paved Shoulders .........................................................................................................................................241 17.3.3 Shared Use Paths ........................................................................................................................................241 17.3.4 Sidewalks ....................................................................................................................................................242 17.3.5 Crosswalks ..................................................................................................................................................242 18. PATHS, TRAILS & BIKEWAYS FUNDING SOURCES & COST SHARING STRATEGIES ............ 242 18.1 Introduction..................................................................................................................................... 242 18.2 MAP-21 Overview............................................................................................................................ 243 18.3 Safe Routes to Schools .................................................................................................................... 243 19.4 Potential Funding Sources ............................................................................................................... 244 19. SUPPORTING POLICIES & DESIGN ELEMENTS – TRANSIT STOPS AND ADJACENT ACCESSIBILITY............................................................................................................. 248 19.1 Transit Stops .................................................................................................................................... 248 19.2 Landing Area.................................................................................................................................... 248 19.3 Bus Shelters ..................................................................................................................................... 249 19.4 Integration of Bicycles and Transit .................................................................................................. 250 19.5 Bicycle Parking Facilities .................................................................................................................. 250 20. THE TRANSIT-TRAILS CONNECTION: TRANSIT STOPS & ADJACENT ACCESSIBILITY PLAN OF IMPROVEMENTS......................................................................................................... 252 v 21. TRANSIT SYSTEM & OPERATIONS PLAN OF IMPROVEMENTS ........................................ 261 21.1 Introduction..................................................................................................................................... 261 21.2 Additional Vehicle to the FSC Deviated Fixed Route Transit Service .............................................. 262 21.3 Installing Bus Pullouts along the Major Thoroughfares .................................................................. 262 21.4 Switching From Deviated Route Service to Fixed Route with Complementary Paratransit Service ........................................................................................................................................... 265 21.5 Restructuring the Existing Routing System ..................................................................................... 266 21.6 Shortening the Existing Routes (Eliminating Bus Stops) ................................................................. 267 21.7 Extending the Days and Hours of Operations ................................................................................. 268 21.8 Lengthening the Current Headways ................................................................................................ 268 21.9 Capital and Operations Plan ............................................................................................................ 274 21.10 Five Year Financial Plan ................................................................................................................. 276 22. TRANSIT MARKETING PLAN OF IMPROVEMENTS .......................................................... 279 23. REFERENCES AND RESOURCES .................................................................................... 283 vi List of Figures Figure 1: Regional Context Map..................................................................................................... 2 Figure 2: Resident Trail Usage Habit ............................................................................................ 14 Figure 3: Transit Rider Additional Comments .............................................................................. 20 Figure 4: Project Study Area Map ................................................................................................ 22 Figure 5: Show Low Land Ownership ........................................................................................... 26 Figure 6: Show Low Planned Communities.................................................................................. 30 Figure 7: Show Low Trade Area ................................................................................................... 31 Figure 8: Show Low Development Plan ....................................................................................... 41 Figure 9: Show Low Zoning District .............................................................................................. 42 Figure 10: Existing and Proposed Show Low Circulation ............................................................. 44 Figure 11: Crash Data Location .................................................................................................... 48 Figure 12: 2010 Population Density, Show Low .......................................................................... 51 Figure 13: 2010 Population Density, Study Area ......................................................................... 52 Figure 14: 2035 Population Density, Show Low .......................................................................... 53 Figure 15: 2035 Population Density, Study Area ......................................................................... 54 Figure 16: Youth Population Density, Show Low ......................................................................... 56 Figure 17: Youth Population Density, Study Area ........................................................................ 57 Figure 18: Elderly Population Density, Show Low ....................................................................... 58 Figure 19: Elderly Population Density, Study Area ...................................................................... 59 Figure 20: 2010 Minority Population Density, Show Low ........................................................... 63 Figure 21: 2010 Minority Population Density, Study Area .......................................................... 64 Figure 22: Median Family Income, Show Low ............................................................................. 66 Figure 23: Median Family Income, Study Area ............................................................................ 67 Figure 24: Employees Who Commute to Work by Other Means ................................................ 70 Figure 25: Households without Vehicles ..................................................................................... 71 Figure 26: Employment Density ................................................................................................... 72 Figure 27: Four Seasons Connection Route and Stop Locations Map ......................................... 83 Figure 28: White Mountain Connection Route and Stop Locations Map .................................... 84 Figure 29: Show Low Transit Stop Inventory ............................................................................... 86 Figure 30: Cost per Revenue Hour ............................................................................................... 90 Figure 31: Cost per Revenue Mile ................................................................................................ 91 Figure 32: Average Fare ............................................................................................................... 91 Figure 33: Operating Cost per Boarding ...................................................................................... 92 Figure 34: Subsidy per Boarding .................................................................................................. 92 Figure 35: Farebox Recovery Ratio .............................................................................................. 93 Figure 36: Boardings per Revenue Hour ...................................................................................... 93 Figure 37: Boardings per Revenue Mile ....................................................................................... 94 Figure 38: Annual Boardings ........................................................................................................ 95 Figure 39: Federal and Local Funding 2008-2012 ........................................................................ 97 Figure 40: Typical Shared Use Path Design ................................................................................ 107 Figure 41: MAG Standard Sidewalk Detail ................................................................................. 109 Figure 42: Typical Bicycle Path ................................................................................................... 110 vii Figure 43: Figure 44: Figure 45: Figure 46: Figure 47: Figure 48: Figure 49: Figure 50: Figure 51: Figure 52: Figure 53: Figure 54: Figure 55: Figure 56: Figure 57: Figure 58: Figure 59: Figure 60: Figure 61: Figure 62: Figure 63: Figure 64: Figure 65: Figure 66: Figure 67: Figure 68: Figure 69: Figure 70: Figure 71: Figure 72: Figure 73: Typical Bicycle Lane................................................................................................... 110 Typical Bicycle Route................................................................................................. 111 Existing and Planned Show Low Trails ...................................................................... 117 Buena Vista Trail Location Map ................................................................................ 118 Los Caballos Trail Location Map................................................................................ 120 Chihuahua Pine Connector Trail Location Map ........................................................ 121 Show Low Bluff Trail Location Map .......................................................................... 123 Existing Trails Deficiencies Map ................................................................................ 175 Sierra Pines Drive Cross Section................................................................................ 185 Summit Trail Cross Section ....................................................................................... 185 Typical Shared Use Path ............................................................................................ 188 Typical Multiuse Trail ................................................................................................ 190 MAG Sidewalk Detail (#230) ..................................................................................... 192 MUTCD, W11-1 ......................................................................................................... 194 MUTCD, W16-1P and R4-11 ...................................................................................... 194 Typical Pavement Marking........................................................................................ 194 Typical Pedestrian Crossing Signing & Marking ........................................................ 195 Short Term (5 Year) Plan of Improvements .............................................................. 222 Medium Term (10 Year) Plan of Improvements ....................................................... 223 Long Term (20 Year) Plan of Improvements ............................................................. 224 Composite (All Years) Plan of Improvements ........................................................... 225 Deuce of Clubs - @ SL Creek – Looking West ........................................................... 229 902 E Deuce of Clubs - Downtown - looking west .................................................... 229 Deuce of Clubs – East of Central @ Dairy Queen ..................................................... 229 White Mountain Road – Existing Pavement Sections............................................... 231 Clark Road Existing Pavement Section ...................................................................... 232 Penrod Road Existing Pavement Section .................................................................. 235 Whipple Road Pavement Sections ............................................................................ 236 Central Avenue Pavement Sections .......................................................................... 238 Old Linden Road Existing Pavement Sections ........................................................... 240 Standard ADA Accessible Bus Pullout ....................................................................... 264 List of Tables Table 1: Trails Survey Responses Summary ................................................................................... 8 Table 2: Four Seasons Connection and White Mountain Connection On Board Ridership Survey Responses Summary ......................................................................................... 16 Table 3: Transit Survey Responses Received ............................................................................... 19 Table 4: Show Low Land Ownership Composition....................................................................... 24 Table 5: Existing Show Low Land Uses ......................................................................................... 27 Table 6: Largest Show Low Employers ......................................................................................... 32 Table 7: 2012 Average Daily Vehicle Trips, State Highway in Show Low .................................... 45 Table 8: 2012 Average Daily Vehicle Trips, Show Low City Streets ............................................. 45 Table 9: Crash Data Summary by Injury Type .............................................................................. 47 viii Table 10: Table 11: Table 12: Table 13: Table 14: Table 15: Table 16: Table 17: Table 18: Table 19: Table 20: Table 21: Table 22: Table 23: Table 24: Table 25: Table 26: Table 27: Table 28: Table 29: Table 30: Table 31: Table 32: Table 33: Table 34: Table 35: Table 36: Table 37: Table 38: Table 39: Table 40: Annual Climate ............................................................................................................. 49 Population and Growth Rate........................................................................................ 50 Age Distribution ........................................................................................................... 55 2010 Racial Demographics ........................................................................................... 61 2010 Origin (Ethnicity) Demographics ......................................................................... 62 Median Family Income ................................................................................................. 65 Commuting Habits........................................................................................................ 68 Relevant Plans and Studies Summary .......................................................................... 73 Federal Funding Sources .............................................................................................. 81 Operating Statistics ...................................................................................................... 89 Transit Vehicle Fleet ..................................................................................................... 95 Fare Structure............................................................................................................... 96 Population by Study Area ........................................................................................... 100 Navajo County 60 and Over Population ..................................................................... 100 Disabled Population Under 60 Years.......................................................................... 101 Poverty Population Under 60 Years Study Area ........................................................ 101 Transit Demand by Population Group ....................................................................... 103 Transit Demand Changes from 2009- 2013 ............................................................... 103 Existing Show Low Transit Stop Characteristics and Amenities................................. 141 Transit-Trails Interconnectivity & Deficiency Review ................................................ 144 Core Evaluation Criteria ............................................................................................. 196 Bikeways & Trails Criteria ........................................................................................... 198 Transit Route Criteria ................................................................................................. 198 Transit Stop Criteria ................................................................................................... 199 Paths, Trails and Bikeways Plan of Improvements .................................................... 202 Summary of Suggested Path, Trail and Bikeway Projects .......................................... 226 Potential Path, Trail and Bikeway Funding Sources ................................................... 245 Transit Stop Plan of Improvements ........................................................................... 253 Transit Stops Recommended for Bus Pullouts ........................................................... 263 Transit Operations Plan of Improvements ................................................................. 270 Transit Capital & Operations: Implementation Strategy Cost Comparison and Summary.................................................................................................................. 275 Table 41: Five Year Financial Plan Summary Table .................................................................... 277 ix Appendices Appendix A – Four Season Connection On Board Survey Responses Appendix B – White Mountain Connection On Board Survey Responses Appendix C – Trails Survey Responses Appendix D – Community Open House – Saturday, December 14, 2013 x EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The City of Show Low was awarded funding from the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) Planning Assistance for Rural Areas (PARA) program to prepare the Show Low Trails & Transit Connectivity Study. The purpose of the PARA program is to provide assistance to counties, cities, towns and tribal communities in rural Arizona to address a wide variety of multimodal transportation planning issues, including roadway, non-motorized and transit modes of travel. Adhering to the overarching purpose of the PARA program, the Show Low Trails and Transit Connectivity Study was initiated to provide recommendations that improve and enhance the inter-connectivity of trails and transit mobility in the City of Show Low and transit efficiency in the White Mountains, including the communities of Pinetop-Lakeside, Snowflake, Taylor, Holbrook and the White Mountain Apache Tribe. Upon its completion the study was further intended to update the City’s Five Year Transit Plan and the Trails Element of the Show Low General Plan by identifying a plan for improvements that prioritizes future projects into shortterm (5 year), medium term (10 year) and long term (20 year) implementation horizons while also identifying potential funding opportunities for the various project types. The Project Study Area includes a dual focus. The “first” study area relates to the trails component of the project which includes a close examination of the potential for interconnections between existing and planned trails, existing and planned transit system stops, key activity centers and residential neighborhoods in the City of Show Low. The “second” study area relates to the transit component of the project which evaluates the extents of the current routes and service areas and operational efficiency and effectiveness of the local Four Seasons Connection (FSC) and White Mountain Connection (WMC) transit services. These transit service areas include the communities of Show Low, Pinetop-Lakeside, Snowflake, Taylor, Holbrook and the White Mountain Apache Tribe. Overall, this study presents an opportunity to improve and integrate trails and transit into a unified regional circulation concept plan that facilitates alternate modes of transportation, improves multimodal inter-connectivity, and addresses critical pedestrian safety and mobility concerns throughout the study area. Community Involvement and Engagement The community involvement and engagement process for the Show Low Trails and Transit Connectivity Study was defined by ADOT, the City of Show Low and the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) as a process that embraces innovation, commitment, transparency and trustworthiness through the course of the study process. Input and contributions received from Show Low residents, business owners and stakeholders greatly enhanced the value and direction of the Show Low Trails and Transit Connectivity Study by ensuring that their trails and transit-related needs and desires represent the community’s ambitions. To that end, stakeholders were afforded the opportunity to provide their input and objectives through the xi broad dissemination of surveys and a community open house all conducted during the data collection process. An extensive effort was undertaken to administer two surveys for the Show Low Trails and Transit Connectivity Study – one survey for trails-related purposes and one survey targeting transit users. The trails survey was designed to solicit respondents walking, hiking and bicycling attitudes and trail user habits. Respondents were also asked about linkages to public transit stops and were provided an opportunity to express their desires or concerns on the planning of future trails in Show Low. A total of 69 trail surveys were completed. An on-board transit ridership survey was administered to Four Seasons Connection (FSC) and White Mountain Connection (WMC) passengers willing to complete the survey form. The survey questions focused on demographics, customer satisfaction, ridership patterns, concerns and suggestions for improvement. A total of 122 transit surveys were completed. On Saturday, May 4, 2013, members of the project team conducted a Roving Mobile Workshop from 10:00 am to 4:00 pm. Over the course of this six hour time period, the project team orchestrated the facilitation of three mobile workshops utilizing a Four Seasons Connection bus as the backdrop at each individual location. The Roving Mobile Workshop was strategically scheduled to coincide with the City of Show Low 60 th Anniversary Celebration, held at the Show Low City Park, in order to maximize project exposure and obtain as much community interest and feedback as possible. In all, the Roving Mobile Workshop was a tremendous success with approximately 96 individuals attending over the three locations and 30 surveys being completed. On Saturday, December 14, 2013 members of the project team participated in the Santa & the Shoppes at Gingerbread Lane event sponsored by the City of Show Low and Show Low Main Street. Show Low City Hall was decorated for the holidays as many local artists, crafters and small businesses displayed their wares. The community event was well-attended and the booth location provided great exposure for the project as well as a great opportunity to connect with passers-by who opted to stop and discuss the Plan of Improvements and the project in general. Over the course of the four hour workshop, there were 35-40 individuals who participated in the open house. Summary of Recommended Projects & Improvements The extensive data collection and future conditions process were reported and analyzed with the TAC to develop a series of recommended trail and transit projects in order to achieve the identified study purpose and objectives. Trails & Bicycle Facilities The TAC first identified a broad series of different bicycle and pedestrian trail/path types. These include sidewalks, shared use paths, multi-use trails, paved shoulders, bicycle routes and bicycle lanes. Each of the proposed projects was analyzed in relation to a series of evaluation xii criteria that were tailored to the objectives identified for the Show Low Trails and Transit Connectivity Study. Using the evaluation criteria developed by the TAC, each project received an individual “ranking” and assigned into short term, medium term or long term Plan of Improvement priorities. It is worth noting that projects that; 1) immediately improved the connection between transit stops and adjacent neighborhoods or employment centers, 2) maintained broad community support, and, 3) supported a clear and likely reduction in vehicular trips, automatically received priority in their ranking. There are a total of 47 trails/path and bicycle facility projects recommended in the Show Low Trails and Transit Connectivity Study. A breakdown of the number of projects by facility type includes the following: Sidewalks 13 Shared Use Paths 17 Multiuse Trails 9 Bike Route/Shared Roadways 6 Bike Lanes 2 Total 47 Transit The Four Seasons Connection (FSC) has been providing public transit service in the Show Low and Pinetop-Lakeside area since May of 1997. As the demand for public transportation services continued to grow from year to year, the White Mountain Connection (WMC) began providing regional commuter service in 2009. The WMC links the communities of Show Low, PinetopLakeside, Taylor, Snowflake and Holbrook. Ridership has grown tremendously over the years, beginning with just over 2,000 riders in 1997 to over 200,000 riders today. Despite the phenomenal growth in ridership, the FSC transit route and schedule of stops remains the same as established in 1997. This is largely a reflection of the fact that the community footprints of Show Low and Pinetop-Lakeside are largely focused and dependent upon the state highways that serves them. The Show Low Trails and Transit Connectivity Study conducted an extensive inventory and analysis of transit stops and transit operations. FSC transit stops were inventoried and evaluated using nine characteristics. A summary of the transit stop inventory found the following:  Each stop inventoried and evaluated using 9 characteristics  Each characteristic assigned a grade of “Good”, “Fair”, “Poor”, or “Not Present”  43% of the Show Low stops have fair to poor ADA accessibility xiii  2/3 of the stops were rated fair to poor in interfering with through traffic  2/3 of the stops had fair to poor access, crossing or connection to an adjacent pedestrian network  1/3 of all stops have poor lighting or lack lighting all together In response to the inventory and evaluation of all FSC transit stops, the Plan of Improvements recommended a variety of suggested improvements for many of the transit stops. A summary of transit stop improvements suggested includes:  Bus shelters at each stop, with waiting room for wheelchairs  Consider relocating 16 stops from private property to newly constructed bus pull-outs in the ADOT right-of-way where feasible  Provide sidewalk connections where appropriate  Appropriate surface materials for ADA accessibility An extensive analysis of the FSC and WMC transit operations was also conducted for the Show Low Trails and Transit Connectivity Study. The performance of FSC system is one of the most efficient of rural transit systems in Arizona. That said, improvements to any transit service are an on-going work in progress. A series of operational-related deficiencies were derived from TAC input, consultant field observations and on-board transit survey responses received. The primary issue hampering the Four Seasons Connections transit service is its on-time performance. The Transit Operations Plan of Improvements includes a range of implementation strategies for Show Low and the Transit Manager to consider in improving this issue, as well as improve the overall transit service. These improvements, if implemented, should result in additional ridership throughout the system. The improvements identified in the plan include:  Adding an additional vehicle to the FSC service  Installing bus pullouts along the major thoroughfares  Switching from deviated route service to fixed route with complementary paratransit service  Restructuring the existing routing system  Shortening the existing routes (eliminating bus stops)  Extending the days and hours of operations  Lengthening the current headways xiv 1. Introduction The City of Show Low has a long established reputation as being a progressive leader in its commitment to building a quality community. Show Low serves as the “Gateway to the White Mountains” offering a considerable array of year-round outdoor recreation activities and serving as the employment and retail shopping hub for the White Mountains. Please see Figure 1: Regional Context Map. Show Low has approximately 35 square miles within its city limits, has a year-round population of 10,660 and over 30,000 in population seasonally. The seasonal population increase is primarily the result of Phoenix-area and Tucson-area residents escaping the desert heat in the summertime. The City of Show Low has long recognized that integral building blocks to successful community planning are to ensure that its residents have; 1) adequate public transportation systems and, 2) motorized and non-motorized mobility to schools, community services and outdoor recreational activities. Show Low has been successfully operating a public transit system – the Four Seasons Connection (FSC) since 1996. Show Low has experienced the highest population growth rates in Navajo County over the past decade as well as exponential growth in FSC annual ridership. The population growth, expanding development footprint and transit ridership growth has and will continue to strain the system in order to maintain pace with the demands for services. There are approximately 60 miles of existing trails, paths and/or sidewalks within the Show Low city limits and approximate 120 miles in the greater Show Low-Pinetop-Lakeside area. The Show Low Trails Master Plan includes about one-half of these trails. In September of 2008, the City of Show Low adopted the Show Low Trails Master Plan which established a trail system to connect Show Low neighborhoods, offer alternative modes of transportation for residents and promote linkages to nearby recreation areas. The 2008 Show Low Trails Plan does not address trails in already developed areas or existing trails on US Forest Service property within the Show Low city limits. In order to keep pace with the population and transit ridership growth, the City of Show Low has a demonstrated need to enhance transit efficiency and non-motorized mobility to improve access to services for its residents. In fact, an evaluation of both systems has determined enhanced transit and trails planning is needed to keep pace with growth in the population and transit ridership. Moreover, an analysis of the current gaps in the City’s sidewalk, paths and trails system is needed to improve the existing and future anticipated non-motorized mobility in Show Low. 1 Recognizing and responding to this need, the City of Show Low applied for and was awarded funding from the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) Planning Assistance for Rural Areas (PARA) program to prepare the Show Low Trails and Transit Connectivity Study. The PARA program is designed to provide assistance to rural counties, cities, towns and tribal communities in rural Arizona to address a wide variety of multimodal transportation planning issues, including roadway, non-motorized and transit modes of travel. FIGURE 1 Regional Context Map Source: Show Low General Plan 2 1.1 Study Purpose The purpose of the Show Low Trails and Transit Connectivity Study is to improve and enhance the inter-connectivity of trails and transit mobility in the City of Show Low and transit efficiency in the White Mountains, including the communities of Pinetop-Lakeside, Snowflake, Taylor, Holbrook and the White Mountain Apache Tribe. This plan presents an opportunity to improve and integrate trails and transit into an overall regional circulation concept plan to facilitate alternate modes of transportation, improve multimodal inter-connectivity, and address critical pedestrian safety and mobility concerns throughout the study area. This plan will result in updates to the City’s Five Year Transit Plan and the Trails Element of the Show Low General Plan. This plan will also provide a plan for improvements that prioritizes future implementation projects. The plan of improvements will prioritize transit and trail improvement projects or programs into short-term (5 year), medium term (10 year) and long term (20 year) implementation horizons and also identify potential funding opportunities for the identified projects. 1.2 Study Objectives The Show Low Trails and Transit Connectivity Study identifies the following goals and objectives to support the study purpose: 1. Improve the inter-connectivity and efficiency of trail and transit circulation throughout Show Low and transit efficiency and accessibility in the White Mountains, also including the communities of Pinetop-Lakeside, Snowflake, Taylor, Holbrook and the White Mountain Apache Tribe. 2. Promote interconnections between existing and planned trails, existing and planned transit system stops, key activity centers and residential neighborhoods in the City of Show Low. 3. Build upon prior trails and transit planning efforts to update the City’s Five Year Transit Plan and the Trails Element of the Show Low General Plan. 4. Maximize and encourage public involvement throughout the process by conducting two public open house meetings at key milestones in the process. This includes the Roving Mobile Workshop that was conducted May 4th at three locations throughout Show Low and the use of multiple survey instruments that were utilized to capture public comment on their transit and trails use patterns, preferences and future goals and objectives. Broad citizen notification was provided to announce the Roving Mobile Workshop and surveys. Display advertising in the White Mountain Independent and inserts into water utility bills to over 7,000 Show Low households was conducted to inform residents of the study and survey processes. Future meetings will likely include 3 the use of interactive technology to engage participants in fun and thought-provoking exercises. 2. Community Involvement & Engagement The community involvement and engagement process for the Show Low Trails and Transit Connectivity Study was defined by ADOT, the City of Show Low and the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) as a process that embraces innovation, commitment, transparency and trustworthiness through the course of the study process. A cornerstone element of the public outreach process for this study was to provide for the broad and timely dissemination of information to project stakeholders and solicit their input and feedback at key milestones in the study process. TAC representatives represent the public’s interests and closely oversee the consultants work efforts by providing input and guidance at meetings routinely scheduled during the study process. Input and contributions received from Show Low residents, business owners and stakeholders greatly enhanced the value and direction of the Show Low Trails and Transit Connectivity Study by ensuring that their trails and transit-related needs and desires represent the community’s ambitions. To that end, stakeholders were afforded the opportunity to provide express their input and objectives though the broad dissemination of surveys and a community open house all conducted during the data collection process. 4 2.1 Community Workshop Summary 2.1 (A) Roving Mobile Workshop – Show Low 60th Anniversary Celebration On Saturday, May 4, 2013, members of the project team conducted a Roving Mobile Workshop from 10:00 am to 4:00 pm. Over the course of those six hours, the project team orchestrated a mobile workshop utilizing a Four Seasons Connection bus as the backdrop at three separate locations; the Show Low City Park, the Meadow Trailhead and the Show Low Lake Road Transit Center. Public notification of the Roving Mobile Workshop was provided in a display ad printed in the White Mountain Independent newspaper one week prior to the event. 5 The Roving Mobile Workshop was strategically scheduled to coincide with the City of Show Low 60th Anniversary Celebration held at Show Low City Park in order to maximize project exposure and obtain as much community interest and feedback as possible. The City of Show Low held a large celebration at the Show Low City Park that included vendors, children’s games and activities and a free barbeque lunch for up to 1,500 attendees. The Roving Mobile Workshop spent a large portion of the time at this event. A series of presentation boards were adhered to the side of the FSC bus whereby attendees could review a variety of existing and proposed condition information including transit routes and transit stop characteristics, existing and planned trails in the area and a variety of demographic and socioeconomic data including population projections, commuting trends and many other indicators. Transit and trails surveys were also available for workshop attendees to complete as well. Additional one-one-one discussions and feedback received from active transit users at the Show Low Lake Road Transit Center complimented and added to the surveys received and overall success of the workshop. In all, the Roving Mobile Workshop was a tremendous success with approximately 96 individuals attending over the three locations and 30 surveys being 6 completed. Particularly encouraging were the handful of trail enthusiasts who intentionally sought out the workshop and expressed a desire to follow the study and offer additional support and guidance over the remainder of the study effort. 2.1 (B) Plan of Improvement Open House – Santa & the Shoppes on Gingerbread Lane Community Event On Saturday, December 14, 2013 members of the project team participated in the Santa & the Shoppes at Gingerbread Lane event sponsored by the City of Show Low and Show Low Main Street. Show Low City Hall was decorated for the holidays as many local artists, crafters and small businesses displayed their wares. The event is highlighted by the arrival of Santa Claus to visit with the children. Members of the project team manned a booth that displayed a wide variety of maps and other materials describing the Plan of Improvements. The community event was well-attended and the booth location provided great exposure for the project as well as a great opportunity to connect with passers-by who opted to stop by and discuss the Plan of Improvements and the project in general. Over the course of the four hour workshop, there were 35-40 individuals who participated in the open house. 2.1 (C) Survey Efforts & Feedback Received An extensive effort was undertaken to administer two surveys for the Show Low Trails and Transit Connectivity Study – one survey for trails-related purposes and one survey targeting transit users. Both surveys were administered at the Roving Mobile Workshop that supplemented separate survey efforts for the trails and transit survey respectively. 2.2 Trails Survey At the end of March, a public notice insert was included with the City of Show Low water bill to over 7,000 Show Low water customers. The survey notification introduced the project to Show Low residents and business owners and encouraged them to link to the project website at www.azdot/showlow to complete a trails survey. The trails survey was administered using Survey Monkey through the ADOT website and was available from early April through May 10 th. A total of 54 surveys were completed on the project website. In addition, another 15 surveys were completed at the Roving Mobile Workshop making a total of 69 trails surveys all together. The trails survey was designed to solicit respondents walking, hiking and bicycling attitudes and trail user habits. Respondents were also asked about linkages to public transit stops and were provided an opportunity to express their desires or concerns on the planning of future trails in Show Low. A copy of the survey can be found in Appendix D. 7 A summary of the questions, responses and central themes developed from the trails survey is provided in Table 1. Table 1: Trails Survey Responses Summary Question 1) Are you? 1) Male 2) Female 3) No Response 2) What category best describes your age? 1) 16 or younger 2) 17-25 3) 26-40 4) 41-59 5) 60+ 3) How long have you lived in Show Low? 1) 0-2 years 2) 2-5 years 3) 5-10 years 4) 10-15 years 5) 15+ years 4) Your primary purpose for using a trail in Show Low (or nearby) is primarily: 1) Walking 2) Running/jogging 3) Bicycling (leisure) 4) Cross country skiing 5) Bicycling (enthusiast) 6) Other 7) No Response 5) When you walk, jog, or run do you normally do so in Show Low or elsewhere? 1) Show Low 2) Pinetop/Lakeside 3) County areas 4) U.S. Forest Service Trails 5) Other 6) No Response 6) How frequently do you walk, jog, or run on paths or trails on a typical trip? 1) Never 2) Once a month 3) Twice a month 4) 1-2 days a week 8 Survey Monkey May 4th Workshop Total 1) 50% 2) 50% 3) 0% 1) 40% 2) 53% 3) 7% 1) 48% 2) 51% 3) 1% 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 0% 0% 17% 37% 46% 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 7% 0% 27% 40% 27% 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 1% 0% 19% 38% 42% 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 15% 13% 30% 9% 28% 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 33% 13% 47% 13% 0% 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 19% 12% 33% 22% 22% 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 80% 8% 19% 7% 24% 15% 2% 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 100% 27% 13% 7% 13% 7% 0% 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 84% 12% 17% 7% 22% 13% 1% 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 54% 13% 6% 30% 7% 2% 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 73% 47% 20% 33% 0% 7% 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 58% 20% 9% 30% 6% 3% 1) 2) 3) 4) 0% 9% 7% 33% 1) 2) 3) 4) 0% 7% 7% 20% 1) 2) 3) 4) 0% 9% 7% 30% Survey Monkey 5) 35% 6) 11% 7) 13% Question 5) 3-4 days a week 6) 5-6 days a week 7) Daily 7) How far on average would you estimate that you walk, jog, or run on paths or trails on a typical trip? 1) Never walk, run, or jog 2) ¼ mile or less 3) ¼ to ½ mile 4) ½ to 1 mile 5) 1-2 miles 6) 2+ miles 8) When walking, jogging or running, what types of facilities do you tend to use most frequently? 1) Shoulders of paved roads 2) Sidewalks 3) Bike path, walking path, or trail 4) Unpaved roads 5) Grass or fields 6) U.S. Forest Service Trails 7) Shared use pathway (pedestrians and bicycles sharing one, hard surfaced pathway) 8) Other May 4th Workshop 5) 47% 6) 13% 7) 7% Total 5) 38% 6) 12% 7) 12% 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 0% 6% 9% 4% 20% 61% 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 0% 0% 27% 7% 13% 27% 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 0% 4% 13% 4% 19% 59% 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 35% 20% 43% 13% 0% 39% 24% 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 60% 27% 67% 27% 13% 27% 20% 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 41% 22% 48% 16% 3% 36% 23% 8) 6% 8) 0% 8) 4% 9) What is the typical purpose of your pedestrian (walk, jog, or run) trip on a street, trail or path in Show Low? 1) School 2) Errands/shopping 3) Work 4) Walk dog 5) Visit a friend/relative 6) Recreation/exercise 7) No Response 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 10) For those who walk to school (or have children who walk to school), what are the biggest needs to encourage walking to school? 1) Walking is not an option 1) 6% 9 0% 4% 2% 33% 2% 87% 2% 13% 13% 13% 20% 7% 67% 0% 1) 13% 3% 6% 4% 30% 3% 83% 1% 1) 7% Question 2) 3) 4) 5) Survey Monkey 2) 4% May 4th Workshop 2) 20% 2) 7% 3) 4% 4) 6% 5) 26% 3) 7% 4) 7% 5) 27% 3) 4% 4) 4% 5) 26% 6) 0% 7) 56% 6) 0% 7) 40% 6) 0% 7) 52% 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) Total Improve upon existing pedestrian facilities Enforce traffic laws Create a better route Provide additional pedestrian facilities not in place today (sidewalks, bike lane, cross walk, lighting, etc) 6) Other 7) No Response 11) What are some typical reasons for not walking, jogging, or running? 1) Other transportation is faster 2) Too busy/no opportunity 3) Lack of sidewalks or paths 4) Lack of safety/busy streets 5) Destination is too far 6) Lack of trails or other infrastructure connecting to desired destination 7) Other 8) No Response 12) Do you use a street, trail, or path in Show Low to access public transportation (Four Seasons Connection bus)? 1) Yes 2) No (if no, skip to question #16) 3) No Response 7) 9% 8) 15% 7) 7% 8) 20% 7) 9% 8) 16% 1) 2% 2) 94% 3) 4% 1) 27% 2) 60% 3) 13% 1) 7% 2) 87% 3) 6% 13) How frequently do you use a street, path or trail to access public transportation in Show Low? 1) Never. I do not ride the bus. 2) Twice a month 3) 1-2 days a week 4) 3-4 days a week 5) 5-6 days a week 6) Everyday 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7% 0% 2% 2% 0% 0% 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 33% 0% 13% 0% 7% 0 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 13% 0% 4% 1% 1% 0% 14) On average, what is the estimated distance of your trip on a street, path or trail to access public transportation in Show Low? 1) Never walk, run or jog 2) ¼ a mile or less 3) ¼ to ½ mile 4) ½ mile to 1 mile 5) 1-2 miles 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 4% 4% 0% 0% 0% 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 7% 0% 7% 0% 7% 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 4% 3% 1% 0% 1% 10 6% 11% 28% 19% 13% 41% 7% 27% 40% 13% 7% 13% 6% 14% 30% 17% 12% 35% Question 6) 2+ miles 15) For those of you who walk to public transportation stops, what do you perceive as the biggest facility needs? 1) Improve upon existing pedestrian facilities 2) Provide additional pedestrian facilities not in place today (sidewalks, bike lane, cross walk, lighting, etc.) 3) Enforce traffic laws 4) Create a better route 5) Bus shelters are not adequate 6) Improve access or bus stop for those with physical limitation or disabilities 7) Other 16) How frequently do you bicycle on local streets, paths, or trails in Show Low? 1) Never 2) Once a month 3) Twice a month 4) 1-2 days a week 5) 3-4 days a week 6) 5-6 days a week 7) Daily 8) No Response 17) How far on average would you estimate that you bicycle on paths or trails on a typical trip? 1) I do not bike. 2) 1 mile or less 3) 1-2 miles 4) 2-5 miles 5) 5-10 miles 6) 10+ miles 7) No Response 18) When bicycling, what types of facilities do you tend to use most frequently? 1) I do not bike 2) Shoulders of paved roads 3) Shared use pathway 4) Bike path, walking path or trail 5) Unpaved roads/trails 6) U.S. Forest Service roads/trails 7) Other 8) No Response 11 Survey Monkey 6) 2% May 4th Workshop 6) 13% 6) 4% 1) 0% 1) 13% 1) 3% 2) 7% 2) 13% 2) 6% 3) 4) 5) 6) 3) 4) 5) 6) 3) 4) 5) 6) 2% 4% 2% 2% 7% 7% 13% 0% Total 3% 4% 4% 1% 7) 2% 7) 0% 7) 1% 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) 44% 19% 9% 13% 13% 2% 0% 0% 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) 33% 0% 0% 33% 13% 7% 0% 20% 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) 42% 14% 7% 17% 13% 3% 0% 4% 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 44% 4% 6% 11% 15% 20% 0% 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 27% 0% 7% 20% 27% 0% 6% 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 41% 3% 6% 13% 17% 16% 4% 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) 44% 39% 15% 22% 17% 17% 2% 0% 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) 33% 33% 13% 13% 13% 33% 0% 13% 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) 42% 38% 14% 20% 16% 20% 1% 3% Question 19) Which of the following best characterizes your bicycling tendencies? 1) I do no bike 2) I only ride my bike in my neighborhood or on local streets with little traffic 3) I will bicycle outside my neighborhood on off street pathways 4) I am comfortable riding my bicycle in the roadway alongside vehicles if the shoulder is wide enough 5) I am an experienced bicyclist and am willing to ride just about anywhere. 6) Other 7) No Response 20) What is the typical purpose of your bicycle trip on a street, trail or path in Show Low? 1) I do not bike 2) School 3) Errands/shopping 4) Work 5) Training 6) Recreation/Exercise 7) Visit a friend/relative 21) For those who bicycle to school (or would bike to school), what are the biggest needs to improve / encourage walking to school? 1) I will not bike to school 2) Increase road shoulder or bike lane width 3) Provide additional facilities not in place today (sidewalks, bike lanes, cross walks, lighting, etc) 4) Enforcing traffic laws 5) Other 6) No Response 22) What are some typical reasons for not bicycling? 1) Not interested in bicycling 2) Other transportation is faster 3) Too busy/no opportunity 4) Lack of sidewalks or paths 5) Lack of safety/busy streets 6) Destination is too far 7) Winter conditions 8) Other 12 Survey Monkey May 4th Workshop 1) 46% 2) 20% 1) 27% 2) 47% 1) 42% 2) 26% 3) 4% 3) 0% 3) 3% 4) 13% 4) 7% 4) 12% 5) 17% 5) 20% 5) 17% 6) 2% 7) 0% 6) 0% 7) 13% 6) 1% 7) 3% 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 44% 0% 2% 2% 2% 50% 0% 27% 0% 13% 7% 0% 60% 0% Total 41% 0% 4% 3% 1% 52% 0% 1) 26% 2) 2% 1) 27% 2) 7% 3) 17% 3) 7% 4) 2% 5) 2% 6) 54% 4) 0% 5) 0% 6) 67% 3) 4) 5) 6) 14% 1% 1% 57% 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) 17% 6% 16% 23% 14% 4% 26% 6% 15% 6% 13% 26% 19% 6% 31% 6% 27% 7% 27% 13% 0% 0% 7% 7% 1) 26% 2) 3% Question 9) No Response 23) Which of the following best represents the type of pedestrian and bicycle facility improvements you would like to see in Show Low? 1) Construct more sidewalks near commercial or activity centers. 2) Construct more sidewalks in residential neighborhoods. 3) Construct shared use paths along county roadways. 4) Stripe bicycle lanes on county roadways. 5) Increase bicycle lane or shoulder width of existing county roadways. 6) Develop a series of cross-country skiing trails 7) Develop/expand a system of off-street pathways. 8) Sweep shoulder or bike lane. 9) Step up enforcement of motorist laws 10) Other 11) No Response 2.3 Survey Monkey 9) 13% May 4th Workshop 9) 40% 9) 19% 1) 28% 1) 53% 1) 33% 2) 20% 2) 33% 2) 23% 3) 28% 3) 20% 3) 26% 4) 33% 4) 27% 4) 32% 5) 30% 5) 27% 5) 29% 6) 20% 6) 27% 6) 22% 7) 8) 9) 10) 11) 7) 8) 9) 10) 11) 7) 8) 9) 10) 11) 63% 24% 13% 7% 0% 20% 20% 0% 0% 27% Total 54% 23% 10% 6% 6% Notable Trails Survey Observations & Findings In the review and analysis of the trail survey findings, there are some notable observations worth identifying in greater detail. These include: 1) Male and female responses were divided equally at roughly 50% each. 2) 80% of all responders were between the ages of 41-60+. Of those 42% were ages 60+. 3) 77% of responders have lived in Show Low for at least 5 years. Of those, 22% have lived in Show Low for 15 years or longer. 4) The primary purpose for using trails in Show Low includes the following breakdown below. 13 Show Low Residents Trail Habits Walking Biking Hiking Other 10% 15% 84% 25% FIGURE 2 Resident Trail Usage Habits 5) 58% of respondents indicated that they walk, jog or run in Show, 30% in county areas, 20% in Pinetop/Lakeside and 6% on USFS trails. 6) Roughly 1/3 of respondents said they use trails 1-2 days per week and a slightly higher percentage (38%) use trails 3-4 days per week. 7) The vast majority of respondents said the average length of a typical trail trip is 2+ miles. This well exceeds findings of a national survey that suggest the majority of pedestrian trips are ¼ mile or less with one mile generally being the limit of most pedestrian trips. 8) Beyond existing walking path or bike path, paved shoulders and USFS trails were the most frequently used trail facilities. 9) The vast majority of responders (83%) said the typical purpose of their trail use is for recreation or exercise purposes. 10) 65% of respondents said the reason that they do not walk, jog or run in Show is the lack of available trail infrastructure or lack of connection to their destination. 11) Very few responses utilize paths or trails to access public transit. Of those who did, the largest response suggested that additional facilities are needed. 14 12) Approximately 1/3 of bicycle users responded said that they bicycle 1-4 days per week. Over 1/3 of all responders said they never bicycle on local streets, paths or trails. 13) Of those responders who bike, 1/3 estimated that they ride for 5-10+ miles on a typical bicycle trip. 14) Of the responders who bike, 38% said the facilities they utilize most are the shoulders of paved roads. 20% use a bike path, walking path or trail. 15) The overwhelming majoring of responders who bike said that recreation/exercise is the typical purpose of their typical bike trip. 3% of bike users said they use their bike to get to and from work. 16) When asked the typical reasons for not bicycling in Show Low, the two most frequent responses cited a lack of existing sidewalks and paths and winter conditions. 17) The types of facilities survey responders would most like to see include an expanded system of off street pathways, constructing more sidewalks near commercial/activity centers and striping of bicycle lanes on county roadways. 2.4 FSC and WMC On-Board Ridership Survey Beginning April 26th through May 10th, an on-board ridership survey was administered to FSC and WMC passengers willing to complete the survey form. Survey forms were developed by the project team and were administered on each of the three operating buses – one for the FSC Show Low route, one for the FSC Pinetop-Lakeside route and one for the WMC route. A total of 107 transit surveys were completed. In addition, another 15 surveys were completed by transit users at the Roving Mobile Workshop. The survey questions focused on demographics, customer satisfaction, ridership patterns, concerns and suggestions for improvement. A copy of the survey and the actual responses can be found in Appendices B and C. A summary of the on-board ridership findings can be found in Table 2: FSC and WMC On-Board Ridership Survey Responses Summary. 15 Table 2: FSC and WMC On-Board Ridership Survey Responses Summary FSC May 4th Question WMC On-Board On-Board Workshop 1) What is the purpose of your trip today? 1) Work 1) 51% 1) 67% 1) 20% 2) School 2) 9 % 2) 17% 2) 7% 3) Shopping 3) 34% 3) 3% 3) 22% 4) Medical 4) 17% 4) 8% 4) 7% 5) Recreation 5) 11% 5) 3% 5) 33% 6) Other 6) 11% 6) 6% 6) 27% 7) No Response 7) 1% 7) 3% 7) 7% 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 52% 11% 27% 14% 11% 11% 2% 2) What is your current employment status? (check all that apply) 1) Full-time 2) Part-time 3) Student 4) Retired 5) Unemployed 6) Disabled 7) Work at home 8) Part-time student 9) No response 3) How did you get to the bus today? 1) Walk 2) Drove a car 3) Got a ride 4) Bicycle 5) Bus 6) Other 7) No Response 4) Where did your current trip start today? 1) Home 2) Work 3) School 4) Other 5) No Response Total 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) 9) 34% 21% 6% 9% 18% 18% 3% 1% 1% 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) 9) 64% 8% 11% 0% 8% 6% 0% 0% 3% 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) 9) 33% 20% 7% 7% 20% 20% 13% 0% 0% 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) 9) 43% 17% 7% 6% 16% 15% 3% 1% 2% 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 83% 0% 7% 6% 7% 1% 0% 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 14% 56% 19% 0% 0% 11% 3% 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 80% 0% 0% 0% 7% 13% 0% 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 62% 16% 10% 2% 5% 6% 1% 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 82% 6% 0% 13% 1% 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 72% 0% 6% 17% 3% 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 73% 20% 0% 7% 0% 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 78% 6% 2% 9% 3% 16 Question 5) Do you have a vehicle that you could have used for this trip today? 1) Yes 2) No 3) No Response If you answered “Yes,” why do you use public transportation? (check all that apply) 1) Unreliable car 2) Bus is faster than driving 3) Parking is hard to find 4) I care about the environment 5) High gas prices 6) Don’t like driving 7) No driver’s license 8) Other Please rate the current bus fare for each service. 6) Four Seasons Connection 1) Too High 2) Fair 3) No Response White Mountain Connection 1) Too High 2) Fair 3) No Response 7) Do you feel that there is a need for more public transportation in the Show Low/Pinetop-Lakeside community? 1) Yes 2) No 3) No Response FSC On-Board WMC On-Board May 4th Workshop Total 1) 15% 2) 85% 3) 0% 1) 2) 3) 67% 25% 8% 1) 27% 2) 67% 3) 7% 1) 31% 2) 65% 3) 3% 1) 2) 3) 4) 10% 6% 3% 4% 1) 2) 3) 4) 14% 6% 3% 28% 1) 2) 3) 4) 7% 7% 0% 13% 1) 2) 3) 4) 10% 6% 2% 12% 5) 6) 7) 8) 17% 6% 16% 3% 5) 6) 7) 8) 72% 17% 14% 19% 5) 6) 7) 8) 7% 0% 7% 0% 5) 6) 7) 8) 32% 8% 14% 7% 1) 11% 2) 85% 3) 3% 1) 0% 2) 94% 3) 6% 1) 7% 2) 87% 3) 7% 1) 7% 2) 88% 3) 4% 1) 27% 2) 66% 3) 14% 1) 6% 2) 92% 3) 3% 1) 20% 2) 67% 3) 13% 1) 16% 2) 71% 3) 11% 1) 66% 2) 24% 3) 10% 1) 58% 2) 25% 3) 19% 1) 47% 2) 27% 3) 27% 1) 61% 2) 25% 3) 16% 8) Which days do you use the 17 Question FSC On-Board WMC On-Board May 4th Workshop Total current transit system? (check all that apply) 1) Monday 2) Tuesday 3) Wednesday 4) Thursday 5) Friday 6) Saturday 7) No Response 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 80% 89% 86% 89% 87% 79% 4% 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 97% 92% 92% 92% 92% 22% 3% 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 60% 60% 67% 67% 67% 80% 20% 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 83% 86% 85% 87% 86% 62% 6% 9) What part of the day do you normally ride the bus? 1) Morning 2) Midday 3) Afternoon 4) No Response 1) 2) 3) 4) 82% 39% 69% 1% 1) 2) 3) 4) 86% 33% 78% 0% 1) 2) 3) 4) 53% 53% 53% 20% 1) 2) 3) 4) 80% 39% 70% 3% Gender 1) Male 2) Female 3) No Response Age 1) Under 21 2) 21 to 39 3) 40 to 64 4) 65+ 5) No Response Race 1) Caucasian 2) African-American 3) Native American 4) Hispanic 5) No Response Household Income 1) Under $30,000 2) $30,000 to $75,000 3) Over $75,000 4) No Response 1) 56% 2) 37% 3) 7% 1) 56% 2) 36% 3) 8% 1) 53% 2) 27% 3) 20% 1) 56% 2) 35% 3) 9% 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 3% 30% 52% 8% 6% 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 11% 28% 47% 6% 8% 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 7% 27% 40% 7% 20% 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6% 29% 49% 7% 8% 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 59% 1% 28% 7% 10% 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 75% 0% 8% 8% 8% 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 53% 0% 13% 20% 20% 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 63% 1% 21% 9% 11% 1) 2) 3) 4) 83% 10% 0% 13% 1) 2) 3) 4) 53% 42% 3% 14% 1) 2) 3) 4) 67% 0% 0% 33% 1) 2) 3) 4) 64% 18% 1% 16% 18 Table 3 shows the total number of responses received for each of the transit survey methods used. Table 3: Transit Survey Responses Received Survey Method Number of Survey Responses Received FSC On-Board 71 WMC On-Board 36 Roving Workshop 15 TOTAL 122 2.5 Notable Transit Survey Observations & Findings In the review and analysis of the transit survey findings, there are some notable observations worth evaluating in greater detail. These include: 1) Nearly 2/3 of all WMC riders use transit for work as compared to the one-half of FSC riders who utilize the transit for work. 2) Over 2/3 of WMC riders are employed full time compared to the 1/3 of riders on FSC who are employed full time. 3) In total 16% of the all riders surveyed are unemployed, 15% are disabled and 7% are students. 4) Nearly 2/3 of all respondents said they walked or rode their bikes to get to the bus. This high percentage of riders reinforces the need to evaluate and develop suitable trails/paths connection to transit stops in Show Low. 5) Nearly 2/3 of all transit riders do not have a vehicle that could have been used instead of the bus. 6) High gas prices were cited the most frequent response (32) when asked why they used public transit. The second most frequent reason was that they did not like to drive (14%). 7) An overwhelming majority of FSC riders (85%) and WSC riders (94%) surveyed felt that the current fare was “fair”. Only 7% felt that it was “too high”. Comparing, 71% of WMC riders felt that current fare was “fair” and 16% (over twice as many than the FSC) felt that the fare was too high. 19 8) Nearly 2/3 of all responders said there is a need for more public transit in Show Low and Pinetop-Lakeside. 9) On average, over 90% of the responders said that they use Monday-Friday daily service. This statistic was consistent for both FSC and WMC connection riders. Interestingly, 79% of FSC riders use the service on Saturdays compared to only 22% of WMC riders who utilize transit on Saturdays. 10) The vast majority of all riders ride the bus in the morning and afternoon but not midday. This fact is a direct correlation to the high number of riders who utilize the transit service for work purposes. 11) 56% of both FSC and WMC riders are male. Roughly 36% are female. 12) The majority of all transit users are between the ages of 40 and 64. 7% of all riders are over 65 years old and 6% of all riders are under 21 years old. 13) Nearly 2/3 of all riders are Caucasian. Just over 1/5 of all riders are Native American. 14) The majority of all riders have a household income of less than $30,000. 42% of WMC riders have a household income of $30,000 to $75,000 as compared to the 10% of FSC in the same income category. 15) When asked to provide additional comments on the current transit system (Question #10), the following themes that tended to be expressed the most: Driver Courtesy 15% 38% 27% Should Run Later Too Many Delays 20% Should Run on Sunday FIGURE 3 Transit Rider Additional Comments When referring to driver courtesy, the majority of respondents indicated that drivers were courteous and respectful. Three respondents suggested that the drivers were not courteous. Complaints about delays were the second largest topic noted. Requests to expand the schedule to run later in the day and to consider Sunday service were also expressly voiced. 20 3. Study Area Characteristics & Existing Conditions The Project Study Area includes a dual focus. The trails component of the study area includes a close examination of the potential for interconnections between existing and planned trails, existing and planned transit system stops, key activity centers and residential neighborhoods in the City of Show Low. The transit component is the “second” study area and will evaluate the extents of the current routes and service areas and operational efficiency and effectiveness of the Four Seasons Connection (FSC) and White Mountain Connection (WMC). These transit service areas include the communities of Show Low, Pinetop-Lakeside, Snowflake, Taylor, Holbrook and the White Mountain Apache Tribe. Please refer to Figure 4: Project Study Area Map for additional reference. These dual study areas work in tandem to define an opportunity to improve and integrate trails and transit into an overall circulation concept plan. This approach then will help to facilitate alternate modes of transportation, improve multimodal inter-connectivity, and address critical pedestrian safety and mobility concerns throughout the study area. 21 FIGURE 4 Project Study Area Map *Show Low municipal boundary as of December 2011 22 3.1 Show Low Community Setting The City of Show Low is located in southern Navajo County and lies on the Mogollon Rim in east central Arizona. Show Low sits at an elevation of approximately 6,412 feet. Show Low is located approximately 175 miles from Phoenix and Tucson and 135 miles from Flagstaff. The city was established in 1870 and incorporated in 1953. The principal highways serving Show Low include US 60 (Deuce of Clubs), State Route 260 (White Mountain Road) and State Route 77. According to the 2010 United States Census, the year-round population of Show Low is 10,660 with a seasonally adjusted estimate (summer time) of approximately 30,000 - 40,000. Show Low has approximately 35.7 square miles within the incorporated limits. The history of how Show Low was settled is one of the more unique stories in Arizona. There are many variations of “how the story goes”, but the following is a paraphrased historical account of events provided by the Show Low Historical Museum. Marion Clark and Corydon Cooley are believed to have been the earliest non-Indian settlers in Show Low. In 1869, Cooley, a military veteran and Army Scout, arrived in search of the fabled “Doc Thorn” mine. Rumored to lie somewhere in the wilds of the White Mountains. He was accompanied by A.F. Banta and Henry Wood Dodd. They never located the missing mine, but Cooley found the environment so inviting that he decided to put down roots. By 1873, Cooley and Clark became partners. The two men decided to part ways and dissolve their partnership by playing a game of “Seven-Up” to see which of them would keep the ranch. It is told that as the night wore on, Clark said, “If you can show low, you take the ranch.” Then as Cooley turned over the lowest card of that game, he cried, “Show Low it is!” Thus a legend began. A century later the main street in town would be called the “Deuce of Clubs” in honor of the legend. A year-round comfortable climate and natural beauty of forests, lakes, wildlife and vegetation attract residents and visitors to Show Low and the White Mountains. The surrounding Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest, Fool Hollow Lake Recreation Area, Show Low Lake and the White Mountain Apache Reservation provide numerous recreation opportunities and a scenic backdrop that together define Show Low's distinctive rugged, rural character. 23 Today, Show Low is the employment, commercial retail and recreation hub of the White Mountains. Show Low has an extensive trade area across the east-central portion of the State, including portions of Apache County. Residents in rural Navajo and Apache Counties travel many miles to Show Low for medical, government, commercial retail and entertainment services. Show Low’s major economic influences are tourism and provision of regional medical and commercial services. The City has no property tax, no bed tax and the sales tax rate is among the lowest in Arizona. Major employers in Show Low include Summit Healthcare Regional Medical Center, the State of Arizona, Northland Pioneer College, Show Low Unified School District, Walmart and other public and private institutions. 3.2 Land Ownership The 35 square miles of land within the City of Show Low municipal limits is comprised of three (3) primary ownership categories identified in Table 4 below. Table 4: Show Low Land Ownership Composition Ownership Type Land Area Private Land 19.76 Square Miles United States Forest Service - Apache-Sitgreaves National 15.47 Square Miles Forest Arizona Game and Fish TOTAL 0.46 Square Miles Percentage of Total 55% 44% 1% 35.69 Square Miles As Table 4 indicates, approximately 20 square miles, or 55% of the land within the City of Show Low is owned by private ownership interests. Roughly 15.5 square miles, or 44% of the land in Show Low is held in federal trust managed by the USFS within the Apache-Sitgreaves National 24 Forests. The Arizona Game and Fish Department owns approximately 294 acres of land along Show Low Creek near Fool Hollow Recreation Area. Lands suited for exchange by the United States Forest Service (USFS) will continue to play a major role in Show Low’s supply of developable land. In fact, the Show Low General Plan identifies the majority of the existing USFS land south and west of Sierra Pines and Torreon as future residential development area. Much of the forest lands will likely be maintained in perpetuity; however, tactical releases of Forest Service lands for development can complement, rather than threaten, the City’s managed growth, recreation and trails planning efforts. Please refer to Figure 5: Show Low Land Ownership for additional reference. 25 FIGURE 5 Show Low Land Ownership *Show Low municipal boundary as of December 2011 Source: Show Low GIS 26 3.3 Land Use The transit, pedestrian and biking needs of Show Low is directly tied to the composition and comprehension of existing and planned land uses. It is therefore important to understand the existing and planned land uses in Show Low because the type, size, density and location of all land uses has a direct impact on defining the mobility needs and demands of the overall study area. 3.3 (A) Existing Land Uses The 35 square miles currently within the municipal limits is partially reflective of a 40+% growth in land area through the annexation process since 1999. Roughly 75% of the incorporated area is vacant, including 15.5 square miles under U.S. Forest Service management. From 2003 to 2007, the City of Show Low was averaging approximately 300 building permits per year for new single family homes. This feverish pace of growth has cooled during the economic slowdown of 2008-2012, but is expected to be on the uptick again for the next several years. As the US Census figures for seasonal population fluctuation for Show Low suggest, there are many second ownership homes in the city. The Show Low General Plan identifies the following breakdown of existing land uses within the Show Low City Limits: Table 5: Existing Show Low Land Uses Existing LAND USE BREAKDOWN in acres Type Developed Vacant Residential 4,596 5,722 Commercial 637 894 Industrial 628 902 Recreation* 490 12,165 TOTALS 6,351 19,683 Source: City of Show Low General Plan 27 Total 10,318 1,531 1,530 12,655 26,034 3.3 (B) Residential Land Uses As Table 5 indicates, single family residential housing is the predominant land use in Show Low. There are over 3,800 households in Show Low that include a diverse housing stock of older and newer residential units. Communities within the western portion of the city include the newer master planned communities of Torreon, Bison Ridge, and Bison Crossing. These master plans are complimented by the more established communities of Show Low Country Club and Park Valley. The Venture Inn mobile home community is also located in this area off SR 260 (Clark Road). Vehicular access to the various residential communities in Show Low are primarily from US 60 (Deuce of Clubs) and SR 260 (White Mountain Road) and a handful of collector roads that include Old Linden Road, 16th Avenue, Sierra Pines Drive, Central/Woolford Road and Show Low Lake Road. This central area of Show Low is primarily served by a series of north-south collector roadways that include Central Avenue/Woolford Avenue, 4th Avenue and 16th Avenue. Significant eastwest collector roadways include Old Linden Road, McNeil Street, Cooley Street and Whipple Street south of the downtown area. The majority of the most mature housing stock is located in the original settlement area near the downtown as well as north of the Deuce of Clubs, south of Old Linden Road. In addition to the more established neighborhoods of Navajo Pines, Central Park Estates (and other residential communities without formal names) newer planned communities such as Sierra Pines, Snow Creek, Pine Vista Estates, and others are currently growing or soon will be. The single family residential communities in this central Show Low area are also home to a variety of higher density apartment complexes and mobile home parks scattered throughout the area. Cooley Street and McNeil Street between Central Avenue and 16 th Street are some of the more densely populated areas that are home to the Show Low Apartments, Ponderosa Pine 28 Apartments, Timber Creek Apartments and a handful of mobile home and trailer parks. A KOA campground also exists on 16th Avenue between Old Linden Road and McNeil Street. The eastern region of the City of Show Low is generally referred to as “the bluff” due to the geological “bench” that sits above the Show Low Creek area. The bluff area is characterized by a pinion-juniper “high desert” landscape motif as compared to the Ponderosa Pine areas that dominate the other areas of Show Low. This area is accessed off Penrod Road south of the Deuce of Clubs. Aptly named, Show Low Bluffs is a large master planned community that currently is home to a sparse number of existing homes but is planned for many housing units as well as supporting commercial and employment uses. Figure 6: Show Low Planned Communities illustrates the location of the various planned communities in Show Low as found in the Show Low General Plan. 29 FIGURE 6 Show Low Planned Communities *Show Low municipal boundary as of December 2011 Source: Show Low General Plan 3.3 (C) Commercial & Employment Uses Show Low is without question the commercial and employment hub of the White Mountains. As previously noted, Navajo and Apache County residents travel up to 75 miles one way to Show Low for medical, education, retail and community service needs. Figure 7: Show Low Trade Area illustrates the draw of Show Low’s employment and commercial trade area in the region. 30 FIGURE 7 Show Low Trade Area Source: City of Show Low One of the defining characteristics of Show Low is the prevalence of the Deuce of Clubs (US 60) and White Mountain Road (SR 260). The highway facilities define the vehicular transportation backbone of the community and serve as the “front door” to many employment, community service and retail shopping opportunities in Show Low. The Deuce of Clubs serves as the “gateway” to Show Low and is the principal transportation artery through the city. The Deuce of Clubs provides access to a wide variety of commercial services that include multiple hotels, restaurants, commercial retail such as Safeway, K-Mart, car dealerships, the Show Low City Park and Aquatic Center. Government, education and community services such as the US Post Office, Northland Pioneer College (NPC) and ADOT MVD are located on the Deuce of Clubs. The Deuce of Clubs also extends to the east side of Show Low, providing access to a wide variety of employment and industrial land uses as well as the Show Low Airport. The intersection of the Deuce of Clubs (US 60) and White Mountain Road (SR 260) defines the heart of Show Low. The downtown is immediately south and west of the intersection and many local small businesses in the downtown area. The downtown is anchored by the Church of Jesus 31 Christ of Latter Day Saints church. Show Low City Hall and the Show Low Library and other community service businesses and eateries are located in the downtown area. As White Mountain Road heads south, professional offices, automobile sales and the Hampton Inn hotel define the area around the beauty of the Show Low Meadow and Show Low Creek. Continuing south, the largest concentration of employment and commercial retail uses are located at the prominent intersection of White Mountain Road and Show Low Lake Road. This intersection is home to Show Low’s two largest employers; Summit Healthcare Regional Medical Center and the Walmart Supercenter. The Home Depot and Lowe’s home improvement warehouses are located across the street from each other just south of the Show Low Lake Road and White Mountain Road intersection. Table 6: Largest Show Low Employers Top Show Low Employers - 2012 Employer # of Employees Summit Healthcare Regional Medical Center 841 Walmart 490 Navajo County 370 Show Low Unified School District 300 Cellular One 187 Home Depot 150 Frontier Communications 125 City of Show Low 150 Northland Pioneer College 110 Lowe’s 108 Tate’s Automotive 70 JC Penney 52 Safeway 40 Hatch Toyota 40 Cable One 37 Show Low Ford 35 Forest Energy Corporation 32 Source: City of Show Low Additional information on Show Low area employers and employees is discussed in the Demographic and Socioeconomic Overview in Section IV. 32 3.4 Education Northland Pioneer College Northland Pioneer College (NPC) first opened to students in the fall of 1974 after fifteen years of effort by several hundred Navajo County residents to secure establishment of the school. Today the college serves over 13,000 students annually in both Navajo and Apache Counties. Campuses are located in four of the largest Navajo County communities: Holbrook, Show Low, Snowflake/Taylor, and Winslow. Five convenient centers are located in Hopi, Kayenta, Springerville/Eagar, St. Johns, and Whiteriver. Additional educational sites are established as need and opportunities arise. The District Office, an administrative facility, is located in Holbrook. NPC offers a wide variety of courses as students can earn Associate Degrees in Arts in Elementary Education, Business, Science, Applied Sciences and four different degrees in the field of early child development. NPC also offers a variety of short training courses and on-line classes to supplement its course offerings. There are currently over 3,900 undergraduate students enrolled at NPC. Of these students, 22% are full time and 78% are part time students with 61% of the students being age 24 or younger. 33 Show Low Public School District The Show Low Public School District operates two elementary schools, one junior high school and one high school in Show Low. One additional elementary school is located in the unincorporated county area of Linden. Show Low High School The school is located at 1201 N. Cougar Lane in Show Low. Show Low High School has a current enrollment of 800 students. In our inquiry with school staff, no known safety concerns were identified by staff. Show Low Jr. High School The school is located at 500 W. Old Linden Rd., directly adjacent to Show Low High School. The school has a current enrollment of 588 students in grades 7 and 8. No safety concerns were identified by staff noting that a crossing guard stands on crosswalk duty in the morning and afternoons. Whipple Ranch Elementary Whipple Ranch Elementary is located 1350 N. Central Ave and has a current enrollment of 460 students. No known safety concerns were identified by staff. Nikolaus Homestead Elementary Nikolaus Homestead Elementary is located at 761 E. McNeil in Show Low. The current student enrollment is approximately 400. No known safety concerns were identified by staff. 34 3.5 Recreation & Open Space Amenities Show Low and the White Mountains offer an abundance of year-round outdoor recreation opportunities for residents and visitors alike. The most notable facilities are described below. Fool Hollow Lake Recreation Area Located on the city’s northern border, this state-of-the-art recreation area is a favorite for residents and visitors alike. Fool Hollow Lake is located in the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests. The facility opened in 1994 as a result of an innovative partnership between the U.S. Forest Service, Arizona State Parks, Arizona Game and Fish, the City of Show Low, and corporate sponsors Arizona Public Service and McCarty Construction Company. The Fool Hollow Lake Recreation Area is an 850 acre outdoor recreation mecca offering year round camping, fishing, picnicking, 5 day-use ramadas that can be used for various events, boating and wildlife viewing opportunities. Fool Hollow is centrally located in Show Low off Old Linden Road. The 149-acre lake sets the stunning setting for this popular recreation area located in the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest. Fool Hollow is operated by Arizona State Parks. Camping facilities include 92 electric hook up sites and 31 developed tent sites, five shower buildings with rest room facilities, two handicapped fishing piers and a contact station. 35 Show Low Lake Show Low Lake is a popular fishing lake and campground located on Show Low Lake Road approximately 1 mile east of White Mountain Road near Show Low’s southern border. The lake is approximately 100 acres in size, stocked with various species of fish year round and is in convenient proximity to Show Low and Pinetop-Lakeside residents. The lake has a boat ramp with a restroom nearby. There’s a year-round concession fishing and boating equipment with a campground that has 75 sites. The lake is operated by Recreation Resource Management under contract with the City of Show Low jointly administered by the Arizona Game and Fish Department. 3.6 Trails There are an abundance of trail opportunities in Show Low and the surrounding White Mountains area. As previously noted, there are over 60 miles of existing trails and a total of 130+ miles of trails planned for the Show Low area. The below offers a brief introduction of the trails in the Show Low area. Section VI, “Existing and Future Conditions: Trails”, provides a more in depth introduction and description of the various trails in and around Show Low. 36 3.7 Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests, administered as one national forest, encompass over two million acres of magnificent mountain country in east-central Arizona. The Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests are truly an oasis from the heat and concrete of southwestern cities in the summer and a snow-season paradise during the winter. Spectacular vistas from the Mogollon Rim and fragrant pine forests with an abundance of wildlife lure more visitors each year. Fishing, camping, hiking, hunting, and photography are just a few of the most popular summertime activities. In the winter there are unlimited opportunities for cross-country skiing, snowshoeing, snowmobiling, and ice fishing. The Sitgreaves National Forest was named for Captain Lorenzo Sitgreaves, a government topographical engineer who conducted the first scientific expedition across Arizona in the early 1850’s. The Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests offer almost 1,000 miles of trails across a variety of terrain. These trails are built to different standards depending upon the intended user and the difficulty level. There are numerous opportunities for horseback riding, mountain biking, and hiking. Trails within the wilderness and primitive areas are designed for hikers and horses. Trails outside these areas can include a broad spectrum of users. The forest contains four National Recreation Trails: Eagle, Blue Ridge, Escudilla, and General George Crook, all of which provide beautiful vistas, varying physical challenges, and several opportunities for the enjoyment of historic interpretation. Additionally, many of the forest trails are part of the White Mountain Trail System which is managed in partnership with the PinetopLakeside TRACKS volunteers. There are over 200,000 acres of wilderness and primitive areas in the Apache-Sitgreaves. Travel is restricted to foot or horseback and mechanized equipment is prohibited. Wildlife abounds in the forest. According to the USFS, there are over 411 species of fish and wildlife ranging from big game like elk, deer, and antelope to smaller species such as squirrels, chipmunks, and a variety of birds. There are opportunities throughout the forest for the casual observer, photographer, or hunter. The Apache-Sitgreaves contains over 450 miles of fishable streams and approximately 2,000 surface acres of cold water lake habitat. The City of Show Low contains 15 square miles of the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests within its city limits. The two most prominent forest service trails in proximity to the City of Show Low are the Buena Vista Trail and the Los Caballos Trail. The Los Caballos Trail #638 is located near the northern border of the City of Show Low. The trail head is located about .6 miles off Clark Road (SR 260) on Joe Tank Road. The Los Caballos Trail is a 15.5 mile loop offering hiking biking and equestrian uses. It is a level of difficult. The Los Caballos 37 Trail is relatively flat, except for a few short, steep grades. The majority of the trail follows old logging roads as it winds along Joe Tank Ridge and through Bagnal Draw. Since the RodeoChedeski fire that impacted portions of this trail, the Los Caballos Trail offers an interesting look at the ecology that follows a forest fire. The Buena Vista Trail #637 is located at the southern and western borders of the Show Low City limits. It is a 10 mile loop of moderate difficulty. Hiking, biking and equestrian uses are permitted. The Buena Vista Trail can be accessed from a trailhead near the Summer Pines subdivision about 1.5 miles outside of Show Low on US 60 TO FR 300. The trailhead is on the left. The Buena Vista Trail and can also be accessed more informally from Flores Drive off Cub Lake Road near the southern Show Low municipal limits. 38 The Chihuahua Pine Connector #638A is a 4.2 mile trail with a level of difficult. This trail provides a connection between the Buena Vista Trail and the Los Caballos Trail just south and west of the Show Low city limits within the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest. There is an underpass under US 60 that provides the connection across the highway. 3.8 Show Low City Park & Aquatic Center Located at the northeast corner of the intersection of US 60 and SR 360, the Show Low City Park is a large regional park complex that has senior and junior sized baseball fields, basketball courts, children’s playground, day use armadas, picnicking, and a shared use path that circles the entire park. The Show Low City Park is very popular and hosts a variety of summertime concerts in the park and various other community events throughout the year. Directly east of the Show Low City Park is the Show Low Family Aquatic Center was constructed in 1994 and is owned and operated by the City of Show Low. The facility is open to the general public. The Aquatic Center includes a 6-lane 25-yard pool with an adjoining leisure pool featuring a zero-depth entry, water slide and spray fountain. An indoor spa helps to make the Aquatic Center a facility that can be enjoyed by all ages. 3.9 Golf There are three 18-hole regulation golf courses within the city of Show Low and a total of five 18hole golf courses within a 15 mile radius of Show Low. The Bison Golf and Country Club (formerly known as Show Low Country Club) is an 18-hole semi-private course designed by former ASU star Billy Mayfair. The course is conveniently located off Old Linden Road at the gateway of the Show Low Country Club subdivision. 39 The Torreon master planned community boasts two 18-hole championship courses designed by the internationally acclaimed golf course architect Robert Von Hagge. The Tower and Cabin courses offer breathtaking golf experience for golfers of all levels on these semi-private courses. 3.10 Winter Sports Downhill skiing at Sunrise Park Ski Area, located on the White Mountain Apache Reservation is just a short 30 minute drive from Show Low. Sunrise Park Ski Area offers 65 trails on three mountains. The choices are geared to beginners, intermediates and pros. Double, triple and quad chair lifts and rope tows shuttle 15,000 skiers per hour. Depending upon snowfall, the season extends from mid-November to early April. Outdoor winter sports such as cross-country skiing, snowshoeing and snowmobiling opportunities abound in the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests. Though no facilities are in close proximity to Show Low, the Alpine Ranger District including the Hannagan Meadow Recreation Area and Williams Valley Recreation Area offer many winter trail activities. The Black Mesa Ranger District also offers many snowmobiling trails. 3.11 Future Land Use In support of advancing viable transit expansion and trails opportunities not only must there be a detailed analysis of the existing land uses within the study area, but a clear understanding of how the community is envisioned to grow is necessary. Therefore, in addition to reviewing existing development patterns, a review of the City of Show Low Land Use Plan and Zoning Map was also conducted. Please see Figure 8: Show Low General Plan Development Plan, and Figure 9: Show Low Zoning Districts for further reference. 40 FIGURE 8 Show Low Development Plan *Show Low municipal boundary as of December 2011 Source: Show Low General Plan 41 FIGURE 9 Show Low Zoning District *Show Low municipal boundary as of December 2011 Source: Show Low GIS 42 Show Low’s General Plan was completed in 2007 and serves as the blueprint policy document for guiding and implementing the city’s stated goals and objectives for future growth. The Show Low General Plan clearly notes: “The General Plan expresses governmental policy regarding the jurisdiction's present and future physical development Its text expresses the basic principles that guide growth while preserving Show Low's assets that include distinctive community character, spaciousness and the heritage of Arizona's White Mountains”. Figure 8, Show Low Development Plan is taken from the Show Low General Plan and identifies the future proposed land use categories for Show Low. Expectantly, the Development Plan largely designates large swaths of areas designated for master planned community and residential uses. The commercial and employment areas are situated along the US 60 and SR 260 highway corridors. Open space uses are identified to support the residential uses. It is worth noting that much of the existing USFS lands located in the southwest portions of the city limits are identified for future residential uses. These future growth areas will require the coordination and timely construction of infrastructure provisions, including motorized and preservation of non-motorized trails and open spaces is needed to adequately service these areas. 3.12 Existing Vehicular Traffic Patterns in Show Low As a regional commercial and employment hub for the White Mountains, an efficient and safe circulation network is essential to strong community planning. Figure 10: Existing and Proposed Show Low Circulation is taken from the Show Low General Plan. Figure 10 illustrates a hierarchy of streets in Show Low and proposed future connections. 43 FIGURE 10 Existing and Proposed Show Low Circulation *Show Low municipal boundary as of December 2011 Source: Show Low General Plan Table 7 and Table 8 below identify the frequency of existing vehicular traffic on Show Low’s most traveled roadways. The City of Show Low performs traffic count studies once a year for the last several years on their local, collector and arterial roadways. ADOT routinely (typically once per year) conducts traffic counts on the highway facilities they operate. The most recent traffic counts identified in Table 7 and Table 8 are for 2012. Analysis of the average daily trips (ADT) for each roadway will be important information for the future evaluation, identification and prioritization of future non-motorized mobility needs, facility types, safety concerns, and design considerations. Existing and future traffic patterns will also influence the evaluation of existing and future proposed transit routes and stop locations. 44 Table 7: 2012 Average Daily Vehicle Trips, State Highways in Show Low 2012 Average Daily Trips Roadway Studied (ADT's) th SR 260 (Clark Road) @ 30 Avenue, MP 337.16 9,548 US 60, (between Sierra Pines Drive and the US 60/SR 260 intersection), MP 338.68 4,212 US 60 (Deuce of Clubs) @ Owens, MP 307.43 11,755 US 60 (Deuce of Clubs) near intersection with Old Linden Road, MP 308.52 19,190 US 60 (Deuce of Clubs),east of White Mountain Road, west of 18 th Place, MP 309.2 21,894 US 60 (Deuce of Clubs),east of Penrod Road, near 27th Place, MP 309.93 10,570 SR 260 (White Mountain Road), near intersection of Huning downtown, MP 161.37 14,195 SR 260 (White Mountain Road), near intersection of Ellsworth Road, MP 163.48 13,068 Source: ADOT Table 8: 2012 Average Daily Vehicle Trips, Show Low City Streets 2012 Average Daily Trips (ADT's) 3,458 98 3,788 2,987 824 466 792 331 1,871 1,800 1,685 2,140 441 1,228 781 677 Roadway Studied E. Old Linden N. of The Deuce 1760 N. Fairway Dr. W. of Central On Old Linden Rd. S. Penrod City Limits Sierra Park Trail S. of Woolford 43rd Ave N. of Hwy 260 E. Thornton N. Airport Dr. E. Adams S. 16th Ave. W. Cooley N. Central Ave. N. 36th Dr. S. 8th Ave. E. Cooley W of Wht. Mtn Rd. S. 11th St S of Owens 45 Table 8 continued W. Whipple S. Central Ave. N. Penrod Road S. 23rd Ave W. Old Linden Rd. N. 16th Ave. N. 22nd Ave N. of Old Linden W McNeil by Camptown Owens W. of 12TH PL Central S. of Old Linden N. 16th Ave N. of Old Linden W. Old Linden Rd N. Summit Tr. S. Sierra Pines Tr. W. Whipple E. Whipple E. Woolford Ellsworth Show Lake Rd Cub Lake Rd @ 260 N. 8th Ave. Fawn Brook Dr. N. 9th St N. of Cooley N. 9th St S. of Cooley E. Cooley W. of 9th St. N. 9th Pl. of Deuce of Clubs N. 8th St N of E Hall E. Hall E of 9th St. 16th St. No Adams E. Mcneil N. of 60 Woolford E of 260 Old Linden W of 6th 6th St. N of Adams Old Linden W of 16th Ave. N. 11th St. S of Cooley E. Hunning E of 9th E. Mcneil W of 9th St. E. Owens W of SR 260 4,263 5,244 4,096 635 2,562 1,146 1,145 1,433 2,041 2,973 190 2,212 857 631 4,175 886 9,854 541 7,448 3,489 193 740 1,622 1,119 555 895 486 858 1,563 2,950 1,537 2,471 493 3,611 576 1,086 1,615 912 Source: City of Show Low What is clear in the review of the traffic count information is that the state highways are primary transit routes are the busiest roadways in Show Low. This is due to the fact that the state highways serve as vehicular access to the employment centers and accommodate travels/visitors 46 accessing nearby recreation areas. Show Low’s arterial and collector roadways such as Old Linden Road, Central Avenue, McNeil, Penrod Road and Woolford Road are the most traveled city roadways on average in Show Low. Some of these roadways have serviceable pedestrian and bikeway facilities, however many sections of these respective roadways do not. Woolford Road is one such example. Traffic volumes on many of the local roadways are very low and typical for a rural community making these streets more compatible for dual usage with bicyclists. 3.13 Crash Data Analysis Crash data for Navajo County incidents in the Study Area was obtained from ADOT. The crash data is for a 5-year reporting period from January 2008 through December 2012. Over this period, the study area experienced a total of 803 crashes in Show Low. Table 9: Crash Data Summary by Injury Type summarizes the crashes by injury type and Figure 11: Crash Data Locations identifies the location crashes between 2008 and 2012 for the Show Low study area. Table 9: Crash Data Summary by Injury: 2008-2012 Injury Type Number of Crash Incidents No Injury 588 Possible Injury 106 Non-Incapacitating Injury 72 Incapacitating Injury 31 Fatality 6 47 FIGURE 11 Crash Data Locations Map *Show Low municipal boundary as of December 2011 Source: ADOT 48 3.14 Climate Located at an elevation of approximately 6,400 feet, Show Low is blessed with four seasons. Cool mountain summers are often punctuated with afternoon thunderstorms in July and August. Winter time conditions see snow precipitation, but not to the extent and accumulation as nearby higher elevations in the White Mountains. Transit and trails performance must take into account the change in seasons. Table 10 provides a month-by-month summary of Show Low’s climate. Table 10: Annual Climate 4. Month Average High Average Low Mean Temp January February March April May June July August September October November December 47°F 52°F 58°F 66°F 75°F 84°F 86°F 83°F 79°F 68°F 57°F 47°F 23°F 26°F 31°F 36°F 44°F 52°F 59°F 57°F 51°F 40°F 30°F 23°F 35°F 39°F 45°F 51°F 60°F 68°F 73°F 70°F 65°F 54°F 44°F 35°F Average Precipitation 1.17 in. 1.12 in. 1.10 in. 0.69 in. 0.59 in. 0.44 in. 2.38 in. 3.35 in. 1.59 in. 1.42 in. 1.32 in. 1.51 in. Community Characteristics – A Demographic and Socioeconomic Review In order to understand the travel characteristics, public transportation and non-motorized transportation needs of Show Low and the Study Area, it is important to recognize the community’s demographic and socioeconomic characteristics. The following discussion assesses the population, demographics, and environmental justice conditions of Show Low and the Study Area in comparison to that of Navajo County and the State of Arizona. This evaluation helps to establish a baseline for the socioeconomic characteristics of the community and in-turn identify potential focus areas. Moreover, the following discussion provides a greater understanding of the distribution of age. This will provide a picture of those people who are more likely to be transit dependent because they are too young or too old to drive. Furthermore, considering income and lack of car ownership can also help to identify portions of the population that are more likely to be transit dependent. 49 4.1 Population According to the US Census Bureau the total population of Show Low and the Study Area in 2000 was 7,695 and 23,830 respectively. The most recent 2010 Census identified those populations at 10,660 and 29,697. This represents a 38.5% and 24.6% increase in population over a 10-year period at an annual growth rate of 3.3% and 2.4%. Over the same period, Navajo County’s population grew from 97,470 to 107,449 while the State of Arizona’s population grew from 5,130,632 in 2000 to 6,392,017. This represents a County and State population increase of 10.2% and 24.6% and an annual growth rate of 1.0% and 2.2% respectively as shown in Table 11. Over the last decade, Show Low’s population growth significantly outpaced that of Navajo County and the State as a whole while the Study Area growth outpaced Navajo County and matched that of Arizona. Table 11: Population and Growth Rate 2000 Population 2010 Population Show Low 7,695 10,660 Percent Change 20002010 38.53% Taylor 3,176 4,112 Snowflake 4,460 Holbrook Annual Growth Rate 2035 Projected Population 3.3% 22,674 29.47% 2.6% 8,883 5,590 25.33% 2.3% 15,138 4,917 5,053 2.77% 0.3% 10,398 Pinetop-Lakeside 3,582 4,282 19.54% 1.8% 17,036 Navajo County 97,470 107,449 10.23% 1.0% 152,347 5,130,632 6,392,017 24.59% 2.2% 9,706,653 Vicinity Arizona Source: 2000 Census, 2010 Census, ADOT 50 FIGURE 12 2010 Population Density, Show Low *Show Low municipal boundary as of December 2011 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census 51 FIGURE 13 2010 Population Density, Study Area Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census 52 FIGURE 14 2035 Population Density, Show Low *Show Low municipal boundary as of December 2011 Source: 2010 Census, ADOT 53 FIGURE 15 2035 Population Density, Study Area Source: 2010 Census, ADOT 54 4.2 Age Table 12 shows the age distribution of Show Low and the Study Area’s existing population according to the 2010 US Census. A total of 6,475 and 18,041 residents respectively are between the ages of 16 and 64. The age group 15 and younger is 2,126 and 7,097 while there are 2,059 and 4,556 residents over the age of 65. Making up 61% of both the Show Low and Study Area population, the 16 – 64 age group is generally consistent with the County level and slightly less than the State level. The Study Area population 15 and younger at 24% matches Navajo County (24%) but is slightly higher than Arizona (21%). On the other hand, the Show Low population that is age 65 and above at 19% exceeds both Navajo County (13%) and Arizona (14%). Significantly, the Show Low Median Age at 42.4 exceeds that of the Study Area (35.7), the County (34.7) and Arizona (35.9). Also of note, the Pinetop-Lakeside Median Age at 43.4 exceeds that of Show Low. Table 12: Age Distribution Age 14 and Below % of Population Age 16-64 % of Population Age 65 and above % of Population Median Age Total Show Low 2,126 20% 6,475 61% 2,059 19% 42.4 10,660 Taylor 1,247 30% 2,399 58% 466 11% 29.5 4,112 Snowflake 1,690 30% 3,158 56% 742 13% 30.4 5,590 Holbrook 1,168 23% 3,322 66% 560 11% 33.0 5,053 Pinetop-Lakeside 866 20% 2,687 63% 729 17% 43.4 4,282 Study Summary 7,097 24% 18,041 61% 4,556 15% 35.7 29,697 Navajo County 26,300 24% 66,908 62% 14,241 13% 34.7 107,449 1,358,059 21% 4,151,857 65% 881,831 14% 35.9 6,392,017 Vicinity Arizona Source: 2010 Census 55 FIGURE 16 Youth Population Density, Show Low *Show Low municipal boundary as of December 2011 Source: 2010 Census, ADOT 56 FIGURE 17 Youth Population Density, Study Area Source: ADOT 57 FIGURE 18 Elderly Population Density, Show Low *Show Low municipal boundary as of December 2011 Source: 2010 Census, ADOT 58 FIGURE 19 Elderly Population Density, Study Area Source: ADOT 59 4.3 Environmental Justice The goal of Title VI/Environmental Justice (EJ) is to ensure that the services, benefits, and overall effects of any program, policy, or activity receiving Federal financial assistance is fairly distributed to all people, regardless of race, color, national origin, or income. Title VI/Environmental Justice, in relation to transportation programs, is achieved through:  Avoiding, minimizing, or mitigating disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental effects, including social and economic effects, on minority and low-income populations.  Ensuring the full and fair participation in the transportation decision making process by all potentially affected communities.  Preventing the denial of, reduction in or significant delay in the receipt of benefits by minority and low-income populations.  In order to adhere to the principles outlined above, this section first examined the prevalence of minority and low-income populations within the Show Low study area. Additional information on race, ethnicity and income are further detailed below. The results of this analysis will then be used during future phases of the project to ensure that fair participation is provided during the decision making process. 4.4 Race and Ethnicity Table 13 shows the Show Low and Study Area demographic breakdown compared with those of Navajo County and the State of Arizona. The preponderance of residents identified themselves as either white (87.6% Show Low, 81.6% Study Area), Native American (4.1% Show Low, 8.3% Study Area) or some other race (4.2% Show Low, 5.4% Study Area). This racial distribution varies significantly from that of Navajo County (49.3% White, 43.4% Native American, 3.4% other) and the State as a whole (73.0% White, 4.6% Native American, 11.9% other). Within the Study Area, the Holbrook distribution (55.8% White, 26.4% Native American, 8.0% other) more closely resembles Navajo County instead of the Study Area. However, it is important to distinguish that the U.S. Census only utilizes six categories to identify race: White, Black or African American, American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, and Some Other Race. This is because the U.S. Census views race and origin (or one’s ethnicity) as two separate and distinct concepts. Consequently, one’s Hispanic origin is viewed as the heritage, nationality group, lineage, or country of birth of the person or the person’s parents or ancestors before their arrival in the United States. Based on this 60 condition, people who identify their origin as Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish may be any race. Throughout much of Arizona and the State as a whole, Hispanic ethnicity comprises a large component of ethnicity and it is important to understand that demographic for Show Low and the Study Area. Table 13: 2010 Racial Demographics Population Group White African American Native American Asian Native Hawaiian Other Race Two or More Total Population Show Low 9,341 % of Population 87.6% 3,535 % of Population 86.0% 4727 % of Population 84.6% 47 0.4% 9 0.2% 7 0.1% 438 4.1% 197 4.8% 361 84 0.8% 12 0.3% 16 0.2% 3 0.1% 447 4.2% 245 287 2.7% 111 10,660 100.0% 4,112 Study Summary White African American Native American Asian Native Hawaiian Other Race Two or More Total Population Source: 2010 Census 24,236 223 2,474 207 33 1,601 923 29,697 Taylor 2,819 % of Population 55.8% PinetopLakeside 3,814 % of Population 89.1% 135 2.7% 25 0.6% 6.5% 1,332 26.4% 146 3.4% 12 0.2% 66 1.3% 33 0.8% 12 0.2% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 6.0% 335 6.0% 405 8.0% 169 3.9% 2.7% 136 2.4% 294 5.8% 95 2.2% 100.0% 5,590 100.0% 5,053 100.0% 4,282 100.0% Snowflake Holbrook % of Population Navajo County % of Population State of Arizona % of Population 81.6% 0.8% 8.3% 0.7% 0.1% 5.4% 3.1% 100.0% 52,972 938 46,611 580 75 3,625 2,648 107,449 49.3% 0.9% 43.4% 0.5% 0.1% 3.4% 2.5% 100.0% 4,667,121 259,529 296,529 176,695 12,648 761,716 218,300 6,392,538 73.0% 4.1% 4.6% 2.8% 0.2% 11.9% 3.4% 100.0% While the 2010 U.S. Census shows a vast majority of residents identified their race as White, Native American, or Some Other Race; a not insignificant (12.8% Show Low, 15.0% Study Area) proportion of residents also identified their origin or ethnicity as Hispanic or Latino as shown in Table 14. This Hispanic or Latino distribution exceeds that of Navajo County (10.8%) but is far less than the State as a whole (29.6%). As with Race, the Holbrook distribution (25.4%) varies significantly from Show Low and the Study Area. Please see Figure 20 and 21: Minority Populations. 61 Table 14: 2010 Origin (Ethnicity) Demographics Population Group Hispanic or Latino Not Hispanic Total Population Show Low % of Population Taylor % of Population Snowflake % of Population Holbrook % of Population PinetopLakeside % of Population 1,360 12.8% 546 13.3% 661 11.8% 1,281 25.4% 618 14.4% 9,300 87.2% 3,566 86.7% 4,929 88.2% 3,772 74.6% 3,664 85.6% 10,660 100.0% 4,112 100.0% 5,590 100.0% 5,053 100.0% 4,282 100.0% Study Summary Hispanic or Latino Not Hispanic Total Population Source: 2010 Census 4,466 25,231 29,697 % of Population Navajo County % of Population State of Arizona % of Population 15.0% 85.0% 100.0% 11,571 95,878 107,449 10.8% 89.2% 100.0% 1,895,149 4,496,868 6,392,017 29.6% 70.4% 100.0% 62 FIGURE 20 2010 Minority Population Density, Show Low *Show Low municipal boundary as of December 2011 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census 63 FIGURE 21 2010 Minority Population Density, Study Area Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census 64 4.5 Income The median family incomes for Show Low ($49,293) and the Study Area ($52,679) are both higher than for Navajo County ($45,906) but are lower than for Arizona ($59,840). The percentage of families living below the poverty line (9.5% Show Low, 8.5% Study Area) is substantially less than for Navajo County (19.1%) and less than for Arizona (10.9%). The percentage in Holbrook is greater than all other Study Area communities with 10.9% of families living below the poverty line. Table 15: Median Family Income Population Group Show Low Females 5,487 Males 5,173 Total Population 10,660 Median Family Income $49,293 % of families below poverty line 9.5% Source: American Community Survey Taylor 1,999 2,113 4,112 $51,525 8.5% Snowflake 2,789 2,801 5,590 $56,285 5.2% Holbrook 2,484 2,569 5,053 $52,831 10.9% 65 Pinetop-Lakeside 2,117 2,165 4,282 $57,333 7.3% Study Summary 14,876 14,821 29,697 $52,679 8.5% Navajo County 53,672 53,777 107,449 $45,906 19.1% Arizona 3,216,194 3,175,823 6,392,017 $59,840 10.9% FIGURE 22 Median Family Income, Show Low *Show Low municipal boundary as of December 2011 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census 66 FIGURE 23 Median Family Income, Study Area Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census 67 4.6 Commuting Habits The American Community Survey (ACS) gathers information on demographic, economic, and housing characteristics, including journey to work information. Commuting to work by “other means” typically suggests that these commuters are bicycling to work but can also include skating or running. As can be seen in Table 16, the ACS shows that a lesser percentage of workers 16 years and older travel to work alone in a car (70.0% Show Low, 68.8% Study Area) than both Navajo County (71.8%) and the State of Arizona (75.6%). Similarly, Public Transportation accounts for only a small fraction of commute trips (0.3% Show Low, 0.1% Study Area) and lags well behind Arizona (2.0%) and even Navajo County (0.7%). The difference in drive alone vehicle and public transportation is made up by a relatively heavy carpool use (21.2% Show Low, 19.6% Study Area) which far exceeds Navajo County (14.8%) and Arizona (12.6%). Walking (4.5% Show Low, 3.9% Study Area) and Telecommute (4.1% Show Low, 6.6% Study Area) with rates that are generally comparable to Navajo County and that generally exceed Arizona also account for the difference. There are variations within the Study Area, for example:  Snowflake and Holbrook exhibit less use of drive alone vehicles relative to other Study Area communities  Snowflake and Holbrook exhibit a stronger use of carpools  Holbrook exhibits a stronger use of walking  Taylor, Snowflake and Pinetop-Lakeside exhibit stronger use of Telecommuting  Public Transportation commuting appears to be limited primarily to Show Low Table 16: Commuting Habits Population Group Show Low % of Workforce Workers 16 & over 4,065 Vehicle - drove alone 2,844 70.0% 1,053 75.6% 1,205 62.1% 1,523 67.0% 1,298 70.6% Vehicle - car pool 860 21.2% 155 11.1% 449 23.1% 545 24.0% 243 13.2% Public Transportation 11 0.3% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Walked 182 4.5% 12 0.9% 49 2.5% 169 7.4% 37 2.0% Other means 0 0.0% 16 1.1% 66 3.4% 6 0.3% 29 1.6% Tele-commute 168 4.1% 157 11.3% 171 8.8% 30 1.3% 231 12.6% Mean travel time (minutes) 16.6 Taylor % of Workforce Snowflake 1,393 % of Workforce 1,940 14.9 21.5 68 Holbrook % of Workforce 2,273 15.6 PinetopLakeside % of Workforce 1,838 19.6 Table 16 Continued Study Summary % of Workforce Navajo County % of Workforce 35,953 State of Arizona % of Workforce Workers 16 & over 11,509 2,699,943 Vehicle - drove alone 7,923 68.8% 25,807 71.8% 2,040,572 75.6% Vehicle - car pool 2,252 19.6% 5,333 14.8% 340,523 12.6% Public Transportation 11 0.1% 235 0.7% 54,275 2.0% Walked 449 3.9% 1,740 4.8% 59,454 2.2% Other means 117 1.0% 491 1.4% 66,021 2.4% Tele-commute 757 6.6% 2,347 6.5% 139,098 5.2% Mean travel time 17.6 (minutes) Source: American Community Survey 21.8 69 24.8 FIGURE 24 Employees Who Commute to Work by Other Means *Show Low municipal boundary as of December 2011 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2007-2011 American Community Survey 70 FIGURE 25 Households Without Vehicles *Show Low municipal boundary as of December 2011 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2007-2011 American Community Survey 71 FIGURE 26 Employment Density *Show Low municipal boundary as of December 2011 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2007-2011 American Community Survey 72 5. Review of Relevant Local Plans and Studies In order to understand the current and future transit and trail needs in the Show Low area, one of the first steps is to review studies that were previously developed. This review will help to understand how the current system was developed and how to improve it in the future. The following Table 17 includes a summary of these plans and studies: Table 17: Relevant Plans and Studies Summary Study (Year) Author Purpose Four Seasons Connection The 2009 five-year plan was presented  Five-Year Transit Plan (2009) as a model for future five-year plans. Ostrander Consulting, Inc. The plan included an updated transit demand estimate, coordination  strategies, service alternatives and a fiveyear implementation plan.   White Mountain Apache Tribe Public Transit Study (2009) RAE Consultants, Inc. The transit feasibility study for the White  Mountain Apache Tribe reviewed several transit service alternatives, including maintaining the status quo, for the  residents of the Fort Apache Reservation. Transit service is needed throughout the reservation for medical, personal  business and employment.  73 Findings/Recommendations The Four Seasons Connection service was providing about 110% of the estimated transit demand in 2009 Route restructuring options:  Split current two routes into four routes and alternate every other hour  Add “Central Shopper” route in between shorter Show Low and Pinetop-Lakeside routes Increase curb-to-curb fares to $2.00 Addition of regional connector service to Holbrook and Springerville More than 80% of the identified transit needs was for persons living in poverty on the reservation Service to Show Low and Whiteriver for work, as well as personal business and medical, is needed Coordination with the Hon Dah casino employee transit service and other existing services provided by health and human service agencies Service options considered, include:  1 fixed route, Cibecue to McNary  2 fixed routes, Cibecue to Whiteriver and Whiteriver to McNary  3 fixed routes, add Cibecue to Show Low to the 2 fixed route option  Structured carpool/vanpool program ARIZONA RURAL TRANSIT NEEDS STUDY; Cambridge Systematics; May 2008 Show Low Trails Master Plan, September 9, 2008 The Arizona Rural Transit Needs Study prepared for the Arizona Department of Transportation in 2008 provides regionally based solutions to rural public transportation in order to develop a long term strategic direction for rural transit systems in Arizona.  Primarily developed for the purpose of adopting new policies ensuring that incoming residential communities would connect to nearby trails and make provisions for on-site trails that extend regionally connected trails.       Status quo Recommends new 5311 local service in Holbrook Expanded 5311 local service in Show Low and Pinetop Also identifies Fort Apache-Show Low-Snowflake/Taylor-Holbrook as a candidate for new 5311 general public intercity transit service Establishes plan submittal requirements Establishes variety of policies to support trail development in Show Low Defines a variety of trail types and design standards for each City of Show Low General Plan, Community Sciences Corporation, 2007 The General Plan serves as the  “blueprint” for guiding growth and defining policies important to Show Low to aid in  guiding growth.  Desired land use map and policies identified and defined Circulation and trails elements included Trails and transit are emphasized throughout the document Forest Service Outdoor Recreation Accessibility Guidelines (FSORAG), May 22, 2006 FSORAG provides guidance for maximizing accessibility of outdoor recreation areas in the National Forest System, while protecting the unique characteristics of their natural setting. All new or altered facilities and associated constructed features at recreation sites must comply with the technical provisions of the FSORAG.  Provides four specific criteria by which FSORAG can be modified Requires equal forest access for those with disabilities Provides standards and documentation for identifying new forest service access routes Provides a variety of design standards and considerations in the design of forest service trails, campgrounds and picnic areas The(FSTAG) provide guidance for maximizing accessibility of trails in the National Forest System, while recognizing and protecting the unique characteristics of their natural setting. The FSTAG applies only to trails in the National Forest System that (1) are new or altered; (2) have a designed use of  Forest Service Trail Accessibility Guidelines (FSTAG), May 22, 2006 74      Establishes scoping requirements, technical specifications and definitions Outdoor recreation route vs. trails are defined and standards provided Emphasis on wheelchair accessibility to trails, trailheads, bridges, puncheons, boardwalks, etc. Show Low Timber Mesa Multiuse Path Draft DCR; Entranco; January 2003 City of Show Low Three-Year Transit Plan (2002) RAE Consultants, Inc. hiker/pedestrian under the Interagency  Trail Data Standards (ITDS) and Forest Service Trail Planning and Management Fundamentals; and (3) connect directly to a currently accessible trail or a trailhead. Purpose is to establish a conceptual trail  alignment and design for an urban section trail along Show Low Lake Road  that connects USFS lands to the west and east of the Show Low city limits.  Establishes strict compliance conditions and exception criteria in unique design circumstances The 2002 three-year plan was the first plan developed for the relatively new rural transit service. Issues that were identified for this study included: how to increase ridership; how to serve existing and newly requested stops; maintaining 60-minute headways; expansion into outlying communities and strengthening the internal management systems. Monitor schedule adherence and bus stop boardings/deboardings Consider supplemental wheelchair para-transit service in the summer Consider and implement other actions (bus pullouts, reduced service frequency) Local community circulators with fixed route connector Service to outlying communities      URBAN ELEMENT OF THE WHITE MOUNTAINS TRAILSYSTEM; Lima & Associates; April 27, 1999 Establish and maintain a non-motorized,  multi-use trail system within the urban areas of Pinetop-Lakeside and Show Low to include walking/hiking, equestrian, bicycling, jogging, physical fitness, crosscountry skiing, and accommodations for  physically-impaired persons, with  connector trails to residential neighborhoods, businesses, shopping areas, schools, recreation areas, government and professional services, and other trails outside the urban areas. Various trail types are proposed depending on the section of trail City and county roadways are contemplated to be used as connections Additional roadways to Show Low Lake Road are contemplated Collaboration of Pinetop-Lakeside, Show Low, Navajo County, TRACKS, and the White Mountain Horsemen’s Association in conjunction with the U.S. Forest Service Identifies trail locations and trail types Recommends grant funding for a large portion of implementation Additional Observations and Notes from Select Reports City of Show Low Three-Year Transit Plan (2002) - The recommendations from the 2002 study identified some of the same issues that are being discussed by the Show Low transit system today. On-time performance is one issue that continues to be problematic due to the uncertainty of the deviated route system. The recommendation to expand service to outlying communities 75 was partially implemented with the addition of the White Mountain Connection service to Holbrook in 2009. Four Seasons Connection Five-Year Transit Plan (2009) - At the time of the 2009 Four Seasons Connection Five-Year Transit Plan, the commuter service to Holbrook had been discussed and seemed to be in the final stages of approval. The service was implemented later that year and continues to operate as the White Mountain Connector. In order to be consistent with SAFETEALU requirements, the plan also discussed coordination with other rural and elderly/disabled transit services in the region. With this report, no other connections have been established. The plan did present a few options for changes to the Four Seasons Connection service, but none of those options have been implemented to date. The White Mountain Apache Tribe Public Transit Study - Evaluated several options prior to determining a hybrid system for the residents of the Fort Apache Reservation. The recommended service includes a combination of fixed route service between Cibecue, Whiteriver, McNary and Show Low, along with circulator service in Whiteriver and coordinated connections to the Four Seasons Connection service. The cost of implementing the recommended service is nearly $850,000, including $360,000 in first year capital costs. The transit services would be eligible to compete for 5311(c) federal Tribal Transit Program funding, which is available with no local match, or the traditional 5311 rural transit funding. Arizona Rural Transit Needs Study - On the whole, only about 18% of demand in 2007 was being satisfied. About 23% of rural residents were elderly, 15% were low income (nonelderly) and 10% were disabled (nonelderly). Rural population was projected to decrease from 25% of the State total in 2005 to 20% in 2015. Transit demand was projected to increase from 7.8 million passenger trips per year to 10.5 million in 2016 with 1 million of those in Navajo County and exceeded only by Pinal and Mohave Counties. The services in 2007 would only satisfy 13% of total ridership need in 2016, would require funding to increase more than fourfold to $133.0M in 2016, and would require the vehicle fleet to increase more than fourfold to 1,751 vehicles in 2016. The key market segments for rural transit were identified to be elderly persons, disabled persons and persons of low income. Trip purposes include medical appointments, shopping, work, education and training, personal business, and recreation. Show Low General Plan - Trails and transit are emphasized throughout the various elements of the Show Low General Plan. 76 Trails Element The goals of the Trails Element are to continue to develop and build upon the 120 miles of trails and encourage regional trail improvements and enhancements. The action recommendations are to 1) coordinate interested trail partners for amenity upgrades, signage, and maintenance and 2) designate types and hierarchies of trails, provide guideline standards, extend amenities to connections to PinetopLakeside and encourage special trail oriented events. Circulation Element Trails are also a point of emphasis in the Circulation Element. Short trip circulation opportunities like a comprehensive system of pathways and trails are a priority for local residents. Multi-modal enhancements extend beyond trails as evidenced by the Four Seasons Connection transit that demonstrates a growing role for alternative transportation. Pedestrian and bicycle trips can help alleviate traffic congestion and expanded transit could lead to future auto trip reduction. Walking, cycling and expanded local bus services are considered means to help local residents – especially non-drivers – complete short trips without dependence on automobiles. The emphasis on Four Seasons is justified as ridership grew from 2,000 riders in 1998 to more than 180,000+ riders in 2012. Urban Element of the White Mountains Trailsystem - The collaboration of Pinetop-Lakeside, Show Low, Navajo County, TRACKS, and the White Mountain Horsemen’s Association in conjunction with the U.S. Forest Service led to the completion of the Urban Element plan in 1999. Major funding was provided by an Arizona Heritage Fund. The plan builds on the then 140 miles of loop trails primarily located in forested areas with the purpose to develop the urban element of the White Mountains Trailsystem, provide connections between the urban areas to the rest of the White Mountains, and prepare grant applications to fund the implementation of the plan. The plan includes five types of facilities and three trailheads. The facilities include paved paths that are off street, unpaved trails that are off street, unpaved public roadways, on-street bike routes and edge striping for bike lanes. Show Low Timber Mesa Multiuse Path Draft DCR - The Timber Mesa Multi-Use Path represents an implementation of the 1999 White Mountains Trailsystem Plan and was an element of the 1987 Pinetop-Lakeside Urban Trailsystem Plan. It contemplates an approximate 2-mile connection 77 between the Buena Vista Trail and the Timber Mesa Trail linking Forest Service lands on the east and west sides of Show Low. The plan designates eight segments with path characteristics sensitive to the local context. Standards and guidelines from AASHTO, ITE, MUTCD and ADOT were all sited with an estimated $215,000 cost to construct. It is intended to create a regional public-private partnership with Show Low, Pinetop-Lakeside and Navajo County all contributing maintenance funds; PinetopLakeside was to assume lead responsibility for the annual maintenance with volunteer assistance from TRACKS. City of Show Low Trails Master Plan - The Show Low City Council adopted the Trails Master Plan in 2008 with the purpose to establish a trails system that connects neighborhoods to the larger trail system in order to provide a link to recreation opportunities and an alternative mode of transportation. The intent is for new development to incorporate trails, provide connections to adjacent trails, and establish subdivision trails plans at the time of preliminary plat. The Master Plan provides design standards and trails standards. It also designates seven types of trails: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Multi-use Trail – along collector roads City Trail – not along collector roads Neighborhood Trail – connects neighborhoods to larger trail system Bicycle Lane – along state highways Bicycle Route – along local roads Equestrian Trail – in remote areas OHV Trail It also provides design guidelines for trailheads, curb ramps and road crossings. 6. Existing & Future Conditions: Transit 6.1 Introduction The Four Seasons Connection (FSC) has been providing public transit service in the Show Low and Pinetop-Lakeside area since May of 1997. The original partnership included the City of Show Low, Town of Pinetop-Lakeside, the White Mountain Regional Development Corporation and Arizona Department of Transportation-Public Transportation Division. The White Mountain Regional Development Corporation initially provided administrative services. Beginning in 2001, administration and oversight of the service operations were assumed by the City of Show Low. 78 The FSC began with and continues to be funded annually with Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Section 5311, Rural Public Transportation funding. Annually, the FTA allocates federal funds for the Section 5311 grant program. These funds are apportioned to the State on a formula basis. In Arizona, the Section 5311 program is administered by the ADOT Multimodal Planning Division. The Section 5311 program is designed to provide funding to support the administrative, operating, and capital costs of operating public transit services in rural areas. The FSC is the original public transit that began in 1996, serving the communities of Show Low and Pinetop-Lakeside. As the demand for public transportation services continued to grow from year to year, the White Mountain Connection (WMC) began providing regional commuter service in 2009. The WMC links the communities of Show Low, Pinetop-Lakeside, Taylor, Snowflake and Holbrook. Despite the phenomenal growth in ridership, the FSC transit route and schedule of stops remains the same as established in 1996. This is largely a reflection of the fact that the community footprints of Show Low and Pinetop-Lakeside are largely focused and dependent upon the state highways that serves them. The linear nature of US 60 (Deuce of Clubs) in Show Low and State Route 260 (White Mountain Road) connecting Show Low with Pinetop-Lakeside largely defines the route alignment and transit stop locations along these roadways. 6.2 FTA-ADOT-5311 Program The Section 5311 formula grant funding from the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) is a rural program that provides funding to states for the purpose of supporting public transportation in areas with population of less than 50,000 persons. The FTA program website outlines the program’s goals as follows:  Enhance the access of people in non-urbanized areas to health care, shopping, education, employment, public services and recreation.  Assist in the maintenance, development, improvement and use of public transportation systems in non-urbanized areas.  Encourage and facilitate the most efficient use of all transportation funds used to provide passenger transportation in non-urbanized areas through the coordination of programs and services.  Assist in the development and support of intercity bus transportation.  Provide for the participation of private transportation providers in non-urbanized transportation. 79 Eligible direct recipients of 5311 funding are States and Native American tribes. These entities, in turn, may designate eligible subrecipients of the funds. Eligible subrecipients may include State or local authorities, non-profit organizations or public transportation operators. Ultimately, the direct recipients are responsible to ensure that the funding is used for its intended purpose. Eligible activities include, but are not limited to:  Capital projects  Operating costs of equipment and facilities (used for public transportation)  Acquisition of public transportation services (including private providers of public transportation services) State recipients are required to use 15 percent of their annual apportionment in support of intercity bus service. If the Governor certifies that the needs of the State are adequately being met, this requirement may be waived. The recipients of funds in Arizona include counties, cities, towns and Native American tribes. According to the FY 2012 annual report by ADOT, these recipients have utilized the funds, along with other local funding sources, to provide nearly 4 million miles of service for more than 1 million passengers. ADOT distributes the 5311 funds annually through a competitive application process, with awards being announced in July each year. The DOT provides program management through three regional program managers (north, central and south regions). Participating 5311 programs in Arizona include the following:                 City of Douglas City of Benson City of Bisbee City of Bullhead City City of Coolidge City of Cottonwood City of Kingman City of Lake Havasu City City of Maricopa City of Show Low and Pinetop/Lakeside City of Sierra Vista Helping Hands Agency (City of Page)      80 Hopi Tribe Navajo Nation Tucson RTA Regional Public Transportation Authority (Valley Metro) Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community San Carlos Apache Transit Town of Chino Valley Town of Miami Yuma County Intergovernmental Public Transportation Authority For fiscal year 2013, Arizona received a total of $5,459,483 in Section 5311/5340 funding that could be distributed to the program participants and used by ADOT for the rural public transportation program. 6.3 Federal, State and Local Transit Funding Sources As discussed above, the FTA 5311 funding program is the main source of income for most rural transit providers and the Show Low/Pinetop-Lakeside system is no different. Other sources of federal funding received by the Show Low transit system include the Rural Transit Assistance Program (RTAP), the Surface Transportation Program (STP) and a one-time contribution from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009 for expansion of the bus bay facility. The RTAP funding is a specialized portion of the Section 5311 funding and is only available to support non-urbanized transit activities. The 5311(b)(3) funding may be used for training, technical assistance, research and related support services. This funding is 100 percent reimbursable and does not require any local match. STP is a flexible funding program that provides capital funds that can be used to purchase transit vehicles and facilities. STP funding is also used on highway construction projects. The table below shows the various federal funding programs used by the Show Low transit system over the last five fiscal years, including the percentage of federal funding for the total program costs: Table 18: Federal Funding Sources Funding Source FTA Section 5311 – Operations FTA Section 5311 – Capital RTAP – Training STP – Capital Total Federal Share Percent of Total Cost 2008 $232,939 -$2,500 $115,061 $350,500 70.8% 2009 $273,818 -$2,500 $25,600 $301,918 64.3% Source: Show Low/Pinetop-Lakeside ADOT operating reports 2008 – 2013 Fiscal Year 2010 2011 $327,532 $317,472 $13,950 -$2,500 -$18,600 $101,157 $362,582 $418,629 64.5% 67.7% 2012 $346,414 $70,498 -$13,435 $430,347 66.8% 2013* $168,024 $2,600 --$170,624 61.3% *2013 statistics are for the first 6 months of the fiscal year Over the last five years (FY 2008 to FY 2012), the Federal portion of the total cost of operating the entire Show Low system, including capital costs, has been roughly two-thirds. The Show Low/Pinetop-Lakeside transit system’s dependence on the Federal funding is consistent with other rural providers of public transportation. Although only six months of the current fiscal year are available, the system continues to depend on the federal funds to cover more than 60% of the costs. Prior to 2010, the state provided funding to local transit agencies through the Local Transportation Assistance Fund (LTAF) program. This program was in effect in Arizona for 30 years. The state lottery provided the source of funds for the program. Due to state budget cuts, 81 the LTAF funds were “swept” and are not currently available. The Show Low/Pinetop-Lakeside transit system does not receive any funding from the LTAF program currently. As the state budget conditions improve, transit systems are hopeful for the return of this funding program. Fares collected from passengers of the transit service are used to offset the operations cost of the service. The local sources of funds for matching the federal funds include the support from cities, towns and local businesses. Identifying local funding sources is one of the greatest challenges for transit agencies. The biggest obstacle to utilizing the available Federal funding sources is having the necessary local match. 6.4 Four Seasons Connection The Four Seasons Connection (FSC) has been in existence for over fifteen years and has experienced very little change to the overall route structure over that period of time. The service operates two routes, one in Show Low and one in Pinetop-Lakeside. The routes operate on onehour headways and meet each hour on the half hour at the Show Low Lake Road Transit Center (Walmart) transfer point. Passengers can transfer between buses at the Show Low Lake Road Transit Center with little to no waiting. The cost to transfer is a full fare ticket price or passengers can use multi-ride/multi-day passes. The FSC service runs from 6:30 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. Monday through Saturday. For the last full year of transit service (FY 2012), the ridership for the Four Seasons Connection totaled 181,009. 82 FIGURE 27 Four Seasons Connection Route and Stop Locations Map 83 6.5 White Mountain Connection The White Mountain Connection (WMC) was developed as a commuter service that runs from Pinetop-Lakeside to Holbrook, with stops in Show Low, Taylor and Snowflake. The service schedule was designed to carry workers from Pinetop-Lakeside to Holbrook early enough to meet a standard 1st shift work schedule and return them home in the evening after a 9-hour workday. Other trips, throughout the middle of the day, take residents to shopping, medical and other appointments in the region. The WMC service transfers with the FSC service at three locations along the route (Walmart, Safeway in Pinetop-Lakeside and Department of Economic Security (DES) in Show Low). The WMC service runs from 6:30 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. Monday through Friday. The FY 2012 ridership total for the White Mountain Connection totaled 22,247. FIGURE 28 White Mountain Connection Route and Stop Locations Map 84 6.6 Other Transit Providers in the White Mountains The Four Seasons Connection and White Mountain Connection are the only public transportation services provided in the area. Several private/non-profit agencies provide specialty services to clients and employees. The Hon Dah casino on the White Mountain Apache Reservation provides 7 day-a-week service to their employees on all three shifts. Other non-profit agencies, both on the Reservation and in local towns/cities, provide non-emergency medical, senior and disabled transportation services. 6.7 Transit Stop Inventory The consultant team did an extensive inventory and analysis of the existing FSC transit stops located within the City of Show Low. Various elements of each transit stop and supplemental photographs were documented for each of the existing transit stops in Show Low. Figure 29: Show Low Transit Stop Inventory includes a summary data table describing the existing characteristics and amenities at each of the transit stop locations. Characteristics that were identified and rated included the presence of benches, shelter, trash receptacle, patron waiting area, route information posting, ADA accessibility and others. 85 FIGURE 29 Show Low Transit Stop Inventory 86 6.8 Operating Characteristics – FSC &WMC One way to understand the operations of a public transportation agency is to analyze the operations data for that agency. Transit agency performance is typically measured by its efficiency, effectiveness, productivity and utilization. A transit system’s efficiency measures evaluate how economically the agency can provide service to public. Effectiveness measures compare the use the of the transit service against the cost to provide that service. The number of passengers per hours or miles of service provided demonstrates a system’s productivity, whereas, the system’s utilization is simply defined by the total number of patrons. In this section, the combined operations data for the Four Seasons Connection and the White Mountain Connection are examined. The Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP)1 Report 141 – A Methodology for Performance Measurement and Peer Comparison in the Public Transportation Industry, outlines the process for benchmarking within the transit industry. Benchmarking, according to the report, is “the process of systematically seeking out best practices to emulate.”2 Level 1 benchmarking is the process of evaluating the trends within your own data. In transit systems, the evaluation of year-to-year ridership is an example of a Level 1 benchmark. Peer comparison is the second level of benchmarking. In this activity, you seek to compare your system’s performance against other systems with similar demographic profiles. Once a Level 2 benchmarking activity is completed, the next step would be to make direct contact with a peer agency that you hope to emulate. The purpose of contacting the top performing peer agencies is to get a greater understanding beyond the statistical data. This type of contact is typically short term and does not occur on a regular basis beyond the first contact. The final level of benchmarking, Level 4, is a formal program between multiple agencies that cultivates a sharing of data and experiences for an extended period. For the purpose of this report, Level 1 and Level 2 benchmarking exercise was performed. The results of the Level 1 and Level 2 benchmarking exercise presented and discussed in Section 8. 1 The Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) is a federally funded program that was authorized as part of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA). The program undertakes research and other technical activities in response to the needs of transit service providers. 2 TCRP Report 141: A Methodology for Performance Measurement and Peer Comparison in the Public Transportation Industry, Kittelson & Associates, Inc., et al, 2010. 87 6.9 Definitions VOMS, Vehicles Operated in Maximum Service, is used to describe the maximum number of vehicles that are required to meet the scheduled service. VOMS is not the number of vehicles in the agency’s fleet. An agency’s fleet consists of VOMS, spare vehicles and contingency vehicles. Spare vehicles are used to supplement the VOMS in case of a mechanical failure or scheduled maintenance. Contingency vehicles are kept and maintained by agencies in the event that spare vehicles cannot meet the demand. Smaller transit agencies typically have an additional 20 to 50 percent of spare vehicles. Not every agency will have a contingency fleet. However, for those that do, the size of the contingency fleets vary greatly in size. Revenue Hours are the number of hours vehicles are operated for the purpose of providing public transportation service. The time that vehicles are operated for other activities (i.e., training, deadhead, maintenance checks, etc.) are not included in this statistic. Total revenue hours are calculated on a route-by-route basis and then added together for the entire service plan. Revenue Miles are the number of miles that vehicles are operated for the purpose of providing public transportation service. Similar to Revenue Hours, the miles that are driven for other activities are not included in this statistic. Total Revenue Miles are calculated by multiplying the length of each route times the number of trips per day times the number of service days per year. Due to the route deviations in the Show Low/Pinetop-Lakeside service, the total revenue miles vary slightly year-to-year without changes to the actual service plan. Operating Budget is the total cost of providing public transportation service, including vehicle operations, vehicle maintenance, non-vehicle maintenance and administration. Ridership is the total number of unlinked passenger trips conducted utilizing the revenue vehicles in the fleet. An unlinked passenger trip is the movement of one person to their destination. If a passenger’s trip includes a transfer to another vehicle or route, each segment of the trip is considered an unlinked passenger trip. Fare Revenue represents the total amount of fares collected for use of the public transit service. Fares are collected via fareboxes on the revenue vehicles and through tickets/pass sales. 88 Table 19: Operating Statistics Performance Measure 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013* 2 2 3 3 3 3 Revenue Hours 7,464 8,976 10,514 10,560 10,642 5,196 Revenue Miles 167,954 210,685 255,749 259,018 262,181 129,111 Total Operating Expenses $416,508 $483,712 $585,724 $605,111 $623,992 $303,524 Ridership 119,027 126,052 140,759 176,774 203,256 93,874 Fare Revenue $47,969 $48,781 $61,359 $71,380 $69,900 $27,867 VOMS Source: Show Low/Pinetop-Lakeside ADOT operating reports 2008 – 2013 *2013 statistics are for the first 6 months of the fiscal year 6.10 Analysis From its meager beginnings in 1997, the Four Seasons Connection (FSC) service has continued to grow year-to-year. Although the data in Table 18 shows the combined totals for the Four Seasons Connection and the White Mountain Connection, the first two years are strictly FSC operating statistics. From 1997 to 2009, FSC operations grew from just a few thousand riders in the first year of operation to more than 125,000 riders. The addition of the WMC commuter service to Holbrook in late 2009, combined with the continuing growth of the FSC service, has nearly doubled the ridership over the last five years. The steady increase in ridership and continued support by the community reveal a significant need for the public transportation service in the Show Low/Pinetop-Lakeside area. At the midway point of fiscal year 2013, the Show Low transit system is experiencing the first significant decrease in use and farebox collections since the introduction of the White Mountain Connection service. Using the first six months of data to extrapolate for the remainder of the year, each of the data categories shown in Table 19 are estimated to decrease. If the second half of the year is consistent with the first half, the following decreases can be expected:      Revenue Hours (-2.3%) Revenue Miles (-1.5%) Total Operating Expenses (-2.7%) Ridership (-7.6%) Fare Revenue (-20.3%) Due to the lack of detailed data for each of each service for more than one year, it is surmised that the FSC ridership increased and the WMC ridership decreased and the FSC increases must have greatly outpaced the WMC decreases. Since the FSC fares are lower than the average WMC fares, an increase in ridership can still result in a decrease in fare revenues. The other possibility is in the amount of discount tickets for each service increasing. The elderly and disabled fares are 89 50% of the full fares therefore, the increase in elderly and disabled riders would result in lower total fares. While the reduction of the Operating Expenses can be tied to a reduction in the Revenue Hours and Miles, the more concerning decreases are in the Ridership and Fare Revenue categories. Comparing the current year data to FY 2012’s Ridership numbers, the White Mountain Connection service is experiencing a nearly 20% decrease in ridership over the first six months of the fiscal year. The ridership on the Four Seasons Connection has decreased nearly 8% over this period. Due to the higher per ride cost for WMC services (due primarily to larger geographical coverage area), the significant decrease in the WMC ridership is a likely cause for the 20% decrease in Fare Revenues so far this year. The following graphs show the system’s Cost per Revenue Hour and Cost per Revenue Mile from 2008 to 2012. The estimated FY 2013 numbers are included as well. 6.11 Cost per Revenue Hour Over the five years of data, the transit agency’s Cost per Revenue Hour experiences a 5% increase from $55.80 in 2008 to $58.63 in 2012. This represents a very low 1% increase per year. Compared to other transit agencies, the Show Low system has successfully contained their costs over this period. 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013* $5.00 $15.00 $25.00 $35.00 $45.00 $55.00 $65.00 FIGURE 30 Cost per Revenue Hour 6.12 Cost per Revenue Mile At a time of increasing fuel costs, the Show Low transit system has managed to reduce their Cost per Revenue Mile over the last five years. Even with the increase in service in late 2009, the system has continued to keep the per mile cost at less than $2.50. The $2.38 average Cost per Revenue Mile is a 4% decrease from the 2008 average of $2.48. 90 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013* $1.00 $1.50 $2.00 $2.50 $3.00 FIGURE 31 Cost per Revenue Miles The system’s effectiveness measures, including the Average Fare, Operating Cost per Boarding, Farebox Recovery Ratio and Subsidy per Boarding, are shown in the following graphs: 6.13 Average Fare The Average Fare is calculated by dividing the total fares collected by the number of riders. The base fare for the FSC service is $1.00, with discounts for seniors and disabled patrons. The WMC fares range between $1.00 and $5.00 depending on the length of trip. The use of unlimited passes would drive down the average fare for each of these services. However, the dip in Average Fares for the last two years is out of character for the service. 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013* $0.10 $0.20 $0.30 $0.40 $0.50 FIGURE 32 Average Fare 6.14 Operating Cost per Boarding The system’s Operating Cost per Boarding over the last five years peaked in 2010 at $4.16. Over the last two years, the average cost per passenger has steadily declined. Over the five years of data that was reviewed, the Cost per Boarding decreased by more than 12%. This improvement can most likely be attributed to containing costs and increasing ridership. 91 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013* $1.00 $1.50 $2.00 $2.50 $3.00 $3.50 $4.00 $4.50 FIGURE 33 Operating Cost per Boarding 6.15 Subsidy per Boarding The difference in the Operating Cost per Boarding and the Average Fare is the Subsidy per Boarding. Basically, this is the amount of funding paid by the transit system for each passenger that uses the service. This cost is paid for with the use of federal grants and local funds. Due to the sharp decrease in the per-boarding cost over the last two years, the subsidy provided by the agency has also seen a marked decrease. 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013* $1.00 $1.50 $2.00 $2.50 $3.00 $3.50 $4.00 FIGURE 34 Subsidy per Boarding 6.16 Farebox Recovery Ratio The percentage of operating costs recovered through the farebox for the last five years is shown in Figure 34. The Show Low system has maintained a Farebox Recovery Ratio of 10 to 12 percent over this period. The lowest ratio during this period was 10.1% in 2009, while the highest was in 2011 at 11.8%. 92 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013* 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% 7% 8% 9% 10% 11% 12% 13% FIGURE 35 Farebox Recovery Ratio The following productivity measures take a look at the number of patrons served during each hour or mile of service: 6.17 Boardings per Revenue Hour Boardings per Revenue Hour have increased dramatically since the addition of the WMC service in 2009. The slight dip in 2010 seems to indicate a slower than expected ridership impact from the new service. However, in 2011 and 2012, the new service has helped to increase the number of boardings per revenue hour by nearly 20% over the last five years. 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013* 0 5 10 15 20 FIGURE 36 Boardings per Revenue Hour 6.18 Boardings per Revenue Mile Since the number of revenue miles and hours change proportionally year-to-year, the boardings per revenue mile for the last five years appears to have experienced similar results. The boardings per revenue mile increased more than 9% from 2008 to 2012. 93 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013* 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 FIGURE 37 Boardings per Revenue Mile One reason for variances in the two productivity graphs results from the addition of the WMC service. Based on the data supplied for this study, the number of revenue hours has increased more than 42% over the last five years. During that same period, the number of revenue miles has increased over 56%. The majority of the increases to the hours and miles can be attributed to the WMC service. Since this service operates with fewer stops and higher speeds, the difference in the increased miles and hours is predictable. The final measure to discuss is the annual ridership for the service. Ridership is a utilization measure that indicates the public’s actual use of the service. While ridership is a basic measure, it can also be an indicator of issues, both positive and negative, within the service. 6.19 Annual Boardings Prior to the WMC service being added in late 2009, the FSC service continued to grow its ridership. From 2008 to 2009, the system’s ridership increased by nearly 6%. Following the introduction of the commuter service, the overall ridership grew annually by 12%, 26% and 15% from 2010 to 2012, respectively. 94 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013* 25000 75000 125000 175000 225000 FIGURE 38 Annual Boardings From 2008 to 2012, the Show Low transit system experienced steady growth and continually improved their operating statistics, as shown in the above charts. They have been able to control their costs and maintain a consistent amount of service over several years. The addition of the White Mountain Connection commuter service spurred a lot of the growth over the last couple of years. However, as seen in the partial FY 2013 data, the impacts of a less than average year for the WMC service has significant impacts on the service across the board. 6.20 Fleet Assets and Capital Infrastructure The current transit fleet includes seven vehicles. The oldest vehicle was purchased in 2008, while the most recent purchase was in 2013. The following table shows the fleet vehicles: Table 20: Transit Vehicle Fleet Year Vehicle Type 2008 Cutaway 2009 Cutaway 2009 Cutaway 2010 Cutaway 2010 Cutaway 2012 Cutaway Seating Capacity 26 26 30 23 23 23 Mileage 233,565 206,031 237,917 132,148 125,356 18,589 Cutaway transit vehicles are typically used in smaller, rural transit systems due to their flexibility and the public’s perception of the “right fit” for their community. Cutaways do have a lower seating capacity than full size buses, but in smaller systems, capacity is rarely an issue. One distinct advantage of using smaller cutaway transit vehicles is the lower operating cost per hour/mile of operations. The differences in operating cost between a cutaway and a 40-foot urban bus can be significant. The smaller vehicles get better gas mileage and tend to have fewer maintenance issues. 95 One disadvantage of the smaller vehicles is the wheel chair lift. Larger vehicles have, for the most part, moved to a hydraulic or pneumatic lift system that allows the vehicle to be lowered to the curb level, which allows wheel chair patrons to board the vehicle via a ramp. The smaller cutaway vehicles typically use a mechanical wheel chair lift that is more time-consuming and is prone to maintenance problems. In an attempt to overcome the wheel chair issue on their cutaway vehicles, the Show Low transit system purchased two Arboc vehicles in 2010. These vehicles include a low-floor design, which enables wheel chair patrons to board via a front door ramp. The system has experienced some problems with these vehicles. The low-floor design had clearance issues during the winter months. The overall vehicle design also has slightly narrower seats for patrons. When these vehicles are eligible for replacement, the transit director plans to replace them with more traditional cutaway vehicles with a mechanical wheel chair lift. 6.21 Fare Structure As shown in Table 21 and discussed earlier, the Show Low transit system collects fares for their service. The fares collected through this system have covered approximately 10% to 12% of the operating expenses over the last five years. The table below outlines the current fare structure for each of the two services provided: Table 21: Fare Structure Fare Type Single ride Regular Senior (60+) Persons with Disabilities Children under 5 years Multi-Ride Passes 10-Ride Pass Senior (60+) 20-Ride Pass Disabled 20-Ride Pass Unlimited Ride Passes All-Day Pass Monthly Pass Student Semester Pass Student Summer Pass Four Seasons Connection White Mountain Connection $1.00 $0.50 $0.50 Free $1.00 to $5.00 $0.50 to $2.50 $0.50 to $2.50 Free $7.50 $10.00 $10.00 N/A $10.00* $10.00* $3.00 $30.00 $35.00 $20.00 $8.00** $30.00 to $60.00 $70.00 N/A *The multi-ride pass for WMC seniors and disabled persons is a 20-punch pass. A varying number of punches are required depending on the length of trip. **The WMC all-day pass includes a free transfer to FSC in Show Low The fare structure for the Four Seasons Connection has not changed since the last study more than four years ago. The White Mountain Connection was not in service during the 2009 study, but its fare structure has been static since the service’s inception more than three years ago. 96 6.22 Operational Revenue Sources As discussed earlier, federal transit grants, administered through Arizona DOT, account for the majority of the operations funding for the Show Low transit system. The following pie charts illustrate the percentages of federal and local funding for the system operations over the last five years. 2008 2009 Federal 44% 56% Federal 43% 57% Local 2010 52% Local 2012 Federal 48% 56% Local 2011 Federal 44% 44% Local Federal 56% Local FIGURE 39 2008-2012 Federal and Local Funding Local sources for operation expenses include advertising, local governments and businesses. Fares that are collected in the operation of the revenue vehicles are not considered local match. Farebox revenues, including all tickets and passes, are considered as operating revenues and are returned to the operation of the transit services and, therefore, cannot be used as local match for other funds. If future expansions to the Show Low system are considered, ADOT has indicated that additional Section 5311 funding could be available. With the federal grant funding covering more than half of the operations expenses, the city of Show Low would be responsible for identifying less than half of the additional funding. 97 6.23 Capital Revenue Sources The Show Low transit system has sparingly used capital funding over the last five years. As shown in Table 18 of this report, a major equipment purchase was made in 2008 resulting in the use of $115,061 of federal grants. Other purchases were made in 2009, 2010 and 2012, but none of those purchases resulted in the use of large sums of federal funding. The passage of the federal transportation legislation known as Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21) allows transit agencies to use a higher percentage of federal grant funding for vehicle purchases. For projects that meet the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Clean Air Act or bicycle access projects, federal funds may be used to pay for 90% of the project cost. The remaining 10% of the project cost is required to be paid for through local or state funding sources. 6.24 Coordination with Other Providers One of the core missions for the Arizona DOT Multimodal Planning Division is coordination of transit planning efforts in the rural areas of the state. ADOT has strived to meet this basic mission by developing regional coordination plans across the state to “provide a road map to address the transportation needs and coordination of public transportation and specialized transportation services for the elderly and persons with disabilities in the regions.” The goal is to provide transit service to as many residents in the most efficient and effective ways. The Show Low transit system was identified in the 2011 Northern Arizona Council of Governments (NACOG) Regional Transportation Coordination Plan as one of six rural transit providers in the region that includes the counties of Apache, Navajo, Coconino and Yavapai. The other five transit providers include:      City of Cottonwood (Yavapai County) Hopi Tribe (Navajo and Coconino Counties) Navajo Nation (Apache, Navajo and Coconino Counties) City of Sedona (Coconino County) City of Page (Coconino County) Due to the rural nature of the region and the large distances between Show Low and the other 5311 sub-recipients in the Northern Arizona region, the coordination of services has proven to not be economical to date. Within the NACOG region, there are several private non-profit and public agencies that provide service to the elderly and disabled through the Section 5310 program. Coordination with NAGOG includes all member agencies, not just those with transit services. Of the 21 member agencies 98 shown in the regional coordination plan, very few are within a reasonable distance to the Show Low transit system. The NACOG Regional Transportation Coordination Plan breaks down the region into three subregions for more detailed analysis. The Show Low transit system is located within the Southern Apache/Navajo sub-region. The plan identifies the top needs in the sub-region, including:  Overall limited transportation services available in the sub-region  Significant vehicle replacement needs (White Mountain Apache Tribe Elderly Services Program, CCC)  Unmet needs for veterans, seniors, medical and social services  Lack of operating funds  Long distances between providers/communities Additionally, the plan identified the following strategies for coordination in the sub-region:  Involve both Apache and Navajo Counties in funding and service coordination  Evaluate the feasibility of service from Winslow to Flagstaff and from outlying communities to Show Low/Pinetop-Lakeside for shopping trips and medical appointments  Establish regular coordination working group meetings with providers to identify opportunities for coordination  Encourage the development of back-up service agreements where multiple providers are located in a single community Based on the proximity to existing transit service, the Holbrook Senior Center should be considered for coordination by the Show Low transit system. Although the cost of using the service was identified in the regional coordination plan as a deterrent to residents, the existing route could provide opportunities for residents for shopping, entertainment and other services. Another service north of Holbrook is the Winslow Council on Aging. This agency could be a potential candidate for coordination with the WMC service that currently runs to Holbrook. Throughout Southern Navajo County, Community Counseling Centers provide transportation to AHCCCS eligible residents. Services are provided for health care appointments to facilities in Holbrook, Show Low, Snowflake/Taylor and Winslow. Coordination for non-health trips is needed by participants in this program. In neighboring Apache County, the Round Valley Senior Center in the Town of Springerville could be an additional opportunity for coordination. In the past, an extension of the current FSC routes was investigated, but the lack of local funds from the Town of Springerville hindered further study. Further discussions between Show Low and each of these agencies would be necessary to 99 identify the needs of their clients to determine if the coordination of services should be considered in the future. 6.25 Study Area Population In order to determine transit demand for the Show Low transit system, the study area was determined to include the populations of Show Low, Taylor, Snowflake, Holbrook and PinetopLakeside. The total population of these defined places was 29,097 or 27.6% of Navajo County. Table 22: Population by Study Area Place Population Show Low 10,660 Taylor 4,112 Snowflake 5,590 Holbrook 5,053 Pinetop-Lakeside 4,282 Total 29,697 Navajo County 107,449 Study Area Percent of 27.6% County Population (29,697/107,449) Source: 2010 Census 6.26 Population 60 Years and Older The total number of persons 60 years and older in Navajo County is 20,426. The approximate number of persons 60 years and older in the study area was derived from that number by multiplying it times the study area’s portion of Navajo County’s population (27.6%). Table 23: Navajo County 60 & Over Population Age Cohort Navajo County Population 60 to 64 years 6,185 65 to 69 years 5,033 70 to 74 years 3,834 75 to 79 years 2,490 80 to 84 years 1,646 85 years and over 1,238 Total 20,426 5,638 Study Area 60 Years and Older (20,426 x 27.6%) Source: American Fact Finder (http://factfinder2.census.gov) The study areas portion of the population 60 years and older is 19 percent of the total study area population. For the disabled and poverty population calculations, the portion of the study area population under 60 years is assumed to by 81 percent of the total study area population. 100 6.27 Disabled Population under 60 years Since the Census data did not contain disabled population data at the county or city level, the disabled persons under 60 years was calculated from the state population. After factoring in the study area population and the portion of the county under 60 years old, the disabled population was estimated to be 2,822. Table 24: Disabled Population Under 60 Years Geographic Boundary Disabled Population Arizona 750,870 Navajo County (1.7% of state) 12,622 Study Area (27.6% of county) 3,484 Study Area Disabled Population 2,822 under 60 years (3,484 x 81%) Source: American Community Survey 6.28 Poverty Population under 60 Years The number of persons under 60 years living below the poverty income level was determined by using the American Community Survey percentage of families below the poverty line for each of the communities in the study area. The total number of people living in poverty in the study area was further reduced to reflect the 81 percent of the study area population that are under 60 years. Table 25: Poverty Population Under 60 Years by Study Area Place % of Families in Population Poverty Poverty Population Show Low 9.5% 10,660 1,013 Taylor 8.5% 4,112 350 Snowflake 5.2% 5,590 291 Holbrook 10.9% 5,053 551 Pinetop-Lakeside 7.3% 4,282 313 Totals 29,697 2,459 1,992 Study Area Poverty Population under 60 years (2,459 x 81%) Source: American Community Survey 6.29 Transit Demand Estimate Estimating a community’s need for public transportation can seem very subjective, depending on your perspective. In order to take some of the subjectivity out of the equation, several models have been developed to provide a more objective approach to the process. Each of the models 101 was developed based on quantifiable data (typically Census data) and existing transit use patterns. The Arkansas Model of transit demand estimation is of the most widely used models for this purpose. Developed in 1992, this model uses traditional transit dependent population data to determine a community’s need for public transportation. The data includes elderly, disabled and low-income populations. Trip rates for each of these segments of the population were developed and applied to the following formula: Unlinked Passenger Trip Demand = (8.4 x population 65 years and older) + (30.0 x disabled population less than 65 years) + (14.5 x low income, non-disabled population less than 65 years) This model has its advantages and disadvantages. First, the model uses three primary markets of public transit users (elderly, disabled and low-income). The data for each of these groups is relatively easy to obtain for small areas, such as cities or counties. The downside to using these particular factors for estimating need is in the future projection of each segment of the population. Projecting an aging population is easy to accomplish. However, projecting the amount of disabled or low-income residents in a particular area is more daunting. In spite of these drawbacks, the Arkansas Model continues to be widely used for this task. In 2007, a variation to the Arkansas model was developed for Arizona. Based on similar factors to the Arkansas model, the Arizona model has been successful in generating quality results for determining transit needs in rural areas. One drawback is that the model does not apply to fixed routes in urban areas. The Arizona model uses the following calculations in determining a community’s transit need: Transit Demand per Year (1-way trips) = (6.79 x population 60 years and older) + (4.49 x disabled population under 60 years) + 20.5 x population living in poverty under 60 years) In spite of the Arizona model lacking the ability to determine choice riders (people that do not fit in any of the three categories used in the model) or tourist use of the transit system, this model continues to be used for basic transit demand estimation. The following table shows the results of the calculations used in the determination of the study area’s transit demand: 102 Table 26: Transit Demand by Population Group Population Group Study Area Demand Factor 60 years and older 5,638 6.79 Disabled under 60 years 2,822 4.49 Poverty under 60 years 1,992 20.5 Total Transit Demand per Year (1-way trips) Transit Demand per Year 38,279 12,671 40,832 91,782 Sources: American Fact Finder (http://factfinder2.census.gov), American Community Survey Based on the calculations, using the Arizona Model for transit demand estimating, the Show Low transit system is performing well above the demand threshold. The estimated transit demand accounts for only about 45 percent of the 2012 ridership totals. The remaining 55 percent of ridership comes from portions of the study area population that do not fit into the three demographic groups described above and seasonal residents to the study area. Based on the data in the 2009 Four Seasons Connection Five Year Transit Plan, the demand has shifted considerably more towards elderly residents in the study area and away from residents living below the poverty level. The table below shows the shift in transit demand among the three population groups: Table 27: Transit Demand Changes from 2009 to 2013 Population Group 2009 Transit Demand 2013 Transit Demand 60 years and older 18,781 38,279 Disabled under 60 years 6,769 12,671 Poverty under 60 years 83,845 40,832 Totals 109,395 91,782 7. Existing & Future Conditions: Trails This section defines specific terminology and facility types for the trails and non-motorized mobility components of the Show Low Trails and Transit Connectivity Study. 7.1 Resource Documents The following resource documents provide a direct or general level of guidance for the bicycle and pedestrian trails and path facilities referenced throughout this document. These primary documents include: 103 Percent Change +104% +87% -51% -16% 1. Arizona Revised Statutes Title 28 (Transportation) 2. The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials’ (AASHTO) Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities (4th Edition, 2012) 3. The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Guide for the Planning, Design, and Operation of Pedestrian Facilities, 2004 4. The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways (MUTCD) (2009 Edition) 5. The Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) Traffic Engineering Policies, Guides and Procedures (PGP)(January 2000, revised October 2012) 6. Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT, Intermodal Transportation Division Policy, MGT 02-1, “Bicycle Policy” (February 27, 2007, reviewed February 27, 2010) 7. United States Forest Service Outdoor Recreation Accessibility Guidelines 8. United States Forest Service Trail Accessibility Guidelines 9. Accessibility Guidelines for Outdoor Developed Areas Created by the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board (Access Board). 10. ADA and ABA Accessibility Guidelines. Access Board guidelines completed in 2004, and currently pending adoption as ADA standards by USDOJ and USDOT, U.S Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board 11. Public Rights-of-Way. Proposed accessibility guidelines for sidewalks, street crossings, and intersections, revised November 23, 2005. U.S Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board 12. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Trails and Waterways, Trail Planning, Design and Development Guidelines, 2006; 13. Additional non-profit resources including, AmericanTrails.org, the National Center for Walking and Biking. 7.2 Relationship to the Current Show Low Trails Master Plan The City of Show Low currently has a Trails Master Plan that was adopted by City Council on September 9, 2009. As the Trails Master Plan specifically states: 104 “The purpose of the master plan, especially at the time, was to establish a trail system which connects neighborhoods to the larger trail system, provide a link to recreation opportunities, and offers an alternative mode of transportation for the residents of Show Low.” The Trails Master Plan was largely driven by the need to establish a set of guidelines and procedures in response to incoming residential subdivision development proposals. Show Low needed a tool that required proposed residential subdivisions to establish trails within the residential community and to also make provisions to connect any on-site trails to existing or planned trails within proximity to the proposed subdivision. The Trails Master Plan includes a glossary of terms, trails master plan map, trail design standards with cross section details. A desired objective of the Show Low Trails and Transit Connectivity Study is to provide the City of Show Low with an update to the Trails Master Plan. As is the course with master plan updates, some of the existing information will remain intact and some will be refined as necessary. The Show Low Trails and Transit Connectivity Study will selectively refine the terminology and definitions of some of the existing facility types and standards yet without compromising the purpose and intent of the Trails Master Plan. 7.3 Bikeway and Pedestrian Facility Definitions Bicycle and trail facilities are located throughout the world and have a wide variety of terms and definitions associated with each of them. Historically these terms have not always been consistent or are at times interchangeable. This is of course easy to understand as ordinary citizens have a general sense of trail types, but the subtle differences can be confusing at times. In order to establish a baseline set of definitions for guidance and consistent with state law, it is important to have a root understanding of what guidance, especially relating to the operation of bicycles, is established in the Arizona Revised Statutes. The Arizona Revised Statutes (ARS) Title 28 provides definitions related to bicyclists and pedestrians, as well as rights granted to cyclists accessing roadways. ARS 28-101 defines bicycle, pedestrian, and vehicle as follows: 6. "Bicycle" means a device, including a racing wheelchair, that is propelled by human power and on which a person may ride and that has either: (a) Two tandem wheels, either of which is more than sixteen inches in diameter. 105 (b) Three wheels in contact with the ground, any of which is more than sixteen inches in diameter. 41. "Pedestrian" means any person afoot. A person who uses an electric personal assistive mobility device or a manual or motorized wheelchair is considered a pedestrian unless the manual wheelchair qualifies as a bicycle. For the purposes of this paragraph, "motorized wheelchair" means a selfpropelled wheelchair that is used by a person for mobility. 57. "Vehicle" means a device in, on or by which a person or property is or may be transported or drawn on a public highway, excluding devices moved by human power or used exclusively on stationary rails or tracks. ARS 28-812 indicates the following: A person riding a bicycle on a roadway or on a shoulder adjoining a roadway is granted all of the rights and is subject to all of the duties applicable to the driver of a vehicle by this chapter and chapters 4 and 5 of this title, except special rules in this article and except provisions of this chapter and chapters 4 and 5 of this title that by their nature can have no application. 7.4 Path & Trail Types As previously noted, there is no one universal set of trail types and standards. At times, trail types and names are influenced by local and physical needs and design objectives or constraints. Generally speaking, the term “trail” means an unimproved recreational facility whereby a “path” typically implies that the facility consists of a paved surface. For purposes of the Show Low Trails and Transit Connectivity Study, the following definitions are derived from the collective resource manuals identified above. Shared Use Path A shared use path provides for bicycle or pedestrian travel on a paved right-of-way physically separated from motorized traffic by open space or a barrier. Shared use paths are often designed for two-way travel and typically are planned along uninterrupted linear rights-of-way such as major roadways, utility corridors, rivers, channels, rail rights-of-way or large open spaces or park areas. A shared use path may be used by cyclists, pedestrians, skaters, wheelchair users, joggers, and other non-motorized users. 106 FIGURE 40 Typical Shared Use Path Design Local Trail An off-street path or trail for the use of non-motorized transportation (pedestrians, equestrians, bicyclists), which may or may not be paved. Local trails are typically not paved and are primarily designed for the pedestrian and less so for bicyclists and serve the surrounding area. Multipurpose Trail An off-street path or trail for the use of nonmotorized transportation (pedestrians, equestrians, bicyclists), which may, but is usually not paved. Multipurpose trails are not designed for the primary use of bicyclists and serve local and regional needs. 107 Greenway An off-street path or trail located within a larger landscaped corridor. This type of facility may have associated amenities such as seating areas or recreational facilities. A greenway may also be designed around a natural feature such as a waterway. Sidewalks Sidewalks generally provide the greatest degree of comfort for pedestrians when pedestrian use is frequent and in close proximity to a roadway facility. In Show Low where much of the existing and planned land uses are rural and low density residential uses, sidewalks are not always necessary or desired. As a general rule of thumb, sidewalks are preferred in residential communities with an average lot size of 10,000 square feet or smaller with a considerable number of lots that generate higher volumes of daily vehicular traffic. The population densities and vehicle trips generated in higher density subdivisions warrant the application of sidewalks to safely segregate the pedestrian from vehicular traffic. In residential areas with lower densities, paved shoulders on rural roadway sections adequately serve pedestrian comfort and convenience. 108 FIGURE 41 MAG Standard Sidewalk Detail Source: Maricopa Association of Governments 7.5 Bikeway Facilities The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials’ (AASHTO) Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities (4th Edition, 2012) provides definitions for bicycle facilities. The following definitions are utilized for this study: Bicycle Path - Provides for bicycle travel on a paved right-of-way completely separated from a street or highway. Bicycle paths are often planned along uninterrupted linear rights-of-way, such as rivers and rail rights-of-way. 109 FIGURE 42 Typical Bicycle Path Bicycle Lane - Provides a dedicated portion of the roadway designated by striping, signing, and pavement markings for one-way bike travel. Can be buffered; see below. Some bicycle maps will identify grade and corresponding traffic volumes along bike lanes to convey to cyclists the potential level of difficulty or stress associated with riding those bike lanes. ADOT policy explicitly states bicycle lanes should not be designated on sidewalks. FIGURE 43 Typical Bicycle Lane Bicycle Route - A preferred travel route for bicyclists, on which a separate lane or path is either not feasible or not desirable. The rightmost lane of a bicycle route is shared by bicyclists and cars. The route is marked with signs and can also be marked with sharrows. Sharrows (Shared Lane Marking) are defined in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways (MUTCD) (2009 Edition).ADOT policy explicitly states bicycle routes should not be designated on sidewalks. 110 FIGURE 44 Typical Bicycle Route  Bike routes can become more useful when coupled with such techniques as the following: – Route, directional, and distance signage – Wide curb lanes – Sharrow stencils painted in the traffic lane along the appropriate path of where a bicyclist would ride in the lane. – Accelerated pavement maintenance schedules – Traffic signals timed and coordinated for cyclists (where appropriate) – Traffic calming measures Paved Shoulders Paved shoulders are not formal travel lanes like a bike lane yet can be a less formal method of accommodating bicycle travel, particularly on rural or county roads. A paved shoulder width of at least 4-feet beyond the roadway striping is desired when no vertical obstructions are present. A width of 5-feet is preferred when vertical obstructions such as guardrails, curbs or other roadside barriers are present. The shoulder width generally increases with posted roadway speed. Shoulders composed of dirt or chip seal surface that do not provide uniform integrity would not be suitable shoulder surfaces for bicycling. The following design characteristics are enhanced bike lanes or bike routes which help to increase driver awareness of bicyclists: 111 Buffered bike lanes – Bike lanes with a painted buffer area usually outside the bike lane providing some space between bicycles and motor vehicles (left photo). The buffer may also go between parked cars and the bike lane (right photo). Type B Sharrows – This is a term that used to describe bold sharrows, such as a 6’-wide green swath painted under their sharrows (left photo) or large sharrows (right photo) spaced close together. This study utilizes the following definitions for facilities that are not planned for bicycle travel: Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon Also known as the High intensity Activated crossWalK (or HAWK) is a pedestrianactivated warning device located on the roadside or on mast arms over midblock pedestrian crossings. The beacon head consists of two red lenses above a single yellow lens. The beacon head is "dark" until the pedestrian desires to cross the street. At 112 this point, the pedestrian will push an easy to reach button that activates the beacon. After displaying brief flashing and steady yellow intervals, the device displays a steady red indication to drivers and a "WALK" indication to pedestrians, allowing them to cross a major roadway while traffic is stopped. After the pedestrian phase ends, the "WALK" indication changes to a flashing orange hand to notify pedestrians that their clearance time is ending. The hybrid beacon displays alternating flashing red lights to drivers while pedestrians finish their crossings before once again going dark at the conclusion of the cycle. 7.6 Types of Bicyclists Several types of bikeway users exist in every community, each with varying needs and values. An effective bikeway network takes all user group needs into consideration. Bicyclists who ride for recreation and/or transportation can be grouped into the following categories as defined in Selecting Roadway Design Treatments to Accommodate Bicyclists (Federal Highways Administration, 1994): Advanced or experienced riders: These riders generally ride for convenience and speed and want direct access to destinations with minimum detour or delay. They are typically comfortable riding with motor vehicle traffic, but still require sufficient operating space on the travel way or shoulder to eliminate the need for either themselves or a passing motor vehicle to shift position. Basic or novice riders: These riders use their bicycles on a more casual basis, such as trips to the store or for occasional exercise, but prefer to avoid roads with fast and heavy motor vehicle traffic. Novice riders are comfortable riding on neighborhood streets and shared use paths and prefer designated facilities such as bike lanes or wide shoulder lanes on busier streets. 113 Children: Riding on their own or with their parents, children may not travel as fast as their adult counterparts, but still require access to key destinations in their community, especially schools, playgrounds, and other recreational facilities. Off-street paths and residential streets with low motor vehicle speeds are ideal for children. Busier streets with well-defined pavement markings between bicycles and motor vehicles can accommodate children without encouraging them to ride in the travel lane of major arterials. 7.7 Other Definitions The following definitions are relevant to the Show Low Trails and Transit Study and trail and bikeways network in the area. Bicycle: The AASHTO definition of a bicycle is “every vehicle propelled solely by human power which any person may ride, having two tandem wheels, except scooters and similar devices”. The term “bicycle” also includes three- and four-wheeled humanpowered vehicles, but not tricycles for children. Grade: The slope of a facility. The maximum generally accepted grade for a Class I bikeway is 5%, with 2% for sustained distances. At-grade crossing: When a trail or bikeway intersects with a roadway at the same level as crossing traffic on the roadway. At-grade crossings may or may not be signalized, but are often controlled intersections. Grade separation: When a trail or bikeway crosses over or under a roadway, allowing users to cross without interacting with automobile traffic. Grade separations in this Plan are also termed “overcrossings” and “undercrossings.” Amenities: Physical features that enhance safety, aesthetics, and enjoyment of nonmotorized transportation. Amenities may include landscaping, lighting, rest amenities, and end-of-trip facilities. End-of-trip facilities: Include bicycle racks, bicycle or personal lockers, showers, or any other facility or amenity that provides bicycle commuters with a place to securely store belongings, or a place for bicyclists to change clothes and shower. End-of-trip facilities are especially important to bicycle commuters and are usually provided by employers. 114 7.8 Federal Highway Administration Four E’s The Federal Highway Administration has identified four design components to make bicycling and walking more viable and attractive. The “4-E” program emerged since the 1960’s when communities’ emphasis on bicycle use needed expanded perspective beyond only the provision of bicycle facilities. The 4-E’s are defined below: 1. Engineering: Design bicycle facilities to the “best available practices” and beyond. 2. Education: Tailor education programs to adult and student bicyclists and to motorists to inform on safe cycling and driving. 3. Enforcement: Establish routine enforcement measures to enforce rules designed for the safety of the rider. 4. Encouragement: Offer encouragement activities and events that are fun, safe, and easy to entice would-be cyclists and reward children to ride effectively and safely. 7.9 Existing & Future Conditions: Show Low Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities This section describes existing and future bike ways, trails and path conditions in the Show Low Study Area. Figure 45: Existing and Planned Show Low Trails illustrates existing and planned bicycle and pedestrian facilities in Show Low and adjacent areas. A summary of many notable facilities and locations are identified and described in more detail below. Generally speaking, Show Low has an assortment of trails and path types available to residents and visitors for hiking, walking and bicycling recreation enjoyment. The White Mountains are home to the White Mountain Trail System, which was conceived and designed as a way to increase recreational opportunities for everyone who enjoys the forest through hiking, biking and horseback riding. A series of loop trails and connectors, such as the 12mile Buena Vista Trail located on the southwest border of Show Low, have been constructed through a partnership with the U.S. Forest Service, Pinetop-Lakeside TRACKS and the Arizona State Parks Heritage Trails Fund. 115 7.10 TRACKS As their website proudly points out, TRACKS stands for: Trailsystem Ride And Cycle & Cross-country ski & hiKe the Seasons TRACKS is dedicated to using, promoting, preserving, and protecting multi-use trails throughout Pinetop-Lakeside, Show Low and the entire White Mountains. TRACKS strives to support and assist the development, maintenance, and improvement of non-motorized trails, and to provide a resource for education, communication, and social interaction designed to enhance the enjoyment of outdoor experiences on the trails. TRACKS, as National Forest Service Volunteers does weekly trail maintenance in the Pinetop-Lakeside, Show Low, and White Mountain area. A TRACKS representative serves as a TAC member for Show Low Trails and Transit Connectivity Study. TRACKS was conceived in February 1987. The new White Mountains TRAILSYSTEM was born at the first meeting of what was to become the White Mountain Horsemen's Association. Twentyfive horsemen from the mountain met to commiserate the closing of an increasing number of long-term riding areas. This problem, as they saw it was a result of increasing urbanization of the area that seemed destined to limit access to the forest for residents and visitors. As shown in Figure 45: Existing and Proposed Show Low Trails, TRACKS has been a catalyst and vital contributor to the construction and /or maintenance of popular trails in Show Low such as the Buena Vista trail, Los Caballos trail, Chihuahua Pine Connector trail and the Show Low Bluff trail. While the intent and focus of the Show Low Trails and Transit Connectivity Study is largely on the linkage between Show Low-area trails and transit planning, the need to plan for connections to nearby important trails such as the Timber Mesa trail, Sawmill Connector and Porter Mountain Loop trail are important to the betterment of the overall White Mountain Trail System and will be contemplated in the Show Low Trails and Transit Connectivity Study. 116 FIGURE 45 Existing and Planned Show Low Trails *Show Low municipal boundary as of December 2011 Source: City of Show Low/TRACKS/USFS 7.11 Forest Service Trails The 15 square miles of Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest within Show Low’s city limits affords a wide variety of first-class multiuse trails for year round hiking and recreation opportunities. The two most prominent forest service trails in proximity to the City of Show Low are the Buena Vista trail and the Los Caballos trail. Buena Vista Trail The Buena Vista Trail #637 is located at the southern and western borders of the Show Low City limits. It is a 10 mile loop of “moderate” difficulty. Hiking, biking and equestrian uses are permitted. The Buena Vista trail can be accessed from a trailhead off Forest Road (FR) 300 near the Summer Pines subdivision just outside of Show Low on US 60. The trailhead is on the left. The Buena Vista Trail and can also be 117 accessed more informally from Flores Drive off Cub Lake Road near the southern Show Low municipal limits. The Buena Vista trail is one of the more popular trails by users in the Show Low area. The trail joins with the Chihuahua Pines Connector trail which provides regional linkage to the Los Caballos trail. FIGURE 46 Buena Vista Trail Location Map Source: TRACKS/USFS 118 Los Caballos Trail The Los Caballos Trail #638 is located near the northern border of the City of Show Low. The trail head is located about .6 miles off Clark Road (SR 260) on Joe Tank Road. The Los Caballos trail is a 15.5 mile loop offering hiking, biking and equestrian uses. Los Caballos is one of the longest trails in the White Mountain Trail System. The trail winds its way through ponderosa pine and pinonjuniper woodland at elevations much lower than the east side of the district. It is a rating level of “difficult”. The Los Caballos trail is relatively flat, except for a few short, steep grades. The majority of the trail follows old logging roads as it winds along Joe Tank Ridge and through Bagnal Draw. Since the Rodeo-Chedeski fire that impacted portions of this trail, the Los Caballos trail offers an interesting look at the ecology that follows a forest fire. 119 FIGURE 47 Los Caballos Trail Location Map Source: TRACKS/USFS Chihuahua Pine Connector The Chihuahua Pine Connector #638A is a 4.2 mile trail with a rating level of “difficult”. Hiking, biking and equestrian uses are permitted. This trail provides a connection between the Buena Vista Trail and the Los Caballos trail just south and west of the Show Low city limits within the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest. There is an underpass crossing of US 60 that provides the connection across the highway. The underpass has been an unfortunate recipient of graffiti, but provides a comfortable, seamless connection under the highway. 120 FIGURE 48 Chihuahua Pine Connector Trail Location Map Source: TRACKS/USFS 121 7.12 Other Notable Off-Road Trails in Show Low Show Low Bluff Trail The Show Low Bluff Trails is conveniently located directly off White Mountain Road, approximately ¼ mile north of the Woolford Rd. intersection. The Meadow Trailhead has ample parking but no facilities. The entire looped trail is approximately 1.5 miles and rated as easy to moderate for hikers and mountain bikers. The trail sets out as a shared use path crossing the picturesque meadow and Show Low Creek area. The trail then transitions into a multiuse trail as it turns south parallel (and set back from) Show Low Creek. The trail then begins to climb onto the side of the bluff and into Ponderosa Pines. As the trail continues its ascent, the pinion-juniper vegetation noticeably changes as it reaches “the bench”. The midway point of the loop is located near the Show Low Bluffs master planned community where a second less formal trailhead exists. The Show Low Bluff developer provided an easement to the City of Show Low so that the trail is for the community. The City constructed an asphalt parking area off White Mountain Rd, with an asphalt path across a walking bridge in the meadow to the primitive loop trail, which was built by TRACKS. 122 FIGURE 49 Show Low Bluff Trail Location Map Source: TRACKS/USFS Summit Trail The Summit Trail is an existing publicly accessible, shared use path that runs along one side of Summit Trail (roadway) in the Torreon master planned community. True to its definition, this shared use path is an 8-foot wide colored concrete surface detached and buffered from the roadway. The trail experience meanders through the Ponderosa Pines and offers sweeping views of the adjacent golf course as well as connection to the various residential enclaves in Torreon. Summit Trail is just over two miles long, traversing the Torreon community and providing connection to the two main project entrances at US 60 to SR 260. From SR 260 to the north, the shared use path runs along the west side of the roadway for a majority of its length where it eventually crosses Summit Trail and continues along the east side of the roadway until its connection at US 60. 123 Show Low City Park Trail This is an existing shared looping around the periphery of Show Low City Park. This trail provides a convenient connection to and from the multiple active and passive recreational activities offered at the Show Low City Park. Fitness stations are located along the trail and easy access to restroom services is provided. Users can enjoy the proximity to the active recreational uses such as the ball fields and youth play apparatus but also find themselves amongst the solace of the Ponderosa Pines in more isolated portions of this trail. Fool Hollow Lake Multiuse Trail As previously introduced, the Fool Hollow Lake Recreation Area is an 850 acre outdoor recreation area offering year round camping, fishing, picnicking, wildlife viewing and day-use areas. Located off Old Linden Road just ½ mile east of Clark Road (SR 260), Fool Hollow is centrally located for resident and tourist visitors alike. A multiuse trail around the western, southern and eastern reaches of the lake provides stunning views and is an excellent opportunity for experienced outdoor hikers to casual pedestrian strolling. The existing trail is approximately 2.5 miles long and users have multiple points of access along the route. As the existing trail terminates along the eastern portion of the lake near the lake’s transition to Show Low Creek, a multiuse trail is planned along both sides of Show Low Creek that would ultimately connect to a planned multiuse trail at Long Lake. 124 Show Low Timber Mesa Multiuse Path (Planned) The Show Low Timber-Mesa Multiuse Path is an approved transportation element of the original 1987 White Mountain Trailsystem Plan and updated 1999 Trailsystem plan. The Show Low Timber Mesa Multiuse Path is approximately 2 miles in length and is intended to provide an important urban trail link between the Buena Vista trail and the Timber Mesa trail located on USFS properties east and west of the more urbanized areas of Show Low. The proposed trail, shown on Figure 45: Existing and Proposed Show Low Trail, essentially follows the Cub Lake Road/Show Lake Road alignments to provide this connection. More specifically, (from west to east) the proposed trail would link the Buena Vista trail following the unimproved county roadways of Four Wheel Drive and Flores Drive until it would join the Cub Lake Road. The trail would cross SR 260 at the Show Low Lake Road/Cub Lake Road signalized intersection and proceed along existing sidewalks along Show Lake Road east of SR 260. The proposed trail would turn north along 28th Street for a short distance, then east along Sitgreaves Drive. At the eastern terminus of the existing Sitgreaves Drive improvements, the trail would then connect to USFS boundary/property following an existing local wash. 125 In total, the proposed Show Low Timber Mesa Multiuse Path would consist of a combination of existing and re-constructed sidewalks adjacent to the existing urbanized areas and a natural surfaced trail of 6-10 feet in width in non-urbanized areas and along existing county maintained roadways. The multiuse path is intended to serve pedestrians and non-motorized users. A Design Concept Report prepared by Entranco was completed in January of 2003. 7.13 Non-Motorized Mobility on Key Roadways in Show Low State Highways The discussion below describes the existing pedestrian and bicycle facilities along each of the state highways that form Show Low’s principal roadways. An inventory and evaluation of pedestrian and bicycle facilities on these busiest of Show Low roadways is important in consideration of enhancing the overall non-motorized mobility and pedestrian and bicycle safety and access to the many FSC transit stops located on these priority, well-traveled corridors. Please refer to Figure 45: Existing and Proposed Trails for additional map reference beyond the summaries provided below. It is important to note that Section 20, will provide a closer examination of the relationship and linkage between trail facilities and existing transit stops. 126 Deuce of Clubs The Deuce of Clubs (US 60) is a 4-lane thoroughfare that serves as the principal roadway through the heart of Show Low. From Clark Road to South White Mountain Road, clearly is “the main drag” by serving the vast majority of the commercial land uses in Show Low. Grocery stores, housewares, car dealerships, professional offices, restaurants and many other commercial businesses sport an address on “the Deuce”. The Deuce of Clubs has two through lanes of traffic in each direction and a center turn lane. Curb, gutter and sidewalks are located on both sides of the Deuce for a majority of the segment between Clark Road and White Mountain Road. Only the north side of the roadway from Clark Road to the Show Low Aquatic Center lacks sidewalks. No bike lane facilities are located on the Deuce of Clubs. Please see Figure 45: Existing and Proposed Trails for additional reference. The City of Show Low has received transportation enhancement funding from ADOT for the design and construction of a shared use path facility from the Torreon entrance (Summit Trail) to the intersection of the Deuce of Clubs and Clark Road. The design stage is just beginning and the proposed location of the shared use path is being evaluated. Also, a shared use path is proposed along the south side of the Deuce of Clubs for the primary segment between Clark Road and White Mountain Road. White Mountain Road White Mountain Road (SR 260) south of the intersection with the Deuce of Clubs has sidewalks on both sides of the highway adjacent to downtown Show Low. A paved (striped) shoulder exists on the east side of the roadway only in this area. Heading south, the sidewalk continues on the west side of the roadway serving the professional offices and commercial businesses to the intersection with Woolford Rd. The paved shoulder continues along the east side of the roadway along this segment of the White Mountain Road. From Woolford Road continuing south to the Park Pineway Shopping Center, no sidewalks are present but paved shoulders exist along both sides of the highway. Just south of Fawnbrook Drive, an informal multiuse path exists along the west side of the roadway. There is limited a stretch of sidewalk on the west side of White Mountain Road in front of the Pizza Hut and along the east side of the highway, sidewalk runs continuously from the Park Pineway Shopping Center, 127 to Summit Healthcare Regional Medical Center and the Show Low Lake Rd. intersection. No paved shoulders exist on this segment of the roadway. A shared use path along the west side of the roadway that would provide a southerly extension of the existing sidewalk in front of the Pine Oaks subdivision to Show Low Lake Road is planned for future improvement. A sidewalk is proposed along the east side of the roadway along the segments of roadway south of the Meadow Trailhead where no sidewalk exists today. Please see Figure 43: Existing and Proposed Trails for additional reference. Clark Road Arriving into Show Low from Linden, SR 260 (Clark Road) has two paved shoulders on both sides of this 4lane roadway facility with center lane. At its intersection with Old Linden Road, Clark Road continuing southeast includes a combination of attached sidewalk and detached shared use path facilities along the east side of this roadway. This combined facility provides a safe and pleasant pedestrian experience as it provides connection to the Show Low Park driveway entrance. Attached sidewalk exists along the west side of the road from Venture Inn to the intersection with US 60. Paved shoulders do not exist south of the Old Linden Road intersection. Penrod Road Penrod Road is an arterial roadway classification in the Show Low General Plan. Penrod Road is currently a two lane roadway functioning as the sole north-south collector roadway in the Show Low bluff providing regional connection to Porter Mountain Road in Lakeside. There are no pedestrian or bike facilities, but the roadway does have graded shoulders on both sides for a majority of the length of the roadway in Show Low. A shared use path for the entire length of this roadway is planned for future improvement. 128 Whipple Road Intersecting with the Deuce of Clubs by the LDS Church and Northland Pioneer College (NPC), Whipple Road serves as the most significant and continuous east-west collector linking residential communities with the downtown and other land uses south of the Deuce of Clubs. Sidewalks and bike lanes currently exist on both sides of Whipple road near the LDS Church and NPC campus which is the busiest traffic volume area of Whipple Road. The road is “hilly” over much of the length of the facility. East of 9th Avenue, the sidewalk on the south side of the street ends and the bike lanes continue east to the intersection with Central Avenue however the striping is severely faded in this area. A shared use path is planned on Whipple Road east of Central Avenue to provide a non-motorized connection to the downtown area. Central Avenue/Woolford Road Central Avenue consists of two travel lanes and is considered one of the priority north/south collector roadways serving Show Low residents. North of Old Linden Road, Central Avenue has a sidewalk on the west side of the street serving Whipple Ranch Elementary and Central Park Estates subdivision, both located on the west side of the roadway. This sidewalk however does terminate north of Paloma Drive and does not extend the entire length of the Central Park Estates frontage. No bike facilities exist on this segment of roadway. A shared use path is planned for an extension of the existing sidewalk north of the Thornton Road alignment. 129 Central Avenue from Old Linden Road to the Deuce of Clubs has sidewalks on both sides of the roadway. No bikeway facilities exist along this segment. The sidewalks here are useful in enhancing the non-motorized mobility in this area where higher density residential uses access the commercial services along the Deuce of Clubs. No additional improvements are contemplated for this segment of Central Avenue. Continuing south of the Deuce of Clubs, Central Avenue has sidewalks on both sides of the road for a short distance to McNeil Street adjacent to Show Low Plaza. South from McNeil Street to Whipple Road, the two lane roadway has no bikeways and there is limited sidewalk on the west side of the roadway from Whipple Road north to Owens Street. A shared use path is planned for the west side of Central Avenue along this segment of the roadway. Please see Figure 45: Existing and Planned Trails for further reference. As Central Avenue transitions to Woolford Road south of the Whipple Road intersection, the roadway is a two lane roadway with ribbon curbing on both sides. This roadway receives a decent volume of vehicular traffic as locals use it a “local bypass” and it also serves as access to Sierra Pines residents and will serve as future access to the planned Pine Vista Estates residential community. No sidewalks or bike facilities currently exist. A shared use path is planned for this segment of roadway to its intersection with White Mountain Road. Show Low Lake Road Show Low Lake Road and the intersection at SR 260 are very important elements in the movement of nonmotorized users in Show Low. As previously noted, this intersection and surrounding area is home to the largest concentration of employment in Show Low with Summit Healthcare Regional Medical Center, Walmart Supercenter, Home Depot and Lowe’s. Moreover, the recreation appeal of Show Low Lake is just one mile to the east along Show Low Lake Road. Show Low Lake Road, along with Cub Lake Road to the west has been identified as the preferred alignment for the Show Low Timber Mesa multiuse path. 130 Old Linden Road Old Linden Road has been the recipient of enhanced nonmotorized mobility improvements on this important eastwest collector roadway. From its intersection with Clark Road, Old Linden Road have striped bike lanes and sidewalks along both sides of the roadway to the Fool Hollow Recreation Area entrance roadway. Continuing east, the majority of the length of Old Linden Road to the 8th Avenue intersection consists of a bike lane with ribbon curbing on the south side of the road with a sidewalk and bike lane being on the north side of the roadway. As the road continues to the east, near Show Low High School and the surrounding residential communities, sidewalk exists on both sides of the roadway to the intersection of Central Avenue. There are sporadic sections of bike lane along the north side of the roadway along this segment of Old Linden Road. Continuing east, sidewalks exist on both sides of Old Linden Road from Central Avenue to its intersection with the Deuce of Clubs. No bike lane facilities exist on this segment of roadway. A shared use path is planned along the south side of Old Linden Road from the Fool Hollow Lake Recreation Area entrance to the intersection with the Deuce of Clubs. Please see Figure 45: Existing and Planned Trails to view all of the existing and planned facilities along Old Linden Road. 7.14 Evaluation & Summary of Existing Sidewalks on Local Streets Like many rural communities in Arizona, sidewalks are not an abundant component of many Show Low streets. Sidewalks are not always warranted or desired in rural subdivision communities with larger lot sizes such as in Sierra Pines and Torreon. The majority of existing sidewalks in Show Low are primarily located in the downtown area and in proximity to the higher density and recently developed residential areas in Show Low. Please refer to Figure 45: Existing and 131 Planned Trails showing sidewalk locations in more detail. Though not continuous in some areas, sidewalks adjacent to the higher density apartment complexes along Cooley Street and McNeil serve the residents in these areas. Sidewalks also exist within the neighborhoods south of McNeil off of 16th Avenue. There are a number of areas where the continuation of an existing sidewalk is lacking, thereby creating a gap in the system and in many areas, compromising pedestrian safety. In the downtown area, sidewalks exist along Cooley Street and in a few other short segments downtown, but the downtown area primarily lacks sidewalks. As Figure 45: Existing and Planned Trails shows, sidewalks are planned along all of the streets in the downtown area. 7.15 Off Highway Vehicle Trails The White Mountain area maintains the spirit of openness and outdoor adventure and is an excellent area for off-highway vehicle (OHV) enjoyment in select areas. The White Mountain Open Trails Association (WMOTA) is a private nonprofit organization committed to the creation and preservation of OHV trails. The WMOTA is particularly dedicated to the preservation and use of the Maverick Motorized Trail. The Maverick Trail spans almost 50 miles through the Lakeside Ranger District on USFS lands, stretching from Sky Hi Trailhead in Pinetop (east) to Clay Springs to the west. Starting from the Sky Hi Trailhead, the trail runs through mostly ponderosa pine forested areas and some aspen can also be seen. Just past the Panorama Trailhead, the rider has the option to continue on the Maverick Trail or loop around Porter Mountain for about 11 additional miles, making the total riding experience right at 60 miles when arriving at the West end of the trail at the Clay Springs Trailhead. 132 As the Maverick Trail enters the Show Low region, the trail crosses US 60 about 2 miles east of the Show Low city limits. As the trail continues north, turns due west north of the Show Low Airport and Long Lake. The Maverick Trail then crosses SR 77 just north of the Show Low city limits and proceeds north. The City of Show Low is interested in working with the WMOTA to create an OHV linkage for Maverick Trail users into the City of Show Low. North 6th Street has been identified as a planned OHV trail that would provide connection to the existing USFS boundary at the northern terminus of 6th Street. An ATV-friendly trail/path would be constructed along 6th Street to facilitate a connection for ATV riders to frequent the retail stores and restaurants along the Deuce of Clubs. 7.16 Organized Events, Competitions and Eco-Tourism Draws Show Low serves as host to a couple prominent outdoor recreation/racing events each year. Planning and expansion of bicycle and trail facilities in Show Low can further boost economic development and tourism opportunities by offering additional events that take advantage of the seasonal climate and continually expanding trail and bicycle amenities. Below is a brief summary of each organized racing event. Bike the Bluff The Deuce of Clubs also is utilized in the annual “Bike the Bluff” bicycle race event. The race helps benefit the Mountain Christian School (K-8) in Show Low. Each of the three race courses utilizes the Deuce of Clubs, SR 77 and Clark Road (SR 260) segments of the race. The overall race course also includes roadways (Lone Pine Dam Road, Paper Mill Rd.) in the county north of Show Low. 133 Deuces Wild Triathlon Festival The Deuces Wild Triathlon Festival includes a long course, Olympic and XTERRA triathlon events as well as a Youth Duathlon. The event is held once a year in early June (typically) and attracts many visitors from across Arizona and other states to Show Low. Though the courses vary, the biking portion of the event uses the Fool Hollow Lake entrance road, Old Linden Road, SR 77 and SR 260 (Clark Road) roadways. The running portion primarily stays within the Fool Hollow Lake Recreation Area but also utilizes portions of 22nd Ave. and 16th Avenue. The swimming element is held at Fool Hollow Lake 134 8. Transit System Deficiencies While the Four Seasons Connection (FSC) and White Mountain Connection (WMC) transit services have experienced steady growth over the last few years and is one of the most efficient rural transit systems operating in the state of Arizona, there is always room for improvement. This document outlines some of the areas that the system can improve in order to continue to grow and develop efficiently and effectively. 8.1 Transit Routes 8.1.A System Performance On-time performance was one of the initial issues of the current service that was brought up by the City of Show Low and other members of the study committee. The major cause for the ontime performance issue seems to be the deviated service that is provided. When the vehicle is required to deviate from the route to pick up or drop off a rider, the time that is spent can cause the bus to get off schedule. Depending on the number of route deviations throughout the day, the bus can be significantly off schedule by the end of the day. This is one of the operational issues that can have a tremendous effect on the future of the system. Most of the people that utilize the service depend on the buses being on-time throughout the day. Transit users plan their movements throughout the day based on the transit schedule. Any inconsistencies between the schedule and the actual delivered service create strife for users, which could result in them finding other means of travel. 8.1.B Headways In a transit system, headways refer to how often buses pass by a particular point along a route. On the FSC routes, the headway or frequency of service is 60 minutes. That means that a patron would need to wait up to an hour for a bus that will take them to their destination, somewhere else along the route. The one-hour service currently provided on the FSC routes is the minimum amount of service that could be provided and allow the system to remain viable to its patrons. In order to improve the headways, or increase the frequency, there are two basic options. The first option would be to shorten the current routes so that the bus could complete the route in less time and, therefore, increase the number of runs throughout the current service day. The second option would require the system to add more vehicles into the service. This option is more costly, but it allows the agency to maintain the current routes. Ridership data confirms the WMC service has developed into a commuter service for workers that generally use the service to and from work. The current service runs on 180 minute headway. The route runs primarily along State Highway 77, from Show Low through Taylor and 135 Snowflake and ends in Holbrook. Due to the distance between stop locations and the limited roadway options, the options to improve the headways for this service are extremely limited. 8.1.C Hours of Operation The Four Seasons Connection operates from 6:30 am to 6:30 pm Monday through Saturday. There is no evening or Sunday service for these routes. The current service offers a good transportation option for people that work first shift jobs or for students that take classes during the day at the local college. For students or workers that need second or third shift transportation, their options are limited. One of the more popular stops along the FSC routes is the Hon Dah Resort and Casino on the White Mountain Apache reservation. The casino runs 24/7. Workers or visitors are not able to utilize the public transit to this or any other popular stop in the evenings or on Sunday. The White Mountain Connection service runs from 6:30 am to 6:30 pm Monday through Friday. As discussed earlier, this service is mainly used by people going to and from work. Due to the lack of weekend and evening service, the workers that use the WMC route are limited to first shift workers that are not required to work on the weekends. Since this service connects with the FSC routes, residents that are interested in work or entertainment in the Show Low or PinetopLakeside communities are limited in the hours that they can use the service as well. 8.1.D Locations Although the FSC service deviates from the scheduled route three-quarters of a mile, the overall service is limited to the major thoroughfares. The Four Seasons Connection travels north-south along State Route 260 between Show Low and Pinetop-Lakeside with no schedule deviations. The service in Show Low operates east-west along State Route 60, Deuce of Clubs, for the most part. This portion of the service deviates to serve the residential area on the north side of SR 60. The White Mountain Connection has even fewer deviations to its scheduled service. The WMC route runs north-south along State Highway 77, as well as a portion of SR 260 to connect with the FSC service. The area from Show Low to Holbrook does not provide any reasonable options for scheduled deviations, due to the rural nature of this stretch of highway. The limitations along this route can be problematic, especially when the highway is being repaired or some other incident reduces the flow of traffic. 136 8.1.E Coordination with Other Systems In 2011, the Northern Arizona Regional Transportation Coordination Plan was developed in order to identify coordination opportunities among transit providers, as well as meet the requirements of the federal transportation legislation, SAFETEA-LU. A locally derived Transportation Coordination Plan was required by FTA, as a minimum, for the State to receive Section 5310, Section 5316 and Section 5317 funding. The plan also included planning for the Section 5307 and 5311 funding in the State. The statewide coordination plan was developed with a regional approach. Due to the varying nature of the communities and the distances between some of them, the Northern Arizona region was further broken into four sub-regions. The coordination efforts in the Show Low/Pinetop-Lakeside area were identified in the Southern Apache/Navajo sub-region, along with the communities of Holbrook, Winslow, Snowflake, Taylor, Springerville, Eagar and St. Johns. Other areas in the Apache and Navajo Counties in this sub-region, which are outside of the Navajo and Hopi Indian Reservations, were included in the sub-region coordination plan as well. At the time of the coordination plan, the Four Seasons Connection was the only public transit provider in the sub-region. The White Mountain Connection was added later that year. The plan acknowledged that the FSC service provided opportunities for the members of the White Mountain Apache Tribe to access shopping, employment and public services in the PinetopLakeside and Show Low communities. However, there were not any definitive coordination efforts taking place between the Reservation and the existing service. The coordination plan also identified several non-profit agencies in the Southern Apache/Navajo sub-region that provide transportation service for the elderly and persons with disabilities. The other agencies included:  Town of Springerville/Round Valley Senior Center  Reeves Foundation  Concho CAN! (Concho Community Action Network)  Rim Country Senior Center (Heber/Overgaard)  Holbrook Senior Center  Community Counseling Centers  Winslow Council on Aging  Winslow Indian Health Care Center The comments received during the coordination plan development indicated that funding, access to remote areas of the sub-region, vehicle replacement and limited service were common obstacles to better coordination. At the time of this report, the FSC and WMC services do not coordinate with any of the aforementioned agencies in a formal manner. 137 8.2 Fares 8.2.A Transfers Patrons riding the Four Seasons Connection from Show Low to Pinetop-Lakeside, or vice versa, change buses at the Show Low Lake Road Transit Center (Walmart) at the intersection of Show Low Lake Road and SR 260. When a rider changes buses from one route to the next, he/she must pay the full fare for each leg of the trip. Although both routes are operated by the same system and the trip is continuous, there is not a transfer between the buses. Most transit systems that require a transfer to continue along a route have a transfer option for their passengers. The transfers typically cost 25 to 50 percent of the full fare ticket, but some systems offer free transfers. Passengers transferring from the White Mountain Connection service to the Four Seasons Connection are also required to pay the full fare when changing services. The only exception is for a WMC rider that purchases an all-day pass. These individuals get a free transfer onto the FSC vehicle. 8.2.B Average fare When performing a basic benchmarking evaluation of the Show Low transit services operating statistics, one of the statistics was unexpected. The range of what would be expected is between the discounted fee of $0.50 cents and standard fare of $1.00. The average fare calculation for the service was much lower than anticipated, based on the fare structure for the system. During the 18 month period from October 2011 to March 2013, the average fare on the FSC service was $0.26 and $0.92 on the WMC. The use of unlimited passes can have an effect on the average fare for a system, depending on the extensive use of these passes. The extremely low average fare for the FSC service, indicates a very high use of unlimited passes by students and/or residents of Show Low. The full fare for the Four Seasons Connection service is $1.00, while the discounted fare for elderly and disabled patrons is $0.50. Children under 5 years old ride for free. The system also offers multiple and unlimited ride passes, as shown below: Multiple Ride Passes  10-Ride Pass - $7.50  Senior (60+) 20-Ride Pass - $10.00  Disabled 20-Ride Pass - $10.00 Unlimited Ride Passes  Student Summer Pass - $20.00  All-day pass - $3.00  Monthly Pass - $30.00  Student Semester Pass - $35.00 138 The White Mountain Connection full fare varies from $1.00 to $5.00, depending on the distance traveled ($1 within the same town, $3 to the next town or $5 for anywhere on the route). Similar to the FSC service, there are several multiple and unlimited ride passes. The passes are shown below:      All-day pass - $8.00 Monthly pass (unlimited rides) - $60.00 Monthly pass (for Snowflake or Taylor) - $30.00 Student Semester Pass - $70.00 20-punch pass - $10.00 8.2.C Ticket Sales Currently, tickets are sold at a limited number of locations. Tickets can be purchased at the Pinetop-Lakeside Town Hall, Pinetop-Lakeside Chamber of Commerce, Show Low City Hall, Pinetop-Lakeside Safeway, Show Low Safeway and Northland Pioneer College (student passes only). Bus drivers can also sell passes, except for the student passes, on the vehicles. Many transit agencies have realized the convenience of selling tickets and passes for their services online. This option allows passengers to purchase their tickets in advance of their actual travel. For regular riders, it enables them to purchase the tickets or passes when they are able. Most systems also discourage the sale of passes on vehicles by drivers. This seems to slow down the service could be a distraction for the driver and by implication, results in a diminished on-time performance. 9. Transit Stops Deficiencies The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) prohibits discrimination and ensures equal opportunity and access for persons with disabilities. The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) works to ensure nondiscriminatory transportation in support of their mission to enhance the social and economic quality of life for all Americans. In 2006, the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) adopted the updated ADA standards for transportation facilities, which govern the minimum requirements for bus boarding and alighting areas (bus stops). The ADA standards for bus stops include the appropriate surface type, space under the shelter, accessibility to the vehicle and connectivity to sidewalks, streets or pedestrian paths. The consultants performed a stop-by-stop inventory of the Four Seasons Connection transit stop locations in Show Low. This section of the report will address the ADA accessibility issues that pertain directly to the stop locations that are in the Show Low area. An additional 139 discussion dealing with the connectivity issues and linkages to other public facilities will be discussed in Section 4. Deficiencies for Show Low transit stops are introduced and described in Section 9 with the information contained in Table 28: Existing Transit Stop Characteristics and Amenities. Table 28 indicates that each of the 30 FSC transit stops located in Show Low was evaluated for the following characteristics: 1) ADA accessibility, 2) presence of connection to adjacent pedestrian network, 3) presence of shelter, 4) bench, 5) trash receptacle, 6) patron waiting area, 7) lighting/safety, 8) route/schedule posting and 9) minimal interference with through traffic. Each of the 30 transit stops, 27 of which are part of the daily route and three of which are by request only and deviate from the fixed route, were given a grade of “good”, “fair”, poor”, or “not present” depending on the presence and condition of that particular element. Table 28 illustrates the inventory and evaluation of each of the elements associated with each transit stop. Section 21 and will identify and describe a transit stop by transit stop review and recommendation in specific detail. Those proposed projects will be developed in large part from the list of identified deficiencies in Table 28. 140 Table 28: Existing Show Low Transit Stop Characteristics and Amenities As a result of the initial inventory of the transit stops, a chart, along with a photograph inventory, was developed to summarize the findings. Of the 30 bus stop locations identified in the initial inventory, 13 of the locations were rated “Fair” to “Poor” for ADA accessibility. The more common issues with the bus stop locations in the Show Low area include:     Inappropriate surface (gravel, grass) Lack of proper ramps to/from shelter Lack of accessible route to/from bus Lack of minimum wheelchair space under shelter The ADA regulations allow for some leeway in situations where the public entity is limited in meeting the construction specifications, for example where right-of-way is not attainable. However, many of the bus stops improvements in the City of Show Low can and should be accomplished. 141 10. Transit-Trails Interconnectivity & Deficiency Review A key objective of the Show Low Transit and Trails Interconnectivity study is to promote and enhance the interconnectedness of existing transit stops to existing and planned trails, activity centers and residential neighborhoods. In that regard, a closer examination of the relationship between transit stops and connection to the broader trail and path system is essential to the success of this study. This focus not only provides greater mobility opportunities for regular public transit users, but also for the betterment of the entire community to promote nonmotorized mobility to create and build upon a more cohesive transportation system for Show Low. Table 29: Transit-Trails Interconnectivity & Deficiency Review details a stop-by-stop inventory and overview of the existing ADA accessibility conditions of the transit stop as well as it’s connectivity to adjacent paths, trails or sidewalks. A common characteristic of transit systems in rural areas (like the FSC/WMC) is that transit stops are often located within commercial developments or within city rights-of-way. In these instances, the measure of connection to the transit stop is often through a sidewalk, bike path or trail that is contained with a city or state highway right-of-way. A rating of “good”, “fair” or “poor” is assigned to each transit stop’s ADA accessibility and connectivity to adjacent sidewalks or trail systems. Utilizing guidance from USDOT as explained in Section 3, each transit stops’ ADA Accessibility rating was reviewed using the following factors: 1) 2) 3) 4) has an appropriate surface (concrete, asphalt) adequate space under the shelter for wheelchair seating clear, unobstructed access to the bus proper ramps or transition areas are provided A “Good” rating indicates a transit stop that exhibits all or the vast majority of these characteristics. A “Fair” rating indicates a transit stop that has one to two of these factors partially present. A common example for Show Low are transit stops where the transit stop is situated on a level surface, but the surrounding surface consists of rock and/or native groundcover. These stops suggest that ADA accessibility is possible, but not at a level or standard that is preferred or entirely meets ADA guidelines. 142 A “Poor” rating indicates a transit stop where two or more of these factors are noticeably deficient. Ratings were also assigned to each of the amenity types identified in Table 29, as well as to the level of connectivity to adjacent trails, paths or sidewalks. A summary of some of the key findings and trends includes: 1) Thirteen of the 30 transit stops (43%) have fair to poor ADA accessibility. 2) Two-thirds of transit stops were rated fair or poor in interfering with through traffic. 3) Two-thirds of transit stops had fair to poor access, crossing or connection to an adjacent pedestrian network. 4) From a public safety perspective, one third of the transit stop had poor lighting conditions or lacked lighting altogether. 143 Table 29: Transit-Trails Interconnectivity & Deficiency Review Stop Name/Number: #1 - Show Low Lake Rd. Transit Center ADA Accessibility Rating: Good Connectivity Rating: Good Shelter Accessibility and Connectivity Characteristics of the Transit Stop Bench Serves as the transfer point for FSC and WMC and is the busiest transit stop in the system with the area’s largest employers located at this intersection. Good pedestrian and bicycle access, sufficient patron waiting area and does not interfere with on site circulation for this busy parking lot. This stop has appropriate surface type, ramps on adjacent sidewalks, accessible route to the bus and sufficient wheelchair space under each of the two shelters. Trash Receptacle Patron Waiting Area Lighting/Safety Route/Schedule Information Posted Good pedestrian connectivity to existing sidewalks on Show Low ADA Lake Rd. and White Mountain Rd. for approximately ½ mile distance. Accessibility Direct connection from Transit Stop to Show Low Lake Rd. via (Ramps/Surface) oversized sidewalk from Wal-Mart parking lot to right-of-way. No Pedestrian Network mid-block pedestrian crossing of Show Low Lake Road to Summit Crossing/Access Healthcare. Sidewalks on Cub Lake Road help for intersection Minimal approach, but lack in the residential areas. No paved shoulders or Interference with bike lanes exist on Show Low Lake Rd. or White Mountain Rd. Through Traffic 144 N/P Stop Name/Number: #2 - JC Penney ADA Accessibility Rating: Good Connectivity Rating: Good Shelter Accessibility and Connectivity Characteristics of the Transit Stop Bench Located under the eve of building in front of the JC Penny storefront. Overall the site is ADA compliant with appropriate surfaces, ramps, and plenty of space under shelter. On site connectivity is potentially challenged by lack of a cross walk across the access driveway to the parking lot to the transit stop. Sidewalks in front of the shopping center do provide a seamless connection to off-site locations along White Mountain Road. Trash Receptacle Patron Waiting Area 145 Lighting/Safety Route/Schedule Information Posted ADA Accessibility (Ramps/Surface) Pedestrian Network Crossing/Access Minimal Interference with Through Traffic N/P N/P Stop Name/Number: #3 - Splash and Dash ADA Accessibility Rating: Fair Connectivity Rating: Good Shelter N/P Accessibility and Connectivity Characteristics of the Transit Stop Bench N/P This stop is a little more informal in nature in that the property owner allows for the bus to stop, but prefers that no sign be posted upon the property. As a result, the stop does not naturally draw riders, but is utilized on occasion. Good connection to existing sidewalks on the east side of White Mountain Road. Riders wanting to access downtown Show Low must use the marked sidewalk approximately 900 feet to the south at the Deuce of Clubs intersection. This out-of-direction pedestrian travel is not practical but a marked mid-block cross walk on White Mountain Rd. at Hall Street may not be warranted and would need additional study. Trash Receptacle Patron Waiting Area 146 N/P Lighting/Safety Route/Schedule Information Posted ADA Accessibility (Ramps/Surface) Pedestrian Network Crossing/Access Minimal Interference with Through Traffic N/P Stop Name/Number: #4 - Sho Lo Bowl ADA Accessibility Rating: Fair Connectivity Rating: Fair Accessibility and Connectivity Characteristics of the Transit Stop Paved surface promotes accessibility but stop lacks ramps on small sidewalks compromising the accessibility of the route to the bus. There is insufficient space under shelter (building overhang) for a wheelchair. A transit sign posted on corner of building. Lack of parking lot striping creates ill-defined site circulation and potential confusion and potential conflicts of space between parking lot, driveway and transit stop location. Pedestrian access is provided from the sidewalk on the property’s frontage along the Deuce of Clubs. Pedestrian access and transit vehicle movements could be better defined through appropriate parking lot striping. Bicycle connection is lacking with no on site bike parking. 147 Shelter N/P Bench N/P Trash Receptacle Patron Waiting Area Lighting/Safety Route/Schedule Information Posted ADA Accessibility (Ramps/Surface) Pedestrian Network Crossing/Access Minimal Interference with Through Traffic N/P Stop Name/Number: #5 - DES ADA Accessibility Rating: Good Connectivity Rating: Fair Shelter Accessibility and Connectivity Characteristics of the Transit Stop Bench Transit stop has a prominent location near the building’s front door. Appropriate surfacing and ramps exist at the building entrance. A potential barrier between the transit stop and bus location is created by parking spaces striped immediately in front of the transit stop. Transit access must share patron driveway entrance on small parking lot creating opportunity to interfere with through traffic. Trash Receptacle Patron Waiting Area While the transit stop has good shelter, patron waiting area and is ADA accessible, options are limited on this parcel to alter transit stop location and bus movements. Elimination of one to two parking spaces would maintain a “clear zone” for safety, visibility and connectivity. No sidewalks or bike paths exist on Penrod Road for off-site connectivity. 148 Lighting/Safety Route/Schedule Information Posted ADA Accessibility (Ramps/Surface) Pedestrian Network Crossing/Access Minimal Interference with Through Traffic N/P Stop Name/Number: #6 - Airport (by request only) ADA Accessibility Rating: Good Connectivity Rating: Good Shelter N/P Accessibility and Connectivity Characteristics of the Transit Stop Bench N/P Stop is by request only. Transit stop has no deficiencies relative to access or on site connectivity. Surface, ramps and accessibility of the route to the bus is good. Trash Receptacle Patron Waiting Area Minimal need for non-motorized mobility and connectivity to the larger trail network due to the travel characteristics of an airport stop. Seldom requested stop. Lighting/Safety 149 Route/Schedule Information Posted ADA Accessibility (Ramps/Surface) Pedestrian Network Crossing/Access Minimal Interference with Through Traffic Stop Name/Number: #7 - Old Linden Square ADA Accessibility Rating: Good Connectivity Rating: Good Shelter Accessibility and Connectivity Characteristics of the Transit Stop Bench Transit stop consists of a concrete pad connected to the city sidewalk on Old Linden Road. Adjacent driveway ramps enhance ADA accessibility. There is adequate space under the shelter for wheelchair seating. Sidewalks on both sides of the street provide pedestrian connection from all directions for ½ mile, including connection to sidewalks on the Deuce of Clubs. No bike lane or bike route facility connecting to the transit stop. Trash Receptacle Patron Waiting Area This is a safe, visible transit stop however buses are required to stop on the through lane of Old Linden Road creating some potential to interfere with through traffic in this area. 150 N/P Lighting/Safety Route/Schedule Information Posted ADA Accessibility (Ramps/Surface) Pedestrian Network Crossing/Access Minimal Interference with Through Traffic N/P Stop Name/Number: #8 – Central Avenue ADA Accessibility Rating: Good Connectivity Rating: Good Shelter Accessibility and Connectivity Characteristics of the Transit Stop Bench This transit stop consists of a concrete pad connected to the city sidewalk on Central Avenue, just south of Old Linden Road. ADA ramps exist at the Old Linden Road intersection and the transit stop has adequate shelter for wheelchairs and has a direct and accessible route to the bus. Connectivity to adjacent areas is also good as this stop connects to a network of existing sidewalks along both sides of Central Avenue connecting adjacent residences to employment and retail activities along the Deuce of Clubs. Sidewalks also exist along Old Linden Road to the east and west. Trash Receptacle Patron Waiting Area 151 Lighting/Safety Route/Schedule Information Posted ADA Accessibility (Ramps/Surface) Pedestrian Network Crossing/Access Minimal Interference with Through Traffic N/P N/P Stop Name/Number: #9 – Timberstone Apartments ADA Accessibility Rating: Good Connectivity Rating: Fair Accessibility and Connectivity Characteristics of the Transit Stop This stop has good ADA accessibility with a ramp and route that connects the transit stop directly to an interior driveway of the apartment complex. It has a direct and accessible route to the bus, sufficient shelter space and appropriate surfacing. Connectivity to the apartment complex is good, but off-site connectivity and access is compromised by the lack of sidewalk connection along the north side of Cooley Rd. to Central Avenue and lack of sidewalks altogether along the south side of Central Avenue in this more densely populated area of Show Low. 152 Shelter Bench Trash Receptacle Patron Waiting Area Lighting/Safety Route/Schedule Information Posted ADA Accessibility (Ramps/Surface) Pedestrian Network Crossing/Access Minimal Interference with Through Traffic N/P Stop Name/Number: #10 – 4th Avenue & McNeil ADA Accessibility Rating: Poor Connectivity Rating: Fair Accessibility and Connectivity Characteristics of the Transit Stop This stop is on the northwest corner of 4th Avenue and McNeil. Street. The stop is more informal in nature with no shelter or other amenities as it is situated near the shoulder of the roadway. The shoulder area is relatively flat but consists of cinders and is subject to street drainage ponding. No sidewalk exists on the west side of the roadway to connect the transit stop on this well-traveled roadway. A sidewalk exists on the east side of the 4th Avenue, but as it connects to the north side of McNeil Street, the sidewalk terminates thereby limiting accessibility to the DMV facility and other businesses along the Deuce of Clubs. 153 Shelter Bench Trash Receptacle Patron Waiting Area N/P N/P Lighting/Safety N/P Route/Schedule Information Posted ADA Accessibility (Ramps/Surface) Pedestrian Network Crossing/Access Minimal Interference with Through Traffic N/P Stop Name/Number: #11 – Ponderosa Apartments ADA Accessibility Rating: Good Connectivity Rating: Fair Shelter Accessibility and Connectivity Characteristics of the Transit Stop Bench ADA accessibility at the transit stop is good with a ramp immediately accessing the approach, concrete surfacing, deep pad for adequate patron waiting areas and wheelchair shelter provisions. Connection to the Ponderosa Apartments located across the street is fair due to the lack of marked pedestrian crossing from the main complex driveway to the transit stop and lack of sidewalks along the south side of McNeil Street. Trash Receptacle Patron Waiting Area Lighting/Safety Route/Schedule Information Posted ADA Accessibility (Ramps/Surface) Pedestrian Network Crossing/Access Minimal Interference with Through Traffic 154 N/P Stop Name/Number: #12 – Show Low Apartments ADA Accessibility Rating: Good Connectivity Rating: Fair/Good Shelter Accessibility and Connectivity Characteristics of the Transit Stop Bench Trash ADA accessibility at the Receptacle transit stop is good with a ramp immediately accessing Patron Waiting Area the approach, concrete surfacing, deep pad for Lighting/Safety adequate patron waiting Route/Schedule areas and wheelchair Information shelter provisions. Posted Connection to the ADA Ponderosa Apartments Accessibility located across the street is (Ramps/Surface) only fair due to the lack of Pedestrian Network marked pedestrian crossing Crossing/Access from the main complex Minimal driveway to the transit stop Interference with and lack of sidewalks along Through Traffic the south side of McNeil Street. 155 N/P Stop Name/Number: #13 – Aquatic Center ADA Accessibility Rating: Poor Connectivity Rating: Poor Accessibility and Connectivity Characteristics of the Transit Stop This transit stop does not have a shelter facility nor suitable surfacing and adequate patron and/or wheelchair waiting areas. There is a sidewalk with a rolled curb along the south side of West Owens that essentially serves as the transit stop platform. The sidewalk does connect to the Deuce of Clubs which is located in close proximity. Shelter N/P Bench N/P Trash Receptacle Patron Waiting Area Lighting/Safety Route/Schedule Information Located at the back of the Show Low Aquatic Center, this stop does Posted not have an accessible route connecting the transit stop to a patron ADA entrance of the Aquatic Center. Accessibility (Ramps/Surface) A safety hazard exists at this location due to the limited visibility of Pedestrian Network the stop for eastbound traffic due to the grade change. A bus Crossing/Access stopping at this location must do so in the east bound through travel Minimal lane and the limited site distance may pose a safety concern for Interference with pedestrians and motorists. This safety concern is likely Through Traffic heightened during the darkness of the early morning and evening hours in the winter time coupled with a limited patron waiting area. 156 N/P Stop Name/Number: #14 – K-Mart ADA Accessibility Rating: Good Connectivity Rating: Good Accessibility and Connectivity Characteristics of the Transit Stop This transit stop is situated at the corner of the main building entrance into Kmart. The oversized concrete sidewalk provides a suitable surface and patron waiting area. The stop is well lit and situated under a large overhang providing sufficient shelter for the patrons. Accessible ramp access is provided at the main store entrance just to the east of the transit stop. There is little interference with through traffic as the transit stop is adjacent to a fire lane and drop off area recessed away from the main patron drive aisle. Pedestrian connectivity to off-site areas is provided informally (not delineated) through the large parking lot to existing sidewalks along both sides of the Deuce of Clubs. 157 Shelter Bench Trash Receptacle Patron Waiting Area Lighting/Safety Route/Schedule Information Posted ADA Accessibility (Ramps/Surface) Pedestrian Network Crossing/Access Minimal Interference with Through Traffic N/P Stop Name/Number: #15 – Safeway ADA Accessibility Rating: Good Connectivity Rating: Fair Accessibility and Connectivity Characteristics of the Transit Stop ADA accessibility is good as this transit stop utilizes the existing sidewalks, ramps and shelter provided with the Safeway storefront design. A direct access route from the stop to the bus is provided via the large ramp and marked crosswalk at the front entrance. One notable drawback is the congestion of on-site vehicular and pedestrian traffic that occurs directly in front of the transit stop. A bus stopping at this location interferes with through traffic and creates potential blind spots and safety challenges at this already congested location. 158 Shelter Bench Trash Receptacle Patron Waiting Area N/P Lighting/Safety Route/Schedule Information Posted ADA Accessibility (Ramps/Surface) Pedestrian Network Crossing/Access Minimal Interference with Through Traffic N/P Stop Name/Number: #16 – Circle K North ADA Accessibility Rating: Fair Connectivity Rating: Fair Shelter Accessibility and Connectivity Characteristics of the Transit Stop Bench This transit stop is housed on the corner of the Circle K storefront. The storefront sidewalk and asphalt parking lot make a suitable surface, however the sidewalk lip creates accessibility challenges as there is no ramp and is difficult to navigate in winter conditions. Situated somewhat haphazardly amongst a water-dispensing machine, ice machine and public telephone, there is limited patron space, particularly for wheelchair users. Limited shelter is provided from the building overhang. Connectivity to the adjacent residential area is considered fair because of the large open areas for maneuverability however there are no adjacent sidewalks or paths along Cooley Street and there are no clear pavement markings delineating pedestrian areas from vehicular areas of travel. Trash Receptacle Patron Waiting Area 159 Lighting/Safety Route/Schedule Information Posted ADA Accessibility (Ramps/Surface) Pedestrian Network Crossing/Access Minimal Interference with Through Traffic N/P Stop Name/Number: #17 – 30th & Whipple (by request only) ADA Accessibility Rating: Fair Connectivity Rating: Fair Shelter Accessibility and Connectivity Characteristics of the Transit Stop Bench This stop is by request only and not utilized on a regular basis. The stop is located at the intersection of the two local streets. The transit stop sign is attached to the stop sign at the corner. The patron waiting area is situated Trash adjacent to the Receptacle intersection. Surface materials consist of cinder rocks which is not a suitable ADA surface although the grade is relatively flat. There is no shelter at this transit stop. Connectivity to the adjacent neighborhood is fair to good in that the adjacent local roadways are low to very low volume serving the relatively low density residential development. There are no sidewalks or paths but the roadway section coupled with the low volume daily trips provides fair connectivity to this transit stop. Patron Waiting Area Lighting/Safety Route/Schedule Information Posted ADA Accessibility (Ramps/Surface) Pedestrian Network Crossing/Access Minimal Interference with Through Traffic 160 N/P N/P N/P N/P Stop Name/Number: #18 – Park Valley at 23rd Avenue ADA Accessibility Rating: Fair Connectivity Rating: Fair Accessibility and Connectivity Characteristics of the Transit Stop Shelter Bench Trash This transit stop is situated near the intersection of two local streets Receptacle within the Park Valley residential community. The patron waiting Patron Waiting area and surface types includes a combination of a concrete pad Area under a shelter and large diameter cinder rocks adjacent to the shelter and roadway. The grade is near 2% which with the cinders Lighting/Safety makes for a “fair” Route/Schedule approach to the bus. Information Connectivity to the Posted adjacent neighborhoods is ADA also considered fair as Accessibility there are no sidewalks or (Ramps/Surface) paths, but the low volume Pedestrian Network nature of the roadways Crossing/Access make for an acceptable Minimal route for connection to Interference with the stop. The large swath Through Traffic of cinder areas at the corners could be replaced with a more suitable surface so as to promote improved pedestrian and ADA accessibility outside of the roadway prism. This would also create a safer environment, particularly at the intersection of two roadways. 161 N/P N/P Stop Name/Number: #19 – Park Valley at 21st Avenue ADA Accessibility Rating: Poor/Fair Connectivity Rating: Poor/Fair Shelter N/P Accessibility and Connectivity Characteristics of the Transit Stop Bench N/P This transit stop is also located at the intersection of two local roadways in the Park Valley residential community. There is no shelter or patron waiting area and there is a bar ditch for drainage conveyance immediately adjacent to the roadway, behind the transit sign. Patrons must wait within the roadway prism at this intersection that has an asymmetrical radius and roadway configuration. The roadway and intersection configuration creates a potential safety hazard for pedestrian/vehicle conflicts as the transit stop potentially interferes with through traffic in the area. There are no sidewalks or paths for connection into the adjacent residential areas. The low volume roadways do minimize the need for sidewalks or paths in this area. Marked crosswalks to and from the transit stop would improve the immediate connectivity of this transit stop. Trash Receptacle Patron Waiting Area 162 Lighting/Safety Route/Schedule Information Posted ADA Accessibility (Ramps/Surface) Pedestrian Network Crossing/Access Minimal Interference with Through Traffic N/P N/P N/P Stop Name/Number: #20 – Circle K on US 60 ADA Accessibility Rating: Poor/Fair Connectivity Rating: Fair Accessibility and Connectivity Characteristics of the Transit Stop This commercial corner is located at the prime city “gateway” intersection of Clark Road and the Deuce of Clubs. The site itself is large with oversized driveways and is accessible for motorists, pedestrians and bicyclists. The transit stop location on the property is sensible from a bus operations perspective and it is ADA accessible. This site does not have suitable shelter and the designated parking with raised parking stops create the potential for a significant barrier in the accessibility to the bus. The patron waiting area is tight, feels in the way of store customers and is crowded together with a water vending machine and trash can. ADA accessible sidewalks (with the exception of the driveways) are contiguous to the property along each highway frontage. The intersection of the two highways is signalized and marked crosswalks exist in each direction to provide safe pedestrian access to the popular store. Connectivity to the immediate public domain is good although the entrance driveways do not meet 163 Shelter Bench N/P Trash Receptacle Patron Waiting Area Lighting/Safety Route/Schedule Information Posted ADA Accessibility (Ramps/Surface) Pedestrian Network Crossing/Access Minimal Interference with Through Traffic N/P updated ADA driveway accessibility requirements. Moving away from the site, US 60 (heading west) lacks a sidewalk or path system needed to connect Summit Trail (Torreon) to this commercial corner. Utilizing grant funding, Show Low is in the process of designing and constructing a path along the north side of US 60 that will provide this connection. Another path or sidewalk is lacking on the south side to connect to existing and planned residential communities on US 60. Sidewalks extend north and west along Clark Road (SR 260) to provide pedestrian access to communities in that direction. 164 Stop Name/Number: #21 – NPC ADA Accessibility Rating: Good Connectivity Rating: Good Shelter Accessibility and Connectivity Characteristics of the Transit Stop Bench The Northland Pioneer College (NPC) transit stop has good accessibility and connectivity. The shelter is situated on a concrete pad contiguous to the attached sidewalk and bus access is unobstructed and provides sufficient wheelchair seating area. The driveway design allows for passenger pick-up and drop-off with little interference with through traffic. The site is connected well to the existing sidewalk on the Deuce of Clubs and internally by a series of onsite sidewalks that also connect to Whipple Street on the rear side of the campus property. 165 Trash Receptacle Patron Waiting Area N/P Lighting/Safety Route/Schedule Information Posted ADA Accessibility (Ramps/Surface) Pedestrian Network Crossing/Access Minimal Interference with Through Traffic N/P Stop Name/Number: #22 – Giant Gas (Deuce of Clubs) ADA Accessibility Rating: Poor Connectivity Rating: Poor/Fair Shelter N/P Accessibility and Connectivity Characteristics of the Transit Stop Bench N/P This transit stop is situated in an area separating the front yard landscaping and the on-site driveway connecting the two access drives to the Deuce of Clubs. There is no shelter and the patron waiting area is situated within the landscaping bed (lined with large cinder “clinkers”) or in the service driveway itself. Neither of these conditions is ADA accessible nor considered safe as patrons waiting may interfere with on site vehicle movements. Patron accessibility to the bus is hampered with the landscaping and the bus access route interferes with through traffic on the site at this busy gas station facility. Trash Receptacle Patron Waiting Area 166 N/P Lighting/Safety Route/Schedule Information Posted ADA Accessibility (Ramps/Surface) Pedestrian Network Crossing/Access Minimal Interference with Through Traffic N/P Stop Name/Number: #23 – Senior Center ADA Accessibility Rating: Good Connectivity Rating: Good Shelter Accessibility and Connectivity Characteristics of the Transit Stop Bench Overall on site and off site accessibility to the transit stop is good. Shelter is provided under the building’s front entrance and has clear, unobstructed access to the bus. The driveway configuration does not pose any interference with through traffic. Trash Receptacle Patron Waiting Area Lighting/ Safety Route/Schedule Information Posted ADA Accessibility (Ramps/Surface) Pedestrian Network Crossing/Access Minimal Interference with Through Traffic 167 N/P N/P Stop Name/Number: #24 – 5th Street at Park ADA Accessibility Rating: Fair/Good Connectivity Rating: Fair Shelter Accessibility and Connectivity Characteristics of the Transit Stop Bench Trash This stop is situated adjacent to the ADA-accessible Centennial Park. Receptacle The stop has a shelter with appropriate surface (concrete pad) with Patron Waiting accessible patron waiting area under the shelter. A sidewalk along th Area the east side of 5 Street accommodates access from the south, but the sidewalk terminates just north of the transit stop, limiting Lighting/Safety connectivity for the two Route/Schedule blocks connecting to the Information Deuce of Clubs. Posted ADA Accessibility (Ramps/Surface) Pedestrian Network Crossing/Access Minimal Interference with Through Traffic 168 N/P Stop Name/Number: #25 – Hall at KFC ADA Accessibility Rating: Poor/Fair Connectivity Rating: Fair Accessibility and Connectivity Characteristics of the Transit Stop Shelter Bench Trash This transit stop is recessed from the roadway but lacks an adequate Receptacle accessible surface as native groundcover and loose rock materials Patron Waiting surround the shelter. The shelter itself is situated upon a concrete Area pad but lacks sufficient space for wheelchair seating under the shelter. The site is relatively flat and has a clear, accessible route to Lighting/Safety the bus. The transit stop is set back from the roadway so as to limit Route/Schedule interference with through traffic. Connectivity to and from the site is Information challenged by lack of sidewalks on the north side of Hall Street Posted though dirt shoulders provide separation from the roadway. ADA Sidewalks exist along White Mountain Road but there is no pathway Accessibility or sidewalk connection (Ramps/Surface) from White Mountain Pedestrian Network Road and the native Crossing/Access ground cover in the Minimal immediate area of the Interference with transit stop hamper Through Traffic wheelchair accessibility. 169 N/P Stop Name/Number: #26 – Show Low Library ADA Accessibility Rating: Good Connectivity Rating: Good Accessibility and Connectivity Characteristics of the Transit Stop th This stop is located in front of Show Low City Hall and across N. 9 Street from the Show Low Library. This transit stop has good ADA accessibility – appropriate surfacing, a shelter is present, unobstructed access to the bus, and transition ramps. It’s only accessibility-related drawback is the lack of wheelchair seating area under the shelter. Connectivity to adjacent areas is facilitated with a marked cross walk across 9th Street connecting the library with city hall. 9th Street does not have sidewalks, like many streets in the downtown, but there is sufficient pedestrian and bicycle maneuverability on the wide pavement widths and dirt shoulder areas. The addition of sidewalks in this active area would enhance connectivity, mobility and safety in the downtown area. 170 Shelter Bench Trash Receptacle Patron Waiting Area Lighting/Safety Route/Schedule Information Posted ADA Accessibility (Ramps/Surface) Pedestrian Network Crossing/Access Minimal Interference with Through Traffic N/P Stop Name/Number: #27 – Giant Gas ADA Accessibility Rating: Connectivity Rating: Shelter N/P Accessibility and Connectivity Characteristics of the Transit Stop Bench N/P Signage is posted on the building where shelter exists but shares space with the commercial activities of the premise. ADA access is good with concrete surfacing and accessible ramps. No physical space is demarcated for transit riders and the overall site circulation is not preferred to transit operations but can be manageable when gas station patrons are fewer in number. Oversize driveways do allow for additional bus maneuverability but at times interferes with other vehicles and the patron accessibility to the bus is challenged. 171 Trash Receptacle Patron Waiting Area Lighting/Safety Route/Schedule Information Posted ADA Accessibility (Ramps/Surface) Pedestrian Network Crossing/Access Minimal Interference with Through Traffic N/P Stop Name/Number: #28 – Timberline Drive ADA Accessibility Rating: Fair Connectivity Rating: Fair Accessibility and Connectivity Characteristics of the Transit Stop Shelter Bench Trash Receptacle Patron Waiting Area This transit stop is situated in front of the Timberline Mobile Home Park on White Mountain Road. Accessibility is considered “fair”. The site is flat, has a clear access route to the bus however it lacks an appropriate surface in the immediate vicinity of the shelter and Lighting/Safety lacks sufficient wheelchair seating area under the shelter. The bus Route/Schedule pull out area is large and does not interfere with through traffic on Information White Mountain Road. Connectivity to surrounding areas is also Posted considered “fair”. There is no hard surface connection to the ADA Timberline Mobile Home Park driveway and there are no sidewalks Accessibility on White Mountain Road. Dirt shoulders are available for pedestrian (Ramps/Surface) and bicycle usage though Pedestrian Network not considered ADA Crossing/Access accessible. This transit Minimal stop is located across the Interference with street from a cluster of Through Traffic business that may utilize this transit stop though a marked crosswalk across the highway at this location is likely not warranted. 172 N/P N/P Stop Name/Number: #29 – Fawn Brook Drive ADA Accessibility Rating: Poor Connectivity Rating: Fair Shelter N/P Accessibility and Connectivity Characteristics of the Transit Stop Bench N/P Trash This transit stop is located in the un-surfaced parking lot of the small Receptacle commercial building located at the southwest corner of White Patron Waiting Mountain Road and Fawn Brook Drive. The transit sign is posted at Area the edge of a landscaped area sandwiched between two vehicular driveways in close Lighting/Safety proximity to one Route/Schedule another. The stop has Information poor accessibility due to Posted its lack of hardened ADA surface, driveway slope, Accessibility shelter and accessibility (Ramps/Surface) to the bus. Safety is also Pedestrian Network a potential issue due to Crossing/Access the patron waiting Minimal areas proximity to the Interference with two intersecting driveways. Connectivity Through Traffic to surrounding areas is considered poor due to a lack of sidewalks or paths along White Mountain Road and Fawn Brook Drive. An informal path exists south of this site but is not all-weather or ADA accessible. 173 N/P N/P N/P 11. Paths & Trails System Disconnects Show Low has a strong trails network foundation that includes many varieties of trail types for different user types. Like many evolving communities, Show Low continues to find ways to enhance the overall connectivity of the trail system. Show Low is blessed with having close proximity to established USFS recreation trails. The Buena Vista Trail and the Los Caballos Trails are two exemplary trails that offer a multitude of difficulty levels and change in ecology along the trail. Establishing additional linkages to these trails is important to provide convenient portal access from various locations. These potential locations are identified on Figure 50: Existing Trails Deficiencies Map. The lack of trail connection from Show Low Lake to the Timber Mesa trail on USFS lands to the east is also identified as a deficiency in the Show Low trail system. Figure 50: Existing Trails Deficiencies Map identifies the locations of current gaps in the existing trail system in Show Low. A “gap” may be created where existing trails terminate, future extensions of those trails are planned to connect to an existing trail or path or instances where there may be a gap between two existing trails. The majority of the gaps in the existing trail system could be characterized as areas where an existing trail does not yet provide its ultimate connection to a planned trail. Some examples of this type of trail disconnect include: 1) Connection of the Fool Hollow Lake Recreation Area to the Los Caballos Trail through Bagnal Draw. 2) Completion of the Show Low Bluff Trail. 3) Establishing a public use trail/path along Show Low Creek. 4) Creating a looped trail around Show Low Lake. 5) Connection of the Show Low Timber Mesa Trail. 6) Establishing a trail from Summit Trail to the intersection of SR 260 and US 60. 7) Establishing a sidewalk/trail along the north side of the Deuce of Clubs from the intersection of SR 260 to the Show Low Aquatic Center. 8) Establishing pedestrian and bikeway facilities along Woolford Road. 9) Connecting Torreon to the Chihuahua Pines Connector Trail. 10) Connecting the northern terminus of 6th Street to United States Forest Service (USFS) lands for OHV and other recreational trail uses. 11) Promoting and preserving additional USFS portal accesses to the Buena Vista Trail and Los Caballos Trail as growth occurs throughout the community. 12) Sidewalk gaps - with this study’s focus on the interconnectivity of trails to transit, the closing of various sidewalk gaps will promote a continuous accessibility with each of the transit stop locations. These trails and transit stop connections were discussed in Section 10. 174 FIGURE 50 Existing Paths & Trails Deficiencies Map *Show Low municipal boundary as of December 2011 175 Show Low Bluff Trail Establishing a shared use pathway along Show Low Creek (Item 3 above) would be a tremendous amenity for residents and visitors alike. This shared use path would not only take advantage of the creeks natural beauty, but also provide a north-south route for non-motorized users east of White Mountain Road. Private property holdings along Show Low Creek near the creek’s junction with the Deuce of Clubs pose a significant challenge to securing and establishing this important connection to complete this proposed link from Show Low Lake to Fool Hollow Lake along Show Low Creek. This particular trail connection could be a landmark trail in Show Low’s overall trail system. Show Low Creek Fool Hollow Lake Recreation Area has existing trail amenities that provide a complete trail experience around the western and southern portions of the lake. A multi-use trail is proposed around the north side and again along both sides of Show Low Creek as it leads to Fool Hollow Lake. (Item 3 above) Figure 50 shows where the current gaps are located. 176 Multiuse Trail at Fool Hollow Lake Other gaps identified on Figure 50 are planned extensions of trails that were born out of incoming residential development and/or were previously identified in the Show Low Trails Master Plan. Ultimately, this study will determine the trail facility type and design specifications for each of these facilities. This study also reinforces the emphasis on the need for existing and proposed residential and non-residential developments to establish local or neighborhood connections to the larger Show Low trail network. Examples of this condition include the need for a trail to connect from Torreon to the Chihuahua Pines Connector trail on USFS lands (Item 9) and extending trails from Sierra Pines residential community south to the Buena Vista trail. 12. Bikeway Facility Deficiencies As the ADOT Bicycle Policy explains, a “bikeway” is a generic term for any road, street, path, or way which in some manner is specifically designated for bicycle travel, regardless of whether such facilities are designated for the exclusive use of bicycles or are to be shared with other transportation modes. Any combination of bikeway facility types should be ultimately planned and designed to achieve a bikeway system of continuous routing. Show Low is fortunate to have a partial system of existing bikeways within the city limits. Like many small but growing communities, the expansion of any bikeway system is often incremental and long term in nature. Portions of priority roadways in Show Low such as Old Linden Road and Whipple Street have designated bike lanes but continued expansion of these facilities is needed to develop a bikeway system with continuous routing. 177 Old Linden Road near Clark Road – new bike lane facilities Old Linden Road near Show Low High School – no bike facilities Non-motorized mobility on the state highways that serve as Show Low’s principal roadways is essential to connect neighborhoods to commercial retail and employment land uses. Portions of Clark Road (SR 260) and White Mountain Road (SR 260) have paved shoulders. There are no formally striped bike lanes or posted signage on any of the state highways in Show Low. Developing a continuous bikeway system is essential for Show Low residents, but Show Low also has the enviable ability to draw recreation and eco-tourism type events into the area. Existing events such as “Bike the Bluff” and the “Deuces Wild Triathlon Festival” are economic development and tourism opportunities that draw tourists and expand enthusiasm about outdoor events for Show Low. Since tourism is such a large component of the Show Low economy, the continued expansion of bikeways in Show Low will of course benefit local area residents, but allow Show Low the ability to draw larger and more frequent events to the area. Many of the local streets in Show Low are similar in character and function – they are rural in nature, serve very low density residential areas and have limited daily traffic trips. When a local street serves low density areas (less than 1,000 persons per square mile) and the street does not carry more than 400-500 vehicles per day, these streets are deemed to be “bikeable residential streets” that do not warrant additional striping or sidewalks for pedestrian use. These local streets satisfactorily serve bicyclists and pedestrians in Show Low without the need for additional improvements. Figure 50: Existing Deficiencies identifies those bikeway corridors where the expansion and/or introduction of bikeway facilities (of various types) are necessary to guide Show Low, project stakeholders and local bicycle enthusiasts. These broad corridors are generally defined along key corridors where the introduction or expansion of some type of bikeway facility would greatly contribute to the positive expansion of the existing bikeway system in order to achieve a continuous routing network in Show Low. Some of these key roadways include Old Linden Road, Whipple Street, Woolford Road, Penrod Road and the state highways. Determination of the bikeway facility type that is suggested for each roadway will be identified in section 17. 178 The photographs below show two key roadways in Show Low that lack existing bikeway facilities – Woolford Road and Penrod Road. Penrod Road looking south Woolford Road looking south 13. Sidewalk Deficiencies Show Low has a variety of residential housing communities – the types, densities, age and style vary throughout the city. Some communities, particularly some of the more mature residential areas of Show Low, have sometimes continuous and sometimes broken segments of sidewalks within their respective communities. These areas primarily include the downtown/townsite area and the large area between McNeil Street, Old Linden Road, Central and 16 th Avenue. This area is home to multiple subdivisions such as Navajo Pines, mobile home parks and apartment communities where there is a respectable inventory of sidewalks in the area to serve these generally higher density areas. There are also a couple of strategic sidewalk gaps that occur in key “transition areas” from residential to the commercial and public places along the Deuce of Clubs. A sidewalk gap at 4th Avenue and McNeil and again along Cooley Street just east of the Timberstone Apartments are highly trafficked areas where the continuation of the existing facility terminates near its important connection to accessing the pedestrian destinations on the Deuce of Clubs. 179 th Sidewalk gap at 4 Avenue and McNeil Sidewalk gap on Cooley Street at the Timberstone Apartments There are some sidewalks in the downtown area, but there are also many gaps. Hall Street leading from White Mountain Road to the downtown has wide dirt shoulders but no sidewalks. 9th Street for example has sidewalks to access the Show Low Library and City Hall, but also has segment gaps connecting businesses to the south. 180 Hall Street looking west toward downtown – lack of Cooley Street downtown – sufficient sidewalks th th Sidewalk gap on south 16 Avenue 9 Street looking south from City Hall – lack of sidewalks 181 The following is paraphrased from the AASHTO Guide for the Planning and Design and Operation of Pedestrian Facilities which offers some considerations when evaluating, planning and prioritizing sidewalk projects in rural areas: 1) Even on roadways in completely undeveloped areas that are not intended as pedestrian routes, it is desirable to provide walking space adjacent for the occasional or emergency pedestrian use. 2) In areas where a pedestrian route is needed along a roadway for access to public places, facilities and/or businesses, shoulders are usually not appropriate for use as pedestrian facilities. Especially with roads with higher speed limits, a sidewalk or paved path (raised or separated from the roadway) is suggested. 3) Where highways enter the rural town, sidewalks should be provided. Collector or other key roadways linking interior local streets with the highway should have sidewalk(s) or shared use path facilities. 4) Sidewalks are generally not needed on local residential streets that have 400-500 vehicles per day and/or areas that average less than 1,000 persons per square mile. It is not good practice to not have paths or trails in the neighborhood. Show Low is typical of many rural communities where sidewalks are not always needed or desired. Lot sizes are typically larger, densities lower and not as many cars are on the streets leaving the roadway itself as the primary means of pedestrian activity. This is generally acceptable however it is also important to have neighborhood trails, where appropriate, that connect to internal and external (existing or planned) trail facilities. This report has also discussed how sidewalks are common connection to the transit stops in Show Low. These gaps are identified together with the transit stop inventory and are not identified on Figure 50: Existing Deficiencies. Figure 50 does denote sidewalk deficient areas and labels some of the more prominent sidewalk gap locations. Section 17 will identify specific projects to address sidewalk gaps in Show Low. 182 14. Supporting Policies & Design Elements – Paths, Trails, and Bikeways The paths, trails, and bikeway facility design elements are intended to provide general design guidance and policy considerations to be followed when designing and constructing bicycle and pedestrian facilities in Show Low. Many of the concepts are extrapolated in whole, in part or are a combination of design guidance from AASHTO’s Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, Guide for the Planning, Design, and Operation of Pedestrian Facilities, Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, the FHWA Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) in order to fit Show Low’s needs. These documents are collectively sourced and utilized in providing nationally recognized guidance for the design and construction of these facilities. These resource manuals are supplemented with various ADOT sources offering guidance along with consultant experiences as necessary. 14.1 Bike Routes/Shared Roadways Bicyclists are generally permitted to operate on all roadways except where expressly prohibited by statute, regulation or local ordinance. The City of Show Low does not have an ordinance or regulation that prohibits the operation of a bicycle on city roadways. According to the AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities (4th Edition, 2012), there are no specific design specifications or standards for bike routes (also commonly called shared lanes or shared roadways). However, there are certain roadway design considerations that can make shared roadways more compatible for bicyclists. Some of these include:         Good pavement quality Adequate sight distance Lower design speeds Bike-compatible drainage grates and railroad crossings Adequate lane width Wider shoulders Shoulders free of rumble strips Appropriate signage These design features are not always available in the existing roadway system. This can be particularly true in many areas of Show Low where grade changes in the roadway challenge sight distances or select roadway pavement sections are older or degraded from winter conditions. Each poses a hazard for cyclists. Cycling enthusiasts however 183 prefer grade changes in their bicycle trails, especially in training regimens or race settings. As a result, special attention should be given to the placement of bicycle and driver warning signage on bike route designated streets with variations in grade change. Rural roadways with the “local street” functional classification that operate with very low to low daily traffic volumes and have good sight distances may be suitable to accommodate shared roadways (bike routes) in their present condition. These roads can often provide an enjoyable and comfortable riding experience for bicyclists of all skill levels. There is often no need to provide a formal bike lane or other special accommodation for these roadways to be suitable for bicycling. Roadways that are narrow and/or curving with low traffic volumes and low speeds are often more suitable and preferred by bicyclists over roadways with good geometrics, shoulders, and continuous traffic at higher speeds. Outside of urban areas, it is common that these types of shared roadways comprise a high percentage of designated and favorable bicycle routes. This is true of the conditions in the City of Show Low. An inventory of the existing pavement section widths of Show Low streets was unavailable for this study, but consultant field review of many significant collector roads (i.e., future arterial roadways) found that many of these streets currently have 24-28 foot pavement sections (i.e., two, 12-14 foot travel lanes). Some of the roadways are marked with yellow center-line striping and white edge striping and some do not. As the AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities notes, lane widths of 13 feet or less make it likely that most motorists will encroach at least part way into the adjacent lane (or oncoming lane) to pass a bicyclist with adequate comfort and distance (typically 3-feet). Lane widths of 14 feet or greater allow vehicles to pass bicyclists without encroaching into the adjacent traffic lane. Roadways with lane widths of less than 14-feet can still function safely for bicyclists with proper bicycle guide-signage and/or shared roadway markings. Please see section 14.8 for additional detail on signage and pavement markings. For roadways that experience a low traffic volume, the installation of appropriate signage or pavement markings is the most logical, cost effective and meaningful short term benefit to promote and enhance a safe and rewarding bicycle experience in Show Low. The 24-foot wide roadways (or greater) with no pavement markings such as Sierra Pines Drive and Summit Trail have two, 12-14 foot travel lanes along most of the roadway. A vehicle can comfortably operate within 9-10 feet of that space. On a lowvolume traffic roadway with no centerline striping and a posted speed limit of 35 mph or less, there is sufficient maneuverability for vehicles to comfortably avoid a bicyclist 184 sharing that roadway. The lack of center line striping and low traffic volume enhances the ability for maneuverability on a low volume roadway. Central Avenue, with its two 16-foot travel lanes or larger (between Old Linden Road and Whipple Road) is also well suited for bike route designation. Figure 51: Sierra Pines Drive Cross Section Sierra Pines Drive Figure 52: Summit Trail Cross Section Summit Trail This approach however would not be appropriate for Penrod Road that experiences over 3,000 vehicle trips per day with two 11.5’-12 foot lanes with center-line striping. The higher traffic volumes, minimal pavement width, and center line striping do not provide for sufficient comfort and safety when a motorist needs to pass a bicyclist. Avoiding the cyclist would require the vehicle to encroach into the approaching travel lane which poses safety issues and is, of course, a civil traffic violation. It is more favorable for these roadway types to be retro-fitted with paved shoulders or a shared use path. 14.2 Paved Shoulders When it comes to retro-fitting existing roadways in Show Low, the addition of bicycle improvements can be most economically achieved by adding paved shoulders in conjunction with road widening, reconfiguration or re-pavement of the existing roadway. In rural areas, the construction of paved shoulders is often times the most sensible and cost effective approach. The construction of a bike lane is preferred in roadways with higher traffic volumes, such as Old Linden Road or Whipple Street. 185 Adding or improving paved shoulders can often enhance the bicyclist experience on roadways that have higher travel speeds, traffic volumes and/or limited existing lane width to adequately share the space with motorists. It is important to understand the difference between a paved shoulder and a bike lane. According to AASHTO’s, A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, bike lanes are travel lanes and paved shoulders that are not designated for travel but often serve as travel lanes, particularly in rural settings. Paved shoulders at intersection approaches often are maintained to the right edge of the right turn lane where bike lanes are configured differently by maintaining the bike lane to the inside (left edge) of the designated right turn lane. It is preferable to have paved shoulders on both sides of the roadway. In Show Low, where many of existing roadways do not have curbing, the desired width for a paved shoulder is 4-feet. This width should be 5-feet from the face of any vertical obstructions such as a guard rail, vertical curb or other outside roadway barrier. If the adjacent travel lane is at least 12-feet in width (many of the significant roadways in Show Low have a 24-foot roadway section, or two, 12-foot travel lanes), a 3-foot shoulder is acceptable. However, undesignated paved shoulders of a lesser width can enhance the safety and comfortable space for a bicyclist on constrained roadways in cases where it is not practical to achieve the desired paved shoulder width of 4 feet. The AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities (4th Edition, 2012) and the A Policy on the Geometric Design for Highways and Streets should be consulted for specific instructions regarding roadway retro-fitting. 14.3 Bike Lanes As introduced in section 3.3 (B), Old Linden Road and Whipple Street are the two roadways with existing bicycle lanes (for a portion of these roadways) in Show Low. Bike lanes share the roadway with motor vehicle traffic. Shared use paths by contrast are a paved facility completely separated from the roadway. Section 14.4 below offers additional discussion on shared use paths in Show Low. 186 Bicycle lanes are a portion of the roadway dedicated by signing, striping and pavement markings for one-way bike travel, typically in the same direction as the adjacent motor vehicle traffic. As the AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities notes; “Bicycle lanes are the appropriate and preferred bike facilities for thoroughfares in both urban and suburban areas. Where desired, or where there is a high potential for bicycle use, bike lanes may be provided on rural roadways near urban areas”. This of course is an important distinction relative to the identification and prioritization of bike lane projects in Show Low. Old Linden Road and Whipple Street function as important east-west collector roadways connecting many suburban and rural neighborhoods where a designated bike lane will be important to promote nonmotorized mobility along these key corridors. The application of a shared use path is the preferred facility type for other roadways in Show Low. 14.4 Shared Use Paths As introduced in section 7.4, shared use paths are designed and intended for use by bicyclists, pedestrians, joggers, skaters, and wheelchair users traveling together on a paved right-of-way (or easement) separated from the roadway facility. The shared use path along Summit Trail in Torreon and the loop trail in Show Low City Park are current examples of shared use pathways in Show Low. Shared use paths are typically designed for two-way travel. Existing shared use path in Torreon Shared use paths are typically designated for areas that can provide long, continuous and uninterrupted use. They are often located adjacent to water features, utility corridors, lengthy roadways, railroad corridors and other nature features. Shared use 187 paths should not necessarily preclude other bicycle facilities in roadways, but in rural areas there is generally not a need for such redundant facilities. Figure 53: Typical Shared Use Path Compliance with Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) design provisions is required for shared use paths since they are accessible by pedestrians. In fact, designers of shared use paths in Show Low shall consult the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board (Access Board) Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Accessibility Guideline for Shared Use Paths. Ten feet (10-feet) is the minimally accepted width for a paved two-directional shared use path. Typical desired widths vary from 10-feet to 14-feet depending on the mix and volumes of path users. Paths of 11-14 feet wide typically are provided for more intense usage of approximately 300 users in a peak hour or when more than 30% of the users are pedestrians or joggers. The existing shared use path in Torreon is 10-feet in width which is sufficient width for future shared use paths in Show Low. The desired paved width can be reduced to 8-feet in isolated circumstances when dictated by a physical impediment, bridge structure, utility structure or fence. The MUTCD and AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities should be consulted by designers for more specific design and signage guidelines for these circumstances. 188 For a typical shared use path in Show Low where usage on a given day is less intense than that of urban areas, no striping is necessary for the shared use path. Where operational challenges exist, a solid yellow line to prohibit passing may be utilized. Any shared use path markings shall be retro-reflective. Graded side shoulders consisting of compressed native or decomposed granite materials should be maintained at a minimum of two feet in width (preferably 3 feet to 5 feet) with a maximum cross slope of 6:1 (horizontal/vertical). Also, a minimum of a two foot clearance area shall be maintained from the edge of the shared use pathway (pavement edge) to bushes, rocks, pole signs, trash receptacles or other such objects. The preferred vertical clearance to any overhead obstruction is 10 feet. Future shared use path designers shall refer to the AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities and the Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Accessibility Guideline for Shared Use Paths for detailed design provisions in circumstances where the shared use path is in close proximity to a roadway and for driveway conflicts. 14.5 Multiuse Trails Multiuse trails are off-road trails, typically unpaved that are intended for use by pedestrians, hikers, joggers, equestrians and bicyclists. Multiuse trails typically are independent of formal roadway facilities and often utilize natural and manmade features such as washes, rivers or utility corridors for recreational use. The Fool Hollow Lake Recreation Area lake trail, the Show Low Bluff, Buena Vista and Los Caballos trails are examples of a multiuse trails in Show Low. There is no “one size fits all” approach when designing multipurpose trails as their design is highly influenced by local conditions including topography, physical impediments, and availability of right-of-way or easements. Los Caballos Trail Multiuse Trail at Fool Hollow Lake 189 Figure 54: Typical Multiuse Trail 14.6 Sidewalks Sidewalks generally provide the greatest degree of comfort for pedestrians when pedestrian use is found in close proximity to a roadway facility. In Show Low where much of the existing and planned land uses are rural and low density residential, sidewalks are not always necessary or desired. Generally, sidewalks are Sidewalk terminating at Timberstone preferred in residential communities Apartments on Cooley Street with an average lot size of 10,000 square feet or smaller. The population densities and vehicle trips generated in higher density subdivisions warrant the application of sidewalks to safely segregate the pedestrian from vehicular traffic. In residential areas with lower densities, paved 190 shoulders on rural roadway sections adequately serve pedestrian comfort and convenience. The City of Show Low utilizes Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) standard specifications and details (and also has adopted a supplement to MAG standards) for the design and construction of sidewalks (Figure 55). The MAG detail calls for a 5-foot sidewalk width, however in areas where heavy pedestrian activity is anticipated, a six foot width is preferred. The minimum acceptable width of sidewalk for short distances is four feet. th Existing lack of sidewalks on 9 Street in downtown Show Low 191 Figure 55: MAG Sidewalk Detail (#230) 14.7 ADOT Bicycle Policy Overview ADOT’s “Bicycle Policy” (effective February 27, 2007, reviewed February 27, 2010) establishes uniform guidelines for accommodating bicycle travel on the state highway system. The authority for the development of key provisions of this policy is derived Arizona Revised Statues (ARS) 28-812, 28-641 and 28-733. Show Low stakeholders have observed that there is confusion regarding the ability to use ADOT highways for bicycle travel. Since the Deuce of Clubs (US 60), Clark Road (SR 260), Penrod Road (SR 77) and White Mountain Road (SR 260) are principal (and the most traveled) roadways in Show Low, this section describes ADOT’s policies on bicycle use in their rights-of-way. A summary of some of the pertinent ADOT Bicycle Policies that influence the Show Low Trails and Transit Connectivity Study are as follows:  It is ADOT’s goal to develop transportation infrastructure that provides safe and convenient bicycle access. 192  ADOT further advocates that bicyclists have the right to operate in a legal manner on all ADOT roadways open to public travel, with the exception of fully controlledaccess highways (there are no such facilities in the White Mountains).  It is ADOT’s policy to include provisions for bicycle travel on all new major construction and major reconstruction projects on the state highway system. New bridge and roadway widening projects are normally considered as being within the scope of major construction and reconstruction. This does not include pavement preservation projects.  It is ADOT’s policy to consider, as part of major new construction or major reconstruction projects in urban areas, wide curb lanes up to 15-feet (exclusive of gutter pan) and placement of a stripe at the vehicle lane edge where appropriate.  It is ADOT’s policy to consider bicycle lanes for inclusion with new major construction or major reconstruction projects when; a) the incremental costs for construction and maintenance are funded by a local agency, and 2) the bicycle lane is included as a part of a bicycle facilities plan adopted by a local agency. ADOT will fund the construction of at-grade or grade separated (including bridges) street or roadway crossings with bicycle facilities if said facilities are part of an adopted plan by a local agency.  It is ADOT’s policy to accommodate shared use paths within the ADOT right-of-way when the facilities are; a) designed and located in accordance with accepted criteria for a proper and safe facility, and 2) funded and properly maintained by a local agency.  It is ADOT’s policy NOT to reduce existing travel lane widths to accommodate bicycle traffic unless supported by a traffic study with concurrence by the State Traffic Engineer.  It is ADOT’s policy NOT to sign or designate bikeways on any ADOT roadways without concurrence from the District Engineer and State Bicycle Coordinator.  It is ADOT’s policy NOT to sign or designate sidewalks as bicycle routes or bikeways. 14.8 Signage All signage must comply with the current edition of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). The minimum number of signs adequate to communicate the intended message is desirable in order to prevent information overload. In Show Low, 193 the application of bike route and bike lane signage will be the most common use of signs. The signs shown may be used on roadways without bike lanes or usable shoulders and the road section may be too narrow for motorists and bicyclists to operate side by side within a lane. Alternately, W11-1 with W16-1P may be used in an area of concern where it is not feasible or cost prohibitive to modify a facility to better accommodate bicyclists. Figure 56: MUTCD, W11-1 OR Figure 57: MUTCD, W16-1P and R4-11 Figure 58: Typical Pavement Marking Source: MUTCD 194 14.9 Pedestrian Crossings Crosswalk markings provide safety and guidance to pedestrians who are crossing roadways by delineating paths to and within signalized intersections. In conjunction with signs and other measures, crosswalk markings help to alert road users of a designated pedestrian crossing point across roadways at locations that are not controlled by traffic control signals or STOP or YIELD signs. At non-intersection locations, crosswalk markings legally establish the crosswalk. For approaching vehicles, appropriate pedestrian/bicycle crossing warning signage such as MUTCD W-11-2, W-1115 or W-11-15P for vehicle approaches at intersections should be considered. Examples of typical signing and pavement markings are shown below. Figure 59: Typical Pedestrian Crossing Signing & Marking 195 15. Evaluation Criteria 15.1 Evaluation Criteria & Their Importance to the Show Low Trails & Transit Connectivity Study Process A key component of the Show Low Trails and Transit Connectivity Study is to provide an impartial set of criteria for Show Low community stakeholders, City staff and the project team to objectively and effectively evaluate various types of path/trail, bikeway and transit improvement projects. Any master plan of this variety should be tailored to the community’s needs, enjoy the benefit of public support, and be realistic and practical in its implementation. Projects should be coordinated with existing City of Show Low plans and policies, identify strategies for the phased implementation of larger projects and establish a series of priorities that are intended to guide City staff and elected officials in the decision making process. Development of evaluation criteria for Show Low is a blend of TAC guidance, transportation consultant industry criteria, professional experiences, and community input received through the planning process. These broad areas are collectively refined into a combination of evaluation criteria that are tailored to the objectives identified for the Show Low Trails and Transit Connectivity Study. It is worth noting that projects that; 1) immediately improve the connection between transit stops and adjacent neighborhoods or employment centers, 2) maintain broad community support, and, 3) support a clear and likely reduction in vehicular trips, can receive an added emphasis score of “2” since these improvements are highly desired or directly meet plan objectives. Table’s 30-33 below identify and describe the evaluation criteria used for this study. Table 30: Core Evaluation Criteria CORE CRITERIA (applies to all) CRITERIA Improved linkage between an existing transit stop and a trail/path to that transit stop Complexity of Construction (Cost) DESCRIPTION/APPLICABILITY The proposed project will enhance the current condition by providing a connection (closing a gap) from an existing neighborhood, activity center or recreation area to a transit stop location. (weighted factor of “2”) Projects will vary in complexity of physical construction techniques and cost. Highly complex projects will 196 Score/Rank Immediate Transit Stop/Neighborhood Gap Closure = 2 Points Trail in Proximity Gap Closure = 1 Point No Closure = 0 Points Little Complexity = 2 Points Medium Complexity = 1 Point High Complexity = 0 Points CORE CRITERIA (applies to all) CRITERIA Community Support Availability of Funding Safety Enhancement DESCRIPTION/APPLICABILITY require additional planning, design, possible environmental permitting, right-of-way acquisition and include challenging physical constraints due to topography or existing infrastructure deficiencies that increase overall project cost. Less complex projects typically include those projects that can be designed and constructed in a more expedited fashion due to the availability of existing right-of-way, and/or the lack of physical, environmental or other related infrastructure deficiencies. Project and/or community stakeholders have identified key deficiencies/complaints or expressed their desire for select projects through the TAC, community workshops or completed surveys. The proposed project has the probability to leverage funding support from outside government agencies, non-profit agencies, property owners or other organizations to share in the cost of the project. Project will enhance the current condition by improving the safety and functionality of deficient sidewalks, trails, transit stops or crossings based on field observations and/or historical crash data. Enhancements identified along or near roadways with higher traffic volumes will receive added consideration. 197 Score/Rank Broad Community Support = 2 Point Community Support = 1 Points Deficiency Identified but lacking pronounced community support = 0 Points Yes = 1 Point No = 0 Points Safety Need = 2 Points Safety Enhancement = 1 Point No Safety Improvement = 0 Points Table 31: Bikeways & Trails Criteria BIKEWAYS & TRAILS CRITERIA CRITERIA DESCRIPTION/APPLICABILITY SCORE/RANK Project will enhance the current Improved condition by providing connection connectivity to parks, (closing a gap) from an existing Yes = 1 Point trail, recreation residential neighborhood, activity No = 0 Points amenity or other center, park, USFS trail or other public public space space. The proposed project will have the potential to reduce the number of High Potential = 2 Points Reduction in vehicle vehicle trips between neighborhoods Limited Potential = 1 Point trips and/or commercial service, transit Project will likely not reduce stops, or public spaces by promoting vehicle trips = 0 Points an alternate mode of transportation. The proposed project may enhance overall economic development and tourism objectives by improving multimodal connectivity between residential neighborhoods and Enhance economic Direct Enhancement = 2 Points employment centers OR the project development/tourism Enhancement Likely = 1 Point enhances the appeal of existing opportunities No = 0 Points roadway or trail facilities that better complete (or help complete) a holistic network that may be used to draw regional events and tourism to Show Low. Table 32: Transit Route Criteria TRANSIT ROUTE/OPERATIONS CRITERIA CRITERIA DESCRIPTION/APPLICABILITY SCORE/RANK Improves Headways = 2 Improve Headways The proposed project has the ability to improve headway times. Expanding New Service The proposed project has the ability to offer an expansion of new service(s) not previously provided. The expansion could be in the form of a new fixed transit stop, alternate route or expansion of deviated/paratransit stops in the 198 Maintains Current Headways = 1 Worsens Headways = 0 Yes = 1 No = 0 TRANSIT ROUTE/OPERATIONS CRITERIA CRITERIA DESCRIPTION/APPLICABILITY SCORE/RANK system. Table 33: Transit Stop Criteria CRITERIA Frequently used stop Promotes usage by Title VI populations Improved ADA accessibility TRANSIT STOP CRITERIA DESCRIPTION/APPLICABILITY In order to make improvements at the most utilized stops first, this criteria ranks the existing and new stops by frequency of use by the transit patrons. The proposed improvement is located close to or within a reasonable walking distance of a minority or disadvantaged neighborhood. The proposed improvement is located near an agency or business that supports or employs low wage workers or disadvantaged transit patrons. The scores are assigned by the proximity of the bus stop to disadvantaged neighborhoods or employment opportunities. The proposed enhancement improves a location that does not currently meet ADA accessibility requirements or extends existing ADA facilities to a new or existing transit stop. SCORE/RANK High = 2 Points Medium = 1 Point Low = 0 Points Close Proximity/High Employment Opportunity = 2 Points Limited Disadvantaged Neighborhoods/Low Employment Opportunity = 1 Point Little or No Disadvantaged Neighborhoods/Little or No Employment Opportunity = 0 Points Adds New ADA Facility = 2 Points Improves Access to Existing ADA Facility = 1 Point No Improvement to ADA Accessibility = 0 Points 16. Plan of Improvements Introduction Table 34 - Suggested Paths, Trails and Bikeways Plan of Improvements, Table 36: Suggested Transit Stop Plan of Improvements and Table 38: Transit Operations Plan of Improvements each identify, discuss and assign a priority to each of the suggested 199 projects as the foundation to prioritize the Plan of Improvements for each topic or component of the Show Low Trails and Transit Connectivity Study. Each suggested project receives a point total as a means to guide the general comparison between projects. Based upon the point totals received, each project is then assigned a priority to thereby demonstrate a rational process by which project stakeholders can balance a multitude of considerations when evaluating and prioritizing various project types. The project priorities are not intended to be a final, conclusive statement that projects must be completed in the order of which they were prioritized. As the City of Show Low and other project stakeholders move forward with the implementation of selected projects, further consideration must be given to the relative cost effectiveness of the projects together with policy considerations and community benefit that, together with the guidance of this Plan of Improvements, ultimately influence the decision as to what project gets implemented over another. Based on rankings received, individual projects then are placed into short term (5-year), medium term (10-year) and long term (20-year) implementation time frames within each of the project types. Choices need to be made on accommodating suggested improvements and how select projects can be phased or retrofitted in order to provide safe and meaningful improvements that often times are tempered by budget realities. Technical, political and financial realities dictate that not all improvements will happen within the prescribed implementation period. The process of assigning project priorities becomes a balance of art and science whereby the science component is guided by standards and specifications and the art influenced by local conditions, community input and reasonable technical judgment. In general, short term projects are those that can be implemented with relative ease and little cost and yet demonstrate tangible progress of implementation to the community. Examples in Show Low will the improvement of bike routes, closure of certain sidewalk gaps and construction of a shared use path along Woolford Road. Medium term projects typically will be more complex and costly to implement. They may include the need for formal design and/or funding through a formal CIP or other City/grant program. Examples for Show Low include the construction of a sidewalk on the east side of Central Avenue (north of Old Linden Road), a bus shelter at the JC Penny transit stop and select route restructuring of the FSC route. 200 Long term projects tend to be those that are a considerable investment and have a higher degree of complexity in design, construction and perhaps political vantage point. Some notable long range projects include the construction of a shared use path along Sierra Pines Drive, improvements to the transit stop at the Show Low Airport and possible lengthening of headways for the FSC. 17. Paths, Trails & Bikeways Plan of Improvements 17.1 Paths, Trails & Bikeways Plan of Improvements Table 34 below identifies, describes and prioritizes each proposed path, trail and bikeway improvement project. Section 17.2 supplements the findings of Table 34 by providing a summary review of facilities for each significant roadway in Show Low. 201 Table 34: Paths, Trails and Bikeways Plan of Improvements Core Criteria Location/Project No. Approx. Length Bikeways & Trails Criteria Improved Linkage Improved b/w Complexity Connectivity Reduction Existing of Community Availability Safety Economic/Employment/ Total to parks, in Vehicle Transit Construction Support of Funding Enhancement Tourism Potential Points trails, public Trips Stop and (Cost) spaces Local Trail/Path Project Priority Project Description/Notes Sidewalks The north side of the Deuce of Clubs along this roadway segment is the only portion of the roadway that lacks sidewalks. It is an important area that includes the City Park and Aquatic Center that are two popular destinations. SW #1 Deuce of Clubs from SR 260 to the Show Low Aquatic Center Approx. 1/3 mile 2 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 11 Short Term A fairly abrupt grade change between the roadway prism and the City Park create some design challenges. A recent recipient of grant funding from ADOT, this section of sidewalk is currently in the design stages and will be constructed in the near future. Extension of the existing sidewalk north approximately 600 feet to Spyglass Drive is needed to provide a desired pedestrian route for all residents of Central Park Estates. SW #2 Central Avenue – North of Paloma Street Approx. 600 feet 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 202 1 11 Short Term The existing sidewalk on the west side of Central Avenue terminates approximately 180 feet north of the Paloma Street intersection. This sidewalk extension is needed for the residents (and children) of Central Park estates to the north that access Central Avenue from Spyglass Drive. This is a popular route for children and families to and from Whipple Ranch Elementary school. Core Criteria Location/Project No. Approx. Length Bikeways & Trails Criteria Improved Linkage Improved b/w Complexity Connectivity Reduction Existing of Community Availability Safety Economic/Employment/ Total to parks, in Vehicle Transit Construction Support of Funding Enhancement Tourism Potential Points trails, public Trips Stop and (Cost) spaces Local Trail/Path Project Priority SW #3 McNeil Street – 4th Avenue to the Deuce of Clubs Approx. 560 feet 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 0 8 Medium Term Approx. 300 feet 2 2 2 1 1 0 2 1 11 Short Term 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 0 9 Short Term SW #4 Cooley Street – Timberstone Apartments east to Central Avenue SW #5 Cooley Street – Timberstone Apartments west to 4th Ave. Approx. 300 feet 203 Project Description/Notes Extend sidewalk along the north side of McNeil Street within existing dirt shoulder from existing curb return at 4th Avenue to link to existing curb return at the Deuce of Clubs. Closing this sidewalk gap will facilitate a much needed connection from the frequently used 4th Avenue to connect these adjacent residential neighborhoods to the Deuce of Clubs. Sufficient ROW exists. Safety is a priority due to the sharp radius in McNeil Street. Extend existing sidewalk at the Timberstone Apartments property line east to Central Avenue approximately 300 feet to the existing sidewalk return on Central Avenue. This sidewalk closes a strategic gap by connecting some of the most densely populated areas in Show Low with a commercial services core at the Deuce of Clubs and Central Avenue. This area was also identified in the crash history data. Extend existing sidewalk at the Timberstone Apartments property line west to 4th Avenue approximately 300 feet to the existing sidewalk return on 4th Avenue. This sidewalk gap also facilitates an important pedestrian connection to 4th Avenue which serves as this areas primary north/south collector road to connect area residents with Show Low High School tot eh south and the Deuce of Clubs to the north. Core Criteria Location/Project No. Approx. Length Bikeways & Trails Criteria Improved Linkage Improved b/w Complexity Connectivity Reduction Existing of Community Availability Safety Economic/Employment/ Total to parks, in Vehicle Transit Construction Support of Funding Enhancement Tourism Potential Points trails, public Trips Stop and (Cost) spaces Local Trail/Path Project Priority SW #6 4th Avenue – west side of roadway – Old Linden Road to Cooley Street Approx. ¼ mile 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 7 Medium Term 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 7 Medium Term 2 2 0 1 2 1 1 0 9 SW #7 4th Avenue – west side of roadway – Cooley Street to McNeil Street Approx. 1/4 mile (1,320 feet) SW #8 16th Avenue – south of McNeil Street, east side of roadway Approx. 275 feet Short Term Project Description/Notes Sidewalk on both sides of the street is desired in this well-traveled roadway segment that effectively serves as the priority collector road linking the Deuce of Clubs to Show Low High School in this portion of the City. A mobile home park, commercial businesses and medium density housing in the immediate area utilize this roadway daily. No traffic counts for 4th Avenue were available from the City. Sidewalk on both sides of the street are desired in this well-traveled roadway segment that effectively serves as the priority collector road linking the Deuce of Clubs to Show Low High School in this portion of the City. A mobile home park, commercial businesses and medium density housing in the immediate area utilize this roadway daily. This sidewalk would facilitate a safer pedestrian connection to the transit stop located at the corner of McNeil Street and 4th Avenue. No traffic counts for 4th Avenue were provided by the City. Extend sidewalk along the east side of 16th Avenue within existing dirt shoulder to close gap between the existing sidewalk return at McNeil Street and the existing sidewalk terminus approximately 275 feet south of the McNeil intersection. This sidewalk improvement will close an important gap in an otherwise well-planned local area sidewalk network connecting users 204 Core Criteria Location/Project No. Approx. Length 80 feet from Transit SW #9 Stop to White Hall Street – White Mountain Mountain Road; Road to 8th approx. Street 1,400 feet to 8th Street Bikeways & Trails Criteria Improved Linkage Improved b/w Complexity Connectivity Reduction Existing of Community Availability Safety Economic/Employment/ Total to parks, in Vehicle Transit Construction Support of Funding Enhancement Tourism Potential Points trails, public Trips Stop and (Cost) spaces Local Trail/Path Project Priority 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 11 Short Term Approx. 800 feet 1 1 1 1 2 1 0 2 9 Short Term Approx. one half mile 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 4 Long Term SW #10 9th Street – south of City Hall – both sides of road SW #11 8th Street from 205 Project Description/Notes from the Show Low Apartments, Ponderosa Apartments and nearby residential areas to promote a safe access to the City Park on this busy roadway. A sidewalk along the north side of Hall Street is very much needed to connect the existing transit stop (#27) approximately 80 feet to the existing sidewalk return at White Mountain Road. Hall Street is a gateway roadway into the downtown and the adjacent neighborhood and businesses will all greatly benefit from a sidewalk to be constructed in the existing dirt shoulder area that is difficult to navigate in the winter months. Data shows that crashes have occurred on Hall Street. Safety in the area will be greatly enhanced because of the commercial driveway interaction and ADA accessibility can be realized. Enhances safety by separating pedestrians from vehicles in the downtown area though oversized dirt shoulders are used today. Sidewalks will encourage pedestrian use and area development/redevelopment potential. Safety is also enhanced by providing sidewalk connection between Show Low City Hall, Transit Stop # 28 and Nikolaus Homestead Elementary School for this roadway that has approximately 1700 cars per day. Sidewalks on both sides of the roadway along 8th Street to link Woolford Road to Whipple Road and the downtown to the north (shared Core Criteria Location/Project No. Approx. Length Bikeways & Trails Criteria Improved Linkage Improved b/w Complexity Connectivity Reduction Existing of Community Availability Safety Economic/Employment/ Total to parks, in Vehicle Transit Construction Support of Funding Enhancement Tourism Potential Points trails, public Trips Stop and (Cost) spaces Local Trail/Path Project Priority Whipple Road south to Woolford Road use path section) is desired. SW #12 5th Street, existing transit stop at Hunning St. to the Deuce of Clubs Approx. 750 feet 2 2 0 0 1 1 0 0 6 Medium Term SW #13 Central Avenue – east side of roadway, Old Linden to Thornton Road Project Description/Notes Approx. ¾ mile 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 206 0 6 Medium Term The current limits of the pavement terminate approximate .20 miles north of Woolford Road. There is a .25 mile gap in roadway pavement south of Whipple Rd. 8th Street is situated ½ mile between Central Avenue and White Mountain Road (SR 260) so sidewalks on both sides of 8th Street connecting the growth areas south of Woolford Road with downtown creates a desirable 20 minute walking loop in this area. Sidewalks should be constructed with roadway extension project. Transit Stop #24 is located in front of Centennial Park at 5th Street. Other than the immediate park frontage and transit stop area, no sidewalks exist on 5th Street. A sidewalk is desired on the east side of 5th Street to the Deuce of Clubs. This sidewalk will provide safe a convenient access to the transit stop and enhance overall ADA accessibility of this stop. As development of adjacent vacant land occurs in this area, a sidewalk is desired on the east side of the roadway to complement the existing sidewalk on the west side of the roadway along this busy segment. From East Adams to Willis Rd. where development already exists, supplemental project funding by the City of Show Low or others will be necessary. Future developers of the vacant parcels north of Willis Rd. will be expected to construct the sidewalk. Core Criteria Location/Project No. Approx. Length Bikeways & Trails Criteria Improved Linkage Improved b/w Complexity Connectivity Reduction Existing of Community Availability Safety Economic/Employment/ Total to parks, in Vehicle Transit Construction Support of Funding Enhancement Tourism Potential Points trails, public Trips Stop and (Cost) spaces Local Trail/Path Project Priority Project Description/Notes Shared Use Paths SUP #1 US 60 from Summit Trail to Clark Road (north side of US 60) Approx. .85 miles (4,475 feet) 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 10 Short Term SUP #2 Fool Hollow Recreation Area Entrance Road SUP #3 Clark Road Various Segments 2 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 6 Medium Term 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 5 Long Term 207 A shared use path is desired from the Torreon entrance at Summit Trail, along US 60 to the intersection of US 60 and SR 260. This segment is approximately .85 miles (4,475 feet) in length. This proposed SUP will greatly assist in non-motorized transportation for this area as well as facilitate a seamless connection to Transit Stop #20 located at the Circle K. Show Low has received transportation enhancement funding from ADOT for this facility that is currently in the design stages. The entrance from Old Linden Road is a 24 foot pavement section with vertical curbing and is not inviting for bicyclists or pedestrians when the road is shared with recreational vehicles. A shared use path along one side of the roadway will enhance the gateway experience for all modes of transportation into the recreation area. A shared use path will also enhance and continue to promote Fool Hollow Recreation Area for additional organized events and competitions such as triathlons. Construction is challenged by grade changes and local drainage patterns. A shared use path north of Old Linden Road to Old Highway 160 is desired. The completion/continuation of the existing shared use path along the east side of the roadway is desired to link to the Bison Ranch Core Criteria Location/Project No. Approx. Length Bikeways & Trails Criteria Improved Linkage Improved b/w Complexity Connectivity Reduction Existing of Community Availability Safety Economic/Employment/ Total to parks, in Vehicle Transit Construction Support of Funding Enhancement Tourism Potential Points trails, public Trips Stop and (Cost) spaces Local Trail/Path Project Priority SUP #4 North 16th Avenue - Old Linden Road to Show Low Creek 1.25 miles 0 2 1 0 0 1 0 1 5 Medium Term SUP #5 North 16th Avenue – Old Linden Road to McNeil Street One half mile 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 208 0 9 Short Term Project Description/Notes SUP and the existing segment near the City park to complete a continuous SUP along this important corridor. A shared use path along the west side of this low volume roadway is desired to establish a system connection along 16th Avenue from Old Linden Road to Show Low Creek. This segment is approximately 1.25 miles in length. Local traffic volumes for this dead end roadway are very low, however a connection to a planned multiuse trail along Show Low Creek will attract more users. An existing dirt shoulder along the west side of the roadway is well suited for a shared use path. This is likely a later phase of the shared use path planned along 16th Avenue south to the City Park. 16th Avenue serves as a very important northsouth collector roadway connecting Old Linden Road to the City Park situated halfway between Clark Road (SR 260) and Central Avenue. 16th Avenue already has approximately 2,000 vehicle trips per day and will continue to increase with area growth. The pavement is wide and the roadway is flat, often encouraging speeding on this roadway. One shared use path on the east side of the roadway connecting to the existing sidewalk return on McNeil Street will provide a safe pedestrian and bicycle connection and refuse area separated from vehicular traffic. This improvement is identified in the City’s Capital Improvement Plan. Core Criteria Location/Project No. Approx. Length Bikeways & Trails Criteria Improved Linkage Improved b/w Complexity Connectivity Reduction Existing of Community Availability Safety Economic/Employment/ Total to parks, in Vehicle Transit Construction Support of Funding Enhancement Tourism Potential Points trails, public Trips Stop and (Cost) spaces Local Trail/Path Project Priority The incorporation of a shared use path in conjunction of future roadway construction of this proposed collector road is desired to enhance east-west mobility in north-central Show Low. SUP #6 Thornton Road from Central Avenue to 16th Avenue/22nd Avenue Project Description/Notes 1.5 miles 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 4 Long Term Thornton Road from Central Avenue to SR 77 ¾ mile 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 4 Long Term SUP #8 Approx. 1.25 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 9 Short Term SUP #7 209 Thornton Road will serve as an important east-west collector road to serve future growth in this area 1/2 mile north of Old Linden Road. One shared use path as opposed to sidewalks on both sides of this roadway is preferred to keep roadway construction costs down and the likely traffic volumes will be low enough to support a shared use path on this 1.5 mile segment of roadway. The alignment shifts to the south in order to avoid area stock ponds. Appropriate pedestrian crossings must be considered at 16th Avenue intersection. The eastern extension of a future roadway contemplated in the Show Low General Plan to be constructed from Central Avenue to SR 77. A shared use path for this future road extension (3/4 mile plus crossing) is desired. There is an existing pavement section of Thornton Road from SR 77 for ½ mile to serve the commerce related land uses in that area. A span or bridge crossing of Show Low Creek and extension to Central Avenue is needed. Construction of the shared use path will likely be constructed incrementally as the roadway is being constructed. Woolford Road has two travel lanes with ribbon curbing on both sides (28-foot pavement section). A shared use path Core Criteria Location/Project No. Approx. Length Woolford Road – Whipple Road south and east to White Mountain Road miles Bikeways & Trails Criteria Improved Linkage Improved b/w Complexity Connectivity Reduction Existing of Community Availability Safety Economic/Employment/ Total to parks, in Vehicle Transit Construction Support of Funding Enhancement Tourism Potential Points trails, public Trips Stop and (Cost) spaces Local Trail/Path Project Priority separated from the roadway along the south side of the road is highly desired and is the most efficient and effective design solution to retrofit this existing roadway to accommodate non-motorized users on this popular roadway. This “local bypass” road already has nearly 10,000 vehicle trips daily and will continue to grow as planned neighborhoods directly accessing Woolford Road are developed. Historical crash data identifies 3-5 crashes along this roadway segment. Topographic grade changes and several drainage ways increase the complexity of SUP construction/retrofit design, but the south side of the roadway is less complex than the additional grade and drainage concerns on the north side of the roadway. SUP #9 Summit Trail – south of US 60 Approx. 2 miles Project Description/Notes 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 210 0 2 Long Term A shared use path along one side of this planned collector roadway in which ½ mile is currently paved from its intersection with US 60. The roadway will likely be constructed in phases over time as existing USFS lands are considered for future urbanization in accordance with the Show Low General Plan. This (future) important collector roadway will ultimately connect US 60 and SR 260 creating a “southern beltway” for Show Low. As a result, it is important to establish at least one shared use path to accommodate nonmotorized users traversing this southern region of the city. The implementation priority can be considered “long term” or as Core Criteria Location/Project No. Approx. Length Bikeways & Trails Criteria Improved Linkage Improved b/w Complexity Connectivity Reduction Existing of Community Availability Safety Economic/Employment/ Total to parks, in Vehicle Transit Construction Support of Funding Enhancement Tourism Potential Points trails, public Trips Stop and (Cost) spaces Local Trail/Path Project Priority Project Description/Notes development occurs. SUP #10 Sierra Pines Trail Approx. 1.65 miles 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 4 Long Term 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 4 Long Term SUP #11 Woolford Road – east of White Mountain Road 211 Depending on future residential densities and average daily vehicle trips generated in this area, a second shared use path on the opposite side of the roadway could be considered for major collector/minor arterial level volumes. Care in design and creation of a “special place” at Summit Trail’s planned crossings of the Buena Vista Trail shall be taken into consideration in establishing wellplanned trailheads at these crossing locations. Consideration to minimize disturbance in the area shall be taken. The entire Summit Trail extension to White Mountain Road (at the Fawnbrook Drive alignment) is approximately 2 miles in length. A shared use path is desired along this community collector roadway facility that will enhance pedestrian and bicycle system connectivity from the Deuce of Clubs (US 60) to Central Avenue/Woolford Road. Including the Woolford Rd. connection, together this planned facility will provide a critical looped pedestrian and bicycle connection in this area. Shared funding opportunities are likely limited for this project. A shared use path is planned for this future road extension across Show Low Creek and onto the Show Low Bluff planned community. A shared use path on one side of the roadway is preferred over sidewalks on both sides of this planned roadway. Improvements to occur Core Criteria Location/Project No. Approx. Length Bikeways & Trails Criteria Improved Linkage Improved b/w Complexity Connectivity Reduction Existing of Community Availability Safety Economic/Employment/ Total to parks, in Vehicle Transit Construction Support of Funding Enhancement Tourism Potential Points trails, public Trips Stop and (Cost) spaces Local Trail/Path Project Priority to Show Low Bluffs SUP #12 Central Avenue – Thornton Road (alignment) to Show Low Creek Approx. 3,200 feet 1 2 1 1 0 1 0 1 7 Medium Term SUP #13 Central Ave/Pine Drive south of Approx. 1.25 miles 0 2 1 0 0 1 0 212 1 5 Long Term Project Description/Notes with the extension of the roadway that will be funded by the master developer, not the City of Show Low. A shared use path is also planned and desired for the large looped collector roadway that will serve the Show Low Bluffs planned community. The implementation priority can be considered “long term” or as development occurs. Crossings at Penrod Road shall consider safety and line of sight visibility. A future single shared use path from the existing and planned sidewalk terminus on Central Avenue north of Paloma. As planned low density residential development activity occurs, a shared use path connecting to the AZ Game and Fish and USFS parcels along Show Low Creek is desired. The total length of this desired connection is approximately six tenths of a mile (3,200 feet). Establishing additional connection points (1 mile east of 16th Avenue and .5 miles west of OHV users on 6th Street) from the city to the regional recreation uses of the future Show Low Creek trail, Fool Hollow Recreation Area, and Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest is desired at this location. A southerly extension of Central Ave. alignment south to Buena Vista Trail. Following a series of circuitous local streets (Pine Drive) through the Sierra Pines community, pedestrian and bicycle access is to be secured to establish a north-south Core Criteria Location/Project No. Approx. Length Bikeways & Trails Criteria Improved Linkage Improved b/w Complexity Connectivity Reduction Existing of Community Availability Safety Economic/Employment/ Total to parks, in Vehicle Transit Construction Support of Funding Enhancement Tourism Potential Points trails, public Trips Stop and (Cost) spaces Local Trail/Path Project Priority Woolford Road to Buena Vista Trail SUP #14 Penrod Road – Deuce of Clubs to Show Low Lake Road SUP #15 White Mountain 4 miles Approx. 1.4 miles 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 213 1 1 6 6 Medium Term Medium Term Project Description/Notes connection along this “Central Avenue alignment” to the Buena Vista Trail on USFS lands. Existing local streets in the low density development pattern in Sierra Pines does not necessarily warrant the construction of a separate shared use path onto existing roadways, but a seamless, public access is to be maintained to the Buena Vista trail where a trailhead is warranted at this location. Penrod Road is designated as an arterial roadway and is the only north-south roadway on the bluff east of SR 260. Penrod Road is a two lane roadway today and is approximately 4 miles long from its intersection with the Deuce of Clubs south to the city limits. This project will be implemented incrementally, perhaps with future road widening completed by the master developer. Improvements are not intended to be constructed by the City of Show Low. A shared use path is desired along the west side of the roadway to accommodate both pedestrians and bicyclists. Graded shoulders and sufficient right-of-way exist to minimize construction costs and the shared use path is preferred over sidewalks for this facility. Sufficient right of way exists. Enhancements to Penrod Road will assist in promoting tourism/bicycle events by expanding amenities of this important roadway. A shared use path is desired along the west side of White Mountain Road for this segment of roadway. Sidewalks exist to the north and Core Criteria Location/Project No. Approx. Length Bikeways & Trails Criteria Improved Linkage Improved b/w Complexity Connectivity Reduction Existing of Community Availability Safety Economic/Employment/ Total to parks, in Vehicle Transit Construction Support of Funding Enhancement Tourism Potential Points trails, public Trips Stop and (Cost) spaces Local Trail/Path Project Priority Road –west side of roadway, south of Pine Oaks subdivision to Park Pineway Shopping Center SUP #16 8th Street, Whipple Road to Owens ¼ mile 1 2 1 0 1 0 1 0 6 Medium Term Approx. 2.35 miles 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 6 Medium Term SUP #17 White Mountain Road (east side), Meadowview Trailhead to Ponderosa Parkway 214 Project Description/Notes there are currently paved shoulders along the ADOT facility to Park Pineway shopping center. A shared use path along the west side of White Mountain Road is desired for this segment that could connect to existing sidewalks to the north and south in this area where substantial commercial retail and employment core exists in Show Low. Due to project length, construction should be contemplated in stages unless in conjunction with an ADOT improvement project. A shared use path along 8th Street to Whipple Road to Owens Street and the downtown is desired. This shared use path would be constructed along the existing roadway section along eh west side of the roadway. A shared use path along one side of the roadway is preferred over sidewalks for this construction retrofit. This segment will facilitate a continuous path and sidewalk network from Woolford Road to the downtown along the 8th Street corridor. Sidewalk currently exists on the east side of White Mountain Road from the Deuce of Clubs intersection south to just north of the Meadowview Trailhead. A southerly extension of a shared use path to connect to the existing sidewalk along the east side of the roadway to Ponderosa Parkway shopping center is desired. A shared use path will provide pedestrians and bicyclists a defined and safe location on this well-traveled and crash prone Core Criteria Location/Project No. Approx. Length Bikeways & Trails Criteria Improved Linkage Improved b/w Complexity Connectivity Reduction Existing of Community Availability Safety Economic/Employment/ Total to parks, in Vehicle Transit Construction Support of Funding Enhancement Tourism Potential Points trails, public Trips Stop and (Cost) spaces Local Trail/Path Project Priority Shopping Center Project Description/Notes segment of roadway. This connection would complete a seamless facility along White Mountain Road that connects the existing sidewalk segments south of Ponderosa Parkway shopping center to Show Low Lake Road and north to the Deuce of Clubs. Many commercial businesses and a large recreational vehicle subdivision and park are located along this segment of roadway. Multiuse Trails MUT #1 Bagnal Draw – Los Caballos Trail to Fool Hollow Recreation Area MUT #2 Approx. 1.5 miles Varies 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 215 1 1 6 8 Medium Term Short Term A 1.5 mile multiuse trail extension to provide a strategic connection between the existing Los Caballos Trailhead and Fool Hollow Lake Recreation Area is highly desired. This segment can provide a strategic linkage to two highly valued recreation amenities in the Los Caballos trail and Fool Hollow Lake Recreation Area. This corridor (existing jeep trails) is also utilized for the annual triathlon so a formally improved and maintained trail can further encourage/promote eco-tourism based activities. Trail extension likely to be on USFS and private property. Discussions with Arizona State Parks and USFS needed to establish and operate a portal access into the northwest corner of the Recreation Area. Improvements likely to occur incrementally and with assistance for outside entities. The existing Show Low Bluff trail is formally Core Criteria Location/Project No. Approx. Length Bikeways & Trails Criteria Improved Linkage Improved b/w Complexity Connectivity Reduction Existing of Community Availability Safety Economic/Employment/ Total to parks, in Vehicle Transit Construction Support of Funding Enhancement Tourism Potential Points trails, public Trips Stop and (Cost) spaces Local Trail/Path Project Priority Show Low Bluff MUT #3 Show Low Creek Trail Approx. 6.5 miles 1 0 2 1 1 1 0 1 7 Short Term Medium Term Long Term MUT #4 Show Low Lake Nature Loop Approx. 3.5 miles 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 216 2 7 Medium Term Project Description/Notes accessed from the Meadowview Trailhead off White Mountain Road. This popular trail is a 1.5 mile loop. Expansion of the loop likely to occur with adjacent Show Low Bluffs master planned community. Establish a second formal trailhead with possible ancillary commercial business on “the bench” where the kiosk is currently located. Additional connection to a possible Show Low Creek trail should be considered. This trail has incredible potential as a “signature” trail for Show Low but is also very challenging to develop due to the private property rights that prevail along the length of the creek. Private property holdings along the creek near US 60 are particularly challenging. This is a lengthy facility that will likely have to be constructed incrementally over time. Existing industrial and water reclamation facilities north of the Deuce of Clubs limit the overall recreation appeal but achieve overall system connectivity. Show Low Lake to the Deuce of Clubs (US 60) is approximately 4.75 miles in length. The Deuce of Clubs to the Game and Fish property area is approximately 1.75 miles in length. Consideration as a shared use path in select areas (trailhead, neighborhood roadway proximity), should be explored. Establishing a formal multiuse trail around the perimeter of Show Low Lake is desired. Utilize existing maintenance roadway along the north and east portion of the lake to extend a Core Criteria Location/Project No. Approx. Length Bikeways & Trails Criteria Improved Linkage Improved b/w Complexity Connectivity Reduction Existing of Community Availability Safety Economic/Employment/ Total to parks, in Vehicle Transit Construction Support of Funding Enhancement Tourism Potential Points trails, public Trips Stop and (Cost) spaces Local Trail/Path Project Priority Project Description/Notes multiuse trail around the west, northern and east perimeter of the lake. A footbridge with appropriate trailhead amenities would be necessary at the lake’s southern inlet. Ecotourism opportunities are promoted with this trail. Connection to the Timber Mesa trail can be achieved utilizing drainage structure under Penrod Road. MUT #5 Show Low Timber Mesa – Buena Vista Connector Trail Approx. 2 miles 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 7 Medium Term Approx.1 mile 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 4 Long Term MUT #6 Torreon – Chihuahua Connector 217 Approximately 2 mile trail connection proposed between the Buena Vista Trail (west) and the Timber Mesa Trail (east), both located in the Apache-Sitgreaves Forest. This trail would also link Show Low Lake together with these important trail networks. Facility has been in the planning stages since 1987 and is a likely combination of a multiuse trail and sidewalks in currently developed residential areas. Equestrian use is prohibited on this trail do to the crossing of White Mountain Road. This proposed multiuse trail on USFS would provide the only external Torreon connection to USFS lands and the White Mountains Tail System. This connection creates an area loop trail (western Show Low) for access to the Los Caballos Trail, Juniper Ridge or the Buena Vista Trail. This proposed trail becomes an important segment in developing a regional loop system thereby connecting the large planned community of Torreon with the Core Criteria Location/Project No. Approx. Length Bikeways & Trails Criteria Improved Linkage Improved b/w Complexity Connectivity Reduction Existing of Community Availability Safety Economic/Employment/ Total to parks, in Vehicle Transit Construction Support of Funding Enhancement Tourism Potential Points trails, public Trips Stop and (Cost) spaces Local Trail/Path Project Priority Project Description/Notes existing USFS trail network in the area. Construction of this trail would be done in conjunction with TRACKS together with USFS as the lead agency. A multiuse path along 6th Street can accommodate multiple user types but is specifically recommended to encourage OHV users on the nearby 60 mile Maverick Trail to come into town and frequent Show Low restaurants and retail stores. MUT #7 North 6th Street to USFS and Maverick Motorized Trail MUT #8 Long Lake Approx. 8 miles 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 5 Long Term 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 4 Long Term A multiuse trail that also accommodates OHV users along the east side of 6th Street to the USFS boundary at the northern terminus of 6th Street and north to Penrod Road is desired. Trail construction north of Adams Street should be separated from the roadway. Construction of this trail south of Adams Street to Old Linden Road is complicated due to the limited ROW and the fact that sidewalks exist on both sides of the street. Assuming OHV vehicles are “street legal,” consider special placement markings and signage for OHV users on this segment of roadway. Long Lake is an ephemeral lake just north of the Show Low Airport in the ApacheSitgreaves National Forest. A multiuse trail around the circumference of the lake and connecting to the planned Show Low Creek trail is desired. Construction of this trail could be done in 218 Core Criteria Location/Project No. MUT # 9 Mogollon Rim Road Approx. Length Approx. 4 miles Bikeways & Trails Criteria Improved Linkage Improved b/w Complexity Connectivity Reduction Existing of Community Availability Safety Economic/Employment/ Total to parks, in Vehicle Transit Construction Support of Funding Enhancement Tourism Potential Points trails, public Trips Stop and (Cost) spaces Local Trail/Path Project Priority 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 4 Long Term 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 9 Short Term 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 9 Short Term Project Description/Notes conjunction with USFS as the lead agency. A looped trail around the entire facility would be approximately 8 miles in length. Utilize established jeep trails for the construction of this facility. Trail markers, signage and a trail head at SR 77 is desired. The Mogollon Rim Road is an existing US Forest Service Roadway (FR 300) accessed from US 60 near the Summer Pines subdivision. The roadway traverses the Apache-Sitgreaves Forest and has a close terminus to Fawnbrook Drive off White Mountain Road. This potential MUT will be developed over time and incrementally if and when the potential for the existing USFS road transitions into a city right of way as land exchanges and urbanization of these lands occur over time in accordance with the Show Low General Plan. It is intended that said improvements will be funded by the development community. BIKE LANES ** Old Linden Road Whipple Street Approx. ½ mile Please refer to Section 5.2.7 for detailed description. Please refer to Section 5.2.5 for detailed description. Bike Route/Shared Roadways Deuce of Clubs N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 219 N/A N/A N/A In accordance with the ADOT Bicycle Policy, this roadway is open to both bicycle and motor vehicle travel (shared roadway). The 14-foot curb lane and 18 inch gutter pan Core Criteria Location/Project No. Approx. Length Bikeways & Trails Criteria Improved Linkage Improved b/w Complexity Connectivity Reduction Existing of Community Availability Safety Economic/Employment/ Total to parks, in Vehicle Transit Construction Support of Funding Enhancement Tourism Potential Points trails, public Trips Stop and (Cost) spaces Local Trail/Path Project Priority Project Description/Notes provide sufficient (though not ideal) maneuverability for vehicles to comfortably avoid a bicyclist sharing that roadway. ADOT historically will not permit bike route signage along their roadway facilities. When and if a restoration project is proposed by ADOT, the City of Show Low has placed a high priority on the construction of bicycle lane facilities on both sides of the roadway. White Mountain Road N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Clark Road N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Central Avenue (Old Linden Rd. south to Approx. 1 mile 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 220 N/A Short Term In accordance with the ADOT Bicycle Policy, this roadway is open to both bicycle and motor vehicle travel (shared roadway). The 14 and 15-foot curb lane and 18 inch gutter pan provide sufficient (though not ideal) maneuverability for vehicles to comfortably avoid a bicyclist sharing that roadway. ADOT historically will not permit bike route signage along their roadway facilities. In accordance with the ADOT Bicycle Policy, this roadway is open to both bicycle and motor vehicle travel (shared roadway). The 14 and 15-foot curb lane and 18 inch gutter pan provide sufficient (though not ideal) maneuverability for vehicles to comfortably avoid a bicyclist sharing that roadway. ADOT historically will not permit bike route signage along their roadway facilities. Please see section 2.1 for additional discussion. Core Criteria Location/Project No. Approx. Length Bikeways & Trails Criteria Improved Linkage Improved b/w Complexity Connectivity Reduction Existing of Community Availability Safety Economic/Employment/ Total to parks, in Vehicle Transit Construction Support of Funding Enhancement Tourism Potential Points trails, public Trips Stop and (Cost) spaces Local Trail/Path Project Priority Project Description/Notes Whipple Street) Sierra Pines Drive Summit Trail Approx. 1.65 miles Approx. 2 miles 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 9 Short Term Please see section 2.1 for additional discussion. Short Term Please see section 2.1 for additional discussion. *As a general observation, additional future crosswalk facilities located at proposed bike route locations that intersect with Pendleton Drive in order to access the future Pendleton Drive shared use path are necessary but premature to define crosswalk type without the known location of the shared use pathway. **Bike Lane facilities only. Many additional bikeways are identified and included within the shared use path projects. 221 FIGURE 60 Short Term (5 Year) Plan of Improvements *Show Low municipal boundary as of December 2011 222 FIGURE 61 Medium Term (10 Year) Plan of Improvements *Show Low municipal boundary as of December 2011 223 FIGURE 62 Long Term (20 Year) Plan of Improvements *Show Low municipal boundary as of December 2011 224 FIGURE 63 Composite (All Years) Plan of Improvements *Show Low municipal boundary as of December 2011 225 Sidewalks Table 35: Summary of Suggested Path, Trail and Bikeway Projects Short Term (5-year) Medium Term (10-year) SW #1 Deuce of Clubs from SR 260 to the Show Low Aquatic Center SW #3 McNeil Street – 4 Avenue to the Deuce of Clubs SW #2 Central Avenue – North of Paloma Street SW #6 4 Avenue – west side of roadway – Old Linden Road to Cooley Street th SW #7 4 Avenue – west side of roadway – Cooley Street to McNeil Street th SW #12 5 Street, existing transit stop at Hunning to the Deuce of Clubs SW #13 Central Avenue – east side of roadway, Old Linden to Thornton Road SW #4 Cooley Street – Timberstone Apartments east to Central Avenue SW #5 Cooley Street – Timberstone th Apartments west to 4 Avenue th SW #8 16 Avenue –south of McNeil Street, east side of roadway Multi-purpose Trails Shared Use Paths SW #9 Hall Street – White Mountain th Road to 8 Street th SW #10 9 Street – south of City Hall – both sides of road SUP #1 US 60 from Summit Trail to Clark Road (north side of US 60) th SUP #5 North 16 Avenue – Old Linden Road to McNeil Street SUP #8 Woolford Road – Whipple Road south and east to White Mountain Road MUT #2 Show Low Bluff MUT #3 Show Low Creek Trail th Long Term (20-year) th SW #11 8 Street from Whipple Road south to Woolford Road th SUP #2 Fool Hollow Recreation Area Entrance Road th SUP #4 North 16 Avenue - Old Linden Road to Show Low Creek SUP #12 Central Avenue – Thornton Road (alignment) to Show Low Creek SUP #14 Penrod Road – Deuce of Clubs to Show Low Lake Road SUP #15 White Mountain Road – west side of roadway, south of Pine Oaks to Park Pineway Shopping Center th SUP #16 8 Street, Whipple Road to Owens SUP #17 White Mountain Road (east side), Meadowview Trailhead to Ponderosa Parkway Shopping Center MUT #1 Bagnal Draw – Los Caballos Trail to Fool Hollow Recreation Area MUT #3 Show Low Creek Trail MUT #4 Show Low Lake Nature Loop MUT #5 Show Low Timber Mesa – Buena Vista Connector Trail SUP #3 Clark Road SUP #6 Thornton Road from th Central Avenue to 16 nd Avenue/22 Avenue SUP #7 Thornton Road from Central Avenue to SR 77 SUP #9 Summit Trail – south of US 60 SUP #10 Sierra Pines Trail SUP #11 Woolford Road – east of White Mountain Road to Show Low Bluffs SUP #13 Central Ave/Pine Drive south of Woolford Road to Buena Vista Trail MUT #3 Show Low Creek Trail MUT #6 Torreon – Chihuahua Connector th MUT #7 North 6 Street to USFS and Maverick Motorized Trail MUT #8 Long Lake MUT #9 Mogollon Rim Road 226 Bike Route/Shared Roadways/Bike Lanes Short Term (5-year) Medium Term (10-year) Long Term (20-year) Central Avenue (Old Linden Road south to Whipple Street) Sierra Pines Drive Summit Trail Deuce of Clubs (US 60) Clark Rd (SR 260) White Mountain Road (SR 260) 17.2 Review of Proposed Path, Trail and Bikeways for Significant Show Low Roadways The discussion below describes the existing vehicular and non-motorized operations and facilities along each of the ADOT state highways that form Show Low’s principal roadways. An inventory and evaluation of pedestrian and bicycle facilities on significant Show Low roadways is important in the investigation and consideration of potential improvement projects to enhance the overall non-motorized mobility and safety for these well-traveled corridors. Figure’s 60-63 provide additional mapping reference for the summaries discussed below. Recommendations provided herein are made in response to the field study, TAC input and city staff input of the findings previously discussed. 227 17.2.1 Deuce of Clubs (US 60) The Deuce of Clubs (US 60) is a four (4)-lane thoroughfare that serves as the principal roadway through the heart of Show Low. From Clark Road (SR 260) to South White Mountain Road (SR 260), the Deuce of Clubs is clearly “the main drag” by providing access to commercial uses that line the Deuce of Clubs. Businesses on the Deuce of Clubs include car dealerships, Deuce of Clubs, east of the SR 260 home improvement stores, Show Low intersection (looking west) City Park and Aquatic Center, grocery stores, the downtown, US Post Office, Northland Pioneer College, professional offices, hotels, restaurants and a variety of other businesses. The 2012 average daily vehicle trips for the Deuce of Clubs reveals that there is generally more concentrated activity and increased traffic volumes in the Old Linden Road-to-White Mountain Road segment (19,190 trips per day) as compared to the Owens Street intersection (MP 307.43) that has 11,755 trips per day. In either event, the Deuce of Clubs experiences the highest volume of traffic, largest concentration of driveway turning movements and majority of bicycle and pedestrian users in Show Low. The Deuce of Clubs has two through lanes of traffic in each direction and a center turn lane. Curb, gutter and sidewalks are located on both sides of the Deuce for a majority of the segment between Clark Road (SR 260) and White Mountain Road (SR 260). Only the north side of the roadway from Clark Road to the Show Low Aquatic Center lacks sidewalks. No bike lane facilities are signed or striped on the Deuce of Clubs. The speed limit is posted at 35 MPH. Show Low has received transportation enhancement funding from ADOT for the design and construction of a shared use path or sidewalk facility from the Torreon entrance (Summit Trail) to the Show Low Aquatic Center. This project is currently in the design stage and the proposed location of the shared use path is being evaluated. Roadway as-built information describing the existing roadway cross section was not available for preparation of this report, consultant team field investigations identified the “unofficial” pavement width, lane widths and overall facility components in order to effectively evaluate possible bicycle and or pedestrian improvements for the Deuce of 228 Clubs. Please see Figure’s 64-66 below depicting the existing Deuce of Clubs roadway sections. Figure 64: Deuce of Clubs - @ SL Creek – Looking West Figure 65: 902 E Deuce of Clubs - Downtown - looking west Figure 66: Deuce of Clubs – East of Central @ Dairy Queen As the unofficial cross sections illustrate, the curb lane in each direction on the Deuce of Clubs is 14 feet wide with an 18-inch gutter pan. Consistent with the AASHTO guidance for Bike Routes discussed in Section 14.1, together with the guidance offered in the ADOT Bicycle Policy, bicycle use along the Deuce of Clubs will continue to operate as an unsigned, unmarked bicycle route. The 14-foot curb lane and 18-inch gutter pan provide sufficient (though not ideal) maneuverability for vehicles to comfortably avoid a bicyclist sharing that roadway. Use of the gutter pan for safe bicycle riding is not considered appropriate surfacing, but is physically available as secondary operation space when evaluating the basic function of the facility. While ADOT does not discourage the use of bicycles on the Deuce of Clubs (or any other ADOT facility), ADOT’s policy is to not openly “encourage” bicycle use by providing bike route signage on such facilities without concurrence from the District Engineer. There is not enough existing pavement surfacing to recommend a formal bike lane on the Deuce of Clubs. Existing sidewalks on both sides of the roadway provide sufficient pedestrian mobility along the Deuce of Clubs. The last remaining segment to connect Clark Road (SR 260) to the Show Low Aquatic Center on the north side of the roadway will soon be constructed and complete the sidewalk network along both sides of the Deuce of Clubs in Show Low. 229 The extra-wide paved shoulder of 8-feet at the crossing of Show Low Creek can promote a future connection to a planned Show Low Creek trailhead at this strategic location. Should a future major reconstruction project be contemplated by ADOT for the Deuce of Clubs, the City of Show Low would like to emphasize and promote the desire to incorporate dedicated bike lanes on both sides of the Deuce of Clubs. 17.2.2 White Mountain Road White Mountain Road (SR 260) south of the intersection with the Deuce of Clubs has sidewalks on both sides of the highway adjacent to downtown Show Low. A paved (striped) shoulder exists on the east side of the roadway only in this area. Heading south, the sidewalk continues on the west side of the roadway serving the professional offices and commercial businesses up to the intersection with Woolford Rd. The paved shoulder continues along the east side of the roadway along this segment of the roadway. From Woolford Road south to the Park Pineway Shopping Center, no sidewalks are present but paved shoulders exist along both sides of the highway. Just south of Fawnbrook Drive, an informal multiuse path exists along the west side of the roadway. Please see Figure 67 that shows the existing cross section of White Mountain Road at two locations. 230 Informal multiuse path along White Mountain Road near Fawnbrook Drive Figure 67: White Mountain Road – Existing Pavement Sections White Mountain Rd (SR260) @ Meadow View Plaza Facing North White Mountain Rd @ Hall Street There is limited stretch of sidewalk on the west side of White Mountain Road in front of the Pizza Hut and along the east side of the highway, sidewalk runs continuously from the Park Pineway Shopping Center, to Summit Healthcare and the Show Low Lake Rd. intersection. No paved shoulders exist on this segment. Table 34: Paths, Trails and Bikeway Plan of Improvements, calls for two shared use path projects on White Mountain Road. A shared use path from the existing sidewalk terminus near the Pine Oaks subdivision to connect to existing sidewalk improvements near the Park Pineway Shopping Center is proposed to accommodate both bicyclists and pedestrians along this busy corridor. A White Mountain Road in front of the Park shared use path is also proposed along Pineway Shopping Center the east side of the roadway from the Meadowview Trailhead to the Park Pineway Shopping Center. Paved shoulders currently exist along each of these segments proposed for improvements. Please see Table 34 for additional details regarding the suggested improvements. 231 Implementation of each of these projects is subject to the ADOT Bicycle Policy whereby funding for proposed bicycle and pedestrian facilities must be funded by the local agency and construction will occur in conjunction with a major reconstruction project. The ADOT Bicycle policy requires that suggested improvements be identified as part of a locally adopted plan, which is achieved with the completion of the Show Low Trails and Transit Connectivity Study. White Mountain Rd near Woolford Road intersection (looking south) 17.2.3 Clark Road (SR 260) Arriving into Show Low from Linden, SR 260 (Clark Road) has paved shoulders on both sides of this 4-lane roadway facility with center lane. At its intersection with Old Linden Road, Clark Road continuing southeast includes a combination of attached sidewalk and detached shared use path facilities along the majority of the east side of this roadway. This combined facility provides a safe and pleasant pedestrian experience as it provides connection to the Show Low City Park driveway entrance and then flows directly into the shared use path at the park. Attached sidewalk exists along the west side of the road from Venture Inn to the intersection with US 60. Please see Figure 68 for added reference. Paved shoulders do not exist south of the Old Linden Road intersection. Clark Road from Old Linden Road intersection to the Deuce of Clubs currently functions as an unmarked bike route. Figure 68: Clark Road Existing Pavement Section Clark Rd South of Old Linden @ Dollar General – Looking South 232 The emphasis for the Plan of Improvements is upon the continued extension of the shared use path along the east side of Clark Road. The east side of the roadway has discontinuous segments of a shared use path and attached sidewalk. The existing path extends from Show Low City Park to the north several hundred feet, discontinues then picks up again in front of the Bison Ranches subdivision. Closing the existing gap is suggested for improvement to establish a continuous shared use path from Old Linden Road to the City Park that will not only foster a seamless pedestrian connection safely separated from the roadway, but also accommodate bicyclists thereby reducing bicyclists’ use of the roadway which improves overall facility safety and reduces the future need for expensive roadway improvements. In the areas of this segment where attached sidewalk exists, the widening of that sidewalk to create a shared use path for two way pedestrian and bicycle traffic is desired. Various geometric and operational factors affect the comfort level of bicyclists in shared lanes. Models have been developed that quantify how various geometric and operational factors affect bicyclists. As the AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities notes, a typical Bicycle LOS model includes factors such as roadway lane width, lane use, traffic speed and volume, on-street parking, and surface condition in order to grade a roadway’s relative comfort for bicyclists. The model can be used to determine to what extent shared lanes will adequately accommodate bicyclists given roadway conditions that exist today, or that are forecasted in the future. No Bicycle LOS model was performed as part of this study, but discussions with ADOT staff and the consultants observations generally conclude that the 14-foot wide curb lanes (and 18-inch gutter pan) provide sufficient (though not ideal) space for vehicles and bicyclists to share the roadway. Bicyclists can also use (and often do) the shared use path along the east side of the roadway. This segment of roadway does have good sight distances and less daily traffic than the other highways in Show Low, making the bicyclist experience on Clark Road more comfortable than other highways in Show Low. In accordance with ADOT Bicycle Policy, ADOT does not prohibit bicycle use on this type of roadway, but the use of bike route/shared roadway signage is not encouraged either. 233 17.2.4 Penrod Road Penrod Road is a southerly extension of SR 77 to the north which links Show Low to Snowflake-Taylor. Penrod Road is a city maintained arterial roadway classification in the Show Low General Plan. Penrod Road is currently a two lane roadway functioning as the sole northsouth collector roadway on the Show Low bluff providing regional connection to Porter Mountain Road in Lakeside. The consultant’s field observations indicate that Penrod Road has a 23-24 foot pavement section as shown in Figure 69 below. There is a turn lane located at the Colley Street intersection, but the vast majority of this 4+ mile facility is a two lane roadway. There are no existing pedestrian or bike facilities, but the roadway does have graded shoulders on both sides of the pavement for a majority of the length of the roadway in Show Low. As private development occurs along Penrod Road and the roadway is ultimately built out to its arterial functional classification, a shared use path along the west side of the roadway is suggested in the Plan of Improvements. It is anticipated that adjacent developers will be responsible for the construction of the suggested improvements on Penrod Road. One shared use pathway can provide a safe and enjoyable experience for pedestrians and bicyclists experience for daily users but also enhances the ability to draw regional racing events. Penrod Road is a very well-suited facility to attract regional running and bicycle races like the Deuces Wild Triathlon and Bike the Bluff events already occurring. Expanding Penrod Road facilities gives flexibility in planning race routes and in general will lead to bigger participation and economic development activities in Show Low. Please see Table 34 for additional description. 234 Figure 69: Penrod Road Existing Pavement Section Penrod Road south of Cooley St. Intersection 17.2.5 Whipple Road Whipple Road serves as the most significant and continuous east-west collector south of the Deuce of Clubs linking residential communities and other land uses with the downtown. Much the Whipple Road is “hilly” which create some line of sight challenges over much of the length of the facility. Changes in roadway grade, connection to the NPC campus, increased vehicular traffic from future growth, connection to the downtown and dependence as the only east-west collector south of the Deuce of Clubs together suggest an added emphasis on the continued extension of the existing bike lanes and sidewalks is necessary. Whipple Road looking east from NPC Campus Intersecting with the Deuce of Clubs by the LDS Church and NPC, sidewalks and bike Whipple Road looking west towards the Deuce of Clubs lanes currently exist on both sides of Whipple Road to approximately 9th Street. This segment is the busiest traffic volume segment of Whipple Road. East of 9 th Avenue, the sidewalk extends along the north side of the roadway to the Central Avenue intersection. No sidewalk exists along the south side of the road, east of 9 th Avenue. 235 The bike lane extends along a few hundred feet of 9 th Avenue along the south side of the roadway, however the striping is severely faded in this area. The Plan of Improvements suggested for Whipple Road includes an extension of sidewalks and bike lane facilities along both sides of the roadway to ultimately create continuous sidewalk and bike lane connectivity from the Deuce of Clubs to Central Avenue. On the lesser-traveled segment of Whipple Road east of Central Avenue, shared use path is planned to provide a non-motorized connection to the downtown area. Figure 70: Whipple Road Pavement Sections Whipple E of Central Whipple @ Pine Haven Whipple @ 9th Drive 236 17.2.6 Central Avenue/Woolford Road Central Avenue consists of two travel lanes and is considered one of the priority north/south collector roadway serving Show Low. Central Avenue can be broken down into the four (4) following distinct segments: North of Old Linden Road Central Avenue north of Old Linden Road currently has a sidewalk on the west side of the street serving Whipple Ranch Elementary and Central Park Estates subdivision. This sidewalk however does terminate north of Paloma Drive and does not extend the entire length of the Central Park Estates frontage. No bike facilities exist on this segment of roadway. A shared use path is planned for an extension of the existing sidewalk north of the Thornton Road alignment. No bikeway facilities exist along this segment though the northbound travel lane is approximately 16-feet wide and can comfortably serve as a shared use lane/bike route. The use of marked shared lanes is also appropriate for this segment. Old Linden Rd. to Deuce of Clubs Central Avenue from Old Linden Road to the Deuce of Clubs is a two lane facility with dedicated turn lanes at Cooley Street and Ellsworth Road. This segment of Central Ave. has sidewalks on both sides of the roadway. No bikeway facilities exist along this segment though both travel lanes are approximately 16 feet wide (in most locations) and can comfortably serve as a shared use lane/bike route. The sidewalks in this area are useful in enhancing pedestrian mobility and safety in this area where higher density residential uses access the commercial services along the Deuce of Clubs. A formally signed and/or use of marked shared lanes is suggested for this segment. No additional improvements are contemplated for this segment of Central Avenue. 237 Figure 71: Central Avenue Pavement Sections Central Ave - Just south of Old Linden Rd Central Ave @ Willis Central @ Timber Ridge Woolford Rd. @ 1291 Driveway Deuce of Clubs to Whipple Road Continuing south of the Deuce of Clubs, Central Avenue has sidewalks on both sides of the road for approximately 500 feet to McNeil Street (adjacent to Show Low Plaza). South from McNeil Street to Whipple Road, the two lane roadway has 4-foot paved shoulders along both sides of the roadway (various widths and transitioning to dirt shoulder on the east side of the road towards the south). There also is limited sidewalk 238 on the west side of the roadway from Whipple Road north to Owens Street. The pavement section is rather wide at 36 feet (travel lane is approximately 13-14 feet in either direction) which gives provides a comfortable space for vehicles and bicyclists to share the roadway along this segment. The Plan of Improvements for this segment of roadway calls for bike route signage on both sides of the roadway in the short term and a shared use path for the west side of Central Avenue in the medium term and/or as the roadway builds out to its ultimate section. Please see Table 34 for further reference. Whipple Road to White Mountain Road As Central Avenue transitions to Woolford Road south of Whipple Street, the roadway is a two lane (14foot lanes) roadway with ribbon curbing on both sides. This roadway receives almost 10,000 vehicle trips per day as it has become increasingly popular for use as a “local bypass.” Woolford Road also serves as access Woolford Road, just south of Whipple Street to Sierra Pines residents and will serve as future access to the planned Pine Vista Estates residential community. No sidewalks or bike facilities currently exist. Though there are 14 foot lane widths, bike route signage is not suggested along this segment due to the grade changes and tight road geometrics that limit the line of sight along this facility. A shared use path along the south side of the entire roadway length is suggested in the short term for this segment of roadway. Please refer to Table 34 for additional discussion. 17.2.7 Old Linden Road Old Linden Road has been the recipient of pedestrian and bicycle improvements to enhance mobility on this important eastwest collector roadway in recent years. From its intersection with Clark Road (SR 260), Old Linden Road has striped bike lanes and sidewalks along both sides of the roadway to the Fool Hollow Recreation Area entrance road. Continuing east, the 239 majority of the length of Old Linden Road to the 8 th Avenue intersection consists of a bike lane with ribbon curbing on the south side of the road with a sidewalk and paved shoulder being on the north side of the roadway. As the road continues to the east, near Show Low High School and the surrounding residential communities, sidewalk exists on both sides of the roadway to the intersection of Central Avenue. There are sporadic sections of bike lane along the north side of the roadway along this segment of Old Linden Road. Continuing east, sidewalks exist on both sides of Old Linden Road from Central Avenue to its intersection with the Deuce of Clubs. No bike lane facilities exist on this segment of roadway. Simply put, the Plan of Improvements for Old Linden Road consists of sidewalks and bike lanes on both sides of the roadway from Clark Road to the Deuce of Clubs to the east to support seamless pedestrian and bicycle connectivity on this strategic eat-west corridor. Please see Figure 63 to view the mapping of all of the existing and planned facilities along Old Linden Road. Figure 72: Old Linden Road Existing Pavement Sections Old Linden Rd. @ Kiaya Ln. east of Show Low High School (looking west) Old Linden West of 10th Drive – Looking West 17.3 Planning Level Cost Estimates – Paths, Trails and Bikeways This study identifies, for the first time in Show Low, an inventory of existing conditions and deficiencies and also maps a network of proposed bicycle and pedestrian paths and trails. To supplement the primary objectives of this study, planning-level cost estimates are offered as an “order of magnitude” of costs for each facility type. These preliminary 240 estimates can then be utilized by elected officials, City staff, or other project stakeholders to comparatively evaluate competing projects. There a wide variety of factors that influence the ultimate cost of any bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure improvements – area topography, line of sight, existing pavement conditions, right-of-way constraints and physical impediments such as walls/fences and utilities. Specific project-level design analysis of the precise field conditions and physical constraints is always necessary for any infrastructure improvement project and is beyond the intent and scope of this master plan. The following planning-level cost estimates then are provided as a broad and preliminary reference point for the project stakeholders and are intended to be refined in the design stages of a given project. These costs are conservative by nature and assume some level of federal funding included in the project construction. 17.3.1 Bike Routes Where no physical roadway improvements are planned, that is, the existing facility is suitable for shared lane usage, Bike Route signs (D11-1) should be placed approximately 8 per mile, 4 in each direction. Cost per mile for sign, post and foundation and installation is approximately $400 per sign times 8 signs equals approximately $3,200 per mile. Labor costs savings could be realized if the signs were able to be installed by the City of Show Low Public Works Department rather than a contractor. 17.3.2 Paved Shoulders The addition of paved shoulders in Show Low assumes that 4-foot of paved shoulder is added on each side of the roadway. Factors that influence the cost include the amount of earthwork needed and existing drainage facilities and patterns. The cost is estimated at approximately $200,000 to $300,000 per mile (both sides), including signs, pavement markings and installation. 17.3.3 Shared Use Paths The design and construction of a shared use path can vary significantly depending on the anticipated user volume, physical constraints, earthwork, clearing and grubbing, etc. Because shared use paths are also intended for pedestrians as well as bicyclists, shared use paths must be designed in accordance to ADA requirements which can also increase the cost of a shared use path. It was noted that shared use paths range from 10 to 14- 241 feet in width. A typical 10-foot shared use path is conservatively estimated at approximately $300,000 per mile including contingency. 17.3.4 Sidewalks The addition of sidewalks to any existing street can have a wide range of expected costs. This is primarily due to influencing factors such as existing drainage patterns and facilities (retrofitting existing bar ditch or not), existing pavement conditions, topography, ADA requirements, cross-slope, and driveway cuts to name a few. As a general rule of thumb, to add curb, gutter and sidewalk to both sides of an existing roadway will cost between $500,000 and $800,000 per mile. 17.3.5 Crosswalks Striping and markings for marked crosswalks at a typical intersection is estimated at approximately $500. Due to more rigorous striping detail and use of materials, signing and striping for mid-block crossings are estimated at approximately $3,000. 18. Paths, Trails & Bikeways Funding Sources & Cost Sharing Strategies 18.1 Introduction The key to achieve effective project implementation of the Show Low Trails & Transit Connectivity Study begins with leadership and initiative that rely upon allocated resources for implementation of successful projects. It is important that Show Low utilize partnerships with FHWA, ADOT, Navajo County, the development community and others to implement projects identified in this report. This section identifies potential funding sources and strategies for implementation of paths and trails in Show Low. Since transit funding is more singularly focused, transitrelated funding sources are identified and described in Section 8. Conversely, path and trail funding sources are broad and diverse, not to mention extremely competitive in nature, which is why this entire section is dedicated to focus on potential trail funding sources. The success of this plan is based on attainable strategies that realistically provide the City of Show Low and other area stakeholders an approach to planning, constructing and maintaining a comprehensive trail and path system. Municipalities like Show Low 242 also possess the advantage of additional funding resources like bonding, General Fund, grants or other sources. This implementation plan really becomes a “foundation plan” by which Show Low can critically and comprehensively identify the series of steps needed to ultimately develop financial resources, development community commitment and develop staff resources to achieve this plan’s objectives. There are a wide variety of federal, state and local funding sources available for bicycle and pedestrian projects. In most circumstances, federal funding sources are primarily targeted based on available funding levels and local needs. Of significant importance is Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21), the most recent federal transportation act approved by Congress and replaces SAFETEA-LU. 18.2 MAP-21 Overview MAP-21 became effective on October 1, 2012. A few key themes of MAP -21 are to strengthen America’s highways and transportation systems, accelerate project delivery, promote innovation, establish a performance-based Federal-aid program, substantially reduced programmatic elements, and change the federal funding formula. This includes the reduction of earmarks that historically provided for specific projects or programs in such a manner that the allocation circumvents a merit-based or competitive allocation process and/or applies to a very limited number of individuals or entities. Of the $37 billion in annual authorized nationwide funding, $10 billion is allocated to the Surface Transportation Program (STP). The STP program is the federal program from which the vast majority of bicycle and pedestrian-related improvements recommended in the Show Low Trails & Transit Connectivity Study would seek funding assistance. STP funding includes Safe Routes to Schools (SRTS) projects but unfortunately there is no longer a set aside for these projects as was provided under SAFETEA-LU. SRTS projects must now compete with other “transportation alternative” projects which creates stiffer competition for SRTS projects as they compete with larger, traditional transportation projects. However, up to 50% of the STP funds are subject to sub-allocation based on population and there is a greater emphasis on funding for rural areas which may improve Show Low’s chances for obtaining funding. 18.3 Safe Routes to Schools While not a central focus of the Show Low Trails & Transit Connectivity Study, many of the suggested path and trail improvements are located within a 2 mile radius of 243 elementary and middle schools. For those improvements that enhance community mobility but also support a safer route to school, those suggested improvements are eligible for potential “Safe Routes to Schools” funding. For the past funding cycle under SAFETEA-LU, the application cycle for Safe Routes to Schools began in September with selected projects being announced in April of the following year. This past cycle was known as Cycle 6. The application cycle for the upcoming Cycle 7 year is in the process of being determined, pending further MAP-21 guidance from FHWA and ADOT for Cycle 7 applications. For Cycle 6, there was approximately $5,000,000 statewide available for new SRTS projects. According to ADOT, the likely maximum request/project limits will be $45,000 for non-infrastructure projects such as education and awareness campaigns and traffic enforcement programs. Anticipated project limits will be $450,000 for infrastructure projects. A key distinction is that now under MAP-21, SRTS projects will be required to compete against other transportation enhancement (transportation alternatives) projects for funding. Please see Table 36 below for a complete summary of available funding sources. 19.4 Potential Funding Sources Table 36 identifies a comprehensive list of potential funding sources for paths, trails and bikeway improvements. With each funding source, a program description, eligible project types and program requirements are identified. 244 Table 36: Potential Path, Trail and Bikeway Funding Sources Source Federal – MAP-21 Program National Highway Performance Program (NHPP) Description Eligible Project Types The NHPP provides support for the condition and  performance of the National Highway System (NHS), for the construction of new facilities on the NHS, and to ensure that investments of Federal-aid funds in highway construction are directed to support progress toward the achievement of performance targets established in a State's asset management plan for the NHS. Requirements Bicycle transportation and pedestrian NHPP projects must be on an eligible facility and support progress toward achievement walkways of national performance goals for improving infrastructure condition, safety, mobility, or freight movement on the NHS, and be consistent with Metropolitan and Statewide planning requirements. Administration In general, obligated through competitive local or statewide grant programs Funding: Generally, 80% federal / 20% matching Federal – MAP-21 Federal – MAP-21 Surface Transportation Program (STP) Transportation Alternatives Program (TA) - Includes Recreational Trails Program set aside The Surface Transportation Program (STP) provides  flexible funding that may be used by States and  localities for projects to preserve and improve the conditions and performance on any Federal-aid highway, bridge and tunnel projects on any public  road, pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure, and transit capital projects, including intercity bus terminals Recreational trails projects MAP-21 establishes a new program to provide for a  variety of alternative transportation projects. The TAP replaces the funding from pre-MAP-21 programs including Transportation Enhancements, Recreational Trails, Safe Routes to School, and  several other discretionary programs Construction, planning, and design of on- Funding: Generally, 80% federal / 20% In general, obligated through competitive local road and off-road trail facilities for matching or statewide grant pedestrians, bicyclists, and other programs nonmotorized forms of transportation Projects must be identified in the STIP/TIP and they must be consistent with the Longbicycle transportation and pedestrian Range Statewide Transportation Plan and walkways the Metropolitan Transportation Plan most transportation enhancement eligibilities (see below) Funding: Generally, 80% federal / 20% matching Infrastructure-related projects and systems that will provide safe routes for non-drivers, including children, older adults, and individuals with disabilities to access daily needs  Conversion and use of abandoned railroad corridors for trails for pedestrians, bicyclists, or other nonmotorized transportation users.  recreational trails program  Safe routes to school program 245 In general, obligated through competitive local or statewide grant programs Source Federal – MAP-21 Program Description Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) The Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) is a Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) program that funds highway safety projects aimed at reducing highway fatalities and serious injuries. Eligible Project Types Requirements  Bike lanes, bike parking, crosswalks, and Bicycle safety must be included in state’s signage Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP). Funding: 90% federal / 10% matching Federal – MAP-21 Federal Federal Federal State Federal Lands Program (Access and Transportation Programs) Federal Highway Safety (Section 402) Grant Program The FLP funds projects that improve access to or transportation within the Federal estate (national forests, national parks, national wildlife refuges, national recreation areas, and other Federal public lands) Highway Safety Funds are used to support State and community programs to reduce deaths and injuries on the highways Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) The Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program is a flexible program that provides communities with resources to address a wide range of unique community development needs. FTA Section 5311 – Formula Grants for Rural Areas Section 5311 is a rural program that provides funding to states for the purpose of supporting public transportation in rural areas, with populations under 50,000. The program has multiple goals including: enhance the access of people in nonurbanized areas to health care, shopping, education, employment, public services and entertainment; assist in the maintenance, development, improvement and use of public transportation systems in non-urbanized areas; and provide for the participation of private transportation providers in non-urbanized transportation. The State of Arizona taxes motor fuels and collects a variety of fees and charges relating to the registration and operation of motor vehicles on the  Program administration, transportation planning, research, preventive Project must be within, adjacent to, or maintenance, engineering, rehabilitation, provide access to Federal Lands. restoration, construction, and reconstruction of Federal lands transportation facilities, and provision for Funding: 100% Federal pedestrians and bicycles  Conducting data analyses, developing safety education programs, and conducting community-wide pedestrian safety campaigns. Funds can also be used for some limited safety-related engineering projects  Public Facilities and Improvements (road and street improvements)  Planning and Capacity Building (transportation plans)  Capital purchases of transit equipment  Transit operating expenses, including maintenance  Transit agency administrative expenses  Purchase of private transportation services  Planning activities  Expenditures of HURF must be for improvements in the public roadway right-of-way. They can also be used for 246 Administration In general, obligated through competitive local or statewide grant programs In general, projects are selected by Federal Land Management Agency or statewide committee. Program administered through the Governor’s Office of Highway safety Submit an annual Regional Account Application to SEAGO Matching program Capital 80% Federal, 20% State/Local Program administered Operating 50% Federal, 50% State/Local through the Governor’s ADA compliance or bicycle access projects – designee (Arizona 90% Federal, 10% State/Local Department of Transportation); States are required to spend 15% of the recipients have reporting annual apportionment to support intercity requirements as bus service HURF revenues are distributed to counties, Source State Program Description Highway User Revenue Fund (HURF) public highways of the state. These collections include gasoline and use fuel taxes, motor carrier taxes, vehicle license taxes, motor vehicle registration fees, and other miscellaneous fees. Heritage Fund Arizona voters created the Heritage Fund in 1990, designating up to $10 million a year from lottery ticket sales for the conservation and protection of the state’s wildlife and natural areas. Development Impact Fees An impact fee is a fee that is determined by a municipality and is placed on a proposed project to help cover the additional costs associated with upgrading affected public facilities resulting from new construction. Local Development Stipulations Development requirements are typically placed on proposed projects at the time of entitlement approval to help develop necessary public facilities. Local Sales Tax Local Local General Obligation bonds Funds from a portion of a municipality’s sales tax Eligible Project Types Requirements the acquisition of right-of-way. Examples of eligible expenditures can include the installation of new pavement, curbing, sidewalks, street lights, traffic control devices, landscaping, distinctive banner treatments and culverts. Administrative and engineering costs are also eligible expenses and will be included in the cost of any Back to Basics project  Projects that help to enhance wildlife viewing or provide access to public lands cities, towns and the State Highway Fund for obligation Funds obligated by Arizona Game and Fish Department Project developer must agree to proposed stipulations prior to entitlement approval.  Pedestrian facilities and programs Bonds are a common mechanism that counties use to borrow money for transportation projects. Most general obligation pledges at the local government level include a pledge to levy a property tax to meet debt service requirements. 247 Administration 19. Supporting Policies & Design Elements – Transit Stops and Adjacent Accessibility 19.1 Transit Stops During the Existing Conditions data collection phase of the project, the consultant team identified deficiencies at each of the existing bus stop locations along the Show Low Route of the Four Seasons Connection transit service. As part of the improvement plan for the transit service, a matrix of bus stop improvements has been developed. The improvements range in complexity from moving current bus stop amenities to more convenient locations to installing bus stop amenities along with bus pullouts on the major thoroughfares in the community. The list of improvements, along with the criteria used to rank each improvement, can be seen in the Transit Stop Plan of Improvements located in Table 37. The Plan of Improvements includes each of the Show Low route’s transit stops at which deficiencies were found. The most common deficiency was lack of a bus shelter; however, the plan also includes improvements to sidewalks at or near the bus stops and the installation of bus pullouts. The recommendation for a bus shelter includes the installation of a bench and trash can at those locations, if needed. 19.2 Landing Area Transit stop sites should be chosen such that, to the maximum extent practicable, lifts or ramps can be deployed on a firm stable surface to permit a wheelchair or mobility aid user to maneuver safely onto or off the bus and bus stop. The minimum dimensions of the landing area at a transit stop location should include a continuous, unobstructed solid surface that measures at least five feet parallel to the street and at least eight feet perpendicular to the street. The slope of the landing area should not exceed five percent (1 foot vertical over 20 feet horizontal) and the cross slope should not exceed two percent (1 foot vertical over 50 feet horizontal) for the safe and effective deployment of a lift or ramp. The surface materials of the landing area must be firm, stable and slip-resistant. Concrete is the preferred surface for the landing area. In areas that do not include concrete curbing, asphalt may provide a suitable landing area surface. Gravel, dirt or other unstable surfaces should be avoided to reduce the potential for slips and falls by limited-mobility patrons. Whether concrete or asphalt is used as the landing area surface, the landing area should be elevated slightly above the street level for pedestrian safety and ramp deployment. 248 19.3 Bus Shelters Currently, the Transit Manager has bus shelters built locally. Since the design of the shelters is a locally driven decision, the continuation of this practice is recommended. However, the Transit Manager should ensure that the shelters are built so as to be accessible for patrons in wheelchairs and to prevent obstructions to sidewalks, driver visibility, etc. Other considerations in the design of bus shelters should include:  Strength and durability of structure and materials (i.e., snow load, etc.);  Resistance of materials and paint treatments to weather conditions, graffiti, cutting, fire and other forms of vandalism;  Potential greenhouse effect of roof design during hot weather;  Existence of, or provision of external lighting in the area, and provision of solar lighting for the shelter;  Accommodation of trash can and newspaper boxes within the location design;  Potential for advertising in the shelter, including bus system information, schedules, etc.  Easy maintenance of the shelter and other amenities; and  Semi-transparent enclosure that allow a bus driver to see inside the shelter. As mentioned earlier, each bus stop should include the installation of a bench for patrons to use while waiting for the next bus to arrive. The bench should be permanently attached to the concrete base to prevent unauthorized moving of the amenity. Securing the bench also reduces the potential for accidents by users. Design factors for bus stop benches include:  Benches should be placed facing the street;  Strength and durability of bench design and materials;  Resistance of bench materials to weather conditions, graffiti, cutting, fire and other forms of vandalism;  Benches should be placed on the back side of the sidewalk, where applicable, a minimum of six to nine feet from the bus sign post, to allow pedestrians to move past people sitting on the bench; and 249  Ensure that there are no conflicts with wheelchair accessibility and loading at the bus stop. In addition to meeting the minimum requirements for bus stop amenities, the City of Show Low and the Transit Manager should consider improving the bus stops with landscaping, Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) features and bicycle parking facilities. Landscaping at bus stops can enhance the level of passenger comfort and attractiveness of the transit facility. It should be positioned and maintained so that safety and accessibility are not compromised by encroaching bushes, uneven surfaces, low-hanging tree branches, etc. ITS features improve the transit user’s experience through real-time information and accessibility. ITS features include “next bus” arrival information, electronic posting of bus schedules, access to route information and the installation of panic buttons, security cameras or call boxes. 19.4 Integration of Bicycles and Transit The relative ease of access to transit often determines a traveler’s decision whether or not to ride transit. Programs that educate the public about connections between bicycling and transit can promote both modes simultaneously. Linking bicycles with transit overcomes such barriers as lengthy trips, personal security concerns, poor weather, and riding at night or up hills. Safe and convenient routes that serve bicyclists should be viewed as essential support strategies in increasing transit ridership. The “catchment” area for bicycle-to-transit trips is typically two to three miles. This is the area within which bicyclists will choose to bicycle to or from transit as a segment of a longer trip. There are four main components of bicycle-transit integration: 1. Facilitating bicycle access on transit vehicles; 2. Offering bicycle parking at transit locations; 3. Improving bikeways to transit; and 4. Promoting usage of bicycle and transit programs. 19.5 Bicycle Parking Facilities Bicycle parking facilities, such as bike racks, may be provided at bus stops for the convenience of bicyclists using transit. The provision of suitable bicycle parking facilities encourages residents to utilize the bus system. Bike racks should be considered at major shopping or public service bus stops (i.e. Show Low Transit 250 Center (Walmart), DES, Navajo County offices, Safeway/Kmart, etc.) Bicycle parking facilities discourage the practice of locking bicycles onto bus facilities (shelter, benches, sign posts, etc.) or onto adjacent property. By confining bicycles to one area, the racks can reduce visual clutter and maintain appropriate pedestrian clearances. Guidelines for the placement of bicycle parking facilities near bus stops include:  Locate bike rack(s) away from other pedestrian or bus patron activities to improve safety and reduce congestion;  Coordinate the location of bicycle parking facilities with existing on-site or street lighting;  Ensure parked bikes are visible at all times, do not located bicycle parking where views are obstructed by a bus shelter, landscaping or existing site elements, such as walls;  The design and placement of bicycle parking facilities should complement other transit furniture at the bus stop; and  Covered or weather protected parking locations are preferred by bicyclists. Some communities have developed bike racks that, on their own, become public art as opposed to a utilitarian feature. The pictures below show two designs that could be more palatable to a standard bike rack. 251 20. The Transit-Trails Connection: Transit Stops & Adjacent Accessibility Plan of Improvements A key objective of the Show Low Trails and Transit Connectivity Study is to promote and enhance the interconnectedness of existing transit stops to existing and planned trails, activity centers and residential neighborhoods. In that regard, a closer examination of the relationship between transit stops and connection to the broader trail and path system is essential to the success of this study. This focus not only provides greater mobility opportunities for regular public transit users, but also for the betterment of the entire community to promote an expanded non-motorized transportation system for Show Low. The Transit Stop Plan of Improvements is largely derived from observations made from the stop-by-stop deficiency inventory and analysis previously introduced and discussed. In accordance with the project Work Plan, the Pinetop-Lakeside area transit stops had a more focused evaluation on the transit stops themselves with limited evaluation of their connection to surrounding path or trail systems. Existing transit stop conditions evaluated include the existing ADA accessibility conditions of the transit stop as well as it’s connectivity to adjacent paths, trails or sidewalks. A common characteristic of transit systems in rural areas (like the FSC/WMC) is that transit stops are often located within commercial developments or within city rights-of-way. In these instances, the measure of connection to the transit stop is often through a sidewalk, bike path or trail that is contained with a city or state highway right-of-way. Table 37 below identifies the suggested transit stops improvements. 252 Table 37: Transit Stop Plan of Improvements Core Criteria Location Suggested Improvements Improved Linkage b/w Existing Transit Stop and Local Trail/Path Complexity of Construction (Cost) Community Support Transit Stop Criteria Availability of Funding Safety Enhancement Frequently Used Stop Promotes Usage by Title VI Populations Improved ADA Accessibility Total Points Project Priority Project Description/Notes Show Low Bus Stop Improvements JC Penny (#2) Bus shelter, bench 1 2 0 1 1 1 0 0 6 Medium Term Hampton Inn/Woolford Road (#3) Bus shelter, bench, concrete base, sidewalk extension, bus pullout 2 0 1 1 1 0 0 2 7 Short Term Splash & Dash (#4) Bus shelter, bench, concrete base 0 2 0 1 1 1 0 0 5 Medium Term Show Low Bowl (#5) Bus shelter, bench, concrete base, bus pullout 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 3 Long Term DES (#6) Bus shelter, bench, concrete base, sidewalk extension 2 0 1 1 1 2 253 2 1 10 Short Term The current stop is located under the awning of the JC Penny store front. The placement of a shelter along the sidewalk in front of the shopping center would provide a central location for transit patrons. Coordination with the property owner will be required. The parking lot arrangement at the Hampton Inn is not conducive for the transit vehicles. Consider moving the stop temporarily to the sidewalk behind the Hampton Inn at the existing terminus of Woolford Road. A more viable long term solution is to pull the stop out to a future constructed bus pullout on White Mountain Road, south of the Woolford Road intersection. This stop does not have a bus shelter. The addition of a shelter along the existing sidewalk would allow the driver to identify the need to stop at this location. The bus would still pull into the front of the parking area and any patrons in the shelter would need to walk around to the bus. The bus currently stops in front of the Show Lo Bowl. The site has an existing sidewalk along the Deuce of Clubs. In order to install a bus pullout on the Deuce of Clubs, the stop would need to be moved approximately 400 feet to the east of the current stop. As one of the most frequently used bus stops along the Show Low route, the installation of a shelter would improve the riders’ experience, especially in inclement weather. The new shelter should be placed north of the DES building to avoid potential collisions with cars Table 37: Transit Stop Plan of Improvements Core Criteria Location Suggested Improvements Improved Linkage b/w Existing Transit Stop and Local Trail/Path Complexity of Construction (Cost) Community Support Transit Stop Criteria Availability of Funding Safety Enhancement Frequently Used Stop Promotes Usage by Title VI Populations Improved ADA Accessibility Total Points Project Priority Project Description/Notes in the parking lot. The installation of the shelter should include a sidewalk extension from E. Cooley Street to the DES building. Airport (#7)* Bus shelter, bench, concrete base 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 1 5 Medium Term Navajo County South Complex (new stop #8) Bus shelter, bench, concrete base 0 2 1 1 0 1 1 1 7 Short Term 4th Avenue & McNeil (#11) Bus shelter, bench, concrete base, signage 1 2 1 1 0 0 2 0 7 Short Term Show Low Aquatic Center (#14) Bus shelter, bench, concrete base, sidewalk extension, signage 2 0 1 1 1 0 1 2 8 Short Term 254 As a low frequency stop, as well as being on-demand only, the installation of a shelter along the existing sidewalk in front of the airport terminal building would be the extent of the improvements at this stop. Navajo County opened a new complex at 902 E. Deuce of Clubs to better service Show Low area residents. A new stop is warranted at this location to make the County’s services available to transit-dependent residents. The installation of a bus pullout along this busy section of the Deuce of Clubs could be very challenging. One possibility would be to the west of the County complex, however, several driveways would need to be relocated. There is an existing sidewalk in front of this bus stop on McNeil Street but not 4th Avenue. The installation of a shelter and bench at this location would be a low cost improvement for the transit patrons. The current bus route drops patrons at the rear of the facility along W. Owens. The addition of a bus shelter and a sidewalk for patrons to access the front of the building would greatly improve the safety and accessibility of this public facility. With limited right of way, the shelter could be placed on Aquatic Center property. Driver warning signage for eastbound drivers on Owens is needed to alert them of the upcoming transit stop due to the grade change immediately west of the transit stop location. Table 37: Transit Stop Plan of Improvements Core Criteria Location Kmart (#15) Safeway (#16) Circle K North (#17) Suggested Improvements Bus shelter, bench, concrete base, sidewalk extension Combine with Stop #14 between Safeway and Kmart Bus shelter, bench, concrete base, sidewalk extension Improved Linkage b/w Existing Transit Stop and Local Trail/Path 2 Complexity of Construction (Cost) 1 Community Support 1 Transit Stop Criteria Availability of Funding 1 Safety Enhancement 1 Frequently Used Stop 2 Promotes Usage by Title VI Populations 1 Improved ADA Accessibility 1 Total Points 10 Project Priority Short Term Project Description/Notes The current bus route for the Kmart and Safeway stops require a lot of travelling through the two parking lots. There are two options for improving the bus safety and reducing the time involved in serving these two stops. The first option would include the installation of a bus pullout along the Deuce of Clubs in front of the businesses. This option is expensive and would still require patrons to traverse the parking lot. The other option is to install a bus shelter in between the two businesses. This option would reduce the number of stops and be less expensive than the first option. In addition to the shelter, a crosswalk and sidewalk extension should be included to improve the safety of the patrons using this stop location. 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 10 Short Term 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 0 9 Short Term Northland Pioneer College (#22) Move shelter, concrete base 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 6 Medium Term 30th Avenue Bus shelter, 0 1 0 1 0 0 2 0 4 Long Term 255 See comments on #14 above. The current transit stop uses the Circle K parking lot with ADA accessibility concerns. The addition of a shelter along an extension of the sidewalk from Clark Road onto W. Cooley Street (north side) would improve the vehicle and pedestrian movement in this area and would keep the bus stop out of the traffic on N Clark Road (SR 260) and the Circle K parking lot. The current stop at NPC is located in the entrance lane for the college. This stop could be moved to the sidewalk along W Deuce of Clubs. This low-cost move could utilize the deceleration lane to move the vehicle out of the travel lane. This stop is by request only and located in Park Valley Table 37: Transit Stop Plan of Improvements Core Criteria Location Suggested Improvements & W Whipple Street* (#18) bench, concrete base W Park Valley Road & 23rd Avenue (#19) Sidewalk extension W Park Valley Road & 21st Avenue (#20) Circle K on US 60 (#21) Bus shelter, bench, concrete base, sidewalk extension Bus shelter, bench, concrete base Improved Linkage b/w Existing Transit Stop and Local Trail/Path 2 2 0 Complexity of Construction (Cost) 0 0 2 Community Support 1 1 1 Transit Stop Criteria Availability of Funding 1 1 1 Safety Enhancement 1 1 1 Frequently Used Stop 1 0 0 256 Promotes Usage by Title VI Populations 2 2 1 Improved ADA Accessibility 2 2 0 Total Points 10 9 6 Project Priority Short Term Short Term Medium Term Project Description/Notes subdivision that does not have any sidewalks. The installation of a shelter and bench would improve the conditions for patrons waiting on the bus and sufficient right of way appears available. The current shelter is located in the Park Valley subdivision that does not have sidewalks. However, the stop is only about 300 feet from the sidewalk along S Clark Road. The extension of the sidewalk from S Clark Road to this stop would improve the safety of transit patrons and other residents in the neighborhood. The west side of 23rd Avenue has graded shoulders and appears to have the fewest physical impediments to extend the sidewalk to Clark Road. A cross walk at Park Valley Road is needed to safely cross to the transit stop. This stop does not have a shelter and is located in the Park Valley subdivision. The addition of a shelter and bench would greatly improve the safety conditions for patrons waiting on the bus. Right of way and drainage design are likely design impediments. Since the stop is only about 400 feet from the nearest sidewalk along S Clark Road, extending that sidewalk along the east side of Park Valley Road to the bus stop would improve the safety of transit patrons and other residents in the neighborhood. This stop is located at the Circle K at the intersection of SR 260 and US 60 (Deuce of Clubs). The addition of a shelter and bench at this stop would improve the conditions for the transit system patrons. Due to the stop’s proximity to a major intersection, placement of the stop along SR 260 could be detrimental to the vehicle’s safety. The vehicle would be required to Table 37: Transit Stop Plan of Improvements Core Criteria Location Suggested Improvements Improved Linkage b/w Existing Transit Stop and Local Trail/Path Complexity of Construction (Cost) Community Support Transit Stop Criteria Availability of Funding Safety Enhancement Frequently Used Stop Promotes Usage by Title VI Populations Improved ADA Accessibility Total Points Project Priority Whiting Gas (formerly Giant Gas) (#23) Bus shelter, bench, concrete base, bus pullout 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 6 Medium Term E. Hall Street at KFC (#26) Move existing shelter to new sidewalk extension 2 0 1 1 1 2 0 2 9 Short Term Giant Gas (#28) Bus shelter, bench, concrete base 0 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 5 Medium Term 257 Project Description/Notes cross two lanes in a short distance from the curb. The transit agency should work with the private property owner to negotiate a more suitable location like south of the convenience store and west of the gas canopy where sufficient room appears to exist. The current location for this stop is not suitable for a transit vehicle. In order to improve this stop, the installation of a bus pullout at a location west of the current stop would be warranted. There is not enough room at the current location to install a pullout. Also, this would keep the stop in the same proximity (about 400 feet) of the current stop. Right of way constraints along the Deuce of Clubs (US 60) will increase the cost of this bus pullout. This stop is located in a loose gravel area on the north side of E. Hall Street. The surface makes the shelter difficult to access for persons with disabilities or that are wheelchair bound. Installing a sidewalk along this side of the road and moving the shelter to abut the sidewalk (or expand the sidewalk pad to tie into the existing shelter) would greatly improve the transit users experience and alleviate the ADA issues at this site. The side walk only needs to extend approximately 80 feet to tie into the existing curb return on White Mountain Road. Please refer to the Sidewalk Plan of Improvements for additional sidewalk improvements proposed on Hall Street. This bus stop is located across from the Hampton Inn bus stop at the intersection of White Mountain Road and E. Woolford Road. The transit agency should work with the business owner to locate the bus shelter on the property in a conspicuous location at the rear (west) end of the property where sufficient space for bus maneuverability also exists. . Table 37: Transit Stop Plan of Improvements Core Criteria Location Timberline Drive (#28) Fawn Brook Drive (#31) Suggested Improvements Bus pullout, sidewalk extension Bus shelter, bench, concrete base, bus pullout Improved Linkage b/w Existing Transit Stop and Local Trail/Path 0 0 Complexity of Construction (Cost) 0 0 Community Support 1 1 Transit Stop Criteria Availability of Funding 1 1 Safety Enhancement 1 1 Frequently Used Stop 1 1 Promotes Usage by Title VI Populations 2 2 Improved ADA Accessibility 2 2 Total Points 8 8 Project Priority Short Term Short Term Project Description/Notes This stop is located along a section of White Mountain Road that does not have any sidewalks. The bus pullout should be able to fit along the road in front of the existing shelter. The installation of approximately 300 feet of sidewalk along with the bus pullout would provide an all-weather surface for the transit patrons that come from the Timberline Mobile Home and RV Park. The Fawnbrook Drive stop is sandwiched between two driveways in the small commercial center located at the corner of Fawn Brook Drive and White Mountain Road. The most desirable location for a bus stop shelter and bus pullout is north of the intersection along SR 260. There appears to be sufficient right of way and spacing from the intersection between Fawn Brook Drive and Hidden Way for the improvements. Pinetop-Lakeside Bus Stop Improvements Wagon Wheel Plaza (#3) Bus shelter, bench, concrete base, bus pullout 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 6 Medium Term The current stop is located in front of the businesses in the plaza. In order to improve the on-time performance, stops like this one should be moved along White Mountain Road. The current location does not have room to install a bus pullout, but there is room just south of the current stop for a bus pullout. Moose Henri’s (formerly Racer’s Edge #4) Bus shelter, bench, concrete base, bus pullout 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 2 8 Short Term There is only about one-half mile between the Moose Henri and Bell Gas bus stops. There are several locations between the two stops for a bus pullout and shelter. The co-location of these stops will improve the on-time performance of the Pinetop-Lakeside route. Bell Gas (#5) Combine with 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 2 9 Short Term See comments above. 258 Table 37: Transit Stop Plan of Improvements Core Criteria Location Suggested Improvements Improved Linkage b/w Existing Transit Stop and Local Trail/Path Complexity of Construction (Cost) Community Support Transit Stop Criteria Availability of Funding Safety Enhancement Frequently Used Stop Promotes Usage by Title VI Populations Improved ADA Accessibility Total Points Project Priority Project Description/Notes Stop #4 Ace Hardware (#9) Bus shelter, bench, concrete base, bus pullout 1 0 1 1 1 0 2 1 7 Short Term Circle K Pinetop (#10) Bus shelter, bench, concrete base, bus pullout 1 0 1 1 1 1 2 1 8 Short Term Ponderosa Plaza (#11) Bus shelter, bench, concrete base, bus pullout 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 1 8 Short Term Circle K South (#13) Bus shelter, bench, concrete base, bus pullout 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 Short Term Ranger Station (#22) Bus shelter, bench, concrete base, bus pullout 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 Short Term Blue Ridge Plaza (#23) Bus shelter, bench, concrete base, bus pullout 1 0 1 1 1 2 2 2 10 Short Term 259 The current stop is located in the Ace Hardware parking lot. There may be enough room in front of the current location to implement a bus pullout and place a shelter along the sidewalk. If the current location proves difficult, there are options with a quarter mile north and south. The bus stop at the Circle K in Pinetop is located in an area that does not have room for a bus pullout. There are locations north and south of the current stop that may be appropriate for a bus pullout. The improvement will provide a safe stop for the bus and the patrons. The current bus stop is located in a section of E White Mountain Boulevard with multiple curb cuts that would prevent a bus pullout. The stop would need to be moved nearly a quarter mile south of the current location to accommodate the bus pullout that is required by ADOT. One of the furthest south bus stops on the PinetopLakeside route is located in the Circle K parking lot. In order to make the stop safer, and to meet the ADOT standards, a bus pullout could be located adjacent to the current bus stop location. The current bus stop is located in the driveway leading to the Ranger Station. A bus pullout in front of the station would require the reconfiguration of the Ranger Station’s access driveways. As a high frequency stop along the Pinetop-Lakeside route, the Blue Ridge Plaza bus stop is located in a gravel parking lot. The installation of a bus pullout will improve the safety and ADA accessibility for the patrons of the transit system. Table 37: Transit Stop Plan of Improvements Core Criteria Location Ponderosa Lanes (#24) Suggested Improvements Bus shelter, bench, concrete base, bus pullout Improved Linkage b/w Existing Transit Stop and Local Trail/Path 1 Complexity of Construction (Cost) 0 Community Support 1 Transit Stop Criteria Availability of Funding 1 Safety Enhancement 1 Frequently Used Stop 0 260 Promotes Usage by Title VI Populations 1 Improved ADA Accessibility 1 Total Points 6 Project Priority Project Description/Notes Medium Term The Ponderosa Lanes bus stop is a low frequency stop that is located across from the Wagon Wheel Plaza bus stop. Based on the ADOT requirements, a bus pullout would be required to move the stop out of the current parking lot. There may be room in front of the bowling alley business to fit a bus pullout. The movement of stop from the parking lot to the bus pullout will improve the system’s on-time performance. 21. Transit System & Operations Plan of Improvements 21.1 Introduction As previously observed, the Four Seasons Connection (FSC) and White Mountain Connection (WMC) transit services have experienced steady growth over the years and that the performance of this system is one of the most efficient of rural transit systems in Arizona. That said improvements to any transit service are an on-going work in progress. A series of operational-related deficiencies were derived from TAC input, consultant field observations and on-board transit survey responses received. The Transit Operations Plan of Improvements in Table 39 identifies and prioritizes the suggested projects. As previously discussed in Section 6, Existing Conditions and System Deficiencies, the major issue hampering the Four Seasons Connections transit service is its on-time performance. The Transit Operations Plan of Improvements includes a range of implementation strategies for Show Low and the Transit Manager to consider in improving this issue, as well as improve the overall transit service. It is intended that these range of strategies will be further vetted by the TAC, Transit Manager and City of Show Low prior to completion of the Show Low Trails and Transit Connectivity Study. These improvements, if implemented, should result in additional ridership throughout the system. The improvements identified in the plan include:    Adding an additional vehicle to the FSC service; Installing bus pullouts along the major thoroughfares; Switching from deviated route service to fixed route with complementary paratransit service;  Restructuring the existing routing system;  Shortening the existing routes (eliminating bus stops);  Extending the days and hours of operations; and  Lengthening the current headways. While some of these operational improvements could be very expensive, the continuation of the current service will only damage the system’s reputation and will eventually cause ridership to drop off from its current level. This year, the system has already experienced a decreased ridership which may be attributed to the current ontime performance issues. 261 21.2 Additional Vehicle to the FSC Deviated Fixed Route Transit Service The current FSC service involves two transit vehicles serving the Show Low and PinetopLakeside communities with deviated route service. The number of deviations varies from day-to-day, but typically does not exceed four to six deviations per day. Without expanding the current service area, adding an additional vehicle to the FSC transit service would allow for more deviations throughout the day and allow the buses to keep the service on-time. The current schedule allows for one hour headways for each route. The additional vehicle could reduce the average headway to approximately 50 minutes at each stop. The recommended route configuration for the three bus system would be to combine the two existing routes into one continuous loop. Each bus would be approximately 50 minutes apart throughout the day. At the beginning of each service day, the buses would start from the Show Low Transit Center (Walmart) in a staggered formation. For example, the first bus would leave the Show Low Transit Center at 5:40am, the second at 6:30am and the third at 7:20am. At the end of the service day, the buses would return in the same staggered pattern at 6:10pm, 7:00 pm and 7:50 pm, respectively. Each vehicle would provide 12 ½ hours of revenue service each day. In addition to the capital cost of purchasing another vehicle for the transit service, the operational budget increase for this new service option would be approximately $250,290. The operational cost increase is based on adding 13 ½ hours of additional service each day for the 309 transit service days of operation. Cost of Implementation - $250,290 per year 21.3 Installing Bus Pullouts along the Major Thoroughfares Based on conversations with various ADOT representatives, the option of stopping transit vehicles in the traffic lanes on the Deuce of Clubs and White Mountain Boulevard is not going to be permitted. The placement of bus stops in the ADOT right of way does not meet the criteria/requirements identified in the ADOT bus encroachment permit process (ENG-2.01). The only option for moving the transit stops out of the parking lots of private businesses and public spaces is the installation of bus pullouts along the major thoroughfares in the Show Low and Pinetop-Lakeside communities. The concern for ADOT is that stopping vehicles on the major thoroughfares could result in traffic congestion, vehicle collisions and generally unsafe conditions for private vehicles and transit operators. 262 Based on conversations with the Transit Manager and the Technical Advisory Committee, the following table outlines the bus stops were requested to be evaluated for bus pullouts throughout the system. Table 38: Transit Stops Recommended for Bus Pullouts Bus Stop Route Location Hampton Inn (#3) Show Low White Mountain Road Show Low Bowl (#5) Show Low Deuce of Clubs Navajo County South Complex Show Low (new stop) Deuce of Clubs Kmart/Safeway (#15 & #16) Show Low Deuce of Clubs North Pioneer College (#22) Show Low Deuce of Clubs Whiting Gas (#23) Show Low Deuce of Clubs Wagon Wheel Plaza (#3) Pinetop-Lakeside White Mountain Blvd. Moose Henri’s (#4) Pinetop-Lakeside White Mountain Blvd. Bell Gas (#5) Pinetop-Lakeside White Mountain Blvd. Ace Hardware (#9) Pinetop-Lakeside White Mountain Blvd. Circle K Pinetop (#10) Pinetop-Lakeside White Mountain Blvd. Ponderosa Plaza (#11) Pinetop-Lakeside White Mountain Blvd. Circle K South (#13) Pinetop-Lakeside White Mountain Blvd. Ranger Station (#22) Pinetop-Lakeside White Mountain Blvd. Blue Ridge Plaza (#23) Pinetop-Lakeside White Mountain Blvd. Ponderosa Lanes (#24) Pinetop-Lakeside White Mountain Blvd. From the transit operator’s perspective, the bus pullouts accomplish several initiatives. First, by providing an easier ingress/egress from the bus stop, the on-time performance is easier to achieve throughout the service day. Some of the current stops require several turns in private parking lots that take up valuable time in the operation of the transit service. Second, the potential for collisions with other vehicles and/or parking lot obstacles is increased every time a transit vehicle enters a parking lot. Vehicles pulling in and backing out of parking spaces somehow seem to be oblivious to the transit vehicle sharing the parking lot with them. Another consideration for transit operators is the fact that private parking lots may not be maintained as well as the 263 ADOT roadway, including during the winter when snow clearance is an issue. If a transit vehicle is not able to access a private parking lot due to inclement weather, the transit patrons would need to meet the bus out at the curb on the roadway, thus, creating an unsafe condition in the travel lane. On the flip side, this option for improving the system on-time performance and safety considerations is quite expensive. Based on the ADOT typical bus pullout design, the pavement and relocated sidewalk could cost anywhere from $40,000 to $80,000 per pullout. The ADOT standard bus pullout is shown in Figure 73. Figure 73: Standard ADA Accessible Bus Pullout This cost does not include potential right-of-way acquisition. The total cost for all 16 of the suggested bus pullouts could range from $640,000 to $1.28 million. The plan of improvements for the bus stops ranks the various bus stop improvements, including the stops with bus pullouts, so this cost could be spread over 20 years of implementation. Another option that may be explored, subject to ADOT District Engineer approval, is a smaller bus pullout standard. A smaller bus pullout has merit in Show Low due to the limited right-of-way available along the Deuce of Clubs and the reduction in construction cost. The ADOT standard bus pullout has a total length of 175-feet that includes a 65-foot long passenger loading area. The approach is also 70 feet in length. Under the right circumstances, ADOT has a precedent for allowing a smaller bus pullout. Based on the relatively short length of the FSC buses, a passenger loading zone area of 45-feet would operate comfortably and effectively. The length of the approach could also be reduced. The ADOT District Engineer considers bus pullouts on a case by case basis and more additional design detail beyond the scope of this study must be presented for District Engineer consideration. 264 One of the requested bus pullouts is not recommended by the consultant team. The bus pullout for the Kmart/Safeway bus stops would be, in our opinion, detrimental to the transit customer service. We realize that the current routing through the two parking lots is time consuming and creates a multitude of safety concerns for the transit vehicle. However, due to the popularity of these stops and the vast distance from the sidewalk along the Deuce of Clubs to the store fronts, the transit patrons would be better served with a combined transit stop in the common area between the two stores. Reviewing the current situation, it is clear that pedestrians walk between the stores to complete their shopping and to reach the current bus stops. The location of a combined bus stop along the travel lane between the two stores would reduce the number of stops and better serve the transit users than a bus pullout several hundred feet away from either destination. Cost of Implementation - $640,000 to $1.28 million 21.4 Switching From Deviated Route Service to Fixed Route with Complementary Paratransit Service The current transit service operated in the Show Low and Pinetop-Lakeside communities allows the transit operator to deviate up to three-quarters of a mile from the fixed route service to serve disabled individuals that are unable to meet the bus at the designated bus stops. The barriers to their access to the transit service could be mental, physical or environmental. An example of an environmental barrier is the lack of sidewalks between their location and the closest bus stop. One of the major problems with deviated route service is the unpredictability of the number of deviations that are requested throughout the day. Currently, the number of deviations ranges from four to six per day. Based on our analysis, this causes some of the on-time issues but is not the sole cause of the system’s performance issues. FTA regulations allow for systems to limit the number of deviations per a service day, provided that the limitation is reasonable. Due to the low number of deviations in the average daily FSC transit service, it will be difficult to rationalize limiting the number of deviations below the current amount. Fixed route transit service would provide a more consistent on-time performance model for the FSC service, provided that some of the other factors that affect the on-time performance (i.e., bus stops, route configuration, etc.) are improved. However, in order to provide fixed route transit service, the City would be required to provide complementary paratransit service for residents that are unable to access the fixed route bus stops. Typically, vehicles used for complementary paratransit service range from modified mini-vans to the cutaway vehicles currently used in the FSC and WMC 265 transit service. Because of the improved gas mileage and lower maintenance costs, modified mini-vans would reduce the cost of operating this service. Additionally, the lower upfront capital cost of purchasing a modified mini-van would reduce the system’s investment into this performance option. The downside to providing the complementary paratransit service is that it has to be available for the same hours of operation as the fixed route service. Therefore, the transit system would have to have a driver on the time clock for the entire twelve hours that the fixed route is running, just in case of a requested trip. Cost of Implementation - $150,000 to $200,000 per year 21.5 Restructuring the Existing Routing System In order to provide the best service to the transit riders, the two FSC routes pulse every hour on the half hour at the Show Low Transit Center (Walmart) between Show Low and Pinetop-Lakeside. If one of the buses is running late because of a route deviation, road construction, etc., then the other bus needs to wait at the one transfer point or any customers that need to transfer would have to wait for another hour for the next bus. The dependence of each bus on the other bus can be a major source of frustration for the Transit Manager and the patrons of the transit service. One way to eliminate this dependence is to have both vehicles run both routes as a loop. The way this would work is that one bus would leave the Show Low Transit Center at 5:30am headed to Show Low. As that bus is returning to the Show Low Transit Center at 6:30am, the second bus would leave the Show Low Transit Center headed for Show Low. The first bus, upon leaving the Show Low Transit Center would then run the Pinetop-Lakeside route. Each bus would continue this alternating route throughout the day. The first bus would complete its last run at 5:30pm, while the second bus would finish at 6:30pm. This way, each bus is still maintaining a twelve hour service day. Each community is still receiving the same amount of bus service; however, the schedule for Show Low, in this scenario, starts and ends one hour earlier than Pinetop-Lakeside. This operational change would, on the surface, seem to have little or no effect on the system’s budget. However, the current system collects a full-fare transfer at the Show Low Transit Center for any patrons riding from Show Low to Pinetop-Lakeside or the reverse direction. To alleviate this loss in potential revenue, the fare system would need to include a transfer fee for those patrons continuing on at the Show Low Transit Center. The consultant team would recommend a general fare increase and a transfer fee to capture any potential lost revenue from the current fare structure. The patrons will gain a slightly more predictable transit service and the transit system should experience a zero net gain with the fare restructuring. 266 Cost of Implementation   Restructure with fare increase – zero net gain/loss Restructure without fare increase – loss of transfers at Show Low Transit Center (approximately 30% of total fares) 21.6 Shortening the Existing Routes (Eliminating Bus Stops) Another low-cost option for improving the on-time performance of the current transit system is to eliminate some of the current low usage bus stops. Typically, this is a very unpopular option for transit systems. First, if the stops are currently low usage, then the amount of time savings on the average hourly route is minimal. However, for those few patrons that use these bus stops, the distance to walk to the next bus stop could be insurmountable. Another ramification of eliminating bus stops, no matter how infrequently they are used, is that once transit patrons find another mode of travel, they typically will not come back to transit. People do not like the lack of security in knowing that their bus stop will be there in the future. This option could have repercussions throughout the system, even at bus stop locations that are not being considered for elimination. Show Low bus stops that were identified as low usage stops include:         Hampton Inn (#3) Show Low Bowl (#5) Airport (#7)* 4th Avenue and McNeil (#11) Aquatic Center (#14) 30th Avenue and Whipple Street (#18) W Park Valley Road and 21st Avenue (#20) Giant Gas (#29) Pinetop-Lakeside bus stops that were identified as low usage stops include:  Wagon Wheel Plaza (#3)  Ace Hardware (#9)  Ponderosa Lanes (#24) Cost of Implementation – potential loss of fare revenue and future ridership 267 21.7 Extending the Days and Hours of Operations Based on public input from survey responses and from the outreach meetings, there is a demand for additional hours and days of operation for the Four Seasons Connection bus service. The current FSC service includes Monday through Saturday service from 6:30am to 6:30pm. The additional transit service on Sunday would more than likely be used for shopping opportunities, not work. However, the additional hours of operation, especially during the week, would enable patrons to access non-first shift work opportunities and night classes at the local college. The White Mountain Connection service is viewed as a Monday to Friday home-to-work bus service and would not expect to experience the same demand for additional service as the FSC service. If the City of Show Low and the Transit Manager decided to implement additional service, we would recommend the following service enhancements:  Sunday service from 10:30am to 6:30pm  Extended Monday through Friday hours 6:30am to 10:30pm Cost of Implementation    Sunday service - $49,920 Extended Mon-Fri hours - $123,360 Sunday service & extended Mon-Fri hours - $173,280 21.8 Lengthening the Current Headways When the current FSC transit operation has difficulty keeping on-time with the posted schedule, there are several ways to “speed up” the transit vehicles to reach the time points on-time. We have discussed some of those options (additional equipment, bus pullouts, fewer stops) in the above sections. Another option is to add more time in between the stops, allowing for the issues that are currently causing the on-time performance issues. The current FSC transit routes are scheduled to complete each run in 60 minutes. This level of transit service is considered an industry minimum for reliable fixed route service. The two routes pulse at the Show Low Transit Center (Walmart) each hour on the half hour, so any additional time would need to be added to each route. Since meeting its current time constraint has been a challenge, an additional 10 minutes in the headway should be enough time to get each vehicle back to the Show Low Transit Center transfer point on-time. The existing time points would need to be adjusted to allow more “slack” along the route segments that are causing the majority of the issues. 268 A resulting impact of this option is the loss of two of the current twelve daily runs for each route. This loss of 16 percent of the daily runs could result in a proportional loss of ridership and fares if the revised time schedules are unpopular with current riders. In order to combat some of the lost revenue and ridership, keeping the same number of daily runs by extending the hours of operation to 8:30 p.m. could open the service to more riders (i.e., second shift and night school students). Cost of Implementation   Extending headways to 70 minutes – potential loss of revenue and ridership with two fewer runs per day Extending headways to 70 minutes and extending hours of operation to 8:30pm – $74,160 269 Table 39: Transit Operations Plan of Improvements Transit Operations Criteria Core Criteria Operational Improvement Improved Linkage b/w Existing Transit Stop and Local Trail/Path Total Points Complexity of Construction (Cost) Community Support Availability of Funding Safety Enhancement Improve Headways Project Priority Project Description/Notes Expanding New Service Transit Operations Add an additional vehicle to the current deviated fixed route FSC service Install bus turnouts along major thoroughfares 0 1 0 0 2 1 1 1 0 1 2 2 270 1 0 6 6 Short Short The current deviated fixed route service runs on a one-hour headway. Due to the length of the routes and regular deviations from the fixed route, the vehicles struggle to maintain the posted schedule of stops. An additional vehicle would allow for more leeway in the schedule and could result in more areas of the Show Low community being served with transit. The additional vehicle in the operations would result in shorter headways, but would add approximately 50% to the current FSC operations costs. The route structures would need to be addressed to make the most use of this option. The routes could be restructured as one continuous loop or three smaller loops that interconnect at prime locations. The use of bus turnouts along major thoroughfares will improve passenger safety and avoids blocking traffic by the transit vehicle. When not used by the bus, the turnout can serve as an emergency turnout for the general public. Based on discussions with ADOT personnel, the current encroachment permit process could require bus pullouts at any of the stops along the Deuce of Clubs and White Mountain Highway. One of the major factors in this improvement is the prohibitive cost of installing the pullouts. Transit Operations Criteria Core Criteria Operational Improvement Switch from deviated route service to fixed route service with complementary paratransit service Restructure the existing routes for better service Shorten existing routes (remove stops) Improved Linkage b/w Existing Transit Stop and Local Trail/Path 0 0 0 Total Points Complexity of Construction (Cost) 0 2 1 Community Support 1 1 0 Availability of Funding 1 2 2 Safety Enhancement 0 0 0 Improve Headways 2 0 2 271 Project Priority Project Description/Notes Expanding New Service 1 0 0 5 5 5 Medium Medium Medium The current transit service provides fixed route transit service that deviates up to three quarters of a mile to meet the needs of the Show Low disabled residents. At times, this deviation from the fixed route service causes the service to experience on-time performance issues. The addition of a separate paratransit service would alleviate the delays caused by the deviated system. This improvement could be very costly depending on the amount of use by the public. The two existing routes in the Four Seasons Connection service run independently of each other, with only one common location at the Wal Mart transfer point. For patrons riding from Show Low to the Pinetop-Lakeside community, they must transfer to the other bus and pay an additional fare. Restructuring the routes to run as a continuous loop could improve the existing service for the patrons and alleviate the need to transfer between buses. This option would not require any additional equipment or add to the operational costs. However, since the transit agency is currently receiving a full fare at the transfer point, the fare structure may need to be adjusted to compensate for the lost revenue. Due to the on-time performance issues with the current service, one option is to shorten the existing routes by removing some of the current stops. While this is not an optimal solution, but it would not require any additional equipment to be purchased nor would it cause the transit agency to incur additional operations costs. Transit Operations Criteria Core Criteria Operational Improvement Extend the days of operation Extend the current hours of operation from 6:30am to 6:30pm Move current bus stops out of parking lots to the street curb Improved Linkage b/w Existing Transit Stop and Local Trail/Path 0 0 1 Total Points Complexity of Construction (Cost) 0 0 0 Community Support 2 2 0 Availability of Funding 1 1 1 Safety Enhancement 0 0 1 Improve Headways 0 0 2 272 Project Priority Project Description/Notes Expanding New Service 1 1 0 4 4 5 Medium Medium Medium The current FSC service runs Monday through Saturday, while the WMC service runs Monday through Friday. Comments from the public meeting indicated a need for additional weekend service. The operations manager indicated that Sunday service on the FSC service would be for primarily shopping trips. Additional weekend service on the WMC service would not be used as frequently since the majority of riders are using the service for Monday through Friday work trips only. The current hours of operation do not allow for workers, students or tourists to use the transit system beyond the typical work day hours. For employees working second or third shift jobs, either the trip to work or home will have to be arranged through some other means. For residents wanting to improve themselves, late night college classes would be difficult to attend without the transit option. During the tourist season, restaurants or entertainment venues could be more accessible with later service hours. Most of the current transit stops are located in parking lots of businesses. Each of these stops requires additional time for the vehicle to navigate the parking areas and to pull back into traffic on the main road. By moving transit stops to the street curb would improve the on-time performance and reduce the potential for accidents with other vehicles. ADOT’s requirement of bull pullouts on the Deuce of Clubs and White Mountain Highway, as discussed above, could make this option cost prohibitive in some locations. Transit Operations Criteria Core Criteria Operational Improvement Lengthen Headways Improved Linkage b/w Existing Transit Stop and Local Trail/Path 0 Total Points Complexity of Construction (Cost) 0 Community Support 1 Availability of Funding 2 Safety Enhancement 0 Improve Headways 0 273 Project Priority Project Description/Notes Expanding New Service 0 3 Long In order to improve the current on-time performance issues, the current 60 minute headways could be increased to 70 minutes. The additional time would make up for the delays that are creating the current issue. However, by lengthening the headways, the number of runs during the typical day would be reduced from 12 to 10 with the current hours of operation. 21.9 Capital and Operations Plan In order to evaluate the cost of each of the recommended operational improvements, the consultant team developed a capital and operations plan to examine the long term effect of implementing each improvement. Some of the recommendations only have capital or operation financial impacts, while some of the recommendations have both capital and operation impacts on the budget. During the development of the capital and operations plan, we had to make a couple of assumptions that are based on past experiences and institutional knowledge. The following assumptions apply to the capital and operations plan:   Vehicles costs are held constant throughout the plan Revenue vehicles used by the transit agency are assumed to have a 5 year replacement cycle  Operating costs are inflated at 1 percent per year, based on the transit system’s past performance  The main source of funding for the capital and operating expenses will be FTA Section 5311 funds  Transfers at the Show Low Transit Center transfer point account for 30 percent of the total system ridership While most of the operations expenses are direct expenses of adding new services (revenue hours) to the current transit service, a couple of the expenses are shown as lost revenue. The restructuring of the current FSC routing from two routes to one would result in the loss of the transfer revenues that are collected at the Show Low Transit Center transfer point. Based on the assumption that approximately 30 percent of the riders utilize this transfer option, the system could lose that transfer revenue. Another revenue loss could be experienced if the transit agency decided to improve the system’s on-time performance by eliminating some of the less-utilized bus stops. The assumption is that move would result in approximately 10 percent loss in revenue. Finally, if the option to lengthen the current headways from 60 to 70 minutes is implemented without extending the service day, the loss of two revenue runs per day could result in the loss of approximately 16 percent of the system’s revenue. Table 40 below provides further cost breakout and comparison between the various implementation strategies. 274 Table 40: Transit Capital & Operations: Implementation Strategy Cost Comparison and Summary Costs are in thousands YEAR OF IMPLEMENTATION IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY SHORT 1 2 3 4 5 6 Additional Vehicle in FSC Deviated Fixed Route System $140 ----$140 Capital $250 $253 $255 $258 $260 $263 Operating Installing Bus Pullouts along the Major Thoroughfares $210 $210 $210 $210 $210 $86 Capital (total) $160 $160 $160 $160 $160 $80 Bus Pullouts $10 $10 $10 $10 $10 $6 Bus Stop Shelters $40 $40 $40 $40 $40 -Sidewalk Connections ------Operating Switch from Deviated Fixed Route to Fixed Route with Complementary Paratransit $50 ----$50 Capital $200 $202 $204 $206 $208 $210 Operating Restructure the Existing Routes (loss of transfers at Walmart) ------Capital $15 $15 $15 $15 $15 $15 Operating Shorten Existing Routes (remove current low frequency bus stops) ------Capital $5 $5 $5 $5 $5 $5 Operating Extend the Days of Operation (FSC only) ------Capital $50 $51 $51 $52 $52 $53 Operating Extend the Hours of Operation (FSC, Monday through Friday only) ------Capital $125 $126 $128 $129 $130 $131 Operating Lengthen Headways to 70 Minutes ------Capital ------Operating $8 $8 $8 $8 $8 $8 10 runs per day $75 $76 $77 $77 $78 $79 12 runs per day Vehicle Replacement (current fleet vehicles) -$280 $280 -$280 $140 Capital ------Operating 7 MEDIUM 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 LONG 16 17 18 19 20 -$265 -$268 -$271 -$273 $140 $276 -$279 -$282 -$285 -$287 $60 $290 -$293 -$296 -$299 -$302 $86 $80 $6 --- $86 $80 $6 --- $6 -$6 --- $6 -$6 --- $83 $80 $3 --- $0 ----- $0 ----- $0 ----- $0 ----- $0 ----- $0 ----- $0 ----- $0 ----- $0 ----- -$212 -$214 -$217 -$219 $50 $221 -$223 -$225 -$228 -$230 $30 $232 -$235 -$237 -$239 -$242 -$15 -$15 -$15 -$15 -$15 -$15 -$15 -$15 -$15 -$15 -$15 -$15 -$15 -$15 -$5 -$5 -$5 -$5 -$5 -$5 -$5 -$5 -$5 -$5 -$5 -$5 -$5 -$5 -$53 -$54 -$54 -$55 -$55 -$56 -$56 -$57 -$57 -$58 -$59 -$59 -$60 -$60 -$133 -$134 -$135 -$137 -$138 -$139 -$141 -$142 -$144 -$145 -$147 -$148 -$150 -$151 --$8 $80 --$8 $80 --$8 $81 --$8 $82 --$8 $83 --$8 $84 --$8 $85 --$8 $85 --$8 $86 --$8 $87 --$8 $88 --$8 $89 --$8 $90 --$8 $91 $280 -- $280 -- --- $280 -- $140 -- $280 -- $280 -- --- $120 -- $60 -- $120 -- $120 -- --- $120 -- 275 21.10 Five Year Financial Plan To enable the transit system to plan for operational improvements, the following five year financial plan has been developed. The financial plan is based on the last two years of administration and operating actual expenses. In order to develop the financial plan, several assumptions were made, including:  Normal inflation was applied with 1% annual increases (consistent with system’s inflation over the last 5 years)  Maintenance will continue to be contracted with a local garage  Controlled expenses (rent, marketing/advertising, printing and office supplies) were kept flat for the 5 year period Based on these assumptions, several versions of the five year financial plan have been developed based on the following scenarios:  Scenario #1 – Status quo (with normal inflation applied as appropriate)  Scenario #2 – Drivers’ salaries increased to keep them competitive with local school bus drivers (11% in each of the first two years, then normal 3% inflation for the last 3 years)  Scenario #3 – Additional vehicle added to the FSC transit service (based on increase in revenue hours of operation), plus drivers’ salaries increased  Scenario #4 – addition of Sunday service and extended hours of operation Monday through Friday, plus drivers’ salaries increased  Scenario #5 – Lengthening the current headways (while maintaining the 12 service runs Monday through Saturday), plus drivers’ salaries increased The increase in the drivers’ salaries is an issue that plagues many transit agencies. The current wages for a starting transit system driver begin at $9.00 an hour, while the school district starts their drivers at $11.00 an hour. In addition to the difference in pay, school bus drivers get 10 weeks off during the summer during which they can either spend time with their family or get another part time job to make more money. The transit agency has had an on-going problem with their drivers taking jobs, as they become available, with the school district. In addition to a shallow pool of available drivers, the transit agency has the additional expense of training new drivers each time this occurs. The financial plan applies an increase of 11 percent each of the first two years to give the transit drivers comparable wages. In years three through five, the normal 3 percent inflation is applied to the drivers’ salaries. 276 Table 41 shows the summary of expenses for each of the five scenarios described above. By applying 3 percent inflation to some of the Administrative expenses, while keeping some of the expenses flat, the average increase over the five year period is 2.2 percent per year. The Administrative expenses are kept constant with each scenario. Table 41: Five Year Financial Plan Summary Table Expense Category Current Expense Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Administrative $73,683 $74,214 $74,751 $75,293 $75,841 $76,394 Operating $533,026 $538,356 $543,740 $549,177 $554,669 $560,216 Total $606,709 $612,571 $618,491 $624,470 $630,510 $636,610 Scenario #1 – Status Quo Scenario #2 – Drivers’ Salaries Increased Administrative $73,683 $74,214 $74,751 $75,293 $75,841 $76,394 Operating $533,026 $555,438 $579,953 $585,752 $591,610 $597,526 Total $606,709 $629,652 $654,704 $661,045 $667,451 $673,920 Scenario #3 – Additional Vehicle Added to FSC Service Administrative $73,683 $74,214 $74,751 $75,293 $75,841 $76,394 Operating $533,026 $816,240 $852,230 $860,752 $869,360 $878,053 Total $606,709 $890,455 $926,981 $936,046 $945,201 $954,447 Scenario #4 – Addition of Sunday Service and Extended Hours of Operation Monday – Friday Administrative $73,683 $74,214 $74,751 $75,293 $75,841 $76,394 Operating $533,026 $735,996 $768,455 $776,139 $783,901 $791,740 Total $606,709 $810,210 $843,206 $851,433 $859,742 $868,134 Scenario #5 – Lengthen the Current Headways Administrative $73,683 $74,214 $74,751 $75,293 $75,841 $76,394 Operating $533,026 $632,713 $660,627 $667,234 $673,906 $680,645 Total $606,709 $706,927 $735,379 $742,527 $749,747 $757,039 The status quo scenario is consistent with the transit agency’s current trend of one percent growth in expenses each year over the five year period. While this scenario contains the costs, the current trend of decreasing ridership that is facing the transit system could continue if improvements are not addressed. 277 Scenario #2 will result in an administrative and operating expense increase of approximately 11 percent. As noted earlier, the loss of drivers to better paying jobs has a compounded effect on the transit system. First, the pool of drivers in the Show Low community is limited. Second, the cost and time involved to train new drivers takes away from other needs of the transit agency. The vehicle added under Scenario #3 could be either to the revenue service of the Four Seasons Connection or as a paratransit vehicle that would alleviate the current deviated fixed route service. The additional revenue vehicle would be used to improve headways and on-time performance of the two-vehicle system currently in place. The paratransit vehicle would be required to be available the same number of hours as the revenue vehicles. Either additional vehicle would add an approximately 57 percent to the current Administrative and Operations expenses. The additional hours of revenue service throughout the week and the Sunday transit service would add an additional $261,425 or 43 percent to the current expenses over the five year period. The additional weekday hours would open the service to non-first shift workers and residents attending night classes at the local college. The Sunday service would add a new day of service to the system and would more than likely be used for shopping trips within the community. As compared to the other service-related scenarios, Scenario #5 has the least impact on the current expenses. This scenario would provide more time during each run to enable the buses to stay on-time throughout the service day. In order to maintain the same number of runs throughout the day, two additional hours of operation are needed, which accounts for the 23 percent increase in operating expenses over the five year plan. 278 22. Transit Marketing Plan of Improvements The Four Seasons Connection and White Mountain Connection transit services each have their own unique branding. Those branding images should be used whenever possible so that the public makes the connection of the image with the transit system. As a small, rural public transportation agency, one thing that always seems to get the least attention is marketing. Many small agencies are run with a small staff that has many responsibilities and the Show Low system is no exception. Due to the limited staff resources, and the myriad of responsibilities, marketing activities need to be effective and efficient. The current staff is responsible for providing transit service Monday through Saturday. If the service is not on the road making its stops every day and performing on time, the best marketing in the world will not work. A typical day in the operation of a transit agency involves tasks of varying complexity, including:         Getting the service ready for pullout in the early morning hours; Taking care of vehicle issues throughout the service day; Driver issues; Timecards and payrolls; Grant paperwork; Preventive vehicle maintenance scheduling; Scheduling route deviations; and End of the service day activities. Not all of these activities occur every day of the transit service; however, some days there are even more activities that take up the General Manager’s time. Since the Show Low operation is primarily managed by one person, marketing the service to new or expanding population areas naturally becomes less of a priority in order to attend to more pressing operational issues. Marketing is an activity that does not necessarily require a lot of time, once the basic foundation is established. Some of the simplest ideas can have the greatest impact on a system’s marketing to the community. For example, when the consultant team was evaluating the bus stops throughout the FSC and WMC systems, we had difficulty locating some of the bus stop signs. For residents that are new to the area and looking to use the public transportation system, bus shelters and bus stop signs are many times the first opportunity to market to those potential new riders. If the general public cannot easily identify and locate the bus stops, they may assume that public 279 transportation does not exist in the area. Clean and clearly marked bus stops, using consistent branding/logos are a must for any public transportation service to attract new riders and maintain the existing ridership. The use of social media is becoming one of the most popular ways for transit agencies to keep in touch with current system users, connect to potential future transit system users, develop stronger community connections and enhance the agency’s image/branding. Social media comes in many shapes and sizes and the amount of time required for each type of social media varies as well. Some of the more common social media platforms used by transit agencies include:       Transit agency website (http://ci.show-low.az.us/departments/finance/transit.htm) Facebook (http://www.facebook.com) Twitter (https://www.twitter.com) YouTube (http://www.youtube.com) LinkedIn (https://www.linkedin.com) Foursquare (https://foursquare.com/) The City of Show Low currently hosts the website for the Four Seasons Connection and White Mountain Connection transit services. The website includes basic transit information (i.e., schedule, route map, fares, etc.) for current or potential riders that know of the existing service. This information is relatively static and is typically not updated regularly. According to a study released in 2012 by the Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) on this topic, some of the reasons that government agencies use a variety of social media are for timely updates, public information, citizen engagement, employee recognition and entertainment. Social media allows transit operators to connect with their riders for real-time updates to service changes and advisories. The ability of transit agencies to broadcast interruptions or changes in service helps riders to plan their travel. An informed rider is more likely to continue to trust the transit agency than a rider that is left waiting at a bus stop and “in the dark.” By connecting to a larger group, transit agencies are also able to broadcast general information that keeps the riders up-to-date on items such as fare information and route changes. By staying in contact with their patrons, transit agencies can also determine if a potential problem is looming. By having open lines of communication with their riders, transit managers can evaluate rider complaints (or compliments) and determine if changes need to be made within the transit operations. Transit agencies 280 can also use online technology to promote surveys and capture the responses. The use of Quick Response (QR) Codes on the bus gives patrons an opportunity to link to surveys and answer questions or post comments on the transit service. Recognizing employees is a great way to maintain a positive work atmosphere. The use of social media to recognize the “Driver of the Month” or safe driving milestones gives the driver and the agency a positive image in the community. It may also serve as a source of recruitment for future employees. Finally, transit agencies are able to put a face or an image with their service by using social media. Entertaining songs or videos of drivers or passengers can create interest for future riders. While keeping the public informed and maintaining an open line of communication with the public can be very rewarding for transit agencies, there are some pitfalls to the use of social media that transit agencies should be aware of to prevent a backlash by the public or the City. The following potential barriers or concerns in the use of social media should be considered:  Resource requirements – most social media outlets are free to use; however, the amount of staff time spent keeping the information updated can add up  Managing employee access – social media often times blur the line between personal and professional, so employee access to the transit agency account should be limited to specific personnel that are responsible for updates  Responding to online criticism - the use of social media could open the agency to public criticism from former employees or disgruntled citizens, social media sites should not become an arena for debates between the agency and online posters  Accessibility – with the expansion of smart phone technology, the access to social media for the vast majority of the public has improved dramatically; however, some websites are not as user-friendly on smart phones  Changing social media landscape – many experts have determined that social media is here to stay, but transit agencies need to keep up with the changing technologies to maintain an effective use of social media in the future Whether the transit agency uses some or all of the mentioned social media outlets, traditional methods of connecting with your riders should be used as well. Always remember that the bus driver is the “ambassador” that the public sees every day. Making sure that the bus driver has the tools that he/she needs to present the best possible image for the service is the key to a successful system. Social media should be 281 considered a tool for the General Manager to use in an appropriate manner and at the appropriate time. Recommendations:  Install bus stops signs that are easy to find and identify at all current bus stop locations  Update the City of Show Low transit system page with information, pictures, etc. of the current system  Utilize social media to update, inform and stay connected with the public  Post information on the website, in the buses and at the shelters for people to connect to the agency’s social media outlet 282 23. References and Resources Below is an inventory of technical documents that were utilized in the data collection, research and analysis phases of the Show Low Trails and Transit Connectivity Study. To the extent information is available of the internet, the hyperlink is provided for convenience. 5-year Crash Data – ADOT MPD. November 2007 through November 2012 Accessibility Guidelines for Outdoor Developed Areas Created by the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board (Access Board). ADA and ABA Accessibility Guidelines. Access Board guidelines completed in 2004, and currently pending adoption as ADA standards by USDOJ and USDOT, U.S Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT, Intermodal Transportation Division Policy, MGT 02-1, “Bicycle Policy” (February 27, 2007, reviewed February 27, 2010). http://www.azdot.gov/docs/business/adot-bicycle-policy.pdf Arizona Department of Transportation, Share the Road Guide. http://www.azbikeped.org/images/adot%20STR061208.pdf Arizona Department of Transportation, Bus Stop Encroachment Permit. Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT, Intermodal Transportation Division Policy, MGT 02-1, “Bicycle Policy” (February 27, 2007, reviewed February 27, 2010). http://www.azdot.gov/docs/business/adot-bicycle-policy.pdf Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) Traffic Engineering Policies, Guides and Procedures (PGP) (January 2000, revised October 2012). Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT), Statewide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Update, April 2013. http://azbikeped.org/azbikeped/pdf/Draft_Final_Report.pdf Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT), Traffic Safety for School Area Guidelines http://www.azdot.gov/docs/business/adot-traffic-safety-for-school-areaguidelines.pdf Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT), Roadway Design Guidelines, May 2012 http://www.azdot.gov/docs/business/roadway-design-guidelines.pdf 283 American Community Survey, 2007-2011 https://www.census.gov/acs/www/ American Trails http://americantrails.org/ Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines, U.S Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board. http://www.access-board.gov/ Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines. www.access-board.gov/adaag/html/adaag Cornell University, An Organizer’s Guide to Bicycle Rodeos http://www.bike.cornell.edu/pdfs/Bike_Rodeo_404.2.pdf Bicycling Life , Bicycle Rodeos http://www.bicyclinglife.com/SafetySkills/BicycleRodeo.htm City of Show Low, General Plan http://ci.showlow.az.us/departments/zoning/General_Plan/GP%20Final%20Version2007.pdf City of Show Low, Bus Stop Frequency City of Show Low, G45 October 2011 City of Show Low, G54 October 2012 City of Show Low, Four Seasons Connection Stop Relocation City of Show Low, Vehicle Verification, April, 2013 Anne M. O’Dell, Designing Shared Use Trails to Include Equestrians http://atfiles.org/files/pdf/ODellEquesTrails.pdf Draft Final Accessibility Guidelines for Trails, Outdoor Developed Areas Final Report. www.access-board.gov/outdoor/draft-final.htm Entranco, Show Low Timer Mesa Multi-Use Path – Preliminary Draft Design Concept Report, January 2003 284 FHWA, Public Policies for Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety and Mobility. http://international.fhwa.dot.gov/pubs/pl10028/index.cfm http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bicycle_pedestrian/guidance/design_gu idance/ FHWA, Manuals and Guides for Trail Design, Construction, Maintenance, and Operation, and for Signs. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/recreational_trails/guidance/manuals.cf m FHWA, Transportation Alternatives Program Guidance, June 13, 2013. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/map21/guidance/guidetap.cfm Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., Flagstaff Regional Five-Year and Long Range Transit Plan, working Paper No. 1A http://www.azdot.gov/docs/planning/working-paper-1a---current-and-futureconditions.pdf?sfvrsn=0 The Arizona Revised Statutes Title 28 (Transportation) www.azleg.state.az.us/arizonarevisedstatutes The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials’ (AASHTO), Guide for the Planning, Design, and Operation of Pedestrian Facilities, July 2004 The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials’ (AASHTO) Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities (2012). https://bookstore.transportation.org/ The Bicycle & Pedestrian Program of the Federal Highway Administration's Office of Human Environment. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bicycle_pedestrian/ The Federal Transit Administration, Guidelines for the Location and Design of Bus Stops http://nacto.org/docs/usdg/tcrp_report_19.pdf The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways (MUTCD) (2009 Edition). http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/index.htm The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices - Interim Approval for Optional Use of Green Colored Pavement for Bike Lanes (IA-14) http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interim_approval/ia14/ 285 Maricopa County Department of Transportation, Transportation Funding options for Arizona Counties, June 2010 Maricopa County Department of Transportation, Transportation Finance Sources Maryland Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Education Curriculum. www.saferoutesinfo.org/program-tools/maryland-pedestrian-and-bicycle-safetyeducation-curriculum-k-5 Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Trails and Waterways, Trail Planning, Design and Development Guidelines, 2006; National Center for Walking and Biking http://www.bikewalk.org/ Northern Arizona Council of Governments, Northern AZ Transportation Network Guide Navajo County, Asset Inventory 2011 http://www.navajocountyaz.gov/assetinventory.aspx Portland Parks & Recreation, Trail Design Guidelines for Portland’s Park System http://atfiles.org/files/pdf/PortlandTrailDesign.pdf Safe Routes to Schools http://www.walktoschool.org/resources/safety-environment.cfm http://guide.saferoutesinfo.org/encouragement/mileage_clubs_and_contests.cf m Lima & Associates, Urban Element of the White Mountains Trail system Final Report, April, 1999 United States Access Board, Public Rights-of-Way http://www.access-board.gov/guidelines-and-standards/streetssidewalks/public-rights-of-way United States Census (2010) www.census.gov http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml United States Forest Service, Outdoor Recreation Accessibility Guidelines United States Forest Service, Trail Accessibility Guidelines 286 WalkBoston Walking for Health & the Environment Curriculum. http://www.walkboston.org/documents/srtsCurricAll.pdf 287 APPENDIX A – FSC On Board Survey Responses APPENDIX B – WMC On Board Survey Responses APPENDIX C – Trails Survey Responses Show Low Trails & Transit Connectivity Plan Are you: Response Percent 50.0% 50.0% Answer Options Male Female answered question skipped question Response Count 27 27 54 0 Are you: Male Female Show Low Trails & Transit Connectivity Plan What category best describes your age? Answer Options 16 or younger 17-25 26-40 41-59 60 + Response Percent 0.0% 0.0% 16.7% 37.0% 46.3% Response Count 0 0 9 20 25 answered question skipped question 54 0 What category best describes your age? 16 or younger 17-25 26-40 41-59 60 + Show Low Trails & Transit Connectivity Plan How long have you lived in Show Low? Answer Options 0-2 years 2-5 years 5-10 years 10-15 years 15 + years Response Percent 15.1% 13.2% 32.1% 9.4% 30.2% Response Count 8 7 17 5 16 answered question skipped question 53 1 How long have you lived in Show Low? 0-2 years 2-5 years 5-10 years 10-15 years 15 + years Show Low Trails & Transit Connectivity Plan Your purpose for using a trail in Show Low (or nearby) is primarily: Response Percent 86.3% 7.8% 21.6% 25.5% 7.8% Answer Options Walking Running/Jogging Bicycling (leisure) Bicycling (enthusiast) Cross Country Skiing Other (please specify) Response Count 44 4 11 13 4 9 answered question skipped question Number Other (please specify) Response Date 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 May 8, 2013 12:58 AM May 7, 2013 3:20 PM Apr 27, 2013 10:41 PM Apr 18, 2013 10:15 PM Apr 9, 2013 1:53 AM Apr 8, 2013 11:23 PM Apr 6, 2013 8:34 PM Apr 5, 2013 9:18 PM Apr 5, 2013 5:55 PM 51 3 Categories 4x4 POWER WHEELCHAIR/SCOOTER USER ATV riding quad riding exercising dog Walking with an all terrain stroller Hiking senery hiking Your purpose for using a trail in Show Low (or nearby) is primarily: 100.0% 90.0% 80.0% 70.0% 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% Show Low Trails & Transit Connectivity Plan When you walk, jog or run do you normally do so in Show Low or elsewhere? Response Percent 53.7% 11.1% 5.6% 29.6% Answer Options Show Low Pinetop-Lakeside County areas U.S. Forest Service trails Other (please specify) Response Count 29 6 3 16 6 answered question skipped question Number Other (please specify) Response Date 1 2 3 4 5 6 Apr 20, 2013 9:36 PM Apr 19, 2013 1:10 AM Apr 7, 2013 10:52 PM Apr 7, 2013 3:57 AM Apr 6, 2013 8:34 PM Apr 5, 2013 5:55 PM 54 0 Categories mesa az secret trails in bone yard behind sierra pines Any of the TRACKS trails in White Mountain Area Also Pinetop-Lakeside and U.S. Forest Service White Mountain Trail System Any Tracks trail When you walk, jog or run do you normally do so in Show Low or elsewhere? Show Low Pinetop-Lakeside County areas U.S. Forest Service trails Show Low Trails & Transit Connectivity Plan How frequently do you walk, jog or run on local streets, paths or trails in Show Low or elsewhere? Response Response Answer Options Percent Count Never 0.0% 0 Once a month 9.3% 5 Twice a month 7.4% 4 1-2 days a week 33.3% 18 3-4 days a week 25.9% 14 5-6 days a week 11.1% 6 Daily 13.0% 7 answered question skipped question 54 0 How frequently do you walk, jog or run on local streets, paths or trails in Show Low or elsewhere? Never Once a month Twice a month 1-2 days a week 3-4 days a week 5-6 days a week Daily Show Low Trails & Transit Connectivity Plan How far on average would you estimate that you walk, jog or run on paths or trails on a typical trip? Response Response Answer Options Percent Count Never walk, jog or run 0.0% 0 ¼ mile or less 5.6% 3 ¼ mile to ½ mile 7.4% 4 ½ mile to a 1 mile 5.6% 3 1-2 miles 20.4% 11 2 + miles 61.1% 33 answered question skipped question 54 0 How far on average would you estimate that you walk, jog or run on paths or trails on a typical trip? Never walk, jog or run ¼ mile or less ¼ mile to ½ mile ½ mile to a 1 mile 1-2 miles 2 + miles Show Low Trails & Transit Connectivity Plan When walking, jogging or running, what types of facilities do you tend to use most frequently? Response Response Answer Options Percent Count Shoulders of paved roads 35.2% 19 Sidewalks 20.4% 11 Shared use pathway (pedestrians and bicyclists 24.1% 13 Bike path, walking path or trail 44.4% 24 Unpaved roads 14.8% 8 Grass or fields 0.0% 0 U.S. Forest Service Trails 38.9% 21 Other (please specify) 3 answered question skipped question Number Other (please specify) Response Date 1 2 3 54 0 Categories Apr 27, 2013 10:41 PM ATV trails would love sidewalks or trails in order not to have to Apr 9, 2013 7:50 PM walk on shoulder of road Apr 6, 2013 8:34 PM White Mountain Trail System or neighborhood When walking, jogging or running, what types of facilities do you tend to use most frequently? U.S. Forest Service Trails Unpaved roads Shared use pathway (pedestrians and… Shoulders of paved roads 50.0% 45.0% 40.0% 35.0% 30.0% 25.0% 20.0% 15.0% 10.0% 5.0% 0.0% Show Low Trails & Transit Connectivity Plan What is the typical purpose of your pedestrian (walk, jog, or run) trip on a street, trail or path in Show Low? Response Response Answer Options Percent Count School 0.0% 0 Errands/shopping 3.8% 2 Work 1.9% 1 Visit a friend/relative 1.9% 1 Recreation/Exercise 88.7% 47 Walk dog 34.0% 18 answered question skipped question What is the typical purpose of your pedestrian (walk, jog, or run) trip on a street, trail or path in Show Low? 100.0% 90.0% 80.0% 70.0% 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% 53 1 Show Low Trails & Transit Connectivity Plan For those who walk to school (or have children who walk to school), what are the biggest need(s) to encourage walking to school? Response Response Answer Options Percent Count Walking is not an option 14.3% 3 Improve upon existing pedestrian facilities 9.5% 2 Provide additional pedestrian facilities not in place today 66.7% 14 Enforce traffic laws 9.5% 2 Create a better route 14.3% 3 Other (please specify) 2 answered question skipped question Number Response Date 1 2 Other (please specify) 21 33 Categories May 4, 2013 11:13 PM complete sidewalks in wagon wheel area Apr 8, 2013 1:05 AM N/a For those who walk to school (or have children who walk to school), what are the biggest need(s) to encourage walking to school? 80.0% 70.0% 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% Enforce traffic Create a better Walking is not Improve upon Provide laws route an option existing additional pedestrian pedestrian facilities facilities not in place today (sidewalks, bike lane, cross walk, lighting, etc.) Show Low Trails & Transit Connectivity Plan What are some typical reasons for not walking, jogging or running? Answer Options Other transportation is faster Too busy/no opportunity Lack of sidewalks or paths Lack of safety/busy streets Destination is too far Lack of trails or other infrastructure connecting to desired Other (please specify) Response Percent 7.1% 14.3% 33.3% 28.6% 16.7% 54.8% Response Count 3 6 14 12 7 23 5 answered question skipped question Number Other (please specify) Response Date 1 2 3 4 5 May 9, 2013 8:14 PM Apr 27, 2013 10:41 PM Apr 8, 2013 11:23 PM Apr 5, 2013 11:07 PM Apr 5, 2013 9:18 PM 42 12 Categories Lack of shower facilities at my destinations weather Walking needs to be safe with a stroller Weather my health What are some typical reasons for not walking, jogging or running? 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% Destination is too far Lack of sidewalks or paths Other transportation is faster 0.0% Show Low Trails & Transit Connectivity Plan Do you use a street, trail or path in Show Low to access public transportation (Four Seasons Connection bus)? Response Response Answer Options Percent Count Yes 1.9% 1 No (if no, skip to question #16) 98.1% 51 answered question skipped question 52 2 Do you use a street, trail or path in Show Low to access public transportation (Four Seasons Connection bus)? Yes No (if no, skip to question #16) Show Low Trails & Transit Connectivity Plan How frequently do you use a street, path or trail to access public transportation in Show Low? Response Response Answer Options Percent Count Never. I do not ride the bus. 85.7% 6 Once a month 0.0% 0 Twice a month 14.3% 1 1-2 days a week 0.0% 0 3-4 days a week 0.0% 0 5-6 days a week 0.0% 0 Everyday 0.0% 0 answered question skipped question 7 47 How frequently do you use a street, path or trail to access public transportation in Show Low? Never. I do not ride the bus. Once a month Twice a month 1-2 days a week 3-4 days a week 5-6 days a week Everyday Show Low Trails & Transit Connectivity Plan On average, what is the estimated distance of your trip on a street, path or trail to access public transportation in Show Low? Response Response Answer Options Percent Count Never walk, jog or run 40.0% 2 ¼ mile or less 20.0% 1 ¼ mile to ½ mile 20.0% 1 ½ mile to a 1 mile 0.0% 0 1-2 miles 0.0% 0 2 + miles 20.0% 1 answered question skipped question 5 49 On average, what is the estimated distance of your trip on a street, path or trail to access public transportation in Show Low? Never walk, jog or run ¼ mile or less ¼ mile to ½ mile ½ mile to a 1 mile 1-2 miles 2 + miles Show Low Trails & Transit Connectivity Plan For those who walk to public transportation stops, what do you perceive as the biggest facility needs? Response Response Answer Options Percent Count Improve upon existing pedestrian facilities 0.0% 0 Provide additional pedestrian facilities not in place today 80.0% 4 Enforce traffic laws 20.0% 1 Create a better route 40.0% 2 Bus shelters are not adequate 20.0% 1 Improve access or bus stop for those with physical 20.0% 1 Other (please specify) 1 answered question skipped question Number Response Date 1 Other (please specify) 5 49 Categories no transportation to Bison Ridge/ bridge Apr 10, 2013 12:00 AM hazards For those who walk to public transportation stops, what do you perceive as the biggest facility needs? 90.0% 80.0% 70.0% 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% Bus shelters Improve upon Provide Enforce traffic Create a laws better route are not existing additional adequate pedestrian pedestrian facilities facilities not in place today (sidewalks, bike lane, cross walk, lighting, etc.) Improve access or bus stop for those with physical limitation or disabilities Show Low Trails & Transit Connectivity Plan How frequently do you bicycle on local streets, paths or trails in Show Low? Answer Options I do not bike Once a month Twice a month 1-2 days a week 3-4 days a week 5-6 days a week Everyday Response Percent 43.4% 18.9% 9.4% 13.2% 13.2% 1.9% 0.0% Response Count 23 10 5 7 7 1 0 answered question skipped question 53 1 How frequently do you bicycle on local streets, paths or trails in Show Low? I do not bike Once a month Twice a month 1-2 days a week 3-4 days a week 5-6 days a week Everyday Show Low Trails & Transit Connectivity Plan How far on average would you estimate that you bicycle on paths or trails on a typical trip? Response Response Answer Options Percent Count I do not bike 40.0% 20 1 mile or less 4.0% 2 1-2 miles 6.0% 3 2-5 miles 12.0% 6 5-10 miles 16.0% 8 10 + miles 22.0% 11 answered question skipped question 50 4 How far on average would you estimate that you bicycle on paths or trails on a typical trip? I do not bike 1 mile or less 1-2 miles 2-5 miles 5-10 miles 10 + miles Show Low Trails & Transit Connectivity Plan When bicycling, what types of facilities do you tend to use most frequently? Answer Options I do not bike Shoulders of paved roads Shared use pathway Bike path, walking path or trail Unpaved roads/trails U.S. Forest Service roads/trails Other (please specify) Response Percent 40.8% 44.9% 16.3% 24.5% 18.4% 20.4% Response Count 20 22 8 12 9 10 3 answered question skipped question Number Response Date 1 2 3 Other (please specify) 49 5 Categories Apr 7, 2013 10:52 PM I do not bike as it is TOO DANGEROUS Apr 6, 2013 8:34 PM White Mountain Trail System I try to use streets that are not too busy--I Apr 5, 2013 5:55 PM only have a street bike When bicycling, what types of facilities do you tend to use most frequently? 50.0% 45.0% 40.0% 35.0% 30.0% 25.0% 20.0% 15.0% 10.0% 5.0% 0.0% I do not bike Shoulders of Shared use Bike path, paved roads pathway walking path or trail Unpaved roads/trails U.S. Forest Service roads/trails Show Low Trails & Transit Connectivity Plan Which of the following best characterizes your bicycling tendencies? Answer Options I do not bike I only ride my bike in my neighborhood or on local I will bicycle outside my neighborhood on off street I am comfortable riding my bicycle in the roadway I am an experienced bicyclist and am willing to ride Other (please specify) Response Percent 39.6% 22.9% 4.2% 14.6% 18.8% Response Count 19 11 2 7 9 3 answered question skipped question Number Response Date 1 2 3 Other (please specify) 48 6 Categories I don't ride as much as I used to mostly due to how bad Apr 9, 2013 7:50 PM the shoulders / bike paths are Apr 9, 2013 1:53 AM within the rules of the road and safety conscious Roads are hilly and there is not enough room for safe Apr 6, 2013 11:46 PM bicycling so I don't bike. Which of the following best characterizes your bicycling tendencies? I do not bike I only ride my bike in my neighborhood or on local streets with little traffic I will bicycle outside my neighborhood on off street pathways I am comfortable riding my bicycle in the roadway alongside vehicles if the shoulder is wide enough I am an experienced bicyclist and am willing to ride just about anywhere Show Low Trails & Transit Connectivity Plan What is the typical purpose of your bicycle trip on a street, trail or path in Show Low? Answer Options I do not bike School Errands/shopping Work Visit a friend/relative Recreation/Exercise Training Response Percent 38.8% 0.0% 2.0% 2.0% 0.0% 55.1% 2.0% Response Count 19 0 1 1 0 27 1 answered question skipped question What is the typical purpose of your bicycle trip on a street, trail or path in Show Low? I do not bike School Errands/shopping Work Visit a friend/relative Recreation/Exercise Training 49 5 Show Low Trails & Transit Connectivity Plan For those who bicycle to school (or would bicycle to school), what are the biggest needs to improve / encourage biking to school? Response Response Answer Options Percent Count I will not bike to school 52.6% 10 Increase road shoulder or bike lane width 5.3% 1 Provide additional facilities not in place today (sidewalks, 47.4% 9 Enforcing traffic laws 5.3% 1 Other (please specify) 2 answered question skipped question Number Other (please specify) Response Date 1 2 19 35 Categories Apr 8, 2013 1:05 AM N/a Apr 5, 2013 8:02 PM NA For those who bicycle to school (or would bicycle to school), what are the biggest needs to improve / encourage biking to school? 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% I will not bike to school Increase road shoulder or bike lane width Provide additional facilities not in place today (sidewalks, bike lanes, cross walks, lighting, etc) Enforcing traffic laws Show Low Trails & Transit Connectivity Plan What are some typical reasons for not bicycling? Response Percent 21.7% 6.5% 15.2% 23.9% 21.7% 6.5% 37.0% Answer Options Not interested in bicycling Other transportation is faster Too busy/no opportunity Lack of sidewalks or paths Lack of safety/busy streets Destination is too far Winter conditions Other (please specify) Response Count 10 3 7 11 10 3 17 4 answered question skipped question Number Other (please specify) Response Date 1 2 3 4 May 9, 2013 8:14 PM May 7, 2013 3:20 PM Apr 6, 2013 11:46 PM Apr 5, 2013 9:18 PM Categories Lack of shower facilities at my destination USE POWER WHEELCHAIR/SCOOTER Hills my health What are some typical reasons for not bicycling? 40.0% 35.0% 30.0% 25.0% 20.0% 15.0% 10.0% 5.0% 0.0% 46 8 Show Low Trails & Transit Connectivity Plan Which of the following best represents the type of pedestrian, bicycle or trail facility improvements you would like to see in Show Low? Response Response Answer Options Percent Count Construct more sidewalks near commercial or activity 18.9% 10 Construct more sidewalks in residential neighborhoods 20.8% 11 Construct shared use paths along city roadways 37.7% 20 Stripe bicycle lanes on city roadways 34.0% 18 Increase bicycle lane or shoulder width of existing city 32.1% 17 Develop a series of cross-country skiing trails 20.8% 11 Develop/expand a system of off-street pathways 64.2% 34 Sweep shoulder or bike lane 26.4% 14 Step up enforcement of motorist laws 13.2% 7 Other (please specify) 4 answered question skipped question Number Other (please specify) Response Date 53 1 Categories 3 Apr 27, 2013 10:41 PM Make trails for atv's Work with sierra pines and forest service to protect and develop the secret trails on land Apr 19, 2013 1:10 AM behind sierra pines. access to & from Bison Ridge across bridge Apr 10, 2013 12:00 AM to bus 4 I'd like to see a paved bike trail from Pinetop Apr 5, 2013 5:55 PM down to Show Low. It could be done! 1 2 Step up enforcement of motorist laws Develop/expan d a system of off-street… Increase bicycle lane or shoulder… Construct shared use paths along… 70.0% 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% Construct more sidewalks… Which of the following best represents the type of pedestrian, bicycle or trail facility improvements you would like to see in Show Low? APPENDIX D – Community Open House – Saturday, December 14, 2013