Rio Rico Walking and Biking Study
Final Report
Task Assignment: MPD 80-12
August 2013

Photo Courtesy of Matt Hays

Prepared for:

Prepared by:

TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................i
Study Purpose & Objectives.................................................................................................... i
Community Outreach and Engagement .................................................................................ii
Existing Conditions and Deficiencies ......................................................................................ii
Future Conditions and Needs ................................................................................................iii
Plan of Improvements............................................................................................................iv
I.

Introduction .......................................................................................................................1
1.1 Study Purpose and Intent ............................................................................................. 1
1.2 Study Objectives ............................................................................................................. 2

II. Safe Routes to Schools Program ..............................................................................................2
2.1 Federal Safe Routes to School Program.......................................................................... 3
Safe Routes to School Program Under SAFETEA-LU ..................................................... 3
2.2 Transportation Alternatives and SRTS under MAP-21 ................................................... 4
2.3 State Safe Routes to School Program ........................................................................... 5
2.3.A Infrastructure Projects ...................................................................................... 6
2.3.B Non-infrastructure Projects .............................................................................. 6
2.3.C Materials and Regional Support Program (MRSP) ........................................... 7
2.3.D Planning Assistance Program ........................................................................... 7
2.3.E ADOT Traffic Safety for School Areas Guidelines .............................................. 7
2.4 Local Programs .............................................................................................................. 8
III.

Community & Stakeholder Engagement ...........................................................................11
3.1 Technical Advisory Committee ................................................................................... 12
3.2 Project Initiation ......................................................................................................... 13
3.3 Phase One Public Involvement: Existing and Future Conditions ................................ 13
3.3.A Youth Workshop ............................................................................................... 13

i

3.3.B Community Open House Meeting #1 .............................................................. 15
3.3.C Survey Findings ............................................................................................... 16
3.4 Phase Two Public Involvement: Plan for Improvements ............................................ 19
IV.

Study Area Existing Conditions .........................................................................................20
4.1 Rio Rico Community Setting ....................................................................................... 20
4.2 Topography ................................................................................................................. 22
4.3 Cultural Resources ...................................................................................................... 22
4.4 Land Use ...................................................................................................................... 24
4.4.A Rio Rico Northwest .......................................................................................... 24
4.4.B Rio Rico Northeast .......................................................................................... 25
4.4.C Rio Rico Southwest .......................................................................................... 26
4.4.D Rio Rico Southeast........................................................................................... 27
4.5 Wildlife Linkage Zone .................................................................................................. 30
4.6 Density ........................................................................................................................ 30
4.7 Existing Vehicular Traffic Patterns in Rio Rico ............................................................ 32
4.8 Crash Data Analysis ...................................................................................................... 32

V.

Community Characteristics – A Demographic and Socioeconomic Review........................34
5.1 Population ................................................................................................................... 34
5.2 Age................................................................................................................................ 35
5.3 Environmental Justice .................................................................................................. 35
5.4 Race and Ethnicity ........................................................................................................ 36
5.5 Income.......................................................................................................................... 38
5.6 Rio Rico Commuting Habits .......................................................................................... 39

VI.

Significant Study Area Corridors & Activity Centers ..........................................................42
6.1 Rio Rico High School /Mountain View Elementary/ San Cayetano Elementary School
..................................................................................................................................... 44
6.2 West Frontage Road..................................................................................................... 45

ii

6.3 Garrett’s (Rio Rico Plaza) .............................................................................................. 46
6.4 Pendleton Drive............................................................................................................ 47
6.5 Rio Rico Drive to Pendleton Drive ................................................................................ 48
6.6 Avenida Coatimundi ..................................................................................................... 49
6.7 Coatimundi Middle School ........................................................................................... 50
6.8 Ruby Road: I-19 east to the Santa Cruz River .............................................................. 51
6.9 Pena Blanca Elementary School/Calabasas Middle School ......................................... 52
VII. Bicycle & Pedestrian Needs & Deficiencies .......................................................................53
7.1 SRTS Hot Spots ............................................................................................................. 53
7.2 Difficult Intersections ................................................................................................... 54
7.3 Difficult Pedestrian Crossings....................................................................................... 55
7.4 Narrow Bridge Crossings .............................................................................................. 55
7.5 Priority Underserved Roadways................................................................................... 57
7.6 Key System Disconnects.............................................................................................. 58
VIII. Introduction of Multimodal Facility Types ..........................................................................60
8.1 Federal Highway Administration Four E’s .................................................................... 60
8.2 Resource Documents ................................................................................................... 60
8.3 Bikeway and Pedestrian Facility Definitions ................................................................ 61
8.4 Types of Bicyclists ......................................................................................................... 67
8.5 Other Definitions .......................................................................................................... 68
IX. Existing Bicycle & Pedestrian Facilities in Rio Rico .........................................................69
9.1 Bicycle Lane/Bicycle Path ............................................................................................. 69
9.2 Juan Bautista de Anza National Historic Trail (Anza Trail) ........................................... 69
9.3 Shared Use Paths ......................................................................................................... 70
9.4 Trailheads ..................................................................................................................... 71
9.5 Sidewalks ...................................................................................................................... 71
9.6 Shoulders ...................................................................................................................... 72

iii

9.7 Local Trails and Multiuse Trails .................................................................................... 72
9.8 Bikeable Residential Streets ......................................................................................... 73
X. Suggested Facilities & Design Elements for Rio Rico ...........................................................73
10.1 Bike Routes/Shared Roadways .................................................................................. 74
10.2 Paved Shoulders ......................................................................................................... 76
10.3 Bike Lanes ................................................................................................................... 77
10.4 Shared Use Paths ....................................................................................................... 78
10.5 Multipurpose Trails ..................................................................................................... 80
10.6 Sidewalks .................................................................................................................... 82
10.7 Signage ....................................................................................................................... 83
10.8 At-grade railroad crossings ........................................................................................ 84
10.9 Narrow Bridges........................................................................................................... 86
10.10 Mitigating Intersections with Unpaved Roadways .................................................. 86
10.11 Pedestrian Crossings ................................................................................................ 87
10.12 Accessibility .............................................................................................................. 88
10.13 Trailheads ................................................................................................................... 91
XI.

Evaluation Criteria ............................................................................................................94
11.1 The Importance of Evaluation Criteria ....................................................................... 94
11.2 Introduction and Description of the Evaluation Criteria ............................................ 94

XII. Plan of Improvements ......................................................................................................97
XIII. Preliminary Cost Estimates ............................................................................................. 124
Bike Routes ................................................................................................................ 124
Paved Shoulders ........................................................................................................ 124
Shared Use Paths ...................................................................................................... 125
Sidewalks ................................................................................................................... 125
Crosswalks ................................................................................................................. 125
Rio Rico Project Highlights ........................................................................................ 125

iv

XIV. Implementation Plan ...................................................................................................... 135
14.1 Funding Sources & Cost Sharing Strategies ............................................................... 135
MAP-21 Overview ..................................................................................................... 135
Safe Routes to Schools .............................................................................................. 136
14.2 Acquisition & Development Strategies .................................................................... 140
14.3 Awareness, Encouragement, Education & Volunteerism Strategies........................ 141
14.4 TOOLBOX OF EDUCATIONAL MATERIALS ................................................................. 142
Special Events ............................................................................................................ 142
Classroom Instruction............................................................................................... 143
Safety Campaigns ..................................................................................................... 143
Community Programs ............................................................................................... 144
14.5 TOOLBOX OF ENCOURAGEMENT IDEAS ................................................................... 144
Walk/Bike to School Days ......................................................................................... 144
Competitions ............................................................................................................. 144
Walking School Buses and Bike Trains ...................................................................... 145
Carpooling Promotion ............................................................................................... 145
14.6 Other Supporting Policies .......................................................................................... 146
XV. References and Resources ................................................................................................ 148

v

List of Figures
Figure 1: Regional Context Map................................................................................................... 1
Figure 2: Project Study Area Map .............................................................................................. 21
Figure 3: Rio Rico Properties Master Plan ................................................................................. 22
Figure 4: Topography Map ......................................................................................................... 23
Figure 5: Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map ........................................................................... 28
Figure 6: County Zoning Map ..................................................................................................... 29
Figure 7: Wildlife Linkage Map .................................................................................................. 30
Figure 8: Density Map ................................................................................................................ 31
Figure 9: Crash Data Locations Map .......................................................................................... 33
Figure 10: Minority Populations Map .......................................................................................... 40
Figure 11: Hispanic Origins Map .................................................................................................. 41
Figure 12: Existing Conditions and Focus Areas .......................................................................... 43
Figure 13: Existing Needs & Deficiencies Map............................................................................. 59
Figure 14: Typical Bike Path Cross-section .................................................................................. 62
Figure 15: Typical Bike Lane Cross-section .................................................................................. 62
Figure 16: Typical Bike Route Cross-section ................................................................................ 63
Figure 17: Typical Shared Roadway Marking with no On-Street Parking .................................... 75
Figure 18: Typical Shared Roadway Cross Section....................................................................... 76
Figure 19: Typical Shared Use Path.............................................................................................. 79
Figure 20: Typical Multipurpose Trail .......................................................................................... 81
Figure 21: MAG Std. Detail 230 .................................................................................................... 82
Figure 22: MUTCD, W11-1 ........................................................................................................... 83
Figure 23: MUTCD, W16-1P ......................................................................................................... 83
Figure 24: Typical Bike Route Pavement Marking ....................................................................... 83
Figure 25: Desired Railroad Crossing Condition .......................................................................... 84
Figure 26(a): Desired Cattle Guard Details ................................................................................... 85
Figure 26(b): Detailed Grille .......................................................................................................... 85
Figure 27: Typical Pedestrian Crossing Signing & Marking .......................................................... 87
Figure 28: Sample Major Trailhead Design .................................................................................. 92
Figure 29: Sample Minor Trailhead Design .................................................................................. 93
Figure 30: Short Term (5-Year) Plan of Improvements .............................................................. 118
Figure 31: Medium Term (10-Year) Plan of Improvements ....................................................... 119
Figure 32: Long Term (20-Year) Plan of Improvements ............................................................. 120
Figure 33: Plan of Improvements – All Projects......................................................................... 121

vi

List of Tables
Table 1: Mountain View Elementary School Mode Split ............................................................ 9
Table 2: Pena Blanca Elementary School Mode Split ................................................................. 9
Table 3: San Cayetano Elementary School Mode Split ............................................................. 10
Table 4: Calabasas Middle School Mode Split .......................................................................... 10
Table 5: Coatimundi Middle School Split .................................................................................. 11
Table 6: TAC Members.............................................................................................................. 12
Table 7: Survey Findings ........................................................................................................... 16
Table 8: Existing Vehicular Traffic ............................................................................................. 32
Table 9: Rio Rico Population & Growth Rate ............................................................................ 34
Table 10: Rio Rico Age Distribution ............................................................................................ 35
Table 11: 2010 Racial Demographics .......................................................................................... 37
Table 12: 2010 Origin (Ethnicity Demographics) ........................................................................ 37
Table 13: Median Family Income................................................................................................ 38
Table 14: Rio Rico Commuting Habits ........................................................................................ 39
Table 15: Technical Accessibility Provisions ............................................................................... 89
Table 16: Suggested Plan of Improvements ............................................................................... 99
Table 17: Summary of Suggested Short, Medium, and Long Term Projects ............................ 122
Table 18: Project Highlights – Sidewalks .................................................................................. 126
Table 19: Project Highlights – Shared Used Paths .................................................................... 129
Table 20: Project Highlights – Paved Shoulders ....................................................................... 132
Table 21: Potential Funding Sources ........................................................................................ 137

vii

Appendix A – University of Arizona Cooperative Extension SRTS Case Studies
A.1
Mountain View Elementary School
A.2
Pena Blanca Elementary and Calabasas Middle School
A.3
Coatimundi Middle School

Appendix B – Youth Workshop
B.1
PowerPoint Presentation
B.2
Student Written Responses
B.3
Student Regional Map Mark-up

Appendix C – Community Open House #1
Sign in sheet
C.1
C.2
PPT with survey results
C.3
Scanned maps from mapping exercise
C.4
Comment Forms

Appendix D – Community Open House #2
D.1
Meeting Summary
D.2
Sign in sheet
D.3
Meeting Notice
D.4
Fact Sheet
D.5
Presentation Boards
D.6
Written Comments Received

Appendix E – Plan of Improvements Matrix

viii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Santa Cruz County was awarded funding from the Arizona Department of Transportation
(ADOT) Planning Assistance for Rural Areas (PARA) program to prepare the Rio Rico Walking
and Biking 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.
The Project Study Area encompasses the greater Rio Rico area which is approximately 62
square miles. Rio Rico is an unincorporated area of Santa Cruz County located approximately 10
miles north of the City of Nogales and the US/Mexico International border and 55 miles south
of Tucson. Rio Rico, meaning “Rich River” in Spanish, began to develop in the late 1960’s by a
master planned community developer from Florida. Miles of public roads were platted and
constructed over the years, many not in conformance with typical or modern roadway design
standards and specifications. In general, existing roadways in Rio Rico are noticeably devoid of
facilities for bicycles and pedestrians.
Study Purpose & Objectives
The purpose of the Rio Rico Walking and Biking Study is to enable Santa Cruz County to
establish a program for the construction of bike lanes and sidewalks that are desired to provide
safe and convenient pedestrian and bicycle access and connectivity to select Santa Cruz Valley
Unified School District No. 35 facilities as well as use for the general public for transportation
and recreational purposes.
Study objectives identified by project stakeholders include the following:
 Develop a program for the prioritization and construction of bike lanes and sidewalks in
Rio Rico.
 Map a network of bicycle and pedestrian routes that safely connect the Rio Rico activity
centers and adjacent land uses.
 Identify pedestrian and bicycle route deficiencies in terms of safety and system
connectivity.
 Identify improvement projects that will address the deficiencies.
 Develop planning-level estimates for the improvements.

i

 Identify potential funding sources.
 Prioritize the improvements into near-term (5 year), mid-term (10 year), and long-term
(20 year) implementation projects.
 Develop a Final Report that includes the plan of improvements and final
recommendations.
Community Outreach and Engagement
A Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) was established to provide local input and direction in
guiding the consultant’s efforts throughout the Rio Rico Walking and Biking Study process. The
TAC included representatives from the following agencies/organizations:








Santa Cruz County
Santa Cruz Valley Unified 35 School District
Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT)
Southeastern Arizona Government Organization (SEAGO)
Residents of Rio Rico
Rio Rico Properties, Inc.
University of Arizona – Santa Cruz County Cooperative Extension

In addition to the TAC guidance, the process included walking and biking surveys, a youth
workshop with Rio Rico High School students and two community open house meetings
conducted at key junctures in the planning process.
The study process was essentially conducted in three broad steps; 1) inventory of existing
conditions and deficiencies, 2) exploration of future conditions and needs and, 3) the
preparation of a plan of improvements. The Plan of Improvements is the focal point of the
document as it identifies a series of pedestrian and bicycle-related improvement projects
suggested for implementation in short term (5 year), medium term (10 year) and long term (20
year) time horizons.
Existing Conditions and Deficiencies
An extensive body of existing data was collected by the consultant team in order to gain a
comprehensive understanding and inventory of the existing conditions, opportunities and
constraints of the Rio Rico study area. Existing studies, US Census data, extensive field
investigations and anecdotal data pertinent to Rio Rico were reviewed and summarized.
Existing topography, socioeconomic data, roadway inventory, crash data, traffic counts and

ii

other related information was identified and documented. Existing facilities and deficiencies
were categorized and described into the following categories: Safe Routes to Schools “Hot
Spots”, difficult intersections, difficult pedestrian crossings, priority underserved roadways,
narrow bridge crossings and key system disconnects. The various deficiency types are described
and mapped.
Future Conditions and Needs
Future population growth, land use types, socio-economics and planned transportation-related
improvements are described in detail. The information introduces a variety of pedestrian and
bicycle facility types, descriptions and design criteria associated with each facility type. Through
input obtained from the survey, youth workshop, TAC and community open house, the focus of
future conditions analysis focused on several significant study area corridors and key activity
centers in Rio Rico. These key corridors and activity centers are; 1) Rio Rico High School/San
Cayetano Elementary/Mountain View Elementary school cluster, 2) West Frontage Road (I-19),
3) Garrett’s (Rio Rico Plaza), 4) Pendleton Drive, 5) Rio Rico Drive from I-19 to Pendleton Drive,
6) Avenida Coatimundi, 7) Coatimundi Middle School, 8) Ruby Road from I-19 to the Santa Cruz
River, and 9) Calabasas Middle School/Pena Blanca Elementary school area. For each of the
nine (9) corridors and activity centers, extensive field investigations and analysis was conducted
to identify various types of proposed projects to enhance the safety and non-motorized
mobility in these areas.

iii

Plan of Improvements
Together with additional input received from the TAC and community workshops, a series of
alternative projects were identified by the consultant team. The alternative projects were then
screened using a series of eight (8) evaluation criteria designed to objectively and effectively
evaluate various types of bicycle and pedestrian improvement projects for future
implementation.
In total, the Plan for Improvements identifies 69 total short term, medium term and long term
potential pedestrian and bicycle related improvement projects in Rio Rico. The breakdown of
potential projects by facility type is as follows:
Bike Route/Shared Roadway
Intersection Improvements
Multipurpose Trails
Paved Shoulders
Shared Use Path
Sidewalks
Pedestrian Crossings
Narrow Bridge Crossings

19
3
5
12
14
4
8
4

TOTAL

69

A large matrix was utilized to describe each of the projects identified in the Plan of
Improvements, each having its own description with notes citing opportunities and challenges
specifically associated with each improvement project. The Plan of Improvements also includes
a series of planning-level cost estimates for project stakeholders to better understand the
magnitude of costs associated with each improvement type. Project level cost estimates are
provided for a sampling of each facility type. An implementation plan accompanies the Plan of
Improvements, offering the reader a broad overview of potential funding sources, cost sharing
strategies and Safe Routes to School policies to enhance education and awareness of current
programs.

iv

I.

INTRODUCTION

Santa Cruz County was awarded
funding from the Arizona Department
of Transportation (ADOT) Planning
Assistance for Rural Areas (PARA)
program to prepare the Rio Rico
Walking and Biking 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, nonmotorized and transit modes of
travel.

Figure 1: Regional Context Map

The University of Wisconsin and the
Robert Wood Johnson Foundation
recently ranked Santa Cruz County as
the healthiest county in Arizona.
While this distinction certainly is worthy of some “bragging rights” for Santa Cruz County,
one of the factors/criteria used in this ranking was “healthy recreation facilities” – in this
category Santa Cruz County ranked dead last in Arizona. The study did find that on average,
Santa Cruz County residents had increased physical activity and reduced obesity rates
compared to the state and national averages. This bittersweet paradox is testimony to the
need that local residents and visitors alike recognize in Rio Rico – additional sidewalks, trails
and bicycle lanes are needed to enhance non-motorized mobility in the Rio Rico area.
1.1 Study Purpose and Intent
The purpose of the Rio Rico Walking and Biking Study is to enable Santa Cruz County to
establish a program for the construction of bike lanes and sidewalks that are desired to
provide safe and convenient pedestrian and bicycle access and connectivity to select Santa
Cruz Valley Unified School District No. 35 facilities as well as use by the general public for
transportation and recreational purposes. The School District and County have completed a
handful of trail projects over the years, but providing additional sidewalk, bike lane and/or
trail facilities to safely and adequately connect schools to other Rio Rico activity centers and
1

neighborhoods is the primary purpose of the Rio Rico Walking and Biking Study. Schools in
particular are not well-served by bicycle and pedestrian access and the School District and
County would like to enhance opportunities for bicycle and pedestrian modes of travel to
engage residents in healthy lifestyle choices without the fear of bicycle and pedestrian
conflicts with vehicles.
1.2 Study Objectives
Study objectives identified by the Project Team and supported by the TAC for the Rio Rico
Walking and Biking Study are identified below.
 Develop a program for the prioritization and construction of bike lanes and sidewalks
in Rio Rico.
 Map a network of bicycle and pedestrian routes that safely connect the Rio Rico
activity centers and adjacent land uses.
 Identify pedestrian and bicycle route deficiencies in terms of safety and system
connectivity.
 Identify improvement projects that will address the deficiencies.
 Develop planning-level estimates for the improvements.
 Identify potential funding sources.
 Prioritize the improvements into near-term (5 year), mid-term (10 year), and longterm (20 year) implementation projects.
 Develop a Final Report that includes the plan of improvements and final
recommendations.

II. SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOLS PROGRAM
While the Rio Rico Walking and Biking Study evaluates existing conditions and recommends
improvements across the Rio Rico community, many of the areas in which improvements will
occur are directly adjacent to a school or will provide improved safety and convenience for
students traveling to/from school on foot or by bicycle. Safe Routes to School funding and
assistance may ultimately play a large role in implementing the recommended
improvements. Therefore, the purpose and objectives of the federal Safe Routes to School
program, the state Safe Routes to School program through ADOT, and local existing efforts
will be considered in developing the Rio Rico Plan.

2

2.1 Federal Safe Routes to School Program

Safe Routes to School Program Under SAFETEA-LU
The federal Safe Routes to School (SRTS) program is a Federal-Aid program of the U.S.
Department of Transportation's Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). The program was
initially created as part of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act:
A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) in 2005. The program provides funds to states to
substantially improve the ability of elementary and middle school students to walk and
bicycle to school safely. The purposes of the SRTS program are:
1. to enable and encourage children, including those with disabilities, to walk and
bicycle to school;
2. to make bicycling and walking to school a safer and more appealing transportation
alternative, thereby encouraging a healthy and active lifestyle from an early age; and
3. to facilitate the planning, development, and implementation of projects and activities
that will improve safety and reduce traffic, fuel consumption, and air pollution in the
vicinity (approximately 2 miles) of primary and middle schools (Grades K-8).
Each state administers its own program and develops its own procedures to solicit and select
projects for funding. The program establishes two distinct types of funding opportunities:
infrastructure projects (engineering improvements) and non-infrastructure related activities
(such as education, enforcement and encouragement programs). While each state tailors its
program to address state-wide needs, there are a number of desired outcomes for any SRTS
program, including:














Increased bicycle, pedestrian, and traffic safety;
More children walking and bicycling to and from schools;
Decreased traffic congestion;
Improved childhood health;
Reduced childhood obesity;
Encouragement of healthy and active lifestyles;
Improved air quality;
Improved community safety;
Reduced fuel consumption;
Increased community security;
Enhanced community accessibility;
Increased community involvement;
Improvements to the physical environment that increase the ability to walk and
bicycle to and from schools;
3

 Improved partnerships among schools, local municipalities, parents, and other
community groups, including non-profit organizations; and,
 Increased interest in bicycle and pedestrian accommodations throughout a
community.
In order to achieve these desired outcomes, FHWA recommends that SRTS efforts
incorporate five components, often referred to as the “5 E’s”. The 5 E’s are:
1. Engineering – Creating operational and physical improvements to the infrastructure
surrounding schools that reduce speeds and potential conflicts with motor vehicle
traffic, and establish safer and fully accessible crossings, walkways, trails and
bikeways.
2. Education – Teaching children about the broad range of transportation choices,
instructing them in important lifelong bicycling and walking safety skills, and
launching driver safety campaigns in the vicinity of schools.
3. Enforcement – Partnering with local law enforcement to ensure traffic laws are
obeyed in the vicinity of schools (this includes enforcement of speeds, yielding to
pedestrians in crossings , and proper walking and bicycling behaviors), and initiating
community enforcement such as crossing guard programs.
4. Encouragement – Using events and activities to promote walking and bicycling.
5. Evaluation – Monitoring and documenting outcomes and trends through the
collection of data, including the collection of data before and after the
intervention(s).
The federal Safe Routes to School Program that began under SAFETEA-LU apportioned nearly
$1.15 billion to states as of September 30, 2012. These dedicated funds have benefited more
than 13,000 schools. Funds apportioned for the SRTS Program prior to the passage of the
latest transportation bill, Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21 st Century (MAP-21), are
available until expended. The State of Arizona has less than $5M in previous SRTS Program
funds unexpended. ADOT has not announced when these remaining funds will be allocated
to projects.
2.2 Transportation Alternatives and SRTS under MAP-21
In July 2012, Congress passed a new transportation bill: Moving Ahead for Progress in the
21st Century (MAP-21). MAP-21 eliminated dedicated SRTS funds as of October 2012. SRTS
activities are now eligible to compete for federal funding alongside other programs,
including the Transportation Enhancements program and Recreational Trails program, as
part of a new program called Transportation Alternatives.

4

Approximately $800 million year in Transportation Alternatives funds flows to the state DOTs
and large metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) throughout the country. Arizona’s
Transportation Alternatives apportionment is $16.8M for 2013 and $17M for 2013. A portion
is allocated to the Recreational Trails Program. Half of the remaining funds are allocated by
population to metropolitan planning organizations and rural areas. Within each of those
areas, funding will be allocated to individual projects and programs through grant
competitions. Arizona has chosen to transfer the remaining 50 percent of the Transportation
Alternatives funds to other programs, as allowed under MAP-21. As a result, the importance
of this study in identifying and documenting deficiencies and improvement projects and their
costs make for stronger grant applications in the face of reduced funding levels and
increased competition.
The Transportation Alternatives projects funded under MAP-21 require applicants to make
up to 20 percent of the project costs. Each state may provide some funding to offset the
applicant’s required match. In Arizona, the applicant must provide a 5.7 percent match (cash
only) and the state will provide the remaining 14.3 percent.
2.3 State Safe Routes to School Program
ADOT administers the state Safe Routes to School program, providing funding for local
projects and programs and assisting local jurisdictions through training and other technical
assistance. ADOT has a Safe Routes to School Coordinator who serves as a central point of
contact for the state.
The ADOT SRTS program continues the three main purposes defined in the federal SRTS
program. ADOT is currently preparing guidance on the new Transportation Alternatives
program that SRTS funds will be allocated under. The following information is reflective of
the SRTS program under SAFETEA-LU funds. There may be changes to the types of projects
and criteria used for SRTS funding as ADOT implements the new requirements of MAP-21.
The ADOT SRTS program continues the three main purposes defined in the federal SRTS
program. There are two main criteria for eligibility for ADOT SRTS funding:
1.

Program funding is only for elementary and middle schools.

2.

Programs and projects must be within a two-mile radius of the school.

ADOT provides funding for projects/programs in four categories:
1.

Infrastructure Projects

2.

Non-infrastructure Projects
5

3.

Materials and Regional Support Program

4.

Planning Assistance

2.3.A Infrastructure Projects
Infrastructure projects include the planning, design, and construction of infrastructurerelated projects that will substantially improve the ability of students to walk and bicycle to
school. Infrastructure projects may include, but are not limited to:
 Sidewalk improvements - new sidewalks, sidewalk widening, sidewalk gap closures,
sidewalk repairs, curbs, gutters, and curb ramps.
 Traffic calming and speed reduction improvements - roundabouts, bulb-outs, speed
humps, raised crossings, raised intersections, median refuges, narrowed traffic lanes,
lane reductions, full- or half-street closures, automated speed enforcement, and
variable speed limits.
 Pedestrian and bicycle crossing improvements - crossings, median refuges, raised
crossings, raised intersections, traffic control devices (including new or upgraded
traffic signals, pavement markings, traffic stripes, in-roadway crossing lights, flashing
beacons, bicycle-sensitive signal actuation devices, pedestrian countdown signals,
permanent vehicle speed feedback signs, and pedestrian activated signal upgrades),
and sight distance improvements.
 On-street bicycle facilities - new or upgraded bicycle lanes, widened outside lanes or
roadway shoulders, geometric improvements, turning lanes, channelization and
roadway realignment, traffic signs, and pavement markings.
 Off-street bicycle and pedestrian facilities - exclusive multi-use bicycle and pedestrian
trails and pathways that are separated from a roadway.
 Secure bicycle parking facilities - bicycle parking racks, bicycle lockers, designated
areas with safety lighting, and covered bicycle shelters. Traffic diversion
improvements: separation of pedestrians and bicycles from vehicular traffic adjacent
to school facilities, and traffic diversion away from school zones or designated routes
to a school.
 Traffic diversion improvements in the vicinity of schools.

2.3.B Non-infrastructure Projects
Non-infrastructure projects are non-construction activities that focus on three areas of
support and effort:

6

 Education – in-classroom, campus-wide or community wide efforts to educate
students, parents and motorists about safe practices, the health effects of walking
and biking, the impact to the environment, and the broad range of transportation
choices.
 Enforcement - ensuring that traffic laws are obeyed (including enforcement of
speeds, yielding to pedestrians in crossings and proper walking and bicycling
behaviors, and initiating community enforcement activities).
 Encouragement - bike, pedestrian and school-related giveaways and other materials
that encourage biking and walking to schools.

2.3.C Materials and Regional Support Program (MRSP)
The MRSP serves state, regional, and local government agencies, as well as non-profit
organizations by providing funding for purchasing educational and encouragement materials
for use in regional, countywide, or school district wide SRTS programs, and providing funding
for statewide, countywide, or school district wide workshops relating to SRTS. All activities
must be statewide, countywide, school district wide or otherwise regional in scope.
2.3.D Planning Assistance Program
The Planning Assistance Program is for small or resource-poor elementary and middle
schools, school districts, non-profit organizations, and communities. The intent of the
program is to provide the local jurisdiction or group technical resources needed to plan and
implement their own SRTS projects. As a condition of the program, the applicant will apply
for the next cycle of SRTS infrastructure and/or non-infrastructure funding.
2.3.E ADOT Traffic Safety for School Areas Guidelines
In order to promote uniformity throughout Arizona and improve safety conditions around
schools, ADOT has developed guidelines for traffic safety in school areas. This document
provides guidance on key components that promote safety, from the siting of schools to the
design of pedestrian overpasses. For additional information please see the following:
http://www.azdot.gov/docs/business/adot-traffic-safety-for-school-area-guidelines.pdf
There are four sections within the guidelines that are most applicable to the conditions at
and around the schools in Rio Rico:
 Section 5 Off-Site Safety
 Section 7 Arizona School Crossing Controls
 Section 8 Pedestrian Traffic Signals
7

 Section 9 Pedestrian Overpasses and Underpasses
These sections will be referenced when identifying potential improvements and developing
design guidelines as part of the Rio Rico Walking and Biking Study.
2.4 Local Programs
Local Safe Routes to School efforts provide for on-the-ground implementation of programs
and projects. In Rio Rico, the University of Arizona Cooperative Extension provides SRTS
program support at the three elementary schools and two middle schools. The program
organizes regular Walk-to-School events, sponsors bike education and bike rodeos, and
supports mileage clubs and "Fit & Fun! Challenges.” The Cooperative Extension’s work
began in Rio Rico in 2009 and is funded through SRTS funding from ADOT.
In addition to the programmatic efforts at the Rio Rico schools, the Cooperative Extension
has been collaborating with community members to evaluate and implement infrastructure
improvements through donations and volunteer efforts. The Cooperative Extension has
worked with the schools and the community to identify preliminary needs around the
schools. These Existing Facilities and Needs Assessments for Mountain View Elementary
School, Coatimundi Middle School, Pena Blanca Elementary School and Calabasas Middle
School provide an inventory of on-the-ground facilities and identify potential improvements.
The Rio Rico Walking and Biking Study builds upon these initial assessments and in many
cases are included in the Plan for Improvements.
The five elementary and middle schools in Rio Rico conduct semi-annual student travel tallies
to understand mode split for students traveling to/from school. The following charts
represent the results from the most current tally, conducted in October 2012.

8

Table 1: Mountain View Elementary School Mode Split
70.0%
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
Arrival

30.0%

Departure
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
Walk

Bike

School Bus

Family
Vehicle

Carpool

Other

Source: University of Arizona Cooperative Extension, SRTS

Table 2: Pena Blanca Elementary School Mode Split
70.0%
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
Arrival
30.0%

Departure

20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
Walk

Bike

School Bus

Family
Vehicle

Source: University of Arizona Cooperative Extension, SRTS

9

Carpool

Other

Table 3: San Cayetano Elementary School Mode Split
90.0%
80.0%
70.0%
60.0%
50.0%
Arrival

40.0%

Departure
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
Walk

Bike

School Bus

Family
Vehicle

Carpool

Other

Source: University of Arizona Cooperative Extension, SRTS

Table 4: Calabasas Middle School Mode Split
90.0%
80.0%
70.0%
60.0%
50.0%
Arrival

40.0%

Departure
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
Walk

Bike

School Bus

Family
Vehicle

Source: University of Arizona Cooperative Extension, SRTS

10

Carpool

Other

Table 5: Coatimundi Middle School Mode Split
80.0%
70.0%
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%

Arrival

30.0%

Departure

20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
Walk

Bike

School Bus

Family
Vehicle

Carpool

Other

Source: University of Arizona Cooperative Extension, SRTS

What is evident in the review of Table’s 1-5 is that arrivals and departures from Rio Rico
schools are disproportionately dependent upon the school bus and family vehicle modes of
transportation. In each case, there are very few children currently walking or biking to school
in Rio Rico.

III.

COMMUNITY & STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT

Consistent with the values and mission embraced by the ADOT Communications division, the
Rio Rico Walking and Biking Study provided for a broad dissemination of information to
project stakeholders. The public involvement process embraced innovation, commitment,
transparency and trustworthiness in working with all project stakeholders.
The success of the Rio Rico Walking and Biking Study was greatly enhanced by the inclusion
of broad, meaningful, community-based forums to provide opportunities to inform residents
and solicit their feedback and support at key junctures in the study process. Stakeholders
with a vested interest in the Rio Rico Walking and Biking Study were afforded the
opportunity to participate in the process, have their voice heard and documented for the

11

public record and learn how their input can affect decisions being made throughout the
course of the study process.
3.1 Technical Advisory Committee
A Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) was established to guide and coordinate the
consultant’s efforts throughout the Rio Rico Walking and Biking Study process. TAC input and
oversight was instrumental to developing a plan that achieves plan objectives. The following
agencies and individuals were included on the TAC for the Rio Rico Walking and Biking Study:
Table 6: TAC Members

AGENCY

CONTACT

AZ Dept. of Transportation

Justin Feek, Multimodal Planning Division, Project
Manager

AZ Dept. of Transportation

Linda Ritter, Communication and Community Partnerships

AZ Dept. of Transportation

James Lemmon, Environmental Planning Group

AZ Dept. of Transportation

Danny Granillo, Tucson Engineering District

Santa Cruz County

Mary Dahl, Director of Community Development

Santa Cruz County

Jesus Valdez, Public Works Director

Santa Cruz Valley Unified 35 School Stephen Schadler, Director of Curriculum and Instruction
District
Rich Rodney, Superintendent
Southeastern Arizona
Organization (SEAGO)

Governments Randy Heiss

Residents of Rio Rico

Robin White

Rio Rico Properties, Inc.

Sheila Vasquez

UA-Santa Cruz Cooperative Extension

Sarah Prasek

Public and stakeholder engagement can essentially be identified in three project phases that
are described below.

12

3.2 Project Initiation
A Project Initiation Meeting with the ADOT PM and Santa Cruz County staff members was
held to gain a more clear understanding of study expectations and guide the final
preparations of the work plan, schedule and budget.
On June 5, 2012, the first Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) Meeting was held at Santa
Cruz county offices in Nogales. TAC members received a presentation on the project
background and study objectives as well as discussed the role and expectations of the TAC.
The focus of the meeting was to review the project work plan and schedule and to receive
feedback from TAC members on existing conditions and/or studies they felt were an
important influence on this study. TAC members also got to express study goals, objectives
and concerns that they felt were important to evaluate over the course of the study.
On July 30, 2012, the Project Team conducted a Field Study of the Project Study Area. ADOT,
Santa Cruz County, U of A Cooperative Extension SRTS and the project consultant spent the
majority of one day traversing the Project Study Area by vehicle. The Project Team together
explored and recorded many existing system inventory conditions and deficiencies, activity
centers, key SRTS focus areas, safety trouble spots and crash locations.
3.3 Phase One Public Involvement: Existing and Future Conditions
The first phase of the public involvement process for the Rio Rico Walking and Biking Study
focused on soliciting input on the existing and future conditions and deficiencies and
exploring desired future improvements with residents, youth, community leaders and
elected officials. A Youth Workshop and Community Open House were held.

3.3.A Youth Workshop
The Rio Rico Walking and Biking Study Youth Workshop was held on October 4, 2012, at Rio
Rico High School. Approximately 20 students representing student government (StuGo),
advanced placement students and members of the Rio Rico High School cross country team
attended this interactive session.
The purpose of the Youth Workshop was to conduct an interactive survey of walking and
bicycling attitudes and behaviors of the high school students, as well as identify specific
issues, concerns and/or future considerations for pedestrian and bicycle facilities in Rio Rico.
To supplement the findings from the interactive survey, students were asked to fill out a
form that identified what streets they tend to walk and bicycle the most frequently. This
information allowed the Project Team to match the general trends to the specific
areas/corridors that students are using in their daily routines.

13

Upon the completion of the interactive survey, the students participated in a mapping
exercise. Youth survey findings are shown in Table 7. Students utilized a large aerial
photograph of the study area to identify existing deficiencies at specific locations and
identify areas where specific facility improvements should be made.

Photos from Youth Workshop

14

3.3.B Community Open House Meeting #1
On November 15, 2012, the first of two community open
house meetings was held at Calabasas Middle School. The
purpose of the open house was to present the existing
conditions and deficiencies findings to the attendees,
solicit their feedback on the information presented and
to conduct an attitudes and behaviors survey in similar
fashion to the Youth Workshop. Sixteen community
members attended the community open house.
Attendees provided a tremendous amount of insight and
guidance relating to existing conditions, thoughts on
future improvements and were engaged in the
interactive survey and mapping exercises. Please see
Appendix C for a complete summary of Community Open
House #1.

15

3.3.C Survey Findings
The following is a summary of the findings from the survey conducted to solicit feedback on
Rio Rico resident pedestrian and bicycling attitudes and behaviors. This survey was
conducted at the Youth Workshop and the Public Open House Meeting. It should be noted
that the survey findings do not represent a statistically valid scientific survey, but is provided
to draw a general understanding of youth and community user habits and patterns of
existing pedestrian and bicycle facility deficiencies in Rio Rico.
Table 7: Survey Findings

Youth
Workshop

Question
1) Are you?
1) Male
2) Female
2) Are You at Least 16 Years or Older?
1) Yes
2) No
3) What Area of Rio Rico do You Live in?
1) Northeast
2) Northwest
3) Southeast
4) Southwest
4) How Long Have You Lived in Rio Rico?
1) 0-2 years
2) 2-5 years
3) 5-10 years
4) 10-15 years
5) 15 + years
How frequently do you walk, jog or run on local streets or paths?
1) Once a month
2) Twice a month
3) 1-2 days a week
4) 3-4 days a week
5) 5-6 days a week
6) Everyday
7) Never

How far on average would you estimate that you walk, jog or run on
paths or trails on a typical trip?
1) ¼ mile or less
2) ¼ mile to ½ mile
3) ½ mile to a 1 mile
4) 1-2 miles
5) 2 + miles

16

Community
Open House
#1

1) 50%
2) 50%

1) 27%
2) 73%

1) 100%
2) 0%

N/A

1) 17%
2) 33%
3) 33%
4) 17%

1) 58%
2) 0%
3) 17%
4) 25%

1) 20%
2) 40%
3) 20%
4) 20%
5) 0%

1) 8%
2) 25%
3) 25%
4) 25%
5) 17%

1) 0%
2) 0%
3) 17%
4) 17%
5) 67%
6) 0%
7) 0%

1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)

1) 17%
2) 17%
3) 0%
4) 17%
5) 33%

1) 0%
2) 7%
3) 7%
4) 50%
5) 36%

7%
7%
14%
37%
28%
7%
0%

Youth
Workshop

Question
6) Never walk, jog or run
When walking, jogging or running, what types of facilities do you tend to
use most frequently?
1) Shoulders of paved roads
2) Sidewalks
3) Shared use pathway
4) Bike path, walking path or trail
5) Unpaved roads
6) Grass or fields
What is the typical purpose of your pedestrian (walk, jog, run) trip on a
street, trail or path in Rio Rico?
1) School
2) Errands/shopping
3) Work
4) Visit a friend/relative
5) Recreation/Exercise
6) Walk dog
7) Running/training
For those who walk to school (or who use existing pathways), what are
the biggest needs to encourage walking to school?
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) Walking is not an option
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) Other

Community
Open House
#1

6) 17%

6) 0%

1) 50%
2) 17%
3) 33%
4) 0%
5) 0%
6) 0%

1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)

60%
7%
13%
0%
20%
0%

1) 22%
2) 33%
3) 0%
4) 0%
5) 44%
6) 0%
7) 0%

1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)

0%
6%
0%
0%
87%
7%
0%

1) 11%
2) 56%

1) 7%
2) 93%

3) 11%
4) 11%
5) 11%

3) 0%
4) 0%
5) 0%

1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)

1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)

0%
13%
60%
13%
7%
7%

6%
0%
27%
0%
7%
0%
60%

10%
0%
30%
15%
45%
0%

How frequently do you bicycle on local streets, paths or trails?
1) Once a month
2) Twice a month
3) 1-2 days a week
4) 3-4 days a week
5) 5-6 days a week
6) Everyday
7) Never

1) 20%
2) 20%
3) 20%
4) 20%
5) 20%
6) 0%
7) 0%

1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)

How far on average would you estimate that you bicycle on paths or
trails on a typical trip?
1) 1 mile or less
2) 1-2 miles
3) 2-5 miles

1) 0%
2) 100%
3) 0%

1) 0%
2) 7%
3) 0%

17

Youth
Workshop

Question
4) 5-10 miles
5) 10 + miles
6) I do not bike
When bicycling, what types of facilities do you tend to use most
frequently?
1) Shoulders of paved roads
2) Shared use pathway
3) Bike path, walking path or trail
4) Unpaved roads/trails
5) Other
6) I do not bike
Which of the following best characterizes your bicycling tendencies?
1) I only ride my bike in my neighborhood or on local streets with
little traffic.
2) I will bicycle outside my neighborhood on off street pathways.
3) I am comfortable riding my bicycle in the roadway alongside
vehicles if the shoulder is wide enough.
4) I am an experienced bicyclist and am willing to ride just about
anywhere.
5) I do not bike.
What is the typical purpose of your bicycle trip on a street, trail or path in
Rio Rico?
1) School
2) Errands/shopping
3) Work
4) Visit a friend/relative
5) Recreation/Exercise
6) Training
7) I do not bike
For those who bicycle to school (or would bike to school), what are the
biggest needs to improve / encourage walking to school?
1) Increase road shoulder or bike lane width
2) Provide additional facilities not in place today (sidewalks, bike
lanes, cross walks, lighting, etc)
3) Enforcing traffic laws
4) I will not bike to school
What are some typical reasons for not bicycling?
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) Not interested in bicycling
Which of the following best represents the type of pedestrian and bicycle
facility improvements you would like to see in Rio Rico?
1) Construct more sidewalks near commercial or activity centers.
2) Construct more sidewalks in residential neighborhoods.

18

Community
Open House
#1

4) 0%
5) 0%
6) 0%

4) 29%
5) 14%
6) 50%

1) 20%
2) 40%
3) 20%
4) 0%
5) 20%
6) 0%

1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)

36%
0%
7%
0%
14%
43%

1) 21%
2) 5%
3) 11%
4) 11%
5) 52%

1)
2)
3)
4)
5)

14%
7%
36%
14%
29%

1) 25%
2) 25%
3) 25%
4) 25%
5) 0%
6) 0%
7) 0%

1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)

7%
0%
0%
0%
62%
0%
31%

1) 17%
2) 50%
3) 17%
4) 17%

1)
2)
3)
4)

0%
100%
0%
0%

1) 25%
2) 50%
3) 25%
4) 0%
5) 0%
6) 0%

1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)

0%
14%
36%
36%
0%
14%

1) 0%
2) 20%

1) 7%
2) 0%

Youth
Workshop

Question
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 system of off-street pathways.
7) Sweep shoulder or bike lane.
8) Step up enforcement of motorist laws

3) 20%
4) 20%
5) 0%
6) 20%
7) 0%
8) 20%

Community
Open House
#1
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)

50%
7%
21%
14%
0%
0%

3.4 Phase Two Public Involvement: Plan for Improvements
The purpose of the second Public Open House (May 22, 2013) was to provide interested residents
and other project stakeholders with an overview and opportunity to comment on Working Paper #
2. Working Paper # 2 includes the suggested Plan of Improvements which identifies and prioritizes
multi-modal transportation projects into short term (5 year), medium term (10 year) and long term
(20 year) planning horizons. Other contents in Working Paper #2 presented at the second Public
Open House included a series of supporting policies and design elements, evaluation criteria used
for prioritizing projects, planning level cost estimates for select projects, and funding sources and
cost sharing strategies that Santa Cruz County can seek out for the implementation of projects.
Meeting attendees were generally supportive of the Plan for Improvements and the
implementation priorities that were identified. Attendees offered additional considerations to the
project team that led to the re-prioritization of one project from a long term to medium term
implementation timeline. Please see Appendix D for a complete summary of Community Open
House #2.

19

IV. STUDY AREA EXISTING CONDITIONS

4.1 Rio Rico Community Setting
The Project Study Area encompasses the greater Rio Rico area which is approximately 62
square miles. Rio Rico is an unincorporated area of Santa Cruz County located approximately
10 miles north of the City of Nogales and the US/Mexico International border and 55 miles
south of Tucson. Please see Figure 1: Regional Context Map. Rio Rico is generally regarded as
having four (4) quadrants: northeast, northwest, southeast and southwest. Please see Figure
2: Project Study Area Map for additional reference.
Rio Rico, meaning “Rich River” in Spanish, sits
at the foot of the San Cayetano Mountains with
a peak elevation of 6,500 feet. Rio Rico itself
sits at an elevation of approximately 3,500 feet
in the Santa Cruz valley. The Santa Cruz River
which runs year round, provides a refuge for a
wide variety of native wildlife found in Rio Rico
that include hawks and various species of
migratory birds, coyotes, fox, javelina and deer.
The wetlands formed in and around the Santa
Cruz River have over the years developed into a home for many migratory bird populations
including various species of ducks and herons. As a result, bird watching has evolved into a
large attraction for visitors to Rio Rico and is very complimentary to the eco-tourism
component of the local economy that is influenced by the premier bird watching activities at
nearby Patagonia Lake.

20

E FRO

Legend

RD
NTAGE

Study Area

n
M

School

Ownership

a

vi

s
W

Coronado N.F

a sh

Sonoita Creek NA

§
¦
¨
RD

19

NTAG
E

C

AM

O
IN

J

EFIN A
OS

State Trust Land
Game and Fish

R

ON D
ET
DL

IDA P A ST

OR

R

r
a C

VIA
S

S a nt

A VEN

AY
ET

A NO

AV
E

A
N
FI
SE

AN
C

P EN

O
IN
M
A
C

JO

N ID A

PA

ST

O

W FR O

Private

uz

Ri

ve

r
CA

FR
O

NT

AG
E

MAR

RD

HI
CA

W

NO
MI

YO

ND

n
nn

R

C
PE

E

OK

ER
CH

A

EL
APP

LL

E

EC

NO

A

RD
AGE
ONT
W FR

E

OC
R O RC U L
CI

O CA
CA MIN

CA
LL

AN

K

C

C ER

ULO
RC
CI

CA

S on

n

NO
RU

VI

P

A I DR

OA

DR

E
AV

PA

R

E

R

AS

BI
BA
UE

EO

OY

E
OT

LA

ẍ

CA
M

CA

O
IN

M

I CO
AR

CA
LL

SA
S

Y

HW

LE

BA

PA

n
n
E R UBY RD

289

2
Miles

Figure 2: Study Area & Ownership Map

D
NTAGE R
D
TAGE R W FRO
E FRON

I

IE

G

PI

RO N
TA
G

I NO

AV

EC

C

WF

AM

X
SA N

SE
O ME X ICO

D

O

AM
AL
R
A

9
28

1

A

O
PR

CA L

0.5

ID

IA
NC

CAM I N

0

N

P

INO

RIO
ON
TA
G

CO
RI

C

CA M

DE

ek

DI

E RD

E
TO
LL
RO
S CA

R

VA

D
RI

DE

EF

C
A
LL
E

TO

R
U
N
O

19

YA

R
CO
A

TO

Cr e

TIM

U

§
¦
¨

N

o it a

C

O RAMAN OT E
C A M IN

21

The area now known as Rio Rico was
originally part of the Baca Float Land
Grant, a tract of more than 100,000 acres
granted to the heirs of the Luis Maria Baca
family by the US Congress. The area was
then divided into approximately 25,000
lots which was equal to one lot for every
woman and child then living in the entire
County of Santa Cruz.

Figure 3: Rio Rico Properties Master Plan

Modern day Rio Rico began to develop in
the late 1960’s by a master planned
community developer from Florida. Miles
of public roads were platted and
constructed over the years, many not in
conformance with typical or modern
roadway
design
standards
and
specifications. In general, existing
roadways in Rio Rico are noticeably devoid of facilities for bicycles and pedestrians.
Interstate 19 bifurcates Rio Rico and serves Rio Rico with 3 traffic interchanges.
4.2 Topography
The varying topography of the study area is a defining feature. The land adjacent to the
Santa Cruz River is generally flat and then quickly rises into low foothills and then into the
distant Atascosa Mountains to the west and San Cayetano Mountains to the east. Traveling
from the western side of the study area to the river, there is approximately a 550-foot
elevation change, and from the eastern side of the study area to the river there is an
elevation change of roughly 700 feet. Within these elevation changes, moderate (5-15%) to
steep (greater than 15%) slopes are found throughout the study area. Please see Figure 4:
Topography Map for additional information regarding the distribution of slopes within the
study area.
4.3 Cultural Resources
The National Register of Historic Places does not include any specific sites within the Rio Rico
study area. However, for state and federally funded projects, prior to the planning and/or
construction of future walking and biking corridors, the Arizona State Historic Preservation
Office should be consulted to identify if certain sites within a proposed alignment may be
eligible for listing on the National Historic Register.
22

E FRO
RD
NTAGE

M

Legend
a

vi

Study Area

s

W

a sh

% Slope
CA

M

O
IN

JO

0-5

S EFIN A

5.1 - 10

19

R

N ID A

PA

ST
O

Above 10

A

ANO

AV
E

JO

DL

CA Y
ET

P EN

O
IN
M
A
C

N
FI
SE

I D A P A ST

OR

uz

Ri

ve

VIA

R

r
a C

S AN

ND
E TO

S a nt

A VEN

r

FR
O

NT

AG
E

O
IN

MAR

RD

HI
CA

W

M
CA

C

DR

A

EL
APP

E

CH

ER

E

EC

NO

A

RD
AGE
ONT
W FR

OK

OC
RO RC U L
CI

O CA
CA MIN

CA
LL

C

ON

E

K

C
PE

Y
AN

R
ULO C E
I RC

CA

LL

S ono
MAN OT

E

TO
R

E
LL
O S CA

NO
RU

P

DE

OA

DR

E
AV

N

A
ID

P AS

A I DR

IA
NC

HW
Y

1

2
Miles

Figure 4: Topography Map

G

ER

E

R

A

SE

O

BI
BA
UE

E
OT

9

OY
LA

O
IN

M

CA
LL

IC O
AR

PA

E R UBY RD

289

D
NTAGE R
D
TAGE R W FRO
E FRON

0.5

28

LE

CA

BA

CA
M

CA L

0

VI

EC

C

SA
S

O

PI

RON
TA
G

AM

XA

D

CAM I N

AM
AL
R
A

WF

SA N
I NO

EO ME ICO
X

P

INO

ek

TIM

DI

C

CA M

O
PR

it a C
re

C

CO

RI

N

VI

DE

TO

RIO

19

VA

D
RI

A

YA

R
CO

C
A
LL
E

TO

R
U
N
O

U

O RA
C A M IN

23

4.4 Land Use
The study area is generally divided into four districts: Rio Rico Northwest, Rio Rico Northeast,
Rio Rico Southwest, and Rio Rico Southeast. Each of these districts includes a variety of
existing land uses ranging from single family, multi-family, educational, and open space uses
to agricultural, commercial, and industrial uses. The pedestrian and biking needs of the Rio
Rico community are directly tied to the composition of these existing land uses. It is
therefore important to understand the land uses within each district because the type, size,
and location have a direct impact on the mobility demands of the overall study area.
In support of advancing a viable walking and biking system within Rio Rico, 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 in the future. Therefore, in
addition to reviewing existing development patterns, a review of the Santa Cruz County
Comprehensive Land Use Plan and Zoning Map was also conducted within each of the
following districts. Please see Figure 5: Comprehensive Plan Land Uses and Figure 6: Zoning
Map for further reference.

4.4.A Rio Rico Northwest
Housing is the dominant land use in this district. Due to the generally flat topography, a
significant number of single family homes are concentrated parallel to I-19 on the west side
of the Frontage Road. West of West Frontage Road, the density of single family homes
decreases in response to the varying topography. In fact, one of the defining characteristics
of the overall study area is the residential development patterns that follow the numerous
ridge lines located throughout the Rio Rico area. While much of the roadway infrastructure
is in place and therefore establishes the low density character of the area, there are also a
significant number of vacant lots. Linking these isolated ridge line residential corridors to the
greater Rio Rico area will be an important consideration during the next phase of this
project.
Situated south of Peck Canyon and west of I-19 is a large grouping of schools consisting of
Rio Rico High School, Mountain View Elementary, and San Cayetano Elementary. Rio Rico
High School serves grades 9 – 12 and has a total enrollment of approximately 1,100 students.
Mountain View Elementary serves grades K – 5 and has a total enrollment of approximately
520 students. San Cayetano Elementary serves grades K – 5 and has a total enrollment of
approximately 560 students. The presence of such a large concentration of children makes
this specific grouping of schools a key land use and destination focus area within Rio Rico.

24

The Santa Cruz County Comprehensive Land Use Plan envisions that lands within the
Northwest district will continue to develop for low density residential purposes, with more
intense mixed-use development occurring along the I-19 frontage road. This future
development pattern is supported by the Santa Cruz County Zoning Map which designates
the majority of the Northwest district with a Residential Zoning – 18,000 sf/du (R2) zoning
designation, complimented by a mixture of Multi Family (MF) and General Business (B2)
zoning designations along the West Frontage Road and I-19.

4.4.B Rio Rico Northeast
Single family housing is the predominant land use in this district. The majority of existing
homes are located in the foothills of the Cayetano Mountains, east of Pendleton Drive.
However, the highest density of residential development is located north of Avendia
Coatimundi and is characterized by a mixture of single family homes and small pockets of
multi-family developments. Although residential development and the necessary supporting
roadway infrastructure exist throughout the area, there are large sections of the district that
are predominantly undeveloped. Please see Section V – Community Characteristics, to gain
a further understanding of the rate of development for these undeveloped areas.
The Coatimundi Middle School is located on the north end of Avendia Coatmundi, while a
series of undeveloped lots, churches, and the Rio Rico Community Center are located on the
south side, making this roadway a high traffic area for trail users. The Sonoita Highlands
subdivision is located west of the school.
The linear corridor of the Santa Cruz River, located between I-19 and Pendleton Drive, is the
most enduring open space section of the study area. Traversing the entire district from
north to south, the Santa Cruz River includes significant natural riparian areas as well as large
tracts of agricultural uses. In addition, the existing Juan Bautista De Anza National Historic
Trail and the Union Pacific Railroad travel through this corridor. Due to its regional
significance the Santa Cruz River open space corridor will serve as an important element to
developing a community wide walking and biking system.
The Northeast district has no neighborhood commercial development, but does include an
industrial sand and gravel operation. The lack of commercial attractors in this district
indicates the greater need for walking and biking connections to existing commercial located
on the west side of I-19.
Generally in sync with the existing development pattern, the Santa Cruz County
Comprehensive Land Use Plan identifies future development within this district to consist of
a variety of land uses. The Cayetano foothills are identified for Low Density Residential while
25

the Santa Cruz River corridor is identified for ranch style land uses. The southern portion of
the district is envisioned to be more intense and shows Medium Density Residential north
and High Density Residential south of Avenida Coatimundi. The Santa Cruz County Zoning
Map generally supports this long range vision with R2 and Residential Zoning – 10,000 sf/du
(R3) zoning over much of the district, along with Residential Zoning – 7,500 sf/du (R4), MF,
Neighborhood Business (B1) and B2 uses adjacent to Avenida Coatimundi. However, contrary
to the existing development patterns and the Comprehensive Plan, the Zoning Map does
show several pockets of MF zoning.

4.4.C Rio Rico Southwest
Similar to the northern districts of the study area, single-family residential uses dominate
most of the Southwest area. Development in the higher elevations is characterized by
meandering streets and larger lots. Conversely, residential densities increase along Yavapai
Drive in the northern portion of the district as well as Camino Maricopa in the southern
portion.
Pena Blanca Elementary School and Calabasas Middle School share an educational campus
located at the southwest corner of the West Frontage Road and Camino Maricopa. The two
schools combine to serve over 900 students, making this the second largest education facility
in the study area and thus a major generator of walking and biking trips.
Most of the significant commercial activity found within the Southwest district and Rio Rico
as a whole is concentrated at the northwest corner of the I-19 and Rio Rico Drive
intersection. These predominantly automobile-oriented commercial uses extend from
Garrett’s north along the West Frontage Road to and along Circulo Mercado. Another
notable non-residential use in this district is the Esplendor (Rio Rico) Resort located off of
Camino Caralampi. These predominately commercial and tourist nodes present key
opportunities where linkages should be provided to connect varying land uses within the
study area.
Consistent with current development, the Santa Cruz County Comprehensive envisions a
concentration of Mixed Use at the intersection of I-19 and Rio Rico Drive, along with Medium
Density Residential and High Density Residential south of Camino Caralampi. The Zoning Map
directly supports this vision with a mixture of Residential Zoning – 6,000 sf/du (R5), MF, and
B2 zoning designations at or near the Rio Rico Drive intersection and R2 zoning over the
remainder of the area. Again, much of the supporting roadway infrastructure is in place
throughout the district. This condition, coupled with the existing topography, supports the

26

expectation that future development within this district will remain consistent with the
existing character and current land use plans.

4.4.D Rio Rico Southeast
Most industrial properties in the study area are located within the Southeast district in a
linear cluster along the east side of I-19, between the I-19 East Frontage Road and Ruby
Road. The existence of I-19 on the west and the Santa Cruz River and UPRR on the east
boundary of the industrial area helps to create a definitive buffer from other land uses in the
district, but it makes connectivity difficult. In addition, the Nogales International Wastewater
Treatment Plant is situated between a majority of the industrial land uses and the residential
development found further to the east.
Although it contains the preponderance of industrial land
uses, the Southeast district, is primarily devoted to lowdensity single-family development.
The residential
development pattern mimics that of the other districts in
the study area by consisting of oversized lots located along
curvilinear streets, which are separated by large tracts of
open space. The Rio Rico Golf Course, is located in the
northern section of the district along the south side of
Sonoita Creek and the Calabasas County Park is located at
the southern limit of the district along Pendleton Drive.
Within the Southeast district, the Santa Cruz County Comprehensive Land Use Plan foresees
that development will maintain a combination of Medium Density and High Density
Residential development east of the Santa Cruz River and Mixed Use along the I-19 corridor.
Similarly, the Santa Cruz County Zoning Map shows the majority of residential R2 zoning east
of the Santa Cruz River, with more intense R5 zoning located around the Rio Rico Golf
Course. Parallel to I-19, the Zoning Map designates this area for Light Industry (MI) zoning.

27

E FRO

Legend

RD
NTAGE

Study Area

n School
M

Land Use

a

vi

s

Ranch-40

W

a sh

Ranch
C

§
¦
¨

AM

O
IN

J

EFIN A
OS

Low Density Residential
Medium Density Residential

19

High Density Residential
Mixed Use
Local Services
State Trust

R

PA

ST

O

Regional Services

N ID A

Preservation

AV
E

A VEN

IDA P A ST

AY
ET

OR

AN
C

ON D
ET
DL

S a nt

R

r
a C

uz

Ri

ve

r
CA

FR
O

NT

AG
E

NO
MI

MAR

RD

HI
CA

W

Enterprise

A NO

JO

Public Lands

VIA
S

P EN

O
IN
M
A
C

A
N
FI
E
S

n
nn

ER
CH

A

EL
APP

E

EC

NO

A

E

OC
R O RC U L
CI

O CA
CA MIN

RD
AGE
ONT
W FR

OK

R
CI

CA
LL

C

Y

R

E

K

C
PE

AN

D
ON

C ER
CULO

CA

LL

S on

n

E
TO
LL
RO
S CA

NO
RU

DE

TIM
E
AV

N

ID

A

PA

A I DR

IA
NC

HW

Y

1

2
Miles

G

E

R

AS

EO

BI
BA
UE

E
OT

OY
CA

LA

ẍ

O
IN

M

I CO
AR

PA

n
n
E R UBY RD

289

D
NTAGE R
D
TAGE R W FRO
E FRON

I

0.5

9
28

LE

BA

CA
M

CA L

0

ER

EC

C

SA
S

O

RO N
TA
G

I NO

VI

D

CAM I N

AM
AL
AR

WF

PI

AM

XA

CA
LL

O
PR

SA N

SE
O ME X ICO

P

INO

ek

OA

DR

C

CA M

Cr e

C

§
¦
¨
P

CO
RI

N

o it a

DI

VI

DE

TO

RIO

19

VA

D
RI

A

YA

R
CO

C
A
LL
E

TO

R
U
N
O

U

O RAMAN OT E
C A M IN

Figure 5: Santa Cruz County Comprehensive Plan - Land Use Map

28

E FRO

Legend

RD
NTAGE

Study Area

n
M

School

Zoning

a

vi

s
W

a sh

General Rural
C

§
¦
¨

AM

O
IN

J

EFIN A
OS

Suburban Ranch
Residential-1

19

Residential-2
Residential-3
Residential-4
Multi-Family

PA

ST

O

Residential-5
R

N ID A

Manufactured Housing

AV
E

AY
ET

O
IDA P A ST
A VEN

R

R

r
a C

Ri

ve

r
CA

FR
O

NT

AG
E

General Business
Light Industrial

MAR
NO
MI

RD

HI
CA

W

Neighborhood Business

AN
C

ON D
ET
DL

S a nt
uz

Preservation

A NO

JO

Mobile Home

VIA
S

P EN

O
IN
M
A
C

A
N
FI
SE

YO

ND

n
nn

R

OK

ER
CH

A

EL
APP

E

EC

NO

A

RD
AGE
ONT
W FR

E

OC
R O RC U L
CI

O CA
CA MIN

CA
LL

AN

E

K

C
PE

C

C ER

ULO
RC
CI

CA

LL

S on

n

E
TO
LL
RO
S CA

TO

DE

TIM
E
AV

N

ID

A

PA

A I DR

IA
NC

HW

Y

1

G

E

R

AS

EO

BI
BA
UE

E
OT

OY
CA

LA

ẍ

O
IN

M

I CO
AR

PA

n
n
E R UBY RD

289

2
Miles

Figure 6: Santa Cruz County - Zoning Map

D
NTAGE R
D
TAGE R W FRO
E FRON

I

0.5

9
28

LE

BA

CA
M

CA L

0

R

EC

C

SA
S

O

PI

RO N
TA
G

I NO

IE

D

CAM I N

AM
AL
R
A

WF

AM

AV

CA
LL

O
PR

X
SA N

SE
O ME X ICO

P

INO

ek

OA

DR

C

CA M

Cr e

C

§
¦
¨
P

CO
RI

N

o it a

DI

VI

DE

NO
RU

RIO

19

VA

D
RI

A

YA

R
CO

C
A
LL
E

TO

R
U
N
O

U

O RAMAN OT E
C A M IN

29

4.5

Wildlife Linkage Zone

Natural hydrological corridors to Figure 7: Wildlife Linkage Zone
any region can often serve multiple
functions and benefits. A couple of
those benefits often include
wildlife linkage corridors and
local/regional trails. The Arizona
Wildlife Linkages Report, prepared
by the Arizona Wildlife Linkages
Workgroup (a collaboration of
FHWA, ADOT, Arizona Game and
Fish and the US Forest Service)
identifies this project study area to
be within Linkage 93. The following
is a list of species (other than
birds) identified to live and migrate
within Linkage 93 including: jaguar,
javelina, mountain lion, mule deer,
and white-tailed deer. Hydrology
features within Linkage 93 that
may serve as potential wildlife
corridors include: Santa Cruz River,
Diablo Wash, Josephine Canyon
and Tubac Creek. Figure 7: Wildlife
Linkage Zone depicts the location of the wildlife linkage zone in Rio Rico.
4.6

Density

The population density map (Figure 8: Density Map) illustrates how residents of Rio Rico are
distributed within the study area. The highest population densities are found in the
southern portion of the study area as well as along the I-19 corridor. Conversely, the lowest
density levels within Rio Rico are predominantly concentrated in the northeast portion of the
study area. Demographic studies conducted in the United States have continually
demonstrated that areas with higher density housing tend to generate more pedestrian and
bicycle trips. This is generally the result of increased populations and the fact that on
average, higher density areas tend to have fewer households with access to an automobile.

30

E FRO

Legend

RD
NTAGE

Study Area

n School
Population Density (2010)
per sq. mile
0 - 50
C

§
¦
¨

AM

O
IN

J

EFIN A
OS

51 - 100
101 - 150

19

151 - 200

R

IDA P A ST

OR

AN
C

ON D
ET
DL

A VEN

AY
ET

A NO

AV
E

A
N
FI
SE

R

VIA
S

P EN

O
IN
M
A
C

JO

N ID A

PA

ST

O

Above 200

CA

FR
O

NT

AG
E

MAR

RD

HI
CA

W

NO
MI

YO

ND

n
nn

R

OK

ER
CH

A

EL
APP

CA

LL

E

EC

NO

A

RD
AGE
ONT
W FR

E

OC
R O RC U L
CI

O CA
CA MIN

CA
LL

AN

E

K

C
PE

C

C ER

ULO
RC
CI

n

O RAMAN OT E

E
TO
LL
RO
S CA

DE

TIM

DI

OA

DR

C

§
¦
¨
P

CO
RI

N

E
AV

N

ID

A

PA

A I DR

IA
NC

9
28

HW

Y

1

G

R

AS

EO

E
OT

2
Miles

Figure 8: Population Density Map

CA

LA

ẍ

O
IN

M

I CO
AR

PA

n
n
E R UBY RD

289

D
NTAGE R
D
TAGE R W FRO
E FRON

I

0.5

LE

BA

CA
M

CA L

0

E

BI
BA
UE

OY

C

SA
S

O

PI

RO N
TA
G

I NO

R

D

CAM I N

AM
AL
R
A

WF

AM

IE

EC

O
PR

AV

CA
LL

INO

X
SA N

SE
O ME X ICO

P

CA M

C

VI

DE

NO
RU

RIO

19

VA

D
RI

A

TO

YA

R
CO

C
A
LL
E

TO

R
U
N
O

U

C A M IN

31

4.7 Existing Vehicular Traffic Patterns in Rio Rico
Table 8 below identifies the existing vehicular traffic on Rio Rico’s most traveled roadways.
Santa Cruz County crews conducted the traffic counts in 2009. Analysis of the average daily
trips (ADT) for each roadway will be important information for analysis when compared to
the most frequently traveled roadways by bicyclists and pedestrians. The comparative
analysis between the two will yield guidance in determining the most efficient and safe type
of improvements for future recommended projects.
Table 8: Existing Vehicular Traffic

Roadway Studied
Ruby Rd @ Potrero Creek (by the Pilot
Ruby Rd @ Santa Cruz
Pendleton Dr. north of Rio Rico Dr.
Pendleton Dr. South of Rio Rico Dr.
Rio Rico Dr.
Avenida Coatimundi
West Frontage Rd
Lito Galindo
Peck Canyon
Yavapai Dr.
Camino Ramanote
Camino Caralampi
Paseo Venado
Camino Josefina

Average Daily Trips (ADT’s)
7,500 ADT
4,200 ADT
3,201 ADT
3,026 ADT
8,328 ADT
3,780 ADT
6,017 ADT
2,336 ADT
1,389 ADT
11,748 ADT
2,085 ADT
4,177 ADT
1,660 ADT
834 ADT
Source: Santa Cruz County

What becomes clear in the review of the traffic count information is that Yavapai Drive near
Garrett’s, and Rio Rico Drive are the most traveled roadways on average in Rio Rico. West
Frontage Road and Ruby Road are also well traveled roadways. Camino Caralampi
accommodates fairly significant vehicle trips for a low density residential collector roadway.
Please see Figure 9 for additional reference.
4.8 Crash Data Analysis
Crash data was obtained from ADOT, which included reported incidents for the Rio Rico area
from March 2007 through March 2012. Over this 5 year period, the study area experienced a
total of 2 pedestrian and 3 bicycle related crashes, of which 1 resulted in a nonincapacitating injury, 3 resulted in possible injury and 1 resulted in no injury. All reported
pedestrian and bicycle crashes occurred during clear weather conditions, with the majority
occurring during daylight hours, however, one bicycle accident did occur at dusk. Figure 9:
Crash Data, shows all bicycle and pedestrian crashes between 2007 and 2012 for the Rio Rico
study area.
32

W FRO

Legend

RD
NTAGE

Study Area

Accident Type and Injury Severity
M

#
*
#
*
!
(
!
(
!
(

a

vi

s
W

a sh

M
CA

§
¦
¨

O
IN

S
JO

EFIN A

Pedestrian - Non Incapacitating Injury
Pedestrian - Possible Injury
Bicycle - No Injury
Bicycle - Non Incapacitating Injury
Bicycle - Possible Injury

R

AV
E

A
D
T

JO

A
N
FI
SE

AY
ET

O
IDA P A ST

R

AN
C

ON D
ET
DL
R

r
a C
D
S a n t AG E R

E FRON T

A VEN

VIA
S

P EN

A NO

83
4

O
IN
M
A
C

N ID A

PA

ST

O

19

Ri

ve

r

W

M
CA

FR
O

NT

AG
E

MAR

RD

RC
CI

R
ND
T
D
C
A
89
C
1,3
PE

YO

R
ULO C E

RO
O CA
CA MIN

DT
2,336 A

K

AN

E

A

EL
APP

E

CH

ER

E

EC

NO

A

RD
AGE
ONT
W FR
ADT
6,017

OK

O
IN

CA
LL

uz

S on

19

EF
A I DR

DT

E
AV

N

ID

A

PA

3,0
26
AD
T

SA
S

Y

HW

ER

R

P

E

LA

ẍ
289

CA
M

E

CA

BA

O
IN

M

I CO
AR

PA

AS

EO

BI
BA
UE

E
OT

OY

EC

RD
T AGE
ON

L
CA L
9
28

VI

G

C

AD
T
C

XA

FR

O

PI

RO N
TA
G

AM

SA N
I NO

SE
O ME X ICO

E
D

CAM I N

AM
AL
R
A

WF

17
7

INO

4,

CA M

O
PR

ek

!
(
0
7,50

#
*

T

AD

E R UBY RD

CA
LL

IA
NC

G

!
(

N

Cr e

DI

VI

DE

ON
TA

E RD

P

8A

74

E
TO
LL
RO
S CA

NO
RU

VA

DE

TO

,
11

D
RI

A

R

YA

R
CO

C
A
LL
E

TO

DR
CO
RI ADT
RIO ,328
8

U

§
¦
¨

T
AD
85
2,0

#
*

o it a

A CO
D
AT
T
IM

E

R
U
N
O

MAN OT

T
AD
01
3,2

O RA
C A M IN

3,
78
0

CA

LL

!
(

4,200 ADT

D
TAGE R
W FRON

I

0

0.5

1

2
Miles

Figure 9: Pedestrian & Bicycle Crash Location Map with Local ADT’s

33

V.

COMMUNITY CHARACTERISTICS – A
DEMOGRAPHIC AND SOCIOECONOMIC REVIEW

In order to develop a greater understanding of the walking and biking attitudes, behaviors
and needs of Rio Rico, it is important to recognize and evaluate the community’s
demographic and socioeconomic characteristics. The following discussion assesses Rio Rico’s
population, demographics, and environmental justice conditions in comparison to that of
Santa Cruz County as well as the State of Arizona. Comparing Rio Rico to the larger region
and state 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 within Rio Rico which will provide a picture of those people who walk because they need
to, either because they are too young or too old to drive. Furthermore, considering income
can help to identify portions of the population that walk or bike because they cannot afford
a car.
5.1 Population
According to the US Census Bureau the total population of the Rio Rico census-designated
place (CDP) in 2000 was 10,413 people. The most recent 2010 Census identified the Rio Rico
CDP with a population of 18,962. This represents an 82.1% increase in population over a 10year period at an annual growth rate of 8.2%.
Over the same period, Santa Cruz County’s population grew from 38,381 in 2000 to 47,420 in
2010, while the State of Arizona’s population grew from 5,130,632 in 2000 to 6,392,017 in
2010. This represents a County and State population increase of 23.6% and 24.6% and an
annual growth rate of 2.4% and 2.5% respectively as shown in Table 9. These findings show
that over the last decade, Rio Rico’s population growth significantly outpaced that of Santa
Cruz County and the State as a whole.
Table 9: Rio Rico Population & Growth Rate

Vicinity
Rio Rico (Study Area)
Santa Cruz County
Arizona

2000
Population

2010
Population

Percent
Change

10,413
38,381
5,130,632

18,962
47,420
6,392,017

82.1%
23.6%
24.6%

Source: 2000 and 2010 United States Census

34

Annual
Growth
Rate
8.2%
2.4%
2.5%

5.2 Age
Table 10 shows the age distribution of Rio Rico’s existing population according to the 2010
US Census. A total of 11,830 residents are between the ages of 16 and 64, with the
remaining 5,686 residents under the age of 15 and 1,446 residents over the age of 65.
Making up 62.4% of the total Rio Rico population, the 16 – 64 age group is generally
consistent with the County and State levels. However, at 30% of the total population, Rio
Rico’s 15 and below age group is slightly higher than that of the County or State levels.
Consequently, the median age in Rio Rico is 31.3 years old, while the median age for both
the County and State is 35 years old. In general, this data indicates Rio Rico has a younger
population than both the county and the state.
Table 10: Rio Rico Age Distribution

Vicinity
Rio Rico (Study
Area)
Santa Cruz County
Arizona

Age 15
and
below

% of
Pop.

Age
16 - 64

% of
Pop.

Age 65
and
above

% of
Pop.

Median
Age

5,686

30.0%

11,830

62.4%

1,446

7.6%

31.3

12,674
1,447,536

26.7%
22.6%

28,522
4,062,650

60.1%
63.6%

6,224
881,831

13.1%
13.8%

35.6
35.9

Source: 2010 United States Census

5.3 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 working paper first examined
the prevalence of minority and low-income populations within the Rio Rico study
35

area. Additional information on race, ethnicity and income are further detailed in
Sections 5.4 and 5.5. 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.
5.4 Race and Ethnicity
Table 11 shows Rio Rico’s demographic breakdown compared with those of Santa Cruz
County and the State of Arizona. As can be seen, the preponderance of Rio Rico’s residents
identified themselves as either white (71%) or some other race (25.6%). This racial
distribution is almost identical to that of Santa Cruz County and similar to the State as a
whole.
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 condition, people who identify their origin as Hispanic, Latino, or
Spanish may be any race.
Therefore, although the 2010 U.S. Census shows the majority of Rio Rico residents identified
their race as White (71%) or Some Other Race (25.6%), approximately 85% of Rio Rico
residents also identified their origin or ethnicity as Hispanic or Latino as shown in Table 11.
In comparison, this Hispanic or Latino distribution is consistent with that of Santa Cruz
County, but is considerably higher than that of the State (30%). Please see Figure 10:
Minority Populations and Figure 11: Hispanic Origins for further reference.

36

Table 11: 2010 Racial Demographics

Population
Percentage
Percentage
Rio
Santa Cruz
Group (One
of
of
Rico
County
Race)
Population
Population
White
13,472
71.0%
34,835
73.5%
African
75
0.4%
179
0.4%
American
Native American
121
0.6%
328
0.7%
Asian
94
0.5%
255
0.5%
Native Hawaiian
10
0.1%
15
0.0%
and Other Pacific
Other Race
4,846
25.6%
10,855
22.9%
Two or More
344
1.8%
953
2.0%
Races
Total 18,962
100.0%
47,420
100.0%

4,667,121

Percentage
of
Population
73.0%

259,008

4.1%

296,529
176,695

4.6%
2.8%

12,648

0.2%

761,716

11.9%

218,300

3.4%

6,392,017

100.0%

Arizona

Source: 2010 Census

Table 12: 2010 Origin (Ethnicity Demographics)

Population
Group
Hispanic
or
Latino
(of any race)
Not Hispanic or
Latino
Total

Rio Rico

Percentage
of
Population

Santa
Cruz
County

Percentage
of
Population

Arizona

Percentage
of
Population

16,179

85.3%

39,273

82.8%

1,895,149

29.6%

2,783

14.7%

8,147

17.2%

4,496,868

70.4%

18,962

100.0%

47,420

100.0%

6,392,017

100.0%

Source: 2010 Census

37

5.5 Income
Rio Rico’s median family income ($44,379) is higher than Santa Cruz County’s ($39,272), but
is lower than the state ($55,353). Similarly, the Rio Rico community also has a lower
percentage of families living below the poverty line (17 percent) than the county (22.2
percent), but it is still higher than that of the State (12.5 percent).
Table 13: Median Family Income

Population
Group
Females
Males
Median Family
Income
Percentage of
families living
below the
poverty level

Santa
Cruz
County
24,861
22,559

Percentage
Percentage
of
Arizona
of
Population
Population
52.4%
3,216,194
50.3%
47.6%
3,175,823
49.7%

$44,379

$39,272

$55,353

17%

22.2%

12.5%

Rio Rico
9,687
9,275

Percentage
of
Population
51.1%
48.9%

Source: 2010 Census

38

5.6 Rio Rico Commuting Habits
The American Community Survey (ACS) gathers information on demographic, economic, and
housing characteristics, including journey to work information. As can be seen in Table 14,
the ACS shows that Rio Rico has a greater percentage of workers 16 years and older that
travel to work by car (82%) than both Santa Cruz County (77.9%) and the State of Arizona
(76.5%). Especially important is the fact that only a combined 1.7% of Rio Rico’s workers
walk or utilize other means (biking) to travel to work. This is well below the combined
County-wide rate of 4.5% and the combined State-wide rate of 4.3%. This increased
percentage of workers that travel to work by car and decreased level of workers who walk or
bike to work supports the need for additional facilities within the Rio Rico community that
promote alternative modes of transportation.
Table 14: Rio Rico Commuting Habits

Population
Group
Workers 16 yrs
and over
vehicle - drove
alone
vehicle carpooled
public transit
walked
other means
worked at home
mean travel
time to work
(minutes)

Rio Rico

Percentage
of Work
Force

6,689

Santa Percentage
Cruz
of Work
County
Force
16,795

Arizona

Percentage
of Work
Force

2,621,839

5,482

82.0%

13,086

77.9%

2,005,289

76.5%

889

13.3%

2,000

11.9%

305,162

11.6%

0
33
80
205

0.0%
0.5%
1.2%
3.1%

37
451
305
916

0.2%
2.7%
1.8%
5.5%

46,829
52,391
61,279
150,889

1.8%
2.0%
2.3%
5.8%

21.3

19.2

Source: American Community Survey

39

24.5

E FRO

Legend

RD
NTAGE

Study Area

n

School

2010 % of Residents
Non-White Only
CA

§
¦
¨

M

O
IN

JO

None

S EFIN A

Less than 60%
60% - 80%

19

R

ET
DL

ON D

A VEN

O
IDA P A ST

CA Y
ET

ANO

AV
E

JO

A
N
FI
SE

R

S AN

PEN

O
IN
M
A
C

N ID A

PA

ST

O

Greater than 80%

VIA

R
M
CA

FR
O

NT

AG
E

MAR

RD

HI
CA

W

O
IN

C

D
ON

n
nn

R

E

ER

CH

A

EL
APP

CA

LL

E

EC

NO

A

E

OC
RO RC U L
CI

O CA
CA MIN

RD
AGE
ONT
W FR

OK

C

CA
LL

K

C
PE

Y
AN

C ER

ULO
I RC

n

O RAMAN OT E

TO
R

E
LL
O S CA

TO

DE

TIM

DI

OA

DR

C

§
¦
¨
P

CO
RI

N

E
AV

N

A
ID

PA

A I DR

IA
NC

HW
Y

1

G

E

R

AS

EO

BI
BA
UE

E
OT

9

2
Miles

Figure 10: Minority Populations

OY
LA

ẍ

O
IN

M

ICO
AR

PA

n
n
E R UBY RD

289

D
NTAGE R
D
TAGE R W FRO
E FRON

I

0.5

28

E
LL

CA

BA

CA
M

CA

0

ER

EC

C

SA
S

O

PI

RON
TA
G

VI

D

CAM I N

AM
AL
R
A

WF

XA

CA
LL

INO

SA N
I NO
AM

SE
O ME X ICO

P

CA M

O
PR

C

VI

D

DE

NO
RU

RIO

19

VA

RI

A

YA

R
CO

C
A
LL
E

TO

R
U
N
O

U

C A M IN

40

E FRO

Legend

RD
NTAGE

Study Area

n School
2010 % of Population
with Hispanic Origins

CA

§
¦
¨

M

O
IN

JO

None

S EFIN A

Less than 60%
60% - 80%

19

R

O
IDA P A ST

R

AN
C

ON D
ET
DL

A VEN

AY
ET

A NO

AV
E

JO

A
N
FI
SE

R

VIA
S

P EN

O
IN
M
A
C

N ID A

PA

ST

O

Greater than 80%

CA

FR
O

NT

AG
E

MAR

RD

HI
CA

W

NO
MI

YO

ND

n
nn

R

OK

ER
CH

A

EL
APP

CA

LL

E

EC

NO

A

RD
AGE
ONT
W FR

E

OC
R O RC U L
CI

O CA
CA MIN

CA
LL

AN

E

K

C
PE

C

C ER

ULO
RC
CI

n

O RAMAN OT E

TO
R

E
LL
OS CA

TO

DE

TIM

DI

OA

DR

C

§
¦
¨
P

CO
RI

N

E
AV

N

ID

A

PA

A I DR

IA
NC

HW

Y

1

G

R

AS

EO

E
OT

CA

LA

ẍ

O
IN

M

I CO
AR

PA

n
n
E R UBY RD

289

2
Miles

Figure 11: Populations with Hispanic Origins

D
NTAGE R
D
TAGE R W FRO
E FRON

I

0.5

9
28

LE

BA

CA
M

CA L

0

E

BI
BA
UE

OY

C

SA
S

O

PI

RO N
TA
G

I NO

R

D

CAM I N

AM
AL
R
A

WF

AM

IE

EC

O
PR

AV

CA
LL

INO

X
SA N

SE
O ME X ICO

P

CA M

C

VI

DE

NO
RU

RIO

19

VA

D
RI

A

YA

R
CO

C
A
LL
E

TO

R
U
N
O

U

C A M IN

41

VI. SIGNIFICANT STUDY AREA CORRIDORS & ACTIVITY
CENTERS
Data collection findings were overwhelmingly supported by input and discussions with TAC
members, county staff, high school youth and local residents confirming that there was a
need to focus on a key group of activity centers and roadway corridors. The corridors and
activity centers introduced below are considered a priority for analysis and recommendation
in the Rio Rico Walking and Biking Study. As previously noted, establishing safe routes to
schools is a central focus of this study. A summary description of each of these priority
activity centers and corridors include the following:

42

E FRO

Legend

Legend

RD
NTAGE

Study Area

n
M

a

vi

M

n

School

OwnershipOwnership

a

vi

s

Coronado N.F

s

W

a sh

School

Study Area

Coronado N.F
Sonoita Creek NA
Sonoita Creek NA
State Trust Land
State Trust Land
Game and Fish
Game and Fish

W

a sh

§
¦
¨
19

JO

S EFIN A

CA

M

O
IN

JO

S EFIN A

NTAG

E RD

C

AM

O
IN

W FRO

Existing Conditions

Shared Use Pathway

ST
O

R

r

W

FR
O

NT
AG
E

Ri

ve

N ID A

N ID A

AV
E

CA

FR
O

RD

NT
AG
E

NO
MI

CA Y
ET

R

MAR

CA

NO
MI

Wildlife Corridor

S AN

TO

Trailhead

ANO

ANO

XXX

VIA

IDA P A S
A VEN

CA Y
ET

OR

r

W

Anza Trail

S AN

I D A P A ST

R

ve

uz

A VEN

JO

Sidewalk

VIA

r
a C
S a n tR

r
a C

Ri

834

ND
E TO

ND
E TO

DL

DL

a nt
uz

O
IN
M
A
C

A
N
FI
SE

AV
E

JO

P EN

P EN

O
IN
M
A
C

A
N
FI
SE

Multi Use Trail

R

PA

PA

ST
O

Shared Use Pathway
(under design or construction)

Average Daily Trips (ADT)

MAR

Safe Routes to School “Hot Spot”
Significant Corridor

RD

1

Rio Rico HS/Mountain View Elem/
San Cayetano Elem Schools

2

W Frontage Road

3

Garrett’s (Rio Rico Plaza)

4

Pendleton Road

5

Rio Rico Drive

6

Avenida Coatimundi

7

Coatimundi Middle School

8

Ruby Road

9

Pena Blanca Elem/
Calabasas Middle Schools

Miles

LE

C

ẍ
289
9

9

2
Miles

28

CA L

LE

C

A
AB
AL

U

TIM
AM

SA N
I NO

XA

VI

ER

O
IN

ẍ

AV

IE

RON
TA
G

E

R

EO ME ICO
X

R

E
OT

AS

EO

n
n

O
IN

M

IC O
AR

289

9

PA

n
n

E R UBY RD

7500

E R UBY RD

8

CA
LL

PA

EC

EC
IC O
AR

BI
BA
UE

E
OT

OY

A

O
SE

BI
BA
UE

OY

R

AM

X
SA N
I NO

P AS

G

WF

EO ME ICO
X

P

M

ek

OA

P AS

G

E

Cre

3780

C

RON
TA
G

o it a

C

A
ID

P

1660

A
AB
AL

HW
Y

HW
Y

2
1

N

CA
LL

C

PI

SA
S

O

AM
AL
R
A

2-m
ile
s

PI

S on

4200
P

D
NTAGE R
D
TAGE R W FRO
E FRON

Figure 12:

0.5

6

D
NTAGE R
D
TAGE R W FRO
E FRON

I

1
0

E
AV

C
WF

CA L

0.5

3026

4177

CAM I N

28

A

ID
8328
N

E
AV

ek

P

VI

AM
AL
R
A
C

5

N

Cre

DI

D

O

O
PR

U

11748

IA
NC

DR

o it a

n

D

CAM I N

INO

ON
TA
G

CA S AS
M

C
A
LL
E

C
A
LL
E

VI

3

A I DR

CO
RI

E RD

CA M

RIO

EF
P

VA

DE

A I DR

19

DR

R

E RD

TO
DE
E
TO
LL CIA
RO
A
S C D EN
O
R
P
NO
I
M
CA
A

ON
TA
G

§
¦
¨

YA

TO

CO
RI
IO
R6017

EF

E
LL
OS CA

P

VA

TO
R

R

YA

DE

NO
RU

D
RI

D
RI

NO
RU

R
CO

R
CO
A

2085
19

TO

TO

R
U
N
O

R
U
N
O

§
¦
¨

n

N

7

DI

TIM

CA

O RAMAN OT E
C A M IN

S on

3201

2

CA
M

ER

CH

EL
APP

E

LL

CA

O RAMAN OT E
C A M IN

0

EC

OA

E

OK

OK
ER

CH
E

LL

EL

RD
AGE
ONT
W FR

E

E

P
C AP

2-mile
s

A

2336
RD
AGE
ONT
W FR

E

n
nn
1

C

YO

C
O
ULO
RR I RC
C
ULO C E
C
R
A
CI
NO
A
O CA
NO
CA MIN
O CA
CA MIN

CA
LL

K

AN

R
ND

R

C

A

C
PE

C

CI

4RO CULO
ER CIR
C ULO C

CA
LL

C

n
nn

R

E

K

C
PE

Y
AN

D
ON

1389

HI
CA

HI
CA

2-

s
ile
m

43

6.1 Rio Rico High School /Mountain View Elementary/
San Cayetano Elementary School
Located south of Peck Canyon Drive, west of West Frontage Road in northwest Rio Rico. This
grouping of three schools (“the schools”) are served by vehicular access from a series of
smaller roads forming a looped road system from the West Frontage Road. A sidewalk
currently exists in front of Rio Rico High School. This “loop” includes Peck Canyon, Via
Patricia and Camino Lito Galindo. The steepness of Peck Canyon, blind spots created by
gradient roadways, and a narrow bridge crossing (with poor visibility) of Peck Canyon on
West Frontage Road are just a few of the challenges and deficiencies in this activity center.

Camino Lito Galindo looking east

Camino Lito Galindo near Via Patricia, looking west

This is a busy area for children walking to school from the adjacent residential
neighborhoods and key facilities like sidewalks and adequate crossings are noticeably
deficient in this area.

44

6.2 West Frontage Road
A two-lane frontage road to I-19 that
traverses a majority of the north-south
length of the Project Study Area from Peck
Canyon Drive to Rio Rico Drive. This
segment of roadway is one of the most
traveled by vehicles and pedestrians in Rio
Rico.
A southern segment of West
Frontage Road from Calle Calabasas south
to Ruby Road also exists but is less of an
emphasis for purposes of this study. West
Frontage Road does not exist from Rio Rico
Drive south to Calle Calabasas.
West Frontage Road looking south near Camino
Lito Galindo

This important corridor serves motorized
and non-motorized users to residential, schools and non-residential land uses located along
both sides of the roadway. This corridor is anchored on the north end by the “school pod”
including Rio Rico High School and on the south end by Garrett’s Commercial Center on
Yavapai Drive. There is also a county landfill north of Peck Canyon that creates truck trips in
this corridor.
Up and down the majority of the west side of the roadway is one of the largest
concentrations and highest density residential neighborhoods in Rio Rico. This residential
area utilizes the West Frontage Road as their primary ingress and egress. Some of these
residential areas are home to Title VI populations.
The West Frontage Road corridor is the focus of the 2005 Drachman Institute study that
initially defined and offered suggested guidance on the desire and ability to strengthen the
connectedness of the schools, neighborhoods and commercial uses along the West Frontage
Road corridor.

45

6.3 Garrett’s (Rio Rico Plaza)
The Garrett’s commercial center (Rio
Rico Plaza) is home to Rio Rico’s only
grocery store and serves as Rio Rico’s
only commercial retail core. Garrett’s
driveway is off Yavapai Drive but is
adjacent to West Frontage Road.
Bicycle and pedestrian trips to
Garrett’s have continually increased
over the past few years. The Bella
Vista subdivision located immediately
west of Garrett’s is a suburban style
West Frontage Road looking south near Camino del Patio
community with smaller lots and
density generally higher than most other areas in Rio Rico. The 2009 traffic counts taken by
Santa Cruz County identify this area as the most traveled section of roadway in Rio Rico with
an average daily trip count of over 11,700 vehicle trips per day.

Intersection of Camino Caralampi and Yavapai Drive

46

6.4 Pendleton Drive
Pendleton Drive is a two-lane roadway
facility that runs north-south for the
entire length of the Project Study Area
along the east side of I-19 and the
Santa Cruz River. It provides vehicular
and non-vehicular connection to the
northeast and southeast quadrants of
Rio Rico. Because Pendleton Drive is a
natural and primary connector roadway
facility in Rio Rico, it has already been
designated by Santa Cruz County as a
“Major County Road” in the
Comprehensive Plan.
The ¾ mile +/- segment of Pendleton
Drive from Rio Rico Drive south to
Avenida Coatimundi has been improved
with a well-traveled shared use path
detached from the roadway.
A
trailhead with limited parking exists at
the southwest corner of Pendleton
Drive and Rio Rico Drive and users often
connect to the improved shared path
crossing at Avenida Coatimundi.
Pendleton Drive north of Rio Rico Drive
to the study area northern limits and
south below Avenida Coatimundi are
desired segments to extend the existing
shared use path system.

John and Bette De Stefano Pathway along South
Pendleton Drive

John and Bette De Stefano Pathway

Existing Pedestrian Crossing at Pendleton
Drive and Avenida Coatimundi

47

6.5 Rio Rico Drive to Pendleton Drive
There is an increasing need to evaluate the construction of a bicycle and pedestrian pathway
providing connection from Garrett’s supermarket (west of I-19) east across the Rio Rico Drive
overpass to Pendleton Drive and the Anza Trail Head at the Santa Cruz River. The Anza Trail is
a scenic, regional recreational trail extending from Tubac down to Nogales along (sometimes
informally) the Santa Cruz River.

Guy Tobin Trailhead on Rio Rico Drive

Trailmarker at Intersection of Pendleton Drive and
Rio Rico Drive

There is increased pedestrian and bicycle user demand along Rio Rico Drive from residents
living in the neighborhoods east of I-19 going to Garrett’s. This potential path also fronts the
large agricultural fields adjacent to the Santa Cruz River (east of I-19) that often are home to
bird watching activities as a variety of bird species tend to congregate in this area. A
connection along Rio Rico Drive to Pendleton Drive and Anza Trailhead would also complete
a connection of these popular activity centers and destinations that currently lack the nonvehicular connections that could enhance their appearance to residents and visitors alike. In
addition, Santa Cruz County has recently relocated some of their government offices,
including the Community Development Department, into the county satellite facility located
in this area.

48

6.6 Avenida Coatimundi
The existing Boy Scout Trail (along
Pendleton Drive north of Rio Rico Drive) is a
popular and well planned trail that provides
bike and pedestrian connectivity within the
southeastern portions of the Rio Rico area
east of Interstate 19. With the efforts of
local trail enthusiast Hank Thysell and the
Santa Cruz Valley Unified School District 35,
a 1.2 mile extension of the existing 10-ft
wide asphalt trail along Avenida Coatimundi
was constructed from its existing terminus John and Bette De Stefano Pathway along Avenida
at the Rio Rico Community Center. This trail Coatimundi
is formally known as the John and Bette De
Stefano Pathway and connects adjacent neighborhoods with the Fitness Center, Community
Center and several churches along Avenida Coatimundi. The Catholic Church plans to expand
their church and build primary and secondary school facilities thereby increasing pedestrian
and bicycle demand in this area. This facility and any planned connecting trails will be
needed in this more populous and well-traveled area of Rio Rico. The Rio Rico High School
track team often meets at the fitness center for their practice runs and this trail will
compliment their training regime. The Sonoita Creek State Natural Area is located just south
of this pathway and Santa Cruz County is interested in exploring additional trail connections.
Many local residents use the Sonoita Creek State Natural Area for nature/recreational hiking
for about 8-9 miles to Patagonia Lake.

John and Bette De Stefano Pathway near Calle Juan Legarra

49

6.7 Coatimundi Middle School
The Coatimundi Walking Trail was constructed
through a partnership between SRTS, Santa
Cruz Valley Unified School District #35, Santa
Cruz County, Rio Rico Properties, Green Valley
Pecan Company, the University of Arizona and
volunteers from health-focused organizations
in the area. The Coatimundi Walking Trail
provides much-needed pedestrian access to
the rear entrance of the school. The Sonoita
Highlands residential community is adjacent

Coatimundi Walking Trail

to the school to the west. Additional SRTS
concerns for the focus area include the lack of
neighborhood
shortcuts
and
system
connections to and from Sonoita Highlands to
the school. There are many blind spots on
some of the local roadways and sidewalks are
very limited in this higher density subdivision.
Another key consideration in need of
additional analysis is the unsafe roadway
crossing at Avenida Coatimundi and Calle Juan
Legarra.

Potential shortcut location at the Sonoita
Highlands community

Lack of Defined Pedestrian Crossing at Avenida Coatimundi
and Calle Juan Legarra

50

6.8 Ruby Road: I-19 east to the Santa Cruz River
Ruby Road is the southern-most I-19 traffic
interchange in the study area. To the west,
Ruby Road serves as the central vehicular
roadway access for the residential
subdivisions located immediately east of
Pena Blanca Elementary School. Ruby Road
also serves as State Route 289 primarily
providing recreation access to Pena Blanca
Lake in the Coronado National Forest
approximately 8 miles west of Rio Rico.
Ruby Road just east of I-19, looking west

The more particular focus however is east
of I-19 where Ruby Road provides vehicular
and commercial truck access to a cluster of
light industrial land uses that primarily
consist of produce brokerage businesses. A
Pilot Travel Center with a Wendy’s
restaurant anchors the Ruby Road frontage
pad serving as a “gateway” to the light
industrial business cluster to the north.
These produce brokerage businesses utilize
the East Frontage Road as the primary Ruby Road Bridge at Potrero Creek
vehicular access to this area. There is a
second driveway on the east side of the Pilot Travel Center providing access and
complicating turning movements at this strategic location. This node exhibits a high crash
incident rate. Bicycle and pedestrian travel to and from the residential areas to the east is
compromised by the lack of marked trails or bike paths, amount of traffic volume and
turning movement conflicts in this area. Poor line of sight, lack of sidewalks or bike lane and
narrow bridge crossings also pose challenges to improved non-motorized travel in this
corridor.

51

6.9 Pena Blanca Elementary School/Calabasas Middle School
Pena Blanca Elementary School and Calabasas Middle School are also adjacent to the West
Frontage Road and serve existing neighborhoods to the north, west and south of the school.
Camino Maricopa to the north of the schools and Via San Luis Potosi/Paseo De Yucatan to
the south are the local and collector roads that provide the primary vehicular and pedestrian
access to the school. Both roads lack Safe Route to Schools design components like
sidewalks, bike lanes or trails to encourage safe and efficient bike or pedestrian access to
and from these neighborhoods. Camino Maricopa receives the heaviest volume of
pedestrian traffic and in most places, there is a sizable dirt shoulder along the south side of
the road that would accommodate formal sidewalk or multi modal trail improvements.
About 1/2 mile west of the school on Camino Maricopa is another “problem area” at the
three-point intersection of Camino Maricopa, Bosque Court and Paseo Queretaro. This three
point intersection is located along an s-curve of Camino Maricopa with blind spots and is an
area where children from the adjacent neighborhoods access Camino Maricopa. The safety
of this area needs to be enhanced through adequate cross walk markings and a detached
sidewalk due to line of sight distance challenges and speeding drivers that tend to be a safety
threat at this location.

52

VII. BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN NEEDS & DEFICIENCIES
The analysis of the data collected, feedback from the TAC, Youth Workshop and Community
Open House and consultant analysis began to reveal a series of categorical deficiencies that
have been collectively mapped. Please see Figure 13: Existing Needs and Deficiencies for
reference. These categories of needs and deficiencies include the following:
7.1 SRTS Hot Spots
As noted previously, a fundamental priority of the Rio Rico Walking and Biking Study is to
identify and prioritize future bicycle and pedestrian improvement projects to enhance the
safety and connectivity of the routes children travel to school on a daily basis.
The three SRTS “Hot Spots” are created to yield a closer and more interconnected review of
the system of SRTS program elements. SRTS program elements that are common deficiencies
to each SRTS Hot Spot include:






lack of sidewalks,
bike paths,
traffic calming measures,
traffic enforcement needs
neighborhood shortcuts

The existing case study work completed by the SRTS Program at the University of Arizona
Cooperative Extension provides a great baseline of knowledge to draw from when evaluating
SRTS issues in Rio Rico.

Possible neighborhood shortcut locations

53

While each SRTS Hot Spot has common
categories for consideration, each has a unique
set of deficiencies that necessitate greater
individual scrutiny distinctively within each SRTS
Hot Spot. This level of analysis will result in a
more cohesive and cost-effective approach to
developing the plan of improvements for each
SRTS Hot Spot.

Camino Lito Galindo near Via Patricia

7.2 Difficult Intersections
Intersections are commonly designed with a
focus towards motor vehicles rather than
pedestrians and bicyclists. Even the best network
of streets with well-developed pedestrian
facilities can suffer from low pedestrian use if
there are inadequate facilities and obstacles at
intersections.
Difficult intersections can include a wide variety
of factors, but are generally defined as existing
intersection facilities that have experienced
vehicular or bicycle/pedestrian crashes, have
geometric challenges, line of sight issues, poor
level of service, lengthy crossing distances,
indirect or unmarked crossings, or increased
exposure to conflicts with vehicles.

Camino Maricopa and Bosque Ct.

The topography in Rio Rico adds to the challenge
of creating intersections that are safe and
functional for motorized and non-motorized
users alike. An example of a few difficult Ruby Road at Pilot Travel Center
intersections in Rio Rico include Garrett’s and
Yavapai Drive, Ruby Road in front of the Pilot Travel Center, Camino Maricopa and Bosque
Ct. and a couple of intersections with West Frontage Road. Please see Figure 13: Existing
Needs and Deficiencies Map for additional reference.

54

7.3 Difficult Pedestrian Crossings
Rio Rico has numerous deficient pedestrian
crossings. Many of these locations do not
have a formal crosswalk or other typical
crossing amenities, but nevertheless are
locations in Rio Rico that are frequently
utilized by bicyclists and pedestrians and
common crossing locations.
A
difficult
pedestrian
crossing
is
characterized by the existence of one or
more of the following deficient features:

Avenida Coatimundi at Celle Juan Legarra







inadequate sight distance,
insufficient pavement markings,
insufficient signage,
insufficient lighting,
insufficient
driver
warning
particularly for mid-block crossings,
 insufficient refuge area away from
the pavement.

West Frontage Road at Family Dollar

The most commonly identified difficult
pedestrian crossings in Rio Rico include Western Frontage Road at Camino del Patio (Family
Dollar), Avenida Coatimundi and Calle Juan Legarra, Garrett’s at Yavapai Drive and crossings
close to school facilities as identified in Figure 13: Existing Needs and Deficiencies Map.
7.4 Narrow Bridge Crossings
Many existing road crossing are found over the multiple washes, tributaries and the Santa
Cruz River that traverse the Rio Rico area. Bridges are an expensive infrastructure
component and historically have not been designed and constructed with the pedestrian and
bicyclist in mind. Retrofitting older structures with bike lanes or sidewalks is also an
expensive and sometimes cost-prohibitive proposition. These issues are not unique to Rio
Rico, but are common throughout the United States.

55

Many of the existing bridge structures in Rio Rico do not provide adequate accommodations
for bicycle and pedestrian users. Some of these bridge structures are located in key
locations that facilitate a non-motorized connection between destinations. The Potrero
Creek bridge on Ruby Road and the Ruby Road and Rio Rico Drive crossings of the Santa Cruz
River are a few such examples. Please see Figure 13: Existing Needs and Deficiencies Map for
additional locations.

Potrero Creek Bridge on Ruby Road

56

7.5 Priority Underserved Roadways
Priority Underserved Roadways are existing roads in Rio Rico that experience frequent
bicycle and pedestrian use on an average daily basis but lack the appropriate non-motorized
facilities in the roadway corridor. Typically, these roadways also receive high numbers of
average daily vehicle trips as well.

Yavapai Drive looking west, near Garrett’s

Camino Ramanote looking west

The findings of attitudes and behaviors surveys conducted at the Youth Workshop and
Community Open House indicate that the youth and community in general have a tendency
to utilize select streets for their biking and walking routines. West Frontage Road, Camino
Ramanote, Pendleton Drive North, Calle Calabasas, Camino Lito Galindo (and other roadways
near the various school locations) as well as others are shown on Figure 13: Existing Needs
and Deficiencies Map. Because these Priority Underserved Roadways also tend to be the
busiest for vehicular traffic, there is a heightened sensitivity to the safety aspect of
separating the pedestrian and vehicle movements.

North Pendleton Road

West Frontage Road

57

7.6 Key System Disconnects
“Key System Disconnects” identifies select
areas where there is currently a lack of
connection to an expanded or more complete
network of existing or future path/ trail system
that does not exist today. Improvements at
these marked locations would greatly enhance
path or trail connectivity and safety, and yield a
more balanced and complete path and trail
network throughout the study area. Examples
of key system disconnects include: lack of
neighborhood shortcuts between homes and
the adjacent school, additional connection to Potential shortcut for Sonoita Highlands
community
the Anza Trail, additional trailheads needed for
existing and future trail facilities or connections to areas like Josephine Canyon and
Calabasas Park that are lacking today.

Calabasas Park looking west towards the Santa Cruz River

58

E FRO

Legend

RD
NTAGE

n
M

a

vi

M

School

vi

s

s

W

Ownership

Coronado N.F
Sonoita Creek NA
Sonoita Creek NA
State Trust Land
State Trust Land
Game and Fish
Game and Fish

W

a sh

§
¦
¨

JO

S EFIN A

CA

M

O
IN

JO

S EFIN A

NTAG

E RD

M
CA

O
IN

ST
O
PA

N ID A

N ID A

AV
E

W

FR
O

RD

NT
AG
E

CA

NO
MI

MAR

M
CA

O
IN

Narrow Bridge Crossings Restricted mobility

X

MAR

Key System Disconnects

Significant Corridor
RD

1

Rio Rico HS/Mountain View Elem/
San Cayetano Elem Schools

2

W Frontage Road

3

Garrett’s (Rio Rico Plaza)

4

Pendleton Road

5

Rio Rico Drive

6

Avenida Coatimundi

7

Coatimundi Middle School

8

Ruby Road

9

Pena Blanca Elem/
Calabasas Middle Schools

X
n
n
X

2
1
Miles

HW
Y

HW
Y

Figure 13:

0.5

ẍX
289

9

2
Miles

9
28

CA

E
LL

C

O
IN

ẍ

M

U

TIM

OA
A
ID

A

NO
MI

SA N

XA

VI

E

P AS

ER

AM

SA N
I NO

XA

VI

P

RON
TA
G

EO ME ICO
X

EO ME ICO
X

ER

E
AS

O

BI
BA
UE

G

P AS

C

X
n
n

IC O
AR

ek

E
OT

R

AS

EO

PA

O
IN

M

IC O
AR

9

PA

n
n

E R UBY RD

E R UBY RD

8

289

BI
BA
UE

E
OT

OY

X

P

D
NTAGE R
D
TAGE R W FRO
E FRON

1
0

C

WF

D
NTAGE R
D
TAGE R W FRO
E FRON

I
0.5

28

LE

A
AB
AL

R

Cre

EC

P

A
AB
AL

E

o it a

EC

C

RON
TA
G

S on

CA
LL

O

PI

SA
S

CAM I N

AM
AL
R
A

2-m
ile
s

PI

CA L

N

C

VI

WF

ek

DI

D

O

AM
AL
R
A

E
AV

6

D

CAM I N

C

INO

ON
TA
G

X X

IA
NC

Cre

CA
LL

3

A I DR

N

o it a

C

TO
C
A
LL
E

CA M

O
PR

DR DA
I
CO
RI V E N
A
RIO

CA
M

R
U
N
O

TO

VI

P

7

DI

E RD

DE

R

VA

A I DR

5

19

YA

TO
DE
TO
LECIA
LN
RO
A
E
S CD
O
PR
INO
CA M
A

P

E RD

NO
RU

ON
TA
G

§
¦
¨

DR

EF

C
A
LL
E

EF
R

VA

TO

D
RI

E
TO
LL
RO
S CA

RIO

CO
RI

N

C

19

YA

D
RI

DE

R
CO

R
CO
A

NO
RU

U

§
¦
¨

CA S A
M
S

E

R
U
N
O

MAN OT

X

S on

OY

CA

2
O RA
C A M IN

2-mile
s

A

PEL
C AP

E

LL

CA

O RAMAN OT E
C A M IN

NO

TIM

OK
ER

CH

E

O CA
CA MIN

OA

E

OK
ER
E

LL

EL
APP

C

A

E

EC

RD
AGE
ONT
W FR

RD
AGE
ONT
W FR

X

E

CH

1

CA
LL

K

C

O

A

C
PE

Y
AN

C

O
ULO
RR I RC
C
ULO C E
A
RC
I
O
N
C
O CA
CA MIN

C

G

C

R
ND

HI
CA

X
n
n n nn
n X

DR

4RO IRCULO

R
ULO C E
I RC

CA
LL

ON

E

K

C
PE

C

Y
AN

HI
CA

2-

s
ile
m

P

r

Priority Underserved Roadways

CA Y
ET

I D A P A ST

OR

R

ve

ANO

ANO

CA Y
ET
A VEN

X

r
a C
NT
AG
E

R

S AN

R
FR
O

Ri

Deficient Pedestrian Crossings

VIA

ND
E TO

S a nt

Cr

uz

r

TO

Difficult Intersections

S AN

DL

ND
E TO

IDA P A S
A VEN

JO

R

VIA

DL

P EN

P EN

ta
ve

O
IN
M
A
C

A
N
FI
SE

AV
E

JO

O
IN
M
A
C

A
N
FI
SE

Safe Routes to School “Hot Spot”
- Sidewalk
- Bike path
- Traffic calming
- Traffic enforcement
- Neighborhood shortcuts

R

PA

ST
O

W FRO

Existing Deficiencies

W

0

n

Study Area

Coronado N.F

19

Ri

School

Ownership

a

a sh

uz

Legend

Study Area

59

VIII. INTRODUCTION OF MULTIMODAL FACILITY TYPES
This section defines specific terminology used for the Rio Rico
Walking and Biking Study in the description, analysis, and
assessment of existing and proposed bikeways and pedestrian
facilities in the Rio Rico area.
8.1 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.

8.2 Resource Documents
All documents and resources utilized in the development of the Rio Rico Walking and Biking Study
are identified in Section XV: Resources and References. The following resource documents have
applicability to bicycle and pedestrian facilities:
1.

The Arizona Revised Statutes Title 28 (Transportation)

2.

The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials’ (AASHTO)
Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities (2012)

3.

The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways (MUTCD)
(2009 Edition)

60

4.

The Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) Traffic Engineering Policies, Guides
and Procedures (PGP)(January 2000, revised October 2012)

5.

Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT), Intermodal Transportation Division
Policy, MGT 02-1, “Bicycle Policy” (February 27, 2007, reviewed February 27, 2010)

6.

ADOT Roadway Design Guidelines, May 2012

7.

The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials’ (AASHTO),
Guide for the Planning, Design, and Operation of Pedestrian Facilities, July 2004

8.3 Bikeway and Pedestrian Facility Definitions
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.
(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.

61

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.
The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials’ (AASHTO) Guide for the
Development of Bicycle Facilities (2012) provides definitions for bicycle facilities. The following
definitions are utilized for this study:
Bike 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.
Figure 14: Typical Bike Path Cross-section

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.

62

Figure 15: Typical Bike Lane Cross-section

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.
Figure 16: Typical Bike Route Cross-section

 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
63

Paved Shoulder - Provides for bicycle travel on rural or county roads with a paved area typically
extending 4-feet or more beyond the roadway striping. The shoulder width generally increases
with posted roadway speed. Shoulders composed of dirt or chip seal surface that does not
provide uniform integrity would not be suitable shoulder surfaces for bicycling.
Shared Use Path - Provides for bicycle travel on a paved right-of-way completely separated from a
street or highway. Shared use paths are often planned along uninterrupted linear rights-of-way,
such as rivers, channels, and rail rights-of-way. A shared use path may be used by cyclists,
pedestrians, skaters, wheelchair users, joggers, and other non-motorized users.
The following are enhanced bike lanes or bike routes which help to increase driver awareness of
bicyclists:
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).

Colored Pavement for Bike Lanes – FHWA has issued an Interim Approval for the optional use of
green colored pavement in marked bicycle lanes and in
extensions of bicycle lanes through intersections to
regulate, warn or guide traffic. The green colored
pavement is used to set aside for exclusive or
preferential use by bicyclists and to enhance the
conspicuity of a bicycle lane. As such, the green colored
pavement is considered more than just an aesthetic
treatment, it is considered to be a traffic control device.
This study utilizes the following definitions for facilities
that are not planned for bicycle travel:
64

Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon – Also known as the
High intensity Activated crossWalK (or HAWK) is a
pedestrian-activated 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 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.
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 not
designed for the primary use of bicyclists and serve the surrounding area.

65

Multipurpose Trail – An off-street path or trail for the use of non-motorized 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.

Greenway – An off-street path or trail located within a larger landscape 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.

66

8.4 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.

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.

67

8.5 Other Definitions
The following definitions are relevant to the Rio Rico Walking and Biking 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 human-powered
vehicles, but not tricycles for children.”
Grade: The slope of a facility. The maximum generally accepted grade for a 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.

68

IX. EXISTING BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES IN RIO RICO
This section describes the existing bike ways, trails and paths in the Rio Rico Study Area.
Consistent with Santa Cruz County and Santa Cruz Valley Unified School District No. 35 objectives
for this study, the primary focus of the data collection, analysis and mapping efforts was on existing
and future facilities to serve each of the three SRTS Hot Spots and the nine other significant
corridors and activity centers. Information on supporting regional trails has been collected and
mapped in a more limited manner.
Figure 12: Existing Conditions and Focus Areas illustrates existing and currently
planned/constructed bicycle and pedestrian facilities in Rio Rico. Each of the facility types and their
locations are identified. Generally speaking, Rio Rico has a limited inventory of existing bicycle and
pedestrian facilities and amenities due to the rural character and historical development pattern of
the area.
9.1 Bicycle Lane/Bicycle Path
As noted in the Santa Cruz County Comprehensive Plan and again confirmed through the Field
Study and other data collection efforts for this study, there are no formally designated bike paths
or bike lanes in Rio Rico. Existing roadways are informally used by bicyclists of all types, but no
formal striped and signed bicycle facilities currently exist in the study area.
9.2 Juan Bautista de Anza National Historic Trail (Anza Trail)
The Anza Trail traverses the Rio Rico study area within a
corridor near the Santa Cruz River and Nogales Wash. In
1775-76, de Anza led more than 240 men, women and
children on an overland journey across the frontier of
New Spain to settle Alta California. Rio Rico has a formal
trailhead – the Guy Tobin Trailhead. This trailhead is
located on Rio Rico Drive and provides a formal access and interpretative information for trail users
and enthusiasts. It is a popular destination for visitors to access the “living river” and all the various
species of flora and fauna that attract trail users to this area.

69

9.3 Shared Use Paths
The Boy Scout Trail along North Pendleton Drive to
Rio Rico Drive, the John and Bette De Stefano
Pathway and the Henry Jimenez Pathway are the
three examples of shared use paths in Rio Rico.
The Boy Scout Trail, the John and Bette De Stefano
Pathway and the Henry Jimenez Pathway are welltraveled, paved facilities approximately 10 feet in
width. There is an informal trailhead at the current
southern terminus of the Boy Scout Trail located at
the southwest corner of Pendleton Drive and Rio
Rico Drive.
The John and Bette De Stefano Pathway segment
begins south of Rio Rico Drive at this trailhead, is
buffered from Pendleton Drive along the west side
of the roadway and extends approximately ¾ mile in
length to its connection to the intersection of
Pendleton Drive and Avenida Coatimundi. A cross
walk exists at this juncture to provide the
connection across Pendleton Drive.

John and Bette De Stefano Pathway along South
Pendleton Drive and Avenida Coatimundi

The John and Bette De Stefano Pathway continues on to the senior center along the south side of
Avenida Coatimundi. This facility is very well traveled, often used by residents of the adjacent
neighborhoods to access the fitness center and
community center which are very popular
destinations in Rio Rico. Constructed in phases,
the Henry Jimenez Pathway extends the shared
use path from the senior center eastward to the
intersection of Avenida Coatimundi and Calle
Juan Legarra whereby school children have
improved access to the Coatimundi Middle
School.
In addition, Santa Cruz County is currently in the
process of clearing and grubbing for the
improvement of an additional (and much
70

Construction of West Frontage Road Shared Use Path

needed) shared use path along the West Frontage Road. Ultimately, this shared use path, located
on the west side of West Frontage Road will be designed and constructed in three phases. The first
phase currently under construction will consist of a one mile segment from Camino del Patio
(across from the Family Dollar store), north to its planned intersection with Camino Lito Gallindo.
The second phase will then extend south from Camino del Patio to Camino Ramanote with the
third and final phase planned from Camino Ramanote south to Yavapai Drive.
9.4 Trailheads
The Guy Tobin Trailhead is a very well planned and
easily accessible formal trailhead to the Anza Trail
along the Santa Cruz River. Located just beyond “the
bend” in Rio Rico Drive west of the Santa Cruz River,
visitors will experience ample parking and a series of
information/ interpretative kiosks that describe and
illustrate the historical significance of the Anza Trail
as well as local flora and fauna that might be seen in
the area.
A second, less formal trailhead is located behind the Rio Rico Community Center on Avenida
Coatimundi. This trail head provides users access to the Sonoita Creek State Natural Area behind
the community center.
A third trailhead is also an informal trailhead located at the southwest corner of Pendleton Drive
and Rio Rico Drive. Users can gather here to access the Boy Scout Trail along Pendleton Drive.
The final trailhead is a newly designated trailhead providing connection to the Anza Trail at the Palo
Parado Road alignment. A new bridge span over the Santa Cruz River is being designed that will
provide vehicular connection from I-19 to Pendleton Road along the Palo Parado Road alignment. A
new trailhead is being established in this area east of the Santa Cruz River and west of the railroad
tracks to provide additional access to the Anza Trail for the northern areas of Rio Rico.
9.5 Sidewalks
As a general measure, sidewalks are very limited in Rio Rico primarily due to its rural character and
historical development pattern. As shown in Figure 12: Existing Conditions and Focus Areas, the
limited sidewalk inventory primarily exists with the Bella Vista residential neighborhoods west of
Garrett’s. This smaller lot, more suburban style residential community has sidewalks on their local
street system, but sidewalk on only one side of Yavapai Drive which is not connected to Garrett’s
along its frontage.
71

Sidewalks elsewhere in Rio Rico are also limited.
Camino Lito Galindo near Rio Rico High School has a
sidewalk on one side of the street which abruptly
ends well before reaching the schools as it extends
west towards the schools. Figure 12: Existing
Conditions and Focus Areas also shows a limited
number of sidewalks near Pena Blanca Elementary
and Calabasas Middle School. Sidewalks are also
sparse in the area near the schools where they are
most needed. The residential community just west of the Coatimundi Middle School also has
limited sidewalks – just on one side of one street, Highland Circle. Similar to the area around
Calabasas Middle School, this community lacks sidewalks in proximity to the middle school where
they would be most useful.
There are also a limited number of sidewalks located at the intersection of both West Frontage
Road and East Frontage Road and Rio Rico Drive. What is most significant about these short
segments of sidewalk is the absence of a connection of these sidewalks to Garrett’s where they are
needed the most.
9.6 Shoulders
As previously noted, roadway shoulders are typically
defined as an area that includes 4 feet of pavement
extending beyond the roadway striping.
A specific
inventory of existing roadway shoulders that meets these
criteria was not available. It is worth noting that there are a
wide variety (both type and width) of shoulders on major
and minor county roadways. These shoulders in certain
areas do informally serve the multimodal needs in Rio Rico. Most notable are the existing
shoulders along Rio Rico Drive and Pendleton Drive. These existing shoulders often do not meet
certain design criteria to be counted in a formal inventory, but nevertheless can be a key factor in
future recommended improvements.
9.7 Local Trails and Multiuse Trails
The Esplendor Resort Trail located along the Esplendor Resort entrance road and Camino Caralampi
to Yavapai Drive are examples of formal multiuse trails in Rio Rico. Due to the nature of the terrain
and number of washes and tributaries that traverse the study area, there are numerous informal
multiuse trails that can be found in these areas that are not formally identified on Figure 12:
Existing Conditions and Focus Areas.
72

9.8 Bikeable Residential Streets
The vast majority of the local residential streets in Rio Rico 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 residential street serves low density areas with little traffic, 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 Rio Rico without
the need for additional improvements.

X. SUGGESTED FACILITIES & DESIGN ELEMENTS FOR RIO RICO
The bicycle and pedestrian facility design elements are intended to provide a baseline set of design
parameters and policy considerations that should be followed when designing and constructing
bicycle and pedestrian facilities in Rio Rico. Many of the concepts are extrapolated in whole or 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 and the FHWA Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices
(MUTCD). 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 guidance from ADOT and professional experiences of the consultant as
necessary.

73

10.1 Bike Routes/Shared Roadways
Bicyclists are generally permitted to operate on all roadways except where expressly prohibited by
statute, regulation or local ordinance. Santa Cruz County does not have an ordinance or any other
regulation that prohibits the operation of a bicycle on County 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 (shared lanes or roadways). However, there are certain
roadway design considerations that can make shared roadways more compatible for bicyclists.
Some of these include:
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)

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 Rio Rico where topographic variations challenge sight distances
and select roadway pavement sections are older and at times can pose hazards for cyclists. Cycling
enthusiasts however prefer grade changes in their bicycle trails, especially in training regimens or
racing settings. As a result, special attention and further study should be given to the placement of
bicycle and driver warning signage on bike route designated streets with variations in grade
change.
That said, rural roadways 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.

74

Figure 17: Typical Shared Roadway Marking with No On-Street Parking

In rural settings like Rio Rico, a narrow, curving roadway with low traffic volumes and low speeds is
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.
In Rio Rico, the vast majority of the existing local and collector roadways identified in the Santa
Cruz County Road Maintenance System are designated as local streets that have 24-foot pavement
sections (two, 12-foot travel lanes). Some streets have 26-foot pavement sections (two, 13-foot
travel lanes). Some of the roadways are marked with yellow center-line striping and white edge
striping, but many are 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 10.7 for additional detail on signage and pavement markings.
Many of the existing roadways in Rio Rico have a 24-foot pavement width. For roadways that
experience a low to very low traffic volume, the installation of these signs along Priority
75

Underserved Roadways is the most logical, cost effective and meaningful short term benefit to
promote and enhance a safe and rewarding bicycle experience in Rio Rico. The 24-foot wide
roadways with no pavement markings such as Calle Cherokee, Camino Aqua Fria and Calle
Calabasas were identified as Priority Underserved Roadways by community stakeholders, have two,
12-foot travel lanes. 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 sharing that roadway. The
lack of center line striping and low traffic volume enhances the ability for maneuverability on a low
volume roadway.
Figure 18: Typical Shared Roadway Cross Section

This approach however would not be appropriate for a two lane road with center-line striping such
as Camino Ramanote (a Priority Underserved Roadway) that experiences over 2,000 vehicle trips
per day. The higher traffic volumes 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 upon the approaching travel lane which naturally poses other safety issues and is, of
course, a civil traffic violation. It is more favorable for these roadways to be retro-fitted with paved
shoulders or striped bike lanes.
10.2 Paved Shoulders
When it comes to retro-fitting existing roadways in Rio Rico, the addition of bicycle improvements
is best achieved together with road widening, reconfiguration or re-pavement of the existing
roadway. In rural areas, the construction of paved shoulders is the most sensible and cost effective
approach. The construction of a bike lane is preferred in roadways with higher traffic volumes,
typically in urban or suburban settings.
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
76

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 are not designated for travel but often serve as
informal 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 Rio Rico, where the vast majority 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 (the majority of roadways in Rio Rico 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 A Policy on the Geometric
Design for Highways and Streets should be consulted for specific instructions regarding roadway
retro-fitting.
10.3 Bike Lanes
As previously noted, there are currently no bicycle lanes or bicycle paths in Santa Cruz County.
Bicycle lanes and bicycle paths share the roadway with motor vehicle traffic. Shared use paths,
which are a paved facility completely separated from a roadway, are found in Rio Rico. Section 10.4
below offers additional discussion on shared use paths in Rio Rico.
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”.

77

This of course is an important distinction relative
to the identification and prioritization of bike lane
projects (or lack thereof) in Rio Rico. Paved
shoulders can be designated as bike lanes with
the appropriate MUTCD signage and pavement
markings, especially in rural settings. The low to
very low traffic volumes, low density/ intensity of
existing and planned land uses, and existing
circulation and carrying capacities of the rural
roadways in Rio Rico collectively warrant the
prudent application of shared roadway bike
routes or construction of paved shoulders to accommodate a safe and cost effective expansion of a
connective network of bicycle trails in Rio Rico.
10.4 Shared Use Paths
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) separate from the
roadway facility. The Boy Scout Trail, John and Bette De Stefano and Henry Jimenez Pathways are
current examples of shared use pathways in Rio Rico. Shared use paths are typically designed for
two-way travel.
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 paths should not necessarily
preclude other bicycle facilities in roadways, but in rural areas there is generally not a need for such
redundant facilities.
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 Rio Rico
shall consult the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board (Access Board)
Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Accessibility Guideline for Shared Use Paths.

78

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 paths in Rio Rico are 10-feet in width which is also a sufficient width for future shared
use paths in Rio Rico. 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.

Figure 19: Typical Shared Use Path

For a typical shared use path in Rio Rico 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 retroreflective.
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 two foot clearance area shall be maintained
79

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.
10.5 Multipurpose Trails
Multipurpose trails are off-road trails, typically
unpaved that are intended for use by pedestrians,
bicyclists or equestrian users. Multipurpose trails
typically are set back from formal roadway facilities
and often utilize natural and manmade features such
as washes, rivers or utility corridors for recreational
use. The Anza Trail is an example of a multipurpose
trail in Rio Rico. 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.

80

Figure 20: Typical Multipurpose Trail

81

10.6 Sidewalks
Sidewalks generally provide the greatest degree of comfort for pedestrians when pedestrian use is
found is close proximity to a roadway facility. In Rio Rico 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 preferred in residential communities with an average lot size of 12,000
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 shoulders or a shared use path on rural
roadway sections can adequately serve pedestrian comfort and convenience.
Santa Cruz County utilizes Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) standard specifications and
details for the design and construction of sidewalks (Figure 21: MAG Std. Detail 230). 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.
Figure 21: MAG Std. Detail 230

82

10.7 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 Rio Rico, the application of Bike Route signs
will be the most prevalent use of signs.
The signs shown may be used on roadways without bike lanes or usable shoulders and where 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 22: MUTCD, W11-1

Figure 23: MUTCD, W16-1P

OR

Figure 24: Typical Bike Route Pavement Marking

Source: MUTCD

83

10.8 At-grade railroad crossings
Railroad crossings that cross a roadway at an angle can cause steering difficulties for bicyclists. Rio
Rico has railroad crossings on county roadways at several locations, including Ruby Road as perhaps
the most notable. Depending on the width and depth of the flange way opening and pavement
unevenness, it is common for bicycles to get “pinched” and turned away from their desired course,
causing accidents and injuries.
When evaluating new crossings for roadways or the construction of a shared use path, the
accepted angle of the skew between the centerline of the tracks and the bike facility is 60-90
degrees with 90 degrees being preferred. Concrete surfacing should be applied for smoothest and
safest ride as it performs better in wet conditions. Rubber crossings are slippery when wet and
degrade over time, especially in the Arizona sun. Figure 25: Desired Railroad Crossing Condition
below shows a desirable railroad crossing condition.
Figure 25: Desired Railroad Crossing Condition

84

Rio Rico has numerous cattle guards on county and ADOT roadway facilities. Community and
project stakeholders voiced concern that some of the cattle guards can pose a safety hazard for
bicyclists when there is extra “gaps” in the grate rail or thread. This is often caused by the grate
shifting from vehicles driving over the cattle guards. Figure 26(a) and 26(b) are standard cattle
guard/grate details with a grill detail that helps mitigate this safety concern for bicyclists.
Figure 26(a): Desired Cattle Guard Details

Source: ADOT

Figure 26(b): Grille Detail

Source: ADOT

85

10.9 Narrow Bridges
Generally speaking, bridges should accommodate bicycles and pedestrians into their design. The
type of bicycle facility should consider the function of the roadway (design speed), length of the
bridge facility and existing conditions of the approach roadway. Paved shoulders (bicyclists) and
sidewalks are the most common application in rural conditions such as Rio Rico. At a minimum, the
addition of paved shoulders on the approach road should be included in any retrofit project. In
conditions where the bicycle facility (paved shoulder) is adjacent to the edge of the bridge, a rail
with a height of 42 to 48 inches (depending on design speed) should be utilized. Retrofitting
existing bridges by reducing travel lane width to accommodate bicyclists and pedestrians is not a
viable option in Rio Rico – the lane widths are already at 12 feet in most cases.
In conditions where existing bridge retro-fits are not practical or cost-effective, pedestrian and
bicycle facilities (one shared use path) can be provided in a grade-separated crossing to enable the
continuation of the existing bike or trail system in small washes. When it is necessary to provide for
bicyclists on currently undersized bridges, “share the road” bicycle signage, pavement markings
and driver warning signage should be utilized when widening options are not available such as
Ruby Road and Rio Rico Drive crossings of the Santa Cruz River. For grade separated crossings that
entail the shared use path to traverse an existing small wash facility, concrete is the preferred
materials to minimize scour and erosion. Environmental permitting and hydrology studies may be
necessary prior to design and construction of said facilities. This condition is only applicable to
smaller wash crossings such as the West Frontage Road crossing of Aqua Fria Canyon or Ruby Road
at Potrero Creek.
10.10 Mitigating Intersections with Unpaved Roadways
A common problem plaguing bicycle trail safety and maintenance in rural communities is loose
gravel that becomes deposited on the bicycle trails from vehicle movements on approaching
unpaved driveways. Small, loose gravel on bicycle trails creates a safety hazard for cyclists and a
maintenance headache for local public works crews. When constructing a new paved shoulder,
shared use path or bike lane facility, it is suggested that at a minimum 10-foot portion of the
unpaved driveway approach be paved in order to reduce loose gravel depositing onto bike trails
and creating crash hazards.

86

10.11 Pedestrian Crossings
Crosswalk markings provide 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-11-15
or W-11-15P for vehicle approaches at intersections should be considered. Examples of typical
signing and pavement markings are shown below.

Figure 27: Typical Pedestrian Crossing Signing & Marking

Source: MUTCD

87

10.12 Accessibility
The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) is a comprehensive civil rights law which
prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability. It requires, among other things, that newly
constructed and altered “places of public accommodation” be readily accessible to and usable by
individuals with disabilities. Accessibility guidelines are developed by the Architectural and
Transportation Barriers Compliance Board (Access Board). Most accessibility standards (ADAAG,
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Accessibility Guidelines for Buildings and Facilities) are not
readily applicable to the natural environment. The most pertinent document to guide trail
development is the “Draft Final Accessibility Guidelines for Outdoor Developed Areas” (2009) . The
United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service (USFS) has developed Forest Service Trail
Accessibility Guidelines (FSTG) based on the guidelines on outdoor developed areas. Although the
USFS trail design parameters do not apply to the range of trails provided in this plan, the FSTG are
helpful because they “provide guidance for maximizing accessibility of trails...while recognizing and
protecting the unique characteristics of their natural setting.” These guidelines encourage design
for increased accessibility but do not require unreasonable efforts to provide an accessible route in
hiking trails in steep terrain without added surfacing. Where terrain allows accessible slopes, a
range of surfacing choices from pavement to fine gravel to engineered wood fiber can create levels
of accessibility that respond to the character and desired use of the trail.
Proposed Accessibility Guidelines for Pedestrian Facilities in the Public Right-of-Way (2011)
contains guidance appropriate to facilities adjacent to roadways.
http://www.accessboard.gov/prowac/nprm.htm The Access Board has also given notice of proposed ruling making
regarding Shared use paths. See Accessibility Guidelines for Pedestrian Facilities in the Public Rightof-Way; Shared Use Paths http://www.access-board.gov/sup/snprm.htm
The Technical Provisions for ‘Access Routes’, ‘Outdoor Access Routes’, and ‘Accessible Trails’ gives
the technical details of ADAAG and the Outdoor Developed Areas guidelines. The information
contained in Table 15 is based on information contained in Trail Planning, Design and Development
Guidelines: Shared Use Paved Trails, Natural Surface Trails, Winter Use Trails, Bikeways by the
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Trails and Waterways, 2006. ‘Access routes’ (ADAAG)
relate to the built environment where all routes must meet accessibility requirements. ‘Outdoor
access routes’ are in outdoor environments, e.g., parks where reasonable access is required, such
as between a parking lot and a playground. ‘Accessible trails’ are those trails that meet the USFS
guidelines. All refer to newly constructed or altered trails, not retroactively to existing trails.
‘Alteration’ differs from ‘maintenance’ by changing the trail from its original condition.

88

Table 15: Technical Accessibility Provisions

Technical Provision for Access Routes, Outdoor Access Routes and Accessible Trails
Access Route
Outdoor Access Route
Accessible Trail
Surface
Stable, firm and
Firm and stable
Firm and stable*
slip resistant
Minimum Clear 36 inches
36 inches
36 inches
Tread Width
32 inches for no
32 inches when * applies 32 inches when *
more than 20
applies
inches
Tread Obstacles
1:33 (3.03%)
1:20 (5%)
1:50 (2%)
1:20 (5%) for drainage
1:10 (10%) at the
Maximum Cross
purposes
bottom of an open
Slope
drain where clear
tread is a minimum
of 42 inches
1:20 (5%) for any
distance
1:20 (5%) for any
1:12 (8.33%) for
distance
maximum of 50 feet
1:12 (8.33%) for
1:10 (10%) for
Maximum
1:12 (8.33%)
maximum of 50 feet
maximum of 30 feet
Running Slope
1:10 (10%) for maximum 1:8 (12.5%) for
of 30 feet
maximum of 10 feet
1:7 (14.3%) for 5
feet maximum for
open drainage
structures*

89

Passing Space

Resting Intervals

Access Route
Every 200 feet
where clear tread
width is less than
60 inches, a
minimum 60 X 60
inch space, or a Tshaped
intersection of
two walks or
corridors with
arms and stem
extending a
minimum of 48
inches.
Landings: 60 inch
minimum length.
Minimum width
as wide the ramp
run leading to it.

Outdoor Access Route
Every 200 feet where
clear tread width is less
than 60 inches, a
minimum 60 X 60 inch
space, or a T-shaped
intersection of two walks
or corridors with arms
and stem extending a
minimum of 48 inches or
every 300 feet where *
applies.

Accessible Trail
Every 200 feet
where clear tread
width is less than 60
inches, a minimum
60 X 60 inch space,
or a T-shaped
intersection of two
walks or corridors
with arms and stem
extending a
minimum of 48
inches.*

Landings: 60 inch
minimum length.
Minimum width at least
as wide as the trail
segment leading to the
resting interval. A
maximum slope of 5% is
permitted for drainage
purposes.

Landings: 60 inch
minimum length.
Minimum width at
least as wide as the
trail segment
leading to the
resting interval and
a maximum slope of
1:20 (5%)*

*Exceptions to the technical provisions can be made in certain situations.

Technical provisions for outdoor access routes and accessible trails may not apply if it cannot be
provided because compliance would:
1) cause substantial harm to cultural, historic, religious or significant natural features or
characteristics;
2) substantially alter the nature of the setting or purpose of the facility;
3) require construction methods or materials that are prohibited by Federal, state or local
regulations or statutes; or
4) be infeasible due to terrain or prevailing construction practices.

90

10.13 Trailheads
Trailheads are staging areas at the point at which a path, usually intended primarily or solely for
walking/hiking and/or equestrian traffic, begins. Modern trailheads often contain vehicular parking
areas, restrooms, sign posts and kiosks containing information about the trail and its features.
Trailheads are located along key trails and at the entrance of important destinations. The trailheads
are designed to provide specified levels of service to the identified trail user type. There are
typically two trailhead types: major and minor. The Guy Tobin Trailhead providing access to the
Anza Trail along the Santa Cruz River in Rio Rico is an example of a major trailhead.
While there is no universal set of trailhead design standards, major trailheads are larger in size,
located at significant destination points and often designed to accommodate equestrian users. A
sample major trailhead design is shown in Figure 28: Sample Major Trailhead Design. Typical
amenities often associated with a major trailhead design include:
 Equestrian parking (gravel or decomposed granite surfacing) to accommodate large trailers
and queing space. The preferred parking space dimension is 15‘ wide by 70’ long.
 Equestrian parking area design should allow the equestrian user the opportunity to enter
and leave the trailhead (pull-through) without having to back-up or reverse the trailers.
 Standard parking (30-100 spaces)
 Ordinary mounting blocks, stumps or stones
 Drinking water source/water trough (for horses)
 Tether area
 Concrete bunker for manure disposal
 Picnic tables (2-4)
 Ramadas (2-4)
 Restrooms
 Separate parking and staging areas for non-equestrian users
 Garbage containers (2-3)
 Bench seating (2-3)
 Kiosk with trailing maps and interpretive information
 Trail signage clearly marked
 Dusk-to-dawn lighting

91

Figure 28: Sample Major Trailhead Design

92

Minor trailheads are typically located in connection with another community facility such as a park
or community center that serve as a staging area to an adjacent trail. Minor trailheads can also be
located in areas that are not necessarily connected with another community facility but serve as a
standalone staging area to a popular trail destination. Figure 29: Sample Minor Trailhead Design
illustrates a typical minor trailhead design. Features commonly associated with a minor trailhead
include:











Standard parking (10-30 spaces)
Drinking water source
Picnic tables (1-2)
Ramadas (1-2)
Restrooms
Garbage containers (1-2)
Bench seating (1-2)
Kiosk with trailing maps and interpretive information
Trail signage clearly marked
Dusk-to-dawn lighting

Figure 29: Sample Minor Trailhead Design

93

XI.

EVALUATION CRITERIA

11.1 The Importance of Evaluation Criteria
A key component in the Rio Rico Walking and Biking Master Plan is to provide for effective
measures for Rio Rico community stakeholders, County staff and the project team to objectively
and effectively evaluate various types of bicycle and pedestrian improvement projects for future
implementation. 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 County plans and policies, identify strategies for the phased
implementation of larger projects and establish a series of priorities that are intended to guide
County staff and elected officials in the decision making process.
Development of evaluation criteria for Rio Rico is truly a blend of broad transportation industry
criteria, professional experiences, and community input received through the planning process.
These resources collectively are refined into a combination of evaluation criteria that are tailored
to the objectives identified for the Rio Rico Walking and Biking Study. It is worth noting that
projects that promote the improvement of facilities that meet Safe Routes to Schools program
objectives receive a weighting factor of “2” since these improvements are highly desired by the
community and were emphasized as one of the primary objectives of Santa Cruz County’s
application to ADOT for funding of this project.
11.2 Introduction and Description of the Evaluation Criteria

1
Criteria:

Project provides an improved linkage to existing or planned
parks, trail or other public spaces or closes a gap in an existing
trail or bicycle trail network.

Description and Project will enhance the current condition by providing
Applicability:
connection (or closing a gap) from an existing residential
neighborhood, activity center or existing formal or informal trail
to an existing or proposed park, trail (or trail system), shared use
pathway or other public space.

2

Score/Rank:

Yes = 1 point

Criteria:

Noteworthy safety improvements based on 5 years of historical
crash data and/or field observations.

94

No = 0 points

Description and Project will enhance the current condition by improving the
Applicability:
safety and functionality of deficient roadways, intersections and
mid-block pedestrian crossings. Such improvements may consist
of sidewalks on busy streets, pavement markings, signage,
refuge areas, lighting or improved sight distances and driver
warning systems.

3

Score/Rank:

Yes = 1 point

No = 0 points

Criteria:

Proposed improvements are located within a two mile radius of
an elementary school or middle school.

Description and Project will enhance the current condition by targeting select
Applicability:
bicycle and/or pedestrian improvements in proximity to existing
elementary and middle schools consistent with Safe Routes to
Schools criteria and funding formulas. Such improvements may
consist of sidewalk improvements (repairs, widening, gap
closures, and curb ramps), crosswalks, traffic control devices,
signage, and roadway/traffic calming on-street bicycle lanes or
paths and off-street trail facilities that may provide a
neighborhood connection or short-cut.

4

Score/Rank:

Yes = 1 point

No = 0 points

Criteria:

Complexity of Construction (Cost)

Weighted Score = x2

Description and Projects will vary in complexity of physical construction
Applicability:
techniques and cost. Highly complex projects will 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.
Score/Rank:

Little Complexity = 2 points

95

Medium Complexity = 1 point
High Complexity = 0 points

5

Criteria:

Construction of the project creates the potential to reduce
vehicle trips in the immediate area.

Description and Will the construction of the proposed project create the
Applicability:
potential to experience a reduction in vehicle trips in the
immediate area by creating an alternative mode to vehicular
transportation? Improved multimodal connectivity between
existing neighborhoods and from neighborhoods to retail,
employment or other community services are emphasized here.
Score/Rank:

High Potential = 2 points
Limited Potential = 1 point
Project will not reduce vehicle trips = 0 points

6

Criteria:

The Rio Rico community has expressed a desire to improve upon
an existing deficiency and supports the project as a means to
improve safety, mobility or connectivity in the immediate area.

Description and Community stakeholders have identified key deficiencies,
Applicability:
concerns or desired improvements through community dialogue,
TAC meetings, youth workshop or other feedback received by
the project team.
Score/Rank:

Broad Community Support = 2 point
Community Support = 1 points
Deficiency Identified but lacking pronounced community support
= 0 points

7

Criteria:

The proposed project may have the ability to cost share with
supplemental funding sources in order to implement the
construction of the project.

96

Description and The proposed project may yield the ability to leverage funding
Applicability:
support from outside agencies, property owners and/or federal,
state or local governments, organizations and non-profit
agencies to assist in sharing or reducing the overall construction
costs of the project.

8

Score/Rank:

Yes = 1 point

No = 0 points

Criteria:

The proposed project has the potential to enhance economic
development and/or tourism opportunities in the Rio Rico area.

Description and The proposed project may enhance overall economic
Applicability:
development and tourism objectives by improving multimodal
connectivity between residential neighborhoods and employment
centers OR the project enhances the appeal of existing roadway
or trail facilities that better complete (or help complete) a holistic
network that may be used to draw regional events and tourism to
Rio Rico. Examples vary and can include improvements or
connections to the Anza Trail or Garrett’s or bicycle
improvements to accommodate racing or training events.
Score/Rank:

Yes = 1 point

No = 0 points

XII. PLAN OF IMPROVEMENTS
Table 16: Suggested Plan of Improvements identifies, discusses and prioritizes each of the 69
projects identified by project stakeholders for the Rio Rico area. Utilizing the evaluation criteria
introduced in Section XI, each project was comparatively ranked amongst its peers for each of the
following project types: sidewalks, shared use paths, multi-purpose trails, paved shoulders, bike
route/shared roadways, difficult intersections, difficult pedestrian crossings, and narrow bridge
crossings.
The “ranking” of each project type is provided as a means to guide the general comparison
between projects. The rankings demonstrate a rational process by which project stakeholders can
balance a multitude of considerations when evaluating and prioritizing various project types. The
rankings are not intended to be a final, conclusive statement that projects must be completed in
the order of which they were prioritized. As Santa Cruz County and other project stakeholders
move forward with the implementation of select projects, further consideration must be given to
the relative cost effectiveness of the project together with policy considerations and community
97

benefit that, together with the guidance of this matrix, 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. Please refer to Appendix E for a more detailed review of how each project scored
across each of the eight (8) criteria.
Choices need to be made on accommodating suggested improvements and how select roadways
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 overnight.
This process 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. Utilizing the information and guidance contained in Table 16, short
term (5-year), medium term (10-year) and long term (20 year) projects are highlighted below.
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 Rio Rico will
include the installation of bike route/shared lane signage and continued improvements to the West
Frontage Road shared use path.
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 County/grant program.
Examples for Rio Rico include the construction of paved shoulders and select Safe Routes to
Schools improvements.
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.

98

Table 16: Suggested Plan of Improvements

Location

Approx.
Length

Project Notes
&
Additional Considerations

Implementation
Timeline

Sidewalks
Camino Lito Galindo”

Apprx.
3,200 feet

Short Term

Yavapai Drive “Loop” – from
West Frontage Road to West
Frontage Road

Apprx.
4,900 feet

Short Term

Apprx.
200 feet

Medium Term

Apprx.
7,250 feet

Long Term

Pena Blanca Elementary
School entrance driveway

Avenida Leon-Avenida
Gandara Loop

Camino Lito Galindo has a 50-foot right-of-way. The north side
of Camino Lito Galindo is preferred for a continuous sidewalk
connection and accessibility from adjoining neighborhoods to
all three school sites. Sufficient right-of-way exists on each
street for a sidewalk. Improvements also identified in the
Cooperative Extension SRTS Needs Assessment Report.
Attached sidewalk is recommended for the north/east sides of
Yavapai Drive from the existing curb return at West Frontage
Road along the entire “loop” with its reconnection to West
Frontage Road to the north. This “urban” area of Rio Rico is
home to the most densely populated residential area and Rio
Rico Plaza (Garrett’s) which serves as Rio Rico’s commercial
services core. Pedestrians routinely frequent this route and a
sidewalk is needed for safety and separation from motorists as
Yavapai Drive is the most traveled roadway with over 11,000
average trips per day. A striped crosswalk with pedestrian
warning signage is needed at the Garrett’s driveway location.
Sidewalk on the west side of this driveway is necessary to
ensure safety by reducing potential for pedestrian/vehicle
conflict at this strategic school entrance.
Two “local” streets that operationally function as collector
roadways for the medium density residential neighborhoods it
serves and in close proximity community services on Avenida
Coatimundi. Sidewalks on both sides of the street will enhance
the safety and operational efficiency of these busy residential
collector roadways by separating the pedestrians from the
vehicles in this well-traveled area. Challenges include fitting
sidewalks within the existing right of way and multiple
driveway conflicts.

Shared Use Paths
West Frontage Road –Camino
De Patio to Camino Lito
Galindo (Phase 1)

Apprx.
one mile

Short Term

99

Santa Cruz County is currently in the process of constructing
Phase 1 of a shared use path along the west side of West
Frontage Road. West Frontage Road has ample right-of-way at
150-feet and the shared use trail alignment is sufficiently
buffered from the roadway prism. Suggesting appropriate
pedestrian warning signage for vehicle approaches at
intersections.

Location

Approx.
Length

Project Notes
&
Additional Considerations

Implementation
Timeline

Shared Use Paths
West Frontage Road –Camino
De Patio to Camino Ramanote
(Phase 2)

Apprx.
4,300 feet

Short Term

West Frontage Road –Camino
Ramanote to Yavapai Drive
(Phase 3)

Apprx.
2,600 feet

Short Term

West Frontage Road – Peck
Canyon south to Camino Lito
Galindo (Phase 4)

Apprx.
2,675 feet

Short Term

Apprx.
500 feet
from
Yavapai
Drive
intersection

Medium Term

Camino Agua Fria

100

Santa Cruz County is currently in the process of constructing
Phase 1 of a shared use path. This segment is planned as Phase
2 along the west side of West Frontage Road. West Frontage
Road has ample right-of-way at 150-feet and the shared use
trail alignment is sufficiently buffered from the roadway prism.
Suggesting appropriate pedestrian/bicycle crossing warning
signage such as MUTCD W-11-15 or W-11-15P for vehicle
approaches at intersections.
Santa Cruz County is currently in the process of constructing
Phase 1 of a shared use path. This segment is planned as Phase
3 along the west side of West Frontage Road. West Frontage
Road has ample right-of-way at 150-feet and the shared use
trail alignment is sufficiently buffered from the roadway prism.
The narrow bridge crossing over Aqua Fria Canyon will be a
design challenge and is discussed under the “Narrow Bridges”
section. Suggesting appropriate pedestrian/bicycle crossing
warning signage such as MUTCD W-11-15 or W-11-15P for
vehicle approaches at intersections.
Provide for the northerly extension of the West Frontage Road
shared use path currently being designed and constructed by
the County in three phases. Suggestion that this segment
become phase four. Improvements also identified in the
Cooperative Extension SRTS Needs Assessment Report.
A shared use path along the south side of Camino Aqua Fria is
recommend from the intersection with Yavapai Drive for
approximately 500 feet. This shared use path will provide an
appropriate transition to the bike route planned along Camino
Aqua Fria and the sidewalk and shared use path system along
Yavapai Drive adjacent to the more densely populated
residential neighborhoods. The 80-feet of existing right-of-way
is sufficient to accommodate the planned improvements.

Location

Approx.
Length

Project Notes
&
Additional Considerations

Implementation
Timeline

Shared Use Paths

Yavapai Drive “Loop” – from
West Frontage Road to West
Frontage Road

Apprx.
4,900 feet

Short Term

Camino Maricopa – Ruby R.
(SR 289) to West Frontage
Road

Apprx.
5,800 feet

Medium Term

101

A shared use path is recommended for the south/west sides of
Yavapai Drive from the existing sidewalk terminus at the West
Frontage Road along the entire “outer loop” with its
reconnection to West Frontage Road to the north. This “urban”
area of Rio Rico is home to the most densely populated
residential area and the Rio Rico Plaza (Garrett’s) which serves
as Rio Rico’s commercial services core. To compliment a
planned sidewalk across the street, a shared use path is desired
to accommodate bicyclists as well as pedestrians for existing
and planned “urban” subdivisions in this area. The shared use
path will enhance multimodal connectivity to the West
Frontage Road shared use path, separate bicyclists and
pedestrians from the busiest roadway in Rio Rico and also
provide connection to the existing multiuse pathway at Camino
Caralampi and ultimately to the Esplendor Resort. An existing
right-of-way width of 150 feet is sufficient to accommodate this
improvement and the terrain is relatively flat in order to
minimize necessary grading. Future connection to a planned
bike route (paved shoulders) along the Rio Rico Drive overpass
will greatly enhance system connectivity in this strategic
location of Rio Rico.
Camino Maricopa is classified as a local street with Santa Cruz
County but functions more so as a collector roadway. The
speed limit is posted at 30 mph. This roadway provides
collector-level service connecting West Frontage Road to Ruby
Road (SR 289) and is a central access point for adjacent
residents wanting to access the schools and West Frontage
Road. A shared use path along the east side of the roadway is
recommended. Camino Maricopa has 100-feet of right-of way
and a 24-foot pavement section. There is sufficient right-of-way
to construct a shared use pathway. The east side of the
roadway has fewer topographic constraints than the west side
and provides direct connectivity to the school entrance drive.

Location

Approx.
Length

Project Notes
&
Additional Considerations

Implementation
Timeline

Shared Use Paths

Camino Caralampi – Yavapai
Drive to Calle Amarillo

Apprx.
9,400 feet

Medium Term

Via San Potosi – Avenida Lirio
to Paseo de Yucatan

Apprx.
1,600 feet

Medium Term

102

This roadway already has over 4,000 vehicle trips per day. It is a
24-foot pavement section with a generous 100-foot right of
way. The roadway maintains a center line stripe and there are
no additional paved shoulders. At its northern terminus with
Yavapai Drive, non-motorized users access Garrett’s and the
Esplendor Resort multipurpose trail also connects to this area.
A shared use path is desired to serve this frequently traveled
area of Rio Rico to maintain separation of motorists and
pedestrians and bicyclists. This shared use path could extend
to a southern terminus at Calle Amarillo. This 9,400 foot length
includes the most populous and most traveled portions of
Camino Caralampi. The path is likely most desirable on the
west side of the roadway to allow access from the majority of
residents and thereby creating a seamless path system. The
planned shared use path could connect to the existing multiuse
trail near the Esplendor Resort or replace the existing portions
of multiuse trail altogether. It should be noted that potential
conflicts with driveway cuts and fence encroachments create
challenges to design and construction costing along the west
side of the roadway. Appropriate crosswalks and driver
warning signage is needed at roadway intersections. Suggesting
appropriate pedestrian/bicycle crossing warning signage such
as MUTCD W-11-2, W-11-15 or W-11-15P for vehicle
approaches at intersections.
A shared use path to accommodate pedestrians and bicyclists is
preferred on Via San Potosi. This is a primary corridor for
school children accessing Pena Blanca Elementary School.
Sidewalk improvements are identified in the Cooperative
Extension SRTS Needs Assessment Report. A shared use path is
preferred to minimize future County operation and
maintenance concerns/costs. Design challenges to consider
include limited 50-foot rights-of-way, fencing or other
encroachments, on Via San Potosi and Avenida Lirio.
Considerable changes in topographic grade also pose drainage
considerations that will likely increase design and construction
costs for improvements on these streets.

Location

Approx.
Length

Project Notes
&
Additional Considerations

Implementation
Timeline

Shared Use Paths

Calle Calabasas – West
Frontage Road to Circulo
Guerrero

Apprx.
12,000
feet

Long Term

Boy Scout Trail

½ mile

Medium term

103

Calle Calabasas provides area connectivity between the West
Frontage Road and SR 289 and serving as a collector roadway
for residents in the area. A fire station is located at the
intersection of West Frontage Road. Robert Damon Park is a
popular recreational facility frequented by local residents. Calle
Calabasas is a minor collector road with 100-feet of right-ofway and a 24-foot pavement section with no center line
striping. The speed limit is posted at 30 mph. A shared use path
along the west side of the roadway is preferred to provide
pedestrian and bicycle access for recreation users and bicycle
and running enthusiasts as noted by several community
members. A shared use path is more cost effective than a
separate sidewalk and bike path system. This path alignment
can be utilized along with the existing overhead utility power
line easement traversing the west side of Calle Calabasas.
Connection to a regional bike route along SR 289, the “west Rio
Rico bike trail system” and access to Robert Damon Park are
established. This segment includes a shared use path for the
connection to SR 289 via Circulo Guerrero. As an interim
measure, Calle Calabasas could be utilized as a Bike
Route/Shared Road with appropriate signage and pavement
markings as needed.
The Boy Scout Trail begins at the northwest corner of
Pendleton Drive and Rio Rico Drive. There is no formal
trailhead. The trail begins adjacent to Pendleton Drive but
immediately diverges to the northwest as it meanders through
a wooded area and runs due north approximately 475 feet
west of Pendleton Road. The trail runs for approximately ½
mile before the formal trail dissipates into non-descript series
of lesser paths in the area. Local-area Boy Scouts maintain this
trail on a semi-regular basis. Extension of this trail to the north
is desired.

Location

Approx.
Length

Project Notes
&
Additional Considerations

Implementation
Timeline

Shared Use Paths

Rio Rico Drive from Pendleton
Drive to the Anza Trailhead
along north side of Rio Rico
Drive

Apprx.
3,700 feet

Short Term

South Pendleton Drive –
Avenida Coatimundi to
Calabasas Park

Apprx. 4.6
miles

Medium Term

West Frontage Road – Rio Rico
Drive to Ruby Road

Apprx.
3.15 miles

Long Term

104

A shared use path proposed at this location provides
connectivity to other existing and proposed shared use paths
and the Anza Trail, establishing a strategic connection and link
to the overall trail system in Rio Rico. This particular section of
proposed shared use path has been nominated for inclusion on
the Arizona State Trail Plan. Sufficient right-of-way appears to
exist though the at-grade crossing of the existing railroad tracks
will require safety/warning signage to alert path users. The use
of compressed native materials for sections of this shared use
path within the Santa Cruz River designated floodplain area
should be considered in lieu of pavement due to scour and
erosion concerns. Proposed construction of a trail within any
USACOE 404 jurisdictional areas will likely need 404 permitting.
Connection to the trailhead at the Anza Trail provides
enhanced continuity and value in the overall trail network.
A southerly extension of the popular and well-traveled shared
use path along Pendleton Drive from its existing terminus at
Avenida Coatimundi to Calabasas Park is desired. This proposed
shared use path is necessary to enhance non-motorized
mobility and connectivity along Pendleton Drive which provides
important north-south connectivity east of Interstate 19.
Connections to Calabasas Park and the Anza Trail can enhance
east-west mobility. The 50-foot right-of-way of Pendleton Drive
is constraining and six fairly large wash crossings along this
stretch will need to be considered in design and construction.
The total length of the West Frontage Road alignment from Rio
Rico Drive south to Ruby Road is approximately 3.15 miles. Of
the 3.15 miles, approximately 2.4 miles are paved from Ruby
Road north to approximately 400 feet north of its intersection
with Calle Calabasas where the pavement currently terminates.
There is no roadway for approximately .75 miles from the
existing pavement terminus north to Rio Rico Drive. A shared
use path is desired along this alignment to establish a southerly
extension the existing and planned shared use path along West
Frontage Road north of Rio Rico Drive. This segment would
greatly enhance mobility by completing a seamless north-south
non-motorized connection in Rio Rico west of Interstate 19.

Location

Approx.
Length

Project Notes
&
Additional Considerations

Implementation
Timeline

Multi-Purpose Trails
Fernando Court to Peck
Canyon Drive

Apprx.
1,550 feet

Pena Blanca/Calabasas West
Trail Entrance

Long Term

Medium Term

Calle Calabasas to Avenida
Palomas

Apprx.
1,000 feet

Long Term

Santa Cruz River (Anza Trail) to
Calabasas Park

Apprx.
1,200 feet

Medium Term

Varies

Short Term
Medium Term
Long Term

Anza Trail

105

An unpaved multiuse trail can serve as a neighborhood
shortcut promoting non-motorized modes of travel for schoolaged children accessing the three school sites from this
neighborhood. An existing pathway/jeep trail already exists.
Additional research on the potential need for an easement for
public ingress/egress is necessary.
As a possible alternative and/or supplement to nearby sidewalk
improvements to Via San Potosi, a multipurpose trail can be
constructed to the west of the school property connecting Via
San Potosi and Hiedra Ct. Steep sections will require the
construction of stairs. An informal network of trails already
exists in the area. Easements may be necessary to formally
establish this trail. Improvements also identified in the
Cooperative Extension SRTS Needs Assessment Report.
Identified as a “key system disconnect”, a multipurpose trail is
recommended to enhance the non-motorized connection from
the neighborhood near Avenida Palomas to Robert Damon
Park. Currently, users must indirectly travel south or north on
Avenida Palomas. A multipurpose trail to provide a more direct
connection would greatly aid connectivity of this area and park
amenity. A trail utilizing an existing wash approximately (125
north of Camino Caballo) and Suma Court is a possible
alignment. Easements must be secured and terrain issues will
need to be addressed in design and construction.
A multipurpose trail linking the Anza Trail to Calabasas Park is
desired to eliminate a key system disconnect and promote trail
system continuity to community assets that may support
community based events and recreation opportunities.
The southern and northern extension of the existing Anza Trail
is recommended. Trail facilities should be incrementally
expanded to the north and south from the Guy Tobin trailhead.
Leveraging assistance from community volunteers, non-profit
organizations and trail enthusiasts to participate in trail
building efforts is highly recommended.

Location

Approx.
Length

Project Notes
&
Additional Considerations

Implementation
Timeline

Paved Shoulders

Via Patricia- Peck Canyon Dr.

Apprx.
3,400 feet

Short Term

Camino Ramanote – West
Frontage Road to Corrida De
Toros

Apprx.
13, 400
feet
(2.5
miles)

Medium Term

Peck Canyon Drive – Via
Patricia to Circulo Sombrero

Apprx.
9,500 feet

Medium Term

106

Peck Canyon Drive has a right-of-way of 100 feet. Where
sufficient right of way is available, it is suggested that a striped
paved shoulder be constructed and where right-of-way is
limited, a bike route be provided through the use of signage
and pavement markings in proximity to school facilities.
Provide for safe and adequate transition to West Frontage
Road future improvements. Improvements also identified in
the Cooperative Extension SRTS Needs Assessment Report.
Identified as a Priority Underserved Roadway by community
stakeholders, this two-lane roadway with center-line striping
has a 24 foot pavement section in an 80-foot right-of-way.
Westerly to its intersection with Corrida De Toros, the roadway
has many curves, changes in grade and resulting blind spots.
Camino Ramanote currently experiences just over 2,000 vehicle
trips day. These collective roadway characteristics necessitate
the improvement of a paved shoulder.
From West Frontage Road to Circulo Sombrero, a designated
bike lane (or paved shoulder in the alternate) is suggested to be
constructed on the north side of the existing roadway. Peck
Canyon Drive currently experiences 1,389 vehicle trips per day.
Traffic will continue to increase as Rio Rico experiences
additional growth and Peck Canyon Drive will likely transition
from a local street to a collector road over time. Peck Canyon
Drive’s intersection with West Frontage Road and serving
access to the three school sites continue to place Peck Canyon
Drive as high importance in providing motorized and nonmotorized mobility in the area. Peck Canyon Drive has 100-feet
of right-of-way and a 24-foot pavement section and center line
stripe. The construction of a paved shoulder for this segment
will complete a strategic segment that can contribute to two
preferred bicycle recreation loop networks – Circulo Sombrero
and the larger loop utilizing Calle Cherokee to Camino
Ramanote and the West Frontage Road shared use path. For
these reasons, a dedicated paved shoulder for this 9,500 foot
segment is recommended.

Location

Approx.
Length

Project Notes
&
Additional Considerations

Implementation
Timeline

Paved Shoulders

Camino Providencia

North Pendleton
Drive

Apprx. 6
miles

Medium Term

Calle Providencia is a local street that radiates out from Yavapai
Drive serving low to medium density residential neighborhoods
in Rio Rico. While no existing vehicle trip data was able to be
obtained for Calle Providencia, it is clear from the existing and
planned land uses patterns in the area that continued
residential growth will occur and so too will the motorized and
non-motorized user demand. Calle Providencia is a 60-foot
right of way with a 24-foot pavement section with no center
line striping. Paved shoulders are suggested for both sides of
Calle Providencia to its intersection with Camino Aqua Fria.
Provides bicycle trail connectivity to the bike routes of Camino
Aqua Fria and Camino Ramanote for larger route development
in western Rio Rico.
Based on its proximity to Yavapai Drive and to existing and
future commercial retail activities, sidewalks are also
recommended to compliment the paved shoulder
improvements for the first 2,150 feet from Yavapai Drive to the
intersection with Circulo Montosa.
If right-of-way constraints, lack of funding or other
development-related challenges persist, consider the use of a
shared use path for the south side of Calle Providencia.

Short Term

Pendleton Drive from Rio Rico Drive to Camino Josefina is
approximately 6 miles long. Pendleton Drive is the only northsouth collector roadway serving residents living east of I-19 and
the Santa Cruz River. Pendleton Drive has an 80-foot right-ofway and a 24-foot pavement section in most locations.
Community stakeholders commented on the desire to see
bicycle facilities along Pendleton Drive. Extension of the
popular Boy Scout Trail (shared use path separated from the
roadway) was viewed as highly desirable by area residents as
well. Santa Cruz County has received a grant to pave 5-foot
shoulders along both sides of North Pendleton Drive for one
mile north of Rio Rico Drive. These improvements will create
17-feet of pavement on each side of the roadway, sufficient for
a signed bike route but not enough to warrant a bike lane.

107

Location

Approx.
Length

Project Notes
&
Additional Considerations

Implementation
Timeline

Paved Shoulders

South Pendleton Drive (to
Calabasas Park)

Rio Rico Drive – I-19 to
Pendleton Drive

Apprx. 5.5
miles

Apprx
6,500 feet

Short Term

Pendleton Drive from Rio Rico Drive to Calabasas Park is
approximately 5.5 miles. Pendleton Drive is the only northsouth collector roadway serving residents living east of I-19 and
the Santa Cruz River. Pendleton Drive has an 80-foot right-ofway and a 24-foot pavement section in most locations.
Community stakeholders commented on the desire to see
bicycle facilities along Pendleton Drive. Santa Cruz County has
received a grant to pave 5-foot shoulders along both sides of
South Pendleton Drive for a length of one mile from Rio Rico
Drive. These improvements would create 14-feet of pavement
on each side of the roadway, sufficient for a signed bike route
but not enough to warrant a bike lane.

Short Term

Rio Rico Drive currently experiences over 8,000 vehicle trips
daily and is one of the most traveled roadways in Rio Rico. The
roadway in most areas is split into two one way roadways with
paved shoulders of varying widths. The integrity of the existing
pavement along the paved shoulders varies, becoming
narrower in areas that experience increased degradation.
ADOT is conducting an I-19 East Frontage Road Study that may
recommend roadway improvements at the intersection of Rio
Rico Drive and East Frontage Road. Paved shoulders of 3-4 foot
in width are recommended and should be maintained /
expanded with routine County roadway maintenance schedule
for Rio Rico Drive. The addition of bike route signage is also
recommended. Improved non-motorized facilities along Rio
Rico Drive will improve the mobility of local residents but also
for enhancing a broader connection of the recreational and
outdoor experience for visitors by linking the Guy Tobin
Trailhead to other recreation and commercial land uses.

108

Location

Approx.
Length

Project Notes
&
Additional Considerations

Implementation
Timeline

Paved Shoulders

Paseo De Yucatan – from Pena
Blanca School to Avenida Lirio

Approx.
1,250 feet

Medium Term

Avenida Lirio – Camino
Maricopa to Paseo Yucatan

Apprx.
3,500 feet

Short Term

Apprx. 2
miles

Short Term

Apprx.
9,800 feet

Long Term

E. Ruby Road – I-19 to
Pendleton Drive

Paseo Mexico

109

Paved shoulders are recommended for both sides of roadway
to accommodate school children from higher density
subdivisions to the south. Through signage, encourage school
aged children pedestrian use on west side only so as to
separate pedestrians from truck traffic originating from
business south and east of Pena Blanca Elementary School and
for seamless, continuous access to school driveway.
Topography challenges and limited 50-foot right-of-way along
the southern portion of this corridor create challenges in
construction. Bike lane facilities not suggested due to lack of
right-of-way, topography and undesirable east side because of
potential for truck traffic conflicts.
Paved shoulders on Avenida Lirio will greatly assist the mobility
of the neighborhood and improve safety in access to the
schools via Camino Maricopa and Paseo Yucatan.
ADOT controls the right-of-way and ownership of Ruby Road
from I-19 to approximately 600 feet to the east. East Ruby Road
has 100-feet of right-of-way and is a 26-foot pavement section.
ADOT is currently conducting an I-19 East Frontage Road Study
that will likely recommend roadway improvements at the
intersection of Ruby Road and East Frontage Road. At a
minimum, paved shoulders on both sides of the roadway are
recommended. With over 4,000 vehicle trips per day and
growing, signage denoting a bike route is recommended. If the
opportunity presents itself to complete additional roadway
improvements funded by others, bike lane and sidewalks on
both sides of the street are preferred from Potrero Creek
bridge to East Frontage Road at this high traffic volume and
turning movement location.
Paseo Mexico is a minor collector roadway with 80 feet of
right-of-way and a 24-foot pavement section with center line
striping. Due to the striping, there is not adequate space to
accommodate a vehicle and the bicyclist comfortably in one
lane (bike route). Paseo Mexico connects with Camino San
Xavier (Bike Route) to form a 3.3 mile bike trail loop serving
residents in this area.

Location

Approx.
Length

Project Notes
&
Additional Considerations

Implementation
Timeline

Paved Shoulders

Paseo Venado

Apprx.
4,000 feet

Long Term

Paseo Venado can provide a key bicycle trail connector linking
Calle Calabasas and Camino Caralampi. Paseo Venado is an 80foot right-of-way with an existing 24-foot pavement section
with center line striping. Paseo Venado experiences 1,660
average daily trips and will grow. Because the pavement width
is only 24 feet and has center line striping, its potential as a
bike route/shared roadway is not recommended because a
cyclist would only have a 2-foot spacing where a minimum of 34 feet is preferred. A Bicycle LOS Model could be performed to
determine the feasibility of a bike route/shared lane facility.

Bike Route/Shared Roadways
Yavapai Drive, I-19 to West
Frontage Road

Apprx.
325 feet

Short Term

Corrida De Toros

Apprx.
9,600 feet

Short Term

Camino Aqua Fria

Apprx.
9,400 feet

Short Term

110

Within existing pavement conditions, a signed bike route is
desired to complement the existing sidewalk and provide
bicycle trail connectivity between the planned shared use path
along Yavapai Drive and planned Rio Rico Drive overpass
improvements.
Corrida De Toros provides the strategic middle link in the
proposed Camino Ramanote – Corrida De Toros – Camino Aqua
Fria bike trail system to serve residents in this area. This
segment is approximately 9,600 feet in length. This roadway
receives very low traffic volumes and is ideal for signage and/or
pavement markings as a bicycle route to complete a 6+ mile
training loop.
The third leg of the Camino Ramanote-Corrida De TorosCamino Aqua Fria bike trail. After crossing Aqua Fria Canyon
(low water crossing roadway), Camino Aqua Fria is an
infrequently traveled roadway that is common for bicyclists
and pedestrians to use for non-motorized trips to Garrett’s and
other stores and restaurants in the Rio Rico Plaza. Camino Aqua
Fria has a 24-foot pavement section with no center stripe
within an 80-foot right-of-way. This section of roadway is
approximately 9,400 feet to its connection with Yavapai Drive
and the Bella Vista subdivision. The portion of Camino Aqua
Fria adjacent to Bella Vista community is recommended for
improvement with a shared use path on the south side of the
roadway or sidewalks on both sides of the road for the initial
500 feet.

Location

Approx.
Length

Implementation
Timeline

Project Notes
&
Additional Considerations

Bike Route/Shared Roadways

Short Term

This local street in Rio Rico has very few homes and
experiences very low daily vehicle trips. Calle Cherokee has a
50-foot right-of-way and 24-foot pavement section. As such,
Calle Cherokee is suggested for use as a bike route with the
incorporation of the appropriate signage and or pavement
markings as noted in the General Design Elements section.
Calle Cherokee is an 11,000 foot (2+miles) segment provides an
important and connection between Camino Ramanote and
Peck Canyon Drive to offer residents of northwestern Rio Rico a
value-added bicycle loop. Calle Cherokee was also identified by
Rio Rico High School students as a route that is frequented to
and from school on a daily basis.

Medium Term

This loop road providing connection to Peck Canyon Drive to
the east and the west provides a naturally ideal recreation
bicycle loop experience. The road is a 50-foot right-of-way with
24-foot pavement section with very low average daily vehicular
trips. Bike route signage and/or pavement markings on both
sides of the roadway will safely provide the flexibility for a 2.25
mile route along Circulo Sombrero or an extended 3.5 mile
complete loop route utilizing Peck Canyon Drive.

Apprx. 6
miles

Medium Term

Camino Josefina is already a preferred route by enthusiasts and
skilled bikers. The very low density surrounding land use,
uninterrupted length, scenic vistas, connection to broader
wilderness areas, and grade changes of this road make it
desirable for bicycling. It is a 24-foot pavement section with no
center striping within a 180-foot right-of-way. Due to proximity
to the bridge abutment, automobile rate of speed in this area
and poor line of sight in areas, future connections to the
planned Boy Scout Trail extension should consider a grade
separated crossing and staging area with a connection to
Pendleton Road south of the canyon.

Avenida Pastor – Circulo
Alameda

Apprx. 1.3
miles

Long Term

Bike routes/shared roadways fit nicely in this community
enclave. Marked crossings and signage will be necessary at the
intersection with Pendleton Drive.

Camino Mar

Apprx. 2.3
miles

Long Term

Camino Mar is a two-way paved road 2.3 miles in length (where
pavement ends) with a 26-foot pavement section. Grade
changes, sight visibility and signage locations should be
evaluated prior to implementation.

Calle Cherokee

Circulo Sombrero

Camino Josefina

Apprx.
11,000
feet

Apprx.
2.25 mile
loop

111

Location

Approx.
Length

Implementation
Timeline

Project Notes
&
Additional Considerations

Bike Route/Shared Roadways
Camino Oceano

Apprx.
7,200 feet

Valley View Drive-Camino
Magnifico-Camino Panama
Loop

Apprx. 2.5
mile loop

Kents Avenue
Camino Pesqueiria

Willow Drive – Pendleton to
Rio Rico Drive

Camino San Xavier

Paseo Guebabi

Calle Coyote

Via Rosamorada – Ruby Road
to Cerrado Sanchez

Apprx
4,000 feet
Apprx.
3,600 feet

Apprx.
3,700 feet

Apprx.
7,700 feet

Apprx.
11,000
feet

Apprx.
9,300 feet

Apprx.
6,400 feet

Long Term

This stand-alone road is very suitable with its 26-foot pavement
section serving less than two dozen homes. Future crossing
design and connectivity to the Boy Scout Trail requires
additional study.

Medium Term

A bike route/shared roadway is ideal for this pocket of Rio Rico
that forms a self-contained bicycle loop in this area. This “loop”
does not entirely connect without a connection at Pendleton
Drive that requires further evaluation.

Medium Term

Provides linkage to Camino Pesqueria and Paseo Mexico.

Medium Term

Provides linkage to Paseo Mexico and Kents Avenue.

Short Term

Willow Drive serves as a local roadway providing important
neighborhood connectivity between Pendleton Drive and Rio
Rico Drive. The roadway has a 28-foot pavement section and a
50-foot right-of-way. Consideration must be given to a cross
walk design and driver warning signage (especially northbound
traffic) at Pendleton Drive for access to the shared use path
across the street.

Medium Term

Camino San Xavier is a local road with an 80-foot right-of-way
and 24-foot pavement section with no center line striping. Its
connection to Paseo Mexico forms a 3.3 mile bike trail loop
serving residents in the area. Future crossing of Pendleton
Drive will require close examination for safety in design as the
intersection is located at a radius in the roadway with limited
sight visibility.

Long Term

Paseo Guebabi is an 80 foot right-of-way with a 28-foot
pavement section with no center line striping. This bike route
segment forms a 3.8 mile bike trail loop serving residents in this
area. Intersection/crosswalk design with Pendleton Drive needs
to be planned in concert with the fire station driveway located
directly across Pendleton Drive.

Medium Term

Calle Coyote is a local street with an 80-foot right-of-way, 28foot pavement section with no center line striping. This bike
route segment connects with Paseo Guebabi to form a 3.8 mile
bike trail loop for residents in this area.

Short Term

Via Rosamorada is a local street with a 50-foot right-of-way and
24-foot pavement section with no center line striping. It should
be noted that Santa Cruz County’s street inventory indicates
that only 25-feet of right-of-way exists in certain locations and
thus may be limiting.

112

Location

Approx.
Length

Project Notes
&
Additional Considerations

Implementation
Timeline

Bike Route/Shared Roadways

SR 289

Short Term

SR 289 (West Ruby Road) is an ADOT facility with a 26-foot
pavement section and center line striping. According to ADOT
traffic counts at SR 289 near Camino Maricopa, approximately
1,100 vehicle trips per day. Another traffic count taken another
6 miles to the west identified only 190 vehicle trips per day.
The data indicates that the majority of SR 289 trips consist of
residents of the neighborhoods near Calabasas Middle school
and as you proceed west of town, the rate of vehicles drops
substantially. In accordance with ADOT regulations, bicyclists
are not prohibited from using SR 289. With the minimal volume
of vehicle trips, continuation of the existing condition as a bike
route, though not signed, is recommended for this facility that
can attract biking enthusiasts seeking longer outings to Pena
Blanca Lake.

Circulo Golondrina

Long Term

Local “loop road” serving immediate neighborhood
surrounding Robert Damon Park. 50-feet of right-of-way with a
24-foot pavement section with no center line stripe.

Intersection Improvements

Yavapai Drive/Camino
Caralampi

Ruby Road/East Frontage
Road/Pilot Travel Center
Driveway Entrance

n/a

Approx
325 feet
between
centerlins

Short Term

Short Term

113

One of the busiest intersections in Rio Rico, a typical user will
experience difficult cross-traffic and conflicting vehicular
turning movement operations at this location. There are no
crosswalks, signage or other markings to assist pedestrians and
bicyclists wishing to cross Yavapai Dr at Camino Caralampi. A
signalized intersection with marked crosswalks is
recommended and likely warranted. Further evaluation of the
need for a signal should also evaluate the proximity and current
function and level of service of the West Frontage Rd
intersection with Yavapai Dr. which is only 400 feet to the east.
The confluence of these two intersections – only 325 feet apart
– is the busiest and most accident prone intersection(s) in Rio
Rico. Numerous comments from project and community
stakeholders have supported this assertion. Per County traffic
counts, this area experiences 7,500 ADT and a poor LOS during
the am and pm peak periods. Road widening to include a
dedicated portion of the roadway for bike lanes and sidewalks
on both sides of Ruby Road is needed. Signing, striping and
pavement markings are necessary. Marked crosswalks and
warning signage at the Pilot entrance drive is needed.
Recommendations from the I-19 East Frontage Road study
should influence the future design of improvements that will
likely come as a result of future roadway construction projects.

Location

Approx.
Length

Project Notes
&
Additional Considerations

Implementation
Timeline

Intersection Improvements

Rio Rico Drive/Pendleton
Drive

Southwest
Corner

Medium Term

Existing parking facilities are lacking at this popular trailhead
location. A small paved parking lot to serve 3 typical and 1 ADA
accessible parking spaces is preferred. Suitable vehicular
turning movement and driveway improvements from the
adjacent roadway and marked crosswalks are suggested. If
signal warrants for this intersection are met, access and
driveway geometrics shall be evaluated. The parking area
should be designed to maintain flexibility for future expansion
as popularity continues to increase. Improvements to the
shared use trails in the area enhance area connectivity and
accessibility benefitting locals and tourists alike.

Pedestrian Crossings
Camino Lito Galindo/Rio Rico
High School

n/a

Short Term

Crosswalk needed at this priority high school crossing location.
This improvement also identified in the Cooperative Extension
SRTS Needs Assessment Report.

Peck Canyon Drive/Camino
Estornino

n/a

Short Term

A crosswalk is needed at Camino Estornino’s intersection with
Peck Canyon Drive to serve school-aged pedestrians and
bicyclists from the adjacent residential neighborhood.

Short Term

Difficult intersection geometry, roadway radius and line of sight
challenges require additional design studies for this location. A
cross walk, pedestrian refuge and appropriate traffic calming
signage is necessary to facilitate safe crossing at this location.

Medium Term

This existing crosswalk is in poor condition currently. Driving
warning signage does exist. At a minimum, the current facility is
in need of repainting and striping. Additional signage is likely
warranted and low scale safety lighting for nighttime usage
should be considered. As traffic volumes increase over 7,500
vehicles per day, design study of an enhanced crossing facility is
suggested.

Short Term

A very popular informal crossing used by many adjacent
residents walking or biking to the Family Dollar store. This
location was also identified in the historical crash data. The
field study revealed a mother pushing a baby in her stroller. No
crosswalk facility exists. The Family Dollar driveway and Camino
del Patio intersection is not symmetrical. The current ADT’s
likely do not warrant a H.A.W.K. system, but a pedestrian count
and design study specific to this location are needed to address
the current acute deficiency.

Via Patricia and Camino Lito
Galindo

Pendleton Drive/Avenida
Coatimundi

West Frontage Road/Camino
del Patio (Family Dollar)

n/a

n/a

n/a

114

Location

Approx.
Length

Project Notes
&
Additional Considerations

Implementation
Timeline

Pedestrian Crossings

Rio Rico Drive/I-19 Overpass

Apprx.
700 feet,
including
approach
es and I19 on
ramps

Medium Term

The existing overpass facility serves one lane of vehicular travel
in each direction and has 12-foot paved, striped shoulders
(approximately) on each side. Pedestrian and bicycle users
continue to increase as residents from the east frequent
Garrett’s. Suggested improvements recommended include a
formal modification of the existing striped shoulder area to a
striped and signed bike lane for one way travel together with a
sidewalk in both directions. Particular attention must be given
to the design of appropriate bicycle and pedestrian crossings at
the freeway ramp terminals to ensure minimized vehicular
conflicts. See AASHTO and ADOT standards for additional
detail.

Intersection of Via San Potosi
and Paseo de Yucatan

n/a

Short Term

A crosswalk is needed at this strategic juncture of two
roadways serving as a primary pedestrian access way to Pena
Blanca Elementary School.

Short Term

The shared use path along the south side of Avenida
Coatimundi terminates at the Calle Juan Legarra alignment.
Students using the shared use path cross Avenida Coatimundi
at Calle Juan Legarra to access the Coatimundi Walking Trail
school entrance at Feather Court. No cross walk currently exists
but is needed at this location. Appropriate signage on Avenida
Coatimundi warning drivers of a school crossing is suggested.

Avenida Coatimundi/Calle
Juan Legarra

Narrow Bridge Crossings

West Frontage Road at Aqua
Fria Canyon

n/a

Medium Term

115

Existing County bridge structure at Aqua Fria Canyon wash
crossing apprx. 490 feet south of Camino Ramanote. Location
poses a significant barrier to the seamless connection of the
West Frontage Road shared use path system. The current
structure is a two lane bridge with very narrow striped
shoulders. Suggested design is to meander the planned shared
use path to the west along the wash bottom rather than
construct expensive bridge widening improvements. This
shared use path crossing could be situated within the western
portion of the existing 150 feet of West Frontage Road right of
way and/or existing utility easement. Additional hydrology
study and environmental permitting may be necessary for wash
encroachment.

Location

Approx.
Length

Project Notes
&
Additional Considerations

Implementation
Timeline

Narrow Bridge Crossings

Ruby Road at Potrero Creek

Ruby Road/Santa Cruz River

Rio Rico Drive/Santa Cruz
River

n/a

n/a

n/a

Short Term

The existing width of the bridge deck is too narrow to enable
comfortable and safe walking or cycling conditions. The
preferred solution is to construct a second bridge for
eastbound traffic and maintain the existing bridge for
westbound traffic. Sufficient right-of-way exists for this
improvement. Each bridge then should be designed to
accommodate a sidewalk and bike lane/paved shoulder. In the
absence of funding for a second bridge, a short term approach
would be to construct multiuse trails separated from the
roadway in Potrero Creek. A native tread trail to safely separate
pedestrians and cyclists from the narrow bridge is needed. This
can be achieved with the construction of one multi-purpose
trail to accommodate both pedestrians and cyclists. The multipurpose trail and signage would need to commence prior to
the guardrail approaches to the bridge.

Medium Term

This important bridge spans approximately 275 feet over the
Santa Cruz River. The existing bridge deck has a 26-foot
pavement section including one-foot striped shoulders with
center line striping. The north side of the bridge deck has a
large vertical curb. Replacement/expansion of the existing
facility to accommodate bike and pedestrians is preferred but
not likely practical. “Share the Road” signage and pavement
markings are necessary to improve the existing comfort and
safety of bicyclists and pedestrians using this bridge. This is not
an ideal solution, but most practical until bridge enhancements
are completed.

Medium Term

This important bridge spans approximately 300 over the Santa
Cruz River. The existing bridge deck has a 26-foot pavement
section including one-foot striped shoulders with center line
striping. Both sides of the bridge deck have 2-foot raised
sidewalks. Replacement/expansion of the existing facility to
accommodate bike and pedestrians is preferred but not likely
practical without additional government funding. “Share the
Road” signage and pavement markings are necessary to
improve the existing comfort and safety of bicyclists and
pedestrians using this bridge. This is not an ideal solution, but
most practical until bridge enhancements are completed.

116

Figure 30: Short Term (5-year) Plan of Improvements illustrates each of the suggested short term
improvement projects. Figure 31: Medium Term Plan of Improvements and Figure 32: Long Term
Plan of Improvements shows the suggested medium term and long term projects respectively.
Figure 33: Plan of Improvements – All Projects combines each of the short, medium and long
projects together on one unified map graphic.

117

Legend
E FRO

Study Area

RD
NTAGE

n

M

School
Coronado National Forest

a

vi

M

a

Sonoita Creek Natural Area

vi

s

s

W

a sh

W

a sh

State Trust Land

§
¦
¨

S EFIN A
Game and Fish
JO

E RD

19

§
¦
¨

Shared Use Pathway - Existing
e
J os

no

Shared-Use Pathway - Proposed

fina

Paved Shoulder - Proposed

R

ST

O

mi

Bike Route/Shared Roadway

Pe

AV
E

Ri

Ma r

ve

CA Y
ET

IDA P A ST

OR

W

dl

FR
O

et

NT

Difficult Intersection
Pedestrian Crossing

VIA

r
C

n

Anza Trail

ANO
A VEN

R

o
Cami n

Multi Use Trail

S AN

ON D

uz

r

JO

A
N
FI
E
S

ET
DL

ve

r
a C

r
a C

Ri

O
IN
M
A
C

N ID A

PA

P

da

r
PEN

ni

to
as

S a nt

S a nt

e
Av

uz

O
IN

Sidewalk - Proposed

W FR O

Ca

M

Sidewalk - Existing

NTAG

19

CA

on

AG
E

O
IN
AM

Narrow Bridge Crossing

MAR

Dr

RD

ive
HI
CA

o
Cam ino Oc ean

A

n
nn

R

C
PE

C

O CA
CA MIN

E

S on

LL

EF

i

ra

DE

U

OA

TIM

P M ex i c
A
eo I DR

C

un

s
Pa

RIO
ON
TA
o G

DR

E
AV

IA
NC

Ca

O
PR
t INO
CA Ma ge R

ro n

o
m in

Sa n

Xa

vi

O

Pe

nd

RON
TA
G

EG
R

ue

l et

on

n
n
CA L

289

HW
Y

28

0.5

1

2

I

Miles

0

0.5

1

Figure 30:
Term (All
(5-year)
Plan
ofof
Improvements
33: Short
Composite
Years)
Plan
Improvements

2
Miles

9

A
AL
CR
uby Ro ad

ẍ

VI

oy

O
IN

M

ICO
AR

PA

n
n
P

E R UBY RD

289

D
NTAGE R
D
TAGE R W FRO
E FRON

I

0

BA

LE

bi

XA

l le

a

CA
M

Camin

ẍ

ic o p

SA
S

as

C

ar

e

le

o

M

ri v

as

D

Ca l

b
ala

ba

C

CAM I N

AM
AL
R
A
C

WF

PI

SA N
I NO
AM

o

e

er

se

tag

Rd

P

A
ID

PA

d

WF
ron

N

Pa

i

Ca

A

NO
RU

N

ek

DI

D

Ca

m

no

tim

R
U
N
O
TO
C
A
LL
E

E
TO
LL
RO
S CA

l a mp

Ca
m

i

DE

TO

R

CO
RI

E RD

A

i da

EF

id

ia

19

VA

no

v
Pr o

c
en

n
ve

Cre

n

§
¦
¨

a
Co

YA

r os

19

D

De

To

i no

§
¦
¨

R

RI

a

m
Ca

F

r ia

o

di

r

R
CO

Co

d

ua
Ag

Ri

D
ico

VI

Yavapai Dr

rri

n

O RAMAN OT E
C A M IN

o it a

ote

CA

ino Ramanote
C am

A

EL
APP

E

Ca

CH

ll e

ER

OK

Che

E

ro

e

EC

NO

A

e Rd

RD
AGE
ONT
W FR

ag
ro nt
WF

ke

C

D
ON
NY

C

n
nn

OC
RO RC U L
CI

Ca

n

C ER

ULO
I RC

CA
LL

k

yo
an

K

c
Pe

C

Dr

118

ER

SE

Legend
E FRO

Study Area

RD
NTAGE

n

M

a

vi

M

School
Coronado National Forest
Sonoita Creek Natural Area

vi

s

a

s

W

a sh

W

a sh

State Trust Land

§
¦
¨

S EFIN A
Game and Fish
JO

E RD

19

§
¦
¨

Shared Use Pathway - Existing
e
J os

no

Shared-Use Pathway - Proposed

fina

Paved Shoulder - Proposed

R

ST

O

mi

Bike Route/Shared Roadway

Pe

AV
E

Ma r

Ri

ve

CA Y
ET

IDA P A ST

OR

W

dl

FR
O

et

NT

Difficult Intersection
Pedestrian Crossing

VIA

r
C

n

Anza Trail

ANO
A VEN

R

o
Cami n

Multi Use Trail

S AN

ON D

uz

r

JO

A
N
FI
E
S

ET
DL

ve

r
a C

r
a C

Ri

O
IN
M
A
C

N ID A

PA

P

da

r
PEN

ni

to
as

S a nt

S a nt

e
Av

uz

O
IN

Sidewalk - Proposed

W FR O

Ca

M

Sidewalk - Existing

NTAG

19

CA

on

AG
E

O
IN
AM

Narrow Bridge Crossing

MAR

Dr

RD

ive
HI
CA

o
Cam ino Oc ean

A

n
nn

R

C
PE

C

O CA
CA MIN

E

S on

LL

EF

i

ra

DE

U

OA

TIM

P M ex i c
A
eo I DR

C

un

s
Pa

RIO
ON
TA
o G

DR

E
AV

IA
NC

Ca

O
PR
t INO
CA Ma ge R

ro n

o
m in

Sa n

Xa

vi

O

Pe

nd

RON
TA
G

EG
R

ue

l et

on

n
n
CA L

289

HW
Y

28

0.5

1

2

I

Miles

0

0.5

1

2
Miles

Figure 30:
Term
(5-year)
Plan
ofof
Improvements
31: Short
Medium
Term
(10-year)
Plan
of
Improvements
33:
Composite
(All
Years)
Plan
Improvements

9

A
AL
CR
uby Ro ad

ẍ

VI

oy

O
IN

M

ICO
AR

PA

n
n
P

E R UBY RD

289

D
NTAGE R
D
TAGE R W FRO
E FRON

I

0

BA

LE

bi

XA

l le

a

CA
M

Camin

ẍ

ic o p

SA
S

as

C

ar

e

le

o

M

ri v

as

D

Ca l

b
ala

ba

C

CAM I N

AM
AL
R
A
C

WF

PI

SA N
I NO
AM

o

e

er

se

tag

Rd

P

A
ID

PA

d

WF
ron

N

Pa

i

Ca

A

NO
RU

N

ek

DI

D

Ca

m

no

tim

R
U
N
O
TO
C
A
LL
E

E
TO
LL
RO
S CA

l a mp

Ca
m

i

DE

TO

R

CO
RI

E RD

A

i da

EF

id

ia

19

VA

no

v
Pr o

c
en

n
ve

Cre

n

§
¦
¨

a
Co

YA

r os

19

D

De

To

i no

§
¦
¨

R

RI

a

m
Ca

F

r ia

o

di

r

R
CO

Co

d

ua
Ag

Ri

D
ico

VI

Yavapai Dr

rri

n

O RAMAN OT E
C A M IN

o it a

ote

CA

ino Ramanote
C am

A

EL
APP

E

Ca

CH

ll e

ER

OK

Che

E

ro

e

EC

NO

A

e Rd

RD
AGE
ONT
W FR

ag
ro nt
WF

ke

C

D
ON
NY

C

n
nn

OC
RO RC U L
CI

Ca

n

C ER

ULO
I RC

CA
LL

k

yo
an

K

c
Pe

C

Dr

119

ER

SE

Legend
E FRO

Study Area

RD
NTAGE

n

M

a

vi

M

School
Coronado National Forest
Sonoita Creek Natural Area

vi

s

a

s

W

a sh

W

a sh

State Trust Land

§
¦
¨

S EFIN A
Game and Fish
JO

E RD

19

§
¦
¨

Shared Use Pathway - Existing
e
J os

no

Shared-Use Pathway - Proposed

fina

Paved Shoulder - Proposed

R

ST

O

mi

Bike Route/Shared Roadway

Pe

AV
E

Ma r

Ri

ve

CA Y
ET

IDA P A ST

OR

W

dl

FR
O

et

NT

Difficult Intersection
Pedestrian Crossing

VIA

r
C

n

Anza Trail

ANO
A VEN

R

o
Cami n

Multi Use Trail

S AN

ON D

uz

r

JO

A
N
FI
E
S

ET
DL

ve

r
a C

r
a C

Ri

O
IN
M
A
C

N ID A

PA

P

da

r
PEN

ni

to
as

S a nt

S a nt

e
Av

uz

O
IN

Sidewalk - Proposed

W FR O

Ca

M

Sidewalk - Existing

NTAG

19

CA

on

AG
E

O
IN
AM

Narrow Bridge Crossing

MAR

Dr

RD

ive
HI
CA

o
Cam ino Oc ean

A

n
nn

R

C
PE

C

O CA
CA MIN

E

S on

LL

EF

i

ra

DE

U

OA

TIM

P M ex i c
A
eo I DR

C

un

s
Pa

RIO
ON
TA
o G

DR

E
AV

IA
NC

Ca

O
PR
t INO
CA Ma ge R

ro n

o
m in

Sa n

Xa

vi

O

Pe

nd

RON
TA
G

EG
R

ue

l et

on

n
n
CA L

289

HW
Y

28

0.5

1

2

I

Miles

0

0.5

1

2
Miles

Figure
Term
(20-year)
Plan
ofof
Improvements
30:
Short
Term
(5-year)
Plan
of
Improvements
31: Long
Medium
Term
(10-year)
Plan
of
Improvements
Figure 32:
33:
Composite
(All
Years)
Plan
Improvements

9

A
AL
CR
uby Ro ad

ẍ

VI

oy

O
IN

M

ICO
AR

PA

n
n
P

E R UBY RD

289

D
NTAGE R
D
TAGE R W FRO
E FRON

I

0

BA

LE

bi

XA

l le

a

CA
M

Camin

ẍ

ic o p

SA
S

as

C

ar

e

le

o

M

ri v

as

D

Ca l

b
ala

ba

C

CAM I N

AM
AL
R
A
C

WF

PI

SA N
I NO
AM

o

e

er

se

tag

Rd

P

A
ID

PA

d

WF
ron

N

Pa

i

Ca

A

NO
RU

N

ek

DI

D

Ca

m

no

tim

R
U
N
O
TO
C
A
LL
E

E
TO
LL
RO
S CA

l a mp

Ca
m

i

DE

TO

R

CO
RI

E RD

A

i da

EF

id

ia

19

VA

no

v
Pr o

c
en

n
ve

Cre

n

§
¦
¨

a
Co

YA

r os

19

D

De

To

i no

§
¦
¨

R

RI

a

m
Ca

F

r ia

o

di

r

R
CO

Co

d

ua
Ag

Ri

D
ico

VI

Yavapai Dr

rri

n

O RAMAN OT E
C A M IN

o it a

ote

CA

ino Ramanote
C am

A

EL
APP

E

Ca

CH

ll e

ER

OK

Che

E

ro

e

EC

NO

A

e Rd

RD
AGE
ONT
W FR

ag
ro nt
WF

ke

C

D
ON
NY

C

n
nn

OC
RO RC U L
CI

Ca

n

C ER

ULO
I RC

CA
LL

k

yo
an

K

c
Pe

C

Dr

120

ER

SE

Legend
E FRO

Study Area

RD
NTAGE

n

M

a

vi

M

School
Coronado National Forest
Sonoita Creek Natural Area

vi

s

a

s

W

a sh

W

a sh

State Trust Land

§
¦
¨

S EFIN A
Game and Fish
JO

E RD

19

§
¦
¨

Shared Use Pathway - Existing
e
J os

no

Shared-Use Pathway - Proposed

fina

Paved Shoulder - Proposed

R

ST

O

mi

Bike Route/Shared Roadway

Pe

AV
E

Ma r

Ri

ve

CA Y
ET

IDA P A ST

OR

W

dl

FR
O

et

NT

Difficult Intersection
Pedestrian Crossing

VIA

r
C

n

Anza Trail

ANO
A VEN

R

o
Cami n

Multi Use Trail

S AN

ON D

uz

r

JO

A
N
FI
E
S

ET
DL

ve

r
a C

r
a C

Ri

O
IN
M
A
C

N ID A

PA

P

da

r
PEN

ni

to
as

S a nt

S a nt

e
Av

uz

O
IN

Sidewalk - Proposed

W FR O

Ca

M

Sidewalk - Existing

NTAG

19

CA

on

AG
E

O
IN
AM

Narrow Bridge Crossing

MAR

Dr

RD

ive
HI
CA

o
Cam ino Oc ean

A

n
nn

R

C
PE

C

O CA
CA MIN

E

S on

LL

EF

i

ra

DE

U

OA

TIM

P M ex i c
A
eo I DR

C

un

s
Pa

RIO
ON
TA
o G

DR

E
AV

IA
NC

Ca

O
PR
t INO
CA Ma ge R

ro n

o
m in

Sa n

Xa

vi

O

Pe

nd

RON
TA
G

EG
R

ue

l et

on

n
n
CA L

289

HW
Y

28

0.5

1

2

I

Miles

0

0.5

1

Figure 33: Composite (All Years) Plan of Improvements

2
Miles

9

A
AL
CR
uby Ro ad

ẍ

VI

oy

O
IN

M

ICO
AR

PA

n
n
P

E R UBY RD

289

D
NTAGE R
D
TAGE R W FRO
E FRON

I

0

BA

LE

bi

XA

l le

a

CA
M

Camin

ẍ

ic o p

SA
S

as

C

ar

e

le

o

M

ri v

as

D

Ca l

b
ala

ba

C

CAM I N

AM
AL
R
A
C

WF

PI

SA N
I NO
AM

o

e

er

se

tag

Rd

P

A
ID

PA

d

WF
ron

N

Pa

i

Ca

A

NO
RU

N

ek

DI

D

Ca

m

no

tim

R
U
N
O
TO
C
A
LL
E

E
TO
LL
RO
S CA

l a mp

Ca
m

i

DE

TO

R

CO
RI

E RD

A

i da

EF

id

ia

19

VA

no

v
Pr o

c
en

n
ve

Cre

n

§
¦
¨

a
Co

YA

r os

19

D

De

To

i no

§
¦
¨

R

RI

a

m
Ca

F

r ia

o

di

r

R
CO

Co

d

ua
Ag

Ri

D
ico

VI

Yavapai Dr

rri

n

O RAMAN OT E
C A M IN

o it a

ote

CA

ino Ramanote
C am

A

EL
APP

E

Ca

CH

ll e

ER

OK

Che

E

ro

e

EC

NO

A

e Rd

RD
AGE
ONT
W FR

ag
ro nt
WF

ke

C

D
ON
NY

C

n
nn

OC
RO RC U L
CI

Ca

n

C ER

ULO
I RC

CA
LL

k

yo
an

K

c
Pe

C

Dr

121

ER

SE

Multipurpose Trails

Shared Use Paths

Sidewalks

Table 17: Summary of Suggested Short, Medium and Long Term Projects

Short Term (5-year)

Medium Term (10-year)

Long Term (20-year)

 Camino Lito Galindo

 Pena Blanca Elementary School
entrance driveway

 Avenida Leon-Avenida
Gandara Loop

 West Frontage Road –Camino
De Patio to Camino Lito Galindo
(Phase 1)

 Camino Maricopa – Ruby R. (SR
289) to West Frontage Road

 Calle Calabasas – West
Frontage Road to Circulo
Guerrero

 West Frontage Road –Camino
De Patio to Camino Ramanote
(Phase 2)

 Boy Scout Trail

 West Frontage Road – Rio
Rico Drive to Ruby Road

 West Frontage Road –Camino
Ramanote to Yavapai Drive
(Phase 3)

 South Pendleton Drive –
Avenida Coatimundi to
Calabasas Park

 West Frontage Road – Peck
Canyon south to Camino Lito
Galindo (Phase 4)

 Camino Aqua Fria

 Yavapai Drive “Loop” – from
West Frontage Road to West
Frontage Road

 Via San Potosi – Avenida Lirio
to Paseo de Yucatan

 Rio Rico Drive from Pendleton
Drive to the Anza Trailhead
along north side of Rio Rico
Drive

 Camino Caralampi – Yavapai
Drive to Calle Amarillo

 Anza Trail

 Pena Blanca/Calabasas West
Trail Entrance

 Yavapai Drive “Loop” – from
West Frontage Road to West
Frontage Road

 Santa Cruz River (Anza Trail) to
Calabasas Park

 South Pendleton Drive

 Peck Canyon Drive – Via
Patricia to Circulo Sombrero
 Camino Ramanote – West
Frontage Road to Corrida De
Toros
 Camino Providencia

 Rio Rico Drive (I-19 to Pendleton
Dr,)

 Paseo De Yucatan – from Pena
Blanca School to Avenida Lirio

Paved Shoulders

 Via Patricia- Peck Canyon Dr.
“Loop”
 North Pendleton Drive

 East Ruby Rd.
 Avenida Lirio – Camino Maricopa
to Paseo Yucatan

122

 Fernando Court to Peck
Canyon Drive
 Calle Calabasas to Avenida
Palomas
 Paseo Mexico
 Paseo Venado

Bike Route/Shared Roadways
Improvements

Intersection

Short Term (5-year)

Medium Term (10-year)

Long Term (20-year)

 Yavapai Drive, I-19 to West
Frontage Road

 Camino Josefina

 Paseo Guebabi

 Calle Cherokee

 Ciculo Sombrero

 Ciculo Golondrina

 Corrida de Toros

 Valley View Drive

 Camino Mar

 Camino Aqua Fria

 Camino Pesqueira

 Avenida Pastor

 Via Rosamorada

 Kents Ave.

 Camino Oceano

 Willow Drive

 Camino San Xavier

 SR 289

 Calle Coyote

 Ruby Road/East Frontage
Rd./Pilot Driveway

 Rio Rico Dr./Pendleton Dr.

 Yavapai Drive/Camino Caralampi

Pedestrian Crossings

 Camino Lito Galindo/Rio Rico HS
 West Frontage Rd/Family Dollar

 Pendleton Dr./Avenida
Coatimundi
 Rio Rico Dr./I-19 overpass

 Avenida Coatimundi/Calle Juan
Legarra
 Peck Canyon Drive/Camino
Estorino
 Via Patricia/Camino Lito Galindo

Narrow Bridge
Crossings

 Via San Potosi/Paseo de Yucatan
 Ruby Road @Potrero Creek

 Ruby Road @Santa Cruz River
 Rio Rico Dr. @ Santa Cruz River
 West Frontage Rd. @ Aqua Fria
Canyon

123

XIII. PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATES
The primary focus of the Rio Rico Walking and Biking Study is to develop a program for the
prioritization and construction of bicycle facilities and sidewalks in Rio Rico. This study identifies,
for the first time, an inventory of existing conditions and deficiencies and maps a network of
proposed bicycle and pedestrian routes to safely connect activity centers in Rio Rico. 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 estimates can then be
utilized by elected officials, County staff, or other project stakeholders to comparatively evaluate
competing projects.
There are 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, rightof-way constraints and physical impediments such as walls/fences and utilities. Specific projectlevel 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.

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 Santa Cruz County Public Works Department rather than a
contractor.
Paved Shoulders
The addition of paved shoulders in Rio Rico 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.

124

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-feet in width. A typical 10-foot shared use
path is conservatively estimated at approximately $300,000 per mile including contingency.
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, crossslope, 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.
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.

Rio Rico Project Highlights
The planning-level cost estimates per facility type described above serve as useful guides to
generally estimating multi-modal facility improvement costs. Tables 18-20: Rio Rico Project
Highlights, identifies a more refined cost estimate and design considerations for a sampling of short
term, medium term and long term projects for each facility type.
There are a myriad of factors and variables that can influence the construction cost of any given
project. Some of these are also described above. The Project Highlights below are provided in an
attempt to provide an order of magnitude of costs for each project but also recognize that other
influences such as environmental permitting and finer grain design components will ultimately
influence the final project cost.

125

Table 18: Project Highlights – Sidewalks

SIDEWALKS

Short Term

Project Name

Project Need & Benefit to Rio Rico

Estimated Project Cost

Need: Approximately 4,900 feet of sidewalk is
recommended for the north/east sides of Yavapai
Drive from the existing curb return at West
Frontage Road along the entire “loop” with its
reconnection to West Frontage Road to the north.

Scoping: $80,000

Benefit: This “urban” area of Rio Rico is home to
the most densely populated residential area and
Rio Rico Plaza (Garrett’s) which serves as Rio Rico’s
commercial services core. Pedestrians routinely
frequent this route and a sidewalk is needed for
safety and separation from motorists as Yavapai
Drive is the most traveled roadway with over
11,000 average trips per day.

2013 Estimated Cost:
$600,000

Yavapai Drive
“Loop” – from
West Frontage
Road to West
Frontage Road

Yavapai Drive looking west at Camino Caralampi

Yavapai Drive looking west, near Via Bella Donna

126

Design: $120,000
Construction: $400,000

Additional Observations:
Ideally, said sidewalk
improvements are best
achieved with the future
widening of Yavapai Drive. In
the event this roadway
widening is not feasible or not
contemplated within the next
five years, a more temporary
paved surface pathway could
be constructed near the toe of
slope area between Garrett’s
and Via Bella Donna.
From Via Bella Donna north,
sidewalk construction can be
accommodated behind the
existing curb and gutter.

SIDEWALKS
Project Name

Project Need & Benefit to Rio Rico
Need: Construction of approximately 200 feet of
sidewalk on the west side of this school driveway.
Benefit: This project will ensure safety by reducing
potential for pedestrian/vehicle conflict at this
busy, strategic school entrance.

Estimated Project Cost
Scoping: $3,000
Design: $4,500
Construction: $16,000

Medium Term

2013 Estimated Cost: $23,500
Pena Blanca
School Entrance
Driveway

Pena Blanca School Entrance Driveway Looking North

127

Additional Observations:
Sidewalk should be maintained
west of the driveway entrance
to provide safe separation from
pedestrians and vehicles
egressing driveway. Cost
estimate assumes construction
with federal grant funds and
could be reduced if
constructed with local funding
sources.

SIDEWALKS

Long Term

Project Name

Project Need & Benefit to Rio Rico

Estimated Project Cost

Need: Two “local” streets that operationally
function as collector roadways for the medium
density residential neighborhoods it serves and in
close proximity community services on Avenida
Coatimundi.

Scoping: $120,000

Benefit: Approximately 7,300 feet of sidewalks on
both sides of the street will enhance the safety and
operational efficiency of these busy residential
collector roadways by separating the pedestrians
from the vehicles in this well-traveled area.

2013 Estimated Cost:
$900,000

Avenida LeonAvenida Gandara
Loop

Avenida Leon Looking North

128

Design: $180,000
Construction: $600,000

Additional Observations:
Both streets have 50-feet of
right-of-way and the existing
pavement section is 28-feet
wide. In order to avoid a
modification of existing
drainage conveyance, a
sidewalk facility with ribbon
curbing that is flush with the
roadway may be considered.
Challenges include fitting
sidewalks within the existing
right of way and multiple
driveway conflicts.

Table 19: Project Highlights – Shared Used Paths

SHARED USED PATHS
Project Name

Project Need & Benefit to Rio Rico

Short Term

Need: A shared use path of approximately 3,700
feet in length at this location provides connectivity
to other existing and proposed shared use paths
and the Anza Trail, establishing a strategic
connection and link to some of the most
frequented trails in Rio Rico.

Rio Rico Drive
from Pendleton
Drive to the Anza
Trailhead along
north side of Rio
Rico Drive

Benefit: This particular section of proposed shared
use path has been nominated for inclusion on the
Arizona State Trail Plan and is an important link to
the Anza Trail, the Boy Scout Trail and the
Pendleton Drive Trail.

Proposed Trail alignment, looking west from
Pendleton Drive

129

Estimated Project Cost
Scoping: $40,000
Design: $60,000
Construction: $200,000
2013 Estimated Cost:
$300,000
Additional Observations:
Sufficient right-of-way appears
to exist though the at-grade
crossing of the existing railroad
tracks will require
safety/warning signage to alert
path users. The use of
compressed native materials
for sections of this shared use
path within the Santa Cruz
River designated floodplain
area should be considered in
lieu of pavement due to scour
and erosion concerns.
Proposed construction of a trail
within any USACOE 404
jurisdictional areas will likely
need 404 permitting.

SHARED USED PATHS
Project Name

Project Need & Benefit to Rio Rico

Medium Term

Need: The existing Boy Scout Trail begins at the
northwest corner of Pendleton Drive and Rio Rico
Drive. This native trail runs for approximately ½
mile before the formal trail dissipates into nondescript series of lesser paths in the area. Localarea Boy Scouts maintain this trail on a semiregular basis. A formal shared use path and
trailhead is needed. The total length of this
proposed project is approximately 6 miles to
Josephina Canyon.

Boy Scout Trail

Benefit: Many members of the community
expressed a desire to develop a formal shared use
path as this trail meanders through a wooded area
providing the many users in the area a secluded
experience away from traffic yet also provides
important linkage and is a key asset to the overall
trail system in Rio Rico.

Existing Boy Scout Trail, just north of Rio Rico Drive

130

Estimated Project Cost
Scoping: $400,000
Design: $600,000
Construction: $2,000,000
2013 Estimated Cost:
$3,000,000
Additional Observations:
The northerly extension of the
Boy Scout Trail can create a
connection to a planned multiuse path linking Josephina
Canyon. Additional evaluation
of a crossing type and location
at Pendleton Drive and
Josephina Canyon is necessary.
Due to the extensive length
and cost, phased construction
of this project is suggested.

SHARED USED PATHS

Medium Term

Project Name

Camino Caralampi
Yavapai Drive to
Calle Amarillo

Project Need & Benefit to Rio Rico

Estimated Project Cost

Need: This roadway already has over 4,000 vehicle
trips per day. A shared use path is desired to serve
this frequently traveled area of Rio Rico to
maintain separation of motorists and pedestrians
and bicyclists, particularly at its northern terminus
with Yavapai Drive, where non-motorized users
access Garrett’s and the Esplendor Resort
multipurpose trail also connects to this area.

Scoping: $100,000

Benefit: This 9,400 foot length includes the most
populous and most traveled portions of Camino
Caralampi – linking many residents in the area to
Garrett’s, the commercial hub of Rio Rico. The path
is likely most desirable on the west side of the
roadway to allow access from the majority of
residents and thereby creating a seamless path
system. The planned shared use path could
connect to the existing multiuse trail near the
Esplendor Resort or replace the existing portions of
multiuse trail altogether.

Additional Observations:
Potential conflicts with
driveway cuts and fence
encroachments create
challenges to design and
construction costing along the
west side of the roadway.
Appropriate crosswalks and
driver warning signage is
needed at roadway
intersections. Suggesting
appropriate pedestrian/bicycle
crossing warning signage such
as MUTCD W-11-2, W-11-15 or
W-11-15P for vehicle
approaches at intersections.

Camino Caralampi near
intersection, looking south

the

131

Yavapai

Drive

Design: $150,000
Construction: $500,000
2013 Estimated Cost:
$750,000

It is a 24-foot pavement section
with a generous 100-foot right
of way. The roadway
maintains a center line stripe
and there are no additional
paved shoulders. A shared use
path could extend to a
southern terminus at Calle
Amarillo.

Table 20: Project Highlights – Paved Shoulders

PAVED SHOULDERS
Project Name

Project Need & Benefit to Rio Rico
Need: Proximity to the three school locations to
enhance safety of pedestrian and bicycle school
aged children. Approximately 4,300 feet in length.

Estimated Project Cost
Scoping: $35,000
Design: $50,000

Short Term

Construction: $170,000
Benefit: These Improvements are also identified in
the Cooperative Extension Safe Route to Schools
Needs Assessment Report.

2013 Estimated Cost: 255,000
Additional Observations:
Peck Canyon Drive has a rightof-way of 100 feet. Where
sufficient right of way is
available, it is suggested that a
striped paved shoulder be
constructed and where rightof-way is limited, a bike route
be provided through the use of
signage and pavement
markings in proximity to school
facilities.

Via Patricia – Peck
Canyon Dr.

Via Patricia looking southwest

132

PAVED SHOULDERS
Project Name

Project Need & Benefit to Rio Rico
Need: Many area residents and high school
students identified Camino Ramanote as a facility
used for walking and biking daily. Camino
Ramanote currently experiences just over 2,000
vehicle trips day. The proposed project length is
approximately 2.5 miles.

Medium Term

Benefit: This area will continue to see increased
vehicular traffic and pedestrian and bicycle activity
as Rio Rico grows. It is a popular roadway,
particularly used by area youth accessing Rio Rico
High School and the commercial services at
Garrett’s.

Camino Ramanote
– West Frontage
Road to Corrida De
Toros

Estimated Project Cost
Scoping: $100,000
Design: $150,000
Construction: $500,000
2013 Estimated Cost:
$750,000
Additional Observations:
This two-lane roadway with
center-line striping has a 24foot pavement section in an
80-foot right-of-way.
Westerly to its intersection
with Corrida De Toros, the
roadway has many curves,
changes in grade and resulting
blind spots. These collective
roadway characteristics lend
themselves to the
improvement of a paved
shoulder.

Camino Ramanote looking west

Camino Ramanote, near West Frontage Road
looking west

133

PAVED SHOULDERS

Long Term

Project Name

Project Need & Benefit to Rio Rico
Need: Paseo Venado experiences 1,660 average
daily trips and will continue to grow. Because the
pavement width is only 24 feet and has center line
striping, its potential as a bike route/shared
roadway is not recommended because a cyclist
would only have 2-foot spacing where a minimum
of 3-4 feet is preferred.

Paseo Venado

Benefit: Paseo Venado can provide a key bicycle
trail connector linking Calle Calabasas and Camino
Caralampi and this 4,000 length of improvements
creates a continuous bike route system linking
northwest Rio Rico to southwest Rio Rico.

134

Estimated Project Cost
Scoping: $30,000
Design: $50,000
Construction: $160,000
2013 Estimated Cost:
$240,000
Additional Observations:
Paseo Venado is an 80-foot
right-of-way with an existing
24-foot pavement section with
center line striping A Bicycle
LOS Model could be performed
to determine the feasibility of a
bike route/shared lane facility.

XIV. IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
The key to achieving the ultimate effectiveness of the Rio Rico Walking and Biking Study begins
with leadership and initiative that rely upon allocated resources for implementation of successful
projects. Santa Cruz County must rely on partnerships with governmental agencies, the
development community and other means to begin to implement projects identified in this report.
This section offers decision-making principles and strategies for implementation that complement
potential funding sources necessary for the comprehensive development of walking and biking
trails and paths in Rio Rico. The success of this plan is based on attainable strategies that
realistically provide Santa Cruz County, the Santa Cruz Valley School District No. 35 and other area
stakeholders an approach to planning, constructing and maintaining a comprehensive trail and
path system.
Municipalities possess the advantage of additional funding resources (bonding, General Fund,
grants or other sources). Rio Rico is not an incorporated place and therefore lacks local taxation
and bonding authority. Rio Rico historically has not had the luxury of obtaining trail resources
through a Capital Improvements Plan (CIP), bonding or other means to publicly fund portions of
trails in Rio Rico. This is true for the unincorporated place although Santa Cruz County could
contemplate these things.
This implementation plan really becomes a “foundation plan” by which Santa Cruz County 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.
14.1 Funding Sources & Cost Sharing Strategies
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 that
replaces SAFETEA-LU.

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
135

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 Rio Rico Walking
and Biking 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 Rio
Rico’s chances for obtaining funding.

Safe Routes to Schools
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 noninfrastructure 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 21: Potential Funding Sources for a complete summary of available funding
sources.

136

Table 21: Potential Funding Sources

Source

Program

Description

Federal – MAP-21

National Highway
Performance Program
(NHPP)

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.

Eligible Project Types
 Bicycle transportation and pedestrian
walkways

Requirements

Administration

NHPP projects must be on an eligible facility
and support progress toward achievement
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.

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 onroad and off-road trail facilities for
pedestrians, bicyclists, and other
nonmotorized forms of transportation

 bicycle transportation and pedestrian
walkways
 most transportation enhancement
eligibilities (see below)

Projects must be identified in the STIP/TIP
and they must be consistent with the LongRange Statewide Transportation Plan and
the Metropolitan Transportation Plan

In general, obligated
through competitive local
or statewide grant
programs

Funding: Generally, 80% federal / 20%
matching

 Infrastructure-related projects and systems
that will provide safe routes for nondrivers, 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

137

Funding: Generally, 80% federal / 20%
matching

In general, obligated
through competitive local
or statewide grant
programs

Source

Program

Description

Federal – MAP-21

Congestion Mitigation
and Air Quality Program
(CMAQ)

The Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ)
Improvement Program funds transportation
projects to improve air quality and reduce traffic
congestion in areas that do not meet air quality
standards.

 Projects or programs that shifts traffic
demand to non‐peak hours or other
transportation modes during peak hours

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.

 Bike lanes, bike parking, crosswalks, and
signage

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)

 Program administration, transportation
planning, research, preventive
maintenance, engineering, rehabilitation,
restoration, construction, and
reconstruction of Federal lands
transportation facilities, and provision for
pedestrians and bicycles

Federal – MAP-21

Federal – MAP-21

Highway Safety
Improvement Program
(HSIP)

Federal Lands Program
(Access and
Transportation Programs)

Eligible Project Types

Requirements

Administration

Funding: Generally, 80% federal / 20%
matching

In general, obligated
through competitive local
or statewide grant
programs

Bicycle safety must be included in state’s
Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP).

In general, obligated
through competitive local
or statewide grant
programs

 Non-recreational bicycle transportation and
pedestrian improvements that provide a
reduction in single-occupant vehicle travel

Funding: 90% federal / 10% matching
Project must be within, adjacent to, or
provide access to Federal Lands.
Funding: 100% Federal

In general, projects are
selected by Federal Land
Management Agency or
statewide committee.

Federal

Federal Highway Safety
(Section 402) Grant
Program

Highway Safety Funds are used to support State and
community programs to reduce deaths and injuries
on the highways

 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

Program administered
through the Governor’s
Office of Highway safety

Federal

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.

 Public Facilities and Improvements (road
and street improvements)

Submit an annual
Regional Account
Application to SEAGO

 Planning and Capacity Building
(transportation plans)

138

Source

Program

Description

State

Highway User Revenue
Fund (HURF)

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
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.

 Expenditures of HURF must be for
improvements in the public roadway rightof-way. They can also be used for 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

HURF revenues are
distributed to counties,
cities, towns and the
State Highway Fund for
obligation

State

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.

 Projects that help to enhance wildlife
viewing or provide access to public lands

Funds obligated by
Arizona Game and Fish
Department

Local

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

General Obligation bonds

Funds from a portion of a municipality’s sales tax

Eligible Project Types

Requirements

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.

139

Administration

14.2 Acquisition & Development Strategies
One possible method of trail construction in Rio Rico will be conducted by property owners
and/or the development community in conjunction with the improvements of planned
residential communities and commercial/employment centers in Rio Rico. The following
strategies are offered for consideration:
Strategy – Enter into and MOU or IGA with the Santa Cruz County Flood Control District for
collaborative funding and development of paths trails in conjunction with the development or
preservation of flood control or natural resource management facilities. Identify and select
drainage conveyance designs that favor the use of shared use paths or multipurpose trails as a
component of the flood conveyance design. Particular emphasis should be placed on the Santa
Cruz River, Josephine Canyon, Aqua Fria Canyon, Nogales Wash, and Potrero Creek.
Strategy – Collaborate with developers during the master planning, platting and or site plan
review processes to secure strategically significant trail corridors through dedication and/or
conservation easements.
Strategy – In cases where extra-ordinary easements or rights-of-way are being sought from the
development community, consider the use of transfer of development rights, impact fee credits
or other incentives to offset the additional value of said dedication.
Strategy – As a condition of rezoning, work with the Community Development Department to
stipulate conformance with the trail alignments, policies and design guidelines prescribed in this
Master Plan.
Strategy – When constructed by the development community, allow “credit” towards project
open space requirements for shared use trails or paths that support or immediately provide
connection to active recreation activities/parks.
Strategy – Within three years of the Rio Rico Walking and Biking Study adoption, the County
should continue to be responsive to the changing needs of Rio Rico’s residents by conducting a
household resident survey to validate parks, trails and recreation priorities in Rio Rico.
Strategy – The County shall continue to reinforce the mutually beneficial partnership with the
USFS and to determine precise portal access locations into the Coronado National Forest.

140

14.3 Awareness, Encouragement, Education & Volunteerism Strategies
Volunteerism and community awareness are often considered cornerstones to success for many
established trails programs throughout the country. Community education and in-kind
volunteering can allow Rio Rico to prioritize and expand its limited financial resources and
accelerate the construction of paths and trails throughout Rio Rico.
Encouragement consists of activities and events used to promote walking and bicycling to
school. Creating excitement and a culture of walking and bicycling among students can help
increase the number of children who walk or bike to/from school. These activities and events
may simply promote the benefits of walking and bicycling, or directly provide opportunities to
walk and bike.
The University of Arizona Cooperative Extension has been dedicated to assisting Santa Cruz
County with programs to assist in the education and awareness. Their successful efforts should
continue to be maintained moving forward.
Strategies that Santa Cruz County should consider to promote awareness, education and
volunteerism include:
Strategy – Develop an “adopt-a-trail” program for existing and future paths and trails (Anza
Trail, Boy Scout Trail, John and Bette De Stefano Pathway and newly developing West Frontage
Road shared use path). Look to local hiking, biking, and equestrian advocacy groups as the first
entities to adopt a Rio Rico trail.
Strategy – Collaborate with neighborhood groups to adopt localized neighborhood volunteer
efforts for periodic clean-ups and maintenance exercises within their respective communities.
Strategy – Periodically agenda trails planning and maintenance items on the Board of
Supervisors meeting to continually elevate trail planning matters.
Strategy – Focus on showing economic development of trails through creation and
implementation of signature special events, holding regional/national tournaments,
incorporating or closely locating commercial uses with parks and recreation sources, drawing
regional and national equestrian events and analyzing non-resident participation and attendance
at recreation facilities and programs.

141

Strategy – Educate and continually remind Rio Rico residents that trails are intended for nonvehicular uses and that ATV’s are prohibited. Newspaper notices, notes in utility bills or posted
notices at the library or schools are a few methods to deliver this message.
Strategy – Encourage and support volunteer groups to organize. Organizations such as youth,
senior, school, church, healthcare, senior and other community-based organizations are already
positioned to perform many maintenance functions, especially on trails.
Strategy – Promote the benefits of volunteer labor and material donations for trails
development to expedite the development of trails and reduce the construction costs.
Strategy – Seek volunteer support from local area retailers, especially as Rio Rico grows, to assist
with material donations in the development of trails.
Strategy – Develop a brochure and trail map of Rio Rico’s trail system, including rules and
regulations and appropriate contact information.
Strategy – Upon the development of significant trails or bicycle facilities, devise a “name-thattrail contest” that will generate citizen interest and ownership and elevate a level of importance
of walking and biking in Rio Rico.

14.4 TOOLBOX OF EDUCATIONAL MATERIALS
The University of Arizona Cooperative Extension already contributes to the betterment of the
SRTS program in Rio Rico by continuing to be an advocate and local resource for implementation
of programs, and projects in Rio Rico. Below is a sampling of programs for consideration in Rio
Rico.

Special Events
Assemblies and other special events at school can get the attention of students and create a fun
atmosphere for learning about traffic safety. A number of nonprofit organizations and
consultants specialize in creating these special events.
Walk to School Days (see
“Encouragement” section) provide another opportunity for instruction on safe walking behavior.

142

Example: Bicycle Rodeo
A bicycle rodeo is a fun educational
event where children can practice
what they learn. It involves instruction
on traffic rules and safety skills, and
can also include bicycle maintenance
and helmet fitting.
Students ride through an obstacle
course where they apply the rules,
Photo courtesy of www.pedbikeimages.org / Mike Cynecki
practice safety skills, and negotiate
hazards. Holding this event on a
summer evening or a weekend can allow for parent involvement. Local bike shops may
be interested in sponsorship opportunities at these events.

Classroom Instruction
Physical education classes are appropriate for direct instruction on “street smart” walking and
bicycling. In Rockville, Maryland, bicycle and pedestrian safety has become a standard part of
the school system’s teaching curriculum, coordinated by physical education teachers. Walking
and bicycling as forms of transportation also relate to a range of educational topics, including
health and the environment.
Safety Campaigns
Educational campaigns to improve driving behavior around
schools should send messages through multiple channels
throughout the year. They will be most effective if they
reinforce a few key points that are easy to remember.
Many cities, like this example from Mission Viejo, CA have a
“School Traffic Safety” flyer reminding parents of key rules
they should observe during dropoff and pickup to promote
safety near the school, as well as tips to avoid congestion.

143

School principals also include messages about traffic safety in newsletters and emails to parents.
Publications by the City and homeowners associations are other avenues for reaching parents
and community members. Banners, signs, or other creative temporary displays near the school
can be used to grab drivers’ attention.

Community Programs
Public safety officers in the community can be a key source of traffic safety education for
children and adults. When geared toward adults, community programs can make drivers more
alert and give parents skills to help teach traffic safety to their children. Some County Sheriff’s
Departments offer Childhood Watch safety training classes to children and parents, including a
module on “Traffic Smarts.”

14.5 TOOLBOX OF ENCOURAGEMENT IDEAS

Walk/Bike to School Days
Schools can promote walking and biking to
school with regular events such as Walk to
School Wednesdays. On designated days, school
staff and parent volunteers walk with students
from designated areas close to the school. The
annual International Walk to School Day, in the
first week of October, is timed to promote
walking to school near the beginning of the year.
New in 2012, a national Bike to School Day is
being introduced on the Wednesday before Bike
to Work Week in May.
Competitions
Class competitions can provide extra motivation as well as teaching opportunities. For instance,
children can use pedometers or maps to track how far they walk each day, with their results
tallied as a class or school. This kind of competition can incorporate exercises with graphs, maps,
and measurements, and will be more fun if the students’ progress is compared to, for instance,
the distance from Rio Rico to Tucson or Phoenix. Other competitions could reward classes with
the highest numbers of carpooling parents or participants in Walk to School Days.

144

Walking School Buses and Bike Trains
In a walking school bus, parent/guardian
volunteers “drive” a group of children to or
from school. The bus can have regular stops
like a school bus for picking up additional
children. Similarly, a bike train is a group of student riders
accompanied by adults on bicycle.

Carpooling Promotion
Carpooling can be promoted by providing an online forum or matching program to connect
interested parents to each other. The service can be provided using inexpensive or free online
services such as Google documents and can be organized by the school or parent organization.
Parents should be made aware of the program during school orientation and reminded
throughout the year through newsletters and other announcements.
Access to the school parking lot or other desirable loading areas can be reserved as an incentive
to carpool.

145

14.6 Other Supporting Policies
The suggested policy actions below are designed to supplement the implementation of the Plan
of Improvements for the Rio Rico Walking and Biking Study.
1) Collaborate with the Santa Cruz Valley Unified School District No. 35 and the University
of Arizona Cooperative Extension
Frequent collaboration to selectively target grant applications and funding for the
construction of priority Safe Routes to Schools projects is particularly important in the
face of funding authorization with the recent federal adoption of MAP-21. The County,
school district and the Cooperative Extension should seek consultation from ADOT and
others on fluid MAP-21 application requirements and strategies and regularly meet to
identify and evaluate priority Safe Routes to Schools projects for grant application
consideration.
2) Install bicycle route/shared roadway signage for priority bike routes.
The implementation of signage and pavement markings for priority bike routes/shared
roadways is the least expensive and most meaningful way to implement short term
projects and demonstrate Santa Cruz County’s commitment to promoting bicycling in Rio
Rico. Santa Cruz County should request budget authorization for the purchase of MUTCD
signage for high priority bike routes in Rio Rico. Signage and select pavement marking
should be installed by the County Public Works Department.
3) Develop a County-wide bicycle safety and education campaign.
The County should initially commence with a fairly simple, straight-forward campaign
and education program on the implementation of bike route signage on select roadways
in Rio Rico. As signage is installed, web-site and mail newsletters to residents can simply
inform them of the installation of the signage, “road rule reminders” and safety concerns
that also promote the expanded commitment to recreation, fitness and quality of life
matters. As the construction of bicycle and pedestrian facilities increase over time, the
campaign can expand its messages in unison. The County should consult with ADOT
Bicycle and Pedestrian Program representatives regarding the content and usage of their
bicycle and pedestrian safety campaign materials (Share the Road Guide) for reference.
4) Incorporate paved shoulder improvements into annual or routine repair and
resurfacing projects.
Santa Cruz County should adopt a separate formal policy that the annual review of a CIP
or street maintenance budget will incorporate the costs to construct paved shoulders

146

with routine street repair, resurfacing overlays or reconstruction jobs, and other bicycle
and pedestrian related improvements into annual street repair budgeting process. Costeffective improvements can be made incrementally over time.
5) Adopt County development standards that require the construction of sidewalks,
shared use paths or bike lanes for new development.
When evaluating an incoming residential or non-residential development proposal, a
policy requiring the incoming development to provide for the construction of pedestrian
and/or bicycle improvements within the adjacent rights-of-way along the development’s
property frontage as opportunities arise. This is particularly important for the
continuation of an existing network of pedestrian or bicycle improvements (or closing a
gap) but also is required where this document or other County plans have identified
these improvements even if not currently established.
6) Adopt a formal policy and program for the regular maintenance and sweeping of
shared use paths, paved shoulders and shared roadways.
Santa Cruz County should consider adopting a formal policy supporting this measure so
the annual funds and personnel can be properly allocated for this important provision.
Community input received supports this practice. Biking enthusiasts noted that they love
the shared use path on Avenida Coatimundi, however they have gotten many flat tires
from stickers and other debris that tend to accumulate on that particular path. Routine
sweeping of small rocks and pebbles on paved shoulders and bike facilities is necessary
to avoid additional slipping by riders.
7) Promote a policy that requires new development to provide bike racks and safe and
convenient ingress and egress.
Develop a specific policy to require the convenient placement of bike rack facilities and
accessibility bike and pedestrian access routes on commercial, employment center and
community service uses in Rio Rico.
8) Consider enhanced bicycle and pedestrian facilities for intersection upgrades.
Currently Rio Rico does not have any signalized intersections other than I-19 traffic
interchanges at Ruby Road and Rio Rico Drive. As signalization of other intersections
incrementally occur over time, said intersection improvements should accommodate a
more urban or suburban standard for bike lanes and sidewalks in conjunction with the
intersection improvements.

147

XV. REFERENCES AND RESOURCES
Below is an inventory of technical documents that were utilized in the data collection, research
and analysis phases of the Rio Rico Walking and Biking Study. To the extent information is
available of the internet, the hyperlink is provided for convenience.

The Bicycle & Pedestrian Program of the Federal Highway Administration's Office of Human
Environment.
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bicycle_pedestrian/
Santa Cruz County Comprehensive Plan, June 2004.
http://co.santa-cruz.az.us/com_development/pdf/complete-plan-2005.pdf
Santa Cruz County Trails Master Plan, May 2006.
Making the Connection: Community Fitness & the Rio Rico Community-School Greenway
prepared by the Drachman Institute, 2005.
Various Rio Rico (Santa Cruz County) Planned Area Development (PAD) land use plans.
Preliminary case study reports prepared by the Safe Routes to Schools (SRTS) at the U of A
Cooperative Extension, 2011.
Santa Cruz County CIP data.
Various Santa Cruz County GIS files.
Unified Nogales-Santa Cruz County Transportation Plan 2010.

http://www.azdot.gov/planning/systems_planning/nogales_santacruz.asp
Interstate 19 East Frontage Road (Ruby Road to Rio Rico Drive) Study, ongoing.
http://www.azdot.gov/highways/projects/I19_East_Frontage_Ruby_to_RioRico/index.as
p

148

United States Census (2010).
www.census.gov
http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml
American Community Survey, 2006-2008.
5-year Crash Data – ADOT MPD. March 2007 through March 2012.
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 Development of Bicycle Facilities (2012).
https://bookstore.transportation.org/
The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways (MUTCD) (2009
Edition). http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/index.htm
The Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) Traffic Engineering Policies, Guides and
Procedures (PGP) (January 2000, revised October 2012).
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
ADOT Statewide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Update, April 2013.

http://azbikeped.org/azbikeped/pdf/Draft_Final_Report.pdf
Designing Shared Use Trails to Include Equestrians, Anne M. O’Dell.
http://atfiles.org/files/pdf/ODellEquesTrails.pdf
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_guidance/
FHWA Manuals and Guides for Trail Design, Construction, Maintenance, and Operation, and
for Signs.
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/recreational_trails/guidance/manuals.cfm

149

Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines. U.S Architectural and Transportation
Barriers Compliance Board.
http://www.access-board.gov/
Trail Design Guidelines for Portland’s Park System, May 2009.
http://www.portlandoregon.gov/parks
Draft Final Accessibility Guidelines for Trails, Outdoor Developed Areas Final Report.
www.access-board.gov/outdoor/draft-final.htm
Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines.
www.access-board.gov/adaag/html/adaag
Trail Planning, Design and Development Guidelines: Shared Use Paved Trails, Natural Surface
Trails, Winter Use Trails, Bikeways by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
Trails and Waterways, 2006.
FHWA, Transportation Alternatives Program Guidance, June 13, 2013.
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/map21/guidance/guidetap.cfm
ADOT Traffic Safety for School Areas Guidelines

http://www.azdot.gov/docs/business/adot-traffic-safety-for-school-areaguidelines.pdf
ADOT Roadway Design Guidelines, May 2012
http://www.azdot.gov/docs/business/roadway-design-guidelines.pdf
https://www.carpooltoschool.com/Home.aspx
http://www.rideshareinfo.org/schoolpool.shtml
An Organizer’s Guide to Bicycle Rodeos (Cornell University).
http://www.bike.cornell.edu/pdfs/Bike_Rodeo_404.2.pdf
Bicycle Rodeos (Bicycling Life).
http://www.bicyclinglife.com/SafetySkills/BicycleRodeo.htm
Maryland Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Education Curriculum.
www.saferoutesinfo.org/program-tools/maryland-pedestrian-and-bicycle-safetyeducation-curriculum-k-5

150

WalkBoston Walking for Health & the Environment Curriculum.
http://www.walkboston.org/documents/srtsCurricAll.pdf
Safe Routes to Schools
http://www.walktoschool.org/resources/safety-environment.cfm
http://guide.saferoutesinfo.org/encouragement/mileage_clubs_and_contests.cfm
Proposed Accessibility Guidelines for Pedestrian Facilities in the Public Right-of-Way (2011).
http://www.access-board.gov/prowac/nprm.htm
Accessibility Guidelines for Pedestrian Facilities in the Public Right-of-Way; Shared Use Paths
http://www.access-board.gov/sup/snprm.htm
The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials’ (AASHTO), Guide for
the Planning, Design, and Operation of Pedestrian Facilities, July 2004

151

Appendix A – University of Arizona Cooperative Extension SRTS Case Studies
A.1 Mountain View Elementary School
A.2 Pena Blanca Elementary and Calabasas Middle School
A.3 Coatimundi Middle School

Existing Facilities and Needs Assessment:
Bicycle/Pedestrian Conditions at Mountain View Elementary School, Dec 2011

5

6

A

B

1

C

4

2

3

Source: Google Maps 2011

Existing facilities and needs assessment information – see next page.

Existing Facilities
A. A sidewalk on the north side of Camino Lito Galindo connects school administration buildings,
Mountain View Elementary, and Rio Rico High School. Sidewalks lead from the street to school
buildings and have updated accessibility ramps.
B. A well-maintained crosswalk leads from a sidewalk on the south side of Camino Lito Galindo to
sidewalks on the school-side of the street. Signs improve visibility of the crosswalk here.
C. Pavement warning strips (Bott’s Dots) are located at several places along Camino Lito Galindo to
slow traffic and keep drivers alert.

Needs Assessment
1. Crosswalk ramp: The accessibility ramp on Camino Lito Galindo’s south sidewalk does not lead
directly into the crosswalk. The crosswalk should be repainted to correspond to the ramp, or a
new ramp should be installed here.
2. Sidewalk buffer: The sidewalk along the south side of Camino Lito Galindo is flush with the
roadway and has very little buffer from traffic. Raising the sidewalk or installing other barriers
(plantings, etc.) would serve to improve the safety and comfort of pedestrians.
3. Sidewalks: Sidewalks currently do not continue into southern neighborhoods. Installing
sidewalks would improve walking conditions in an area where many students live. Alternately, a
back pathway could be constructed that connects the neighborhood to the school behind (to
the west of) streets and houses here. This option was suggested by SRTS Advisory Board
members in October 2011.
4. Sidewalks/bike lane: Continuing the sidewalk around the school property as well as adding bike
lanes to the Camino Lito Galindo-Via Patricia-Peck Canyon Dr. loop would increase safety of
pedestrians/bicyclists from surrounding neighborhoods.
5. Bike/Ped pathway: Installing a bike/ped pathway set back from the Frontage Rd. would
significantly increase foot traffic from northern neighborhoods along this route. Developing a
pathway through northern school property would also serve to increase access/safety for
residents in northern neighborhoods.
6. On-site mileage club circuit: Given obstacles to safe commuting in the area, an on-campus
mileage club circuit would provide alternate opportunities for student fitness.

Mountain View Frontage Rd Area Improvement Project
Improvements to existing easement/ROW paths off W Frontage Rd, south of Mountain View Elementary
School, would increase the perception of safety and appeal of walking. Improvements will be especially
beneficial beginning next school year when bus pick-up will end at Via Lechuza (to the south of this
area); usage by walkers is expected to increase. A railroad tie/pecan shell pathway on the existing path,
or off to the side if vehicle access must be maintained, is suggested. Plantings for shade/aesthetics are
also an option.
Mt. View Improvement Area Map

= Area of Detail
= Improvement
Location

To do: Determine property situation
(County ROW/utility easement?) and
Project
Update (from
SRTS
Report 5-4
pursue
permission
to make
alterations.
Organize materials and volunteers.

Project Update (from SRTS Report 5-4-12):

Purpose: Increase safety/appeal of walking along a section of W. Frontage Rd.
General info: SRTS and SCVUSD will not need to pursue this project. Santa Cruz County has
plans to build a pathway from the entrance to San Cayetano Elementary, past Camino Lito
Galindo, and continuing south to near El Destino housing. Construction on this project should
begin August or September 2012.

Existing Facilities and Needs Assessment:
Bicycle/Pedestrian Conditions at Peña Blanca Elementary and Calabasas Middle Schools, Dec 2011

1

2

Source: Google Maps 2011

Existing Facilities
No sidewalks, crosswalks, or bike lanes connect residential areas to the school grounds.
Needs Assessment
1. Sidewalk and crosswalk: A new driveway on the south side of the school creates alternate
access for pedestrians and bicyclists (as opposed to the busy Frontage Rd. access point). It was
not designed with sidewalks/crosswalks or a pedestrian gate, however, so is limited in its safety
and usability at this time. Pedestrian features are recommended.
2. Sidewalks/bike lanes: Sidewalks and bike lanes along streets, especially Paseo De Yucatan which
leads to a higher-density neighborhood to the south, would significantly improve
pedestrian/cyclist safety. Improving facilities along Camino Maricopa would also encourage
walkers from northern and western neighborhoods.

Peña Blanca/Calabasas West Trail Entrance Project
A system of existing trails to the west of Peña Blanca Elementary and Calabasas Middle Schools create
an opportunity to easily connect western neighborhoods to the school grounds. Only a few
improvements are necessary. These include:
1) Install a gate in the school fence and extend a path from the gate to the school parking
lot/crosswalk. See Maps 1 & 2.
2) Improve steep section of trail at eastern extent of trail, just south of proposed gate location. See
Maps 1 & 2.
3) Make minor improvements to trail as needed: trim tree branches, remove brush from path.
Other considerations/thoughts:
4) Possibly include a Tono Ct connection to publicized routes. This option should be explored
further. See Maps 1 & 3.
5) Publicize routes through a letter & map distribution (possibly via bus drivers). Route Walk to
School Days on these paths to raise awareness and accustom students to using them.
6) Ideally, install “Slow” or “Watch for Children” signs along Via San Luis Potosi (west of Rizo
Ct./trail entrance).

Map 1 – PB/Cal Western Area Overview

Map 2 Area

Map 3 Area

Map 2 – Eastern Extent of Trail & School Entry
Install gate & create path to
school parking lot/crosswalk.

Improve steep section of trail
with 3-5 simple railroad tie
stairs.
Note: May want to build
stairs to one side to allow for
continued bike/other use

Map 3 – Tono Ct Connection

This portion of the trail is seen on aerial maps, but not noted during a 2/14/12 site visit. Its potential as a
walking trail should be explored further.

Project Update (from SRTS Report 5-4-12):
Purpose: Provide safe passage for students traveling from western neighborhoods.
General info: A network of trails already exist through private property west of the schools; simple
clean-up of the trails and advertisement of their location will encourage use; 3-5 stairs in one location
will improve safety (property owner permission has been requested); a gate will need to be installed in
school fencing. The Tono Ct. connection is viable and provides a link to housing directly west of the
school site. A planning meeting with stakeholders will take place on June 11, 2012.

Existing Facilities and Needs Assessment:
Bicycle/Pedestrian Conditions at Coatimundi Middle School, Dec 2011

A

1

4

2

3

Source: Google Maps 2011

Existing facilities and needs assessment information – see next page.

Existing Facilities
A. The Coatimundi Walking Trail was completed in summer 2010. It provides a back-door entrance
to the school grounds from neighborhoods to the west.
Needs Assessment
1. Crosswalk: A designated crosswalk leading from the walking trail to the school building would
improve safety. While typically only bus traffic uses the drive that circles the building, a
crosswalk would give a visual alert to drivers to watch for pedestrians here. Walkers would also
be guided across at the safest/shortest-distance location.
2. Crosswalk: Most students, both on Walk to School event days and other days, walk along the
southern side of Avenida Coatimundi. To reach the Coatimundi Walking Trail entrance, they
must cross Avenida Coatimundi at Calle Juan Legarra and proceed north to Feather Court. A
crosswalk at the Avenida Coatimundi-Calle Juan Legarra intersection is recommended.
3. Pathway/sidewalk: There are currently no pedestrian or bicycle facilities available along Avenida
Coatimundi. A pathway along the southern side of the street is proposed and a project is being
developed by Santa Cruz County, with the support of community members, the Santa Cruz
Valley Unified School District (SCVUSD), and others.
4. Short-cut: Students living in the Highland Circle development must walk a long distance via
Avenida Gloriosa to reach Avenida Coatimundi and continue east to Coatimundi Middle School.
Locating an alternate route from the neighborhood to Avenida Coatimundi or Calle Juan Legarra
would shorten the walk distance and increase the appeal of traveling to school by foot.

Coatimundi Highland Cir Connection Project
Students living in the Highland Circle development must walk a long distance via Avenida Gloriosa to
reach Avenida Coatimundi and continue east to Coatimundi Middle School. A short-cut would decrease
walk distance and increase the appeal of traveling to school by foot.
A connection to Avenida Coatimundi (and its in-progress pathway) can be made through a drainage area
at the south extent of Highland Circle. See Map. Necessary steps for this project include:
1) Determine ownership and building regulations for the drainage way; acquire appropriate
permissions.
2) Construct stairway down steep short-cut area (see Photo). Estimate cement needed to construct
stairway and acquire all needed materials, including hand rail. Rico Quiroz can assist with
material estimation (via Contractor friends) and construction. Recruit volunteers.

Highland Cir / Short Cut Area Map

= Area of Detail
= Connection Location

Photo – Drainage Area from Avenida Coatimundi

Stairs should be built to one side of the rock channel and must be designed so as not
to interfere with drainage function.

Project Update (from SRTS Report 5-4-12):
Purpose: Create a pedestrian short-cut from Highland Ct to Avenida Coatimundi.
General info: Santa Cruz County owns or has an easement on the short-cut property, though
nearby neighbors will be informed. A letter was sent to property owner, Ruby Briggs, on March
22. A crosswalk on Ave. Coatimundi will need to be installed at the location, and donations &
volunteer labor will be used. The pathway extension along Ave. Coatimundi is under
construction and will be complete by May/June 2012.

Appendix B – Youth Workshop
B.1 PowerPoint Presentation
B.2 Student Written Responses
B.3 Student Regional Map Mark-up

10/25/2012

Rio Rico
Walking and Biking Study
Youth Workshop
Rio Rico High School
October 4, 2012

Project Team
Justin Feek, ADOT MPD
‐ Project Manager
Kevin Kugler, AICP
‐ Consultant – Baker/RBF Consulting
Mary Dahl
‐ Santa Cruz County

1

10/25/2012

Today’s Agenda
1) Introduce
I
d
P
Project
j
2) Pedestrian & Bicyclist Attitudes and
Behaviors Survey
3) Group Discussion
4)) Map Exercise

If you were offered two front row tickets to a
concert, which would you be most likely to
attend?
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)

One Direction
Taylor Swift
Jay Z/Little Wayne
Green Day
Other
00:10

48%
48%

26%
26%

11

13%
13%

13%
13%

22

33

44

0%
0%
55

2

10/25/2012

Are you:
1) Male
2) Female

50%
50%

50%
50%

11

22

00:10

Are you at least 16 years or older?
1) Yes
2) No

100%
100%

11

0%
0%
22

00:10

3

10/25/2012

What area of Rio Rico do you live in?
1) Northeast
2) Northwest
3) Southeast
4)) Southwest

33%
33%

33%
33%

17%
17%

17%
17%

22

11

33

44

00:10

How long have you lived in Rio Rico?
1) 0‐2 years
2) 2‐5 years
3) 5‐10 years
4) 10‐15 years
5) 15 + years

40%
40%

20%
20%

11

22

20%
20%

20%
20%

33

44

0%
0%
55

00:10

4

10/25/2012

How frequently do you walk, jog or
run on local streets or paths?
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)

Once a month
Twice a month
1‐2 days a week
3‐4 days a week
5‐6 days a week
Everyday
Never
00:10

67%
67%

17%
17% 17%
17%

0%
0%
11

0%
0%
22

33

55

44

0%
0%
66

0%
0%
77

How far on average would you estimate that
you walk, jog or run on paths or trails on a
typical trip?
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)

¼ mile or less
¼ mile to ½ mile
½ mile to a 1 mile
17%
17%
1‐2 miles
00:10
2 + miles
Never walk, jog or run
11

33%
33%

17%
17%

22

17%
17%

0%
0%
33

44

17%
17%

55

66

5

10/25/2012

When walking, jogging or running, what
types of facilities do you tend to use most
frequently?
50%
50%

1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)

Shoulders of paved roads
Sidewalks
Shared use pathway
Bike path, walking path or trail
Unpaved roads
Grass or fields
00:10

33%
33%

17%
17%

11

22

33

0%
0%
44

0%
0%
55

0%
0%
66

What is the typical purpose of your
pedestrian (walk, jog, run) trip on a street,
trail or path in Rio Rico?
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)

School
Errands/shopping
Work
Visit a friend/relative
Recreation/Exercise
Walk dog
00:10
Running/training

44%
44%

33%
33%

22%
22%

11

22

0%
0%
33

0%
0%
44

55

0%
0%
66

0%
0%
77

6

10/25/2012

For those who walk to school (or would walk to
school), what are the biggest needs to encourage
walkingg to school?
1) Improve upon existing pedestrian facilities
2) Provide additional pedestrian facilities not in place
today (sidewalks, bike lane, cross walk, lighting, etc)
56%
56%
3) Enforce traffic laws
4) Create a better route
5) Walking is not an option
11%
11%

11%
11%

11%
11%

11%
11%

33

44

55

00:10
11

22

What are some typical reasons for not
walking, jogging or running?
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)

Other transportation is faster
Too busy/no opportunity
Lack of sidewalks or paths
Lack of safety/busy streets
Destination is too far
00:10

0%
0%
11

0%
0%
22

0%
0%
33

0%
0%
44

0%
0%
55

7

10/25/2012

How frequently do you bicycle on local
streets, paths or trails?
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)

Once a month
Twice a month
1‐2 days a week
3‐4 days a week
5‐6 days a week
Everyday
00:10
Never

20%
20% 20%
20% 20%
20% 20%
20% 20%
20%

11

22

33

44

55

0%
0%
66

0%
0%
77

How far on average would you estimate that
you bicycle on paths or trails on a typical trip?
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)

100%
100%

1 mile or less
1‐2 miles
2‐5 miles
5‐10 miles
10 + miles
I do not bike.
00:10

0%
0%
11

22

0%
0%
33

0%
0%
44

0%
0%
55

0%
0%
66

8

10/25/2012

When bicycling, what types of facilities do
you tend to use most frequently?
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)

Shoulders of paved roads
Shared use pathway
Bike path, walking path or trail
Unpaved roads/trails
Other
I do not bike

40%
40%

20%
20%

20%
20%

20%
20%

00:10
11

22

33

0%
0%
44

55

0%
0%
66

Which of the following best characterizes your
bicycling tendencies?
1) I only ride my bike in my neighborhood or on local streets
with little traffic.
2) I will bicycle outside my neighborhood on off street
pathways.
3) I am comfortable riding my bicycle in the roadway alongside
vehicles if the shoulder is wide enough.
4)) I am an experienced bicyclist and am willing to ride just
about anywhere.
5) I do no bike.
00:10

0%
0%
11

0%
0%
22

0%
0%
33

0%
0%
44

0%
0%
55

9

10/25/2012

What is the typical purpose of your bicycle trip
on a street, trail or path in Rio Rico?
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)

School
Errands/shopping
Work
Visit a friend/relative
Recreation/Exercise
Training
00:10
I do not bike

25%
25% 25%
25% 25%
25% 25%
25%

11

22

33

44

0%
0%
0% 0%
0% 0%
77
66
55

For those who bicycle to school (or would bike
to school), what are the biggest needs to
improve / encourage walking to school?
1) Increase road shoulder or bike lane width
2) Provide additional facilities not in place today
(sidewalks, bike lanes, cross walks, lighting, etc)
50%
50%

3) Enforcing traffic laws
4) I will not bike to school
17%
17%

17%
17%

17%
17%

33

44

00:10
11

22

10

10/25/2012

What are some typical reasons for not
bicycling?
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)

Other transportation is faster
Too busy/no opportunity
Lack of sidewalks or paths
Lack of safety/busy streets
25%
25%
Destination is too far
Not interested in bicycling

50%
50%

25%
25%

00:10
11

22

33

0%
0%
44

0%
0%
55

0%
0%
66

Which of the following best represents the type of pedestrian
and bicycle facility improvements you would like to see in Rio
Rico?
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.
roadways
6) Develop a system of off‐street pathways.
20%
20%
20%20%
20%20%
20%
20%
7) Sweep shoulder or bike lane.
8) Step up enforcement of motorist laws.
00:10

0%
0%
11 22

33

44

20%
20%

0%
0%
0%
0%
55 66 77 88

11

10/25/2012

Please take a moment to complete
the form that indicates what
streets, paths or trails in Rio Rico
that you typically walk, jog, run or
bicycle on!

Questions?
Contact Information:
Kevin Kugler
RBF Consulting
kkugler@rbf.com
(602) 798‐7521

12

Appendix C – Community Open House #1
C.1 Sign in sheet
C.2 PPT with survey results
C.3 Scanned maps from mapping exercise
C.4 Comment Forms

Ri Ri
Rio
Rico W
Walking
lki and
d Biki
Biking St
Study
d
Public Open House Meeting

November 15, 2012

Meeting Agenda
d
Welcome & Introductions
Project Background
P j O
Project
Overview
i
Questions and Responses
Walking and Biking Survey
Next Steps
Mapping Exercise

Photos courtesy of Matt Hays

Project Background
Purpose and Intent
Awarded funding from
ADOT through the Planning
Assistance for Rural Areas
(PARA) program
Establish a program for the
construction of bike lanes
and sidewalks to provide
safe access to local Rio Rico
school facilities as well as
use by the general public

Project Background
Local Plans and Studies
Santa Cruz County
Comprehensive Plan
The Drachman
Institute Report
SSanta Cruz
C
C
County
Comprehensive
Trails Plan
U of A Cooperative
Extension SRTS Case
St di
Studies

Project Overview
Study Area
Approximately
i
l 62 square
miles
Generally
G
ll consists
i off four
f
(4) quadrants: northeast,
northwest, southeast and
southwest.

Project Overview
Land Use
Santa Cruz County
Comprehensive Plan – Land
Use Map
The pedestrian and biking
needs of Rio Rico are directly
tied
i d to the
h composition
i i off
these land uses.

Project Overview
Demographics
Rio Rico Population/Growth

Rio Rico Age Distribution

Project Overview
Demographics
Rio Rico Commuting Habits

Project Overview
Safe Routes to Schools Program
A central focus of this study
Federal program designed to improve the ability of
elementary and middle school students to safely walk
and bike to school
ADOT administers program on behalf of FHWA, UofA
Cooperative Extension organizes locally
Infrastructure Projects and Non‐Infrastructure Projects
supported
d
Identify and prioritize potential improvement projects
within a 2‐mile school radius

Project Overview
Multi‐Modal Facility Types
Class I ‐ Bike Path: a Class
Cl I bikeway
bik
provides bicycle travel on a paved right‐of‐way
completely separated from any street or highway

Class II ‐ Bike Lane: a Class II bikeway
provides a striped and stenciled lane for one‐way
travel on a street or highway

Class III ‐ Bike Route: a Class III bikeway
provides for shared use with motor vehicle traffic
and is identified only by signing.

Shared Use Path: a shared use path
p
provides for multiple modes of travel on a paved
right‐of‐way completely separated from a street. A
shared use path may be used by cyclists, pedestrians,
skaters,, joggers,
j gg , and other non‐motorized users.

Project Overview
Existing Bicycle and
Pedestrian Facilities
Bicycle Lane/Bicycle Path
Juan Bautista de Anza National
Historic Trail (Anza Trail)
Shared Use Paths
Trailheads
Sid
Sidewalks
lk
Shoulders
Local Trails and Multiuse Trails
Bike friendly Residential Streets
Bike-friendly

Project Overview
Significant Study Area
Corridors and Activity
Centers
Rio Rico High School /Mountain View
Elementary/San Cayetano Elementary
School
West Frontage Road
Garrett’s (Rio Rico Plaza)
Pendleton Drive
Rio Rico Drive to Pendleton Drive
Avenida Coatimundi
Coatimundi Middle School
Ruby Road: I‐19 east to the Santa Cruz
River
Pena Blanca Elementary
School/Calabasas Middle School

Project Overview
Bicycle and Pedestrian
Needs
Safe Routes to Schools Hot Spots
Difficult Intersections
Garrett’s (Rio Rico Plaza)
Difficult Pedestrian Crossings
Narrow Bridge Crossings
Ruby Road
Priority Underserved Roadways
Key System Disconnects

Rio Rico Walking and Biking Study
Questions and Responses

Walking and Biking Survey
We Want Your Input!

Are you:
1)) Male
2) Female

00:10

11

22

26.7%
26.7%

73.3%
73.3%

What is your age group?

1) Under 16
2) 16 – 30
3) 30 – 65
4) Over 65

00:10

11
22

0.0%
0.0%
6.7%
6.7%

33
44

86.7%
86.7%
6.7%
6.7%

What area of Rio Rico do you live in?
1) Northeast
2) Northwest
3) Southeast
4) Southwest

00:10

11
22
33
44

58.3%
58.3%
0.0%
0.0%
16.7%
16.7%
25.0%
25.0%

How long have you lived in Rio Rico?
1) 0‐2 years
2) 2‐5 years
3) 5‐10 years
4) 10‐15 years
5) 15 + years
00:10

11

8.3%
8.3%

22

25.0%
25.0%

33

25.0%
25.0%

44

25.0%
25.0%

55

16.7%
16.7%

How frequently do you walk, jog or run on local
streets or paths?
h?
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)

Once a month
Twice a month
1‐2
1
2 days a week
3‐4 days a week
5 6 days a week
5‐6
Everyday
Never

00:10

11

7.1%
7.1%

22

7.1%
7.1%
14.3%
14.3%

33
44

35.7%
35.7%
28.6%
28.6%

55
66
77

7.1%
7.1%
0.0%
0.0%

How far on average would you estimate that
you walk,
walk jog or run on paths or trails on a
typical trip?
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)

¼ mile or less
¼ mile to ½ mile
½ mile to a 1 mile
1‐2
1
2 miles
2 + miles
Never walk
walk, jog or run

00:10

11

0.0%
0.0%

22

7.1%
7.1%

33

7.1%
7.1%

44

50.0%
50.0%

55
66

35.7%
35.7%
0.0%
0.0%

When walking, jogging or running, what
types off facilities
f ili i do
d you tend
d to use most
frequently?
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)

Shoulders of paved roads
Sidewalks
Shared use pathway
Bike path
path, walking path or trail
Unpaved roads
G
Grass
or fields
fi ld
00:10

11
22
33
44

60.0%
60.0%
6.7%
6.7%
13.3%
13.3%
0.0%
0.0%

55
66

20.0%
20.0%
0.0%
0.0%

What is the typical purpose of your
pedestrian (walk,
(walk jog,
jog run) trip on a
street, trail or path in Rio Rico?
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)

School
Errands/shopping
Work
Visit a friend/relative
Recreation/Exercise
Walk dogg
Running/training

00:10

11
22

0.0%
0.0%
6.7%
6.7%

33

0.0%
0.0%

44

0.0%
0.0%

55
66
77

86.7%
86.7%
6.7%
6.7%
0.0%
0.0%

For those who use existing pathways in Rio Rico,
what are the biggest needs to encourage walking in
Rio Rico?
1)
2)

3)
4)
5)

Improve existing pedestrian
facilities
Provide additional pedestrian
facilities not in place today
(sidewalks, bike lane, cross
walk lighting
walk,
lighting, etc)
Enforce traffic laws
Create a better route
Walking is not an option
00:10

11

7.1%
7.1%

22

92.9%
92.9%

33

0.0%
0.0%

44

0.0%
0.0%

55

0.0%
0.0%

What are some typical reasons for not walking
walking,
jogging or running?
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)

Other transportation is faster
Too busy/no opportunity
Lack of sidewalks or paths
Lack of safety/busy streets
Destination is too far
Other
00:10

11
22

0.0%
0.0%
13.3%
13.3%

33
44

60.0%
60.0%
13.3%
13.3%

55

6.7%
6.7%

66

6.7%
6.7%

How frequently do you bicycle on local
streets, paths or trails?
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6))
7)

Once a month
Twice a month
1‐2 days a week
3‐4 days a week
5‐6 days a week
Everyday
y y
Never
00:10

11
22

6.7%
6.7%
0.0%
0.0%

33
44
55
66
77

26.7%
26.7%
0.0%
0.0%
6.7%
6.7%
0.0%
0.0%
60.0%
60.0%

How far on average would you estimate that
you bicycle on paths or trails on a typical trip?
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)

1 mile or less
1‐2
1
2 miles
2‐5 miles
5‐10
5
10 miles
10 + miles
I do not bike
bike.
00:10

11
22
33

0.0%
0.0%
7.1%
7.1%
0.0%
0.0%
28.6%
28.6%

44
55
66

14.3%
14.3%
50.0%
50.0%

When bicycling, what types of facilities do
you tend to use most frequently?
1)
2)
3))
4)
5)
6)
7)

Shoulders of p
paved roads
Shared use pathway
Bike p
path,, walkingg p
path or trail
Unpaved roads/trails
Existing paved roadways
Other
I do not bike
00:10

11
22
33
44

35.7%
35.7%
0.0%
0.0%
7.1%
7.1%
0.0%
0.0%
14.3%
14.3%

55
66
77

0.0%
0.0%
42.9%
42.9%

Which of the following best characterizes your
y g tendencies?
bicycling
1)

I only ride my bike in my
neighborhood or on local streets
with little traffic.
traffic

11

2)

I will bicycle outside my
neighborhood
g
on off street
pathways.

22

3)

4)

5)

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.
I do no bike
bike.
00:10

14.3%
14.3%

7.1%
7.1%

33

44

55

35.7%
35.7%

14.3%
14.3%

28.6%
28.6%

What is the typical purpose of your bicycle trip
on a street, trailil or path
h in
i Rio
i Rico?
i ?
1)
2)
3))
4)
5)
6)
7)

School
Errands/shopping
Work
Visit a friend/relative
Recreation/Exercise
Training
I do not bike
00:10

11

7.7%
7.7%

22

0.0%
0.0%

33

0.0%
0.0%

44

0.0%
0.0%

55
66
77

61.5%
61.5%
0.0%
0.0%
30.8%
30.8%

For those who bicycle, what are the biggest
needs to improve / encourage biking in Rio
Rico?
1)

Increase existing road
shoulder or bike lane width

2)

Provide additional facilities
not in place today
(sidewalks, bike lanes, cross
walks,
lk lilighting,
hti etc)
t )

3)

11

0.0%
0.0%

22

100.0%
100.0%

33

0.0%
0.0%

44

0.0%
0.0%

Enforcing traffic laws

4) Other
00:10

What are some typical reasons for not
bicycling?
1)
2))
3)
4)
5)
6)

Other transportation is faster
Too busy/no
y/ opportunity
pp
y
Lack of sidewalks or paths
Lack of safety/busy streets
Destination is too far
Not interested in bicycling
00:10

11

0.0%
0.0%

22

14.3%
14.3%

33

35.7%
35.7%

44

35.7%
35.7%

55
66

0.0%
0.0%
14.3%
14.3%

Which of the following best represents the type of pedestrian
and bicycle facility improvements you would like to see in Rio
Rico?
1)

Construct more sidewalks near
commercial or activity centers.

11

2)

Construct more sidewalks in residential
neighborhoods.

22

3)

Construct shared use paths along county
roadways.
d

4)

Stripe bicycle lanes on county roadways.

5)

Increase bicycle lane or shoulder width of
existing county roadways.

7.1%
7.1%
0.0%
0.0%

33
44

50.0%
50.0%
7.1%
7.1%

55

21.4%
21.4%

66

14.3%
14.3%

6)

Develop a system of off‐street pathways.

7)

Sweep shoulder or bike lane.

77

0.0%
0.0%

8)

Step up enforcement of motorist laws.

88

0.0%
0.0%

00:10

Next Steps
Project schedule
MONTH
Feb 15

Mar 15

Apr 15

May 15

Jun 15

Jul 15

Aug 15

Sep 15

Oct 15

Nov 15

Dec 15

Jan 15

TASK

Project Management and
Coordination
1

“Refine” Work Plan

2A

Current Conditions

2B

Future Conditions

3

Public and Stakeholders
Involvement – Phase I

4

Evaluation Criteria and Plan
for Improvements

5

Public and Stakeholders
Involvement – Phase II

6

Draft Final Report

7

Final Report

Communityy Meetings
g

County/ADOT
y
PM Meeting
g

Working
g Papers
p

TAC Meetings
g

Elected Official Briefing
g

Public Meeting Report

Draft Final Report

Final Report

Youth Workshops

Walking/Driving Audit

Next Steps
Contact Information
RBF Consulting
Kevin Kugler, Project Manager
Phone: 602‐279‐1234
kkugler@rbf.com

Klyszeiko, Matthew

From: Gerardo Castelo [mailto:jerry_castelo@hotmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2012 1:25 PM
To: Justin Feek
Subject: RE: ADOT Rio Rico Contact Information

Good afternoon: Mr. Justin Feek, I was talking to you around an hour ago i lived by Circulo Guerrero and Main
Street Ruby Road. Like i was saying to you it's real hard to drive on Ruby Road when people are walking or
riding the bicycle, there is a section were you got two rail guards on both sides of the road and sometimes its
real difficult to drive thru those rails especially when people are walking or riding the bikes the road is narrow
and theirs no way to drive thru those rail guards you have to slow down and wait for the other car to pass and
the speed limit is 55 mph on Ruby Road and I also wanted to make a comments about Circulo Guerrero st. we
don't have side walks and every summer it's a nightmare for our neighborhood, the reason why is when it
rains i don't have any access to my house and water jumps onto the street and i almost lost my water meter
this following summer, people walk on the street, and there is no side walk and beside that the county don't
even trim the trees I've been living here for the pass seven years and i haven't seen any one trimming the
trees. i hope you guys take this in consideration and help us build a wash or whatever it takes to prevent the
flooding in our neighborhood we all wonder were our taxes go. sincerely a resident of Circulo Guerrero of Rio
Rico.
From: JFeek@azdot.gov
To: jerry_castelo@hotmail.com
Subject: FW: ADOT Rio Rico Contact Information
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2012 20:13:06 +0000

From: Justin Feek
Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2012 12:53 PM
To: 'jerrycastelo_@hotmail.com'
Subject: ADOT Rio Rico Contact Information
jfeek@azdot.gov

Justin Feek
Program Manager
Multimodal Planning Division
Arizona Department of Transportation
206 South 17th Ave 310B
Phoenix, AZ 85007
Phone: (602) 712‐6196
Fax: (602) 712‐3046

1

Appendix D – Community Open House #2
D.1 Meeting Summary
D.2 Sign in sheet
D.3 Meeting Notice
D.4 Fact Sheet
D.5 Presentation Boards
D.6 Written Comments Received

Public Open House # 2
Meeting Summary
Meeting Date/Time:

Wednesday, May 22, 2013 (5:30 pm - 7:30 pm)

Meeting Location:

Calabasas Middle School
131 Camino Maricopa
Rio Rico, AZ 85648

Meeting Participants: Seven (7) community members attended
Sign-in Sheet attached in Appendix A
Study Team:

Justin Feek, ADOT Project Manager
Paki Rico, ADOT Communications
Mary Dahl, Santa Cruz County
Jesus Valdez, Santa Cruz County
Kevin Kugler, Baker/RBF

Project Purpose & Intent
The purpose of the Rio Rico Walking and Biking Study is
to enable Santa Cruz County to establish a program for
the construction of bike lanes and sidewalks that are
desired to provide safe and convenient pedestrian and
bicycle access to select Santa Cruz Valley Unified School
District No. 35 school district facilities and for
community-wide multi-modal transportation and
recreational purposes. The School District and County
have completed trail projects over the years, but
providing additional sidewalk, bike lane and/or trail
Figure 1: Calabasas Middle School
facilities to safely and adequately connect schools to
other Rio Rico activity centers and neighborhoods is the primary purpose of the Rio Rico Walking and
Biking Study. Schools in particular are not well-served by bicycle and pedestrian access and the School
District and County would like to enhance opportunities for bicycle and pedestrian modes of travel to
engage residents in healthy lifestyle choices without the fear of bicycle and pedestrian conflicts with
vehicles.

1

Public Open House #2 Purpose
As part of the overall corridor study process, the Study Team developed a comprehensive and
interactive Public Involvement Plan to inform and include the public in the transportation planning
process.
The Public Involvement Plan focused on meetings with stakeholders and the public scheduled at key
technical milestones in the study process. The goal of this approach is to ensure that input and
feedback provided by citizens and stakeholders will be effectively integrated and considered in the
development of the final study and in the conception of project recommendations. The initial Public
Involvement Report outlined the public involvement effort that was performed as part of Public
Meeting/Open House #1 held on November 15, 2012. This report summarizes the second Public
Meeting/Open House conducted on May 22, 2013.
The purpose of the second Public Open House was to provide interested residents and other project
stakeholders with an overview and opportunity to comment on Working Paper # 2. Working Paper #
2 includes the suggested Plan of Improvements which identifies and prioritizes multi-modal
transportation projects into short term (5 year), medium term (10 year) and long term (20 year)
planning horizons. Other contents in Working Paper #2 presented at the second Public Open House
include a series of supporting policies and design elements, evaluation criteria used for prioritizing
projects, planning level cost estimates for select projects, and funding sources and cost sharing
strategies that Santa Cruz County can seek out for the implementation of projects.
Public Open House Notification
The Study Team considered several methods to notify the public of the first Public Open House
meeting. Given the mostly rural nature of Rio Rico, it was determined that:
The newspaper display advertisement was published in the May 14, 2013 and May 21, 2013 editions
of the Santa Cruz Valley Sun and Nogales International newspapers. The advertisements also
appeared electronically on the Santa Cruz Valley Sun’s website. A copy of the advertisement in located
in Appendix B for reference. The advertisements provided a brief project description and meeting
location information regarding the Public Open House meeting. The advertisement was also
disseminated electronically by the ADOT Communications staff to numerous interested Rio Rico and
Santa Cruz County-area stakeholder list service subscribers. The meeting notice was also posted
electronically on the Santa Cruz County website. A copy of the Fact Sheet made available for the
public is attached in Appendix C.

2

Public Meeting Overview
In total, an estimated 7 people attended the Open House meeting.
The formal presentation began promptly at 6:00 pm with Justin Feek, ADOT Project Manager briefly
welcoming the group and thanking all for attending. Mr. Feek encouraged attendees to sign-in and
help themselves to project information material, comment cards and surveys that were located at the
meeting entrance. He also explained that all the project information being presented tonight would
be available online at www.azdot.gov/RioRico. Mr. Feek then introduced Kevin Kugler, Project
Manager with RBF Consulting, to begin the formal presentation.
Mr. Kugler began the presentation by recognizing and thanking the individuals for their attendance
and that they would have an ample opportunity to provide much-needed input and feedback for the
project. He noted that a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) had been formed to provide consultant
oversight and guidance for this project and that the TAC met earlier in the day to review the same
M e e t i n g M a t e ri a l s
information.
Mr. Kugler briefly explained what items were going to be covered at the meeting, explaining that after
the presentation, attendees were encouraged to fill out comment cards with any observations they
felt would benefit the project.
Mr. Kugler first reminded the attendees of the history of the project and what work had been
performed in Working Paper #1. He stated that the central focus of the Rio Rico Walking and Biking
Study was to establish a program for the construction of bike lanes and sidewalks to provide safe
access to local Rio Rico school facilities, as well as multi-modal facilities for use by the general public.
Mr. Kugler then gave an overview of the basic types of pedestrian and bicycle facilities presented in
the Rio Rico Walking and Biking Study. Mr. Kugler described the characteristics and differences
between bike routes/shared roadways, paved shoulders, bike lanes, bike paths, shared use paths,
sidewalks and different crossing types. The discussion also focused on the application of the different
facility types more specifically in the Rio Rico area.
Mr. Kugler then reminded the attendees of the different types of multi-modal facility deficiencies
inventoried in the Rio Rico Study Area. He explained that the Plan of Improvements was developed in
response to the initial set of deficiencies identified by the TAC, residents, project stakeholders and the
consultant team. He emphasized that enhancing the safety of multi-modal access to local areas

3

schools using the guidelines of the Safe Route to Schools Program (SRTS) was important to identify the
need to enable Santa Cruz County to pursue federal funding. He briefly reminded the attendees that
SRTS is a federal program designed to improve the ability of elementary and middle school students
to safely walk and bike to school. SRTS will support infrastructure projects and non-infrastructure
projects and that this study will identify and prioritize potential improvement projects within a 2-mile
radius of each school in Rio Rico.
Utilizing the large presentation board
graphics, Mr. Kugler then identified the
evaluation criteria and scoring system used
by the project team to prioritize projects
into the short term (5 year), medium term
(10 year) and long term (20 year)
implementation time horizons. My Kugler
noted that the priorities assigned to the
various projects represent a guide for Santa
Cruz County to follow. The priorities in no
way suggest that all projects must be
implemented in any exact order, but does
provide Santa Cruz County elected official
Figure 2: Presentation Boards
and staff with a barometer and general sense of what project’s received a higher priority by way of
safety needs, as well as expressed community desires and deficiencies. He went on to note that local
influence, funding availability and a wide variety of variables can affect the timing of any given
project. He noted that if a funding source can be secured for a given project sooner than what has
identified in this report, the priority assigned in this report should never stand in the way of
implementation that improves the overall non-motorized access and connectivity of Rio Rico.
Using a large presentation board, Mr. Kugler then gave a brief overview of the eight (8) evaluation
criteria employed by the project team. He explained that each criterion was assigned a numeric value
and each proposed project then received a rank or score that could be used comparatively against
one another. The criteria were developed out of a compilation of expressed community needs, desires
and deficiencies, transportation industry standards and metrics, and consultant experiences. Mr.
Kugler noted that projects located within a two mile radius of a school received a weighted score to
reflect the importance of the SRTS in the Rio Rico Walking and Biking Study. The eight criteria and the
numeric scores assigned to each criterion are shown in Appendix D.

4

Mr. Kugler then gave an overview of the each of the short term (5 year), medium term (10 year), and
long term (20 year) proposed projects. The projects were presented using one large map presentation
board for the short, medium and long term project types. An additional board summarizing all
projects into one large table was also used extensively in explaining the various projects over each of
the time horizons. Please see Appendix D for reference to each of these map graphics. Mr. Kugler
explained many of the more than 60 projects identified and prioritized for implementation.
Mr. Kugler noted that shared use paths, paved shoulders and bike routes/shared roadways
represented the most projects. Sidewalks had the fewest and that was by design. Mr. Kugler went on
to explain that bike routes/shared roadways, when the roadway design allows, represent a great way
to begin to demonstrate the implementation of a local bicycle program at little cost. This is especially
true in rural areas where formal bike lanes are not necessarily needed or desirable. Rio Rico has a
number of roadways that are suitable for bike route signage and fairly inexpensive signage can
increase bicycle awareness, health and safety and demonstrate progress towards implementation.
Mr. Kugler continued to explain the various projects recommended for implementation. He concluded
by discussing some ballpark costs for the typical construction of the various types of improvements.
Mr. Kugler noted that construction costs for these projects are never cheap, especially for a small
county like Santa Cruz County with limited budget availability. He explained that this report also is
providing Santa Cruz County with a series of potential funding sources. This index of potential funding
sources lists a variety of federal, state and local government resources as well as foundation and other
grant funding opportunities. Mr. Kugler noted that he would be glad to discuss these in more detail if
anyone were interested.
At the conclusion of the presentation, Mr. Kugler asked if there were any questions.
Questions Posed During the Question & Response Period
The following is a summary of questions and responses provided by the project team during the
conclusion of the presentation.
Q: What exactly is planned for the loop road around Rio Rico High School? It looks like there are a few
projects in that area, but shown on different maps. Can you clarify?
R: Yes, that is correct. The Peck Canyon Drive- Via Patricia-Camino Lito Galindo “loop”
around Rio Rico High School is comprised of a series of different projects. Camino Lito

5

Galindo is recommended for a sidewalk in the short term. This sidewalk would extend from
the short reach of existing sidewalk at Camino Lito Galindo and West Frontage Road. A
pedestrian crosswalk is also recommended across Camino Lito Galindo connecting to the
schools entrance. Peck Canyon Drive and Via Patricia are recommended for paved shoulders,
both as short term (5 year) projects. There is sufficient right-of-way existing on both streets
and paved shoulders are a cost effective alternative to accommodate both pedestrians and
bicyclists.
Q: The plan certainly looks very thorough and has many projects identified. What is the
recommendation for the Anza Trail?
R: The Anza Trail is a multi-purpose trail and is recommended to be incrementally extended
both to the north and the south in the short, medium and long term. Santa Cruz County has
already identified the Anza Trail as being extended in their Comprehensive Plan and this
study of course supports that continued objective. Funding availability is always a challenge
and we suggest the County continue its existing practice of working with local trail
enthusiasts and volunteer organizations for the continued development and maintenance of
this important trail. The continued expansion of the Anza Trail is of course a benefit for
residents but can also promote eco-tourism opportunities in Rio Rico.
Q: I live off Camino Caralampi and I see that a shared use path is identified but is in the 20-year plan.
Why is it in the long term plan? This is a busy street and connects to Garrett’s which is a very busy
intersection. I like the idea of a shared use path, but we need it sooner than 20 years.
R: It is interesting that you make that observation. In our Technical Advisory meeting earlier
today, the group discussed that this may be one project worth taking another look at in
terms of its assigned priority in the 20 year versus something sooner. Now your comment
places more emphasis on that initial team discussion. You are correct that Camino
Caralampi is a busy street – it currently has over 4,000 vehicles per day traveling on it. The
path from the El Splendor Resort does not connect all the way to Yavapai Drive and this area
could certainly benefit from having a designated path here. Its intersection with Yavapai
Drive across from Garrett’s is not the most ideal configuration, especially from a pedestrian
or bicyclist perspective. The project team will take another look at Camino Caralampi.
Please feel free to complete a comment form if you would like to get your comments in
writing for the project record.

6

After the conclusion of the question and response period, Mr. Kugler reminded the group to fill
out comment cards, hand them out to any neighbors or friends unable to attend the meeting.
Comments could be emailed or sent by traditional mail but must be received by June 5, 2013.
The meeting adjourned at approximately 7:22 pm.
After the conclusion of the Question & Response period, Mr. Kugler invited the meeting
attendees to notate their specific issues or comments on the roll-plots located at the back of
the room. He also said that the project team would continue to be on-hand to answer any
additional questions. Individual and small group discussions between meeting attendees and
project team members continued until approximately 7:25 pm.

7

Rio Rico Walking and Biking Study
May 2013

ADOT and Santa Cruz County are working
together on the Rio Rico Walking and
Biking Study that will identify ways to
improve bicycle and pedestrian mobility in
the Rio Rico area.
Rio Rico is an unincorporated area of Santa Cruz County located
approximately 10 miles north of the City of Nogales and the
U.S./Mexico International border and 55 miles south of Tucson.

P U B L I C I N VO LV E M E N T I M P O R TA N C E
Incorporating the community’s ideas and concerns into the
study process is very important to the study’s outcomes. Two
public meetings will be held throughout the study process to
gather information and suggestions from Rio Rico residents.
A study website has also been created to provide easy access
to information:
www.azdot.gov/RioRico

The purpose of the Rio Rico Walking and Biking Study is to
assist Santa Cruz County in establishing a bike lane and sidewalk
construction program for safe and convenient pedestrian and
bicycle access and connectivity throughout the Santa Cruz
Valley Unified School District.

no

mi

Ca

The plan will:

a

n
efi

s
Jo

• Document existing conditions
• Identify future conditions and needs

nD

leto

d
Pen

• Recommend bicycle and pedestrian improvement
projects for 5, 10 and 20 year time frames

r

When complete, this plan will serve as a blueprint that will help
guide the development, funding and implementation of bicycle
and pedestrian projects in Rio Rico.

onta
W Fr

SONOITA
NATURAL
AREA

d
ge R

S T U DY A R E A

Dr

o
exic

oM

e
Pas

as

as

The project study area covers approximately 62 square miles of
the greater Rio Rico area.

ico

R
Rio

Ca

lle

Ca

lab

S T U DY O B J EC T I V E S
• Develop a program for the prioritization and
construction of bike lanes and sidewalks in Rio Rico.
• Establish a network of bicycle and pedestrian routes
that safely connect Rio Rico activity centers and other
area destinations.
• Identify safety and connection needs along existing
pedestrian and bicycle routes.
• Prioritize the improvements into near-term (5
year), mid-term (10 year), and long-term (20 year)
implementation projects.

Ruby Rd

LEGEND
CORONADO
NATURAL
AREA

Study Area

CONTACT INFORMATION
Arizona Department of Transportation
Justin Feek
Project Manager
602.712.6196
jfeek@azdot.gov

12-534

FOR MORE INFORMATION:

Project Hotline 855.712.8530
projects@azdot.gov
www.azdot.gov/RioRico

Arizona Department of Transportation
Rio Rico Walking and Biking Study
Public Open House
Calabasas Middle School
Wednesday, May 22, 2013
COMMENT FORM
Please provide us any general comments about the Rio Rico Walking and Biking Study or your input
regarding specific recommended projects or concepts presented this evening.
___________________________________________________________________________________

Thank you for allowing the community of Rio Rico to participate in the Walking and Biking
__________________________________________________________________________________
Study that will benefit generations to come. I'm especially glad to have been able to
___________________________________________________________________________________
promote the Shared Use Path on Camino Caralampi from Yavapai Drive to Calle Amarillo.
___________________________________________________________________________________

I think we all came to the agreement that this project did not fit into the 20 year plan, but
___________________________________________________________________________________

was most appropriate in the short 5 year plan!
_________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________

Camino Caralampi Shared Use Path meets the following criteria:
___________________________________________________________________________________

1. Linkage to existing trail from the Esplendor Resort down to Caralampi ande Yavapai Dr.
___________________________________________________________________________________
2. Enhanced tourism/economic development: Tourism already established at Esplendor Resort.
___________________________________________________________________________________

The Garrett's plaza and Chevron gas station is the only shopping area within Rio Rico.
___________________________________________________________________________________
Vehicle congestion would decrease, and pedestrian increase would give the perception
___________________________________________________________________________________

of a closer, safe, tight knit community that would attract more businesses to the area.
___________________________________________________________________________________
3. Expressed desire: There are many children that walk to/from their home to the school bus
___________________________________________________________________________________
stop. There are also residents that use Caralampi to excercise themselves and their pets.
___________________________________________________________________________________

There are many more that would use it, such as my family, if it felt safer. As they say:
___________________________________________________________________________________
If you build it, they will come! If there is a need to gather signatures from supporters on this
___________________________________________________________________________________

project, I will knock on doors myself.
___________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________

Thanks again, and feel free to contact me with updates about the Study.
___________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________

Sincerely,
___________________________________________________________________________________
Yolanda Felix
cybfelix@hotmail.com
___________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________
Public comments are an important part of the project and are welcome at any time for review and
consideration. Comments returned by Wednesday, June 5, 2013, will be included in the summary of this
public meeting. Please send comments to the ADOT Outreach Team, 206 South 17h Avenue, Mail Drop
310B, Phoenix, AZ 85007, (602) 712-6196, jfeek@azdot.gov
Please visit the study’s web site: azdot.gov/RioRico

Appendix E – Plan of Improvements Matrix

Suggested Plan of Improvements Matrix

Location

Approx.
Length

Enhanced
connection to
public
spaces/closes
gap

Noteworthy
Safety
Improvement

Proximity
to Schools

Complexity
of
Construction

Reduction
in vehicle
trips

Community
Support

Cost
Sharing
Potential

Economic/
Tourism
Potential

Total
Points

Notes

Sidewalks
Camino Lito Galindo has a 50-foot right-of-way. The north side of Camino Lito Galindo
is preferred for a continuous sidewalk connection and accessibility from adjoining
neighborhoods to all three school sites. Sufficient right-of-way exists on each street for
a sidewalk. Improvements also identified in the Cooperative Extension SRTS Needs
Assessment Report.
Attached sidewalk is recommended for the north/east sides of Yavapai Drive from the
existing curb return at West Frontage Road along the entire “loop” with its
reconnection to West Frontage Road to the north. This “urban” area of Rio Rico is
home to the most densely populated residential area and Rio Rico Plaza (Garrett’s)
which serves as Rio Rico’s commercial services core. Pedestrians routinely frequent
this route and a sidewalk is needed for safety and separation from motorists as
Yavapai Drive is the most traveled roadway with over 11,000 average trips per day. A
striped crosswalk with pedestrian warning signage is needed at the Garrett’s driveway
location.

Camino Lito Galindo”

Apprx.
3,200 feet

1

1

2

1

2

2

1

0

10

Yavapai Drive “Loop” –
from West Frontage
Road to West Frontage
Road

Apprx.
4,900 feet

1

1

0

2

2

2

0

1

9

Apprx.
200 feet

0

1

2

2

1

1

1

0

8

Sidewalk on the west side of this driveway is necessary to ensure safety by reducing
potential for pedestrian/vehicle conflict at this strategic school entrance.

3

Two “local” streets that operationally function as collector roadways for the medium
density residential neighborhoods it serves and in close proximity community services
on Avenida Coatimundi. Sidewalks on both sides of the street will enhance the safety
and operational efficiency of these busy residential collector roadways by separating
the pedestrians from the vehicles in this well-traveled area. Challenges include fitting
sidewalks within the existing right of way and multiple driveway conflicts.

Pena Blanca
Elementary School
entrance driveway

Avenida Leon-Avenida
Gandara Loop

Apprx.
7,250 feet

1

1

0

0

1

0

0

0

Shared Use Paths
West Frontage Road –
Camino De Patio to
Camino Lito Galindo
(Phase 1)

Apprx.
one mile

1

1

2

1

2

2

1

1

11

West Frontage Road –
Camino De Patio to
Camino Ramanote
(Phase 2)

Apprx.
4,300 feet

1

1

0

1

2

2

1

1

9

West Frontage Road –
Camino Ramanote to
Yavapai Drive (Phase 3)

Apprx.
2,600 feet

1

1

0

1

2

2

1

1

9

1

Santa Cruz County is currently in the process of constructing Phase 1 of a shared use
path along the west side of West Frontage Road. West Frontage Road has ample rightof-way at 150-feet and the shared use trail alignment is sufficiently buffered from the
roadway prism. Suggesting appropriate pedestrian warning signage for vehicle
approaches at intersections.
Santa Cruz County is currently in the process of constructing Phase 1 of a shared use
path. This segment is planned as Phase 2 along the west side of West Frontage Road.
West Frontage Road has ample right-of-way at 150-feet and the shared use trail
alignment is sufficiently buffered from the roadway prism. Suggesting appropriate
pedestrian/bicycle crossing warning signage such as MUTCD W-11-15 or W-11-15P for
vehicle approaches at intersections.
Santa Cruz County is currently in the process of constructing Phase 1 of a shared use
path. This segment is planned as Phase 3 along the west side of West Frontage Road.
West Frontage Road has ample right-of-way at 150-feet and the shared use trail
alignment is sufficiently buffered from the roadway prism. The narrow bridge crossing
over Aqua Fria Canyon will be a design challenge and is discussed under the “Narrow
Bridges” section. Suggesting appropriate pedestrian/bicycle crossing warning signage
such as MUTCD W-11-15 or W-11-15P for vehicle approaches at intersections.

Suggested Plan of Improvements Matrix

Location

West Frontage Road –
Peck Canyon south to
Camino Lito Galindo
(Phase 4)

Camino Agua Fria

Approx.
Length

Apprx.
2,675 feet
Apprx.
500 feet
from
Yavapai
Drive
intersection

Enhanced
connection to
public
spaces/closes
gap
1

0

Noteworthy
Safety
Improvement

1

1

Proximity
to Schools

2

0

Complexity
of
Construction

1

2

Reduction
in vehicle
trips

1

1

Community
Support

2

2

Cost
Sharing
Potential

1

0

Economic/
Tourism
Potential

0

0

Total
Points

9

Provide for the northerly extension of the West Frontage Road shared use path
currently being designed and constructed by the County in three phases. Suggestion
that this segment become phase four. Improvements also identified in the
Cooperative Extension SRTS Needs Assessment Report.

6

A shared use path along the south side of Camino Aqua Fria is recommend from the
intersection with Yavapai Drive for approximately 500 feet. This shared use path will
provide an appropriate transition to the bike route planned along Camino Aqua Fria
and the sidewalk and shared use path system along Yavapai Drive adjacent to the
more densely populated residential neighborhoods. The 80-feet of existing right-ofway is sufficient to accommodate the planned improvements.

Yavapai Drive “Loop” –
from West Frontage
Road to West Frontage
Road

Apprx.
4,900 feet

1

1

0

2

2

2

1

1

10

Camino Maricopa –
Ruby R. (SR 289) to
West Frontage Road

Apprx.
5,800 feet

1

0

2

1

1

1

1

0

7

Camino Caralampi –
Yavapai Drive to Calle
Amarillo

Apprx.
9,400 feet

1

1

0

0

1

1

0

1

5

2

Notes

A shared use path is recommended for the south/west sides of Yavapai Drive from the
existing sidewalk terminus at the West Frontage Road along the entire “outer loop”
with its reconnection to West Frontage Road to the north. This “urban” area of Rio
Rico is home to the most densely populated residential area and the Rio Rico Plaza
(Garrett’s) which serves as Rio Rico’s commercial services core. To compliment a
planned sidewalk across the street, a shared use path is desired to accommodate
bicyclists as well as pedestrians for existing and planned “urban” subdivisions in this
area. The shared use path will enhance multimodal connectivity to the West Frontage
Road shared use path, separate bicyclists and pedestrians from the busiest roadway in
Rio Rico and also provide connection to the existing multiuse pathway at Camino
Caralampi and ultimately to the Esplendor Resort. An existing right-of-way width of
150 feet is sufficient to accommodate this improvement and the terrain is relatively
flat in order to minimize necessary grading. Future connection to a planned bike route
(paved shoulders) along the Rio Rico Drive overpass will greatly enhance system
connectivity in this strategic location of Rio Rico.
Camino Maricopa is classified as a local street with Santa Cruz County but functions
more so as a collector roadway. The speed limit is posted at 30 mph. This roadway
provides collector-level service connecting West Frontage Road to Ruby Road (SR 289)
and is a central access point for adjacent residents wanting to access the schools and
West Frontage Road. A shared use path along the east side of the roadway is
recommended. Camino Maricopa has 100-feet of right-of way and a 24-foot pavement
section. There is sufficient right-of-way to construct a shared use pathway. The east
side of the roadway has fewer topographic constraints than the west side and
provides direct connectivity to the school entrance drive.
This roadway already has over 4,000 vehicle trips per day. It is a 24-foot pavement
section with a generous 100-foot right of way. The roadway maintains a center line
stripe and there are no additional paved shoulders. At its northern terminus with
Yavapai Drive, non-motorized users access Garrett’s and the Esplendor Resort
multipurpose trail also connects to this area. A shared use path is desired to serve this
frequently traveled area of Rio Rico to maintain separation of motorists and
pedestrians and bicyclists. This shared use path could extend to a southern terminus
at Calle Amarillo. This 9,400 foot length includes the most populous and most traveled
portions of Camino Caralampi. The path is likely most desirable on the west side of the
roadway to allow access from the majority of residents and thereby creating a

Suggested Plan of Improvements Matrix

Location

Approx.
Length

Enhanced
connection to
public
spaces/closes
gap

Noteworthy
Safety
Improvement

Proximity
to Schools

Complexity
of
Construction

Reduction
in vehicle
trips

Community
Support

Cost
Sharing
Potential

Economic/
Tourism
Potential

Total
Points

Via San Potosi –
Avenida Lirio to Paseo
de Yucatan

Apprx.
1,600 feet

0

1

2

1

1

1

1

0

7

Calle Calabasas – West
Frontage Road to
Circulo Guerrero

Apprx.
12,000
feet

1

0

0

1

0

1

1

0

4

Boy Scout Trail

½ mile

1

0

0

1

1

2

1

1

7

Apprx.
3,700 feet

1

1

0

2

2

2

1

1

10

Rio Rico Drive from
Pendleton Drive to the
Anza Trailhead along
north side of Rio Rico
Drive

3

Notes

seamless path system. The planned shared use path could connect to the existing
multiuse trail near the Esplendor Resort or replace the existing portions of multiuse
trail altogether. It should be noted that potential conflicts with driveway cuts and
fence encroachments create challenges to design and construction costing along the
west side of the roadway. Appropriate crosswalks and driver warning signage is
needed at roadway intersections. Suggesting appropriate pedestrian/bicycle crossing
warning signage such as MUTCD W-11-2, W-11-15 or W-11-15P for vehicle approaches
at intersections.
A shared use path to accommodate pedestrians and bicyclists is preferred on Via San
Potosi. This is a primary corridor for school children accessing Pena Blanca Elementary
School. Sidewalk improvements are identified in the Cooperative Extension SRTS
Needs Assessment Report. A shared use path is preferred to minimize future County
operation and maintenance concerns/costs. Design challenges to consider include
limited 50-foot rights-of-way, fencing or other encroachments, on Via San Potosi and
Avenida Lirio. Considerable changes in topographic grade also pose drainage
considerations that will likely increase design and construction costs for improvements
on these streets.
Calle Calabasas provides area connectivity between the West Frontage Road and SR
289 and serving as a collector roadway for residents in the area. A fire station is
located at the intersection of West Frontage Road. Robert Damon Park is a popular
recreational facility frequented by local residents. Calle Calabasas is a minor collector
road with 100-feet of right-of-way and a 24-foot pavement section with no center line
striping. The speed limit is posted at 30 mph. A shared use path along the west side of
the roadway is preferred to provide pedestrian and bicycle access for recreation users
and bicycle and running enthusiasts as noted by several community members. A
shared use path is more cost effective than a separate sidewalk and bike path system.
This path alignment can be utilized along with the existing overhead utility power line
easement traversing the west side of Calle Calabasas. Connection to a regional bike
route along SR 289, the “west Rio Rico bike trail system” and access to Robert Damon
Park are established. This segment includes a shared use path for the connection to SR
289 via Circulo Guerrero. As an interim measure, Calle Calabasas could be utilized as a
Bike Route/Shared Road with appropriate signage and pavement markings as needed.
The Boy Scout Trail begins at the northwest corner of Pendleton Drive and Rio Rico
Drive. There is no formal trailhead. The trail begins adjacent to Pendleton Drive but
immediately diverges to the northwest as it meanders through a wooded area and
runs due north approximately 475 feet west of Pendleton Road. The trail runs for
approximately ½ mile before the formal trail dissipates into non-descript series of
lesser paths in the area. Local-area Boy Scouts maintain this trail on a semi-regular
basis. Extension of this trail to the north is desired.
A shared use path proposed at this location provides connectivity to other existing and
proposed shared use paths and the Anza Trail, establishing a strategic connection and
link to the overall trail system in Rio Rico. This particular section of proposed shared
use path has been nominated for inclusion on the Arizona State Trail Plan. Sufficient
right-of-way appears to exist though the at-grade crossing of the existing railroad
tracks will require safety/warning signage to alert path users. The use of compressed

Suggested Plan of Improvements Matrix

Location

Approx.
Length

Enhanced
connection to
public
spaces/closes
gap

Noteworthy
Safety
Improvement

Proximity
to Schools

Complexity
of
Construction

Reduction
in vehicle
trips

Community
Support

Cost
Sharing
Potential

Economic/
Tourism
Potential

Total
Points

South Pendleton Drive
– Avenida Coatimundi
to Calabasas Park

Apprx. 4.6
miles

1

0

0

1

1

1

1

1

6

West Frontage Road –
Rio Rico Drive to Ruby
Road

Apprx.
3.15 miles

1

0

0

1

1

1

1

0

5

Notes

native materials for sections of this shared use path within the Santa Cruz River
designated floodplain area should be considered in lieu of pavement due to scour and
erosion concerns. Proposed construction of a trail within any USACOE 404
jurisdictional areas will likely need 404 permitting. Connection to the trailhead at the
Anza Trail provides enhanced continuity and value in the overall trail network.
A southerly extension of the popular and well-traveled shared use path along
Pendleton Drive from its existing terminus at Avenida Coatimundi to Calabasas Park is
desired. This proposed shared use path is necessary to enhance non-motorized
mobility and connectivity along Pendleton Drive which provides important northsouth connectivity east of Interstate 19. Connections to Calabasas Park and the Anza
Trail can enhance east-west mobility. The 50-foot right-of-way of Pendleton Drive is
constraining and six fairly large wash crossings along this stretch will need to be
considered in design and construction.
The total length of the West Frontage Road alignment from Rio Rico Drive south to
Ruby Road is approximately 3.15 miles. Of the 3.15 miles, approximately 2.4 miles are
paved from Ruby Road north to approximately 400 feet north of its intersection with
Calle Calabasas where the pavement currently terminates. There is no roadway for
approximately .75 miles from the existing pavement terminus north to Rio Rico Drive.
A shared use path is desired along this alignment to establish a southerly extension
the existing and planned shared use path along West Frontage Road north of Rio Rico
Drive. This segment would greatly enhance mobility by completing a seamless northsouth non-motorized connection in Rio Rico west of Interstate 19.

Multi-Purpose Trails
Fernando Court to Peck
Canyon Drive

Apprx.
1,550 feet

Pena Blanca/Calabasas
West Trail Entrance

0

0

2

0

1

0

0

0

3

1

0

2

0

1

1

1

0

6

Calle Calabasas to
Avenida Palomas

Apprx.
1,000 feet

1

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

2

Santa Cruz River (Anza
Trail) to Calabasas Park

Apprx.
1,200 feet

1

0

0

1

0

1

1

1

5

4

An unpaved multiuse trail can serve as a neighborhood shortcut promoting nonmotorized modes of travel for school-aged children accessing the three school sites
from this neighborhood. An existing pathway/jeep trail already exists. Additional
research on the potential need for an easement for public ingress/egress is necessary.
As a possible alternative and/or supplement to nearby sidewalk improvements to Via
San Potosi, a multipurpose trail can be constructed to the west of the school property
connecting Via San Potosi and Hiedra Ct. Steep sections will require the construction
of stairs. An informal network of trails already exists in the area. Easements may be
necessary to formally establish this trail. Improvements also identified in the
Cooperative Extension SRTS Needs Assessment Report.
Identified as a “key system disconnect”, a multipurpose trail is recommended to
enhance the non-motorized connection from the neighborhood near Avenida Palomas
to Robert Damon Park. Currently, users must indirectly travel south or north on
Avenida Palomas. A multipurpose trail to provide a more direct connection would
greatly aid connectivity of this area and park amenity. A trail utilizing an existing wash
approximately (125 north of Camino Caballo) and Suma Court is a possible alignment.
Easements must be secured and terrain issues will need to be addressed in design and
construction.
A multipurpose trail linking the Anza Trail to Calabasas Park is desired to eliminate a
key system disconnect and promote trail system continuity to community assets that
may support community based events and recreation opportunities.

Suggested Plan of Improvements Matrix

Location

Anza Trail

Approx.
Length

Varies

Enhanced
connection to
public
spaces/closes
gap
1

Noteworthy
Safety
Improvement

0

Proximity
to Schools

0

Complexity
of
Construction

2

Reduction
in vehicle
trips

0

Community
Support

2

Cost
Sharing
Potential

1

Economic/
Tourism
Potential

1

Total
Points

Notes

7

The southern and northern extension of the existing Anza Trail is recommended. Trail
facilities should be incrementally expanded to the north and south from the Guy Tobin
trailhead. Leveraging community volunteers and trail enthusiasts to conduct such trail
building efforts is highly recommended.

Paved Shoulders
Via Patricia- Peck
Canyon Dr.

Camino Ramanote –
West Frontage Road to
Corrida De Toros

Peck Canyon Drive –
Via Patricia to Circulo
Sombrero

Camino Providencia

Apprx.
3,400 feet

1

1

2

1

2

2

1

0

10

Apprx.
13, 400
feet
(2.5
miles)

0

1

0

1

1

2

1

1

7

Apprx.
9,500 feet

0

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

8

1

1

0

1

1

1

1

1

7

5

Peck Canyon Drive has a right-of-way of 100 feet. Where sufficient right of way is
available, it is suggested that a striped paved shoulder be constructed and where
right-of-way is limited, a bike route be provided through the use of signage and
pavement markings in proximity to school facilities. Provide for safe and adequate
transition to West Frontage Road future improvements. Improvements also identified
in the Cooperative Extension SRTS Needs Assessment Report.
Identified as a Priority Underserved Roadway by community stakeholders, this twolane roadway with center-line striping has a 24 foot pavement section in an 80-foot
right-of-way. Westerly to its intersection with Corrida De Toros, the roadway has many
curves, changes in grade and resulting blind spots. Camino Ramanote currently
experiences just over 2,000 vehicle trips day. These collective roadway characteristics
necessitate the improvement of a paved shoulder.
From West Frontage Road to Circulo Sombrero, a designated bike lane (or paved
shoulder in the alternate) is suggested to be constructed on the north side of the
existing roadway. Peck Canyon Drive currently experiences 1,389 vehicle trips per day.
Traffic will continue to increase as Rio Rico experiences additional growth and Peck
Canyon Drive will likely transition from a local street to a collector road over time.
Peck Canyon Drive’s intersection with West Frontage Road and serving access to the
three school sites continue to place Peck Canyon Drive as high importance in providing
motorized and non-motorized mobility in the area. Peck Canyon Drive has 100-feet of
right-of-way and a 24-foot pavement section and center line stripe. The construction
of a paved shoulder for this segment will complete a strategic segment that can
contribute to two preferred bicycle recreation loop networks – Circulo Sombrero and
the larger loop utilizing Calle Cherokee to Camino Ramanote and the West Frontage
Road shared use path. For these reasons, a dedicated paved shoulder for this 9,500
foot segment is recommended.
Calle Providencia is a local street that radiates out from Yavapai Drive serving low to
medium density residential neighborhoods in Rio Rico. While no existing vehicle trip
data was able to be obtained for Calle Providencia, it is clear from the existing and
planned land uses patterns in the area that continued residential growth will occur
and so too will the motorized and non-motorized user demand. Calle Providencia is a
60-foot right of way with a 24-foot pavement section with no center line striping.
Paved shoulders are suggested for both sides of Calle Providencia to its intersection
with Camino Aqua Fria. Provides bicycle trail connectivity to the bike routes of Camino
Aqua Fria and Camino Ramanote for larger route development in western Rio Rico.
Based on its proximity to Yavapai Drive and to existing and future commercial retail
activities, sidewalks are also recommended to compliment the paved shoulder
improvements for the first 2,150 feet from Yavapai Drive to the intersection with
Circulo Montosa.

Suggested Plan of Improvements Matrix

Location

Approx.
Length

Enhanced
connection to
public
spaces/closes
gap

Noteworthy
Safety
Improvement

Proximity
to Schools

Complexity
of
Construction

Reduction
in vehicle
trips

Community
Support

Cost
Sharing
Potential

Economic/
Tourism
Potential

Total
Points

Notes

If right-of-way constraints, lack of funding or other development-related challenges
persist, consider the use of a shared use path for the south side of Calle Providencia.

North Pendleton
Drive

South Pendleton Drive
(to Calabasas Park)

Rio Rico Drive – I-19 to
Pendleton Drive

Paseo De Yucatan –
from Pena Blanca
School to Avenida Lirio

Apprx. 6
miles

Apprx. 5.5
miles

Apprx
6,500 feet

Approx.
1,250 feet

1

1

1

0

1

1

1

1

0

0

0

2

1

1

2

1

2

2

1

1

2

2

2

1

6

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

0

9

Pendleton Drive from Rio Rico Drive to Camino Josefina is approximately 6 miles long.
Pendleton Drive is the only north-south collector roadway serving residents living east
of I-19 and the Santa Cruz River. Pendleton Drive has an 80-foot right-of-way and a 24foot pavement section in most locations. Community stakeholders commented on the
desire to see bicycle facilities along Pendleton Drive. Extension of the popular Boy
Scout Trail (shared use path separated from the roadway) was viewed as highly
desirable by area residents as well. Santa Cruz County has received a grant to pave 5foot shoulders along both sides of North Pendleton Drive for one mile north of Rio
Rico Drive. These improvements will create 17-feet of pavement on each side of the
roadway, sufficient for a signed bike route but not enough to warrant a bike lane.

9

Pendleton Drive from Rio Rico Drive to Calabasas Park is approximately 5.5 miles.
Pendleton Drive is the only north-south collector roadway serving residents living east
of I-19 and the Santa Cruz River. Pendleton Drive has an 80-foot right-of-way and a 24foot pavement section in most locations. Community stakeholders commented on the
desire to see bicycle facilities along Pendleton Drive. Santa Cruz County has received a
grant to pave 5-foot shoulders along both sides of South Pendleton Drive for a length
of one mile from Rio Rico Drive. These improvements would create 14-feet of
pavement on each side of the roadway, sufficient for a signed bike route but not
enough to warrant a bike lane.

9

Rio Rico Drive currently experiences over 8,000 vehicle trips daily and is one of the
most traveled roadways in Rio Rico. The roadway in most areas is split into two one
way roadways with paved shoulders of varying widths. The integrity of the existing
pavement along the paved shoulders varies, becoming narrower in areas that
experience increased degradation. ADOT is conducting an I-19 East Frontage Road
Study that may recommend roadway improvements at the intersection of Rio Rico
Drive and East Frontage Road. Paved shoulders of 3-4 foot in width are recommended
and should be maintained / expanded with routine County roadway maintenance
schedule for Rio Rico Drive. The addition of bike route signage is also recommended.
Improved non-motorized facilities along Rio Rico Drive will improve the mobility of
local residents but also for enhancing a broader connection of the recreational and
outdoor experience for visitors by linking the Guy Tobin Trailhead to other recreation
and commercial land uses.

7

Paved shoulders are recommended for both sides of roadway to accommodate school
children from higher density subdivisions to the south. Through signage, encourage
school aged children pedestrian use on west side only so as to separate pedestrians
from truck traffic originating from business south and east of Pena Blanca Elementary
School and for seamless, continuous access to school driveway. Topography
challenges and limited 50-foot right-of-way along the southern portion of this corridor
create challenges in construction. Bike lane facilities not suggested due to lack of rightof-way, topography and undesirable east side because of potential for truck traffic
conflicts.

Suggested Plan of Improvements Matrix

Location

Approx.
Length

Enhanced
connection to
public
spaces/closes
gap

Noteworthy
Safety
Improvement

Proximity
to Schools

Complexity
of
Construction

Reduction
in vehicle
trips

Community
Support

Cost
Sharing
Potential

Economic/
Tourism
Potential

Total
Points

Avenida Lirio – Camino
Maricopa to Paseo
Yucatan

Apprx.
3,500 feet

1

1

2

1

1

2

1

0

9

E. Ruby Road – I-19 to
Pendleton Drive

Apprx. 2
miles

1

1

0

1

2

2

1

1

9

Paseo Mexico

Apprx.
9,800 feet

1

0

0

1

1

1

0

0

4

Paseo Venado

Apprx.
4,000 feet

1

1

0

2

1

1

0

1

7

Apprx.
325 feet

1

1

0

2

2

2

1

1

10

Corrida De Toros

Apprx.
9,600 feet

1

1

0

2

1

2

0

1

8

Camino Aqua Fria

Apprx.
9,400 feet

1

1

0

2

1

2

0

1

8

Notes

Paved shoulders on Avenida Lirio will greatly assist the mobility of the neighborhood
and improve safety in access to the schools via Camino Maricopa and Paseo Yucatan.
ADOT controls the right-of-way and ownership of Ruby Road from I-19 to
approximately 600 feet to the east. East Ruby Road has 100-feet of right-of-way and is
a 26-foot pavement section. ADOT is currently conducting an I-19 East Frontage Road
Study that will likely recommend roadway improvements at the intersection of Ruby
Road and East Frontage Road. At a minimum, paved shoulders on both sides of the
roadway are recommended. With over 4,000 vehicle trips per day and growing,
signage denoting a bike route is recommended. If the opportunity presents itself to
complete additional roadway improvements funded by others, bike lane and sidewalks
on both sides of the street are preferred from Potrero Creek bridge to East Frontage
Road at this high traffic volume and turning movement location.
Paseo Mexico is a minor collector roadway with 80 feet of right-of-way and a 24-foot
pavement section with center line striping. Due to the striping, there is not adequate
space to accommodate a vehicle and the bicyclist comfortably in one lane (bike route).
Paseo Mexico connects with Camino San Xavier (Bike Route) to form a 3.3 mile bike
trail loop serving residents in this area.
Paseo Venado can provide a key bicycle trail connector linking Calle Calabasas and
Camino Caralampi. Paseo Venado is an 80-foot right-of-way with an existing 24-foot
pavement section with center line striping. Paseo Venado experiences 1,660 average
daily trips and will grow. Because the pavement width is only 24 feet and has center
line striping, its potential as a bike route/shared roadway is not recommended
because a cyclist would only have a 2-foot spacing where a minimum of 3-4 feet is
preferred. A Bicycle LOS Model could be performed to determine the feasibility of a
bike route/shared lane facility.

Bike Route/Shared
Roadways
Yavapai Drive, I-19 to
West Frontage Road

7

Within existing pavement conditions, a signed bike route is desired to complement the
existing sidewalk and provide bicycle trail connectivity between the planned shared
use path along Yavapai Drive and planned Rio Rico Drive overpass improvements.
Corrida De Toros provides the strategic middle link in the proposed Camino Ramanote
– Corrida De Toros – Camino Aqua Fria bike trail system to serve residents in this area.
This segment is approximately 9,600 feet in length. This roadway receives very low
traffic volumes and is ideal for signage and/or pavement markings as a bicycle route to
complete a 6+ mile training loop.
The third leg of the Camino Ramanote-Corrida De Toros-Camino Aqua Fria bike trail.
After crossing Aqua Fria Canyon (low water crossing roadway), Camino Aqua Fria is an
infrequently traveled roadway that is common for bicyclists and pedestrians to use for
non-motorized trips to Garrett’s and other stores and restaurants in the Rio Rico Plaza.
Camino Aqua Fria has a 24-foot pavement section with no center stripe within an 80foot right-of-way. This section of roadway is approximately 9,400 feet to its
connection with Yavapai Drive and the Bella Vista subdivision. The portion of Camino
Aqua Fria adjacent to Bella Vista community is recommended for improvement with a

Suggested Plan of Improvements Matrix

Location

Approx.
Length

Enhanced
connection to
public
spaces/closes
gap

Noteworthy
Safety
Improvement

Proximity
to Schools

Complexity
of
Construction

Reduction
in vehicle
trips

Community
Support

Cost
Sharing
Potential

Economic/
Tourism
Potential

Total
Points

Notes

shared use path on the south side of the roadway or sidewalks on both sides of the
road for the initial 500 feet.

Calle Cherokee

Circulo Sombrero

Apprx.
11,000
feet

Apprx.
2.25 mile
loop

1

0

0

0

2

2

2

2

1

0

1

1

1

0

1

0

9

This local street in Rio Rico has very few homes and experiences very low daily vehicle
trips. Calle Cherokee has a 50-foot right-of-way and 24-foot pavement section. As
such, Calle Cherokee is suggested for use as a bike route with the incorporation of the
appropriate signage and or pavement markings as noted in the General Design
Elements section. Calle Cherokee is an 11,000 foot (2+miles) segment provides an
important and connection between Camino Ramanote and Peck Canyon Drive to offer
residents of northwestern Rio Rico a value-added bicycle loop. Calle Cherokee was
also identified by Rio Rico High School students as a route that is frequented to and
from school on a daily basis.

5

This loop road providing connection to Peck Canyon Drive to the east and the west
provides a naturally ideal recreation bicycle loop experience. The road is a 50-foot
right-of-way with 24-foot pavement section with very low average daily vehicular
trips. Bike route signage and/or pavement markings on both sides of the roadway will
safely provide the flexibility for a 2.25 mile route along Circulo Sombrero or an
extended 3.5 mile complete loop route utilizing Peck Canyon Drive.

Camino Josefina

Apprx. 6
miles

1

0

0

2

0

2

0

1

6

Camino Josefina is already a preferred route by enthusiasts and skilled bikers. The very
low density surrounding land use, uninterrupted length, scenic vistas, connection to
broader wilderness areas, and grade changes of this road make it desirable for
bicycling. It is a 24-foot pavement section with no center striping within a 180-foot
right-of-way. Due to proximity to the bridge abutment, automobile rate of speed in
this area and poor line of sight in areas, future connections to the planned Boy Scout
Trail extension should consider a grade separated crossing and staging area with a
connection to Pendleton Road south of the canyon.

Avenida Pastor –
Circulo Alameda

Apprx. 1.3
miles

0

0

0

2

0

0

0

0

2

Bike routes/shared roadways fit nicely in this community enclave. Marked crossings
and signage will be necessary at the intersection with Pendleton Drive.

Camino Mar

Apprx. 2.3
miles

0

0

0

2

0

0

0

0

2

Camino Mar is a two-way paved road 2.3 miles in length (where pavement ends) with
a 26-foot pavement section. Grade changes, sight visibility and signage locations
should be evaluated prior to implementation.

Camino Oceano

Apprx.
7,200 feet

0

0

0

2

0

0

0

0

2

This stand-alone road is very suitable with its 26-foot pavement section serving less
than two dozen homes. Future crossing design and connectivity to the Boy Scout Trail
requires additional study.

Valley View DriveCamino MagnificoCamino Panama Loop

Apprx. 2.5
mile loop

0

1

0

2

0

1

1

0

5

A bike route/shared roadway is ideal for this pocket of Rio Rico that forms a selfcontained bicycle loop in this area. This “loop” does not entirely connect without a
connection at Pendleton Drive that requires further evaluation.

0

1

0

2

0

0

1

0

4

Provides linkage to Camino Pesqueria and Paseo Mexico.

0

1

0

2

0

1

1

0

5

Provides linkage to Paseo Mexico and Kents Avenue.

1

1

0

2

1

1

1

0

7

Willow Drive serves as a local roadway providing important neighborhood connectivity
between Pendleton Drive and Rio Rico Drive. The roadway has a 28-foot pavement

Kents Avenue
Camino Pesqueiria
Willow Drive –
Pendleton to Rio Rico
Drive

Apprx
4,000 feet
Apprx.
3,600 feet
Apprx.
3,700 feet

8

Suggested Plan of Improvements Matrix

Location

Approx.
Length

Enhanced
connection to
public
spaces/closes
gap

Noteworthy
Safety
Improvement

Proximity
to Schools

Complexity
of
Construction

Reduction
in vehicle
trips

Community
Support

Cost
Sharing
Potential

Economic/
Tourism
Potential

Total
Points

Notes

section and a 50-foot right-of-way. Consideration must be given to a cross walk design
and driver warning signage (especially northbound traffic) at Pendleton Drive for
access to the shared use path across the street.

Camino San Xavier

Apprx.
7,700 feet

0

0

0

2

0

1

1

0

4

Camino San Xavier is a local road with an 80-foot right-of-way and 24-foot pavement
section with no center line striping. Its connection to Paseo Mexico forms a 3.3 mile
bike trail loop serving residents in the area. Future crossing of Pendleton Drive will
require close examination for safety in design as the intersection is located at a radius
in the roadway with limited sight visibility.

Apprx.
11,000
feet

0

0

0

2

1

0

0

0

3

Paseo Guebabi is an 80 foot right-of-way with a 28-foot pavement section with no
center line striping. This bike route segment forms a 3.8 mile bike trail loop serving
residents in this area. Intersection/crosswalk design with Pendleton Drive needs to be
planned in concert with the fire station driveway located directly across Pendleton
Drive.

Calle Coyote

Apprx.
9,300 feet

0

0

0

2

1

1

0

0

4

Calle Coyote is a local street with an 80-foot right-of-way, 28-foot pavement section
with no center line striping. This bike route segment connects with Paseo Guebabi to
form a 3.8 mile bike trail loop for residents in this area.

Via Rosamorada –
Ruby Road to Cerrado
Sanchez

Apprx.
6,400 feet

8

Via Rosamorada is a local street with a 50-foot right-of-way and 24-foot pavement
section with no center line striping. It should be noted that Santa Cruz County’s street
inventory indicates that only 25-feet of right-of-way exists in certain locations and
thus may be limiting.

Paseo Guebabi

1

1

0

2

1

1

1

1

SR 289

1

1

0

2

0

1

1

1

7

SR 289 (West Ruby Road) is an ADOT facility with a 26-foot pavement section and
center line striping. According to ADOT traffic counts at SR 289 near Camino Maricopa,
approximately 1,100 vehicle trips per day. Another traffic count taken another 6 miles
to the west identified only 190 vehicle trips per day. The data indicates that the
majority of SR 289 trips are serving residents of the neighborhoods near Calabasas
Middle school and as you proceed west of town, the rate of vehicles drops
substantially. In accordance with ADOT regulations, bicyclists are not prohibited from
using SR 289. With the minimal volume of vehicle trips, continuation of the existing
condition as a bike route, though not signed, is recommended for this facility that can
attract biking enthusiasts seeking longer outings to Pena Blanca Lake.

Circulo Golondrina

1

0

0

2

0

0

0

0

3

Local “loop road” serving immediate neighborhood surrounding Robert Damon Park.
50-feet of right-of-way with a 24-foot pavement section with no center line stripe.

8

One of the busiest intersections in Rio Rico, a typical user will experience difficult
cross-traffic and conflicting vehicular turning movement operations at this location.
There are no crosswalks, signage or other markings to assist pedestrians and bicyclists
wishing to cross Yavapai Dr at Camino Caralampi. A signalized intersection with
marked crosswalks is recommended and likely warranted. Further evaluation of the
need for a signal should also evaluate the proximity and current function and level of
service of the West Frontage Rd intersection with Yavapai Dr. which is only 400 feet to
the east.

Intersection
Improvements

Yavapai Drive/Camino
Caralampi

n/a

1

1

0

1

1

2

9

1

1

Suggested Plan of Improvements Matrix

Location

Ruby Road/East
Frontage Road/Pilot
Travel Center Driveway
Entrance

Approx.
Length

Approx
325 feet
between
centerline
s

Rio Rico
Drive/Pendleton Drive

Enhanced
connection to
public
spaces/closes
gap

1

Noteworthy
Safety
Improvement

1

Proximity
to Schools

0

Complexity
of
Construction

1

Reduction
in vehicle
trips

1

Community
Support

2

Cost
Sharing
Potential

1

Economic/
Tourism
Potential

1

Total
Points

Notes

8

The confluence of these two intersections – only 325 feet apart – is the busiest and
most accident prone intersection(s) in Rio Rico. Numerous comments from project and
community stakeholders have supported this assertion. Per County traffic counts, this
area experiences 7,500 ADT and a poor LOS during the am and pm peak periods. Road
widening to include a dedicated portion of the roadway for bike lanes and sidewalks
on both sides of Ruby Road is needed. Signing, striping and pavement markings are
necessary. Marked crosswalks and warning signage at the Pilot entrance drive is
needed. Recommendations from the I-19 East Frontage Road study should influence
the future design of improvements that will likely come as a result of future roadway
construction projects.

SWC

1

0

0

2

0

1

1

1

6

Existing parking facilities are lacking at this popular trailhead location. A small paved
parking lot to serve 3 typical and 1 ADA accessible parking spaces is preferred. Suitable
vehicular turning movement and driveway improvements from the adjacent roadway
and marked crosswalks are suggested. If signal warrants for this intersection are met,
access and driveway geometrics shall be evaluated. The parking area should be
designed to maintain flexibility for future expansion as popularity continues to
increase. Improvements to the shared use trails in the area enhance area connectivity
and accessibility benefitting locals and tourists alike.

n/a

1

1

2

2

1

2

1

0

10

Crosswalk needed at this priority high school crossing location. This improvement also
identified in the Cooperative Extension SRTS Needs Assessment Report.

n/a

1

1

2

2

1

1

1

0

9

A crosswalk is needed at Camino Estornino’s intersection with Peck Canyon Drive to
serve school-aged pedestrians and bicyclists from the adjacent residential
neighborhood.

9

Difficult intersection geometry, roadway radius and line of sight challenges require
additional design studies for this location. A cross walk, pedestrian refuge and
appropriate traffic calming signage is necessary to facilitate safe crossing at this
location.

7

This existing crosswalk is in poor condition currently. Driving warning signage does
exist. At a minimum, the current facility is in need of repainting and striping.
Additional signage is likely warranted and low scale safety lighting for nighttime usage
should be considered. As traffic volumes increase over 7,500 vehicles per day, design
study of an enhanced crossing facility is suggested.

10

A very popular informal crossing used by many adjacent residents walking or biking to
the Family Dollar store. This location was also identified in the historical crash data.
The field study revealed a mother pushing a baby in her stroller. No crosswalk facility
exists. The Family Dollar driveway and Camino del Patio intersection is not
symmetrical. The current ADT’s likely do not warrant a H.A.W.K. system, but a
pedestrian count and design study specific to this location are needed to address the
current acute deficiency. (HIGHLIGHT CURRENT COUNTY CONSTRUCTION)

Pedestrian Crossings
Camino Lito
Galindo/Rio Rico High
School
Peck Canyon
Drive/Camino
Estornino
Via Patricia and
Camino Lito Galindo

Pendleton
Drive/Avenida
Coatimundi

West Frontage
Road/Camino del Patio
(Family Dollar)

n/a

n/a

n/a

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

0

0

1

2

2

1

1

2

2

1

2

10

1

0

1

0

1

1

Suggested Plan of Improvements Matrix

Location

Rio Rico Drive/I-19
Overpass

Intersection of Via San
Potosi and Paseo de
Yucatan

Approx.
Length

Enhanced
connection to
public
spaces/closes
gap

Noteworthy
Safety
Improvement

Proximity
to Schools

Complexity
of
Construction

Reduction
in vehicle
trips

Community
Support

Cost
Sharing
Potential

Economic/
Tourism
Potential

Total
Points

Notes

Apprx.
700 feet,
including
approach
es and I19 on
ramps

1

1

0

1

1

1

1

1

7

The existing overpass facility serves one lane of vehicular travel in each direction and
has 12-foot paved, striped shoulders (approximately) on each side. Pedestrian and
bicycle users continue to increase as residents from the east frequent Garrett’s.
Suggested improvements recommended include a formal modification of the existing
striped shoulder area to a striped and signed bike lane for one way travel together
with a sidewalk in both directions. Particular attention must be given to the design of
appropriate bicycle and pedestrian crossings at the freeway ramp terminals to ensure
minimized vehicular conflicts. See AASHTO and ADOT standards for additional detail.

n/a

1

1

2

2

1

1

1

0

9

A crosswalk is needed at this strategic juncture of two roadways serving as a primary
pedestrian access way to Pena Blanca Elementary School.

10

The shared use path along the south side of Avenida Coatimundi terminates at the
Calle Juan Legarra alignment. Students using the shared use path cross Avenida
Coatimundi at Calle Juan Legarra to access the Coatimundi Walking Trail school
entrance at Feather Court. No cross walk currently exists but is needed at this location.
Appropriate signage on Avenida Coatimundi warning drivers of a school crossing is
suggested.

7

Existing County bridge structure at Aqua Fria Canyon wash crossing apprx. 490 feet
south of Camino Ramanote. Location poses a significant barrier to the seamless
connection of the West Frontage Road shared use path system. The current structure
is a two lane bridge with very narrow striped shoulders. Suggested design is to
meander the planned shared use path to the west along the wash bottom rather than
construct expensive bridge widening improvements. This shared use path crossing
could be situated within the western portion of the existing 150 feet of West Frontage
Road right of way and/or existing utility easement. Additional hydrology study and
environmental permitting may be necessary for wash encroachment.

9

The existing width of the bridge deck is too narrow to enable comfortable and safe
walking or cycling conditions. The preferred solution is to construct a second bridge
for eastbound traffic and maintain the existing bridge for westbound traffic. Sufficient
right-of-way exists for this improvement. Each bridge then should be designed to
accommodate a sidewalk and bike lane/paved shoulder. In the absence of funding for
a second bridge, a short term approach would be to construct multiuse trails
separated from the roadway in Potrero Creek. A native tread trail to safely separate
pedestrians and cyclists from the narrow bridge is needed. This can be achieved with
the construction of one multi-purpose trail to accommodate both pedestrians and
cyclists. The multi-purpose trail and signage would need to commence prior to the
guardrail approaches to the bridge.

8

This important bridge spans approximately 275 feet over the Santa Cruz River. The
existing bridge deck has a 26-foot pavement section including one-foot striped
shoulders with center line striping. The north side of the bridge deck has a large
vertical curb. Replacement/expansion of the existing facility to accommodate bike and

Avenida
Coatimundi/Calle Juan
Legarra

1

1

2

2

1

2

1

0

Narrow Bridge Crossings

West Frontage Road at
Aqua Fria Canyon

Ruby Road at Potrero
Creek

Ruby Road/Santa Cruz
River

n/a

n/a

n/a

1

1

1

1

1

1

0

0

0

2

1

2

1

2

1

1

2

1

11

1

1

1

0

1

1

Suggested Plan of Improvements Matrix

Location

Approx.
Length

Enhanced
connection to
public
spaces/closes
gap

Noteworthy
Safety
Improvement

Proximity
to Schools

Complexity
of
Construction

Reduction
in vehicle
trips

Community
Support

Cost
Sharing
Potential

Economic/
Tourism
Potential

Total
Points

Notes

pedestrians is preferred but not likely practical. “Share the Road” signage and
pavement markings are necessary to improve the existing comfort and safety of
bicyclists and pedestrians using this bridge. This is not an ideal solution, but most
practical until bridge enhancements are completed.

Rio Rico Drive/Santa
Cruz River

n/a

1

1

0

2

1

1

1

1

8

This important bridge spans approximately 300 over the Santa Cruz River. The existing
bridge deck has a 26-foot pavement section including one-foot striped shoulders with
center line striping. Both sides of the bridge deck have 2-foot raised sidewalks.
Replacement/expansion of the existing facility to accommodate bike and pedestrians
is preferred but not likely practical without additional government funding. “Share the
Road” signage and pavement markings are necessary to improve the existing comfort
and safety of bicyclists and pedestrians using this bridge. This is not an ideal solution,
but most practical until bridge enhancements are completed.

*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.

12