Statewide Shoulders Study Task MPD 059-14 Final Report August 2015 Prepared by Table of Contents 1. Study Overview ..............................................................................................................................................1 Purpose and Need ..........................................................................................................................................1 Technical Advisory Committee .......................................................................................................................2 2. Literature Review and Design Standards .......................................................................................................3 Nationally Recommended Shoulder Guidelines ...............................................................................................3 ADOT Shoulder Design Standards ..................................................................................................................3 Highway Safety Manual (HSM) .......................................................................................................................4 Bicycle and Pedestrian Shoulder Guidelines ....................................................................................................5 3. Existing Conditions Assessment .....................................................................................................................6 Data Collection ...............................................................................................................................................6 Existing Shoulder Widths ................................................................................................................................7 Existing Traffic Conditions ............................................................................................................................24 Pedestrian and Bicycle Routes .....................................................................................................................25 Oversized Load Corridors .............................................................................................................................26 Crash Analysis .............................................................................................................................................27 Stakeholder Outreach – Phase I ....................................................................................................................32 4. Identification and Prioritization Methodology ...............................................................................................34 Methodology to Identify Shoulder Improvements on Two-Lane Highways ......................................................34 Methodology to Identify Shoulder Improvements on Multilane Highways .......................................................36 Stakeholder Outreach - Phase II ....................................................................................................................38 5. Summary Results – Shoulder Improvements on Two-Lane Highways..........................................................39 Planning Level Cost Estimates ......................................................................................................................40 Flagstaff District ...........................................................................................................................................41 Globe District ...............................................................................................................................................48 Holbrook District ..........................................................................................................................................56 Kingman District ..........................................................................................................................................62 Phoenix Maintenance District........................................................................................................................65 Prescott District ...........................................................................................................................................67 Safford District .............................................................................................................................................72 Tucson District.............................................................................................................................................76 Yuma District ...............................................................................................................................................80 Statewide Priority Shoulder Improvement Locations ......................................................................................83 6. Summary Results – Shoulder Improvements on Multilane Highways ........................................................199 i List of Tables 2.1. AASHTO Shoulder Width Design Guidelines .......................................................................................................3 2.2. ADOT Shoulder Width Design Guidelines ...........................................................................................................3 2.3. Crash Modification Factor for Shoulder Width on Rural Two-Lane Roadway Segments .......................................4 2.4. Potential Crash Effects of Paved Right Shoulder Width on Divided Roadways .....................................................5 3.1. Data Items and Sources ....................................................................................................................................6 3.2. Manual Verification of Shoulder Width GIS Data Accuracy ..................................................................................7 3.3. EPDO Conversion Factors................................................................................................................................27 3.4. ADOT District Engineer Recommended Shoulder Improvement Locations .........................................................32 4.1. Prioritization Criteria for Shoulder Improvements on Two-Lane Highways .........................................................34 4.2. Prioritization Criteria for Shoulder Improvements on Multilane Highways...........................................................36 5.1. Two-Lane Highways - Candidate Shoulder Improvement Locations in Flagstaff District .....................................41 5.2. Two-Lane Highways - Ranking of Priority Candidate Locations in Flagstaff District ...........................................44 5.3. Two-Lane Highways - Candidate Shoulder Improvement Locations in Globe District .........................................48 5.4. Two-Lane Highways - Ranking of Priority Candidate Locations in Globe District ...............................................52 5.5. Two-Lane Highways - Candidate Shoulder Improvement Locations in Holbrook District ....................................56 5.6. Two-Lane Highways - Ranking of Priority Candidate Locations in Holbrook District ..........................................59 5.7. Two-Lane Highways - Candidate Shoulder Improvement Locations in Kingman District ....................................62 5.8. Two-Lane Highways - Ranking of Priority Candidate Location in Kingman District ............................................63 5.9. Two-Lane Highways - Candidate Shoulder Improvement Locations in Phoenix Maintenance District .................65 5.10. Two-Lane Highways - Ranking of Priority Candidate Locations in Phoenix Maintenance District ........................65 5.11. Two-Lane Highways - Candidate Shoulder Improvement Locations in Prescott District .....................................67 5.12. Two-Lane Highways - Ranking of Priority Candidate Locations in Prescott District ...........................................69 5.13. Two-Lane Highways - Candidate Shoulder Improvement Locations in Safford District.......................................72 5.14. Two-Lane Highways - Ranking of Priority Candidate Locations in Safford District .............................................74 5.15. Two-Lane Highways - Candidate Shoulder Improvement Locations in Tucson District ......................................76 ii List of Tables (Continued) 5.16. Two-Lane Highways - Ranking of Priority Candidate Locations in Tucson District .............................................78 5.17. Two-Lane Highways - Candidate Shoulder Improvement Locations in Yuma District .........................................80 5.18. Two-Lane Highways - Ranking of Priority Candidate Locations in Yuma District ...............................................81 6.1. Multilane Highways - Statewide Ranking of Priority Candidate Locations ........................................................199 iii List of Figures 3.1. Existing Shoulder Conditions - Flagstaff District .................................................................................................8 3.2. Existing Shoulder Conditions - Flagstaff District (Divided Highways) ...................................................................9 3.3. Existing Shoulder Conditions - Globe District....................................................................................................10 3.4. Existing Shoulder Conditions - Holbrook District...............................................................................................11 3.5. Existing Shoulder Conditions - Holbrook District (Divided Highways) ................................................................12 3.6. Existing Shoulder Conditions - Kingman District ...............................................................................................13 3.7. Existing Shoulder Conditions - Kingman District (Divided Highways) ................................................................14 3.8. Existing Shoulder Conditions - Phoenix Maintenance District ............................................................................15 3.9. Existing Shoulder Conditions - Prescott District ................................................................................................16 3.10. Existing Shoulder Conditions - Prescott District (Divided Highways) .................................................................17 3.11. Existing Shoulder Conditions - Safford District .................................................................................................18 3.12. Existing Shoulder Conditions - Safford District (Divided Highways)...................................................................19 3.13. Existing Shoulder Conditions - Tucson District .................................................................................................20 3.14. Existing Shoulder Conditions - Tucson District (Divided Highways) ..................................................................21 3.15. Existing Shoulder Conditions - Yuma District....................................................................................................22 3.16. Existing Shoulder Conditions - Yuma District (Divided Highways) .....................................................................23 3.17. Existing Traffic Conditions ...............................................................................................................................24 3.18. Pedestrian and Bicycle Corridors .....................................................................................................................25 3.19. Oversized Load Corridors ................................................................................................................................26 3.20. Crash Severity (Crash Rate) – Two-Lane Highways .........................................................................................28 3.21. Crash Severity (Crash Rate) – Multilane Highways ...........................................................................................29 3.22. Crash Severity (EPDO) – Two-Lane Highways .................................................................................................30 3.23. Crash Severity (EPDO) – Multilane Highways ...................................................................................................31 iv List of Figures (Continued) 4.1. Identification Process for Shoulder Improvements on Two-Lane Highways .......................................................35 4.2. Identification Process for Shoulder Improvements on Multilane Highways ........................................................37 5.1. Two-Lane Highways - Priority Candidate Locations in Flagstaff District ............................................................47 5.2. Two-Lane Highways - Priority Candidate Locations in Globe District ................................................................55 5.3. Two-Lane Highways - Priority Candidate Locations in Holbrook District ...........................................................61 5.4. Two-Lane Highways - Priority Candidate Locations in Kingman District ............................................................64 5.5. Two-Lane Highways - Priority Candidate Locations in Phoenix Maintenance District .........................................66 5.6. Two-Lane Highways - Priority Candidate Locations in Prescott District .............................................................71 5.7. Two-Lane Highways - Priority Candidate Locations in Safford District ..............................................................75 5.8. Two-Lane Highways - Priority Candidate Locations in Tucson District ..............................................................79 5.9. Two-Lane Highways - Priority Candidate Locations in Yuma District.................................................................82 5.10. Two-Lane Highways - Statewide Priority Candidate Locations ..........................................................................83 6.1. Multilane Highways - Statewide Priority Candidate Locations .........................................................................200 v 1. Study Overview Located adjacent to a roadway's travel lanes, highway shoulders are essential components on any road section. Highway shoulders serve several purposes:  Creates a safe zone for vehicles to safely exit travel lanes during emergency situations  Allows motorists an area to maneuver if they exit the travel lane  Increases sight distance of horizontal curves  Provides bicyclists with a safe area adjacent to vehicle travel lanes  Increases driver's sense of safety  Provides structural support to highway pavement  Protects the highway surface from damage caused by water flow  Creates a storage area during snow removal Shoulder improvements can lead to a plethora of safety and operational improvements, such as reduction in crashes, safe pedestrian and bicycle facilities, mitigation of drainage issues, and increased roadway capacity. Potential safety hazards can occur when a vehicle leaves the travel way and there is a significant material and elevation difference between highway pavement and shoulder surfaces. This elevation difference can affect vehicle stability, reduce a driver’s ability to handle the vehicle, and often cause head-on, sideswipe, rollover, and fixed object crashes. Shoulder paving is recognized as a positive countermeasure to reduce a shoulder drop-off hazard that will accommodate stopped vehicles to avoid encroachment from the travel way, facilitate maintenance work, provide access for emergency vehicles, and protect pavement structural integrity. A paved shoulder can also assist in preventing damage to the road structure caused by water infiltration and can provide motorists with a warning system when veering off the roadway (i.e., rumble strips). Purpose and Need With the ultimate purpose of enhancing safety and improving mobility, the Statewide Shoulders Study was initiated to develop a prioritized list of candidate locations for shoulder improvements. The need for this study stems directly from ADOT’s desire to increase safety and mobility along the Arizona State Highway System. The project purpose is demonstrated with the following statement of need:  Create Methodology. As the first statewide, shoulder improvement prioritization project conducted in Arizona, a methodology needs to be developed that utilizes available data to accurately identify deficiencies. A statewide and district-level prioritization is needed in order to appropriate limited funds for priority projects.  Develop List of Shoulder Improvement Locations. Currently, there is no statewide or ADOT Engineering District-wide listing of prioritized locations for shoulder improvement projects. This document will serve as 1 guidance for determining priority roadway segments within each ADOT District and throughout the State that require funding.  Develop Feasible, Cost Effective Implementation Plan. High priority projects need to be evaluated for feasibility and cost-effectiveness. Due to limited funding, innovative and cost effective alternatives beyond traditional pavement applications need to be explored. Technical Advisory Committee This study was guided by a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC). The role of the TAC was to provide technical guidance, support, advice, suggestions, recommendations, and to perform document reviews throughout the study process. TAC members included representatives from:  ADOT Multimodal Planning Division  ADOT Globe Engineering District  ADOT Phoenix Engineering District  ADOT Safford Engineering District  ADOT Tucson Engineering District  ADOT Roadway Engineering Group  ADOT Prescott Engineering District  ADOT Maintenance Group  ADOT Yuma Engineering District  ADOT Bridge Group  ADOT Flagstaff Engineering District  ADOT Right of Way  ADOT Holbrook Engineering District  ADOT Traffic Safety Section  ADOT Kingman Engineering District  Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) 2 2. Literature Review and Design Standards Reviewing current practices and methodologies utilized by state Department of Transportation (DOT) agencies and relevant technical literature often provides insight into best practices that ADOT can utilize to enhance or streamline the identification and prioritization of shoulder improvement projects. Nationally Recommended Shoulder Guidelines The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets provides shoulder width standards on the national level. Table 2.1 summarizes minimum shoulder width per AASHTO guidelines. The standards displayed in the table represent design values for usable and paved shoulders – usable shoulder width is the actual width utilized by motorists and is measured from the edge of the travel lane. For interstates with six or more lanes AASHTO recommends that the right shoulder width not be less than 10 feet. Additionally, AASHTO recommends a paved 12 foot right shoulder on interstates with six or more lanes and truck traffic exceeds 250 DDHV (directional design hour volume). Type of Roadway Freeway Table 2.1: AASHTO Shoulder Width Design Guidelines Rural Urban US (Feet) Metric (Meters) US (Feet) Metric (Meters) 4 - 12 1.2 - 3.6 4 - 12 1.2 - 3.6 Ramps (1-Lane) 1 - 10 0.3 - 3.0 1 - 10 0.3 - 3.0 Arterial 2-8 0.6 - 2.4 2-8 0.6 - 2.4 Collector 2-8 0.6 - 2.4 2-8 0.6 - 2.4 Local 2-8 0.6 - 2.4 - - Source: AASHTO A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets ADOT Shoulder Design Standards Table 2.2 summarizes the minimum shoulder width per ADOT’s Roadway Design Guidelines. Table 2.2: ADOT Shoulder Width Design Guidelines Paved Shoulder Width (Feet) Highway Type Left Right Controlled Access Highways 4 lanes 4 10 6 or more lanes 10 10 Auxiliary lanes - 10 1-lane freeway to freeway directional ramp 6 10 2-lane freeway to freeway directional ramp 4 8 1-lane and 2-lane ramps Ramp termini at crossroad 2 2 8 2 3 Table 2.2: ADOT Shoulder Width Design Guidelines (Continued) Paved Shoulder Width (Feet) Highway Type Left Right Non-Controlled Access Highways Rural multi-lane divided 4 10 Rural 2-Lane: DHV > 200 vph - 8 Rural 2-Lane: DHV < 200 vph - 6 Urban multi-lane divided 2 4 Urban multi-lane undivided: 5 or more lanes - 4 Urban multi-lane undivided: 4 lanes - 4 Source: ADOT Roadway Design Guidelines Highway Safety Manual (HSM) A crash modification factor (CMF) is a multiplicative factor used to compute the expected number of crashes after implementing a given countermeasure at a specific site. The HSM provides CMFs for the widening of highway shoulder on rural two-lane roadway segments (See Table 2.3). According to the HSM, for roadways with an AADT of 400 or less, shoulder width has a small crash effect. On roadway segments with an AADT of greater than 2000, shoulder widths less than 6 FT are predicted to experience significantly more crashes than roadway segments with 8 FT shoulders. Table 2.3: Crash Modification Factor for Shoulder Width on Rural Two-Lane Roadway Segments Shoulder Width Average Annual Daily Traffic (vehicle/day) <400 400 - 2000 >2000 0 FT 1.10 1.10 + .00025 (AADT - 400) 1.50 2 FT 1.07 1.07 + .000143 (AADT - 400) 1.30 4 FT 1.02 1.02 + .00008125 (AADT - 400) 1.15 6 FT 1.00 1.00 1.00 8 FT of More 0.98 0.98 + .00006875 (AADT - 400) 0.87 Source: Highway Safety Manual Note: The collision types related to shoulder width to which this CMF applies include single-vehicle run off the road and multiple-vehicle head-on, opposite direction sideswipe, and same-direction sideswipe crashes. Standard error of the CMF is unknown. To determine the CMF for changing paved shoulder width and/or AADT, divide the “new” condition CMF by the “existing” condition CMF. On divided roadway segments, the HSM provides CMFs if base condition shoulders (8 FT) are reduced. Table 4.2 provides a table of the potential crash effects if right shoulder widths are reduced on divided roadway segments. As shown in the table, on divided segments a roadway segment with a 0 FT shoulder is predicted to experience 18% more crashes than a roadway segment with an 8 FT shoulder. 4 Table 2.4: Potential Crash Effects of Paved Right Shoulder Width on Divided Roadways Treatment 8 FT to 6 FT Conversion 8 FT to 4 FT Conversion 8 FT to 2 FT Conversion 8 FT to 0 FT Conversion Setting (Road Type) Traffic Volume Rural (Multilane Highway) Crash Type (Severity) CMF Std. Error 1.04 Unspecified All Types (Unspecified) 1.09 1.13 N/A 1.18 Source: Highway Safety Manual Note: Base conditions = 8 FT wide shoulders N/A = Standard error of CMF is unknown Bicycle and Pedestrian Shoulder Guidelines Per the Arizona State Department of Transportation State Transportation Board’s Policies, it is a policy of the Board to encourage bicycling and walking as a viable transportation mode and to actively work toward improving Arizona’s transportation network to accommodate these modes. To accommodate bicycle travel, AASHTO recommends that paved shoulders be at least four feet wide – this measurement does not include the width of rumble strips. 5 3. Existing Conditons Assessment Data Collection ADOT’s GIS section, Bridge group, and Traffic Records Division now manage a robust and more accurate repository of transportation databases. At the onset of the study, the study team met with the GIS Section and ADOT PM to obtain the data identified in Table 3.1. Each database was reviewed for quality and the data was adjusted where appropriate. Table 3.1: Data Items and Sources Dataset Shoulder Conditions - Paved shoulders - Unpaved shoulders - Guardrail - Barriers Accident Location Information and Surveillance System (ALISS) Crash Database Traffic volumes (AADT) - Current and past 5 years - Vehicle classification, K & D factors - Seasonal adjustment factors Future traffic volumes Functional classification Highway video log Highway centerline GPS data Highway log - Median type - Lane width - Grade/Terrain - Speed - Traffic Signals ATIS Dataset Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) Source ADOT GIS section ADOT Traffic Records ADOT GIS section ADOT GIS section ADOT GIS section ADOT GIS section ADOT GIS section ADOT GIS section ADOT GIS section ADOT MPD 6 Table 3.1: Data Items and Sources (Continued) Dataset Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS) - Beginning MP, Ending MP - Ownership - Lanes - Access Center Lane - Median and median width - Curve and Curve Length - Horizontal Alignment - Vertical Alignment - Urban and Rural Transportation Data Management System (TDMS) Bridges and Structures As-built drawings Source ADOT GIS section ADOT GIS section ADOT Bridge Group ADOT ROW Existing Shoulder Widths Compiling a comprehensive inventory of existing shoulder locations and conditions is an essential first step before evaluating the need for improving highway shoulders. ADOT’s existing shoulder data set was used as the starting point. Verification of the shoulder width data was broken into three steps: District Engineer consultation, verification of corridors using ADOT’s videolog, and finally verification of randomly selected locations based on shoulder related crash frequency using ADOT’s videolog. ADOT’s District Engineers have a first-hand understanding on the roadway conditions within their district. The study team met with each District to obtain feedback on shoulder width conditions based on ADOT’s GIS dataset. Thirteen highway corridors were recommended by the ADOT District staff for review; and based on measurements acquired from ADOT’s PhotoLog, shoulder widths were updated. Table 3.2 provides a summary of the accuracy rating of the shoulder width GIS dataset against manually acquired measurements. Table 3.2: Manual Verification of Shoulder Width GIS Data Accuracy Shoulder Width Range Number of Segments Recommended for Review Percent of PhotoLog Observations Matching GIS Data 0 FT 1 100% 1 - 2 FT 11 91% 3 - 5 FT 26 92% 6 - 8 FT 14 100% > 8 FT 11 100% Figures 3.1 to 3.16 illustrate the existing shoulder width conditions in each ADOT District. 7 Figure 3.1: Existing Shoulder Conditions - Flagstaff District 8 Figure 3.2: Existing Shoulder Conditions - Flagstaff District (Divided Highways) 9 Figure 3.3: Existing Shoulder Conditions - Globe District 10 Figure 3.4: Existing Shoulder Conditions - Holbrook District 11 Figure 3.5: Existing Shoulder Conditions - Holbrook District (Divided Highways) 12 Figure 3.6: Existing Shoulder Conditions - Kingman District 13 Figure 3.7: Existing Shoulder Conditions - Kingman District (Divided Highways) 14 Figure 3.8: Existing Shoulder Conditions - Phoenix Maintenance District 15 Figure 3.9: Existing Shoulder Conditions - Prescott District 16 Figure 3.10: Existing Shoulder Conditions - Prescott District (Divided Highways) 17 Figure 3.11: Existing Shoulder Conditions - Safford District 18 Figure 3.12: Existing Shoulder Conditions - Safford District (Divided Highways) 19 Figure 3.13: Existing Shoulder Conditions - Tucson District 20 Figure 3.14: Existing Shoulder Conditions - Tucson District (Divided Highways) 21 Figure 3.15: Existing Shoulder Conditions - Yuma District 22 Figure 3.16: Existing Shoulder Conditions - Yuma District (Divided Highways) 23 Existing Traffic Conditions Existing traffic count data was obtained from ADOT to determine the existing traffic conditions on Arizona’s State Highway System. Figure 3.17 illustrates the existing traffic conditions. Key traffic condition information illustrated in the figures includes:  Highest traffic volumes are located within the Phoenix metropolitan area, along the I-10 corridor between Phoenix and Tucson, within the Tucson metropolitan area, and along interstates and highways entering urban areas.  US 93, US 95, SR 89, SR 89A, SR 69, SR 87, US 60, and SR 90 have portions of the highway that have traffic volumes of over 10,000 AADT. Figure 3.17: Existing Traffic Conditions 24 Pedestrian and Bicycle Routes Sufficient shoulders are not only advantageous for motorists; shoulders provide bicyclist and pedestrians that utilize highways for recreational purposes or for general mobility, a safer alternative than riding within the travel lanes. In an effort to encourage bicycling and walking, the ADOT State Transportation Board initiated a policy of "promoting increased use of bicycling and walking, and accommodating bicycle and pedestrian needs in the planning, design, and construction of transportation facilities alongside state highways." To assist in obtaining funding, shoulder conditions were analyzed against safety performance measures. Deficient road segments that are heavily utilized by pedestrians and/or bicyclists would receive a higher priority since the routes may not provide safe shoulder conditions. Figure 3.18 provides an illustration of the corridors that ADOT District Engineers deemed as high pedestrian/bicycle corridors. Figure 3.18: Pedestrian and Bicycle Corridors 25 Oversized Load Corridors An oversized load is a vehicle that exceeds the standard legal size and/or weight limit for a roadway. Examples of oversize loads include construction machines, pre-built homes, shipping containers, etc. In Arizona, vehicles that exceed the legal dimensions are required to obtain a special permit to travel on state routes and may require an escort. Oversized loads often have a width greater than the standard travel lane width; therefore, on-coming traffic must utilize shoulders to allow the oversized loads to safely pass. In order to identify roadway segments that need to be improved to accommodate oversized vehicles, ADOT District Engineers were asked to identify oversized load corridors (See Figure 3.19). Figure 3.19: Oversized Load Corridors 26 Crash Analysis Crash analysis was conducted to identify trends, high crash rate corridors, and safety hazard locations that need to be addressed to improve safety. Data was obtained from ADOT’s Accident Location Identification Surveillance System (ALISS) database for all crashes occurring between November 2008 and November 2013. The total number of crashes, crash rate, injury crash rate, and number of equivalent property damage only crashes (EPDO: Equivalent Property Damage Only) were estimated for each highway. Crash rates are calculated to determine relative safety compared to other roadways, segments, or intersections. The combination of crash frequency (crashes per year) and vehicle exposure (traffic volumes or miles traveled) results in a crash rate. Crash rates are expressed in terms of crashes per million vehicle miles traveled for roadway segments. Figure 3.20 and Figure 3.21 illustrate crash rates along the Arizona State Highway System for 2-lane and multilane roadways, respectively. Equivalent Property Damage Only EPDO represents the relative number of Property Damage Only (PDO) or non-injury crashes. It takes into account the number of crashes and the severity of the crashes. Each crash is converted to an equivalent PDO using a multiplier for each crash type. Table 3.3 lists the multipliers used to derive the EPDO value. Figure 3.22 and Figure 3.23 illustrate the EPDO per lane along the Arizona State Highway System for 2-lane and multilane roadways, respectively. Table 3.3: EPDO Conversion Factors Crash Type Non-injury or Property Damage Only (PDO) Possible Injury Minor Injury Severe Injury Fatal Equivalent PDO Crashes (multiplier) 1 2 4 7 12 27 Figure 3.20: Crash Severity (Crash Rate) – Two-Lane Highways 28 Figure 3.21: Crash Severity (Crash Rate) – Multilane Highways 29 Figure 3.22: Crash Severity (EPDO) – Two-Lane Highways 30 Figure 3.23: Crash Severity (EPDO) – Multilane Highways 31 Stakeholder Outreach - Phase I Stakeholder Outreach - Phase I included individual meetings with each ADOT District staff. Meetings with the Districts were conducted April 22-April 30, 2014. The primary purpose of these meetings was to obtain feedback from each of the Districts about the following:       Review and verify existing shoulder width conditions Review general and shoulder related crash data analysis results Identify any inconsistencies or errors in the background data Obtain Districts preference for preliminary project locations based on their understanding of local conditions Identify already planned and programmed improvements, if any Obtain consensus on evaluation criteria and preliminary prioritization methodology Table 3.4 lists each District’s suggested preliminary locations for shoulder improvements. The beginning and ending milepost ranges in the table represent the general problem area and not the exact location and length for shoulder improvements. A full summary of the feedback received from each District is included in Working Paper 1: Existing Conditions. Table 3.4: ADOT District Engineer Recommended Shoulder Improvement Locations Route Direction BMP SR 179 NB/SB 298.87 SR 64 EB/WB 185.46 SR 89A NB/SB 374.84 SR 98 EB/WB 297.46 US 160 EB/WB 311.46 US 180 EB/WB 215.44 US 89 SB 455.00 US 89A NB/SB 533.00 EMP 306.00 237.08 398.93 361.56 361.56 265.77 430.00 543.00 District Flagstaff Flagstaff Flagstaff Flagstaff Flagstaff Flagstaff Flagstaff Flagstaff SR 188 EB/WB 269.00 264.00 Globe SR 288 EB/WB 305.00 311.90 Globe SR 61 US 60 US 60 US 60 US 60 SR 264 SR 377 US 191 US 93 NB/SB EB/WB EB/WB EB/WB EB/WB EB/WB NB/SB NB/SB Both 352.88 242.00 282.00 346.00 358.00 384.00 0.00 448.00 144.00 381.86 227.00 300.00 353.00 369.00 321.97 33.83 510.34 151.00 Globe Globe Globe Globe Globe Holbrook Holbrook Holbrook Kingman Priority* 4 5 2 8 7 3 1 6 Low priority Low priority Low priority N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1 Comments SR 17: I-17 to Village of Oak Creek Pockets from Williams to Tusayan Rim to Flagstaff (project in the works) Sections of SR 98 Sections of US 160 Northwest of Flagstaff (project in the works) Wauneta to Sunset Crater Areas of US 89A near Marble Canyon SR 264 west of SR87 US 191 north of Chinle *Priority rankings were provided by each District. Priorities listed as “N/A” were not given a priority by the District. 32 Table 3.4: ADOT District Engineer Recommended Shoulder Improvement Locations (Continued) Route Direction BMP SR 260 EB/WB 282.50 SR 71 NB/SB 85.80 SR 71 NB/SB 108.80 SR 87 SB 246.20 SR 87 NB/SB 255.90 SR 87 NB/SB 268.20 SR 87 NB/SB 270.50 SR 87 NB/SB 278.70 SR 89 NB/SB 258.40 SR 89 NB/SB 278.20 SR 89 NB/SB 286.20 SR 89 NB/SB 307.60 SR 89A NB/SB 324.80 SR 89A NB/SB 329.80 SR 89A NB/SB 331.60 SR 89A NB/SB 346.10 SR 72 EB/WB 13.11 SR 85 NB/SB 0.00 SR 95 NB/SB 132.00 US 95 NB/SB 47.00 EMP 302.70 108.40 109.60 250.90 266.00 270.50 278.30 290.10 267.80 282.70 307.60 309.50 326.10 331.20 333.00 349.00 49.91 32.50 143.93 104.51 District Prescott Prescott Prescott Prescott Prescott Prescott Prescott Prescott Prescott Prescott Prescott Prescott Prescott Prescott Prescott Prescott Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Priority* N/A N/A 7 1 2 N/A 6 N/A 3 8 N/A 4 5 N/A 10 9 1 3 2 4 Comments H8245 To be considered for climbing / passing lanes (280.4 - 281.9 exception) H8377 SR 85 South SR 72 Jct.‐Parker Aberdeen Road‐Quartzsite *Priority rankings were provided by each District. Priorities listed as “N/A” were not given a priority by the District. 33 4. Identification and Prioritization Methodology Two-lane highways and multilane highways have different physical and traffic characteristics and their mobility and safety performance is evaluated using different parameters. For this reason, separate methodologies were developed to identify and prioritize:   Shoulder improvements on two-lane highways Shoulder improvements on multilane highways Methodology to Identify Shoulder Improvements on Two-Lane Highways Figure 4.1 illustrates the steps utilized to identify and prioritize potential locations for shoulder improvements on twolane highways. Once preliminary lists of potential candidates were identified, they were ranked on a statewide basis using the criteria and score ranges listed in Table 4.1. Table 4.1: Prioritization Criteria for Shoulder Improvements on Two-Lane Highways Criteria Mobility – 25% Existing LOS: PTSF – Percent Time Spent Following Existing LOS: PFFS – Percent of Free Flow Speed Future LOS: PTSF – Percent Time Spent Following Future LOS: PFFS – Percent of Free Flow Speed Max Points 25 5 5 5 5 Wide Load Corridor 5 Existing Crash Rate Existing Crash Severity (EPDO) Future Crash Severity (Potential Future Crash Benefit) 50 15 15 10 Bicycle/Pedestrian Usage Level 10 Safety – 50% Construction Feasibility - 25% Points Distribution Z-score method* Z-score method* Z-score method* Z-score method* 5 points if segment was a wide load corridor; 0 points if NOT a wide load corridor Z-score method* Z-score method* Z-score method* 10 points for segments with high bike/ped usage; 0 points if NOT a bike/ped corridor 25 Cost Per Lane Mile 10 Potential Number of Bridges that Require Widening 15 Proportional distribution of points based on cost per lane mile 0 bridges = 15 pts; 1 bridge = 12 pts; 2 bridges = 10 pts; 3 bridges = 8 pts; 4 bridges = 6 pts; 5 bridges = 4 pts; 6 bridges = 2 pts; Greater than 6 bridges = 0 pts *Each record’s z-score was determined based on its relative distance from the mean of all records. Based on the record’s z-score, a proportional point value between 0 and Max Points was then assigned to each record. 34 Figure 4.1: Identification Process for Shoulder Improvements on Two-Lane Highways 35 Methodology to Identify Shoulder Improvements on Multilane Highways Figure 4.2 illustrates the steps utilized to identify and prioritize potential locations for shoulder improvements on multilane highways. Once preliminary lists of potential candidates were identified, they were ranked on a statewide basis using the criteria and score ranges listed in Table 4.2. Table 4.2: Prioritization Criteria for Shoulder Improvements on Multilane Highways Criteria Mobility – 25% Existing LOS: Density Future LOS: Density Wide Load Corridor Safety – 50% Existing Crash Rate Existing Crash Severity (EPDO) Potential Future Crash Reduction Level – Right Shoulder Potential Future Crash Reduction Level – Left Shoulder Bicycle/Pedestrian Usage Level Construction Feasibility 25% Max Points 25 10 10 5 50 15 15 12 3 5 Points Distribution Z-score method* Z-score method* 5 points if segment was a wide load corridor; 0 points if NOT a wide load corridor Z-score method* Z-score method* Z-score method* Z-score method* 10 points for segments with high bike/ped usage; 0 points if NOT a bike/ped corridor 25 Cost Per Lane Mile 10 Potential Number of Bridges that Require Widening 15 Proportional distribution of points based on cost per lane mile 0 bridges = 15 pts; 1 bridge = 12 pts; 2 bridges = 10 pts; 3 bridges = 8 pts; 4 bridges = 6 pts; 5 bridges = 4 pts; 6 bridges = 2 pts; Greater than 6 bridges = 0 pts * Each record’s z-score was determined based on its relative distance from the mean of all records. Based on the record’s z-score, a proportional point value between 0 and Max Points was then assigned to each record. 36 Figure 4.2: Identification Process for Shoulder Improvements on Multilane Highways 37 Stakeholder Outreach – Phase II The second phase of stakeholder outreach included individual meetings with each ADOT District staff. Meetings with the Districts were conducted October 8 – 15, 2014. The primary purpose of these meetings was to review:      Design guidelines used to define deficiencies Listing of preliminary candidate locations District suggested locations Crash data analysis results Recommended ranking/prioritization criteria The study team presented the design guidelines used to define shoulder deficiencies. 2014 ADOT Roadway Design Guidelines, the AASHTO Design Guidelines, and the Highway Safety Manual (HSM) criteria were evaluated. ADOT’s Roadway Design Guidelines were used as the primary criteria to identify shoulder deficiencies. HSM indicated that widening the shoulder from 6 – 8 ft may not yield a significant reduction in crashes; the study team recommended that roadway segments that had at least 6 ft of shoulder width be eliminated from consideration for two-lane highways. District staff concurred with the recommendation and asked the study team to confirm that shoulder related crashes were not a concern before eliminating those segments from consideration. District staff also concurred with the study team’s suggestion to remove segments that have 8 – 10 ft shoulder on multilane highways unless crash analysis warrants the need for shoulder improvements. A full summary of the feedback received from each District is included in Working Paper 2: Evaluation Criteria and Plan for Improvements. 38 5. Summary Results – Shoulder Improvements on Two-Lane Highways For two-lane highways, a shoulder deficiency analysis was conducted to identify all highway segments that did not meet minimum shoulder width standards. These segments were then evaluated against the following criteria to identify comprehensive candidate locations for shoulder improvements.  LOS C or worse  Crash rate is greater than “average statewide highway crash rate plus one standard deviation” A review of the comprehensive candidate locations revealed that several segments were too long and may not be feasible for implementation. To help the Districts further prioritize the segments, each larger segment was divided into smaller segments. These smaller segments were evaluated against the following additional set of criteria to generate a list of priority candidate locations that would be easier to implement.  Existing and future (2030) LOS  Crash rate, number of crashes, crash severity  Predicted future crash benefit of shoulder improvement  Wide load corridor – yes/no  Bicycle/pedestrian usage level – high/medium/low  Planning level costs & construction feasibility Example: The priority candidate locations were scored and ranked at both Statewide and District level and grouped into three tiers – high, medium, and low priority. The results for each District are summarized in the following sections:  Comprehensive candidate locations that need shoulder improvements  Priority segments for shoulder improvements. Figures 5.1 to 5.9 illustrate the shoulder improvements locations in each District followed by project summary sheets for the Tier 1 locations. Locations identified for shoulder improvements in Tables 5.1 – 5.18 represent only the general problem area and not the exact location and length of the shoulder improvements. 39 Planning Level Cost Estimates Planning level cost estimates were developed based on typical per-mile/foot construction costs for widening and are expressed in 2015 dollars and have not been field verified. The following assumptions were used to derive the planning level cost estimates for the Tier 1 (priority) candidate segments:  Widening shoulder to 8 FT: $900,000/mile for flat terrain o For each segment, the actual footage of additional shoulder width needed was estimated and the cost was then prorated. For example, if the candidate segment currently has a 2 FT shoulder, the prorated cost to widen the shoulder an additional 6 FT to meet the 8 FT standard was estimated. o Existing actual shoulder widths varied within each candidate segment; therefore, segments were divided into 0-2 FT, 3-5 FT, 5-8 FT, and 8 FT or greater shoulder widths. The midpoint of the candidate segments shoulder width range was utilized as the basis for calculating cost estimates. For example, an average shoulder width of 1 FT was utilized for candidate segments with a shoulder width range between 0-2 FT, 4 FT for segments with a 3-5 FT range, and so forth.  Topographical constraints: o Segments with rolling terrain – an additional 10% was added to the base widening cost o Segments with mountainous terrain: an additional 20% was added to the base widening cost  Bridge Widening: $200/SQFT o The number of bridges within each candidate segment was obtained from the National Bridge Inventory database. Each bridge’s overall length, width, and deck width was also obtained. o For each bridge, the additional square footage needed to widen the bridge was determined. o The cost to widen each bridge was then estimated.  Costs associated with acquiring right-of-way, widening culverts, and environmental mitigation are not included in estimates.  Unless otherwise noted, recommended projects are not yet funded. Due to topographical or other physical constraints adjustment factors may need to be applied to the cost estimates to account for increased construction costs. During project implementation the costs for each project may vary; therefore, during the design phase a detailed analysis should be performed to determine actual costs. 40 Flagstaff District Table 5.1 presents the list of candidate locations for shoulder improvements on two-lane highways in the Flagstaff District. The candidate locations are ranked at the statewide and district level and grouped into three tiers – high, medium, and low priority. Table 5.2 summarizes the priority candidate improvement locations by tier. Figure 5.1 illustrates the prioritization of improvement projects within the District. Table 5.1: Two-Lane Highways - Candidate Shoulder Improvement Locations in Flagstaff District Route Dir BMP EMP Flagstaff District S 064 Both S 064 Both 185.6 187.9 187.2 194.0 S 064 Both 196.0 233.6 S 064 S 064 S 064 S 067 S 098 Westbound Both Both Both Both 234.3 236.0 281.7 579.0 294.0 235.3 237.0 289.5 610.0 361.0 Priority Segments: (Segments that exceed LOS and Crash Rate Threshold)* MP185.6 - MP187.2 MP187.9 - MP190 MP190 - MP192 MP192 - MP194 MP196 - MP198 MP198 - MP200 MP200 - MP202 MP202 - MP204 MP204 - MP206 MP210 - MP212 MP212 - MP214 MP214 - MP216 MP216 - MP218 MP218 - MP220 MP220 - MP222 MP222 - MP224 MP224 - MP226 MP226 - MP228 MP228 - MP230 MP230 - MP232 MP234.3 - MP235.3 MP267 - MP268 MP284 - MP286 MP298 - MP300 MP300 - MP302 MP302 - MP304 MP308 - MP310 MP318 - MP320 MP328 - MP330 41 Table 5.1: Two-Lane Highways - Candidate Shoulder Improvement Locations in Flagstaff District (Continued) Route Dir BMP EMP Priority Segments: (Segments that exceed LOS and Crash Rate Threshold)* Flagstaff District S 179 Both 299.0 304.5 S 389 SA089 Both Both 0.0 374.0 32.1 389.8 SA089 U 089 U 089 U 089 U 089 U 089 U 089 U 089 U 089 U 089 U 089 Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both 390.4 456.6 469.6 471.6 474.5 477.4 493.1 505.7 509.2 519.9 524.4 398.7 461.8 470.8 472.3 475.4 478.3 494.1 507.1 512.2 521.2 556.8 U 160 Both 311.0 324.0 U 160 Eastbound 324.0 332.0 MP330 - MP332 MP342 - MP344 MP344 - MP346 MP348 - MP350 MP350 - MP352 MP352 - MP354 MP354 - MP356 MP299 - MP302 MP302 - MP304.5 MP374 - MP376 MP380 - MP382 MP384 - MP386 MP386 - MP389.8 MP461.8 - MP460.7 MP469.6 - MP470.8 MP471.6 - MP472.3 MP474.5 - MP475.4 MP477.4 - MP478.3 MP493.1 - MP494.1 MP505.7 - MP507.1 MP509.2 - MP512.2 MP519.9 - MP521.2 MP548 - MP550 MP550 - MP552 MP552 - MP554 MP554 - MP556.8 MP311 - MP314 MP314 - MP316 MP316 - MP318 MP318 - MP320 42 Table 5.1: Two-Lane Highways - Candidate Shoulder Improvement Locations in Flagstaff District (Continued) Route Dir BMP EMP Flagstaff District U 160 Both 332.0 356.0 U 160 U 160 Eastbound Both 356.0 358.0 358.0 362.0 U 180 Both 218.0 237.4 Priority Segments: (Segments that exceed LOS and Crash Rate Threshold)* MP336 - MP338 MP340 - MP342 MP342 - MP344 MP344 - MP346 MP346 - MP348 MP350 - MP352 MP352 - MP354 MP354 - MP356 MP356 - MP358 MP358 - MP360 MP360 - MP362 MP218 - MP220 MP220 - MP223.2 MP223.2 - MP226 U 180 Both 239.4 244.2 U 180 Both 245.4 264.0 U 180 Eastbound 264.0 265.6 UA089 Both 524.0 537.3 UA089 Both 538.5 546.0 UA089 Southbound 546.0 548.0 UA089 Both 548.0 609.0 MP590 - MP592 UA089 Both 610.2 612.3 Priority segments represent segments that - Have LOS worse than C - Crash rate greater than “average statewide highway crash rate plus one standard deviation” District Rankings are Provided in the Following Table 43 Table 5.2: Two-Lane Highways - Ranking of Priority Candidate Locations in Flagstaff District Route S 064 SA089 S 064 S 064 S 064 S 064 U 089 S 064 S 064 S 064 S 064 U 089 S 064 S 064 S 064 S 064 S 064 S 064 U 089 S 064 S 064 S 064 S 064 U 089 S 064 S 064 S 064 SA089 SA089 SA089 U 089 U 089 Direction Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Westbound Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both BMP 185.6 374.0 187.9 236.0 224.0 230.0 474.5 234.3 226.0 218.0 222.0 461.8 228.0 190.0 216.0 220.0 198.0 212.0 469.6 200.0 196.0 202.0 192.0 471.6 210.0 204.0 214.0 380.0 384.0 386.0 548.0 477.4 EMP 187.2 376.0 190.0 237.0 226.0 232.0 475.4 235.3 228.0 220.0 224.0 460.7 230.0 192.0 218.0 222.0 200.0 214.0 470.8 202.0 198.0 204.0 194.0 472.3 212.0 206.0 216.0 382.0 386.0 389.8 550.0 478.3 Total Points 79.33 76.02 75.49 72.80 71.35 71.01 70.65 70.57 70.57 70.39 70.24 70.12 69.96 69.75 69.65 69.58 69.49 69.24 69.21 69.12 69.10 68.95 68.95 68.79 68.20 67.68 67.57 67.30 67.24 65.85 65.82 65.81 Tier Level 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 District Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 Statewide Rank 6 23 28 45 55 57 60 61 62 63 65 67 68 72 75 77 82 89 90 94 96 101 102 106 117 121 124 126 127 138 139 140 Cost Estimate* $1,458,000 $3,780,000 $1,881,000 $990,000 $1,800,000 $1,980,000 $819,000 $459,000 $1,980,000 $1,800,000 $1,800,000 $981,000 $1,980,000 $1,980,000 $1,800,000 $1,800,000 $1,980,000 $1,800,000 $1,044,000 $1,980,000 $1,980,000 $1,980,000 $1,980,000 $657,000 * Planning level cost estimates were developed for Tier 1 candidate locations only. Cost Estimates developed based on typical per-mile/foot construction costs for widening and are expressed in 2015 dollars and have not been field verified. Costs associated with acquiring right-of-way, widening culverts, and environmental mitigation are not included in estimates. Due to topographical or other physical constraints adjustment factors may need to be applied to the cost estimates to account for increased construction costs. During project implementation, the costs for each project may vary; therefore, during the design phase a detailed analysis should be performed to determine actual costs. Unless otherwise noted, the recommended projects are not yet funded. 44 Table 5.2: Two-Lane Highways - Ranking of Priority Candidate Locations in Flagstaff District (Continued) Route U 180 U 180 S 179 U 089 U 160 U 089 U 180 U 160 S 179 U 089 U 160 UA089 U 160 U 160 S 098 U 160 S 098 U 160 U 160 U 160 U 160 U 089 U 160 U 160 U 089 S 098 U 160 U 160 U 160 S 098 Direction Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Eastbound Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both BMP 218.0 220.0 302.0 550.0 318.0 554.0 223.2 316.0 299.0 552.0 311.0 590.0 340.0 336.0 300.0 314.0 298.0 360.0 342.0 358.0 356.0 493.1 352.0 350.0 519.9 354.0 344.0 354.0 346.0 352.0 EMP 220.0 223.2 304.5 552.0 320.0 556.8 226.0 318.0 302.0 554.0 314.0 592.0 342.0 338.0 302.0 316.0 300.0 362.0 344.0 360.0 358.0 494.1 354.0 352.0 521.2 356.0 346.0 356.0 348.0 354.0 Total Points 65.73 65.37 64.48 64.21 64.16 63.79 63.79 63.78 63.63 63.60 61.32 59.92 59.55 59.24 59.04 58.89 58.81 56.72 55.44 55.37 54.88 54.57 54.37 54.16 53.89 53.24 51.70 51.51 51.12 50.75 Tier Level 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 District Rank 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 Statewide Cost Rank Estimate* 143 149 164 172 177 184 185 186 189 191 224 241 249 252 255 256 258 283 298 300 304 307 311 312 314 318 324 328 329 331 * Planning level cost estimates were developed for Tier 1 candidate locations only. Cost Estimates developed based on typical per-mile/foot construction costs for widening and are expressed in 2015 dollars and have not been field verified. Costs associated with acquiring right-of-way, widening culverts, and environmental mitigation are not included in estimates. Due to topographical or other physical constraints adjustment factors may need to be applied to the cost estimates to account for increased construction costs. During project implementation, the costs for each project may vary; therefore, during the design phase a detailed analysis should be performed to determine actual costs. Unless otherwise noted, the recommended projects are not yet funded. 45 Table 5.2: Two-Lane Highways - Ranking of Priority Candidate Locations in Flagstaff District (Continued) Route S 098 S 098 U 089 S 098 S 098 S 098 S 098 S 098 S 098 S 098 U 089 S 064 Direction Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both BMP 350.0 328.0 505.7 318.0 308.0 348.0 302.0 342.0 344.0 330.0 509.2 284.0 EMP 352.0 330.0 507.1 320.0 310.0 350.0 304.0 344.0 346.0 332.0 512.2 286.0 Total Points 50.57 49.23 49.03 48.80 48.61 48.59 48.58 48.45 48.35 48.29 46.43 43.40 Tier Level 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 District Rank 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 Statewide Cost Rank Estimate* 333 341 345 348 349 350 351 356 358 360 370 374 * Planning level cost estimates were developed for Tier 1 candidate locations only. Cost Estimates developed based on typical per-mile/foot construction costs for widening and are expressed in 2015 dollars and have not been field verified. Costs associated with acquiring right-of-way, widening culverts, and environmental mitigation are not included in estimates. Due to topographical or other physical constraints adjustment factors may need to be applied to the cost estimates to account for increased construction costs. During project implementation, the costs for each project may vary; therefore, during the design phase a detailed analysis should be performed to determine actual costs. Unless otherwise noted, the recommended projects are not yet funded. 46 Figure 5.1: Two-Lane Highways - Priority Candidate Locations in Flagstaff District 47 Globe District Table 5.3 presents the list of candidate locations for shoulder improvements on two-lane highways in the Globe District. The candidate locations are ranked at the statewide and district level and grouped into three tiers – high, medium, and low priority. Table 5.4 summarizes the priority candidate improvement locations by tier. Figure 5.2 illustrates the prioritization of improvement projects within the District. Table 5.3: Two-Lane Highways - Candidate Shoulder Improvement Locations in Globe District Route Dir BMP EMP Both 353.0 372.0 S 061 S 061 S 061 S 073 S 073 Both Both Both Both Both 374.0 379.6 416.6 310.0 342.0 378.9 381.0 430.0 338.0 353.2 S 077 S 077 S 077 S 077 S 177 S 188 S 188 S 188 S 188 S 188 S 188 S 188 S 188 S 188 Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Westbound Both Both Both Both Both Both 138.6 147.3 343.3 353.7 136.5 218.8 222.9 225.7 227.0 236.5 240.8 242.0 260.6 272.9 145.2 170.0 343.4 356.5 164.7 219.6 224.6 227.0 232.5 236.6 241.0 257.0 266.6 276.3 Globe District S 061 Priority Segments: (Segments that exceed LOS and Crash Rate Threshold)* MP353 - MP356 MP356 - MP358 MP358 - MP360 MP360 - MP362 MP362 - MP364 MP364 - MP366 MP366 - MP368 MP342 - MP344 MP348 - MP350 MP350 - MP352 MP352 - MP353.2 MP343.3 - MP343.4 MP136.5 - MP140 48 Table 5.3: Two-Lane Highways - Candidate Shoulder Improvement Locations in Globe District (Continued) Route Dir BMP EMP Both 309.7 338.1 S 260 S 260 S 261 S 273 S 277 Eastbound Both Both Both Both 355.0 360.5 394.0 377.0 306.0 358.0 398.0 412.0 397.0 335.6 S 288 S 373 S 473 SA180 SS277 U 060 U 060 U 060 Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both 258.0 385.0 0.0 343.0 321.0 227.1 232.7 236.2 311.0 390.0 9.0 354.0 322.0 230.2 234.4 241.7 U 060 U 060 U 060 Both Both Both 260.3 275.8 284.0 262.7 278.9 323.2 Globe District S 260 Priority Segments: (Segments that exceed LOS and Crash Rate Threshold)* MP309.7 - MP312 MP312 - MP314 MP314 - MP316 MP316 - MP318 MP318 - MP320 MP320 - MP322 MP322 - MP324 MP324 - MP326 MP330 - MP332 MP332 - MP334 MP334 - MP336 MP336 - MP338.1 MP355 - MP358 MP360.51 - MP362 MP306 - MP308 MP324 - MP326 MP227.1 - MP230.2 MP232.7 - MP234.4 MP236.2 - MP238 MP238 - MP240 MP240 - MP241.7 MP260.3 - MP262.7 MP275.8 - MP278.9 MP284 - MP286 MP286 - MP288 MP288 - MP290 MP290 - MP292 MP292 - MP294 MP296 - MP298 MP298 - MP300 49 Table 5.3: Two-Lane Highways - Candidate Shoulder Improvement Locations in Globe District (Continued) Route Dir BMP EMP Both 284.0 323.2 U 060 U 060 Both Both 324.0 329.0 327.8 338.0 U 060 U 060 Eastbound Both 338.0 342.5 339.6 371.3 U 060 U 060 U 060 U 060 U 070 U 070 U 070 Both Eastbound Westbound Eastbound Both Both Both 372.2 391.2 394.3 397.9 253.3 255.3 272.7 383.3 391.9 395.4 399.0 254.1 271.0 288.0 U 180 U 180 Both Both 342.8 364.1 358.5 367.6 Globe District U 060 Priority Segments: (Segments that exceed LOS and Crash Rate Threshold)* MP300 - MP302 MP302 - MP304 MP304 - MP306 MP306 - MP308 MP308 - MP310 MP310 - MP312 MP312 - MP314 MP314 - MP316 MP316 - MP318 MP318 - MP320 MP324 - MP326 MP332 - MP334 MP334 - MP336 MP336 - MP338 MP342.5 - MP344 MP344 - MP346 MP346 - MP348 MP348 - MP350 MP350 - MP352.8 MP352.8 - MP356 MP358 - MP360 MP272.7 - MP276 MP276 - MP278 MP278 - MP280 MP280 - MP282 MP282 - MP284 MP286 - MP288 50 Table 5.3: Two-Lane Highways - Candidate Shoulder Improvement Locations in Globe District (Continued) Route Globe District U 180 Dir BMP EMP Both 369.5 394.0 Priority Segments: (Segments that exceed LOS and Crash Rate Threshold)* MP382 - MP384 MP384 - MP386 MP386 - MP388 U 180 Both 400.0 411.9 U 180 Both 416.5 418.8 U 180 Both 423.2 425.2 U 191 Both 226.0 253.7 U 191 Both 315.7 346.0 Priority segments represent segments that - Have LOS worse than C - Crash rate greater than “average statewide highway crash rate plus one standard deviation” District Rankings are Provided in the Following Table 51 Table 5.4: Two-Lane Highways - Ranking of Priority Candidate Locations in Globe District Route Direction BMP EMP Total Points Tier Level District Statewide Rank Rank Cost Estimate* U 060 U 060 U 060 U 060 U 060 U 060 U 060 U 060 U 060 U 060 U 060 U 060 U 060 S 077 U 060 U 060 S 260 Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both 236.2 238.0 350.0 348.0 342.5 240.0 232.7 352.8 227.1 346.0 332.0 324.0 336.0 343.3 344.0 290.0 334.0 238.0 240.0 352.8 350.0 344.0 241.7 234.4 356.0 230.2 348.0 334.0 326.0 338.0 343.4 346.0 292.0 336.0 77.37 77.09 76.25 75.77 75.77 75.26 74.39 74.32 73.79 73.68 70.23 69.92 69.79 69.64 69.53 69.35 68.78 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 22 24 25 29 34 35 40 41 66 70 71 76 81 86 107 $3,527,992 $3,433,622 $2,772,000 $2,030,394 $1,535,394 $554,050 $2,024,966 $5,544,000 $3,515,874 $2,159,922 $1,980,000 $1,980,000 $1,980,000 $225,225 $1,980,000 $540,000 $1,980,000 U 060 Both 358.0 360.0 68.56 1 18 111 $3,522,480 U 060 U 060 U 060 U 060 S 260 U 060 U 060 U 060 U 060 S 260 U 060 U 060 Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both 288.0 334.0 296.0 260.3 330.0 275.8 312.0 306.0 298.0 360.5 308.0 284.0 290.0 336.0 298.0 262.7 332.0 278.9 314.0 308.0 300.0 362.0 310.0 286.0 67.07 66.63 66.45 65.21 65.20 64.63 64.53 64.46 64.37 64.19 64.18 64.18 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 130 133 135 153 154 162 163 165 168 173 174 175 * Planning level cost estimates were developed for Tier 1 candidate locations only. Cost Estimates developed based on typical per-mile/foot construction costs for widening and are expressed in 2015 dollars and have not been field verified. Costs associated with acquiring right-of-way, widening culverts, and environmental mitigation are not included in estimates. Due to topographical or other physical constraints adjustment factors may need to be applied to the cost estimates to account for increased construction costs. During project implementation, the costs for each project may vary; therefore, during the design phase a detailed analysis should be performed to determine actual costs. Unless otherwise noted, the recommended projects are not yet funded. 52 Table 5.4: Two-Lane Highways - Ranking of Priority Candidate Locations in Globe District (Continued) Route Direction BMP EMP Total Points Tier Level District Statewide Rank Rank U 060 U 060 U 060 S 260 U 060 S 260 U 060 U 060 U 060 S 260 S 260 S 260 U 070 U 060 U 060 U 070 S 260 S 260 S 260 S 260 S 260 Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Eastbound Both Both 316.0 302.0 318.0 336.0 286.0 318.0 310.0 292.0 304.0 332.0 322.0 324.0 278.0 314.0 300.0 280.0 316.0 314.0 355.0 312.0 320.0 318.0 304.0 320.0 338.1 288.0 320.0 312.0 294.0 306.0 334.0 324.0 326.0 280.0 316.0 302.0 282.0 318.0 316.0 358.0 314.0 322.0 64.02 63.67 63.38 63.07 61.55 61.32 60.80 60.56 60.38 60.18 59.80 59.44 59.07 58.85 58.81 58.06 57.90 57.83 57.80 57.30 57.09 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 180 187 199 202 222 223 230 232 235 238 244 250 253 257 259 266 268 269 270 277 281 S 277 Both 306.0 308.0 55.77 2 52 292 U 070 S 260 S 073 U 070 S 073 U 070 S 061 Both Both Both Both Both Both Both 276.0 309.7 342.0 272.7 352.0 282.0 356.0 278.0 312.0 344.0 276.0 353.2 284.0 358.0 55.52 55.00 53.29 53.24 52.11 50.90 50.08 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 297 303 317 319 323 330 334 Cost Estimate* * Planning level cost estimates were developed for Tier 1 candidate locations only. Cost Estimates developed based on typical per-mile/foot construction costs for widening and are expressed in 2015 dollars and have not been field verified. Costs associated with acquiring right-of-way, widening culverts, and environmental mitigation are not included in estimates. Due to topographical or other physical constraints adjustment factors may need to be applied to the cost estimates to account for increased construction costs. During project implementation, the costs for each project may vary; therefore, during the design phase a detailed analysis should be performed to determine actual costs. Unless otherwise noted, the recommended projects are not yet funded. 53 Table 5.4: Two-Lane Highways - Ranking of Priority Candidate Locations in Globe District (Continued) Route Direction BMP EMP Total Points Tier Level S 061 S 073 S 061 U 070 S 073 S 061 U 180 S 061 S 061 S 061 U 180 S 277 S 177 U 180 Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both 358.0 348.0 353.0 286.0 350.0 360.0 382.0 364.0 366.0 362.0 384.0 324.0 136.5 386.0 360.0 350.0 356.0 288.0 352.0 362.0 384.0 366.0 368.0 364.0 386.0 326.0 140.0 388.0 49.54 49.50 49.40 49.07 48.94 48.84 48.46 48.40 48.30 48.27 47.89 47.62 47.51 45.71 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 District Statewide Rank Rank 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 Cost Estimate* 338 339 340 344 346 347 355 357 359 362 365 367 368 371 * Planning level cost estimates were developed for Tier 1 candidate locations only. Cost Estimates developed based on typical per-mile/foot construction costs for widening and are expressed in 2015 dollars and have not been field verified. Costs associated with acquiring right-of-way, widening culverts, and environmental mitigation are not included in estimates. Due to topographical or other physical constraints adjustment factors may need to be applied to the cost estimates to account for increased construction costs. During project implementation, the costs for each project may vary; therefore, during the design phase a detailed analysis should be performed to determine actual costs. Unless otherwise noted, the recommended projects are not yet funded. 54 Figure 5.2: Two-Lane Highways - Priority Candidate Locations in Globe District 55 Holbrook District Table 5.5 presents the list of candidate locations for shoulder improvements on two-lane highways in the Holbrook District. The candidate locations are ranked at the statewide and district level and grouped into three tiers – high, medium, and low priority. Table 5.6 summarizes the priority candidate improvement locations by tier. Figure 5.3 illustrates the prioritization of improvement projects within the District. Table 5.5: Two-Lane Highways - Candidate Shoulder Improvement Locations in Holbrook District Route Dir BMP EMP Holbrook District S 077 Both 361.2 387.8 S 077 S 077 S 087 S 087 S 087 S 099 S 099 S 264 Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both 395.1 402.2 292.5 322.1 346.0 27.0 52.7 322.8 401.1 408.0 317.0 342.0 406.0 42.0 72.0 408.1 S 264 Both 409.0 465.7 Priority Segments: (Segments that exceed LOS and Crash Rate Threshold)* MP366 - MP368 MP370 - MP372 MP372 - MP374 MP374 - MP376 MP376 - MP378 MP378 - MP380 MP384 - MP386 MP386 - MP387.8 MP376 - MP378 MP378 - MP380 MP380 - MP382 MP382 - MP384 MP384 - MP386 MP388 - MP390 MP442 - MP444 MP444 - MP446 MP446 - MP448 MP448 - MP450 56 Table 5.5: Two-Lane Highways - Candidate Shoulder Improvement Locations in Holbrook District (Continued) Route Dir BMP EMP Holbrook District S 264 Both 409.0 465.7 S 377 S 564 U 064 U 160 Both Both Both Both 0.0 374.0 465.0 362.0 33.0 383.0 469.5 394.0 U 160 Both 396.0 436.0 U 160 U 160 Eastbound Both 436.0 438.0 438.0 470.8 Priority Segments: (Segments that exceed LOS and Crash Rate Threshold)* MP450 - MP452 MP452 - MP454 MP454 - MP456 MP456 - MP458 MP458 - MP460 MP460 - MP462 MP462 - MP464 MP464 - MP465.7 MP364 - MP366 MP366 - MP368 MP368 - MP370 MP370 - MP372 MP372 - MP374 MP374 - MP376 MP376 - MP378 MP378 - MP380 MP380 - MP382 MP382 - MP384 MP384 - MP386 MP386 - MP388 MP388 - MP390 MP390 - MP392 MP392 - MP394 MP398 - MP400 MP400 - MP402 MP438 - MP440 MP440 - MP442 MP442 - MP444 MP444 - MP446 MP446 - MP448 MP448 - MP450 MP450 - MP452 57 Table 5.5: Two-Lane Highways - Candidate Shoulder Improvement Locations in Holbrook District (Continued) Route Dir BMP EMP Holbrook District U 160 Both 438.0 470.8 U 163 Both 396.4 416.0 U 180 U 191 U 191 U 191 U 191 Both Both Both Southbound Both 307.0 346.0 374.0 417.1 420.0 311.1 364.9 411.6 419.2 446.5 U 191 Both 447.5 510.0 Priority Segments: (Segments that exceed LOS and Crash Rate Threshold)* MP452 - MP454 MP454 - MP456 MP456 - MP458 MP458 - MP460 MP460 - MP462 MP462 - MP464 MP396.37 - MP400 MP404 - MP406 MP406 - MP408 MP430 - MP432 MP444 - MP446.5 MP447.5 - MP450 MP454 - MP456 MP460 - MP462 Priority segments represent segments that - Have LOS worse than C - Crash rate greater than “average statewide highway crash rate plus one standard deviation” District Rankings are Provided in the Following Table 58 Table 5.6: Two-Lane Highways - Ranking of Priority Candidate Locations in Holbrook District Route Direction BMP EMP Total Points Tier Level S 264 S 264 S 264 S 264 S 264 S 264 S 264 S 264 S 264 S 264 U 191 S 264 S 077 S 264 U 160 U 160 U 160 U 160 U 160 U 160 U 160 S 264 S 264 U 160 U 160 U 160 U 191 U 160 U 160 U 160 U 160 U 160 U 160 Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both 458.0 456.0 460.0 464.0 454.0 462.0 452.0 442.0 450.0 444.0 447.5 448.0 386.0 446.0 390.0 448.0 392.0 382.0 446.0 378.0 440.0 380.0 378.0 374.0 380.0 376.0 454.0 370.0 460.0 450.0 442.0 366.0 368.0 460.0 458.0 462.0 465.7 456.0 464.0 454.0 444.0 452.0 446.0 450.0 450.0 387.8 448.0 392.0 450.0 394.0 384.0 448.0 380.0 442.0 382.0 380.0 376.0 382.0 378.0 456.0 372.0 462.0 452.0 444.0 368.0 370.0 78.76 78.55 78.44 78.37 78.29 78.18 77.97 77.64 75.72 74.79 74.62 73.90 73.27 71.63 71.50 70.83 70.36 69.95 69.70 69.58 69.55 69.44 69.36 69.31 69.27 69.21 69.14 69.13 69.10 69.10 69.06 69.05 68.97 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 District Statewide Rank Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 8 9 11 13 14 15 16 17 26 31 32 38 43 52 53 58 64 69 73 78 80 83 85 87 88 91 92 93 95 97 98 99 100 Cost Estimate* $3,465,000 $3,465,000 $3,465,000 $2,945,250 $3,465,000 $3,465,000 $3,465,000 $3,465,000 $3,781,470 $3,557,914 $3,937,500 $3,465,000 $1,811,700 $4,049,606 $1,850,394 $1,800,000 $1,800,000 $1,800,000 $1,800,000 $1,800,000 $1,800,000 $3,780,000 $3,780,000 $1,800,000 $1,800,000 $1,800,000 $3,150,000 $1,800,000 $1,980,000 $1,800,000 $1,800,000 $1,800,000 $1,800,000 * Planning level cost estimates were developed for Tier 1 candidate locations only. Cost Estimates developed based on typical per-mile/foot construction costs for widening and are expressed in 2015 dollars and have not been field verified. Costs associated with acquiring right-of-way, widening culverts, and environmental mitigation are not included in estimates. Due to topographical or other physical constraints adjustment factors may need to be applied to the cost estimates to account for increased construction costs. During project implementation, the costs for each project may vary; therefore, during the design phase a detailed analysis should be performed to determine actual costs. Unless otherwise noted, the recommended projects are not yet funded. 59 Table 5.6: Two-Lane Highways - Ranking of Priority Candidate Locations in Holbrook District (Continued) Route Direction BMP EMP Total Points Tier Level District Statewide Rank Rank Cost Estimate* U 160 S 264 U 191 U 160 U 160 Both Both Both Both Both 438.0 382.0 444.0 364.0 372.0 440.0 384.0 446.5 366.0 374.0 68.85 68.80 68.59 68.56 68.55 1 1 1 1 1 34 35 36 37 38 103 105 109 110 112 $1,800,000 $3,780,000 $3,937,500 $1,800,000 $1,800,000 S 264 Both 376.0 378.0 68.52 1 39 113 $3,780,000 U 191 S 264 U 160 U 160 U 160 U 160 S 264 U 160 U 160 U 160 U 160 S 077 S 077 U 191 U 160 U 160 S 077 Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both 430.0 384.0 444.0 458.0 456.0 452.0 388.0 454.0 388.0 462.0 386.0 384.0 376.0 460.0 384.0 398.0 378.0 432.0 386.0 446.0 460.0 458.0 454.0 390.0 456.0 390.0 464.0 388.0 386.0 378.0 462.0 386.0 400.0 380.0 68.25 68.09 67.17 66.29 65.76 65.40 65.40 65.23 64.95 64.45 63.39 63.20 62.63 61.24 61.01 58.60 58.27 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 116 118 129 136 142 146 147 152 156 166 198 201 210 226 227 263 264 U 160 Both 400.0 402.0 56.09 2 57 287 S 077 S 077 S 077 U 163 U 163 U 163 S 077 Both Both Both Both Both Both Both 372.0 366.0 374.0 396.4 406.0 404.0 370.0 374.0 368.0 376.0 400.0 408.0 406.0 372.0 54.10 52.42 51.64 51.57 49.95 49.10 48.47 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 313 321 326 327 336 342 354 * Planning level cost estimates were developed for Tier 1 candidate locations only. Cost Estimates developed based on typical per-mile/foot construction costs for widening and are expressed in 2015 dollars and have not been field verified. Costs associated with acquiring right-of-way, widening culverts, and environmental mitigation are not included in estimates. Due to topographical or other physical constraints adjustment factors may need to be applied to the cost estimates to account for increased construction costs. During project implementation, the costs for each project may vary; therefore, during the design phase a detailed analysis should be performed to determine actual costs. Unless otherwise noted, the recommended projects are not yet funded. 60 Figure 5.3: Two-Lane Highways - Priority Candidate Locations in Holbrook District 61 Kingman District Table 5.7 presents the list of candidate locations for shoulder improvements on two-lane highways in the Kingman District. The candidate locations are ranked at the statewide and district level and grouped into three tiers – high, medium, and low priority. Table 5.8 summarizes the priority candidate improvement locations by tier. Figure 5.4 illustrates the prioritization of improvement projects within the District. Table 5.7: Two-Lane Highways - Candidate Shoulder Improvement Locations in Kingman District Route Dir BMP EMP Kingman District S 066 Both S 066 Both S 066 Both S 089 Both S 095 Both 104.8 80.3 86.0 362.0 162.0 105.8 80.9 90.0 363.7 176.9 190.0 194.5 226.0 0.0 156.1 101.7 106.6 116.4 121.3 161.6 192.0 196.0 227.3 22.0 166.0 103.6 109.1 119.4 124.4 182.7 S 095 S 095 S 095 S 096 S 097 U 093 U 093 U 093 U 093 U 093 Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Priority Segments: (Segments that exceed LOS and Crash Rate Threshold)* MP362 - MP363.7 MP162 - MP164 MP164 - MP166 MP166 - MP168 MP168 - MP170 MP170 - MP172 MP172 - MP174 MP174 - MP176.9 MP190 - MP192 MP194.5 - MP196 MP226 - MP227.3 MP101.7 - MP103.6 MP106.6 - MP109.1 MP116.4 - MP119.4 MP121.3 - MP124.4 MP161.6 - MP164 MP164 - MP166 MP166 - MP168 MP168 - MP170 MP170 - MP172 MP172 - MP174 MP174 - MP176 MP176 - MP178 MP178 - MP180 MP180 - MP182.7 Priority segments represent segments that - Have LOS worse than C - Crash rate greater than “average statewide highway crash rate plus one standard deviation” - District Rankings are provided in the following table 62 Table 5.8: Two-Lane Highways - Ranking of Priority Candidate Locations in Kingman District Route Direction BMP EMP Total Points Tier Level District Statewide Rank Rank Cost Estimate* S 095 S 095 S 095 S 095 S 095 S 095 Both Both Both Southbound Both Both 164.0 162.0 166.0 168.0 170.0 174.0 166.0 164.0 168.0 170.0 172.0 176.9 81.16 80.95 80.41 74.10 72.51 71.40 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 2 3 4 37 46 54 $2,160,000 $2,160,000 $2,160,000 $1,183,700 $2,281,576 $2,762,528 S 095 Both 172.0 174.0 68.62 1 7 108 $2,298,110 U 093 U 093 U 093 S 095 S 095 U 093 U 093 U 093 U 093 U 093 U 093 U 093 S 095 U 093 U 093 Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both 176.0 161.6 172.0 194.5 226.0 170.0 164.0 174.0 166.0 116.4 168.0 106.6 190.0 178.0 101.7 178.0 164.0 174.0 196.0 227.3 172.0 166.0 176.0 168.0 119.4 170.0 109.1 192.0 180.0 103.6 67.75 67.60 66.66 65.63 63.61 63.50 63.46 63.44 63.41 63.03 62.88 62.80 62.41 60.15 59.41 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 120 123 132 144 190 192 194 195 197 203 206 207 212 239 251 U 093 Both 180.0 182.7 58.10 2 23 265 S 089 U 093 Both Both 362.0 121.3 363.7 124.4 55.56 54.51 3 3 24 25 296 308 * Planning level cost estimates were developed for Tier 1 candidate locations only. Cost Estimates developed based on typical per-mile/foot construction costs for widening and are expressed in 2015 dollars and have not been field verified. Costs associated with acquiring right-of-way, widening culverts, and environmental mitigation are not included in estimates. Due to topographical or other physical constraints adjustment factors may need to be applied to the cost estimates to account for increased construction costs. During project implementation, the costs for each project may vary; therefore, during the design phase a detailed analysis should be performed to determine actual costs. Unless otherwise noted, the recommended projects are not yet funded. 63 Figure 5.4: Two-Lane Highways - Priority Candidate Locations in Kingman District 64 Phoenix Maintenance District Table 5.9 presents the list of candidate locations for shoulder improvements on two-lane highways in the Phoenix Maintenance District. The candidate locations are ranked at the statewide and district level and grouped into three tiers – high, medium, and low priority. Table 5.10 summarizes the priority candidate improvement locations by tier. Figure 5.5 illustrates the prioritization of improvement projects within the District. Table 5.9: Two-Lane Highways - Candidate Shoulder Improvement Locations in Phoenix Maintenance District Route Dir Phoenix Maintenance District S 088 Both S 587 Both BMP EMP 196.2 220 219.5 224 Priority Segments: (Segments that exceed LOS and Crash Rate Threshold)* MP200 - MP202 MP202 - MP204 MP204 - MP206 MP206 - MP208 MP208 - MP210 MP210 - MP212 MP212 - MP214 MP218 - MP220 MP219.5 - MP222 MP222 - MP224 Priority segments represent segments that - Have LOS worse than C - Crash rate greater than “average statewide highway crash rate plus one standard deviation” - District Rankings are provided in the following table Table 5.10: Two-Lane Highways - Ranking of Priority Candidate Locations in Phoenix Maintenance District Total Tier District Statewide Cost Route Direction BMP EMP Points Level Rank Rank Estimate* S 088 Both 218.0 220.0 67.22 2 1 128 S 088 Both 204.0 206.0 65.18 2 2 155 S 088 Both 206.0 208.0 64.72 2 3 161 S 088 Both 202.0 204.0 62.14 2 4 215 S 587 Both 222.0 224.0 59.99 2 5 240 S 088 Both 200.0 202.0 58.77 2 6 260 S 587 Both 219.5 222.0 56.09 2 7 288 S 088 Both 212.0 214.0 53.66 3 8 316 S 088 Both 210.0 212.0 51.66 3 9 325 S 088 Both 208.0 210.0 49.08 3 10 343 * Planning level cost estimates were developed for Tier 1 candidate locations only. 65 Figure 5.5: Two-Lane Highways - Priority Candidate Locations in Phoenix Maintenance District 66 Prescott District Table 5.11 presents the list of candidate locations for shoulder improvements on two-lane highways in the Prescott District. The candidate locations are ranked at the statewide and district level and grouped into three tiers – high, medium, and low priority. Table 5.12 summarizes the priority candidate improvement locations by tier. Figure 5.5 illustrates the prioritization of improvement projects within the District. Table 5.11: Two-Lane Highways - Candidate Shoulder Improvement Locations in Prescott District Route Dir BMP EMP Prescott District S 071 Both S 087 Both 85.0 254.6 109.6 290.6 S 089 S 089 S 089 S 089 S 089 S 089 Both Northbound Both Both Both Both 258.3 269.2 276.0 278.0 281.9 286.0 268.1 272.0 276.2 280.4 282.6 310.0 S 089 S 089 S 089 Both Both Both 316.0 320.0 329.3 317.0 320.1 329.5 Priority Segments: (Segments that exceed LOS and Crash Rate Threshold)* MP254.6 - MP256 MP256 - MP258 MP258 - MP260 MP260 - MP262 MP262 - MP264 MP264 - MP266 MP266 - MP268 MP268 - MP270 MP270 - MP272 MP272 - MP274 MP274 - MP276 MP276 - MP278 MP282 - MP284 MP284 - MP286 MP276 - MP276.2 MP296 - MP298 MP302 - MP305.4 MP305.4 - MP308 MP316 - MP317 MP320 - MP320.1 MP329.3 - MP329.5 67 Table 5.11: Two-Lane Highways - Candidate Shoulder Improvement Locations in Prescott District (Continued) Route Dir BMP EMP Prescott District S 169 Both 0.0 15.0 S 260 S 260 S 260 S 260 S 260 S 260 S 260 Both Both Both Both Both Eastbound Both 211.2 215.8 222.9 256.8 269.2 277.1 282.3 213.4 216.9 251.9 260.1 272.2 277.4 303.7 SA089 SA089 Both Both 324.8 329.7 327.8 343.7 Priority Segments: (Segments that exceed LOS and Crash Rate Threshold)* MP0 - MP2 MP2 - MP4 MP4 - MP6 MP6 - MP8 MP8 - MP10 MP10 - MP12 MP12 - MP15 MP211.2 - MP213.4 MP215.8 - MP216.9 MP256.8 - MP260.1 MP269.2 - MP272.2 MP277.1 - MP277.4 MP282.3 - MP286 MP286 - MP288 MP288 - MP290 MP290 - MP292 MP292 - MP294 MP294 - MP296 MP296 - MP298 MP298 - MP300 MP300 - MP302 MP302 - MP303.7 MP334 - MP336 MP340 - MP342 MP342 - MP343.7 SA089 Both 344.5 348.2 U 060 Both 49.5 62.3 MP60 - MP62.3 U 060 Both 84.6 108.0 MP106 - MP108 Priority segments represent segments that - Have LOS worse than C - Crash rate greater than “average statewide highway crash rate plus one standard deviation” District Rankings are Provided in the Following Table 68 Table 5.12: Two-Lane Highways - Ranking of Priority Candidate Locations in Prescott District Route Direction BMP EMP Total Points Tier Level District Statewide Rank Rank Cost Estimate* S 169 S 169 S 260 S 087 S 169 S 089 S 087 S 089 S 169 Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both 2.0 10.0 256.8 268.0 6.0 320.0 270.0 329.3 4.0 4.0 12.0 260.1 270.0 8.0 320.1 272.0 329.5 6.0 74.15 73.86 71.96 71.66 71.05 70.80 69.69 69.40 68.85 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 36 39 49 51 56 59 74 84 104 $1,980,000 $1,980,000 $5,595,975 $3,780,000 $2,070,682 $117,000 $3,780,000 $267,750 $2,142,992 S 169 Both 8.0 10.0 68.46 1 11 115 $2,173,702 S 169 S 089 S 260 S 260 S 260 S 169 S 260 S 260 S 260 S 260 S 087 S 260 S 260 S 087 S 260 S 260 S 087 S 260 S 087 S 087 S 087 Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both 12.0 316.0 269.2 292.0 294.0 0.0 302.0 296.0 290.0 298.0 258.0 282.3 286.0 272.0 215.8 300.0 264.0 288.0 254.6 260.0 262.0 15.0 317.0 272.2 294.0 296.0 2.0 303.7 298.0 292.0 300.0 260.0 286.0 288.0 274.0 216.9 302.0 266.0 290.0 256.0 262.0 264.0 67.85 67.43 66.61 65.45 65.35 65.26 64.87 64.83 64.77 64.41 64.36 64.11 63.92 63.84 63.48 62.88 62.63 62.61 62.19 62.05 61.58 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 119 125 134 145 150 151 157 158 159 167 169 179 181 183 193 205 209 211 214 217 221 * Planning level cost estimates were developed for Tier 1 candidate locations only. Cost Estimates developed based on typical per-mile/foot construction costs for widening and are expressed in 2015 dollars and have not been field verified. Costs associated with acquiring right-of-way, widening culverts, and environmental mitigation are not included in estimates. Due to topographical or other physical constraints adjustment factors may need to be applied to the cost estimates to account for increased construction costs. During project implementation, the costs for each project may vary; therefore, during the design phase a detailed analysis should be performed to determine actual costs. Unless otherwise noted, the recommended projects are not yet funded. 69 Table 5.12: Two-Lane Highways - Ranking of Priority Candidate Locations in Prescott District (Continued) Route Direction BMP EMP Total Points Tier Level District Statewide Rank Rank S 087 U 060 S 260 S 087 S 087 S 087 SA089 S 087 SA089 Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both 266.0 106.0 211.2 256.0 276.0 274.0 334.0 284.0 342.0 268.0 108.0 213.4 258.0 278.0 276.0 336.0 286.0 343.7 61.28 60.82 60.79 59.80 59.59 58.68 57.24 56.20 56.04 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 225 229 231 245 247 262 278 286 289 S 089 Both 302.0 305.4 55.80 2 42 291 S 089 S 087 S 089 S 089 U 060 SA089 Both Both Both Both Both Both 276.0 282.0 296.0 305.4 60.0 340.0 276.2 284.0 298.0 308.0 62.3 342.0 55.75 55.09 52.35 50.68 49.71 47.99 3 3 3 3 3 3 43 44 45 46 47 48 293 302 322 332 337 364 Cost Estimate* * Planning level cost estimates were developed for Tier 1 candidate locations only. Cost Estimates developed based on typical per-mile/foot construction costs for widening and are expressed in 2015 dollars and have not been field verified. Costs associated with acquiring right-of-way, widening culverts, and environmental mitigation are not included in estimates. Due to topographical or other physical constraints adjustment factors may need to be applied to the cost estimates to account for increased construction costs. During project implementation, the costs for each project may vary; therefore, during the design phase a detailed analysis should be performed to determine actual costs. Unless otherwise noted, the recommended projects are not yet funded. 70 Figure 5.6: Two-Lane Highways - Priority Candidate Locations in Prescott District 71 Safford District Table 5.13 presents the list of candidate locations for shoulder improvements on two-lane highways in the Safford District. The candidate locations are ranked at the statewide and district level and grouped into three tiers – high, medium, and low priority. Table 5.14 summarizes the priority candidate improvement locations by tier. Figure 5.7 illustrates the prioritization of improvement projects within the District. Table 5.13: Two-Lane Highways - Candidate Shoulder Improvement Locations in Safford District Route Dir BMP EMP Both Both Both Both Both 379.4 388.0 154.0 293.5 299.0 386.0 398.0 174.0 293.7 309.0 S 080 S 080 Both Both 315.5 317.8 316.6 341.4 S 080 Both 346.0 415.0 S 082 S 090 Both Both 46.0 323.0 67.4 336.4 S 092 S 181 S 186 S 266 S 366 SS266 U 070 Both Both Both Both Both Both Both 353.6 38.0 334.5 104.0 114.0 123.0 288.0 354.2 64.0 359.3 124.0 143.0 126.0 300.0 U 070 U 070 U 070 Both Both Both 340.1 349.7 374.9 343.2 365.7 378.2 Safford District S 075 S 075 S 078 S 080 S 080 Priority Segments: (Segments that exceed LOS and Crash Rate Threshold)* MP293.5 - MP293.7 MP299 - MP301 MP301 - MP304 MP304 - MP306 MP306 - MP309 MP315.5 - MP316.6 MP317.8 - MP320 MP334 - MP336 MP336 - MP339 MP348 - MP350 MP352 - MP354 MP323 - MP326 MP326 - MP328 MP328 - MP330 MP330 - MP332 MP334 - MP336.4 MP353.6 - MP354.2 MP294 - MP296 MP296 - MP298 MP340.1 - MP343.2 72 Table 5.13: Two-Lane Highways - Candidate Shoulder Improvement Locations in Safford District (Continued) Route Dir BMP EMP Safford District U 191 Both 0.4 7.6 U 191 U 191 Both Both 114.5 130.8 117.2 144.1 U 191 U 191 U 191 U 191 U 191 U 191 U 191 UX191 Northbound Northbound Both Both Both Both Both Both 151.0 153.9 160.0 178.0 181.9 23.0 25.3 167.5 151.3 154.2 164.8 179.4 226.0 24.5 66.5 178.0 Priority Segments: (Segments that exceed LOS and Crash Rate Threshold)* MP2 - MP4 MP4 - MP6 MP6 - MP7.57 MP130.8 - MP134 MP138 - MP140 MP140 - MP142 MP142 - MP144.1 MP160 - MP162 MP167.5 - MP170 MP170 - MP172 UY191(1) Both 86.0 89.7 Priority segments represent segments that - Have LOS worse than C - Crash rate greater than “average statewide highway crash rate plus one standard deviation” District Rankings are Provided in the Following Table 73 Table 5.14: Two-Lane Highways - Ranking of Priority Candidate Locations in Safford District Route Direction BMP EMP Total Points Tier Level District Statewide Rank Rank Cost Estimate* U 191 Both 160.0 162.0 79.71 1 1 5 $2,160,000 S 080 Both 293.5 293.7 72.16 1 2 48 $171,000 S 080 S 080 S 090 S 092 U 070 S 080 S 080 S 090 UX191 S 090 S 080 S 090 UX191 S 090 S 080 Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both 315.5 306.0 323.0 353.6 340.1 304.0 299.0 334.0 167.5 330.0 348.0 328.0 170.0 326.0 334.0 316.6 309.0 326.0 354.2 343.2 306.0 301.0 336.4 170.0 332.0 350.0 330.0 172.0 328.0 336.0 64.74 64.16 63.41 62.77 61.90 61.71 60.96 60.32 60.31 59.80 58.71 57.97 57.52 56.48 56.38 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 160 176 196 208 218 220 228 236 237 246 261 267 276 284 285 U 191 Both 4.0 6.0 56.01 2 18 290 S 080 U 191 U 191 S 080 S 080 U 191 U 191 U 191 U 070 U 191 S 080 U 070 Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both 317.8 2.0 6.0 352.0 301.0 142.0 140.0 138.0 294.0 130.8 336.0 296.0 320.0 4.0 7.6 354.0 304.0 144.1 142.0 140.0 296.0 134.0 339.0 298.0 55.65 55.62 55.43 55.10 54.86 54.41 53.85 53.14 48.48 48.47 48.14 43.05 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 294 295 299 301 305 309 315 320 352 353 363 375 * Planning level cost estimates were developed for Tier 1 candidate locations only. Cost Estimates developed based on typical per-mile/foot construction costs for widening and are expressed in 2015 dollars and have not been field verified. Costs associated with acquiring right-of-way, widening culverts, and environmental mitigation are not included in estimates. Due to topographical or other physical constraints adjustment factors may need to be applied to the cost estimates to account for increased construction costs. During project implementation, the costs for each project may vary; therefore, during the design phase a detailed analysis should be performed to determine actual costs. Unless otherwise noted, the recommended projects are not yet funded. 74 Figure 5.7: Two-Lane Highways - Priority Candidate Locations in Safford District 75 Tucson District Table 5.15 presents the list of candidate locations for shoulder improvements on two-lane highways in the Tucson District. The candidate locations are ranked at the statewide and district level and grouped into three tiers – high, medium, and low priority. Table 5.16 summarizes the priority candidate improvement locations by tier. Figure 5.8 illustrates the prioritization of improvement projects within the District. Table 5.15: Two-Lane Highways - Candidate Shoulder Improvement Locations in Tucson District Route Dir BMP EMP Tucson District S 077 Both 103.8 114.0 S 079 S 079 S 079 S 082 S 082 S 083 S 084 S 084 S 085(1) S 085(1) S 086 S 086 S 086 Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Westbound 135.0 140.5 92.1 20.6 4.0 3.0 155.3 166.3 32.0 42.7 115.8 145.8 150.0 137.0 140.6 130.1 46.0 19.0 58.8 161.1 177.5 40.0 80.0 137.2 150.0 164.0 S 086 Both 53.0 76.6 Priority Segments: (Segments that exceed LOS and Crash Rate Threshold)* MP103.8 - MP106 MP106 - MP108 MP108 - MP110 MP135 - MP137 MP44 - MP46 MP126 - MP128.8 MP152 - MP154 MP154 - MP156 MP156 - MP158 MP158 - MP160 MP160 - MP162 MP53 - MP56 MP56 - MP58 MP58 - MP60 MP60 - MP62 MP62 - MP64 MP66 - MP68 MP68 - MP70 MP74 - MP76.6 76 Table 5.15: Two-Lane Highways - Candidate Shoulder Improvement Locations in Tucson District (Continued) Route Dir BMP EMP Tucson District S 086 Both 77.6 114.1 125.8 134.6 129.2 145.3 S 087 S 087 Both Both Priority Segments: (Segments that exceed LOS and Crash Rate Threshold)* MP80 - MP82 MP82 - MP84 MP84 - MP86 MP86 - MP88 MP88 - MP90 MP90 - MP92 MP112.8 - MP114.1 MP125.8 - MP129.2 MP134.61 - MP138 MP138 - MP140 MP140 - MP142 MP142 - MP145.3 S 187 Both 186.0 192.0 S 189 Both 0.0 0.3 MP0 - MP0.3 S 238 Both 24.0 42.0 S 238 Eastbound 42.0 44.2 S 286 Both 0.0 27.0 S 286 Eastbound 28.4 30.0 S 286 Both 30.0 45.0 S 287 Both 116.4 125.0 MP116.4 - MP118 S 287 Southbound 142.2 142.3 MP142.2 - MP142.3 S 289 Both 0.0 10.8 MP0 - MP2 S 386 Both 0.0 12.0 Priority segments represent segments that - Have LOS worse than C - Crash rate greater than “average statewide highway crash rate plus one standard deviation” District Rankings are Provided in the Following Table 77 Table 5.16: Two-Lane Highways - Ranking of Priority Candidate Locations in Tucson District Route Direction BMP EMP Total Points Tier Level District Statewide Rank Rank Cost Estimate* S 287 S 077 Both Both 116.4 106.0 118.0 108.0 73.35 72.44 1 1 1 3 42 47 $1,476,000 $1,980,000 S 077 Both 103.8 106.0 71.85 1 4 50 $3,776,850 S 083 S 077 S 287 S 086 S 087 S 087 S 087 S 086 S 087 S 087 S 079 S 189 S 086 S 086 S 086 S 086 S 086 S 086 S 086 Both Both Southbound Westbound Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both 44.0 108.0 142.2 152.0 134.6 138.0 142.0 126.0 140.0 125.8 135.0 0.0 56.0 66.0 60.0 53.0 80.0 74.0 68.0 46.0 110.0 142.3 154.0 138.0 140.0 145.3 128.8 142.0 129.2 137.0 0.3 58.0 68.0 62.0 56.0 82.0 76.6 70.0 66.75 65.77 65.38 64.30 63.32 63.01 62.30 62.07 61.81 60.53 59.91 59.58 59.05 57.77 57.76 57.67 57.62 57.61 57.12 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 131 141 148 171 200 204 213 216 219 233 242 248 254 271 272 273 274 275 279 S 086 Both 62.0 64.0 56.78 2 27 282 S 086 S 086 S 086 S 086 S 086 S 086 S 289 S 086 Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both 112.8 58.0 86.0 82.0 90.0 84.0 0.0 88.0 114.1 60.0 88.0 84.0 92.0 86.0 2.0 90.0 54.82 54.40 49.98 48.28 47.85 47.45 45.25 44.94 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 306 310 335 361 366 369 372 373 * Planning level cost estimates were developed for Tier 1 candidate locations only. Cost Estimates developed based on typical per-mile/foot construction costs for widening and are expressed in 2015 dollars and have not been field verified. Costs associated with acquiring right-of-way, widening culverts, and environmental mitigation are not included in estimates. Due to topographical or other physical constraints adjustment factors may need to be applied to the cost estimates to account for increased construction costs. During project implementation, the costs for each project may vary; therefore, during the design phase a detailed analysis should be performed to determine actual costs. Unless otherwise noted, the recommended projects are not yet funded. 78 Figure 5.8: Two-Lane Highways - Priority Candidate Locations in Tucson District 79 Yuma District Table 5.17 presents the list of candidate locations for shoulder improvements on two-lane highways in the Yuma District. The candidate locations are ranked at the statewide and district level and grouped into three tiers – high, medium, and low priority. Table 5.18 summarizes the priority candidate improvement locations by tier. Figure 5.9 illustrates the prioritization of improvement projects within the District. Table 5.17: Two-Lane Highways - Candidate Shoulder Improvement Locations in Yuma District Route Yuma District S 072 S 085(1) S 095 S 095 Dir BMP EMP Both Both Both Both 14.5 3.7 110.7 114.0 49.0 32.0 114.0 138.0 S 095 Northbound 138.0 138.0 142.3 S 095 Both 148.3 153.3 S 095 Both 154.8 162.0 S 195 U 060 U 060 U 095 U 095 Both Both Both Both Both 5.0 30.2 34.4 100.0 39.9 5.2 31.6 36.8 104.0 50.0 U 095 U 095 U 095 U 095 Northbound Both Both Northbound 50.0 52.0 59.0 98.0 52.0 58.0 98.0 100.0 Priority Segments: (Segments that exceed LOS and Crash Rate Threshold)* MP110.7 - MP114 MP114 - MP116 MP116 - MP118 MP118 - MP120 MP120 - MP122 MP128 - MP130 MP130 - MP132 MP132 - MP134 MP134 - MP136 MP136 - MP138 MP138 - MP140.5 MP140.7 - MP142.3 MP148.3 - MP150 MP150 - MP153.3 MP154.8 - MP158 MP158 - MP160 MP160 - MP162 MP39.9 - MP42 MP42 - MP44 MP44 - MP46 MP46 - MP48 Priority segments represent segments that - Have LOS worse than C - Crash rate greater than “average statewide highway crash rate plus one standard deviation” - District Rankings are provided in the following table 80 Table 5.18: Two-Lane Highways - Ranking of Priority Candidate Locations in Yuma District Route Direction BMP EMP Total Points Tier Level District Statewide Rank Rank Cost Estimate* S 095 S 095 S 095 U 095 S 095 U 095 S 095 S 095 S 095 S 095 U 095 Both Both Northbound Both Northbound Both Both Both Both Both Both 158.0 132.0 138.0 44.0 140.7 42.0 160.0 148.3 150.0 154.8 39.9 160.0 134.0 140.5 46.0 142.3 44.0 162.0 150.0 153.3 158.0 42.0 81.16 78.88 78.47 78.40 76.77 76.37 75.70 74.95 74.46 73.01 69.57 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1 7 10 12 20 21 27 30 33 44 79 $2,160,000 $1,800,000 $1,237,500 $1,800,000 $782,100 $1,876,378 $2,176,378 $420,750 $824,175 $3,618,470 $1,935,000 S 095 Both 134.0 136.0 68.49 1 12 114 $1,980,000 S 095 U 095 S 095 S 095 S 095 S 095 S 095 S 095 S 095 Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both 136.0 46.0 118.0 116.0 128.0 120.0 110.7 114.0 130.0 138.0 48.0 120.0 118.0 130.0 122.0 114.0 116.0 132.0 67.66 66.01 64.32 64.15 63.88 63.66 60.48 59.86 57.10 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 122 137 170 178 182 188 234 243 280 * Planning level cost estimates were developed for Tier 1 candidate locations only. Cost Estimates developed based on typical per-mile/foot construction costs for widening and are expressed in 2015 dollars and have not been field verified. Costs associated with acquiring right-of-way, widening culverts, and environmental mitigation are not included in estimates. Due to topographical or other physical constraints adjustment factors may need to be applied to the cost estimates to account for increased construction costs. During project implementation, the costs for each project may vary; therefore, during the design phase a detailed analysis should be performed to determine actual costs. Unless otherwise noted, the recommended projects are not yet funded. 81 Figure 5.9: Two-Lane Highways - Priority Candidate Locations in Yuma District 82 Statewide Priority Shoulder Improvement Locations Figure 5.10 illustrates the statewide location of the shoulder improvements. This section also includes project summary sheets for the Tier 1 locations. Figure 5.10: Two-Lane Highways - Statewide Priority Candidate Locations 83 S 095: MP 158 - MP 160 (Both Directions ) Statewide Rank: 1 Project Details Route: S 095 Direction: Both Directions BMP: 158.0 Tier Level: 1 EMP: 160.0 District Rank: 1 District: Yuma Left Shoulder: 2 to 6 FT County: La Paz Right Shoulder: 2 to 6 FT Roadway Characteristics Functional Class: Rural Principal Other Wideload Corridor: Yes Pullouts: No Ped/Bike Corridor: Yes Guardrail: Yes Terrain/Max Slope: 6.01 Terrain: Mountainous K-Factor: 11 Speed Limit(mph): 65 Future AADT: 6600 Existing AADT: 6086 Future LOS: D Existing LOS: D Directional Split: 60 / 40 Truck %: 21 Safety Analysis Total Number of Crashes: 22 Number of Fatal Crashes: 0 Injury & Possible Injury Crashes: 9 Non-Injury Crashes: 13 Equivalent Property Damage Value: 53 Crash Rate: 0.99 Source: Accident Location Information and Surveillance System (ALISS) 2008-2013 Construction Constraints/Feasibility General Location Paved shoulders in good condition; Roadside Assessment: cliffs may limit construction Cost Estimate: $2,160,000 Environmental Overview Land Ownership: Private Land, State Trust Land, Bureau of Land Mgmt. Potential Analysis of available GIS data found the following Environmental environmental constraints that may be present within a quarter-mile of the proposed project area: Lake Havasu Constraints: SRMA; Suitable Desert Tortoise Habitat; Wildlife Linkage Zone; Riparian Habitats; Impaired Waters; Wetlands;100-Yr Floodplain; Leaking underground storage tank; Critical Habitat Area 84 S 095: MP 164 - MP 166 (Both Directions ) Statewide Rank: 2 Project Details Route: S 095 Direction: Both Directions BMP: 164.0 Tier Level: 1 EMP: 166.0 District Rank: 1 Left Shoulder: 2 to 6 FT District: Kingman County: Mohave Right Shoulder: 2 to 6 FT Roadway Characteristics Functional Class: Rural Principal Other Wideload Corridor: Yes Pullouts: No Ped/Bike Corridor: Yes Guardrail: Yes Terrain/Max Slope: 2.11 Terrain: Mountainous K-Factor: 11 Speed Limit(mph): 65 Future AADT: 6600 Existing AADT: 5948 Future LOS: D Existing LOS: D Directional Split: 60 / 40 Truck %: 22 Safety Analysis Total Number of Crashes: 18 Number of Fatal Crashes: 2 Injury & Possible Injury Crashes: 7 Non-Injury Crashes: 9 Equivalent Property Damage Value: 58 Crash Rate: 0.83 Source: Accident Location Information and Surveillance System (ALISS) 2008-2013 Construction Constraints/Feasibility General Location Narrow shoulder; Paved portion of shoulders in Assessment: good condition; Ample room to widen roadway Cost Estimate: $2,160,000 Environmental Overview Land Ownership: State Trust Land, Bureau of Land Mgmt. Potential Analysis of available GIS data found the following Environmental environmental constraints that may be present within a quarter-mile of the proposed project area: Lake Havasu Constraints: SRMA; Suitable Desert Tortoise Habitat 85 S 095: MP 162 - MP 164 (Both Directions ) Statewide Rank: 3 Project Details Route: S 095 Direction: Both Directions BMP: 162.0 Tier Level: 1 EMP: 164.0 District Rank: 2 Left Shoulder: 2 to 6 FT District: Kingman County: Mohave Right Shoulder: 2 to 6 FT Roadway Characteristics Functional Class: Rural Principal Other Wideload Corridor: Yes Pullouts: No Ped/Bike Corridor: Yes Guardrail: Yes Terrain/Max Slope: 3.78 Terrain: Mountainous K-Factor: 11 Speed Limit(mph): 65 Future AADT: 6600 Existing AADT: 5948 Future LOS: D Existing LOS: D Directional Split: 60 / 40 Truck %: 22 Safety Analysis Total Number of Crashes: 17 Number of Fatal Crashes: 0 Injury & Possible Injury Crashes: 7 Non-Injury Crashes: 10 Equivalent Property Damage Value: 42 Crash Rate: 0.78 Source: Accident Location Information and Surveillance System (ALISS) 2008-2013 Construction Constraints/Feasibility General Location Narrow shoulder; Paved portion of shoulders in Assessment: good condition; Ample room to widen roadway Cost Estimate: $2,160,000 Environmental Overview Land Ownership: State Trust Land, Bureau of Land Mgmt. Potential Analysis of available GIS data found the following Environmental environmental constraints that may be present within a quarter-mile of the proposed project area: Lake Havasu Constraints: SRMA; Suitable Desert Tortoise Habitat; Riparian Habitats; Wetlands;100-Yr Floodplain; Critical Habitat Area 86 S 095: MP 166 - MP 168 (Both Directions ) Statewide Rank: 4 Project Details Route: S 095 Direction: Both Directions BMP: 166.0 Tier Level: 1 EMP: 168.0 District Rank: 3 Left Shoulder: 2 to 6 FT District: Kingman County: Mohave Right Shoulder: 2 to 6 FT Roadway Characteristics Functional Class: Rural Minor Collector Wideload Corridor: Yes Pullouts: No Ped/Bike Corridor: Yes Guardrail: Yes Terrain/Max Slope: 4.19 Terrain: Mountainous K-Factor: 9 Speed Limit(mph): 65 Future AADT: 8800 Existing AADT: 5948 Future LOS: D Existing LOS: D Directional Split: 59 / 41 Truck %: 22 Safety Analysis Total Number of Crashes: 10 Number of Fatal Crashes: 0 Injury & Possible Injury Crashes: 3 Non-Injury Crashes: 7 Equivalent Property Damage Value: 22 Crash Rate: 0.46 Source: Accident Location Information and Surveillance System (ALISS) 2008-2013 Construction Constraints/Feasibility General Location Narrow shoulder; Paved portion of shoulders in Assessment: good condition; Ample room to widen roadway Cost Estimate: $2,160,000 Environmental Overview Land Ownership: Bureau of Land Mgmt., Cattail Cove SP, State Trust Land Potential Analysis of available GIS data found the following Environmental environmental constraints that may be present within a quarter-mile of the proposed project area: Suitable Constraints: Desert Tortoise Habitat;100-Yr Floodplain 87 U 191: MP 160 - MP 162 (Both Directions ) Statewide Rank: 5 Project Details Route: U 191 Direction: Both Directions BMP: 160.0 Tier Level: 1 EMP: 162.0 District Rank: 1 District: Safford Left Shoulder: 2 to 6 FT County: Greenlee Right Shoulder: 2 to 6 FT Roadway Characteristics Functional Class: Rural Major Collector Wideload Corridor: Yes Pullouts: Yes Ped/Bike Corridor: Yes Guardrail: Yes Terrain/Max Slope: 6.6 Terrain: Mountainous K-Factor: 15 Speed Limit(mph): 55 Future AADT: 5300 Existing AADT: 6296 Future LOS: C Existing LOS: D Directional Split: 50 / 50 Truck %: 12 Safety Analysis Total Number of Crashes: 24 Number of Fatal Crashes: 1 Injury & Possible Injury Crashes: 6 Non-Injury Crashes: 17 Equivalent Property Damage Value: 52 Crash Rate: 1.04 Source: Accident Location Information and Surveillance System (ALISS) 2008-2013 Construction Constraints/Feasibility General Location Narrow shoulder; Roadside cliffs may limit Assessment: construction; Paved portion of shoulders in good condition Cost Estimate: $2,160,000 Environmental Overview Land Ownership: Private Land, State Trust Land, Bureau of Land Mgmt. Potential Analysis of available GIS data found the following Environmental environmental constraints that may be present within a quarter-mile of the proposed project area: Wildlife Constraints: Linkage Zone; Riparian Habitats; Impaired Waters; Wetlands;100-Yr Floodplain 88 S 064: MP 185.6 - MP 187.2 (Both Directions ) Statewide Rank: 6 Project Details Route: S 064 Direction: Both Directions BMP: 185.6 Tier Level: 1 EMP: 187.2 District Rank: 1 District: Flagstaff Left Shoulder: 2 to 6 FT County: Coconino Right Shoulder: 2 to 6 FT Roadway Characteristics Functional Class: Rural Principal Other Wideload Corridor: Yes Pullouts: No Ped/Bike Corridor: Yes Guardrail: No Terrain/Max Slope: 3.57 Terrain: Level K-Factor: 9 Speed Limit(mph): 65 Future AADT: 6900 Existing AADT: 7166 Future LOS: C Existing LOS: C Directional Split: 60 / 40 Truck %: 15 Safety Analysis Total Number of Crashes: 28 Number of Fatal Crashes: 1 Injury & Possible Injury Crashes: 6 Non-Injury Crashes: 21 Equivalent Property Damage Value: 60 Crash Rate: 1.32 Source: Accident Location Information and Surveillance System (ALISS) 2008-2013 Construction Constraints/Feasibility General Location Ample room to widen roadway; multiple Assessment: intersecting roadways; Paved shoulders in good condition; Segment has I-40 underpass with wide shoulders Cost Estimate: $1,458,000 Environmental Overview Land Ownership: Kaibab N.F Potential Analysis of available GIS data found the following Environmental environmental constraints that may be present within a quarter-mile of the proposed project area: No major Constraints: environmental constraints 89 S 095: MP 132 - MP 134 (Both Directions ) Statewide Rank: 7 Project Details Route: S 095 Direction: Both Directions BMP: 132.0 Tier Level: 1 EMP: 134.0 District Rank: 2 District: Yuma Left Shoulder: 2 to 6 FT County: La Paz Right Shoulder: 2 to 6 FT Roadway Characteristics Functional Class: Rural Principal Other Wideload Corridor: Yes Pullouts: No Ped/Bike Corridor: Yes Guardrail: Yes Terrain/Max Slope: 2.22 Terrain: Level K-Factor: 15 Speed Limit(mph): 55 Future AADT: 6900 Existing AADT: 5062 Future LOS: D Existing LOS: D Directional Split: 60 / 40 Truck %: 16 Safety Analysis Total Number of Crashes: 6 Number of Fatal Crashes: 0 Injury & Possible Injury Crashes: 1 Non-Injury Crashes: 5 Equivalent Property Damage Value: 7 Crash Rate: 0.32 Source: Accident Location Information and Surveillance System (ALISS) 2008-2013 Construction Constraints/Feasibility General Location Paved portion of shoulders in good condition; Assessment: Unpaved clear zone adjacent to shoulder; Ample room to widen roadway; Multiple intersecting roadways Cost Estimate: $1,800,000 Environmental Overview Land Ownership: Private Land, State Trust Land Potential Analysis of available GIS data found the following Environmental environmental constraints that may be present within a quarter-mile of the proposed project area: Wildlife Constraints: Linkage Zone;100-Yr Floodplain 90 S 264: MP 458 - MP 460 (Both Directions ) Statewide Rank: 8 Project Details Route: S 264 Direction: Both Directions BMP: 458.0 Tier Level: 1 EMP: 460.0 District Rank: 1 Left Shoulder: Less than 2 FT District: Holbrook County: Apache Right Shoulder: Less than 2 FT Roadway Characteristics Functional Class: Rural Minor Arterial Wideload Corridor: Yes Pullouts: No Ped/Bike Corridor: Yes Guardrail: No Terrain/Max Slope: 5.96 Terrain: Rolling K-Factor: 10 Speed Limit(mph): 65 Future AADT: 5500 Existing AADT: 5094 Future LOS: D Existing LOS: D Directional Split: 60 / 40 Truck %: 22 Safety Analysis Total Number of Crashes: 3 Number of Fatal Crashes: 2 Injury & Possible Injury Crashes: 0 Non-Injury Crashes: 1 Equivalent Property Damage Value: 25 Crash Rate: 0.16 Source: Accident Location Information and Surveillance System (ALISS) 2008-2013 Construction Constraints/Feasibility General Location No shoulder; Ample room to widen roadway Assessment: Cost Estimate: $3,465,000 Environmental Overview Land Ownership: Navajo Indian Res. Potential Analysis of available GIS data found the following Environmental environmental constraints that may be present within a quarter-mile of the proposed project area: No major Constraints: environmental constraints 91 S 264: MP 456 - MP 458 (Both Directions ) Statewide Rank: 9 Project Details Route: S 264 Direction: Both Directions BMP: 456.0 Tier Level: 1 EMP: 458.0 District Rank: 2 Left Shoulder: Less than 2 FT District: Holbrook County: Apache Right Shoulder: Less than 2 FT Roadway Characteristics Functional Class: Rural Minor Arterial Wideload Corridor: Yes Pullouts: No Ped/Bike Corridor: Yes Guardrail: No Terrain/Max Slope: 4.49 Terrain: Rolling K-Factor: 10 Speed Limit(mph): 65 Future AADT: 5500 Existing AADT: 5094 Future LOS: D Existing LOS: D Directional Split: 60 / 40 Truck %: 22 Safety Analysis Total Number of Crashes: 4 Number of Fatal Crashes: 0 Injury & Possible Injury Crashes: 3 Non-Injury Crashes: 1 Equivalent Property Damage Value: 7 Crash Rate: 0.22 Source: Accident Location Information and Surveillance System (ALISS) 2008-2013 Construction Constraints/Feasibility General Location No shoulder; Ample room to widen roadway Assessment: Cost Estimate: $3,465,000 Environmental Overview Land Ownership: Navajo Indian Res. Potential Analysis of available GIS data found the following Environmental environmental constraints that may be present within a quarter-mile of the proposed project area: No major Constraints: environmental constraints 92 S 095: MP 138 - MP 140.5 (Northbound ) Statewide Rank: 10 Project Details Route: S 095 Direction: Northbound BMP: 138.0 Tier Level: 1 EMP: 140.5 District Rank: 3 District: Yuma Left Shoulder: 2 to 6 FT County: La Paz Right Shoulder: 2 to 6 FT Roadway Characteristics Functional Class: Rural Principal Other Wideload Corridor: Yes Pullouts: No Ped/Bike Corridor: Yes Guardrail: No Terrain/Max Slope: 3.3 Terrain: Rolling K-Factor: 15 Speed Limit(mph): 55 Future AADT: 6900 Existing AADT: 5062 Future LOS: D Existing LOS: D Directional Split: 60 / 40 Truck %: 16 Safety Analysis Total Number of Crashes: 7 Number of Fatal Crashes: 0 Injury & Possible Injury Crashes: 3 Non-Injury Crashes: 4 Equivalent Property Damage Value: 14 Crash Rate: 0.3 Source: Accident Location Information and Surveillance System (ALISS) 2008-2013 Construction Constraints/Feasibility General Location Paved shoulders in good condition; Unpaved Assessment: clear zone adjacent to shoulder, Ample room to widen roadway Cost Estimate: $1,237,500 Environmental Overview Land Ownership: Private Land, State Trust Land Potential Analysis of available GIS data found the following Environmental environmental constraints that may be present within a quarter-mile of the proposed project area: Wildlife Constraints: Linkage Zone 93 S 264: MP 460 - MP 462 (Both Directions ) Statewide Rank: 11 Project Details Route: S 264 Direction: Both Directions BMP: 460.0 Tier Level: 1 EMP: 462.0 District Rank: 3 Left Shoulder: Less than 2 FT District: Holbrook County: Apache Right Shoulder: Less than 2 FT Roadway Characteristics Functional Class: Rural Minor Arterial Wideload Corridor: Yes Pullouts: No Ped/Bike Corridor: Yes Guardrail: No Terrain/Max Slope: 4.91 Terrain: Rolling K-Factor: 10 Speed Limit(mph): 65 Future AADT: 5500 Existing AADT: 5094 Future LOS: D Existing LOS: C Directional Split: 60 / 40 Truck %: 22 Safety Analysis Total Number of Crashes: 4 Number of Fatal Crashes: 1 Injury & Possible Injury Crashes: 1 Non-Injury Crashes: 2 Equivalent Property Damage Value: 16 Crash Rate: 0.22 Source: Accident Location Information and Surveillance System (ALISS) 2008-2013 Construction Constraints/Feasibility General Location No shoulder; Ample room to widen roadway; Assessment: Multiple intersecting roadways Cost Estimate: $3,465,000 Environmental Overview Land Ownership: Navajo Indian Res. Potential Analysis of available GIS data found the following Environmental environmental constraints that may be present within a quarter-mile of the proposed project area: No major Constraints: environmental constraints 94 U 095: MP 44 - MP 46 (Both Directions ) Statewide Rank: 12 Project Details Route: U 095 Direction: Both Directions BMP: 44.0 Tier Level: 1 EMP: 46.0 District Rank: 4 District: Yuma Left Shoulder: 2 to 6 FT County: Yuma Right Shoulder: 2 to 6 FT Roadway Characteristics Functional Class: Rural Principal Other Wideload Corridor: Yes Pullouts: No Ped/Bike Corridor: Yes Guardrail: No Terrain/Max Slope: 1.14 Terrain: Level K-Factor: 14 Speed Limit(mph): 65 Future AADT: 8600 Existing AADT: 7880 Future LOS: D Existing LOS: D Directional Split: 50 / 50 Truck %: 17 Safety Analysis Total Number of Crashes: 11 Number of Fatal Crashes: 0 Injury & Possible Injury Crashes: 3 Non-Injury Crashes: 8 Equivalent Property Damage Value: 23 Crash Rate: 0.38 Source: Accident Location Information and Surveillance System (ALISS) 2008-2013 Construction Constraints/Feasibility General Location Ample room to widen roadway; Paved shoulders Assessment: in good condition Cost Estimate: $1,800,000 Environmental Overview Land Ownership: Yuma Test Range Potential Analysis of available GIS data found the following Environmental environmental constraints that may be present within a quarter-mile of the proposed project area: Superfund Constraints: site; PM10 Nonattainment Area 95 S 264: MP 464 - MP 465.7 (Both Directions ) Statewide Rank: 13 Project Details Route: S 264 Direction: Both Directions BMP: 464.0 Tier Level: 1 EMP: 465.7 District Rank: 4 Left Shoulder: Less than 2 FT District: Holbrook County: Apache Right Shoulder: Less than 2 FT Roadway Characteristics Functional Class: Rural Minor Arterial Wideload Corridor: Yes Pullouts: No Ped/Bike Corridor: Yes Guardrail: No Terrain/Max Slope: 2.33 Terrain: Rolling K-Factor: 10 Speed Limit(mph): 65 Future AADT: 5500 Existing AADT: 5094 Future LOS: D Existing LOS: D Directional Split: 60 / 40 Truck %: 22 Safety Analysis Total Number of Crashes: 1 Number of Fatal Crashes: 0 Injury & Possible Injury Crashes: 1 Non-Injury Crashes: 0 Equivalent Property Damage Value: 4 Crash Rate: 0.06 Source: Accident Location Information and Surveillance System (ALISS) 2008-2013 Construction Constraints/Feasibility General Location No shoulder; Ample room to widen roadway; Assessment: Multiple intersecting roadways Cost Estimate: $2,945,250 Environmental Overview Land Ownership: Navajo Indian Res. Potential Analysis of available GIS data found the following Environmental environmental constraints that may be present within a quarter-mile of the proposed project area: No major Constraints: environmental constraints 96 S 264: MP 454 - MP 456 (Both Directions ) Statewide Rank: 14 Project Details Route: S 264 Direction: Both Directions BMP: 454.0 Tier Level: 1 EMP: 456.0 District Rank: 5 Left Shoulder: Less than 2 FT District: Holbrook County: Apache Right Shoulder: Less than 2 FT Roadway Characteristics Functional Class: Rural Minor Arterial Wideload Corridor: Yes Pullouts: No Ped/Bike Corridor: Yes Guardrail: No Terrain/Max Slope: 3.25 Terrain: Rolling K-Factor: 10 Speed Limit(mph): 65 Future AADT: 5500 Existing AADT: 5094 Future LOS: C Existing LOS: C Directional Split: 60 / 40 Truck %: 22 Safety Analysis Total Number of Crashes: 6 Number of Fatal Crashes: 1 Injury & Possible Injury Crashes: 2 Non-Injury Crashes: 3 Equivalent Property Damage Value: 19 Crash Rate: 0.32 Source: Accident Location Information and Surveillance System (ALISS) 2008-2013 Construction Constraints/Feasibility General Location No shoulder; Ample room to widen roadway; Assessment: Multiple intersecting roadways Cost Estimate: $3,465,000 Environmental Overview Land Ownership: Navajo Indian Res. Potential Analysis of available GIS data found the following Environmental environmental constraints that may be present within a quarter-mile of the proposed project area: No major Constraints: environmental constraints 97 S 264: MP 462 - MP 464 (Both Directions ) Statewide Rank: 15 Project Details Route: S 264 Direction: Both Directions BMP: 462.0 Tier Level: 1 EMP: 464.0 District Rank: 6 Left Shoulder: Less than 2 FT District: Holbrook County: Apache Right Shoulder: Less than 2 FT Roadway Characteristics Functional Class: Rural Minor Arterial Wideload Corridor: Yes Pullouts: No Ped/Bike Corridor: Yes Guardrail: No Terrain/Max Slope: 2.16 Terrain: Rolling K-Factor: 10 Speed Limit(mph): 65 Future AADT: 5500 Existing AADT: 5094 Future LOS: C Existing LOS: C Directional Split: 60 / 40 Truck %: 22 Safety Analysis Total Number of Crashes: 3 Number of Fatal Crashes: 1 Injury & Possible Injury Crashes: 0 Non-Injury Crashes: 2 Equivalent Property Damage Value: 14 Crash Rate: 0.16 Source: Accident Location Information and Surveillance System (ALISS) 2008-2013 Construction Constraints/Feasibility General Location Unpaved shoulder; Ample room to widen Assessment: roadway; Multiple intersecting roadways Cost Estimate: $3,465,000 Environmental Overview Land Ownership: Navajo Indian Res. Potential Analysis of available GIS data found the following Environmental environmental constraints that may be present within a quarter-mile of the proposed project area: No major Constraints: environmental constraints 98 S 264: MP 452 - MP 454 (Both Directions ) Statewide Rank: 16 Project Details Route: S 264 Direction: Both Directions BMP: 452.0 Tier Level: 1 EMP: 454.0 District Rank: 7 Left Shoulder: Less than 2 FT District: Holbrook County: Apache Right Shoulder: Less than 2 FT Roadway Characteristics Functional Class: Rural Minor Arterial Wideload Corridor: Yes Pullouts: No Ped/Bike Corridor: Yes Guardrail: No Terrain/Max Slope: 2.98 Terrain: Rolling K-Factor: 10 Speed Limit(mph): 65 Future AADT: 5500 Existing AADT: 5094 Future LOS: C Existing LOS: C Directional Split: 60 / 40 Truck %: 22 Safety Analysis Total Number of Crashes: 1 Number of Fatal Crashes: 0 Injury & Possible Injury Crashes: 1 Non-Injury Crashes: 0 Equivalent Property Damage Value: 7 Crash Rate: 0.05 Source: Accident Location Information and Surveillance System (ALISS) 2008-2013 Construction Constraints/Feasibility General Location Ample room to widen roadway; Unpaved Assessment: shoulder; Multiple intersecting roadways Cost Estimate: $3,465,000 Environmental Overview Land Ownership: Navajo Indian Res. Potential Analysis of available GIS data found the following Environmental environmental constraints that may be present within a quarter-mile of the proposed project area: No major Constraints: environmental constraints 99 S 264: MP 442 - MP 444 (Both Directions ) Statewide Rank: 17 Project Details Route: S 264 Direction: Both Directions BMP: 442.0 Tier Level: 1 EMP: 444.0 District Rank: 8 Left Shoulder: Less than 2 FT District: Holbrook County: Apache Right Shoulder: 2 to 6 FT Roadway Characteristics Functional Class: Rural Minor Arterial Wideload Corridor: Yes Pullouts: No Ped/Bike Corridor: Yes Guardrail: No Terrain/Max Slope: 4.24 Terrain: Rolling K-Factor: 10 Speed Limit(mph): 55 Future AADT: 5700 Existing AADT: 6223 Future LOS: C Existing LOS: C Directional Split: 60 / 40 Truck %: 7 Safety Analysis Total Number of Crashes: 0 Number of Fatal Crashes: 0 Injury & Possible Injury Crashes: 0 Non-Injury Crashes: 0 Equivalent Property Damage Value: 0 Crash Rate: 0 Source: Accident Location Information and Surveillance System (ALISS) 2008-2013 Construction Constraints/Feasibility General Location No shoulder; Ample room to widen roadway; Assessment: Multiple intersecting roadways Cost Estimate: $3,465,000 Environmental Overview Land Ownership: Navajo Indian Res. Potential Analysis of available GIS data found the following Environmental environmental constraints that may be present within a quarter-mile of the proposed project area: No major Constraints: environmental constraints 100 U 060: MP 236.2 - MP 238 (Both Directions ) Statewide Rank: 18 Project Details Route: U 060 Direction: Both Directions BMP: 236.2 Tier Level: 1 EMP: 238.0 District Rank: 1 Left Shoulder: Less than 2 FT District: Globe County: Gila Right Shoulder: Less than 2 FT Roadway Characteristics Functional Class: Rural Principal Other Wideload Corridor: Yes Pullouts: No Ped/Bike Corridor: Yes Guardrail: Yes Terrain/Max Slope: 5.88 Terrain: Mountainous K-Factor: 8 Speed Limit(mph): 55 Future AADT: 8200 Existing AADT: 7335 Future LOS: C Existing LOS: C Directional Split: 51 / 49 Truck %: 11 Safety Analysis Total Number of Crashes: 52 Number of Fatal Crashes: 0 Injury & Possible Injury Crashes: 18 Non-Injury Crashes: 34 Equivalent Property Damage Value: 99 Crash Rate: 2.12 Source: Accident Location Information and Surveillance System (ALISS) 2008-2013 Construction Constraints/Feasibility General Location No shoulder; Roadside slopes may limit Assessment: construction Cost Estimate: $3,527,992 Environmental Overview Land Ownership: Tonto N.F, Private Land Potential Analysis of available GIS data found the following Environmental environmental constraints that may be present within a quarter-mile of the proposed project area: Wildlife Constraints: Linkage Zone; Impaired Waters; Wetlands; PM10 Nonattainment Area 101 U 060: MP 238 - MP 240 (Both Directions ) Statewide Rank: 19 Project Details Route: U 060 Direction: Both Directions BMP: 238.0 Tier Level: 1 EMP: 240.0 District Rank: 2 Left Shoulder: 2 to 6 FT District: Globe County: Gila Right Shoulder: 2 to 6 FT Roadway Characteristics Functional Class: Rural Principal Other Wideload Corridor: Yes Pullouts: Yes Ped/Bike Corridor: Yes Guardrail: Yes Terrain/Max Slope: 6.05 Terrain: Mountainous K-Factor: 8 Speed Limit(mph): 55 Future AADT: 8200 Existing AADT: 7335 Future LOS: C Existing LOS: C Directional Split: 51 / 49 Truck %: 11 Safety Analysis Total Number of Crashes: 39 Number of Fatal Crashes: 1 Injury & Possible Injury Crashes: 11 Non-Injury Crashes: 27 Equivalent Property Damage Value: 86 Crash Rate: 1.46 Source: Accident Location Information and Surveillance System (ALISS) 2008-2013 Construction Constraints/Feasibility General Location Bridges on segment require widening; Roadside Assessment: slopes may limit constrution; Paved shoulders in good condition Cost Estimate: $3,433,622 Environmental Overview Land Ownership: Tonto N.F, Private Land Potential Analysis of available GIS data found the following Environmental environmental constraints that may be present within a quarter-mile of the proposed project area: Wildlife Constraints: Linkage Zone; Impaired Waters; Wetlands; PM10 Nonattainment Area 102 S 095: MP 140.7 - MP 142.3 (Northbound ) Statewide Rank: 20 Project Details Route: S 095 Direction: Northbound BMP: 140.7 Tier Level: 1 EMP: 142.3 District Rank: 5 District: Yuma Left Shoulder: 2 to 6 FT County: La Paz Right Shoulder: 2 to 6 FT Roadway Characteristics Functional Class: Rural Principal Other Wideload Corridor: Yes Pullouts: No Ped/Bike Corridor: Yes Guardrail: No Terrain/Max Slope: 3.07 Terrain: Rolling K-Factor: 10 Speed Limit(mph): 55 Future AADT: 7000 Existing AADT: 7453 Future LOS: C Existing LOS: C Directional Split: 60 / 40 Truck %: 12 Safety Analysis Total Number of Crashes: 3 Number of Fatal Crashes: 0 Injury & Possible Injury Crashes: 0 Non-Injury Crashes: 3 Equivalent Property Damage Value: 3 Crash Rate: 0.14 Source: Accident Location Information and Surveillance System (ALISS) 2008-2013 Construction Constraints/Feasibility General Location Unpaved shoulder; Ample room to widen Assessment: roadway Cost Estimate: $782,100 Environmental Overview Land Ownership: Prescott N.F, Private Land Potential Analysis of available GIS data found the following Environmental environmental constraints that may be present within a quarter-mile of the proposed project area: No major Constraints: environmental constraints 103 U 095: MP 42 - MP 44 (Both Directions ) Statewide Rank: 21 Project Details Route: U 095 Direction: Both Directions BMP: 42.0 Tier Level: 1 EMP: 44.0 District Rank: 6 District: Yuma Left Shoulder: 2 to 6 FT County: Yuma Right Shoulder: 2 to 6 FT Roadway Characteristics Functional Class: Rural Principal Other Wideload Corridor: Yes Pullouts: No Ped/Bike Corridor: Yes Guardrail: Yes Terrain/Max Slope: 1.98 Terrain: Level K-Factor: 14 Speed Limit(mph): 65 Future AADT: 8600 Existing AADT: 7880 Future LOS: D Existing LOS: D Directional Split: 50 / 50 Truck %: 17 Safety Analysis Total Number of Crashes: 9 Number of Fatal Crashes: 1 Injury & Possible Injury Crashes: 2 Non-Injury Crashes: 6 Equivalent Property Damage Value: 29 Crash Rate: 0.31 Source: Accident Location Information and Surveillance System (ALISS) 2008-2013 Construction Constraints/Feasibility General Location Narrow shoulders; Paved shoulders in good Assessment: condition; Ample room to widen roadway Cost Estimate: $1,876,378 Environmental Overview Land Ownership: Yuma Test Range Potential Analysis of available GIS data found the following Environmental environmental constraints that may be present within a quarter-mile of the proposed project area: Greater Constraints: Yuma Dstination SRMA; Wildlife Linkage Zone;100-Yr Floodplain; Superfund site; PM10 Nonattainment Area 104 U 060: MP 350 - MP 352.8 (Both Directions ) Statewide Rank: 22 Project Details Route: U 060 Direction: Both Directions BMP: 350.0 Tier Level: 1 EMP: 352.8 District Rank: 3 Left Shoulder: 2 to 6 FT District: Globe County: Apache/Nava Right Shoulder: 2 to 6 FT Roadway Characteristics Functional Class: Rural Principal Other Wideload Corridor: Yes Pullouts: No Ped/Bike Corridor: Yes Guardrail: No Terrain/Max Slope: 2.73 Terrain: Rolling K-Factor: 8 Speed Limit(mph): 65 Future AADT: 8300 Existing AADT: 5215 Future LOS: C Existing LOS: C Directional Split: 50 / 50 Truck %: 10 Safety Analysis Total Number of Crashes: 43 Number of Fatal Crashes: 1 Injury & Possible Injury Crashes: 11 Non-Injury Crashes: 31 Equivalent Property Damage Value: 86 Crash Rate: 1.61 Source: Accident Location Information and Surveillance System (ALISS) 2008-2013 Construction Constraints/Feasibility General Location Narrow shoulder; Ample room to widen roadway Assessment: Cost Estimate: $2,772,000 Environmental Overview Land Ownership: Apache-Sitgreaves N.F Potential Analysis of available GIS data found the following Environmental environmental constraints that may be present within a quarter-mile of the proposed project area: Wildlife Constraints: Linkage Zone; Wetlands;100-Yr Floodplain 105 SA089: MP 374 - MP 376 (Both Directions ) Statewide Rank: 23 Project Details Route: SA089 Direction: Both Directions BMP: 374.0 Tier Level: 1 EMP: 376.0 District Rank: 2 District: Flagstaff Left Shoulder: Less than 2 FT County: Coconino Right Shoulder: Less than 2 FT Roadway Characteristics Functional Class: Rural Minor Arterial Wideload Corridor: No Pullouts: Yes Ped/Bike Corridor: Yes Guardrail: No Terrain/Max Slope: 5.97 Terrain: Mountainous K-Factor: 11 Speed Limit(mph): 40 Future AADT: 7100 Existing AADT: 5024 Future LOS: C Existing LOS: C Directional Split: 60 / 40 Truck %: 4 Safety Analysis Total Number of Crashes: 83 Number of Fatal Crashes: 1 Injury & Possible Injury Crashes: 16 Non-Injury Crashes: 66 Equivalent Property Damage Value: 141 Crash Rate: 4.53 Source: Accident Location Information and Surveillance System (ALISS) 2008-2013 Construction Constraints/Feasibility General Location BMP 374.84 NB (southern section is curbed); Assessment: After 374.84 segment goes through Oak Creek Canyon with steep roadside cliffs Cost Estimate: $3,780,000 Environmental Overview Land Ownership: Coconino N.F Potential Analysis of available GIS data found the following Environmental environmental constraints that may be present within a quarter-mile of the proposed project area: Wildlife Constraints: Linkage Zone; Riparian Habitats; Outstanding Arizona Water; Impaired Waters; Wetlands 106 U 060: MP 348 - MP 350 (Both Directions ) Statewide Rank: 24 Project Details Route: U 060 Direction: Both Directions BMP: 348.0 Tier Level: 1 EMP: 350.0 District Rank: 4 District: Globe Left Shoulder: 2 to 6 FT County: Navajo Right Shoulder: 2 to 6 FT Roadway Characteristics Functional Class: Rural Principal Other Wideload Corridor: Yes Pullouts: No Ped/Bike Corridor: Yes Guardrail: No Terrain/Max Slope: 3.26 Terrain: Rolling K-Factor: 8 Speed Limit(mph): 65 Future AADT: 8300 Existing AADT: 5215 Future LOS: C Existing LOS: C Directional Split: 50 / 50 Truck %: 10 Safety Analysis Total Number of Crashes: 20 Number of Fatal Crashes: 1 Injury & Possible Injury Crashes: 4 Non-Injury Crashes: 15 Equivalent Property Damage Value: 44 Crash Rate: 1.05 Source: Accident Location Information and Surveillance System (ALISS) 2008-2013 Construction Constraints/Feasibility General Location Narrow/Unpaved shoulder; Ample room to Assessment: widen roadway; Multiple intersecting roadways Cost Estimate: $2,030,394 Environmental Overview Land Ownership: Apache-Sitgreaves N.F Potential Analysis of available GIS data found the following Environmental environmental constraints that may be present within a quarter-mile of the proposed project area: Wetlands Constraints: 107 U 060: MP 342.5 - MP 344 (Both Directions ) Statewide Rank: 25 Project Details Route: U 060 Direction: Both Directions BMP: 342.5 Tier Level: 1 EMP: 344.0 District Rank: 5 District: Globe Left Shoulder: 2 to 6 FT County: Navajo Right Shoulder: 2 to 6 FT Roadway Characteristics Functional Class: Rural Principal Other Wideload Corridor: Yes Pullouts: No Ped/Bike Corridor: Yes Guardrail: No Terrain/Max Slope: 2.08 Terrain: Rolling K-Factor: 9 Speed Limit(mph): 55 Future AADT: 12000 Existing AADT: 7554 Future LOS: D Existing LOS: D Directional Split: 60 / 40 Truck %: 11 Safety Analysis Total Number of Crashes: 11 Number of Fatal Crashes: 0 Injury & Possible Injury Crashes: 3 Non-Injury Crashes: 8 Equivalent Property Damage Value: 21 Crash Rate: 0.53 Source: Accident Location Information and Surveillance System (ALISS) 2008-2013 Construction Constraints/Feasibility General Location Narrow/Unpaved shoulder; Ample room to Assessment: widen roadway; Multiple intersecting roadways Cost Estimate: $1,535,394 Environmental Overview Land Ownership: Apache-Sitgreaves N.F, Private Land Potential Analysis of available GIS data found the following Environmental environmental constraints that may be present within a quarter-mile of the proposed project area: Constraints: Wetlands;100-Yr Floodplain; Leaking underground storage tank 108 S 264: MP 450 - MP 452 (Both Directions ) Statewide Rank: 26 Project Details Route: S 264 Direction: Both Directions BMP: 450.0 Tier Level: 1 EMP: 452.0 District Rank: 9 Left Shoulder: Less than 2 FT District: Holbrook County: Apache Right Shoulder: Less than 2 FT Roadway Characteristics Functional Class: Rural Minor Arterial Wideload Corridor: Yes Pullouts: No Ped/Bike Corridor: Yes Guardrail: Yes Terrain/Max Slope: 2.98 Terrain: Rolling K-Factor: 10 Speed Limit(mph): 65 Future AADT: 5500 Existing AADT: 5094 Future LOS: C Existing LOS: C Directional Split: 60 / 40 Truck %: 22 Safety Analysis Total Number of Crashes: 5 Number of Fatal Crashes: 3 Injury & Possible Injury Crashes: 1 Non-Injury Crashes: 1 Equivalent Property Damage Value: 39 Crash Rate: 0.27 Source: Accident Location Information and Surveillance System (ALISS) 2008-2013 Construction Constraints/Feasibility General Location Unpaved shoulder; Ample room to widen Assessment: roadway; Multiple intersecting roadways; Bridge on segment requires widening Cost Estimate: $3,781,470 Environmental Overview Land Ownership: Navajo Indian Res. Potential Analysis of available GIS data found the following Environmental environmental constraints that may be present within a quarter-mile of the proposed project area: No major Constraints: environmental constraints 109 S 095: MP 160 - MP 162 (Both Directions ) Statewide Rank: 27 Project Details Route: S 095 Direction: Both Directions BMP: 160.0 Tier Level: 1 EMP: 162.0 District Rank: 7 Left Shoulder: 6 to 8 FT District: Yuma County: La Paz/Maric Right Shoulder: 6 to 8 FT Roadway Characteristics Functional Class: Rural Principal Other Wideload Corridor: Yes Pullouts: No Ped/Bike Corridor: Yes Guardrail: Yes Terrain/Max Slope: 3.04 Terrain: Mountainous K-Factor: 11 Speed Limit(mph): 65 Future AADT: 6600 Existing AADT: 5948 Future LOS: D Existing LOS: D Directional Split: 60 / 40 Truck %: 22 Safety Analysis Total Number of Crashes: 21 Number of Fatal Crashes: 0 Injury & Possible Injury Crashes: 6 Non-Injury Crashes: 15 Equivalent Property Damage Value: 35 Crash Rate: 0.97 Source: Accident Location Information and Surveillance System (ALISS) 2008-2013 Construction Constraints/Feasibility General Location Narrow shoulder; Bridge on segment; Paved Assessment: shoulders in good condition; Roadside slopes may limit construction Cost Estimate: $2,176,378 Environmental Overview Land Ownership: Bureau of Land Mgmt., Havasu NWR Potential Analysis of available GIS data found the following Environmental environmental constraints that may be present within a quarter-mile of the proposed project area: Lake Havasu Constraints: SRMA; Suitable Desert Tortoise Habitat; Wildlife Linkage Zone; Riparian Habitats; Wetlands;100-Yr Floodplain; Critical Habitat Area 110 S 064: MP 187.9 - MP 190 (Both Directions ) Statewide Rank: 28 Project Details Route: S 064 Direction: Both Directions BMP: 187.9 Tier Level: 1 EMP: 190.0 District Rank: 3 District: Flagstaff Left Shoulder: 2 to 6 FT County: Coconino Right Shoulder: 2 to 6 FT Roadway Characteristics Functional Class: Rural Principal Other Wideload Corridor: No Pullouts: No Ped/Bike Corridor: Yes Guardrail: No Terrain/Max Slope: 3.93 Terrain: Level K-Factor: 9 Speed Limit(mph): 65 Future AADT: 6900 Existing AADT: 7166 Future LOS: D Existing LOS: D Directional Split: 60 / 40 Truck %: 15 Safety Analysis Total Number of Crashes: 30 Number of Fatal Crashes: 0 Injury & Possible Injury Crashes: 5 Non-Injury Crashes: 25 Equivalent Property Damage Value: 48 Crash Rate: 1.1 Source: Accident Location Information and Surveillance System (ALISS) 2008-2013 Construction Constraints/Feasibility General Location Unpaved clear zone adjacent to shoulder; Paved Assessment: portion of shoulders in good condition; Ample room to widen roadway; Multiple intersecting roadways; Bridge on segment requires widening Cost Estimate: $1,881,000 Environmental Overview Land Ownership: Kaibab N.F, Private Land Potential Analysis of available GIS data found the following Environmental environmental constraints that may be present within a quarter-mile of the proposed project area: Wildlife Constraints: Linkage Zone; Wetlands 111 U 060: MP 240 - MP 241.7 (Both Directions ) Statewide Rank: 29 Project Details Route: U 060 Direction: Both Directions BMP: 240.0 Tier Level: 1 EMP: 241.7 District Rank: 6 Left Shoulder: 6 to 8 FT District: Globe County: Gila Right Shoulder: 6 to 8 FT Roadway Characteristics Functional Class: Rural Local Wideload Corridor: Yes Pullouts: No Ped/Bike Corridor: Yes Guardrail: Yes Terrain/Max Slope: 5.94 Terrain: Mountainous K-Factor: 8 Speed Limit(mph): 55 Future AADT: 8200 Existing AADT: 7335 Future LOS: C Existing LOS: C Directional Split: 51 / 49 Truck %: 11 Safety Analysis Total Number of Crashes: 29 Number of Fatal Crashes: 0 Injury & Possible Injury Crashes: 14 Non-Injury Crashes: 15 Equivalent Property Damage Value: 74 Crash Rate: 1.3 Source: Accident Location Information and Surveillance System (ALISS) 2008-2013 Construction Constraints/Feasibility General Location No Shoulder; Roadside slopes may limit Assessment: construction (MP 240.9 - 240.0); Roadside cliffs limit construction (MP 241 - 241.67) Cost Estimate: $554,050 Environmental Overview Land Ownership: Tonto N.F, Private Land Potential Analysis of available GIS data found the following Environmental environmental constraints that may be present within a quarter-mile of the proposed project area: Wildlife Constraints: Linkage Zone; Superfund site; PM10 Nonattainment Area 112 S 095: MP 148.3 - MP 150 (Both Directions ) Statewide Rank: 30 Project Details Route: S 095 Direction: Both Directions BMP: 148.3 Tier Level: 1 EMP: 150.0 District Rank: 8 District: Yuma Left Shoulder: 6 to 8 FT County: La Paz Right Shoulder: 6 to 8 FT Roadway Characteristics Functional Class: Rural Principal Other Wideload Corridor: Yes Pullouts: No Ped/Bike Corridor: Yes Guardrail: Yes Terrain/Max Slope: 3.34 Terrain: Rolling K-Factor: 17 Speed Limit(mph): 55 Future AADT: 7100 Existing AADT: 4791 Future LOS: D Existing LOS: C Directional Split: 70 / 30 Truck %: 14 Safety Analysis Total Number of Crashes: 17 Number of Fatal Crashes: 1 Injury & Possible Injury Crashes: 3 Non-Injury Crashes: 13 Equivalent Property Damage Value: 35 Crash Rate: 1.14 Source: Accident Location Information and Surveillance System (ALISS) 2008-2013 Construction Constraints/Feasibility General Location Paved shoulders in good condition; Roadside Assessment: slopes may limit construction Cost Estimate: $420,750 Environmental Overview Land Ownership: Prescott N.F Potential Analysis of available GIS data found the following Environmental environmental constraints that may be present within a quarter-mile of the proposed project area: Gibralter Constraints: SRMA; Suitable Desert Tortoise Habitat; Riparian Habitats; Wetlands;100-Yr Floodplain; Leaking underground storage tank; Critical Habitat Area 113 S 264: MP 444 - MP 446 (Both Directions ) Statewide Rank: 31 Project Details Route: S 264 Direction: Both Directions BMP: 444.0 Tier Level: 1 District Rank: 10 EMP: 446.0 Left Shoulder: Less than 2 FT District: Holbrook County: Apache Right Shoulder: Less than 2 FT Roadway Characteristics Functional Class: Rural Minor Arterial Wideload Corridor: Yes Pullouts: No Ped/Bike Corridor: Yes Guardrail: No Terrain/Max Slope: 1.98 Terrain: Rolling K-Factor: 10 Speed Limit(mph): 55 Future AADT: 5700 Existing AADT: 6223 Future LOS: C Existing LOS: C Directional Split: 60 / 40 Truck %: 7 Safety Analysis Total Number of Crashes: 1 Number of Fatal Crashes: 0 Injury & Possible Injury Crashes: 1 Non-Injury Crashes: 0 Equivalent Property Damage Value: 2 Crash Rate: 0.04 Source: Accident Location Information and Surveillance System (ALISS) 2008-2013 Construction Constraints/Feasibility General Location Unpaved shoulder; Ample room to widen Assessment: roadway; Multiple intersecting roadways Cost Estimate: $3,557,914 Environmental Overview Land Ownership: Navajo Indian Res., Hubble NHS, Private Land Potential Analysis of available GIS data found the following Environmental environmental constraints that may be present within a quarter-mile of the proposed project area: No major Constraints: environmental constraints 114 U 191: MP 447.5 - MP 450 (Both Directions ) Statewide Rank: 32 Project Details Route: U 191 Direction: Both Directions BMP: 447.5 Tier Level: 1 District Rank: 11 EMP: 450.0 Left Shoulder: Less than 2 FT District: Holbrook County: Apache Right Shoulder: Less than 2 FT Roadway Characteristics Functional Class: Rural Minor Arterial Wideload Corridor: Yes Pullouts: No Ped/Bike Corridor: Yes Guardrail: No Terrain/Max Slope: 0.72 Terrain: Level K-Factor: 10 Speed Limit(mph): 65 Future AADT: 4800 Existing AADT: 9734 Future LOS: B Existing LOS: D Directional Split: 60 / 40 Truck %: 4 Safety Analysis Total Number of Crashes: 29 Number of Fatal Crashes: 4 Injury & Possible Injury Crashes: 12 Non-Injury Crashes: 13 Equivalent Property Damage Value: 92 Crash Rate: 0.65 Source: Accident Location Information and Surveillance System (ALISS) 2008-2013 Construction Constraints/Feasibility General Location Segment is curbed (MP 447.5-447.9); Unpaved Assessment: shoulder; Multiple intersecting roadways; Ample room to widen roadway Cost Estimate: $3,937,500 Environmental Overview Land Ownership: Navajo Indian Res. Potential Analysis of available GIS data found the following Environmental environmental constraints that may be present within a quarter-mile of the proposed project area: Wildlife Constraints: Linkage Zone; Wetlands 115 S 095: MP 150 - MP 153.3 (Both Directions ) Statewide Rank: 33 Project Details Route: S 095 Direction: Both Directions BMP: 150.0 Tier Level: 1 EMP: 153.3 District Rank: 9 District: Yuma Left Shoulder: 6 to 8 FT County: La Paz Right Shoulder: 6 to 8 FT Roadway Characteristics Functional Class: Rural Principal Other Wideload Corridor: Yes Pullouts: No Ped/Bike Corridor: Yes Guardrail: Yes Terrain/Max Slope: 3.66 Terrain: Rolling K-Factor: 9 Speed Limit(mph): 55 Future AADT: 7100 Existing AADT: 4791 Future LOS: D Existing LOS: C Directional Split: 70 / 30 Truck %: 12 Safety Analysis Total Number of Crashes: 13 Number of Fatal Crashes: 0 Injury & Possible Injury Crashes: 5 Non-Injury Crashes: 8 Equivalent Property Damage Value: 26 Crash Rate: 0.45 Source: Accident Location Information and Surveillance System (ALISS) 2008-2013 Construction Constraints/Feasibility General Location Paved shoulders in good condition; Roadside Assessment: slopes may limit construction; Multiple intersecting streets; Shoulders currently ~ 7 FT Cost Estimate: $824,175 Environmental Overview Land Ownership: Private Land Potential Analysis of available GIS data found the following Environmental environmental constraints that may be present within a quarter-mile of the proposed project area: Suitable Constraints: Desert Tortoise Habitat; Impaired Waters; Wetlands;100-Yr Floodplain; Critical Habitat Area 116 U 060: MP 232.7 - MP 234.4 (Both Directions ) Statewide Rank: 34 Project Details Route: U 060 Direction: Both Directions BMP: 232.7 Tier Level: 1 EMP: 234.4 District Rank: 7 Left Shoulder: 2 to 6 FT District: Globe County: Pinal Right Shoulder: 2 to 6 FT Roadway Characteristics Functional Class: Rural Principal Other Wideload Corridor: Yes Pullouts: No Ped/Bike Corridor: Yes Guardrail: Yes Terrain/Max Slope: 6.07 Terrain: Mountainous K-Factor: 8 Speed Limit(mph): 55 Future AADT: 8200 Existing AADT: 7335 Future LOS: C Existing LOS: C Directional Split: 51 / 49 Truck %: 11 Safety Analysis Total Number of Crashes: 43 Number of Fatal Crashes: 3 Injury & Possible Injury Crashes: 10 Non-Injury Crashes: 30 Equivalent Property Damage Value: 124 Crash Rate: 1.97 Source: Accident Location Information and Surveillance System (ALISS) 2008-2013 Construction Constraints/Feasibility General Location No Shoulder; Roadside cliffs may limit Assessment: construction Cost Estimate: $2,024,966 Environmental Overview Land Ownership: Tonto N.F, Private Land Potential Analysis of available GIS data found the following Environmental environmental constraints that may be present within a quarter-mile of the proposed project area: Wildlife Constraints: Linkage Zone; Wetlands; PM10 Nonattainment Area 117 U 060: MP 352.8 - MP 356 (Both Directions ) Statewide Rank: 35 Project Details Route: U 060 Direction: Both Directions BMP: 352.8 Tier Level: 1 EMP: 356.0 District Rank: 8 District: Globe Left Shoulder: Less than 2 FT County: Apache Right Shoulder: Less than 2 FT Roadway Characteristics Functional Class: Rural Principal Other Wideload Corridor: Yes Pullouts: No Ped/Bike Corridor: Yes Guardrail: No Terrain/Max Slope: 5.52 Terrain: Rolling K-Factor: 9 Speed Limit(mph): 65 Future AADT: 4100 Existing AADT: 5215 Future LOS: C Existing LOS: C Directional Split: 60 / 40 Truck %: 6 Safety Analysis Total Number of Crashes: 35 Number of Fatal Crashes: 0 Injury & Possible Injury Crashes: 10 Non-Injury Crashes: 25 Equivalent Property Damage Value: 60 Crash Rate: 1.15 Source: Accident Location Information and Surveillance System (ALISS) 2008-2013 Construction Constraints/Feasibility General Location No shoulder; Multiple intersecting roadways Assessment: Cost Estimate: $5,544,000 Environmental Overview Land Ownership: Private Land, State Trust Land Potential Analysis of available GIS data found the following Environmental environmental constraints that may be present within a quarter-mile of the proposed project area: Wildlife Constraints: Linkage Zone; Wetlands;100-Yr Floodplain 118 S 169: MP 2 - MP 4 (Both Directions ) Statewide Rank: 36 Project Details Route: S 169 Direction: Both Directions BMP: 2.0 Tier Level: 1 EMP: 4.0 District Rank: 1 District: Prescott Left Shoulder: 2 to 6 FT County: Yavapai Right Shoulder: 2 to 6 FT Roadway Characteristics Functional Class: Rural Minor Arterial Wideload Corridor: No Pullouts: No Ped/Bike Corridor: Yes Guardrail: Yes Terrain/Max Slope: 5.75 Terrain: Rolling K-Factor: 8 Speed Limit(mph): 55 Future AADT: 12000 Existing AADT: 6531 Future LOS: D Existing LOS: C Directional Split: 60 / 40 Truck %: 8 Safety Analysis Total Number of Crashes: 15 Number of Fatal Crashes: 0 Injury & Possible Injury Crashes: 4 Non-Injury Crashes: 11 Equivalent Property Damage Value: 28 Crash Rate: 0.63 Source: Accident Location Information and Surveillance System (ALISS) 2008-2013 Construction Constraints/Feasibility General Location Paved shoulders in good condition; Ample room Assessment: to widen roadway; Unpaved clear zone adjacent to shoulder Cost Estimate: $1,980,000 Environmental Overview Land Ownership: Private Land, State Trust Land Potential Analysis of available GIS data found the following Environmental environmental constraints that may be present within a quarter-mile of the proposed project area: Upper Agua Constraints: Fria River Basin SRMA; Wildlife Linkage Zone; Wetlands;100-Yr Floodplain 119 S 095: MP 168 - MP 170 (Southbound ) Statewide Rank: 37 Project Details Route: S 095 Direction: Southbound BMP: 168.0 Tier Level: 1 EMP: 170.0 District Rank: 4 Left Shoulder: 2 to 6 FT District: Kingman County: Mohave Right Shoulder: 2 to 6 FT Roadway Characteristics Functional Class: Rural Principal Other Wideload Corridor: Yes Pullouts: No Ped/Bike Corridor: Yes Guardrail: Yes Terrain/Max Slope: 4.48 Terrain: Rolling K-Factor: 9 Speed Limit(mph): 65 Future AADT: 8800 Existing AADT: 5621 Future LOS: D Existing LOS: D Directional Split: 59 / 41 Truck %: 23 Safety Analysis Total Number of Crashes: 10 Number of Fatal Crashes: 0 Injury & Possible Injury Crashes: 3 Non-Injury Crashes: 7 Equivalent Property Damage Value: 17 Crash Rate: 0.49 Source: Accident Location Information and Surveillance System (ALISS) 2008-2013 Construction Constraints/Feasibility General Location Paved shoulders in good condition; Ample room Assessment: to widen roadway Cost Estimate: $1,183,700 Environmental Overview Land Ownership: Bureau of Land Mgmt., Cattail Cove SP Potential Analysis of available GIS data found the following Environmental environmental constraints that may be present within a quarter-mile of the proposed project area: Lake Havasu Constraints: SRMA; Suitable Desert Tortoise Habitat; Wildlife Linkage Zone;100-Yr Floodplain 120 S 264: MP 448 - MP 450 (Both Directions ) Statewide Rank: 38 Project Details Route: S 264 Direction: Both Directions BMP: 448.0 Tier Level: 1 District Rank: 12 EMP: 450.0 Left Shoulder: Less than 2 FT District: Holbrook County: Apache Right Shoulder: Less than 2 FT Roadway Characteristics Functional Class: Rural Minor Arterial Wideload Corridor: Yes Pullouts: No Ped/Bike Corridor: Yes Guardrail: No Terrain/Max Slope: 5.87 Terrain: Rolling K-Factor: 10 Speed Limit(mph): 65 Future AADT: 5500 Existing AADT: 4042 Future LOS: D Existing LOS: C Directional Split: 60 / 40 Truck %: 27 Safety Analysis Total Number of Crashes: 4 Number of Fatal Crashes: 1 Injury & Possible Injury Crashes: 1 Non-Injury Crashes: 2 Equivalent Property Damage Value: 21 Crash Rate: 0.27 Source: Accident Location Information and Surveillance System (ALISS) 2008-2013 Construction Constraints/Feasibility General Location Unpaved shoulder; Ample room to widen Assessment: roadway; Multiple intersecting roadways Cost Estimate: $3,465,000 Environmental Overview Land Ownership: Navajo Indian Res. Potential Analysis of available GIS data found the following Environmental environmental constraints that may be present within a quarter-mile of the proposed project area: No major Constraints: environmental constraints 121 S 169: MP 10 - MP 12 (Both Directions ) Statewide Rank: 39 Project Details Route: S 169 Direction: Both Directions BMP: 10.0 Tier Level: 1 EMP: 12.0 District Rank: 2 District: Prescott Left Shoulder: 2 to 6 FT County: Yavapai Right Shoulder: 2 to 6 FT Roadway Characteristics Functional Class: Rural Minor Arterial Wideload Corridor: No Pullouts: No Ped/Bike Corridor: Yes Guardrail: Yes Terrain/Max Slope: 2.97 Terrain: Rolling K-Factor: 8 Speed Limit(mph): 65 Future AADT: 7400 Existing AADT: 5119 Future LOS: D Existing LOS: C Directional Split: 60 / 40 Truck %: 14 Safety Analysis Total Number of Crashes: 10 Number of Fatal Crashes: 0 Injury & Possible Injury Crashes: 4 Non-Injury Crashes: 6 Equivalent Property Damage Value: 21 Crash Rate: 0.54 Source: Accident Location Information and Surveillance System (ALISS) 2008-2013 Construction Constraints/Feasibility General Location Paved shoulders in good condition; Ample room Assessment: to widen roadway; Unpaved clear zone adjacent to shoulder Cost Estimate: $1,980,000 Environmental Overview Land Ownership: Prescott N.F Potential Analysis of available GIS data found the following Environmental environmental constraints that may be present within a quarter-mile of the proposed project area: Wetlands Constraints: 122 U 060: MP 227.1 - MP 230.2 (Both Directions ) Statewide Rank: 40 Project Details Route: U 060 Direction: Both Directions BMP: 227.1 Tier Level: 1 EMP: 230.2 District Rank: 9 Left Shoulder: 2 to 6 FT District: Globe County: Pinal Right Shoulder: 2 to 6 FT Roadway Characteristics Functional Class: Rural Principal Other Wideload Corridor: Yes Pullouts: No Ped/Bike Corridor: Yes Guardrail: Yes Terrain/Max Slope: 6.48 Terrain: Mountainous K-Factor: 8 Speed Limit(mph): 55 Future AADT: 8200 Existing AADT: 7335 Future LOS: C Existing LOS: C Directional Split: 51 / 49 Truck %: 11 Safety Analysis Total Number of Crashes: 90 Number of Fatal Crashes: 1 Injury & Possible Injury Crashes: 26 Non-Injury Crashes: 63 Equivalent Property Damage Value: 184 Crash Rate: 2.17 Source: Accident Location Information and Surveillance System (ALISS) 2008-2013 Construction Constraints/Feasibility General Location No Shoulder; Tunnel; Bridges on segment Assessment: require widening; Roadside cliffs may limit construction Cost Estimate: $3,515,874 Environmental Overview Land Ownership: Tonto N.F, Private Land Potential Analysis of available GIS data found the following Environmental environmental constraints that may be present within a quarter-mile of the proposed project area: Wildlife Constraints: Linkage Zone; Impaired Waters; Wetlands;100-Yr Floodplain; PM10 Nonattainment Area 123 U 060: MP 346 - MP 348 (Both Directions ) Statewide Rank: 41 Project Details Route: U 060 Direction: Both Directions BMP: 346.0 Tier Level: 1 District Rank: 10 EMP: 348.0 District: Globe Left Shoulder: 2 to 6 FT County: Navajo Right Shoulder: 2 to 6 FT Roadway Characteristics Functional Class: Rural Principal Other Wideload Corridor: Yes Pullouts: No Ped/Bike Corridor: Yes Guardrail: Yes Terrain/Max Slope: 2.6 Terrain: Rolling K-Factor: 8 Speed Limit(mph): 65 Future AADT: 8300 Existing AADT: 6143 Future LOS: C Existing LOS: C Directional Split: 50 / 50 Truck %: 9 Safety Analysis Total Number of Crashes: 14 Number of Fatal Crashes: 1 Injury & Possible Injury Crashes: 6 Non-Injury Crashes: 7 Equivalent Property Damage Value: 41 Crash Rate: 0.62 Source: Accident Location Information and Surveillance System (ALISS) 2008-2013 Construction Constraints/Feasibility General Location Paved shoulders in good condition Assessment: Cost Estimate: $2,159,922 Environmental Overview Land Ownership: Apache-Sitgreaves N.F Potential Analysis of available GIS data found the following Environmental environmental constraints that may be present within a quarter-mile of the proposed project area: Wetlands Constraints: 124 S 287: MP 116.4 - MP 118 (Both Directions ) Statewide Rank: 42 Project Details Route: S 287 Direction: Both Directions BMP: 116.4 Tier Level: 1 EMP: 118.0 District Rank: 1 Left Shoulder: 2 to 6 FT District: Tucson County: Pinal Right Shoulder: 2 to 6 FT Roadway Characteristics Functional Class: Urban Local Wideload Corridor: No Pullouts: No Ped/Bike Corridor: Yes Guardrail: No Terrain/Max Slope: 0.26 Terrain: Level K-Factor: 8 Speed Limit(mph): 55 Future AADT: 5500 Existing AADT: 5951 Future LOS: C Existing LOS: C Directional Split: 60 / 40 Truck %: 13 Safety Analysis Total Number of Crashes: 4 Number of Fatal Crashes: 0 Injury & Possible Injury Crashes: 1 Non-Injury Crashes: 3 Equivalent Property Damage Value: 10 Crash Rate: 0.22 Source: Accident Location Information and Surveillance System (ALISS) 2008-2013 Construction Constraints/Feasibility General Location Part of the segment is curbed ( MP 116.7 Assessment: 116.7); Narrow shoulder; Shoulders in deteriorating condition Cost Estimate: $1,476,000 Environmental Overview Land Ownership: Tonto N.F Potential Analysis of available GIS data found the following Environmental environmental constraints that may be present within a quarter-mile of the proposed project area: Wetlands; Constraints: Leaking underground storage tank; PM10 Nonattainment Area; Can expand project to MP 122 125 S 077: MP 386 - MP 387.8 (Both Directions ) Statewide Rank: 43 Project Details Route: S 077 Direction: Both Directions BMP: 386.0 Tier Level: 1 District Rank: 13 EMP: 387.8 Left Shoulder: 2 to 6 FT District: Holbrook County: Navajo Right Shoulder: 2 to 6 FT Roadway Characteristics Functional Class: Rural Minor Arterial Wideload Corridor: No Pullouts: No Ped/Bike Corridor: Yes Guardrail: No Terrain/Max Slope: 3.59 Terrain: Rolling K-Factor: 8 Speed Limit(mph): 55 Future AADT: 7800 Existing AADT: 3065 Future LOS: C Existing LOS: C Directional Split: 60 / 40 Truck %: 23 Safety Analysis Total Number of Crashes: 12 Number of Fatal Crashes: 0 Injury & Possible Injury Crashes: 7 Non-Injury Crashes: 5 Equivalent Property Damage Value: 23 Crash Rate: 0.48 Source: Accident Location Information and Surveillance System (ALISS) 2008-2013 Construction Constraints/Feasibility General Location Ample room to widen roadway; Unpaved Assessment: shoulder; Multiple intersecting roadways Cost Estimate: $1,811,700 Environmental Overview Land Ownership: Private Land, County Land Potential Analysis of available GIS data found the following Environmental environmental constraints that may be present within a quarter-mile of the proposed project area: Wildlife Constraints: Linkage Zone;100-Yr Floodplain; Leaking underground storage tank 126 S 095: MP 154.8 - MP 158 (Both Directions ) Statewide Rank: 44 Project Details Route: S 095 Direction: Both Directions BMP: 154.8 Tier Level: 1 District Rank: 10 EMP: 158.0 District: Yuma Left Shoulder: 2 to 6 FT County: La Paz Right Shoulder: 2 to 6 FT Roadway Characteristics Functional Class: Rural Principal Other Wideload Corridor: Yes Pullouts: No Ped/Bike Corridor: Yes Guardrail: Yes Terrain/Max Slope: 4.05 Terrain: Mountainous K-Factor: 10 Speed Limit(mph): 55 Future AADT: 8100 Existing AADT: 6086 Future LOS: D Existing LOS: C Directional Split: 60 / 40 Truck %: 19 Safety Analysis Total Number of Crashes: 24 Number of Fatal Crashes: 0 Injury & Possible Injury Crashes: 10 Non-Injury Crashes: 14 Equivalent Property Damage Value: 57 Crash Rate: 0.68 Source: Accident Location Information and Surveillance System (ALISS) 2008-2013 Construction Constraints/Feasibility General Location Roadside slopes may limit construction; Paved Assessment: shoulder in good condition; Multiple intersecting streets Cost Estimate: $3,618,470 Environmental Overview Land Ownership: Private Land, State Trust Land, Bureau of Land Mgmt., Buckskin Mountain SP Potential Analysis of available GIS data found the following Environmental environmental constraints that may be present within a quarter-mile of the proposed project area: Parker Strip Constraints: SRMA; Suitable Desert Tortoise Habitat; Riparian Habitats; Impaired Waters; Wetlands;100-Yr Floodplain; Critical Habitat Area 127 S 064: MP 236 - MP 237 (Both Directions ) Statewide Rank: 45 Project Details Route: S 064 Direction: Both Directions BMP: 236.0 Tier Level: 1 EMP: 237.0 District Rank: 4 District: Flagstaff Left Shoulder: 2 to 6 FT County: Coconino Right Shoulder: 2 to 6 FT Roadway Characteristics Functional Class: Rural Principal Other Wideload Corridor: No Pullouts: Yes Ped/Bike Corridor: Yes Guardrail: No Terrain/Max Slope: 3.82 Terrain: Rolling K-Factor: 10 Speed Limit(mph): 45 Future AADT: 8900 Existing AADT: 6848 Future LOS: C Existing LOS: C Directional Split: 60 / 40 Truck %: 15 Safety Analysis Total Number of Crashes: 15 Number of Fatal Crashes: 0 Injury & Possible Injury Crashes: 1 Non-Injury Crashes: 14 Equivalent Property Damage Value: 16 Crash Rate: 1.2 Source: Accident Location Information and Surveillance System (ALISS) 2008-2013 Construction Constraints/Feasibility General Location No Shoulder; Roadside slopes may limit Assessment: construction Cost Estimate: $990,000 Environmental Overview Land Ownership: Kaibab N.F Potential Analysis of available GIS data found the following Environmental environmental constraints that may be present within a quarter-mile of the proposed project area: active fault Constraints: lines; Leaking underground storage tank 128 S 095: MP 170 - MP 172 (Both Directions ) Statewide Rank: 46 Project Details Route: S 095 Direction: Both Directions BMP: 170.0 Tier Level: 1 EMP: 172.0 District Rank: 5 Left Shoulder: 2 to 6 FT District: Kingman County: Mohave Right Shoulder: 2 to 6 FT Roadway Characteristics Functional Class: Rural Principal Other Wideload Corridor: Yes Pullouts: No Ped/Bike Corridor: Yes Guardrail: Yes Terrain/Max Slope: 1.54 Terrain: Rolling K-Factor: 9 Speed Limit(mph): 65 Future AADT: 8800 Existing AADT: 5621 Future LOS: D Existing LOS: D Directional Split: 59 / 41 Truck %: 23 Safety Analysis Total Number of Crashes: 13 Number of Fatal Crashes: 1 Injury & Possible Injury Crashes: 5 Non-Injury Crashes: 7 Equivalent Property Damage Value: 40 Crash Rate: 0.63 Source: Accident Location Information and Surveillance System (ALISS) 2008-2013 Construction Constraints/Feasibility General Location Paved shoulders in good condition; Ample room Assessment: to widen roadway; Multiple intersecting roadways; Portions of eastbound and westbound are to standard Cost Estimate: $2,281,576 Environmental Overview Land Ownership: Bureau of Land Mgmt. Potential Analysis of available GIS data found the following Environmental environmental constraints that may be present within a quarter-mile of the proposed project area: Lake Havasu Constraints: SRMA; Suitable Desert Tortoise Habitat; Wildlife Linkage Zone;100-Yr Floodplain 129 S 077: MP 106 - MP 108 (Both Directions ) Statewide Rank: 47 Project Details Route: S 077 Direction: Both Directions BMP: 106.0 Tier Level: 1 EMP: 108.0 District Rank: 2 Left Shoulder: 2 to 6 FT District: Tucson County: Pinal Right Shoulder: 2 to 6 FT Roadway Characteristics Functional Class: Rural Minor Arterial Wideload Corridor: No Pullouts: No Ped/Bike Corridor: Yes Guardrail: Yes Terrain/Max Slope: 5.87 Terrain: Rolling K-Factor: 8 Speed Limit(mph): 55 Future AADT: 7300 Existing AADT: 4566 Future LOS: D Existing LOS: C Directional Split: 60 / 40 Truck %: 12 Safety Analysis Total Number of Crashes: 31 Number of Fatal Crashes: 2 Injury & Possible Injury Crashes: 12 Non-Injury Crashes: 17 Equivalent Property Damage Value: 94 Crash Rate: 1.86 Source: Accident Location Information and Surveillance System (ALISS) 2008-2013 Construction Constraints/Feasibility General Location Narrow shoulder; Roadside slopes may limit Assessment: construction Cost Estimate: $1,980,000 Environmental Overview Land Ownership: Private Land, State Trust Land, Oracle SP Potential Analysis of available GIS data found the following Environmental environmental constraints that may be present within a quarter-mile of the proposed project area: 100-Yr Constraints: Floodplain 130 S 080: MP 293.5 - MP 293.7 (Both Directions ) Statewide Rank: 48 Project Details Route: S 080 Direction: Both Directions BMP: 293.5 Tier Level: 1 EMP: 293.7 District Rank: 2 District: Safford Left Shoulder: 2 to 6 FT County: Cochise Right Shoulder: 2 to 6 FT Roadway Characteristics Functional Class: Rural Minor Arterial Wideload Corridor: Yes Pullouts: No Ped/Bike Corridor: No Guardrail: No Terrain/Max Slope: 1.47 Terrain: Level K-Factor: 9 Speed Limit(mph): 50 Future AADT: 13500 Existing AADT: 8856 Future LOS: D Existing LOS: D Directional Split: 50 / 50 Truck %: 22 Safety Analysis Total Number of Crashes: 13 Number of Fatal Crashes: 0 Injury & Possible Injury Crashes: 6 Non-Injury Crashes: 7 Equivalent Property Damage Value: 26 Crash Rate: 0.68 Source: Accident Location Information and Surveillance System (ALISS) 2008-2013 Construction Constraints/Feasibility General Location Paved portion of shoulders in deteriorating Assessment: condition; Ample room to expand roadway Cost Estimate: $171,000 Environmental Overview Land Ownership: Private Land Potential Analysis of available GIS data found the following Environmental environmental constraints that may be present within a quarter-mile of the proposed project area: Leaking Constraints: underground storage tank 131 S 260: MP 256.8 - MP 260.1 (Both Directions ) Statewide Rank: 49 Project Details Route: S 260 Direction: Both Directions BMP: 256.8 Tier Level: 1 EMP: 260.1 District Rank: 3 Left Shoulder: Less than 2 FT District: Prescott County: Gila Right Shoulder: Less than 2 FT Roadway Characteristics Functional Class: Rural Principal Other Wideload Corridor: No Pullouts: Yes Ped/Bike Corridor: Yes Guardrail: Yes Terrain/Max Slope: 3.46 Terrain: Rolling K-Factor: 23 Speed Limit(mph): 55 Future AADT: 9000 Existing AADT: 8355 Future LOS: E Existing LOS: E Directional Split: 48 / 52 Truck %: 5 Safety Analysis Total Number of Crashes: 69 Number of Fatal Crashes: 2 Injury & Possible Injury Crashes: 17 Non-Injury Crashes: 50 Equivalent Property Damage Value: 131 Crash Rate: 1.4 Source: Accident Location Information and Surveillance System (ALISS) 2008-2013 Construction Constraints/Feasibility General Location Narrow shoulders; Paved shoulders in good Assessment: condition; Multiple intersecting roadways; Ample room to widen roadway Cost Estimate: $5,595,975 Environmental Overview Land Ownership: Tonto N.F Potential Analysis of available GIS data found the following Environmental environmental constraints that may be present within a quarter-mile of the proposed project area: Wildlife Constraints: Linkage Zone 132 S 077: MP 103.8 - MP 106 (Both Directions ) Statewide Rank: 50 Project Details Route: S 077 Direction: Both Directions BMP: 103.8 Tier Level: 1 EMP: 106.0 District Rank: 3 Left Shoulder: Less than 2 FT District: Tucson County: Pinal Right Shoulder: 2 to 6 FT Roadway Characteristics Functional Class: Rural Major Collector Wideload Corridor: No Pullouts: No Ped/Bike Corridor: Yes Guardrail: Yes Terrain/Max Slope: 5.82 Terrain: Rolling K-Factor: 9 Speed Limit(mph): 55 Future AADT: 6200 Existing AADT: 4149 Future LOS: C Existing LOS: C Directional Split: 60 / 40 Truck %: 11 Safety Analysis Total Number of Crashes: 32 Number of Fatal Crashes: 1 Injury & Possible Injury Crashes: 14 Non-Injury Crashes: 17 Equivalent Property Damage Value: 91 Crash Rate: 1.94 Source: Accident Location Information and Surveillance System (ALISS) 2008-2013 Construction Constraints/Feasibility General Location Narrow shoulder; Roadside slopes may limit Assessment: construction Cost Estimate: $3,776,850 Environmental Overview Land Ownership: Private Land, State Trust Land, Oracle SP Potential Analysis of available GIS data found the following Environmental environmental constraints that may be present within a quarter-mile of the proposed project area: 100-Yr Constraints: Floodplain 133 S 087: MP 268 - MP 270 (Both Directions ) Statewide Rank: 51 Project Details Route: S 087 Direction: Both Directions BMP: 268.0 Tier Level: 1 EMP: 270.0 District Rank: 4 Left Shoulder: Less than 2 FT District: Prescott County: Gila Right Shoulder: Less than 2 FT Roadway Characteristics Functional Class: Rural Local Wideload Corridor: No Pullouts: Yes Ped/Bike Corridor: Yes Guardrail: No Terrain/Max Slope: 6.28 Terrain: Mountainous K-Factor: 10 Speed Limit(mph): 50 Future AADT: 5200 Existing AADT: 4327 Future LOS: C Existing LOS: C Directional Split: 60 / 40 Truck %: 10 Safety Analysis Total Number of Crashes: 37 Number of Fatal Crashes: 0 Injury & Possible Injury Crashes: 11 Non-Injury Crashes: 26 Equivalent Property Damage Value: 71 Crash Rate: 2.34 Source: Accident Location Information and Surveillance System (ALISS) 2008-2013 Construction Constraints/Feasibility General Location Structures along segment; Narrow shoulders; Assessment: Paved shoulders in good condition Cost Estimate: $3,780,000 Environmental Overview Land Ownership: Tonto N.F, Private Land Potential Analysis of available GIS data found the following Environmental environmental constraints that may be present within a quarter-mile of the proposed project area: Wildlife Constraints: Linkage Zone; Wetlands;100-Yr Floodplain; Critical Habitat Area 134 S 264: MP 446 - MP 448 (Both Directions ) Statewide Rank: 52 Project Details Route: S 264 Direction: Both Directions BMP: 446.0 Tier Level: 1 District Rank: 14 EMP: 448.0 Left Shoulder: Less than 2 FT District: Holbrook County: Apache Right Shoulder: Less than 2 FT Roadway Characteristics Functional Class: Rural Minor Arterial Wideload Corridor: Yes Pullouts: No Ped/Bike Corridor: Yes Guardrail: Yes Terrain/Max Slope: 5.87 Terrain: Rolling K-Factor: 14 Speed Limit(mph): 40 Future AADT: 5900 Existing AADT: 6223 Future LOS: C Existing LOS: D Directional Split: 60 / 40 Truck %: 6 Safety Analysis Total Number of Crashes: 4 Number of Fatal Crashes: 1 Injury & Possible Injury Crashes: 2 Non-Injury Crashes: 1 Equivalent Property Damage Value: 19 Crash Rate: 0.18 Source: Accident Location Information and Surveillance System (ALISS) 2008-2013 Construction Constraints/Feasibility General Location Ample room to widen roadway; Multiple Assessment: intersecting roadways; Paved shoulders in good condition Cost Estimate: $4,049,606 Environmental Overview Land Ownership: Navajo Indian Res., Hubble NHS, Private Land Potential Analysis of available GIS data found the following Environmental environmental constraints that may be present within a quarter-mile of the proposed project area: No major Constraints: environmental constraints 135 U 160: MP 390 - MP 392 (Both Directions ) Statewide Rank: 53 Project Details Route: U 160 Direction: Both Directions BMP: 390.0 Tier Level: 1 District Rank: 15 EMP: 392.0 Left Shoulder: 2 to 6 FT District: Holbrook County: Navajo Right Shoulder: 2 to 6 FT Roadway Characteristics Functional Class: Rural Principal Other Wideload Corridor: Yes Pullouts: No Ped/Bike Corridor: Yes Guardrail: Yes Terrain/Max Slope: 2.53 Terrain: Level K-Factor: 11 Speed Limit(mph): 65 Future AADT: 6200 Existing AADT: 4679 Future LOS: C Existing LOS: C Directional Split: 50 / 50 Truck %: 10 Safety Analysis Total Number of Crashes: 9 Number of Fatal Crashes: 1 Injury & Possible Injury Crashes: 6 Non-Injury Crashes: 2 Equivalent Property Damage Value: 26 Crash Rate: 0.53 Source: Accident Location Information and Surveillance System (ALISS) 2008-2013 Construction Constraints/Feasibility General Location Paved shoulder in good condition; Ample room Assessment: to widen roadway; Multiple intersecting roadways Cost Estimate: $1,850,394 Environmental Overview Land Ownership: Navajo Indian Res. Potential Analysis of available GIS data found the following Environmental environmental constraints that may be present within a quarter-mile of the proposed project area: Wildlife Constraints: Linkage Zone 136 S 095: MP 174 - MP 176.9 (Both Directions ) Statewide Rank: 54 Project Details Route: S 095 Direction: Both Directions BMP: 174.0 Tier Level: 1 EMP: 176.9 District Rank: 6 Left Shoulder: 2 to 6 FT District: Kingman County: Mohave Right Shoulder: 2 to 6 FT Roadway Characteristics Functional Class: Rural Principal Other Wideload Corridor: Yes Pullouts: No Ped/Bike Corridor: Yes Guardrail: Yes Terrain/Max Slope: 3.41 Terrain: Level K-Factor: 11 Speed Limit(mph): 65 Future AADT: 8800 Existing AADT: 3000 Future LOS: D Existing LOS: C Directional Split: 60 / 40 Truck %: 25 Safety Analysis Total Number of Crashes: 21 Number of Fatal Crashes: 1 Injury & Possible Injury Crashes: 10 Non-Injury Crashes: 10 Equivalent Property Damage Value: 71 Crash Rate: 1.34 Source: Accident Location Information and Surveillance System (ALISS) 2008-2013 Construction Constraints/Feasibility General Location Paved shoulders in deteriorating condtion; Assessment: Ample room to widen roadway Cost Estimate: $2,762,528 Environmental Overview Land Ownership: Private Land, State Trust Land, Bureau of Land Mgmt. Potential Analysis of available GIS data found the following Environmental environmental constraints that may be present within a quarter-mile of the proposed project area: Lake Havasu Constraints: SRMA; Suitable Desert Tortoise Habitat;100-Yr Floodplain 137 S 064: MP 224 - MP 226 (Both Directions ) Statewide Rank: 55 Project Details Route: S 064 Direction: Both Directions BMP: 224.0 Tier Level: 1 EMP: 226.0 District Rank: 5 District: Flagstaff Left Shoulder: 2 to 6 FT County: Coconino Right Shoulder: 2 to 6 FT Roadway Characteristics Functional Class: Rural Principal Other Wideload Corridor: No Pullouts: No Ped/Bike Corridor: Yes Guardrail: No Terrain/Max Slope: 3.35 Terrain: Level K-Factor: 14 Speed Limit(mph): 65 Future AADT: 6200 Existing AADT: 4679 Future LOS: D Existing LOS: D Directional Split: 51 / 49 Truck %: 10 Safety Analysis Total Number of Crashes: 32 Number of Fatal Crashes: 0 Injury & Possible Injury Crashes: 4 Non-Injury Crashes: 28 Equivalent Property Damage Value: 44 Crash Rate: 1.87 Source: Accident Location Information and Surveillance System (ALISS) 2008-2013 Construction Constraints/Feasibility General Location Unpaved clear zone adjacent to shoulder; Paved Assessment: shoulders in good condition; Ample room to widen roadway Cost Estimate: $1,800,000 Environmental Overview Land Ownership: Kaibab N.F Potential Analysis of available GIS data found the following Environmental environmental constraints that may be present within a quarter-mile of the proposed project area: Wildlife Constraints: Linkage Zone 138 S 169: MP 6 - MP 8 (Both Directions ) Statewide Rank: 56 Project Details Route: S 169 Direction: Both Directions BMP: 6.0 Tier Level: 1 EMP: 8.0 District Rank: 5 District: Prescott Left Shoulder: 2 to 6 FT County: Yavapai Right Shoulder: 2 to 6 FT Roadway Characteristics Functional Class: Rural Minor Arterial Wideload Corridor: No Pullouts: No Ped/Bike Corridor: Yes Guardrail: Yes Terrain/Max Slope: 4.09 Terrain: Rolling K-Factor: 8 Speed Limit(mph): 65 Future AADT: 7400 Existing AADT: 5119 Future LOS: D Existing LOS: C Directional Split: 60 / 40 Truck %: 14 Safety Analysis Total Number of Crashes: 17 Number of Fatal Crashes: 0 Injury & Possible Injury Crashes: 5 Non-Injury Crashes: 12 Equivalent Property Damage Value: 24 Crash Rate: 0.91 Source: Accident Location Information and Surveillance System (ALISS) 2008-2013 Construction Constraints/Feasibility General Location Ample room to widen roadway; Paved shoulders Assessment: in good condition; Bridge on segment requires widening Cost Estimate: $2,070,682 Environmental Overview Land Ownership: Prescott N.F Potential Analysis of available GIS data found the following Environmental environmental constraints that may be present within a quarter-mile of the proposed project area: 100-Yr Constraints: Floodplain 139 S 064: MP 230 - MP 232 (Both Directions ) Statewide Rank: 57 Project Details Route: S 064 Direction: Both Directions BMP: 230.0 Tier Level: 1 EMP: 232.0 District Rank: 6 District: Flagstaff Left Shoulder: 2 to 6 FT County: Coconino Right Shoulder: 2 to 6 FT Roadway Characteristics Functional Class: Rural Principal Other Wideload Corridor: No Pullouts: No Ped/Bike Corridor: Yes Guardrail: No Terrain/Max Slope: 3.4 Terrain: Rolling K-Factor: 14 Speed Limit(mph): 65 Future AADT: 6200 Existing AADT: 4679 Future LOS: D Existing LOS: C Directional Split: 51 / 49 Truck %: 10 Safety Analysis Total Number of Crashes: 33 Number of Fatal Crashes: 0 Injury & Possible Injury Crashes: 7 Non-Injury Crashes: 26 Equivalent Property Damage Value: 50 Crash Rate: 1.93 Source: Accident Location Information and Surveillance System (ALISS) 2008-2013 Construction Constraints/Feasibility General Location Paved shoulders in good condition; Ample room Assessment: to widen roadway Cost Estimate: $1,980,000 Environmental Overview Land Ownership: Kaibab N.F Potential Analysis of available GIS data found the following Environmental environmental constraints that may be present within a quarter-mile of the proposed project area: Wildlife Constraints: Linkage Zone 140 U 160: MP 448 - MP 450 (Both Directions ) Statewide Rank: 58 Project Details Route: U 160 Direction: Both Directions BMP: 448.0 Tier Level: 1 District Rank: 16 EMP: 450.0 Left Shoulder: 2 to 6 FT District: Holbrook County: Apache Right Shoulder: 2 to 6 FT Roadway Characteristics Functional Class: Rural Major Collector Wideload Corridor: Yes Pullouts: No Ped/Bike Corridor: Yes Guardrail: No Terrain/Max Slope: 1.18 Terrain: Level K-Factor: 33 Speed Limit(mph): 65 Future AADT: 4000 Existing AADT: 3067 Future LOS: E Existing LOS: D Directional Split: 52 / 48 Truck %: 11 Safety Analysis Total Number of Crashes: 9 Number of Fatal Crashes: 2 Injury & Possible Injury Crashes: 4 Non-Injury Crashes: 3 Equivalent Property Damage Value: 42 Crash Rate: 0.8 Source: Accident Location Information and Surveillance System (ALISS) 2008-2013 Construction Constraints/Feasibility General Location Ample room to widen roadway; Paved shoulders Assessment: in good condition; Multiple intersecting roadways Cost Estimate: $1,800,000 Environmental Overview Land Ownership: Navajo Indian Res. Potential Analysis of available GIS data found the following Environmental environmental constraints that may be present within a quarter-mile of the proposed project area: Wetlands Constraints: 141 S 089: MP 320 - MP 320.1 (Both Directions ) Statewide Rank: 59 Project Details Route: S 089 Direction: Both Directions BMP: 320.0 Tier Level: 1 EMP: 320.1 District Rank: 6 District: Prescott Left Shoulder: 2 to 6 FT County: Yavapai Right Shoulder: 6 to 8 FT Roadway Characteristics Functional Class: Urban Principal Other Wideload Corridor: Yes Pullouts: No Ped/Bike Corridor: No Guardrail: No Terrain/Max Slope: 1.64 Terrain: Level K-Factor: 9 Speed Limit(mph): 65 Future AADT: 23500 Existing AADT: 13248 Future LOS: E Existing LOS: D Directional Split: 60 / 40 Truck %: 11 Safety Analysis Total Number of Crashes: 90 Number of Fatal Crashes: 0 Injury & Possible Injury Crashes: 39 Non-Injury Crashes: 51 Equivalent Property Damage Value: 192 Crash Rate: 3.29 Source: Accident Location Information and Surveillance System (ALISS) 2008-2013 Construction Constraints/Feasibility General Location Paved shoulders in good condition; Ample room Assessment: to widen roadway; Intersecting roadway Cost Estimate: $117,000 Environmental Overview Land Ownership: Private Land Potential Analysis of available GIS data found the following Environmental environmental constraints that may be present within a quarter-mile of the proposed project area: Wildlife Constraints: Linkage Zone; Wetlands; Leaking underground storage tank 142 U 089: MP 474.5 - MP 475.4 (Both Directions ) Statewide Rank: 60 Project Details Route: U 089 Direction: Both Directions BMP: 474.5 Tier Level: 1 EMP: 475.4 District Rank: 7 District: Flagstaff Left Shoulder: 2 to 6 FT County: Coconino Right Shoulder: 2 to 6 FT Roadway Characteristics Functional Class: Rural Principal Other Wideload Corridor: Yes Pullouts: No Ped/Bike Corridor: No Guardrail: No Terrain/Max Slope: 1.71 Terrain: Level K-Factor: 9 Speed Limit(mph): 65 Future AADT: 8200 Existing AADT: 6762 Future LOS: D Existing LOS: C Directional Split: 49 / 51 Truck %: 13 Safety Analysis Total Number of Crashes: 12 Number of Fatal Crashes: 2 Injury & Possible Injury Crashes: 4 Non-Injury Crashes: 6 Equivalent Property Damage Value: 47 Crash Rate: 0.51 Source: Accident Location Information and Surveillance System (ALISS) 2008-2013 Construction Constraints/Feasibility General Location Paved shoulders in good condition; Ample room Assessment: to widen roadway; Unpaved clear zone adjacent to shoulder Cost Estimate: $819,000 Environmental Overview Land Ownership: Navajo Indian Res. Potential Analysis of available GIS data found the following Environmental environmental constraints that may be present within a quarter-mile of the proposed project area: No major Constraints: environmental constraints 143 S 064: MP 234.3 - MP 235.3 (Westbound ) Statewide Rank: 61 Project Details Route: S 064 Direction: Westbound BMP: 234.3 Tier Level: 1 EMP: 235.3 District Rank: 8 District: Flagstaff Left Shoulder: 2 to 6 FT County: Coconino Right Shoulder: 2 to 6 FT Roadway Characteristics Functional Class: Rural Principal Other Wideload Corridor: No Pullouts: No Ped/Bike Corridor: Yes Guardrail: No Terrain/Max Slope: 0.45 Terrain: Level K-Factor: 14 Speed Limit(mph): 65 Future AADT: 6200 Existing AADT: 4679 Future LOS: C Existing LOS: C Directional Split: 51 / 49 Truck %: 10 Safety Analysis Total Number of Crashes: 16 Number of Fatal Crashes: 0 Injury & Possible Injury Crashes: 3 Non-Injury Crashes: 13 Equivalent Property Damage Value: 23 Crash Rate: 1.84 Source: Accident Location Information and Surveillance System (ALISS) 2008-2013 Construction Constraints/Feasibility General Location Ample room to widen roadway; Multiple Assessment: intersecting roadways; Paved shoulders in good condition Cost Estimate: $459,000 Environmental Overview Land Ownership: Kaibab N.F Potential Analysis of available GIS data found the following Environmental environmental constraints that may be present within a quarter-mile of the proposed project area: active fault Constraints: lines; Leaking underground storage tank 144 S 064: MP 226 - MP 228 (Both Directions ) Statewide Rank: 62 Project Details Route: S 064 Direction: Both Directions BMP: 226.0 Tier Level: 1 EMP: 228.0 District Rank: 9 District: Flagstaff Left Shoulder: 2 to 6 FT County: Coconino Right Shoulder: 2 to 6 FT Roadway Characteristics Functional Class: Rural Principal Other Wideload Corridor: No Pullouts: No Ped/Bike Corridor: Yes Guardrail: No Terrain/Max Slope: 3.68 Terrain: Rolling K-Factor: 14 Speed Limit(mph): 65 Future AADT: 6200 Existing AADT: 4679 Future LOS: D Existing LOS: C Directional Split: 51 / 49 Truck %: 10 Safety Analysis Total Number of Crashes: 20 Number of Fatal Crashes: 0 Injury & Possible Injury Crashes: 7 Non-Injury Crashes: 13 Equivalent Property Damage Value: 45 Crash Rate: 1.17 Source: Accident Location Information and Surveillance System (ALISS) 2008-2013 Construction Constraints/Feasibility General Location Ample room to widen roadway; Paved shoulders Assessment: in good condition Cost Estimate: $1,980,000 Environmental Overview Land Ownership: Kaibab N.F Potential Analysis of available GIS data found the following Environmental environmental constraints that may be present within a quarter-mile of the proposed project area: Wildlife Constraints: Linkage Zone 145 S 064: MP 218 - MP 220 (Both Directions ) Statewide Rank: 63 Project Details Route: S 064 Direction: Both Directions BMP: 218.0 Tier Level: 1 District Rank: 10 EMP: 220.0 District: Flagstaff Left Shoulder: 2 to 6 FT County: Coconino Right Shoulder: 2 to 6 FT Roadway Characteristics Functional Class: Rural Principal Other Wideload Corridor: No Pullouts: No Ped/Bike Corridor: Yes Guardrail: No Terrain/Max Slope: 2.02 Terrain: Level K-Factor: 14 Speed Limit(mph): 65 Future AADT: 6200 Existing AADT: 4679 Future LOS: D Existing LOS: C Directional Split: 51 / 49 Truck %: 10 Safety Analysis Total Number of Crashes: 15 Number of Fatal Crashes: 0 Injury & Possible Injury Crashes: 5 Non-Injury Crashes: 10 Equivalent Property Damage Value: 36 Crash Rate: 0.88 Source: Accident Location Information and Surveillance System (ALISS) 2008-2013 Construction Constraints/Feasibility General Location Ample room to widen roadway; Paved shoulders Assessment: in good condition; Intersecting roadway Cost Estimate: $1,800,000 Environmental Overview Land Ownership: Private Land, State Trust Land Potential Analysis of available GIS data found the following Environmental environmental constraints that may be present within a quarter-mile of the proposed project area: Wildlife Constraints: Linkage Zone; Wetlands 146 U 160: MP 392 - MP 394 (Both Directions ) Statewide Rank: 64 Project Details Route: U 160 Direction: Both Directions BMP: 392.0 Tier Level: 1 District Rank: 17 EMP: 394.0 Left Shoulder: 2 to 6 FT District: Holbrook County: Navajo Right Shoulder: 6 to 8 FT Roadway Characteristics Functional Class: Rural Principal Other Wideload Corridor: Yes Pullouts: No Ped/Bike Corridor: Yes Guardrail: No Terrain/Max Slope: 1.94 Terrain: Level K-Factor: 11 Speed Limit(mph): 65 Future AADT: 3200 Existing AADT: 4679 Future LOS: B Existing LOS: C Directional Split: 60 / 40 Truck %: 11 Safety Analysis Total Number of Crashes: 47 Number of Fatal Crashes: 1 Injury & Possible Injury Crashes: 22 Non-Injury Crashes: 24 Equivalent Property Damage Value: 94 Crash Rate: 2.75 Source: Accident Location Information and Surveillance System (ALISS) 2008-2013 Construction Constraints/Feasibility General Location Portion is curbed (MP 393.2 - 393.6); Ample Assessment: room to widen roadway; Paved portion of shoulders in good condition; Multiple intersecting roadways Cost Estimate: $1,800,000 Environmental Overview Land Ownership: Navajo Indian Res. Potential Analysis of available GIS data found the following Environmental environmental constraints that may be present within a quarter-mile of the proposed project area: Wildlife Constraints: Linkage Zone 147 S 064: MP 222 - MP 224 (Both Directions ) Statewide Rank: 65 Project Details Route: S 064 Direction: Both Directions BMP: 222.0 Tier Level: 1 District Rank: 11 EMP: 224.0 District: Flagstaff Left Shoulder: 2 to 6 FT County: Coconino Right Shoulder: 2 to 6 FT Roadway Characteristics Functional Class: Rural Principal Other Wideload Corridor: No Pullouts: No Ped/Bike Corridor: Yes Guardrail: No Terrain/Max Slope: 1.8 Terrain: Level K-Factor: 14 Speed Limit(mph): 65 Future AADT: 6200 Existing AADT: 4679 Future LOS: D Existing LOS: C Directional Split: 51 / 49 Truck %: 10 Safety Analysis Total Number of Crashes: 16 Number of Fatal Crashes: 1 Injury & Possible Injury Crashes: 2 Non-Injury Crashes: 13 Equivalent Property Damage Value: 33 Crash Rate: 0.94 Source: Accident Location Information and Surveillance System (ALISS) 2008-2013 Construction Constraints/Feasibility General Location Ample room to widen roadway; Paved shoulders Assessment: in good condition Cost Estimate: $1,800,000 Environmental Overview Land Ownership: Kaibab N.F Potential Analysis of available GIS data found the following Environmental environmental constraints that may be present within a quarter-mile of the proposed project area: active fault Constraints: lines 148 U 060: MP 332 - MP 334 (Both Directions ) Statewide Rank: 66 Project Details Route: U 060 Direction: Both Directions BMP: 332.0 Tier Level: 1 District Rank: 11 EMP: 334.0 District: Globe Left Shoulder: 2 to 6 FT County: Navajo Right Shoulder: 2 to 6 FT Roadway Characteristics Functional Class: Rural Minor Arterial Wideload Corridor: Yes Pullouts: No Ped/Bike Corridor: Yes Guardrail: Yes Terrain/Max Slope: 4 Terrain: Rolling K-Factor: 10 Speed Limit(mph): 65 Future AADT: 2800 Existing AADT: 2513 Future LOS: C Existing LOS: C Directional Split: 60 / 40 Truck %: 11 Safety Analysis Total Number of Crashes: 18 Number of Fatal Crashes: 0 Injury & Possible Injury Crashes: 6 Non-Injury Crashes: 12 Equivalent Property Damage Value: 39 Crash Rate: 1.96 Source: Accident Location Information and Surveillance System (ALISS) 2008-2013 Construction Constraints/Feasibility General Location No Shoulder; Roadside cliffs may limit Assessment: construction Cost Estimate: $1,980,000 Environmental Overview Land Ownership: White Mtn Apache Indian Res. Potential Analysis of available GIS data found the following Environmental environmental constraints that may be present within a quarter-mile of the proposed project area: Wildlife Constraints: Linkage Zone; Wetlands 149 U 089: MP 461.8 - MP 460.7 (Both Directions ) Statewide Rank: 67 Project Details Route: U 089 Direction: Both Directions BMP: 461.8 Tier Level: 1 District Rank: 12 EMP: 460.7 District: Flagstaff Left Shoulder: 2 to 6 FT County: Coconino Right Shoulder: 2 to 6 FT Roadway Characteristics Functional Class: Rural Principal Other Wideload Corridor: Yes Pullouts: No Ped/Bike Corridor: No Guardrail: No Terrain/Max Slope: 1.74 Terrain: Level K-Factor: 8 Speed Limit(mph): 65 Future AADT: 7900 Existing AADT: 6491 Future LOS: D Existing LOS: D Directional Split: 60 / 40 Truck %: 13 Safety Analysis Total Number of Crashes: 5 Number of Fatal Crashes: 0 Injury & Possible Injury Crashes: 4 Non-Injury Crashes: 1 Equivalent Property Damage Value: 18 Crash Rate: 0.39 Source: Accident Location Information and Surveillance System (ALISS) 2008-2013 Construction Constraints/Feasibility General Location Paved shoulders in good condition; Ample room Assessment: to widen roadway; Multiple intersecting roadways Cost Estimate: $981,000 Environmental Overview Land Ownership: Navajo Indian Res. Potential Analysis of available GIS data found the following Environmental environmental constraints that may be present within a quarter-mile of the proposed project area: Wildlife Constraints: Linkage Zone 150 S 064: MP 228 - MP 230 (Both Directions ) Statewide Rank: 68 Project Details Route: S 064 Direction: Both Directions BMP: 228.0 Tier Level: 1 District Rank: 13 EMP: 230.0 District: Flagstaff Left Shoulder: 2 to 6 FT County: Coconino Right Shoulder: 2 to 6 FT Roadway Characteristics Functional Class: Rural Principal Other Wideload Corridor: No Pullouts: No Ped/Bike Corridor: Yes Guardrail: No Terrain/Max Slope: 2.86 Terrain: Rolling K-Factor: 14 Speed Limit(mph): 65 Future AADT: 6200 Existing AADT: 4679 Future LOS: D Existing LOS: C Directional Split: 51 / 49 Truck %: 10 Safety Analysis Total Number of Crashes: 19 Number of Fatal Crashes: 0 Injury & Possible Injury Crashes: 4 Non-Injury Crashes: 15 Equivalent Property Damage Value: 31 Crash Rate: 1.11 Source: Accident Location Information and Surveillance System (ALISS) 2008-2013 Construction Constraints/Feasibility General Location Ample room to widen roadway; Paved shoulders Assessment: in good condition; Intersecting roadway Cost Estimate: $1,980,000 Environmental Overview Land Ownership: Kaibab N.F Potential Analysis of available GIS data found the following Environmental environmental constraints that may be present within a quarter-mile of the proposed project area: Wildlife Constraints: Linkage Zone 151 U 160: MP 382 - MP 384 (Both Directions ) Statewide Rank: 69 Project Details Route: U 160 Direction: Both Directions BMP: 382.0 Tier Level: 1 District Rank: 18 EMP: 384.0 Left Shoulder: 2 to 6 FT District: Holbrook County: Navajo Right Shoulder: 2 to 6 FT Roadway Characteristics Functional Class: Rural Principal Other Wideload Corridor: Yes Pullouts: No Ped/Bike Corridor: No Guardrail: Yes Terrain/Max Slope: 4.83 Terrain: Level K-Factor: 11 Speed Limit(mph): 65 Future AADT: 6200 Existing AADT: 5206 Future LOS: D Existing LOS: D Directional Split: 60 / 40 Truck %: 10 Safety Analysis Total Number of Crashes: 12 Number of Fatal Crashes: 0 Injury & Possible Injury Crashes: 5 Non-Injury Crashes: 7 Equivalent Property Damage Value: 26 Crash Rate: 0.63 Source: Accident Location Information and Surveillance System (ALISS) 2008-2013 Construction Constraints/Feasibility General Location Ample room to widen roadway; Paved shoulders Assessment: in good condition; Multiple intersecting roadways; Narrow shoulders Cost Estimate: $1,800,000 Environmental Overview Land Ownership: Navajo Indian Res. Potential Analysis of available GIS data found the following Environmental environmental constraints that may be present within a quarter-mile of the proposed project area: Wildlife Constraints: Linkage Zone; Riparian Habitats; Wetlands 152 U 060: MP 324 - MP 326 (Both Directions ) Statewide Rank: 70 Project Details Route: U 060 Direction: Both Directions BMP: 324.0 Tier Level: 1 District Rank: 12 EMP: 326.0 District: Globe Left Shoulder: 2 to 6 FT County: Navajo Right Shoulder: 2 to 6 FT Roadway Characteristics Functional Class: Rural Minor Arterial Wideload Corridor: Yes Pullouts: No Ped/Bike Corridor: Yes Guardrail: Yes Terrain/Max Slope: 5.81 Terrain: Rolling K-Factor: 10 Speed Limit(mph): 65 Future AADT: 2800 Existing AADT: 2513 Future LOS: C Existing LOS: C Directional Split: 60 / 40 Truck %: 11 Safety Analysis Total Number of Crashes: 19 Number of Fatal Crashes: 0 Injury & Possible Injury Crashes: 4 Non-Injury Crashes: 15 Equivalent Property Damage Value: 29 Crash Rate: 2.07 Source: Accident Location Information and Surveillance System (ALISS) 2008-2013 Construction Constraints/Feasibility General Location Paved shoulders in good condition; Narrow Assessment: shoulder; Ample room to widen roadway; Multiple intersecting roadways Cost Estimate: $1,980,000 Environmental Overview Land Ownership: White Mtn Apache Indian Res. Potential Analysis of available GIS data found the following Environmental environmental constraints that may be present within a quarter-mile of the proposed project area: Wildlife Constraints: Linkage Zone; Wetlands 153 U 060: MP 336 - MP 338 (Both Directions ) Statewide Rank: 71 Project Details Route: U 060 Direction: Both Directions BMP: 336.0 Tier Level: 1 District Rank: 13 EMP: 338.0 District: Globe Left Shoulder: 2 to 6 FT County: Navajo Right Shoulder: 2 to 6 FT Roadway Characteristics Functional Class: Rural Minor Arterial Wideload Corridor: Yes Pullouts: No Ped/Bike Corridor: Yes Guardrail: Yes Terrain/Max Slope: 3.94 Terrain: Rolling K-Factor: 15 Speed Limit(mph): 65 Future AADT: 3300 Existing AADT: 2513 Future LOS: C Existing LOS: C Directional Split: 49 / 51 Truck %: 12 Safety Analysis Total Number of Crashes: 15 Number of Fatal Crashes: 2 Injury & Possible Injury Crashes: 3 Non-Injury Crashes: 10 Equivalent Property Damage Value: 44 Crash Rate: 1.64 Source: Accident Location Information and Surveillance System (ALISS) 2008-2013 Construction Constraints/Feasibility General Location Narrow Shoulder; Roadside cliffs may limit Assessment: construction Cost Estimate: $1,980,000 Environmental Overview Land Ownership: White Mtn Apache Indian Res., Apache-Sitgreaves N.F Potential Analysis of available GIS data found the following Environmental environmental constraints that may be present within a quarter-mile of the proposed project area: Wetlands Constraints: 154 S 064: MP 190 - MP 192 (Both Directions ) Statewide Rank: 72 Project Details Route: S 064 Direction: Both Directions BMP: 190.0 Tier Level: 1 District Rank: 14 EMP: 192.0 District: Flagstaff Left Shoulder: 2 to 6 FT County: Coconino Right Shoulder: 2 to 6 FT Roadway Characteristics Functional Class: Rural Principal Other Wideload Corridor: No Pullouts: No Ped/Bike Corridor: Yes Guardrail: No Terrain/Max Slope: 3.4 Terrain: Rolling K-Factor: 10 Speed Limit(mph): 65 Future AADT: 4100 Existing AADT: 7166 Future LOS: C Existing LOS: D Directional Split: 60 / 40 Truck %: 10 Safety Analysis Total Number of Crashes: 34 Number of Fatal Crashes: 0 Injury & Possible Injury Crashes: 2 Non-Injury Crashes: 32 Equivalent Property Damage Value: 40 Crash Rate: 1.3 Source: Accident Location Information and Surveillance System (ALISS) 2008-2013 Construction Constraints/Feasibility General Location Ample room to widen roadway; Paved shoulders Assessment: in good condition; Multiple intersecting roadways Cost Estimate: $1,980,000 Environmental Overview Land Ownership: Private Land, State Trust Land Potential Analysis of available GIS data found the following Environmental environmental constraints that may be present within a quarter-mile of the proposed project area: Wildlife Constraints: Linkage Zone; Wetlands 155 U 160: MP 446 - MP 448 (Both Directions ) Statewide Rank: 73 Project Details Route: U 160 Direction: Both Directions BMP: 446.0 Tier Level: 1 District Rank: 19 EMP: 448.0 Left Shoulder: 2 to 6 FT District: Holbrook County: Apache Right Shoulder: 2 to 6 FT Roadway Characteristics Functional Class: Rural Principal Other Wideload Corridor: Yes Pullouts: No Ped/Bike Corridor: Yes Guardrail: No Terrain/Max Slope: 4.65 Terrain: Level K-Factor: 33 Speed Limit(mph): 65 Future AADT: 4000 Existing AADT: 3067 Future LOS: D Existing LOS: D Directional Split: 52 / 48 Truck %: 11 Safety Analysis Total Number of Crashes: 7 Number of Fatal Crashes: 0 Injury & Possible Injury Crashes: 4 Non-Injury Crashes: 3 Equivalent Property Damage Value: 19 Crash Rate: 0.63 Source: Accident Location Information and Surveillance System (ALISS) 2008-2013 Construction Constraints/Feasibility General Location Paved shoulder in good condition; Ample room Assessment: to widen roadway; Multiple intersecting roadways Cost Estimate: $1,800,000 Environmental Overview Land Ownership: Navajo Indian Res. Potential Analysis of available GIS data found the following Environmental environmental constraints that may be present within a quarter-mile of the proposed project area: No major Constraints: environmental constraints 156 S 087: MP 270 - MP 272 (Both Directions ) Statewide Rank: 74 Project Details Route: S 087 Direction: Both Directions BMP: 270.0 Tier Level: 1 EMP: 272.0 District Rank: 7 Left Shoulder: Less than 2 FT District: Prescott County: Gila Right Shoulder: Less than 2 FT Roadway Characteristics Functional Class: Rural Major Collector Wideload Corridor: No Pullouts: Yes Ped/Bike Corridor: Yes Guardrail: Yes Terrain/Max Slope: 5.89 Terrain: Mountainous K-Factor: 10 Speed Limit(mph): 50 Future AADT: 5200 Existing AADT: 3825 Future LOS: C Existing LOS: C Directional Split: 60 / 40 Truck %: 12 Safety Analysis Total Number of Crashes: 39 Number of Fatal Crashes: 0 Injury & Possible Injury Crashes: 19 Non-Injury Crashes: 20 Equivalent Property Damage Value: 91 Crash Rate: 2.79 Source: Accident Location Information and Surveillance System (ALISS) 2008-2013 Construction Constraints/Feasibility General Location Narrow shoulders; Unpaved shoulders; Assessment: Structures along segment Cost Estimate: $3,780,000 Environmental Overview Land Ownership: Tonto N.F, Private Land Potential Analysis of available GIS data found the following Environmental environmental constraints that may be present within a quarter-mile of the proposed project area: Wildlife Constraints: Linkage Zone; Wetlands;100-Yr Floodplain; Critical Habitat Area 157 S 064: MP 216 - MP 218 (Both Directions ) Statewide Rank: 75 Project Details Route: S 064 Direction: Both Directions BMP: 216.0 Tier Level: 1 District Rank: 15 EMP: 218.0 District: Flagstaff Left Shoulder: 2 to 6 FT County: Coconino Right Shoulder: 2 to 6 FT Roadway Characteristics Functional Class: Rural Principal Other Wideload Corridor: No Pullouts: No Ped/Bike Corridor: Yes Guardrail: No Terrain/Max Slope: 1.51 Terrain: Level K-Factor: 14 Speed Limit(mph): 65 Future AADT: 6200 Existing AADT: 4679 Future LOS: D Existing LOS: C Directional Split: 51 / 49 Truck %: 10 Safety Analysis Total Number of Crashes: 10 Number of Fatal Crashes: 0 Injury & Possible Injury Crashes: 3 Non-Injury Crashes: 7 Equivalent Property Damage Value: 19 Crash Rate: 0.59 Source: Accident Location Information and Surveillance System (ALISS) 2008-2013 Construction Constraints/Feasibility General Location Ample room to widen roadway; Paved shoulders Assessment: in good condition; Multiple intersecting roadways Cost Estimate: $1,800,000 Environmental Overview Land Ownership: Private Land, State Trust Land Potential Analysis of available GIS data found the following Environmental environmental constraints that may be present within a quarter-mile of the proposed project area: Wildlife Constraints: Linkage Zone; Wetlands 158 S 077: MP 343.3 - MP 343.4 (Both Directions ) Statewide Rank: 76 Project Details Route: S 077 Direction: Both Directions BMP: 343.3 Tier Level: 1 District Rank: 14 EMP: 343.4 District: Globe Left Shoulder: Less than 2 FT County: Navajo Right Shoulder: Less than 2 FT Roadway Characteristics Functional Class: Rural Principal Other Wideload Corridor: Yes Pullouts: No Ped/Bike Corridor: No Guardrail: No Terrain/Max Slope: 1.16 Terrain: Rolling K-Factor: 8 Speed Limit(mph): 65 Future AADT: 11000 Existing AADT: 8317 Future LOS: D Existing LOS: C Directional Split: 49 / 51 Truck %: 12 Safety Analysis Total Number of Crashes: 5 Number of Fatal Crashes: 0 Injury & Possible Injury Crashes: 1 Non-Injury Crashes: 4 Equivalent Property Damage Value: 6 Crash Rate: 0.29 Source: Accident Location Information and Surveillance System (ALISS) 2008-2013 Construction Constraints/Feasibility General Location Ample room to widen roadway; Paved shoulders Assessment: in good condition Cost Estimate: $225,225 Environmental Overview Land Ownership: Apache-Sitgreaves N.F, Private Land Potential Analysis of available GIS data found the following Environmental environmental constraints that may be present within a quarter-mile of the proposed project area: No major Constraints: environmental constraints 159 S 064: MP 220 - MP 222 (Both Directions ) Statewide Rank: 77 Project Details Route: S 064 Direction: Both Directions BMP: 220.0 Tier Level: 1 District Rank: 16 EMP: 222.0 District: Flagstaff Left Shoulder: 2 to 6 FT County: Coconino Right Shoulder: 2 to 6 FT Roadway Characteristics Functional Class: Rural Principal Other Wideload Corridor: No Pullouts: No Ped/Bike Corridor: Yes Guardrail: No Terrain/Max Slope: 2.51 Terrain: Level K-Factor: 14 Speed Limit(mph): 65 Future AADT: 6200 Existing AADT: 4679 Future LOS: D Existing LOS: D Directional Split: 51 / 49 Truck %: 10 Safety Analysis Total Number of Crashes: 10 Number of Fatal Crashes: 0 Injury & Possible Injury Crashes: 1 Non-Injury Crashes: 9 Equivalent Property Damage Value: 13 Crash Rate: 0.59 Source: Accident Location Information and Surveillance System (ALISS) 2008-2013 Construction Constraints/Feasibility General Location Ample room to widen roadway; Paved shoulders Assessment: in good condition Cost Estimate: $1,800,000 Environmental Overview Land Ownership: State Trust Land Potential Analysis of available GIS data found the following Environmental environmental constraints that may be present within a quarter-mile of the proposed project area: active fault Constraints: lines 160 U 160: MP 378 - MP 380 (Both Directions ) Statewide Rank: 78 Project Details Route: U 160 Direction: Both Directions BMP: 378.0 Tier Level: 1 District Rank: 20 EMP: 380.0 Left Shoulder: 2 to 6 FT District: Holbrook County: Navajo Right Shoulder: 2 to 6 FT Roadway Characteristics Functional Class: Rural Principal Other Wideload Corridor: Yes Pullouts: No Ped/Bike Corridor: No Guardrail: No Terrain/Max Slope: 2.23 Terrain: Level K-Factor: 11 Speed Limit(mph): 65 Future AADT: 6200 Existing AADT: 5206 Future LOS: D Existing LOS: D Directional Split: 60 / 40 Truck %: 10 Safety Analysis Total Number of Crashes: 7 Number of Fatal Crashes: 0 Injury & Possible Injury Crashes: 3 Non-Injury Crashes: 4 Equivalent Property Damage Value: 15 Crash Rate: 0.37 Source: Accident Location Information and Surveillance System (ALISS) 2008-2013 Construction Constraints/Feasibility General Location Paved shoulder in good condition; Ample room Assessment: to widen roadway; Narrow shoulders Cost Estimate: $1,800,000 Environmental Overview Land Ownership: Navajo Indian Res. Potential Analysis of available GIS data found the following Environmental environmental constraints that may be present within a quarter-mile of the proposed project area: Wildlife Constraints: Linkage Zone; Wetlands 161 U 095: MP 39.9 - MP 42 (Both Directions ) Statewide Rank: 79 Project Details Route: U 095 Direction: Both Directions BMP: 39.9 Tier Level: 1 District Rank: 11 EMP: 42.0 District: Yuma Left Shoulder: 2 to 6 FT County: Yuma Right Shoulder: 2 to 6 FT Roadway Characteristics Functional Class: Rural Principal Other Wideload Corridor: Yes Pullouts: No Ped/Bike Corridor: No Guardrail: Yes Terrain/Max Slope: 0.59 Terrain: Level K-Factor: 14 Speed Limit(mph): 65 Future AADT: 8600 Existing AADT: 7070 Future LOS: D Existing LOS: D Directional Split: 50 / 50 Truck %: 19 Safety Analysis Total Number of Crashes: 22 Number of Fatal Crashes: 0 Injury & Possible Injury Crashes: 9 Non-Injury Crashes: 13 Equivalent Property Damage Value: 44 Crash Rate: 0.79 Source: Accident Location Information and Surveillance System (ALISS) 2008-2013 Construction Constraints/Feasibility General Location Paved shoulders in deteriorated condition; Assessment: Ample room to widen roadway; Narrow shoulder; Multiple intersecting roadways Cost Estimate: $1,935,000 Environmental Overview Land Ownership: Private Land, State Trust Land, Bureau of Land Mgmt. Potential Analysis of available GIS data found the following Environmental environmental constraints that may be present within a quarter-mile of the proposed project area: Greater Constraints: Yuma Dstination SRMA; Wildlife Linkage Zone; Wetlands;100-Yr Floodplain; Superfund site; PM10 Nonattainment Area 162 U 160: MP 440 - MP 442 (Both Directions ) Statewide Rank: 80 Project Details Route: U 160 Direction: Both Directions BMP: 440.0 Tier Level: 1 District Rank: 21 EMP: 442.0 Left Shoulder: 2 to 6 FT District: Holbrook County: Apache Right Shoulder: 2 to 6 FT Roadway Characteristics Functional Class: Rural Principal Other Wideload Corridor: Yes Pullouts: No Ped/Bike Corridor: Yes Guardrail: No Terrain/Max Slope: 4.32 Terrain: Level K-Factor: 33 Speed Limit(mph): 65 Future AADT: 4000 Existing AADT: 3067 Future LOS: E Existing LOS: D Directional Split: 52 / 48 Truck %: 11 Safety Analysis Total Number of Crashes: 5 Number of Fatal Crashes: 0 Injury & Possible Injury Crashes: 2 Non-Injury Crashes: 3 Equivalent Property Damage Value: 12 Crash Rate: 0.45 Source: Accident Location Information and Surveillance System (ALISS) 2008-2013 Construction Constraints/Feasibility General Location Paved shoulder in good condition; Ample room Assessment: to widen roadway; Narrow shoulders Cost Estimate: $1,800,000 Environmental Overview Land Ownership: Navajo Indian Res. Potential Analysis of available GIS data found the following Environmental environmental constraints that may be present within a quarter-mile of the proposed project area: No major Constraints: environmental constraints 163 U 060: MP 344 - MP 346 (Both Directions ) Statewide Rank: 81 Project Details Route: U 060 Direction: Both Directions BMP: 344.0 Tier Level: 1 District Rank: 15 EMP: 346.0 District: Globe Left Shoulder: 2 to 6 FT County: Navajo Right Shoulder: 2 to 6 FT Roadway Characteristics Functional Class: Rural Principal Other Wideload Corridor: Yes Pullouts: No Ped/Bike Corridor: No Guardrail: No Terrain/Max Slope: 3.51 Terrain: Rolling K-Factor: 9 Speed Limit(mph): 55 Future AADT: 12000 Existing AADT: 7370 Future LOS: D Existing LOS: D Directional Split: 60 / 40 Truck %: 11 Safety Analysis Total Number of Crashes: 23 Number of Fatal Crashes: 0 Injury & Possible Injury Crashes: 11 Non-Injury Crashes: 12 Equivalent Property Damage Value: 52 Crash Rate: 0.86 Source: Accident Location Information and Surveillance System (ALISS) 2008-2013 Construction Constraints/Feasibility General Location Paved shoulders in good condition; Ample room Assessment: to widen roadway; Unpaved clear zone adjacent to shoulder; One intersecting roadway Cost Estimate: $1,980,000 Environmental Overview Land Ownership: Apache-Sitgreaves N.F, Private Land Potential Analysis of available GIS data found the following Environmental environmental constraints that may be present within a quarter-mile of the proposed project area: 100-Yr Constraints: Floodplain 164 S 064: MP 198 - MP 200 (Both Directions ) Statewide Rank: 82 Project Details Route: S 064 Direction: Both Directions BMP: 198.0 Tier Level: 1 District Rank: 17 EMP: 200.0 District: Flagstaff Left Shoulder: 2 to 6 FT County: Coconino Right Shoulder: 2 to 6 FT Roadway Characteristics Functional Class: Rural Principal Other Wideload Corridor: No Pullouts: No Ped/Bike Corridor: Yes Guardrail: No Terrain/Max Slope: 3.8 Terrain: Rolling K-Factor: 10 Speed Limit(mph): 65 Future AADT: 4100 Existing AADT: 5171 Future LOS: C Existing LOS: D Directional Split: 60 / 40 Truck %: 14 Safety Analysis Total Number of Crashes: 12 Number of Fatal Crashes: 2 Injury & Possible Injury Crashes: 5 Non-Injury Crashes: 5 Equivalent Property Damage Value: 50 Crash Rate: 0.64 Source: Accident Location Information and Surveillance System (ALISS) 2008-2013 Construction Constraints/Feasibility General Location Ample room to widen roadway; Paved shoulders Assessment: in good condition Cost Estimate: $1,980,000 Environmental Overview Land Ownership: Private Land, State Trust Land Potential Analysis of available GIS data found the following Environmental environmental constraints that may be present within a quarter-mile of the proposed project area: Active fault Constraints: lines; Wetlands 165 S 264: MP 380 - MP 382 (Both Directions ) Statewide Rank: 83 Project Details Route: S 264 Direction: Both Directions BMP: 380.0 Tier Level: 1 District Rank: 22 EMP: 382.0 Left Shoulder: Less than 2 FT District: Holbrook County: Navajo Right Shoulder: Less than 2 FT Roadway Characteristics Functional Class: Rural Minor Arterial Wideload Corridor: Yes Pullouts: No Ped/Bike Corridor: Yes Guardrail: Yes Terrain/Max Slope: 7.05 Terrain: Mountainous K-Factor: 11 Speed Limit(mph): 65 Future AADT: 3100 Existing AADT: 2964 Future LOS: C Existing LOS: C Directional Split: 60 / 40 Truck %: 16 Safety Analysis Total Number of Crashes: 4 Number of Fatal Crashes: 1 Injury & Possible Injury Crashes: 3 Non-Injury Crashes: 0 Equivalent Property Damage Value: 18 Crash Rate: 0.37 Source: Accident Location Information and Surveillance System (ALISS) 2008-2013 Construction Constraints/Feasibility General Location Narrow shoulder and roadside cliffs may limit Assessment: construction (MP381.4-382.0); Unpaved shoulder; Ample room to widen roadway (MP 380-381.4) Cost Estimate: $3,780,000 Environmental Overview Land Ownership: Hopi Indian Res. Potential Analysis of available GIS data found the following Environmental environmental constraints that may be present within a quarter-mile of the proposed project area: No major Constraints: environmental constraints 166 S 089: MP 329.3 - MP 329.5 (Both Directions ) Statewide Rank: 84 Project Details Route: S 089 Direction: Both Directions BMP: 329.3 Tier Level: 1 EMP: 329.5 District Rank: 8 District: Prescott Left Shoulder: Less than 2 FT County: Yavapai Right Shoulder: Less than 2 FT Roadway Characteristics Functional Class: Urban Principal Other Wideload Corridor: Yes Pullouts: No Ped/Bike Corridor: No Guardrail: No Terrain/Max Slope: 0.137 Terrain: Level K-Factor: 9 Speed Limit(mph): 55 Future AADT: 12500 Existing AADT: 11035 Future LOS: C Existing LOS: C Directional Split: 50 / 50 Truck %: 8 Safety Analysis Total Number of Crashes: 72 Number of Fatal Crashes: 1 Injury & Possible Injury Crashes: 21 Non-Injury Crashes: 50 Equivalent Property Damage Value: 151 Crash Rate: 3.06 Source: Accident Location Information and Surveillance System (ALISS) 2008-2013 Construction Constraints/Feasibility General Location Paved shoulders in good condition; Ample room Assessment: to widen roadway Cost Estimate: $267,750 Environmental Overview Land Ownership: Private Land Potential Analysis of available GIS data found the following Environmental environmental constraints that may be present within a quarter-mile of the proposed project area: Wildlife Constraints: Linkage Zone; Wetlands 167 S 264: MP 378 - MP 380 (Both Directions ) Statewide Rank: 85 Project Details Route: S 264 Direction: Both Directions BMP: 378.0 Tier Level: 1 District Rank: 23 EMP: 380.0 Left Shoulder: Less than 2 FT District: Holbrook County: Navajo Right Shoulder: Less than 2 FT Roadway Characteristics Functional Class: Rural Minor Collector Wideload Corridor: Yes Pullouts: No Ped/Bike Corridor: Yes Guardrail: Yes Terrain/Max Slope: 5.87 Terrain: Mountainous K-Factor: 11 Speed Limit(mph): 65 Future AADT: 3100 Existing AADT: 2964 Future LOS: C Existing LOS: C Directional Split: 60 / 40 Truck %: 16 Safety Analysis Total Number of Crashes: 3 Number of Fatal Crashes: 1 Injury & Possible Injury Crashes: 1 Non-Injury Crashes: 1 Equivalent Property Damage Value: 17 Crash Rate: 0.28 Source: Accident Location Information and Surveillance System (ALISS) 2008-2013 Construction Constraints/Feasibility General Location Narrow shoulder and roadside cliffs may limit Assessment: construction (MP 378.0-378.5); Ample room to widen roadway; Multiple intersecting roadways Cost Estimate: $3,780,000 Environmental Overview Land Ownership: Hopi Indian Res. Potential Analysis of available GIS data found the following Environmental environmental constraints that may be present within a quarter-mile of the proposed project area: Wetlands Constraints: 168 U 060: MP 290 - MP 292 (Both Directions ) Statewide Rank: 86 Project Details Route: U 060 Direction: Both Directions BMP: 290.0 Tier Level: 1 District Rank: 16 EMP: 292.0 Left Shoulder: 6 to 8 FT District: Globe County: Gila Right Shoulder: 6 to 8 FT Roadway Characteristics Functional Class: Rural Minor Arterial Wideload Corridor: Yes Pullouts: Yes Ped/Bike Corridor: Yes Guardrail: Yes Terrain/Max Slope: 6.3 Terrain: Mountainous K-Factor: 15 Speed Limit(mph): 65 Future AADT: 3300 Existing AADT: 2276 Future LOS: C Existing LOS: C Directional Split: 52 / 48 Truck %: 11 Safety Analysis Total Number of Crashes: 47 Number of Fatal Crashes: 0 Injury & Possible Injury Crashes: 27 Non-Injury Crashes: 20 Equivalent Property Damage Value: 136 Crash Rate: 5.66 Source: Accident Location Information and Surveillance System (ALISS) 2008-2013 Construction Constraints/Feasibility General Location Narrow shoulder; Paved shoulders in good Assessment: condition; Roadside cliffs may limit construction Cost Estimate: $540,000 Environmental Overview Land Ownership: San Carlos Indian Res. Potential Analysis of available GIS data found the following Environmental environmental constraints that may be present within a quarter-mile of the proposed project area: Wildlife Constraints: Linkage Zone; Riparian Habitats; Wetlands; Critical Habitat Area 169 U 160: MP 374 - MP 376 (Both Directions ) Statewide Rank: 87 Project Details Route: U 160 Direction: Both Directions BMP: 374.0 Tier Level: 1 District Rank: 24 EMP: 376.0 Left Shoulder: 2 to 6 FT District: Holbrook County: Navajo Right Shoulder: 2 to 6 FT Roadway Characteristics Functional Class: Rural Principal Other Wideload Corridor: Yes Pullouts: No Ped/Bike Corridor: No Guardrail: No Terrain/Max Slope: 3.69 Terrain: Level K-Factor: 11 Speed Limit(mph): 65 Future AADT: 6200 Existing AADT: 5206 Future LOS: D Existing LOS: D Directional Split: 60 / 40 Truck %: 10 Safety Analysis Total Number of Crashes: 2 Number of Fatal Crashes: 0 Injury & Possible Injury Crashes: 1 Non-Injury Crashes: 1 Equivalent Property Damage Value: 5 Crash Rate: 0.11 Source: Accident Location Information and Surveillance System (ALISS) 2008-2013 Construction Constraints/Feasibility General Location Paved shoulders in good condition; Ample room Assessment: to widen roadway Cost Estimate: $1,800,000 Environmental Overview Land Ownership: Navajo Indian Res. Potential Analysis of available GIS data found the following Environmental environmental constraints that may be present within a quarter-mile of the proposed project area: Wildlife Constraints: Linkage Zone; Wetlands 170 U 160: MP 380 - MP 382 (Both Directions ) Statewide Rank: 88 Project Details Route: U 160 Direction: Both Directions BMP: 380.0 Tier Level: 1 District Rank: 25 EMP: 382.0 Left Shoulder: 2 to 6 FT District: Holbrook County: Navajo Right Shoulder: 2 to 6 FT Roadway Characteristics Functional Class: Rural Principal Other Wideload Corridor: Yes Pullouts: No Ped/Bike Corridor: No Guardrail: Yes Terrain/Max Slope: 4.41 Terrain: Level K-Factor: 11 Speed Limit(mph): 65 Future AADT: 6200 Existing AADT: 5206 Future LOS: D Existing LOS: D Directional Split: 60 / 40 Truck %: 10 Safety Analysis Total Number of Crashes: 3 Number of Fatal Crashes: 0 Injury & Possible Injury Crashes: 2 Non-Injury Crashes: 1 Equivalent Property Damage Value: 7 Crash Rate: 0.16 Source: Accident Location Information and Surveillance System (ALISS) 2008-2013 Construction Constraints/Feasibility General Location Paved shoulders in good condition; Narrow Assessment: shoulders; Ample room to widen roadway; Multiple intersecting roadways Cost Estimate: $1,800,000 Environmental Overview Land Ownership: Navajo Indian Res. Potential Analysis of available GIS data found the following Environmental environmental constraints that may be present within a quarter-mile of the proposed project area: Wildlife Constraints: Linkage Zone; Wetlands 171 S 064: MP 212 - MP 214 (Both Directions ) Statewide Rank: 89 Project Details Route: S 064 Direction: Both Directions BMP: 212.0 Tier Level: 1 District Rank: 18 EMP: 214.0 District: Flagstaff Left Shoulder: 2 to 6 FT County: Coconino Right Shoulder: 2 to 6 FT Roadway Characteristics Functional Class: Rural Major Collector Wideload Corridor: No Pullouts: No Ped/Bike Corridor: Yes Guardrail: No Terrain/Max Slope: 1.19 Terrain: Level K-Factor: 10 Speed Limit(mph): 65 Future AADT: 4100 Existing AADT: 5171 Future LOS: C Existing LOS: C Directional Split: 60 / 40 Truck %: 14 Safety Analysis Total Number of Crashes: 11 Number of Fatal Crashes: 0 Injury & Possible Injury Crashes: 2 Non-Injury Crashes: 9 Equivalent Property Damage Value: 17 Crash Rate: 0.58 Source: Accident Location Information and Surveillance System (ALISS) 2008-2013 Construction Constraints/Feasibility General Location Ample room to widen roadway; Paved shoulders Assessment: in good condition; Multiple intersecting roadways; Intersection with US180 Cost Estimate: $1,800,000 Environmental Overview Land Ownership: Private Land, State Trust Land Potential Analysis of available GIS data found the following Environmental environmental constraints that may be present within a quarter-mile of the proposed project area: Wildlife Constraints: Linkage Zone; Wetlands 172 U 089: MP 469.6 - MP 470.8 (Both Directions ) Statewide Rank: 90 Project Details Route: U 089 Direction: Both Directions BMP: 469.6 Tier Level: 1 District Rank: 19 EMP: 470.8 District: Flagstaff Left Shoulder: 2 to 6 FT County: Coconino Right Shoulder: 2 to 6 FT Roadway Characteristics Functional Class: Rural Principal Other Wideload Corridor: Yes Pullouts: No Ped/Bike Corridor: No Guardrail: No Terrain/Max Slope: 1.1 Terrain: Level K-Factor: 9 Speed Limit(mph): 65 Future AADT: 8200 Existing AADT: 6762 Future LOS: D Existing LOS: C Directional Split: 49 / 51 Truck %: 13 Safety Analysis Total Number of Crashes: 8 Number of Fatal Crashes: 0 Injury & Possible Injury Crashes: 2 Non-Injury Crashes: 6 Equivalent Property Damage Value: 14 Crash Rate: 0.56 Source: Accident Location Information and Surveillance System (ALISS) 2008-2013 Construction Constraints/Feasibility General Location Unpaved shoulders; Ample room to widen Assessment: roadway Cost Estimate: $1,044,000 Environmental Overview Land Ownership: Navajo Indian Res. Potential Analysis of available GIS data found the following Environmental environmental constraints that may be present within a quarter-mile of the proposed project area: No major Constraints: environmental constraints 173 U 160: MP 376 - MP 378 (Both Directions ) Statewide Rank: 91 Project Details Route: U 160 Direction: Both Directions BMP: 376.0 Tier Level: 1 District Rank: 26 EMP: 378.0 Left Shoulder: 2 to 6 FT District: Holbrook County: Navajo Right Shoulder: 2 to 6 FT Roadway Characteristics Functional Class: Rural Principal Other Wideload Corridor: Yes Pullouts: No Ped/Bike Corridor: No Guardrail: No Terrain/Max Slope: 2.88 Terrain: Level K-Factor: 11 Speed Limit(mph): 65 Future AADT: 6200 Existing AADT: 5206 Future LOS: D Existing LOS: D Directional Split: 60 / 40 Truck %: 10 Safety Analysis Total Number of Crashes: 5 Number of Fatal Crashes: 0 Injury & Possible Injury Crashes: 1 Non-Injury Crashes: 4 Equivalent Property Damage Value: 6 Crash Rate: 0.26 Source: Accident Location Information and Surveillance System (ALISS) 2008-2013 Construction Constraints/Feasibility General Location Paved shoulders in good condition; Ample room Assessment: to widen roadway; Narrow shoulders Cost Estimate: $1,800,000 Environmental Overview Land Ownership: Navajo Indian Res. Potential Analysis of available GIS data found the following Environmental environmental constraints that may be present within a quarter-mile of the proposed project area: Wildlife Constraints: Linkage Zone; Wetlands 174 U 191: MP 454 - MP 456 (Both Directions ) Statewide Rank: 92 Project Details Route: U 191 Direction: Both Directions BMP: 454.0 Tier Level: 1 District Rank: 27 EMP: 456.0 Left Shoulder: Less than 2 FT District: Holbrook County: Apache Right Shoulder: Less than 2 FT Roadway Characteristics Functional Class: Rural Major Collector Wideload Corridor: Yes Pullouts: No Ped/Bike Corridor: Yes Guardrail: No Terrain/Max Slope: 0.43 Terrain: Level K-Factor: 10 Speed Limit(mph): 65 Future AADT: 4800 Existing AADT: 4486 Future LOS: C Existing LOS: C Directional Split: 60 / 40 Truck %: 8 Safety Analysis Total Number of Crashes: 6 Number of Fatal Crashes: 1 Injury & Possible Injury Crashes: 4 Non-Injury Crashes: 1 Equivalent Property Damage Value: 21 Crash Rate: 0.37 Source: Accident Location Information and Surveillance System (ALISS) 2008-2013 Construction Constraints/Feasibility General Location Unpaved shoulder; Ample room to widen Assessment: roadway; Multiple intersecting roadways Cost Estimate: $3,150,000 Environmental Overview Land Ownership: Navajo Indian Res. Potential Analysis of available GIS data found the following Environmental environmental constraints that may be present within a quarter-mile of the proposed project area: Wildlife Constraints: Linkage Zone; Wetlands 175 U 160: MP 370 - MP 372 (Both Directions ) Statewide Rank: 93 Project Details Route: U 160 Direction: Both Directions BMP: 370.0 Tier Level: 1 District Rank: 28 EMP: 372.0 Left Shoulder: 2 to 6 FT District: Holbrook County: Navajo Right Shoulder: 2 to 6 FT Roadway Characteristics Functional Class: Rural Principal Other Wideload Corridor: Yes Pullouts: No Ped/Bike Corridor: No Guardrail: No Terrain/Max Slope: 1.79 Terrain: Level K-Factor: 10 Speed Limit(mph): 65 Future AADT: 5500 Existing AADT: 5085 Future LOS: C Existing LOS: C Directional Split: 60 / 40 Truck %: 11 Safety Analysis Total Number of Crashes: 8 Number of Fatal Crashes: 0 Injury & Possible Injury Crashes: 3 Non-Injury Crashes: 5 Equivalent Property Damage Value: 11 Crash Rate: 0.43 Source: Accident Location Information and Surveillance System (ALISS) 2008-2013 Construction Constraints/Feasibility General Location Paved shoulders in deteriorating condition; Assessment: Ample room to widen roadway; Narrow shoulders Cost Estimate: $1,800,000 Environmental Overview Land Ownership: Navajo Indian Res. Potential Analysis of available GIS data found the following Environmental environmental constraints that may be present within a quarter-mile of the proposed project area: Wetlands Constraints: 176 S 064: MP 200 - MP 202 (Both Directions ) Statewide Rank: 94 Project Details Route: S 064 Direction: Both Directions BMP: 200.0 Tier Level: 1 District Rank: 20 EMP: 202.0 District: Flagstaff Left Shoulder: 2 to 6 FT County: Coconino Right Shoulder: 2 to 6 FT Roadway Characteristics Functional Class: Rural Principal Other Wideload Corridor: No Pullouts: No Ped/Bike Corridor: Yes Guardrail: No Terrain/Max Slope: 4.69 Terrain: Rolling K-Factor: 10 Speed Limit(mph): 65 Future AADT: 4100 Existing AADT: 5171 Future LOS: C Existing LOS: D Directional Split: 60 / 40 Truck %: 14 Safety Analysis Total Number of Crashes: 16 Number of Fatal Crashes: 0 Injury & Possible Injury Crashes: 1 Non-Injury Crashes: 15 Equivalent Property Damage Value: 22 Crash Rate: 0.85 Source: Accident Location Information and Surveillance System (ALISS) 2008-2013 Construction Constraints/Feasibility General Location Ample room to widen roadway; Paved shoulders Assessment: in good condition; Multiple intersecting roadways Cost Estimate: $1,980,000 Environmental Overview Land Ownership: Private Land Potential Analysis of available GIS data found the following Environmental environmental constraints that may be present within a quarter-mile of the proposed project area: Active fault Constraints: lines; Wetlands 177 U 160: MP 460 - MP 462 (Both Directions ) Statewide Rank: 95 Project Details Route: U 160 Direction: Both Directions BMP: 460.0 Tier Level: 1 District Rank: 29 EMP: 462.0 Left Shoulder: 2 to 6 FT District: Holbrook County: Apache Right Shoulder: 2 to 6 FT Roadway Characteristics Functional Class: Rural Principal Other Wideload Corridor: Yes Pullouts: No Ped/Bike Corridor: Yes Guardrail: No Terrain/Max Slope: 6.25 Terrain: Rolling K-Factor: 33 Speed Limit(mph): 65 Future AADT: 4000 Existing AADT: 3067 Future LOS: E Existing LOS: D Directional Split: 52 / 48 Truck %: 11 Safety Analysis Total Number of Crashes: 3 Number of Fatal Crashes: 0 Injury & Possible Injury Crashes: 2 Non-Injury Crashes: 1 Equivalent Property Damage Value: 12 Crash Rate: 0.27 Source: Accident Location Information and Surveillance System (ALISS) 2008-2013 Construction Constraints/Feasibility General Location Paved shoulders in good condition; Ample room Assessment: to widen roadway Cost Estimate: $1,980,000 Environmental Overview Land Ownership: Navajo Indian Res. Potential Analysis of available GIS data found the following Environmental environmental constraints that may be present within a quarter-mile of the proposed project area: Wetlands Constraints: 178 S 064: MP 196 - MP 198 (Both Directions ) Statewide Rank: 96 Project Details Route: S 064 Direction: Both Directions BMP: 196.0 Tier Level: 1 District Rank: 21 EMP: 198.0 District: Flagstaff Left Shoulder: 2 to 6 FT County: Coconino Right Shoulder: 2 to 6 FT Roadway Characteristics Functional Class: Rural Principal Other Wideload Corridor: No Pullouts: No Ped/Bike Corridor: Yes Guardrail: No Terrain/Max Slope: 5.08 Terrain: Rolling K-Factor: 10 Speed Limit(mph): 65 Future AADT: 4100 Existing AADT: 5171 Future LOS: C Existing LOS: D Directional Split: 60 / 40 Truck %: 14 Safety Analysis Total Number of Crashes: 15 Number of Fatal Crashes: 0 Injury & Possible Injury Crashes: 2 Non-Injury Crashes: 13 Equivalent Property Damage Value: 21 Crash Rate: 0.79 Source: Accident Location Information and Surveillance System (ALISS) 2008-2013 Construction Constraints/Feasibility General Location Ample room to widen roadway; Paved shoulders Assessment: in good condition; Multiple intersecting roadways Cost Estimate: $1,980,000 Environmental Overview Land Ownership: Private Land, State Trust Land Potential Analysis of available GIS data found the following Environmental environmental constraints that may be present within a quarter-mile of the proposed project area: Wildlife Constraints: Linkage Zone; Wetlands 179 U 160: MP 450 - MP 452 (Both Directions ) Statewide Rank: 97 Project Details Route: U 160 Direction: Both Directions BMP: 450.0 Tier Level: 1 District Rank: 30 EMP: 452.0 Left Shoulder: 2 to 6 FT District: Holbrook County: Apache Right Shoulder: 2 to 6 FT Roadway Characteristics Functional Class: Rural Principal Other Wideload Corridor: Yes Pullouts: No Ped/Bike Corridor: Yes Guardrail: No Terrain/Max Slope: 1.66 Terrain: Level K-Factor: 33 Speed Limit(mph): 65 Future AADT: 4000 Existing AADT: 3067 Future LOS: D Existing LOS: D Directional Split: 52 / 48 Truck %: 11 Safety Analysis Total Number of Crashes: 3 Number of Fatal Crashes: 0 Injury & Possible Injury Crashes: 2 Non-Injury Crashes: 1 Equivalent Property Damage Value: 7 Crash Rate: 0.27 Source: Accident Location Information and Surveillance System (ALISS) 2008-2013 Construction Constraints/Feasibility General Location Paved shoulders in good condition; Ample room Assessment: to widen roadway Cost Estimate: $1,800,000 Environmental Overview Land Ownership: Navajo Indian Res. Potential Analysis of available GIS data found the following Environmental environmental constraints that may be present within a quarter-mile of the proposed project area: Wetlands Constraints: 180 U 160: MP 442 - MP 444 (Both Directions ) Statewide Rank: 98 Project Details Route: U 160 Direction: Both Directions BMP: 442.0 Tier Level: 1 District Rank: 31 EMP: 444.0 Left Shoulder: 2 to 6 FT District: Holbrook County: Apache Right Shoulder: 2 to 6 FT Roadway Characteristics Functional Class: Rural Principal Other Wideload Corridor: Yes Pullouts: No Ped/Bike Corridor: Yes Guardrail: No Terrain/Max Slope: 1.64 Terrain: Level K-Factor: 33 Speed Limit(mph): 65 Future AADT: 4000 Existing AADT: 3067 Future LOS: D Existing LOS: D Directional Split: 52 / 48 Truck %: 11 Safety Analysis Total Number of Crashes: 3 Number of Fatal Crashes: 0 Injury & Possible Injury Crashes: 1 Non-Injury Crashes: 2 Equivalent Property Damage Value: 9 Crash Rate: 0.27 Source: Accident Location Information and Surveillance System (ALISS) 2008-2013 Construction Constraints/Feasibility General Location Paved shoulders in good condition; Ample room Assessment: to widen roadway Cost Estimate: $1,800,000 Environmental Overview Land Ownership: Navajo Indian Res. Potential Analysis of available GIS data found the following Environmental environmental constraints that may be present within a quarter-mile of the proposed project area: No major Constraints: environmental constraints 181 U 160: MP 366 - MP 368 (Both Directions ) Statewide Rank: 99 Project Details Route: U 160 Direction: Both Directions BMP: 366.0 Tier Level: 1 District Rank: 32 EMP: 368.0 Left Shoulder: 2 to 6 FT District: Holbrook County: Navajo Right Shoulder: 2 to 6 FT Roadway Characteristics Functional Class: Rural Principal Other Wideload Corridor: Yes Pullouts: No Ped/Bike Corridor: No Guardrail: Yes Terrain/Max Slope: 1.8 Terrain: Level K-Factor: 10 Speed Limit(mph): 65 Future AADT: 5500 Existing AADT: 5085 Future LOS: C Existing LOS: C Directional Split: 60 / 40 Truck %: 11 Safety Analysis Total Number of Crashes: 4 Number of Fatal Crashes: 0 Injury & Possible Injury Crashes: 1 Non-Injury Crashes: 3 Equivalent Property Damage Value: 5 Crash Rate: 0.22 Source: Accident Location Information and Surveillance System (ALISS) 2008-2013 Construction Constraints/Feasibility General Location Paved shoulders in deteriorating condition; Assessment: Ample room to widen roadway Cost Estimate: $1,800,000 Environmental Overview Land Ownership: Navajo-Hopi Joint Use Area Potential Analysis of available GIS data found the following Environmental environmental constraints that may be present within a quarter-mile of the proposed project area: No major Constraints: environmental constraints 182 U 160: MP 368 - MP 370 (Both Directions ) Statewide Rank: 100 Project Details Route: U 160 Direction: Both Directions BMP: 368.0 Tier Level: 1 District Rank: 33 EMP: 370.0 Left Shoulder: 2 to 6 FT District: Holbrook County: Navajo Right Shoulder: 2 to 6 FT Roadway Characteristics Functional Class: Rural Principal Other Wideload Corridor: Yes Pullouts: No Ped/Bike Corridor: No Guardrail: Yes Terrain/Max Slope: 2.01 Terrain: Level K-Factor: 10 Speed Limit(mph): 65 Future AADT: 5500 Existing AADT: 5085 Future LOS: C Existing LOS: C Directional Split: 60 / 40 Truck %: 11 Safety Analysis Total Number of Crashes: 4 Number of Fatal Crashes: 0 Injury & Possible Injury Crashes: 1 Non-Injury Crashes: 3 Equivalent Property Damage Value: 5 Crash Rate: 0.22 Source: Accident Location Information and Surveillance System (ALISS) 2008-2013 Construction Constraints/Feasibility General Location Paved shoulders in deteriorating condition; Assessment: Ample room to widen roadway; Multiple intersecting roadways Cost Estimate: $1,800,000 Environmental Overview Land Ownership: Navajo Indian Res. Potential Analysis of available GIS data found the following Environmental environmental constraints that may be present within a quarter-mile of the proposed project area: No major Constraints: environmental constraints 183 S 064: MP 202 - MP 204 (Both Directions ) Statewide Rank: 101 Project Details Route: S 064 Direction: Both Directions BMP: 202.0 Tier Level: 1 District Rank: 22 EMP: 204.0 District: Flagstaff Left Shoulder: 2 to 6 FT County: Coconino Right Shoulder: 2 to 6 FT Roadway Characteristics Functional Class: Rural Principal Other Wideload Corridor: No Pullouts: No Ped/Bike Corridor: Yes Guardrail: No Terrain/Max Slope: 3.63 Terrain: Rolling K-Factor: 10 Speed Limit(mph): 65 Future AADT: 4100 Existing AADT: 5171 Future LOS: C Existing LOS: D Directional Split: 60 / 40 Truck %: 14 Safety Analysis Total Number of Crashes: 14 Number of Fatal Crashes: 0 Injury & Possible Injury Crashes: 2 Non-Injury Crashes: 12 Equivalent Property Damage Value: 18 Crash Rate: 0.74 Source: Accident Location Information and Surveillance System (ALISS) 2008-2013 Construction Constraints/Feasibility General Location Ample room to widen roadway; Paved shoulders Assessment: in good condition; Multiple intersecting roadways Cost Estimate: $1,980,000 Environmental Overview Land Ownership: Private Land, State Trust Land Potential Analysis of available GIS data found the following Environmental environmental constraints that may be present within a quarter-mile of the proposed project area: Wildlife Constraints: Linkage Zone 184 S 064: MP 192 - MP 194 (Both Directions ) Statewide Rank: 102 Project Details Route: S 064 Direction: Both Directions BMP: 192.0 Tier Level: 1 District Rank: 23 EMP: 194.0 District: Flagstaff Left Shoulder: 2 to 6 FT County: Coconino Right Shoulder: 2 to 6 FT Roadway Characteristics Functional Class: Rural Principal Other Wideload Corridor: No Pullouts: No Ped/Bike Corridor: Yes Guardrail: No Terrain/Max Slope: 4.93 Terrain: Rolling K-Factor: 10 Speed Limit(mph): 65 Future AADT: 4100 Existing AADT: 5171 Future LOS: C Existing LOS: D Directional Split: 60 / 40 Truck %: 14 Safety Analysis Total Number of Crashes: 13 Number of Fatal Crashes: 0 Injury & Possible Injury Crashes: 3 Non-Injury Crashes: 10 Equivalent Property Damage Value: 22 Crash Rate: 0.69 Source: Accident Location Information and Surveillance System (ALISS) 2008-2013 Construction Constraints/Feasibility General Location Ample room to widen roadway; Paved shoulders Assessment: in good condition; Multiple intersecting roadways Cost Estimate: $1,980,000 Environmental Overview Land Ownership: Private Land, State Trust Land Potential Analysis of available GIS data found the following Environmental environmental constraints that may be present within a quarter-mile of the proposed project area: Wildlife Constraints: Linkage Zone; Wetlands 185 U 160: MP 438 - MP 440 (Both Directions ) Statewide Rank: 103 Project Details Route: U 160 Direction: Both Directions BMP: 438.0 Tier Level: 1 District Rank: 34 EMP: 440.0 Left Shoulder: 2 to 6 FT District: Holbrook County: Apache Right Shoulder: 2 to 6 FT Roadway Characteristics Functional Class: Rural Principal Other Wideload Corridor: Yes Pullouts: No Ped/Bike Corridor: Yes Guardrail: No Terrain/Max Slope: 3.81 Terrain: Level K-Factor: 33 Speed Limit(mph): 65 Future AADT: 4000 Existing AADT: 3067 Future LOS: D Existing LOS: D Directional Split: 52 / 48 Truck %: 11 Safety Analysis Total Number of Crashes: 3 Number of Fatal Crashes: 1 Injury & Possible Injury Crashes: 0 Non-Injury Crashes: 2 Equivalent Property Damage Value: 14 Crash Rate: 0.27 Source: Accident Location Information and Surveillance System (ALISS) 2008-2013 Construction Constraints/Feasibility General Location Paved shoulders in good condition; Ample room Assessment: to widen roadway Cost Estimate: $1,800,000 Environmental Overview Land Ownership: Navajo Indian Res. Potential Analysis of available GIS data found the following Environmental environmental constraints that may be present within a quarter-mile of the proposed project area: No major Constraints: environmental constraints 186 S 169: MP 4 - MP 6 (Both Directions ) Statewide Rank: 104 Project Details Route: S 169 Direction: Both Directions BMP: 4.0 Tier Level: 1 EMP: 6.0 District Rank: 9 District: Prescott Left Shoulder: 2 to 6 FT County: Yavapai Right Shoulder: 2 to 6 FT Roadway Characteristics Functional Class: Rural Minor Arterial Wideload Corridor: No Pullouts: No Ped/Bike Corridor: Yes Guardrail: Yes Terrain/Max Slope: 4.39 Terrain: Rolling K-Factor: 11 Speed Limit(mph): 65 Future AADT: 7100 Existing AADT: 4415 Future LOS: D Existing LOS: C Directional Split: 60 / 40 Truck %: 9 Safety Analysis Total Number of Crashes: 30 Number of Fatal Crashes: 1 Injury & Possible Injury Crashes: 9 Non-Injury Crashes: 20 Equivalent Property Damage Value: 57 Crash Rate: 1.86 Source: Accident Location Information and Surveillance System (ALISS) 2008-2013 Construction Constraints/Feasibility General Location Paved shoulders in good condition; Ample room Assessment: to widen roadway; Unpaved clear zone adjacent to shoulder; Multiple intersecting roadways Cost Estimate: $2,142,992 Environmental Overview Land Ownership: Private Land, State Trust Land Potential Analysis of available GIS data found the following Environmental environmental constraints that may be present within a quarter-mile of the proposed project area: 100-Yr Constraints: Floodplain 187 S 264: MP 382 - MP 384 (Both Directions ) Statewide Rank: 105 Project Details Route: S 264 Direction: Both Directions BMP: 382.0 Tier Level: 1 District Rank: 35 EMP: 384.0 Left Shoulder: Less than 2 FT District: Holbrook County: Navajo Right Shoulder: Less than 2 FT Roadway Characteristics Functional Class: Rural Minor Collector Wideload Corridor: Yes Pullouts: No Ped/Bike Corridor: Yes Guardrail: Yes Terrain/Max Slope: 7.17 Terrain: Mountainous K-Factor: 11 Speed Limit(mph): 65 Future AADT: 3100 Existing AADT: 2964 Future LOS: C Existing LOS: C Directional Split: 60 / 40 Truck %: 16 Safety Analysis Total Number of Crashes: 3 Number of Fatal Crashes: 0 Injury & Possible Injury Crashes: 1 Non-Injury Crashes: 2 Equivalent Property Damage Value: 4 Crash Rate: 0.28 Source: Accident Location Information and Surveillance System (ALISS) 2008-2013 Construction Constraints/Feasibility General Location Roadside cliffs may limit construction (MP Assessment: 382 - 383); Narrow shoulder; Ample room to widen roadway (MP 383 - 384) Cost Estimate: $3,780,000 Environmental Overview Land Ownership: Hopi Indian Res. Potential Analysis of available GIS data found the following Environmental environmental constraints that may be present within a quarter-mile of the proposed project area: No major Constraints: environmental constraints 188 U 089: MP 471.6 - MP 472.3 (Both Directions ) Statewide Rank: 106 Project Details Route: U 089 Direction: Both Directions BMP: 471.6 Tier Level: 1 District Rank: 24 EMP: 472.3 District: Flagstaff Left Shoulder: 2 to 6 FT County: Coconino Right Shoulder: 2 to 6 FT Roadway Characteristics Functional Class: Rural Principal Other Wideload Corridor: Yes Pullouts: No Ped/Bike Corridor: No Guardrail: No Terrain/Max Slope: 1.48 Terrain: Level K-Factor: 9 Speed Limit(mph): 65 Future AADT: 8200 Existing AADT: 6762 Future LOS: D Existing LOS: C Directional Split: 49 / 51 Truck %: 13 Safety Analysis Total Number of Crashes: 1 Number of Fatal Crashes: 0 Injury & Possible Injury Crashes: 1 Non-Injury Crashes: 0 Equivalent Property Damage Value: 4 Crash Rate: 0.05 Source: Accident Location Information and Surveillance System (ALISS) 2008-2013 Construction Constraints/Feasibility General Location Unpaved shoulders; Ample room to widen Assessment: roadway Cost Estimate: $657,000 Environmental Overview Land Ownership: Navajo Indian Res. Potential Analysis of available GIS data found the following Environmental environmental constraints that may be present within a quarter-mile of the proposed project area: No major Constraints: environmental constraints 189 S 260: MP 334 - MP 336 (Both Directions ) Statewide Rank: 107 Project Details Route: S 260 Direction: Both Directions BMP: 334.0 Tier Level: 1 District Rank: 17 EMP: 336.0 District: Globe Left Shoulder: 2 to 6 FT County: Navajo Right Shoulder: 2 to 6 FT Roadway Characteristics Functional Class: Urban Principal Other Wideload Corridor: Yes Pullouts: No Ped/Bike Corridor: No Guardrail: No Terrain/Max Slope: 3.28 Terrain: Rolling K-Factor: 12 Speed Limit(mph): 55 Future AADT: 14500 Existing AADT: 9762 Future LOS: E Existing LOS: D Directional Split: 51 / 49 Truck %: 12 Safety Analysis Total Number of Crashes: 26 Number of Fatal Crashes: 1 Injury & Possible Injury Crashes: 12 Non-Injury Crashes: 13 Equivalent Property Damage Value: 81 Crash Rate: 0.73 Source: Accident Location Information and Surveillance System (ALISS) 2008-2013 Construction Constraints/Feasibility General Location Paved shoulders in good condition; Ample room Assessment: to widen roadway; Multiple intersecting roadways Cost Estimate: $1,980,000 Environmental Overview Land Ownership: Apache-Sitgreaves N.F, Private Land Potential Analysis of available GIS data found the following Environmental environmental constraints that may be present within a quarter-mile of the proposed project area: Constraints: Wetlands;100-Yr Floodplain; Leaking underground storage tank 190 S 095: MP 172 - MP 174 (Both Directions ) Statewide Rank: 108 Project Details Route: S 095 Direction: Both Directions BMP: 172.0 Tier Level: 1 EMP: 174.0 District Rank: 7 Left Shoulder: 2 to 6 FT District: Kingman County: Mohave Right Shoulder: 2 to 6 FT Roadway Characteristics Functional Class: Rural Principal Other Wideload Corridor: Yes Pullouts: No Ped/Bike Corridor: Yes Guardrail: Yes Terrain/Max Slope: 3.15 Terrain: Rolling K-Factor: 9 Speed Limit(mph): 65 Future AADT: 8800 Existing AADT: 5621 Future LOS: D Existing LOS: C Directional Split: 59 / 41 Truck %: 23 Safety Analysis Total Number of Crashes: 14 Number of Fatal Crashes: 3 Injury & Possible Injury Crashes: 3 Non-Injury Crashes: 8 Equivalent Property Damage Value: 59 Crash Rate: 0.68 Source: Accident Location Information and Surveillance System (ALISS) 2008-2013 Construction Constraints/Feasibility General Location Paved shoulders in deteriorating condtion; Assessment: Ample room to widen roadway Cost Estimate: $2,298,110 Environmental Overview Land Ownership: Bureau of Land Mgmt. Potential Analysis of available GIS data found the following Environmental environmental constraints that may be present within a quarter-mile of the proposed project area: Lake Havasu Constraints: SRMA; Suitable Desert Tortoise Habitat; Wildlife Linkage Zone;100-Yr Floodplain 191 U 191: MP 444 - MP 446.5 (Both Directions ) Statewide Rank: 109 Project Details Route: U 191 Direction: Both Directions BMP: 444.0 Tier Level: 1 District Rank: 36 EMP: 446.5 Left Shoulder: Less than 2 FT District: Holbrook County: Apache Right Shoulder: Less than 2 FT Roadway Characteristics Functional Class: Rural Major Collector Wideload Corridor: Yes Pullouts: No Ped/Bike Corridor: Yes Guardrail: No Terrain/Max Slope: 0.63 Terrain: Level K-Factor: 9 Speed Limit(mph): 65 Future AADT: 5000 Existing AADT: 4427 Future LOS: C Existing LOS: C Directional Split: 60 / 40 Truck %: 9 Safety Analysis Total Number of Crashes: 4 Number of Fatal Crashes: 0 Injury & Possible Injury Crashes: 2 Non-Injury Crashes: 2 Equivalent Property Damage Value: 11 Crash Rate: 0.2 Source: Accident Location Information and Surveillance System (ALISS) 2008-2013 Construction Constraints/Feasibility General Location Unpaved shoulder; Ample room to widen Assessment: roadway Cost Estimate: $3,937,500 Environmental Overview Land Ownership: Navajo Indian Res. Potential Analysis of available GIS data found the following Environmental environmental constraints that may be present within a quarter-mile of the proposed project area: Wildlife Constraints: Linkage Zone 192 U 160: MP 364 - MP 366 (Both Directions ) Statewide Rank: 110 Project Details Route: U 160 Direction: Both Directions BMP: 364.0 Tier Level: 1 District Rank: 37 EMP: 366.0 Left Shoulder: 2 to 6 FT District: Holbrook County: Navajo Right Shoulder: 2 to 6 FT Roadway Characteristics Functional Class: Rural Principal Other Wideload Corridor: Yes Pullouts: No Ped/Bike Corridor: No Guardrail: Yes Terrain/Max Slope: 1.73 Terrain: Level K-Factor: 10 Speed Limit(mph): 65 Future AADT: 5500 Existing AADT: 5085 Future LOS: C Existing LOS: C Directional Split: 60 / 40 Truck %: 11 Safety Analysis Total Number of Crashes: 5 Number of Fatal Crashes: 0 Injury & Possible Injury Crashes: 3 Non-Injury Crashes: 2 Equivalent Property Damage Value: 8 Crash Rate: 0.27 Source: Accident Location Information and Surveillance System (ALISS) 2008-2013 Construction Constraints/Feasibility General Location Shoulders in deteriorating conditions; Ample Assessment: room to widen roadway; Multiple intersecting roadways Cost Estimate: $1,800,000 Environmental Overview Land Ownership: Navajo-Hopi Joint Use Area Potential Analysis of available GIS data found the following Environmental environmental constraints that may be present within a quarter-mile of the proposed project area: No major Constraints: environmental constraints 193 U 060: MP 358 - MP 360 (Both Directions ) Statewide Rank: 111 Project Details Route: U 060 Direction: Both Directions BMP: 358.0 Tier Level: 1 District Rank: 18 EMP: 360.0 District: Globe Left Shoulder: Less than 2 FT County: Apache Right Shoulder: Less than 2 FT Roadway Characteristics Functional Class: Rural Principal Other Wideload Corridor: Yes Pullouts: No Ped/Bike Corridor: Yes Guardrail: No Terrain/Max Slope: 1.74 Terrain: Rolling K-Factor: 10 Speed Limit(mph): 65 Future AADT: 3100 Existing AADT: 2577 Future LOS: C Existing LOS: C Directional Split: 60 / 40 Truck %: 10 Safety Analysis Total Number of Crashes: 28 Number of Fatal Crashes: 1 Injury & Possible Injury Crashes: 8 Non-Injury Crashes: 19 Equivalent Property Damage Value: 63 Crash Rate: 2.98 Source: Accident Location Information and Surveillance System (ALISS) 2008-2013 Construction Constraints/Feasibility General Location Unpaved shoulders; Ample room to widen Assessment: roadway Cost Estimate: $3,522,480 Environmental Overview Land Ownership: Private Land, State Trust Land Potential Analysis of available GIS data found the following Environmental environmental constraints that may be present within a quarter-mile of the proposed project area: Wildlife Constraints: Linkage Zone; Wetlands 194 U 160: MP 372 - MP 374 (Both Directions ) Statewide Rank: 112 Project Details Route: U 160 Direction: Both Directions BMP: 372.0 Tier Level: 1 District Rank: 38 EMP: 374.0 Left Shoulder: 2 to 6 FT District: Holbrook County: Navajo Right Shoulder: 2 to 6 FT Roadway Characteristics Functional Class: Rural Minor Collector Wideload Corridor: Yes Pullouts: No Ped/Bike Corridor: No Guardrail: Yes Terrain/Max Slope: 1.79 Terrain: Level K-Factor: 10 Speed Limit(mph): 65 Future AADT: 5500 Existing AADT: 5085 Future LOS: C Existing LOS: C Directional Split: 60 / 40 Truck %: 11 Safety Analysis Total Number of Crashes: 9 Number of Fatal Crashes: 1 Injury & Possible Injury Crashes: 4 Non-Injury Crashes: 4 Equivalent Property Damage Value: 31 Crash Rate: 0.48 Source: Accident Location Information and Surveillance System (ALISS) 2008-2013 Construction Constraints/Feasibility General Location Shoulders in deteriorating conditions (MP Assessment: 372.0 - 372.5); Ample room to widen roadway; Multiple intersecting roadways; Paved shoulders in good condition Cost Estimate: $1,800,000 Environmental Overview Land Ownership: Navajo Indian Res. Potential Analysis of available GIS data found the following Environmental environmental constraints that may be present within a quarter-mile of the proposed project area: Wildlife Constraints: Linkage Zone; Wetlands 195 S 264: MP 376 - MP 378 (Both Directions ) Statewide Rank: 113 Project Details Route: S 264 Direction: Both Directions BMP: 376.0 Tier Level: 1 District Rank: 39 EMP: 378.0 Left Shoulder: Less than 2 FT District: Holbrook County: Navajo Right Shoulder: Less than 2 FT Roadway Characteristics Functional Class: Rural Minor Arterial Wideload Corridor: Yes Pullouts: No Ped/Bike Corridor: Yes Guardrail: Yes Terrain/Max Slope: 5.22 Terrain: Mountainous K-Factor: 11 Speed Limit(mph): 65 Future AADT: 3100 Existing AADT: 2964 Future LOS: C Existing LOS: C Directional Split: 60 / 40 Truck %: 16 Safety Analysis Total Number of Crashes: 0 Number of Fatal Crashes: 0 Injury & Possible Injury Crashes: 0 Non-Injury Crashes: 0 Equivalent Property Damage Value: 0 Crash Rate: 0 Source: Accident Location Information and Surveillance System (ALISS) 2008-2013 Construction Constraints/Feasibility General Location Narrow shoulder; Ample room to widen Assessment: roadway; Cost Estimate: $3,780,000 Environmental Overview Land Ownership: Hopi Indian Res. Potential Analysis of available GIS data found the following Environmental environmental constraints that may be present within a quarter-mile of the proposed project area: Wetlands Constraints: 196 S 095: MP 134 - MP 136 (Both Directions ) Statewide Rank: 114 Project Details Route: S 095 Direction: Both Directions BMP: 134.0 Tier Level: 1 District Rank: 12 EMP: 136.0 District: Yuma Left Shoulder: 2 to 6 FT County: La Paz Right Shoulder: 2 to 6 FT Roadway Characteristics Functional Class: Rural Principal Other Wideload Corridor: Yes Pullouts: No Ped/Bike Corridor: No Guardrail: No Terrain/Max Slope: 2.22 Terrain: Rolling K-Factor: 15 Speed Limit(mph): 55 Future AADT: 6900 Existing AADT: 5062 Future LOS: D Existing LOS: C Directional Split: 60 / 40 Truck %: 16 Safety Analysis Total Number of Crashes: 7 Number of Fatal Crashes: 0 Injury & Possible Injury Crashes: 3 Non-Injury Crashes: 4 Equivalent Property Damage Value: 19 Crash Rate: 0.38 Source: Accident Location Information and Surveillance System (ALISS) 2008-2013 Construction Constraints/Feasibility General Location Ample room to widen roadway; Paved portion of Assessment: shoulders in good condition Cost Estimate: $1,980,000 Environmental Overview Land Ownership: Prescott N.F Potential Analysis of available GIS data found the following Environmental environmental constraints that may be present within a quarter-mile of the proposed project area: Wildlife Constraints: Linkage Zone 197 S 169: MP 8 - MP 10 (Both Directions ) Statewide Rank: 115 Project Details Route: S 169 Direction: Both Directions BMP: 8.0 Tier Level: 1 District Rank: 10 EMP: 10.0 District: Prescott Left Shoulder: 2 to 6 FT County: Yavapai Right Shoulder: 2 to 6 FT Roadway Characteristics Functional Class: Rural Minor Arterial Wideload Corridor: No Pullouts: No Ped/Bike Corridor: Yes Guardrail: Yes Terrain/Max Slope: 2.38 Terrain: Rolling K-Factor: 8 Speed Limit(mph): 65 Future AADT: 7400 Existing AADT: 5119 Future LOS: C Existing LOS: C Directional Split: 60 / 40 Truck %: 14 Safety Analysis Total Number of Crashes: 12 Number of Fatal Crashes: 0 Injury & Possible Injury Crashes: 2 Non-Injury Crashes: 10 Equivalent Property Damage Value: 16 Crash Rate: 0.64 Source: Accident Location Information and Surveillance System (ALISS) 2008-2013 Construction Constraints/Feasibility General Location Paved shoulders in good condition; Ample room Assessment: to widen roadway; Multiple intersecting roadways Cost Estimate: $2,173,702 Environmental Overview Land Ownership: Prescott N.F Potential Analysis of available GIS data found the following Environmental environmental constraints that may be present within a quarter-mile of the proposed project area: Constraints: Wetlands;100-Yr Floodplain 198 6. Summary Results – Shoulder Improvements on Multilane Highways Table 6.1 presents the list of priority candidate locations for shoulder improvements on multilane highways. The candidate locations are ranked at the statewide level. Figure 6.1 illustrates the statewide location of the shoulder improvements followed by project summary sheets for the candidate locations. Locations identified for shoulder improvements in Table 6.1 represent only the general problem area and not the exact location and length of the shoulder improvements. Table 6.1: Multilane Highways - Statewide Ranking of Priority Candidate Locations Cost Estimate* Route S 087 Direction Southbound BMP 248 EMP 246 Total Points 73.47 Tier Level 1 Statewide Rank 1 S 077 Northbound 350 352 57.98 2 2 $7,053,750 S 087 Southbound 251 248 56.94 2 3 $14,580,000 U 089 Northbound 421 424 56.28 2 4 $8,268,750 S 077 Southbound 352 350 56.05 2 5 $7,053,750 U 089 Southbound 424 421 55.7 2 6 $8,268,750 U 060 Eastbound 205 207 48.61 3 7 $5,662,070 S 089 Southbound 276 274 42.21 3 8 $8,545,000 S 260 Westbound 280 277 39 3 9 $10,580,625 S 260 Westbound 280 277 37.14 3 10 $11,542,500 $9,720,000 * Planning level cost estimates were developed for Tier 1 candidate locations only. Cost Estimates developed based on typical per-mile/foot construction costs for widening and are expressed in 2015 dollars and have not been field verified. Costs associated with acquiring right-of-way, widening culverts, and environmental mitigation are not included in estimates. Due to topographical or other physical constraints adjustment factors may need to be applied to the cost estimates to account for increased construction costs. During project implementation, the costs for each project may vary; therefore, during the design phase a detailed analysis should be performed to determine actual costs. Unless otherwise noted, the recommended projects are not yet funded. 199 Figure 6.1: Multilane Highways - Statewide Priority Candidate Locations 200 S 087: MP 248 - MP 246 (Southbound Direction) Statewide Rank: 1 Project Details Route: S 087 Direction: Southbound BMP: 248.0 Left Shoulder: Less Than 4 FT EMP: 246.0 Right Shoulder: Less Than 5 FT District: Prescott County: Gila Roadway Characteristics Functional Class: Rural Principal Other Pullouts: No Wideload Corridor: No Ped/Bike Corridor: No Terrain/Max Slope: 5.65 Terrain: Mountainous K-Factor: 0.1 Speed Limit(mph): 65 Future AADT: 16000 Existing AADT: 11371 Future LOS: A Existing LOS: A Directional Split: 55 / 45 Truck %: 9 Safety Analysis Total Crashes (Both Directions): 126 Number of Fatal Crashes: 1 Injury & Possible Injury Crashes: 43 Non-Injury Crashes: 82 EPDO Per Mile: 64 Crash Rate: 3.04 Source: Accident Location Information and Surveillance System (ALISS) 2008-2013 Construction Constraints/Feasibility General Location Steep roadside slopes Assessment: Cost Estimate: $9,720,000 Environmental Overview Land Ownership: Tonto National Forest Potential Analysis of available GIS data found the following Environmental environmental constraints that may be present Constraints: within a quarter-mile of the proposed project area: No major environmental concerns 201 S 077: MP 350 - MP 352 (Northbound Direction) Statewide Rank: 2 Project Details Route: S 077 Direction: Northbound BMP: 350.0 Left Shoulder: Over 4 FT EMP: 352.0 Right Shoulder: Less Than 5 FT District: Globe County: Navajo Roadway Characteristics Functional Class: Rural Principal Other Pullouts: No Wideload Corridor: Yes Ped/Bike Corridor: No Terrain/Max Slope: 2.19 Terrain: Rolling K-Factor: 0.08 Speed Limit(mph): 65 Future AADT: 10000 Existing AADT: 7832 Future LOS: A Existing LOS: A Directional Split: 59 / 41 Truck %: 13 Safety Analysis Total Crashes (Both Directions): 65 Number of Fatal Crashes: 1 Injury & Possible Injury Crashes: 58 Non-Injury Crashes: 6 EPDO Per Mile: 60 Crash Rate: 2.27 Source: Accident Location Information and Surveillance System (ALISS) 2008-2013 Construction Constraints/Feasibility General Location Steep roadside slopes Assessment: Cost Estimate: $7,053,750 Environmental Overview Land Ownership: Private Land, Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest, Bureau of Land Mgmt. Potential Analysis of available GIS data found the following Environmental environmental constraints that may be present Constraints: within a quarter-mile of the proposed project area: Willdife Linkage Zone;100-Yr Floodplain 202 S 087: MP 251 - MP 248 (Southbound Direction) Statewide Rank: 3 Project Details Route: S 087 Direction: Southbound BMP: 251.0 Left Shoulder: Less Than 4 FT EMP: 248.0 Right Shoulder: Less Than 5 FT District: Prescott County: Gila Roadway Characteristics Functional Class: Rural Principal Other Pullouts: No Wideload Corridor: No Ped/Bike Corridor: No Terrain/Max Slope: 2.24 Terrain: Mountainous K-Factor: 0.1 Speed Limit(mph): 65 Future AADT: 16000 Existing AADT: 11371 Future LOS: A Existing LOS: A Directional Split: 55 / 45 Truck %: 9 Safety Analysis Total Crashes (Both Directions): 100 Number of Fatal Crashes: 2 Injury & Possible Injury Crashes: 29 Non-Injury Crashes: 69 EPDO Per Mile: 32 Crash Rate: 1.61 Source: Accident Location Information and Surveillance System (ALISS) 2008-2013 Construction Constraints/Feasibility General Location Ample room to widen roadway Assessment: Cost Estimate: $14,580,000 Environmental Overview Land Ownership: Private Land, Tonto National Forest, Yavapai Tonto Apache Reservation Potential Analysis of available GIS data found the following Environmental environmental constraints that may be present Constraints: within a quarter-mile of the proposed project area: No major environmental concerns 203 U 089: MP 421 - MP 424 (Northbound Direction) Statewide Rank: 4 Project Details Route: U 089 Direction: Northbound BMP: 421.0 Left Shoulder: Over 4 FT EMP: 424.0 Right Shoulder: 5 to 8 FT District: Flagstaff County: Coconino Roadway Characteristics Functional Class: Urban Principal Other Pullouts: No Wideload Corridor: Yes Ped/Bike Corridor: No Terrain/Max Slope: 3.81 Terrain: Flat K-Factor: 0.09 Speed Limit(mph): 55 Future AADT: 22500 Existing AADT: 15879 Future LOS: B Existing LOS: A Directional Split: 59 / 41 Truck %: 10 Safety Analysis Total Crashes (Both Directions): 119 Number of Fatal Crashes: 0 Injury & Possible Injury Crashes: 114 Non-Injury Crashes: 5 EPDO Per Mile: 75 Crash Rate: 1.37 Source: Accident Location Information and Surveillance System (ALISS) 2008-2013 Construction Constraints/Feasibility General Location Ample room to widen roadway Assessment: Cost Estimate: $8,268,750 Environmental Overview Land Ownership: Private Land, Coconino National Forest Potential Analysis of available GIS data found the following Environmental environmental constraints that may be present Constraints: within a quarter-mile of the proposed project area: Willdife Linkage Zone 204 S 077: MP 352 - MP 350 (Southbound Direction) Statewide Rank: 5 Project Details Route: S 077 Direction: Southbound BMP: 352.0 Left Shoulder: Over 4 FT EMP: 350.0 Right Shoulder: Less Than 5 FT District: Globe County: Navajo Roadway Characteristics Functional Class: Rural Principal Other Pullouts: No Wideload Corridor: Yes Ped/Bike Corridor: No Terrain/Max Slope: 2.19 Terrain: Rolling K-Factor: 0.08 Speed Limit(mph): 65 Future AADT: 10000 Existing AADT: 7832 Future LOS: A Existing LOS: A Directional Split: 59 / 41 Truck %: 13 Safety Analysis Total Crashes (Both Directions): 64 Number of Fatal Crashes: 1 Injury & Possible Injury Crashes: 19 Non-Injury Crashes: 44 EPDO Per Mile: 32 Crash Rate: 2.24 Source: Accident Location Information and Surveillance System (ALISS) 2008-2013 Construction Constraints/Feasibility General Location Roadside cliffs limit construction; Bridge on Assessment: segment requires widening Cost Estimate: $7,053,750 Environmental Overview Land Ownership: Private Land, Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest, Bureau of Land Mgmt. Potential Analysis of available GIS data found the following Environmental environmental constraints that may be present Constraints: within a quarter-mile of the proposed project area: Willdife Linkage Zone;100-Yr Floodplain 205 U 089: MP 424 - MP 421 (Southbound Direction) Statewide Rank: 6 Project Details Route: U 089 Direction: Southbound BMP: 424.0 Left Shoulder: Over 4 FT EMP: 421.0 Right Shoulder: 5 to 8 FT District: Flagstaff County: Coconino Roadway Characteristics Functional Class: Urban Principal Other Pullouts: No Wideload Corridor: Yes Ped/Bike Corridor: No Terrain/Max Slope: 3.81 Terrain: Flat K-Factor: 0.09 Speed Limit(mph): 55 Future AADT: 22500 Existing AADT: 15879 Future LOS: B Existing LOS: A Directional Split: 59 / 41 Truck %: 10 Safety Analysis Total Crashes (Both Directions): 136 Number of Fatal Crashes: 0 Injury & Possible Injury Crashes: 25 Non-Injury Crashes: 111 EPDO Per Mile: 35 Crash Rate: 1.56 Source: Accident Location Information and Surveillance System (ALISS) 2008-2013 Construction Constraints/Feasibility General Location Ample room to widen roadway Assessment: Cost Estimate: $8,268,750 Environmental Overview Land Ownership: Private Land, Coconino National Forest Potential Analysis of available GIS data found the following Environmental environmental constraints that may be present Constraints: within a quarter-mile of the proposed project area: Willdife Linkage Zone;100-Yr Floodplain 206 U 060: MP 205 - MP 207 (Eastbound Direction) Statewide Rank: 7 Project Details Route: U 060 Direction: Eastbound BMP: 205.0 Left Shoulder: Over 4 FT EMP: 207.0 Right Shoulder: 5 to 8 FT District: Phoenix County: Pinal Roadway Characteristics Functional Class: Rural Principal Other Pullouts: No Wideload Corridor: No Ped/Bike Corridor: Yes Terrain/Max Slope: 0.26 Terrain: Flat K-Factor: 0.07 Speed Limit(mph): 65 Future AADT: 26000 Existing AADT: 12234 Future LOS: A Existing LOS: A Directional Split: 55 / 45 Truck %: 10 Safety Analysis Total Crashes (Both Directions): 79 Number of Fatal Crashes: 1 Injury & Possible Injury Crashes: 69 Non-Injury Crashes: 9 EPDO Per Mile: 73 Crash Rate: 1.77 Source: Accident Location Information and Surveillance System (ALISS) 2008-2013 Construction Constraints/Feasibility General Location Ample room to widen roadway Assessment: Cost Estimate: $5,662,070 Environmental Overview Land Ownership: State Trust Land Potential Analysis of available GIS data found the following Environmental environmental constraints that may be present Constraints: within a quarter-mile of the proposed project area: 100-Yr Floodplain 207 S 089: MP 276 - MP 274 (Southbound Direction) Statewide Rank: 8 Project Details Route: S 089 Direction: Southbound BMP: 276.0 Left Shoulder: Less Than 4 FT EMP: 274.0 Right Shoulder: Less Than 5 FT District: Prescott County: Yavapai Roadway Characteristics Functional Class: Rural Major Collector Pullouts: No Wideload Corridor: No Ped/Bike Corridor: No Terrain/Max Slope: 6.14 Terrain: Mountainous K-Factor: 0.1 Speed Limit(mph): 55 Future AADT: 3400 Existing AADT: 2628 Future LOS: A Existing LOS: A Directional Split: 59 / 41 Truck %: 9 Safety Analysis Total Crashes (Both Directions): 19 Number of Fatal Crashes: 1 Injury & Possible Injury Crashes: 14 Non-Injury Crashes: 4 EPDO Per Mile: 23 Crash Rate: 1.98 Source: Accident Location Information and Surveillance System (ALISS) 2008-2013 Construction Constraints/Feasibility General Location Portions of segment are in need of shoulder Assessment: widening; Roadside cliffs limit construction Cost Estimate: $8,545,000 Environmental Overview Land Ownership: Private Land, State Trust Land, Bureau of Land Mgmt. Potential Analysis of available GIS data found the following Environmental environmental constraints that may be present Constraints: within a quarter-mile of the proposed project area: Special Recreation Management area; Suitable Desert Tortoise Habitat; Willdife Linkage Zone 208 S 260: MP 283 - MP 280 (Westbound Direction) Statewide Rank: 9 Project Details Route: S 260 Direction: Westbound BMP: 283.0 Left Shoulder: Over 4 FT EMP: 280.0 Right Shoulder: Less Than 5 FT District: Prescott County: Gila Roadway Characteristics Functional Class: Rural Principal Other Pullouts: No Wideload Corridor: No Ped/Bike Corridor: Yes Terrain/Max Slope: 5.95 Terrain: Rolling K-Factor: 0.1 Speed Limit(mph): 55 Future AADT: 7200 Existing AADT: 6571 Future LOS: A Existing LOS: A Directional Split: 56 / 44 Truck %: 11 Safety Analysis Total Crashes (Both Directions): 53 Number of Fatal Crashes: 0 Injury & Possible Injury Crashes: 7 Non-Injury Crashes: 46 EPDO Per Mile: 12 Crash Rate: 1.47 Source: Accident Location Information and Surveillance System (ALISS) 2008-2013 Construction Constraints/Feasibility General Location Steep roadside slopes Assessment: Cost Estimate: $10,580,625 Environmental Overview Land Ownership: Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest Potential Analysis of available GIS data found the following Environmental environmental constraints that may be present Constraints: within a quarter-mile of the proposed project area: Willdife Linkage Zone; Critical Habitat Area 209 S 260: MP 280 - MP 277 (Westbound Direction) Statewide Rank: 10 Project Details Route: S 260 Direction: Westbound BMP: 280.0 Left Shoulder: Over 4 FT EMP: 277.0 Right Shoulder: Less Than 5 FT District: Prescott County: Gila Roadway Characteristics Functional Class: Rural Principal Other Pullouts: No Wideload Corridor: No Ped/Bike Corridor: No Terrain/Max Slope: 1.67 Terrain: Mountainous K-Factor: 0.1 Speed Limit(mph): 55 Future AADT: 7200 Existing AADT: 6571 Future LOS: A Existing LOS: A Directional Split: 56 / 44 Truck %: 11 Safety Analysis Total Crashes (Both Directions): 61 Number of Fatal Crashes: 0 Injury & Possible Injury Crashes: 7 Non-Injury Crashes: 54 EPDO Per Mile: 13 Crash Rate: 1.7 Source: Accident Location Information and Surveillance System (ALISS) 2008-2013 Construction Constraints/Feasibility General Location Steep roadside slopes Assessment: Cost Estimate: $11,542,500 Environmental Overview Land Ownership: Tonto National Forest Potential Analysis of available GIS data found the following Environmental environmental constraints that may be present Constraints: within a quarter-mile of the proposed project area: Willdife Linkage Zone; Critical Habitat Area 210