WORKING TOWARDS

A

COOPERATIVE SOLUTION

 

 

TRAFFIC SOLUTION PROPOSAL FOR THE

UPPER VERDE VALLEY

Supervisor A. G. "Chip" Davis

April 10, 1997

 

[Route Map] [Red Rock Crossing] [The Proposal]

INTRODUCTION

The citizens of the Greater Sedona Area and the Verde Valley are truly blessed. We live in an area of such natural beauty that people worldwide identify it as a vacation destination. Over the last few months I have met many of our citizens and have found a desire, common to all, to find solutions not only for our traffic problems but to promote the general welfare of the greater community. In the coming weeks I look forward to a continuing dialogue with citizens of every viewpoint, I only ask that opinions be supported by the facts and that we keep the greater good in mind as we move together toward a solution. It is important for all to realize that as Americans we have a right to voice our opinions. My position could, when considered from a personal or community viewpoint, have a negative or positive effect on individuals. It is imperative that the community listen to all sides of this issue and the factual information.

Tomorrow some citizens are going to wake up and find that I have recommended a plan for development of a roadway that will impact the neighborhood in which they live. Another citizen will read the newspaper and find that Forest Service land is proposed for use as a roadway. They and others will all have various reasons for and against the new West Airport Mesa alternate. The important point to remember is that the citizen whose neighborhood is being impacted is not a "NIMBY" not in my backyard person. He or she is the same neighbor and friend who cares about the general welfare of this community. Their loss could be the quality of life which they have been enjoying or value to their land. The second may be a person who for years has worked to make sure our forest lands our kept clean and preserved for the future enjoyment of others. This person is not a "tree hugger" but a citizen who has a commitment to our environment. In order for a far reaching community project such as this to be successful we must all be willing to listen and understand the distress and ideas of others.

We must develop a solution for the community at large through a cooperative approach that respects the rights of citizens to question governmental action. We should not label each other or misrepresent facts. This type of action only further polarizes a community and--as we've seen-- delays the implementation of any solution. A common need has been identified; let us together develop a Cooperative Solution.

FUNDING

Verde Valley Regional Transportation Study (VVRTS), page 5-1 1, states, "...Yavapai County will have only a fraction of the funds needed to fulfill regional roadway needs that come under their responsibility." This same study notes the need for an alternate route between SR 179 and SR 89A in the Sedona area, even though it concedes that funding for it would not be available for 20 years

Prior to the 1993 VVRTS, there were eight transportation studies conducted by local and regional governments. Each study had a list of recommended projects. Most were not implemented, primarily because of funding limitations (see VVRTS page 1-6).

We can identify in every report explosive growth, lack of funds and resulting frustration. Cottonwood, Camp Verde, Clarkdale, Jerome, Rimrock, Lake Montezuma, Verde Villages, Cornville, Village of Oak Creek and Sedona all are growing at rates not envisioned just a few years ago. Added to this growth is an influx of tourists that has stressed our transportation infrastructure.

Since VVRTS, Yavapai County has started collecting a half-cent sales tax that goes directly towards road improvements. Even with this additional funding, Yavapai County has not been able to keep pace with the transportation needs in the Verde Valley.

Almost everyone acknowledges the need for an alternate corridor to SR 179. The same VVRTS that identified this project also identified other critical needs in the Verde Valley:

Based on 1993 currency, these projects and others not listed require revenue in excess of $20 million. Since VVRTS, a number of large subdivisions in the Cottonwood-Clarkdale-Cornville area have moved from the drawing boards to construction, with more planned. Page 3-14 of VVRTS states, "Population and employment are projected to grow faster in the Cottonwood, Clarkdale and Verde Village areas than the rest of the Verde Valley."

If Yavapai County were to implement the Verde Valley School Road/Upper Red Rock Loop Road (VVSR/URRLR) alternate as currently planned, 50% to 60% of all roadway improvement funds for the next 10 years would be required for just this one project. The other cities, towns and unincorporated areas of the Verde Valley would be left to share 40% to 50%. I believe this scenario is not in the best interests of the Greater Verde Valley community, including Sedona.

Phasing the VVSR/URRLR alternate is required due to this lack of funding. As explained later (see VVSR/URRLR Evaluation), the goals of an alternate route are not reached and citizen safety is compromised by a phased construction approach. As envisioned, in four years we would have a bridge and its approaches connecting substandard roadways that would not meet the stated design criteria for an alternate route.

There are those who will say that Sedona deserves a larger share of transportation funds due to the number of tourists who pay into the half-cent sales tax. The fact is that most tourists' destinations are Uptown Sedona and Oak Creek Canyon. This is verified in VVRTS, Dibble and Sedona Origin-Destination reports. Eighty percent of tourists use SR 179 for access into Sedona, and the vast majority turn right at the "Y" to proceed to Uptown Sedona. This same tourist traffic represents 58% of SR 179 traffic. Most SR 179 congestion problems are within the jurisdictional boundaries of Coconino County and the City of Sedona (see Jurisdiction). It should be noted that Coconino County does not have a sales tax devoted to road improvements.

When a tourist buys a retail product or stays at a hotel in the Uptown, Oak Creek Canyon area or along SR 179 between Bell Rock and the "Y" intersection, Yavapai County receives no tax revenue. The benefactors are Coconino County and the City of Sedona. For the current fiscal year, Yavapai County District 3 sales tax program budget is already allocated, thus leaving many projects throughout the Valley waiting for another year.

The reality is that the cost of an alternate route, as currently envisioned, would only be on the backs of the citizens of Yavapai County. Citizens throughout the Verde Valley, day in and day out, pay an extra half-cent in sales tax. Therefore, tax revenue must be used judiciously for roadway improvements throughout the Verde Valley Area.

As demonstrated, it is not realistic for the citizens of Yavapai County to fully fund an alternate route. Yavapai County will accept its responsibility and join the other jurisdictions who benefit from the tax revenue generated by the tourist industry to develop an alternate corridor. The route Yavapai County will take is one of cooperation and commitment.

JURISDICTIONAL COOPERATION

"Toward a Cooperative Solution" does not refer simply to the citizens of Yavapai and Coconino counties and the City of Sedona, but to all the government organizations that represent those citizens.

The 1992 Verde Valley Regional Transportation Study (VVRTS) on page 4-35 states: "A new roadway connecting SR 179 with the Sedona area, although needed and recommended, is not feasible within the next 20 years because of insufficient Yavapai County funds." This same report identifies Yavapai County as being responsible for construction and maintenance of this alternate route. As identified previously, even with the half-cent sales tax devoted to road improvement, Yavapai County will not have the needed funds to properly construct any alternate route.

Having reviewed the problems associated with SR 179, a state road, that from approximately Bell Rock, north to the "Y", is entirely in Coconino County and the City of Sedona, it is difficult for the taxpayers of Yavapai County to understand why they alone should fund an alternate route without the assistance of all other affected government organizations.

Yavapai County and its taxpayers have a need for an alternate route. We must provide citizens that live in the Big Park and West Sedona area with a safe and efficient roadway system. We also need to understand that the greater Sedona area, through its tourism and retirement industry, generates jobs, entrepreneurial opportunities, recreational facilities and, most importantly, tax revenue that benefit the entire greater Verde Valley area.

Keeping in mind that SR 179 is the responsibility of the State of Arizona, please consider the following reasons why the state has a responsibility in providing funds for an alternate route:

The State of Arizona has correctly identified that it has a problem on SR 179 and is in the process of formulating plans (refer to SR 179 Corridor Study) to implement improvements to the roadway. Some estimates show that this improvement project will take up to ten years to complete. I have not read a report yet in which the projections for housing, tourism and vehicles per day have not been grossly underestimated. Due to the state's responsibility to ensure the safety of its citizens and visitors and to promote the industries from which it collects revenue, it is obviously in the best interests of the state to participate in the funding of an alternative route to SR 179. As identified above, a four-lane SR 179 will still not alleviate congestion alone. We must work together and develop optimum long-term solutions. It would be better for the State of Arizona to relieve congestion on SR 179 sooner than the current SR 179 ten-year construction time-table.

Coconino County has a stake in the construction of an alternate route as well. The majority of congestion on SR 179 occurs in Coconino County. In most studies, it has been identified that the bulk of local traffic on SR 179 is from West Sedona to the Village of Oak Creek and vice versa and that most tourist traffic is from SR 179 through the "Y" intersection to Uptown Sedona and Oak Creek Canyon. The Sedona Origin-Destination Study, page 20, concludes that a "far greater number of tourists trips are attracted to the Uptown area as compared to Central West Sedona." As previously identified, the bulk of the problem area of SR 179 lies totally within the boundaries of Coconino County. Furthermore, Coconino County collects considerable tax revenue from the tourist industry. Within the Coconino County jurisdiction of Sedona are the following tax revenue-producing areas:

Obviously, the problems with traffic on SR 179 and throughout the greater Sedona area have a great impact on Coconino citizens and the Coconino County tax base. 1990 census data suggest that approximately 30% of Sedona residents live in Coconino County. It is imperative that Coconino County be part of any solution to this multi-jurisdictional problem.

Not the least of all, the City of Sedona is also concerned about the construction of an alternate route. Sedona has long been aware that it has a large traffic problem that not only affects its citizens, but threatens its tourist industry. As with Coconino County, the major problems associated with SR 179 are located within city boundaries. While SR 179 problems associated with the engineering of the roadway are a state responsibility, the growth of subdivisions and businesses along the corridor, development controlled by the city, have been a contributing factor to congestion. The Dibble Report, on page 63, states: "The magnitude of the transportation problems in Sedona must be stressed. The level of congestion on SR 179 and SR 89A signify that small traffic demand management measures and the like will not solve the problem." A cooperative effort by all government agencies to acquire funding and develop a meaningful transportation system for the greater Sedona area is not only a necessity, but should be a commitment to our citizens.

VERDE VALLEY SCHOOL ROAD/UPPER RED ROCK LOOP ROAD EVALUATION

Current plans for a bridge to connect Verde Valley School Road (VVSR) and Upper Red Rock Loop Road (URRLR) consist of building the bridge and its approaches with minimal mitigation measures. A number of citizens envision that a crossing of this type, without further development of the alternate route, would provide short term alleviation of our traffic problems along SR 179, especially during the state program for construction on SR 179, scheduled to begin in the year 2000.

The type of roadway VVSR would become requires minimal access points for safety and expediency reasons. The Dibble Report design criteria states that the new corridor will be a rural arterial roadway with controlled and limited access. The Verde Valley Regional Transportation Study (VVRTS) on page 2-6 specifies that, along with other characteristics, minor arterials in both urban and rural areas provide relatively high travel speeds with minimum interference to through traffic. It provides SR 179 as an example of a minor arterial, regional roadway. With that definition in mind, VVSR needs to be assessed. On page 40, the Dibble report identifies 31 driveways that now require backing out onto VVSR during its first 2.2 miles west of SR 179. It further states that these driveways should be mitigated, especially due to the number and the safety problems associated with them. We should update the conditions along this portion of roadway. Currently there are:

On page 6-1, the VVRTS states, "The absence of access management in the Verde Valley is best illustrated by frequent driveways along routes such as SR 89A in Cottonwood and SR 179 in Sedona." While these studies are in commercial areas, driveway interference is still a safety and congestion problem. The report further notes, "Studies of this phenomenon throughout the nation have shown that the accident rate increases in proportion to the number of access points." VVRTS table 6.1, Functional Classification and Recommended Access Control, describes a Minor Arterial Street and Collector Streets as primarily being used for mobility and accessibility, with a moderate degree of private access control.

The Dibble Report, page 63, states "Increased Traffic on VVSR creates a safety concern. Driveways that require backing out into traffic are possible on minor arterials. However, the number of existing driveways backing onto VVSR is approximately 31. The number of driveways creates conflicts for both the resident and the driver on VVSR. Preferably, the driveway should not require backing onto VVSR, but rather to back into a frontage road or have a half-moon type driveway that would allow forward access onto VVSR."

While half-moon driveways may mitigate some of this problem, whenever two cars are in a driveway, the first one to leave may still be required to back into traffic. Not identified in the Dibble Report was the lack of parking availability along much of VVSR. When driveways are full, visitors park along either undeveloped shoulders of VVSR or the upper levels of drainage ditches. While allowing a safer environment, a frontage road would create numerous other problems, including VVSR accessibility and, in a residential area such as this with numerous.elderly people and playing children, safety while crossing a street up to 40 feet wide not counting shoulders.

We have now identified a total of 50 current driveways along VVSR. Many past studies concerning SR 179 problems have mentioned the amount of side road intersections and particularly problems with left turns at these locations. The following were not identified in any of the alternate studies. They all use only VVSR for ingress and egress:

Also not noted, the following residential streets that serve the Greater Big Park Community west of SR 179:

This is a grand total of 80 current and future driveways, 20 cul-de-sacs, 8 intersections and 6 town house development entrances unto VVSR in the first 2.2 miles. Many of the neighborhoods using these streets have a large percentage of vacant lots, which when built will only add to further congestion. Also, a new shopping center scheduled to be built on VVSR just west of SR 179 will further complicate the situation. The VVRTS page 6-23, referring to driveways, states: "Residential driveways-this category should not be allowed direct access to arterial streets."

Another issue along VVSR's first 2.2 miles is the Big Park Community School located at the intersection of VVSR and Bell Rock Boulevard. The Big Park area is the fastest growing area in the school district for students. Various studies have identified the heaviest hours of traffic in the Greater Sedona Area as between 8:00 A.M. and 6:00 P.M. with peak traffic between 11:00 A.M. and 6:00 P.M. (ref. VVRTS page 9 graph 2.2). The heaviest traffic, especially in the afternoon, is exactly when school age children are going to and from school or playing in playgrounds located at the school and VOC community center. On weekends when children are not in school buses or being picked-up by parents, they are riding their bicycles or using the playgrounds for sports and other activities and are ever-present along the streets. The weekends coincide with the peak traffic of 20,000 vehicles per day (vpd) on SR 179, part of which is intended to use VVSR as an alternate both during SR 179 construction and in the future. Page 38 of the Dibble Report states "Safe pedestrian travel means such as sidewalks set back from curbs, crosswalks, 15 mph school zones and bike trails will be essential elements of the design." Page 63 of the Dibble Report further states, "Curb, gutter and sidewalks are recommended on VVSR from SR 179 west for approximately 2.2 miles." I will not risk injury or the life of one child due to expediency and an incomplete project.

The carrying capacity of VVSR as presently configured is also a factor. From SR 179 to the dirt road at approximately Highland Estates, it presently is designed to handle 7,000 vpd. The last 2.3 miles of VVSR is a dirt road designed for 1,000 vpd. Current counts reveal that 4,500 vpd are using the first 2.2 miles of roadway, more at the easterly end than westerly. Obviously, as soon as a bridge is in place, we would at least approach the 7,000 vpd design level, if not surpass it during construction of SR 179 and in the future.

The dirt road portion poses further problems. This section of roadway has poor drainage, no shoulders and is not an all-weather road. The VVRTS page 2-25 states: "Among existing and potential regional roadway linkages not on the State system, Beaverhead Flat Road has the highest accident rate, with approximately 4.5 accidents per million vehicle miles traveled. This exceptionally high accident rate may be related to the poor geometry, surface condition and drainage discussed in Appendix A." VVSR, in its dirt road section, has many features identified as contributors to the high accident rate on Beaverhead Flat Road. Along this section of VVSR, there are 15 curves, of which 12 cause sightline difficulties. Also, five washes would require drainage correction. The width of this section is below the standards necessary to handle anticipated traffic. With increased traffic, the maintenance of this section would become difficult and it would create safety and congestion problems. It should be noted that the .8 mile paved two-lane roadway from the cattle guard to the dirt road also suffers from a lack of shoulders and poor drainage. VVRTS, on page 2-23, states: "As discussed in the SR 179 Corridor Study, much of SR 179 between the Village of Oak Creek and Sedona has a high accident rate. This is partially attributable to the geometry of the roadway, which has curvature and shoulders that fail to meet the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) criteria, along with lack of pullouts and few passing zones." It should be noted that the entire VVSR route would be one large no passing zone if not corrected, and accidents accruing along its westerly 3.1 miles would, as currently is the case along SR 179, close the roadway down due to lack of pullouts and shoulders.

Other items to consider that were not included in the first phase of construction of VVSR:

Conditions along URRLR are best described in the Upper Red Rock Loop Road Roadway Improvement (URRLRTS) 1995 page 3: "The physical condition of Upper RRLR is considered as substandard in that it does not meet current City or County roadway criteria as recommended in the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO Standards." Stated further in the same report on page A-1, "Safety of a roadway is assessed not only by the volume of accidents, but also by the potential for accidents due to the configuration and utilization of the roadway. Upper RRLR does not conform with current accepted safety design standards, and thus has the potential for accidents." As with SR 179 and VVSR, URRLR from Chavez Ranch Road to SR 89A has poor drainage, hairpin turns, no shoulders and no scenic pullouts, thus creating safety hazards as currently designed. This same report identifies the need to redesign and construct the entire portion that would be used for the VVSR/URRLR corridor. The City of Sedona has funded a study to engineer the first mile from SR 89A. No schedule has been developed nor funding identified for construction.

The level of congestion on SR 179 is so great that upon building a bridge over Oak Creek for the VVSR/URRLR alternate corridor, large volumes of traffic would follow. This is compounded by the already mentioned funding constraints and the amount of construction at a given time that these constraints allow. A further complication is the construction project of SR 179 scheduled for the year 2000 due to last 8 to 10 years. How do we build a partial roadway for use as a bypass during construction of SR 179 and plan to complete the alternate during that SR 179 construction? How do we build a bridge and its approaches to allow thousands of vehicles to use it, knowing that the roadways on either side of the bridge are substandard and a risk to the safety of our citizens and visitors? How do we look at a consultant's recommendations concerning the safety of our children and not follow through on those recommendations? My primary responsibility is the safety and welfare of the citizens of Yavapai County and our many visitors. It is not my intention to attempt to solve one problem while creating others. I believe that is the wrong way to go about constructing an alternate route. It would just be a continuation of the same practices that exacerbated the problems associated with SR 179. We must construct an alternate route in total and I have a recommendation.

MEETING THE NEED

As I have identified in the preceding sections, the solution to the overall traffic situation in the Sedona area can only be mitigated by full cooperation between the citizens and the government organizations that comprise the greater Sedona area community.

It is critical for community safety, quality of life and protection of our nature-based tourist industry to identify an alternate and to construct that alternate completely so the full benefits are realized. The time for bail-wire solutions or quick fixes is in the past. The situation has become so critical that immediate, decisive action is now required. It is necessary to develop a route that has the most potential for congestion alleviation and dispersal of traffic.

After a thorough review of the currently proposed VVSR/URRLR (Dl,D2) alternate and the West Airport Mesa (El,E2) alternate described in the Dibble Report (March 21, 1995), 1 have concluded that the New West Airport Mesa Transportation Corridor alternative, combining El and E2 with some important new features described below, is the alternative that best meets the needs of the community and most closely achieves the goals identified in previous studies -- now and in the future. I want to stress that, as with any alternative, it is important for the government agencies and citizens to understand that future private development along any route will compromise the effectiveness of that route.

ROUTE DESCRIPTION

Driving north from the Village of Oak Creek, this alternate intersects SR 179 north of mile post 309. It follows an existing jeep trail through the lower portions of the valley to an area south of the Back O' Beyond subdivision. It then crosses Oak Creek in an area that has a wide flood plain in which there is riparian vegetation. The route continues up the west side of Oak Creek, at an approximately 8% grade, to join Chavez Ranch Road. Approximately a quarter of a mile west, the route leaves Chavez Ranch Road and as suggested for the El route, continues west connecting with Upper Red Rock Loop Road. The main roadway leading to West Sedona proceeds north along the west side of Airport Mesa following E2, northeast along Carroll Canyon, to connect with Shelby Drive. A traffic signal directs inbound one-way traffic eastward along Shelby Drive connecting to Sunset Drive and the intersection of 89A. Southbound traffic to SR 179, proceeds south on Shelby Drive from 89A to connect with the alternate.

Contractor's Road would be extended between Coffee Pot Drive and Shelby Drive in order to facilitate traffic flow between the two major shopping centers in West Sedona and to eliminate the need for a left turn lane on 89A to Shelby Drive.

WHAT IS THE BEST ROUTE?

There has been much debate in the community concerning which alternate route best meets community needs. The Dibble Report Evaluation Matrix evaluates the different alternate corridors. In scoring the alternate routes, the report, on page 63, states that four alternate corridors stand out as meeting the project's purpose and need. These are Verde Valley School Road/Upper Red Rock Loop Road (VVSR/URRLR) (Dl and D2) and West Airport Mesa (El and E2). The Dibble Report recommends that all other alternates be dropped from consideration and that these four be studied further for an Environmental Impact Statement. Further, Dibble states that alternates Dl and D2 are considered the most constructible alternates given funding constraints. Yavapai County could not and will not fund an alternate route project on its own. Yavapai County will, however, assist in funding --along with the other affected government jurisdictions -- an alternate route that can be funded and constructed at one time without being phased over many years. The proposed El, E2 alternate is such a route. Furthermore, reviewing the Dibble Report Evaluation Matrix without the section titled "Ability To Fund Construction Phasing" the El, E2 corridor attains a higher score, a fact that has been recently confirmed by Dibble Associates.

ADVANTAGES

All of the identified alternate routes have both advantages and disadvantages. The following are, what I believe, the advantages of the new El, E2 alternate.

It creates the "Triple Option." By this I mean people entering Sedona via SR 179 will be able to either:

Option 1: Continue on to the Uptown/ Oak Creek Canyon Area via SR 179.

Option 2: Take the alternate route directly to West Sedona. This route allows for the shortest distance between the major travel destinations in the Sedona area. The reduced driving time will, in turn, have a positive impact on vehicle-related pollution. (On page 27 of the Dibble Report it states, "Based on the interpretation that the Village to West Sedona and vice versa is a major origin destination, particularly for an alternate route crossing Oak Creek, any alternate corridor should provide as direct a link as possible." Also, The Sedona Origin-Destination Study, page 7, identifies that (survey results clearly indicate a significant traffic pattern between the Village of Oak Creek and the Central West Sedona area exists.") Hence, a more direct link, as El-E2 is, reduces travel time which reduces vehicle emissions.

Option 3: Take the alternate by-pass route to Upper Red Rock Loop Road, allowing people to connect with the Cultural Center, High School, Red Rock Crossing, Crescent Moon Ranch, Red Rock State Park and a more direct route to Cottonwood.

It allows the main West Sedona Fire Station a more direct route to a larger percentage of residents along SR 179 and in the Village of Oak Creek than any other alternate.

As identified in the Dibble Evaluation Matrix, the El, E2 route, when constructed as proposed, will have the following advantages over all other alternates:

As for the rest of the Evaluation items, the El, E2 corridor scores the same as the VVSR/URRLR corridor except in the item that affects ability to fund construction phasing. The urgent need for traffic dispersal in the greater Sedona area is the subject of numerous reports. The problem has been identified for ten years and has only compounded itself, time and time again. Now is the time to put all of the funding in place and begin construction.

This route has less current development potential along it than VVSR/URRLR. Development along any major corridor has long been identified as increasing congestion along that route. The new El, E2 alternate passes mostly through Forest Service land. Furthermore, the private land that it does pass through is largely built out today. This is not the case with the VVSR/URRLR alternative where there are several hundred acres available for development along Verde Valley School Road between Big Park and Upper Red Rock Loop Road. Page 8 of the Dibble Report states that: "SR179 has many deficiencies that directly affect the roadway capacity including driver familiarity, lack of left and right turn lanes, vehicles stopping for sight-seeing, many side roads...... (emphasis added) Once leaving highway SR 179, the new route, as envisioned, has no side road access from major subdivisions until it reaches Shelby Drive. The number of side road connectors, driveways and cul-de-sac entrances onto Shelby and Sunset Drives are far fewer than those which exist at present along Verde Valley School Road and the lower portion of Upper Red Rock Loop Road, Moreover, further private development along the VVSR/URRLR route is inevitable.

As the route travels through Carroll Canyon, it traverses an area that, at one time, was in the Forest Service Base-For-Exchange. The route opens access to a park-like setting that residents and visitors have not been able to take advantage of before. It cannot be stressed too many times that new private development along any alternate route conflicts with the alternate's goals.

The new route disperses traffic through currently populated areas more effectively. A portion of inbound traffic will take Upper Red Rock Loop Road to connect with 89A. Once reaching Shelby Drive, the remaining inbound traffic is divided approximately in half, with traffic proceeding east on Shelby Drive to Sunset Drive and the intersection of SR 89A, while outbound traffic is flowing from SR 89A southbound on Shelby Drive towards SR 179. The other proposed alternate does not divert traffic, but rather sends all of the traffic down Verde Valley School Road.

Contractor's Road has been identified as part of this solution. The extension of this road not only helps in the traffic flow for the alternate at the intersection with 89A, but provides a direct link between West Sedona's two major shopping centers.

Protection of wildlife is of utmost importance. The Dibble Associates, in a later conversation, identified that the El and E2 alignments might be more favorable with wildlife movements, an opinion Arizona Game and Fish Department agrees with.

Page 26 of the Dibble Report lists the design criterion for a alternate route as:

Rural arterial roadway. Page 2-6 of the Verde Valley Transportation Study, August 31, 1993, defines minor arterial in both urban and rural areas as providing: "relatively high travel speeds with minimum interference to through traffic...." While there are other characteristics that define this type of roadway, the fact remains that the newly proposed corridor has far less interference from side streets, driveways, etc., than the VVSR/URRLR alternate.

Design speed: 40 m.p.h. desirable, 35 m.p.h. minimum, speed limit 30-35 m.p.h. This route clearly has the characteristic that people would like to see in a road such as SR 179 and can meet this design criterion easily, The hoped for design speed will be 45 mph.

Two-lane roadway with adequate shoulder for traffic volumes: This roadway should be funded and built as one project that has two 12-foot wide lanes for traffic, turning lanes where required, adequate shoulders, scenic pull outs and bike and footpaths.

Controlled and limited access: As previously discussed, the new alternate obviously has more controlled and limited access than its predecessor.

Maximum grades 6% for rolling terrain, 8% for mountainous terrain: The Dibble Report (page 42) identifies that the E2 alternate would have grades close to 8% for a large portion of the roadway as it climbs the west side of Airport Mesa. This is the only area identified as being close to the 8% maximum outlined in the criteria.

Bike lanes or paths: Bike lanes along this roadway will allow bikers or pedestrians a more direct route between the Village of Oak Creek and West Sedona, along with more direct routes to Cathedral Rock, Red Rock State Park, Red Rock Crossing and Crescent Moon Ranch. This not only creates a diversified motor vehicle route but expands the current bike route network to bring together all sections of the community.

Design for potential public transit: I believe this route appears to facilitate a mass transit system more readily than the other proposed alternates.

DISADVANTAGES

Affects school and park. As with the Verde Valley School Road route, there is a proposed charter school and park near this route. The basic difference is that these facilities are not built yet and can take the route into consideration. Furthermore, this route divides the amount of traffic which lessens the safety risk. Note that while there are three schools along the VVSR/URRLR route, the New West Airport Mesa corridor has the current possibility of impinging upon just one.

Crosses Forest Service land. All alternates utilize some public lands. The Sedona area, for some time, has tried to diversify its tourist industry to bring relief to major natural attractions such as Bell Rock and Oak Creek Canyon. This new route, unlike SR 179, will have developed, scenic pullout parking areas and trail heads, designed in conjunction with the Forest.

Service, that will provide planned access for local residents and visitors.

Visual impacts. The route may visually impact the view of Airport Mesa according to the Dibble Report. Every effort will be made to mitigate this effect by the use of environmentally sensitive construction techniques and by reforestation when and if necessary. As the alternate intersects with SR 179, it begins to cross Forest Service land. The proposed route, an old jeep trail, runs along a valley, thus restricting the visual impact of the route in that area.

Impacts intersection of SR 89A and Shelby Drive. The Dibble report has identified that the intersection at SR 89A and Shelby Drive would be affected. It should be noted that the Dibble Report did not envision the splitting of traffic between Sunset and Shelby Drive. Nor did it consider the mitigating effect of the Contractor Drive extension. Furthermore, under the Dibble Report alternate, all traffic was routed to West Sedona. The new alternate has the advantage of diverting traffic away from the West Sedona area through the Upper Red Rock Loop Road. It should be noted that the Verde Valley Transportation Study, (diagram 3-2), forecasts that by the year 2003, that portion of SR 89A between Lower Red Rock Loop Road and Dry Creek Road would have a lower level of service, that is a higher traffic congestion (see Jurisdiction), than the area around Shelby Drive and SR 89A. Since this study was done, conditions in West Sedona have changed due to development and this may have changed the service level in the Shelby Drive/SR 89A area. It's equally clear that the VVSR/URRLR proposed alternate would have seriously compounded problems at the SR89A/Upper Red Rock Loop Road intersection.

Impacts residential areas. This new alternate, as does the VVSR/URRLR alternate, impacts residential areas. The residents of the Back 'O Beyond, Shelby Drive and Sunset Drive areas will, no doubt, experience added traffic volume. Again, the mitigating factor is that, unlike the VVSR/URRLR alternate, traffic is dispersed to a greater degree.

For the first two miles of SR 179 from the Village of Oak Creek to milepost 309, the current volume of traffic would not be reduced. The current SR 179 corridor study identifies that this two-mile section of roadway from the Village of Oak Creek to mile post 309 is to become a four-lane, divided highway. Whatever traffic leaves the Village of Oak Creek for Sedona will not be increased along this two mile route through Forest Service land by any side roads from developments or businesses. Both the Dibble Report and the Verde Valley Transportation Study have identified this section of road as not currently congested. The additional lanes will guarantee that future capacity needs are met. Page 10 of the Dibble Report, Table 2-1 Accident Rates, identifies that between mile post 307.00 and 310.50, a length of 3.50 miles, the accident rate is 1.60 per million vehicle miles (pmvm). This is a lower accident rate than the Arizona average of 2.57 pmvm and twice as low as the 3.28 pmvm rate recorded for the area between Chapel Road and the "Y."

NEXT STEPS

My position on funding, jurisdiction and the currently proposed alternate have already been stated, along with my recommendation for the New West Airport Mesa Transportation Corridor. We have any number of challenges ahead whether funding, coordination, cooperation or engineering of this community project. First and foremost we need you, the citizens, to ensure that the project moves ahead to completion efficiently.

GOVERNMENTAL COOPERATION

I propose that the State of Arizona, Yavapai and Coconino Counties and the City of Sedona form a Government Task Force that would, for the first time, create a committee of the governmental organizations expressly devoted to the construction of an alternate route. Initially, this group will be consumed with funding and jurisdictional matters. It would have the responsibility to identify and approve an alternate route, to identify funding and to schedule construction. It is imperative that the Task Force accomplishes this as soon as possible. With the State Highways 89A and 179 projects moving forward, funding and coordination of transportation construction projects are essential and time-sensitive issues.

Yavapai County will initiate a Citizens' Fact-Finding Task Force that will be designed to work in cooperation with the Government Task Force. While the Government Task Force is being organized and developing funding and jurisdictional responsibilities, the Citizens' Task Force will investigate previous studies and public comments to confirm their factual basis. Also, this group will critically review for factual content the decisions of the Government Task Force.

It is hoped that this dual tracking of tasks will quickly find solutions to challenges associated with a route and have greater acceptance within the community than if just one committee were to be formed. The process is expedited by freeing the citizens' group from the government's agenda so that it can explore those areas that concern them most. Again, the fact-finding committee is a Citizens' Task Force. Those government representatives who may attend its meetings are there to serve the Task Force, not to set the agenda.

Let me be clear that the Citizens' Fact-Finding Task Force is not being created to prioritize or recommend an alternate route. The citizens of Arizona, Yavapai and Coconino Counties and Sedona have elected representatives whose responsibility it is to make decisions such as this. We cannot have a vote every time a controversial decision must be made. Our government works best when its elected representatives make decisions based on the best information available. This Task Force will make sure that happens. Some examples of possible Task Force responsibility include:

Participants on the Task Force, representing a cross section of community interests, would come from the following groups. One representative from each:

While all the above organizations are currently doing exceptional work for the benefit of the Sedona community I will pursue a neutral and objective person to chair this Task Force.

This Task Force will perform the following duties:

The Task Force will adhere to these rules:

These Task Forces will meet for a short duration in order to focus on a solution and to expedite the process. Each Task Force will produce a final report at the end of two months. If final decisions have not been made, the public should be able to determine the reasons why and place responsibility.

[Route Map] [Red Rock Crossing] [The Proposal]

Sedona Alternate Route

Roadway Construction Cost Summary

 

E1 - North Half: 2.3 miles @ $4.2 million

E2 - North Half: 2.2 miles @ $5.9 million

E I & E2 - South Half: 2.2 miles @ $8.5 million

TOTAL: 6.7 miles @ $18.6 million

[Route Map] [Red Rock Crossing] [The Proposal]

Sedona Alternate Route

Roadway Design Criteria

The following criteria are based on the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) guidelines. The criteria below is the basis for the cost estimates provided.

Classification: Rural Collector

Terrain: Mountainous

Design Speed: 50 mph

Posted Speed: 45 mph

Volume: 7000 vpd

Max. Curvature: 70 30'

Max. Grade: 9 %

Cross Slope: 2 %

R/W Width: 100 ft

Access Control: Limited Access (approximately 1 mile spacing, minimum)

Lanes: 2 lanes (1 lane each direction)

Lane Width: 12 ft

Shoulder Width: 6 ft

Maximum Superelevation: 0.08 ft/ft

Drainage Capacity: 50 year

Structural Capacity: HS-20

[Route Map] [Red Rock Crossing] [The Proposal]