Citizens' Alternate Route Task Force

To: District Three Supervisor Chip Davis

From: Citizens' Alternate Route Task Force

Date: September 23, 1997

Re: Final Position Statement

        The Sedona area is unique in its natural setting, its attraction for visitors and the composition of its population. The high-desert topography includes widely-ranging soil conditions and vegetation, diverse and abundant wildlife and awesome vistas. Visitors number in the millions annually, attracted by the red rock views, and influenced by the close proximity to the Grand Canyon and other Northern Arizona wonders. Sedona area citizens, often recent transplants, have in common that they have actively and exuberantly selected Red Rock Country as their home. For most, their new home differs in almost every way from the one they left.

        What is sometimes called The Sedona Experience is mostly an encounter with the natural and archaeological wonders of the Coconino National Forest, which surrounds and is interlaced with developed areas and which offers abundant natural recreation opportunities as well as magnificent scenic attractions. For many area residents and sleep-over visitors, Forest lands are only a short walk away and natural views are available from almost every window.

        This blending of the natural environment with the needed infrastructure comes with a price, however. The price is shared stewardship of the land. Locals, visitors and governments must never lose sight of the fragile nature of the native landscape and must never take it for granted. We must treat the land with reverence, acknowledging that we are caretakers of this delicate beauty and must preserve it for the future. Residents must always ask, "Did we come to Sedona to change it to resemble what we left behind, or are we here to enjoy and protect the beauty and serenity that attracted us and captured our hearts?"

        For many visitors, Sedona is a destination, not just a wide spot in the road to somewhere else. This is evident in the recent frenzy to build hotels, time-shares and resorts in the area, and the many similar projects still in the planning stages. The present Sedona traffic experience apparently arises from visitor buses, cars and RV's impacting on the local citizenry's fiercely independent attitudes about vehicular mobility. This year-round scenario has resulted in some consensus that this wide spot in the road must be made wider. Strong resident attitudes on traffic conditions, often based upon previous experiences in vastly-different venues, sometimes become solid positions, creating divisiveness in the community, disrupting the serenity of the natural surroundings.

        In search of solutions to traffic problems, the State of Arizona, Yavapai and Coconino Counties, and the City of Sedona have instituted research projects and surveyed locals and visitors many times. Probably due to Sedona's political status as a City, the studies conducted by diverse government agencies and independent consultants were based, at least in part, on urban premises and not surprisingly pointed to typical urban solutions. Red Rock Country is not urban by any definition, however. Nor is it suburban, rural or agricultural. In fact, the area resembles a national park or vast natural museum more than a sprawling metropolis.

        Research and surveys say a combination of resident, visitor and commuter traffic is the cause of traffic tie-ups. They note that most of the traffic, regardless of its source or destination, must flow through the intersection of SR 89A and SR 179, at the "Y." Reports identified a need for a better way of distributing traffic while maintaining a small-town feeling. They suggested using Ranger Road to relieve traffic at the "Y," and we agree that this may be appropriate. But even, with improvement of SR 179, all traffic will still flow in the direction of the "Y" and future traffic problems seem inevitable.

        Various studies report that the two major destinations for local traffic are Uptown/Oak Creek Canyon and West Sedona. We agree. The studies conclude that West Sedona traffic is mostly local. Again we agree. Recent construction of hotels and time-shares and the projected growth of tourism suggest a shift in visitor traffic to the west as well. A City of Sedona focus on getting traffic off SR 89A has resulted in resistance from residents in neighborhoods where local roads are projected to become connector streets. Early in the Task Force proceedings, it became obvious that alternative ways of traveling between the disparate parts of the community were necessary. The D2 (Red Rock Crossing) and El/E2 (Back O' Beyond) routes met the criteria of getting traffic off SR 89A and SR 179, dividing traffic by type and destination and providing access to West Sedona. We and others have identified many major issues regarding these routes. We recommend that the responsible government agencies immediately request that the Forest Service resume the NEPA process on these routes, evaluating their ability to move traffic effectively and all the potential effects of their implementation.

        The Task Force feels strongly that funding for an alternate route be multi-jurisdictional, since the problem is socially and geographically diverse and the benefits will be widespread. The State of Arizona, Yavapai and Coconino Counties and the City of Sedona share in the rich tax-base of the Sedona area. The State's work on reconstruction of-SR 89A and planning for SR 179's renewal are welcomed, though long overdue, considering the length of time unsafe roadway conditions have been in place.

        Reconstruction on SR 179 could take 4 to 5 years, creating a negative impact on local business and a reduction in the quality of life for local citizens in the form of traffic delays of thirty minutes or more. During construction, an alternate route in place would be in everyone's best interest. After construction is completed, it would provide added roadway capacity needed to extend the life-cycle of State roads.

        Yavapai and Coconino Counties benefit greatly from Sedona's tax revenue production, and the Task Force agrees that neither county returns a proportionate amount to the area. The Task Force understands the concept of using tax revenue for the betterment of the entire community and that this concept can result in a better community overall. But there comes a time for tax revenues from a community to be allocated to that community.

        Growth of private housing in the Sedona area may contribute to property tax revenues, but it may also increase problems with roads. Increasing numbers of visitors obviously make road conditions even worse. Of course, visitors to Sedona create jobs and tax revenues in Sedona. But jobs and revenue are also generated in surrounding communities. The counties, relieved of the responsibility of maintaining the City of Sedona infrastructure, still collect and largely just keep tax revenues they formerly spent improving road conditions. In fact, problems now being faced in Red Rock Country are often the result of poor planning, or no planning, by the counties in the past.

        The complex nature of Sedona-area traffic problems is exhibited in the fact that most of the traffic congestion on SR 179 occurs in Coconino County, but involves other areas, including Yavapai County residents of the Village of Oak Creek who use this roadway daily to access shopping and services. For the best interests of citizen safety and quality of life, both counties and the State should share in the costs of constructing an alternate route and should continue that cooperative spirit so that the Sedona area can become a community no longer restricted by infrastructure funding limitations.

        The City of Sedona also has a large stake in resolving Sedona area traffic problems. Most of the congestion along both State roads takes place within the city limits. Growing volume at the "Y" intersection is a reminder of the consequences of limited transportation planning. The City should work with the other governments and identify the best way to utilize services and available funds to address traffic conditions.

        The Task Force carefully considered routes recommended by the many studies and surveys (even those previously rejected), reviewed reports from the studies and listened to expert opinions and citizen input.

        Principally, Task Force members agreed that traffic should move through the area in a manner consistent with maximum enjoyment of The Sedona Experience. The Task Force feels that any roadway construction in the area should meet the following criteria:

• Meandering, two-lane parkways that meet required safety standards were identified as appropriate, conforming to natural contours of the land, rather than changing them.

• Posted speed limits of 30 to 35 miles per hour.

• Parking only in pullout areas.

• Shoulder widths that allow for safe pullouts during emergencies only. Shoulders should have parking restrictions, identified in signage appropriate to nearby land use, and should be tow-away zones.

• Bridges should be as low as possible to preserve the character of the natural environment rather than disrupting it. Because of Oak Creek's designation as a Unique Waterway, an in-depth hydrology assessment is required.

• Trails designed for use by hikers, bikers and equestrians parallel to, but separate from the parkways, should be built in conjunction with the roadways and not as an afterthought. They should be designed to connect with the rest of the Urban Trail system.

• Reforestation should be part of the construction and not just after-the-fact damage control. Reforestation should be to the highest standards. The Forest Service allowed the Task Force to review a copy of a reforestation and mitigation plan for highway 1-70 in Colorado. The Sedona area is no less sensitive than the area described in this study, and any reforestation and mitigation measures should be to the same high standards.

• Heavy trucks should not have access to alternate routes unless making a local delivery along the route. This restriction does not include emergency vehicles.

• Both of the primary alternate routes to be investigated go through residential areas, and mitigation of noise from the roadways must be part of their original design. Where needed, the pavement should be designed for noise reduction, and vegetation along the roadways should be designed to reduce noise and light pollution.

• Agreements between the Forest Service and the governments involved must clearly prohibit land exchanges along the rights of way for other than public or perhaps civic use. For an alternate route to be successful and provide long-term relief of area traffic problems, development must be limited to land already held in private ownership. Most traffic safety studies show that limited access along highways makes them safer, and we feel that land exchanges along the routes would tend to contribute to greater access, make the roads more dangerous and limit their useful life as an alternate.

        During the meeting process, we identified issues along various sections of both D2 and El/E2 alternates. The Task Force was particularly concerned with issues of citizen safety, quality of life and noise/air pollution. These issues were prominent to varying degrees for the routes and should be given thorough consideration during any evaluation.

        Although an alternate route will help in the near future, new traffic problems will develop over time, along with related air and noise pollution. The Task Force strongly advises that consideration be given to the following:

• Government agencies give their full support to the current public transit study. Many prior reports noted the need for some form of public transit to help reduce traffic congestion. This is particularly important for traffic into Oak Creek Canyon which, by Forest Service evaluation, will experience significant increases in the future.

• When funding is available, Beaverhead Flat Road be improved to a level that would provide a safe alternative to SR 89A for traffic between the Village of Oak Creek and Cornville/Cottonwood.

• Governments and citizens give continued vigorous support for the Urban Trails/Red Rock Pathways plans for alternative transportation solutions.

• Future growth areas be identified and early planning begun for their anticipated traffic increases and for necessary future roadways.

        The report from the March 1995 Sedona Academy Forum XI on Transportation Needs noted that the traffic situation in the Sedona area adversely affects the small-town quality of life and that transportation issues conflicted with community values, as follows:

• Environmental quality versus the need for alternate routes.

• Beauty, tranquillity and small-town quality of life versus convenience.

• Small-town atmosphere versus economic well-being and efficiency.

• Respect for the environment versus visitors' wants.

        Given these conflicts, questions emerge about what kind of Sedona Experience the citizens, commuters and visitors to the area want and need. Again, the report from the Sedona Forum identified essential common needs:

• Safe and efficient routes for emergency services.

• Acceptable levels of traffic congestion.

• Improved signage and directional information.

• Alternative transportation modes to reduce reliance on the automobile.

        With these common needs and the unique, natural park-like setting of the Greater Sedona area in mind, although the Task Force recognizes that by law NEPA must consider the "No Action" alternative, we call for the immediate resumption of the NEPA process to consider the D2 and El/E2 routes as the primary alternatives. Although the Task Force did not devote as much time and attention to the E3 and E4 routes, we feel they are worthy of consideration.

        After careful evaluation of information available to us, we agree that alternative ways of traveling between disparate locations in the community are needed and that planners must look to the future when designing and implementing traffic solutions. The Task Force also agrees that traffic solutions must take into account and protect the unique and irreplaceable natural environment of the area, without which there would be no Sedona Experience for everyone to share.

        The Task Force unanimously agrees with the above stated Final Position Statement.

/s/ Bob Aberg, Red Rock Pathways

/s/ Bennie Blake, Responsible Residents of the Red Rocks

/s/ Craig Dible, Sedona-Verde Valley Group, Sierra Club

/s/ Mary Lee Dunning, Citizens for an Alternate Route

/s/ Cole Greenberg, Keep Sedona Beautiful

/s/ Tom Hutchinson, Trail Resources Access Coalition of Sedona

/s/ Joanne Johnson, Big Park Community Council

/s/ John D. Miller, Citizen

s/ Chuck Yadon, Sedona-Oak Creek Canyon Chamber of Commerce

/s/ Thomas C. O'Halleran, Chairperson

Back to: The Proposal

Back to: Recent Events