Join our mailing list
to receive updates
by email.

SUMMARY OF MEETING HELD DECEMBER 16, 2003 [REVISED 3/26/04]

A meeting of the Community Advisory Committee (CAC) for the Craycroft Road Project was held from 6:10 PM to 8:30 PM at the First Evangelical Free Church, 4700 N. Swan Road.

Welcome, Introductions

Sal Caccavale, Pima County project manager, called the meeting to order. The CAC, design team members and other meeting attendees all introduced themselves. CAC members present were Kenneth Keating, Charles Geoffrion, Sherman Madere, Susan Wicks, Charles Freitas, Mary Grossman and Donald Baker. CAC members not present include Jerry Lippman, Wanda Shattuck and David Wolfe. Cecily Surace resigned the CAC Board as of Tuesday, December 16th. Craycroft team members present included Sal Caccavale, David Hook, Brian Wooldridge, Carol Anton, Kevin Andrews, Sherry Lee, Priscilla Thompson, Hank Warner, Rick Murillo, Craig Allison, Renee Marruffo, Jim Schoen, David Cummings, Leo Smith and Lillian Alvarez.

II.

Meeting Summary & New Informational Materials

Sal confirmed that the committee members and audience received copies of all the handouts to be reviewed at the meeting. The handouts included:
•	Meeting Summary from the previous CAC meeting (November 18, 2003), which included a sheet regarding the Bond Recap and Project Schedule
•	Cost Reduction Alternates Analysis Report – Quantitative Summary
•	Cost Reduction Alternates Analysis Report – Qualitative Summary Matrix
•	PowerPoint presentation
•	Northeast Corridor Study – Current and Projected Traffic Volumes (2025)
•	Craycroft Road Project – Current and Projected Traffic Volumes (2025)
Sal noted that the list of acronyms has been listed on the website for everyone to access and he supplied printed copies to those who don't have access to the Internet. Sal asked the CAC members to review the meeting summary from the previous CAC meeting and reply to him with any comments or corrections. (Charles Geoffrion noted that he read them prior to the start of the meeting and thought they were well done.) Extra copies of the previous meeting summary were distributed to those needing them.

III.

Alternative Comparison

Sal reviewed a slide with a comparison of the two, three and four lane alternatives to the Craycroft improvement project. He explained what would be provided in each scenario as listed in the 1997 bond program. The intent of the slide was to show that all of the alternatives being considered comply with the improvements voted on in the 1997 bond election, except that they do not include curbs or a storm drain system. (Also, the four-lane configuration is the only option where a median could be built.) He also explained, some noteworthy items and possible deletions for each alternative. This information was provided in order to clarify the information originally presented at the previous CAC meeting.

IV.

Network Study / NE Corridors

Sal explained that the Sunrise Drive, Kolb Road and Craycroft Road projects along with River Road are part of the Northeast Corridor Study currently being performed by Catalina Engineering, Inc. (CEI). There is approximately 30 million dollars in bond money allocated to provide improvements in these areas. The current design scopes for these projects require significantly more construction dollars than was made available by the bond program. This study will be used to establish if this $30M can be distributed in such a manner that all four corridors in this area can be improved to accommodate the projected traffic growth over the next 20 years and make other needed improvements.

Jim Schoen, with Catalina Engineering reviewed the current and projected traffic volumes (2025) for the Northeast Corridor Study as a whole and the Craycroft Road project individually. He explained that the goal is to take a look at the newest projections developed by the Pima Association of Governments (PAG) for these roadways and based on these new projections evaluate what the roadway capacity requirements would be. This roadway capacity includes the road itself as well as the major intersections at each end. The current traffic volume represents the counts taken in 2002-2003. As an example he reviewed the current daily volumes on Craycroft Road. He explained that PAG has revised their model since the previous 2020 recommended projections where done. This revision is based on brand new census data with respect to population and employment. Also, a large portion of the projected residential and commercial growth in the metropolitan area has shifted from the northwest to the southeast. Based on these changes, the PAG model was updated and new traffic forecasts were developed for the region. The new forecasts, which reflect 2025 growth projections, include a significant reduction in traffic growth on the northeast aera arterials. The major difference between the two sets of traffic forecasts is that the 2020 projections indicated that traffic in the northwest area would increase by 3-4% per year, while the 2025 projections suggest a much lower growth rate of 1.5% per year. The total 2025 projections are about 30% higher than the current volumes over a 20-year period. He explained that this is applied to the whole corridor. He noted that the total projected 2025 volumes on Craycroft, Kolb and Swan total about 80,000 trips per day and how this generally warrants an 8-lane roadway (meaning 8 total travel lanes, northbound and southbound combined). Since Swan is already a 4-lane roadway then Kolb and Craycroft need to pick up the other 4 lanes.

Donald Baker noted that the Pygmy owl population might be a factor that may affect these projections as it did with the northwest. Jim responded that this is something that would be taken into consideration if it changes but as of today this is what the projections are. He also added that the development in the northwest was also affected by the development costs, since these are generally lower in the southeast area.

Charles Geoffrion asked how this shift in development affects these projections. Mr. Baker responded that since the development is shifted to the southeast, the need for a northern corridor is much lower. As a result, the I-19 freeway becomes a lot more dominant.

Jim noted that based on these projections a three lane section (two thru lanes, one in each direction with a center turn lane) on Craycroft should be sufficient to provide a reasonable level of service over a 20-year period.

Sal added that the models are difficult to determine because of factors that can't be accounted for. For example, as the northwest area becomes more self-sufficient traffic will tend to stay on that side of town and the traffic counts may continue to go down. On the other hand, this area is not experiencing a high growth rate since there is nowhere for people to go so that will keep the numbers down.

Mr. Geoffrion asked if the plan for the Alvernon/River connection affect these projections. Jim affirmed that that improvement is included in the model and it is a factor taken into
consideration.

The committee and the team also discussed the factor of new commerce development and how this affects these models. As different sides of town develop their own commerce they become self-contained then lessening the need to travel across town..

Cost Reduction Alternatives Study

Traffic Volumes
David Hook with EEC reviewed the Cost Reduction Alternatives Study. He explained that the main goals of this study are to evaluate alternative design concepts; to identify the maximum improvements possible with available funding; and at the same time, meet the capacity, mobility and safety needs for the next 20 years. He explained that the study format consisted of a qualitative analysis and a quantitative analysis.

David described the qualitative analysis as a way to look at the big picture, an overview of the project. This analysis was generated from two brainstorming sessions with PCDOT and the EEC design team. At these meetings a consensus was built by taking a minimalist approach to non-core peripherals. This meant that only major design considerations would be considered at this time. The consideration of minor details, common to all the alternatives being studied, would not be done at that time. It was determined that there were 8 alternatives that needed to be evaluated and from these four alternatives where chosen for further analysis. This information was summarized in the Qualitative Summary Matrix that was handed out.

David shared details on each of the 4 alternatives analyzed and explained the differences and similarities between them. The four alternatives are:

A. 2-lane with overlay;
B. 3-lane with overlay;
C. 4-lane with total roadway reconstruction; and
D. 4-lane with overlay.

Each alternative was analyzed by anticipated construction cost and 8 impact categories including right-of-way, access, utility, traffic, environmental (vegetation and wildlife), environmental (visual), drainage and safety. A draft of the quantitative analysis summary was distributed to the CAC board and public for their information.

A member of the public asked about the pedestrian path and how it will be paved. The team responded that the manner in which it will be constructed has not yet been determined, but that the design will comply with ADA regulations.

The public and team discussed the definition of the clear zone terminology. The team explained clear zone as a requirement of the Roadway Design Guidelines published by AASHTO (American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials) and the Pima County Roadway Design Manual. This requirement determines the safe distance, measured from edge of travel lane, to where obstacles (like walls, trees, etc.) may be placed to minimize potential hazards to an errant driver. The distance is determined by a combination of factors, but the basic concept is to provide an area that minimizes potential dangers to the traveling public. The team and public also discussed the median measurements and that the Pima County design guidelines in the past required the median with to be 24' and currently the minimum width is 20'.

The team and the committee discussed the fact that some portions of the roadway would need to be improved for site distance. They also discussed the fact that the existing roadway is located on the eastern portion of the County's right-of-way and that any necessary widening will typically be to the west. The committee expressed concern of cars turning across several lanes of traffic. There was also discussion about vehicles making left turns onto Craycroft using the median area or center left turn lane for shelter or refuge and the legality of this movement. The team explained that these problems exist region-wide and that drivers obviously need to perform these movements with extreme care. The absence of U-turns in alternatives A and B was discussed and it was noted that they couldn't be done because there is not enough room to do so and to keep the intersections open and flowing.

David moved on to review the quantitative summary in detail. He noted that the empty spaces were still being evaluated. The common elements between the alternatives include the Craycroft Rd./River Rd. intersection, Craycroft Rd./Calle Bosque/Territory Dr. intersection, three vertical alignment improvements for safe sight distance, roadway and cross drainage, pedestrian path, no curbs, 6' paved shoulder, rubberized asphalt, left turn lanes, new frontage road at Sunrise Ridge Pl., landscaping and retaining walls. He added that the design of the walls has not been determined yet.

He discussed with the committee the estimated construction costs and land acquisition costs. It was explained that the construction costs included a 30% contingency factor to account for unquantified items that the design process will identify. The land acquisition costs are currently being checked with Pima County Real Property Department and will be updated as required. Sal added that included in these costs are temporary construction easements, slope easements, and drainage easements. These costs are established based on appraised values.

When asked about sound walls, Sal responded that the amount of walls needed is not known at this time. He added that the use of rubberized asphalt would reduce the amount of walls needed from that previously proposed. He also noted that the use of rubberized asphalt will provide reduced sound levels to everyone along the project; whereas, sound walls benefit only those located behind them.

Drainage
Rick Murillo with EEC reviewed the drainage impacts of each storm event (100, 50, 25 or 10 year) and the culvert size required to handle each one. He responded to a question from the committee on the depth of flow that would carry away a vehicle. He stated that for storm waters to move a car several factors would have to be taken into consideration such as car size, velocity and depth of the water over the road, etc. The team also talked to the committee about the costs of maintenance and how much has been spent in the past. Rick added that under the existing condition the drainage culverts are at approximately the 10-year event capacity.

The team then reviewed the key drainage observations used for comparison of each alternative to see which is the least expensive, the one with the greatest access, the safest alternative, etc. They noted how all are expected to have similar types of mitigation.

Traffic
Hank Warner with DMJM+Harris explained how they take a micro-analytical view at the traffic capacity such as the hourly volume and how much traffic gets up the road. He noted how both 4-lane divided options could handle the traffic. The 3-lane could handle the 2025 projections and operate at approximately 80-90% max capacity with a level of service (LOS) D. The 2-lane capacity is in the process of being checked to estimate its capabilities. He noted that with the information available so far alternatives B, C and D could all handle the projected volumes of 2025.

The audience voiced a concern regarding the safety considerations of the middle turn lane being used a passing lane and also to merge across the roadway and the possibilities of building the road to allow for these turns. The team responded that this lane typically operates safely in other areas of town and it does not appear to be frequently used for passing. It is illegal for vehicles to use it to merge into traffic, some law enforcement agencies enforce it and some rarely do it. They discussed the fact that in alternates A and B traffic would not be able to make a U-turn because there won't be enough room. In these cases, drivers would not need to make U-turns, as left-turns could be made at any intersection or driveway.

Next Steps

Sal explained to the committee that the process is intended to gain their input. The Craycroft design team will use this input in preparing a final draft of the alternatives study. This final draft is to be completed by the end of the month (December 2003). The current plan then includes a public open house on the January 27th open house and presentation of the final study with recommendations to the Board in February 2004. The team's recommendations will be based on the technical and cost data established and will be in compliance with County policy and procedure. The committee can disagree with any of the recommendations and write a letter to the Board stating the objection and the reasons for it. This letter would be included with the other materials presented to the Board along with a written response from county staff. The team is available to the committee as needed to assist in the preparation of this letter.

Sal explained that the team is not leaning towards the highest price option because they need to take into account the network as a whole. The main goal for Craycroft is to raise the level of service for the whole corridor to level of service D. Sal added that the Board would ultimately make the decision on which alternate will be used to improve Craycroft Rd. He noted that increased construction costs could delay the project until additional funding needs become available.

Sal asked that the committee make an effort to meet as soon as possible in an effort to have their recommendations available before the open house in January.

The team informed the audience that the Board would listen to neighborhood concerns during the public hearing held prior to the approval of the EAMR. The EAMR is made available to the general public one month prior to this hearing/meeting.

A reminder was made that the www.craycroft.info website has a lot of info on it and that email addresses can be added to the list to receive regular project updates.

The public revisited turn restrictions concerns to which the team responded that making a U-turn could at times be safer than making a left turn across traffic, since the vehicle would only have to look for an opening in one stream of traffic instead of two.

The CAC requested a show of hands from the audience (including committee members) to get an idea of their opinion on the information presented by the team. The results where as follow: 6 audience members favored the 3-lane configuration; 7 audience members favored the 4-lane configuration and 3 audience members where undecided.

Sal asked that everyone keep an open mind in considering these alternatives. The 3-lane alternative may be safer in that traffic exiting the neighborhoods would have less restrictive left and right movements. Also, this type of roadway tends to discourage speeding because it has a more restricted feel. On the other hand, in the 4-lane configuration traffic tends to speed up because of the more open feel it provides.

Adjournment

The meeting concluded at 8:30 p.m. No CAC meeting will be held in January in lieu of the January 27th, 2004 Open House. The February CAC meeting date will be determined later.

CORRECTIONS MADE TO THIS SUMMARY WILL APPEAR IN THE SUMMARY OF THE NEXT COMMUNITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE

	Meeting Handouts
	> CAC PowerPoint Presentation [ HTML \| PowerPoint ] > Cost Reduction Alternatives Analysis Report - Qualitative Summary Matrix [ PDF 283 KB ]

< CAC overview page