dixie urbanizing area interim long-range (2000 … · dixie urbanizing area interim long-range ......

DIXIE URBANIZING AREA INTERIM LONG-RANGE (2000-2020) TRANSPORTATION PLAN

FOR THE ST. GEORGE URBANIZED AREAJUNE 2004

Prepared By The Dixie Transportation Planning Office

Five County Association Of Governments1070 W. 1600 S., Bldg. B

P.O. Box 1550, St. George, Utah 84771-1550

Suzanne Allen

Chair, Transportation Executive Council

Larry Bulloch

Chair, Transportation Advisory Committee

Lowell Elmer

Director, Transportation Planning Office

June 30, 2004

Transportation Planning Community

On behalf of the Dixie Metropolitan Planning Organization leadership we present to you the Interim Long

Range Transportation Plan for the Dixie Urbanizing Area with a horizon to the year 2020, as adopted by the

Dixie Transportation Executive Council. This document sets base-line and 2020 projections for many

population and demographic data and includes projects and financial costs that address short term and long

term transportation needs.

This interim plan is not a static document. The Dixie Transportation Planning Office is setting groundwork for

a 30 year horizon publication targeted for Spring of 2005. The expanded picture to 2035 will provide better

correlation with the other three MPO’s in the state and the Utah Department of Transportation’s planning

process. We hope you will review this document and provide input towards the 2035 Long Range

Transportation Plan for Utah’s Dixie.

We especially want to thank the MPO partners, Ivins, Santa Clara, St. George and Washington Cities,

Washington County and UDOT staff and elected officials for their input and direction on this interim effort;

and the Community and Economic Development staff of Five County Association of Governments for their

excellent work in editing and publishing this plan for the MPO.

Besides the hard copy presented with this letter a compact disk is also included. In July 2004 this document

will also be available on the Dixie MPO home page which is associated with the Five County Association of

Governments’ web site: http://www.fcaog.state.ut.us. Once there, please click on the “Departments” link and

then the “Dixie MPO” link. Higher resolution version of this plan’s maps are also available on that site.

You may also send comments to me at : [email protected].

Sincerely,

Lowell Elmer, Director

Dixie Metropolitan Planning Organization

Dixie Transportation Planning Office

Five County Association of Governments

1070 W. 1600 S., Bldg. B

P.O. Box 1550, St. George, UT 84771-1550

(435) 673-3548

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Planning Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Planning Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

II. MISSION, GOALS, AND OBJECTIVES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Mission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Vision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Operating Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Goals and Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

III. DESCRIPTION OF THE PLANNING AREA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Urbanizing Area Boundary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Urbanizing Area Population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Urbanizing Area Demographics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Population Density . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Mobility Limited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Environmental Justice (Low Income Populations) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Zero Vehicle Households . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Land Use Patterns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Land Use Plans (2003) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Employment Patterns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

IV. TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Functional Classification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Roadway System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Public Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Bicycle /Pedestrian Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Existing and Projected Traffic Volumes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Environmental Constraints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Air Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

V. IDENTIFIED PROJECTS/NEEDS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Highway Projects/Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Transit Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Pedestrian and Bicycle Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Public Involvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

VI. REVENUE SOURCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Federal Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Federal Highway Administration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Federal-Aid Interstate Maintenance Program(FAIM) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

National Highway System(NHS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Surface Transportation Program (STP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Congestion Management/Air Quality(CMAQ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Bridge Replacement Program(BR) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Planning (PL) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

State Planning & Research(SPR) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Rideshare Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Federal Transit Administration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Capital Program(5309) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Urbanized Area Formula Program(5307) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Elderly and Persons with Disabilities Program(5310) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Non-urbanized Area Formula Program(5311) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Statewide Planning and Research(5313) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Metropolitan Planning(5303) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Demonstration Funds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Other Federal Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Community Development Block Grants(CDBG) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Economic Development Grants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

State Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Local Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Private Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

VII. PROJECTED REVENUES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Highway Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Federal Funds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

State Funds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Local Funds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Transit Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Federal Funds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Capital Program(5309) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Formula(5307) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Local Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

User Fees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Fare Revenue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Other Revenues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Flexible Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Revenue Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

VIII. PROJECTED COSTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Highway Cost Estimates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Administration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Maintenance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Pavement Preservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Bridge Replacement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Enhancements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

New Capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

Transit Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Table 1 - Dixie Urbanizing Area 20 Year Planning Boundary Estimated 2000 Demographics . . . . . . . . . .7

Table 2 - Dixie Urbanizing Area 20 Year Planning Boundary Projected 2020 Demographics . . . . . . . . . .8

Table 3 - Washington County Largest Employers (Annual Averages 2002) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Table 4 - Right-of-Way Functional Classification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Table 5 - Road Ownership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Table 6 - Current & Projected 2015 ADT for the St. George Portion of the UZA Parsons Brinckerhoff

Study Traffic Volumes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Table 7 - Current & Projected 2025 ADT for the Washington City Portion of the UZA Sear Brown Study

Traffic Volumes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Table 8 - Identified Highway Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Table 9 - Identified Transit Projects/Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Table 10 - Identified Bicycle/Pedestrian Projects/Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Table 11 - Estimated Federal Highway Funds Available to SGUZA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Table 12 - Projected Revenues for Highway Improvements in the St. George UZA FROM 2003 to 2020

(Rounded) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Table 13 - Projected Revenues for Public Transit in the St. George UZA, FROM 2003 TO 2020 . . . . . . .40

Table 14 - Summary of Cost by Category for Highway Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

APPENDIXES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

A GLOSSARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

B URBANIZED AREA AND MPO PLANNING BOUNDARY MAP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

C LAND USE ZONING MAP AND LAND USE DENSITY MAPS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46,47

D DIXIE ROADWAY FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION MAPS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48,49

E PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION MAP/SUN TRAN BUS ROUTES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

F WASHINGTON COUNTY REGIONAL TRAILS MASTER PLAN MAP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

DIXIE URBANIZING AREA INTERIM LONG-RANGE

(2000-2020) TRANSPORTATION PLAN

1

I. INTRODUCTION

Background

In June of 2000, it was anticipated by planning professionals at the Five County

Association of Governments and the Utah Governor’s Office of Planning and

Budget, that the general geographic area encompassing the Utah cities of St.

George, Washington, Ivins and Santa Clara would exceed a population of 50,000

persons when the 2000 U.S. Census count was released. The Five County

Association of Governments, in cooperation with the aforementioned cities, as well

as Washington County and the Utah Department of Transportation, embarked on

a three year transportation agreement and work program to develop a long-range

planning process, prepare for urbanized designation, and establish a metropolitan

planning organization (MPO) in this area known historically as “Utah’s Dixie”. A long-

range planning process was commenced in December of 2001, with the hosting of

an public open house to promote the long-term involvement of the general public,

stake holders and other interested groups in the development of plans for

transportation systems for the Dixie urbanizing area.

On May 1, 2002, the Bureau of the Census, published in the Federal Register,

seventy-six new urbanized areas in the United States, including the St. George,

Utah Urbanized Area (UZA) with a boundary population of 62,630, short of the total

Census 2000 population estimate for the four cities noted above, of 66,929. The

Census defined boundary maps for the new urbanized areas were released in June

of 2002. The Governor of Utah designated an MPO for the urbanized area on

September 20, 2002. The Governor’s action was concurred with by the U.S.

Department of Transportation on October 9, 2002. Official organization of the Dixie

MPO was established on November 19, 2002 by the Dixie Transportation Executive

Council (DTEC), the policy body for the new MPO.

The Governor’s designation included the recognition of two other entities besides

the policy body mentioned above as the DTEC: a technical advisory committee

known as the Dixie Transportation Advisory Committee (DTAC) to develop plans

and project recommendations to the policy body, and the Dixie Transportation

Planning Office (DTPO). The office of the Dixie Metropolitan Planning Organization

is administered by the Five County Association of Governments (FCAOG), a multi-

county planning district, with an office located in St. George, Utah. The DTPO

provides MPO management and staff who conduct the day to day operations of the

MPO including providing staff support to the DTEC and DTAC. The FCAOG

executes, manages and administers all contracts and agreements between various

agencies and consultant services needs for the MPO in the conduct of the urban

transportation planning process for the urbanized area and planning boundary.



2

The U.S. Census boundary includes the majority of the four municipal boundaries

but excludes specific portions of each community such as the Kayenta housing

development located in Ivins City, the northernmost part of Santa Clara City, the

Sun River active adult housing development in the southwestern corner of St.

George City, and much of the Washington Fields area in the southern portion of

Washington City. These areas, along with some others not mentioned, did not meet

the U.S. Census Bureau’s contiguous density requirements but have been included

in the Dixie MPO planning boundary. The Dixie MPO planning boundary is a twenty

year planning horizon and includes those areas expected to be urbanized within

twenty years, comprised of the both the Census defined UZA and areas outside.

The MPO planning area totals 223 square miles. The planning boundary is based

on section boundaries and generally follows the west border of Ivins south to the

Arizona-Utah border, east to the Section boundary that coincides with the

Washington City’s municipal east boundary line, north along that section line to the

northeast corner of Section 20 and west along that line to the northwest corner of

section 24 just above Ivins City’s municipal northwest corner boundary.

Purpose

The MPO, in cooperation with the State of Utah and local operators of publicly-

owned transit services, is responsible for carrying out the metropolitan

transportation planning process.

To be eligible to receive federal assistance for surface transportation projects within

an urbanized area, an MPO must have an adopted transportation plan for the area

as required by federal regulations 23 CFR Part 450 and 49 CFR Part 613,

corresponding administered programs of the Federal Highway (FHWA) and Federal

Transit (FTA) Administrations. New urbanized areas and their MPO’s have until the

Spring of 2005 to adopt a long range plan.

The intent of this draft interim long range plan is to: 1) prepare an early document

that supports the transportation improvement program (TIP) which obligates federal

funding for local projects of immediate need, and 2) presents basic baseline

information used in developing the long-range plan in 2005.

Planning Process

The transportation planning process is a requirement of federal regulations for

metropolitan planning (23CFR Part 450). The plan must be developed through a

proactive public involvement effort and recognition of local community issues

(23CFR Part 450.322). Seven specific planning factors must be considered in the

development of a long range plan; they have been considered and incorporated in

this interim effort, as appropriate. The Planning regulation states that each

metropolitan planning process shall provide for consideration of projects and

strategies that will:



3

1) Support the economic vitality of the metropolitan planning area, especially by

enabling global competitiveness, productivity, and efficiency;

2) Increase the safety and security of the transportation system for motorized and

non-motorized users;

3) Increase the accessibility and mobility options available to people and for freight;

4) Protect and enhance the environment, promote energy conservation, and

improve quality of life;

5) Enhance the integration and connectivity of the transportation system, across

and between modes, for people and freight;

6) Promote efficient system management and operation; and

7) Emphasize the efficient preservation of the existing transportation system.

In the fall of 2001, the Dixie Transportation Advisory Committee determined the

most significant corridors for improvement within the expected urbanized area,

along with detailed cost estimates of the improvements.

Thirty projects were identified which were later pared down to twelve. From these,

a list of six were placed in the first transportation improvement program. These

same projects have been carried forward into the 2004-8 TIP. The original thirty

projects, or corridors of need, represent an unconstrained listing of projects along

transportation corridors capable of meeting trip demands over the next twenty years.

Planning documents from by each of the member cities and one developed by

Washington County were the foundation for these technical decisions.

Besides individual road network plans from the cities involved, the firm of Fehr &

Peers, Inc., completed a transit feasibility study in 1999 that supported the proposed

transit plans for the area. In the spring of 2002, the firm of Leigh/Scott/Cleary, Inc.,

prepared a transit service analysis for the City of St. George and completed a short-

range transit development plan in December 2003 to comply with federal regulations

to allow for the flow of federal funds to the urbanized area for transit projects. That

short range plan is made part of this document by reference and may be viewed at

the MPO office.

A companion financial plan must be made part of the overall transportation plan for

a region to ensure that the recommended improvements included in the plan can

be implemented within projected revenues.



4

This interim plan documents a basic financial plan for the St. George Urbanized

Area. Potential revenue sources are summarized. Estimates of future revenue from

these sources are also made. The costs to meet the projected needs of all elements

of the plan over the next 20 years are estimated. These costs include those required

to meet the needs identified in the plan as well as for general administration and the

operation and maintenance of the existing transportation system.

The pre-Dixie MPO team approved a policy for public involvement. The public

involvement document, as well as all other processes established prior to MPO

designation, will be re-visited and updated over time. Twenty-five people attended

the Dec. 5, 2001 ‘kick off’ of the Long Range Transportation Plan open house. The

open house presented the 30 corridors of improvement and was a forum for public

comment. Written comments were also received. Legal notices announcing the

schedule of monthly meetings of the technical advisory committee and executive

council are published in the local papers twice annually.

Planning Data

Census and other data utilized and presented in this interim long-range plan will

cover the Urbanized Area as defined by the U.S. Census Bureau and the MPO

planning boundary, as adopted by the executive council. The Five County

Association of Governments’ service area includes numerous jurisdictions outside

of the MPO planning boundary. Additionally, Washington County is providing inkind

support including mapping, GIS, and other data gathering for the MPO. For these

reasons, it was decided that the cities of Hurricane, LaVerkin, Leeds, and

Toquerville should be included. These rural and urban cluster areas are likely to

become part of the urbanized area in future census determinations.

II. MISSION, GOALS, AND OBJECTIVES

Mission

A Memorandum of Understanding, (hereinafter “MOU”) entered into on June 1,

2001, by and between the cities of Ivins, St. George, Santa Clara and Washington

City, W ashington County and the Five County Association of Governments

(hereinafter ‘FCAOG’), and the Utah Department of Transportation (hereinafter

‘UDOT’), included a ‘partnership charter’ whereby the stakeholders agreed to work

together for the common good and to act and represent the agencies in the MPO

development process, and beyond, by adherence to a quality initiative.

The MPO mission agreed upon when the MOU was signed and later formally

adopted by the DTEC is as follows:

“Providing Unified Transportation Planning For Utah’s Dixie”



5

Vision

The Vision agreed upon by the members states:

“A Safe, Pleasant, and Efficient Transportation System in Utah’s Dixie,

Through Proactive Leadership and Excellence in Transportation Planning”

Operating Values

The following eleven operating principles were established and are active behaviors

of all partners and their representatives in the planning process, for today, tomorrow

and in the future:

1. Seek equity and trust in stake holder decision making, and partnership building

2. Focus on issues

3. Operate using shared team leadership, resources, and knowledge to improve

customer service

4. Represent the ideals of the Dixie Transportation Executive Council and

communities

5. Listen and respect the views of others

6. Strive for mutually beneficial goals/objectives through common permanent

solutions

7. Be proactive

8. Make the right decisions for the right reasons

9. Reach out for public support and buy-in

10. Base all decisions on facts, verified data and observable behavior

11. Communicate for cooperation, consensus, coordination, and commitment

Goals and Objectives

The Dixie Transportation Executive Council participated in a visioning process

facilitated by a third party in the fall of 2002 and identified a twenty year vision that

may be useful in the near future to establish performance measures for the existing

and future transportation system in Utah’s Dixie. The key vision elements are listed

below:Responsibility - Fiscal, Safety, Public Involvement & Education

Mobility - Provide mode choices in transportation planning and systems

Consistency - Plans, standards, system function, partnering, relationships

Convenience - Regional planning scope & accessibility of systems

Beauty - Access to amenities, preservation of vistas/sites, appropriate landscaping

Continuity - System Connectivity, teamwork, planning for the future

Expansion - Hurricane/LaVerkin Cluster

Quality of Life - ties into all elements listed above

Congestion mitigation

Air Quality protection

Meeting Community Health Standards

Maintaining ‘open feeling’ and community identity



6

Enhancing law enforcement and emergency access

Evaluation - Establish performance measures for all vision elements, obtain customer

feedback and make improvements

Goals and objectives will be identified and flow from these vision elements as the

DTAC and DTEC work through the planning process including obtaining feedback

from the public involvement process.

III. DESCRIPTION OF THE PLANNING AREA

Urbanizing Area Boundary

On May 1, 2002, the United States Census Bureau announced in the Federal

Register, 76 new urbanized areas(UZAs) based on the results of the 2000 Census

and rules. The St. George UZA , was identified as one of them. The Dixie MPO will

have the opportunity to adjust the Census UZA boundary but will not be allowed to

increase the population figure provided by the Census Bureau. The boundary maps

for urbanized areas based on the 2000 Census were released June 20, 2002. The

boundary for the SGUZA included the major portions of the four participating cities

based on 1000 persons per square mile, contiguous. A 20 year MPO planning

boundary approved by the DTEC, and necessary for Governor designation, was

adopted on Nov. 19, 2002. The UZA boundary encompasses an area of about

33.52 square miles, while the MPO planning boundary is approximately 223 square

miles. A map showing both boundaries is provided in Appendix B.

Urbanizing Area Population

Federal funding for the newest of Utah’s MPO’s must be based on the Census figure

of 62,630, announced in the May 1, 2002 Federal Register. This figure is shy of the

66,966 census total for the four cities. The MPO determined 20 year planning

boundary includes the municipal boundaries of the four cities impacted by the UZA.

The 2000 Census total for the four member cities including areas outside the

municipal boundaries but still in western Washington County, is estimated to be

approximately 67,000 persons. The projected population for the year 2020 for the

MPO planning boundary is 125,800 based on a growth rate of 3.2% used by the

Governors’ Office of Planning and Budget. This conservative rate may be balanced

by a more generous growth rate of 6% as predicted and experienced by the various

cities in terms of annual utility connections, resulting in an estimate of 214,900

persons living in the current planning boundary, by year 2020. Estimates for the St.

George Urbanized boundary and what may be urbanized by 2020 using 3.2% and

6% growth rates could be between, 117,600 and 200, 900 people, respectively.



7

Urbanizing Area Demographics

The Dixie 2005 Long Range Transportation Plan will utilize Census block data in the

projection of area demographics out thirty years. For the purposes of this interim

plan, however, projected 20 year demographics for the area is based on 1990 and

1996 Census information with the growth in population presented by the Census

2000 total population for the communities and Washington County. This growth rate

history is used to estimate the demographics for the year 2020. Tables 1 and 2

present data sets that were created based on this process. They include the

populations that are elderly (65+ years old), persons with limited mobility, minority

population, and low income persons, for year 2000 and projected for year 2020. A

final data set is households having no vehicle available for personal transportation,

shown for the same years. A brief discussion of each of these population elements

and their relationship to transportation systems planning follows the tables.

Table 1 - Dixie Urbanizing Area 20 Year Planning Boundary Estimated

2000 Demographics

Place Total

Population

Population

Age 65+

Population

Mobility Limited

Minority

Population

Population

Below Poverty

Line

Households

with No

Vehicle

Ivins 4,450 468 40 365 757 9

St. George 49,663 8,939 844 2,136 6,456 745

Santa Clara 4,630 486 56 74 231 19

Washington 8,186 1,228 147 458 778 25

MPO Total 66,929 11,121 1,087 3,033 8,222 798

Hurricane 8,250 1,403 116 388 1,320 83

Toquerville 910 191 18 3 182 12

La Verkin 3,392 546 34 132 577 34

Leeds 547 126 5 5 93 9

Rural Total 13,099 2,266 173 568 2,172 138

GrandTotal 80,028 13,387 1,260 3,601 10,394 936

Sources: US Bureau of the Census Data, 1990, 1996 pop., and 2000; Utah Governor’s Office of Planning & Budget;

W ashington County Planning Office Dixie Area Transit Feasibility Study, Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. 1999



8

Table 2 - Dixie Urbanizing Area 20 Year Planning Boundary Projected 2020

Demographics

Place Total

Population

Population

Age 65+

Population

Mobility

Limited

Minority

Population

Population

Below

Poverty

Line

Households

with No

Vehicle

Ivins 8,619 904 74 707 1,433 22

St. George 104,065 18,840 1,756 4,475 12,965 1,398

Santa Clara 9,124 955 110 146 428 41

Washington 16,230 2,447 286 909 1,546 41

MPO Total 129,419 23,146 2,226 6,237 16,372 1,465

Hurricane 14,450 2,620 213 726 2,423 158

Toquerville 1,835 386 37 86 360 22

La Verkin 6,483 1,043 62 253 1,084 59

Leeds 1,004 231 9 9 171 17

Rural Total 24,772 4,280 321 1,074 5,112 256

GrandTotal 154,191 27,426 2,547 7,311 21,484 1,721

Sources: US Bureau of the Census Data, 1990, 1996 pop., and 2000 Utah Office of Planning & Budget Dixie Area

Transit Feasibility Study, Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. 1999 Washington County Planning Office

Population Density

According to the U.S. Bureau of Census criteria, the population of an urbanized area

boundary must meet 1,000 persons per square mile or more, and be contiguous. As

future Census information is released, density information will be appropriately

included in future updates of this plan and also incorporated into the regional travel

demand model update process.

The current St. George Traffic Demand Model, calibrated and updated in year 2002

divides the urbanizing/planning area into 132 traffic analysis zones (TAZ’s) derived

from physical, geographical and transportation network information, matched up

with census block conformity. The Utah Department of Transportation, has included

the Dixie MPO in its FY2003 and 2004 contract with the Department of Workforce

Services to add socio/economic/employment information to the TAZ’s for

determining trip demand.



9

The update documentation prepared by PEC, Ltd., for the City of St. George is

incorporated into this interim plan by reference and is available at the City of St.

George and the DTPO/FCAOG office. PEC, Ltd., is currently developing traffic

demand projections for the years 2015 and 2030. That information will be

incorporated into the 2005 Dixie LRTP publication.

Mobility Limited

Mobility is defined as the ease of changing one’s location, a function of available

transportation and the individual traveler. The Bureau of the Census defines

mobility-limited status as a person who has a health condition lasting six months or

more. In addition, the said health condition has made it difficult for that individual to

go outside of the home alone. The Census Bureau refers to a health condition as

both a physical and mental problem. Mobility impairments can significantly restrict

the number of trips a person may take to basic needs such as grocery stores and

medical facilities. For the purposes of this planning process, individuals who are

mobility-limited are considered those for whom it is difficult if not impossible to use

traditional transportation facilities without assistance or with modifications of those

facilities.

The number of people who are mobility limited within the Dixie MPO boundary was

1,260, based on estimates from the 1990/96 Census, projected to be 2,547 by year

2020. In 2000, 67% of those considered mobility limited resided within the City of St.

George. In 2020, it is estimated that 69% will reside in the centrum city. Hurricane

and Washington on their own, were host to over 100 persons mobility limited by the

year 2000; a significant number, when one considers that both these smaller

communities were approaching or exceeding the total for the City of Logan, in

Cache County, at 102. The operation of transit and other paratransit systems is

important to meet the transportation needs of citizens with disabilities.

Environmental Justice (Low Income Populations)

For purposes of this interim plan, persons below the poverty line will be the focus

of estimating special transportation needs rather than looking at all economic levels.

Also, persons of minority status will be reflected since nearly half of all minorities fall

below the poverty line in most areas of the state.

Based on similar methodology, the total number of people below the Census defined

poverty line in the Dixie MPO area for year 2000 was 10,394, projected to nearly

double by year 2020, to 20,410. All cities harbor folks in this category, but for



10

obvious reasons, St. George carries the majority with 6,456, or 62%, and will likely

have 64%, or nearly 13,000 residents living below poverty line by year 2020.

Ivins and LaVerkin, two of the smaller entities in the Dixie urbanizing area, are

shouldering a disproportionate number of persons living below the poverty line. The

data supports the need for public and/or para transit services to meet the needs of

those unable to make trips or to gain access to primary services.

Zero Vehicle Households

Households where no vehicle exists for transportation rely completely on transit or

special services. In homes where there is only one vehicle and one or both spouse

works, access to jobs for either parent can be difficult on a consistent basis. This

situation affects people’s ability to hold jobs and have access to jobs or needed

services for themselves and other family members.

Nine hundred and thirty-six households with no vehicle were estimated to exist in

the Dixie urbanizing area in the year 2000, based on the method described above.

This number is projected to nearly double for each community by year 2020. The

majority of those households (80%) are within the City of St. George.

Land Use Patterns

Projections for population and employment data may assist in development of

generalized land use maps for Washington County by providing a reasonable

estimate of the primary activities taking place within the traffic analysis zones. One

method of looking at the population or employment density of each zone is a

comparison of employment and population density which allows for creating a

generalized land use for each TAZ. This approach may be more feasible in the

future as the model itself is improved and staff and resources become available to

calculate those outputs. For purposes of this interim plan land use and density

maps have been developed showing what exists for 2004, as a base line, from

documentation from the county and the four cities. The assumption is made that

zones having more population compared to employment are more likely to be

residential areas, while those with more employment than population will tend to be

more commercial/industrial areas.

Land Use Plans (2003)

The Washington County GIS Office contacted each of the cities in the MPO planning

boundary to obtain current landuse plans and also obtained density data from the



11

2000 Census tracts. Based upon that information, regional maps showing current

land use and density, included in Appendix C, were prepared. Projected density and

landuse out to years 2015 and 2030 will be documented in the DLRP published in

the year 2005.

The regional landuse zoning map clearly indicates areas where growth will most

likely occur in the near future in terms of residential and employment/commercial

location. This information will be important in determining future traffic demand and

trip origin and production.

The density map indicates the number of persons per acre and should guide local

municipal transportation decisions in protecting corridors, and locating and

determining capacity of future improvements to the highway and transit network.

Employment Patterns

According to the Utah Department of Workforce Services there were approximately

3,381 employment establishments operating in Washington County in 2002. It

should be realized that companies come and go. Table 3 shows the major (100 or

more employees) places of employment in Washington County in year 2002,

presented as an ‘employment range’. As is the case with many businesses, there

are seasonal peaks in employment, such as the Christmas holiday season at retail

establishments. The largest employer in the urbanizing area is the Washington

County School District; Their employees, however, and their work destinations, are

spread throughout the Urbanizing area. The total employment at the two Wal-Mart

Super Centers and Distribution Center is next. The third largest employer in the

county is Intermountain Health Care. The hospital company opened the new 250

bed Dixie Regional Medical Regional Medical Center in mid-November 2003, with

an estimated 350 additional new jobs expected to be filled by the end of 2004.

Table 3 - Washington County Largest Employers (Annual Averages 2002)

Company Employment Range

Washington County School District 2,000-2,999

Wal-Mart Discount Department Stores 1,000-1,999

Intermountain Health Care/Dixie Regional Medical Center 1,000-1,999

Dixie State College 500- 999




12

St. George City Municipal Corporation 500- 999

Federal Government 250- 499

SkyWest Airlines 250- 499

Washington County Government 250- 499

Cross Creek Manor Residential and Nursing Care 250- 499

Smith’s Food King Grocery Store 100- 249

Zions Bank 100- 249

Wells Fargo Bank 100- 249

Anderson Lumber Home Improvement Center 100- 249

Sears Roebuck Department Store 100- 249

Xanterra Parks and Resorts Accommodations/Resort 100- 249

Harmons Grocery Store 100- 249

Hurst Stores Sporting Goods 100- 249

Lin’s Supermarket Grocery Stores 100- 249

Interstate Rock Products Heavy Construction 100- 249

Albertsons Grocery Stores 100- 249

St. George Care & Rehabilitation Residential & Nursing Care 100- 249

Kmart Discount Department Store 100- 249

McDonald’s Restaurants 100- 249

Boulevard Home Furnishings Store 100- 249

Stephen Wade Auto Center Automobile Dealerships 100- 249

Green Valley Resort Accommodations/Resort 100- 249

Cabinetec Cabinet Manufacturing 100- 249

Costco Warehouse Club 100- 249

Andrus Trucking 100- 249

St. George Mitsubishi Automobile Dealership 100- 249




13

Deseret Laboratories Pharmaceutical Manufacturing 100- 249

Red Cliffs Regional Residential & Nursing Care 100- 249

Cinnamon Hills Youth Crisis Center Residential Care 100- 249

Pace American Truck Trailer Manufacturing 100- 249

Lowe’s Home Improvement Center 100- 249

Target General Merchandise Store 100- 249

Sunroc Corp Concrete Products 100- 249

PGM Inc. Market Research 100- 249

Red Mountain Spa Accommodations/Resort 100- 249

Western Wats Interviewing Telephone Call Center 100- 249

Red Rock Canyon School Youth Residential Care 100- 249

The Spectrum Newspaper Publishing 100- 249

Marketing Solutions International Electronic Shopping 100- 249

State of Utah Government 100- 249

Hurricane City Municipal Corporation 100- 249

Source: Utah Dept. of Workforce Services, Workforce Information

Updated September 2003

Please note that several additional “big box” stores have been opened since the last

Work Force Service update and are not shown in this D.W.F.S. list.

Projected year 2020 employment by major employment sectors, such as Mining,

Construction, Manufacturing, Transportation, Communication, Public Utilities, Trade,

Finance, Insurance, Real Estate, Service, and Government will be presented in the

Dixie LRTP published in 2005. Major activity centers in the Dixie Urbanizing area

such as commercial businesses, but including schools, recreation facilities, parks,

golf courses, religious buildings, not necessarily commercially based destinations,

will be identified.



14

Summary

The population characteristics of the St. George Urbanized Area clearly defines a

centralized population core; however, the population continues to expand in all other

communities, due to many factors, including the individual uniqueness of each

community, and ‘snowbird’ desirability/location. “Snowbirds” is a local reference to

seasonal inhabitants, who utilize the Dixie area as a second home, primarily in the

winter months. These residents are typically from northern cities and states as well

as from the Canadian Provinces.

High density residential development neighborhoods are located within St. George

City, and will continue to expand over the next 20 years, especially as the population

and infrastructure ages together. Medium density areas are seen and will continue

to expand in the other three communities in the UZA, and nearby Hurricane. The

other communities in the planning boundary will continue to exhibit lighter densities

as they move towards build out.

The generalized land use for the Dixie Urbanizing area shows continuing trends

important for development of an expanded transportation system:

! Increased densities of commercial development along several corridors will

increase demand for an expanded and enhanced transportation network.

! The mobility-limited population is primarily located in the City of St. George

and will increase demand for transit services.

! T h e overall age of the population shows that over the next 20 years those

over 65 will continue to grow in significant numbers adding to the mobility-

limited need for transportation services.

! Households with zero to one vehicle are also primarily located in St. George

and will require access to jobs and services.

! The increasing population and vehicle miles of travel will continue to place

demands on the existing transportation system. Without increasing or

expanding the system, existing congestion and potential air quality impacts will

only worsen.



15

IV. TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS

Functional Classification

Roadway System

The functional classification of the existing roadway network within an urbanized

area is shown in Table 4 below and describes the functional classification

system in regard to how traffic moves along different roadways. The Major

Roadway Map included in the Roadway Functional Classification maps shown in

Appendix D also depict the long-range transportation needs of the Dixie

Urbanizing area. There are four functional classifications which define the road

network in an urbanized area.

Table 4 - Right-of-Way Functional Classification

Classification Definition

Principal Arterial Move traffic to destinations within, and in and out of Washington

County. During peak hours these roads handle most of the traffic

demand. They should have limited access to adjacent land use.

Minor Arterial Allow more access to adjacent land than a Principal; generally located

on a 80-106 foot right-of-way and may connect to principal arterials

through intersections or gradual transitions.

Collector Serve mainly internal neighborhood traffic movements or connect an

area with the arterial street system. They handle through traffic for

short distances; provide link to Minor arterials and are characterized by

two lanes of traffic with ample median/turning lane or by four lanes with

no parking allowed during peak hours. Right-of-way needs satisfied by

66-80 foot widths.

Local Provide good accessibility to land. Traffic volumes should be very low

and movement is slow. On-street parking combined with short lengths

and reduced pavement width yields essentially a one-lane street with a

right-of-way of 60 feet or less.

The jurisdictional responsibility for roads within the urbanizing area is divided among

the municipalities, the county, and the Utah Department of Transportation. Table 5

shows the roadway classification and jurisdiction.



16

Table 5 - Road Ownership

Type Ownership

Class A Public roads under ownership and control of UDOT. Constructed and maintained

by UDOT from funds made available for that purpose.

Class B Public roads located in unincorporated areas under ownership and control of

Washington County. Constructed and maintained by the County Road Department.

Class C Public roads located in the incorporated municipalities of the County and owned ,

constructed, and maintained by the different communities.

Public Transportation

The Five County Association of Governments sponsored and operated the Dixie

Area Rapid Transit System (DARTS), within the city limits of St. George, for several

years until December 30, 2002. W hen it began as a rural funded project DARTS

was intended to be a transition service to be taken over by a willing and able public

entity with taxing authority, thereby enabling the Dixie area to receive federal

urbanized funds for transit operations and capital expansion upon metropolitan and

urbanized status designation.

On September 5 , 2002, the St. George City Council voted in support of taking overth

the public transit responsibility, and became the Federal Transit Administration

recipient for annual formula funding eligible to the St. George Urbanized Area.

Utah’s Governor designated the city as the recipient and federal concurrence was

made in November 2002.

The current system operates a fixed route system over three routes, with hourly

head-way and a separate dial-a-ride system for individuals with special needs.

Back-up vehicles are available to feed into the systems to maintain scheduled

service. The most current SunTran bus route map and schedule are included in

Appendix E.

A feasibility study produced under cooperation of UDOT, Five County Association

of Governments and St. George City by Fehr & Peer in 1999, is included here by

reference. A draft Short Range Transit Service Analysis produced by the City of St.

George, by LSC, Inc., is attached by reference. These documents are available for

review at the Dixie MPO Office or the City of St.George. A short range transit plan



17

for the MPO was completed in December 2003 to comply with federal regulations

to allow the flow of transit funding to the St. George Urbanized Area for SunTran.

Bicycle /Pedestrian Facilities

A committee entitled the ‘Three Rivers Trails Committee’ has been functioning in the

Dixie area for many years, creating a non-motorized trail system. Members have

been appointed to this committee by various partners including local governments,

developers and citizens at large. This proactive team has developed a long range

plan that focuses on pedestrian and bicycle path needs for the area, linking new

projects with existing trails, and seeking funding for construction of those projects.

They have recently completed a Washington County Regional Trails Cooperative

Master Plan, shown in Appendix F. Individual Parks Departments of the

communities typically make decisions on trails. The DMPO recommends that the

agency public works directors become more involved in trail planning and decision

making and to facilitate needs/improvements for this mode in the MPO decision

making process.

Existing and Projected Traffic Volumes

Two planning studies prepared by consultants will provide the source of engineering

estimations for current and projected traffic demand in the urbanized area; one

completed for St. George in 1995, and one completed in March of 2002, for

Washington City.

The study needs portion of these documents raise issues that have concerned this

region for many years and will continue to focus efforts in the future. Those issues

are outlined below:

! Adequacy of access between neighborhoods, existing roadways, lack of a

completed roadway network and single point access to residential areas.

! The limited number of roadways connecting the central business districts with

outlying areas and communities in the area.

! Interstate 15, major area rivers and geological formations form barriers,

physically limiting crossing locations. The limited crossings focuses trips to these

points, implying congestion, and ultimately detracts from the ability of the system

to function as a network.

! Emergency vehicle access to the land use is also severly limiting and impacts

the desired response time by such services to the incidents.



18

! Public transit access and route on-time performance is also affected by these

constraints and their traffic implications.

The centrum city of the Dixie metro area is St. George. Since this city is the source

of the majority of trip origination and destination in the urbanized area , current and

projected traffic volumes for this plan will focus on data and information from the

Parsons Brinckerhoff “City of St. George Traffic and Transportation Master Study”,

completed in 1995. The Parsons Brinckerhoff study projected traffic volumes for

2005 and 2015. It is Important to point out that “Ground Counts” conducted by the

City of St. George during twelve months ending June 2002, substantiate the

accuracy of the study predictions for 2005 for most of the road segments. This plan

will use the 2005 estimates for the average daily traffic (ADT ) as ‘Current’ ADT for

the St. George portion of the urbanized area.

Sear Brown, Inc., recently completed the “Washington City Transportation Master

Plan, March 2002, and in doing so utilized the regional traffic demand model with

some updating, that was used by Parsons Brinckeroff in 1995. The external stations

used for the Washington City study for current ADT ( year 2000) match up

consistently with ADT figures (year 2005) for the network that is contiguous to St.

George. So, for purposes of this interim plan, the results of these two engineering

studies are considered to provide more than adequate forecasts for this interim plan.

The St. George Area traffic demand mode, updated, re-calibrated and supporting

new volume documentation and projections will support the 2005 update of the Dixie

Long Range Transportation Plan.

Table 6 presents those roads within the City of St. George’s portion of the UZA

boundary, with at least 30 thousand ADT volumes currently occurring along some

portion of the roadway.

Table 6 - Current & Projected 2015 ADT for the St. George Portion of the

UZA Parsons Brinckerhoff Study Traffic Volumes

Arterial or Collector

Current 2015**

No Plan With Plan No plan With Plan

Bluff Street (St. George Blvd. to Sunset Blvd.) 64,100 64,100 79,000 90,000

St. George Boulevard (I-15 to Bluff St.) 38,900 40,600 55,000 51,000



Table 6 - Current & Projected 2015 ADT for the St. George Portion of the

UZA Parsons Brinckerhoff Study Traffic Volumes

19

Black Ridge Drive (I-15 to Dixie Drive)* 35,000 33,500 55,000 55,000

River Road (South of Riverside Drive) 38,000 33,500 53,000 51,000

Red Cliffs Drive (I-15 exit towards Mall) 33,200 32,100 52,000 53,000

Sunset Boulevard (Bluff St. to Dixie Downs) 32,200 32,400 49,000 53,000

*Note: Black Ridge Drive, recently opened to service, is utilizing approximately 75% of the ADT that once

traveled along Hilton Drive (St. George City Traffic Engineering). * Note: Parsons Brinckerhoff Study 2015 ADT

projections are rounded to the nearest ‘000'.

The road segments shown in Table 6 above are the main links of the transportation

network that handles most of the trip demand in the Dixie urbanizing area. These

routes typically intersect with each other or are points of distribution and access

from traffic coming on or off the Interstate, or one or more of the arterials or

collectors serving the area.

Segments expected to carry over 30,000 ave. vehicles per day, include 100 South

Street, 700 South Street, Riverside Drive, Brigham Road, and Dixie Downs Drive,

Sunset Blvd. into Santa Clara Drive, and River Road north of Riverside Drive to I-15.

Table 7 shows those roads or segments in the Washington City portion of the UZA

that are, or will carry, over 20,000 ADT by 2025.

Table 7 - Current & Projected 2025 ADT for the Washington City Portion

of the UZA Sear Brown Study Traffic Volumes

Arterial or Collector Current ADT 2025 ADT**

*Telegraph Road (at 650 West) 15,700 44,000

Telegraph Road (at Main St.) 12,800 35,000

Telegraph Road (at 300 East) 15,200 23,000

Washington Fields Road (Telegraph south) 11,300 26,000

3020 East (South of Telegraph) 11,500 22,000

*Note: Telegraph is the continuation of Red Hills Drive in the previous table.

** Note: Projected 2025 ADT rounded to nearest ‘000'



20

This interim long range transportation plan, specifically the projects described in

section V of this plan, are the means proposed to address some of the major

transportation problems or deficiencies of the existing capacity of the system and

future growth and travel demand effects on the system.

Environmental Constraints

Floodplains, protected species, wetland or other appropriate cataloging, mapping

or documentation will be addressed in the Dixie MPO LRTP in year 2005. Because

air quality issues have been explored recently a brief history of this topic is

presented in this interim plan.

Air Quality

Air Quality is of concern, especially with a growing population, increasing vehicle

miles of travel, and growing congestion playing into potential erosion of heathy air.

Maintaining or exceeding reasonable community heath standards has been a goal

of the communities in this area, especially in light of the visible desire to entice

people and environmentally friendly business to locate here.

From 1995 to 1997, the State Division of Air Quality monitored the ambient air in the

Dixie Area with a station located just south of the existing Washington County

Administration building. The results at that time did not show any problems.

However, new standards have been adopted by the federal government, and as that

old data was reviewed, it shows that for ozone, April through May for two of those

years was approaching the new standard of .08 parts per million. This sends a clear

signal that the Dixie area, if it continues to grow as anticipated, may see

deterioration of the air shed. Wise voluntary measures may be taken to help

postpone or avoid reaching or exceeding those federal/ community pollutant

standards, which bring about increased illness to our population, puts stringent

constraints on the transportation planning process and increases costs to project

development. An Air Quality Protection Strategy has been developed and is

referenced by this plan. That document is available for review at the MPO office.

Summary

The Dixie urbanizing area is a growing region experiencing the detrimental effects

of growth on the transportation system. Current and projected Average Annual Daily

Traffic in the City of St. George Traffic and Transportation Master Study, by Parsons

Brinkerhoff in 1995 determined locations on the road network where the heaviest

traffic is occurring. This regional interim plan begins to provide the mechanism to



21

address the transportation deficiencies and needs and to plan for the improvements

which will address these needs or problems.

An Environmental Impact Study is nearing a ‘record of decision’ for a segment of

the “Dixie Belt W ay”, called the Southern Corridor, which if constructed, would

provide a limited access for land use development planned for the area south and

east of the cities of St. George and W ashington, and provide other traffic ability to

by-pass the Urbanized area. Additional corridors to the east and north and west of

St. George, are being looked at as well, providing a loop system connecting all four

cities of the St. George Urbanized Area, and taking pressure off Sunset, Bluff and

St. George Blvd. Because St. George Blvd. is planned for reconstruction in the next

year or two, the Northern Corridor has risen in project priority to provide a critical

bypass for east-west trip demand.

The projects in the current Dixie TIP and Statewide Improvement Program support

the Dixie Beltway plan and the need for Highway 91 functional improvements that

will benefit alternative routing of trips when I-15 is blocked during unplanned

incidents in the Virgin Narrows. These projects, when constructed, will not only

improve traffic flow and safety, but will provide trip alternatives away from the

heavily used network described above, help to manage congestion and air quality,

and improve mobility and access, and support objectives of national, state and local

homeland security issues.

V. IDENTIFIED PROJECTS/NEEDS

Introduction

The regional area partners identified projects to be considered in solving regional

problems over the next twenty years. These projects are primarily highway and

transit projects. Other projects, including pedestrian and bicycle facilities, have been

identified and are discussed briefly in this chapter. Other projects, needs or issues

were identified through various meetings with DTAC, DTEC, the trails committee,

and other public meetings, including the Open Houses held in December of 2001

and 2003. Those projects were added to the list of possible projects which form the

unconstrained transportation plan needs and from which short term solutions are

programmed into the TIP and STIP. Most of these unfunded projects are of regional

scope or significance in solving transportation problems and meeting trip demands

within the area.



22

Highway Projects/Needs

The majority of highway projects were identified by the DTAC, through a review of

existing local community highway plans and studies completed in recent years and

expressed needs of the city councils of the partnering cities in the Dixie area. Table

8 shows the project needs and estimated costs for each project. The DTAC also

made recommendations to the list and presented them to the DTEC.

Table 8 - Identified Highway Needs

ID Description Limits Costs

H-01 Western Corridor I-15 MP 2 to Snow Cyn Pkwy $6,000,000

H-02 Snow Cyn PW to Red Mtn. $1,500,000

H-03 SR 91/Trail System SC/I Bndry to Keyenta turn off $3,500,000

H-04 Intersection Signal Snow Cyn Pkwy and Drive $185,000

H-05 SR 91 Wash Crossing Nr. Anasazi Drive $330,000

H-06 Santa Clara Drive Santa Cl Pkwy to Pioneer Pkwy $6,000,000

H-07 South Hills Bridge Crossing S.Cl River, ext. of Chapel St. $1,000,000

H-08 Pioneer Parkway Lava Cove Dr. to Red Mtn. Dr. $890,000

H-09 West. Corr. R of W In Santa Clara $610,000

H-10 Southern Corridor I-15 to SR-9 $15,000,000

H-11 Northern Corridor SR-18 to Industrial Road $10,000,000

H-12 Dixie Drive Widening Tonaquint Dr. to Sunset Blvd. $3,400,000

H-13 Brigham Road Widening River Road to I-15 $2,000,000

H-14 Tonaquint Drive Reconstruct Bloomington to Dixie Drive $1,000,000

H-15 Virgin River Bridge-Mall Dr Red Cliffs Dr. w/Wash. Fields $6,900,000

H-16 St. George Blvd. Reconstruct Bluff St. To I-15 $8,800,000

H-17 Washington Blvd. MP-13 to Telegraph Rd. $2,500,000

H-18 300 East Reconstruct Telegraph to Virgin R. Bridge $1,000,000

H-19 Virgin RiverBridgeWidening Bridge Length on 300 E. $5,000,000

H-20 Washington Fields Road Virgin River to 3650 South $2,000,000



Table 8 - Identified Highway Needs

23

H-21 Buena Vista Road Main St. to MP- 13 $1,500,000

H-22 Middleton Drive Green Sprs. Dr. to SGC Limits $1,000,000

H-23 Telegraph Road 500 S. to 300 E. $2,000,000

H-24 Bluff St. Widening Diagonal St. to Main St. $10,000,000

H-25 Riverside Drive, Ph. 4 So. end of East Black Ridge $2,900,000

H-26 1450 S. In St. George River Rd. To 3000 E. $3,900,000

H-27 3000 East in St. George 700 S. to 2450 S. $3,900,000

H-28 Snow Canyon Drive Center St. to State Park $240,000

Total Costs Current $ $103,055,000

Transit Projects

The DMPO and St. George City (and its SunTran public transit system) have

identified transit projects to be included in a list of needs. These include operating

funds, a transit maintenance facility, and rolling stock(bus) purchases, and are

displayed in Table 9, entitled “Identified Transit Projects”. The MPO has included

some far reaching projects assuming transit ridership grows, demand increases and

congestion policy requires reducing single occupancy vehicles and air pollution

impacts by year 2020.

A feasibility study completed in 1999, charted a plan for establishing public transit

service in Dixie which began under sponsorship of the Five County Association of

Governments which also was managing a welfare to work program. The current

service operates within the city limits of St.George. Plans for expansion will depend

on future demand. A Transit Services Analysis, completed in the Spring of 2002 by

St. George City, recommended adjustments to the system, including routes,

headways and suggested potential sites for future transit facilities. A transit short

range plan is currently being prepared by the DMPO in compliance with federal

regulation to document 5 year planning needs and to justify current flow of Federal

Transit funds to the urbanized area.



24

Table 9 - Identified Transit Projects/Needs


T-01 Operating Funds 50/50% match $1,500,000

T-02 Maintenance Facility 80/20% match $3,000,000

T-03 Rolling Stock Purchase(Buses) 80/20% match $1,000,000

T-04 Intermodal Center 80/20% match $3,000,000

T-05 Rubber Tired Bus- Way 80/20% match $10,000,000

Total Costs $18,500,000

Pedestrian and Bicycle Projects

Several bicycle and pedestrian projects have been identified by the DTAC and

members of the Washington County Trails Committee. These projects are shown

in Table 10.

Table 10 - Identified Bicycle/Pedestrian Projects/Needs


B-01 Virgin River Trail Grapevine to Mill Creek $300,000

B-02 Coral Canyon Trail Virgin River to 3 Rivers $1,000,000

B-03 Millcreek Trail I-15 So. to Virgin R. Trail $300,000

B-04 Warm Springs Trail Warm Sprs. to Mill Creek $80,000

B-05 Grapevine Trail I-15 to VRT at MP 13 $300,000

B-05 Chuckawalla Trail-head $350,000

B-06 Highway 91 Trail ?

B-07 Red Mountain Trail Loop $325,000

B-08 River Trail Loop $200,000

B-09 West Ivins Trail $250,000

B-10 Santa Clara River Trail $500,000

Total Costs $3,605,000



25

Public Involvement

Comments received during the Open Houses and public comment period were

considered in the development of this plan and are summarized in this section of the

plan based on their scope and planning horizon. The following comments relate to

long term issues and concerns to pay attention to during the planning process, with

some having immediate need and action, but all having linkage to quality of life,

economic development, environmental protection, safety and mobility, the basic

issues, goals and objectives of the metropolitan planning organization for Utah’s

Dixie.

1) The CANAMEX Corridor, is a collaborative planning effort of the five states

of Arizona, Nevada, Utah, Idaho, and Montana. The advent of the North

American Free Trade Act which created a set of preferential economic

relationships among Canada, the US, and Mexico, underscore the

importance of strengthening north-south economic, transportation, and

telecommunication linkages. Within the National Highway System

Designation Act of 1995, the US Congress defined this priority corridor and

specified I-15 as the route. Dixie is touched by I-15 which carries significant

traffic demands including, tourist, freight, recreational and local, state and

regional trip needs. As projects develop from this effort, the urbanizing area

will need to consider and plan ways to link and respond to innovations and

capacity needs of this corridor.

2) The TransAmerica Transportation Corridor (I-66) and Mag-Lev Train are

two Congressionally proposed concepts of future response to growth,

homeland defense, and movement of goods and people. The possibility of

nuclear waste being transported through Dixie to destinations in Neveda on

current and future corridors is of concern within the positive effects that may

be realized. The MPO must be alert to these issues during the planning

process and be ready to support or defend or mitigate, as needed.

3) The Habitat Conservation Plan established in Washington County was

created to be a facilitator between development and open space protection,

specifically the protection of various biological species found within the

boundary and region while allowing public use, access and utility easements

following various protocols. The HCP administers land primarily north of the

City of St. George, Washington and near the cities of Ivins, Santa Clara and

Hurricane in cooperation with the US Fish and Wildlife Service, Utah State

Department of Natural Resources, The State Institutional Trust Lands, and



26

Washington County and its local municipalities and environs. HCP staff have

expressed concerns about the 20 year plan showing a proposed corridor

north of the Skyline Drive, which is currently being improved by the City of St.

George as a detour for the eventual re-construction of St. George Blvd. The

HCP staff continued by saying that the the “City of St. George continues to

show this line in the Interim Long Range Plan”. The MPO’s Interim Long

Range Plan is a document of regional need, not of one specific city.

Regardless of the negotiations that have taken place in the past between the

HCP and any one city, the 20 year plan and future 30 year plan will continue

to show a corridor bisecting the current HCP boundary because the purpose

and need for such capacity will be likely justified in the future, if not by 2030

then some later time as Dixie builds out and 300,000 people are living in the

future urbanized area between what is now Ivins and the Hurricane/LaVerkin

urban cluster. The issues will continue to be providing open space, protection

of endangered species, while removing ‘through trip’ demand away from the

central business district thus relieving the congestion that will be prevalent.

4) With the continued rapid growth in Dixie and projected patterns of that

growth residents will be concerned about many issues but we must plan to

act on this growth. The MPO should make sure that public parking is

provided to offer access to public parks, reserves and recreation facilities.

Traffic corridors will contain recreational locations with trails and fields for

hiking, biking, soccer, baseball, etc. As traffic volumes increase on high

profile roads in the urbanizing area people will park in residential

neighborhoods, developments with private roads or along high traffic streets.

Uncontrolled parking will impact community safety and security.

5) Several comments pointed out the need to maintain traffic flow, especially

around Dixie State College and the new Dixie Regional Medical Center.

These issues will continue to be coordinated with partners to insure traffic

flow, congestion relief and air quality protection as well as the safety and

convenience of the pedestrians and patrons who not only use these two

facilities but other facilities too such as elementary and secondary schools,

churches, recreation facilities, and many other trip destinations.

VI. REVENUE SOURCES

Funding for transportation improvement projects in the St. George Urbanized Area

will be available from federal, state, and local governments as well as from private



27

developers. The table included in this chapter provides a summary of the specific

federal, state, and local programs available to fund transportation projects. Section

VII provides an estimate of the revenue which may be available from each funding

source. If the SGUZA is not eligible for a program at the present time, no further

consideration will be spent in this document. The following section briefly outlines

the various transportation funding sources, programs, and what they may be used

for.

Federal Sources

The Federal Highway and Transit Administrations, of the US Department of

Transportation, provide the major source of funds from the federal government for

local transportation infrastructure development and improvement. The current

federal highway and transit bill TEA-21 has been extended and continues increased

funding levels and philosophy of ISTEA, the 1991 landmark bill, which provided

increased flexibility within and between the highway and transit programs. In

addition to these programs, funds are also available from several other federal

agencies and are discussed below. A new multi-year bill is being developed in

Congress to be called SAFETEA.

Federal Highway Administration

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) directs the national highway funding

programs for improvements to the Federal-Aid Interstate System, for improvements

to other highways in rural and urban America, and for safety related improvements.

Funding sources for these programs comes from the federal gasoline tax currently

dedicated to the Highway Account of the Highway Trust Fund. A brief description of

each of these programs follows:

Federal-Aid Interstate Maintenance Program(FAIM)

These funds can be used for resurfacing, restoration, and rehabilitation of the

Interstate Highway System.. I -15 disects the Dixie area and emerges from

the northeast into the planning boundary at Leeds, and exists south of the

port of entry at the border of Utah and Nevada leading to Las Vegas. The

Utah Department of Transportation’s Region 4 - Cedar District Offices, in

Cedar City, manage these funds.

National Highway System(NHS)

This category includes funds for all interstate, other major US routes and

state highways. The federal share for this program is approximately 93%,

supporting projects such as commuter parking lots and new interchanges.



28

The section of Interstate 15 from the Arizona Border to near Mile Mark 16 is

the only road that fits this category at the present time.

Surface Transportation Program (STP)

Funds from this program may be spent on any road that is functionally

classified as a collector or arterial for urban streets or as a major collector or

arterial for rural areas. The type of project may range from rehabilitation to

new construction, and for transit projects. The Utah Department of

Transportation is in the process of updating the Functional Classification

statewide.

Fifty percent of a state’s STP funds are allocated to urban and rural areas of

the state based on population. Thirty percent can be used in any area of the

state at the discretion of the State Transportation Commission. For the

remaining 20 percent of the funds, 10 percent must be spent on highway

safety projects, and 10 percent must be spent on Transportation

Enhancements. Enhancement projects can range form historic preservation

and bicycle and pedestrian facilities to landscaping and water runoff

mitigation. Safety projects include Hazard Elimination, Railroad Crossing, and

Railroad Protective Devices.

Congestion Management/Air Quality(CMAQ)

The money from this program may be spent in areas currently considered

non-attainment for certain air pollutants. Since the Dixie Urbanizing area is

neither attainment, nor non-attainment, these funds will not be tracked or

analyzed, suffice it to say that the funds must be proven to reduce traffic

congestion and/or improve air quality in non-attainment areas. Examples of

CMAQ projects are signal coordination, park-and-ride lots, ridesharing, and

alternative transportation modes. Federal Funds do not currently exist to help

new small urbanized areas prolong or prevent air quality issues with

appropriate designed projects.

Bridge Replacement Program(BR)

The State Transportation Commission sets policy for this UDOT managed

program, which provides funds for the replacement of substandard bridges,

both on and off the federal-aid system. Bridges must have a span of 20 feet

to be eligible to receive these funds. UDOT evaluates all eligible bridges in

the state every two years, assigns them a rating, and coordinates the



29

program with local governments. Bridges with a rating of 50 are eligible for

reconstruction, while those achieving at least a 70 are eligible for

rehabilitation. By policy, 65 percent of these funds will be used for bridges on

the state system, 35 percent for those under local government jurisdiction.

The federal share for this program is 80 percent.

Planning (PL)

By formula, the State Transportation Commission provides a piece of the

STP funds called ‘planning funds’ to Metropolitan Planning Organizations

based on share of urbanized population and a minimum floor. The Dixie MPO

became a recipient of these funds through its annual work program submittal

beginning Oct. 1, 2003. These funds are based on a federal share of

approximately 93 per cent.

State Planning & Research(SPR)

UDOT sets aside a portion of its STP funding into this category which

supports planning and research projects on a statewide basis. Dixie MPO

may apply for these competitive discretionary funds annually under a ‘call for

projects’ by UDOT for priority planning needs whose costs are above and

beyond the annual formula allocations.

Rideshare Program

Although primarily used in urbanized settings where congestion and air

quality problems are paramount, the Utah Transit Authority/UDOT

administered program is available to other areas in Utah for no interest loans

for purchase of 7-15 passenger vans for van pooling of employees from their

homes to places of work. The car pooling computerized program is also

available for interested citizens who want to match trips from their

neighborhood to their place of work. The car and van pooling program has

the greatest potential of reducing single occupant vehicle numbers during

peak hours, even more than public transit, but the difficulty is enticing

employees to become less dependent on their personal auto to get to work

and share their trip with others in a close personal setting on a regular basis.

Trip distance is also an important incentive. The no interest loan must be

paid back over the life of a typical loan for the value of the vehicle being

purchased. The federal loan share is approximately 93 per cent, the van pool

operators must supply the remaining 7% match to pay the dealer, and then

set aside enough funds on a monthly basis to pay off the loan.



30

Federal Transit Administration

Transit capital, planning, and operating assistance are made available through the

Federal Transit Administration (FTA), and are financed through 1½ cents of the

federal gasoline tax currently going to the Mass Transit Account of the Highway

Trust Fund. US General Fund reserves also support this federal program. A brief

description of the transit assistance program follows:

Capital Program(5309)

This program provides discretionary funding for capital improvements such

as construction of maintenance or transit center facilities, purchase of rolling

stock, or buses. These normally expensive items are funded through project

sponsor lobbying of the states Congressional delegation, much the same as

large highway needs, and ear marked in the multi-year transportation bill

(SAFETEA). The Designated Recipient (DR) or operator of the transit

system, must be prepared to submit a grant application for these ear-

markings, to FTA.. The federal share is up to 80%. Sponsors increase the

likelihood for funding by providing a strong local match, over the normal 20

per cent.

Urbanized Area Formula Program(5307)

The St George UZA will be listed annually in the Federal Register

announcing the apportionments to the states, UZA’s and other jurisdictions

of funding available for transportation planning, and transit capital/operating

programs. The funding is distributed annually by formula, based on

population, population density, and bus revenue miles of service. Funds can

be spent for either capital or operating expenses. A public body, capable of

levying taxes and operating a public transit system must apply directly to FTA

for approval of these funds. The federal share for operating assistance is up

to 50%, while capital and planning assistance is up to 80%.

Elderly and Persons with Disabilities Program(5310)

Begun in 1976, this program provides funding to private and public non-profit

agencies for capital improvements for the provision of transportation services

to elderly people and persons with disabilities. UDOT has a selection and

evaluation team to review applications from throughout the state, and makes

recommendation to the State Transportation Commission for funding. UDOT,

then applies to FTA for approval of the projects, also shown in the MPO TIP

and State TIP. The federal share for these projects is also up to 80%.



31

Non-urbanized Area Formula Program(5311)

The counter-part to the Urbanized program this funding pot supports the

capital and operating needs of rural public transit services. Although these

funds may not be used within designated Urbanzed Areas, they may be used

in areas outside the boundary but within an MPO’s 20 year planning

boundary. These small urban or rural pieces may have coordinated public or

specialized transit services that have origins or destinations that occur in

UZA’s.

Statewide Planning and Research(5313)

UDOT submits annually to FTA a grant for support of departmental planning

activities, a portion of which may be spent on identified needs throughout the

state. Typically the local planning needs portion is transferred by UDOT on

a case by case basis, through interagency agreements with AOG’s or other

local governments for special transit planning studies or research. The Dixie

area has benefitted from these funds in the past under rural or small urban

designation, and could access these funds in the future when consideration

of transit expansion needs outside the UZA boundary is warranted or

demanded, the focus being within the 20 year planning boundary. The

federal share with this program is also up to 80%.

Metropolitan Planning(5303)

The State Transportation Commission by a similar formula as the PL

program, distributes these FTA planning funds by formula and minimum floor

along with the PL funds to existing MPOs to support the annual work

programs of each MPO and staff. Upon MPO designation by Utah’s

Governor, the Dixie MPO will be eligible to receive these funds to reimburse

planning activities carried out in support of the regional transportation

planning process. These funds, expected to be available on or after October

1, each year, are also based on a federal share of up to 80%, but may max

out at the 93.23 per cent ‘PL’ level under the Consolidated Planning Grant

offered by the federal government and currently being managed by UDOT

for the MPO’s in Utah. This recent program, available at the states option,

allows maximum flexibility in use of all planning dollars to support all planning

work program elements, transit or highways, with minimal accounting and

management burdens to all partners, and allows local manpower and match

funds saved, to be used for other local needs.



32

Demonstration Funds

Since the mid l970's, Congress has authorized funding for specific transit or

highway projects labeled as demonstration projects. Funding for these

projects can come from either the Highway Trust Fund or the General Fund,

usually over and above the state’s allocation of federal funding. It was by this

method that Congress eventually created the non-urban or rural public transit

program in 1978. This program was first demonstrated and administered by

FHWA, then turned over to FTA a few years later.

The Ute Indian Tribe, Park City, and TRAIL, Inc. in Nephi, were among the

first demonstration projects in Utah to utilize these seed funds for their public

transit operations. The program proved so successful that the 5311 or what

was called the Rural Public Transit Program was born.

Other Federal Programs

Other federal agencies provide funds that can be used for transportation

improvements under certain conditions, and are described below:

Community Development Block Grants (CDBG)

The U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development is the sponsor of

this program which can be used for a wide variety of activities directed

toward neighborhood revitalization, economic development, and improved

community facilities and services, including the construction of streets,

highways, and transit facilities or their improvements. The projects must

clearly demonstrate benefits to low and moderate income persons, aid in the

prevention or elimination of slums and blight, or meet other urgent community

health and safety needs.

Municipalities with a population of more than 50,000 and counties with a

population of more than 200,000 are entitlement areas, and are allocated

CDBG funds annually. Areas under 50,000 must compete for state-

administered ‘small cities’ grants or as in the case of Five County, the AOG

administers the program region wide for the state. The City of St. George

petitioned for a Census recount, as the 2000 Census showed them just a few

people short of the 50,000 needed. The City of St. George has subsequently

been designated an entitlement area. These funds can be used to pay for the

entire project cost, or to provide the local matching funds for other federal

funding programs, including transportation programs. Match ratios vary

based on community size, category and ability to generate local revenues.



33

Economic Development Grants

Economically distressed areas may be the focus for this source of funding if

the construction or rehabilitation activities have a significant and longlasting

favorable impact. Administered by the Economic Development

Administration, these EDA funds should be considered if a project is to be

constructed in an area of high unemployment or will assist in the creation of

long-term employment opportunities. Eligible entities must be within an

Economic Development District and the proposed project must be part of the

District’s overall Economic Development Program in order to apply.

State Sources

The State of Utah makes funds available from several sources for highway

improvement projects. The major source of these revenues is highway user fees,

which include motor fuel taxes, special fuel taxes, vehicle registration fees, and

drivers license fees. Seventy five percent of these funds are kept by UDOT for their

construction and maintenance program. The remaining 25% are made available to

the cities and counties in the state through the Class B and C Program. Class B and

C funds are allocated to each city and county by a formula based on population and

miles of road.

The legislature established a Safe Sidewalks Program to fund the construction of

sidewalks on roads on the state system. The money is distributed by formula

partially based on miles of state road per UDOT Region. One million dollars have

been appropriated for the past few years. Each county in UDOT’s districts submits

projects to the district, which then prioritizes them. A statewide representative

committee then makes final selection for each county.

Over the past decade, the state has also used general funds for specific highway

projects. Occasionally, funds are appropriated for specific projects. In others, the

general fund revenues are used to pay off bonds issued by the state for highway

and other capital improvements. The legislature created the CHEF fund which

provides the leverages described.

Local Sources

Local government agencies have a variety of funding sources available to them for

transportation improvements. The primary source is from the general fund of the

cities and counties. These general funds can be used for construction of new roads,

or the upgrading, or maintenance of existing ones. Transportation projects,



34

however, must compete with the other needs of the city or county for these funds.

Other options involve some kind of bonding arrangement, either through creation

of a redevelopment district, a special improvement district organized for a specific

project benefiting and identifiable group of properties, or through general obligation

bonding arrangements for projects felt to be beneficial to the entire entity issuing the

bonds.

Finally, local funding for transportation improvements, both for highways and public

transit service is being provided through a 0.25 per cent sales tax in St. George to

support the transit system and other highway improvements. Recent language

changes in the local options sales taxing authority by the legislature has made this

flexibility possible.

Private Sources

Sources of funding for transportation improvements often come from private

interests, such as developers who may construct local streets within subdivisions

and often dedicate right-of-way for and participate in the construction of collector

and arterial streets adjacent to their developments. Developments may cause

impacts on street capacity or traffic signalization, triggering the need for new signals,

or even street widening demanding fees or construction of off site improvements.

Businesses or developers have supported capital expenses or operating costs for

transit services that provide them with special benefits, such as reduced need for

parking or increased accessibility to their development.

The DTAC should review proposed developments within the urbanizing area that

may have an effect on the transportation system and then recommend system

improvements which should be made as part of the development. These

improvements may include right-of-way designation, construction of local streets,

and construction of collector or arterial streets.

VII. PROJECTED REVENUES

Introduction

The Dixie Transportation Planning Office worked with UDOT and the cities of Ivins,

Santa Clara, St. George and Washington, including DARTS and SunTran staff and

AOG staff to develop projections of revenues that will be available for transportation

improvements over the next 20 years. Included were federal, state, and local

sources for highway and transit improvements. Assumptions were made concerning



35

revenue growth and new or increased sources of funds. These projections and

assumptions used are discussed throughout this chapter.

Highway Sources

Federal, state, and local government revenues will be available for highway

improvements in the St. George UZA. Revenues for this interim plan were estimated

based on the year 2003 STP allocations to the St. George UZA, and past revenues

enjoyed by the Logan UZA, an urbanizing area in northern Utah similar in population

to this Dixie area. Assumptions used to develop these estimates are discussed

below.

Federal Funds

Chapter V lays out the several spending programs for federal highway

improvements. For projecting future revenues, Logan UZA amounts were assumed

to be available to the St. George UZA through 2020, with a modest growth of one

percent per year for each program between now and 2020 along with the STP

SGUZA allocations. Cache MPO’s 2020 Long-Range Plan, 1997, provides the basic

framework for these estimates and are presented in Table 11 as projections.

State Funds

These funds are described in detail in Chapter V, but are primarily user fees.

According to the Cache LRP for 2020, overall highway user fees statewide grew at

about six percent from 1985. However, because of a motor fuel tax increase during

1987-88, which skewed the rate, their plan concluded that after accounting for that

tax increase, a growth rate of about 2.5% per year for motor fuel consumption was

estimated from 1985 to 1997. This interim plan assumes that same trend through

August 2001. Revenues have dropped off due to events of 9/11 and a slowing

economy prior to 9/11. Other revenue sources grew at about a rate of 3 to five

percent.

Highway user fees are split among other agencies, UDOT, and the Class B and C

roadway funds. In the past, approximately eight percent of these funds have been

diverted to other agencies such as the Highway Patrol. The remaining funds are

allocated 75 percent to UDOT and 25% to local governments. These represent 69

percent and 23 percent of the total revenues, respectively. This allocation of

highway user fees was held constant for the future estimations in the Cache plan,

and the same assumption made for this interim plan which comes out to about 0.8

percent of UDOT’s retained portion of the highway user fees.



36

Table 11 - ESTIMATED FEDERAL HIGHWAY FUNDS AVAILABLE TO SGUZA

PROGRAM % of

State

UZA 2003 UZA 2020 UZA Accrued

National Highway System (NHS) 0.4 $155,000 $185,000 $3,200,000

Any Area Statewide STP 0.8 $133,000 $159,000 $2,800,000

St. George Urbanized Area STP 100.0 $664,000 $786,000 $13,000,000

Other STP (Safety) 0.8 $34,000 $40,000 $667,000

Transportation Enhancement 0.8 $34,000 $40,000 $667,000

State Bridge Replacement On System 0.8 $61,000 $72,000 $1,200,000

Local Bridge Replacement Off System 0.8 $14,000 $17,000 $275,000

Local Bridge Replacement Optional 0.8 $19,000 $23,000 $373,000

Planning (PL) 4.8 $83,000 $98,000 $1,600,000

State Planning & Research 5.0 $25,000 $26,000 $432,000

Totals $1,222,000 $1,446,000 $24,214,000

Based on UDOT 2003 SGUZA STP Allocation and Logan UZA Estimates

The Statewide total user fees estimated in the CMPO plan from 1997 through 2020

was $570,132,000, so an 0.8 % estimate for St. George UZA for that same period

is $456,000.

Local Funds

The two main sources of local revenues for transportation projects, Class B and C

Funds from state highway user revenues for counties and cities, are allocated on

a ratio of population, and road miles, respectively. The past trend has split the

roadway fund 53% for unincorporated county areas and the remaining 47% to the

cities and towns of the state, based on a formulas of 50% centerline road miles and

50% land area. According to UDOT staff, the St. George Urbanized Area

communities together received approximately $2,660,000 in C funds in 2002, while

the County utilized nearly 1.3 million in B funds in 2002, of which 10% is estimated

spent inside the MPO planning boundary($130,000). With a 1% annual growth rate

in these funds it is anticipated that the Dixie MPO area cities and county portion will

have $3,337,000 available for year 2020 with an accrued total of $ 58,000,000 from

year 2002.



37

Summary

Revenue totals have been projected to 2002 dollars to match with project cost

estimates based on 2000 construction costs. Table 12 below summarizes the

amount of revenues projected to be available in the St. George UZA to year 2020

years in 2002 dollars. The estimate of local funds is based on 10 percent of the B

& C Funds to be used for MPO projects.

Table 12 - PROJECTED REVENUES FOR HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENTS IN

THE ST. GEORGE UZA FROM 2003 TO 2020 (Rounded)

Source of Funds 2003 2020 Total: 2003-2020

Federal Funds $1,200,000 $1,400,000 $ 25,000,000

State Funds: UDOT 456,000 545,000 9,490,000

Local Funds: B&C 2,600,000 3,300,000 58,000,000

Total $ 4,256,000 $ 5,245,000 $ 92,490,000

Transit Sources

Revenues for transit service and improvements are available from several sources

including federal funds, local sales tax, fares, and others. Projections of future transit

revenues are discussed below.

Federal Funds

Capital Program(5309)

Accessed via lobbying efforts towards earmarking in the multi- year

transportation bill, and annual appropriations from Congress. Projects

listed in DMPO’s TIP for 2004-08 totals $4,160,000 and supports Bus

purchases of $800,000, design and construction of a maintenance

facility of $2,560,000 and a future transit center at $800,000 in FTA

5309 funds. Again, these are discretionary funds and should not be

counted on in the mature years of a system. They are more likely

available during start- up and technology transition periods.

Formula(5307)

The 2003 Urbanized Area Formula allocation of $643,840 to the St.

George Urbanized is used to project future allocations, taking into

account recent decline in federal gas tax revenues with a one percent



38

inflation factor. It is therefore estimated that nearly $ 770,000 will be

available for public transit in year 2020, with an accrued amount over

the seventeen year period of nearly 13.4 million.

Local Funding

The local sales tax options are flexible now after significant language

changes in tax legislation removing restrictive and descriminatory language.

Local governments can utilize the sales tax option for highways and/or public

transit. St. George City calculates that $375,000 annually from the sales tax

could support transit operations, if needed. $128,000 will be used during

year 2003. Recent trends show sales tax revenues growing at approximately

6% percent per year. This rate of growth was used to estimate the sales tax

revenue for the transit system.

To fund any future expansion of public transit to areas outside the City of St.

George, an additional sales taxes would need to be collected from those

outlying areas currently utilizing the sales tax. Areas not using the local

options sales tax would require a voter approval of residents in those areas

demanding service.

In summary, 2002 quarter cent sales tax revenues totaled $2.5million in the

City of St. George. The 2020 sales tax revenues are projected to be

$7.1million, so, between 2002 and 2020, a minimum of $1,065,000 or more,

depending on expansion of the system, could be applied or available to

public transit from this source.

User Fees

The transit system currently charges a one dollar per trip fare for general

public use. Other special needs users are paid by their support agency for

the trips they take on the system. Also, advertising opportunities are visible

on the buses for local business exposure. These various revenues will be

projected into the future for this document.

Fare Revenue

Charging fares to transit users is a generally accepted practice and

conforms to common economic philosophy that users contribute at the

mode decision, not just through general or special taxes. This

contributes to buy-in and may even affect incident rates for destructive

passenger behavior observed with all public facilities. SunTran’s fares

contributed $19,000 for the first six months of service. Peak use has



39

not reached capacity as yet but may occur in the future depending on

operation decisions. As service is enhanced, additional riders will be

attracted to the system. Projected annual fare revenue for year 2020

is estimated at $65,000 assuming 3% growth rate. Accrued revenue

over the seventeen years to 2020 is estimated to be nearly

$1,000,000.

Other Revenues

Advertising space on SunTran buses for the first six months was

$18,000. If and when benches are constructed additional revenue

from advertizing may increase. Based on bus only advertizing it is

expected that $ 61,000 or more may be generated during year 2020,

and $904,000 accrued.

Flexible Funding

The funds discussed above have been identified with either highway or

transit, but it should be mentioned that flexibility in the use of many of these

funds does exist, especially if the current mode need is satisfied by the

parent source, with funds left over. Most of the federal funds can be used for

either highways or transit under certain conditions. Interstate Maintenance,

National Highway System, Surface Transportation Program, and CMAQ

funds can all be used for transit capital projects. FTA Formula Program funds

can be used for highway improvements if American with Disabilities Act

requirements are met and if no local matching funds issues are present.

State highway user revenues, including B & C funds, must be used for

highway improvements. However, eligible uses could include construction of

bus turnouts along arterial streets and construction of joint use park-and-ride

lots that can also serve transit riders. State and local general fund revenues

that are currently dedicated to highway improvements could possibly be used

to support transit’s capital or operating expenses, with approval of local

governing bodies.

The local options sales tax is now available for transit and or highway uses.

This plan does not anticipate any transfer of funds between highways and

transit, since projected funds for each will not meet all the future needs.

Since the St. George Urbanized Area is not being monitored for air pollutants,

CMAQ funds have not been made available and are not anticipated in the

near future. However, to prolong such state designation based on DAQ

observed monitoring of local air quality, an air quality protection strategy was

developed. It is included by reference in this document and is available at the



40

MPO office. Unwritten in the plan is a Dixie MPO strategy to encourage Congress

to create a prevention program to assist areas like Dixie to prolong and/or prevent

designation status.

Revenue Summary

Table 13 summarizes the amount of revenue projected to be available for

transit improvements in the St. George Urbanized Area between 2003 and

2020. Approximately $27,500,000 is projected to be available during this

period.

Table 13 - PROJECTED REVENUES FOR PUBLIC TRANSIT IN THE

ST. GEORGE UZA, FROM 2003 TO 2020

Source of Funds 2003 2020 Total: 2000-2020

Capital Program(5309) $0 $0 $4,160,000

Formula (5307) $644,000 $770,000 $4,400,000

Share of Local Sales Tax $375,000 $1,065,000 $7,136,000

User Fees: Bus Fares $38,000 $65,000 $954,000

Advertizing on Buses $36,000 $61,000 $904,000

TOTAL (Transit O&M) $1,093,000 $1,961,000 $27,554,000

Transit Planning (MPO) $22,000 $26,000 $432,000

VIII. PROJECTED COSTS

Highway Cost Estimates

The DMPO estimated the cost to meet future needs to year 2020 to assist in the

developing the financial plans for this interim long range plan. Seven cost categories

were estimated, including administration, maintenance, pavement preservation,

safety, bridge replacement, enhancements, and new capacity. The assumptions

used to estimate the costs are associated with UDOT and local agency experience

with each category.

Administration

Typically, administration runs 8% of total revenue available to an agency for

transportation management and associated public works statewide.

Urbanized status adds additional compliance costs. Expenditures include

state and local staff, planning, pre-engineering, etc. UDOT budgets 10% for



41

administration; cities typically range from 8-10%. As a new Urbanized Area ten

percent of total revenue available for highway improvements as projected in

Chapter V are assumed for the administration function. These costs are estimated

to total $8,000,000 through the year 2020.

Maintenance

Snow removal, sweeping, weed control, crack sealing, and pothole patching

are typical tasks throughout most of Utah. In Utah’s Dixie, snow removal is

as rare as a desert tortoise, consequently lane mile maintenance costs are

somewhat less than other regions of the state. Prolonged hot temperatures

during summer months do not show additional deterioration to the roadway

system because of improved asphalt additives and formulas that account for

such conditions. Based on statewide averages and experience with the local

communities in Dixie, $1,000 per lane mile per year is the baseline for

projecting future costs with 1/2% growth in lane miles per year, and counting

only arterials and collector roads. With a total of 573.2 arterial and collector

lane miles existing in the planning boundary, these costs will total

approximately $ 12,660,000 to the year 2020.

Pavement Preservation

Intensive treatments for arterial and collector roads ranging from chip sealing

up to full blown re-construction of sub and surface bases, which add to or

extend pavement life, are considered preservation rather than maintenance.

On average, about $6,000 per lane mile per year for arterial roads and

$4,000 for collector roads is estimated for this system management function.

So, for the 179.6 Collector lane miles totaling $718,400 current year, and

315.1 Arterial lane miles, totaling $1,896,000 for the current year,

preservation needs in the Dixie MPO boundary, at a growth of 1/2% per year,

by year 2020, $57,600,000 will be needed.

Safety

From UDOT experience about $20,000 is prorated in the Dixie area each

year for safety improvements ,including hazard elimination, intersection

upgrades, and other activities. With that as a baseline, and 1/2% growth per

year through year 2020, nearly $442,000 is estimated to meet safety related

issues and projects.

Bridge Replacement

Bridge replacement needs identified in the Dixie TIP include spans over the

Santa Clara and Virgin Rivers plus one new bridge over the Virgin in the next



42

twenty years to meet capacity. So, for the needs through year 2020 it is estimated

that $16,570,000 will cover bridge replacement.

Enhancements

The identified enhancement projects from the cities and trails committee total

$3,605,000. As detailed pedestrian and bicycle plans are developed and

projects are linked within the system additional needs will likely total over

$5,000,000 into 2020.

New Capacity

The Dixie MPO figures that to just complete the Dixie Beltway, comprised of

the Northern, Southern and Western Corridors, over $100,000,000 will be

required into 2020. Including additional capacity on existing system

collectors and arterials and some new accesses, such as to the new

replacement airport via the Washington Fields, another $100,000,000 is

feasible. Therefore, $200,000,000 through year 2020 is required for this

management outlook.

Summary

Projected highway and related pavement/trail needs for the Dixie MPO planning

area through year 2020, exceeds $300,000,000. These costs include, maintenance,

preservation, administration, as well as construction.

Available revenue into year 2020 totals only, $92,000,000, leaving a huge gap

towards meeting highway related needs of $228,000,000. Table 14 presents these

costs.

Table 14 - Summary of Cost by Category for Highway Needs

Cost Category Projected Costs to 2020

Administration $8,000,000

Pavement Maintenance $12,700,000

Pavement Preservation $57,600,000

Safety $442,000

Bridge Replacement $16,570,000

Enhancements $5,000,000

New Capacity $200,000,000

TOTAL $300,312,000



43

Transit Costs

Public transit projects/needs were developed in the Transit Services Analysis report

by the City of St. George and discussed in Chapter V of this document. Essentially,

anticipating another city in the metro area coming on line for transit service provision

in the short term, $350,000 per year in capital cost and $450,000 in operating cost,

is estimated with a 5% growth factor. Conservatively, the total estimated capital cost

through year 2020 is $9,800,000. The operating cost over the same years is

estimated to be $13,000,000. Projected revenues to cover these two management

functions into year 2020 appears to be more than adequate with local and federal

assistance expected to grow to keep up with needs. These figures are very

conservative. If ridership and demands exceed expectations earlier, then doubling

these two costs to year 2020 would not be unrealistic, and would match the

revenues likely available from all sources. If demand increases then capital and

operating needs for expanded and or improved facilities and equipment could

emerge quickly.



44

APPENDIX A

G L O S S A R Y

DMPO Dixie Metropolitan Planning Organization

DTAC Dixie Transportation Advisory Committee

DTEC Dixie Transportation Planning Office

FCAOG Five County Association of Governments

FHWA Federal Highway Administration

FTA Federal Transit Administration

GIS Geographic Information System

ITS Intelligent Transportation System

LRTP Long Range Transportation Plan

MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization

QRS II Quick Response System II, Traffic Demand Model

SGUZA St. George Urbanized Area

SRTP Short Range Transportation Plan

STIP Statewide Transportation Improvement Program

TDP Transit Development Program (3-5 year Plan)

UDOT Utah Department of Transportation

UPWP Unified Planning Work Program

USDOT United States Department of Transportation

UZA An Urbanized Area (over 50,000 people)

45

APPENDIX B

URBANIZED AREA

AND MPO PLANNING BOUNDARIES

46

APPENDIX C

LAND USE ZONING MAP

47

APPENDIX C

LAND USE DENSITY MAP

48

APPENDIX D

DIXIE ROADWAY FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION MAP (SHEET 1)

49

APPENDIX D

DIXIE ROADWAY FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION MAP (SHEET 2)

50

APPENDIX E

PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION MAP - SUNTRAN BUS ROUTES

51

APPENDIX F

WASHINGTON COUNTY REGIONAL TRAILS MASTER PLAN MAP

dixie urbanizing area interim long-range (2000 … · dixie urbanizing area interim long-range ......

Documents