Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

INTRODUCTION

DEMOGRAPHICS

ECONOMIC BASE

WICKENBURG ECONOMIC AND FISCAL EFFECTS MODEL

ASSESSING CRITICAL BUSINESS-EFFECT FACTORS

RESULTS OF ANALYSIS

RETAIL/SERVICE BUSINESS RETENTION AND EXPANSION WITH THE BYPASS IN PLACE

POTENTIAL INDIRECT BENEFITS FROM BYPASS

APPENDIX A: WICKENBURG ECONOMIC AND FISCAL EFFECTS MODEL (not included)

This study examines a number of economic aspects of the effects associated with construction of a highway bypass around Wickenburg. The concept used for the analysis is particularly important. The bypass will affect certain types of businesses, at certain locations, more than others. At the same time, some of the individual businesses that are most heavily affected will be better able to adapt, withstand reductions in revenue, or otherwise survive than other businesses. Some minimal levels of "effects" of the bypass may already exist for some businesses, even in this very preliminary stage, because of perceptions about what the eventual business-activity effects of the bypass may be. That is, property values may be slightly shifting as some locations are viewed as more or less desirable at some point in the future under bypass conditions, managers or owners may already be changing their plans for investment in an existing business, and so forth.

This analysis should be understood to be a "snapshot" of what might happen if a bypass were operational at the present time. By the time the bypass is actually in place, Wickenburg will have been influenced by other economic factors, including growth pressures, at the local through international scale. Local business decisions will have been based on anticipation of an eventual bypass. The Town will have developed policies that reflect the evolving nature of the community as the bypass comes closer to reality. All of these influences are important to the actual workings of the economy, but are unmanageable as an analytical basis of this report. The main thrust of this report then is to quantify potential economic effects of the bypass as a single, isolated influence and under current-time conditions. Whatever effects are described as being the possible result of the bypass must be understood by the reader to be only part of the overall economic progression of the community that would occur over a number of years.

As background material, the demographic makeup of the community is reviewed with an emphasis on how residents’ status and behaviors, such as retirement or working age, workforce participation, job location, and the like, are likely to be influencing the local economy as it exists today. Wickenburg’s existing economic base is documented in a number of different ways, with an emphasis on types of businesses that could be affected by the bypass. A set of "business zones" is defined for Wickenburg based on geographic boundaries and the clustering of businesses currently in place.

Fiscal effects to the Town of Wickenburg that could occur with the bypass are estimated along with general economic impacts, expressed in terms of job and business losses. Effects from each of two alternative bypass routes are addressed in the report: 1) A northeast route that takes a path closer to the community and has an interchange at Constellation Road, and 2) a southwest route that skirts the community at a greater distance and is accessible from an interchange on West Wickenburg Way.

Demographics

Compared to all of Maricopa County, there are more retirees in the Wickenburg area, and those retirees are comparatively less affluent. But the strong presence of retirees in the area lessens somewhat the importance of local jobs as a mainstay of the local economy. The area’s workforce that does exist however is rather diversified, and relatively few workers who live in and around Wickenburg are employed outside the region (approximately 15%).

Economic Base

Wickenburg’s pattern of employment by industry is not too dissimilar from that of Maricopa County. Wickenburg has a smaller percentage of workers in construction and manufacturing, and a higher percentage in government, than Maricopa County. Wickenburg’s trade and services sectors are strongly represented, due in part to the community’s status as a destination resort location. Wickenburg’s highway-oriented services also contribute to the strength of these two sectors.

Sales tax data from the Town indicate that there is a tendency for retail and restaurant sales to be higher in the winter season than in summer. Businesses that derive an important segment of their income from visitors would therefore be less likely to see bypass-related losses during the winter season.

Economic And Fiscal Effects

Using the factors derived through a number of processes carried out for this study, the following figures are generated through application of the Wickenburg Economic and Fiscal Effects Model: Business income losses could range from $7.9 to $9.5 million dollars, for the northeast and southwest bypass routes, respectively; and job losses within the economic region could range from 126 to 153. The authors’ estimating factors yield the result that between 15 and 19 businesses could close; although these latter two types of losses – jobs and business closings – should happen over a number of years.

In terms of all the business categories included in the Wickenburg Economic and Fiscal Effects Model (manufacturing and public administration are some of the main categories not included), business income losses from either of the two bypasses as a percent of total revenues could range from 3.3 to 4.0 percent (for the northeast and southwest routes, respectively). Revenue losses to the Town of Wickenburg could be on the order of 4.6 to 5.5 percent of annual total revenues, or $166,000 to $202,000, respectively for each of the two routes. Revenue loss estimates include, in addition to Town sales taxes, the following:

Various state-shared revenues, calculated on a per-person basis, and

Residential and business utility fees (apportioned to the Town from household and business loss estimates)

The above figures are, in the authors’ opinion, appropriate for the community’s "strategic planning" purposes, with the following caveat; that is, that general community growth and appropriate measures by businesses and the community, over the next 10 or more years until the bypass is constructed, may reduce these theoretical losses to a substantial degree.

Based on a series of additional considerations, mitigating losses to the Town by promoting highway-type uses at interchange points would potentially reduce losses as follows: Total revenue losses to town businesses (of those included in the analysis model) with the southwest bypass decrease by 20 percent, and lost revenues to the Town decrease by 31 percent. For the northeast bypass route, the corresponding figures are 18 and 28 percent.

Approaches to mitigation

Business losses from the bypass can be mitigated in a number of ways, and there are two broad categories of mitigation that apply in any highway bypass situation: 1) helping existing businesses adjust to the new conditions, and 2) helping the community make up for losses in one part of town by developing new areas directly accessible from the bypass. These two categories can overlap in some cases; but the distinction between the two approaches is important. The first is a matter of "equity", that is, of fairness to business owners who are subjected to loss of business as a result of actions beyond their control. The equity concept recognizes that there are potentially "winners and losers" in the changing business landscape that results when a bypass is built.

The second approach is a matter of "efficiency", or focusing on exploiting new opportunities as they arise. In its most strict form, this would involve letting pure market forces dictate outcomes from the modified competitive landscape that would emerge with creation of a bypass. The two approaches, equity and efficiency, could be combined by, for example, encouraging some form of development at the bypasses and giving those whose businesses are most negatively affected by the bypass a preferential right to relocate their businesses there. From the standpoint of community leadership, the challenge is to "manage change" to help preserve individual businesses and to mitigate the effects of those businesses that are lost or significantly downsized.

Another important distinction is that bypass effects, and mitigation measures, vary by the extent of their geographic influence. General economic effects are felt at the level of the entire town, while the "business landscape" effects – business failures and deterioration of properties – are experienced at the level of the business zone.

Approaches to mitigation must also recognize the "time factor" of economic effects that can occur with a bypass. For example, a declining business may give little outward sign that it is moving toward a terminal condition. To address this problem, the Town may choose to promote the establishment of a Bypass Business Retention program to address businesses in distress due to lost business. To the extent that groups of individual businesses become more marginalized over time, "neighborhoods" of such businesses may gradually deteriorate because of continued deferred maintenance and other disinvestment; so that even nearby healthy businesses will experience losses in value of their property. Addressing this type of problem requires programs that focus on property – maintaining standards, encouraging new investment in targeted areas, and in extreme cases using the tools available through redevelopment law.

Another possible mitigation measure is for Wickenburg to sponsor a market study/management-assistance process to identify business areas and specific businesses that could be most positively and negatively affected by the bypass (once a preferred route is selected), offer suggestions for relocating businesses or realigning business focus, identify resources for business assistance, suggest alternative strategies the Town could implement, and address other topics that would provide guidance to affected businesses.

Mitigation issues

Historically, Wickenburg’s previous bypass experience was mitigated to some extent by "natural" market conditions. A steady increase in metro Phoenix-Las Vegas traffic helped make up for the loss of traffic when Interstate 10 was extended east from the Brenda cut-off. Now, because of its location relative to a strong metropolitan growth region, Wickenburg’s population and economy are almost assured continued expansion in the long run regardless of any setbacks in business activity due to a bypass. Most businesses may in fact continue to grow in Wickenburg with a bypass in place; but that growth may occur more slowly than it would have without the bypass. (In the same sense, a period of relative stability may ensue in conjunction with the bypass, before usual rates of growth come back into effect.) One question before Wickenburg decision-makers is: "What rate of growth should we be content with, or consider to be normal and reasonable?"

Potential Indirect Benefits from Bypass

Development of a bypass would result in the positive effects of reduced congestion and less air and noise pollution on town streets. Of all areas of the community, Downtown Wickenburg could benefit the most from these positive effects. The most obvious and likely result would be easier access to businesses by car and for pedestrians. This condition could potentially lead to other outcomes that would have the net result of the downtown area becoming more of a true "town center" for the community. This result could be fostered by deliberate public policies in the form of causing special plans to be produced, creating specific tax or other incentives, adjusting zoning designations and requirements, and the like.

One future aspect of new bypass routes should be considered, and that is the potential for "viewable sites", or high-visibility locations along the bypass route (not necessarily at the interchanges), where manufacturing or business firms can showcase their facilities and establish a strong visual presence in the community and region. Also, if the bypass were to be designed in such a way that it became (in perhaps a limited number of locations) a prime visual vantage point from which to experience the community, it may be possible for travelers to see Wickenburg in its natural setting in ways that have not been possible before. If so, new ways of promoting the community could be devised. Particularly for northbound travelers, the Wickenburg natural environment has a high-desert character that is attractive and sets it apart from most of the Phoenix metro area.

This study examines a number of economic aspects of the effects associated with construction of a highway bypass around Wickenburg. As background material, the demographic makeup of the community is reviewed with an emphasis on how residents’ status and behaviors, such as retirement or working age, workforce participation, job location, and the like, are likely to be influencing the local economy as it exists today.

Wickenburg’s economic base – the jobs that exist in the community in various economic sectors – is documented in a number of different ways, with an emphasis on types of businesses that could be affected by the bypass. A set of "business zones" is defined for Wickenburg based on geographic boundaries and the clustering of businesses currently in place.

Fiscal effects to the Town of Wickenburg that could occur with the bypass are estimated along with general economic impacts, expressed in terms of job and business losses. Along with the figures generated, general and "qualitative" aspects of the bypass impacts are discussed, including opportunities to mitigate losses and to benefit in some ways by the presence of the bypass.

Effects from each of two alternative bypass routes are addressed in the report: 1) A northeast route that takes a path closer to the community and has an interchange at Constellation Road, and 2) a southwest route that skirts the community at a greater distance and is accessible from an interchange on US 60 (West Wickenburg Way). Both routes branch off from US 60/89 southeast of Wickenburg near Morristown, and rejoin the existing US 93 northwest of Wickenburg.

The basic approach used in this study is to combine data from a number of sources and use combinations of source data to crosscheck and calibrate initial estimates.

Wickenburg overview

Wickenburg is rather unique among Arizona communities in the combination of attributes it possesses:

• It is close to a major urban area but still far enough away to retain its own character
• It has a desirable geographic setting, in the high desert, that makes it particularly attractive
• It is historically interesting and well preserved
• It has a well-diversified economy, for its size, and is relatively prosperous
• It has survived another "bypass" process, when Interstate 10 was completed east of Brenda in the 1970’s, allowing Phoenix-Los Angeles traffic to avoid US 60.

Even more revealing, these attributes are all positive and there are few negative points that can be ascribed to Wickenburg. Traffic congestion is perhaps the community’s most visible problem.

Although it is common in Arizona to remind the citizenry of communities that they must take care to manage their future growth, this dictum definitely applies to Wickenburg at this time. The pressures of encroaching urbanization are pervasive and powerful, and at the same time are not necessarily all bad. The bypass offers another opportunity to plan the future of Wickenburg, and it is a recommendation of these consultants that this opportunity be exercised.

Compared to all of Maricopa County, there are more retirees in the Wickenburg area, and those retirees are comparatively less affluent. But the strong presence of retirees in the area lessens somewhat the importance of local jobs as a mainstay of the local economy. The area’s workforce that does exist, however, is rather diversified, and relatively few workers (approximately 15%) who live in and around Wickenburg are employed outside the region.

These and other demographic indicators are shown on Table 1 for the Wickenburg Economic Region specially configured for this study. The Wickenburg Economic Region is defined as the Census tract that centers on Wickenburg (Tract 405.02) and 4 other Census Block Group areas that surround that central tract (Maricopa County Tract 405.09, BG 3 and 4, and Yavapai County Tract 14, BG 1 and 5). The area is shown (shaded portion) on Map 2. The Region extends to and includes the outlying communities of Aguila, Morristown, and Congress. The Region was selected partly on the basis of logical shopping and commuting patterns and partly on the basis of Census boundaries that allowed information about populations within those areas to be compiled. The data shown, while dated by virtue of their source, the 1990 Census, still provide some insight into overall patterns of the area’s residents and workforce.

The most direct method of describing the economic base of a community is usually through reporting the number of employees in the economic sectors represented in the community. These data are often not readily available for cities of any size, and the problem is especially acute for small communities such as Wickenburg. A combination of nationally and locally generated secondary data sources was therefore examined to estimate the employment structure for Wickenburg. National sources include the Census of Population (1990) and Economic Censuses (1992). The two Census series provide different but complementary data on an area’s economic base. The Census of Population reports employment of residents by place of residence. The data tell us what jobs the community’s residents have but not what jobs the community provides. There is information in the Census of Population however that provides general indicators of where residents work and the time they spend commuting to work.

The Economic Censuses provide a description of the jobs provided in the community, by business type and generally for the private sector only. There are important limitations to these economic data. Generally only establishments with payrolls are counted; consequently many small businesses are not included. Detailed data for a small community such as Wickenburg are frequently suppressed to preserve the confidentiality of firms in those cases where only a few firms make up the entire business category. One limitation common to both types of Census reports is of course that they are somewhat out of date by 1999. However, they are still useful as reference points from which to prepare updated estimates.

Local secondary data used for this study included the following: the telephone directory for Wickenburg, a business directory and fact sheets for specific types of businesses and individual businesses prepared by the Wickenburg Chamber of Commerce; the Town of Wickenburg Business Permit Listing; and the Town of Wickenburg sales tax records. These data were used to estimate the number of current businesses within business categories. The data sources were also used to prepare estimates of gross receipts by business type, and to assist in calibrating the Wickenburg Economic and Fiscal Effects Model prepared for this study by providing a check on the calculations of sales taxes and other output produced by the model (described in the following section).

Related studies were also used as references for the analysis of Wickenburg’s economic base and for base data in the Economic and Fiscal Effects Model. The most relevant of these is a study by Lay James Gibson that examined the tourism component of businesses in the White Mountains region of Arizona. The study identified 38 types of retail and service businesses and showed total employment and tourism-related employment for each, within a region that has some similarities, from a tourism standpoint, to Wickenburg.

Characteristics of economy

Current employment estimates for ten major industry categories are shown on Table 2, for the Wickenburg Economic Region and for Maricopa County, and comparisons between the two areas are shown graphically for 8 sectors in Figure 2.

The table shows that Wickenburg’s pattern of employment by industry is not too dissimilar from that of Maricopa County. Wickenburg has a smaller percentage of workers in construction and manufacturing, and a higher percentage in government, than Maricopa County. These kinds of differences between a small community and its surrounding metropolitan region are entirely consistent with normal employment patterns. One would expect the metropolitan area in its entirety to have a stronger manufacturing base, and the (current) rapid growth of the metro core cities gives the county as a whole a large base of construction employment. Although the data for agricultural employment for Maricopa County are not in this table, that sector employs, proportionately, many more people in the Wickenburg area than in the County as a whole.

Wickenburg’s trade and services sectors are strongly represented, due in part to the community’s status as a destination resort location. Highway-oriented service businesses also contribute to the strength of these two sectors. Sales tax data from the Town indicate that there is a tendency for retail and restaurant sales to be higher in the winter/spring season than in summer. This would be consistent with Wickenburg having a higher level of visitors at resorts and recreational vehicle parks, and residents in seasonal homes, during the winter. Businesses that derive an important segment of their income from visitors would therefore be less likely to feel the effects of any bypass-related business losses during the winter season.

More detailed breakdowns of the primary sectors of interest to this study – retail trade and services – are shown in Table 3, which also has a comparison between Maricopa County and Wickenburg (the town only, not the economic area in this case) similar to that in Table 2. Although data for a number of categories are not available, and the data in this table suffer from being incomplete in other respects (see discussion in preceding section regarding the 1992 economic censuses) some insightful comparisons can be made between Wickenburg and the County. Among the retail trade categories, "apparel and accessory stores" are underrepresented in Wickenburg and "eating and drinking places" occur in disproportionately high numbers in the community. The relative lack of clothing stores relates directly to Wickenburg’s limited market draw – higher-order goods such as clothing will be offered in greater quantity and variety within the more populated areas of the metropolitan region. The strong showing among restaurants attests to Wickenburg’s visitor orientation.

Among service industries, only "health services" stands out as being proportionately more prevalent in Wickenburg, compared to the County as a whole. This is due in part to the high percentage of elderly population in Wickenburg and probably also to the presence of special treatment facilities in the community.

A computer spreadsheet model was prepared for this study to generate estimates of fiscal impacts to the City of Wickenburg that could occur due to the introduction of a bypass. The model (see Appendix A) addressed sales tax losses and two categories of potential losses associated with business closings and population decline from job losses: a) losses of state taxes distributed on a per-capita basis, and b) lost revenues from Town-operated utilities. Estimated job losses become a reasonable indicator of overall economic losses to the community. Direct job losses tied to reduced revenues from pass-through visitors are shown along with total job losses that would occur in the community through the "multiplier effect". The multiplier effect reflects the fact that jobs lost to reduced tourists’ spending also would have been supporting other jobs in the community. It is important to note that the model addresses primarily potential losses from a bypass based on existing business conditions. However, the bypass is not expected to be in place for well over 10 years, allowing time to at least partially mitigate potential effects. The implications of mitigation strategies are addressed separately.

The model incorporated data for the "Wickenburg Economic Region" described in the Demographics section of this report. The model combined the following estimated factors into a series of other estimates, all related to losses that could occur with development of either of the two bypass options:

• The number of businesses by type, focusing particularly on those categories of businesses that could be affected by the bypass; and the total gross sales within those categories.

• The percent of businesses that are within the Town limits (and hence subject to the Town’s sales tax)

• Business receipts per employee, within each business category. These estimates were prepared using data from the 1992 Economic Censuses for Wickenburg, Maricopa County, and Arizona as a whole. The factor was used to estimate number of employees in business categories and job losses that could accompany business income losses.

• Sales tax rates for business categories – in most cases the 1% Town tax, but modified for some business types to reflect special conditions and assumptions.

• The percent of existing business volume attributable to pass-through visitors, and the percent of pass-through visitor business to existing establishments that could be lost with each of the two bypasses. These figures were derived through processes described in subsequent sections of this report.

• The percent of the total population in the economic region that resides within the Town limits, since the loss of jobs is assumed to result in loss of residents, which in turn results in losses in taxes the Town receives under various state "revenue sharing" formulas based primarily on population.

• Finally, a series of factors is derived to produce certain of the above calculations. These factors include the following:

• Persons per household.
• Jobs per household among working households.
• State-shared revenues for various tax categories on a per-person basis.
• Average number of workers per business establishment.
• A "business failure probability factor" – an estimated value derived by the authors based on responses to survey questions about the possibility of closing and from the authors’ experiences in downsizing economies – used to estimate potential loss of establishments and therefore loss of Town utility revenues.
• Two sets of figures that represent the percentage of the economic region’s household and business budgets that are paid for the use of Town utilities. Wickenburg supplies garbage, sewer, water, and electrical service to many (but not all) homes and businesses inside the Town; so utility revenues are important to the Town government.

Sources for many of these data inputs are shown in the Appendix A table.

The model can display a range of revenue and job losses, based on different percentages of loss of pass-through business. The process of estimating which percentage loss factor is most likely to apply in Wickenburg is discussed in the sections that follow.

There are two critical factors that affect the extent of losses to existing businesses that could occur due to the bypass: 1) the percent of business attributable to pass-through visitors; and 2) the percent of pass-through visitor business to existing establishments that could be lost with the bypass in place. Each of these two are discussed below.

Percent of business attributable to pass-through visitors

The following table is a useful reference for identifying the market segments that are primarily affected by the bypass. The table indicates that the focus on losses from the bypass pertains to pass-through visitors; while there are other market segments that relate in different ways to the two business categories shown, and that are basically unaffected by the bypass.

* All CAPS designates primary market for business type; lowercase secondary market.

Figures for "percent of business proceeds from pass-through visitors" used in the Economic and Fiscal Effects Model were derived for each business type from two primary (i.e. original data) sources and a series of cross-checking and calibration processes. One primary source was the survey of businesses in the Wickenburg Bypass Study by Behavior Research Center (BRC). One survey question asked respondents to report the percent of their business proceeds that resulted from pass-through visitors. The detailed response tabulation to this question (answers broken out by some 99 business types) was examined and the results are summarized in Table 4, Column B. It is important to note that the results shown are not statistical measures, in that they are derived by an informal process that attempted to generalize from some very specific data involving small (and therefore statistically meaningless, by themselves) sample sizes. However, the figures are nonetheless a carefully crafted attempt to represent the thinking of the survey respondents. The second primary source was the origin/destination study report "Summary Data from Roadside Interviews" by Heffernan & Associates, discussed in detail below.

Some of the inherent problems with the survey-based information are that:

• In selecting survey subjects, it is virtually impossible to screen each business type to see that an appropriate cross section of businesses most likely to be affected by the bypass, within each category of business, are represented. For example, some restaurants are more likely to be affected by the bypass than others are, but survey researchers would have to know something about this in advance in order to screen or segment restaurant respondents for this condition. The problem becomes unmanageable when multiple categories of businesses are involved in this way.

• Survey respondents’ interpretations of terms are bound to vary, and it is in fact difficult if not impossible, for example, for a merchant to know whether an "outsider" is merely "passing though" or has deliberately sought out that particular business.

Column C of Table 4 represents the authors’ interpretations of the most likely "percent of business proceeds from pass-through travelers". The distinction is made in Column C between business categories that are expected to be directly affected and those that are indirectly affected. In most cases the figures are lower than those in Column B. The Column C figures rely on the following reasoning, as well as having Column B numbers as a point of departure:

• Estimates by businesspersons probably reflect a level of "background" trading by people outside the community who are nevertheless either within the Wickenburg Economic Region or familiar enough with Wickenburg to deliberately go there for some kinds of business. This is probably the case especially with business categories such as construction, and finance, insurance, and real estate, for example. We would not expect that true "pass through" travelers would normally be involved with these business groups.

• At the same time, there is also some sort of "exposure" function that would in theory apply to pass-through travelers. By being exposed to Wickenburg and its business community in the course of repeated trips, pass-through travelers may at some point in time become customers. With the bypass in place some of this exposure, and subsequent eventual business, is lost (hence their appearance in the column of "indirectly affected" businesses). We assume this factor to be small, but still exist, and to vary among the business types.

• The actual mathematically derived percentage for pass-through travelers that applies to certain key business types, such as gas stations and restaurants, is a function of, in the case of restaurants, a summation of business volume and percent of pass-through business that applies to each individual business; but the data to derive this exact measure do not exist. Instead, we have reviewed businesspersons’ responses to the survey question using a combination of methods including: 1) assessing how much spending the local population could contribute to these businesses, and 2) how much spending the pass-through visitors could contribute based on estimates of business volumes from the Heffernan survey. These results were then compared to the estimated total revenues for these business types. (The Heffernan survey of highway travelers provided a fairly concise picture of pass-through travelers’ intentions, and these data were used, along with some assumptions about spending amounts, to cross-check and "calibrate" the other information.)

• In the case of hotel/motels, we examined the proportion of business estimated to be associated with the establishments most affected by pass-through visitors – the non-resort properties – and assigned a "percent of pass-through travelers" specifically to this category. For this category as well as others the concept of "pass-through visitor" is considered to mean those travelers that have not intentionally planned to stop in Wickenburg prior to their departure. Thus, for example, a gas station is more susceptible to the whims of a "pass-through traveler" than a hotel or motel; since in the latter case the travelers are more likely to have decided beforehand that they will or will not stay in Wickenburg. The distinction is an important one in that the percentage of "pass-through traveler" is not the same percentage that would apply to "all travelers passing through (or past) Wickenburg".

• Results from other studies, discussed in detail below, are used as an additional check on this factor.

Motivations of Wickenburg visitors and highway travelers

Data pertaining to the motivations and habits of visitors to Wickenburg are available from two sources: 1) The BRC survey of travelers in the Wickenburg Bypass Study; and 2) the origin/destination study report "Summary Data from Roadside Interviews" by Heffernan & Associates, both of which were prepared as part of the US 93 Location/Design Concept Study being conducted under the overall management of Sverdrup Civil, Inc.

BRC survey:

The BRC survey showed in a number of ways that Wickenburg already has a strong "name recognition" and is a sought-out destination for both in- and out-of-state travelers. Of BRC’s survey respondents, just over half visited Wickenburg on their way from or to the metro Phoenix area. Of those travelers who came from Phoenix, Wickenburg was a planned stop for 89 percent of the travel parties. More surprising, however, was the finding that Wickenburg was a destination for 79 and 80 percent of travelers from outside Arizona, and from within Arizona other than metro Phoenix, respectively. At the same time, 45 percent of these travelers interviewed were on their very first visit to Wickenburg. Twenty-two percent of visitors stated they would visit an antique shop or "other retail" establishment – entirely discretionary activities – while in Wickenburg. Among reasons cited for visiting Wickenburg, "sightseeing" topped the list at 47 percent. "Sightseeing" implies a recognition that one or more attractions are available, and in this context (that is, in Wickenburg) can also include a range of shopping opportunities.

It is interesting to compare the results of the visitors’ survey with those of the survey of Wickenburg businesses. When asked: "What percent of your customers who do not live in or near Wickenburg, if any, do you feel travel to Wickenburg specifically to visit your business?" retailers gave 25 percent as an average response, and non-retailers said 18 percent (average). (It is important to note that the question applied to the interview respondent’s specific business, not the community as a whole.) For a number of business types the answer to the question was "zero"; that is, no one comes to Wickenburg specifically to visit that kind of business. For other business types, there appeared to be (when looking at the detailed data) a "background" percentage of patrons assumed to come to the community for that particular business. To some extent this background probably refers to persons in neighboring communities but within the Wickenburg Economic Region defined for this study. Of the 99 business types represented in the survey of businesses, only 21 showed responses from establishments stating that 50 percent or more of patrons came to Wickenburg specifically because of that business. This finding is not particularly surprising; but it underscores the importance of a few "magnet" businesses that generate additional wealth for the community.

Respondents to the visitor survey also stated that a bypass that would make it necessary to delay their trip in order to visit the community would curtail their willingness to visit Wickenburg to some extent. For those who planned to go to Wickenburg, however, 68 percent would still tolerate a 20-minute delay, and 90 percent would still visit if delays were only 5 minutes. For those visiting on the spur of the moment, 6 percent said they would tolerate a 20-minute delay, and 68 percent would stop in Wickenburg if delays were just 5 minutes or less, leaving 32 percent who said they would forego stopping in Wickenburg entirely. These findings need to be reviewed in context, however. First, the presence of a bypass may allow traffic to proceed past the community quickly; but it does not eliminate the need to stop for essentials like food and fuel. Second, proper signage and other promotional efforts will help establish a "presence" for Wickenburg among those passing through the area who are not already familiar with the community. Finally, for those intending to visit Wickenburg, there are no real "delays" associated with any bypass; since visitors simply take the direct route into the community rather than around it. The bypass will in fact save time for such visitors by reducing congestion on the city streets, making both access and parking easier.

Heffernan survey:

The second source of information about the expected behaviors of travelers when confronted with a Wickenburg bypass was the report "Summary Data from Roadside Interviews" by Heffernan & Associates. The Heffernan survey asked respondents stopped on the highway how their choices would change with the bypass in place. The survey interviews were taken from intercepted travelers at a point approximately 5 miles south of Wickenburg. Buses were excluded from the survey process.

The survey was conducted in May of 1999, which is close to being an "average" month for travel on US 93. Traffic counts for May on that highway are approximately 3% below the average for the year. Results of the survey should therefore be relatively unaffected by seasonal variations in traffic flow (higher levels of travel in cooler months and lower in warmer months). It is also important to note that the component of traffic of most interest to this study are the "pass through" travelers whose decisions to stop in Wickenburg may be changed by the bypass. Higher levels of travel in winter months that are the result of more people visiting Wickenburg (intentionally) in that season are not a factor in this analysis as their intentions to visit will not be negatively affected by the bypass.

This survey of traffic and travelers generated the following findings that are particularly relevant to this economic study.

• Forty percent of travelers surveyed at the survey location had come (on that trip) from the metro Phoenix area (excluding Wickenburg and the Wittman-Wickenburg corridor, which is technically part of "metropolitan Phoenix" by some official designations).

• Sixteen percent of travelers were from some location (either within or outside Arizona) along the US 93 corridor northwest from Wickenburg.

• About 30 percent were traveling from the local area of Wickenburg and the Wittman-Wickenburg corridor.

• The above figures pertain to groups of travelers that could be expected to be at least somewhat familiar with Wickenburg, leaving 14 percent of travelers who may be the least familiar or relatively unfamiliar with the community.

• Of travelers who were making a stop in Wickenburg (and their trip did not begin or end there), 85 percent were stopping primarily to obtain food or gas.

• When survey respondents who said they were stopping in Wickenburg were asked how the presence of a bypass would change their decision to stop, 31 percent said they would not stop if the bypass were built. Nearly 70 percent would accept a delay of five minutes or more, and 41 percent would still be willing to stop if delays were as much as 15 minutes.

• Eighty-three percent of respondents who said they would continue to stop in Wickenburg if a bypass were built stated that signage alone would be sufficient to direct them into the community; only 17 percent wanted to be able to see the town from the bypass.

In applying these findings to this study, a number of key assumptions were made:

• Not all of those respondents who say they will not stop in Wickenburg at all if a bypass is built will actually be in a position to avoid stopping in the town. The Heffernan report points out that respondents themselves noted that their decision will depend on a number of factors including how badly they needed to stop for some purpose, availability of services on the bypass itself, etc. Similarly, those who state they must have short "detour" time limits in order to stop in the town, or must be able to "see" the town in order to leave the bypass must also deal with the reality of whether alternative facilities will be available (especially so for northbound travelers). Consequently these figures were discounted somewhat in making a judgement about the best loss rate estimates.

• Since the vast majority of pass-through travelers were stopping for gas or food (or for restroom facilities), just having these types of establishments near the bypass interchanges would have a significant influence on capturing additional pass-through travelers using the bypass.

Findings from other research studies on community impacts from bypass construction

As a form of supplementary information, the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) made available for this study a report that synthesized results of numerous other economic studies of communities affected by highway bypasses. The report (referred to hereafter as the Logan Simpson Design report) reviewed 24 economic studies that had examined communities both before and after construction of a bypass. A range of community sizes, locations throughout the U.S., and other characteristics were covered in the studies. The report’s authors note that many factors affect the "before and after" conditions in communities, and that different analytical approaches, and the data utilized, result in different generalized findings. Finally, the authors note that there is a possibility that readers may infer a bias in the studies they reviewed, since they were all funded by transportation agencies at various levels of government.

Findings of the Logan Simpson Design report that seem particularly relevant to the Wickenburg situation are summarized below:

• A number of factors affect the vulnerability of a community to adverse effects from a bypass: 1) Size, in that smaller communities (2,500 to 6,000) suffer more adverse effects than larger ones; 2) Distance from a large urban area, where a distance of 20 miles or more is needed to encourage pass-through travelers to use establishments in the small city rather than the larger one; 3) Distance of businesses from interchanges – as would be expected, establishments further from bypass interchanges had greater losses than those closest to the interchanges.

No specific figures for motels were given; but the authors noted that losses were less than for gas stations and restaurants.

Business zones

Wickenburg has a number of "zones" where business activity is concentrated. Under current roadway patterns, business zones have different levels of access to pass-through travelers, and the effects of the bypass on Wickenburg’s business areas will vary according to the zone in which a business is located.

For the purposes of this study, Wickenburg’s business community was divided into the six geographic zones shown in generalized form on Map 3. Characteristics of each zone are summarized in the table below. Note that not all businesses are included; as this portion of the analysis focused primarily on businesses on the major streets and routes through the community – those that would be most influenced by changes in through traffic. Businesses relating to the rental of apartments or commercial properties were generally ignored.

 Each of these zones, and the businesses within them, would be affected differently under each of the two bypass scenarios. There are a number of factors that influence these effects:

• Existing traffic flows, and the expected patterns of bypass usage by travelers. The existing traffic volume on US 93 north of Wickenburg is nearly 6 times the volume on US 60 west of Wickenburg. The northeast bypass route brings travelers closer to the heart of the town and does not serve as a bypass for US 60 traffic west of Wickenburg.

• The volume of business currently attributable to "impulse" or "convenience" buying on the part of pass-through travelers, and the extent to which this market segment would decrease when travelers are not directly exposed to establishments of this type.

• The fact that Wickenburg is now seen by many travelers as a destination for different types of tourist-oriented businesses, including overnight accommodations, restaurants, retail outlets of various types, and gasoline service stations, and the ongoing potential to maintain and enhance this image in the future with a bypass in place.

 The authors’ assessment of the different effects that would apply to each of the six business zones under each of the two bypass scenarios are summarized in the table below.

For the primary tourist-oriented business types, business losses are expected to vary somewhat by business types and by business zone. A table summarizing the authors’ more detailed estimates for the factor "percent of pass-through visitor business to existing establishments that could be lost with the bypass in place" that would apply to the different zones, for key business types only, is shown in Appendix B.

Other issues in estimating bypass-related losses

There are several other issues that affect the estimate of business losses to Wickenburg from the bypass. At the root of many of these issues is the fact that information upon which to base such an estimate is imperfect, due largely to the fact that it is virtually impossible to have a "controlled experiment" where the conditions of an actual bypass are simulated. What we must deal with instead are a series of "inferences" about what might happen, which are summarized below:

• Wickenburg has a complex business relationship with the "outside world". There are many visitors who view the town, or specific businesses within the town, as a destination in itself; and the nearby Phoenix urban area is a prime "feeder" for this type of visitor. Like most towns, there is a ring of smaller communities and rural residents who depend on Wickenburg as their "central place" for a variety of business needs. But with the urban area so close, Wickenburg-area residents and businesses can be supplied with a wide range of higher-order goods and services fairly easily. This is beneficial from the standpoint of efficiency; it is a problem in that it is also easy for locals to spend their money in the urban area rather than in Wickenburg. To a certain extent, the same issue applies to travelers in that they can substitute the metro area for Wickenburg fairly easily; although they may prefer the convenience of stopping in a small town rather than a congested metropolitan area. Regardless, northbound travelers who have passed the urban area have very few choices other than Wickenburg if they are in need of goods or services.

• These issues are particularly relevant when one attempts to apply "generic" studies of highway bypass impacts to Wickenburg. Wickenburg may not be all that "typical". In the Logan Simpson Design report reviewed for this study, those authors came to the conclusion that the general pattern of bypass impacts was for gas stations to lose 15 percent of business, restaurants 10 to 15 percent, and general retail to lose 20 percent. Hotel/motels were thought to lose less than gas stations or restaurants, or in other words something less than 10 percent. Is it logical to assume these percentages hold for Wickenburg? The authors’ (of this study) interpretations, based on data for the US 93 Location/Design Concept Study itself, is that the retail losses will not be higher, but rather considerably lower, than for restaurants or gas stations. Traveler-related retail in Wickenburg is more likely to be specialty items that visitors purposely seek out, rather than incidental sales from casual browsers. In "typical" communities, it is likely that a bypass makes it easier for shoppers in a region to go around a smaller city and travel to a larger one (where choices and prices may be more advantageous) for the goods they seek. This situation does not seem as likely to affect Wickenburg due to its geographic setting and the nature of its shopping-market region. The assumption is also supported by the responses to surveys administered to highway travelers by Heffernan & Associates, where the vast majority of respondents stopping in Wickenburg were purchasing gas or visiting a restaurant.

• The visitor surveys conducted in Wickenburg by Behavior Research Center offer a different perspective on visitor characteristics. Because they were interviewing at the Downtown location, it is logical to assume, as the data bear out, that BRC tended to reach visitors with fairly strong intentions to visit Wickenburg. Compared to the Heffernan survey, BRC respondents were more likely to visit establishments other than gas stations and restaurants. It is also interesting to note that 32 percent of the "spur of the moment" visitors in the BRC survey said they would not stop in Wickenburg if extra time were required to leave the bypass and come into the town. This is similar to the figure from the Heffernan survey, where 31 percent of pass-through travelers stated they would not stop in Wickenburg if the bypass allowed them to skirt the town.

• It is a fairly straightforward matter to generate estimates of employment losses that relate to losses of business income. Estimating the extent to which businesses will fail is a much more subjective matter that calls for examining relationships such as the average number of employees per business, responses by businesses to questions about their own plans for handling business revenue reductions (from the BRC survey of businesses), and the authors’ sense of what types of businesses are most vulnerable and how many of those exist. Another factor in this study is the structure of the analysis model. In the model, several categories of businesses have small percentages of losses to reflect the loss of "exposure" to the community from decreased through traffic. These types of losses, while sizable in the aggregate, are not likely to cause any one business to fail. Consequently, it would be inappropriate to estimate business failures at a rate directly proportionate to employment (or monetary) losses.

Summary of critical business-effect factors

Discussions in this section of the report lead to a set of conclusions about the two most critical factors required to estimate bypass business losses. The first of these, the "percent of business attributable to pass-through visitors", is discussed above and the authors’ recommended figures for each business category are shown above in Table 4. For the second factor, the "percent of pass-through visitor business to existing establishments that could be lost with the bypass in place", the authors’ recommended figures are shown in Table 5, columns B and C for the southwest and northeast routes, respectively. There is no simple method or direct mathematical expression that represents the derivation of these factors. They are the result of considering all the information about visitor habits and intentions examined in this section of the report, applying figures based on reasoned judgement about the meaning of this information to the analysis model, and finally calibrating the results of the modeling exercises to arrive at outcomes that seem to confirm the original logic expressed in the preceding topics. The most important visitor findings include the following:

Interview subjects’ responses that the presence of a bypass, and accessibility to the town from that bypass, would alter their willingness to stop in Wickenburg to varying degrees, tempered (to some extent by the subjects’ own statements) by the reality that there is limited choice for travelers services in the Wickenburg region and further north on US 93; and

Travelers’ degree of familiarity with Wickenburg.

The most important study finding that influenced the calibration of the analysis model results is the Logan Simpson Design report reported above. Columns D and E of Table 6, which show the revenue losses by business category as a percent of total business revenues, can be compared to the findings of the Logan Simpson Design report. Those authors reported that a series of studies on bypass impacts had shown that gas stations could be expected to lose 15 percent of their business, restaurants 10 to 15 percent, and motels somewhat less than either of those two categories, while other retail trade could lose 20 percent (this latter figure being one with which the authors of this report disagree).

The figures in Table 5 show the following figures for the same business types discussed above in the Logan Simpson Design report (except that for this study a special category of retail – for stores that cater specifically to tourists – is added). The Table 5 figures for the northeast route are closest to the Logan Simpson Design report figures.

RESULTS OF ANALYSIS

This analysis should be understood to be a "snapshot" of what might happen if a bypass were operational at the present time. By the time the bypass is actually in place, Wickenburg will have been influenced by other economic factors, including growth pressures, at the local through international scale. Local business decisions will have been based on anticipation of an eventual bypass. The Town will have developed policies that reflect the evolving nature of the community as the bypass comes closer to reality. All of these influences are important to the actual workings of the economy, but are unmanageable as an analytical basis of this report. The main thrust of this report then is to quantify potential economic effects of the bypass as a single, isolated influence and under current-time conditions. Whatever effects are described as being the possible result of the bypass must be understood by the reader to be only part of the overall economic progression of the community that would occur over a number of years.

Base conditions

All of the factors derived from the findings described in the preceding section of this report formed the basis for input to the economic/fiscal model. The resulting figures are, in the authors’ opinion, appropriate for "strategic planning" purposes, with the following caveat; that is, that general community growth and appropriate measures by businesses and the community, over the next 10 or more years until the bypass is constructed, may reduce these theoretical losses to a substantial degree. The results are shown in Table 6. Business income losses would range from $7.9 to $9.5 million dollars, for the northeast and southwest bypass routes, respectively. Job losses within the economic region would range from 126 to 153. The authors’ estimating factors yield the result that between 15 and 19 businesses would close; although these latter two types of losses – jobs and business closings – would happen over a number of years.

In terms of all the business categories included in the Wickenburg Economic and Fiscal Effects Model (manufacturing and public administration are some of the main categories not included), business income losses from either of the two bypasses as a percent of total revenues would range from 3.3 to 4.0 percent (for the northeast and southwest routes, respectively). Revenue losses to the Town of Wickenburg would be on the order of 4.6 to 5.5 percent of annual total revenues, or $166,000 to $202,000, respectively for each of the two routes. Revenue loss estimates include, in addition to Town sales taxes, the following:

Various state-shared revenues, calculated on a per-person basis, and

Residential and business utility fees (apportioned to the Town from household and business loss estimates)

Mitigation of losses by allowing development at interchanges

Although the community may choose to forego this option in order to maximize the potential for existing businesses to still benefit from highway travelers, one alternative mitigation scenario would be to allow by means of zoning the development of primary tourist-related businesses at the bypass interchanges. Such businesses – gas stations, restaurants, motels, and perhaps even specialty retail – could be located at the interchanges with either US 60 or Constellation Road. To be as effective as possible, they could also be allowed at the junctions of the bypass at the points northwest and southeast of Wickenburg. To estimate the effects of this scenario the following reasoning and assumptions were applied:

• Based on responses to survey questions, 10 to 20 percent of travelers implied that they would be more inclined to stop in Wickenburg if travel times off the bypass were minimized and if they could see "the community" from the bypass or exit points (it is debatable whether the presence of one or more business establishments at an interchange would constitute "seeing the community").

• In previous sections of this report the question of the difference between survey respondents’ stated positions and the realities of highway travel were discussed – the key point being that not everyone will be in a position to follow their inclinations in this regard. Some will have to stop regardless of whether conditions meet their preferences.

• Allowing development at the interchanges will not necessarily mean that every type of establishment that travelers might want will be present, so unrepresented businesses will still result in a loss of business, for those travelers who are stopping primarily because access to businesses is relatively direct.

• Businesses at the interchanges are expected to be relatively successful and therefore to achieve at least average levels of business revenues, and there will likely be a total of at least 3 to 4 such establishments distributed among more than one interchange.

To estimate effects of mitigating losses to the Town by promoting highway-type uses at interchange points, the authors derived values for reducing the percentage loss factors in the Wickenburg Economic and Fiscal Effects Model to reflect this mitigation scenario. As with other factors used in this study, the figures are based on a combination of judgement about the relative importance of different influences discussed above, and calibration of inputs to the analysis model to see that they yield consistently reasonable results. Through this process, a 16 percentage-point difference to the factor "percentage loss of pass-through travel business" was applied to the southwest route and a difference of 12 percentage points to the northeast route.

The calculations also assume that these areas are incorporated into the Town limits; although it may not be possible to achieve incorporation of these areas without a concerted plan and cooperation of key landowners.

Using these adjustments the total revenue losses to town businesses (of those included in the model) with the southwest bypass would decrease by 20 percent, and lost revenues to the Town would decrease by 31 percent. For the northeast bypass route, the corresponding figures are 18 and 28 percent.

Business losses from the bypass can be mitigated in a number of ways, and there are two broad categories of mitigation that apply in any highway bypass situation: 1) helping existing businesses adjust to the new conditions, and 2) helping the community make up for losses in one part of town by developing new areas directly accessible from the bypass. These two categories can overlap in some cases; but the distinction between the two approaches is important. The first is a matter of "equity", that is, of fairness to business owners who are subjected to loss of business as a result of actions beyond their control. The equity concept recognizes that there are potentially "winners and losers" in the changing business landscape that results when a bypass is built. From the standpoint of public policy, the implication of the equity approach is that government has an obligation to spread the risk of bypass development in much the same way as victims of natural disasters have certain forms of relief through the government as if government was a kind of "insurer".

The second approach is a matter of "efficiency", or focusing on exploiting new opportunities as they arise. In its most strict form, this would involve letting pure market forces dictate outcomes from the modified competitive landscape that would emerge with creation of a bypass. The two approaches, equity and efficiency, could be combined by encouraging some form of development at the bypasses and giving those whose businesses are most negatively affected by the bypass a preferential right to relocate their businesses there. From the standpoint of community leadership, the challenge is to "manage change" to help preserve individual businesses and to mitigate the effects of those businesses that are lost or significantly downsized.

Another important distinction is that bypass effects, and mitigation measures, vary by the extent of their geographic influence. General economic effects are felt at the level of the entire town, while the "business landscape" effects – business failures and deterioration of properties – are experienced at the level of the business zone. Approaches to mitigation must also recognize the "time factor" of economic effects that can occur with a bypass. Problems that are both geographic-specific and have a time dimension as well are the following:

• Deterioration of business viability: It is not uncommon for business owners to avoid communicating openly about declining business conditions until it is too late to save the business or to change an owner’s plans to close or severely downsize the business. A declining business may give little outward sign that it is moving toward a terminal condition. To address this problem, the Town may choose to promote the establishment of a Bypass Business Retention program to address businesses in distress due to lost business. Such a program could combine the resources of community colleges, the Small Business Administration, and other organizations and agencies oriented to small business support. The program must be publicized along with information about the bypass development and other strategies developed to address it. For the program described, the Town could have its own program for tax relief tied to certain bypass-related effects, for those businesses that are participating in the Bypass Business Retention program. This program could help affected businesses with promotional programs, product changes aimed at capturing other market segments, and other approaches to help make up for lost highway-oriented business.

• There is the potential for business losses to begin immediately once the bypass is in place; but the full consequences of this loss may not develop for some years. For example, as individual businesses become more marginalized, "neighborhoods" of such businesses may gradually deteriorate because of continued deferred maintenance and other disinvestment; so that even nearby healthy businesses will experience losses in value of their property. Addressing this type of problem requires programs that focus on property – maintaining standards, encouraging new investment in targeted areas, and in extreme cases using the tools available through redevelopment law.

• Losses of property value in some areas and increases in value in other areas may already be occurring in parts of Wickenburg simply with the bypass planning process underway. As a practical matter, there is little that government can do to mitigate such effects. These value shifts will become more definitive when plans are in place and again when the bypass is built. Programs to help business owners affected by the bypass must recognize that whatever equity these owners once had in real estate will have been devalued to some extent.

Mitigation measures identified in the Logan Simpson Design report (the review of 24 economic studies addressing highway bypasses, discussed above) include advertising town businesses on the bypass and making access into the town from the bypass as easy as possible. The report also noted that economists in the studies reviewed generally encouraged communities to maximize opportunities created by the bypass. Economic development opportunities mentioned in the reports that can be encouraged through development of the bypasses include new commercial activity on the bypass route and a more functional downtown area due to reduced congestion and improved safety. At the same time, some researchers pointed out that restricting land near interchanges to non-commercial uses would force visitors to go to existing business areas in the community for goods and services.

Another possible mitigation measure is for Wickenburg to sponsor a market study/management-assistance process to identify business areas and specific businesses that could be most positively and negatively affected by the bypass (once a preferred route is selected), offer suggestions for relocating businesses or realigning business focus, identify resources for business assistance, suggest alternative strategies the Town could implement, and address other topics that would provide guidance to affected businesses.

Wickenburg could choose to help protect established areas from interchange development through planning and zoning restrictions; but this works best when the bypass interchange is close to those areas where businesses exist. Also, without being able to see a destination for basic travel-related goods and services some travelers (17% of pass-through travelers, according to survey results, although these figures should be considered in combination with other factors that influence traveler choice) will not venture off the bypass in the first place, so any sales potential to this group will be foregone. An intermediate approach may best serve the community’s interests, where a limited number of new business locations, built in accordance with strict guidelines, are allowed near the interchanges. Such an approach would however require an exercise of planning and zoning powers at levels above what is common practice in Arizona.

Some relocating of existing businesses will occur, or should ideally occur, in order to better position existing highway-oriented businesses to capture travelers at the bypass exit points. Business owners may choose to relocate within existing commercial areas, even if no new commercial development takes place. If new development is to occur at the bypass interchanges, local businesses affected adversely by the bypass could occupy such sites. However, it is also logical to assume that major investments in land and facilities will be needed at those locations, and businesses that have experienced bypass-induced losses may be in the least-advantageous position to be those investors. Specific programs could be put in place to help make up for this disadvantage, such as the concept mentioned above of giving preference to displaced business owners.

Regardless of what policies are adopted, some businesses are still likely to close due to the added stress of lost highway business. One of the most difficult aspects of managing change when potential business closings are involved is monitoring the health of threatened businesses.

Mitigation issues

The following issues have some bearing on community strategies for mitigating the negative effects of the bypass on businesses:

• Wickenburg is beyond the fringe of the "20-mile rule" (the distance where travelers may choose to substitute a stop in the urban area for one in the smaller city). As the urban area expands, this distance will shorten; but by the time the rule begins to take effect in Wickenburg, the economic benefits of proximity should overshadow any negative effects of "urban substitution" by pass-through travelers.

• Historically, Wickenburg’ previous bypass experience was mitigated to some extent by "natural" market conditions. A steady increase in metro Phoenix-Las Vegas traffic helped make up for the loss of traffic when Interstate 10 was extended east from the Brenda cut-off. Now, because of its location relative to a strong metropolitan growth region, Wickenburg’s population and economy are almost assured continued expansion in the long run regardless of any setbacks in business activity due to a bypass. Most businesses may in fact continue to grow in Wickenburg with a bypass in place; but that growth may occur more slowly than it would have without the bypass. (In the same sense, a period of relative stability may ensue in conjunction with the bypass, before usual rates of growth come back into effect.)

One question before Wickenburg decision-makers might be: "What rate of growth should we be content with, or consider to be normal and reasonable?" The question has a number of complex dimensions. Wickenburg citizens and leaders probably want to retain and attract a progressive and capable business community. Such people usually, especially in Arizona, anticipate and seek out a strong growth environment. On the other hand, part of Wickenburg’s charm is its "small town" character and the fact that it is unspoiled by lower-quality development that sometimes accompanies unbridled growth. Wickenburg has no immediate neighboring cities that could attempt to exploit any weaknesses in the community by growing a business base at Wickenburg’s expense.

Development of a bypass would result in the positive effects of reduced congestion and less air and noise pollution on town streets. Of all areas of the community, Downtown Wickenburg could benefit the most from these positive effects. The most obvious and likely result would be easier access to businesses by car and for pedestrians. This condition could potentially lead to other outcomes such as the following:

• A Downtown "shopping experience" with a more leisurely pace and small-town ambience. This in turn could enhance the downtown as a destination for visitors.

• Expansion of uses in the downtown, such as outdoor cafes, that may not have been as practical under current traffic conditions.

• Increased demand for office uses in the downtown, to take advantage of the improved environment and access to business amenities such as attractive restaurants.

• Expanded boundaries of the "downtown amenity area", since reduced congestion makes it easier to cross major streets.

Any or all of the above results could lead to the downtown area becoming more of a true "town center" for the community. To the extent any of the above concepts are deemed desirable, they can of course be fostered by deliberate public policies in the form of causing special plans to be produced, creating specific tax or other incentives, adjusting zoning designations and requirements, and the like.

One aspect of new bypass routes should be considered, and that is the potential for "viewable sites", or high-visibility locations along the bypass route (not necessarily at the interchanges), where manufacturing or business firms can be seen from the bypass and thereby showcase their facilities and establish a strong visual presence in the community and region. Demand for such sites may be limited at present; but could grow as Wickenburg comes closer to being a suburb of metro Phoenix. Wickenburg will offer unique opportunities for firms wanting a high-profile site away from the established metro locations. Such sites need not of course detract from current businesses or business locations in any way.

Finally, if the bypass were to be designed in such a way that it became (in perhaps a limited number of locations) a prime visual vantage point from which to visually experience the community, it may be possible for travelers to see Wickenburg in its natural setting in ways that have not been possible before. If so, new ways of promoting the community could be devised. Particularly for northbound travelers, the Wickenburg natural environment has a high-desert character that is attractive and sets it apart from most of the Phoenix metro area.

APPENDIX B: ASSIGNMENT OF PERCENTAGE LOSS FACTORS TO BYPASS ROUTES AND KEY BUSINESS CATEGORIES

Figures in this table are linked to the economic/fiscal effects model and represent refinements to the factor for "percent of pass-through visitor business to existing establishments that could be lost with the bypass in place". Specifically, the figures for "revised Town total" in this table are used in the economic/fiscal effects model to generate loss estimates that reflect differences in effects that would apply to the two alternative bypass routes and to different categories of visitor-oriented businesses. Note that the percentage losses for the northeast route are generally lower than for the southwest route. This is due primarily to the fact that the northeast route is closer to Wickenburg business areas and will not serve as a bypass for US 60 traffic.