Southwest area transportation study : final report - Executive Summary |
Previous | 1 of 2 | Next |
|
This page
All
Subset |
Southwest Area Transportation Study
Final Report - Executive Summary
in support of the
MAG Regional Transportation Plan
September 2003
Southwest Area Transportation Study
Final Report – Executive Summary
PREPARED FOR:
Maricopa Association of Governments
IN SUPPORT OF THE
MAG Regional Transportation Plan
PREPARED BY:
960 W. Elliot Road, Suite 110
Tempe, AZ 85284
September 2003
SWATS Final Report – Executive Summary ii September 2003
Table of Contents
1 Background and Study Purpose ................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Study Area............................................................................................................................................. 1
1.2 Study Process and Methodology ........................................................................................................ 1
2 Consultation Process..................................................................................................................................... 1
2.1 Agency & Stakeholder Consultation.................................................................................................. 3
2.2 Public Involvement.............................................................................................................................. 4
3 Socioeconomic Characteristics and Forecasts............................................................................................ 5
4 Transportation Facilities and Conditions.................................................................................................... 6
4.1 Existing Conditions .............................................................................................................................. 6
4.2 Planned Future Transportation Facilities.......................................................................................... 9
5 Transportation Issues..................................................................................................................................14
5.1 Discontinuous Roadway Network ...................................................................................................15
5.2 Capacity Deficiencies .........................................................................................................................15
5.3 New Freeway Interchanges ...............................................................................................................15
5.4 East-West Reliever Roadways...........................................................................................................16
5.5 Transit Needs for the Study Area.....................................................................................................16
5.6 Right-of-Way Preservation ................................................................................................................16
5.7 Aviation ............................................................................................................................................... 16
6 Evaluation of Alternatives..........................................................................................................................17
7 Recommendations for Ultimate Concepts ..............................................................................................19
7.1 Highway Facilities ...............................................................................................................................19
7.2 Transit..................................................................................................................................................27
7.3 Non-motorized Facilities...................................................................................................................27
7.4 Planned ITS ........................................................................................................................................27
7.5 Goods Movement..............................................................................................................................27
7.6 Summary of Costs..............................................................................................................................28
7.7 Policies.................................................................................................................................................28
SWATS Final Report – Executive Summary iii September 2003
List of Figures
Figure 1 Study Area Map
Figure 2 Current Base Highway Network Functional Classes
Figure 3 Number of Lanes in Current Base Network
Figure 4 Existing Transit Service Routes and Service Areas
Figure 5 Existing Off-Road Non-Motorized Facilities
Figure 6 New and Widened Facilities in Future Base Network (As Modeled)
Figure 7 Ultimate Concept for Lanes on the Arterial Network
Figure 8 Recommended Bridge Actions at Major River Arterial Crossings
Figure 9 Ultimate Concepts for Major Highway Infrastructure Based on 2030 Demand
Estimates
Figure 10 Ultimate Concepts for Major Highway Infrastructure: Lanes Needed Based on 2030
Demand Estimates
List of Tables
Table 1 Working Papers and Chapters in the Final Report
Table 2 Forums, Open Houses and Public Meetings
Table 3 Total Population, Alternative Scenarios
Table 4 Total Employment, Alternative Scenarios
Table 5 Current (2002) Base Network Centerline Roadway Miles by Functional Class and Area
Type
Table 6 Current (2002) Base Network Road Lane Miles by Functional Class and Area Type
Table 7 Capacity Miles by Functional Class
Table 8 Network Performance Comparisons
Table 9 Arterial Crossings of Major Rivers: Improvements and Cost Estimates
Table 10 Estimated Costs of Ultimate Concepts
SWATS Final Report – Executive Summary 1 September 2003
1 Background and Study
Purpose
As the metropolitan planning organization
(MPO) for the Maricopa region, the Maricopa
Association of Governments (MAG) is
charged with planning and prioritizing
improvements to transportation infrastructure
and services. As part of MAG’s
responsibilities, the organization is preparing a
new Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) that
will establish priorities and funding for major
transportation improvements across the
region.
The Southwest Area Transportation Study
(SWATS) is one of several background studies
conducted in support of the RTP. While
providing a stand-alone transportation
blueprint for the southwest, including all or
part of the jurisdictions of Avondale,
Buckeye, Gila Bend, Goodyear, Litchfield
Park, Phoenix, Tolleson, and the
unincorporated areas of Maricopa County, the
SWATS provides additional local input and
specific background information as well as
recommendations for major transportation
investments for the rapidly growing area for
consideration in the RTP.
Two studies conducted in parallel with this
study address transit issues in more detail.
The Valley Metro Regional Transit System
(RTS) Study and the MAG High Capacity
Transit (HCT) System Study address regional
bus and light transit/express bus/Bus Rapid
Transit respectively. Copies of the
background studies as well as the RTP are
available at the MAG website
(www.mag.maricopa.gov).
1.1 Study Area
Figure 1 shows the area encompassed by the
SWATS. As requested by local agencies, the
northern boundary of the SWATS is
overlapped slightly with the southern
boundary (i.e. I-10) of the Northwest Area
Transportation Study (NWATS), which was
conducted in parallel with the SWATS.
Throughout the development of the SWATS,
the study team coordinated efforts with those
performing the NWATS.
1.2 Study Process and
Methodology
The overall process of the SWATS was a very
open one, involving MAG member agencies,
key stakeholders, and the public in the study
area. The study developed several working
papers which have been included as chapters
of this Final Report. Table 1 summarizes the
working papers prepared during the study.
2 Consultation Process
A consultation plan was implemented during
the study to inform and obtain representative
input from all affected and interested
stakeholders. There were four objectives of
the consultation:
• Obtain public feedback related to
growth and transportation;
• Provide timely, accurate, and effective
distribution of information;
• Build consensus though a fair and
reasonable process; and
• Maintain continuity of involvement.
The consultation plan consisted of three
major components:
!
"# $ "#
% #" #
& !
!
#
'( !
!
)&& !
*( !
(& !
& !
#""
% $+
!#
!#
" !, #"$
) !
! #
(
!
%#" " #
$
-( !
. / %%
% /# #
#" #
/ /#
0
$ "
+ /# %
#$ / $
+ $$#""
$#
$ ! "
$ %%
(& !
""#
! 1 ! " 2 ""#
# # #
" # #
/
2 ""#
)( !
+
# #""
- $
"# %
, #
) $
) & !
% "" $
- $
!
" 2#
&
# # "
" +# % /# #
# 2 ""#
2 % #
!
& !
% +
( !
#2#"
(& !
. !
+ $
"
* $
2# ##/
" ! "
"
$
+ # %
$
% # , #"$
$ +#""
!
-* !
+! #+
) !
!
& !
2#/ " 2 ""#
. #
% + 2 ""#
** !
"$ " # #
2 # $
3&& !
' $
!
+! # /
3' $
) $
2
- !
#
#
/ ! %
%#""
& !
#
-
!
!# "
( !
""
!
!
%
2# "#% /
+# #
# "
#
$
#+ 2#
% # , #"$ #
"
#+ $
! !#
# "
#""
$
3 !
( !
#
- $
!
( !
!
% #" #
(& !
& !
% $+
$ ! "
( !
%
( !
% /# #
! 2#
-( !
%#""
3( !
!
* $
" !, #"$
$
$ +#""
!#
3 $
-( !
% $+
(& !
"# $ "#
&& !
!#
!
+ # %
)( !
& !
% $+ % $+
$ %%
*( !
3 $
$
3( !
'( !
$
#
##
!
#" #
% #" #
$ %%
!#
2 % #
% #" #
( !
3 !
#"% /
*( !
$ %%
!
(
) $
'( !
" +# % /# #
&& !
3 $
# #""
2 % #
# 2 ""#
!
" $
*( !
'( !
##
%
% /# #
#"% /
(
$ %%
# #""
$ ! "
(& !
& !
& !
% $+
#""
*( !
!
$ ! "
!
'
-
-
'
-
'
-
'
'
(
' 3
456 75 *&-&' 8 7 9
6
: ;57 5
6
8* 6 <"' 4
: ; 4 "=
$# '3 '&4 (
Southwest Area
Transportation Study
Figure 1
Study Area Map
November 2003
SWATS Final Report – Executive Summary 2 September 2003
SWATS Final Report – Executive Summary 3 September 2003
Table 1
Working Papers and Chapters in the Final Report
Chapter/Working Paper No.
1: Related Studies
Summarizes studies and documents related to transportation
and land use for the MAG member agencies in the study area.
Chapter/Working Paper No.
2: Socioeconomic Characteristics
and Forecasts
Documents population and employment trends in the study
area.
Chapter/Working Paper No.
3: Current and Future
Transportation Facilities and
Conditions
Documents existing and currently planned transportation
facilities and services in the study area, and summarizes
current and expected future usage of these facilities.
Chapter/Working Paper No.
4: Summary of Transportation
Issues to Date
Summarizes transportation issues identified through the
review of previous studies (Chapter 1) and consultation with
MAG member agencies, stakeholders and public, including
interviews and surveys with key agency staff and officials for
the local jurisdictions, as well as technical assessments.
Chapter/Working Paper No.
5: Evaluation of Transportation
Options in the SWATS Area
Evaluates options to address the issues identified in Chapter 4
including analysis of travel forecasting models incorporating
potential options.
Chapter/Working Paper No.
6: Ultimate Concepts for
Transportation Facilities
Develops recommendations for consideration in the RTP
development process based on the assessment in Chapter 5.
• Agency/Stakeholder Consultation;
• Other Public Involvement; and
• Title VI/Environmental Justice.
2.1 Agency & Stakeholder
Consultation
Agency/stakeholder consultation involved
interviews, surveys, and forums. Interviews
and surveys were conducted with agency staff
and elected officials. The interviews were
generally held in the early weeks of the study,
but continued throughout the time frame of
the project. Forums were open to MAG
member agencies, stakeholders and the public.
The following groups were included in the
agency/stakeholder consultation process:
• Elected officials in the SWATS area
including municipal and county office
holders;
• Local government transportation and
planning department heads;
• Chambers of Commerce;
• Homeowners associations;
• Major developers;
• Local environmental groups;
• School district administrators;
• Minority group representatives;
• Churches in areas with high Title VI
and Environmental Justice
populations;
• Senior centers;
• The southwest valley transit group;
• Trucking companies;
SWATS Final Report – Executive Summary 4 September 2003
• Freight railroads; and,
• General public.
Survey forms were used to help assure
thorough input among the various entities.
The standardized survey forms were used to
ensure answers were consistent, accurate and
complete. In addition to interviews and
surveys, several agency forums as well as open
houses and public meetings were held as
outlined in Table 2.
The study considered environment justice
issues and Title VI populations and
proactively consulted those groups. The main
report provides details of this review.
Table 2
Forums, Open Houses and Public Meetings
Meeting Venue Date and Time Held
Agency Workshop Goodyear City Hall June 26, 2002, 10:00 a.m.
Open House and Public
Meeting
Estrella Mountain Community
College
September 10, 2002, 5:00 p.m.
Agency Workshop Goodyear City Hall December 12, 2002, 10:00 a.m.
MAG Transportation
Committee
MAG Saguaro Room January 30, 2003, 10:00 a.m.
Agency Forum Goodyear City Hall February 18, 2003, 10:00 a.m.
Agency Forum Avondale Fire Station No. 172 July 15, 2003, 10:00 a.m.
Agency Forum Goodyear City Hall September 5, 2003, 10:00 a.m.
Open House and Public
Meeting
Goodyear City Hall September 5, 2003, 5:00 p.m.
In addition to the above formal meetings, a
formal study area tour was conducted on May
2, 2002, from 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. to obtain
feedback from local elected public officials.
2.2 Public Involvement
Two open house and public meeting events
were held as listed above. Along with the
open house events, a brief presentation was
made by the study staff at these events. The
SWATS was a very open process and the
study team responded to many one-on-one
questions throughout the course of the study.
All project materials including draft papers
were posted on the MAG web site, where
contact information and links to selected
studies such as the NWATS and RTP were
also provided. While agency forums focused
on the various jurisdictions and agencies
impacted by the work, the forums were also
open to the general public.
SWATS Final Report – Executive Summary 5 September 2003
3 Socioeconomic
Characteristics and
Forecasts
Socioeconomic characteristics and forecasts
are important inputs to the computerized area
travel demand model which is used to
estimate traffic and related parameters, such
as trip generation, traffic volumes and levels
of service for area roadways and evaluate
future capacity improvements to the
transportation system. Tables 3 and 4 present
draft interim population and employment
forecasts developed for the RTP. Two
scenarios are presented: Scenario 1, which
generally corresponds to approximately the
Year 2020; and Scenario 2, which generally
corresponds to approximately the Year 2030.
The study focused on meeting the
transportation demand for the two scenarios
regardless of the specific year the values were
achieved. Population and employment values
for each of the two scenarios may be reached
a little earlier or later than 2020 and 2030,
respectively, but will inevitably be reached.
It should be emphasized that the population
and employment figures for Scenario 1 and
Scenario 2 are interim values. New
socioeconomic forecasts for the region are
under development by MAG for use in the
RTP and will supercede the values used in this
SWATS study.
The sub-areas projected to have the highest
population and employment for Scenario 1
and Scenario 2 are in the northeastern
quadrant of the study area (Tolleson,
Goodyear and Avondale), and along the S.R.
85/I-8 corridor near Gila Bend. Through
2030, much of the southwest area will be
comprised of vast areas with lower densities
of both population and employment. Over
the next thirty years, population for the study
area will increase by approximately 270%. In
other words, population in 2030 in the
Southwest Valley will be about 3.5 to 4 times
greater than the 2000 population.
Table 3*
Total Population, Alternative Scenarios
MPA
Total Population
Year 2000
Total Population
Alternative
Scenario 1
Year 2020
Total Population
Alternative
Scenario 2
Year 2030
County (unincorporated areas) 7,407 20,244 39,696
**Buckeye 16,513 149,578 377,438
Avondale 37,827 103,457 114,374
Gila Bend 2,264 6,004 17,979
**Glendale 2,394 5,380 5,381
Litchfield Park 3,831 14,095 14,573
Tolleson 4,998 6,314 6,338
Goodyear 21,246 162,623 334,652
**Phoenix 289,503 464,403 524,347
Total 385,983 932,098 1,434,778
*Socioeconomic data presented here are preliminary and subject to change in the RTP.
**Reflects population only within the southwest study area boundaries
SWATS Final Report – Executive Summary 6 September 2003
Table 4*
Total Employment, Alternative Scenarios
MPA
Total
Employment
Year 2000
Total Employment
Alternative
Scenario 1
Year 2020
Total Employment
Alternative
Scenario 2
Year 2030
County (unincorporated areas) 6,548 13,322 20,652
**Buckeye 7,006 69,151 172,752
Avondale 9,041 54,644 64,229
Gila Bend 1,191 4,424 12,165
**Glendale 10,807 16,694 20,520
Litchfield Park 1,178 5,059 4,703
Tolleson 12,777 24,753 31,973
Goodyear 13,895 115,434 185,722
**Phoenix 119,088 233,287 309,328
Total 181,531 536,768 822,044
*Socioeconomic data presented here are preliminary and subject to change in the RTP.
**Reflects employment only within the southwest study area boundaries
4 Transportation
Facilities and
Conditions
4.1 Existing Conditions
The southwest is growing rapidly and its
transportation system is in stages of
development. The northeast quadrant of the
study area already has a reasonably well-developed
grid system of arterial roadways
consistent with population density and with
development still occurring. This existing grid
system extends westward and to the south of
the I-10 corridor. The rest of the study area is
less developed, and is characterized by
pockets of roadway development and other
passenger transportation facilities.
Terrain plays a significant role in the
development of a transportation network in
parts of the study area, such as the North
Maricopa Mountains, the South Maricopa
Mountains, Woolsey Peak, Signal Mountain,
and the Eagle Tail Mountains. Large preserve
and wilderness areas are contained within the
central and southern portions of the study
area.
Except for the northeast quadrant and the I-
10 corridor, much of the study area is lightly
populated with limited transportation services,
facilities and needs. Therefore, the focus of
the study effort was on the areas (northeast
quadrant and the I-10 corridor) where
population and employment are currently
greater, and on those sub-areas that are
expected to experience population and
employment growth in the next 50 years, thus
requiring improved transportation facilities
and services.
4.1.1 Existing Roadways
The SWATS roadway network includes all of
the state and county highways in the study
area, as well as local streets in all or part of
Avondale, Buckeye, Gila Bend, Glendale,
Goodyear, Litchfield Park, Phoenix, Tolleson,
and the unincorporated portions of Maricopa
SWATS Final Report – Executive Summary 7 September 2003
County. Roadways are classified according to
function served in the circulation system.
MAG’s classification includes freeways, HOV
lanes, expressways, arterials and collectors.
Figure 2 shows the functional classification of
the 2002 roadway network in the study area.
Table 5 shows the centerline miles of the 2002
roadway network by functional class based on
MAG’s traffic model. The table shows that
there are currently over 4,000 centerline miles
of streets and highways in the study area, and
that 1,000 (25 percent) of those miles are
classified, i.e., of a functional class higher than
local streets. Table 6 shows the number of
lane miles for all roadways classified by MAG
in the study area. Figure 3 graphically
portrays the number of roadway “through”
lanes on the 2002 base network.
4.1.2 Existing Public Transit
Public transit in the region includes a variety
of facilities and services. In addition to the
traditional fixed route bus services, transit also
includes other ridesharing alternatives such as
carpooling, vanpooling, and bikes on buses.
It also includes dial-a-ride services and some
paratransit services offered by social service
agencies.
RPTA is the predominant provider of public
transit services in the study area, and provides
the bulk of the regular route transit service on
19 bus routes. These routes are shown in
Figure 4. Other providers in the study area
include the City of Phoenix, Greyhound,
Maricopa County Department of Human
Services, and Southwest Transit and Regional
Transportation (START).
4.1.3 Existing Non-motorized
Transportation System
Non-motorized forms of transportation
include walking, bicycling, roller-blading and
horseback riding. Typical origins for non-motorized
travel in the study area are
residential areas, transit stations, resort areas,
and access points for backcountry travel.
Human-powered transportation occurs on
shared streets, streets with bike lanes, streets
marked as bike routes, sidewalks, multi-use
paths built on separate rights-of-way, and
multi-use trails built on separate rights-of-way.
In general, all streets are open to bicyclists and
pedestrians, unless specifically designated and
posted otherwise. The existing street grid
provides basic access and connections for
bicycle and pedestrian travel. Figure 5 shows
the major non-motorized facilities in the study
area. Power lines or gas lines may also
represent potential non-motorized corridors
and further study will be needed to identify
appropriate facilities at those locations.
4.1.4 Existing Intelligent Transportation
Systems (ITS)
The MAG region has extensive ITS programs
that include Traffic Signal Coordination,
ADOT’s Freeway Management System
(FMS), and the Metropolitan Model
Deployment Initiative.
Existing freeways in the study area will be
among the first to be added to the Regional
Freeway Management System (FMS). New
freeways, such as Loop 303 and the I-10
Reliever, will be added to the FMS upon their
completion.
All arterial traffic management systems are
operated independently by the municipalities
in the study area and elsewhere throughout
the MAG region. A number of municipalities
in the study area either have or are planning to
build local Traffic Management Centers
(TMSs). Efforts are already underway to
integrate individual agency systems and the
FMS as a regional traffic management system.
The regional architecture that will serve as the
basis for accomplishing this is contained in
the MAG ITS Strategic Plan.
Freeways
Expressways
0 1.5 3 6 9 12
Miles
{
Figure 2
Current Base Highway Network Functional Classes
85
303
101
238
Riggs Rd
Van Buren St
Buckeye Rd
Lower Buckeye Rd
Broadway Rd
Southern Ave
Baseline Rd
Dobbins Rd
McDowell Rd
Thomas Rd
Indian School Rd
Camelback Rd
19th Ave
27th Ave
35th Ave
43rd Ave
51st Ave
59th Ave
67th Ave
75th Ave
83rd Ave
91st Ave
99th Ave
107th Ave
115th Ave
El Mirage Rd
Dysart Rd
Litchfield
Bullard
Estrella
Sarival
Cotton
Citrus Rd
Perryville Rd
Jackrabbit Tr
Tuthill Rd
Airport Rd
Dean Rd
Rainbow Rd
Watson Rd
Apache Rd
Miller Rd
Rooks Rd
Sun Valley Pkwy
Wilson St
Turner Rd
Johnson Rd
315th Ave
339th Ave
355th Ave
379th Ave §¨¦10
§¨¦17
§¨¦8
Maricopa Rd
Study Area Boundary
Arterials
Collectors
363rd Ave
GilaGilaRiver River
River
Hass a Hassa
Agua River Fria
Salt River
yampa
SWATS Final Report – Executive Summary 8 September 2003
SWATS Final Report – Executive Summary 9 September 2003
Table 5
Current (2002) Base Network Centerline Roadway Miles
by Functional Class and Area Type
Facility/Area Type
CBD
Urban
Urban
Fringe
Suburban
Rural
Total
Freeway with HOV* 0.7 4.8 2.8 1.8 0.0 10.1
Freeway w/o HOV* 3.8 1.3 1.1 10.2 62.9 79.3
Expressway 1.1 0.9 0.0 0.0 19.0 21.0
Arterial 4.4 41.2 35.9 145.8 634.6 861.8
Collector 2.0 4.1 1.9 4.7 13.8 26.5
Total Classified 12.0 52.4 41.6 162.4 730.3 998.8
Unclassified 3,023.3
Total 4,022.1
*HOV: High Occupancy Vehicle Lane or “Carpool” Lane
Table 6
Current (2002) Base Network Road Lane Miles
by Functional Class and Area Type
Facility/Area Type
CBD
Urban
Urban
Fringe
Suburban
Rural
Total
HOV* Lanes 1.5 9.6 5.7 3.5 0.0 20.3
Freeway w/o HOV* 22.3 44.2 24.3 71.9 251.7 414.3
Expressway 6.5 3.7 0.0 0.0 43.6 53.8
Arterial 21.9 206.3 156.3 458.8 1,355.3 2,198.7
Collector 7.0 12.5 7.5 12.3 29.6 69.0
Total Classified 59.2 276.3 193.8 546.5 1,680.2 2,756.0
*HOV: High Occupancy Vehicle Lane or “Carpool” Lane
4.2 Planned Future
Transportation
Facilities
4.2.1 Future Roadways
Increased traffic demand in the study area will
tax the existing roadway facilities in the near
future. Facilities such as I-10 are already
experiencing directional rush hour congestion
and poor levels of service. Pressure is
growing in the Southwest Valley to expand
the current arterial grid network, upgrade and
construct new river crossings, and plan and
build for high capacity roadways.
Figure 6 displays the network projected as
part of the existing MAG Long Range
Transportation Plan (LRTP) (2002 Update).
This “future base” network represents
currently planned and committed projects.
Much of the new arterial grid development is
expected to be funded locally, primarily
through development fees.
2 lanes
0 1.5 3 6 9 12
Miles
{
Figure 3
Number of Lanes in Current Base Network
85
303
238
Van Buren St
Buckeye Rd
Lower Buckeye Rd
Broadway Rd
Southern Ave
Baseline Rd
Dobbins Rd
McDowell Rd
Thomas Rd
Indian School Rd
Camelback Rd
19th Ave
27th Ave
35th Ave
43rd Ave
51st Ave
59th Ave
67th Ave
75th Ave
83rd Ave
91st Ave
99th Ave
107th Ave
115th Ave
El Mirage Rd
Dysart Rd
Litchfield
Bullard
Estrella
Sarival
Cotton
Citrus Rd
Perryville Rd
Jackrabbit Tr
Tuthill Rd
Airport Rd
Dean Rd
Rainbow Rd
Watson Rd
Apache Rd
Miller Rd
Rooks Rd
Sun Valley Pkwy
Wilson St
Turner Rd
Johnson Rd
315th Ave
339th Ave
355th Ave
379th Ave
Study Area Boundary
Maricopa Rd
Riggs Rd
4 lanes
6 lanes
8 lanes
10 lanes
(combined directions &
including HOV lanes)
363rd Ave
GilaGilaRiver River
River
Has sa H ass a
Agua River Fria
Salt River
yampa
§¨¦8
§¨¦17
§¨¦10
101
SWATS Final Report – Executive Summary 10 September 2003
!
!
!
!
" " " "
#$%&'()*' *$)+,$' -')- ,
" "
&%,.
+/01%-''&'(0 2 3-( .4 )$-'.1*$)-)&*' .)#560(&.0)$-'.1*$)-)&*'2 7"-1$ 8 " " / 9&.)&'( $-'.&) -'5 ,$:&;,/ <
/
!
" #
$ %
Southwest Area
Transportation Study
Figure 4
Existing Transit Service Routes and
Service Areas
Fall 2002
Sources: Valley METRO, City of Phoenix
Public Transportation Department
SWATS Final Report – Executive Summary 11 September 2003
Multi-Use Path (Existing
or Proposed)
0 1.5 3 6 9 12
Miles
{
Figure 5
Existing Off-Road Non-Motorized Facilities
85
303
238
Van Buren St
Buckeye Rd
Lower Buckeye Rd
Broadway Rd
Southern Ave
Baseline Rd
Dobbins Rd
McDowell Rd
Thomas Rd
Indian School Rd
Camelback Rd
19th Ave
27th Ave
35th Ave
43rd Ave
51st Ave
59th Ave
67th Ave
75th Ave
83rd Ave
91st Ave
99th Ave
107th Ave
115th Ave
El Mirage Rd
Dysart Rd
Litchfield
Bullard
Estrella
Sarival
Cotton
Citrus Rd
Perryville Rd
Jackrabbit Tr
Tuthill Rd
Airport Rd
Dean Rd
Rainbow Rd
Watson Rd
Apache Rd
Miller Rd
Rooks Rd
Sun Valley Pkwy
Wilson St
Turner Rd
Johnson Rd
315th Ave
339th Ave
355th Ave
379th Ave
Study Area Boundary
Maricopa Rd
Riggs Rd
River Corridor
Canal Bank
Railroad Corridor
363rd Ave
GilaGilaRiver River
River
Has sa H ass a
Agua River Fria
Salt River
yampa
§¨¦8
§¨¦17
§¨¦10
101
SWATS Final Report – Executive Summary 12 September 2003
Freeways
Other Roadways
0 1.5 3 6 9 12
Miles
{
Figure 6
New and Widened Facilities in Future Base Network (As Modeled)
85
303
101
238
Riggs Rd
Van Buren St
Buckeye Rd
Lower Buckeye Rd
Broadway Rd
Southern Ave
Baseline Rd
Dobbins Rd
McDowell Rd
Thomas Rd
Indian School Rd
Camelback Rd
19th Ave
27th Ave
35th Ave
43rd Ave
51st Ave
59th Ave
67th Ave
75th Ave
83rd Ave
91st Ave
99th Ave
107th Ave
115th Ave
El Mirage Rd
Dysart Rd
Litchfield
Bullard
Estrella
Sarival
Cotton
Citrus Rd
Perryville Rd
Jackrabbit Tr
Tuthill Rd
Airport Rd
Dean Rd
Rainbow Rd
Watson Rd
Apache Rd
Miller Rd
Rooks Rd
Sun Valley Pkwy
Wilson St
Turner Rd
Johnson Rd
315th Ave
339th Ave
355th Ave
379th Ave §¨¦10
§¨¦17
§¨¦8
Maricopa Rd
Study Area Boundary
New Roadways
Widened Roadways
363rd Ave
GilaGilaRiver River
River
Has sa H ass a
Agua River Fria
Salt River
yampa
South MountainFreeway
SWATS Final Report – Executive Summary 13 September 2003
SWATS Final Report – Executive Summary 14 September 2003
4.2.2 Future Transit Service
Additional transit facilities and services in the
study area will be necessary. The current
MAG LRTP (2002 Update) provides a tripling
of local bus service, quadrupling of express
bus service and BRT, and 29 miles of Light
Rail Transit regionally. The RTS and HCT
studies review options to further improve
transit services across the region. The HCT
and the RTS studies identify major
improvements to transit services generally
over and above the improved service already
specified in the current LRTP.
4.2.3 Needed Future Non-motorized
Facilities
For non-motorized uses, physical deficiencies
most often take the form of gaps in the route
or system and barriers within the route itself.
Gaps can take the form of missing corridors,
missing pieces within a corridor, and missing
connections between on-street and off-street
facilities. Examples of gaps in the study area
are:
• Baseline Road from Southern Avenue
to the Salt River;
• 2nd Avenue from Buckeye Road to
Encanto Boulevard;
• Perryville Road from McDowell Road
to the Salt River;
• Lower Buckeye to the Salt River
Corridor; and,
• The Hassayampa River to the
Salt/Gila Rivers corridor.
Barriers at a regional scale are usually present
when an off-road or on-street facility comes
up against a canal, riverbed, wash, freeway, or
elevated railroad embankment. In the
southwest area, barriers can be found at the
intersections of:
• Paved routes and the Union Pacific
Railroad (UP);
• Arterial streets and canals;
• Paved paths and I-10 and I-8; and
• Residential and commercial areas
across SR 85 in Gila Bend.
Non motorized facilities are addressed in
more detail in the main report.
5 Transportation Issues
Transportation issues to be studied in the
Southwest Valley to be addressed by this
study, were determined from a review of
previous studies, solicitation with local
agencies, stakeholders, the public and
technical assessments by the study team.
Consultation with agencies, the public and
stakeholders was a critical element of the
study that helped identify and prioritize major
transportation issues in the study area. The
top ten issues identified and ranked by
responses from these entities were as follows:
• Preserving/dedicating right-of-way for
future corridors;
• Future transit service needs;
• Luke AFB and surrounding area;
• Funding I-10 improvements;
• Improvements to Loop 303 (including
extensions);
• Bus pullout locations for future
developments;
• HOV Lanes on I-10;
• The need to identify major arterial
routes;
• Identification of bus and rail
corridors; and
• I-10 capacity improvements.
The determination of the relative priority of
issues was made using quantitative analysis of
the interview and survey data, and
assessments by the study team. The analysis
SWATS Final Report – Executive Summary 15 September 2003
resulted in several issues that were generally
important to all entities in the southwest
region:
• Discontinuous Roadway Network:
Accommodation of new pockets of
development in an area that lacks
connectivity to the rest of the
metropolitan area due to geographical
features and limited east-west arterials;
• Capacity deficiencies on existing
regional roadways;
• New access points (interchanges) on
I-10;
• Options to relieve traffic on I-10,
particularly in congested sections;
• Lack of convenient transit services,
and particularly for the perceived need
for high capacity transit service such
as light rail or commuter rail;
• Availability of funding for
transportation infrastructure
improvements; and,
• Right-of-way preservation.
A primary underlying concern is the ability to
preserve corridors for future transportation
infrastructure. These issues are discussed on
more detail below.
5.1 Discontinuous
Roadway Network
While a grid roadway system exists in the
northeast quadrant of the study area and
generally along the I-10 corridor, much of the
southwest area is undeveloped with respect to
roadway infrastructure. In many instances,
the various local jurisdictions rely on land
developers to complete the network. Many of
the existing roads that provide connectivity to
the metropolitan area are designed to funnel
traffic to I-10, which has limited capacity to
accommodate additional local development.
Moreover, I-10 is a systems facility with a
primary purpose of accommodating regional
and national traffic, not local traffic.
Some communities and developments have
adopted or proposed curvilinear
neighborhood street systems, which are
inconsistent with a grid system. Most of these
developments are self contained with a street
hierarchy that feeds into the regional grid
network. This in turn limits the development
of a regional grid system and creates
additional congestion on the regional grid
system.
5.2 Capacity Deficiencies
The need for additional capacity to
accommodate the growth currently taking
place in the southwest area, and the growth
expected to come in future years has been
recognized by virtually every agency
responsible for transportation. Review of the
future Base roadway network reveals that
significant new lane construction is projected.
Table 7 shows daily capacity by functional
class for the current (2002) and Future Base
networks.
As the table indicates, the current plan (Future
Base Network) already provides a near-doubling
of capacity overall. While capacity
will increase for every classification, there will
still be a need for additional capacity,
particularly for roadways that are more
significant regional facilities (freeways and
expressways) given the rapid growth in the
area.
5.3 New Freeway
Interchanges
The development expected to take place in
the southwest area will create the need for
additional freeway access. New interchanges
on I-10 were identified in the study process as
particularly important. The locations on I-10
are as follows:
• El Mirage Road (depending on local
plans for development);
SWATS Final Report – Executive Summary 16 September 2003
Table 7
Capacity Miles by Functional Class
Facility Type
Lane Capacity
(vehicles per
day)
Current 2002
Base Network
Capacity Miles
Future Base
Network
Capacity Miles
Percent
Increase
HOV** Lanes 21,000 426,090 2,564,940 602
Freeway w/o HOV** 21,000 8,700,720 11,318,370 130
Expressway 21,000 1,129,800 3,171,420 281
Arterial 8,000 17,589,200 37,260,400 212
Collector 8,000 551,600 568,480 103
Total Classified 28,397,410 54,883,610 193
*Capacity miles is lane miles multiplied by daily vehicle capacity per lane of 21,000 for freeways and expressways
and 8,000 for all other types.
**HOV: High Occupancy Vehicle Lane or “Carpool” Lane
• Bullard Avenue;
• Perryville Road;
• Wilson Street;
• Johnson Road; and
• 355th Avenue/Wickenburg Road
(CANAMEX Corridor).
5.4 East-West Reliever
I-10 is the primary artery connecting the vast
undeveloped and partially developed
properties in the southwest area. While there
is a need for additional capacity on I-10, there
are also a practical number of lanes that can
be constructed to meet the demand, both in
terms of right-of-way and practical operation.
Broadway Road was the most mentioned
location for a high capacity reliever roadway
to I-10. Such a facility would extend from SR
85 on the west to I-17 or Rio Salado Parkway
on the east.
5.5 Transit Needs for the
Study Area
There is a need for expanded transit service in
the study area. Not only will transit service
provide some relief to traffic congestion, it
also is important to provide alternative means
of mobility to an aging population. The effort
in the SWATS involved considerable
coordination with a concurrent High Capacity
Transit Study (HCTS) by MAG as well as a
concurrent Regional Transit Study (RTS)
conducted by Valley Metro (RPTA).
Recommendations in those two studies for
the southwest area will be considered in the
RTP.
5.6 Right-of-Way
Preservation
Corridor preservation is the first action in the
corridor management process. The American
Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials (AASHTO) defines
corridor preservation as a “concept utilizing
the coordinated application of various
measures to obtain control of or otherwise
protect right-of-way for a planned
transportation facility”.
5.7 Aviation
Aviation topics are covered in the MAG
Regional Aviation System Plan.
SWATS Final Report – Executive Summary 17 September 2003
6 Evaluation of
Alternatives
From the transportation issues developed,
several options or alternatives were identified
for evaluation leading up to recommendations
for input to the RTP for consideration. As
part of this process, four different highway
options were evaluated.
2020 (LRTP Based) Reference Network
(“Future Base”). This network represents
the current MAG LRTP 2002 Update which
will be superceded by the new RTP.
Improvements include road and transit
projects currently in the LRTP and local
arterial projects expected to be implemented
based on existing plans of local jurisdictions
and private developers;
Enhanced Network. This option includes
the facilities in the Future Base network plus
additional improvements to the existing
freeways, including HOV lanes on I-10 west
of Loop 101, on I-17 south of I-10, and on
Loop 101. This scenario also assumes
existing freeway and expressway facilities (I-
10, I-17, Loop 101) built out within the limits
of existing right-of-way and structures.
New Corridors Options A and C. These
networks represent the third and fourth
options evaluated for the SWATS. (Modeling
for the southwest, northwest, and southeast
area studies was conducted jointly. Three
alternative networks for new highways were
considered, referred to as Options A, B, and
C. Option B did not involve new facilities for
the SW Valley so is not reviewed here.)
Options A and C include a number of
potential new highways in the study area:
• An I-10 Reliever, i.e., a freeway
running parallel to and south of I-10
from I-17 near the eastern boundary
of the study area to I-10 west
connecting at the CANAMEX
Corridor (355th Ave.);
• A Loop 101 extension (five lanes in
each direction) from I-10 to the new
I-10 Reliever;
• The Rio Salado Parkway (three lanes
in each direction) from downtown
Phoenix to the I-10 Reliever at the
Loop 101 extension;
• Loop 303 is upgraded north of I-10
from the four-lane expressway
included in the Future Base network
to a freeway;
• An extension of Loop 303 south of I-
10 to Riggs Road; and
• The Riggs-Komatke and Maricopa
Road arterial roadway corridors (three
lanes in each direction) east of SR 85
to the study area boundary,
overlapping Riggs Road and Loop 303
in southern Goodyear.
Also included are widenings of I-17, which is
on the perimeter and has limited impact on
the SWATS study area. Options for I-17 are
addressed in detail in the NWATS and the
RTP.
The major difference between Option A and
Option C is the number of lanes on the I-10
Reliever and on Loop 303 south of the I-10
Reliever. In Option A, the I-10 Reliever is
assumed to be six lanes in each direction for
its entire length. In Option C, to better match
demand, the I-10 Reliever has seven lanes at
its eastern end, four lanes between Loop 303
and SR 85, and three lanes at its western end.
Loop 303 has five lanes in Option A for its
entire length. In Option C, Loop 303 has six
lanes south of the I-10 Reliever to Riggs
Road.
Table 8 shows a summary comparison of the
various network options evaluated. Maps
SWATS Final Report – Executive Summary 18 September 2003
Table 8
Network Performance Comparisons*
Network
Year 2002 2020 2030
Network
Current
Base
Future
Base Enhanced
New
Corridor
Option A
New
Corridor
Option C Future Base Enhanced
New
Corridor
Option A
New
Corridor
Option C
Centerline Miles
Freeway 108 128 128 218 218 128 128 218 218
Expressway 21 43 50 90 90 43 50 90 90
Arterial 865 1,119 1,109 1,057 1,057 1,119 1,109 1,057 1,057
Collector 27 20 22 22 22 20 22 22 22
Total 1,021 1,310 1,309 1,387 1,387 1,310 1,309 1,387 1,387
Lane Miles
Freeway 585 634 935 1,999 1,869 634 935 1,999 1,869
Expressway 54 184 276 526 526 184 276 526 526
Arterial 2,204 4,658 4,608 4,423 4,432 4,658 4,608 4,423 4,432
Collector 69 74 84 84 84 74 84 84 84
Total 2,913 5,550 5,903 7,032 6,912 5,550 5,903 7,032 6,912
Capacity Miles**
Freeway 12,293,610 13,307,910 13,307,910 19,717,530 19,626,390 13,307,910 13,307,910 19,717,530 19,626,390
Expressway 1,129,800 3,854,760 3,854,760 5,794,320 5,794,320 3,854,760 3,854,760 5,794,320 5,794,320
Arterial 17,632,320 37,265,600 37,265,600 36,864,480 36,864,480 37,265,600 37,265,600 36,864,480 36,864,480
Collector 554,880 592,800 592,800 672,800 672,800 592,800 592,800 672,800 672,800
Total 31,610,610 55,021,070 55,021,070 63,049,130 62,957,990 55,021,070 55,021,070 63,049,130 62,957,990
Daily Vehicle Miles of Travel
Freeway 6,958,146 11,586,434 14,420,107 27,269,662 27,484,309 14,188,130 18,446,314 37,820,996 37,545,683
Expressway 388,532 2,663,287 2,854,555 3,106,447 3,598,702 3,038,593 3,890,479 5,646,793 5,603,736
Arterial 6,870,346 22,435,342 19,190,450 12,290,813 12,520,980 34,870,689 30,748,799 20,910,225 21,245,244
Collector 86,303 350,646 302,706 224,848 256,971 452,913 458,313 337,952 359,209
Total 14,303,326 37,035,709 36,767,818 42,891,770 43,860,963 52,550,326 53,543,906 64,715,966 64,753,872
Daily Truck Vehicle Miles of Travel
Freeway 1,951,141 3,182,836 4,065,007 7,107,940 7,160,477 3,974,190 5,299,251 9,572,807 9,462,723
Expressway 102,628 961,038 1,038,715 1,152,828 1,328,326 1,041,947 1,361,063 1,925,822 1,924,482
Arterial 1,692,490 5,160,140 4,234,261 2,461,570 2,530,692 7,849,686 6,581,317 4,454,160 4,541,169
Collector 17,810 81,358 71,873 47,606 54,609 112,593 112,542 79,408 83,001
Total 3,764,070 9,385,372 9,409,857 10,769,944 11,074,104 12,978,416 13,354,174 16,032,197 16,011,375
Evening Peak Hour Vehicle Miles of Travel
Freeway 337,282 616,052 798,620 1,441,343 1,450,840 708,938 1,013,414 2,022,321 2,014,484
Expressway 22,013 113,879 106,401 114,382 127,615 140,093 162,693 240,572 236,049
Arterial 400,007 1,276,556 1,131,467 768,189 781,498 2,039,333 1,841,064 1,264,034 1,279,598
Collector 6,106 19,024 17,366 15,100 15,075 25,425 24,876 20,980 21,376
Total 765,409 2,025,510 2,053,855 2,339,014 2,375,027 2,913,789 3,042,047 3,547,906 3,551,506
Evening Peak Hour Average Vehicle Speeds
Freeway 53 42 50 54 54 35 41 46 44
Expressway 42 39 43 44 44 27 36 42 42
Arterial 30 27 29 30 30 22 24 27 27
Collector 25 22 22 23 23 18 20 22 22
Directional Highway Miles under Congested Conditions (Level-of-Service E or F†) in the Evening Peak Hour
Freeway 6 48 20 6 11 79 68 53 50
Expressway 1 4 4 0 0 52 19 8 8
Arterial 68 201 119 37 41 609 488 139 138
Collector 0 2 2 1 1 9 7 3 3
Total 75 255 145 44 53 749 582 202 199
Percent of Directional Highway Miles under Congested Conditions (Level-of-Service E or F†) in the Evening Peak Hour
Freeway 3 19 8 1 3 31 27 12 11
Expressway 2 5 4 0 0 60 19 4 4
Arterial 4 9 5 2 2 27 22 7 7
Collector 1 5 4 3 2 24 15 6 6
Total 4 10 6 2 2 29 22 7 7
Evening Peak Hour Vehicle Miles of Travel under Congested Conditions (Level-of-Service E or F†)
Freeway 34,943 204,265 114,791 33,226 59,715 708,938 1,013,414 2,022,321 2,014,484
Expressway 1,598 9,568 8,268 0 0 140,093 162,693 240,572 236,049
Arterial 52,198 347,440 204,723 63,617 73,395 2,039,333 1,841,064 1,264,034 1,279,598
Collector 212 1,829 2,511 941 1,325 25,425 24,876 20,980 21,376
Total 88,951 563,103 330,293 97,784 134,436 2,913,789 3,042,047 3,547,906 3,551,506
Percent of Evening Peak Hour Vehicle Miles of Travel under Congested Conditions (Level-of-Service E or F†)
Freeway 10 33 14 2 4 51 37 19 17
Expressway 7 8 8 0 0 66 27 8 8
Arterial 13 27 18 8 9 53 45 18 18
Collector 3 10 14 6 9 39 24 10 10
Total 12 28 16 4 6 53 41 18 17
Evening Peak Hour Intersections under Congested Conditions (Level-of-Service E or F†)
East Subarea*** 22 107 90 48 55 227 231 239 239
Central Subarea*** 0 25 14 3 3 189 193 177 177
West Subarea*** 0 0 0 0 0 142 146 142 142
South Subarea*** 0 2 2 0 0 88 88 79 79
Percent of Intersections under Congested Conditions (Level-of-Service E or F†) in Evening Peak Hour
East Subarea*** 12 47 39 20 23 69 62 41 40
Central Subarea*** 0 13 7 2 2 68 55 17 18
West Subarea*** 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 1 1
South Subarea*** 0 2 2 0 0 13 11 5 5
Motor Vehicle Accidents - Annual
Freeway Fatal 22 33 38 53 51 36 42 63 62
Freeway Injury 1,418 2,298 2,644 3,781 3,649 2,516 2,949 4,670 4,562
Freeway PDO**** 3,480 5,668 6,521 9,340 9,012 6,209 7,277 11,559 11,292
Freeway Subtotal 4,920 7,999 9,203 13,174 12,712 8,761 10,268 16,292 15,916
Other Segment Fatal 74 148 142 121 123 192 184 155 156
Other Segment Injury 6,699 13,717 12,756 11,149 11,295 17,972 16,709 14,299 14,380
Other Segment PDO**** 13,361 27,406 25,534 22,328 22,639 35,892 33,478 28,712 28,901
Other Segment Subtotal 20,134 41,271 38,432 33,598 34,057 54,056 50,371 43,166 43,437
Intersection 15,219 23,083 22,869 20,737 20,838 26,411 25,878 23,054 23,228
Total 40,273 72,353 70,504 67,509 67,607 89,228 86,517 82,512 82,581
*Results are preliminary given the interim nature of the underlying socioeconomic data and are subject to change in the RTP process.
**Capacity Miles: lane miles multiplied by daily vehicle capacity per lane of: 21,000 for freeways and expressways; 8,000 all other types
***Subareas: East is east of the Agua Fria River; central is west of the Agua Fria River, east of SR-85, and north of the Gila River; south is south
of the Gila River and west of the Agua Fria River; west is west of SR-85.
****PDO: Property Damage Only
†Level-of-Service E and F are highly congested or jammed conditions. Level A is freeflow. Levels B to D are progressively deteriorating traffic service.
SWATS Final Report – Executive Summary 19 September 2003
presenting detailed results are included in the
main report. Operationally, the table shows
that there is considerably more travel under
Options A and C than under either the Future
Base or Enhanced networks. This is because
both Options A and C have extensive freeway
and expressway systems, which are more
conducive to travel.
Both Options A and C have less congestion
than the other two alternatives, the result of
more capacity being provided in the roadway
network. Options A and C have
approximately five percent fewer accidents
than either the Future Base or Enhanced
networks.
7 Recommendations for
Ultimate Concepts
Based on the evaluation of various alternatives
and considering agency, stakeholder and
public input, conclusions and
recommendations for the ultimate
transportation facilities in the southwest
region were developed and are presented
below. Specific alignments and design
elements (including number of lanes) of
facilities are not established in the SWATS.
Detailed location and design studies will be
conducted for facilities funded in the RTP.
All cost estimates are preliminary and will be
refined or superseded by estimates for the
RTP.
7.1 Highway Facilities
7.1.1 Arterials
Figure 7 shows the recommended arterial
network. It is recommended that the basic
grid configuration of the existing arterial
system be continued as the area develops,
with a four lane arterial the minimum
standard for the ultimate system.
The arterial system will be implemented by
local jurisdictions. Therefore, it is subject to
change following further study, particularly in
Goodyear where arterial planning is on-going.
For example, the locations of the Arterial
Roadway Corridors (ARCs) shown in Figure 7
could change or the arterial system serving the
Estrella Mountain Ranch development could
be updated. The phasing of improvements is
dependent on both land development and
traffic demand, with the private sector
typically responsible for financing
implementation of those arterials necessitated
by private development. In total, the
estimated cost of the arterial improvements is
slightly more than $3.6 billion.
In addition to new arterial lane miles, new
arterial river crossings, replacement bridges,
and widening of existing bridges will be
needed. Three new major river crossings on
existing arterials are recommended for:
• Rainbow Valley Road over the Gila
River;
• Thomas Road over the Agua Fria
River; and
• Camelback Road or Tonopah-Salome
Highway over the Hassayampa River.
The Camelback Road or Tonopah-Salome
Highway bridge over the Hassaympa River
could be funded by nearby land developers.
An arterial bridge at 59th Avenue to serve
local traffic may also be needed ultimately,
especially if the final location determined in
the ongoing Design Concept Study for the
South Mountain Freeway is not in the 59th
Avenue corridor. Additional crossings will
also be needed where new highways are
specified. Table 9 presents a summary of
arterial river crossings and estimates needs for
improvements at both existing crossings and
new crossings. Figure 8 graphically portrays
the river crossings. In total, the estimated
cost of all recommended river crossing
improvements is $239 million.
01.252.5 5 7.5 10
Miles
{
Figure 7
Ultimate Concept for Lanes on the Arterial Network
Van Buren St
Buckeye Rd
Lower Buckeye Rd
Broadway Rd
Southern Ave
Baseline Rd
Dobbins Rd
McDowell Rd
Thomas Rd
Indian School Rd
Camelback Rd
19th Ave
27th Ave
35th Ave
43rd Ave
51st Ave
59th Ave
67th Ave
75th Ave
83rd Ave
91st Ave
99th Ave
107th Ave
115th Ave
El Mirage Rd
Dysart Rd
Litchfield
Bullard
Estrella
Sarival
Cotton
Citrus Rd
Perryville Rd
Jackrabbit Tr
Tuthill Rd
Airport Rd
Dean Rd
Rainbow Rd
Watson Rd
Apache Rd
Miller Rd
Rooks Rd
Sun Valley Pkwy
Wilson St
Turner Rd
Johnson Rd
315th Ave
339th Ave
355th Ave
379th Ave §¨¦10
§¨¦8
Maricopa Rd
Loop 303 Extension
I-10 Reliever
363rd Ave
South MountainFreeway
Corridor
Study Area Boundary
New Freeway Corridor
Upgrade Corridor to Freeway
Widen Existing Freeway -
includes new HOV Lanes
Widen Existing Freeway
Arterial Roadway Corridor
!A New I-10 Interchange
303
Loop 101
Extension
85
!A !A !A
A!A!
2 lane Arterial
4 lane Arterial
6 lane Arterial
8 lane Arterial
238
Rio Salado Pky
Study Corridor
IIff ffuunnddeedd iinn tthhee RRTTPP,, eexxaacctt aalliiggnnmeennttss aanndd
ddeessiiggnnss ooff nneeww ffrreeeewwaayy aanndd ootthheerr ccoonnttrroolllleedd
aacccceessss ffaacciilliittiieess wwiillll bbee ddeetteerrmiinneedd ffoolllloowwiinngg
ffuuttuurree llooccaattiioonn aanndd ddeessiiggnn ssttuuddiieess ttoo bbee
ccoonndduucctteedd bbyy tthhee AArriizzoonnaa DDeeppaarrttmeenntt ooff
TTrraannssppoorrttaattiioonn.. AAddddiittiioonnaall ttrraannssiitt ccaappaacciittyy maayy
rreedduuccee tthhee uullttiimaattee hhiigghhwwaayy ccaappaacciittyy nneeeeddeedd..
LLooccaall ppllaannss ffoorr tthhee aarrtteerriiaall ssyysstteem aarree ssuubbjjeecctt
ttoo cchhaannggee,, ppaarrttiiccuullaarrllyy iinn rraappiiddllyy ggrroowwiinngg aarreeaass..
SSoocciiooeeccoonnoomiicc ddaattaa aarree iinntteerriim aanndd ssuubbjjeecctt ttoo
cchhaannggee ffoorr tthhee ffiinnaall RRTTPP..
GilaGilaRiver River
River
Hass a Hassa
Agua
R. Fria
Salt River
yampa
101
§¨¦17
Riggs/Komatke
UUppddaatteess ttoo tthhee aarrtteerriiaall ssyysstteem iinn Gooooddyyeeaarr aarree
ccuurrrreennttllyy uunnddeerr ccoonnssiiddeerraattiioonn bbyy tthhee CCiittyy,, bbootthh
aass ppaarrtt ooff aa GGeenneerraall PPllaann UUppddaattee aanndd tthhee
oonnggooiinngg ddeevveellooppmeenntt pprroocceessss.. AAtt tthhee rreeqquueesstt
ooff tthhee CCiittyy ooff GGooooddyyeeaarr,, tthhee aarrtteerriiaall ssyysstteem
pprreesseenntteedd hheerree iiss iinntteennddeedd ttoo iilllluussttrraattee
ppootteennttiiaall nneeeeddss ffoorr ccaappaacciittyy ggiivveenn ccuurrrreenntt
pprroojjeeccttiioonnss ffoorr ppooppuullaattiioonn aanndd eemppllooyymeenntt
ggrroowwtthh iinn tthhee aarreeaa.. TThheessee pprroojjeeccttiioonnss maayy
cchhaannggee ssiiggnniiffiiccaannttllyy aass tthhee aarreeaa ddeevveellooppss aanndd
pprroojjeeccttiioonnss aarree uuppddaatteedd.. AAccttuuaall aalliiggnnmeennttss aanndd
ccaappaacciittiieess ffoorr aarrtteerriiaallss iinn tthhee CCiittyy ooff Gooooddyyeeaarr
aarree tthheerreeffoorree eexxppeecctteedd ttoo cchhaannggee ssiiggnniiffiiccaannttllyy
aass tthhee CCiittyy ccoompplleetteess iittss aarrtteerriiaall ssyysstteem
ppllaannnniinngg.. TThheessee cchhaannggeess wwiillll bbee iinnccoorrppoorraatteedd
iinnttoo ffuuttuurree uuppddaatteess ooff tthhee RRTTPP..
Riggs Rd
SWATS Final Report – Executive Summary 20 September 2003
SWATS Final Report – Executive Summary 21 September 2003
Table 9
Arterial Crossings of Major Rivers: Improvements and Cost Estimates*
*This table mainly reflects improvements to existing bridges. Additional roadways may need bridges. These
estimates are preliminary and may be superseded by the RTP.
7.1.2 Freeways and Expressways
To meet future demand, a substantial increase
in freeway and expressway miles will be
needed. (See Figure 9.) Figure 10 shows the
number of freeway and expressway lanes
needed to serve traffic forecasts for 2030,
based on interim population and employment
forecasts. Demand projections will differ
somewhat for the new socioeconomic data
developed for the RTP. Alignment and
design studies to be conducted by the Arizona
Department of Transportation focused on
each specific facility may have different design
years, use updated population and
employment forecasts, or include more
detailed cost estimation resulting in changes
to the recommendations included here. The
current estimate of total cost of the freeway
and expressway improvements recommended
here is approximately $6.9 billion.
Road River
Current
Lanes
Future
Lanes
Added
Lanes
Current
Condition Action Cost
19th Ave Salt 4 4 0 Not None
35th Ave Salt 2 4 2 Deficient Build $4.7
51st Ave Salt 2 4 2 Not None
59th Ave Salt 0 4 4 No Crossing Build 9.4
67th Ave Salt 2 4 2 Road Build 9.4
91st Ave Salt 2 4 2 Road None
115th Ave Gila 4 4 0 Not None
El Mirage Gila 4 4 0 Road Build 46.8
Bullard Gila 2 4 2 Not Widen 7.3
Estrella Gila 2 4 2 Not Widen 11.5
Rainbow Valley Gila 0 4 No Crossing Build 24.0
Tuthill Gila 2 4 2 Not Widen 8.3
Airport Gila 2 4 2 Road Build 18.7
Old US 80 Gila 2 4 2 Deficient Build 15.6
Camelback Agua Fria 4 4 0 Not None
Indian School Agua Fria 4 4 0 Deficient Build 15.2
Thomas Agua Fria 0 6 No Crossing Build 13.6
McDowell Agua Fria 4 6 2 Not Widen 5.8
Van Buren Agua Fria 4 6 2 Not Widen 3.1
MC-85 Agua Fria 4 4 0 Not Build 11.3
Lower Buckeye Agua Fria 2 4 2 Road Build 23.4
Tonopah Hassayampa 2 4 2 Road Build 11.0
Baseline Hassayampa 2 4 2 Road None
Old US 80 Hassayampa 2 4 2 Not None
Total $239.0
0 1.5 3 6 9 12
Miles
{
Figure 8
Recommended Bridge Actions at Major River Arterial Crossings
101
Van Buren St
Buckeye Rd
Lower Buckeye Rd
Broadway Rd
Southern Ave
Baseline Rd
Dobbins Rd
McDowell Rd
Thomas Rd
Indian School Rd
Camelback Rd
19th Ave
27th Ave
35th Ave
43rd Ave
51st Ave
59th Ave
67th Ave
75th Ave
83rd Ave
91st Ave
99th Ave
107th Ave
115th Ave
El Mirage Rd
Dysart Rd
Litchfield
Bullard
Estrella
Sarival
Cotton
Citrus Rd
Perryville Rd
Jackrabbit Tr
Tuthill Rd
Airport Rd
Dean Rd
Rainbow Rd
Watson Rd
Apache Rd
Miller Rd
Rooks Rd
Sun Valley Pkwy
Wilson St
Turner Rd
Johnson Rd
315th Ave
339th Ave
355th Ave
379th Ave §¨¦10
§¨¦8
Maricopa Rd
Loop 303 Extension
I-10 Reliever
363rd Ave
South MountainFreeway
Corridor
Study Area Boundary
Arterial Roadway Corridor
!A New I-10 Interchange
303
Loop 101
Extension
85
!A
!A
!A !A
!(
!( !(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
GilaGilaRiver River
River
Hass a Hassa
Salt
yampa
New Bridge (Replacement
and New Location)
!(
!( Widen Bridge
!( No Recommendation
!A
New Freeway Corridor
Upgrade Corridor to Freeway
Widen Existing Freeway -
includes new HOV Lanes
Widen Existing Freeway
§¨¦17
River River!(
!A!(
!(
Fria R.
Agua
Rio Salado Pky
238
Study Corridor
!(!(
IIff ffuunnddeedd iinn tthhee RRTTPP,, eexxaacctt aalliiggnnmeennttss aanndd
ddeessiiggnnss ooff nneeww ffrreeeewwaayy aanndd ootthheerr ccoonnttrroolllleedd
aacccceessss ffaacciilliittiieess wwiillll bbee ddeetteerrmiinneedd ffoolllloowwiinngg
ffuuttuurree llooccaattiioonn aanndd ddeessiiggnn ssttuuddiieess ttoo bbee
ccoonndduucctteedd bbyy tthhee AArriizzoonnaa DDeeppaarrttmeenntt ooff
TTrraannssppoorrttaattiioonn.. AAddddiittiioonnaall ttrraannssiitt ccaappaacciittyy maayy
rreedduuccee tthhee uullttiimaattee hhiigghhwwaayy ccaappaacciittyy nneeeeddeedd..
LLooccaall ppllaannss ffoorr tthhee aarrtteerriiaall ssyysstteem aarree ssuubbjjeecctt
ttoo cchhaannggee,, ppaarrttiiccuullaarrllyy iinn rraappiiddllyy ggrroowwiinngg aarreeaass..
SSoocciiooeeccoonnoomiicc ddaattaa aarree iinntteerriim aanndd ssuubbjjeecctt ttoo
cchhaannggee ffoorr tthhee ffiinnaall RRTTPP..
UUppddaatteess ttoo tthhee aarrtteerriiaall ssyysstteem iinn Gooooddyyeeaarr aarree
ccuurrrreennttllyy uunnddeerr ccoonnssiiddeerraattiioonn bbyy tthhee CCiittyy,, bbootthh
aass ppaarrtt ooff aa Geenneerraall PPllaann UUppddaattee aanndd tthhee
oonnggooiinngg ddeevveellooppmeenntt pprroocceessss.. AAtt tthhee rreeqquueesstt
ooff tthhee CCiittyy ooff Gooooddyyeeaarr,, tthhee aarrtteerriiaall ssyysstteem
pprreesseenntteedd hheerree iiss iinntteennddeedd ttoo iilllluussttrraattee
ppootteennttiiaall nneeeeddss ffoorr ccaappaacciittyy ggiivveenn ccuurrrreenntt
pprroojjeeccttiioonnss ffoorr ppooppuullaattiioonn aanndd eemppllooyymeenntt
ggrroowwtthh iinn tthhee aarreeaa.. TThheessee pprroojjeeccttiioonnss maayy
cchhaannggee ssiiggnniiffiiccaannttllyy aass tthhee aarreeaa ddeevveellooppss aanndd
pprroojjeeccttiioonnss aarree uuppddaatteedd.. AAccttuuaall aalliiggnnmeennttss aanndd
ccaappaacciittiieess ffoorr aarrtteerriiaallss iinn tthhee CCiittyy ooff Gooooddyyeeaarr
aarree tthheerreeffoorree eexxppeecctteedd ttoo cchhaannggee ssiiggnniiffiiccaannttllyy
aass tthhee CCiittyy ccoompplleetteess iittss aarrtteerriiaall ssyysstteem
ppllaannnniinngg.. TThheessee cchhaannggeess wwiillll bbee iinnccoorrppoorraatteedd
iinnttoo ffuuttuurree uuppddaatteess ooff tthhee RRTTPP..
Riggs/Komatke
Riggs Rd
SWATS Final Report – Executive Summary 22 September 2003
0 1.5 3 6 9 12
Miles
{
Figure 9
Ultimate Concepts for Major Highway Infrastructure Based on 2030 Demand Estimates
Van Buren St
Buckeye Rd
Lower Buckeye Rd
Broadway Rd
Southern Ave
Baseline Rd
Dobbins Rd
McDowell Rd
Thomas Rd
Indian School Rd
Camelback Rd
19th Ave
27th Ave
35th Ave
43rd Ave
51st Ave
59th Ave
67th Ave
75th Ave
83rd Ave
91st Ave
99th Ave
107th Ave
115th Ave
El Mirage Rd
Dysart Rd
Litchfield
Bullard
Estrella
Sarival
Cotton
Citrus Rd
Perryville Rd
Jackrabbit Tr
Tuthill Rd
Airport Rd
Dean Rd
Rainbow Rd
Watson Rd
Apache Rd
Miller Rd
Rooks Rd
Sun Valley Pkwy
Wilson St
Turner Rd
Johnson Rd
315th Ave
339th Ave
379th Ave §¨¦10
§¨¦8
Maricopa Rd
Loop 303 Extension
I-10 Reliever
Rio Salado Pky
363rd Ave
South MountainFreeway
Corridor
Study Area Boundary
Arterial Roadway Corridor/
Right-of-Way Preservation
!A New I-10 Interchange
303
Loop 101
Extension
85
!A
!A
!A !A
GilaGilaRiver River
River
Hass a Hassa
Fria
Salt River
yampa
!A
New Freeway Corridor
Upgrade Corridor to Freeway
Widen Existing Freeway -
includes new HOV Lanes
Widen Existing Freeway
R.
Agua
238
Study Corridor
355th Ave
101
§¨¦17
IIff ffuunnddeedd iinn tthhee RRTTPP,, eexxaacctt aalliiggnnmeennttss aanndd
ddeessiiggnnss ooff nneeww ffrreeeewwaayy aanndd ootthheerr ccoonnttrroolllleedd
aacccceessss ffaacciilliittiieess wwiillll bbee ddeetteerrmiinneedd ffoolllloowwiinngg
ffuuttuurree llooccaattiioonn aanndd ddeessiiggnn ssttuuddiieess ttoo bbee
ccoonndduucctteedd bbyy tthhee AArriizzoonnaa DDeeppaarrttmeenntt ooff
TTrraannssppoorrttaattiioonn.. AAddddiittiioonnaall ttrraannssiitt ccaappaacciittyy maayy
rreedduuccee tthhee uullttiimaattee hhiigghhwwaayy ccaappaacciittyy nneeeeddeedd..
LLooccaall ppllaannss ffoorr tthhee aarrtteerriiaall ssyysstteem aarree ssuubbjjeecctt
ttoo cchhaannggee,, ppaarrttiiccuullaarrllyy iinn rraappiiddllyy ggrroowwiinngg aarreeaass..
SSoocciiooeeccoonnoomiicc ddaattaa aarree iinntteerriim aanndd ssuubbjjeecctt ttoo
cchhaannggee ffoorr tthhee ffiinnaall RRTTPP..
UUppddaatteess ttoo tthhee aarrtteerriiaall ssyysstteem iinn Gooooddyyeeaarr aarree
ccuurrrreennttllyy uunnddeerr ccoonnssiiddeerraattiioonn bbyy tthhee CCiittyy,, bbootthh
aass ppaarrtt ooff aa Geenneerraall PPllaann UUppddaattee aanndd tthhee
oonnggooiinngg ddeevveellooppmeenntt pprroocceessss.. AAtt tthhee rreeqquueesstt
ooff tthhee CCiittyy ooff Gooooddyyeeaarr,, tthhee aarrtteerriiaall ssyysstteem
pprreesseenntteedd hheerree iiss iinntteennddeedd ttoo iilllluussttrraattee
ppootteennttiiaall nneeeeddss ffoorr ccaappaacciittyy ggiivveenn ccuurrrreenntt
pprroojjeeccttiioonnss ffoorr ppooppuullaattiioonn aanndd eemppllooyymeenntt
ggrroowwtthh iinn tthhee aarreeaa.. TThheessee pprroojjeeccttiioonnss maayy
cchhaannggee ssiiggnniiffiiccaannttllyy aass tthhee aarreeaa ddeevveellooppss aanndd
pprroojjeeccttiioonnss aarree uuppddaatteedd.. AAccttuuaall aalliiggnnmeennttss aanndd
ccaappaacciittiieess ffoorr aarrtteerriiaallss iinn tthhee CCiittyy ooff Gooooddyyeeaarr
aarree tthheerreeffoorree eexxppeecctteedd ttoo cchhaannggee ssiiggnniiffiiccaannttllyy
aass tthhee CCiittyy ccoompplleetteess iittss aarrtteerriiaall ssyysstteem
ppllaannnniinngg.. TThheessee cchhaannggeess wwiillll bbee iinnccoorrppoorraatteedd
iinnttoo ffuuttuurree uuppddaatteess ooff tthhee RRTTPP..
Riggs/Komatke
Riggs Rd
SWATS Final Report – Executive Summary 23 September 2003
0 1.5 3 6 9 12
Miles
{
Figure 10
Ultimate Concepts for Major Highway Infrastructure: Lanes Needed Based on 2030 Demand Estimates
101
Van Buren St
Buckeye Rd
Lower Buckeye Rd
Broadway Rd
Southern Ave
Baseline Rd
Dobbins Rd
McDowell Rd
Thomas Rd
Indian School Rd
Camelback Rd
19th Ave
27th Ave
35th Ave
43rd Ave
51st Ave
59th Ave
67th Ave
75th Ave
83rd Ave
91st Ave
99th Ave
107th Ave
115th Ave
El Mirage Rd
Dysart Rd
Litchfield
Bullard
Estrella
Sarival
Cotton
Citrus Rd
Perryville Rd
Jackrabbit Tr
Tuthill Rd
Airport Rd
Dean Rd
Rainbow Rd
Watson Rd
Apache Rd
Miller Rd
Rooks Rd
Sun Valley Pkwy
Wilson St
Turner Rd
Johnson Rd
315th Ave
339th Ave
355th Ave
379th Ave §¨¦10
§¨¦8
Maricopa Rd
Loop 303 Extension
I-10 Reliever
363rd Ave
South MountainFreeway
Corridor
6 Lane Freeway
8 Lane Freeway
Study Area Boundary
10 Lane Freeway
12 Lane Freeway
16 Lane Freeway
14 Lane Freeway
Arterial Roadway Corridor
!A New I-10 Interchange
4 Lane Freeway
303
Loop 101
Extension
85
!A
!A
!A !A
Rio Salado Pky
!A
238
Study Corridor
Freeway Improvements to be
Determined
GilaGilaRiver River
River
Has sa H ass a
Agua
R. Fria
Salt River
yampa
!A
Lanes include both directions & HOV lanes
§¨¦17
IIff ffuunnddeedd iinn tthhee RRTTPP,, eexxaacctt aalliiggnnmeennttss aanndd
ddeessiiggnnss ooff nneeww ffrreeeewwaayy aanndd ootthheerr ccoonnttrroolllleedd
aacccceessss ffaacciilliittiieess wwiillll bbee ddeetteerrmiinneedd ffoolllloowwiinngg
ffuuttuurree llooccaattiioonn aanndd ddeessiiggnn ssttuuddiieess ttoo bbee
ccoonndduucctteedd bbyy tthhee AArriizzoonnaa DDeeppaarrttmeenntt ooff
TTrraannssppoorrttaattiioonn.. AAddddiittiioonnaall ttrraannssiitt ccaappaacciittyy maayy
rreedduuccee tthhee uullttiimaattee hhiigghhwwaayy ccaappaacciittyy nneeeeddeedd..
LLooccaall ppllaannss ffoorr tthhee aarrtteerriiaall ssyysstteem aarree ssuubbjjeecctt
ttoo cchhaannggee,, ppaarrttiiccuullaarrllyy iinn rraappiiddllyy ggrroowwiinngg aarreeaass..
SSoocciiooeeccoonnoomiicc ddaattaa aarree iinntteerriim aanndd ssuubbjjeecctt ttoo
cchhaannggee ffoorr tthhee ffiinnaall RRTTPP..
UUppddaatteess ttoo tthhee aarrtteerriiaall ssyysstteem iinn Gooooddyyeeaarr aarree
ccuurrrreennttllyy uunnddeerr ccoonnssiiddeerraattiioonn bbyy tthhee CCiittyy,, bbootthh
aass ppaarrtt ooff aa Geenneerraall PPllaann UUppddaattee aanndd tthhee
oonnggooiinngg ddeevveellooppmeenntt pprroocceessss.. AAtt tthhee rreeqquueesstt
ooff tthhee CCiittyy ooff Gooooddyyeeaarr,, tthhee aarrtteerriiaall ssyysstteem
pprreesseenntteedd hheerree iiss iinntteennddeedd ttoo iilllluussttrraattee
ppootteennttiiaall nneeeeddss ffoorr ccaappaacciittyy ggiivveenn ccuurrrreenntt
pprroojjeeccttiioonnss ffoorr ppooppuullaattiioonn aanndd eemppllooyymeenntt
ggrroowwtthh iinn tthhee aarreeaa.. TThheessee pprroojjeeccttiioonnss maayy
cchhaannggee ssiiggnniiffiiccaannttllyy aass tthhee aarreeaa ddeevveellooppss aanndd
pprroojjeeccttiioonnss aarree uuppddaatteedd.. AAccttuuaall aalliiggnnmeennttss aanndd
ccaappaacciittiieess ffoorr aarrtteerriiaallss iinn tthhee CCiittyy ooff Gooooddyyeeaarr
aarree tthheerreeffoorree eexxppeecctteedd ttoo cchhaannggee ssiiggnniiffiiccaannttllyy
aass tthhee CCiittyy ccoompplleetteess iittss aarrtteerriiaall ssyysstteem
ppllaannnniinngg.. TThheessee cchhaannggeess wwiillll bbee iinnccoorrppoorraatteedd
iinnttoo ffuuttuurree uuppddaatteess ooff tthhee RRTTPP..
Riggs/Komatke
Riggs Rd
SWATS Final Report – Executive Summary 24 September 2003
SWATS Final Report – Executive Summary 25 September 2003
7.1.3 I-10
To meet the future systems demand, as well as
to provide local connections and connections
to other parts of the region, I-10 will require
widening. East of Loop 101, demand is
projected for 14 lanes (10 general purpose
lanes and four HOV lanes). West of Loop
101, demand is projected for up to 12 lanes to
SR 85, with 10 general purpose lanes and two
HOV lanes. West of SR 85, demand is
projected for 10 lanes to Sun Valley Parkway.
West of Sun Valley Parkway facility needs are
not forecast to exceed the current capacity.
In concert with ongoing work involving
ADOT and local and regional entities, six new
arterial interchanges are included in the plan:
• El Mirage Road (depending on local
development plans);
• Bullard Road;
• Perryville Road;
• Wilson Avenue;
• Johnson Road; and
• 355th Avenue (future CANAMEX
Corridor).
In total, improvements to I-10 are estimated
to cost approximately $1.5 billion.
7.1.4 I-10 Reliever
A major project is a new facility to act as an I-
10 reliever. This facility would be located to
the south of I-10 between SR 85 and at a
minimum the eastern boundary of the study
area (I-17). A connection to I-10 at US 60
(Superstition) should also be studied.
Demand is projected for up to a 14-lane
facility east of the South Mountain Freeway, a
16-lane facility west of the South Mountain
Freeway to the Loop 303 Extension, a 10-lane
facility between the Loop 303 Extension and
Perryville Road, and an eight-lane facility west
to SR 85. The estimated cost of the I-10
Reliever within this study area is
approximately $2.3 billion.
7.1.5 I-17
HOV or “carpool” lanes are needed along I-
17 south of I-10 west. The portion of the
carpool lanes west of 19th Avenue in the
SWATS area is estimated to cost $33 million.
North of I-10 west I-17 requires additional
capacity, but the configuration of that capacity
requires further study. A total of $230 million
has been set aside for improvements along the
section of I-17 north of I-10 to Camelback
Road (the SWATS area boundary). Additional
study will be required before decisions can be
made with respect to improvements in this
corridor.
7.1.6 Loop 101 (Agua Fria)
Loop 101 north of I-10 is recommended for
widening. Forecast demand is projected for an
additional general purpose lane as well as an
HOV or “carpool” lane in each direction. The
cost of these improvements for the portion of
Loop 101 in the SWATS area is estimated at
$81 million.
7.1.7 Loop 101 (Agua Fria) Extension
While a 10-lane freeway facility from I-10
south to the I-10 Reliever appears to be
warranted based on demand, this roadway will
require more study before the type of facility
and number of lanes can be decided, given
concern over potential local impacts. At this
time, a parkway facility or higher level arterial
facility acceptable to local jurisdictions is
recommended for consideration in the RTP.
It should also be noted that the Loop 101
Extension is being considered among the
alternatives in the South Mountain Freeway
study ongoing at ADOT. The Loop 101
Extension as a 6-lane parkway would cost
approximately $39 million.
7.1.8 Loop 202 (South Mountain Freeway)
The South Mountain Freeway is currently
under study by ADOT. Based on the analysis
performed in the SWATS, demand is
projected for up to 10 lanes. The cost of the
SWATS Final Report – Executive Summary 26 September 2003
portion of the South Mountain Freeway
within the study limits was estimated to be
$853 million.
7.1.9 Loop 303 (Estrella) Extension
The Loop 303 Extension includes
implementation of a freeway on the alignment
of existing Loop 303 and extending the facility
across I-10 and the Gila River into the
southern portion of Goodyear. An exact
alignment is not recommended herein but
would be determined following further study
by ADOT. Demand is projected for up to 10
lanes along the route with a diminishing
number of lanes as the facility approaches its
southern terminus at Riggs Road. The Loop
303 Extension improvements in the SWATS
area are estimated to cost approximately $1.34
billion.
It should be noted that commercial traffic
volumes on the Loop 303 Extension are
projected to be a substantial percentage of the
total traffic. High projected levels of
commercial traffic on a facility like Loop 303
does not make it ideal for a location within a
major residential area.
7.1.10 SR 85
SR 85 is recommended ultimately to be a six-lane
freeway from I-10 to I-8 to address
demand and potential safety concerns. In the
interim, it may be constructed as a freeway for
the northern- most section from I-10 to the
Gila River crossing. Between the Gila River
and Komatke Road, demand is forecast for a
six-lane expressway. South of Komatke Road
(to Gila Bend), demand is forecast for a four-lane
expressway. A cost of $253 million is
estimated for these interim improvements to
SR 85. SR 85 is currently being widened to a
four-lane divided Highway. SR 85 is a
segment of the CANAMEX Corridor, as
recommended by MAG. The full cost of a
freeway facility from I-10 to I-8 is estimated at
about $1.2 billion.
7.1.11 Sun Valley Parkway
Traffic forecast for the Sun Valley Parkway is
projected for six lanes. The facility is currently
a 4 lane divided arterial. It is recommended
that this road be upgraded to an expressway
or parkway. The estimated cost of the
improvements is $32 million (within the
SWATS area, south of Camelback Road).
7.1.12 CANAMEX Corridor
The CANAMEX Corridor is one of 43
national "high priority" corridors identified in
the Intermodal Surface Transportation
Efficiency Act (ISTEA); the 1995 National
Highway System (NHS) Designation Act; and
the Transportation Efficiency Act for the 21st
Century (TEA-21). It was conceived as a
major commercial and trade route between
Mexico and Canada.
In April of 2001, following completion of a
study, the MAG Regional Council passed a
resolution specifying the corridor within
Maricopa County to include: I-8, SR 85, I-10
from SR 85 to the Wickenburg Road/Vulture
Mine Road connection, an alignment in the
general vicinity of Wickenburg Road/Vulture
Mine Road connecting to the future
Wickenburg Bypass, and the Wickenburg
Bypass from that point west to US 93.
Wickenburg Road is generally aligned with
355th Avenue at I-10.
Early preservation of right-of-way is
recommended for the portion of the route
north of I-10 and within the SWATS area.
The route would connect to I-10 at or near
355th Avenue. It is recommended that right-of-
way preservation be undertaken as part of
the land development process. Costs and
improvements to SR 85 and I-10 are included
in this study. Costs for improvements for the
CANAMEX Corridor north of the SWATS
area are included in the NWATS.
SWATS Final Report – Executive Summary 27 September 2003
7.1.13 Rio Salado Parkway
The Rio Salado Parkway, a six lane roadway
proposed by the City of Phoenix, enters the
study area from downtown Phoenix and
parallels the Salt River to 75th Avenue, then
turns north to an interchange with the I-10
Reliever and the Loop 101 Extension. The
cost of the Rio Salado Parkway included in
the SWATS study area is approximately $41
million.
7.1.14 Riggs, Komatke, and Maricopa
Roads
It is recommended that right-of-way be
preserved for this corridor to provide for a
six-lane arterial or expressway. No costs are
included for right-of-way preservation, as it is
recommended that right-of-way preservation
be undertaken as part of the land
development process. Development of this
corridor further east along Riggs Road is an
alternative.
7.2 Transit
7.2.1 Regional Fixed Route Transit
The RTS recommends that service area
expansion be included in the RTP. The
implementation is recommended to be phased
in concert with the expansion of
development. An investment of $700 million
will be needed for the rolling stock to serve
the municipalities in the SWATS area. (This
estimate includes 100% of those
municipalities only partially located in the
SWATS area.)
7.2.2 High Capacity Transit
The HCTS recommends corridors for LRT or
BRT service on dedicated rights-of-way be
included in the RTP. The HCTS
recommends such facilities parallel to 51st and
59th Avenues north of Baseline Road and also
along the I-10 corridor west of downtown
Phoenix to Loop 101. These estimated cost
of these facilities, if developed as LRT, totals
$1.1 billion Commuter rail along the Union
Pacific Railroad tracks from downtown
Phoenix to Buckeye is also recommended by
the HCTS for inclusion in the RTP with an
estimated cost of $450 million. Additionally,
the HCTS recommends BRT on I-10 west of
Loop 101 and on Loop 101 and Loop 303
north of I-10.
7.2.3 Other Transit Facilities
The RTS recommends three additional park-and-
ride facilities for the study area. These
facilities should be phased such that they are
in place ahead of development. All of these
facilities are located along I-10 at strategically
selected interchanges, at Litchfield Road,
Miller Road, and 339th Avenue. These facilities
cost approximately $3 million apiece.
7.3 Non-motorized
Facilities
It is recommended that bicycle and pedestrian
facilities be included in the RTP where
feasible and consistent with regional and local
plans. It is more cost effective to include the
design and construction of bicycle and
pedestrian facilities at the time of construction
of new arterial roadways, as compared to
subsequently widening an existing roadway to
accommodate bicycle and pedestrian facilities.
7.4 Planned ITS
Intelligent transportation systems (ITS) are
recommended for incorporation into
transportation facilities and services consistent
with the MAG ITS Strategic Plan. These
include expansion of the existing freeway
management system as freeway improvements
are implemented, as well as traffic signal
coordination along Arterial Roadway
Corridors and other major arterial roadways.
Capital costs for these improvements are
currently estimated at $175 million.
7.5 Goods Movement
A large portion of the traffic in the study area
is trucks moving goods within and through
SWATS Final Report – Executive Summary 28 September 2003
the study area. Some municipalities in the
study, such as Phoenix, have designated truck
routes. Other cities do not. There is a
concentration of freight terminals south of I-
10 along Van Buren, Buckeye, and Lower
Buckeye Roads. Interstate access coupled with
growth in the greater Phoenix area indicates
that truck freight movements in the study area
will increase substantially in the coming years.
It is recommended that a region-wide
systematic goods movement plan be prepared
in preparation for future updates of the RTP.
Because of the location of freight terminals
south of I-10, truck traffic will be a substantial
component of total traffic on the I-10
Reliever. A regional goods movement plan
should be in place to inform the alignment
and design studies for that and other facilities.
7.6 Summary of Costs
Table 10 shows a summary of costs for all
facilities recommended for inclusion in the
RTP. In total, over $12.9 billion worth of
projects have been identified.
7.7 Policies
7.7.1 Variable Width Roadways
(“Scalloped Streets”)
Variable width roadways, often referred to as
“scalloped streets,” occur as a result of
roadway segments being constructed at
different times. The scalloped streets
problem affects the efficiency of the arterial
grid network by reducing capacity, causing
congestion, and reducing levels of service. It
is recommended that a Scalloped Streets
Policy be adopted by the local jurisdictions
along with a mechanism for funding the
roadway improvements.
7.7.2 Arterial Grid Continuity
Regionally, the arterial grid system acts as an
overflow for congested freeways, expressways,
and other higher level facilities in addition to
accommodating local traffic. Closing the gaps
in the arterial grid network and mitigating the
obstructions to constructing the grid network
should continue to be a fundamental regional
objective.
7.7.3 Preservation of Right-of-Way
The early protection of rights-of-way for all
modes of travel should become a regional
policy supported by all cities. It is
recommended that rights-of-way for planned,
future facilities be protected or preserved,
where possible, before development takes
place.
7.7.4 Avoid Creation of T-Intersections
The creation of T intersections should be
avoided. Currently major T intersections
occur at I-10 and SR 85 and at Sun Valley
Parkway and I-10.
7.7.5 Safety and ITS
Projects that improve the safety and efficiency
of the transportation system should be high
regional priorities.
SWATS Final Report – Executive Summary 29 September 2003
Table 10
Estimated Costs* of Ultimate Concepts
(all costs in millions of constant 2003 dollars)
Facility
Miles in
SWATS
Area New Widen
Additional
Interchanges &
Intersection
Improvements
Freeway
System
Interchanges
Major
Bridges ITS Bikeway Total
Arterial Roadways
Arterials 295 $972 $2,376 $63 $211 $3,623
Major River Arterial Bridges 239 239
Subtotal Arterial Roadways $972 $2,376 $0 $0 $239 $63 $211 $3,862
Freeways
I-10: I-17 to Loop 101 9 734 23 ** 757
I-10: Loop 101 to Loop 303 9 254 32 *** ** 286
I-10: Loop 303 to SR-85 12 346 16 ** 362
I-10: SR-85 to Sun Valley Parkway 3 77 16 ** 93
I-10: SR-85 to County Line 39 35 35
I-17: I-10 (west) to Camelback†**** 3 230 230
I-17: I-10 (west) to 19th Avenue 3 33 33
South Mountain Freeway† 15 755 50 33 15 853
SR-85 north of Gila River 7 50 50 26 7 133
SR-85 south of Gila River 30 40 50 30 120
I-10 Reliever: I-17 to Loop 101 Extension 10 666 200 10 875
I-10 Reliever: Loop 101 to Loop 303 9 644 50 73 9 776
I-10 Reliever: Loop 303 Extension to SR-85 12 553 100 12 665
Loop 101 Widening: I-10 to Camelback† 3 46 35 81
Loop 303 Extension: Northern to I-10† 6 285 45 6 336
Loop 303 Extension: I-10 to I-10 Reliever 5 235 50 5 290
Loop 303 Extension: I-10 Reliever to Riggs Rd 13 602 50 47 13 712
Subtotal Freeways $3,875 $1,674 $99 $703 $179 $107 $0 $6,638
Expressways/Parkways
Loop 101 Extension†† 3 21 16 1 1 39
Sun Valley Parkway: I-10 to Camelback† 5 17 13 1 2 32
Rio Salado Parkway† 10 37 ** 4 41
Subtotal Expressways/Parkways $58 $17 $29 $0 $0 $2 $7 $112
Transit (based on HCTS and RTS)
LRT: I-10 from downtown Phoenix to Loop 101 400 400
LRT: 51st/59th Ave corridor north of Baseline Rd 730 730
Commuter rail: downtown Phoenix to Buckeye 450 450
Park-and-ride, I-10 @ Litchfield Road 3 3
Park-and-ride, I-10 @ Miller Road 3 3
Park-and-ride, I-10 @ 339th Avenue 3 3
Bus Rolling Stock 700 700
Subtotal Transit $2,289 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,289
Multi-Purpose Paved Trails
Grand Canal: 19th Ave to 75th Ave† 8 3 3
Agua Fria River Bank† 10 3 3
Gila-Salt River: Agua Fria to Rio Salado Expwy 9 3 3
Gila River Bank: Agua Fria to SR-85 17 6 6
Gila River Bank west of SR-85 6 2 2
Roosevelt Canal: Agua Fria to SR-85 20 7 7
Roosevelt Canal: SR-85 to Hassayampa 8 3 3
Waterman Wash 13 5 5
Hassayampa River† 14 5 5
Subtotal Multi-Purpose Paved Trails $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $37 $37
GRAND TOTAL $7,194 $4,067 $128 $703 $418 $172 $256 $12,937
Percent of Total 56 31 1 5 3 1 2 100
*These estimates are preliminary and may be superseded in the RTP.
**Included in "New" or "Widen" cost.
***Major expansion or replacement of the I-10 bridge over the Agua Fria River will be required to accommodate I-10 widening.
****Specific improvements to be determined.
†Project crosses the SWATS area boundary. Estimated cost includes only the portion within the SWATS area.
††Cost estimate is for a 6-lane parkway facility.
LRT projects would cost approximately half as much if developed as BRT projects on exclusive right-of-way.
LRT, Bus Rolling Stock, and Commuter Rail include costs for portions of projects outside the SWATS area.
Bikeway and ITS costs on major bridges are included in the bridge costs.
Some bridge costs for new roadways are included in new roadway costs and some are shown separately in the bridge column.
Object Description
| Rating | |
| TITLE | Southwest area transportation study : final report |
| CREATOR | Wilbur Smith and Associates |
| SUBJECT | Transportation--Arizona--Maricopa County--Planning |
| Browse Topic |
Transportation |
| DESCRIPTION | This title contains one or more publications. |
| Language | English |
| Contributor | Maricopa Association of Governments |
| Publisher | Maricopa Association of Governments |
| Material Collection |
Local Documents |
| Source Identifier | 388.4 M334sw |
| Location | o56548867 |
| REPOSITORY | Arizona State Library, Archives and Public Records--LAw and Research Library |
Description
| TITLE | Southwest area transportation study : final report - Executive Summary |
| DESCRIPTION | 33 pages (PDF version). File size: 4,055 KB |
| TYPE | Text |
| RIGHTS MANAGEMENT | Copyright to this resource is held by the creating agency and is provided here for educational purposes only. It may not be downloaded, reproduced or distributed in any format without written permission of the creating agency. Any attempt to circumvent the access controls placed on this file is a violation of United States and international copyright laws, and is subject to criminal prosecution. |
| DATE ORIGINAL | 2003-09 |
| Time Period |
2000s (2000-2009) |
| ORIGINAL FORMAT | Born Digital |
| Location | 388.4 M334sw |
| DIGITAL IDENTIFIER | SWATS Final Report - Executive Summary.pdf |
| DIGITAL FORMAT |
PDF (Portable Document Format) |
| REPOSITORY | Arizona State Library, Archives and Public Records--LAw and Research Library |
| Full Text | Southwest Area Transportation Study Final Report - Executive Summary in support of the MAG Regional Transportation Plan September 2003 Southwest Area Transportation Study Final Report – Executive Summary PREPARED FOR: Maricopa Association of Governments IN SUPPORT OF THE MAG Regional Transportation Plan PREPARED BY: 960 W. Elliot Road, Suite 110 Tempe, AZ 85284 September 2003 SWATS Final Report – Executive Summary ii September 2003 Table of Contents 1 Background and Study Purpose ................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Study Area............................................................................................................................................. 1 1.2 Study Process and Methodology ........................................................................................................ 1 2 Consultation Process..................................................................................................................................... 1 2.1 Agency & Stakeholder Consultation.................................................................................................. 3 2.2 Public Involvement.............................................................................................................................. 4 3 Socioeconomic Characteristics and Forecasts............................................................................................ 5 4 Transportation Facilities and Conditions.................................................................................................... 6 4.1 Existing Conditions .............................................................................................................................. 6 4.2 Planned Future Transportation Facilities.......................................................................................... 9 5 Transportation Issues..................................................................................................................................14 5.1 Discontinuous Roadway Network ...................................................................................................15 5.2 Capacity Deficiencies .........................................................................................................................15 5.3 New Freeway Interchanges ...............................................................................................................15 5.4 East-West Reliever Roadways...........................................................................................................16 5.5 Transit Needs for the Study Area.....................................................................................................16 5.6 Right-of-Way Preservation ................................................................................................................16 5.7 Aviation ............................................................................................................................................... 16 6 Evaluation of Alternatives..........................................................................................................................17 7 Recommendations for Ultimate Concepts ..............................................................................................19 7.1 Highway Facilities ...............................................................................................................................19 7.2 Transit..................................................................................................................................................27 7.3 Non-motorized Facilities...................................................................................................................27 7.4 Planned ITS ........................................................................................................................................27 7.5 Goods Movement..............................................................................................................................27 7.6 Summary of Costs..............................................................................................................................28 7.7 Policies.................................................................................................................................................28 SWATS Final Report – Executive Summary iii September 2003 List of Figures Figure 1 Study Area Map Figure 2 Current Base Highway Network Functional Classes Figure 3 Number of Lanes in Current Base Network Figure 4 Existing Transit Service Routes and Service Areas Figure 5 Existing Off-Road Non-Motorized Facilities Figure 6 New and Widened Facilities in Future Base Network (As Modeled) Figure 7 Ultimate Concept for Lanes on the Arterial Network Figure 8 Recommended Bridge Actions at Major River Arterial Crossings Figure 9 Ultimate Concepts for Major Highway Infrastructure Based on 2030 Demand Estimates Figure 10 Ultimate Concepts for Major Highway Infrastructure: Lanes Needed Based on 2030 Demand Estimates List of Tables Table 1 Working Papers and Chapters in the Final Report Table 2 Forums, Open Houses and Public Meetings Table 3 Total Population, Alternative Scenarios Table 4 Total Employment, Alternative Scenarios Table 5 Current (2002) Base Network Centerline Roadway Miles by Functional Class and Area Type Table 6 Current (2002) Base Network Road Lane Miles by Functional Class and Area Type Table 7 Capacity Miles by Functional Class Table 8 Network Performance Comparisons Table 9 Arterial Crossings of Major Rivers: Improvements and Cost Estimates Table 10 Estimated Costs of Ultimate Concepts SWATS Final Report – Executive Summary 1 September 2003 1 Background and Study Purpose As the metropolitan planning organization (MPO) for the Maricopa region, the Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) is charged with planning and prioritizing improvements to transportation infrastructure and services. As part of MAG’s responsibilities, the organization is preparing a new Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) that will establish priorities and funding for major transportation improvements across the region. The Southwest Area Transportation Study (SWATS) is one of several background studies conducted in support of the RTP. While providing a stand-alone transportation blueprint for the southwest, including all or part of the jurisdictions of Avondale, Buckeye, Gila Bend, Goodyear, Litchfield Park, Phoenix, Tolleson, and the unincorporated areas of Maricopa County, the SWATS provides additional local input and specific background information as well as recommendations for major transportation investments for the rapidly growing area for consideration in the RTP. Two studies conducted in parallel with this study address transit issues in more detail. The Valley Metro Regional Transit System (RTS) Study and the MAG High Capacity Transit (HCT) System Study address regional bus and light transit/express bus/Bus Rapid Transit respectively. Copies of the background studies as well as the RTP are available at the MAG website (www.mag.maricopa.gov). 1.1 Study Area Figure 1 shows the area encompassed by the SWATS. As requested by local agencies, the northern boundary of the SWATS is overlapped slightly with the southern boundary (i.e. I-10) of the Northwest Area Transportation Study (NWATS), which was conducted in parallel with the SWATS. Throughout the development of the SWATS, the study team coordinated efforts with those performing the NWATS. 1.2 Study Process and Methodology The overall process of the SWATS was a very open one, involving MAG member agencies, key stakeholders, and the public in the study area. The study developed several working papers which have been included as chapters of this Final Report. Table 1 summarizes the working papers prepared during the study. 2 Consultation Process A consultation plan was implemented during the study to inform and obtain representative input from all affected and interested stakeholders. There were four objectives of the consultation: • Obtain public feedback related to growth and transportation; • Provide timely, accurate, and effective distribution of information; • Build consensus though a fair and reasonable process; and • Maintain continuity of involvement. The consultation plan consisted of three major components: ! "# $ "# % #" # & ! ! # '( ! ! )&& ! *( ! (& ! & ! #"" % $+ !# !# " !, #"$ ) ! ! # ( ! %#" " # $ -( ! . / %% % /# # #" # / /# 0 $ " + /# % #$ / $ + $$#"" $# $ ! " $ %% (& ! ""# ! 1 ! " 2 ""# # # # " # # / 2 ""# )( ! + # #"" - $ "# % , # ) $ ) & ! % "" $ - $ ! " 2# & # # " " +# % /# # # 2 ""# 2 % # ! & ! % + ( ! #2#" (& ! . ! + $ " * $ 2# ##/ " ! " " $ + # % $ % # , #"$ $ +#"" ! -* ! +! #+ ) ! ! & ! 2#/ " 2 ""# . # % + 2 ""# ** ! "$ " # # 2 # $ 3&& ! ' $ ! +! # / 3' $ ) $ 2 - ! # # / ! % %#"" & ! # - ! !# " ( ! "" ! ! % 2# "#% / +# # # " # $ #+ 2# % # , #"$ # " #+ $ ! !# # " #"" $ 3 ! ( ! # - $ ! ( ! ! % #" # (& ! & ! % $+ $ ! " ( ! % ( ! % /# # ! 2# -( ! %#"" 3( ! ! * $ " !, #"$ $ $ +#"" !# 3 $ -( ! % $+ (& ! "# $ "# && ! !# ! + # % )( ! & ! % $+ % $+ $ %% *( ! 3 $ $ 3( ! '( ! $ # ## ! #" # % #" # $ %% !# 2 % # % #" # ( ! 3 ! #"% / *( ! $ %% ! ( ) $ '( ! " +# % /# # && ! 3 $ # #"" 2 % # # 2 ""# ! " $ *( ! '( ! ## % % /# # #"% / ( $ %% # #"" $ ! " (& ! & ! & ! % $+ #"" *( ! ! $ ! " ! ' - - ' - ' - ' ' ( ' 3 456 75 *&-&' 8 7 9 6 : ;57 5 6 8* 6 <"' 4 : ; 4 "= $# '3 '&4 ( Southwest Area Transportation Study Figure 1 Study Area Map November 2003 SWATS Final Report – Executive Summary 2 September 2003 SWATS Final Report – Executive Summary 3 September 2003 Table 1 Working Papers and Chapters in the Final Report Chapter/Working Paper No. 1: Related Studies Summarizes studies and documents related to transportation and land use for the MAG member agencies in the study area. Chapter/Working Paper No. 2: Socioeconomic Characteristics and Forecasts Documents population and employment trends in the study area. Chapter/Working Paper No. 3: Current and Future Transportation Facilities and Conditions Documents existing and currently planned transportation facilities and services in the study area, and summarizes current and expected future usage of these facilities. Chapter/Working Paper No. 4: Summary of Transportation Issues to Date Summarizes transportation issues identified through the review of previous studies (Chapter 1) and consultation with MAG member agencies, stakeholders and public, including interviews and surveys with key agency staff and officials for the local jurisdictions, as well as technical assessments. Chapter/Working Paper No. 5: Evaluation of Transportation Options in the SWATS Area Evaluates options to address the issues identified in Chapter 4 including analysis of travel forecasting models incorporating potential options. Chapter/Working Paper No. 6: Ultimate Concepts for Transportation Facilities Develops recommendations for consideration in the RTP development process based on the assessment in Chapter 5. • Agency/Stakeholder Consultation; • Other Public Involvement; and • Title VI/Environmental Justice. 2.1 Agency & Stakeholder Consultation Agency/stakeholder consultation involved interviews, surveys, and forums. Interviews and surveys were conducted with agency staff and elected officials. The interviews were generally held in the early weeks of the study, but continued throughout the time frame of the project. Forums were open to MAG member agencies, stakeholders and the public. The following groups were included in the agency/stakeholder consultation process: • Elected officials in the SWATS area including municipal and county office holders; • Local government transportation and planning department heads; • Chambers of Commerce; • Homeowners associations; • Major developers; • Local environmental groups; • School district administrators; • Minority group representatives; • Churches in areas with high Title VI and Environmental Justice populations; • Senior centers; • The southwest valley transit group; • Trucking companies; SWATS Final Report – Executive Summary 4 September 2003 • Freight railroads; and, • General public. Survey forms were used to help assure thorough input among the various entities. The standardized survey forms were used to ensure answers were consistent, accurate and complete. In addition to interviews and surveys, several agency forums as well as open houses and public meetings were held as outlined in Table 2. The study considered environment justice issues and Title VI populations and proactively consulted those groups. The main report provides details of this review. Table 2 Forums, Open Houses and Public Meetings Meeting Venue Date and Time Held Agency Workshop Goodyear City Hall June 26, 2002, 10:00 a.m. Open House and Public Meeting Estrella Mountain Community College September 10, 2002, 5:00 p.m. Agency Workshop Goodyear City Hall December 12, 2002, 10:00 a.m. MAG Transportation Committee MAG Saguaro Room January 30, 2003, 10:00 a.m. Agency Forum Goodyear City Hall February 18, 2003, 10:00 a.m. Agency Forum Avondale Fire Station No. 172 July 15, 2003, 10:00 a.m. Agency Forum Goodyear City Hall September 5, 2003, 10:00 a.m. Open House and Public Meeting Goodyear City Hall September 5, 2003, 5:00 p.m. In addition to the above formal meetings, a formal study area tour was conducted on May 2, 2002, from 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. to obtain feedback from local elected public officials. 2.2 Public Involvement Two open house and public meeting events were held as listed above. Along with the open house events, a brief presentation was made by the study staff at these events. The SWATS was a very open process and the study team responded to many one-on-one questions throughout the course of the study. All project materials including draft papers were posted on the MAG web site, where contact information and links to selected studies such as the NWATS and RTP were also provided. While agency forums focused on the various jurisdictions and agencies impacted by the work, the forums were also open to the general public. SWATS Final Report – Executive Summary 5 September 2003 3 Socioeconomic Characteristics and Forecasts Socioeconomic characteristics and forecasts are important inputs to the computerized area travel demand model which is used to estimate traffic and related parameters, such as trip generation, traffic volumes and levels of service for area roadways and evaluate future capacity improvements to the transportation system. Tables 3 and 4 present draft interim population and employment forecasts developed for the RTP. Two scenarios are presented: Scenario 1, which generally corresponds to approximately the Year 2020; and Scenario 2, which generally corresponds to approximately the Year 2030. The study focused on meeting the transportation demand for the two scenarios regardless of the specific year the values were achieved. Population and employment values for each of the two scenarios may be reached a little earlier or later than 2020 and 2030, respectively, but will inevitably be reached. It should be emphasized that the population and employment figures for Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 are interim values. New socioeconomic forecasts for the region are under development by MAG for use in the RTP and will supercede the values used in this SWATS study. The sub-areas projected to have the highest population and employment for Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 are in the northeastern quadrant of the study area (Tolleson, Goodyear and Avondale), and along the S.R. 85/I-8 corridor near Gila Bend. Through 2030, much of the southwest area will be comprised of vast areas with lower densities of both population and employment. Over the next thirty years, population for the study area will increase by approximately 270%. In other words, population in 2030 in the Southwest Valley will be about 3.5 to 4 times greater than the 2000 population. Table 3* Total Population, Alternative Scenarios MPA Total Population Year 2000 Total Population Alternative Scenario 1 Year 2020 Total Population Alternative Scenario 2 Year 2030 County (unincorporated areas) 7,407 20,244 39,696 **Buckeye 16,513 149,578 377,438 Avondale 37,827 103,457 114,374 Gila Bend 2,264 6,004 17,979 **Glendale 2,394 5,380 5,381 Litchfield Park 3,831 14,095 14,573 Tolleson 4,998 6,314 6,338 Goodyear 21,246 162,623 334,652 **Phoenix 289,503 464,403 524,347 Total 385,983 932,098 1,434,778 *Socioeconomic data presented here are preliminary and subject to change in the RTP. **Reflects population only within the southwest study area boundaries SWATS Final Report – Executive Summary 6 September 2003 Table 4* Total Employment, Alternative Scenarios MPA Total Employment Year 2000 Total Employment Alternative Scenario 1 Year 2020 Total Employment Alternative Scenario 2 Year 2030 County (unincorporated areas) 6,548 13,322 20,652 **Buckeye 7,006 69,151 172,752 Avondale 9,041 54,644 64,229 Gila Bend 1,191 4,424 12,165 **Glendale 10,807 16,694 20,520 Litchfield Park 1,178 5,059 4,703 Tolleson 12,777 24,753 31,973 Goodyear 13,895 115,434 185,722 **Phoenix 119,088 233,287 309,328 Total 181,531 536,768 822,044 *Socioeconomic data presented here are preliminary and subject to change in the RTP. **Reflects employment only within the southwest study area boundaries 4 Transportation Facilities and Conditions 4.1 Existing Conditions The southwest is growing rapidly and its transportation system is in stages of development. The northeast quadrant of the study area already has a reasonably well-developed grid system of arterial roadways consistent with population density and with development still occurring. This existing grid system extends westward and to the south of the I-10 corridor. The rest of the study area is less developed, and is characterized by pockets of roadway development and other passenger transportation facilities. Terrain plays a significant role in the development of a transportation network in parts of the study area, such as the North Maricopa Mountains, the South Maricopa Mountains, Woolsey Peak, Signal Mountain, and the Eagle Tail Mountains. Large preserve and wilderness areas are contained within the central and southern portions of the study area. Except for the northeast quadrant and the I- 10 corridor, much of the study area is lightly populated with limited transportation services, facilities and needs. Therefore, the focus of the study effort was on the areas (northeast quadrant and the I-10 corridor) where population and employment are currently greater, and on those sub-areas that are expected to experience population and employment growth in the next 50 years, thus requiring improved transportation facilities and services. 4.1.1 Existing Roadways The SWATS roadway network includes all of the state and county highways in the study area, as well as local streets in all or part of Avondale, Buckeye, Gila Bend, Glendale, Goodyear, Litchfield Park, Phoenix, Tolleson, and the unincorporated portions of Maricopa SWATS Final Report – Executive Summary 7 September 2003 County. Roadways are classified according to function served in the circulation system. MAG’s classification includes freeways, HOV lanes, expressways, arterials and collectors. Figure 2 shows the functional classification of the 2002 roadway network in the study area. Table 5 shows the centerline miles of the 2002 roadway network by functional class based on MAG’s traffic model. The table shows that there are currently over 4,000 centerline miles of streets and highways in the study area, and that 1,000 (25 percent) of those miles are classified, i.e., of a functional class higher than local streets. Table 6 shows the number of lane miles for all roadways classified by MAG in the study area. Figure 3 graphically portrays the number of roadway “through” lanes on the 2002 base network. 4.1.2 Existing Public Transit Public transit in the region includes a variety of facilities and services. In addition to the traditional fixed route bus services, transit also includes other ridesharing alternatives such as carpooling, vanpooling, and bikes on buses. It also includes dial-a-ride services and some paratransit services offered by social service agencies. RPTA is the predominant provider of public transit services in the study area, and provides the bulk of the regular route transit service on 19 bus routes. These routes are shown in Figure 4. Other providers in the study area include the City of Phoenix, Greyhound, Maricopa County Department of Human Services, and Southwest Transit and Regional Transportation (START). 4.1.3 Existing Non-motorized Transportation System Non-motorized forms of transportation include walking, bicycling, roller-blading and horseback riding. Typical origins for non-motorized travel in the study area are residential areas, transit stations, resort areas, and access points for backcountry travel. Human-powered transportation occurs on shared streets, streets with bike lanes, streets marked as bike routes, sidewalks, multi-use paths built on separate rights-of-way, and multi-use trails built on separate rights-of-way. In general, all streets are open to bicyclists and pedestrians, unless specifically designated and posted otherwise. The existing street grid provides basic access and connections for bicycle and pedestrian travel. Figure 5 shows the major non-motorized facilities in the study area. Power lines or gas lines may also represent potential non-motorized corridors and further study will be needed to identify appropriate facilities at those locations. 4.1.4 Existing Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) The MAG region has extensive ITS programs that include Traffic Signal Coordination, ADOT’s Freeway Management System (FMS), and the Metropolitan Model Deployment Initiative. Existing freeways in the study area will be among the first to be added to the Regional Freeway Management System (FMS). New freeways, such as Loop 303 and the I-10 Reliever, will be added to the FMS upon their completion. All arterial traffic management systems are operated independently by the municipalities in the study area and elsewhere throughout the MAG region. A number of municipalities in the study area either have or are planning to build local Traffic Management Centers (TMSs). Efforts are already underway to integrate individual agency systems and the FMS as a regional traffic management system. The regional architecture that will serve as the basis for accomplishing this is contained in the MAG ITS Strategic Plan. Freeways Expressways 0 1.5 3 6 9 12 Miles { Figure 2 Current Base Highway Network Functional Classes 85 303 101 238 Riggs Rd Van Buren St Buckeye Rd Lower Buckeye Rd Broadway Rd Southern Ave Baseline Rd Dobbins Rd McDowell Rd Thomas Rd Indian School Rd Camelback Rd 19th Ave 27th Ave 35th Ave 43rd Ave 51st Ave 59th Ave 67th Ave 75th Ave 83rd Ave 91st Ave 99th Ave 107th Ave 115th Ave El Mirage Rd Dysart Rd Litchfield Bullard Estrella Sarival Cotton Citrus Rd Perryville Rd Jackrabbit Tr Tuthill Rd Airport Rd Dean Rd Rainbow Rd Watson Rd Apache Rd Miller Rd Rooks Rd Sun Valley Pkwy Wilson St Turner Rd Johnson Rd 315th Ave 339th Ave 355th Ave 379th Ave §¨¦10 §¨¦17 §¨¦8 Maricopa Rd Study Area Boundary Arterials Collectors 363rd Ave GilaGilaRiver River River Hass a Hassa Agua River Fria Salt River yampa SWATS Final Report – Executive Summary 8 September 2003 SWATS Final Report – Executive Summary 9 September 2003 Table 5 Current (2002) Base Network Centerline Roadway Miles by Functional Class and Area Type Facility/Area Type CBD Urban Urban Fringe Suburban Rural Total Freeway with HOV* 0.7 4.8 2.8 1.8 0.0 10.1 Freeway w/o HOV* 3.8 1.3 1.1 10.2 62.9 79.3 Expressway 1.1 0.9 0.0 0.0 19.0 21.0 Arterial 4.4 41.2 35.9 145.8 634.6 861.8 Collector 2.0 4.1 1.9 4.7 13.8 26.5 Total Classified 12.0 52.4 41.6 162.4 730.3 998.8 Unclassified 3,023.3 Total 4,022.1 *HOV: High Occupancy Vehicle Lane or “Carpool” Lane Table 6 Current (2002) Base Network Road Lane Miles by Functional Class and Area Type Facility/Area Type CBD Urban Urban Fringe Suburban Rural Total HOV* Lanes 1.5 9.6 5.7 3.5 0.0 20.3 Freeway w/o HOV* 22.3 44.2 24.3 71.9 251.7 414.3 Expressway 6.5 3.7 0.0 0.0 43.6 53.8 Arterial 21.9 206.3 156.3 458.8 1,355.3 2,198.7 Collector 7.0 12.5 7.5 12.3 29.6 69.0 Total Classified 59.2 276.3 193.8 546.5 1,680.2 2,756.0 *HOV: High Occupancy Vehicle Lane or “Carpool” Lane 4.2 Planned Future Transportation Facilities 4.2.1 Future Roadways Increased traffic demand in the study area will tax the existing roadway facilities in the near future. Facilities such as I-10 are already experiencing directional rush hour congestion and poor levels of service. Pressure is growing in the Southwest Valley to expand the current arterial grid network, upgrade and construct new river crossings, and plan and build for high capacity roadways. Figure 6 displays the network projected as part of the existing MAG Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) (2002 Update). This “future base” network represents currently planned and committed projects. Much of the new arterial grid development is expected to be funded locally, primarily through development fees. 2 lanes 0 1.5 3 6 9 12 Miles { Figure 3 Number of Lanes in Current Base Network 85 303 238 Van Buren St Buckeye Rd Lower Buckeye Rd Broadway Rd Southern Ave Baseline Rd Dobbins Rd McDowell Rd Thomas Rd Indian School Rd Camelback Rd 19th Ave 27th Ave 35th Ave 43rd Ave 51st Ave 59th Ave 67th Ave 75th Ave 83rd Ave 91st Ave 99th Ave 107th Ave 115th Ave El Mirage Rd Dysart Rd Litchfield Bullard Estrella Sarival Cotton Citrus Rd Perryville Rd Jackrabbit Tr Tuthill Rd Airport Rd Dean Rd Rainbow Rd Watson Rd Apache Rd Miller Rd Rooks Rd Sun Valley Pkwy Wilson St Turner Rd Johnson Rd 315th Ave 339th Ave 355th Ave 379th Ave Study Area Boundary Maricopa Rd Riggs Rd 4 lanes 6 lanes 8 lanes 10 lanes (combined directions & including HOV lanes) 363rd Ave GilaGilaRiver River River Has sa H ass a Agua River Fria Salt River yampa §¨¦8 §¨¦17 §¨¦10 101 SWATS Final Report – Executive Summary 10 September 2003 ! ! ! ! " " " " #$%&'()*' *$)+,$' -')- , " " &%,. +/01%-''&'(0 2 3-( .4 )$-'.1*$)-)&*' .)#560(&.0)$-'.1*$)-)&*'2 7"-1$ 8 " " / 9&.)&'( $-'.&) -'5 ,$:&;,/ < / ! " # $ % Southwest Area Transportation Study Figure 4 Existing Transit Service Routes and Service Areas Fall 2002 Sources: Valley METRO, City of Phoenix Public Transportation Department SWATS Final Report – Executive Summary 11 September 2003 Multi-Use Path (Existing or Proposed) 0 1.5 3 6 9 12 Miles { Figure 5 Existing Off-Road Non-Motorized Facilities 85 303 238 Van Buren St Buckeye Rd Lower Buckeye Rd Broadway Rd Southern Ave Baseline Rd Dobbins Rd McDowell Rd Thomas Rd Indian School Rd Camelback Rd 19th Ave 27th Ave 35th Ave 43rd Ave 51st Ave 59th Ave 67th Ave 75th Ave 83rd Ave 91st Ave 99th Ave 107th Ave 115th Ave El Mirage Rd Dysart Rd Litchfield Bullard Estrella Sarival Cotton Citrus Rd Perryville Rd Jackrabbit Tr Tuthill Rd Airport Rd Dean Rd Rainbow Rd Watson Rd Apache Rd Miller Rd Rooks Rd Sun Valley Pkwy Wilson St Turner Rd Johnson Rd 315th Ave 339th Ave 355th Ave 379th Ave Study Area Boundary Maricopa Rd Riggs Rd River Corridor Canal Bank Railroad Corridor 363rd Ave GilaGilaRiver River River Has sa H ass a Agua River Fria Salt River yampa §¨¦8 §¨¦17 §¨¦10 101 SWATS Final Report – Executive Summary 12 September 2003 Freeways Other Roadways 0 1.5 3 6 9 12 Miles { Figure 6 New and Widened Facilities in Future Base Network (As Modeled) 85 303 101 238 Riggs Rd Van Buren St Buckeye Rd Lower Buckeye Rd Broadway Rd Southern Ave Baseline Rd Dobbins Rd McDowell Rd Thomas Rd Indian School Rd Camelback Rd 19th Ave 27th Ave 35th Ave 43rd Ave 51st Ave 59th Ave 67th Ave 75th Ave 83rd Ave 91st Ave 99th Ave 107th Ave 115th Ave El Mirage Rd Dysart Rd Litchfield Bullard Estrella Sarival Cotton Citrus Rd Perryville Rd Jackrabbit Tr Tuthill Rd Airport Rd Dean Rd Rainbow Rd Watson Rd Apache Rd Miller Rd Rooks Rd Sun Valley Pkwy Wilson St Turner Rd Johnson Rd 315th Ave 339th Ave 355th Ave 379th Ave §¨¦10 §¨¦17 §¨¦8 Maricopa Rd Study Area Boundary New Roadways Widened Roadways 363rd Ave GilaGilaRiver River River Has sa H ass a Agua River Fria Salt River yampa South MountainFreeway SWATS Final Report – Executive Summary 13 September 2003 SWATS Final Report – Executive Summary 14 September 2003 4.2.2 Future Transit Service Additional transit facilities and services in the study area will be necessary. The current MAG LRTP (2002 Update) provides a tripling of local bus service, quadrupling of express bus service and BRT, and 29 miles of Light Rail Transit regionally. The RTS and HCT studies review options to further improve transit services across the region. The HCT and the RTS studies identify major improvements to transit services generally over and above the improved service already specified in the current LRTP. 4.2.3 Needed Future Non-motorized Facilities For non-motorized uses, physical deficiencies most often take the form of gaps in the route or system and barriers within the route itself. Gaps can take the form of missing corridors, missing pieces within a corridor, and missing connections between on-street and off-street facilities. Examples of gaps in the study area are: • Baseline Road from Southern Avenue to the Salt River; • 2nd Avenue from Buckeye Road to Encanto Boulevard; • Perryville Road from McDowell Road to the Salt River; • Lower Buckeye to the Salt River Corridor; and, • The Hassayampa River to the Salt/Gila Rivers corridor. Barriers at a regional scale are usually present when an off-road or on-street facility comes up against a canal, riverbed, wash, freeway, or elevated railroad embankment. In the southwest area, barriers can be found at the intersections of: • Paved routes and the Union Pacific Railroad (UP); • Arterial streets and canals; • Paved paths and I-10 and I-8; and • Residential and commercial areas across SR 85 in Gila Bend. Non motorized facilities are addressed in more detail in the main report. 5 Transportation Issues Transportation issues to be studied in the Southwest Valley to be addressed by this study, were determined from a review of previous studies, solicitation with local agencies, stakeholders, the public and technical assessments by the study team. Consultation with agencies, the public and stakeholders was a critical element of the study that helped identify and prioritize major transportation issues in the study area. The top ten issues identified and ranked by responses from these entities were as follows: • Preserving/dedicating right-of-way for future corridors; • Future transit service needs; • Luke AFB and surrounding area; • Funding I-10 improvements; • Improvements to Loop 303 (including extensions); • Bus pullout locations for future developments; • HOV Lanes on I-10; • The need to identify major arterial routes; • Identification of bus and rail corridors; and • I-10 capacity improvements. The determination of the relative priority of issues was made using quantitative analysis of the interview and survey data, and assessments by the study team. The analysis SWATS Final Report – Executive Summary 15 September 2003 resulted in several issues that were generally important to all entities in the southwest region: • Discontinuous Roadway Network: Accommodation of new pockets of development in an area that lacks connectivity to the rest of the metropolitan area due to geographical features and limited east-west arterials; • Capacity deficiencies on existing regional roadways; • New access points (interchanges) on I-10; • Options to relieve traffic on I-10, particularly in congested sections; • Lack of convenient transit services, and particularly for the perceived need for high capacity transit service such as light rail or commuter rail; • Availability of funding for transportation infrastructure improvements; and, • Right-of-way preservation. A primary underlying concern is the ability to preserve corridors for future transportation infrastructure. These issues are discussed on more detail below. 5.1 Discontinuous Roadway Network While a grid roadway system exists in the northeast quadrant of the study area and generally along the I-10 corridor, much of the southwest area is undeveloped with respect to roadway infrastructure. In many instances, the various local jurisdictions rely on land developers to complete the network. Many of the existing roads that provide connectivity to the metropolitan area are designed to funnel traffic to I-10, which has limited capacity to accommodate additional local development. Moreover, I-10 is a systems facility with a primary purpose of accommodating regional and national traffic, not local traffic. Some communities and developments have adopted or proposed curvilinear neighborhood street systems, which are inconsistent with a grid system. Most of these developments are self contained with a street hierarchy that feeds into the regional grid network. This in turn limits the development of a regional grid system and creates additional congestion on the regional grid system. 5.2 Capacity Deficiencies The need for additional capacity to accommodate the growth currently taking place in the southwest area, and the growth expected to come in future years has been recognized by virtually every agency responsible for transportation. Review of the future Base roadway network reveals that significant new lane construction is projected. Table 7 shows daily capacity by functional class for the current (2002) and Future Base networks. As the table indicates, the current plan (Future Base Network) already provides a near-doubling of capacity overall. While capacity will increase for every classification, there will still be a need for additional capacity, particularly for roadways that are more significant regional facilities (freeways and expressways) given the rapid growth in the area. 5.3 New Freeway Interchanges The development expected to take place in the southwest area will create the need for additional freeway access. New interchanges on I-10 were identified in the study process as particularly important. The locations on I-10 are as follows: • El Mirage Road (depending on local plans for development); SWATS Final Report – Executive Summary 16 September 2003 Table 7 Capacity Miles by Functional Class Facility Type Lane Capacity (vehicles per day) Current 2002 Base Network Capacity Miles Future Base Network Capacity Miles Percent Increase HOV** Lanes 21,000 426,090 2,564,940 602 Freeway w/o HOV** 21,000 8,700,720 11,318,370 130 Expressway 21,000 1,129,800 3,171,420 281 Arterial 8,000 17,589,200 37,260,400 212 Collector 8,000 551,600 568,480 103 Total Classified 28,397,410 54,883,610 193 *Capacity miles is lane miles multiplied by daily vehicle capacity per lane of 21,000 for freeways and expressways and 8,000 for all other types. **HOV: High Occupancy Vehicle Lane or “Carpool” Lane • Bullard Avenue; • Perryville Road; • Wilson Street; • Johnson Road; and • 355th Avenue/Wickenburg Road (CANAMEX Corridor). 5.4 East-West Reliever I-10 is the primary artery connecting the vast undeveloped and partially developed properties in the southwest area. While there is a need for additional capacity on I-10, there are also a practical number of lanes that can be constructed to meet the demand, both in terms of right-of-way and practical operation. Broadway Road was the most mentioned location for a high capacity reliever roadway to I-10. Such a facility would extend from SR 85 on the west to I-17 or Rio Salado Parkway on the east. 5.5 Transit Needs for the Study Area There is a need for expanded transit service in the study area. Not only will transit service provide some relief to traffic congestion, it also is important to provide alternative means of mobility to an aging population. The effort in the SWATS involved considerable coordination with a concurrent High Capacity Transit Study (HCTS) by MAG as well as a concurrent Regional Transit Study (RTS) conducted by Valley Metro (RPTA). Recommendations in those two studies for the southwest area will be considered in the RTP. 5.6 Right-of-Way Preservation Corridor preservation is the first action in the corridor management process. The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) defines corridor preservation as a “concept utilizing the coordinated application of various measures to obtain control of or otherwise protect right-of-way for a planned transportation facility”. 5.7 Aviation Aviation topics are covered in the MAG Regional Aviation System Plan. SWATS Final Report – Executive Summary 17 September 2003 6 Evaluation of Alternatives From the transportation issues developed, several options or alternatives were identified for evaluation leading up to recommendations for input to the RTP for consideration. As part of this process, four different highway options were evaluated. 2020 (LRTP Based) Reference Network (“Future Base”). This network represents the current MAG LRTP 2002 Update which will be superceded by the new RTP. Improvements include road and transit projects currently in the LRTP and local arterial projects expected to be implemented based on existing plans of local jurisdictions and private developers; Enhanced Network. This option includes the facilities in the Future Base network plus additional improvements to the existing freeways, including HOV lanes on I-10 west of Loop 101, on I-17 south of I-10, and on Loop 101. This scenario also assumes existing freeway and expressway facilities (I- 10, I-17, Loop 101) built out within the limits of existing right-of-way and structures. New Corridors Options A and C. These networks represent the third and fourth options evaluated for the SWATS. (Modeling for the southwest, northwest, and southeast area studies was conducted jointly. Three alternative networks for new highways were considered, referred to as Options A, B, and C. Option B did not involve new facilities for the SW Valley so is not reviewed here.) Options A and C include a number of potential new highways in the study area: • An I-10 Reliever, i.e., a freeway running parallel to and south of I-10 from I-17 near the eastern boundary of the study area to I-10 west connecting at the CANAMEX Corridor (355th Ave.); • A Loop 101 extension (five lanes in each direction) from I-10 to the new I-10 Reliever; • The Rio Salado Parkway (three lanes in each direction) from downtown Phoenix to the I-10 Reliever at the Loop 101 extension; • Loop 303 is upgraded north of I-10 from the four-lane expressway included in the Future Base network to a freeway; • An extension of Loop 303 south of I- 10 to Riggs Road; and • The Riggs-Komatke and Maricopa Road arterial roadway corridors (three lanes in each direction) east of SR 85 to the study area boundary, overlapping Riggs Road and Loop 303 in southern Goodyear. Also included are widenings of I-17, which is on the perimeter and has limited impact on the SWATS study area. Options for I-17 are addressed in detail in the NWATS and the RTP. The major difference between Option A and Option C is the number of lanes on the I-10 Reliever and on Loop 303 south of the I-10 Reliever. In Option A, the I-10 Reliever is assumed to be six lanes in each direction for its entire length. In Option C, to better match demand, the I-10 Reliever has seven lanes at its eastern end, four lanes between Loop 303 and SR 85, and three lanes at its western end. Loop 303 has five lanes in Option A for its entire length. In Option C, Loop 303 has six lanes south of the I-10 Reliever to Riggs Road. Table 8 shows a summary comparison of the various network options evaluated. Maps SWATS Final Report – Executive Summary 18 September 2003 Table 8 Network Performance Comparisons* Network Year 2002 2020 2030 Network Current Base Future Base Enhanced New Corridor Option A New Corridor Option C Future Base Enhanced New Corridor Option A New Corridor Option C Centerline Miles Freeway 108 128 128 218 218 128 128 218 218 Expressway 21 43 50 90 90 43 50 90 90 Arterial 865 1,119 1,109 1,057 1,057 1,119 1,109 1,057 1,057 Collector 27 20 22 22 22 20 22 22 22 Total 1,021 1,310 1,309 1,387 1,387 1,310 1,309 1,387 1,387 Lane Miles Freeway 585 634 935 1,999 1,869 634 935 1,999 1,869 Expressway 54 184 276 526 526 184 276 526 526 Arterial 2,204 4,658 4,608 4,423 4,432 4,658 4,608 4,423 4,432 Collector 69 74 84 84 84 74 84 84 84 Total 2,913 5,550 5,903 7,032 6,912 5,550 5,903 7,032 6,912 Capacity Miles** Freeway 12,293,610 13,307,910 13,307,910 19,717,530 19,626,390 13,307,910 13,307,910 19,717,530 19,626,390 Expressway 1,129,800 3,854,760 3,854,760 5,794,320 5,794,320 3,854,760 3,854,760 5,794,320 5,794,320 Arterial 17,632,320 37,265,600 37,265,600 36,864,480 36,864,480 37,265,600 37,265,600 36,864,480 36,864,480 Collector 554,880 592,800 592,800 672,800 672,800 592,800 592,800 672,800 672,800 Total 31,610,610 55,021,070 55,021,070 63,049,130 62,957,990 55,021,070 55,021,070 63,049,130 62,957,990 Daily Vehicle Miles of Travel Freeway 6,958,146 11,586,434 14,420,107 27,269,662 27,484,309 14,188,130 18,446,314 37,820,996 37,545,683 Expressway 388,532 2,663,287 2,854,555 3,106,447 3,598,702 3,038,593 3,890,479 5,646,793 5,603,736 Arterial 6,870,346 22,435,342 19,190,450 12,290,813 12,520,980 34,870,689 30,748,799 20,910,225 21,245,244 Collector 86,303 350,646 302,706 224,848 256,971 452,913 458,313 337,952 359,209 Total 14,303,326 37,035,709 36,767,818 42,891,770 43,860,963 52,550,326 53,543,906 64,715,966 64,753,872 Daily Truck Vehicle Miles of Travel Freeway 1,951,141 3,182,836 4,065,007 7,107,940 7,160,477 3,974,190 5,299,251 9,572,807 9,462,723 Expressway 102,628 961,038 1,038,715 1,152,828 1,328,326 1,041,947 1,361,063 1,925,822 1,924,482 Arterial 1,692,490 5,160,140 4,234,261 2,461,570 2,530,692 7,849,686 6,581,317 4,454,160 4,541,169 Collector 17,810 81,358 71,873 47,606 54,609 112,593 112,542 79,408 83,001 Total 3,764,070 9,385,372 9,409,857 10,769,944 11,074,104 12,978,416 13,354,174 16,032,197 16,011,375 Evening Peak Hour Vehicle Miles of Travel Freeway 337,282 616,052 798,620 1,441,343 1,450,840 708,938 1,013,414 2,022,321 2,014,484 Expressway 22,013 113,879 106,401 114,382 127,615 140,093 162,693 240,572 236,049 Arterial 400,007 1,276,556 1,131,467 768,189 781,498 2,039,333 1,841,064 1,264,034 1,279,598 Collector 6,106 19,024 17,366 15,100 15,075 25,425 24,876 20,980 21,376 Total 765,409 2,025,510 2,053,855 2,339,014 2,375,027 2,913,789 3,042,047 3,547,906 3,551,506 Evening Peak Hour Average Vehicle Speeds Freeway 53 42 50 54 54 35 41 46 44 Expressway 42 39 43 44 44 27 36 42 42 Arterial 30 27 29 30 30 22 24 27 27 Collector 25 22 22 23 23 18 20 22 22 Directional Highway Miles under Congested Conditions (Level-of-Service E or F†) in the Evening Peak Hour Freeway 6 48 20 6 11 79 68 53 50 Expressway 1 4 4 0 0 52 19 8 8 Arterial 68 201 119 37 41 609 488 139 138 Collector 0 2 2 1 1 9 7 3 3 Total 75 255 145 44 53 749 582 202 199 Percent of Directional Highway Miles under Congested Conditions (Level-of-Service E or F†) in the Evening Peak Hour Freeway 3 19 8 1 3 31 27 12 11 Expressway 2 5 4 0 0 60 19 4 4 Arterial 4 9 5 2 2 27 22 7 7 Collector 1 5 4 3 2 24 15 6 6 Total 4 10 6 2 2 29 22 7 7 Evening Peak Hour Vehicle Miles of Travel under Congested Conditions (Level-of-Service E or F†) Freeway 34,943 204,265 114,791 33,226 59,715 708,938 1,013,414 2,022,321 2,014,484 Expressway 1,598 9,568 8,268 0 0 140,093 162,693 240,572 236,049 Arterial 52,198 347,440 204,723 63,617 73,395 2,039,333 1,841,064 1,264,034 1,279,598 Collector 212 1,829 2,511 941 1,325 25,425 24,876 20,980 21,376 Total 88,951 563,103 330,293 97,784 134,436 2,913,789 3,042,047 3,547,906 3,551,506 Percent of Evening Peak Hour Vehicle Miles of Travel under Congested Conditions (Level-of-Service E or F†) Freeway 10 33 14 2 4 51 37 19 17 Expressway 7 8 8 0 0 66 27 8 8 Arterial 13 27 18 8 9 53 45 18 18 Collector 3 10 14 6 9 39 24 10 10 Total 12 28 16 4 6 53 41 18 17 Evening Peak Hour Intersections under Congested Conditions (Level-of-Service E or F†) East Subarea*** 22 107 90 48 55 227 231 239 239 Central Subarea*** 0 25 14 3 3 189 193 177 177 West Subarea*** 0 0 0 0 0 142 146 142 142 South Subarea*** 0 2 2 0 0 88 88 79 79 Percent of Intersections under Congested Conditions (Level-of-Service E or F†) in Evening Peak Hour East Subarea*** 12 47 39 20 23 69 62 41 40 Central Subarea*** 0 13 7 2 2 68 55 17 18 West Subarea*** 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 1 1 South Subarea*** 0 2 2 0 0 13 11 5 5 Motor Vehicle Accidents - Annual Freeway Fatal 22 33 38 53 51 36 42 63 62 Freeway Injury 1,418 2,298 2,644 3,781 3,649 2,516 2,949 4,670 4,562 Freeway PDO**** 3,480 5,668 6,521 9,340 9,012 6,209 7,277 11,559 11,292 Freeway Subtotal 4,920 7,999 9,203 13,174 12,712 8,761 10,268 16,292 15,916 Other Segment Fatal 74 148 142 121 123 192 184 155 156 Other Segment Injury 6,699 13,717 12,756 11,149 11,295 17,972 16,709 14,299 14,380 Other Segment PDO**** 13,361 27,406 25,534 22,328 22,639 35,892 33,478 28,712 28,901 Other Segment Subtotal 20,134 41,271 38,432 33,598 34,057 54,056 50,371 43,166 43,437 Intersection 15,219 23,083 22,869 20,737 20,838 26,411 25,878 23,054 23,228 Total 40,273 72,353 70,504 67,509 67,607 89,228 86,517 82,512 82,581 *Results are preliminary given the interim nature of the underlying socioeconomic data and are subject to change in the RTP process. **Capacity Miles: lane miles multiplied by daily vehicle capacity per lane of: 21,000 for freeways and expressways; 8,000 all other types ***Subareas: East is east of the Agua Fria River; central is west of the Agua Fria River, east of SR-85, and north of the Gila River; south is south of the Gila River and west of the Agua Fria River; west is west of SR-85. ****PDO: Property Damage Only †Level-of-Service E and F are highly congested or jammed conditions. Level A is freeflow. Levels B to D are progressively deteriorating traffic service. SWATS Final Report – Executive Summary 19 September 2003 presenting detailed results are included in the main report. Operationally, the table shows that there is considerably more travel under Options A and C than under either the Future Base or Enhanced networks. This is because both Options A and C have extensive freeway and expressway systems, which are more conducive to travel. Both Options A and C have less congestion than the other two alternatives, the result of more capacity being provided in the roadway network. Options A and C have approximately five percent fewer accidents than either the Future Base or Enhanced networks. 7 Recommendations for Ultimate Concepts Based on the evaluation of various alternatives and considering agency, stakeholder and public input, conclusions and recommendations for the ultimate transportation facilities in the southwest region were developed and are presented below. Specific alignments and design elements (including number of lanes) of facilities are not established in the SWATS. Detailed location and design studies will be conducted for facilities funded in the RTP. All cost estimates are preliminary and will be refined or superseded by estimates for the RTP. 7.1 Highway Facilities 7.1.1 Arterials Figure 7 shows the recommended arterial network. It is recommended that the basic grid configuration of the existing arterial system be continued as the area develops, with a four lane arterial the minimum standard for the ultimate system. The arterial system will be implemented by local jurisdictions. Therefore, it is subject to change following further study, particularly in Goodyear where arterial planning is on-going. For example, the locations of the Arterial Roadway Corridors (ARCs) shown in Figure 7 could change or the arterial system serving the Estrella Mountain Ranch development could be updated. The phasing of improvements is dependent on both land development and traffic demand, with the private sector typically responsible for financing implementation of those arterials necessitated by private development. In total, the estimated cost of the arterial improvements is slightly more than $3.6 billion. In addition to new arterial lane miles, new arterial river crossings, replacement bridges, and widening of existing bridges will be needed. Three new major river crossings on existing arterials are recommended for: • Rainbow Valley Road over the Gila River; • Thomas Road over the Agua Fria River; and • Camelback Road or Tonopah-Salome Highway over the Hassayampa River. The Camelback Road or Tonopah-Salome Highway bridge over the Hassaympa River could be funded by nearby land developers. An arterial bridge at 59th Avenue to serve local traffic may also be needed ultimately, especially if the final location determined in the ongoing Design Concept Study for the South Mountain Freeway is not in the 59th Avenue corridor. Additional crossings will also be needed where new highways are specified. Table 9 presents a summary of arterial river crossings and estimates needs for improvements at both existing crossings and new crossings. Figure 8 graphically portrays the river crossings. In total, the estimated cost of all recommended river crossing improvements is $239 million. 01.252.5 5 7.5 10 Miles { Figure 7 Ultimate Concept for Lanes on the Arterial Network Van Buren St Buckeye Rd Lower Buckeye Rd Broadway Rd Southern Ave Baseline Rd Dobbins Rd McDowell Rd Thomas Rd Indian School Rd Camelback Rd 19th Ave 27th Ave 35th Ave 43rd Ave 51st Ave 59th Ave 67th Ave 75th Ave 83rd Ave 91st Ave 99th Ave 107th Ave 115th Ave El Mirage Rd Dysart Rd Litchfield Bullard Estrella Sarival Cotton Citrus Rd Perryville Rd Jackrabbit Tr Tuthill Rd Airport Rd Dean Rd Rainbow Rd Watson Rd Apache Rd Miller Rd Rooks Rd Sun Valley Pkwy Wilson St Turner Rd Johnson Rd 315th Ave 339th Ave 355th Ave 379th Ave §¨¦10 §¨¦8 Maricopa Rd Loop 303 Extension I-10 Reliever 363rd Ave South MountainFreeway Corridor Study Area Boundary New Freeway Corridor Upgrade Corridor to Freeway Widen Existing Freeway - includes new HOV Lanes Widen Existing Freeway Arterial Roadway Corridor !A New I-10 Interchange 303 Loop 101 Extension 85 !A !A !A A!A! 2 lane Arterial 4 lane Arterial 6 lane Arterial 8 lane Arterial 238 Rio Salado Pky Study Corridor IIff ffuunnddeedd iinn tthhee RRTTPP,, eexxaacctt aalliiggnnmeennttss aanndd ddeessiiggnnss ooff nneeww ffrreeeewwaayy aanndd ootthheerr ccoonnttrroolllleedd aacccceessss ffaacciilliittiieess wwiillll bbee ddeetteerrmiinneedd ffoolllloowwiinngg ffuuttuurree llooccaattiioonn aanndd ddeessiiggnn ssttuuddiieess ttoo bbee ccoonndduucctteedd bbyy tthhee AArriizzoonnaa DDeeppaarrttmeenntt ooff TTrraannssppoorrttaattiioonn.. AAddddiittiioonnaall ttrraannssiitt ccaappaacciittyy maayy rreedduuccee tthhee uullttiimaattee hhiigghhwwaayy ccaappaacciittyy nneeeeddeedd.. LLooccaall ppllaannss ffoorr tthhee aarrtteerriiaall ssyysstteem aarree ssuubbjjeecctt ttoo cchhaannggee,, ppaarrttiiccuullaarrllyy iinn rraappiiddllyy ggrroowwiinngg aarreeaass.. SSoocciiooeeccoonnoomiicc ddaattaa aarree iinntteerriim aanndd ssuubbjjeecctt ttoo cchhaannggee ffoorr tthhee ffiinnaall RRTTPP.. GilaGilaRiver River River Hass a Hassa Agua R. Fria Salt River yampa 101 §¨¦17 Riggs/Komatke UUppddaatteess ttoo tthhee aarrtteerriiaall ssyysstteem iinn Gooooddyyeeaarr aarree ccuurrrreennttllyy uunnddeerr ccoonnssiiddeerraattiioonn bbyy tthhee CCiittyy,, bbootthh aass ppaarrtt ooff aa GGeenneerraall PPllaann UUppddaattee aanndd tthhee oonnggooiinngg ddeevveellooppmeenntt pprroocceessss.. AAtt tthhee rreeqquueesstt ooff tthhee CCiittyy ooff GGooooddyyeeaarr,, tthhee aarrtteerriiaall ssyysstteem pprreesseenntteedd hheerree iiss iinntteennddeedd ttoo iilllluussttrraattee ppootteennttiiaall nneeeeddss ffoorr ccaappaacciittyy ggiivveenn ccuurrrreenntt pprroojjeeccttiioonnss ffoorr ppooppuullaattiioonn aanndd eemppllooyymeenntt ggrroowwtthh iinn tthhee aarreeaa.. TThheessee pprroojjeeccttiioonnss maayy cchhaannggee ssiiggnniiffiiccaannttllyy aass tthhee aarreeaa ddeevveellooppss aanndd pprroojjeeccttiioonnss aarree uuppddaatteedd.. AAccttuuaall aalliiggnnmeennttss aanndd ccaappaacciittiieess ffoorr aarrtteerriiaallss iinn tthhee CCiittyy ooff Gooooddyyeeaarr aarree tthheerreeffoorree eexxppeecctteedd ttoo cchhaannggee ssiiggnniiffiiccaannttllyy aass tthhee CCiittyy ccoompplleetteess iittss aarrtteerriiaall ssyysstteem ppllaannnniinngg.. TThheessee cchhaannggeess wwiillll bbee iinnccoorrppoorraatteedd iinnttoo ffuuttuurree uuppddaatteess ooff tthhee RRTTPP.. Riggs Rd SWATS Final Report – Executive Summary 20 September 2003 SWATS Final Report – Executive Summary 21 September 2003 Table 9 Arterial Crossings of Major Rivers: Improvements and Cost Estimates* *This table mainly reflects improvements to existing bridges. Additional roadways may need bridges. These estimates are preliminary and may be superseded by the RTP. 7.1.2 Freeways and Expressways To meet future demand, a substantial increase in freeway and expressway miles will be needed. (See Figure 9.) Figure 10 shows the number of freeway and expressway lanes needed to serve traffic forecasts for 2030, based on interim population and employment forecasts. Demand projections will differ somewhat for the new socioeconomic data developed for the RTP. Alignment and design studies to be conducted by the Arizona Department of Transportation focused on each specific facility may have different design years, use updated population and employment forecasts, or include more detailed cost estimation resulting in changes to the recommendations included here. The current estimate of total cost of the freeway and expressway improvements recommended here is approximately $6.9 billion. Road River Current Lanes Future Lanes Added Lanes Current Condition Action Cost 19th Ave Salt 4 4 0 Not None 35th Ave Salt 2 4 2 Deficient Build $4.7 51st Ave Salt 2 4 2 Not None 59th Ave Salt 0 4 4 No Crossing Build 9.4 67th Ave Salt 2 4 2 Road Build 9.4 91st Ave Salt 2 4 2 Road None 115th Ave Gila 4 4 0 Not None El Mirage Gila 4 4 0 Road Build 46.8 Bullard Gila 2 4 2 Not Widen 7.3 Estrella Gila 2 4 2 Not Widen 11.5 Rainbow Valley Gila 0 4 No Crossing Build 24.0 Tuthill Gila 2 4 2 Not Widen 8.3 Airport Gila 2 4 2 Road Build 18.7 Old US 80 Gila 2 4 2 Deficient Build 15.6 Camelback Agua Fria 4 4 0 Not None Indian School Agua Fria 4 4 0 Deficient Build 15.2 Thomas Agua Fria 0 6 No Crossing Build 13.6 McDowell Agua Fria 4 6 2 Not Widen 5.8 Van Buren Agua Fria 4 6 2 Not Widen 3.1 MC-85 Agua Fria 4 4 0 Not Build 11.3 Lower Buckeye Agua Fria 2 4 2 Road Build 23.4 Tonopah Hassayampa 2 4 2 Road Build 11.0 Baseline Hassayampa 2 4 2 Road None Old US 80 Hassayampa 2 4 2 Not None Total $239.0 0 1.5 3 6 9 12 Miles { Figure 8 Recommended Bridge Actions at Major River Arterial Crossings 101 Van Buren St Buckeye Rd Lower Buckeye Rd Broadway Rd Southern Ave Baseline Rd Dobbins Rd McDowell Rd Thomas Rd Indian School Rd Camelback Rd 19th Ave 27th Ave 35th Ave 43rd Ave 51st Ave 59th Ave 67th Ave 75th Ave 83rd Ave 91st Ave 99th Ave 107th Ave 115th Ave El Mirage Rd Dysart Rd Litchfield Bullard Estrella Sarival Cotton Citrus Rd Perryville Rd Jackrabbit Tr Tuthill Rd Airport Rd Dean Rd Rainbow Rd Watson Rd Apache Rd Miller Rd Rooks Rd Sun Valley Pkwy Wilson St Turner Rd Johnson Rd 315th Ave 339th Ave 355th Ave 379th Ave §¨¦10 §¨¦8 Maricopa Rd Loop 303 Extension I-10 Reliever 363rd Ave South MountainFreeway Corridor Study Area Boundary Arterial Roadway Corridor !A New I-10 Interchange 303 Loop 101 Extension 85 !A !A !A !A !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( GilaGilaRiver River River Hass a Hassa Salt yampa New Bridge (Replacement and New Location) !( !( Widen Bridge !( No Recommendation !A New Freeway Corridor Upgrade Corridor to Freeway Widen Existing Freeway - includes new HOV Lanes Widen Existing Freeway §¨¦17 River River!( !A!( !( Fria R. Agua Rio Salado Pky 238 Study Corridor !(!( IIff ffuunnddeedd iinn tthhee RRTTPP,, eexxaacctt aalliiggnnmeennttss aanndd ddeessiiggnnss ooff nneeww ffrreeeewwaayy aanndd ootthheerr ccoonnttrroolllleedd aacccceessss ffaacciilliittiieess wwiillll bbee ddeetteerrmiinneedd ffoolllloowwiinngg ffuuttuurree llooccaattiioonn aanndd ddeessiiggnn ssttuuddiieess ttoo bbee ccoonndduucctteedd bbyy tthhee AArriizzoonnaa DDeeppaarrttmeenntt ooff TTrraannssppoorrttaattiioonn.. AAddddiittiioonnaall ttrraannssiitt ccaappaacciittyy maayy rreedduuccee tthhee uullttiimaattee hhiigghhwwaayy ccaappaacciittyy nneeeeddeedd.. LLooccaall ppllaannss ffoorr tthhee aarrtteerriiaall ssyysstteem aarree ssuubbjjeecctt ttoo cchhaannggee,, ppaarrttiiccuullaarrllyy iinn rraappiiddllyy ggrroowwiinngg aarreeaass.. SSoocciiooeeccoonnoomiicc ddaattaa aarree iinntteerriim aanndd ssuubbjjeecctt ttoo cchhaannggee ffoorr tthhee ffiinnaall RRTTPP.. UUppddaatteess ttoo tthhee aarrtteerriiaall ssyysstteem iinn Gooooddyyeeaarr aarree ccuurrrreennttllyy uunnddeerr ccoonnssiiddeerraattiioonn bbyy tthhee CCiittyy,, bbootthh aass ppaarrtt ooff aa Geenneerraall PPllaann UUppddaattee aanndd tthhee oonnggooiinngg ddeevveellooppmeenntt pprroocceessss.. AAtt tthhee rreeqquueesstt ooff tthhee CCiittyy ooff Gooooddyyeeaarr,, tthhee aarrtteerriiaall ssyysstteem pprreesseenntteedd hheerree iiss iinntteennddeedd ttoo iilllluussttrraattee ppootteennttiiaall nneeeeddss ffoorr ccaappaacciittyy ggiivveenn ccuurrrreenntt pprroojjeeccttiioonnss ffoorr ppooppuullaattiioonn aanndd eemppllooyymeenntt ggrroowwtthh iinn tthhee aarreeaa.. TThheessee pprroojjeeccttiioonnss maayy cchhaannggee ssiiggnniiffiiccaannttllyy aass tthhee aarreeaa ddeevveellooppss aanndd pprroojjeeccttiioonnss aarree uuppddaatteedd.. AAccttuuaall aalliiggnnmeennttss aanndd ccaappaacciittiieess ffoorr aarrtteerriiaallss iinn tthhee CCiittyy ooff Gooooddyyeeaarr aarree tthheerreeffoorree eexxppeecctteedd ttoo cchhaannggee ssiiggnniiffiiccaannttllyy aass tthhee CCiittyy ccoompplleetteess iittss aarrtteerriiaall ssyysstteem ppllaannnniinngg.. TThheessee cchhaannggeess wwiillll bbee iinnccoorrppoorraatteedd iinnttoo ffuuttuurree uuppddaatteess ooff tthhee RRTTPP.. Riggs/Komatke Riggs Rd SWATS Final Report – Executive Summary 22 September 2003 0 1.5 3 6 9 12 Miles { Figure 9 Ultimate Concepts for Major Highway Infrastructure Based on 2030 Demand Estimates Van Buren St Buckeye Rd Lower Buckeye Rd Broadway Rd Southern Ave Baseline Rd Dobbins Rd McDowell Rd Thomas Rd Indian School Rd Camelback Rd 19th Ave 27th Ave 35th Ave 43rd Ave 51st Ave 59th Ave 67th Ave 75th Ave 83rd Ave 91st Ave 99th Ave 107th Ave 115th Ave El Mirage Rd Dysart Rd Litchfield Bullard Estrella Sarival Cotton Citrus Rd Perryville Rd Jackrabbit Tr Tuthill Rd Airport Rd Dean Rd Rainbow Rd Watson Rd Apache Rd Miller Rd Rooks Rd Sun Valley Pkwy Wilson St Turner Rd Johnson Rd 315th Ave 339th Ave 379th Ave §¨¦10 §¨¦8 Maricopa Rd Loop 303 Extension I-10 Reliever Rio Salado Pky 363rd Ave South MountainFreeway Corridor Study Area Boundary Arterial Roadway Corridor/ Right-of-Way Preservation !A New I-10 Interchange 303 Loop 101 Extension 85 !A !A !A !A GilaGilaRiver River River Hass a Hassa Fria Salt River yampa !A New Freeway Corridor Upgrade Corridor to Freeway Widen Existing Freeway - includes new HOV Lanes Widen Existing Freeway R. Agua 238 Study Corridor 355th Ave 101 §¨¦17 IIff ffuunnddeedd iinn tthhee RRTTPP,, eexxaacctt aalliiggnnmeennttss aanndd ddeessiiggnnss ooff nneeww ffrreeeewwaayy aanndd ootthheerr ccoonnttrroolllleedd aacccceessss ffaacciilliittiieess wwiillll bbee ddeetteerrmiinneedd ffoolllloowwiinngg ffuuttuurree llooccaattiioonn aanndd ddeessiiggnn ssttuuddiieess ttoo bbee ccoonndduucctteedd bbyy tthhee AArriizzoonnaa DDeeppaarrttmeenntt ooff TTrraannssppoorrttaattiioonn.. AAddddiittiioonnaall ttrraannssiitt ccaappaacciittyy maayy rreedduuccee tthhee uullttiimaattee hhiigghhwwaayy ccaappaacciittyy nneeeeddeedd.. LLooccaall ppllaannss ffoorr tthhee aarrtteerriiaall ssyysstteem aarree ssuubbjjeecctt ttoo cchhaannggee,, ppaarrttiiccuullaarrllyy iinn rraappiiddllyy ggrroowwiinngg aarreeaass.. SSoocciiooeeccoonnoomiicc ddaattaa aarree iinntteerriim aanndd ssuubbjjeecctt ttoo cchhaannggee ffoorr tthhee ffiinnaall RRTTPP.. UUppddaatteess ttoo tthhee aarrtteerriiaall ssyysstteem iinn Gooooddyyeeaarr aarree ccuurrrreennttllyy uunnddeerr ccoonnssiiddeerraattiioonn bbyy tthhee CCiittyy,, bbootthh aass ppaarrtt ooff aa Geenneerraall PPllaann UUppddaattee aanndd tthhee oonnggooiinngg ddeevveellooppmeenntt pprroocceessss.. AAtt tthhee rreeqquueesstt ooff tthhee CCiittyy ooff Gooooddyyeeaarr,, tthhee aarrtteerriiaall ssyysstteem pprreesseenntteedd hheerree iiss iinntteennddeedd ttoo iilllluussttrraattee ppootteennttiiaall nneeeeddss ffoorr ccaappaacciittyy ggiivveenn ccuurrrreenntt pprroojjeeccttiioonnss ffoorr ppooppuullaattiioonn aanndd eemppllooyymeenntt ggrroowwtthh iinn tthhee aarreeaa.. TThheessee pprroojjeeccttiioonnss maayy cchhaannggee ssiiggnniiffiiccaannttllyy aass tthhee aarreeaa ddeevveellooppss aanndd pprroojjeeccttiioonnss aarree uuppddaatteedd.. AAccttuuaall aalliiggnnmeennttss aanndd ccaappaacciittiieess ffoorr aarrtteerriiaallss iinn tthhee CCiittyy ooff Gooooddyyeeaarr aarree tthheerreeffoorree eexxppeecctteedd ttoo cchhaannggee ssiiggnniiffiiccaannttllyy aass tthhee CCiittyy ccoompplleetteess iittss aarrtteerriiaall ssyysstteem ppllaannnniinngg.. TThheessee cchhaannggeess wwiillll bbee iinnccoorrppoorraatteedd iinnttoo ffuuttuurree uuppddaatteess ooff tthhee RRTTPP.. Riggs/Komatke Riggs Rd SWATS Final Report – Executive Summary 23 September 2003 0 1.5 3 6 9 12 Miles { Figure 10 Ultimate Concepts for Major Highway Infrastructure: Lanes Needed Based on 2030 Demand Estimates 101 Van Buren St Buckeye Rd Lower Buckeye Rd Broadway Rd Southern Ave Baseline Rd Dobbins Rd McDowell Rd Thomas Rd Indian School Rd Camelback Rd 19th Ave 27th Ave 35th Ave 43rd Ave 51st Ave 59th Ave 67th Ave 75th Ave 83rd Ave 91st Ave 99th Ave 107th Ave 115th Ave El Mirage Rd Dysart Rd Litchfield Bullard Estrella Sarival Cotton Citrus Rd Perryville Rd Jackrabbit Tr Tuthill Rd Airport Rd Dean Rd Rainbow Rd Watson Rd Apache Rd Miller Rd Rooks Rd Sun Valley Pkwy Wilson St Turner Rd Johnson Rd 315th Ave 339th Ave 355th Ave 379th Ave §¨¦10 §¨¦8 Maricopa Rd Loop 303 Extension I-10 Reliever 363rd Ave South MountainFreeway Corridor 6 Lane Freeway 8 Lane Freeway Study Area Boundary 10 Lane Freeway 12 Lane Freeway 16 Lane Freeway 14 Lane Freeway Arterial Roadway Corridor !A New I-10 Interchange 4 Lane Freeway 303 Loop 101 Extension 85 !A !A !A !A Rio Salado Pky !A 238 Study Corridor Freeway Improvements to be Determined GilaGilaRiver River River Has sa H ass a Agua R. Fria Salt River yampa !A Lanes include both directions & HOV lanes §¨¦17 IIff ffuunnddeedd iinn tthhee RRTTPP,, eexxaacctt aalliiggnnmeennttss aanndd ddeessiiggnnss ooff nneeww ffrreeeewwaayy aanndd ootthheerr ccoonnttrroolllleedd aacccceessss ffaacciilliittiieess wwiillll bbee ddeetteerrmiinneedd ffoolllloowwiinngg ffuuttuurree llooccaattiioonn aanndd ddeessiiggnn ssttuuddiieess ttoo bbee ccoonndduucctteedd bbyy tthhee AArriizzoonnaa DDeeppaarrttmeenntt ooff TTrraannssppoorrttaattiioonn.. AAddddiittiioonnaall ttrraannssiitt ccaappaacciittyy maayy rreedduuccee tthhee uullttiimaattee hhiigghhwwaayy ccaappaacciittyy nneeeeddeedd.. LLooccaall ppllaannss ffoorr tthhee aarrtteerriiaall ssyysstteem aarree ssuubbjjeecctt ttoo cchhaannggee,, ppaarrttiiccuullaarrllyy iinn rraappiiddllyy ggrroowwiinngg aarreeaass.. SSoocciiooeeccoonnoomiicc ddaattaa aarree iinntteerriim aanndd ssuubbjjeecctt ttoo cchhaannggee ffoorr tthhee ffiinnaall RRTTPP.. UUppddaatteess ttoo tthhee aarrtteerriiaall ssyysstteem iinn Gooooddyyeeaarr aarree ccuurrrreennttllyy uunnddeerr ccoonnssiiddeerraattiioonn bbyy tthhee CCiittyy,, bbootthh aass ppaarrtt ooff aa Geenneerraall PPllaann UUppddaattee aanndd tthhee oonnggooiinngg ddeevveellooppmeenntt pprroocceessss.. AAtt tthhee rreeqquueesstt ooff tthhee CCiittyy ooff Gooooddyyeeaarr,, tthhee aarrtteerriiaall ssyysstteem pprreesseenntteedd hheerree iiss iinntteennddeedd ttoo iilllluussttrraattee ppootteennttiiaall nneeeeddss ffoorr ccaappaacciittyy ggiivveenn ccuurrrreenntt pprroojjeeccttiioonnss ffoorr ppooppuullaattiioonn aanndd eemppllooyymeenntt ggrroowwtthh iinn tthhee aarreeaa.. TThheessee pprroojjeeccttiioonnss maayy cchhaannggee ssiiggnniiffiiccaannttllyy aass tthhee aarreeaa ddeevveellooppss aanndd pprroojjeeccttiioonnss aarree uuppddaatteedd.. AAccttuuaall aalliiggnnmeennttss aanndd ccaappaacciittiieess ffoorr aarrtteerriiaallss iinn tthhee CCiittyy ooff Gooooddyyeeaarr aarree tthheerreeffoorree eexxppeecctteedd ttoo cchhaannggee ssiiggnniiffiiccaannttllyy aass tthhee CCiittyy ccoompplleetteess iittss aarrtteerriiaall ssyysstteem ppllaannnniinngg.. TThheessee cchhaannggeess wwiillll bbee iinnccoorrppoorraatteedd iinnttoo ffuuttuurree uuppddaatteess ooff tthhee RRTTPP.. Riggs/Komatke Riggs Rd SWATS Final Report – Executive Summary 24 September 2003 SWATS Final Report – Executive Summary 25 September 2003 7.1.3 I-10 To meet the future systems demand, as well as to provide local connections and connections to other parts of the region, I-10 will require widening. East of Loop 101, demand is projected for 14 lanes (10 general purpose lanes and four HOV lanes). West of Loop 101, demand is projected for up to 12 lanes to SR 85, with 10 general purpose lanes and two HOV lanes. West of SR 85, demand is projected for 10 lanes to Sun Valley Parkway. West of Sun Valley Parkway facility needs are not forecast to exceed the current capacity. In concert with ongoing work involving ADOT and local and regional entities, six new arterial interchanges are included in the plan: • El Mirage Road (depending on local development plans); • Bullard Road; • Perryville Road; • Wilson Avenue; • Johnson Road; and • 355th Avenue (future CANAMEX Corridor). In total, improvements to I-10 are estimated to cost approximately $1.5 billion. 7.1.4 I-10 Reliever A major project is a new facility to act as an I- 10 reliever. This facility would be located to the south of I-10 between SR 85 and at a minimum the eastern boundary of the study area (I-17). A connection to I-10 at US 60 (Superstition) should also be studied. Demand is projected for up to a 14-lane facility east of the South Mountain Freeway, a 16-lane facility west of the South Mountain Freeway to the Loop 303 Extension, a 10-lane facility between the Loop 303 Extension and Perryville Road, and an eight-lane facility west to SR 85. The estimated cost of the I-10 Reliever within this study area is approximately $2.3 billion. 7.1.5 I-17 HOV or “carpool” lanes are needed along I- 17 south of I-10 west. The portion of the carpool lanes west of 19th Avenue in the SWATS area is estimated to cost $33 million. North of I-10 west I-17 requires additional capacity, but the configuration of that capacity requires further study. A total of $230 million has been set aside for improvements along the section of I-17 north of I-10 to Camelback Road (the SWATS area boundary). Additional study will be required before decisions can be made with respect to improvements in this corridor. 7.1.6 Loop 101 (Agua Fria) Loop 101 north of I-10 is recommended for widening. Forecast demand is projected for an additional general purpose lane as well as an HOV or “carpool” lane in each direction. The cost of these improvements for the portion of Loop 101 in the SWATS area is estimated at $81 million. 7.1.7 Loop 101 (Agua Fria) Extension While a 10-lane freeway facility from I-10 south to the I-10 Reliever appears to be warranted based on demand, this roadway will require more study before the type of facility and number of lanes can be decided, given concern over potential local impacts. At this time, a parkway facility or higher level arterial facility acceptable to local jurisdictions is recommended for consideration in the RTP. It should also be noted that the Loop 101 Extension is being considered among the alternatives in the South Mountain Freeway study ongoing at ADOT. The Loop 101 Extension as a 6-lane parkway would cost approximately $39 million. 7.1.8 Loop 202 (South Mountain Freeway) The South Mountain Freeway is currently under study by ADOT. Based on the analysis performed in the SWATS, demand is projected for up to 10 lanes. The cost of the SWATS Final Report – Executive Summary 26 September 2003 portion of the South Mountain Freeway within the study limits was estimated to be $853 million. 7.1.9 Loop 303 (Estrella) Extension The Loop 303 Extension includes implementation of a freeway on the alignment of existing Loop 303 and extending the facility across I-10 and the Gila River into the southern portion of Goodyear. An exact alignment is not recommended herein but would be determined following further study by ADOT. Demand is projected for up to 10 lanes along the route with a diminishing number of lanes as the facility approaches its southern terminus at Riggs Road. The Loop 303 Extension improvements in the SWATS area are estimated to cost approximately $1.34 billion. It should be noted that commercial traffic volumes on the Loop 303 Extension are projected to be a substantial percentage of the total traffic. High projected levels of commercial traffic on a facility like Loop 303 does not make it ideal for a location within a major residential area. 7.1.10 SR 85 SR 85 is recommended ultimately to be a six-lane freeway from I-10 to I-8 to address demand and potential safety concerns. In the interim, it may be constructed as a freeway for the northern- most section from I-10 to the Gila River crossing. Between the Gila River and Komatke Road, demand is forecast for a six-lane expressway. South of Komatke Road (to Gila Bend), demand is forecast for a four-lane expressway. A cost of $253 million is estimated for these interim improvements to SR 85. SR 85 is currently being widened to a four-lane divided Highway. SR 85 is a segment of the CANAMEX Corridor, as recommended by MAG. The full cost of a freeway facility from I-10 to I-8 is estimated at about $1.2 billion. 7.1.11 Sun Valley Parkway Traffic forecast for the Sun Valley Parkway is projected for six lanes. The facility is currently a 4 lane divided arterial. It is recommended that this road be upgraded to an expressway or parkway. The estimated cost of the improvements is $32 million (within the SWATS area, south of Camelback Road). 7.1.12 CANAMEX Corridor The CANAMEX Corridor is one of 43 national "high priority" corridors identified in the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA); the 1995 National Highway System (NHS) Designation Act; and the Transportation Efficiency Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21). It was conceived as a major commercial and trade route between Mexico and Canada. In April of 2001, following completion of a study, the MAG Regional Council passed a resolution specifying the corridor within Maricopa County to include: I-8, SR 85, I-10 from SR 85 to the Wickenburg Road/Vulture Mine Road connection, an alignment in the general vicinity of Wickenburg Road/Vulture Mine Road connecting to the future Wickenburg Bypass, and the Wickenburg Bypass from that point west to US 93. Wickenburg Road is generally aligned with 355th Avenue at I-10. Early preservation of right-of-way is recommended for the portion of the route north of I-10 and within the SWATS area. The route would connect to I-10 at or near 355th Avenue. It is recommended that right-of- way preservation be undertaken as part of the land development process. Costs and improvements to SR 85 and I-10 are included in this study. Costs for improvements for the CANAMEX Corridor north of the SWATS area are included in the NWATS. SWATS Final Report – Executive Summary 27 September 2003 7.1.13 Rio Salado Parkway The Rio Salado Parkway, a six lane roadway proposed by the City of Phoenix, enters the study area from downtown Phoenix and parallels the Salt River to 75th Avenue, then turns north to an interchange with the I-10 Reliever and the Loop 101 Extension. The cost of the Rio Salado Parkway included in the SWATS study area is approximately $41 million. 7.1.14 Riggs, Komatke, and Maricopa Roads It is recommended that right-of-way be preserved for this corridor to provide for a six-lane arterial or expressway. No costs are included for right-of-way preservation, as it is recommended that right-of-way preservation be undertaken as part of the land development process. Development of this corridor further east along Riggs Road is an alternative. 7.2 Transit 7.2.1 Regional Fixed Route Transit The RTS recommends that service area expansion be included in the RTP. The implementation is recommended to be phased in concert with the expansion of development. An investment of $700 million will be needed for the rolling stock to serve the municipalities in the SWATS area. (This estimate includes 100% of those municipalities only partially located in the SWATS area.) 7.2.2 High Capacity Transit The HCTS recommends corridors for LRT or BRT service on dedicated rights-of-way be included in the RTP. The HCTS recommends such facilities parallel to 51st and 59th Avenues north of Baseline Road and also along the I-10 corridor west of downtown Phoenix to Loop 101. These estimated cost of these facilities, if developed as LRT, totals $1.1 billion Commuter rail along the Union Pacific Railroad tracks from downtown Phoenix to Buckeye is also recommended by the HCTS for inclusion in the RTP with an estimated cost of $450 million. Additionally, the HCTS recommends BRT on I-10 west of Loop 101 and on Loop 101 and Loop 303 north of I-10. 7.2.3 Other Transit Facilities The RTS recommends three additional park-and- ride facilities for the study area. These facilities should be phased such that they are in place ahead of development. All of these facilities are located along I-10 at strategically selected interchanges, at Litchfield Road, Miller Road, and 339th Avenue. These facilities cost approximately $3 million apiece. 7.3 Non-motorized Facilities It is recommended that bicycle and pedestrian facilities be included in the RTP where feasible and consistent with regional and local plans. It is more cost effective to include the design and construction of bicycle and pedestrian facilities at the time of construction of new arterial roadways, as compared to subsequently widening an existing roadway to accommodate bicycle and pedestrian facilities. 7.4 Planned ITS Intelligent transportation systems (ITS) are recommended for incorporation into transportation facilities and services consistent with the MAG ITS Strategic Plan. These include expansion of the existing freeway management system as freeway improvements are implemented, as well as traffic signal coordination along Arterial Roadway Corridors and other major arterial roadways. Capital costs for these improvements are currently estimated at $175 million. 7.5 Goods Movement A large portion of the traffic in the study area is trucks moving goods within and through SWATS Final Report – Executive Summary 28 September 2003 the study area. Some municipalities in the study, such as Phoenix, have designated truck routes. Other cities do not. There is a concentration of freight terminals south of I- 10 along Van Buren, Buckeye, and Lower Buckeye Roads. Interstate access coupled with growth in the greater Phoenix area indicates that truck freight movements in the study area will increase substantially in the coming years. It is recommended that a region-wide systematic goods movement plan be prepared in preparation for future updates of the RTP. Because of the location of freight terminals south of I-10, truck traffic will be a substantial component of total traffic on the I-10 Reliever. A regional goods movement plan should be in place to inform the alignment and design studies for that and other facilities. 7.6 Summary of Costs Table 10 shows a summary of costs for all facilities recommended for inclusion in the RTP. In total, over $12.9 billion worth of projects have been identified. 7.7 Policies 7.7.1 Variable Width Roadways (“Scalloped Streets”) Variable width roadways, often referred to as “scalloped streets,” occur as a result of roadway segments being constructed at different times. The scalloped streets problem affects the efficiency of the arterial grid network by reducing capacity, causing congestion, and reducing levels of service. It is recommended that a Scalloped Streets Policy be adopted by the local jurisdictions along with a mechanism for funding the roadway improvements. 7.7.2 Arterial Grid Continuity Regionally, the arterial grid system acts as an overflow for congested freeways, expressways, and other higher level facilities in addition to accommodating local traffic. Closing the gaps in the arterial grid network and mitigating the obstructions to constructing the grid network should continue to be a fundamental regional objective. 7.7.3 Preservation of Right-of-Way The early protection of rights-of-way for all modes of travel should become a regional policy supported by all cities. It is recommended that rights-of-way for planned, future facilities be protected or preserved, where possible, before development takes place. 7.7.4 Avoid Creation of T-Intersections The creation of T intersections should be avoided. Currently major T intersections occur at I-10 and SR 85 and at Sun Valley Parkway and I-10. 7.7.5 Safety and ITS Projects that improve the safety and efficiency of the transportation system should be high regional priorities. SWATS Final Report – Executive Summary 29 September 2003 Table 10 Estimated Costs* of Ultimate Concepts (all costs in millions of constant 2003 dollars) Facility Miles in SWATS Area New Widen Additional Interchanges & Intersection Improvements Freeway System Interchanges Major Bridges ITS Bikeway Total Arterial Roadways Arterials 295 $972 $2,376 $63 $211 $3,623 Major River Arterial Bridges 239 239 Subtotal Arterial Roadways $972 $2,376 $0 $0 $239 $63 $211 $3,862 Freeways I-10: I-17 to Loop 101 9 734 23 ** 757 I-10: Loop 101 to Loop 303 9 254 32 *** ** 286 I-10: Loop 303 to SR-85 12 346 16 ** 362 I-10: SR-85 to Sun Valley Parkway 3 77 16 ** 93 I-10: SR-85 to County Line 39 35 35 I-17: I-10 (west) to Camelback†**** 3 230 230 I-17: I-10 (west) to 19th Avenue 3 33 33 South Mountain Freeway† 15 755 50 33 15 853 SR-85 north of Gila River 7 50 50 26 7 133 SR-85 south of Gila River 30 40 50 30 120 I-10 Reliever: I-17 to Loop 101 Extension 10 666 200 10 875 I-10 Reliever: Loop 101 to Loop 303 9 644 50 73 9 776 I-10 Reliever: Loop 303 Extension to SR-85 12 553 100 12 665 Loop 101 Widening: I-10 to Camelback† 3 46 35 81 Loop 303 Extension: Northern to I-10† 6 285 45 6 336 Loop 303 Extension: I-10 to I-10 Reliever 5 235 50 5 290 Loop 303 Extension: I-10 Reliever to Riggs Rd 13 602 50 47 13 712 Subtotal Freeways $3,875 $1,674 $99 $703 $179 $107 $0 $6,638 Expressways/Parkways Loop 101 Extension†† 3 21 16 1 1 39 Sun Valley Parkway: I-10 to Camelback† 5 17 13 1 2 32 Rio Salado Parkway† 10 37 ** 4 41 Subtotal Expressways/Parkways $58 $17 $29 $0 $0 $2 $7 $112 Transit (based on HCTS and RTS) LRT: I-10 from downtown Phoenix to Loop 101 400 400 LRT: 51st/59th Ave corridor north of Baseline Rd 730 730 Commuter rail: downtown Phoenix to Buckeye 450 450 Park-and-ride, I-10 @ Litchfield Road 3 3 Park-and-ride, I-10 @ Miller Road 3 3 Park-and-ride, I-10 @ 339th Avenue 3 3 Bus Rolling Stock 700 700 Subtotal Transit $2,289 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,289 Multi-Purpose Paved Trails Grand Canal: 19th Ave to 75th Ave† 8 3 3 Agua Fria River Bank† 10 3 3 Gila-Salt River: Agua Fria to Rio Salado Expwy 9 3 3 Gila River Bank: Agua Fria to SR-85 17 6 6 Gila River Bank west of SR-85 6 2 2 Roosevelt Canal: Agua Fria to SR-85 20 7 7 Roosevelt Canal: SR-85 to Hassayampa 8 3 3 Waterman Wash 13 5 5 Hassayampa River† 14 5 5 Subtotal Multi-Purpose Paved Trails $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $37 $37 GRAND TOTAL $7,194 $4,067 $128 $703 $418 $172 $256 $12,937 Percent of Total 56 31 1 5 3 1 2 100 *These estimates are preliminary and may be superseded in the RTP. **Included in "New" or "Widen" cost. ***Major expansion or replacement of the I-10 bridge over the Agua Fria River will be required to accommodate I-10 widening. ****Specific improvements to be determined. †Project crosses the SWATS area boundary. Estimated cost includes only the portion within the SWATS area. ††Cost estimate is for a 6-lane parkway facility. LRT projects would cost approximately half as much if developed as BRT projects on exclusive right-of-way. LRT, Bus Rolling Stock, and Commuter Rail include costs for portions of projects outside the SWATS area. Bikeway and ITS costs on major bridges are included in the bridge costs. Some bridge costs for new roadways are included in new roadway costs and some are shown separately in the bridge column. |
