Queen Creek small area transportation study final report

              May 2007 www.camsys.com
Queen Creek Small Area Transportation Study
prepared for
Town of Queen Creek
prepared by
Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
with
PSM2
final
report
final report
Queen Creek Small Area
Transportation Study
prepared for
Town of Queen Creek
prepared by
Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
555 12th Street, Suite 1600
Oakland, California 94607
with
PSM2
date
May 2007
Queen Creek Small Area Transportation Study
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. i
7668.001
Table of Contents
1.0 Introduction .........................................................................................................1-1
2.0 Current and Future Conditions........................................................................2-1
2.1 Review of studies........................................................................................2-1
2.2 Socioeconomic Estimates and Forecasts..................................................2-2
2.3 Current System ...........................................................................................2-3
2.4 Programmed System..................................................................................2-7
2.5 Current Conditions...................................................................................2-13
3.0 Project Identification and Evaluation.............................................................3-1
3.1 Evaluation Methodology ...........................................................................3-1
3.2 Roadway Capacity......................................................................................3-6
3.3 Roadway Maintenance and Preservation..............................................3-12
3.4 Transit.........................................................................................................3-13
4.0 Public Involvement ............................................................................................4-1
4.1 Round I.........................................................................................................4-1
4.2 Round II .......................................................................................................4-3
5.0 Program of Projects.............................................................................................5-1
5.1 Funding Sources .........................................................................................5-1
5.2 Roadway Priorities .....................................................................................5-1
5.3 Public Transportation Priorities .............................................................5-11
5.4 Non-Transportation Solutions ................................................................5-12
Queen Creek Small Area Transportation Study
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. iii
List of Tables
Table 2.1 Queen Creek Socioeconomic Estimates and Forecasts ......................2-3
Table 2.2 Traffic Crashes in Queen Creek, 2003 to 2005 ...................................2-17
Table 2.3 Potential Paratransit Dependent Population ....................................2-18
Table 3.1 Queen Creek SATS Evaluation Criteria ...............................................3-2
Table 3.2 Project Identification Matrix ..................................................................3-3
Table 3.3 Queen Creek SATS Model Runs ...........................................................3-7
Table 3.4 Number of Intersections by LOS and Model Run, 2026 ....................3-7
Table 3.5 Commuters from the Queen Creek Area to Major
Destinations ...........................................................................................3-14
Table 3.6 Population Served and Ridership for Proposed Commuter
Rail Line, 2026........................................................................................3-16
Table 5.1 Summary of Estimated Funding Sources 2006 Dollars in
Millions......................................................................................................5-1
Table 5.2 Long-Term Roadway Project Prioritization ........................................5-6
Table 5.3 Impact of Investments of Peak-Hour Volumes...................................5-9
Queen Creek Small Area Transportation Study
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. v
List of Figures
Figure 1.1 Queen Creek Study Area .......................................................................1-1
Figure 2.1 Queen Creek Model Area Overview....................................................2-2
Figure 2.2 Number of Lanes, 2004...........................................................................2-4
Figure 2.3 Existing and Future Highways Influencing the Area ........................2-5
Figure 2.4 Existing Public Transportation System ................................................2-6
Figure 2.5 Queen Creek Bicycle and Multiuse Trail Network ............................2-7
Figure 2.6 ADOT Defined Corridors.......................................................................2-8
Figure 2.7 Future Number of Lanes, 2026 ..............................................................2-9
Figure 2.8 Queen Creek Proposed Non-motorized Network............................2-12
Figure 2.9 Queen Creek Traffic Counts ................................................................2-14
Figure 2.10 Intersection LOS, 2004 ..........................................................................2-15
Figure 2.11 Queen Creek Crash Locations, 2003 to 2005......................................2-16
Figure 2.12 Future (2026) Volumes and Intersection LOS DES Model Run .......2-19
Figure 2.13 Future (2026) Volumes and Intersection LOS SATS Model Run .....2-20
Figure 2.14 Travel Patterns in the Queen Creek Area, 2026 ................................2-21
Figure 3.1 Methodology Overview .........................................................................3-1
Figure 3.2 Combined Concept Number of Lanes, 2026........................................3-5
Figure 3.3 Combined Model Volumes and LOS, 2026..........................................3-8
Figure 3.4 Change in Volumes – Base Future to Arterial Capacity Model
Run, 2026 ................................................................................................3-10
Figure 3.5 Change in Volumes – Base Future to Combined
Improvements Model Run, 2026.........................................................3-11
Figure 3.6 Typical Pavement Life Curve ..............................................................3-13
Figure 3.7 Destinations for Queen Creek Commuters, 2006 .............................3-15
Figure 3.8 Commuter Rail Station Potential, 2026 ..............................................3-17
Figure 5.1 Queen Creek Roadway Priorities..........................................................5-5
Figure 5.2 Volumes and Intersection LOS Based on Arizona DES, 2026.........5-10
Figure 5.3 Population-Employment Ratio in the MAG Model Area, 2026......5-13
Queen Creek Small Area Transportation Study
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 1-1
1.0 Introduction
The Queen Creek SATS is intended to help address long-term transportation
planning issues for the Town of Queen Creek. The study addressed both road-way
and transit improvements that can help alleviate congestion in the Town,
and provide mobility for residents and connections to major regional transporta-tion
facilities. Funded primarily by ADOT, the SATS provides long-range plan-ning
assistance to communities throughout Arizona.
Study Area
The primary study area for the Queen Creek SATS is the Town of Queen Creek.
Most of the information presented in this report is for the Town, but given the
regional nature of many of the transportation issues in the Town, information for
surrounding areas is also presented, where appropriate. Figure 1.1 presents a
basic overview of the study area with major roads and surrounding communities
identified.
Figure 1.1 Queen Creek Study Area
List of Figures, continued
1-2 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
The study encompassed a wide range of transportation investments, including
new or upgraded roads, transit service ranging from local circulators to regional
service; potential commuter rail service; and non-motorized transportation,
including bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian facilities.
Organization of Report
This report provides a summary of all of the work completed for the study. The
report is organized as follows.
• Section 2.0 presents the current and future conditions analysis. This includes
a review of existing studies, socioeconomic data, transportation systems, and
current and future conditions. This section provides a high-level summary of
the information collected for Working Paper 1.
• Section 3.0 presents the project identification and evaluation process. The
study included an analysis of numerous roadway, public transportation, and
non-motorized investments. This section identifies the projects evaluated
and provides a summary of the analysis conducted as part of Working
Paper 2.
• Section 4.0 summarizes the public involvement process conducted as part of
the Queen Creek SATS. This process included two open houses and consul-tation
with transportation stakeholders.
• Section 5.0 summarizes the analysis and provides an implementation plan
for the study.
Queen Creek Small Area Transportation Study
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 2-1
2.0 Current and Future Conditions
This section summarizes information about current and future conditions for the
Queen Creek SATS. It is based on the first of two working papers that were gen-erated
to support the SATS. The following elements were evaluated for the first
working paper:
• Relevant studies by Queen Creek, neighboring jurisdictions, counties,
regional agencies, and others were reviewed to support the study. Key rele-vant
information from these studies includes proposed developments,
socioeconomic data, and planned and proposed transportation investments.
• Socioeconomic data forms the foundation of the analysis for the study.
Potential data sources for population and employment were identified and
evaluated and final socioeconomic estimates were generated.
• The current and future transportation system was identified, including
existing systems; systems that will be implemented during the course of the
plan (i.e., funded systems); and systems that have been identified and
planned, but which lack a dedicated source of funding.
• All of this information was used to evaluate current and future conditions on
the transportation system, including traffic volumes, ridership, LOS, and
related information.
2.1 REVIEW OF STUDIES
A number of studies were reviewed to support Queen Creek SATS. The review
of studies supports the overall analysis by identifying proposed improvements,
data sources, known transportation issues, and related information. Several
types of studies were reviewed for this report, including the following:
• Queen Creek studies, including the general plan, previous transportation
studies, socioeconomic studies, and others were reviewed for information to
support the SATS. Key socioeconomic data were extracted from these
sources. In addition, policies and plans from the General Plan and the Town
Center Plan were considered as guiding principles for identifying future
projects.
• State and regional transportation plans and studies, including recently com-pleted
ADOT Corridor Definition Studies, the Southeast Maricopa/Northern
Pinal County Area Transportation Study, the Maricopa Association of
Governments (MAG) Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), and others were
reviewed. These provided key input for future investments in and around
the study area.
Queen Creek Small Area Transportation Study
2-2 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
• Local jurisdiction plans and studies (including the MCDOT system and cor-ridor
studies; Pinal County SATS; and local transportation plans from Mesa,
Gilbert, and Apache Junction) were also reviewed. These plans and studies
provided important information about the future transportation systems for
neighboring jurisdictions.
2.2 SOCIOECONOMIC ESTIMATES AND FORECASTS
Socioeconomic estimates and forecasts are vital for any transportation planning
effort, especially in area that is currently experiencing rapid growth, like Queen
Creek and the Phoenix metropolitan area. Socioeconomic data are key inputs to
travel demand models that are used to forecast traffic volumes, transit ridership,
and the distribution of travel in the study area.
The Town of Queen Creek is located primarily in Maricopa County, but it
extends into Pinal County. Growth in both the Town and adjacent jurisdictions
will impact travel patterns in Queen Creek. For this reason, socioeconomic data
were estimated for an area greater than the Town of Queen Creek; the geo-graphic
area under study corresponds to the area covered in the MAG travel
demand model (Figure 2.1).
Figure 2.1 Queen Creek Model Area Overview
Queen Creek Small Area Transportation Study
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 2-3
The MAG travel demand model was the primary tool used to estimate current
and future traffic volumes in the area. This model includes socioeconomic data
for all of Maricopa County and a significant portion of Pinal County. Socioeco-nomic
data were estimated separately for each of three areas:
1. The Town of Queen Creek;
2. The portion of Maricopa County outside of the Town of Queen Creek; and
3. The portion of Pinal County that falls within the MAG travel demand model
and outside the Town of Queen Creek.
The data sources used for these estimates and forecasts included the Town of
Queen Creek Impact Fee Study, the Arizona DES population estimates and fore-casts,
the MAG travel demand model, and the Pinal County SATS.
Table 2.1 presents the socioeconomic estimates and forecasts used to support the
study for the three separate areas. The Pinal County numbers only include that
portion of the County that is included in the MAG travel demand model, not the
entire County. For Pinal County, two future numbers are shown. One is derived
from the Pinal County SATS and the other from the Arizona DES forecasts.
Table 2.1 Queen Creek Socioeconomic Estimates and Forecasts
Queen Creek Maricopa County* Pinal County**
2005 2026 2005 2026 2005
2026
(SATS)
2026
(DES)
Population 15,990 93,386 3,633,145 5,641,489 205,188 1,757,186 604,593
Housing units 5,100 29,762 1,502,258 2,202,115 103,779 888,742 305,788
Households 5,050 29,471 1,350,454 2,015,581 78,872 675,444 232,399
Employment 6,250 46,835 1,736,850 3,052,056 67,984 492,269 165,786
Jobs-to-population
ratio
0.39 0.50 0.48 0.54 0.33 0.28 0.28
Sources: Arizona Department of Economic Security, 2006; Tischler and Associates, 2006; Maricopa
County Association of Governments, 2003; and Pinal County Small Area Transportation Study,
2006.
*Maricopa County data do not include Queen Creek.
** Pinal County data are for the MAG model area only, not the entire County. SATS forecasts are from the
Pinal County SATS; and DES forecasts are from the Arizona Department of Economic Security.
2.3 CURRENT SYSTEM
Roadway Network
This section provides a description of the existing conditions of Queen Creek’s
roadway network. Most of Queen Creek’s roadway network is currently com-prised
of two-lane roads. However, there are a few short four-lane segments and
Queen Creek Small Area Transportation Study
2-4 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
some segments that have been updated to three lanes. It is likely that plans will
call for these segments to be updated to four or more in the future. The current
number of lanes is shown in Figure 2.2.
Figure 2.2 Number of Lanes, 2004
Speed limits on arterials within Queen Creek vary between 35 and 50 miles per
hour (mph). The roads with the highest speed limits are Ellsworth and Ocotillo
Roads, with speed limits between 45 and 50 mph. Principal arterials, such as
Power, German, and Riggs Roads, have speed limits in a range between 35 and
45 mph.
Queen Creek is relatively isolated from the Arizona state highway system. Cur-rently,
there are several highways close to Queen Creek, but none that touch the
Town itself (Figure 2.3).
Queen Creek Small Area Transportation Study
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 2-5
Figure 2.3 Existing and Future Highways Influencing the Area
The nearby highways include the following:
• The Santan Freeway (Loop 202), which was completed in 2007;
• U.S. 60, connecting eastern Arizona with the Phoenix metropolitan area; and
Queen Creek Small Area Transportation Study
2-6 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
• SR 87, which is several miles away and is located in the Gila River Indian
Community, making any future connection to the facility unlikely.
Public Transportation
Queen Creek joined Valley Metro in 2006 and implemented its first transit line in
2007, with an express bus route to Tempe (Route 534). An additional route to
Chandler is expected in the fall of 2007. Figure 2.4 presents the existing transit
system in and near Queen Creek.
Figure 2.4 Existing Public Transportation System
Non-Motorized Transportation
At present, there are approximately 10 miles of bicycle lanes in Queen Creek
distributed over various roads. These include striped lanes on Power and Queen
Creek Roads and an off-road path (Figure 2.5).
Queen Creek Small Area Transportation Study
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 2-7
Figure 2.5 Queen Creek Bicycle and Multiuse Trail Network
2.4 PROGRAMMED SYSTEM
In addition to identifying the current system, this report also identifies the likely
future system. The analysis of future conditions includes all of the currently
funded projects in the area. This section identifies these funded projects. The
final section identifies projects that have been planned, but not funded.
Roadway System
The primary source of information for the programmed or funded roadway pro-jects
is the Queen Creek Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). The TIP
includes the following key projects:
• Construction of a new Ellsworth Loop Road around the existing town center
to separate through and local traffic;
• Rerouting some portions of Rittenhouse Road to eliminate some of the
skewed angle intersections in the Town;
Queen Creek Small Area Transportation Study
2-8 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
• Widening sections of major east-south and north-west arterials, including
some developer-funded projects (a total of 47 street lane-miles); and
• Widening, adding turning lanes, and adding signals to 28 intersections;
In addition to these local projects, information from the MAG RTP, ADOT, and
local jurisdictions was used to develop a complete picture of current regional
investments. Major local and regional projects of note include:
• Completing and widening Maricopa County arterials in Queen Creek,
including Riggs, Meridian, and Germann Roads;
• Widening and completion of arterials in Mesa and Gilbert; and
• New arterials and arterial improvements in Pinal County.
In addition, potential ADOT investments in the regional freeway system were
included in the analysis, including the Williams Gateway Freeway, the North-
South Freeway, and a reroute of U.S. 60 (Figure 2.6). The ADOT corridors repre-sent
general locations where potential future roadways may be located, but no
funding has been identified for the purchase of right-of-way or construction. The
actual alignments will be determined by future ADOT engineering studies.
Figure 2.6 ADOT Defined Corridors
Source: Arizona Department of Transportation, 2006.
The resulting expected number of lanes in 2026 is shown in Figure 2.7.
Queen Creek Small Area Transportation Study
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 2-9
Figure 2.7 Future Number of Lanes, 2026
Queen Creek Small Area Transportation Study
2-10 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
Public Transportation
Queen Creek and Valley Metro have plans for a new route to Chandler starting
in the fall of 2007. This will be the second route serving Queen Creek. In addi-tion,
the MAG RTP identifies a number of proposed bus routes that will be
implemented in the surrounding area over the next 20 years, including the
following:
• Extension of Route 156 to Williams Gateway Airport/ASU Polytechnic Campus
in 2007;
• A new bus route along Power from McDowell Road to Rittenhouse Road,
implemented in 2014;
• A new bus route along Ray Road from 40th Street to Williams Gateway Airport/
ASU Polytechnic Campus in 2015;
• A new bus route along Queen Creek Road from Power to I-10, implemented
in 2018;
• Freeway BRT to the Williams Gateway Airport, implemented in 2017; and
• Arterial BRT on Chandler Boulevard/Williams Field Road, implemented in
2023.
For the street network, several recent and ongoing plans provide potential future
directions. Apache Junction finished a SATS several years ago and has identified
new street network in northern Pinal County. Mesa is currently updating their
transportation plan, and will have additional roadway investments that could
impact Queen Creek. Gilbert recently completed an arterial system study.
Finally, Pinal County recently developed a SATS that identified needed new
county roads. This information was incorporated into the analysis conducted for
the Queen Creek SATS.
Beyond the MAG RTP, public transportation planning includes two significant
efforts: the MAG High Capacity Transit Study and the ongoing Commuter Rail
Strategic Planning Study. This High Capacity Transit study recommended three
new high capacity transit services:
• A new commuter rail line along the UP Southeast line with service to Queen
Creek and Pinal County;
• A BRT corridor along Power Road; and
• A BRT corridor along Chandler Heights Road.
The Commuter Rail Strategic Planning Study will address funding and imple-mentation
phasing for the identified commuter rail corridors.
In addition to fixed-route transit, previous studies have also identified the need
for paratransit service in the study area. The Southeast Maricopa/Northern
Pinal County Area Transportation Study (SEMNPTS), undertaken in 2003,
Queen Creek Small Area Transportation Study
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 2-11
estimated that Queen Creek will require 15 hours per day of paratransit services
to persons with disabilities and seniors. The Regional Public Transportation
Agency (RPTA) has undertaken a regional paratransit study that will identify
and evaluate potential regional service models for paratransit and Dial-a-Ride
service. Output from this study could result in improved services for riders and
more efficient service provision by paratransit providers.
Non-Motorized Transportation
Several documents have been produced to identify potential improvements to
the non-motorized network. Recent studies that have identified bicycle system
improvements include the Maricopa County Bicycle System Plan (1999, currently
being updated); the Maricopa County Power Corridor Improvement Study
(2000); the SEMNPTS; and the Queen Creek Trails and Open Space Plan. The
Queen Creek Trails and Open Space Plan contains the most ambitious non-motorized
network plan of the studies reviewed. Queen Creek’s trail plan envis-ages
bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails on nearly every roadway in Queen
Creek (Figure 2.8).
The ultimate purpose is to develop non-motorized facilities that connect to parks
and open space areas within the Town and surrounding jurisdictions. This is in
line with Maricopa and Pinal Counties’ purposes of providing continuity of non-motorized
facilities across municipal boundaries, linking recreational corridors
around the Valley, and helping preserve open space in the community. The
implementation of bicycle and pedestrian trails along Sossaman, Hawes,
Ellsworth, and Rittenhouse Roads would improve north-south and east-west
connectivity across jurisdictions, and would provide direct access to San Tan
Mountain Regional Park.
Queen Creek Small Area Transportation Study
2-12 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
Figure 2.8 Queen Creek Proposed Non-motorized Network
Source: Queen Creek General Plan, 2002.
Queen Creek Small Area Transportation Study
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 2-13
2.5 CURRENT CONDITIONS
This section summarizes current and future system conditions for the transpor-tation
network in Queen Creek using traffic counts, volumes, LOS, and related
information.
Existing Conditions
Several aspects of the condition of the roadway network are presented here,
including traffic counts, intersection LOS, and traffic crashes. Current system
conditions are based largely on actual observed traffic counts. Future conditions
use modeled volumes, which are based on the validated MAG travel demand
model.
Traffic Counts
Queen Creek does not currently collect traffic counts on a systematic basis, but
other jurisdictions and agencies, such as MCDOT, MAG, and the Cities of Gilbert
and Mesa, collect regular traffic counts. The latest available traffic counts were
gathered from MCDOT (2004 and 2003) and Gilbert (2005). Figure 2.9 presents
the traffic counts for roads in and near the Town of Queen Creek.
The most significant traffic volumes are found on north-south roads, including
Power, Ellsworth, and Rittenhouse Roads. These volumes reflect the tendency
for movements both from and through Queen Creek to employment destinations
elsewhere in the Phoenix metropolitan area. The most recent traffic counts on
Ellsworth and Rittenhouse Roads range from 10,000 to 14,000 vehicles per day.
On Power Road, volumes at the Queen Creek/Gilbert border are over 20,000
vehicles per day. The extent of traffic passing through Queen Creek can be seen
most clearly on Ellsworth Road. Traffic volumes are consistently over 10,000
vehicles per day for the length of the road through Queen Creek. Notably,
Ellsworth is also the road that provides the most direct access from Pinal County.
It is important to note that, though many of the volumes in Queen Creek are
relatively low compared to other locations in the metropolitan area, they are
causing substantial congestion on Queen Creek’s road network; most of which is
currently only two lanes.
Queen Creek Small Area Transportation Study
2-14 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
Figure 2.9 Queen Creek Traffic Counts
Sources: Maricopa County Department of Transportation, 2004 and 2003; and Gilbert, 2005.
Intersection Level of Service
As part of the modeling effort, MAG calculates intersection Level of Service
(LOS) for every intersection in the MAG model. LOS is graded from A to F.
Grades E and F represent severe congestion. Grade D represents congested con-ditions,
and C shows intersections that are approaching congestion. LOS calcu-lations
for intersections within Queen Creek are shown in Figure 2.10. If no
symbol is shown, the intersection is considered to be at LOS A in the current
year. Notably, there were few intersections of concern in 2004. The intersection
of Ellsworth and Empire Roads was at C, and Ocotillo and Ironwood Roads at D.
Two additional intersections are at LOS B, but this is well with acceptable
bounds.
Queen Creek Small Area Transportation Study
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 2-15
Figure 2.10 Intersection LOS, 2004
Given the rapid increase in population from 2004 to 2007, current conditions may
be somewhat worse than estimated for several intersections. One intersection of
note is where Hunt Highway enters Queen Creek. This is the main connection
point from the south into Queen Creek, and recently has shown substantial
delays. Pinal County recently updated this intersection to improve traffic flow.
Traffic Crashes
Traffic crashes were identified within the Town of Queen Creek from accident
records collected by the Motor Vehicle Division of ADOT. These records are
based on traffic reports made by motorists and police officers, and inevitably do
not include all crashes, as some go unreported.
Figure 2.11 presents the location of crashes within Queen Creek; and Table 2.2
presents the total number of crashes, injury crashes, and fatality crashes for each
of the previous three years. Crashes have increased substantially in recent years
as traffic has increased. However, the number of fatalities has remained low,
averaging only one per year within the town limits.
Queen Creek Small Area Transportation Study
2-16 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
Figure 2.11 Queen Creek Crash Locations, 2003 to 2005
Queen Creek Small Area Transportation Study
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 2-17
Table 2.2 Traffic Crashes in Queen Creek, 2003 to 2005
2003 2004 2005 Average
Total Crashes 135 185 267 196
Injury crashes 48 79 82 70
Fatality crashes 2 0 1 1
Source: Arizona Department of Transportation, 2006.
Many of the highest incident locations are along Rittenhouse Road. The plan to
realign this road to meet at right angles with the crossroads should provide a
significant improvement in crashes by eliminating many of the angled intersec-tions
in Queen Creek. In addition, the Ellsworth Loop Road should reduce con-flicts,
especially between Rittenhouse and the existing Ellsworth Road by
rerouting traffic.
The following remaining intersections that show relatively high numbers of
crashes include:
• Power and Queen Creek Roads;
• Ocotillo and Signal Butte Roads;
• Rittenhouse and Hawes Roads;
• Hunt Highway and Ellsworth Road; and
• Germann and Ellsworth Roads.
These are among the highest volume roads and intersections in Queen Creek.
Increased signalization and use of protected left-turn phases should help reduce
incidents at these locations. Many of these intersections were not signalized in
the period when data were collected. After Queen Creek implements its current
Capital Improvement Program, which includes adding over 20 permanent sig-nals
and several temporary signals, additional analysis of intersections should be
conducted to determine which intersections require additional attention.
In addition to examining the locations of crashes, crash data were also evaluated
relative to vehicle miles of travel (VMT) to establish a crash rate. Overall, crash
rates were consistent with the observed crash data. In general, the VMT on
roadway links in the study area did not vary substantially in 2004. The two
exceptions were at Sossaman and Germann, and at Ellsworth and Hunt Highway.
These two intersections had lower crash rates than other intersections with simi-lar
total numbers of incidents.
Public Transportation
Fixed-route services in Queen Creek were added in 2007, and only preliminary
ridership data are available for these services at the time of writing. For para-transit
service, however, needs can be identified based on existing population
counts. The potential transit-dependent population was estimated using current
Queen Creek Small Area Transportation Study
2-18 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
population estimates from the Arizona DES and the 2000 Census. Table 2.3 pre-sents
the population over age 65, disabled, and either over age 65 or disabled for
both Queen Creek and Maricopa County. Using 2005 population estimates for
Queen Creek from the Arizona DES and assuming that the percentage of transit
dependents remains the same, 1,920 people may need some paratransit services
in Queen Creek. Notably, Maricopa County has a substantially higher propor-tion
of residents over age 65 than Queen Creek (12 percent compared to
5 percent).
Table 2.3 Potential Paratransit Dependent Population
Queen Creek Maricopa County
Number Percent Number Percent
Over age 65 217 7.8% 351,120 11.4%
Disabled, Age 21 to 64 339 5.0% 314,158 10.2%
Disabled, over age 65 75 1.7% 134,454 4.4%
Source: 2000 Census.
Note: Over age 65 or disabled category is not a sum of the two categories (i.e., over age 65 and disabled
are not double counted).
Future Conditions
The future expected conditions of the transportation system are based primarily
on results from the MAG model. Using the updated demographic data and net-work
characteristics, model runs were generated to estimate future traffic vol-umes,
intersection LOS, and other relevant information.
Two separate model runs were conducted for the base future year (2026) to
account for varying estimates of the population of Pinal County: one using
numbers from the Arizona DES and the other using numbers from the Pinal
County SATS. The Maricopa County data, including Queen Creek, are the same
for both model runs. The SATS model run has more than double the population
for Pinal County than the Arizona DES run.
Volumes and Intersection LOS
Figures 2.12 and 2.13 show the future volumes and intersection LOS for the DES
and SATS model runs, respectively. The planned investments can handle the
expected traffic growth if Pinal County grows to around 800,000 (DES scenario).
At 1.9 million (SATS scenario), however, over one-half of the intersections was
expected to be at LOS E or F, representing substantial congestion within Queen
Creek.
Queen Creek Small Area Transportation Study
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 2-19
Figure 2.12 Future (2026) Volumes and Intersection LOS
DES Model Run
Queen Creek Small Area Transportation Study
2-20 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
Figure 2.13 Future (2026) Volumes and Intersection LOS
SATS Model Run
Queen Creek Small Area Transportation Study
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 2-21
Travel Patterns
In addition to traffic volumes and transit ridership, an overview of travel pat-terns
in the region help describe the root causes of traffic congestion in Queen
Creek. Because of Queen Creek’s position in the Phoenix urban area, it is
important to acknowledge the regional transportation needs in the SATS, in
addition to the needs within the Town itself. In particular, it is useful to
understand how much of the traffic in Queen Creek is a result of local travel, and
how much is driven by development outside of the community.
Figure 2.14 presents a high-level summary of the expected travel patterns to,
from, and through Queen Creek in 2026 using the Pinal SATS-based model
results. The figure presents a rough estimate of the total number of daily trips
(indicated by the thickness of the band) between Queen Creek and its various
neighbors. Through trips are those likely to use Queen Creek’s roads for
through trips, but congestion, individual preference, and other factors may mean
that they will use a different route. The trips are aggregated to areas from zone-to-
zone trip estimates generated by the MAG travel demand model.
Figure 2.14 Travel Patterns in the Queen Creek Area, 2026
88
83
177
Inbound/Outbound
Trips
52
Through Trips
Number ofTrips
111
Note: Based on Pinal SATS model run. Trips are thousands of daily trips.
Queen Creek Small Area Transportation Study
2-22 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
The most significant travel pattern in 2026 is expected to be through movements
between Pinal and Maricopa Counties in a generally north-south direction
(177,000 trips per day). It is important to note that this number does not repre-sent
the total number of trips between Pinal and Maricopa Counties, just the
number that would be likely to pass through Queen Creek. Internal trips
(111,000) represent the second largest movement. Internal trips are usually
among the most significant when analyzing trip-making over a 24-hour period,
as this includes trips of all types. Trips between Maricopa County and Queen
Creek and Pinal County and Queen Creek are each over 80,000 trips per day. A
small number of trips passes through in a more east-west direction.
Queen Creek Small Area Transportation Study
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 3-1
3.0 Project Identification and
Evaluation
3.1 EVALUATION METHODOLOGY
The evaluation methodology developed for the Queen Creek SATS is iterative in
nature. It began with the initial evaluations identified in the current and future
conditions analysis; identifies deficiencies and solutions; and evaluates these
solutions using clear criteria, which, to the extent possible, have been quantified.
Figure 3.1 presents a graphic overview of the process.
Figure 3.1 Methodology Overview
Base 2026
Model Run
Identify Deficiencies
Identify Project
Solutions
Additional
Model Runs
Off-Model
Analysis
Estimate Impacts
on Demand
Summarize
Analysis
Funding Sources
and Levels
Prioritized List of Projects
Short-
Range TIP
Medium-
Range
10 Year
Long-
Range
20-Year
Unfundable
Performance Evaluation Criteria
A variety of tools and methods were employed to generate performance criteria
for the proposed transportation projects in Queen Creek (Table 3.1). These crite-ria
have been selected to balance the demand across the system and reduce the
impact of congestion.
Queen Creek Small Area Transportation Study
3-2 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
Table 3.1 Queen Creek SATS Evaluation Criteria
Description Assessment Criteria
Traffic volumes or
riders
Number of vehicles carried on Queen
Creek Roads; number of riders
Traffic volumes should be decreased or
shifted across the system to roads with
available capacity.
Intersection LOS Intersection LOS by grade (A, B, C, D,
and E/F)
Number of intersections by grade and
intersection-by-intersection evaluations.
General plan
consistency
Supports designations of commercial
and residential areas; supports open
space plan; supports Town Center plan
Qualitative assessment by Queen Creek
staff – Do planned roads support the town
access and circulation in economic areas
and reduce traffic conflicts in the Town
Center?
System impact Level of traffic in the Town as a whole Change in average traffic volumes.
Cost effectiveness Cost per vehicle or cost per rider
From these criteria, a hierarchy of considerations was identified to support the
overall SATS evaluation:
• Commercial development. One of the top priorities to support the Town’s
General Plan and Town Center Plan is to support commercial development
in designated areas of the Town. Investments that support this development
will help generate future funds for additional investments.
• Connectivity. A second consideration is for local investments. Do new
investments help complete key gaps in the arterial system and allow Queen
Creek residents to access destinations across the metropolitan area?
• Through traffic. A third consideration is for through traffic. As identified in
the SATS, many of the issues facing Queen Creek relate to the massive resi-dential
growth expected in Pinal County. Although providing for this
growth may seem to be a secondary consideration for Queen Creek, it is
important to address these issues to allow for easy circulation and economic
development in Queen Creek.
As projects were identified, they were ranked using this three-part hierarchy.
Investments that support all three criteria were identified as the highest priority
for the short term. Other projects were ranked based on their contribution to
these goals. In addition, the relative expense of right-of-way, construction, and
other factors was an important consideration. In the short term, implementing
more cost-effective projects first can help address existing issues and provide
additional time to address more expensive and complicated projects.
The project identification process was based on an analysis of potential project
solutions from three key sources – state, regional, and local – for three modes –
roadway, public transportation, and non-motorized. Table 3.2 provides a matrix
of the types of projects considered in each category.
Queen Creek Small Area Transportation Study
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 3-3
Table 3.2 Project Identification Matrix
Roadway Public Transportation Non-motorized
State • New highway, such as
the North-South
Corridor
• New 5310 (Elderly and
Disabled) or 5311 (Rural
Transit) programs
• No state non-motorized
system at this level
Regional • Potential new
expressway to move
vehicles in and around
Queen Creek
• Identifying and
expanding roads of
regional significance
• New commuter rail service
along existing right-of-way
• New or expanded bus
rapid transit service
• Continued development of
the regional trail system
• Continued development of
the regional on-street
bicycle system
Local • Widening or new
arterials and collectors
• Installing additional
traffic signals
• Local circulator shuttle • Locally sponsored trail
system, connecting to
regional system
• Local on-street system
Roadway Projects
Several model runs were conducted to evaluate potential new roadway invest-ments,
including the following:
• Local improvements. Filling out the local roadway network to ensure a con-sistent
number of lanes is available for travel in both east-west and north-south
directions. Improve connections between Pinal and Maricopa Counties
along major north-south connectors, such as Power Road, by widening Hunt
Highway between the county line and Power Road and sections of Power
Road that have fewer than four lanes.
• Expressway. A new limited access corridor connecting the Williams Gateway
Freeway to residential developments in northern Pinal County. This corridor
could be constructed as an expressway, freeway, or potential toll road. The
purpose would be to connect Queen Creek’s major employment centers and
residents in both Queen Creek and Pinal County to the regions freeway sys-tem
without over-extending the local arterial system.
• Arterial Capacity. Consider widening some east-west and/or north-south
roads to eight lanes and providing improved access control (i.e., shifting
property access to cross streets) in the future to enable both through and local
traffic movements. Potential routes include Riggs, Ironwood, Ocotillo,
Ellsworth, Power, and Germann Roads.
Queen Creek Small Area Transportation Study
3-4 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
This initial set of model runs was conducted and evaluated to determine the
relative benefits of the various solutions. The purpose of the model runs is to
develop a general determination of additional needed capacity. The model out-put
itself does not provide a final determination on the best network, and cannot
capture all of the subtleties and complexities of the transportation planning process.
After reviewing this first set of model runs with the Technical Advisory Committee
(TAC) – a group of stakeholders and partners that provided advice and informa-tion
in support of the SATS – and Queen Creek staff, an additional model run
was conducted to achieve the following three purposes:
1. The initial model runs were conceptual only and did not reflect limits on
right-of-way and other constraints. Queen Creek staff provided a ‘build out’
maximum for each scenario that was evaluated.
2. For the expressway scenario, there were significant issues with the potential
cost and the connection to the Williams Gateway Freeway. In the initial con-cept,
the connection was identified just east of Ellsworth Loop Road. How-ever,
the proximity of this interchange to Ellsworth interchange and the
connection of the Williams Gateway Freeway to Loop 202 made this infeasible.
3. It includes a proposed connection from Queen Creek Road to Germann Road
at the northern border of Queen Creek. This extension has the potential to
funnel some traffic from the southeast through the northern part of Queen
Creek and into Mesa.
The combined model run included a modified expressway (connecting to the
Williams Gateway Freeway at Meridian), a limited set of arterial improvements,
widening of the Williams Gateway Freeway from Meridian to Loop 202, and the
additional connector from Queen Creek Road to Germann Road just west of
Hawes Road (Figure 3.2). This model run was not intended as a final analysis
point, but does reflect the constraints that Queen Creek faces in building out the
transportation network.
Queen Creek Small Area Transportation Study
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 3-5
Figure 3.2 Combined Concept Number of Lanes, 2026
Queen Creek Small Area Transportation Study
3-6
Transit Projects
Several transit projects were also evaluated, including the following:
• Potential commuter rail with a stop in Queen Creek;
• Extensions of existing fixed-route service (either BRT or regular bus) into
Queen Creek; and
• Implementation of a Queen Creek circulator system.
Transit projects were evaluated using a combination of results from the MAG
model and sketch planning analyses. MAG is conducting a Commuter Rail
Strategic Plan jointly with ADOT. This study will provide much more detailed
information about the feasibility of commuter rail, but it is not expected to be
completed until the fall of 2007.
3.2 ROADWAY CAPACITY
Two key statistics were used from the MAG model to conduct initial evaluations
of the model runs:
1. Predicted traffic volumes by roadway segment; and
2. Estimated intersection LOS for each intersection.
Table 3.3 presents a short summary of each model run. Table 3.4 presents an
overall summary of the LOS of Queen Creek’s intersections by model run.
Figure 3.3 presents volumes and LOS for the combined model run.
Some of the key findings of the model runs include the following:
• The local improvements model run shows some improvements to intersec-tions
on Sossaman, Ellsworth, and Crismon Roads. Traffic increases on Hunt
Highway and Power Road within Queen Creek, and some of these intersec-tions
show worsening LOS as a result of this shift. Overall, the small
improvements in the west part of the study area help even traffic. There are
limited changes on the east side of Queen Creek and continued severe
congestion.
• The expressway model run predicts substantial volumes on the new express-way,
as expected. The expressway would be congested, although only at the
limited set of intersections that were included in the model run. The
expressway provides some improvements to the east side of Town, but they
are limited. The expressway also draws some traffic and improves LOS
along parallel Pinal County arterials.
• The arterial capacity model run heavily loads Riggs/Combs and Ironwood
Roads. There are some intersections with improved LOS on Signal Butte and
Ellsworth Roads.
Queen Creek Small Area Transportation Study
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 3-7
Table 3.3 Queen Creek SATS Model Runs
Model Run Description
Base Future The model on which all others are based. It includes all funded roadway
improvements. It also includes the ADOT Williams Gateway and North-South
Freeways, though these have yet to be funded.
Local improvements Minor additional capacity on arterials within Queen Creek primarily focused on fixing
scalloped streets.
Expressway
(original)
An expressway connecting to the Williams Gateway freeway near Ellsworth, running
through Queen Creek along Ryan, and heading south around Meridian.
Arterial capacity Additional north-south and east-west capacity on arterials, primarily on Ironwood
and Riggs Roads.
Combined A model run that address right-of-way constraints within Queen Creek, and includes
an expressway from the Williams Gateway freeway running south on Meridian into
Pinal County.
Table 3.4 Number of Intersections by LOS and Model Run, 2026
Level of Service
(Number of Intersections)
Model Run A-B C D E-F Total
Base future 2 9 11 27 51
Local improvements 1 8 16 25 51
Expressway (original) 1 16 13 21 52
Arterial capacity 1 13 16 19 51
Combined (new expressway) 2 13 13 25 54
Source: MAG Travel Demand Model Runs, Queen Creek SATS, 2006.
Note: The Expressway and Combined model runs have more intersections due to the addition of new
facilities, including the expressway and the proposed Queen Creek-Germann connector.
Queen Creek Small Area Transportation Study
3-8 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
Figure 3.3 Combined Model Volumes and LOS, 2026
Queen Creek Small Area Transportation Study
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 3-9
• The combined model run again heavily loads the proposed expressway. The
correction to Ocotillo (maximum four lanes instead of the six originally pro-posed)
creates increased east-west congestion.
Over one-half of the intersections within Queen Creek’s borders is expected to
operate at LOS E or worse by 2026 in the base scenario, and three-quarters is
expected to be at LOS D or worse. Each of the model runs provides some
improvements, though all are partial. The original expressway and arterial
capacity model runs have the greatest reductions in the number of congested
intersections, but they still remain at or close to 40 percent. Most of the
improvements are only a single LOS grade, moving from E or F to D.
Change in Volumes
Another consideration in the analysis was the change in traffic volumes exhibited
from the base future model runs to each of the other model runs. Because of the
high traffic volumes, it is difficult to see these changes in the original set of fig-ures.
This information helps identify the locations that are showing increased
traffic – are the investments drawing even more trips into Queen Creek from
Pinal County? Or are they shifting trips from one arterial to another and bal-ancing
the system overall? Figures 3.4 and 3.5 present the changes in volumes
(blue is increase; brown is decrease) from the base future model run to the arte-rial
capacity and combined model runs, respectively.
The following changes in volume are shown in the model runs:
• The arterial capacity model run (Figure 3.4) has a significant shifting effect
from other arterials to Riggs/Combs and Ironwood. This is evident in both
Queen Creek and Pinal County. Notably, the increased capacity on the
Williams Gateway Freeway helps to draw traffic away from some of the arte-rials
in Queen Creek. Because of the high levels of congestion, adding
capacity to arterials can have a variety of intended and unintended impacts.
For example, adding east-west capacity could potentially shift traffic from
north-south arterials in Queen Creek to other parallel arterials elsewhere in
Maricopa County.
• The combined model run (Figure 3.5) shows similar patterns of change,
though not as significant as the arterial capacity model run. Meridian is
expected to show significant volume increases. The model shows declining
volumes for much of the western part of Queen Creek, except in the locations
where capacity has been added to Hunt Highway and the ends of Power,
Sossaman, and Hawes Roads. There continues to be traffic declines on many
of the arterials in Pinal County as well.
Queen Creek Small Area Transportation Study
3-10 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
Figure 3.4 Change in Volumes – Base Future to Arterial Capacity Model Run, 2026
Queen Creek Small Area Transportation Study
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 3-11
Figure 3.5 Change in Volumes – Base Future to Combined Improvements Model Run, 2026
Queen Creek Small Area Transportation Study
3-12 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
3.3 ROADWAY MAINTENANCE AND PRESERVATION
Up until recently, most of the roads in the Town of Queen Creek were owned by
Maricopa County. As the Town has grown, more of these roads are coming
under city responsibility and, as a result, will require increased investment in
pavement preservation and maintenance. Many local agencies track the condi-tion
of their assets (typically pavement and bridges, but also signs, signals, and
other assets); and predict future conditions using asset management models.
Though it is well beyond the scope of the SATS to develop such a system for
Queen Creek, the following provides some information that should help the
Town analyze pavement resurfacing, rehabilitation, and reconstruction needs.
There are three basic categories of pavement preservation and maintenance that
Queen Creek will consider as it develops a pavement preservation program:
1. Routine Maintenance is the day-to-day, regularly scheduled activities to pre-vent
water from seeping into the surface, such as street sweeping, drainage
clearing, gravel shoulder grading, and sealing cracks. This category also
includes roads that are newly constructed or recently seal coated. They
require little or no maintenance.
2. Capital Preventive Maintenance (CPM) is at the heart of asset management.
It is the planned set of cost-effective treatments to an existing roadway that
retards further deterioration, and maintains or improves the functional con-dition
of the system without significantly increasing the structural capacity.
The purpose of CPM fixes is to protect the pavement structure, slow the rate
of deterioration, and/or correct pavement surface deficiencies. Roads in this
category still show good structural support, but the surface is starting to
deteriorate. CPM is intended to address pavement problems before the
structural integrity of the pavement has been severely impacted.
3. Structural Improvement (PASER 1, 2, 3, and 4) is the category of roads
requiring some type of repair to improve the structural integrity of the
pavement. Pavements in this category exhibit deficiencies, such as rutting,
large holes, alligator cracking, or joints and cracks that are badly spalled.
Typical structural improvement activities include major rehabilitation or
reconstruction.
Figure 3.6 presents the typical pavement life curve. Over time, increasingly
expensive fixes are required. The pace of pavement degradation increases with
time, so short-term expenditures on resurfacing can extend pavement life sub-stantially
and avoid or delay more costly reconstruction.
Queen Creek Small Area Transportation Study
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 3-13
Figure 3.6 Typical Pavement Life Curve
Source: Maricopa County Department of Transportation, 2006.
Assessing asset condition requires several steps, starting with accurate inventory
and condition data. The condition data that is collected should support perform-ance
measures of pavement condition, such as remaining service life (RSL) or
others. Condition data are typically collected every one or two years using
windshield surveys and/or vehicles equipped with automated sensing and
recording equipment. These data are then fed into predictive models to help
identify future conditions and to select potential improvements.
Queen Creek has many newly constructed or paved roads. Although these roads
will not need significant treatments for the first several years, as time passes, it
will become increasingly important to provide preventative maintenance to
extend the life of the pavement asset.
3.4 TRANSIT
Local Circulator
One of the transit concepts that has been considered for Queen Creek is a local
shuttle that is similar to the Ahwatukee Local EXplorer (ALEX). Started in 2002,
the ALEX is a free local neighborhood bus circulator that follows a 40-mile route
and provides service to schools, shopping centers, a senior center, parks, and a
public library. Average weekly ridership on the ALEX shuttle is around 1,000
passengers per week.
ALEX serves a roughly 30-square mile area with approximately 72,000 residents
and 31,000 jobs. This area is similar in size to Queen Creek, but with over
four times as many residents. Given the expected rate of growth in Queen Creek,
a similar shuttle service may be appropriate by 2020. However, ALEX has sev-eral
features that help contribute to its success: significant community
Queen Creek Small Area Transportation Study
3-14 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
involvement on its planning, flexible stops, and two dedicated populations
(students and the elderly) that have relatively limited mobility options.
Total capital costs for the ALEX line are primarily for vehicle acquisition. New
buses average around $35,000 and annual operating costs are around $750,000
for the line. This equates to roughly $2.00 in operating cost per passenger trip,
which is slightly less than average transit lines.
Fixed and Express Bus Service
Queen Creek recently joined Valley Metro and initial service to Tempe
(Route 534) has begun. The Town is working with Valley Metro to identify the
appropriate set of destinations for future service. Table 3.5 and Figure 3.7 pre-sent
the major destinations from Queen Creek (Zip Code 85242) and the sur-rounding
area (Zip Code 85243) for commuters from a survey of commuters.
Table 3.5 Commuters from the Queen Creek Area to Major Destinations
Area Zip Code 85242 Zip Code 85243 Total
Tempe (ASU/Sky Harbor) 848 43 891
Chandler 990 58 1,048
Downtown Phoenix 135 11 146
Mesa (U.S. 60 corridor) 969 42 1,011
Williams Gateway 86 12 98
Queen Creek 430 30 460
Other 1,165 72 1,237
Source: Valley Metro Commuter Survey, 2006.
Queen Creek Small Area Transportation Study
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 3-15
Figure 3.7 Destinations for Queen Creek Commuters, 2006
Queen Creek Small Area Transportation Study
3-16 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
Commuter Rail
Commuter rail is currently being evaluated as part of the MAG Commuter Rail
Strategic Plan; the first phase of which is expected to be completed in the fall of
2007. This study is examining commuter rail in several corridors, including the
Southeast. This study will identify critical implementation issues for commuter
rail, including environmental, safety, ownership, liability, and funding. The first
phase will not rank individual commuter rail corridors, but will identify overall
feasibility. More detailed technical evaluations, including ridership forecasts,
will be completed in future phases. As such, ridership estimates for commuter
rail lines will not be produced until 2008.
The MAG High Capacity Transit Study previously evaluated commuter rail
along the UP Southeast line with a terminal in Queen Creek. The High Capacity
Transit Study used a three-mile catchment area to identify the potential popula-tion
served. A basic sketch plan was identified for two stations beyond the
Queen Creek terminal identified in the High Capacity Transit Study. Table 3.6
identifies the population within three miles of the Queen Creek station and two
additional stations in Pinal County. Ridership for the additional two stations
was generated by estimating the ratio of ridership from the High Capacity
Transit Study to the catchment area population.
Table 3.6 Population Served and Ridership for Proposed Commuter Rail
Line, 2026
Station
Population in
Catchment Area
Estimated
Daily Boardings
Queen Creek 163,633 941
Intermediate 271,030 1,559
Florence/Coolidge 82,977 477
Source: MAG High Capacity Transit Study, 2003.
Note: Projected boardings are a function of the amount of service assumed in the analysis. The
boardings show AM trips in the peak direction and do not include reverse commute, off-peak, or
PM trips.
Figure 3.8 identifies the stations and presents population and employment den-sities
and catchment areas. Using a three-mile catchment area is somewhat lim-ited;
the Commuter Rail Study will likely identify true market areas, and will use
an updated MAG travel demand model to estimate ridership. Until that time,
this analysis provides a rough estimate of potential ridership. The two addi-tional
stations would add significant ridership to the commuter rail line, but
given overall traffic volumes, the commuter rail line will do little to reduce con-gestion
in Queen Creek.
Queen Creek Small Area Transportation Study
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 3-17
Figure 3.8 Commuter Rail Station Potential, 2026
Note: The employment density shows only if greater than population density. The catchment area includes all TAZs that are at least partly within 3 miles of the stations. The commuter rail
lines would be developed using existing trackage. The southeast line is owned by UP.
Queen Creek Small Area Transportation Study
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 4-1
4.0 Public Involvement
The public involvement effort for the Queen Creek SATS was conducted over
two rounds. The first round was conducted in conjunction with the identifica-tion
of current and future conditions; and the second round in conjunction with
the evaluation of alternatives.
4.1 ROUND I
The first round of public involvement took place in July 2006, and focused on the
results of the current and future conditions analysis. The following events were
included in this process:
• A presentation to the Queen Creek Town Council;
• A presentation and information gathering session with elected officials and
key transportation stakeholders from Queen Creek and the surrounding
jurisdictions; and
• A public open house that provided an overview of the study, presented key
findings from the current and future conditions analysis, and provided an
opportunity for members of the public to interact one-on-one with the project
team.
Presentations
The presentations given at each of the events were fairly similar. Each presenta-tion
provided an overview of the study and highlighted key points from the cur-rent
and future conditions analysis. The key points addressed by the
presentation include:
• The purpose of the study. To identify the local transportation improvements
needed to support the long-term development of the Town of Queen Creek
and to address regional transportation issues in the Queen Creek area;
• Open house summary. Time, date, location, and purpose;
• Demographic overview. Population and employment growth in the Town of
Queen Creek and Maricopa and Pinal Counties;
• Current and future roadway system conditions. LOS, numbers of lanes, and
other relevant information; and
• Overview of public transportation in Queen Creek. Existing and future
proposed systems.
Queen Creek Small Area Transportation Study
4-2 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
Open House
Over 20 Queen Creek residents attended the public open house held on July 18,
2006. The open house was held in the evening and included a formal presenta-tion
and an informal opportunity to discuss the study findings with the project
team, including both Town and consultant staff.
Several key questions were raised and discussed during the open house, including:
• Participants asked why so much traffic is anticipated to come to Queen Creek.
• The project team explained that much of the traffic was a result of substantial
growth expected within Pinal County.
• Some participants noted that the residential and commercial development
time line from SATS to construction is 10 to 20 years. They were concerned
about today’s traffic issues.
• The project team noted that there are a number of projects ongoing as part of
Queen Creek TIP that will help relieve traffic congestion today. These
include the Ellsworth Loop Road and a number of widening projects being
funded by both the city and developers.
• Participants expressed concerns that a number of studies are being con-ducted,
but that they may not lead to tangible results.
• The project team noted that there are several roadway projects under con-struction
or design within Queen Creek. In addition, some of the larger
issues are being studied in light of new proposed freeways, commuter rail,
and rapid growth in Pinal County. Planning studies need to be updated
regularly to be able to provide useful information to identify the projects that
need to be constructed in the future.
• Participants asked if the proposed Williams Gateway Freeway alignment
could be moved further south.
• The project team explained that MAG had conducted a detailed study and
recommended an alignment for the proposed Williams Gateway Freeway.
This recommendation was transmitted to ADOT, who will consider this and
one or two other potential alignments in an engineering and environmental
study over the next few years. It is possible that the alignment will shift at
that time. This future design study will likely also include a public involve-ment
component that will allow residents to express their concerns.
• Participants wanted to know if it was possible to speed up the construction of
the Williams Gateway Freeway.
• The project team noted that MAG and ADOT have been looking into acceler-ating
parts of the program. However, construction materials and labor are at
a premium right now, increasing the costs of building more now.
Queen Creek Small Area Transportation Study
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 4-3
• Participants noted that Pinal County is contributing substantially to traffic
congestion in Queen Creek.
4.2 ROUND II
The second round of public involvement took place in February 2007, and
focused on the results of the project evaluation and prioritization.
Presentations
The presentation given at the second open house provided an overview of the
study and highlighted the strategic priorities identified as part of the SATS. The
key points addressed by the presentation include:
• The purpose of the study. To identify the local transportation improvements
needed to support the long-term development of the Town of Queen Creek
and to address regional transportation issues in the Queen Creek area;
• Open house summary. Time, date, location, and purpose;
• Future transportation issues. A review of the impacts of population and
employment growth on future transportation conditions in the Town of
Queen Creek; and
• Solutions. Potential roadway and transit solutions, including high capacity
roadways, local arterials, new transit services, and others.
Open House
Eight Queen Creek residents attended the public open house held on
February 15, 2007. The open house was held in the evening and included a for-mal
presentation and an informal opportunity to discuss the study findings with
the project team, including both Town and consultant staff. Boards were also
provided.
Queen Creek Small Area Transportation Study
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 5-1
5.0 Program of Projects
This section summarizes the future prioritizes for the Town of Queen Creek,
based on the work conducted for the SATS. It begins with a summary of avail-able
funding expected over the next 20 years, and provides key priorities by
transportation mode.
5.1 FUNDING SOURCES
Revenue forecasts were identified for state and local funding available to Queen
Creek. State sources of future revenue include the Arizona Highway User
Revenue Fund (HURF) and the Local Transportation Assistance Fund (LTAF) I
and II. Local sources include development fees and the recent established con-struction
sales tax.
Based on the revenue forecasts, around $60 million will be available over the
short term (2007 to 2010), nearly $150 million between 2011 to 2020, and over
$45 million from 2021 to 2026 (Table 5.1). The sales tax and HURF are the major
two sources of revenue for transportation projects within Queen Creek. This
table does not reflect any contributions from other sources, such as developers,
that will also be available to help program transportation projects. These projects
are usually tied to a specific development, so they are not estimated here.
Table 5.1 Summary of Estimated Funding Sources
2006 Dollars in Millions
2007-2010 2011-2020 2021-2026
Local
Development fee 2.5 1.4 1.0
Sales tax 54.1 119.8 21.3
State
HURF 5.0 21.2 23.7
LTAF I 0.3 0.8 0.6
LTAF II 0.2 0.4 0.2
Total 62.0 147.6 46.7
5.2 ROADWAY PRIORITIES
Projects have been identified from several sources for future prioritization,
including the existing Queen Creek’s TIP, the Maricopa County Department of
Queen Creek Small Area Transportation Study
5-2 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
Transportation (MCDOT) TIP, assumptions made as part of the MAG model,
and the analysis conducted for Queen Creek.
Three key factors were considered to establish the priorities, including the
following:
• Commercial development. One of the top priorities to support the Town’s
General Plan and Town Center Plan is to support commercial development
in designated areas of the Town.
• Connectivity. A second consideration is for local investments. Do new
investments help complete key gaps in the arterial system and allow Queen
Creek residents to access destinations across the metropolitan area?
• Through traffic. A third consideration is for through traffic. As identified in
the SATS, many of the issues facing Queen Creek relate to the massive resi-dential
growth expected in Pinal County. Although providing for this
growth may seem to be a secondary consideration for Queen Creek, it is
important to address these issues to allow for easy circulation and economic
development in Queen Creek.
In addition, safety and cost effectiveness were considered in the evaluation. For
safety, potential investments took into account existing high crash locations.
These are likely to change significantly in the future as the Town continues to
develop. For cost effectiveness, the relative expense of right-of-way, construc-tion,
and other factors was considered. In the short term, implementing more
cost-effective projects first can help address existing issues and provide addi-tional
time to address more expensive and complicated projects.
Using these criteria, four general categories of roadway investments have been
identified. These reflect a combination of priorities, timing, and the appropriate
agency to take the lead.
Short Term
Primary Routes
These are key routes that serve a combination of local, commercial, and through
traffic. Advancing capacity expansion projects (new lanes and signals) on these
routes is the Town’s top priority. These projects will help promote orderly
development, attract businesses and customers to commercial centers, and allow
for the through movement of people. The following are the top three roadway
segments:
1. Ellsworth from the Pinal County border to Mesa. This is the primary north-south
route through Queen Creek and provides access to the core business
area of Queen Creek. The project includes completing the Ellsworth Loop
Road, redeveloping Ellsworth downtown to support the Town Center Plan,
and widening the segments of Ellsworth to the north and south of the Loop
Road to four through lanes with a long-term plan for six through lanes.
Queen Creek Small Area Transportation Study
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 5-3
2. Rittenhouse from the Mesa/Gilbert border to Ocotillo, just southeast of
downtown. Rittenhouse is another key route for through movements and
also provide access to downtown Queen Creek. The project includes com-pleting
planned rerouting of Rittenhouse at Germann and Ocotillo Roads and
widening Rittenhouse to four lanes. Due to limited access, the portion of
Rittenhouse southeast of Ocotillo is not included as a primary route, but
there are some interim fixes for Rittenhouse (see below).
3. Ocotillo from Hawes to Meridian. Ocotillo is one of the only east-west
routes crossing the width of Queen Creek. With development occurring in
Pinal County, Ocotillo Road provides access to shopping in downtown
Queen Creek. Because of discontinuities on Ocotillo within Gilbert, segments
west of Hawes are lower priority.
Interim Fixes
A second set of arterials was identified as needing interim fixes in the short term
that can delay more significant improvements. The interim fixes include spot
widening, new signals, protected left-turn lanes and signals, and other similar
fixes that can be implemented at relatively low cost. All of the routes in this
category will have additional improvements made in the long term. The specific
segments for short-term interim fixes include:
• Rittenhouse from Ocotillo to Riggs/Combs. There are limited access points
to Rittenhouse Road because of the railroad tracks on one side and develop-ment
on the other. As a result, interim fixes including turn lanes can provide
enough capacity in the short term for this segment of Rittenhouse. Long
term, this road will be widened to four lanes, consistent with the ultimate
goal of providing connections to downtown Queen Creek.
• Chandler Heights from Ellsworth to Power. The MCDOT has identified
Riggs as an east-west road of regional significance, connecting all the way
from I-10 to Pinal County, where it becomes Riggs Road. However, in Queen
Creek, there are significant issues with right-of-way acquisition that will
push development of Riggs out for several years. Chandler Heights provides
a short-term alternative to support some east-west movement, especially for
through movements from Pinal County to the south.
• Sossaman from Chandler Heights to Germann. Interim fixes on Sossaman
will help to open up another north-south route for connection to the larger
metropolitan area.
Medium Term to Long Term
Secondary Roads
In addition to the primary roads and interim fixes identified for the short term,
there are a set of planned projects to complete the existing arterial network and
expand it using information from the Queen Creek SATS. Many of these are
Queen Creek Small Area Transportation Study
5-4 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
existing projects within the Queen Creek TIP that will likely have to be post-poned
due to increasing construction and right-of-way costs. These projects will
have to compete with additional needs identified as part of the SATS, and will
likely come up for consideration starting in 2010 and beyond.
Perimeter Roads
In addition to the completion of the arterial system, there are several roads with
regional significance that have to be addressed separately. Queen Creek’s loca-tion
between Maricopa and Pinal Counties creates significant through move-ments
within the Town. One of the key strategies to accommodate this travel is
through improved perimeter routes. Many pieces of the arterial system are cur-rently
missing. The roads identified in this section have a primary focus of car-rying
through traffic, though they would naturally also carry local traffic. These
roads require development over the long term, in conjunction with residential
development in Pinal County. Complete development of these routes will fall at
least partly under the purview of other agencies, especially MCDOT. The key
perimeter projects include the following:
• Meridian from Riggs to Germann. Queen Creek is pursuing several poten-tial
opportunities in this corridor, including a new arterial, a regional super
street, or some type of access-limited facility. More information is provided
below on the need for new high capacity roads. Development of this road
requires completion of the segment within Mesa from the Williams Gateway
Freeway to Germann and a potential southeast extension of this route into
Pinal County, depending on the particular form it takes.
• Germann from Sossaman to Meridian. Power is currently a two-lane road
along the northern border of Queen Creek and another county road of
regional significance.
• Riggs from Meridian to Power, including widening the existing segment
from Power to Ellsworth to six lanes and constructing a new six-lane segment
from Ellsworth to Meridian. As noted above, this is a road of regional sig-nificance
connecting and one of very few that connect I-10 through to Pinal
County.
Summary
Figure 5.1 identifies the priorities established for roadway projects in Queen
Creek. Table 5.2 presents a matrix with potential long-term roadway invest-ments.
The matrix includes projects that fall under the jurisdiction of Queen
Creek, as well as other agencies. The table provides a qualitative assessment of
the key impacts to traffic volumes and LOS (from Section 3.0) and an overall pri-ority
ranking of low, medium, and high. Many of the projects in the table are
broken into individual segments to reflect the participation of various agencies in
their development.
Queen Creek Small Area Transportation Study
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 5-5
Figure 5.1 Queen Creek Roadway Priorities
Note: The extension of Meridian to the southeast into Pinal County is shown for planning purposes only
and is not intended to indicate an alignment or even necessarily a future road.
Queen Creek Small Area Transportation Study
5-6 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
Table 5.2 Long-Term Roadway Project Prioritization
ID Project Limits
Responsible
Agencies Cost
Commercial
Development
Support
Local
Movement
Support
Through
Movements
Support Notes
Overall
Priority
1a Meridian
Expressway
Williams Gateway to
Riggs/Combs
MCDOT, Mesa,
Queen Creek, Pinal
County
$100M Med Low High Feasible because there is no
existing Meridian Road
High
1b Meridian
Expressway
Meridian to N/S Freeway Pinal County $300M Low Low High Brings additional traffic to
Queen Creek
Med
2a Widen Hunt Highway
to 4 lanes
Ellsworth to Power Rd Queen Creek,
MCDOT
$8.5M Low Med High Helps distribute traffic to
Power Road
High
2b Widen Power Rd to
4 lanes
Hunt Hwy to Riggs Rd MCDOT $3M Low Med High Completes a significant
through arterial
High
3a Widen Gantzel/
Ironwood to 8 lanes
Hunt Hwy to Williams
Gateway Fwy
Pinal County $35M Low Low High Draws through traffic away
from Queen Creek
Medium
4a Widen Riggs/Combs
to 8 lanes
I-10 to N/S freeway MCDOT, Chandler,
Gilbert, Queen
Creek Pinal Co
$74M* Low Low High Heavily utilized, but north-south
capacity needs are
more significant
Med
5a Widen Ocotillo to
4 lanes
Higley to Hawes Queen Creek $18M Med High Med Completes east-west
arterial; partial developer
funding likely
High
6a Queen Creek Rd to Germann Rd Connector Queen Creek $29M Low Low Med Provides through movement
link
Low
7a Widen Queen Creek
to 4 lanes
Hawes to Signal Butte Queen Creek $6M Med Med Low Undeveloped area of Queen
Creek
Med
8a Construct Crismon
Rd
Germann to Queen Creek Queen Creek $4M Low Med Low Completes part of arterial
network
Low
9a Construct/ widen
Signal Butte to
6 lanes
Queen Creek Rd to
Germann Rd
Queen Creek $7M Low Med Low Completes a scalloped
segment; partial developer
funding likely
Low
9b Construct Signal
Butte to 4 lanes
Empire to Riggs Queen Creek $5M Low Low Low Low traffic volumes Low
Queen Creek Small Area Transportation Study
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 5-7
ID Project Limits
Responsible
Agencies Cost
Commercial
Development
Support
Local
Movement
Support
Through
Movements
Support Notes
Overall
Priority
10a Construct Empire to
4 lanes
Ellsworth to Meridian Queen Creek $12M Low Low Low Partial developer funding
likely
Low
11a Construct Meridian
to 4 lanes
Empire to Riggs Pinal County,
MCDOT
$3M Low Low Low Completes last segment of
Meridian
Low
12a Widen Sossaman to
4 lanes
Hunt Hwy to Chandler
Heights
Queen Creek $5M Low Low Med Helps distribute through
traffic to multiple arterials
Low
13a Widen Hawes Rd to
4 lanes
Hunt Hwy to Chandler
Heights
Queen Creek $5M Low Low Med Helps distribute through
traffic to multiple arterials
Low
14a Widen Cloud Road
to 4 lanes
Ellsworth to Rittenhouse Queen Creek $9M Low Low Low Partial developer funding
likely
Low
Note: For volume change, a reduction is desirable; for LOS change, an improvement is desirable.
*The cost estimate is for the segment of the road within Queen Creek only.
Queen Creek Small Area Transportation Study
5-8 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
New High Capacity Facilities
The Queen Creek SATS grew out of ADOT’s corridor definition studies, which
were initiated to help determine the need for and feasibility of new high capacity
facilities in Pinal County. Those studies noted the lack of a mature arterial sys-tem
in Queen Creek as a contributor to future expected congestion.
The Arizona Department of Economic Security currently projects around 800,000
residents in Pinal County by 2030. The Pinal County SATS, completed in 2006,
identified a 2030 population of 1.9 million residents. At 800,000 residents,
improving the arterial system in Queen Creek is sufficient to address future con-gestion
concerns. At 1.9 million, it is not.
In addition, it is not possible to develop a mile-spaced arterial system within
Queen Creek. Several north-south roads (Signal Butte, Crismon, and Hawes)
cannot be completed due to development or, in the case of Hawes, the Williams
Gateway Airport. Development also precludes completion of a couple east-west
roads, including Queen Creek and Chandler Heights. Finally, the UP Southeast
railroad presents a major barrier cutting from the northwest to southeast corner
of the town – capacity improvements across or along the railroad will be signifi-cantly
more expensive and difficult to implement.
In order to address the need for new facilities, a sketch planning comparison was
made between additional arterial capacity and high capacity roadways. This
analysis began with the base future (2026) scenario from the model runs, but did
not use the MAG model to conduct the analysis. Table 5.3 presents a comparison
of adding new arterial capacity, expanding the proposed freeways from the cor-ridor
definition study, and adding a new high capacity facility in addition to
those proposed freeways. The table identifies the impact on the average volume
per lane during the peak hour of the arterial system in Queen Creek and the sur-rounding
area. On average, a fully access-controlled facility can handle about
2,000 vehicles per hour in each lane at acceptable speeds and driving distances.
An arterial can handle many fewer vehicles, roughly 800 at acceptable speeds
and driving distances. When the number of vehicles exceeds this number, the
road becomes severely congested.
Adding additional capacity to the proposed freeway system (8 lanes instead of
6) reduces traffic on the arterial system by about 15 percent. Completing all of
the projects identified in the Queen Creek SATS saves an additional 10 percent.
However, adding a new high capacity facility, instead of these local improve-ments,
reduces traffic on the arterial system by 35 percent, reducing the volume
on arterials to around 800 vehicles per hour in the peak period, which is within
an acceptable range for arterials. If the residential population of Pinal County
grows as much and as fast as expected by the Pinal County SATS (and without
parallel job growth), then additional capacity may be needed to provide conges-tion
relief for Queen Creek.
Queen Creek Small Area Transportation Study
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 5-9
Table 5.3 Impact of Investments of Peak-Hour Volumes
Scenario Description
Average Peak-Hour
Volume Per Lane on
Queen Creek’s Arterials
Base future Williams/North-South Freeways at 6 lanes 1,560
Extra lanes on
freeways
Williams/North-South Freeways at 8 lanes 1,330
Extra lanes +
Queen Creek build
out
Williams/North-South Freeways at 8 lanes; build out of
Queen Creek arterial system
1,200
Extra lanes + new
facility
Williams/North-South Freeways at 8 lanes; additional 6-
lane freeway along Meridian and extending into Pinal
County
770
Note: Based on a sketch planning analysis of new facilities; assumes that a freeway lane can handle a
peak volume of 2,000 vehicles per hour.
There is no obvious place to locate an additional access-controlled high capacity
facility in the Queen Creek area, nor is it the objective of this study to identify the
needs for such a facility. The recommendation of this study is that ADOT closely
examine the location of the North-South freeway in its upcoming Design
Concept Report (DCR). The DCR will revisit the needs and feasibility analysis
developed as part of the ADOT Corridor Definition Studies. It may also be use-ful
to consider new or upgraded regional or county roads or adding capacity to
other state highways in the Pinal County that provide connections to Maricopa
County. In particular, improvements to SR 79 and U.S. 60 may have the potential
to help shift some of the through traffic away from Queen Creek, depending, in
part, on the location selected for the North-South freeway.
Implications of Pinal County Growth
The analysis in this report is contingent on the growth forecasts used for Pinal
County. Although the late 1990s and early 2000s produced rapid population
growth in Pinal County, this growth has substantially cooled. The population
forecasts used for this study were taken from the Pinal County SATS, which pre-dicted
a 20-year period of the fastest growth rates that any county in the U.S. has
ever had, averaging over 10 percent per year.
It is useful to consider the significance of these forecasts on the transportation
system in Queen Creek. At the start of this project, two scenarios were consid-ered
for Pinal County – the Pinal County SATS-based projects and a second set of
projections from the Arizona DES. These latter projections showed slightly less
than one-half the population level of the Pinal County SATS projections, or a
total of about 800,000 people in Pinal County by 2026. Figure 5.2 presents the
future speeds and intersection level of service for 2026 using the DES forecasts.
Queen Creek Small Area Transportation Study
5-10 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
Figure 5.2 Volumes and Intersection LOS Based on Arizona DES, 2026
Queen Creek Small Area Transportation Study
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 5-11
5.3 PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION PRIORITIES
The short-term priorities for these services include the following:
• Express service to Tempe/ASU/Sky Harbor, begun in 2007 (Line 534);
• Fixed-route service to Chandler, expected in later 2007; and
• Future service to major destinations in Mesa along the U.S. 60 corridor, most
notably the Superstition Mall area, which alone receives 250 daily commuters.
Other destinations currently have fewer than 200 commuters per day (except
Queen Creek itself), which is not significant enough to warrant transit service at
this time. As the Williams Gateway area continues to grow, this will become a
future potential destination. Notably, there are relatively few commuters to
downtown Phoenix, despite being the largest employment hub of the region.
This is likely due to the distance from Queen Creek to downtown Phoenix, but
future residential growth may change the commute patterns of Queen Creek’s
residents. Queen Creek and Valley Metro should continue to monitor com-muting
patterns to determine the most appropriate services to implement.
In the timeframe of the SATS, the continued development of expressed and fixed
bus routes is the most appropriate investment. Commuter rail has potential to
carry a substantial number of passengers per year at the proposed Queen Creek
station, as well as at the potential stations identified in Pinal County. However,
the cost of implementation for this service is high and the benefits are unclear.
Unlike local bus service, which will primarily serve Queen Creek residents,
commuter rail may well attract more drivers into Queen Creek from outside the
city boundaries to use the service. Three factors – locating the station in the
southeastern part of Town, developing parking charges to discourage the sta-tion’s
use as a park-and-ride facility, and developing stations in Pinal County –
may help ensure that the commuter rail investment has the intended congestion
mitigation impact. However, initial development of a station area as a park-and-ride
facility would be appropriate in the short term to help generate demand for
public transportation. Queen Creek could provide free parking at the lot for
town residents to limit added congestion. This approach would establish the site
as a transit center that could be served by all types or routes, and would also
ensure that a site is available for eventual commuter rail service.
A local circulator may also become appropriate in the future, but current demo-graphics
in Queen Creek make this service less likely to succeed than the one in
Ahwatukee. As Queen Creek grows, it will have a significant school age popu-lation.
One of the key successes of the ALEX shuttle is providing a method for
kids to get home from after-school activities, especially for households where all
adults are employed.
Queen Creek Small Area Transportation Study
5-12 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
5.4 NON-TRANSPORTATION SOLUTIONS
Although the focus of the SATS is on identifying transportation problems and
solutions, there are other broader considerations that could have a significant
impact on future congestion in Queen Creek and the region. At the regional
level, it will be vital to start considering the future relationship between
Maricopa and Pinal Counties. By the time of the 2010 Census, parts of Pinal
County will be large enough to be considered a metropolitan area. Given the
commuting relationship between the two counties, it will be vital to begin early
coordination between these two entities.
One solution that should be considered is an attempt to balance population
growth in Pinal County with new sources of employment. Figure 5.3 presents
the expected population to employment ratio (the number of people living in an
area relative to the number of people working in the same area) in 2026, using
the population and employment data that has been considered in this study. The
ratios in the figure have been calculated by the municipal planning areas used in
the MAG model, which correspond roughly to individual towns and cities,
rather than by individual zones.
Most of Pinal County, especially the areas with significant population, have at
least four times more people than jobs – the overall ratio for Maricopa County is
around 2.5. Some parts of the County – notably the current state lands area that
is slated for massive development in the future – are expected to have over
10 times as many people as jobs. Pinal County, the Central Arizona Association
of Governments (CAAG), and MAG should work closely together to help ensure
that employment in Pinal County grows apace with population. This would
have major benefits for Pinal County, Queen Creek, and much of Maricopa
County. Improving the balance of population and employment will do more
than anything else to reduce the congestion identified in this study. As a result,
it will reduce the need to invest as heavily in high capacity corridors.
Both Pinal County and economic development agencies within the County are
working to address the employment issue through marketing activities, addi-tional
planning studies, and other efforts. As the broader region continues to
grow, it will be useful to consider regional solutions to support these efforts.
Queen Creek Small Area Transportation Study
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 5-13
Figure 5.3 Population-Employment Ratio in the MAG Model Area, 2026