Town of Superior small area transportation study

              Small Area Transportation Study
October 16, 2008
Town of Superior
Town of Superior
Small Area Transportation Study
Prepared for:
Town of Superior
Prepared by:
October 16, 2008
Superior Small Area Transportation Study
Town of Superior Small Area Transportation Study (SATS)
Acknowledgments
Technical Advisory Committee (TAC)
Melanie Oliver, Town Manager, Town of Superior
Rebecca Brothers, Public Works Director, Town of Superior
Lou Digirolamo, Police Chief, Town of Superior
Robert M. Johnson, Project Manager, Town of Superior
Susanna Struble, Town Engineer, Town of Superior
Bill Leister, Central Arizona Association of Governments
Jerry Barnes, Arizona Department of Transportation
Charlene FitzGerald, Arizona Department of Transportation
Doug Hansen, Pinal County
Lee Thornhill, U.S. Forest Service
Town of Superior Council
Mayor Michael O. Hing
Councilmember Lynn Heglie
Councilmember Jayme Valenzuela
Councilmember Olga D. Lopez
Councilmember Soyla Peralta
Councilmember Robert Cervantes
HDR
Brent Cain, Project Manager
Michael Gorton
Faisal Chowdhury
Becky Bailly
Dorothy Bungert
Laura Paty
Superior Small Area Transportation Study
ii
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1
1.1. Background.....................................................................................................................................................1
1.2. Study Area Overview ......................................................................................................................................1
1.3. Key Issues ......................................................................................................................................................2
2. Transportation Goals, Objectives, and Policies ............................................................5
2.1. General Plan Vision Statement.......................................................................................................................5
2.2. Goals, Objectives, and Policies .......................................................................................................................5
3. Year 2007 Transportation System Conditions ...............................................................8
3.1. Previous Plans and Studies............................................................................................................................8
3.2. Year 2007 Roadway Characteristics and Conditions.......................................................................................9
3.3. Functional Classification ...............................................................................................................................10
3.4. Roadway Characteristics ...............................................................................................................................13
3.5. Current Traffic Conditions.............................................................................................................................13
3.6. Level of Service ............................................................................................................................................18
3.7. Crash Data....................................................................................................................................................22
3.8. Capital Improvement Programs .....................................................................................................................25
3.9. Existing Pavement Conditions .......................................................................................................................26
3.10. Transit and Non-Motorized Transportation ....................................................................................................29
4. Land Use and Socioeconomic Conditions ..................................................................30
4.1. Land Use ......................................................................................................................................................30
4.2. Socioeconomic Data.....................................................................................................................................32
4.3. Interim and Planning Horizon Population and Employment Projections ........................................................36
5. Interim and Planning Horizon Transportation System Conditions ...........................40
5.1. Travel Demand .............................................................................................................................................40
5.2. Recommended Roadway Improvements.......................................................................................................44
Superior Small Area Transportation Study
iii
6. Implementation Plan ...................................................................................................47
6.1. Future Roadway Functional Classification Plan.............................................................................................47
6.2. Year 2030 Roadway Improvement Plan ........................................................................................................47
6.3. Transportation Revenue Sources ..................................................................................................................51
6.4. Future Transit Service ..................................................................................................................................56
6.5. Non-Motorized Element ................................................................................................................................57
6.6. 5-Year Priority Improvement Needs...............................................................................................................59
6.7. Implementation Action Items .........................................................................................................................59
7. Policies and Guidelines................................................................................................ 61
7.1. Roadway Functional Classification ................................................................................................................61
7.2. Access Management Guidelines ...................................................................................................................64
7.3. Design Guidelines.........................................................................................................................................67
7.4. Traffic Impact Procedures.............................................................................................................................67
Appendices
Appendix A Summary of Stakeholder Comment
Appendix B Summary of Public Comment
Appendix C Socioeconomic Data
Appendix D Employer Database
Superior Small Area Transportation Study
iv
List of Tables
Table 1 Planning Level Roadway Capacity by Functional Classification ................................................. 18
Table 2 Roadway Level of Service .......................................................................................................... 19
Table 3 Unsignalized Intersection LOS Definition.................................................................................... 19
Table 4 Year 2007 Intersection Level of Service ...................................................................................... 20
Table 5 Collision Type at Locations with Two or More Crashes ............................................................. 22
Table 6 Crashes by Severity, October 1, 2003 to September 30, 2006................................................... 24
Table 7 Key Collector Segment Pavement Rehabilitation History ........................................................... 26
Table 8 Population Estimates for the Town of Superior, Pinal County, and Arizona................................ 32
Table 9 Year 2000 Demographics ........................................................................................................... 32
Table 10 Year 2007 Employment Estimates............................................................................................ 36
Table 11 Study Area Population and Employment Growth Scenario....................................................... 37
Table 12 Year 2012 to Year 2030 Transportation Improvement Projects ................................................ 50
Table 13 Projected Town of Superior Transportation Revenue ............................................................... 53
Table 14 5-Year Priority Improvement Needs.......................................................................................... 59
Superior Small Area Transportation Study
v
List of Figures
Figure 1 Town of Superior and Vicinity ....................................................................................................... 2
Figure 2 Key Transportation Issues........................................................................................................... 4
Figure 3 Existing Roadway Functional Classification .............................................................................. 12
Figure 4 Roadway Lanes......................................................................................................................... 15
Figure 5 Posted Speed Limit ................................................................................................................... 16
Figure 6 Year 2007 ADT, Truck and Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movements .................................. 17
Figure 7 Intersection Lane Configurations and Level of Service Analysis ............................................... 21
Figure 8 Crash Locations: October 2003 to September 2006................................................................. 23
Figure 9 Crash Percentages by Type: October 1, 2003 to September 30, 2006 .................................... 24
Figure 10 Pavement Rehabilitation Status............................................................................................... 28
Figure 11 Future Land Use Plan.............................................................................................................. 31
Figure 12 Year 2007 Estimated Population Density ................................................................................ 34
Figure 13 Year 2007 Estimated Employment Density ............................................................................. 35
Figure 14 Year 2030 Estimated Population Density ................................................................................ 38
Figure 15 Year 2030 Estimated Employment Density ............................................................................. 39
Figure 16 Year 2012 No Build Traffic Volume Estimate........................................................................... 41
Figure 17 Year 2017 No Build Traffic Volume Estimate........................................................................... 42
Figure 18 Year 2030 No Build Traffic Volume Estimate........................................................................... 43
Figure 19 Year 2030 Recommended Roadway Network......................................................................... 45
Figure 20 Year 2030 Build Traffic Volume Estimate ................................................................................ 46
Figure 21 Future Roadway Functional Classification............................................................................... 48
Figure 22 Year 2030 Roadway Improvement Plan ................................................................................. 49
Figure 23 Queen Creek Conceptual Trailway Plan................................................................................. 58
Figure 24 Typical Roadway Cross Section ............................................................................................. 63
Superior Small Area Transportation Study
Page 1
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. Background
The Town of Superior Small Area Transportation Study (SATS) was initiated by the Town of
Superior in conjunction with the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT). The Town of
Superior retained HDR, Inc., to conduct the study under the direction of a Technical Advisory
Committee (TAC), which includes representatives from the Town of Superior, Pinal County, the
Central Arizona Association of Governments (CAAG), ADOT, and the U.S. Forest Service. The
study was jointly funded by the Town of Superior and ADOT.
The purpose of this study is to document existing roadway characteristics and operations, land use
and socioeconomic conditions, and other existing transportation modes, and to craft a long-range
transportation plan to meet the transportation needs of the Town of Superior. A travel demand
model was prepared to forecast traffic volumes to assist in identifying the traffic impacts with the
anticipated growth in and around the City. Regular TAC meetings were held at key project
milestones. The first public open house was held on Tuesday, March 25, 2008. A second public
open house was held on July 24, 2008. TAC member input throughout the process was critical to
the development of this Plan. A summary of stakeholder comment is shown in Appendix B.
Appendix A shows a summary of comment from the public meetings.
The Superior SATS is intended as a planning tool for the Town of Superior, and is focused on roads
that are owned and maintained by the Town. Roads located within the Town that are on the state
highway system, such as US 60, are the responsibility of ADOT. Any recommendations for
improvements to state highways should be considered as suggestions for further study by ADOT,
and can only be implemented following approval by the State Transportation Board.
1.2. Study Area Overview
Located at the crossroads of US 60 and SR 177, Superior is a small mining town surrounded by the
Tonto National Forest. The Boyce Thompson Arboretum is located just a few miles west of
Superior. The study area is generally bounded by the Apache Leap Mountains to the east and Picket
Post Mountain to the west. Queen Creek flows through Superior from the east to the west. Figure
1 illustrates the study area location in northeast Pinal County. The study area, made up of 17.8
square miles or 11,600 acres, is included within the limits of the Town of Superior General Plan.
Superior Small Area Transportation Study
Page 2
Figure 1 Town of Superior and Vicinity
1.3. Key Issues
Key Town of Superior issues affecting the transportation infrastructure and planning needs were
identified through input from ADOT, Town of Superior staff, relevant studies, and the TAC.
􀂾􋹕 US 60 Widening. The eventual widening of US 60 is a key planning issue. The ADOT US
60: Superior to Globe Final Feasibility Study identifies potential alternatives that include widening
US 60 along its current alignment or bypassing Superior and the environmentally sensitive
canyon and tunnel requirements of Queen Creek Canyon.
􀂾􋹇 Goods Movement. The booming copper industry in Globe, Safford, and Morenci is
increasing the heavy truck traffic traveling on US 60 to US 70. The potential re-opening of
the Magma Arizona railroad, which would be associated with the development of a new
copper mine, could be an opportunity for Superior to develop as an intermodal hub where
freight could be transferred between truck and rail.
Superior Small Area Transportation Study
Page 3
􀂾􋹐 Pavement Management. The last comprehensive pavement maintenance and
rehabilitation program was conducted in 1995. Pavement maintenance and rehabilitation on
key collector facilities needs to be revisited.
􀂾􋹈 High Water Crossings. A high water crossing is a bridge or culvert that allows vehicular
traffic to cross a normally dry watercourse during a rain event. The only high water
crossings of Queen Creek in Superior are at Magma Road and US 60. A new fire station and
a hospital are planned along Mary Drive. The Mary Drive crossing of Queen Creek is a low
water crossing that is closed when the creek runs after heavy rainfall. With access critical for
emergency traffic, a new high water crossing over Queen Creek Wash is needed to improve
emergency access to both sides of town. The Golf Course Drive Road wash crossing also
floods during high water events.
􀂾􋹎 Non-Motorized Transportation. Town of Superior is planning a trail system that links the
Boyce Thompson Arboretum with Superior and the upper Queen Creek Canyon. The
Town anticipates that a hiking and bicycling trail along Queen Creek could become a tourist
attraction. The proposed trails plan would also help to improve overall pedestrian safety and
mobility.
􀂾􋹕 US 60 Safety. Ensuring safe pedestrian and bicycle crossings of US 60 is a key issue. Key
elements of maximizing safety include tighter access control on US 60.
􀂾􋹓 Safe Routes to School. With both John F. Kennedy Elementary School elementary and the
combined Superior Junior High and High School located in the Mary Drive/Sunset Drive,
improvements under the Safe Route to School program created by the Safe, Accountable,
Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users Act (SAFETEA-LU) should be
implemented in this corridor.
􀂾􋹓 Stone Avenue/Heiner Road Intersection. The four legs of the Stone Avenue/Heiner
Road intersection do not align. This skewed alignment creates a traffic operational hazard
with limited sight distance and safety concerns.
Figure 2 shows the transportation issues within the Town of Superior.
Magma Heights Dr
Magma Arizona Railroad
Porphyry St
High School Ave
Kellner Ave
Magma Ave
Neary Ave
Lobb Ave
San Pedro St
Bridge St
Molina St
Main St Newmont St
Santa Rita St
Lime St
Silver St
Copper St
Stansberry Ave
Pinal Ave
Mine Ave
Rainbow Ave
Sonora St
Wight St Wight St
Starr Rd
Kiser St
Wilhoyt St
Kiser St
Valentine St
Harrington Pl
O’Donnell Dr
Gray Dr
Gibbs St
Crow St
East St
Gorham St
Martin St
Spray St
Hill St
Old Phoenix Rd
Mesquite Rd
Magma Arizona Railroad
Magma Copper Co Railroad
Heiner Dr
Terrace Dr
Stone Ave
Belmont Ave
Church Ave
Belmont Ave
Arnett Dr
Medlock Dr
South Ave
Apache Leap Rd
Western Ave
Edna Ave
Saguaro Dr
Mary Dr
Golf Course Dr
Richard Ave
Christopher St
Frieda La
Hing Dr
Smith Dr
Ray St
Sunset Dr
Smock Ave
Palo Verde Dr
Ocotillo Dr
O’Donnell Dr
MarionDr
Palma St
Magma Flats Dr
Richard Ave
Queen Creek Wash
Highlands Dr
60
177
Limited access control,
unauthorized parking,
and unsafe pedestrian
crossing along US 60
High water
crossing
Mine truck
access
High water
crossing
High water
crossing
North/south
traffic movement
across US 60
Intersection
configuration
ENLARGED
AREA
Tonto
National Forest
Study Area
Town Boundary
Land Ownership
National Forest
Private
General Issues
• Pavement management.
• Connectivity with local and
regional roads.
• US 60 bypass.
• Mining truck travel on
US 60 and US 70.
0 500 1,000 2,000
Feet
Superior Small Area Transportation Study Page 4
Key Transportation Issues Figure 2
Sources: HDR, Inc., August 2008; Pinal County GIS Division, July 2008; ADOT HPMS, 2005; ALRIS, 2004.
Superior Small Area Transportation Study
Page 5
2. TRANSPORTATION GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND POLICIES
The primary objective of this Small Area Transportation Plan is to develop a long term vision that
will guide multimodal planning and programming on local roads to year 2030. The following key
goals, objectives and policies were adapted from the Town of Superior 2003 General Plan Update.
2.1. General Plan Vision Statement
“The goals of the Town’s transportation system are to improve the mobility of people and goods, protect the
natural environment, support economic development, and sustain public support for transportation planning
and funding efforts.” – 2003 Town of Superior General Plan Update
2.2. Goals, Objectives, and Policies
GOAL: Maintain a safe system of roadways, sidewalks and pathways for
vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle traffic.
Objective: Continue to improve overall street conditions within the Town.
Objective: Implement and update the Town’s Capital Improvement Plan annually as
necessary.
Objective: Recognize unsafe conditions and work to improve traffic safety along US
60.
GOAL: Support alternative modes of travel by improving and expanding
pedestrian and bicycle facilities.
Objective: Develop and maintain a series of safe and well-designed walking
thoroughfares and bicycle paths or lanes, which connect activity center
destinations, trail networks and open-space areas.
Objective: Work with ADOT to improve pedestrian safety along and across US 60
within the Town.
Objective: Identify and work to remedy deficient pedestrian facilities.
Objective: Promote the development of a multi-purpose transit system that
efficiently and cost-effectively connects Superior to other communities
in the region.
GOAL: Cooperate with ADOT to ensure timely improvement of State facilities
in the Superior planning area.
Objective: Monitor and participate in ADOT improvement planning.
Objective: Complete an updated Small Area Transportation Study.
Superior Small Area Transportation Study
Page 6
Objective: Participate in the US 60 Alignment Study, providing direction to ADOT
with regard to Town preferences.
GOAL: Identify financing opportunities to meet transportation needs.
Objective: Pursue dedicated funding sources, assistance from other levels of
government and impact fees associated with new developments.
Objective: Join with other jurisdictions and communities to seek increased state
and regional sources of funding.
GOAL: Utilize the transportation system to foster a strong economy.
Transportation system improvements encourage development and
redevelopment in support of employment, educational and retail centers that
contribute to Superior’s economic vitality.
Objective: Support transportation improvements for economic development such as
accommodating rail and truck freight movements.
Objective: Enhance road systems to reduce congestion and provide access to
employment sites.
Objective: Improve downtown parking supply in support of local businesses.
GOAL: Ensure regional connectivity.
Objective: Coordinate with State, CAAG, County, and transportation agencies to
expedite scheduled improvements.
Objective: Plan for adequate capacities in all transportation systems to meet
demand and avoid bottlenecks.
Objective: Preserve traffic capacity and efficient flow on US 60.
GOAL: Integrate land use and transportation.
Land use patterns and transportation systems will be integrated to help reduce
congestion and provide convenient access. Transportation facilities will be
designed to support the character of adjacent land uses including
neighborhoods, Downtown and designated historic areas. Preparedness
planning ensures dedication of adequate rights-of-way for future
transportation needs.
Objective: Maintain excellent access to serve new development.
Objective: Design transportation facilities in accordance with aesthetic expectations
of the community.
Superior Small Area Transportation Study
Page 7
GOAL: Encourage safe, efficient and multimodal traffic circulation.
There is a critical relationship between land use impacts and transportation
capacity and safety.
Objective: Traffic analysis is necessary for major residential, office, commercial,
employment and public facility projects.
Objective: Encourage incorporation of bike and pedestrian facilities within and
connecting all developments.
Superior Small Area Transportation Study
Page8
3. YEAR 2007 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM CONDITIONS
This section provides an overview of year 2007 socioeconomic and roadway conditions within the
Town of Superior study area. It includes a review of previous and current transportation studies, an
inventory of roadway facilities, an evaluation of safety conditions on key study area roadways, as well
as an overview of current transit and non-motorized operations and plans.
3.1. Previous Plans and Studies
Documents reviewed for the preparation of this study include:
Town of Superior General Plan
The Town of Superior General Plan Update (Town of Superior, 2003) was developed to guide decisions
about growth and development in the Town. It includes elements on land use, circulation, and
economic development. The Town has focused its efforts on reinvigorating its economy by
focusing on its core small-town values and diversifying its economy from copper mining to include
small-scale industry, tourism, recreation, and an emerging arts community.
Town of Superior Capital Improvement Program
The Town of Superior Capital Improvement Program 2001-2021 (Willdan, May 2001) establishes short term
priorities and long term goals and objectives for transportation infrastructure improvements. It also
identifies and prioritizes funding sources.
Town of Superior Small Area Transportation Study
Key elements of the Town of Superior Small Area Transportation Study (DMJM, 1994) focused on
maintaining the Town’s existing roadway system. This included comprehensive recommendations
for pavement rehabilitation on local streets. Other elements included a roadway circulation plan,
access management plan, and transportation improvement plan.
US Route 60: Florence Jct to Superior Design Concept Report Final Report
The US Route 60: Florence Jct to Superior, Phoenix - Globe Highway Design Concept Report Final Report,
(Jacobs Civil Inc., May 2004) describes the outcome of the ADOT study that addresses proposed
improvements to US 60 from just west of the Florence junction intersection through the Town of
Superior to the US 60/SR 177 traffic interchange within Pinal County. The purpose of the Design
Concept Report is to develop a long-range plan that will guide future decisions regarding the
ultimate improvements required to improve US 60 to meet the capacity, operational, and safety
needs of the motoring public through the year 2025.
US Route 60: Superior to Globe Final Feasibility Report
The US Route 60: Superior to Globe, Phoenix - Globe Highway Final Feasibility Report, (Jacobs Civil Inc.,
October 2004) developed and evaluated preliminary alternatives for improving US 60 from Superior
to Globe. The study limits begin near the Boyce Thompson Arboretum at MP 223.8 and extend
Superior Small Area Transportation Study
Page9
eastward to the US 60/US 70 intersection at MP 254.5, within Pinal and Gila Counties, Arizona.
This study identifies a potential bypass alternative around the environmentally sensitive canyon and
tunnel requirements of Queen Creek Canyon. This potential route would diverge from the existing
US 60 alignment just east of the Boyce-Thompson Arboretum and extend approximately five miles
north of the existing highway bypassing the Town of Superior.
Central Arizona Regional Transportation Coordination Plan
The Central Arizona Regional Transportation Coordination Plan (RAE Consultants, Inc., April 2007) was
prepared to meet the mandates of SAFETEA-LU legislation that require a local public transit-human
service transportation plan for distribution of Federal Transit Administration (FTA) funding.
This CAAG plan provides details on the human service transportation providers serving the Town
of Superior.
Pinal County Small Area Transportation Study
The Pinal County Small Area Transportation Study (Kirkham Michael Consulting Engineers, 2006)
evaluated transportation needs, including roadway and transit elements for year 2025. It included an
overview of current socioeconomic and roadway conditions. The study also presented future
population and employment projections and analyzed the transportation improvements needed to
accommodate future travel demand.
Arizona Statewide Rural Transit Needs Study
The Arizona Statewide Rural Transit Needs Study (Cambridge Systematics, Inc, 2007), prepared for
ADOT developed a plan for future new transit services and their improvements. The Study is
intended to serve as an objective, and analytical basis for establishing Arizona’s long-term strategic
direction of rural transit service provision. The Study did not include the Town of Superior among
the top candidates for new or expanded local and tribal Section 5311 program service. However, the
Mesa to Superior intercity route was considered one of the top candidates for new intercity Section
5311 program service.
Regionally Significant Routes for Safety and Mobility Plan
The Regionally Significant Routes for Safety and Mobility Plan (Lima & Associates, 2007) prepared for Pinal
County summarized traffic safety, general characteristics and standards for regionally significant
routes (RSRs). The plan prepared corridor preservation and a priority map as well as recommended
policies and implementation steps. US 60 within the Town limit was identified as a
moderate/medium priority RSR.
3.2. Year 2007 Roadway Characteristics and Conditions
This section presents the key physical and operating characteristics of major roadway networks
within the study area under existing conditions. Major roadway networks include US 60, SR 177,
Main Street, Magma Avenue, Mary Drive, and Sunset Drive. The major existing roadways are
summarized below.
Superior Small Area Transportation Study
Page10
US 60
US 60 is an east-west facility serving regional traffic between the Phoenix metropolitan area, the
Globe-Miami area, and Eastern Arizona with one travel lane in each direction through the Town of
Superior. The US 60 bridge crossing of the Queen Creek Wash is one of only two high water
crossings of this watercourse in the Town.
Access control on US 60 is unrestricted within the Town limits. All streets entering US 60 within
Superior are stop sign controlled. This includes intersections at Mary Drive, Western Avenue,
Belmont Avenue and Church Avenue. Unrestricted access to the right-of-way along US 60 is used
for parking for the businesses developed along both sides of this facility.
SR 177
SR 177 is a two-lane north-south roadway connecting Superior and Winkelman. It joins US 60 at an
interchange at Magma Avenue in east Superior. FHWA classifies this roadway as a Rural Major
Collector.
Main Street
Main Street connects US 60 and Magma Avenue with downtown Superior. It is stop controlled at
US 60 and at Magma Avenue. Parking is allowed on both sides of the street. This roadway is
classified by FHWA as a Rural Major Collector.
Magma Avenue
Magma Avenue connects Main Street to US 60 and SR 177 at a traffic interchange on the east side
of Superior. Magma Avenue has a bridge crossing of Queen Creek Wash. This roadway is classified
by FHWA as a Rural Major Collector.
Mary Drive/Sunset Drive
Mary Drive and Sunset Drive are collector facilities that provide access to the south side of Superior.
Mary Drive is a low water crossing of Queen Creek Wash and provides access to the elementary
school and high school. Sunset Drive joins with Mary Drive to provide connectivity to SR 177.
These facilities are classified by FHWA as Rural Minor Collectors.
3.3. Functional Classification
Functional classification is the grouping of highways, roads and streets into classes with respect to
their service and purposes. It also serves as a basis for establishing speed limits, parking restrictions,
design standards and access controls. The existing roadway system is categorized into the following
functional classes:
􀂾􋹒 Rural Minor Arterials;
􀂾􋹒 Rural Major Collectors;
􀂾􋹒 Rural Minor Collectors;
􀂾􋹒 Residential Collectors; and
Superior Small Area Transportation Study
Page11
􀂾􋹌 Local Roads.
Figure 3 shows the existing roadway functional classification for the study area roadways. Roadway
characteristics are described and defined below.
Rural Minor Arterials
􀂾􋹌 Link cities and larger towns and other large traffic generators, such as major resort areas that
are capable of attracting travel over similarly long distances, and form an integrated network
providing interstate and intercounty service;
􀂾􋹁 Are spaced at intervals consistent with population density so that all developed areas of a
state are within a reasonable distance of an arterial highway; and
􀂾􋹐 Provide service to corridors with trip lengths and travel density greater than those
predominantly served by rural collector or local systems. Minor arterials should provide
higher overall travel speeds with minimum interference to through movements.
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) classifies US 60 as Rural Minor Arterial.
Rural Major Collectors
􀂾􋹐 Provide service to any county seat not on an arterial route, to larger towns not directly
served by higher systems, and to other traffic generators of equivalent intracounty
importance, such as consolidated schools, shipping points, county parks, important mining
and agricultural areas;
􀂾􋹌 Link those places with nearby larger towns and cities, or with routes of higher classification;
and
􀂾􋹓 Serve the more important intracounty travel corridors.
FHWA classifies SR 177, Main Street, and Magma Avenue as a Rural Major Collector.
Rural Minor Collectors
􀂾􋹁 Are spaced at intervals consistent with population density to collect traffic from local roads
and bring all developed areas within a reasonable distance of a collector road;
􀂾􋹐 Provide service to the remaining smaller communities; and
􀂾􋹌 Link locally important traffic generators with the rural hinterland.
FHWA classifies Mary Drive and Sunset Drive as a Rural Minor Collectors.
ENLARGED
AREA
Tonto
National Fo rest
Tonto
National Forest
0 500 1,000 2,000
Feet
Superior Small Area Transportation Study Page 12
Existing Roadway Functional Classification Figure 3
Sources: HDR, Inc., August 2008; Pinal County GIS Division, July 2008; ADOT HPMS, 2005; ALRIS, 2004.
Study Area
Town Boundary
Roadway Classification
Rural Minor Arterial
Rural Major Collector
Rural Minor Collector
Residential Collector
Local Roads
Ramp
Land Ownership
National Forest
Private
Magma Heights Dr
Magma Arizona Railroad
Porphyry St
High School Ave
Magma Ave
Neary Ave
Lobb Ave
San Pedro St
Bridge St
Molina St
Main St Newmont St
Santa Rita St
Lime St
Silver St
Copper St
Stansberry Ave
Pinal Ave
Mine Ave
Rainbow Ave
Sonora St
Wight St Wight St
Starr Rd
Kiser St
Wilhoyt St
Kiser St
Valentine St
Harrington Pl
O’Donnell Dr
Gray Dr
Gibbs St
Crow St
East St
Gorham St
Martin St
Spray St
Hill St
Old Phoenix Rd
Mesquite Rd
Magma Arizona RR
Magma Copper Co Railroad
Heiner Dr
Terrace Dr
Stone Ave
Belmont Ave
Church Ave
Belmont Ave
Arnett Dr
Medlock Dr
South Ave
Apache Leap Rd
Western Ave
Edna Ave
Saguaro Dr
Mary Dr
Golf Course Dr
Richard Ave
Christopher St
Frieda La
Hing Dr
Smith Dr
Ray St
Sunset Dr
Smock Ave
Palo Verde Dr
O’Donnell Dr
MarionDr
Palma St
Magma Flats Dr
Queen Creek Wash
Highlands Dr 177
60
Richard Ave
Ocotillo Dr
Superior Small Area Transportation Study
Page13
Residential Collectors
􀂾􋹐 Predominantly collect trips from local residential streets and distribute them to activity
centers, minor collectors, and minor arterials;
􀂾􋹁 Accommodate longer trips and higher traffic volumes than those typically encountered on
local streets; and
􀂾􋹌 Link locally important traffic generators with the rural hinterland.
Local Roads
􀂾􋹐 Provide direct access to residential driveways; and
􀂾􋹓 Serve local residential trips with low travel speeds.
3.4. Roadway Characteristics
Roadway characteristics information was collected on the existing roadway system through site
visits. All study roadways are paved under existing conditions. Roadway characteristics are briefly
described below.
Roadway Lanes, Intersection Control and Speed Limits
Figure 4 shows the number of travel lanes on study area roadways. Roadways within Superior
typically have one travel lane in each direction. Several local roads are one-way facilities. US 60 has
a center two-way left turn lane through most of Town. Figure 5 shows posted speed limits. The
posted speed limit on local streets is 25 miles per hour (mph). The posted speed US 60 and SR 177
within the Town limits is 45 mph. Mary Drive east of Golf Course Road is designated as a school
zone operating at 15 mph during school session.
3.5. Current Traffic Conditions
Traffic counts were conducted within the Town of Superior during the week of December 3, 2007.
This traffic data collection program included daily traffic counts, peak hour intersection turning
movement counts, and vehicle classification counts. This data was used to both identify potential
roadway operations deficiencies and provide traffic data for development of the travel demand
forecasting model.
Average Daily Traffic
Twenty-four hour average daily traffic (ADT) traffic data was collected at eight locations for three
consecutive mid-week work days on December 4-6, 2007. The ADT volume typically fluctuates due
to seasonal variation. At present, ADOT does not have any seasonal traffic adjustment factor
derived for the study area. Therefore, no adjustment factor was used to refine the traffic data to
compensate for this traffic volume fluctuation. Historical average daily traffic counts from ADOT
and CAAG were also summarized. The ADT flow map is shown in Figure 6.
Superior Small Area Transportation Study
Page14
Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movements
Based on discussions with the TAC, eight intersections were selected for the peak hour turning
movement counts. Morning peak (7:00 to 9:00 AM) and afternoon peak (4:00 to 6:00 PM)
intersection turning movement counts were conducted at these intersections on December 4-6,
2007. Existing peak hourly turn traffic movements are also shown in Figure 6.
Vehicle Classification
Vehicle classification data was collected at two locations in the study area to identify corridors with
high truck volume. Trucks included both single-unit (vehicle types 4 through 7 with four or more
single-unit trucks) and multi-unit (vehicle types 8 through 13 with four or fewer axles and single-trailer
trucks through seven or more axle multi-trailer trucks). Vehicle classification counts were
conducted on Magma Avenue, south of Copper Street, and on US 60 at the Queen Creek bridge on
December 4-6, 2007. Figure 6 shows the trucks in the traffic stream at these two locations.
Study Area
Town Boundary
Roadway Lanes
One Lane
Two Lane
Two Lane With Center Turning Lane
Land Ownership
National Forest
Private
0 500 1,000 2,000
Feet
Superior Small Area Transportation Study Page 15
Roadway Lanes Figure 4
Sources: HDR, Inc., August 2008; Pinal County GIS Division, July 2008; ADOT HPMS, 2005; ALRIS, 2004.
Tonto
National Forest
ENLARGED
AREA
Tonto
National Forest
Magma Heights Dr
Magma Arizona Railroad
Porphyry St
High School Ave
Kellner Ave
Magma Ave
Neary Ave
Lobb Ave
San Pedro St
Bridge St
Molina St
Main St Newmont St
Santa Rita St
Lime St
Silver St
Copper St
Stansberry Ave
Pinal Ave
Mine Ave
Rainbow Ave
Sonora St
Wight St Wight St
Starr Rd
Kiser St
Wilhoyt St
Kiser St
Valentine St
Harrington Pl
O’Donnell Dr
Gray Dr
Gibbs St
Crow St
East St
Gorham St
Martin St
Spray St
Hill St
Old Phoenix Rd
Mesquite Rd
Magma Arizona Railroad
Magma Copper Co Railroad
Heiner Dr
Terrace Dr
Stone Ave
Belmont Ave
Church Ave
Belmont Ave
Arnett Dr
Medlock Dr
South Ave
Apache Leap Rd
Western Ave
Edna Ave
Saguaro Dr
Mary Dr
Golf Course Dr
Richard Ave
Christopher St
Frieda La
Hing Dr
Smith Dr
Ray St
Sunset Dr
Smock Ave
Palo Verde Dr
O’Donnell Dr
MarionDr
Palma St
Magma Flats Dr
Queen Creek Wash
Highlands Dr 177
60
Ocotillo Dr
Richard Ave
Study Area
Town Boundary
Land Ownership
National Forest
Private
Speed (mph)
15
25
35
45
50
55
ENLARGED
AREA
Tonto
National Forest
0 500 1,000 2,000
Feet Note: School zone speed restriction (15 mph) applies to Mary Dr.
Superior Small Area Transportation Study Page 16
Posted Speed Limit Figure 5
Sources: HDR, Inc., August 2008; Pinal County GIS Division, July 2008; ADOT HPMS, 2005; ALRIS, 2004.
Magma Heights Dr
Magma Arizona Railroad
Porphyry St
High School Ave
Kellner Ave
Magma Ave
Neary Ave
Lobb Ave
San Pedro St
Bridge St
Molina St
Main St Newmont St
Santa Rita St
Lime St
Silver St
Copper St
Stansberry Ave
Pinal Ave
Mine Ave
Rainbow Ave
Sonora St
Wight St Wight St
Starr Rd
Kiser St
Wilhoyt St
Kiser St
Valentine St
Harrington Pl
O’Donnell Dr
Gray Dr
Gibbs St
Crow St
East St
Gorham St
Martin St
Spray St
Hill St
Old Phoenix Rd
Silver King Mine Rd
Mesquite Rd
Magma Arizona Railroad
Magma Copper Co Railroad
Heiner Dr
Terrace Dr
Stone Ave
Belmont Ave
Church Ave
Belmont Ave
Arnett Dr
Medlock Dr
South Ave
Apache Leap Rd
Western Ave
Edna Ave
Saguaro Dr
Mary Dr
Golf Course Dr
Richard Ave
Christopher St
Frieda La
Hing Dr
Smith Dr
Ray St
Sunset Dr
Smock Ave
Palo Verde Dr
O’Donnell Dr
MarionDr
Palma St
Magma Flats Dr
Queen Creek Wash
Highlands Dr
60
177
Richard Ave
Ocotillo Dr
Roadway Classificaton
Rural Minor Arterial
Rural Major Collector
Rural Minor Collector
Residential Collector
Land Ownership
National Forest
Private
Study Area
Town Boundary
# . # Trucks
Peak-Hour Turning # . # ADTb (in thousands)
Movementa
Note: a XX (YY) AM(PM) - December 2007
bADT is the Average Daily Traffic
(in thousands)
Superior Small Area Transportation Study Page 17
Existing ADT, Truck and Peak Hour
Intersection Turning Movements
Figure 6
0 500 1,000 2,000
Feet
Sources: HDR, Inc., August 2008; Pinal County GIS Division, July 2008; ADOT HPMS, 2005; ALRIS, 2004.
ENLARGED
AREA
Tonto
National Forest
Magma Heights Dr
Magma Arizona Railroad
Porphyry St
Kellner Ave
Magma Ave
Neary Ave
Lobb Ave
San Pedro St
Bridge St
Molina St
Main St
Santa Rita St
Lime St
Silver St
Copper St
Pinal Ave
Mine Ave
Rainbow Ave
Sonora St
Wight St
Starr Rd
Kiser St
Wilhoyt St
Valentine St
Harrington Pl
O’Donnell Dr
Gray Dr
Gibbs St
Crow St
East St
Gorham St
Martin St
Spray St
Hill St
Old Phoenix Rd
Mesquite Rd
Magma Arizona Railroad
Magma Copper Co Railroad
Heiner Dr
Terrace Dr
Stone Ave
Belmont Ave
Arnett Dr
Medlock Dr
South Ave
Apache Leap Rd
Western Ave
Edna Ave
Saguaro Dr
Mary Dr
Golf Course Dr
Richard Ave
Christopher St
Frieda La
Hing Dr
Smith Dr
Ray St
Sunset Dr
Smock Ave
Palo Verde Dr
O’Donnell Dr
MarionDr
Palma St
Magma Flats Dr
Queen Creek Wash
Highlands Dr
Tonto
National Forest
177
60
Ocotillo Dr
Richard Ave
1
220 (371)a
50 (44)
269 (290)
17 (37)
48 (18)
18 (11)
2
11 (11)
246 (402)
41 (43)
16 (20)
40 (33)
280 (267)
3
4 (7)
204 (324)
14 (27)
7 (9)
5 (9)
6 (6)
3 (9)
266 (249)
17 (29)
21 (27)
1 (15)
29 (33)
4
0 (1)
211 (342)
7 (15)
3 (3)
3 (3)
0 (1)
2 (2)
273 (275)
12 (31)
9 (14)
3 (7)
24 (22)
6
68 (94)
6 (14)
36 (45)
26 (46)
14 (19)
111 (100)
7
4 (22)
2 (3)
5 (32)
6 (21)
61 (124)
13 (43)
4 (3)
65 (82)
3 (6)
8
1 (1)
7 (5)
7 (10)
15 (19)
24 (68)
6 (6)
0 (3)
0 (8)
40 (71)
20 (33)
32 (44)
31 (68)
5
38 (43)
37 (69)
41 (33)
3 (7)
68 (80)
12 (8)
One Way
4
5
3
1 2
8
7
6
0.4
1.7
2.9
8.9
0.7
0.2
0.1
0.9
8.7
1.5
0.7
1.3
0.6
9.1
1.3
2.0
8.4 8.7
0.9
1.6
1.2
2.8
1.6
2.8
1.0
<0.1
Superior Small Area Transportation Study
Page18
3.6. Level of Service
Level of Service (LOS) is a quantitative measurement of operational characteristics of traffic and the
perception of the traffic conditions by both motorists and passengers. There are six levels of service
defined by the Highway Capacity Manual 2000 (HCM), published by the Transportation Research
Board (TRB). Each level of service is given a letter designation from A to F, with A representing
the optimal or best condition and F the worst. Roadway segment level of service is characterized by
the HCM as follows:
LOS A: Best, free flow operations (on uninterrupted flow facilities) and very low delay (on
interrupted flow facilities). Freedom to select desired speeds and to maneuver within traffic
is extremely high.
LOS B: Flow is stable, but presence of other users is noticeable. Freedom to select desired
speeds is relatively unaffected, but there is a slight decline in the freedom to maneuver within
traffic.
LOS C: Flow is stable, but the operation of users is becoming affected by the presence of
other users. Maneuvering within traffic requires substantial vigilance on the part of the user.
LOS D: High density but stable flow. Speed and freedom to maneuver are severely
restricted. The driver is experiencing a generally poor level of comfort and convenience.
LOS E: Flow is at or near capacity. All speeds are reduced to a low, but relatively uniform
value. Freedom to maneuver within traffic is extremely difficult. Comfort and convenience
levels are extremely poor.
LOS F: Worse, facility has failed, or a breakdown has occurred.
Level of Service Thresholds
Roadway segment level of service (LOS) is based on the number of travel lanes, roadway functional
classification, the maximum desired capacity of the roadway, and the existing or forecast ADT
volume. Table 1 shows the planning-level roadway capacities by functional classification for the
Town of Superior.
Table 1 Planning Level Roadway
Capacity by Functional Classification
Roadway Classification Daily Lane Capacity
Rural Minor Arterial 8,500
Rural Collector 6,500
Local 5,000
Unpaved 500
Source: HDR, Inc., August 2008.
The LOS thresholds in Table 1 were identified to facilitate analysis of roadway segment performance
through the use of volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratios. The daily per lane capacity in each direction for
each roadway segment was used with the daily traffic volume estimate to determine a V/C ratio.
Table 2 shows how the V/C ratios related to standard LOS classifications.
Superior Small Area Transportation Study
Page19
LOS at unsignalized intersections was calculated based on average control delay in seconds per
vehicle for the worst approach, based on the methodology in the Highway Capacity Manual,
Transportation Research Board, 2000. Table 3 presents the LOS criteria for unsignalized
intersections.
Table 3 Unsignalized Intersection LOS Definition
Level of Service Description Average Control Delay (second/vehicle)
A Little or no delay. 0 – 10
B Minor delays > 10 – 15
C Average delays > 15 – 25
D Moderate delays > 25 – 35
E Lengthy delays > 35 – 50
F Excessive delays/gridlock > 50
Source: Highway Capacity Manual 2000, Transportation Research Board.
LOS Analysis Results
Synchro is traffic operations analysis software that implements HCM methodology. It is widely
applied to perform intersection traffic operations analysis. Level of service analysis for key study
area intersections was prepared using Synchro with peak hour traffic, roadway lane configurations,
and traffic control information.
Table 4 and Figure 7 show the existing level of service at key study area intersections for the year
2007 AM and PM peak hours. This analysis showed that all intersections operate at an acceptable
level of service in both the AM and PM peak hours.
Based on the roadway capacities shown in Table 1 and the year 2007 ADT, all major study area
roadway segments operate at an acceptable level of service C or better. This includes:
􀂾􋹕 US 60;
􀂾􋹓 SR 177;
􀂾􋹍 Main Street;
􀂾􋹍 Magma Avenue; and,
􀂾􋹍 Mary Drive/Sunset Drive.
Table 2 Roadway Level of Service
Roadway LOS Volume Over Capacity (V/C) Ratio
LOS A – LOS C (Under Capacity) < 0.80
LOS D (Near Capacity) 0.81 – 0.90
LOS E (At Capacity) 0.91 – 1.00
LOS F (Over Capacity) > 1.00
Source: Highway Capacity Manual 2000, Transportation Research Board.
Superior Small Area Transportation Study
Page20
Table 4 Year 2007 Intersection Level of Service
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Intersection
ID Intersection
LOS*
Average
Control Delay
(sec/vehicle)
LOS*
Average
Control Delay
(sec/vehicle)
1 US-60 and Mary Dr B 11.2 B 12.6
2 US-60 and Main St B 12.9 B 12.9
3 US 60 and Western Ave B 13.1 C 16.0
4 US 60 and Belmont Ave B 9.6 C 15.0
5 SR-177 and Sunset Dr A 7.4 A 9.5
6 SR 177 and US-60 EB Ramp A 7.2 A 7.3
7 SR 177 and US-60 WB Ramp A 7.3 A 7.5
8 Main St and Magma Ave B 11.3 A 7.5
Source: HDR Engineering, Inc., August 2008
Note: * As recommended in the Highway Capacity Manual 2000, level of service for side street stop controlled intersections
was calculated based on average control delay in seconds per vehicle for the worst approach. All study intersections are
unsignalized.
Rural Minor Arterial
Rural Major Collector
Rural Minor Collector
Residential Collector
Ramp
Study Area
Town Boundary
Land Ownership
National Forest
Private
Roadway Classificaton
2) All roadway segments operate at LOS C or better.
Notes: 1) X/Y -- AM/PM Peak LOS
Lane Configuration
Stop Control
Intersection Location
Magma Heights Dr
Magma Arizona Railroad
Porphyry St
High School Ave
Kellner Ave
Magma Ave
Neary Ave
Lobb Ave
San Pedro St
Bridge St
Molina St
Main St Newmont St
Santa Rita St
Lime St
Silver St
Copper St
Stansberry Ave
Pinal Ave
Mine Ave
Rainbow Ave
Sonora St
Wight St Wight St
Starr Rd
Kiser St
Wilhoyt St
Kiser St
Valentine St
Harrington Pl
O’Donnell Dr
Gray Dr
Gibbs St
Crow St
East St
Gorham St
Martin St
Spray St
Hill St
Old Phoenix Rd
Mesquite Rd
Magma Arizona Railroad
Magma Copper Co Railroad
Heiner Dr
Terrace Dr
Stone Ave
Belmont Ave
Church Ave
Belmont Ave
Arnett Dr
Medlock Dr
South Ave
Apache Leap Rd
Western Ave
Edna Ave
Saguaro Dr
Mary Dr
Golf Course Dr
Richard Ave
Christopher St
Frieda La
Hing Dr
Smith Dr
Ray St
Sunset Dr
Smock Ave
Palo Verde Dr
O’Donnell Dr
MarionDr
Palma St
Magma Flats Dr
Highlands Dr
60
177
Queen Creek Wash
Tonto
National Forest
Richard Ave
Ocotillo Dr
ENLARGED
AREA
Tonto
National Forest
1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8
One Way
2
3 4
5
6
7
8
1
A/A
B/C
B/C
A/A
A/A
B/A
B/B
B/B
0 500 1,000 2,000
Feet
Superior Small Area Transportation Study Page 21
Intersection Land Configurations and
Level of Service Analysis
Figure 7
Sources: HDR, Inc., August 2008; Pinal County GIS Division, July 2008; ADOT HPMS, 2005; ALRIS, 2004.
Superior Small Area Transportation Study
Page22
3.7. Crash Data
A crash analysis was conducted for the Town of Superior using accident data provided by the
ADOT Traffic Safety Division. This goal of this analysis was to identify crash patterns and trends
that may indicate locations where additional study and possible mitigation is needed to improve
roadway safety.
Crash Location Analysis
A total of 43 crashes involving 73 vehicles were reported within the Town during the three-year
analysis period between October 1, 2003, and September 30, 2006. During this period, 74% of the
reported crashes occurred at intersections, while 26% occurred at mid-block locations and driveway
access points. Crashes that occurred within 200-foot radius of an intersection were analyzed as
intersection crashes.
Figure 8 shows the crash locations within the study area for the analysis period. The intersections of
US 60 with Belmont Avenue and Western Avenue each had three crashes over three year period. In
addition, two crashes were reported at each of the intersections of Main Street/Magma Avenue and
Stone Avenue/Gibbs Street. Table 4 summarizes the type of collision at various crash locations
with two or more crashes. Figure 9 shows that crashes within the study area were predominantly
angle and single vehicle collisions. The only fatal crash, which occurred on US 60, was a single
vehicle incident during the crash analysis period. An additional fatal crash involving a pedestrian
occurred in 2007 on US 60 at Western Avenue.
Table 5 Collision Type at Locations with Two or More Crashes
Location
Total
Crashes
Single
Vehicle Angle Rear End Head-on Backing Other
Intersection Crashes1
US 60/ Belmont Avenue 3 - 2 - - 1 -
US 60/ Western Avenue 3 - 2 - - - 1
Main Street/ Magma Avenue 2 1 1 - - - -
Stone Avenue/ Gibbs Street 2 1 - - - 1 -
Mid-Block Crashes2
US 60 between milepost 225 and 226 10 4 2 1 2 - 1
Source: ADOT Traffic Safety Division, October 2007.
Notes:
1) Crashes occurred within 200-feet radius of an intersection.
2) Crashes occurred at mid-blocks, at driveways, and alleys.
3) Crash analysis was conducted for the time period from October 1, 2003 through September 30, 2006.
Single Crash
Two Crashes
Three Crashes
Fatal Crash
Study Area
Town Boundary
Land Ownership
National Forest
Private
0 500 1,000 2,000
Feet
Superior Small Area Transportation Study Page 23
Crash Locations: October 2003 to September 2006 Figure 8
Sources: HDR, Inc., August 2008; Pinal County GIS Division, July 2008; ADOT Traffic Safety Division, October 2007; ALRIS, 2004.
ENLARGED
AREA
Tonto
National Forest
Magma Heights Dr
Magma Arizona Railroad
Porphyry St
High School Ave
Kellner Ave
Magma Ave
Neary Ave
Lobb Ave
San Pedro St
Bridge St
Molina St
Main St Newmont St
Santa Rita St
Lime St
Silver St
Copper St
Stansberry Ave
Pinal Ave
Mine Ave
Rainbow Ave
Sonora St
Wight St Wight St
Starr Rd
Kiser St
Wilhoyt St
Kiser St
Valentine St
Harrington Pl
O’Donnell Dr
Gray Dr
Gibbs St
Crow St
East St
Gorham St
Martin St
Spray St
Hill St
Old Phoenix Rd
Mesquite Rd
Magma Arizona Railroad
Magma Copper Co Railroad
Heiner Dr
Terrace Dr
Stone Ave
Belmont Ave
Church Ave
Belmont Ave
Arnett Dr
Medlock Dr
South Ave
Apache Leap Rd
Western Ave
Edna Ave
Saguaro Dr
Mary Dr
Golf Course Dr
Richard Ave
Christopher St
Frieda La
Hing Dr
Smith Dr
Ray St
Sunset Dr
Smock Ave
Palo Verde Dr
O’Donnell Dr
MarionDr
Palma St
Magma Flats Dr
Queen Creek Wash
Highlands Dr
Silver King Mine Rd
60
177
Ocotillo Dr
Richard Ave
*
*A recent fatal crash was reported on US 60 west of
Western Avenue after the crash analysis period.
Superior Small Area Transportation Study
Page24
Figure 9 Crash Percentages by Type: October 1, 2003 to September 30, 2006
Crash Severity
Out of 43 total crashes during the three-year period, 14 crashes resulted in injuries involving 46
people. The remaining 28 crashes were non-injury, property damage only, or unreported. Table 5
illustrates the number of the crashes by severity.
The data shows that 81% of crashes occurred during clear weather conditions. About 14% and 5%
crashes occurred during cloudy and rainy weather conditions, respectively. Approximately 67% of
crashes were reported under daylight conditions and 33% occurred during dawn, dusk, or darkness
conditions. Roadway surface conditions were reported dry during 91% crashes and wet or unknown
during 9% crashes. There were five crashes over the three-year period where the drivers were under
the influence of alcohol.
Table 6 Crashes by Severity, October 1, 2003 to September 30, 2006
Severity Number of Crashes Percent of Crashes
Fatal Crash 1* 2%
Injury Only Crash 14 33%
Property Damage Only Crash 23 53%
Unknown/ Unreported 5 12%
Total 43 100%
Note: *A fatal crash that occurred in year 2007 was not included in this table.
Source: ADOT Traffic Safety Division, October 2007.
Angle
Rear End
Side Swipe
Backing
Other
U-Turn Head On
Single Vehicle
30%
28%
14%
5%
2%
7%
7%
7%
Source: ADOT Traffic Safety Division, September 2007.
Superior Small Area Transportation Study
Page25
3.8. Capital Improvement Programs
Town of Superior
The Town of Superior Capital Improvement Program 2001-2021 (Willdan, May 2001) (CIP) includes
projects for pavement rehabilitation, new structures at key Queen Creek crossings, improving
pedestrian safety and mobility, airport improvements, and the development of new Town bus
service.
Arizona Department of Transportation
The ADOT Five Year Transportation Facilities Construction Program shows that reconstruction of
the Silver King section of US 60 between milepost 222.3 and 224.8 west of Superior is programmed
for construction in fiscal year 2011 at an estimated cost of $15 million.
Central Arizona Association of Governments
The CAAG Transportation Improvement Program FY 08-12, approved May 9, 2007, by the CAAG
Regional Council shows no programmed improvements within the Town of Superior.
Superior Small Area Transportation Study
Page26
3.9. Existing Pavement Conditions
To help prioritize the pavement rehabilitation projects identified in the CIP, the project team
conducted a detailed review of previous pavement studies and rehabilitation programs, including:
􀂾􋸱 1994 Town of Superior Small Area Transportation Study
􀂾􋸱 1995 Town of Superior Road Maintenance Project
The project team reviewed the recommendations of the 1994 study and verified the segments that
where maintenance and rehabilitation was performed in 1995. Figure 10 shows the roadway
segments where pavement was rehabilitated or reconstructed in 1995 together with the roadways
that would be next in line for up for rehabilitation based on the 1994 SATS. Table 7 shows
roadways that were selected for field inspection.
Table 7 Key Collector Segment Pavement Rehabilitation History
Recommended Rehabilitation Method
Segment From To
Previous SATS (1994) Town of Superior (1995)
Mary Dr US 60 Golf Course Rd Thick Mill & Fill/Overlay No Action
O'Donnell Dr Golf Course Rd W Sunset Dr Mill & Fill or Overlay with Fabric No Action
W Sunset Dr O’Donnell Dr Sunset Dr Thick Mill & Fill/Overlay No Action
Sunset Dr W Sunset Dr Belmont Ave Thick Mill & Fill/Overlay No Action
Sunset Dr Belmont Ave SR 177 Seal Coat Slurry Seal & Reclamite
Source: HDR Engineering, Inc., August 2008.
Year 2008 pavement conditions on these key collector roadway segments are summarized below.
The narrative addresses both sections of Sunset Drive jointly.
Mary Drive (US 60 to Golf Course Road): Conditions observed along Mary Drive, between US
60 and Palo Verde Drive, included moderate severity block cracking with moderate fatigue cracking
in the wheel paths. Also identified along this segment were several utility patches that do not match
roadway grade. Alligator cracking was observed adjacent to many of the utility patches. A
depressed wash crossing is located in this area, and water was flowing across the road at the time of
our survey. South of the crossing, there is inadequate drainage as evidenced by the presence of sand
on the road.
O'Donnell Drive (Golf Course Road to West Sunset Drive): Along O’Donnell Drive, west of
West Sunset Drive, pavement conditions include loss of surface (where aggregate in asphalt is
polished and there is a loss of asphalt), as well as moderately depressed utility patches with low to
moderate severity longitudinal cracking.
Superior Small Area Transportation Study
Page27
West Sunset Drive (O'Donnell Drive to Sunset Drive): Minor block cracking was observed
along West Sunset Drive between O’Donnell Drive and Sunset Drive.
Sunset Drive (West Sunset Drive to SR 177): The pavements along Sunset Drive appear to be in
generally good condition. Drainage along Sunset Drive is directed towards outside portions of the
east and westbound travel lanes. Evidence of previous overlays is present. At the intersection of
Palo Verde Drive moderate asphalt bleeding was present with minor transverse cracking. East of
Palo Verde Drive there is a small area where the recent overlay has spalled. The exposed pavement
in the spalled area showed moderate to severe alligator cracking. Minor differential utility patching
was observed at the intersection with Gomez Road.
At Gomez Road a hump was identified in the middle of the road, the source of which is not clear.
A culvert, located in the southeast quadrant of this intersection collects storm water runoff that is
directed along the shoulder, as was evidenced by the presence of sand on the road in this area.
Along the southern edge of Sunset Drive east of Mitchell Drive moderate differential utility patching
was present. Utility patching differential may be the result of improperly placed backfill.
Pavement Rehabilitation Strategy
With traffic from the schools and the new fire station, the Town should focus its pavement
rehabilitation funding on the Mary Drive/Sunset Drive corridor.
􀂾􋹍 Mary Dr: US 60 to Golf Course Rd – Mill and overlay
􀂾􋹏 O'Donnell Dr: Golf Course Rd to West Sunset Dr – Mill and overlay
􀂾􋹗 West Sunset Dr: O'Donnell Dr to Sunset Dr – Mill and overlay
􀂾􋹓 Sunset Dr: West Sunset Dr to SR 177 – Repair/level utility trench patching
These rehabilitation recommendations are included in the transportation improvement plan shown
in Chapter 6.
Chip Seal
Reclamite
Slurry Seal and
Reclamite
Slurry Seal
Stu dy Area
Town Boundary
Land Ownership
Rehabilitated in 1995
Up for Rehabilitation
National Forest
Private
Partial or Total Reconstruction
Thick Mill and Fill/Overlay
Mill and Fill or Overlay With Fabric
Seal Coat
Do Nothing/Routine Maintenance
0 500 1,000 2,000
Feet
Superior Small Area Transportation Study Page 28
Pavement Rehabilitation Status Figure 10
Sources: HDR, Inc., August 2008; Willdan Associates, 1995; DMJM Arizona, Inc., 1994;
Pinal County GIS Division, July 2008; ADOT HPMS, 2005; ALRIS, 2004.
ENLARGED
AREA
Tonto
National Forest
Magma Heights Dr
Magma Arizona Railroad
Porphyry St
High School Ave
Kellner Ave
Magma Ave
Neary Ave
Lobb Ave
San Pedro St
Bridge St
Molina St
Main St Newmont St
Santa Rita St
Lime St
Silver St
Copper St
Stansberry Ave
Pinal Ave
Mine Ave
Rainbow Ave
Sonora St
Wight St Wight St
Starr Rd
Kiser St
Wilhoyt St
Kiser St
Valentine St
Harrington Pl
O’Donnell Dr
Gray Dr
Gibbs St
Crow St
East St
Gorham St
Martin St
Spray St
Hill St
Old Phoenix Rd
Mesquite Rd
Magma Copper Co Railroad
Heiner Dr
Terrace Dr
Stone Ave
Belmont Ave
Church Ave
Belmont Ave
Arnett Dr
Medlock Dr
South Ave
Apache Leap Rd
Western Ave
Edna Ave
Saguaro Dr
Mary Dr
Golf Course Dr
Richard Ave
Christopher St
Frieda La
Hing Dr
Smith Dr
Ray St
Sunset Dr
Smock Ave
Palo Verde Dr
O’Donnell Dr
MarionDr
Palma St
Magma Flats Dr
Queen Creek Wash
Highlands Dr
60
177
Richard Ave
Ocotillo Dr
Superior Small Area Transportation Study
Page29
3.10. Transit and Non-Motorized Transportation
Transit
The Central Arizona Regional Transportation Coordination Plan identified several operators
providing demand-responsive transit service for the elderly and persons with disabilities within the
Town of Superior.
The Superior Senior Center provides transportation to older adults within the Town limits. Service
is provided on weekdays from 8 a.m. to 3 p.m. This service is assisted with funds from the Section
5310 Program and donations from participants. Primary destinations include the Senior Center,
doctor and hair appointments, meal delivery, and periodic out-of-town trips. In year 2005, the
Superior Senior Center reported 1,920 annual passenger trips.
The Superstition Mountain Mental Health Center also provides transportation to its clients within
the Town of Superior. Primary destinations are Center facilities, the Department of Economic
Security, local primary care physicians, grocery stores, pharmacies, the Social Security Office and
libraries.
The Pinal County Division of Public Health’s On-the-Go Express is a transportation service aimed
at providing mobility to elderly people, low income residents, and persons with disabilities. On-the-
Go Express serves eastern Pinal County including the Town of Superior. Typical trips include
grocery shopping, medical appointments, dental appointments and eye appointments.
Non-Motorized Transportation
The beautiful mountainous scenic views, moderate climate, and low density land area make the
Town of Superior an ideal location for non-motorized transportation users. The Arizona Trail is
located just off US 60, west of the Boyce Thompson Arboretum. New local and collector roadways
will be designed to accommodate bicycles throughout the Town.
Superior Small Area Transportation Study
Page30
4. LAND USE AND SOCIOECONOMIC CONDITIONS
4.1. Land Use
The community of Superior was originally known as Hastings. It was renamed in honor of one of
the mining companies driving the local economy – Lake Superior and Arizona. The town was
founded in 1882 and incorporated in 1976. It has a rich history centered on silver and copper
mining. Before the closure of Magma Mine and the termination of large-scale mining in 1982,
Superior was a thriving mining town. Its population peaked in the early 1970s at nearly 5,000
residents.
Superior is set beneath the visually stunning Apache Leap Mountains to the east and Picket Post
Mountain to the west. Superior is located at the gateway to major recreational destinations including
Roosevelt Lake and the White Mountains. It is home to the Boyce Thompson Arboretum. With an
elevation of 2,830 feet, Superior’s winters are mild, and summer temperatures are cooler than those
in the lower Sonoran desert to the west.
The former Magma Copper mine borders the Town to the north. There, the Resolution Copper
Mining has plans to rehabilitate the mine. If mining activity starts in future, it will be at a new
location. To the east, south, and west, Superior is bordered by Tonto National Forest lands.
Superior developed with compact form along Queen Creek Wash, with residences in close proximity
to commercial services. During Superior’s heyday, Main Street and Magma Avenue were part of an
active commercial core. Now these streets are quiet, and most commercial activity takes place in
businesses located along US 60. The elementary, junior high and high schools are located along
Mary Drive. A modern subdivision of newer homes is located south of the schools. The Town of
Superior General Plan Update guides development in the Town. The Future Land Use Plan Map is
shown in Figure 11.
The Town of Superior Airport is located at the west end of Town south of US 60. It is a secondary
airport with a 3,200-foot dirt runway that can be utilized by single engine and light twin-engine
aircraft.
The SATS area and Town General Plan encompasses 17.8 square miles or 11,400 acres. About one-third
of the study area, or 3,600 acres, is privately held; the remainder is part of the Tonto National
Forest. Resolution Copper Mining is a large holder of private lands.
Superior Small Area Transportation Study Page 31
Future Land Use Plan Figure 11
0 500
Feet
1,000 2,000
Source: Town of Superior General Plan Update, Adopted December 18, 2003.
Superior Small Area Transportation Study
Page32
4.2. Socioeconomic Data
Population
Table 8 shows the year 2007 population estimates for the Town of Superior, Pinal County and
Arizona. Table 9 shows demographic data from Census 2000. Recent Arizona Department of
Economic Security (DES) estimates show that Pinal County has grown at a 9 percent average annual
rate adding nearly 148,000 people in the seven-year period between 2000 and 2007. Pinal County
population growth was almost three times that experienced by the State as a whole over the same
period. Table 8 shows, however, that the growth in Superior was flat over the same seven-year
period.
Table 8 Population Estimates for the Town of Superior,
Pinal County, and Arizona
Location 2000 2007 Average Annual Growth
Rate (%)
Study Area -- 3,460 --
Town of Superior 3,254 3,369 0.5%
Pinal County 179,727 327,670 9.0%
Arizona 5,130,632 6,500,194 3.4%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000; Arizona Department of Economic Security, December 2007.
Demographics
Table 9 Year 2000 Demographics
Description Arizona Pinal County Town of
Superior
Minority Population 36.2% 41.2% 71.1%
Hispanic or Latino 25.0% 29.9% 69%
Asian 1.7% 0.6% 0.2%
Black 2.9% 2.6% 0.3%
Native American and Native
Alaskan 4.5% 6.9% 0.9%
Pacific Islander and Native
Hawaiian 0.1% 0.06% 0.03%
More than one race 1.5% 1.1% 0.7%
Percent of Population in
Poverty 13.9% 16.9% 27.8%
Disability2 19.3% 22.9% 25.5%
Female Heads of Household
with own children under 18
years
6.5% 7.3% 7.6%
Age 65 and Over Population 13.0% 16.2% 19.9%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000.
Superior Small Area Transportation Study
Page33
Environmental Justice
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) defines Environmental Justice (EJ) as "fair treatment
for people of all races, cultures, and incomes, regarding the development of environmental laws,
regulations, and policies." There are three fundamental environmental justice principles: avoid,
minimize, or mitigate disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental effects,
including social and economic effects, on minority populations and low income populations; ensure
the full and fair participation by all potentially affected communities in the transportation decision-making
process; and, prevent the denial of, reduction in, or significant delay in the receipt of
benefits by minority and low-income populations.
Data from Census 2000 shown in Table 9 provides a comparison of the demographic information
for Arizona, Pinal County, and the Town of Superior. This table shows that Superior is
considerably different from Pinal County and the rest of Arizona. The Town has a higher
concentration of Hispanic or Latino residents. Its poverty level is two times the statewide average.
It also has a higher proportion of residents with a disability. The number of residents age 65 or
older is also higher than State and County averages.
Transportation improvements implemented from this study should not adversely impact any groups
disproportionately. To identify and address environmental justice issues, community outreach and
public involvement programs should involve under-represented populations from the planning to
the implementation of any transportation project. A variety of possible alternatives should be
developed and considered in order to ensure all groups are fairly represented in the amount and type
of transportation services provided.
Traffic Analysis Zones
Traffic analysis zones (TAZ) are geographic areas generally bounded by roads, railroads, major
watercourses or other easily identifiable physical features. Socioeconomic data is tabulated by TAZ
geography. Using the travel demand model, traffic is generated by each land use within the TAZ,
distributed, and then assigned to the roadway network. Subsequently, using projected land use data,
future traffic forecasts can be derived. Figure 12 shows the year 2007 estimated population density
by TAZ.
Employment
Study area employment estimates were developed from a commercial database from InfoUSA
purchased for the study. This database provided information on business location, number of
employees, and industry type for the Town of Superior. Table 10 shows the Town of Superior year
2007 employment estimates by generalized industrial classification. Figure 13 shows the year 2007
estimated employment density. Appendix D shows the Town of Superior employers listed in the
InfoUSA data.
0
0
21
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
11
0
11
0
0
0
14
0
0
0
164
220
112
0
32
0
0
282
0
0
362
373
6
124
302
173
9
362
183
120
5
234
198
0
68
60
177
60
Tonto
National Forest
Superior Small Area Transportation Study Page 34
Year 2007 Estimated Population Density Figure 12
0 1,000
500 2,000
Feet
Sources: HDR, Inc., August 2008; Central Arizona Association of Governments, 2007;
Pinal County GIS Division, July 2008; ALRIS, 2004.
Study Area
Town Boundary
Population Per Square Mile
0 - 1,500
1,500 - 4,000
4,000 - 6,500
6,500 +
XX - Population Estimate
Land Ownership
National Forest
Private
Boyce Thompson
Arboretum
Queen Creek Wash
Copper
Mine
Sunset Dr
Golf Course Rd
Silver King Mine Rd
Mary Dr
Main St
Mesquie Rd
Magma Ave
Stone Ave
60
Sunset Dr
Golf Course Rd
Silver King Mine Rd
Mary Dr
Main St
Mesquie Rd
Magma Ave
Stone Ave
Copper
Mine
Boyce Thompson
Arboretum
Queen Creek Was h
50
47
0
4
21
14
0
48
0
44
2
43
0
40
0
34
4
90
10
20
37
11
20
0
27
11
10
0
33
0
41
0
29
14
18
0
49
0
42
164
220
26
0
36
112
16
0
12
32
21
0
39
46
0
45
0
6
24
9
22
5
32
0
6
124
31
173
Superior Small Area Transportation Study Page 34
Year 2007 Estimated Population Density Figure 12
Source: HDR Inc., May 2008.
0 1,000
500 2,000
Feet
177
Tonto
National Forest
60
Hill St
0
0
13
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
40
0
0
0
0
0
1
42
0
6
0
64
0
35
0
19
28
15
65
0
0
5
0
0
0
46
51
22
0
0
9
185
0
0
0
0
177
60
Tonto
National Forest
Superior Small Area Transportation Study Page 35
Year 2007 Estimated Employment Density Figure 13
0 1,000
500 2,000
Feet
Sources: HDR, Inc., August 2008; Central Arizona Association of Governments, 2007;
Pinal County GIS Division, July 2008; ALRIS, 2004.
XX - Employment Estimate
Study Area
Town Boundary
Employment Per Square Mile
0 - 500
500 -1,000
1,000 - 3,000
3,000 +
Land Ownership
National Forest
Private
Boyce Thompson
Arboretum
Queen Creek Wash
Copper
Mine
Sunset Dr
Golf Course Rd
Silver King Mine Rd
Mary Dr
Main St
Mesquie Rd
Ave
Stone Ave
Superior Small Area Transportation Study
Page36
Table 10 Year 2007 Employment Estimates
Classification Employment
Retail 232
Office 347
Industrial 27
Total 606
Source: InfoUSA, November 2007.
Key employers include:
􀂾􋹁 Arnold Motor Sales;
􀂾􋹂 Boyce Thompson Arboretum;
􀂾􋹏 Omya Arizona;
􀂾􋹒 Resolution Copper;
􀂾􋹓 Superior Unified School District #15;
􀂾􋹓 Superior Marble; and,
􀂾􋹔 Town of Superior.
School Enrollment
The Superior Unified School District #15 has a primary school and secondary school. The school
district reported year 2007 enrollment in John F. Kennedy Elementary School at 260 students. The
district reported 220 students enrolled in the combined Superior Junior High and High School.
4.3. Interim and Planning Horizon Population and Employment Projections
At its peak in 1970, the Census Bureau reported 4,975 people living in Superior. Since the end of
active mining in 1982, the population of the community had declined steadily. Census 2000 counted
3,254 residents. Since year 2000, the Town has experience some positive growth. Surrounded by
the Tonto National Forest, growth in the Town of Superior is constrained by the availability of
private land. However, with the proposed new copper mine under Apache Leap Mountain east of
Superior, the town has an opportunity for revitalization. However, the fate of the new mine rests on
the outcome of a federal land exchange that requires Congressional approval. This makes the timing
of growth uncertain.
The project team prepared low, medium, and high year 2030 population and employment growth
scenarios for Town of Superior. The low scenario used year 2030 Department of Economic
Security (DES) population projections. The high growth scenario assumed a two percent annual
growth rate through the year 2030 planning horizon. The medium growth scenario assumed over
300 new households and almost 250 new jobs. Table 11 shows the three growth scenarios.
The TAC directed the project team to develop travel demand forecasts based on the medium
growth scenario. With this scenario, urban growth within the Town of Superior Small Area
Superior Small Area Transportation Study
Page37
Transportation Study area is expected to occur at an annual compound growth rate of 1 percent
between year 2007 and year 2030.
Table 11 Study Area Population and Employment Growth Scenario
Year 2030 Projection
Socioeconomic Scenario: Low Scenario: Medium Scenario: High
Variable Year 2007
Projection Growth Projection Growth Projection Growth
Households 1,327 1,475 148 1,630 305 2,090 763
Population* 3,490 3,880 390 4,280 800 5,500 2,010
Employment 606 720 74 890 244 1,020 374
*Assumes 2.63 persons per household.
Source: HDR Engineering, Inc., August 2008.
Figure 14 and Figure 15 show the estimated year 2030 population and employment density based on
the medium growth rate. Appendix C contains tables showing the population and employment
estimates for years 2007, 2012, 2017, and 2030 by traffic analysis zone.
0
0
21
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
11
0
11
0
0
0
0
0
0
179
509
144
0
207
0
0
300
0
0
405
405
15
6
124
278
309
173
9
362
198
142
5
234
201
196
83
100
177
60
Tonto
National Forest
Superior Small Area Transportation Study Page 38
Year 2030 Estimated Population Density Figure 14
0 1,000
500 2,000
Feet
Sources: HDR, Inc., August 2008; Central Arizona Association of Governments, 2007;
Pinal County GIS Division, July 2008; ALRIS, 2004.
Study Area
Town Boundary
Population Per Square Mile
0 - 1,500
1,500 - 4,000
4,000 - 6,500
6,500+
XX - Population Estimate
Land Ownership
National Forest
Private
Boyce Thompson
Arboretum
Queen Creek Wash
Copper
Mine
Sunset Dr
Golf Course Rd
Silver King Mine Rd
Mary Dr
Main St
Mesquie Rd
Magma Ave
Stone Ave
0
0
54
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
43
0
0
0
0
0
1
45
0
6
36
69
0
38
0
21
84
16
0
38
5
0
0
0
50
55
63
123
0
0
27
187
0
0
0
0
177
60
Tonto
National Forest
Superior Small Area Transportation Study Page 39
Year 2030 Estimated Employment Density Figure 15
0 1,000
500 2,000
Feet
Sources: HDR, Inc., August 2008; Central Arizona Association of Governments, 2007;
Pinal County GIS Division, July 2008; ALRIS, 2004.
XX - Employment Estimate
Study Area
Town Boundary
Employment Per Square Mile
0 - 500
500 -1,000
1,000 - 3,000
3,000 +
Land Ownership
National Forest
Private
Boyce Thompson
Arboretum
Queen Creek Wash
Copper
Mine
Sunset Dr
Golf Course Rd
Silver King Mine Rd
Mary Dr
Main St
Mesquie Rd
Magma Ave
Stone Ave
Superior Small Area Transportation Study
Page40
5. INTERIM AND PLANNING HORIZON TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM
CONDITIONS
This section summarizes year 2012, year 2017 and year 2030 transportation system needs.
5.1. Travel Demand
A travel demand model for the Town of Superior was developed to evaluate the long-range traffic
impacts based on anticipated land use and development. The transportation planning model is a
representation of the study area roadway facilities and the travel patterns associated with these
facilities. This model was developed with the most recent release of TransCAD travel demand
software program. TransCAD integrates Geographic Information System (GIS) with transportation
planning and analysis capabilities.
Travel Demand Modeling Process
The transportation planning model utilizes socioeconomic data and the transportation network to
estimate the roadway system travel demand. Together with the socioeconomic data, simulated
roadway network, and other mathematical travel parameters, the model is calibrated and validated to
replicate the base year travel patterns, making it possible to project future traffic flow.
Before traffic forecasts could be derived, the 2007 base year model was calibrated and validated to
simulate existing travel patterns and traffic flow on the roadway network. Model data collected for
this time period includes socioeconomic data, traffic counts, and other roadway network data such
as number of lanes, roadway capacity, and speeds. Calibration and validation of the travel demand
model was accomplished by comparing the estimated model traffic volumes against the year 2007
ground counts to ensure the model’s ability to replicate reasonable traffic conditions. The model was
considered validated based on a number of performance measures including root mean square error,
coefficient of determination, and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) guidelines for allowable
errors.
Travel Demand Forecast
Figure 16 through Figure 18 show daily traffic volume estimates and Level of Service analysis using
the year 2007 roadway network for years 2012, 2017, and 2030. This future traffic assignment
shows that the existing Town of Superior roadways have adequate capacity to accommodate
anticipated year 2030 population and employment growth. As shown in other studies, including the
March 1999 ADOT US 60, Florence Junction to Superior Traffic Analysis Report, US 60 will require
widening from one travel lane in each direction to two travel lanes in each direction by year 2030.
11.2 11.4 10.6 11.3 10.4
3.5
3.4
0.3
0.3
0.3
1.1 1.1 1.71.3
1.7
0.6
0.6
0.4
0.6
0.4
0.3 0.3
0.6
1.0
1.3
0.4
1.3
3.0
3.0
1.0
3.4
8.3
1.6 0.8 1.5 0.9
1.6 1.6
0.6
0.4
0.3
0.3 0.4
0.7 2.0 3.2
12.0 11.8
0.7
10.1
1.6
10.0
Magma Heights Dr
Magma Arizona Railroad
Porphyry St
High School Ave
Kellner Ave
Magma Ave
Neary Ave
Lobb Ave
San Pedro St
Bridge St
Molina St
Main St Newmont St
Santa Rita St
Lime St
Silver St
Copper St
Stansberry Ave
Pinal Ave
Mine Ave
Rainbow Ave
Sonora St
Wight St Wight St
Starr Rd
Kiser St
Wilhoyt St
Kiser St
Valentine St
Harrington Pl
O’Donnell Dr
Gray Dr
Gibbs St
Crow St
East St
Gorham St
Martin St
Spray St
Hill St
Old Phoenix Rd
Mesquite Rd
Magma Arizona Railroad
Magma Copper Co Railroad
Heiner Dr
Terrace Dr
Stone Ave
Belmont
Church Ave
Arnett Dr
Medlock Dr
South Ave
Apache Leap Rd
Western Ave
Edna Ave
Saguaro Dr
Mary Dr
Golf Course Dr
Richard Ave
Christopher St
Frieda La
Hing Dr
Smith Dr
Ray St
Sunset Dr
Smock Ave
Palo Verde Dr
O’Donnell Dr
MarionDr
Palma St
Magma Flats Dr
Queen Creek Wash
Highlands Dr
Silver King Mine Rd
60
177
Ocotillo Dr
Richard Ave
LOS A (V/C 0.0—0.50)
#.# Traffic volume*
B (V/C 0.51—0.60)
LOS C (V/C 0.61—0.80)
LOS D (V/C 0.81—0.90)
5000 2500 1250
Study Area
Town Boundary
Land Ownership
National Forest
Private
VehicleL OFSlo Ew (sV/C 0.91—1.00)
LOS F (V/C > 1.0)
A-C
LOS D
Level of Service
Vehicle Flows
E
F
*Note: volumes shown in thousands
0 500 1,000 2,000
Feet
Superior Small Area Transportation Study Page 41
Year 2012 No Build Traffic Volume Estimate Figure 16
Sources: HDR, Inc., August 2008; Pinal County GIS Division, July 2008; ALRIS, 2004.
ENLARGED
AREA
Tonto
National Forest
12.8 13.0 12.2 12.8 11.9
3.9
3.8
0.4
0.4
0.4
1.3 1.3 1.814.5
1.8 1.8
0.7
0.7
0.5
0.7
0.5
0.4 0.4
0.7
1.2
1.6
0.6
14.5
3.5
3.5
1.2
3.8
9.9
1.7 1.0 1.7 1.1
1.8 1.8
0.7
0.4
0.3
0.3 0.5
0.7 2.5 3.9
11.7
13.8 13.3
0.8
11.8
Magma Heights Dr
Magma Arizona Railroad
Porphyry St
High School Ave
Kellner Ave
Magma Ave
Neary Ave
Lobb Ave
San Pedro St
Bridge St
Molina St
Main St Newmont St
Santa Rita St
Lime St
Silver St
Copper St
Stansberry Ave
Pinal Ave
Mine Ave
Rainbow Ave
Sonora St
Wight St Wight St
Starr Rd
Kiser St
Wilhoyt St
Kiser St
Valentine St
Harrington Pl
O’Donnell Dr
Gray Dr
Gibbs St
Crow St
East St
Gorham St
Martin St
Spray St
Hill St
Old Phoenix Rd
Mesquite Rd
Magma Arizona Railroad
Magma Copper Co Railroad
Heiner Dr
Terrace Dr
Stone Ave
Belmont
Church Ave
Arnett Dr
Medlock Dr
South Ave
Apache Leap Rd
Western Ave
Edna Ave
Saguaro Dr
Mary Dr
Golf Course Dr
Richard Ave
Christopher St
Frieda La
Hing Dr
Smith Dr
Ray St
Sunset Dr
Smock Ave
Palo Verde Dr
O’Donnell Dr
MarionDr
Palma St
Magma Flats Dr
Queen Creek Wash
Highlands Dr
Silver King Mine Rd
60
177
Richard Ave
Ocotillo Dr
LOS A (V/C 0.0—0.50)
#.# Traffic volume*
B (V/C 0.51—0.60)
LOS C (V/C 0.61—0.80)
LOS D (V/C 0.81—0.90)
5000 2500 1250
Study Area
Town Boundary
Land Ownership
National Forest
Private
VehicleL OFSlo Ew (sV/C 0.91—1.00)
LOS F (V/C > 1.0)
A-C
LOS D
Level of Service
Vehicle Flows
E
F
*Note: volumes shown in thousands
0 500 1,000 2,000
Feet
Superior Small Area Transportation Study Page 42
Year 2017 No Build Traffic Volume Estimate Figure 17
Sources: HDR, Inc., August 2008; Pinal County GIS Division, July 2008; ALRIS, 2004.
ENLARGED
AREA
Tonto
National Forest
17.2 17.2 15.4 16.0 15.2
4.3
4.2
0.4
2.1 2.2 2.4
2.8
2.2 2.1
0.8
0.7
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.6
0.4
0.8
0.8
1.6
2.3
2.7
4.8
4.8
1.7
13.5
1.9 1.4 2.0 1.4
2.40 2.4
0.8
0.5
0.3 0.5
0.9 3.3 5.7
16.1
18.1 17.1
1.2
16.1
Magma Heights Dr
Magma Arizona Railroad
Porphyry St
High School Ave
Kellner Ave
Magma Ave
Neary Ave
Lobb Ave
San Pedro St
Bridge St
Molina St
Main St Newmont St
Santa Rita St
Lime St
Silver St
Copper St
Stansberry Ave
Pinal Ave
Mine Ave
Rainbow Ave
Sonora St
Wight St Wight St
Starr Rd
Kiser St
Wilhoyt St
Kiser St
Valentine St
Harrington Pl
O’Donnell Dr
Gray Dr
Gibbs St
Crow St
East St
Gorham St
Martin St
Spray St
Hill St
Old Phoenix Rd
Mesquite Rd
Magma Arizona Railroad
Magma Copper Co Railroad
Heiner Dr
Terrace Dr
Stone Ave
Belmont
Church Ave
Arnett Dr
Medlock Dr
South Ave
Apache Leap Rd
Western Ave
Edna Ave
Saguaro Dr
Mary Dr
Golf Course Dr
Richard Ave
Christopher St
Frieda La
Hing Dr
Smith Dr
Ray St
Sunset Dr
Smock Ave
Palo Verde Dr
O’Donnell Dr
MarionDr
Palma St
Magma Flats Dr
Queen Creek Wash
Highlands Dr
Silver King Mine Rd
60
177
Ocotillo Dr
Richard Ave
LOS A (V/C 0.0—0.50)
#.# Traffic volume*
B (V/C 0.51—0.60)
LOS C (V/C 0.61—0.80)
LOS D (V/C 0.81—0.90)
5000 2500 1250
Study Area
Town Boundary
Land Ownership
National Forest
Private
VehicleL OFSlo Ew (sV/C 0.91—1.00)
LOS F (V/C > 1.0)
A-C
LOS D
Level of Service
Vehicle Flows
E
F
*Note: volumes shown in thousands
0 500 1,000 2,000
Feet
Superior Small Area Transportation Study Page 43
Year 2030 No Build Traffic Volume Estimate Figure 18
Sources: HDR, Inc., August 2008; Pinal County GIS Division, July 2008; ALRIS, 2004.
ENLARGED
AREA
Tonto
National Forest
Superior Small Area Transportation Study
Page44
5.2. Recommended Roadway Improvements
Figure 19 shows the year 2030 roadway network that includes the planned widening of US 60 to SR
177. Figure 20 shows the year 2030 travel demand volume estimates and Level of Service analysis
on this improved roadway network. This figure shows that Town roadways are anticipated to
function at an acceptable level of service through year 2030. Improvements to US 60 east of SR 177
are not anticipated until after year 2030. This segment of the state highway would operate at LOS E
by year 2030.
177
60
Magma Heights Dr
Magma Arizona Railroad
Porphyry St
High School Ave
Kellner Ave
Magma Ave
Neary Ave
Lobb Ave
San Pedro St
Bridge St
Molina St
Main St Newmont St
Santa Rita St
Lime St
Silver St
Copper St
Stansberry Ave
Pinal Ave
Mine Ave
Rainbow Ave
Sonora St
Wight St Wight St
Starr Rd
Kiser St
Wilhoyt St
Kiser St
Valentine St
Harrington Pl
O’Donnell Dr
Gray Dr
Gibbs St
Crow St
East St
Gorham St
Martin St
Spray St
Hill St
Old Phoenix Rd
Mesquite RdMagma Arizona Railroad
Magma Copper Co Railroad
Heiner Dr
Terrace Dr
Stone Ave
Belmont Ave
Church Ave
Belmont Ave
Arnett Dr
Medlock Dr
South Ave
Apache Leap Rd
Western Ave
Edna Ave
Saguaro Dr
Mary Dr
Golf Course Dr
Richard Ave
Christopher St
Frieda La
Hing Dr
Smith Dr
Ray St
Sunset Dr
Smock Ave
Palo Verde Dr
O’Donnell Dr
MarionDr
Palma St
Magma Flats Dr
Queen Creek Wash
Highlands Dr
Richard Ave
Ocotillo Dr
Study Area
Town Boundary
Roadway Lanes
One Lane
Two Lane
Four Lane
Four Lane With Center Turning Lane
Future Roadway Improvement
National Forest
Private
Land Ownership
0 500 1,000 2,000
Feet
Superior Small Area Transportation Study Page 45
Year 2030 Recommended Roadway Network Figure 19
Sources: HDR, Inc., August 2008; Pinal County GIS Division, July 2008; ALRIS, 2004.
ENLARGED
AREA
Tonto
National Forest
17.2 17.2 15.4 16.0 15.2
4.3 4.2
0.4
2.1 2.2 2.4
2.8
2.2 2.1
0.8
0.7
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.6
0.4
0.8
0.8
1.6
2.3
2.7
4.8
4.8
1.7
13.5
1.9 1.4 2.0 1.4
2.40 2.4
0.8
0.5
0.3 0.5
0.9 3.3 5.7
16.1
18.1 17.1
1.2
16.1
Magma Heights Dr
Magma Arizona Railroad
Porphyry St
High School Ave
Kellner Ave
Magma Ave
Neary Ave
Lobb Ave
San Pedro St
Bridge St
Molina St
Main St Newmont St
Santa Rita St
Lime St
Silver St
Copper St
Stansberry Ave
Pinal Ave
Mine Ave
Rainbow Ave
Sonora St
Wight St Wight St
Starr Rd
Kiser St
Wilhoyt St
Kiser St
Valentine St
Harrington Pl
O’Donnell Dr
Gray Dr
Gibbs St
Crow St
East St
Gorham St
Martin St
Spray St
Hill St
Old Phoenix Rd
Mesquite Rd
Magma Arizona Railroad
Magma Copper Co Railroad
Heiner Dr
Terrace Dr
Stone Ave
Belmont
Church Ave
Arnett Dr
Medlock Dr
South Ave
Apache Leap Rd
Western Ave
Edna Ave
Saguaro Dr
Mary Dr
Golf Course Dr
Richard Ave
Christopher St
Frieda La
Hing Dr
Smith Dr
Ray St
Sunset Dr
Smock Ave
Palo Verde Dr
O’Donnell Dr
MarionDr
Palma St
Magma Flats Dr
Queen Creek Wash
Highlands Dr
Silver King Mine Rd
60
177
Ocotillo Dr
Richard Ave
LOS A (V/C 0.0—0.50)
#.# Traffic volume*
B (V/C 0.51—0.60)
LOS C (V/C 0.61—0.80)
LOS D (V/C 0.81—0.90)
5000 2500 1250
Study Area
Town Boundary
Land Ownership
National Forest
Private
VehicleL OFSlo Ew (sV/C 0.91—1.00)
LOS F (V/C > 1.0)
A-C
LOS D
Level of Service
Vehicle Flows
E
F
*Note: volumes shown in thousands
0 500 1,000 2,000
Feet
Superior Small Area Transportation Study Page 46
Year 2030 Build Traffic Volume Estimate Figure 20
Sources: HDR, Inc., August 2008; Pinal County GIS Division, July 2008; ALRIS, 2004.
ENLARGED
AREA
Tonto
National Forest
Superior Small Area Transportation Study
Page47
6. IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
This section of the document lays out the measures identified to maintain and enhance multimodal
mobility and safety. These improvements are in addition to those shown in the Town of Superior
Capital Improvement Program.
The Town of Superior Small Area Transportation Study has three principal plan elements: roadways,
transit and a non-motorized element. The recommendations for these elements are based on
technical analyses of existing and future conditions as well as stakeholder and public participation.
This chapter presents cost estimates, a funding plan, and an implementation action plan.
6.1. Future Roadway Functional Classification Plan
Figure 21 shows the future roadway functional classification plan. This plan reflects the roadway
system shown in the Town of Superior General Plan. The purpose of the roadway functional
classification plan is preservation of right-of-way to meet eventual roadway needs. The Town of
Superior will use this plan as a tool to negotiate with developers to obtain right-of-way for future
roads.
6.2. Year 2030 Roadway Improvement Plan
Figure 22 shows the recommended roadway improvements for the Town of Superior. Table 12
shows improvement cost estimates based on generalized unit construction costs for planning and
programming purposes only. These estimates do not include any consideration for major structures
or right-of-way acquisition. Engineering studies will be required to develop more detailed project
cost information. This list of projects includes the transportation improvements identified in the
CIP.
US 60
The travel demand analysis conducted for this study shows that widening of US 60 is needed by year
2030. This corresponds to recommendations of the March 1999 ADOT US 60, Florence Junction to
Superior Traffic Analysis Report. Alternatives for widening US 60 are addressed by the US Route 60:
Florence Jct to Superior, Phoenix - Globe Highway Design Concept Report Final Report, (Jacobs Civil Inc., May
2004).
The widening of US 60 through Superior should include consolidation of driveways and access
points to businesses in the commercial core. Reducing access points in this busy area would
improve traffic flow, protecting the public investment in additional capacity. It would also benefit
both driver and pedestrian safety.
Boyce Thompson
Arboretum
Copper
Mine
Queen Creek Wa sh
Sunset Dr
Golf Course Rd
Silver King Mine Rd
Mary Dr
Main St
Mesquie Rd
Magma Ave
Stone Ave
Heiner Dr
Potential Silver King
Mine Road Extension
177
60
Sources: Town of Superior General Plan, 2003; HDR, Inc., August 2008; Pinal County GIS Division, July 2008; ALRIS, 2004.
Superior Small Area Transportation Study Page 48
Future Roadway Functional Classsification Figure 21
Note: ADOT conducts in-depth planning and engineering studies prior to
programming any roadway improvement on the state highway system. Further,
it requires approval from the State Transportation Board. All traffic interchange
and system interchange improvements must be approved by the Federal
Highway Administration. Improvement plans on a State Facility serve as a recom-
0 1,000 mendation only and are subject to approval from the designated authority.
500 2,000
Feet
Tonto
National Forest
Study Area
Town Boundary
Roadway Classification
Rural Minor Arterial
Rural Major Collector
Rural Minor Collector
Residential Collector
Land Ownership
National Forest
Private
Magma Heights Dr
Magma Arizona Railroad
Porphyry St
High School Ave
Kellner Ave
Magma Ave
Neary Ave
Lobb Ave
San Pedro St
Bridge St
Molina St
Main St Newmont St
Santa Rita St
Lime St
Silver St
Copper St
Stansberry Ave
Pinal Ave
Mine Ave
Rainbow Ave
Sonora St
Wight St Wight St
Starr Rd
Kiser St
Wilhoyt St
Kiser St
Valentine St
Harrington Pl
O’Donnell Dr
Gray Dr
Gibbs St
Crow St
East St
Gorham St
Martin St
Spray St
Hill St
Old Phoenix Rd
Mesquite Rd
Magma Arizona Railroad
Magma Copper Co Railroad
Heiner Dr
Terrace Dr
Stone Ave
Belmont Ave
Church Ave
Belmont Ave
Arnett Dr
Medlock Dr
South Ave
Apache Leap Rd
Western Ave
Edna Ave
Saguaro Dr
Mary Dr
Golf Course Dr
Richard Ave
Christopher St
Frieda La
Hing Dr
Smith Dr
Ray St
Sunset Dr
Smock Ave
Palo Verde Dr
O’Donnell Dr
MarionDr
Palma St
Magma Flats Dr
Queen Creek Wash
Highlands Dr
Silver King Mine Rd
60
177
Richard Ave
Ocotillo Dr
S tudy Area
Town Boundary
Land Ownership
National Forest
Private
Mill/Overlay
Leveling
High Water Crossing
Stone Ave Realignment
Access Consolidation
Truck Accel/Decel Lanes
Safe Route to School
US 60 Widening
Pavement Rehabilitation
Planned Improvements
0 500 1,000 2,000
Feet
Superior Small Area Transportation Study Page 49
Year 2030 Roadway Improvement Plan Figure 22
Note: ADOT conducts in-depth planning and engineering studies prior to
programming any roadway improvement on the state highway system. Further,
it requires approval from the State Transportation Board. All traffic interchange
and system interchange improvements must be approved by the Federal
Highway Administration. Improvement plans on a State Facility serve as a recom-mendation
only and are subject to approval from the designated authority.
Sources: HDR, Inc., August 2008; Town of Superior Capital Improvement Program, May 2001;
Pinal County GIS Division, July 2008; ALRIS, 2004.
ENLARGED
AREA
Tonto
National Forest
US-60: Widen to two travel
lanes in each direction
Mary Dr: Mill and Overlay
and Street Lighting
Safe Route to School
Westbound Truck Acceleration/
Deceleration Lanes
New Crossing Structure
on Golf Course Dr
New Crossing Structure
on Mary Dr
New Crossing Structure
on Stone Ave
US-60: Access
Consolidation
Pedestrian underpass
at Los Hermanos
O'Donnell Dr: Mill
and Overlay
Sunset Dr: Repair/Level
Utility Trench Patching and
Street Lighting
Stone Ave: Pedestrian and
Access Ramps
Main St: Improvements
Phase I/II
Smith Dr: Mill
and Overlay
Heiner Dr. Intersection
Realignment
Superior Small Area Transportation Study
Page50
Table 12 Year 2012 to Year 2030 Transportation Improvement Projects
Funding Year
ID Location Type Length
Cost
Estimate
(2008$)
Responsible
Agency 2012-
2017
2017-
2030
US 60
1 US 60: Milepost 224.8 to SR
177 (Milepost 226.8)
Widen to two travel lanes in each
direction 2 mi $14 million ADOT 2011
2 US 60: Milepost 226 to
Milepost 226.6 Access Consolidation 0.6 mi N/A ADOT 2011
Pavement Rehabilitation
3 Mary Dr: US 60 to Golf
Course Rd Mill and Overlay 0.53 mi $221,000 Town X
4 O’Donnell Dr: Golf Course Rd.
to Smith Dr. Mill and Overlay 0.27 mi $112,600 Town X
5 Smith Dr: O’Donnell Dr to
Sunset Dr. Mill and Overlay 0.07 mi $29,200 Town X
6 Sunset Dr.: Smith Dr. to SR
177 Repair/ Level Utility Trench Patching 0.71 mi $30,000 Town X
7 Main St, Phase II: US 60 to
Lobb Ave Mill and Overlay 1.0 mi $611,000 Town X
Wash Crossing
8 Golf Course Road at Wash
Crossing New Crossing Structure -- $100,000 Town X
9 Stone Ave at Queen Creek New Crossing Structure -- $2,100,000 Town X
10 Mary Dr at Queen Creek New Crossing Structure -- $2,100,000 Town X
Circulation Enhancement
11 Stone Avenue: Terrace Drive
to Main Street Heiner Dr Intersection Realignment 0.14 mi $285,000 Town X
12 US 60/Stone Ave Pedestrian and Access Ramps -- $680,000 Town X X
Truck Access Enhancement
13 US 60/Main St New US 60 Westbound Truck
Acceleration/Deceleration Lanes -- $80,000 ADOT X
Pedestrian Safety Enhancement
14 Sunset Dr/ Mary Dr Safe Route to School -- $50,000 Town X
15 US 60 @ Los Hermanos Pedestrian Crossing Underpass -- $450,000 Town X
Street Lighting
16 Mary Drive New Street Lights along Mary Dr -- $410,000 Town X
17 Sunset Drive New Street Lights along Sunset Dr -- $410,000 Town X
Source: HDR, Inc., August 2008.
The reconstruction of US 60 should also include a new westbound truck deceleration lane at Main
Street and a new westbound truck acceleration lane. With warehousing facilities for the proposed
Superior Small Area Transportation Study
Page51
Resolution Copper Mine anticipated on mine property accessed from Smelter Road, the US
60/Main Street intersection will be a key truck access location.
ADOT conducts in-depth planning and engineering studies prior to programming any roadway
improvements on the State highway system. Further, it requires approval from the State
Transportation Board. All traffic interchange and system interchange improvements must be
approved by the FHWA. Improvement plans on state facilities will serve as a recommendation only
and will be subject to approval from the designated authority.
Pavement Rehabilitation
Maintaining existing roadways is a top Town priority. The project team inspected four roadway
segments and made recommendations for pavement rehabilitation and maintenance. Figure 10
shows roadway segments where pavement maintenance was recommended in 1994 and no action
has been taken. This is for use in prioritizing future maintenance activities.
Wash Crossings
Town of Superior emergency responders noted in stakeholder outreach that Golf Course Road is
impassable during high water. A new high water crossing structure is recommended at this wash
location.
Circulation Enhancements
Stone Avenue between Terrace Drive and Main Street should be realigned in conjunction with the
design and construction of new Queen Creek crossing structure programmed at Stone Avenue. The
Stone Avenue-Heiner Drive intersection does not align and has an accident history.
Pedestrian Safety Enhancements
With both John F. Kennedy Elementary School elementary and the combined Superior Junior High
and High School located on Mary Drive/Sunset Drive, improvements under the Safe Route to
School program created by the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for
Users Act (SAFETEA-LU) should be implemented in this corridor.
6.3. Transportation Revenue Sources
The following section describes and summarizes the revenue sources that are currently available for
funding roadway transportation projects in the Town of Superior. It should be noted that in the
current environment the funding of significant transportation projects is complex and in most cases
requires multiple sources. Also, transportation funding is dynamic and there is a need to
continuously monitor the existing sources and new sources that may become available as state and
federal legislation changes. Innovation has become the mainstay of successful transportation
funding.
Superior Small Area Transportation Study
Page52
Existing and Potential Revenue Sources
Town of Superior Capital Improvement Program 2001-2021 (Willdan, May 2001) identified $19.9 million in
transportation capital improvements between 2001 and 2021. Funding for these improvements
came from the following existing sources:
􀂾􋹒 Revenue Bonds. The issuance of bonds against town revenues can be used to accelerate
project construction. While not a direct funding source, bonding can be used to mitigate the
immediate impacts of significant capital improvement projects and spread the costs over the
useful life of the project. Though interest costs are incurred, the judicious use of debt
financing can serve not only as a practical means of funding major improvements, but is also
viewed as an equitable funding strategy, spreading the burden of repayment over existing
and future citizens and businesses that will benefit from the projects.
􀂾􋹈 Highway User Revenue Fund (HURF). HURF represents the most significant source of
transportation funds in the State of Arizona. Funds are derived primarily from motor vehicle
fuel taxes and vehicle license taxes. HURF funds are shared with and allocated through
ADOT and distributed as an entitlement to cities, towns and counties based on population.
􀂾􋹌 Local Transportation Assistance Fund (LTAF). LTAF I is funded from State lottery
proceeds up to $23 million per year and the funds are distributed to cities and towns on the
basis of population. The funds can be used for public transportation and transportation
purposes depending on the jurisdiction's population.
􀂾􋹇 Grants. Community Development Block Grants and other one-time only funding sources
are available from some federal, state, and private entities to fund infrastructure
development.
􀂾􋹔 Town of Superior General Fund. The CIP identified Town general fund monies used for
improvements and operations and maintenance.
􀂾􋹏 Other Funding Sources. The CIP identified other unspecified sources of revenue used for
transportation funding.
Table 13 shows that approximately $12.5 million in projected revenue is available to the Town of
Superior for both transportation improvements and operations and maintenance between the year
2012 and 2030. These revenue projections are based on current socioeconomic conditions.
Superior Small Area Transportation Study
Page53
Table 13 Projected Town of Superior Transportation Revenue
Period
Funding Source
2012-2017 2017-2030
Total Notes
Revenue Bonds $542,000 $434,000 $976,000 1
Grant $3,424,000 $2,739,000 $6,163,000 2
HURF/LTAF $442,000 $1,150,000 $1,592,000 3
General Fund $288,000 $748,000 $1,036,000 4
Other $773,000 $2,009,000 $2,782,000 5
Total $5,469,000 $7,080,000 $12,549,000
Sources: Town of Superior Capital Improvement Program 2001-2021, May 2001.
Notes:
1) The CIP shows that $1.6 million in revenue bonds for transportation projects will be issued between FY06 and FY21. This amount is prorated
over the 9-year period between 2012 and 2021.
2) The CIP shows $10.27 million in grant awards for transportation projects anticipated between FY06 and FY21. This amount is prorated over
the 9-year period between FY12 and FY21.
3) HURF/LTAF allocation for FY06-21 is $1.33 million or $88,400 per year. This value is held constant for forecast purpose.
4) The CIP shows the general fund contributing $57,500 annually to transportation projects. This value is held constant for forecast purposes.
5) The CIP shows other sources of revenue contributing $155,000 annually to transportation projects. This value is held constant for forecast
purposes.
Other revenue sources potentially available to the Town of Superior include:
Development Impact Fees
An increasing number of growing Arizona communities are relying on a transportation development
impact fees for both residential and commercial development. Development impact fees are one-time
payments for public facilities based on a pro-rata share of costs incurred for facilities needed to
accommodate new development. Development fees relate to only capital facility expansions
benefiting new development and are not to be utilized for rehabilitation efforts or operating
expenses.
County Regional Area Road Fund
The Pinal County Transportation Excise Tax, or Half-Cent Sales Tax, was approved by voters in
year 2005 and its mandate extends to the year 2025. This revenue stream may also be available to
fund transportation improvements. The net revenues collected from this sales tax are deposited in
the county's regional area road fund. Funds are distributed from the monies in the county's regional
area road fund to the individual county and to the individual cities and towns in the county in a
manner determined by the board of supervisors. The jurisdiction receiving the revenues may only
use the revenues for street and highway purposes or for transportation projects included in the
regional transportation plan of the county as prepared by the county regional planning agency.
Improvement Districts
Improvement districts are authorized by the State legislature for the construction of a wide range of
public works facilities. They are formed to fund repaving projects, construction of roadways or
sidewalks, installation of landscaping and other public improvements within a defined geographic
area. The districts are initiated by property owners who combine resources with the town to finance
Superior Small Area Transportation Study
Page54
the improvements. Property owners are assessed over a several year timeframe to repay their share
of the cost of the improvement.
Highway Extension Expansion and Loan Program (HELP)
HB 2488, enacted into law on August 21, 1998, established a comprehensive loan and financial
assistance program for eligible highway projects in Arizona. The program designated as Highway
Expansion and Extension Loan Program or HELP provides communities in Arizona a new
financing mechanism to stretch limited transportation dollars and bridge the gap between the needs
and available revenues. The HELP Program provides the State and its communities with an
innovative financing mechanism to accelerate the funding of road construction projects and has
proven to be a significant tool for financing the construction of highway projects throughout the
State.
Greater Arizona Development Authority (GADA)
The Greater Arizona Development Authority (GADA) was created by the Arizona State Legislature
to assist local and tribal governments and special districts with the development of public
infrastructure. GADA leverages its funds to lower the costs of financing and help accelerate project
development for public facilities owned, operated and maintained by a political subdivision, special
district or Indian tribe. GADA has both financial and technical assistance programs
LTAF II
The 1998 Legislature passed HB 2565 to provide additional statewide transit and transportation
funding to incorporated cities and towns as well as the counties. In 2000, additional legislation was
passed making the use of LTAF II funds “transit use only” (public transportation sponsored by a
local government entity or special needs transportation) for jurisdictions allocated more than $2,500.
The LTAF II funding is in the form of multi-state lottery game and instant bingo game monies
along with a portion of the State Highway Fund's Vehicle License Tax monies. The Arizona
Department of Transportation administers the LTAF II and the State Treasurer's Office distributes
the funds to the Regional Public Transportation Authority (RPTA), Metropolitan Planning
Organizations (MPOs), and cities, towns and counties not represented by a RPTA or MPO.
On August 6, 2005 the six year, $286.4 billion, Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient, Transportation
Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), the largest investment in surface transportation in
the nation’s history was signed into law. This act provides numerous ways for local government to
fund transportation including non-motorized as well as roads and public transportation.
Surface Transportation Program (STP)
The Surface Transportation Program provides flexible funding that may be used by States and
localities for projects on any Federal-aid highway, including the National Highway System, bridge
projects on any public road, transit capital projects, and intra-city and intercity bus terminals and
facilities. For projects programmed with STP funds from a COG Transportation Improvement
Program, local project sponsors may exchange STP funds for a reduced amount of HURF funds
from ADOT, enabling the project sponsor to assume greater control over project development and
implementation.
Superior Small Area Transportation Study
Page55
Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP)
The purpose of the program is to achieve a significant reduction in traffic fatalities and serious
injuries on all public roads. Each State's apportionment of HSIP funds is subject to a set aside for
construction and operational improvements on high-risk rural roads. High-risk rural roads are
roadways functionally classified as rural major or minor collectors or rural local roads with a fatality
and incapacitating injury crash rate above the statewide average for those functional classes of
roadways; or likely to experience an increase in traffic volume that leads to a crash rate in excess of
the average statewide rate.
Economic Strength Project (ESP) Program
The Arizona Department of Commerce in collaboration with the Arizona Department of
Transportation administers the Economic Strength Project (ESP) program. This joint program for
local governments provides grants for road projects that result in economic development and meet
three primary goals: create and retain a significant number of jobs in Arizona; lead to significant
capital investment in Arizona; and, make a significant contribution to the economy of Arizona. The
ESP program has a continuous funding source through the Arizona Department of Transportation.
Annually there are two funding rounds in which at least $500,000 is available for new road
construction, upgrading existing roads, turn lanes, acceleration or deceleration lanes, and
reconstruction and paving.
Bridge Program (BR)
The BR provides funding for replacement of a structurally deficient or functionally obsolete highway
bridges or rehabilitates the structural integrity of a bridge.
Railway-Highway Crossings
The program purpose is to reduce the number of fatalities and injuries at public highway-rail grade
crossings through the elimination of hazards and/or the installation/upgrade of protective devices at
crossings.
National Highway System (NHS) Program
The program provides funding for improvements to rural and urban roads that are part of the NHS,
including the Interstate System and designated connections to major intermodal terminals. Under
certain circumstances, NHS funds may also be used to fund transit improvements in NHS corridors.
Safe Routes to School Program
The program purpose is to enable and encourage children, including those with disabilities, to walk
and bicycle to school; to make walking and bicycling to school safe and more appealing; and to
facilitate the planning, development and implementation of projects that will improve safety, and
reduce traffic, fuel consumption, and air pollution in the vicinity of schools.
Superior Small Area Transportation Study
Page56
Transportation, Community and System Preservation Program (TCSP)
The TCSP Program is intended to address the relationships among transportation, community, and
system preservation plans and practices and identify private sector-based initiatives to improve those
relationships.
Transportation Enhancement Program (TE)
The TE program’s purpose is to strengthen the cultural, aesthetic, and environmental aspects of the
nation's intermodal transportation system. Funding is derived from the State’s annual STP
apportionment. The program provides funding for facilities such as pedestrian walkways and bicycle
paths, acquisition of scenic easements, restoration of scenic or historic sites, landscaping and other
scenic beautification.
6.4. Future Transit Service
The Town of Superior is currently served by several Section 5310 private non-profit and public
agencies that provide transportation to the elderly and disabled. These providers are the Superior
Senior Center, the Superstition Mountain Mental Health Center, and the Pinal County Division of
Public Health’s On-the-Go Express. With multiple providers serving the community, the Town
should encourage service coordination between these operators.
The Arizona Statewide Rural Transit Needs Study (Cambridge Systematics, Inc, 2007), identified a new
intercity Section 5311 route between East Mesa, Superior and Miami as a top candidate for funding.
Section 5311 programs provide commuter-oriented service so residents in rural communities can
travel to urban areas for employment, medical appointments, shopping, education, and other
services.
The Town of Superior Transportation Capital Improvement Program (FY 2001 -2021) identifies $300,000 to
start a new bus system for the Town of Superior. It is recommended that the Town partner with
current transit service providers, including the ADOT Rural Transit Assistance Program, to leverage
this funding to improve existing and planned service for its residents. The ADOT Multimodal
Planning Division staff provides technical support, training and planning assistance to rural transit
providers.
Transit Funding Assistance
Transit services are funded through a variety of federal, state and local programs, as well as farebox
revenue, advertising, and other nongovernmental sources. Most local government funding for transit
service is provided by general fund revenues of municipalities and/or counties. Sources of potential
transit funding include:
Section 5311 Formula Funds
The funding being sought by the Express includes FTA Section 5311 funding. This funding supports
capital expenditures (based on an 80%/20% match with municipality or other entity), operating
Superior Small Area Transportation Study
Page57
expenses (50%/50% match) and administrative expenses (80%/20% match). The funding is
allocated through an annual competitive application process.
STP Flex Funds
Surface Transportation Program (STP) funds are also available through ADOT in support of the
Section 5311 Program. Typically these funds are used to augment the capital procurement process.
STP funding is determined annually by the State Transportation Board.
LTAF II Funds
The LTAF II fund is financed through the Arizona Lottery. These funds are distributed to cities,
towns, and counties, some of which allocate them to rural transit providers to use for capital
purchases, to match federal funds or enhance operations. The downside of this funding is that it is
contingent upon lottery proceeds in excess of a certain threshold; therefore the funding is periodic
and cannot be budgeted annually.
6.5. Non-Motorized Element
Figure 23 shows the recommended Town of Superior Queen Creek Trail System Plan.
Queen Creek Trail System
The purpose of the planned trail system is to link the Boyce Thompson Arboretum with Superior
and the upper Queen Creek Canyon. The Town anticipates that a hiking and bicycling trail along
Queen Creek could become a tourist attraction. Key elements of the trail system are included in the
Town of Superior CIP.
Source: Town of Superior, 2008.
Superior Small Area Transportation Study Page 58
Queen Creek Trailway Conceptual Plan Figure 23
Superior Small Area Transportation Study
Page59
6.6. 5-Year Priority Improvement Needs
The Town of Superior Capital Improvement Program 2001-2021 (Willdan, May 2001) commits Town
funding to projects addressing many of the issues that were discussed by both stakeholders and
Town staff through outreach conducted for this study. This 5-year priority improvement needs list
prioritizes projects from both the currently adopted and the transportation improvement
recommendations shown in Table 12 using numerous inputs including safety considerations, TAC
input, Town staff input, circulation issues, and traffic capacity considerations. This list shown in
Table 14 is intended to assist the Town in identifying pavement rehabilitation and other safety and
mobility improvement priorities to update its CIP. Future engineering studies are required to
develop detailed cost estimates.
Table 14 5-Year Priority Improvement Needs
ID Project Description Length Cost Estimate Notes
1 Main Street Phase II:
Lobb Ave to US 60
Drainage Improvements; Mill and
Overlay 1 mi $611,000 2
2 Mary Dr: US 60 to Golf Course Rd Mill and Overlay 0.53 mi $221,000 1
3 O’Donnell Dr: Golf Course Rd. to Smith
Dr. Mill and Overlay 0.27 mi $112,600 1
4 Smith Dr: O’Donnell Dr to Sunset Dr. Mill and Overlay 0.07 mi $29,200 1
5 Sunset Dr: Smith Dr. to SR 177 Repair/ Level Utility Trench Patching 0.71 mi $30,000 1
6 Sunset Dr/ Mary Dr Safe Route to School N/A $50,000 1
7 Highway 60 Underpass @ Los
Hermanos Pedestrian Underpass N/A $450,000 2, 3
8 Stone Avenue Pedestrian and Access
Ramps @ U.S. 60
Pedestrian access ramps between
US 60 and Stone Avenue N/A $680,000 2, 3
9 Mary Drive @ Queen Creek Install 10' X10' box culvert crossing N/A $2100,000 2
10 Stone Avenue @ Queen Creek Install 10' X10' box culvert crossing N/A $2,100,000 2
11 Stone Avenue: Terrace Drive to Main
Street Heiner Dr Intersection Realignment 0.14 mi $285,000 1
12 Golf Course Road at Wash Crossing New Crossing Structure N/A $100,000 1
Source: HDR, Inc., August 2008.
Notes:
1) Table 12 - Year 2012 to Year 2030 Transportation Improvement Projects.
2) Town of Superior Transportation Capital Improvement Program 2001 -2021, Willdan, 2001.
3) ADOT conducts in-depth planning and engineering studies prior to programming any roadway improvement on the state highway system. Further, it requires
approval from the State Transportation Board. All traffic interchange and system interchange improvements must be approved by the Federal Highway
Administration. Improvement plans on a State Facility serve as a recommendation only and are subject to approval from the designated authority.
6.7. Implementation Action Items
Key action items required to support and implement key elements of this transportation plan include
updating the CIP, stakeholder coordination, maintaining a current database of traffic information,
participating in regional planning efforts, and periodically updating this transportation study.
Superior Small Area Transportation Study
Page60
Stakeholder Coordination
An important part of the long-term transportation improvement plan is continued coordination
between stakeholders at the federal, state, county, and local level, including the development
community.
Roadway Safety Review
Town of Superior should also conduct periodic reviews of roadway accident data to identify safety
trends and take mitigation actions with necessary counter measures.
Traffic Count Data
CAAG and ADOT continuously update their traffic count databases. At a minimum, these traffic
counts should be reviewed once every three years to monitor activity. On Town roadways, counts
should be conducted at the previous count locations to identify trends annually and seasonally.
Monitor and Update Transportation Plan
Significant changes in growth or development patterns should trigger a transportation plan update.
This would include revising travel demand forecasts. At a minimum a major review of this
transportation plan should be conducted every five years.
Capital Improvement Program Update
The Town should update its 5-year Capital Improvement Plan annually to reflect its current revenue
outlook and new transportation improvement priorities.
Superior Small Area Transportation Study
Page61
7. POLICIES AND GUIDELINES
This section presents the policies and guidelines needed to implement the recommendations of this
transportation study. This includes typical roadway cross-sections by functional classification, access
management guidelines, and traffic impact study guidelines.
7.1. Roadway Functional Classification
Roads are classified based upon design and traffic characteristics. Functional classification
categorizes roads by how they perform with regard to providing access and mobility. A principal
arterial, for example, typically provides mobility for longer distance trips with higher speeds and less
access to adjoining properties. Conversely, the function of a local street is to provide direct access to
neighborhoods at lower speeds. Note that, within the Town of Superior study area there is no
roadway classified as a principal arterial. The full functional classification definitions are listed below:
Principal Arterial. This facility serves regional circulation needs. It moves traffic at moderate
speeds while providing limited access to adjacent land. Access is controlled through raised medians
and through spacing and location of driveways and intersections.
Minor Arterial. This facility is generally a four-lane and sometimes a two-lane roadway. Its purpose
is to serve regional/sub-regional traffic circulation needs by moving traffic at moderate speeds while
providing limited access to adjacent land.
Major Collector. This facility provides for shorter distance trips, generally less than three miles,
and primarily serves to collect and distribute traffic between key traffic generators, local streets and
arterial streets. This classification provides direct access to abutting land.
Urban Collector. Urban Collectors serve shorter distance trips than the Major Collector (generally
less than one mile). They provide direct access to adjacent land and collect and distribute traffic
between key traffic generators, local streets and arterial streets.
Local Street. Local Streets provide direct access to adjacent land and distribute traffic to collector
facilities.
Roadway Cross Section
The typical roadway cross sections and street standards from the 1994 SATS were applied in this
study with minor modifications. Wider sidewalks and a landscape buffer zone were added to the
local street cross section. The revised cross section shows five-foot sidewalks per AASHTO
guidelines. Where sidewalks are less than five-feet, a passing space of five feet should be provided at
reasonable intervals for wheelchair users to pass one another or turn around. The arterial and
collector cross sections were updated to include a 14-foot outside lane to accommodate both bicycle
Superior Small Area Transportation Study
Page62
and vehicular traffic. Descriptions of roadway cross-sections by functional classification are shown
below.
Arterial Street
An arterial, as shown in Figure 24, is constructed on 90-feet of right-of-way. In urban areas, there
are typically four travel lanes and a 12-foot median that could be either a raised median or a center
two-way left turn lane. The two outside lanes are 16 feet in width, measured to the back of curb. In
rural areas, there are typically two 12-foot travel lanes with a paved shoulder. Bike lanes become a
part of the outside multi-lane.
Collector Street
A major collector is two travel lanes constructed on 70 feet of right-of-way. As shown in Figure 24,
opposing travel directions are separated by a 16-foot two-way left turn lane. A 5-foot sidewalk, 6-
foot buffer and shared bike lane are included in the cross-section.
Access to major collector streets is typically limited to intersections at eighth-mile spacing and to
driveways adjacent to developments. All vehicles entering the traffic stream must be driving forward;
no backing into traffic is allowed.
Local Street
The local street cross-section, as shown in Figure 24, includes two travel lanes constructed on 50
feet of right-of-way. The 50-foot roadway consists of a 10-foot travel lane and eight feet for on-street
parallel parking or a bike lane. Detached sidewalks with a minimum of 5-foot buffer space are
recommended.
Source: HDR Inc., May 2008.
Superior Small Area Transportation Study Page 63
Typical Street Standards Figure 24
Local Street Typical Section
Collector Street Typical Section
Arterial Street Typical Section
10’
VEHICLE LANE
10’
VEHICLE LANE
8’
PARKING/
BICYCLE LANE
8’
PARKING/
BICYCLE LANE
2” AC
6” ABC
5’
SIDEWALK
2’
BFR
2’
BFR
5’
SIDEWALK
8’
P.U.E.
8’
P.U.E. 50’ ROW
36’ BOC TO BOC
16’
CENTER LANE
14’
MULTI-MODE LANE
14’
MULTI-MODE LANE
6’
BUFFER
6’
BUFFER 2’ 2’
2’ 2’
5’
SIDEWALK
5’
SIDEWALK
8’
P.U.E.
8’
P.U.E. 70’ ROW
48’ BOC TO BOC
12’
CENTER LANE
14’
MULTI-MODE LANE
14’
MULTI-MODE LANE
12’
VEHICLE LANE
12’
VEHICLE LANE
6’
BUFFER
6’
BUFFER
5’
SIDEWALK
5’
SIDEWALK
8’
P.U.E.
8’
P.U.E. 90’ ROW
68’ BOC TO BOC
3” AC
9” ABC
4” AC
12” ABC
Superior Small Area Transportation Study
Page64
7.2. Access Management Guidelines
Purpose
Access management is the systematic control, location, spacing, design, and operation of driveways
and street connections, medians, median openings, turn lanes, traffic signals, and interchanges. The
purpose is to provide (or improve upon the existing) access to land development while at the same
time preserving the constant flow of traffic on surrounding roadways, keeping crucial factors such as
speed, safety and capacity needs in mind. ADOT defines access management as the control of the
location and design of all vehicular approaches to the state highway system including driveways and
public and private roads. This control includes the option to deny a direct highway connection when
it is appropriate.
Key Category Access Factors
􀂾􋹉 Intersection spacing
􀂾􋹁 Allowing direct access or require to obtain alternative access
􀂾􋹐 Proof of access necessity
􀂾􋹓 Scope of access improvement, such as requiring auxiliary lanes, (deceleration and
acceleration lanes)
􀂾􋹄 Defining the levels of allowable access and spacing for different kinds of roads. Providing a
mechanism for granting variances in cases where reasonable access to adjacent roadways
cannot be provided
The challenge of access management is making the effort towards creating and maintaining a
balance between land development plans and the functional integrity of the roadways that serve
these developments and the region.
Legal Issues of Access Control
All private property rights including access rights are subservient to the State and its jurisdiction and
are always subject to reasonable regulation through