Pinal County small area transportation study

              PINAL COUNTY
small area transportation study
FINAL REPORT
PREPARED FOR:
PINAL COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
PREPARED BY:
KIRKHAM MICHAEL CONSULTING ENGINEERS
August 2006
KM Project # 0504900
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION............................................................................................... 1
1.1 Purpose ............................................................................................................................. 2
1.2 Studies Reviewed............................................................................................................... 4
1.3 Study Overview ................................................................................................................. 5
1.3.1 Focus ...............................................................................................................................5
1.3.2 Study Areas.......................................................................................................................5
1.4 Report Organization........................................................................................................... 7
2. EXISTING NETWORK EVALUATION................................................................. 8
2.1 Current Socioeconomic Conditions ................................................................................... 8
2.1.1 Summary of Findings ........................................................................................................8
2.1.2 Population Within The County...........................................................................................9
2.1.3 Minority Population.........................................................................................................12
2.1.4 Population 65 And Over..................................................................................................15
2.1.5 Population Below Poverty Level ......................................................................................17
2.1.6 Mobility-Limited Population ............................................................................................20
2.2 Roadway Characteristics And Conditions......................................................................... 22
2.2.1 Current Functional Classification Guidelines ....................................................................22
2.2.2 Regionally Significant Routes...........................................................................................23
2.2.3 Segment Characteristics...................................................................................................24
2.2.4 Collision Data..................................................................................................................31
2.2.5 Capacity Analysis.............................................................................................................35
2.3 Existing Issues .................................................................................................................. 37
2.3.1 Area Growth....................................................................................................................37
2.3.2 Transportation.................................................................................................................37
2.3.3 Pedestrian .......................................................................................................................37
2.3.4 Bicycle............................................................................................................................37
2.3.5 Transit and Multi-modal ..................................................................................................37
2.3.6 Traffic Control .................................................................................................................38
2.3.7 Pavement Conditions/Maintenance..................................................................................38
2.3.8 Intersections ....................................................................................................................38
2.3.9 Drainage.........................................................................................................................44
2.3.10 Safety Deficiencies..........................................................................................................44
2.3.11 Railroads ........................................................................................................................44
2.3.12 Funding.........................................................................................................................44
2.4 Existing Transportation Improvement Plan (Tip).............................................................. 45
2.4.1 Current Priority Projects ..................................................................................................45
3. FUTURE NETWORK IMPROVEMENTS ............................................................ 47
3.1 Future Socioeconomics.................................................................................................... 47
3.1.1 Population Overview.......................................................................................................47
3.1.2 Economic Overview ........................................................................................................52
3.2 Future 2025 Roadway Analysis........................................................................................ 55
3.2.1 2005 Calibrated Model....................................................................................................55
3.2.2 2025 Base Roadway Network..........................................................................................55
3.3 Roadway Improvement Recommendations...................................................................... 61
3.3.1 Network Alternatives........................................................................................................61
3.3.2 Recommended 2025 Alternative......................................................................................62
3.3.3 Proposed Freeway Alternatives........................................................................................69
3.3.4 Western Study Area.........................................................................................................73
3.3.5 North Central Study Area ................................................................................................75
3.3.6 Eastern Study Area..........................................................................................................77
4. PINAL COUNTY GUIDELINES......................................................................... 79
4.1 Access Management Guidelines ....................................................................................... 79
4.1.1 Land Use and Access Management Recommendation......................................................79
4.1.2 Definition of Access Management ....................................................................................79
4.1.3 Access Management Guidelines .......................................................................................79
4.2 Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines ................................................................................... 80
4.2.1 Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) Requirements......................................................................81
4.2.2 TIA Report Contents........................................................................................................81
5. FUNDING ....................................................................................................... 86
5.1 Roadway Funding Types ................................................................................................. 86
5.1.1 Public Funding ................................................................................................................86
5.1.2 Private Funding ...............................................................................................................88
6. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS........................................................... 90
7. COST OF IMPROVEMENTS ............................................................................. 92
7.1 Capital Improvement Program......................................................................................... 92
8. SCHEDULE...................................................................................................... 96
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Vicinity Map ...................................................................................................................................1
Figure 2: Pinal County Study Area .................................................................................................................3
Figure 3: Functional Classification Map Approved By FHWA..........................................................................6
Figure 4: Pinal County Population Composition (Year 2000)..........................................................................8
Figure 5: Year 2000 Total Population per Square Mile (By Census Block) ....................................................11
Figure 6: Year 2000 Minority Population per Square Mile (by Census Block) ................................................14
Figure 7: Year 2000 Age 65 and Over Population per Square Mile ...............................................................16
Figure 8: Year 2000 below Poverty Level Population per Square Mile ..........................................................19
Figure 9: Year 2000 Mobility-Limited Population per Square Mile ................................................................21
Figure 10: 2005 Number of Lanes ................................................................................................................28
Figure 11: 2005 Posted Speeds ....................................................................................................................29
Figure 12: 2005 Surface Types and Conditions ............................................................................................30
Figure 13: Daily Roadway Capacities............................................................................................................36
Figure 14: Existing Planned Area Developments (PADs) Countywide ...........................................................39
Figure 15: Western Study Area Existing Planned Area Developments (PADs) ...............................................40
Figure 16: North Central Study Area Existing Planned Area Developments (PADs).......................................41
Figure 17: Eastern Study Area Existing Planned Area Developments (PADs) ................................................42
Figure 18: 2005 Pavement Maintenance Priorities ........................................................................................43
Figure 19: Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) Jurisdictional Areas ...........................................................................49
Figure 20: 2005 Population Density (per Square Mile)..................................................................................50
Figure 21: 2025 Population Density (per Square Mile)..................................................................................51
Figure 22: 2005 Employment Density (per Square Mile) ...............................................................................53
Figure 23: 2025 Employment Density (per Square Mile) ...............................................................................54
Figure 24: 2025 Base Network Functional Classification ...............................................................................59
Figure 25: 2025 Base Network Total Lanes ..................................................................................................60
Figure 26: Recommended Typical Sections for Regionally Significant Routes................................................64
Figure 27: Recommended 2025 Alternative - Functional Classification .........................................................65
Figure 28: Recommended 2025 Alternative - Total Lanes.............................................................................66
Figure 29: Recommended 2025 Alternative - Level of Service ......................................................................67
Figure 30: Recommended 2025 Alternative - Volume to Capacity (V/C) Ratio..............................................68
Figure 31: Proposed Freeway Alternatives (per ADOT Corridor Definition Study).........................................70
Figure 32: 2025 Volumes for Proposed Freeway Alternatives........................................................................71
Figure 33: 2025 Level of Service for Proposed Freeway Alternatives.............................................................72
Figure 34: 2025 Total Lanes and Daily Traffic Volumes in Western Study Area ............................................74
Figure 35: 2025 Total Lanes and Daily Traffic Volumes in North Central Study Area....................................76
Figure 36: 2025 Total Lanes and Daily Traffic Volumes in Eastern Study Area .............................................78
Figure 37: Fiscal Year 2005-2006 Funding Sources ......................................................................................86
Figure 38: Fiscal Year 2006-2007 Funding Sources ......................................................................................86
Figure 39: Pinal County Transportation Strategies Map ................................................................................95
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Studies Collected and Reviewed .......................................................................................................4
Table 2: July 1, 2004, Population Estimates ...................................................................................................9
Table 3: Pinal County Minority Population (Year 2000)................................................................................13
Table 4: Age 65 and Over Population (Year 2000) .......................................................................................15
Table 5: Number and Percentage of The Population With Income Below The Poverty Level (Year 2000).....18
Table 6: Persons with Disabilities (Year 2000) ..............................................................................................20
Table 7: Regionally Significant Routes (Countywide) ....................................................................................23
Table 8: Roadway Characteristics Inventory..................................................................................................25
Table 9: Jan 2002 – Jan 2003 Collision Data by Collision Type....................................................................31
Table 10: Jan 2002 – Jan 2003 Collision Data by First Harmful Event..........................................................31
Table 11: Jan 2003 - Jan 2004 Collision Data by Collision Type ..................................................................32
Table 12: Jan 2003 - Jan 2004 Collision Data by First Harmful Event ..........................................................33
Table 13: Jan 2004 – Jan 2005 Collision Data by Collision Type..................................................................34
Table 14: Jan 2004 - Jan 2005 Collision Data by First Harmful Event ..........................................................34
Table 15: Daily Roadway Capacities.............................................................................................................35
Table 16: Existing 5-Year Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) Countywide ............................................45
Table 17: Planned Area Developments Buildout Assumptions ......................................................................47
Table 18: 2005 and 2025 Population ..........................................................................................................48
Table 19: 2005 and 2025 Employment .......................................................................................................52
Table 20: 2005 & 2025 Daily Traffic Volumes and LOS ..............................................................................56
Table 21: FHWA Guidelines for Rural and Urban Systems............................................................................57
Table 22: Driveway Spacing .........................................................................................................................80
Table 23: TIA Report Requirements..............................................................................................................81
Table 24: TIA Study Requirements ...............................................................................................................82
Table 25: Pinal County SATS Recommendations .........................................................................................90
Table 26: Pinal County SATS Near Term Plan .............................................................................................91
Table 27: CIP Priorities (Near Term).............................................................................................................93
Table 28: CIP Priorities (Long Term) ............................................................................................................93
APPENDICIES
Appendix I...................................................................................................................................................97
Appendix II..................................................................................................................................................98
Pinal County August 2006
Small Area Transportation Study
Kirkham Michael Consulting Engineers Page 1
1.. INTRODUCTION
Pinal County is located in south central Arizona as illustrated below in Figure 1.
Figure 1: Vicinity Map
It contains approximately 5,400 square miles and over 2,200 miles of roadways. Pinal County
includes the following communities:
Incorporated
Communities
Unincorporated
Communities
Indian Communities
Apache Junction
Casa Grande
Coolidge
Eloy
Florence
Kearny
Maricopa
Mammoth
Queen Creek
Superior
San Manuel
Oracle
Arizona City
Stanfield
Johnson Ranch
Gold Canyon
Dudleyville
Winkleman
Gila River Indian Community
Ak-Chin Indian Community
San Carlos Indian Community
Tohono O’Odham Indian
Community
The Town of Florence is the county seat. It is approximately 61 miles southeast of Phoenix.
Geographically, the county contains both mountainous terrain and desert flatlands, some of which
are contained within the Tonto and Coronado National Forests.
The county supports various commercial industries such as: agricultural, mining, tourism and
manufacturing.
Pinal County August 2006
Small Area Transportation Study
Kirkham Michael Consulting Engineers Page 2
1.1 PURPOSE
Pinal County is currently experiencing a tremendous amount of growth. It is forecasted that within
20 years, the county will have grown from a population of 250,000 to over 1.9 million people. As
the population increases, traffic volume and congestion will increase and roadway improvements
will be needed to provide a safe travel way for the traveling public. Pinal County has recognized
the need to be proactive by planning ahead for the anticipated growth and looking at travel
alternatives and funding needed to implement new construction and/or rehabilitation of its
roadways.
The purpose of this study is to evaluate the County’s transportation needs, including roadway and
transit elements, over the next twenty years.
The Pinal County Small Area Transportation Study (SATS) and the Transit Element Report will
provide the County with the tools needed to develop the county’s transportation system in
cooperation with local, regional, state, federal stakeholders as well as private developers. Due to
Pinal County’s geographical size, population, growth rate and unique transportation needs, the
study has been divided into three study area components, illustrated in Figure 2. This study was
divided into two separate working papers. Working Paper #1, analyzed the County’s existing
conditions and issues within each study area including roadway, transit, population and
socioeconomic growth. Working Paper #2 examined future improvements including roadway,
transit, funding and implementation. Working Paper #2 also included a recommendation for a 20
year capital improvement program (CIP). This report combines the two Working Papers and
presents a transportation implementation plan for the county.
It should be noted that the roads within the Indian communities, city/town limits and ADOT
jurisdictional roadways/freeways were reviewed. However, no recommendations were made.
Figure 2:Study Areas
Page 3
Pinal County August 2006
Small Area Transportation Study
Kirkham Michael Consulting Engineers Page 4
1.2 STUDIES REVIEWED
Studies that were collected and reviewed are shown in Table 1:
Table 1: Studies Collected and Reviewed
Company Study Title Completed
Lima & Associates City of Maricopa Small Area Transportation Study 2005
Kirkham Michael Apache Junction Small Area Transportation Study 2004
Lima & Associates City of Casa Grande Multimodal Transportation Study 2001
Lima & Associates City of Casa Grande Transit Feasibility Study 2001
DMJM Harris City of Eloy Small Area Transportation Study 1998
DMJM Harris Town of Superior Small Area Transportation Study 1994
Curtis Lueck & Associates Superstition Valley Transportation Study 1999
Lima & Associates Pinal County Transportation Plan, 2000 Update 2000
David Evans & Associates Regional Transportation Plan for CAAG 2000
Cambridge Systematics
Williams Gateway Existing and Future Conditions
Report
2005
DMJM Harris
Williams Gateway Freeway Alignment &
Environmental Overview Study
2005
Cambridge Systematics
Pinal County Planning Model Socioeconomic Estimates
and Forecast
2005
Applied Economics
Central Arizona College Bond Feasibility Study
(Demographic Analysis)
2004
C.L. Williams Consulting Maricopa Casa Grande Highway Limited Access Study 2003
Kimley-Horn Associates Arizona High Speed Rail Feasibility Study 1998
Entranco Southern Pinal Regional Transportation Plan 2003
KHA Apache Junction/Coolidge Corridor Study 2003
Pinal County Pinal County Growth Planning Initiative -
MAG
Southeast Maricopa/Northern Pinal County Area
Transportation Study
2003
Entellus
Regional Arterial & Collector Street Plan for Pinal
County (Ellsworth Rd to Schnepf Rd & Combs Rd to
Magma Rd)
2003
Lima & Associates US 60 Corridor Definition Study 2005
Pinal County
Subdivision Regulations & Requirements and Minimum
Standards for Subdivisions Street Paving
1981
Curtis Lueck & Associates Maricopa Subregional Transportation Study 2000
Pinal County Pinal County Trails Plan 2005
Arizona State Land Department Superstition Vista’s Study 2006
Arizona State Land Department Lost Dutchman Study 2006
Coordination is ongoing with the following studies:
• Queen Creek Small Area Transportation Study
• Coolidge/Florence Small Area Transportation Study
• Casa Grande Small Area Transportation Study – Update
Pinal County August 2006
Small Area Transportation Study
Kirkham Michael Consulting Engineers Page 5
1.3 STUDY OVERVIEW
This study serves as a complement to the Pinal County Transportation Plan 2000 Update. The
primary product of this study is a long-range transportation plan for all county roads. The study
does not include the ADOT jurisdictional highways or interstates.
1.3.1 Focus
The focus of this study is to examine existing socioeconomic and roadway network conditions
and provide future alternatives based on roadway functional classifications of rural minor
collectors and above. Figure 3 illustrates the Pinal County Functional Classifications as
approved by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) on March 21, 2005.
The goals of the project are the following: to improve mobility by creating viable travel
alternatives, analyze funding methods and develop a Capital Improvement Program (CIP) to
specifically identify and prioritize projects along with providing an estimated cost and presenting
project schedules.
Throughout the process, Pinal County citizens and a Technical Advisory Committee including
various Stakeholders within the surrounding study areas were apprised of the study progress.
Comments from each group were considered and applied to the study to produce the final
product.
1.3.2 Study Areas
Because of the diversity of the county, the project was divided into three separate study areas;
Western, North Central and Eastern as illustrated in Figure 2.
The population in the western and north central study areas are currently growing rapidly
whereas population in the eastern study area is currently growing at a slower pace. However, it
should be noted that various locations within the Eastern study area, such as Oracle and
Superior, are beginning to see more growth due to development of planned areas and increase
in population of contract mine workers. The population of each study area is expected to
increase substantially over the next 20 years.
Using Figure 3 as a backdrop:
• The Eastern Study Area, shown in orange, includes the Towns of Kearny, Mammoth,
Superior and unincorporated areas of Oracle, San Manuel, Winkleman and Dudleyville.
• The North Central Study Area, shown in red, includes the Cities of Apache Junction,
Queen Creek, Coolidge, the Town of Florence and unincorporated areas of Johnson
Ranch, Gold Canyon, Santan, Gold Field, and Florence Junction.
• The Western Study Area, shown in yellow, includes the Cities of Maricopa, Casa
Grande, Eloy and the unincorporated areas of Arizona City, Stanfield, Picacho, and
Oracle Junction.
Figure 3: Functional Classification Map Approved by FHWA
Page 6
Pinal County August 2006
Small Area Transportation Study
Kirkham Michael Consulting Engineers Page 7
1.4 REPORT ORGANIZATION
This report contains the following sections:
Section 1: Introduction – this section includes the study overview, purpose and methodology
of the project
Section 2: Existing Conditions – this section includes an evaluation of the current
socioeconomic trends and current traffic conditions.
Section 3: Future Network Improvements – this section includes future socioeconomic
evaluation, network analysis and a recommended 2025 roadway network alternative
Section 4: Pinal County Guidelines – this section includes guidelines for both access
management and traffic impact analysis for Pinal County.
Section 5: Funding – this section includes both public and private funding opportunities
Section 6: Findings and Recommendations – this section includes the project
recommendations including prioritized action time frames.
Section 7: Cost of Improvements – this section includes approximate improvement costs for
identified near term and long term transportation projects
Section 8: Schedule – this section includes the schedule and strategic implementation plan for
several milestone items.
Pinal County August 2006
Small Area Transportation Study
Kirkham Michael Consulting Engineers Page 8
2.. EXISTING NETWORK EVALUATION
This section presents the existing conditions for Pinal County. Examining the roads at their current
state helps determine what methods are necessary to improve the transportation network as the
population grows.
Pinal County would like to address and improve the existing transportation network. Hunt Highway
and Maricopa-Casa Grande Highway are examples of existing roadways in need of capacity
improvements.
2.1 CURRENT SOCIOECONOMIC CONDITIONS
This section presents the current population data for Pinal County including demographic data on
the percentage of minorities, persons 65 years of age and older, persons below poverty level, and
persons of limited mobility. These population subgroups have been tabulated in response to Title
VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Environmental Justice issues, which ensures that individuals
are not discriminated against based on race, color, national origin, age, sex, or disability.
Executive Order 12898 on Environmental Justice dictates that any programs, policies, or activities
to be implemented are not to have disproportionately high adverse human health and
environmental effects on minority populations. Thus, in relation to this study, transportation
improvements should not adversely impact such groups disproportionately. In addition to assuring
that these policies are adhered to, 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.
2.1.1 Summary of Findings
The composition of the Pinal County 2000 population is illustrated in Figure 4 and a summary
of findings of the population data analysis follows.
Figure 4: Pinal County Population Composition (Year 2000)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Minorities 65+ Below
Poverty
Mobility
Limited
Percentage of Population
Arizona
County
Source: US Census 2000
Pinal County August 2006
Small Area Transportation Study
Kirkham Michael Consulting Engineers Page 9
• The 2004 estimated population of Pinal County was approximately 220,000 persons, a
22.3 percent increase from the 2000 population of 179,727 persons.
• In 2000, approximately 74,000 persons in the County, or 41.2 percent of the total
population, were minorities compared to a statewide percentage of 36.2 percent.
• The percentage of persons age 65 or older in the year 2000 was higher than the
statewide average, 16.2 percent compared to 13 percent statewide.
• The percentage of persons living below poverty in 2000 was 16.9 percent in the
County, three percent higher than the statewide average.
• Approximately 22.9 percent of the County population in 2000 were mobility limited
compared to 18.8 percent statewide.
It is important to note that the composition of the County’s population is changing with the
rapid development throughout the County. As Pinal County continues to become more urban,
a younger population living in the County and working in Maricopa and Pima Counties will be
attracted in the near future. Therefore, the proportion of the population aged 65 and over will
probably decrease. Moreover, the percent of the population below poverty level will probably
begin to approach the statewide average as the economic structure changes.
2.1.2 Population Within The County
Population data for the 2000 census and the 2004 estimates were obtained from the Arizona
Department of Economic Security (DES) for Pinal County and Pinal County’s incorporated
cities and towns as presented in Table 2.
Table 2: July 1, 2004, Population Estimates
(For Arizona, Pinal County, Incorporated Cities and Towns)
Area
DES Estimates
7/1/2004
Census
April 1, 2000
Number
Change
Percent
Change
Arizona 5,833,685 5,130,632 703,053 13.7%
Pinal County 219,780 179,727 40,053 22.29%
Incorporated Cities and Towns
Apache Junction* 33,450 31,541 1,909 6.10%
Casa Grande 31,315 25,224 6,091 24.15%
Coolidge 8,025 7,786 239 3.07%
Eloy 10,535 10,375 160 1.54%
Florence 17,105 17,054 51 0.30%
Kearny 2,195 2,249 -54 -2.40%
Mammoth 1,750 1,762 -12 -0.68%
Maricopa 4,855 1,040 3,815 366.83%
Queen Creek* 115 119 -4 -3.36%
Superior 3,195 3,254 -59 -1.81%
Winkelman* 5 4 1 0.25%
Subtotals 112,545 100,408 12,137 12.09%
Unincorporated Areas
107,235 79,319 27,916 35.19%
Source: Arizona Department of Economic Security, U.S. Census 2000 and Census 2004 Estimates
*Pinal County Portion
Pinal County August 2006
Small Area Transportation Study
Kirkham Michael Consulting Engineers Page 10
Arizona’s population increased by 13.7 percent between 2000 and 2004, while Pinal County’s
population increased by 22.3 percent and the population living in unincorporated areas
increased by 35.2 percent. A total of 79,319 residents, representing 44.1 percent of the
County’s population, live in unincorporated areas. Unincorporated areas comprise eleven (11)
tribal communities: Ak-Chin, Bapchule, Blackwater, Chui Chu, Gu Komelik, Sacaton, Sacaton
Flats, Casa Blanca, Goodyear, Stotonic and Santan; eight unincorporated communities:
Arizona City, Dudleyville, Gold Canyon, Gold Field, Oracle, Picacho, San Manuel, and
Stanfield. The remaining 55.9 percent of the County’s residents, or 100,408 people, live within
incorporated communities. Maricopa is the fastest growing city in Pinal County with a
population growth percentage increase of 366.8 between 2000 and 2004 (as of September
2005 the population is estimated at 17,000). In contrast, the population of Kearny, Mammoth,
and portions of Queen Creek and Superior has decreased between 0.7 percent and 3.4 percent.
Figure 5 shows the total countywide population distribution per square mile by census blocks.
Pockets of highly populated areas are located near local communities and along main
highways. Unpopulated areas exist throughout the County, particularly in the eastern and
southwestern portions.
Figure 5: Year 2000 Total Population per Square Mile (by Census Block)
Page 11
Pinal County August 2006
Small Area Transportation Study
Kirkham Michael Consulting Engineers Page 12
2.1.3 Minority Population
Table 3 displays the minority population in Arizona, Pinal County, and local communities
within the County for the year 2000. Pinal County’s percentage of minorities is 41.2 percent,
which is greater than the percentage of minorities for Arizona overall (36.2 percent). As shown
in the table, several of the communities with agriculture and mining industries have high
percentages of minorities. Communities such as Apache Junction, Arizona City, portions of
Queen Creek and Queen Valley have lower minority percentages than the State of Arizona.
Figure 6 shows the distribution of minority population per square mile by census block in Pinal
County for the year 2000. Concentrations of minority populations are located in the proximity
of local communities and along main highways. The distribution of minority population is
similar to that of the total population.
Pinal County Small Area Transportation Study August 2006
Kirkham Michael Consulting Engineers Page 13
Table 3: Pinal County Minority Population (Year 2000)
Total
Population
Total
Minorities
Percent
Minorities
Hispanic
or Latino
White
Black or
African
American
American
Indian and
Alaska Nat.
Asian, Native
Hawaiian &
Other Pacific
Islander
Other
2 or
More
Races
ARIZONA 5,130,632 1,856,374 36.2% 1,295,617 3,274,258 149,941 233,370 94,954 6,120 76,372
Pinal County 179,727 74,086 41.2% 53,671 105,641 4,658 12,419 1,112 169 2,057
Local Communities
Ak-Chin Village 669 656 98.1% 60 13 2 591 0 1 2
Apache Junction* 31,814 3,847 12.1% 2,801 27,967 168 248 181 17 432
Arizona City 4,385 956 21.8% 726 3,429 43 82 19 4 82
Blackwater 504 499 99.0% 76 5 1 417 0 2 3
Casa Grande 25,224 12,517 49.6% 9,871 12,707 1,020 992 290 25 319
Chuichu 339 336 99.1% 19 3 0 317 0 0 0
Coolidge 7,786 4,177 53.6% 3,052 3,609 623 349 54 3 96
Dudleyville 1,323 821 62.1% 780 502 1 18 5 6 11
Eloy 10,375 8,735 84.2% 7,717 1,640 481 278 118 4 137
Florence 17,054 8,576 50.3% 6,041 8,478 1,524 692 142 49 128
Kearny 2,249 909 40.4% 864 1,340 6 15 2 3 19
Mammoth 1,762 1,321 75.0% 1,286 441 1 12 6 4 12
Maricopa 1,040 823 79.1% 732 217 28 52 0 3 8
Oracle 3,563 1,443 40.5% 1,365 2,120 4 33 4 2 35
Queen Creek* 4,316 1,395 32.3% 1,294 2,921 14 22 17 1 47
Queen Valley 820 62 7.6% 50 758 1 4 2 0 5
Sacaton 1,584 1,555 98.2% 112 29 0 1,416 1 0 26
San Manuel 4,375 2,144 49.0% 2,022 2,231 12 35 14 1 60
Santan 651 641 98.5% 83 10 0 546 0 3 9
Stanfield 651 485 74.5% 401 166 26 50 4 0 4
Superior 3,254 2,315 71.1% 2,248 939 9 28 7 1 22
Winkelman* 443 338 76.3% 331 105 1 0 0 5 1
Source: Census 2000
*Pinal County Portion
Figure 6: Year 2000 Minority Population per Square Mile (by Census Block)
Page 14
Pinal County August 2006
Small Area Transportation Study
Kirkham Michael Consulting Engineers Page 15
2.1.4 Population 65 And Over
According to the census data displayed in Table 4, 13.0 percent of Arizona’s population is 65
years of age or older. The average population percentage of this age group is 16.2 percent in
Pinal County. As shown in Table 4, the percentage of people age 65 and older is higher in
Pinal County than the State average, 16.23 compared to 13.02. The percentage is particularly
high in the communities that have become popular with retirees such as Apache Junction,
Arizona City, and Queen Valley.
Table 4: Age 65 and Over Population (Year 2000)
Total
Population
Median
Age
Total
Age 65+
Percentage
Age 65+
Arizona 5,130,632 34 667,839 13.02%
Pinal County 179,727 37 29,171 16.23%
Local Communities
Ak-Chin Village 669 24 26 3.89%
Apache Junction* 31,814 44 8,050 25.30%
Arizona City 4,385 41 970 22.12%
Blackwater 504 22 28 5.56%
Casa Grande 25,224 32 3,469 13.75%
Chuichu 339 25 16 4.72%
Coolidge 7,786 31 1,040 13.36%
Dudleyville 1,323 33 153 11.56%
Eloy 10,375 28 661 6.37%
Florence 17,054 35 1,626 9.53%
Kearny 2,249 37 317 14.06%
Mammoth 1,762 32 205 11.63%
Maricopa 1,040 28 73 7.02%
Oracle 3,563 40 482 13.53%
Queen Creek* 4,316 31 209 4.84%
Queen Valley 820 64.8 405 49.39%
Sacaton 1,584 25 88 5.56%
San Manuel 4,375 32 460 10.51%
Santan 651 24 38 5.84%
Stanfield 651 28 65 9.98%
Superior 3,254 39 649 19.94%
Winkelman* 443 37 64 14.45%
Source: Census 2000
*Pinal County Portion
Figure 7 shows the countywide distribution of the total population of persons aged 65 and over
per square mile by census block for the year 2000. Most persons in this age group live in the
northern portion of the County near the communities of Apache Junction, Gold Field, Gold
Canyon, Queen Valley and in the south eastern portion of the County along Saddlebrooke.
Figure 7: Year 2000 Age 65 and Over Population per Square Mile (by Census Block)
Page 16
Pinal County August 2006
Small Area Transportation Study
Kirkham Michael Consulting Engineers Page 17
2.1.5 Population Below Poverty Level
Table 5 shows that the Pinal County average percentages of population (16.9 percent), families
(12.1 percent), and households (14.0 percent) living below the poverty level are all higher than
those for the state of Arizona (13.9 percent, 9.9 percent, and 11.8 percent, respectively) in the
year 2000. The communities of Eloy, Sacaton, Santan, and Stanfield have the highest
percentages, while the communities of Apache Junction, Arizona City, Florence, portions of
Queen Creek, Queen Valley, and Oracle have the lowest.
Population living below poverty level within Pinal County is shown by census block group in
Figure 8. Concentrations of this population group are located near the communities of Apache
Junction, Coolidge, Eloy, Casa Grande, and Kearny.
Pinal County Small Area Transportation Study August 2006
Kirkham Michael Consulting Engineers Page 18
Table 5: Number and Percentage of The Population With Income Below The Poverty Level (Year 2000)
# Population
w/Income Below
Poverty
% Population
w/Income Below
Poverty
Total
Families
# Families
w/Income
Below
Poverty
% Families
w/Income Below
Poverty
Total
Households
# Households
w/Income Below
Poverty
% Households
w/Income Below
Poverty
Arizona 698,669 13.9% 1,296,593 128,318 9.9% 1,901,625 224,108 11.8%
Pinal County 27,816 16.9% 45,464 5,486 12.1% 61,413 8,602 14.0%
Local Communities
Ak-Chin Village 175 26.8% 133 33 24.8% 163 45 27.6%
Apache Junction* 3,617 11.6% 8,937 655 7.3% 13,559 1,403 10.3%
Arizona City 259 6.2% 1,376 73 5.3% 1,777 116 6.5%
Blackwater 137 26.9% 103 31 30.1% 109 31 28.4%
Casa Grande 4,024 16.0% 6,481 801 12.4% 8,834 1,311 14.8%
Chuichu 70 22.1% 70 9 12.9% 81 20 24.7%
Coolidge 1,914 24.7% 1,967 412 20.9% 2,590 632 24.4%
Dudleyville 173 13.6% 324 28 8.6% 467 43 9.2%
Eloy 2,796 31.9% 2,000 557 27.9% 2,529 821 32.5%
Florence 372 7.0% 1,534 94 6.1% 2,234 184 8.2%
Kearny 296 13.2% 636 77 12.1% 821 111 13.5%
Mammoth 503 28.1% 454 108 23.8% 561 142 25.3%
Maricopa 245 23.4% 194 37 19.1% 281 53 18.9%
Oracle 352 10.0% 962 77 8.0% 1,365 143 10.5%
Queen Creek* 397 9.2% 1,147 69 6.0% 1,283 98 7.6%
Queen Valley 42 5.9% 263 0 0.0% 380 26 6.8%
Sacaton 513 39.9% 275 100 36.4% 364 137 37.6%
San Manuel 558 12.8% 1,191 123 10.3% 1,447 150 10.4%
Santan 277 46.2% 136 63 46.3% 153 63 41.2%
Stanfield 210 32.6% 156 50 32.1% 196 60 30.6%
Superior 906 27.8% 849 191 22.5% 1,234 279 22.6%
Winkelman* 123 27.2% 110 22 20.0% 164 45 27.4%
Source: Census 2000
*Pinal County Portion
Figure 8: Year 2000 Below Poverty Level Population per Square Mile (by Census Block)
Page 19
Pinal County August 2006
Small Area Transportation Study
Kirkham Michael Consulting Engineers Page 20
2.1.6 Mobility-Limited Population
Table 6 shows that 22.9 percent of the population between the ages of 16 and 64 living in Pinal
County reported having disabilities to the Census Bureau, compared with 18.9 percent of those
statewide in the year 2000. Tribal communities have the highest percentage of disabled
population including Chuichu (45.5 percent), Sacaton (31.0 percent), and Stanfield (35.6
percent). The communities such as Arizona City, Dudleyville, portions of Queen Creek, Queen
Valley, and San Manuel have a lower percentage than the State of Arizona.
Table 6: Persons with Disabilities (Year 2000)
Total
Population
16 - 64
Population
With
Disability
Percent
With
Disability
No
Disability
Arizona 3,169,173 596,787 18.83% 2,572,386
Pinal County 96,503 22,054 22.85% 74,449
Local Communities
Ak-Chin Village 380 81 21.32% 299
Apache Junction* 17,532 4,441 25.16% 13,121
Arizona City 2,358 371 15.73% 1,987
Blackwater 332 63 18.98% 269
Casa Grande 14,741 3,172 21.52% 11,569
Chuichu 200 91 45.50% 109
Coolidge 4,429 1,205 27.21% 3,224
Dudleyville 736 138 18.75% 598
Eloy 5,106 1,126 22.05% 3,980
Florence 2,744 631 23.00% 2,113
Kearny 1,333 251 18.83% 1,082
Mammoth 1,016 236 23.23% 780
Maricopa 609 165 27.09% 444
Oracle 2,227 427 19.17% 1,800
Queen Creek* 2,895 372 12.85% 2,523
Queen Valley 273 29 10.62% 244
Sacaton 774 240 31.01% 534
San Manuel 2,632 465 17.67% 2,167
Santan 359 87 24.23% 272
Stanfield 419 149 35.56% 270
Superior 1,817 461 25.37% 1,356
Winkelman* 284 71 25.00% 213
Source: Census 2000
*Pinal County Portion
Figure 9 depicts the concentrations of mobility-limited population by census block group within
Pinal County in the year 2000. Concentrations of mobility-limited populations reveal that the
distribution of this population group is similar to that of the below poverty level population. In
addition, concentrations of mobility-limited population are located north and east of Apache
Junction, and southwest of Casa Grande.
Figure 9: Year 2000 Mobility-Limited Population per Square Mile (By Census Block)
Page 21
Pinal County August 2006
Small Area Transportation Study
Kirkham Michael Consulting Engineers Page 22
2.2 ROADWAY CHARACTERISTICS AND CONDITIONS
Roadways are defined by functional classification, cross sections, number of lanes, posted speed
limits, roadway surface, average daily traffic (ADT), safety conditions and level of service.
As shown in the approved FHWA Functional Classification map of Pinal County, refer to Figure 3,
many of the roads within Pinal County are north-south aligned. Concentrations of east-west
aligned routes are located within City and/or Town limits and offer connections to larger
communities such as Casa Grande, Florence and Coolidge. There are two interstates, I-8 and I-10
that provide high speed routes through Pinal County. The interstates also connect major cities such
as Tucson, Phoenix and San Diego. US 60 is the only corridor providing a connection between
Globe, Superior and Phoenix.
2.2.1 Current Functional Classification Guidelines
The purpose of functional classification is to categorize roads by design, access and mobility. A
collector is designed to provide access to adjacent properties. A minor arterial is designed to
funnel traffic between local/collectors and principal arterials while providing limited access to
adjacent properties. Principal Arterials are designed to provide the greatest mobility for through
movement with more restricted access to adjacent land.
Collectors connect to Minor Arterials, which in turn, connect to Principal Arterials thereby
mapping a grid or “network” system of roads. As previously stated, Pinal County’s current
approved functional classification is shown in Figure 3.
Current Major/Minor Collector
Collector streets provide short distance traffic movement between counties, cities, businesses
or commercial developments. Signal spacing is usually 2 miles or greater and development
is allowed to front the roadway. Access is normally not controlled as collector roads have
varying cross sections depending on the amount of traffic from the surrounding area. Pinal
County’s Major Collectors include 80 feet of right-of-way, 2 lanes with a 14 foot two way left
turn lane and 5 foot sidewalk. Pinal County’s Minor Collectors include 60 feet of right-of-way,
2 lanes undivided with 8 foot parking stalls and 5 foot sidewalk.
Current Minor Arterial
Minor arterial streets provide moderately long distance traffic movement where service to
abutting land is more moderate and accepted. Access is typically controlled through
frontage roads, raised medians or spacing and location of driveways and intersections.
Signal spacing is usually a half mile or greater. Raised median or a continuous two-way left
turn lane usually separates opposing traffic flows. Pinal County’s Minor Arterials typically
include 110 feet of right-of-way and have 5 lanes with a 14 foot two way left turn lane, 5
foot bicycle lanes and 5 foot sidewalk.
Current Principal Arterial
Principal arterial streets provide for long distance traffic movement where service to abutting
land is somewhat limited. Access is normally controlled through frontage roads and raised
medians. Principal arterials are typically four to six lanes in width with adjacent bicycle lanes
and sidewalk depending on the amount of right-of-way. Current Pinal County Principal
Pinal County August 2006
Small Area Transportation Study
Kirkham Michael Consulting Engineers Page 23
Arterials include 110 feet of right-of-way and are 6 lanes with 5 foot bicycle lanes on both
sides of the travel way, 14’ raised median and 5 foot sidewalk.
2.2.2 Regionally Significant Routes
A “Regionally Significant Route” is a roadway that is a connector road between city, town and
county regional areas. It should be noted that Regionally Significant Routes within Pinal County
will be classified as principal arterials or minor arterial roadways. Regionally significant principal
arterials will be a 6 lane roadway within 150 feet of right of way. Regionally significant minor
arterials will be a 4 lane roadway within 110 feet of right of way. Table 7 shows the arterial and
collector roads within Pinal County.
Table 7: Regionally Significant Routes (Countywide)
Roadway Classification Jurisdiction
Apache Trail/Old West Hwy Urban Principal Collector Apache Junction
Baseline Avenue Urban Collector Apache Junction
Broadway Avenue Urban Minor Arterial Apache Junction
Goldfield Road Urban Minor Arterial Apache Junction
Ironwood Drive Urban Minor Arterial Apache Junction
Lost Dutchman Road Urban Collector Apache Junction
McKellips Road Urban Collector Apache Junction
Meridian Drive Urban Minor Arterial Apache Junction
Mountain View Road Urban Collector Apache Junction
Southern Avenue Urban Minor Arterial Apache Junction
Superstition Blvd Urban Minor Arterial Apache Junction
Tomahawk Road Urban Minor Arterial Apache Junction
Cottonwood Lane Urban Minor Arterial Casa Grande
Korsten Road Urban Minor Arterial Casa Grande
Peart Road Urban Minor Arterial Casa Grande
Rodeo Road Urban Minor Arterial Casa Grande
Thornton Road Urban Minor Arterial Casa Grande
Trekell Road Urban Minor Arterial Casa Grande
Coolidge Ave/Kenilworth Rd Urban Minor Arterial Coolidge
Martin Road Urban Collector Coolidge
Vah Ki Inn Road Urban Minor Arterial Coolidge
Battaglia Road Rural Major Collector Eloy
Eleven Mile Corner Road Rural Major Collector Eloy
Sunland Gin Road Rural Major Collector Eloy
Sunshine Blvd Urban Minor Arterial Eloy
21st Street Urban Collector Florence
Butte Avenue Urban Collector Florence
Diversion Dam Road Urban Collector Florence
Florence Heights Drive Urban Minor Arterial Florence
North Main Street Urban Minor Arterial Florence
Ruggles Street Urban Collector Florence
Casa Blanca Road Rural Major Collector Bureau of Indian Affairs
Alden Road Rural Minor Collector Kearny
Tilbury Drive Rural Major Collector Kearny
Upton Drive Rural Minor Collector Kearny
Murphy Road Rural Major Collector Maricopa
White and Parker Road Rural Major Collector Maricopa
Pinal County August 2006
Small Area Transportation Study
Kirkham Michael Consulting Engineers Page 24
Table 7: Regionally Significant Routes (Countywide) (continued)
Roadway Classification Jurisdiction
Bowlin Road Rural Major Collector Maricopa
Green Road Rural Major Collector Maricopa
Peters and Nall Road Rural Major Collector Maricopa
McDavid Road Rural Major Collector Maricopa
Smith Enke Road Rural Major Collector Maricopa
Porter Road Rural Major Collector Maricopa
Main Street Rural Major Collector Mammoth
Anderson Road Rural Minor Arterial Pinal County
Arizona Farms Road Rural Major Collector Pinal County
Attaway Road Rural Major Collector Pinal County
Battaglia Drive Rural Major Collector Pinal County
Baumgartner Road Rural Major Collector Pinal County
Bella Vista Road Rural Major Collector Pinal County
Clemens Road Rural Major Collector Pinal County
Combs Road Rural Major Collector Pinal County
Edwin Road Rural Major Collector Pinal County
Felix Road Rural Major Collector Pinal County
Florence – Kelvin Hwy Rural Major Collector Pinal County
Freeman Road Rural Major Collector Pinal County
Gilbert Road Rural Major Collector Pinal County
Hunt Highway Urban Minor Arterial Pinal County
Ironwood Rd/Ganzel Rd Urban Minor Arterial Pinal County
Maricopa-Casa Grande Hwy Urban Minor Arterial Pinal County
McCartney Road Rural Major Collector Pinal County
Miller Road Rural Major Collector Pinal County
Montgomery Road Rural Major Collector Pinal County
Park Link Drive Rural Major Collector Pinal County
Ralston Road Rural Major Collector Pinal County
Reddington Road Rural Major Collector Pinal County
Selma Highway Rural Major Collector Pinal County
Signal Peak Road Rural Major Collector Pinal County
Skyline Drive Rural Major Collector Pinal County
Sunland Gin Road Rural Major Collector Pinal County
Wheeler Road Rural Major Collector Pinal County
Belmont Avenue Rural Minor Collector Superior
Main Street/Magma Avenue Rural Major Collector Superior
Pinal Street Rural Minor Collector Superior
Sunset Drive/Mary Drive Rural Minor Collector Superior
2.2.3 Segment Characteristics
Table 8 below compiles all of the roadway “segment” characteristic data for all of Pinal
County’s roads. A roadway segment is a link of roadway between intersections. Information
collected about each particular segment include:
Functional Classification
Functional Classification dictates the design of the road and how much traffic it can carry. As
an area builds, the functional classification can be changed based on redesign of the
roadway. Figure 3 illustrates the current functional classifications for Pinal County’s roads.
Pinal County August 2006
Small Area Transportation Study
Kirkham Michael Consulting Engineers Page 25
Table 8: Roadway Characteristics Inventory
Roadway Name
Functional
Classification
Urban/
Rural
Lanes Speed
Surface
Conditions*
Adamsville Rd Major Collector Rural 2 50 P/G
Amarillo Valley Rd Major Collector Rural 2 45 P/G
Anderson Rd Minor Collector Rural 2 55 P/F
Arizona Farms Rd Major Collector Rural 2 50 P/F
Attaway Rd
Minor Arterial/Major
Collector Rural 2 45-50 P/F
Barkerville Rd Major Collector Rural 2 50 G/F
Bartlett Rd Major Collector Rural 2 45 P/G
Battaglia Dr Major Collector Rural 2 45 P/G
Baumgartner Major Collector Rural 2 50 G/F
Bella Vista Rd Major Collector Rural 2 50 P/G
Black Hills Quarry Minor Collector Rural 2 50 G/F
Cactus Forest Rd Major Collector Rural 2 45 P/G
Century Rd Major Collector Rural 2 45 P/G
Chuichu Rd Major Collector Rural 2 55 P/G
Clayton Rd Major Collector Rural 2 45 P/G
Combs Rd Major Collector Rural 2 45 P/F
Cox Rd Major Collector Rural 2 45 P/G
Cripple Creek Major Collector Rural 2 50 G/F
Curtis Rd Major Collector Rural 2 50 G/F
Don Donnelly Trl Major Collector Rural 2 25 P/G
Eagle Crest Ranch Blvd Major Collector Urban 2 50 G/F
Edwin Rd Major Collector Urban 2 50 G/F
El Camino Viejo Rd Minor Collector Rural 2 50 G/F
Eleven Mile Corner Rd Major Collector Rural 2 45 P/G
Ellsworth Rd Minor Arterial Rural 2 50 P/F
Florence-Kelvin Hwy Major Collector Rural 2 50 P/G - G/F
Freeman Rd Major Collector Rural 2 50 G/G
Gantzel Rd Minor Arterial Rural 2 50 P/G - P/F
Golden Rim Cir Major Collector Rural 2 25 P/G
Greenes Reservoir Rd Major Collector Rural 2 50 G/F
Hidden Valley Rd Major Collector Rural 2 45 P/G - G/F
Hunt Hwy Minor Arterial Rural 2 50 P/F
Ironwood Dr Minor Arterial Rural 2 50 P/F
Judd Rd Major Collector Rural 2 50 P/F
Kenilworth Rd Major Collector Rural 2 45 P/G
Kings Ranch Rd Major Collector Rural 2 25 P/G
Lago Del Oro Pkwy Major Collector Urban 2 50 G/F
Macrae Rd Major Collector Rural 2 45 P/G
Maricopa Blvd Major Collector Urban 2 45 P/E
Maricopa-Casa Grande Hwy Minor Arterial Rural 2 55 P/F
Martin Rd Major Collector Rural 2 45 P/G
*Legend:
P/E – Paved/Excellent Condition P/G – Paved/Good Condition
P/F – Paved/Fair Condition P/P – Paved/Poor Condition
G/E – Gravel/Excellent Condition G/G – Gravel/Good Condition
G/F – Gravel/Fair Condition
Pinal County August 2006
Small Area Transportation Study
Kirkham Michael Consulting Engineers Page 26
Table 8: Roadway Characteristics Inventory (continued)
Roadway Name Functional Classification
Urban/
Rural
Lanes Speed
Surface
Conditions*
McCartney Road Major Collector Rural 2 45 P/G
Midway Rd Major Collector Rural 2 45 P/G
Montgomery Rd Major Collector Rural 2 50 P/G - G/F
Mountainbrook Dr Minor Collector Rural 2 25 P/G
Ocotillo Rd Major Collector Rural 2 50 P/F
Old Hwy 60 Minor Collector Rural 2 50 P/G
Old Hwy 77 Major Collector Rural 2 30 P/G
Old SR 84 Minor Arterial Rural/Urban 4 45 P/F
Overfield Rd Major Collector Rural 2 45 P/G
Papago Rd Major Collector Rural 2 45 P/G
Park Link Dr Major Collector Rural 2 55 P/G - G/F
Peralta Rd Minor Collector Rural 2 50 P/G
Picacho Hwy Major/Minor Collector Rural 2 50 P/G
Pinal Airpark Rd Major Collector Rural 2 50 P/F
Powerline Rd Major Collector Rural 2 45 G/F
Quail Run Rd Major Collector Rural 2 50 P/F
Queen Anne Dr Major Collector Rural 2 50 G/F
Queen Valley Rd Major Collector Rural 2 50 G/F
Ralston Rd Major Collector Rural 2 45 P/G - G/F
Redington Rd Major/Minor Collector Rural 2 50 P/G
River Rd Major/Minor Collector Rural 2 50 G/F
Saddlebrooke Blvd Major Collector Urban 2 50 P/G
Sasco Road Major Collector Rural 2 50 P/G
Schnepf Rd Major Collector Rural 2 50 P/F
Selma Hwy Minor Arterial/Major Collector Urban/Rural 2 50 P/G
Signal Peak Rd Major Collector Rural 2 45 P/G - G/F
Skousen Rd Major Collector Rural 2 45 P/G
Skyline Dr Major Collector Rural 2 50 P/F
Stanfield Rd Major Collector Rural 2 55 P/E - P/G
Storey Rd Major Collector Rural 2 55 P/G
Sunland Gin Rd Major Collector Rural 2 50 P/G - P/F
Sunshine Blvd Major Collector Rural 2 50 P/G
Superstition Mtn Dr Major/Minor Collector Rural 2 25 P/G
Thornton Rd Minor Arterial Rural 2 55 P/P
Trico Rd Minor Collector Rural 2 50 G/G
US 60 Frontage Minor Collector Rural 2 50 P/G
Val Vista Blvd Major Collector Rural 2 45 P/G
Valley Farms Rd Minor Collector Rural 2 50 P/G
Warren Rd Major Collector Rural 2 45 P/G - G/F
West Val Vista Rd Major Collector Urban/Rural 2 45 P/G
White And Parker Rd Major Collector Rural 2 55 P/G - P/F
White Rd Major Collector Rural 2 45 P/E
Woodruff Rd Major Collector Rural 2 45 P/G
*Legend:
P/E – Paved/Excellent Condition P/G – Paved/Good Condition
P/F – Paved/Fair Condition P/P – Paved/Poor Condition
G/E – Gravel/Excellent Condition G/G – Gravel/Good Condition
G/F – Gravel/Fair Condition
Pinal County August 2006
Small Area Transportation Study
Kirkham Michael Consulting Engineers Page 27
Urban/Rural Design
As with a designated functional classification, a roadway can be designed for urban or rural
use. In undeveloped areas, a roadway can be designated using a rural design. If the area is
planning on a high amount of traffic upon completion of construction, the road can be
designed using an urban standard.
Number of Lanes
Most of the roads within Pinal County are two-lane rural roads. Figure 10 illustrates the
number of lanes per segment of roadway throughout the County. It should be noted that the
lane designations for the freeways and interstates are directional.
Speed Limits
Posted speed limits range from 25 mph to 75 mph. The interstates, I-8 and I-10, are the only
two roadways that have posted speed limits of 75 mph while US/state route systems like US
60 and SR 79 are assigned speed limits of 55 mph to 65 mph. Most other roads within the
county have posted speeds of 45 mph to 50 mph. Figure 11 illustrates the posted speeds
around the County.
Surface Type
There are two types of roadway surfaces within Pinal County: paved and unpaved. Paved
roads are typically layered with compacted dirt, an aggregate base and topped with asphalt
concrete. Paved roads are usually striped. Unpaved roads are often covered with an
aggregate base such as gravel or compacted earth/dirt and are not striped. Most of Pinal
County’s unpaved roads are private drives or roads in isolated rural areas. Figure 12
illustrates the current surface types and conditions. Conditions are displayed as excellent,
good, fair and poor. Excellent and good pavement typically indicates that no improvements
are needed. Fair and poor pavement typically indicates that the roadway needs
improvement.
Hunt Hwy
Barkerville Rd
Park Link Dr
Florence-Kelvin Hwy
Selma Hwy
Freeman Rd
Chuichu Rd
Warren Rd
Ironwood Dr
Signal Peak Rd
Picacho Hwy
Maricopa Casa Grande Hwy
Sunshine Blvd
Anderson Rd
Arizona Farms
Rd
Baumgartner
Attaway Rd
Overfield Rd
Schnepf Rd
Stanfield Rd
Bella Vista
Rd
Val Vista Blvd
Papago Rd
Clayton Rd
Legend
2005 Number of Lanes
1 Lane
2 Lanes
4 Lanes
2 Directional Lanes
City/Town Limits
Indian Communities
National Forest Area
Tohono O'Odham
Indian Community
San Carlos
Indian Community
Tonto National Forest
Coronado
National
Forest
Gila River
Indian
Community
   I-10
   I-10
   I-8
tu87
tu
tu238
347
tu93
tu
tu87
287
tuOLD
84
tu tu
tu
77
77
79
tu
tu88
60
tu60
tu79
tu60
tu177
tu177
 
Ak-Chin Indian
Community
tu347
tu387
tu187
tu84
tu287
Figure 10: 2005 Number of Lanes
Page 28
Hunt Hwy
Barkerville Rd
Park Link Dr
Florence-Kelvin Hwy
Selma Hwy
Freeman Rd
Chuichu Rd
Warren Rd
Ironwood Dr
Signal Peak Rd
Picacho Hwy
Maricopa Casa Grande Hwy
Sunshine Blvd
Anderson Rd
Arizona Farms
Rd
Baumgartner
Attaway Rd
Overfield Rd
Schnepf Rd
Stanfield Rd
Bella Vista
Rd
Val Vista Blvd
Papago Rd
Clayton Rd
Tohono O'Odham
Indian Community
San Carlos
Indian Community
Tonto National Forest
Coronado
National
Forest
Gila River
Indian
Community
   I-10
   I-10
   I-8
tu87
tu
tu238
347
tu93
tu
tu87
287
tuOLD
84
tu tu
tu
77
77
79
tu
tu88
60
tu60
tu79
tu60
tu177
tu177
 
Ak-Chin Indian
Community
tu347
tu387
tu187
tu84
tu287
Legend
2005 Posted Speeds
25 MPH
30 MPH
40 MPH
45 MPH
50 MPH
55 MPH
65 MPH
75 MPH
City/Town Limits
Indian Communities
National Forest Area
Figure 11: 2005 Posted Speeds
Page 29
Tohono O'Odham
Indian Community
San Carlos
Indian Community
Tonto National Forest
Coronado
National
Forest
Gila River
Indian
Community
   I-10
   I-10
   I-8
tu87
tu
tu238
347
tu93
tu
tu87
287
tuOLD
84
tu tu
tu
77
77
79
tu
tu88
60
tu60
tu79
tu60
tu177
tu177
 
Ak-Chin Indian
Community
tu347
tu387
tu187
tu84
tu287
Legend
2005 Surface Conditions
Paved - Excellent Condition
Paved - Good Condition
Paved - Fair Condition
Paved - Poor Condition
Gravel - Good Condition
Gravel - Fair Condition
Annexed Road - Not Included In Study
US/State Routes - Not Included In Study
Interstates - Not Included In Study
City/Town Limits
Indian Communities
National Forest Area
Figure 12: 2005 Surface Types and Conditions
Page 30
Pinal County August 2006
Small Area Transportation Study
Kirkham Michael Consulting Engineers Page 31
2.2.4 Collision Data
A summary of collision records for a three-year period from January 2002 to January 2005
were collected from ADOT and examined. The data analyzed includes all county roads as well
as ADOT jurisdictional State Routes and Interstates.
In summary, out of the 11,894 collisions throughout the three-year period, there were 6,085
injuries and 265 fatalities. Approximately 68% of collisions each year occurred during daylight
hours. Most of the fatalities during this time period were single vehicle collisions.
Table 9 through Table 14 contains a summary of collision data from type of event to number of
injuries and fatalities to daytime/nighttime conditions.
Table 9: Jan 2002 – Jan 2003 Collision Data by Collision Type
Collisions Daylight
Total Injuries Fatalities Daytime Nighttime Dawn/Dusk
Type of Collision
1645 796 62 879 655 99 Single Vehicle
261 86 0 202 48 11 Sideswipe (same)
51 26 0 29 18 3 Sideswipe (opposite)
584 443 3 482 77 22 Angle
165 126 1 133 21 9 Left Turn
741 461 8 579 123 36 Rear End
35 53 11 19 14 2 Head-On
83 14 0 72 8 3 Backing
111 40 0 85 20 6 Other
9 5 0 7 2 0 Non Contact (Non-MC)
40 32 1 32 6 2 U-Turn
3,725 2,082 86 2,519 992 193 TOTALS
Table 10: Jan 2002 – Jan 2003 Collision Data by First Harmful Event
Collisions
Total Injuries Fatalities
First Harmful Event
157 79 5 All Other Non-Collision
78 44 1 Breakage of Vehicle
42 11 0 Collision with Animal Livestock
11 3 0 Collision with Animal Pets
6 6 0 Collision with Boulder
1 1 0 Collision with Bridge Abutment
7 1 0 Collision with Bridge Culvert
18 6 0 Collision with Curb
1 0 0 Collision with Fallen Tree or Stone
85 23 0 Collision with Fence
75 37 1 Collision with Guard Rail
16 7 0 Collision with Luminaire
1 0 0 Collision with Machine Transport
25 18 0 Collision with Median Barrier
Pinal County August 2006
Small Area Transportation Study
Kirkham Michael Consulting Engineers Page 32
Table 10: Jan 2002 – Jan 2003 Collision Data by First Harmful Event
(continued)
Collisions
Total Injuries Fatalities
First Harmful Event
3 7 1 Collision with Motor Vehicle Other Roadway
13 4 0 Collision with Motor Vehicle Parked Improperly
139 11 1 Collision with Motor Vehicle Parked Properly
104 9 0 Collision with Object Dropped from Vehicle
173 68 1 Collision with Other Fixed Object
1997 1250 22 Collision with other Motor Vehicle
14 5 1 Collision with Other Non-Fixed
33 28 0 Collision with Pedalcyclist
38 34 6 Collision with Pedestrian
6 5 0 Collision with Pedestrian Conveyance
5 0 0 Collision with Spec Devices
8 2 0 Collision with Traffic Barricade
48 8 0 Collision with Traffic Sign
2 0 0 Collision with Traffic Signal
59 22 1 Collision with Tree
3 0 1 Collision with Unknown
58 22 1 Collision with Utility Pole
12 2 0 Collision with Wild Animal
45 2 0 Collision with Wild Game
43 1 0 Fire in Vehicle
2 0 0 Object Fall on Vehicle
3 0 0 Object Falling from, or in Vehicle
1 0 0 Object Thrown towards, in, or on Vehicle
8 5 2 Occupant Fall from Vehicle
385 361 42 Overturning
Table 11: Jan 2003 - Jan 2004 Collision Data by Collision Type
Collisions Daylight
Total Injuries Fatalities Daytime Nighttime Dawn/Dusk
Type of Collision
1545 757 43 831 595 106 Single Vehicle
301 87 2 246 47 7 Sideswipe (same)
45 26 1 19 24 2 Sideswipe (opposite)
572 404 11 466 72 34 Angle
144 101 1 115 25 4 Left Turn
730 444 8 573 122 34 Rear End
38 63 15 21 16 1 Head-On
88 3 0 76 7 5 Backing
114 51 2 82 22 8 Other
1 1 0 1 0 0 Non Contact (MC)
5 3 0 4 1 0 Non Contact (Non-MC)
35 31 0 29 4 2 U-Turn
3,618 1,971 83 2,463 935 203 TOTALS
Pinal County August 2006
Small Area Transportation Study
Kirkham Michael Consulting Engineers Page 33
Table 12: Jan 2003 - Jan 2004 Collision Data by First Harmful Event
Collisions
Total Injuries Fatalities
First Harmful Event
134 65 0 All Other Non-Collision
77 68 0 Breakage of Vehicle
34 8 0 Collision with Animal Livestock
6 2 0 Collision with Animal Pets
13 1 0 Collision with Boulder
3 2 0 Collision with Bridge Abutment
5 0 0 Collision with Bridge Culvert
32 11 1 Collision with Curb
7 3 0 Collision with Fallen Tree or Stone
80 30 1 Collision with Fence
74 45 1 Collision with Guard Rail
20 9 0 Collision with Luminaire
1 0 0 Collision with Machine Transport
52 32 0 Collision with Median Barrier
2 3 0 Collision with Motor Vehicle Other Roadway
12 6 0 Collision with Motor Vehicle Parked Improperly
157 16 0 Collision with Motor Vehicle Parked Properly
68 9 0 Collision with Object Dropped from Vehicle
153 59 5 Collision with Other Fixed Object
2005 1176 39 Collision with other Motor Vehicle
15 4 0 Collision with Other Non-Fixed
54 38 0 Collision with Pedalcyclist
29 25 7 Collision with Pedestrian
3 7 0 Collision with Pedestrian Conveyance
9 0 0 Collision with Spec Devices
4 1 0 Collision with Traffic Barricade
42 11 0 Collision with Traffic Sign
7 3 0 Collision with Traffic Signal
1 0 1 Collision with Train, Forward
39 24 0 Collision with Tree
59 27 0 Collision with Utility Pole
3 0 0 Collision with Wild Animal
44 3 0 Collision with Wild Game
1 0 0 Exhaust Fume Poisoning
47 1 0 Fire in Vehicle
4 0 0 Object Fall on Vehicle
5 0 0 Object Falling from, or in Vehicle
4 2 1 Occupant Fall from Vehicle
312 280 27 Overturning
1 0 0 Toxic Chemical Leak
Pinal County August 2006
Small Area Transportation Study
Kirkham Michael Consulting Engineers Page 34
Table 13: Jan 2004 – Jan 2005 Collision Data by Collision Type
Collisions Daylight
Total Injuries Fatalities Daytime Nighttime Dawn/Dusk
Type of Collision
1546 794 54 846 580 106 Single Vehicle
282 88 0 208 60 14 Sideswipe (same)
59 35 2 39 12 8 Sideswipe (opposite)
602 408 11 495 80 26 Angle
171 123 5 122 38 10 Left Turn
802 448 4 640 119 43 Rear End
39 51 10 23 13 3 Head-On
90 11 0 78 8 4 Backing
113 54 10 87 24 2 Other
3 2 0 3 0 0 Non Contact (Non-MC)
43 18 0 33 9 1 U-Turn
3,751 2,032 96 2,574 943 217 TOTALS
Table 14: Jan 2004 - Jan 2005 Collision Data by First Harmful Event
Collisions
Total Injuries Fatalities
First Harmful Event
120 52 5 All Other Non-Collision
38 14 0 Breakage of Vehicle
28 8 0 Collision with Animal Livestock
7 1 0 Collision with Animal Pets
1 0 0 Collision with Animal with Person
2 0 0 Collision with Boulder
7 2 1 Collision with Bridge Abutment
2 1 0 Collision with Bridge Culvert
26 22 0 Collision with Curb
2 1 0 Collision with Fallen Tree or Stone
89 10 0 Collision with Fence
68 29 3 Collision with Guard Rail
10 2 0 Collision with Luminaire
1 0 0 Collision with Machine Transport
1 0 0 Collision with Machinery
42 23 0 Collision with Median Barrier
19 3 0 Collision with Motor Vehicle Parked Improperly
137 13 1 Collision with Motor Vehicle Parked Properly
57 8 0 Collision with Object Dropped from Vehicle
190 73 1 Collision with Other Fixed Object
2145 1216 35 Collision with other Motor Vehicle
25 3 0 Collision with Other Non-Fixed
45 34 1 Collision with Pedalcyclist
31 26 4 Collision with Pedestrian
5 3 0 Collision with Pedestrian Conveyance
12 2 0 Collision with Spec Devices
2 1 0 Collision with Traffic Barricade
43 11 1 Collision with Traffic Sign
1 0 0 Collision with Traffic Signal
Pinal County August 2006
Small Area Transportation Study
Kirkham Michael Consulting Engineers Page 35
Table 14: Jan 2004 - Jan 2005 Collision Data by First Harmful Event
(continued)
Collisions
Total Injuries Fatalities
First Harmful Event
64 31 2 Collision with Tree
11 3 4 Collision with Unknown
44 33 0 Collision with Utility Pole
5 2 0 Collision with Wild Animal
45 3 0 Collision with Wild Game
54 0 0 Fire in Vehicle
1 0 0 Object Fall on Vehicle
1 0 0 Object Falling from, or in Vehicle
3 2 0 Occupant Fall from Vehicle
366 400 38 Overturning
2.2.5 Capacity Analysis
Roadway capacity is the maximum traffic volume that can travel on a section of roadway
during a given time period. The capacities for Pinal County’s roadways are defined by their
functional classification. Capacity levels are listed in Table 15 and shown graphically in Figure
13.
Table 15: Daily Roadway Capacities
Functional Classification Daily Per Lane Capacity
Interstate/Freeway 16,375
Principal/Major Arterial 8,700
Minor Arterial 8,700
Major Collector 7,500
Minor Collector 7,500
Source: Pinal County Transportation Plan, 2000 Update
Clayton Rd
Papago Rd
Val Vista Blvd
Bella Vista
Rd
Stanfield Rd
Overfield Rd
Attaway Rd
Baumgartner
Arizona Farms
Rd
Anderson Rd
Sunshine Blvd
Maricopa Casa Grande Hwy
Picacho Hwy
Signal Peak Rd
Warren Rd
Chuichu Rd
Freeman Rd
Selma Hwy
Florence-Kelvin Hwy
Park Link Dr
Barkerville Rd
Hunt Hwy
Ironwood Dr
Legend
Daily Per Lane Capacity
Major/Principal Arterial: 8,700
Major/Minor Collector: 7,500
Not Available
Not Within Study Area
City/Town Limits
Indian Communities
National Forest Area
Tohono O'Odham
Indian Community
San Carlos
Indian Community
Tonto National Forest
Coronado
National
Forest
Gila River
Indian
Community
   I-10
   I-10
   I-8
tu87
tu
tu238
347
tu93
tu
tu87
287
tu tu
tu
77
77
79
tu
tu88
60
tu60
tu79
tu60
tu177
tu177
 
Ak-Chin Indian
Community
tu347
tu387
tu187
tu84
tu287
Figure 13: Daily Roadway Capacities
tu287
tu87
Page 36
Pinal County August 2006
Small Area Transportation Study
Kirkham Michael Consulting Engineers Page 37
2.3 EXISTING ISSUES
Existing issues are concerns that need to be addressed within the three study areas.
2.3.1 Area Growth
Pinal County is currently experiencing a tremendous amount of growth. It is predicted that
within 20 years, the County will have grown from a population of 250,000 to over 1.9 million
people. As illustrated in Figure 14, there is already a large amount of growth occurring within
the County. Most of the growth is occurring within the Western and North Central study areas.
Figure 15, Figure 16 and Figure 17 show current Planned Area Developments (PADs) in the
Western, North Central and Eastern study areas, respectively.
Two existing airports, San Manuel and Pinal Airpark, will need to be assessed for future growth
and use.
2.3.2 Transportation
Regional and local circulation issues are very important to the surrounding communities within
and around Pinal County. Many of the roads within Pinal County are north-south aligned and
Pinal County will need to address and construct more north-south and east-west alignments
along the major routes. Corridors like Florence-Kelvin Highway, Park Link from SR 79 to I-10
and SR 347 from SR 84 to I-10 will be necessary to provide connectivity and trip variation in
the roadway network. In particular, the eastern study area will need more north-south as well as
east-west alignments as the growth rate begins to increase.
It will be important for Pinal County to keep the current roadway infrastructure maintained as
they continue to grow and provide new access around the county.
2.3.3 Pedestrian
Pedestrian crossings are becoming more of an issue due to the number of injuries and fatalities
throughout the County. Most of Pinal County’s roads are rural in nature. Sidewalks and
crosswalks are not typically provided along rural roadways. Approximately 20% of pedestrian
collisions within the 3-year study period were hit and run. Two of those hit and run collisions
were fatal. The detail of how the pedestrian collisions occurred is not known.
2.3.4 Bicycle
Bicycle mobility is currently not an issue identified in this study. However, as Pinal County
develops, bicycle routes will need to be taken into consideration and planned in conjunction
with the County Parks and Trails plan as depicted in the cross-section figures within Section
2.2.1.
2.3.5 Transit and Multi-modal
The percentage of persons using public transportation in Pinal County is well below that of the
statewide average of approximately two percent. This is due to the limited transit service
currently offered in the County. However, the percentage of persons in the County who carpool
to work is above the statewide average. The increased carpooling and vanpooling in Pinal
County may be an indicator of a latent demand for transit services.
Pinal County August 2006
Small Area Transportation Study
Kirkham Michael Consulting Engineers Page 38
Existing transit services in Pinal County include one deviated fixed route service and one dial-a-ride
service, both of which are operated by the City of Coolidge, intercity services provided by
Greyhound and Amtrak, and a number of services operated for special-needs persons such as
seniors or those traveling for medical reasons.
With the amount of people planned to move into the County, transit is going to be important
and will need to be planned accordingly in order to seamlessly connect all cities and towns
within the County to both Pima and Maricopa transit lines. Other transit opportunities such as
light rail need to be discussed and possibly implemented using the two current rail lines that run
diagonally through the County. Issues concerning transit can be found in the Transit Element
Report.
2.3.6 Traffic Control
No traffic control issues were identified in this study.
2.3.7 Pavement Conditions/Maintenance
Pavement conditions were examined by Pinal County and by the study team. Figure 12 shows
Pinal County’s current pavement conditions. Overall, most of Pinal County’s paved roads are in
good shape. One 3-mile paved road is in need of improvement and/or repair and most if not all
of the unpaved roads will need to be improved to paved status.
Figure 18 shows Pinal County’s current maintenance priorities for updating and/or maintaining
their roads.
2.3.8 Intersections
Outside of examining the current collision statistics, intersection design and improving traffic
control based on collision types and frequency; there were no intersection issues identified in
this study.
Hunt Hwy
Barkerville Rd
Park Link Dr
Florence-Kelvin Hwy
Selma Hwy
Freeman Rd
Chuichu Rd
Warren Rd
Ironwood Dr
Signal Peak Rd
Picacho Hwy
Maricopa Casa Grande Hwy
Sunshine Blvd
Anderson Rd
Arizona Farms
Rd
Baumgartner
Attaway Rd
Overfield Rd
Schnepf Rd
Stanfield Rd
Bella Vista
Rd
Val Vista Blvd
Papago Rd
Clayton Rd
Legend
Roads
City/Town Limits
Existing PADs
   I-10
   I-10
   I-8
tu87
tu
tu238
347
tu93
tu
tu87
287
tu
tu
tu
77
77
79
tu
tu88
60
tu60
tu79
tu60
tu177
tu177
 
tu347
tu387
tu187
tu84
tu287
Figure 14: Existing Planned Area Developments (PADs) Countywide
tu287
tu87
Page 39
Hunt Hwy
Ironwood Dr
Attaway Rd
Falcon
Valley
Oracle
Barkerville Rd
Park Link Dr
Florence-Kelvin Hwy
Selma Hwy
Freeman Rd
Chuichu Rd
Warren Rd
Signal Peak Rd
Picacho Hwy
Maricopa Casa Grande Hwy
Sunshine Blvd
Ande rson Rd
Overfield Rd
Stanfield Rd
Val Vista Blvd
Papago Rd
Clayton Rd
   I-10 tu79
tu347
Legend
Western Study Area PADs
Ak-Chin Project
Bright Sky Farms
Campos La Palma
Casa Grande West
Chaparral Estates
Cooper Mountain Ranch
Daybreak@Picacho Peak
Desert Green
EJR Ranch MPC
Eloy 1261
Eloy 640/320
Esperanza
Falcon Valley
Ghost Ranch
Grand Valley
Grande Valley Estates
Hamstra Farms
Harvard Investments
Hidden Valley
Kyvek Developments
La Palma Ranch
Lago Del Oro
Langley Properties
Langley Sunshine Park
Los Cordones
McClean Ranch
Midway
Millet Master Plan
Mountain Whisperer
Mt Baldy LP
Papago Estates
Pecan Woods
Picacho Peak West
Pulte Homes
Rancho Del Sol Brillante
Rancho Sierra Vista
Red Rock-La Osa
Roberts Resorts
Santa Cruz Ranch
Santa Cruz Valley
Scott Farms
Sierra Tucson
Sierra Vista
Signal Peak Estates
Siver Reef
Steven Farms
Sun Lake Casa Grande
Sunset Canyon
Superstition Mountain
Talla
Terrazo
The Villages At Rancho El Dorado
Unknown
Val Vista Estates
Vanderbilt
Vanderbilt/Langley Properties
Verde Grande Village
Willis Properties
City/Town Limits
County Boundary
   I-10
   I-8
 
Western
Study Area
Figure 15: Western Study Area Existing Planned Area Developments (PADs) Page 40
Arizona Farms
Rd
Hunt Hwy
Ironwood Dr
Attaway Rd
Schnepf Rd
Bella Vista
Rd
Anthem At
Merrill Ranch
Coles
Farm
Johnson
Ranch
Rancho
Sendero
Signal Peak Rd
Overfield Rd
Val Vista Blvd
Legend
Northcentral Study Area PADs
Acacia Crossing
Amend Magic Ranch
Anthem At Merrill Ranch
Arizona Farms
Barnes Farms
Bella Vista
Bella Vista Farms
Box Canyon
Caballero
Cambria
Cattle Gate
Coles Farm
Cooper Basin
Creekside Estates
Cricle Cross Ranch
Dobson Farms
Encanto Real
Era Mae
Goldmine Mountain Estates
Hersetti Dairy
Home Place
Joal LLC
Johnson Farms
Johnson Ranch
Langley
Langley Properties
Langley Ranch
Laredo Ranch
Las Montanas
Lokout Mountain MPC
Magic Ranch
Magic Ranch GC
Magic Ranch WWTP
Magma Ranch
Magma Ranch II
Manufacture/Mobile Home Park
Martin Ranch
Meadow Vista
Mesquite Groves
Moon Shadow
Morning Sun Farms
Oasis @ Magic Ranch
Ocotillo Trails
Ocotillo Trails MPC
Ocotillo Verde
Pecan Creek
Quail Run
Quail Run Estates
Rancho Bella Vista
Rancho Sendero
Rolling Ridge Estate
San Tan Gateway RBC
San Tan Ranches Unit 3
San Tan Shadows
Sandia
Santan Ranches
Silverado Ranch
Skyline Ranch
Solid Waste Transfer Station
Sun Lakes - Casa Grande
Sun Valley Farms
Superstition Views
Taylor Ranch MPC
The Village @ Santan
The Vineyard Towne Center
Tomkinson Farms
Unknown
Val Vista Estates
Vanguard
Vineyard Estates
Walker Butte MPC
Walls Ranch
Ware Farms
Westcor Mall
Wild Horse Estate
City/Town Boundary
County Boundary
   I-10
tu79
 
tu60
Figure 16: North Central Study Area Existing Planned Area Developments (PADs)
NorthCentral
Study Area
Page 41
Attaway Rd
Bella Vista
Falcon
Valley
Oracle
Barkerville Rd
Park Link Dr
Florence-Kelvin Hwy
Freeman Rd
Legend
Eastern Study Area PADs
Falcon Valley
Lago Del Oro
Los Cordones
Oracle
Sierra Tucson
Willow Springs
City/Town Limits
County Boundary
   I-10
tu79
 
tu60
tu77
tu177
tu60
tu77
tu79
Eastern
Study Area
Figure 17: Eastern Study Area Existing Planned Area Developments (PADs)
Page 42
Florence-Kelvin Hwy
Freeman Rd
Park Link Dr
West Val Vista Rd
Anderson Rd
Hunt Hwy
Arizona Farms Rd
Ironwood Dr
 
Legend
Paving Priority
1 5 Years or less
2 5-10 Years
3 10 Years or more
Pavement Preservation Priority
1 High Priority
2 Medium Priority
Do Nothing
City/Town Limits
Indian Communities
National Forest Area
Tohono O'Odham
Indian Community
San Carlos
Indian Community
Tonto National Forest
Coronado
National
Forest
Gila River
Indian
Community
   I-10
   I-10
   I-8
tu87
tu
tu238
347
tu93
tu
tu87
287
tu
tu
tu
77
77
79
tu
tu88
60
tu60
tu79
tu60
tu177
tu177
Ak-Chin Indian
Community
tu347
tu387
tu187
tu84
tu287
Figure 18: 2005 Pavement Maintenance Priorities
tu287
tu87
Page 43
Pinal County August 2006
Small Area Transportation Study
Kirkham Michael Consulting Engineers Page 44
However, it is important to note that identification of right-of-way and easements will need to
be assessed for future travel route alternatives and/or intersection improvements. Maintenance
of intersections and segments of Pinal County roadways will also need to be assessed for
prioritization within the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) schedule.
2.3.9 Drainage
There are no critical drainage issues at this time. Since Pinal County’s roadway network is
currently rural in nature, there are going to be drainage concerns due to an undeveloped
drainage system such as curb, gutter and storm drains. Most of the concern lies in road erosion
and pavement depletion as water crosses the pavement during a storm event. That coupled
with sediment left on the pavement after an event can cause safety concerns as vehicles cross
the wash area, whether during a storm or after a storm.
However, it is important to note that drainage issues will need to be assessed as the area
develops. Future Crossings along the Gila River, Queen Creek and other existing washes will
need to be designed and constructed as needed.
2.3.10 Safety Deficiencies
The collision data for the past three years are presented in Section 2.2.4 of this report. No
specific safety deficiencies were identified for this project.
2.3.11 Railroads
The Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) parallels the Maricopa-Casa Grande Highway in the
western study area. Daily trains using the UPRR are expected to increase in the coming years,
per the 2005 City of Maricopa Small Area Transportation Study. Safe solutions to the railroad
crossings along the Maricopa-Casa Grande Highway will need to be assessed. The Magma
Arizona Railroad (MARR), headquartered in the Town of Superior, recently changed ownership
and is looking to reactivate the rail link between Superior and Florence. San Manuel Arizona
Railroad (SMARR) is currently an inactive rail link between San Manuel and the Copper Basin
Railway (CBRY) within the eastern study area. It is unknown, at this time, whether the San
Manuel Arizona Railroad would be reactivated if the smelter operation in San Manuel reopens.
The Copper Basin Railway (CBRY) is an Arizona short line railroad that operates freight service
in the eastern study area using a connection with the UPRR at Magma Jct. The CBRY has rail
lines from Magma Junction to Winkleman, Ray Junction to Ray, Arizona and connects with the
SMARR at Hayden, Arizona. The CBRY hauls freight cargo such as copper concentrates, ore
finished and unfinished cooper, sulfuric acid, lumber and military equipment.
Issues concerning railroad usage and transit opportunities can be found in the Transit Element
Report.
2.3.12 Funding
Funding is a major priority as no project can be completed without having the proper funds
available for construction. Types of funding to be assessed include Pinal County Impact fees
and guidelines along with other sources of funding such as the Highway Users Revenue Fund
(HURF), among others. Funding is discussed, in detail, in Section 5 of this report.
Pinal County August 2006
Small Area Transportation Study
Kirkham Michael Consulting Engineers Page 45
2.4 EXISTING TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PLAN (TIP)
The Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) assists in prioritizing transportation projects within a 5-
year fiscal period. The projects listed that have been funded and are currently in design and/or
construction. Projects under the current 5-year (2005-2010) TIP include;
2.4.1 Current Priority Projects
The Ironwood-Gantzel Roadway Improvement Project is currently the highest priority project
for Pinal County. The objective of the Ironwood-Gantzel project is to improve Ironwood Drive
from its current two-lane cross section to a four-lane roadway with a raised median, curb and
gutter, and sidewalk at designated locations. The project will also plan for long term expansion
of the roadway to its "ultimate" configuration of three lanes in each direction, and raised
median, curb and gutter, and sidewalk along the entire alignment. This project is developing the
final design and the roadway will be widened to its ultimate configuration as development
occurs in the future.
Other projects of priority, for the 2005-2010 TIP, are shown in Table 16.
Table 16: Existing 5-Year Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP)
Countywide
Fiscal Year Project Location Scope
District 1
2005-2006 Florence/Kelvin Hwy To Be Determined Design/New Construction
2006-2007 Sunland Gin Road Bridge So. To Kinley Alignment Reconstruction
Kenilworth Road Attaway Road to Valley Farms Road Design, New Construction
Park Link Drive To Be Determined Design, New Construction
2007-2008 Park Link Drive To Be Determined Design, New Construction
Florence/Kelvin Road To Be Determined Design, New Construction
Valley Farms Road To Be Determined Design, New Construction
2008-2009 Park Link Drive To Be Determined Design, New Construction
Florence/Kelvin Road To Be Determined Design, New Construction
Martin Road Picacho Street To Nafzier Road Design, New Construction
2009-2010 Park Link Drive To Be Determined Design, New Construction
Florence/Kelvin Road To Be Determined Design, New Construction
Martin Road Picacho Street To Nafzier Road Design, New Construction
2009-2010 Park Link Drive To Be Determined Design, New Construction
Javelina Estates Various Roads 4.5 Miles Design, New Construction
Phillips Road Sunland Gin To City Limits Design, New Construction
Phillips Road Curry Road To Sunshine Road Design, New Construction
Hanna Road Tweedy West To Mid-Section Line Design, New Construction
Tweedy Road Hanna North To Mid-Section Line Design, New Construction
District 2
2005-2006 Combs Road Schnepf Road East Design, New Construction
Tomahawk Road McKellips To Saddlebutte Design, New Construction
2006-2007 Linda Vista Street Prospectors Road To Holmes Road Design, New Construction
Pinal County August 2006
Small Area Transportation Study
Kirkham Michael Consulting Engineers Page 46
Table 16: Existing 5-Year Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP)
Countywide (continued)
Fiscal Year Project Location Scope
District 2
2006-2007 Prospectors Road End Of Pavement To Lost Dutchmen Design, New Construction
Canyon Street Idaho West ½ Mile Design, New Construction
2007-2008 Judy’s Road-Phase 1 Skyline To Felix Road Design, New Construction
Judy’s Road-Phase II Skyline To Felix Road Design, New Construction
2008-2009 Judd Road Attaway Road To Quail Run Road Design, New Construction
Gary Road Judd Road South To End Design Only
Quail Run Road Judd Road To Bella Vista Design, New Construction
Geronimo Road Broadway Ave To Junction Design, New Construction
Rolling Ridge Road East Of Schnepf 1 Mile Design, New Construction
Sun Valley Farms #7 Southwood, Coyote Design, New Construction
Lost Dutchman Road Val Vista To Prospectors Design, New Construction
2009-2010 Price Road Hwy 79 East 2.2 Design, New Construction
District 3
2005-2006 Signal Peak Road Kleck Road To SR 287 Design, New Construction
McCartney/Overfield Intersection Design, New Construction
2006-2007 McCartney Road Turn Lanes At Cox Road Design, New Construction
2007-2008 Val Vista Road Hidden Valley Road To Warren Road Design, New Construction
Warren Road Fresno Road To Robin Road Design, New Construction
2008-2009 Barnes Road Warren Road To Hidden Valley Road Design, New Construction
Clayton Road Candlestick Road West ¾ Mile Design, New Construction
Evans Road Locklin Road To McCartney Road Design, New Construction
2009-2010 Thornton Road I-8 North 1 Mile Design, New Construction
Maricopa CG Turn
Lanes
Russell, Anderson, Murphy, Val Vista Design, New Construction
Maricopa CG Bridge Over The Santa Cruz Design
Farrell/Porter Road Bridge Over The Santa Rosa Wash Design
Hidden Valley Road McDavid To Farrell Design, New Construction
Farrell Road Warren To Hidden Valley Design, New Construction
Pinal County August 2006
Small Area Transportation Study
Kirkham Michael Consulting Engineers Page 47
3.. FUTURE NETWORK IMPROVEMENTS
Pinal County’s growth is going to require rapid expansion of the current roadway network as well as
the use of other transportation options including travel demand management and transit. The
challenge will be to improve the quality and quantity of the transportation network as development
occurs. Determining the future transportation needs as soon as possible will give Pinal County the
ability to be proactive in providing a safe and efficient transportation system.
3.1 FUTURE SOCIOECONOMICS
This section presents the future population and employment estimates in order to provide a basis
for understanding the socioeconomic conditions within the study area. Socioeconomic data from
CAAG and MAG was reviewed, analyzed and used to initiate the development of Pinal County
2025 socioeconomic data. These socioeconomic estimates will also be used to forecast traffic
volumes on the highway and street network. As the existing conditions section explained, most of
Hayden and all of Winkleman are located in adjacent Gila County, these communities are
included in the study area because of their adjacent geographical location and economic
interaction with Pinal County. The tabulated data for the study area includes Hayden and
Winkleman information unless otherwise stated.
3.1.1 Population Overview
The initial projections were based on a set of databases including: MAG and CAAG
socioeconomic data, data developed for the ADOT Pinal Corridors Studies, the current planned
area developments (PADs) provided by Pinal County, SRP, and CAAG, and data from the
2000 Pinal County Transportation Plan. A PAD shapefile was developed to create another
source of data for the study area. In addition, assumptions were made regarding the 2025
percent built for residential as well as commercial acreage for the individual PADs. Table 17
summarizes the assumption used.
Table 17: Planned Area Developments Buildout Assumptions
2025 Percent Built
Residential Commercial
PADs started in 2005 or prior 100% 100%
PADs not developed in 2005 with land use designations 75% 75%
PADs not started in 2005 and with no land use designation 0% 0%
The population was estimated using the number of dwelling units generated by the PADs and
the person per household ratio consistent with the 2005 data, which was reflective of Census
2000 results. For areas where data was not available, the surrounding areas person per
dwelling unit ratio was used or the County average of 2.6 person per dwelling unit. The PAD
data was allocated to the TAZs and TAZs data were summarized by incorporated and
unincorporated areas. Since TAZs boundaries do not follow current city limits, the summary
results include incorporated jurisdictional boundary plus some surrounding land. Figure 19
displays the jurisdictional areas from which population and employment summary tables were
generated.
Department of Economic Security (DES) 2025 forecasts for Pinal County and the incorporated
jurisdictions based on the 2000 Census data for the area were not available. The 2005
Pinal County August 2006
Small Area Transportation Study
Kirkham Michael Consulting Engineers Page 48
population data was based on a set of databases including: 2000 US Census data, data
developed for the ADOT Pinal Corridors Studies, 2005 Casa Grande data developed by Wilson
& Associates, the currently built planned area developments (PADs) provided by Pinal County,
SRP and CAAG data, and the 2005 projection data from the 2000 Pinal County Transportation
Plan. Table 18 shows a comparison between the 2005 and the 2025 population and dwelling
units data while Figure 20 and Figure 21 depicts the 2005 and the 2025 population density by
TAZ respectively. The County population is expected to grow 688% percent in the next 20
years to an approximate population of 1,954,016 people. Areas of substantial population
growth include Eloy, City of Maricopa, Casa Grande, Coolidge, and Florence. Also the
Saddlebrook area in southern Pinal County will grow extensively.
Table 18: 2005 and 2025 Population
Study Area
2005
Population
2025
Population
Population
Increase
Percent
Growth
Western 94,024 789,761 695,737 739.96%
North Central 121,871 884,202 762,331 625.52%
Eastern 32,212 280,053 247,841 769.41%
Countywide 248,107 1,954,016 1,705,909 687.57%
Figure 19: Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) Jurisdictional Areas
Page 49
\
Figure 20: 2005 Population Density (per Square Mile)
Page 50
Figure 21: 2025 Population Density (per Square Mile)
Page 51
Pinal County August 2006
Small Area Transportation Study
Kirkham Michael Consulting Engineers Page 52
3.1.2 Economic Overview
Limited detailed data is currently available regarding the future commercial growth in Pinal
County. It must also be noted that more data is available for the northern portion of the
County, then the southern portion. Available PAD data was used to augment the employment
projections developed in the Pinal Corridors Study for the northern portion, while updated
2020 employment projections from the 1999 Pinal County Transportation Plan were used to
develop the forecasted employment for the southern portion. Table 19 shows the comparison
of 2005 and 2025 employment by TAZ, while Figure 22 and Figure 23 depict the 2005 and
2025 employment densities for Pinal County. Although the employment in Pinal County is
expected to increase, it is expected to increase at a similar rate to the population. Therefore, the
employment to population ratio is expected to remain about the same. The employment to
population ratio is approximately 0.20 in 2005 and 0.23 in 2025. This is a relatively low ratio
compared to Maricopa County, which currently has an employment to population rate of
approximately 0.55.
The future growth trend exhibited in the 2025 projections could be seen as a reflection of the
growth of the Phoenix metropolitan area. Growth from the Phoenix area will “spill over” into
Pinal County, and the County will function as a “bedroom suburb” to the Phoenix area. A
percentage of Pinal County residents probably will commute to the Phoenix area to work.
Similarly, growth pressure from northern Pima County will spill over into Pinal County.
However, goods and services will be required by the residents, which will create jobs within the
County.
Table 19: 2005 and 2025 Employment
Study
Area
2005
Employment
2025
Employment
Employment
Increase
Percent
Growth
Western 21,977 259,706 237,729 1,081.72%
North Central 18,149 216,346 198,197 1,092.06%
Eastern 2,851 43,722 40,871 1,433.57%
Countywide 42,977 519,774 476,797 1,109.42%
Figure 22: 2005 Employment Density (per Square Mile)
Page 53
Figure 23: 2025 Employment Density (per Square Mile)
Page 54
Pinal County August 2006
Small Area Transportation Study
Kirkham Michael Consulting Engineers Page 55
3.2 FUTURE 2025 ROADWAY ANALYSIS
Before a future roadway network recommendation can be formed, the current Pinal County Travel
Demand Model must be calibrated and updated to a future 2025 network including number of
lanes, volumes, transportation analysis zones, socioeconomic data and calculated level of service.
3.2.1 2005 Calibrated Model
The calibrated Pinal County Travel Demand Model was utilized to forecast future traffic on
future roadway networks. The model was prepared using the TransCAD travel demand
software and calibrated with a 2005 roadway network, 2005 Transportation Analysis Zone
(TAZ) system, and 2005 socioeconomic data.
A preliminary 2005 roadway network was defined by updating the roadway networks in the
following model.
• The Pinal County Corridor Planning Model (PCPM) was developed for the northern
portion of Pinal County as part of the ADOT Corridor Definition studies.
• The remaining portions of the County’s roadway network were developed from the
2000 Pinal County Travel Demand Model.
Data was defined for each roadway in the network including functional classification, number of
lanes, speed, and capacity. The preliminary 2005 roadway network and characteristics were
then reviewed by the County and TAC and revised where necessary. Traffic count data
provided by ADOT and CAAG was also populated in the model roadway network.
Socioeconomic data for the year 2005 was updated from socioeconomic data for the Pinal
County Corridor Planning Model and 2000 Pinal County travel demand model. This data
included number of households and number of employees for commercial, office, general,
government and other land uses. General land uses include industrial and manufacturing.
Other land uses include schools and services. The preliminary socioeconomic data was
forwarded to the local jurisdictions and the County for review and updated where necessary
based on comments.
The 2005 socioeconomic and roadway network data was used in the TransCAD travel demand
model to generate vehicle trips and assign 2005 daily traffic volumes to roadway segments on
the network.
Table 20 presents estimated daily traffic volumes and levels of service for the years 2005 and
2025 on selected roadway segments. As the table indicates, traffic volumes increase significantly
on all roadway segments as the County grows from approximately 248,000 people to almost 2
million in population. Mid-block roadway segment LOS is dependent upon traffic volumes and
number of lanes. The table also shows the deterioration of the level of service for all segments in
2025.
3.2.2 2025 Base Roadway Network
As previously discussed in Section 4.1.1, the 2025 roadway network was created by updating
the 2005 model network with roadway improvements from Pinal County and ADOT. The
2025 network also includes additional arterial improvements from the Apache Junction Small
Pinal County August 2006
Small Area Transportation Study
Kirkham Michael Consulting Engineers Page 56
Area Transportation Study, City of Maricopa Small Area Transportation Study and preliminary
Casa Grande Small Area Transportation Study. Data was defined for each roadway in the
2025 network including functional classification, number of lanes, speed, and capacity. The
preliminary 2025 roadway network and characteristics were then reviewed by the County and
revised where necessary. This network will constitute the base 2025 future network, which will
be used to begin the deficiency identification process and help in formulating alternatives to
address travel demand. Figure 24 and Figure 25 display the 2025 roadway network number of
lanes and functional classification respectively.
As Table 20 shows, many of Pinal County’s major roadways are currently operating
adequately. However, roadways like Ironwood and Hunt Highway are currently operating at
LOS F and are in need of capacity improvements. It should be noted that Pinal County is
currently improving Ironwood Road. Comparing the 2005 and 2025 volumes and level of
service shows that most of Pinal County’s roadway system will operate at LOS F by 2025 if
regional and local circulation issues are not addressed.
Table 20: 2005 & 2025 Daily Traffic Volumes and LOS
Road Area 2005 2025
Volume LOS Volume LOS
SR 347 South of Papago Road 11,100 A 87,800 F
SR 347 Smith-Enke Road to Bapchule Road 23,100 D 69,300 F
Maricopa–Casa
Grande Hwy
East of 347 7,600 B 106,500 F
SR 84 Montgomery Road to Anderson Road 3,700 A 62,900 F
I-8 Thornton Road to Montgomery Road 9,000 A 180,000 F
SR 84 I-10 to Peart Road 23,800 E 94,800 F
SR 84 I-10 to Overfield Road 11,900 E 97,900 F
I-10 SR 287 to Selma Highway 51,000 C 201,000 F
I-10 Sacaton Road to SR 187 51,000 B 169,000 F
SR 87 North of SR 287 7,300 D 51,500 F
I-10 Picacho Hwy to Park Link Drive 44,300 B 181,000 F
SR 87 SR 387 to Signal Peak Road 7,600 E 55,900 F
SR 287 East of SR 87 10,500 E 64,000 F
Coolidge Avenue East of SR 87 6,700 D 99,300 F
Florence Boulevard South of Hunt Highway 10,000 D 83,000 F
SR 79 North of SR 77 Junction 5,000 A 82,400 F
SR 77 South of SR 79 Junction 10,100 A 138,200 F
SR 77 North of SR 79 Junction 9,400 C 87,900 F
Hunt Highway Skyline Drive to Bella Vista Road 27,200 F 100,500 F
Skyline Drive Schnepf Road to Quail Run Road N/A N/A 77,800 F
SR 79 North of Combs Road 8,400 B 50,400 F
US 60 East of SR 79 Junction 11,600 E 78,000 F
US 60 West of SR 79 Junction 23,000 C 58,600 F
US 60 North of Golden Rim Circle 33,200 D 51,900 F
Ironwood Road North of Pecos 19,000 F 64,700 F
Idaho Road North of Pecos N/A N/A 76,100 F
Pinal County August 2006
Small Area Transportation Study
Kirkham Michael Consulting Engineers Page 57
Functional Classification and/or Re-classification
Functional Classification dictates the design of the road and how much traffic it can handle.
As an area builds, the functional classification can change based on redesign of the roadway.
Procedures must be followed when changing the functional classification of a rural or urban
roadway. Per the 1991 Intermodal Surface Transportation Act, FHWA has guidelines that
proportionally classify roadways based on total rural mileage and total urban mileage. The
FHWA guidelines denote 85-95% of total rural mileage as rural collector and local road
systems. Rural arterial systems fall within 6-12% of total rural mileage. The FHWA guidelines
suggest that 7-10% of total state mileage be used for rural roadway systems. Per the FHWA
guidelines, urban roadway systems should contain 70-90% of urban collector and local
street systems combined. Table 21 shows the breakdown by percentage in regards to the
FHWA guidelines for both urban and rural roadways. Ultimately, all urban areas should
strive to meet these guidelines. Figure 24 illustrates the functional classification for the 2025
Pinal County base network.
Table 21: FHWA Guidelines for Rural and Urban Systems
Rural System Percentage of
Total Rural Mileage (%)
Principal Arterial System 2% - 4%
Principal plus minor arterial System 6% - 12%
Collector Street System 20% - 25%
Local Street System 65% - 75%
Urban System Percentage of
Total Rural Mileage (%)
Principal Arterial System 5% - 10%
Principal plus minor arterial System 15% - 25%
Collector Street System 5% - 10%
Local Street System 65% - 80%
Urban/Rural Design
Even with a designated functional classification, a roadway can be redesigned based on
surrounding development. If the area doesn’t plan on building out anytime soon, it can
be designated using a rural design. If the area is being planned for a good majority of
traffic from the start, it can be designed on an urban scale. If the roadway was already
designed as rural and needs to be updated, it can be widened to fit urban standards using
the Functional Classification Cross Sections illustrated in Section 2.2.1.
Number of lanes and traffic control
Most of the streets within the Pinal County area are currently two-lane streets. As the area
develops, most of the rural streets will be widened to urban standards. Figure 25
illustrates the number of lanes per segment of roadway throughout the County for the
2025 base network. It should be noted that the lane designations for the freeways and
interstates are directional.
Pinal County August 2006
Small Area Transportation Study
Kirkham Michael Consulting Engineers Page 58
Surface Type
As the area continues to build, Pinal County’s roadway system will be updated to fully
paved, urbanized roadways. Improvements will be based on development of the area.
SR-79
Florence-Kelvin Hwy
Freeman Rd
Park Link Dr
Anderson Rd
Hunt Hwy
West Val Vista Rd
 
Tohono O'Odham
Indian Community
San Carlos
Indian Community
Tonto National Forest
Coronado
National
Forest
Gila River
Indian
Community
   I-10
   I-10
   I-8
tu87
tu
tu238
347
tu93
tu
tu87
287
tuOLD
84
tu
tu
tu
77
77
79
tu
tu88
60
tu60
tu79
tu60
tu177
tu177
Ak-Chin Indian
Community
tu347
tu387
tu187
tu84
tu287
Figure 24: 2025 Base Network Functional Classification
tu287
tu87
Legend
2025 Base Network
Functional Classification
Interstate
Freeway
Expressway
Principal Arterial
Minor Arterial
Major Collector
Minor Collector
City/Town Limits
Indian Communities
National Forest Area
Page 59
Florence-Kelvin Hwy
Freeman Rd
Park Link Dr
Anderson Rd
West Val Vista Rd
Hunt Hwy
Arizona Farms Rd
Ironwood Dr
 
Tohono O'Odham
Indian Community
San Carlos
Indian Community
Tonto National Forest
Coronado
National
Forest
Gila River
Indian
Community
   I-10
   I-10
   I-8
tu87
tu
tu238
347
tu93
tu
tu87
287
tu
tu
tu
77
77
79
tu
tu88
60
tu60
tu79
tu60
tu177
tu177
Ak-Chin Indian
Community
tu347
tu387
tu187
tu84
tu287
Figure 25: 2025 Base Network Number of Lanes
tu287
tu87
Legend
2025 Base Network
Number of Lanes
2 Lanes
4 Lanes
6 Lanes
City/Town Limits
Indian Communities
National Forest Area
Page 60
Pinal County August 2006
Small Area Transportation Study
Kirkham Michael Consulting Engineers Page 61
3.3 ROADWAY IMPROVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS
At the time of this study ADOT was conducting an evaluation of alternatives for a north-south
freeway corridor. Pinal County and the SAT's TAC established reasonable planning assumptions
based on conditions dated February 17th, 2006. The modeling scenarios are reflective of the
alternatives and conditions of that date.
3.3.1 Network Alternatives
The development of the roadway network alternatives were based on the results for the 2025
base future conditions described below. The 2025 future socioeconomic data, projecting a
population of approximately 1.97 million people, together with anticipated improvements from
Pinal County and ADOT, were used to generate the 2025 base forecasted traffic volumes. This
exercise helped in identifying the areas where travel supply was insufficient and to quantify the
magnitude of the travel demand. After reviewing the results, six alternatives were formulated.
Each alternative supported a scenario that offered varied locations of proposed freeways and
differing functional classifications within the County system. Detailed descriptions of the 2025
base and alternatives network scenarios follows.
While compiling the inventory of existing roads and reviewing traffic patterns within Pinal
County it was determined that there are many roads incomplete of regional connectivity.
Regional connectivity is a primary purpose for conducting Small Area Transportation Studies.
After consultation with the local cities, towns, and tribal communities, a two mile grid system of
north south and east west Regionally Significant Routes (RSR) were identified. For the purpose
of this study, Regionally Significant Routes are recommended as 6 lane principal arterial
roadways with 150 feet of right of way and work in concert with 4 lane minor arterial roadways
with 110 feet of right of way, as illustrated in Figure 26. Regionally Significant Routes, similar to
those illustrated on Figure 39, are depicted as straight lines and do not account for
existing/planned development, current roadway alignments or vertical structures and should not
be construed as centerline or roadway alignments. Pinal County will be working on further
defining Regionally Significant Routes.
Minor arterial roads on the one mile section lines were not modeled in this study. Estimated
levels of service and volume capacity ratios will improve once minor arterial roads are included
in future forecasting models.
2025 Base Network
As previously discussed in Section 3.2.2, the base network for 2025 was created by updating
the 2005 model network with roadway improvements from Pinal County and ADOT. The
improvements included committed and programmed jurisdictional improvements. The
ADOT freeways were not included in the 2025 base network given that ADOT had not
approved the freeway corridors when the 2025 base network was developed. The network
was then reviewed by Pinal County and revised where necessary. This network was the
starting point for the travel demand analysis and development of the transportation plan.
Alternative 1
Alternative 1 was based on the 2025 base network with the inclusion of the newly approved
ADOT freeway corridor alignments in Pinal County and additional improvements to state
Pinal County August 2006
Small Area Transportation Study
Kirkham Michael Consulting Engineers Page 62
highways and arterial streets in order to address travel demand. Both southern termini for
the North-South corridor freeway alignment, one to SR 287, the other to SR 79, were
included in this scenario. The continuation of the North-South corridor as a 4 lane arterial
from SR 287 to I-10 was also included. The freeway corridors were assumed to be 6 lane
facilities as were most of the arterial roadways proposed by the County. State Routes were
improved to 4 lanes with the exception of SR 79 south of Florence, SR 84 west of SR 387,
and US 60 from SR 79 junction to Pinal/Gila County line.
Alternative 2
Alternative 2 was built from Alternative 1 with the following modifications:
• Addition of all County Regionally Significant Roads, if not already included, as 6
lane arterial facilities.
• Improved US 60 from SR 79 junction to Pinal/Gila County Line to 6 lanes
• Improved SR 79 from SR 287 to Pinal/Pima County Line to 4 lanes
• Deletion of the proposed north-south freeway connection to SR 79 from Skyline
Drive and retention of the connection to SR 287
• Improve all other State Routes to 4 lanes
Alternative 3
Alternative 3 was built from Alternative 2 with the following modification:
• Addition of the proposed North-South freeway alignment connection to SR 79
from Skyline Drive and deletion of the connection to SR 287
Alternative 4
Alternative 4 was built from Alternative 2 with the following changes:
• Widen SR 347 from I-10 to SR 84 to 6 lanes
• Widen SR 287 from SR 79 to proposed North-South freeway to 6 lanes
• Widen SR 79 from SR 287 to Pinal/Pima County line to 6 lanes
Alternative 4B
Alternative 4B was built from Alternative 4 with the following changes:
• Widen SR 79 from US 60 to SR 287 to 6 lanes
Alternative 5
Alternative 5 was built from Alternative 1 with the following changes:
• Total deletion of the North-South freeway in the County and the deletion of the
east-west freeway connection of the North-South freeway with US 60/SR 79
Junction.
3.3.2 Recommended 2025 Alternative
At the time of this report, the ADOT proposed north-south freeway alignment has not been
determined. Alternative B, as shown on Figure 31, was used for modeling purposes. Revisions
to the recommended 2025 roadway network will be required if the proposed freeway alignment
is changed from Alternative B to Alternative A, per illustration on Figure 31.
Pinal County August 2006
Small Area Transportation Study
Kirkham Michael Consulting Engineers Page 63
Of the alternatives listed above in Section 3.3.1, Alternative 4B was determined to be the
network with the best resulting outcome. Alternative 4B proposes:
• All regionally significant routes (RSR) as 6 lane major arterial facilities
• All state highways as 4 lane roadways except for the following, listed below:
• Widen US 60 from SR 79 to Pinal/Gila County Line to 6 lanes
• Widen SR 347 from I-10 to SR 84 to 6 lanes
• Widen SR 287 from SR 79 to proposed North-South freeway to 6 lanes
• Widen SR 79 from US 60 to Pinal/Pima County line to 6 lanes
Alternative 4B’s functional classification, total lanes, level of service and volume to capacity
(V/C) ratio are illustrated in Figures 27-30.
Park Link Dr
Wheeler Rd
Arizona
Farms Rd
Skyline Dr
Gantzel Rd
Maricopa Casa Grande Hwy
Freeman Rd
Florence-Kelvin Hwy
Korsten Rd
Miller Rd
Arica Rd
Selma Hwy
Combs Rd
Hunt Hwy
Barkerville Rd
Barkerville Rd
Smith Enke
Murphy
Future State Hwy
Future
State
Hwy
 
Tohono O'Odham
Indian Community
Tonto National Forest
Coronado
National
Forest
Gila River
Indian
Community
   I-10
   I-10
   I-8
tu87
tu
tu238
347 tu93
tu
tu87
287
tu
tu
tu
77
77
79
tu
tu88
60
tu60
tu79
tu60
tu177
tu177
Ak-Chin Indian
Community
tu347
tu387
tu187
tu84
tu287 San Carlos
Indian Community
tu87
tu387
tu287
Figure 27: Recommended 2025 Alternative - Functional Classification Legend
Recommended 2025 Alternative
Functional Classification
Freeways
Interstate
Principal Arterial
Minor Arterial
Major Collector
Minor Collector
Collector
City/Town Limits
Indian Communities
National Forest Area
tu238
Page 65
Park Link Dr
Whee ler R d
Arizona
Farms Rd
Skyline Dr
Gantzel Rd
Maricopa Casa Grande Hwy
Freeman Rd
Florence-Kelvin Hwy
Korsten Rd
Miller Rd
Arica Rd
Selma Hwy
Combs Rd
Hunt Hwy
Barkerville Rd
Barkerville Rd
Smith Enke
Murphy
Future State Hwy
Future
State
Hwy
 
Tohono O'Odham
Indian Community
San Carlos
Indian Community
Tonto National Forest
Coronado
National
Forest
Gila River
Indian
Community
   I-10
   I-10
   I-8
tu87
tu
tu238
347 tu93
tu
tu87
287
tu
tu
tu
77
77
79
tu
tu88
60
tu60
tu79
tu60
tu177
tu177
Ak-Chin Indian
Community
tu347
tu387
tu187
tu84
tu287 tu87
Legend
Recommended 2025 Alternative
Total Lanes
2 Lanes
4 Lanes
6 Lanes
City/Town Limits
Indian Communities
National Forest Area
Figure 28: Recommended 2025 Alternative - Total Lanes
Page 66
tu238 tu287
Park Link Dr
Wheeler Rd
Arizona
Farms Rd
Skyline Dr
Gantzel Rd
Maricopa Casa Grande Hwy
Freeman Rd
Florence-Kelvin Hwy
Korsten Rd
Miller Rd
Arica Rd
Selma Hwy
Combs Rd
Hunt Hwy
Barkerville Rd
Barkerville Rd
Smith Enke
Murphy
Future State Hwy
Future
State
Hwy
 
Tohono O'Odham
Indian Community
San Carlos
Indian Community
Tonto National Forest
Coronado
National
Forest
Gila River
Indian
Community
   I-10
   I-10
   I-8
tu87
tu
tu238
347 tu93
tu
tu87
287
tu
tu
tu
77
77
79
tu
tu88
60
tu60
tu79
tu60
tu177
tu177
Ak-Chin Indian
Community
tu347
tu387
tu187
tu84
tu287 tu87
tu287
Legend
Recommended 2025 Alternative
Level of Service (LOS)
LOS A
LOS B
LOS C
LOS D
LOS E
LOS F
City/Town Limits
Indian Communities
National Forest Area
Figure 29: Recommended 2025 Alternative - Level of Service
Page 67
tu238
Maricopa-Casa Grande Hwy
Selma Hwy
Wheeler Rd
Florence-Kelvin Hwy
Hunt Hwy
Park Link
Murphy
Smith Enke
1
0.8
0
2
0.9
1.5
1.1
2.2
0.4
0.5 0.6
1.3
2.3
1.2
2.1
0.7
1.6
0.3
1.7
3.5
6.1
1.9
1.4
0.1
3.2
2.5
0.2
1.8
3.3
3.6
2.4
5.5
5.6
12.7
2.9
10.1
0.7
0.7
0.5
1
1.1
0.8
1
0.9
0.1
0.3
0.5
0.7
1.3
1
1
0.5
1.1
0.7
1.6
0.9
0.7
0.6
0.9
0.9
0.6
0.9
0.6
0.3
0.9
0.7
0.3
0.8
0.6
1.6
0.7
0.7
0.4
1.3
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.9
0.4
1.1
0.7
0.1
1
0.8
0.3
0.7
0.6
1.3 0.5
1.3
1.1
0.7
1.4
1.1
1
0.5 0.4
0.4
0.7
0.8
0.8
1.7
1.2
1.2
0.6
0.7
1
1.1 1.1
1.1
0.5
2
1
1
0.8
0.9
0.7
0
0.8
1.2
1.5
0.9
0.8
0.9
0.3
0.8
0.9
0.4
1.1 1
0.5
0.9
1
0.8
0.5
0.5
0.7
0.1
1.1
0.2
0.8
0.1
0.2
0.8
0.8
0.3
0.6
0.4
1.2
0.4
0.9
0.6
1
1.1
1.5
0.6
0.6
1.1
2.3
1.1
0.1
0.5
1
0.5
1.5
1.1
0.9
0.8
1.1
0.6
0.9
2
1.2
0.6
1.3 1
0.2
0.3
0.9
0.5
0.9
0.4
1
0.2
1
0.3
0.8
1
1
1.7
0.8
0.8
1
0.4
1.1
0.8 1
0.9
1.1
0
0.5
0.8
0.4
1.3
0.3
0
1.6
0.7
1.4
0.8
0.6
1.4
0.9
0.2
0.7
1.3
1.1
1
0.8
1
0.7
1.3
0.9
0.8
1
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.9
1.1
0.3
0.6
0.7
1.2
1
1.3
0.6
0.9
1.2
0.7
1
1
0.6
0.8
0.1
0.7
1.1
0.9
1.1
0.6
0.3
1
0.8
0.7
0.8
1
0.7
0.2
0.7
1.2
0.1
0.5
0.1
1.5
1
0.6
0.2
0.8
1.2
0.8
1
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.8
1
1.4
0.2
0.9
0.5
0.8
0.9
0.4
0.4
1.3
0.9
0
1.1
1
0.5
1.5
1
0.6
1.2
0.8
0.3
0.2
0
0.8
0.8
1
1.2
0.6
1.4
0.3
0.4
0.9 1
0.9
1.2
0.4
0.7
1
1.5
0.4
0.8
1.5
1
0.9
1.2
1.2
0.6
1.5
0.8
0.8
0.9
1.4
0.8
1.2
1
1
1
1
1.1 0.5
1.7
0.6
0.8
0.9
1.2
0.9
0.2
1.3
0.4
1.7
1.2
1
0.7
0.4
1.3
0.8
0.4
1.5
0.2
1.2
0.9
1
0.3
0.2
1.8
0.6
1.2
0.6
0.6
0.7
0.9
0.9
0.1
1.1
0.4
1.7
0.7
1.2
1.3
0.2
0.6
1.3
1.2
0.8
1.4
1.4
0.8
0.1
0.9
0.5
0.5
0.8
0.4
1.1
0.9
0.8
1
0.5
0.6
0.8
0.5
0.5
0.2
1
0.6
0.4
1.1
0.7
0.5
1
0.8
0.3
0.6
0.8
0.7
0.6
1
0.8
2
1
0.5
0.8
1.2
0.7
1.4
1
0.8
0.7
0.4
0.3
0.5
0.8
1
1.4
1.2
1 0.9
0
0.3
1.1
0.7
0.3
1
0.4
0.5
1.1
1.3
0.8
0.8
1
1.1
1.1
1
0.8
1
1
0.9
0.6
0.5
0.8
0.7
1.5
0.9
0.9
0.8
0.9
0.4
0.5
0.7
1.1
0.6
0.9
0.1
0.6
0.1
1.4
0.6
0.9
1
1.2
0.5
0.9
1
0.7
0.4
0.8
0.6
0.7
1.6
1
1
0.3
1.4
1.1
0.9
1.1
0.9
0.9
1
1
0.5
0.8
1.6
1.3
0.8
1
0.2
1.4
0.4
0.8
1.4
1.3
1
2.1
1.1
0.4 1
0.9
0
0.7
 
Tohono O'Odham
Indian Community
San Carlos
Indian Community
Tonto National Forest
Coronado
National
Forest
Gila River
Indian
Community
   I-10
   I-10
   I-8
tu87
tu
tu238
347 tu93
tu
tu87
287
tu
tu
tu
77
77
79
tu
tu88
60
tu60
tu79
tu60
tu177
tu177
Ak-Chin Indian
Community
tu347
tu387
tu187
tu84
tu287 tu87
tu287
Legend
Recommended 2025 Alternative
Volume to Capacity (V/C) Ratio
2 Lanes
4 Lanes
6 Lanes
City/Town Limits
Indian Communities
National Forest Area
X.X Volume to Capacity
Ratio
Figure 30: Recommended 2025 Alternative - Volume to Capacity (V/C) Ratio
Page 68
Pinal County August 2006
Small Area Transportation Study
Kirkham Michael Consulting Engineers Page 69
3.3.3 Proposed Freeway Alternatives
The proposed alternative of the new north-south freeway corridor has not yet been determined
by ADOT. ADOT has two possible alternatives that could be designed and constructed in the
future. Alternative A (Apache Junction to SR 79) and Alternative B (Apache Junction to
Coolidge) are illustrated in Figure 31.
Figure 32 shows the average daily traffic volumes surrounding each proposed freeway
alternative. Figure 33 illustrates the level of service surrounding each proposed freeway
alternative. For both freeway alternatives, the heaviest traffic demand in this area is in the
north-south direction.
Park Link Dr
Wheeler Rd
Arizona
Farms Rd
Skyline Dr
Gantzel Rd
Maricopa Casa Grande Hwy
Freeman Rd
Florence-Kelvin Hwy
Korsten Rd
Miller Rd
Arica Rd
Selma Hwy
Combs Rd
Hunt Hwy
Barkerville Rd
Barkerville Rd
Smith Enke
Murphy
Future State Hwy
Future
State
Hwy
±
Tohono O'Odham
Indian Community
Tonto National Forest
Coronado
National
Forest
Gila River
Indian
Community
§¨¦I-10
§¨¦I-10
§¨¦I-8
tu87
tu
tu238
347 tu93
tu
tu87
287
tu
tu
tu
77
77
79
tu
tu88
60
tu60
tu79
tu60
tu177
tu177
Ak-Chin Indian
Communitytu347
tu387
tu187
tu84
tu287
San Carlos
Indian Community
Figure 31: Proposed Freeway Alternatives:
Per ADOT Corridor Definition Study and February 18, 2006 ADOT Board Adoption
Page 70
ALTERNATIVE A
ALTERNATIVE B
tu87
tu287
Legend
Functional Classification
Freeways
Proposed Freeway
Interstate
Principal Arterial
Minor Arterial
Major Collector
Minor Collector
Collector
City/Town Limits
Indian Communities
National Forest Area
Future State Hwy
Future State Hwy
SR-79
Hunt Hwy
Skyline Dr
Combs Rd
SR-287
Bella Vista Rd
Gantzel Rd
Arizona Farms Rd
Christensen Rd
Schnepf Rd
Meridian Rd
Kenworthy Rd
Clemans-Felix Rd
Adamsville Rd
Quail Run Rd
Attaway Rd
Butte Rd
Judd Rd
Florence Blvd
Main St
Attaway Rd
9
11809
30817
90118 73157
31656
83495
65841
132788
28990
68176
124674
54686
3234
98409
12134
31520
16964
32428
24710
21402
72374
53833 56191
61138
136017
12409
87110
89887
26701 21462
72966 95753 102 175
47325
28484
116475
25888
41859
62263
28700
67152
53318
93474
118130
72936
97072
47872
46835
99204
55316
90942
61577
78123
31662
54692
45989
43197
56368
39486 44560
51136
43144
42589
86425
88774
52960
48707
60599
50739
37382
71073 64715
34582
27646
62485
56354
56752
65532
41498
40092
61369
45293
45511
47604
49498
6972
86354
82637 101120
17520
50265
78077
55174
47945
83514
31876
37831
56641
76087
69002
36851
42316
105976
38184
48553
44919
101643
59449
73259
145821
42222
93523
43231
66622
52389
47756
58721
51464
52359
51345
40166
82359
77399
44115
70268
114928
40209
132271
tu79
tu287
Future State Hwy
32934
11
16342
37345
61555 80855
28685
7190
151352
53522
38369
5010
132529
70489
32604
20991 17266
65590
20175
20480
26208
136594
139018
56033
62674
58440
32582
136294
32489
77912
88007
749 20
30424
48264
25069
56383
28572
46963
81073
125321
46263
120194
28907
62340
40700
71238
41144
69469
63639
77725
45263
72862
69087
70866
41798
35764
59172
53204
62165
50857
59493
61957
31895
52896
37104 44567
54449
40097
52147
83833
56351
29804
42874
51107
65855
48711
38358
40853
80490
77342
49759
46667
57412
33160
46402
43791
67129 58933
34744
31424
54396
39117
53238
48608
38471
59669
44819
42177
49833
7001
11495
74857
77738
47135
83734
77068
52209
85435
46685
72419
22782
35264
56553
67090
59962
47538
60152
46050
40136
64900
63541
74666
67645
37766
31481
47421
46828
52939
60015
40586
37867
53130
50164
50142
34987
77497
56586
46985
115866 78623
117114
56308
SR-79
Hunt Hwy
Skyline Dr
Combs Rd
SR-287
Bella Vista Rd
SR-87
Gantzel Rd
Ocotillo Rd
Arizona Farms Rd
Christensen Rd
Meridian Rd
Schnepf Rd
Kenworthy Rd
Clemans-Felix Rd
Quail Run Rd
Attaway Rd
Butte Rd
Judd Rd
Attaway Rd
Legend
Proposed Freeway Alternatives
on Recommended 2025 Network
Proposed Freeway
Principal Arterial
Minor Arterial
Major Collector
Minor Collector
Collector
City/Town Limits
Indian Communities
National Forest Area
XXXXX 2025 Average Daily
Traffic Volumes (ADT)  
tu79
tu287
Figure 32: 2025 Traffic Volumes For Proposed Freeway Alternatives
From Apache Junction to SR 79 From Apache Junction to Coolidge/SR 287
Alternative A
Alternative B
Page 71
Future State Hwy
SR-79
Hunt Hwy
Skyline Dr
Combs Rd
SR-287
Bella Vista Rd
Gantzel Rd
Arizona Farms Rd
Christensen Rd
Schnepf Rd
Meridian Rd
Kenworthy Rd
Clemans-Felix Rd
Adamsville Rd
Quail Run Rd
Attaway Rd
Butte Rd
Judd Rd
Florence Blvd
Main St
Attaway Rd
tu79
tu287
Future State Hwy
SR-79
Hunt Hwy
Skyline Dr
Combs Rd
SR-287
Bella Vista Rd
SR-87
Gantzel Rd
Ocotillo Rd
Arizona Farms Rd
Christensen Rd
Meridian Rd
Schnepf Rd
Kenworthy Rd
Clemans-Felix Rd
Adamsville Rd
Quail Run Rd
Attaway Rd
Butte Rd
Judd Rd
Diversion Dam Rd 5th St
Florence Blvd
Attaway Rd
Legend
Proposed Freeway Alternatives
with 2025 Level of Service on
Recommended 2025 Network
LOS A
LOS B
LOS C
LOS D
LOS E
LOS F
City/Town Limits
Indian Communities
National Forest Area  
tu79
tu287
Figure 33: 2025 Level of Service For Proposed Freeway Alternatives
From Apache Junction to SR 79 From Apache Junction to Coolidge/SR 287
Proposed Freeway
Alternative A
Alternative B
Page 72
Pinal County August 2006
Small Area Transportation Study
Kirkham Michael Consulting Engineers Page 73
3.3.4 Western Study Area
With population expansion occurring on a regional scale, an increase in traffic volumes in and
around the western study area will greatly increase regional travel time.
The study focused on regionally significant roads, not local circulation streets. The study
included arterials that were already in the earlier Pinal County model or the Corridor Definition
Study Model and did not add new one mile arterials. Additions of the one mile arterials or new
routes through tribal lands will greatly increase capacity on the transportation network.
It should be noted that the City of Maricopa roadway network has been included in the future
exhibits of this project. The City of Maricopa roadway network is based off the City of Maricopa
Small Area Transportation Study, 2005 and was obtained from Lima and Associates.
Many residents of the western study area work in Maricopa County, so there is a large demand
for mobility between the western study area and Maricopa County. SR 347 is the primary route
between the western study area and Maricopa County, so the demand on SR 347 will grow as
the population of the western study area continues to increase. The Gila River Indian
Community (GRIC) occupies a large area of land between western study area residents and
Maricopa County, so the addition of alternate routes to SR 347 would cross the Gila River
Indian Community. Any new routes across tribal lands must be approved by the Gila River
Indian Community. Therefore, in the traffic modeling for this project, no routes across any
tribal lands that do not exist today were included in the alternatives.
The Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) maintains a large traffic model for all of
Maricopa County. In order to determine an estimate the number of vehicles expected to utilize
Pinal County roads that extend into Maricopa County, projected external volumes from the
MAG traffic model were used. Since the traffic modeling shows SR 347 being over capacity in
2025, it is likely that the traffic demand for the route between the western study area and
Maricopa County is greater than the traffic volumes presented in this report. The addition of
capacity in this area would likely result in an increase in traffic volumes between the western
study area and Maricopa County.
The addition of commuter rail or bus services would also improve mobility within, to and from
the western study area. Concepts for rail and bus services are presented in the Transit Element
report for this project.
Figure 34 illustrates the resulting 2025 volumes for the western study area. Because of the lack
of connectivity between the surrounding communities within the western study area, the
Maricopa-Casa Grande Highway is expected to fail even after planned expansion to a six lane
roadway. Solutions to this problem include not only widening SR 347 to six lanes between SR
238 and I-10 but also adding roadway connections to the north and west and possibly
connecting I-8 to the Loop 303 in order to connect the western study area to west Maricopa
County. ADOT, Pinal County, City of Maricopa, Maricopa County and other surrounding
agencies should all be actively involved in solving this regional transportation issue.
232
40700
7
21932
21292
45832
61514 61586
21355
26961
35586
15319
52096 50997
41103
32934
31653
22652
31400
49260
56749
90524
6733
38569
38738
11
32172
49231
6
74020
43968
22424
7944
92960
33443
88163
30934
12
54326
48410
80084
52897
28731
8607
21175
16342
34680
12409
35396
72528
11196
45999
24820
19274
59209
10214
23700
37345
3497
7397
506