Statewide Transportation Planning Framework Working Paper #3 Scenarios and Evaluation Development

              Statewide Transportation Planning Framework
Central Arizona Regional Framework Study
Working Paper # 3
Scenarios and Evaluation Development
Prepared For:
Prepared By:
May 25, 2009
3- i May 2009
Table of Contents
3.1 SUMMARY ........................................................................................................... 1
3.2 MODELED REGIONAL ROADWAY NETWORK ............................................................. 3
Year 2005 Network ............................................................................................................. 3
Year 2030 Base ( Existing Plus Committed) Network ................................................................ 3
3.3 POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT DATA AND PROJECTIONS BY COUNTY ...................... 8
3.4 2005 CONGESTED ROADWAY SEGMENTS................................................................ 9
3.5 PROJECTED 2030 AND 2050 BASE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS ( BASE 2030 NETWORK) ..... 12
2030 Traffic Conditions ...................................................................................................... 12
2050 Traffic Conditions ...................................................................................................... 14
3.6 NON- CAPACITY- RELATED ROADWAY NEEDS ( 2008 TO 2030) .................................. 16
Critical Needs Definition ..................................................................................................... 16
SATS and Corridor Definition Studies ................................................................................... 16
Input from Stakeholders and Community Workshops ............................................................. 16
Summary ......................................................................................................................... 19
3.7 TRANSIT AND PASSENGER RAIL NEEDS ................................................................ 24
Existing and Committed Transit System ............................................................................... 24
Rural Transit Needs Study and Responses to Executive Order 2007- 02 .................................... 24
Recent SATS and Local or Regional Transit Studies ................................................................ 25
Transit Propensity Analysis ................................................................................................. 25
Input from Stakeholders and Community Workshops ............................................................. 30
Summary ......................................................................................................................... 31
3.8 CONCEPTUAL OVERVIEW OF LONG- RANGE SCENARIOS .......................................... 34
3.9 ELEMENTS OF REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION SCENARIOS ....................................... 36
Definitions of Improvement Categories ................................................................................. 37
Scenario A Improvements .................................................................................................. 38
Scenario B Improvements .................................................................................................. 41
Scenario C Improvements .................................................................................................. 44
Summary ......................................................................................................................... 46
Quantities for Cost Estimation by Scenario ........................................................................... 51
3.10 EVALUATION OF SCENARIOS ......................................................................... 53
Planning Factors, Goals, Criteria and How Measured .............................................................. 53
Evaluation Matrix and Results ............................................................................................. 54
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 66
3.11 PHASING AND POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ALL SCENARIOS ..................... 67
Potential Phasing of Improvements: I ( 2010- 2020), II ( 2021- 2030), III ( 2031- 2050) ............... 68
General Policies and Issues ................................................................................................. 84
3- ii May 2009
Pedestrians and Bicycles .................................................................................................... 85
Freight Transportation ........................................................................................................ 86
List of Figures
Figure 3- 1 Roadway Network, Year 2005 ....................................................................... 4
Figure 3- 2 Year 2030 Base Roadway Network ................................................................ 5
Figure 3- 3 Volume/ Capacity across Selected Cut- Lines, Year 2005 ................................. 11
Figure 3- 4, Volume/ Capacity across Selected Cut- Lines, Year 2030 ................................ 13
Figure 3- 5 Volume/ Capacity across Selected Cut- Lines, Year 2050 ................................. 15
Figure 3- 6 Transit Propensity, Year 2050, Gila County .................................................. 27
Figure 3- 7 Transit Propensity, Year 2050, Pinal County ................................................. 28
Figure 3- 8 Transit Propensity, Year 2030, Pinal County ................................................. 29
Figure 3- 9 Scenario A Improvements .......................................................................... 40
Figure 3- 10 Scenario B Improvements ........................................................................ 43
Figure 3- 11 Scenario C Improvements ........................................................................ 45
List of Tables
Table 3.1 Programmed Short- Term Roadway Improvements ........................................... 6
Table 3.2 Estimated Population and Employment by County ............................................ 9
Table 3.3 Non- Capacity- Related Roadway Needs .......................................................... 20
Table 3.4 Transit and Passenger Rail Needs ................................................................. 32
Table 3.5 Improvements in Multimodal Transportation Scenarios ................................... 46
Table 3.6 Quantities for Estimating Cost of Roadway and Transit/ Rail Elements .............. 51
Table 3.7 Planning Factors, Goals, Evaluation Criteria and How Measured ....................... 55
Table 3.8 Evaluation of Regional, Multimodal Transportation Alternatives,
Year 2050 Central Region ............................................................................ 59
Table 3.9 Proposed Phasing of Scenario A, 2010- 2050 .................................................. 69
Table 3.10 Proposed Phasing of Scenario B, 2010- 2050 ................................................ 74
Table 3.11 Proposed Phasing of Scenario C, 2010- 2050 ................................................ 79
Appendix ( Under Separate Cover)
A RTAT, Community and Stakeholder Input
3- 1 May 2009
3.1 SUMMARY
The Arizona Department of Transportation, in collaboration with regional transportation
planning entities, local jurisdictions, and stakeholders across Arizona, has developed a
series of regional transportation framework studies:
• Eastern Regional Framework Study
• Western Regional Framework Study
• Northern Regional Framework Study
• Central Regional Framework Study ( which covered roughly the eastern two- thirds of
Pinal County and a portion of western Gila County, including Globe/ Miami)
The regional transportation framework studies will provide input into a Statewide
Transportation Planning Framework. The Statewide Framework, in turn, will present a
comprehensive, multimodal transportation vision for the year 2050 as input to the State
Long- Range Transportation Plan due in 2010.
Each regional transportation framework study developed three multimodal transportation
scenarios in the context of environmental, commercial transportation, economic
development, and Smart Growth considerations. These scenarios are:
• Scenario A – Personal Vehicle Mobility
• Scenario B – Transit Mobility
• Scenario C – Focused Growth
Each of the three scenarios builds on “ baseline conditions,†which include projects in the
current ADOT five- year program, local and regional capital improvement programs ( CIP),
and transportation improvement programs ( TIP).
Scenario A – Personal Vehicle Mobility
Scenario A assumes a continuation of the existing approach of focusing on transportation
solutions ( primarily roadways) that assume that people will continue to drive their cars as
the primary mode of transportation. This scenario was designed to be consistent with
existing long- range land use plans of cities, towns and counties. It also assumes that
vehicle technologies with clean and affordable fuels will become pervasive.
In the Central region, Scenario A includes widening and improvements to existing roadways
as well as new roadways and high- capacity corridors. Examples include widening of I- 10 to
five lanes in each direction, construction of the proposed North- South Freeway from Eloy to
Apache Junction, and construction of a new north- south corridor extending from Red Rock
to Florence and connecting to existing SR 79 north of Florence. Scenario A also includes
implementation of the Pinal County Regionally Significant Routes. Transit improvements in
Scenario A include express buses along freeway corridors, local transit and circulator service
in urbanized areas, and intercity buses On US 60 west of Globe and on SR77 south of Oracle
Junction.
Scenario B – Transit Mobility
Scenario B assumes a considerable shift from personal vehicles to public transit, walking,
and bicycling. These modes will become more prevalent choices largely in response to
increasing fuel costs. However, this scenario also includes significant roadway
3- 2 May 2009
improvements. Like Scenario A, Scenario B was designed to be consistent with existing
long- range land use plans of local jurisdictions.
In the Central region, Scenario B includes roadways consistent with the Pinal County
Regionally Significant Routes Plan, improvements to existing roadways and new roadways
and high- capacity corridors. However, several new roadways that are depicted as freeways
in Scenario A have been downgraded to Arizona parkways in Scenario B. Transit
improvements in Scenario B include passenger rail between Phoenix and Tucson, express
bus service, and local transit and circulator service in urbanized areas. Intercity bus service
is significantly expanded from Scenario A.
Scenario C – Focused Growth
Transportation improvements in Scenario C were developed under the premise that a
substantial shift from personal vehicles to local travel using transit, bicycling, and walking
will occur between now and 2050. This scenario assumes a growing trend toward a less
auto dependent lifestyle that encourages a mix of land uses located closer to one another—
and therefore, shorter trips. Transportation improvements in Scenario C encourage denser
growth patterns in towns and cities under Smart Growth principles. Thus, unlike the first
two scenarios, Scenario C envisions future land use that differs from existing long- range
plans. Scenario C combines a mix of technology improvements, increased public transit
use, and increased walking and bicycling. This scenario includes significant transit and
passenger rail service as well as roadway improvements.
In the Central region, Scenario C supports directing future growth to urban corridors
( primarily located west of SR 79), while preserving open space and environmentally
sensitive areas east of SR 79. Scenario C includes fewer high- capacity highway and
freeway corridors. Instead, infrastructure investment is focused toward existing corridors,
such as improving I- 10 to five lanes in each direction.
Evaluation of Scenarios
The scenarios were evaluated using criteria that were developed to reflect framework goals
and objectives:
• Maximize mobility and access
• Maximize transportation and land use integration
• Minimize environmental and conservation impacts
• Maximize economic benefits
• Maintain and enhance safety
The evaluation of scenarios in the Central region demonstrated that:
• Scenario A provides the most personal vehicle mobility, with the least traffic delay and
congestion overall.
• Scenario B and C are most supportive of land use/ transportation integration.
• Scenario A is likely to have the greatest economic benefit to key industries.
• Scenario A has the highest number of access- controlled facilities, which provide a
significant safety benefit.
• Scenario C reduces greenhouse gas emissions the most, and A the least. On the other
hand, Scenario A yields the lowest vehicle hours of travel and hence the greatest energy
savings compared to the existing plus committed network.
• Scenario C has the greatest level of mobility choice overall.
3- 3 May 2009
3.2 MODELED REGIONAL ROADWAY NETWORK
This section provides an overview of the roadway networks that were modeled for the 2005
network and the 2030 Base ( existing and committed) network. Public transit, which was
not modeled in these framework studies, is discussed in subsequent sections.
Year 2005 Network
The year 2005 modeled roadway network includes freeways, state highways, and arterials
and major collectors. Minor collector and local streets are not analyzed in this study. Figure
3- 1 shows the existing roadway network in the study area, and identifies roadways included
in the 2005 Statewide Travel Demand Model.
Year 2030 Base ( Existing Plus Committed) Network
The 2030 Base network includes all 2005 roadways as well as committed projects that are
programmed ( funded) from the ADOT Five- Year TIP ( fiscal years 2008- 2011), the Central
Arizona Association of Governments Transportation Improvement Program, Fiscal Years
2008- 2012, and local TIPs and CIPs. Programmed projects include capacity, service, and
non- capacity roadway improvements. The 2030 Base network is shown in Figure 3- 2.
Table 3.1 lists the programmed short- term roadway improvements illustrated in Figure 3- 2.
The roadway improvements in the ADOT TIP include widening I- 10 to three through lanes in
each direction between I- 8 and the Picacho Peak traffic interchange. Other state projects
are programmed on SR 77, SR 79, US 60 and US 70. Table 3.1 also summarizes projects
from local TIPs and CIPs that were included in the 2030 Base network.
3- 4 May 2009
Figure 3- 1 Roadway Network, Year 2005
3- 5 May 2009
Figure 3- 2 Year 2030 Base Roadway Network
3- 6 May 2009
Table 3.1 Programmed Short- Term Roadway Improvements
Project Location Type of Work Year
Total
Cost
($ 000)
I- 10
Junction I- 8 to
Picacho Peak
interchange
Widen roadway 2010 $ 126,000
SR 77 Milepost ( MP)
145- MP 147
Roadway
construction
2008 $ 11,000
SR 79 MP 136.27
Install concrete
railroad crossing
surface
2008 $ 150
US 60
County Line-
Pinto Valley ( MP
236- 240)
Asphaltic
Rubberized Friction
Course and passing
lane
2008 $ 7,131
US 60
Pinto Valley
bridge– mine
turnoff
Design passing lane 2008 $ 300
US 60 Boyce Thompson
State Park
Construct road 2009 $ 1,400
US 60
Oak Flat- Devil's
Canyon
Construct
passing/ climbing
lane
2009 $ 6,250
US 60
Silver King
section
Reconstruct
roadway
2011 $ 15,000
US 70
Railroad
overpass to
junction SR 77
Design ( roadway
and railroad
structure)
2008 $ 340
US 70
Railroad
overpass to
junction SR 77
Construct new
roadway & railroad
structure
2011 $ 4,250
Box culvert Palm Wash Construction 2009 $ 400
Pinal Avenue
/ Main St.
commercial
traffic bypass
Casa Grande Construct bypass
road
2008-
2012
$ 1,000
Attaway Rd Kleck Rd to SR
87
Road improvements 2008-
2011
$ 6,940
Curry Rd Pivotal to SR 87 Alignment 2007-
2008
$ 2,225
Eleven Mile
Corner Rd
Kleck Rd to
Bartlett Rd
Road improvements
2006-
2010
$ 2,740
3- 7 May 2009
Table 3.1 Programmed Short- Term Roadway Improvements ( cont.)
Project Location Type of Work Year
Total
Cost
($ 000)
Kenworth Rd Not available
( N/ A)
Reconstruction 2006-
2008
$ 575
Macrae Rd
Martin Rd to SR
87
Road improvements
2007-
2010
$ 8,580
Martin Rd
Arizona Blvd to
Picacho St Reconstruction 2008 $ 340
Martin Rd
Arizona Blvd to
Picacho St Design 2008 $ 60
Martin Rd Arizona Blvd to
9th St
Reconstruction 2009 $ 273
Signal Peak Rd
Val Vista Rd to
Randolph Rd
Roadway
improvement
2006-
2008
$ 4,120
Skousen Rd
Bartlett Rd to SR
87 Road improvements
2006-
2010 $ 5,380
Skousen Rd &
Martin Rd
Skousen Rd &
Martin Rd
Traffic signal 2008 $ 200
Woodruff Rd
Macrae Rd to
Overfield Rd
Roadway
improvement
2009-
2011
$ 6,340
Adamsville Rd ¾
mile extension to
Plant Road
N/ A Street extension 2012-
2013
$ 225
Diversion Dam Rd
improvements
N/ A Roadway
improvement
2008-
2009 $ 430
Felix Rd
Improvements
N/ A Roadway
improvement
2012-
2013 $ 1,320
Kelvin Hwy bridge
replacement
N/ A Bridge replacement 2008-
2011
$ 1,364
Main St Extension
Phase I
N/ A
Street extension
2010-
2012
$ 650
Main St Extension
Phases I- III
N/ A
Street extension
2008-
2016 $ 4,280
Plant Rd paving N/ A Pavement 2008 $ 300
Signalization for
streets
N/ A
Signalization
2009-
2014
$ 2,250
SR 287 & 79B SR 287 & 79B Reconstruction 2009 $ 625
SR 287 & 79B SR 287 & 79B
Roundabout/
intersection
improvement
2008-
2010 $ 1,900
3- 8 May 2009
Table 3.1 Programmed Short- Term Roadway Improvements ( cont.)
Project Location Type of Work Year
Total
Cost
($ 000)
Street
improvement
Phase I-Florence
N/ A
Street improvement
2008-
2010 $ 740
Street
improvement
Phases II– V,
Florence
Gardens
N/ A
Street improvement
2008-
2013 $ 2,163
Broadway/ Old
Oak Rd
US 60 to
Broadway and
Broadway from El
Camino east end
Reconstruction 2010 $ 575
Ice House
Canyon Rd
Jess Hayes Rd to
Kellner Canyon Rd
Reconstruction 2008 $ 625
Broad St Phase
III
N/ A Reconstruction 2012 $ 500
Gateway
Enhancement
Phase II
US 60/ 70 &
Oak/ Hill Streets
Intersection
improvements 2008 $ 260
Forest Ave to US 60 Reconstruction 2011 $ 214
Hunt Highway Attaway Rd Reconstruction 2009 $ 456
Sunland Gin Rd
Alsdorf Road to
Battaglia Dr Reconstruction 2011 $ 400
Combs Rd Meridian Rd to
Ironwood Rd
Reconstruction 2012 $ 470
Sossaman Rd South of Hunt Hwy Construction 2010 $ 450
Jesse Hayes Rd Jesse Hayes Rd Alignment/ widening 2008 $ 625
SR 77 multi-use
pathway
and
landscaping
MP 114.5 to Old
SR 77
Multi- use pathway
and landscaping
2008 $ 459
Sources: Arizona State Transportation Improvement Program ( STIP), Fiscal Years 2008- 2011, Central
Arizona Association of Governments Transportation Improvement Program, local capital improvement
programs
3.3 POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT DATA AND PROJECTIONS BY
COUNTY
Working closely with the ADOT management consultant, the Central study team compiled
population and employment estimates from the following sources:
• Pinal County Regionally Significant Routes Travel Demand Model, 2007
• Gila County Small Area Transportation Study, 2006
• Labor Force and Non- farm Employment 2005 ( Prepared in cooperation with the U. S.
Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, by State of Arizona, Department of
Commerce, Research Administration)
3- 9 May 2009
• Arizona Subcounty Population Projections, July 1, 2006 to July 1, 2055, by County,
Census County Division, Place, and Reservation ( Arizona Dept. of Economic Security
( DES), 12/ 01/ 06), Census 2000.
Sources of future year population and employment projections include:
• Gila County Small Area Transportation Study, 2006
• Gila County Comprehensive Plan, 2003
• Pinal County Regionally Significant Routes Travel Demand Model, 2007
• Pinal County Comprehensive Plan Amended 2007
• Arizona Subcounty Population Projections, July 1, 2006 to July 1, 2055, by County
• Census County Division, Place, and Reservation ( DES, 12/ 01/ 06)
Population and employment estimates by county, and by the area of the counties contained
in the Central framework study area, are shown in Table 3.2.
Table 3.2 Estimated Population and Employment by County
Population Employment
County 2005 2030 2050
%
change,
2030- 50
2005 2030 2050
%
change,
2030-
50
Pinal
County
Total
262,000 1,228,000 2,112,500 72% 45,000 600,000 1,045,000 74%
Pinal
County
portion in
CFS*
167,000 845,000 1,474,500 74% 24,000 402,000 705,000 75%
Gila
County
Total
52,000 64,000 73,000 14% 12,000 24,000 28,000 17%
Gila
County
portion in
CFS*
22,000 27,000 29,500 9% 3,000 13,000 15,000 15%
Regional
Total 189,000 872,000 1,504,000 72% 27,000 415,000 720,000 73%
Source: HDR, Inc.
* Portion of county in Central framework study area ( CFS)
3.4 2005 CONGESTED ROADWAY SEGMENTS
Figure 3- 3 displays statewide traffic conditions in the 2005 roadway network. The ADOT
management consultant used a statewide cut- line analysis to identify broad corridors that
operate under congested ( over- capacity) conditions. Three cut- lines— 4, 6 and 7— cross
major routes in the Central region. The modeled travel demand volumes on corridors
crossing the cut- lines were compared to the capacity of the corridors to develop a volume-to-
capacity ( V/ C) ratio. The V/ C ratios used to define the levels of congestion are:
• < 0.72 – Free Flow Conditions
• 0.72 to 0.89 – Moderate Congestion
• 0.90 to 1.0 – Severe Congestion
• > 1.0 – Extreme Congestion
3- 10 May 2009
Cut- line 4 crosses east– west routes in the southeast area of the state. In the Central region
it crosses US 60. In total, Cut- line 4 crosses roads that carried 46,000 vehicles per day ( as
of 2005). The capacity of these roads was 146,000 vehicles per day. The V/ C ratio of the
roads crossing this cut- line was therefore 46,000/ 146,000 or 0.32, indicating that the cut-line
roadways as a whole were under capacity.
Cut- line 6 crosses primarily north- south routes in Pinal County. In the Central region it
crosses SR 79, SR 87 and SR 287. In total, Cut- line 6 crosses roads that carried 105,000
vehicles per day. The capacity of these roads was 236,000 vehicles per day. The V/ C ratio of
the roads crossing this cut- line was 0.45, again indicating that the roads crossing the cut-line
were under capacity.
Cut- line 7 crosses primarily north- south routes between Pima County and Pinal County. In
the Central region it crosses I- 10, SR 79, and SR 77. In total, cut- line 7 crosses roads that
carried 45,000 vehicles per day in 2005, the majority of which ( nearly 40,000, according to
the Highway Performance Monitoring System) were on I- 10. The capacity of these roads is
147,000 vehicles per day. The V/ C ratio of the roads crossing this cut- line was 0.30,
indicating that the roads crossing this cut- line were under capacity.
Year 2005 traffic conditions are also shown graphically in Figure 3- 3. Regionally significant
roads in the Central region generally show free flow conditions or moderate congestion.
3- 11 May 2009
Figure 3- 3 Volume/ Capacity across Selected Cut- Lines, Year 2005
3- 12 May 2009
3.5 PROJECTED 2030 AND 2050 BASE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS
( BASE 2030 NETWORK)
This chapter discusses 2030 and 2050 Base traffic conditions, which are used as
tools to identify 2030 and 2050 needs for the Central regions and other regions.
Although 2050 is the planning horizon for this study, the interim horizon year of
2030 is used to help identify shorter- term transportation improvement priorities.
2030 Traffic Conditions
Figure 3- 4 displays forecast 2030 statewide traffic conditions for the 2030 Base
roadway network. As in Figure 3- 3 for 2005 conditions, a cut- line analysis was used
to indicate roadway corridors that are projected to be congested by 2030.
Cut- line 4 crosses roadways projected to carry 172,000 vehicles per day in 2030.
The collective capacity of these roads is 146,000 vehicles per day. The V/ C ratio of
the roads crossing this cut- line is therefore 1.18, indicating extreme congestion.
Cut- line 6 crosses roads facing a travel demand of 554,000 vehicles per day. The
daily capacity of these roads is 213,000. The V/ C ratio of roads crossing this cut- line
is 2.60, indicating extreme congestion.
Cut- line 7 crosses roads facing a demand of 449,000 vehicles per day. The capacity
of these roads is only 147,000 vehicles per day, resulting in a V/ C ratio of 3.05,
representing extreme congestion.
Figure 3- 4 shows projected 2030 traffic conditions on regionally significant roadways,
which will generally experience demand volumes exceeding capacity.
3- 13 May 2009
Figure 3- 4, Volume/ Capacity across Selected Cut- Lines, Year 2030
3- 14 May 2009
2050 Traffic Conditions
Figure 3- 5 displays forecast 2050 statewide traffic conditions on the Base roadway
network. The regionally significant roads across Cut- line 4 face a travel demand of
390,000 vehicles per day. The daily capacity of these roads is only 146,000,
resulting in a V/ C ratio of 2.67, indicating extreme congestion.
Cut- line 6 crosses roadways with a travel demand of 864,000 vehicles per day, but a
capacity of only 236,000. The V/ C ratio of the roads crossing this cut- line is 3.66,
again indicating extreme congestion.
The major roads across Cut- line 7 face a 2050 demand of 807,000 vehicles per day,
with a daily capacity of only 147,000. The V/ C ratio of the roads crossing this cut-line
was 5.49, indicating extreme congestion.
Figure 3- 4 shows projected 2050 traffic conditions on regionally significant roadways,
which will generally experience demand volumes exceeding capacity.
3- 15 May 2009
Figure 3- 5 Volume/ Capacity across Selected Cut- Lines, Year 2050
3- 16 May 2009
3.6 NON- CAPACITY- RELATED ROADWAY NEEDS ( 2008 TO
2030)
Non- capacity roadway needs were identified through small area transportation
studies, corridor definition studies, meetings with stakeholders, and input from
community workshops. Non- capacity roadway needs that were identified in the
statewide survey of critical needs, which served as input into the Statewide
Transportation Investment Strategy, are also documented. The following sections
provide a general overview of non- capacity roadway needs. Table 3.3 contains a
detailed list of non- capacity roadway needs.
Critical Needs Definition
The critical needs definition process, which ADOT completed in early 2008, identified
several non- capacity- related roadway needs. These were primarily in the areas of:
• Bridge replacement projects
• Bank protection
• Safety projects
• Bringing gravel roads in the Globe area up to air quality standards
Applicable projects in the Central Framework region are listed in Table 3.3.
SATS and Corridor Definition Studies
The Gila County Small Area Transportation Study ( October 2006) recommended the
following projects relating to non- capacity roadway needs:
• SR 288, Junction SR 188 to Young – Complete paving
Input from Stakeholders and Community Workshops
This study solicited input on roadway needs through an extensive program of
stakeholder meetings and workshops. These included community workshops, focus
groups, stakeholder meetings, a Regional Technical Advisory Committee, and
common interest group meetings. Needs identified from these public outreach
efforts are summarized in the following sections.
Community Workshops – March and November 2008
Community workshops were held in Florence and Globe on March 26 and 27, 2008.
Sixty persons attended the two workshops. A second round of workshops was held in
Globe and Coolidge on November 12 and 13, 2008. Fifty- three persons attended the
November workshops. Comments regarding non- capacity roadway needs included:
• Improved pedestrian crossings and sidewalks are needed in a number of areas,
including Casa Grande ( safe pedestrian crossings of I- 10 and I- 8), US 60 in
Superior, and Queen Creek, which is interested in improving trail connectivity.
Pedestrian and bicycle activities are of interest to the city of Globe, but terrain
and topography make it difficult and expensive to construct pedestrian facilities.
• A need was expressed to review evacuation routes for emergencies.
3- 17 May 2009
Focus Group and Stakeholder Meetings
Six focus group meetings were held in Florence and Globe on March 26 and 27,
2008. A total of 27 persons attended the six focus group meetings. In addition,
stakeholder interviews were conducted during February, 2008 with representatives of
the following agencies:
• City of Apache Junction
• City of Casa Grande
• City of Eloy
• Central Arizona Association of Governments ( CAAG)
• Pima Association of Governments ( PAG)
• Gila County
• Pima County
• Pinal County
• Town of Globe
• Town of Hayden
• Town of Kearny
• Town of Marana
• Town of Miami
• Town of Oro Valley
• Town of Queen Creek
• Town of Superior
• Gila River Indian Community
• Tohono O’odham Nation
Comments relating to non- capacity roadway needs were:
• Trucks - Crossings of railroads and rivers need to be improved to accommodate
commercial trucks. More truck stops and parking are needed. Truck traffic has
increased with the growth in mining operations. Truck traffic is an important
concern on US 60 and SR 77. In the summer months, many recreational vehicles
use SR 77 to access the reservoirs. Truck traffic is a concern in Miami.
• At- grade railroad crossings - At- grade railroad crossings need to be replaced with
grade separations. One comment expressed the need for an intermodal facility
( for example, near Picacho Peak) to take advantage of the existing railroad
infrastructure.
• Safety improvements – Stakeholders mentioned that safety improvements are
needed on SR 177 between Kearny and Hayden. They stated that SR 177 is the
only state highway with a 10 percent grade. Specific needs are left turn lanes
and passing lanes. Another safety need exists at the intersection of SR 177 and
SR 77, with improved signage a possible solution. All- terrain- vehicle crossings of
SR 177 are also an issue. Other safety issues include rock falls on SR 77. West
of Miami, the US 60/ Pinto Valley Mine Road intersection may potentially warrant
a traffic signal or interchange at this location. Speeding is a concern in Miami.
• Environmental concerns – A need was expressed for wildlife crossings to enhance
wildlife connectivity and movement, aesthetics, and coordination with the Arizona
Game and Fish Department and its Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation
Strategy.
• Air quality – Pinal County is in violation of PM10 standards more than 200 days
per year. Problem areas should be identified and improvements planned to
address them. Hayden and Winkelman have also been challenged by air quality
issues. Air quality ( notably PM10) issues are significant in Casa Grande. Several
3- 18 May 2009
stakeholders mentioned that paving of the Florence- Kelvin Highway would help to
improve air quality, and would also provide a reliever route to US 60 and SR 177.
This would connect population and employment centers in Florence to centers in
Hayden and Winkelman.
• Pedestrian and bicycle facilities – A common need identified throughout all
Central region communities was improved pedestrian facilities along and across
state highways. Specific needs include:
o Bicycle and pedestrian facilities on state highways. Sidewalks and
lighting on SR 177 between Hayden and Winkelman would improve
pedestrian safety. Hayden town staff mentioned that significant
pedestrian activity is associated with the San Carlos Apache Nation.
They also mentioned that school children walk along state highways
that have no sidewalks. Gila River Indian Community ( GRIC) staff
stated that they have observed an increasing number of cyclists on
state highways in their community. City of Globe staff mentioned a
need for bicycle and pedestrian facilities along US 60. However, they
recognize that the local topography, with many hills and ravines, make
it difficult to construct facilities.
o Trails and open space for use by pedestrians, cyclists, and equestrians,
particularly in the Queen Creek area.
o Pedestrian crossings over US 60 are needed in Superior.
o Safe pedestrian crossings of I- 10 and I- 8, particularly in the Casa
Grande area.
• Emergency management – A need to identify alternative routes to US 60
between Globe and Miami was raised as an emergency management concern,
since there are no alternatives between these cities. SR 77 between Globe and
Winkelman is a significant truck corridor. A large percentage of traffic on SR 77
is trucks originating from Miami and serving the mines. Many trucks carry
hazardous materials.
• Accessibility to human services – Improved roads and connectivity in eastern
Pinal County will improve access to medical care and human services. Many
residents must travel to Mesa and the East Valley ( in Maricopa County) to receive
medical care.
• Other non- capacity roadway needs - Other needs include storm water
management, and the need to combine road and utility corridors in order to
minimize potential environmental impacts.
Regional Technical Advisory Committee
A Regional Technical Advisory Committee ( RTAT) provided guidance throughout the
duration of the project. The RTAT consists of representatives from study area
jurisdictions, Indian communities, Maricopa Association of Governments ( MAG),
CAAG, PAG, ADOT, and the Federal Highway Administration ( FHWA). Four RTAT
meeting were held on March 6, 2008, June 12, 2008, October 22, 2008, and April 6,
2009.
Non- capacity roadway needs mentioned at the RTAT meetings included:
• Additional all- weather crossings of the Gila River.
• Infrastructure and policy to support freight traffic. I- 10 and SR 87 are major
freight corridors.
• Projects to facilitate emergency evacuation of urban areas.
3- 19 May 2009
Common Interest Group Workshops
Common interest group meetings were held to obtain input on the three alternative
transportation scenarios in March, 2009. Meetings were held with representatives
from across the state of the following groups:
• Tribal communities
• Natural resource agencies
• The development community
• Planning professionals
• Economic development
• Resource agencies
• Major freight users
• ADOT Communication and Community Partnerships ( CCP)
Although the focus of the meetings was on discussing the three scenarios at a
statewide level, there were numerous comments on non- capacity roadway needs in
the Central region:
• Trucks and freight – Consider dedicated truck lanes and truck- only facilities.
• Wildlife linkages - Show connectivity to wildlife areas. Show wildlife corridor
linkages and assess wildlife concerns. Habitat fragmentation is a key issue.
• Pedestrian crossings.
• Effect of roadway system improvements on air quality.
• Consider hazardous materials.
• Consider all- weather roads for medical transport.
• Access management – There is a need for a strong access management
policy/ plan.
Summary
Non- capacity- related roadway needs in the Central region include bridge replacement
and design projects on US 60, SR 88, and SR 188. These are listed in Table 3.3.
More general needs include projects to accommodate freight and trucks, additional
truck stops and parking, construction of grade- separated railroad crossings, safety
improvements, reducing particulate air pollution, wildlife crossings, and development
of emergency management and hazardous material routes.
Table 3.3 provides a detailed list of non- capacity- related roadway needs, other than
general concerns. Immediate needs are those considered to be needed in the next
five years ( before 2015).
3- 20 May 2009
Table 3.3 Non- Capacity- Related Roadway Needs
State Highway System
Route Location From To Summary of Need When Needed Source
US 60 MP 222.8 MP 222.8 MP 223.8 Bridge replacement 2015- 2030 Critical needs
US 60 MP 224.6 MP 224.6 MP 225.7 Bridge replacement 2015- 2030 Critical needs
US 60 MP 227.7 MP 227.7 MP 228.7 Queen Creek bridge replacement 2030- 2050 Critical needs
US 60 MP 229.5 MP 229.5 MP 230.5 Waterfall Canyon bridge
replacement
2015- 2030 Critical needs
US 60 MP 232.5 MP 232.5 MP 233.5 Devil’s Canyon bridge replacement 2015- 2030 Critical needs
US 60 MP 238.3 MP 238.3 MP 239.3 Pinto Creek bridge replacement 2030- 2050 Critical needs
US 60 MP 242.7 MP 242.7 MP 243.7 Bloody Tanks wash bridge
Replacement
2015- 2030 Critical needs
US 60 MP 243.7 MP 243.7 MP 244.7 Bloody Tanks bridge replacement Before 2015 Critical needs
US 60 MP 249.6 MP 249.6 MP 250.6 Pinal Creek bridge replacement 2030- 2050 Critical needs
US 60 MP 249.8 MP 249.8 MP 250.8 Pinal Creek bridge replacement Before 2015 Critical needs
US 60 MP 256.7 MP 256.7 MP 257.7 Quartzite Canyon bridge
replacement
Before 2030 Critical needs
US 60 MP 251.8 MP 251.8 MP 252.8 McMillen Wash bridge replacement 2015- 2030 Critical needs
US 60 N/ A N/ A N/ A Address safety and speeding issues Before 2015 Critical needs
US 60/ Pinto
Valley Mine
Road
Intersection N/ A N/ A Intersection improvements, possible
signalization
Before 2015 Community
and
stakeholders
US 70 N/ A N/ A N/ A Increase shoulder width, add turn
lanes and passing zone
improvement/ striping, bus stops,
truck traffic, and US70 bridge
widening improvements.
Before 2015 Critical needs
SR 77 Not specified N/ A N/ A Safety improvements to address
rock falls
Before 2015 Community
and
stakeholders
3- 21 May 2009
Table 3.3 Non- Capacity- Related Roadway Needs ( continued)
State Highway System
Route Location From To Summary of Need When Needed Source
SR 77/ SR 177 Intersection N/ A N/ A Safety improvements at intersection Before 2015 Community
and
stakeholders
SR 87 BIA
101/ Green
Valley Pkwy
N/ A N/ A Address safety issues at BIA
101/ Green Valley Pkwy including
traffic light crossing patterns,
striping, signage, driver sight
visibility, and
acceleration/ deceleration lanes.
Before 2015 Critical needs
SR 88 MP 213- 242 213 242 Update to current standards 2030- 2050 Critical needs
SR 88 223.5 223.5 224 Fish Creek bridge replacement Before 2015 Critical needs
SR 88 224.6 224.6 225.1 Lewis Pranty Creek bridge
replacement
Before 2015 Critical needs
SR 88 225.5 225.5 226 Dry Wash bridge replacement Before 2015 Critical needs
SR 88 231.7 231.7 232.2 Davis Wash bridge replacement 2015- 2030 Critical needs
SR 88 233.5 233.5 234 Pine Creek bridge replacement Before 2015 Critical needs
SR 188 242 242 243 Stewart Wash bank protection Before 2015 Critical needs
SR 288 260.4 260.4 261.4 Eads Wash bridge replacement 2015- 2030 Critical needs
SR 288 262.4 262.4 263.4 Salt River bridge replacement 2015- 2030 Critical needs
Unknown Not specified N/ A N/ A Address crash issues between SR
387/ 587
Before 2015 Critical needs
SR 347 Not specified N/ A N/ A Address traffic congestion and
zoning enforcement
Before 2015 Critical needs
SR 288 Junction SR
188 - Young
N/ A N/ A Complete paving Before 2015 Gila County
SATS
3- 22 May 2009
Table 3.3 Non- Capacity- Related Roadway Needs ( continued)
State Highway System
Route Location From To Summary of Need When Needed Source
1 10 and I 8 Casa Grande N/ A N/ A Address pedestrian crossing needs 2030- 2050 Community
and
Stakeholders
SR 177 Not specified N/ A N/ A Shoulder widening and guard rail,
and sidewalk
Before 2015 Community
and
Stakeholders
US 60 Superior N/ A N/ A Pedestrian crossing 2030- 2050 Community
and
Stakeholders
Other Principal Roadways
Route Location From To Summary of Need Timing Source
Price Rd/ Hunt
Hwy
Price
Rd/ Hunt Hwy
N/ A N/ A Dust complaints from unpaved
roads
Before 2015 Critical Needs
Elliot Rd Not specified N/ A N/ A Address traffic congestion Before 2015 Critical Needs
Florence-
Kelvin
Highway
Not specified N/ A N/ A Pave road Before 2015 Community
and
Stakeholders
Not specified Gila County,
Pinal County,
Apache Junction,
Casa Grande,
Coolidge,
Eloy, Florence,
Globe, Hayden,
Kearny,
Mammoth,
Marana, Miami,
Queen Creek,
Superior,
Winkelman, Gila
River Indian
Community,
Tohono O’odham
Nation
N/ A N/ A Local mobility projects and
programs
Before 2015 Statewide
Transportation
Investment
Strategy
3- 23 May 2009
Table 3.3 Non- Capacity- Related Roadway Needs ( continued)
State Highway System
Route Location From To Summary of Need When Needed Source
Not specified Gila County,
Pinal County,
Apache Junction,
Casa Grande,
Coolidge,
Eloy, Florence,
Globe, Hayden,
Kearny,
Mammoth,
Marana, Miami,
Queen Creek,
Superior,
Winkelman, Gila
River Indian
Community,
Tohono O’odham
Nation
N/ A N/ A Transportation enhancement and
walkable/ bikeable communities
Before 2015 Statewide
Transportation
Investment
Strategy
Sources: Statewide Transportation Investment Strategy, June 19, 2008
Critical Needs Definition
Gila County Small Area Transportation Study
Pinal County Small Area Transportation Study
Stakeholder and public involvement comments
3- 24 May 2009
3.7 TRANSIT AND PASSENGER RAIL NEEDS
This section documents public transit and passenger rail needs as identified through
the ADOT Rural Transit Needs Study, Responses to Executive Order 2007- 02, recent
SATS and local or regional transit studies, the Framework Transit Propensity
Analysis, and input from stakeholders and community workshops.
Table 3.4, located at the end of this section, contains a detailed list of transit and
passenger rail needs.
Existing and Committed Transit System
Existing and committed transit and rail passenger services were identified from the
FY 2007 Section 5311 Rural Public Transportation Program Annual Report, the Gila
County Small Area Transportation Study, and the Pinal County Small Area
Transportation Study.
Local transit services currently operating in the study area include the Cobre Valley
Community Transit Program in the Miami area and the Cotton Express in Coolidge.
Cobre Valley Community Transit program operates a demand responsive, curb- to-curb
service in Miami, Globe, and surrounding areas of unincorporated Gila County.
The Cotton Express deviated route bus system operates in Coolidge. Existing
intercity transit services include Greyhound Bus ( several daily trips on I- 10 between
Phoenix and Tucson) and Amtrak ( three weekly round trips between Los Angeles and
Chicago/ New Orleans, with a stop at Maricopa in Pinal County).
Short- and long- range transit improvements identified in SATS are primarily transit
and rail studies. A project to repair or rebuild ( freight) railroad crossings in Claypool,
between Miami and Globe, was also recommended.
Rural Transit Needs Study and Responses to Executive Order 2007-
02
In January 2007, Governor Napolitano issued Executive Order 2007- 02, “ Expanding
Arizona’s Transportation Options.†Recognizing that the state’s transportation
infrastructure was failing to keep pace with the fastest population growth in the
nation, the Governor directed ADOT “ to provide, within the next 90 days, a detailed
list of options for mass transit, commuter rail and/ or light rail to serve and connect
as efficiently as possible those Arizona communities for which such options would be
cost- effective. The report should include preliminary estimates of the cost of each
option; an assessment of whether and how the private sector could be encouraged to
offer or assist with each option and to the extent public money is required,
recommendations regarding how to finance each option.â€
The ADOT Public Transportation Division ( ADOT- PTD) responded to Executive Order
2007- 02 by reviewing existing reports and forming an Executive Order Working
Group, consisting of representatives of COGs, MPOs, and transit agencies/ providers
throughout the state. An extensive outreach effort included meetings with
stakeholders, interviews, and a tribal forum. ADOT- PTD encouraged public input
through eight public meetings and an on- line Rural Transit Needs Survey. In
addition, ADOT- PTD prepared a series of “ control sheets†that describe proposed
programs and projects from COGs, MPOs, transit agencies, and ADOT- PTD staff. The
3- 25 May 2009
documented transit needs in response to Executive Order 2007- 02 are summarized
in Table 3.4, along with other transit and rail needs identified for this study.
The Arizona Rural Transit Needs Study was completed in March 2008. Key findings
from this study were:
• New Section 5311 ( Rural Public Transportation Program) program services were
recommended in Pinal County ( Casa Grande, Eloy, Maricopa, Florence, Oracle,
San Manuel), Gila County ( Payson), the Gila River Indian Community ( in
Maricopa and Pinal counties), the White Mountain Apache Tribe ( in Apache, Gila,
and Navajo counties), and the San Carlos Apache Tribe ( in Gila, Graham, and
Pinal counties).
• Expanded 5311 services were recommended for Cotton Express in Coolidge ( Pinal
County).
• The highest- potential corridor locations in the Central region for new Section
5311 intercity transit services ( to connect rural communities with each other or
with urbanized areas) are located in Pinal County ( Casa Grande- Arizona City-
Eloy- Coolidge), Pinal- Maricopa Counties ( Coolidge/ Florence- Phoenix, Maricopa-
Tempe), and Gila- Maricopa Counties ( Miami- Superior- East Mesa, Payson- East
Mesa). Weekday transit service between Maricopa and Phoenix and between
Maricopa and Tempe was recently implemented.
Recent SATS and Local or Regional Transit Studies
Two rail studies were recommended by the Gila County Small Area Transportation
Study. One is a study of a permanent rail service between Miami, Globe and the
Apache Gold Casino ( referred to as the Copper Spike Rail study). The Arizona
Eastern Railroad has since initiated limited seasonal service between Globe and the
casino. The other study was to develop recommendations regarding rail crossing
improvements in the Claypool area.
The Pinal County Small Area Transportation Study recommends the establishment of
a community ridesharing program, which encourages the formation of carpools and
vanpools for commuters. Another recommendation is for a regional transit connector
service among Pinal County communities and between the Phoenix and Tucson
areas.
The Gila County Small Area Transportation Study recommends a regional bus service
study for the US 60/ US 70 corridor. A study to evaluate service expansion for the
Cobre Valley Community Transit service, also known as the Miami Dial- A- Ride
service, is also recommended.
Transit Propensity Analysis
The ADOT Framework Management Team completed a Transit Propensity Analysis
especially for the statewide frameworks. Transit propensity is a measure of potential
demand for transit service based on key socioeconomic variables. The recently
completed Arizona Rural Transit Needs Study used the Arkansas Public
Transportation Needs Assessment method to represent the demand for transit
service. The ADOT project team used a similar approach, employing methodology
from the national Transit Cooperative Research Program ( TCRP).
3- 26 May 2009
A key purpose of transit propensity analysis is to identify needs for local transit
service. At the framework planning level, it can be used as a guide to establish
corridors linking areas with high transit needs.
The ADOT project team prepared year 2030 and 2050 transit propensity analyses for
each State Transportation Analysis Zone using the population projections developed
previously. The TCRP transit propensity analysis method uses nine variables:
1) Population density;
2) Percent of population with mobility limitations;
3) Percent of population with employment disability;
4) Percent of population that is not " White, Non- Hispanic";
5) Percent of population that is female;
6) Percent of households with income under $ 20,000;
7) Percent of occupied housing units without an auto available;
8) Percent of workforce age 30 or younger; and
9) Percent of workforce age 65 or older.
These variables represent attributes that national studies identify as having a
relationship to transit patronage. Research that supports the methodology includes:
• TCRP Report 28: Transit Markets of the Future
• TCRP Report 3: Workbook for Estimating Demand for Rural Passenger
Transportation
• TCRP Report 27: Building Transit Ridership
The project team obtained data for these nine variables by block group for each
county in the central, eastern, northern and western regions of the state. These
variables were expanded based on the 2030 and 2050 population projections. The
project team assigned a weight to each variable, based primarily on findings in TCRP
Report 28.
Propensity is calculated as an index that shows the relative propensity of one block
group to the county as a whole. Ridership estimates can be considered as the
" demand†for transit services. Variables used to estimate ridership are the same as
the variables used for propensity.
Figure 3- 6 and Figure 3- 7 illustrate 2050 transit propensity estimates by county in
the region. Figure 3- 8 shows the 2030 transit propensity map for Pinal County, for
comparison purposes. ( Gila County has no major changes in transit propensity
forecast from 2030 to 2050.)
The 2050 transit propensity analysis showed an “ average†to “ low†transit propensity
in the Globe/ Miami area. The transit propensity in remaining portions of Gila County
is “ very low.†In eastern Pinal County, the 2030 and 2050 transit propensity is “ very
low,†while in western Pinal County it ranges from “ low†to “ high,†except in the Eloy
area, which has a “ very high†transit propensity.
3- 27 May 2009
Figure 3- 6 Transit Propensity, Year 2050, Gila County
Source: HDR, Inc.
3- 28 May 2009
Figure 3- 7 Transit Propensity, Year 2050, Pinal County
Source: HDR, Inc.
3- 29 May 2009
Figure 3- 8 Transit Propensity, Year 2030, Pinal County
Source: HDR, Inc.
3- 30 May 2009
Input from Stakeholders and Community Workshops
Community Workshops – April and November 2008
The study team for the Central Framework held an initial round of community
workshops in Florence and Globe on March 26th and 27th. Participants in both
community workshops mentioned the desire for local and regional bus systems as
well as regional/ commuter rail and light rail systems. A second round of community
workshops was held in Globe and Coolidge on November 12th and 13th, 2008.
Comments on rail and transit service needs in the Central region included:
• Rail service is needed to the Apache Junction area. An intercity rail service should
be developed to provide service to and from the Phoenix metropolitan area.
• Higher housing densities are needed to support mass transit and passenger rail
service. In order for transit to work, nodes of density will be required.
• By 2050, more alternatives will be needed for mass transportation. Roadway
connections between Arizona cities need to be balanced by mass transit, which
should be a major part of the transportation plan. In rural areas, transit will likely
consist of bus services. Rail connections may make sense for areas like Globe in
the long term.
• Transit is needed regardless of the recommended scenario.
Focus Group and Stakeholder Meetings
Many participants expressed a need for more transit service. Some specific needs
were:
• Provision of transit service locally and regionally, as well as a desire to creatively
approach these challenges ( example: Globe established dial- a- ride service using
other agencies’ vans during off- peak hours).
• Recognition that transit needs in Gila County are different from those in Pinal
County. For example, Globe once relied on Greyhound to carry transit–
dependent residents to Phoenix, primarily for medical trips.
• A transit system can be designed to connect to shopping destinations.
• Short- term transit improvements should be addressed.
• It would be helpful to loosen restrictions on vans purchased for social service
agencies.
• Apache Junction envisions bus rapid transit that would connect to light rail or
commuter rail.
• The town of Miami would like to participate with ADOT in a feasibility study of a
new fixed- route service.
• The city of Globe supports a transit service between Globe and Phoenix.
• Roadway improvements should be coordinated with transit improvements: e. g.,
the design and construction of the North- South Freeway corridor should preserve
right- of- way for future transit/ commuter rail.
• A number of services ( medical, grocery, etc.) are available in Kearny, but they
remain inaccessible to many residents of Hayden because of a lack of transit
service in the area.
• Pinal County has discussed the feasibility of implementing a transit corridor along
Hunt Highway. Right- of- way constraints are challenging in this corridor.
• Public transportation is needed on tribal lands.
• Regional transit is needed in the I- 10 corridor.
3- 31 May 2009
Rail
• Transporting light freight on light rail should be considered to generate revenue.
• Remove at- grade rail crossings and avoid new ones. The Union Pacific does not
want additional at- grade crossings.
• Expand the rail system to the mines. Passenger rail between Globe, Miami, and
Apache Gold Casino would be primarily a tourist attraction.
• A rail line could serve latent transit demand previously served by Greyhound
between Globe and Safford.
• Double- tracking and more sidings ( a short stretch of railroad track used to store
rolling stock or enable trains on the same line to pass) of the Union Pacific
Railroad are needed to foster economic development in the region and improve
rail access to industrial areas.
• Marana and Eloy support passenger rail between Tucson and Phoenix.
• The Queen Creek Town Council is very supportive of commuter rail.
Regional Technical Advisory Team
The RTAT supported the development of multimodal alternatives, including buses
and bus rapid transit.
Common Interest Group Workshops
Transit
• There is a need for good transit service at destinations once you have arrived via
commuter rail.
• Transit needs to tie into airports.
• There needs to be access to transit stops in tribal areas.
• Bus rapid transit along I- 10 to Casa Grande is needed.
• Provide good transit connections at destinations/ activity centers.
• The connection between Phoenix and Tucson needs good transit on both ends.
• Some rural areas are using school buses and community vehicles to provide
senior citizens with transit options.
• Transit through the GRIC to Casa Grande is needed.
• Expand bus services beyond community boundaries.
Rail
• Need for infrastructure to support rail at destinations.
• Need for rail transportation to and from major airports.
• Need to address environmental impacts, such as noise, of at- grade rail crossings.
• Passenger rail needs were mentioned along SR 87, along SR 347, and in the
Coolidge area.
Summary
Provision of transit service locally and regionally was a key need expressed by
stakeholders. Specific needs were identified for bus rapid transit in Apache Junction
( connecting to light rail or commuter rail), and in the I- 10 corridor. Stakeholders
mentioned needs for regional transit services between Tucson and Phoenix, the GRIC
and Casa Grande, Kearny and Hayden, and Globe and Phoenix. Local transit service
in Miami and within the Indian communities was also identified as a need.
3- 32 May 2009
Stakeholders in a number of communities mentioned a need for passenger rail to the
Apache Junction area, and intercity rail service to and from the Phoenix area.
Stakeholders also mentioned a need for rail services to and from Globe ( potential
services mentioned were Globe to Phoenix, Globe to Safford, and Globe to Miami and
the Apache Gold Casino). Table 3.4 summarizes identified transit and rail passenger
needs.
Table 3.4 Transit and Passenger Rail Needs
Location Summary of Need or Deficiency When Needed Source
Pinal County Connecting communities bus
transit program
2015- 2030 Investment
strategy
Enhancing public transportation
programs
2015- 2030 Investment
strategy
Transit serving elderly, persons
with disabilities and tribal
populations in rural areas
2015- 2030 Investment
strategy
Statewide vanpool and rideshare
programs
2015- 2030 Investment
strategy
Transit/ rail planning, marketing
and other related programs
2015- 2030 Investment
strategy
High speed urban- urban rail
connections/ commuter rail in
urban corridors
2015- 2030 Investment
strategy
Gila County Connecting communities bus
transit program
2015- 2030 Investment
strategy
Enhancing public transportation
programs
2015- 2030 Investment
strategy
Transit serving elderly, persons
with disabilities and tribal
populations in rural areas
2015- 2030 Investment
strategy
Statewide vanpool and rideshare
programs
2015- 2030 Investment
strategy
Transit/ rail planning, marketing
and other related programs
2015- 2030 Investment
strategy
Tohono O’odham
Nation
Public transportation in Tohono
O’odham Nation
Before 2015 Rural Needs
study
Tribal general public support Before 2015 Executive Order
responses
Section 5310 elderly and disabled
program funding
Before 2015 Executive Order
responses
Gila River Indian
Community
Tribal general public support Before 2015 Executive Order
responses
Section 5310 elderly and disabled
program funding
Before 2015 Executive Order
responses
Phoenix- Tucson Passenger rail service 2015- 2030 Transit
propensity
analysis
Casa Grande to
industrial park
Improved rail access to industrial
areas
Unspecified Community and
stakeholders
3- 33 May 2009
Table 3.4 Transit and Passenger Rail Needs ( continued)
Location Summary of Need or Deficiency When Needed Source
Pinal County Transit loop system that connects
cities within the county
Unspecified Community and
stakeholders
Kearny to
Hayden
Transit service ( buses, dial- a- ride) Unspecified Community and
stakeholders
Queen Creek A new transit route with shorter
headways and distance
Unspecified Community and
stakeholders
Apache Junction Potential bus rapid transit that
would connect to light
rail/ commuter rail
Unspecified Community and
stakeholders
North- South
Corridor
Preservation of right- of- way for a
future transit/ commuter rail
corridor
Unspecified Community and
stakeholders
Globe to Apache
Junction
A connector service to provide
access to areas with transit service
Unspecified Community and
stakeholders
SR 77, Tucson to
Oro Valley
Bus rapid transit or commuter rail
corridor
Unspecified Community and
stakeholders
US 60/ US 70
corridor
Regional bus service study for US
60/ US 70 corridor
Before 2015 The Gila County
Small Area
Transportation
study
Miami A study to evaluate service
expansion for Cobre Valley
Community Transit
Before 2015 Gila County
Small Area
Transportation
study
Claypool Study regarding rail crossing
improvements in the Claypool
area.
Before 2015 Gila County
Small Area
Transportation
study
Pinal County Community ridesharing program 2015- 2030 Pinal County
Small Area
Transportation
Study
Pinal
County/ Phoenix-
Tucson areas
Regional transit connector service
among Pinal County communities
and between the Phoenix and
Tucson areas
2015- 2030 Pinal County
Small Area
Transportation
study
Statewide Arizona statewide vanpool program Before 2015 Executive Order
responses
ADOT Globe,
Phoenix and
Prescott districts
Potential connectors – Section
5311 enhanced rural transit
Before 2015 Executive Order
responses
Section 5311 rural transit program
recipients
Before 2015 Executive Order
responses
Section 5310 elderly and disabled
program funding
Before 2015 Executive Order
responses
Statewide rideshare program Before 2015 Executive Order
responses
3- 34 May 2009
Table 3.4 Transit and Passenger Rail Needs ( continued)
Location Summary of Need or Deficiency When Needed Source
ADOT Globe,
Phoenix and
Prescott districts
( continued)
Rural media package Before 2015 Executive Order
responses
Statewide planning rural bus
service
Before 2015 Executive Order
responses
Amtrak– ADOT partnership
program
Before 2015 Executive Order
responses
ADOT Globe and
Tucson districts
Right- of- way purchase, inactive
and abandoned railroad lines
Before 2015 Executive Order
responses
ADOT Globe and
Phoenix districts
Graham/ Greenlee/ Gila/ Pinal
counties rural bus service
Before 2015 Executive Order
responses
Sources: Statewide Transportation Investment Strategy, June 19, 2008, Critical Needs Definition,
Gila County Small Area Transportation Study, Pinal County Small Area Transportation Study,
Stakeholder and Public Involvement comments
3.8 CONCEPTUAL OVERVIEW OF LONG- RANGE SCENARIOS
Approach
In the fall of 2008, the Statewide Framework study team identified three scenarios
for the long- term evolution of Arizona and its transportation system. The scenarios
were further developed after thirteen community workshops held in November 2008
throughout the four Arizona regions ( Central, Eastern, Northern and Western) that
collectively encompass the entire state except Maricopa County, Pima County and
western Pinal County. Each scenario reflects a different transportation future for
Arizona. The following characteristics apply to all three scenarios:
• All look ahead to 2050 and beyond.
• All assume that the future of transportation will be substantially different from
present conditions.
• All are multimodal, incorporating both roadways and public transportation.
• They include the principal locally controlled transportation facilities and services,
as well as those for which ADOT is responsible.
• Each has its own set of proposed improvement projects and programs within
each region.
• Each Regional Consultant team identified the improvements for all scenarios
within its framework region.
• Each regional team made extensive use of community input— especially from the
stakeholder interviews and the two sets of public workshops held in 2008— to
select the proposed improvements.
• In each region, some projects are common to two or more scenarios, while
others are unique to one scenario.
• Proposed projects in each regional scenario include selected improvements from
the Statewide Transportation Investment Strategy developed for ADOT and the
Governor’s Office in 2008.
• All scenarios involve phased implementation of the transportation improvements
over several decades.
• To show a seamless transportation system, the statewide management
consultant and the four regional consultants coordinated the elements of each
scenario across regional boundaries.
3- 35 May 2009
Arizona’s next century will be defined by how well growth and development occur
throughout the state. With the challenges facing Arizona come abundant
opportunities that can be exploited to improve its competitive position nationally and
globally. Arizona will nearly triple in population from approximately 6 million people
today to a projected 15 million in 2050. How and where this growth occurs will
impact infrastructure and service delivery as well as the state’s quality of life, by
focusing growth and preserving sensitive lands. Analyzing land ownership, resources,
development trends and growth projections, national demographers have identified
ten “ Megapolitan†regions throughout the country where the majority of growth will
occur in the future. The Arizona Sun Corridor Megapolitan region that stretches from
south of Tucson to north of Prescott covering much of central Arizona is one of these
identified regions. The Sun Corridor is anticipated to contain over 75% of Arizona’s
population on less than 25% of its land by 2050. Providing seamless connections to
the Sun Corridor area from the Central Framework region is one aspect of the
development of scenarios.
Scenario A: Personal Vehicle Mobility
This scenario is the closest to the status quo, insofar as it assumes that personal
vehicles will continue to be used for most trips in 2050 and beyond. It assumes that
alternative vehicle technologies ( i. e., fuels and engines other than traditional
gasoline and diesel) will be further developed and will gradually become pervasive in
the fleet. This technological progress will enable people to continue driving their own
vehicles affordably, with minimal harm to the environment and without excessive
emission of greenhouse gases. However, recognizing that existing public services
are inadequate, especially in rural areas of the state, the scenario calls for significant
transit investments beyond existing levels. Scenario A also assumes that long- range
land use and development patterns will be consistent with adopted local plans, such
as city and town general plans and county comprehensive plans.
Scenario B: Transit Mobility Emphasis
In contrast with Scenario A, this scenario assumes that automobiles and trucks will
continue to rely on fuels whose prices will continue to increase in the long run,
making personal vehicle use less affordable for many. While some technological
progress will occur, it will not counterbalance the rising cost of vehicle use and
ownership. As a result, demand for public transportation will increase dramatically,
so this scenario emphasizes extensive transit improvements to meet the growing
demand. Local, regional, and intercity services and facilities are included. It is
recognized; however, than under any scenario private vehicles will remain the
predominant form of transportation, especially in rural and small urban areas. Like
Scenario A, Scenario B assumes future consistency with existing local and
community plans. Unlike Scenario A, Scenario B envisions a notable reduction in
vehicle miles traveled.
Scenario C: Focused Growth
Like Scenario B, this third scenario assumes a mix of increased public transit use and
technological progress. Scenario C differs from the others in assuming that, where
appropriate, existing long- range plans will be modified to encourage and support
more intense land use in urban areas, with more compact development patterns and
3- 36 May 2009
greater emphasis on mixing compatible land uses. Current land use plans would not
change in many smaller and more rural communities.
These land use changes in some communities will cause not only a reduction in the
number of vehicle trips, but also a decline in average trip length. Some trips that
otherwise would have been made by motor vehicle will instead be accomplished by
walking or bicycling. This scenario envisions that cities, towns and counties will
gradually embrace Smart Growth principles. According to “ This Is Smart Growth,â€
published by the Smart Growth Network, these principles are:
• Mix land uses.
• Take advantage of compact building design.
• Create a range of housing opportunities and choices.
• Create walkable neighborhoods.
• Foster distinctive, attractive communities with a strong sense of place.
• Preserve open space, farmland, natural beauty, and critical environmental areas.
• Strengthen and direct development toward existing communities.
• Provide a variety of transportation choices.
• Make development decisions predictable, fair, and cost- effective.
• Encourage community and stakeholder collaboration in development decisions.
3.9 ELEMENTS OF REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION SCENARIOS
This section describes the specific transportation elements that were incorporated
into each of the three regional transportation scenarios for the Central Regional
Framework. These elements include:
Roadway Facility
• Freeway
• State Highway
• Arizona Parkway
• Principal Arterial ( other than state highway)
Roadway Improvement Types
• New Roadway
• Widen/ Upgrade Roadway
• Improved Roadway
• System and local service traffic interchanges
Transit Modes
• Local Transit Service
• Express Bus
• Intercity Bus
• Passenger Rail
Transit Facilities
• Transit Center
• High Occupancy Vehicle Lane
3- 37 May 2009
Definitions of Improvement Categories
Roadway Definitions
Freeway: A multilane highway with full access control and grade separations at all
crossing streets, designed to provide the highest possible capacity per lane mile.
State Highway: An existing Arizona state highway other than a freeway.
Arizona Parkway: A multilane highway with capacity ( per lane mile) less than a
freeway but more than a principal arterial. An Arizona parkway prohibits left turns at
signalized intersections, but instead accommodates these movements through a
combination of right turns and U- turns at strategically located median breaks. A
wide median ( typically 60 feet) is designed to allow ample storage capacity for turns
by large trucks. The typical right- of- way requirement for a six- lane parkway is 200
feet-- substantially less than the 300- foot freeway right- of- way.
Principal Arterial: The highest roadway functional classification other than a freeway
or Arizona parkway, designed to carry substantial volumes of through traffic at an
acceptable level of service. In urban areas, principal arterials typically have four or
more lanes and varying degrees of access management. Rural principal arterials
may be two- lane undivided highways.
Widen/ Upgrade Roadway: A roadway project that involves a substantial increase in
capacity to carry through traffic, usually by adding lanes over substantial distances.
Improved Roadway: A project that increases the safety and operational efficiency of
a roadway without adding through lanes over significant distances. Examples include
drainage improvements, passing or climbing lanes, shoulder widening and sight
distance enhancements.
Transit Definitions
Local Transit Service: Public transportation designed to accommodate relatively
short trips within a community or urbanized area. The most familiar type of fixed
route service typically operates linear routes on arterial or major collector streets,
with closely spaced bus stops. The community circulator is a specialized type of
fixed route that typically connects neighborhoods to nearby activity centers, where
riders may transfer to other routes. Community circulators often use small to
medium buses that operate in a loop; some will stop at any safe location. Demand
responsive service, often called dial- a- ride or reserve- a- ride, is a shared- ride service
that operates door to door on demand, with some advance notice required. In large
cities, this mode ( also called paratransit) usually serves seniors and those who are
unable to use the fixed route bus system, meeting requirements of the Americans
with Disabilities Act. In smaller communities, demand responsive service may be the
only type of public transportation available to the general public.
Express Bus: Bus service designed to transport commuters between their suburban
communities and a central business district ( or other large activity center) rapidly
and with a minimum of stops. This is typically a peak- period service, although some
large cities have express routes that operate throughout the day. Express buses
usually serve park- and- ride lots in the suburbs and use freeway high occupancy
3- 38 May 2009
vehicle ( HOV) lanes for as much of the trip as possible. This type of service currently
exists in the Phoenix and Tucson metropolitan areas.
Intercity Bus: Bus service that connects cities on a fixed route and schedule, usually
traveling through rural areas and often making several stops along the way.
Greyhound Lines, a private firm, is the largest provider of intercity bus service in the
U. S., but some public transit agencies are also in the intercity bus business.
Examples include the Navajo and Hopi Senom transit systems in northeastern
Arizona, and the Wickenburg and Gila Bend regional connectors in Maricopa County.
Buses often stop at one central location in each community, where connections to
local transit may be available.
Passenger Rail: Passenger- carrying trains that use conventional rail propulsion
technologies, such as diesel- electric locomotives. Tracks may or may not be shared
with freight operations. Commuter rail is often used to refer to relatively short- haul
service ( less than one hundred miles from one terminus to the other), with trains
stopping roughly every three to eight miles. Commuter rail service is sometimes,
but not always, limited to peak travel periods. Intercity rail ( provided by Amtrak in
the U. S.) typically operates over distances of one hundred miles or more, with
station stops every twenty to fifty miles. Intercity and commuter services often
share the same track.
A Transit Center is a stop or station at the junction of several routes or lines, or of
different modes of transportation. It may be located on- or off- street, and is
designed to handle the movement of transit vehicles and the boarding, alighting and
transfer of passengers between routes or modes. A variety of passenger amenities
may be available, including parking at some locations.
High Occupancy Vehicle ( HOV) Lanes are lanes on freeways ( and sometimes arterial
streets) that are reserved for the exclusive use of multi- occupant vehicles, including
transit buses, either all day or during designated peak hours. In metropolitan
Phoenix and elsewhere, motorcycles and alternative- fuel vehicles are also permitted
to use the lanes.
Scenario A Improvements
Sources for transportation improvements proposed in Scenario A, in addition to those
described earlier, include the Pinal County Regionally Significant Routes for Safety
and Mobility ( RSRSM) Study, ADOT corridor definitions studies, small area
transportation studies, and ADOT design concept reports. Figure 3- 9 illustrates this
scenario, which includes construction of nine new freeways to support forecast
transportation demand. This scenario also includes widening a number of state
highways, including sections of SR 79, SR 77, and US 60, and regionally significant
routes. New Arizona parkways included in Scenario A are Park Link Drive, Val Vista
Road and Selma Highway. These new and improved roadway facilities are proposed
primarily in the western part of the study area, where rapid growth is expected to
occur between now and 2050. Several of the new corridors proposed in Scenario A
are under consideration in Pinal County Regionally Significant Routes for Safety and
Mobility ( RSRSM) Study, ADOT corridor definitions studies, small area transportation
studies, and ADOT design concept reports. Scenarios A, B and C all propose five
lanes in each direction for I- 10 through Pinal County.
3- 39 May 2009
Transit improvements in Scenario A include fixed route and community circulator
transit service, as well as an intercity bus route between Globe and Apache Junction.
Key transportation elements in Scenario A include:
• Improve Existing Freeways
o Widen I- 10 to five lanes in each direction, including HOV lanes
• New Freeways
o North- South Freeway
o Williams Gateway Freeway
o North- South Freeway II ( new north- south freeway corridor that extends
from Red Rock to Florence and ultimately connects to SR 79)
o SR 79
o Western Parallel Corridor ( new freeway corridor that runs parallel to I- 10,
west of I- 10)
o Val Vista ( west of North- South Freeway)
o US 60 to Florence Junction
o US 60 Reroute ( reroute of US 60 from Apache Junction to Florence
Junction)
o SR 77 Reliever ( new freeway that extends from Oracle Junction southwest
to the Pinal/ Pima County line)
o High occupancy vehicles ( HOV) lanes along selected freeways, primarily in
the western portion of the region
• New Arizona Parkways
o Park Link Drive
o Val Vista Road, east of North- South Freeway
o Selma Highway, east of North- South Freeway
• New or Improved Arterials
o Regionally significant routes
o State highways
• New Transit Service
o Intercity bus ( Globe to Apache Junction)
o Fixed route, community circulator, and/ or dial- a- ride transit services in
ï‚  Oracle/ San Manuel/ Winkelman
ï‚  Hayden/ Kearny
ï‚  Superior
ï‚  Florence, Coolidge and Eloy
ï‚  Improvement and expansion of transit services in Globe and Miami
o Express bus service along freeway corridors and Hunt Highway ( Hunt
Highway express bus service may include transit improvements such as
bus preemption, queue jumper lanes, etc).
o Ten transit centers
These improvements are shown in Figure 3- 9.
3- 40 May 2009
Figure 3- 9 Scenario A Improvements
3- 41 May 2009
Scenario B Improvements
Many of the roadway improvements in Scenario B were derived from completed
studies including the RSRSM Study, ADOT corridor definition studies, small area
transportation studies, and ADOT design concept reports. However, consistent with
a vision that infrastructure investment would emphasize transit and rail
improvements, many of the new corridors are shown as Arizona parkways instead of
freeways. Examples include the SR 77 reliever and the “ Western I- 10 Parallel
Corridor,†which are freeways in Scenario A.
Major roadway improvements in Scenario B include widening I- 10 to five lanes in
each direction and construction of the North- South Freeway, the Williams Gateway
Freeway and the US 60 reroute. Scenario B also includes construction of seven
limited- access parkways.
Transit services in Scenario B include new and / or improved local transit service,
and intercity bus connecting many cities in the region. Express bus service would be
provided along freeway corridors and on Hunt Highway.
Passenger rail is an important component of Scenario B. The main north- south rail
line would be part of future intercity rail between Phoenix and Tucson. An east- west
connection to passenger rail service in the Hidden Valley area is shown. The
locations of rail service are shown for illustrative purposes only, and may change
based on results of the State Rail Framework and other future studies.
Key improvements proposed in Scenario B include:
• Improved Existing Freeways
o Widen I- 10 to five lanes in each direction, with HOV lanes
o High occupancy vehicles ( HOV) lanes along selected freeways, in the
western portion of the region
• New Freeways
o North- South Freeway
o Williams Gateway Freeway
o US 60 Reroute
• New Arizona Parkways
o North- South Freeway II ( north- south corridor extending from Red Rock to
Florence)
o Western Parallel Corridor ( located west of I- 10, running parallel to I- 10)
o Park Link Drive
o Val Vista, east of North- South Freeway
o Selma, east of North- South Freeway
o SR 77 Reliever ( extending from Oracle Junction southwest to the Pinal
County/ Pima County line)
• New or Improved Arterials
o Regionally significant routes
o State highways
• New Transit Service
o Local transit service ( fixed route, community circulator, and/ or dial- a- ride
transit service) in
- Oracle/ San Manuel/ Winkelman
- Hayden/ Kearny
- Superior
3- 42 May 2009
- Florence, Coolidge and Eloy
- Improvement and expansion of transit services in Globe and Miami
o Intercity bus would serve Oracle, Mammoth, Winkelman, Hayden, Kearny,
Superior, Miami, Globe, Apache Junction, Florence, Coolidge and Eloy.
o Express bus service along freeway corridors and Hunt Highway ( Hunt
Highway express bus, although not including HOV lanes, may include bus
preemption, queue jumper lanes, etc).
o Fourteen transit centers
• New Passenger Rail Service
o North- south rail line
o East- west connection to Hidden Valley area
These improvements are shown in Figure 3- 10.
3- 43 May 2009
Figure 3- 10 Scenario B Improvements
3- 44 May 2009
Scenario C Improvements
Scenario C concentrates major roadway improvements to western Pinal County,
preserving natural and sensitive areas located east of SR 79. All of the
transportation corridors proposed in Scenario C are on existing alignments or on
corridors proposed in the RSRSM Study.
In this scenario, it is envisioned that walkable and bikeable communities will become
prevalent. Communities such as Globe, Miami, Hayden, and Winkelman will benefit
from investment in pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure to facilitate walking non-motorized
transportation. Major development will focus around major transit
corridors, including passenger rail. Local transit service will be enhanced to support
passenger rail. Other transit modes, such as light rail, could be considered by 2050
in the most highly urbanized portions of the region.
This scenario includes a number of major roadway improvements, including widening
I- 10 to five lanes in each direction, construction of the new North- South Freeway,
and construction of three new Arizona parkways on Park Link Drive, Val Vista Road
and SR 287. Road improvements also include widening and construction of some
regionally significant routes located east of SR 79.
A summary of key transportation elements proposed in Scenario C are:
• Improved Existing Freeways
o Widen I- 10 to five lanes in each direction
o High occupancy vehicles ( HOV) lanes along selected freeways, in the
western portion of the region
• New North- South Freeway
• New Arizona Parkways
o Park Link Drive
o Val Vista, east of North- South Freeway
o SR 287, east of North- South Freeway
• New or Improved Arterials
o Regionally significant routes, primarily located west of SR 79
o State highways
• New Transit Service
o Local transit service ( fixed route, community circulator, and/ or dial- a- ride
transit service) in:
- Oracle/ San Manuel/ Winkelman
- Hayden/ Kearny
- Superior
- Improvement and expansion of transit services in Globe and Miami
- A “ focused growth area†with more intense local transit service
extending from I- 10 near Eloy north to Apache Junction, through
the Coolidge and Florence areas.
o Intercity bus service similar to Scenario B
o Express bus service similar to Scenario B
o Sixteen transit centers
• New Passenger Rail Service
o Similar to Scenario B
These improvements are shown in Figure 3- 11.
3- 45 May 2009
Figure 3- 11 Scenario C Improvements
3- 46 May 2009
Summary
Table 3.5 summarizes the transportation improvements proposed in each scenario.
Table 3.5 Improvements in Multimodal Transportation Scenarios
Description Location or Corridor Improvement
Length
( mi.)
Scenarios that
Include this
Improvement
A B C
Improvements to Existing Roadways
Freeway
improvements I- 10
Widen the existing 4-
lane freeway to a 10-
lane freeway
32.4 X X X
US- 60
Widen the existing 4-
lane freeway to a 6-
lane divided freeway
6.4 X X X
US- 60
Widen the existing 4-
lane freeway to a 6-
lane freeway
4.6 X X X
US- 60
Improve existing 4- lane
freeway ( shoulders,
passing lanes,
drainage, etc.)
0.4 X X X
Ironwood Dr Widen the existing 2-
lane highway to a 6-
lane divided freeway
0.6 X X X
SR- 79 37 X
SR- 77 9 X
State highway
improvements
US- 60 Widen the existing 4-
lane highway to a 6-
lane highway
4.3 X X X
SR- 79, south of
intersection with SR- 77
3.2 X X X
SR- 79
Widen the existing 2-
lane highway to a 6-
lane divided highway
60
( Scenario
A has
only 23.3)
X X X
SR- 287 3.5 X X X
US- 60 Widen the existing 2-
lane highway to a 4-
lane divided highway
37.9 X X X
SR- 87 39.4 X X X
SR- 88
4.8 X X X
SR- 77
37
( Scenario
A has
only 28)
X X X
SR- 177 35 X X X
SR- 287 22.4 X X X
SR- 387 2.7 X X X
US- 60 Improve the existing 4-
lane highway
( shoulders, passing
lanes, drainage, etc.)
1.5 X X X
US- 60, south of Apache
Junction 7 X X X
Ironwood Dr 2.5 X X X
US- 60 Improve the existing
2— lane corridor
( shoulders, passing
lanes, drainage, etc.)
25.6 X X X
US- 70 0.1 X X X
SR- 77 33 X X X
SR- 188 18 X X X
Arizona parkway
improvements
Park Link Dr
Widen the existing 2-
lane parkway to 6- lanes
18.9 X X X
Selma Hwy 9.2 X X X
Skyline Dr 2.0 X X X
3- 47 May 2009
Table 3.5 Improvements in Multimodal Transportation Scenarios
( continued)
Description Location or Corridor Improvement
Length
( mi.)
Scenarios that
Include this
Improvement
A B C
Improvements to Existing Roadways
Principal arterial
improvements
Idaho Rd. ( SR- 88) Widen the existing 4-
lane arterial to 6- lanes
0.6 X X X
Old W. Hwy 3.5 X X X
S. Meridian Rd 0.6 X X X
Sunshine Blvd 1 X X X
N. 11 Mile Corner Rd Widen the existing 2-
lane arterial to 6- lanes
12.8 X X X
SR- 84/ SR- 93 11.2 X X X
Arizona Farms Rd 9.4 X X X
Attaway Rd 4.9 X X X
Battaglia Dr 9.1 X X X
Combs Rd 3.1 X X X
Felix Rd 4.8 X X X
GoldField Rd 0.6 X X X
Houser Rd 1.4 X X X
Hunt Hwy 21.6 X X X
Ironwood/ Vineyard/ Gan
tzel Rd
16.9 X X X
Keniworth/ Cactus Forest
Rd 13.5 X X X
Martin Rd 3.0 X X X
McKellips Blvd 3.4 X X X
Ocotillo Rd 3.2 X X X
Overfield Rd 4.0 X X X
Schnepf Rd 4.1 X X X
Skousen Rd 4.3 X X X
Skyline Dr 4.2 X X X
Sunland Gin Rd 5.7 X X X
Tomahawk Rd 0.1 X X X
Toltec Hwy 2.0 X X X
Vah Ki Inn Rd 4.9 X X X
SR- 94 Widen the existing 2-
lane arterial to 4- lanes
0.3 X X X
Broadway Ave 3.0 X X X
Brown Rd 4.0 X X X
Chuichu Rd 1.7 X X X
Florence Kelvin Hwy 14.9 X X X
Goldfield Rd 3.4 X X X
Idaho Rd 2.0 X X X
Ironwood Dr 2.0 X X X
Mountain View Rd 4.6 X X X
Picacho Blvd 4.7 X X X
Southern Ave 2.4 X X X
Superstition Blvd 4.5 X X X
Tomahawk Rd 4.5 X X X
Tumbleweed Rd 3.8 X X X
Apache Trail
Improve the existing
6- lane arterial
( shoulders, passing
lanes, drainage, etc.)
2.1 X X X
Broadway Ave Improve the existing
4- lane arterial
( shoulders, passing
lanes, drainage, etc.)
1.9 X X X
Ironwood Dr 2.5 X X X
Southern Ave 0.6 X X X
Superstition Blvd 1.0 X X X
3- 48 May 2009
Table 3.5 Improvements in Multimodal Transportation Scenarios
( continued)
Description Location or Corridor Improvement
Length
( mi.)
Scenarios that
Include this
Improvement
A B C
Principal arterial
improvements
( continued)
Barkerville Rd Improve the existing
2- lane arterial
( shoulders, passing
lanes, drainage, etc.)
33.1 X X X
Florence Kelvin Hwy 17.4 X X X
Freeman Rd 13.6 X X X
Redington Rd 8.8 X X X
New Roadways
New freeway
construction
Start point: US- 60 west
of Florence Junction; end
point: Apache Junction
Construct a new 6-
lane freeway 7.9 X X X
Start point: Florence
Junction; end point:
Vineyard Rd and
continued into the I- 8/ I-
10 Hidden Valley
Framework study area
14.3 X X X
Proposed North- South
corridor start point:
Friendly Corner; end
point: Apache Junction
( passes between
Coolidge and Florence)
55.6 X X X
Intersection of SR- 79
and SR- 77
4.3 X
Start point: proposed
North- South corridor;
end point: I- 10
11.8 X
Start point: Red Rock;
end point: Chuichu Rd
and continued into the I-
8/ I- 10 Hidden Valley
Framework study area
27.2 X
Start point: Red Rock;
end point: connects to
SR- 79 south of Florence
Junction ( bypasses
Florence on the east
side)
47.9 X
HOV lanes I- 10 HOV lanes included
throughout the
roadway project
32.4 X X X
US 60 7.9 X X X
New east- west freeway
starting at Florence
Junction
14.3 X X X
Proposed North- South
corridor
55.6 X X X
New east- west freeway,
start point: proposed
North- South corridor;
end point: I- 10
11.8 X
New Arizona
parkway
construction
Start point: US- 60; end
point: proposed North-
South corridor
Construct a new 6-
lane Arizona parkway 15.2 X X X
Start Point: SR- 87; End
Point: SR- 79 15.2 X X X
3- 49 May 2009
Table 3.5 Improvements in Multimodal Transportation Scenarios
( continued)
Description Location or Corridor Improvement
Length
( mi.)
Scenarios that
Include this
Improvement
A B C
New Arizona
parkway
construction
( continued)
Proposed North- South
Corridor Start point:
Friendly Corner; end
point: I- 10
Construct a new 6-
lane Arizona parkway
( continued)
16.2
( Scenario
C only has
8.4)
X X X
Skyline Dr 9.8 X X X
Start Point: Proposed
North- South corridor;
End Point: I- 10
11.8 X X
New Roadways
New Arizona
parkway
construction
( continued)
Start point: Red Rock;
end point: Chuichu Rd
and continued into the
I- 8/ I- 10 Hidden Valley
Framework study area
Construct a new 6-
lane Arizona parkway
( continued) 27.2 X X
Start point: Proposed
North- South Corridor;
end point: intersection
of Florence Kelvin Hwy
and Barkerville Rd
18.9 X
Intersection of SR- 79
and SR- 77
4.3 X
Start point: Red Rock;
end point: connects to
SR- 79 south of Florence
Junction ( bypasses on
east side of Florence)
47.9 X
Start point: Vineyard
Rd; end point:
intersection of Florence
Kelvin Hwy and
Barkerville Rd
30.9 X
Start point: New
corridor starting in Red
Rock and ending at
Chuichu Rd; end point:
I- 10
6.4 X
Start point: Vineyard
Rd; end point:
Proposed North- South
Corridor
19.4 X
Start point: SR- 79; end
point: Barkerville Rd
Construct a 4- lane
Arizona parkway
10.6 X X
Start Point: SR- 79; end
point: Willow Springs
Rd
10.0 X X
Principal arterial Start point: US- 60; end
point: proposed North-
South Corridor
Construct new 2- lane
arterial 9.9 X X X
Primarily in the western
portion of the study
area from Apache
Junction south to
Friendly Corners – All
Scenarios have the
same new 6- lane
arterials
Construct new 6- lane
arterials
370.9 X X X
3- 50 May 2009
Table 3.5 Improvements in Multimodal Transportation Scenarios
( continued)
Description Location or Corridor Improvement
Length
( mi.)
Scenarios that
Include this
Improvement
A B C
Primarily in the western
portion of the study
area from Apache
Junction south to
Friendly Corners – All
Scenarios have the
same new 6- lane
arterials
Construct new 4- lane
arterials
28.5 X X X
Start point: US- 60; end
point: intersection of
Florence Kelvin Hwy
and Barkerville Rd
22.4 X X
Start Point: Intersection
of Barkerville Rd and
Freeman Rd; End Point:
SR- 77
17.8 X X
Transit Improvements
Express bus I- 10 Establish new express
bus route
30.7 X X X
Start point: Florence
Junction; end point:
Vineyard Rd and
continued into the I- 8/ I-
10 Hidden Valley
Framework study area
14.3 X X X
Hunt Hwy 21.6 X X X
Proposed North- South
corridor
55.6 X X X
Start point: proposed
North- South Corridor;
end point: I- 10
11.8 X X X
SR- 79 2.8 X
Intercity bus US- 60 Establish new intercity
bus route
60.7 X X X
SR- 79
60.9
( Scenario
A only has
2.8)
X X X
SR- 77 74.8 X X
SR- 177 30.4 X X
SR- 87/ 287 28.3 X X
Redington Rd 8.6 X X
I- 10 17.7 X
SR- 87 9.0 X
Transit centers I- 10 ( at the western
edge of the study area)
Establish new transit
centers -- X X X
I- 10 ( Eloy) -- X X X
I- 10 ( junction of North-
South corridor and I- 10)
-- X X X
I- 10 ( I- 10 intersection
with Park Link Dr)
-- X X X
US 60 ( Apache Junction) -- X X X
US 60 ( Globe) -- X X X
US 60 ( Superior) -- X X X
SR 79 ( Florence) -- X X X
SR 77 and SR 79
interchange
-- X X X
3- 51 May 2009
Table 3.5 Improvements in Multimodal Transportation Scenarios
( continued)
Description Location or Corridor Improvement
Length
( mi.)
Scenarios that
Include this
Improvement
A B C
SR 87 ( south of the 287
interchange)
-- X X X
Western edge of study
area along east- west
express bus route
-- X X X
SR 177 ( Hayden) -- X X
SR 177 ( Kearny) -- X X
SR 177 ( Mammoth) -- X X
Redington Rd -- X X
Along the north- south
passenger rail line,
northwest of Florence
-- X
Along the northwest
passenger rail line,
north of the Gila River
Indian Community
-- X
Local transit
service areas
Hayden/ Kearny/ Winkel
man Area
Local transit service
( fixed route,
community circulator,
dial- a- ride service)
-- X X X
Mammoth Area -- X X X
Miami/ Globe Area -- X X X
Superior Area -- X X X
Urban Core ( Apache
Junction, Florence,
Coolidge, Eloy)
-- X X X
Passenger rail I- 10/ SR- 87/ Hunt Hwy Establish new
passenger rail
57.4 X X
Start point: proposed
North- South corridor;
end point: I- 10
14.3 X X
Source: Kimley- Horn and Associates
MSCG = median, sidewalk, curb and gutter.
* Examples of “ Improve existing corridor†include: passing lanes, shoulder widening ( possibly including
bus pullouts), drainage improvements, bus pullouts/ shelters, safety improvements, signals and lighting.
Quantities for Cost Estimation by Scenario
Table 3.6 summarizes quantities for cost estimating by scenario. The quantities
were typically measured in terms of centerline miles, obtained using Geographic
Information Systems ( GIS) analysis.
Table 3.6 Quantities for Estimating Cost of Roadway
and Transit/ Rail Elements
Facility Type Improvement Unit
Quantity by
Scenario
A B C
State hwy: 2- lane
rural
New construction w/ 8’ paved
shoulders
Centerline
mile
10.1 10.1 10.1
Improve existing corridor* 92.4 92.4 107.3
State hwy: 4- lane
rural
New construction ( Interstate) 0 0 0
New construction ( divided) 7.2 7.2 7.2
New construction ( no median) 0 0 0
3- 52 May 2009
Table 3.6 Quantities for Estimating Cost of Roadway
and Transit/ Rail Elements ( continued)
Facility Type Improvement Unit
Quantity by
Scenario
A B C
State hwy: 4- lane
rural
Improve 2- lane to 4- lane
divided
Centerline
mile
154.9 165.2 174.7
Improve 4- lane to 6- lane
divided
7.3 8 8
Add 2 lanes to existing 2- lane 0 0 0
Improve existing corridor* 11 11 11
State hwy: 6- lane
rural
New construction ( Interstate) 0 0 0
Improve 4- lane Interstate to 6
lanes ( inside widening)
0 0 0
Improve existing corridor* 0 0 0
State hwy: 6- lane
( urban)
Improve 2- lane to 6- lane
divided
25.6 72 62.5
State hwy: 8- lane
rural
New construction ( Interstate) 0 0 0
Improve 6- lane Interstate to 8
lanes ( inside widening)
0 0 0
Improve existing corridor* 0 0 0
State hwy: 10- lane
urban
Improve 4- lane Interstate to 10
lanes
32.6 32.6 32.6
Urban freeway: 4-
lane
New construction 0 0 0
Improve existing corridor* 0.4 0.4 0.4
Urban freeway: 6-
lane
New construction, Improve 2-
lane to 6- lane divided
234.6 78.3 78.3
Improve existing corridor* 0 0 0
Add 2 lanes ( to existing 4- lane) 11.3 10.5 10.5
Add 2 lanes ( to existing 4- lane,
no bridge widening or R/ W
needed)
0 0 0
Urban freeway: 8-
lane
New construction 0 0 0
Improve existing corridor* 0 0 0
Add 2 lanes ( to existing 6- lane) 0 0 0
Add 2 lanes ( to existing 6- lane,
no bridge widening or R/ W
needed)
0 0 0
Urban freeway: 10-
lane
New construction 0 0 0
Improve existing corridor* 0 0 0
Add 2 lanes ( to existing 8- lane) 0 0 0
Add 2 lanes ( to existing 8- lane,
no bridge widening or R/ W
needed)
0 0 0
New system TI ( rural)
3- leg Each 0 0 0
4- leg 0 0 0
New system TI
( urban)
3- leg 0 0 0
4- leg 9 3 3
3- 53 May 2009
Table 3.6 Quantities for Estimating Cost of Roadway
and Transit/ Rail Elements ( continued)
Facility Type Improvement Unit
Quantity by
Scenario
A B C
Arizona Parkway
( urban)
New construction ( 6- lane
divided)
Centerline
mile
121.4 231.2 136.
7
New construction ( 8- lane
divided)
0 0 0
Principal arterial
( urban)
New construction ( 5 lanes) 0 0 0
New construction ( 4 lanes w/
MSCG)
68.5 68.5 28.5
New construction ( 6 lanes w/
MSCG)
370.9 370.9 363.
1
Improve 2- lane to 4- lane w/
MSCG
61.7 61.7 46.8
Add 2 lanes ( to existing 2- lane
w/ no median)
0 0 0
Improve existing corridor* 37 37 8.4
Transit Intercity bus Length
( miles) by
route
60.8 294.7 294.
7
Express bus 141.5 138.2 138.
2
Passenger rail
( intercity/ commuter)
0 67.8 67.8
Urban park- and- ride lot Each 0 0 0
Rural park- and- ride lot 0 0 0
Transit center 11 15 17
Source: Kimley- Horn and Associates
MSCG = median, sidewalk, curb and gutter.
* Examples of “ Improve existing corridor†include: passing lanes, shoulder widening ( possibly including
bus pullouts), drainage improvements, bus pullouts/ shelters, safety improvements, signals and lighting.
3.10 EVALUATION OF SCENARIOS
The following evaluation framework, developed for the regional framework studies,
provides a structure to evaluate multimodal transportation alternatives in each of the
four regions, in the larger context of smart growth, sustainable development and
sound transportation planning.
Planning Factors, Goals, Criteria and How Measured
Table 3.7 shows the planning factors, goals, criteria and measurements that the
regional framework consultant teams that were used to evaluate each of the three
alternative scenarios ( Scenario A, B, and C). The first column, planning factors, lists
five elements that a multimodal transportation system should provide or promote:
mobility and access, transportation/ land use integration, environmental and
conservation, economic benefit, and safety. The second column of
Table 3.7 shows the goal associated with each planning factor. The third column
lists one or more evaluation criteria used to specify objectives that can help meet
each goal. Finally, the last column describes how the performance of each scenario
was measured with respect to the criteria.
3- 54 May 2009
The ADOT management consultant was responsible for the portion of the evaluation
that applied criteria based on model output. These were IC, ID, IIIA, IIIB and VA.
Each regional consultant was responsible for the remainder of the criteria, whether
quantitative ( criteria IA1 and IA2) or non- quantitative.
On all the criteria, whether numerically based or not, each scenario was given a
rating of:
â— ( highest rating)
â—’ ( intermediate)
â—‹ ( lowest rating)
The ratings are relative, i. e., they reflect how the three scenarios fare against one
another. A rating of â—‹ ( lowest) does not necessarily indicate that a scenario
performs badly on an absolute scale.
Evaluation Matrix and Results
Based on the planning factors, goals, and criteria, an evaluation matrix was
developed to rank the alternative scenarios. This matrix is shown in Table 3.8.
3- 55 May 2009
Table 3.7 Planning Factors, Goals, Evaluation Criteria and How Measured
Planning Factors Goals Evaluation Criteria How Measured
I. Mobility and Access Develop functional,
flexible mobility for
Arizona.
A. Improve
multimodal network
connectivity.
1. Number of passenger terminals served by two
or more modes ( including air carrier) other than
private vehicle access
2. Number of additional free- flow junctions ( e. g.,
system or directional TIs) compared with the
Baseline condition
B. Increase modal
choice and improve
mobility options.
Amount of transit and rail passenger service
compared with Baseline condition
â— Many new services and extensive
improvements compared with Baseline condition
â—’ Moderate improvements including some new
services
â—‹ Incremental improvements only
C. Protect personal
mobility from
endemic ( including
seasonal) congestion.
Daily vehicle hours of delay ( thousands) on the
regionally significant roadway system, from
model output
D. Protect freight
transport from
endemic ( including
seasonal) roadway
congestion.
Daily hours of commercial vehicle delay
( thousands) on the regionally significant
roadway system, from model output
3- 56 May 2009
Table 3.7 Planning Factors, Goals, Evaluation Criteria and How Measured ( continued)
Planning Factors Goals Evaluation Criteria How Measured
II.
Transportation/ Land
Use Integration
Plan transportation
facilities to promote
land development
patterns that
maximize modal
choice, minimize trip
length and enable
multi- purpose trips.
A. Be consistent with
county
comprehensive plans,
city/ town general
plans, tribal plans,
federal land
management plans
( BLM, USFS) and
other adopted land
use plans, including
development master
plans.
â— Nearly all improvements are highly consistent
with most pertinent plans
â—’ The majority of improvements are consistent
with most pertinent plans
â—‹ Some projects are markedly inconsistent with
some plans
B. Be consistent with
adopted long- range
transportation plans,
including tribal plans.
â— Nearly all improvements are highly consistent
with most pertinent plans
â—’ The majority of improvements are consistent
with most pertinent plans
â—‹ Some projects are markedly inconsistent with
some plans
C. Support existing
and approved ( in local
plans) mixed use
development.
â— Transportation improvements provide strong
support for mixed use districts and activity
centers
â—’ Improvements provide some support
â—‹ Improvements provide little or no support
D. Support infill
development in cities,
towns and built- up
unincorporated areas
that are well served
by existing
infrastructure.
â— Transportation improvements provide strong
support for infill development
â—’ Improvements provide some support for infill
development
â—‹ Improvements provide little or no support for
infill development
3- 57 May 2009
Table 3.7 Planning Factors, Goals, Evaluation Criteria and How Measured ( continued)
Planning Factors Goals Evaluation Criteria How Measured
II.
Transportation/ Land
Use Integration
( continued)
E. Support designated
redevelopment and
revitalization areas.
â— Transportation improvements provide strong
support for such areas
â—’ Improvements provide some support
â—‹ Improvements provide little or no support
III. Environmental
and Conservation
Protect and enhance
the natural and
human environment.
A. Promote and
increase energy
security.
Daily vehicle hours of travel ( thousands), as a
proxy for fuel consumption
B. Reduce vehicular
greenhouse gas ( CO2)
emissions.
Reduction in daily metric tons of CO2 emissions
compared with Baseline
C. Minimize effects on
environmentally
sensitive areas ( e. g.,
biological, cultural,
scenic).
â— Minimal effects
â—’ Moderate effects
â—‹ Substantial effects
D. Minimize effects on
natural corridors for
wildlife movement ( as
identified by AZ Game
& Fish and other
resource
management
organizations).
â— Minimal effects
â—’ Moderate effects
â—‹ Substantial effects
IV. Economic Benefit Increase economic
opportunities in
Arizona.
A. Support regional
and local ( including
tribal) economic
development plans,
priorities, goals and
objectives.
â— Includes many projects that strongly support
economic development priorities throughout the
region
â—’ Contains projects that support development
priorities in some locations
â—‹ The proposed improvements offer little or no
support at the state or local level
3- 58 May 2009
Table 3.7 Planning Factors, Goals, Evaluation Criteria and How Measured ( continued)
Planning Factors Goals Evaluation Criteria How Measured
IV. Economic Benefit
( continued)
B. Support industries
considered vital to the
region or its
communities ( e. g.,
tourism, mining,
agriculture, timber,
international trade).
â— Numerous new or improved facilities and
services directly serving key industries or
destinations
â—’ Some such improvements
â—‹ Few or no such improvements
C. Modernize and
expand infrastructure
that supports freight
movement and
delivery.
No. of infrastructure projects that directly
support freight movement and delivery
V. Safety Maintain and enhance
the safety of the
transportation system
for all users.
A. Strengthen and
expand roadway
access management.
â— Numerous additional centerline miles with a
high level of access management ( such as
freeways and Arizona parkways), compared with
Baseline condition
â—’ A modest number of additional centerline
miles with a high level of access management
â—‹ Few or no additional centerline miles with a
high level of access management
B. Provide parallel or
alternative
transportation routes
or services to
facilitate emergency
access, including
evacuation.
â— Substantial alternative routing added ( from
Baseline condition)
â—’ Some alternative routing added
â—‹ Little or no alternative routing added
Source: ADOT Management Consultant Team
Ratings: â— Highest rating
â—’ Intermediate rating
â—‹ Lowest rating
3- 59 May 2009
Table 3.8 Evaluation of Regional, Multimodal Transportation Alternatives, Year 2050 Central Region
Evaluation
Criteria
How Measured
Alternatives
A B C NOTES
I. Mobility and Access
A. Improve multimodal
network connectivity.
1. Number of passenger
terminals served by two or
more modes ( including air
carrier) other than private
vehicle access
â—’ 11 ( transit centers) â—’ 15 ( transit centers) â— 17 ( transit centers) â—‹ 0- 10
â—’ 11- 15
â— 16+
2. Number of additional free-flow
junctions ( e. g., system or
directional TIs) compared with
the Baseline condition
9 system TIs â— 3 system TIs â—’ 3 system TIs â—’ â—‹ 0
â—’ 1- 3
â— 4+
B. Increase modal choice and
improve mobility options.
Amount of transit and rail
passenger service compared
with Baseline condition
â— Many new services and
extensive improvements
compared with Baseline
condition
â—’ Moderate improvements
including some new services
â—‹ Incremental improvements
only
â—’
New transit services:
• HOV lanes along selected freeways,
primarily concentrated in western portion
of study area
• Fixed route and community circulator
transit in communities serving
Miami/ Globe, Hayden/ Winkelman,
Mammoth/ Oracle,
• Intercity bus ( Globe to Apache Junction),
extending to Eastern Framework and MAG
regions
• Express bus service along freeway
corridors and selected principal arterials
â—
New transit, including passenger rail services:
• HOV lanes along selected freeways,
primarily concentrated in western portion
of study area
• Passenger rail entering study area on I- 10
at Pinal/ Pima County line, and proceeding
north through Florence before entering
Maricopa County
• Local transit service ( fixed route and
community circulator transit)
• Intercity bus connecting many cities:
Apache Junction to Globe, extending to
Eastern Framework and MAG regions;
service connecting Oracle/ Florence Apache
Junction, and Oracle/ Mammoth/
Hayden/ Miami/ Superior
• Express bus service along freeway
corridors and selected principal arterials
â—
Most new transit, including passenger rail
services:
• HOV Lanes along selected freeways,
primarily concentrated in western portion of
study area
• Passenger rail entering study area on I- 10
at Pinal/ Pima County line, and proceeding
north through Florence before entering
Maricopa County
• Local transit service ( Fixed route local
transit service and Community circulator
transit)
• Intercity bus connecting many cities:
Apache Junction to Globe, extending to
Eastern Framework and MAG regions;
service connecting Oracle/ Florence Apache
Junction, and Oracle/ Mammoth/
Hayden/ Miami/ Superior
• Potential light rail and increased transit
service in higher density areas, focused in
the Eloy to Apache Junction corridor
• Express bus service along freeway corridors
and selected principal arterials
C. Protect personal mobility
from endemic ( including
seasonal) congestion.
Daily Hours of delay ( 000) on
the regionally significant
roadway system â—
1098
â—’
1863
â—‹
2056
â— 0- 1500
â—’ 1501- 2000
â—‹ > 2000
D. Protect freight transport
from endemic ( including
seasonal) roadway congestion.
Daily hours of commercial
vehicle delay ( 000) on the
regionally significant roadway
system
â—’
65
â—‹
123
â—‹
148
â— 0- 50
â—’ 51- 100
â—‹ > 100
3- 60 May 2009
Table 3.8 Evaluation of Regional, Multimodal Transportation Alternatives, Year 2050 Central Region ( continued)
Evaluation
Criteria
How Measured
Alternatives
A B C NOTES
II. Transportation / Land Use Integration
A. Be consistent with county
comprehensive plans,
city/ town general plans, tribal
plans, federal land
management plans ( BLM,
USFS) and other adopted land
use plans, including
development master plans.
â— Nearly all improvements are
highly consistent with most
pertinent plans.
â—’ The majority of
improvements are consistent
with most pertinent plans
â—‹ Some projects are markedly
inconsistent with some plans.
â—’
Consistency with local general land use plans
was a major consideration in development of
Scenario A. The scenario largely assumes that
land use will to develop similarly as it has in the
past.
The transportation improvements proposed in
Scenario A were derived from completed
studies including the Pinal County Regionally
Significant Routes Study, ADOT Corridors
Definitions Studies, Small Area Transportation
Studies, and ADOT Design Concept Reports.
Several of the new corridors improvements
proposed in Scenario A are under consideration
in General Plans as they are being updated
( e. g. Pinal County Comprehensive Plan), but
have not yet been formally adopted. There are
some new corridors recommendations, such as
the SR 77 Reliever that are not contained in
local jurisdiction plans ( e. g. Oro Valley General
Plan nor in Pima County Comprehensive Plan).
Another example is the Western I- 10 Parallel
Corridor. These two corridors in particular
were identified as needed ADOT Corridor
Definition Studies, but may conflict with the
Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan.
â—’
Consistency with local plans general land use
plans was a major consideration in
development of Scenario B. The scenario
largely assumes that land use will develop
similarly as it has in the past, but that the
extensive transit services proposed in Scenario
B will influence land use and development
patterns.
Many of the transportation improvements in
Scenario B were derived from completed
studies including the Pinal County Regionally
Significant Routes Study, ADOT Corridors
Definitions Studies, Small Area Transportation
Studies, and ADOT Design Concept Reports.
However, because of the investment in transit,
many of the new corridors are shown as
“ parkways†instead of “ freeway†facilities, as
proposed in many of the previously completed
studies.
Several of the new corridors improvements
proposed are under consideration in General
Plans as they are being updated ( e. g. Pinal
County Comprehensive Plan), but they have
not yet been formally adopted. There are some
new corridors recommendations, such as the
SR 77 Reliever that are not contained in local
jurisdiction plans ( e. g. Oro Valley General Plan
nor in Pima County Comprehensive Plan).
Another example is the Western I- 10 Parallel
Corridor. These two corridors in particular
were identified as needed ADOT Corridor
Definition Studies, but may conflict with the
Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan. These two
corridors are shown as “ parkways†instead of
“ freeways†because of the increased
opportunity for transit.
Many of the transit improvements proposed in
Scenario B are under consideration in Pinal
County Comprehensive Plan.
â—‹
The basic land use assumptions in Scenario C
are not consistent with existing General Plans
and Comprehensive Plans, particularly to the
degree to which land use density is assumed in
Scenario C.
However, all of the transportation corridors
shown in Scenario C are either on existing
alignment, or they are corridors that are
proposed in the Pinal County Regionally
Significant Routes Study. The Pinal
Comprehensive Plan Update ( on- going) largely
incorporates recommendations from the Pinal
County Regionally Significant Routes Study.
3- 61 May 2009
Table 3.8 Evaluation of Regional, Multimodal Transportation Alternatives, Year 2050 Central Region ( continued)
Evaluation
Criteria
How Measured
Alternatives
A B C NOTES
B. Be consistent with adopted
long- range transportation
plans, including tribal plans.
â— Nearly all improvements are
highly consistent with most
pertinent plans
â—’ The majority of
improvements are consistent
with most pertinent plans
â—‹ Some projects are markedly
inconsistent with some plans
â—’
Consistency with local and regional long range
transportation plans
was a major consideration in development of
Scenario A.
The transportation improvements in Scenario A
were derived from completed studies including
the Pinal County Regionally Significant Routes
Study, ADOT Corridors Definitions Studies,
Small Area Transportation Studies, and ADOT
Design Concept Reports.
However, some of the proposed corridors,
particularly those that connect Pima and Pinal
Counties, are not shown in the PAG Long Range
Transportation Plan. These include the SR 77
Reliever, and the Western I- 10 Parallel. These
two corridors in particular were identified as
needed ADOT Corridor Definition Studies, but
may conflict with the Sonoran Desert
Conservation Plan
â—’
Consistency with local plans general land use
plans was a major consideration in
development of Scenario B.
Many of the transportation improvements in
Scenario B were derived from completed
studies including the Pinal County Regionally
Significant Routes Study, ADOT Corridors
Definitions Studies, Small Area Transportation
Studies, and ADOT Design Concept Reports.
However, because of the investment in transit,
many of the new corridors are shown as
“ parkway†instead of “ freeway†facilities, as
proposed in many of the previously completed
studies.
However, some of the proposed corridors,
particularly those that connect Pima and Pinal
Counties, are not shown in the PAG Long Range
Transportation Plan. These include the SR 77
Reliever, and the Western I- 10 Parallel. These
two corridors in particular were identified as
needed ADOT Corridor Definition Studies, but
may conflict with the Sonoran Desert
Conservation Plan. In Scenario B, these two
corridors are shown as “ parkways†instead of
“ freeways†because of the increased
opportunity for transit.
Many of the transit improvements proposed in
Scenario B are under consideration in Pinal
County Comprehensive Plan
â—’
The transportation corridors proposed in
Scenario C are all derived from previously
completed transportation plans. The only major
new freeway corridors in Scenario C are the
North- South corridor, Williams Gateway, and
the US 60 Re- Route. Each of these corridors is
consistent with local jurisdiction plans, including
the Pinal County Regional Significant Routes
( RSR) Study. Scenario C removed some of the
recommended corridors in the Regionally
Significant Routes Study, particularly those that
were recommended in the Pinal County RSR
Study in eastern Pinal County that cross
sensitive environmental areas.
The emphasis in Scenario C was to concentrate
infrastructure improvements to western Pinal
County. As such, all of the transportation
corridors shown in Scenario C are either on
existing alignments, or they are corridors that
are proposed in the Pinal County Regionally
Significant Routes Study.
C. Support existing and
approved ( in local plans)
mixed use development.
â— Transportation improvements
provide strong support for
mixed use districts and
activity centers
â—’ Improvements provide
some support
â—‹ Improvements provide little
or no support
â—’
The transit improvements proposed in Scenario
A will support mixed use development,
including new Local Transit Service in:
• Oracle/ San Manuel / Winkelman
• Hayden/ Kearny
• Globe/ Miami
• Superior
• Service area extending from Eloy to
Apache Junction
However, emphasis of roadways in Scenario A
will lead toward land development patterns
similar to today’s patterns, including auto-oriented
travel and land uses largely designed
for automobile accessibility.
â—
The transit improvements proposed in Scenario
B will support mixed use development,
including new Local Transit Service in:
• Oracle/ San Manuel / Winkelman
• Hayden/ Kearny
• Globe/ Miami
• Superior
• Service area extending from Eloy to
Apache Junction
Mixed use development will increase
throughout the region as transit service;
particularly high capacity transit ( e. g.
passenger rail) is developed. Mixed land use
will develop in nodes surrounding transit
centers.
â—
The transit improvements and land use
assumptions Scenario C are most conductive to
mixed use development. Local Transit Service
in the following communities will encourage
mixed use development:
• Oracle/ San Manuel / Winkelman
• Hayden/ Kearny
• Globe/ Miami
• Superior
• Service area extending from Eloy to Apache
Junction
Mixed use development will increase throughout
the region as transit service ( e. g. passenger
rail) is developed. Mixed land uses will develop
in nodes surrounding transit centers.
Urban ‘ area of higher densities’ that consist
largely of mixed use development will emerge.
3- 62 May 2009
Table 3.8 Evaluation of Regional, Multimodal Transportation Alternatives, Year 2050 Central Region ( continued)
Evaluation
Criteria
How Measured
Alternatives
A B C NOTES
D. Support infill development
in cities, towns and built- up
unincorporated areas that are
well served by existing
infrastructure.
â— Transportation improvements
provide strong support for
infill development
â—’ Improvements provide
some support for infill
development
â—‹ Improvements provide little
or no support for infill
development
â—’
The transit improvements proposed in Scenario
A will support infill development, including new
local transit service in:
• Oracle/ San Manuel/ Winkelman
• Hayden/ Kearny
• Globe/ Miami
• Superior
• Service area extending from Eloy to
Apache Junction
However, as the vast majority of the study area
is currently undeveloped, the majority of new
development will occur in areas outside of
current development. In addition, emphasis of
this scenario on new roadways
facilitates regional travel - more new roadways
support regional travel, and will likely lead to
development in currently undeveloped areas:
• 9 new freeways
• 3 new parkways
• New or improved arterials on regionally
significant routes and state highways
â—’
The transit improvements proposed in Scenario
B will support infill development, including:
• Passenger Rail extending from Phoenix to
Tucson
• Local transit service
- Oracle/ San Manuel/ Winkelman
- Hayden/ Kearny
- Globe/ Miami
- Superior
- Service area extending from Eloy to
Apache Junction
• Intercity bus service
However, more new or improved roadway
facilities will support more regional travel, such
as:
• 3 new freeways
• 7 new parkways
• New or improved arterials on regionally
significant routes and state highways
â—
Scenario C based on Smart Growth Principles.
There are more transit services, providing more
support for infill.
- Less emphasis on new or improved roadways.
- 1 new freeway
- 3 new parkways
- fewer new or improved arterials on regionally
significant routes, located east of SR 79, and
state highways.
Smart Growth will provide more opportunities
for pedestrian and bicycles trips as well as
transit.
E. Support designated
redevelopment and
revitalization areas.
â— Transportation improvements
provide strong support for
such areas
â—’ Improvements provide
some support
â—‹ Improvements provide little
or no support
N/ A N/ A N/ A
III. Environment and Conservation
A. Promote and increase
energy security.
Daily vehicle hours of travel
( 000) as a surrogate for
reduction in fuel consumption â—’
2257
â—‹
2916
â—‹
2948
â— 0- 2000
â—’ 2001- 2500
â—‹ > 2500
B. Reduce vehicular
greenhouse gas ( CO2)
emissions.
Reduction in daily metric tons
of emissions compared w/
Baseline â—‹
1011
â—‹
2483
â—’
3642
â— > 6000
â—’ 3001- 6000
○ ≤ 3000
3- 63 May 2009
Table 3.8 Evaluation of Regional, Multimodal Transportation Alternatives, Year 2050 Central Region ( continued)
Evaluation
Criteria
How Measured
Alternatives
A B C NOTES
C. Minimize effects on
environmentally sensitive
areas ( e. g., biological,
cultural, scenic).
â— Minimal effects
â—’ Moderate effects
â—‹ Substantial effects
â—’
Input from the Nature Conservancy is that only
the Florence- Kelvin Highway is of significant
concern with respect to environmentally
sensitive lands. Review of Natural
Infrastructure maps by the study team shows
the following:
Freeways that cross sensitive biological lands,
include:
• Western Parallel,
• SR79,
• SR77 Reliever,
• North– South II,
• I- 10
Parkways that cross sensitive biological lands
include:
• Bartlett Rd,
• Selma Hwy and
• Park Link Dr
Arterials that cross sensitive biological lands
include:
• North- South arterial ( east of SR 79),
• Greenes Reservoir Rd,
• Pretzer Rd,
• Wheeler Rd, and
• Redington Rd
Improvements( widening) to US 60, SR 77, SR
177, SR 188 and US 70 may impact sensitive
biological lands
Sensitive biological lands may include
grasslands, priority conservation areas, or
wildlife linkages. It is assumed that proposed
alignments will avoid historic districts. Impacts
to cultural resource sites cannot determine at
this stage.
Several new freeway alignments do traverse
areas with cultural resource sites:
• Several freeways cross areas with cultural
resource sites
• North- South Freeway alignment traverses
areas with cultural resource sites.
â—’
Input from the Nature Conservancy is that only
the Florence- Kelvin Highway is of significant
concern with respect to environmentally
sensitive lands. Review of Natural
Infrastructure maps by the study team shows
the following:
Freeways that cross sensitive biological lands.
• I- 10
Parkways that cross sensitive biological lands:
• SR 77 Reliever,
• Western Parallel,
• Bartlett Rd,
• Selma Hwy, and
• Park Link Dr and
• North- South II
Arterials that cross sensitive biological lands:
• New north- south arterial facility ( east of SR
79),
• Greenes Reservoir Rd,
• Pretzer Rd,
• Wheeler Rd, and
• Redington Rd
Improvements to US 60, SR 77, SR 79, SR
177, SR 188 and US 70 may impact sensitive
biological lands
Sensitive biological lands may include
grasslands, priority conservation areas, or
wildlife linkages.
It is assumed that proposed alignments will
avoid historic districts. Impacts to cultural
resource sites cannot determine at this stage.
Several new freeway alignments do traverse
areas with cultural resource sites:
• Several freeways cross areas with cultural
resource sites
• North- South Freeway alignment traverses
areas with cultural resource sites.
â—’
Input from the Nature Conservancy is that only
the Florence- Kelvin Highway is of significant
concern with respect to environmentally
sensitive lands. Review of Natural
Infrastructure maps by the study team shows
the following:
Freeways that cross sensitive biological lands.
• I- 10
Parkways that cross sensitive biological lands
include:
• Baumgartner Rd,
• Selma Hwy
Arterials that cross sensitive biological lands:
• Greenes Reservoir Rd,
• Pretzer Rd,
• Wheeler Rd and
• Redington Rd
Improvements to US 60, SR 77, SR 79, SR 177,
SR 188 and US 70 may impact sensitive
biologica