Statewide transportation planning framework program 2010 |
Previous | 1 of 1 | Next |
|
|
Small
Medium
Large
Extra Large
Full-size
Full-size archival image
|
This page
All
|
-
9253.pdf
[71.23 MB]
Link will provide options to open or save document.
File Format:
Adobe Reader
http://www.bqaz.gov 2010 Statewide Transportation Planning Framework Arizona Department of Transportation FINAL REPORT March 2010 Acknowledgments The Statewide Transportation Planning Framework Program was made possible by the cooperative efforts of the following individuals and organizations who contributed significantly to the successful completion of the project: Framework Policy Committee Felipe Zubia, State Transportation Board, Committee Co-Chair Peggy Neely, MAG Regional Council Chair, City of Phoenix Councilwoman, Committee Co-Chair James Cavanaugh, Former MAG Regional Council Chair, Mayor of Goodyear, Former Committee Co-Chair Roc Arnett, East Valley Partnership Lisa Atkins, Military Affairs Commission Delia Carlyle, Chairwoman, Ak-Chin Indian Community Karen Cooper, Flagstaff City Council Joe Donaldson, Mayor of Flagstaff Tom Dorn, Arizona Planning Association, Arizona Chapter Karen Fann, Mayor of Chino Valley Mike Flannery, Prescott Valley City Council Dave French, Kingman City Council Ron Green, Mayor of Safford John Halikowski, Arizona Department of Transportation Larry Hecker, Hecker & Muehlebach, PLLC Bob Hollis, Federal Highway Administration Ed Honea, Mayor of Marana Andy Laurenzi, Sonoran Institute Cheryl Lombard, The Nature Conservancy Paul Loomis, Mayor of Oro Valley Barbara Ann Lundstrom, State Transportation Board Jack Lunsford, WESTMARC Mary Manross, Mayor of Scottsdale David Martin, Associated General Contractors Victor Mendez, Arizona Department of Transportation Paul Miller, Arizona Transit Association Robert Montoya, State Transportation Board Rick Mueller, Mayor Pro Term of Sierra Vista Garrett Newland, Arizona Association for Economic Development Corbin Newman, U.S. Forest Service, Southwestern Region Kenneth Poocha, Arizona Commission of Indian Affairs Casey Prochaska, Yuma County Supervisor Tom Rankin, Mayor of Florence Marco Reyes, Jr., Yuma County Supervisor Lionel Ruiz, Pinal County Supervisor Matt Ryan, Coconino County Supervisor Marty Schultz, Arizona Public Service Thomas White, Jr., Apache County Supervisor Mark Winkleman, Arizona State Land Department John Wright, Arizona Education Association Elaine Zielinkski, Bureau of Land Management Framework Management Committee John Halikowski, Director, Arizona Department of Transportation, Committee Co-Chair Victor Mendez, Former Director, Arizona Department of Transportation, Former Committee Co-Chair Dennis Smith, Executive Director, Maricopa Association of Governments, Committee Co-Chair Brian Babiars, Western Arizona Council of Governments Maxine Brown, Central Arizona Association of Governments Richard Gaar, SouthEastern Arizona Governments Organization Gary Hayes, Pima Association of Governments Larry Hecker, Hecker & Muehlebach, PLLC Maxine Leather, Central Arizona Association of Governments Mack Luckie, Yuma Metropolitan Planning Organization Jack Lunsford, WESTMARC David Martin, Arizona Public Service Victor Mendez, Arizona Department of Transportation Jodi Rooney, Central Yavapai Metropolitan Planning Organization Dennis Smith, Maricopa Association of Governments Kenneth Sweet, Northern Arizona Council of Governments David Wessel, Flagstaff Metropolitan Planning Organization State Transportation Board Delbert Householder, Chairman Robert Montoya, Vice Chairman Stephen Christy, Member William Feldmeier, Member Victor Flores, Member Joseph Lane, Previous Member Barbara Ann Lundstrom, Member Felipe Zubia, Member Si Schorr, Previous Member i Acknowledgments Management Consultant Team John McNamara, Project Director, AECOM Laurel Parker, Project Manager, AECOM Bill Boothe, AECOM Larry Gibson, AECOM Deanna Huelskamp, AECOM Michael Kies, AECOM Adam Miller, AECOM Jaclyn Pfeiffer, AECOM Vijayant Rajvanshi, AECOM Ethan Rauch, AECOM Anita Richardson, AECOM Mansi Sachdev, AECOM Jim Charlier, Charlier Associates, Inc. Jennifer Valentine, Charlier Associates, Inc. Jim Barry, Curtis Lueck & Associates Curtis Lueck, Curtis Lueck & Associates Brent Cain, HDR, Inc. Michael Gorton, HDR, Inc. Kristin Bornstein, KDA Creative Amy Rosar, KDA Creative Peggy Fiandaca, Partners for Strategic Action, Inc. John Halikowski, Director Jennifer Toth, Director, Multimodal Planning Division (ADOT-MPD) Jim Zumpf, ADOT-MPD Project Manager Sally Stewart, Communication and Community Partnerships (ADOT-CCP) Project Manager Bob Albano, ADOT-CCP Julian Avila, ADOT-CCP Michele Beggs, ADOT-CCP Arnold Burnham, ADOT-MPD Regional Team Liaison Matt Carpenter, ADOT-MPD Russell Chase, ADOT-CCP Laura Douglas, ADOT-CCP Dan Dudzick, ADOT-CCP Ryan Harding, ADOT-CCP Mark Hoffman, ADOT-MPD Dianne Kresich, ADOT-MPD Mike Normand, ADOT-MPD Bill Pederson, ADOT-CCP Rudy Perez, ADOT-MPD Patricia Powers-Zermeno, ADOT-CCP Linda Ritter, ADOT-CCP Shannon Scutari, ADOT-MPD Lucy Shipp, ADOT-CCP Don Sneed, MPD Tim Tait, ADOT-CCP Teresa Welborn, ADOT-CCP Bill Williams, ADOT-CCP Rod Wigman, ADOT-CCP ADOT Project Team ii Regional Advisory Team Eric Anderson, Maricopa Association of Governments Nate Banks, Federal Highway Administration Dave Barber, Western Arizona Council of Governments Cherie Campbell, Pima Association of Governments Chris Fetzer, Northern Arizona Council of Governments Martin Ince, Flagstaff Metropolitan Planning Organization Bill Leister, Central Arizona Association of Governments Linda McFarland, Yuma Association of Governments Sharon Mitchell, SouthEastern Arizona Governments Organization Jodi Rooney, Central Yavapai Metropolitan Planning Organization Gordon Taylor, Arizona State Land Department Acknowledgments Regional Framework Teams Central Regional Framework Team: Technical Consultant: Kimley-Horn Associates, Inc. - Dave Perkins, Consultant Project Manager - Dianne Kresich, ADOT Regional Team Liaison - Ethan Rauch, AECOM, Management Consultant Liaison Public Involvement Consultant: HDR, Inc. - Rob Antoniak, Project Manager Eastern Regional Framework Team: Technical Consultant: URS Corporation - Aaron Iverson, Consultant Project Manager - Rick Ensdorf, Past Consultant Project Manager - Jim Zumpf, ADOT Regional Team Liaison - Laurel Parker, AECOM, Management Consultant Liaison Public Involvement Consultant: Gordley Design Group - Jan Gordley, Project Manager Northern Regional Framework Team: Technical Consultant: HDR, Inc. - Brent Cain, Consultant Project Manager - Jim Zumpf, ADOT Regional Team Liaison - Brent Cain, HDR, Inc., Management Consultant Liaison Public Involvement Consultant: HDR, Inc. - Heather Honsberger, Project Manager Western Regional Framework Team: Technical Consultant: Parsons Brinckerhoff (PB) - Scott Omer, Consultant Project Manager - Arnold Burnham, ADOT Regional Team Liaison - Bill Boothe, AECOM, Management Consultant Liaison Public Involvement Consultant: Logan Simpson Design Inc. - Diane Colebank-Simpson, Project Manager iii Abbreviations AA Alternatives Analysis AAC Arizona Administrative Code AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials ADEQ Arizona Department of Environmental Quality ADOT Arizona Department of Transportation ASU Arizona State University AGFD Arizona Game and Fish Department AZTDM Arizona Travel Demand Model BIA Bureau of Indian Affairs BLM Bureau of Land Management BNSF BNSF Railway bqAZ Building a Quality Arizona CAA Clean Air Act CAAG Central Arizona Association of Governments CBP Customs and Border Protection CCP Communication and Community Partnerships CFR Code of Federal Regulations CREATE Chicago Region Environmental and Transportation Efficiency Program COG Council of Governments CSI Container Security Initiative CSS Context Sensitive Solutions C-TPAT Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism CYMPO Central Yavapai Metropolitan Planning Organization DE District Engineer DOT Department of Transportation EC Existing-plus-Committed EIS Environmental Impact Statement EO Environmental Overview EPA Environmental Protection Agency FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FHWA Federal Highway Administration FMC Framework Management Committee FMPO Flagstaff Metropolitan Planning Organization FPC Framework Policy Committee FRA Federal Railroad Administration FTA Federal Transit Administration GANS Grant Anticipation Notes GARVEES Grant Anticipation Revenue Vehicles GIS Geographic Information Systems GPS Global Positioning Systems HOT High-Occupancy Toll HOV High-Occupancy Vehicle HURF Highway User Revenue Fund IRR Indian Reservation Roads JPAC Joint Planning Advisory Council ITS Intelligent Transportation Systems LEED-ND Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design for Neighborhood Development LRTP Long Range Transportation Plan LTAF Local Transportation Assistance Fund MAG Maricopa Association of Governments MCDOT Maricopa County Department of Transportation MPD Multimodal Planning Division MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization MSAT Mobile Source Air Toxics NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards NACOG Northern Arizona Council of Governments NAFTA North American Free Trade Agreement NCHRP National Cooperative Highway Research Program NHS National Highway System NRHP National Register of Historic Places O&M Operations and Maintenance PAG Pima Association of Governments POE Port of Entry PPP Public-Private Partnerships RAT Regional Advisory Team RNCA Riparian National Conservation Area RPTA Regional Public Transportation Authority RTAT Regional Technical Advisory Team or Rail Technical Advisory Team RTP Regional Transportation Plan SAFETEA-LU Safe, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users SBI Secure Border Initiative SEAGO SouthEastern Arizona Governments Organization SIP State Implementation Plan SRTS Safe Routes to School STAZ State Traffic Analysis Zone STIP State Transportation Improvement Program STP Surface Transportation Program SWAP State Wildlife Action Plan SWSPT Southwest Sketch Planning Tool TAZ Traffic Analysis Zone TDM Travel Demand Management v Abbreviations TI Traffic Interchange TIFIA Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act TIP Transportation Improvement Program TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load TNC The Nature Conservancy TSM Transportation Systems Management ULI Urban Land Institute UP Union Pacific Railroad USC United States Code USDA United States Department of Agriculture USDOT U.S. Department of Transportation USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service VHT Vehicle Hours of Travel VLT Vehicle License Tax VMT Vehicle Miles of Travel WACOG Western Arizona Council of Governments YMPO Yuma Metropolitan Planning Organization vi Table of Contents 1.0 Background.........................................................................................................................................................1 1.1 Overview of Process..................................................................................................................................................1 1.2 Supporting Sustainable Land Use and Smart Growth................................................................................................3 1.3 Other Innovations in the bqAZ Planning Process.......................................................................................................4 1.4 Tribal Outreach..........................................................................................................................................................4 1.5 Related Planning Efforts............................................................................................................................................5 2.0 Statewide Vision and Guiding Principles............................................................................................................7 2.1 Vision for Arizona Transportation in 2050.................................................................................................................7 2.2 Guiding Principles.....................................................................................................................................................7 2.2.1 Improve Mobility and Accessibility................................................................................................................7 2.2.2 Support Economic Growth...........................................................................................................................7 2.2.3 Promote a Development Pattern that Links Land Use and Transportation...................................................8 2.2.4 Consider Arizona’s Environment and Natural Resources...............................................................................8 2.2.5 Ensure Safety and Security...........................................................................................................................8 3.0 Long-Range Trends, Challenges, and Opportunities..............................................................................................9 3.1 Population Growth and Vehicular Travel....................................................................................................................9 3.2 Land Development Trends and Transportation Demand..........................................................................................11 3.3 Energy Independence.............................................................................................................................................13 3.4 Cost of Travel and Economic Growth.......................................................................................................................14 3.5 Climate Change.......................................................................................................................................................14 3.6 Air Quality................................................................................................................................................................15 3.7 Natural Resources...................................................................................................................................................16 3.8 Federal Transportation Policy..................................................................................................................................16 3.9 Statewide Transportation Framework Outcomes Summary......................................................................................16 4.0 Organizational Context...................................................................................................................................19 4.1 bqAZ Technical and Public Involvement Teams.........................................................................................................19 4.2 Statewide Framework Steering and Oversight Committees.....................................................................................19 5.0 Existing and Future Conditions.......................................................................................................................21 5.1 Land Ownership and Use........................................................................................................................................21 5.2 Population and Employment...................................................................................................................................23 5.3 Transportation.........................................................................................................................................................24 5.3.1 Existing Roadway System...........................................................................................................................24 5.3.2 Arizona-Sonora Ports of Entry.....................................................................................................................27 5.3.3 Existing Public Transportation....................................................................................................................27 5.3.4 Freight Modes and Flows...........................................................................................................................27 vii Table of Contents 5.3.5 Existing Railroad Network..........................................................................................................................28 5.3.6 Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation........................................................................................................28 5.3.7 Airports......................................................................................................................................................28 5.3.8 Programmed and Planned Roadway and Transit Improvements................................................................28 5.4 Environmental Overview.........................................................................................................................................29 5.4.1 Geology and Topography............................................................................................................................29 5.4.2 Hydrological Resources and Issues..............................................................................................................29 5.4.3 Natural Infrastructure................................................................................................................................34 5.4.4 Cultural Resources.....................................................................................................................................37 5.4.5 Air Quality..................................................................................................................................................39 5.4.6 Hazardous Materials...................................................................................................................................41 6.0 Framework Planning Process and Results..........................................................................................................43 6.1 Preliminary Critical Needs Definition.......................................................................................................................43 6.1.1 Delineation of Identified 2030 Improvement Needs..................................................................................43 6.1.2 Summary of Identified 2030 Improvement Needs and Cost.......................................................................44 6.2 Regional Framework Studies...................................................................................................................................47 6.2.1 Four Regional Frameworks.........................................................................................................................47 6.2.2 Focus Areas................................................................................................................................................47 6.2.3 Organization of Regional Framework Study Teams.....................................................................................48 6.2.4 Community and Stakeholder Involvement Opportunities...........................................................................48 6.2.5 Regional Framework Reports.......................................................................................................................52 6.3 Long-Range Planning Scenarios...............................................................................................................................52 6.3.1 Common Elements.....................................................................................................................................52 6.3.2 Three Distinct Long-Range Transportation Scenarios..................................................................................52 6.3.3 Sources of Projects for Long-Range Regional Scenarios..............................................................................54 6.3.4 Regional Scenarios A, B, and C.....................................................................................................................55 6.3.5 Areas Outside the Regional Frameworks: Maricopa and Pima Counties, and MAG Hidden Valley Study Area............................................................................................................55 6.4 Statewide Travel Demand Modeling........................................................................................................................55 6.4.1 Population and Employment Projections....................................................................................................55 6.4.2 External Traffic Growth..............................................................................................................................57 6.4.3 External Station Growth Estimates..............................................................................................................63 6.4.4 Highway Assignment..................................................................................................................................63 6.4.5 Existing-plus-Committed Highway Assignment............................................................................................63 6.4.6 Analysis of Performance.............................................................................................................................66 viii Table of Contents 6.5 Amalgamation of Regional Scenarios into Statewide Scenarios...............................................................................66 6.5.1 Amalgamation of Regional Scenarios A, B, and C........................................................................................66 6.5.2 MAG Long-Range Roadway and Transit System..........................................................................................67 6.5.3 PAG Long-Range Roadway and Transit System............................................................................................67 6.5.4 Consultation with Neighboring States........................................................................................................68 6.5.5 Final Statewide Scenarios...........................................................................................................................69 6.6 Evaluation of Scenarios...........................................................................................................................................69 6.7 Statewide Outreach................................................................................................................................................76 6.7.1 Common Interest Workshops......................................................................................................................76 6.7.2 Elected Official Consultations.....................................................................................................................82 6.7.3 Miscellaneous Presentations......................................................................................................................82 6.8 Recommended Statewide Scenario........................................................................................................................82 6.8.1 Description.................................................................................................................................................82 6.8.2 Analysis of Modeling Results and Comparison with other Scenarios..........................................................85 6.8.3 Conclusion..................................................................................................................................................96 6.8.4 Issues for Further Consideration.................................................................................................................96 6.9 Wildlife Corridors, Green Connectivity, and Avoiding Habitat Fragmentation.........................................................97 6.9.1 AGFD..........................................................................................................................................................97 6.9.2 The Nature Conservancy.............................................................................................................................98 6.9.3 Implementation .........................................................................................................................................98 7.0 Statewide Framework Implementation...........................................................................................................101 7.1 Transportation Funding.........................................................................................................................................101 7.1.1 Basic Sources of Transportation Revenue..................................................................................................101 7.1.2 Direct User Taxes and Fees.........................................................................................................................101 7.1.3 Indirect Taxes and Fees............................................................................................................................104 7.1.4 Some Basics on Federal and State Highway Revenue................................................................................105 7.1.5 Tribal Transportation Funding...................................................................................................................107 7.1.6 Transit Funding.........................................................................................................................................108 7.1.7 Smart Growth Funding Opportunities.......................................................................................................108 7.1.8 Comparison of Arizona Transportation Revenue with National Data.......................................................109 7.1.9 Transportation Funding Source Options....................................................................................................110 7.1.10 Funding Policy Considerations and Strategies for Discussion....................................................................113 7.1.11 Public-Private Partnerships in Arizona.......................................................................................................114 7.1.12 Highlights of HB 239................................................................................................................................114 7.1.13 Opportunities and Limitations...................................................................................................................115 ix 7.2 Related State Planning Issues................................................................................................................................117 7.2.1 Access Management................................................................................................................................117 7.2.2 Airport Access..........................................................................................................................................117 7.2.3 Border Master Planning...........................................................................................................................118 7.2.4 Complete Streets.....................................................................................................................................118 7.2.5 Context-Sensitive Solutions......................................................................................................................119 7.2.6 Emergency Evacuation.............................................................................................................................120 7.2.7 Homeland Security...................................................................................................................................121 7.2.8 LEED for Neighborhood Development.......................................................................................................121 7.2.9 Light Pollution..........................................................................................................................................122 7.2.10 Multimodal Freight Transportation Planning............................................................................................122 7.2.11 Regional Planning.....................................................................................................................................123 7.2.12 Potable Water Resources.........................................................................................................................123 7.2.13 Safe Routes to School (SRTS).....................................................................................................................124 7.2.14 Statewide Travel Demand Model: Future Development and Use............................................................124 7.2.15 Travel Demand Management and Transportation Systems Management................................................124 8.0 Summary of Statewide Rail Framework Study................................................................................................127 8.1 The Case for Statewide Rail System Development.................................................................................................127 8.2 Overview of Arizona’s Rail Network.......................................................................................................................127 8.2.1 Freight Rail...............................................................................................................................................127 8.2.2 Passenger Rail..........................................................................................................................................129 8.2.3 Anticipated Network Growth....................................................................................................................129 8.2.4 ADOT’s Role in Rail Planning......................................................................................................................131 8.3 Rail Framework Coordination and Collaboration....................................................................................................131 8.4 Strategic Opportunities.........................................................................................................................................131 8.4.1 Passenger Rail Strategic Opportunities.....................................................................................................131 8.4.2 Freight Rail Strategic Opportunities..........................................................................................................133 8.5 Implementation Pursuits and Actions...................................................................................................................136 8.5.1 Passenger Rail..........................................................................................................................................136 8.5.2 Freight Rail...............................................................................................................................................137 8.5.3 Rail Organization/Governance..................................................................................................................137 8.5.4 Implementation Action Timeframes..........................................................................................................138 9.0 Final Rollout of the Statewide Framework......................................................................................................141 9.1 Guiding Principle Dislays........................................................................................................................................141 9.1.1 Economic Vitality......................................................................................................................................141 Table of Contents x Table of Contents 9.1.2 Sustainability and the Environment..........................................................................................................142 9.2.3 Safety and Security...................................................................................................................................143 9.2 Graffiti Wall Dialogue...........................................................................................................................................145 9.2.1 Tucson......................................................................................................................................................145 9.2.2 Flagstaff....................................................................................................................................................145 9.2.3 Mesa.........................................................................................................................................................145 9.2.4 All Locations.............................................................................................................................................146 9.3 Video Dialogue......................................................................................................................................................146 9.3.1 Tucson......................................................................................................................................................146 9.3.2 Flagstaff....................................................................................................................................................147 9.3.3 Mesa........................................................................................................................................................147 10.0 Next Steps....................................................................................................................................................149 10.1 Long Range Transportation Plan...........................................................................................................................149 10.2 State Rail Plan........................................................................................................................................................149 xi Figure 1 COG/MPO and ADOT District Boundaries.....................................................................................................2 Figure 2 Overview of Planning Process.......................................................................................................................3 Figure 3 ADOT Planning Process Evolution..................................................................................................................4 Figure 4 Arizona Population Growth: 1960-2007........................................................................................................9 Figure 5 Arizona Vehicular Travel Growth: 1960-2007................................................................................................9 Figure 6 Population Growth Rate by County.............................................................................................................10 Figure 7 Distribution of Statewide Population Growth.............................................................................................10 Figure 8 Changes in Phoenix Urban Area: 1982-2007...............................................................................................10 Figure 9 Changes in Tucson Urban Area: 1982-2007.................................................................................................10 Figure 10 Southwestern States Comparison: 2005 Annual VMT per Resident............................................................12 Figure 11 Southwestern States Comparison: 2005 Annual Motor Fuel Use per Resident..........................................13 Figure 12 Arizona Greenhouse Gas Emission Forecasts and Goals.............................................................................15 Figure 13 Emerging Megapolitan Regions of the U.S..................................................................................................17 Figure 14 Land Ownership and Management.............................................................................................................22 Figure 15 Arizona Land Ownership/Management (Percent).......................................................................................23 Figure 16 Specially Designated Roadways...................................................................................................................26 Figure 17 Physiographic Provinces.............................................................................................................................30 Figure 18 Slope Analysis............................................................................................................................................31 Figure 19 Water Resources........................................................................................................................................33 Figure 20 Biotic Communities...................................................................................................................................36 Figure 21 Arizona Wildlife Linkages...........................................................................................................................38 Figure 22 Framework Regions and Focus Areas..........................................................................................................49 Figure 23 Arizona Population and Employment Density.............................................................................................58 Figure 24 Existing-plus-Committed Roadway Network Lanes.....................................................................................59 Figure 25 Existing-plus-Committed Roadway Functional Classification......................................................................60 Figure 26 2030 Southwest Region Population Density................................................................................................61 Figure 27 2050 Southwest Region Population Density................................................................................................62 Figure 28 International Border Improvements...........................................................................................................70 Figure 29 Statewide Scenario A: Personal Vehicle Mobility........................................................................................71 Figure 30 Statewide Scenario B: Transit Mobility........................................................................................................72 Figure 31 Statewide Scenario C: Focused Growth.....................................................................................................73 Figure 32 Statewide Refined Scenarios Evaluation Summary–Year 2050...................................................................76 Figure 33 Recommended Statewide 2050 Transportation Framework Scenario.........................................................84 Figure 34 2050 Recommended Scenario–Roadway Features.....................................................................................86 Figure 35 2050 Recommended Scenario–Transit Features.........................................................................................87 List of Figures xii List of Figures Figure 36 2050 Recommended Scenario–Rail Features..............................................................................................88 Figure 37 2030 Existing-plus-committed Traffic Conditions........................................................................................90 Figure 38 2050 Existing-plus-committed Traffic Conditions........................................................................................91 Figure 39 2050 Scenario A Traffic Conditions..............................................................................................................92 Figure 40 2050 Scenario B Traffic Conditions..............................................................................................................93 Figure 41 2050 Scenario C Traffic Conditions..............................................................................................................94 Figure 42 2050 Recommended Scenario Traffic Conditions........................................................................................95 Figure 43 Sources of HURF Collections, FY 1990 to 2008.........................................................................................110 Figure 44 Major Types of Public-Private Partnerships..............................................................................................115 Figure 45 Potential Benefits and Risks of Public-Private Partnership Approaches ....................................................116 Figure 46 Existing Arizona Railroads.........................................................................................................................128 Figure 47 Existing and Potential Passenger Rail Options...........................................................................................130 Figure 48 Value-Added Manufacturing....................................................................................................................142 Figure 49 ADOT Planning Process Evolution.............................................................................................................149 xiii Table 1 Arizona COGs and MPOs..............................................................................................................................1 Table 2 Previous bqAZ Long-Range Visioning and Planning Studies ..........................................................................5 Table 3 Arizona Land Area by Ownership/Management..........................................................................................21 Table 4 Population and Employment Estimates by County, 2005-2050 ...................................................................23 Table 5 Arizona Roadway Miles and VMT, Year 2000..............................................................................................24 Table 6 Arizona Roadway Miles by Jurisdiction and Area Type, Year 2000 .............................................................25 Table 7 Biotic Communities ....................................................................................................................................35 Table 8 Air Quality Non-Attainment and Maintenance Areas .................................................................................40 Table 9 Representative Projects and Programs from Critical Needs .......................................................................45 Table 10 COG/MPOs and Transportation Framework Regions ..................................................................................47 Table 11 Regional RTAT Meetings .............................................................................................................................50 Table 12 Round 1 and Round 2 Regional Community Workshops..............................................................................51 Table 13 Standard Outline of Working Papers 2 and 3..............................................................................................53 Table 14 Proposed Transportation Improvement Types by Region and Scenario......................................................56 Table 15 SWSPT Population Growth Projections .......................................................................................................57 Table 16 AZTDM External Station Traffic Volume Estimates ......................................................................................64 Table 17 AZTDM Non-Auto Trip Mode Shares by Place Type, 2030 and 2050..........................................................65 Table 18 AZTDM Non-Auto Trip Mode Shares by Location ........................................................................................65 Table 19 Guiding Principles, Goals, Evaluation Criteria, and How Measured.............................................................74 Table 20 Statewide Framework Evaluation, Year 2050 ..............................................................................................77 Table 21 Highlights of Recommended Scenario by Region........................................................................................83 Table 22 Changes to Recommended Scenario Due to Elected Official Consultations ................................................85 Table 23 Centerline Miles by Functional Classification...............................................................................................89 Table 24 Cut-Line Summary by Scenario...................................................................................................................89 Table 25 Model Performance Measures by Scenario .................................................................................................96 Table 26 TNC Classification of Effects and Recommended Actions ............................................................................99 Table 27 Transportation Revenue Overview ............................................................................................................102 Table 28 Federal Highway User Taxes and Allocations .............................................................................................105 Table 29 Federal Highway Account Program Categories..........................................................................................106 Table 30 HURF Allocation Formulas ........................................................................................................................106 Table 31 Examples of Smart Growth Transportation Funding Programs.................................................................108 Table 32 Sources of Arizona HURF (FY 2008) ..........................................................................................................109 Table 33 NCHRP Transportation Revenue Options..................................................................................................111 Table 34 Transportation Revenue Options Requiring State Approval ......................................................................112 Table 35 Transportation Innovative Financing Overview..........................................................................................113 Table 36 Rail Implementation Action Timeframes ..................................................................................................138 List of Tables xiv 2010 Statewide Transportation Planning Framework 1 1.0 Background In the fall of 2007, Arizona’s Councils of Governments (COGs) and Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs), in cooperation with the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT), launched a new phase in an ambitious, long-range statewide planning process known as Building a Quality Arizona or bqAZ. Working in collaboration with regional transportation planning entities, transit organizations, tribal governments, land management agencies, conservation groups, business and community leaders, and Governor Napolitano’s Growth Cabinet, ADOT and local/ regional leaders embarked on development of a Statewide Transportation Planning Framework that formulated and evaluated multimodal transportation improvements. ADOT’s Multimodal Planning Division (ADOT-MPD) and Communication and Community Partnerships Division (ADOT-CCP) jointly led the Statewide Framework planning process. In the Framework planning effort, Governor Napolitano directed ADOT and its partners to: • Achieve multimodal balance (i.e., an appropriate balance among modes of transportation–such as private vehicles on roadways, public transportation, and passenger and freight rail service) • Support Smart Growth and sustainable land use • Involve the tribal communities • Involve the economic development and business communities • Involve the environmental and conservation community • Collaborate statewide with COGs, MPOs, and tribal governments The Statewide Framework was an ambitious and innovative endeavor that ADOT-MPD and ADOT-CCP could not have completed without both internal and external partnerships. The most important external partnerships were with the COGs and MPOs responsible for regional transportation planning and the state’s federally recognized Indian tribes. Figure 1 illustrates the COG and MPO boundaries; Table 1 lists the area for which each has planning authority. Internally, ADOT-MPD and ADOT-CCP worked closely with other units of ADOT, such as the Environmental Planning Group, Statewide Project Management, and the nine District Engineers (DEs). (Figure 1 shows the ADOT engineering districts, which do not necessarily coincide with county or COG/MPO boundaries.) ADOT staff assigned to this project also collaborated extensively with other state, federal, and local agencies, and with private stakeholders. 1.1 Overview of Process The flow chart in Figure 2 illustrates the planning process for the Statewide Framework, which began early in 2008 concluded early in 2010. This report covers elements of the chart in the following sections: • Vision Statement and Guiding Principles: Chapter 2 • Environmental Scan: Sections 5.4 and 6.2 Table 1 Arizona COGs and MPOs COG or MPO Counties or other Area Central Arizona Association of Governments (CAAG) Gila, Pinal Northern Arizona Council of Governments (NACOG) Apache, Coconino, Navajo, Yavapai SouthEastern Arizona Governments Organization (SEAGO) Cochise, Graham, Greenlee, Santa Cruz Western Arizona Council of Governments (WACOG) La Paz, Mohave Central Yavapai Metropolitan Planning Organization (CYMPO) Prescott metropolitan area Flagstaff Metropolitan Planning Organization (FMPO) Flagstaff metropolitan area Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) Maricopa Pima Association of Governments (PAG) Pima Yuma Metropolitan Planning Organization (YMPO) Yuma Source: bqAZ Statewide Technical Team, September 2009. 2 Final Report YAVAPAI COUNTY Hassayampa River Sonoran Desert National Monument COCHISE COUNTY GRAHAM COUNTY GRAHAM COUNTY PINAL COUNTY YAVAPAI COUNTY YUMA COUNTY LA PAZ COUNTY YAVAPAI COUNTY COCONINO COUNTY COCONINO COUNTY NAVAJO COUNTY NAVAJO COUNTY APACHE COUNTY Phoenix Tempe Mesa Chandler Glendale GILA COUNTY NAVAJO COUNTY GILA COUNTY GRAHAM COUNTY APACHE COUNTY GREENLEE COUNTY Eloy Marana Superior Tusayan Valle Bitter Springs Grand Canyon Kykotsmovi Jeddito Burnside Hope Picacho Florence Junction Globe Ash Fork Seligman Tonto National Forest Coronado National Forest Tohono O'odham Nation Ironwood Forest National Monument Gila River Indian Community MARICOPA COUNTY PINAL COUNTY Mammoth San Manuel Peach Springs CALIFORNIA ARIZONA Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation Ak-Chin Indian Community Gila River Indian Community Safford Pima Clifton Duncan Oracle Junction Willcox Pinetop-Lakeside Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest Coronado National Forest Gila River Black River Blue River San Simon River ARIZONA NEW MEXICO COCHISE COUNTY PIMA COUNTY PIMA COUNTY PINAL COUNTY San Francisco River Surprise Scottsdale Avondale Sedona Walnut Creek Canyon Diablo River Verde River East Verde River Salt River Eagar Little Colorado River Chevelon Canyon River Puerco River Coconino National Forest Navajo Nation Petrified Forest National Park White Mountain Apache Indian Tribe Tonto National Forest GILA COUNTY YAVAPAI COUNTY San Carlos Apache Tribe Navajo Nation Zuni Tribe Congress Naco Sahuarita Tucson South Tucson Oro Valley Benson Sierra Vista Nogales Bisbee Douglas SANTA CRUZ COUNTY Tombstone PIMA COUNTY San Simon River Chiricahua National Monument Maricopa Casa Grande Coronado National Forest Saguaro National Park San Xavier Indian Reservation Davis Monthan Air Force Base Coronado National Forest Santa Cruz River San Pedro River Pascua Yaqui Tribe Springerville St. Johns Snowflake Taylor Payson Show Low Wupatki National Monument Camp Navajo Little Colorado River Tonopah Apache Junction Colorado River MOHAVE COUNTY MOHAVE COUNTY Williams Flagstaff Page Kaibab National Forest Navajo Nation Havasupai Tribe Hualapai Tribe Grand Canyon National Park Kaibab National Forest Vermillion Cliffs National Monument UTAH ARIZONA Yavapai-Apache Nation Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe GILA COUNTY MARICOPA COUNTY Prescott National Forest Prescott National Forest Agua Fria National Monument Tonto National Forest Wickenburg Dewey/Humbolt Prescott Valley Cottonwood Camp Verde Winslow Holbrook Petrified National Forest Hopi Tribe Canyon De Chelly National Monument Navajo Nation Cameron Tuba City Window Rock Kayenta Chinle Second Mesa Cocopah Tribe Fort Yuma-Quechan Tribe MARICOPA COUNTY YUMA COUNTY PIMA COUNTY Colorado River San Luis ARIZONA REPUBLIC OF MEXICO Somerton Yuma Wellton Yuma Proving Grounds Barry Goldwater Air Force Range Hualapai Indian Fort Mohave Tribe Indian Reservation Colorado River Big Sandy River Big Willams River Santa Maria River COCONINO COUNTY YAVAPAI COUNTY COCONINO COUNTY YAVAPAI COUNTY MARICOPA COUNTY C O C O N I N O P L A T E A U K A I B A B P L A T E A U Bullhead City Prescott National Forest Gila Bend Buckeye Quartzsite Parker Chino Valley Prescott Kingman Colorado City Fredonia NEVADA ARIZONA Kaibab Paiute Tribe Grand Canyon National Park Grand Canyon-Parashant National Monument Hualapai Tribe Colorado River Indian Tribes Gila River Painted Rock Reservoir Yuma Proving Grounds Lake Havasu City Hon-Dah Patagonia Whiteriver Shonto Jacobs Lake Ajo Tohono O'odham Nation Sonoita Heber Miami Why Tonto Apache Lukeville San Carlos Apache Tribe Sources: ADOT 2007 October 2009 Statewide Transportation Planning Framework COG/MPO and ADOT District Boundaries 0 10 20 40 Miles Legend State Highway System COG/MPO CAAG CYMPO FMPO MAG NACOG PAG SEAGO WACOG YMPO Yuma District Tucson District ADOT District Boundary Safford District Globe District Holbrook District Flagstaff District Kingman District Prescott District Phoenix Maintenance District Figure 1 COG/MPO and ADOT District Boundaries 2010 Statewide Transportation Planning Framework 3 • Past and Current Planning: Sections 1.5, 6.2, and 6.9 • Stakeholder and Community Input: Sections 1.4, 4.2, 6.1, 6.2, 6.7 • Travel Demand Model and Transit Propensity Analysis: Sections 6.4, 6.8, and 7.2 • Regional Inputs: Section 6.2 • Scenarios: Sections 6.3, 6.5, 6.6, and 6.8 • Evaluation: Section 6.6 • Common Interest Groups (Workshops): Section 6.7 • Binational/Bordering State Consultation: Section 6.5 • Statewide Strategic Rail Vision: Chapter 8 • Recommended Statewide 2050 Transportation Vision (Scenario): Section 6.8 • Implementation and Policy Issues: Chapter 7 1.2 Supporting Sustainable Land Use and Smart Growth One of the chief values of the Statewide Transportation Planning Framework is to support sustainable land use and Smart Growth. Sustainability has been defined as “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs,” or more loosely as “meeting the triple bottom line”–conducting processes for decision-making that considers social, environmental, and economic factors equally. A sustainable land use pattern fosters urban growth patterns with a strong jobs-to-housing balance, a hierarchy of mixed use activity centers, and a focus on creating livable, multimodal communities created from walkable neighborhoods that embody a sense of place. It contains fully connected transportation networks, and stimulates infill development to use vacant land or redevelopment sites that are efficiently served by existing infrastructure. Sustainable land use supports not only the built environment, but also the natural environment through reducing greenhouse gas emissions, improving air quality, and energy independence, and preserving natural habitats. As an element of sustainability and a promoter of sustainable land use, Smart Growth is a compact, efficient, and environmentally sensitive pattern of development that provides people with additional travel, housing, and employment choices by focusing growth away from undeveloped areas and closer to existing and planned job centers and public facilities. Governor Napolitano’s Growth Cabinet and the Arizona Department of Commerce promoted the concept of Smart Growth as an approach to achieving sustainability, and encouraged cities, towns, and counties to use this approach in their planning. As a result, Smart Growth was a fundamental consideration in developing a multimodal transportation network statewide. According to This Is Smart Growth, published by the Smart Growth Network, the ten Smart Growth principles are: • Mix land uses • Take advantage of compact building design • Create a range of housing opportunities and choices Regional Scenarios Personal Vehicle Mobility Transit Mobility Focused Growth A B C Preliminary Statewide Scenarios Personal Vehicle Mobility Transit Mobility Focused Growth A B C Evaluation Criteria and Program • Economic Development • Tribal Communities • Natural Resources • Planning Professionals • Resource Agencies • Development Community • Freight/Cargo Industry Common Interest Groups Recommended Statewide 2050 Transportation Vision Statewide Multimodal Transportation Planning Framework • Vision Statement and Guiding Principles • Process • Regional Scenarios Summary • Statewide Scenarios Summary • Recommended Statewide Scenario • Implementation Program • Policies and Investment Options Refined Statewide Scenarios Personal Vehicle Mobility Transit Mobility Focused Growth A B C Regional Inputs • Stakeholder Interviews • Regional Technical Advisory Teams (RTATs) • Community Workshops Final Statewide Scenarios Personal Vehicle Mobility Transit Mobility Focused Growth A B C Evaluation Criteria and Program Stakeholder Input Community Input Statewide Travel Demand Model and Transit Propensity Analysis Environmental Scan Past/Current Planning Rural Consultation for Elected Officials • Border State DOTs • Binational Border Improvements • Multi-State Corridor Planning • Homeland Security and Evacuation Plans • Freight Movement/ Transshipment Studies Binational/Border State Consultation Strategic Statewide Rail Vision Figure 2 Overview of Planning Process 4 Final Report • 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 1.3 Other Innovations in the bqAZ Planning Process In addition to sustainability, Smart Growth, and the other objectives and directions set by Governor Napolitano, this study breaks new ground for ADOT and ADOT-MPD in several ways: • The Statewide Transportation Planning Framework and bqAZ represented the first effort by ADOT-MPD to establish a long-range (40-year, or 2050) vision for the transportation future of Arizona. Long-range transportation planning studies typically look ahead twenty years. In this case, ADOT developed a vision for 2050, with 2030 as an intermediate planning horizon. • This study was not confined to highways and other transportation systems that are owned, operated, maintained or funded by the state of Arizona. All major surface transportation facilities and services were included, whether under the jurisdiction of state, local, federal or tribal government. • ADOT emphasized coordination with Arizona’s five neighboring states, including Sonora, Mexico, throughout the bqAZ process, in recognition of the need for seamless connections between Arizona and its neighbors. The bqAZ team, consisting of ADOT and its statewide consultants, visited each state and conferred with transportation officials during the study. • This study focused not only on personal travel, but also on freight movement in general and international trade in particular. • ADOT completed a separate but integrated State Rail Framework as part of the bqAZ process. Chapter 8 of this report summarizes the Rail Framework. 1.4 Tribal Outreach The bqAZ Statewide Technical Team was committed to proactively engaging and receiving input throughout the study from all of the federally recognized Indian tribal communities. The Governor’s Tribal Policy Advisor and the ADOT tribal liaison (who was an active member of the bqAZ team) worked to ensure that tribal interests were represented. They made presentations to communities and solicited feedback that was incorporated in the regional planning efforts. Additionally, two tribal representatives– Kenneth Poocha of the Arizona Commission of Indian Affairs and Delia Carlyle of the Ak-Chin Indian Community– served on the Framework Policy Committee. All tribes were encouraged to participate in the regional framework process described in Chapter 6. Figure 3 ADOT Planning Process Evolution 2010 Statewide Transportation Planning Framework 5 On May 14, 2008, the Statewide Transportation Planning Framework was discussed at the Tribal Transportation Forum and Safety Summit. Tribal entities statewide heard a detailed presentation about the process and critical transportation needs. In small breakout groups, the participants identified critical needs facing Arizona's Indian communities. 1.5 Related Planning Efforts The bqAZ Framework process began in 2006 with MAG’s groundbreaking planning framework studies looking ahead to buildout in two fast-growing areas: the Hassayampa Valley (mostly west of the White Tank Mountains), and the Hidden Valley (south and east of the Hassayampa Valley, and partly in northern Pinal County). The success of these studies drew the interest of the Arizona COG and MPO Association, which soon commissioned the Statewide Intrastate Mobility Reconnaissance Study under MAG’s leadership. The Reconnaissance Study found that bqAZ needed to proceed with more detailed planning to identify and address the state’s multimodal transportation needs through 2050. In short, that study served as the scoping effort for ADOT’s subsequent Statewide Planning Framework. Table 2 provides basic information on the previous long-range framework studies. Table 2 Previous bqAZ Long-Range Visioning and Planning Studies Name Sponsors and Funding Partners Study Area Completion Date Time Horizon(s) Travel Demand Forecasting Tool Focus of Outreach Principal Outcome or Product I-10 Hassayampa Valley Transportation Framework Study* MAG, Buckeye, Goodyear, Surprise, Maricopa County, ADOT Approx. 1,800 square miles west of SR 303 and north of Gila River Fall 2007 Buildout and 2030 MAG model with new Buildout socioeconomic data Property owners, developers, public agencies Final report, technical reports, and illustrated poster with general locations of future freeways (including interchanges), parkways, arterials, and conceptual transit recommendations I-8 and I-10 Hidden Valley Transportation Framework Study* MAG, Buckeye, Goodyear, Maricopa (city), Maricopa County, Pinal County, ADOT Over 2,000 square miles generally west of I-10, north of I-8 and south of Gila River Fall 2009 Buildout and 2030 Same as Hassayampa, with additional data for Pinal County Same as above, plus tribes and general public Similar to Hassayampa, but with added emphasis on transit recommendations Intrastate Mobility Reconnaissance Study State of Arizona State of Arizona Spring 2008 2050 Statewide planning tool (precursor to statewide model) COGs, MPOs, resource agencies Booklet on long-range issues and recommendations: “The bqAZ Agenda” MAG Regional Transit Framework Study Maricopa County Maricopa County Fall 2009 2030, with some post-2030 visioning MAG model Transit user and non-user groups, peer cities, general public Three long-range scenarios tied to funding levels: Basic Mobility, Enhanced Mobility and Transit Choice *The MAG Regional Council has accepted both the Hassayampa Valley and Hidden Valley studies. Source: bqAZ Statewide Technical Team, October 2009. 6 Final Report Results and recommendations of the previous studies are incorporated in the Statewide Transportation Planning Framework. Further information on all of the bqAZ planning efforts is available at the master website, www.bqaz.gov. As the next step in the long-range transportation planning process, ADOT has begun the update of the State Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP), a 20-year, fiscally constrained, multimodal plan to guide state transportation investments. The vision and results from the Recommended Statewide Scenario provided the springboard for the LRTP. Arizona state statutes require ADOT to update the plan every five years. Figure 3 shows how the Statewide Framework and LRTP fit into ADOT’s comprehensive planning and programming process. 2010 Statewide Transportation Planning Framework 7 2.0 Statewide Vision and Guiding Principles The Statewide Transportation Planning Framework presents a comprehensive transportation vision and strategic multimodal transportation opportunities. This vision sets in motion transportation planning that promotes place-sensitive and environmentally responsible mobility choices supporting economic prosperity for livable communities. The Framework focuses on the 2050 timeframe and advances the connection between land use and transportation planning to promote balanced and sustainable statewide growth. 2.1 Vision for Arizona Transportation in 2050 The 2050 vision for the Statewide Transportation Planning Framework Program is recited below, spoken in the future tense to visualize the future state of transportation in Arizona, as heard from stakeholders statewide. “Arizona’s integrated, multimodal transportation system provides residents and the traveling public with mobility choices (rail, transit, auto, air, pedestrian, and bicycle) that reflect the high value that Arizonans place on our unique Southwestern lifestyle, the extraordinary places we call home, and the natural resources that define us as a state. In recent decades, innovation and technology have changed the way we travel with the introduction of new modes to Arizona, as well as improved fuel efficiencies and expanded use of alternative fuels. Through coordinated land use decision-making and wise investments in state-of-the art infrastructure, Arizonans have broad transportation choices.” “We now move people and goods safely and efficiently in a way that promotes sustainable growth and preserves our natural environment, while continuing to position Arizona for economic opportunities and diversification based on our unique assets. Arizona’s statewide transportation system connects communities, people and commerce to enhance our quality of life, while ensuring that future generations can enjoy an even better Arizona.” 2.2 Guiding Principles To help achieve the 2050 vision for transportation in Arizona, the bqAZ team established several principles to guide the planning process. 2.2.1 Improve Mobility and Accessibility Develop a multimodal system, moving people and freight that offers transportation choices and connects all of Arizona, while linking the state nationally and globally. Reduce traffic delay to enhance economic activity and provide more time for our families and enjoying other pursuits. • Preserve capacity on the transportation system through efficient operation and management of facilities, effective use of technology and information, and closer coordination between land use and transportation decision-making. • Actively mitigate traffic congestion. • Consider all modes of transportation in aviation, roadway, transit, and rail planning. • Ensure that the transportation system is accessible to all users, including the young, elderly, disabled, and economically disadvantaged. • Ensure that cost-benefit considerations and financial sustainability are included in transportation investment decision-making. 2.2.2 Support Economic Growth Build a seamless transportation system that moves people and goods to ensure that Arizona’s economy is competitive and thriving. Work toward a seamless system of roads, transit, passenger rail, non-motorized modes, aviation, and freight options to ensure Arizona’s economic vitality. • Link regional activity and employment centers through multimodal transportation options. • Develop a transportation system that supports current and emerging statewide economic opportunities. • Provide intermodal facilities that accommodate movement between air, rail, and highway vehicles. • Improve high-priority freight corridors. 8 Final Report • Develop interstate and international transportation connections that foster enhanced economic activity. 2.2.3 Promote a Development Pattern that Links Land Use and Transportation Develop a multimodal transportation system that recognizes and strengthens the relationship between land use and transportation, and connects activity and employment centers statewide. Population growth, community development, economic diversification, and transportation are related, and a comprehensive transportation system can be achieved by working with communities to provide suitable mode choices. • Support infill development and revitalization through transportation investments that reinforce existing communities. • Encourage mixed-use development to maximize trip purpose and foster use of alternative modes in daily travel. • Use transportation infrastructure as a tool to direct growth. • Work with local, county, and tribal governments to evaluate and plan for regional traffic impacts of major developments. Work collaboratively to minimize these impacts. • Coordinate efforts to identify, preserve, and obtain required right-of-way to support future system growth and demand. • Model and demonstrate Smart Growth practices that link land use and transportation in communities of all sizes. 2.2.4 Consider Arizona’s Environment and Natural Resources Being responsible to Arizona’s citizens, provide access to transportation options that are sensitive to the environment and help reduce congestion. Ensure that the environment –including wildlife habitats, wildlife linkages, and natural resources–is an integral component of transportation planning and development. • Promote and implement context-sensitive planning and design, oriented to achieving the principles of Smart Growth and long-term sustainability. • Encourage development patterns and transportation solutions that reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve air quality. • Implement a green connectivity approach (connecting animals and ecosystems) to transportation planning and system development. • Foster energy independence through broader mode choices, more efficient transportation infrastructure, and heavy emphasis on the use of renewable energy sources. 2.2.5 Ensure Safety and Security Design, build, operate, and maintain a transportation system that promotes safety and security, reducing the risk of injury and property damage on or near transportation facilities. • Maintain and enhance transportation safety, reducing crashes, injuries, and deaths. • Address high-priority safety improvements in the statewide transportation system. • Improve safety and reduce risks as more freight moves in and through the state. • Include homeland security measures, as appropriate, as Arizona upgrades international border crossings, while maintaining efforts to promote cross-border economic opportunity and enhanced trade. 2010 Statewide Transportation Planning Framework 9 3.0 Long-Range Trends, Challenges, and Opportunities The Statewide Framework planning process identified and analyzed existing and emerging trends for their impact on Arizona's future. The state's demographic characteristics, energy consumption, use of natural resources, and land development patterns will influence local, regional, and statewide demand for personal mobility and freight movement in ways that are important to understand. As transportation demand grows and evolves in Arizona, the state will face new challenges and opportunities. These trends and their implications are summarized on the following pages. 3.1 Population Growth and Vehicular Travel Over the past half-century, Arizona has grown so quickly that transportation policy has been reactive, instead of proactively guiding future development. Arizona’s urbanization occurred almost entirely in the period following the arrival of the automobile. Therefore, Arizona’s cities and towns were built to accommodate motor vehicles, and most local and regional mobility in Arizona today relies on cars and other personal motor vehicles. The urban form that the cities implemented was designed to take advantage of motor vehicle travel by spreading growth out in low-density residential subdivisions, with commercial land uses generally located in strips along arterial streets. Figures 4 and 5 show how vehicle miles of travel (VMT) have grown even faster than population, with annual VMT per resident (calculated from the two charts) having risen from 6,400 in 1960 to 9,800 in 2007. During these forty-seven years, the population of Arizona nearly quintupled while VMT more than septupled, compounding traffic and congestion challenges. Most of the growth in VMT per resident, and the resulting accelerated growth in total statewide VMT, occurred before 1990. From 1990 to 2007, the state’s VMT grew 177 percent (roughly three and a half percent per year, compounded). In contrast, the annual VMT growth rate from 1970 to 1990 was approximately five and a half percent. Annual VMT per resident jumped from 6,700 in 1970 to 9,600 in 1990, but rose only slightly to 9,800 from 1990 to 2007. This moderation in the growth of VMT per resident is associated with the continuing urbanization of Arizona, a trend described in more detail below. Although the recession that started in 2008 has slowed the rate of population growth in Arizona (primarily by greatly reducing in-migration), demographers and economic forecasters see this is as a short-term trend. Over the coming decades, Arizona will continue growing faster than the nation as a whole, with most (about four-fifths) of the expected growth attributable to in-migration from other states. Figure 4 Arizona Population Growth: 1960-2007 1.3 1.8 2.7 3.7 5.1 6.4 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2007 Statewide Population in Millions Year Source: U.S. Census Bureau, April 1, 2009 Estimates. Figure 5 Arizona Vehicular Travel Growth: 1960-2007 8.3 12.1 18.8 35.5 49.8 62.9 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2007 Statewide VMT, Billions of Annual Miles Year Source: Federal Highway Administration Annual Highway Statistics Report. 10 Final Report These forecasts translate into enormous future demand for housing, associated commercial and employment development, energy, services, and infrastructure, all of which represent significant economic opportunity. For example, the Urban Land Institute (ULI) states that half of the housing and commercial space that Arizona will need by 2050 is not yet built. More importantly for the Statewide Transportation Planning Framework, at least half of the future transportation systems that Arizona will need in 2050 are yet to be built, and these systems must change to enable the state to meet future mobility demands, and to thrive in the face of forecast growth. Some of the fastest-growing places in Arizona have been the newer urbanizing areas in Mohave, Pinal, and Yavapai counties. These areas, along with Maricopa and Yuma counties, at least doubled in population from 1980 to 2006 (Figure 6). This pace of growth has created intense travel demand that has been impossible to meet with new transportation facilities. The limited arterial highway systems in these areas, a general lack of freeways and urban transit, and poorly connected street networks have resulted in rapidly increasing congestion on the principal streets and highways. During the same 26 years, 83 percent of Arizona population growth occurred in three counties straddling the I-10 corridor: Maricopa, Pima, and Pinal (Figure 7). These counties, which comprise the heart of the Sun Corridor megapolitan region, absorbed an additional 2.8 million people, of whom 2.3 million were in Maricopa County alone. At the same time, ADOT, MAG, and local governments in Maricopa County pursued an aggressive and successful freeway expansion program. The investment in an urban freeway network has provided greater urban mobility, allowing cities in the state’s largest metropolitan area to absorb population and employment in the existing urban context. Nevertheless, these agencies have not been able to build freeways and arterials fast enough to keep up with VMT growth. A similar set of trends has played out in Tucson Figure 6 Population Growth Rate by County 126% 51% 107% 205% 198% 78% 246% 150% 67% 0% 50% 100% 150% 200% 250% 300% State Total Other Counties Yuma Yavapai Pinal Pima Mohave Maricopa Coconino Percentage Growth: 1980-2006 Source: U.S. Census Bureau. Figure 7 Distribution of Statewide Population Growth 100% 4.6% 2.8% 4.1% 5.2% 12.1% 4% 65.7% 1.5% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% State Total Other Counties Yuma Yavapai Pinal Pima Mohave Maricopa Coconino Percentage Growth: 1980-2006 Source: U.S. Census Bureau. Figure 8 Changes in Phoenix Urban Area: 1982-2007 139% 168% 104% 230% 0% 50% 100% 150% 200% 250% Population Vehicle Miles of Travel Total Lane Miles Congested Lane Miles % Increase Freeways and Arterials Source: Texas Transportation Institute Annual Urban Mobility Reports. Figure 9 Changes in Tucson Urban Area: 1982-2007 72% 96% 35% 166% 0% 50% 100% 150% 200% 250% Population Vehicle Miles of Travel Total Lane Miles Congested Lane Miles % Increase Freeways and Arterials Source: Texas Transportation Institute Annual Urban Mobility Reports. 2010 Statewide Transportation Planning Framework 11 and Pima County, although this smaller urban region has not embarked on an extensive freeway program. Figures 8 and 9 show that, in both major metropolitan areas, VMT grew faster than population from 1982 to 2007. In both cases, the number of roadway lane miles increased substantially, but congested lane miles grew faster. Arizona will be challenged to offer the housing and transportation choices desired by its millions of new residents, who are expected to arrive with new needs and preferences. For example, the state’s population will continue to age, with the number of Arizonans who are at least 65 years old increasing much faster than the total population between now and 2030. The number of people who do not drive will also increase. At the same time, a long-standing trend away from traditional households (with a married couple and one or more children) will continue. By 2040, 74 percent of all households in the U.S. will not include children. These demographic trends will affect the market for housing and commercial space in significant ways. Increasingly, homeowners–especially first-time homebuyers and retirees–will opt for a different kind of housing than what was demanded in the years following World War II. Rather than choosing single-family homes in suburban subdivisions, many new and existing residents will choose homes on smaller lots closer to the cores of cities, or multi-family housing in mixed-use urban neighborhoods. Nationally, 25 percent of existing housing belongs to the “attached housing” category—townhomes, condominiums, and apartments. But about 38 percent of prospective homebuyers indicate that they will seek to buy attached housing, indicating an important new direction in housing demand. Retirees also are expected to display different housing preferences than they have in the past. According to research conducted for the National Association of Realtors, only 49 percent of retirees will choose to live in suburban and rural settings, where 70 percent live today; a majority will prefer urban settings for their retirement. The shifts in housing preferences also will be pronounced among “New Millennials”–the members of “Generation Y,” born generally between 1982 and 2001–who will be needed if Arizona’s economic growth is to match its population growth. The New Millennials are gravitating to mixed-use urban neighborhoods with local elementary schools, safe and pleasant walking environments, and access to regional transit services. According to ULI, based on these trends, the existing supply of large-lot, single-family suburban homes in Arizona may be more than enough to satisfy expected market demand for some years. Meanwhile, an enormous market demand for smaller lot, single-family housing, and attached housing in mixed-use settings is almost entirely unmet in today’s Arizona. This new and growing market represents an opportunity for developers; it also presents new challenges for transportation planners. 3.2 Land Development Trends and Transportation Demand The primary forces driving increases in transportation demand, including motor vehicle traffic and resulting congestion, are: • Population growth • Economic activity • Travel behavior • Land development patterns Population growth can be forecast but not managed by state policy. One of the objectives of good transportation planning is supporting and enhancing economic activity. Daily VMT tends to decline during recessions, but avoiding economic growth is not an acceptable strategy for reducing VMT. Fortunately, two other determinants of transportation demand can be addressed through public policy, including transportation investments. Travel behavior is a term that includes all the characteristics of individual travel: mode share (percent of trips by mode), trip length, trip frequency, auto occupancy, route selection and others. Public investments in transportation facilities and services have a significant impact on travel behavior. With investment in freeways, daily VMT increases. With investment in effective public transit, daily ridership increases. When safe, comfortable walking environments are provided, pedestrian activity increases. Land development patterns also influence travel demand. For example, where most homes are located in residential subdivisions with no nearby jobs or commerce, driving per household is high. On the other hand, where “complete neighborhoods” have schools, community retail and local services, driving trips are fewer and other modes of travel–especially walking and bicycling–increase. Research has shown that daily household VMT can drop by 25 percent or more in complete neighborhoods. Finally, where dense, mixed-use urban neighborhoods have direct transit connections to job 12 Final Report centers, driving per household is much lower, and walking, bicycling, and transit ridership all increase. At the regional level, the spatial distribution of residences, offices, schools, and other land uses–and the associated distribution of trip generators and attractors–affect the amount of transportation activity. It is possible to forecast these relationships, and the traffic modeling used in the Statewide Framework reflects the regional impacts of development patterns. Local urban form characteristics influence the following characteristics of individual and household travel behavior: • Number of daily auto trips • Mode share of non-auto trips • Average lengths of all trips • Vehicle occupancy rates of motorized trips Both neighborhood and regional land development patterns influence travel demand. Therefore, both should be considered in planning for the travel characteristics of a specific location. The general term used to describe these local and regional factors is “location efficiency.” Places with high location efficiency have lower daily VMT per household and per resident. They also produce higher levels of walking and biking. Where transit services are available, such places also generate increased transit patronage. The concept of location efficiency recognizes that land use and urban form directly influence travel behavior by affecting neighborhood accessibility. The concept of neighborhood accessibility rests on the principle that neighborhood-scale characteristics–such as the local mix of land uses, street design and layout, and the density of different activities–can influence travel behavior, such as the propensity to walk. The connectivity of the local street network is especially important. Many areas of Arizona have high levels of location efficiency, or at least display characteristics of location efficiency. For example, much of the greater Phoenix region was developed pursuant to sound traffic engineering guidance, so that a complete, well-connected street network was installed as the neighborhoods were built. This rectangular grid encourages walking and bicycling, and supports transit service, while shortening the average length of local auto trips. In many smaller cities around the state, such as Yuma, Prescott, and Flagstaff, there are also older, complete neighborhoods with schools, local retail, and services established on a regular grid street pattern. This historical development pattern is beneficial and an important asset for Arizona communities, reducing VMT and the traffic volumes required to support household mobility and economic vitality. Arizona compares well with neighboring states in annual VMT per resident (Figure 10). Arizona’s VMT per resident in 2005 was slightly below the national average, and less than four of six other Southwestern states (VMT per resident is a function not only of land use and the transportation network, but also of auto ownership and demographics). Over the past couple of decades, however, a different development pattern has become prevalent in suburban and rural Arizona. Large residential tract subdivisions with few or no schools, retail, or services have been developed far from core cities and job centers. These subdivisions often have poorly connected street systems that do not function as networks, but rather funnel traffic directly to arterial highways, concentrating local traffic on facilities intended for regional travel and unnecessarily amplifying peak period traffic congestion. Poor access management on many of these highways compounds the problem. This has significant implications for Arizona’s transportation system. Low levels of location efficiency can be virtually permanent, flooding roads with unnecessary traffic and burdening future generations of residents and workers with high levels of household driving. Where this type of development pattern predominates, VMT will grow faster than population and faster than the regional economy, making it difficult or impossible to fund new transportation facilities and services fast enough to keep up. Both VMT growth and lack of access management on arterials also make them less safe for users. The following sections explore some of the implications of the link between transportation service levels and land development patterns. Figure 10 Southwestern States Comparison: 2005 Annual VMT per Resident Arizona California Colorado Nevada New Mexico Texas Utah 8,000 10,000 12,000 U.S. Average =10,087 Source: U.S. Bureau of Transportation Statistics, State Transportation Statistics 2006. 2010 Statewide Transportation Planning Framework 13 3.3 Energy Independence The transportation sector accounts for 74 percent of the increase in petroleum consumption forecast by the U.S. Energy Information Agency for the next two decades. In some ways this trend seems inexorable. Until recently, many assumed that the U.S. would continue to have cheap, plentiful petroleum fuels indefinitely. As a result, this country has not aggressively pursued opportunities to improve transport energy efficiency or location efficiency. Instead, it has built a transportation system that is powered almost entirely by petroleum-based fuel, much of which is imported. Both worldwide demand for oil and oil production costs will rise in the coming years, driven by economic growth in China and India and rapid modernization of less developed countries. Over the long term, much higher petroleum prices are almost a certainty. In the short term, oil prices are expected to remain unstable and fluctuate widely, as they have over the last two years. This trend represents one of the most important policy issues facing Arizona and other states. A high dependence on imported oil for mobility and goods movement subjects the state’s economy to periodic downturns driven by fuel prices. Families find it hard to budget when gas prices fluctuate, affecting both workers and their employers (including the homebuilding and construction sectors). Worse, these expenditures represent a substantial drain on the state’s economy. The Arizona Department of Commerce estimates that Arizonans spent $9.9 billion on energy in 2006, of which 68 percent left the state. Figure 11 shows that in 2005, Arizona’s motor fuel consumption per resident approximately equaled the national average and exceeded that of all but three Southwestern states. To some degree, the issue of dependence on imported oil is beyond policy remedy, at least in the short term. The U.S. and Arizona will continue to be reliant on foreign oil for years to come. Vehicle fuel economy is determined largely by market forces and by federal legislation. However, different places are dependent on imported oil to different degrees, and the differences–even at the margin–matter. One policy measure that many states are beginning to address is growth in VMT per resident. For example, the states of California and Washington have passed laws addressing VMT growth. Congress also is expected to make VMT growth a performance criterion in new surface transportation legislation. The California legislation includes two bills [AB 32 (2006) and SB 375 (2008)] that primarily address climate change intervention. AB 32 sets statewide goals for greenhouse emissions and SB 375 requires state, local, and regional public agencies to develop plans that are consistent with these goals. In subsequent rulemaking, the state determined that meeting AB 32 goals will not be possible without reductions in VMT per resident, so implementation of SB 375 requires that the state DOT (Caltrans), along with local and regional agencies, develop plans to intervene in VMT growth trends. In contrast, the Washington legislation HB 2815 (2008), which is also aimed primarily at reducing greenhouse gases, sets specific statewide VMT goals in reducing VMT per resident below the 2005 level: 18 percent below by 2020, 30 percent by 2035, and 50 percent by 2050. From a transportation perspective, it is now clear that energy will be more expensive in the future, and that Arizona would benefit by reducing its dependence on fossil fuels and on foreign oil in particular, especially for transportation. To some extent, state policymakers have already been addressing these issues. The state has encouraged the growth of ethanol/biofuel industry in a way that relies on crops appropriate for its arid climate. Other policy measures related to energy supply may be feasible. However, Arizona’s transportation investments should begin to take energy efficiency more explicitly into account. The state’s dependence on carbon-based energy for transportation puts it at a disadvantage, subject to the whims of global politics and the economics of peak oil. Every state must face this challenge, but the amount of imported petroleum required to maintain economic vitality varies widely among cities and regions. Places where daily (per resident) VMT is high are at a disadvantage, as are places where commuters do not have options that allow them to reduce household driving when gas prices are high. Figure 11 Southwestern States Comparison: 2005 Annual Motor Fuel Use per Resident Arizona California Colorado Nevada New Mexico Texas Utah 500 600 700 U.S. Average =604 gallons/ resident Source: U.S. Bureau of Transportation Statistics, State Transportation Statistics 2006. 14 Final Report The good news is that Arizona is in a unique position to reduce its future dependence on oil relative to the size of its economy because half of the state’s 2050 built environment remain to be built. This means that Arizona can shape its urban growth in a way that increases mobility while decreasing the amount of energy needed for travel. Such a strategy would be much more difficult for states like Michigan and Ohio, which are not growing. If Arizona can achieve a more compact, mixed-use land pattern and adopt a comprehensive, strategic approach to transportation choices and investments, it can reduce its dependence on oil compared with other states by shortening vehicle trips and providing an improved range of travel options. 3.4 Cost of Travel and Economic Growth Arizonans are paying for transportation, not just through taxes, but also through travel delay, inconvenience, and reliance on the most expensive mode of travel–driving alone. Residents of the Phoenix and Tucson metropolitan areas have experienced a doubling of daily hours of travel delay over the last decade. The impact of the twin forces of congestion and oil prices has been to reduce mobility for many residents, workers, and businesses, with direct impacts to the state’s economy, including especially the homebuilding and construction industries. There is no indication that this condition will moderate. Although the country has been in a recession, oil prices are decoupled from other economic trends. Even with the downturn, consumer gas prices have remained above two dollars a gallon. It is clear that as the economy recovers, the cost of travel will move even higher, although there may be periods of price volatility related to limited domestic oil production capacity, which has not increased since 1973. While everyone is affected, the impacts of rising transportation costs are most severe for working families. According to the Center for Neighborhood Technology, families with annual incomes between $20,000 and $50,000 spend 29 percent of their income on transportation–often more than they spend on housing. As fuel costs increase, the budget available for items such as clothing, education, and recreation declines. Considering that over two-thirds of energy expenditures leave the state, the impact on the Arizona economy is substantial. The disproportionate impact on working families has other implications. In recent decades, much of Arizona’s supply of new workforce housing has been in suburban subdivisions, which impose high VMT on households because of poor location efficiency and long commutes to job centers. Families have chosen to “drive until they qualify,” trading lower housing prices for higher transportation costs. Further increases in energy prices, coupled with the demographic trends described earlier, may significantly reduce the value of suburban housing, with resulting impacts to the homebuilding and construction industries. The combined cost of housing and transportation is likely to make many Arizonans rethink critical decisions about where they live and how they travel. This will create new markets for urban housing, especially in locations with a good mix of neighborhood land uses and good access to regional transit. It will also increase demand for transit, and for safe and convenient walking and cycling environments. The state, metropolitan regions and local governments will be under pressure to respond to these needs and demands between now and 2050. 3.5 Climate Change Arizona is among the states most affected by climate change. Its increase in average annual temperature is expected to be the highest of any state, and along with California and Nevada it will be heavily affected by reduced flows in the Colorado River Basin. No state has more at stake in the direct effects of climate change and the regulatory effects of federal legislation responding to the climate change threat. Over the past ten years, the global scientific community has reached consensus that human activities are contributing significantly to an atmospheric build-up of greenhouse gases–principally carbon dioxide–that are warming the planet and introducing a wide range of climate changes. The American Southwest, including Arizona, has been affected already by an increase in annual ambient temperatures of more than two degrees Fahrenheit and by changes in seasonal precipitation to watersheds that supply the state with water for drinking, irrigation and industry. Arizona and other western states are experiencing a prolonged drought, decreased snowfall, increased and earlier snowmelt, and more severe and devastating forest and rangeland fires as a result of recent climate changes. The scientific evidence is that the West–and especially the Southwest–will continue to be particularly hard-hit by the effects of climate change. Congress is now considering climate change legislation that will directly affect Arizona’s transportation choices. A climate change bill that may pass Congress in 2010 would increase the costs of “carbon” directly and indirectly, with unknown effects on the cost and availability of motor 2010 Statewide Transportation Planning Framework 15 fuels. It also appears likely that new surface transportation legislation will hold states accountable for decisions that affect how energy-intensive their transportation systems are. Carbon dioxide may become a criteria pollutant in the federal clean air regulatory system, and may become an additional “conformity” criterion in the approval process for federal cost participation in state and local transportation programs. The transportation sector is the largest generator of greenhouse gases in Arizona, accounting for 39 percent of the total. Transportation is also the fastest growing category of greenhouse gas emissions. It will face state and federal policy scrutiny as a result. The state completed an Arizona Climate Change Action Plan in August, 2006. The plan projected that greenhouse gases in Arizona would increase 148 percent from 1990 to 2020, due to growth in both population and travel. It set a goal that total greenhouse gas emissions should be reduced to 2000 levels by 2020, and to 50 percent below 2000 levels by 2040 (see Figure 12, “MMtCO2e” is million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent). These goals cannot be met in the transportation sector through technology alone. Implementing a clean car program could contribute about 30 percent of the emission reductions required to meet the 2040 goal of 50 percent below 2000 emissions. The Arizona Climate Change Action Plan recommends adoption of the State Clean Car Program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from new light-duty passenger vehicles, beginning with model year 2011. Eleven states had already adopted Clean Car Program standards by 2006. In the absence of changes in land use, greenhouse gas emissions will continue to increase because of growth in VMT. In addition to technological strategies, a statewide transportation system that expands mobility options and encourages location-efficient land development patterns will be necessary to achieve the targeted reductions in greenhouse gas emissions from transportation. Some states are considering an approach that curbs growth in VMT per resident by integrating mobility with design of the built environment in a manner that improves transportation efficiency. For example, California’s three-pronged approach to climate change mitigation includes: (1) increasing the fuel efficiency of vehicles, (2) improving vehicle technology, and (3) reducing vehicle miles traveled. Arizona’s state transportation program must begin to respond to these issues, and the response must include addressing VMT growth per resident. 3.6 Air Quality Arizona has made progress in its air quality condition, with continuing improvements in reducing motor vehicle emissions of pollutants at the tailpipe. Transit service has also improved in many of the state’s metropolitan areas. But in 2008, Maricopa County exceeded National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ozone, as did several other counties, including Pima, Pinal, and Yuma. Federal air quality standards are becoming stricter and the state’s metropolitan areas are having difficulty meeting new benchmarks, especially for ozone and particulates. Urban haze monitoring is being developed in Arizona to help mitigate visibility issues in urban areas and national parks, especially the Grand Canyon. The problem in Arizona, as in many other states, is that the rate of growth in daily motor vehicle travel is outpacing reductions in tailpipe emission rates. The key pollutants that cause ozone concentrations are unavoidable byproducts of internal combustion engines. Burning petroleum fuels yields carbon gases, including greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide and methane as well as the ozone precursors. During the coming decades, improvements in fuel economy and cleaner fuels should further reduce motor vehicle emission rates for carbon compounds. If these are outweighed by VMT growth, however, the state will have to find other ways to reduce air pollution. Because Figure 12 Arizona Greenhouse Gas Emission Forecasts and Goals 2000 Actual 2020 Forecast Reduce to 2000 levels 50% below 2000 + 35% + 148% 2020 Goal 2040 Goal + 183% + 240% 2030 Forecast 2050 Forecast All Greenhouse Gases Transportation Greenhouse Gases 2000 (35 MMtCO2e) 1990 (23 MMtCO2e) Sources: Arizona Climate Change Action Plan, 2006; Statewide Transportation Planning Framework Estimates, 2009. 16 Final Report the underlying causes of mobile source air pollutants and greenhouse gases are identical, the state’s air quality and climate change programs should be managed through a single coordinated effort. 3.7 Natural Resources Arizona is blessed with an abundance of unique and precious natural resources, including wildlife, dramatic scenery, open space, and natural areas. A key part of developing the Statewide Transportation Framework has been collaboration with resource agencies such as the Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD), and with non-governmental entities like the Sonoran Institute and the Nature Conservancy, to determine how to use planning systems for these natural resources in the transportation planning process. Arizona’s natural resources represent a system of “natural infrastructure” that includes the lands and waters that provide wildlife habitat and open space. This system of natural infrastructure can be mapped, identifying public open space, sensitive biological areas, critical wildlife habitat, wildlife movement corridors, important scenic vistas, riparian areas, and other resources. This will allow transportation planners to anticipate potential transportation impacts on key natural resources early in project development. It will also provide a basis for public and private land acquisition programs that can protect lands before they come under development pressure. Such pressure causes demand for new transportation corridors that may degrade the state’s natural infrastructure. 3.8 Federal Transportation Policy Over the next few years, federal transportation policies are expected to undergo a major transformation. This year (2009) has already been remarkable, with passage early in the year of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which signaled new directions in the federal surface transportation program, including the resurrection of an intercity passenger rail and high-speed rail program. The act also signaled a new awareness of the need for transportation infrastructure investment and its importance to the national economy. Although a new federal surface transportation authorization bill may be delayed until 2011, it is clear from committee action in the House and Senate that new directions in federal transportation policy will be forthcoming. These may include new emphasis on state-of-good-repair (“fix it first”), complete streets, multimodal choice, local self-determination, context-sensitive planning and design, and transportation equity. Intercity passenger rail and high-speed rail will become significant programs for the first time. It also appears that new policies on location efficiency and vehicle miles of travel, coordinated investment in transportation and housing, funding for urban mixed-use nodes, support for urban infill and redevelopment, and sustainable stormwater management–all unprecedented- –will guide federal investment and will reshape state and local transportation plans and programs. The new surface transportation authorization will also address regulation of greenhouse gases, including emissions from motor vehicles, greater vehicle fuel efficiency, and related air quality measures. Although the federal government is newly focused on the economic importance of infrastructure spending, it is not clear whether this will result in increased surface transportation funding. The primary source of funding for the federal transportation program has been federal fuel taxes. Revenue to the highway trust fund has been declining, while unit costs for construction projects have (until recently) been increasing. Whether Congress will consider increases to the gas tax or other new revenue measures is unclear. The size of the federal transportation program may not increase significantly, which would leave the states to find other ways to meet growing transportation needs. It is similarly unclear what effect a climate change law will have on transportation programs, but it is likely to raise the price of petroleum fuels. Such a law may also require transportation agencies to account for greenhouse gas emissions and the impacts of proposed federally-funded projects on such emissions from transportation. 3.9 Statewide Transportation Framework Outcomes Summary This concluding section summarizes the policy implications of Arizona’s long-range trends, challenges, and opportunities. 1] Arizona must plan a more diversified transportation network. To date, the principal focus of Arizona’s transportation program has been expanding, improving and maintaining the state’s highway system. Over the past three decades the development of the state highway system, including urban freeways in the MAG region, has been the cornerstone of the state’s economic growth and prosperity. Now the state must broaden its mission to include a major role for transit and rail, including development of an 2010 Statewide Transportation Planning Framework 17 intercity passenger rail network and support for regional rail systems serving the metropolitan areas. Reducing Arizona’s dependence on carbon-based fuels is critical to the state’s economic competitiveness and an essential part of an air quality improvement and climate change mitigation program. One of the strategies necessary to reduce petroleum dependence will be developing a multimodal state transportation program. This will require a collaborative planning commitment and a more diversified state transportation funding system. 2] Arizona must work with local governments and regional agencies to improve location efficiency, which is essential to meeting Arizona’s transportation needs. If VMT continues to grow faster than population, there will be no way to keep up with travel demand or to avoid losing mobility to endemic congestion. Historically, departments of transportation (DOT) in all states have been told they have no role in land use. Highway planning in particular has followed a “predict and provide” methodology that forecasts traffic and then attempts to build new capacity to support it. State transportation programs have thereby encouraged the spreading out of our cities and the development of high-VMT, low-efficiency development patterns, whether intended or not. Now the nation has learned that transportation systems and land development patterns are inextricable. State transportation departments must begin working with local governments and regional agencies to plan transportation and land use in a coordinated manner. Arizona has a tremendous opportunity in this respect: half the population that will live here in 2050 has not yet arrived. Half of the homes, businesses, and civic buildings and half of the transportation infrastructure needed in 2050 have not yet been built. This state could, if it chose to, develop the nation’s model program of integrating transportation policy horizontally with land use policy and vertically with local and metropolitan entities. The payoff in 2030 and 2050 would be a more robust economy, higher quality of life for residents, and a more competitive position with respect to climate change, air quality and petroleum dependence. 3] Arizona must adopt policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Congress will likely mandate climate change responses through a climate change bill, expected by the end of 2010. Regardless of whether this takes the form of carbon taxation or cap-and-trade, greenhouse gas emissions will be regulated and proposed transportation investments tested against new greenhouse gas emission objectives. Mitigation of these emissions will require policy changes in many aspects of the state’s transportation operations. The goal of these policy changes should be to improve mobility while reducing the greenhouse gas emissions associated therewith. Because energy use is at the root of a connected set of issues–economic growth, climate change, air quality, land use, and transportation demand–these issues should be approached in a coordinated, strategic manner. 4] Arizona must plan for its emerging megapolitan structure. Analyzing land ownership, resources, development trends and growth projections, demographers have identified eleven “megapolitan” regions throughout the country (Figure 13) where the majority of growth will occur in the future. The Arizona Sun Corridor, which stretches from south of Tucson to north of Prescott, is the fastest growing of these regions. The Sun Corridor will increasingly function as a mega-regional economy that draws strength from the interaction of its multiple cities. Intercity passenger rail will be needed to connect the urban centers and avoid limits to economic growth imposed by a congested freeway system. This kind of transportation Figure 13 Emerging Megapolitan Regions of the U.S. Source: Regional Plan Association, 2006. 18 Final Report planning represents a new challenge for Arizona. The California Blueprint Planning Process, which establishes a mega-regional planning framework and requires a scenario approach that addresses the relationship between land use and transportation, could serve as a model for Arizona to consider in the Sun Corridor. 5] Arizona must address its transportation funding needs. Arizona has reached a point where available transportation funding–federal, state, regional, and local –is only a small fraction of the amount needed. New federal surface transportation authorization legislation will eventually pass Congress, but it is highly unlikely that the federal transportation program will grow enough to close the gap. Arizona is currently dependent on fuel taxes (which may be spent only on roads) to fund a significant proportion of the state's transportation program. This will not be an appropriate funding mechanism in the future, as the state will increasingly be working to reduce, not increase, petroleum use. New public-private partnership techniques may help to manage project costs and in some cases to provide new funding sources for major projects– freeways, rail lines and bridges. But the potential for such strategies, while important, is limited. If Arizona wishes to continue its past practice of using strategic transportation investments to bring economic growth and prosperity, it must pull together politically and establish funding sources appropriate to the tasks of the new millennium. The updated transportation funding system must be inherently multimodal, strengthen local and regional self-determination, reinforce efficient land development patterns, and establish an intergovernmental process for planning regional networks and identifying and prioritizing projects. The updated funding system must also avoid policy paradoxes, such as the current conflict between fuel taxes as the main source of transportation funding and petroleum dependence as one of the state’s most urgent challenges. 2010 Statewide Transportation Planning Framework 19 4.0 Organizational Context 4.1 bqAZ Technical and Public Involvement Teams ADOT-MPD and ADOT-CCP managed this study cooperatively. Each division hired a management consultant team to assist its staff. ADOT-MPD engaged a statewide technical consultant team led by AECOM (formerly DMJM Harris). ADOT-CCP selected a statewide public involvement consultant team led by KDA Creative. The two ADOT/consultant teams, which worked closely together throughout the study, are referred to herein as the bqAZ Statewide Technical Team and the bqAZ Statewide Public Involvement Team. Together they formed the bqAZ Statewide Team. The bqAZ Statewide Technical Team was responsible for developing all technical planning products in the Statewide Framework. This team consisted of ADOT-MPD planners and employees of AECOM and its subconsultants. Similarly, the statewide public involvement team, led by the ADOT-CCP Deputy Director, contained ADOT-CCP staff based at various locations around the state, as well as staff of KDA Creative and its subconsultants. The Public Involvement Team was responsible for working with the Technical Team to organize, facilitate, and summarize all public involvement activities. This team was also responsible for communication and publicity on project-related events. ADOT-CCP and its management consultant maintained the portion of the website www.bqaz.gov devoted to the Statewide Framework. 4.2 Statewide Framework Steering and Oversight Committees The Framework Policy Committee (FPC) provided guidance and information to the citizens, State Transportation Board, Governor, and Legislature on the long-term vision for transportation. The chair of the MAG Regional Council and a member of the State Transportation Board co-chaired this committee. The committee contained elected officials from the COG and MPO boards, business partners, representatives of Indian Communities, several state agency directors, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) staff, and special interest groups (e.g., Arizona Transit Association and The Nature Conservancy). The FPC met every two to five months: four times in 2008 and four times in 2009. The Framework Management Committee (FMC) monitored the progress and direction of the Statewide Framework through conversations with the bqAZ Statewide Technical Team and the Regional Advisory Team (see below). The ADOT Director and the MAG Executive Director co-chaired this committee, which contained executive directors of the COGs and MPOs, several business partners, and key ADOT staff. The committee met every two to four months: five times in 2008 and four times in 2009. Several FMC meetings were held jointly with the Regional Advisory Team (RAT), which provided advice to the Technical Team at the staff level, emphasizing sound planning principles and consistency with local and regional plans. The RAT contained planners from the COGs and MPOs, FHWA, and the Arizona State Land Department (ASLD), among others. It met every one to four months: five times in 2008 and five times in 2009. These meetings were led by a facilitator rather than chaired. The Acknowledgments page at the front of this document lists members of the FPC, FMC, and RAT. 2010 Statewide Transportation Planning Framework 21 This chapter sets the stage for the rest of the report by summarizing existing land ownership, socioeconomics, transportation, and the environment in Arizona. It also discusses projected future conditions where appropriate. 5.1 Land Ownership and Use Table 3 and Figure 14 show the distribution of land in Arizona by ownership or jurisdictional management–private, public, and tribal. Public lands are further classified by level of government and in some cases by agency. As Figure 15 illustrates, Indian tribal communities have jurisdiction over more than one-fourth of Arizona’s land. Approximately one-sixth is in private hands, one-eighth is owned by state or local government, and the largest share (42 percent) is federally controlled. The vast majority of local government holdings are State Trust land, which are constitutionally earmarked for eventual sale or lease to support Arizona’s public schools. By far the largest federal land managers, other than the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), are the Bureau of Land Management (BLM, U.S. Department of the Interior), and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). These two agencies control nearly one-third of Arizona land. The other major federal landholding agencies are the Department of Defense, the National Park Service, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 5.0 Existing and Future Conditions Table 3 Arizona Land Area by Ownership/Management Ownership Category Ownership or Management Land Area (Sq. Miles) Percent of Total Private Private 20,010 17.6 Tribal Tribal 31,418 27.6 State and Local State Trust Land 14,526 12.7 Local and State Parks 228 0.2 Arizona Game and Fish Department 58 0.1 Other Public Ownership 13 < 0.1 Subtotal 14,825 13.0 Federal Bureau of Land Management 19,135 16.8 Wilderness Areas 2,293 2.0 National Monuments and other protected areas* 2,996 2.6 USDA Forest Service 17,435 15.3 Wilderness Areas 2,266 2.0 Military (Department of Defense) 4,303 3.8 National Park Service** 4,009 3.5 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 2,673 2.3 Wilderness Areas 2,099 1.8 Bureau of Reclamation 157 0.1 Subtotal 47,712 41.8 Grand Total 113,965 100.0 *Excludes wilderness areas to avoid double counting. **Includes wilderness areas in the Organ Pipe Cactus, Petrified Forest and Saguaro units. Sources: bqAZ Statewide Technical Team; BLM website; www.sangres.com, October 2009. 22 Final Report YAVAPAI COUNTY Hassayampa River Sonoran Desert National Monument COCHISE COUNTY GRAHAM COUNTY GRAHAM COUNTY PINAL COUNTY YAVAPAI COUNTY YUMA COUNTY LA PAZ COUNTY YAVAPAI COUNTY COCONINO COUNTY COCONINO COUNTY NAVAJO COUNTY NAVAJO COUNTY APACHE COUNTY Phoenix Tempe Mesa Chandler Glendale GILA COUNTY NAVAJO COUNTY GILA COUNTY GRAHAM COUNTY APACHE COUNTY GREENLEE COUNTY Eloy Marana Superior Tusayan Valle Bitter Springs Grand Canyon Kykotsmovi Jeddito Burnside Hope Picacho Florence Junction Globe Ash Fork Seligman Tonto National Forest Coronado National Forest Tohono O'odham Nation Ironwood Forest National Monument Gila River Indian Community MARICOPA COUNTY PINAL COUNTY Mammoth San Manuel Peach Springs CALIFORNIA ARIZONA Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation Ak-Chin Indian Community Gila River Indian Community Safford Pima Clifton Duncan Oracle Junction Willcox Pinetop-Lakeside Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest Coronado National Forest Gila River Black River Blue River San Simon River ARIZONA NEW MEXICO COCHISE COUNTY PIMA COUNTY PIMA COUNTY PINAL COUNTY San Francisco River Surprise Scottsdale Avondale Sedona Walnut Creek Canyon Diablo River Verde River East Verde River Salt River Eagar Little Colorado River Chevelon Canyon River Puerco River Coconino National Forest Navajo Nation Petrified Forest National Park White Mountain Apache Indian Tribe Tonto National Forest GILA COUNTY YAVAPAI COUNTY San Carlos Apache Tribe Navajo Nation Zuni Tribe Congress Naco Sahuarita Tucson South Tucson Oro Valley Benson Sierra Vista Nogales Bisbee Douglas SANTA CRUZ COUNTY Tombstone PIMA COUNTY San Simon River Chiricahua National Monument Maricopa Casa Grande Coronado National Forest Saguaro National Park San Xavier Indian Reservation Davis Monthan Air Force Base Coronado National Forest Santa Cruz River San Pedro River Pascua Yaqui Tribe Springerville St. Johns Snowflake Taylor Payson Show Low Wupatki National Monument Camp Navajo Little Colorado River Tonopah Apache Junction Colorado River MOHAVE COUNTY MOHAVE COUNTY Williams Flagstaff Page Kaibab National Forest Navajo Nation Havasupai Tribe Hualapai Tribe Grand Canyon National Park Kaibab National Forest Vermillion Cliffs National Monument UTAH ARIZONA Yavapai-Apache Nation Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe GILA COUNTY MARICOPA COUNTY Prescott National Forest Prescott National Forest Agua Fria National Monument Tonto National Forest Wickenburg Dewey/Humbolt Prescott Valley Cottonwood Camp Verde Winslow Holbrook Petrified National Forest Hopi Tribe Canyon De Chelly National Monument Navajo Nation Cameron Tuba City Window Rock Kayenta Chinle Second Mesa Cocopah Tribe Fort Yuma-Quechan Tribe MARICOPA COUNTY YUMA COUNTY PIMA COUNTY Colorado River San Luis ARIZONA REPUBLIC OF MEXICO Somerton Yuma Wellton Yuma Proving Grounds Barry Goldwater Air Force Range Hualapai Indian Fort Mohave Tribe Indian Reservation Colorado River Big Sandy River Big Willams River Santa Maria River COCONINO COUNTY YAVAPAI COUNTY COCONINO COUNTY YAVAPAI COUNTY MARICOPA COUNTY C O C O N I N O P L A T E A U K A I B A B P L A T E A U Bullhead City Prescott National Forest Gila Bend Buckeye Quartzsite Parker Chino Valley Prescott Kingman Colorado City Fredonia NEVADA ARIZONA Kaibab Paiute Tribe Grand Canyon National Park Grand Canyon-Parashant National Monument Hualapai Tribe Colorado River Indian Tribes Gila River Painted Rock Reservoir Yuma Proving Grounds Lake Havasu City Hon-Dah Patagonia Whiteriver Shonto Jacobs Lake Ajo Tohono O'odham Nation Sonoita Heber Miami Why Tonto Apache Lukeville San Carlos Apache Tribe Sources: ADOT 2007 December 2009 Statewide Transportation Planning Framework Land Ownership and Management 0 10 20 40 Miles Legend State Highway System Land Ownership and Management BLM State Land Local or State Parks; USFS; NPS; USFWS Military Tribal Land Private Figure 14 Land Ownership and Management 2010 Statewide Transportation Planning Framework 23 Much of Arizona’s federal land is protected by law from development, including National Park Service holdings, wilderness areas (which are managed by BLM, the Forest Service, USFWS, and the National Park Service), and certain other BLM lands such as designated conservation areas and five national monuments. These federally protected lands cover about 12 percent of the state–and this excludes state and local parks, military facilities, and national wildlife refuges (except the portions that are also wilderness areas). The tribal communities (another 28 percent) are considered sovereign nations, whose land is managed solely by the tribes and their members. The mix of land ownership varies widely across the state. In Cochise, Navajo, and Santa Cruz counties, at least 30 percent of the land is held privately, according to the Arizona Department of Commerce. In Gila, Graham, Greenlee, and La Paz, on the other hand, 10 percent or less is privately owned. Statewide roughly 30 percent–the private land plus State Trust land–is known to be open to current or future private development. Approximately 42 percent of the four counties (Pima, Pinal, Maricopa, and Yavapai) comprising most of the Sun Corridor is privately held, with the rest largely in federal or tribal hands. 5.2 Population and Employment Table 4 shows 2030 and 2050 population and employment projections developed for this study. The state’s Figure 15 Arizona Land Ownership/Management (Percent) Figure 5.2 Arizona Land Ownership/Management (Percent) 17.6% 27.6% 13.0% 16.8% 15.3% 9.7% Private Tribal State and Local Federal ‐ BLM Federal ‐ Forest Service Federal ‐ Other Sources: bqAZ Statewide Technical Team; BLM website; www.sangres. com, October 2009. Table 4 Population and Employment Estimates by County, 2005-2050 County Population1 (thousands) Employment (thousands) 2005 2030 2050 % Growth, 2005-2050 2005 2030 2050 % Growth, 2005-2050 Apache 74 103 133 80 19 25 32 68 Cochise 133 245 358 169 48 83 151 215 Coconino 127 166 193 52 62 88 118 90 Gila 52 64 74 42 12 23 28 133 Graham 34 50 88 159 9 17 28 211 Greenlee 9 10 12 33 4 4 5 25 La Paz 21 27 32 52 4 25 40 900 Maricopa 3,672 6,123 7,623 108 1
Object Description
TITLE | Statewide transportation planning framework program: final report |
CREATOR | Arizona. Dept. of Transportation. |
SUBJECT | Roads--Arizona--Planning; Roads--Arizona--Design and construction; |
Browse Topic |
Transportation |
DESCRIPTION | This title contains one or more publications. |
Language | English |
Publisher | Arizona. Dept. of Transportation. |
Material Collection |
State Documents |
Source Identifier | TRT 1.3:P 51 |
Location | ocn660079022 |
REPOSITORY | Arizona State Library, Archives, and Public Records--Law and Research Library. |
Description
TITLE | Statewide transportation planning framework program 2010 |
DESCRIPTION | 166 pages (PDF version). File size: 74693344 Bytes. |
TYPE | Text |
Acquisition Note | Publication or link to publication sent to reports@lib.az.us |
RIGHTS MANAGEMENT | Copyright to this resource is held by the creating agency and is provided here for educational purposes only. It may not be downloaded, reproduced or distributed in any format without written permission of the creating agency. Any attempt to circumvent the access controls placed on this file is a violation of United States and international copyright laws, and is subject to criminal prosecution. |
DATE ORIGINAL | 2010-03 |
Time Period |
2010s (2010-2019) |
ORIGINAL FORMAT | Born digital |
Source Identifier | TRT 1.3:P 51/ 2010 |
DIGITAL IDENTIFIER | Statewide_Final_2010.pdf |
DIGITAL FORMAT |
PDF (Portable Document Format) |
REPOSITORY | Arizona State Library, Archives, and Public Records--Law and Research Library. |
Full Text | http://www.bqaz.gov 2010 Statewide Transportation Planning Framework Arizona Department of Transportation FINAL REPORT March 2010 Acknowledgments The Statewide Transportation Planning Framework Program was made possible by the cooperative efforts of the following individuals and organizations who contributed significantly to the successful completion of the project: Framework Policy Committee Felipe Zubia, State Transportation Board, Committee Co-Chair Peggy Neely, MAG Regional Council Chair, City of Phoenix Councilwoman, Committee Co-Chair James Cavanaugh, Former MAG Regional Council Chair, Mayor of Goodyear, Former Committee Co-Chair Roc Arnett, East Valley Partnership Lisa Atkins, Military Affairs Commission Delia Carlyle, Chairwoman, Ak-Chin Indian Community Karen Cooper, Flagstaff City Council Joe Donaldson, Mayor of Flagstaff Tom Dorn, Arizona Planning Association, Arizona Chapter Karen Fann, Mayor of Chino Valley Mike Flannery, Prescott Valley City Council Dave French, Kingman City Council Ron Green, Mayor of Safford John Halikowski, Arizona Department of Transportation Larry Hecker, Hecker & Muehlebach, PLLC Bob Hollis, Federal Highway Administration Ed Honea, Mayor of Marana Andy Laurenzi, Sonoran Institute Cheryl Lombard, The Nature Conservancy Paul Loomis, Mayor of Oro Valley Barbara Ann Lundstrom, State Transportation Board Jack Lunsford, WESTMARC Mary Manross, Mayor of Scottsdale David Martin, Associated General Contractors Victor Mendez, Arizona Department of Transportation Paul Miller, Arizona Transit Association Robert Montoya, State Transportation Board Rick Mueller, Mayor Pro Term of Sierra Vista Garrett Newland, Arizona Association for Economic Development Corbin Newman, U.S. Forest Service, Southwestern Region Kenneth Poocha, Arizona Commission of Indian Affairs Casey Prochaska, Yuma County Supervisor Tom Rankin, Mayor of Florence Marco Reyes, Jr., Yuma County Supervisor Lionel Ruiz, Pinal County Supervisor Matt Ryan, Coconino County Supervisor Marty Schultz, Arizona Public Service Thomas White, Jr., Apache County Supervisor Mark Winkleman, Arizona State Land Department John Wright, Arizona Education Association Elaine Zielinkski, Bureau of Land Management Framework Management Committee John Halikowski, Director, Arizona Department of Transportation, Committee Co-Chair Victor Mendez, Former Director, Arizona Department of Transportation, Former Committee Co-Chair Dennis Smith, Executive Director, Maricopa Association of Governments, Committee Co-Chair Brian Babiars, Western Arizona Council of Governments Maxine Brown, Central Arizona Association of Governments Richard Gaar, SouthEastern Arizona Governments Organization Gary Hayes, Pima Association of Governments Larry Hecker, Hecker & Muehlebach, PLLC Maxine Leather, Central Arizona Association of Governments Mack Luckie, Yuma Metropolitan Planning Organization Jack Lunsford, WESTMARC David Martin, Arizona Public Service Victor Mendez, Arizona Department of Transportation Jodi Rooney, Central Yavapai Metropolitan Planning Organization Dennis Smith, Maricopa Association of Governments Kenneth Sweet, Northern Arizona Council of Governments David Wessel, Flagstaff Metropolitan Planning Organization State Transportation Board Delbert Householder, Chairman Robert Montoya, Vice Chairman Stephen Christy, Member William Feldmeier, Member Victor Flores, Member Joseph Lane, Previous Member Barbara Ann Lundstrom, Member Felipe Zubia, Member Si Schorr, Previous Member i Acknowledgments Management Consultant Team John McNamara, Project Director, AECOM Laurel Parker, Project Manager, AECOM Bill Boothe, AECOM Larry Gibson, AECOM Deanna Huelskamp, AECOM Michael Kies, AECOM Adam Miller, AECOM Jaclyn Pfeiffer, AECOM Vijayant Rajvanshi, AECOM Ethan Rauch, AECOM Anita Richardson, AECOM Mansi Sachdev, AECOM Jim Charlier, Charlier Associates, Inc. Jennifer Valentine, Charlier Associates, Inc. Jim Barry, Curtis Lueck & Associates Curtis Lueck, Curtis Lueck & Associates Brent Cain, HDR, Inc. Michael Gorton, HDR, Inc. Kristin Bornstein, KDA Creative Amy Rosar, KDA Creative Peggy Fiandaca, Partners for Strategic Action, Inc. John Halikowski, Director Jennifer Toth, Director, Multimodal Planning Division (ADOT-MPD) Jim Zumpf, ADOT-MPD Project Manager Sally Stewart, Communication and Community Partnerships (ADOT-CCP) Project Manager Bob Albano, ADOT-CCP Julian Avila, ADOT-CCP Michele Beggs, ADOT-CCP Arnold Burnham, ADOT-MPD Regional Team Liaison Matt Carpenter, ADOT-MPD Russell Chase, ADOT-CCP Laura Douglas, ADOT-CCP Dan Dudzick, ADOT-CCP Ryan Harding, ADOT-CCP Mark Hoffman, ADOT-MPD Dianne Kresich, ADOT-MPD Mike Normand, ADOT-MPD Bill Pederson, ADOT-CCP Rudy Perez, ADOT-MPD Patricia Powers-Zermeno, ADOT-CCP Linda Ritter, ADOT-CCP Shannon Scutari, ADOT-MPD Lucy Shipp, ADOT-CCP Don Sneed, MPD Tim Tait, ADOT-CCP Teresa Welborn, ADOT-CCP Bill Williams, ADOT-CCP Rod Wigman, ADOT-CCP ADOT Project Team ii Regional Advisory Team Eric Anderson, Maricopa Association of Governments Nate Banks, Federal Highway Administration Dave Barber, Western Arizona Council of Governments Cherie Campbell, Pima Association of Governments Chris Fetzer, Northern Arizona Council of Governments Martin Ince, Flagstaff Metropolitan Planning Organization Bill Leister, Central Arizona Association of Governments Linda McFarland, Yuma Association of Governments Sharon Mitchell, SouthEastern Arizona Governments Organization Jodi Rooney, Central Yavapai Metropolitan Planning Organization Gordon Taylor, Arizona State Land Department Acknowledgments Regional Framework Teams Central Regional Framework Team: Technical Consultant: Kimley-Horn Associates, Inc. - Dave Perkins, Consultant Project Manager - Dianne Kresich, ADOT Regional Team Liaison - Ethan Rauch, AECOM, Management Consultant Liaison Public Involvement Consultant: HDR, Inc. - Rob Antoniak, Project Manager Eastern Regional Framework Team: Technical Consultant: URS Corporation - Aaron Iverson, Consultant Project Manager - Rick Ensdorf, Past Consultant Project Manager - Jim Zumpf, ADOT Regional Team Liaison - Laurel Parker, AECOM, Management Consultant Liaison Public Involvement Consultant: Gordley Design Group - Jan Gordley, Project Manager Northern Regional Framework Team: Technical Consultant: HDR, Inc. - Brent Cain, Consultant Project Manager - Jim Zumpf, ADOT Regional Team Liaison - Brent Cain, HDR, Inc., Management Consultant Liaison Public Involvement Consultant: HDR, Inc. - Heather Honsberger, Project Manager Western Regional Framework Team: Technical Consultant: Parsons Brinckerhoff (PB) - Scott Omer, Consultant Project Manager - Arnold Burnham, ADOT Regional Team Liaison - Bill Boothe, AECOM, Management Consultant Liaison Public Involvement Consultant: Logan Simpson Design Inc. - Diane Colebank-Simpson, Project Manager iii Abbreviations AA Alternatives Analysis AAC Arizona Administrative Code AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials ADEQ Arizona Department of Environmental Quality ADOT Arizona Department of Transportation ASU Arizona State University AGFD Arizona Game and Fish Department AZTDM Arizona Travel Demand Model BIA Bureau of Indian Affairs BLM Bureau of Land Management BNSF BNSF Railway bqAZ Building a Quality Arizona CAA Clean Air Act CAAG Central Arizona Association of Governments CBP Customs and Border Protection CCP Communication and Community Partnerships CFR Code of Federal Regulations CREATE Chicago Region Environmental and Transportation Efficiency Program COG Council of Governments CSI Container Security Initiative CSS Context Sensitive Solutions C-TPAT Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism CYMPO Central Yavapai Metropolitan Planning Organization DE District Engineer DOT Department of Transportation EC Existing-plus-Committed EIS Environmental Impact Statement EO Environmental Overview EPA Environmental Protection Agency FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FHWA Federal Highway Administration FMC Framework Management Committee FMPO Flagstaff Metropolitan Planning Organization FPC Framework Policy Committee FRA Federal Railroad Administration FTA Federal Transit Administration GANS Grant Anticipation Notes GARVEES Grant Anticipation Revenue Vehicles GIS Geographic Information Systems GPS Global Positioning Systems HOT High-Occupancy Toll HOV High-Occupancy Vehicle HURF Highway User Revenue Fund IRR Indian Reservation Roads JPAC Joint Planning Advisory Council ITS Intelligent Transportation Systems LEED-ND Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design for Neighborhood Development LRTP Long Range Transportation Plan LTAF Local Transportation Assistance Fund MAG Maricopa Association of Governments MCDOT Maricopa County Department of Transportation MPD Multimodal Planning Division MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization MSAT Mobile Source Air Toxics NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards NACOG Northern Arizona Council of Governments NAFTA North American Free Trade Agreement NCHRP National Cooperative Highway Research Program NHS National Highway System NRHP National Register of Historic Places O&M Operations and Maintenance PAG Pima Association of Governments POE Port of Entry PPP Public-Private Partnerships RAT Regional Advisory Team RNCA Riparian National Conservation Area RPTA Regional Public Transportation Authority RTAT Regional Technical Advisory Team or Rail Technical Advisory Team RTP Regional Transportation Plan SAFETEA-LU Safe, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users SBI Secure Border Initiative SEAGO SouthEastern Arizona Governments Organization SIP State Implementation Plan SRTS Safe Routes to School STAZ State Traffic Analysis Zone STIP State Transportation Improvement Program STP Surface Transportation Program SWAP State Wildlife Action Plan SWSPT Southwest Sketch Planning Tool TAZ Traffic Analysis Zone TDM Travel Demand Management v Abbreviations TI Traffic Interchange TIFIA Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act TIP Transportation Improvement Program TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load TNC The Nature Conservancy TSM Transportation Systems Management ULI Urban Land Institute UP Union Pacific Railroad USC United States Code USDA United States Department of Agriculture USDOT U.S. Department of Transportation USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service VHT Vehicle Hours of Travel VLT Vehicle License Tax VMT Vehicle Miles of Travel WACOG Western Arizona Council of Governments YMPO Yuma Metropolitan Planning Organization vi Table of Contents 1.0 Background.........................................................................................................................................................1 1.1 Overview of Process..................................................................................................................................................1 1.2 Supporting Sustainable Land Use and Smart Growth................................................................................................3 1.3 Other Innovations in the bqAZ Planning Process.......................................................................................................4 1.4 Tribal Outreach..........................................................................................................................................................4 1.5 Related Planning Efforts............................................................................................................................................5 2.0 Statewide Vision and Guiding Principles............................................................................................................7 2.1 Vision for Arizona Transportation in 2050.................................................................................................................7 2.2 Guiding Principles.....................................................................................................................................................7 2.2.1 Improve Mobility and Accessibility................................................................................................................7 2.2.2 Support Economic Growth...........................................................................................................................7 2.2.3 Promote a Development Pattern that Links Land Use and Transportation...................................................8 2.2.4 Consider Arizona’s Environment and Natural Resources...............................................................................8 2.2.5 Ensure Safety and Security...........................................................................................................................8 3.0 Long-Range Trends, Challenges, and Opportunities..............................................................................................9 3.1 Population Growth and Vehicular Travel....................................................................................................................9 3.2 Land Development Trends and Transportation Demand..........................................................................................11 3.3 Energy Independence.............................................................................................................................................13 3.4 Cost of Travel and Economic Growth.......................................................................................................................14 3.5 Climate Change.......................................................................................................................................................14 3.6 Air Quality................................................................................................................................................................15 3.7 Natural Resources...................................................................................................................................................16 3.8 Federal Transportation Policy..................................................................................................................................16 3.9 Statewide Transportation Framework Outcomes Summary......................................................................................16 4.0 Organizational Context...................................................................................................................................19 4.1 bqAZ Technical and Public Involvement Teams.........................................................................................................19 4.2 Statewide Framework Steering and Oversight Committees.....................................................................................19 5.0 Existing and Future Conditions.......................................................................................................................21 5.1 Land Ownership and Use........................................................................................................................................21 5.2 Population and Employment...................................................................................................................................23 5.3 Transportation.........................................................................................................................................................24 5.3.1 Existing Roadway System...........................................................................................................................24 5.3.2 Arizona-Sonora Ports of Entry.....................................................................................................................27 5.3.3 Existing Public Transportation....................................................................................................................27 5.3.4 Freight Modes and Flows...........................................................................................................................27 vii Table of Contents 5.3.5 Existing Railroad Network..........................................................................................................................28 5.3.6 Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation........................................................................................................28 5.3.7 Airports......................................................................................................................................................28 5.3.8 Programmed and Planned Roadway and Transit Improvements................................................................28 5.4 Environmental Overview.........................................................................................................................................29 5.4.1 Geology and Topography............................................................................................................................29 5.4.2 Hydrological Resources and Issues..............................................................................................................29 5.4.3 Natural Infrastructure................................................................................................................................34 5.4.4 Cultural Resources.....................................................................................................................................37 5.4.5 Air Quality..................................................................................................................................................39 5.4.6 Hazardous Materials...................................................................................................................................41 6.0 Framework Planning Process and Results..........................................................................................................43 6.1 Preliminary Critical Needs Definition.......................................................................................................................43 6.1.1 Delineation of Identified 2030 Improvement Needs..................................................................................43 6.1.2 Summary of Identified 2030 Improvement Needs and Cost.......................................................................44 6.2 Regional Framework Studies...................................................................................................................................47 6.2.1 Four Regional Frameworks.........................................................................................................................47 6.2.2 Focus Areas................................................................................................................................................47 6.2.3 Organization of Regional Framework Study Teams.....................................................................................48 6.2.4 Community and Stakeholder Involvement Opportunities...........................................................................48 6.2.5 Regional Framework Reports.......................................................................................................................52 6.3 Long-Range Planning Scenarios...............................................................................................................................52 6.3.1 Common Elements.....................................................................................................................................52 6.3.2 Three Distinct Long-Range Transportation Scenarios..................................................................................52 6.3.3 Sources of Projects for Long-Range Regional Scenarios..............................................................................54 6.3.4 Regional Scenarios A, B, and C.....................................................................................................................55 6.3.5 Areas Outside the Regional Frameworks: Maricopa and Pima Counties, and MAG Hidden Valley Study Area............................................................................................................55 6.4 Statewide Travel Demand Modeling........................................................................................................................55 6.4.1 Population and Employment Projections....................................................................................................55 6.4.2 External Traffic Growth..............................................................................................................................57 6.4.3 External Station Growth Estimates..............................................................................................................63 6.4.4 Highway Assignment..................................................................................................................................63 6.4.5 Existing-plus-Committed Highway Assignment............................................................................................63 6.4.6 Analysis of Performance.............................................................................................................................66 viii Table of Contents 6.5 Amalgamation of Regional Scenarios into Statewide Scenarios...............................................................................66 6.5.1 Amalgamation of Regional Scenarios A, B, and C........................................................................................66 6.5.2 MAG Long-Range Roadway and Transit System..........................................................................................67 6.5.3 PAG Long-Range Roadway and Transit System............................................................................................67 6.5.4 Consultation with Neighboring States........................................................................................................68 6.5.5 Final Statewide Scenarios...........................................................................................................................69 6.6 Evaluation of Scenarios...........................................................................................................................................69 6.7 Statewide Outreach................................................................................................................................................76 6.7.1 Common Interest Workshops......................................................................................................................76 6.7.2 Elected Official Consultations.....................................................................................................................82 6.7.3 Miscellaneous Presentations......................................................................................................................82 6.8 Recommended Statewide Scenario........................................................................................................................82 6.8.1 Description.................................................................................................................................................82 6.8.2 Analysis of Modeling Results and Comparison with other Scenarios..........................................................85 6.8.3 Conclusion..................................................................................................................................................96 6.8.4 Issues for Further Consideration.................................................................................................................96 6.9 Wildlife Corridors, Green Connectivity, and Avoiding Habitat Fragmentation.........................................................97 6.9.1 AGFD..........................................................................................................................................................97 6.9.2 The Nature Conservancy.............................................................................................................................98 6.9.3 Implementation .........................................................................................................................................98 7.0 Statewide Framework Implementation...........................................................................................................101 7.1 Transportation Funding.........................................................................................................................................101 7.1.1 Basic Sources of Transportation Revenue..................................................................................................101 7.1.2 Direct User Taxes and Fees.........................................................................................................................101 7.1.3 Indirect Taxes and Fees............................................................................................................................104 7.1.4 Some Basics on Federal and State Highway Revenue................................................................................105 7.1.5 Tribal Transportation Funding...................................................................................................................107 7.1.6 Transit Funding.........................................................................................................................................108 7.1.7 Smart Growth Funding Opportunities.......................................................................................................108 7.1.8 Comparison of Arizona Transportation Revenue with National Data.......................................................109 7.1.9 Transportation Funding Source Options....................................................................................................110 7.1.10 Funding Policy Considerations and Strategies for Discussion....................................................................113 7.1.11 Public-Private Partnerships in Arizona.......................................................................................................114 7.1.12 Highlights of HB 239................................................................................................................................114 7.1.13 Opportunities and Limitations...................................................................................................................115 ix 7.2 Related State Planning Issues................................................................................................................................117 7.2.1 Access Management................................................................................................................................117 7.2.2 Airport Access..........................................................................................................................................117 7.2.3 Border Master Planning...........................................................................................................................118 7.2.4 Complete Streets.....................................................................................................................................118 7.2.5 Context-Sensitive Solutions......................................................................................................................119 7.2.6 Emergency Evacuation.............................................................................................................................120 7.2.7 Homeland Security...................................................................................................................................121 7.2.8 LEED for Neighborhood Development.......................................................................................................121 7.2.9 Light Pollution..........................................................................................................................................122 7.2.10 Multimodal Freight Transportation Planning............................................................................................122 7.2.11 Regional Planning.....................................................................................................................................123 7.2.12 Potable Water Resources.........................................................................................................................123 7.2.13 Safe Routes to School (SRTS).....................................................................................................................124 7.2.14 Statewide Travel Demand Model: Future Development and Use............................................................124 7.2.15 Travel Demand Management and Transportation Systems Management................................................124 8.0 Summary of Statewide Rail Framework Study................................................................................................127 8.1 The Case for Statewide Rail System Development.................................................................................................127 8.2 Overview of Arizona’s Rail Network.......................................................................................................................127 8.2.1 Freight Rail...............................................................................................................................................127 8.2.2 Passenger Rail..........................................................................................................................................129 8.2.3 Anticipated Network Growth....................................................................................................................129 8.2.4 ADOT’s Role in Rail Planning......................................................................................................................131 8.3 Rail Framework Coordination and Collaboration....................................................................................................131 8.4 Strategic Opportunities.........................................................................................................................................131 8.4.1 Passenger Rail Strategic Opportunities.....................................................................................................131 8.4.2 Freight Rail Strategic Opportunities..........................................................................................................133 8.5 Implementation Pursuits and Actions...................................................................................................................136 8.5.1 Passenger Rail..........................................................................................................................................136 8.5.2 Freight Rail...............................................................................................................................................137 8.5.3 Rail Organization/Governance..................................................................................................................137 8.5.4 Implementation Action Timeframes..........................................................................................................138 9.0 Final Rollout of the Statewide Framework......................................................................................................141 9.1 Guiding Principle Dislays........................................................................................................................................141 9.1.1 Economic Vitality......................................................................................................................................141 Table of Contents x Table of Contents 9.1.2 Sustainability and the Environment..........................................................................................................142 9.2.3 Safety and Security...................................................................................................................................143 9.2 Graffiti Wall Dialogue...........................................................................................................................................145 9.2.1 Tucson......................................................................................................................................................145 9.2.2 Flagstaff....................................................................................................................................................145 9.2.3 Mesa.........................................................................................................................................................145 9.2.4 All Locations.............................................................................................................................................146 9.3 Video Dialogue......................................................................................................................................................146 9.3.1 Tucson......................................................................................................................................................146 9.3.2 Flagstaff....................................................................................................................................................147 9.3.3 Mesa........................................................................................................................................................147 10.0 Next Steps....................................................................................................................................................149 10.1 Long Range Transportation Plan...........................................................................................................................149 10.2 State Rail Plan........................................................................................................................................................149 xi Figure 1 COG/MPO and ADOT District Boundaries.....................................................................................................2 Figure 2 Overview of Planning Process.......................................................................................................................3 Figure 3 ADOT Planning Process Evolution..................................................................................................................4 Figure 4 Arizona Population Growth: 1960-2007........................................................................................................9 Figure 5 Arizona Vehicular Travel Growth: 1960-2007................................................................................................9 Figure 6 Population Growth Rate by County.............................................................................................................10 Figure 7 Distribution of Statewide Population Growth.............................................................................................10 Figure 8 Changes in Phoenix Urban Area: 1982-2007...............................................................................................10 Figure 9 Changes in Tucson Urban Area: 1982-2007.................................................................................................10 Figure 10 Southwestern States Comparison: 2005 Annual VMT per Resident............................................................12 Figure 11 Southwestern States Comparison: 2005 Annual Motor Fuel Use per Resident..........................................13 Figure 12 Arizona Greenhouse Gas Emission Forecasts and Goals.............................................................................15 Figure 13 Emerging Megapolitan Regions of the U.S..................................................................................................17 Figure 14 Land Ownership and Management.............................................................................................................22 Figure 15 Arizona Land Ownership/Management (Percent).......................................................................................23 Figure 16 Specially Designated Roadways...................................................................................................................26 Figure 17 Physiographic Provinces.............................................................................................................................30 Figure 18 Slope Analysis............................................................................................................................................31 Figure 19 Water Resources........................................................................................................................................33 Figure 20 Biotic Communities...................................................................................................................................36 Figure 21 Arizona Wildlife Linkages...........................................................................................................................38 Figure 22 Framework Regions and Focus Areas..........................................................................................................49 Figure 23 Arizona Population and Employment Density.............................................................................................58 Figure 24 Existing-plus-Committed Roadway Network Lanes.....................................................................................59 Figure 25 Existing-plus-Committed Roadway Functional Classification......................................................................60 Figure 26 2030 Southwest Region Population Density................................................................................................61 Figure 27 2050 Southwest Region Population Density................................................................................................62 Figure 28 International Border Improvements...........................................................................................................70 Figure 29 Statewide Scenario A: Personal Vehicle Mobility........................................................................................71 Figure 30 Statewide Scenario B: Transit Mobility........................................................................................................72 Figure 31 Statewide Scenario C: Focused Growth.....................................................................................................73 Figure 32 Statewide Refined Scenarios Evaluation Summary–Year 2050...................................................................76 Figure 33 Recommended Statewide 2050 Transportation Framework Scenario.........................................................84 Figure 34 2050 Recommended Scenario–Roadway Features.....................................................................................86 Figure 35 2050 Recommended Scenario–Transit Features.........................................................................................87 List of Figures xii List of Figures Figure 36 2050 Recommended Scenario–Rail Features..............................................................................................88 Figure 37 2030 Existing-plus-committed Traffic Conditions........................................................................................90 Figure 38 2050 Existing-plus-committed Traffic Conditions........................................................................................91 Figure 39 2050 Scenario A Traffic Conditions..............................................................................................................92 Figure 40 2050 Scenario B Traffic Conditions..............................................................................................................93 Figure 41 2050 Scenario C Traffic Conditions..............................................................................................................94 Figure 42 2050 Recommended Scenario Traffic Conditions........................................................................................95 Figure 43 Sources of HURF Collections, FY 1990 to 2008.........................................................................................110 Figure 44 Major Types of Public-Private Partnerships..............................................................................................115 Figure 45 Potential Benefits and Risks of Public-Private Partnership Approaches ....................................................116 Figure 46 Existing Arizona Railroads.........................................................................................................................128 Figure 47 Existing and Potential Passenger Rail Options...........................................................................................130 Figure 48 Value-Added Manufacturing....................................................................................................................142 Figure 49 ADOT Planning Process Evolution.............................................................................................................149 xiii Table 1 Arizona COGs and MPOs..............................................................................................................................1 Table 2 Previous bqAZ Long-Range Visioning and Planning Studies ..........................................................................5 Table 3 Arizona Land Area by Ownership/Management..........................................................................................21 Table 4 Population and Employment Estimates by County, 2005-2050 ...................................................................23 Table 5 Arizona Roadway Miles and VMT, Year 2000..............................................................................................24 Table 6 Arizona Roadway Miles by Jurisdiction and Area Type, Year 2000 .............................................................25 Table 7 Biotic Communities ....................................................................................................................................35 Table 8 Air Quality Non-Attainment and Maintenance Areas .................................................................................40 Table 9 Representative Projects and Programs from Critical Needs .......................................................................45 Table 10 COG/MPOs and Transportation Framework Regions ..................................................................................47 Table 11 Regional RTAT Meetings .............................................................................................................................50 Table 12 Round 1 and Round 2 Regional Community Workshops..............................................................................51 Table 13 Standard Outline of Working Papers 2 and 3..............................................................................................53 Table 14 Proposed Transportation Improvement Types by Region and Scenario......................................................56 Table 15 SWSPT Population Growth Projections .......................................................................................................57 Table 16 AZTDM External Station Traffic Volume Estimates ......................................................................................64 Table 17 AZTDM Non-Auto Trip Mode Shares by Place Type, 2030 and 2050..........................................................65 Table 18 AZTDM Non-Auto Trip Mode Shares by Location ........................................................................................65 Table 19 Guiding Principles, Goals, Evaluation Criteria, and How Measured.............................................................74 Table 20 Statewide Framework Evaluation, Year 2050 ..............................................................................................77 Table 21 Highlights of Recommended Scenario by Region........................................................................................83 Table 22 Changes to Recommended Scenario Due to Elected Official Consultations ................................................85 Table 23 Centerline Miles by Functional Classification...............................................................................................89 Table 24 Cut-Line Summary by Scenario...................................................................................................................89 Table 25 Model Performance Measures by Scenario .................................................................................................96 Table 26 TNC Classification of Effects and Recommended Actions ............................................................................99 Table 27 Transportation Revenue Overview ............................................................................................................102 Table 28 Federal Highway User Taxes and Allocations .............................................................................................105 Table 29 Federal Highway Account Program Categories..........................................................................................106 Table 30 HURF Allocation Formulas ........................................................................................................................106 Table 31 Examples of Smart Growth Transportation Funding Programs.................................................................108 Table 32 Sources of Arizona HURF (FY 2008) ..........................................................................................................109 Table 33 NCHRP Transportation Revenue Options..................................................................................................111 Table 34 Transportation Revenue Options Requiring State Approval ......................................................................112 Table 35 Transportation Innovative Financing Overview..........................................................................................113 Table 36 Rail Implementation Action Timeframes ..................................................................................................138 List of Tables xiv 2010 Statewide Transportation Planning Framework 1 1.0 Background In the fall of 2007, Arizona’s Councils of Governments (COGs) and Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs), in cooperation with the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT), launched a new phase in an ambitious, long-range statewide planning process known as Building a Quality Arizona or bqAZ. Working in collaboration with regional transportation planning entities, transit organizations, tribal governments, land management agencies, conservation groups, business and community leaders, and Governor Napolitano’s Growth Cabinet, ADOT and local/ regional leaders embarked on development of a Statewide Transportation Planning Framework that formulated and evaluated multimodal transportation improvements. ADOT’s Multimodal Planning Division (ADOT-MPD) and Communication and Community Partnerships Division (ADOT-CCP) jointly led the Statewide Framework planning process. In the Framework planning effort, Governor Napolitano directed ADOT and its partners to: • Achieve multimodal balance (i.e., an appropriate balance among modes of transportation–such as private vehicles on roadways, public transportation, and passenger and freight rail service) • Support Smart Growth and sustainable land use • Involve the tribal communities • Involve the economic development and business communities • Involve the environmental and conservation community • Collaborate statewide with COGs, MPOs, and tribal governments The Statewide Framework was an ambitious and innovative endeavor that ADOT-MPD and ADOT-CCP could not have completed without both internal and external partnerships. The most important external partnerships were with the COGs and MPOs responsible for regional transportation planning and the state’s federally recognized Indian tribes. Figure 1 illustrates the COG and MPO boundaries; Table 1 lists the area for which each has planning authority. Internally, ADOT-MPD and ADOT-CCP worked closely with other units of ADOT, such as the Environmental Planning Group, Statewide Project Management, and the nine District Engineers (DEs). (Figure 1 shows the ADOT engineering districts, which do not necessarily coincide with county or COG/MPO boundaries.) ADOT staff assigned to this project also collaborated extensively with other state, federal, and local agencies, and with private stakeholders. 1.1 Overview of Process The flow chart in Figure 2 illustrates the planning process for the Statewide Framework, which began early in 2008 concluded early in 2010. This report covers elements of the chart in the following sections: • Vision Statement and Guiding Principles: Chapter 2 • Environmental Scan: Sections 5.4 and 6.2 Table 1 Arizona COGs and MPOs COG or MPO Counties or other Area Central Arizona Association of Governments (CAAG) Gila, Pinal Northern Arizona Council of Governments (NACOG) Apache, Coconino, Navajo, Yavapai SouthEastern Arizona Governments Organization (SEAGO) Cochise, Graham, Greenlee, Santa Cruz Western Arizona Council of Governments (WACOG) La Paz, Mohave Central Yavapai Metropolitan Planning Organization (CYMPO) Prescott metropolitan area Flagstaff Metropolitan Planning Organization (FMPO) Flagstaff metropolitan area Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) Maricopa Pima Association of Governments (PAG) Pima Yuma Metropolitan Planning Organization (YMPO) Yuma Source: bqAZ Statewide Technical Team, September 2009. 2 Final Report YAVAPAI COUNTY Hassayampa River Sonoran Desert National Monument COCHISE COUNTY GRAHAM COUNTY GRAHAM COUNTY PINAL COUNTY YAVAPAI COUNTY YUMA COUNTY LA PAZ COUNTY YAVAPAI COUNTY COCONINO COUNTY COCONINO COUNTY NAVAJO COUNTY NAVAJO COUNTY APACHE COUNTY Phoenix Tempe Mesa Chandler Glendale GILA COUNTY NAVAJO COUNTY GILA COUNTY GRAHAM COUNTY APACHE COUNTY GREENLEE COUNTY Eloy Marana Superior Tusayan Valle Bitter Springs Grand Canyon Kykotsmovi Jeddito Burnside Hope Picacho Florence Junction Globe Ash Fork Seligman Tonto National Forest Coronado National Forest Tohono O'odham Nation Ironwood Forest National Monument Gila River Indian Community MARICOPA COUNTY PINAL COUNTY Mammoth San Manuel Peach Springs CALIFORNIA ARIZONA Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation Ak-Chin Indian Community Gila River Indian Community Safford Pima Clifton Duncan Oracle Junction Willcox Pinetop-Lakeside Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest Coronado National Forest Gila River Black River Blue River San Simon River ARIZONA NEW MEXICO COCHISE COUNTY PIMA COUNTY PIMA COUNTY PINAL COUNTY San Francisco River Surprise Scottsdale Avondale Sedona Walnut Creek Canyon Diablo River Verde River East Verde River Salt River Eagar Little Colorado River Chevelon Canyon River Puerco River Coconino National Forest Navajo Nation Petrified Forest National Park White Mountain Apache Indian Tribe Tonto National Forest GILA COUNTY YAVAPAI COUNTY San Carlos Apache Tribe Navajo Nation Zuni Tribe Congress Naco Sahuarita Tucson South Tucson Oro Valley Benson Sierra Vista Nogales Bisbee Douglas SANTA CRUZ COUNTY Tombstone PIMA COUNTY San Simon River Chiricahua National Monument Maricopa Casa Grande Coronado National Forest Saguaro National Park San Xavier Indian Reservation Davis Monthan Air Force Base Coronado National Forest Santa Cruz River San Pedro River Pascua Yaqui Tribe Springerville St. Johns Snowflake Taylor Payson Show Low Wupatki National Monument Camp Navajo Little Colorado River Tonopah Apache Junction Colorado River MOHAVE COUNTY MOHAVE COUNTY Williams Flagstaff Page Kaibab National Forest Navajo Nation Havasupai Tribe Hualapai Tribe Grand Canyon National Park Kaibab National Forest Vermillion Cliffs National Monument UTAH ARIZONA Yavapai-Apache Nation Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe GILA COUNTY MARICOPA COUNTY Prescott National Forest Prescott National Forest Agua Fria National Monument Tonto National Forest Wickenburg Dewey/Humbolt Prescott Valley Cottonwood Camp Verde Winslow Holbrook Petrified National Forest Hopi Tribe Canyon De Chelly National Monument Navajo Nation Cameron Tuba City Window Rock Kayenta Chinle Second Mesa Cocopah Tribe Fort Yuma-Quechan Tribe MARICOPA COUNTY YUMA COUNTY PIMA COUNTY Colorado River San Luis ARIZONA REPUBLIC OF MEXICO Somerton Yuma Wellton Yuma Proving Grounds Barry Goldwater Air Force Range Hualapai Indian Fort Mohave Tribe Indian Reservation Colorado River Big Sandy River Big Willams River Santa Maria River COCONINO COUNTY YAVAPAI COUNTY COCONINO COUNTY YAVAPAI COUNTY MARICOPA COUNTY C O C O N I N O P L A T E A U K A I B A B P L A T E A U Bullhead City Prescott National Forest Gila Bend Buckeye Quartzsite Parker Chino Valley Prescott Kingman Colorado City Fredonia NEVADA ARIZONA Kaibab Paiute Tribe Grand Canyon National Park Grand Canyon-Parashant National Monument Hualapai Tribe Colorado River Indian Tribes Gila River Painted Rock Reservoir Yuma Proving Grounds Lake Havasu City Hon-Dah Patagonia Whiteriver Shonto Jacobs Lake Ajo Tohono O'odham Nation Sonoita Heber Miami Why Tonto Apache Lukeville San Carlos Apache Tribe Sources: ADOT 2007 October 2009 Statewide Transportation Planning Framework COG/MPO and ADOT District Boundaries 0 10 20 40 Miles Legend State Highway System COG/MPO CAAG CYMPO FMPO MAG NACOG PAG SEAGO WACOG YMPO Yuma District Tucson District ADOT District Boundary Safford District Globe District Holbrook District Flagstaff District Kingman District Prescott District Phoenix Maintenance District Figure 1 COG/MPO and ADOT District Boundaries 2010 Statewide Transportation Planning Framework 3 • Past and Current Planning: Sections 1.5, 6.2, and 6.9 • Stakeholder and Community Input: Sections 1.4, 4.2, 6.1, 6.2, 6.7 • Travel Demand Model and Transit Propensity Analysis: Sections 6.4, 6.8, and 7.2 • Regional Inputs: Section 6.2 • Scenarios: Sections 6.3, 6.5, 6.6, and 6.8 • Evaluation: Section 6.6 • Common Interest Groups (Workshops): Section 6.7 • Binational/Bordering State Consultation: Section 6.5 • Statewide Strategic Rail Vision: Chapter 8 • Recommended Statewide 2050 Transportation Vision (Scenario): Section 6.8 • Implementation and Policy Issues: Chapter 7 1.2 Supporting Sustainable Land Use and Smart Growth One of the chief values of the Statewide Transportation Planning Framework is to support sustainable land use and Smart Growth. Sustainability has been defined as “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs,” or more loosely as “meeting the triple bottom line”–conducting processes for decision-making that considers social, environmental, and economic factors equally. A sustainable land use pattern fosters urban growth patterns with a strong jobs-to-housing balance, a hierarchy of mixed use activity centers, and a focus on creating livable, multimodal communities created from walkable neighborhoods that embody a sense of place. It contains fully connected transportation networks, and stimulates infill development to use vacant land or redevelopment sites that are efficiently served by existing infrastructure. Sustainable land use supports not only the built environment, but also the natural environment through reducing greenhouse gas emissions, improving air quality, and energy independence, and preserving natural habitats. As an element of sustainability and a promoter of sustainable land use, Smart Growth is a compact, efficient, and environmentally sensitive pattern of development that provides people with additional travel, housing, and employment choices by focusing growth away from undeveloped areas and closer to existing and planned job centers and public facilities. Governor Napolitano’s Growth Cabinet and the Arizona Department of Commerce promoted the concept of Smart Growth as an approach to achieving sustainability, and encouraged cities, towns, and counties to use this approach in their planning. As a result, Smart Growth was a fundamental consideration in developing a multimodal transportation network statewide. According to This Is Smart Growth, published by the Smart Growth Network, the ten Smart Growth principles are: • Mix land uses • Take advantage of compact building design • Create a range of housing opportunities and choices Regional Scenarios Personal Vehicle Mobility Transit Mobility Focused Growth A B C Preliminary Statewide Scenarios Personal Vehicle Mobility Transit Mobility Focused Growth A B C Evaluation Criteria and Program • Economic Development • Tribal Communities • Natural Resources • Planning Professionals • Resource Agencies • Development Community • Freight/Cargo Industry Common Interest Groups Recommended Statewide 2050 Transportation Vision Statewide Multimodal Transportation Planning Framework • Vision Statement and Guiding Principles • Process • Regional Scenarios Summary • Statewide Scenarios Summary • Recommended Statewide Scenario • Implementation Program • Policies and Investment Options Refined Statewide Scenarios Personal Vehicle Mobility Transit Mobility Focused Growth A B C Regional Inputs • Stakeholder Interviews • Regional Technical Advisory Teams (RTATs) • Community Workshops Final Statewide Scenarios Personal Vehicle Mobility Transit Mobility Focused Growth A B C Evaluation Criteria and Program Stakeholder Input Community Input Statewide Travel Demand Model and Transit Propensity Analysis Environmental Scan Past/Current Planning Rural Consultation for Elected Officials • Border State DOTs • Binational Border Improvements • Multi-State Corridor Planning • Homeland Security and Evacuation Plans • Freight Movement/ Transshipment Studies Binational/Border State Consultation Strategic Statewide Rail Vision Figure 2 Overview of Planning Process 4 Final Report • 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 1.3 Other Innovations in the bqAZ Planning Process In addition to sustainability, Smart Growth, and the other objectives and directions set by Governor Napolitano, this study breaks new ground for ADOT and ADOT-MPD in several ways: • The Statewide Transportation Planning Framework and bqAZ represented the first effort by ADOT-MPD to establish a long-range (40-year, or 2050) vision for the transportation future of Arizona. Long-range transportation planning studies typically look ahead twenty years. In this case, ADOT developed a vision for 2050, with 2030 as an intermediate planning horizon. • This study was not confined to highways and other transportation systems that are owned, operated, maintained or funded by the state of Arizona. All major surface transportation facilities and services were included, whether under the jurisdiction of state, local, federal or tribal government. • ADOT emphasized coordination with Arizona’s five neighboring states, including Sonora, Mexico, throughout the bqAZ process, in recognition of the need for seamless connections between Arizona and its neighbors. The bqAZ team, consisting of ADOT and its statewide consultants, visited each state and conferred with transportation officials during the study. • This study focused not only on personal travel, but also on freight movement in general and international trade in particular. • ADOT completed a separate but integrated State Rail Framework as part of the bqAZ process. Chapter 8 of this report summarizes the Rail Framework. 1.4 Tribal Outreach The bqAZ Statewide Technical Team was committed to proactively engaging and receiving input throughout the study from all of the federally recognized Indian tribal communities. The Governor’s Tribal Policy Advisor and the ADOT tribal liaison (who was an active member of the bqAZ team) worked to ensure that tribal interests were represented. They made presentations to communities and solicited feedback that was incorporated in the regional planning efforts. Additionally, two tribal representatives– Kenneth Poocha of the Arizona Commission of Indian Affairs and Delia Carlyle of the Ak-Chin Indian Community– served on the Framework Policy Committee. All tribes were encouraged to participate in the regional framework process described in Chapter 6. Figure 3 ADOT Planning Process Evolution 2010 Statewide Transportation Planning Framework 5 On May 14, 2008, the Statewide Transportation Planning Framework was discussed at the Tribal Transportation Forum and Safety Summit. Tribal entities statewide heard a detailed presentation about the process and critical transportation needs. In small breakout groups, the participants identified critical needs facing Arizona's Indian communities. 1.5 Related Planning Efforts The bqAZ Framework process began in 2006 with MAG’s groundbreaking planning framework studies looking ahead to buildout in two fast-growing areas: the Hassayampa Valley (mostly west of the White Tank Mountains), and the Hidden Valley (south and east of the Hassayampa Valley, and partly in northern Pinal County). The success of these studies drew the interest of the Arizona COG and MPO Association, which soon commissioned the Statewide Intrastate Mobility Reconnaissance Study under MAG’s leadership. The Reconnaissance Study found that bqAZ needed to proceed with more detailed planning to identify and address the state’s multimodal transportation needs through 2050. In short, that study served as the scoping effort for ADOT’s subsequent Statewide Planning Framework. Table 2 provides basic information on the previous long-range framework studies. Table 2 Previous bqAZ Long-Range Visioning and Planning Studies Name Sponsors and Funding Partners Study Area Completion Date Time Horizon(s) Travel Demand Forecasting Tool Focus of Outreach Principal Outcome or Product I-10 Hassayampa Valley Transportation Framework Study* MAG, Buckeye, Goodyear, Surprise, Maricopa County, ADOT Approx. 1,800 square miles west of SR 303 and north of Gila River Fall 2007 Buildout and 2030 MAG model with new Buildout socioeconomic data Property owners, developers, public agencies Final report, technical reports, and illustrated poster with general locations of future freeways (including interchanges), parkways, arterials, and conceptual transit recommendations I-8 and I-10 Hidden Valley Transportation Framework Study* MAG, Buckeye, Goodyear, Maricopa (city), Maricopa County, Pinal County, ADOT Over 2,000 square miles generally west of I-10, north of I-8 and south of Gila River Fall 2009 Buildout and 2030 Same as Hassayampa, with additional data for Pinal County Same as above, plus tribes and general public Similar to Hassayampa, but with added emphasis on transit recommendations Intrastate Mobility Reconnaissance Study State of Arizona State of Arizona Spring 2008 2050 Statewide planning tool (precursor to statewide model) COGs, MPOs, resource agencies Booklet on long-range issues and recommendations: “The bqAZ Agenda” MAG Regional Transit Framework Study Maricopa County Maricopa County Fall 2009 2030, with some post-2030 visioning MAG model Transit user and non-user groups, peer cities, general public Three long-range scenarios tied to funding levels: Basic Mobility, Enhanced Mobility and Transit Choice *The MAG Regional Council has accepted both the Hassayampa Valley and Hidden Valley studies. Source: bqAZ Statewide Technical Team, October 2009. 6 Final Report Results and recommendations of the previous studies are incorporated in the Statewide Transportation Planning Framework. Further information on all of the bqAZ planning efforts is available at the master website, www.bqaz.gov. As the next step in the long-range transportation planning process, ADOT has begun the update of the State Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP), a 20-year, fiscally constrained, multimodal plan to guide state transportation investments. The vision and results from the Recommended Statewide Scenario provided the springboard for the LRTP. Arizona state statutes require ADOT to update the plan every five years. Figure 3 shows how the Statewide Framework and LRTP fit into ADOT’s comprehensive planning and programming process. 2010 Statewide Transportation Planning Framework 7 2.0 Statewide Vision and Guiding Principles The Statewide Transportation Planning Framework presents a comprehensive transportation vision and strategic multimodal transportation opportunities. This vision sets in motion transportation planning that promotes place-sensitive and environmentally responsible mobility choices supporting economic prosperity for livable communities. The Framework focuses on the 2050 timeframe and advances the connection between land use and transportation planning to promote balanced and sustainable statewide growth. 2.1 Vision for Arizona Transportation in 2050 The 2050 vision for the Statewide Transportation Planning Framework Program is recited below, spoken in the future tense to visualize the future state of transportation in Arizona, as heard from stakeholders statewide. “Arizona’s integrated, multimodal transportation system provides residents and the traveling public with mobility choices (rail, transit, auto, air, pedestrian, and bicycle) that reflect the high value that Arizonans place on our unique Southwestern lifestyle, the extraordinary places we call home, and the natural resources that define us as a state. In recent decades, innovation and technology have changed the way we travel with the introduction of new modes to Arizona, as well as improved fuel efficiencies and expanded use of alternative fuels. Through coordinated land use decision-making and wise investments in state-of-the art infrastructure, Arizonans have broad transportation choices.” “We now move people and goods safely and efficiently in a way that promotes sustainable growth and preserves our natural environment, while continuing to position Arizona for economic opportunities and diversification based on our unique assets. Arizona’s statewide transportation system connects communities, people and commerce to enhance our quality of life, while ensuring that future generations can enjoy an even better Arizona.” 2.2 Guiding Principles To help achieve the 2050 vision for transportation in Arizona, the bqAZ team established several principles to guide the planning process. 2.2.1 Improve Mobility and Accessibility Develop a multimodal system, moving people and freight that offers transportation choices and connects all of Arizona, while linking the state nationally and globally. Reduce traffic delay to enhance economic activity and provide more time for our families and enjoying other pursuits. • Preserve capacity on the transportation system through efficient operation and management of facilities, effective use of technology and information, and closer coordination between land use and transportation decision-making. • Actively mitigate traffic congestion. • Consider all modes of transportation in aviation, roadway, transit, and rail planning. • Ensure that the transportation system is accessible to all users, including the young, elderly, disabled, and economically disadvantaged. • Ensure that cost-benefit considerations and financial sustainability are included in transportation investment decision-making. 2.2.2 Support Economic Growth Build a seamless transportation system that moves people and goods to ensure that Arizona’s economy is competitive and thriving. Work toward a seamless system of roads, transit, passenger rail, non-motorized modes, aviation, and freight options to ensure Arizona’s economic vitality. • Link regional activity and employment centers through multimodal transportation options. • Develop a transportation system that supports current and emerging statewide economic opportunities. • Provide intermodal facilities that accommodate movement between air, rail, and highway vehicles. • Improve high-priority freight corridors. 8 Final Report • Develop interstate and international transportation connections that foster enhanced economic activity. 2.2.3 Promote a Development Pattern that Links Land Use and Transportation Develop a multimodal transportation system that recognizes and strengthens the relationship between land use and transportation, and connects activity and employment centers statewide. Population growth, community development, economic diversification, and transportation are related, and a comprehensive transportation system can be achieved by working with communities to provide suitable mode choices. • Support infill development and revitalization through transportation investments that reinforce existing communities. • Encourage mixed-use development to maximize trip purpose and foster use of alternative modes in daily travel. • Use transportation infrastructure as a tool to direct growth. • Work with local, county, and tribal governments to evaluate and plan for regional traffic impacts of major developments. Work collaboratively to minimize these impacts. • Coordinate efforts to identify, preserve, and obtain required right-of-way to support future system growth and demand. • Model and demonstrate Smart Growth practices that link land use and transportation in communities of all sizes. 2.2.4 Consider Arizona’s Environment and Natural Resources Being responsible to Arizona’s citizens, provide access to transportation options that are sensitive to the environment and help reduce congestion. Ensure that the environment –including wildlife habitats, wildlife linkages, and natural resources–is an integral component of transportation planning and development. • Promote and implement context-sensitive planning and design, oriented to achieving the principles of Smart Growth and long-term sustainability. • Encourage development patterns and transportation solutions that reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve air quality. • Implement a green connectivity approach (connecting animals and ecosystems) to transportation planning and system development. • Foster energy independence through broader mode choices, more efficient transportation infrastructure, and heavy emphasis on the use of renewable energy sources. 2.2.5 Ensure Safety and Security Design, build, operate, and maintain a transportation system that promotes safety and security, reducing the risk of injury and property damage on or near transportation facilities. • Maintain and enhance transportation safety, reducing crashes, injuries, and deaths. • Address high-priority safety improvements in the statewide transportation system. • Improve safety and reduce risks as more freight moves in and through the state. • Include homeland security measures, as appropriate, as Arizona upgrades international border crossings, while maintaining efforts to promote cross-border economic opportunity and enhanced trade. 2010 Statewide Transportation Planning Framework 9 3.0 Long-Range Trends, Challenges, and Opportunities The Statewide Framework planning process identified and analyzed existing and emerging trends for their impact on Arizona's future. The state's demographic characteristics, energy consumption, use of natural resources, and land development patterns will influence local, regional, and statewide demand for personal mobility and freight movement in ways that are important to understand. As transportation demand grows and evolves in Arizona, the state will face new challenges and opportunities. These trends and their implications are summarized on the following pages. 3.1 Population Growth and Vehicular Travel Over the past half-century, Arizona has grown so quickly that transportation policy has been reactive, instead of proactively guiding future development. Arizona’s urbanization occurred almost entirely in the period following the arrival of the automobile. Therefore, Arizona’s cities and towns were built to accommodate motor vehicles, and most local and regional mobility in Arizona today relies on cars and other personal motor vehicles. The urban form that the cities implemented was designed to take advantage of motor vehicle travel by spreading growth out in low-density residential subdivisions, with commercial land uses generally located in strips along arterial streets. Figures 4 and 5 show how vehicle miles of travel (VMT) have grown even faster than population, with annual VMT per resident (calculated from the two charts) having risen from 6,400 in 1960 to 9,800 in 2007. During these forty-seven years, the population of Arizona nearly quintupled while VMT more than septupled, compounding traffic and congestion challenges. Most of the growth in VMT per resident, and the resulting accelerated growth in total statewide VMT, occurred before 1990. From 1990 to 2007, the state’s VMT grew 177 percent (roughly three and a half percent per year, compounded). In contrast, the annual VMT growth rate from 1970 to 1990 was approximately five and a half percent. Annual VMT per resident jumped from 6,700 in 1970 to 9,600 in 1990, but rose only slightly to 9,800 from 1990 to 2007. This moderation in the growth of VMT per resident is associated with the continuing urbanization of Arizona, a trend described in more detail below. Although the recession that started in 2008 has slowed the rate of population growth in Arizona (primarily by greatly reducing in-migration), demographers and economic forecasters see this is as a short-term trend. Over the coming decades, Arizona will continue growing faster than the nation as a whole, with most (about four-fifths) of the expected growth attributable to in-migration from other states. Figure 4 Arizona Population Growth: 1960-2007 1.3 1.8 2.7 3.7 5.1 6.4 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2007 Statewide Population in Millions Year Source: U.S. Census Bureau, April 1, 2009 Estimates. Figure 5 Arizona Vehicular Travel Growth: 1960-2007 8.3 12.1 18.8 35.5 49.8 62.9 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2007 Statewide VMT, Billions of Annual Miles Year Source: Federal Highway Administration Annual Highway Statistics Report. 10 Final Report These forecasts translate into enormous future demand for housing, associated commercial and employment development, energy, services, and infrastructure, all of which represent significant economic opportunity. For example, the Urban Land Institute (ULI) states that half of the housing and commercial space that Arizona will need by 2050 is not yet built. More importantly for the Statewide Transportation Planning Framework, at least half of the future transportation systems that Arizona will need in 2050 are yet to be built, and these systems must change to enable the state to meet future mobility demands, and to thrive in the face of forecast growth. Some of the fastest-growing places in Arizona have been the newer urbanizing areas in Mohave, Pinal, and Yavapai counties. These areas, along with Maricopa and Yuma counties, at least doubled in population from 1980 to 2006 (Figure 6). This pace of growth has created intense travel demand that has been impossible to meet with new transportation facilities. The limited arterial highway systems in these areas, a general lack of freeways and urban transit, and poorly connected street networks have resulted in rapidly increasing congestion on the principal streets and highways. During the same 26 years, 83 percent of Arizona population growth occurred in three counties straddling the I-10 corridor: Maricopa, Pima, and Pinal (Figure 7). These counties, which comprise the heart of the Sun Corridor megapolitan region, absorbed an additional 2.8 million people, of whom 2.3 million were in Maricopa County alone. At the same time, ADOT, MAG, and local governments in Maricopa County pursued an aggressive and successful freeway expansion program. The investment in an urban freeway network has provided greater urban mobility, allowing cities in the state’s largest metropolitan area to absorb population and employment in the existing urban context. Nevertheless, these agencies have not been able to build freeways and arterials fast enough to keep up with VMT growth. A similar set of trends has played out in Tucson Figure 6 Population Growth Rate by County 126% 51% 107% 205% 198% 78% 246% 150% 67% 0% 50% 100% 150% 200% 250% 300% State Total Other Counties Yuma Yavapai Pinal Pima Mohave Maricopa Coconino Percentage Growth: 1980-2006 Source: U.S. Census Bureau. Figure 7 Distribution of Statewide Population Growth 100% 4.6% 2.8% 4.1% 5.2% 12.1% 4% 65.7% 1.5% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% State Total Other Counties Yuma Yavapai Pinal Pima Mohave Maricopa Coconino Percentage Growth: 1980-2006 Source: U.S. Census Bureau. Figure 8 Changes in Phoenix Urban Area: 1982-2007 139% 168% 104% 230% 0% 50% 100% 150% 200% 250% Population Vehicle Miles of Travel Total Lane Miles Congested Lane Miles % Increase Freeways and Arterials Source: Texas Transportation Institute Annual Urban Mobility Reports. Figure 9 Changes in Tucson Urban Area: 1982-2007 72% 96% 35% 166% 0% 50% 100% 150% 200% 250% Population Vehicle Miles of Travel Total Lane Miles Congested Lane Miles % Increase Freeways and Arterials Source: Texas Transportation Institute Annual Urban Mobility Reports. 2010 Statewide Transportation Planning Framework 11 and Pima County, although this smaller urban region has not embarked on an extensive freeway program. Figures 8 and 9 show that, in both major metropolitan areas, VMT grew faster than population from 1982 to 2007. In both cases, the number of roadway lane miles increased substantially, but congested lane miles grew faster. Arizona will be challenged to offer the housing and transportation choices desired by its millions of new residents, who are expected to arrive with new needs and preferences. For example, the state’s population will continue to age, with the number of Arizonans who are at least 65 years old increasing much faster than the total population between now and 2030. The number of people who do not drive will also increase. At the same time, a long-standing trend away from traditional households (with a married couple and one or more children) will continue. By 2040, 74 percent of all households in the U.S. will not include children. These demographic trends will affect the market for housing and commercial space in significant ways. Increasingly, homeowners–especially first-time homebuyers and retirees–will opt for a different kind of housing than what was demanded in the years following World War II. Rather than choosing single-family homes in suburban subdivisions, many new and existing residents will choose homes on smaller lots closer to the cores of cities, or multi-family housing in mixed-use urban neighborhoods. Nationally, 25 percent of existing housing belongs to the “attached housing” category—townhomes, condominiums, and apartments. But about 38 percent of prospective homebuyers indicate that they will seek to buy attached housing, indicating an important new direction in housing demand. Retirees also are expected to display different housing preferences than they have in the past. According to research conducted for the National Association of Realtors, only 49 percent of retirees will choose to live in suburban and rural settings, where 70 percent live today; a majority will prefer urban settings for their retirement. The shifts in housing preferences also will be pronounced among “New Millennials”–the members of “Generation Y,” born generally between 1982 and 2001–who will be needed if Arizona’s economic growth is to match its population growth. The New Millennials are gravitating to mixed-use urban neighborhoods with local elementary schools, safe and pleasant walking environments, and access to regional transit services. According to ULI, based on these trends, the existing supply of large-lot, single-family suburban homes in Arizona may be more than enough to satisfy expected market demand for some years. Meanwhile, an enormous market demand for smaller lot, single-family housing, and attached housing in mixed-use settings is almost entirely unmet in today’s Arizona. This new and growing market represents an opportunity for developers; it also presents new challenges for transportation planners. 3.2 Land Development Trends and Transportation Demand The primary forces driving increases in transportation demand, including motor vehicle traffic and resulting congestion, are: • Population growth • Economic activity • Travel behavior • Land development patterns Population growth can be forecast but not managed by state policy. One of the objectives of good transportation planning is supporting and enhancing economic activity. Daily VMT tends to decline during recessions, but avoiding economic growth is not an acceptable strategy for reducing VMT. Fortunately, two other determinants of transportation demand can be addressed through public policy, including transportation investments. Travel behavior is a term that includes all the characteristics of individual travel: mode share (percent of trips by mode), trip length, trip frequency, auto occupancy, route selection and others. Public investments in transportation facilities and services have a significant impact on travel behavior. With investment in freeways, daily VMT increases. With investment in effective public transit, daily ridership increases. When safe, comfortable walking environments are provided, pedestrian activity increases. Land development patterns also influence travel demand. For example, where most homes are located in residential subdivisions with no nearby jobs or commerce, driving per household is high. On the other hand, where “complete neighborhoods” have schools, community retail and local services, driving trips are fewer and other modes of travel–especially walking and bicycling–increase. Research has shown that daily household VMT can drop by 25 percent or more in complete neighborhoods. Finally, where dense, mixed-use urban neighborhoods have direct transit connections to job 12 Final Report centers, driving per household is much lower, and walking, bicycling, and transit ridership all increase. At the regional level, the spatial distribution of residences, offices, schools, and other land uses–and the associated distribution of trip generators and attractors–affect the amount of transportation activity. It is possible to forecast these relationships, and the traffic modeling used in the Statewide Framework reflects the regional impacts of development patterns. Local urban form characteristics influence the following characteristics of individual and household travel behavior: • Number of daily auto trips • Mode share of non-auto trips • Average lengths of all trips • Vehicle occupancy rates of motorized trips Both neighborhood and regional land development patterns influence travel demand. Therefore, both should be considered in planning for the travel characteristics of a specific location. The general term used to describe these local and regional factors is “location efficiency.” Places with high location efficiency have lower daily VMT per household and per resident. They also produce higher levels of walking and biking. Where transit services are available, such places also generate increased transit patronage. The concept of location efficiency recognizes that land use and urban form directly influence travel behavior by affecting neighborhood accessibility. The concept of neighborhood accessibility rests on the principle that neighborhood-scale characteristics–such as the local mix of land uses, street design and layout, and the density of different activities–can influence travel behavior, such as the propensity to walk. The connectivity of the local street network is especially important. Many areas of Arizona have high levels of location efficiency, or at least display characteristics of location efficiency. For example, much of the greater Phoenix region was developed pursuant to sound traffic engineering guidance, so that a complete, well-connected street network was installed as the neighborhoods were built. This rectangular grid encourages walking and bicycling, and supports transit service, while shortening the average length of local auto trips. In many smaller cities around the state, such as Yuma, Prescott, and Flagstaff, there are also older, complete neighborhoods with schools, local retail, and services established on a regular grid street pattern. This historical development pattern is beneficial and an important asset for Arizona communities, reducing VMT and the traffic volumes required to support household mobility and economic vitality. Arizona compares well with neighboring states in annual VMT per resident (Figure 10). Arizona’s VMT per resident in 2005 was slightly below the national average, and less than four of six other Southwestern states (VMT per resident is a function not only of land use and the transportation network, but also of auto ownership and demographics). Over the past couple of decades, however, a different development pattern has become prevalent in suburban and rural Arizona. Large residential tract subdivisions with few or no schools, retail, or services have been developed far from core cities and job centers. These subdivisions often have poorly connected street systems that do not function as networks, but rather funnel traffic directly to arterial highways, concentrating local traffic on facilities intended for regional travel and unnecessarily amplifying peak period traffic congestion. Poor access management on many of these highways compounds the problem. This has significant implications for Arizona’s transportation system. Low levels of location efficiency can be virtually permanent, flooding roads with unnecessary traffic and burdening future generations of residents and workers with high levels of household driving. Where this type of development pattern predominates, VMT will grow faster than population and faster than the regional economy, making it difficult or impossible to fund new transportation facilities and services fast enough to keep up. Both VMT growth and lack of access management on arterials also make them less safe for users. The following sections explore some of the implications of the link between transportation service levels and land development patterns. Figure 10 Southwestern States Comparison: 2005 Annual VMT per Resident Arizona California Colorado Nevada New Mexico Texas Utah 8,000 10,000 12,000 U.S. Average =10,087 Source: U.S. Bureau of Transportation Statistics, State Transportation Statistics 2006. 2010 Statewide Transportation Planning Framework 13 3.3 Energy Independence The transportation sector accounts for 74 percent of the increase in petroleum consumption forecast by the U.S. Energy Information Agency for the next two decades. In some ways this trend seems inexorable. Until recently, many assumed that the U.S. would continue to have cheap, plentiful petroleum fuels indefinitely. As a result, this country has not aggressively pursued opportunities to improve transport energy efficiency or location efficiency. Instead, it has built a transportation system that is powered almost entirely by petroleum-based fuel, much of which is imported. Both worldwide demand for oil and oil production costs will rise in the coming years, driven by economic growth in China and India and rapid modernization of less developed countries. Over the long term, much higher petroleum prices are almost a certainty. In the short term, oil prices are expected to remain unstable and fluctuate widely, as they have over the last two years. This trend represents one of the most important policy issues facing Arizona and other states. A high dependence on imported oil for mobility and goods movement subjects the state’s economy to periodic downturns driven by fuel prices. Families find it hard to budget when gas prices fluctuate, affecting both workers and their employers (including the homebuilding and construction sectors). Worse, these expenditures represent a substantial drain on the state’s economy. The Arizona Department of Commerce estimates that Arizonans spent $9.9 billion on energy in 2006, of which 68 percent left the state. Figure 11 shows that in 2005, Arizona’s motor fuel consumption per resident approximately equaled the national average and exceeded that of all but three Southwestern states. To some degree, the issue of dependence on imported oil is beyond policy remedy, at least in the short term. The U.S. and Arizona will continue to be reliant on foreign oil for years to come. Vehicle fuel economy is determined largely by market forces and by federal legislation. However, different places are dependent on imported oil to different degrees, and the differences–even at the margin–matter. One policy measure that many states are beginning to address is growth in VMT per resident. For example, the states of California and Washington have passed laws addressing VMT growth. Congress also is expected to make VMT growth a performance criterion in new surface transportation legislation. The California legislation includes two bills [AB 32 (2006) and SB 375 (2008)] that primarily address climate change intervention. AB 32 sets statewide goals for greenhouse emissions and SB 375 requires state, local, and regional public agencies to develop plans that are consistent with these goals. In subsequent rulemaking, the state determined that meeting AB 32 goals will not be possible without reductions in VMT per resident, so implementation of SB 375 requires that the state DOT (Caltrans), along with local and regional agencies, develop plans to intervene in VMT growth trends. In contrast, the Washington legislation HB 2815 (2008), which is also aimed primarily at reducing greenhouse gases, sets specific statewide VMT goals in reducing VMT per resident below the 2005 level: 18 percent below by 2020, 30 percent by 2035, and 50 percent by 2050. From a transportation perspective, it is now clear that energy will be more expensive in the future, and that Arizona would benefit by reducing its dependence on fossil fuels and on foreign oil in particular, especially for transportation. To some extent, state policymakers have already been addressing these issues. The state has encouraged the growth of ethanol/biofuel industry in a way that relies on crops appropriate for its arid climate. Other policy measures related to energy supply may be feasible. However, Arizona’s transportation investments should begin to take energy efficiency more explicitly into account. The state’s dependence on carbon-based energy for transportation puts it at a disadvantage, subject to the whims of global politics and the economics of peak oil. Every state must face this challenge, but the amount of imported petroleum required to maintain economic vitality varies widely among cities and regions. Places where daily (per resident) VMT is high are at a disadvantage, as are places where commuters do not have options that allow them to reduce household driving when gas prices are high. Figure 11 Southwestern States Comparison: 2005 Annual Motor Fuel Use per Resident Arizona California Colorado Nevada New Mexico Texas Utah 500 600 700 U.S. Average =604 gallons/ resident Source: U.S. Bureau of Transportation Statistics, State Transportation Statistics 2006. 14 Final Report The good news is that Arizona is in a unique position to reduce its future dependence on oil relative to the size of its economy because half of the state’s 2050 built environment remain to be built. This means that Arizona can shape its urban growth in a way that increases mobility while decreasing the amount of energy needed for travel. Such a strategy would be much more difficult for states like Michigan and Ohio, which are not growing. If Arizona can achieve a more compact, mixed-use land pattern and adopt a comprehensive, strategic approach to transportation choices and investments, it can reduce its dependence on oil compared with other states by shortening vehicle trips and providing an improved range of travel options. 3.4 Cost of Travel and Economic Growth Arizonans are paying for transportation, not just through taxes, but also through travel delay, inconvenience, and reliance on the most expensive mode of travel–driving alone. Residents of the Phoenix and Tucson metropolitan areas have experienced a doubling of daily hours of travel delay over the last decade. The impact of the twin forces of congestion and oil prices has been to reduce mobility for many residents, workers, and businesses, with direct impacts to the state’s economy, including especially the homebuilding and construction industries. There is no indication that this condition will moderate. Although the country has been in a recession, oil prices are decoupled from other economic trends. Even with the downturn, consumer gas prices have remained above two dollars a gallon. It is clear that as the economy recovers, the cost of travel will move even higher, although there may be periods of price volatility related to limited domestic oil production capacity, which has not increased since 1973. While everyone is affected, the impacts of rising transportation costs are most severe for working families. According to the Center for Neighborhood Technology, families with annual incomes between $20,000 and $50,000 spend 29 percent of their income on transportation–often more than they spend on housing. As fuel costs increase, the budget available for items such as clothing, education, and recreation declines. Considering that over two-thirds of energy expenditures leave the state, the impact on the Arizona economy is substantial. The disproportionate impact on working families has other implications. In recent decades, much of Arizona’s supply of new workforce housing has been in suburban subdivisions, which impose high VMT on households because of poor location efficiency and long commutes to job centers. Families have chosen to “drive until they qualify,” trading lower housing prices for higher transportation costs. Further increases in energy prices, coupled with the demographic trends described earlier, may significantly reduce the value of suburban housing, with resulting impacts to the homebuilding and construction industries. The combined cost of housing and transportation is likely to make many Arizonans rethink critical decisions about where they live and how they travel. This will create new markets for urban housing, especially in locations with a good mix of neighborhood land uses and good access to regional transit. It will also increase demand for transit, and for safe and convenient walking and cycling environments. The state, metropolitan regions and local governments will be under pressure to respond to these needs and demands between now and 2050. 3.5 Climate Change Arizona is among the states most affected by climate change. Its increase in average annual temperature is expected to be the highest of any state, and along with California and Nevada it will be heavily affected by reduced flows in the Colorado River Basin. No state has more at stake in the direct effects of climate change and the regulatory effects of federal legislation responding to the climate change threat. Over the past ten years, the global scientific community has reached consensus that human activities are contributing significantly to an atmospheric build-up of greenhouse gases–principally carbon dioxide–that are warming the planet and introducing a wide range of climate changes. The American Southwest, including Arizona, has been affected already by an increase in annual ambient temperatures of more than two degrees Fahrenheit and by changes in seasonal precipitation to watersheds that supply the state with water for drinking, irrigation and industry. Arizona and other western states are experiencing a prolonged drought, decreased snowfall, increased and earlier snowmelt, and more severe and devastating forest and rangeland fires as a result of recent climate changes. The scientific evidence is that the West–and especially the Southwest–will continue to be particularly hard-hit by the effects of climate change. Congress is now considering climate change legislation that will directly affect Arizona’s transportation choices. A climate change bill that may pass Congress in 2010 would increase the costs of “carbon” directly and indirectly, with unknown effects on the cost and availability of motor 2010 Statewide Transportation Planning Framework 15 fuels. It also appears likely that new surface transportation legislation will hold states accountable for decisions that affect how energy-intensive their transportation systems are. Carbon dioxide may become a criteria pollutant in the federal clean air regulatory system, and may become an additional “conformity” criterion in the approval process for federal cost participation in state and local transportation programs. The transportation sector is the largest generator of greenhouse gases in Arizona, accounting for 39 percent of the total. Transportation is also the fastest growing category of greenhouse gas emissions. It will face state and federal policy scrutiny as a result. The state completed an Arizona Climate Change Action Plan in August, 2006. The plan projected that greenhouse gases in Arizona would increase 148 percent from 1990 to 2020, due to growth in both population and travel. It set a goal that total greenhouse gas emissions should be reduced to 2000 levels by 2020, and to 50 percent below 2000 levels by 2040 (see Figure 12, “MMtCO2e” is million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent). These goals cannot be met in the transportation sector through technology alone. Implementing a clean car program could contribute about 30 percent of the emission reductions required to meet the 2040 goal of 50 percent below 2000 emissions. The Arizona Climate Change Action Plan recommends adoption of the State Clean Car Program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from new light-duty passenger vehicles, beginning with model year 2011. Eleven states had already adopted Clean Car Program standards by 2006. In the absence of changes in land use, greenhouse gas emissions will continue to increase because of growth in VMT. In addition to technological strategies, a statewide transportation system that expands mobility options and encourages location-efficient land development patterns will be necessary to achieve the targeted reductions in greenhouse gas emissions from transportation. Some states are considering an approach that curbs growth in VMT per resident by integrating mobility with design of the built environment in a manner that improves transportation efficiency. For example, California’s three-pronged approach to climate change mitigation includes: (1) increasing the fuel efficiency of vehicles, (2) improving vehicle technology, and (3) reducing vehicle miles traveled. Arizona’s state transportation program must begin to respond to these issues, and the response must include addressing VMT growth per resident. 3.6 Air Quality Arizona has made progress in its air quality condition, with continuing improvements in reducing motor vehicle emissions of pollutants at the tailpipe. Transit service has also improved in many of the state’s metropolitan areas. But in 2008, Maricopa County exceeded National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ozone, as did several other counties, including Pima, Pinal, and Yuma. Federal air quality standards are becoming stricter and the state’s metropolitan areas are having difficulty meeting new benchmarks, especially for ozone and particulates. Urban haze monitoring is being developed in Arizona to help mitigate visibility issues in urban areas and national parks, especially the Grand Canyon. The problem in Arizona, as in many other states, is that the rate of growth in daily motor vehicle travel is outpacing reductions in tailpipe emission rates. The key pollutants that cause ozone concentrations are unavoidable byproducts of internal combustion engines. Burning petroleum fuels yields carbon gases, including greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide and methane as well as the ozone precursors. During the coming decades, improvements in fuel economy and cleaner fuels should further reduce motor vehicle emission rates for carbon compounds. If these are outweighed by VMT growth, however, the state will have to find other ways to reduce air pollution. Because Figure 12 Arizona Greenhouse Gas Emission Forecasts and Goals 2000 Actual 2020 Forecast Reduce to 2000 levels 50% below 2000 + 35% + 148% 2020 Goal 2040 Goal + 183% + 240% 2030 Forecast 2050 Forecast All Greenhouse Gases Transportation Greenhouse Gases 2000 (35 MMtCO2e) 1990 (23 MMtCO2e) Sources: Arizona Climate Change Action Plan, 2006; Statewide Transportation Planning Framework Estimates, 2009. 16 Final Report the underlying causes of mobile source air pollutants and greenhouse gases are identical, the state’s air quality and climate change programs should be managed through a single coordinated effort. 3.7 Natural Resources Arizona is blessed with an abundance of unique and precious natural resources, including wildlife, dramatic scenery, open space, and natural areas. A key part of developing the Statewide Transportation Framework has been collaboration with resource agencies such as the Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD), and with non-governmental entities like the Sonoran Institute and the Nature Conservancy, to determine how to use planning systems for these natural resources in the transportation planning process. Arizona’s natural resources represent a system of “natural infrastructure” that includes the lands and waters that provide wildlife habitat and open space. This system of natural infrastructure can be mapped, identifying public open space, sensitive biological areas, critical wildlife habitat, wildlife movement corridors, important scenic vistas, riparian areas, and other resources. This will allow transportation planners to anticipate potential transportation impacts on key natural resources early in project development. It will also provide a basis for public and private land acquisition programs that can protect lands before they come under development pressure. Such pressure causes demand for new transportation corridors that may degrade the state’s natural infrastructure. 3.8 Federal Transportation Policy Over the next few years, federal transportation policies are expected to undergo a major transformation. This year (2009) has already been remarkable, with passage early in the year of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which signaled new directions in the federal surface transportation program, including the resurrection of an intercity passenger rail and high-speed rail program. The act also signaled a new awareness of the need for transportation infrastructure investment and its importance to the national economy. Although a new federal surface transportation authorization bill may be delayed until 2011, it is clear from committee action in the House and Senate that new directions in federal transportation policy will be forthcoming. These may include new emphasis on state-of-good-repair (“fix it first”), complete streets, multimodal choice, local self-determination, context-sensitive planning and design, and transportation equity. Intercity passenger rail and high-speed rail will become significant programs for the first time. It also appears that new policies on location efficiency and vehicle miles of travel, coordinated investment in transportation and housing, funding for urban mixed-use nodes, support for urban infill and redevelopment, and sustainable stormwater management–all unprecedented- –will guide federal investment and will reshape state and local transportation plans and programs. The new surface transportation authorization will also address regulation of greenhouse gases, including emissions from motor vehicles, greater vehicle fuel efficiency, and related air quality measures. Although the federal government is newly focused on the economic importance of infrastructure spending, it is not clear whether this will result in increased surface transportation funding. The primary source of funding for the federal transportation program has been federal fuel taxes. Revenue to the highway trust fund has been declining, while unit costs for construction projects have (until recently) been increasing. Whether Congress will consider increases to the gas tax or other new revenue measures is unclear. The size of the federal transportation program may not increase significantly, which would leave the states to find other ways to meet growing transportation needs. It is similarly unclear what effect a climate change law will have on transportation programs, but it is likely to raise the price of petroleum fuels. Such a law may also require transportation agencies to account for greenhouse gas emissions and the impacts of proposed federally-funded projects on such emissions from transportation. 3.9 Statewide Transportation Framework Outcomes Summary This concluding section summarizes the policy implications of Arizona’s long-range trends, challenges, and opportunities. 1] Arizona must plan a more diversified transportation network. To date, the principal focus of Arizona’s transportation program has been expanding, improving and maintaining the state’s highway system. Over the past three decades the development of the state highway system, including urban freeways in the MAG region, has been the cornerstone of the state’s economic growth and prosperity. Now the state must broaden its mission to include a major role for transit and rail, including development of an 2010 Statewide Transportation Planning Framework 17 intercity passenger rail network and support for regional rail systems serving the metropolitan areas. Reducing Arizona’s dependence on carbon-based fuels is critical to the state’s economic competitiveness and an essential part of an air quality improvement and climate change mitigation program. One of the strategies necessary to reduce petroleum dependence will be developing a multimodal state transportation program. This will require a collaborative planning commitment and a more diversified state transportation funding system. 2] Arizona must work with local governments and regional agencies to improve location efficiency, which is essential to meeting Arizona’s transportation needs. If VMT continues to grow faster than population, there will be no way to keep up with travel demand or to avoid losing mobility to endemic congestion. Historically, departments of transportation (DOT) in all states have been told they have no role in land use. Highway planning in particular has followed a “predict and provide” methodology that forecasts traffic and then attempts to build new capacity to support it. State transportation programs have thereby encouraged the spreading out of our cities and the development of high-VMT, low-efficiency development patterns, whether intended or not. Now the nation has learned that transportation systems and land development patterns are inextricable. State transportation departments must begin working with local governments and regional agencies to plan transportation and land use in a coordinated manner. Arizona has a tremendous opportunity in this respect: half the population that will live here in 2050 has not yet arrived. Half of the homes, businesses, and civic buildings and half of the transportation infrastructure needed in 2050 have not yet been built. This state could, if it chose to, develop the nation’s model program of integrating transportation policy horizontally with land use policy and vertically with local and metropolitan entities. The payoff in 2030 and 2050 would be a more robust economy, higher quality of life for residents, and a more competitive position with respect to climate change, air quality and petroleum dependence. 3] Arizona must adopt policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Congress will likely mandate climate change responses through a climate change bill, expected by the end of 2010. Regardless of whether this takes the form of carbon taxation or cap-and-trade, greenhouse gas emissions will be regulated and proposed transportation investments tested against new greenhouse gas emission objectives. Mitigation of these emissions will require policy changes in many aspects of the state’s transportation operations. The goal of these policy changes should be to improve mobility while reducing the greenhouse gas emissions associated therewith. Because energy use is at the root of a connected set of issues–economic growth, climate change, air quality, land use, and transportation demand–these issues should be approached in a coordinated, strategic manner. 4] Arizona must plan for its emerging megapolitan structure. Analyzing land ownership, resources, development trends and growth projections, demographers have identified eleven “megapolitan” regions throughout the country (Figure 13) where the majority of growth will occur in the future. The Arizona Sun Corridor, which stretches from south of Tucson to north of Prescott, is the fastest growing of these regions. The Sun Corridor will increasingly function as a mega-regional economy that draws strength from the interaction of its multiple cities. Intercity passenger rail will be needed to connect the urban centers and avoid limits to economic growth imposed by a congested freeway system. This kind of transportation Figure 13 Emerging Megapolitan Regions of the U.S. Source: Regional Plan Association, 2006. 18 Final Report planning represents a new challenge for Arizona. The California Blueprint Planning Process, which establishes a mega-regional planning framework and requires a scenario approach that addresses the relationship between land use and transportation, could serve as a model for Arizona to consider in the Sun Corridor. 5] Arizona must address its transportation funding needs. Arizona has reached a point where available transportation funding–federal, state, regional, and local –is only a small fraction of the amount needed. New federal surface transportation authorization legislation will eventually pass Congress, but it is highly unlikely that the federal transportation program will grow enough to close the gap. Arizona is currently dependent on fuel taxes (which may be spent only on roads) to fund a significant proportion of the state's transportation program. This will not be an appropriate funding mechanism in the future, as the state will increasingly be working to reduce, not increase, petroleum use. New public-private partnership techniques may help to manage project costs and in some cases to provide new funding sources for major projects– freeways, rail lines and bridges. But the potential for such strategies, while important, is limited. If Arizona wishes to continue its past practice of using strategic transportation investments to bring economic growth and prosperity, it must pull together politically and establish funding sources appropriate to the tasks of the new millennium. The updated transportation funding system must be inherently multimodal, strengthen local and regional self-determination, reinforce efficient land development patterns, and establish an intergovernmental process for planning regional networks and identifying and prioritizing projects. The updated funding system must also avoid policy paradoxes, such as the current conflict between fuel taxes as the main source of transportation funding and petroleum dependence as one of the state’s most urgent challenges. 2010 Statewide Transportation Planning Framework 19 4.0 Organizational Context 4.1 bqAZ Technical and Public Involvement Teams ADOT-MPD and ADOT-CCP managed this study cooperatively. Each division hired a management consultant team to assist its staff. ADOT-MPD engaged a statewide technical consultant team led by AECOM (formerly DMJM Harris). ADOT-CCP selected a statewide public involvement consultant team led by KDA Creative. The two ADOT/consultant teams, which worked closely together throughout the study, are referred to herein as the bqAZ Statewide Technical Team and the bqAZ Statewide Public Involvement Team. Together they formed the bqAZ Statewide Team. The bqAZ Statewide Technical Team was responsible for developing all technical planning products in the Statewide Framework. This team consisted of ADOT-MPD planners and employees of AECOM and its subconsultants. Similarly, the statewide public involvement team, led by the ADOT-CCP Deputy Director, contained ADOT-CCP staff based at various locations around the state, as well as staff of KDA Creative and its subconsultants. The Public Involvement Team was responsible for working with the Technical Team to organize, facilitate, and summarize all public involvement activities. This team was also responsible for communication and publicity on project-related events. ADOT-CCP and its management consultant maintained the portion of the website www.bqaz.gov devoted to the Statewide Framework. 4.2 Statewide Framework Steering and Oversight Committees The Framework Policy Committee (FPC) provided guidance and information to the citizens, State Transportation Board, Governor, and Legislature on the long-term vision for transportation. The chair of the MAG Regional Council and a member of the State Transportation Board co-chaired this committee. The committee contained elected officials from the COG and MPO boards, business partners, representatives of Indian Communities, several state agency directors, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) staff, and special interest groups (e.g., Arizona Transit Association and The Nature Conservancy). The FPC met every two to five months: four times in 2008 and four times in 2009. The Framework Management Committee (FMC) monitored the progress and direction of the Statewide Framework through conversations with the bqAZ Statewide Technical Team and the Regional Advisory Team (see below). The ADOT Director and the MAG Executive Director co-chaired this committee, which contained executive directors of the COGs and MPOs, several business partners, and key ADOT staff. The committee met every two to four months: five times in 2008 and four times in 2009. Several FMC meetings were held jointly with the Regional Advisory Team (RAT), which provided advice to the Technical Team at the staff level, emphasizing sound planning principles and consistency with local and regional plans. The RAT contained planners from the COGs and MPOs, FHWA, and the Arizona State Land Department (ASLD), among others. It met every one to four months: five times in 2008 and five times in 2009. These meetings were led by a facilitator rather than chaired. The Acknowledgments page at the front of this document lists members of the FPC, FMC, and RAT. 2010 Statewide Transportation Planning Framework 21 This chapter sets the stage for the rest of the report by summarizing existing land ownership, socioeconomics, transportation, and the environment in Arizona. It also discusses projected future conditions where appropriate. 5.1 Land Ownership and Use Table 3 and Figure 14 show the distribution of land in Arizona by ownership or jurisdictional management–private, public, and tribal. Public lands are further classified by level of government and in some cases by agency. As Figure 15 illustrates, Indian tribal communities have jurisdiction over more than one-fourth of Arizona’s land. Approximately one-sixth is in private hands, one-eighth is owned by state or local government, and the largest share (42 percent) is federally controlled. The vast majority of local government holdings are State Trust land, which are constitutionally earmarked for eventual sale or lease to support Arizona’s public schools. By far the largest federal land managers, other than the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), are the Bureau of Land Management (BLM, U.S. Department of the Interior), and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). These two agencies control nearly one-third of Arizona land. The other major federal landholding agencies are the Department of Defense, the National Park Service, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 5.0 Existing and Future Conditions Table 3 Arizona Land Area by Ownership/Management Ownership Category Ownership or Management Land Area (Sq. Miles) Percent of Total Private Private 20,010 17.6 Tribal Tribal 31,418 27.6 State and Local State Trust Land 14,526 12.7 Local and State Parks 228 0.2 Arizona Game and Fish Department 58 0.1 Other Public Ownership 13 < 0.1 Subtotal 14,825 13.0 Federal Bureau of Land Management 19,135 16.8 Wilderness Areas 2,293 2.0 National Monuments and other protected areas* 2,996 2.6 USDA Forest Service 17,435 15.3 Wilderness Areas 2,266 2.0 Military (Department of Defense) 4,303 3.8 National Park Service** 4,009 3.5 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 2,673 2.3 Wilderness Areas 2,099 1.8 Bureau of Reclamation 157 0.1 Subtotal 47,712 41.8 Grand Total 113,965 100.0 *Excludes wilderness areas to avoid double counting. **Includes wilderness areas in the Organ Pipe Cactus, Petrified Forest and Saguaro units. Sources: bqAZ Statewide Technical Team; BLM website; www.sangres.com, October 2009. 22 Final Report YAVAPAI COUNTY Hassayampa River Sonoran Desert National Monument COCHISE COUNTY GRAHAM COUNTY GRAHAM COUNTY PINAL COUNTY YAVAPAI COUNTY YUMA COUNTY LA PAZ COUNTY YAVAPAI COUNTY COCONINO COUNTY COCONINO COUNTY NAVAJO COUNTY NAVAJO COUNTY APACHE COUNTY Phoenix Tempe Mesa Chandler Glendale GILA COUNTY NAVAJO COUNTY GILA COUNTY GRAHAM COUNTY APACHE COUNTY GREENLEE COUNTY Eloy Marana Superior Tusayan Valle Bitter Springs Grand Canyon Kykotsmovi Jeddito Burnside Hope Picacho Florence Junction Globe Ash Fork Seligman Tonto National Forest Coronado National Forest Tohono O'odham Nation Ironwood Forest National Monument Gila River Indian Community MARICOPA COUNTY PINAL COUNTY Mammoth San Manuel Peach Springs CALIFORNIA ARIZONA Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation Ak-Chin Indian Community Gila River Indian Community Safford Pima Clifton Duncan Oracle Junction Willcox Pinetop-Lakeside Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest Coronado National Forest Gila River Black River Blue River San Simon River ARIZONA NEW MEXICO COCHISE COUNTY PIMA COUNTY PIMA COUNTY PINAL COUNTY San Francisco River Surprise Scottsdale Avondale Sedona Walnut Creek Canyon Diablo River Verde River East Verde River Salt River Eagar Little Colorado River Chevelon Canyon River Puerco River Coconino National Forest Navajo Nation Petrified Forest National Park White Mountain Apache Indian Tribe Tonto National Forest GILA COUNTY YAVAPAI COUNTY San Carlos Apache Tribe Navajo Nation Zuni Tribe Congress Naco Sahuarita Tucson South Tucson Oro Valley Benson Sierra Vista Nogales Bisbee Douglas SANTA CRUZ COUNTY Tombstone PIMA COUNTY San Simon River Chiricahua National Monument Maricopa Casa Grande Coronado National Forest Saguaro National Park San Xavier Indian Reservation Davis Monthan Air Force Base Coronado National Forest Santa Cruz River San Pedro River Pascua Yaqui Tribe Springerville St. Johns Snowflake Taylor Payson Show Low Wupatki National Monument Camp Navajo Little Colorado River Tonopah Apache Junction Colorado River MOHAVE COUNTY MOHAVE COUNTY Williams Flagstaff Page Kaibab National Forest Navajo Nation Havasupai Tribe Hualapai Tribe Grand Canyon National Park Kaibab National Forest Vermillion Cliffs National Monument UTAH ARIZONA Yavapai-Apache Nation Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe GILA COUNTY MARICOPA COUNTY Prescott National Forest Prescott National Forest Agua Fria National Monument Tonto National Forest Wickenburg Dewey/Humbolt Prescott Valley Cottonwood Camp Verde Winslow Holbrook Petrified National Forest Hopi Tribe Canyon De Chelly National Monument Navajo Nation Cameron Tuba City Window Rock Kayenta Chinle Second Mesa Cocopah Tribe Fort Yuma-Quechan Tribe MARICOPA COUNTY YUMA COUNTY PIMA COUNTY Colorado River San Luis ARIZONA REPUBLIC OF MEXICO Somerton Yuma Wellton Yuma Proving Grounds Barry Goldwater Air Force Range Hualapai Indian Fort Mohave Tribe Indian Reservation Colorado River Big Sandy River Big Willams River Santa Maria River COCONINO COUNTY YAVAPAI COUNTY COCONINO COUNTY YAVAPAI COUNTY MARICOPA COUNTY C O C O N I N O P L A T E A U K A I B A B P L A T E A U Bullhead City Prescott National Forest Gila Bend Buckeye Quartzsite Parker Chino Valley Prescott Kingman Colorado City Fredonia NEVADA ARIZONA Kaibab Paiute Tribe Grand Canyon National Park Grand Canyon-Parashant National Monument Hualapai Tribe Colorado River Indian Tribes Gila River Painted Rock Reservoir Yuma Proving Grounds Lake Havasu City Hon-Dah Patagonia Whiteriver Shonto Jacobs Lake Ajo Tohono O'odham Nation Sonoita Heber Miami Why Tonto Apache Lukeville San Carlos Apache Tribe Sources: ADOT 2007 December 2009 Statewide Transportation Planning Framework Land Ownership and Management 0 10 20 40 Miles Legend State Highway System Land Ownership and Management BLM State Land Local or State Parks; USFS; NPS; USFWS Military Tribal Land Private Figure 14 Land Ownership and Management 2010 Statewide Transportation Planning Framework 23 Much of Arizona’s federal land is protected by law from development, including National Park Service holdings, wilderness areas (which are managed by BLM, the Forest Service, USFWS, and the National Park Service), and certain other BLM lands such as designated conservation areas and five national monuments. These federally protected lands cover about 12 percent of the state–and this excludes state and local parks, military facilities, and national wildlife refuges (except the portions that are also wilderness areas). The tribal communities (another 28 percent) are considered sovereign nations, whose land is managed solely by the tribes and their members. The mix of land ownership varies widely across the state. In Cochise, Navajo, and Santa Cruz counties, at least 30 percent of the land is held privately, according to the Arizona Department of Commerce. In Gila, Graham, Greenlee, and La Paz, on the other hand, 10 percent or less is privately owned. Statewide roughly 30 percent–the private land plus State Trust land–is known to be open to current or future private development. Approximately 42 percent of the four counties (Pima, Pinal, Maricopa, and Yavapai) comprising most of the Sun Corridor is privately held, with the rest largely in federal or tribal hands. 5.2 Population and Employment Table 4 shows 2030 and 2050 population and employment projections developed for this study. The state’s Figure 15 Arizona Land Ownership/Management (Percent) Figure 5.2 Arizona Land Ownership/Management (Percent) 17.6% 27.6% 13.0% 16.8% 15.3% 9.7% Private Tribal State and Local Federal ‐ BLM Federal ‐ Forest Service Federal ‐ Other Sources: bqAZ Statewide Technical Team; BLM website; www.sangres. com, October 2009. Table 4 Population and Employment Estimates by County, 2005-2050 County Population1 (thousands) Employment (thousands) 2005 2030 2050 % Growth, 2005-2050 2005 2030 2050 % Growth, 2005-2050 Apache 74 103 133 80 19 25 32 68 Cochise 133 245 358 169 48 83 151 215 Coconino 127 166 193 52 62 88 118 90 Gila 52 64 74 42 12 23 28 133 Graham 34 50 88 159 9 17 28 211 Greenlee 9 10 12 33 4 4 5 25 La Paz 21 27 32 52 4 25 40 900 Maricopa 3,672 6,123 7,623 108 1 |