Statewide transportation planning framework program: final report

              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