Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community 2010 long range transportation plan : final report

              PG TD0310
Contract No. T08- 49- 0001
Task Assignment MPD 33- 09
Final Report
Adopted October 20, 2010
Salt River Pima- Maricopa Indian Community Council
Resolution Number SR- 2938- 2011
2010Salt River Pima- Maricopa Indian Community
Long Range Transportation Plan
Salt River Pima- Maricopa
Indian Community
2010 Long Range Transportation Plan
Final Report
Adopted October 20, 2010
Salt River Pima- Maricopa Indian Community Council
Resolution Number SR- 2938- 2011
Prepared by:
HDR Engineering, Inc.
i
Table of Contents
1.0 Introduction ....................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Study Area Characteristics ................................................................................ 1
1.2 Indian Reservation Roads Program .................................................................... 4
1.3 Community Outreach ...................................................................................... 5
1.4 Key Issues....................................................................................................... 5
2.0 Existing Transportation System Conditions.............................................................. 9
2.1 Previous Plans and Studies ............................................................................... 9
2.2 Road Characteristics and Conditions ............................................................... 10
2.3 Road Functional Classification ........................................................................ 13
2.4 Current Traffic Conditions .............................................................................. 17
2.5 Pavement Conditions ..................................................................................... 21
2.6 Maintenance Responsibility ............................................................................. 21
2.7 Crash Data Analysis ...................................................................................... 24
2.8 Public Transit ................................................................................................ 37
2.9 Non- Motorized Transportation ........................................................................ 44
3.0 Land Use and Socioeconomic Conditions ............................................................ 45
3.1 Title VI and Environmental Justice .................................................................... 45
3.2 Existing and Planned Land Use ....................................................................... 47
3.3 Traffic Analysis Zones .................................................................................... 49
3.4 Population .................................................................................................... 49
3.5 Employment ................................................................................................. 51
3.6 Housing Analysis ........................................................................................... 53
3.7 Interim and Planning Horizon Population and Employment Projections ................ 53
4.0 Future Transportation System Conditions ............................................................. 61
4.1 Planned Study Area Improvements................................................................... 61
4.2 Traffic Assignments ........................................................................................ 64
4.3 Network Deficiencies ..................................................................................... 64
4.4 Circulation System Improvement Needs ........................................................... 64
4.5 Transit and Non- Motorized Transportation ....................................................... 71
5.0 Implementation Plan ......................................................................................... 75
5.1 Roads .......................................................................................................... 75
5.2 Public Transit ................................................................................................ 94
5.3 Trails and Paths System .................................................................................. 98
5.4 Transportation Funding ................................................................................ 103
5.5 Priority Project List ....................................................................................... 108
6.0 Policies and Guidelines ................................................................................... 115
6.1 Functional Classification .............................................................................. 115
6.2 Typical Road Cross Sections ......................................................................... 117
6.3 Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines ................................................................. 127
6.4 Access Management.................................................................................... 130
ii
List of Appendices
Appendix A IRR System Inventory
Appendix B Public Involvement Summary Reports
Appendix C Functional Classification
Appendix D Summary of Generalized Annual Average Daily Volumes for
the Phoenix Urban Area
Appendix E Pima Freeway Corridor Study Intersections 2009 Conditions
Appendix F Planning, Impact Fees, and Fiscal Analysis ( PIFFA) Study Data
Appendix G Pima Freeway Corridor Study Intersection 2030 Conditions
Appendix H Trails Plan Segment Information
List of Figures
Figure 1 SRPMIC Vicinity Map .................................................................................... 2
Figure 2 Study Area .................................................................................................. 3
Figure 3 Road Lanes and Signalized Intersections ....................................................... 15
Figure 4 BIA Road Functional Classification ............................................................... 16
Figure 5 Current Traffic Conditions ........................................................................... 19
Figure 6 Pima Freeway Corridor Study Intersections Location ....................................... 20
Figure 7 Wearing Surface Rating .............................................................................. 22
Figure 8 Maintenance Responsibility ......................................................................... 23
Figure 9 Crash Trend from June 1, 2003 through May 31, 2008 ( ADOT Data) ............. 25
Figure 10 Crash Trend from January 1, 2005 through July 16, 2009 ( SRPMIC PD Data) .. 26
Figure 11 Crash Types ( ADOT Data) .......................................................................... 27
Figure 12 High Crash Locations ................................................................................. 30
Figure 13 Existing Transit Service Areas ....................................................................... 38
Figure 14 Salt River Elementary School Sidewalks ......................................................... 44
Figure 15 2006 General Plan Land Use Map .............................................................. 48
Figure 16 2006 Estimated Population Density by TAZ ................................................... 50
Figure 17 2006 Estimated Employment Density by TAZ ................................................. 52
Figure 18 2030 Estimated Population Density by TAZ ................................................... 57
Figure 19 2030 Estimated Employment Density by TAZ ................................................. 59
Figure 20 2030 Planned System Improvements ............................................................ 63
Figure 21 Planned Improvements - 2030 Traffic Conditions .......................................... 65
Figure 22 Road Improvement Needs ........................................................................... 76
Figure 23 Recommended Improvements - 2030 Traffic Conditions ................................. 83
Figure 24 Recommended Public Transit System ............................................................ 96
Figure 25 Recommended Non- Motorized Trail System .................................................. 99
Figure 26 Recommended 2010 FHWA Functional Classification System ....................... 116
Figure 27 Rural Access Way .................................................................................... 119
Figure 28 Rural Local Road ..................................................................................... 120
Figure 29 Urban Local Residential ............................................................................ 121
Figure 30 Urban Local Commercial .......................................................................... 122
Figure 31 Urban Major Collector ............................................................................. 123
Figure 32 Rural Minor Collector ............................................................................... 124
Figure 33 Urban Arterial ......................................................................................... 125
Figure 34 Recommended Road Cross Sections .......................................................... 126
Figure 35 Access Management Areas ....................................................................... 131
iii
List of Tables
Table 1 Crash Locations ( ADOT Data) ..................................................................... 24
Table 2 Crashes by Severity ( ADOT Data) ................................................................ 26
Table 3 Crashes by Severity ( SRPMIC Data) .............................................................. 27
Table 4 Crashes by Objects First Collided With ( ADOT Data) ..................................... 28
Table 5 Crashes by Lighting Conditions ( ADOT Data) ................................................ 29
Table 6 High Crash Intersections ............................................................................. 31
Table 7 Crash Types and Crash Rates at High Crash Intersections ( ADOT Data) ........... 32
Table 8 High Crash Segments ( ADOT Data) ............................................................. 32
Table 9 Service Areas and Descriptions .................................................................... 39
Table 10 SRPMIC Fare Structure ............................................................................... 41
Table 11 Service Data for Fiscal Year 2008 ................................................................ 42
Table 12 SRPMIC Transit Costs for Fiscal Year 2008 ................................................... 42
Table 13 Annual Transit Trip Rates for Select Demographic Groups .............................. 43
Table 14 Title VI and Environmental Justice Population Percentages, SRPMIC, Maricopa County and
Arizona 46
Table 15 Existing SRPMIC Land Use ........................................................................... 47
Table 16 Base Year ( 2006) Employment Data ............................................................ 51
Table 17 Occupied Housing ..................................................................................... 53
Table 18 Historic Population Growth ......................................................................... 54
Table 19 SRPMIC Population Projections .................................................................... 56
Table 20 SRPMIC Employment Projections .................................................................. 58
Table 21 MAG Population and Employment Estimates ................................................. 60
Table 22 2030 Traffic Conditions – Freeways ............................................................. 66
Table 23 2030 Traffic Conditions - Arterials ............................................................... 67
Table 24 Potential Annual Transit Demand ................................................................. 72
Table 25 Road Capacity Improvement Needs ............................................................. 77
Table 26 Recommended Improvements – 2030 Freeway Traffic Conditions .................... 84
Table 27 Recommended Improvements – 2030 Arterial Traffic Conditions ..................... 85
Table 28 Pima Freeway Corridor Study Intersections Level of Service Summary ............... 88
Table 29 Road Preservation and Reconstruction Needs ................................................ 90
Table 30 Salt River Transit System Five year Budget/ Sources of Revenue ........................ 95
Table 31 SRPMIC Transit Improvement Cost Estimates ................................................. 97
Table 32 Non- Motorized Trail System Planning Level Cost Estimate ............................. 102
Table 33 Indian Reservation Roads Funding, 2005– 2010 .......................................... 105
Table 34 Street Section Descriptions ........................................................................ 118
iv
Acronyms and Abbreviations
ADOT Arizona Department of Transportation
ADT Average Daily Traffic
ALCP Arterial Life Cycle Program
APTNA Arkansas Public Transportation Needs Assessment
ARRA American Reinvestment and Recovery Act
ASU Arizona State University
BIA Bureau of Indian Affairs
CAP Central Arizona Project
CMAQ Congestion Management and Air Quality
DCR Design Concept Report
FLH Federal Lands Highway
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
HCM Highway Capacity Manual
HDR HDR Engineering, Inc.
HOV High Occupancy Vehicle
IRR Indian Reservation Roads Program
IRR TIP Indian Reservation Roads Transportation Improvement
Program
ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers
LOS Level of Service
LRTP Long Range Transportation Plan
MAG Maricopa Association of Governments
MCDOT Maricopa County Department of Transportation
NHTSA National Highway Transportation Safety Administration
PARA Planning Assistance for Rural Arizona
PIFFA Planning, Impact Fees, and Fiscal Analysis
RME Red Mountain Engineering, LLC
RNDF Relative Need Distribution Factor
RPM Recessed Pavement Marker
RTP Regional Transportation Plan
SRPMIC Salt River Pima Maricopa Indian Community
SRPMIC PD Salt River Pima Maricopa Indian Community Police
Department
v
Acronyms and Abbreviations
SRTS Salt River Transit System
STDM City of Scottsdale Travel Demand Model
TAC Technical Advisory Committee
TAZ Traffic Analysis Zone
TIP Transportation Improvement Program
TRB Transportation Research Board
TTIP Tribal Transportation Improvement Program
VMT Vehicle Miles of Travel
vi
This page is intentionally left blank.
1 Salt River Pima- Maricopa Indian Community
2010 Long Range Transportation Plan
1.0 Introduction
The preparation of the Salt River Pima- Maricopa Indian Community ( SRPMIC, Community) 2010 Long
Range Transportation Plan ( LRTP) was funded by the Arizona Department of Transportation ( ADOT)
Multimodal Planning Division’s ( MPD) Planning Assistance for Rural Areas ( PARA) program. The PARA
program is funded through the Federal Highway Administration’s ( FHWA) State Planning and Research
program to non- metropolitan communities for the purpose of conducting transportation planning
studies. PARA funds may be applied to address a broad range of planning issues related to road and
non- motorized transportation modes.
1.1 Study Area Characteristics
The Salt River Pima- Maricopa Indian Community is a sovereign tribe located on the east side of the
Phoenix metropolitan area. It is bordered by the cities of Mesa and Tempe to the south, Scottsdale to the
west and north, the town of Fountain Hills and the Fort McDowell Indian Reservation to the north, and
unincorporated Maricopa County and Tonto National Forest to the east. The Community is a member
of the Maricopa Association of Governments ( MAG), the municipal and intergovernmental planning
organization for Maricopa County and the metropolitan Phoenix area.
The study area for this LRTP is the SRPMIC itself. While Mesa, Tempe, Scottsdale, Fountain Hills, and
Maricopa County were stakeholders in this planning study, the study area did not include land owned by
any of these jurisdictions. Figure 1 shows SRPMIC in its regional context. Figure 2 shows the SRPMIC
Long Range Transportation Planning Study Area.
The Community is comprised of two Native American tribes with two distinct backgrounds and cultures:
the Pima, " Akimel O'Odham" ( River People) and the Maricopa, " Xalychidom Piipaash" ( people who live
toward the water). Although these tribes are distinct, the Community is considered in its entirety for this
long range transportation planning study.
SRPMIC encompasses approximately 85 square miles ( 54,632 acres), with 19,000 held as a natural
open space preserve located primarily in the eastern portion of the Community. Elevations are higher in
the open space preserve and the topography of the Sonoran Desert landscape is anchored by Red
Mountain and Saddleback Mountain. The Verde River meets the Salt River east of Red Mountain. Many
sensitive cultural sites are located across this open space preserve. The Central Arizona Project Canal
traverses this preserve area. The Beeline Highway ( SR 87) cuts through this area providing a connection
between Mesa and Payson.
The Salt River runs along the southern edge of the Community, separating the Lehi area from the rest of
the Community. Sand and gravel mining operations are located along the lower portions of the Salt
River. The upper Salt River also serves as a barrier between the Community and the Tonto National
Forest.
Moving westward across the Community, the landscape transitions from open space preserve to
agriculture. There are approximately 17,000 acres under cultivation in a variety of crops including
cotton, melons, potatoes, onions, broccoli and carrots. Scattered residences are located in the
agricultural area, primarily along the road grid. Irrigation water is pumped from
87
17
10
MARICOPA
COUNTY
10
51
101
202
202
88
60
87
74
PINAL
COUNTY
Scottsdale
Phoenix
Mesa
Tempe
Glendale
Fountain
Hills
Apache
Junction
Fort
McDowell
Indian
Res.
Tonto National Forest
Gilbert
Queen Creek
Chandler
Paradise
Valley
State Overview
SRPMIC
Salt River Pima- Maricopa Indian Community
2010 Long Range Transportation Plan
FIGURE 1 | SRPMIC Vicinity Map
Source: HDR Engineering, Inc., September 2010.
2
Salt River Pima- Maricopa Indian Community
2010 Long Range Transportation Plan
FIGURE 2 | Study Area
Sources: ADOT, SRPMIC, Census, HDR Engineering, Inc., September 2010.
3
87
ARIZONA
202
ARIZONA
101
ARIZONA
SALT RIVER
SALT RIVER
Arizona Canal
Highways
Major Streets
Local Streets
Aqueduct/ Canal
Study Area
See Inset
SRPMIC Boundary
McDowell Road
McKellips Road
Thomas Road
Indian School Road
McDonald Drive
Chaparral Road
Indian Bend Road
Dobson Road
92nd Street
Pima Road
Alma School Road
Longmore Road
Country Club Drive
Mesa Drive
Stapley Drive
Gilbert Road
Via de Ventura
Curry Road
Camelback Road
Osborn Road
Oak Street
Extension Road
Center Street
AREA OF INSET
87
ARIZONA
SALT RIVER
Arizona Canal
CAP Canal
No scale
4 Salt River Pima- Maricopa Indian Community
2010 Long Range Transportation Plan
groundwater wells or supplied by the Arizona Canal. The People’s Village with schools and housing is
located at the center of the Community.
The western portion of the Community is the interface between the rural Community and the urban
centers of Scottsdale, Tempe, and Mesa. The Pima Freeway ( L101) runs north- south along the western
edge. Two Community casinos are located in this area – one at Indian Bend Road, the other at
McKellips Road. The Pima Road corridor is the Community’s commercial and industrial development
area. The Community is building a Major League Baseball spring training facility on Pima Road between
Indian Bend Road and Via de Ventura.
1.2 Indian Reservation Roads Program
This LRTP meets an Indian Reservation Roads ( IRR) Program requirement. The IRR Program addresses
transportation needs of tribes by providing funds for planning, design, construction, and maintenance
activities. The program is jointly administered by the FHWA’s Federals Lands Highway ( FLH) Office and
the Bureau of Indian Affairs ( BIA) in accordance with an interagency agreement. It provides guidance to
tribes and tribal organizations for planning, designing, constructing and maintaining transportation
facilities. It also establishes a funding distribution methodology to allocate funds based on the relative
needs of tribal communities for transportation assistance. The BIA established final rules for the Indian
Reservation Roads Program in the Federal Register Volume 69, No. 137, Monday July 19, 2004.
The Indian Reservation Roads are public roads that provide access to and within Indian reservations,
Indian trust land, restricted Indian land, and Alaska native villages. IRR funds can be used for any type of
federal Title 231
IRR Requirements
transportation project providing access to or within Federal or Indian lands and may be
used for the state/ local matching share for apportioned Federal- aid Highway Funds. SRPMIC is a self-governance
tribe under the Indian Self- Determination Act ( Public Law 93- 638) and manages Indian
Reservation Road funding to maintain its current road system and construct new facilities.
The IRR Inventory is a basic requirement for the funding allocation system. SRPMIC maintains a
comprehensive database of all transportation facilities eligible for IRR funding. The inventory is approved
by both the BIA and the tribe. The BIA uses this roadway characteristics data to generate the construction
cost estimates and vehicle miles of travel ( VMT) components of the Relative Need Distribution Factor
( RNDF) for distributing IRR funds. Within SRPMIC, there are 178 miles of Indian Reservation Roads.
More than 137 miles are under BIA and Community jurisdiction. The City of Scottsdale maintains
pavement, drainage and traffic signals on seven miles of Pima Road. The Maricopa County Department
of Transportation ( MCDOT) has jurisdiction of 11 miles, and ADOT has jurisdiction of 23 miles of road.
The IRR roadway characteristics database includes classification, route number, bridge number, current
traffic volumes, maintenance responsibility, and ownership. Appendix A shows the SRPMIC IRR System
Inventory.
In addition to a transportation facility inventory, the IRR Program also requires a LRTP. The purpose of
the LRTP is to demonstrate a tribe’s transportation needs and develop strategies to meet these needs.
The previous SRPMIC LRTP was completed in April 2001.
A third IRR Program requirement is the Tribal Transportation Improvement Program ( TTIP). This
document is consistent with the LRTP and contains all funded projects programmed for construction in
the next three to five years. Typically, BIA selects projects from the TTIP based on funding availability on
1 Title 23 of the United States Code outlines the role of highways in the United States Code.
5 Salt River Pima- Maricopa Indian Community
2010 Long Range Transportation Plan
a state- by- state basis to develop an IRRTIP for approval by the Secretary of Interior and the Secretary of
Transportation.
1.3 Community Outreach
Two rounds of Community outreach were conducted for this long range transportation planning effort.
The first round focused on issue identification and data collection. The study team conducted interviews
with 18 stakeholders, attended Elders’ Breakfasts and conducted two Community Workshops. The team
also met with the Young River People’s Council, attended district meetings and attended the Salt River
Safety Day.
The second round of Community outreach was intended to provide Community members with an
overview of the LRTP recommendations and understand any other issues or concerns to be addressed in
the study recommendations. The study team attended Elders’ Breakfasts, attended the SRPMIC Earth Day
Celebration, conducted two Community Workshops and made two presentations to the SRPMIC Tribal
Council.
In addition, the study team held meetings at key project milestones with a Technical Advisory Committee
( TAC) that included representatives from ADOT, MCDOT, MAG, City of Scottsdale and SRPMIC.
Appendix B includes meeting notes and summary reports from the outreach process.
1.4 Key Issues
Key issues identified through the Community outreach process include regional population and
employment growth, cut- through traffic, traffic safety, Salt River bridge crossings, public transit and
bicycle and walking routes.
Growth
Population growth within SRPMIC has been relatively slow compared to the increases seen elsewhere in
Maricopa County. Census 2000 showed a SRPMIC population of 6,405 living in 11,959 households.
Maricopa Association of Governments ( MAG) estimated a July 1, 2008, population of 6,829 living in
2,083 households. This amounts to a 0.8 percent annual growth rate for the eight- year period.
Comparatively, total population in Maricopa County grew at an estimated 33.2 percent annual rate for
the same eight years increasing from 3.07 million persons in 2000 to 3.95 million persons in 2008.
The SRPMIC Enrollment Office set the Community membership as 8,976 as of June 30, 2009. The
Community’s statistics indicate that half of the tribe’s population is under age 21. Based upon 2000
Census data, it is critical to note that Community members are much less likely to move or change
residences compared to non- members. Over the last decade, more than two- thirds of families reside in
the same home. A portion of the SRPMIC membership lives outside of the Community itself.
The more significant story within SRPMIC has been employment growth. The Community has developed
two casinos – one on McKellips Road, the other on Indian Bend Road. The Pima Freeway corridor is
designated for commercial mixed- use and has attracted significant retail and office development. In
2008, SRPMIC identified over 6.8 million square feet of non- residential building space either existing,
permitted, or under construction within the Community. In early 2011, SRPMIC will open a new spring
training facility located on Pima Road between Indian Bend and Via de Ventura to host the Arizona
Diamondbacks and the Colorado Rockies.
6 Salt River Pima- Maricopa Indian Community
2010 Long Range Transportation Plan
SRPMIC members accustomed to the traditional tranquil way of life are concerned about the impacts on
Community roads from the added traffic from both regional population growth and increased
commercial activity on the Pima Road corridor.
Cut- Through Traffic
Cut- through traffic is the top concern for Community members. The issue was raised at the first TAC
meeting, the Elders Breakfast, and at other stakeholder and special interest group meetings. Concurrent
with this long range transportation planning study effort, the Tribal Council authorized a study by Red
Mountain Engineering to identify short term solutions to the cut- through traffic problem.
Increased traffic on Community roads has been driven by several factors. Overall regional population
growth has meant more vehicles on all roads. The growing congestion on the regional freeway system
such as the Red Mountain Freeway ( L202) and Pima Freeway causes drivers to look for shortcuts across
the Community. The casinos and Pima Road commercial development are also attracting more trips to
the Community. When Pima Freeway is closed by a severe traffic incident, the police department said
that Pima Road is the primary traffic detour, which generates additional cut- through traffic across
SRPMIC.
Traffic Safety
The SRPMIC Police Department said in a stakeholder interview that the highest crash locations are
located on roads travelling between Pima Road and the Pima Freeway. Chaparral Road and McKellips
Road have the highest number of crashes. Livestock- related crashes are prevalent along the State Route
87 ( Beeline Highway). Also along the Beeline Highway, some fatal crashes have occurred with vehicles
entering from side streets and being hit by high speed cross traffic.
Salt River Bridge Crossings
The Salt River separates Lehi from the larger Salt River Pima- Maricopa Indian Community lands.
Currently, there are four crossings of the Salt River between Mesa and SRPMIC: Alma School Road,
McKellips Road, Country Club Drive, and Gilbert Road. In 2008, floods washed away the riverbed
crossing of the northbound lanes of Gilbert Road from Mesa to SRPMIC. The McKellips Road crossing is
also a riverbed crossing.
In August 2009, MCDOT completed a Design Concept Report to identify preferred bridge locations and
designs for crossings at Dobson Road, McKellips Road and Gilbert Road.
Public Transit
The Salt River Transit System ( SRTS) provides dial- a- ride services for Community residents traveling within
the Community, and into Mesa, Tempe, and Scottsdale for shopping, employment, medical and social
services. Both Community members and the transit service operators expressed a need for additional
service with better connectivity to the regional transit system for access to health care facilities, shopping,
work and other activities.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Routes
There is an overall lack of sidewalks and pedestrian amenities throughout SRPMIC. There are no
designated bicycle routes or multiuse paths. During recent outreach, some have said that sidewalks are
not a high priority. However, the Elders and the Youth Council both indicated a need to have a safe
place for kids so that they do not have to walk in the street. The Elders expressed an interest in multi- use
paths for bicycle, pedestrian, or equestrian use. Stakeholders from outside the Community have urged a
7 Salt River Pima- Maricopa Indian Community
2010 Long Range Transportation Plan
regionally connected multi- use path system. However, the Elders were adamant against providing
additional access for the outside public to trespass on the Community. They suggested that any paths
should be internal to the Community and not provide connections to encourage use by those living
outside of SRPMIC.
8 Salt River Pima- Maricopa Indian Community
2010 Long Range Transportation Plan
This page is intentionally left blank.
9 Salt River Pima- Maricopa Indian Community
2010 Long Range Transportation Plan
2.0 Existing Transportation System Conditions
This section describes the SRPMIC existing multimodal transportation system. It provides details on road
network, public transit system, and bicycle and pedestrian facility characteristics.
In April 2009, SRPMIC completed an inventory of all of the roads and bridges within the Community for
the Indian Reservation Roads ( IRR) program. This inventory provides detailed information on road
characteristics, including number of travel lanes, BIA functional classification, average daily traffic, route
ownership, and surface condition.
This section presents the road characteristics data collected by SRPMIC and augmented with data
collected as part of this study. Information on the current public transit service and bicycle and
pedestrian facilities from interviews conducted with SRPMIC officials is also included.
2.1 Previous Plans and Studies
This section identifies previous and current transportation studies reviewed for the preparation of this
document.
ADOT Arizona Rural Transit Needs Study, 2008
The purpose of this study was to develop regionally based needs and solutions for rural transit service in
Arizona. Transit demand in rural Arizona is projected to grow from 7.8 million passenger trips in 2007
to 10.5 million in 2016, an increase of 34 percent. Currently, only 18 percent of estimated demand for
rural transit services is being met. Existing rural transit services are projected to meet only 13 percent of
total ridership need in 2016 if no additional services are introduced. The study identified steps to
address the transit needs of rural Arizona such as adding rural public transit service within cities, towns,
and Tribal Reservations to assure service needs of the elderly, persons with disabilities, and the general
public are met; connect rural and urban communities, which represents a growing Arizona need;
increase funding at all levels of government to support these services, with cooperation from private and
non- profit sectors; and, establish clearly defined roles and responsibilities between the state, councils of
governments, local governments, Tribal Governments and transit operators.
MCDOT Salt River Bridge Crossing Study, 2009
MCDOT has prepared a Design Concept Report ( DCR) dated August 2009 for three bridges to identify
the preferred bridge locations and designs for bridges across the Salt River at Dobson Road, McKellips
Road, and Gilbert Road. The report also scopes the widening of McKellips Road from the Pima Freeway
to the Salt River. These projects are being developed by MCDOT in partnership with SRPMIC and the
City of Mesa. The design effort will commence once a partnership agreement is completed on the
$ 170+ million project.
Pima Road Design Concept Report, 2009
SRPMIC, the City of Scottsdale and ADOT completed a Design Concept Report for Pima Road between
McDowell Road and 90th Street. This study established the cross- section and alignment of this key north-south
arterial along the Community’s commercial core. The study objectives included improving traffic
operations to accommodate growth, improving business access, enhancing corridor character,
accommodating multimodal access, and safeguarding adjacent neighborhoods and community
resources. The recommended alternative includes four 11- foot travel lanes, two 5- foot bike lanes, and a
14- foot median. The Final DCR was published in October 2009.
10 Salt River Pima- Maricopa Indian Community
2010 Long Range Transportation Plan
Red Mountain Engineering Cut- Through Traffic Study
Red Mountain Engineering conducted a cut- through traffic study to identify potential solutions to reduce
non- Community travel on SRPMIC roads between Scottsdale and Mesa. Recommendations from this
study are incorporated into this Long Range Transportation Planning Study.
SRPMIC General Plan, 2006
The SRPMIC General Plan is the Community’s blueprint for land use, development, conservation and
preservation. It is the basis for decision making regarding long- term physical development and the
protection of the Community’s cultural and natural resources. The plan focuses on establishing a
framework of sustainability to ensure that the current and future generations can sustain the social,
economic and environmental health of the Community. It includes a land use element and a
transportation/ circulation element, which are key inputs into this current long range transportation
planning effort.
SRPMIC Indian Reservation Roads System Inventory, 2009
The IRR System was last updated in 2009 and included an inventory of all of the roads and bridges
within the Community for the IRR program. This inventory provides detailed information on road
characteristics, including number of travel lanes, BIA functional classification, average daily traffic, route
ownership, and surface condition. The planning effort identified near- term roadway improvement needs
that were adopted by the SRPMIC Council as an amendment to the 2001 Transportation Plan.
SRPMIC Transportation Planning Study, 2001
The 2001 SRPMIC Transportation Planning Study indentified near- term and long- term transportation
needs within SRPMIC. It provided an inventory of the transportation network, an evaluation of
transportation needs, and documentation of a 20- year transportation plan that responds to both near-and
long- term development scenarios. It also established priorities for implementation of the
recommended improvements. This plan updates the 2001 Transportation Planning Study.
Salt River Transit Five Year Plan, 2009
The Salt River Transit Five Year plan is a five- year implementation plan that provides the SRTS with a
framework for meeting transit service needs in SRPMIC. The plan included Community goals for transit,
a transit demand estimate, and strategies for coordinating with other transit services. This plan is also
used for evaluating the SRTS for future Section 5311 Rural Public Transportation Program funding.
Various Traffic Impact Studies
SRPMIC Community Development Department provided copies of traffic impact analysis reports
prepared for developments on the Pima Road commercial corridor. These studies were reviewed for
socioeconomic and traffic data and road improvement recommendations.
2.2 Road Characteristics and Conditions
This section presents the key physical and operating characteristics of major roads within SRPMIC. The
key roads are described below:
11 Salt River Pima- Maricopa Indian Community
2010 Long Range Transportation Plan
North – South Routes
Pima Road
Pima Road runs north- south along the western boundary of the Community. The road serves as access
to the Community’s commercial corridor and the City of Scottsdale. A Final Design Concept Report
shows the completed corridor widening to its ultimate four- lane cross- section with two travel lanes in
each direction. The City of Scottsdale maintains pavement, drainage and traffic signals on Pima Road.
Pima Freeway ( L101)
The Pima Freeway is an ADOT facility through SRPMIC east of Pima Road with three general purpose
travel lanes and one High Occupancy Vehicle ( HOV) travel lane in each direction. The freeway serves as
a vital part of the regional freeway system. This route provides access to both SRPMIC and the City of
Scottsdale at nine ( 9) traffic interchanges listed below from south to north:
• McKellips Road
• McDowell Road
• Thomas Road
• Indian School Road
• Chaparral Road
• McDonald Drive
• Indian Bend Road
• Via de Ventura
• Pima Road/ 90th Street
92nd Street
92nd Street runs across the west side of the Community, just east of the Pima Freeway. In addition to
serving housing, the southern portion of the road provides access to the Casino Arizona and the
Roadrunner Trailer Park, while the northern portion serves the Scottsdale Community College. The road
has one travel lane in each direction. It is maintained by SRPMIC.
Dobson Road
Dobson Road runs across the west side of the Community. The southern portion of this route mainly
serves housing and farming operations, while the northern portion serves Casino Arizona at Indian Bend
and some commercial properties. It is maintained by SRPMIC and has one travel lane in each direction.
Longmore Road
Longmore Road runs across the west side of the Community between Dobson Road and Alma School
Road. The route serves residential housing, farming operations, Talking Stick Golf Club, Vulcan
Materials Gravel Pit, two churches, the Salt River Community Center, the Salt River Elementary School,
the Salt River Ball Fields, and the west entrances of the Government Tribal Complex. It is maintained by
SRPMIC and has one travel lane in each direction.
Alma School Road
Alma School Road runs across the west side of the Community. The route mainly serves housing and
farming operations and the east entrances of the Government Tribal Complex. It provides two key
bridge crossings: 1) Salt River, and 2) Arizona Canal. It provides a direct connection to Mesa and the
Red Mountain Freeway. It is maintained by both MCDOT and SRPMIC and has two travel lanes in each
direction from the 202 to McDowell ( MCDOT) and one travel lane from McDowell to McDonald
( SRPMIC).
12 Salt River Pima- Maricopa Indian Community
2010 Long Range Transportation Plan
Country Club Drive
Country Club Drive serves residential housing, agriculture, the Agate Steel Company, and provides the
Community a connection to the State Route 87 ( Beeline Highway). It is maintained by SRPMIC and has
one travel lane in each direction.
Mesa Drive
Mesa Drive serves residential housing, agricultural operations, provides access to State Route 87
( Beeline Highway), and is one of the routes that has a bridge over the Arizona Canal. It is maintained by
SRPMIC and has one travel lane in each direction.
Gilbert Road
Gilbert Road provides a bridge crossing of the Salt River and connections to Mesa and the State Route
87 ( Beeline Highway). It is the only direct connection between the Lehi area and the rest of the
Community. It is maintained by MCDOT and has two travel lanes in each direction. Floods in January
2008 washed out the northbound riverbed crossing of Gilbert Road. The low flow crossing will be
repaired by MCDOT in the coming months. In addition, MCDOT has completed 40 percent design
plans for a replacement bridge crossing.
East – West Routes
State Route 87 ( Beeline Highway)
State Route 87 ( Beeline Highway) is an ADOT facility that runs across the Community, extending from
the southern boundary near the Salt River to the northern boundary near Shea BoulevaRoad It is an
important link in the state highway system connecting the Phoenix- Mesa metropolitan area with Payson
and the White Mountains. The road serves as access to the City of Mesa, Fountain Hills and the Fort
McDowell Indian Reservation, as well as some of the Community’s commercial activities, such as the
Salt River Landfill. It has two travel lanes in each direction.
McKellips Road
McKellips Road extends through the Community from Hayden Road at the City of Scottsdale limits to the
Salt River west of the Red Mountain Freeway. ADOT maintains 0.2 miles of the road near the Pima
Freeway interchange. MCDOT maintains the remainder of the road. It has two travel lanes in each
direction. It serves as an important sub regional connection between Scottsdale, Mesa, and the Pima
Freeway. It provides access to Casino Arizona and Community housing.
McDowell Road
McDowell Road extends through the Community from Pima Road to Country Club Drive west of the Salt
River. The road provides Scottsdale and Mesa access to the Pima Freeway and the Beeline Highway. It
has three travel lanes in each direction. West of the Salt River, both ADOT and MCDOT maintain
separate portions of this segment. East of the Salt River in Lehi, SRPMIC maintains McDowell Road
between Mesa Drive and Gilbert Road. This section has one general purpose travel lane in each
direction.
Thomas Road
Thomas Road provides direct access for the Community to and from the City of Scottsdale and the Pima
Freeway. It is also a main east- west roadway within the Lehi community. Between Pima Road and Pima
Freeway traffic interchange, Thomas Road has two travel lanes in each direction. East of the Pima
13 Salt River Pima- Maricopa Indian Community
2010 Long Range Transportation Plan
Freeway, Thomas Road has one travel lane in each direction. ADOT and SRPMIC each maintain
separate segments of this route.
Indian School Road
Indian School Road provides direct access for the Community to and from the City of Scottsdale and the
Pima Freeway. Between Pima Road and the Pima Freeway traffic interchange, Indian School Road has
two travel lanes in each direction. East of the Pima Freeway, Indian School Road has one travel lane in
each direction. ADOT maintains the road at the Pima Freeway traffic interchange. East of the freeway
the route is maintained by SRPMIC.
Chaparral Road
Chaparral Road provides direct access to and from the City of Scottsdale and the Pima Freeway. The
road serves housing developments and provides access to the Scottsdale Community College, the City
of Scottsdale, and the Pima Freeway. West of the Scottsdale Community College there are two travel
lanes in each direction. East of the college, there two travel lanes in each direction. ADOT, MCDOT,
and SRPMIC all maintain separate segments of the route.
McDonald Drive
McDonald Drive runs intermittently across the Community. The road mainly serves agricultural lands and
residential, but also provides one of the routes that connects the City of Scottsdale and the Pima
Freeway. At the Pima Freeway connection, McDonald Drive is maintained by ADOT with two travel lanes
in each direction. The unpaved portion east of the Pima Freeway is one lane in each direction and is
maintained by SRPMIC.
Indian Bend Road
Indian Bend Road is an east- west roadway that provides direct access to and from the City of Scottsdale
and the Pima Freeway. The route serves as access to the Pavilions Shopping Center, the Casino Arizona
at Indian Bend Road, Talking Stick Golf Course. ADOT and SRPMIC each maintain separate segments
of the route which has two lanes in each direction.
Via de Ventura
Via de Ventura is an east- west roadway that runs along the northwest corner of the Community and
provides access to and from the City of Scottsdale and the Pima Freeway. The route provides access to
commercial locations on Via de Ventura and Dobson Road. It provides alternative access to the Casino
Arizona, and the Talking Stick Golf Course. It will also provide access to the future Spring Training
Facility. ADOT and SRPMIC each maintain separate segments of the route which has two lanes in each
direction.
Road Lanes and Intersection Control
Figure 3 shows total travel lanes for SRPMIC roads. It also shows the location of the 26 signalized
intersections within the Community.
2.3 Road Functional Classification
SRPMIC roads are classified under two separate functional classification systems: BIA2, and FHWA3
2 Bureau of Indian Affairs. ( October 21, 2004). Coding Guide and Instructions for IRR Inventory. Retrieved September 25, 2009, from BIA
Web site, http:// www. doi. gov/ bia/ indianresroads/ irr_ coding_ guide. pdf
.
Functional classification is the grouping of highways, roads, and streets into classes based on mobility
14 Salt River Pima- Maricopa Indian Community
2010 Long Range Transportation Plan
and land access. In general, arterials provide greater mobility with less direct access to land, while local
roads and collectors provide more access to land with less mobility. Functional classification also serves
as a basis for establishing speed limits, parking restrictions, design standards and access controls. A
principal arterial, for example, typically provides mobility for longer distance trips with higher speeds and
less access to adjoining properties. Conversely, the function of a local street is to provide direct access to
neighborhoods at lower speeds.
Figure 4 shows the existing BIA road functional classification for Community roads. Appendix C includes
a description of BIA functional classification. Figure 4 also shows the Community roads with an FHWA
functional classification, which makes them eligible for federal funding. Appendix C also includes a map
showing the 2009 FHWA Phoenix- Mesa Urban Area Functionally Classified Roads. The FHWA
functional classification definitions are described below:
Principal Arterial: This facility serves regional circulation needs. It moves traffic at moderate speeds while
providing limited access to adjacent land. Access is controlled through raised medians and through
spacing and location of driveways and intersections.
Minor Arterial: This facility is generally a four- lane and sometimes a two- lane road. Its purpose is to
serve regional/ sub- regional traffic circulation needs by moving traffic at moderate speeds while
providing limited access to adjacent land.
Major Collector: This facility provides for shorter distance trips, generally less than three miles, and
primarily serves to collect and distribute traffic between key traffic generators, local streets and arterial
streets. This classification provides direct access to abutting land.
Urban Collector: Urban Collectors serve shorter distance trips than the Major Collector ( generally less
than one mile). They provide direct access to adjacent land and collect and distribute traffic between key
traffic generators, local streets and arterial streets.
Local Street: Local Streets provide direct access to adjacent land and distribute traffic to collector
facilities.
Urban and Rural Areas
FHWA designates roads as urban or rural depending on the type of area served. Urban and rural areas
have different characteristics, such as density, types of land use, density of street and highway networks
and the nature of travel patterns. Typically, an urban area has a population of 5,000 or more and is
designated by the U. S. Census Bureau. Rural areas are the areas outside of the boundaries of urbanized
areas.
3 Federal Highway Administration. ( 1989). FHWA Functional Classification Guidelines. Retrieved September 25, 2009, from FHWA Web site,
http:// www. fhwa. dot. gov/ planning/ fctoc. htm
Salt River Pima- Maricopa Indian Community
2010 Long Range Transportation Plan
FIGURE 3 | Road Lanes and Signalized Intersections
Sources: HDR Engineering, Inc., September 2010.
15
101
87
202
SALT RIVER
SALT RIVER
Arizona Canal
2- Lane 6- Lane Signalized Intersection
4- Lane 8- Lane Study Area
Total Lanes
See Inset
SRPMIC Boundary
McDowell Road
McKellips Road
Thomas Road
Indian School Road
McDonald Drive
Chaparral Road
Indian Bend Road
Dobson Road
92nd Street
Pima Road
Alma School Road
Longmore Road
Country Club Drive
Mesa Drive
Stapley Drive
Gilbert Road
Via de Ventura
Curry Road
Camelback Road
Osborn Road
Oak Street
Extension Road
Center Street
AREA OF INSET
SALT RIVER
Arizona Canal
CAP Canal
No scale
87
ARIZONA
Salt River Pima- Maricopa Indian Community
2010 Long Range Transportation Plan
FIGURE 4 | BIA Road Functional Classi  cation
Sources: SRPMIC Indian Reservation Roads Inventory, April 2009.
16
87
ARIZONA
202
ARIZONA
101
ARIZONA
SALT RIVER
SALT RIVER
Arizona Canal
Major Arterial Rural Road
City Minor Arterial Study Area
Rural Minor Aterial Roads eligible for Federal funds
Rural Major Collector
Note: Only major roadways and critical links of the study are shown
See Inset
SRPMIC Boundary
McDowell Road
McKellips Road
Thomas Road
Indian School Road
McDonald Drive
Chaparral Road
Indian Bend Road
Dobson Road
92nd Street
Pima Road
Alma School Road
Longmore Road
Country Club Drive
Mesa Drive
Stapley Drive
Gilbert Road
Via de Ventura
Curry Road
Camelback Road
Osborn Road
Oak Street
Extension Road
Center Street
AREA OF INSET
SALT RIVER
Arizona Canal
CAP Canal
No scale
87
ARIZONA
17 Salt River Pima- Maricopa Indian Community
2010 Long Range Transportation Plan
2.4 Current Traffic Conditions
Level of service ( LOS) is a quantitative measurement of operational characteristics of traffic and the
perception of the traffic conditions by both motorists and passengers. There are six levels of service
defined by the Transportation Research Boards’ Highway Capacity Manual 2000 ( HCM), published by
the Transportation Research Board ( TRB). Each level of service is given a letter designation from A to F,
with A representing the optimal or best condition and F the worst Roadway segment level of service is
characterized by the HCM as follows:
LOS A: Best, free flow operations ( on uninterrupted flow facilities) and very low delay ( on
interrupted flow facilities). Freedom to select desired speeds and to maneuver within traffic is
extremely high.
LOS B: Flow is stable, but presence of other users is noticeable. Freedom to select desired
speeds is relatively unaffected, but there is a slight decline in the freedom to maneuver within
traffic.
LOS C: Flow is stable, but the operation of users is becoming affected by the presence of other
users. Maneuvering within traffic requires substantial vigilance on the part of the user.
LOS D: High density but stable flow. Speed and freedom to maneuver are severely restricted.
The driver is experiencing a generally poor level of comfort and convenience.
LOS E: Flow is at or near capacity. All speeds are reduced to a low, but relatively uniform value.
Freedom to maneuver within traffic is extremely difficult. Comfort and convenience levels are
extremely poor.
LOS F: Worse, facility has failed, or a breakdown has occurred.
LOS A, B, and C are generally considered to be satisfactory service levels, while the influence of
congestion becomes more noticeable at LOS D. LOS E is undesirable and is considered by most
agencies to be the limit of acceptable delay, and LOS F conditions are considered to be unacceptable
to most drivers. Most jurisdictions strive to attain a LOS of at least D or better on all roads and signalized
intersections in urban areas, and LOS C is targeted for rural conditions.
LOS Analysis Methodology
Two types of level of service analysis were used to evaluate current traffic operation conditions on
SRPMIC. The first is a generalized segment level of service analysis. This approach utilizes a lookup table
that provides level of service volume thresholds by functional classification and number of through travel
lanes. This lookup table, Summary of Generalized Annual Average Daily Volumes for the Phoenix Urban
Area, was prepared by MAG for transportation planning studies. The volume thresholds in this table,
shown in Appendix D, are based on Phoenix daily traffic characteristics and the HCM.
Secondly, level of service analysis for signalized intersections was conducted for intersections in the Pima
Road commercial corridor. A traffic microsimulation model was developed for weekday AM and PM
peak hours for 32 intersections in the Pima Freeway corridor.
Segment LOS Analysis
The IRR System Inventory provides average daily traffic ( ADT) for many of the Community roads. The IRR
inventory used count data from 2006, 2007 and 2008. These daily traffic counts together with
generalized segment level of service thresholds are shown in Figure 5.
18 Salt River Pima- Maricopa Indian Community
2010 Long Range Transportation Plan
SYNCHRO Model
SYNCHRO is transportation operations analysis software prepared by Trafficware. It uses methods
described in the HCM to evaluate traffic operations on road systems. It is widely used by traffic engineers
for both signalized and non- signalized intersection operations analysis. Peak hour traffic volumes and
peak hour factors, intersection lane configurations obtained during site visits, traffic control parameters,
and free flow speeds were coded into the SYNCHRO models. A SYNCHRO model was developed for
the Pima Road corridor to support the Pima Road Design Concept Report.
The HDR study team built on this existing effort and expanded it to include 35 intersections in the Pima
Freeway Corridor. This includes all Pima Freeway signalized intersections within the Community. The
model also includes intersections on Dobson Road and 92nd Street. The purpose of this Pima Freeway
corridor SYNCHRO model is to provide intersection- level traffic operations analysis for both existing and
future conditions. This analysis will provide information about the need for installing new traffic signals
and the intersection lane configuration needed to accommodate future travel demand.
The City of Scottsdale and ADOT provided 2009 signal timing data for the signalized intersections. The
study team reviewed a number of studies, including several traffic impact analysis reports and the July
2009 Pima Road traffic analysis report for the DCR, to identify recent traffic counts to support model
development. Intersection turning movement counts were conducted in September 2009 for Pima
Freeway corridor intersections at locations where no recent traffic data could be identified.
The location of the 35 study intersections in the Pima Freeway corridor is shown in Figure 6. Appendix E
shows the study intersections’ 2009 lane configuration and traffic control and the 2009 AM and PM
peak hour traffic volumes and level of service.
Salt River Pima- Maricopa Indian Community
2010 Long Range Transportation Plan
FIGURE 5 | Current Tra  c Conditions
Sources: SRPMIC Indian Reservation Roads Inventory, April 2009; HDR Engineering, Inc., September 2010.
19
G ilb e r t R d
6 4 7
3 ,8 1 2
3 , 1 7 9
1 8 5
1 ,2 0 2
7 7 9
6 9 8 5 4 8
1 ,1 5 2
1 , 0 9 7
8 0 0
1 , 3 1 6
1 ,1 3 6
6 2 9
6 4 3
2 1 0
2 0 4
6 3 0
4 1 4
1 , 6 4 7
1 ,5 0 4
8 3 5 9 7 1
4 3 9 4 ,3 0 0
1 , 8 9 5
3 , 0 7 8
1 ,5 7 3
5 2 9
7 1 0 8 7 6
6 6 4
2 ,1 4 4
2 4 6
1 ,6 3 6
1 ,1 6 2 6 7 2
2 , 2 9 3
1 2 1
1 0 , 2 0 6
1 ,0 1 6
9 7 1
2 5 ,1 0 0
7,775
1 6 , 1 6 3
10,517
1 5 , 4 7 8
23,272 2 1 , 7 8 5
159,000
170,000
192,000
12,454
172,000
166,000 177,000 149,000 160,000
1 6 5 ,0 0 0
10,429
11,712
25 ,4 0 0
12,454
15,959
2 7 ,4 0 0
2 6 2
11 ,3 3 9
3 7 ,9 6 6
7 0 , 0 0 0
1 3 6 ,0 0 0
1 5 4 , 0 0 0
1 3 4 ,0 0 0 11 8 ,0 0 0
87
ARIZONA
202
ARIZONA
101
ARIZONA
SALT RIVER
SALT RIVER
Arizona Canal
Tra  c Counts Level of Service
xx, xxx 2006 ADT LOS C or better
xx, xxx 2007 ADT LOS D
xx, xxx 2008 ADT LOS E
LOS F
Note: The LOS along Loop 101 is based on number of lanes in year 2008
prior to lane additions.
See Inset
SRPMIC Boundary
McDowell Road
McKellips Road
Thomas Road
Indian School Road
McDonald Drive
Chaparral Road
Indian Bend Road
Dobson Road
92nd Street
Pima Road
Alma School Road
Longmore Road
Country Club Drive
Mesa Drive
Stapley Drive
Gilbert Road
Via de Ventura
Curry Road
Camelback Road
Osborn Road
Oak Street
Extension Road
Center Street
AREA OF INSET
87
ARIZONA
SALT RIVER
Arizona Canal
CAP Canal
No scale
27 ,4 00
Salt River Pima- Maricopa Indian Community
2010 Long Range Transportation Plan
FIGURE 6 | Pima Freeway Corridor Study Intersections
Sources: ADOT, SRPMIC, HDR Engineering, Inc., September 2010.
20
101
87
28a
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
34
33
32
31
30
29
28b
27
26
25
23 24
21 22
19 20
17 18
15 16
13 14
11 12
10
SALT RIVER
SALT RIVER
Arizona Canal
Study Intersections Roadways
Study Intersection ID
Study Area
3
See Inset
SRPMIC Boundary
McDowell Road
McKellips Road
Thomas Road
Indian School Road
McDonald Drive
Chaparral Road
Indian Bend Road
Dobson Road
92nd Street
Pima Road
Alma School Road
Longmore Road
Country Club Drive
Mesa Drive
Stapley Drive
Gilbert Road
Via de Ventura
Curry Road
Camelback Road
Osborn Road
Oak Street
Extension Road
Center Street
AREA OF INSET
87
ARIZONA
SALT RIVER
Arizona Canal
CAP Canal
No scale
21 Salt River Pima- Maricopa Indian Community
2010 Long Range Transportation Plan
2.5 Pavement Conditions
As part of its system inventory for the Indian Reservation Roads program, SRPMIC performed a visual
inspection of all Community roads in 2008. Road surface conditions were assigned a value from 0 to 5:
• 0.0 – No Surface/ Unimproved ( Unpaved)
• 0.1 to 0.9 – Very Poor
• 1.0 to 1.9 – Poor
• 2.0 to 2.9 – Fair
• 3.0 to 3.9 – Good
• 4.0 to 5.0 – Very Good
Figure 7 shows the wearing surface condition for SRPMIC roads from the IRR System Inventory.
2.6 Maintenance Responsibility
Figure 8 shows the maintenance responsibility for SRPMIC roads. The BIA, SRPMIC, ADOT, MCDOT,
and the City of Scottsdale all have some maintenance responsibility for roads on the Community.
Salt River Pima- Maricopa Indian Community
2010 Long Range Transportation Plan
FIGURE 7 | Wearing Surface Rating
Source: SRPMIC Indian Reservation Roads Inventory, April 16, 2009.
22
87
ARIZONA
202
ARIZONA
101
ARIZONA
SALT RIVER
SALT RIVER
Arizona Canal
0.0 ( No Surface/ Unimproved)
0 to 1 ( Very Poor)
1 to 2 ( Poor)
2 to 3 ( Fair Condition)
3 to 4 ( Good)
4 to 5 ( Very Good Condition)
Study Area
See Inset
SRPMIC Boundary
McDowell Road
McKellips Road
Thomas Road
Indian School Road
McDonald Drive
Chaparral Road
Indian Bend Road
Dobson Road
92nd Street
Pima Road
Alma School Road
Longmore Road
Country Club Drive
Mesa Drive
Stapley Drive
Gilbert Road
Via de Ventura
Curry Road
Camelback Road
Osborn Road
Oak Street
Extension Road
Center Street
AREA OF INSET
87
ARIZONA
SALT RIVER
Arizona Canal
CAP Canal
No scale
Salt River Pima- Maricopa Indian Community
2010 Long Range Transportation Plan
FIGURE 8 | Maintenance Responsibility
Sources: SRPMIC Indian Reservation Road System Inventory, April 2009.
23
87
ARIZONA
202
ARIZONA
101
ARIZONA
SALT RIVER
SALT RIVER
Arizona Canal
ADOT Tribal
BIA Study Area
City of Scottsdale
MCDOT
Note: SRPMIC maintains both BIA and tribal routes
using a combination of BIA and SRPMIC
funding sources
Note: The City of Scottsdale is currently responsible for maintaining pavement, drainage
and tra  c signals on Pima Road. A new agreement between SRPMIC and the City of
Scottsdale will be negotiated once the corridor widening project is complete.
See Inset
SRPMIC Boundary
McDowell Road
McKellips Road
Thomas Road
Indian School Road
McDonald Drive
Chaparral Road
Indian Bend Road
Dobson Road
92nd Street
Pima Road
Alma School Road
Longmore Road
Country Club Drive
Mesa Drive
Stapley Drive
Gilbert Road
Via de Ventura
Curry Road
Camelback Road
Osborn Road
Oak Street
Extension Road
Center Street
AREA OF INSET
SALT RIVER
Arizona Canal
CAP Canal
No scale
87
ARIZONA
24 Salt River Pima- Maricopa Indian Community
2010 Long Range Transportation Plan
2.7 Crash Data Analysis
A crash analysis was conducted for this study to identify crash patterns, trends and classifications during
the five year period from June 1, 2003 to May 31, 2008 using crash data provided by ADOT. The data
provided by ADOT includes incident date and time, crash location, crash severity, crash type, collision
manner, environmental conditions, and crash causes.
Additional analysis was conducted on the crash information obtained from SRPMIC Police Department
( SRPMIC PD) for the period from January 1, 2005 through July 16, 2009. The data provided by
SRPMIC PD contained information about crash location, crash severity, and time and date.
The analysis was done to identify potential safety hazards contributing to motor vehicle crashes within the
Community and suggest measures to improve safety for motor vehicles and pedestrians. As part of the
analysis, a meeting with personnel from SRPMIC PD and a field review was conducted on July 20,
2009.
There were 858 crashes reported in the ADOT database and 3,694 crashes in the data provided by
SRPMIC PD. It was found that 484 of the crashes reported in SRPMIC PD database were also reported
in the ADOT database. The crash analysis presented in the following sections thus analyzed 858 crashes
in the ADOT database and 3,210 additional crashes in the SRPMIC PD database.
ADOT Data
A total of 858 crashes were reported by ADOT within the study area during the five year analysis period.
The ADOT data for 2004 and 2005 appears to be incomplete. These years show less than half of the
crashes reported in 2003 and 2006. During the study period, 60 percent of the reported crashes
occurred at the intersections, while 37 percent occurred at mid- block locations and driveway access
points. Table 1 shows the crashes by location and percentage. Crashes occurring within 250- feet radius
of an intersection were treated as intersection crashes. Crashes at mid- block locations occurred along
roadway sections, at driveway access and alleys.
Table 1 Crash Locations ( ADOT Data)
Location
Number of Crashes
% of
2003* 2004** 2005** 2006 2007 Crashes
1st Half
2008***
5- Yr
Total
Mid- Block 88 17 20 73 80 42 320 37%
Intersection 95 36 58 134 129 59 511 60%
Unknown 14 -- -- 3 5 5 27 3%
Total 197 53 78 210 214 106 858 100%
Source: ADOT Traffic Safety Division, data from June 1, 2003 to May 31, 2008 ( July 2009).
Notes: * represent crashes from January 6, 2003 to December 31, 2003; ** data appears incomplete; *** represent
crashes from January 1, 2008 to May 31, 2008.
SRPMIC PD Crash Data
The 3,210 additional crashes reported in the study region by SRPMIC PD did not have information on
whether the crashes were intersection related or not. However, the location references in the database
indicate that there were a total of 2,596 ( 80 percent) crashes that occurred at intersections, 571 ( 18
percent) crashes occurred along mid- block and 43 ( 2 percent) crashes at unknown locations during the
period from January 1, 2005 to July 16, 2009.
25 Salt River Pima- Maricopa Indian Community
2010 Long Range Transportation Plan
Crash Trends and Crash Severity
ADOT Crash Data
Figure 9 presents the yearly crash trend for years 2003 through 2008. The data showing that crashes
reduced significantly in the years 2004 and 2005 appears incomplete. The highest number of fatalities
occurred in year 2006.
Figure 9 Crash Trend from June 1, 2003 through May 31, 2008 ( ADOT Data)
Source: ADOT Traffic Safety Division, data from June 1, 2003 to May 31, 2008 ( July 2009).
Notes: * represent crashes from June 1, 2003 to December 31, 2003; ** represent crashes from January 1, 2008 to May 31,
2008.
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
2003* 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008**
3 4 7 8 5 1
84
21
32
76
64
44
110
28
39
126
145
61
Fatal Injury Property Damage Only
Note: 2004 and 2005 crash history data appears incomplete.
26 Salt River Pima- Maricopa Indian Community
2010 Long Range Transportation Plan
Table 2 shows the total crashes by crash severity during the analysis period from June 1, 2003 to May
31, 2008.
Table 2 Crashes by Severity ( ADOT Data)
Severity Number of Crashes % of Total Crashes
Fatal 28 3.3%
Injury 321 37.4%
Property Damage Only 509 59.3%
Total 858 100.0%
Source: ADOT Traffic Safety Division, data from June 1, 2003 to May 31, 2008 ( July 2009).
SRPMIC Crash Data
Figure 10 presents the yearly crash trend for years 2005 through 2009 provided in the SRPMIC PD
database. The chart shows a decline in total number of crashes at all levels of crash severity. The highest
number of fatal crashes ( 6 crashes) occurred in 2006.
Figure 10 Crash Trend from January 1, 2005 through July 16, 2009 ( SRPMIC PD Data)
Source: SRPMIC Police Department ( July 2009).
Note: * represent crashes from January1, 2009 to July 16, 2009.
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009*
5 6 2 2 2
289
266
199 196
95
521
483 468 457
219
Fatal Injury Non Injury
27 Salt River Pima- Maricopa Indian Community
2010 Long Range Transportation Plan
Table 3 presents the total crashes by crash severity during the analysis period from January 1, 2005 to
July 16, 2009.
Table 3 Crashes by Severity ( SRPMIC Data)
Severity Number of Crashes % of Total Crashes
Fatal 17 < 1%
Injury 1,045 33%
Property Damage Only 2,148 67%
Total 3,210 100.0%
Source: SRPMIC Police Department, data from January 1, 2005 through July 16, 2009 ( July 2009).
Crash Type
ADOT Crash Data
Figure 11 below shows the various crash types from the ADOT database that occurred during the
analysis period. Rear end and angle crashes were the predominant crash types that occurred in the study
area with 303 ( 35 percent) and 279 ( 32 percent) crashes respectively. Single vehicle crashes accounted
for 20 percent ( 171) of the total crashes followed by sideswipe ( 68 or 8 percent) and other crash types
( 37 or 4 percent).
Figure 11 Crash Types ( ADOT Data)
Source: ADOT Traffic Safety Division, data from June 1, 2003 to May 31, 2008 ( July 2009).
Angle, 32.5%
Rear End,
35.3%
Sideswipe,
7.9%
Single Vehicle,
19.9%
Other, 4.3%
28 Salt River Pima- Maricopa Indian Community
2010 Long Range Transportation Plan
SRPMIC PD Crash Data
The data provided by SRPMIC PD did not have information about crash type.
Harmful Collision Event
ADOT Crash Data
The majority of the crashes were due to a collision with other motor vehicles ( 79 percent). Other
collision types included fixed object ( 11 percent), non- collision ( 4 percent), collision with bike or
pedestrian ( 2 percent), non- fixed object ( 1 percent), collision with parked motor vehicle (< 1 percent)
and unknown collision type ( 1 percent). Table 4 identifies the number of crashes by the objects that were
first collided with.
Table 4 Crashes by Objects First Collided With ( ADOT Data)
Harmful Event Number of Crashes % of Total Crashes
Collision with Other Motor Vehicle 678 79.0%
Collision with Fixed Object 98 11.4%
Collision with Non Fixed Object 4 0.5%
Collision with Bike/ Pedestrian 16 1.9%
Collision with Animal 13 1.5%
Collision with Parked Motor Vehicle 3 0.3%
All Non- Collision 35 4.1%
Unknown 11 1.3%
Total 858 100.0%
Source: ADOT Traffic Safety Division, data from June 1, 2003 to May 31, 2008 ( July 2009).
SRPMIC PD Crash Data
The data provided by SRPMIC PD did not have information about harmful collision event.
Environmental Conditions
ADOT Crash Data
Table 5 shows the light conditions existing when the crashes occurred. As shown in the table, the
majority of the crashes occurred under daylight conditions ( 63 percent) followed by the number of
crashes that occurred during dark or unknown lighting conditions ( 31 percent). Six percent of crashes
occurred during dawn and the lighting condition of one crash was not reported.
29 Salt River Pima- Maricopa Indian Community
2010 Long Range Transportation Plan
Table 5 Crashes by Lighting Conditions ( ADOT Data)
Light Conditions Number of Crashes % of Total Crashes
Daylight 538 63%
Dark/ Unknown Lighting 264 31%
Dawn 55 6%
Not Reported 1 < 1%
Total 858 100.0%
Source: ADOT Traffic Safety Division, data from June 1, 2003 to May 31, 2008 ( July 2009).
Statistics for the crash data indicated that 723 ( 84 percent) crashes occurred under clear weather
conditions, whereas 80 ( 9 percent), 25 ( 2 percent) and 30 ( 3 percent) crashes occurred during cloudy,
rainy and other weather conditions, respectively.
Approximately 90 percent of reported crashes occurred under dry roadway conditions and the rest
occurred when the roadway was wet or during other conditions.
SRPMIC PD Data
The data provided by SRPMIC PD did not have information about environmental conditions.
Crash Hot Spot Locations
Crashes were analyzed at intersections as well as at mid- block sections to identify high crash locations
within the study area. Both the ADOT and SRPMIC databases were analyzed to identify high crash
locations within the study area. Figure 12 shows the high crash locations identified in the study area. The
figure also shows the fatal crash locations along with bicycle and pedestrian crash locations.
Salt River Pima- Maricopa Indian Community
2010 Long Range Transportation Plan
FIGURE 12 | High Crash Locations
Sources: ADOT, SRPMIC Police Department, HDR Engineering, Inc., September 2010.
30
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
11
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
87
ARIZONA
202
ARIZONA
101
ARIZONA
SALT RIVER
SALT RIVER
Arizona Canal
Fatal Crash Location
( Number of Crashes)
High Crash Segment
High Crash Intersection
Pedestrian/ Bike Fatality
Pedestrian/ Bike Injury
Pedestrian/ Bike Non Injury
#
See Inset
SRPMIC Boundary
McDowell Road
McKellips Road
Thomas Road
Indian School Road
McDonald Drive
Chaparral Road
Indian Bend Road
Dobson Road
92nd Street
Pima Road
Alma School Road
Longmore Road
Country Club Drive
Mesa Drive
Stapley Drive
Gilbert Road
Via de Ventura
Curry Road
Camelback Road
Osborn Road
Oak Street
Extension Road
Center Street
AREA OF INSET
87
ARIZONA
SALT RIVER
Arizona Canal
CAP Canal
No scale
1
31 Salt River Pima- Maricopa Indian Community
2010 Long Range Transportation Plan
High Crash Intersections
Table 6 shows the top 10 ranked high crash intersections from both the ADOT and SRPMIC databases.
This ranking was prepared by combining the top- ranked high crash intersections from each database.
Table 6 High Crash Intersections
Ranka Intersection
Number of
Crashesb
1 Pima Freeway- McKellips Road 63 ( 166)
1 Pima Freeway- Chaparral Road 63 ( 162)
3 Pima Freeway- McDowell Road 38 ( 148)
4 Pima Freeway- Indian School Road 32 ( 121)
5 Pima Freeway- Indian Bend Road 27 ( 132)
6 Pima Freeway- 90th Street 23 ( 100)
7 Pima Freeway- Thomas Road 18 ( 54)
8 Thomas Road- Pima Road 15 ( 84)
9 Pima Road- Chaparral Road 13 ( 54)
10 SR 87- Gilbert Road 6 ( 74)
Source: ADOT Traffic Safety Division, data from June 1, 2003 to May 31, 2008 ( July 2009); SRPMIC Police Department, data
from January 1, 2005 through July 16, 2009 ( July 2009).
Notes: a) Rank based on crashes in ADOT database.
b) ADOT crashes with SRPMIC PD crashes in parentheses.
Nine of the ten top ranked high crash intersection locations are the same in both the ADOT and
SRPMIC PD databases. The exceptions are the McKellips Road- Alma School Road intersection in the
ADOT list and SR 87- Gilbert Road intersection in the SRPMIC PD list. Furthermore, SRPMIC PD has
indicated that the intersections of McKellips Road- Dobson Road and Via de Ventura- Dobson Road are
other high crash intersections.
To understand the different crash characteristics at these high crash locations, crash type and crash rates
were analyzed at each location. Table 7 below summarizes the high crash locations from the ADOT
database with crash rates and crash types. SRPMIC PD data does not have information on crash types
and therefore, are not analyzed.
32 Salt River Pima- Maricopa Indian Community
2010 Long Range Transportation Plan
Table 7 Crash Types and Crash Rates at High Crash Intersections ( ADOT Data)
Location # of
Crashes
Angle Rear End Sideswipe Single
Vehicle
Other
Pima Freeway- Chaparral Road 63 47 ( 75%) 11 ( 17%) 1 ( 2%) 2 ( 3%) 2 ( 3%)
Pima Freeway- McKellips Road 63 36 ( 57%) 19 ( 30%) 3 ( 5%) 3 ( 5%) 2 ( 3%)
Pima Freeway- McDowell Road 38 18 ( 47%) 11 ( 29%) 3 ( 8%) 6 ( 16%) 0 ( 0%)
Pima Freeway- Indian School Road 32 12 ( 38%) 10 ( 31%) 3 ( 9%) 6 ( 19%) 1 ( 3%)
Pima Freeway- Indian Bend Road 27 17 ( 63%) 6 ( 22%) 4 ( 15%) 0 ( 0%) 0 ( 0%)
Pima Freeway- Thomas Road 23 10 ( 44%) 7 ( 30%) 4 ( 17%) 2 ( 9%) 0 ( 0%)
McKellips Road- Alma School
Road
18 7 ( 39%) 8 ( 43%) 1 ( 6%) 1 ( 6%) 1 ( 6%)
Thomas Road- Pima Road 15 12 ( 80%) 3 ( 20%) 0 ( 0%) 0 ( 0%) 0 ( 0%)
Pima Freeway- 90th Street 14 5 ( 36%) 7 ( 50%) 1 ( 7%) 0 ( 0%) 1 ( 7%)
Pima Road- Chaparral Road 13 7 ( 53%) 4 ( 31%) 1 ( 8%) 1 ( 8%) 0 ( 0%)
Source: ADOT Traffic Safety Division, data from June 1, 2003 to May 31, 2008 ( July 2009).
High Crash Segments
High crash segments were also identified in the study area and are shown in Figure 12. As shown in the
figure, all the high crash segments are located along Pima Freeway interchanges at arterial streets
except for one located along Gilbert Road from SR 87 to BIA 740 north of the Salt River. Table 8
summarizes the high crash segments with 10 or more crashes during the five year study period from
June 1, 2003 to May 31, 2008 for the data provided by ADOT. SRPMIC PD data does not have
enough information on crash locations to identify high crash segments and so it was not analyzed.
Table 8 High Crash Segments ( ADOT Data)
Location # of
Crashes Angle Rear
End Sideswipe Single
Vehicle Other
Indian Bend Road from Pima Road to
Dobson Road
34 20 ( 58%) 5 ( 15%) 4 ( 12%) 4 ( 12%) 1 ( 3%)
Chaparral Road from Pima Road to 92nd
Street
32 6 ( 19%)
20
( 62%)
5 ( 16%) 0 ( 0%) 1 ( 3%)
McDowell Road from Pima Road to 92nd
Street
21 1 ( 5%)
13
( 61%)
1 ( 5%) 5 ( 24%) 1 ( 5%)
Gilbert Road from SR 87 to BIA 740 17 1 ( 6%) 3 ( 18%) 1 ( 6%)
11
( 64%)
1 ( 6%)
Indian School Road from Pima Road to
92nd Street 11 5 ( 46%) 4 ( 36%) 1 ( 9%) 1 ( 9%) 0 ( 0%)
McKellips Road from Hayden Road to
Roosevelt Street
11 1 ( 9%) 6 ( 55%) 2 ( 18%) 2 ( 18%) 0 ( 0%)
Source: ADOT Traffic Safety Division, data from June 1, 2003 to May 31, 2008 ( July 2009).
33 Salt River Pima- Maricopa Indian Community
2010 Long Range Transportation Plan
Fatal Crash Locations
A total of 42 fatal crashes occurred in the study area during the analysis period from June 1, 2003 to
July 16, 2009 per both ADOT and SRPMIC PD data. Figure 12 shows the fatal crash locations in the
study area. The McKellips Road and Dobson Road intersection has the highest number of fatal crashes
with four. There were two fatal crashes at each of the following intersections of McKellips Road- Pima
Freeway, McKellips Road- Alma School Road and SR 87- McDowell Road.
Pedestrian- Bicycle Crash Locations
There were 13 pedestrian and bicycle crashes in the study area during the analysis period from June 1,
2003 to May 31, 2008 per ADOT data. Figure 12 shows the pedestrian and bicycle crash locations in
the study area. As shown in the figure, a majority of pedestrian crashes occurred along McKellips Road
and Alma School Road.
Crash Observations at High Crash Intersections
Based on evaluation of the crash data, interviews with SRPMIC PD, and field observations, the HDR
study team reviewed conditions at the high crash intersections and identified near- term corrective
measures to mitigate potential safety hazards. This section first discusses the intersection conditions and
then addresses potential corrective measures.
Pima Freeway- Chaparral Road
There were a total of 63 crashes reported at this intersection in the ADOT database over the five year
analysis period between June 1, 2003 and May 31, 2008. Angle type crashes ( 75 percent) were the
predominant type of crash followed by rear end crash ( 17 percent). Failure to yield the right of way and
driver inattention were reported as primary causes of the crashes. Crash analysis also shows that about
28 percent of crashes occurred during dark or unknown lighting conditions. According to the SRPMIC
PD, left turn violations and speeding were the primary causes of crashes at this intersection. Left turns
from Chaparral Road into the Scottsdale Community College campus, left turns off of the freeway
towards the college campus and exiting traffic from Wal- Mart on Chaparral Road were some of the
movements that were involved in crashes. It is also noted that the left turn traffic from Chaparral Road
into the college campus is heavy.
The SRPMIC PD database shows that 162 crashes occurred near the Pima Freeway- Chaparral Road
traffic interchange between January 1, 2005 and July 16, 2009.
Pima Freeway- McKellips Road
There were a total of 63 crashes reported at this intersection in the ADOT database over the five year
analysis period between June 1, 2003 and May 31, 2008. There were two fatal crashes recorded at this
intersection per the crash database provided by SRPMIC PD. Angle type crashes ( 57 percent) and rear
end crashes ( 30 percent) were the predominant type of crash at this intersection. Failure to yield the right
of way and driver inattention were reported as primary causes of the crashes. Crash analysis also shows
that about 57 percent of crashes occurred during dark or unknown lighting conditions. According to the
SRPMIC PD, speeding and left turn violations were the primary causes of crashes at this intersection. It is
also noted that there is cut- through traffic from East Valley cities using this intersection.
The SRPMIC PD database shows that 166 crashes occurred near the Pima Freeway- McKellips Road
traffic interchange between January 1, 2005 and July 16, 2009.
34 Salt River Pima- Maricopa Indian Community
2010 Long Range Transportation Plan
Pima Freeway- McDowell Road
There were a total of 38 crashes reported at this intersection in the ADOT database over the five year
analysis period between June 1, 2003 and May 31, 2008. There was one fatal crash at this intersection
per the crash database provided by SRPMIC PD. Angle type crashes ( 47 percent) and rear end crashes
( 29 percent) were the predominant type of crash at this intersection. Driver inattention and disregarding
traffic signals were reported as primary causes of the crashes. Crash analysis also shows that about 47
percent of crashes occurred during dark or unknown lighting conditions. According to the SRPMIC PD,
speeding, left turn violations and red light running were the primary causes of crashes at this intersection.
It was also observed that some crashes were due to vehicles hitting the raised curb and monument at the
intersection.
The SRPMIC PD database shows that 148 crashes occurred near the Pima Freeway- McDowell Road
traffic interchange between January 1, 2005 and July 16, 2009.
Pima Freeway- Indian School Road
There were a total of 32 crashes reported at this intersection in the ADOT database over the five year
analysis period between June 1, 2003 and May 31, 2008. There was one fatal crash at this intersection
per the crash database provided by SRPMIC PD. Angle type crashes ( 38 percent) and rear end crashes
( 31 percent) were the predominant type of crash at this intersection. Driver inattention and disregarding
traffic signals were reported as primary causes of the crashes. Crash analysis also shows that about 44
percent of crashes occurred during dark or unknown lighting conditions. According to the SRPMIC PD,
left turn violations were the primary causes of crashes at this intersection.
The SRPMIC PD database shows that 121 crashes occurred near the Pima Freeway- Indian School Road
traffic interchange between January 1, 2005 and July 16, 2009.
Pima Freeway- Indian Bend Road
There were a total of 27 crashes reported at this intersection in the ADOT database over the five year
analysis period between June 1, 2003 and May 31, 2008. Angle type crashes ( 63 percent) and rear
end crashes ( 22 percent) were the predominant crash type at this intersection. Disregarding traffic
signals was reported as the primary cause of the crashes. Crash analysis also shows that about 33
percent of crashes occurred during dark or unknown lighting conditions. According to the SRPMIC PD,
failure to yield was the primary cause of crashes at this intersection.
The SRPMIC PD database shows that 132 crashes occurred near the Pima Freeway- Indian Bend Road
traffic interchange between January 1, 2005 and July 16, 2009.
Pima Freeway- Thomas Road
There were a total of 23 crashes reported at this intersection in the ADOT database over the five year
analysis period between June 1, 2003 and May 31, 2008. Angle type crashes ( 44 percent) and rear
end crashes ( 30 percent) were the predominant type of crash at this intersection. Disregarding traffic
signals and driver inattention were reported as the primary causes of the crashes. According to the
SRPMIC PD, left turn violations and eastbound red light running were the primary causes of crashes at
this intersection. Some crashes occurred due to vehicles hitting raised curbs. It is noted that the closely
spaced signalized intersections between Pima Road and Pima Freeway were creating confusion for the
drivers.
The SRPMIC PD database shows that 100 crashes occurred near the Pima Freeway- Thomas Road traffic
interchange between January 1, 2005 and July 16, 2009.
35 Salt River Pima- Maricopa Indian Community
2010 Long Range Transportation Plan
McKellips Road- Alma School Road
There were a total of 18 crashes reported at this intersection in the ADOT database over the five year
analysis period between June 1, 2003 and May 31, 2008. There were two fatal crashes at this
intersection per the crash database provided by SRPMIC PD. Rear end crashes ( 43 percent) and angle
type crashes ( 39 percent) were the predominant type of crash at this intersection. Driver inattention and
disregarding traffic signals were reported as the primary causes of the crashes. According to the SRPMIC
PD, this is a major injury crash location with speeding and red light running being the primary causes of
crashes at this intersection.
The SRPMIC PD database shows that 54 crashes occurred near the McKellips Road- Alma School Road
traffic interchange between January 1, 2005 and July 16, 2009.
Thomas Road- Pima Road
There were a total of 15 crashes reported at this intersection in the ADOT database over the five year
analysis period between June 1, 2003 and May 31, 2008. Angle type crashes ( 53 percent) and rear
end crashes ( 31 percent) were the predominant types of crash at this intersection. Disregarding traffic
signals was reported as the primary cause of the crashes.
The SRPMIC PD database shows that 84 crashes occurred near the Thomas Road- Pima Road traffic
interchange between January 1, 2005 and July 16, 2009.
Pima Freeway- 90th Street
There were a total of 14 crashes reported at this intersection in the ADOT database over the five year
analysis period between June 1, 2003 and May 31, 2008. Rear end crashes ( 50 percent) were the
predominant type of crash at this intersection. Driver inattention and disregarding traffic signals were
reported as the primary causes of the crashes. According to the SRPMIC PD, rear- end crashes on
northbound right turns off of the freeway waiting for a gap was the movement that was mostly involved
in crashes.
The SRPMIC PD database shows that 107 crashes occurred near the Pima Freeway- 90th Street traffic
interchange between January 1, 2005 and July 16, 2009.
SR 87 ( Beeline Highway)- Gilbert Road
There were a total of 6 crashes reported at this intersection in the ADOT database over the five year
analysis period between June 1, 2003 and May 31, 2008. Rear end crashes ( 83 percent) and angle
type crashes ( 17 percent) were the predominant type of crash at this intersection. The primary cause of
the crashes was speed too fast for conditions and disregarding the traffic signals.
The SRPMIC PD database shows that 74 crashes occurred near the SR 87- Gilbert Road traffic
intersection between January 1, 2005 and July 16, 2009.
Pima Road- Chaparral Road
There were a total of 13 crashes reported at this intersection in the ADOT database over the five year
analysis period between June 1, 2003 and May 31, 2008. Angle type crashes ( 54 percent) and rear
end crashes ( 30 percent) were the predominant type of crash at this intersection. Driver inattention was
reported as the primary cause of the crashes.
The SRPMIC PD database shows that 74 crashes occurred near the Pima Freeway- Chaparral Road
traffic interchange between January 1, 2005 and July 16, 2009.
36 Salt River Pima- Maricopa Indian Community
2010 Long Range Transportation Plan
Corrective Measures
Most of the crashes at these high crash intersections occurred due to the driver inattention. Some of the
potential corrective measures that can be made to reduce these types of crashes occurring at
intersections include:
a) Install a raised median on Chaparral Road between the Pima Freeway traffic interchange and
Pima Road.
b) Install Recessed Pavement Markers ( RPM) along lane markings, rumble strips along edge lines of
the roadway to obtain driver attention.
c) Flexible reflective delineators and lighted flexible boulder signs should be considered along
painted island curbs at tight left turn movements to obtain driver attention.
d) Optically programmed signal heads should be considered for eastbound and westbound traffic
at Thomas Road- Pima Road and Thomas Road- Pima Freeway traffic interchange.
e) A modern roundabout could be an alternative for an intersection with history of crashes due to
left turns and higher speeds. It would also serve as a traffic calming measure.
37 Salt River Pima- Maricopa Indian Community
2010 Long Range Transportation Plan
2.8 Public Transit
Salt River Transit
Public transportation serves a variety of functions for the SRPMIC. It gives mobility to persons without
access to an automobile and to those who do not drive and it provides important links between rural
communities and metropolitan areas. According to the 2000 Census, 13 percent of SRPMIC households
had no vehicle available, one- third of the Community is under 18 years of age, and an additional 12
percent are over 65 years of age.
The Salt River Pima- Maricopa Indian Community Transit System ( SRTS) provides dial- a- ride services for
tribal residents traveling to Mesa, Tempe, and Scottsdale for shopping, employment, medical and social
services. Salt River Transit has been providing transit services to Community members since 1983.
The mission statement of the SRTS is:
“ The transit system provides safe and efficient transportation service to residents, tribal
employees and the general public to the SRPMIC. Our primary purpose and continued
goal is to provide service and assistance to residents in reaching destinations such as
medical facilities, employment centers, education facilities, shopping centers and other
areas.”
Review of summary ridership information provided by the Community shows that ridership numbers are
stable with little monthly fluctuation. Community staff reported there is a noticeable drop in ridership
when quarterly benefit checks are received, but levels quickly adjust back to baseline.
Existing Service Route Descriptions
The current service routes have been developed over time addressing the needs of the Community
members, resulting in a rider base that is stable and predictable. Figure 13 shows their areas of
coverage and the surrounding Valley Metro Transit service. Table 9 describes the service routes.
Salt River Pima- Maricopa Indian Community
2010 Long Range Transportation Plan
FIGURE 13 | Existing Transit Service Areas
Sources: SRPMIC, ValleyMetro, HDR Engineering, Inc., September 2010.
38
.
101
87
202
Lehi PD
Lehi Ctr
Canal Side
Victory
Acres 2
Victory
Acres 1
Dobson
Hts M/ P
Admin
Walmart
Rec
Complex JR's
Casino
Arizona
Saddleback
Communications
Riverview
Grocery
Store
Pavilions Casino
Arizona
Talking Stick
Golf Club
Scottsdale
Healthcare
Scottsdale
Community
College
50 76 84 511
532
511
535 536
Transit Service Area Extends South to Baseline Rd.( 3 Miles)
McDowell Road
SALT RIVER
Arizona Canal
McKellips Road
Thomas Road
Indian School Road
McDonald Drive
Chaparral Road
Indian Bend Road
Dobson Road
92nd Street
Pima Road
Alma School Road
Longmore Road
Country Club Drive
Mesa Drive
Stapley Drive
Gilbert Road
Via de Ventura
Curry Road
ValleyMetro Bus Routes
Rt 2 - Local and Surrounding
Areas
Rt 3 - North Scottsdale
Rt 4 - East Mesa
Rt 5 - West Mesa
Rt 1 - South Scottsdale
Activity Center
Valley Metro Transit Route #
Camelback Road
Osborn Road
Oak Street Extension Road
Center Street
511
Scottsdale Road
Hayden Road
SRPMIC Boundary
39 Salt River Pima- Maricopa Indian Community
2010 Long Range Transportation Plan
Table 9 Service Areas and Descriptions
Route Name Description
1 South Scottsdale
South of Indian School Road, north of McKellips Road, west
of Center Street, east of Scottsdale Road.
service time 6: 00am to 9: 30am, 12pm to 3: 30pm
2
Local and Surrounding Areas
North of Baseline Road, south of Indian Bend Road, west
of Stapley Drive, east of Scottsdale Road
service time 6: 30am to 12: 30am, 3: 30pm to 5: 30pm
3
North Scottsdale
North of Indian School Road, south of Indian Bend Road,
west of Lindsey Road, east of Scottsdale Road
service time 5: 30am to 9: 30am, 1: 30pm to 5: 30pm
4
East Mesa
North of Baseline Road, south of Arizona Canal, west of
Lindsey Road, east of Center Street
service time 5: 00am to 9: 00am, 1: 30pm to 5: 30pm
5
West Mesa
North of Baseline Road, south of McKellips Road, west of
Center Street, east of Dobson Road
service time 6: 00am to 10: 00am, 1: 00pm to 5: 00pm
Source: Salt River Pima- Maricopa Indian Community Transportation Department, Transit Division ( 2009).
As can be seen in Figure 13, the service area boundaries of the current routes cover most of the areas
of residential and commercial development within the Community ( with the notable exception of the
commercial development north of Indian Bend Road). The service areas extend beyond the Community
boundaries to provide transportation to important destinations for Community members including
Scottsdale Healthcare and regional shopping centers. Important destinations identified by SRTS staff
include the following ( in no particular order):
• Fiesta Mall, Mesa
• Sycamore/ Main Street Light Rail Transit
Stop, Mesa
• Riverview Mall, Mesa
• Fry's Food Store 77th Street and
E McDowell Road, Scottsdale
• Pavilions, Indian Bend and Pima Freeway,
Scottsdale
• Scottsdale Healthcare, Scottsdale
• SRPMIC Tribal Complex
• Casino Arizona, McKellips
• Scottsdale Community College,
Chaparral
40 Salt River Pima- Maricopa Indian Community
2010 Long Range Transportation Plan
Transfer points for SRTS to Valley Metro routes include:
• McDowell and Granite Reef Road ( Valley Metro Route 17, McDowell Road)
• Hayden and Thomas ( Valley Metro Route 29, Thomas Road)
• Scottsdale Community College ( Valley Metro Route 50, Camelback Road; and 76, Miller
Road
• Country Club Drive and McKellips ( Valley Metro Route 112, Country Club Drive/ Arizona
Avenue)
• The Pavilions
The SRPMIC Department of Transportation director has been in contact with Valley Metro staff to discuss
the opportunity for the extension of Valley Metro service to the Tribal Headquarters at Longmore and
Osborne. SRTS trips beyond the Community could transfer to Valley Metro from these locations. Current
economic conditions have delayed action on this, but interest exists to continue to explore this option.
Transit Planning
In 2009 ADOT prepared the Salt River Transit Five Year Plan ( Transit Plan). This Plan, prepared in
support of the 5311 funding received from ADOT, identifies the Community’s goals for transit, transit
demand, and a five- year implementation plan.
The plans provide a five- year ‘ road map’ to address the transportation needs and coordination of public
transportation and specialized transportation services for the elderly and disabled in the regions. In
addition, they address the most efficient and effective management and funding programs for public
transportation. These plans include an assessment of local transit needs within a five- year “ horizon,”
achievable coordination and consolidation opportunities and a significant public involvement process.
As part of the Transit Plan a rider survey was conducted in November 2008. The survey found that the
primary trip purpose of riders is employment ( 35 percent), followed by education ( 20 percent) and
medical purposes ( 17 percent). The survey found that all respondents would like to see weekend service
and many asked that weekday service be extended to 7 p. m. Eighty- five percent of the riders ride
Monday- Friday. This finding was confirmed by comments during outreach with a Tribal Council district
meeting that suggested an extension of service to 9 or 10 p. m.
The Transit Plan also assessed the transit dependent population within the Community, based on the
work done in ADOT’s Arizona Rural Transit Needs Study ( May 2008). This study determined transit
dependent populations and demand by County for the entire state based upon the Arkansas Public
Transportation Needs Assessment ( APTNA) method4
Transit Funding
. The Transit Plan estimated the transit dependent
population within the Community, using SRPMIC’s population relative to the total rural Maricopa County
population. For this study, we have evaluated the transit dependent population by direct application of
the 2000 Census data.
Funding for rural transit services comes from several sources: the Federal Transit Administration ( FTA)
Section 5311 Rural Transportation funds and the SRPMIC. For the 2009 operating year, approximately
60 percent funding came from Section 5311 grant funding with the remaining 40 percent coming
directly from the SRPMIC.
4 The Arkansas Public Transportation Needs Assessment ( APTNA) method represents the demand for transit service by applying trip rates to
three population groups: elderly persons ages 60 and over, persons with disabilities under age 60, and persons living in poverty under age
60.
41 Salt River Pima- Maricopa Indian Community
2010 Long Range Transportation Plan
The current fare structure for each one- way trip is shown in Table 10. Although the fares are relatively
low in comparison to other rural transit providers, there is a strong commitment to maintaining an
inexpensive transportation option for Community members.
Table 10 SRPMIC Fare Structure
One- Way Trip Fares General Seniors/ Disabled
Within the Community $. 75 $. 25
Outside the community $. 85 $. 50
Source: Salt River Pima- Maricopa Indian Community Transportation Department, Transit Division ( 2009).
Rural Public Transportation Program ( Section 5311)
The Section 5311 Rural Public Transportation Program provides capital, administrative and operating
assistance for public transportation programs in rural and small urban areas.
FTA Section 5311 funding supports capital expenditures, operating expenses, and administrative
expenses. A local match is required with the amount varying by program. They may be used for general
public transit services in rural areas ( those areas with less than 50,000 in population). The FTA
apportionment funding is allocated to states on a population- based formula. The ADOT Multimodal
Planning Division awards the funds to participating systems through an annual competitive application
process and acts as administrator for the 5311 program. Besides the SRPMIC, the Hopi Tribe and
Navajo Nation are the only tribes in Arizona currently receiving Section 5311 grant funding.
Recommendations from ADOT’s 5- year plan focus on five key areas: 1) management structure and
administration, 2) effectiveness of service, 3) marketing, 4) coordination ( both locally and within the
region), and capital planning. The reader may refer to that plan, on file with the Transit Department, for
specifics and recommendations.
Operations Information
The SRTS fleet currently includes nine vehicles: ( 3) 14 Foot Passenger Vans, ( 1) 13 Foot Passenger Van,
and, ( 5) 11 Foot Passenger Vans. These vehicles were all purchased with Community funds. Table 11
shows SRTS service data for Fiscal Year 2008. Table 12 shows the SRPMIC transit costs for Fiscal Year
2008.
42 Salt River Pima- Maricopa Indian Community
2010 Long Range Transportation Plan
Table 11 Service Data for Fiscal Year 2008
Service Measure Amount
Service Days per Week 5
Annual Revenue Miles 141,136
Annual Passenger Trips 22,419
Fares Collected $ 16,126
Vehicle Revenue Hours 9,464
Cost per Passenger Trip $ 22.75
Cost per Revenue Mile $ 3.61
Source: ADOT, Fiscal Year 2008 Section 5311 Annual Report.
Table 12 SRPMIC Transit Costs for Fiscal Year 2008
Cost Type Federal Percent SRPMIC Percent Total Percent
Operating $ 184,458 77 $ 213,570 79 $ 398,184.00 78
Administration $ 55,619 23 $ 56,324 21 $ 111,943 22
Capital $ 0 $ 0 0
Total $ 240,077.00 100 $ 269,894.00 100 $ 509,971 100
Source: ADOT, Fiscal Year 2008 Section 5311 Annual Report.
Transit Dependent Populations
For the vast majority of trips produced and/ or attracted in the SRPMIC area, there are few viable
alternatives to the automobile. Segregation of land uses and nearly universal automobile availability has
resulted in dispersed land uses that are difficult to reach without an automobile, as well as little or no
alternate modes of travel. Not only is there little public transportation service available, the distances
between origin and destination and lack of facilities for pedestrians and bicyclists makes walking or
riding a bicycle impractical and/ or unsafe. In most cases, about the only viable alternative to driving
somewhere is riding there with someone else.
Transit Demand
Using the APTNA, populations of elderly persons age 60 and over, persons with disability under the age
of 60, and persons living in poverty under age 60 are considered transit dependent populations. Within
the SRPMIC Community an assessment of these populations indicates that as much as 60 percent of the
population would be considered transit dependent5
To determine the potential demand for transit services, the APTNA assessed trip rates based on Census
information, which was reported as an annual trip rate for each group. The findings are reported in
.
Table 13.
5 This is based on Census 2000 information for the SRPMIC which reveals 16 percent of the population is over age 60; 28 percent of the
population under 65 is in poverty; and an additional 19 percent of the age 5 to 65 population has a disability. Adjusting for the population of
the last two groups over 60, the resulting transit dependent population is equivalent to 60 percent of the Community’s population.
43 Salt River Pima- Maricopa Indian Community
2010 Long Range Transportation Plan
Table 13 Annual Transit Trip Rates for Select Demographic Groups
Demographic Group Trip Rates: Annual One- Way Passenger Trips
Elderly persons Age 60 and Over 6.79
Persons with Disability Under Age 60 4.49
Persons living in Poverty Under Age 60 20.5
Source: Salt River Transit Five- Year Plan, January 2009.
Using these trip rates, it was determined that the 2009 transit demand estimate for the SRPMIC
Community is 48,377. When compared to the 22,419 annual passenger trips recorded in 2008, this
estimate represents an additional 26,000 trips ( 116 percent additional annual trips) of current unmet
transit demand.
44 Salt River Pima- Maricopa Indian Community
2010 Long Range Transportation Plan
2.9 Non- Motorized Transportation
Today, there are few paved or un- paved trails within the SRPMIC. The rural character of the Community,
characterized by its narrow roads with no curb or gutter, requires pedestrians to walk along edge of
pavement and in some cases where obstructions or canal laterals exist, pedestrians have to walk on the
pavement.
Sidewalks are present only in some of the newer developments, subdivisions within the People’s Village,
around some of the commercial development in the Pima Freeway corridor and at the Government
Complex. Even with the sidewalks in place adjacent to some of the denser subdivisions, there is little
connectivity with schools or activity centers. The 2006 SRPMIC General Plan includes a number of
objectives and implementation measures addressing the need for improved pedestrian connectivity.
Figure 14 shows the Salt River Elementary School, one of the few locations with sidewalks.
Figure 14 Salt River Elementary School Sidewalks
The General Plan identifies the creation of a trails master plan to connect activity areas for pedestrians,
bicyclists, and equestrians within the Community as one of the Actions/ Implementation Measures ( IM
24, SRPMIC General Plan, 2006).
45 Salt River Pima- Maricopa Indian Community
2010 Long Range Transportation Plan
3.0 Land Use and Socioeconomic Conditions
This section provides an overview of the existing land use together with estimates of SRPMIC population
and employment. The demographic information used in this analysis is from the 2000 Census. While
this information is nearly ten years old, the 2000 Census remains the most comprehensive source of
demographic data available. When appropriate and available, other more recent socioeconomic
information is cited.
Demographic information is important in developing a profile of the Community’s residents and
households. A comparative analysis with data from the county and state is included to illustrate how
SRPMIC relates to the greater metropolitan area and state.
3.1 Title VI and Environmental Justice
The Environmental Protection Agency and FHWA define environmental justice as the “ fair treatment for
people of all races, cultures, and incomes, regarding the development of environmental laws,
regulations, and policies.” Environmental justice principles and procedures are followed to improve all
levels of transportation decision making. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination
on the basis of race, color, or national origin. The 1994 Executive Order 12898 on environmental
justice addresses minority and low- income populations. The rights of women, the elderly, and the
disabled are protected under related statutes. These Presidential Executive Orders and other related
statutes fall under the umbrella of Title VI.
There are three fundamental environmental justice principles applicable to the transportation project
development process:
• to avoid, minimize, or mitigate disproportionately high and adverse human health and
environmental effects, including social and economic effects, on minority populations and
low- income populations
• to ensure the full and fair participation by all potentially affected communities in the
transportation decision- making process
• to prevent the denial of, reduction in, or significant delay in the receipt of benefits by minority
and low- income populations
Effective transportation decision making depends on understanding and properly addressing the unique
needs of different socioeconomic groups. Properly implemented, environmental justice principles and
procedures improve all levels of transportation decision making.
The five minority groups addressed by Title VI and Executive Order 12898, Environmental Justice, are:
• Black ( a person having origins in any of the black racial groups of Africa)
• Hispanic ( a person of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Central or South American, or other
Spanish culture or origin, regardless of race)
• Asian American ( a person having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East,
Southeast Asia, the Indian subcontinent, or the Pacific Islands)
• American Indian and Alaskan Native ( a person having origins in any of the original people of
North America and who maintains cultural identification through tribal affiliation or
community recognition)
• Some other race, or persons of more than one race
46 Salt River Pima- Maricopa Indian Community
2010 Long Range Transportation Plan
A member of the low- income population is defined as “ a person whose household income is at or
below the Department of Health and Human Services poverty guidelines.” The Department of Health
and Human Services poverty guidelines state that the poverty level for a family of four in 2009 is
$ 22,050 ( note, however, that this income level cannot be compared directly with current income levels
because the value of money changes year to year).
Other protected populations include concentrations of elderly, the disabled and female heads of
households. These populations for the SRPMIC Community, Maricopa County and Arizona are shown in
Table 14.
Table 14 Title VI and Environmental Justice Population Percentages, SRPMIC, Maricopa
County and Arizona
Category Arizona Maricopa
County SRPMIC
Minority 36.2% 33.8% 82.5%
Hispanic or Latino 25.3% 24.8% 16.9%
Black or African American 2.8% 3.5% 0.4%
American Indian or Alaskan Native 4.5% 1.5% 45.6%
Asian 1.7% 2.1% 0.1%
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 0.1% 0.1% < 0.1%
Some Other Race 0.1% 0.1% 10.6%
More than One Race 1.6% 1.7% 8.8%
Persons Living Below the Poverty Level 13.9% 11.7% 30.5%
Disabled 19.3% 18.0% 27.7%
Age 65 and Older 13.0% 11.7% 12.5%
Female Heads of Household 6.8% 6.6% 14.1%
Source: Census 2000 Redistricting Data ( PL94- 171) Summary File.
The protected populations considered in this analysis are described below:
• Minority populations include people who identify themselves as Hispanic or Latino, Black or
African American, American Indian and Alaskan Native, Asian, Native Hawaiian and Other
Pacific Islander, persons of some other race, or persons of more than one race.
• Low- income populations include people living in households with an income at or below the
U. S. Department of Health and Human Services poverty guidelines. Low- income populations
may have greater difficulty locating replacement housing in the area. They may rely on public
services and facilities, such as public transit and public recreational amenities, to a greater
extent than the general population.
• Elderly populations consist of people who are age 65 and older. While elderly citizens often
drive, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ( NHTSA) reports that both high-speed
and high- traffic routes may present a problem for some ( NHTSA, 2007). In addition,
the elderly may have a need for transit service or may opt to use transit if it is offered.
• Disabled populations are civilian, non- institutionalized persons aged 5 and over with
disabilities ( such as sensory, physical, mental, self- care, going outside of home, and
47 Salt River Pima- Maricopa Indian Community
2010 Long Range Transportation Plan
employment disabilities).
• Female head- of- household populations consist of households headed by a female with no
husband present and with her own children under the age of 18. These households tend to
have lower incomes than households headed by married couples or a single man and
oftentimes have a greater need for affordable housing.
Poverty is a major concern of the Salt River Pima- Maricopa Indian Community with the median per
capita income of $ 9,592 ( more than 56 percent below the national per capita income of $ 22,000). The
percentage of the population in poverty is 30.5 percent, more than twice that of the overall state poverty
level of 14 percent.
3.2 Existing and Planned Land Use
The Community is rural in character with over 90 percent of the area classified as either open space or
vacant. Commercial and industrial development is limited to the periphery of the Community along
major transportation corridors. The Community encompasses approximately 85 square miles ( 54,632
acres), with 19,000 held as a natural preserve and approximately 17,000 acres under cultivation in a
variety of crops including cotton, melons, potatoes, onions, broccoli and carrots.
Table 15 Existing SRPMIC Land Use
Land Use Acres Percent
Residential 1,641 3.0
Commercial 458 0.8
Industrial 6 < 0.1
Office 22 < 0.1
Public use 430 0.8
Transportation, Canal, Utility 819 1.5
Open Space 45,477 83.2
Mining & Landfill 1,819 3.3
Vacant 3,960 7.3
Total 54,632 100.0
Source: SRPMIC General Plan, December 13, 2006.
The SRPMIC General Plan Land Use Map shown in Figure 15 identifies 11 planned land use
designations and two special area designations for the Pima Freeway corridor and the People’s Village.
The Pima Freeway corridor is the Community’s economic growth area. It extends north- south along the
Pima Freeway from McKellips Road to the Community’s northern boundary. The People’s Village,
located in the heart of the Community, is intended to be a Community- oriented focal point of activity.
48 Salt River Pima- Maricopa Indian Community
Transportation Planning Study
Figure 15 2006 General Plan Land Use Map
49
Salt River Pima- Maricopa Indian Community
2010 Long Range Transportation Plan
3.3 Traffic Analysis Zones
Traffic analysis zones ( TAZ) are geographic areas generally bounded by roads, railroads, major
watercourses or other easily identifiable physical features. SRPMIC socioeconomic data is tabulated by
TAZ geography. Using the City of Scottsdale Travel Demand Model ( STDM), traffic is generated by each
land use within the TAZ, distributed, and then assigned to the roadway network. Subsequently, using
projected land use data, future traffic forecasts can be derived.
3.4 Population
It is estimated that approximately 7,188 of the Communities 8,976 members live on the reservation6
The median age of the SRPMIC population is 28.3, compared with 34.2 for Arizona. Much of the
population is young with 39.7 percent of the population under 20 years of age. For Arizona as a whole,
29.7 percent of the population is under 20 years of age. This is important information because age
helps dictate transportation mode choice and walking rates are drastically higher for younger age
groups than older ones. The 5– 15 year old age group has almost twice the percentage of walking trips
as the 40– 64 year old age group
.
The U. S. Census reported a 2000 population of 6,405. Many members live on scattered home- sites
largely located south of the Arizona Canal, which essentially bisects the Community east- west; in the
Lehi area, located south of the Salt River; and in the People’s Village, a two and one- quarter square
mile area that is developing as a focal point of activity for Community members.
7
The average household size in the Community is 3.24 persons per household, 20 percent higher than
that of Maricopa County ( average household size is 2.67; slightly higher than Arizona as a whole, which
is 2.64).
.
Figure 16 shows the estimated 2006 SRPMIC population density by TAZ.
6 The reported population of 8,976 members is from the Salt River Pima- Maricopa Indian Community’s Enrollment Office. The 2009
population estimate is extrapolated from the 2000 Census population and the Maricopa Association of Governments’ 2007 socioeconomic
projections.
7 Pucher, J. and Renne, J. ( 2003). Socioeconomics of Urban Travel: Evidence from the 2001 NHTS. Transportation Quarterly, Vol. 57, No.
3, Summer 2003 ( 49– 77).
Salt River Pima- Maricopa Indian Community
2010 Long Range Transportation Plan
FIGURE 16 | 2030 Estimated Population Density by TAZ
Sources: HDR Engineering, Inc., September 2010; Maricopa Association of Governments, 2007.
50
87
ARIZONA
202
ARIZONA
101
ARIZONA
McDowell Road
Arizona Canal
McKellips Road
Thomas Road
Indian School Road
McDonald Drive
Chaparral Road
Indian Bend Road
Dobson Road
92nd Street
Pima Road
Alma School Road
Longmore Road
Country Club Drive
Mesa Drive
Stapley Drive
Gilbert Road
Via de Ventura
Curry Road
Population Density ( per square mile)
< 100 251− 500 > 750
100− 250 500− 750 No Population
XXX = Population estimate
16
3
26
59
6
149 49
406
327
440
412
326
413
163
907
300
38
330
731
156 23
22
2
26
119
141
392
26
783
Camelback Road
Osborn Road
Oak Street
Extension Road
Center Street
See Inset
SRPMIC Boundary
AREA OF INSET
SALT RIVER
Arizona Canal
CAP Canal
No scale
18
59
54
87
ARIZONA
51
Salt River Pima- Maricopa Indian Community
2010 Long Range Transportation Plan
3.5 Employment
The SRPMIC is home to a diverse and large employment base. Table 16 summarizes employment
information for the Community. Figure 17 shows the estimated 2006 SRPMIC employment density by
TAZ from the STDM. The STDM uses enrollment to estimate travel demand from the Scottsdale
Community College.
Table 16 Base Year ( 2006) Employment Data
Description Employment
Retail 2,527
Office 1,938
Industrial/ Manufacturing 940
Other 1,788
Total 7,193
Source: City of Scottsdale Travel Demand Model, 2007; Maricopa Association of Governments, 2007.
Salt River Pima- Maricopa Indian Community
2010 Long Range Transportation Plan
FIGURE 17 | 2006 Estimated Employment Density by TAZ
Sources: City of Scottsdale Travel Demand Model, April 2008; Maricopa Association of Governments, 2007.
52
87
ARIZONA
202
ARIZONA
101
ARIZONA
Arizona Canal
Employment Density ( per square mile)
< 50 251− 500 > 750
51− 250 501− 750 No Employment
XXX = Non- Farm Employment Estimate
43
23
556
16
52
50
52
25
50
51
9
64
92
198 50
479
33
762
236
1,191
1,145 261
17
19
168
802
13
213
468
18
Note: Scottsdale
Community
College
enrollment is an
estimated 9,500
students.
See Inset
SRPMIC Boundary
McDowell Road
McKellips Road
Thomas Road
Indian School Road
McDonald Drive
Chaparral Road
Indian Bend Road
Dobson Road
92nd Street
Pima Road
Alma School Road
Longmore Road
Country Club Drive
Mesa Drive
Stapley Drive
Gilbert Road
Via de Ventura
Curry Road
Camelback Road
Osborn Road
Oak Street
Extension Road
Center Street
AREA OF INSET
87
ARIZONA
SALT RIVER
Arizona Canal
CAP Canal
No scale
43
53
Salt River Pima- Maricopa Indian Community
2010 Long Range Transportation Plan
3.6 Housing Analysis
SRPMIC has a very high housing vacancy rate compared to the county and state. This figure of nearly
23 percent vacant is more often seen in communities with a high percentage of second or vacation
homes. SRPMIC staff and census data indicate that this higher vacancy rate is attributable to the Shadow
Mountain Village and Roadrunner Lake Resort mobile home parks that lease land from the Community.
Primarily non- SRPMIC members live in the mobile home parks.
On the other hand, the home ownership rate for the SRPMIC is over 80 percent, significantly higher than
the 68 percent for Maricopa County or the state as a whole. Table 17 shows a comparison of key
housing statistics for SRPMIC, Maricopa County, and Arizona.
Table 17 Occupied Housing
Description SRPMIC Maricopa County Arizona
Occupied Housing Units 77.6% 90.6% 86.9%
Owner- occupied Housing Units 80.4% 67.5% 68.0%
Renter- occupied Housing Units 19.6% 32.5% 32.0%
Average Household Size of
Owner- occupied Units
3.04 2.74 2.69
Average Household Size of
Renter- occupied Units
4.09 2.54 2.53
Source: 2000 US Census; Salt River Pima- Maricopa Indian Community General Plan Update Existing Conditions Report,
September 2003.
3.7 Interim and Planning Horizon Population and Employment
Projections
Table 18 shows that between the 1990 and 2000 censuses SRPMIC grew 31 percent. During the same
ten- year period, Maricopa County grew over 45 percent. Generally consistent with its growth in the
previous decade, Maricopa County grew nearly 20 percent between 2000 and 2005. However, the
MAG Socioeconomic Projections of Population, Housing, and Employment by Municipal Planning Area
and Regional Analysis Zone, May 2007, show that SRPMIC grew by only seven percent over the same
five- year period. While Maricopa County continued to grow at more than 3 percent annually, the rate of
growth in the SRPMIC slowed in relation to the county as a whole between 2000 and 2005.
54
Salt River Pima- Maricopa Indian Community
2010 Long Range Transportation Plan
Table 18 Historic Population Growth
Description
1990a 2000b 2005c
POPd HHe POPd HHe POPd HHe
Maricopa County 2,122,101 807,560 3,072,366 1,132,886 3,616,690 1,352,967
SRPMIC 4,852 1,583 6,355 1,959 6,742 2,056
Source: HDR Engineering, Inc., September 2010.
Notes: a) 1990 Census Summary Tape File 1 ( STF 1) 100- percent Data.
b) Census 2000 Summary File 1 ( SF 1) 100- percent Data.
c) Estimate, Maricopa Association of Governments, 2007.
d) Total population in households.
e) Households.
General Plan Land Use Considerations
Although more than 83 percent of SRPMIC is open space, there is a shortage of land for new residential
development. This is largely due to the allotment system of land ownership across the Community.
Cooperation of multiple landowners is required to assemble a parcel large enough for a subdivision.
This makes large- scale residential developments challenging. Additionally, it is difficult for Community
members who are not landholders to buy and develop land in the Community.
One of the goals of the SRPMIC General Plan is to promote residential development to accommodate
the housing needs of Community members. This development effort is focused on the People’s Village
and includes such subdivisions as “ Victory Acres” and “ Canalside”, located south of the Arizona Canal
between Country Club Drive and Mesa Drive. These subdivisions were formed from existing tribally
owned lands set aside for Community purposes. With the completion of the latest Canalside subdivision,
there are additional 91 parcels available for development.
While there is a shortfall of land for new residential development, the SRPMIC General Plan designates
eight percent of its land area, or over 4,500 acres, for mixed- use commercial development. This is
located primarily along the Pima Freeway Corridor. Currently the corridor contains two Casino Arizona
locations, golf courses, and retail and commercial office development. A new convention center and
hotel opened in 2010. A spring training facility is under construction and due to open in early 2011.
In addition to the new hospitality and sports developments, commercial and retail development along
Pima Road is also growing. Wal- Mart is currently expanding at its location on Chaparral Road. New
office buildings in Pima Center and Riverwalk are permitted or under construction.
Population Projections
Recent MAG estimates show SRPMIC population growth slowing. Between 2005 and 2030 MAG
estimates that the Community will grow by 0.34 percent annually. This is well below the 2.8 percent
annual growth recorded between 1990 and 2000. In large part, population growth is limited by the
availability of land for residential development.
As noted earlier, the SRPMIC Housing Department is completing Canalside III and IV with 91 new home
sites for Community members. It is located along the Arizona Canal in the People’s Village between
Mesa Drive and Country Club Drive. Build out of the Canalside home sites is assumed by 2030. The
Community is also planning a multifamily village development on the northwest corner of Chaparral
Drive and Dobson Road; an area shown as a high density residential development in the SRPMIC
55
Salt River Pima- Maricopa Indian Community
2010 Long Range Transportation Plan
General Plan. Build out of the multifamily village, which is anticipated to occur by 2030, will provide
between 220 and 240 new residences. The Housing Department is also considering new subdivisions
on Country Club Drive and Center Street between Indian School Road and Camelback Road. The size
and timing of these subdivisions is unknown.
Currently, SRPMIC leases land to two mobile home parks: Shadow Mountain Village is located north of
McKellips Road west of the Pima Freeway; and, the Roadrunner Lake Resort is located on 92nd Street
north of McKellips Road. Residents of Shadow Mountain Village and Roadrunner Lake Resort are
predominately older non- SRPMIC members. The demographics of these mobile home parks show a
larger number of seasonal homes and smaller household sizes that change the picture of the SRPMIC
demographics.
Census 2000 data for overall SRPMIC shows that 77 percent of housing units were occupied. Average
household size was 3.24 persons per household. However, SRPMIC Housing Department officials
describe long waiting lists for Community housing with high occupancy rates. Without Shadow Mountain
Village and the Roadrunner Lake Resort, Census 2000 data reflects the tight demand for Community
housing with occupancy rates over 95 percent. Average household size is 4.21 persons per household.
The leases for both mobile home parks are set to expire by 2030. The Shadow Mountain Village lease
will expire in 2027. The Roadrunner Lake Resort lease will expire in 2019. SRPMIC plans to include the
areas in its commercial and retail redevelopment plans. The eventual closure of the mobile home parks
will mean a loss of population for SRPMIC because most of the mobile home park residents are not
Community members. Only Community members and their families are allowed to live on SRPMIC.
The 2030 population projections for this study are based on the following:
• Full buildout and occupancy of the 331 planned new Canalside and the multifamily village
residences.
• Population lost from the closure of the Roadrunner Lake Resort in 2019 will be replaced by
Community members living on new home sites in allotted lands.
• Since Shadow Mountain Village will remain in place through most of this study’s planning
horizon, its population is included in the 2030 projections.
• Average household size estimated at traffic analysis zone ( TAZ) level based on Census 2000.
Table 19 shows the population projections. Figure 18 shows the 2030 population distribution by TAZ.
The thematic map colors represent population per square mile. The labels show the population
projection by TAZ. Population projections for the interim planning horizons of 2015 and 2020 are
interpolated values.
56
Salt River Pima- Maricopa Indian Community
2010 Long Range Transportation Plan
Table 19 SRPMIC Population Projections
Description
Year
2009 2015 2020 2030b
Households 2,219 2,303 2,373 2,510
Populationa 7,188 7,690 8,100 8,900
Source: HDR Engineering, September 2010.
Notes: a) Total population in households.
b) Shadow Mountain Village is included in 2030 population projections. However, Roadrunner
Lake Resort is n