'
1-1·/ SYSTEM DESIGN I OPERATIONS STUDY
SUMMARY REPORT
FREEWAY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
CONTRACT No. 87-02
PROJECT No. IR-17-1 (179) PE
IR-10-3 (255) PI;
JACK E. LEISCH TRANSPORTATION GROUP
A DIVISION OF CH2M HILL
ARIZONA
DEPARTMENT
OF
TRANSPORTATION
DECEMBER 1990
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1-17 SYSTEM DESIGN I OPERATIONS STUDY
SUMMARY REPORT
FREEWAY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
CONTRACT No. 87-02
PROJECT No. IR-17-1 (179) PE
IR-10-3 (255) PE
ARIZONA
• DEPARTMENT
OF
TRANSPORTATION
'------------------------------- 1
I
I
JACK E. LEISCH TRANSPORTATION GROUP
A DIVISION OF CH2M HILL DECEMBER 1990
CONTENTS
PAGE
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
PROJECT BACKGROUND ................................... 1
EVALUATION OF THE EXISTING FACILITY .................... 3
FUTURE DESIGN FRAMEWORK ............................. 3
LONG-RANGE IMPROVEMENTS .............................. 4
IMPLEMENTATION OF PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS ................. 6
INTERIM IMPROVEMENTS--PHASE I .......................... 7
PHASE IA ............................................ 7
DEMONSTRATION PROJECT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
FREEWAY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM .................... 14
PHASE IB ........................................... 15
CORRIDOR RECONSTRUCTION--PHASE II .................... 22
PHASE II PLAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS ........................ 27
RIGHT-OF-WAY ...................................... 32
PHASE II IMPLEMENTATION .......................... 33
CONSTRUCTION COST ................................ 33
CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT-PHASE III ....................... 35
EVALUATED EXPRESS ROADWAYS--SCHEME E . . . . . . . . . . 37
COLLECTOR-DISTRIBUTOR/
FRONTAGE ROAD SYSTEM--SCHEME F ................ 37
SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
TABLES
1 Summary of Phase II Construction Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
2 Summary of Construction Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
PHXR12.473.51
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CONTENTS (Continued)
FIGURES
Page
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Vicinity 1Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Existing and 2010 Peak Hour Volumes .......................... 5
Phases of Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Mid-Mile Cross Section-Phase !A--Depressed Section ............... 9
Underpass Cross Section-Phase !A--Depressed Section . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Mid-Mile Cross Section-Phase !A--At-Grade Section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Overpass Cross Section-Phase !A--At-Grade Section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Mid-Mile Cross Section-IB Plan--Depressed Section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Phase IB Typical One-Mile Segment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Mid-Mile Cross Section Phase !B--At-Grade Section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Mid-Mile Cross Section-IB Option--Depressed Section ............. 21
Phase II Plan--Maricopa T.I. to 19th Avenue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Phase II Plan--Buckeye Road to Papago T.I. ..................... 25
Phase II Plan--Papago T.I. to Paradise T.I. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Phase II Plan--Paradise T.I. to Northern Avenue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Phase II Plan--Dunlap Avenue to Greenway Avenue ............... 29
Phase II Plan--Greenway Avenue to Deer Valley Road ............. 30
Phase II Plan--Level of Service Analysis ........................ 31
Project Limits--Phase II Improvements ......................... 34
Phase III Plan--Papago T.I. to Paradise T.I. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Phase III--Scheme E Plan ................................... 38
Phase III--Scheme F Plan ................................... 39
Proposed Implementation Schedule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
PHXR12.473.51 II
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this design study was to develop conceptual level long-range
improvement and implementation plans for the rehabilitation of 22 miles of
Interstate 17 from the Maricopa Freeway Interchange northward to Deer Valley Road.
The study area is outlined in Figure 1. The study has been amended to include the
development of the interim plans that will add capacity, safety, and operational
improvements between Thomas Road and Thunderbird Road. The results of the study,
documented in this report and the final engineering report, provide guidelines for
programming and budgeting incremental improvements for the reconstruction of the
I -17 corridor.
The study was divided into two phases. The first phase included an evaluation of
existing conditions and the development of a design framework for future
improvements. The second phase included the development and evaluation of longrange
alternative concepts and the preparation of preliminary interim improvement
plans. A discussion of the project background and results of the work completed in the
first phase of the study were documented in Report 1: "Existing Freeway Evaluation
and Concept Development" (April 1989). A summary of this material has been
included in this report.
The basic premise of this study is that funding is not currently available to accomplish
the total improvement program. Therefore, an incremental improvement program was
developed that can be implemented to match available funding.
PROJECT BACKGROUND
Interstate 17 was designed in the late 1950s and constructed in the early 1960s. Over
the years, I-17 has formed the backbone of the Phoenix metropolitan transportation
system, with development expanding northward along the corridor. Recently,
development adjacent to the corridor has intensified with office buildings and hotels
replacing residential homes and small businesses. I -17 is also the central link in the
proposed regional freeway network and is expected to continue to serve an increasing
interstate, regional, and local travel demand.
I-17 is an aging facility and major capital improvements will be required to maintain
and expand the facility to accommodate the increasing traffic demand. To facilitate the
development and prioritization of improvements, a comprehensive evaluation of the
existing facility was performed. A brief summary of this evaluation follows.
1
PHXRo.279.51
-················--
FIGURE
EVALUATION OF THE EXISTING FACILI1Y
The first element of the corridor to be analyzed was the existing right-of-way widths.
Existing right-of-way widths vary between 200 and 300 feet at the mid-mile and 400 and
500 feet at the ~ross streets. The segment with the narrowest right-of-way extends from
Thomas Road to Dunlap Avenue. Improvements in this segment will require extensive
right-of-way acquisition.
Geometrically, the freeway reflects both urban and rural design characteristics of the
late 1950s. The segment between the Maricopa T.I. and Dunlap Avenue (urban
design) exhibits inadequate ramp terminal design related to current criteria. In some
cases, there are insufficient taper lengths to safely complete merge and diverge
maneuvers. A majority of the horizontal curves within these sections have insufficient
superelevation. In the depressed segment (Thomas Road to Dunlap Avenue), where
the mainline undulates to pass under the cross streets, many of the cross-sectional
elements do not meet current design criteria.
North of Dunlap Avenue, the freeway profile is uniformly at or slightly above grade,
while the cross streets pass under I-17. In this section, there are several full or partial
cloverleaf interchanges that are operationally incompatible with the recent evolution to
a suburban environment. The cloverleaf ramps and the sequencing of the exit and
entrance ramps between Dunlap Avenue and Peoria Avenue are the only design
elements which do not meet current design criteria.
Two analyses were conducted to measure the operational performance of the corridor.
A level of service analysis revealed that current traffic demands equalled or exceeded
the capacity of the existing facility. In both directions during the a.m. and p.m. peak
periods, most segments operate at either Level of Service E or F. Many of the
segments are congested for 12 continuous hours.
An analysis of the accident experience within the corridor revealed that the accident
rate for the entire facility was 30 percent higher than the statewide urban interstate
average. In some segments, the rate was double the statewide average. The highest
accident rates are found between Van Buren Street and Thunderbird Road; over half
of the accidents are rear-end collisions. The higher accident rates can be generally
attributed to the congestion in this segment.
FUTURE DESIGN FRAMEWORK
Before developing improvement concepts, a long-range planning framework was
established. The primary purpose of the framework was to establish future design
traffic volumes and other requirements that assisted in focusing on the viable
alternatives.
3
PHXR6.279.51
Year 2010 peak hour and 24-hour traffic volumes were developed based on the
MAGTPO 2010-34 Transportation Network Model. This network includes the
proposed Paradise and Outer Loop Freeways. Existing and year 2010 peak-hour link
volumes (two directions) are displayed in Figure 2. The existing peak-hour link
volumes range 1 from 2,910 vehicles per hour (vph) (Union Hills-Deer Valley) to
12,650 vph (Glendale-Northern). The central segment (Thomas-Thunderbird) carries
an average 11,800 vph during the peak hour.
The year 2010 peak-hour link volumes range from 6,540 vph (Outer Loop FreewayDeer
Valley) to 22,180 vph (Bethany Home-Glendale). In the segment between Bell
Road and Union Hills Drive, the projected volume increases from the present 5,160 to
13,750 vph: a growth of 167 percent. This projected increase can be attributed to the
completion of the Outer Loop Freeway continuing development along and adjacent to
the I -17 corridor and general traffic growth. The central segment (ThomasThunderbird)
is projected to carry an average 19,200 vph during the peak hour; an
average increase of 63 percent. The southern segment (Maricopa T.L -Papago T.l.)
growth is projected at less than 20 percent, which can be attributed to the completion
of the Papago Freeway.
As part of the development of the future design framework, other transportation
improvements which could influence the future volume and pattern of traffic on I-17
were identified. These included the completion of the Papago Freeway, the
construction of the Outer Loop Freeway, and ultimately the development of the
Paradise Freeway.
LONG-RANGE IMPROVEMENTS
Based on the future traffic requirements and physical constraints within the corridor,
eight long-range improvement concepts were developed. The concepts ranged from a
collector-distributor (C-D) road freeway system to an improved freeway, flanked by
high-type frontage roads. Other concepts which were developed included elevated
and/or double-deck roadways and elevated express roadways.
After an initial evaluation and discussions with the Arizona Department of
Transportation and Federal Highway Administration staffs, four concepts were
considered viable alternatives and the other four were eliminated from further
consideration. The four viable concepts are described below.
• Scheme E--Express Roadway Alternative. With this alternative, the
freeway mainline is flanked on either side by an elevated express
roadway. The express facilities would be constructed in the central
section, between the Paradise Freeway and Thunderbird Road, where the
4
PHXR6.279.51
z
.0,_
u
LLJ
(f)
.I. .. cr:
0
z
z
0
to
w
(f)
I
I=>
0
(f)
EXISTING
LINK VOLUMES
TWO DIRECTIONS
2910
2910
5160
7790
9260
10890
11650
12420
12580
12650
12040
11220
11220
10490
10920
10220
DEER VALLEY
OUTER LOOP
UNION HILLS
BELL
GREENWAY
THlJN)ERBIRO
CACTUS
PEORIA
A
DUNLAP @
NORTHERN
GLENDALE
BETHANY HOME
PARADISE
CAMELBACK
INDIAN SCHOOL
McDOWELL
PAPAGO
VAN BUREN ST.
BUCKEYE ROAD
FIGLJRE 2
EXISTING AND 2010
PEAK HOUR VOll.JvES
'
ROAD
FREEWAY
DRIVE
ROAD
ROAD
ROAD
ROAD
AVENUE
AVENl£
AVENUE
AVENJE
ROAD
FREEWAY
ROAD
ROAD
ROAD
ROAD
FREEWAY
10790 (12300~
YEAR 20t0
LINK VOWMES
TWO DIRECTIONS
( 6540)
(12240
(13750
(15350)
(17010)
(18650)
(19850}
(20270}
(21630)
(21920)"
(22180)
(20780}
(17750
(19100
{18860
t;
,0.. .
;t;
2
I
H
0~ 0
U) ~ C\1
I{) 10
- 0
traffic volumes are the highest. The ramps between the mainline and the
frontage roads would be spaced two miles apart and grade separated
from the express roadways.
• S~heme F--C-D/Frontage Road Alternative. This alternative is a
combination C-D road and frontage road design. Approaching the cross
streets, the frontage road would split--one roadway would access the cross
street and the other roadway would continue through, passing over/under
the cross street. With this design, ramps providing access between the
mainline and the frontage road would be spaced at three-mile intervals.
Scheme F improvements would be implemented between the Papago T.I.
and Thunderbird Road.
• Scheme G--Frontage Road Alternative. This alternative represents the
reconstruction and expansion of the existing facility. With this design, the
mainline would be widened and reconstructed and the frontage road
would also be widened. The one-mile interchange spacing would be
retained. These improvements would be implemented over the entire
corridor.
• Scheme H--Double-Deck Alternative. With this concept, the northbound
and southbound mainline are double-decked. As with Scheme F, these
improvements would be implemented between Thomas Road and
Thunderbird Road. Access between the mainline and the frontage road
would be spaced at two-mile intervals.
After additional review and evaluation, Scheme H was eliminated from further
consideration due to the high construction cost and the inability to phase
improvements. A preliminary phasing plan for the remaining three alternatives was
developed for the implementation of the long-range improvements. Initially, Scheme G
would be implemented, reconstructing the entire corridor. If additional capacity and
operational improvements were needed, Scheme E or Scheme F could be implemented.
The advantages of phasing the long-range improvements are two-fold. First, initial
construction costs are considerably lower. Second, additional studies and analyses could
be conducted as traffic develops and the metropolitan freeway system evolves to
determine whether Scheme E or Scheme F best meets the needs of the corridor.
IMPLEMENTATION OF PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
The evaluation of the existing corridor revealed that extensive improvements are
required to improve the operations and safety of the facility and accommodate
increasing traffic demand. These improvements would be implemented over the next
30 years. To facilitate the implementation process, the improvements have been
divided into three construction phases. The first construction phase is an interim
6
PHXR6.279.51
improvement plan to alleviate the existing operational and capacity problems in the
most critical segment of I-17 (Thomas Road to Thunderbird Road). The second phase
is major reconstruction of the entire facility. The final phase enhances the capacity and
operation of the Phase II rehabilitation plan. The construction phases are graphically
shown in Figur<t 3.
INTERIM IMPROVEMENTS-PHASE I
Interim improvements - Phase I are needed to relieve the congestion within the central
section of the corridor between Thomas Road and Thunderbird Road prior to the
reconstruction of the facility.
Phase I has been divided into two subphases. Phase IA would increase the capacity
and improve the operation of the mainline by adding a fourth basic lane and
implementing a Freeway Management System (FMS). This system would include
incident detection, ramp metering, and variable message signing. These improvements
can be constructed within the existing right-of-way by reducing lane and shoulder
widths. The second subphase, Phase IB would widen the mainline to provide an
auxiliary lane between interchanges, and widen the frontage roads to provide additional
corridor capacity.
Phase lA
Due to existing design and right-of-way variations within this section, the Phase IA
improvements have been divided into two distinct design sections: the depressed section
and the at-grade section. The design details for the Phase IA improvements for each
design section are described below.
The depressed section (Thomas Road to Dunlap Avenue) is constrained by the cross
street overpass structures and a tight 200-foot right-of-way width. To provide the
fourth basic lane and pass through the existing cross street structures, a reduction in
lane and shoulder widths is required. The existing freeway cross section consists of
three 12-foot wide lanes, a 7-foot left shoulder and a 10-foot right shoulder. The
proposed cross section would provide four 11-foot lanes, a 3-foot left shoulder to a
median barrier, and a right shoulder with a minimum width of 8 feet. Beneath the
cross street structures, the left shoulder would narrow to 2 feet and the right shoulder
would narrow to 6 feet. Existing and proposed cross sections are shown in Figures 4
and 5.
Several mainline safety improvements have been incorporated into the Phase IA Plan.
The existing 16-foot median has an excessive .08 ft/ft cross slope and a substandard
median barrier. The median would be reconstructed to a .01 ft/ft cross slope, matching
existing pavement, with a new barrier. A modern lighting system would be installed in
the median, and the existing light poles adjacent to the right shoulder removed. A
7
PHXR6.279.51
19th Ave.
7th Ave.
7th St.
16th St.
'"U :r:
l> en m
en
0 11
11
() G)
0z c :IJ en m
-; c.v
:IJ c
(')
:j
0
z
~... ro
~ ~ ~ ~ CD
~? G)
"0 0 ...
~ iii" G) c "'CJ It
ca ~ ::::J ~ It ::::J z s. CD (") It 3 -n'< ~ 0 ~ (b ro 5- 0 0 CJ) ::l. 0 0 ... ::::J
(b ~ J: a. ~ c ... cr ~ ~ ~a' 0 a l iii"
r+
0 :I g ~ "0 ~
,.. .... ro ~ ~ a. '< =
(b ~ '< ~ Q. 0 ~ 3 ~ ~ ll ll ll ll '< . ~ ,.. It
(J) (b ll ll )> SD SD p. p.. p. p..
::::J <
lp.l. ll p. p. SD CJ) p.
ro-
I
1
_£HASE lA - INTERIM IMPROVEMENT§.
1
• RECONSTRUCT MEDIAN
• IMPROVE RAMP GEOMETRY
• CONSTRUCT AN ADDITIONAL BASIC LANE
• IMPLEMENT FREEWAY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
PHASE 18 OPTION - INTERIM IMPROVEMENTS
1......: --1
t--1-10 • RELOCATE AND WIDEN FRONTAGE ROAD TO 3 LANES (THOMAS - PEORIA)
• ADD AN AUXLIARY LANE BETWEEN INTERCHANGES
• REALIGN RAMPS
PHASES I & II - CONTINUOUS BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
• REPLACE MAINLINE AND CROSS STREET STRUCTURES
1
__________ Et1ASE 11--=---BECONST~UCTION OF EXJSJ~NQ fACILITY
• CONSTRUCT ADDITIONAL LANES
• RECONSTRUCT INTERCHANGES
• REALIGN FRONTAGE ROADS
• REPLACE PAVEMENT
I JHASE Ill - CONSTRUCT C-D/EXPRESS ROADWAY~ I
• CONSTRUCT C-D/EXPRESS ROADWAYS
• MODIFY EXISTING FACILITY AS NEEDED
~,...
C..D. c c r It
i2 . 0 0 0 ~ ::::J "0 ~ ;I; -..n. = ~ i" en ';< '<
c ll
~ I p..
---~l
~
I
100'
---------------------------------------------------------~
--C--~f-_12_' ...... + 41--1-...:...:..:12'--' _.... + 41_.------'1'-"'-2'-t. ~..l -----"=10_'- ·•~1-------"-'12;::.._' -~----=2-'-4' ____~ 10' .... 1
1' _, -
h1 EXIST. R/W ~
J \ ___ l -------~---- -----------IT----.,_----~-----I'-----
·~
I
--_l_ ____ l_ ____ _j _____ L. _ __I _ J L L ________. _l _j
EXISTING
100'
PROPOSED
FIGURE 4
MID-MILE CROSS SECTION
PHASE lA - DEPRESSED SECTION
~
I
~
I
54.75'
12' 12' 12'
ABUTMENT
-__- _-L- _-_-_-_- _L ~_-__-_-_- L~ _-_-_-_- _~r-----~- /
EXISTING
54.75'
11' 11' 11' 11'
~.,...---,---------------- .,.....,..-----~-,---,.1--{/
~~ ___ _L _____ L ____ ~~~~/
PROPOSED
FIGURE 5
UNDERPASS CROSS SECTION
PHASE lA - DEPRESSED SECTION
concrete barrier would be constructed adjacent to the right shoulder to protect vehicles
from the gunite side slope. Ramps with substandard merge and diverge tapers would
be reconstructed.
The expanded1 travel way would encroach on the exit and entrance ramp tapers, and
would consequently require reconstruction of the ramps. The frontage roads would be
realigned for short distances in conjunction with the ramp reconstruction. The ramp
reconstruction and frontage road realignment could be accomplished within the existing
right-of-way.
The at-grade section of Phase IA, Dunlap Avenue to Thunderbird Road, does not
contain the same restrictions as the south section. The minimum right-of-way width is
280 feet and the freeway passes over the cross streets. The existing median is 44-feet
wide, allowing the fourth lane to be added in the median with no lane or shoulder
width reductions. The mainline structures crossing over the cross streets would be
widened to accept the fourth lane. The existing cross section consists of three 12-foot
lanes, a 4-foot left shoulder, and a 10-foot right shoulder. The proposed cross section
would provide four 12-foot lanes, a 9-foot left shoulder, and a 10-foot right shoulder.
The proposed 9-foot left shoulder may require a design exception. The existing and
proposed cross sections are shown in Figures 6 and 7.
The construction activities in this section are limited to the open median and the
structures passing over the cross streets. Closing the 44-foot open median involves
placement of new concrete pavement and barrier, installation of median lighting, and
widening of six mainline structures, two at each cross road. In addition to median
widening of the structures, the outside parapets would be replaced to conform to
current standards. Since all mainline widening occurs in the median, no adjustment of
the ramp or frontage road alignment would be required.
Phase IA improvements could be constructed in three separate stages. The first stage
would involve reconstruction of the median in the south section on a mile-by-mile basis.
This construction shifts mainline traffic to the right, requiring the closure of the ramps
within the construction zone. The second stage of construction would be the median
construction in the north section. Ramp closures are not required during this stage of
construction. The third stage would involve the reconstruction of the ramps and
realignment of the frontage roads in the south section. As with the median
reconstruction, this construction stage would be completed on a mile-by-mile basis
because the ramps within the construction zone would be closed during construction.
The reconstruction of the median from Thomas Road to Dunlap Avenue (Stage 1) is
estimated at $15 million. The cost of constructing the median lanes from Dunlap
Avenue to Thunderbird Avenue and widening the six mainline structures (Stage 2) is
estimated at $10 million. The reconstruction of the right shoulder and ramps and the
realignment of the frontage .roads in the vicinity of the ramp merges and diverges
11
PHXRo.279.51
i
1 .... 18'
I -~---------------------~
---- ~__JL -----l -----_L ____ 1----_.J --- __j
1'
~
EXISTING
PROPOSED
FIGURE 6
MID-MILE CROSS SECTION
PHASE lA - AT GRADE SECTION
~
I
18' 2.5'
12' ... ,~ 12' ... ,... 10' .... , f--1
(,P; ~
~ ~~
I I I I
cL-----------------~---~~
1L _____________________ r ~
EXISTING
12' •I~
PROPOSED
FIGURE 7
OVERPASS CROSS SECTION
PHASE lA - AT GRADE SECTION
12' ... ,... 11' 1.5'
~I~
(Stage 3) is estimated at $20 million. The total estimated cost for implementing
Phase IA improvements is $45 million. Construction of the Phase IA improvements
has been included in the fourth and fifth years (1994 and 1995) of the current five-year
plan (1991-1995).
I
Demonstration Project
A demonstration project in the depressed section was undertaken to ensure the
feasibility of constructing the Phase IA improvements within the existing right-of-way.
The demonstration project involved 1.2 miles of I-17 including the Bethany Home Road
interchange. The limits of the project extended 0.4 miles south and 0.8 miles north of
Bethany Home Road. This section was chosen because it was judged to contain the
greatest number of constraints.
The final product of the demonstration project was a 30 percent submittal of final
construction plan documents. The submittal included final horizontal and vertical
geometric alignments, and representative cross sections. Also included were
preliminary plans for drainage, lighting, maintenance and protection of traffic, paving,
signing, and striping.
The project verified Phase IA improvements could be implemented within the existing
right-of-way and developed guidelines for the design of the ramps and frontage roads.
A 20-foot minimum width was established for the ramps. In the vicinity of the ramp
merges and diverges, the frontage road narrows to one lane with a minimum width of
16 feet.
Freeway Management System
A key element in the Arizona Department of Transportation's program of freeway
improvements is the implementation of a Freeway Management System (FMS). This
system is being designed to utilize state-of-the-art technology and sound traffic
management procedures to optimize freeway operations.
Once the FMS is in operation, vehicle detectors will monitor traffic flow patterns on
the freeway and facilitate the identification of congestion or other disruptions to traffic
flow; remote television cameras will allow visual confirmation of problems on the
freeway; ramp meter controllers will regulate access to the freeway; and variable
message signs will inform motorists of freeway conditions--all under the control of the
central computer system. Lane control signals have been recommended as a
demonstration element of the system for a section of I-17 from Thomas Road to
Thunderbird Road.
It is recommended that implementation of the FMS immediately follow the
construction of the Phase IA interim improvements. The conduit system would be
14
PHXR6.279.51
located in such a way as to eliminate the need for its relocation at the time the
Phase IB improvements are constructed. While implementation of Phase IB
improvements would require relocating the FMS field equipment, the benefits derived
in the interim would justify the expense.
Phase IB
The Phase IA improvements would provide additional corridor capacity to
accommodate the existing traffic demand between Thomas Road and Thunderbird
Road. With the implementation of the FMS, I-17 should operate more efficiently with
more uniform operating speed. The traffic demand through this section, however, is
predicted to exceed the capacity provided by the Phase IA improvements and the FMS.
Due to budgetary and scheduling constraints, total reconstruction of the facility
(Phase II) will still be several years in the future when demand exceeds capacity of the
Phase IA improvements. Therefore an additional interim improvement would most
likely become necessary before Phase II is implemented. The additional interim
improvements have been incorporated into Phase IB.
As traffic volumes increase, the intensity of the weaving traffic between interchanges
will most likely increase. To reduce weaving conflicts, entering traffic would be
metered more hours during the day, and the cycle length of the meter would lengthen.
The queues behind the meter would most likely become longer, and more traffic would
probably divert to the frontage roads to bypass the queues. Additional improvements
will be needed to reduce the mainllne weaving conflicts and increase the capacity of the
frontage roads.
As previously described, Phase IB would add an auxiliary lane between interchanges,
relocate and widen the ramps, and realign and widen the frontage roads, while
maintaining the existing cross street structures. Two plans were developed for this
subphase: the IB Plan and the IB Option Plan.
IB Plan. The IB Plan was developed as a minimal improvement plan from Thomas
Road to Thunderbird Road. The mainline pavement would be widened to
accommodate an 11-foot wide auxiliary lane and an 8-foot shoulder. The proposed
widening would reduce the separation between the mainline and the frontage road, and
widen the frontage road 3 feet toward the right-of-way line. A mid-mile typical section
of the IB Plan is illustrated in Figure 8.
As part of the IB Plan improvements, the exit and entrance ramps would be
reconstructed. The auxiliary lane would be added with the entrance ramp and dropped
at the succeeding exit with a two-lane ramp. This would allow the mainline underpasses
to remain as constructed during Phase lA. Entrance ramp operation and ramp
metering efficiency will be improved by relocating the entrance ramp and frontage road
diverge 800 feet from the cross street and increasing the ramp length to 600 feet. The
15
PHXR6.279.51
~
I
100'
n
11' .,.
1
.,. 11' .,.
1
.,. 11' .,.
1
.,. 11' .,.
1
.,. 10'MIN ..j: ~~'MA~I... 24' .,.
1
.,. 10' ..j
1' II 2'
~f.o- _jJif.o- EXISi. R/W
+_li\ -_-_________________ ~OUN~ WALL __ j \-- -----~----~ _L---- j_----_I_---- _L---- _l__ _J L L--------_l _j
EXISTING - PHASE IA
100'
11' .... ,~ 8' ...., ~---22_' __ ....,. 7':
~..., ~ 2'
EXIST. R/W
PROPOSED
FIGURE 8
MID-MILE CROSS SECTION
18 PLAN - DEPRESSED SECTION
exit ramp merge with the frontage road would be relocated 1,000 feet in advance of the
cross street to reduce the weaving conflicts and improve the operation of the frontage
road. A schematic of a typical one-mile segment is diagrammed in Figure 9.
The IB Plan would widen and realign the frontage roads to provide two continuous
lanes, improving operations and capacity. The intersection approaches would be
widened to five lanes for better progression along the frontage roads. The frontage
road improvements would require the acquisition of right-of-way.
In the at-grade section, from Dunlap Avenue to Thunderbird Road, the improvements
would minimize the realignment of the frontage roads to stay within the existing rightof-
way. Two continuous lanes would be maintained along the frontage roads, and the
existing intersection approaches would be maintained. A mid-mile typical cross section
of the IB Plan for the at-grade section is shown in Figure 10.
The level of effort to complete these improvements is much greater than the
improvements included in Phase IA. The IB Plan would require modifications to the
existing drainage system and some relocation of utilities along the frontage roads. The
IB Plan would also require partial right-of-way takes along a majority of the southern
section (Thomas-Dunlap).
When Phase II is implemented there are few of the IB Plan improvements that could
be utilized. The modifications to the drainage system would be replaced with the Phase
II drainage system. The utilities would have to be relocated again because the Phase II
corridor width requirements are much greater than the IB Plan. The properties .
affected by the acquisition of right-of-way for the IB Plan would be affected a second
time when Phase II right-of-way is acquired.
Cost estimates were developed for the construction of the IB Plan. The cost of
constructing the IB Plan is estimated at $40 million. The estimated cost of right-of-way
is $27 million.
The IB Plan is a minimal plan to increase the capacity of the corridor to accommodate
the increase in traffic volumes until Phase II can be implemented. The IB Plan is not
desirable because few of the costly improvements can be salvaged when Phase II is
implemented. A more desirable interim plan would implement portions of the Phase II
improvements to provide the necessary increase in capacity with little, if any, waste in
implementation costs. It is recommended that the IB Plan be dropped from further
consideration.
IB Option Plan. The IB Option Plan was specifically developed to minimize
reconstruction and traffic maintenance problems when Phase II is implemented. The
IB Option Plan has also been designed as a staged development of the Phase II plan
within the depressed section, between Thomas Road and Peoria Avenue. North of
17
PHXR6.279.51
1000' 400'
<4
800' 600'
2400'
24001
FIGURE 9
PHASE IB
TYPICAL ONE MILE SEGMENT
-800'
4>
400' 1000'
100'
12' .. 1~ 12' ... 1~ 12' .. I~
32'
)\
L---I----::r----I----~~----~--~~~ ---- ---- __________ _l_ _____ _j
FRONTAGE RD. _/
EXISTING - PHASE IA
100'
1'
1~~9'~ ~·~1~·1-2' -~~·~1~1~2'- -~..~ 1~~12~' -~---1-2'~ •~1~~1~2' ~~. ~.. 1~~12~' ~..~ 1~~--1~5' ~~1
~ 1' 2' ~ ~
PROPOSED
SOUND WALL __;(
FRONT AGE RD.
FIGURE 10
MID-MILE CROSS SECTION
PHASE 18 - AT GRADE SECTION
Peoria Avenue, the proposed IB Option Plan improvements would be identical to the
IB Plan:
Similar to the IB Plan, the mainline would be widened by constructing an 11-foot wide
auxiliary lane petween interchanges. A minimum 8-foot right shoulder would be
maintained except beneath the cross streets. The location of the ramp merges and
diverges in relation to the frontage roads and the mainline would be similar to the
design developed for the IB Plan, diagrammed in Figure 9. As with the IB Plan, the
entrances would be one-lane ramps and the exits would be two-lane ramps.
In the depressed section, the frontage roads would be widened to three continuous
lanes in each direction, and relocated to the Phase II alignment. A proposed mid-mile
cross section is shown in Figure 11. Relocating the frontage roads to the Phase II
alignment would require extensive right-of-way acquisition. Between Thomas Road and
Peoria Avenue, right-of-way requirements would include many complete parcel takes
ranging from single-family homes to business complexes. North of Peoria Avenue, the
right-of-way impacts are not as severe and would include mostly partial takes. The
right-of-way acquisition proposed for the IB Option Plans would be sufficient to
implement the Phase II Plan.
The relocation of the frontage roads and the extensive right-of-way acquisition would
create an opportunity to consolidate the access along the frontage roads.
Concentration of access points would improve the operations along the frontage roads
by limiting the locations where turning conflicts can occur. The exact locations and
amount of access provided would need to be determined during right-of-way acquisition
and design stages of the project.
Relocation of the frontage roads would create many utility conflicts. The utilities
presently located along the frontage roads would have to be relocated to outside the
new, proposed frontage road alignment. However, this would relocate the utilities to
their Phase II location.
The expansion of the corridor and increased width of the frontage roads would require
construction of the Phase II drainage system between Thomas Road and Peoria
Avenue. The new system would be located beneath the realigned frontage road, and
would include construction of new pump stations to replace the existing under-sized
stations. It is anticipated that with the expansion of the drainage systems, a new outfall
to the Salt River would be r~quired.
Construction of the IB Option improvements would have a minimal affect on existing
traffic operation. The new frontage roads could be built on the Phase II alignment
without disturbing the traffic on the existing frontage roads. As an additional benefit,
the IB Option Plan would simplify the maintenance of traffic during Phase II
construction. The three continuous lanes on the frontage roads would provide
20
PHXRo.279.51
•
•
•
•
100' .... ,
~~ n
.,.
1
3' I~ 11' .,.
1
.,. 11' .,.1~ 11' .,.
1
.,. 11' .,.
1
.,. 10' MIN.~: l1
j'MA;
1
.,. 24' .,.
1
.,. 10' .,.
1 II~ 1' 2' ...j::~~-
--1 I J I EXIST. R/W
J \ SOUND WALL ____/) \ ~
--~~----I----,-----~-----~ ~-~-----~- ~-----
- __ ___l______ _ ___ _j _____ __L_ ______ j_~ LL ______ -=-- _j_j
EXISTING - PHASE IA
150'
~.~ ...l ~3~'l~.__1_1'~~:~~~1~l'~•~l~~-ll_'~•*l~.-~1l~'~•l•~--l_l'_.•~I~~SH~1~_'R-. ~.... ~ ~~-----~2~6' ____~ ...,~1 ~~l~,l~._ _____~ 3~6' _______~ ~r2~'~~~-10_'~~
I 2' .... , f.-
) \ SOUND WALL ----J'
- =· == r= =_- = j_- _- _- _-= _j- _- _- _-== r =_- == ---L-.-.L.--'---1.~~
PROPOSED
PRoP.R/w
I I
FIGURE 11
MID-MILE CROSS SECTION
IS-OPTION
DEPRESSED SECTION
additional capacity during the reconstruction of the mainline pavement.
While the cost of the IB Option Plan is much greater than the IB Plan, the advantage
of the IB Option Plan is that only a small portion of the improvements are "throwaway"
items whf:n Phase II improvements are constructed. An estimate of the cost of
constructing the IB Option Plan. is $90 million. The estimated right-of-way cost is $95
million.
In conclusion, the IB Option Plan should be constructed when the Phase IB
improvements are implemented. Hereafter the Phase IB improvements will be referred
to as the Phase IB Option Improvements.
CORRIDOR RECONSTRUCTION - PHASE II
Phase II is a long-range improvement program, with the objective of increasing the
capacity and operational flexibility of the corridor. Phase II would significantly upgrade
the facility by reconstructing and widening the mainline, rebuilding cross street
structures, modifying interchange configurations, realigning and widening the frontage
roads, and widening intersection approaches.
Implementation of Phase II would be completed over a 30-year period. The first task
would be to widen the corridor to the required width. Widening the corridor includes
relocation of the frontage roads, replacement of the existing drainage system, and utility
relocation. (Note: Between Thomas Road and Thunderbird Road, these elements are
includeq in the Phase IB Option improvements.) The second task of Phase II is the
reconstruction of the 1-17 mainline. This construction would follow the replacement of
the cross street structures. Replacement of the cross street structures would be an
ongoing process implemented during Phases I and II as needed and as funds become
available.
Phase II Plan
For purposes of this presentation, the Phase II Plan is divided into four geographic
sections. Each section involves different engineering issues and decisions. The following
is a description of the proposed Phase II improvements within each section.
Maricopa T.I. - Papago T.I. The Phase II Plan begins at the Maricopa T.l. where 1-17
interchanges with Interstate 10 (1-10). A previous study1 identified the need for a
collector - distributor road system along I-10 beginning at the Maricopa T.l. and
continuing eastward to Baseline Road. The Phase II Plan would tie into this proposed
plan.
1 DMJM/Jack E. Leisch and Associates, Final Report, 1-10 Corridor Refinement Study.
22
PHXR6.279.51
Four basic lanes in each direction would be continuous on 1-17 from the Maricopa T.l.
to the Grant Street. Along this section, diamond interchanges are provided at one-mile
intervals. There are three basic lanes in each direction from the Grant Street to the
Papago T.l. Only three basic lanes can continue through this segment because of the
configuration of the Papago T.l. Two-lane, one-way frontage roads parallel the
mainline through this section.· A single-line schematic of the proposed Phase II Plan
between the Maricopa T.l. and the Papago T.I. is shown in Figures 12 and 13.
Modifications to the existing ramp sequence would eliminate direct access from the 1-17
mainline to Buckeye Road, Jefferson Street, and Adams Street. These cross streets
would be accessible from the continuous frontage roads.
Auxiliary lanes would be provided in both directions between many of the interchanges.
The auxiliary lanes are added with an exclusive entrance ramp and dropped with a twolane
exit ramp.
The Phase II Plan addresses several major design issues within this section of the
corridor. First, the recently completed Papago T.l., a four-level directional interchange,
has been incorporated without modification into the Phase II Plan. Secondly,
reconstruction of the Durango Curve and realignment of the southbound frontage road
is proposed to correct the vertical difference between the mainlines and improve the
operation and continuity of the frontage road. The final major issue in this section
addresses the at-grade frontage road crossings of the Southern Pacific Railroad. The
Phase II Plan proposes the reconstruction of the railroad bridge and the realignment of
the frontage roads to pass under the railroad.
Papago T.I. - Paradise T.I. This section of the corridor is between two 4-level system
interchanges. To accommodate the increased through traffic as well as weaving traffic,
a fourth basic lane and an auxiliary lane in each direction would be added between the
two system interchanges.
In addition to the forecasted weaving volumes between the two system interchanges,
significant weaving between the Thomas Road and Indian School Road interchanges is
also forecasted. To reduce the weaving conflicts, an auxiliary lane would be added
between these interchanges. A single-line schematic of this segment is illustrated in
Figure 14.
The addition of a third continuous lane on the frontage road would increase the
capacity and operational flexibility of the corridor throughout this high-volume segment.
The proposed configuration of the Paradise T.l. has been incorporated into the
Phase II design. Modification or elimination of the Paradise T.I. would require
significant alteration of the proposed Phase II Plan.
23
PHXR6.279.51
f\GURE \2
S\NGLE L\NE PLAN
PHASE n
~
<40
$4:::>'
a<\::>'
I.- \0
1
1
Ul
~
~,
<2
<5
~'
5>
2:>
ffi 0
MAR\COPA T. I.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
A
@
McDOWELL
MATCH
SEE
VAN BlREN
~s
JEFF ::>N
SP
I I
GR r
sue 'E
v
II
C\J '¢"(I (\
V V«t N
II
II
,.,.,
,fn~
I (\
!()
\- ~ v
\
I
I
LINE
FIGURE 14
STREET
STI ET
STI T
RR
s ET
RO
MATCH LINE-SEE FIGURE 12
PAPAGO T.l.
z
<(
rt) a:
w 1:::1
w z w
0:: :J (f)
~ <(
(!) w :c
Ll.. _J a..
(!)
z
(f)
THOMAS
MATCH LINE SEE BELOW
] Ill
y IDyIDll II If')
I() v
I ROAD
MATCH Lit£ SEE FIGURE 15
PARADISE
PARADISE T.I.
<t
CAMELBACK I I ~
...... t\1.
v~~
-ROAD
g;
A
~ 1111 ~
~_.J -a..
~l·()v·" n w zw ~w
I() 0::: _.J (f)
AI ~ <{
-, (!) w :r:
- ....J a..
LJ...<.!)
McDOWELL \ •• \\ ROAD I I Z
,., 11 en v ,.,
' \ ,... 10 INDIAN
I -10 /\\ \\'1 I "".:. I ~ SCHOOL -I
~ \I" I ROAD
PAPAGO T.I. \ \IIIII I ,, ~~
N
~\Ill ~ I •••
MATCH LINE SEE FIGURE 13
If') ID 1\ (I
v VID rtl Ill I
MATCH LINE SEE ABOVE
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
II
II
I
I
I
II
I
I
Paradise T.I. - Greenway Road. One-mile spacing of the diamond interchanges in this
segment creates weaving conflicts between each interchange pair. The weaving
conflicts in combination with peak hour traffic projections exceeding 11,000 vehicles per
hour in each direction in many of the mainline links requires a facility incorporating
high capacity aVId operational flexibility.
Tnrough this segment the mainline has been widened to five basic lanes and an
auxiliary lane in each direction. This configuration maximizes the capacity of the
mainline. The frontage roads have been widened to three lanes to provide additional
capacity for short trips. A single-line drawing of the proposed plan in this segment is
shown in Figures 15 and 16.
Greenway Road - Deer Valley Road. Traffic projections rapidly decrease north of
Greenway Road. Consequently, throughout this segment the overall capacity of the
corridor would gradually decrease as the number of basic lanes are reduced on the
mainline and the frontage roads.
Five continuous basic lanes would be maintained from the Paradise T.I. until Bell
Road, where one basic lane would be dropped. Another lane would be dropped at
Rose Garden Lane, reducing the number of basic lanes in each direction to three. In
addition to the basic lanes, auxiliary lanes are provided between most of the
interchanges. A single-line schematic of the Phase II Plan, between Greenway Road
and Deer Valley Road is shown in Figure 17.
To increase capacity and improve operations, most. of the interchanges in this segment
have been redesigned. The existing interchange at Bell Road is a full cloverleaf. The
Phase II plan proposes the conversion of the interchange to a Pardo A configuration.
A diamond interchange design would also accommodate the traffic volumes, and would
reduce the right-of-way requirements.
The northern pair of ramps to Utopia Road would be removed to eliminate the short
mainline weave with the Rose Garden Lane ramps. Access to the Utopia Road over
crossing is only from the continuous frontage roads. The proposed configuration of the
Outer Loop T.I. has been retained in the Phase II design. The ramps to and from the
south at Deer Valley Road would be eliminated, with access provided at the halfdiamond
interchange at Rose Garden Lane.
Level of Service Analysis
Year 2010 traffic projections were assigned to the Phase II Plan and a level of service
analysis using the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual procedures was performed to
determine the quality of traffic operation of each element of the corridor. An overall
level of service was then determined for each one-mile segment of the facility. The
level of service values are shown in Figure 18.
27
PHXR6.279.51
MATCH LINE SEE BELOW
I II I
Ivt) ~v"~ fl rt)
!
v ~
I ~ v '
3ETHANY HOME I ROAD
I
MATCH "
I()
LINE
SEE FIGURE 14
1()(\JI{) vvv r..
fC\J
(\ f\
'<t I()
~ I
PARADISE J , '\ I FREEWt
-:--.~ '
MATCH LINE SEE AGURE 16
@
\\~ \~'':.~ . .,
~
I()
NORTHERN , It ) AVENUE
I
IA()
Iv() ~vA~ "' rt)
1111\1 PARADISE T.
'<tfl I.
Vv
CAMELBACK II - ROAD
It) v
II
It) I
GLEM:>ALE
~r1r~' I() v
I -11 1 AVENUE I
A
~II() J v 1~1
Ivt) ~" f\ v~ It)
I ILl
MATCH LINE SEE ABOVE
z
<l:
L{) ....J - a..
w 1=1
w z w c:: -....J (f)
::::> <l:
(.!) w :::c
G: ....J a..
(.!) z
(f)
MATCH UNE SEE BELOW
cAcTus--,r-ll J ROAD
10
'\I~ I
I() CD II fl
V V 1D rt'>
PEORIA I H' AVEMJE
~I
I() iDi, ~
v VCD rt'>
-(\
10
DUNLAP AVENUE
v
I
I
."n
MATCH LINE SEE FIGURE 15
A
~
MATCH LINE SEE F•I GURE 17
'
'l .(.\.
10
y
GREENWAY ! I -ROAD A
\IU
I() CD A fl
V Y CD rt'> II •.
1111
~'
THUNDERBIRD I ~~ l ROAD
uil 'J
I() IDA fl v VCD rt'>
10 v
CACTUS I I
(..\. ,
ROAD
MATCH LINE SEE ABOVE
z
<t
.....J
tO a..
-w~
w z w
0:: .....J CJ)
::::> <t
(!) w J:
- .....J a..
Ll.. (!)
z
CJ)
MATCH Ut£ SEE BELOW
UNION ·HILLS
BELL
MATCH
SEE
I II I
"v'
1\
"'
~Ill ....
N IOfl A v VIO C\J
r<'l "'fl (\
V Vltl r<">
GREENWAY r "' v
It
DRIVE
~
ROAD
LINE
FIGURE 16
-ROAD
DEER VALLEY
1\\\ 'J 'J tO C'l
N ~fl (\
V Vro N
I ROAD
ROSE GARDEN I II I LANE
z
<(
....J
1'- 0..
- w 1=1
w ~ w
0:: ....J (J)
::::> <{
(..!) w :I:
l.L. .....J a..
(..!) z
(f)
FREEWAY
OUTER LOOP T.I.
UTOPIA
II N tl'lfl (\ v VI() N 1111
-ROAD
MATCH LINE SEE ABOVE
SB eEA~ Na PEAK
YEAR 2010 YEAR 2010
LOS DEER VALLEY ROAD LOS
UJ 0- ® ® LLJ> OUTER LOOP FREEWAY
..J~ mw ® ®
<ten UNION HILLS DRIVE ... 14 a.o ® ®
LI.J
oQ.w.J BELL ROAD
c:t> lLJ ® ®
..J
GREENWAY ROAD
® THUNDERBIRD ROAD ®
0 ® CACTUS
®
ROAD ® PEORIA AVENUE
® ® DUNLAP AVENUE
® ® NORTHERN AVENUE
ILJ ® A ® (..)
> GLENDALE ~ AVEMJE a: ILJ ® ®
Q:(J) BETHANY HOME ROAD OtL oo PARADISE FREEWAY CL
...J
lLJ CAMELBACK ROAD
> ILJ ® ®
...J
INDIAN SCHOOL ROAD
® ® THOMAS ROAD
® @ McDOWELL ROAD
PAPAGO FREEWAY
® E 2
~~~ I
H
GRANT STREET
FIGURE 18
~ PHASE II · w .... t; 7 LEVEL OF SERVJCE ~ a Cl)
7~ .-c .s: s-::. .-c ..Y~ ANALYSIS ~ - ,.._ ~
~
,...
~-Yo
~<>'..y 'G-1 '-.......
v"b-~7 ---
The section of the corridor from the Maricopa T.I. to Grant Street exhibits acceptable
levels of service throughout, with most segments projected to operate at a Level of
Service C. North of Thunderbird Road, the Phase II Plan would provide Level of
Service D or bt;tter over most segments. These sections of the corridor are forecasted
to have moderate traffic volumes and minor weaving between the interchanges.
Poor levels of service are projected for the segment from the Grant Street interchange
to Thunderbird Road. This central section of the corridor is plagued by extremely high
link and weaving volumes. Most segments would operate at Level of Service E or
lower.
The level of service analysis revealed the year 2010 traffic projections exceed the
capacity of the Phase II Plan within the central segment of the corridor (Papago T.I. to
Thunderbird Road). The Phase II Plan maximizes the capacity of the existing facility.
If the year 2010 forecasted traffic volumes are realized, it is recommended that the
Phase III improvements be implemented.
Right-of-Way
The total estimated right-of-way cost associated with Phase II improvements is $115
million. This includes the right-of-way acquired for the Phase IB Option improvements,
which was estimated at $95 million. Therefore, after the implementation of Phase IB
Option improvements, approximately $20 million of additional right-of-way would need
to be acquired to implement Phase II. This additional right-of-way would be acquired
during the implementation of the Phase II Plan.
Improvements in the southern section of the corridor from the Maricopa T.l. to the
Papago T.l. would generally remain within the existing right-of-way. Additional rightof-
way is required only where the exit ramp merges with the frontage road. Right-ofway
cost for this section is estimated at $1.0 million.
North of the Papago T.l., there would be no significant right-of-way takes until Thomas
Road. Between Thomas Road and Thunderbird Road, right-of-way for the Phase II
improvements would be acquired during the construction of Phase IB Option
improvements. Between Thomas Road and Dunlap Avenue, the Phase II right-of-way
requirements are extensive. The right-of-way requirements between Dunlap Avenue
and Thunderbird Road are not as extensive.
North of Thunderbird Road, additional right-of-way requirements would be minimal,
but the affected properties have significant value. Several existing townhomes and
apartment complexes would be affected by the proposed improvements. The estimated
cost of right-of-way from Thunderbird Road to the study limits at Deer Valley Road is
approximately $19 million.
32
PHXR6.279.5l
Phase II Implementation
The implementation of improvements in the corridor will be dictated by traffic growth
and availability of funds. The central section will most likely experience the greatest
increase in traffic volume. After the completion of the Papago Freeway, only a slight
increase in traffic on I-17 south of the Papago Freeway may be experienced. North of
Thunderbird Road, projected traffic volumes drop significantly. Based on these
projections, Phase II improvements should be implemented first in the central section
of the corridor.
The implementation of Phase II can be divided into eight individual projects; three
projects in the central section, three projects in the south section, and two projects in
the north section. The order of implementation and location of the projects reflect the
predicted buildup of traffic volumes. Project limits of all eight projects are shown in
Figure 19.
The first project, based on projected needs, is the implementation of the four-mile
section from the Paradise T.I. to Dunlap Avenue. Since construction relating to the
widening of the corridor would have been completed during the Phase IB Option, this
project would involve only mainline widening and reconstruction. The second project
extends from Dunlap Avenue to Thunderbird Road. The three-mile segment between
the Papago T.I. and the Paradise T.I. (Project 3) would complete the widening and
reconstruction of the central section. The timing and sequencing of the central section
improvements are predicated on the timing of the completion of the Paradise Freeway.
Reconstruction of the first three miles of the north section from Thunderbird Road to
Union Hills Drive (Project 4) would follow the reconstruction of the central section.
With the completion of Project 4, attention would focus on the reconstruction of the
south section of the corridor. Reconstruction of the south section would begin at the
Maricopa T.I. and proceed northward. The limits of Project 5 extend from the
Maricopa T.I. to Seventh Avenue. Project 6 involves the reconstruction of the Durango
Curve. The mainline would be reconstructed to have a common centerline and profile.
After completion of the Durango Curve, Project 7 would begin. Project 7 replaces the
mainline pavement and rearranges the ramps between the Durango Curve and the
Papago T.I.
Reconstruction of the remaining segment of the corridor, from l.Jnion Hills north to
Deer Valley Road, (Project 8) would be implemented when traffic volumes warrant the
improvements.
33
PHXR6.279.51
PROJECT 4
THUNDERBIRD RDUNION
HILLS DR.
PROJECT I
PARADISE T. I.DUNLAP
AVENUE
PROJECT 7
BUCKEYE ROAD -
PAPAGO T.l.
PROJECT 6
7th AVENUEBUCKEYE
ROAD
~-PROJECT 8
UNION HILLS DRIVE -
DEER VALLEY ROAD
PROJECT 2
DUNLAP AVENI£ -
THUNDERBIRD ROAD
PROJECT 3
PAPAGO T.l. - PARADISE T.l.
PROJECT 5
MARICOPA T.l.-
7th AVENUE
z
0
i=
<.)
ILl
Cf)
:::I: .....
a::
0 z
~
1-
<.)
IJ.J
en
..J
<( .a..:. z
IJ.J
0
z
,0_
(..)
lLJ
(/)
:z:
1-
=>
0
Cf)
FIGURE 19
PROJECT LIMITS
PHASE II IMPROVEMENTS
Construction Costs
The cost of constructing Phase II improvements has been estimated at $320 million.
This cost does not include replacement of the freeway structures, which has been
estimated at $240 million. Also, the cost does not include the relocation of the
frontage road and associated construction activities from Thomas Road to Peoria
Avenue, which has been included in the Phase IB Option improvements. The
estimated cost of constructing each project is listed in Table 1.
Table 1
SUMMARY OF PHASE II CONSTRUCTION COSTS
Construction
Project Limits Miles Cost
1 Paradise T.l. - Dunlap 4 $ 80,000,000
2 Dunlap -Thunderbird
.., ~ 45,000,000
3 Papago T.l. - Paradise T.I.
.., ~ 30,000,000
4 Thunderbird - Union Hills 3 60,000,000
5 Maricopa T.I. - 7th Avenue
.., 45,000,000 ~
6 7th Avenue - Buckeye 2 30,000,000
7 Buckeye·- Papago T.I. 2 20,000,000
8 Union Hills - Deer Valley 2 10,000,000
TOTAL Maricopa - Deer Valley 22 $320,000,000
CAPACITY ENHANCEMENTS--PHASE III
As previously indicated, when the year 2010 forecasted traffic volumes are realized,
capacity and operational enhancements of the Phase II Plan would be needed in the
central section of the corridor. The Phase III Plan would add additional roadways
throughout this section to accommodate the heavy forecasted traffic demand.
The Phase III Plan improvements begin at the Papago T.l. and continue north to
Thunderbird Road. The first three miles of the Phase III Plan, from the Papago T.I. to
the Paradise T.I., consist of a C-D/frontage road system. A single line schematic of the
Phase III Plan from the Papago T.I. to the Paradise T.I. is illustrated in Figure 20. The
two significant features of this section are the C-D bypass at the cross streets and a pair
of ramp braids. As the frontage road approaches the cross street, a C-D road splits off
35
PHXR6.279.51
""0
}>
~
G)
0
:-f
H
-<2
-2>
~
~ G)
0
FIGURE 20
SINGLE LINE PLAN
~}>-
PHASE ill - PAPAGO T.I - PARADISE T. I
~
~ 0 :A~
c:f
"B
::0
)>
Q
(/)
rrJ
;-i
H
.;
:I:
0
~
}>
(/)
<2
-<3
::0
0
)>
0
1>
~ 0
X
,rz. ,
2::> ,,(..J,,)
m
fTI
6
~
"B
::0
)>
0
(/)
rrJ
on the left. After the split, the frontage road continues, intersecting the cross street
and the C-D road passes under the cross street, by-passing the at-grade intersection.
The C-D road and frontage road then merge beyond the cross street. Between
Thomas Road and Indian School Road, the mainline exit ramp and the frontage road
entrance ramp ~regrade separated (braided). The ramps were braided in this location
to reduce projected mainline weaving traffic conflicts. From the Paradise T.l. north to
Thunderbird Road, two Phase III schemes were developed: an elevated express
roadway (Scheme E) and a continuation of the C-O/frontage road system (Scheme F).
The schemes are described in detail below.
Elevated Express Roadways--Scheme E
The proposed Phase III-Scheme E plan would include six miles of elevated express
roadways in each direction, beginning within the Paradise T.I. and extending northward
to Thunderbird Road. North of Thunderbird Road, the plan involves only minor
modifications. Figure 21 shows a single-line schematic of the Phase III - Scheme E
Plan.
The elevated express system would begin within the Paradise T.I. with express
connections to the Paradise Freeway, to and from the east. The express roadways
would continue northward to Thunderbird Road where they join the I-17 mainline. A
set of transfer ramps between the mainline and the express roadways would be
provided north of Peoria Avenue.
Implementation of the express roadways .could be completed in two stages. The first
stage would involve construction of the five-mile segment from the Paradise T.l. to the
transfer ramps north of Peoria Avenue. The second stage would complete the
roadways to Thunderbird Road. These stages would be implemented as traffic
demands warrant the improvement and funds become available.
Through this seven-mile segment, the mainline would consist of five basic lanes and an
auxiliary lane in the weaving sections. To reduce the number of ramp braids required
between the access ramps and the elevated express roadways, interchange spacing
would be increased to two mDes. Each two-lane exit and one-lane entrance ramp
would serve two cross streets with an average ramp volume of 1,600 vehicles.
A level of service analysis using the projected 2010 traffic volumes indicated the
proposed Scheme E plan would operate at a relatively uniform Level of Service D.
Collector-Distributor/Frontage Road System--Scheme F
The Phase III-Scheme F Improvement would continue the C-O/frontage road system
from the Paradise T.l. northward to Thunderbird Road. Figure 22 presents the
Phase III-Scheme F Plan in single-line form. High speed slip ramps would provide
37
PHXR6.279.51
MATCH L.I,N E. .S.E.E ABOVE ~ Ulf\ 1\
v I VOl I'>J
vii~
I I
I I _
vI I~
THUNDERBIRWI •WOAD
I I
GREENWAY
-o
I (f)
l> z 11
(f) G) - rn r c:>
~ rr1 §5
• r rr1
(f) z
0 fT1 N
I -o
~ ~ fT1 z
fTl
I I
I I
l>l C1lfl A v v C1l (>I
'J
(>I •• " ~ C1l A (JJ
I~~ I
I
I
I
m r
~ rn < G)
~ rn
rr1 z
CJ 0
::0
0
l>
CJ
:E
~
(f)
ROAD
MATCH LINE SEE ABOVE
DUNLAP
::Orrl o><
l>;B om
~U> ~(j) ~V ·lU·I/·\ · f\
VU1~~
I I
I I
I I
I
····-·
~I N•
v
CAMELBAC~' •-
PARADISE
::Orrl O><
l;~
~~ ~··~ I I
I I
I I
:~:v :-ip
-o .f«
ROAD
Nl l/1.
PEORIA--~.; ~~ AVENUE
tA~~
Nvl ~v ~A 1 /rv\
1 r
I I
I I
I I
v C1l
I
I I
I ~I
I I
I I
N v (\
N
II II
rviC1lA 1\ v VC1liN
I I
I I
I
CACTUS ...JLI ~~AD
I I
N v I It~ I [')
I I
I I
I I
I I
.v:. I UVUlf\I 1~~. Ul 111111
MATCH LINE SEE BELOW
GLENDALE
I I
I I I AVENUE
~ I ,I
1.-,,1
I C1ll.~
I I
I I
I I
,U1
I
I
::0-f
l>::O
S::l> -oz
(J)(,f)
rr1
::0
•It• ~~v It~
NORTHE~I~IJ AVENUE
~\1~
MATCH LINE SEE BELOW
""'0
I
)>
(J)
rrJ
~
I
(J)
0
I
rr1
~
rr1
.,.,
-------······
MATCH LINE SEE ABOVE
N v
nn 01(\
(]I
N v
/\
N
'VIU~
-/\ THUNDERBI~ rOAD
GREENWAY
UJ
z .,.,
C)
r G)
rr1 c
:::0
I rr1
z
rr1
""'0 N r N
)> z
~
\J
(.>j (1) Af\ v v Ol(.>j
\J
(.>j (1) 1\ 1\
VVm(.>j ••••
/\
N
ROAD
MATCH LINE SEE ABOVE ~Ill~~
iil\~AD
1\
N
PARADISE
DUNLAP
-v -1\
AVENUE
N v v 01.
~
;-t::O
_)> .a
(f)
rrl
1\
N BETHANY HOME
N v
Nv \~vI~\
~ N v
v I
PEORI!_•t
_v
v
II
N
{'\
N
-{\
PENUE
1\fl
(.>jN
.f> ()1 {\ 1\
V VU>~
(\)(.>j vv 1\
CACTUY I ROAD
1\1\
(.>j(\) -v
MATCH LINE SEE BELOW
vi Ilk
OJ en A 1\
vVCJ)(.>j
GLENDALE Flll j AVENUE
viii~~
~
NORTHERN
1\
v
()1 ()1 1\ 1\ v v ()1 ()1
1~ I_l_l _~I
.l.. flfil
v 1\/\
VlN
AVENUE
MATCH LINE SEE BELOW
•
access to and from the mainline. The slip ramps would be spaced at three-mile
intervals. Each exit ramp would be signed for the next three cross streets and would
carry approximately 2,400 vehicles during the peak hour; access to each cross street
would then be from the C-D/frontage road.
j
The Phase III-Scheme F Plan should be implemented in two 3-mile segments because
of the proposed ramp spacing. The two segments would be implemented as traffic
volumes warrant the proposed improvements.
A level of service analysis for Scheme F was performed using 2010 traffic volumes.
The analysis shows the plan would operate at Level of Service D with the exception of
a few links which would operate at Level of Service E.
SUMMARY
The need for the reconstruction of the 1-17 corridor has been thoroughly documented.
I-17 is an aging facility and many of the design elements do not meet current design
guidelines. These include insufficient ramp tapers, unprotected sideslopes and
obstructions, insufficient pavement cross slope and superelevation, an inadequate
drainage system, insufficient lighting, barrier curb adjacent to the roadway, and
insufficient vertical clearance.
In addition, the existing peak traffic demand exceeds the capacity of most segments of
the facility, causing congestion, accidents, and delay. Many of the segments are
congested for 12 continuous hours. The overall corridor accident rate is 30 percent
higher than the statewide urban interstate rate, with some segments nearly double the
statewide rate. A majority of the accidents are rear-end accidents which can be
generally attributed to the congestion on the facility.
The year 2010 traffic forecast projects a 63 percent increase in traffic demand in the
central section of the corridor. Traffic volumes in some of the northern segments could
double. Less than a 20 percent increase, however, is projected for the south section
(Maricopa T.I. to Papago T.I.). The low growth rate can be attributed to the
completion of the Papago Freeway.
To correct the existing design deficiencies and accommodate the existing and future
traffic demand, it is concluded that the entire corridor, from the Maricopa T.I. to Deer
Valley Road, needs to be reconstructed. The reconstruction of the I-17 corridor is a
massive undertaking, which could severely strain ADOT's physical and financial
resources. To reduce these impacts and accommodate the continued growth of the
corridor, the proposed improvements have been divided into several phases and
projects. The implementation of the phased improvements would incrementally
40
PHXR6.279.51
increase capacity as traffic increases and reconstruct an aging facility that over time
would require replacement.
To assist ADOT with programming and budgeting the proposed improvements, a
preliminary im~lementation schedule and cost summary have been developed. The
schedule is graphically portrayed in Figure 23 and the cost summary is listed in Table 2.
The proposed schedule and cost summary are provided only as a guideline and should
be continually evaluated and updated to ensure that the improvements are
implemented as needed and funds are available. A brief description of the individual
elements of the schedule follows.
PHASE lA IMPROVEMENTS
Phase IA involves widening the mainline from Thomas Road to Thunderbird Road to
provide a fourth basic lane in each direction. This improvement would increase the
capacity of the mainline to accommodate the existing and near-future traffic demand.
The estimated cost to implement these improvements is $45 million. The Phase IA
improvements can be divided into two sections. The estimated cost for the depressed
section (Thomas to Dunlap) is $35 million. The construction cost for the at-grade
section (Dunlap to Thunderbird) is estimated at $10 million.
Allocation of funds for the implementation of Phase IA improvements has already been
programmed by ADOT for the fourth and fifth years of the current five-year plan
(1991-1995).
FREEWAY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
Installation of an FMS has been recommended to improve the operation of the
mainline. As part of the FMS, vehicle detectors and a ramp meter controller would be
installed to identify congestion and regulate access to the mainline. Variable message
signs would be installed to alert drivers to freeway conditions. Funds for the
implementation of the FMS have been included in the 1991-1995 five-year plan. It is
recommended that installation immediately follow the construction of the Phase IA
improvements. The cost of implementing the FMS between Thomas Road and
Beardsley Road is estimated at $10 million.
PHASE IB OPTION--RIGHT-OF-WAY
Prior to the construction of the Phase IB Option improvements, Phase II right-of-way
should be acquired from Thomas Road to Thunderbird Road. As shown on the
proposed implementation schedule, this activity has been scheduled for the years 1995
through 2000. The cost of acquiring the Phase II right-of-way for this section is
estimated at $95 million.
41
PHXR6.279.51
•• •• •• •• II
•• ••
PHASE /A - IMPROVEMENTS
FOURTH BASIC LANE
THOMAS ROAD - THUNDERBIRD ROAD
FREEWAY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
THOMAS ROAD - BEARDSLEY ROAD
PHASE 18-0PT/ON- RIGHT-OF-WAY
THOMAS ROAD - THUNDERBIRD ROAD
PHASE 18-0PTION - IMPROVEMENTS
AUXILIARY LANE/ FRONTAGE ROAD
THOMAS ROAD - THUNDERBIRD ROAD
PHASES I & II - BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
16TH STREET- DEER VALLEY ROAD
PHASE/I- IMPROVEMENTS
CORRIDOR RECONSTRUCTION
MARICOPA T.l. - DEER VALLEY ROAD
PHASE II- RIGHT-OF-WAY
MARICOPA T.l. - THOMAS ROAD
THUNDERBIRD ROAD - DEER VALLEY ROAD
PHASE Ill - IMPROVEMENTS
CAPACITY ENHANCEMENTS
PAPAGO T.l. - BELL ROAD
PROPOSED IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE
7990 1995 2000 2005 2070 2015 2020 2025
I I l l J I I I I . I l I I I 1 l J l I I I I I I I I I J I I I I I l I I l l I
2030
" " " H45)'
!'."-'"
"r-. "U 'O" )", ",..."
~~9~~
~(-~~~
~~~~~)~~~ ~~~ ~ I
~ ~l3!g>~ ~~
! ~~~ I
KXX> rxx~
LEGEND
~'\:J RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
~ OPTIONAL IMPROVEMENTS
(xx) ESTIMATED COST IN MILLIONS
FIGURE 23
PROPOSED IMPLEMENTATION
SCHEDULE
I
Table 2
SUMMARY OF CONSTRUCTION COSTS I
Phase Limits Cost
i
lA-Stage 1 Thomas- Dunlap $15,000,000
lA- Stage 2 Dunlap - Thunderbird 10,000,000
lA- Staae 3 Thomas - Dunlap 20,000.000 0
PHASE lA Thomas- Thunderbird 45,000,000
IMPROVEMENTS
FREEWAY MANAGEMENT Thomas - Beardsley 10,000,000
SYSTEM
PHASE IB OPTION - Thomas - Thunderbird 95,000,000
RIGHT-OF-WAY
PHASE IB OPTION Thomas- Thunderbird 90,000,000
IMPROVEMENTS
PHASES I AND II 16th Street- Deer Valley 240,000,000
BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
II - Project 1 Paradise T.I. - Dunlap 80,000,000
II - Project 2 Dunlap - Thunderbird 45,000,000
II - Project 3 Papago - Paradise 30,000,000
II - Project 4 Thunderbird - Union Hills 60,000,000
II - Project 5 Maricopa T.I. - 7th Avenue 45,000,000
II - Project 6 7th Avenue- Buckeye 30,000,000
II - Project 7 Buckeye- Papago 20,000,000
II - Project 8 Union Hills - Deer Valley 10,000,000
PHASE II Maricopa T.I. - Deer Valley 320,000,000
IMPROVEMENTS
PHASE II- Maricopa T.I.- Van Buren 20,000,000
RIGHT-OF-WAY Thunderbird- Deer Valley
TOTAL Maricopa T.I.- Deer Valley $820,000,000
RECONSTRUCTION
OF CORRIDOR
The above cost estimates are intended to provide guidance in project
evaluation and implementation. This estimate is derived from approximate
1990 costs. Actual right-of-way and construction costs will depend upon
actual labor and materials costs, competitive market conditions, final project
requirements, annual inflationary adjustments, and other variable factors.
43
PHXRf>.279.51
PHASE IB OPTION IMPROVEMENTS
The Phase IB Option improvements would increase the capacity of the corridor and
improve the operation of the mainline by widening the frontage roads and constructing
a mainline a~liary lane between interchanges. These improvements would be
constructed between Thomas Road and Thunderbird Road to accommodate the
increasing traffic demand within this section. These improvements can be constructed
in one-mile intervals, allowing t1exibi1ity in the implementation and funding of these
improvements. The proposed construction of the Phase IB Option improvements
should be accomplished during the years 2000 through 2005. The estimated cost of
implementing the Phase IB Option improvements is estimated at $90 million.
PHASES I AND II--BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
Many of the structures within the corridor are approaching their design service life and
constrain the width of the cross streets. It is recommended that an ongoing program be
instituted to systematically replace these structures. Replacement of these structures
would also allow the widening of cross streets, improving the capacity and operations of
both the cross streets and frontage roads. This process has already begun--the Indian
School Road structure is scheduled for replacement in 1990, at an estimated cost of $10
million. Twenty-four structures in the I-17 Corridor have been identified for
replacement during the first two phases of construction. The total cost of replacing
these structures is estimated at $240 million.
PHASE II--IMPROVEMENTS
Phase II reconstructs the entire corridor from the Maricopa T.I. to Deer Valley Road.
Phase II improvements have been divided into eight projects; three projects in the
central section, three projects in the south section, and two projects in the north
section. Construction of the eight projects has been prioritized based on the projected
traffic growth within the corridor.
A 15-year interval, starting in the year 2005, has been proposed for the implementation
of Phase II improvements. The total construction cost for Phase II improvements is
estimated at $320 million.
PHASE II--RIGHT-OF-WAY
The remainder of the Phase II right-of-way requirements should be acquired
concurrently with the construction of the Phase II improvements. Between the
Maricopa T.I. and Thomas Road, an estimated $1.0 million worth of right-of-way would
need to be purchased for Phase II. In the north section (Thunderbird Road to Deer
Valley), approximately $19 million in additional right-of-way would need to be acquired.
44
PHXR6.279.51
PHASE III - IMPROVEMENTS
If needed, Phase III capacity enhancements which involve construction of a
C-D/frontage road plan or express roadways could be implemented in the central
section, to inqrease the capacity and improve the operation of the Phase II
improvements. An implementation date for Phase III has not been included because it
is dependent upon the growth of traffic and the availability of funds over the next 30 to
40 years. The possibility exists that through the development of the transportation
network, both highway and transit, and possible changes in travel patterns, the Phase
III improvements may never be needed. The Phase III plan, however, has been
developed as a guide for the preparation of future improvements should the need arise ..
CONCLUSION
This study has documented the need for and the feasibility of reconstructing the I -17
corridor. The proposed improvements have been divided into several phases and
projects to permit incremental reconstruction of the facility over a 30-year period. The
proposed improvements would require an average annual budget of $30 million (in
1990 dollars). The implementation schedule should assist ADOT in programming and
budgeting the proposed improvements.
45
PHXR6.279.51
