Queen Creek small area transportation study: project evaluation and plan for improvements: working paper #2

              Queen Creek Small Area Transportation Study
Project Evaluations and Plan for Improvements
Working Paper #2
prepared for



Town of Queen Creek

prepared by



Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

with



PSM2, Inc.



February 2007



www.camsys.com



Working Paper #2



Queen Creek Small Area Transportation Study

Project Evaluations and Plan for Improvements



prepared for



Town of Queen Creek



prepared by



Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 555 12th Street, Suite 1600 Oakland, California 94607

with



PSM2, Inc.



date



February 2007



Queen Creek Small Area Transportation Study



Table of Contents

1.0 Introduction ......................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Evaluation Methodology ........................................................................... 1-1 1.2 2.0 Organization of the Report........................................................................1-3



Project Identification..........................................................................................2-1 2.1 Roadway Projects........................................................................................2-1 2.2 2.3 Transit Projects............................................................................................2-8 Non-Motorized Projects.............................................................................2-9



3.0



Project Evaluations ............................................................................................. 3-1 3.1 Roadway Capacity......................................................................................3-1 3.2 3.3 3.4 Roadway Safety ........................................................................................ 3-13 Roadway Maintenance and Preservation..............................................3-15 Transit Evaluation .................................................................................... 3-19



4.0



Funding.................................................................................................................4-1 4.1 Local Sources...............................................................................................4-1 4.2 State Sources................................................................................................4-4 4.3 Summary of Funding Sources...................................................................4-7



5.0



Implementation...................................................................................................5-1 5.1 Roadway Priorities ..................................................................................... 5-1 5.2 5.3 Public Transportation Priorities ............................................................. 5-11 Non-Transportation Solutions ................................................................ 5-14



i 7668.001



Queen Creek Small Area Transportation Study



List of Tables

Table 1.1 Table 2.1 Table 2.2 Table 2.3 Table 2.4 Table 3.1 Table 3.2 Table 3.3 Table 3.4 Table 3.5 Table 3.6 Table 3.7 Table 3.8 Table 3.9 Table 4.1 Table 4.2 Table 4.3 Table 5.1 Table 5.2 Table 5.3 Table 5.4 Queen Creek SATS Evaluation Criteria ............................................... 1-3 Project Identification Matrix .................................................................. 2-1 Cost Estimates for Roadway Projects 2006 Dollars ............................. 2-8 Transit Project Costs 2006 Dollars ......................................................... 2-9 Valley Metro Operating Costs...............................................................2-9 Number of Intersections by LOS and Model Run, 2026 .................... 3-7 Change in Average Volume Per Lane by Model Run, 2026............3-12 Average Volumes Per Lane for All Arterials for Selected Communities, 2026................................................................................3-13 Impact of Pavement Treatments on Remaining Service Life .......... 3-17 Nationwide Average Pavement Costs ............................................... 3-18 Population Density Thresholds by Transit Service Type ................ 3-20 Estimated Park and Ride Costs ........................................................... 3-23 Forecasts for Proposed Commuter Rail Lines, 2026.........................3-23 Population Served and Ridership for Proposed Commuter Rail Line, 2026................................................................................................3-24 Estimated Cumulative Land Use Development ................................. 4-3 Estimated Revenues from Sales Tax 2006 Dollars in Millions............4-4 Summary of Estimated Funding Sources 2006 Dollars in Millions ... 4-7 Long-Term Roadway Project Prioritization ........................................ 5-6 Impact of Investments of Peak Hour Volumes ................................... 5-9 Commuters from the Queen Creek Area to Major Destinations....5-11 Public Transportation Long-Term Prioritization Matrix.................5-13



iii



Queen Creek Small Area Transportation Study



List of Figures

Figure 1.1 Figure 2.1 Figure 2.2 Figure 2.3 Figure 2.4 Figure 2.5 Figure 2.6 Figure 3.1 Figure 3.2 Figure 3.3 Figure 3.4 Figure 3.5 Figure 3.6 Figure 3.7 Figure 3.8 Figure 3.9 Methodology Overview ......................................................................... 1-2 Updated Base Future Model Run Number of Lanes, 2026...................2-3 Local Improvements Model Run Number of Lanes, 2026....................2-4 Expressway Model Run Number of Lanes, 2026 ................................... 2-5 Arterial Through Improvements Model Run Number of Lanes ......... 2-6 Combined Concept Model Run Number of Lanes, 2026 ...................... 2-7 Queen Creek Proposed Non-Motorized Network ........................... 2-10 Base Future Model Run Volumes and LOS, 2026 ................................. 3-2 Local Capacity Model Run Volumes and LOS, 2026 ............................ 3-3 Expressway Model Run Volumes and LOS, 2026.................................3-4 Arterial Capacity Model Run Volumes and LOS, 2026........................3-5 Combined Model Run Volumes and LOS, 2026....................................3-6 Change in Volumes � Expressway Model Run, 2026.........................3-9 Change in Volumes � Arterial Capacity Model Run, 2026..............3-10 Change in Volumes � Combined Model Run, 2026 ......................... 3-11 Queen Creek Crash Locations, 2003 to 2005......................................3-14



Figure 3.10 Typical Pavement Life Curve .............................................................. 3-18 Figure 3.11 ALEX Average Daily Ridership .......................................................... 3-19 Figure 3.12 Potential Areas for Transit in Queen Creek, 2026.............................3-21 Figure 3.13 Commuter Rail Station Potential, 2026 .............................................. 3-25 Figure 4.1 Figure 4.2 Figure 4.3 Figure 5.1 Figure 5.2 Figure 5.3 Figure 5.4 Estimated Transportation Development Fee Revenues .................... 4-2 HURF Revenue Forecasts.......................................................................4-5 LTAF I Revenue Forecast ....................................................................... 4-6 Queen Creek Roadway Priorities..........................................................5-5 Speeds and Intersection LOS Based on Arizona DES, 2026 ............ 5-10 Destinations for Queen Creek Commuters, 2006 ............................. 5-12 Population-Employment Ratio in the MAG Model Area, 2026......5-15



v



1.0 Introduction



Queen Creek Small Area Transportation Study



1.0 Introduction

The Queen Creek Small Area Transportation Study (SATS) is identifying future transportation investments in the Town of Queen Creek and the surrounding area that are needed to accommodate future population and employment growth. Working Paper 2 builds on the base and future conditions information from Working Paper 1 to identify and evaluate potential future transportation projects. The results of Working Paper 2 will be used to generate a prioritized list of long-range transportation projects for the Town of Queen Creek. In addition to projects within Queen Creek, the Queen Creek SATS also examines projects in the broader region. As identified in Working Paper 1, much of the future traffic congestion in Queen Creek can be attributed to growth in surrounding areas, particularly in Pinal County. If growth occurs in Pinal County, as identified by the Pinal County SATS (roughly 1.9 million residents in 2025), then Queen Creek will face severe congestion, though not all of these residents will impact Queen Creek's transportation network.



1.1 EVALUATION METHODOLOGY

The evaluation methodology developed for the Queen Creek SATS is iterative in nature. It begins with the initial evaluations identified in the Working Paper 1; identifies deficiencies and solutions; and evaluates these solutions using clear criteria, which, to the extent possible, have been quantified. The general process uses the following basic steps (Figure 1.1): � � Identify major sources of deficiencies from Working Paper 1. Identify potential multimodal projects to address deficiencies, including: � � � � � � Transit � commuter rail, and regional and local transit; Regional highway � projects such as a new parkway or expressway; Local road � new or widened arterials, connections, traffic signals; and Non-motorized � new on- and off-street trails and bicycle lanes.



Identify project costs that reflect current construction and operating costs for each mode, as appropriate. Evaluate projects using a consistent, quantified methodology based on: � � � The Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) travel demand model to estimate future traffic volumes and level of service (LOS); Sketch planning tools to estimate other types of impacts, such as crashes, emissions, regional connectivity, cost effectiveness, and others; and Performance evaluation criteria.



1-1



Queen Creek Small Area Transportation Study



Figure 1.1 Methodology Overview

Base 2026 Model Run



Identify Deficiencies Additional Model Runs Identify Project Solutions Off-Model Analysis Summarize Analysis Estimate Impacts on Demand



Prioritized List of Projects Funding Sources and Levels ShortRange TIP MediumRange 10 Year LongRange 20-Year



Unfundable



Performance Evaluation Criteria

A variety of tools and methods were employed to generate performance criteria for the proposed transportation projects in Queen Creek (Table 1.1). These criteria have been selected to balance the demand across the system and reduce the impact of congestion.



1-2



Queen Creek Small Area Transportation Study



Table 1.1 Queen Creek SATS Evaluation Criteria

Description Traffic volumes Number of vehicles or riders carried on Queen Creek Roads; number of riders Intersection LOS General plan consistency Assessment Criteria Traffic volumes should be decreased or shifted across the system to roads with available capacity.



Intersection LOS by grade Number of intersections by grade (A, B, C, D, and E/F) and intersection-by-intersection evaluations. Supports designations of commercial and residential areas; supports open space plan; supports Town Center plan Qualitative assessment by Queen Creek staff � Do planned roads support the town access and circulation in economic areas and reduce traffic conflicts in the Town Center?



System impact Level of traffic in the Town Change in average traffic volumes. as a whole Cost effectiveness Cost per vehicle or cost per rider



1.2 ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT

The remainder of this report applies the methodology identified here to proposed roadway, transit, and non-motorized transportation solutions in the Town of Queen Creek. The report is organized as follows: � Section 2.0 identifies potential project solutions for all transportation modes. These solutions were developed through a collaborative process with Queen Creek staff and analytic results. Section 3.0 presents the evaluations of these projects using available tools, including the MAG travel demand model and other sketch planning tools. Section 4.0 identifies the total funding available to the Town from state and local sources over the 20-year time period covered by the SATS. This section includes estimates of funding available for both capital needs, as well as maintenance and rehabilitation. Section 5.0 presents a draft recommended plan of improvements for the Town of Queen Creek for medium-range (5 to 10 years) and long-range (10 to 20 years) periods. The Town has already committed to a set of capital projects for the short range (0 to 5 years), and the analysis presented here assumes that the identified projects will continue as planned.



� �



�



1-3



2.0 Project Identification



Queen Creek Small Area Transportation Study



2.0 Project Identification

The project identification process was based on an analysis of potential project solutions from three key sources � state, regional, and local � for three modes � roadway, public transportation, and non-motorized. Table 2.1 provides a matrix of the types of projects considered in each category.



Table 2.1 Project Identification Matrix

Roadway State � New highway, such as the North-South Corridor Public Transportation � New 5310 (Elderly and Disabled) or 5311 (Rural Transit) programs Non-motorized � No state nonmotorized system at this level � Continued development of the regional trail system � Continued development of the regional on-street bicycle system



Region � Potential new � New commuter rail al expressway to move service along existing right-of-way vehicles in and around Queen � New or expanded Creek bus rapid transit � Identifying and service expanding roads of regional significance Local � Widening or new arterials and collectors � Installing additional traffic signals � Local circulator shuttle



� Locally sponsored trail system, connecting to regional system � Local on-street system



Using this matrix, specific projects were identified for each of the three transportation modes, as described below.



2.1 ROADWAY PROJECTS

An updated base future network for 2026 was developed based on the inputs received from Queen Creek staff, the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), and public and stakeholder involvement (Figure 2.1). In July 2006, an initial meeting was conducted with a select set of TAC members to identify major transportation deficiencies in the Queen Creek area. This meeting led to the identification of the following key proposals for future projects:



2-1



Queen Creek Small Area Transportation Study



�



Filling in gaps and scalloped streets in the local roadway network to ensure a consistent number of lanes are available for travel in both east-west and north-south directions. Improve connections between Pinal and Maricopa Counties along major north-south connectors, such as Power Road, by widening Hunt Highway between the county line and Power Road and sections of Power Road that have fewer than four lanes (Figure 2.2). A new limited access corridor connecting the Williams Gateway Freeway to residential developments in northern Pinal County. This corridor could be constructed as an expressway, freeway, or potential toll road. The purpose would be to connect Queen Creek's major employment centers and residents in both Queen Creek and Pinal County to the regions freeway system without over-extending the local arterial system (Figure 2.3). It is important to note that the expressway identified in this Working Paper is meant to be conceptual. Actual operational issues would need to be evaluated, especially if the expressway does not follow the grid system. Consider widening some east-west and/or north-south roads to eight lanes and providing improved access control (i.e., shifting property access to cross streets) in the future to enable both through and local traffic movements. Potential routes include Riggs, Ironwood, Ocotillo, Ellsworth, Power, and Germann Roads (Figure 2.4).



�



�



This initial set of model runs was evaluated to determine the relative benefits of the various solutions. The model runs provide general information of additional needed capacity. The model output itself does not determine the best network and cannot capture all of the complexities of the transportation planning process. After reviewing this first set of model runs with TAC and Queen Creek staff, additional model runs were conducted to achieve three purposes: 1. The initial model runs did not reflect limits on right-of-way. Queen Creek staff provided a `build out' maximum for each road. 2. The expressway scenario faced significant issues with cost and the connection to the Williams Gateway Freeway. A connection just east of Ellsworth Loop Road would be too close to the Ellsworth interchange and the connection of the Williams Gateway Freeway to Loop 202. 3. It includes a proposed connection from Queen Creek Road to Germann Road at the northern border of Queen Creek. This extension could funnel some traffic from the southeast through northern Queen Creek and into Mesa. As a result, an additional model run was conducted that reflected these changes. It included a modified expressway (connecting to the Williams Gateway Freeway at Meridian), a limited set of arterial improvements, widening of the Williams Gateway Freeway from Meridian to Loop 202, and the additional connector from Queen Creek Road to Germann Road just west of Hawes Road (Figure 2.5). This combined concept was not intended as a final analysis point, but does reflect the constraints that Queen Creek faces in building out the transportation network.



2-2



Queen Creek Small Area Transportation Study



Figure 2.1 Updated Base Future Model Run Number of Lanes, 2026



2-3



Queen Creek Small Area Transportation Study



Figure 2.2 Local Improvements Model Run Number of Lanes, 2026



2-4



Queen Creek Small Area Transportation Study



Figure 2.3 Expressway Model Run Number of Lanes, 2026



2-5



Queen Creek Small Area Transportation Study



Figure 2.4 Arterial Through Improvements Model Run Number of Lanes



2-6



Queen Creek Small Area Transportation Study



Figure 2.5 Combined Concept Model Run Number of Lanes, 2026



2-7



Queen Creek Small Area Transportation Study



Project Costs

For planning purposes, rough cost per mile estimates were generated from other similar studies and recent experience of the Town of Queen Creek (Table 2.2).



Table 2.2 Cost Estimates for Roadway Projects 2006 Dollars

Project Type Add lanes in one direction Unit Mile Cost Per Unit 1,500,000 Source Queen Creek Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) Queen Creek TIP Queen Creek TIP Estimated MAG Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) Impact Fee Report Impact Fee Report Queen Creek TIP



Add lanes in both directions Construct new arterial (2 lanes) Construct new expressway (6 lanes) Construct new freeway (6 lanes) New intersection New grade separate interchange Install traffic signal



Mile Mile Mile Mile



3,000,000 3,000,000 20,000,000 50,000,000



Each Each Each



600,000 7,500,00 300,000



Sources: Town of Queen Creek, 2006; MAG Regional Transportation Plan, 2004; and Impact Fee Report, 2003.



2.2 TRANSIT PROJECTS

Several transit projects were also evaluated, including the following: � � � Potential commuter rail with a stop in Queen Creek; Extensions of existing fixed-route service (either Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) or regular bus) into Queen Creek; and Implementation of a Queen Creek circulator system.



Transit projects were evaluated using a combination of results from the MAG model and sketch planning analyses. MAG is in the process of conducting a Commuter Rail Strategic Plan jointly with Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT). This study will provide much more detailed information about the feasibility of commuter rail, but it will not be completed until the fall of 2007.



2-8



Queen Creek Small Area Transportation Study



Project Costs

Capital costs for transit were adopted from the MAG RTP (Table 2.3).



Table 2.3 Transit Project Costs 2006 Dollars

Project Type Paratransit Fixed-route bus Fixed-route bus Park-and-ride lot Transit center Bus stops Dedicated BRT Source: Capital Unit Van Rural Bus Bus Space Center Stop Mile Capital Cost Per Unit $42,000 $60,000 $300,000 $14,000 $2 million-$5 million $22,000 $7.6 million



MAG Regional Transportation Plan, 2004.



Operating costs were derived from current Valley Metro operating statistics. Average operating costs for the Valley Metro are given in Table 2.4.



Table 2.4 Valley Metro Operating Costs

Cost Unit Operating cost per revenue Mile Operating cost per revenue Hour Percent of operating costs covered by passenger fees Source: Valley Metro Fact Sheet, 2006 System Average $5.33 $50.12 21.28%



2.3 NON-MOTORIZED PROJECTS

Working Paper 1 identified two scenarios for development of trails and bike routes. One was developed as part of the Queen Creek Open Space Plan and the other as part of the Maricopa County Bicycle System Plan. The Queen Creek General Plan contains the most ambitious non-motorized network plan, with bike, pedestrian, and equestrian trails on most roadways in Queen Creek and numerous off-system trails. Figure 2.6 presents potential non-motorized routes considered in the Queen Creek Open Space Plan.



2-9



Queen Creek Small Area Transportation Study



Figure 2.6 Queen Creek Proposed Non-Motorized Network



Source:



Queen Creek General Plan, 2002.



2-10



3.0 Project Evaluations



Queen Creek Small Area Transportation Study



3.0 Project Evaluations

This section describes the evaluation of potential roadway, transit, and nonmotorized projects for the Queen Creek SATS.



3.1 ROADWAY CAPACITY

The evaluation of potential roadway improvements began by using the MAG Travel Demand Model to estimate future demand and LOS. Five model runs were conducted to support this evaluation, as follows: 1. Base 2026. An updated base scenario that includes the proposed roadway system for the Pinal SATS and the proposed new ADOT corridors � Williams Gateway and North-South. Funding has yet to be identified for these two new corridors. 2. Local Improvements. A scenario designed to address local transportation issues, in particular scalloped streets. This scenario also added some additional capacity along Hunt Highway and the south end of Power Road to provide an additional four-lane facility. 3. Expressway. Although the specific form of this road is yet to be determined (it could be a toll road, freeway, expressway, or arterial), the modeling was conducted as an expressway with limited access. This essentially means that several of the cross streets are modeled as being grade separated. This run included the local improvements run. 4. Arterial Capacity. Increased east-west and north-south capacity on several key arterials. This would include widening Riggs/Combs and parts of Hunt Highway, Ironwood, and the Williams Gateway Freeway to eight lanes. 5. Combined Improvements. A fifth model run combined aspects of several of the above model runs, including a more limited version of the expressway connecting to Williams Gateway at Meridian and a new Queen Creek to Germann Road connector. The remainder of this section is organized as follows.



Traffic Volumes and Level of Service

Two key statistics were used from the MAG model to conduct initial evaluations of the model runs: 1. Predicted traffic volumes by roadway segment; and 2. Estimated intersection LOS for each intersection. Figures 3.1 through 3.5 present the 24-hour volumes and LOS for each of the 5 key model runs described above.



3-1



Queen Creek Small Area Transportation Study



Figure 3.1 Base Future Model Run Volumes and LOS, 2026



3-2



Queen Creek Small Area Transportation Study



Figure 3.2 Local Capacity Model Run Volumes and LOS, 2026



3-3



Queen Creek Small Area Transportation Study



Figure 3.3 Expressway Model Run Volumes and LOS, 2026



3-4



Queen Creek Small Area Transportation Study



Figure 3.4 Arterial Capacity Model Run Volumes and LOS, 2026



3-5



Queen Creek Small Area Transportation Study



Figure 3.5 Combined Model Run Volumes and LOS, 2026



3-6



Queen Creek Small Area Transportation Study



The following traffic volumes and LOS are shown in the model runs. � The local improvements model run (Figure 3.2) shows some improvements to intersections on Sossaman, Ellsworth, and Crismon Roads. Traffic increases on Hunt Highway and Power Road within Queen Creek, and some of these intersections show worsening LOS as a result of this shift. Overall, the small improvements in the west part of the study area help even traffic. There are limited changes on the east side of Queen Creek and continued severe congestion. The expressway model run (Figure 3.3) predicts substantial volumes on the new expressway, as expected. The expressway would be congested, although only at the limited set of intersections that were included in the model run. The expressway provides some improvements to the east side of Town, but they are limited. The expressway also draws some traffic and improves LOS along parallel Pinal County arterials. The arterial capacity model run (Figure 3.4) heavily loads Riggs/Combs and Ironwood Roads. There are some intersections with improved LOS on Signal Butte and Ellsworth Roads. The combined model run (Figure 3.5) again heavily loads the proposed expressway. The correction to Ocotillo (maximum four lanes instead of the six originally proposed) creates increased east-west congestion.



�



�



�



Table 3.1 presents an overall summary of the LOS of Queen Creek's intersections by model run.



Table 3.1 Number of Intersections by LOS and Model Run, 2026

Level of Service (Number of Intersections) Model Run Base future Local improvements Expressway (original) Arterial capacity Combined (new expressway) Source: A-B 2 1 1 1 2 C 9 8 16 13 13 D 11 16 13 16 13 E-F 27 25 21 19 25 Total 51 51 52 51 54



MAG Travel Demand Model Runs, Queen Creek SATS, 2006.



Note: The Expressway and Combined model runs have more intersections due to the addition of new facilities, including the expressway and the proposed Queen Creek-Germann connector.



3-7



Queen Creek Small Area Transportation Study



Over one-half of the intersections within Queen Creek's borders are expected to operate at LOS E or worse by 2026 in the base scenario, and three-quarters are expected to be at LOS D or worse. Each of the model runs provides some improvements, though all are partial. The original expressway and arterial capacity model runs have the greatest reductions in the number of congested intersections, but they still remain at or close to 40 percent. Most of the improvements are only a single LOS grade, moving from E or F to D.



Change in Volumes

Another consideration in the analysis was the change in traffic volumes exhibited from the base future model runs to each of the other model runs. Because of the high traffic volumes, it is difficult to see these changes in the original set of figures. This information helps identify the locations that are showing increased traffic � are the investments drawing even more trips into Queen Creek from Pinal County? Or are they shifting trips from one arterial to another and balancing the system overall? Figures 3.6 through 3.8 present the changes in volumes (blue is increase; brown is decrease) from the base future model run to the expressway, arterial capacity, and combined model runs, respectively. The following changes in volume are shown in the model runs: � The expressway model run (Figure 3.6) shows significant decreases in volumes along the proposed North-South and Williams Gateway Freeways, as well as many of the parallel arterials in Pinal County. There are only limited changes to the pattern of traffic volumes in Queen Creek itself, and there are even some increases. This reinforces the notion that Queen Creek is the narrowest part of the bottleneck, and that adding capacity provides limited benefits to the Town. The arterial capacity model run (Figure 3.7) has a significant shifting effect from other arterials to Riggs/Combs and Ironwood. This is evident in both Queen Creek and Pinal County. Notably, the increased capacity on the Williams Gateway Freeway helps to draw traffic away from some of the arterials in Queen Creek. Because of the high levels of congestion, adding capacity to arterials can have a variety of intended and unintended impacts. For example, adding east-west capacity could potentially shift traffic from north-south arterials in Queen Creek to other parallel arterials elsewhere in Maricopa County. The combined model run (Figure 3.8) shows similar patterns of change, though not as significant, as the arterial capacity model run. Meridian is expected to show significant volume increases. The model shows declining volumes for much of the western part of Queen Creek, except in the locations where capacity has been added to Hunt Highway and the ends of Power, Sossaman, and Hawes Roads. There continues to be traffic declines on many of the arterials in Pinal County as well.



�



�



3-8



Queen Creek Small Area Transportation Study



Figure 3.6 Change in Volumes � Expressway Model Run, 2026



Note: The Expressway shows no change because it is a new facility.



3-9



Queen Creek Small Area Transportation Study



Figure 3.7 Change in Volumes � Arterial Capacity Model Run, 2026



3-10



Queen Creek Small Area Transportation Study



Figure 3.8 Change in Volumes � Combined Model Run, 2026



3-11



Queen Creek Small Area Transportation Study



Table 3.2 presents the change in volume per lane from the base future to each of the other model runs for Queen Creek and several surrounding communities. This provides a slightly different take on the information from the figures.



Table 3.2 Change in Average Volume Per Lane by Model Run, 2026

Local Improvemen ts Through Arterial Capacity



City/Region 24-Hour Apache Junction Coolidge Florence Mesa Pinal County (Uninc.) Queen Creek AM Peak Apache Junction Coolidge Florence Mesa Pinal County (Uninc.) Queen Creek Source:



Expressway



Combined



99% 99% 99% 100% 100% 95%



102% 97% 83% 99% 95% 95%



97% 97% 95% 99% 96% 93%



103% 99% 91% 100% 98% 96%



100% 98% 99% 99% 99% 95%



104% 98% 89% 99% 95% 97%



98% 96% 98% 98% 96% 93%



105% 97% 90% 99% 96% 97%



MAG Travel Demand Model Runs for the Queen Creek SATS, 2006.



Note: The cells of the table show the average volume per lane of the model run relative to the base future model run. The areas covered for each community are the Municipal Planning Areas from the MAG model.



Notably, each of the model runs provides some improvements to Queen Creek, which would be expected with the increased capacity. The model runs that add the most capacity within Queen Creek (the expressway model runs) show the smallest declines in average volume per lane. Pinal County communities also show significant benefits from the new facilities, most notably Florence in the expressway and combined model runs. It also is instructive to examine the average vehicles per lane in Queen Creek relative to other cities in the region. Table 3.3 presents the average vehicles per lane for 24 hours and the AM peak period for Queen Creek, as well as several nearby communities; several established cities (Phoenix, Tempe, and Scottsdale); and two West Valley communities (Buckeye and Goodyear).



3-12



Queen Creek Small Area Transportation Study



Table 3.3 Average Volumes Per Lane for All Arterials for Selected Communities, 2026

Community Queen Creek Study Area Communities Apache Junction Coolidge Florence Mesa Pinal County Established Communities Phoenix Tempe Scottsdale West Valley Communities Goodyear Buckeye Source: 6,100 2,900 1,100 530 7,200 8,800 5,300 1,290 1,620 970 8,900 3,700 3,300 7,800 7,000 1,740 870 710 1,600 1,500 Average Daily Volumes (24-Hour) 6,500 Average Peak Volumes (AM Period) 1,340



MAG Travel Demand Model Runs for the Queen Creek SATS, 2006.



Note: Numbers are rounded averages from all model runs conducted for the study.



The average vehicle per lane statistic reflects both total traffic in various cities and relative congestion. Established communities have high overall (24-hour) volumes per lane because of the greater intensity of development in these areas. But they have relatively lower average peak-period volumes per lane reflecting the more mature arterial network. It is instructive that Queen Creek and other communities in the Southeast are expected to look much more congested in the future than the comparable communities in the West Valley. The West Valley is the end of the commute, but Queen Creek sits right in the middle of a significant commute.



3.2 ROADWAY SAFETY

Figure 3.9 presents the locations and incidence of crashes for the 2003 to 2005 period. The figure shows the 2004 road network (in green) and the expected future base 2026 network (in black). The total number of crashes by quartile are shown with the blue dots; and the number of injury and fatality crashes by quartile are shown with the red dots.



3-13



Queen Creek Small Area Transportation Study



Figure 3.9 Queen Creek Crash Locations, 2003 to 2005



3-14



Queen Creek Small Area Transportation Study



Many of the highest incident locations are along Rittenhouse Road. The plan to realign this road to meet at right angles with the cross roads should provide a significant improvement in crashes by eliminating many of the angled intersections in Queen Creek. In addition, the Ellsworth Loop Road should reduce conflicts, especially between Rittenhouse and the existing Ellsworth Road by rerouting traffic. The remaining intersections that show relatively high numbers of crashes include: � � � � � Power and Queen Creek Roads; Ocotillo and Signal Butte Roads; Rittenhouse and Hawes Roads; Hunt Highway and Ellsworth Road; and Germann and Ellsworth Roads.



These are among the highest volume roads and intersections in Queen Creek. Increased signalization and use of protected left-turn phases should help reduce incidents at these locations. Many of these intersections were not signalized in the period when data were collected. After Queen Creek implements its current Capital Improvement Program, which includes adding over 20 permanent signals, additional analysis of intersections should be conducted to determine which intersections require additional attention. In addition to examining the locations of crashes, crash data were also evaluated relative to vehicle miles of travel (VMT) to establish a crash rate. Overall crash rates were consistent with the observed crash data. In general, the VMT on roadway links in the study area did not vary substantially in 2004. The two exceptions were at Sossaman and Germann and at Ellsworth and Hunt Highway. These two intersections had lower crash rates than other intersections with similar total numbers of incidents.



3.3 ROADWAY MAINTENANCE AND PRESERVATION

Up until recently, most of the roads in the Town of Queen Creek were owned by Maricopa County. As the Town has grown, more of these roads are coming under city responsibility and, as a result, will require increased investment in pavement preservation and maintenance. Many local agencies track the condition of their assets (typically pavement and bridges, but also signs, signals, and other assets); and predict future conditions using asset management models. Though it is well beyond the scope of the SATS to develop such a system for Queen Creek, the following provides some information that should help the Town analyze pavement resurfacing, rehabilitation, and reconstruction needs. The Pavement Surface Evaluation and Rating (PASER) is a visual survey method used to evaluate the condition of roads. The method was developed by the University of Wisconsin Transportation Information Center to provide a simple,



3-15



Queen Creek Small Area Transportation Study



efficient, and consistent method for evaluating road condition. It was initially implemented by local agencies in Wisconsin to evaluate more than 100,000 miles of roadway in less than a year. The PASER method is ideal for local agencies, because it is one of the easiest evaluation methods to implement and is relatively inexpensive in comparison to other rating methods. PASER uses 10 separate ratings to evaluate the surface distress of the pavement. Ratings are assigned based on the pavement material, asphalt, concrete, gravel, etc., and the types of deterioration that are present. There are three basic categories of pavement preservation and maintenance that Queen Creek will consider: 1. Routine Maintenance (PASER 8, 9, and 10) is the day-to-day, regularly scheduled activities to prevent water from seeping into the surface, such as street sweeping, drainage clearing, gravel shoulder grading, and sealing cracks. This category also includes roads that are newly constructed or recently seal coated. They require little or no maintenance. 2. Capital Preventive Maintenance (CPM) (PASER 5, 6, and 7) is at the heart of asset management. It is the planned set of cost-effective treatments to an existing roadway that retards further deterioration, and maintains or improves the functional condition of the system without significantly increasing the structural capacity. The purpose of CPM fixes is to protect the pavement structure, slow the rate of deterioration, and/or correct pavement surface deficiencies. Roads in this category still show good structural support, but the surface is starting to deteriorate. CPM is intended to address pavement problems before the structural integrity of the pavement has been severely impacted. 3. Structural Improvement (PASER 1, 2, 3, and 4) is the category of roads requiring some type of repair to improve the structural integrity of the pavement. Pavements in this category exhibit deficiencies, such as rutting, large holes, alligator cracking, or joints and cracks that are badly spalled. Typical structural improvement activities include major rehabilitation or reconstruction. Table 3.4 presents the needed treatment by PASER and the impact of that treatment of pavement condition in terms of Remaining Service Life (RSL) for asphalt and concrete pavements. RSL is one of several performance metrics that are commonly used to capture the performance of the pavement asset by DOTs. Average cost of various pavement work activities are given in Table 3.5. Using these default unit costs is a potential short-term option. Eventually, it will be important to update these costs based on actual data from various treatments implemented by the Town. Construction costs vary significantly by region.



3-16



Queen Creek Small Area Transportation Study



Table 3.4 Impact of Pavement Treatments on Remaining Service Life

Equivalent RSL (Years) Extended Service Life (Years)



PASER



Recommended Treatment



Asphalt Pavements 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0 5 8 11 13 16 20 23 24 25 Total reconstruction Reconstruction with extensive base repairs Patching with major overlay Structural overlay of 2 inches or more Seal coat or nonstructural overlay less than 2 inches Seal coat Routine crack filling No maintenance required No maintenance required No maintenance required Up to 25 Up to 25 5 to 10 5 to 10 3 to 5 3 to 6 4 to 6 0 0 0



Concrete Pavements 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Source: 0 3 6 10 14 17 20 25 30 35 Total reconstruction Recycle and/or rebuild pavement Full depth patching with some full slab replacement Some full depth repairs, grinding, and/or asphalt overlay Grinding with some partial depth patching or joint repairs Joint and crack sealing Surface scaling, seal open joints, other routine maintenance No maintenance required No maintenance required No maintenance required Up to 35 7 to 15 3 to 10 3 to 5 3 to 5 3 to 5 Up to 3 0 0 0



PASER Manual.



3-17



Queen Creek Small Area Transportation Study



Table 3.5 Nationwide Average Pavement Costs

Work Activity Reconstruction Urban Rural Rehabilitation Urban Rural Resurfacing Urban Rural $12,300 $10,000 $14,600 $9,700 $18,500 $13,200 Cost Per Lane Mile



Source: Federal Highway Administration's Highway Statistics 2001.



Assessing asset condition requires several steps, starting with accurate inventory and condition data. The condition data that is collected should support performance measures of pavement condition, such as RSL or PASER. Condition data are typically collected every one or two years using windshield surveys and/or vehicles equipped with automated sensing and recording equipment. These data are then fed into predictive models of the sort described by Table 3.4 to help identify future conditions and to select potential improvements. Figure 3.10 presents a standard relationship between time and potential investment needs.



Figure 3.10 Typical Pavement Life Curve



Source:



Maricopa County Department of Transportation, 2006.



Queen Creek has many newly constructed or paved roads. Although these roads will not need significant treatments for the first several years, as time passes, it



3-18



Queen Creek Small Area Transportation Study



will become increasingly important to provide preventative maintenance to extend the life of the pavement asset.



3.4 TRANSIT EVALUATION

Local Circulator

One of the transit concepts that has been considered for Queen Creek is a local shuttle that is similar to the Ahwatukee Local EXplorer (ALEX). Started in 2002, the ALEX is a free local neighborhood bus circulator that follows a 40-mile route and provides service to schools, shopping centers, a senior center, parks, and a public library. ALEX has a fleet of 8 shuttle vehicles with seats for 16 passengers, operating on approximately 30-minute headways, 7 days a week. No formal travel surveys have been undertaken, but most of the riders are students and seniors. Figure 3.11 presents average weekly ridership on the ALEX shuttle, which doubled after the first year of implementation, but has remained fairly constant since then, at around 1,000 passengers per week.



Figure 3.11 ALEX Average Daily Ridership

1,200 1,000 800 R id e rs 600 400 200 2002 2003 2004 Year 2005 2006 553 1,078 934 1,071 1,119



The service area for ALEX was measured by identifying the MAG transportation analysis zones (TAZs) that are touched by the service. These zones, which make up a roughly 30-square mile area, have approximately 72,000 residents and 31,000 jobs. This area is similar in size to Queen Creek, but has over 4 times as many residents. Given the expected rate of growth in Queen Creek, a similar shuttle service may be appropriate by 2020. However, ALEX has several features that help contribute to its success: significant community involvement on its



3-19



Queen Creek Small Area Transportation Study



planning, flexible stops, and two dedicated populations (students and the elderly) that have relatively limited mobility options. Total capital costs for the ALEX line are primarily for vehicle acquisition. New buses average around $35,000 and annual operating costs are around $750,000 for the line. This equates to roughly $2.00 in operating cost per passenger trip, which is slightly less than average transit lines.



Extending Existing Bus Service

Several existing or planned bus routes touch the borders of Queen Creek or provide service to the adjacent communities of Mesa and Gilbert. Extending these services into Queen Creek can provide a relatively easy means to connect to the Valley Metro public transportation network. A survey of areas with planned service identified rough population density thresholds (per square mile) for types of service (Table 3.6).



Table 3.6 Population Density Thresholds by Transit Service Type

Minimum Population Density (Persons Per Square Mile) 4,500 7,800 16,700 10,000 13,300



Service Bus � minimum service Bus � intermediate service Bus � frequent service Light rail BRT



Characteristics 20 buses per day 40 buses per day 120 buses per day



Sources: MAG High Capacity Transit Study, 2003; and Pinal County SATS, 2006.



Future (2026) population density thresholds and future Valley Metro bus routes are mapped in Figure 3.12. According to this analysis, Queen Creek will have substantial potential for regular bus service in the future. Although the population densities do not reach the threshold levels identified for BRT, the proximity of planned lines suggests real potential to extend these services by 1 or 2 stops to include Queen Creek.



3-20



Queen Creek Small Area Transportation Study



Figure 3.12 Potential Areas for Transit in Queen Creek, 2026



Existing service data from Valley Metro was used to estimate the likely operating cost for new service. Currently, Valley Metro pays approximately $5.33 per vehicle mile of service in 2005. Potential services could include: � Extending one of the planned services along Power Road or Queen Creek Road into downtown Queen Creek. This would cost approximately $25,000 per year (in 2005 dollars). This assumes extending a bus line by roughly 4 miles with 30-minute headways during the week and 60-minute headways on weekends. Given the short additional distance served, new buses would likely not be required for this service. A short loop comprised of Power, Riggs, and Rittenhouse Roads would cost approximately $125,000 per year. This service assumes a 35-mile round-trip loop through Queen Creek operating at 30-minute headways during the



�



3-21



Queen Creek Small Area Transportation Study



week and 60-minute headways on weekends. This service would require between one and two additional buses to provide service, depending how the route was connected to the existing bus network. The total capital cost would likely be around $600,000. � A more extensive system that provided coverage to much of Queen Creek might cost around $200,000 per year. This assumes a 60-mile round-trip loop through Queen Creek, with the same operating assumptions. This service would require between two to three additional buses to provide service, depending how it was connected to the existing bus network. The total capital cost would likely be around $900,000.



Assuming that Queen Creek boards the same number of passengers per mile as average Valley Metro service (2.12 per mile), total ridership would range from 10,000 boardings per year for the short service into downtown to as much as 50,000 to 80,000 boardings per year for a loop that takes in some part of Queen Creek. Valley Metro, as a whole, has almost 57 million boardings per year. In addition to new routes, Queen Creek is pursuing some type of transit center or park and ride area as a central location for transit routes to converge in the city. In the short term, there is likely to be limited demand for transit in Queen Creek. With under 20,000 residents and limited service, there are unlikely to be more than 20 riders per day. In the short term, these riders could be accommodated by using an existing location with surplus parking, rather than constructing a new transit center or park and ride facility. Future ridership will depend upon the types of services implemented for Queen Creek. However, MAG's 2001 Park and Ride Study provides some information about general travel patterns of park and ride users and the costs of implementation. The MAG Park and Ride Study estimated capital construction costs for park and ride lots at roughly $13,000 per space (updated to 2006 dollars). This does not include land costs, which vary significantly across the region. The number of spaces needed to accommodate Queen Creek will depend on the types of services implemented. A survey conducted for MAG's Park and Ride Study estimated that 40 percent of express bus users drive and park, even if only informally. It is likely that an larger percentage would drive in areas with relatively low residential density, such as Queen Creek. Table 3.7 provides likely park and ride costs at several potential ridership levels. The table assumes one space for every two riders. In addition, the MAG Park and Ride Study estimated annual operating and maintenance costs at $30,000 per lot.



3-22



Queen Creek Small Area Transportation Study



Table 3.7 Estimated Park and Ride Costs

Annual Trips 10,000 25,000 50,000 80,000 Average Weekday Trips 40 100 200 320 Likely Spaces Needed 20 50 100 160 Capital Cost (Excluding Land) $260,000 $650,000 $1,300,000 $2,080,000



Source: Estimated using MAG Park and Ride Study, 2001. Numbers updated to 2006 dollars.



Commuter Rail

Commuter rail is currently being evaluated as part of the MAG Commuter Rail Strategic Plan; the first phase of which is expected to be completed in the fall of 2007. This study is examining commuter rail in several corridors, including the Southeast. This study will identify critical implementation issues for commuter rail, including environmental, safety, ownership, liability, and funding. The first phase will not rank individual commuter rail corridors, but will identify overall feasibility. More detailed technical evaluations, including ridership forecasts, will be completed in future phases. As such, ridership estimates for commuter rail lines will not be produced until 2008. The MAG High Capacity Transit Study previously evaluated commuter rail along the Union Pacific Railroad Company (UP) Southeast line with a terminal in Queen Creek. The current study is looking beyond Queen Creek to potential stations in Pinal County. Table 3.7 presents the ridership estimates from the High Capacity Transit Study for each proposed commuter rail line, as well as for the three stations closest to Queen Creek on the UP Southeast line.



Table 3.8 Forecasts for Proposed Commuter Rail Lines, 2026

Line Burlington Northern-Santa Fe UP Mainline UP Southeast (station detail below) Gilbert Williams Gateway Queen Creek UP Yuma Source: MAG High Capacity Transit Study, 2003. Average Weekday Riders 4,862 1,372 1,970 504 797 941 2,710



3-23



Queen Creek Small Area Transportation Study



The High Capacity Transit Study used a three-mile catchment area to identify the potential population served. A basic sketch plan was identified for two stations, beyond the ones identified in the High Capacity Transit Study. Table 3.8 identifies the population within three miles of these stations. Ridership for the additional two stations was generated by estimating the ratio of ridership from the High Capacity Transit Study to the catchment area population.



Table 3.9 Population Served and Ridership for Proposed Commuter Rail Line, 2026

Station Queen Creek Intermediate Florence/Coolidge Source: Population in Catchment Area 163,633 271,030 82,977 Estimated Daily Boardings 941 1,559 477



MAG High Capacity Transit Study, 2003.



Figure 3.13 identifies the stations and presents population and employment densities as catchment areas. Using a three-mile catchment area is somewhat limited; the Commuter Rail Study will likely identify true market areas and will use an updated MAG travel demand model to estimate ridership. Until that time, this analysis provides a rough estimate of potential ridership. The two additional stations would add significant ridership to the commuter rail line, but, given overall traffic volumes, the commuter rail line will do little to reduce congestion in Queen Creek.



3-24



Queen Creek Small Area Transportation Study



Figure 3.13 Commuter Rail Station Potential, 2026



Note: The employment density shows if it is greater than the population density. The catchment area includes all TAZs that are at least partly within 3 miles of the stations. The commuter rail lines would be developed using existing trackage. The southeast line is owned by UP.



3-25



4.0 Funding



Queen Creek Small Area Transportation Study



4.0 Funding

This section analyzes local and state funding mechanisms over the next 20 years as potential sources for financing the projects identified in Section 4.0. Five funding sources were identified based on Queen Creek's 2005 to 2006 Capital Improvement Plan: � Two local sources: � � � The transportation development fee, and The dedicated transportation sale tax; and



Two state sources: � � The highway user revenue fund, and The local assistance transportation fund.



4.1 LOCAL SOURCES

Transportation Development Fee

Transportation Development Fees are a commonly used mechanism to support transportation investments in order to mitigate traffic congestion caused by population growth. At present, the Town of Queen Creek allocates its transportation impact fee to fund bridges and railroad crossings; and since the money collected is earmarked to finance such projects, new projects can only be included if the fee is updated. To provide an extent of the additional funds that could be collected over the next 20 years if the current fee were increased, a range of scenarios was identified using the assumptions from the 2006 Development Fee Update. The Development Fee Update assumed 74,969 peak PM trips in 2026 and estimated the cost of transportation improvements (bridges and railroad crossings only) of $393 per trip. Four scenarios were calculated, considering an increase of 10, 20, 30, and 50 percent of the current fee in real terms. The additional revenue from the fee increase was calculated by multiplying the number of trips in 2026 by the real percentage increase of the current fee. In the next 20 years, between $3 million and $15 million additional revenue could be generated, depending on both the fee increase and the materialization of planned development in the Town (Figure 4.1).



4-1



Queen Creek Small Area Transportation Study



Figure 4.1 Estimated Transportation Development Fee Revenues

1 6 .0 N ew Revenue Generated ($ Millions) 1 4 .0 1 2 .0 1 0 .0 8 .0 6 .0 4 .0 2 .0 0 .0 10%

Note: 2006 Dollars, in Millions



1 4 .7



8 .8



5 .9



2.9



2 0% 30% Percent Increase in Fee



50%



Sales Tax

Queen Creek recently approved 2 percent sales tax increase on new construction revenues, which the Town intends to use for funding transportation projects. To estimate future revenues from sales taxes, forecasts on land use development between 2006 and 2026 were taken from Tischler and Associates' 2003 Impact Fee Analysis (Table 4.1).



4-2



Queen Creek Small Area Transportation Study



Table 4.1 Estimated Cumulative Land Use Development

2006 Residential (Units) Single family Multifamily 5,666 113 12,978 300 27,603 675 27,946 683 2010 2020 2026



Non-Residential (1,000 Square Feet) Retail/comm/service Office/institutional Industrial/manufacturing Source: 977 1,102 1,129 1,793 1,972 2,434 3,591 3,778 4,810 4,510 5,248 6,441



Impact Fee Analysis Report, 2003.



Note: Values are cumulative, so the 2010 value will include the 2006 value and be the total for the Town at that point. The 2020 value includes 2010 and 2006 and so on.



The following assumptions were used to estimate future sales tax revenues: � � An annual increase in residential prices of 6 percent between 2006 and 2010, 4 percent between 2011 and 2020, and 3 percent between 2021 and 2026; An annual increase in non-residential prices of 5 percent between 2006 and 2010, 5 percent between 2011 and 2020, and 3 percent annual increase between 2021 and 2026; and An annual inflation of 3 percent per year.



�



Over the next 3 years, sales taxes are expected to generate $54 million (Table 4.2). Over the course of the SATS, the sales tax measure should generate roughly $141 million in revenue for Queen Creek.



4-3



Queen Creek Small Area Transportation Study



Table 4.2 Estimated Revenues from Sales Tax 2006 Dollars in Millions

2007-2010 Residential Single family Multifamily Non-residential Retail/comm/service Office/institutional Industrial/manufacturing Total Source: 2003. 6.50 3.30 3.60 54.10 15.10 7.30 7.00 119.80 8.00 6.20 4.90 21.30 40.20 0.60 89.10 1.30 2.20 0.03 2011-2020 2021-2026



Estimated using land use data from Impact Fee Analysis Report,



4.2 STATE SOURCES

Highway User Revenue Fund

The Highway User Revenue Fund (HURF) is the primary state, county, and city funding source for transportation in Arizona. It includes the collection of gasoline and use fuel taxes, motor carrier taxes, vehicle license taxes, motor vehicle registration fees, and other miscellaneous fees. The revenues are distributed to the cities (3 percent to cities over 300,000); towns (27.5 percent to all other cities and towns); and counties (19 percent). The cities and towns' portions are distributed based on gas sales and city or town population. According to the Town's General Budget, resources from HURF must be spent on projects related to street construction and maintenance. Queen Creek's estimates of HURF revenues were generated as follows: � � � ADOT's HURF revenue forecast from 2006 was used as the initial estimate of available funding; This was multiplied by 27.5 percent to estimate the revenues available to towns in Arizona; One-half of this total was multiplied by the ratio of Queen Creek's population (developed for the Impact Fee Study and used throughout the SATS) to the Department of Economic Security (DES) population forecast for the State; The other one-half was multiplied by the share of gas sold in Maricopa County over the last 10 years (roughly 58 percent), and then multiplied by



�



4-4



Queen Creek Small Area Transportation Study



the ratio of Queen Creek's population to the DES population forecast for Maricopa County; and � The total was deflated by 3 percent per year to adjust for inflation.



Figure 4.2 presents the HURF forecasts for Queen Creek over the next 20 years.



Figure 4.2 HURF Revenue Forecasts

Exp ected Revenue (Thousands) 6 ,0 0 0 5 ,0 0 0 4 ,0 0 0 3 ,0 0 0 2 ,0 0 0 1 ,0 0 0 0 2005



2010



2015 Year



2020



2025



2030



Local Transportation Assistance Fund I

The Local Transportation Assistance Fund (LTAF) I is funded from state-shared lottery revenues. Its uses are restricted to transit, street and road construction, and maintenance; and 10 percent of the funds may be set aside for cultural uses, such as art, educational, or historic projects. LTAF I funds are distributed to cities and towns equitably, based on their share of the statewide population. The maximum amount distributed in any given fiscal year may not exceed $23 million. LTAF I revenue for Queen Creek was forecast by multiplying the total amount of LTAF I revenue by the ratio of the Queen Creek population forecasts to the DES forecasts for statewide population. Queen Creek recently joined Valley Metro. Currently, 70 percent of LTAF I revenues are dedicated to providing service through Valley Metro. Consistent with current town policies, another 10 percent of LTAF I funds are used for cultural purposes, leaving 20 percent available for general transportation purposes. Figure 4.3 presents expected LTAF I revenues.



4-5



Queen Creek Small Area Transportation Study



Figure 4.3 LTAF I Revenue Forecast

120,000 100,000 Expected Revenue 80,000 60,000 40,000 20,000 2005 2010 2015 Year 2020 2025 2030



Local Transportation Assistance Fund II

In addition to the funds distributed by formula (LTAF I), additional lottery revenue is distributed to mass transit under LTAF II. Over the past three years, the LTAF II has been funded by Powerball earnings. Overall Powerball earnings must exceed $31 million annually for LTAF II to be funded. LTAF II funds are capped at $18 million, which was the level funded in FY 2006. To receive funds, cities, towns, and counties apply for grants to provide service to the general public or to Federally-defined groups with special needs (elderly, disabled, and low income). Because Queen Creek would be required to apply for these funds, it is difficult to forecast the total revenue available from this source. However, in 2006, over $10 million of the total LTAF II funds went to communities in Maricopa County. Paradise Valley, which is roughly the same size as Queen Creek, received over $40,000 from LTAF II. Buckeye, which has only 5,000 more residents, received close to $75,000. It is anticipated, that Queen Creek could receive as much as $50,000 per year from this source for the foreseeable future. As Queen Creek's population grows, its share should increase as well.



Federal 5310 Funds

Another source of transit funding that is available to Queen Creek is Federal 5310 funds. These funds are dedicated to providing transit for special needs populations, in particular the elderly and disabled. Arizona receives a fixed amount of 5310 funds, currently about $3.5 million annually, which it distributes to individual special needs transit providers, including non-profit organizations.



4-6



Queen Creek Small Area Transportation Study



Individual agencies apply for grants and are reviewed by ADOT and its planning partners.



4.3 SUMMARY OF FUNDING SOURCES

Based on the revenue forecasts, around $60 million will be available over the short term (2007 to 2010), nearly $150 million between 2011 to 2020, and over $45 million from 2021 to 2026 (Table 4.3). The sales tax and HURF are the major two sources of revenue for transportation projects within Queen Creek. This table does not reflect any contributions from other sources, such as developers, that will also be available to help program transportation projects. These projects are usually tied to a specific development, so they are not estimated here.



Table 4.3 Summary of Estimated Funding Sources 2006 Dollars in Millions

2007-2010 Local Development Fee Sales Tax State HURF LTAF I LTAF II Total 5.0 0.3 0.2 62.0 21.2 0.8 0.4 147.6 23.7 0.6 0.2 46.7 2.5 54.1 1.4 119.8 1.0 21.3 2011-2020 2021-2026



4-7



5.0 Implementation



Queen Creek Small Area Transportation Study



5.0 Implementation

Section 3.0 presented information useful to identify the priority of projects within Queen Creek. This section provides an overall summary and listing of priorities. In addition, an implementation plan is presented that uses the financial assumptions developed in Section 4.0. ADOT has been funding SATS all across the State. Many of these studies are taking place in rural areas or in small towns distant from other towns. The Queen Creek SATS is unique, in that Queen Creek, while relatively rural in nature a few years ago, is located in the Phoenix metro area. Many of the implementation actions appropriate for other SATs have already been taken in Queen Creek. The Town has an active TAC and has already begun to address some of the key transportation issues and funding issues. For example, Queen Creek's TIP has already identified many of the highest priority projects for the Town. The establishment of key funding mechanisms � including impact fees and a sales tax dedicated to transportation � means that these projects are currently being developed and having a significant impact on the Town.



5.1 ROADWAY PRIORITIES

Projects have been identified from several sources for future prioritization, including the existing Queen Creek's TIP, the Maricopa County DOT (MCDOT) TIP, assumptions made as part of the MAG model, and the analysis conducted for Queen Creek. Several key factors were considered to establish the priorities, including the following: � Commercial development. One of the top priorities to support the Town's General Plan and Town Center Plan is to support commercial development in designated areas of the Town. Connectivity. A second consideration is for local investments. Do new investments help complete key gaps in the arterial system and allow Queen Creek residents to access destinations across the metro area? Through traffic. A third consideration is for through traffic. As identified in the SATS, many of the issues facing Queen Creek relate to the massive residential growth expected in Pinal County. Although providing for this growth may seem to be a secondary consideration for Queen Creek, it is important to address these issues to allow for easy circulation and economic development in Queen Creek.



�



�



5-1



Queen Creek Small Area Transportation Study



�



Safety. Roadway investments should take into account existing high crash locations. These are likely to change significantly in the future as the Town continues to develop. Cost. The relative expense of right-of-way, construction, and other factors is also an important consideration. In the short term, implementing more costeffective projects first can help address existing issues and provide additional time to address more expensive and complicated projects.



�



Using these criteria, four general categories of roadway investments have been identified. These reflect a combination of priorities, timing, and the appropriate agency to take the lead.



Short Term Primary Routes

These are key routes that serve a combination of local, commercial, and through traffic. Advancing projects on these routes are the Town's top priority to promote orderly development, attract businesses and customers to commercial centers, and allow for the through movement of people. The following are the top three roadway segments: 1. Ellsworth from the Pinal County border to Mesa. This is the primary northsouth route through Queen Creek and provides access to the core business area of Queen Creek. The project includes completing the Ellsworth Loop Road, redeveloping Ellsworth downtown to support the Town Center Plan, and widening the segments of Ellsworth to the north and south of the Loop Road to four through lanes with a long-term plan for six through lanes. 2. Rittenhouse from the Mesa/Gilbert border to Ocotillo, just southeast of downtown. Rittenhouse is another key route for through movements and also provide access to downtown Queen Creek. The project includes completing planned rerouting of Rittenhouse at Germann and Ocotillo Roads and widening Rittenhouse to four lanes. Due to limited access, the portion of Rittenhouse southeast of Ocotillo is not included as a primary route, but there are some interim fixes for Rittenhouse (see below). 3. Ocotillo from Hawes to Meridian. Ocotillo is one of the only east-west routes crossing the width of Queen Creek. With development occurring in Pinal County, Ocotillo Road provides access to shopping in downtown Queen Creek. Because of discontinuities on Ocotillo within Gilbert, segments west of Hawes are lower priority.



Interim Fixes

A second set of arterials was identified as needing interim fixes in the short term that can delay more significant improvements. The interim fixes include spot widening, new signals, protected left-turn lanes and signals, and other similar



5-2



Queen Creek Small Area Transportation Study



fixes that can be implemented at relatively low cost. All of the routes in this category will have additional improvements made in the long term. The specific segments for short-term interim fixes include: � Rittenhouse from Ocotillo to Riggs/Combs. There are limited access points to Rittenhouse Road because of the railroad tracks on one side and development on the other. As a result, interim fixes including turn lanes can provide enough capacity in the short term for this segment of Rittenhouse. Long term, this road will be widened to four lanes, consistent with the ultimate goal of providing connections to downtown Queen Creek. Chandler Heights from Ellsworth to Power. The Maricopa County DOT and Pinal County have identified Riggs as an east-west road of regional significance, connecting all the way from I-10 to Pinal County, where it becomes Riggs Road. However, in Queen Creek, there are significant issues with right-of-way acquisition that will push development of Riggs out for several years. Chandler Heights provides a short-term alternative to support some east-west movement, especially for through movements from Pinal County to the south. Sossaman from Chandler Heights to Germann. Interim fixes on Sossaman will help to open up another north-south route for connection to the larger metro area.



�



�



Medium Term to Long Term Secondary Roads

In addition to the primary roads and interim fixes identified for the short term, there are a set of planned projects to complete the existing arterial network and expand it using information from the Queen Creek SATS. Many of these are existing projects within the Queen Creek TIP that will likely have to be postponed due to increasing construction and right-of-way costs. These projects, will have to compete with additional needs identified as part of the SATS and will likely come up for consideration starting in 2010 and beyond.



Perimeter Roads

In addition to the completion of the arterial system, there are several roads with regional significance that have to be addressed separately. Queen Creek's location between Maricopa and Pinal Counties creates significant through movements within the Town. One of the key strategies to accommodate this travel is through improved perimeter routes. Many pieces of the arterial system are currently missing. The roads identified in this section have a primary focus of carrying through traffic, though they would naturally also carry local traffic. These roads require development over the long term, in conjunction with residential development in Pinal County. Complete development of these routes will fall at



5-3



Queen Creek Small Area Transportation Study



least partly under the purview of other agencies, especially MCDOT. The key perimeter projects include the following: � Meridian from Riggs to Germann. Queen Creek is pursuing several potential opportunities in this corridor, including a new arterial, a regional super street, or some type of access limited facility. More information is provided below on the need for new high capacity roads. Development of this road requires completion of the segment within Mesa from the Williams Gateway Freeway to Germann and a potential southeast extension of this route into Pinal County, depending on the particular form it takes. Germann from Sossaman to Meridian. Power is currently a two-lane road along the northern border of Queen Creek and another county road of regional significance. Riggs from Meridian to Power, including widening the existing segment from Power to Ellsworth to six lanes and constructing a new six-lane segment from Ellsworth to Meridian. As noted above, this is a road of regional significance connecting and one of very few that connect I-10 through to Pinal County.



�



�



Summary

Figure 5.1 identifies the priorities established for roadway projects in Queen Creek. Table 5.1 presents a matrix with potential long-term roadway investments. The matrix includes projects that fall under the jurisdiction of Queen Creek, as well as other agencies. The table provides a qualitative assessment of the key impacts to traffic volumes and level of service (from Section 3.0) and an overall priority ranking of low, medium, and high. Many of the projects in the table are broken into individual segments to reflect the participation of various agencies in their development.



5-4



Queen Creek Small Area Transportation Study



Figure 5.1 Queen Creek Roadway Priorities



Note: The extension of Meridian to the southeast into Pinal County is shown for planning purposes only and is not intended to indicate an alignment or even necessarily a future road.



5-5



Queen Creek Small Area Transportation Study



Table 5.1 Long-Term Roadway Project Prioritization

Responsible Agencies MCDOT, Mesa, Queen Creek Pinal County Commercial Development Support Med Local Movement Support Low Through Movements Support High Overall Priority High



ID 1a



Project Meridian Expressway Meridian Expressway Widen Hunt Highway to 4 lanes Widen Power Rd to 4 lanes



Limits Williams Gateway to Rittenhouse Rd Meridian to N/S Freeway Ellsworth to Power Rd Hunt Hwy to Riggs Rd



Cost $100M



Notes Feasible because there is no existing Meridian Road Brings additional traffic to Queen Creek Helps distribute traffic to Power Road Completes a significant through arterial Draws through traffic away from Queen Creek Heavily utilized, but north-south capacity needs are more significant Completes east-west arterial; partial developer funding likely Provides through movement link Developed area of Queen Creek



1b



$300M



Low



Low



High



Med



2a



Queen Creek, MCDOT Queen Creek, MCDOT Pinal County



$8.5M



Low



Med



High



High



2b



$3M



Low



Med



High



High



3a



Widen Gantzel/ Hunt Hwy to Ironwood to 8 Williams Gateway lanes Fwy Widen I-10 to N/S freeway Riggs/Combs to 8 lanes Widen Ocotillo to 4 lanes Higley to Hawes



$35M



Low



Low



High



Mediu m Med



4a



MCDOT, Chandler, Gilbert, Queen Creek Pinal Co Queen Creek



$74M



Low



Low



High



5a



$9M



Med



High



Med



High



6a 7a



Queen Creek Rd to Germann Rd Connector Widen Queen Creek to 4 lanes Hawes to Signal Butte



Queen Creek Queen Creek



$29M $6M



Low Med



Low Med



Med Low



Low Med



5-6



Queen Creek Small Area Transportation Study



ID 8a 9a



Project Construct Crismon Rd Construct/ widen Signal Butte to 6 lanes Construct Signal Butte to 4 lanes Construct Empire to 4 lanes Construct Meridian to 4 lanes Widen Sossaman to 4 lanes Widen Hawes Rd to 4 lanes Widen Cloud Road to 4 lanes



Limits Germann to Queen Creek



Responsible Agencies Queen Creek



Cost $4M $7M



Commercial Development Support Low Low



Local Movement Support Med Med



Through Movements Support Low Low



Notes Completes part of arterial network Completes a scalloped segment; partial developer funding likely Low traffic volumes



Overall Priority Low Low



Queen Creek Rd to Queen Creek Germann Rd



9b



Empire to Riggs



Queen Creek



$5M



Low



Low



Low



Low



10a



Ellsworth to Meridian Empire to Riggs



Queen Creek



$12M



Low



Low



Low



Partial developer funding likely Completes last segment of Meridian Helps distribute through traffic to multiple arterials Helps distribute through traffic to multiple arterials Partial developer funding likely



Low



11a



Queen Creek, MCDOT Queen Creek



$3M



Low



Low



Low



Low



12a



Hunt Hwy to Cloud Rd Hunt Hwy to Cloud Rd Ellsworth to Signal Butte



$5M



Low



Low



Med



Low



13a



Queen Creek



$5M



Low



Low



Med



Low



14a



Queen Creek



$9M



Low



Low



Low



Low



Note: For volume change, a reduction is desirable; for LOS change, an improvement is desirable.



5-7



Queen Creek Small Area Transportation Study



New High Capacity Facilities

The Queen Creek SATS grew out of ADOT's corridor definition studies, which were initiated to help determine the need for and feasibility of new high capacity facilities in Pinal County. The recommendations of those studies noted the lack of a mature arterial system in Queen Creek as a contributor to future expected congestion. The Arizona Department of Economic Security currently projects around 800,000 residents in Pinal County by 2030. The Pinal County SATS, completed in 2006, identified a 2030 population of 1.9 million residents. At 800,000 residents, improving the arterial system in Queen Creek is sufficient to address future congestion concerns. At 1.9 million, it is not. In addition, it is not possible to develop a mile-spaced arterial system within Queen Creek. Several north-south roads (Signal Butte, Crismon, and Hawes) cannot be completed due to development or, in the case of Hawes, the Williams Gateway Airport. Development also precludes completion of a couple east-west roads, including Queen Creek and Chandler Heights. Finally, the UP Southeast railroad presents a major barrier cutting from the northwest to southeast corner of the town � capacity improvements across or along the railroad will be significantly more expensive and difficult to implement. In order to address the need for new facilities, a sketch planning comparison was made between additional arterial capacity and high capacity roadways. This analysis began with the base future (2026) scenario from the model runs, but did not use the MAG model to conduct the analysis. Table 5.2 presents a comparison of adding new arterial capacity, expanding the proposed freeways from the corridor definition study, and adding a new high capacity facility in addition to those proposed freeways. The table identifies the impact on the average volume per lane during the peak hour of the arterial system in Queen Creek and the surrounding area. Adding additional capacity to the proposed freeway system (8 lanes instead of 6) reduces traffic on the arterial system by about 15 percent. Completing all of the projects identified in the Queen Creek SATS saves an additional 10 percent. However, adding a new high capacity facility instead of these local improvements, reduces traffic on the arterial system by 35 percent, reducing the volume on arterials to around 800 vehicles per hour in the peak period, which is within an acceptable range for arterials. If the residential population of Pinal County grows as much and as fast as expected by the Pinal County SATS (and without parallel job growth), then additional capacity may be needed to provide congestion relief for Queen Creek.



5-8



Queen Creek Small Area Transportation Study



Table 5.2 Impact of Investments of Peak Hour Volumes

Average Peak Hour Volume Per Lane on Arterials 1,560 1,330 1,200



Scenario Base future Extra lanes on freeways Extra lanes + Queen Creek build out Extra lanes + new facility



Description Williams/North-South Freeways at 6 lanes Williams/North-South Freeways at 8 lanes Williams/North-South Freeways at 8 lanes; build out of Queen Creek arterial system Williams/North-South Freeways at 8 lanes; additional access controlled capacity connecting Maricopa and Pinal Counties



770



Note: This analysis is based on a sketch planning analysis of new facilities, not the MAG travel demand model. The analysis assumes that a freeway lane can handle a peak volume of 2,000 vehicles per hour.



There is no obvious place to locate an additional high capacity facility in the Queen Creek area, nor it is the objective of this study to identify the needs for such a facility. The recommendation of this study is that ADOT closely examine the location of the North-South freeway in its upcoming Design Concept Report (DCR). The DCR will revisit the needs and feasibility analysis developed as part of the ADOT Corridor Definition Studies. It may also be useful to consider new or upgraded regional or county roads or adding capacity to other state highways in the Pinal County that provide connections to Maricopa County. In particular, improvements to SR 79 and U.S. 60 may have the potential to help shift some of the through traffic away from Queen Creek, depending, in part, on the location selected for the North-South freeway.



Pinal County � The Big If

The analysis in this report is contingent on the growth forecasts used for Pinal County. Although the late 1990s and early 2000s produced rapid population growth in Pinal County, this growth has substantially cooled. The population forecasts used for this study were taken from the Pinal County SATS, which predicted a 20-year period of the fastest growth rates that any county in the U.S. has ever had, averaging over 10 percent per year. It is useful to consider the significance of these forecasts on the transportation system in Queen Creek. At the start of this project, two scenarios were considered for Pinal County � the Pinal County SATS-based projects and a second set of projections from the Arizona DES. These latter projections showed slightly less than one-half the population level of the Pinal County SATS projections, or a total of about 800,000 people in Pinal County by 2026. Figure 5.2 presents the future speeds and intersection level of service for 2026 using the DES forecasts.



5-9



Queen Creek Small Area Transportation Study



Figure 5.2 Speeds and Intersection LOS Based on Arizona DES, 2026



5-10



Queen Creek Small Area Transportation Study



If Pinal County grows at one-half the expected rate, then the currently planned set of improvements for Queen Creek and the surrounding will be enough to maintain acceptable traffic flow within the Town. However, many of the improvements are as yet only planned, not funded. Within Queen Creek, most of the improvements to arterial network are funded through the Queen Creek TIP. No funding has yet to be identified for the planned ADOT freeway system identified by the ADOT corridor definition studies. Even if Pinal County grows at two-thirds to three-quarters of the rate identified in the Pinal County SATS, the problems in Queen Creek will be much less severe. The study results presented here may need to be reconsidered once the Central Arizona Association of Governments (CAAG) develops updated population projections as part of the Projections Study for Pinal County, which is expected to begin and be completed in 2007.



5.2 PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION PRIORITIES

Queen Creek recently joined Valley Metro and initial service has begun to Tempe (Route 534). The Town is working with Valley Metro to identify the appropriate set of destinations for future service. Table 5.3 and Figure 5.3 present the major destinations from Queen Creek (Zip Code 85242) and the surrounding area (Zip Code 85243) for commuters from a survey of commuters.



Table 5.3 Commuters from the Queen Creek Area to Major Destinations

Area Tempe (ASU/Sky Harbor) Chandler Downtown Phoenix Mesa (U.S. 60 corridor) Williams Gateway Queen Creek Other Source: Zip Code 85242 Zip Code 85243 848 990 135 969 86 430 1,165 Valley Metro Commuter Survey, 2006. 43 58 11 42 12 30 72 Total 891 1,048 146 1,011 98 460 1,237



The short-term priorities for these services include the following: � � � Express service to Tempe/ASU/Sky Harbor, begun in 2007 (Line 534); Fixed-route service to Chandler, expected in later 2007; and Future service to major destinations in Mesa along the U.S. 60 corridor, most notably the Superstition Mall area, which alone receives 250 daily commuters.



5-11



Queen Creek Small Area Transportation Study



Figure 5.3 Destinations for Queen Creek Commuters, 2006



5-12



Queen Creek Small Area Transportation Study



Other destinations currently have fewer than 200 commuters per day (except Queen Creek itself), which is not significant enough to warrant transit service at this time. As the Williams Gateway area continues to grow, this will become a future potential destination. Notably, there are relatively few commuters to downtown Phoenix, despite being the largest employment hub of the region. This is likely due to the distance from Queen Creek to downtown Phoenix, but future residential growth may change the commute patterns of Queen Creek's residents. Queen Creek and Valley Metro should continue to monitor commuting patterns to determine the most appropriate services to implement. Longer-term public transportation priorities are presented in Table 5.4. In the timeframe of the SATS, the continued development of expressed and fixed bus routes is the most appropriate investment.



Table 5.4 Public Transportation Long-Term Prioritization Matrix

Transit Service Local circulator Ridership Potential (Annual) Unknown Initial Capital Cost $300,000 Annual Operating Cost $25,000 Overall Priority Low



Notes Queen Creek currently does not have the appropriate market characteristics. Near-term solution to provide transportation alternatives for Queen Creek residents. Longer-term solution to expand the network as the population grows. Could increase traffic into Queen Creek from outside areas. Not likely to significantly reduce congestion on roadways. Unknown additional cost for implementing a longer corridor



Extend fixedroutes to downtown Mature fixed-route system Commuter rail (Queen Creek station)



10,000



-



$25,000



High



50,0008 0 ,0 0 0



$600,000 � $900,000



$200,000



Med



160,000 $19 operating/ revenue mile



Low



Commuter rail (Pinal County stations)



450,000



$650 milli on



Low



Note: Commuter rail costs do not include the two stations identified in Pinal County by the SATS.



5-13



Queen Creek Small Area Transportation Study



Commuter rail has potential to carry a substantial number of passengers per year at the proposed Queen Creek station, as well as at the potential stations identified in Pinal County. However, the cost of implementation for this service is high and the benefits are unclear. Unlike local bus service, which will primarily serve Queen Creek residents, commuter rail may well attract more drivers into Queen Creek from outside the city boundaries to use the service. Three factors � locating the station in the southeastern part of town, developing parking charges to discourage the station's use as a park-and-ride facility, and developing stations in Pinal County � may help ensure that the commuter rail investment has the intended congestion mitigation impact. A local circulator may also become appropriate in the future, but current demographics in Queen Creek make this service less likely to succeed than the one in Ahwatukee.



5.3 NON-TRANSPORTATION SOLUTIONS

Although the focus of the SATS is on identifying transportation problems and solutions, there are other broader considerations that could have a significant impact on future congestion in Queen Creek and the region. At the regional level, it will be vital to start considering the future relationship between Maricopa and Pinal Counties. By the time of the 2010 Census, parts of Pinal County will be large enough to be considered a metropolitan area. Given the commuting relationship between the two, it will be vital to begin early coordination between these two entities. One solution that should be considered is an attempt to balance population growth in Pinal County with new sources of employment. Figure 5.4 presents the expected population to employment ratio in 2026, using the population and employment data that has been considered in this study. The ratios in the figure have been calculated by the municipal planning areas used in the MAG model, rather than by individual zones. Most of Pinal County, especially the areas with significant population, have at least four times more people than jobs � the overall ratio for Maricopa County is around 2.5. Some parts of the County � notably the current state lands area that is slated for massive development in the future � is expected to have over 10 times as many people as jobs. Pinal County, any future MPO, and MAG should work closely together to help ensure that employment in Pinal County grows apace with population. This would have major benefits for Pinal County, Queen Creek, and much of Maricopa County. Improving the balance of population and employment will do more than anything else to reduce the congestion identified in this study. As a result, it will reduce the need to invest as heavily in high capacity corridors.



5-14



Queen Creek Small Area Transportation Study



Figure 5.4 Population-Employment Ratio in the MAG Model Area, 2026



5-15