Queen Creek Small Area Transportation Study
Current and Future Conditions
Working Paper #1
prepared for
Town of Queen Creek
prepared by
Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
May 2006
www.camsys.com
working paper #1
Queen Creek Small Area Transportation Study
Current and Future Conditions
prepared for
Town of Queen Creek
prepared by
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 555 12th Street Suite 1600 Oakland, CA 94609
date
May 2006
Queen Creek Small Area Transportation Study
Table of Contents
1.0 Introduction ......................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Study Area ................................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 2.0 Organization of Report .............................................................................. 1-2
Review of Studies ............................................................................................... 2-1 2.1 2.2 2.3 Queen Creek Studies .................................................................................. 2-1 State and Regional Plans............................................................................2-4 Local Transportation Plans........................................................................2-8
3.0
Socioeconomic Estimates and Forecasts ......................................................... 3-1 3.1 3.2 3.3 Queen Creek ................................................................................................ 3-2 Maricopa County Outside Queen Creek.................................................3-4 Pinal County Outside Queen Creek.........................................................3-5
4.0
Transportation System.......................................................................................4-1 4.1 Current System ........................................................................................... 4-1 4.2 4.3 Programmed System .................................................................................. 4-8 Planned Unfunded System......................................................................4-11
5.0
System Conditions..............................................................................................5-1 5.1 Current System ........................................................................................... 5-1 5.2 Future System..............................................................................................5-6
6.0
Conclusion ........................................................................................................... 6-1
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 7668.001
i
Queen Creek Small Area Transportation Study
List of Tables
Table 3.1 Table 3.2 Table 3.3 Table 5.1 Table 5.2 Table 5.3 Queen Creek Socioeconomic Estimates and Forecasts ................... 3-3 Maricopa County Socioeconomic Estimates and Forecasts ............ 3-4 Pinal County Socioeconomic Estimates and Forecasts ................... 3-6 Intersection LOS Grades.................................................................. 5-3 Traffic Crashes in Queen Creek, 2003-2005 ................................... 5-5 Potential Paratransit Dependent Population..................................... 5-5
Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
iii
Queen Creek Small Area Transportation Study
List of Figures
Figure 1.1 Queen Creek Study Area ................................................................. 1-2 Figure 3.1 Queen Creek Model Area Overview................................................ 3-2 Figure 4.1 Functional Classification of Roadway Network, 2004 .................... 4-2 Figure 4.2 Number of Lanes, 2004.................................................................... 4-3 Figure 4.3 Speed Limits, 2004 .......................................................................... 4-4 Figure 4.4 Existing and Future Highways Influencing the Area....................... 4-5 Figure 4.5 Bus Routes and Park and Ride, City of Gilbert ............................... 4-6 Figure 4.6 Queen Creek Bicycle and Multiuse Trail Network, 2005................ 4-7 Figure 4.7 Queen Creek Transportation Improvement Program....................... 4-9 Figure 4.8 Number of Lanes, 2026.................................................................. 4-10 Figure 4.9 New Supergrid Bus Service Phasing ............................................. 4-11 Figure 4.10 ADOT Defined Corridors .............................................................. 4-12 Figure 4.11 Future High Capacity Transit Projects........................................... 4-13 Figure 4.12 Bicycle Network, County Sources, 2025....................................... 4-14 Figure 4.13 Queen Creek Proposed Nonmotorized Network............................ 4-16 Figure 5.1 Queen Creek Traffic Counts ............................................................ 5-2 Figure 5.2 MAG Traffic Counts, 2003.............................................................. 5-3 Figure 5.3 Intersection LOS, 2004 .................................................................... 5-4 Figure 5.4 Future Traffic Volumes for 2026 Based on Arizona DES............... 5-7 Figure 5.5 Future Traffic Volumes for 2026 Based on SATS .......................... 5-8 Figure 5.6 Traffic Volume Comparison Between SATS and Arizona DES Model Runs...................................................................................... 5-9 Figure 5.7 Speeds and Intersection LOS for 2026 Based on Arizona DES .... 5-10 Figure 5.8 Speeds and Intersection LOS for 2026 Based on SATS................ 5-11 Figure 5.9 Travel Patterns in the Queen Creek Area, 2026 ............................ 5-13
Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
v
1.0 Introduction
Queen Creek Small Area Transportation Study
1.0 Introduction
Queen Creek is a town of about 16,000 inhabitants located on the eastern fringe of the Phoenix metropolitan area. Originally developed as a rural residential community, Queen Creek is increasingly sandwiched between the rapid growth of the metro area, including the nearby Cities of Mesa and Gilbert, and the growth of unincorporated communities to the south in Pinal County. Queen Creek itself has started to grow quickly, more than tripling in size since the 2000 Census. Growth of these areas has meant rapidly increasing traffic on Queen Creek's roadway system, both from local and through traffic. And, with the likely future development of over 275 square miles of State Trust Lands to the east and the continued growth of Pinal County, congestion and related transportation problems in Queen Creek are expected to get worse. The Queen Creek Small Area Transportation Study (SATS) is intended to help address these long-term transportation planning issues for the Town of Queen Creek. The study will address both roadway and transit improvements that can help alleviate congestion in the Town, and provide mobility for residents and connections to major regional transportation facilities. Funded primarily by the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT), the SATS provide long-range planning assistance to communities throughout Arizona. This report provides information about current and future conditions for the Queen Creek SATS. It is the first of two technical reports that will be generated to support the study.
1.1
STUDY AREA
The primary study area for the Queen Creek SATS is the Town of Queen Creek. Most of the information presented in this report is for the Town, but given the regional nature of many of the transportation issues in the Town, information for surrounding areas is also presented, where appropriate. Figure 1.1 presents a basic overview of the study area, with major roads and surrounding communities identified. The study will encompass a wide range of transportation investments, including new or upgraded roads, transit service ranging from local circulators to regional service; potential commuter rail service; and nonmotorized transportation, including bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian issues.
Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
1-1
Queen Creek Small Area Transportation Study
Figure 1.1
Queen Creek Study Area
1.2
ORGANIZATION OF REPORT
This report reviews current and future conditions in the study area. The report is organized as follows. � Relevant studies by Queen Creek, neighboring jurisdictions, counties, regional agencies, and others were reviewed to support the study. Key relevant information from these studies includes proposed developments, socioeconomic data, and planned and proposed transportation investments. Section 2.0 describes the studies reviewed in support of this study. Socioeconomic data forms the foundation of the analysis for the study. Potential data sources for population and employment are identified and evaluated in Section 3.0. Section 4.0 describes the current and future transportation systems expected in the area, including existing systems; systems that will be implemented during the course of the plan (i.e., funded systems); and systems that have been identified and planned, but which lack a dedicated source of funding.
�
�
1-2
Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
Queen Creek Small Area Transportation Study
�
All of this information is used to evaluate current and future conditions on the transportation system, including traffic volumes, ridership, level of service (LOS), and related information. Section 5.0 describes current and future conditions for the road, rail, and transit systems. Finally, Section 6.0 describes key issues identified through the analysis and how this information will be used in the next phases of the project.
�
Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
1-3
2.0 Review of Studies
Queen Creek Small Area Transportation Study
2.0 Review of Studies
A number of studies were reviewed to support Queen Creek SATS. The review of studies supports the overall analysis by identifying proposed improvements, data sources, known transportation issues, and related information. Several types of studies were reviewed for this report, including the following: � � Queen Creek studies, including the general plan, previous transportation studies, socioeconomic studies, and others; State and regional transportation plans and studies, including recently completed ADOT Corridor Definition Studies, the Southeast Maricopa/Northern Pinal County Area Transportation Study, the Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), and others; and Studies for local jurisdictions, including the Maricopa County Department of Transportation (MCDOT) system and corridor studies, Pinal County Small Area Transportation Study, and local transportation plans from Mesa, Gilbert, and Apache Junction.
�
For each of the studies reviewed, a synthesis of the study purpose and major findings is provided. This review focuses on needs, issues, and solutions connected to Queen Creek's transportation system.
2.1
QUEEN CREEK STUDIES
This section provides a review of existing Queen Creek studies, including the following: � � � The General Plan, Keeping Queen Creek Unique; The Town Center Plan; and A demographic analysis generated for a Development Fee Study.
Keeping Queen Creek Unique General Plan, 2002 Purpose
The Town of Queen Creek General Plan provides the guidelines for future development within the community. The general plan includes the community's statement of vision, development goals and policies, and an implementation plan to realize the vision.
Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
2-1
Queen Creek Small Area Transportation Study
Findings
Based on Queen Creek community input, the major transportation needs and issues identified by residents included the following: � � � � � � Providing excellent transportation connections with adjacent communities, the metro area, and the Town Center; Restricting truck access to downtown and developing an alternate truck route; Establishing multiuse trails and paths (bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian); Considering public transportation; Developing traffic calming measures to address traffic in neighborhoods; Converting Rittenhouse Road to a multiuse trail from Williams Field to Power Road to limit its use and redirect access to Queen Creek to north-south and east-west facilities; and Addressing the additional traffic on Queen Creek's roadway system expected from future residential development in Pinal County.
�
The Town established transportation goals in order to respond to residents' needs, including the following: � � � � � � Adopting roadway design standards to reflect travel function and anticipated travel volumes based upon development densities and intensity. Providing nonmotorized modes through the construction of bicycle and pedestrian pathways and equestrian trails. Promoting a multimodal system. Supporting multijurisdictional planning with jurisdictions that share common transportation facilities. Establishing guidelines for safety and access management and traffic impact analysis. Providing or facilitating the provision of local and regional public transportation service in areas or markets where unmet transportation will exist at build-out. Examples noted included establishing park-and-ride facilities within the Town to encourage car sharing, extending East Valley dial-a-ride service into Queen Creek, identifying potential transit routes, and planning for future commuter rail service.
Town Center Plan, 2004 Purpose
The Town Center Plan provides specific guidelines for the development of the Town's core area.
2-2
Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
Queen Creek Small Area Transportation Study
Findings
The Town Center Plan identified the following land use development and transportation projects to be undertaken in the coming years: � Land use development north of Ocotillo Road will be characterized by larger tenant anchor retailers. South of Ocotillo Road, development intensity will decrease towards municipal and parks recreation facilities. Construction of Ellsworth Loop Road to reduce pressure on Ellsworth, provide through traffic a way to avoid crossing the Town Center, and improve the pedestrian environment around the town center. Realignment of Rittenhouse Road to avoid issues with angular crossings and the adjacent railroad tracks. Construction of a Collector Loop Road to serve a high-density residential area in the center of town.
�
� �
Development Fee Study Purpose
As the Town of Queen Creek develops, it has identified potential revenue shortfalls to fund needed infrastructure improvements. Like many cities in the region and the U.S., it has identified development impact fees as a potential source of revenue. These fees are typically tied to the trips generated by new residential, commercial, and industrial development, and are intended to help new growth pay for itself. The goals of the study included the following: � � � Analyzing the fiscal impacts of growth scenarios on the Town under its current revenue structure; Providing fiscal information to enhance short- and long-term planning, budget, and finance policy decisions; and Providing suggestions to address fiscal deficiencies revealed by the analysis.
Findings
The study evaluated several scenarios, including the following � Residential growth trends � � � Scenario 1. Accelerated 1,500 housing units; Growth � Average annual growth of
Scenario 2. Current Growth � Average annual growth of 1,000 housing units; and Scenario 3. units. Slower Growth � Average annual growth of 750 housing
Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
2-3
Queen Creek Small Area Transportation Study
�
Nonresidential growth trends: � � Scenario 1. Normal Growth � Increase in jobs-to-population ratio from 0.37 to 0.5 over time (as in the Town's General Plan); and Scenario 2. Slowed Growth � Maintaining a 0.37 jobs-to-population ratio.
In the short term, the Town is generating sufficient revenues to accommodate new growth. However, five years out, annual net deficits emerge. When examining each residential growth scenario, fiscal benefits are realized with more commercial development rather than less. Also, normal nonresidential growth is fiscally more advantageous than slowed nonresidential growth. Fiscal issues are only one way to evaluate a development project. Environmental, land use, and social issues should also be taken into consideration when determining what is best for the Town.
2.2
STATE AND REGIONAL PLANS
Several state and regional plans were reviewed as part of the study, including the following: � � � � The Southeast Maricopa/Northern Pinal County Area Transportation Study (SEMNPTS); ADOT's Corridor Definition Studies, which built on the analysis generated in SEMNTPS; The MAG Regional Transportation Plan (RTP); and The MAG High Capacity Transit (HCT) Study.
Southeast Maricopa/Northern Pinal County Area Transportation Study, 2003 Purpose
The Southeast Maricopa/Northern Pinal County Area Transportation Study examined the long-term transportation needs of the region, and identified potential highway, street, transit, paratransit, and nonmotorized projects to address such needs to the year 2030.
Findings
The study identified several arterial projects and two transit projects within Queen Creek. In the case of paratransit and pedestrian needs, no specific projects were identified, though the gaps were pointed out.
2-4
Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
Queen Creek Small Area Transportation Study
Arterial widening projects were identified as needed for the following: � � � � � � � � Germann Road between Meridian and Ellsworth Roads; Rittenhouse Road between Meridian and Power Roads; Queen Creek Road between Meridian and Ellsworth Roads; Ocotillo Road between Meridian and Ellsworth Roads; Riggs Road between Meridian and Power Roads; and Power Road between Hunt Highway and Germann Road. Commuter rail along the railroad tracks adjacent to Rittenhouse Road, connecting Baseline Road in Gilbert with Queen Creek's downtown; and A bus rapid transit corridor along Power Road.
Transit projects were identified as needed for the following:
In addition to fixed-route transit, paratransit needs are estimated. According to SEMNPTS, Queen Creek will require 15 hours per day of paratransit services to persons with disabilities and seniors in year 2030. Nonmotorized transportation gaps were also identified. The nonmotorized system is intended to provide bicycle and pedestrian path continuity across municipal boundaries. The following gaps in Queen Creek were identified: � � Riggs Road between Meridian and Crismon Roads; and Chandler Heights Road between Meridian and Signal Butte.
Several new corridors were also identified as potential future freeways. None of these touched Queen Creek directly, but they do have the potential to improve through traffic in the region. These were addressed in greater detail by the ADOT Corridor Definition Studies as described below.
ADOT Corridor Definition Studies, 2006 Purpose
Starting in the fall of 2004, ADOT conducted three corridor definition studies to address the need for and feasibility of the following four new corridors identified as part of the SEMNTPS: 1. A new Williams Gateway corridor, stretching from Loop 202 near the Hawes interchange in Mesa to U.S. 60 near Gold Canyon; 2. A reroute of U.S. 60 in the vicinity of Gold Canyon; 3. A new North-South corridor stretching from Apache Junction to Florence, Coolidge, or Eloy; and
Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
2-5
Queen Creek Small Area Transportation Study
4. A new East-West corridor connecting I-10 along roughly Hunt Highway (the boundary between Maricopa and Pinal Counties) to Florence Junction in the east.
Findings
These three studies helped established corridor needs, appropriate level of development, and costs for the corridors. The studies identified two major needed facilities: the U.S. 60 reroute and a Williams Gateway to North-South corridor that started at Loop 202, turning south in the vicinity of the Central Arizona Project (CAP) canal, and connecting to either Florence or Coolidge. In addition to these needed corridors, a number of additional roadway segments were identified through stakeholder input. These other future corridors provide a means to accommodate the rapid growth potential in the area. The North-South to Williams Gateway corridor has the potential to provide some relief to the Queen Creek area by providing an alternate route for some of the through traffic between residents in Pinal County and employment centers in Maricopa County.
MAG Regional Transportation Plan, 2003 Purpose
The MAG RTP provides a comprehensive, multimodal, and coordinated regional plan through the fiscal year 2026 for the MAG planning area. The plan analyzed population trends and economic and land use development patterns in order to identify transportation investments in freeways, highways, streets, and transit that will best fit the present and future needs of the region. The MAG RTP was adopted by voters as part of Proposition 400, which extended the one-half cent sales tax dedicated to transportation in Maricopa County.
Findings
By 2030, population in Maricopa County is expected to double over the 2000 population, with an anticipated total of 6.24 million people. The Town of Queen Creek is expected to grow tenfold over the same period. Several arterial projects were identified in the MAG RTP for Queen Creek and the surrounding area: � � � Widening Germann Road to 6 lanes from Ellsworth to Signal Butte Road, planned for the 2021 to 2026 timeframe; Widening Power Road to 6 lanes from Williams Field to Chandler Heights, planned for the 2021 to 2026 timeframe; Constructing a 6-lane roadway along Meridian from Baseline to Germann (just north of Queen Creek) between 2016 and 2020;
2-6
Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
Queen Creek Small Area Transportation Study
� � �
Widening Signal Butte to 6 lanes from Broadway to Pecos between 2021 and 2026; Widening Crismon to 6 lanes from Broadway to Germann Road (just north of Queen Creek) between 2021 and 2026; and Widening Pecos from Ellsworth to Meridian Road between 2005 and 2010.
One freeway project was also identified in the vicinity of Queen Creek: the Williams Gateway Freeway. The portion of this facility within Maricopa County is funded through the RTP. The facility will connect Loop 202 to Meridian Road. MAG recently conducted a Williams Gateway Alignment and Environmental Overview Study that identified the preferred aligned for this facility. Although the Town of Queen Creek preferred an alignment along Ryan Road, an alignment along Frye Road was identified as the preferred alignment. The final location of this facility will be determined by a Draft Construction Report (DCR) to be conducted by ADOT within the next few years. The RTP also identified transit projects. No transit projects are identified that connect directly to Queen Creek, but two projects provide nearby connections: 1. Supergrid service along Power Road to Rittenhouse, planned for the 2011 to 2015 timeframe; and 2. Supergrid service along Queen Creek Road to Power Road, planned for the 2016 to 2020 timeframe.
High Capacity Transit Study, 2003 Purpose
The HCT study used travel demand forecasts to estimate the need for new highcapacity transit services, including commuter rail, bus rapid transit, and light-rail transit, throughout the Phoenix metropolitan area.
Findings
Several transit projects were identified in or near the Town of Queen Creek, including the following: � Commuter rail along the Union Pacific railroad right-of-way adjacent to Rittenhouse Road, connecting Queen Creek to Baseline Road in Gilbert, with initial implementation justified between 2015 and 2030 and full implementation after 2030; A light-rail transit (LRT) or bus rapid transit (BRT) corridor along Power Road from Rittenhouse Road to McDowell Road with potential implementation after 2030; and
�
Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
2-7
Queen Creek Small Area Transportation Study
�
An LRT or BRT corridor along Chandler Heights Boulevard primarily connecting the Towns of Gilbert and Chandler (west of Power Road), with potential implementation after 2030.
No funding was identified in the MAG RTP for the commuter rail and LRT/BRT projects identified as part of the HCT study. MAG is planning to initiate a commuter rail study in the next several months. This study will identify potential funding sources, updated ridership projections, and implementation of commuter rail options in the Phoenix metropolitan area, including the Southeast Valley, near Queen Creek.
2.3
LOCAL TRANSPORTATION PLANS
Several local transportation plans were evaluated for the Queen Creek SATS, including the following: � � � Three corridor studies developed by MCDOT; The ongoing Pinal County SATS; and Local transportation plans from the Cities of Mesa, Gilbert, and Apache Junction.
Maricopa County Corridor Study Report: Ellsworth Road from Elliot Road to Hunt Highway, 1997 Purpose
Ellsworth Road, earmarked as an Urban Road of Regional Significance1, is a major transportation corridor providing access to industrial and town centers; and an integral connection to the Santan Freeway, which is currently under construction. The purpose of the study was to solicit public, environmental, and engineering input; and recommend an improved corridor to accommodate traffic to the year 2015. For this evaluation Ellsworth Road was split into two study sections: the north segment from Elliot Road to Germann Road and the south segment from Germann Road to Hunt Highway. For the south section, six alternatives were analyzed with the purpose of addressing the concerns of the citizens of Queen Creek regarding their request of maintaining a small town environment within the Town Center. The six alternatives were evaluated based on community impacts, projects costs, design standards, right-of-way impacts, and environmental impacts.
1
A Road of Regional Significance is ultimately to be constructed to a high level of design with a cross section of six through traffic lanes, bicycle lanes, bus bays, a raised median with left-turn bays, and a high-level access control on 140-foot right of way.
2-8
Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
Queen Creek Small Area Transportation Study
Findings
The recommended alternative included the following: � Widening Ellsworth Road to a 5-lane section with 140-foot right-of-way, except through the Town Center of Queen Creek, which would be an 88-foot right of way. The 140-foot right of way allows for an ultimate 7-lane section. Construct an alternate route one-quarter mile west of Ellsworth from Queen Creek Road to south of Queen Creek bridge (the Ellsworth Loop Road) to avoid disruption within the Town Center. This route would consist of a 5lane section on a 110-foot right of way. Construct a perpendicular intersection between the alternate route and Rittenhouse Road.
�
�
Queen Creek is in the process of constructing the Ellsworth Loop Road, with completion expected in 2008.
Maricopa County Final Access and Corridor Improvement Study: Power Road from Hunt Highway to Guadalupe Road, 2000 Purpose
Power Road, earmarked as an Urban Road of Regional Significance, serves portions of Queen Creek, Gilbert, Mesa, and unincorporated Maricopa County. With the increase land use development and the resulting increase in traffic volumes, MCDOT conducted a study to provide options for future roadway alignments, capacity increasing measures, and a uniform access control policy to the year 2020 that could be adopted by the adjacent municipalities. The corridor was split into 5 segments of approximately 2 miles as follows: 1. Hunt Highway to Chandler Heights Road; 2. Chandler Heights Road to Queen Creek Road; 3. Queen Creek Road to Pecos Road; 4. Pecos Road to Ray Road; and 5. Ray Road to Guadalupe Road.
Findings
The proposed alignment for Power Road consists of the following: � � � � A four-lane section from Hunt Highway to Chandler Heights Road; A six-lane section from Chandler Heights Road to Guadalupe Road; Bike lanes throughout the corridor; Dual left-turn lanes, an exclusive right-turn lane, and traffic signals at all section line intersections;
2-9
Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
Queen Creek Small Area Transportation Study
� � �
Traffic signals "boxed in" at minor intersections and installed when warranted; Potential auxiliary lanes at all crossroads; and Replacement of the roadway pavement structure.
Maricopa County Riggs Road Access Control and Corridor Improvement Study, 1999 Purpose
Riggs Road, earmarked as a Road of Regional Significance, is an important east� west arterial roadway located in fast growing southeast Maricopa County. The purpose of the study was to develop a corridor plan consistent with the regional transportation needs. The study evaluated corridor characteristics include the physical and natural environment of the corridor, cultural resources, socioeconomic patterns, drainage patterns, utilities, existing roadway conditions, and future traffic conditions.
Findings
The recommendations of the study included the following: � � From Recker Road to Hawes Road, improve Riggs Road to a 4-lane principal arterial cross section on 140-foot right of way; From Hawes Road to Rittenhouse Road, construct Riggs Road to a 4-lane rural divided cross section on 140-foot right of way and realign Rittenhouse to intersect Riggs Road at a 90 degree angle; and Limited traffic signals to a mile or one-half-mile intersection, except where one-quarter mile intersections are authorized by the local agency.
�
Maricopa County Ocotillo Road Access Control and Corridor Improvement Study, 2005 Purpose
Given rapid population growth in Maricopa County east of the I-10 freeway, the County concluded that the need for improving Ocotillo Road was essential to accommodate future traffic circulation. The purpose of the study was to determine the appropriate roadway cross section for Ocotillo Road between Alma School and Power Roads to accommodate future traffic volumes. The study evaluated two alternatives. One alternative consisted of constructing a bridge over the Roosevelt Water Conversation District and the East Maricopa Floodway to create a continuous Ocotillo Road between Alma School and Power, with a variety of local adjustments to avoid impacts to residential properties, utilities, and washes. The second alternative had all the attributes of the former alternative with the exception of the construction of the bridge.
2-10
Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
Queen Creek Small Area Transportation Study
Findings
Using cost benefit analysis, the study determined that the bridge alternative was justified. The study recommended improving Ocotillo Road to a 4-lane roadway with a raised median for the majority of its length with median breaks every onequarter mile to offer access to existing and future developments. Developing the roadway as proposed will require additional right-of-way acquisition. New right of way varies from 130 feet (Alma School to Higley Road) to 110 feet (Higley Road to Power Road).
Maricopa County Corridor Study Report: Meridian Road, 2006
This study was not completed at the time this working paper was written. This information will be included in future analysis when it becomes available.
Pinal County Small Area Transportation Study, 2006 Purpose
Pinal County is predicted to have grown from a population of 250,000 to over 1.9 million people within 20 years. As the population increases, the traffic volume will increase and roadway improvements will necessitate a safe travel way for the commuting public. Similar to the Queen Creek SATS, the Pinal County SATS is addressing the need for new county-level transportation investments (both roadway and transit) that will support the future growth of the county. Working Paper #1 addresses current and future conditions in the County. Pinal County is currently completing a second working paper that addresses potential solutions to the transportation issues in Pinal County, but it was not completed in time to be reviewed in this working paper. Findings from the Pinal County SATS will be incorporated into the Queen Creek SATS when they are available.
Findings
Existing and future conditions identified included the following: � � � � � Roadway conditions � Functional classification, roadway characteristics such as speed, number of lanes, roadway capacity, speed limits (2005); Safety data � Accident data (Jan 2002-2005); Pavement/surface conditions; Socioeconomic characteristics � Planned area developments (PADs) within the County, 2025 population projections, 2025 employment projections; and Transit services � Overview of existing transit services, summary of findings related to future transit needs, and recommendations based on previous studies and plans.
Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
2-11
Queen Creek Small Area Transportation Study
Several issues were identified in the study, including the following: � � � � The imbalance between growth and existing corridor conditions; The need for future East-West corridors; The need for transit and multimodal facilities to improve mobility; and The need to develop and improve railroads across the County.
Pinal County is expected to complete the SATS by mid-2006. The final document will include an identification of new transportation systems needed and a phasing and financing plan.
Mesa Transportation Plan, 2002 Purpose
The City of Mesa has grown rapidly over the past 20 years, resulting in a larger network of arterial and local streets. However, during that same period, transportation funding has not kept pace with the growth of the street system. As a result, most of the City's transportation funding is needed to maintain minimum operating and maintenance standards for the transportation system. Under the current funding scenario, funds will be available to pay the city portion of construction costs associated with new development, but very little money will be available to address existing and future congestion. The transportation plan presents the transportation issues likely to impact the City of Mesa over the next 25 years. The purpose of the study was to evaluate future transportation needs for the City of Mesa, including roadway and transit elements, over the next 20 years to accommodate the anticipated growth. In addition, the City gathered input from the public regarding the following: � Tradeoffs between maintenance of the existing street system versus improving the existing arterial streets and intersections to accommodate anticipated future growth; and Providing a more comprehensive system of transportation services � following a multimodal approach that improves mobility options across the City.
�
Findings
Multimodal approach. According to the City's General Plan, the population will increase 61 percent to 636,000 people by 2025, and employment will increase 130 percent to 358,000 employees, resulting in a doubling of vehicle-miles of travel (VMT). This growth could either burden the transportation system of the City, or could be integrated with the transportation system in such a way that they complement each other. With this in mind, the City adopted a multimodal approach as a solution to the growing needs. Widening the existing street
2-12
Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
Queen Creek Small Area Transportation Study
system, completing the freeway system, providing better transit services, improving pedestrian and bicycle facilities, widening streets, promoting car pooling and other TDM strategies, building intermodal centers, and providing light-rail service were all part of the transportation planning process. Performance measures. To meet the vision and goals of the plan, the following factors were considered: � � � � � � � Safety � Minimize hazards and emphasize safety for all modes of travel; Efficiency � Effectively serve adjacent land uses; Balance � Provide multiple convenient and accessible choices to the traveler; Integration � Provide convenient and easy access between travel modes; Mobility � Provide the ability to choose travel mode based on the type and distance of trips; Accessibility � Provide ease of use to the public, regardless of physical ability or economic status; and Aesthetics � Facility design, landscaping, and art, such that it invites people to use the system.
The following are among the projects recommended on the Transportation Plan located near Queen Creek are: � � � � � Widening Germann Road to six lanes between Meridian and Sossaman; Widening Meridian Road to six lanes between Germann and Baseline; Commuter rail service between the Cities of Mesa and Chandler along the Union Pacific right of way; Bike lanes along Germann Road between Meridian and Sossaman; and Bike lanes along Meridian Road between Germann and Baseline.
City of Gilbert Arterial Street Plan, 2004 Purpose
The study's purpose was to determine future traffic conditions to the year 2030 on Gilbert's arterial street network in order to identify future roadway improvements to reduce bottlenecks. To perform the analysis, a future base street system was established assuming the following: � � � The existing street system is maintained; Sections of scalloped streets (inconsistent numbers of lanes) are completed; All existing two-lane streets are improved to four or six lanes;
Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
2-13
Queen Creek Small Area Transportation Study
� �
Streets within the planning area that do not exist are built to four lanes; and Loop 202 is completed.
Findings
The comparison between the future base street system and traffic forecasts suggested that 16 intersections would be operating at LOS E or F in both peak hours, and that 78 one-mile street segments would be operating at LOS E or F. Based on such findings, a mid-range plan and a long-range plan were created. The mid-range plan represents the improvements needed to address future deficiencies, except in certain areas in the town where land availability for right of way is a major constraint. The mid-range plan includes the following: � � � � � � � � � � � � 25 intersection improvements; 8 miles of new 2-lane street; 38 miles of new 4-lane street; 46 miles if new 6-lane street; and 24 miles of widening from 4 to 6 lanes. Widening Pecos Road to six lanes from Power to Val Vista; Widening Power Road to six lanes from Pecos to German; Widening Power Road to four lanes from Germann to Chandler Heights; Widening Riggs Road to six lanes from Val Vista to one-half mile west of Power; Widening Chandler Heights to four lanes from one-half mile west of Val Vista to one-half mile west of Power; Extending Ocotillo Road from Recker to Power (two lanes); and Widening Queen Creek Road to four lanes from Lindsay to Power.
The following are mid-range projects located near Queen Creek:
The long-range plan presents the ultimate street section for those street segments that were constrained in the mid-range plan, and that should be constructed if opportunities for right-of-way acquisition occur. The long-range plan includes 45 miles of widening from 4 to 6 lanes, and 8 miles of widening from 2 to 4 lanes. The following are long-range projects located near Queen Creek: � � Widening Chandler Heights Road to six lanes from one-half mile west of Val Vista Drive to one-quarter mile west of Power; and Widening Ocotillo Road to four lanes from Lindsay to Power.
2-14
Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
Queen Creek Small Area Transportation Study
Apache Junction Small Area Transportation Study, 2004 Purpose
Completed in March 2004, the Apache Junction SATS focused on the development of a comprehensive multimodal transportation plan to meet the needs of Apache Junction. Apache Junction and ADOT initiated the study to investigate the transportation impacts of rapid population growth and the influx of winter visitors.
Findings
The study included a review of existing and future conditions within Apache Junction, an evaluation of transportation improvement options, and a statement of transportation vision and goals to accommodate upcoming growth. The Apache Junction SATS identified an arterial system within Pinal County to Pecos Road, generally following a system of washes in the undeveloped area south of U.S. 60 and east of the Maricopa/Pinal County boundary.
Florence/Coolidge Small Area Transportation Study, 2006
Florence and Coolidge are currently conducting a combined SATS. At the time of this writing, the SATS is in its early stages and consultants are collecting current and future conditions data. No working papers were available for review at this time.
Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
2-15
3.0 Socioeconomic Estimates and Forecasts
Queen Creek Small Area Transportation Study
3.0 Socioeconomic Estimates and Forecasts
This section presents the socioeconomic estimates and forecasts that will be used to support the analysis of existing and future conditions for the Queen Creek SATS. Socioeconomic estimates and forecasts are vital for any transportation planning effort, especially in area that is currently experiencing rapid growth, like Queen Creek and the Phoenix metropolitan area. Socioeconomic data are key inputs to travel demand models that are used to forecast traffic volumes, transit ridership, and the distribution of travel in the study area. Setting them accurately early in the process helps to build a foundation for a thorough and useful study. The Town of Queen Creek is located primarily in Maricopa County, but it extends into Pinal County. Growth in both the Town and adjacent jurisdictions will impact travel patterns in Queen Creek. For this reason, socioeconomic data are estimated for an area greater than the Town of Queen Creek; the geographic area under study corresponds to the area covered in the MAG travel demand model. Figure 3.1 presents model area coverage for Maricopa and Pinal Counties. The MAG travel demand model will be the primary tool used to estimate current and future traffic volumes and transit ridership in the area. This model includes socioeconomic data for all of Maricopa County and a significant portion of Pinal County. Socioeconomic data were estimated separately for each of the following three areas: 1. The Town of Queen Creek; 2. The remaining portion of Maricopa County outside of the Town of Queen Creek; and 3. The portion of Pinal County that falls within the MAG travel demand model, and outside the Town of Queen Creek. For each of these areas, potential data sources are presented and evaluated, and final numbers identified. The MAG model currently forecasts to 2026. As such, all the data here are presented for a future year of 2026. Interim years (2010 and 2015) will also be evaluated, but are not presented here. Because MAG's projections are provided by traffic analysis zones (TAZ), forecasts from the various sources used here were distributed among the TAZs using the proportions of population and employment among TAZs projected by MAG.
Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
3-1
Queen Creek Small Area Transportation Study
Figure 3.1
Queen Creek Model Area Overview
3.1
QUEEN CREEK
Within the Town of Queen Creek, the primary data sources used to estimate population and employment included the following: � � The 2005 Arizona Department of Economic Security (DES) population estimates; and The Development Fee Study prepared by Tischler and Associates in 2003, and updated in 2006.
Current Conditions
To generate current socioeconomic conditions, the population estimate from Arizona DES for the Town of Queen Creek for the year 2005 was used as a control total. Total employment and employment by type were estimated based on the ratio of jobs to population provided in the Development Fee Study. According to the Arizona DES estimates for Queen Creek, the total population in 2005 was 15,990 (including 490 residents in Pinal County). The Development Fee Study estimates the job-to-population ratio for 2005 at 0.39, yielding an employment estimate of 6,250 jobs within the Town.
3-2 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
Queen Creek Small Area Transportation Study
Future Conditions
Two sources of socioeconomic projections are available for the Town of Queen Creek: 1) the Development Fee Study and 2) MAG's forecasts to support the travel demand model. Table 3.1 presents a comparison of available current and future socioeconomic data for the Town of Queen Creek. Future population estimates differ slightly between the Development Fee Study and MAG. The MAG model projects 5 percent more population in 2026 than the Development Fee Study (93,386 compared to 97,590). The Development Fee Study identifies the build-out population of Queen Creek at 93,669. For employment, the differences are greater. MAG estimates 35,398 jobs in Queen Creek, compared to 46,835 jobs for the Development Fee Study, a 24 percent difference. MAG has assumed a flat job-to-population ratio over the next 20 years; the Development Fee Study shows this ratio increasing to 0.5 in 2026.
Table 3.1
Queen Creek Socioeconomic Estimates and Forecasts
2005 Arizona DES 2026 Tischler 93,386 29,762 29,471 46,835 10,023 18,968 17,844 0.50 MAG 97,590 30,254 29,957 35,398 8,593 12,875 13,930 0.36 Difference 5% 2% 2% -24% -14% -32% -22% -28%
Population Housing units Households Employment Retail/commercial/service Office/institutional Industrial/manufacturing Jobs-to-population ratio Source:
15,990 5,100 5,050 6,250 1,340 2,530 2,380 0.39
Arizona Department of Economic Security, 2006; Tischler and Associates, 2006; Maricopa Association of Governments, 2003; and Cambridge Systematics, 2006.
For the purposes of the Queen Creek SATS, the Tischler forecasts will be used in the MAG travel demand model. These forecasts use the historic average housing unit growth per year to estimate future growth in Queen Creek. This assumes that demand for housing in Queen Creek will remain relatively strong over the next 20 years. Employment estimates from this source are based on a long-range goal for Queen Creek to increase the job-to-population ratio to 0.50, and data on surrounding communities (primarily Chandler and Gilbert). This represents the maximum possible development for Queen Creek. As a result, it will be important for the Town to monitor development carefully to determine the timing of new transportation investments.
Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
3-3
Queen Creek Small Area Transportation Study
3.2
MARICOPA COUNTY OUTSIDE QUEEN CREEK
For Maricopa County, population, housing, and employment estimates were taken directly from the socioeconomic data generated by MAG for both current (2005) and future (2026) conditions. These data were last updated in July 2003, and represent the current accepted regional socioeconomic estimates. These estimates were used in support of the MAG Regional Transportation Plan, which was adopted by the voters of Maricopa County in fall, 2004. The estimates presented here exclude the portion of Queen Creek that is within Maricopa County.
Current Conditions
According to current Arizona DES estimates, in 2005 the total population in Maricopa County was 3.6 million, excluding Queen Creek. The estimate of employment from Arizona DES for 2005 was 1.7 million, resulting in a job-topopulation ratio of 0.48. This is slightly below the 0.50 job-to-population ratio estimated by MAG in 2003.
Future Conditions
Based on MAG's estimates, the population is expected to reach 5.6 million by 2026, and the number of jobs is expected to exceed 3 million, resulting in a job to population ratio of 0.54. Current and future socioeconomic conditions are provided in Table 3.2.
Table 3.2
Population Housing units Households Employment
Maricopa County Socioeconomic Estimates and Forecasts
2005 3,633,145 1,502,258 1,350,454 1,736,850 615,865 675,568 445,417 0.48 2026 5,641,489 2,202,115 2,015,581 3,052,056 1,086,144 1,187,685 778,227 0.54
Retail/commercial/service Office/institutional Industrial/manufacturing Jobs-to-population ratio Source: Maricopa Association of Governments, 2003.
3-4
Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
Queen Creek Small Area Transportation Study
3.3
PINAL COUNTY OUTSIDE QUEEN CREEK
To generate the socioeconomic forecasts for the area covered by the MAG model in Pinal County, several sources were used including the following: � � � The 2005 Arizona DES population estimates; The ongoing Pinal County Small Area Transportation Study; and Socioeconomic forecasts for Pinal County developed by MAG to support joint studies conducted by MAG and the Central Arizona Association of Governments (CAAG).
The estimates presented here exclude the portion of Queen Creek that is within Pinal County.
Current Conditions
Current population and employment estimates for Pinal County were generated based on the 2005 Arizona DES population and employment estimates. This information was used as a control total to estimate housing based on the housing-to-population ratio available from the MAG model for Pinal County. Estimates from Arizona DES indicate that in 2005, total population in Pinal County was 246,660 and employment was 79,025, from which 205,188 people and 70,590 jobs were located within the study area. This represents a job-to-population ratio of 0.33.
Future Conditions
Future estimates of population in Pinal County in the study area vary considerably, from 604,593 from recently released Arizona DES estimates to nearly 1.8 million from the Pinal County SATS. Some of this difference relates to the expected rate of growth of state trust lands in the northern part of the County. Employment forecasts are also varied. The Pinal County SATS expects almost 500,000 jobs in the County (a job-to-population ratio of 0.28). Using the Arizona DES population numbers and MAG's future estimate of a 0.28 job-to-population ratio, the total expected employment would be near 166,000 jobs. Table 3.3 presents the current and future socioeconomic data for the portion of Pinal County that is within the MAG model. Roughly 83 percent of the population and 87 percent of the employment within Pinal County are currently within the model area. For the purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that a similar percentage of population and employment will be within the model area in the future. For the purposes of analysis, both the Arizona DES- and Pinal SATS-based projections were used to evaluate future conditions. This allows a clear examination of the range of potential transportation issues between Pinal County and Queen Creek. Although both are used for the current and future conditions analysis,
Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
3-5
Queen Creek Small Area Transportation Study
the Pinal SATS-based projections will be used as the accepted source moving forward.
Table 3.3
Pinal County Socioeconomic Estimates and Forecasts MAG Model Area Only
2005 Arizona DES 2026 Pinal SATS 1,757,186 888,742 675,444 492,269 178,350 101,734 212,184 0.28 Arizona DES 604,593 305,788 232,399 165,786 60,065 34,262 71,459 0.28 191% 191% 197% 197% 197% 197% 2% Difference
Population Housing units Households Employment Retail/commercial/service Office/institutional Industrial/manufacturing Jobs-to-population ratio Source:
205,188 103,779 78,872 67,984 41,439 17,175 9,371 0.33
Arizona Department of Economic Security, 2006; Pinal County, 2006; Maricopa Association of Governments, 2003; and Cambridge Systematics, 2006.
3-6
Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
4.0 Transportation System
Queen Creek Small Area Transportation Study
4.0 Transportation System
This section presents the current and planned future transportation system in the Queen Creek study area. It identifies both roadway and transit investments.
4.1
CURRENT SYSTEM
Roadway Network
This section provides a description of the existing conditions of Queen Creek's roadway network. Roadway network conditions are evaluated according to the following features: functional classification, number of lanes, and speed limits.
Functional Classification
Functional classification is the process by which streets and highways are grouped into classes or systems, according to the character of service they are intended to provide. The major functional classes within Queen Creek are: � Major/minor collectors. Collector streets facilitate short-distance traffic movement between cities, counties, and commercial or residential developments. Most of Queen Creek's roadway network is classified as either rural or urban collector streets. Minor arterials. Minor arterials provide connections between residential areas and higher-level facilities, such as freeways and other major arterials. Germann, Power, Riggs, and Ironwood Roads were all classified as minor arterials. Principal arterials. Principal arterials provide for long-distance travel. There are no current principal arterials in Queen Creek.
�
�
Figure 4.1 illustrates the functional classification of Queen Creek's roadway network. This figure is based on data from the Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS) and the Queen Creek General Plan from 2002. HPMS is an overall data compendium for public roads. It provides high quality data for state highways, but often has missing or low quality data for local roads. With the rapid growth of the area, the classification of many of the roads is in the process of changing and will likely change further in the near future. As major sectionline roadways (on the one-half-mile grid) are completed, they will be upgraded to urban minor arterials.
Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
4-1
Queen Creek Small Area Transportation Study
Figure 4.1
Functional Classification of Roadway Network, 2004
Source:
Queen Creek General Plan, 2002; and Highway Performance Monitoring System, 2004.
Roads of Regional Significance
In addition, MAG has adopted the concept of Road of Regional Significance to identify roads that pass through multiple cities, and, thus, provide connections between jurisdictions. According to MAG, a Road of Regional Significance is ultimately to be constructed to a high level of design with a cross section of 6 through traffic lanes, bicycle lanes, bus bays, a raised median with left-turn bays, and a high-level access control on 140-foot right of way. Ellsworth, Power, and Riggs Roads have been identified as Roads of Regional Significance. Within Queen Creek, these roads have gaps, are typically only 2 lanes, and have relatively uncontrolled access. Pinal County has also identified Roads of Regional Significance. According to the Pinal County SATS Working Paper 1, Hunt Highway and Ironwood and Combs Roads are the closest Roads of Regional Significance.
4-2
Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
Queen Creek Small Area Transportation Study
Number of Lanes
Most of Queen Creek's roadway network is currently comprised of two lane roads. However, there are a few short four-lane segments and some segments that have been updated to three lanes, likely with plans to update them to four or more in the future. The current number of lanes is shown in Figure 4.2.
Figure 4.2
Number of Lanes, 2004
Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
4-3
Queen Creek Small Area Transportation Study
Speed Limits
Speed limits on arterials within Queen Creek vary between 35 and 55 miles per hour (mph). The roads with the highest speed limits are Ellsworth and Ocotillo Roads, with speed limits between 45 and 55 mph. Principal arterials, such as Power, German, and Riggs Roads, have speed limits in a range between 35 and 45 mph. Figure 4.3 presents the speed limits for roads within the Town.
Figure 4.3
Speed Limits, 2004
4-4
Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
Queen Creek Small Area Transportation Study
Existing Highways Influencing the Area
Queen Creek is relatively isolated from the Arizona state highway system. Currently, there are several highways close to Queen Creek, but none that touch the Town itself (Figure 4.4).
Figure 4.4
Existing and Future Highways Influencing the Area
Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
4-5
Queen Creek Small Area Transportation Study
The nearby highways include the following: � � � The Santan Freeway (Loop 202), which is expected to be completed in 2007; U.S. 60, connecting eastern Arizona with the Phoenix metro area; and SR 87, which is several miles away and is located in the Gila River Indian Community, making any future connection to the facility unlikely.
Public Transportation
Currently, the Town of Queen Creek does not have public transit or paratransit services. The closest transit and paratransit services are located in the City of Gilbert and provided by Valley Metro with the following fixed bus routes and dial-a-ride service (Figure 4.5):
Figure 4.5
Bus Routes and Park and Ride, City of Gilbert
Gilbert Rd
Guadalupe Rd. R-108
P
Gilbert
R-136
Williams Field Rd. R-531
Mesa
Legend Bus Route P
Chandler
Source: Adapted from the MAG Regional Transportation Plan, 2004.
Park & Ride
�
Route 136 runs along Gilbert Road between Chandler-Gilbert Community College (to the south in Chandler) and Boeing in northeast Mesa. It operates Monday through Saturday at one-half-hour intervals. Route 108 runs along Elliot and Guadalupe Roads between Arizona Avenue (in Chandler) and Superstition Springs Center (in east Mesa). It operates Monday through Saturday at one-hour intervals. Route 531 begins at Elliot and Gilbert Roads. A park-and-ride lot is located at Page and Gilbert Roads. There are five morning and five evening buses serving downtown Phoenix. The East Valley Dial-a-Ride provides service for seniors and disabled persons from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. from Monday to Sunday and holidays; and for
Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
�
�
�
4-6
Queen Creek Small Area Transportation Study
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)-certified passengers, the service is from 4:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. from Monday to Friday, and 6:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. on Saturday.
Nonmotorized Transportation
At present, according to MAG's map on exiting bike ways, Queen Creek has approximately 10 miles of bicycle lanes distributed over various roads. The longest bicycle lanes are located along Power Road between Ocotillo and Germann Roads, Queen Creek Road between Power and Hunt Roads, and a multiuse trail that begins near the intersection of Power and Queen Creek Roads, connecting south on a diagonal to near the intersection of Ocotillo and Hawes Roads. Figure 4.6 presents the existing bicycle lanes and multiuse trails in the Queen Creek area.
Figure 4.6
Queen Creek Bicycle and Multiuse Trail Network, 2005
Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
4-7
Queen Creek Small Area Transportation Study
4.2
PROGRAMMED SYSTEM
In addition to identifying the current system, this report also identifies the likely future system. The analysis of future conditions includes all of the currently funded projects in the area. This section identifies these funded projects. The final section identifies projects that have been planned, but not funded.
Roadway System
The primary source of information for the programmed or funded roadway projects comes from the Queen Creek Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). Figure 4.7 presents the phasing of projects for the Queen Creek TIP, including the following: � � � � Construction of a new Ellsworth Loop Road, around the existing town center, to separate through and local traffic; Rerouting some portions of Rittenhouse Road to eliminate some of the six-leg intersections in Town; Widening sections of major east-south and north-west arterials, including some developer funded projects (a total of 47 street lane-miles); and Widening, turning lanes, and signals for 28 intersections;
In addition to these local projects, information from the MAG RTP, the ADOT construction program, and other local jurisdictions was used to develop a complete picture of current regional investments. Major local and regional projects of note include: � � � � Completion of the Santan Freeway (Loop 202); Construction of the Williams Gateway Freeway from Loop 202 east to the county border (Meridian Road), likely along the Frye Road alignment; Widening and completion of arterials in Mesa and Gilbert; and New arterials and arterial improvements in Pinal County.
The resulting expected number of lanes in 2026 is shown in Figure 4.8.
4-8
Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
Queen Creek Small Area Transportation Study
Figure 4.7
Queen Creek Transportation Improvement Program
Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
4-9
Queen Creek Small Area Transportation Study
Figure 4.8
Number of Lanes, 2026
Public Transportation
The MAG RTP identifies a number of proposed bus routes that will be implemented in the surrounding area over the next 20 years. None of the newly funded routes will provide service to Queen Creek proper, but four will provide service to Queen Creek's border: 1. A new bus route along Power from Pecos Roads to Guadalupe Road, implemented between 2011 and 2015; 2. A new bus route along Queen Creek Road from Power to Kyrene Roads, implemented between 2016 and 2020; 3. Bus rapid transit to the Williams Gateway Airport, implemented after 2016; and 4. Extension of Route 156 to Higley Road in 2007.
4-10
Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
Queen Creek Small Area Transportation Study
Several additional new routes are proposed to provide service near Queen Creek. Figure 4.9 presents the entire newly proposed supergrid (i.e., local) bus routes and phasing. Additional bus rapid transit and light-rail routes are not shown in this figure.
Figure 4.9
New Supergrid Bus Service Phasing
Source:
Adapted from the MAG Regional Transportation Plan, 2004.
4.3
PLANNED UNFUNDED SYSTEM
This final section identifies the projects that have been identified through longrange planning. These projects have yet to be implemented, but are projects that will be considered for future local, regional, and state plans.
Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
4-11
Queen Creek Small Area Transportation Study
Roadway Network
Several recent transportation planning studies in the area have identified new roadway projects that will impact Queen Creek. The most significant of these has been ADOT's Corridor Definition Studies, which were completed in early 2006. These studies identified several new state highways, including: � � � � � A Williams Gateway Freeway connecting Loop 202 east to U.S. 60; A North-South Freeway connecting Apache Junction to Florence or Coolidge; A reroute of U.S. 60; Widening and access management for existing state highways; and Several future state highways.
Figure 4.10 presents the adopted recommendations from these studies.
Figure 4.10 ADOT Defined Corridors
Source:
Arizona Department of Transportation, 2006.
For the street network, several recent and ongoing plans provide potential future directions. Apache Junction finished a SATS several years ago and has identified new street network in northern Pinal County. Mesa is currently updating their transportation plan and will have additional roadway investments that could impact Queen Creek. Gilbert recently completed an arterial system study.
4-12
Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
Queen Creek Small Area Transportation Study
Finally, Pinal County is currently developing a SATS that will identify needed new county roads. Each of these efforts has been reviewed in Section 2.0.
Public Transportation
Beyond the MAG RTP, public transportation planning includes one significant effort to date: the MAG High Capacity Transit Study. This study recommends three new high capacity transit services, shown in Figure 4.11.
Figure 4.11 Future High Capacity Transit Projects
These new services include the following: � � � A new commuter rail line with service to Queen Creek starting sometime after 2015; A bus rapid transit corridor along Power Road; and A bus rapid transit corridor along Chandler Heights Road.
Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
4-13
Queen Creek Small Area Transportation Study
In addition to fixed-route transit, previous studies have also identified the need for paratransit service in the study area. The Southeast Maricopa/Northern Pinal County Area Transportation Study (SEMNPTS), undertaken in 2003, estimated that Queen Creek will require 15 hours per day of paratransit services to persons with disabilities and seniors.
Nonmotorized Transportation
Several documents have been produced to identify potential improvements to the nonmotorized network. Recent studies that have identified bicycle system improvements include the Maricopa County Bicycle System Plan (1999, currently being updated); the Maricopa County Power Corridor Improvement Study (2000); and the SEMNPTS. Figure 4.12 presents the future bicycle network, as identified by these three studies.
Figure 4.12 Bicycle Network, County Sources, 2025
4-14
Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
Queen Creek Small Area Transportation Study
Roadway segments to would be incorporated into the bicycle network include the following: � � � � Riggs Road between Meridian and Crismon and between Power and Ellsworth; Chandler Road between Meridian and Signal Butte; Ellsworth Road between Hunt Highway and German; and Power Road between Hunt Highway and Germann (the segment between Ocotillo and Germann Roads already exists).
The Queen Creek General Plan contains the most ambitious nonmotorized network plan of the studies reviewed. Queen Creek's trails plan envisages bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails on nearly every roadway in Queen Creek (Figure 4.13). The ultimate purpose is to develop nonmotorized facilities that connect to parks and open space areas within the town and surrounded jurisdictions. This is in line with Maricopa and Pinal Counties' purposes of providing continuity of nonmotorized facilities across municipal boundaries, linking recreational corridors around the Valley, and helping preserve open space in the community. The implementation of bike and pedestrian trails along Sossaman, Hawes, Ellsworth, and Rittenhouse Roads would improve north-south and east-west connectivity across jurisdictions, and would provide direct access to San Tan Mountain Regional Park.
Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
4-15
Queen Creek Small Area Transportation Study
Figure 4.13 Queen Creek Proposed Nonmotorized Network
Source:
Queen Creek General Plan, 2002.
4-16
Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
5.0 System Conditions
Queen Creek Small Area Transportation Study
5.0 System Conditions
This section identifies current and future system conditions for the transportation network in Queen Creek, based on the network extent identified in the previous section. This section identifies traffic counts and volumes, intersection LOS, crashes, transit ridership and LOS, and paratransit use and needs. The section addresses both current and future system conditions.
5.1
CURRENT SYSTEM
Roadway Network
Several aspects of the condition of the roadway network are presented here, including traffic counts, intersection LOS, and traffic crashes. Current system conditions are based largely on actual observed traffic counts. Future conditions use modeled volumes, which are based on the validated MAG travel demand model.
Traffic Counts
Queen Creek does not currently collect traffic counts, but other jurisdictions and agencies, such as MCDOT, MAG, and the Cities of Gilbert and Mesa, collect traffic counts. In order to analyze current traffic conditions in Queen Creek, the latest available traffic counts were gathered from MCDOT (2004 and 2003) and Gilbert (2005). Figure 5.1 presents the traffic counts for roads in and near the Town of Queen Creek. The most significant traffic volumes are found on north-south roads, including Power, Ellsworth, and Rittenhouse Roads. These volumes reflect the tendency for movements both from and through Queen Creek to employment destinations elsewhere in the Phoenix metro area. The most recent traffic counts on Ellsworth and Rittenhouse Roads range from 10,000 to 14,000 vehicles per day. On Power Road, volumes at the Queen Creek/Gilbert border are over 20,000 vehicles per day. The extent of traffic passing through Queen Creek can be seen most clearly on Ellsworth Road. Traffic volumes are consistently over 10,000 vehicles for the length of the road through Queen Creek. Notably, Ellsworth is also the road that provides the most direct access from Pinal County.
Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
5-1
Queen Creek Small Area Transportation Study
Figure 5.1
Queen Creek Traffic Counts
Source:
Maricopa County Department of Transportation, 2004 and 2003; and Gilbert, 2005.
It is important to note that, though many of the volumes in Queen Creek are relatively low compared to other locations in the metropolitan area, they are causing substantial congestion on Queen Creek's road network, most of which is currently only two lanes. This can be seen most clearly by comparing current traffic counts to those of just a year or two prior. In 2002, MAG conducted traffic counts to support the model validation process. Figure 5.2 presents MAG counts for the Queen Creek area. Most of the counts have increased by several thousand vehicles per day. On the northern segments of Power Road, the counts have nearly doubled. In the two years since the bulk of the recent traffic counts were collected, traffic has increased further. Development in both Pinal and Maricopa Counties makes it difficult to pin down current traffic. To support the analysis, however, a point in time was chosen and the best available data are presented here.
5-2
Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
Queen Creek Small Area Transportation Study
Figure 5.2
MAG Traffic Counts, 2003
Source:
MAG Regional Transportation Plan, 2004.
Intersection LOS
As part of the modeling effort, MAG calculates intersection LOS for every intersection in the MAG model. For intersections, the LOS concept is based on the seconds of delay per vehicle experienced at an intersection. Table 5.1 presents the standard LOS guides for signalized intersections.
Table 5.1
LOS A B C D E F Source:
Intersection LOS Grades
Seconds of Delay < 10.0 10.1-20.0 20.1-35.0 35.1-55.0 55.1-80.0 > 80.0 Highway Capacity Manual, 2000. Level of Capacity Below Below Below Nearing Above Above
Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
5-3
Queen Creek Small Area Transportation Study
LOS calculations for intersections within Queen Creek are shown in Figure 5.3. If no symbol is shown, the intersection is considered to be at LOS A in the current year. Notably, there were few intersections of concern in 2004. The intersection of Ellsworth and Empire Roads was at C, and Ocotillo and Ironwood Roads at D.
Figure 5.3
Intersection LOS, 2004
These intersection LOS grades are based on MAG model estimates, validated to the 2002 traffic counts (see Figure 5.2). Given the rapid increase in population just within the last two to three years, current conditions may be worse than estimated for several intersections. One intersection of note is where Hunt Highway enters Queen Creek. This is the main connection point from the south into Queen Creek and recently has shown substantial delays. Pinal County recently updated this intersection to improve traffic flow.
Traffic Crashes
Traffic crashes were identified within the Town of Queen Creek from accident records collected by the Motor Vehicle Division of ADOT. These records are
5-4
Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
Queen Creek Small Area Transportation Study
based on traffic reports made by motorists and police officers, and inevitably do not include all crashes, as some go unreported. Table 5.2 presents the total number of crashes, injury crashes, and fatality crashes for each of the previous three years. Crashes have increased substantially in recent years as traffic has increased. However, the number of fatalities has remained low, averaging only one per year within the town limits.
Table 5.2
Total Crashes Injury crashes Fatality crashes Source:
Traffic Crashes in Queen Creek, 2003-2005
2003 135 48 2 2004 185 79 0 2005 267 82 1 Average 196 70 1
Arizona Department of Transportation, 2006.
Public Transportation
There are no existing fixed-route services in or near Queen Creek. As such, no ridership can be estimated for the current year. For paratransit service, however, needs can be identified based on existing population counts. The potential transit-dependent population was estimated using current population estimates from the Arizona DES and the 2000 Census. Table 5.3 presents the population over age 65, disabled, and either over age 65 or disabled for both Queen Creek and Maricopa County. Using 2005 population estimates for Queen Creek from the Arizona DES and assuming that the percentage of transit dependents remains the same, a total of 1,920 people may need some paratransit services in Queen Creek. Notably, Maricopa County has a substantially higher proportion of residents over age 65 than Queen Creek (12 percent compared to 5 percent).
Table 5.3
Potential Paratransit Dependent Population
Queen Creek Number Percent 5% 8% 11% Maricopa County Number 358,979 314,158 538,683 Percent 12% 10% 18%
Over age 65 Disabled (over age 20) Over age 65 or disabled Source: Note: 2000 Census.
217 339 481
Over age 65 or disabled category is not a sum of the two categories (i.e., over age 65 and disabled are not double counted).
Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
5-5
Queen Creek Small Area Transportation Study
5.2
FUTURE SYSTEM
The future expected conditions of the transportation system are based primarily on results from the MAG model. Using the updated demographic data and network characteristics described in Sections 3.0 and 4.0, model runs were generated to estimate future traffic volumes, transit ridership, intersection LOS, peak-hour speeds, and other relevant information. There is some uncertainty regarding the future growth of Pinal County. As such, two separate model runs were conducted to support the analysis of future conditions for the Queen Creek SATS: 1. A model run using the population estimates for Pinal County from the Arizona DES; and 2. A model run using the population estimates for Pinal County generated for the Pinal County SATS. The Maricopa County data, including Queen Creek, are the same for both model runs (as described in Section 3.0). Using these two separate runs helps demonstrate the impact of Pinal County's growing population on the Town of Queen Creek. The Arizona DES model run has a relatively low population (but still about four times greater than the current population). The SATS model run has more than double the population of the Arizona DES run.
Roadway Network Traffic Volumes
The explosive growth in population and employment in and around the Queen Creek area is expected to yield substantial increases in traffic volumes. Figure 5.4 presents future predicted traffic volumes generated by the MAG travel demand model for the Arizona DES model run. Figure 5.5 presents the same set of results for the SATS model run. In both cases, volumes are indicated by both color and the number of vehicles (in thousands). Locations of high traffic volumes are relatively consistent between the two model runs. This should be expected, as the travel patterns are less likely to change than the overall volumes. Within Queen Creek, Ellsworth acts as the main northsouth conduit, handling well over 40,000 vehicles per day in the Arizona DES run and upwards of 70,000 vehicles per day in the SATS run. Meridian and Ironwood also carry substantial volumes, as does Power Road along its northern segments. Travel east-west is split fairly evenly across the major arterials, although Riggs and Ocotillo appear to carry the greatest volumes. Within Queen Creek, the traffic disperses as it reaches the Town. There are relatively few places to enter the Town from Pinal County, especially from the south. However, once traffic
5-6
Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
Queen Creek Small Area Transportation Study
reaches Queen Creek, the investments being made by Queen Creek, Maricopa County, and MAG allow the traffic to spread out to other arterials.
Figure 5.4
Future Traffic Volumes for 2026 Based on Arizona DES
Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
5-7
Queen Creek Small Area Transportation Study
Figure 5.5
Future Traffic Volumes for 2026 Based on SATS
The major differences in traffic volumes between the two model runs are presented in Figure 5.6. This figure plots the predicted volumes from the SATS model run, divided by the predicted volumes from the Arizona DES model run, and categorized into three groups: 1. Close links (shown in green) have SATS volumes no more than 150 percent of the Arizona DES volumes (50 percent more vehicles); 2. Greater links (shown in orange) have SATS volumes no more than 250 percent of the Arizona DES volumes (50 to 150 percent more vehicles); and 3. Much greater links (shown in red) have SATS volumes over 250 percent of the Arizona DES volumes (over 150 percent more vehicles).
5-8
Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
Queen Creek Small Area Transportation Study
Figure 5.6
Traffic Volume Comparison Between SATS and Arizona DES Model Runs
Overall, most links are either greater or much greater in the SATS model run than in the Arizona DES model run. Most close links are within the central portion of Queen Creek, while most of the links that are much greater are on the eastern side of the study area. This reflects the much greater growth of this area in the SATS. In addition, several links in the southwestern corner have much greater volumes. These links have relatively low volumes in the Arizona DES run, providing additional capacity to absorb the increased volumes. The model will predict that the additional vehicles expected on the road will likely shift to links with available capacity.
Level of Service
In addition to examining traffic volumes, the model includes information on travel speeds and capacities that are used to calculate an intersection LOS. Figures 5.7 and 5.8 present the estimated travel speeds for network links and the
Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
5-9
Queen Creek Small Area Transportation Study
intersection LOS for the Arizona DES and SATS model runs, respectively. As before, intersections with no symbol are at LOS A.
Figure 5.7
Speeds and Intersection LOS for 2026 Based on Arizona DES
5-10
Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
Queen Creek Small Area Transportation Study
Figure 5.8
Speeds and Intersection LOS for 2026 Based on SATS
The results from the Arizona DES model run show some decline in travel speeds and intersection LOS. A handful of intersections near the southern county border are at LOS D or worse, and quite a few intersections are at LOS C, including the eastern and northern town borders. Travel speeds are reasonable on most links, with travel generally above 30 mph. Only a small number of links have travel speeds below 20 mph. In general, the arterial system being developed by Queen Creek, Maricopa County, and MAG appears able to handle most of the future level of volumes expected if Pinal County grows to the level expected by Arizona DES. In contrast, the population growth expected in Pinal County by the Pinal County SATS will completely overwhelm the transportation system in Queen Creek. The vast majority of intersections shown in Figure 5.8 are at LOS E or worse, not a single intersection operates at LOS A, and only 3 operate at LOS B. Congestion is spread throughout the study area. Travel speeds are impacted as well, with many links experiencing an average of less than 10 miles per hour. Some links
Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
5-11
Queen Creek Small Area Transportation Study
along Power and Sossaman in west Queen Creek still have relatively acceptable speeds and LOS, but these are the exceptions.
Public Transportation
None of the transit services identified in Section 4.0 will connect directly to Queen Creek, but several provide service right to the border of the Town. This section describes ridership on some of the lines that are expected to be closest to Queen Creek. Three routes approach Queen Creek, but almost no ridership is expected at the stops closet to Queen Creek. The two bus routes along Queen Creek and Power Roads have no ridership from Queen Creek in the peak period. Off-peak, Queen Creek generates fewer than 10 boardings per day.
Paratransit
As previously, paratransit needs have been estimated based on population projections. For this analysis, the disabled percentage is expected to remain roughly the same as in 2000. However, the elderly population is expected to grow considerably. According to the MAG Regional Action Plan on Aging and Mobility, the proportion of residents over age 65 in Maricopa County is expected to grow to 1 in 5 residents by 2025. This means the over age 65 population will grow onethird faster than the overall population. Applying these growth rates to the potential paratransit population identified previously, the future (2025) potential paratransit population is expected to grow to nearly 11,500 (out of over 93,000 residents). This is over 20 times greater population that may need to be served. At the same time, societal changes may well impact the general mobility of the elderly.
Travel Patterns
In addition to traffic volumes and transit ridership, an overview of travel patterns in the region help describe the root causes of traffic congestion in Queen Creek. Because of Queen Creek's position in the Phoenix urban area, it is important to acknowledge the regional transportation needs in the SATS, in addition to the needs within the Town itself. In particular, it is useful to understand how much of the traffic in Queen Creek is a result of local travel, and how much is driven by development outside of the community. Figure 5.9 presents a high-level summary of the expected travel patterns to, from, and through Queen Creek in 2026 using the Pinal SATS-based model results. The figure presents a rough estimate of the total number of daily trips (indicated by the thickness of the band) between Queen Creek and its various neighbors. Through trips are those likely to use Queen Creek's roads for through trips, but congestion, individual preference, and other factors may mean that they will use a different route. The trips are aggregated to areas from zone-to-zone trip estimates generated by the MAG travel demand model.
5-12
Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
Queen Creek Small Area Transportation Study
Figure 5.9
Travel Patterns in the Queen Creek Area, 2026
Inbound/Outbound Trips Through Trips
88 177
52 111
Number ofTrips
83
Note:
Based on Pinal SATS model run. Trips are thousands of daily trips.
The most significant travel pattern in 2026 is expected to be through movements between Pinal and Maricopa Counties in a generally north-south direction (177,000 trips per day). It is important to note that this number does not represent the total number of trips between Pinal and Maricopa Counties, just the number that would be likely to pass through Queen Creek. Internal trips (111,000) represent the second largest movement. Internal trips are usually among the most significant when analyzing trip-making over a 24-hour period, as this includes trips of all types. Trips between Maricopa County and Queen Creek and Pinal County and Queen Creek are each over 80,000 trips per day. A small number of trips pass through in a more east-west direction.
Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
5-13
6.0 Conclusion
Queen Creek Small Area Transportation Study
6.0 Conclusion
This working paper identified the current and future expected transportation system conditions within the Town of Queen Creek. It is apparent from this analysis that Queen Creek faces a number of transportation problems in the future, many of which are caused by its location between two rapidly growing areas (Maricopa and Pinal Counties). Queen Creek itself expects rapid growth over the next 20 years, but many of the investments being made by the Town will accommodate that growth. The programmed projects identified by Queen Creek, MCDOT, and MAG will generate a relatively complete arterial system that will ease traffic movements throughout the Town. However, if Pinal County grows as expected, Queen Creek will suffer severe congestion on its roadway system. The next steps of the Queen Creek SATS will be to analyze potential solutions to these problems. Some of the things to be considered include the following: � The impact of new ADOT corridors on local and regional congestion. Previous analysis has shown that some of the through trips between Maricopa and Pinal Counties would use these corridors, reducing the impacts on Queen Creek. The current model runs include only the Williams Gateway corridor. A new high-level regional expressway could help move traffic through Queen Creek more efficiently. This facility would have limited intersections, potential some grade separated, and limited access control to ensure the flow of traffic. It would be a local or regional facility and would be located closer to Queen Creek and the traffic generators in Pinal County. Transit solutions, including commuter rail, a neighborhood circulator, express routes, and others might provide some relief. Commuter rail with park-and-ride facilities could help alleviate some of the congestion. Neighborhood circulators might help the residents of Queen Creek connect to jobs, recreation, shopping, and other activities. A regional economic development strategy focused on Pinal County could have a substantial impact on traffic in Queen Creek. Currently, Northern Pinal County residents travel to Maricopa for much of their work, shopping, and other activities. The job-to-population ratio in Pinal County is expected to be roughly one-half of what it is in Maricopa County in 2026. A regional attempt to develop employment centers in Pinal County could help reduce and balance travel patterns in the region.
�
�
�
These issues and others will be addressed in more detail in a second working paper and through stakeholder meetings and public open houses.
Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
6-1
