Coolidge - Florence regional transportation plan / summary report

              􀁁 􀀠 􀁐 􀁡 􀁲 􀁴 􀁮 􀁥 􀁲 􀁳 􀁨 􀁩 􀁰 􀀠 􀁁 􀁭 􀁯 􀁮 􀁧 􀀠 􀁴 􀁨 􀁥
􀀠 􀁃 􀁩 􀁴 􀁹 􀀠 􀁯 􀁦 􀀠 􀁃 􀁯 􀁯 􀁬 􀁩 􀁤 􀁧 􀁥 􀀬
􀁔 􀁯 􀁷 􀁮 􀀠 􀁯 􀁦 􀀠 􀁆 􀁬 􀁯 􀁲 􀁥 􀁮 􀁣 􀁥 􀀬
􀁡 􀁮 􀁤 􀀠 􀁁 􀁄 􀁏 􀁔
􀁃 􀁯 􀁯 􀁬 􀁩 􀁤 􀁧 􀁥 􀀠 􀀭 􀀠 􀁆 􀁬 􀁯 􀁲 􀁥 􀁮 􀁣 􀁥
􀁒 􀁥 􀁧 􀁩 􀁯 􀁮 􀁡 􀁬 􀀠
􀁔 􀁲 􀁡 􀁮 􀁳 􀁰 􀁯 􀁲 􀁴 􀁡 􀁴 􀁩 􀁯 􀁮 􀀠
􀁐 􀁬 􀁡 􀁮
􀁁 􀁰 􀁲 􀁩 􀁬 􀀠 􀀲 􀀰 􀀰 􀀸
􀁓 􀁕 􀁍 􀁍 􀁁 􀁒 􀁙 􀀠 􀁒 􀁅 􀁐 􀁏 􀁒 􀁔
􀀠
􀁅 􀁣 􀁯 􀁮 􀁯 􀁭 􀁩 􀁣 􀀠 􀁡 􀁮 􀁤 􀀠 􀁒 􀁥 􀁡 􀁬 􀀠 􀁅 􀁳 􀁴 􀁡 􀁴 􀁥 􀀠 􀁃 􀁯 􀁮 􀁳 􀁵 􀁬 􀁴 􀁩 􀁮 􀁧
􀁋 􀁩 􀁭 􀁬 􀁥 􀁹 􀀭 􀁈 􀁯 􀁲 􀁮
􀁡 􀁮 􀁤 􀀠 􀁁 􀁳 􀁳 􀁯 􀁣 􀁩 􀁡 􀁴 􀁥 􀁳 􀀬 􀀠 􀁉 􀁮 􀁣 􀀮
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
SUMMARY REPORT ................................................................................................ 1
PURPOSE............................................................................................................ 1
BACKGROUND.................................................................................................... 1
STUDY PROCESS AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ...................................................... 3
RECOMMENDATIONS.......................................................................................... 5
FUTURE SOCIOECONOMIC AND TRANSPORTATION CONDITIONS............................ 6
PERFORMANCE OF 2005 NETWORK....................................................................... 8
PERFORMANCE OF 2025 ALTERNATIVE NETWORKS............................................... 8
RECOMMENDED TRANSPORTATION PLAN - ROADWAY ELEMENT .......................... 9
ACCESS MANAGEMENT..................................................................................... 11
ROAD DESIGN AND ACCESS CRITERIA................................................................ 16
PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION PLAN ....................................................................... 16
RECOMMENDATION AND IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY..................................... 22
FUNDING AND REVENUE ESTIMATES................................................................. 33
i
LIST OF TABLES
Page
1. TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEMBERS ............................................... 3
2. SUMMARY OF 2025 SOCIOECONOMIC DATA ..................................................... 7
3. LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA......................................................................... 8
4. ROAD MILEAGE BY FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION........................................ 14
5. MINIMUM ROAD DESIGN AND ACCESS CRITERIA ........................................... 17
6. MINIMUM CONSILIDATED RESIDENTIAL AND EMPLOYMENT DENSITIES FOR
VARIOUS TYPES OF TRANSIT SERVICES......................................................... 19
7. IMPLEMENTATION ACTION PLAN ................................................................. 23
8. RECOMMENDED PROJECTS BY FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION – COOLIDGE
PLANNING AREA ......................................................................................... 25
9. RECOMMENDED PROJECTS BY FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION – FLORENCE
PLANNING AREA ......................................................................................... 28
10. SUMMARY OF COST ESTIMATES ................................................................... 32
11. MATRIX OF KEY MULTIMODAL FUNDING SOURCES ....................................... 34
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
1. COOLIDGE- FLORENCE STUDY AREA ............................................................... 2
2. STUDY PROCESS............................................................................................ 3
3. FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM ........................................................ 10
4. RECOMMENDED FUNCTIONAL ROAD CLASSIFICATION .................................. 12
5. 2025 NUMBER OF LANES MAP ....................................................................... 13
6. 2025 DRAFT TRANSIT OPTIONS...................................................................... 21
8. 2025 ROADWAY NETWORK BY CITY AND TOWN LIMITS.................................. 31
ii
Lima & Associates Coolidge- Florence Regional Transportation Study - Page 1
SUMMARY REPORT
This is a Summary Report of the Coolidge- Florence Regional Transportation Study that developed a
regional transportation plan for the planning areas of Coolidge and Florence, Arizona. An effective
partnership was forged among the City of Coolidge, the Town of Florence, and the Consultant Team to
conduct the study. Funding was provided by the two municipalities and the Arizona Department of
Transportation ( ADOT) in recognition of the regional growth and the need to develop a coordinated
multimodal transportation system. In addition, area residents’ and stakeholder input was solicited and
incorporated in the study through public participation efforts. Complete documentation of the Study is
provided in the Final Report.
While this study included roadway facilities owned and operated by ADOT within the study area, it is
important to recognize that improvements to the state highway system can be made only after in- depth
planning and engineering studies are conducted by ADOT, and upon approval of the State
Transportation Board. All traffic interchange improvements must be approved by the Federal Highway
Administration ( FHWA). The recommendations made by this study for improvements on state
facilities can serve only as suggestions for further study.
PURPOSE. The purpose of the study has been to develop a 20- year transportation plan and
implementation program to guide the City of Coolidge and the Town of Florence in meeting
transportation needs into the future. Roadway and multimodal improvements were identified to address
deficiencies and needs to improve mobility and safety in the County. The study also identified how and
when these improvements should be implemented and funded. This long- range multimodal
transportation plan is intended for use in day- to- day programming and funding of transportation
improvements. In addition, transportation improvements have been prioritized to maximize project
benefits within budget limitations. Funding strategies and sources have been included to aid the
communities in pursuing local, regional, state, and federal funding. Figure 1 depicts the study area.
BACKGROUND. The study area is comprised of the combined planning areas of the City of
Coolidge and the Town of Florence within the eastern portion of Pinal County approximately midway
between the City of Phoenix and City of Tucson ( see Figure 1). The combined planning areas extend
from east of I- 10 to well past SR 79 and from SR 87 to Bella Vista including the places of Valley
Farms, Cactus Forest, Randolph, La Palma, and Florence Gardens. The 336 square mile study area is
larger than the combined incorporated areas ( as of 2004) of the East Valley cities including City of
Mesa, Town of Gilbert, City of Chandler, Town of Queen Creek, and City of Apache Junction.
Both communities are experiencing rapid growth. Possible population growth in the study area has
been projected in the range of 250,000 to 300,000 persons over the next 20 years. Currently, a Pulte
Homes development is underway on the West side of the City of Coolidge, and Anthem at Merrill
Ranch on the northwest side of the Town of Florence, which is transforming the landscape to
residential use. Other new developments are also underway in the area. In addition, Westcor has
signed a contract to construct a regional Shopping Mall in the future on the eastside of the City of
Coolidge.
ociates Coolidge- Florence Regional Transportation Study - Page 2
FIGURE 1. COOLIDGE- FLORENCE STUDY AREA
Lima & Ass
Lima & Associates Coolidge- Florence Regional Transportation Study – Page 3
STUDY PROCESS AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT. A Technical Advisory Committee
( TAC) guided the overall conduct of the study, provided background information, and made technical
input to the process. The committee was comprised of representatives from the agencies listed in Table
1. An intensive public participation process was undertaken, including two rounds of stakeholder
workshops to identify issues, solicit comments, and receive feedback on the study process and
recommendations. The study process is illustrated in Figure 2.
TABLE 1. TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEMBERS
City of Coolidge:
Public Works Department
Growth Management Department
ADOT:
Transportation Planning Division
Public Transportation Division
Tucson Engineering District
Town of Florence: Globe Engineering District
Public Works Department
Planning and Zoning Department Pinal County:
Administration Department Public Works Department
Gila River Indian Community Central Arizona Association of Governments
FIGURE 2. STUDY PROCESS
The first step of the technical analysis was to analyze the existing conditions and Environmental Justice
concerns. Workshops in Coolidge and Florence were held to identify issues and envision components
for the transportation plan. Stakeholders included Public Works Department personnel, Coolidge and
Florence personnel, elected officials from the City of Coolidge and the Town of Florence, ADOT,
CAAG, Pinal County representatives, and citizens.
Technical Coordination/ Outreach
STUDY PROCESS
One- on- One
Meetings
Identify Issues
Identify Vision
Stakeholder
Workshop
Council Meetings
Develop
Transportation
Plans and Transit
Elements
Develop
Implementation
Plans
Existing
Conditions Future Conditions
Stakeholder
Workshop
Identify/ Evaluate
Multimodal
Options
Define Options
Open Houses
Lima & Associates Coolidge- Florence Regional Transportation Study – Page 4
Future socioeconomic conditions were projected and a traffic forecasting model of the study area was
developed to identify future transportation conditions. Next, multimodal transportation options were
identified and evaluated. Based on the results of this analysis, a draft transportation plan was
developed including a transit element. A second round of stakeholder workshops was held to review
the draft transportation plan and identify constraints to the plan. The findings and recommendations of
the study were presented to open houses in Coolidge and Florence for review and comment.
Stakeholder Workshops. The first Stakeholder Workshop was held August 9, 2007, at the Council
Chambers, Florence Town Hall. The purpose of the meeting was to review the status of the study,
present the existing and future demographic and transportation conditions, and obtain input from the
stakeholders. The meeting was an open house format with display boards available to be reviewed by
participants. Comment cards were available for participants to complete. A brief PowerPoint
presentation was given at 4: 30 p. m. summarizing the study process, reviewing existing and future
demographic and transportation conditions, and discussing the planning approach. The display boards
included: 1) Environmental Overview; 2) Land Ownership; 3) Vehicle Crashes; 4) Planned Area
Developments; 5) Number of Lanes for Proposed Roadway Network; 6) 2025 Traffic Volumes With or
Without the Proposed North- South Freeway; and 7) Draft Florence Land Use Map. Display maps and
the PowerPoint presentation were placed on the web sites of both the City of Coolidge and Town of
Florence.
The second stakeholder workshop was held from 4: 00 p. m. to 6: 00 p. m. on December 12, 2007, for
the Coolidge- Florence Regional Transportation Study at the City of Coolidge Council Chambers. The
purpose of the workshop was to present the draft road and public transportation elements of the
regional transportation plan and obtain feedback from the participants. The format of the second
workshop was similar to that of the first. Display boards presented included: 1) Study Area; 2) 2025
Traffic Volumes for Alternative 1; 3) Road Element Functional Classification; 4) Road Element
Number of Lanes; 5) Public Transportation Element; and 6) Public Transportation Options.
Overview of Open Houses. Two public open houses were held in January 2008 to present the
Coolidge- Florence Regional Transportation Plan to the public and obtain feedback on the plan. One
Open House was held at the City of Coolidge Council Chambers on January 8 and one was held at the
Town of Florence Council Chambers on January 10. Both events took place between 5: 00 p. m. and
7: 00 p. m. and were advertised in regional newspapers and on the Web sites of both communities.
The format for both open houses included display boards
available to be reviewed by participants. Members of the
study team were available to answer questions. A brief
presentation was given outlining the study process, vision,
issues, and presenting the roadway and public
transportation elements. The display boards included: 1)
Study Area; 2) 2006 Land Ownership; 3) 2025 Traffic
Volumes for Alternative 1; 4) Proposed Developments; 5)
2025 Road Functional Classification; 6) 2025 Number of
Lanes; 7) 2025 Public Transportation Element; and 8)
Public Transportation Options.
Comments received from both stakeholders and the public are summarized in Chapter 2 of the Final
Report.
RECOMMENDATIONS. The consultant team recommends the following for the City of Coolidge
and the Town of Florence:
Transportation Issues. Many of the roads in the study area are currently owned, operated,
and maintained by Pinal County; municipalities must coordinate with the County in developing
a street system.
Road Plan
• Implement new continuous roads and widen existing roadways to provide an adequate
level- of- service in the study area.
• Implement a functional classification of 425 miles of major arterials, minor arterials,
major collectors, and minor collectors tied to specific design and access criteria.
• Implement access management principles to manage access to adjacent properties.
Roadway Projects
• The Consultant identified a total of over 170 miles of roadway improvements in the
Coolidge Planning Area and over 250 miles of roadway improvements in the Florence
Planning Area.
• Total cost of the Coolidge area projects is estimated at $ 1.09 billion, including $ 811
million for 117.22 miles of major arterial roadways, $ 257 million for 49.27 miles of
minor arterial roadways, and $ 17 million for 4.86 miles of major collector roadways.
• Total cost of the Florence area projects is estimated at $ 1.58 billion, including $ 724
million for 102.71 miles of major arterial roadways, $ 731 million for 115.56 miles of
minor arterial roadways, $ 63 million for 14.06 miles of major collector roadways, $ 11
million for 3.12 miles of minor collector roadways, and $ 50 million for 18.34 miles of
frontage roads.
• Over 32 miles of major arterial roadway projects in the Coolidge planning area
estimated to cost a total of $ 216 million were identified as high- priority projects.
• Over 29 miles of major arterial roadway projects in the Florence planning area
estimated to cost a total of $ 193 million were identified as high- priority projects.
• Improvement of Attaway Road between Hunt Highway and Quail Run Lane, a minor
arterial in the Florence Planning Area, which is estimated to cost $ 19.4 million, is also
considered a high- priority project.
Public Transportation
• The City of Coolidge and the Town of Florence should proactively support the Pinal
Rides Pilot Program by participating on the Advisory Council and providing funding.
• The City of Coolidge and the Town of Florence should communicate and coordinate
with organizations and agencies that are evaluating and/ or advocating inter- regional
transit service options affecting the County.
• The City of Coolidge and the Town of Florence should consider development of transit
oriented design ( TOD) overlays that could be implemented along identified future
transit corridors.
Lima & Associates Coolidge- Florence Regional Transportation Study – Page 5
• The City of Coolidge and the Town of Florence should continue to present short- and
long- range plans to ADOT Public Transportation Division.
• The City of Coolidge should continue to evaluate the operation of the Cotton Express
and plan for service expansion as population growth and development warrant.
• The Town of Florence should conduct a Transit Feasibility and Implementation Study
to identify current and future public transportation needs within the town as well as
demographic thresholds for implementing future services.
• The Town of Florence should hire a Transportation Coordinator, when needed.
• The Town of Florence should appoint a volunteer Transit Advisory Committee to assist
the Town in identifying the desirable attributes of the coordinator position and to work
with the coordinator after his or her selection.
FUTURE SOCIOECONOMIC AND TRANSPORTATION CONDITIONS. This section
summarizes the analysis of the 2025 socioeconomic and transportation conditions for the Coolidge-
Florence transportation study area, and the analysis of alternative road networks. First, the 2025
socioeconomic projections area are presented and analyzed. The methods to forecast future traffic and
road deficiencies are then described. Next, the conditions of the 2025 existing street network with the
2025 growth projections are analyzed. Sections follow summarizing the analysis of alternative street
networks to address roadway deficiencies and spatial allocation of the socioeconomic data among
Transportation Analysis Zones ( TAZs) defined in the study area.
Methodology for Developing Future Socioeconomic Data. The following steps were taken to
estimate 2025 socioeconomic data including dwelling units, population, and number of employees.
1. The study area was subdivided into TAZs representing distinct geographical areas. A TAZ is
generally bounded by either the roads or other geographic boundaries such as the Gila River.
Estimated households, population, and employees are allocated to each TAZ within the study
area. A map showing the TAZs in the study area is included in the Final Report.
2. The Central Arizona Association of Governments ( CAAG) Planned Area Development
database for proposed residential and commercial acres was reviewed.
3. Coordinated with the Town of Florence and City of Coolidge to identify potential residential
and commercial growth areas and the timing of these areas.
4. Reviewed locations of planned infrastructure ( power, sewer, water).
5. Reviewed the housing permit history in the study area.
6. Reviewed the amount and timing of housing development and commercial and office
development growth in urban areas in the Phoenix and Tucson area.
7. Estimated 2025 dwelling units in each TAZ.
8. Estimated employees among retail, office, industrial, government, and other types of
employment and allocated to TAZs.
Summary of 2025 Socioeconomic Data. Table 2 presents a summary of the socioeconomic
projections for the year 2025. Population in the study area is growing very rapidly. The estimated
total 2005 population is expected to grow to a projected 2025 population of approximately 337,500
Lima & Associates Coolidge- Florence Regional Transportation Study – Page 6
TABLE 2. SUMMARY OF 2025 SOCIOECONOMIC DATA
2005 2025
Area DUS Pop. Emp
Emp/
Pop
DUS Pop Emp
Emp/
Pop
Coolidge Planning Area 4,223 12,275 3,897 0.32 25,608 72,153 22,269 0.31
Florence Planning Area 3,494 8,662 5,553 0.64 41,094 113,942 57,241 0.50
County Portion 6,635 14,723 5,247 0.36 57,086 151,419 54,425 0.36
Total Study Area 14,352 35,660 14,697 0.41 123,788 337,514 133,935 0.40
Source: Elliot Pollack & Company, Lima & Associates
DU= dwelling units, Pop= Population, Emp= Number of employees, Emp/ Pop= Ration of employees to population
* Population does not include prison population
residents, almost an 846 percent increase— 42 percent yearly average growth rate. The 2025
population in the study area is allocated among the jurisdictions as follows:
• 114,000 in the Florence Metropolitan Planning Area
• 72,100 in the Coolidge Metropolitan Planning Area
• 151,400 in the Pinal County and Casa Grande portions of the study area.
Employment in the study area is also projected to grow rapidly to 134,000 employees, approximately
811 percent increase. This is a 40 percent yearly average growth rate.
The high projected growth rates for Coolidge- Florence compare to other high growth areas in the
Phoenix metropolitan area and in other areas of Pinal County. For example, the population in the
Town of Buckeye in Maricopa County grew from approximately 8,500 residents in the year 2000 to an
estimated population of 31,800 residents in 2006— 45.6 percent average yearly growth rate. The City
of Maricopa in Pinal County grew from approximately 1,500 residents in the year 2000 to an estimated
population of 25,800 residents in 2006— 274 percent average yearly growth rate.
Traffic Forecasting Process Overview. A traffic forecasting model was developed and validated
for the Coolidge- Florence Regional Transportation Study area to estimated future traffic volumes. The
model was developed using the TransCAD transportation forecasting software and was calibrated using
the year 2005 transportation network and estimated 2005 socioeconomic data. The transportation
planning model is a representation of the study area transportation facilities and the travel patterns
using these facilities. The traffic model contains inventories of the 2005 roadway facilities and of
residential and non- residential units by traffic analysis zones.
In general, the traffic model process consists of several steps including estimating the number of daily
vehicle trips by TAZ from the socioeconomic inventory, distribution of vehicle trips by TAZ, and then
assigning the vehicle trips to the street network. The traffic model is calibrated by comparing the daily
traffic volumes produced by the model with current daily traffic counts. When the model matches the
traffic counts within acceptable ranges of error the model can then be used to test future year scenarios.
These scenarios may contain changes in numbers of housing units, employment centers, travel behavior
patterns, or roadway improvements. The transportation planner or engineer, using the traffic-forecasting
model can project future traffic volumes, which in turn can aid in making planning and
project programming decisions.
Lima & Associates Coolidge- Florence Regional Transportation Study – Page 7
The transportation modeling process included the following steps:
• Development of 2005 transportation roadway network.
• Determination of 2005 land use data working with the City of Coolidge and Town of Florence.
• Generation of daily vehicle trips in the trip generation phase.
• Distribution of vehicle trips in the trip distribution phase - geographical distribution of vehicle
trips between origin and destination zones.
• Assigning vehicle trips to the 2005 road network in the trip assignment phase.
The next step in the traffic forecasting process was to apply the calibrated model to forecast 2025
traffic volumes. For this, the 2025 socioeconomic TAZ data was used to forecast the 2025 daily traffic
volumes.
Method to Identify Road Deficiencies. Roadway deficiencies were identified using traffic level of
service. Level of service ( LOS) is a qualitative measure of traffic operations stated in terms of factors
such as speed, travel time, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions, comfort, convenience, and
safety. Level of service ranges from LOS A to LOS F, where LOS A represents unrestricted traffic
flow and LOS F represents a severely congested traffic condition. In an urban area, the acceptable
level of service ranges between LOS C and D.
Table 3 presents the planning criteria used for determining level of service based on volume- to- capacity
ratio. As the ratio of daily traffic volume increases, the level of service experienced by drivers
deteriorates until it exceeds the road capacity and bottle necks occur.
TABLE 3. LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA
LOS Maximum V/ C
A 0.29
B 0.54
C 0.75
D 0.90
E 1.00
F > 1.00
Source: Transportation Research Board,
Highway Capacity Manual
PERFORMANCE OF 2005 NETWORK. The Coolidge- Florence TransCAD travel demand
model was used to estimate 2025 daily traffic volumes on the existing road network assuming the
projected 2025 socioeconomic conditions. Virtually all the roadways are at a level of service F,
indicating complete gridlock on the existing system if the study area grows as expected and no roadway
improvements are made. An exhibit depicting these findings is included in Chapter 6 of the Final
Report.
PERFORMANCE OF 2025 ALTERNATIVE NETWORKS. In coordination with the
Technical Advisory Committee ( TAC), alternative 2025 road networks were identified to meet the
Lima & Associates Coolidge- Florence Regional Transportation Study – Page 8
future travel demand. Beginning with a Base 2025 Road Network, alternative road networks evolved
as alternatives were analyzed and as changes were made to the Florence and Coolidge General Plans.
The following sections describe alternative networks and the results of the analysis of those
alternatives.
Base 2025 Road Network. As noted above, a Base 2025 Street Network was developed in
coordination with the TAC. The network was developed based on the following information:
• Coolidge General Plan Land Use Plan
• Florence General Plan Land Use Plan
• Development plans in both Florence and Coolidge
• Regionally Significant Routes for Safety and Mobility
• Forecasted 2025 traffic volumes in the study area
The Base 2025 Network includes new roadways, improvements to existing roadways, and the proposed
North- South Freeway Corridor. Figures illustrating the number of lanes and the level of service on the
Base 2025 network with the 2025 socioeconomic numbers are included in the Final Report.
Base 2025 Road Network Without The North- South Freeway Corridor. In order to illustrate
the impact of the North- South Freeway Corridor in the region, daily traffic volumes were estimated on
the Base 2025 Street Network without the North- South Freeway Corridor. A Figure showing the level
of service on the streets without the North- South Freeway Corridor is also included in the Final
Report.
2025 Alternative Road Network. The Base 2025 Road Network was modified to reflect changes in
the road network of the Florence land use plan and evaluated by the Consultant. A figure illustrating
the level of service on the alternative road network is included in the Final Report.
North- South Freeway Terminated at SR 287. The Alternative Network was modified to analyze
the impact of terminating the North- South Freeway Corridor at SR 287. The impacts of terminating
the North- South Freeway Corridor at SR 287 include the following:
• Increase traffic volumes on SR 287 west of the North- South Corridor.
• Increase traffic volumes on SR 87 south of the North- South Corridor.
A figure illustrating these impacts is also presented in the Final Report.
RECOMMENDED TRANSPORTATION PLAN - ROADWAY ELEMENT. The analysis
of the Base and Alternative 2025 Networks led to the identification and prioritization of projects to be
recommended in the Roadway Element of the Coolidge- Florence Regional Transportation Plan, which
is summarized in this section. First, the concept of a road functional classification is described and a
recommended functional classification for the regional plan is presented. The number of recommended
lanes for the regional road network is presented. Next, the concept of access management is discussed
Lima & Associates Coolidge- Florence Regional Transportation Study – Page 9
Lima & Associates Coolidge- Florence Regional Transportation Study – Page 10
Increasing Access
Increasing Mobility
Freeways
Major Arterial
Local Street
Minor Collector
Major Collector
Minor Arterial
and recommended road design and access management principles are presented. Design and access
criteria are then presented.
Road Functional Classification System. The road functional classification system is based on
mobility, access to adjacent land uses, and continuity of the street network. Figure 3 illustrates the
relationship of mobility and access for various categories of road functional classification. Roads are
classified by function, mobility, and access. The functional classification system for the Coolidge-
Florence Region includes the following classifications: Freeway, Major Arterial, Minor Arterial,
Major and Minor Collector, and local streets.
FIGURE 3. FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
he following describes the characteristics of the street classifications.
Freeways provide the highest level of mobility by limiting access to grade- separated
rincipal/ Major Arterials provide a high level of mobility and are generally six- lane
inor Arterials serve similar circulation needs as Principal Arterials but are typically four-ajor
Collectors can be configured as a four- lane roadway or as a two- lane road with a
T
interchanges. Freeways do not provide direct access to adjacent properties. Interstate 10 is the
only freeway in the vicinity of the study area. A North- South ( N- S) freeway corridor has been
identified from Apache Junction to Coolidge through the study area. A study to determine
alignment of this potential freeway will begin in 2008. No funding has been identified for the
purchase of right- of- way or for the construction of a North- South freeway.
P
facilities, located on the one- mile grid, serving major traffic within the region connecting
neighborhoods and business centers. Examples of proposed Principal/ Major Arterials include:
Hunt Highway in Florence and Christensen Road in Coolidge.
M
lane roadways. Examples of proposed Minor Arterials include: Butte Road in Florence and
Kenilworth Road in Coolidge.
M
center turn- lane. Examples of proposed Major Collectors include: Diversion Dam Road in
Florence and Northern Avenue in Coolidge.
Minor Collectors are two- lane roads with no center turn- lane. Major and Minor Collectors
provide internal circulation within neighborhoods providing connections to the arterial road
system. The establishment of the collector road system is part of the ongoing development
activity. Collectors have low access control as they provide connections to the local roadways
accessing homes and businesses. Speed limits are lowest for collector roads, and should have
lower traffic volumes than larger arterials and expressways. Examples of proposed Minor
Collectors include: Ranchview Road and Bowling Rd in Florence.
Recommended Road Functional Classification. Figure 4 presents the recommended functional
road classification and Figure 5 illustrates the proposed number of lanes. Table 4 presents the road
mileage by functional classification.
Although the figures illustrating the functional classification and number and lanes include state
highways, it is important to note that the Arizona Department of Transportation ( ADOT) has the
responsibility to determine the improvements on state highways:
While this study included roadway facilities owned and operated by ADOT within the
study area, it is important to recognize that improvements to the state highway system
can be made only after in- depth planning and engineering studies are conducted by
ADOT, and upon approval of the State Transportation Board. All traffic interchange
improvements must be approved by the Federal Highway Administration ( FHWA). The
recommendations made by this study for improvements on state facilities can serve only
as suggestions for further study.
ACCESS MANAGEMENT
Need for Access Management. The purpose of major
transportation corridors is to provide for the safe and efficient
movement of people and goods at a high level of service. If
access to these corridors is limited, then safety and mobility
will be maintained along the corridors. However, if access to
adjacent property is not limited and adjacent property
develops, the addition of traffic signals and curb cuts often has
an adverse effect on mobility and safety. As land is developed
along transportation corridors, vehicle access to property
adjacent to the corridor is often achieved directly to and from
the transportation corridor. As a result, more trips are forced
onto the corridor due to insufficient internal access systems
serving these land use activities. As traffic congestion
increases, the level of service provided by the major
transportation corridor decreases. In addition, crashes along
such a corridor generally increase due to the large number of
turning and other conflicts along the corridor.
Lima & Associates Coolidge- Florence Regional Transportation Study – Page 11
Lima & Associates Coolidge- Florence Regional Transportation Study – Page 12
FIGURE 4. RECOMMENDED FUNCTIONAL ROAD CLASSIFICATION
FIGURE 5. 2025 NUMBER OF LANES MAP
Lima & Associates Coolidge- Florence Regional Transportation Study – Page 13
Lima & Associates Coolidge- Florence Regional Transportation Study – Page 14
TABLE 4. ROAD MILEAGE BY FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION
Functional Classification Road Mileage
Coolidge Planning Area Florence Planning Area
Major Arterial 117 103
Minor Arterial 49 116
Major Collector 5 14
Minor Collector 0 3
Frontage 0 18
Total 171 254
What is Access Management? One way to minimize the adverse impact of increased access to
adjacent property is to apply access management techniques along transportation corridors. According
to the Federal Highway Administration ( FHWA) access management is:
The process that provides access to land development while simultaneously preserving the flow
of traffic on the surrounding system in terms of safety, capacity, and speed.
In practical terms this process requires the regulation of vehicular access to public highways from
adjoining property in order to limit the number of access points to a roadway, and, therefore; to reduce
the number of potential conflict points among the users of the roadway.
• Access management deals with the traffic problems caused by unmanaged development before
they occur.
• Access management addresses how land is accessed along arterials.
• Access management focuses on mitigating traffic problems arising from development and
increased traffic volume traveling to the new activity centers.
• Access management calls upon local planning and zoning to address overall patterns of growth
and the aesthetic issues arising from development.
Access management is the use of techniques by state and local governments to improve the access to
highways and local roads. The purpose of these techniques is to improve travel time and improve
safety:
• Increase spacing of intersections and interchanges to improve movement and traffic flow.
• Reduce the number of driveways to avoid conflict points and reduce accidents.
• Use left- and right- turn lanes to separate traffic movements, improving both traffic flow and
safety.
• Apply median treatments including two- way left- turn lanes and raised medians that allow
drivers to safely turn off of the highway.
• Use frontage and backage roads that provide for safer and easier access to businesses and local
roadways.
• Implement land use policies that regulate types of land use conducive to the highway
environment.
Lima & Associates Coolidge- Florence Regional Transportation Study – Page 15
Increase in Speed as Access Points
Decrease
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
> 40 30 20 10 0
Access Points Per MIle
Increase in Speed ( MPH)
ACCIDENT
RATE
INDEX
ACCIDENT
RATE
INDEX
ACCIDENT
RATE
INDEX
ACCIDENT
RATE
INDEX
ACCIDENT
RATE
INDEX
Access Points per Mile
Source: TRB Access Management Manual, 2003
Application of
Access Management
Techniques
Travel
Time
To
Commercial
Center
Distance to Commercial Center
What are the Benefits of Access Management? The primary benefits of access management are:
• overall reduced travel time
• reduced vehicle crashes
• reduced travel time of customers to
businesses
The benefits of access management are well
documented in the professional literature
including the TRB Access Management
Manual, NCHRP Report 420, Impacts of
Access Management Techniques and other
reports.
Some of the most important access
management techniques relate to the
frequency of driveways and intersections
and the uniformity of traffic signal spacing.
Travel time has been shown to decrease significantly as speed increases with the reduction in the
number of driveway and intersection access points. The uniform and increased spacing of traffic
signals will also increase travel speeds.
Many studies have shown that crash rates
increase with greater frequency of driveways and
intersections. More driveways and intersections
mean more conflicts between vehicles and also
between vehicles and pedestrians. Crashes can
be reduced significantly with fewer driveways
and intersections.
One of the complaints about access management
comes from businesses concerned about
restricting access to their enterprises. However,
studies have shown that the application of access
management techniques reduce the travel time
from residential areas to commercial areas and
thereby increases the overall market
area for businesses. The reduction in
the number of access points ensures
safer access to business. The positive
impact of access management on
businesses is documented in the FHWA
brochure: Safe Access is Good For
Business. The brochure and
accompanying CD includes support
from owners of businesses that were in
opposition before access management
techniques were applied but in support
after the techniques were in effect.
Access Management Techniques. Access management techniques can be grouped into two broad
categories: land use and technical tools. Individual techniques within these categories are listed below.
Appendix B describes the individual techniques in more detail.
Land use and Development Techniques Technical Tools
• Acquisition of Access Rights • Driveway Consolidation
• Dedication and Exactions • Driveway control
• Interim Use Allowances • Right- in/ Right- out
• Purchase of Development Rights • Joint Driveway/ Cross- Access
• Transfer of Development Rights • Raised Medians
• Land Development Regulation • Alternative Access Ways
• Flexible of Cluster Zoning • Frontage and Backage Roads
• Overlay Zones • Retrofitting Techniques
• Subdivision Regulations and Site Plan Review
• Zoning Regulation
ROAD DESIGN AND ACCESS CRITERIA. Recommended Access Management Principles
include:
• Primary Access. For sites that have frontage on two streets, primary access should be onto
the minor street.
• Minimize Access Points. Subdivisions and sites should be designed to minimize the number of
access points. A maximum of two driveway entrances are permitted.
• Cross Access. Where new development adjoins other similarly zoned property or compatible
land uses, a cross access easement may be required to permit vehicular movement between the
parcels and reduce the number of access points required onto the adjacent public street. This
may be required regardless of the development status of the adjoining property, unless the
cross access is determined to be unfeasible.
Table 5 presents the proposed design and access criteria for the roadway classifications. Appendix C
in the Final Report presents the specific street design and access criteria roadway classifications for the
Town of Florence and Appendix D in the Final Report presents the street cross sections for the City of
Coolidge. Note that the criteria presented in the table are minimum spacing needs and that it is
recommended that longer spacing intervals be provided between intersections and between
driveways.
PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION PLAN. This section suggests and describes potential services,
facilities, and equipment and presents the findings of an estimation of 2030 demand for intercity transit
in the City of Coolidge and the Town of Florence. Federal, State, and local sources of transit funding
are summarized in detail in the Final Report.
Lima & Associates Coolidge- Florence Regional Transportation Study – Page 16
Lima & Associates Coolidge- Florence Regional Transportation Study – Page 17
TABLE 5. MINIMUM ROAD DESIGN AND ACCESS CRITERIA
Criteria Functional Classification
Freeway Principal/ Major Arterial Minor Arterial Major Collector Minor Collector Local Street
Road Purpose Mobility Mobility Mobility/ Access Access/ Mobility Access Access
Planning Average Daily Traffic > 55,000 45,000- 55,000 30,000 10,000 8,000 1,000
Design Standards
Design Speed 75 mph 55 mph 45 mph 35 mph 35 mph 20 mph
Right- of- Way Width 300’+ 130’- 150’ 110’ 80’ 60’ 50’- 60’
Median Divided Divided Divided TWLT TWLT N/ A
Number of Lanes 4 and Greater 6 4- 5 2- 4 2- 3 2
Left- turn Lanes NA At all locations where permitted
At all locations
where permitted
At all locations where
permitted
At all locations where
permitted
NA
Right- turn Lanes NA
At all locations where permitted
and warranted
At all locations
where permitted
and warranted
At all locations where
permitted and
warranted
At all locations where
permitted and
warranted
NA
Access Management Guidelines
Public Access Grade- Separated
Interchanges Only
1/ 8- 1/ 2mile 1/ 8- 1/ 4 mile 1/ 8- 1/ 4 mile 1/ 8 mile
Residential
street
Property Access None
Rt. in/ Rt. Out
Full access where approved
Rt. in/ Rt. Out
Full access where
approved
Full access where
approved
Full access where
approved
Not Restricted
Traffic Signal Spacing NA
Mile and ½ mile locations,
Fully coordinated and
progressed where warranted
½ mile locations,
¼ mile locations
where warranted
½ mile locations. ¼
mile locations where
warranted
NA NA
Typical Traffic Control NA Signalized, two- way stop
Signalized, two-way
stop
Signalized, two- way
stop
Signalized, two- way
stop
Stop Control
Parking Prohibited Prohibited Prohibited Restricted Restricted Allowed
Alternative Modes
Transit Potential HOV Lane
Bus pull- outs and queue jumpers
where warranted
Bus pull- outs and
queue jumpers
where warranted
NA NA NA
Bike Lanes No Yes Yes Yes Yes No
Sidewalk ( both sides) None 6’ 6’ 5’ 5’ 3’ - 4’
TWTL – Two- way Turning Lanes
Lima & Associates Coolidge- Florence Regional Transportation Study – Page 18
Transportation Demand Management - consists of a wide range of programs and services that enable
people to get around without driving alone. Included are alternative transportation modes such as
carpooling, vanpooling, transit, bicycling, and walking, as well as programs that alleviate traffic and
parking problems such as telecommuting, variable work hours, and parking management.
Transportation Demand Management can address the needs of those traveling long distances with
rideshare options such as vanpools and carpools. These types of services are vital in moving people
around large areas, whether for work or for traveling to regional centers that have special services,
medical facilities, or retail stores.
Rideshare Matching Programs - provide service by identifying people who live and work close to each
other and then facilitate carpooling and vanpooling. Matching services can pair full- time partners, or
simply someone to call in an emergency. Rideshare matching can be done by individual employers or
on a community- wide basis. In addition to commute trips, travelers can be matched with others
participating in the same extracurricular school function, medical- related trip, shopping trip, or
community activity.
Rideshare matching is typically done through a computerized system. A variety of vendors have
created inexpensive, effective software that makes this process easy to use. Rideshare services can also
be offered on- line.
Two common forms of ridesharing are carpools and vanpools. Carpool participation is higher than the
national average in rural Arizona, suggesting that a potential for developing additional carpools in the
area exists.
Arizona Rides - is a statewide effort to coordinate provision of human services transportation within
counties or regions of counties to increase efficiency, limit service duplication and confusion, and save
costs. Arizona Rides was initiated in response to the federal “ United We Ride” program established in
2004. “ Pinal Rides,” a pilot project of the program, funded a study of the concept in Central Pinal
County. The Final Report of the pilot project was published in December 2005. Recommendations
included the establishment of a transit coordinating council for the study area and the implementation of
service along two regional corridors.
Types of Transit Vehicles - A number of roadway- based and fixed- guideway forms of transit service
exist, including bus service, light rail, commuter rail, subways, and monorail. Six modes of transit
have been identified as likely candidates for eventual implementation in the City of Coolidge and the
Town of Florence:
[ Dial- A- Ride and Paratransit Services [ Deviated Fixed Route Service
[ Regional Bus Service [ Regional Rail Service
[ Commuter Rail Service [ Excursion Rail Service
The specific features of the two types of bus services are detailed in the Final Report. The concept for
excursion rail service is also discussed in the Final Report.
Future Transit Needs and Service Thresholds. Concentrations of population within an area
suggest where commute trips are likely to originate during the morning peak travel period, and
concentrations of employment function as “ attractors” where such trips are likely to terminate. In the
afternoon, the roles are reversed: Trips originate in areas where employment is concentrated and
terminate in residential areas. As Coolidge and Florence develop and increase in total population and
in population density, significant areas in each community will likely meet or exceed demographic
thresholds empirically determined to warrant the introduction or enhancement of transit service.
Transit Service Threshold Methodology. Traditionally, transit thresholds are based on residential
densities alone. However, the application of such thresholds to residential densities shown on a TAZ
level fails to consider the variations in density within the TAZ itself. To compensate for this
observation, the consultant decided to apply the thresholds to the sum of the residential and
employment densities within a TAZ rather than to the residential densities alone. A threshold scenario
was developed for application to the TAZ array. The threshold levels for the different types of transit
service were calculated from data presented in the MAG High Capacity Transit Study.
The threshold levels presented in Table 6 were applied to a map of the study area, which is shown in
the Final Report, using the forecasted 2025 combined population and employment for each TAZ.
TABLE 6. MINIMUM CONSOLIDATED RESIDENTIAL AND EMPLOYMENT
DENSITIES FOR VARIOUS TYPES OF TRANSIT SERVICES
Transit Service Type Persons/ Sq Mile*
Bus– minimum service 4,500
Bus– intermediate service 7,780
Bus– frequent service 16,670
Light rail 10,000
Commuter Rail 3,328
* Calculated from Maricopa Association of Governments High
Capacity Transit Study, 2003
Bus minimum service = 1/ 2 mi between routes, 20 buses/ day
Bus intermediate service = 1/ 2 mi between routes, 40 buses/ day
Bus frequent service = 1/ 2 mi between routes, 120 buses/ day
Commuter rail = 20 Trains/ day on existing track
Light rail = 5 min. peak headways
These threshold numbers have been used in a number of transit studies nationwide including the High
Capacity Transit Study conducted in 2003 for the Maricopa Association of Governments. Note that the
“ bus- minimum service” category refers to standard fixed route bus services mostly operated in larger
metropolitan areas. Deviated fixed route services and dial- a- ride services, such as the Cotton Express
currently operated by the City of Coolidge, sometimes operate in areas that do not meet the minimum
density threshold of 4,500 persons per square mile, as do peak- hour commuter bus or van operations.
Brief summaries of the different types of transit services and vehicles will be given in the following
section.
By 2025, portions of Coolidge and Florence will exhibit significant combined population and
employment densities. Just one- half square mile of Florence south of Hunt Highway and west of
downtown and two quarter square mile areas of central Coolidge are forecasted to have combined
densities of more than 11,752 persons per square mile. However areas distributed throughout the study
area totaling approximately four square miles are projected to have densities of 7,601 persons per
Lima & Associates Coolidge- Florence Regional Transportation Study – Page 19
square mile or more. A total of over twelve square miles are forecasted to have combined densities of
5,068 or more persons per square mile. Much of the remainder of the portions of the study area
forecasted to be urbanized by 2025 will have densities of more than 2,863 persons per square mile.
Draft 2025 transit service options suggested by this analysis are shown in Figure 7. The two types of
transit service suggested by the forecasted densities are minimum bus service and commuter rail. The
existence throughout the future urbanized portions of the study area of regions with densities of 2,863
persons per square mile or more is close enough to the commuter rail threshold of 3,328 persons per
square mile that implementation of commuter rail in the region by 2025 would be warranted, assuming
that sufficient concentrations of employment within rail- served areas such as Central Phoenix, Central
Tucson, and the Phoenix- Mesa Gateway area will exist.
Portions of Figure 7 where densities suggest local minimum bus service are highlighted in yellow.
Such service could begin as an expansion of the existing Cotton Express service in Coolidge and the
implementation of a similar service in Florence. As demand warrants, a network of fixed- route
services, with complementary paratransit services, could be developed in these areas.
The following services would address future population growth and levels of travel demand within the
Coolidge and Florence areas and between these communities and the metropolitan Phoenix and Tucson
areas. These alternatives include:
• Expansion of the Cotton Express local dial- a- ride and deviated fixed route service areas within
the City of Coolidge
• Introduction of a service similar to the Cotton Express within the Town of Florence
• Regional bus service connecting Coolidge, Florence, Coolidge Municipal Airport, Central
Arizona College, Casa Grande, and Eloy
• Limited Stop commuter bus serving Coolidge, Florence, Queen Creek, Gilbert, and Mesa
• Limited Stop commuter bus serving Florence, Coolidge, Chandler, Tempe, and Phoenix
• Limited Stop commuter bus serving Coolidge, Florence, Oro Valley, and Tucson
• Limited Stop commuter bus serving Florence, Coolidge, Randolph, Eloy, Marana, and Tucson
• Commuter rail serving Coolidge, Queen Creek, Gilbert, Mesa, Tempe, and Phoenix
• Commuter rail serving Florence, Queen Creek, Gilbert, Mesa, Tempe, and Phoenix
• Regional rail service between Phoenix, Tempe, Mesa, Queen Creek, Coolidge, Picacho ( Eloy),
Marana, and Tucson
• An excursion rail operation on the Copper Basin Railway from Florence east through the scenic
Gila Canyon area
Figure 6 also recommends the locations for transit centers and park- and- ride locations. The 10- mile
diameter circles depict the “ catchment areas” for the commuter rail service. These are intended to
incorporate the areas from where a commuting motorist could reach the rail station at the transit center
in the center of the circle within 10 minutes. Locations of transit centers and park- and- ride facilities
include:
Lima & Associates Coolidge- Florence Regional Transportation Study – Page 20
Lima & Associates Coolidge- Florence Regional Transportation Study – Page 21
FIGURE 6. 2025 DRAFT TRANSIT OPTIONS
Lima & Associates Coolidge- Florence Regional Transportation Study – Page 22
• A combination transit center and park- and- ride facility at the intersection of the Union Pacific
Railroad and Hunt Highway for both commuter bus and commuter rail patrons
• A combination transit center and park- and- ride facility at the intersection of the Union Pacific
Railroad, the Copper Basin Railway, and Arizona Farms Road for commuter rail patrons
• A combination transit center and park- and- ride facility north of downtown Florence at the
intersection of SR 79 and the Copper Basin Railway for patrons of commuter bus, commuter
rail, and excursion rail services
• A transit center at Central Arizona College
• Park- and Ride facilities at the following locations: Coolidge Municipal Airport; The corner of
Skousen Road and SR 287; The corner of Florence- Kelvin Highway and SR 79; and at
Randolph Road, SR 87, and the Union Pacific
The timing of the extension of local service— e. g., the Cotton Express in Coolidge— to these areas will
depend upon the rate of buildout of the various developments that comprise the new service areas.
Expansion may also depend upon the degree of transit orientation of the subdivisions. Extending
service sooner to areas that are more conducive to transit service, both with regard to the demographics
of the particular development and the layout of the development’s internal street network, will result in
service that can be managed more efficiently and maintains a higher farebox recovery ratio.
While the demographic thresholds evaluated in the previous section will govern the timing for
prioritizing and implementing the recommended services, the operation of many of these services may
be contingent on necessary infrastructure improvements. For example, additional freeway capacity
will greatly enhance the efficiency of the limited stop commuter bus services. A bus commuter
experiencing peak hour traffic delays on Hunt Highway can put the time to productive use in ways that
would be impractical or unsafe for a motorist to do, such as reading, making phone calls, or working
on a laptop computer. However, the new freeways may include high- occupancy vehicle ( HOV) lanes
for the use of buses, vanpools, or carpools, making these alternative ways of commuting time-competitive
with single- occupancy vehicles.
Significant improvements in the rail infrastructure such as lengthened sidings and sections of double
track will be needed before regional or commuter rail service could be implemented on a regular or
frequent basis.
RECOMMENDATION AND IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY. This section presents a
capital improvement program designed to address the transportation challenges faced in the City of
Coolidge and the Town of Florence, with a plan for implementing the program in short-, mid-, and
long- term phases. Working with the TAC and the Project Managers from each community, the
consultant team developed cost estimates for the short-, mid-, and long- term transportation projects.
Recommendations were presented to the Project Managers and the Technical Advisory Committee for
review and comment.
Implementation Plan. A program to plan, coordinate, and implement a multimodal regional
transportation plan was developed. In addition, long- range projects were identified and costs were
estimated. High priority road corridors were also identified.
Challenges to Implementation. Implementing the multimodal transportation infrastructure within
the region presents several major challenges including the following:
• Right- of- way needs and right- of- way preservation for roadways
• Approved development plans that did not incorporate major transportation facilities
• Ability to implement continuous and consistent facilities
• Lead time needed to construct facilities
• Cost of needed improvements and funding implications
• Prioritization of projects with phased development
• Implementation of multimodal projects
Implementation Strategies. In order to meet the major challenges, the following action plan
presented in Table 7 has been developed to implement the study recommendations.
TABLE 7. IMPLEMENTATION ACTION PLAN
Implementation Strategy Responsible Entities
Plan and Program Adoption
Adopt the Coolidge- Florence Regional Transportation
Plan
Coolidge City Council
Florence Town Council
Adopt the recommended Street Functional Classification
and Roadway and Access Design Guidelines
Coolidge City Council
Florence Town Council
Program the recommended transportation improvements
into the Capital Program
Public Works Departments, Coolidge
and Florence Councils
Coordination
Establish regional transportation advisory committee Coolidge and Florence, CCAG, ADOT
Coordinate with ADOT on the Design Concept Study for
the North- South Freeway Corridor
Coolidge and Florence, ADOT, CAAG
Coordinate with ADOT on the I- 10 Design Concept
Study in regard to potential traffic interchange locations
and crossings of the one- mile streets.
Coolidge and Florence, ADOT, CAAG
Coordinate with jurisdiction, Pinal County, and ADOT
on Transportation Studies
Coolidge and Florence, Pinal County,
Casa Grande, Eloy
Coordinate with CAAG on the development of
population projections
Coolidge and Florence, CAAG
Communicate/ coordinate with other agencies planning
regional road and public transportation improvements.
ADOT, MAG. CAAG, PAG, and Valley
Metro
Land Use Planning
Establish a process to coordinate city land use and
transportation decisions on a regular basis
Coolidge and Florence, Pinal County,
ADOT, CAAG
Implement Transit Oriented Design ( TOD) overlays Coolidge and Florence
Incorporate access management considerations in land
use and site approval process
Coolidge and Florence
Lima & Associates Coolidge- Florence Regional Transportation Study – Page 23
TABLE 7. IMPLEMENTATION ACTION PLAN ( Continued)
Implementation Strategy Responsible Entities
Road Implementation
Implement the Street Functional Classifications and
Roadway Design Guidelines
Coolidge and Florence
Construct roadway improvements City Public Works, City Planning
Coordinate on developing and implementing consistent
design and access criteria
Coolidge and Florence, Pinal County
Establish a Coordinated Driveway Permitting Process
with Pinal County ADOT
Coolidge and Florence, Pinal County,
ADOT
Public Transportation Implementation
Establish a Transportation Coordinator ( Florence)
Implement the expansion of the Cotton Express service
area
Coolidge and Florence, Cotton Express,
Pinal County, CAAG, ADOT
Public Transportation Implementation ( Continued)
Conduct Coolidge- Florence Regional Transit Feasibility
Study
Coolidge and Florence, Cotton Express,
Pinal County, CAAG, ADOT
Establish a process to coordinate transit services with
private and public agencies
Coolidge and Florence Pinal County,
Pinal Rides, CAAG, ADOT
Proactively support Pinal Rides project. Coolidge and Florence. Cotton Express,
Pinal County, Pinal Rides CAAG,
ADOT
Participate in the planning and implementation of future
regional bus and rail services
Coolidge and Florence Pinal County,
CAAG, ADOT, UPRR, CBRY
Funding
Identify high priority funding strategies Coolidge and Florence. Cotton Express,
Pinal County, CAAG, ADOT
Coordinate to obtain funding and leverage funds for
improvements
Coolidge and Florence. Cotton Express,
Pinal County, CAAG, ADOT
Monitoring and Updating Plan
Implement a process to monitor and update plan Coolidge and Florence, CAAG, ADOT
Coordinate on a regional traffic count program Coolidge and Florence, CAAG, ADOT
Current Capital Improvement Projects. The current road capital improvement projects for the
City of Coolidge and the Town of Florence are presented in detail in Chapter 8 of the Final Report.
The 10- year Pinal County Arterial Streets Improvements Program is also presented in Chapter 8.
Recommended Projects. Recommended projects were identified from the 2025 Functional
Classification Map. The recommended projects for the City of Coolidge Planning area are shown in
Table 8 and the recommended projects for the Town of Florence Planning area are shown in Table 9.
Figure 7 illustrates the 2025 roadway network by Coolidge city limits and Florence town limits. Table
10 summarizes the costs estimates for road improvements by planning area.
Lima & Associates Coolidge- Florence Regional Transportation Study – Page 24
Lima & Associates Coolidge- Florence Regional Transportation Study – Page 25
TABLE 8. RECOMMENDED PROJECTS BY FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION – COOLIDGE PLANNING AREA
Road Segment Name From/ To
Functional
Class
Total
Lanes
Length
( miles)
Total Cost for
Section Priority
Prime
Responsibility Coordination
Attaway Rd Bartlett Rd to Martin Rd Major Arterial 6 1.01 $ 7,409,559 High Pinal County
Attaway Rd ( 6 lanes) Martin Rd to City Limits Major Arterial 6 3.54 $ 28,063,203 High Coolidge Pinal County
Bartlett Rd Mc Cartney Rd to Macrae Rd Major Arterial 6 1.11 $ 6,604,565 High Pinal County
Bartlett Rd Macrae Rd to City Limits Major Arterial 6 7.37 $ 43,851,929 High Coolidge Pinal County
Bartlett Rd City Limits to Coolidge Airport Rd Major Arterial 6 1.55 $ 12,767,590 High Pinal County
Cactus Forest Rd
Coolidge Airport Rd/ Hiscox Ln to
Cactus Forest Rd Major Arterial 6 1.72 $ 15,924,100 Pinal County
Christensen Rd Steele Rd to Kleck Rd Major Arterial 6 2 $ 13,300,116 Pinal County
Christensen Rd Kleck Rd to Bartlett Rd Major Arterial 6 2.64 $ 15,708,153 Coolidge
Christensen Rd Bartlett Rd to City Limits Major Arterial 6 1.75 $ 17,412,602 Pinal County
Christensen Rd City Limits to SR- 287 Major Arterial 6 2.25 $ 14,787,632 Coolidge
Clemans Rd Bartlett Rd to Martin Rd Major Arterial 4 1.01 $ 5,550,244 Pinal County
Clemans Rd Martin to City Limits Major Arterial 4 1.51 $ 9,497,890 Coolidge
Clemans Rd City Limits to SR- 287 Major Arterial 4 1.52 $ 10,752,842 Pinal County
Coolidge Airport Rd Kleck to Bartlett Rd Major Arterial 6 2.75 $ 20,562,659 High Pinal County
Coolidge Airport Rd Bartlett Rd to Kenilworth Rd Major Arterial 6 2.02 $ 18,364,117 Pinal County
Eleven Mile Corner Rd SR- 287 to City Limits Major Arterial 6 2.5 $ 14,875,145 Pinal County
Eleven Mile Corner Rd City Limits to Bartlett Rd Major Arterial 6 2.16 $ 12,852,126 Coolidge Pinal County
Hiscox Ln Kenilworth Rd to Vah Ki Inn Rd Major Arterial 6 0.95 $ 8,452,555 Coolidge
Kenilworth Rd Attaway Rd to Coolidge Airport Rd Major Arterial 6 3.00 $ 19,250,174 High Coolidge Pinal County
Kleck Rd Overfield Rd to City Limits Major Arterial 6 5.58 $ 33,201,323 Pinal County
Kleck Rd City Limits to City Limits Major Arterial 6 0.79 $ 4,700,546 Coolidge Pinal County
Kleck Rd City Limits to SR- 87 Major Arterial 6 1.69 $ 10,055,598 Pinal County
Kleck Rd SR 87 to Wheeler Rd Major Arterial 6 3.01 $ 19,309,675 Coolidge Pinal County
Kleck Rd Wheeler Rd to study area boundary Major Arterial 6 9.39 $ 72,016,043 Pinal County
Martin Rd Tweedy to City Limits Major Arterial 6 1.04 $ 6,188,060 Coolidge Pinal County
Martin Rd City Limits to Skousen Rd Major Arterial 6 0.48 $ 2,856,028 Pinal County
Martin Rd Skousen Rd to City Limits Major Arterial 6 2.75 $ 16,362,660 Coolidge Pinal County
Martin Rd City Limits to City Limits Major Arterial 6 1.24 $ 7,378,072 High Pinal County
Martin Rd City Limits to Valley Farms Rd Major Arterial 6 3.13 $ 18,623,681 High Coolidge Pinal County
Martin Rd Valley Farms to Cactus Forest Rd Major Arterial 6 2.25 $ 23,277,631 High Pinal County
Mc Cartney Rd Overfield Rd to City Limits Major Arterial 6 0.49 $ 2,915,528 High Pinal County
Mc Cartney Rd City Limits to City Limits Major Arterial 6 1.99 $ 11,840,616 High Coolidge Pinal County
TABLE 8. RECOMMENDED PROJECTS BY FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION – COOLIDGE PLANNING AREA
( Continued)
Road Segment Name From/ To
Functional
Class
Total
Lanes
Length
( miles)
Total Cost for
Section Priority
Prime
Responsibility Coordination
Mc Cartney Rd City Limits to Bartlett Rd Major Arterial 6 1.02 $ 7,469,059 Pinal County
Overfield Rd Cottonwood Ln to McCartney Rd Major Arterial 6 2.77 $ 16,481,660 Pinal County
Overfield Rd McCartney Rd to Woodruff Rd Major Arterial 4 1 $ 6,979,019 Pinal County
Plant Rd Bartlett Rd to Pinebrook Ln Major Arterial 6 2.03 $ 14,878,618 Pinal County
Plant Rd Pinebrook Lane to Vah Ki Inn Rd Major Arterial 6 1.01 $ 23,909,559 Coolidge Pinal County
S. Main Road Kleck Road to Bartlett Rd Major Arterial 6 2.48 $ 20,356,144 Pinal County
Signal Peak Rd Cottonwood Ln to Randolph Rd Major Arterial 6 2.01 $ 11,959,617 High Pinal County
Signal Peak Rd Randolph Rd to City Limits Major Arterial 6 0.51 $ 3,034,530 High Coolidge
Signal Peak Rd City Limits to McCartney Rd Major Arterial 6 0.51 $ 3,034,530 High Pinal County
Signal Peak Rd McCartney Rd to SR- 287 Major Arterial 6 5.07 $ 34,366,795 High Coolidge Pinal County
Skousen Rd Bartlett Rd to SR- 287 Major Arterial 6 4.00 $ 23,800,231 Coolidge Pinal County
Steele Rd SR- 87 to Wheeler Rd Major Arterial 4 2.98 $ 16,375,967 Pinal County
Vah Ki Inn Rd Skousen Rd to City Limits Major Arterial 6 5.50 $ 34,125,320 Coolidge Pinal County
Vah Ki Inn Rd City Limits to Clemans Rd Major Arterial 6 0.48 $ 4,256,028 Pinal County
Vah Ki Inn Rd Clemans Rd to Valley Farms Rd Major Arterial 6 1 $ 7,350,058 Pinal County
Vah Ki Inn Rd Valley Farms Rd to Plant Rd Major Arterial 6 1.97 $ 14,521,614 Coolidge Florence
Wheeler Rd Kleck Rd to Bartlett Rd Major Arterial 6 2.63 $ 17,048,652 High Coolidge Pinal County
Woodruff Rd Overfield Rd to Tweedy Rd Major Arterial 6 4.06 $ 26,957,235 Coolidge Pinal County
Subtotal 117.22 $ 811,617,297
Clemans- Ranchview Ext SR- 287 to City Limits Minor Arterial 4 1.47 $ 7,390,282 Coolidge Pinal County
Coolidge Ave Skousen Rd to Attaway Rd Minor Arterial 4 4.97 $ 24,986,194 Coolidge Pinal County
Cottonwood Ln Overfield Rd to Curry Rd Minor Arterial 4 3.02 $ 17,462,758 Pinal County
Curry Rd Cottonwood Ln to Woodruff Rd Minor Arterial 4 4.02 $ 21,350,161 Pinal County
Fast Track Rd Steele Rd to Kleck Rd Minor Arterial 4 1.99 $ 10,004,532 Pinal County
Kenilworth Rd Macrae Rd to Skousen Rd Minor Arterial 4 1.00 $ 5,027,403 Coolidge
Kenworthy Rd Martin Rd to Vah Ki Inn Rd Minor Arterial 4 2.00 $ 10,054,806 Coolidge
La Palma Rd SR- 287 to Randolph Rd Minor Arterial 4 3 $ 15,082,211 Pinal County
La Palma Rd Randolph to Bartlett Rd Minor Arterial 4 1.46 $ 7,340,009 Coolidge
Macrae Rd Martin Rd to Kenilworth Rd Minor Arterial 4 1.01 $ 5,077,677 Coolidge
Randolph Rd Overfield Rd to Toltec Buttes Minor Arterial 4 1 $ 5,027,403 Pinal County
Randolph Rd Toltec Buttes Rd to City Limits Minor Arterial 4 1.49 $ 7,490,831 Coolidge Pinal County
Randolph Rd
City Limits to Eleven Mile Corner
Rd Minor Arterial 4 2.54 $ 12,769,605 Pinal County
Lima & Associates Coolidge- Florence Regional Transportation Study – Page 26
TABLE 8. RECOMMENDED PROJECTS BY FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION – COOLIDGE PLANNING AREA
( Continued)
Road Segment Name From/ To
Functional
Class
Total
Lanes
Length
( miles)
Total Cost for
Section Priority
Prime
Responsibility Coordination
Randolph Rd
Eleven Mile Corner Rd to Wheeler
Rd Minor Arterial 4 6 $ 32,444,419 Coolidge Pinal County
Storey Rd Curry Rd to SR- 87 Minor Arterial 4 5.02 $ 28,657,564 Pinal County
Toltec Buttes Rd Cottonwood Ln to Randolph Rd Minor Arterial 4 2.01 $ 10,105,080 Pinal County
Toltec Buttes Rd Randolph Rd to Woodruff Rd Minor Arterial 4 2.02 $ 11,295,354 Coolidge Pinal County
Tweedy Rd SR- 287 to Bartlett Rd Minor Arterial 4 4.32 $ 21,718,384 Pinal County
Tweedy Rd Bartlett Rd to Woodruff Rd Minor Arterial 4 0.93 $ 4,675,485 Coolidge Pinal County
Subtotal 49.27 $ 257,960,159
Coolidge Airport Rd Coolidge Airport Rd Ext Major Collector 2 0.58 $ 2,126,730 Pinal County
Main St ( Coolidge) Coolidge Ave to Vah Ki Inn Rd Major Collector 2 1.00 $ 3,666,776 Coolidge
Northern Ave
Coolidge Ave to Main St
( Coolidge) Major Collector 2 2.28 $ 8,360,250 Coolidge
Val Vista Rd
Signal Peak Rd to end of Val Vista
Rd Major Collector 4 1.00 $ 3,666,776 Coolidge Pinal County
Subtotal 4.86 $ 17,820,532
Totals 171.35 $ 1,087,397,988
Lima & Associates Coolidge- Florence Regional Transportation Study – Page 27
TABLE 9. RECOMMEDED PROJECTS BY FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION – FLORENCE PLANNING AREA
Road Segment Name From/ To
Functional
Class
Total
Lanes
Length
( miles)
Total Cost for
Section Priority
Prime
Responsibility Coordination
Arizona Farms Rd Hunt Hwy to Town Limits Major Arterial 6 3.88 $ 23,086,226 High Pinal County
Arizona Farms Rd Felix Rd to Town Limits Major Arterial 6 3.22 $ 24,104,186 High Florence Pinal County
Arizona Farms Rd Town Limits to SR- 79 Major Arterial 6 2.36 $ 17,377,643 Pinal County
Attaway Rd
Coolidge City Limits to Palmer
Rd Major Arterial 6 1.38 $ 28,911,079 Pinal County
Attaway Rd Palmer Rd to Hunt Hwy Major Arterial 6 1.07 $ 7,766,562 High Florence Pinal County
Attaway Rd Hunt Hwy to Felix Rd Major Arterial 6 1.28 $ 8,233,972 High Florence
Attaway Rd Felix Rd to Bella Vista Rd Major Arterial 6 4.38 $ 26,061,253 High Pinal County
Bartlett Rd
Coolidge Airport Road to Diffen
Rd Major Arterial 6 5.59 $ 42,405,824 Pinal County
Bella Vista Rd Hunt Hwy to SR- 79 Major Arterial 6 12.08 $ 76,166,699 Pinal County
Cactus Forest Rd Martin Rd to Biznaga St Major Arterial 6 7.63 $ 53,798,942 Pinal County
Felix Rd
Attaway Rd ( RoadNum 39) to
Arizona Farms Rd Major Arterial 6 6.39 $ 42,220,870 High Florence Pinal County
Felix Rd Arizona Farms Rd to Attaway Rd Major Arterial 6 1.35 $ 8,032,579 High Pinal County
Cooper Rd
Poston Butte- Cooper Rd to Town
Limits Major Arterial 6 3.20 $ 20,440,186 Florence Pinal County
Cooper Rd Town Limits to Bella Vista Rd Major Arterial 6 2.25 $ 13,387,631 Pinal County
Florence- Kelvin Hwy SR- 79 to Quail Run Rd Major Arterial 6 2.00 $ 16,100,116 Florence Pinal County
Florence- Kelvin Hwy Quail Run Rd to Biznaga St Major Arterial 6 4.1 $ 24,395,238 Pinal County
Gantzel Rd Hunt Hwy to Bella Vista Rd Major Arterial 6 1.28 $ 7,616,074 Pinal County
Heritage Rd Hiller Rd to SR- 79 Major Arterial 4 2.88 $ 17,026,440 Pinal County
Hiller Rd Poston Butte- Cooper Rd to SR- 79 Major Arterial 6 2.57 $ 21,636,649 Pinal County
Hiscox Ln Vah Ki Inn Rd to SR- 287 Major Arterial 6 1.60 $ 13,720,093 Florence
Hunt Hwy Bella Vista Rd to Town Limits Major Arterial 6 7.27 $ 43,256,924 Pinal County
Hunt Hwy Town Limits to Ranchview Rd Major Arterial 6 2.17 $ 14,311,626 High Pinal County
Hunt Hwy Ranchview Rd to Town Limits Major Arterial 6 0.36 $ 3,542,021 Pinal County
Hunt Hwy Town Limits to SR- 79 Major Arterial 6 5.90 $ 39,305,346 High Florence
Merrill Ranch Parkway Felix Rd to Desert Color Pkwy Major Arterial 6 1.48 $ 15,016,998 Florence
N. Main St Hiller Rd to Bella Vista Rd Major Arterial 6 5.06 $ 31,307,293 Pinal County
Plant Rd Vah Ki Inn Rd to Hunt Hwy Major Arterial 6 4.43 $ 35,503,757 Florence Pinal County
S. Main St Bartlett to Vah Ki Inn Rd Major Arterial 6 3.04 $ 25,543,306 Pinal County
Vah Ki Inn Rd Plant Rd to Fulson Rd Major Arterial 6 1.99 $ 20,985,615 Pinal County
Vah Ki Inn Rd Fulson Rd to SR- 79 Major Arterial 6 0.52 $ 3,094,030 Florence
Subtotal 102.71 $ 724,355,178
Lima & Associates Coolidge- Florence Regional Transportation Study – Page 28
TABLE 9. RECOMMEDED PROJECTS BY FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION – FLORENCE PLANNING AREA
( Continued)
Road Segment Name From/ To
Functional
Class
Total
Lanes
Length
( miles)
Total Cost for
Section Priority
Prime
Responsibility Coordination
Adamsville Rd SR- 287 to Town Limits Minor Arterial 4 1.3 $ 6,535,625 Pinal County
Adamsville Rd Town Limits to Main St Minor Arterial 4 2.64 $ 13,272,344 Florence Pinal County
Attaway Rd Hiller Rd to Quail Run Ln Minor Arterial 4 1.84 $ 9,250,422 Pinal County
Bartlett Rd SR- 79 to Biznaga St Minor Arterial 4 3 $ 17,362,210 Pinal County
Biznaga St Bartlett Rd to Florence- Kelvin Hwy Minor Arterial 4 3.83 $ 29,514,954 Pinal County
Butte Ave Main St to SR- 79 Minor Arterial 4 0.49 $ 2,463,428 Florence
Butte Rd SR- 79 to Old Florence- Kelvin Hwy Minor Arterial 4 1.49 $ 8,630,831 Florence
Carrell Lane Vah Ki Inn Rd to SR- 79 Minor Arterial 4 0.75 $ 3,770,552 Florence
Christensen- Sierra Vista
Ext SR- 287 to Merrill Ranch Parkway Minor Arterial 4 1.92 $ 13,072,614 Pinal County Florence
Clemans- Ranchview Ext
Coolidge City Limits to Florence
Town Limits Minor Arterial 4 1.21 $ 6,083,158 Pinal County
Clemans- Ranchview Ext Town Limits to SR- 79 Minor Arterial 4 3.38 $ 18,132,623 Florence Pinal County
Desert Color Pkwy Hunt Hwy to Felix Rd Minor Arterial 4 3.76 $ 20,043,036 Florence
Diffen Rd Bartlett Rd to Florence- Kelvin Hwy Minor Arterial 4 3.98 $ 29,129,065 Pinal County
Diffen Rd
Florence- Kelvin Hwy to Old
Florence- Kelvin Hwy Minor Arterial 4 0.87 $ 7,793,841 Pinal County
Dogwood- Mayfield Rd Vah Ki Inn Rd to Quail Run Rd Minor Arterial 4 2.98 $ 19,541,662 Pinal County Florence
W. Canal Rd Valley Farms Rd to Plant Rd Minor Arterial 4 1.95 $ 9,803,436 Florence
Florence Heights Dr Main St to SR- 79 Minor Arterial 4 0.56 $ 2,815,346 Florence
Fulson Rd Bartlett Rd to Vah Ki Inn Rd Minor Arterial 4 3 $ 24,202,210 Pinal County
Herseth Rd Judd Rd to Bella Vista Rd Minor Arterial 4 1.02 $ 5,127,951 Pinal County
Hiscox Ln SR- 287 to Adamsville Rd Minor Arterial 4 0.52 $ 3,754,250 Florence
Judd Loop East Hunt Hwy to Judd Rd Minor Arterial 4 1.99 $ 10,004,532 Pinal County
Judd Rd Hunt Hwy to Judd Rd Minor Arterial 6 0.37 $ 1,860,139 Pinal County
Judd Rd Judd Rd to SR- 79 Minor Arterial 4 10.66 $ 55,230,118 Pinal County
Merrill Ranch Parkway Walker Butte Pkwy to Hunt Hwy Minor Arterial 4 1.05 $ 5,278,773 Florence Pinal County
Merrill Ranch Parkway Hunt Hwy to Felix Rd Minor Arterial 4 2.08 $ 8,580,556 Florence
N. Sierra Vista Dr Judd Rd to Bella Vista Rd Minor Arterial 4 1.02 $ 5,127,951 Pinal County
North Felix Loop Road Judd Rd to Bella Vista Rd Minor Arterial 4 1 $ 6,665,403 High Pinal County
Old Florence- Kelvin
Hwy
Butte Rd to Old Florence- Kelvin
Hwy Minor Arterial 4 0.06 $ 3,079,644 Florence
Lima & Associates Coolidge- Florence Regional Transportation Study – Page 29
TABLE 9. RECOMMEDED PROJECTS BY FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION – FLORENCE PLANNING AREA
( Continued)
Road Segment Name From/ To
Functional
Class
Total
Lanes
Length
( miles)
Total Cost for
Section Priority
Prime
Responsibility Coordination
Old Florence- Kelvin Hwy
Old Florence- Kelvin Hwy to
Diffen Rd Minor Arterial 4 2.34 $ 17,320,123 Florence
Old Florence- Kelvin Hwy
Diffen Rd to Florence- Kelvin
Hwy Minor Arterial 4 1.39 $ 8,128,090 Pinal County
Palmer Rd
Christensen- Sierra Vista Ext to
Attaway Rd ( RoadNum 39) Minor Arterial 4 2 $ 12,334,806 Pinal County
Pinebrook Ln Plant Rd to Biznaga St Minor Arterial 4 7.95 $ 47,305,856 Pinal County
Poston Butte Pkwy
( loop) Desert Color Pkwy to
Desert Color Pkwy Minor Arterial 4 3.10 $ 17,864,950 Florence
Poston Butte- Cooper Rd Poston Butte Pkwy to Hiller Rd Minor Arterial 4 0.72 $ 6,397,730 Florence Pinal County
Quail Run Rd Pinebrook Ln to Mayfield Rd Minor Arterial 4 2.99 $ 20,731,935 Pinal County
Quail Run Rd
Mayfield Rd to Old Florence-
Kelvin Hwy Minor Arterial 4 0.60 $ 4,156,442 Florence
Quail Run Ln
W. Hiller Rd to Arizona Farms
Rd Minor Arterial 4 1.97 $ 9,903,984 Pinal County
Quail Run Rd Judd Rd to Bella Vista Rd Minor Arterial 4 1.02 $ 5,127,951 Pinal County
Ranchview Rd Valley Farms Rd to Hunt Hwy Minor Arterial 4 1.76 $ 8,848,230 Florence
Reed Rd
Bartlett Rd to Florence- Kelvin
Hwy Minor Arterial 4 4.1 $ 33,152,353 Pinal County
S. Dogwood Rd Bartlett Rd to Pinebrook Ln Minor Arterial 4 1.92 $ 14,212,614 Pinal County
S. Main St Bartlett Rd to Vah Ki Inn Rd Minor Arterial 4 3.04 $ 25,543,306 Pinal County
SR- 79B CAP canal to SR- 287 Minor Arterial 2 1.26 $ 6,334,528 Pinal County Florence
SR- 79B SR- 79B to SR- 79B Minor Arterial 4 0.29 $ 2,597,947 Pinal County Florence
Vah Ki Inn Rd SR- 79 to Biznaga St Minor Arterial 4 5.45 $ 35,379,348 Pinal County
Valley Farms Rd Vah Ki Inn Rd to Hunt Hwy Minor Arterial 4 2.96 $ 31,381,114 Florence Pinal County
W. Hiller Rd Hunt Hwy to Attaway Rd Minor Arterial 4 1.48 $ 8,580,557 Pinal County
Walker Butte Pkwy
Christensen- Sierra Vista Ext to
Merrill Ranch Parkway Minor Arterial 4 2.56 $ 15,150,152 Florence Pinal County
Walker Butte Pkwy Walker Butte Pkwy to Hunt Hwy Minor Arterial 4 2.81 $ 17,547,003 Pinal County Pinal County
Wildwood Rd
Bartlett Rd to Florence- Kelvin
Hwy Minor Arterial 4 4.12 $ 32,112,901 Pinal County
Yeager Rd Judd Rd to Bella Vista Rd Minor Arterial 4 1.01 $ 5,077,677 Pinal County
Subtotal 115.56 $ 731,316,271
Lima & Associates Coolidge- Florence Regional Transportation Study – Page 30
TABLE 9. RECOMMEDED PROJECTS BY FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION – FLORENCE PLANNING AREA
( Continued)
Road Segment Name From/ To
Functional
Class
Total
Lanes
Length
( miles)
Total Cost
for Section Priority
Prime
Responsibility Coordination
Attaway Rd Hunt Hwy to Hiller Rd Major Collector 3 1.81 $ 10,239,599 High Florence Pinal County
Butte Ave Plant Rd to Main St Major Collector 3 1.00 $ 5,346,776 Florence
Centennial Park SR- 287 to Butte Ave Major Collector 3 0.96 $ 5,254,105 Florence
Diversion Dam Rd SR- 79 to end of Diversion Dam Rd Major Collector 3 2.35 $ 8,616,924 Florence
Franklin Merrill Ranch Parkway to Hunt Hwy Major Collector 3 1.49 $ 7,743,497 Florence Pinal County
Main St SR- 287 to Butte Rd Major Collector 4 0.64 $ 2,346,737 Florence
Main St Butte Rd to Ruggles St Major Collector 2 0.32 $ 1,173,368 Florence
Main St Ruggles St to Clemans- Ranchview Ext Major Collector 4 0.66 $ 2,420,072 Florence
North Felix Loop Rd Loop
Ext ( loop) Judd Rd to Judd Rd Minor Collector 3 2.77 $ 10,156,970 High Pinal County
Price Rd SR- 79 to end of Price Rd Major Collector 3 1.58 $ 8,247,506 Pinal County
Ruggles St Main St to SR- 79 Major Collector 4 0.48 $ 1,760,053 Florence
Subtotal 14.06 $ 63,305,607
Bowling Rd Butte Rd to Diversion Dam Rd Minor Collector 2 0.50 $ 2,392,096 Florence
Maricopa Blvd end of Maricopa Blvd to SR- 79 Minor Collector 2 0.07 $ 192,933 Florence
Ranchview Rd Walker Butte Pkwy to Hunt Hwy Minor Collector 2 1.49 $ 4,946,727 Pinal County Florence
Ranchview- Bowling Rd1 Diversion Dam Rd to SR- 79 Minor Collector 2 1.06 $ 3,935,564 Florence
Subtotal 3.12 $ 11,467,320
Frontage Road Northbound Vah Ki Inn Rd to Clemans- Ranchview Frontage Road 2 2.78 $ 7,662,213 Florence Pinal County
Frontage Road Southbound Vah Ki Inn Rd to Clemans- Ranchview Frontage Road 2 2.77 $ 7,634,651 Florence Pinal County
Frontage Road Northbound Hunt Hwy to Hiller Rd Frontage Road 2 2.34 $ 6,449,489 Florence Pinal County
Frontage Road Southbound Hunt Hwy to Hiller Rd Frontage Road 2 2.37 $ 6,532,174 Florence Pinal County
Frontage Road Northbound Hiller Rd to Heritage Rd Frontage Road 2 1.05 $ 2,894,001 Pinal County
Frontage Road Southbound Hiller Rd to Heritage Rd Frontage Road 2 1.05 $ 2,894,001 Pinal County
Frontage Road Northbound Heritage Rd to Arizona Farms Rd Frontage Road 2 0.99 $ 2,728,630 Pinal County
Frontage Road Southbound Heritage Rd to Arizona Farms Rd Frontage Road 2 0.99 $ 2,728,630 Pinal County
Frontage Road Northbound Arizona Farms Rd to Judd Rd Frontage Road 2 2 $ 5,512,383 Pinal County
Frontage Road Southbound Arizona Farms Rd to Judd Rd Frontage Road 2 2 $ 5,512,383 Pinal County
Subtotal 18.34 $ 50,548,555
Totals 253.79 $ 1,580,992,932
Lima & Associates Coolidge- Florence Regional Transportation Study – Page 31
Lima & Associates Coolidge- Florence Regional Transportation Study – Page 32
FIGURE 7. 2025 ROADWAY NETWORK BY CITY AND TOWN LIMITS
Lima & Associates Coolidge- Florence Regional Transportation Study – Page 33
TABLE 10. SUMMARY OF COST ESTIMATES
Coolidge Planning Area Florence Planning Area
Functional Class Length
( miles)
Cost
Length
( miles)
Cost
Total Cost
Major Arterial 117.22 $ 811,617,297 102.71 $ 724,355,178 $ 1,535,972,475
Minor Arterial 49.27 $ 257,960,159 115.56 $ 731,316,271 $ 989,276,430
Major Collector 4.86 $ 17,820,532 14.06 $ 63,305,607 $ 81,126,139
Minor Collector 0 $ 0 3.12 $ 11,467,320 $ 11,467,320
Frontage 0 $ 0 18.34 $ 50,548,555 $ 50,548,555
Total 171.35 $ 1,087,397,988 253.79 $ 1,580,992,931 $ 2,668,390,919
The projects and estimated costs in Tables 8 and 9 represent the ultimate project cross- sections.
However, the normal evolution of the arterial streets would probably be as follows:
1. A portion of the 2- lane half arterial street would be built by the developer on one side.
2. The other 2- lane half arterial street would be constructed at some later date by the developer on
the other side.
3. The arterial street would be expanded to 6 lanes with a center lane and median by the
municipality when the traffic volumes warrant the expansion.
Prioritization of Projects. Priorities were assigned to potential projects as low, medium, and high
priority. The following criteria was used in identify priorities for projects.
• Potential to close gaps and improve continuity and connectivity to activity centers
• Potential to relieve current congestion
• Potential to relieve future congestion
• Potential to serve current development or impending growth
• Potential to improve rail crossing safety
• Proximity to future interchanges
• Included in TIP/ CIP
• Connectivity to facilities of adjacent communities
FUNDING AND REVENUE ESTIMATES. A number of multimodal revenue sources are
available to the City of Coolidge and the Town of Florence. A number of funding mechanisms exist
that could be used to fund multimodal improvements for the municipalities. Key federal, state,
regional, and local sources are shown in Table 11.
Funding options include both traditional and innovative sources. Traditional sources are the Arizona
Highways User Revenue Fund ( HURF); the Local Transportation Assistance Fund ( LTAF); Federal-
Aid Funds ( Surface Transportation, Bridge, Safety, and Transportation Enhancement Funds); and local
general funds, such as general obligation bonds and revenue bonds. Alternative sources of funding
include special assessment districts, developer dedications, and exactions such as impact fees.
TABLE 11. MATRIX OF KEY MULTIMODAL FUNDING SOURCES
Fund Name Description Eligible Uses Application Process
Federal
STP Federal funds, administered
by FHWA and ADOT
Variety of capital projects
including highways, bridges, and
enhancement projects
Programmed and
distributed through CAAG
and ADOT District
High Risk
Rural Roads
Federal funds, administered
by FHWA and ADOT
Correct safety problems on
roadways classified as rural
major collectors, rural minor
collectors and rural local roads
Programmed through
ADOT
Safe Routes to
School
Program
Federal funds, administered
by FHWA and ADOT
sidewalk, traffic calming and
speed reduction improvements,
pedestrian and bicycle crossing
improvements, traffic diversion
improvements near schools
Programmed through
ADOT
State
HURF State funds, derived from
fuel tax and VLT,
administered by ADOT
Nearly any capital project related
to roadway improvements
Funds allocated to
jurisdiction as proportion of
population
LTAF State funds derived from
lottery sales
General transportation
improvements
Funds allocated to
jurisdiction as proportion of
population
County
Pinal County
Transportation
Excise Tax
½ cent sales tax dedicated
to road improvements
within Pinal County
1. Highway and street purposes
for county, city or town roads,
streets, and bridges.
2. Principal and interest on
highway and street bonds.
3. Multi- modal transportation
systems.
4. Regional transportation
studies.
5. Cooperative transportation
projects and studies between
the federal government and its
agencies, the State government
and its agencies, and the
incorporated cities and towns
within the County.
Funds allocated to
jurisdiction as proportion of
population
Impact Fees* Fee imposed by local
jurisdiction on development
on per unit basis
Used to fund a variety of
infrastructure needs including
transportation
Locally administered
Development
Stipulations*
Requirements that
developers dedicate
appropriate ROW and build
streets adjacent to project
Benefits are derived by offsetting
cost of acquiring ROW and
building infrastructure
Locally administered
* If Enacted
Lima & Associates Coolidge- Florence Regional Transportation Study – Page 34
Lima & Associates Coolidge- Florence Regional Transportation Study – Page 35
Potential Sources of Additional Funding. Other potential sources of funding include:
• Economic Strength Projects Fund
• Governor’s Office of Highway Safety
• Community Development Block Grants
• Pinal County Excise Tax
• Traffic impact fees, development impact fees, dedication of right- of- way, and/ or construction
of facilities in- lieu by area developers
These potential sources are summarized in the Final Report. Revenue estimates from likely funding
sources are described in the Final Report.