Transportation contingency plan for Salt River flooding in the Phoenix metropolitan area

              TRANSPORTA·TION CONTINGENCY PLAN
FOR SALT RIVER FLOODING
IN THE PHOENIX METRO'POLITAN AREA
ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
TRANSPORTATION PLANNING DIVISION
JANUARY 1981
..._ ... 1
\\\ TRANSPORTATION CONTINGENCY PLAN FOR SALT RIVER FLOODING
IN THE PHOENIX METROPOLITAN AREA II I
January, 1981
~002 £:0 d3S
SOtl083tl 81l8nd Ii? S31\IHOUV
AH\ftl81l 31\f1S 'VNOZI~'V
ARIZONA DEPARTl~NT OF TRANSPORTATION
TRANSPORTATION PLANNING DIVISION
XT133-80-13
CON TEN T S
Page
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . • v·
SECTIONS
I. SUMMARY. . . • • III • . . . . . . 1
II. INTRODUCTION 5
• . 15
21
III. LIST OF ACTIONS .. . . . . ~
IV. PUBLIC INFORHATION . · ,.j.
V. TRAFFIC CONTROL MEASURES • • • • • • 25
VI. RIDESHARING. • . • • .,. f. , • • • • 33
VII. BUS SERVICE. -14;.··,·.tt 39
VIII. TRAIN SERVICE •• • .o' ... 1l .. ~ t! • 51
IX. WALKING AND BICYCLING. • • • • 63
X. AVIATION. . • . . • • . • 65
APPENDICES
A. PRIORITY TREATMENT OF HIGH OCCUPANCY
VEHICLES FOR HAJOR BRIDGES • , • •• 73
B.
C.
PARK-AND~RIDE LOTS • . . .
POTENTIAL SOURCES OF EMERGENCY
AIR SERVICE. • • • • • • . • • · ., . .
D. PERSONS IN ADOT RESPONSIBLE FOR FLOOD
• 79
• 85
ACTIONS.. •••• •••• •. :-.' • 87.
BIBLIOGRAPHY .•. • .. .. • • II! • • ., t: .89 .
iii
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
1. HISTORICAL FLOODS ON THE SALT RIVER.
2. SALT AND GILA RIVER CROSSINGS ••
3. LIST OF FLOOD EMERGENCY ACTIONS.
PAGE
7·
9
16
4. FLOOD EMERGENCY PUBLIC·· INFORMATION SOURCES . • 22
5. I-10 BY-PASS ROUTE FOR MAJOR PHOENIX FLOOD .• 31
6. FLOOD BUS ROUTES . • 42
7. SCENARIO CHARACTERISTICS OF PHOENIX TRANSIT
BUS SERVICE UNDER ~~JOR FLOOD CONDITIONS • • • 43
8. ADOT ORGANIZATION CHART FOR MANAGING EMERGENCY
9.
10.
FLOOD TRAIN SERVICE. . • .• ..•. . 54
FLOOD TRAIN ROUTE AND STOPS ••
FLOOD TRAIN SCHEDULE • . • •
v
• 56
• •• 60
\,
SECT.ION I
)
SUM MARY
In February 1980, flood waters closed all but 2 road
crossi~gs over the salt aiver in the Phoenix metropolitan
area, resulting in extreme transportation problems. Even
thou~h bridge conditions across the Salt River have been
substantially improved since this flood~ a potential still
exists for severe floods to seriously disrupt traffic.
This plan presents a compilation of various actions that
could be taken in the event of Salt River flooding to
facilitate the movement of goods and people across the Salt
River. The approach of this planning effort has been to
identify, stimulate, and incorporate the plans and thinking
of various valley agencies into one document. In no case
should tbis plan be interpreted as in any way mandating or
res·tricting the response of various agencies ·to Salt Ri ver
flooji1g. In addition, it should be recognized that plans
discussed in this report are largely based on past
experiance and thus could reguire substantial modifications
to fit actual future conditions.
1
I
I
I
The plan has been divided into five phases. Actions in
the ficst phase address low river flows and the closing of
dip "sections, while late~ phases address higber ~iver flows
and the closing of an increasing numbe~ of bridges.
Responsibilities for traffic controls on remaining
bridges are considered to be the responsibility of the
jurisdiction that owns the bridge. For high capacity
bridges this means that the state is responsible for 1-10,
Tempe is ~esponsible for the Mill Avenue Bridge, the County
is responsible for Alma School Road Bridge, and the City of"
Phoenix is responsible for bridges at 24th street and
central Avenue.
These jurisdictions were encouraged to develop high
occupancy vehicle routes for high capacity bridges. High
occupancy vehicle routes are recommended to be activated
when only two o,rthree bridges remain open across the Salt
River. High occupancy vehicle routes are an integral
element of this plan as they are a means of promoting
carpooling and maximizing the use of avai'lahle buses.
Carpooling is viewed as a critical element to minimize
congestion and maintain mobility during flooding. Under
emergency conditions, high level elected officials should
encourage commuters to carpool and employers ,to allow
2·
flexible working hours. Project Pool It will encourage
promotion of carpooling and expedite its carpool matching
progran.to permit 24 hour service •.
This plan recocimends that the state assume financial
responsibility for emergency flood bus service, and that
this service be provided by the city of Phoenix through
Phoenix Transit. The level of this service, routes and
schedules will vary with actual flood conditions. However,
it is recommenied that flood buses, to the extent possible,
utilize existing Phoenix Transit routes, that fares be
collected onboard flood buses, and that fares charged be the
same as those of regular bus service.
A scenario for bus service was developed assuming only
the Mill Avenue and Centr~l Avenue Bridges remain open.
Under this scenario, 32 emergency buses are recommended, and
the cost of these buses is esti ma ted to be about $12,000 per
day (revenues would offset this gross cost somewhat).
rhe plan calls for initiation of emergency train service
across the Salt River when only two bridges (8 lanes) remain
open. The train service recommended is very similar to
service provided during the 1980 flood. That is, the train
woul1 run between downtown Phoenix and downtown Mesa with
3
--------------~----------------------------------------_\_"!
intecmediate stops in Tempe and at 32nd street. .rtemized
cost of train service in 1980 was about $17,000 per day.
The plan also calls for the ADOT Aeronautics Division to
play a coordinating role in developing emergency commuter
air service across the Salt River. Its principal function
would be to provide public information on the availability
of this air service.
4
SECTION II
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of ~his document is tb present a plan of
action that will minimize transportation problems in the
Phoenix area in the event of severe flooding on the Salt
Rive~. Specifically this plan is aimed at providing for the
conti~uous movement of as many people and goods across the
Salt River as possible under various possible si-tuations.
This plan is one element of an effort being coordinated by
the Arizona Division of Emergency Services, which addresses
broader aspects of emergency p~eparedness for flooding in
metropolitan Phoenix.
This transportation contingency plan is based on
coor~ination with local public officials at all levels of
government, and on experience gained during the last flood.
Much of this experience has been documented in a series of
reports which are listed in the Bibliography at the end of
this document. In some cases elements of this plan are ·a
summary of more detailed plans that agencies have for
addressing Salt River bridge closings.
5
I
II
rhis plan suggests possible actions in the event of
another flood. These suggestions are general by necessity
and would, of cout"se, need to be detailed and customized to
fit unique actual conditions that develop under a given
emergency situation. In particular, this plan would need to
be adjusted to fit available resources, political decisions,
and status of bridges.
L1 aj or aspects of the plan are tt"affic control,
ridesharing, bus service, and ~rain service. The plan also
includes separate sections on public information and
aviation, as well as walking and bicycling .• Prior to
developing specific elements of the plan, this introductory
chapter will present background inf ormation on Salt Hi vet"
flooding, Phoenix at"ea bridges, and division of
responsibilities.
Rates of flow for the Salt Rivet" are highly variable
(see Illustration 1) .. Por 28 straight years (1938 through
1965) there was virtually no flow in the Salt RiveI:'.
Conversely, the highest rate of flow was 300,000 cubic feet
per second in 1891. Under present conditions, a flood of
this magnitUde would inundate portions of downtown Phoenix
6
~ ---------------------------------
ILLUSTRATION 1
HISTORICAL FLOODS ON THE SALT RIVER
PEAK FWiI
DATE (In cubic feet per sec)
Februru:y, 1891
April, 1905
November 27, 1905
January 19-20, 1916
January 29-30, 1916
February, 1920
March, 1938
December, 1965 ~ Januru:y, 1966
February 21 - May 29, 1973
March, 1978
December, 1978
January, 1979
March, 1979
February, 1980
Source: U.S. Al:my Corps of Engineers
7
300,000
115,000
200,000
120,000
105,000
130,000
95,000
67,000
22,000
130,000
140,000
100,000
67,000
180,000
(
south of washington street, Sky Harbor International
Airport, and the Southern Pacific railroad yards.
More recently, the salt River did not flow between 1974
and 1977. However, twice in 1978 and once in 1979, rates
exceeucd 100, 000 cubic feet per second~ .In February of 1980
the river flow peaked at 180,000 cubic feet per second.
Recent figures by the u.s. Corps of Engineers identify a
flow oE 175,000 feet per second at Granite Reef Dam as a 50
year flood, that is, flows of this magnitude normally have
only a two percent chance of occurring in any given year.
There are currently 20 road cr~ssings over the Salt
River in the phoenix area (these crossings are listed in
Illustrati~n 2). Currently, thirteen of these crossings are
dip sections, which would be closed with even small rates of
flow. In addition, three bridges (40th street, Hohokam
Expressway, and 7th Avenue) were designed for only 'modest
rates of flow 8,000, 15,000, and 24,000 cubic feet per
second respectively. Four bridges have a 'capacity of
180,000 to 200,000 cubic feet per second. These are Alma
School Road, Mill Avenue, Central Avenue, and I-10. The
Alma School Road Bridge is new, ~nd channel improvements
have recently been completed for the 1-10 bridge which will
8
SALT RIVER
Gilbert Road
Counb:y Club Drive (SR 87)
McKellips Road -
Alma School, Road
Hayden Road
Scottsdale Road
Mill Avenue (US 60)
Southern Pacific Railroad
48th Street
Hohokam Expressway
40th Street
!-Ex'icopa Freeway (I-:-lO)
24th Street (Jan. 1981)
16th Street
7th Street
Central Avenue
7th Avenue
19th Avenue
35th Avenue
51st AveIlue
67th Avenue
9lst Avenue
GILA RIVER
l15th Avenue
El Mirage Road
Bullard Road
Jack Rabbit Trail
Airport Road
State Route 85
ILLUSTRATICN 2
SALT AND GILA RIVER CROSSJNGS
ESTIMATED FLOW
CAPACITY OF BRIOOES
(In 1000's Of
cubic feet per second)
9
dip
dip
dip
200
dip
dip
200
200
dip
15
8
180
180
closed
dip
200
24
dip
dip
dip
dip
dip
dip
closed
dip
closed
12
33
FLOW AT GRANITE REEF DAM
THAT WILL LIKELY RESULT
IN ClOSING OF CROSSINGS
(In 1000's of
cubic feet per second)
rn:inimum
-minimum
minimum
200 - 240
minimum
minimum
210 - 250
210 - 250
minimum
15 - 20
'8 - 10
190 - 240
190 - 240
closed
minimum
220 - 270
26 - 32
min:i.mum
minimum
minimum
minimum
minimum
minimum
closed
" minimum
closed
11 - 13-
30 - 36
II
II
'i
!
hopefully eliminate past problems. A nev bridge with a
capacity 6f 180,000 cubic feet per second is scheduled to
open at 24th street in January 1981 (currently the 24th
street crossin; is a dip section). Also~ a new high
capacity bridge is under construction at 51st Avenue; but it
is not scheduled to open until April or May 1981.
Prospects for minor flows in the Salt River are
considerable because reservoirs were filled last year.
Minor flows will not create emergency cond.itions~ but many
people will be inconvenienced. These minor flows could be
more disruptive than in the past because several bridges
have been destroyed by pre vious flooding (namely Hayden
Road, scottsdale Road, 24th street~ 16th street, 7th street,
35th Avenue, and 51st Avenue).
It 'is not possible to fully predict which bridges will
be open at various rates of flow. There are several reasons
for this: First, river flow rates vary within the urban
area. Generally flow rates decline down river; but this can
be offset by. heavy local rain falls. Second, duration of
high flow rates influence the amount of scouring around
bridge piers. (Scouring caused the closing of 1-10 in
1980.) The most critical problem in forecasting bridge
closures is tha~ the volume of. peak flow a bridge can
accommodate is known only in very general terms. For
10
example, FI ayden Road bridg. e, was designed for 25,000 cubic
feet per second, but accommodated flows up to 72,000 cubic
feet per second during the last flood. Conversely, the 1-10
bridge which was designed for 180,000 cubic feet per second,
closed four out of seven times when exposed to floods of
less than this maqnitude. 'FIowever, recent improvements to
·the I-10 bridge and channel work indicates a reoccur.rence of
this event is unlikely •.
In order to gain some sense of which bridges might be in
service at various flow rates, some calculations were made
and the results are included in Illustration 2. The
capacity of each bridge was obtained from s·tandard sources:
0.5. Army Corps of Engineers, Maricopa County Engineer's
office, City of Phoenix Engineer's office, and Arizona
Department of Transportation. Adjustments for the usual
decli.ne in flow below Grani te Reef Dam were made using
information from the Corps of Engineers. And finally, a
range of 10 pe~cent uncertainty was incorporated into the
figures shown in Illustration 2.
In general, a flow rate of 200,000 cubic feet per second
might not close any of the six major bridges over the Salt
River, or it could destroy all o~ them. More likely, in
very broad terms, one or two major bridges might close with
a flow rate of 150,000 cubic feet per second at Granite Reef
11
I'
"I! 'I
'i'l
Ii
,I
I
I
!Ii
\
Dam, while some might withstand 250,000 cubic feet per
second.
RESPONSIBILITIES
It is proposed that the owner of each bridge be
responsible for it. That is, in the event of a major flood
the County would be responsible for Alma School Bridge in
this case traffic management problems may need to be
coordinated with Scottsdale, Mesa and the salt River Indian
Reservation. Although the state owns Mill Avenue Bridge, by
cooperati ve arrangement the City of Tempe has underta ken
responsibility for related traffic control. The Southern
Pacific would be responsible for its railroad bridge, while
1-10 is a State responsibility.. The City of Phoenix would
be respons ible for bridg~s at Central A venue and 24th
Street ..
The state of Arizona would .be responsible for initiating
emergency train service across the salt River. The State
would contract with Amtrak and coordinate with the Southern
Pacific Railroad for t~ain service. ADOT would be
~esponsible for planning stops and schedules, managing
stations, and selling tickets.
The initiation of emergency fl~od bus service would be
the responsibility of the city of Phoenix. Phoenix Transit
12
/
would manage this service and the state would assume
financial responsibility. General aspects of level of
service, routes, schedules, and park and ride facilities
would involve coordination between the state, Phoenix
Transit, and the Cities of Phoenix, Tempe, and Mesa.
Individuals responsible for various ADOT flood related
action.s are detailed in' Appendix D. Also, further deta ils
on AOOT procedures for responding to emergencies are
discussed in the ADOT document A Guide for Emergency Highway
Traffic Regulations.
13
.,I i., I
14
SECTION III
LIST 0 F ACTIO NS
This section lists principal actions recommended to
alleviate transportation problems in the event of another
flood. The~e actions, and suggestions as to when final
preparations and implementation should take place, are
presented in Illustration 3. It should be recognized, of
course, that this plan cannot anticipate all events, and
thus evaluation of actual circumstances will be critical in
determining what actions should actually be implemented and
when implementation should take place.
Final preparations for flood actions have been divided
into five phases and tied to anticipated flow rates at
Grani te Reef Da m.Thesa flow rates can be accurately
projected 12 to 24 hours in advance by Salt River Project.
The final preparation phases are:
Ph ase I -- starts when the river is projec'ted to
start flowing and lasts to 10,000 cubic
feet per second
15
ACTIONS
ILLUSTRATION 3
LIST OF FLOOD EMERGENCY ACTIONS
RESPONSIBLE
AGENCY
PHASE I (less than 10,000 cfs)
NUMBER OF REMAINING
TRAFFIC LANES FOR
IMPLEMENTATION
1. Establish system for
public information.
See Illustration 4 Less than all
2. Install barricades and
detour signs at closed
crossings.
ADOT, Maricopa County, Less than all
Cities of Phoenix and
Tempe
3. Reroute buses away from Phoenix Transit
closed crossings.
4. Mark pavement on Mill
Avenue Bridge for two­way
traffic.
City of Tempe
PHASE II (10,000 to 35,000 cfs)
• Includes actions 1-4
5. Establish emergency
helicopter service· .
Department of Public
Safety
6. Increase promotion of
ride sharing and reduce
turn-around time for
computer matching.
rroject Pool-It
ADOT
7. Institute on-site carpool
matching with major
employers. All employees
who cross the river should
be encouraged to submit an
application form.
8. Encourage employers to
allow flex time for
employees who must cross
the river.
Project Pool-It
Major Employers
16
Governor
Mayors
Less than all
Less than all
Less than 24
(Maj or bridges
only)
Less than 24
(Maj or bridges
only)
Less than 24
(Maj or bridges
only)
Less than 24
(Maj or bridges
only)
"':(
ACTION
9. Discourage unnecessary
travel across the Salt
River
PHASE III (35,000 to 180,000 cfs)
• Includes actions 1-9
10. Implement traffic control
measures on bridge approaches
such as restricting left turns
11. Evaluate potential priority
approaches to remaining
bridges for use by high
occupancy vehicles and
establish where appropriate
12. Initiate flood bus service
13. Establish park-and-ride lots
for ridesharers and bus users
14. Activate van pool programs
with major employers
15. Coordinate and enhance
commuter air service
between local airports
16. Notify vehicles entering
the State of bridge •
conditions and encourage
rerouting.
17. Activate flood train
service
ILLUSTRATION 3
(continued)
17
RESPONSIBLE
AGENCY
Governor and Mayors
Maricopa County,
Cities of Phoenix
and Tempe
ADOT, Maricopa County,
Cities of Phoenix
and Tempe
ADOT, Phoenix Transit
ADOT, Cities of
Phoenix, Mesa, Tempe
Project Pool It
Major employers
ADOT, Aeronautics
Division
ADOT, Motor Vehicles
Division
ADOT, Transportation.
Planning Division
NUMBER OF REMAINING
TRAFFIC LANES FOR
IMPLEMENTATION
less than 24
lanes (major
bridges only)
less than 20
lanes
less than 16
lanes
less than 16
less than 16
less than 16
less than 16
less than 16
less than 12
ACTION
PHASE IV (180,000 to 200,000 cfs)
• Includes actions 1-17
18. Restrict remaining bridge
to emergency vehicles,
vehicles carrying essential
personnel and supplies, and
high occupancy vehicles
PHASE V (more than 200,000 cfs)
19. Secure air carrier and
military aircraft to
transport essential
personnel and supplies
ILLUSTRATION 3
(continued)
18
RESPONSIBLE
AGENCY
To be determined
To be determined
NUMBER OF REMAINING
TRAFFIC LANES FOR
IMPLEMENTATION
less than 8
no bridges
Phase II -- starts with a projection of 10,000
cubic feet per second or more and
lasts to 35,000
Phase III -- Starts with a projection of 35,000
cubic feet per second or more and
lasts to 180,000
Phase IV -- Starts with a projection of 180,000
cubic feet per second or more and
lasts to 200,000
Phase V -- starts with a projection of 200,000
cubic feet per second or more
Actual implementation of actions has been tied to the
number of total lanes remaining in operation across the Salt
River. All major bridges are four lanes (two in each
directi on) except for 1-10 which is eigh t lanes.
A flow of 2,000 to 10,000 cubic feet per second will
close all dip sections across the Salt River, but will
probably not close any of the current seven bridges.. Under
these conditions only. minor actions are needed such as
rerouting buses and barricading closed roads.
19
Flows of 35,000 cubic feet per second could leave only
four open bridges across the Salt River and no.ne across the
Gila. Under these conditions emergency helicopter service
would need to be provided and volun·tary ac·tions vould be
encouraged. Tha t is, indi vid uals would be encouraged to
minimize trips across the river, commuters would be
encouraged to carpool, and employers would be encouraged to
allow flex time for empl~yees who must cross the river.
As flows approach 180,000 cubic feet per second major
bridges could close.. with less than 16 lanes across· the
salt River (for example, if only 1-10 and Mill Avenue
remained) it is recommended that high occupancy approach
lanes be established for remaining bridges, that emergency
bus service be initiated, and that IDOT become involved in
coordinating and enhancing air service bet~een local
airports on opposite sides of the river. 1ith less than 12
lanes it is recommended that lOOT establish emergency train
service.
If flows exceed 200,000 cubic feet per second, the
possibility o.f having only one bridge or no bridges is
rapidly ap proached. Onder the one bridge situation (less
than a lanes) it is recommended that the bridge be
restricted to only emergency vehicles, vehicles carrying
essential personnel and supplies, and .high occupancy
vehicles. with no bridges prospects of using military
aircraft to provide e~ergenc1 service should be cousidered.
20
SECTION .IV
PUBLIC INFORM.ATION
When Salt River flooding closes or threatens the closure
of bridges, citizens need im~ediate infor~ation on travel
alternatives. As information becomes available to public
agencies, it should be released to the electronic and print
news medias. public agencies also need to establish
telephone numbers for public information. Dse of widely
published and adequa tely staffed public in.formation numbers
also helps keep regular telephone numbers clear by
minimizing
inquiries.
disruptions f.rom a high. level of public
A list of publ{c information telephone sources is
presented in Illustration 4.. Sources of general emergency
information are the Arizona Division of Emergency Services,
the Maricopa County Department of Civil Defense and
Emergency Services, and Community Information and Referral
Services.
Informa tion on
measures on remaining
agency responsible
bridge closings and traffic
bridges can be obtained
control
from the
for each bridge (namely the Arizona
21
ILLUSTRATION 4
FLOOD EMERGENCY PUBLIC INFORMATION SOURCES
AGENCY
Arizona Division of
Emergency Services
Maricopa County Dept.
of Civil Defense and
Emergency Services
Community Information
and Referral Services
Arizona Department of
Public Safety
Maricopa County
Sheriff's Office
Phoenix Police
Department
Tempe Police
Department
Maricopa Association
of Governments Trans­portation
and Planning
Office
Project Pool It
Phoenix Transit
ADOT Aeronautics Div.
ADOT Transportation
Planning Division
TYPE OF INFORMATION TELEPHONE NO.
All aspects of emergency
All aspects of emergency
All aspects of emergency
Bridge closings and traffic
control on State Highways
Bridge closings and traffic
control measures related to
the Alma School Road Bridge
Bridge closings and traffic
control on 24th Street and
Central Avenue
Bridge closings and traffic
control on Mill Avenue Bridge
High occupancy vehicle
routes
Auto and van pooling
Bus service
Air Service
Train Service
22
231-0400
273-1411
263-8856
262-8261
256-1000
262-6811
968'-8305
To be
announced
248-7283
257-8426
To be
announced
To be
announced
Depart~ent of Public Safety, the Maricopa County Sheriff's
office, and the Police Departments of Tempe and Phoenix).
Informa tion on all bridge :: losi ngs can best be obtained from
the Maricopa County Department of Civil Defense and
Emergency services, while information on high occupancy
vehicle routes on remaining bridges could be obtained from
the Maricopa Association of Governments Transportation and
Planning Of fice.
Other sources of public information on emergency
transportation matters include the following: Project Pool
It can provide information on carpooling and Phoenix Transit
can provide information on bus service. Within ADOT, the
Aeronautics Division could provide public information on
available emergency air service, and the Transportation
.Planning Division will. provide pub licj information on
emergency train service.
23
SECTION V
TRAFFIC CONTROL MEASURES
This section considers traffic control measures for th~
five major bridges across the Salt River. Special at'tention
is given to high occupancy vehicle (HOV) routes. These
routes are an integral element of this plan as they are a
means of promoting carpooling and maximizing the use of
available buses. This section also considers procedures for
minimizing interstate traffic and promoting staggered work
hours.
The plan suggests that HOV routes should be
opera tiona lized on remainiu g ,bridges when less than. 16
traffic lanes remain open across the Salt River. It is also
suggested t ha t HOV' s include buses and all ve hic les ...,i th
three or more people. The details of operation and
implementation as well as the final decision of whether to
install HOV routes will rest with the agency responsible for
each bridge or roadway.
25
Traffic control contingency Flans for the Central Avenue
Bridge are similar to those used during last year's flood •.
These measures have been documented in Traffic Control
Measures During the 1980 Salt River Flood which was prepared
by the Maricopa Association of Governments Transportation
and Planning Office.
As detailed in this document, minor streets jo.ining
central Avenue just prior to the bridge could be barricaded
to prevent vehicles from side streets crowding into the main
stream of traffic on Central Avenue. The exception to this
is that Watkins Street could be open to southbound HOV's and
Victory Street could be open to northbound HOV's (see
"
Appendix A for ma~_ A police officer could be stationed at
each of these intersections to allow HOV's to e~ter the main
stream of Central Avenue traffic with little delay_ If this
scheme were implemented high occupancy vehicles should
experience little delay in crossing the river.
Traffic control measures on the 24th Street Bridge are
the responsibility of· the city of Phoenix. If warranted,
HOV express routes similar to -those outlined .for Ce_ntral
26
-------. ----~----~----------------------------
Avenue could be implemented. for the 24th st.reet Bridge. To
accomplish this Hood street between 32nd street and 24th
street could be closed to all but local traffic and
northbound HOV's. Similarly, Magnolia and a set of other
str.eets het ween 24th 'street and 16th street (see Appendix A)
could be used by southbound ROV t s.
iwo ramps close to the 1-10 Salt River Bridge could give
priority access for HOV's. For eastbound traffic the 20th
street ramp could be closed to all vehicles but HOV's.
Restbound HOV's could be give.n a priority to enter the 40th
street ramp_ HOV lanes could be established on 40th street
bet~een 1-10 and University as veIl as between I-10· and
Broadway (see Appendix A for map).
contingency traffic control measures for Mill Avenue
Bridge are similar to those used last year and are described
in Traffic Control Measures During the 1980 salt River
Flood. As detailed in this document, HOV express routes
for northbound traffic could be implemented between College
Avenue and Mill Avenue using 5th Street. For· southbound
27
'I'
II
Iii'
,I
II'
III
III
traffic an HOV lane could be implemented on Curry Road
b~tween College Avenue and Mill A~enue (see Appendix A).
ALMA SCHOOL ROAD (COUNTY, MESA, AND SALT RIVER INDIAN COMMUNITY)
The Alma School Road Bridge is owned by Maricopa County.
However, emergency traffic control measures for this bridge
also need to be coordinated with the cities of Scottsdale
and Mesa, as well as the Salt River Indian Community.
The priority access for southbound HOV's could consist
of routing HOV's east on McDowell Road and then south on
Alma School Road to McKellips. At McKellips the HOVis could
be admitted to the traffic stream crossing the bridge at the
discretion of a police officer controlling that traffic
signal (see Appendix A for map).
Northbound HOV traffic could be accommodated with an HOV
rouL~ that starts on McLellan at Country Club Drive, then
goes west to Alma School Road where a free right turn is
permitted onto Alma School Road. An HOV lane could then
continue north in the right hand northbound lane to the
bridge, HOVis will mix with the regular traffic near the
south end of the bridge. In order to provide for three
lanes of northbound traffic, the left tUrn lane on Alma
28
-
(
School Road would be needed as a northbound lane from
McLellan to McKellips.
This plan results in the southbound lane of Alma School
Road between McDowell arid McKellips Roads being closed to
all but HOV's and Salt River Indian Community members.
INTERSTATE TRAFFIC
with flood conditions in the Phoenix area, urban
commuters are not the only travelers involved in traffic
delays. Interstate traffic through the Phoenix area must
also be considered. This section discusses those activities
to be initiated in diverting traffic around a major flood
situation in the Phoenix metropolitan area. Because of
restricted through traffic and limited options on many
routes, this consideration will be limited to I-IO.
It is recommended that the ADOT Highway Division assume
a leadership role in encouraging the rerouting of Interstate
traffic. It should develop alternative routes and provide
this information to the media. Also, a leaflet should be
developed suggesting alternative routes that can be handed
out at State Port of Entry stations. At these stations,
ADOT Motor Vehicle Division personnel could provide
"
rerouting information to commercial traffic and Agricultural.
29
f :
. ' .1
and Sorticultural could provide information to passenger
vehicles.
One alternative route for traffic traveling between
. Tucson and Los Angeles would be to use I-8 through San
Diego. For traffic with shorter distanc~s to travel, a
possible alternative route (as shown in Illustration 5)
might be a combination of I-8, State Route 85, and old u.S.
Route 80 (now a county road). This route would need to be
restricted to lightweight vehicles as old u.S. Route 80
crosses the Salt River on Gillespie Dam which has a 10,000
pound weight restriction. ADOT needs to further coordinate
with the county on the feasibility of this route~
for alternative routes would be the responsibility of ADOT
on State routes and of the County Highway Department on
county roads.
STAGGERED WORK HOURS
During the peak period and with only two or three
bridges across the river, traffic delays will be very long
and mass transit facilities will be packed. Traffic delay
and mass t~ansit usage will be less intense in the off peak.
To minimize traffic problems and employee absenteeism,
the Governor, Mayors and others should encourage employers
to stagger working hours. There are several approaches to.
staggered work hours including starting the work day earlier
or later. Another approach is to allow flexible working
hours for employees who must cross the Salt River.
ILLUSTRATION 5
1-10 BY-PASS ROUTE FOR MAJOR PHOENIX FLOODS
RIVER.
flOOD BY-PASS ROUTE __ _
NORMAL ROUTE
31
o 4 8 12 16
., '" '" '" ij \wi \wi \wi I
Su" of Mil .. ,
32
SECTION VI
RIDESHARING
Ridesharing through carpools and vanpools has the
greatest potential for
during a major flood.
minimizing transportation problems
Onde.C' normal conditions 74 percent of
all the autos crossing tne rivet' carry only one person.
The pt'evious section discusses procedures which would
allow high occupancy vehicles to avoid the long traffic
lines waiting to cross the river, thus providing an
incenti've for ridesharing. This section considers methods
·to .facilitate getting people together to share the ride.
specifically, this section considers methods to intensify
commuter matching, promote vanpooling, and ma'ximize the use
of ridesharing lots. The implementation of the intensified
commuter matching and vanpooling programs will be the
responsibility of project Pool It. The establishment and
management of ridesharing .lots should be the responsibility
of ADOT and the Cities of Phoenix, Tempe, Mesa and
Scottsdale •.
33
---... J
. ,
,I
Ii
Ii I,l
1ii"i
Ii
I.
I·.I! ,Ii
""
Actions to intensify commuter matching procedures by
Project Pool It should be initiated under Phase II. Public
service announcements which inform the pub lie of services
available would be delivered to all media ou·tlets and
project Pool It's office hours Ilould be extended. Various
agencies would be contacted regarding the availability of
temporary personnel to accommodate the increased work load.
Specificall y, help would be needed for coding applica tions,
telephone answering I and clerical du·ties.
At this time arrangements would be made with the ADOT
Information Systems Group for tventy-four hou.r "tu.rnaround"
time to process carpool matching lists. This procedure was
insti tuted during last year's floods and resulted in greatly
improved service to clieats and a much higher degree of
lImatching" •
Major em ployers, located on both sides of the river,
could be contacted regarding the possibility of allowing
project Pool It to institute on-site carpool matching. All
employees who must cross the river would be encouraged to
submit an application form. These applications could then
be processed and match lists provided ·to all applicants ..
34
These actions could be initiated upon the first indication
of a potential flooding problem.
Vi\N_RQQ1~
At the heighth o.f last year's flood with only two
bridges open, Valley Chevrolet dealers loaned passenger vans
to major employers to shuttle employees across the Salt
River. It is anticipated that this vanpool program would be
activated again in the event of floods reducing the numher
of lanes crossing the river to less than 16. Preliminary
steps necessary for implementing the vanpocl program are
detailed below~,
1. Alert the Moto.r Vehicle Division of IDOT
of the impending need for the issuance of
temporary vindow plates for vans and for
the driving records of van drivers.
2. Contact Executive Vice President of Arizona
Automobile Dealer's Association and request
that he send a, lette.I: to all dealers with
an appeal that they loan vans for emergency
transportation. ,
3. Print a supply of "hold harmless" ag,reements
35
: ....... \
I!'I
"I
I:
for dealers and companies to be involved in
the loan arrangements.
4. Contact officials at banks and GMAC to request
that they consider waiving the "flooring costs"
on loaned vehicles.
5. Contact major employers to be affected by
bridge, problems to prepare an attestation
of the fact that the vehicle loaned will be
maintained in a safe and reliable condition,
and to supply proof of insuranc~_,
Once these preliminary measures have been completed, the
vanpooling program can be activated as conditions warranted.
The first step would be to solicit the loan of vans from
dealers. As vans become available, the Motor Vehicle
Division will need to be contacted to issue temporary plates
and to check the name of the designated driver. If the
driver's record is satisfactory, the organization can be
notified whereto pick up the van and that plates viII be
available at the Pool It office.
36
RIDESHARING LOTS
Under Phase III condl tions, priority apprQach lanes
could be reserved for vehicles carrying three or more
persons. The vehicles using these lanes will consist
primarily of buses, vanpools and formalized carpools. There
are many drivers who, due to the nature and/or location of
their jobs or their place of residence, are unable to enter
into a structured carpooling arrangement. Likewise, there
are a number of persons who either do not dr i ve or prefer
not to drive and also may prefer not to use the bus.
The potential exists for utilizing bus park and ride
.lots to form "pick up" carpools. (Exis ting and potential
lots are listed in Appendix B.) This would enable
additional vehicles to use the priority approach lanes and
potentially allow more people to cross the river. Under
this arrangement, signs could designate waiting areas for
those wishing a r.ide to rna jor destina tion areas. Lots south
of the river. for example, would have areas for Downtown,
Uptown, Capitol, etc. Drivers looking for riders could
simply pull into the lot and determine if riders were
available. Combining ridesharing lots with bus park and
ride lots provides a safety outlet for "pick-up" riders. In
the event that they are not picked up, they have the option
of using a bus.
37
_______"I ~l.
38
SECTION VII
BUS SER VICE
During the last flood bus service was greatly expanded
to reduce vehicle demand for the two remaining bridges ..
IDOT initiated express bus service between Mesa, Tempe and
downto~n Phoenix, and Phoenix Transit establishedemexgency
shuttle service between South Phoenix and downtown. Once
fully established (and prior to the opening of the 1-10
bridge) these special flood buses carried nearly 7,000
people a day across the Salt River while other buses
carried another 17,000 •. In total, buses accounted for 7.9
percent o.f all person trips and 21.9 percent of the peak
period trips across the salt River.
This section outlines an approach for providing
emergency bus service in the event of another major flood.
Because of the large number of combinations as to which
bridges will actually remain open during a major flood, this
section is limi·ted to developing one scenario of emergency
bus service; this scenario is based on the assumption that
the only two remaining bridges are on Mill and Central
Avenue. By focusing on only one scenario sufficient detail
can be developed to estimate costs, but yet most aspects. of
39
this scenario can be adapted to other bz:idge situations.. It
should be recognized, of course, that many actual events, in
addition to z:emaining bridges, will shape the actual bus
service that might be instituted under emez:gency conditions ..
The pz:incipal elements of this section are
Responsibilities, Routes, Park and Ride Facilities, Fare
Collection and Costs ..
several organizational schemes could be used to provide
emergency bus sez:vice. However, this plan recommends that
the state assume financial .responsihility fo.r special flood
bus s~z:vice, and that this service be pz:ovided by the City
of Phoenix through Phoenix Transit. It should be clarified
that Phoenix Transit is a company under can tract to the City
of Phoenix - Phoenix Transit operates the bus system, but
the City of Phoenix provides overall policy direction.
The initiation of emergency flood bus service would be
the responsibility of the City of Phoenix. The nature of
the contract for financing this service remains to be
negotiated. However, one approach would be for the sta teto
contract wi th Phoenix Transi t on a cost' plus basis.
40
General agreement -on level of service r routes,
schedules, and park and ride facilities should be reached
between ADOT, Phoenix Transit, and the Cities of Phoenix r
Tempe, and Mesa. Phoenix Transit vould be responsible for
subcontracting for buses and drivers, bperating these buses,
and collecting fares. Additional park and ride facilities
would be the responsibility of lOOT and local jurisdictions.
Because of the State's financial responsibilities, lOOT
should closely coordinate contingency planning with the
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). This agency
administers federal funds which can pay for a substantial
portion of certain aspects of disaster relief. It should be
recognized that many aspects of flood operations wil.l not be
covel:ed by fedel:al funding.
A potential system of emergency bus routes has been
developed assuming that Mill and Central are the only two
remaining bridges. This system is lal:gely an expansion of
service on existing transit routes 60, 22, 93, 94 and 86.
Flood bus routes are mapped in Illustration 6, and
characteristics of each route are presented in Illustration
7. Pl:incipal aspects of each of these routes al:e
highlighted in the following paragraphs.
41 I
~
.
, ,
, >
, lLJ
> ct: > >
ct: . ct: ct.: , :r: . :c
:c I- :r: l-
~- ....... I- ....... LO CfI N
(V) .-
...... ROUTE 6q NORMAL ROUTE
,
lLJ >
ct:
-.J
e:! ex:
I-Z
lLJ
U
.
l­V}
- • • ROUTE 22 PLANNED NORMAL ROUTE
.... ROUTE 93 AND 94 "FLOOD ROUTE
.... ..- CENTRAL AVE. FLOOD EXPRESS
.888 ROUTE 60 HOV FLOOD BY PASS
.~.:.~.~..~ ROUTE 22 HOV FLOOD BY PASS
",
l-
V}
:c
.I.,-.
N
___ ____ _
,
I-V}
Cl z:
N
M
ILLUSTRATION 6
FLOOD BUS ROUTES
~lCDOWELL RD.
, ,
l- I-V}
V}
:c :c
l- I-
.0., . co '<t "
C ri .
0 C! 0::
I- lLJ
~ Z
...... lLJ 0:: 0::
0- >-
~
---,,-,
Rout~ 60 runs from downtown Mesa to downtown Phoenix.
For flood purpos~s, this route would likely need to be
modified in the vicinity of Mill Avenue Bridge to minimize
traffic conflicts and maximize the use of high occupancy
vehicle lanes. Also, floodhuses co uldtermina te a round
Tri-city Mall rather than downtown Mesa. I\ potential
schedule for this route would be to increase peak period
service from every half hour to every 10 minutes, and
increase off peak se"rvice from ever y ho ur to eve.ry 20
minutes ..
Route 22 runs from 67th Avenue along Camelback Boad to
scottsdale Road and then south to Arizona State University_
In January Route 22 may be extended to Baseline Road.
Additional flood buses could run on the lower end of this
Route from McDowell Road to Baseline Road. A potential
schedule would be to run at half hour intervals all day
long.
Routes 93 and 94 are express routes which run from South
Tempe to downtown Phoenix. Usually these buses cross the
(
Salt River on I-10 -- under this scenario it is assumed they
will cross on Central Avenue. Peak period bus service on
these routes could be increased f.rom every half hour to
every 15 minutes. These additional buses might be
considered a lover priority than other flood bus service
44
becauso they carry passengers only one way, that is, on the
return trip these buses ace empty.. Alter'natives for more
.fully utilizing these buses shou.ld be explored.
Onder this scenario, it is suggested that express flood
bus service be established on central Avenue to run between
dovntowD Phoenix and Baseline Road. In actuality, to
minimize conflicts with delayed traffic, and to maximize use
of high occupancy vehicle lanes, this route would likely run
more on 7th Street and 7th Avenue than on central Avenue., A
potential schedule would be five minute service during the
peak peciod and 30 minute service during the off. peak.
It is estimated that approximately four bllses will be
needed to support the Flood Train. These buses ~ould be
timed with train arrivals and departures and circulate
-
between the Phoenix Depot, downtown, and the Capitol_.
possibilities for more fully utilizing these buses should be
explored.
In the event of a major flood, Route 17 (vhich runs
between Sky Harbor and downtown) should be monitored to be
sure the persons flying f.rom Mesa to Sky Harbor have
adequate bus service.
45
Under this scenario, the number of bus runs serving
Tempe and Mesa will inc.rease from 105 to 281, while t,he
number of bus runs serving south Phoenix will increase from
348 to 546.. In actuality, the numbe.r of bus runs can vary
considerably depending on traffic congestion and the extent
to which runs are scheduled in the off peak.
In order to encourage bus usage, as well as carpo.oling,
it would be desirable to increase park and ride facilities
along emergency bus routes.. There are var.ious options fol:'
~xpanding park and I:'ide facilities. Some existing and
potential flood emergency park and ride lots are listed and
described in Appendix B.
During the last flood, IDOT maintained two large lots
(Arizona State Univel:'sity and Tl:'i-City Mall) for express
emergency bus service. However, the emel:'gency bus service
proposed by this plan is different than last year; .it has
little express service, fares viII be collected on board,
and for ins urance and other reasons Phoenix Transi tptef ers
that buses they operate stay on public streets at all times.
Under this system a set of more numerous smaller lots seems
c::
(
desirable. (
46
ADOT and the cities of Phoenix,
Scottsdale would appear to be the
Te mpe,
most
:1esa and
reasonable
jurisdictions to play a lead role in expanding existing park
and ride lots and establishing new ones for emergency
purposes.. ADQT sho'uld be p reparedto provide signing which
designates lots as park and ride lots. Phoenix Transit
should be prepared to provide public information about these
lots.. Once established, ADOT or local iurisdictions should
monitor these lots to be sure they are operating properly_
Where ~roblems arise lot changes may be necessary, or the
assistance of local police maybe needed.. Certain large
lots may reguire permanent personnel to manage them.
Fares charged for emergency service are recommended to
be the same as regular Phoenix Transit fares. The basic
adult fare would thus usually, be 50 cents or 65 cents.
However, as a result of 'Tarionstypes of discounts the
actual average fare collected per person is somewhat less.
than basic adult fares (see Illustration 7 for details) ..
It is recommended that fares be collected on board flood
buses. However, unlike Phoenix Transit buses, most leased
buses will not have fare boxes., Also, leased bus drivers do
47
J
not generally collect fares. Details of fare collection
remain to be worked out •.
The level of emergency service outlined by this scenario
is estimated to require 32 buses. The distribution of these
buses by routes is specified in Illustration 7.
It is unlikely that Phoenix Transit will be able to
provide any additional buses should a flood occur in the
next several months. Therefore, other potential suppliers
were contacted. Sun Tran of Tucson may be able to supply 10
buses on the condition that they be returned in good
condition and that Phoenix ~ransit supply fuel and drivers.
In addition, four bus companies that provide charter service
have been contacted and should be able to supply the
following number of buses:
1. Arizona Bus Leasing -- 2 to 5 buses
2. Sun Valley -- 5 to 7 buses
3. Greyhound 20 to 35 buses
4. Trail-ways 5 to 7 buses
Charges for these local buses including drivers are:
48
4'"
\..11'
(
1. Arizona Bus Leasing -- $136 with a five hour
minimum plus $22 each additional hour.
2. Sun Valley -- $151 with a five hour minimum
and $23 each additional hOUI.
3. Greyhourid -- $150 with a three hour minimum
or $270 for three to eight hours, each
additional hour over eight costs $22 plus
a 4.33 percent fuel surcharge.
4. Traililays -- $209 'lith' a five hou'r minimum,
each additional hour costs $32 plus a 4.52
percent fuel surcharge.
For cost estimation purposes, the cheapest combination
of locally available buses was used. Total costs for
leasing and operating 32 buses in the manne.r specified in
this section was estimated by Phoenix Transit to be $11,993
per day (see Illustration 7 for details by route) •. Included
in this daily amount are base costs for rental of buses and
drivers, certain additional Phoenix Transit labor costs, and
a 15 percent management fee.
When this system is fully operational and there are only
eight lanes open across the salt River, daily ridership on
emergency flood buses is estimated to carry about 7,000
persons and daily revenues are estimated to he about $4,000.
49
.1
Gross cost (including bus service·foL' the flood train) is
estimated to be about $12,00 o.
It must be reiterated that what has been put forth in
this section is a scenario, and will need to be modified to
fit actual conditions... For example, routes will need to be
adjusted to connect with available bridges. Also, it is
clear that the level of service will need to be adjusted
based on severity of the problem and the a·vailability of
buses.
50
(
SECT'ION VIII
TRAIN SERVICE
In to help alleviate severe transportation
problems that occurred during the last flood, ADOT initiated
ttain passenger service between Phoenix and Mesa. This
train made use of Amtrak equipment and the Southern Pacific
line across the Salt River. While the 1-10 Bridge was
closed, the train typically carried 5,000 passengers a day_
This eq uates to 1.8 percent of all persons crossing the
river and 3.9 percent of the peak period person trips.
This section outlines a procedure which may be applied
should emergency train service be needed again. It dra'Ws
heavily on last year 1 s experience •. Info.rmati<ln is presented
under the headings of Responsibilities, Stations, Equipment,
Schedules, Fare Collection and Costs.
It should be ADOT's responsibility to monitor bridge
conditions and flood pote,ntial, and to advise the Governot" s
Office if emergency train service is needed.· Conditions
which would call for thett'ain would likely be the loss ,of
51
I
.j
I I
Ii
I
the 1-10 Bridge or reduction of the number of traffic lanes
across the salt River to less than twelve lanes. Also, of
cou~se, the Southern Pacific Railroad Bridge could not be
closed or seriously threatened by closure.
Principals in negotiating p.rocu.rement of the train
should include the Governor's Office, Amtrak, and the
Southern Pa c.ific Railroad. Last year's can tacts included B.
F. Biaggini, Southern Pacific Chief Executive Officer, San
'Francisco; and Louis J. Mayberry, Assistant Ma.nage.r, Amtrak
Western Division.
The lOOT project manager for flood train service should
arrange for the development of required legal agreements and
funding commitments. Last year ' s train involved a contract
bet'leen ADOlf and Amtrak, and a cont'ract bet ween A mtrak and
Southern Pacific. Last year 1 s train was contracted for on a
weekly basis, and operation was scheduled to terminate after
30 days. Concurrently, funding arrangements should be made
with the Federal Emergency lanagement Agency (FEffA).
Once a decision has been made to have emergency train
service, it would be ADOT's responsibility (in coordination
with Amtrak, Southern Pacific, and the Cities of Phoenix,
Tempe and Mesa) to identify stops and develop a schedule.
52
1
.,...."..-- "--
Onder operating condit~ons, Amtrak and southern Pacific
would be responsible fo:c running the train while ADOT would
be responsible for managing s·tations .. A mtrak personnel
would be responsible for collecting tickets and loading and
unloading passengers. ADOT, on the other hand, would be
responsible for providing an adequate loading surface,
lighting and parki.ng facilities at each station. ADOTwould
also be responsible for selling tickets and providing public
information.
A potential o:cganizational chart for ADCT Flood Train
functions is presented in Illustration 8. Responsibilities
for positions shown by this chart are discussed in the ADOT
Last year the
project manager for the flood train was Deputy Assistant
D irecto L Louis Sc hmi tt. The Transpo:cta tion Planning
Division provided the core personnel for this project.
other major sources of personnel were the Motor 'Vehicle
Division and tempora:cy help_
The total number of people required to operate the .Flood
Train last year was estimated to be 110 persons a day_, This
included r among others, personnel from ADOT, Amtrak,
southern Pacific, Department of public Safety r and the
cities of Phoenix, Tempe and Mesa.
53 I
I
.. '.~='<,
ILLUSTRATION 8
ADOT ORGANIZATION CHART FOR ~1ANAGING H1ERGENCY FLOOD TRAIN SERVICE
PASSENGER TRAIN
PROJECT MANAGER
(PTPM)
• DEPUTY PTPM
, I SECRETARY l--
I . I
ASST. PROJECT MANAGER/ ASST. PROJECT MANAGER! ASST. PROJECT MANAGER! ASST. PROJECT MANAGER/
ADMINISTRATION & FISCAL OPERAJIONS & PLANS SUPPLIES & SERVICES COMXUNITY RELATIONS
. R SECRETARY ~ SECRETARY H SECRET~RY H SECRETARY
I I I 1 r 1 I I
CHIEF, CIIIEF, CIIlEF, CHIEF, CHIEF, "tHIEf, PHYS. fACILITIES, CHIEF. CHIEF OF CHIEf, PASSAGE ACCOUNTING CENTRAL SECURITY PARKING SUPPLIES & COMl-lUNICATIONS IIlFORJ'ATION/ LIAISON WITH
AUTHOR I ZA TI ON OPERATIONS fACILITIES EQUIPMENT & SERVICES IIlSTORIAN PUBLIC OFFICIALS
. .
I
" CHIEf, . CIIIEF,
STATION MODAL
OP£RATIOIlS COORDIUATION
-
rhe route and ~tops for last year's Flood Train are
mapped in Illustration 9. Stops included:
1 •. Phoenix Depot, 4th Avenue and Harrison street
2. AiResearch, 36th street and Air Lane
3. Ped Mart, McClintock and Broadway
4. Mesa Depot, Robson and 3rd Avenue
It is recommended that these same stops be used again
with the possible exception of Ped Mart. As the Fed Mart
stop is privately owned, its availability for future use is
uncertain. The Tempe Fed Mart store, at least in~tially,
experienced some disruption to its normal operations last
year because of traffic congestion. On the other hand, Ped
Mart received a good deal of favorable public exposure.
Some other problems with the Fed Mart stop are: (1)
parking area is limited (the overflow parking used last year
has been developed into a shopping center), (2) parking lots
and access are not directly adjacent to the boarding area,
and (3) considerable personnel are needed to manage traffic.
55
lJ1
0\
•
~ @ t-
V)
~ ..c
+'
'!)
r-
U~N STATION l . ........... - •• II • T ...... ....... .......
[J -
-
:=:::~ ~ :::::: ... ~.
t- SI\L1 BROADWAv- ~.
.
:> :> :> :> < c::l: -< :> c::l:
c::l:
:r: r:: :r: ...J
t- r- (tJ-) t:r-: oc:::l::
M N r- r- t- z
W
L>
flOOD TRAIN STOPS
..... SOUTHERN PACIFIC RAilROAD
IllUSTRATION 9
flOOD TRAIN ROUTE AND STOPS y-
McDOWELL RD ron AIRESEARCH . I ~ l I VAN' BURElJ 1-2dV
-....
..I ......... ~/' />- ~.~ ........ .. ).. .. ...... tff
_ J./.' ffo ~/ 0::: ~":::-. ### "..., CURR t- ~\~Y...~ i\D =~.. ~_ ~--- -.~.- -- ~u ~/ -U-"-l .... i-FEDMART MESA STATION I ..
1---- -: t . ~
.. ~ ....
:--..... ::i ~ .... •• ••• l~ ••••••••••••••••••••••• '. ......... III!I,
""' ...J ·.. .......J. ··
SOUTHERN x €?J -··
BAsluflE _RB
..
~I ---- I .. ':
( #4' .. . . . 0 '. t- t- t- t- oc:: l: VI VI VI VI 0:::
:t: 0 :J: :t: . t- z: t- t- ...J
q- N 0 co ~ N M q- q-.
::>
0::: C 0::: 0 W
0 0::: ::>
z:
. ...J W
~
. . 0 :>
~ 0 o 0 0 . c::l:
@ 0::: 0::: c:: :r:
L> c::l: z
t- W I--W i.-z: ~V) -§ I-tj ~ z: t- L> 0
..... W I-i V) c::l: N ::> 0::: <....: 0::: Ol ~ I-i CY
0::: 0::: U
0- >- C 0- 0 ...J
~ ::£ Cl < c::l: ::E
----------------------------------------------------~~~==~==========,=--
Thus, options to the Fed Mart lot need to be considered.
Two of these options are Southern Pacific land directly
adjacent to Fed Mart and state owned land at Price Road and
the railroad. Both of these areas are unpaved and could
present problems' -- especially if heavy local rains
occurred. Also, Southern Pacific requires that the State
assume liability if its land is to be used for parking. As
a minimum, use of either of these unimproved lots would
require grading, dust control, and some lighting.
Better parking facilities should be provided at
AiResearch and the Phoenix Depot. Greyhound Park made some
of its parking area available for public lIse last year, but
this information was not sufficiently publicized. A.1so,
land west of the Phoenix Depot could be improved for
parking.
The requested train should include at least six
passenger coaches and two locomotives. Last year the number
of coaches varied between four and six, however, even with
six coaches peak period conditions were very crowded with as
many as 2.2 persons for every seat. Two lccomotives are
needed to minimize turn around tim~ at the end of each
route.
57
_______ " I:!
I
:i
,!
t
In addition to the train, various support eguipment will
he required.. Two ticket booths will be needed -- last year
these were borrowed from the state Fairgrounds. Lighting
equipment will be needed for at least t~o stops last year
lighting was supplied and operated by tbe Travel and
Facilities Section of ADOT. Public address horns will be
needed to direct passengers waiting to board the train.
Last year six hand held public address horns were obtained
from the National Guard. Tickets will also need to he
printed.
58
SCHEDULE
Last year's schedule was adequate, however, an improved
schedule is suggested in Illustration 10. The. pr inc ipal
change in this new schedule is that all stops have been
shortened five minutes. End stops are now 10 minutes and
intermediate stops 5 minutes. The resulting round trip time
is exactly two hoursi this makes for a very simple schedule
for the uninitiated mass transit patron. For example,
departures from Mesa are every two hours.
In general, this new' schedule has earlier departure
times and an extra round trip in the early afternoon. The
old schedule needed an earlier departure from Phoenix and
the last Phoenix departure was too late.
A problem with last year's schedule was that the Sunset
Limited frequently delayed the Flood Train. The new
schedule seeks to minimize this conflict by having the Flood
Train depart the Phoenix Oepot just as the Sunset Limited is
scheduled to arrive. Nevertheless, unless the Sunset
Limited is on time, or the Flood Train is given priority
over the Sunset Limited, the Flood Train could become behind
schedule two days a week in th~ later part of the morning.
59
I,
,:!
J
-- -- - - --- __ ~~'-c~ c_:o:,c'~~ ___ :~~ _ :_--~~==, ---"",,",,- --< - -~=~---- - ~~~-~----~-~-~-~
ILLUSTRATION 10
FLOOD TRAIN SCHEDULE
ADOT
SALT RIVER RAIL SERVICE
PHOENIX DEPOT AIRESEARCH STATION FEDMART STATION MESA DEPOT
4TH AVENUE & HARRISON 36TH STREET & AIR LANE McCLINTOCK & BROADWAY ROBSON & 3RD AVENUE
.
0
z ::.:::
c:t:z M 0 R N I N G S C H E D U L E 0::,...,..
I-c:t:
:SO::
c:t:1- DEPART ARRIVE DEPART ARRIVE DEPART ARRIVE
901 MESA 430A FE Dr1ART 440A 445A AIRESEARCH 505A 510A PHOENIX 520A
902 PHOENIX 530A AI RESEARCH 540A 545A FED ~lART 605A 610A MESA 620Ar
903 MESA 630A FED MART 640A 645A AIRESEARCH 705A 7l0A PHOENIX 720A
904 PHOENIX 730A AI RESEARCH 740A 745A FED MART 805A 810A MESA 820A
0'1 905 MESA 830A FEDMART 840A 845A AIRESEARCH 905A 910A PHOENIX 920A 0 906 PHOENIX 930A AIRESEARCH 940A 945A FED MART 1005A 10l0A MESA 1020A
907 MESA 1030A FEDMART 1040A 1045A AI RESEARCH 1105A 1110A PHOENIX 1120A
EVE N I N G S C H E D U L E
DEPART ARRIVE DEPART ARRIVE DEPART ARRIVE
908 PHOENIX 130P AIRESEARCH 140P 145P FEDMART 205P 210P MESA 220P
909 MESA 230P FEDMART 240P 245P AI RESEARCH 305P 310P PHOENIX 320P
910 PHOENIX 330P AIRESEARCH 340P 345P FEDMART 405P 410P t·1ESA 420P
911 MESA 430P FEDMART 440P 445P AIRESEARCH 505P 510P PHOENIX 520P
912 PHOENIX 530P AIRESEARCH 540P 545P FEDMART 605P 610P MESA 620P
913 MESA 630P FEDMART 640P 645P AI RESEARCH 705P 7l0P PHOENIX 720P
914 PHOENIX 730P AIRESEARCH 740P 745P FEDMART 805P 810P MESA 820P
FARE COLLECTION
The fare for a one way ticket last year was $1.00.
Actual costs were about $3.65 per person trip. It is
recommended that the $1.00 fare charge be reviewed.
Nevertheless, an even sum is simple to collect, and full
charge for a trip could seriously discourage ridership. The
purpose of the flood train is not to make a profit, but
rather if is to get people to work and thus minimize flood
impacts on the Arizona economy.
Procedures for selling tickets and collecting cash will
need to be established. Last year the general rule for
ticket purchase was exact fare and one ticket only. This
greatly speeded ticket lines which was critical when lines
\-tere still long and the train was preparing to depart. Cash
was collected twice a day last year by an ADOT employee
accompanied by a Department of Public Safety officer. Money
was deposited in a bank night deposit box and then
transferred to the Motor Vehicle Division cashier. For
purposes of cash security as well as crowd and traffic
management, it is important that ADOT coordinate closely
with local police, especially in the initial phases of
establishing train service.
61
COSTS
Total costs and revenues that might be expected for
future emergency train service can best be estimated from
,
last year I s ten days of, flood train service. Final costs
for this service as estimated for the Federal Emergency
Management Agency were:
Amtrak charges
Southern Pacific charges
Reimbursable State costs
\ Total
$ 48,549
84,477
__3_ 7,704
$ 170,730
It should be noted that these costs do not include numerous
hours spent by State and local agency personnel as well as
private industry. In particular, ADOT was not reimbursed
for administrative, clerical, and secretarial costs, while
cities were not reimbursed for police support and train
related bus service.
Total revenues collected were $46,907. Thus, for
itemized costs on a per trip basis, e~~h passenger paid
Sl.OO, the State of Arizona paid $0.53, and the Federal
government paid S2.12.
62
SECTION IX
BICYCLING AND WALKING
During last year's flood a substantial number of
commuters elected to walk and bicycle across the river.
Pedestrian and bicycle activity occurred mainly ufon the
Mill Avenue Bridge as many Arizona State University students
opted for these transportation modes ..
More specifically# on a typical weekday during the
flood, 9,100 people bicycled across the Salt River, and
4#100 walked. This represents 4.4 percent of total person-trips
across the river and 5.7 percent of the peak period
trips ..
Two major problems were encountered last year with
respect to bicyclists and pedestrians.. The first occurred
on the Mill Avenue Bridge. The walkway on the east side of
the bridge vas blocked by a traffic railing just short of
J the end of the bridge. This problem is being addressed by
ADOT District I. A portable stairway should be available
soon that will permit pedestrians to walk on a closed
portion of the road during the flood.
63
----------------~--------------------------~-
II Iii
i
I
I
Ii
'.
i
II., ,I:
The second problem is the "Old Tempe Bridge"~ Although
long ago closed to traffic, during the last flood
pedestrians and bicyclists were by-passing barricades and
using the bcidge.. Decisions shou.ldbe made regarding the
utilization of this facility. Prior to the next flood
answers should be obtained as to the safety of the bt'idge,
legal ownership, and liability.
64
SECTION X
AVIAT.ION
During the last flood some aircraft ownees flew across
the eiver to work, often car.rying fellow workers.
Commercial operators and commuter airlines also carried
passengers across the river for a fee. In the event of
seve~e flooding, it is felt that the ADOT Aeronautics
Division and airport managers could play an important role
to enhance the level and quality of emergency air service
offered by the private sector. In particular, it is
recommended that ADOT seeve as a catalyst to quickly
initiate emergency aie service and to make the public aware
of this ser vice ..
This section briefly considers sources of emergency air
services, airport and terminal needs, and public
information .. This plan does not examine aviation needs
under a no bridge situation vhich might require military and
air carrier aircraft to transport emergency personnel and
. supplies. In addition, if flood waters are high enough to
close all bridges, both runways at Sky Harbor would probably
be closed and all aircraft would have to be diverted to
other airpo.rts.
65
Sou£ces of emergency air service can be divided into
three categories: commuter air carriers operating on .fixed
schedules, Commercial flight operators offering scheduled
and unscheduled charter service, and aircraft owners who fly
to meet their own needs.
During the last flood several c6mmuter air carriers and
numerous commercial flight operators provided air service
across the Salt River. The standard fee was $20 round trip
and $15 one way.
A list of regional commuter airlines and local
commercial flight operators that could potentially provide
air service in an emerge ncy is presented in !\ppendix c.
~hen less than 16 road lanes across the Salt River appears
eminent, lDOT could contact these sources and encourage them
to provide emergency air service.
Some aircraft owners will choose to avoid flood related
highway congestion by flying to work. Often these oW.ners
would be willing to share the ride.. However, a method is
needed to match. owners with potentialridesharers. Perhaps
. I
a centrally located bulletin board where aircraft owners and
66
'.
potential rideshat"ers cou Ld post their interests would help
facilitate this type of ridesharing.
The general' plan is to quickly establish a co,t"e of
scheduled air servi~e across the river, and to vigorously
inform the public of the availability of this service. This
will attract passengers to airports and some of them could
be absorbed by unscheduled service.
Principal airports south of the ,3i ver a.re Mesa,
Chandler, stellar and riemorial; while principal airports
north of the River are Sky Harbor, Scottsdale, Deer Valley,
Litchfield and Glendale. During the last flood the main
route of travel was between Mesa and Sky Harbor. However,
as congestion did present some problems at :1esa last year,
and because major floods can reduce runway facilities at Sky
Harbor, additional airports should be considered. Chandler,
scottsdale, and Deer Valley would appear to be good
alternative airports. Stellar Airport has a good location,
but it is privately owned and part of a residential
development -- difficulties arose during the last flood when
some commercial flight operators attempt~d to use this
airport to provide emergency air service.
67
Probably the greatest service airport managers can
provide during a major flood is to provide adequate
terminal facilities. Auto parking areas should be clearly
designated, and signs need to direct passengers to loading
areas. wi thin '-. the terminal, ticket selling areas for
various air services need to be clearly marked. Also, to
minimize confusion, ticketing and passenger waiting areas
need to be separated. Considerable additional phone service
in the terminal areas would also be desirable.
Locations for passengers to 'liai tfor various air·
services should be clearly marked. Also, on the ramp
temporary barriers (such as a rope fence) and possible
security personnel will be needed to keep passengers out of
areas where aircraft operate.
PUBLIC INFORMATION
Pl:'oba.bly the single most important thing that the
Aeronautics Division can do in the event of another major
flood is to serve as a public information center. ADOT
couLl p.rovide news releases and a telephone answering
service on emergency air services_ This 'liould require
securing the necessary telephone lines, equipment for
'recorded messages, and, personnel for answering more detailed
68
~.,
.. --~-~-=============-==----------------------------.:
questions. Specific information that this center should be
able to provide would include:
1. Departure and arrival times, fares, and gate
locations for scheduled emergency air service
2. Parking areas for both aircraft and autos at
each airport
3. Related bus schedules and fares
4. l\pproach and departure procedures for commuting
aircraft
Of course, in order to provide this information,
personnel would have to be assigned to gathering it and
keeping it current.
69
-(I
70
------------------------------------------------~================~
A P PEN DIe E S
71
72
A P PEN D I X A
PRIORITY TREATMENT .OF HIGH OCCUP~~CY VEHICLES
FOR MAJOR BRIDGES
73
~ i
I
'I d
I
\
VAN BUREN ST. .
ADAMS ST. - :>:;-:
u..
MADISON ST. :z: - 0
>:z-:
c:(
u
GRANT ST. ~
u
c:(
...J
co
BUCKEYE RD.
f y . 1/. In 31'4
. MILES
~
HIGH OCCUPANCY VEHrCLE ROUTE
CENTRAL AVENUE
. lIJ
> c:( . :c
f-
C'l ......
T
I'
!
'FILLMORE ST.
MONROE ST.
-I-___+ -...I... _-'-~-+- WASHINGTON ST.
. lIJ > c:( . LINCOLN ST.,
:c
,f..-..
:/ BUCKEYE RD.
MARICOPA FWY.
MOHAVE ST.
BROADWAY RD. -r---+----l--
--'-+----+-ROESER RD •
SOUTHERN AVE.-I-----+-----1i--
. lIJ > c:( . :c
~!
...J
~ f­:
z:
lIJ u
f­V"
l
-
-1-----1----1-- BASELINE RD •
•••••• High Occupancy Vehicle Route
74
----------------~----~-------------------------------
Eastbound
BOV OnZy
HIGH OCCUPANCY VEHICLE ROUTES
1-10 AND 24TH ST.
Aaaec3 ~
....oolt----.... ---+ BUCKEYE RD. J: • l-i.
WOOD ST. -_ ............. -......
1----- UNIVERSITX DR.
it 10·
---+--------t!--------+------...-. ---- BROADWAY RD.
t 9 114 1/'2 3/4 I, ·
MILES
~
•••••• High Occupancy Vehicle Route
75
. i.
.\
\
HIGH OCCUPANCY VEHICLE ROUTE
MILL AVENUE
--It-- McKELLIPS RD.
t Q 1/4 1/2
MILES
3/4
. ~ ~ •.. ~f.::{i:
"'%jf~~Z&ijjli.i:':~f~-1\i£fj1l
1ST ST .4---or--r-ri-i
3RD ST.
5TH ST. +---~~-+_I_I-I-..... ~~I..
7TH ST.
9TH ST.
11TH ST.
UNIVERSITY DR.
13TH ST.~ ___ ~~~~~~~ _ ~ ___ ~ ___ +-____ ~ __ ~A~P~A~~E~B~LV~D~. _ ~
,.j ,.j
... ,.j "" c::i ;;: ... . ;;: ;;: .... ox
-' .> .... ... .... ~<~ .... VI ... > '" ... '" - ... .... < ..... .... .... -' :;!
VI ~ .... -' 1;:. -' :;! c 0 :co.-, c5 VI o0x ::;!~;: ~ ~ '-' ~.
0 u
VI
•••••• High Occupancy Vehicle Route
76
,
(
, \
HIGH OCCUPANCY VEHICLE ROUTE
ALMA SCHOOL ROAD
----t----z....-------t----t----t- COUNTRY CLUB DR.
---7i~-......... ~~$:5~~:r.;u..-----I--I--ir_ ALMA SCHOOL RD.
. o
c:::
-l
-l
I.JJ
3: o
C
u
::E:
-cV.). -l
-l
I.JJ
~
u
::E:
J +:'.
-
. c:::
0
>-
-I- V) ex:
I.JJ :..:.:.-.
z
::::l
•••••• High Occupancy Vehicle Route
77
DOBSON RD • .
0 :::-
-l
CXl
I.JJ
:x:
u
~ c...
~
PRICE RD.
MCCLINTOCK DR.
sconSDALE RD.
,
I'
78
APPENDIX B
PARK AND RIDE LOTS
79
BUS SERVICE
EXISTING PARK-AND-RIDE LOTS
LOCATION CITY CAPACITY SURFACE LIGHTING CONTACT PERSON
Dooleys northeast corner Tempe 15-20 vehicles Paved Lighted Irwin Malamud
Apache Blvd. and Dorsey Public Transit Admin.
Rd. City of Phoenix
TemEe Municipal southeast Tempe 15-20 vehicles Paved Lighted u
corner 7th St. and Maple
Robson and 1st Street Mesa 20 vehicles UnPaved Unlighted II
southeast corner
Los Arcos Mall Scottsdale 15+ vehicles Paved Lighted II
McDmvell Rd. S.W. of
Scottsdale Rd.
00 St. Catherine Church Phoenix 20 vehicles Paved Unlighted II
0 Central Ave. N.W. of
Southern in South
Phoenix
Gemco ShoE~in9 Center Tempe 12 vehicles Paved Lighted II
north side of Baseline
Rd. east of McClintock
Tempe City Library Tempe 5 vehicles Paved Lighted II
south side of Southern
Ave. , west of Rural Rd.
Freeway Interchange Tempe 30+ vehicles Unpaved Unlighted II
on Price Rd. S.E. of
Manhattan
Danelle Plaza on Mill Tempe 6 vehicles Paved Lighted II
Ave. , S.E. corner of
Southern
LOCATION
Tri-City Mall Dobson
North of Apache
Greyhound Park
36th St. on Washington
Sun Devil Stadium
Northeast side Rural
Rd. North of University
Mervyn's Southern west
of Rural
Grace Community Church
Southern at Dorsey
ADOT property north and
south of Southern at·;
Price
Safeway Shopping Center
Southern and Central
N.E. corner
Thunderbird Lodge
Baseline and Central
N.W. corner
Church of Jesus Christ
Latter Day Saints 7th
Ave. and Southern N.E.
corner
BUS SERVICE
POTENTIAL PARK-AND-RIDE LOTS
CITY
Mesa
Phoenix
Tempe
Tempe
Tempe
Tempe
Phoenix
Phoenix
Phoenix
CAPACITY
150 or more
vehicles
100 - 150
vehicles
150 or more
vehicles
20 or more
500 or more
vehicles
200 or more
vehicles
20 or more
vehicles
400 or more
vehicles
50 or more
vehicles
SURFACE LIGHTING CONTACT PERSON
Paved Lighted Grace Clicker 969-2261
Tri-City Mall Manager
Unpaved Unlighted \,;j"inston Burrows 273-7181
Facilities Manager
Unpaved Lighted Jack Penick 965-3201
(grass) ASU Vice-President
Paved Lighted Richard Duris 894-9281
Paved
Unpaved
(dirt)
Paved
Unpaved
Paved
Lighted
Manager
Ron Funderburg 894-2201
Building Administrator
Unligh ted Harvey Friedson 968-8204
Tempe Traffic Engineer
Lighted Grace Clicker 969-2261
Tri-City Mall Manager
Unlighted Ray Judd 276-3923
Executive Committee
Lighted
Jimmy J. Cluff 268-5348
Dist.Bishop - 12th Ward
(Xl
N
LOCATION
Fitch Park
Center St. at 8th St.
Hohokam Park
Center St. North of Brown
Mesa Civic Center
Center St. and University
Fiesta Mall
Southern - east of Alma School
Dobson Ranch H.S. ,
Guadalupe between Alma-School
and Dobson
CITY
Mesa
Mesa
Hesa
Mesa
Mesa
BUS SERVICE
POTENTIAL PARK-AND-RIDE LOTS
CAPACITY SURFACE LIGHTING
300+ vehicles Paved Lighted
100 vehicles Paved Lighted
50 vehicles Unpaved Lighted
100 vehicles Paved Lighted
1000 vehicles Paved Lighted
200+ vehicles
after Sept. 1981
CONTACT PERSON
l1autice Bateman 834-2351
Parks & Recreation Director
Same as above
Jack Cummings 834-2178
Community Center Director
Mary Lindsey 833-4121
Asst. Mall Manager
Howard Adams 964-6116
RAIL SERVICE
POTENTIAL PARK-AND-RIDE LOTS
LOCATION CITY CAPACITY SURFACE LIGHTING CONTACT PERSON
MESA DEPOT
Robson & 3rd Avenue Mesa 100 vehicles in Paved Lighted Southern Pacific 964-8658
lot; 200 or more
on street.
FED MART
McClintock & Broadway Tempe 200 or more veh- Paved Lighted Jim Gunby 966-6248
icles unpaved lot and and (Store Manager)
100 + paved lot Unpaved Unlighted
ASSOCIATED GROCERS Tempe 50 vehicles Paved Unlighted Store Manager 894-9153
East side McClintock,
south of Apache Blvd.
GREYHOUND PARK Phoenix 250+ vehicles Unpaved Unlighted Winston Burrows 273-7181
co 36th St. & Washington (Facilities Mgr.)
w
SOUTHERN PACIFIC LOT Tempe 250+ vehicles Unpaved Unlighted District Manager 258-5321
W. of Fed Mart, N. of Southern Pacific
Broadway
ADOT LOT
Price & Southern Pacific RR Tempe 200+ vehicles Unpaved Unlighted ADOT
84
'APPENDIX'C
POTENTIAL SOURCES ,OF EMERGENCY AIR SERVICES
85
I
I.
-
POTENTIAL SOURCES OF EMERGENCY AIR SERVICES
ARIZONA BASED COMMUTER AIRLINES
1. Cochise Airlines, Tucson, Arizona: 602~889~63ll
2.
3.
4.
Desert Pacific Airlines, Sedona, Arizona: 602-282-7774
Grand Canyon Airlines, Grand Canyon: 602 -:638-2407
Havasu Air Lines, Lake Havasu City: 602~855-4945
5. Sun West Airlines, Scottsdale, Arizona: 602-991-0900
ADJACENT STATES BASED COMMUTER AIRLINES
1.
2.
3.
Air New Mexico, Santa Fe, New Mexico: 505~47l-5ll7
Aspen Airways, Inc., Denver, Colorado: 303-398-3744
Baja,Cortez, Los Angeles, CA: 213-646-9333
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Golden Gate Airlines, Monterey, CA: 408~646 .-0333
Inland Empire Airlines, La Verne, CA: 714-593-2550
Scenic Air Lines Inc., Las Vegas, Nevada: 702-739-5611
Sky West Air Lines,. St. George, Utah: 801-628-2655
Swift-Aire Lines~ San Louis Obispo, CA: 805-544~7700
LOCAL COMMERCIAL FLIGHT OPERATORS
1. Advance Aviation
2. Air Centurion
3. Air Services International
4. Beckett Phoenix
5. Beckett Scottsdale
6. Chandler Air Services
7. Flight Tech
8. Glendale Aviation
9. G.T. Helicopters
10. Keeling Aviation
11. Litchfield Aviation
12. Madison Aviation
13. Porter Aviation
14. Professional Aviation
15. Sawyer Aviation
16. Scottsdale Charter
17. Southwest Air Center
18. Superstition Air Service
19. Taylor Aviation
20. Thunderbird Executive Air
21. Vertic Ie Operations
22. Venture Aviation
86
832-1864
869-7070
948~2l50
275-5741
991-0900
963~6420
979~5986
979-3102
991-5325
961-1198
932~0006
832-1420
93l~693l
942-1566
273-3779
99l~0900
948-2400
832-0704
830-9291
832-4662
244-1652
963-0213
APPENDIX D
PERSONS IN ADOT RESPONSIBLE FOR FLOOD ACTIONS
87
co
00
"-~- ,-,< - "----'-=-
PERSONS IN ADOT RESPONSIBLE FOR FLOOD ACTIONS
FLOOD ACTION
1. Barricade closed crossings and
reroute tra ffi c.
2. Identify alternative route for inter­state
traffic (includes notifying
media and preparing leaflet).
3. Advise commercial interstate traffic
of alternative routes at port of
entry stations.
4. Post signs for alternative routes
5. Develop High Occupancy Vehicle
routes for 1-10
6. Decision to activate HOV routes for
1-10 (coordination with the City of
Phoenix would be required on use of
40th Street)
7. Provide signing and striping for
1-10 HOV routes.
8. Expedite turn-around time for
Project Pool It matching programs.
9. Coordinate Flood Bus Service.
10. Operate Flood Train.
11. Coordinate Flood Aviation Service.
RESPONSIBLE PERSON
Robert Conklin
Tom Lammers
Bi 11 Cook
Robert Conklin
Orville Abney
Roger Hatton
Tom Lammers
Robert Conklin
James Russell
Chuck Anders
Chuck Anders
Sonny Najera
POSITION TELEPHONE NO.
District One
Traffic Engineer
Assistant Director
Highway Division
Deputy Group Manager
261-7381
261-7391
Field Service Group 261-7723
Motor Vehicle Division
Dist. One Traffic Engineer 261-7381
Dist. Two Traffic Engineer 622-6701
Traffic Engineer
Assistant Director
Highway Division
261-7616
261-7391
Dist. One Traffic Engineer, 261-7381
Operations Manager 261-7281
Assistant Director
Transportation Planning Div. 261-7431
Assistant Director 261-7431
Transportation Planning Div.
Assistant Director 261-7778
Aeronautics Division
-
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Arizona Department of Transportation, A Guide 'for Emergenc~
Highway Traffic Regulations, 1981.
2. Arizona Department of Transportation, An Evaluation oftbe
ADOT Emergency Flood' Bus System, unpublished.
3. Arizona Department of Transportation, How Do You Spell
Commuter Relief?, unpublished.
4. City of Phoenix, Public Transit Administration, An Evaluation
of City of Phoenix Emergency Flood Bus System~ unpublished.
5. Maricopa Association of Governments Transportation and
Planning Office, Traffic Control' Measures During the 1980
Salt River Flood, 1980.
6. Maricopa Association of Governments Transportation and Planning
Office, Travel Changes During the 1980 Salt River F'loo'd, 1980.
7. Project Pool It, Valley Forward Association, Transportation
Crisis Action, Rideshare Strategies, 1980 Flooi!, ,1980.
8. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District Office,
Flood Damage Report; Phoenix Metropolitan Area', February 1980
Flood, 1980.
39