October 2013 Meridian Road Corridor Study Germann Road to McDowell Boulevard Final Report Prepared for: Prepared by Michael Baker Jr., Inc. Phoenix, Arizona Meridian Road Corridor Study Table of Contents Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................................... vi Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. vi Agency, Stakeholder and Public Involvement.......................................................................................... vi Traffic Analysis ........................................................................................................................................ vii Purpose and Need ................................................................................................................................... vii Recommended Alternative ..................................................................................................................... vii Preferred Meridian Road Alignment................................................................................................... vii Preferred Section Line Shift ................................................................................................................ vii Design Features...................................................................................................................................... viii Phased Construction ................................................................................................................................ ix Near‐Term Improvement Recommendations...................................................................................... ix Mid‐Term Improvement Recommendations ....................................................................................... ix Long‐Term Improvement Recommendations ....................................................................................... x Ultimate Improvement Recommendations .......................................................................................... x Cost ........................................................................................................................................................... x I. Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 1 Project Overview ....................................................................................................................................... 1 Study Area ................................................................................................................................................. 1 Study Objectives ....................................................................................................................................... 3 Vision and Goals ........................................................................................................................................ 3 II. Existing Corridor Features ..................................................................................................................... 4 Summary of Existing Plans and Studies .................................................................................................... 4 Existing Network and Classification .......................................................................................................... 5 Existing Features ..................................................................................................................................... 10 Drainage .............................................................................................................................................. 10 Area Drainage Master Plan ................................................................................................................. 12 Utilities ................................................................................................................................................ 13 Pavement ............................................................................................................................................ 16 Existing Land Use .................................................................................................................................... 16 Meridian Road Corridor Study: Germann Road to McDowell Boulevard i October 2013 Meridian Road Corridor Study Jurisdictions......................................................................................................................................... 16 Land Use .............................................................................................................................................. 16 Zoning ................................................................................................................................................. 17 Ownership ........................................................................................................................................... 19 III. Future Corridor Features ................................................................................................................ 21 Socioeconomic ........................................................................................................................................ 21 Planned Land Use ................................................................................................................................ 21 Future Land Development .................................................................................................................. 21 Future Transportation Projects ........................................................................................................... 22 Population and Employment .............................................................................................................. 25 IV. Traffic Analysis Summary ................................................................................................................ 25 Traffic Analysis Methodology.................................................................................................................. 26 Existing 2012 Traffic Volumes ................................................................................................................. 27 Existing Level of Service .......................................................................................................................... 30 Existing Roadway Segment Level of Service ....................................................................................... 30 Existing Intersection Level of Service .................................................................................................. 30 Future Traffic Volumes............................................................................................................................ 33 Future Level of Service ............................................................................................................................ 39 Future Roadway Segment Level of Service ......................................................................................... 39 Future Intersection Level of Service ................................................................................................... 42 Traffic Impacts......................................................................................................................................... 47 V. Environmental Summary .................................................................................................................... 51 Summary of Socioeconomic Environment Findings ............................................................................... 51 Summary of Physical and Natural Environment Findings ....................................................................... 51 Summary of Cultural Inventory Findings ................................................................................................ 53 VI. Development of Alternatives .......................................................................................................... 55 Alignment Alternatives ........................................................................................................................... 55 Conceptual Analysis for Northern Section of Meridian Road ............................................................. 55 Conceptual Alternatives for Southern Section of Meridian Road ...................................................... 55 Section Line Shift at Baseline Road ..................................................................................................... 56 VII. Evaluation of Alternatives ............................................................................................................... 59 Evaluation Criteria................................................................................................................................... 59 Meridian Road Corridor Study: Germann Road to McDowell Boulevard ii October 2013 Meridian Road Corridor Study Alternative Screening .............................................................................................................................. 59 Preferred Alternative .............................................................................................................................. 60 Preferred Meridian Road Alignment................................................................................................... 60 Preferred Section Line Shift ................................................................................................................ 60 VIII. Design Features............................................................................................................................... 61 Typical Cross Section ............................................................................................................................... 61 Phased Construction ............................................................................................................................... 63 Near‐Term Improvement Recommendations..................................................................................... 63 Mid‐Term Improvement Recommendations ...................................................................................... 64 Long‐Term Improvement Recommendations ..................................................................................... 64 Ultimate Improvement Recommendations ........................................................................................ 64 Access Management Recommendations ................................................................................................ 65 Intersection Spacing ............................................................................................................................ 65 Driveway Locations ............................................................................................................................. 65 Median Locations ................................................................................................................................ 65 Additional Recommendations ............................................................................................................ 67 Right‐Of‐Way........................................................................................................................................... 67 Existing Right‐of‐Way .......................................................................................................................... 67 Required Right‐of‐Way ....................................................................................................................... 69 IX. Cost ................................................................................................................................................. 70 X. Agency, Stakeholder and Public Involvement..................................................................................... 74 Technical Advisory Committee ............................................................................................................... 74 Stakeholder Coordination ................................................................................................................... 74 Public Outreach ....................................................................................................................................... 75 Public Meeting ........................................................................................................................................ 76 XI. Planning and Environmental Linkage (PEL) ..................................................................................... 76 List of Figures Figure 1: Study Area ...................................................................................................................................... 2 Figure 2: Existing Number of Lanes............................................................................................................... 6 Figure 3: Posted Speed Limits ....................................................................................................................... 7 Meridian Road Corridor Study: Germann Road to McDowell Boulevard iii October 2013 Meridian Road Corridor Study Figure 4: Existing 2012 Intersection Lane Configuration and Control Type ................................................. 8 Figure 5: Existing FHWA Functional Classification ........................................................................................ 9 Figure 6: Existing Drainage Features ........................................................................................................... 11 Figure 7: Existing Utilities ............................................................................................................................ 15 Figure 8: Existing Land Uses ........................................................................................................................ 18 Figure 9: Existing Land Ownership .............................................................................................................. 20 Figure 10: Future Land Uses ....................................................................................................................... 24 Figure 11: Existing 2012 Average Daily Traffic Volumes ............................................................................. 28 Figure 12: Existing 2012 Turning Movement Volumes ............................................................................... 29 Figure 13: 2012 Average Daily Level of Service .......................................................................................... 31 Figure 14: Existing 2012 Intersection Level of Service ................................................................................ 32 Figure 15: Future 2025 Daily Traffic Volumes ............................................................................................. 35 Figure 16: Future 2035 Daily Traffic Volumes ............................................................................................. 36 Figure 17: Future 2025 Turning Movement Volumes ................................................................................. 37 Figure 18: Future 2035 Turning Movement Volumes ................................................................................. 38 Figure 19: 2025 Average Daily Level of Service .......................................................................................... 40 Figure 20: 2035 Average Daily Level of Service .......................................................................................... 41 Figure 21: 2025 Intersection Lane Configuration ....................................................................................... 43 Figure 22: 2035 Intersection Lane Configuration ....................................................................................... 44 Figure 23: 2025 Intersection Level of Service ............................................................................................. 45 Figure 24: 2035 Intersection Level of Service ............................................................................................. 46 Figure 25: 2025 Recommended Roadway Configuration ........................................................................... 49 Figure 26: 2035 Recommended Roadway Configuration ........................................................................... 50 Figure 27: Conceptual Alternatives for Southern Section of Meridian Road ............................................. 57 Figure 28: Section Line Shift at Baseline Road Alternatives ....................................................................... 58 Figure 29: Ultimate Roadway Cross Section – Southern Avenue to Germann Road .................................. 61 Figure 30: Ultimate Roadway Cross Section – Lost Dutchman Boulevard to Southern Avenue ................ 62 Figure 31: Ultimate Roadway Cross Section – Lost Dutchman Boulevard to McDowell Boulevard........... 62 Figure 32: Interim Cross Section: McDowell Boulevard to Lost Dutchman Boulevard .............................. 63 Figure 33: Interim Cross Section: Lost Dutchman Boulevard to Germann Road ........................................ 63 Figure 34: Interim Cross Section: Southern Avenue to Germann Road ..................................................... 63 List of Tables Table 1: Summary of Collected Documentation ........................................................................................... 5 Table 2: Existing Crossing Facilities within the Study Area ......................................................................... 10 Table 3: Utility Stakeholders within the Meridian Road Corridor .............................................................. 13 Table 4: Project Influence Area Population Projections ............................................................................. 25 Table 5: Level of Service Criteria: Table 6: Level of Service Criteria: .................................................... 26 Table 7: 2012 Average Daily Traffic Volumes ............................................................................................. 27 Table 8: Annual Average Daily Volume Threshold Values for Varies Facility Types ................................... 30 Table 9: 2025 and 2035 Daily Traffic Volumes............................................................................................ 34 Meridian Road Corridor Study: Germann Road to McDowell Boulevard iv October 2013 Meridian Road Corridor Study Table 10: Annual Average Daily Volume Threshold Values for Varies Facility Types ................................. 39 Table 11: 2025 Meridian Road Intersection Lane Configuration Deviations .............................................. 47 Table 12: 2035 Meridian Road Intersection Lane Configuration Deviations .............................................. 48 Table 13: Leaking Underground Storage Tank Locations ........................................................................... 52 Table 14: Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Facilities ....................................................... 53 Table 15: Alternative Screening Results ..................................................................................................... 60 Table 16: Access Control Guidelines per Jurisdiction (for Urban Arterial Roads)....................................... 66 Table 17: Existing Right‐of‐Way .................................................................................................................. 68 Table 18: Right‐of‐Way Requirements........................................................................................................ 69 Table 19: Summary of Corridor Segment Estimates ................................................................................... 70 Table 20: Itemized Cost Estimate for Near‐Term Recommendations ........................................................ 71 Table 21: Itemized Cost Estimate for the Northern Segment under Mid‐Term Recommendations: McDowell Boulevard to Southern Avenue ................................................................................................. 71 Table 22: Itemized Cost Estimate for the Northern Segment under Long‐Term Recommendations: McDowell Boulevard to Southern Avenue ................................................................................................. 72 Table 23: Itemized Cost Estimate for the Preferred Corridor under Mid/Long‐Term Recommendations: Southern Avenue to Germann Road ........................................................................................................... 72 Table 24: Itemized Cost Estimate for the Preferred Corridor under Ultimate Recommendations: Southern Avenue to Germann Road........................................................................................................................... 73 List of Appendices Appendix A Appendix B Appendix C Appendix D Appendix E Appendix F Working Paper #1: Existing and Future Conditions Inventory Working Paper #2: Evaluation Criteria and Plan for Improvements Final Meridian Road Corridor Study Public Involvement Report Sample Memorandum of Understanding Meeting Notes Planning/Environmental Linkages Questionnaire Meridian Road Corridor Study: Germann Road to McDowell Boulevard v October 2013 Meridian Road Corridor Study Executive Summary Introduction The proposed Meridian Road Corridor Study is needed to support the continuing development and growth, occurring and anticipated, in the East Mesa, West Apache Junction, and within Pinal County. Significant growth is anticipated in this region that could result in population growth, economic development, and increased traffic volumes. The purpose of the Meridian Road Corridor Study is to document conditions along the existing roadway and to develop alternatives that will increase the safety and future level of service (LOS) of Meridian Road. This study will also establish a roadway footprint and develop the ultimate right‐of‐way requirement for the corridor. Finally, the study will be utilized as a guide for local agencies and future development along the corridor. The study area for the Meridian Road Corridor Study is approximately 13 miles in length and is generally bounded by Germann Road on the south, McDowell Boulevard on the north, Ironwood Road on the east and Signal Butte Road on the west. Meridian Road is a section line alignment road that is located on the boundary between Pinal County and Maricopa County. The Cities of Apache Junction and Mesa and the Counties of Maricopa and Pinal along with the Town of Queen Creek all control portions of Meridian Road. Although Arizona State Land Department (ASLD) does not control portions of Meridian Road, ASLD does own a majority of the land to the east of Meridian Road, south of Baseline Road. Agency, Stakeholder and Public Involvement A Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) was established to solicit feedback from partnering agencies and key stakeholders at multiple stages of the corridor study. The following agencies are represented on this Committee:             Pinal County City of Apache Junction City of Mesa Central Arizona Governments Maricopa County Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Arizona Department of Transportation Environmental Planning  Maricopa County Flood Control District Town of Queen Creek Maricopa Association of Governments Arizona State Land Department Arizona Department of Transportation, Multimodal Planning Division Arizona Department of Transportation, Communications and Community Partnerships Several TAC meetings were held over the course of the study to discuss general project overview, define the Planning and Environmental Linkages Program, discuss corridor specific issues, present the project schedule and solicit feedback from participating TAC members in regards to Working Paper #1: Existing and Future Conditions Inventory and Working Paper #2: Evaluation Criteria and Plan for Improvements. Representatives from the TAC, Arizona State Land Department, Entellus and LTM Engineering met on a number of occasions to discuss the update to the East Mesa Area Drainage Master Plan (ADMP), along with coordination efforts between the two projects and how both projects will affect ASLD property. Meridian Road Corridor Study: Germann Road to McDowell Boulevard vi October 2013 Meridian Road Corridor Study Consensus was reached that the Meridian Road alignment should be on section line and that the flood control facility (channel) should stay upstream (or east) of the Meridian Road corridor and that the Meridian Road Corridor Study can reference the forthcoming ADMP update to this point. Traffic Analysis The results of the 2025 and 2035 LOS analysis for a roadway segment indicate that most segments of Meridian Road will operate unacceptably as a three‐lane section. By year 2025, it is anticipated that Meridian Road will operate within the threshold of acceptable operations at a LOS of C or better as a two‐lane undivided roadway between McDowell Boulevard and Lost Dutchman Boulevard, as a three‐ lane section south of Lost Dutchman Boulevard to Southern Avenue and as four‐lane divided roadway south of Southern Avenue to Germann Road. By year 2035, it is anticipated that Meridian Road between Lost Dutchman Boulevard to Southern Avenue will need to be improved to a four‐lane divided roadway to operate within the threshold of acceptable operations at a LOS of C or better. Purpose and Need The purpose of this study is to evaluate the growing demands placed on local roads and streets by development in the region. The study will address the transportation planning needs identified by the jurisdictions and more particularly to lead the local jurisdictions to develop consensus on socio‐ economic demographic, modeling forecasts, roadway facility type, number of lanes, and right‐of‐way requirements to guide the future development of the road. The purpose and need of the project is to provide transportation capacity to serve future travel demand needed to support the continuing development and growth, occurring and anticipated, in the East Mesa, West Apache Junction, and within Pinal County. Recommended Alternative The development and evaluation of alternatives were based upon information collected and documented in the Working Papers, jurisdiction design guidelines and criteria, input received from the Meridian Road TAC and input received during the public open houses. Preferred Meridian Road Alignment All three of the build alternatives are anticipated to have similar amount of constructability issues related to traffic control and maintenance of traffic during construction. Minimal environmental issues are anticipated with all the alternatives. Input received on the alternatives from the TAC at the meeting and a subsequent agency meeting with ASLD was generally in favor of the alignment staying on the section line because it resulted in more equitable right‐of‐way takes from property owners and did not place a large burden on State Trust Land. The Meandering Alignment (Alternative 4) was selected as the preferred alternative because it followed the section line for most of its length except the area between Williams Field Road and Pecos Road where the alignment shifted east to avoid impacting existing residential developments. Preferred Section Line Shift Based on the input received from the TAC team and engineering considerations the preferred alternative for the two reverse curve alignments would be the US 60 to Baseline Road Section Line Shift Meridian Road Corridor Study: Germann Road to McDowell Boulevard vii October 2013 Meridian Road Corridor Study Alternative (Alternative B1). While there was no real preferences between the alternatives from the TAC team, both were considered viable alignments, the alignment south of Baseline Road would pass through an area of land subsidence and earth fissures. In addition, consideration has to be given to the provision of a traffic interchange (TI) with US 60. Currently a half‐TI consisting of a partial cloverleaf with ramps to/from the west is proposed. A new study is proposed by ADOT to investigate the provision of additional general purpose lanes along US 60. As part of this study the location of a full interchange will be examined. Preliminary work suggest that the TI will be placed west of the existing Meridian Road bridge and probably line up with the section line south of Baseline Road. Design Features There are four separate jurisdictions within the Meridian Road Corridor, each with their own set of design guidelines. Those jurisdictions are the City of Apache Junction, City of Mesa, Maricopa County and Pinal County. In order to address the needs and purposes of the Meridian Road Corridor Study, a consensus had to be reached between the Local agencies/jurisdictions and private stakeholders regarding the preferred interim and ultimate facility type and access control design elements. At this time the local agencies have not determined which of them will have the ultimate responsibility for what segments of Meridian Road. When that decision is made, and when the road is improved, the lead agencies design standards will govern the development of the roadway. Until that time, the agencies generally agree to the guidelines presented in the typical cross sections below. Figure ES‐1: Ultimate Roadway Cross Section – Southern Avenue to Germann Road Figure ES‐2: Ultimate Roadway Cross Section – Lost Dutchman Boulevard to Southern Avenue Meridian Road Corridor Study: Germann Road to McDowell Boulevard viii October 2013 Meridian Road Corridor Study Figure ES‐3: Ultimate Roadway Cross Section – Lost Dutchman Boulevard to McDowell Boulevard Phased Construction Near‐Term Improvement Recommendations Based on the traffic analysis results and the projected development patterns, the following improvements are either programmed or recommended for the near‐term (by 2017), although the timing of these improvements will be dependent on the surrounding area development:    The US 60/Meridian Road Traffic Interchange is programmed to be constructed by 2017; The Southern Avenue/Meridian Road intersection is programmed to be signalized by 2017 and widened to accommodate a left‐turn lane and a shared through/right‐turn lane in each direction; and By 2017, Meridian Road is recommended to be extended from Baseline Road to Elliot Road with intersection improvements at Baseline Road, Guadalupe Road and Elliot Road to improve connectivity within the corridor with the addition of programmed improvements. Mid‐Term Improvement Recommendations Based on the development pattern projected by the Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG), the following improvements are anticipated to occur in the mid‐term (2017‐2025), although the timing of these improvements will be dependent on the surrounding area development:    Meridian Road is anticipated to be widened to a three‐lane roadway from Lost Dutchman Boulevard to Southern Avenue; Meridian Road is anticipated to be widened to a four‐lane divided roadway from Southern Avenue to Elliot Road; and Meridian Road is anticipated to be extended from Warner Road to Germann Road as a four‐lane divided roadway by 2025 including constructing Meridian Road intersections with Ray Road, Williams Field Road, Pecos Road and Germann Road as well as the SR 24/Meridian Road Traffic Interchange. With the gaps that currently exist in Meridian Road likely to be filled during the mid‐term timeframe, this will result in a continuous arterial with freeway access to US 60. These improvements are Meridian Road Corridor Study: Germann Road to McDowell Boulevard ix October 2013 Meridian Road Corridor Study anticipated to significantly alter traffic volumes on Meridian Road as well as along some of the adjacent parallel arterials, such as Ironwood Road. Long‐Term Improvement Recommendations Based on the development pattern projected by MAG, the following improvements are anticipated to occur in the mid‐term (2025‐2035), although the timing of these improvements will be dependent on the surrounding area development:   Meridian Road is anticipated to be widened to a four‐lane roadway from Lost Dutchman Boulevard to Southern Avenue; and The SR 24/Meridian Road Traffic Interchange is anticipated to be constructed by 2035. Ultimate Improvement Recommendations The following improvement is anticipated to occur in the ultimate condition (beyond 2035), although the timing of these improvements will be dependent on the surrounding area development:  Meridian Road is anticipated to be widened to the full six‐lane cross‐section between Southern Avenue and Germann Road. Cost Preliminary cost estimates for roadway construction and right‐of‐way acquisition were prepared for the corridor alternatives. Table ES‐1 presents the order of magnitude cost estimate for the northern section of the corridor plus the alternatives for the southern section of the corridor. Detailed estimates for the corridor alternative may be found in Working Paper #2: Evaluation Criteria and Plan for Improvements. Table ES‐1: Summary of Corridor Segment Estimates Southern Section Alternatives Northern Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Phased Construction Section Near‐Term $ ‐ $ ‐ $5,210,947 $5,210,947 $5,210,947 Mid/Long‐Term $20,344,040 $ ‐ $25,613,040 $28,956,720 $25,613,040 Ultimate $ ‐ $ ‐ $11,394,480 $12,524,640 $11,394,480 Total Cost (Northern plus Southern) $ ‐ $62,562,507 $67,036,347 $62,562,507 Table ES‐2 presents the itemized cost estimate for the near‐term improvements of the Meridian Road Corridor. Table ES‐3 and Table ES‐4 presents the itemized cost estimate for the northern segment of the Meridian Road Corridor between McDowell Boulevard and Southern Avenue for under the mid‐term and long‐term recommendations, respectively. Table ES‐5 and Table ES‐6 present the itemized cost estimate for the southern segment’s preferred Meridian Road Corridor between Southern Avenue and Germann Road under the mid/long‐term and ultimate recommendations, respectively. Meridian Road Corridor Study: Germann Road to McDowell Boulevard x October 2013 Meridian Road Corridor Study Table ES‐2: Itemized Cost Estimate for Near‐Term Recommendations Item ‐ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Item Description Unit (Segment Length) MILES New Pavement SY Earthwork LSUM Drainage LSUM Structures LSUM Maintenance of Traffic LSUM Lighting LSUM Signing/Signals LSUM Utilities LSUM Incidental Work LSUM Total Construction Cost = ROW Acquisition ACRE Design & Construction Management LSUM Contingency LSUM Order of Magnitude Project Cost = Unit Price ‐ $32.00 N/A N/A $500,000.00 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Quantity 2 46934 25% of Item 1 15% of Item 1 0 $ 10% of Items 1‐3 5% of Items 1‐3 15% of Items 1‐3 5% of Items 1‐3 15% of Items 1‐3 $20,000.00 N/A N/A 16 25% of Item 1‐10 25% of Item 1‐10 Total ‐ $1,501,888 $375,472 $225,283 ‐ $210,264 $105,132 $315,396 $105,132 $315,396 $3,153,965 $320,000 $868,491 $868,491 $5,210,947 *Cost excludes Meridian Road TI and Southern Avenue intersection improvements Table ES‐3: Itemized Cost Estimate for the Northern Segment under Mid‐Term Recommendations: McDowell Boulevard to Southern Avenue Item ‐ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Item Description Unit (Segment Length) MILES New Pavement SY Earthwork LSUM Drainage LSUM Structures LSUM Maintenance of Traffic LSUM Lighting LSUM Signing/Signals LSUM Utilities LSUM Incidental Work LSUM Total Construction Cost = ROW Acquisition ACRE Design & Construction Management LSUM Contingency LSUM Order of Magnitude Project Cost = Meridian Road Corridor Study: Germann Road to McDowell Boulevard xi Unit Price ‐ $32.00 N/A N/A $500,000.00 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Quantity 5.5 129067 5% of Item 1 15% of Item 1 0 $ 10% of Items 1‐3 1% of Items 1‐3 10% of Items 1‐3 15% of Items 1‐3 15% of Items 1‐3 $20,000.00 N/A N/A 25 25% of Item 1‐10 25% of Item 1‐10 Total ‐ $4,130,144 $206,507 $619,522 ‐ $495,617 $49,562 $495,617 $743,426 $743,426 $7,483,821 $500,000 $1,995,955 $1,995,955 $11,975,731 October 2013 Meridian Road Corridor Study Table ES‐4: Itemized Cost Estimate for the Northern Segment under Long‐Term Recommendations: McDowell Boulevard to Southern Avenue Item ‐ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Item Description Unit (Segment Length) MILES New Pavement SY Earthwork LSUM Drainage LSUM Structures LSUM Maintenance of Traffic LSUM Lighting LSUM Signing/Signals LSUM Utilities LSUM Incidental Work LSUM Total Construction Cost = ROW Acquisition ACRE Design & Construction Management LSUM Contingency LSUM Order of Magnitude Project Cost = Unit Price ‐ $32.00 N/A N/A $500,000.00 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Quantity 5.5 96214 5% of Item 1 15% of Item 1 0 $ 10% of Items 1‐3 1% of Items 1‐3 10% of Items 1‐3 15% of Items 1‐3 15% of Items 1‐3 $20,000.00 N/A N/A 0 $ 25% of Item 1‐10 25% of Item 1‐10 Total ‐ $3,078,848 $153,942 $461,827 ‐ $369,462 $36,946 $369,462 $554,193 $554,193 $5,578,873 ‐ $1,394,718 $1,394,718 $8,368,309 Table ES‐5: Itemized Cost Estimate for the Preferred Corridor under Mid/Long‐Term Recommendations: Southern Avenue to Germann Road Item ‐ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Item Description Unit (Segment Length) MILES New Pavement SY Earthwork LSUM Drainage LSUM Structures LSUM Maintenance of Traffic LSUM Lighting LSUM Signing/Signals LSUM Utilities LSUM Incidental Work LSUM Total Construction Cost = ROW Acquisition ACRE Design & Construction Management LSUM Contingency LSUM Order of Magnitude Project Cost = Meridian Road Corridor Study: Germann Road to McDowell Boulevard xii Unit Price ‐ $32.00 N/A N/A $500,000.00 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Quantity 7.5 228800 25% of Item 1 15% of Item 1 1 10% of Items 1‐3 5% of Items 1‐3 15% of Items 1‐3 5% of Items 1‐3 15% of Items 1‐3 $20,000.00 N/A N/A 60 25% of Item 1‐10 25% of Item 1‐10 Total ‐ $7,321,600 $1,830,400 $1,098,240 $500,000 $1,025,024 $512,512 $1,537,536 $512,512 $1,537,536 $15,875,360 $1,200,000 $4,268,840 $4,268,840 $25,613,040 October 2013 Meridian Road Corridor Study Table ES‐6: Itemized Cost Estimate for the Preferred Corridor under Ultimate Recommendations: Southern Avenue to Germann Road Item ‐ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Item Description Unit (Segment Length) MILES New Pavement SY Earthwork LSUM Drainage LSUM Structures LSUM Maintenance of Traffic LSUM Lighting LSUM Signing/Signals LSUM Utilities LSUM Incidental Work LSUM Total Construction Cost = ROW Acquisition ACRE Design & Construction Management LSUM Contingency LSUM Order of Magnitude Project Cost = Meridian Road Corridor Study: Germann Road to McDowell Boulevard xiii Unit Price ‐ $32.00 N/A N/A $500,000.00 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Quantity 7.5 105600 25% of Item 1 15% of Item 1 1 10% of Items 1‐3 5% of Items 1‐3 15% of Items 1‐3 5% of Items 1‐3 15% of Items 1‐3 $20,000.00 N/A N/A 0 $ 25% of Item 1‐10 25% of Item 1‐10 Total ‐ $3,379,200 $844,800 $506,880 $500,000 $473,088 $236,544 $709,632 $236,544 $709,632 $7,596,320 ‐ $1,899,080 $1,899,080 $11,394,480 October 2013 Meridian Road Corridor Study I. Introduction Project Overview Continued development along the Meridian Road corridor will lead to significant traffic increases in the future. Currently, there are only two north‐south roadways that connect US 60 to Hunt Highway. The closest through route is Ironwood Drive, one mile east of Meridian Road. The other through route, Ellsworth Road, is three miles west. If either of these roads becomes obstructed, significant traffic delays will occur because no intermediate thoroughfare exists. Meridian Road has been identified in the long range transportation plans of all local agencies plus the Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG). The principal focus of the Meridian Road Corridor Study is to address the transportation planning needs identified by the jurisdictions and more particularly to lead the local jurisdictions to develop consensus on facility type, number of lanes and right‐of‐way requirements to guide the future development of the road. This could be memorialized through an intergovernmental agreement or a memorandum of understanding. Study Area The study area for the Meridian Road Corridor Study is approximately 13 miles in length and is generally bounded by Germann Road on the south, McDowell Boulevard on the north, Ironwood Road on the east and Signal Butte Road on the west. Meridian Road is a section line alignment road that is located on the boundary between Pinal County and Maricopa County. The Cities of Apache Junction and Mesa and the Counties of Maricopa and Pinal along with the Town of Queen Creek all control portions of Meridian Road. Although Arizona State Land Department (ASLD) does not control portions of Meridian Road, ASLD does own a majority of the land to the east of Meridian Road, south of Baseline Road. Currently, Meridian Road is a discontinuous road within the study area. Meridian Road is a paved two‐lane roadway from McDowell Boulevard to Baseline Road and between a half mile north of Elliot Road and a half mile south of Warner Road. The remaining segments of Meridian Road within the study area are a discontinuous dirt road. The study area is depicted in Figure 1. Meridian Road Corridor Study: Germann Road to McDowell Boulevard 1 October 2013 Meridian Road Corridor Study Figure 1: Study Area Meridian Road Corridor Study: Germann Road to McDowell Boulevard 2 October 2013 Meridian Road Corridor Study Study Objectives The purpose of the Meridian Road Corridor Study is to document conditions along the existing roadway and to develop alternatives that will increase the safety and future level of service (LOS) of Meridian Road. This study will also establish a roadway footprint and develop the ultimate right‐of‐way requirement for the corridor. Finally, the study will be utilized as a guide for local agencies and future development along the corridor. In order to address the needs and purposes of the Meridian Road Corridor Study a number of goals and objectives were agreed to with Stakeholders during the kick‐off meeting. These goals and objectives area as follows:        Identify and address planning level issues prior to the initiation programming and engineering design. Evaluate the future transportation needs of the corridor and identify the facility type, and the number of interim and ultimate lanes. Develop an implementation plan to bring about the recommended improvements, while acknowledging the need for sufficient flexibility to adapt to future changes. Identify and evaluate a preferred alignment within the southern portion of the corridor. Determine the required right‐of‐way requirements for the corridor To establish a consensus among the local agencies/jurisdictions and private stakeholders regarding the preferred interim and ultimate facility type, and access control design elements for the corridor. Document the preferred facility location/concept alternatives and provide the necessary planning input to enable ADOT and the local agencies to move forward in the design and environmental process. Vision and Goals The proposed project is needed to support the continuing development and growth, occurring and anticipated, in the East Mesa, West Apache Junction, and within Pinal County. Significant growth is anticipated in this region that could result in population growth, economic development, and increased traffic volumes. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the growing demands placed on local roads and streets by development in the region. The study will address the transportation planning needs identified by the jurisdictions and more particularly to lead the local jurisdictions to develop consensus on socio‐economic demographic, modeling forecasts, roadway facility type, number of lanes, and right‐ of‐way requirements to guide the future development of the road. The study will also include roadway improvement phasing plans, cost estimates and implementation plans. Additionally, the study will examine multimodal opportunities necessary to accommodate growth and development, such as, bicycle and pedestrian needs. Meridian Road Corridor Study: Germann Road to McDowell Boulevard 3 October 2013 Meridian Road Corridor Study II. Existing Corridor Features This section provides an overview of existing corridor features for the Meridian Road Corridor study area as documented in available plans, reports, and studies. Additional information is available in Working Paper #1: Existing and Future Conditions Inventory. Summary of Existing Plans and Studies Related plans, reports and studies completed during the last 10 years were collected to compile available information and data pertinent to the Meridian Road Corridor Study. The purpose of this review is to gain an understanding of current issues and future plans within the study area. This chapter summarizes the available relevant information on existing and future conditions as contained in the plans, reports and studies collected. Table 1 provides a listing of the reports and studies that were obtained and reviewed as part of the Meridian Road Corridor Study including document type, date completed, and agency/jurisdiction. Meridian Road Corridor Study: Germann Road to McDowell Boulevard 4 October 2013 Meridian Road Corridor Study Table 1: Summary of Collected Documentation Doc. Type Report Report Report Jurisdiction Agency Arizona Department of Transportation, City of Apache Junction Arizona Department of Transportation, City of Apache Junction Arizona Department of Transportation Author/Originator Jacobs Jacobs HDR Engineering, Inc. Report Arizona Department of Transportation N/A PARA Study Application Arizona Department of Transportation Pinal County Report Arizona Department of Transportation Report Arizona State Land Department Exhibit Arizona State Land Department Report Arizona State Land Department Memorandum Arizona State Land Department Report Arizona State Land Department White Paper N/A White Paper N/A White Paper N/A Report City of Mesa Report Plans Plans City of Mesa Flood Control District of Maricopa County; City of Mesa Flood Control District of Maricopa County; City of Mesa Plans Maricopa County Department of Transportation Book of Summaries Maricopa County Department of Transportation Report Memorandum of Understanding Maricopa County Department of Transportation Maricopa County Department of Transportation, City of Mesa Report Maricopa County Department of Transportation Report Maricopa County Department of Transportation Report Pinal County Report Pinal County Report Pinal County Report Pinal County Report Town of Queen Creek Document Title Apache Junction Transit Feasiblity Study Update Apache Junction Comprehensive Transportation Study North‐South Corridor Study Draft Purpose and Need Germann Road Corridor Improvement Study Power Road to Ironwood Road A Planning Assistance for Rural Areas Study Phase I Public Involvement Report Date Jun‐12 May‐12 Dec‐11 Meridian Road Corridor Study Aug‐11 Dec‐11 State Route 802, Williams Gateway Freeway Final Apr‐11 N/A Environmental Assessment and Appendices Robert Grow Consulting Superstition Vistas: Final Report and Strategic Actions Spring 2011 Pinal County (Superstition Vistas) Proposed Comprehensive May‐11 N/A Plan Amendment Jackie Guthrie & Superstition Vistas: Pinal County Comprehensive Plan Jun‐11 Associates Amendment Underlying Assumptions and Argument in Support of Robert Charles Lesser & Household and Employment Growth Projections for May‐09 Company, Inc. Superstition Vistas Arizona State Trust Land Superstition Vistas: Environmental Armature Concept Robert Grow Consulting Apr‐09 Summary EDAW Inc. Superstition Vistas Water Strategy White Paper Apr‐09 Kimley‐Horn and Superstition Vistas Transportation Planning White Paper N/A Associates, Inc. Superstition Vistas White Paper: Land Use Scenario Fregonese Associates Mar‐09 Development Mesa Gateway Strategic Development Plan: Transportation Jan‐09 HDR Engineering, Inc. Analysis Memorandum N/A City of Mesa Transportation Plan Jun‐02 Stanley Consultants, Inc. Siphon Draw Improvements Phase 2 Apr‐09 Stanley Consultants, Inc. Siphon Draw Improvements Phase 1 Jan‐09 YSMA Transportation Intersection Improvements of Southern Avenue and Meridian Jul‐11 Engineering Solutions Road 2010 Maricopa County Department of Transportation N/A Jan‐11 Corridor Studies Book of Summaries Signal Butte Corridor Improvement Study: US 60 to EPS Group, Inc. Dec‐09 Rittenhouse Road Memorandum of Understanding Between Maricopa County and the City of Mesa for Plan Review, Plan Approval, Permitting, Inspection, Construction, Annexation, Operation N/A Aug‐08 and Maintenance of Elliot Road from Power Road to Meridian Road Kimley‐Horn and Elliot Road Corridor Improvement Study: Power Road to the Jun‐08 Associates, Inc. Central Arizona Project Canal Meridian Road Access Control and Corridor Improvement Jan‐06 URS Study Nygaard/Nelson Pinal County Transit Feasibility Study Final Report Apr‐11 Consulting Associates Lima & Associates Regionally Significant Routes for Safety and Mobility Dec‐08 Kirkham Michael Pinal County Small Area Transportation Study Final Report Aug‐06 Consulting Engineers Kirkham Michael Pinal County Small Area Transportation Study Final Transit Aug‐06 Consulting Engineers Element Report Cambridge Systematics, Queen Creek Small Area Transportation Study May‐07 Inc. Existing Network and Classification A field review was conducted to inventory the existing number of lanes, posted speed limits, intersection lane configurations and traffic control type. The resulting information is depicted in Figure 2, Figure 3 and Figure 4 respectively. Functional classification is the grouping of streets and highways into classes according to the character of service in which they are intended to provide. Figure 5 depicts the current FHWA approved functional classification for roadways within the study area. Meridian Road Corridor Study: Germann Road to McDowell Boulevard 5 October 2013 Meridian Road Corridor Study Figure 2: Existing Number of Lanes Meridian Road Corridor Study: Germann Road to McDowell Boulevard 6 October 2013 Meridian Road Corridor Study Figure 3: Posted Speed Limits Meridian Road Corridor Study: Germann Road to McDowell Boulevard 7 October 2013 Meridian Road Corridor Study Figure 5: Existing FHWA Functional Classification Meridian Road Corridor Study: Germann Road to McDowell Boulevard 9 October 2013 Meridian Road Corridor Study Existing Features The following sections summarize an inventory of existing features within the study area. Additional information is available in Working Paper #1: Existing and Future Conditions Inventory. Drainage Existing drainage features within the study corridor include several watersheds, floodplain, washes, flood control projects, bridges, culverts, low water crossings and the Central Arizona Project (CAP) Canal which crosses at US 60. Runnoff throughout the area generally flows from northeast to southwest. Meridian Road, from McDowell Boulevard south, is generally the boundary between Maricopa County and Pinal County. Watershed runoff that originates in Pinal County flows into Maricopa County, crossing Meridian Road. All existing flood control projects along the Meridian Road project corridor belong to the Flood Control District of Maricopa County (FCDMC), with intent to mitigate flooding impacts of upstream watersheds on Maricopa County property. Figure 6 shows all existing crossing facilities within the project corridor. These crossings are identified in Table 2 and include three FCDMC Projects: Signal Butte Flood Retarding Structure (FRS) and Floodway, the Siphon Draw Drainage improvements, and the Powerline FRS and Floodway. Table 2: Existing Crossing Facilities within the Study Area Crossing No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Structure 18" RCP 3‐8' x 4' RCBC's Low Water Crossing Bridge (50' x 8.5') 4‐48" CMP's 2‐40" x 30" CMP Squash 24" RCP 10' x 3' RCBC Low WaterCcrossing Low Water Crossing 18" CMP Low Water Crossing Bridge 2‐10' x 4' RCBC's 10' x 3' RCBC 2‐24" RCP's 2‐10' x 4' RCBC's 4‐10' x 4' RCBC's Bridge Low Water Crossing 36" RCP Diversion Dike Meridian Road Corridor Study: Germann Road to McDowell Boulevard Description Location existing cross‐drainage existing cross‐drainage existing cross‐drainage Signal Butte FRS & Floodway existing cross‐drainage existing cross‐drainage existing cross‐drainage existing cross‐drainage existing cross‐drainage existing cross‐drainage existing cross‐drainage existing cross‐drainage CAP Canal Siphon Draw Drainage Improvements existing cross‐drainage existing cross‐drainage existing cross‐drainage existing cross‐drainage Powerline FRS & Floodway existing cross‐drainage existing cross‐drainage existing cross‐drainage 0.2 miles south of McDowell Blvd. 0.1 miles north of Whiteley St. 0.2 miles south of McKellips Blvd. Flood Control Project: 0.43 miles south of McKellips Blvd. 0.3 miles north of Brown Rd. @ Foothill St. Manzanita St. 0.04 miles north of Greasewood St. channel between Happy Days Park and D Ave A Ave Median of Main St./ Apache Trail 0.2 miles north of US 60 US 60 Flood Control Project: 0.07 miles north of Pronghorn Ave. 0.01 miles north of Pronghorn Ave. 0.05 miles south of Pronghorn Ave. 0.04 miles south of Mesquite St. 0.09 miles south of Segura Ave. Flood Control Project: 0.11 miles south of Segura Ave. 0.23 miles south of Starfire Ave. 0.09 miles north of Ray Rd. 0.46 miles south of Pecos Rd. 10 October 2013 Meridian Road Corridor Study Figure 6: Existing Drainage Features Meridian Road Corridor Study: Germann Road to McDowell Boulevard 11 October 2013 Meridian Road Corridor Study Area Drainage Master Plan The purpose of an Area Drainage Master Plan (ADMP) is to identify existing flood‐prone areas as well as projections of future conditions. Several existing and proposed detention basins, cross culverts, and collector channels identified in the East Mesa ADMP directly impact the Meridian Road corridor and are summarized below: Signal Butte: Signal Butte Flood Retarding Structure (FRS) is an earth‐fill dam with a geo‐membrane which is part of the Buckhorn‐Mesa system. The Signal Butte FRS is 1.3 miles in length and has a height of 39 feet, with a storage capacity of 1,620‐acre feet. It is situated 100 feet to the west of Meridian Road north of Brown Road/Lost Dutchman Boulevard. Any impact to the geo‐membrane would be a fatal flaw for the Flood Control District. There is a maintenance road running alongside the dam which would need to be maintained at all times if Meridian Road is constructed or reconstructed. Any impact to the dam would require the involvement of Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWP) and National Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) as well as the Flood Control District of Maricopa County. Bulldog Floodway: Part of the Signal Butte FRS, the channel crosses Meridian Road approximately a half mile north of Brown Road/Lost Dutchman Boulevard. The flow in this channel is not supercritical which would allow for the placement of new piers if the new structure was required to carry Meridian Road over the floodway. Access to the floodway is from Meridian Road which would need to be maintained at all times during any construction or reconstruction of Meridian Road. Sunland Springs Channel and Siphon Draw Detention Basin: The Siphon Draw Detention Basin is located east of Meridian Road in Pinal County and north of the Elliot Road alignment. The Sunland Springs Channel follows the Meridian Road alignment north of the Siphon Draw Basin. These facilities convey runoff reaching the site from two the CAP over chutes and intercepst runoff at the Pinal County line (Meridian Road alignment). The Siphon Draw Detention Basin collects channelized runoff and runoff from Siphon Draw and attenuates flows to allow a reduction in the size of downstream improvements. The Sunland Springs Channel which runs along the east side of Meridian Road is a concrete lined channel with eight drop structures extending 6,800 feet north of the Siphon Draw Basin. The channel acts as a flow‐by system that discharges excess flows into the basin through a side channel spillway. The Siphon Draw Basin collects the overflow from the Sunland Springs Channel and from two additional locations. Powerline Floodway: Powerline Flood Retarding Structure (FRS) is the northern‐most of a system of three flood control structures (Powerline FRS, Vineyard Road FRS and Rittenhouse FRS) running parallel to the CAP between the Baseline Road and Ocotillo Road alignments in Pinal County. Despite being located in Pinal County, the structures primarily provide flood protection for downstream portions of Maricopa County. Powerline FRS conveys storm water runoff to the Powerline Floodway which crosses Meridian Road a half mile south of Warner Road and outfalls at the East Maricopa Floodway. No structural impacts will be permitted to the Floodway. Any new bridge will require a clear span in order not to affect the Meridian Road Corridor Study: Germann Road to McDowell Boulevard 12 October 2013 Meridian Road Corridor Study supercritical flow in the channel. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NCRS) will need to permit any construction impacts to the Floodway. Utilities Arizona Blue Stake was contacted to identify the utility stakeholders within one mile either side of the study area. Figure 7 illustrates the existing utilities within the study area. Table 3 contains a list of the utility owners and utility types identified by Blue Stake within the study area. Table 3: Utility Stakeholders within the Meridian Road Corridor Utility Company Type of Facility Salt River Project (SRP) Century Link Cox Communication Southwest Gas Media Com Arizona Water Company Central Arizona Canal (CAP) AT&T City of Mesa Utilities Communication, Electrical, Irrigation Coaxial, Fiber Optic CATV, Fiber Optic Gas CATV Water Irrigation Fiber Optic Gas, Water The utility stakeholders identified by Blue Stake were contacted to determine what facilities are within in the project study area and to request mapping. The following provides descriptions of the existing utilities within the Meridian Road corridor by utility stakeholder. Overhead Electric: SRP overhead electric lines exist for the majority of the alignment of Meridian Road along the east side of the right‐of‐way. In addition, there are 500kV overhead electric transmission lines crossing Meridian Road diagonally just south of the Powerline Floodway and between Elliot Road and Guadalupe Road. 69kV overhead electricity lines cross Meridian Road at Southern Avenue, University Drive/Superstition Boulevard and just north of Brown Road/Lost Dutchman Boulevard. Finally, a pair of 230 KV lines paralleling the 69kV line also crosses Meridian Road just north of Brown Road. Underground Electric: SRP underground electric lines exist in the vicinity of the new subdivisions along Meridian Road from half mile north of Elliot Road to one mile south of Elliot Road. Irrigation: The CAP canal crosses Meridian Road at the US 60 overpass. Potable Water: Arizona Water Company has numerous facilities in Meridian Road from Southern Avenue north to McDowell Boulevard. The City of Mesa operates a potable water system along Meridian Road. These facilities consist of a pipeline ranging from 12 inches to 20 inches in diameter extending from half mile north of Elliot Road to Warner Road and a pipeline ranging from 12 inches to 16 inches extending from Pecos Road to Germann Road. In addition, there are two City of Mesa well sites along Meridian Meridian Road Corridor Study: Germann Road to McDowell Boulevard 13 October 2013 Meridian Road Corridor Study Road located at the northwest corner of Germann Road and Meridian Road and at half mile south of Pecos Road on the west side of Meridian Road. Natural Gas: The City of Mesa operates natural gas facilities in the corridor including a 4‐inch pipeline extending in Meridian Road from Germann Road south to Queen Creek Road. Sanitary Sewer: North of US 60 there are sanitary sewers located both under Meridian Road and crossing at major intersections within the study area. Telephone: Both CenturyLink and Cox Communication have facilities along Meridian Road between Ocotillo Road and Lenora Road and from Rittenhouse Road to Empire Boulevard. Cable TV: Cox Cable has facilities along Meridian Road in the vicinity of the new subdivisions on the west side of Meridian Road between half mile north of Elliot Road and one mile south of Elliot Road. Media Com has facilities along Meridian Road north of US 60. Meridian Road Corridor Study: Germann Road to McDowell Boulevard 14 October 2013 Meridian Road Corridor Study Figure 7: Existing Utilities Meridian Road Corridor Study: Germann Road to McDowell Boulevard 15 October 2013 Meridian Road Corridor Study Pavement Maricopa County Department of Transportation (MCDOT) operates a Pavement Management Program which provides a systematic process to plan pavement preservation activities. The program provides, analyzes and summarizes roadway and pavement information in order to identify optimum strategies and select cost‐effective pavement preservation methods. MCDOT Operations uses three categories to evaluate the roadway. The first category is the pavement condition rating (PCR) which rates the condition of the pavement by measuring the physical distresses in the pavement such as cracking and potholes. The next rating category is the international roughness index (IRI), which measures the roughness of the pavement surface. The final rating is the Sufficiency Rating. This rating is based on six different types of geometric distress which are inventoried for safety. These distresses are: lane width, shoulder width, bottlenecks, drainage, and horizontal and vertical sight distance. The average PCR for county roads in Maricopa County is a very good rating at 82.61. The average PCR for Meridian Road from Warner Road to McDowell Boulevard is a good rating at 62.00. The average roughness of the county roads in Maricopa County is 163.09, which is rated as average. The average IRI rating for Meridian Road between Warner Road and McDowell Boulevard is 235, which is rated as very rough. A sufficiency rating number between 0 and 100 is determined for each section of road with 100 being the best. If the rating is less than 35, the roadway is programmed for re‐construction. The average sufficiency rating for Meridian Road between Warner Road to McDowell Boulevard is 90. Additional information on the current pavement conditions per segment of the Meridian Road Corridor is available in Working Paper #1: Existing and Future Conditions Inventory. Existing Land Use The following sections summarize an inventory of existing land uses within the study area. Additional information is available in Working Paper #1: Existing and Future Conditions Inventory. Jurisdictions The study area is segmented into five separate jurisdictions (City of Apache Junction, City of Mesa, Town of Queen Creek, Pinal County and Maricopa County) that control development through their own adopted general/comprehensive plans, zoning ordinances, and subdivision regulations. Land Use From McDowell Boulevard to Southern Avenue the primary land use is low to medium density residential with pockets of commercial. The residential is characterized by a number of RV parks such as El Dorado Mobile Home Resort and Coral Sand RV Park. Southern Avenue to Baseline Road land use patterns include primarily rural‐residential with small parcels of commercial, industrial and low density residential. A small pocket of fabrication and heavy equipment manufacturing uses is located among other commercial and industrial operations south of Baseline Road. Further south the existing land use pattern within the study area primarily reflects the rural residential and agricultural themes that have existed in the region for decades. The eastern half of the study area is occupied largely by agricultural uses and large‐lot, single‐family homes such as Sunland Springs Subdivision, Bella Via and Superstition View Ranchettes. Currently undeveloped rural land platted for future development is located to the Meridian Road Corridor Study: Germann Road to McDowell Boulevard 16 October 2013 Meridian Road Corridor Study west of Meridian Road. The residential developments located to the north typically exhibit smaller lot sizes (approximately six units to the acre) than those located to the south. Several industrial employment areas are located in south Mesa and east Queen Creek. Specifically, the Landstar Polymer plant, located at the northwest corner of the intersection of Meridian and Pecos roads, is a rubber recycling facility currently under development that is expected to be a cornerstone of the Meridian Business Park in Mesa. Similar uses nearby include TRW Safety Systems, which manufactures automobile airbags, and the Arch Chemical semiconductor chemical manufacturing plant. Figure 8 shows the existing land uses within the study corridor. Zoning The existing zoning districts utilized by the City of Mesa, City of Apache Junction, Maricopa County and Pinal County that fall within the study area have been collapsed into five general categories to illustrate a consistent pattern of zoning among differing county and city/town designations. The majority of the planning area is primarily occupied by single‐family residential, agricultural, and farming‐related uses. The majority of the northern portion of the study area from Southern Avenue to University Drive/Superstition Boulevard, is zoned for medium density single‐family homes. In addition there are several isolated areas of community commercial mainly at the corners of the major arterial intersections. North of University Drive/Superstition Boulevard, the zoning changes to low density residential with large areas of park and open space notably Usery Mountain Regional Park and the Tonto National Forest. Between Southern Avenue and Baseline Road, the zoning is categorized as light industry/ Business Park. South of Baseline Road most of the corridor has been designated as low to medium density single‐family residential. Small islands of light industrial zoning exist just north of Guadalupe Road on the east side of Meridian Road and again on the west side around Pecos Road and Germann Road. Meridian Road Corridor Study: Germann Road to McDowell Boulevard 17 October 2013 Meridian Road Corridor Study Figure 8: Existing Land Uses Meridian Road Corridor Study: Germann Road to McDowell Boulevard 18 October 2013 Meridian Road Corridor Study Ownership The study area contains property within portions of unincorporated Pinal and Maricopa Counties as well as substantial land areas currently incorporated into the communities of Mesa, and Apache Junction. The City of Mesa’s land occupies a majority of the western portion of the corridor. To the east, the land is occupied by the City of Apache Junction north of Elliot Road and by Unincorporated Pinal County to the south. Private entities own a majority of the land within the study area. The only exception to this trend exists on the west side of the study area bordered by Baseline Road to the south and Southern Avenue to the north. At this location, Arizona State Trust land and the Bureau of Reclamation, which operates the CAP canal, are the property owners. On the east side of the study area, in Pinal County from Baseline Road to Germann Road, nearly all of the study area is held as Arizona State Trust land in both unincorporated Pinal County and the City of Apache Junction. Figure 9 shows the land ownership within the study area. Meridian Road Corridor Study: Germann Road to McDowell Boulevard 19 October 2013 Meridian Road Corridor Study Figure 9: Existing Land Ownership Meridian Road Corridor Study: Germann Road to McDowell Boulevard 20 October 2013 Meridian Road Corridor Study III. Future Corridor Features The following sections summarize an inventory of future conditions within the study area. Additional information is available in Working Paper #1: Existing and Future Conditions Inventory. Socioeconomic Planned Land Use Located between Meridian Road and Signal Butte Road in Mesa is the Master Planned Community of Bell Via, which incorporates a mix of residential densities ranging from four to six units to the acre. The Portalis development (formerly Lost Dutchman Heights) is 7,700 acres of State Trust Land set to be developed as a master planned community. It is estimated that full build out will be 2045 with 39,000 units of future residential development and a population of 90,000 residents, 6‐8 million square feet of future commercial building development and 250+/‐ acres of light industrial/business park development with 24,000 employees. Superstition Vistas includes 175,000 acres of raw desert land held in trust by the Arizona State Land Department situated east of Meridian Road and extending to US 60. The area is designed as an integrated master planned community featuring housing, employment centers and interconnected transportation system. Though the region would benefit from Superstition Vistas’ capacity to handle future growth, the extent of development of Superstition Vistas depends immediately on State Trust Land policy and actions and the delivery of adequate infrastructure. Without adequate transportation infrastructure the growth of Superstition Vistas will stall. Economic development is necessary for Superstition Vistas’ future growth, though the degree to which this area can reach its economic development potential will depend on adequate transportation infrastructure. Depending on future growth rates the estimated population will be between 250,000 and 1 million. Future Land Development Future growth along and within the study area is expected to respond to three key development related influences. Most prominently in Mesa is the conversion of the Phoenix‐Mesa Gateway Airport from a general aviation airport to a reliever commercial facility for Sky Harbor International Airport in Phoenix. This has triggered further significant commercial and residential expansion not only for the southeast valley, but northern Pinal County as well. Complementing the transition and development of this aviation facility is the construction of the SR 24 Gateway Freeway. This limited access roadway is expected to accommodate new residential growth in the southeast valley and to generate substantial commercial, office, and industrial opportunities at its intersection with primary arterial roadways in the area. General Motors (GM) operated a 5,000‐acre proving ground and research facility. Closure of the proving grounds operations will lead to redevelopment and disposition of this property in various configurations that include both residential and employment opportunities. The Mesa Gateway Strategic Development Plan shows blended residential along with medium‐high density residential and urban centers at strategic node points within the research facility. Furthermore, Mesa’s adopted General Plan also identifies a substantial amount of land for light and general industrial development. This is in response to the expansion of services at Phoenix‐Mesa Gateway Airport and reflects the anticipated employment development within this region. Meridian Road Corridor Study: Germann Road to McDowell Boulevard 21 October 2013 Meridian Road Corridor Study On the east side of the Meridian Road corridor in Pinal County, future land uses are recommended to occur in a much more generalized manner. The Pinal County Comprehensive Plan permits both flexibility and innovation for future development. Anticipating continued annexation and subsequent development in the area near the incorporated City of Apache Junction. The goal of this area is to retain large tracts of rural parcels in single ownership so that master planned communities can be devolved in the future along with the establishment of roadways, service areas and other infrastructure improvements. This is typified by the planned region area known as Superstition Vistas, in northern Pinal County, which is expected to create additional internal and external trips within the study area. Pinal County’s Land Use Plan also shows an employment corridor between Williams Field Road and Pecos Road. A High Intensity Activity Center, Williams Gateway Freeway Activity Center, is located at Ironwood Road between Williams Field Road and Pecos Road. The Williams Gateway Freeway Activity Center includes medium and high density residential development. Build out population associated with this residential development could accommodate approximately 21,000 people. Approximately 300 acres of various employment types are also identified for planning purposes that could result in the potential for 29,000 jobs in this area. Figure 10 shows the future land uses within the study corridor. Future Transportation Projects US 60 Traffic Interchange at Meridian Road: An interchange is planned for Meridian Road at US 60 with construction scheduled for a start in summer 2015. Initially ADOT is proposing to construct an interim, partial interchange. The design will consist of on and off ramps to the west of Meridian Road. In the interim condition no improvements will be made to the existing structure over the US 60. The bridge will accommodate one 11 foot and one 14 foot lane in each direction along with a 5 foot sidewalk. Meridian Road will be widened to the north of US 60 to accommodate four through lanes plus two left turn lanes. Similarly to the south the road will be widened to four through lanes and will be tapered back to the existing road width as soon as possible. A full traffic interchange to accommodate a six‐lane divided Meridian Road will necessitate the construction of a new structure which will have to provide for a new 14ft clearance requirements over the CAP canal. US 60 Widening: Crimson Road to Meridian Road – US 60 is planned to be widened from four lanes to six general purpose lanes and two High Occupancy Vehicle Lanes from Crimson Road to Meridian Road in Phase 3 of the MAG Regional Transportation Plan (2015‐2020). Gateway Freeway (SR 24): The SR 24 corridor is located in southeast Mesa and northwest Pinal County. The freeway would begin at Loop 202 near the Hawes Road interchange and extend southeasterly into Pinal County and connect to US 60 or SR 79 north of the Florence Junction. The SR 24 study area lies within or adjacent to the jurisdictional boundaries of the cities of Mesa and Apache Junction, the Towns of Queen Creek and Gilbert, and unincorporated portions of Maricopa and Pinal Counties. The section from Loop 202 to Ellsworth Road is currently under construction and is due to be completed by the end of 2014. Additional phases beyond Ellsworth Road have been dropped from MAG Regional Transportation Plan until the North‐South Corridor Study in Pinal County advances. The proposed route Meridian Road Corridor Study: Germann Road to McDowell Boulevard 22 October 2013 Meridian Road Corridor Study crosses Meridian Road ½ mile south of Williams Field Road with a full grade separated traffic interchange. North‐South Corridor: The North‐South Corridor (US 60 to I‐10) is planned to extend 45 miles in the north‐south direction along an alignment east of Meridian Road in Pinal County. The concept is to provide a controlled access facility between US 60 in Apache Junction and I‐10 near Eloy and Picacho. A current study by ADOT is underway to identify a preferred corridor. Passenger Rail: The Passenger Rail Corridor Study is looking at both high speed and commuter rail services between Phoenix and Tucson. Currently there are a number of alternatives being analyzed which will provide the back bone for a transit service along the ‘Sun Corridor’. One potential route crosses Meridian Road adjacent to the proposed SR 24 heading east to make use of transit corridors identified in the Superstition Vistas strategic plan. Meridian Road Corridor Study: Germann Road to McDowell Boulevard 23 October 2013 Meridian Road Corridor Study Figure 10: Future Land Uses Meridian Road Corridor Study: Germann Road to McDowell Boulevard 24 October 2013 Meridian Road Corridor Study Population and Employment In 2010, the total residential population within the boundaries of the project influence area includes nearly 210,000 people within the three municipalities of Mesa, Apache Junction and Queen Creek and the two counties of Pinal and Maricopa that encompass the area. The area of influence is generally bounded by McDowell Boulevard to the north, Germann Road to the south, US 60 to the east, and SR 202L to the west. By the year 2031, the resident population in the influence area is expected to grow more than 250 percent, reaching nearly 583,000 residents. The most dramatic population gain among the jurisdictions and the counties is expected to occur in Pinal County. The majority of this area is currently owned by the Arizona State Land Department, and includes Portalis and Superstition Vistas master planned communities. The future development of these communities will trigger a population jump from approximately 34,300 in 2010 to nearly 240,000 in 2031. Significant population increases in Apache Junction, Mesa, Pinal County and Queen Creek are also reflected in Table 4. Table 4: Project Influence Area Population Projections MPA Apache Junction Mesa Pinal County Queen Creek TOTAL Total Population Observed in 2010 Census 42,570 137,170 14,243 13,233 207,216 Total Population Projected for 2010 Total Population Projected for 2025 Total Population Projected for 2031 75,186 128,639 34,339 15,611 253,775 134,424 163,436 181,212 32,052 511,124 151,419 171,912 223,632 36,322 583,285 Job growth in the area of influence is also expected to rise through the year 2031 and will generally follow the pattern of growth for residential population. Nearly 43,700 jobs currently exist within the project influence area, a majority of which are contained in the industrial and commercial core of southeast Mesa. However, as the Phoenix‐Mesa Gateway Airport and SR 24 Gateway Freeway corridor continues to develop, future jobs will locate on the eastern portion of the corridor as well. Pinal County, which is estimated to produce the greatest rise in resident population, will also exhibit the greatest gain in job growth. Currently, approximately 2,800 jobs exist in Pinal County. The county only captured six percent of the total jobs located within the entire project influence area. In 2031, the approximate 24,500 jobs expected to exist in Pinal County will account for 12.5 percent of the total study area employment. Queen Creek, Mesa, and Apache Junction are all expected to experience significant employment gains. IV. Traffic Analysis Summary This section provides a summary of the traffic analysis results under existing conditions (2012) and for 2025 and 2035 design years for the Meridian Road Corridor study area. The traffic results of the traffic analysis were used to develop recommendations for the Meridian Road Corridor to accommodate future traffic growth. Additional information is available in Working Paper #1: Existing and Future Conditions Inventory and Working Paper #2: Evaluation Criteria and Plan for Improvements. Meridian Road Corridor Study: Germann Road to McDowell Boulevard 25 October 2013 Meridian Road Corridor Study Traffic Analysis Methodology The ability of a transportation system to transmit the transportation demand is characterized as its level of service (LOS). LOS is a rating system from “A”, representing the best operation, to “F”, representing the worst operation. The appropriate reference for LOS operation is the Highway Capacity Manual, published by the Transportation Research Board. In general, LOS A and B represent no congestion, LOS C and D represent moderate congestion, and LOS E and F represent severe congestion. The MCDOT Roadway Design Manual (revised 2011) establishes LOS C as the desired criteria for rural principal arterial roadways and LOS D as the desired criteria for urban principal arterial roadways. The City of Mesa Transportation Plan and City of Apache Junction Small Area Transportation Study establishes LOS D as the desired criteria for principal arterial roadways. Because Meridian Road is likely to ultimately be a principal arterial under the jurisdiction of the City of Mesa and the City of Apache Junction, LOS D was used as the desired LOS for existing and future traffic operations within the corridor. LOS can be calculated for roadway segments, intersections, and freeway mainline lanes and ramps. LOS estimates also can be calculated for different periods, including daily conditions and peak hour conditions. The LOS analysis discussed in the following sections focuses on planning level roadway segment performance within the study area based on daily roadway segment volumes and analysis of study area intersections based on peak hour turning movement volumes and anticipated delay. The widely accepted 2009 Quality/Level of Service Handbook published by the Florida Department of Transportation is the planning guidelines relating LOS to daily volumes to estimate capacity for roadway segments. These guidelines are not an exact description of the actual operating LOS on a particular roadway segment, but they give an indication of when the roadway falls below acceptable levels of service. The Highway Capacity Manual considers the average delay per vehicle as the measure to determine the LOS of a signalized intersection. The delay and LOS are calculated for the intersection, each approach, and each turning movement. Table 5 lists the LOS criteria for signalized intersections as stated in the Highway Capacity Manual. Table 6 the level‐of‐service criteria for the unsignalized study area intersections. The LOS for the study area intersections was evaluated using Synchro software, which also utilizes the criteria described in Table 5 and Table 6. Table 5: Level of Service Criteria: Signalized Intersections Level‐of‐Service A B C D E F Table 6: Level of Service Criteria: Unsignalized Intersection Average Control Delay (s/veh)  10 > 10‐20 > 20‐35 > 35‐55 > 55‐80 > 80 Meridian Road Corridor Study: Germann Road to McDowell Boulevard Level‐of‐Service A B C D E F 26 Average Control Delay (s/veh)  10 > 10‐15 > 15‐25 > 25‐35 > 35‐50 > 50 October 2013 Meridian Road Corridor Study Existing 2012 Traffic Volumes Traffic Research and Analysis collected 48 hour approach and departure volumes at nine locations along Meridian Road and counted current AM and PM peak period traffic volumes at ten existing intersections within the study area in May 2012. A seasonal adjustment factor of 20% was applied to the approach and departure volumes as well as the turning movement volumes. The seasonal adjustment factor was determined based upon ADOT’s monthly ADT volumes collected within the study area. In the Apache Junction area the month in which the traffic volumes peak is 20% higher than traffic volumes in the month of May. The 2012 adjusted ADT volumes are shown in Table 7 and illustrated in Figure 11. The 2012 adjusted turning movement counts for the AM and PM peak periods are shown in Figure 12. A detailed report of the traffic counts is contained in Working Paper #1: Existing and Future Conditions Inventory. Table 7: 2012 Average Daily Traffic Volumes Meridian Road Segment McDowell Road to McKellips Boulevard McKellips Boulevard to Brown Road/Lost Dutchman Boulevard Brown Road/Lost Dutchman Boulevard to University Drive/Superstition Boulevard University Drive/Superstitions Boulevard to Apache Trail Apache Trail to Broadway Road Broadway Road to Southern Avenue Southern Avenue to US 60 US 60 to Baseline Road Guadalupe Road to Elliot Road Elliot Road to Warner Road Direction Average Daily Traffic (VPD) 2012* NB SB NB SB NB SB NB SB NB SB NB SB NB SB NB SB NB SB NB SB 612 655 1,534 1,632 2,707 2,914 3,494 3,352 3,350 3,673 2,633 2,467 2,633 2,467 1,570 1,495 731 697 781 713 *Approach and Departure volumes are adjusted to account for a 20% seasonal factor NB – Northbound SB ‐ Southbound Meridian Road Corridor Study: Germann Road to McDowell Boulevard 27 October 2013 Meridian Road Corridor Study Figure 11: Existing 2012 Average Daily Traffic Volumes Meridian Road Corridor Study: Germann Road to McDowell Boulevard 28 October 2013 Meridian Road Corridor Study Existing Level of Service Existing Roadway Segment Level of Service The existing number of lanes shown in the section of this report titled Existing Network and Classification in Figure 2 were used to determine the LOS as well as the criteria discussed in the section of this report titled Traffic Analysis Methodology. The LOS thresholds for the various facility types were derived from the Florida Department of Transportation’s (FDOT) “Table 4‐1, Generalized Annual Average Daily Volumes for Florida’s Urbanized Areas (Freeway & State Two‐Way Arterial Facilities)”. Table 8 shows the Average Daily Traffic (ADT) capacity threshold values by facility type calculated for LOS A/B, C and D. These threshold values were used to determine the existing roadway segment LOS for this study. Figure 13 depicts the existing LOS for segments of Meridian Road within the Study Area. Table 8: Annual Average Daily Volume Threshold Values for Varies Facility Types Number of Through Lanes 2 3 4 5 6 Level of Service Threshold A/B C D Median Undivided Divided/Two‐way Left‐turn Lane Divided Two‐way Left‐turn Lane Divided 9,600 15,400 16,500 10,080* 16,200* 17,300* 29,300 35,500 36,700 37,100** 44,600** 46,000** 45,000 53,700 55,300 *Daily volume threshold for a three‐lane facility was calculated by adjusting the daily volume threshold for a two‐lane facility by 5% to account for a center lane or exclusive left‐turn lane. **Daily volume threshold for a five‐lane facility has been adjusted based on the lane capacity of a four‐lane facility. Existing Intersection Level of Service The LOS for the study area intersections was evaluated utilizing the criteria discussed in the section of this report titled Traffic Analysis Methodology and the existing intersection geometry for the study area intersections shown in Figure 4. The existing LOS for the signalized and unsignalized intersections within the study area is shown in Figure 14. Working Paper #1: Existing and Future Conditions Inventory provides the complete results of the existing 2012 LOS analysis. Meridian Road Corridor Study: Germann Road to McDowell Boulevard 30 October 2013 Meridian Road Corridor Study Figure 13: 2012 Average Daily Level of Service Meridian Road Corridor Study: Germann Road to McDowell Boulevard 31 October 2013 Meridian Road Corridor Study Future Traffic Volumes Characteristics of the future transportation network were developed after reviewing relevant plans and studies listed in the section of this report titled Summary of Existing Plans and Studies. The specific studies used to determine practical 2025 and 2035 traffic volumes were the MCDOT Meridian Road Access Control and Corridor Improvement Study and the Apache Junction Comprehensive Transportation Study. MAG’s 2025 and 2035 travel demand forecasts were also reviewed to determine 2025 and 2035 future traffic volumes. After review of the MCDOT Meridian Road Access Control and Corridor Improvement Study it was determined that the roadway network south of the US 60 was not consistent with more current plans and studies. 2025 and 2035 traffic volumes on the major streets crossing Meridian Road were significantly different between the MCDOT study and the MAG models. These differences are likely due to the planned changes in roadway network since the MCDOT study was completed. Therefore the MAG models for 2025 and 2035 traffic volumes were used for this study for traffic volumes south of the US 60. After review of the MAG 2025 travel demand model north of the US 60, it was noted that the traffic volumes decreased from 2025 to 2035 and did not show good agreement with the traffic volume in the Apache Junction Comprehensive Transportation Study. Between the MAG 2025 model and the MAG 2035 model, two miles of McKellips Boulevard between Meridian Road and Crimson Road was opened thus changing the dynamics of the traffic flow in that area. Under the MAG 2025 model roadway network, traffic heading from the northwest and desiring to go to the southeast (or vice versa) is forced onto Brown Road/Lost Dutchman Boulevard due to McKellips Boulevard not extending west past Meridian Road. After review of the relevant studies and plans collected, it did not appear that McKellips Boulevard will extend west of Meridian Road; therefore, the traffic volumes from the Apache Junction Comprehensive Transportation Study were utilized for this study north of US 60. This information led to the development of the assumed future year 2025 and 2035 roadway network and the 2025 and 2035 daily traffic volumes shown in Table 9 and graphically in Figure 15 and Figure 16, respectively. Turning movement volume forecasts are shown in Figure 17 and Figure 18, respectively for 2025 and 2035. Meridian Road Corridor Study: Germann Road to McDowell Boulevard 33 October 2013 Meridian Road Corridor Study Table 9: 2025 and 2035 Daily Traffic Volumes Meridian Road Segment McDowell Boulevard to McKellips Boulevard McKellips Boulevard to Brown Road/Lost Dutchman Boulevard Brown Road/Lost Dutchman Boulevard to University Drive/Superstition Boulevard University Drive/Superstition Boulevard to Apache Trail Apache Trail to Broadway Road Broadway Road to Southern Avenue Southern Avenue to US 60 US 60 to Baseline Road Baseline Road to Guadalupe Road Guadalupe Road to Elliot Road Elliot Road to Warner Road Warner Road to Ray Road Ray Road to Williams Field Road Williams Field Road to SR 24 SR 24 to Pecos Road Pecos Road to Germann Road Meridian Road Corridor Study: Germann Road to McDowell Boulevard Direction NB SB NB SB NB SB NB SB NB SB NB SB NB SB NB SB NB SB NB SB NB SB NB SB NB SB NB SB NB SB NB SB 34 2025 ADT 2035 ADT 0‐5,000* 0‐5,000* 0‐5,000* 0‐5,000* 0‐5,000* 5,001‐10,000* 5,001‐10,000* 10,001‐20,000* 5,001‐10,000* 10,001‐20,000* 5,001‐10,000* 10,001‐20,000* 10,001‐20,000* 20,001‐30,000* 14,315 14,709 12,087 12,070 6,664 6,618 14,945 14,621 9,647 8,666 8,835 7,775 12,846 12,516 10,556 10,226 6,516 6,076 14,761 15,129 12,445 12,434 5,878 5,994 13,251 13,376 8,312 8,339 9,355 9,473 4,413 5,347 15,484 16,181 10,751 11,586 October 2013 Meridian Road Corridor Study Figure 15: Future 2025 Daily Traffic Volumes Meridian Road Corridor Study: Germann Road to McDowell Boulevard 35 October 2013 Meridian Road Corridor Study Figure 16: Future 2035 Daily Traffic Volumes Meridian Road Corridor Study: Germann Road to McDowell Boulevard 36 October 2013 Meridian Road Corridor Study Future Level of Service Future Roadway Segment Level of Service The number of lanes depicted in the Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) models introduced in Working Paper #1: Existing and Future Conditions Inventory were used to determine the LOS. MAG indicated a three‐lane section for Meridian Road in 2025 and 2035 within the study area. The LOS thresholds for a two‐lane undivided roadway, as shown in FDOT’s “Table 4‐1, Generalized Annual Average Daily Volumes for Florida’s Urbanized Areas (Freeway & State Two‐Way Arterial Facilities),” were adjusted by 5% to account for a center lane or exclusive left‐turn lanes. Table 10 shows the Average Daily Traffic (ADT) capacity threshold values by facility type calculated for LOS A/B, C and D. These threshold values were used to determine the roadway segment LOS for 2025 and 2035 for this study. Figure 19 and Figure 20 depict the 2025 and 2035 LOS for segments of Meridian Road within the Study Area, respectively. Table 10: Annual Average Daily Volume Threshold Values for Varies Facility Types Number of Through Lanes 2 3 4 Level of Service Threshold A/B C D Median Undivided Divided/Two‐way Left‐turn Lane Divided 9,600 15,400 16,500 10,080* 16170* 17,325* 29,300 35,500 36,700 *Daily volume threshold for a three‐lane facility was calculated by adjusting the daily volume threshold for a two‐lane facility by 5% to account for a center lane or exclusive left‐turn lane. As indicated in the section of this report titled Traffic Analysis Methodology, LOS D is considered the threshold of acceptable operations for Meridian Road. The LOS threshold measures reflect the traffic volume characteristics of each facility or grouping of facility types. The selection of these LOS threshold values accounts for the expectations of the drivers as well as the relative costs associated with the construction of each facility type. ADT volumes in excess of the LOS D thresholds illustrated in Table 10 indicate a condition in which the volumes on a given roadway segment exceeds the planning‐level capacity for that facility. Meridian Road Corridor Study: Germann Road to McDowell Boulevard 39 October 2013 Meridian Road Corridor Study Figure 19: 2025 Average Daily Level of Service Meridian Road Corridor Study: Germann Road to McDowell Boulevard 40 October 2013 Meridian Road Corridor Study Figure 20: 2035 Average Daily Level of Service Meridian Road Corridor Study: Germann Road to McDowell Boulevard 41 October 2013 Meridian Road Corridor Study Future Intersection Level of Service 2025 and 2035 turning movement volumes developed in the section of this report titled Future Traffic Volumes and the criteria discussed in the section of this report titled Traffic Analysis Methodology were used to calculate the LOS for the study area intersections. One of the important conditions for determining LOS at an intersection is the number of lanes provided for each movement on each approach at the intersection. The 2025 and 2035 intersection geometry for the study area intersections, shown in Figure 21 and Figure 22 respectively, was developed based on the findings of the roadway segment LOS analysis completed in the previous section, Future Roadway Segment Level of Service. The 2025 and 2035 LOS for the signalized intersections within the study area are shown in Figure 23 and Figure 24, respectively. Working Paper #2: Evaluation Criteria and Plan for Improvements provides the complete results of the 2025 and 2035 LOS analyses. Meridian Road Corridor Study: Germann Road to McDowell Boulevard 42 October 2013 Meridian Road Corridor Study Traffic Impacts The results of the 2025 LOS analysis for a roadway segment indicate that most segments of Meridian Road south of Southern Avenue will operate unacceptably as a three‐lane section. It is anticipated that Meridian Road will operate within the threshold of acceptable operations at a LOS of C or better as a two‐lane undivided roadway between McDowell Boulevard and Lost Dutchman Boulevard, as a three‐ lane section south of Lost Dutchman Boulevard to Southern Avenue and as four‐lane divided roadway south of Southern Avenue to Germann Road. The results of the 2025 roadway segment analysis are depicted in Figure 25. The results of the 2035 LOS analysis for a roadway segment indicate that most segments of Meridian Road south of Superstition Boulevard will operate unacceptably as a three‐lane section. It is anticipated that Meridian Road will operate within the threshold of acceptable operations at a LOS of C or better as a two‐lane undivided roadway between McDowell Boulevard and Lost Dutchman Boulevard and as four‐ lane divided roadway south of Lost Dutchman Boulevard to Germann Road. The results of the 2035 roadway segment analysis are depicted in Figure 26. The results of the 2025 and 2035 Synchro analysis show that the typical intersection lane configuration for Meridian Road within the study area is a single left‐turn and one through lane with a shared through/right‐turn lane for the northbound and southbound directions. Several intersections deviate from this typical intersection lane configuration and are shown in Table 11 and Table 12, respectively for 2025 and 2035. Table 11: 2025 Meridian Road Intersection Lane Configuration Deviations Meridian Road Intersection University Drive/ Superstition Boulevard Southern Avenue US 60 Baseline Road Elliot Road Deviation Movement Dual Left‐Turn Exclusive Right‐ Three Through Lanes Turn Lane Lanes SB X* NB NB SB NB SB NB X X X X X X X X *Under existing conditions Meridian Road Corridor Study: Germann Road to McDowell Boulevard 47 October 2013 Meridian Road Corridor Study Table 12: 2035 Meridian Road Intersection Lane Configuration Deviations Meridian Road Intersection University Drive/ Superstition Boulevard Broadway Road Southern Avenue US 60 Baseline Road Elliot Road SR 24 Pecos Road Deviation Movement Dual Left‐Turn Exclusive Right‐ Three Through Lanes Turn Lane Lanes SB X* NB X NB NB SB NB SB NB NB SB SB X X X X X X X X X X X X X *Under existing conditions Meridian Road Corridor Study: Germann Road to McDowell Boulevard 48 October 2013 Meridian Road Corridor Study Figure 25: 2025 Recommended Roadway Configuration Meridian Road Corridor Study: Germann Road to McDowell Boulevard 49 October 2013 Meridian Road Corridor Study Figure 26: 2035 Recommended Roadway Configuration Meridian Road Corridor Study: Germann Road to McDowell Boulevard 50 October 2013 Meridian Road Corridor Study V. Environmental Summary This section summarizes the existing environmental conditions for the Meridian Road Corridor Study Area, which is generally bounded by Germann Road on the south, McDowell Boulevard on the north, Ironwood Road on the east and Signal Butte Road on the west. This environmental overview is not intended to meet the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Additional information is available in Working Paper #1: Existing and Future Conditions Inventory. The Environmental Summary describes the study area in terms of its physical and natural, and cultural resources contexts. The study area includes lands within the Cities of Mesa and Apache Junction, and the counties of Maricopa and Pinal. The information presented is based on existing data sources from municipal, county, state, and federal agencies; and, on a “windshield” survey of the study area. Summary of Socioeconomic Environment Findings The study area falls within the jurisdictional boundaries of City of Apache Junction, City of Mesa, Town of Queen Creek, Pinal County and Maricopa County. Private entities own a majority of the land within the study area, with a small portion owned by Arizona State Land Department and the Bureau of Reclamation. The study area is predominately White with some Hispanics, African American, Asian, American Indian Alaskan Native, Native Hawaiian Pacific Islanders, and others. Based on 2010 US Census there are elderly, low‐income, disabled and female heads of household populations found in the study area; however, these groups represent a small percentage of the overall population. Summary of Physical and Natural Environment Findings The southern portion of the study area is located in the Lower Colorado River Sonoran Desert scrub. The northern portion of the study area is in the Sonoran Desert scrub ‐ Arizona Upland Subdivision where vegetation generally appears similar to a scrubland or low woodland of leguminous trees with intervening spaces held by several open layers of shrubs and perennials succulents. No permanent natural water sources exist within the study area; however, numerous ephemeral washes dissect the study area. The middle portion of the study area is dominated by creosote bushes with scattered ironwood, mesquite and palo verde. The study area provides cover and foraging opportunities for wildlife due to the presence of vegetation and ephemeral washes. A scoping letter was submitted to Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD) for any listing of threatened and endangered species in the study area. Available and existing literature review shows the study area provides suitable habitat for various native wildlife species, but does not contain suitable habitat for any federally threatened and endangered species or candidates species listed in for the southern portion of the study area south of US 60. The Meridian Road corridor is in an air nonattainment area for carbon monoxide, ozone, and particulate matter smaller than 10 microns, which have transportation control measures in the State Implementation Plans and Federal Implementation Plan. Existing noise data are not currently available for the study area. During subsequent environmental documentation activities for the study area, Meridian Road Corridor Study: Germann Road to McDowell Boulevard 51 October 2013 Meridian Road Corridor Study ambient noise levels may need to be monitored at specific locations. The future noise quality for the study area would need to be evaluated against the existing noise data to conform to the ADOT Noise Abatement Policy. Potential jurisdictional waters of the US located in the study area include several unnamed washes. These should be delineated before construction to determine the need for Sections 401 and 404 permits. The Central Arizona Project (CAP) canal traverses the study area at US 60 and Meridian Road. The area south of the Powerline Floodway is part of the East Mesa Area Drainage Master Plan which is under study. There are portions of the northern part of study area that occur within Zone A of the FEMA Flood Map. A review of available Arizona Department of Quality (ADEQ) databases revealed leaking underground storage tank (LUST) locations which are shown in Table 13. Table 13: Leaking Underground Storage Tank Locations Location UTM Type X:444424, Y: 3697549 LUST X: 445532, Y: 3697589 LUST X: 447071, Y: 3697589 X: 447644, Y: 3697393 X:446862, Y: 3696650 X: 446340, Y: 3693443 LUST LUST LUST LUST On West Germann Road east of Meridian Road X: 446288, Y: 3682205 LUST At Signal Butte along West Apache Trail Between Meridian and Mountain Road along West Apache Trail Between Meridian Road and Ironwood along West Apache Trail At Ironwood along West Apache Trail At Delaware Road and Broadway East Baseline Road east of Meridian Road Under Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) the Environmental Protection Agency compiles a database of facilities that are involved in the generation of hazardous materials. This database is from the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality RCRAInfo Database, dated June, 2012 and Allands checked for Federal RCRA facilities located within a 0.125 mile search distance from subject property exterior boundaries. Table 14 lists the RCRA facilities within 0.125 mile of the Meridian Road Corridor Study study area. Meridian Road Corridor Study: Germann Road to McDowell Boulevard 52 October 2013 Meridian Road Corridor Study Table 14: Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Facilities EPA ID FACILTY ADDRESS AZR000047035 AZR000047034 AZR000044545 AZS000047480 AZR000500769 AZR000043166 AZR000042374 AZE050323002 AZR000037812 Apache Junction Cancer Center Apache Junction Cancer Center EVDI Medical Imaging Ironwood HD Automotive & Machine Shop Statewide Environmental Oil Services Wal Mart Store 1381 Solvents Systems Inc Sunbelt Tank Services MUSD 4 Pur Oper / Sousa Elem TRW VSSI / TRW Vehicle Safety Systems Mesa Ii Facility CMC Steel Arizona CRM Of America LLC Walgreens 2963 Wal‐Mart Super Center 3833 Bright Now Dental Gateway Smiles Fuji Film Electronic Materials USA / Arch Chemicals Inc / Olin Electronic Materials MGC Pure Chemicals America Inc Top Drawer Components Apache Junction 2080 W Southern Ave 2080 W Southern Ave 2080 W Southern Ave 2210 W Apache Trail 2475 W Dallas Ave 2555 W Apache Trail 4793 S Desert View Dr 4932 S Penny Lane 616 N Mountain NOTIFICATION DATE 3/1/2008 2/23/2009 1/29/2009 8/31/2004 2/10/2008 3/2/2009 5/8/2006 6/21/2005 2/14/2005 11202 E Germann Rd 2/3/2010 11444 E Germann Rd 11400 E Pecos Rd 11545 E Apache Trail 1606 S Signal Butte Rd 1804 S Signal Butte Rd 1901 S Signal Butte Rd 2/2/2009 4/23/2008 7/31/2001 3/2/2009 1/12/2009 1/8/2009 CEG CEG SQG N N CEG N N CEG LQG / CORRACTS N SQG N SQG CEG CEG 6550 S Mountain Rd 3/25/2010 LQG 6560 S Mountain Rd 5154 S Delaware Dr 2/21/2008 2/17/2009 N CEG AZD982491649 AZR000506931 AZE060911001 AZR000004846 AZR000503607 AZR000506899 AZR000506196 AZR000001016 AZR000002394 AZR000046987 STATUS Summary of Cultural Inventory Findings Approximately 65 archaeological projects have taken place within one mile of the project area; because none of them examined any portion of the project corridor within the past 10 years, no further information about these previous projects is provided herein. Twenty‐five sites have been previously recorded in the review area, of which three occur within or immediately adjacent to the 200‐foot‐wide corridor. The three sites that occur within or immediately adjacent to the 200‐foot‐wide corridor are:    NA15612 – a small Hohokam artifact scatter on the west side of Meridian Road between US 60 and Baseline Road; AZSITE has no record of its National Register eligibility. AZ FF:9:17(ASM) – the historic US Highway 80, which follows the Apache Trail alignment across the project corridor; the site as a whole has been determined eligible under Criteria A and D, but the segment through the project corridor lacks integrity of design, setting, materials, workmanship, and feeling, so it does not contribute to the site’s overall eligibility. AZ U:10:36(ASM) – a large Hohokam resource procurement site; the western extent of the site intersects the project corridor roughly midway between Guadalupe and Elliot roads. Based on the results of the desktop search of the AZSITE database, the Meridian Road corridor has not been surveyed within the past 10 years. The windshield survey conducted on July 26, 2012 revealed that the corridor occurs in a mixed urban and rural environment; although portions of the corridor have been Meridian Road Corridor Study: Germann Road to McDowell Boulevard 53 October 2013 Meridian Road Corridor Study developed, others contain largely undisturbed desert. Therefore, it is recommended that the undeveloped areas within the project corridor be subject to a Class III pedestrian survey to identify any previously recorded cultural resources. It is possible that AZ U:10:36(ASM) will require mitigation prior to construction; NA15612 may also require additional work if the survey determines that the site extends into the project corridor. It is unlikely that AZ FF:9:17(ASM) will require further work due to the lack of integrity; it is recommended that a formal evaluation of the historic highway alignment be conducted at the time of the Class III survey. In addition, a historic building assessment is recommended to determine if any standing buildings 45 years or older occur along the project corridor. Meridian Road Corridor Study: Germann Road to McDowell Boulevard 54 October 2013 Meridian Road Corridor Study VI. Development of Alternatives This section documents the development of conceptual alternatives considered for Meridian Road. The development of alternatives were based upon information collected and documented in the Working Papers, jurisdiction design guidelines and criteria, and input received from the Meridian Road Technical Advisory Committee (TAC). Alignment Alternatives The study has been examined in two sections. The roadway alignment for the northern half of the corridor between US 60 and McDowell Boulevard forms the westerly boundary of the City of Apache Junction’s roadway network. For the majority of its length Meridian Road is a two lane roadway with some widening to three and four lanes at the approach and departure of the intersections at Broadway Road, Apache Trail and Superstition Boulevard. The roadway alignment for the southern half of the Meridian Road corridor between Baseline Road and Germann Road is largely undefined. A two mile section from half mile north of Elliot Road to half mile south of Warner Road is a two lane street off‐set west of the section line. The alignment is either a dirt road or non‐existent on other sections of undeveloped land. Conceptual Analysis for Northern Section of Meridian Road Concepts were developed for the northern section of the project relating to the lane configuration and right‐of‐way requirements. See the Existing Right‐of‐Way section for more detailed information on existing right‐of‐way along this section of the Meridian Road corridor. The roadway lane configuration is dealt with in the Roadway Segment Lane Configuration section of the report. Conceptual Alternatives for Southern Section of Meridian Road Conceptual alternatives for the southern section were developed based upon identified corridor issues, the projected traffic volumes and transportation/connectivity needs. Design guidelines relating to roadway cross sections and horizontal alignment from City of Apache Junction, City of Mesa, Maricopa County Department of Transportation (MCDOT) and Pinal County were used to generate the conceptual alternatives. Alternative 1 – No Build Alternative The no‐build alternative considers how the existing roadway network would function if the southern section of the corridor was not constructed. Alternative 2 – Section Line Alignment This alternative proposes to locate the corridor improvements symmetrically about the section line. It makes full use of the existing right‐of‐way dedicated to the west of the section line. Alternative 2 is depicted in Figure 27. Alternative 3 – Eastern Shift An easterly shift alignment is considered to minimize impacts on existing residential parcels and a drainage channel adjacent to the section line. An alignment shift of 1,100 feet to the east is proposed to Meridian Road Corridor Study: Germann Road to McDowell Boulevard 55 October 2013 Meridian Road Corridor Study line‐up with the section of the Meridian Road north of Baseline Road. Alternative 3 is depicted in Figure 27. Alternative 4 – Meandering Alignment The meandering alignment consists of minor shifts in the alignment either east or west of the section line to reduce impact to existing properties and use existing right‐of‐way. Alternative 4 is depicted in Figure 27. Section Line Shift at Baseline Road Two reverse curve alignment adjustments were considered to align the off‐set in the monument line that occurs at Baseline Road and are described below. The section line shifts at Baseline Road Alternatives are shown in Figure 28. Alternative B1 – US 60 to Baseline Road With this alternative the alignment shift to the west begins just south of US 60 and ties into the monument line at Baseline Road. This alignment would require a frontage road connector to maintain access to the existing businesses on the east side of Meridian Road. Alternative B2 – South of Baseline Road This alternative holds the Meridian Road alignment on the monument line until Baseline Road. South of Baseline Road the alignment would curve to the west to line up with the section line approximately half mile south of Baseline Road. This alignment would maintain access to Meridian Road businesses between US 60 and Baseline Road. Meridian Road Corridor Study: Germann Road to McDowell Boulevard 56 October 2013 Meridian Road Corridor Study Figure 27: Conceptual Alternatives for Southern Section of Meridian Road Meridian Road Corridor Study: Germann Road to McDowell Boulevard 57 October 2013 Meridian Road Corridor Study Figure 28: Section Line Shift at Baseline Road Alternatives Meridian Road Corridor Study: Germann Road to McDowell Boulevard 58 October 2013 Meridian Road Corridor Study VII. Evaluation of Alternatives This section documents the evaluation of the conceptual alternatives developed for Meridian Road. The evaluation of alternatives was based upon jurisdiction design guidelines and criteria, input received from the Meridian Road TAC, and input received during the public open houses. The alternatives evaluation was conducted to the extent necessary to provide a meaningful comparative analysis of feasible improvement alternatives, leading to the selection of a preferred alternative. Evaluation Criteria A preliminary matrix was developed in order to evaluate the alternatives. The evaluation criteria and corresponding questions to be addressed are as follows:        Constructability Issues – Is the alternative constructible? Engineering Complexity – Does the alternative involve a more complicated design or create additional engineering challenges? Environmental/Cultural Issues – Is there the potential for finding historical and/or archeological artifacts? Are historic preservation activities likely required? Potential Utility Conflicts – Will the alternative impact existing utilities. Will new utilities be required? Traffic Operations – Will the alternative improve traffic flow and increase regional connectivity? Public Acceptability – Is the corridor alternative likely to generate negative feedback from the community? Socioeconomic Impacts – Does the alternative impact existing residential parcels/developments (i.e. right‐of‐ way, or existing homes)? The corridor alternatives were evaluated using one of three rankings based upon the perceived response for each evaluation criteria question. The three ranking levels are as follows: Minimum impact/high performance, Moderate impact/moderate performance, or High impact/low performance. Alternative Screening Table 15 summarizes the results of the initial alternative screening. Meridian Road Corridor Study: Germann Road to McDowell Boulevard 59 October 2013 Meridian Road Corridor Study Table 15: Alternative Screening Results Evaluation Criteria Constructability Issues Engineering Complexity Environmental/Cultural Issues Potential Utility Conflicts Traffic Operations Public Acceptability Socioeconomic Impacts Alternative Alignments Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 1 ○ ○ ○ ○ ● ● ○ ○ ○ ○ ◍ ○ ◍ ◍ ○ ◍ ○ ● ○ ◍ ○ Alt 4 ○ ◍ ○ ◍ ○ ○ ◍ ○ Minimal impact/high performance ◍ Moderate impact/performance ● High impact/low performance Preferred Alternative Preferred Meridian Road Alignment All three of the build alternatives are anticipated to have similar amount of constructability issues related to traffic control and maintenance of traffic during construction. Minimal environmental issues are anticipated with all the alternatives. Input received on the alternatives from the TAC at the meeting and a subsequent agency meeting with ASLD was generally in favor of the alignment staying on the section line because it resulted in more equitable right‐of‐way takes from property owners and did not place a large burden on State Trust Land. Alternative 4 was selected as the preferred alternative because it followed the section line for most of its length except the area between Williams Field Road and Pecos Road where the alignment shifted east to avoid impacting existing residential developments. Preferred Section Line Shift Based on the input received from the TAC team and engineering considerations the preferred alternative for the two reverse curve alignments would be Alternative B1. While there was no real preferences between the alternatives from the TAC team, both were considered viable alignments, the alignment south of Baseline Road would pass through an area of land subsidence and earth fissures. In addition, consideration has to be given to the provision of a traffic interchange (TI) with US 60. Currently a half‐TI consisting of a partial cloverleaf with ramps to/from the west is proposed. A new study is proposed by ADOT to investigate the provision of additional general purpose lanes along US 60. As part of this study the location of a full interchange will be examined. Preliminary work suggest that the TI will be placed west of the existing Meridian Road bridge and probably line up with the section line south of Baseline Road. Meridian Road Corridor Study: Germann Road to McDowell Boulevard 60 October 2013 Meridian Road Corridor Study VIII. Design Features There are four separate jurisdictions within the Meridian Road Corridor, each with their own set of design guidelines. Those jurisdictions are the City of Apache Junction, City of Mesa, Maricopa County and Pinal County. In order to address the needs and purposes of the Meridian Road Corridor Study, a consensus had to be reached between the Local agencies/jurisdictions and private stakeholders regarding the preferred interim and ultimate facility type and access control design elements. Additional information on the major design features and access control design elements is available in Working Paper #2: Evaluation Criteria and Plan for Improvements. At this time the local agencies have not determined which of them will have the ultimate responsibility for what segments of Meridian Road. When that decision is made, and when the road is improved, the lead agencies design standards will govern the development of the roadway. Until that time, the agencies generally agree to the guidelines presented in the typical cross sections below. A number of interviews were carried out with the individual agencies with a view to agreeing on a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on how the Meridian Road corridor will develop and who would have the ultimate responsibility to maintain the certain sections of the road. A sample MOU was developed (See Appendix D) based on feedback from the agencies. Although this MOU does not set out specific standards or responsibilities it will allow the agencies to ‘pledge’ to work together to develop Meridian Road in the future. Typical Cross Section An Ultimate Roadway Cross Section was developed for Meridian Road between Southern Avenue and Germann Road providing a 6‐lane roadway with a 16’ raised median, bike lanes and detached sidewalks as depicted in Figure 29. Figure 29: Ultimate Roadway Cross Section – Southern Avenue to Germann Road A preferred Ultimate Roadway Cross Section was developed for Meridian Road north of Southern Avenue providing a 4‐lane roadway with a 16’ painted or raised median, bike lanes and detached sidewalks as depicted in Figure 30. Meridian Road Corridor Study: Germann Road to McDowell Boulevard 61 October 2013 Meridian Road Corridor Study Figure 30: Ultimate Roadway Cross Section – Lost Dutchman Boulevard to Southern Avenue A preferred Ultimate Roadway Cross Section was developed for Meridian Road between Lost Dutchman Boulevard and McDowell Boulevard providing a two lane road, bike lanes and detached sidewalks as depicted in Figure 31. Figure 31: Ultimate Roadway Cross Section – Lost Dutchman Boulevard to McDowell Boulevard Until development and traffic volumes warrant the ultimate cross section, interim cross sections were developed based on the results of the roadway segment LOS analysis. Figure 32 shows the recommended interim cross section for Meridian Road between McDowell Boulevard and Lost Dutchman Boulevard. Figure 33 depicts potential interim cross section for Meridian Road between Lost Dutchman Boulevard and Germann Road. Figure 34 depicts potential interim cross section for Meridian Road between Southern Avenue and Germann Road. The only difference between Figure 33 and Figure 34 between Southern Avenue and Germann Road is the median type. The median type will depend on the access control requirements developed and agreed upon by the key agencies. As traffic warrants, a second travel lane can be added in each direction to the interim cross section to obtain the ultimate cross sections. Meridian Road Corridor Study: Germann Road to McDowell Boulevard 62 October 2013 Meridian Road Corridor Study Figure 32: Interim Cross Section: McDowell Boulevard to Lost Dutchman Boulevard Figure 33: Interim Cross Section: Lost Dutchman Boulevard to Germann Road Figure 34: Interim Cross Section: Southern Avenue to Germann Road Phased Construction Near‐Term Improvement Recommendations Based on the traffic analysis results and the projected development patterns, the following improvements are either programmed or recommended for the near‐term (by 2017), although the timing of these improvements will be dependent on the surrounding area development:  The US 60/Meridian Road Traffic Interchange is programmed to be constructed by 2017; Meridian Road Corridor Study: Germann Road to McDowell Boulevard 63 October 2013 Meridian Road Corridor Study   The Southern Avenue/Meridian Road intersection is programmed to be signalized by 2017 and widened to accommodate a left‐turn lane and a shared through/right‐turn lane in each direction; and By 2017, Meridian Road is recommended to be extended from Baseline Road to Elliot Road with intersection improvements at Baseline Road, Guadalupe Road and Elliot Road to improve connectivity within the corridor with the addition of programmed improvements. Mid‐Term Improvement Recommendations Based on the development pattern projected by the MAG, the following improvements are anticipated to occur in the mid‐term (2017‐2025), although the timing of these improvements will be dependent on the surrounding area development:    Meridian Road is anticipated to be widened to a three‐lane roadway from Lost Dutchman Boulevard to Southern Avenue; Meridian Road is anticipated to be widened to a four‐lane divided roadway from Southern Avenue to Elliot Road; and Meridian Road is anticipated to be extended from Warner Road to Germann Road as a four‐lane divided roadway by 2025 including constructing Meridian Road intersections with Ray Road, Williams Field Road, Pecos Road and Germann Road as well as the SR 24/Meridian Road Traffic Interchange. With the gaps that currently exist in Meridian Road likely to be filled during the mid‐term timeframe, this will result in a continuous arterial with freeway access to US 60. These improvements are anticipated to significantly alter traffic volumes on Meridian Road as well as along some of the adjacent parallel arterials, such as Ironwood Road. Long‐Term Improvement Recommendations Based on the development pattern projected by MAG, the following improvements are anticipated to occur in the mid‐term (2025‐2035), although the timing of these improvements will be dependent on the surrounding area development:   Meridian Road is anticipated to be widened to a four‐lane roadway from Lost Dutchman Boulevard to Southern Avenue; and The SR 24/Meridian Road Traffic Interchange is anticipated to be constructed by 2035. Ultimate Improvement Recommendations The following improvement is anticipated to occur in the ultimate condition (beyond 2035), although the timing of these improvements will be dependent on the surrounding area development:  Meridian Road is anticipated to be widened to the full six‐lane cross‐section between Southern Avenue and Germann Road. Meridian Road Corridor Study: Germann Road to McDowell Boulevard 64 October 2013 Meridian Road Corridor Study Access Management Recommendations Access management guidelines from the various agencies were reviewed to establish the access management strategy for the Meridian Road Corridor. This can be accomplished by establishing a program of legal, administrative, and technical strategies with the appropriate balance between property access and the need to control access to serve public need. Ideally, these strategies will be implemented through planning practices, rules, engineering standards, and procedures resulting in access decisions that successfully, fairly, and consistently determine access management for each unique situation. Table 16 summarizes the access control within the study corridor for the various jurisdictions. As an arterial street, Meridian Road must accommodate traffic operations and a moderate level of property access while promoting safety of travel. To accomplish these goals recommendations on intersection, driveway and median placement are set out below. Intersection Spacing Meridian Road is part of an arterial street grid system. Therefore, it is encouraged to restrict signalized intersections to the half‐mile and mile locations only. It is recommended that each intersection be constructed to its ultimate configuration including dedicated left and right turn lanes where practical. Non‐signalized intersections should be placed a minimum of 660 feet apart. Opportunities to consolidate non‐signalized intersections with less than 660 feet of separation should be considered. Driveway Locations It is recommended that access be limited for new residential driveways along the Meridian Road Corridor. Future residential developments shall be encouraged to tie directly into east‐west collector or minor arterial roadways that connect to Meridian Road. Median Locations Raised medians provide access control and improve safety and operations by minimizing midblock left turns. Median openings may allow for full or partial turning movement access. Full access allows for left turns into and out of an adjacent site. Partial access allows for left turns from the street to an adjacent site only. Care should be taken to limit the number of median openings so as not to defeat the purpose of the raised median. In general, full access median openings may be provided at sixth‐mile increments (880 feet). Additional median openings should be the partial access type. Median openings are not recommended less than 660 feet from an arterial‐to‐arterial intersection. Meridian Road Corridor Study: Germann Road to McDowell Boulevard 65 October 2013 Meridian Road Corridor Study: Germann Road to McDowell Boulevard 66 ¼ mile and ½ mile locations fully coordinated and progressed where warranted Signalized, four‐way stop 100 feet from intersection Grade Separated Interchange Spacing Grade Separated Interchange Type Frontage Road On‐Street Parking City of Mesa City of Apache Junction 660 feet 660 feet One mile location where warranted May include SPUI or tight diamond if warranted and feasible Possible Prohibited May include SPUI or tight diamond if warranted and feasible Possible Prohibited MCDOT No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data 65 feet to 330 feet dependent on land use 115 feet 230 feet ¼ mile minimum, preferably ½ mile Signalized, four‐way stop 85 feet from intersection No Data No Data No Data 880 feet 880 feet 60 feet (min) ¼ mile and ½ mile locations fully coordinated and progressed where warranted Signalized, four‐way stop 100 feet from intersection Between ⅛ and ⅙ mile and between ⅓ and ½ mile locations fully coordinated and progressed where warranted Signalized, four‐way stop 100 feet from intersection One mile location where warranted 165 feet to 330 feet Traffic Signal Spacing Typical Traffic Control Access Driveway Full Access Driveway from 660 feet Signal Partial; Access Driveway 330 feet from Signal Driveway spacing Pinal County Divided with full or directional median Divided with full or directional median Divided with full or directional median Divided with full or directional median openings at ¼ mile spacing openings at ⅙ mile spacing openings at ⅙ mile spacing openings at ⅛ mile spacing Table 16: Access Control Jurisdiction (for Urban Medians Access Control Feature Table 16: Access Control Guidelines per Jurisdiction (for Urban Arterial Roads) Meridian Road Corridor Study Guidelines per Arterial Roads) October 2013 Meridian Road Corridor Study Additional Recommendations Adequate sight distance shall be provided at all driveways and intersections. The majority of the land adjacent to the southern half of the Meridian Road Corridor is currently undeveloped. The agencies may want to require developers to dedicate a controlled vehicular access easement to help enforce access control guidelines. Right‐Of‐Way Existing Right‐of‐Way The existing right‐of‐way does not consistently accommodate the typical right‐of‐way requirements for the desired arterial cross section. Existing right‐of‐way conditions can generally be characterized as follows and is illustrated in Table 17:   McDowell Boulevard to Baseline Road – The existing right‐of‐way through this segment is primarily 33 feet or 50 feet either side of the section line. Research was carried out by David Evans and Associates, Inc. for the City of Apache Junction which indicated that for some sections of the roadway there was documentation demonstrating that right‐of‐way had not been preserved. We have assumed that full right‐of‐way is required in these areas however; further investigation should be carried out to verify this. Baseline Road to Germann Road – The existing right‐of‐way through this section is primarily 65 feet to the west of the section line (Maricopa County) with small sections of 55 feet. To the east of the section line (Pinal County) the area is undeveloped State Trust Land and on right‐of‐way has been preserved at this stage. Meridian Road Corridor Study: Germann Road to McDowell Boulevard 67 October 2013 Meridian Road Corridor Study Table 17: Existing Right‐of‐Way Meridian Road Segments From To McDowell Road McKellips Boulevard McKellips Boulevard Lost Dutchman Road Lost Dutchman Road Superstition Boulevard Apache Trail Superstition Boulevard Apache Trail Broadway Avenue Existing ROW Width West of Centerline (MCDOT) East of Centerline (PCDOT) Existing Pavement 40' North of Canyon St N/A 55' South of Canyon St 55' from 1/2 mile south of McKellips Blvd N/A to Lost Dutchman 50' between Lost Dutchman Rd and Concho Street 33' between Concho Street and Tepee St 33' North of Windsong St 50' between Tepee St and Shiprock St 33' South of Windsong St 33' between Shiprock St and Silverado 55' South of Smoke Tree St Estates 65' South of Silverado Estates 50' between Silverado Estates and Superstition Boulevard 50' for a 300' segment south of Superstition Boulevard None from 300' south of Superstition Boulevard to Gregory Street 50' from Gregory St to Apache Trail 55' Undefined from Apache Trail to 4th Street 55' from 4th St to 220' north of Broadway Road 40' from 220' north of Broadway Rd to Broadway Rd 26' 40' 65' at intersection Southern Avenue Baseline Road 55' Baseline Road Guadalupe Road 65' N/A Elliot Road Elliot Road Warner Road Warner Road Ray Road Ray Road Williams Field Road Williams Field Road Pecos Road Pecos Road Germann Road Meridian Road Corridor Study: Germann Road to McDowell Boulevard N/A N/A N/A 65' N/A 55' N/A 65' from Pecos Road to 565' north of Germann Road N/A 75' for a 565' segment north of Germann Road 68 76' 62' at intersection 65' Southern Avenue Guadalupe Road 40' 45' 45' 24' Broadway Avenue 55' for 1/2 mile south of Guadalupe 65' for 1/2 mile north of Elliot 65' north of Mesquite St 55' south of Mesquite St 65' from 200' north of Renfield Ave 70 ' from 600' north of Warner Road 55' to north of Starkey Ave 65' South of Starke Ave to 545' north of Ray Rd 75' from 545' north of Ray Rd to Ray Road 24' 24' 62' 0' Broadway Ave to 9th place 50' from 9th place to 16th Avenue 33' from 16th Avenue for 1/4 mile 50' from 1/4 mile south of 16th Street to Southern Avenue 50' 65' North of Wier Ave 0' South of Wier Ave to Pueblo Ave 55' from Pueblo Ave to Southern Ave 24' 26' widens at intersection 26' No Pavement No Pavement 36' 32' No Pavement No Pavement No Pavement No Pavement No Pavement October 2013 Meridian Road Corridor Study Required Right‐of‐Way Table 18 illustrates the required right‐of‐way based on the following assumptions:    McDowell Boulevard to Lost Dutchman Road – Two‐lane road with 40 feet of right‐of‐way; Lost Dutchman Road to Southern Avenue – Four‐lane arterial street with 110 feet of right‐of‐way; and Southern Avenue to Germann Road – Six‐lane arterial street with 130 feet of right‐of‐way. Table 18: Right‐of‐Way Requirements Meridian Road Segments From ROW Width Required West of Centerline (MCDOT) To East of Centerline (PCDOT) 40' McKellips Boulevard None None from McKellips to 1/2 mile south McKellips Boulevard Lost Dutchman Road 40' from 1/2 mile south of McKellips Blvd 40' to Lost Dutchman 5' between Lost Dutchman Rd and Concho Street 22' between Concho Street and Tepee St 5' between Tepee St and Shiprock St 22' North of Smoketree Steet Superstition 22' between Shiprock St and Silverado Lost Dutchman Road None South of Smoketree Street Boulevard Estates 5' between Silverado Estates and Superstition Boulevard McDowell Road Superstition Boulevard Apache Trail Apache Trail Broadway Avenue None to 350' north of Apache Trail  55' for 350' north of Apache Trail 55' from Apache Trail to 4th Street None from 4th St to 220' north of Broadway Road 10' from 220' north of Broadway Rd to Broadway Rd 5' for a 300' segment south of Superstition Boulevard 55' from 300' south of Superstition Boulevard to Gregory Street 55' from Gregory St to Apache Trail Required Pavement Width 40' 40' 76' 72' 72' 72' 72' 76' 76' 76' 76' 76' 15' 76' 55' Broadway Ave to 9th place 5' from 9th Place to 16th Avenue 76' 22' from 16th Avenue for 1/4 mile 5' from 1/4 mile south of 16th Street to Southern Avenue 15' 104' 65' 104' Broadway Avenue Southern Avenue None North of Wier Ave 55' South of Wier Ave to Puelo Ave None between Pueblo Ave to Southern Ave Southern Avenue Baseline Road Baseline Road Guadalupe Road 10' None Guadalupe Road Elliot Road None except for a 1/2 mile section south 65' of Guadalupe Road where 10' is required 104' Elliot Road Warner Road None except for a 1/4 mile section south 65' of Mesquite St where 10' is required 104' Warner Road Ray Road Williams Field Road Pecos Road 10' from Warner Rd to Starkey Ave None from Starke Ave to Ray Rd Williams Field Road None 10' Pecos Road Germann Road None Ray Road Meridian Road Corridor Study: Germann Road to McDowell Boulevard 69 65' 104' 65' 65' 65' 104' 104' 104' October 2013 Meridian Road Corridor Study IX. Cost Preliminary cost estimates for roadway construction and right‐of‐way acquisition were prepared for the corridor alternatives. This section summarizes the cost estimate for the recommended alternative, and the methodology used to develop the order of magnitude estimate. Table 19 presents the order of magnitude cost estimate for the northern section of the corridor plus the alternatives for the southern section of the corridor. Detailed estimates for the corridor alternative may be found in Working Paper #2: Evaluation Criteria and Plan for Improvements. Table 19: Summary of Corridor Segment Estimates Southern Section Alternatives Northern Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Phased Construction Section Near‐Term $ ‐ $ ‐ $5,210,947 $5,210,947 $5,210,947 Mid/Long‐Term $20,344,040 $ ‐ $25,613,040 $28,956,720 $25,613,040 Ultimate $ ‐ $ ‐ $11,394,480 $12,524,640 $11,394,480 Total Cost (Northern plus Southern) $ ‐ $62,562,507 $67,036,347 $62,562,507 The methodologies used to determine the quantity and costs for each item listed in the estimate are described below:        Pavement – New pavement quantities were determined by multiplying the pavement width from the typical cross section of the proposed roadway by the total length of the corridor segment. The unit of measurement is square yards and the costs are based on recent ADOT construction bids. Earthwork and Drainage ‐ A vertical alignment was not developed for the corridor with this study. Consequently, cost estimates for earthwork are based on length of roadway and anticipated terrain characteristics. The cost for Earthwork and Drainage were based on similar projects with a profile designed at or near existing grade. Earthwork percentage was 25% of new pavement costs while 15% of the new pavement costs were used to estimate Drainage costs. Structures – Based on size of structure needed to cross Powerline Floodway. Maintenance of Traffic, Lighting, Signing, Signals, Utilities, & Incidental Work – Costs for these items were based on a percentage of the subtotal generated from the items listed above. Right‐of‐Way Acquisition – Right‐of‐way costs of $20,000 per acre (based on costs used in the Signal Butte Corridor Improvement Study, Elliot Road Corridor Improvement Study and Meridian Road Access Control and Corridor Improvement Study). Design and Construction Management – An estimate of 25 percent was used which include design and construction management. Contingency ‐ An estimate of 25 percent of the total costs, including right‐of‐way acquisition, was used given the macro scale design effort of this corridor study. Table 20 presents the itemized cost estimate for the near‐term improvements of the Meridian Road Corridor. Table 21 and Table 22 presents the itemized cost estimate for the northern segment of the Meridian Road Corridor between McDowell Boulevard and Southern Avenue for under the mid‐term and long‐term recommendations, respectively. Table 23 and Table 24 present the itemized cost Meridian Road Corridor Study: Germann Road to McDowell Boulevard 70 October 2013 Meridian Road Corridor Study estimate for the southern segment’s preferred Meridian Road Corridor between Southern Avenue and Germann Road under the mid/long‐term and ultimate recommendations, respectively. The near‐term, mid‐term, long‐term and ultimate phasing recommendations are described in further detail under the section titled Phased Construction. Table 20: Itemized Cost Estimate for Near‐Term Recommendations Item ‐ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Item Description Unit (Segment Length) MILES New Pavement SY Earthwork LSUM Drainage LSUM Structures LSUM Maintenance of Traffic LSUM Lighting LSUM Signing/Signals LSUM Utilities LSUM Incidental Work LSUM Total Construction Cost = ROW Acquisition ACRE Design & Construction Management LSUM Contingency LSUM Order of Magnitude Project Cost = Unit Price ‐ $32.00 N/A N/A $500,000.00 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Quantity 2 46934 25% of Item 1 15% of Item 1 0 $ 10% of Items 1‐3 5% of Items 1‐3 15% of Items 1‐3 5% of Items 1‐3 15% of Items 1‐3 $20,000.00 N/A N/A 16 25% of Item 1‐10 25% of Item 1‐10 Total ‐ $1,501,888 $375,472 $225,283 ‐ $210,264 $105,132 $315,396 $105,132 $315,396 $3,153,965 $320,000 $868,491 $868,491 $5,210,947 *Cost excludes Meridian Road TI and Southern Avenue intersection improvements Table 21: Itemized Cost Estimate for the Northern Segment under Mid‐Term Recommendations: McDowell Boulevard to Southern Avenue Item ‐ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Item Description Unit (Segment Length) MILES New Pavement SY Earthwork LSUM Drainage LSUM Structures LSUM Maintenance of Traffic LSUM Lighting LSUM Signing/Signals LSUM Utilities LSUM Incidental Work LSUM Total Construction Cost = ROW Acquisition ACRE Design & Construction Management LSUM Contingency LSUM Order of Magnitude Project Cost = Meridian Road Corridor Study: Germann Road to McDowell Boulevard 71 Unit Price ‐ $32.00 N/A N/A $500,000.00 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Quantity 5.5 129067 5% of Item 1 15% of Item 1 0 $ 10% of Items 1‐3 1% of Items 1‐3 10% of Items 1‐3 15% of Items 1‐3 15% of Items 1‐3 $20,000.00 N/A N/A 25 25% of Item 1‐10 25% of Item 1‐10 Total ‐ $4,130,144 $206,507 $619,522 ‐ $495,617 $49,562 $495,617 $743,426 $743,426 $7,483,821 $500,000 $1,995,955 $1,995,955 $11,975,731 October 2013 Meridian Road Corridor Study Table 22: Itemized Cost Estimate for the Northern Segment under Long‐Term Recommendations: McDowell Boulevard to Southern Avenue Item ‐ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Item Description Unit (Segment Length) MILES New Pavement SY Earthwork LSUM Drainage LSUM Structures LSUM Maintenance of Traffic LSUM Lighting LSUM Signing/Signals LSUM Utilities LSUM Incidental Work LSUM Total Construction Cost = ROW Acquisition ACRE Design & Construction Management LSUM Contingency LSUM Order of Magnitude Project Cost = Unit Price ‐ $32.00 N/A N/A $500,000.00 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Quantity 5.5 96214 5% of Item 1 15% of Item 1 0 $ 10% of Items 1‐3 1% of Items 1‐3 10% of Items 1‐3 15% of Items 1‐3 15% of Items 1‐3 $20,000.00 N/A N/A 0 $ 25% of Item 1‐10 25% of Item 1‐10 Total ‐ $3,078,848 $153,942 $461,827 ‐ $369,462 $36,946 $369,462 $554,193 $554,193 $5,578,873 ‐ $1,394,718 $1,394,718 $8,368,309 Table 23: Itemized Cost Estimate for the Preferred Corridor under Mid/Long‐Term Recommendations: Southern Avenue to Germann Road Item ‐ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Item Description Unit (Segment Length) MILES New Pavement SY Earthwork LSUM Drainage LSUM Structures LSUM Maintenance of Traffic LSUM Lighting LSUM Signing/Signals LSUM Utilities LSUM Incidental Work LSUM Total Construction Cost = ROW Acquisition ACRE Design & Construction Management LSUM Contingency LSUM Order of Magnitude Project Cost = Meridian Road Corridor Study: Germann Road to McDowell Boulevard 72 Unit Price ‐ $32.00 N/A N/A $500,000.00 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Quantity 7.5 228800 25% of Item 1 15% of Item 1 1 10% of Items 1‐3 5% of Items 1‐3 15% of Items 1‐3 5% of Items 1‐3 15% of Items 1‐3 $20,000.00 N/A N/A 60 25% of Item 1‐10 25% of Item 1‐10 Total ‐ $7,321,600 $1,830,400 $1,098,240 $500,000 $1,025,024 $512,512 $1,537,536 $512,512 $1,537,536 $15,875,360 $1,200,000 $4,268,840 $4,268,840 $25,613,040 October 2013 Meridian Road Corridor Study Table 24: Itemized Cost Estimate for the Preferred Corridor under Ultimate Recommendations: Southern Avenue to Germann Road Item ‐ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Item Description Unit (Segment Length) MILES New Pavement SY Earthwork LSUM Drainage LSUM Structures LSUM Maintenance of Traffic LSUM Lighting LSUM Signing/Signals LSUM Utilities LSUM Incidental Work LSUM Total Construction Cost = ROW Acquisition ACRE Design & Construction Management LSUM Contingency LSUM Order of Magnitude Project Cost = Meridian Road Corridor Study: Germann Road to McDowell Boulevard 73 Unit Price ‐ $32.00 N/A N/A $500,000.00 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Quantity 7.5 105600 25% of Item 1 15% of Item 1 1 10% of Items 1‐3 5% of Items 1‐3 15% of Items 1‐3 5% of Items 1‐3 15% of Items 1‐3 $20,000.00 N/A N/A 0 $ 25% of Item 1‐10 25% of Item 1‐10 Total ‐ $3,379,200 $844,800 $506,880 $500,000 $473,088 $236,544 $709,632 $236,544 $709,632 $7,596,320 ‐ $1,899,080 $1,899,080 $11,394,480 October 2013 Meridian Road Corridor Study X. Agency, Stakeholder and Public Involvement This section documents the results of the interaction with affected agencies, stakeholders, and the general public during the Meridian Road Corridor Study. Additional information on agency, stakeholder and public involvement is available in Appendix C. Technical Advisory Committee A Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) was established to solicit feedback from partnering agencies and key stakeholders at multiple stages of the corridor study. The following agencies are represented on this Committee:             Pinal County City of Apache Junction City of Mesa Central Arizona Governments Maricopa County Department of Transportation FHWA ADOT Environmental Planning  Maricopa County Flood Control District Town of Queen Creek Maricopa Association of Governments Arizona State Land Department Arizona Department of Transportation, Multimodal Planning Division Arizona Department of Transportation, Communications and Community Partnerships Three separate TAC meetings were held over the course of the study. The first TAC meeting was held on May 16, 2012. The purpose of this meeting was to provide a general project overview, define the Planning and Environmental Linkages Program, discuss corridor specific issues, present the project schedule and solicit feedback from participating TAC members. The second TAC meeting was held on November 14, 2012. The purpose of this meeting was to present Working Paper #1: Existing and Future Conditions Inventory and develop an approach to define the desired, future roadway classification, cross section and configuration for the Meridian Road corridor. The third TAC meeting was held on February 26, 2013. The purpose of this meeting was to present Working Paper #2: Evaluation Criteria and Plan for Improvements and to review and address comments to finalize the report. Meeting notes from the three TAC meetings are located in Appendix E. Stakeholder Coordination Representatives from the TAC, Arizona State Land Department, Entellus and LTM Engineering met on a number of occasions to discuss the update to the East Mesa ADMP, along with coordination efforts between the two projects and how both projects will affect ASLD property. This effort culminated in a meeting on December 12, 2012 to discuss the various alternatives for both projects and how best to move forward. Following highlights the discussion of coordination and areas of consensus that were reached: Meridian Road Corridor Study: Germann Road to McDowell Boulevard 74 October 2013 Meridian Road Corridor Study      Arizona State Land Department would prefer to keep the flood control facility adjacent to the roadway facility and would not favor a channel that meanders or jogs away from the roadway alignment; Interest was articulated in evaluating how a flood control facility could be designed to handle built‐ environment off‐site drainage from Pinal County (specifically related to future development on State Land); Consensus was reached that the Meridian Road alignment should be on section line; Consensus was reached that the flood control facility (channel) should stay upstream (or east) of the Meridian Road corridor and that the Meridian Road Corridor Study can reference the forthcoming ADMP update to this point; and Consensus was reached that the combined footprint for the flood control and roadway facilities should be refined/reduced as much as possible. Further separate coordination meetings were held with the various agencies/stakeholders to discuss the working papers and to provide input into existing and future development that could affect the corridor development. Public Outreach Effective public participation facilitates understanding and improves decision making by providing a reasonable opportunity for all interested parties to provide input, identify issues and concerns and ensuring that this input informs the study’s technical planning. Both the public and decision makers are given an opportunity to fully understand the problems, opportunities and available options for planning acceptable transportation solutions. Tactics utilized for public outreach for the Meridian Road Corridor Study included the use of a survey instrument to garner feedback, a mailer was developed and sent to property owners adjacent to the corridor, a business walk was planned to hand deliver the information flier and to encourage businesses to take the on‐line survey, distribution of fliers, and solicitation via partner communications (agency newsletters, social media, etc.). These tactics were used to obtain feedback on the following corridor topics:       Opportunities, constraints and observations? Experience any problems? Agree/disagree: 6‐lane divided arterial south of US 60 (Superstition Freeway)? Agree/disagree: 4‐lane divided arterial between US 60 (Superstition Freeway) and Superstition Boulevard; 2‐lane roadway north? Opportunities for non‐motorized improvements and/or how would you utilize non‐motorized improvements? Ideas for long‐range plans? How often do you travel the corridor?  Do you live/work/own property along the corridor?  Meridian Road Corridor Study: Germann Road to McDowell Boulevard 75 October 2013 Meridian Road Corridor Study Public Meeting A public meeting, held on May 16th, was conducted to present recommended (preferred) roadway type and corridor selection, a recommended timeline for the prioritization and construction of phased improvements, along with existing and future traffic data. The public meeting was conducted in an "open house" format which provided a free, open and accurate exchange of information between area residents with specific issues or questions and the project team. The following agency and consultant representatives attended the public meetings:      ADOT MPD: Charla Glendening City of Apache Junction: Giao Pham Pinal County: Doug Hansen Michael Baker: Simon Pratt and Mike Sabatini Planning for Strategic Action: Audra Koester Thomas The majority of the comments received from the public were from residents of Sunland Springs Village which extends south from Baseline Road. The residents were concerned about the proximity of a new arterial four or six lane street adjacent to the sub‐division wall. Consequently the majority of the comments centered on continuing the Meridian Road alignment south of Baseline Road east of the section line. A Public Involvement Report was developed summarizing the outreach and feedback received and is included as part the Appendix C for this report. XI. Planning and Environmental Linkage (PEL) The purpose of the Planning and Environmental Linkages (PEL) approach is to streamline the project development and environmental review process by improving coordination among stakeholders during planning and project‐level decision‐making. The PEL methodology encourages agencies to take an integrated, systems perspective to support transportation, environmental, and community goals. It allows agencies to better understand and agree to the purpose and need, define a reasonable range of alternatives and eliminate unreasonable alternatives, and begin the public involvement and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) compliant documentation during the planning stage. The overall goal of the PEL approach is to document certain activities in the planning process that can be used to inform project development by encouraging planning and environmental staff in transportation and resource agencies to share tools and improve coordination. When successfully implemented, the PEL approach makes the entire life cycle of a transportation project a more seamless process and more sensitive to environmental resources, from transportation planning to satisfying NEPA requirements to design, construction, and maintenance. It minimizes duplication of effort, reduces delays in transportation improvements, and results in a more environmentally sensitive project. Meridian Road Corridor Study: Germann Road to McDowell Boulevard 76 October 2013 Meridian Road Corridor Study During the scoping meeting, the planning project partners reached an agreement on the level of detail that the corridor planning study should entail. The scoping material included identification and evaluation of such matters as:    The project's purpose and need; Reasonable alternatives for the project; and The project's impacts on the environment. An opportunity for public involvement was undertaken as well as strong participation from other agencies such as the City of Apache Junction, Pinal County, City of Mesa, Maricopa County and MAG along with resource agencies that have jurisdiction or an interest in the area of study. For those involved, the goal was to have early and meaningful involvement throughout the process. Finally, the results and decisions of the planning process need to be documented in a way that is clear, suitable, and readily available for incorporation into the NEPA document. If a study or decision is to be used in a NEPA review, the study and the documented decision will need to be publicly available for those wishing to comment on the NEPA document, so it is important to maintain public access to the planning documents until the NEPA process is complete. While planning studies, such as this corridor study, will generally not determine in detail what the impacts of a future project would be, these studies can be an effective basis for consideration of direct, indirect and cumulative impacts in NEPA analysis. As noted earlier, it is important for this corridor study to provide an overview of the planning area's current and future development patterns, growth, and demographics. By describing the interconnections between the transportation system, community resources, and the environment and natural ecosystem, this report will provide a baseline for measuring how the current environment will change and helps to identify what those changes may look like. One of the main emphasis of this planning level study is to avoid and/or minimize environmental effects through the use of early screening as well as to start interagency discussions in advance on any mitigation agreements. By utilizing the analyses of both environmental data and transportation planning information, it was possible to screen planning‐level decisions, such as the general travel corridor, for their impact on watersheds or habitat areas. Knowing the potential impact earlier will allow the involved agencies to develop more effective and economical mitigation strategies to meet both environmental and transportation objectives as the project progress through the next stages. FHWA recommends documenting planning‐level analysis that can be used to inform NEPA. One tool to accomplish this is the Planning/Environmental Linkages Questionnaire. The questionnaire is intended to:   Inform planners about the requirements and options to consider while developing a planning study with a goal to inform the NEPA process; and Document and share relevant planning information with NEPA practitioners to build understanding about a project – both the information studied and areas that require more analysis. Meridian Road Corridor Study: Germann Road to McDowell Boulevard 77 October 2013 Meridian Road Corridor Study The completed questionnaire will act as a summary of the planning process and it will ease the transition from planning to NEPA. The questionnaire is an adaptation of one developed by the Colorado Department of Transportation and FHWA Colorado Division Office. The questionnaire is included in Appendix F. In addition to the questionnaire a checklist was developed to allow planning studies to progress through the NEPA process. The checklist was used as guidance at the beginning of and throughout the corridor planning process, and for confirmation at the end of the study. Meridian Road Corridor Study: Germann Road to McDowell Boulevard 78 October 2013 APPENDIX A WORKING PAPER #1: EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS INVENTORY Michael Baker Jr., Inc. Phoenix, Arizona September 2012 Meridian Road Corridor Study Germann Road to McDowell Boulevard Working Paper #1 Existing and Future Conditions Inventory Prepared for: Prepared by Michael Baker Jr., Inc. Phoenix, Arizona Working Paper #1 Report Table of Contents I. Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 4 II. Study Area ................................................................................................................................. 4 III. Summary of Existing Plans and Studies .................................................................................... 7 Inventory ........................................................................................................................ 7 General Findings and Recommendations ...................................................................... 8 Socioeconomic Data Compiled from Other Studies ............................................ 8 Roadway Characteristics of Meridian Road ...................................................... 10 Summary of Transportation Issues Identified by Other Studies ....................... 12 IV. Existing Features Inventory ..................................................................................................... 15 Drainage Features ........................................................................................................ 15 East Mesa ADMP Structures Impacting Meridian Road .............................................. 19 Topography from Existing Sources .............................................................................. 20 Existing Utilities ............................................................................................................ 20 Recreation Trails, Parks/Areas, and Open Space ......................................................... 24 Existing Access Management Conditions and Policy/Guidelines................................. 24 Existing Network and Roadway Classifications ............................................................ 25 Existing Pavement Evaluation ...................................................................................... 30 Existing Multimodal Transportation ............................................................................ 32 V. Existing Socioeconomic Data .................................................................................................. 32 Jurisdictions within the Corridor .................................................................................. 32 Existing Land Use ......................................................................................................... 32 Existing Zoning ............................................................................................................. 33 Land Jurisdiction and Ownership ................................................................................. 33 VI. Existing Traffic Data ................................................................................................................ 37 Existing 2012 Traffic Volumes ...................................................................................... 37 Existing 2012 Level of service ...................................................................................... 41 Crash Data .................................................................................................................... 46 VII. Environmental Summary ........................................................................................................ 48 Population Living within Study Area ............................................................................ 48 Environmental Justice .................................................................................................. 48 Meridian Road Corridor Study – Working Paper #1 Existing and Future Conditions Inventory 1 September 2012 Working Paper #1 Report Biotic Community ......................................................................................................... 48 Wildlife ......................................................................................................................... 49 Visual Character and Noise .......................................................................................... 49 Water Resources .......................................................................................................... 50 Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) Properties ....................................................................... 50 Hazardous Materials .................................................................................................... 50 Cultural Resources ....................................................................................................... 52 Background Research ........................................................................................ 52 Windshield Survey ............................................................................................. 53 Recommendations for Further Cultural Resource Work .................................. 55 VIII. Future Conditions.................................................................................................................... 55 Flood Control District Channels ................................................................................... 55 Future Recreation Trails, Parks/Areas and Open Space .............................................. 57 Future Multimodal Transportation .............................................................................. 57 IX. Future Socioeconomic Data .................................................................................................... 58 Planned Land Use ......................................................................................................... 58 Future Land Development within the Corridor ........................................................... 58 Population and Employment ....................................................................................... 59 X. Future Traffic Volumes ............................................................................................................ 62 XI. Roadway Network Deficiencies .............................................................................................. 71 2025 Lane Deficiencies................................................................................................. 71 2035 Lane Deficiencies................................................................................................. 71 Pavement Deficiencies ................................................................................................. 71 Transportation Deficiencies ......................................................................................... 71 List of Figures Figure 1: Study Area ...................................................................................................................................... 6 Figure 2: Drainage Basins ............................................................................................................................ 16 Figure 3: Existing FEMA Data ...................................................................................................................... 17 Figure 4: Existing Drainage Features ........................................................................................................... 18 Figure 5: General Topography .................................................................................................................... 21 Figure 6: Existing Utilities ............................................................................................................................ 22 Figure 7: Existing Number of Lanes............................................................................................................. 26 Meridian Road Corridor Study – Working Paper #1 Existing and Future Conditions Inventory 2 September 2012 Working Paper #1 Report Figure 8: Posted Speed Limits ..................................................................................................................... 27 Figure 9: Existing 2012 Intersection Lane Configuration and Control Type ............................................... 28 Figure 10: Existing FHWA Functional Classification .................................................................................... 29 Figure 11: Existing Land Uses ...................................................................................................................... 35 Figure 12: Existing Land Ownership ............................................................................................................ 36 Figure 13: Existing 2012 Average Daily Traffic Volumes ............................................................................. 39 Figure 14: Existing 2012 Turning Movement Volumes ............................................................................... 40 Figure 15: 2012 Average Daily Level of Service .......................................................................................... 43 Figure 16: Existing 2012 Intersection Level of Service ................................................................................ 45 Figure 17: Crash Location and Type ............................................................................................................ 47 Figure 18: Future Land Use ......................................................................................................................... 61 Figure 19: 2025 Daily Traffic Volumes ........................................................................................................ 65 Figure 20: 2035 Daily Traffic Volumes ........................................................................................................ 66 Figure 21: Future 2025 Turning Movement Volumes ................................................................................. 67 Figure 22: Future 2035 Turning Movement Volumes ................................................................................. 68 Figure 23: 2025 Average Daily Traffic Level of Service ............................................................................... 69 Figure 24: 2035 Average Daily Traffic Level of Service ............................................................................... 70 List of Tables Table 1: Summary of Collected Documentation ........................................................................................... 7 Table 2: Existing Crossing Facilities within Study Area ............................................................................... 19 Table 3: Utility Stakeholders within the Meridian Road Corridor .............................................................. 23 Table 4: Access Control Guidelines per Jurisdiction (for Urban Arterial Roads)......................................... 25 Table 5: Existing Right‐of‐Way Widths........................................................................................................ 30 Table 6: Current Pavement Condition Survey............................................................................................. 31 Table 7: Pavement Condition Rating .......................................................................................................... 31 Table 8: International Roughness Index ..................................................................................................... 31 Table 9: 2012 Average Daily Traffic Volumes ............................................................................................. 38 Table 10: Level of Service Criteria for Urban Street Facilities..................................................................... 41 Table 11: Summary of Generalized Annual Average Daily Volume Threshold Values by Facility Type...... 42 Table 12: Level‐of‐Service Criteria for Signalized Intersections.................................................................. 44 Table 13: Level‐of‐Service Criteria for Unsignalized Intersections ............................................................. 44 Table 14: Leaking Underground Storage Tank Locations ........................................................................... 51 Table 15: Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Facilities ....................................................... 52 Table 16: Summary of Previously Recorded Cultural Resources within the Study Area ............................ 53 Table 17: Summary of Current Corridor Conditions ................................................................................... 54 Table 18: Project Influence Area Population Projections ........................................................................... 60 Table 19: 2025 and 2035 Daily Traffic Volumes.......................................................................................... 63 Meridian Road Corridor Study – Working Paper #1 Existing and Future Conditions Inventory 3 September 2012 Working Paper #1 Report I. Introduction The principal focus of the Meridian Road Corridor Study is to address the transportation planning needs identified by the jurisdictions and more particularly to lead the local jurisdictions to develop consensus on facility type, number of lanes and right‐of‐way requirements to guide the future development of the road. This could be memorialized through an intergovernmental agreement or a memorandum of understanding. Pinal County is the local sponsor in cooperation with the City of Apache Junction. Meridian Road is a section line alignment road that is located on the boundary between Pinal County and Maricopa County. Pinal County, Apache Junction, Maricopa County, Queen Creek and Mesa all control portions of Meridian Road. They anticipate that future design and construction, particularly in the more developed areas, will depend upon federal funding. Therefore, this study will utilize the ADOT Planning and Environmental Linkages (PEL) process. The proposed project is needed to support the continuing development and growth, occurring and anticipated, in the East Mesa, Apache Junction, and the San Tan Valley region. Significant growth is anticipated in this region that could result in population growth, economic development, and increased traffic volumes. The purpose of the Meridian Road Corridor Study is to evaluate the growing demands placed on local roads and streets by development in the region. The study will address the transportation planning needs identified by the jurisdictions and more particularly to lead the local jurisdictions to develop consensus on socio‐economic demographic, modeling forecasts, roadway facility type, number of lanes, and right‐of‐way requirements to guide the future development of the road. The study will also include roadway improvement phasing plans, cost estimates and implementation plans. Additionally, the study will examine multimodal opportunities necessary to accommodate growth and development, such as, bicycle and pedestrian needs. The purpose of this working paper is to document recent plans and current and future conditions in the project study area; build a solid foundation for the alternatives analysis; ensure consideration of all relevant information; develop an understanding of community objectives, opportunities and constraints; and identify any deficiencies in the study area. II. Study Area The study area for the Meridian Road Corridor Study is approximately 13 miles in length and is generally bounded by Germann Road on the south, McDowell Boulevard on the north, Ironwood Road on the east and Signal Butte Road on the west. Meridian Road is a section line alignment road that is located on the boundary between Pinal County and Maricopa County. Pinal County, Apache Junction, Maricopa County, Queen Creek and Mesa all control portions of Meridian Road. Although Arizona State Land Department does not control portions of Meridian Road, ASLD does own a majority of the land to the east of Meridian Road, south of Baseline Road. Currently, Meridian Road is a discontinuous road within the study area. Meridian Road is a paved two‐lane roadway from McDowell Boulevard to Baseline Road and between a half mile Meridian Road Corridor Study – Working Paper #1 Existing and Future Conditions Inventory 4 September 2012 Working Paper #1 Report north of Elliot Road and a half mile south of Warner Road. Meridian Road widens to provide a two‐way left‐turn lane between a half mile south of Lost Dutchman Boulevard and Superstitions Boulevard and a half mile north of Elliot Road to Warner Road. Meridian Road is a discontinuous dirt road within all remaining segments of the study area. The study area is depicted in Figure 1. Meridian Road Corridor Study – Working Paper #1 Existing and Future Conditions Inventory 5 September 2012 Working Paper #1 Report Figure 1: Study Area Meridian Road Corridor Study – Working Paper #1 Existing and Future Conditions Inventory 6 September 2012 Working Paper #1 Report III. Summary of Existing Plans and Studies Related plans, reports and studies completed during the last ten years were collected to compile available information and data pertinent to the Meridian Road Corridor Study. The purpose of this review is to gain an understanding of current issues and future plans within the study area. This chapter summarizes the available relevant information on existing and future conditions as contained in the plans, reports and studies collected. Inventory This section lists the reports and studies that were obtained and reviewed as part of the Meridian Road Corridor Study. Table 1 provides a listing of the documents collected including document type, date completed, and agency/jurisdiction. Table 1: Summary of Collected Documentation Doc. Type Report Jurisdiction Agency Author/Originator Arizona Department of Transportation, City of Apache Junction Jacobs Report Arizona Department of Transportation, City of Apache Junction Report Arizona Department of Transportation HDR Engineering, Inc. Report Arizona Department of Transportation N/A PARA Study Application Arizona Department of Transportation Pinal County Report Arizona Department of Transportation Report Arizona State Land Department Exhibit Arizona State Land Department Report Arizona State Land Department Memorandum Arizona State Land Department Report N/A White Paper N/A White Paper N/A Report City of Mesa Report Plans Plans City of Mesa Flood Control District of Maricopa County; City of Mesa Flood Control District of Maricopa County; City of Mesa Maricopa County Department of Transportation Book of Summaries Maricopa County Department of Transportation Report Memorandum of Understanding Maricopa County Department of Transportation Maricopa County Department of Transportation, City of Mesa Report Maricopa County Department of Transportation Report Maricopa County Department of Transportation Report Pinal County Report Pinal County Report Pinal County Meridian Road Corridor Study – Working Paper #1 Existing and Future Conditions Inventory Date Jun‐12 Apache Junction Comprehensive Transportation Study May‐12 North‐South Corridor Study Draft Purpose and Need Germann Road Corridor Improvement Study Power Road to Ironwood Road A Planning Assistance for Rural Areas Study Phase I Public Involvement Report Dec‐11 Meridian Road Corridor Study Aug‐11 Dec‐11 State Route 802, Williams Gateway Freeway Final N/A Apr‐11 Environmental Assessment and Appendices Spring 2011 Robert Grow Consulting Superstition Vistas: Final Report and Strategic Actions Pinal County (Superstition Vistas) Proposed Comprehensive N/A May‐11 Plan Amendment Jackie Guthrie & Superstition Vistas: Pinal County Comprehensive Plan Jun‐11 Associates Amendment Underlying Assumptions and Argument in Support of Robert Charles Lesser & May‐09 Household and Employment Growth Projections for Company, Inc. Superstition Vistas Arizona State Trust Land Superstition Vistas: Environmental Armature Concept Robert Grow Consulting Apr‐09 Summary EDAW Inc. Superstition Vistas Water Strategy White Paper Apr‐09 Kimley‐Horn and Superstition Vistas Transportation Planning White Paper N/A Associates, Inc. Superstition Vistas White Paper: Land Use Scenario Mar‐09 Fregonese Associates Development Mesa Gateway Strategic Development Plan: Transportation HDR Engineering, Inc. Jan‐09 Analysis Memorandum N/A City of Mesa Transportation Plan Jun‐02 Stanley Consultants, Inc. Siphon Draw Improvements Phase 2 Apr‐09 Stanley Consultants, Inc. Siphon Draw Improvements Phase 1 Jan‐09 YSMA Transportation Intersection Improvements of Southern Avenue and Meridian Jul‐11 Engineering Solutions Road 2010 Maricopa County Department of Transportation N/A Jan‐11 Corridor Studies Book of Summaries Signal Butte Corridor Improvement Study: US 60 to Dec‐09 EPS Group, Inc. Rittenhouse Road Memorandum of Understanding Between Maricopa County and the City of Mesa for Plan Review, Plan Approval, Aug‐08 N/A Permitting, Inspection, Construction, Annexation, Operation and Maintenance of Elliot Road from Power Road to Meridian Road Kimley‐Horn and Elliot Road Corridor Improvement Study: Power Road to the Jun‐08 Associates, Inc. Central Arizona Project Canal Meridian Road Access Control and Corridor Improvement URS Jan‐06 Study Nygaard/Nelson Pinal County Transit Feasibility Study Final Report Apr‐11 Consulting Associates Lima & Associates Regionally Significant Routes for Safety and Mobility Dec‐08 Kirkham Michael Pinal County Small Area Transportation Study Final Report Aug‐06 Consulting Engineers Arizona State Land Department White Paper Plans Jacobs Document Title Apache Junction Transit Feasiblity Study Update 7 September 2012 Working Paper #1 Report Table 1 (continued): Summary of Collected Documentation Doc. Type Jurisdiction Agency Report Pinal County Report Town of Queen Creek Author/Originator Document Title Kirkham Michael Pinal County Small Area Transportation Study Final Transit Consulting Engineers Element Report Cambridge Systematics, Queen Creek Small Area Transportation Study Inc. Date Aug‐06 May‐07 General Findings and Recommendations This section documents the findings and recommendations from existing studies and reports that are relevant to the study area. Socioeconomic Data Compiled from Other Studies Apache Junction Comprehensive Transportation Study (May 2012) The study states that the City of Apache Junction has experienced a population growth rate of 1.41% per year from 2000 to 2010, which is lower than the average statewide growth rate of 2.46% per year and significantly lower than the Pinal County growth rate of 10.91% per year. Housing unit growth rates between 2000 and 2010 in the City of Apache Junction were 0.31% per year, which is lower than the average statewide rate of 2.99% per year and significantly less than the Pinal County rate of 9.62% per year. (Page 7) The study mentioned that the proposed Portalis Master Plan Community, a 7,700‐acre master‐ planned community in Superstition Vistas, will have a large impact on the future growth of the City of Apache Junction. If the Portalis Master Plan Community becomes a reality the population of the City could more than double; however, development time frames for this area are uncertain. (Page 42) Mesa Transportation Plan (June 2002) The most recent transportation plan for the City of Mesa was completed in 2002. The Mesa Transportation Plan discusses all transportation issues affecting the City of Mesa and the implementation of the transportation plan expected to occur in phases between 2000 and 2025. The study states that the traffic volume growth within the City of Mesa from 1994 to 2000 ranges from 3% in the western part of the City to 59% in east Mesa. The largest percent increases occurred in east Mesa and south of US 60. (Page 4‐6) Elliot Road Corridor Improvement Study (June 2008) The Elliot Road corridor encompasses Elliot Road alignment between Power Road and the Central Arizona Project (CAP), extending past Meridian Road. The study shows the existing (2006) and project future (2015 and 2030) population and employment in the Elliot Road corridor. The annual population and employment growth rates along the Elliot Road corridor between 2006 and 2015 are 6.0% and 19.7%, respectively. The annual population and employment growth rates along the Elliot Road corridor between 2006 and 2030 are 5.1% and 11.2%, respectively. (Page 15) Pinal County Small Area Transportation Study (August 2006) This study cites an 11% annual growth rate in population between 2005 and 2025 within Pinal County with most of the county’s population located in the north central portion of the county. Meridian Road Corridor Study – Working Paper #1 Existing and Future Conditions Inventory 8 September 2012 Working Paper #1 Report (Page 48) A 13% annual increase in employment is anticipated to occur between 2005 and 2025 within Pinal County with most of the county’s employment located in the western portion of the county. (Page 52) North‐South Corridor Study, Draft Purpose and Need (December 2011) This study cited population projections for Maricopa, Pima and Pinal Counties between 2010 and 2050 at 100%, 103%, and 462% change, respectively. Employment projections for Maricopa, Pima and Pinal Counties between 2009 and 2050 result in a 132%, 87% and 850% change, respectively. Finally, population and employment projections for the North‐South Corridor between 2005 and 2050 result in a 832% and 3,927% change, respectively. (Page 12‐13) Meridian Road Corridor Study (August 2011) The study cited that the MAG Regional Transportation Plan indicated that Meridian Road from Baseline Road to Germann Road would be constructed under Phase 3 (Years 2016‐2020), a traffic interchange at Meridian Road/US 60 would be constructed under Phase 2 (Years 2011‐ 2015) and Williams Gateway Freeway from the State Route 202 (SR 202L) to Meridian Road would be constructed under Phase 3 (Years 2016‐2020) of the Plan. (Page 2‐14) Superstition Vistas Final Report and Strategic Actions (Spring 2011) Superstition Vistas comprises of approximately 175,000 acres of undeveloped land. The land is held in trust by the Arizona State Land Department and is managed for beneficiaries, the public schools and other state public institutions. (Page 13) There are six possible scenarios for the Superstition Vistas area. All scenarios assume that one million people would occupy the Superstition Vistas area (Page 4) Mesa Gateway Strategic Development Plan: Transportation Analysis Memorandum (January 2009) The Phoenix‐Mesa Gateway Airport is expected to become a major East Valley employment center. The vision of the Mesa Gateway Strategic Development Plan is to attract 100,000 high wage/high value jobs, create a financially sustainable area, protect and promote the airport, and create a live, work, play community. The preferred land use concept includes 36,100 households and 165,700 of employment. The land use concept and traffic projections take into account the expansion of the Arizona State University Polytechnic Campus and a residential and commercial mixed‐use development planned on the site of the former General Motors Proving Grounds. (Pages 24‐32) Pinal County Transit Feasibility Study (April 2011) Between 2000 and 2007, Apache Junction’s population grew from 32,000 to nearly 37,000. In addition to the City’s year‐round residents, the city estimates that it also has over 40,000 winter residents, many of whom are seniors. The city is largely residential, and has a very large proportion of mobile homes (50% of all housing units) and second homes (up to 40%). The city also has a significant number of adult‐only communities. (Page 3‐3) Meridian Road Corridor Study – Working Paper #1 Existing and Future Conditions Inventory 9 September 2012 Working Paper #1 Report The study mentioned that Pinal County is still sparsely developed, and most new development has been large‐scale residential communities. The number of major activity centers within the county is limited. The commercial district along Apache Trail and the Walmart in Apache Junction are included in the list of major activity centers with Pinal County. (Page 3‐15) Roadway Characteristics of Meridian Road Meridian Road Corridor Study (August 2011) Meridian Road is proposed to be a full six‐lane facility with a right‐turn lane and a left‐turn lane in each direction at the arterial intersections. In addition, bike lanes in each direction are proposed, along with sidewalks, curb and gutters, shoulder landscaping and raised landscaped median. The study limits begin at Empire Boulevard and end at Southern Avenue. (Page viii) Meridian Road is proposed to be a full six‐lane facility up to the intersection with Southern Avenue with the northbound outside third lane serving as a dedicated right‐turn lane at Southern Avenue. A full access traffic interchange at US 60 is also proposed. It was recommended to shift the section line alignment westward beginning just south of US 60 and tie into the existing section line at the intersection with Baseline Road. A meandering section line alignment from Baseline Road to Empire Boulevard was recommended to optimize the use of existing right‐of‐way and to avoid impacts to existing facilities. Finally, a single point urban interchange (SPUI) is recommended for the future Williams‐Gateway Freeway. (Pages 7‐1 – 7‐ 12) Apache Junction Comprehensive Transportation Study (May 2012) The study listed several short term improvements needed to meet the traffic demand as the study area reached a population of 60,000. These improvements included:     Half diamond interchange at US 60 and Meridian Road; Widen Meridian Road to four lanes from Broadway Road to Baseline Road; Intersection improvements at Southern Avenue and Meridian Road; and US 60 and Meridian Road Bridge rehabilitation. (Page 43) The study listed several midterm improvements needed to meet the traffic demand as the study area reached a population of 75,000. These improvements included extending Meridian Road south of Baseline Road to the Apache Junction city limits as a four‐lane roadway. The study recommends that the extension of Meridian Road as a four‐lane roadway south of the city limits to Hunt Highway to improve capacity within the project influence area. (Page 64) The study listed several long term improvements needed to meet the traffic demand as the study area reached a population of 130,000. These improvements under the preferred alternative included widening Meridian Road to six lanes between Apache Trail and Baseline Road. (Page 49‐50) Elliot Road Corridor Improvement Study (June 2008) The preferred alternative for the Elliot Road Corridor recommended in this study places the right‐of‐way centerline for the new typical cross‐section on the existing roadway centerline. Meridian Road Corridor Study – Working Paper #1 Existing and Future Conditions Inventory 10 September 2012 Working Paper #1 Report This will result in an offset in Elliot Road at Meridian Road of more than 300 feet due to the existing section lines not lining up across the Maricopa/Pinal county line. The preferred Elliot Road Corridor alternative includes a 10,000‐foot radius reverse curve that will not require superelevation, avoids an existing drainage wash, and aligns better with the planned Lost Dutchman Heights development roadway network and Siphon Draw Wash drainage basin. (Pages 47‐49) Ultimately, once the City is built out, Meridian Road will be widened to a six‐lane roadway from Apache Trail to Superstitions Boulevard. (Page 120) Signal Butte Road Corridor Improvement Study (December 2009) The study stated that on April 15, 2009, the Town of Queen Creek approved a general plan amendment that called for a realignment of Signal Butte Road and Meridian Road to consolidate the two transportation corridors between Queen Creek Road and Ocotillo Road. By combining the two transportation corridors, it will eliminate the need for a railroad crossing on Signal Butte Road and could expedite the development of a needed north‐south corridor within the area. (Page 13) Mesa Transportation Plan (June 2002) The Mesa Transportation Plan was completed in June 24, 2002. This study recommended the construction of the Williams Field Freeway (now called SR 24), a 6‐lane parkway, from SR 202L to Meridian Road within 6 to 10 years. (Page 4‐36) The construction of Elliot Road from Ellsworth Road to Meridian Road as 6‐lane arterial and widening of Guadalupe Road and Baseline Road from Ellsworth Road and Meridian Road is recommended within 11 to 15 years. (Page 4‐37) The construction of McKellips Boulevard from Sossaman Road to Meridian Road, Warner Road from Ellsworth Road to Meridian Road, Pecos Road from Power Road to Meridian Road and Signal Butte Road from Broadway Road to Warner Road as 6‐lane arterial roadways and the widening Southern Avenue from Ellsworth Road to Meridian Road and Signal Butte Road from Main Street to Broadway Road is recommended within 16 to 20 years. (Page 4‐38) Finally, the construction of Meridian Road from Baseline Road to Germann Road and Signal Butte Road from Warner Road to Germann Road as 6‐lane arterial roadways and the construction of Brown Road from Ellsworth Road to Meridian Road and Signal Butte Road from McKellips Road to University Drive as 4‐lane arterial roadways is recommended within 21 to 25 years. (Page 4‐39) The study recommended future transit improvements including a local bus route along Signal Butte Road from Baseline Road to Pecos Road, an express bus route along US 60, a Transit Priority Corridor/BRT Line along Main Street, and recommends future service expansion as demand warrants within the area between US 60 and Germann Road and between Ellsworth Road and Meridian Road. (Page 5‐25) Future bicycle lanes are recommended along Meridian Road from Baseline Road to Germann Road and along every major crossroad from Brown Road to Germann Road. (Page 6‐7) Meridian Road Corridor Study – Working Paper #1 Existing and Future Conditions Inventory 11 September 2012 Working Paper #1 Report Pinal County Small Area Transportation Study (August 2006) This study cites recommended improvements to include:   All regionally significant routes as 6‐lane major arterial facilities and All state highways as 4‐lane roadways except for the following, listed below: o Widen US 60 from SR 79 to Pinal/Gila County Line to 6 lanes; o Widen SR 347 from I‐10 to SR 84 to 6 lanes; o Widen SR 287 from SR 79 to proposed North‐South freeway to 6 lanes; and o Widen SR 79 from US 60 to Pinal/Pima County line to 6 lanes. (Page 63) This study recommends adding an additional north‐south roadway corridor to alleviate future congestion anticipated from new economic developments planned for the north central study area. The additional roadway should be a 6‐lane major arterial to accommodate the increase in traffic volumes and congestion that are expected in the area bounded by Williams Gateway, SR 79, SR 287 and Hunt Highway. (Page 75) Queen Creek Small Area Transportation Study (May 2007) The study shows improvements to the roadway network including a modified expressway connecting to the Williams Gateway Freeway at Meridian Road, a limited set of arterial improvements, widening of the Williams Gateway Freeway from Meridian Road to SR 202L, and an additional connector from Queen Creek Road to Germann Road just west of Hawes Road. (Page 3‐4) This study identified additional projects as part of the small area transportation study including improvements to Meridian Road from Germann Road to Riggs Road. The study classifies this section of Meridian Road as a high capacity facility or an access‐limited facility. It is believed that by adding one high capacity facility, traffic on the arterial system can be reduced by 35%. Development of this road requires completion of the segment of Meridian Road within Mesa from the Williams Gateway Freeway to Germann Road and a potential southeast extension of this route into Pinal County. (Page 5‐4) Summary of Transportation Issues Identified by Other Studies Meridian Road Corridor Study (August 2011) The highest traffic volumes along Meridian Road are in the southern portion of the study area with 2030 average daily traffic of 30,000 to 60,000 vehicles per day between Williams Field Road and Empire Boulevard (Page 3‐10). The study cites that as a six‐lane facility, the Year 2030 daily volume on Meridian Road is projected to exceed six‐lane planning level volume threshold of 45,000 vehicles per day south of the intersection with Riggs Road/Combs Road. (Pages 3‐13 – 3‐14) The study states that minimal existing right‐of‐way along Meridian Road has been dedicated. As a result, more than 65 feet of the right‐of‐way may be needed on one side of Meridian Road in some areas to accommodate the recommended alignment. (Page 8‐11) Meridian Road Corridor Study – Working Paper #1 Existing and Future Conditions Inventory 12 September 2012 Working Paper #1 Report Apache Junction Comprehensive Transportation Study (May 2012) The study showed that under no build conditions and population projections at 75,000, Meridian Road is anticipated to operate at a level of service C and D south of Southern Avenue. (Page 48) Under no build conditions and population projections at 130,000, Meridian Road is anticipated to operate at a level of service C and D south of Apache Trail with the segment between Southern and Baseline operating at a level of service E and F. (Page 52) Under the preferred alternative (includes widening Meridian Road between Apache Trail and Baseline Road to six lanes) when the population within the study area reaches 130,000, the highest traffic volumes along Meridian Road are between Southern and US 60 at greater than 30,000 vehicles per day (Page 91). Level of service is anticipated to be at A and B for entire segment of Meridian Road under the preferred alternative. (Page 92) The study recommends a local bus route along Meridian Road between Superstition Boulevard and Baseline Road when the population within the study area reaches 130,000. (Page 113) Apache Junction Transit Feasibility Study Update (May 2012) The study listed a “starter” service to be implemented to meet traffic demands as the study area reaches a population of 60,000. This “starter” route serves an area of the City that has the highest combined residential and employment densities, together with regional commuter services the City with Valley Metro. The route would provide service to the area bounded by Apache Trail to the north, Southern to the south, Delaware Drive to the west and SR 88 to the east. (Pages 78‐81) The study proposed several additional routes to be added to the area to meet traffic demand as the population reaches 75,000. These routes are proposed along Idaho Road and Baseline Road, Ironwood Drive and Meridian Road. The City of Apache Junction is proposing a local bus route along Meridian Road from University Drive/Superstition Boulevard to Broadway Avenue. This transit route would provide additional service to the area bounded by Meridian Road to the west, Apache Trail to the north, Ironwood Road on the east, and Baseline on the south that has a high combined residential and employment density. Wal‐Mart, the County/DMV office, City Hall, mixed use center and a transit hub are significant trip generators located along the proposed route. (Pages 81, 84‐90) The study proposed several additional routes and an expansion of a previously proposed route to meet traffic demands at the population reaches 130,000. The new routes proposed will provide service along Idaho Road and Southern Avenue as well as Apache Trail, Old West Highway and Tomahawk Road. Additional service was proposed along Meridian Road between Broadway Avenue and Baseline Road. (Pages 91‐98) Elliot Road Corridor Improvement Study (June 2008) The study shows 2030 average daily traffic (ADT) along Elliot Road west of Meridian Road at 29,500 vehicles per day and 23,600 vehicles per day east of Meridian Road based on 2030 MAG model outputs. 2030 average daily traffic along Meridian Road north of Elliot Road is Meridian Road Corridor Study – Working Paper #1 Existing and Future Conditions Inventory 13 September 2012 Working Paper #1 Report anticipated to be 14,600 vehicles per day and 25,600 vehicles per day south of Elliot Road based on 2030 MAG model outputs. Discrepancies between the 2030 MAG model and other travel demand models along the eastern portion of the study area resulted in an alternate set of 2030 ADT’s. The alternate set of 2030 ADT’s showed 40,400 vehicles per day and 32,300 vehicles per day along Elliot Road west and east of Meridian Road, respectively, and 38,900 vehicles per day and 48,400 vehicles per day along Meridian Road north and south of Elliot Road, respectively. (Pages 22‐23) Signal Butte Road Corridor Improvement Study (December 2009) The highest traffic volumes along the Signal Butte Road corridor are south of Germann Road ranging between 37,000 vehicles per day and 52,000 vehicles per day. Due to the realignment of the Signal Butte Road and Meridian Road corridors, the traffic volumes along Meridian Road north of Ocotillo Road to SR 802 (SR 24) are anticipated to decrease significantly and the volumes along Signal Butte Road north of Queen Creek Road to SR 802 (SR 24) are anticipated to increase. (Pages 14‐15) Mesa Transportation Plan (June 2002) The highest traffic volumes along Meridian Road are between Baseline Road and Warner Road ranging between 25,000 vehicles per day to 30,000 vehicles per day. (Page 4‐19) Pinal County Small Area Transportation Study (August 2006) The highest traffic volumes along Meridian Road are located between State Route 802 (SR 802) and Hunt Highway ranging from 38,000 vehicles per day and 68,000 vehicles per day. (Page 76) Level of service along Meridian Road is anticipated to be at a LOS of C or better except at the following locations:      The segment between Broadway Road to Southern Avenue is anticipated to operate at a LOS D; The segment between Southern Avenue and US 60 is anticipated to operate at a LOS F; The segment between US 60 and Baseline Road is anticipated to operate at a LOS E; The segment between Queen Creek Road and Combs Road is anticipated to operate at a LOS D; and The segment between Combs Road and Hunt Highway is anticipated to operate at a LOS F. (Page 67) Pinal County Transit Feasibility Study (April 2011) The study cited that in 2006, the largest volume of travel for all trip purposes was between Pinal County and Maricopa County. The majority of these were from Apache Junction at 99,000 per day. The largest numbers of trips between areas within Pinal County are from Eloy, Maricopa, and Coolidge to Casa Grande, and from Florence to Coolidge. The largest flows to Pima County are from the Oracle area. For work trips, the highest travel flows are also from Pinal County to Maricopa County. The largest of these are from Apache Junction at 20,000 per day. The largest work trip flows within Pinal County are to Casa Grande: 10,000 per day from Maricopa (which is the same level as to Meridian Road Corridor Study – Working Paper #1 Existing and Future Conditions Inventory 14 September 2012 Working Paper #1 Report Maricopa County) 8,000 per day from Eloy, and 6,000 per day from Florence. Given the popular success of Maricopa Xpress, these flows indicate that at the present time, commuter services could be feasible between Apache Junction and Maricopa County, between Maricopa and Casa Grande, and Eloy and Casa Grande. (Page 3‐19) There is already significant demand for transit from Apache Junction to Maricopa County, and over the next 15 years, work trip travel volumes will quadruple. In addition, work trip travel volumes from Maricopa County to Apache Junction will grow to almost as high as from Apache Junction to Maricopa County. Potential transit improvement includes the extension of Valley Metro services across the county line into Apache Junction to provide connections to and from the Phoenix area, and/or dedicated services between Apache Junction and Maricopa County. There will also likely be demand for service between Apache Junction and Florence. (Page 4‐10) IV. Existing Features Inventory The following sections provide an inventory of existing features within the study area. Drainage Features Existing drainage features within the study corridor include several watersheds, floodplain, washes, flood control projects, bridges, culverts, low water crossings and the Central Arizona Project (CAP) Canal which crosses at US 60. Runnoff throughout the area generally flows from northeast to southwest. Meridian Road, from McDowell Boulevard south, is generally the boundary between Maricopa County and Pinal County. Watershed runoff that originates in Pinal County flows into Maricopa County, crossing Meridian Road. All existing flood control projects along the Meridian Road project corridor belong to the Flood Control District of Maricopa County (FCDMC), with intent to mitigate flooding impacts of upstream watersheds on Maricopa County property. Figure 2 shows the watersheds that are bisected by Meridian Road. These watersheds include:        Bulldog Wash – Buckhorn Mesa FRS Town of Apache Junction – Roosevelt Canal Siphon Draw Dinosaur Mountain‐Roosevelt Canal Middle Queen Creek Peralta Canyon Apache Land Tank Figure 3 shows the FEMA watershed that impact Meridian Road. These floodplains include seven Zone A floodplains and one Zone AH floodplain. Figure 4 shows all existing crossing facilities within the project corridor. These crossings are identified in Table 2 and include three FCDMC Projects: Signal Butte Flood Retarding Structure (FRS) and Floodway, the Siphon Draw Drainage improvements, and the Powerline FRS and Floodway. Meridian Road Corridor Study – Working Paper #1 Existing and Future Conditions Inventory 15 September 2012 Working Paper #1 Report Figure 2: Drainage Basins Meridian Road Corridor Study – Working Paper #1 Existing and Future Conditions Inventory 16 September 2012 Working Paper #1 Report Figure 3: Existing FEMA Data (The area west of Meridian Road and south of US 60 is located on unmapped, unprinted FEMA FIRM panels, and thus contains no delineated floodplains.) Meridian Road Corridor Study – Working Paper #1 Existing and Future Conditions Inventory 17 September 2012 Working Paper #1 Report Figure 4: Existing Drainage Features Meridian Road Corridor Study – Working Paper #1 Existing and Future Conditions Inventory 18 September 2012 Working Paper #1 Report Table 2: Existing Crossing Facilities within Study Area Crossing No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Structure 18" RCP 3‐8' x 4' RCBC's Low Water Crossing Bridge (50' x 8.5') 4‐48" CMP's 2‐40" x 30" CMP Squash 24" RCP 10' x 3' RCBC Low WaterCcrossing Low Water Crossing 18" CMP Low Water Crossing Bridge 2‐10' x 4' RCBC's 10' x 3' RCBC 2‐24" RCP's 2‐10' x 4' RCBC's 4‐10' x 4' RCBC's Bridge Low Water Crossing 36" RCP Diversion Dike Description Location existing cross‐drainage existing cross‐drainage existing cross‐drainage Signal Butte FRS & Floodway existing cross‐drainage existing cross‐drainage existing cross‐drainage existing cross‐drainage existing cross‐drainage existing cross‐drainage existing cross‐drainage existing cross‐drainage CAP Canal Siphon Draw Drainage Improvements existing cross‐drainage existing cross‐drainage existing cross‐drainage existing cross‐drainage Powerline FRS & Floodway existing cross‐drainage existing cross‐drainage existing cross‐drainage 0.2 miles south of McDowell Blvd. 0.1 miles north of Whiteley St. 0.2 miles south of McKellips Blvd. Flood Control Project: 0.43 miles south of McKellips Blvd. 0.3 miles north of Brown Rd. @ Foothill St. Manzanita St. 0.04 miles north of Greasewood St. channel between Happy Days Park and D Ave A Ave Median of Main St./ Apache Trail 0.2 miles north of US 60 US 60 Flood Control Project: 0.07 miles north of Pronghorn Ave. 0.01 miles north of Pronghorn Ave. 0.05 miles south of Pronghorn Ave. 0.04 miles south of Mesquite St. 0.09 miles south of Segura Ave. Flood Control Project: 0.11 miles south of Segura Ave. 0.23 miles south of Starfire Ave. 0.09 miles north of Ray Rd. 0.46 miles south of Pecos Rd. East Mesa ADMP Structures Impacting Meridian Road The purpose of an Area Drainage Master Plan (ADMP) is to identify existing flood‐prone areas as well as projections of future conditions. Several existing and proposed detention basins, cross culverts, and collector channels identified in the East Mesa ADMP directly impact the Meridian Road corridor and are summarized below: Signal Butte: Signal Butte Flood Retarding Structure (FRS) is an earth‐fill dam with a geo‐membrane which is part of the Buckhorn‐Mesa system. The Signal Butte FRS is 1.3 miles in length and has a height of 39 feet, with a storage capacity of 1620‐acre feet. It is situated 100 feet to the west of Meridian Road north of Brown Road/Lost Dutchman Boulevard. Any impact to the geo‐membrane would be a fatal flaw for the Flood Control District. There is a maintenance road running alongside the dam which would need to be maintained at all times if Meridian Road is constructed or reconstructed. Any impact to the dam would require the involvement of Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWP) and National Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) as well as the Flood Control District of Maricopa County. Bulldog Floodway: Part of the Signal Butte FRS, the channel crosses Meridian Road approximately a half mile north of Brown Road/Lost Dutchman Boulevard. The flow in this channel is not supercritical which would allow for the placement of new piers if the new structure was required to carry Meridian Road over the floodway. Access to the floodway is from Meridian Road which would need to be maintained at all times during any construction or reconstruction of Meridian Road. Meridian Road Corridor Study – Working Paper #1 Existing and Future Conditions Inventory 19 September 2012 Working Paper #1 Report Sunland Springs Channel and Siphon Draw Detention Basin: The Siphon Draw Detention Basin is located east of Meridian Road in Pinal County and north of the Elliot Road alignment. The Sunland Springs Channel follows the Meridian Road alignment north of the Siphon Draw Basin. These facilities convey runoff reaching the site from two the Central Arizona Project (CAP) over chutes and intercepst runoff at the Pinal County line (Meridian Road alignment). The Siphon Draw Detention Basin collects channelized runoff and runoff from Siphon Draw and attenuates flows to allow a reduction in the size of downstream improvements. The Sunland Springs Channel which runs along the east side of Meridian Road is a concrete lined channel with eight drop structures extending 6,800 feet north of the Siphon Draw Basin. The channel acts as a flow‐by system that discharges excess flows into the basin through a side channel spillway. The Siphon Draw Basin collects the overflow from the Sunland Springs Channel and from two additional locations. Powerline Floodway: Powerline Flood Retarding Structure (FRS) is the northern‐most of a system of three flood control structures (Powerline FRS, Vineyard Road FRS and Rittenhouse FRS) running parallel to the CAP between the Baseline Road and Ocotillo Road alignments in Pinal County. Despite being located in Pinal County, the structures primarily provide flood protection for downstream portions of Maricopa County. Powerline FRS conveys storm water runoff to the Powerline Floodway which crosses Meridian Road a half mile south of Warner Road and outfalls at the East Maricopa Floodway. No structural impacts will be permitted to the Floodway. Any new bridge will require a clear span in order not to affect the supercritical flow in the channel. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NCRS) will need to permit any construction impacts to the Floodway. Topography from Existing Sources The topography along the Meridian Road alignment falls generally to the south. Approximately 15 unnamed washes are identified as crossing Meridian Road within the project limits. Additionally, Weekes Wash and Siphon Draw Wash combine upstream of Meridian Road and cross at one location. The average slope of the Meridian Road alignment varies along the corridor and is steeper in the northern section. Figure 5 illustrates the general topography within the study area. Existing Utilities Arizona Blue Stake was contacted to identify the utility stakeholders within one mile either side of the study area. Figure 6 illustrates the existing utilities within the study area. Table 3 contains a list of the utility owners and utility types identified by Blue Stake within the study area. Meridian Road Corridor Study – Working Paper #1 Existing and Future Conditions Inventory 20 September 2012 Working Paper #1 Report Figure 5: General Topography Meridian Road Corridor Study – Working Paper #1 Existing and Future Conditions Inventory 21 September 2012 Working Paper #1 Report Figure 6: Existing Utilities Meridian Road Corridor Study – Working Paper #1 Existing and Future Conditions Inventory 22 September 2012 Working Paper #1 Report Table 3: Utility Stakeholders within the Meridian Road Corridor Utility Company Type of Facility Salt River Project (SRP) Century Link Cox Communication Southwest Gas Media Com Arizona Water Company Central Arizona Canal (CAP) AT&T City of Mesa Utilities Communication, Electrical, Irrigation Coaxial, Fiber Optic CATV, Fiber Optic Gas CATV Water Irrigation Fiber Optic Gas, Water The utility stakeholders identified by Blue Stake were contacted to determine what facilities are within in the project study area and to request mapping. The following provides descriptions of the existing utilities within the Meridian Road corridor by utility stakeholder. Overhead Electric: SRP overhead electric lines exist for the majority of the alignment of Meridian Road along the east side of the right‐of‐way. In addition, there are 500kV overhead electric transmission lines crossing Meridian Road diagonally just south of the Powerline Floodway and between Elliot Road and Guadalupe Road. 69kV overhead electricity lines cross Meridian Road at Southern Avenue, University Drive/Superstition Boulevard and just north of Brown Road/Lost Dutchman Boulevard. Finally, a pair of 230 KV lines paralleling the 69kV line also crosses Meridian Road just north of Brown Road. Underground Electric: SRP underground electric lines exist in the vicinity of the new subdivisions along Meridian Road from half mile north of Elliot Road to one mile south of Elliot Road. Irrigation: The CAP canal crosses Meridian Road at the US 60 overpass. Natural Gas: The City of Mesa operates natural gas facilities in the corridor including a 4‐inch pipeline extending in Meridian Road from Germann Road south to Queen Creek Road. Potable Water: Arizona Water Company has numerous facilities in Meridian Road from Southern Avenue north to McDowell Boulevard. The City of Mesa operates a potable water system along Meridian Road. These facilities consist of a pipeline ranging from 12 inches to 20 inches in diameter extending from half mile north of Elliot Road to Warner Road and a pipeline ranging from 12 inches to 16 inches extending from Pecos Road to Germann Road. In addition, there are two City of Mesa well sites along Meridian Road located at the northwest corner of Germann Road and Meridian Road and at half mile south of Pecos Road on the west side of Meridian Road. Sanitary Sewer: North of US 60 there are sanitary sewers located both under Meridian Road and crossing at major intersections within the study area. Meridian Road Corridor Study – Working Paper #1 Existing and Future Conditions Inventory 23 September 2012 Working Paper #1 Report Telephone: Both CenutryLink and Cox Communication have facilities along Meridian Road between Ocotillo Road and Lenora Road and from Rittenhouse Road to Empire Boulevard. Cable TV: Cox Cable has facilities along Meridian Road in the vicinity of the new subdivisions on the west side of Meridian Road between half mile north of Elliot Road and one mile south of Elliot Road. Media Com has facilities along Meridian Road north of US 60. Recreation Trails, Parks/Areas, and Open Space There is one National Forest and one regional park located within the study area: the Tonto National Forest located at the northern terminus of Meridian Road and Usery Mountain Regional Park located northwest of the intersection of McKellips Boulevard and Meridian Road, adjacent to the Tonto National Forest. There are several access points to trails associated with these two regional parks along Meridian Road north of McKellips Boulevard. There is an existing Mesa Community Park, Skyline Park, located at Broadway Road and Crismon Road, approximately two miles west of Meridian Road. An existing Mesa Neighborhood Park, Augusta Ranch Park, is located at Guadalupe Road and Ellsworth Road, approximately three miles west of Meridian Road. An existing Apache Junction Community Park, Prospector Park, is located on Bureau of Land Management land north of Lost Dutchman Boulevard on Idaho Road, approximately two miles east of Meridian Road within the City of Apache Junction. Several lineal parks are located between Apache Trail and Southern Avenue and Idaho Road and Meridian Road. These lineal parks are oriented towards hiking, biking, horseback riding and walking trails. Existing Access Management Conditions and Policy/Guidelines Access management is a set of techniques that can be used to control access to highways, major arterials and other roads. The benefits of access management include improved traffic movement, reduced accidents, and fewer vehicle conflicts. Successful access management managed by change in access density seeks to simultaneously enhance safety, preserve capacity and provide for pedestrian and bicycles needs. The corridor is split into two unique areas. Between Southern Avenue and Brown Road/Lost Dutchman Boulevard is an urban environment where as south of Southern Avenue is more rural. North of Southern Avenue stop signs control traffic turning into Meridian Road at most access points. The exceptions are Broadway Avenue, Apache Trail and University Drive/Superstition Boulevard where traffic signals control access on to and from Meridian Road. South of Southern Avenue the rural nature of the study corridor combined with low traffic volumes and the lack of paved roadways means that most of the roadway does not have access control. Access to the few paved sections of Meridian Road further south of Southern Avenue is by partial stop access control. Access control procedures and design vary within the study corridor depending on the controlling jurisdictions although only minimally. Pinal County Comprehensive Plan references the access management policies set out in the Regional Significant Routes Plan for Safety and Mobility. Within the Cities of Mesa and Apache Junction there are no specific access control Meridian Road Corridor Study – Working Paper #1 Existing and Future Conditions Inventory 24 September 2012 Working Paper #1 Report guidelines; however, access control is governed by their respective Design Standards. Table 4 summarizes the access control within the study corridor. With Meridian Road following the section line between the various jurisdictions, approval for revisions to existing access or the establishment of new access points will need to be governed through some form of mutual agreement. Table 4: Access Control Guidelines per Jurisdiction (for Urban Arterial Roads) Access Control Feature Medians Traffic Signal Spacing Typical Traffic Control Access Driveway Full Access Driveway from Signal Partial; Access Driveway from Signal Driveway spacing Grade Separated Interchange Spacing Grade Separated Interchange Type Frontage Road On‐Street Parking Pinal County City of Mesa City of Apache Junction Divided with full or directional median Divided with full or directional median Divided with full or directional median openings at ¼ mile spacing openings at ⅙ mile spacing openings at ⅙ mile spacing ¼ mile and ½ mile locations fully coordinated and progressed where warranted Signalized, two‐way stop 100 feet from intersection Between ⅛ and ⅙ mile and between ⅓ and ½ mile locations fully coordinated and progressed where warranted Signalized, two‐way stop 100 feet from intersection ¼ mile and ½ mile locations fully coordinated and progressed where warranted Signalized, two‐way stop 100 feet from intersection 660 feet 880 feet 880 feet 330 feet 660 feet 660 feet 165 feet to 330 feet 60 feet (min) N/A One mile location where warranted One mile location where warranted N/A May include SPUI or tight diamond if warranted and feasible Possible Prohibited May include SPUI or tight diamond if warranted and feasible Possible Prohibited N/A N/A N/A Within the more rural areas, access control will be established by identifying the supporting street system necessary to sustain existing and planned development in the corridor. The anticipated street system that will serve as the backbone for development in the study corridor will generally be the arterial street grid system. These roadways are expected to be developed as urban arterials as the population of the region grows. Existing developed arterials located within the more rural areas that intersect Meridian Road include Southern Avenue, Baseline Road, and Elliot Road. The remaining section lines that will serve as the corridors for future arterials are undeveloped. Other existing and future facilities in the corridor listed within the section of this report titled Roadway Network Deficiencies will also have a profound effect on future access control. Existing Network and Roadway Classifications A field review was conducted to inventory the existing number of lanes, posted speed limits, intersection lane configurations and traffic control type. The resulting information is depicted in Figure 7, Figure 8 and Figure 9 respectively. Functional classification is the grouping of streets and highways into classes according to the character of service in which they are intended to provide. Figure 10 depicts the current FHWA approved functional classification for roadways within the study area. Meridian Road Corridor Study – Working Paper #1 Existing and Future Conditions Inventory 25 September 2012 Working Paper #1 Report Figure 7: Existing Number of Lanes Meridian Road Corridor Study – Working Paper #1 Existing and Future Conditions Inventory 26 September 2012 Working Paper #1 Report Figure 8: Posted Speed Limits Meridian Road Corridor Study – Working Paper #1 Existing and Future Conditions Inventory 27 September 2012 Working Paper #1 Report Figure 10: Existing FHWA Functional Classification Meridian Road Corridor Study – Working Paper #1 Existing and Future Conditions Inventory 29 September 2012 Working Paper #1 Report Existing right‐of‐way along Meridian Road varies between 33’ feet and 75’ feet with the majority of the existing right‐of‐way north of Baseline Road at 55 feet and the majority of the existing right‐of‐way south of Baseline Road at 65 feet. Table 5 provides the existing right‐of‐way along Meridian Road. Table 5: Existing Right‐of‐Way Widths Existing Pavement Evaluation Maricopa County Department of Transportation (MCDOT) operates a Pavement Management Program which provides a systematic process to plan pavement preservation activities. The program provides, analyzes and summarizes roadway and pavement information in order to Meridian Road Corridor Study – Working Paper #1 Existing and Future Conditions Inventory 30 September 2012 Working Paper #1 Report identify optimum strategies and select cost‐effective pavement preservation methods. MCDOT Operations uses three categories to evaluate the roadway. The first category is the pavement condition rating (PCR) which rates the condition of the pavement by measuring the physical distresses in the pavement such as cracking and potholes. The next rating category is the international roughness index (IRI), which measure the roughness of the pavement surface. The final rating is the Sufficiency Rating. This rating is based on six different types of geometric distress which are inventoried for safety. These distresses are: lane width, shoulder width, bottlenecks, drainage, and horizontal and vertical sight distance. Table 6 provides the current pavement condition survey for the roadways within the study area. Table 7 provides a description for the pavement condition ratings. Table 6: Current Pavement Condition Survey From Road To Road PCR IRI Suff Last Work Done Date Warner Road Renfield Avenue Baseline Road Southern Avenue Pueblo Avenue Broadway Road Apache Trail Apache Trail University Drive Brown Road McKellips Boulevard Renfield Avenue Mesquite Street Southern Avenue Pueblo Avenue Broadway Road Apache Trail Apache Trail University Drive Brown Road McKellips Boulevard McDowell Road 88 88 40 40 40 54 60 73 58 60 85 88 88 225 361 361 325 325 218 218 225 149 89 89 91 86 86 83 91 97 89 89 97 Open,Grade,Drain,Base & Pvmt Open,Grade,Drain,Base & Pvmt Crack‐fill Crack‐fill Crack‐fill Crack‐fill Crack‐fill Crack‐fill Crack‐fill Crack‐fill Crack‐fill 5/20/2009 5/20/2009 11/12/2010 11/16/2010 11/15/2010 11/16/2010 11/17/2010 11/18/2010 11/18/2010 11/17/2010 11/17/2010 Table 7: Pavement Condition Rating Rating Description Less than 40 40‐54 55‐70 71‐84 85‐100 Poor Fair Good Very Good Excellent The average PCR for county roads in Maricopa County is 82.61. The average PCR for Meridian Road from Warner Road to McDowell Boulevard is a good rating at 62.00. Table 8 provides a description for the international roughness Index. Table 8: International Roughness Index Rating Description 0‐59 60‐94 Very Smooth Smooth 95‐170 Average 171‐220 Greater than 220 Rough Very Rough Meridian Road Corridor Study – Working Paper #1 Existing and Future Conditions Inventory 31 September 2012 Working Paper #1 Report The average roughness of the county roads in Maricopa County is 163.09, which is rated as average. The average IRI rating for Meridian Road between Warner Road and McDowell Boulevard is 235, which is rated as very rough. A sufficiency rating number between 0 and 100 is determined for each section of road with 100 being the best. If the rating is less than 35, the roadway is programmed for re‐construction. The average sufficiency rating for Meridian Road between Warner Road to McDowell Boulevard is 90. Existing Multimodal Transportation City of Apache Junction has limited transit providers in the area. Two private‐sector operators currently provide demand‐response public transportation service in the area. These providers offer service to either Phoenix Sky Harbor or Phoenix Mesa Gateway Airport, as well as local service to Wal‐Mart, Superstition Springs Mall, and a variety of medical appointments. The remaining transit providers within the City of Apache Junction are operated by East Valley Senior Services provided mileage reimbursement programs, coupon booklets for cab fare, and passenger van service for medical appointments and grocery shopping. There are currently bike lanes along Meridian Road between University Drive/Superstition Boulevard and Tepee Street (half mile north of University Drive/Superstition Boulevard). There is an existing sidewalk along the west side of Meridian Road between Tepee Street and University Drive/Superstition Boulevard, between a half mile north of Elliot Road and Warner Road, and for an approximately half mile segment south of Warner Road. A discontinuous sidewalk exists along Meridian Road between University Drive/Superstition Boulevard and Southern Avenue. V. Existing Socioeconomic Data Jurisdictions within the Corridor The study area is segmented into five separate jurisdictions (City of Apache Junction, City of Mesa, Town of Queen Creek, Pinal County and Maricopa County) that control development through their own adopted general/comprehensive plans, zoning ordinances, and subdivision regulations. Existing Land Use From McDowell Boulevard to Southern Avenue the primary land use is low to medium density residential with pockets of commercial. The residential is characterized by a number of RV parks such as El Dorado Mobile Home Resort and Coral Sand RV Park. Southern Avenue to Baseline Road land use patterns include primarily rural‐residential with small parcels of commercial, industrial and low density residential. A small pocket of fabrication and heavy equipment manufacturing uses is located among other commercial and industrial operations south of Baseline Road. Further south the existing land use pattern within the study area primarily reflects the rural residential and agricultural themes that have existed in the region for decades. The eastern half of the study area is occupied largely by agricultural uses and large‐lot, single‐ family homes such as Sunland Springs Subdivision, Bella Via and Superstition View Ranchettes. Meridian Road Corridor Study – Working Paper #1 Existing and Future Conditions Inventory 32 September 2012 Working Paper #1 Report Currently undeveloped rural land platted for future development is located to the west of Meridian Road. The residential developments located to the north typically exhibit smaller lot sizes (approximately six units to the acre) than those located to the south. Several industrial employment areas are located in south Mesa and east Queen Creek. Specifically, the Landstar Polymer plant, located at the northwest corner of the intersection of Meridian and Pecos roads, is a rubber recycling facility currently under development that is expected to be a cornerstone of the Meridian Business Park in Mesa. Similar uses nearby include TRW Safety Systems, which manufactures automobile airbags, and the Arch Chemical semiconductor chemical manufacturing plant. Figure 11 shows the existing land uses within the study corridor. Existing Zoning The existing zoning districts utilized by the City of Mesa, City of Apache Junction, Maricopa County and Pinal County that fall within the study area have been collapsed into five general categories to illustrate a consistent pattern of zoning among differing county and city/town designations. The majority of the planning area is primarily occupied by single‐family residential, agricultural, and farming‐related uses. The majority of the northern portion of the study area from Southern Avenue to University Drive/Superstition Boulevard, is zoned for medium density single‐family homes. In addition there are several isolated areas of community commercial mainly at the corners of the major arterial intersections. North of University Drive/Superstition Boulevard, the zoning changes to low density residential with large areas of park and open space notably Usery Mountain Regional Park and the Tonto National Forest. Between Southern Avenue and Baseline Road, the zoning is categorized as light industry/ Business Park. South of Baseline Road most of the corridor has been designated as low to medium density single‐family residential. Small islands of light industrial zoning exist just north of Guadalupe Road on the east side of Meridian Road and again on the west side around Pecos Road and Germann Road. Land Jurisdiction and Ownership The study area contains property within portions of unincorporated Pinal and Maricopa Counties as well as substantial land areas currently incorporated into the communities of Mesa, and Apache Junction. The City of Mesa’s land occupies a majority of the western portion of the corridor. To the east, the land is occupied by the City of Apache Junction north of Elliot Road and by Unincorporated Pinal County to the south. Private entities own a majority of the land within the study area. The only exception to this trend exists on the west side of the study area bordered by Baseline Road to the south and Southern Avenue to the north. At this location, Arizona State Trust land and the Bureau of Reclamation, which operates the CAP canal, are the property owners. On the east side of the study area, in Pinal County from Baseline Road to Germann Road, nearly all of the study area is held as Arizona State Trust land in both unincorporated Pinal County and the City of Apache Junction. In addition, the Bureau of Meridian Road Corridor Study – Working Paper #1 Existing and Future Conditions Inventory 33 September 2012 Working Paper #1 Report Reclamation also owns a small portion of this region located to the north of Guadalupe Road that is occupied partially by industrial and manufacturing uses. Figure 12 shows the land ownership within the study area. Meridian Road Corridor Study – Working Paper #1 Existing and Future Conditions Inventory 34 September 2012 Working Paper #1 Report Figure 11: Existing Land Uses Meridian Road Corridor Study – Working Paper #1 Existing and Future Conditions Inventory 35 September 2012 Working Paper #1 Report Figure 12: Existing Land Ownership Meridian Road Corridor Study – Working Paper #1 Existing and Future Conditions Inventory 36 September 2012 Working Paper #1 Report VI. Existing Traffic Data Existing 2012 Traffic Volumes Traffic Research and Analysis (TRA) collected forty‐eight‐hour approach and departure volumes with automatic traffic recorders in fifteen minute intervals at nine locations within the study area along Meridian Road to obtain the ADT volumes. A seasonal adjustment factor of 20% was applied to the approach and departure volumes. The seasonal adjustment factor was determined based upon ADOT’s monthly ADT volumes collected within the study area. The 2012 adjusted ADT volumes are shown in Table 9 and illustrated in Figure 13. A detailed report of the traffic counts are contained in Appendix A. TRA counted current traffic volumes at ten existing intersections within the study area on Tuesday, May 22, 2012. Turning movement counts were collected in fifteen minute intervals from 6:00 AM to 9:00 AM and from 3:30 PM to 6:30 PM. Based on information from the ADOT Transportation Data Management System, in the Apache Junction area the month in which the traffic volumes peak is 20 percent higher than traffic volumes in the month of May. Therefore, a seasonal adjustment factor of 20% was applied to the turning movement volumes. The 2012 adjusted turning movement counts for the AM and PM peak periods are shown in Figure 14. A detailed report of the turning movement counts are contained in Appendix A. Meridian Road Corridor Study – Working Paper #1 Existing and Future Conditions Inventory 37 September 2012 Working Paper #1 Report Table 9: 2012 Average Daily Traffic Volumes Direction Average Daily Traffic (VPD) 2012* NB 612 SB 655 McKellips Boulevard to Brown Road/Lost Dutchman Boulevard NB 1,534 SB 1,632 Brown Road/Lost Dutchman Boulevard to University Drive/Superstition Boulevard NB 2,707 SB 2,914 University Drive/Superstitions Boulevard to Apache Trail NB 3,494 SB 3,352 NB 3,350 SB 3,673 NB 2,633 SB 2,467 NB 2,633 SB 2,467 NB 1,570 SB 1,495 NB 731 SB 697 NB 781 SB 713 Meridian Road Segment McDowell Road to McKellips Boulevard Apache Trail to Broadway Road Broadway Road to Southern Avenue Southern Avenue to US 60 US 60 to Baseline Road Guadalupe Road to Elliot Road Elliot Road to Warner Road * Approach and Departure volumes are adjusted to account for a 20% seasonal factor Meridian Road Corridor Study – Working Paper #1 Existing and Future Conditions Inventory 38 September 2012 Working Paper #1 Report Figure 13: Existing 2012 Average Daily Traffic Volumes Meridian Road Corridor Study – Working Paper #1 Existing and Future Conditions Inventory 39 September 2012 Working Paper #1 Report Existing 2012 Level of service The ability of a transportation system to transmit the transportation demand is characterized as its level of service (LOS). LOS is a rating system from “A”, representing the best operation, to “F”, representing the worst operation. The appropriate reference for LOS operation is the Highway Capacity Manual, published by the Transportation Research Board. This manual characterizes the LOS for an urban street facility as described in Table 10. Table 10: Level of Service Criteria for Urban Street Facilities Level‐of‐Service Characterized by HCM as: A Primarily free‐flow speed. Vehicles are completely unimpeded in their ability to maneuver within the traffic stream. Control delay at the boundary intersections is minimal. The travel speed exceeds 85% of the base free‐flow speed. B Reasonably unimpeded operation. The ability to maneuver within the traffic stream is only slightly restricted and control delay at the boundary intersections is not significant. The travel speed is between 67% and 85% of the base free‐flow speed. C Stable operation. The ability to maneuver and change lanes at mid‐segment locations may be more restricted than at LOS B. Longer queues at the boundary intersections may contribute to lower travel speeds. The travel speed is between 50% and 67% of the base free‐flow speed. D Less stable condition in which small increases in flow may cause substantial increases in delay and decrease in travel speed. This operation may be due to adverse signal progression, high volume, or inappropriate signal timing at the boundary intersections. The travel speed is between 40% and 50% of the base free‐flow speed. E Unstable operation and significant delay. Such operation may be due to some combination of adverse progression, high volume, and inappropriate signal timing at the boundary intersections. The travel speed is between 30% and 40% of the base free‐flow speed. F Flow at extremely low speed. Congestion is likely occurring at the boundary intersections, as indicated by high delay and extensive queuing. The travel speed is 30% or less of the base free‐ flow speed. Also, LOS F is assigned to the subject direction of travel if the through movement at one or more boundary intersections has a volume ‐to‐capacity ratio greater than 1.0. In general, LOS A and B represent no congestion, LOS C and D represent moderate congestion, and LOS E and F represent severe congestion. LOS can be calculated for roadway segments, intersections, and freeway mainline lanes and ramps. LOS estimates also can be calculated for different periods, including daily conditions and peak hour conditions. The LOS analysis discussed in this section focuses on planning level roadway segment performance within the study area based on daily roadway segment volumes. Analysis of study area intersections based on peak hour turning movement volumes and anticipated delay is discussed in the following section. The widely accepted 2009 Quality/Level of Service Handbook published by the Florida Department of Transportation was the planning guidelines relating LOS to daily volumes to Meridian Road Corridor Study – Working Paper #1 Existing and Future Conditions Inventory 41 September 2012 Working Paper #1 Report estimate capacity for roadway segments. These guidelines are not an exact description of the actual operating LOS on a particular roadway segment, but they give an indication of when the roadway falls below acceptable levels of service. Table 11 shows the capacity threshold values for the ADT levels obtained in May of 2012 for this study. Arterial street capacity thresholds were derived directly from “Table 4‐1, Generalized Annual Average Daily Volumes for Florida’s Urbanized Areas (Freeway & State Two‐Way Arterial Facilities),” published by the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) in the widely accepted 2009 Quality/Level of Service Handbook. Information relevant to arterial facilities in FDOT’s 2009 Quality/Level of Service Handbook served as reference for the development of specific values to reflect current Metropolitan Phoenix area conditions and future conditions anticipated to exist ultimately in the Study Area. Pertinent data related to the 2009 Quality/Level of Service Handbook is included in Appendix B. As indicated in Table 11, LOS D was considered the threshold of acceptable operations for arterial facilities. The LOS threshold measures reflect the traffic volume characteristics of each facility or grouping of facility types. The selection of these LOS threshold values accounts for the expectations of the drivers as well as the relative costs associated with the construction of each facility type. ADT volumes in excess of the thresholds illustrated in Table 11 indicate a condition in which the volumes on a given roadway segment exceeds the planning‐level capacity for that facility. Table 11: Summary of Generalized Annual Average Daily Volume Threshold Values by Facility Type Facility Type Number of Through Lanes Roadway Classification Level of Service Daily Volume Threshold Threshold Values Major Arterial 6 Class I (<2 Signals/Mi.) LOS D 55,300 Minor Arterial 5 Class I (<2 Signals/Mi.) LOS D 46,000 Minor Arterial 4 Class I (<2 Signals/Mi.) LOS D 36,700 Minor Arterial 2 Class I (<2 Signals/Mi.) LOS D 16,500 Figure 15 depicts the current LOS for segments of Meridian Road within the study area. Meridian Road Corridor Study – Working Paper #1 Existing and Future Conditions Inventory 42 September 2012 Working Paper #1 Report Figure 15: 2012 Average Daily Level of Service Meridian Road Corridor Study – Working Paper #1 Existing and Future Conditions Inventory 43 September 2012 Working Paper #1 Report The HCM considers the average delay per vehicle as the measure to determine the LOS of a signalized intersection. The delay and LOS are calculated for the intersection, each approach, and each turning movement. Table 12 lists the LOS criteria for signalized intersections as stated in the Highway Capacity Manual. Table 13 the level‐of‐service criteria for the unsignalized study area intersections. Table 12: Level‐of‐Service Criteria for Signalized Intersections Level‐of‐Service A B C D E F Average Control Delay (s/veh)  10 > 10‐20 > 20‐35 > 35‐55 > 55‐80 > 80 Table 13: Level‐of‐Service Criteria for Unsignalized Intersections Level‐of‐Service A B C D E F Average Control Delay (s/veh)  10 > 10‐15 > 15‐25 > 25‐35 > 35‐50 > 50 One of the important conditions for determining LOS at an intersection is the number of lanes provided for each movement on each approach at the intersection. The existing intersection geometry for each study intersection is discussed within the section of this report titled Existing Roadway Network. The existing intersection geometry for the study area intersections is shown in Figure 9. The LOS for the study area intersections was evaluated using Synchro software, which utilizes the criteria described in Table 12 and Table 13. The existing LOS for the signalized and unsignalized intersections within the study area are shown in Figure 16. Appendix C provides the complete results of the existing 2012 LOS analyses. Meridian Road Corridor Study – Working Paper #1 Existing and Future Conditions Inventory 44 September 2012 Working Paper #1 Report Crash Data Crash analysis was conducted for Meridian Road within the study area to identify trends, patterns, predominant crash reasons, and high crash rate intersections. The purpose of the crash analysis is to identify locations that need to be addressed to improve safety. Data for crashes occurring between June 2007 and June 2012 was obtained from ADOT’s Accident Location Identification Surveillance System (ALISS) database. During this five year period, a total of 7 crashes occurred within the study area. Figure 17 illustrates the location and type of each crash during the analysis period. Of the 7 crashes within the study area, analysis of the crash data found: o o o o o 3‐single vehicle, 2‐rear‐end, 1‐rear‐to‐side and 1‐left‐turn 4 were non‐injury crashes, 1 possible injury, 1 incapacitating injury and 1 fatality 2 following too close, 2 failure to stop at stop sign, 1 unknown, 1 exceeding lawful speed and 1 inattention/distraction All 7 crashed occurred during dry conditions 3 crashes occurred during daylight and 4 in the dark Fatality crash rates were computed for roadway segments with high numbers of crashes. Crash rates for roadway segments are expressed as “crashes per 100 million vehicle miles traveled” (MVMT). The following formula was used to calculate the fatality rate: 100,000,000 x no. of fatalities ADT x no. of years x 365 x length of segment Similarly average annual total crash rates were calculated for particular segments using the following formula: 1,000,000 x no. of crashes ADT x no. of years x 365 x length of segment Crash Rate Comparisons The fatality crash rate for the Meridian Road study area is 0.014. This fatality rate is considerably lower than the 2005‐2009 average Arizona and U.S. fatality crash rate of 1.29 and 1.13, respectively (per the 2009 Arizona Crash Facts Summary prepared by ADOT Intermodal Transportation Division). The average annual total crash rates for the Meridian Road study area segment is 0.099. This rate is predominantly lower than the 2009 Arizona and U.S. crash rates of 1.7 and 1.8, respectively (per 2009 Arizona Crash Facts Summary prepared by ADOT Intermodal Transportation Division and the Traffic Safety Facts 2009 prepared by NHTSA). Meridian Road Corridor Study – Working Paper #1 Existing and Future Conditions Inventory 46 September 2012 Working Paper #1 Report Figure 17: Crash Location and Type Meridian Road Corridor Study – Working Paper #1 Existing and Future Conditions Inventory 47 September 2012 Working Paper #1 Report VII. Environmental Summary This section summarizes the existing environmental conditions for the Meridian Road Corridor Study Area, which is generally bounded by Germann Road on the south, McDowell Boulevard on the north, Ironwood Road on the east and Signal Butte Road on the west. This environmental overview is not intended to meet the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Environmental Summary describes the study area in terms of its physical and natural, and cultural resources contexts. The study area includes lands within the City of Mesa, Apache Junction, Maricopa County, and Pinal County. The information presented is based on existing data sources from municipal, county, state, and federal agencies; and, on a “windshield” survey of the study area. Population Living within Study Area The study area is predominately White with some Hispanics, African American, Asian, American Indian Alaskan Native, Native Hawaiian Pacific Islanders, and others. Based on 2010 US Census there are elderly, low‐income, disabled and female heads of household populations are found in the study area; however, these groups represent a small percentage of the overall population. There are approximately 51,779 White,1,339 African American, 1,282 Asian, 540 American Indian Alaskan Native, 141 Native Hawaiians Pacific Islanders, and 3,568 Other in the study area. There are 10,075 Hispanic and 48,962 Non‐Hispanic. The approximate population is 60,768 for the Meridian Road Corridor Study Area. Four the census tracts overlap outside the study area. Environmental Justice The study area contains a population of approximately 60,768 persons with an average of 85 percent being white. Title VI Environmental Justice populations are relatively low in the study area. Biotic Community The majority of the study area is relatively flat with an average elevation of 1,200 feet above sea level. No permanent natural water sources exist within the study area; however, numerous ephemeral washes dissect the study area. The middle portion of the study area is dominated by creosote bushes with scattered ironwood, mesquite and palo verde. The study area provides cover and foraging opportunities for wildlife due to the presence of vegetation and ephemeral washes. The southern portion of the study area is located in the Lower Colorado River Sonoran Desertscrub with vegetation that include honey mesquite (Prosopis glandulosa), ironwood (Olneya tesota), blue paloverde(Cercidium floridum), desert willow (Chiopsis linearis), creosotebush (Larrea tridentata), white bursage (Ambrosia dumosa), canyon ragweed (Ambrosia ambrosioides), indigo bush (Psorothamnus schottii), big galleta (Hilaria rigida), catclaw acacia (Acacia greggii), burrobrush (Hymenoclea salsola), saltbush (Atriplex polycarpa), and desert broom (Baccharis sarothroides). The northern portion of the study area is in the Sonoran Desertscrub ‐ Arizona Upland Subdivision where vegetation generally appears similar to a Meridian Road Corridor Study – Working Paper #1 Existing and Future Conditions Inventory 48 September 2012 Working Paper #1 Report scrubland or low woodland of leguminous trees with intervening spaces held by several open layers of shrubs and perennials succulents. Species found within this subdivision include: blue paloverde, ironwood, mesquites (Prosopis spp.), catclaw acacia, foothill paloverde (Cercidium microphyllum), crucifixion thorn (Canotia holacantha), chollas (Opuntia spp.), saguaro (Carnegia gigantean), organ pipe (Stenocereus thurberi), barrel cactus (Echinocactus horizonthanlonius), and fishhook barrel cactus (Ferocactus wislizenii) (Brown, D.E., 1994). Wildlife Wildlife found in the Sonoran Desertscrub (Lower Colorado River and Arizona Upland subdivisions) includes the following: Mammals: Desert mule deer (Odocoileus hemionuscrooki), feral burros (Equus asinus), coyote (Canis latrans), javelina (Dicotyles tajacu), desert cottontail (Sylvilagus auduboni), black‐tailed jackrabbit (Lepus californicus), ground squirrels (Ammospermoshilus spp.), pocket mice (Perognathus spp.). Birds: Burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia), quail (Lophortyx spp.), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), doves (Zenaida spp.), road‐runner (Geococcyx californianus), raven (Covus cryptoleucus), cactus wren (Campylorhynchus brunneicapillus). Reptiles: Chuckwalla (Sauromalus obesus), common lizards (Uma spp.), whiptails (Cnemidophorus spp.), horned lizards (Phrynosoma spp.), rattlesnakes (Crotalus spp.). Amphibians: Couch’s spadefoot (Scaphiopus couchii), red‐spotted toad (Bufo punctatus), Sonoran Desert toad (B. alvarius), Great Plains toad (B. cognatus), American bullfrog (Ranacatesbeiana) (Brown, D.E., 1994). A scoping letter has been submitted to Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD) for any listing of threatened and endangered species in the study area. Available and existing literature review shows the study area provides suitable habitat for various native wildlife species, but does not contain suitable habitat for any federally threatened and endangered species or candidates species listed in for the southern portion of the study area south of US 60. Visual Character and Noise The Meridian Road corridor is in an air nonattainment area for carbon monoxide, ozone, and particulate matter smaller than 10 microns, which have transportation control measures in the State Implementation Plans and Federal Implementation Plan. Potential sensitive noise receivers located adjacent to the Meridian Road alignment include residences, school, and churches. Grace Community Church on Apache Trail is located approximately one quarter of mile from Meridian Road. There are four other churches between Meridian Road and Ironwood Road. The Imagine Prep at Superstition school is located south of Broadway Road near Ironwood Road. Other schools within the study area include Excalibur Charter High School at Main Street and Signal Butte, Briton Elementary School at the northwest Meridian Road Corridor Study – Working Paper #1 Existing and Future Conditions Inventory 49 September 2012 Working Paper #1 Report corner of southern Blvd and Meridian Road, and Meridian Elementary School at the northwest corner of Mountain Road and Mesquite St. Potential sensitive noise receivers within the study area include residences located adjacent to the Meridian Road alignment. Existing noise data are not currently available for the study area. During subsequent environmental documentation activities for the study area, ambient noise levels may need to be monitored at specific locations. The future noise quality for the study area would need to be evaluated against the existing noise data to conform to the ADOT Noise Abatement Policy. Water Resources Potential jurisdictional waters of the US located in the study area include several unnamed washes. These should be delineated before construction to determine the need for Sections 401 and 404 permits. The Central Arizona Project (CAP) canal traverses the study are at US 60 and Meridian Road. The area south of the Powerline Floodway is part of the East Mesa Area Drainage Master Plan which is under study. There are portions of the northern part of study area that occur within Zone A of the FEMA Flood Map. Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) Properties In the newer residential development between Baseline Road and Ray Road, there are multi‐use facilities as retention basins during periods of increased flooding and may function as parks, trails and recreation areas during times of reduced rainfall and water run‐off. The Little League Park is located at southwest corner of Apache Trail and Ironwood. There are numerous hiking and equestrian trails within the study area and the most northern trail is the Pass Mountain Trail within the Usery Mountain Regional Recreation Area north of McDowell Boulevard. There is also a recreational trail than runs parallel to the CAP canal which may serve as multi‐use and equestrian trial. P & M Equestrian Park is located at the northwest corner of Brown Road and Meridian Road. The project may impact the equestrian park since it is adjacent to the Meridian Road. The Superstition Air Park (park for model airplanes) is located within the large earthen bermed retention basin north of Brown Rd and east Meridian Road. Hazardous Materials A review of available Arizona Department of Quality (ADEQ) databases revealed leaking underground storage tank (LUST) locations which are shown in Table 14. Meridian Road Corridor Study – Working Paper #1 Existing and Future Conditions Inventory 50 September 2012 Working Paper #1 Report Table 14: Leaking Underground Storage Tank Locations Location UTM Type At Signal Butte along West Apache Trail Between Meridian and Mountain Road along West Apache Trail Between Meridian Road and Ironwood along West Apache Trail At Ironwood along West Apache Trail At Delaware Road and Broadway East Baseline Road east of Meridian Road On West Germann Road east of Meridian Road X:444424, Y: 3697549 LUST X: 445532, Y: 3697589 LUST X: 447071, Y: 3697589 X: 447644, Y: 3697393 X:446862, Y: 3696650 X: 446340, Y: 3693443 X: 446288, Y: 3682205 LUST LUST LUST LUST LUST Sharon Hodges of Allands conducted the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System (CERCLIS) and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) database search for the property located South of McDowell Road and North of Germann Road, from Signal Butte Road to just East of Ironwood Drive, Mesa and Apache Junction, Arizona, being in Sections 1, 12, 13, 24, 25 and 36, Township 1 North, Range 7 East; Sections 5 through 8, 17 through 20, and 29 through 32, Township 1 North, Range 8 East; Sections 1, 12, 13, 24, 25 and 36, Township 1 South, Range 7 East; Sections 5 through 8, 17 through 20, and 29 through 32, Township 1 South, Range 8 East; Section 1, Township 2 South, Range 7 East; and Sections 5 and 6, Township 2 South, Range 8 East, Gila and Salt River Base and Meridian. The CERCLIS list contains sites which are either proposed to or on the National Priority List (NPL) and sites which are in the screening and assessment phase for possible inclusion on the NPL. Those sites on the No Further Action Planned (NFRAP) list have no further remedial action planned. This database is provided by EPA dated June, 2012, and Allands searched for facilities within a 0.5 mile search distance from subject property exterior boundaries. There were no CERCLIS / NFRAP facilities found located within subject property boundaries. Under Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) the Environmental Protection Agency compiles a database of facilities that are involved in the generation of hazardous materials. This database is from the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality RCRAInfo Database, dated June, 2012 and Allands checked for Federal RCRA facilities located within a 0.125 mile search distance from subject property exterior boundaries. Table 15 lists the RCRA facilities within 0.125 mile of the Meridian Road Corridor Study study area. Meridian Road Corridor Study – Working Paper #1 Existing and Future Conditions Inventory 51 September 2012 Working Paper #1 Report Table 15: Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Facilities EPA ID NOTIFICATION DATE 3/1/2008 2080 W Southern Ave 2080 W Southern Ave 2/23/2009 2080 W Southern Ave 1/29/2009 2210 W Apache Trail 8/31/2004 2475 W Dallas Ave 2/10/2008 2555 W Apache Trail 3/2/2009 4793 S Desert View Dr 5/8/2006 4932 S Penny Lane 6/21/2005 616 N Mountain 2/14/2005 FACILTY ADDRESS AZR000047035 AZR000047034 AZR000044545 AZS000047480 AZR000500769 AZR000043166 AZR000042374 AZE050323002 AZR000037812 Apache Junction Cancer Center Apache Junction Cancer Center EVDI Medical Imaging Ironwood HD Automotive & Machine Shop Statewide Environmental Oil Services Wal Mart Store 1381 Solvents Systems Inc Sunbelt Tank Services MUSD 4 Pur Oper / Sousa Elem TRW VSSI / TRW Vehicle Safety Systems AZD982491649 11202 E Germann Rd Mesa Ii Facility AZR000506931 CMC Steel Arizona 11444 E Germann Rd AZE060911001 CRM Of America LLC 11400 E Pecos Rd AZR000004846 Walgreens 2963 11545 E Apache Trail AZR000503607 Wal‐Mart Super Center 3833 1606 S Signal Butte Rd AZR000506899 Bright Now Dental 1804 S Signal Butte Rd AZR000506196 Gateway Smiles 1901 S Signal Butte Rd Fuji Film Electronic Materials USA / Arch AZR000001016 6550 S Mountain Rd Chemicals Inc / Olin Electronic Materials AZR000002394 MGC Pure Chemicals America Inc 6560 S Mountain Rd AZR000046987 Top Drawer Components Apache Junction 5154 S Delaware Dr LQG: Large quantity generator (more than 1000 kg per month) SQG: Small quantity generator (100 – 1000 kg per month) CEG: Conditionally exempt small quantity generator (less than 100 kg per month) N: Not a generator verified or inactive generator STATUS 2/2/2009 4/23/2008 7/31/2001 3/2/2009 1/12/2009 1/8/2009 CEG CEG SQG N N CEG N N CEG LQG / CORRACTS N SQG N SQG CEG CEG 3/25/2010 LQG 2/21/2008 2/17/2009 N CEG 2/3/2010 Cultural Resources Background Research A site file check covering both the area identified as the project corridor and a 1‐mile study area buffer was conducted. The online AZSITE Cultural Resource Database was checked. Approximately 65 archaeological projects have taken place within 1 mile of the project area; because none of them examined any portion of the project corridor within the past 10 years, no further information about these previous projects is provided herein. Twenty‐five sites have been previously recorded in the review area, of which three occur within or immediately adjacent to the 200‐ft‐wide corridor (Table 16). NA15612 is a small Hohokam artifact scatter on the west side of Meridian Road between US Highway 60 and Baseline Road; AZSITE has no record of its National Register eligibility. AZ FF:9:17(ASM) is the historic US Highway 80, which follows the Apache Trail alignment across the project corridor; the site as a whole has been determined eligible under Criteria A and D, but the segment through the project corridor lacks integrity of design, setting, materials, workmanship, and feeling, so it does not contribute to the site’s overall eligibility. AZ U:10:36(ASM) is a large Hohokam resource procurement site; the Meridian Road Corridor Study – Working Paper #1 Existing and Future Conditions Inventory 52 September 2012 Working Paper #1 Report western extent of the site intersects the project corridor roughly midway between Guadalupe and Elliot Roads. AZSITE shows no historic buildings in the review area. A review of the online Maricopa County Assessor’s GIS database did not identify any buildings 45 years or older on the west of the corridor. The Pinal County Assessor Office does not maintain a similar online database so additional research would be required to determine if any buildings on the east side of the corridor are historic. Table 16: Summary of Previously Recorded Cultural Resources within the Study Area Agency Site No.* Site Type Eligibility Recommendation NA15611 NA15612 NA15613 AZ FF:9:17(ASM) AZ U:10:7(ASM) AZ U:10:12(ASM) AZ U:10:12(ASU) AZ U:10:13(ASM) Hohokam artifact scatter Hohokam artifact scatter Historic homestead Historic US Highway 80 Historic habitation site Hohokam artifact scatter Hohokam artifact scatter Hohokam artifact scatter Hohokam resource procurement site with artifact scatter and 32 roasting pits Hohokam artifact scatter with rock pile Hohokam sherd scatter with rock scatter Hohokam sherd scatter with rock scatter Hohokam artifact scatter Hohokam sherd scatter Hohokam artifact scatter Hohokam artifact scatter Hohokam artifact scatter Hohokam artifact scatter Hohokam artifact scatter Hohokam artifact scatter Hohokam artifact scatter Hohokam artifact scatter Hohokam artifact scatter Hohokam artifact scatter with rock cluster No data No data No data Determined eligible (Criteria A and D) Not evaluated Not evaluated No data Not evaluated AZ U:10:36(ASM) AZ U:10:37(ASM) AZ U:10:38(ASM) AZ U:10:40(ASM) AZ U:10:41(ASM) AZ U:10:45(ASU) AZ U:10:78(ASM) AZ U:10:79(ASM) AZ U:10:80(ASM) AZ U:10:104(ASM) AZ U:10:105(ASM) AZ U:10:137(ASM) AZ U:10:139(ASM) AZ U:10:151(ASM) AZ U:10:178(ASM) AZ U:10:179(ASM) Recommended eligible (Criterion D) Recommended eligible (Criterion D) Unknown Unknown Unknown No data Recommended eligible (Criterion D) Recommended eligible (Criterion D) Recommended eligible (Criterion D) Recommended eligible (Criterion D) Recommended eligible (Criterion D) Recommended not eligible Recommended eligible (Criterion D) Determined not eligible Recommended not eligible Recommended not eligible Bold indicates sites within or immediately adjacent to the project corridor Windshield Survey A windshield survey of the project area was conducted on July 26, 2012 by Kristin Fangmeier. The entire length of the corridor was driven in both directions except where access was restricted by fences or no paved or dirt road existed. Table 17 describes the current conditions along the project corridor. North of US 60, much of the project corridor is developed and Meridian Road Corridor Study – Working Paper #1 Existing and Future Conditions Inventory 53 September 2012 Working Paper #1 Report Meridian Road is paved; south of US 60, Meridian Road is largely unpaved and crosses through mostly undeveloped land. Table 17: Summary of Current Corridor Conditions Northern Crossroad Southern Crossroad McDowell Boulevard McKellips Road Lost Dutchman Boulevard Superstitions Boulevard Current Corridor Conditions Paved two‐lane road with bladed shoulders. Some McKellips Boulevard adjacent parcels are developed but corridor along road is largely natural vegetation (60 percent). Paved two‐lane road with bladed shoulders. Some Lost Dutchman adjacent parcels are developed but corridor along Boulevard road is largely natural vegetation (80 percent). Paved two‐lane road with bladed or landscaped shoulders. Widens to include center turn lane south of Smoketree Street. Widens to four lanes with Superstitions center turn lane and right‐turn lane north of Boulevard University Drive. Most adjacent parcels are developed but corridor along road has some natural vegetation (40 percent). Paved two‐lane road with bladed or landscaped shoulders. Widens to four lanes with center turn lane Broadway Avenue near intersections at each end and at Apache Trail. Adjacent parcels are developed with little to no natural vegetation (less than 10 percent). Broadway Avenue Southern Avenue Southern Avenue Baseline Road Baseline Road Guadalupe Road Guadalupe Road Elliot Road Elliot Road Warner Road Meridian Road Corridor Study – Working Paper #1 Existing and Future Conditions Inventory Recommendations for Further Work Conduct Class III survey of undeveloped areas Conduct Class III survey of undeveloped areas Conduct Class III survey of undeveloped areas No further work Paved two‐lane road with bladed or landscaped shoulders, with occasional right turn lanes. Widens to four lanes with center turn lane near intersection Conduct Class III survey of undeveloped area north of at Broadway Road. Most adjacent parcels are Southern Ave. developed with no natural vegetation, but a small section (approx. 500 ft long) on both sides of road north of Southern Avenue is undeveloped. Paved two‐lane road with bladed shoulders. Few adjacent parcels are developed so majority of project corridor is open (80 percent). Corridor not accessible (fenced off) but aerial imagery shows moderate disturbance. Some adjacent development. Northern half not accessible but aerial imagery shows moderate disturbance (blading and/or dirt road). Southern half is paved two‐lane road with center turn lane. Shoulder is landscaped on west side (back of residential development) and bladed on east side (undeveloped). Paved two‐lane road with center turn lane. Shoulder is landscaped on west side (back of residential development) and bladed on east side (undeveloped). 54 Conduct Class III survey of undeveloped area Conduct Class III survey Conduct Class III survey of undeveloped areas Conduct Class III survey of undeveloped areas September 2012 Working Paper #1 Report Table 17: Summary of Current Corridor Conditions (continued) Northern Crossroad Southern Crossroad Warner Road Ray Road Ray Road Williams Field Road Williams Field Road Pecos Road Pecos Road Germann Road Current Corridor Conditions North half is paved two lane road. Shoulder is landscaped on west side (back of residential development) except parcel at southwest corner of intersection at Warner Road and bladed on east side (undeveloped). South half is inaccessible but aerial imagery shows moderate disturbance (blading and/or dirt road) between residential development and undisturbed desert. Bladed dirt road or two‐track through disturbed but largely undeveloped desert. Some houses along the road. Bladed dirt road or two‐track through disturbed but largely undeveloped desert. Some houses along the road. Bladed dirt road or two‐track through disturbed but largely undeveloped desert. Some adjacent development. Recommendations for Further Work Conduct Class III survey of undeveloped areas Conduct Class III survey of undeveloped areas Conduct Class III survey of undeveloped areas Conduct Class III survey of undeveloped areas Recommendations for Further Cultural Resource Work Based on the results of the desktop search of the AZSITE database, the Meridian Road corridor has not been surveyed within the past 10 years. The windshield survey revealed that the corridor occurs in a mixed urban and rural environment; although portions of the corridor have been developed, others contain largely undisturbed desert. Therefore, it is recommended that the undeveloped areas within the project corridor be subject to a Class III pedestrian survey to identify any previously recorded cultural resources. It is possible that AZ U:10:36(ASM) will require mitigation prior to construction; NA15612 may also require additional work if the survey determines that the site extends into the project corridor. It is unlikely that AZ FF:9:17(ASM) will require further work due to the lack of integrity; it is recommended that a formal evaluation of the historic highway alignment be conducted at the time of the Class III survey. In addition, a historic building assessment is recommended to determine if any standing buildings 45 years or older occur along the project corridor. VIII. Future Conditions The following sections provide an inventory of future conditions within the study area. Flood Control District Channels As part of an update of the Area Drainage Master Plan (ADMP), the Flood Control District of Maricopa County (FCDMC) is studying a number of options for drainage and capacity issues. The study area is divided into three somewhat independent zones which include three proposed alternatives for consideration. These are summarized below: Meridian Road Corridor Study – Working Paper #1 Existing and Future Conditions Inventory 55 September 2012 Working Paper #1 Report ADOT SR 24 Zone: The SR 24 Zone includes the contributing area between the Powerline Floodway and the future State Route 24 (SR 24) freeway. The future freeway drainage system is the back bone of this zone and will intercept runoff and convey it to the Powerline Floodway. The remaining drainage issues are concentrated between the Mountain View Road and Meridian Road alignments from Ray Road on the north to Williams Field Road on the south. Significant runoff generated in Pinal County combines with local flow and floods large tracks of land and impedes traffic and local access. Three alternatives have been developed for this area. Alternative 1 includes an interceptor channel along Meridian Road south of Ray Road to SR 24 along with an interim detention basin within the SR 24 right‐of‐way. Alternative 2 is similar to Alternative 1 except the detention basin would be permanent and be located further north at Galveston Road. Alternative 3 addresses more frequent, smaller flooding, rather than the 100‐year protection of the regional issues. The components of this alternative include a series of roadside channels which discharge into an existing channel. Ellsworth Zone: This zone extends from the proposed SR 24 freeway to Queen Creek Road and includes the drainage area contributing to the exiting Ellsworth Channel which has capacity concerns. Other drainage issues include chronic flooding along Pecos Road. Three alternative solutions have been recommended for this zone. Alternative 1 includes channels along Meridian Road from the proposed SR 24 to Queen Creek Road together with a channel along Pecos Road. A detention basin is also proposed at the intersection of Meridian Road and Pecos Road as well as at Pecos Road and Ellsworth Road. Alternative 2 is similar to Alternative 1 except that the Pecos Road Channel is offset from the road to follow historic drainage patterns and the basin at the intersection Pecos Road and Ellsworth Road is eliminated. Alternative 3 is again similar to Alternative 1 except a portion to the Pecos Road Channel is shifted a quarter mile to the south and would require some modification to the existing Ellsworth Channel. Rittenhouse Zone: The Rittenhouse Zone includes the area from Germann Road to Queen Creek Road and deals with drainage complaints along Germann Road and capacity concerns with the Rittenhouse Channel. As with the other zones three alternatives have been developed to alleviate the drainage problems. Alternative 1 includes regional channels on Germann Road and Queen Creek Road from Meridian Road to the existing Rittenhouse Channel along with lateral channels connecting the two channels. Detention basins along each regional channel will also be included. Alternative 2 replaces the Germann and Queen Creek channels with a single channel roughly following historic flow paths. Several lateral channels will also be included to convey flow into the main regional channel. Similar to Alternative 1, Alternative 3 eliminates the detention basins and instead recommends that a future development would be subject to a higher retention requirement. The alternative will include the preservation of some agricultural land within the drainage area to reduce overall runoff. Meridian Road Corridor Study – Working Paper #1 Existing and Future Conditions Inventory 56 September 2012 Working Paper #1 Report The proposed channels for the regional facility will be constructed with 8:1 landscaped slopes with a low‐flow movable bed channel. This will produce a top width of approximately 125 feet. Combined with the roadway right‐of‐way this gives an overall width of around 250 feet. Potential conflicts arise on how to best center the proposed channel and roadway to make best use of the existing right‐of‐way, limit conflicts with existing properties and limit land take within Pinal County. The majority of the land adjoining Meridian Road in Pinal County is owned by Arizona State Land Department (ASLD). ASLD will advocate that the channels be designed for post development conditions; enabling them to potentially waive on‐site detention. This would give ASLD an incentive to participate in the regional system. However, FCDMC assumes the post development condition will include on‐site detention, therefore allowing for a smaller regional facility. It will be incumbent for the designers to coordinate the roadway alignments and cross sections with ASLD and FCDMC as well as other project partners. Future Recreation Trails, Parks/Areas and Open Space The City of Apache Junction 2010 General Plan Park and Recreation Implementation Plan states plans for expansion of Prospector Park, development and implementation of community parks, neighborhood parks, trails and open spaces, and special use facilities within the Portalis and Superstition Vistas Communities, development and implementation of a master plan for Siphon Draw Park, and expand and implement non‐motorized trails and open spaces guidelines within the City. One future community park is planned at Elliot Road and Meridian Road. The City of Mesa 2025 General Plan shows three future neighborhood parks within two miles of Meridian Road at Crismon Road and Brown Road, Signal Butte Road and Baseline Road, and Crismon Road and Ray Road. The City is also proposing a community park and metro park at Signal Butte Road and Guadalupe Road and a metro park at Crismon Road and Brown Road. Future Multimodal Transportation The City of Mesa is proposing to expand the express bus route along US 60 east past Meridian Road. The City is proposing that Main Street east of the light rail terminus to Meridian Road become a transit priority corridor. A transit priority corridor will provide enhanced bus service and can improve level of service within the corridor by improving intersection capacity and providing buses a dedicated or shared lane with assigned traffic signal priority. Local bus routes along major crossroads between McKellips Boulevard and Southern Avenue was expanded from Power Road to Ellsworth Road. Local bus routes along Baseline Road are proposed to be expanded from Power Road to Signal Butte Road. New local routes are proposed for all major crossroads south of Baseline Road. The City of Mesa is also proposing new bike lanes along Meridian Road south of Baseline Road as well as along all major crossroads between Brown Road and Germann Road in the vicinity of the study area. The City of Apache Junction is proposing a local bus route along Meridian Road from University Drive/Superstition Boulevard to Baseline Road. This transit route would provide additional service to the area bounded by Meridian Road to the west, Apache Trail to the north, Ironwood Road on the east, and Baseline on the south that has a high combined residential and employment density. Wal‐Mart, the County/DMV office, City Hall, mixed use center and a Meridian Road Corridor Study – Working Paper #1 Existing and Future Conditions Inventory 57 September 2012 Working Paper #1 Report transit hub are significant trip generators located along the proposed route. The City is proposing bike lanes or bike paths along Tepee Street, Apache Trail, and 16th Avenue (half mile south of Broadway Avenue) in the vicinity of the study area. An equestrian route is proposed a quarter mile south of Lost Dutchman Boulevard in the vicinity of the study area. IX. Future Socioeconomic Data Planned Land Use Located between Meridian Road and Signal Butte Road in Mesa is the Master Planned Community of Bell Via, which incorporates a mix of residential densities ranging from four to six units to the acre. The Portalis development (formerly Lost Dutchman Heights) is 7,700 acres of State Trust Land set to be developed as a master planned community. It is estimated that full build out will be 2045 with 39,000 units of future residential development and a population of 90,000 residents, 6‐8 million square feet of future commercial building development and 250+/‐ acres of light industrial/business park development with 24,000 employees. Superstition Vistas includes 175,000 acres of raw desert land held in trust by the Arizona State Land Department situated east of Meridian Road and extending to US60. The area is designed as an integrated master planned community featuring housing, employment centers and interconnected transportation system. Though the region would benefit from Superstition Vistas’ capacity to handle future growth, the extent of development of Superstition Vistas depends immediately on State Trust Land policy and actions and the delivery of adequate infrastructure. Without adequate transportation infrastructure the growth of Superstition Vistas will stall. Economic development is necessary for Superstition Vistas’ future growth, though the degree to which this area can reach its economic development potential will depend on adequate transportation infrastructure. Depending on future growth rates the estimated population will be between 250,000 and 1 million. Future Land Development within the Corridor Future growth along and within the study area is expected to respond to three key development related influences. Most prominently in Mesa is the conversion of the Phoenix‐Mesa Gateway Airport from a general aviation airport to a reliever commercial facility for Sky Harbor International Airport in Phoenix. This has triggered further significant commercial and residential expansion not only for the southeast valley, but northern Pinal County as well. Complementing the transition and development of this aviation facility is the construction of the SR 24 Freeway. This limited access roadway is expected to accommodate new residential growth in the southeast valley and to generate substantial commercial, office, and industrial opportunities at its intersection with primary arterial roadways in the area. General Motors (GM) operated a 5,000‐acre proving ground and research facility. Closure of the proving grounds operations will lead to redevelopment and disposition of this property in various configurations that include both residential and employment opportunities. The Mesa Gateway Strategic Development Plan shows blended residential along with medium‐high density residential and Meridian Road Corridor Study – Working Paper #1 Existing and Future Conditions Inventory 58 September 2012 Working Paper #1 Report urban centers at strategic node points within the research facility. Furthermore, Mesa’s adopted General Plan also identifies a substantial amount of land for light and general industrial development. This is in response to the expansion of services at Williams Gateway Airport and reflects the anticipated employment development within this region. On the east side of the Meridian Road corridor in Pinal County, future land uses are recommended to occur in a much more generalized manner. The Pinal County Comprehensive Plan permits both flexibility and innovation for future development. Anticipating continued annexation and subsequent development in the area near the incorporated City of Apache Junction. The goal of this area is to retain large tracts of rural parcels in single ownership so that master planned communities can be devolved in the future along with the establishment of roadways, service areas and other infrastructure improvements. This is typified by the planned region area known as Superstition Vistas, in northern Pinal County, which is expected to create additional internal and external trips within the study area. Pinal County’s Land Use Plan also shows an employment corridor between Williams Field Road and Pecos Road. A High Intensity Activity Center, Williams Gateway Freeway Activity Center, is located at Ironwood Road between Williams Field Road and Pecos Road. The Williams Gateway Freeway Activity Center includes medium and high density residential development. Build out population associated with this residential development could accommodate approximately 21,000 people. Approximately 300 acres of various employment types are also identified for planning purposes that could result in the potential for 29,000 jobs in this area. Figure 18 shows the future land uses within the study corridor. Population and Employment In 2010, the total residential population within the boundaries of the project influence area includes nearly 210,000 people within the three jurisdictions of Mesa, Apache Junction and Queen Creek and the two counties of Pinal and Maricopa that encompass the area. The area of influence is generally bounded by McDowell Boulevard to the north, Germann Road to the south, US 60 to the east, and SR 202L to the west. By the year 2031, the resident population in the influence area is expected to grow more than 250 percent, reaching nearly 583,000 residents. The most dramatic population gain among the jurisdictions and the counties is expected to occur in Pinal County. The majority of this area is currently owned by the Arizona State Land Department, and includes Portalis and Superstition Vistas master planned communities. The future development of these communities will trigger a population jump from approximately 34,300 in 2010 to nearly 240,000 in 2031. Significant population increases in Apache Junction, Mesa, Pinal County and Queen Creek are also reflected in Table 18. Job growth in the area of influence is also expected to rise through the year 2031 and will generally follow the pattern of growth for residential population. Nearly 43,700 jobs currently exist within the project influence area, a majority of which are contained in the industrial and commercial core of southeast Mesa. However, as the Williams Gateway Airport and SR 24 Freeway corridor continues to develop, future jobs will locate on the eastern portion of the corridor as well. Pinal County, which is estimated to produce the greatest rise in resident Meridian Road Corridor Study – Working Paper #1 Existing and Future Conditions Inventory 59 September 2012 Working Paper #1 Report population, will also exhibit the greatest gain in job growth. Currently, approximately 2,800 jobs exist in Pinal County. The county only captured six percent of the total jobs located within the entire project influence area. In 2031, the approximate 24,500 jobs expected to exist in Pinal County will account for 12.5 percent of the total study area employment. Queen Creek, Mesa, and Apache Junction are all expected to experience significant employment gains. Table 18: Project Influence Area Population Projections MPA Total Population Observed in 2010 Census Total Population Projected for 2010 Total Population Projected for 2025 Total Population Projected for 2031 Apache Junction 42,570 75,186 134,424 151,419 Mesa 137,170 128,639 163,436 171,912 Pinal County 14,243 34,339 181,212 223,632 Queen Creek 13,233 15,611 32,052 36,322 TOTAL 207,216 253,775 511,124 583,285 Source: MAG 2007 Socioeconomic Projections Note: Populations are for the portions of the MPA that falls in the Meridian Road Corridor study area only Meridian Road Corridor Study – Working Paper #1 Existing and Future Conditions Inventory 60 September 2012 Working Paper #1 Report Figure 18: Future Land Use Meridian Road Corridor Study – Working Paper #1 Existing and Future Conditions Inventory 61 September 2012 Working Paper #1 Report X. Future Traffic Volumes Characteristics of the future transportation network were developed after reviewing relevant plans and studies described in the section of this report titled Summary of Existing Plans and Studies. The specific studies used to determine practical 2025 and 2035 traffic volumes were the MCDOT Meridian Road Access Control and Corridor Improvement Study and the Apache Junction Comprehensive Transportation Study. MAG’s 2025 and 2035 travel demand forecasts were also reviewed to determine 2025 and 2035 future traffic volumes. After review of the MCDOT Meridian Road Access Control and Corridor Improvement Study it was determined that the roadway network south of the US 60 was not consistent with more current plans and studies. 2025 and 2035 traffic volumes on the major streets crossing Meridian Road were significantly different between the MCDOT study and the MAG models. These differences are likely due to the planned changes in roadway network since the MCDOT study was completed. Therefore the MAG models for 2025 and 2035 traffic volumes were used for this study for traffic volumes south of the US 60. After review of the MAG 2025 travel demand model north of the US 60, it was noted that the traffic volumes decreased from 2025 to 2035 and did not show good agreement with the traffic volume in the Apache Junction Comprehensive Transportation Study. Between the MAG 2025 model and the MAG 2035 model, two miles of McKellips Boulevard between Meridian Road and Crismon Road was opened thus changing the dynamics of the traffic flow in that area. Under the MAG 2025 model roadway network, traffic heading from the northwest and desiring to go to the southeast (or vice versa) is forced onto Brown Road/Lost Dutchman Boulevard due to McKellips Boulevard not extending west past Meridian Road. With the opening of this segment of McKellips Boulevard under the MAG 2035 model, this route became the shortest path for the model to send the traffic along. A significant amount of the demand was shifted from Brown Road/Lost Dutchman Boulevard to McKellips Boulevard thus reducing the estimated volumes along Brown Road/Lost Dutchman Boulevard from 2025 to 2035. After review of the relevant studies and plans collected, it did not appear that McKellips Boulevard will extend west of Meridian Road; therefore, the traffic volumes from the Apache Junction Comprehensive Transportation Study were utilized for this study north of US 60. This information led to the development of the assumed future year 2025 and 2035 roadway network and the 2025 and 2035 daily traffic volumes shown in Table 19 and graphically in Figure 19 and Figure 20, respectively. Turning movement volume forecasts are shown in Figure 21 and Figure 22, respectively for 2025 and 2035. . Meridian Road Corridor Study – Working Paper #1 Existing and Future Conditions Inventory 62 September 2012 Working Paper #1 Report Table 19: 2025 and 2035 Daily Traffic Volumes Meridian Road Segment Direction 2025 ADT 2035 ADT 0‐5,000* 0‐5,000* 0‐5,000* 0‐5,000* 0‐5,000* 5,001‐10,000* 5,001‐10,000* 10,001‐20,000* 5,001‐10,000* 10,001‐20,000* 5,001‐10,000* 10,001‐20,000* 10,001‐20,000* 20,001‐30,000* NB 14,315 14,761 SB 14,709 15,129 NB 12,087 12,445 SB 12,070 12,434 NB 6,664 5,878 SB 6,618 5,994 NB 14,945 13,251 SB 14,621 13,376 NB 9,647 8,312 SB 8,666 8,339 NB 8,835 9,355 SB 7,775 9,473 NB 12,846 4,413 SB 12,516 5,347 NB 10,556 15,484 SB 10,226 16,181 NB 6,516 10,751 SB 6,076 11,586 NB McDowell Road to McKellips Boulevard SB McKellips Boulevard to Brown Road/Lost Dutchman Boulevard NB Brown Road/Lost Dutchman Boulevard to University Drive/Superstition Boulevard NB University Drive/Superstitions Boulevard to Apache Trail NB SB SB SB NB Apache Trail to Broadway Road SB NB Broadway Road to Southern Avenue SB NB Southern Avenue to US 60 SB US 60 to Baseline Road Baseline Road to Guadalupe Road Guadalupe Road to Elliot Road Elliot Road to Warner Road Warner Road to Ray Road Ray Road to Williams Field Road Williams Field Road to SR 24 SR 24 to Pecos Road Pecos Road to Germann Road * ADT range as shown in the Apache Junction Comprehensive Transportation Study for population levels 2 & 3 The 2025 and 2035 average daily traffic level of service was determined using the same methodologies as discussed in the section of this report titled Existing 2012 Level‐of‐Service. The number of lanes depicted in the MAG models were used to determine the LOS. MAG Meridian Road Corridor Study – Working Paper #1 Existing and Future Conditions Inventory 63 September 2012 Working Paper #1 Report indicated a three lane section for Meridian Road in 2025 and 2035 within the study area. The LOS thresholds used for a two lane undivided roadway were adjusted by 5% to account for the center lane or exclusive left turn lanes as shown in Appendix B. The 2025 and 2035 average daily traffic LOS within the study area are shown in Figure 23 and Figure 24, respectively. Meridian Road Corridor Study – Working Paper #1 Existing and Future Conditions Inventory 64 September 2012 Working Paper #1 Report Figure 19: 2025 Daily Traffic Volumes Meridian Road Corridor Study – Working Paper #1 Existing and Future Conditions Inventory 65 September 2012 Working Paper #1 Report Figure 20: 2035 Daily Traffic Volumes Meridian Road Corridor Study – Working Paper #1 Existing and Future Conditions Inventory 66 September 2012 Working Paper #1 Report Figure 23: 2025 Average Daily Traffic Level of Service Meridian Road Corridor Study – Working Paper #1 Existing and Future Conditions Inventory 69 September 2012 Working Paper #1 Report Figure 24: 2035 Average Daily Traffic Level of Service Meridian Road Corridor Study – Working Paper #1 Existing and Future Conditions Inventory 70 September 2012 Working Paper #1 Report XI. Roadway Network Deficiencies 2025 Lane Deficiencies Meridian Road between McDowell Boulevard and Southern Avenue is anticipated to operate at an acceptable LOS as a three‐lane roadway in 2025. South of Southern Avenue, Meridian Road is expected to operate with poor LOS in 2025 as a three‐lane roadway to Pecos Road. The segment of Meridian Road between Guadalupe Road and Elliot Road and the segment between Pecos Road and Germann Road operate with acceptable LOS in 2025 as a three‐lane roadway. 2035 Lane Deficiencies Meridian Road between McDowell Boulevard and Superstition Boulevard is anticipated to operate at an acceptable LOS as a three‐lane roadway in 2035. South of Superstition Boulevard, Meridian Road is expected to operate with poor LOS in 2035 as a three‐lane roadway to Germann Road with the exception of the segment between Guadalupe Road and Elliot Road and the ½ mile segment just south of Williams Field Road which are expected to operate with acceptable LOS in 2035 as a three‐lane roadway. Pavement Deficiencies MCDOT’s evaluation of the existing pavement has indicated that the roadway conditions range from good to poor. Furthermore, significant crack sealing has taken place along most of Meridian Road between Baseline Road and McDowell Road/Boulevard leading to an international roughness rating of over 220 which is categorized as ‘very rough’. Some of these deficiencies will be addressed with the completion of pavement preservation project programmed in FY13. Transportation Deficiencies The development of the Meridian Road Corridor will be impacted by the following structures and features: US 60 Overpass: The existing overpass structure at the US 60 presently carries traffic on Meridian Road across the US 60. The structure is approximately 60 feet wide and 425 feet long. US 60 Traffic Interchange at Meridian Road: An interchange is planned for Meridian Road at US 60 with construction scheduled for a start in summer 2013. Initially ADOT is proposing to construct an interim, partial interchange. The design will consist of on and off ramps to the west of Meridian Road. In the interim condition no improvements will be made to the existing structure over the US 60. The bridge will accommodate one 11ft and one 14ft lane in each direction along with a 5ft sidewalk. Meridian Road will be widened to the north of US 60 to accommodate four through lanes plus two left turn lanes. Similarly to the south the road will be widened to four through lanes and will be tapered back to the existing road width as soon as possible. Meridian Road Corridor Study – Working Paper #1 Existing and Future Conditions Inventory 71 September 2012 Working Paper #1 Report A full traffic interchange to accommodate a six lane divided Meridian Road will necessitate the construction of a new structure which will have to provide for a new 14ft clearance requirements over the CAP canal. Central Arizona Project Canal: The CAP canal crosses US 60 and Meridian Road diagonally at the overpass. The CAP canal and appurtenant facilities are important considerations in constructing an interchange at this location. Powerline Floodway: The Powerline Floodway crosses the Meridian Road alignment diagonally just south of the Warner Road alignment. The floodway is operated and maintained by the FCDMC and is an earthen‐lined channel flowing northeast to southwest across the Meridian Road alignment. Diversion Dike: An old, existing diversion dike exists between Pecos Road and Germann Road in the vicinity of the Meridian Road alignment. The dike diverts surface water flow from a defined wash east of the Meridian Road alignment to provide flooding protection for a manufacturing facility west of the Meridian Road alignment and just north of Germann Road. US 60 Widening: Crismon Road to Meridian Road – US 60 is planned to be widened from four lanes to six lanes from Crismon Road to Meridian Road in Phase 3 of the MAG Regional Transportation Plan (2015‐2020). Gateway Freeway (SR 24): The SR 24 corridor is located in southeast Mesa and northwest Pinal County. The freeway would begin at Loop 202 near the Hawes Road interchange and extend southeasterly into Pinal County and connect to US 60 or SR 79 north of the Florence Junction. The SR 24 study area lies within or adjacent to the jurisdictional boundaries of the cities of Mesa and Apache Junction, the Towns of Queen Creek and Gilbert, and unincorporated portions of Maricopa and Pinal Counties. The section from Loop 202 to Meridian Road is in Phase 3 of the MAG Regional Transportation Plan (2015‐2020). The proposed route crosses Meridian Road ½ mile south of Williams Field Road with a full grade separated traffic interchange. North‐South Corridor: The North‐South Corridor (US 60 to I‐10) is planned to extend 45 miles in the north‐south direction along an alignment east of Meridian Road in Pinal County. The concept is to provide a controlled access facility between US 60 in Apache Junction and I‐10 near Eloy and Picacho. A current study by ADOT is underway to identify a preferred corridor. Intercity Rail: The Intercity Rail Study is looking at both high speed and commuter rail services between Phoenix and Tucson. Currently there are a number of alternatives being analyzed which will provide the back bone for a transit service along the ‘Sun Corridor’. One potential route crosses Meridian Road adjacent to the proposed SR 24 heading east to make use of transit corridors identified in the Superstition Vistas strategic plan. Meridian Road Corridor Study – Working Paper #1 Existing and Future Conditions Inventory 72 September 2012 APPENDIX A 2012 TRAFFIC COUNTS Michael Baker Jr., Inc. Phoenix, Arizona Traffic Research & Analysis, Inc. 3844 East Indian School Road Phoenix, AZ 85018 (602) 840-1500 1200161 5/22/2012 Intersection TMC: Count Date: AM 07:30 From North 2 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 Time 6:00 6:15 6:30 6:45 7:00 7:15 7:30 7:45 8:00 8:15 8:30 8:45 From East From South From West INTSEC DIRT RD DRWY MCDOWELL RD MERIDIAN RD MCDOWELL RD LT Thru RT Ped LT Thru RT Ped LT Thru RT Ped LT Thru RT Ped TOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N 0 3 1 4 Total Peak Time 0 MID 0 0 0 0 LT 3 2 Thru 0 0 RT 0 0 1 1 Ped LT 0 0 Thru 1 1 RT 0 0 Ped 0 0 LT 4 3 Thru 1 1 RT 0 0 Ped 0 0 LT 0 0 Thru 1 0 RT 0 0 Ped 11 8 TOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N 0 0 0 0 PM 16:45 Total Peak 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Time 15:30 15:45 16:00 16:15 16:30 16:45 17:00 17:15 17:30 17:45 18:00 18:15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Thru 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 3 2 LT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 RT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Thru 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 LT 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 RT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Thru 1 1 0 1 1 2 1 1 6 1 0 0 1 1 15 10 LT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Ped 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 RT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Thru 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 LT 0 RT 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped TOTAL 0 2 0 2 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 3 0 2 0 1 0 7 0 3 0 1 0 0 N 1 10 0 11 Total Peak Intersection Statistics Per AM MID PM 0 0 Approach Statistics Peak Hour 7:30 AM Pk Hr Vol 8 Peak Intvl 8:15 AM Pk Intv Vol 5 4:45 PM 13 5:30 PM 7 Comments 1 0 Per AM MID PM Peak Hour 7:30 AM Pk Hr Vol 2 Peak Hour 7:30 AM Pk Hr Vol 2 Peak Hour 7:30 AM Pk Hr Vol 4 Peak Hour 6:00 AM Pk Hr Vol 1 4:15 PM 2 3:30 PM 1 4:45 PM 11 3:30 PM 2 Approach 5 0 17 Depart 5 0 5 Approach 1 0 2 Depart 0 0 1 Approach & Departure Volumes (No Peds) Per AM MID PM Approach 3 0 3 Depart 5 0 16 1200161.TMC Approach 2 0 2 Depart 1 0 2 Page 1 of 1 24 13 Traffic Research & Analysis, Inc. 3844 East Indian School Road Phoenix, AZ 85018 (602) 840-1500 1200162 5/22/2012 Intersection TMC: Count Date: AM 07:00 From North 49 0 47 2 2 0 0 0 101 0 99 0 Time 6:00 6:15 6:30 6:45 7:00 7:15 7:30 7:45 8:00 8:15 8:30 8:45 From East From South From West MERIDIAN RD MCKELLIPS RD MERIDIAN RD NONE LT Thru RT Ped LT Thru RT Ped LT Thru RT Ped LT Thru 0 9 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 4 1 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 22 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 7 0 0 23 0 1 0 0 3 9 0 0 0 1 14 0 0 21 0 0 0 0 3 2 0 0 0 0 16 0 0 24 0 1 0 0 5 1 0 0 0 0 12 0 0 20 0 1 0 0 3 4 0 0 0 1 15 0 0 34 0 0 0 0 5 7 0 0 0 1 4 0 0 21 0 0 0 0 8 10 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 16 0 1 0 0 1 8 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 11 0 2 0 0 4 3 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 19 0 1 0 0 4 7 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 4 6 0 0 0 INTSEC RT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped TOTAL 0 25 0 30 0 44 0 41 0 47 0 40 0 62 0 44 0 35 0 28 0 40 0 26 N 0 21 22 43 Total Peak Time 0 MID 0 0 4 2 LT 114 47 Thru 0 0 RT 0 0 233 99 Ped LT 0 0 Thru 8 2 RT 0 0 Ped 0 0 LT 44 21 Thru 59 22 RT 0 0 Ped 0 0 LT 0 0 Thru 0 0 RT 0 0 Ped 462 193 TOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N 0 0 0 0 PM 16:45 Total Peak 29 0 27 2 3 0 0 0 0 46 49 0 Time 15:30 15:45 16:00 16:15 16:30 16:45 17:00 17:15 17:30 17:45 18:00 18:15 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 4 0 Thru 6 9 8 6 7 8 7 5 7 7 8 4 10 2 82 27 LT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 RT 0 0 LT Thru 11 0 11 0 16 0 6 0 9 0 11 0 16 0 10 0 9 0 9 0 7 0 9 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 2 1 0 1 1 3 7 1 Ped 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 3 0 0 RT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Thru 4 8 9 10 12 14 13 11 21 9 5 7 0 0 123 59 LT 0 0 RT Ped 23 0 20 0 26 0 16 0 19 0 10 0 22 0 19 0 16 0 14 0 13 0 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Thru 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LT 0 RT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped TOTAL 0 47 0 50 0 59 0 38 0 49 0 44 0 58 0 46 0 56 0 44 0 44 0 40 N 0 59 67 126 Total Peak Intersection Statistics Per AM MID PM 0 0 217 67 0 0 0 0 0 0 Approach Statistics Peak Hour 7:00 AM Pk Hr Vol 193 Peak Intvl 7:30 AM Pk Intv Vol 62 4:45 PM 204 4:00 PM 59 Comments 124 46 Per AM MID PM Peak Hour 6:45 AM Pk Hr Vol 59 Peak Hour 6:45 AM Pk Hr Vol 101 Peak Hour 7:15 AM Pk Hr Vol 46 5:15 PM 35 4:30 PM 50 4:45 PM 126 Approach 103 0 340 Depart 347 0 206 Peak Hour Pk Hr Vol Approach 0 0 0 Depart 0 0 0 Approach & Departure Volumes (No Peds) Per AM MID PM Approach 118 0 92 Depart 52 0 142 1200162.TMC Approach 241 0 143 Depart 63 0 227 Page 1 of 1 575 204 Traffic Research & Analysis, Inc. 3844 East Indian School Road Phoenix, AZ 85018 (602) 840-1500 1200163 5/22/2012 Intersection TMC: Count Date: AM 07:15 From North 148 84 61 3 5 112 23 73 47 19 97 42 Time 6:00 6:15 6:30 6:45 7:00 7:15 7:30 7:45 8:00 8:15 8:30 8:45 From East From South From West MERIDIAN RD LOST DUTCHMAN BLVD MERIDIAN RD BROWN RD LT Thru RT Ped LT Thru RT Ped LT Thru RT Ped LT Thru 0 8 1 0 2 21 0 0 9 4 4 0 2 4 0 10 18 0 0 19 1 0 5 1 2 0 1 10 0 5 22 0 1 24 3 0 4 7 3 0 7 8 2 11 23 0 3 14 1 0 6 5 1 0 3 6 0 14 27 0 2 15 2 0 2 5 1 0 3 7 0 17 20 0 10 23 3 0 3 4 2 0 4 9 1 19 32 0 3 23 1 0 14 9 4 0 4 8 1 15 14 0 2 14 1 0 5 9 1 0 11 10 1 10 18 0 4 13 0 0 1 9 2 0 4 20 0 12 12 0 5 10 0 0 2 5 2 0 1 16 1 8 15 0 1 19 1 0 4 9 0 0 3 11 3 7 10 0 4 20 1 0 4 6 5 0 2 17 INTSEC RT 2 2 4 11 11 6 15 7 14 9 7 10 Ped TOTAL 0 57 0 69 0 88 0 86 0 89 0 101 0 133 0 90 0 96 0 74 0 79 0 89 N 23 31 9 63 Total Peak Time 0 MID 0 0 9 3 LT 136 61 Thru 212 84 RT 0 0 37 19 Ped LT 215 73 Thru 14 5 RT 0 0 Ped 59 23 LT 73 31 Thru 27 9 RT 0 0 Ped 45 23 LT 126 47 Thru 98 42 RT 0 0 Ped 1051 420 TOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N 0 0 0 0 PM 15:30 Total Peak 74 28 42 4 4 217 53 56 111 14 53 74 Time 15:30 15:45 16:00 16:15 16:30 16:45 17:00 17:15 17:30 17:45 18:00 18:15 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 Thru 8 11 14 9 12 10 11 8 11 7 11 8 7 4 120 42 LT 0 0 9 8 9 2 7 4 9 8 9 5 6 3 Ped 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 79 28 0 0 RT 0 0 5 3 4 2 2 2 1 2 3 0 4 2 Thru 21 16 13 6 11 13 15 15 10 10 9 12 30 14 151 56 LT 0 0 0 1 2 1 0 1 0 1 2 0 2 2 Ped 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 4 0 0 RT 0 0 1 9 6 6 5 2 5 7 4 4 9 3 Thru 20 18 11 16 18 15 11 20 18 8 8 17 61 22 180 65 LT 0 0 5 3 2 2 3 3 1 1 0 2 1 2 Ped 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 12 0 0 RT 0 0 0 0 0 0 LT Thru 12 23 11 32 17 26 13 30 12 37 15 27 21 29 11 22 26 32 15 22 25 34 15 24 RT Ped TOTAL 16 0 124 8 0 120 19 0 123 10 0 97 8 0 115 7 0 99 11 0 114 15 0 111 4 0 119 3 0 77 7 0 117 5 0 93 193 53 113 53 N 22 65 12 99 Total Peak Intersection Statistics Per AM MID PM 0 0 Approach Statistics Peak Hour 7:15 AM Pk Hr Vol 420 Peak Intvl 7:30 AM Pk Intv Vol 133 3:30 PM 464 3:30 PM 124 Comments 338 111 Per AM MID PM Peak Hour 6:45 AM Pk Hr Vol 166 Peak Hour 6:30 AM Pk Hr Vol 101 Peak Hour 7:15 AM Pk Hr Vol 63 Peak Hour 7:30 AM Pk Hr Vol 119 3:30 PM 74 3:30 PM 74 3:30 PM 99 3:45 PM 223 Approach 159 0 266 Depart 271 0 263 Approach 269 0 644 Depart 486 0 291 Approach & Departure Volumes (No Peds) Per AM MID PM Approach 357 0 206 Depart 132 0 385 1200163.TMC Approach 266 0 193 Depart 162 0 370 Page 1 of 1 1309 464 Traffic Research & Analysis, Inc. 3844 East Indian School Road Phoenix, AZ 85018 (602) 840-1500 Intersection TMC: Count Date: 1200164 5/22/2012 AM 07:30 215 97 82 From North 36 15 311 29 260 218 24 299 64 Time 6:00 6:15 6:30 6:45 7:00 7:15 7:30 7:45 8:00 8:15 8:30 8:45 From East From South From West INTSEC MERIDIAN RD SUPERSTITION BLVD MERIDIAN RD UNIVERSITY DR LT Thru RT Ped LT Thru RT Ped LT Thru RT Ped LT Thru RT Ped TOTAL 3 7 16 0 0 52 2 0 6 7 2 0 3 16 4 0 118 6 10 14 0 3 47 1 0 12 4 4 0 3 19 5 0 128 5 10 11 0 5 46 1 0 7 9 3 0 6 28 8 0 139 11 9 16 0 3 62 2 0 11 10 1 0 3 49 7 0 184 8 17 21 0 2 68 4 0 17 9 6 0 5 36 12 0 205 12 19 27 0 12 65 3 0 15 8 5 0 5 44 11 0 226 11 30 33 0 6 75 4 0 11 14 9 0 10 59 14 0 276 4 22 25 0 6 68 2 0 10 15 9 0 6 53 14 0 234 10 14 20 0 6 59 3 0 23 18 10 0 8 49 19 0 239 11 16 19 0 6 58 6 0 17 16 10 0 5 57 17 0 238 3 20 14 0 7 47 3 0 16 19 10 0 9 64 17 0 229 3 19 12 0 8 71 3 0 17 16 15 0 3 51 12 0 230 N 61 63 38 162 Total Peak Time 0 MID 0 0 87 36 LT 193 82 Thru 228 97 RT 0 0 64 24 Ped LT 718 260 Thru 34 15 RT 0 0 Ped 162 61 LT 145 63 Thru 84 38 RT 0 0 Ped 66 29 LT 525 218 Thru 140 64 RT 0 0 Ped 2446 987 TOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N 0 0 0 0 PM 16:00 Total Peak 185 52 93 40 26 542 62 236 384 42 96 304 0 0 0 0 Time 15:30 15:45 16:00 16:15 16:30 16:45 17:00 17:15 17:30 17:45 18:00 18:15 LT Thru 10 22 13 26 15 23 9 24 7 25 9 21 11 21 17 20 8 14 4 13 8 12 7 16 RT Ped 16 0 12 0 12 0 15 0 12 0 13 0 10 0 16 0 8 0 7 0 9 0 6 0 Total Peak 118 40 136 52 0 0 LT Thru 15 57 10 44 9 58 15 68 10 50 8 60 8 60 4 47 4 49 0 47 7 36 6 48 0 0 4 3 9 4 6 7 7 9 5 5 6 4 Ped 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 69 26 0 0 RT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LT Thru 15 28 15 33 20 20 24 32 18 36 14 32 14 30 15 33 24 24 14 16 15 24 8 20 RT Ped 20 0 18 0 15 0 15 0 15 0 15 0 13 0 6 0 7 0 15 0 10 0 7 0 LT Thru 16 93 22 88 14 88 15 108 22 90 11 98 17 87 22 91 20 77 16 75 13 62 16 61 RT Ped TOTAL 12 0 308 19 0 303 27 0 310 20 0 349 22 0 313 27 0 315 17 0 295 15 0 295 20 0 260 16 0 228 20 0 222 14 0 213 196 76 156 60 204 1018 62 384 229 96 N 76 120 60 256 Intersection Statistics Per AM MID PM 0 0 96 42 624 236 328 120 0 0 0 0 Approach Statistics Peak Hour 7:30 AM Pk Hr Vol 987 Peak Intvl 7:30 AM Pk Intv Vol 276 4:00 PM 1287 4:15 PM 349 Comments 237 93 Per AM MID PM Peak Hour 7:00 AM Pk Hr Vol 229 Peak Hour 7:00 AM Pk Hr Vol 315 Peak Hour 8:00 AM Pk Hr Vol 187 Peak Hour 7:45 AM Pk Hr Vol 318 3:30 PM 197 4:00 PM 304 3:45 PM 261 4:00 PM 542 Approach 391 0 680 Depart 397 0 562 Approach 731 0 1451 Depart 1108 0 956 Approach & Departure Volumes (No Peds) Per AM MID PM Approach 508 0 491 Depart 245 0 601 1200164.TMC Approach 816 0 789 Depart 696 0 1292 Page 1 of 1 3411 1287 Traffic Research & Analysis, Inc. 3844 East Indian School Road Phoenix, AZ 85018 (602) 840-1500 Intersection TMC: Count Date: 1200165 5/22/2012 AM 08:00 201 50 74 From North 77 55 388 79 312 281 45 412 28 Time 6:00 6:15 6:30 6:45 7:00 7:15 7:30 7:45 8:00 8:15 8:30 8:45 From East From South From West INTSEC MERIDIAN RD APACHE TRAIL MERIDIAN RD APACHE TRAIL LT Thru RT Ped LT Thru RT Ped LT Thru RT Ped LT Thru RT Ped TOTAL 5 7 2 0 1 34 5 0 2 9 6 0 0 13 2 0 86 5 13 8 0 0 25 4 0 4 9 6 0 9 14 6 0 103 6 20 9 0 4 37 8 0 3 10 3 0 5 27 2 0 134 11 12 6 0 3 53 12 0 3 17 4 0 5 30 4 0 160 15 26 11 0 5 36 11 0 9 14 4 0 5 40 2 0 178 12 31 8 0 9 62 17 0 8 15 11 0 12 44 6 0 235 16 28 15 0 8 71 12 0 9 16 5 0 21 52 4 0 257 28 21 7 0 8 62 13 0 13 20 8 0 16 61 6 0 263 14 18 10 0 9 68 16 0 10 30 17 0 18 67 7 0 284 19 22 11 0 12 75 16 0 15 31 18 0 20 63 4 0 306 23 24 17 0 8 91 13 0 16 33 18 0 21 75 6 0 345 21 10 12 0 16 78 10 0 11 27 8 0 20 76 11 0 300 N 52 121 61 234 0 MID 0 0 Total Peak 175 77 Time LT 232 74 Thru 116 50 RT 0 0 83 45 Ped LT 692 312 Thru 137 55 RT 0 0 Ped 103 52 LT 231 121 Thru 108 61 RT 0 0 Ped 152 79 LT 562 281 Thru 60 28 RT 0 0 Ped 2651 1235 TOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N 0 0 0 0 PM 15:30 Total Peak 290 60 108 122 86 636 101 391 479 60 56 537 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Time 15:30 15:45 16:00 16:15 16:30 16:45 17:00 17:15 17:30 17:45 18:00 18:15 LT Thru 27 23 30 23 36 32 29 30 22 24 34 31 34 25 22 30 22 23 20 30 12 24 22 22 RT Ped 14 0 23 0 10 0 13 0 12 0 14 0 15 0 11 0 7 0 8 0 7 0 7 0 LT Thru 17 104 13 101 12 82 18 104 14 77 15 88 15 82 19 76 11 72 20 72 20 64 14 59 RT Ped 20 0 21 0 22 0 23 0 27 0 23 0 20 0 13 0 25 0 19 0 24 0 16 0 LT Thru 18 24 11 37 14 26 12 40 18 32 17 22 7 24 11 33 9 23 9 25 7 20 15 19 RT Ped 12 0 19 0 18 0 14 0 14 0 14 0 13 0 20 0 17 0 6 0 10 0 16 0 LT Thru 32 118 19 123 22 106 28 132 41 93 28 120 27 96 15 111 17 120 22 76 22 88 14 75 RT Ped TOTAL 14 0 423 12 0 432 12 0 392 18 0 461 9 0 383 7 0 413 10 0 368 10 0 371 10 0 356 14 0 321 5 0 303 8 0 287 Total Peak 310 122 141 60 188 60 253 86 148 55 173 63 287 1258 101 479 129 56 N 55 127 63 245 Intersection Statistics Per AM MID PM 0 0 981 391 0 0 325 127 0 0 0 0 Approach Statistics Peak Hour 8:00 AM Pk Hr Vol 1235 Peak Intvl 8:30 AM Pk Intv Vol 345 3:30 PM 1708 4:15 PM 461 Comments 317 108 Per AM MID PM Peak Hour 7:00 AM Pk Hr Vol 218 Peak Hour 8:00 AM Pk Hr Vol 412 Peak Hour 8:00 AM Pk Hr Vol 234 Peak Hour 8:00 AM Pk Hr Vol 388 3:30 PM 290 3:30 PM 537 3:45 PM 255 3:30 PM 636 Approach 442 0 646 Depart 375 0 634 Approach 774 0 1674 Depart 911 0 1270 Approach & Departure Volumes (No Peds) Per AM MID PM Approach 523 0 768 Depart 520 0 865 1200165.TMC Approach 912 0 1422 Depart 845 0 1741 Page 1 of 1 4510 1708 Traffic Research & Analysis, Inc. 3844 East Indian School Road Phoenix, AZ 85018 (602) 840-1500 Intersection TMC: Count Date: 1200166 5/22/2012 AM 07:30 134 22 89 From North 23 40 236 43 218 171 34 292 22 Time 6:00 6:15 6:30 6:45 7:00 7:15 7:30 7:45 8:00 8:15 8:30 8:45 From East From South From West INTSEC MERIDIAN RD BROADWAY RD MERIDIAN RD BROADWAY RD LT Thru RT Ped LT Thru RT Ped LT Thru RT Ped LT Thru RT Ped TOTAL 1 7 1 0 3 39 1 0 1 7 4 0 5 17 1 0 87 2 14 4 0 1 40 2 0 2 10 2 0 5 11 1 0 94 5 11 3 0 3 46 2 0 3 11 6 0 1 23 6 0 120 2 12 2 0 7 54 5 0 3 12 2 0 6 34 3 0 142 4 18 7 0 6 51 7 0 2 14 3 0 4 32 5 0 153 10 31 4 0 10 56 6 0 5 22 6 0 2 38 4 0 194 5 27 5 0 8 61 7 0 6 31 10 0 5 35 6 0 206 7 19 5 0 7 58 13 0 3 30 9 0 9 50 3 0 213 6 19 6 0 10 61 13 0 3 22 9 0 14 48 5 0 216 5 24 6 0 9 38 7 0 7 29 13 0 15 38 8 0 199 7 18 7 0 6 39 3 0 6 39 13 0 13 41 4 0 196 8 22 7 0 8 39 12 0 7 27 6 0 16 40 5 0 197 N 19 112 41 172 Total Peak Time 0 MID 0 0 62 23 LT 222 89 Thru 57 22 RT 0 0 78 34 Ped LT 582 218 Thru 78 40 RT 0 0 Ped 48 19 LT 254 112 Thru 83 41 RT 0 0 Ped 95 43 LT 407 171 Thru 51 22 RT 0 0 Ped 2017 834 TOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N 0 0 0 0 PM 16:00 Total Peak 219 52 117 50 49 367 59 185 285 27 23 261 0 0 0 0 Time 15:30 15:45 16:00 16:15 16:30 16:45 17:00 17:15 17:30 17:45 18:00 18:15 LT Thru 14 30 14 28 16 24 12 35 7 30 15 28 11 36 14 32 11 33 10 22 6 31 9 15 RT 8 10 15 17 13 7 12 6 9 16 8 9 Ped 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Peak 139 50 130 52 0 0 0 0 4 10 6 8 5 8 10 5 6 7 10 5 Thru 54 43 42 45 46 52 33 55 49 32 52 30 84 27 533 185 LT 0 0 9 11 12 16 7 14 11 11 9 4 7 10 Ped 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 121 49 0 0 RT 0 0 3 4 2 7 5 5 1 3 1 4 3 4 Thru 19 26 34 26 31 35 24 24 25 14 22 18 42 19 298 126 LT 0 0 0 0 RT Ped 19 0 20 0 9 0 16 0 14 0 17 0 9 0 2 0 4 0 11 0 16 0 13 0 LT Thru 12 73 20 56 18 66 10 74 13 77 18 68 11 63 12 75 10 62 10 56 6 60 11 48 150 56 151 59 0 RT 4 4 9 8 3 3 9 5 3 3 3 1 0 0 0 Ped TOTAL 0 249 0 246 0 253 0 274 0 251 0 270 0 230 0 244 0 222 0 189 0 224 0 173 N 19 126 56 201 Intersection Statistics Per AM MID PM 0 0 778 285 55 23 0 0 Approach Statistics Peak Hour 7:30 AM Pk Hr Vol 834 Peak Intvl 8:00 AM Pk Intv Vol 216 4:00 PM 1048 4:15 PM 274 Comments 344 117 Per AM MID PM Peak Hour 7:15 AM Pk Hr Vol 144 Peak Hour 7:15 AM Pk Hr Vol 310 Peak Hour 7:45 AM Pk Hr Vol 183 Peak Hour 7:45 AM Pk Hr Vol 248 3:30 PM 223 4:45 PM 263 4:00 PM 201 4:00 PM 367 Approach 385 0 490 Depart 351 0 483 Approach 553 0 984 Depart 687 0 705 Approach & Departure Volumes (No Peds) Per AM MID PM Approach 341 0 613 Depart 427 0 570 1200166.TMC Approach 738 0 738 Depart 552 0 1067 Page 1 of 1 2825 1048 Traffic Research & Analysis, Inc. 3844 East Indian School Road Phoenix, AZ 85018 (602) 840-1500 Intersection TMC: Count Date: 1200167 5/22/2012 AM 07:00 223 130 55 From North 38 40 169 61 204 99 22 266 9 Time 6:00 6:15 6:30 6:45 7:00 7:15 7:30 7:45 8:00 8:15 8:30 8:45 From East From South From West INTSEC MERIDIAN RD SOUTHERN AVE MERIDIAN RD SOUTHERN AVE LT Thru RT Ped LT Thru RT Ped LT Thru RT Ped LT Thru RT Ped TOTAL 2 8 9 0 3 29 5 0 0 3 4 0 5 10 1 0 79 6 9 12 0 3 22 3 0 1 8 1 0 5 9 0 0 79 5 15 17 0 5 32 4 0 3 5 4 0 8 14 0 0 112 9 9 11 0 3 30 3 0 8 17 4 0 12 29 6 0 141 10 10 27 0 5 55 9 0 3 14 3 0 17 21 2 0 176 10 13 41 0 5 52 14 0 6 19 3 0 17 17 4 0 201 7 24 40 0 5 53 11 0 2 19 5 0 16 34 2 0 218 11 8 22 0 7 44 6 0 6 28 3 0 11 27 1 0 174 2 10 20 0 6 33 9 0 3 15 6 0 10 18 2 0 134 5 11 19 0 5 23 15 0 3 18 3 0 12 21 6 0 141 6 6 19 0 2 42 19 0 0 29 6 0 14 18 6 0 167 7 10 17 0 4 28 2 0 4 10 5 0 19 12 0 0 118 N 17 80 14 111 Total Peak Time 0 MID 0 0 80 38 LT 133 55 Thru 254 130 RT 0 0 53 22 Ped LT 443 204 Thru 100 40 RT 0 0 Ped 39 17 LT 185 80 Thru 47 14 RT 0 0 Ped 146 61 LT 230 99 Thru 30 9 RT 0 0 Ped 1740 769 TOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N 0 0 0 0 PM 16:30 Total Peak 179 78 76 25 35 312 111 130 187 20 14 185 Time 15:30 15:45 16:00 16:15 16:30 16:45 17:00 17:15 17:30 17:45 18:00 18:15 0 0 9 8 4 2 9 5 6 5 6 4 3 5 Thru 14 12 16 17 14 16 17 29 18 12 15 16 66 25 196 76 LT 0 0 RT Ped 21 0 18 0 20 0 17 0 25 0 17 0 19 0 17 0 17 0 13 0 11 0 12 0 0 0 2 2 3 4 6 6 6 2 1 0 3 4 Thru 20 26 39 26 27 34 35 34 28 33 23 19 39 20 344 130 LT 0 0 9 9 7 11 5 17 9 4 7 3 7 11 Ped 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 99 35 0 0 RT 0 0 3 2 4 1 3 1 2 2 5 1 1 3 Thru 15 22 32 11 25 24 15 16 9 20 13 7 28 8 209 80 LT 0 0 5 8 4 6 6 6 6 15 2 4 2 5 Ped 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 69 33 0 0 RT 0 0 LT Thru 24 44 31 47 25 49 30 46 25 49 30 46 27 47 29 45 21 33 24 46 24 33 28 27 0 RT 1 2 3 8 6 4 2 2 3 3 0 2 0 0 0 Ped TOTAL 0 167 0 187 0 206 0 179 0 200 0 206 0 191 0 200 0 150 0 163 0 135 0 139 N 8 80 33 121 Total Peak Intersection Statistics Per AM MID PM 0 0 318 111 512 187 36 14 0 0 Approach Statistics Peak Hour 7:00 AM Pk Hr Vol 769 Peak Intvl 7:30 AM Pk Intv Vol 218 4:30 PM 797 4:00 PM 206 Comments 207 78 Per AM MID PM Peak Hour 7:00 AM Pk Hr Vol 223 Peak Hour 7:00 AM Pk Hr Vol 266 Peak Hour 7:45 AM Pk Hr Vol 120 Peak Hour 6:45 AM Pk Hr Vol 177 4:30 PM 179 4:15 PM 186 3:45 PM 124 3:45 PM 321 Approach 271 0 306 Depart 216 0 271 Approach 406 0 866 Depart 736 0 579 Approach & Departure Volumes (No Peds) Per AM MID PM Approach 467 0 469 Depart 431 0 626 1200167.TMC Approach 596 0 482 Depart 357 0 647 Page 1 of 1 2123 797 Traffic Research & Analysis, Inc. 3844 East Indian School Road Phoenix, AZ 85018 (602) 840-1500 1200168 5/22/2012 Intersection TMC: Count Date: AM 07:00 From North 79 49 0 30 58 190 61 319 129 0 377 0 Time 6:00 6:15 6:30 6:45 7:00 7:15 7:30 7:45 8:00 8:15 8:30 8:45 From East From South MERIDIAN RD BASELINE RD NONE LT Thru RT Ped LT Thru RT Ped LT Thru 7 0 5 0 0 39 4 0 0 0 5 0 7 0 0 68 7 0 0 0 13 0 4 0 0 75 8 0 0 0 9 0 10 0 0 72 21 0 0 0 4 0 9 0 0 93 8 0 0 0 7 0 11 0 0 93 13 0 0 0 11 0 20 0 0 71 12 0 0 0 8 0 9 0 0 62 25 0 0 0 3 0 11 0 0 54 11 0 0 0 6 0 13 0 0 53 12 0 0 0 8 0 7 0 0 51 16 0 0 0 6 0 7 0 0 32 6 0 0 0 From West RT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 INTSEC BASELINE RD LT Thru RT Ped TOTAL 4 14 0 0 73 5 13 0 0 105 5 21 0 0 126 11 24 0 0 147 11 33 0 0 158 15 30 0 0 169 16 34 0 0 164 19 32 0 0 155 15 34 0 0 128 13 29 0 0 126 14 23 0 0 119 11 27 0 0 89 N 0 0 0 0 Total Peak Time 0 MID 0 0 87 30 LT 0 0 Thru 113 49 RT 0 0 0 0 Ped LT 763 319 Thru 143 58 RT 0 0 Ped 0 0 LT 0 0 Thru RT Ped 139 61 LT 314 129 Thru 0 0 RT 0 0 Ped 1559 646 TOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N 0 0 0 0 PM 16:30 Total Peak 114 59 0 55 32 409 68 161 341 0 0 193 0 0 Time 15:30 15:45 16:00 16:15 16:30 16:45 17:00 17:15 17:30 17:45 18:00 18:15 LT 8 6 9 15 16 12 10 17 9 10 6 10 Thru 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Peak 128 55 0 0 0 0 RT Ped 12 0 9 0 13 0 9 0 13 0 13 0 18 0 15 0 14 0 8 0 7 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Thru 44 30 44 37 26 53 39 43 31 24 32 20 0 0 423 161 LT 0 0 4 8 12 7 10 8 8 6 8 4 4 2 Ped 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 81 32 0 0 RT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Thru 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 RT 0 0 LT Thru 19 56 22 60 21 71 14 69 19 71 21 84 13 83 15 103 8 80 15 66 10 82 12 52 0 RT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped TOTAL 0 143 0 135 0 170 0 151 0 155 0 191 0 171 0 199 0 150 0 127 0 141 0 109 N 0 0 0 0 Intersection Statistics Per AM MID PM 0 0 189 68 877 341 0 0 0 0 Approach Statistics Peak Hour 7:00 AM Pk Hr Vol 646 Peak Intvl 7:15 AM Pk Intv Vol 169 4:30 PM 716 5:15 PM 199 Comments 144 59 Per AM MID PM Peak Hour 6:45 AM Pk Hr Vol 81 Peak Hour 6:30 AM Pk Hr Vol 383 4:30 PM 114 4:00 PM 197 Peak Hour Pk Hr Vol Peak Hour 7:15 AM Pk Hr Vol 195 4:30 PM 409 Approach 453 0 1066 Depart 876 0 567 Approach & Departure Volumes (No Peds) Per AM MID PM Approach 200 0 272 Depart 282 0 270 1200168.TMC Approach 906 0 504 Depart 401 0 1005 Approach 0 0 0 Depart 0 0 0 Page 1 of 1 1842 716 Traffic Research & Analysis, Inc. 3844 East Indian School Road Phoenix, AZ 85018 (602) 840-1500 1200169 5/22/2012 Intersection TMC: Count Date: AM 07:00 From North 70 58 12 0 0 47 23 0 0 0 0 24 Time 6:00 6:15 6:30 6:45 7:00 7:15 7:30 7:45 8:00 8:15 8:30 8:45 From East MERIDIAN RD NONE LT Thru RT Ped LT Thru 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 1 13 0 0 0 0 0 16 0 0 0 0 2 17 0 0 0 0 3 12 0 0 0 0 0 16 0 0 0 0 1 17 0 0 0 0 8 13 0 0 0 0 4 17 0 0 0 0 1 13 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 1 8 0 0 0 From South RT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 From West MERIDIAN RD ELLIOT RD LT Thru RT Ped LT Thru 13 2 0 0 1 0 26 1 0 0 3 0 18 0 0 0 4 0 28 1 0 0 6 0 39 1 0 0 5 0 22 1 0 0 5 0 34 1 0 0 7 0 25 5 0 0 6 0 25 7 0 0 2 0 11 1 0 0 3 0 23 0 0 0 3 0 10 3 0 0 4 0 INTSEC RT 4 1 5 6 2 2 14 6 6 6 11 7 Ped TOTAL 0 28 0 45 0 43 0 60 0 62 0 46 0 74 0 63 0 61 0 35 0 43 0 33 N 120 8 0 128 Total Peak Time 0 MID 0 0 0 0 LT 21 12 Thru 156 58 RT 0 0 0 0 Ped LT 0 0 Thru RT Ped 274 120 LT 23 8 Thru 0 0 RT 0 0 Ped 49 23 LT 0 0 Thru 70 24 RT 0 0 Ped 593 245 TOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N 0 0 0 0 PM 16:15 Total Peak 40 28 12 0 0 151 59 0 0 0 0 92 Time 15:30 15:45 16:00 16:15 16:30 16:45 17:00 17:15 17:30 17:45 18:00 18:15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Thru 0 1 2 3 6 1 2 3 0 1 1 0 0 0 20 12 LT 0 0 RT Ped 11 0 7 0 4 0 6 0 7 0 9 0 6 0 7 0 4 0 5 0 3 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Thru 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 RT 0 0 LT Thru 21 0 12 0 8 1 23 3 14 4 20 2 14 1 7 1 12 0 11 3 8 0 12 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 RT 0 0 0 0 0 0 LT Thru 15 0 8 0 10 0 14 0 12 0 19 0 14 0 17 0 15 0 11 0 6 0 17 0 RT Ped TOTAL 18 0 65 28 0 56 25 0 50 26 0 75 26 0 69 13 0 64 27 0 64 27 0 62 23 0 54 22 0 53 24 0 42 18 0 57 158 59 277 92 N 71 10 0 81 Total Peak Intersection Statistics Per AM MID PM 0 0 162 71 19 10 0 0 0 0 Approach Statistics Peak Hour 7:00 AM Pk Hr Vol 245 Peak Intvl 7:30 AM Pk Intv Vol 74 4:15 PM 272 4:15 PM 75 Comments 75 28 Per AM MID PM Peak Hour 7:15 AM Pk Hr Vol 76 4:30 PM 41 Peak Hour Pk Hr Vol Peak Hour 7:00 AM Pk Hr Vol 128 Peak Hour 7:30 AM Pk Hr Vol 50 4:15 PM 81 5:00 PM 156 Approach 297 0 181 Depart 91 0 297 Approach 119 0 435 Depart 430 0 237 Approach & Departure Volumes (No Peds) Per AM MID PM Approach 177 0 95 Depart 72 0 177 1200169.TMC Approach 0 0 0 Depart 0 0 0 Page 1 of 1 711 272 Traffic Research & Analysis, Inc. 3844 East Indian School Road Phoenix, AZ 85018 (602) 840-1500 1200170 5/22/2012 Intersection TMC: Count Date: AM 07:30 From North 14 6 8 0 0 13 5 0 0 0 0 8 Time 6:00 6:15 6:30 6:45 7:00 7:15 7:30 7:45 8:00 8:15 8:30 8:45 From East MERIDIAN RD NONE LT Thru RT Ped LT Thru 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 4 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 3 2 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 From South RT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 From West INTSEC MERIDIAN RD WARNER RD LT Thru RT Ped LT Thru RT Ped TOTAL 1 3 0 0 2 0 1 0 8 1 7 0 0 2 0 0 0 11 0 8 0 0 0 0 1 0 11 0 6 0 0 1 0 1 0 13 0 14 0 0 0 0 2 0 19 0 6 0 0 1 0 0 0 9 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 3 10 0 0 3 0 1 0 23 3 8 0 0 1 0 6 0 23 2 4 0 0 1 0 1 0 11 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 3 0 0 2 0 0 0 6 N 8 31 0 39 Total Peak Time 0 MID 0 0 0 0 LT 14 8 Thru 17 6 RT 0 0 0 0 Ped LT 0 0 Thru RT Ped 10 8 LT 84 31 Thru 0 0 RT 0 0 Ped 13 5 LT 0 0 Thru 13 8 RT 0 0 Ped 151 66 TOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N 0 0 0 0 PM 16:15 Total Peak 32 8 24 0 0 12 4 0 0 0 0 8 Time 15:30 15:45 16:00 16:15 16:30 16:45 17:00 17:15 17:30 17:45 18:00 18:15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Thru 4 6 4 7 4 5 8 8 4 6 6 5 0 0 67 24 LT 0 0 4 2 2 1 4 2 1 3 2 2 1 2 Ped 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 8 0 0 RT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Thru 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 LT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 RT 0 0 3 0 0 1 2 1 2 0 0 0 1 1 Thru 4 5 4 7 4 9 2 5 4 2 2 2 11 6 50 22 LT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 RT 0 0 1 1 5 2 0 0 2 1 0 2 1 1 Thru 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 4 0 0 LT 0 RT 3 2 0 2 2 1 3 0 4 3 2 3 0 0 0 Ped TOTAL 0 19 0 16 0 15 0 20 0 16 0 18 0 18 0 17 0 15 0 15 0 13 0 14 N 6 22 0 28 Total Peak Intersection Statistics Per AM MID PM 0 0 Approach Statistics Peak Hour 7:30 AM Pk Hr Vol 66 Peak Intvl 7:45 AM Pk Intv Vol 23 4:15 PM 72 4:15 PM 20 Comments 25 8 Per AM MID PM Peak Hour 7:45 AM Pk Hr Vol 16 Peak Hour Pk Hr Vol Peak Hour 7:00 AM Pk Hr Vol 42 Peak Hour 7:30 AM Pk Hr Vol 13 4:30 PM 35 4:45 PM 1 4:00 PM 28 3:30 PM 16 Approach 94 0 61 Depart 27 0 92 Approach 26 0 41 Depart 27 0 38 Approach & Departure Volumes (No Peds) Per AM MID PM Approach 31 0 93 Depart 97 0 66 1200170.TMC Approach 0 0 1 Depart 0 0 0 Page 1 of 1 196 72 Traffic Research and Analysis, Inc. 3844 East Indian School Road Phoenix, AZ 85018 (602) 840-1500 File Name 1201307 1201308 1201309 1201310 1201311 1201312 1201319 1201320 1201321 1201322 1201315 1201316 1201317 1201318 1201325 1201326 1201323 1201324 Route MERIDIAN RD MERIDIAN RD MERIDIAN RD MERIDIAN RD MERIDIAN RD MERIDIAN RD MERIDIAN RD MERIDIAN RD MERIDIAN RD MERIDIAN RD MERIDIAN RD MERIDIAN RD MERIDIAN RD MERIDIAN RD MERIDIAN RD MERIDIAN RD MERIDIAN RD MERIDIAN RD Location Btwn MCDOWELL RD & MCKELLIPS RD Btwn MCDOWELL RD & MCKELLIPS RD Btwn MCKELLIPS RD & BROWN RD Btwn MCKELLIPS RD & BROWN RD Btwn BROWN RD & UNIVERSITY DR Btwn BROWN RD & UNIVERSITY DR Btwn UNIVERSITY DR & APACHE TRAIL Btwn UNIVERSITY DR & APACHE TRAIL Btwn APACHE TRAIL & BROADWAY RD Btwn APACHE TRAIL & BROADWAY RD Btwn BROADWAY RD & SOUTHERN AVE Btwn BROADWAY RD & SOUTHERN AVE Btwn SOUTHERN AVE & BASELINE RD Btwn SOUTHERN AVE & BASELINE RD N of ELLIOT RD N of ELLIOT RD Btwn ELLIOT RD & WARNER RD Btwn ELLIOT RD & WARNER RD 12057: M BAKER CORP Directi Count on Dur Start Date NB 48 5/22/2012 SB 48 5/22/2012 NB 48 5/22/2012 SB 48 5/22/2012 NB 48 5/22/2012 SB 48 5/22/2012 NB 48 5/22/2012 SB 48 5/22/2012 NB 48 5/22/2012 SB 48 5/22/2012 NB 48 5/22/2012 SB 48 5/22/2012 NB 48 5/22/2012 SB 48 5/22/2012 NB 48 5/22/2012 SB 48 5/22/2012 NB 48 5/22/2012 SB 48 5/22/2012 Avg Vol 510 546 1278 1360 2256 2428 2912 2793 2792 3061 2194 2056 1308 1246 609 581 651 594 Manifest AM AM PkHr PkVol 6:45 52 11:30 42 11:45 82 6:45 154 11:45 141 7:00 208 11:15 212 10:00 198 11:15 210 11:15 244 11:15 170 11:15 163 7:00 121 11:15 91 11:30 34 6:45 76 7:00 80 11:30 36 AM PHF 0.9375 0.9130 0.8913 0.9029 0.8598 0.8476 0.8740 0.9706 0.9437 0.9173 0.9341 0.9261 0.8403 0.9100 0.8947 0.8138 0.7143 0.8068 PM PM PkHr PkVol 13:00 33 16:45 56 16:45 142 17:00 80 16:30 212 15:45 174 16:15 256 15:45 224 16:00 232 16:00 258 13:45 198 16:30 156 15:15 122 16:30 102 16:15 63 14:30 40 16:15 50 16:30 67 PM PHF 0.8250 0.7708 0.9500 0.8944 0.8638 0.8788 0.9143 0.9803 0.9260 0.9485 0.8161 0.8892 0.7500 0.9273 0.9000 0.8438 0.8250 0.9306 Day Corr 0.6323 0.7418 0.8790 0.8470 0.9304 0.9157 0.9355 0.9304 0.9552 0.9395 0.9260 0.9101 0.9076 0.8582 0.7747 0.7961 0.8459 0.7919 Dir Split 48.3% 51.7% 48.4% 51.6% 48.2% 51.8% 51.0% 49.0% 47.7% 52.3% 51.6% 48.4% 51.2% 48.8% 51.2% 48.8% 52.3% 47.7% Avg Spd Latitude 37.3 33.4529 40.5 33.4529 45.9 33.4415 56.8 33.4415 36.4 33.4249 42.7 33.4249 39.2 33.4191 40.0 33.4191 34.9 33.4114 35.3 33.4114 36.8 33.3990 43.3 33.3990 49.9 33.3893 43.6 33.3893 37.4 33.3515 42.1 33.3515 47.0 33.3404 47.6 33.3404 Page 1 of 2 Traffic Research and Analysis, Inc. 3844 East Indian School Road Phoenix, AZ 85018 (602) 840-1500 File Name 1201307 1201308 1201309 1201310 1201311 1201312 1201319 1201320 1201321 1201322 1201315 1201316 1201317 1201318 1201325 1201326 1201323 1201324 Route MERIDIAN RD MERIDIAN RD MERIDIAN RD MERIDIAN RD MERIDIAN RD MERIDIAN RD MERIDIAN RD MERIDIAN RD MERIDIAN RD MERIDIAN RD MERIDIAN RD MERIDIAN RD MERIDIAN RD MERIDIAN RD MERIDIAN RD MERIDIAN RD MERIDIAN RD MERIDIAN RD Location Btwn MCDOWELL RD & MCKELLIPS RD Btwn MCDOWELL RD & MCKELLIPS RD Btwn MCKELLIPS RD & BROWN RD Btwn MCKELLIPS RD & BROWN RD Btwn BROWN RD & UNIVERSITY DR Btwn BROWN RD & UNIVERSITY DR Btwn UNIVERSITY DR & APACHE TRAIL Btwn UNIVERSITY DR & APACHE TRAIL Btwn APACHE TRAIL & BROADWAY RD Btwn APACHE TRAIL & BROADWAY RD Btwn BROADWAY RD & SOUTHERN AVE Btwn BROADWAY RD & SOUTHERN AVE Btwn SOUTHERN AVE & BASELINE RD Btwn SOUTHERN AVE & BASELINE RD N of ELLIOT RD N of ELLIOT RD Btwn ELLIOT RD & WARNER RD Btwn ELLIOT RD & WARNER RD 12057: M BAKER CORP Directi on Longitude NB -111.5807 SB -111.5807 NB -111.5806 SB -111.5806 NB -111.5806 SB -111.5806 NB -111.5806 SB -111.5806 NB -111.5806 SB -111.5806 NB -111.5805 SB -111.5805 NB -111.5806 SB -111.5806 NB -111.5838 SB -111.5838 NB -111.5837 SB -111.5837 Comments Manifest Page 2 of 2 Traffic Research & Analysis, Inc. 3844 East Indian School Road Phoenix, AZ 85018 (602) 840-1500 Page: 1 of 2 TRAFFIC COUNT SUMMARY Site ID: Location 1: Location 2: Latitude: Longitude: File Ref: Start Date: Direction: 12:00 AM 12:15 AM 12:30 AM 12:45 AM 1:00 AM 1:15 AM 1:30 AM 1:45 AM 2:00 AM 2:15 AM 2:30 AM 2:45 AM 3:00 AM 3:15 AM 3:30 AM 3:45 AM 4:00 AM 4:15 AM 4:30 AM 4:45 AM 5:00 AM 5:15 AM 5:30 AM 5:45 AM 6:00 AM 6:15 AM 6:30 AM 6:45 AM 7:00 AM 7:15 AM 7:30 AM 7:45 AM 8:00 AM 8:15 AM 8:30 AM 8:45 AM 9:00 AM 9:15 AM 9:30 AM 9:45 AM 10:00 AM 10:15 AM 10:30 AM 10:45 AM 11:00 AM 11:15 AM 11:30 AM 11:45 AM 1 MERIDIAN RD Btwn MCDOWELL RD & MCKELLIPS RD 33.45288 33.45288 -111.58069 -111.58069 1201307 1201308 Average Average NB 2 2 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 2 4 2 4 5 7 7 4 7 7 9 14 12 14 13 10 11 9 10 9 6 8 9 7 8 9 7 7 10 10 8 6 SB 1 2 1 2 3 3 2 1 1 0 1 0 2 0 0 1 2 0 1 1 2 3 2 0 3 2 4 3 4 4 3 9 4 4 7 5 7 5 8 6 8 6 8 7 6 9 11 9 M BAKER CORP: Traffic Summary Report Combined Totals NB/SB 3 4 1 3 4 5 2 3 2 0 1 0 2 2 1 2 3 4 2 5 6 9 9 4 10 9 13 17 16 18 16 19 15 12 17 14 13 12 16 13 15 15 15 14 16 18 19 14 Total 3 4 1 3 4 5 2 3 2 0 1 0 2 2 1 2 3 4 2 5 6 9 9 4 10 9 13 17 16 18 16 19 15 12 17 14 13 12 16 13 15 15 15 14 16 18 19 14 Site_1.xls Traffic Research & Analysis, Inc. 3844 East Indian School Road Phoenix, AZ 85018 (602) 840-1500 File Ref: Start Date: Direction: 12:00 PM 12:15 PM 12:30 PM 12:45 PM 1:00 PM 1:15 PM 1:30 PM 1:45 PM 2:00 PM 2:15 PM 2:30 PM 2:45 PM 3:00 PM 3:15 PM 3:30 PM 3:45 PM 4:00 PM 4:15 PM 4:30 PM 4:45 PM 5:00 PM 5:15 PM 5:30 PM 5:45 PM 6:00 PM 6:15 PM 6:30 PM 6:45 PM 7:00 PM 7:15 PM 7:30 PM 7:45 PM 8:00 PM 8:15 PM 8:30 PM 8:45 PM 9:00 PM 9:15 PM 9:30 PM 9:45 PM 10:00 PM 10:15 PM 10:30 PM 10:45 PM 11:00 PM 11:15 PM 11:30 PM 11:45 PM Total: AM Peak Hr: AM Peak Vol: AM PHF: PM Peak Hr: PM Peak Vol: PM PHF: Page: 2 of 2 1201307 1201308 Average Average NB 11 6 8 6 9 8 7 10 8 5 6 9 6 5 7 9 7 9 7 5 6 5 7 10 9 5 3 6 4 8 6 5 6 6 2 1 2 4 3 2 3 1 2 2 1 1 0 1 511 SB 11 12 11 10 7 9 9 11 9 13 12 8 14 13 7 10 7 9 12 16 11 12 18 13 8 11 9 5 10 9 9 10 9 4 5 5 7 3 2 3 3 5 4 3 4 1 3 2 546 NB/SB 22 18 19 16 16 17 16 21 17 17 18 16 20 18 13 19 14 18 18 21 16 17 25 23 16 16 11 11 14 17 15 15 15 9 7 6 9 7 5 5 6 5 6 5 5 2 3 3 1056 Total 22 18 19 16 16 17 16 21 17 17 18 16 20 18 13 19 14 18 18 21 16 17 25 23 16 16 11 11 14 17 15 15 15 9 7 6 9 7 5 5 6 5 6 5 5 2 3 3 1056 6:45 AM 52.5 0.9375 1:00 PM 33 0.8250 11:30 AM 42 0.9130 4:45 PM 55.5 0.7708 11:45 AM 73 0.8295 5:00 PM 80 0.8000 11:45 AM 73 0.8295 5:00 PM 80 0.8000 M BAKER CORP: Traffic Summary Report Combined Totals Site_1.xls Traffic Research & Analysis, Inc. 3844 East Indian School Road Phoenix, AZ 85018 (602) 840-1500 Page: 1 of 2 TRAFFIC COUNT SUMMARY Site ID: Location 1: Location 2: Latitude: Longitude: File Ref: Start Date: Direction: 12:00 AM 12:15 AM 12:30 AM 12:45 AM 1:00 AM 1:15 AM 1:30 AM 1:45 AM 2:00 AM 2:15 AM 2:30 AM 2:45 AM 3:00 AM 3:15 AM 3:30 AM 3:45 AM 4:00 AM 4:15 AM 4:30 AM 4:45 AM 5:00 AM 5:15 AM 5:30 AM 5:45 AM 6:00 AM 6:15 AM 6:30 AM 6:45 AM 7:00 AM 7:15 AM 7:30 AM 7:45 AM 8:00 AM 8:15 AM 8:30 AM 8:45 AM 9:00 AM 9:15 AM 9:30 AM 9:45 AM 10:00 AM 10:15 AM 10:30 AM 10:45 AM 11:00 AM 11:15 AM 11:30 AM 11:45 AM 2 MERIDIAN RD Btwn MCKELLIPS RD & BROWN RD 33.44152 33.44152 -111.58058 -111.58058 1201309 1201310 Average Average NB 2 4 1 5 4 4 3 1 2 0 1 1 2 0 1 2 2 2 1 1 5 8 9 4 6 4 13 6 7 9 11 18 12 6 11 9 16 17 14 14 14 15 14 18 11 18 18 22 SB 2 3 1 2 3 2 1 3 1 3 1 1 3 3 3 3 7 12 10 12 15 23 22 19 17 29 29 37 38 36 43 30 30 26 23 23 21 21 20 21 20 23 20 19 20 18 15 17 M BAKER CORP: Traffic Summary Report Combined Totals NB/SB 4 7 2 6 6 5 4 4 3 3 1 2 5 3 3 5 9 14 11 13 20 31 31 23 22 33 42 43 45 45 53 47 41 31 34 32 37 37 34 34 33 38 34 37 31 36 33 38 Total 4 7 2 6 6 5 4 4 3 3 1 2 5 3 3 5 9 14 11 13 20 31 31 23 22 33 42 43 45 45 53 47 41 31 34 32 37 37 34 34 33 38 34 37 31 36 33 38 Site_2.xls Traffic Research & Analysis, Inc. 3844 East Indian School Road Phoenix, AZ 85018 (602) 840-1500 File Ref: Start Date: Direction: 12:00 PM 12:15 PM 12:30 PM 12:45 PM 1:00 PM 1:15 PM 1:30 PM 1:45 PM 2:00 PM 2:15 PM 2:30 PM 2:45 PM 3:00 PM 3:15 PM 3:30 PM 3:45 PM 4:00 PM 4:15 PM 4:30 PM 4:45 PM 5:00 PM 5:15 PM 5:30 PM 5:45 PM 6:00 PM 6:15 PM 6:30 PM 6:45 PM 7:00 PM 7:15 PM 7:30 PM 7:45 PM 8:00 PM 8:15 PM 8:30 PM 8:45 PM 9:00 PM 9:15 PM 9:30 PM 9:45 PM 10:00 PM 10:15 PM 10:30 PM 10:45 PM 11:00 PM 11:15 PM 11:30 PM 11:45 PM Total: AM Peak Hr: AM Peak Vol: AM PHF: PM Peak Hr: PM Peak Vol: PM PHF: Page: 2 of 2 1201309 1201310 Average Average NB 20 18 23 16 19 17 17 24 21 28 26 25 32 29 24 28 29 28 30 31 38 37 37 25 25 25 18 16 21 22 17 22 15 14 10 9 17 13 6 8 7 6 10 8 9 5 4 4 1278 SB 22 19 17 20 16 18 18 20 16 13 19 18 13 16 21 22 21 17 17 17 23 21 17 20 16 12 14 11 11 13 14 11 11 10 10 8 8 7 8 5 7 3 2 3 3 2 1 1 1360 NB/SB 42 36 40 36 35 35 35 44 37 41 45 43 45 44 45 49 50 45 47 48 60 58 54 45 41 36 32 27 32 35 30 33 26 24 20 17 25 20 14 13 14 9 12 11 11 7 5 4 2638 Total 42 36 40 36 35 35 35 44 37 41 45 43 45 44 45 49 50 45 47 48 60 58 54 45 41 36 32 27 32 35 30 33 26 24 20 17 25 20 14 13 14 9 12 11 11 7 5 4 2638 11:45 AM 82 0.8913 4:45 PM 142.5 0.9500 6:45 AM 153.5 0.9029 5:00 PM 80.5 0.8944 7:00 AM 188 0.8868 4:45 PM 220 0.9167 7:00 AM 188 0.8868 4:45 PM 220 0.9167 M BAKER CORP: Traffic Summary Report Combined Totals Site_2.xls Traffic Research & Analysis, Inc. 3844 East Indian School Road Phoenix, AZ 85018 (602) 840-1500 Page: 1 of 2 TRAFFIC COUNT SUMMARY Site ID: Location 1: Location 2: Latitude: Longitude: File Ref: Start Date: Direction: 12:00 AM 12:15 AM 12:30 AM 12:45 AM 1:00 AM 1:15 AM 1:30 AM 1:45 AM 2:00 AM 2:15 AM 2:30 AM 2:45 AM 3:00 AM 3:15 AM 3:30 AM 3:45 AM 4:00 AM 4:15 AM 4:30 AM 4:45 AM 5:00 AM 5:15 AM 5:30 AM 5:45 AM 6:00 AM 6:15 AM 6:30 AM 6:45 AM 7:00 AM 7:15 AM 7:30 AM 7:45 AM 8:00 AM 8:15 AM 8:30 AM 8:45 AM 9:00 AM 9:15 AM 9:30 AM 9:45 AM 10:00 AM 10:15 AM 10:30 AM 10:45 AM 11:00 AM 11:15 AM 11:30 AM 11:45 AM 3 MERIDIAN RD Btwn BROWN RD & UNIVERSITY DR 33.42492 33.42492 -111.58058 -111.58058 1201311 1201312 Average Average NB 4 4 2 4 5 3 4 3 4 2 2 4 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 6 7 9 6 14 10 14 13 19 14 24 21 28 25 22 26 23 33 21 26 29 27 27 27 29 42 37 34 SB 5 3 2 3 1 4 3 2 5 4 2 3 3 1 5 5 11 11 10 10 17 24 24 12 24 27 29 31 45 57 62 46 41 47 39 41 44 37 36 32 42 41 45 38 41 33 33 38 M BAKER CORP: Traffic Summary Report Combined Totals NB/SB 9 7 3 6 6 7 7 5 8 5 4 7 4 2 6 7 13 13 12 13 22 31 33 18 38 37 42 43 64 71 86 67 69 72 60 67 66 70 57 57 71 67 72 64 70 75 69 72 Total 9 7 3 6 6 7 7 5 8 5 4 7 4 2 6 7 13 13 12 13 22 31 33 18 38 37 42 43 64 71 86 67 69 72 60 67 66 70 57 57 71 67 72 64 70 75 69 72 Site_3.xls Traffic Research & Analysis, Inc. 3844 East Indian School Road Phoenix, AZ 85018 (602) 840-1500 File Ref: Start Date: Direction: 12:00 PM 12:15 PM 12:30 PM 12:45 PM 1:00 PM 1:15 PM 1:30 PM 1:45 PM 2:00 PM 2:15 PM 2:30 PM 2:45 PM 3:00 PM 3:15 PM 3:30 PM 3:45 PM 4:00 PM 4:15 PM 4:30 PM 4:45 PM 5:00 PM 5:15 PM 5:30 PM 5:45 PM 6:00 PM 6:15 PM 6:30 PM 6:45 PM 7:00 PM 7:15 PM 7:30 PM 7:45 PM 8:00 PM 8:15 PM 8:30 PM 8:45 PM 9:00 PM 9:15 PM 9:30 PM 9:45 PM 10:00 PM 10:15 PM 10:30 PM 10:45 PM 11:00 PM 11:15 PM 11:30 PM 11:45 PM Total: AM Peak Hr: AM Peak Vol: AM PHF: PM Peak Hr: PM Peak Vol: PM PHF: Page: 2 of 2 1201311 1201312 Average Average NB 29 41 38 33 32 43 36 40 32 39 42 50 49 52 43 51 45 49 57 50 45 62 49 44 41 39 41 32 37 36 29 32 30 29 21 26 27 18 16 19 15 16 13 12 11 7 9 4 2256 SB 33 36 35 40 37 37 35 38 37 31 33 35 36 37 37 44 50 43 39 41 43 52 29 33 30 29 27 25 22 28 27 30 30 24 21 18 15 18 13 14 11 10 9 6 8 6 5 3 2429 NB/SB 61 77 72 73 68 79 71 78 69 70 75 85 85 88 80 95 95 91 95 90 88 113 78 77 71 68 67 56 58 64 55 61 60 53 42 44 42 36 29 33 26 25 22 18 19 12 14 6 4684 Total 61 77 72 73 68 79 71 78 69 70 75 85 85 88 80 95 95 91 95 90 88 113 78 77 71 68 67 56 58 64 55 61 60 53 42 44 42 36 29 33 26 25 22 18 19 12 14 6 4684 11:45 AM 141 0.8598 4:30 PM 212.5 0.8638 7:00 AM 208.5 0.8476 3:45 PM 174 0.8788 7:30 AM 292 0.8488 4:30 PM 386 0.8540 7:30 AM 292 0.8488 4:30 PM 386 0.8540 M BAKER CORP: Traffic Summary Report Combined Totals Site_3.xls Traffic Research & Analysis, Inc. 3844 East Indian School Road Phoenix, AZ 85018 (602) 840-1500 Page: 1 of 2 TRAFFIC COUNT SUMMARY Site ID: Location 1: Location 2: Latitude: Longitude: File Ref: Start Date: Direction: 12:00 AM 12:15 AM 12:30 AM 12:45 AM 1:00 AM 1:15 AM 1:30 AM 1:45 AM 2:00 AM 2:15 AM 2:30 AM 2:45 AM 3:00 AM 3:15 AM 3:30 AM 3:45 AM 4:00 AM 4:15 AM 4:30 AM 4:45 AM 5:00 AM 5:15 AM 5:30 AM 5:45 AM 6:00 AM 6:15 AM 6:30 AM 6:45 AM 7:00 AM 7:15 AM 7:30 AM 7:45 AM 8:00 AM 8:15 AM 8:30 AM 8:45 AM 9:00 AM 9:15 AM 9:30 AM 9:45 AM 10:00 AM 10:15 AM 10:30 AM 10:45 AM 11:00 AM 11:15 AM 11:30 AM 11:45 AM 4 MERIDIAN RD Btwn UNIVERSITY DR & APACHE TRAIL 33.41909 33.41909 -111.58056 -111.58056 1201319 1201320 Average Average NB 5 6 2 3 1 3 4 3 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 6 2 5 7 9 9 10 11 13 17 18 18 27 30 34 27 54 37 43 48 39 43 33 43 49 42 39 39 42 61 53 45 SB 5 4 3 2 2 2 2 5 3 1 0 2 1 1 3 4 3 5 6 8 11 8 15 15 14 23 25 22 35 43 47 47 43 49 45 47 43 43 39 45 51 50 48 50 48 46 46 55 M BAKER CORP: Traffic Summary Report Combined Totals NB/SB 10 9 5 5 2 4 6 8 3 2 2 3 2 2 5 5 8 6 11 14 20 17 24 25 27 40 43 39 61 73 81 74 97 86 88 95 81 85 72 87 100 91 87 89 90 107 99 100 Total 10 9 5 5 2 4 6 8 3 2 2 3 2 2 5 5 8 6 11 14 20 17 24 25 27 40 43 39 61 73 81 74 97 86 88 95 81 85 72 87 100 91 87 89 90 107 99 100 Site_4.xls Traffic Research & Analysis, Inc. 3844 East Indian School Road Phoenix, AZ 85018 (602) 840-1500 File Ref: Start Date: Direction: 12:00 PM 12:15 PM 12:30 PM 12:45 PM 1:00 PM 1:15 PM 1:30 PM 1:45 PM 2:00 PM 2:15 PM 2:30 PM 2:45 PM 3:00 PM 3:15 PM 3:30 PM 3:45 PM 4:00 PM 4:15 PM 4:30 PM 4:45 PM 5:00 PM 5:15 PM 5:30 PM 5:45 PM 6:00 PM 6:15 PM 6:30 PM 6:45 PM 7:00 PM 7:15 PM 7:30 PM 7:45 PM 8:00 PM 8:15 PM 8:30 PM 8:45 PM 9:00 PM 9:15 PM 9:30 PM 9:45 PM 10:00 PM 10:15 PM 10:30 PM 10:45 PM 11:00 PM 11:15 PM 11:30 PM 11:45 PM Total: AM Peak Hr: AM Peak Vol: AM PHF: PM Peak Hr: PM Peak Vol: PM PHF: Page: 2 of 2 1201319 1201320 Average Average NB 54 55 47 51 51 56 58 57 53 49 58 54 56 56 59 59 51 70 66 59 62 61 55 46 51 46 47 40 41 36 31 37 40 25 30 22 24 16 14 17 18 15 8 10 14 7 9 4 2912 SB 49 44 49 55 49 51 47 56 41 46 52 54 56 52 54 57 57 56 54 51 53 49 43 46 45 43 37 31 28 26 31 30 27 25 26 17 17 17 13 15 16 7 6 6 7 4 4 5 2793 NB/SB 103 99 96 105 100 107 104 113 93 95 110 108 112 108 112 115 108 126 120 110 115 110 98 91 95 89 84 70 69 62 62 67 66 49 56 39 40 33 26 32 34 22 14 16 21 11 13 9 5704 Total 103 99 96 105 100 107 104 113 93 95 110 108 112 108 112 115 108 126 120 110 115 110 98 91 95 89 84 70 69 62 62 67 66 49 56 39 40 33 26 32 34 22 14 16 21 11 13 9 5704 11:15 AM 211.5 0.8740 4:15 PM 256 0.9143 10:00 AM 198 0.9706 3:45 PM 223.5 0.9803 11:15 AM 406 0.9575 4:15 PM 471 0.9345 11:15 AM 406 0.9575 4:15 PM 471 0.9345 M BAKER CORP: Traffic Summary Report Combined Totals Site_4.xls Traffic Research & Analysis, Inc. 3844 East Indian School Road Phoenix, AZ 85018 (602) 840-1500 Page: 1 of 2 TRAFFIC COUNT SUMMARY Site ID: Location 1: Location 2: Latitude: Longitude: File Ref: Start Date: Direction: 12:00 AM 12:15 AM 12:30 AM 12:45 AM 1:00 AM 1:15 AM 1:30 AM 1:45 AM 2:00 AM 2:15 AM 2:30 AM 2:45 AM 3:00 AM 3:15 AM 3:30 AM 3:45 AM 4:00 AM 4:15 AM 4:30 AM 4:45 AM 5:00 AM 5:15 AM 5:30 AM 5:45 AM 6:00 AM 6:15 AM 6:30 AM 6:45 AM 7:00 AM 7:15 AM 7:30 AM 7:45 AM 8:00 AM 8:15 AM 8:30 AM 8:45 AM 9:00 AM 9:15 AM 9:30 AM 9:45 AM 10:00 AM 10:15 AM 10:30 AM 10:45 AM 11:00 AM 11:15 AM 11:30 AM 11:45 AM 5 MERIDIAN RD Btwn APACHE TRAIL & BROADWAY RD 33.41137 33.41137 -111.58061 -111.58061 1201321 1201322 Average Average NB 3 5 3 4 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 0 2 4 3 4 6 6 10 12 10 9 11 12 21 19 20 31 39 33 36 28 36 33 38 41 45 44 45 39 53 48 53 48 56 51 50 SB 4 3 3 4 1 1 4 3 2 0 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 4 9 9 9 9 12 14 21 17 26 28 31 39 53 46 50 58 65 54 54 55 51 60 50 57 48 52 61 62 55 M BAKER CORP: Traffic Summary Report Combined Totals NB/SB 7 8 6 8 2 3 6 5 4 1 3 2 1 2 6 5 6 8 10 18 21 19 18 22 26 42 35 45 59 70 71 89 73 86 90 103 95 99 99 96 99 103 105 100 100 117 113 105 Total 7 8 6 8 2 3 6 5 4 1 3 2 1 2 6 5 6 8 10 18 21 19 18 22 26 42 35 45 59 70 71 89 73 86 90 103 95 99 99 96 99 103 105 100 100 117 113 105 Site_5.xls Traffic Research & Analysis, Inc. 3844 East Indian School Road Phoenix, AZ 85018 (602) 840-1500 File Ref: Start Date: Direction: 12:00 PM 12:15 PM 12:30 PM 12:45 PM 1:00 PM 1:15 PM 1:30 PM 1:45 PM 2:00 PM 2:15 PM 2:30 PM 2:45 PM 3:00 PM 3:15 PM 3:30 PM 3:45 PM 4:00 PM 4:15 PM 4:30 PM 4:45 PM 5:00 PM 5:15 PM 5:30 PM 5:45 PM 6:00 PM 6:15 PM 6:30 PM 6:45 PM 7:00 PM 7:15 PM 7:30 PM 7:45 PM 8:00 PM 8:15 PM 8:30 PM 8:45 PM 9:00 PM 9:15 PM 9:30 PM 9:45 PM 10:00 PM 10:15 PM 10:30 PM 10:45 PM 11:00 PM 11:15 PM 11:30 PM 11:45 PM Total: AM Peak Hr: AM Peak Vol: AM PHF: PM Peak Hr: PM Peak Vol: PM PHF: Page: 2 of 2 1201321 1201322 Average Average NB 54 49 47 47 55 46 47 53 50 49 55 59 53 45 53 51 58 63 60 52 56 62 48 49 50 50 33 46 39 34 23 32 29 35 24 14 17 16 16 18 10 9 10 6 5 5 2 4 2792 SB 67 51 64 57 54 50 64 60 58 65 64 52 64 58 44 64 63 65 63 68 51 56 44 35 40 45 40 37 35 31 35 34 26 21 24 17 19 16 14 12 14 13 6 6 8 5 4 3 3061 NB/SB 120 100 111 104 109 96 111 112 108 114 119 111 117 103 96 114 121 127 122 120 107 118 92 84 90 95 72 83 74 65 58 66 55 56 48 31 36 32 30 30 24 22 15 12 13 10 6 7 5853 Total 120 100 111 104 109 96 111 112 108 114 119 111 117 103 96 114 121 127 122 120 107 118 92 84 90 95 72 83 74 65 58 66 55 56 48 31 36 32 30 30 24 22 15 12 13 10 6 7 5853 11:15 AM 209.5 0.9437 4:00 PM 231.5 0.9260 11:15 AM 244 0.9173 4:00 PM 258 0.9485 11:15 AM 452 0.9417 4:00 PM 489 0.9626 11:15 AM 452 0.9417 4:00 PM 489 0.9626 M BAKER CORP: Traffic Summary Report Combined Totals Site_5.xls Traffic Research & Analysis, Inc. 3844 East Indian School Road Phoenix, AZ 85018 (602) 840-1500 Page: 1 of 2 TRAFFIC COUNT SUMMARY Site ID: Location 1: Location 2: Latitude: Longitude: File Ref: Start Date: Direction: 12:00 AM 12:15 AM 12:30 AM 12:45 AM 1:00 AM 1:15 AM 1:30 AM 1:45 AM 2:00 AM 2:15 AM 2:30 AM 2:45 AM 3:00 AM 3:15 AM 3:30 AM 3:45 AM 4:00 AM 4:15 AM 4:30 AM 4:45 AM 5:00 AM 5:15 AM 5:30 AM 5:45 AM 6:00 AM 6:15 AM 6:30 AM 6:45 AM 7:00 AM 7:15 AM 7:30 AM 7:45 AM 8:00 AM 8:15 AM 8:30 AM 8:45 AM 9:00 AM 9:15 AM 9:30 AM 9:45 AM 10:00 AM 10:15 AM 10:30 AM 10:45 AM 11:00 AM 11:15 AM 11:30 AM 11:45 AM 6 MERIDIAN RD Btwn BROADWAY RD & SOUTHERN AVE 33.39895 33.39895 -111.58054 -111.58054 1201315 1201316 Average Average NB 2 3 2 2 0 0 1 3 1 1 0 1 0 1 2 2 1 2 3 5 4 3 4 8 10 10 13 19 17 32 44 39 25 34 42 44 29 31 35 38 43 36 33 31 38 45 46 40 SB 3 1 0 2 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 2 2 2 3 4 4 9 13 13 17 12 15 10 15 18 29 32 46 49 31 28 26 34 32 29 41 36 29 39 39 35 37 32 44 44 36 M BAKER CORP: Traffic Summary Report Combined Totals NB/SB 5 3 2 4 0 1 1 4 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 5 6 11 18 16 20 16 23 20 25 31 48 48 78 93 70 52 60 76 76 58 72 71 67 81 75 68 68 70 89 89 75 Total 5 3 2 4 0 1 1 4 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 5 6 11 18 16 20 16 23 20 25 31 48 48 78 93 70 52 60 76 76 58 72 71 67 81 75 68 68 70 89 89 75 Site_6.xls Traffic Research & Analysis, Inc. 3844 East Indian School Road Phoenix, AZ 85018 (602) 840-1500 File Ref: Start Date: Direction: 12:00 PM 12:15 PM 12:30 PM 12:45 PM 1:00 PM 1:15 PM 1:30 PM 1:45 PM 2:00 PM 2:15 PM 2:30 PM 2:45 PM 3:00 PM 3:15 PM 3:30 PM 3:45 PM 4:00 PM 4:15 PM 4:30 PM 4:45 PM 5:00 PM 5:15 PM 5:30 PM 5:45 PM 6:00 PM 6:15 PM 6:30 PM 6:45 PM 7:00 PM 7:15 PM 7:30 PM 7:45 PM 8:00 PM 8:15 PM 8:30 PM 8:45 PM 9:00 PM 9:15 PM 9:30 PM 9:45 PM 10:00 PM 10:15 PM 10:30 PM 10:45 PM 11:00 PM 11:15 PM 11:30 PM 11:45 PM Total: AM Peak Hr: AM Peak Vol: AM PHF: PM Peak Hr: PM Peak Vol: PM PHF: Page: 2 of 2 1201315 1201316 Average Average NB 41 34 51 35 37 33 43 49 43 61 46 41 45 38 36 45 53 46 48 49 35 42 29 32 39 32 27 33 27 22 29 26 16 13 13 14 12 7 11 11 10 6 10 10 7 2 3 3 2194 SB 40 29 34 35 35 39 39 37 41 33 36 43 35 36 39 35 33 39 44 34 39 41 31 30 33 33 20 24 21 23 11 16 17 22 14 7 7 14 8 9 7 4 5 2 3 3 0 1 2057 NB/SB 81 63 84 70 72 71 82 86 83 93 81 84 80 74 75 80 86 84 92 83 74 82 60 62 71 64 46 57 48 45 40 41 32 35 27 21 19 20 19 19 17 10 15 11 10 5 3 4 4250 Total 81 63 84 70 72 71 82 86 83 93 81 84 80 74 75 80 86 84 92 83 74 82 60 62 71 64 46 57 48 45 40 41 32 35 27 21 19 20 19 19 17 10 15 11 10 5 3 4 4250 11:15 AM 170 0.9341 1:45 PM 197.5 0.8161 11:15 AM 163 0.9261 4:30 PM 156.5 0.8892 11:15 AM 332 0.9326 1:30 PM 344 0.9247 11:15 AM 332 0.9326 1:30 PM 344 0.9247 M BAKER CORP: Traffic Summary Report Combined Totals Site_6.xls Traffic Research & Analysis, Inc. 3844 East Indian School Road Phoenix, AZ 85018 (602) 840-1500 Page: 1 of 2 TRAFFIC COUNT SUMMARY Site ID: Location 1: Location 2: Latitude: Longitude: File Ref: Start Date: Direction: 12:00 AM 12:15 AM 12:30 AM 12:45 AM 1:00 AM 1:15 AM 1:30 AM 1:45 AM 2:00 AM 2:15 AM 2:30 AM 2:45 AM 3:00 AM 3:15 AM 3:30 AM 3:45 AM 4:00 AM 4:15 AM 4:30 AM 4:45 AM 5:00 AM 5:15 AM 5:30 AM 5:45 AM 6:00 AM 6:15 AM 6:30 AM 6:45 AM 7:00 AM 7:15 AM 7:30 AM 7:45 AM 8:00 AM 8:15 AM 8:30 AM 8:45 AM 9:00 AM 9:15 AM 9:30 AM 9:45 AM 10:00 AM 10:15 AM 10:30 AM 10:45 AM 11:00 AM 11:15 AM 11:30 AM 11:45 AM 7 MERIDIAN RD Btwn SOUTHERN AVE & BASELINE RD 33.38927 33.38927 -111.58058 -111.58058 1201317 1201318 Average Average NB 1 3 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 3 3 4 2 7 10 8 7 12 26 22 32 32 36 21 25 33 20 21 14 25 21 24 19 22 15 17 25 20 25 SB 1 0 0 1 1 2 0 1 1 0 0 1 2 2 4 5 0 4 8 13 11 9 9 13 11 10 15 19 17 21 22 21 20 17 18 15 21 17 21 20 22 23 19 23 14 25 24 19 M BAKER CORP: Traffic Summary Report Combined Totals NB/SB 1 3 0 1 1 3 0 1 1 0 1 1 2 2 4 6 1 4 11 16 15 11 15 23 18 17 26 45 39 53 53 57 40 42 51 34 41 31 46 41 45 41 40 37 31 50 43 44 Total 1 3 0 1 1 3 0 1 1 0 1 1 2 2 4 6 1 4 11 16 15 11 15 23 18 17 26 45 39 53 53 57 40 42 51 34 41 31 46 41 45 41 40 37 31 50 43 44 Site_7.xls Traffic Research & Analysis, Inc. 3844 East Indian School Road Phoenix, AZ 85018 (602) 840-1500 File Ref: Start Date: Direction: 12:00 PM 12:15 PM 12:30 PM 12:45 PM 1:00 PM 1:15 PM 1:30 PM 1:45 PM 2:00 PM 2:15 PM 2:30 PM 2:45 PM 3:00 PM 3:15 PM 3:30 PM 3:45 PM 4:00 PM 4:15 PM 4:30 PM 4:45 PM 5:00 PM 5:15 PM 5:30 PM 5:45 PM 6:00 PM 6:15 PM 6:30 PM 6:45 PM 7:00 PM 7:15 PM 7:30 PM 7:45 PM 8:00 PM 8:15 PM 8:30 PM 8:45 PM 9:00 PM 9:15 PM 9:30 PM 9:45 PM 10:00 PM 10:15 PM 10:30 PM 10:45 PM 11:00 PM 11:15 PM 11:30 PM 11:45 PM Total: AM Peak Hr: AM Peak Vol: AM PHF: PM Peak Hr: PM Peak Vol: PM PHF: Page: 2 of 2 1201317 1201318 Average Average NB 24 20 27 18 18 21 23 18 22 27 27 25 28 25 29 28 41 21 32 27 24 30 14 20 13 16 21 18 17 11 8 8 9 5 5 5 7 5 5 6 6 6 2 5 2 1 0 1 1308 SB 24 18 21 20 24 19 21 30 22 27 22 23 28 24 21 17 21 23 28 24 26 26 19 17 20 20 15 11 13 17 9 8 9 13 11 7 3 6 5 3 3 2 2 3 2 1 1 1 1247 NB/SB 48 38 48 38 41 39 43 48 44 53 49 47 55 49 50 45 61 43 60 50 50 56 33 37 33 36 35 29 30 27 17 16 18 18 15 12 10 11 10 9 9 8 4 8 3 2 1 2 2554 Total 48 38 48 38 41 39 43 48 44 53 49 47 55 49 50 45 61 43 60 50 50 56 33 37 33 36 35 29 30 27 17 16 18 18 15 12 10 11 10 9 9 8 4 8 3 2 1 2 2554 7:00 AM 121 0.8403 3:15 PM 121.5 0.7500 11:15 AM 91 0.9100 4:30 PM 102 0.9273 7:15 AM 202 0.9018 4:30 PM 216 0.9000 7:15 AM 202 0.9018 4:30 PM 216 0.9000 M BAKER CORP: Traffic Summary Report Combined Totals Site_7.xls Traffic Research & Analysis, Inc. 3844 East Indian School Road Phoenix, AZ 85018 (602) 840-1500 Page: 1 of 2 TRAFFIC COUNT SUMMARY Site ID: Location 1: Location 2: Latitude: Longitude: File Ref: Start Date: Direction: 12:00 AM 12:15 AM 12:30 AM 12:45 AM 1:00 AM 1:15 AM 1:30 AM 1:45 AM 2:00 AM 2:15 AM 2:30 AM 2:45 AM 3:00 AM 3:15 AM 3:30 AM 3:45 AM 4:00 AM 4:15 AM 4:30 AM 4:45 AM 5:00 AM 5:15 AM 5:30 AM 5:45 AM 6:00 AM 6:15 AM 6:30 AM 6:45 AM 7:00 AM 7:15 AM 7:30 AM 7:45 AM 8:00 AM 8:15 AM 8:30 AM 8:45 AM 9:00 AM 9:15 AM 9:30 AM 9:45 AM 10:00 AM 10:15 AM 10:30 AM 10:45 AM 11:00 AM 11:15 AM 11:30 AM 11:45 AM 8 MERIDIAN RD N of ELLIOT RD 33.35148 -111.58381 33.35148 -111.58381 1201325 1201326 Average Average NB 3 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 3 3 4 4 8 9 7 6 8 13 6 4 7 5 6 7 6 4 3 8 5 5 7 7 10 SB 1 2 2 0 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 0 1 1 3 0 2 2 2 1 5 7 7 8 8 12 14 24 20 16 18 21 19 15 6 10 8 11 7 6 6 5 4 7 6 4 5 7 M BAKER CORP: Traffic Summary Report Combined Totals NB/SB 4 2 3 0 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 0 1 1 3 0 2 2 2 1 6 8 7 10 11 16 18 31 29 22 24 29 32 21 10 17 13 16 14 12 10 8 12 12 11 11 11 17 Total 4 2 3 0 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 0 1 1 3 0 2 2 2 1 6 8 7 10 11 16 18 31 29 22 24 29 32 21 10 17 13 16 14 12 10 8 12 12 11 11 11 17 Site_8.xls Traffic Research & Analysis, Inc. 3844 East Indian School Road Phoenix, AZ 85018 (602) 840-1500 File Ref: Start Date: Direction: 12:00 PM 12:15 PM 12:30 PM 12:45 PM 1:00 PM 1:15 PM 1:30 PM 1:45 PM 2:00 PM 2:15 PM 2:30 PM 2:45 PM 3:00 PM 3:15 PM 3:30 PM 3:45 PM 4:00 PM 4:15 PM 4:30 PM 4:45 PM 5:00 PM 5:15 PM 5:30 PM 5:45 PM 6:00 PM 6:15 PM 6:30 PM 6:45 PM 7:00 PM 7:15 PM 7:30 PM 7:45 PM 8:00 PM 8:15 PM 8:30 PM 8:45 PM 9:00 PM 9:15 PM 9:30 PM 9:45 PM 10:00 PM 10:15 PM 10:30 PM 10:45 PM 11:00 PM 11:15 PM 11:30 PM 11:45 PM Total: AM Peak Hr: AM Peak Vol: AM PHF: PM Peak Hr: PM Peak Vol: PM PHF: Page: 2 of 2 1201325 1201326 Average Average NB 10 9 6 8 12 4 5 6 8 9 9 12 20 16 14 8 12 16 18 16 15 13 14 16 9 15 15 16 10 10 10 9 7 13 11 8 7 9 2 4 8 5 5 4 4 3 2 3 609 SB 6 6 6 5 7 6 8 8 11 8 11 9 9 12 7 10 8 7 9 10 5 12 7 8 5 5 6 7 8 6 7 5 6 3 4 5 5 4 3 4 2 1 4 2 1 2 2 2 581 NB/SB 16 14 12 13 19 10 13 14 18 17 20 21 29 28 20 18 20 23 27 25 20 24 21 23 14 20 20 23 17 16 17 13 13 16 15 13 12 13 5 8 10 6 9 5 5 5 3 4 1190 Total 16 14 12 13 19 10 13 14 18 17 20 21 29 28 20 18 20 23 27 25 20 24 21 23 14 20 20 23 17 16 17 13 13 16 15 13 12 13 5 8 10 6 9 5 5 5 3 4 1190 11:30 AM 34 0.8947 4:15 PM 63 0.9000 6:45 AM 76.5 0.8138 2:30 PM 40.5 0.8438 6:45 AM 106 0.8548 2:30 PM 98 0.8448 6:45 AM 106 0.8548 2:30 PM 98 0.8448 M BAKER CORP: Traffic Summary Report Combined Totals Site_8.xls Traffic Research & Analysis, Inc. 3844 East Indian School Road Phoenix, AZ 85018 (602) 840-1500 Page: 1 of 2 TRAFFIC COUNT SUMMARY Site ID: Location 1: Location 2: Latitude: Longitude: File Ref: Start Date: Direction: 12:00 AM 12:15 AM 12:30 AM 12:45 AM 1:00 AM 1:15 AM 1:30 AM 1:45 AM 2:00 AM 2:15 AM 2:30 AM 2:45 AM 3:00 AM 3:15 AM 3:30 AM 3:45 AM 4:00 AM 4:15 AM 4:30 AM 4:45 AM 5:00 AM 5:15 AM 5:30 AM 5:45 AM 6:00 AM 6:15 AM 6:30 AM 6:45 AM 7:00 AM 7:15 AM 7:30 AM 7:45 AM 8:00 AM 8:15 AM 8:30 AM 8:45 AM 9:00 AM 9:15 AM 9:30 AM 9:45 AM 10:00 AM 10:15 AM 10:30 AM 10:45 AM 11:00 AM 11:15 AM 11:30 AM 11:45 AM 9 MERIDIAN RD Btwn ELLIOT RD & WARNER RD 33.34041 33.34041 -111.58371 -111.58371 1201323 1201324 Average Average NB 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 3 1 3 3 5 6 12 14 10 8 12 15 15 19 28 13 17 23 18 11 11 8 5 6 6 11 4 7 5 8 10 7 4 7 SB 2 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 3 2 3 3 7 4 3 5 9 8 4 4 7 9 3 7 5 5 3 4 7 7 6 8 8 M BAKER CORP: Traffic Summary Report Combined Totals NB/SB 3 1 1 2 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 2 1 3 1 3 3 5 7 12 14 10 11 14 17 18 26 32 16 22 32 26 15 14 14 14 9 13 16 9 10 9 15 17 13 12 15 Total 3 1 1 2 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 2 1 3 1 3 3 5 7 12 14 10 11 14 17 18 26 32 16 22 32 26 15 14 14 14 9 13 16 9 10 9 15 17 13 12 15 Site_9.xls Traffic Research & Analysis, Inc. 3844 East Indian School Road Phoenix, AZ 85018 (602) 840-1500 File Ref: Start Date: Direction: 12:00 PM 12:15 PM 12:30 PM 12:45 PM 1:00 PM 1:15 PM 1:30 PM 1:45 PM 2:00 PM 2:15 PM 2:30 PM 2:45 PM 3:00 PM 3:15 PM 3:30 PM 3:45 PM 4:00 PM 4:15 PM 4:30 PM 4:45 PM 5:00 PM 5:15 PM 5:30 PM 5:45 PM 6:00 PM 6:15 PM 6:30 PM 6:45 PM 7:00 PM 7:15 PM 7:30 PM 7:45 PM 8:00 PM 8:15 PM 8:30 PM 8:45 PM 9:00 PM 9:15 PM 9:30 PM 9:45 PM 10:00 PM 10:15 PM 10:30 PM 10:45 PM 11:00 PM 11:15 PM 11:30 PM 11:45 PM Total: AM Peak Hr: AM Peak Vol: AM PHF: PM Peak Hr: PM Peak Vol: PM PHF: Page: 2 of 2 1201323 1201324 Average Average NB 7 9 7 11 6 9 5 6 8 7 9 13 15 9 9 10 10 14 15 10 11 7 7 12 5 11 5 11 9 5 8 9 4 5 4 4 2 4 2 2 3 3 3 2 1 1 1 1 651 SB 11 9 8 8 6 7 6 8 7 7 9 12 21 11 14 15 14 18 17 17 16 18 16 14 13 12 14 13 12 10 9 6 14 9 9 5 7 7 5 9 2 7 5 4 2 2 3 3 595 NB/SB 18 18 15 19 12 16 11 13 15 13 17 25 36 20 23 24 24 31 32 27 27 25 23 26 18 22 19 23 21 15 16 14 18 14 13 9 9 10 6 11 5 9 8 6 3 2 4 4 1246 Total 18 18 15 19 12 16 11 13 15 13 17 25 36 20 23 24 24 31 32 27 27 25 23 26 18 22 19 23 21 15 16 14 18 14 13 9 9 10 6 11 5 9 8 6 3 2 4 4 1246 7:00 AM 80 0.7143 4:15 PM 49.5 0.8250 11:30 AM 35.5 0.8068 4:30 PM 67 0.9306 7:00 AM 102 0.7969 4:15 PM 115 0.8984 7:00 AM 102 0.7969 4:15 PM 115 0.8984 M BAKER CORP: Traffic Summary Report Combined Totals Site_9.xls APPENDIX B EXCERPTS FROM 2009 QUALITY/LEVEL OF SERVICE HANDBOOK Michael Baker Jr., Inc. Phoenix, Arizona 2009 9 Q Quality/Level /L of S Service 2009 Handbook 2009 StateofFlorida DepartmentofTransportation Generalized Annual Average Daily Volumes for Florida’s TABLE 1 Urbanized Areas1 10/4/10 STATE SIGNALIZED ARTERIALS FREEWAYS Class I (>0.00 to 1.99 signalized intersections per mile) Lanes 2 4 6 8 Median Undivided Divided Divided Divided B 9,600 29,300 45,000 60,800 C D E 15,400 35,500 53,700 71,800 16,500 36,700 55,300 73,800 *** *** *** *** B Lanes 4 6 8 10 12 43,500 65,300 87,000 108,700 149,300 Median Undivided Divided Divided Divided B C D E ** ** ** ** 10,500 25,000 39,000 53,100 15,200 33,200 50,300 67,300 16,200 35,100 53,100 70,900 Class III/IV (more than 4.5 signalized intersections per mile) Lanes 2 4 6 8 Median Undivided Divided Divided Divided D E 73,600 110,300 146,500 184,000 238,600 79,400 122,700 166,000 209,200 252,500 Freeway Adjustments Class II (2.00 to 4.50 signalized intersections per mile) Lanes 2 4 6 8 C 59,800 90,500 120,100 151,700 202,100 Auxiliary Lanes + 20,000 Ramp Metering + 5% UNINTERRUPTED FLOW HIGHWAYS Lanes 2 Median Undivided B C D E 4 Divided ** ** ** ** 5,100 12,600 19,700 27,000 11,900 28,200 43,700 59,500 14,900 31,900 48,200 64,700 6 Divided B C D E 7,800 34,300 51,500 15,600 49,600 74,400 22,200 64,300 96,400 27,900 72,800 109,400 Uninterrupted Flow Highway Adjustments Lanes 2 Multi Multi Median Divided Undivided Undivided Exclusive left lanes Yes Yes No Adjustment factors +5% -5% -25% Non-State Signalized Roadway Adjustments BICYCLE MODE2 (Alter corresponding state volumes by the indicated percent.) (Multiply motorized vehicle volumes shown below by number of directional roadway lanes to determine two-way maximum service volumes.) Paved Shoulder/ Bicycle Lane B C D E Coverage ** 3,200 12,100 >12,100 0-49% 2,400 3,700 >3,700 *** 50-84% 6,300 >6,300 *** *** 85-100% Major City/County Roadways Other Signalized Roadways - 10% - 35% State & Non-State Signalized Roadway Adjustments (Alter corresponding state volumes by the indicated percent.) Divided/Undivided & Turn Lane Adjustments Lanes 2 2 Multi Multi Median Divided Undivided Undivided Undivided – – Exclusive Left Lanes Exclusive Right Lanes Yes No Yes No – No No No No Yes Adjustment Factors +5% -20% -5% -25% + 5% One-Way Facility Adjustment Multiply the corresponding two-directional volumes in this table by 0.6. PEDESTRIAN MODE2 (Multiply motorized vehicle volumes shown below by number of directional roadway lanes to determine two-way maximum service volumes.) Sidewalk Coverage 0-49% 50-84% 85-100% B ** ** ** C ** ** 11,400 D 5,000 11,300 18,800 E 14,400 18,800 >18,800 BUS MODE (Scheduled Fixed Route)3 (Buses in peak hour in peak direction) B C D Sidewalk Coverage >5 >4 >3 0-84% >4 >3 >2 85-100% E >2 >1 1 Values shown are presented as two-way annual average daily volumes for levels of service and are for the automobile/truck modes unless specifically stated. Although presented as daily volumes, they actually represent peak hour direction conditions with applicable K and D factors applied. This table does not constitute a standard and should be used only for general planning applications. The computer models from which this table is derived should be used for more specific planning applications. The table and deriving computer models should not be used for corridor or intersection design, where more refined techniques exist. Calculations are based on planning applications of the Highway Capacity Manual, Bicycle LOS Model, Pedestrian LOS Model and Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, respectively for the automobile/truck, bicycle, pedestrian and bus modes. 2 Level of service for the bicycle and pedestrian modes in this table is based on number of motorized vehicles, not number of bicyclists or pedestrians using the facility. 3 Buses per hour shown are only for the peak hour in the single direction of the higher traffic flow. ** Cannot be achieved using table input value defaults. *** Not applicable for that level of service letter grade. For the automobile mode, volumes greater than level of service D become F because intersection capacities have been reached. For the bicycle mode, the level of service letter grade (including F) is not achievable because there is no maximum vehicle volume threshold using table input value defaults. www.dot.state.fl.us/planning/systems/sm/los/default.shtm Source: Florida Department of Transportation Systems Planning Office 605 Suwannee Street, MS 19 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0450 2009 FDOT QUALITY/LEVEL OF SERVICE HANDBOOK Generalized Annual Average Daily Volumes for Florida’s Urbanized Areas TABLE 1 (continued) Uninterrupted Flow Facilities INPUT VALUE ASSUMPTIONS 9/4/09 Interrupted Flow Facilities State Arterials Class II Bus Pedestrian Bicycle Class III Class II Class I Highways Freeways ROADWAY CHARACTERISTICS Area type (l,o) l Number of through lanes 4-12 Posted speed (mph) 65 Free flow speed (mph) 70 Aux, meter, or accel/decel >1500 (n,y) n Median (n, nr, r) Terrain (l,r) l % no passing zone Exclusive left turn lanes /[impact](n, y) Exclusive right turn lanes (n, y) Paved shoulder/bicycle lane (n, y) Outside lane width Pavement condition Sidewalk (n, y) Sidewalk/roadway separation (a, t, w) Sidewalk protective barrier (n, y) Obstacle to bus stop (n, y) Facility length (mi) 4 Number of segments 4 l 2 50 55 l 4-6 50 55 l 2 45 50 l 4-8 50 55 l 2 45 50 l 4-8 45 50 l 2 35 40 l 4-8 35 40 l 4 45 50 l 4 45 50 n l 80 [n] r l n r n r n r r r y y n y n y n y n y n y n y n n, 50%,y t t y n n t l n, 50%,y t n 5 5 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0.094 0.55 0.925 1700 2.0 1.0 0.094 0.55 0.925 2100 2.0 0.98 0.097 0.55 0.925 1950 2.0 0.097 0.55 0.925 1950 2.0 0.097 0.55 0.925 1950 2.0 0.097 0.55 0.925 1950 2.0 0.097 0.55 0.925 1950 1.5 0.097 0.55 0.925 1950 1.5 0.097 0.55 0.925 1950 2.0 0.097 0.55 0.925 1950 2.0 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 n,y n 2 TRAFFIC CHARACTERISTICS Planning analysis hour factor (K) Directional distribution factor (D) Peak hour factor (PHF) Base saturation flow rate (pcphpl) Heavy vehicle percent Local adjustment factor % left turns % right turns Bus span of service 0.092 0.55 0.95 4.0 0.98 15 CONTROL CHARACTERISTICS Number of signals Arrival type (1-6) Signal type (a, s, p) Cycle length (C) Effective green ratio (g/C) Freeways Level of 2 3 a 120 0.44 2 3 a 120 0.44 6 4 s 120 0.44 6 4 s 120 0.44 10 4 s 120 0.44 LEVEL OF SERVICE THRESHOLDS State & Non-State Signalized Arterials Highway Segments Two-Lane Multilane Class I Class II 10 4 s 120 0.44 6 4 s 120 0.44 6 4 s 120 0.44 Bicycle Pedestrian Bus Class III Service Density %ffs Density ats ats ats Score Score Buses per hr. B C D E ”7 ”4 ”1 ”39 >0.833 >0.750 >0.667 >0.583 ” ” ” ” > 34 mph > 27 mph > 21 mph > 16 mph > 28 mph > 22 mph > 17 mph > 13 mph > 24 mph > 18 mph > 14 mph > 10 mph ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” •4 •3 •2 •1 % ffs = Percent free flow speed ats = Average travel speed 2009 FDOT QUALITY/LEVEL OF SERVICE HANDBOOK APPENDIX C EXISTING 2012 LOS REPORTS Michael Baker Jr., Inc. Phoenix, Arizona HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis - AM Peak Hour 1: McDowell Road & Meridian Road Movement Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (ft) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) Meridian Road 2012 9/26/2012 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR 0 0 Stop 0% 0.92 0 0 1 1 0 0 0.92 1 0.92 0 0.92 1 0.92 0 2 Free 0% 0.92 3 0 0.92 1 3 Free 0% 0.92 4 1 0.92 0 0 Stop 0% 0.92 0 0.92 0 None None 8 8 3 7 7 5 3 5 8 7.1 8 6.5 3 6.2 7 7.1 7 6.5 5 6.2 3 4.1 5 4.1 3.5 100 1009 4.0 100 887 3.3 100 1081 3.5 100 1012 4.0 100 888 3.3 100 1079 2.2 100 1620 2.2 100 1616 EB 1 0 0 0 1700 0.00 0 0.0 A 0.0 A WB 1 3 1 1 1045 0.00 0 8.5 A 8.5 A NB 1 5 0 1 1620 0.00 0 0.0 SB 1 3 0 0 1616 0.00 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.1 13.3% 15 ICU Level of Service 0.92 0 A Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis - AM Peak Hour 5: McKellips Boulevard & Meridain Road Movement Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT 99 Stop 0% 0.92 129 2 21 Free 0% 0.92 27 22 2 0.92 29 0.92 3 47 Free 0% 0.92 61 Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (ft) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS None None 108 42 56 108 6.4 42 6.2 56 4.1 3.5 85 888 3.3 100 1029 2.2 100 1549 WB 1 132 129 3 890 0.15 13 9.7 A 9.7 A NB 1 56 0 29 1700 0.03 0 0.0 Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) Meridian Road 2012 0.92 3 0.0 9/26/2012 SB 1 64 3 0 1549 0.00 0 0.3 A 0.3 5.2 18.3% 15 ICU Level of Service A Synchro 7 - Report Page 2 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis - AM Peak Hour 7: Brown Road & Meridain Road 9/26/2012 Movement Lane Configurations Sign Control Volume (vph) Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR 23 0.92 30 Stop 47 0.92 61 42 0.92 55 19 0.92 25 Stop 73 0.92 95 5 0.92 7 23 0.92 30 Stop 31 0.92 40 9 0.92 12 3 0.92 4 Stop 61 0.92 80 84 0.92 110 Direction, Lane # Volume Total (vph) Volume Left (vph) Volume Right (vph) Hadj (s) Departure Headway (s) Degree Utilization, x Capacity (veh/h) Control Delay (s) Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS EB 1 146 30 55 -0.15 4.6 0.19 733 8.6 8.6 A WB 1 127 25 7 0.04 4.8 0.17 702 8.7 8.7 A NB 1 82 30 12 0.02 4.8 0.11 694 8.4 8.4 A SB 1 193 4 110 -0.30 4.4 0.23 771 8.7 8.7 A Intersection Summary Delay HCM Level of Service Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) Meridian Road 2012 8.6 A 34.7% 15 ICU Level of Service A Synchro 7 - Report Page 3 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis - AM Peak Hour 11: University Drive & Meridain Road Movement Lane Configurations Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Growth Factor (vph) Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR 29 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.54 1001 0.92 120% 38 0 38 Perm 218 1900 4.0 0.95 0.97 1.00 3419 1.00 3419 0.92 120% 284 50 317 64 1900 24 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.53 993 0.92 120% 31 0 31 Perm 260 1900 4.0 0.95 0.99 1.00 3510 1.00 3510 0.92 120% 339 11 348 15 1900 61 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.68 1275 0.92 120% 80 0 80 Perm 63 1900 4.0 0.95 0.94 1.00 3338 1.00 3338 0.92 120% 82 30 102 38 1900 36 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.67 1245 0.92 120% 47 0 47 Perm 82 1900 4.0 0.95 1.00 1.00 3539 1.00 3539 0.92 120% 107 0 107 97 1900 4.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1583 1.00 1583 0.92 120% 127 76 51 Perm Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay HCM Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group Meridian Road 2012 9/26/2012 4 16.0 16.0 0.40 4.0 400 0.04 0.10 7.5 1.00 0.5 8.0 A 0.92 120% 83 0 0 4 8 16.0 16.0 0.40 4.0 397 16.0 16.0 0.40 4.0 1368 0.09 0.03 0.08 7.4 1.00 0.4 7.8 A 0.23 7.9 1.00 0.4 8.3 A 8.3 A 8.1 0.20 40.0 33.7% 15 0.92 120% 20 0 0 8 16.0 16.0 0.40 4.0 1404 c0.10 0.25 8.0 1.00 0.4 8.4 A 8.4 A 2 16.0 16.0 0.40 4.0 510 c0.06 0.16 7.7 1.00 0.7 8.3 A 0.92 120% 50 0 0 2 6 16.0 16.0 0.40 4.0 498 16.0 16.0 0.40 4.0 1335 0.03 0.04 0.09 7.5 1.00 0.4 7.9 A 0.08 7.4 1.00 0.1 7.5 A 7.8 A HCM Level of Service A Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service 8.0 A 6 16.0 16.0 0.40 4.0 1416 0.03 0.08 7.4 1.00 0.1 7.5 A 7.7 A 6 16.0 16.0 0.40 4.0 633 0.03 0.08 7.4 1.00 0.2 7.7 A Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis - AM Peak Hour 17: Apache Trail & Meridain Road Movement Lane Configurations Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Growth Factor (vph) Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR 79 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.50 939 0.92 120% 103 0 103 Perm 281 1900 4.0 0.91 0.99 1.00 5015 1.00 5015 0.92 120% 367 24 380 28 1900 45 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.51 942 0.92 120% 59 0 59 Perm 312 1900 4.0 0.91 1.00 1.00 5085 1.00 5085 0.92 120% 407 0 407 55 1900 4.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1583 1.00 1583 0.92 120% 72 49 23 Perm 52 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.65 1210 0.92 120% 68 0 68 pm+pt 5 2 22.0 22.0 0.44 4.0 577 0.01 0.04 0.12 8.2 1.00 0.4 8.6 A 121 1900 4.0 0.95 0.95 1.00 3361 1.00 3361 0.92 120% 158 51 187 61 1900 77 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.60 1125 0.92 120% 100 0 100 pm+pt 1 6 22.0 22.0 0.44 4.0 547 c0.01 c0.07 0.18 8.3 1.00 0.7 9.0 A 74 1900 4.0 0.95 0.94 1.00 3326 1.00 3326 0.92 120% 97 42 120 50 1900 4 16.0 16.0 0.32 4.0 300 c0.11 0.34 13.0 1.00 3.1 16.1 B Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay HCM Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group Meridian Road 2012 9/26/2012 0.92 120% 37 0 0 4 8 16.0 16.0 0.32 4.0 301 16.0 16.0 0.32 4.0 1605 0.08 0.06 0.20 12.3 1.00 1.5 13.8 B 0.24 12.5 1.00 0.3 12.9 B 13.5 B 12.2 0.25 50.0 37.3% 15 8 16.0 16.0 0.32 4.0 1627 0.08 0.25 12.6 1.00 0.4 12.9 B 12.9 B 8 16.0 16.0 0.32 4.0 507 0.01 0.05 11.7 1.00 0.2 11.9 B HCM Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service 0.92 120% 80 0 0 2 18.0 18.0 0.36 4.0 1210 0.06 0.15 10.8 1.00 0.3 11.1 B 10.5 B 0.92 120% 65 0 0 6 18.0 18.0 0.36 4.0 1197 0.04 0.10 10.6 1.00 0.2 10.8 B 10.1 B B 12.0 A Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis - AM Peak Hour 22: Broadway Avenue & Meridain Road Movement Lane Configurations Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Growth Factor (vph) Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR 43 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.55 1023 0.92 120% 56 0 56 Perm 171 1900 4.0 0.95 0.98 1.00 3478 1.00 3478 0.92 120% 223 17 235 22 1900 34 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.60 1110 0.92 120% 44 0 44 Perm 218 1900 4.0 0.95 0.98 1.00 3457 1.00 3457 0.92 120% 284 31 305 40 1900 19 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.66 1229 0.92 120% 25 0 25 Perm 112 1900 4.0 0.95 0.96 1.00 3398 1.00 3398 0.92 120% 146 32 167 41 1900 23 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.63 1167 0.92 120% 30 0 30 Perm 89 1900 4.0 0.95 0.97 1.00 3433 1.00 3433 0.92 120% 116 17 128 22 1900 Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay HCM Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group Meridian Road 2012 9/26/2012 4 16.0 16.0 0.40 4.0 409 0.05 0.14 7.6 1.00 0.7 8.3 A 0.92 120% 29 0 0 4 8 16.0 16.0 0.40 4.0 444 16.0 16.0 0.40 4.0 1391 0.07 0.04 0.10 7.5 1.00 0.4 7.9 A 0.17 7.7 1.00 0.3 8.0 A 8.0 A 8.0 0.17 40.0 34.0% 15 0.92 120% 52 0 0 8 16.0 16.0 0.40 4.0 1383 c0.09 0.22 7.9 1.00 0.4 8.3 A 8.2 A 2 16.0 16.0 0.40 4.0 492 0.02 0.05 7.3 1.00 0.2 7.5 A 0.92 120% 53 0 0 2 6 16.0 16.0 0.40 4.0 467 16.0 16.0 0.40 4.0 1359 c0.05 0.03 0.06 7.4 1.00 0.3 7.7 A 0.12 7.6 1.00 0.2 7.8 A 7.7 A HCM Level of Service A Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service 8.0 A 0.92 120% 29 0 0 6 16.0 16.0 0.40 4.0 1373 0.04 0.09 7.5 1.00 0.1 7.6 A 7.6 A Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis - AM Peak Hour 27: Southern Avenue & Meridain Road 9/26/2012 Movement Lane Configurations Sign Control Volume (vph) Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR 61 0.92 80 Stop 99 0.92 129 9 0.92 12 22 0.92 29 Stop 204 0.92 266 40 0.92 52 17 0.92 22 Stop 80 0.92 104 14 0.92 18 38 0.92 50 Stop 55 0.92 72 130 0.92 170 Direction, Lane # Volume Total (vph) Volume Left (vph) Volume Right (vph) Hadj (s) Departure Headway (s) Degree Utilization, x Capacity (veh/h) Control Delay (s) Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS EB 1 209 80 0 0.22 6.6 0.38 502 12.4 12.1 B WB 1 347 29 52 -0.04 5.7 0.55 593 15.5 15.5 C NB 1 145 22 18 -0.01 6.2 0.25 505 11.2 11.2 B SB 1 291 50 170 -0.28 5.6 0.45 587 13.2 13.2 B Intersection Summary Delay HCM Level of Service Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) Meridian Road 2012 EB 2 12 0 12 -0.67 5.7 0.02 575 7.6 13.5 B 57.8% 15 ICU Level of Service B Synchro 7 - Report Page 4 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis - AM Peak Hour 31: Baseline Road & Meridain Road Movement Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (ft) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) Meridian Road 2012 EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR 61 129 Free 0% 0.92 168 319 Free 0% 0.92 416 58 30 Stop 0% 0.92 39 49 0.92 80 0.92 76 492 781 454 327 781 6.4 5.4 3.5 93 537 492 4.1 2.2 93 1072 EB 2 168 0 0 1700 0.10 0 0.0 WB 1 492 0 76 1700 0.29 0 0.0 0.0 2.3 41.8% 15 0.92 64 5 TWLTL TWLTL 2 2 EB 1 80 80 0 1072 0.07 6 8.6 A 2.8 9/26/2012 454 454 6.2 3.3 89 606 SB 1 103 39 64 977 0.11 9 11.9 B 11.9 B ICU Level of Service A Synchro 7 - Report Page 5 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis - AM Peak Hour 35: Elliot Road & Meridian Road Movement Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (ft) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) Meridian Road 2012 EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR 23 Stop 0% 0.92 30 24 120 0.92 157 12 Free 0% 0.92 16 58 0.92 31 8 Free 0% 0.92 10 9/26/2012 0.92 76 TWLTL TWLTL 2 2 377 53 323 377 6.4 5.4 3.5 95 637 EB 1 30 30 0 637 0.05 4 10.9 B 9.8 A 53 91 53 6.2 91 4.1 3.3 97 1014 2.2 90 1504 EB 2 31 0 31 1014 0.03 2 8.7 A NB 1 157 157 0 1504 0.10 9 7.7 A 7.2 5.6 24.6% 15 NB 2 10 0 0 1700 0.01 0 0.0 SB 1 91 0 76 1700 0.05 0 0.0 0.0 ICU Level of Service A Synchro 7 - Report Page 6 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis - AM Peak Hour 37: Warner Road & Meridian Road Movement Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (ft) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) Meridian Road 2012 EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR 5 Stop 0% 0.92 7 8 8 0.92 10 8 Free 0% 0.92 10 6 0.92 10 31 Free 0% 0.92 40 9/26/2012 0.92 8 None TWLTL 2 76 14 61 76 6.4 5.4 3.5 99 929 EB 1 17 7 10 1009 0.02 1 8.6 A 8.6 A 14 18 14 6.2 18 4.1 3.3 99 1065 2.2 99 1598 NB 1 51 10 0 1598 0.01 0 1.5 A 1.5 SB 1 18 0 8 1700 0.01 0 0.0 0.0 2.6 19.2% 15 ICU Level of Service A Synchro 7 - Report Page 7 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis - PM Peak Hour 1: McDowell Road & Meridian Movement Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (ft) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) Meridian Road 2012 9/26/2012 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR 0 0 Stop 0% 0.90 0 0 0 0 1 0 0.90 0 0.90 1 0.90 0 0.90 0 2 Free 0% 0.90 3 0 0.90 0 10 Free 0% 0.90 13 0 0.90 0 0 Stop 0% 0.90 0 0.90 0 None None 19 19 3 19 19 13 3 13 19 7.1 19 6.5 3 6.2 19 7.1 19 6.5 13 6.2 3 4.1 13 4.1 3.5 100 995 4.0 100 875 3.3 100 1081 3.5 100 995 4.0 100 875 3.3 100 1067 2.2 100 1619 2.2 100 1605 EB 1 0 0 0 1700 0.00 0 0.0 A 0.0 A WB 1 0 0 0 1700 0.00 0 0.0 A 0.0 A NB 1 15 1 0 1619 0.00 0 0.7 A 0.7 SB 1 3 0 0 1605 0.00 0 0.0 0.6 6.7% 15 0.90 0 0.0 ICU Level of Service A Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis - PM Peak Hour 5: McKellips Boulevard & Meridain Road Movement Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT 46 Stop 0% 0.90 61 3 59 Free 0% 0.90 79 67 2 0.90 89 0.90 3 27 Free 0% 0.90 36 Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (ft) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS None None 165 123 168 165 6.4 123 6.2 168 4.1 3.5 93 824 3.3 100 928 2.2 100 1410 WB 1 65 61 4 830 0.08 6 9.7 A 9.7 A NB 1 168 0 89 1700 0.10 0 0.0 Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) Meridian Road 2012 0.90 4 0.0 9/26/2012 SB 1 39 3 0 1410 0.00 0 0.5 A 0.5 2.4 18.6% 15 ICU Level of Service A Synchro 7 - Report Page 2 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis - PM Peak Hour 7: Brown Road & Meridain Road 9/26/2012 Movement Lane Configurations Sign Control Volume (vph) Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR 53 0.90 71 Stop 111 0.90 148 53 0.90 71 14 0.90 19 Stop 56 0.90 75 4 0.90 5 22 0.90 29 Stop 65 0.90 87 12 0.90 16 4 0.90 5 Stop 42 0.90 56 28 0.90 37 Direction, Lane # Volume Total (vph) Volume Left (vph) Volume Right (vph) Hadj (s) Departure Headway (s) Degree Utilization, x Capacity (veh/h) Control Delay (s) Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS EB 1 289 71 71 -0.06 4.6 0.37 749 10.2 10.2 B WB 1 99 19 5 0.04 4.9 0.13 684 8.6 8.6 A NB 1 132 29 16 0.01 5.0 0.18 666 9.1 9.1 A SB 1 99 5 37 -0.18 4.8 0.13 674 8.6 8.6 A Intersection Summary Delay HCM Level of Service Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) Meridian Road 2012 9.4 A 40.8% 15 ICU Level of Service A Synchro 7 - Report Page 3 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis - PM Peak Hour 11: University Drive & Meridain Road Movement Lane Configurations Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Growth Factor (vph) Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR 62 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.54 1010 0.90 120% 83 0 83 Perm 384 1900 4.0 0.95 0.97 1.00 3433 1.00 3433 0.90 120% 512 55 585 96 1900 42 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.37 689 0.90 120% 56 0 56 Perm 236 1900 4.0 0.95 0.98 1.00 3486 1.00 3486 0.90 120% 315 21 329 26 1900 76 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.67 1254 0.90 120% 101 0 101 Perm 120 1900 4.0 0.95 0.95 1.00 3362 1.00 3362 0.90 120% 160 48 192 60 1900 40 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.60 1122 0.90 120% 53 0 53 Perm 93 1900 4.0 0.95 1.00 1.00 3539 1.00 3539 0.90 120% 124 0 124 52 1900 4.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1583 1.00 1583 0.90 120% 69 41 28 Perm Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay HCM Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group Meridian Road 2012 9/26/2012 4 16.0 16.0 0.40 4.0 404 0.08 0.21 7.8 1.00 1.1 9.0 A 0.90 120% 128 0 0 4 8 16.0 16.0 0.40 4.0 276 16.0 16.0 0.40 4.0 1373 c0.17 0.08 0.20 7.8 1.00 1.7 9.5 A 0.43 8.7 1.00 1.0 9.6 A 9.6 A 9.5 0.31 40.0 42.7% 15 0.90 120% 35 0 0 8 16.0 16.0 0.40 4.0 1394 0.09 0.24 8.0 1.00 0.4 8.3 A 8.5 A 2 16.0 16.0 0.40 4.0 502 c0.08 0.20 7.8 1.00 0.9 8.7 A 0.90 120% 80 0 0 2 6 16.0 16.0 0.40 4.0 449 16.0 16.0 0.40 4.0 1345 0.06 0.05 0.12 7.6 1.50 0.5 11.8 B 0.14 7.6 1.00 0.2 7.9 A 8.1 A HCM Level of Service A Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service 8.0 A 6 16.0 16.0 0.40 4.0 1416 0.04 0.09 7.5 1.46 0.1 11.0 B 13.1 B 6 16.0 16.0 0.40 4.0 633 0.02 0.04 7.3 2.41 0.1 17.8 B Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis - PM Peak Hour 17: Apache Trail & Meridain Road Movement Lane Configurations Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Growth Factor (vph) Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR 101 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.45 836 0.90 120% 135 0 135 Perm 479 1900 4.0 0.91 0.98 1.00 5005 1.00 5005 0.90 120% 639 30 684 56 1900 60 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.34 625 0.90 120% 80 0 80 Perm 391 1900 4.0 0.91 1.00 1.00 5085 1.00 5085 0.90 120% 521 0 521 86 1900 4.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1583 1.00 1583 0.90 120% 115 77 38 Perm 55 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.61 1140 0.90 120% 73 0 73 pm+pt 5 2 20.0 20.0 0.42 4.0 528 0.01 0.05 0.14 8.5 1.00 0.5 9.1 A 127 1900 4.0 0.95 0.95 1.00 3363 1.00 3363 0.90 120% 169 56 197 63 1900 122 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.60 1108 0.90 120% 163 0 163 pm+pt 1 6 20.0 20.0 0.42 4.0 517 c0.03 c0.11 0.32 9.0 1.00 1.6 10.6 B 108 1900 4.0 0.95 0.95 1.00 3350 1.00 3350 0.90 120% 144 53 171 60 1900 4 16.0 16.0 0.33 4.0 279 c0.16 0.48 12.7 1.00 5.9 18.6 B Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay HCM Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group Meridian Road 2012 9/26/2012 0.90 120% 75 0 0 4 8 16.0 16.0 0.33 4.0 208 16.0 16.0 0.33 4.0 1668 0.14 0.13 0.38 12.2 1.00 5.3 17.5 B 0.41 12.4 1.00 0.7 13.1 B 14.0 B 12.7 0.39 48.0 44.7% 15 8 16.0 16.0 0.33 4.0 1695 0.10 0.31 11.9 1.00 0.5 12.4 B 12.7 B 8 16.0 16.0 0.33 4.0 528 0.02 0.07 10.9 1.00 0.3 11.2 B HCM Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service 0.90 120% 84 0 0 2 16.0 16.0 0.33 4.0 1121 0.06 0.18 11.3 1.00 0.3 11.7 B 11.1 B 0.90 120% 80 0 0 6 16.0 16.0 0.33 4.0 1117 0.05 0.15 11.2 1.00 0.3 11.5 B 11.1 B B 12.0 A Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis - PM Peak Hour 22: Broadway Avenue & Meridain Road Movement Lane Configurations Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Growth Factor (vph) Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR 59 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.56 1047 0.90 120% 79 0 79 Perm 285 1900 4.0 0.95 0.99 1.00 3499 1.00 3499 0.90 120% 380 15 396 23 1900 27 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.51 952 0.90 120% 36 0 36 Perm 185 1900 4.0 0.95 0.97 1.00 3429 1.00 3429 0.90 120% 247 39 273 49 1900 19 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.61 1139 0.90 120% 25 0 25 Perm 126 1900 4.0 0.95 0.95 1.00 3375 1.00 3375 0.90 120% 168 45 198 56 1900 50 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.60 1119 0.90 120% 67 0 67 Perm 117 1900 4.0 0.95 0.95 1.00 3376 1.00 3376 0.90 120% 156 41 184 52 1900 Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay HCM Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group Meridian Road 2012 9/26/2012 4 16.0 16.0 0.40 4.0 419 0.08 0.19 7.8 1.00 1.0 8.8 A 0.90 120% 31 0 0 4 8 16.0 16.0 0.40 4.0 381 16.0 16.0 0.40 4.0 1400 c0.11 0.04 0.09 7.5 1.00 0.5 8.0 A 0.28 8.1 1.00 0.5 8.6 A 8.7 A 8.2 0.22 40.0 36.7% 15 0.90 120% 65 0 0 8 16.0 16.0 0.40 4.0 1372 0.08 0.20 7.8 1.00 0.3 8.1 A 8.1 A 2 16.0 16.0 0.40 4.0 456 0.02 0.05 7.4 1.00 0.2 7.6 A 0.90 120% 75 0 0 2 6 16.0 16.0 0.40 4.0 448 16.0 16.0 0.40 4.0 1350 0.06 c0.06 0.15 7.7 1.00 0.7 8.4 A 0.15 7.6 1.00 0.2 7.9 A 7.9 A HCM Level of Service A Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service 8.0 A 0.90 120% 69 0 0 6 16.0 16.0 0.40 4.0 1350 0.05 0.14 7.6 1.00 0.2 7.8 A 7.9 A Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis - PM Peak Hour 27: Southern Avenue & Meridain Road 9/26/2012 Movement Lane Configurations Sign Control Volume (vph) Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR 111 0.90 148 Stop 187 0.90 249 14 0.90 19 20 0.90 27 Stop 130 0.90 173 35 0.90 47 8 0.90 11 Stop 80 0.90 107 33 0.90 44 25 0.90 33 Stop 76 0.90 101 78 0.90 104 Direction, Lane # Volume Total (vph) Volume Left (vph) Volume Right (vph) Hadj (s) Departure Headway (s) Degree Utilization, x Capacity (veh/h) Control Delay (s) Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS EB 1 397 148 0 0.22 6.4 0.71 541 22.4 21.7 C WB 1 247 27 47 -0.06 6.1 0.42 536 13.4 13.4 B NB 1 161 11 44 -0.12 6.4 0.29 487 11.9 11.9 B SB 1 239 33 104 -0.20 6.1 0.41 531 13.2 13.2 B Intersection Summary Delay HCM Level of Service Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) Meridian Road 2012 EB 2 19 0 19 -0.67 5.5 0.03 621 7.5 16.4 C 61.6% 15 ICU Level of Service B Synchro 7 - Report Page 4 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis - PM Peak Hour 31: Baseline Road & Meridain Road Movement Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (ft) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) Meridian Road 2012 EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR 68 341 Free 0% 0.90 455 161 Free 0% 0.90 215 32 55 Stop 0% 0.90 73 59 0.90 91 0.90 43 257 872 236 636 872 6.4 5.4 3.5 84 461 257 4.1 2.2 93 1307 EB 2 455 0 0 1700 0.27 0 0.0 WB 1 257 0 43 1700 0.15 0 0.0 0.0 2.7 31.9% 15 0.90 79 5 TWLTL TWLTL 2 2 EB 1 91 91 0 1307 0.07 6 8.0 A 1.3 9/26/2012 236 236 6.2 3.3 90 803 SB 1 152 73 79 956 0.16 14 12.0 B 12.0 B ICU Level of Service A Synchro 7 - Report Page 5 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis - PM Peak Hour 35: Elliot Road & Meridian Road Movement Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (ft) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) Meridian Road 2012 EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR 59 Stop 0% 0.90 79 92 71 0.90 95 12 Free 0% 0.90 16 28 0.90 123 10 Free 0% 0.90 13 9/26/2012 0.90 37 TWLTL TWLTL 2 2 237 35 203 237 6.4 5.4 3.5 90 758 EB 1 79 79 0 758 0.10 9 10.3 B 9.5 A 35 53 35 6.2 53 4.1 3.3 88 1038 2.2 94 1552 EB 2 123 0 123 1038 0.12 10 8.9 A NB 1 95 95 0 1552 0.06 5 7.5 A 6.5 7.2 22.0% 15 NB 2 13 0 0 1700 0.01 0 0.0 SB 1 53 0 37 1700 0.03 0 0.0 0.0 ICU Level of Service A Synchro 7 - Report Page 6 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis - PM Peak Hour 37: Warner Road & Meridian Road Movement Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (ft) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) Meridian Road 2012 EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR 4 Stop 0% 0.90 5 8 6 0.90 8 24 Free 0% 0.90 32 8 0.90 11 22 Free 0% 0.90 29 9/26/2012 0.90 11 None TWLTL 2 83 37 45 83 6.4 5.4 3.5 99 934 EB 1 16 5 11 999 0.02 1 8.7 A 8.7 A 37 43 37 6.2 43 4.1 3.3 99 1035 2.2 99 1566 NB 1 37 8 0 1566 0.01 0 1.6 A 1.6 SB 1 43 0 11 1700 0.03 0 0.0 0.0 2.1 17.6% 15 ICU Level of Service A Synchro 7 - Report Page 7 APPENDIX B WORKING PAPER #2: EVALUATION CRITERIA AND PLAN FOR IMPROVEMENTS Michael Baker Jr., Inc. Phoenix, Arizona May 2013 Meridian Road Corridor Study Germann Road to McDowell Boulevard Working Paper #2 Evaluation Criteria and Plan for Improvements Prepared for: Prepared by Michael Baker Jr., Inc. Phoenix, Arizona Working Paper #2 Report Table of Contents I. Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 1 Study Area ................................................................................................................................................. 1 Study Objectives ....................................................................................................................................... 3 Report Objectives...................................................................................................................................... 3 II. Vision and Goals .................................................................................................................................... 3 III. Traffic Impacts................................................................................................................................... 4 Roadway Segment Lane Configurations ................................................................................................... 4 Intersection Configurations .................................................................................................................... 14 IV. Development of Roadway Alternatives .......................................................................................... 22 Meridian Road Alignment Alternatives................................................................................................... 22 Conceptual Analysis for Northern Section of Meridian Road ............................................................. 22 Conceptual Alternatives for Southern Section of Meridian Road ...................................................... 22 Section Line Shift at Baseline Road ..................................................................................................... 23 V. Evaluation ........................................................................................................................................... 26 Evaluation Criteria................................................................................................................................... 26 Initial Alternative Screening .................................................................................................................... 26 Alternative 1 – No‐Build Alternative ................................................................................................... 27 Alternative 2 – Section Line Alignment ............................................................................................... 27 Alternative 3 – Eastern Shift ............................................................................................................... 28 Alternative 4 – Meandering Alignment .............................................................................................. 28 Preferred Meridian Road Alignment....................................................................................................... 28 Preferred Section Line Shift .................................................................................................................... 28 VI. Design Features............................................................................................................................... 29 Functional Classification and Typical Cross Section ................................................................................ 29 Interim Conditions .................................................................................................................................. 30 Phased Construction ............................................................................................................................... 32 Near‐Term Improvement Recommendations..................................................................................... 32 Mid‐Term Improvement Recommendations ...................................................................................... 32 Long‐Term Improvement Recommendations ..................................................................................... 33 Ultimate Improvement Recommendations ........................................................................................ 33 Meridian Road Corridor Study – Working Paper #2 Evaluation Criteria and Plan for Improvements i May 2013 Working Paper #2 Report Existing Right‐of‐Way .............................................................................................................................. 33 Required Right‐of‐Way ........................................................................................................................... 34 Cost Estimate .......................................................................................................................................... 36 East Mesa Area Drainage Master Plan (ADMP) ...................................................................................... 40 Access Management ............................................................................................................................... 43 Access Management Recommendations ................................................................................................ 44 Intersection Spacing ............................................................................................................................ 46 Driveway Locations ............................................................................................................................. 46 Median Locations ................................................................................................................................ 46 Additional Recommendations ................................................................................................................ 46 Evaluation of Non‐Motorized Modes of Transportation ........................................................................ 46 Evaluation of Transit Needs .................................................................................................................... 47 List of Figures Figure 1: Study Area ...................................................................................................................................... 2 Figure 2: 2025 Daily Traffic Volumes ............................................................................................................ 5 Figure 3: 2035 Daily Traffic Volumes ............................................................................................................ 6 Figure 4: 2025 Average Daily Level of Service .............................................................................................. 9 Figure 5: 2035 Average Daily Level of Service ............................................................................................ 10 Figure 6: 2025 Recommended Roadway Configuration ............................................................................. 12 Figure 7: 2035 Recommended Roadway Configuration ............................................................................. 13 Figure 8: 2025 Turning Movement Volumes .............................................................................................. 15 Figure 9: 2035 Turning Movement Volumes .............................................................................................. 16 Figure 10: 2025 Intersection Lane Configuration ....................................................................................... 17 Figure 11: 2035 Intersection Lane Configuration ....................................................................................... 18 Figure 12: 2025 Intersection Level of Service ............................................................................................. 19 Figure 13: 2035 Intersection Level of Service ............................................................................................. 20 Figure 14: Conceptual Alternatives for Southern Section of Meridian Road ............................................. 24 Figure 15: Section Line Shift at Baseline Road Alternatives ....................................................................... 25 Figure 16: Ultimate Roadway Cross Section – Southern Avenue to Germann Road .................................. 29 Figure 17: Ultimate Roadway Cross Section – Lost Dutchman Boulevard to Southern Avenue ................ 30 Figure 18: Ultimate Roadway Cross Section – Lost Dutchman Boulevard to McDowell Boulevard........... 30 Figure 19: Interim Cross Section: McDowell Boulevard to Lost Dutchman Boulevard .............................. 31 Figure 20: Interim Cross Section: Lost Dutchman Boulevard to Germann Road ........................................ 32 Figure 21: Interim Cross Section: Southern Avenue to Germann Road ..................................................... 32 Figure 22: East Mesa ADMP Alternative Overview ..................................................................................... 42 Figure 23: Roadway/Channel Combined Cross Section .............................................................................. 42 Figure 24: Access versus Mobility for a Given Roadway............................................................................. 43 Meridian Road Corridor Study – Working Paper #2 Evaluation Criteria and Plan for Improvements ii May 2013 Working Paper #2 Report List of Tables Table 1: 2025 and 2035 Daily Traffic Volumes.............................................................................................. 4 Table 2: Annual Average Daily Volume Threshold Values for Various Facility Types ................................... 8 Table 3: Level‐of‐Service Criteria for Signalized Intersections.................................................................... 14 Table 4: 2025 Meridian Road Intersection Lane Configuration Deviations ................................................ 21 Table 5: 2035 Meridian Road Intersection Lane Configuration Deviations ................................................ 21 Table 8: Initial Alternative Screening Results.............................................................................................. 26 Table 9: 2035 No‐Build Average Daily Traffic and Level‐of‐Service ............................................................ 27 Table 10: Side‐by‐Side Comparison of Roadway Typical Sections .............................................................. 29 Table 6: Existing Right‐of‐Way .................................................................................................................... 35 Table 7: Right‐of‐Way Requirement ........................................................................................................... 36 Table 11: Summary of Corridor Segment Estimates ................................................................................... 37 Table 12: Itemized Cost Estimate for Near‐Term Recommendations ........................................................ 38 Table 13: Itemized Cost Estimate for the Northern Segment under Mid‐Term Recommendations: McDowell Boulevard to Southern Avenue ................................................................................................. 38 Table 14: Itemized Cost Estimate for the Northern Segment under Long‐Term Recommendations: McDowell Boulevard to Southern Avenue ................................................................................................. 39 Table 15: Itemized Cost Estimate for the Preferred Corridor under Mid/Long‐Term Recommendations: Southern Avenue to Germann Road ........................................................................................................... 39 Table 16: Itemized Cost Estimate for the Preferred Corridor under Ultimate Recommendations: Southern Avenue to Germann Road........................................................................................................................... 40 Table 17: Access Control Guidelines per Jurisdiction (for Urban Arterial Roads)....................................... 45 Table 18: Access Control Guidelines per Jurisdiction (for Urban Arterial Roads)....................................... 45 Meridian Road Corridor Study – Working Paper #2 Evaluation Criteria and Plan for Improvements iii May 2013 Working Paper #2 Report I. Introduction Continued development along the Meridian Road corridor will lead to significant traffic increases in the future. Currently, there are only two north‐south roadways that connect US 60 to Hunt Highway. The closest through route is Ironwood Drive, one mile east of Meridian Road. The other through route, Ellsworth Road, is three miles west. If either of these roads becomes obstructed, significant traffic delays will occur because no intermediate thoroughfare exists. Meridian Road has been identified in the long range transportation plans of all local agencies plus the Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) and Central Arizona Governments (CAG). The principal focus of the Meridian Road Corridor Study is to address the transportation planning needs identified by the jurisdictions and more particularly to lead the local jurisdictions to develop consensus on facility type, number of lanes and right‐of‐way requirements to guide the future development of the road. This could be memorialized through a memorandum of understanding. Study Area The study area for the Meridian Road Corridor Study is approximately 13 miles in length and is generally bounded by Germann Road on the south, McDowell Boulevard on the north, Ironwood Road on the east and Signal Butte Road on the west. Meridian Road is a section line alignment road that is located on the boundary between Pinal County and Maricopa County. The Cities of Apache Junction and Mesa and the Counties of Maricopa and Pinal along with the Town of Queen Creek all control portions of Meridian Road. Although Arizona State Land Department (ASLD) does not control portions of Meridian Road, ASLD does own a majority of the land to the east of Meridian Road, south of Baseline Road. Currently, Meridian Road is a discontinuous road within the study area. Meridian Road is a paved two‐lane roadway from McDowell Boulevard to Baseline Road and between a half mile north of Elliot Road and a half mile south of Warner Road. The remaining segments of Meridian Road within the study area are a discontinuous dirt trail. The study area is depicted in Figure 1. Meridian Road Corridor Study – Working Paper #2 Evaluation Criteria and Plan for Improvements 1 May 2013 Working Paper #2 Report Figure 1: Study Area Meridian Road Corridor Study – Working Paper #2 Evaluation Criteria and Plan for Improvements 2 May 2013 Working Paper #2 Report Study Objectives The purpose of the Meridian Road corridor Study is to document conditions along the existing roadway and to develop alternatives that will increase the safety and future level of service (LOS) of Meridian Road. This study will also establish a roadway footprint and develop the ultimate right‐of‐way requirement for the corridor. Finally, the study will be utilized as a guide for local agencies and future development along the corridor. In order to address the needs and purposes of the Meridian Road Corridor Study a number of goals and objectives were agreed to with Stakeholders during the kick‐off meeting. These goals and objectives area as follows:        Identify and address planning level issues prior to the initiation programming and engineering design. Evaluate the future transportation needs of the corridor and identify the facility type, and the number of interim and ultimate lanes. Develop an implementation plan to bring about the recommended improvements, while acknowledging the need for sufficient flexibility to adapt to future changes. Identify and evaluate a preferred alignment within the southern portion of the corridor. Determine the required right‐of‐way requirements for the corridor To establish a consensus among the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT), local agencies/jurisdictions and private stakeholders regarding the preferred interim and ultimate facility type, and access control design elements for the corridor. Document the preferred facility location/concept alternatives and provide the necessary planning input to enable ADOT and the local agencies to move forward in the design and environmental process. Report Objectives Using generally accepted planning criteria and the findings from Working Paper #1: Existing and Future Conditions Inventory, the objective of Working Paper #2 is to recommend roadway typical sections, a preferred alignment and implementation strategies that address identified deficiencies and special needs, while categorizing the population and traffic volume thresholds required for improvements. Working Paper #2 will document the corridor evaluation process, recommended facility type and typical roadway section, and implementation/phasing plan. II. Vision and Goals The proposed project is needed to support the continuing development and growth, occurring and anticipated, in the East Mesa, West Apache Junction, and the San Tan Valley region. Significant growth is anticipated in this region that could result in population growth, economic development, and increased traffic volumes. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the growing demands placed on local roads and streets by development in the region. The study will address the transportation planning needs identified by the jurisdictions and more particularly to lead the local jurisdictions to develop consensus on socio‐economic demographic, modeling forecasts, roadway facility type, number of lanes, and right‐of‐way requirements to Meridian Road Corridor Study – Working Paper #2 Evaluation Criteria and Plan for Improvements 3 May 2013 Working Paper #2 Report guide the future development of the road. The study will also include roadway improvement phasing plans, cost estimates and implementation plans. Additionally, the study will examine multimodal opportunities necessary to accommodate growth and development, such as, bicycle and pedestrian needs. III. Traffic Impacts Roadway Segment Lane Configurations 2025 and 2035 daily traffic volumes developed in Working Paper #1: Existing and Future Conditions Inventory were used to calculate the level of service (LOS) for the study area roadway segments. The 2025 and 2035 daily traffic volumes are shown in Table 1 and graphically in Figure 2 and Figure 3, respectively. Table 1: 2025 and 2035 Daily Traffic Volumes Meridian Road Segment Direction 2025 ADT 2035 ADT NB 0‐5,000* 0‐5,000* SB McKellips Boulevard to Brown Road/Lost Dutchman NB 0‐5,000* 0‐5,000* Boulevard SB Brown Road/Lost Dutchman Boulevard to University NB 0‐5,000* 5,001‐10,000* Drive/Superstition Boulevard SB University Drive/Superstition Boulevard to Apache NB 5,001‐10,000* 10,001‐20,000* Trail SB NB Apache Trail to Broadway Road 5,001‐10,000* 10,001‐20,000* SB NB Broadway Road to Southern Avenue 5,001‐10,000* 10,001‐20,000* SB NB Southern Avenue to US 60 10,001‐20,000* 20,001‐30,000* SB NB 14,315 14,761 US 60 to Baseline Road SB 14,709 15,129 NB 12,087 12,445 Baseline Road to Guadalupe Road SB 12,070 12,434 NB 6,664 5,878 Guadalupe Road to Elliot Road SB 6,618 5,994 NB 14,945 13,251 Elliot Road to Warner Road SB 14,621 13,376 NB 9,647 8,312 Warner Road to Ray Road SB 8,666 8,339 NB 8,835 9,355 Ray Road to Williams Field Road SB 7,775 9,473 NB 12,846 4,413 Williams Field Road to SR 24 SB 12,516 5,347 NB 10,556 15,484 SR 24 to Pecos Road SB 10,226 16,181 NB 6,516 10,751 Pecos Road to Germann Road SB 6,076 11,586 *ADT range as shown in the Apache Junction Comprehensive Transportation Study for population levels 2 and 3 NB: Northbound SB: Southbound McDowell Boulevard to McKellips Boulevard Meridian Road Corridor Study – Working Paper #2 Evaluation Criteria and Plan for Improvements 4 May 2013 Working Paper #2 Report Figure 2: 2025 Daily Traffic Volumes Meridian Road Corridor Study – Working Paper #2 Evaluation Criteria and Plan for Improvements 5 May 2013 Working Paper #2 Report Figure 3: 2035 Daily Traffic Volumes Meridian Road Corridor Study – Working Paper #2 Evaluation Criteria and Plan for Improvements 6 May 2013 Working Paper #2 Report The ability of a transportation system to transmit the transportation demand is characterized as its level of service (LOS). LOS is a rating system from “A”, representing the best operation, to “F”, representing the worst operation. The appropriate reference for LOS operation is the Highway Capacity Manual, published by the Transportation Research Board. In general, LOS A and B represent no congestion, LOS C and D represent moderate congestion, and LOS E and F represent severe congestion. The MCDOT Roadway Design Manual (revised 2011) establishes LOS C as the desired criteria for rural principal arterial roadways and LOS D as the desired criteria for urban principal arterial roadways. The City of Mesa Transportation Plan and City of Apache Junction Small Area Transportation Study establishes LOS D as the desired criteria for principal arterial roadways. Because Meridian Road is likely to ultimately be a principal arterial under the jurisdiction of the City of Mesa and the City of Apache Junction, LOS D was used as the desired LOS for future traffic operations within the corridor. The widely accepted 2009 Quality/Level of Service Handbook published by the Florida Department of Transportation contains planning guidelines relating LOS to daily volumes to estimate capacity for roadway segments. These guidelines are not an exact description of the actual operating LOS on a particular roadway segment, but they give an indication of when the roadway falls below acceptable levels of service. The Highway Capacity Manual is the foremost recognized and accepted analysis tool for automobile capacity and quality/level of service analysis. FDOT’s Quality/Level of Service Handbook are nationally recognized as the leading planning application of Highway Capacity Manual for the evaluation of automobile LOS. Arterial street capacity thresholds were derived directly from “Table 4‐1, Generalized Annual Average Daily Volumes for Florida’s Urbanized Areas (Freeway & State Two‐Way Arterial Facilities),” published by the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) in the widely accepted 2009 Quality/Level of Service Handbook. Information relevant to arterial facilities in FDOT’s 2009 Quality/Level of Service Handbook served as reference for the development of specific values to reflect current Metropolitan Phoenix area conditions and future conditions anticipated to exist ultimately in the Study Area. Pertinent data related to the 2009 Quality/Level of Service Handbook is included in Appendix A. The number of lanes depicted in the Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) models introduced in Working Paper #1: Existing and Future Conditions Inventory were used to determine the LOS. MAG indicated a three‐lane section for Meridian Road in 2025 and 2035 within the study area. The LOS thresholds for a two‐lane undivided roadway, as shown in FDOT’s “Table 4‐1, Generalized Annual Average Daily Volumes for Florida’s Urbanized Areas (Freeway & State Two‐Way Arterial Facilities),” were increase by 5% to account for a center lane or exclusive left‐turn lanes. By adding a center lane or exclusive left‐turn lane, vehicles making a left‐turn are removed out of the through lanes thus increasing the capacity of the roadway. Table 2 shows the Average Daily Traffic (ADT) capacity threshold values by facility type calculated for LOS A/B, C and D. These threshold values were used to determine the roadway segment LOS for 2025 and 2035 for this study. Figure 4 and Figure 5 depict the 2025 and 2035 LOS for segments of Meridian Road within the Study Area, respectively. Meridian Road Corridor Study – Working Paper #2 Evaluation Criteria and Plan for Improvements 7 May 2013 Working Paper #2 Report Table 2: Annual Average Daily Volume Threshold Values for Various Facility Types Number of Through Lanes 2 3 4 Level of Service Threshold A/B C D Median Undivided Divided/Two‐way Left‐turn Lane Divided Meridian Road Corridor Study – Working Paper #2 Evaluation Criteria and Plan for Improvements 8 9,600 15,400 16,500 10,080 16,170 17,325 29,300 35,500 36,700 May 2013 Working Paper #2 Report Figure 4: 2025 Average Daily Level of Service Meridian Road Corridor Study – Working Paper #2 Evaluation Criteria and Plan for Improvements 9 May 2013 Working Paper #2 Report Figure 5: 2035 Average Daily Level of Service Meridian Road Corridor Study – Working Paper #2 Evaluation Criteria and Plan for Improvements 10 May 2013 Working Paper #2 Report As indicated, LOS D was considered the threshold of acceptable operations for arterial facilities. The LOS threshold measures reflect the traffic volume characteristics of each facility or grouping of facility types. The selection of these LOS threshold values accounts for the expectations of the drivers as well as the relative costs associated with the construction of each facility type. ADT volumes in excess of the LOS D thresholds illustrated in Table 2 indicate a condition in which the volumes on a given roadway segment exceed the planning‐level capacity for that facility. The results of the 2025 LOS analysis for a roadway segment indicate that most segments of Meridian Road south of Southern Avenue will operate unacceptably as a three‐lane section. Based on the projected ADT volumes for year 2025 shown in Table 1 and the ADT capacity thresholds shown in Table 2, it is anticipated that Meridian Road will operate within the threshold of acceptable operations at a LOS of C or better as a two‐lane undivided roadway between McDowell Boulevard and Lost Dutchman Boulevard, as a three‐lane section south of Lost Dutchman Boulevard to Southern Avenue and as four‐lane divided roadway south of Southern Avenue to Germann Road. The results of the 2025 roadway segment analysis is depicted in Figure 6. The results of the 2035 LOS analysis for a roadway segment indicate that most segments of Meridian Road south of Superstition Boulevard will operate unacceptably as a three‐lane section. Based on the projected ADT volumes for year 2035 shown in Table 1 and the ADT capacity thresholds shown in Table 2, it is anticipated that Meridian Road will operate within the threshold of acceptable operations at a LOS of C or better as a two‐lane undivided roadway between McDowell Boulevard and Lost Dutchman Boulevard and as four‐lane divided roadway south of Lost Dutchman Boulevard to Germann Road. The results of the 2035 roadway segment analysis is depicted in Figure 7. Meridian Road Corridor Study – Working Paper #2 Evaluation Criteria and Plan for Improvements 11 May 2013 Working Paper #2 Report Figure 6: 2025 Recommended Roadway Configuration Meridian Road Corridor Study – Working Paper #2 Evaluation Criteria and Plan for Improvements 12 May 2013 Working Paper #2 Report Figure 7: 2035 Recommended Roadway Configuration Meridian Road Corridor Study – Working Paper #2 Evaluation Criteria and Plan for Improvements 13 May 2013 Working Paper #2 Report Intersection Configurations 2025 and 2035 turning movement volumes developed in Working Paper #1: Existing and Future Conditions Inventory were used to calculate the LOS for the study area intersections. Turning movement volume forecasts are shown in Figure 8 and Figure 9, respectively for 2025 and 2035. The Highway Capacity Manual considers the average delay per vehicle as the measure to determine the LOS of a signalized intersection. The delay and LOS are calculated for the intersection, each approach, and each turning movement. Table 3 lists the LOS criteria for signalized intersections as stated in the Highway Capacity Manual. Table 3: Level‐of‐Service Criteria for Signalized Intersections Level‐of‐Service Average Control Delay (s/veh) B  10 > 10‐20 C D > 20‐35 > 35‐55 E > 55‐80 F > 80 A One of the important conditions for determining LOS at an intersection is the number of lanes provided for each movement on each approach at the intersection. The 2025 and 2035 intersection geometry for the study area intersections, shown in Figure 10 and Figure 11 respectively, was developed based on the findings of the roadway segment LOS analysis completed in the previous section, Roadway Segment Lane Configuration. The results of the intersection LOS analysis will indicate how each intersection will be widened to accommodate turn lanes and additional through lanes. The LOS for the study area intersections was evaluated using Synchro software, which utilizes the criteria described in Table 3. The 2025 and 2035 LOS for the signalized intersections within the study area are shown in Figure 12 and Figure 13, respectively. Appendix B provides the complete results of the 2025 and 2035 LOS analyses. Meridian Road Corridor Study – Working Paper #2 Evaluation Criteria and Plan for Improvements 14 May 2013 Working Paper #2 Report The results of the 2025 and 2035 Synchro analysis show that the typical intersection lane configuration for Meridian Road within the study area is a single left‐turn and one through lane with a shared through/right‐turn lane for the northbound and southbound directions. Several intersections deviate from this typical intersection lane configuration and are shown in Table 4 and Table 5, respectively for 2025 and 2035. Table 4: 2025 Meridian Road Intersection Lane Configuration Deviations Meridian Road Intersection University Drive/ Superstition Boulevard Southern Avenue US 60 WB On‐Ramp US 60 EB Off‐Ramp Baseline Road Elliot Road Deviation Movement Dual Left‐Turn Exclusive Right‐ Three Through Lanes Turn Lane Lanes SB X* NB NB SB NB NB SB NB X X X X X X X X *Under existing conditions Table 5: 2035 Meridian Road Intersection Lane Configuration Deviations Meridian Road Intersection University Drive/ Superstition Boulevard Broadway Road Southern Avenue US 60 WB On‐Ramp US 60 EB Off‐Ramp Baseline Road Elliot Road SR 24 WB On‐Ramp SR 24 EB Off‐Ramp Pecos Road Deviation Movement Dual Left‐Turn Exclusive Right‐ Three Through Lanes Turn Lane Lanes SB X* NB NB NB SB NB NB SB NB NB SB NB SB X X X X X X X X X X X X X X *Under existing conditions Meridian Road Corridor Study – Working Paper #2 Evaluation Criteria and Plan for Improvements 21 May 2013 Working Paper #2 Report IV. Development of Roadway Alternatives Meridian Road Alignment Alternatives The study has been examined in two sections. The roadway alignment for the northern half of the corridor between US 60 and McDowell Boulevard forms the westerly boundary of the City of Apache Junction’s roadway network. For the majority of its length Meridian Road is a two lane roadway with some widening to three and four lanes at the approach and departure of the intersections at Broadway Road, Apache Trail and Superstitions Boulevard. The roadway alignment for the southern half of the Meridian Road corridor between Baseline Road and Germann Road is largely undefined. A two mile section from half mile north of Elliot Road to half mile south of Warner Road is a two lane street constructed west of the section line. The alignment is either a dirt track or non‐existent on other sections of undeveloped land. Conceptual Analysis for Northern Section of Meridian Road Concepts were developed for the northern section of the project relating to the lane configuration and right‐of‐way requirements. See the Existing Right‐of‐Way section for more detailed information on existing right‐of‐way along this section of the Meridian Road corridor. The roadway lane configuration is dealt with in the Roadway Segment Lane Configuration section of the report. Conceptual Alternatives for Southern Section of Meridian Road Conceptual alternatives for the southern section were developed based upon identified corridor issues, the projected traffic volumes and transportation/connectivity needs. Design guidelines relating to roadway cross sections and horizontal alignment from City of Apache Junction, City of Mesa, Maricopa County Department of Transportation (MCDOT) and Pinal County were used to generate the conceptual alternatives. Alternative 1 – No Build Alternative The no‐build alternative considers how the existing roadway network would function if the southern section of the corridor was not constructed. Alternative 2 – Section Line Alignment This alternative proposes to locate the corridor improvements symmetrically about the section line. It makes full use of the existing right‐of‐way dedicated to the west of the section line. Alternative 2 is depicted in Figure 14. Alternative 3 – Eastern Shift An easterly shift alignment is considered to minimize impacts on existing residential parcels and a drainage channel adjacent to the section line. An alignment shift of 1,100 feet to the east is proposed to line‐up with the section of the Meridian Road north of Baseline Road. Alternative 3 is depicted in Figure 14. Meridian Road Corridor Study – Working Paper #2 Evaluation Criteria and Plan for Improvements 22 May 2013 Working Paper #2 Report Alternative 4 – Meandering Alignment The meandering alignment consists of minor shifts in the alignment either east or west of the section line to reduce impact to existing properties and use existing right‐of‐way. Alternative 3 is depicted in Figure 14. Section Line Shift at Baseline Road Two reverse curve alignment adjustments were considered to align the off‐set in the monument line that occurs at Baseline Road and are described below. The section line shift at Baseline Road alternatives are shown in Figure 15. Alternative B1 – US 60 to Baseline Road With this alternative the alignment shift to the west begins just south of US 60 and ties into the monument line at Baseline Road. This alignment would require a frontage road connector to maintain access to the existing businesses on the east side of Meridian Road. Alternative B2 – South of Baseline Road This alternative holds the Meridian Road alignment on the monument line until Baseline Road. South of Baseline Road the alignment would curve to the west to line up with the section line approximately half mile south of Baseline Road. This alignment would maintain access to Meridian Road businesses between US 60 and Baseline Road. Meridian Road Corridor Study – Working Paper #2 Evaluation Criteria and Plan for Improvements 23 May 2013 Working Paper #2 Report Figure 14: Conceptual Alternatives for Southern Section of Meridian Road Meridian Road Corridor Study – Working Paper #2 Evaluation Criteria and Plan for Improvements 24 May 2013 Working Paper #2 Report Figure 15: Section Line Shift at Baseline Road Alternatives Meridian Road Corridor Study – Working Paper #2 Evaluation Criteria and Plan for Improvements 25 May 2013 Working Paper #2 Report V. Evaluation Evaluation Criteria A preliminary matrix was developed in order to evaluate the alternatives. The evaluation criteria and corresponding questions to be addressed are as follows:        Constructability Issues – Is the alternative constructible? Engineering Complexity – Does the alternative involve a more complicated design or create additional engineering challenges? Environmental/Cultural Issues – Is there the potential for finding historical and/or archeological artifacts? Are historic preservation activities likely required? Potential Utility Conflicts – Will the alternative impact existing utilities. Will new utilities be required? Traffic Operations – Will the alternative improve traffic flow and increase regional connectivity? Public Acceptability – Is the corridor alternative likely to generate negative feedback from the community? Socioeconomic Impacts – Does the alternative impact existing residential parcels/developments (i.e. right‐of‐ way, or existing homes)? The corridor alternatives were evaluated using one of three rankings based upon the perceived response for each evaluation criteria question. The three ranking levels are as follows: Minimum impact/high performance, Moderate impact/moderate performance, or High impact/low performance. Initial Alternative Screening Table 6 summarizes the results of the initial alternative screening. Table 6: Initial Alternative Screening Results Evaluation Criteria Constructability Issues Engineering Complexity Environmental/Cultural Issues Potential Utility Conflicts Traffic Operations Public Acceptability Socioeconomic Impacts Alt 1 ○ ○ ○ ○ ● ● ○ Alternative Alternatives Alt 2 Alt 3 ○ ○ ○ ◍ ○ ◍ ◍ ○ ◍ ○ ● ○ ◍ ○ Alt 4 ○ ◍ ○ ◍ ○ ○ ◍ ○ Minimal impact/high performance ◍ Moderate impact/performance ● High impact/low performance Meridian Road Corridor Study – Working Paper #2 Evaluation Criteria and Plan for Improvements 26 May 2013 Working Paper #2 Report Alternative 1 – No‐Build Alternative The no‐build alternative requires the least amount of design and construction, and consequently has the lowest impact to the environment, existing utilities and residential parcels. However, this alternative does not address future traffic demands or regional connectivity needs. Future residents would experience reduced safety and unacceptable capacity (i.e. Level of Service E or worse) between Lost Dutchman Boulevard and Broadway Road. Table 7 shows the anticipated 2035 No‐Build ADT and corresponding roadway segment LOS. This alternative is not recommended. Table 7: 2035 No‐Build Average Daily Traffic and Level‐of‐Service Meridian Road Segment McDowell Boulevard to McKellips Boulevard McKellips Boulevard to Brown Road/Lost Dutchman Boulevard Brown Road/Lost Dutchman Boulevard to University Drive/Superstition Boulevard University Drive/Superstition Boulevard to Apache Trail Apache Trail to Broadway Road Broadway Road to Southern Avenue Southern Avenue to Baseline Rd Elliot Road to Warner Road 2035 No Build ADT 2035 LOS 3779 A/B 9441 A/B 16763 E/F 20416 E/F 20946 15209 9140 4455 E/F C A/B A/B Alternative 2 – Section Line Alignment The section line alignment is straightforward and does not present difficult or additional engineering challenges. It is the most consistent with the existing and proposed improvements from the City of Mesa, City of Apache Junction, MCDOT and Pinal County Department of Transportation. It makes full use of the existing right‐of‐way that has been acquired by residential developments such as Sunland Springs, Meridian Point and Mountain Ranch. This alternative distributes the right‐of‐way acquisition burden evenly on both sides of the section line. The section line alignment will require right‐of‐way from three parcels approximately ¾ mile south of Baseline Road. These parcels are currently occupied by light industrial businesses. An existing earth lined drainage channel currently runs along the section line between the existing residential parcels and the industrial parcels. Flow from the ditch drains into the Siphon Draw Irrigation Channel and ultimately into the Siphon Draw Detention Basin. Additional right‐of‐way would be required to accommodate a new channel adjacent to the roadway. South of Williams Field Road to Pecos Road, right‐of‐way would be required from 22 parcels, five of which contain properties. This alternative may generate negative feedback regarding these impacts to residential parcels. Overhead utilities south of Williams Field Road will likely have to be relocated. The private irrigation ditch between Pecos and Germann Roads will also need to be relocated. Meridian Road Corridor Study – Working Paper #2 Evaluation Criteria and Plan for Improvements 27 May 2013 Working Paper #2 Report Alternative 3 – Eastern Shift The main benefit of an easterly shifted alignment is the reduced impacts to the existing residential parcels along the west side of Meridian Road. It also avoids the overhead utilities and irrigation facilities along Meridian Road. However, the new alignment has substantial conflicts with existing properties and irrigation structures and would be placed solely on State Trust Land. An easterly shift would require the acquisition of full width right‐of‐way to accommodate the roadway and would bisect the light industrial area south of Baseline Road. Furthermore, the alignment would also cut through the recently constructed Siphon Draw detention basin, and vacant residential parcels would need to be acquired where the alignment ties back into the section line north of German Road. Negative feedback has been received from Arizona State Land Department because of the effect on State Trust Land. They were concerned that the burden of providing right‐of‐way was beginning wholly placed on them. In addition, the relocation of Meridian Road off the section line would be detrimental to future property values since development patterns cannot be predicted. This alternative is not recommended. Alternative 4 – Meandering Alignment This alternative is similar to Alternative 2, in than it basically follows the section line for most of its length. However, between Williams Field Road and Pecos Road the east right‐of‐way would be held and the alignment relocated up‐to 15 feet west to eliminate any impact to existing residential properties. This alternative is based on the preferred alternatives recommended in the MCDOT Meridian Road Access Management and Corridor Improvement Study. Preferred Meridian Road Alignment All three of the build alternatives are anticipated to have similar amount of constructability issues related to traffic control and maintenance of traffic during construction. Minimal environmental issues are anticipated with all the alternatives. Input received on the alternatives from the TAC at the meeting and a subsequent agency meeting with ASLD was generally in favor of the alignment staying on the section line because it resulted in more equitable right‐of‐way takes from property owners and did not place a large burden on State Trust Land. Alternative 4 was selected as the preferred alternative because it followed the section line for most of its length except the area between Williams Field Road and Pecos Road where the alignment shifted west to avoid impacting existing residential developments. Preferred Section Line Shift Based on the input received from the TAC team and engineering considerations the preferred alternative for the two reverse curve alignments would be Alternative B1. While there was no real preferences between the alternatives from the TAC team, both were considered viable alignments, the alignment south of Baseline Road would pass through an area of land subsidence and earth fissures. In addition, consideration has to be given to the provision of a traffic interchange (TI) with US 60. Currently a half‐TI consisting of a partial cloverleaf with ramps to/from the west is proposed. A new study is proposed by ADOT to investigate the provision of additional general purpose lanes along US 60. As part of this study the location of a Meridian Road Corridor Study – Working Paper #2 Evaluation Criteria and Plan for Improvements 28 May 2013 Working Paper #2 Report full interchange will be examined. Preliminary work suggest that the TI will be placed west of the existing Meridian Road bridge and probably line up with the section line south of Baseline Road. VI. Design Features Functional Classification and Typical Cross Section In order to address the needs and purposes of the Meridian Road Corridor Study ADOT, local agencies/jurisdictions and private stakeholders reached a consensus regarding the preferred interim and ultimate facility type, and access control design elements for the corridor. During the second TAC meeting on November 13, 2012, a side‐by‐side comparison of each jurisdiction’s typical design criteria and development standards was carried out in order to develop a typical section for the road, as shown in Table 8. Table 8: Side‐by‐Side Comparison of Roadway Typical Sections Apache Junction Pinal County Maricopa County Mesa Functional Classification Principal Arterial Major Arterial Principal Arterial Arterial No. of Lanes R.O.W. Width 6 150' 6 150' 6 130' Median Width 16' Raised Median 14’ Raised Median 14’ Raised Median Median Lane Width Width b/c – b/c Bike Lane Width 12’ (Portalis) 92’ (Portalis) 0' 10’ (Portalis) 3’ behind curb 13' 101' 6.5’ 8’ 5’ behind curb 14’ 87' 5.5’ 5’ 7’ behind curb 6 130' 11' TWLT 16' Raised Median 11' up to 95’ 4.5' ‐ 6' 6' 9.5' behind curb Sidewalk Width The TAC discussed the differences between the jurisdictions’ criteria and standards and how the different jurisdictions might be able to come to a consensus on which criteria to utilize on Meridian Road. An Ultimate Roadway Cross Section was developed for Meridian Road between Southern Avenue and Germann Road providing a 6‐lane roadway with a 16’ raised median, bike lanes and detached sidewalks as depicted in Figure 16. Figure 16: Ultimate Roadway Cross Section – Southern Avenue to Germann Road Meridian Road Corridor Study – Working Paper #2 Evaluation Criteria and Plan for Improvements 29 May 2013 Working Paper #2 Report A preferred Ultimate Roadway Cross Section was developed for Meridian Road north of Southern Avenue providing a 4‐lane roadway with a 16’ painted or raised median, bike lanes and detached sidewalks as depicted in Figure 17. Figure 17: Ultimate Roadway Cross Section – Lost Dutchman Boulevard to Southern Avenue A preferred Ultimate Roadway Cross Section was developed for Meridian Road between Lost Dutchman Boulevard and McDowell Boulevard providing a two lane road, bike lanes and detached sidewalks as depicted in Figure 18. Figure 18: Ultimate Roadway Cross Section – Lost Dutchman Boulevard to McDowell Boulevard Interim Conditions Planning, design, and construction of the Meridian Road corridor will be driven by development of the adjacent lands. As development occurs it is anticipated that the need for the new roadway will be driven by the traffic demand associated with the trips generated. The Superstition Vistas to the east of Meridian Road will be the driving force for development along this corridor south of Baseline Road. It is difficult to determine where along the alignment the development will occur and will be very dependent on how the economy develops in the near future. While development of a funding plan is outside of the scope of this corridor feasibility study, it is possible that private developers may be able to provide a portion of the funding. It is likely that developers will required to construct a ‘half street’ adjacent to the developed land. Meridian Road Corridor Study – Working Paper #2 Evaluation Criteria and Plan for Improvements 30 May 2013 Working Paper #2 Report However, in areas of public and jurisdictional lands, public funding for right‐of‐way and construction may be needed. The City of Mesa published a transportation plan in 2002 detailing their proposed street plan with suggested priorities for roadway improvements. Meridian Road was classified as a Priority 5 roadway (low priority/long rang) project at that time with improvements scheduled for 2020‐ 2025. However, in order to fund the Light Rail Extension from Mesa Drive to Gilbert Road, Meridian Road was dropped from the MAG’s Arterial Life Cycle Program (ALCP) because the rate of growth was significantly less than predicted. Determining when roadway improvements are required often depends on how and where growth occurs along a traffic corridor. With the current economy this is unpredictable. Construction of the future SR 24 Gateway Freeway will likely serve as a catalyst to roadway improvements along Meridian Road particularly where it crosses south of Williams Field Road. The MAG Regional Transportation Plan stated that construction funding for the Maricopa County portion of the Gateway Freeway is programmed to occur in the 2016‐2020 timeframe. However, funding for the design and construction of a segment of the SR 24 between the Loop 202 and Ellsworth Road was been accelerated. Construction of this segment of the freeway is currently underway and is programmed to be completed in 2013. As previously discussed, the ultimate cross section for Meridian Road is a 6‐lane divided roadway with bike lanes and detached sidewalks. However, until development and traffic volumes warrant the ultimate cross section, interim cross sections were developed based on the results of the roadway segment LOS analysis. Figure 19 shows the recommended interim cross section for Meridian Road between McDowell Boulevard and Lost Dutchman Boulevard. Figure 20 depicts potential interim cross section for Meridian Road between Lost Dutchman Boulevard and Germann Road. Figure 21 depicts potential interim cross section for Meridian Road between Southern Avenue and Germann Road. The only difference between Figure 20 and Figure 21 between Southern Avenue and Germann Road is the median type. The median type will depend on the access control requirements developed and agreed upon by the key agencies. As traffic warrants, a second travel lane can be added in each direction to the interim cross section to obtain the ultimate cross sections. Figure 19: Interim Cross Section: McDowell Boulevard to Lost Dutchman Boulevard Meridian Road Corridor Study – Working Paper #2 Evaluation Criteria and Plan for Improvements 31 May 2013 Working Paper #2 Report Figure 20: Interim Cross Section: Lost Dutchman Boulevard to Germann Road Figure 21: Interim Cross Section: Southern Avenue to Germann Road Phased Construction Near‐Term Improvement Recommendations Based on the traffic analysis results and the projected development patterns, the following improvements are either programmed or recommended for the near‐term (by 2017), although the timing of these improvements will be dependent on the surrounding area development:    The US 60/Meridian Road Traffic Interchange is programmed to be constructed by 2017. The Southern Avenue/Meridian Road intersection is programmed to be signalized by 2017 and widened to accommodate a left‐turn lane and a shared through/right‐turn lane in each direction; and By 2017, Meridian Road is recommended to be extended from Baseline Road to Elliot Road with intersection improvements at Baseline Road, Guadalupe Road and Elliot Road to improve connectivity within the corridor with the addition of programmed improvements. Mid‐Term Improvement Recommendations Based on the development pattern projected by the MAG, the following improvements are anticipated to occur in the mid‐term (2017‐2025), although the timing of these improvements will be dependent on the surrounding area development:  Meridian Road is anticipated to be widened to a three‐lane roadway from Lost Dutchman Boulevard to Southern Avenue; Meridian Road Corridor Study – Working Paper #2 Evaluation Criteria and Plan for Improvements 32 May 2013 Working Paper #2 Report   Meridian Road is anticipated to be widened to a four‐lane divided roadway from Southern Avenue to Elliot Road; and Meridian Road is anticipated to be extended from Warner Road to Germann Road as a four‐ lane divided roadway by 2025 including constructing Meridian Road intersections with Ray Road, Williams Field Road, Pecos Road and Germann Road as well as the SR 24/Meridian Road Traffic Interchange. With the gaps that currently exist in Meridian Road likely to be filled during the mid‐term timeframe, this will result in a continuous arterial with freeway access to US 60. These improvements are anticipated to significantly alter traffic volumes on Meridian Road as well as along some of the adjacent parallel arterials, such as Ironwood Road. Long‐Term Improvement Recommendations Based on the development pattern projected by the MAG, the following improvements are anticipated to occur in the mid‐term (2025‐2035), although the timing of these improvements will be dependent on the surrounding area development:   Meridian Road is anticipated to be widened to a four‐lane roadway from Lost Dutchman Boulevard to Southern Avenue; and The SR 24/Meridian Road Traffic Interchange is anticipated to be constructed by 2035. Ultimate Improvement Recommendations Based on the recommendations from local and regional transportation plans, the following improvement is anticipated to occur in the ultimate condition (beyond 2035), although the timing of these improvements will be dependent on the surrounding area development:  Meridian Road is anticipated to be widened to the full six‐lane cross‐section between Southern Avenue and Germann Road. Existing Right‐of‐Way The existing right‐of‐way does not consistently accommodate the typical right‐of‐way requirements for the desired arterial cross section. Existing right‐of‐way conditions can generally be characterized as follows and is illustrated in Table 9:   McDowell Boulevard to Baseline Road – The existing right‐of‐way through this segment is primarily 33 feet or 50 feet either side of the section line. Research was carried out by David Evans and Associates, Inc. for the City of Apache Junction which indicated that for some sections of the roadway there was documentation demonstrating that right‐of‐way had not been preserved. We have assumed that full right‐of‐way is required in these areas however; further investigation should be carried out to verify this. Baseline Road to Germann Road – The existing right‐of‐way through this section is primarily 65 feet to the west of the section line (Maricopa County) with small sections of 55 feet. To the east of the section line (Pinal County) the area is undeveloped State Trust Land and no right‐of‐way has been preserved at this stage. Meridian Road Corridor Study – Working Paper #2 Evaluation Criteria and Plan for Improvements 33 May 2013 Working Paper #2 Report Required Right‐of‐Way Table 10 illustrates the required right‐of‐way in addition to what is already provided based on the following assumptions:    McDowell Boulevard to Lost Dutchman Road – Two‐lane road with 40 feet of right‐of‐way; Lost Dutchman Road to Southern Avenue – Four‐lane arterial street with 110 feet of right‐of‐ way; and Southern Avenue to Germann Road – Six‐lane arterial street with 130 feet of right‐of‐way. Meridian Road Corridor Study – Working Paper #2 Evaluation Criteria and Plan for Improvements 34 May 2013 Working Paper #2 Report Table 9: Existing Right‐of‐Way Meridian Road Segments From McKellips Boulevard McKellips Boulevard Lost Dutchman Road Lost Dutchman Road Superstition Boulevard Apache Trail West of Centerline (MCDOT) To McDowell Blvd Superstition Boulevard Apache Trail Broadway Avenue Existing Pavement East of Centerline (MCDOT & PCDOT) Width Existing ROW Width 40' North of Canyon St N/A 55' South of Canyon St 55' from 1/2 mile south of McKellips Blvd N/A to Lost Dutchman 50' between Lost Dutchman Rd and Concho Street 33' between Concho Street and Tepee St 33' North of Windsong St 50' between Tepee St and Shiprock St 33' South of Windsong St 33' between Shiprock St and Silverado 55' South of Smoke Tree St Estates 65' South of Silverado Estates 50' between Silverado Estates and Superstition Boulevard 50' for a 300' segment south of Superstition Boulevard None from 300' south of Superstition Boulevard to Gregory Street 50' from Gregory St to Apache Trail 55' Undefined from Apache Trail to 4th Street 55' from 4th St to 220' north of Broadway Road 40' from 220' north of Broadway Rd to Broadway Rd 65' North of Wier Ave 0' South of Wier Ave to Pueblo Ave 55' from Pueblo Ave to Southern Ave Broadway Avenue Southern Avenue Southern Avenue Baseline Road 55' Baseline Road Guadalupe Road 65' Guadalupe Road Elliot Road Elliot Road Warner Road 40' 55' for 1/2 mile south of Guadalupe 65' for 1/2 mile north of Elliot 65' north of Mesquite St 55' south of Mesquite St N/A 65' from 200' north of Renfield Ave 70 ' from 600' north of Warner Road 55' to north of Starkey Ave 65' South of Starkey Ave to 545' north of N/A Ray Rd 75' from 545' north of Ray Rd to Ray Road Ray Road Williams Field Road 65' N/A Williams Field Road Pecos Road 55' N/A 65' from Pecos Road to 565' north of Germann Road N/A 75' for a 565' segment north of Germann Road Meridian Road Corridor Study – Working Paper #2 Evaluation Criteria and Plan for Improvements 35 24' 40' 45' 45' 76' 62' 24' 62' at intersection 65' 26' 0' Broadway Ave to 9th place 50' from 9th place to 16th Avenue 33' from 16th Avenue for 1/4 mile 26' 50' from 1/4 mile south of 16th Street to widens at Southern Avenue intersection 50' 26' No N/A Pavement No N/A Pavement Ray Road Germann Road 24' 65' at intersection Warner Road Pecos Road 24' 36' 32' No Pavement No Pavement No Pavement No Pavement No Pavement May 2013 Working Paper #2 Report Table 10: Right‐of‐Way Requirement Meridian Road Segments From To ROW Width Required West of Centerline (MCDOT) East of Centerline (PCDOT) 40' McKellips Boulevard None None from McKellips to 1/2 mile south McKellips Boulevard Lost Dutchman Road 40' from 1/2 mile south of McKellips Blvd 40' to Lost Dutchman 5' between Lost Dutchman Rd and Concho Street 22' between Concho Street and Tepee St 5' between Tepee St and Shiprock St 22' North of Smoketree Steet Superstition 22' between Shiprock St and Silverado Lost Dutchman Road None South of Smoketree Street Boulevard Estates 5' between Silverado Estates and Superstition Boulevard McDowell Road Superstition Boulevard Apache Trail Apache Trail Broadway Avenue None to 350' north of Apache Trail  55' for 350' north of Apache Trail 55' from Apache Trail to 4th Street None from 4th St to 220' north of Broadway Road 10' from 220' north of Broadway Rd to Broadway Rd 5' for a 300' segment south of Superstition Boulevard 55' from 300' south of Superstition Boulevard to Gregory Street 55' from Gregory St to Apache Trail Required Pavement Width 40' 40' 76' 72' 72' 72' 72' 76' 76' 76' 76' 76' 15' 76' 55' Broadway Ave to 9th place 5' from 9th Place to 16th Avenue 22' from 16th Avenue for 1/4 mile 76' 5' from 1/4 mile south of 16th Street to Southern Avenue 15' 104' 65' 104' Broadway Avenue Southern Avenue None North of Wier Ave 55' South of Wier Ave to Puelo Ave None between Pueblo Ave to Southern Ave Southern Avenue Baseline Road Baseline Road Guadalupe Road 10' None Guadalupe Road Elliot Road None except for a 1/2 mile section south 65' of Guadalupe Road where 10' is required 104' Elliot Road Warner Road None except for a 1/4 mile section south 65' of Mesquite St where 10' is required 104' Warner Road Ray Road Williams Field Road Pecos Road 10' from Warner Rd to Starkey Ave None from Starke Ave to Ray Rd Williams Field Road None 10' Pecos Road Germann Road None Ray Road 65' 104' 65' 65' 65' 104' 104' 104' Cost Estimate Preliminary cost estimates for roadway construction and right‐of‐way acquisition were prepared for the corridor alternatives. This section summarizes the cost estimate for the recommended alternative, and the methodology used to develop the order of magnitude estimate. Table 11 presents the order of magnitude cost estimate for the northern section of the corridor plus the alternatives for the southern section of the corridor. Detailed estimates for the corridor alternative may be found in Appendix C. Meridian Road Corridor Study – Working Paper #2 Evaluation Criteria and Plan for Improvements 36 May 2013 Working Paper #2 Report Table 11: Summary of Corridor Segment Estimates Southern Section Alternatives Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Phased Construction Near‐Term $ ‐$ ‐ $5,210,947 $5,210,947 Mid/Long‐Term $20,344,040 $ ‐ $25,613,040 $28,956,720 Ultimate $ ‐$ ‐ $11,394,480 $12,524,640 Total Cost (Northern plus Southern) $ ‐ $62,562,507 $67,036,347 Northern Section Alternative 4 $5,210,947 $25,613,040 $11,394,480 $62,562,507 The methodologies used to determine the quantity and costs for each item listed in the estimate are described below:        Pavement – New pavement quantities were determined by multiplying the pavement width from the typical cross section of the proposed roadway by the total length of the corridor segment. The unit of measurement is square yards and the costs are based on recent ADOT construction bids. Earthwork and Drainage ‐ A vertical alignment was not developed for the corridor with this study. Consequently, cost estimates for earthwork are based on length of roadway and anticipated terrain characteristics. The cost for Earthwork and Drainage were based on similar projects with a profile designed at or near existing grade. Earthwork percentage was 25% of new pavement costs while 15% of the new pavement costs were used to estimate Drainage costs. Structures – Based on size of structure needed to cross Powerline Floodway. Maintenance of Traffic, Lighting, Signing, Signals, Utilities, & Incidental Work – Costs for these items were based on a percentage of the subtotal generated from the items listed above. Right‐of‐Way Acquisition – Right‐of‐way costs of $20,000 per acre (based on costs used in the Signal Butte Corridor Improvement Study, Elliot Road Corridor Improvement Study and Meridian Road Access Control and Corridor Improvement Study). Design and Construction Management – An estimate of 25 percent was used which include design and construction management. Contingency ‐ An estimate of 25 percent of the total costs, including right‐of‐way acquisition, was used given the macro scale design effort of this corridor study. Table 12 presents the itemized cost estimate for the near‐term improvements of the Meridian Road Corridor. Table 13 and Table 14 presents the itemized cost estimate for the northern segment of the Meridian Road Corridor between McDowell Boulevard and Southern Avenue for under the mid‐term and long‐term recommendations, respectively. Table 15 and Table 16 present the itemized cost estimate for the southern segment’s preferred Meridian Road Corridor between Southern Avenue and Germann Road under the mid/long‐term and ultimate recommendations, respectively. The near‐term, mid‐term, long‐term and ultimate phasing recommendations are described in further detail under section Phased Construction. Meridian Road Corridor Study – Working Paper #2 Evaluation Criteria and Plan for Improvements 37 May 2013 Working Paper #2 Report Table 12: Itemized Cost Estimate for Near‐Term Recommendations Item ‐ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Item Description Unit (Segment Length) MILES New Pavement SY Earthwork LSUM Drainage LSUM Structures LSUM Maintenance of Traffic LSUM Lighting LSUM Signing/Signals LSUM Utilities LSUM Incidental Work LSUM Total Construction Cost = ROW Acquisition ACRE Design & Construction Management LSUM Contingency LSUM Order of Magnitude Project Cost = Unit Price ‐ $32.00 N/A N/A $500,000.00 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Quantity 2 46934 25% of Item 1 15% of Item 1 0 $ 10% of Items 1‐3 5% of Items 1‐3 15% of Items 1‐3 5% of Items 1‐3 15% of Items 1‐3 $20,000.00 N/A N/A 16 25% of Item 1‐10 25% of Item 1‐10 Total ‐ $1,501,888 $375,472 $225,283 ‐ $210,264 $105,132 $315,396 $105,132 $315,396 $3,153,965 $320,000 $868,491 $868,491 $5,210,947 * Cost excludes Meridian Road TI and Southern Avenue intersection improvements Table 13: Itemized Cost Estimate for the Northern Segment under Mid‐Term Recommendations: McDowell Boulevard to Southern Avenue Item ‐ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Item Description Unit (Segment Length) MILES New Pavement SY Earthwork LSUM Drainage LSUM Structures LSUM Maintenance of Traffic LSUM Lighting LSUM Signing/Signals LSUM Utilities LSUM Incidental Work LSUM Total Construction Cost = ROW Acquisition ACRE Design & Construction Management LSUM Contingency LSUM Order of Magnitude Project Cost = Meridian Road Corridor Study – Working Paper #2 Evaluation Criteria and Plan for Improvements 38 Unit Price ‐ $32.00 N/A N/A $500,000.00 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Quantity 5.5 129067 5% of Item 1 15% of Item 1 0 $ 10% of Items 1‐3 1% of Items 1‐3 10% of Items 1‐3 15% of Items 1‐3 15% of Items 1‐3 $20,000.00 N/A N/A 25 25% of Item 1‐10 25% of Item 1‐10 Total ‐ $4,130,144 $206,507 $619,522 ‐ $495,617 $49,562 $495,617 $743,426 $743,426 $7,483,821 $500,000 $1,995,955 $1,995,955 $11,975,731 May 2013 Working Paper #2 Report Table 14: Itemized Cost Estimate for the Northern Segment under Long‐Term Recommendations: McDowell Boulevard to Southern Avenue Item ‐ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Item Description Unit (Segment Length) MILES New Pavement SY Earthwork LSUM Drainage LSUM Structures LSUM Maintenance of Traffic LSUM Lighting LSUM Signing/Signals LSUM Utilities LSUM Incidental Work LSUM Total Construction Cost = ROW Acquisition ACRE Design & Construction Management LSUM Contingency LSUM Order of Magnitude Project Cost = Unit Price ‐ $32.00 N/A N/A $500,000.00 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Quantity 5.5 96214 5% of Item 1 15% of Item 1 0 $ 10% of Items 1‐3 1% of Items 1‐3 10% of Items 1‐3 15% of Items 1‐3 15% of Items 1‐3 $20,000.00 N/A N/A 0 $ 25% of Item 1‐10 25% of Item 1‐10 Total ‐ $3,078,848 $153,942 $461,827 ‐ $369,462 $36,946 $369,462 $554,193 $554,193 $5,578,873 ‐ $1,394,718 $1,394,718 $8,368,309 Table 15: Itemized Cost Estimate for the Preferred Corridor under Mid/Long‐Term Recommendations: Southern Avenue to Germann Road Item ‐ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Item Description Unit (Segment Length) MILES New Pavement SY Earthwork LSUM Drainage LSUM Structures LSUM Maintenance of Traffic LSUM Lighting LSUM Signing/Signals LSUM Utilities LSUM Incidental Work LSUM Total Construction Cost = ROW Acquisition ACRE Design & Construction Management LSUM Contingency LSUM Order of Magnitude Project Cost = Meridian Road Corridor Study – Working Paper #2 Evaluation Criteria and Plan for Improvements 39 Unit Price ‐ $32.00 N/A N/A $500,000.00 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Quantity 7.5 228800 25% of Item 1 15% of Item 1 1 10% of Items 1‐3 5% of Items 1‐3 15% of Items 1‐3 5% of Items 1‐3 15% of Items 1‐3 $20,000.00 N/A N/A 60 25% of Item 1‐10 25% of Item 1‐10 Total ‐ $7,321,600 $1,830,400 $1,098,240 $500,000 $1,025,024 $512,512 $1,537,536 $512,512 $1,537,536 $15,875,360 $1,200,000 $4,268,840 $4,268,840 $25,613,040 May 2013 Working Paper #2 Report Table 16: Itemized Cost Estimate for the Preferred Corridor under Ultimate Recommendations: Southern Avenue to Germann Road Item ‐ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Item Description Unit (Segment Length) MILES New Pavement SY Earthwork LSUM Drainage LSUM Structures LSUM Maintenance of Traffic LSUM Lighting LSUM Signing/Signals LSUM Utilities LSUM Incidental Work LSUM Total Construction Cost = ROW Acquisition ACRE Design & Construction Management LSUM Contingency LSUM Order of Magnitude Project Cost = Unit Price ‐ $32.00 N/A N/A $500,000.00 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Quantity 7.5 105600 25% of Item 1 15% of Item 1 1 10% of Items 1‐3 5% of Items 1‐3 15% of Items 1‐3 5% of Items 1‐3 15% of Items 1‐3 $20,000.00 N/A N/A 0 $ 25% of Item 1‐10 25% of Item 1‐10 Total ‐ $3,379,200 $844,800 $506,880 $500,000 $473,088 $236,544 $709,632 $236,544 $709,632 $7,596,320 ‐ $1,899,080 $1,899,080 $11,394,480 East Mesa Area Drainage Master Plan (ADMP) The East Mesa Area Drainage Master Plan (ADMP) Update was initiated in spring 2012 and will be completed in fall 2013. The ADMP Update has identified the need for a drainage facility along the Meridian Road alignment (from Powerline Floodway to Queen Creek Road) to intercept runoff from Pinal County. The preliminary estimates for the right‐of‐way required for the earthen channel (and associated aesthetic features) ranges from 102’ – 144’. The proposed channel is sized for the 100‐year event. The draft preferred location for the channel (as of May 2013) is adjacent to the east right‐of‐way line of the Meridian Road alignment.The ADMP project area is shown in Figure 22. Existing right‐of‐way has been secured along portions of the Maricopa County side of Meridian Road section line. This right‐of‐way would be sufficient for the future road but additional land will be required for the combined roadway and channel. To the east of the section line there is vacant land which is held in trust and is administered by ASLD. Based on the typical roadway and channel cross sections for Meridian Road, the overall combined roadway and channel width along Meridian Road would be relatively high (approximately 260 feet) due to the inclusion of landscaping and other aesthetic treatments. ASLD would seek to achieve a balance between aesthetics enhancements with associated greater land requirements and straight, narrow channels with minimal aesthetics. The current policy when right‐of‐way is required along State Trust Land is to share the burden equally with adjacent landowners. Extenuating circumstances, e.g., the desire to avoid condemnation proceedings against existing developments may warrant a deviation from the current policy, but such deviation would require careful study. Meridian Road Corridor Study – Working Paper #2 Evaluation Criteria and Plan for Improvements 40 May 2013 Working Paper #2 Report Discussions were held with ASLD and other local agencies regarding the coordination of the two facilities and where best to place the roadway and channel.    Placing the channel adjacent to the roadway similar to Indian Bend Wash in Scottsdale, AZ; Detaching the channel upstream of the roadway behind future development to be possibly used as an open space facility similar to DC Ranch in Scottsdale, AZ; and Relocate both the roadway and the channel east about 1,100 feet to line up with the north section line of Meridian Road, similar to Indian Bend Wash in Scottsdale, AZ. ASLD had concerns about future development on State Trust Land. Since development patterns cannot be predicted, the construction of a channel or roadway that deviates from the section line could reduce rather than enhance property values when land is offered for sale. Consensus was reached that the roadway would stay on the section line even though the location of the flood control facility has yet to be determined at this time. Maricopa County Flood Control District is continuing discussions with ASLD and Pinal County Flood Control District. It was concluded that the combined footprint of the channel and the roadway should be refined/reduced as much as possible if this was the alternative carried forward. Shared right of way for multi‐use pathway is an option to concider. Each facility would independently provide sidewalks or pathways and the contiguous facilities could share tat amenity thus reducing the total right of way requirements. Figure 23 depicts a possible cross section for the combined roadway and channel. The flood control study is due to be completed in the summer 2013. At such time selected alternatives will be presented following further discussions with stakeholder and the public. Meridian Road Corridor Study – Working Paper #2 Evaluation Criteria and Plan for Improvements 41 May 2013 Working Paper #2 Report Figure 22: East Mesa ADMP Alternative Overview Figure 23: Roadway/Channel Combined Cross Section Meridian Road Corridor Study – Working Paper #2 Evaluation Criteria and Plan for Improvements 42 May 2013 Working Paper #2 Report Access Management The efficiency and safety of a street is dependent on the number and type of obstructions affecting vehicles moving along the facility. Side friction are caused on most streets by vehicles entering, leaving or crossing the road at intersecting streets and driveways. Effective access management programs control the number of driveways and vehicular curb cuts, remove slower turning vehicles, and reduce the number of vehicular conflict points. In order to assure the best overall use of the facility by the public, it is necessary to regulate vehicle movements in and out of adjoining developments and cross streets. Controlling access improves mobility and is linked to the function of a particular roadway. Low volume, low speed facilities (such as local roads) serve to provide direct and frequent access to properties. Roadways with higher speeds and higher traffic volumes serve to provide mobility and restrict direct access to adjacent land uses, such as freeways which are completely access controlled. The amount of appropriate access is related to the level of mobility and specific function of a road as illustrated in Figure 24. Figure 24: Access versus Mobility for a Given Roadway According to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Access Management Web site (http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/access_mgmt/index.htm), “access management” is the proactive management of vehicular access points to land parcels adjacent to all manner of roadways. The FHWA identifies five key techniques that state and local governments can use to control access to highways, major arterials, and other roadways:     Access Spacing: increasing the distance between traffic signals improves the flow of traffic on major arterials, reduces congestion, and improves air quality for heavily traveled corridors. Driveway Spacing: fewer driveways spaced further apart allow for more orderly merging of traffic and presents fewer challenges to drivers. Safe Turning Lanes: dedicated left‐ and right‐turn, indirect left‐turns and U‐turns, and roundabouts keep through‐traffic flowing. Roundabouts present an opportunity to reduce an intersection with many conflict points or a severe crash history (T‐bone crashes) to one that operates with fewer conflict points and less severe crashes (sideswipes) if they occur. Median Treatments: two‐way left‐turn lanes (TWLTL) and non‐traversable, raised medians are examples of some of the most effective means to regulate access and reduce crashes. Meridian Road Corridor Study – Working Paper #2 Evaluation Criteria and Plan for Improvements 43 May 2013 Working Paper #2 Report  Right‐of‐Way Management: as it pertains to right‐of‐way preservation for future widening, good sight distance, access location, and other access‐related issues. The result of combining all these techniques of best practices of access management has benefits for motorists, bicyclists, pedestrians, transit riders, business people, government agencies, and communities. The desired outcomes of access management are highways that:         Are safer for vehicular, pedestrian traffic and bicycle safety; Increase roadway capacity; Allow motorists to operate vehicles with fewer delays, less fuel consumption, and fewer emissions; Provide reasonable access to properties; Maintain their functional integrity and efficiency, helping to protect the investment of taxpayer dollars; Improve customer safety and convenience, providing more efficient freight movement, and raising property values; Reflect coordination between land use and transportation decisions; and Are used for the purposes (functions) for which they are designed. Access Management Recommendations Access management guidelines from the various agencies were reviewed to establish the access management strategy for the Meridian Road Corridor. This can be accomplished by establishing a program of legal, administrative, and technical strategies with the appropriate balance between property access and the need to control access to serve public need. Ideally, these strategies will be implemented through planning practices, rules, engineering standards, and procedures resulting in access decisions that successfully, fairly, and consistently determine access management for each unique situation. Table 17 summarizes the access control within the study corridor. Meridian Road Corridor Study – Working Paper #2 Evaluation Criteria and Plan for Improvements 44 May 2013 Meridian Road Corridor Study – Working Paper #2 Evaluation Criteria and Plan for Improvements 45 ¼ mile and ½ mile locations fully coordinated and progressed where warranted Signalized, four‐way stop 100 feet from intersection Grade Separated Interchange Spacing Grade Separated Interchange Type Frontage Road On‐Street Parking City of Mesa City of Apache Junction 660 feet 660 feet One mile location where warranted May include SPUI or tight diamond if warranted and feasible Possible Prohibited May include SPUI or tight diamond if warranted and feasible Possible Prohibited MCDOT No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data 65 feet to 330 feet dependent on land use 115 feet 230 feet ¼ mile minimum, preferably ½ mile Signalized, four‐way stop 85 feet from intersection No Data No Data No Data 880 feet 880 feet 60 feet (min) ¼ mile and ½ mile locations fully coordinated and progressed where warranted Signalized, four‐way stop 100 feet from intersection Between ⅛ and ⅙ mile and between ⅓ and ½ mile locations fully coordinated and progressed where warranted Signalized, four‐way stop 100 feet from intersection One mile location where warranted 165 feet to 330 feet Traffic Signal Spacing Typical Traffic Control Access Driveway Full Access Driveway from 660 feet Signal Partial; Access Driveway 330 feet from Signal Driveway spacing Pinal County Divided with full or directional median Divided with full or directional median Divided with full or directional median Divided with full or directional median openings at ¼ mile spacing openings at ⅙ mile spacing openings at ⅙ mile spacing openings at ⅛ mile spacing Table 18: Access Jurisdiction (for Medians Access Control Feature Table 17: Access Control Guidelines per Jurisdiction (for Urban Arterial Roads) Working Paper #2 Report Control Guidelines per Urban Arterial Roads) May 2013 Working Paper #2 Report As an arterial street, Meridian Road must accommodate traffic operations and a moderate level of property access while promoting safety of travel. To accomplish these goals recommendations on intersection, driveway and median placement are set out below. Intersection Spacing Meridian Road is part of an arterial street grid system. Therefore, it is encouraged to restrict signalized intersections to the half‐mile and mile locations only. It is recommended that each intersection be constructed to its ultimate configuration including dedicated left and right turn lanes where practical. Non‐signalized intersections should be placed a minimum of 660 feet apart. Opportunities to consolidate non‐signalized intersections with less than 660 feet of separation should be considered. Driveway Locations It is recommended that access be limited for new residential driveways along the Meridian Road Corridor. Future residential developments shall be encouraged to tie directly into east‐west collector or minor arterial roadways that connect to Meridian Road. Median Locations Raised medians provide access control and improve safety and operations by minimizing midblock left turns. Median openings may allow for full or partial turning movement access. Full access allows for left turns into and out of an adjacent site. Partial access allows for left turns from the street to an adjacent site only. Care should be taken to limit the number of median openings so as not to defeat the purpose of the raised median. In general, full access median openings may be provided at sixth‐mile increments (880 feet). Additional median openings should be the partial access type. Median openings are not recommended less than 660 feet from an arterial‐to‐arterial intersection. Additional Recommendations Adequate sight distance shall be provided at all driveways and intersections. Right‐of‐way preservation should begin as early as possible. The agencies should develop and implement right‐of‐way preservation plans to protect future right‐of‐way needs and facilitate future access management policies. The majority of the land adjacent to the southern half of the Meridian Road Corridor is currently undeveloped. The agencies may want to require developers to dedicate a controlled vehicular access easement in addition to the ultimate right‐of‐way to help enforce access control guidelines. Evaluation of Non‐Motorized Modes of Transportation Alternative modes of transportation, such as sidewalks, bike paths/routes, and trails (including equestrian), are an important aspect of the multimodal transportation network as they provide mobility for those not able to operate or without access to a vehicle and also for recreational purpose. Very limited sidewalks and bike paths exist within the study corridor. Therefore, the provision of a safe, inviting pedestrian/bicycle environment is a crucial part of multi‐modal street design. A well‐designed pedestrian/bicycle environment provides the following:  Continuous, interconnected pedestrian/bike travel corridors; Meridian Road Corridor Study – Working Paper #2 Evaluation Criteria and Plan for Improvements 46 May 2013 Working Paper #2 Report     Convenient pedestrian/bike access between commercial and residential land uses; Convenient access to transit facilities; A physical buffer between adjacent land uses and noise from street traffic; and Visually interesting and inviting public spaces for exercise and social interaction. Providing access to activity centers such as schools, shopping centers, and post offices is a vital part of multi‐modal street design. Within the study area there is very limited bike paths and bike lanes in both the more urban and rural areas. Portions of the study area to the east and the north consist of State and federal lands which are home to several equestrian, hiking, and multi‐ use trails. Access to these trails is essential to improve recreational use of these existing facilities. Both the City of Mesa and the City of Apache Junction have already prepared preliminary plans to expand the pedestrian, bicycle, and trails (including equestrian) facilities throughout the study area. Pedestrian‐oriented design embodies the notion that transportation and land use planning must be linked to provide a safe and convenient walking environment. This can be characterized by the creation of attractive, interesting places for people to gather, accessible sidewalks and walking paths, as well as protection from auto traffic. The pedestrian plan provides an environment where walking is enjoyable and convenient for people of all ages. All trips have a pedestrian component. People must walk from their car to their destination or from their home to the bus stop and from the bus stop to their destination. Recommendations for future pedestrian improvements focus on improving the accessibility and convenience of the overall pedestrian environment. To accomplish this it is important to include pedestrian sidewalks either adjacent or detached from the new roadway improvements. Furthermore, these facilities should connect to existing facilities to provide the continuous network. As with pedestrian facilities, to ensure that bicycling is a viable choice of travel, it is important to provide a bicycle system that offers a continuous, integrated network of routes, lanes, and shared‐use paths. Providing well‐delineated space for cyclists approaching intersections helps improve continuity of the overall bicycle network. Currently Apache Junction’s Comprehensive Transportation Syudy recommends a potential regional trail connection from Meridain Road into the trail system within Usery Mountain Rcreation Area along with a regional bike lane and multi‐use path aloing Baseline Road but nothing connecting to Meridian Road. Mesa do propose bike lanes for the full length of Meriadina Road between Baseline Road and Germann road. Evaluation of Transit Needs Transit will play an increasingly important role in the regional transportation system. The need for a reliable transportation alternative is an important element in order to seamlessly connect all cities and towns within the County to both Pinal and Maricopa transit lines. There is a tremendous need to provide a variety of transportation options, given population growth Meridian Road Corridor Study – Working Paper #2 Evaluation Criteria and Plan for Improvements 47 May 2013 Working Paper #2 Report projections for the region. Improved transit service through expanded coverage and increased frequency, combined with the implementation of transit priority measures, will attract new riders and provide transportation alternatives. Many existing transit riders are transit dependent. Improved transit service through expanded coverage and increased frequency, combined with the implementation of transit priority measures, will attract new discretionary riders. Maricopa Association of Governments Regional Transportation Plan 2010 Update does not include any long range transit routes for Meridian Road in any of its systems. So there is no regional funding dedicated to public transportation in the Meridian Road Corridor. Valley Metro gets funding from the transportation excise tax through MAG for public transportation in addition to whatever local or federal funding they also receive. However, it is unlikely that Valley Metro plans public transportation in the Meridian Road Corridor. The City of Mesa has developed long range plans that make recommendations to provide a full range of transit technologies including local bus, express bus/bus rapid transit (BRT), circulators, transit priority corridors, light rail transit, and commuter rail. At present none of these include Meridian Road. The City of Apache Junction Comprehensive Transportation Study makes recommendations for the inclusion of a new and improved route along Meridian Road. At present these do not extend south of Southern Avenue. A “Link” bus rapid transit connection from the Transit Hub to the end of the Metro light rail line in Mesa is also recommended within the study along with a diesel‐ powered “Sprinter” light rail vehicle connecting with the electrified Metro system. Furthermore, te report states that these services could also be supplemented by “Rapid” commuter bus service operating over US 60 into the downtown Phoenix area. To summarize, the focus of the transit improvements should be to improve riders experience and manage system growth to attract new ridership and promote multimodal travel. It is recommended that transit improvements include new and better services along Meridain Road through increased frequency, enhanced accessibility, and coordinated multimodal mobility. There are also opportunities to include bus shelters and bus pull‐outs in the new roadway improvements along with a plan for the provision of Park and Ride lots at US 60 and/or SR 24. Meridian Road Corridor Study – Working Paper #2 Evaluation Criteria and Plan for Improvements 48 May 2013 APPENDIX A EXCERPTS FROM 2009 QUALITY/LEVEL OF SERVICE HANDBOOK Michael Baker Jr., Inc. Phoenix, Arizona 2009 9 Q Quality/Level /L of S Service 2009 Handbook 2009 StateofFlorida DepartmentofTransportation Generalized Annual Average Daily Volumes for Florida’s TABLE 1 Urbanized Areas1 10/4/10 STATE SIGNALIZED ARTERIALS FREEWAYS Class I (>0.00 to 1.99 signalized intersections per mile) Lanes 2 4 6 8 Median Undivided Divided Divided Divided B 9,600 29,300 45,000 60,800 C D E 15,400 35,500 53,700 71,800 16,500 36,700 55,300 73,800 *** *** *** *** B Lanes 4 6 8 10 12 43,500 65,300 87,000 108,700 149,300 Median Undivided Divided Divided Divided B C D E ** ** ** ** 10,500 25,000 39,000 53,100 15,200 33,200 50,300 67,300 16,200 35,100 53,100 70,900 Class III/IV (more than 4.5 signalized intersections per mile) Lanes 2 4 6 8 Median Undivided Divided Divided Divided D E 73,600 110,300 146,500 184,000 238,600 79,400 122,700 166,000 209,200 252,500 Freeway Adjustments Class II (2.00 to 4.50 signalized intersections per mile) Lanes 2 4 6 8 C 59,800 90,500 120,100 151,700 202,100 Auxiliary Lanes + 20,000 Ramp Metering + 5% UNINTERRUPTED FLOW HIGHWAYS Lanes 2 Median Undivided B C D E 4 Divided ** ** ** ** 5,100 12,600 19,700 27,000 11,900 28,200 43,700 59,500 14,900 31,900 48,200 64,700 6 Divided B C D E 7,800 34,300 51,500 15,600 49,600 74,400 22,200 64,300 96,400 27,900 72,800 109,400 Uninterrupted Flow Highway Adjustments Lanes 2 Multi Multi Median Divided Undivided Undivided Exclusive left lanes Yes Yes No Adjustment factors +5% -5% -25% Non-State Signalized Roadway Adjustments BICYCLE MODE2 (Alter corresponding state volumes by the indicated percent.) (Multiply motorized vehicle volumes shown below by number of directional roadway lanes to determine two-way maximum service volumes.) Paved Shoulder/ Bicycle Lane B C D E Coverage ** 3,200 12,100 >12,100 0-49% 2,400 3,700 >3,700 *** 50-84% 6,300 >6,300 *** *** 85-100% Major City/County Roadways Other Signalized Roadways - 10% - 35% State & Non-State Signalized Roadway Adjustments (Alter corresponding state volumes by the indicated percent.) Divided/Undivided & Turn Lane Adjustments Lanes 2 2 Multi Multi Median Divided Undivided Undivided Undivided – – Exclusive Left Lanes Exclusive Right Lanes Yes No Yes No – No No No No Yes Adjustment Factors +5% -20% -5% -25% + 5% One-Way Facility Adjustment Multiply the corresponding two-directional volumes in this table by 0.6. PEDESTRIAN MODE2 (Multiply motorized vehicle volumes shown below by number of directional roadway lanes to determine two-way maximum service volumes.) Sidewalk Coverage 0-49% 50-84% 85-100% B ** ** ** C ** ** 11,400 D 5,000 11,300 18,800 E 14,400 18,800 >18,800 BUS MODE (Scheduled Fixed Route)3 (Buses in peak hour in peak direction) B C D Sidewalk Coverage >5 >4 >3 0-84% >4 >3 >2 85-100% E >2 >1 1 Values shown are presented as two-way annual average daily volumes for levels of service and are for the automobile/truck modes unless specifically stated. Although presented as daily volumes, they actually represent peak hour direction conditions with applicable K and D factors applied. This table does not constitute a standard and should be used only for general planning applications. The computer models from which this table is derived should be used for more specific planning applications. The table and deriving computer models should not be used for corridor or intersection design, where more refined techniques exist. Calculations are based on planning applications of the Highway Capacity Manual, Bicycle LOS Model, Pedestrian LOS Model and Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, respectively for the automobile/truck, bicycle, pedestrian and bus modes. 2 Level of service for the bicycle and pedestrian modes in this table is based on number of motorized vehicles, not number of bicyclists or pedestrians using the facility. 3 Buses per hour shown are only for the peak hour in the single direction of the higher traffic flow. ** Cannot be achieved using table input value defaults. *** Not applicable for that level of service letter grade. For the automobile mode, volumes greater than level of service D become F because intersection capacities have been reached. For the bicycle mode, the level of service letter grade (including F) is not achievable because there is no maximum vehicle volume threshold using table input value defaults. www.dot.state.fl.us/planning/systems/sm/los/default.shtm Source: Florida Department of Transportation Systems Planning Office 605 Suwannee Street, MS 19 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0450 2009 FDOT QUALITY/LEVEL OF SERVICE HANDBOOK Generalized Annual Average Daily Volumes for Florida’s Urbanized Areas TABLE 1 (continued) Uninterrupted Flow Facilities INPUT VALUE ASSUMPTIONS 9/4/09 Interrupted Flow Facilities State Arterials Class II Bus Pedestrian Bicycle Class III Class II Class I Highways Freeways ROADWAY CHARACTERISTICS Area type (l,o) l Number of through lanes 4-12 Posted speed (mph) 65 Free flow speed (mph) 70 Aux, meter, or accel/decel >1500 (n,y) n Median (n, nr, r) Terrain (l,r) l % no passing zone Exclusive left turn lanes /[impact](n, y) Exclusive right turn lanes (n, y) Paved shoulder/bicycle lane (n, y) Outside lane width Pavement condition Sidewalk (n, y) Sidewalk/roadway separation (a, t, w) Sidewalk protective barrier (n, y) Obstacle to bus stop (n, y) Facility length (mi) 4 Number of segments 4 l 2 50 55 l 4-6 50 55 l 2 45 50 l 4-8 50 55 l 2 45 50 l 4-8 45 50 l 2 35 40 l 4-8 35 40 l 4 45 50 l 4 45 50 n l 80 [n] r l n r n r n r r r y y n y n y n y n y n y n y n n, 50%,y t t y n n t l n, 50%,y t n 5 5 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0.094 0.55 0.925 1700 2.0 1.0 0.094 0.55 0.925 2100 2.0 0.98 0.097 0.55 0.925 1950 2.0 0.097 0.55 0.925 1950 2.0 0.097 0.55 0.925 1950 2.0 0.097 0.55 0.925 1950 2.0 0.097 0.55 0.925 1950 1.5 0.097 0.55 0.925 1950 1.5 0.097 0.55 0.925 1950 2.0 0.097 0.55 0.925 1950 2.0 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 n,y n 2 TRAFFIC CHARACTERISTICS Planning analysis hour factor (K) Directional distribution factor (D) Peak hour factor (PHF) Base saturation flow rate (pcphpl) Heavy vehicle percent Local adjustment factor % left turns % right turns Bus span of service 0.092 0.55 0.95 4.0 0.98 15 CONTROL CHARACTERISTICS Number of signals Arrival type (1-6) Signal type (a, s, p) Cycle length (C) Effective green ratio (g/C) Freeways Level of 2 3 a 120 0.44 2 3 a 120 0.44 6 4 s 120 0.44 6 4 s 120 0.44 10 4 s 120 0.44 LEVEL OF SERVICE THRESHOLDS State & Non-State Signalized Arterials Highway Segments Two-Lane Multilane Class I Class II 10 4 s 120 0.44 6 4 s 120 0.44 6 4 s 120 0.44 Bicycle Pedestrian Bus Class III Service Density %ffs Density ats ats ats Score Score Buses per hr. B C D E ”7 ”4 ”1 ”39 >0.833 >0.750 >0.667 >0.583 ” ” ” ” > 34 mph > 27 mph > 21 mph > 16 mph > 28 mph > 22 mph > 17 mph > 13 mph > 24 mph > 18 mph > 14 mph > 10 mph ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” •4 •3 •2 •1 % ffs = Percent free flow speed ats = Average travel speed 2009 FDOT QUALITY/LEVEL OF SERVICE HANDBOOK APPENDIX B 2025 LOS REPORTS 2035 LOS REPORTS Michael Baker Jr., Inc. Phoenix, Arizona HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 11: University Drive & Meridain Road Movement Lane Configurations Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay HCM Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group 2025 AM 2/4/2013 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR 13 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.58 1079 0.90 14 0 14 Perm 736 1900 4.0 0.95 0.96 1.00 3395 1.00 3395 0.90 818 64 1060 275 1900 109 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.20 370 0.90 121 0 121 Perm 188 1900 4.0 0.95 0.96 1.00 3403 1.00 3403 0.90 209 29 252 65 1900 85 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.65 1210 0.90 94 0 94 Perm 89 1900 4.0 0.95 0.92 1.00 3245 1.00 3245 0.90 99 90 132 111 1900 134 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.61 1142 0.90 149 0 149 Perm 146 1900 4.0 0.95 1.00 1.00 3539 1.00 3539 0.90 162 0 162 0 1900 4 36.0 36.0 0.60 4.0 647 0.01 0.02 4.9 1.00 0.1 4.9 A 0.90 306 0 0 4 8 36.0 36.0 0.60 4.0 222 36.0 36.0 0.60 4.0 2037 0.31 c0.33 0.55 7.1 1.00 9.3 16.4 B 0.52 7.0 1.00 1.0 7.9 A 7.9 A 10.8 0.53 60.0 62.0% 15 Meridian Road 2012 AM Peak Hour 5:00 pm 5/22/2012 Existing BAKER 0.90 72 0 0 8 36.0 36.0 0.60 4.0 2042 0.07 0.12 5.2 1.00 0.1 5.3 A 8.7 A 2 16.0 16.0 0.27 4.0 323 0.08 0.29 17.5 0.89 2.1 17.7 B 0.90 123 0 0 2 6 16.0 16.0 0.27 4.0 305 16.0 16.0 0.27 4.0 865 0.04 c0.13 0.49 18.5 1.00 5.5 24.1 C 0.15 16.8 0.77 0.4 13.4 B 14.7 B HCM Level of Service B Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service 8.0 B 6 16.0 16.0 0.27 4.0 944 0.05 0.90 0 0 0 Perm 6 0.17 16.9 1.00 0.4 17.3 B 20.5 C Synchro 7 - Report Page 2 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 17: Apache Trail & Meridain Road Movement Lane Configurations Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS 2025 AM 2/4/2013 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR 24 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.25 466 0.90 27 0 27 pm+pt 7 4 20.0 20.0 0.33 4.0 242 0.01 0.03 0.11 13.8 1.00 0.9 14.8 B 999 1900 4.0 0.91 0.98 1.00 4998 1.00 4998 0.90 1110 27 1227 130 1900 186 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.24 438 0.90 207 0 207 pm+pt 3 8 22.0 22.0 0.37 4.0 272 c0.06 0.22 0.76 15.1 1.00 18.0 33.1 C 887 1900 4.0 0.91 1.00 1.00 5085 1.00 5085 0.90 986 0 986 140 1900 4.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1583 1.00 1583 0.90 156 112 44 Perm 144 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.29 546 0.90 160 0 160 pm+pt 5 2 23.0 23.0 0.38 4.0 352 0.05 0.12 0.45 12.8 1.00 4.2 17.0 B 266 1900 4.0 0.95 0.94 1.00 3327 1.00 3327 0.90 296 144 349 177 1900 276 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.37 692 0.90 307 0 307 pm+pt 1 6 23.0 23.0 0.38 4.0 391 c0.09 c0.21 0.79 14.3 1.04 14.3 29.1 C 481 1900 4.0 0.95 0.99 1.00 3491 1.00 3491 0.90 534 12 575 48 1900 Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay HCM Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group 0.90 144 0 0 4 16.0 16.0 0.27 4.0 1333 c0.25 0.92 21.4 1.00 11.8 33.1 C 32.7 C 25.7 0.83 60.0 74.2% 15 Meridian Road 2012 AM Peak Hour 5:00 pm 5/22/2012 Existing BAKER 8 17.0 17.0 0.28 4.0 1441 0.19 0.68 19.1 1.00 2.7 21.8 C 22.9 C 8 17.0 17.0 0.28 4.0 449 0.03 0.10 15.9 1.00 0.4 16.3 B HCM Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service 0.90 197 0 0 2 16.0 16.0 0.27 4.0 887 0.10 0.39 18.0 1.00 1.3 19.3 B 18.8 B 0.90 53 0 0 6 16.0 16.0 0.27 4.0 931 0.16 0.62 19.3 1.01 3.0 22.5 C 24.8 C C 16.0 D Synchro 7 - Report Page 4 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 22: Broadway Avenue & Meridain Road Movement Lane Configurations Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS 2025 AM 2/4/2013 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR 24 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.48 898 0.90 27 0 27 pm+pt 7 4 20.0 20.0 0.36 4.0 390 0.01 0.02 0.07 11.3 1.00 0.3 11.7 B 653 1900 4.0 0.95 0.96 1.00 3415 1.00 3415 0.90 726 52 895 199 1900 314 1900 4.0 0.95 0.96 1.00 3402 1.00 3402 0.90 349 63 408 110 1900 99 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.46 857 0.90 110 0 110 Perm 286 1900 4.0 0.95 0.92 1.00 3241 1.00 3241 0.90 318 158 568 367 1900 139 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.27 510 0.90 154 0 154 Perm 382 1900 4.0 0.95 0.99 1.00 3509 1.00 3509 0.90 424 8 442 23 1900 4 342 1900 4.0 0.97 1.00 0.95 3433 0.95 3433 0.90 380 0 380 Prot 3 16.0 16.0 0.29 4.0 993 c0.26 7.0 7.0 0.13 4.0 437 c0.11 19.0 19.0 0.35 4.0 1175 c0.12 0.90 18.7 1.00 12.8 31.5 C 31.0 C 0.87 23.6 1.00 20.4 43.9 D 0.35 13.4 1.00 0.8 14.2 B 27.5 C Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay HCM Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group 0.90 221 0 0 24.4 0.92 55.0 74.9% 15 Meridian Road 2012 AM Peak Hour 5:00 pm 5/22/2012 Existing BAKER 0.90 122 0 0 8 HCM Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service 2 20.0 20.0 0.36 4.0 312 0.13 0.35 12.8 1.00 3.1 15.9 B 0.90 408 0 0 2 6 20.0 20.0 0.36 4.0 185 20.0 20.0 0.36 4.0 1179 0.18 c0.30 0.83 16.0 1.00 33.5 49.4 D 0.48 13.5 1.00 1.4 14.9 B 15.0 B 0.90 26 0 0 6 20.0 20.0 0.36 4.0 1276 0.13 0.35 12.7 1.00 0.7 13.5 B 22.7 C C 16.0 D Synchro 7 - Report Page 5 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 27: Southern Avenue & Meridain Road Movement Lane Configurations Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS 2025 AM 2/4/2013 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR 106 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.21 382 0.90 118 0 118 pm+pt 7 4 22.7 22.7 0.35 4.0 3.0 202 c0.03 0.18 0.58 16.4 1.00 4.3 20.7 C 94 1900 4.0 0.95 0.95 1.00 3372 1.00 3372 0.90 104 31 121 43 1900 0 1900 199 1900 0.90 0 0 0 Perm 600 1900 4.0 0.95 1.00 1.00 3539 1.00 3539 0.90 667 0 667 300 1900 4.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1583 1.00 1583 0.90 333 186 147 Perm 15.5 15.5 0.24 4.0 3.0 807 c0.20 11.5 11.5 0.18 4.0 3.0 607 c0.16 28.7 28.7 0.44 4.0 3.0 1563 0.19 0.85 23.6 1.00 8.2 31.9 C 31.9 C 0.91 26.3 1.00 18.1 44.4 D 0.43 12.5 1.00 0.9 13.3 B 24.1 C 29 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.40 742 0.90 32 0 32 pm+pt 1 6 20.4 20.4 0.31 4.0 3.0 258 0.00 0.04 0.12 15.6 1.00 0.2 15.8 B 662 1900 4.0 0.95 0.98 1.00 3456 1.00 3456 0.90 736 23 850 8 499 1900 4.0 0.97 1.00 0.95 3433 0.95 3433 0.90 554 0 554 Prot 5 123 1900 0.90 48 0 0 480 1900 4.0 0.95 0.96 1.00 3384 1.00 3384 0.90 533 70 684 Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay HCM Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group 4 8 22.7 22.7 0.35 4.0 3.0 1178 0.04 0.10 14.3 1.00 0.0 14.3 B 17.1 B 26.8 0.85 65.0 75.3% 15 Meridian Road 2012 AM Peak Hour 5:00 pm 5/22/2012 Existing BAKER 0.90 221 0 0 HCM Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service 2 2 28.7 28.7 0.44 4.0 3.0 699 0.09 0.21 11.2 1.00 0.7 11.9 B 0.90 137 0 0 6 18.8 18.8 0.29 4.0 3.0 1000 c0.25 0.85 21.8 1.00 9.0 30.7 C 30.2 C C 16.0 D Synchro 7 - Report Page 6 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 68: US 60 WB On-Ramp & Meridain Road Movement Lane Configurations Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay HCM Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group 2025 AM 2/4/2013 EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR 0 1900 0 1900 0.90 0 0 0 0.90 0 0 0 836 1900 4.0 0.97 1.00 0.95 3433 0.12 421 0.90 929 0 929 pm+pt 2 56 56.0 56.0 0.93 4.0 1196 c0.21 c0.52 0.78 15.4 0.58 2.3 11.1 B 465 1900 4.0 0.95 1.00 1.00 3539 1.00 3539 0.90 517 0 517 530 1900 4.0 0.95 1.00 1.00 3539 1.00 3539 0.90 589 0 589 56 6 456 1900 4.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1583 1.00 1583 0.90 507 274 233 Perm 60.0 60.0 1.00 3539 0.15 16.0 16.0 0.27 4.0 944 0.17 0.15 0.0 1.00 0.0 0.0 A 7.2 A 0.62 19.4 1.00 3.1 22.5 C 23.2 C 0.0 A 14.1 0.76 60.0 58.8% 15 Meridian Road 2012 AM Peak Hour 5:00 pm 5/22/2012 Existing BAKER 6 16.0 16.0 0.27 4.0 422 0.15 0.55 18.9 1.00 5.1 24.0 C HCM Level of Service B Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service 4.0 B Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 71: US 60 EB Off-Ramp & Meridain Road Movement Lane Configurations Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Grade (%) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay HCM Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group 2025 AM 2/4/2013 EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR 124 1900 1% 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1761 0.95 1761 0.90 138 0 138 414 1900 0 1900 1177 1900 0% 4.0 0.91 1.00 1.00 5085 1.00 5085 0.90 1308 0 1308 530 1900 0% 4.0 0.95 1.00 1.00 3539 1.00 3539 0.90 589 0 589 0 1900 2 2 16.0 16.0 0.27 4.0 1356 c0.26 16.0 16.0 0.27 4.0 944 0.17 0.96 21.7 1.00 17.3 39.0 D 39.0 D 0.62 19.4 0.76 2.4 17.2 B 17.2 B 4 12 36.0 36.0 0.60 1057 0.08 0.13 5.2 1.00 0.3 5.5 A 5.9 A 4.0 0.88 0.85 1.00 2773 1.00 2773 0.90 460 40 420 Perm 0.90 0 0 0 4 12 36.0 36.0 0.60 1664 c0.15 0.25 5.7 1.00 0.4 6.0 A 25.9 0.47 60.0 58.8% 15 Meridian Road 2012 AM Peak Hour 5:00 pm 5/22/2012 Existing BAKER 0.90 0 0 0 HCM Level of Service C Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service 8.0 B Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 31: Baseline Road & Meridain Road Movement Lane Configurations Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS 2025 AM 2/4/2013 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR 102 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.26 484 0.90 113 0 113 pm+pt 7 4 18.6 18.6 0.29 4.0 3.0 202 c0.03 0.13 0.56 18.3 1.00 3.3 21.6 C 266 1900 4.0 0.95 0.99 1.00 3502 1.00 3502 0.90 296 8 310 20 1900 75 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.52 968 0.90 83 0 83 pm+pt 3 8 18.6 18.6 0.29 4.0 3.0 316 0.01 0.06 0.26 17.4 1.00 0.4 17.8 B 602 1900 4.0 0.95 1.00 1.00 3539 1.00 3539 0.90 669 0 669 828 1900 4.0 0.88 0.85 1.00 2787 1.00 2787 0.90 920 64 856 pm+ov 1 8 22.9 22.9 0.35 4.0 3.0 1153 c0.09 0.22 0.74 18.5 1.00 2.6 21.1 C 44 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.56 1041 0.90 49 0 49 Perm 1314 1900 4.0 0.91 0.99 1.00 5030 1.00 5030 0.90 1460 13 1560 102 1900 231 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.15 277 0.90 257 0 257 pm+pt 1 6 34.4 34.4 0.53 4.0 3.0 319 0.09 c0.33 0.81 12.4 1.00 13.7 26.2 C 286 1900 4.0 0.95 1.00 1.00 3539 1.00 3539 0.90 318 0 318 406 1900 4.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1583 1.00 1583 0.90 451 113 338 Perm Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay HCM Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group 0.90 22 0 0 4 15.4 15.4 0.24 4.0 3.0 830 0.09 0.37 20.8 1.00 0.3 21.0 C 21.2 C 22.2 0.74 65.0 76.1% 15 Meridian Road 2012 AM Peak Hour 5:00 pm 5/22/2012 Existing BAKER 8 15.4 15.4 0.24 4.0 3.0 838 0.19 0.80 23.3 1.00 5.3 28.7 C 24.0 C 2 22.9 22.9 0.35 4.0 3.0 367 0.05 0.13 14.3 1.00 0.8 15.1 B 0.90 113 0 0 2 22.9 22.9 0.35 4.0 3.0 1772 0.31 0.88 19.8 1.00 6.7 26.4 C 26.1 C HCM Level of Service C Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service 8.0 D 6 34.4 34.4 0.53 4.0 3.0 1873 0.09 0.17 7.9 1.00 0.2 8.1 A 13.7 B 6 34.4 34.4 0.53 4.0 3.0 838 0.21 0.40 9.2 1.00 1.4 10.6 B Synchro 7 - Report Page 7 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Guadalupe Road & Meridian Road Movement Lane Configurations Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS 2025 AM 2/4/2013 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR 212 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.37 693 0.90 236 0 236 pm+pt 7 4 22.0 22.0 0.37 4.0 344 c0.06 c0.19 0.69 14.6 1.00 10.6 25.2 C 239 1900 4.0 0.95 0.96 1.00 3406 1.00 3406 0.90 266 54 301 80 1900 36 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.54 1005 0.90 40 0 40 pm+pt 3 8 20.0 20.0 0.33 4.0 386 0.01 0.03 0.10 13.6 1.00 0.5 14.2 B 301 1900 4.0 0.95 0.96 1.00 3389 1.00 3389 0.90 334 53 413 119 1900 188 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.32 598 0.90 209 0 209 Perm 931 1900 4.0 0.95 0.99 1.00 3506 1.00 3506 0.90 1034 8 1096 63 1900 33 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.15 276 0.90 37 0 37 Perm 485 1900 4.0 0.95 0.97 1.00 3417 1.00 3417 0.90 539 47 654 146 1900 Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay HCM Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group 0.90 89 0 0 4 17.0 17.0 0.28 4.0 965 0.09 0.31 16.9 1.00 0.8 17.7 B 20.7 C 17.7 0.69 60.0 68.3% 15 Meridian Road 2012 AM Peak Hour 5:00 pm 5/22/2012 Existing BAKER 0.90 132 0 0 8 16.0 16.0 0.27 4.0 904 0.12 0.46 18.4 1.00 1.7 20.0 C 19.6 B 2 27.0 27.0 0.45 4.0 269 c0.35 0.78 14.0 1.00 19.5 33.5 C 0.90 70 0 0 2 6 27.0 27.0 0.45 4.0 124 27.0 27.0 0.45 4.0 1578 0.31 0.13 0.30 10.5 1.00 6.1 16.5 B 0.69 13.2 1.00 2.5 15.7 B 18.6 B HCM Level of Service B Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service 8.0 C 0.90 162 0 0 6 27.0 27.0 0.45 4.0 1538 0.19 0.43 11.2 1.00 0.9 12.1 B 12.3 B Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 35: Elliot Road & Meridian Road Movement Lane Configurations Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS 2025 AM 2/4/2013 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR 56 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.23 423 0.90 62 0 62 pm+pt 7 4 20.0 20.0 0.32 4.0 3.0 187 0.01 0.09 0.33 15.5 1.00 1.0 16.6 B 955 1900 4.0 0.91 0.98 1.00 5005 1.00 5005 0.90 1061 24 1161 112 1900 205 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.20 369 0.90 228 0 228 pm+pt 3 8 25.2 25.2 0.40 4.0 3.0 261 c0.07 c0.28 0.87 15.3 1.00 25.9 41.3 D 1026 1900 4.0 0.91 0.98 1.00 4996 1.00 4996 0.90 1140 27 1265 137 1900 612 1900 4.0 0.95 0.98 1.00 3486 1.00 3486 0.90 680 14 742 68 1900 130 1900 20.2 20.2 0.32 4.0 3.0 1617 0.25 6.0 6.0 0.10 4.0 3.0 330 c0.09 20.6 20.6 0.33 4.0 3.0 1151 c0.21 0.78 19.1 1.00 2.5 21.7 C 24.6 C 0.98 28.1 1.00 44.4 72.5 E 0.64 17.8 1.00 2.8 20.6 C 36.2 D 101 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.26 486 0.90 112 0 112 pm+pt 1 6 21.0 21.0 0.34 4.0 3.0 229 0.03 0.14 0.49 14.9 1.00 1.6 16.6 B 489 1900 4.0 0.95 0.97 1.00 3428 1.00 3428 0.90 543 39 648 8 292 1900 4.0 0.97 1.00 0.95 3433 0.95 3433 0.90 324 0 324 Prot 5 Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay HCM Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group 0.90 124 0 0 4 17.6 17.6 0.28 4.0 3.0 1412 0.23 0.82 20.9 1.00 4.0 24.9 C 24.5 C 26.9 0.86 62.4 71.6% 15 Meridian Road 2012 AM Peak Hour 5:00 pm 5/22/2012 Existing BAKER 0.90 152 0 0 HCM Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service 0.90 76 0 0 2 0.90 144 0 0 6 17.8 17.8 0.29 4.0 3.0 978 0.19 0.66 19.7 1.00 3.5 23.2 C 22.2 C C 16.0 C Synchro 7 - Report Page 8 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 37: Warner Road & Meridian Road Movement Lane Configurations Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay HCM Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group 2025 AM 2/4/2013 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR 176 1900 4.0 0.97 1.00 0.95 3433 0.95 3433 0.90 196 0 196 Prot 7 926 1900 4.0 0.91 1.00 1.00 5085 1.00 5085 0.90 1029 0 1029 70 1900 4.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1583 1.00 1583 0.90 78 58 20 Perm 1226 1900 4.0 0.91 0.98 1.00 4997 1.00 4997 0.90 1362 22 1518 160 1900 95 1900 117 1900 0.86 34.6 1.00 25.5 60.1 E 0.79 25.9 1.00 3.2 29.1 C 33.3 C 175 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.15 285 0.90 194 0 194 pm+pt 1 6 34.0 34.0 0.45 4.0 3.0 286 c0.07 0.24 0.68 14.9 1.00 6.3 21.2 C 876 1900 4.0 0.95 0.98 1.00 3477 1.00 3477 0.90 973 13 1090 19.3 19.3 0.26 4.0 3.0 1309 0.20 112 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.18 337 0.90 124 0 124 pm+pt 5 2 25.3 25.3 0.34 4.0 3.0 175 0.03 0.21 0.71 20.9 1.00 12.3 33.2 C 620 1900 4.0 0.95 0.98 1.00 3468 1.00 3468 0.90 689 16 779 5.0 5.0 0.07 4.0 3.0 229 0.06 212 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.17 320 0.90 236 0 236 pm+pt 3 8 33.0 33.0 0.44 4.0 3.0 328 c0.09 0.22 0.72 15.6 1.00 7.4 22.9 C 4 4 19.3 19.3 0.26 4.0 3.0 407 0.01 0.05 20.9 1.00 0.1 21.0 C 32.6 0.82 75.0 79.8% 15 Meridian Road 2012 AM Peak Hour 5:00 pm 5/22/2012 Existing BAKER 0.90 178 0 0 8 24.0 24.0 0.32 4.0 3.0 1599 c0.30 0.95 24.9 1.00 12.3 37.2 D 35.3 D 0.90 106 0 0 2 22.1 22.1 0.29 4.0 3.0 1022 0.22 0.76 24.1 1.00 5.4 29.4 C 29.9 C HCM Level of Service C Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service 8.0 D 0.90 130 0 0 6 26.8 26.8 0.36 4.0 3.0 1242 c0.31 0.88 22.6 1.00 8.9 31.5 C 29.9 C Synchro 7 - Report Page 9 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 41: Ray Road & Meridian Road Movement Lane Configurations Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay HCM Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group 2025 AM 2/4/2013 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR 148 1900 4.0 0.97 1.00 0.95 3433 0.95 3433 0.90 164 0 164 Prot 7 802 1900 4.0 0.91 0.98 1.00 4996 1.00 4996 0.90 891 28 981 106 1900 1623 1900 4.0 0.91 1.00 1.00 5085 1.00 5085 0.90 1803 0 1803 222 1900 4.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1583 1.00 1583 0.90 247 49 198 Perm 127 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.30 568 0.90 141 0 141 Perm 597 1900 4.0 0.95 0.98 1.00 3475 1.00 3475 0.90 663 18 737 83 1900 95 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.24 452 0.90 106 0 106 Perm 525 1900 4.0 0.95 0.98 1.00 3484 1.00 3484 0.90 583 15 636 61 1900 4 298 1900 4.0 0.97 1.00 0.95 3433 0.95 3433 0.90 331 0 331 Prot 3 4.0 4.0 0.07 4.0 3.0 229 0.05 17.5 17.5 0.29 4.0 3.0 1457 0.20 9.5 9.5 0.16 4.0 3.0 544 c0.10 23.0 23.0 0.38 4.0 3.0 1949 c0.35 8 23.0 23.0 0.38 4.0 3.0 607 2 21.0 21.0 0.35 4.0 3.0 199 0.72 27.4 1.00 10.2 37.6 D 0.67 18.7 1.00 1.2 20.0 B 22.4 C 0.61 23.5 1.00 1.9 25.5 C 0.93 17.7 1.00 8.0 25.7 C 24.4 C 0.12 0.33 13.0 1.00 0.3 13.4 B c0.25 0.71 16.9 1.00 19.2 36.0 D 0.90 118 0 0 22.7 0.82 60.0 73.3% 15 Meridian Road 2012 AM Peak Hour 5:00 pm 5/22/2012 Existing BAKER 8 HCM Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service 0.90 92 0 0 2 6 21.0 21.0 0.35 4.0 3.0 158 21.0 21.0 0.35 4.0 3.0 1216 0.21 0.23 0.67 16.6 1.00 20.4 37.0 D 0.61 16.1 1.00 2.2 18.3 B 21.1 C 0.90 68 0 0 6 21.0 21.0 0.35 4.0 3.0 1219 0.18 0.52 15.5 1.00 1.6 17.1 B 19.9 B C 12.0 D Synchro 7 - Report Page 10 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 58: Williams Field Road & Meridian Road Movement Lane Configurations Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS 2025 AM 2/4/2013 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR 235 1900 4.0 0.97 1.00 0.95 3433 0.95 3433 0.90 261 0 261 Prot 7 1162 1900 4.0 0.91 0.98 1.00 4987 1.00 4987 0.90 1291 27 1456 173 1900 1176 1900 4.0 0.91 0.98 1.00 4996 1.00 4996 0.90 1307 24 1457 157 1900 122 1900 67 1900 21.0 21.0 0.29 4.0 3.0 1435 c0.29 7.0 7.0 0.10 4.0 3.0 329 0.08 21.0 21.0 0.29 4.0 3.0 1437 0.29 0.79 32.3 1.00 12.3 44.6 D 1.01 26.0 1.00 27.4 53.4 D 52.1 D 0.79 32.3 1.00 12.3 44.6 D 1.01 26.0 1.00 27.3 53.3 D 52.0 D 140 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.29 537 0.90 156 0 156 pm+pt 1 6 30.2 30.2 0.41 4.0 3.0 256 c0.02 0.24 0.61 18.0 1.00 4.1 22.0 C 1067 1900 4.0 0.95 0.99 1.00 3508 1.00 3508 0.90 1186 6 1254 7.0 7.0 0.10 4.0 3.0 329 c0.08 31 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.15 276 0.90 34 0 34 pm+pt 5 2 27.8 27.8 0.38 4.0 3.0 121 0.00 0.10 0.28 18.6 1.00 1.3 19.9 B 465 1900 4.0 0.95 0.97 1.00 3429 1.00 3429 0.90 517 32 621 4 235 1900 4.0 0.97 1.00 0.95 3433 0.95 3433 0.90 261 0 261 Prot 3 Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay HCM Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group 0.90 192 0 0 43.0 0.89 73.0 81.3% 15 Meridian Road 2012 AM Peak Hour 5:00 pm 5/22/2012 Existing BAKER 0.90 174 0 0 8 HCM Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service 0.90 136 0 0 2 27.0 27.0 0.37 4.0 3.0 1268 0.18 0.49 17.7 1.00 1.4 19.1 B 19.1 B 0.90 74 0 0 6 28.2 28.2 0.39 4.0 3.0 1355 c0.36 0.93 21.4 1.00 12.1 33.5 C 32.2 C D 12.0 D Synchro 7 - Report Page 12 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 60: Pecos Road & Meridian Road Movement Lane Configurations Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay HCM Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group 2025 AM 2/4/2013 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR 43 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.15 276 0.90 48 0 48 Perm 427 1900 4.0 0.95 0.96 1.00 3408 1.00 3408 0.90 474 53 577 140 1900 123 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.36 671 0.90 137 0 137 Perm 957 1900 4.0 0.95 0.99 1.00 3492 1.00 3492 0.90 1063 12 1155 94 1900 57 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.57 1053 0.90 63 0 63 Perm 428 1900 4.0 0.95 0.97 1.00 3450 1.00 3450 0.90 476 28 544 86 1900 90 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.26 479 0.90 100 0 100 pm+pt 1 6 25.0 25.0 0.42 4.0 286 c0.02 0.12 0.35 11.5 1.00 3.3 14.9 B 260 1900 4.0 0.95 0.99 1.00 3510 1.00 3510 0.90 289 7 299 15 1900 4 27.0 27.0 0.45 4.0 124 0.17 0.39 11.0 1.00 8.9 19.9 B 0.90 156 0 0 4 8 27.0 27.0 0.45 4.0 302 27.0 27.0 0.45 4.0 1534 0.17 0.20 0.45 11.4 1.00 4.9 16.3 B 0.38 10.9 1.00 0.7 11.6 B 12.2 B 15.3 0.64 60.0 65.7% 15 Meridian Road 2012 AM Peak Hour 5:00 pm 5/22/2012 Existing BAKER 0.90 104 0 0 8 27.0 27.0 0.45 4.0 1571 c0.33 0.74 13.6 1.00 3.1 16.7 B 16.6 B HCM Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service 2 17.0 17.0 0.28 4.0 298 0.06 0.21 16.4 0.89 1.0 15.6 B 0.90 96 0 0 2 17.0 17.0 0.28 4.0 978 c0.16 0.56 18.3 0.92 1.5 18.2 B 18.0 B 0.90 17 0 0 6 25.0 25.0 0.42 4.0 1463 0.09 0.20 11.2 1.00 0.3 11.5 B 12.3 B B 12.0 C Synchro 7 - Report Page 13 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 50: Germann Road & Meridian Road Movement Lane Configurations Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS 2025 AM 2/4/2013 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR 193 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.21 392 0.90 214 0 214 pm+pt 7 4 24.0 24.0 0.40 4.0 272 c0.07 0.25 0.79 14.4 1.00 20.2 34.6 C 374 1900 4.0 0.95 0.98 1.00 3470 1.00 3470 0.90 416 20 458 56 1900 51 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.43 810 0.90 57 0 57 pm+pt 3 8 22.0 22.0 0.37 4.0 361 0.01 0.05 0.16 12.5 1.00 0.9 13.4 B 630 1900 4.0 0.95 0.95 1.00 3355 1.00 3355 0.90 700 116 956 335 1900 67 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.53 979 0.90 74 0 74 Perm 432 1900 4.0 0.95 0.98 1.00 3472 1.00 3472 0.90 480 19 530 62 1900 220 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.26 482 0.90 244 0 244 pm+pt 1 6 25.0 25.0 0.42 4.0 308 c0.07 c0.26 0.79 13.4 1.08 18.1 32.6 C 310 1900 4.0 0.95 0.99 1.00 3486 1.00 3486 0.90 344 14 368 34 1900 Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay HCM Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group 0.90 62 0 0 4 19.0 19.0 0.32 4.0 1099 0.13 0.42 16.1 1.00 1.2 17.3 B 22.6 C 27.3 0.83 60.0 78.3% 15 Meridian Road 2012 AM Peak Hour 5:00 pm 5/22/2012 Existing BAKER 0.90 372 0 0 8 18.0 18.0 0.30 4.0 1007 c0.28 0.95 20.6 1.00 18.5 39.0 D 37.7 D HCM Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service 2 16.0 16.0 0.27 4.0 261 0.08 0.28 17.5 1.00 2.7 20.2 C 0.90 69 0 0 2 16.0 16.0 0.27 4.0 926 0.15 0.57 19.0 1.00 2.6 21.6 C 21.4 C 0.90 38 0 0 6 25.0 25.0 0.42 4.0 1453 0.11 0.25 11.4 0.97 0.4 11.5 B 19.7 B C 12.0 D Synchro 7 - Report Page 11 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 11: University Drive & Meridain Road Movement Lane Configurations Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay HCM Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group 2025 PM 2/4/2013 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR 36 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.58 1074 0.90 40 0 40 Perm 714 1900 4.0 0.95 0.97 1.00 3425 1.00 3425 0.90 793 55 955 195 1900 53 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.20 376 0.90 59 0 59 Perm 210 1900 4.0 0.95 0.97 1.00 3441 1.00 3441 0.90 233 28 258 48 1900 109 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.65 1220 0.90 121 0 121 Perm 122 1900 4.0 0.95 0.92 1.00 3266 1.00 3266 0.90 136 74 206 130 1900 69 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.58 1080 0.90 77 0 77 Perm 138 1900 4.0 0.95 1.00 1.00 3539 1.00 3539 0.90 153 0 153 20 1900 4.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1583 1.00 1583 0.90 22 14 8 Perm 4 21.0 21.0 0.47 4.0 501 0.04 0.08 6.6 1.00 0.3 7.0 A 0.90 217 0 0 4 8 21.0 21.0 0.47 4.0 175 21.0 21.0 0.47 4.0 1598 c0.28 0.16 0.34 7.6 1.00 5.1 12.7 B 0.60 8.9 1.00 1.7 10.5 B 10.4 B 10.1 0.46 45.0 54.0% 15 0.90 53 0 0 8 21.0 21.0 0.47 4.0 1606 0.07 0.16 6.9 1.00 0.2 7.1 A 8.1 A 2 16.0 16.0 0.36 4.0 434 c0.10 0.28 10.4 1.00 1.6 12.0 B 0.90 144 0 0 2 6 16.0 16.0 0.36 4.0 384 16.0 16.0 0.36 4.0 1161 0.06 0.07 0.20 10.1 1.00 1.2 11.2 B 0.18 10.0 1.00 0.3 10.3 B 10.8 B HCM Level of Service B Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service 8.0 A T:\ADOT Meridian Road\Calcs & Reports\Traffic\Synchro\Meridan Road_PM 2025.syn BAKER 6 16.0 16.0 0.36 4.0 1258 0.04 0.12 9.8 1.00 0.2 10.0 A 10.3 B 6 16.0 16.0 0.36 4.0 563 0.00 0.01 9.4 1.00 0.0 9.4 A Synchro 7 - Report Page 2 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 17: Apache Trail & Meridain Road Movement Lane Configurations Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS 2025 PM 2/4/2013 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR 74 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.25 466 0.90 82 0 82 pm+pt 7 4 21.0 21.0 0.35 4.0 272 0.03 0.08 0.30 13.5 1.00 2.8 16.4 B 945 1900 4.0 0.91 0.99 1.00 5013 1.00 5013 0.90 1050 21 1139 99 1900 164 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.24 438 0.90 182 0 182 pm+pt 3 8 23.0 23.0 0.38 4.0 301 c0.06 0.17 0.60 13.8 1.00 8.7 22.5 C 847 1900 4.0 0.91 1.00 1.00 5085 1.00 5085 0.90 941 0 941 166 1900 4.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1583 1.00 1583 0.90 184 132 52 Perm 94 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.59 1093 0.90 104 0 104 pm+pt 5 2 21.0 21.0 0.35 4.0 428 0.02 0.07 0.24 13.5 0.88 1.2 13.0 B 131 1900 4.0 0.95 0.90 1.00 3198 1.00 3198 0.90 146 188 220 236 1900 155 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.43 805 0.90 172 0 172 pm+pt 1 6 23.0 23.0 0.38 4.0 389 c0.04 c0.13 0.44 12.7 1.00 3.6 16.3 B 187 1900 4.0 0.95 0.97 1.00 3420 1.00 3420 0.90 208 42 226 54 1900 Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay HCM Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group 0.90 110 0 0 4 16.0 16.0 0.27 4.0 1337 c0.23 0.85 20.9 1.00 7.0 27.9 C 27.1 C 21.9 0.57 60.0 62.7% 15 8 17.0 17.0 0.28 4.0 1441 0.19 0.65 18.9 1.00 2.3 21.2 C 20.7 C 8 17.0 17.0 0.28 4.0 449 0.03 0.12 15.9 1.00 0.5 16.5 B HCM Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service T:\ADOT Meridian Road\Calcs & Reports\Traffic\Synchro\Meridan Road_PM 2025.syn BAKER 0.90 262 0 0 2 17.0 17.0 0.28 4.0 906 0.07 0.24 16.5 1.04 0.6 17.8 B 16.8 B 0.90 60 0 0 6 18.0 18.0 0.30 4.0 1026 0.07 0.22 15.7 1.00 0.5 16.2 B 16.3 B C 12.0 B Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 22: Broadway Avenue & Meridain Road Movement Lane Configurations Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS 2025 PM 2/4/2013 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR 29 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.34 628 0.90 32 0 32 pm+pt 7 4 20.0 20.0 0.33 4.0 285 0.01 0.03 0.11 13.6 1.00 0.8 14.4 B 324 1900 4.0 0.95 0.96 1.00 3393 1.00 3393 0.90 360 66 431 123 1900 545 1900 4.0 0.95 0.97 1.00 3427 1.00 3427 0.90 606 41 728 147 1900 201 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.56 1036 0.90 223 0 223 Perm 323 1900 4.0 0.95 0.93 1.00 3279 1.00 3279 0.90 359 219 486 311 1900 125 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.28 524 0.90 139 0 139 Perm 263 1900 4.0 0.95 0.99 1.00 3488 1.00 3488 0.90 292 13 310 28 1900 4 378 1900 4.0 0.97 1.00 0.95 3433 0.95 3433 0.90 420 0 420 Prot 3 16.0 16.0 0.27 4.0 905 0.13 10.0 10.0 0.17 4.0 572 c0.12 22.0 22.0 0.37 4.0 1257 c0.21 0.48 18.5 1.00 1.8 20.3 C 19.9 B 0.73 23.7 1.00 8.1 31.9 C 0.58 15.3 1.00 2.0 17.2 B 22.4 C Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay HCM Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group 0.90 137 0 0 20.3 0.65 60.0 62.8% 15 0.90 163 0 0 8 2 22.0 22.0 0.37 4.0 380 0.22 0.59 15.3 0.98 5.9 20.9 C 0.90 346 0 0 2 6 22.0 22.0 0.37 4.0 192 22.0 22.0 0.37 4.0 1202 0.15 c0.27 0.72 16.4 0.94 18.6 34.0 C 0.40 14.1 1.16 0.9 17.4 B 18.2 B HCM Level of Service C Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service 8.0 B T:\ADOT Meridian Road\Calcs & Reports\Traffic\Synchro\Meridan Road_PM 2025.syn BAKER 0.90 31 0 0 6 22.0 22.0 0.37 4.0 1279 0.09 0.24 13.2 0.98 0.4 13.4 B 19.6 B Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 27: Southern Avenue & Meridain Road Movement Lane Configurations Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS 2025 PM 2/4/2013 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR 238 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.40 752 0.90 264 0 264 pm+pt 7 4 24.2 24.2 0.40 4.0 3.0 371 c0.05 0.24 0.71 14.6 1.00 6.3 20.9 C 215 1900 4.0 0.95 0.94 1.00 3340 1.00 3340 0.90 239 85 297 129 1900 210 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.53 979 0.90 233 0 233 Perm 206 1900 4.0 0.95 0.95 1.00 3351 1.00 3351 0.90 229 92 263 113 1900 489 1900 4.0 0.95 1.00 1.00 3539 1.00 3539 0.90 543 0 543 338 1900 4.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1583 1.00 1583 0.90 376 232 144 Perm 26 1900 16.2 16.2 0.27 4.0 3.0 905 0.08 6.4 6.4 0.11 4.0 3.0 366 c0.08 23.0 23.0 0.38 4.0 3.0 1357 0.15 0.29 17.3 1.00 0.2 17.5 B 29.7 C 0.79 26.1 1.14 10.6 40.5 D 0.40 13.5 0.85 0.9 12.3 B 17.9 B 17 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.45 837 0.90 19 0 19 pm+pt 1 6 18.2 18.2 0.30 4.0 3.0 266 0.00 0.02 0.07 14.7 0.68 0.1 10.1 B 720 1900 4.0 0.95 0.99 1.00 3521 1.00 3521 0.90 800 4 825 8 259 1900 4.0 0.97 1.00 0.95 3433 0.95 3433 0.90 288 0 288 Prot 5 Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay HCM Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group 0.90 143 0 0 4 8 16.2 16.2 0.27 4.0 3.0 264 24.2 24.2 0.40 4.0 3.0 1347 0.09 c0.24 0.88 21.0 1.00 27.3 48.3 D 0.22 11.7 1.00 0.1 11.8 B 15.5 B 19.5 0.83 60.0 64.0% 15 0.90 126 0 0 HCM Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service T:\ADOT Meridian Road\Calcs & Reports\Traffic\Synchro\Meridan Road_PM 2025.syn BAKER 2 2 23.0 23.0 0.38 4.0 3.0 607 0.09 0.24 12.6 0.62 0.9 8.8 A 0.90 29 0 0 6 17.4 17.4 0.29 4.0 3.0 1021 c0.23 0.81 19.7 0.60 5.9 17.9 B 17.7 B B 16.0 B Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 68: US 60 WB On-Ramp & Meridain Road Movement Lane Configurations Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay HCM Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group 2025 PM 2/4/2013 EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR 0 1900 0 1900 0.90 0 0 0 0.90 0 0 0 341 1900 4.0 0.97 1.00 0.95 3433 0.11 401 0.90 379 0 379 pm+pt 2 56 56.0 56.0 0.93 4.0 1183 c0.09 c0.21 0.32 9.8 0.52 0.7 5.7 A 564 1900 4.0 0.95 1.00 1.00 3539 1.00 3539 0.90 627 0 627 546 1900 4.0 0.95 1.00 1.00 3539 1.00 3539 0.90 607 0 607 56 6 245 1900 4.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1583 1.00 1583 0.90 272 199 73 Perm 60.0 60.0 1.00 3539 0.18 16.0 16.0 0.27 4.0 944 c0.17 0.18 0.0 1.00 0.1 0.1 A 2.2 A 0.64 19.5 0.88 2.2 19.3 B 24.4 C 0.0 A 12.6 0.42 60.0 77.4% 15 6 16.0 16.0 0.27 4.0 422 0.05 0.17 16.9 2.08 0.6 35.7 D HCM Level of Service B Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service 8.0 D T:\ADOT Meridian Road\Calcs & Reports\Traffic\Synchro\Meridan Road_PM 2025.syn BAKER Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 71: US 60 EB Off-Ramp & Meridain Road Movement Lane Configurations Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Grade (%) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay HCM Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group 2025 PM 2/4/2013 EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR 380 1900 1% 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1761 0.95 1761 0.90 422 0 422 1204 1900 0 1900 525 1900 0% 4.0 0.91 1.00 1.00 5085 1.00 5085 0.90 583 0 583 546 1900 0% 4.0 0.95 1.00 1.00 3539 1.00 3539 0.90 607 0 607 0 1900 2 2 16.0 16.0 0.27 4.0 1356 0.11 16.0 16.0 0.27 4.0 944 c0.17 0.43 18.2 0.93 0.9 17.8 B 17.8 B 0.64 19.5 0.76 2.6 17.3 B 17.3 B 4 12 36.0 36.0 0.60 1057 0.24 0.40 6.3 1.00 1.1 7.4 A 11.5 B 4.0 0.88 0.85 1.00 2773 1.00 2773 0.90 1338 36 1302 Perm 0.90 0 0 0 4 12 36.0 36.0 0.60 1664 c0.47 0.78 9.0 1.00 3.7 12.8 B 13.9 0.74 60.0 77.4% 15 0.90 0 0 0 HCM Level of Service B Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service 8.0 D T:\ADOT Meridian Road\Calcs & Reports\Traffic\Synchro\Meridan Road_PM 2025.syn BAKER Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 31: Baseline Road & Meridain Road Movement Lane Configurations Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS 2025 PM 2/4/2013 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR 73 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.60 1119 0.90 81 0 81 pm+pt 7 4 17.6 17.6 0.29 4.0 3.0 354 0.01 0.06 0.23 15.7 1.00 0.3 16.0 B 538 1900 4.0 0.95 0.98 1.00 3463 1.00 3463 0.90 598 23 676 91 1900 60 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.26 490 0.90 67 0 67 pm+pt 3 8 17.6 17.6 0.29 4.0 3.0 195 c0.01 0.09 0.34 16.1 1.00 1.1 17.1 B 219 1900 4.0 0.95 1.00 1.00 3539 1.00 3539 0.90 243 0 243 469 1900 4.0 0.88 0.85 1.00 2787 1.00 2787 0.90 521 178 343 pm+ov 1 8 22.1 22.1 0.37 4.0 3.0 1212 0.03 0.09 0.28 13.4 1.00 0.1 13.5 B 58 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.39 719 0.90 64 0 64 Perm 663 1900 4.0 0.91 0.96 1.00 4875 1.00 4875 0.90 737 107 910 252 1900 176 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.17 317 0.90 196 0 196 pm+pt 1 6 30.4 30.4 0.51 4.0 3.0 328 c0.07 c0.23 0.60 9.6 0.99 1.9 11.4 B 629 1900 4.0 0.95 1.00 1.00 3539 1.00 3539 0.90 699 0 699 16 1900 4.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1583 1.00 1583 0.90 18 9 9 Perm Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay HCM Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group 0.90 101 0 0 4 15.2 15.2 0.25 4.0 3.0 877 c0.20 0.77 20.8 1.00 4.2 25.0 C 24.1 C 16.5 0.62 60.0 62.6% 15 8 15.2 15.2 0.25 4.0 3.0 897 0.07 0.27 18.0 1.00 0.2 18.1 B 15.1 B HCM Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service T:\ADOT Meridian Road\Calcs & Reports\Traffic\Synchro\Meridan Road_PM 2025.syn BAKER 2 19.5 19.5 0.32 4.0 3.0 234 0.09 0.27 15.0 1.00 2.9 17.9 B 0.90 280 0 0 2 19.5 19.5 0.32 4.0 3.0 1584 0.19 0.57 16.8 1.00 1.5 18.3 B 18.3 B 6 30.4 30.4 0.51 4.0 3.0 1793 0.20 0.39 9.1 0.91 0.4 8.7 A 9.3 A 6 30.4 30.4 0.51 4.0 3.0 802 0.01 0.01 7.3 0.92 0.0 6.8 A B 12.0 B Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Guadalupe Road & Meridian Road Movement Lane Configurations Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS 2025 PM 2/4/2013 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR 261 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.21 399 0.90 290 0 290 pm+pt 7 4 40.0 40.0 0.62 4.0 541 c0.12 0.21 0.54 7.4 1.00 3.8 11.2 B 1307 1900 4.0 0.95 0.98 1.00 3477 1.00 3477 0.90 1452 16 1629 174 1900 113 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.18 339 0.90 126 0 126 pm+pt 3 8 26.0 26.0 0.40 4.0 224 0.03 0.19 0.56 14.9 1.00 9.8 24.8 C 563 1900 4.0 0.95 0.98 1.00 3474 1.00 3474 0.90 626 17 697 79 1900 4 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.24 438 0.90 4 0 4 Perm 55 1900 4.0 0.95 0.97 1.00 3424 1.00 3424 0.90 61 13 65 15 1900 124 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.70 1311 0.90 138 0 138 Perm 630 1900 4.0 0.95 0.98 1.00 3483 1.00 3483 0.90 700 14 769 75 1900 Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay HCM Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group 0.90 193 0 0 4 32.0 32.0 0.49 4.0 1712 c0.47 0.95 15.8 1.00 13.0 28.7 C 26.1 C 25.9 0.90 65.0 77.7% 15 0.90 88 0 0 8 22.0 22.0 0.34 4.0 1176 0.20 0.59 17.8 1.00 2.2 20.0 B 20.7 C HCM Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service T:\ADOT Meridian Road\Calcs & Reports\Traffic\Synchro\Meridan Road_PM 2025.syn BAKER 2 17.0 17.0 0.26 4.0 115 0.01 0.03 17.9 1.00 0.6 18.4 B 0.90 17 0 0 2 6 17.0 17.0 0.26 4.0 343 17.0 17.0 0.26 4.0 896 0.02 0.11 0.40 19.8 1.00 3.5 23.3 C 0.07 18.1 1.00 0.2 18.2 B 18.2 B 0.90 83 0 0 6 17.0 17.0 0.26 4.0 911 c0.22 0.84 22.7 1.00 9.4 32.2 C 30.8 C C 12.0 D Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 35: Elliot Road & Meridian Road Movement Lane Configurations Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS 2025 PM 2/4/2013 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR 176 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.22 415 0.90 196 0 196 pm+pt 7 4 24.8 24.8 0.41 4.0 3.0 306 c0.06 0.20 0.64 12.5 1.00 4.5 17.0 B 880 1900 4.0 0.91 0.98 1.00 4996 1.00 4996 0.90 978 28 1080 117 1900 100 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.25 475 0.90 111 0 111 pm+pt 3 8 18.8 18.8 0.31 4.0 3.0 214 0.03 0.13 0.52 15.6 1.00 2.1 17.8 B 593 1900 4.0 0.91 0.98 1.00 4997 1.00 4997 0.90 659 28 717 77 1900 473 1900 4.0 0.95 0.97 1.00 3433 1.00 3433 0.90 526 35 622 118 1900 144 1900 15.7 15.7 0.26 4.0 3.0 1295 0.14 1.5 1.5 0.02 4.0 3.0 85 0.01 19.0 19.0 0.31 4.0 3.0 1076 0.18 0.55 19.4 1.00 0.5 19.9 B 19.7 B 0.46 29.1 1.00 3.9 33.0 C 0.58 17.4 1.00 2.3 19.7 B 20.5 C 92 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.25 461 0.90 102 0 102 pm+pt 1 6 25.1 25.1 0.41 4.0 3.0 273 c0.02 0.13 0.37 11.7 1.00 0.9 12.5 B 681 1900 4.0 0.95 0.97 1.00 3447 1.00 3447 0.90 757 27 890 8 35 1900 4.0 0.97 1.00 0.95 3433 0.95 3433 0.90 39 0 39 Prot 5 Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay HCM Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group 0.90 130 0 0 4 18.7 18.7 0.31 4.0 3.0 1542 c0.22 0.70 18.5 1.00 1.5 19.9 B 19.5 B 19.9 0.76 60.6 65.2% 15 0.90 86 0 0 HCM Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service T:\ADOT Meridian Road\Calcs & Reports\Traffic\Synchro\Meridan Road_PM 2025.syn BAKER 0.90 131 0 0 2 0.90 160 0 0 6 21.3 21.3 0.35 4.0 3.0 1212 c0.26 0.73 17.2 1.00 4.0 21.1 C 20.3 C B 16.0 C Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 37: Warner Road & Meridian Road Movement Lane Configurations Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS 2025 PM 2/4/2013 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR 428 1900 4.0 0.97 1.00 0.95 3433 0.95 3433 0.90 476 0 476 Prot 7 2072 1900 4.0 0.91 1.00 1.00 5085 1.00 5085 0.90 2302 0 2302 270 1900 4.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1583 1.00 1583 0.90 300 119 181 Perm 711 1900 4.0 0.91 0.98 1.00 4986 1.00 4986 0.90 790 26 882 106 1900 4 1900 11 1900 0.72 28.3 1.00 3.7 32.0 C 0.97 19.5 1.00 12.3 31.7 C 29.9 C 17 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.68 1263 0.90 19 0 19 pm+pt 1 6 20.8 20.8 0.28 4.0 3.0 361 c0.00 0.01 0.05 19.8 1.00 0.1 19.9 B 86 1900 4.0 0.95 0.98 1.00 3480 1.00 3480 0.90 96 9 99 35.0 35.0 0.47 4.0 3.0 2373 c0.45 12 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.68 1274 0.90 13 0 13 pm+pt 5 2 19.2 19.2 0.26 4.0 3.0 331 0.00 0.01 0.04 20.9 1.00 0.0 21.0 C 61 1900 4.0 0.95 0.99 1.00 3510 1.00 3510 0.90 68 3 69 14.5 14.5 0.19 4.0 3.0 664 c0.14 144 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.16 304 0.90 160 0 160 pm+pt 3 8 28.5 28.5 0.38 4.0 3.0 194 0.04 0.27 0.82 20.8 1.00 23.9 44.6 D Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay HCM Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group 4 4 35.0 35.0 0.47 4.0 3.0 739 0.11 0.24 12.0 1.00 0.2 12.2 B 28.2 0.64 75.0 65.6% 15 0.90 118 0 0 8 24.5 24.5 0.33 4.0 3.0 1629 0.18 0.54 20.7 1.00 0.4 21.0 C 24.6 C HCM Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service T:\ADOT Meridian Road\Calcs & Reports\Traffic\Synchro\Meridan Road_PM 2025.syn BAKER 0.90 4 0 0 2 18.4 18.4 0.25 4.0 3.0 861 0.02 0.08 21.8 1.00 0.2 22.0 C 21.8 C 0.90 12 0 0 6 19.2 19.2 0.26 4.0 3.0 891 c0.03 0.11 21.4 1.00 0.3 21.6 C 21.4 C C 12.0 C Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 41: Ray Road & Meridian Road Movement Lane Configurations Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS 2025 PM 2/4/2013 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR 302 1900 4.0 0.97 1.00 0.95 3433 0.95 3433 0.90 336 0 336 Prot 7 1474 1900 4.0 0.91 0.98 1.00 4975 1.00 4975 0.90 1638 36 1880 250 1900 930 1900 4.0 0.91 1.00 1.00 5085 1.00 5085 0.90 1033 0 1033 543 1900 4.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1583 1.00 1583 0.90 603 186 417 Perm 34 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.61 1132 0.90 38 0 38 Perm 190 1900 4.0 0.95 0.97 1.00 3419 1.00 3419 0.90 211 46 227 56 1900 85 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.58 1087 0.90 94 0 94 Perm 179 1900 4.0 0.95 0.98 1.00 3466 1.00 3466 0.90 199 24 207 29 1900 4 78 1900 4.0 0.97 1.00 0.95 3433 0.95 3433 0.90 87 0 87 Prot 3 7.0 7.0 0.13 4.0 3.0 437 c0.10 24.1 24.1 0.44 4.0 3.0 2180 c0.38 4.5 4.5 0.08 4.0 3.0 281 0.03 21.6 21.6 0.39 4.0 3.0 1997 0.20 8 21.6 21.6 0.39 4.0 3.0 622 2 14.4 14.4 0.26 4.0 3.0 296 0.77 23.2 1.00 7.9 31.2 C 0.86 14.0 1.00 3.8 17.7 B 19.7 B 0.31 23.8 1.00 0.6 24.4 C 0.52 12.7 1.00 0.2 13.0 B 14.8 B 0.26 0.67 13.8 1.00 2.7 16.5 B 0.03 0.13 15.5 1.00 0.9 16.4 B Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay HCM Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group 0.90 278 0 0 17.5 0.64 55.0 62.5% 15 8 0.90 62 0 0 2 6 14.4 14.4 0.26 4.0 3.0 285 14.4 14.4 0.26 4.0 3.0 895 0.07 c0.09 0.33 16.4 1.00 3.1 19.5 B 0.25 16.1 1.00 0.7 16.7 B 16.7 B HCM Level of Service B Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service 8.0 B T:\ADOT Meridian Road\Calcs & Reports\Traffic\Synchro\Meridan Road_PM 2025.syn BAKER 0.90 32 0 0 6 14.4 14.4 0.26 4.0 3.0 907 0.06 0.23 15.9 1.00 0.6 16.5 B 17.4 B Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 58: Williams Field Road & Meridian Road Movement Lane Configurations Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS 2025 PM 2/4/2013 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR 378 1900 4.0 0.97 1.00 0.95 3433 0.95 3433 0.90 420 0 420 Prot 7 647 1900 4.0 0.91 0.97 1.00 4908 1.00 4908 0.90 719 91 845 195 1900 503 1900 4.0 0.91 0.95 1.00 4839 1.00 4839 0.90 559 148 678 240 1900 249 1900 90 1900 19.0 19.0 0.32 4.0 3.0 1554 c0.17 4.0 4.0 0.07 4.0 3.0 229 0.03 15.0 15.0 0.25 4.0 3.0 1210 0.14 0.92 25.7 1.00 23.0 48.7 D 0.54 16.9 1.00 0.4 17.3 B 27.0 C 0.52 27.1 1.00 2.0 29.0 C 0.56 19.6 1.00 0.6 20.2 C 21.3 C 169 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.25 475 0.90 188 0 188 pm+pt 1 6 21.1 21.1 0.35 4.0 3.0 284 c0.06 0.17 0.66 15.4 1.00 5.7 21.1 C 304 1900 4.0 0.95 0.97 1.00 3418 1.00 3418 0.90 338 46 392 8.0 8.0 0.13 4.0 3.0 458 c0.12 199 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.42 784 0.90 221 0 221 pm+pt 5 2 20.9 20.9 0.35 4.0 3.0 360 0.05 0.16 0.61 14.7 1.00 3.1 17.8 B 599 1900 4.0 0.95 0.96 1.00 3383 1.00 3383 0.90 666 76 867 4 106 1900 4.0 0.97 1.00 0.95 3433 0.95 3433 0.90 118 0 118 Prot 3 Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay HCM Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group 0.90 217 0 0 29.3 0.78 60.0 73.1% 15 0.90 267 0 0 8 HCM Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service T:\ADOT Meridian Road\Calcs & Reports\Traffic\Synchro\Meridan Road_PM 2025.syn BAKER 0.90 277 0 0 2 15.6 15.6 0.26 4.0 3.0 880 c0.26 0.98 22.1 1.00 26.9 49.0 D 43.1 D 0.90 100 0 0 6 15.7 15.7 0.26 4.0 3.0 894 0.11 0.44 18.5 1.00 1.6 20.0 C 20.3 C C 16.0 D Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 60: Pecos Road & Meridian Road Movement Lane Configurations Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay HCM Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group 2025 PM 2/4/2013 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR 103 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.22 414 0.90 114 0 114 Perm 514 1900 4.0 0.95 0.98 1.00 3476 1.00 3476 0.90 571 21 627 69 1900 100 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.33 609 0.90 111 0 111 Perm 701 1900 4.0 0.95 0.95 1.00 3376 1.00 3376 0.90 779 102 1024 312 1900 37 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.29 544 0.90 41 0 41 Perm 594 1900 4.0 0.95 0.98 1.00 3456 1.00 3456 0.90 660 31 752 111 1900 194 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.20 373 0.90 216 0 216 pm+pt 1 6 24.0 24.0 0.48 4.0 291 c0.06 c0.30 0.74 9.1 1.00 15.7 24.8 C 829 1900 4.0 0.95 0.99 1.00 3507 1.00 3507 0.90 921 9 972 54 1900 4 18.0 18.0 0.36 4.0 149 0.28 0.77 14.1 1.00 30.5 44.7 D 0.90 77 0 0 4 8 18.0 18.0 0.36 4.0 219 18.0 18.0 0.36 4.0 1251 0.18 0.18 0.51 12.5 1.00 8.1 20.7 C 0.50 12.5 1.00 1.4 13.9 B 18.5 B 17.9 0.76 50.0 79.1% 15 0.90 347 0 0 8 18.0 18.0 0.36 4.0 1215 c0.30 0.84 14.7 1.00 7.2 21.9 C 21.8 C 2 16.0 16.0 0.32 4.0 174 0.08 0.24 12.5 1.00 3.2 15.7 B 0.90 123 0 0 2 16.0 16.0 0.32 4.0 1106 0.22 0.68 14.8 1.00 3.4 18.2 B 18.0 B HCM Level of Service B Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service 8.0 D T:\ADOT Meridian Road\Calcs & Reports\Traffic\Synchro\Meridan Road_PM 2025.syn BAKER 0.90 60 0 0 6 24.0 24.0 0.48 4.0 1683 0.28 0.58 9.4 1.00 1.4 10.8 B 13.3 B Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 50: Germann Road & Meridian Road Movement Lane Configurations Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS 2025 PM 2/4/2013 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR 148 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.38 713 0.90 164 0 164 pm+pt 7 4 31.0 31.0 0.48 4.0 438 c0.03 0.14 0.37 10.0 1.00 2.4 12.5 B 995 1900 4.0 0.95 0.97 1.00 3450 1.00 3450 0.90 1106 26 1304 202 1900 81 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.17 324 0.90 90 0 90 pm+pt 3 8 27.0 27.0 0.42 4.0 224 0.02 0.14 0.40 14.6 1.00 5.3 19.9 B 309 1900 4.0 0.95 0.96 1.00 3385 1.00 3385 0.90 343 68 415 126 1900 45 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.42 774 0.90 50 0 50 Perm 505 1900 4.0 0.95 1.00 1.00 3522 1.00 3522 0.90 561 4 576 17 1900 56 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.22 403 0.90 62 0 62 pm+pt 1 6 24.0 24.0 0.37 4.0 233 0.02 0.08 0.27 14.2 1.00 2.8 17.0 B 451 1900 4.0 0.95 0.97 1.00 3435 1.00 3435 0.90 501 33 591 111 1900 Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay HCM Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group 0.90 224 0 0 4 25.0 25.0 0.38 4.0 1327 c0.38 0.98 19.8 1.00 20.9 40.7 D 37.6 D 27.7 0.82 65.0 71.1% 15 0.90 140 0 0 8 23.0 23.0 0.35 4.0 1198 0.12 0.35 15.5 1.00 0.8 16.3 B 16.8 B HCM Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service T:\ADOT Meridian Road\Calcs & Reports\Traffic\Synchro\Meridan Road_PM 2025.syn BAKER 2 16.0 16.0 0.25 4.0 191 0.06 0.26 19.7 1.00 3.3 23.1 C 0.90 19 0 0 2 16.0 16.0 0.25 4.0 867 c0.16 0.66 22.1 1.00 4.0 26.1 C 25.8 C 0.90 123 0 0 6 24.0 24.0 0.37 4.0 1268 c0.17 0.47 15.6 1.00 1.2 16.8 B 16.9 B C 16.0 C Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 11: University Drive & Meridain Road Movement Lane Configurations Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay HCM Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group 2035 AM 2/4/2013 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR 29 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.55 1015 0.90 32 0 32 Perm 853 1900 4.0 0.95 0.96 1.00 3380 1.00 3380 0.90 948 79 1275 365 1900 88 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.14 252 0.90 98 0 98 Perm 226 1900 4.0 0.95 0.96 1.00 3396 1.00 3396 0.90 251 37 307 84 1900 120 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.60 1115 0.90 133 0 133 Perm 136 1900 4.0 0.95 0.94 1.00 3325 1.00 3325 0.90 151 75 178 92 1900 178 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.60 1108 0.90 198 0 198 Perm 222 1900 4.0 0.95 1.00 1.00 3539 1.00 3539 0.90 247 0 247 0 1900 4 36.0 36.0 0.60 4.0 609 0.03 0.05 5.0 1.00 0.2 5.1 A 0.90 406 0 0 4 8 36.0 36.0 0.60 4.0 151 36.0 36.0 0.60 4.0 2028 0.38 c0.39 0.65 7.9 1.00 19.6 27.5 C 0.63 7.7 1.00 1.5 9.2 A 9.1 A 13.3 0.65 60.0 70.0% 15 0.90 93 0 0 8 36.0 36.0 0.60 4.0 2038 0.09 0.15 5.3 1.00 0.2 5.4 A 10.3 B 2 16.0 16.0 0.27 4.0 297 0.12 0.45 18.3 1.00 4.8 23.1 C 0.90 102 0 0 2 6 16.0 16.0 0.27 4.0 295 16.0 16.0 0.27 4.0 887 0.05 c0.18 0.67 19.7 1.00 11.6 31.2 C 0.20 17.0 1.00 0.5 17.6 B 19.5 B HCM Level of Service B Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service 8.0 C T:\ADOT Meridian Road\Calcs & Reports\Traffic\Synchro\Meridan Road_AM 2035.syn BAKER 6 16.0 16.0 0.27 4.0 944 0.07 0.90 0 0 0 Perm 6 0.26 17.3 1.00 0.7 18.0 B 23.9 C Synchro 7 - Report Page 2 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 17: Apache Trail & Meridain Road Movement Lane Configurations Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS 2035 AM 2/4/2013 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR 23 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.21 392 0.90 26 0 26 pm+pt 7 4 23.0 23.0 0.33 4.0 208 0.01 0.03 0.12 16.3 1.00 1.2 17.5 B 1177 1900 4.0 0.91 1.00 1.00 5085 1.00 5085 0.90 1308 0 1308 230 1900 4.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1583 1.00 1583 0.90 256 187 69 Perm 339 1900 4.0 0.97 1.00 0.95 3433 0.95 3433 0.90 377 0 377 Prot 3 1028 1900 4.0 0.91 1.00 1.00 5085 1.00 5085 0.90 1142 0 1142 138 1900 4.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1583 1.00 1583 0.90 153 103 50 Perm 182 1900 4.0 0.95 0.90 1.00 3199 1.00 3199 0.90 202 133 429 324 1900 47 1900 23.0 23.0 0.33 4.0 1671 c0.22 0.96 30.8 1.00 36.8 67.6 E 0.68 20.3 1.00 2.3 22.6 C 32.2 C 281 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.29 538 0.90 312 0 312 pm+pt 1 6 27.0 27.0 0.39 4.0 366 c0.11 c0.22 0.85 16.6 1.00 21.5 38.1 D 315 1900 4.0 0.95 0.98 1.00 3471 1.00 3471 0.90 350 16 386 8.0 8.0 0.11 4.0 392 c0.11 253 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.43 804 0.90 281 0 281 pm+pt 5 2 27.0 27.0 0.39 4.0 434 0.08 0.17 0.65 15.8 1.00 7.3 23.1 C Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay HCM Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group 4 19.0 19.0 0.27 4.0 1380 c0.26 0.95 25.0 1.00 14.6 39.6 D 36.1 D 4 19.0 19.0 0.27 4.0 430 0.04 0.16 19.4 1.00 0.8 20.2 C 31.7 0.95 70.0 76.8% 15 8 8 23.0 23.0 0.33 4.0 520 0.03 0.10 16.3 1.00 0.4 16.7 B HCM Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service T:\ADOT Meridian Road\Calcs & Reports\Traffic\Synchro\Meridan Road_AM 2035.syn BAKER 0.90 360 0 0 2 18.0 18.0 0.26 4.0 823 0.13 0.52 22.3 1.00 2.4 24.7 C 24.1 C 0.90 52 0 0 6 18.0 18.0 0.26 4.0 893 0.11 0.43 21.7 1.00 1.5 23.3 C 29.7 C C 20.0 D Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 22: Broadway Avenue & Meridain Road Movement Lane Configurations Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS 2035 AM 2/4/2013 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR 55 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.41 761 0.90 61 0 61 pm+pt 7 4 20.0 20.0 0.33 4.0 321 0.01 0.05 0.19 13.8 1.00 1.3 15.1 B 730 1900 4.0 0.95 1.00 1.00 3539 1.00 3539 0.90 811 0 811 281 1900 4.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1583 1.00 1583 0.90 312 145 167 Perm 317 1900 4.0 0.97 1.00 0.95 3433 0.95 3433 0.90 352 0 352 Prot 3 353 1900 4.0 0.95 0.95 1.00 3376 1.00 3376 0.90 392 84 482 157 1900 521 1900 4.0 0.95 1.00 1.00 3539 1.00 3539 0.90 579 0 579 326 1900 4.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1583 1.00 1583 0.90 362 161 201 Perm 53 1900 19.0 19.0 0.32 4.0 1069 c0.14 0.88 26.1 1.00 22.8 48.9 D 0.45 16.3 1.00 1.4 17.7 B 29.7 C 195 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.31 582 0.90 217 0 217 pm+pt 1 6 21.0 21.0 0.35 4.0 283 c0.05 0.22 0.77 16.0 1.00 17.9 33.9 C 675 1900 4.0 0.95 0.99 1.00 3500 1.00 3500 0.90 750 9 800 7.0 7.0 0.12 4.0 401 c0.10 142 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.24 438 0.90 158 0 158 pm+pt 5 2 21.0 21.0 0.35 4.0 242 0.04 0.18 0.65 14.8 1.00 12.9 27.7 C Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay HCM Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group 4 16.0 16.0 0.27 4.0 944 c0.23 0.86 20.9 1.00 10.0 31.0 C 27.5 C 4 16.0 16.0 0.27 4.0 422 0.11 0.40 18.0 1.00 2.8 20.8 C 26.7 0.89 60.0 70.8% 15 0.90 174 0 0 8 HCM Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service T:\ADOT Meridian Road\Calcs & Reports\Traffic\Synchro\Meridan Road_AM 2035.syn BAKER 2 17.0 17.0 0.28 4.0 1003 0.16 0.58 18.4 1.00 2.4 20.8 C 21.8 C 2 17.0 17.0 0.28 4.0 449 0.13 0.45 17.7 1.00 3.2 20.9 C 0.90 59 0 0 6 17.0 17.0 0.28 4.0 992 c0.23 0.81 20.0 1.00 7.0 27.0 C 28.4 C C 20.0 C Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 27: Southern Avenue & Meridain Road Movement Lane Configurations Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS 2035 AM 2/4/2013 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR 105 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.18 339 0.90 117 0 117 pm+pt 7 4 25.2 25.2 0.34 4.0 3.0 175 c0.03 0.20 0.67 20.9 1.00 9.3 30.2 C 137 1900 4.0 0.95 0.98 1.00 3459 1.00 3459 0.90 152 18 161 24 1900 0 1900 0.90 0 0 0 Perm 441 1900 4.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1583 1.00 1583 0.90 490 59 431 pm+ov 1 8 26.1 26.1 0.35 4.0 3.0 635 0.07 0.20 0.68 20.9 1.00 2.9 23.8 C 378 1900 4.0 0.97 1.00 0.95 3433 0.95 3433 0.90 420 0 420 Prot 5 689 1900 4.0 0.95 1.00 1.00 3539 1.00 3539 0.90 766 0 766 507 1900 4.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1583 1.00 1583 0.90 563 340 223 Perm 801 1900 4.0 0.95 0.97 1.00 3444 1.00 3444 0.90 890 25 1059 10.4 10.4 0.14 4.0 3.0 476 c0.12 29.7 29.7 0.40 4.0 3.0 1401 0.22 0.88 31.7 1.00 17.3 49.0 D 0.55 17.5 1.00 1.5 19.0 B 25.7 C 94 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.27 507 0.90 104 0 104 pm+pt 1 6 35.5 35.5 0.47 4.0 3.0 376 0.03 0.10 0.28 11.4 1.00 0.4 11.8 B 175 1900 0.90 27 0 0 702 1900 4.0 0.95 1.00 1.00 3539 1.00 3539 0.90 780 0 780 Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay HCM Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group 4 8 25.2 25.2 0.34 4.0 3.0 1162 0.05 0.14 17.3 1.00 0.1 17.4 B 22.5 C 8 18.0 18.0 0.24 4.0 3.0 849 c0.22 0.92 27.8 1.00 14.6 42.4 D 35.2 D 28.6 0.85 75.0 77.1% 15 HCM Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service T:\ADOT Meridian Road\Calcs & Reports\Traffic\Synchro\Meridan Road_AM 2035.syn BAKER 2 2 29.7 29.7 0.40 4.0 3.0 627 0.14 0.36 15.9 1.00 1.6 17.5 B 0.90 194 0 0 6 27.4 27.4 0.37 4.0 3.0 1258 c0.31 0.84 21.8 1.00 6.9 28.8 C 27.3 C C 16.0 D Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 68: US 60 WB On-Ramp & Meridain Road Movement Lane Configurations Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay HCM Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group 2035 AM 2/4/2013 EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR 0 1900 0 1900 0.90 0 0 0 0.90 0 0 0 1084 1900 4.0 0.97 1.00 0.95 3433 0.18 666 0.90 1204 0 1204 pm+pt 2 56 61.0 61.0 0.94 4.0 1519 c0.26 c0.49 0.79 13.1 0.66 1.4 10.1 B 381 1900 4.0 0.95 1.00 1.00 3539 1.00 3539 0.90 423 0 423 338 1900 4.0 0.95 1.00 1.00 3539 1.00 3539 0.90 376 0 376 56 6 255 1900 4.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1583 1.00 1583 0.90 283 192 91 Perm 65.0 65.0 1.00 3539 0.12 16.0 16.0 0.25 4.0 871 0.11 0.12 0.0 1.00 0.0 0.0 A 7.5 A 0.43 20.7 1.00 1.6 22.2 C 21.7 C 0.0 A 11.6 0.78 65.0 53.4% 15 6 16.0 16.0 0.25 4.0 390 0.06 0.23 19.6 1.00 1.4 21.0 C HCM Level of Service B Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service 4.0 A T:\ADOT Meridian Road\Calcs & Reports\Traffic\Synchro\Meridan Road_AM 2035.syn BAKER Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 71: US 60 EB Off-Ramp & Meridain Road Movement Lane Configurations Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Grade (%) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay HCM Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group 2035 AM 2/4/2013 EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR 67 1900 1% 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1761 0.95 1761 0.90 74 0 74 352 1900 0 1900 1465 1900 0% 4.0 0.91 1.00 1.00 5085 1.00 5085 0.90 1628 0 1628 338 1900 0% 4.0 0.95 1.00 1.00 3539 1.00 3539 0.90 376 0 376 0 1900 2 2 21.0 21.0 0.32 4.0 1643 c0.32 21.0 21.0 0.32 4.0 1143 0.11 0.99 21.9 1.08 19.5 43.2 D 43.2 D 0.33 16.7 0.87 0.7 15.3 B 15.3 B 4 12 36.0 36.0 0.55 975 0.04 0.08 6.8 1.00 0.2 6.9 A 7.2 A 4.0 0.88 0.85 1.00 2773 1.00 2773 0.90 391 174 217 Perm 0.90 0 0 0 4 12 36.0 36.0 0.55 1536 c0.08 0.14 7.0 1.00 0.2 7.2 A 32.1 0.45 65.0 53.4% 15 0.90 0 0 0 HCM Level of Service C Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service 8.0 A T:\ADOT Meridian Road\Calcs & Reports\Traffic\Synchro\Meridan Road_AM 2035.syn BAKER Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 31: Baseline Road & Meridain Road Movement Lane Configurations Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS 2035 AM 2/4/2013 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR 22 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.17 317 0.90 24 0 24 pm+pt 7 4 25.1 25.1 0.39 4.0 3.0 158 0.00 0.05 0.15 14.0 1.00 0.4 14.4 B 371 1900 4.0 0.91 0.98 1.00 4993 1.00 4993 0.90 412 26 443 51 1900 147 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.41 764 0.90 163 0 163 pm+pt 3 8 31.5 31.5 0.48 4.0 3.0 445 c0.03 0.15 0.37 9.6 1.00 0.5 10.1 B 1095 1900 4.0 0.95 1.00 1.00 3539 1.00 3539 0.90 1217 0 1217 322 1900 4.0 0.88 0.85 1.00 2787 1.00 2787 0.90 358 164 194 pm+ov 1 8 31.4 31.4 0.48 4.0 3.0 1518 0.01 0.06 0.13 9.3 1.00 0.0 9.3 A 295 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.54 998 0.90 328 0 328 pm+pt 5 2 22.6 22.6 0.35 4.0 3.0 425 c0.08 c0.19 0.77 17.8 1.00 8.4 26.3 C 766 1900 4.0 0.91 0.99 1.00 5054 1.00 5054 0.90 851 8 880 33 1900 208 1900 4.0 0.95 1.00 1.00 3539 1.00 3539 0.90 231 0 231 2 50 1900 4.0 0.97 1.00 0.95 3433 0.95 3433 0.90 56 0 56 Prot 1 77 1900 4.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1583 1.00 1583 0.90 86 67 19 Perm 16.0 16.0 0.25 4.0 3.0 1244 0.17 4.7 4.7 0.07 4.0 3.0 248 0.02 14.1 14.1 0.22 4.0 3.0 768 0.07 0.71 22.4 1.00 3.4 25.8 C 25.9 C 0.23 28.4 1.06 0.5 30.6 C 0.30 21.3 1.60 1.0 35.1 D 40.3 D Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay HCM Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group 0.90 57 0 0 4 23.5 23.5 0.36 4.0 3.0 1805 0.09 0.25 14.5 1.00 0.1 14.6 B 14.6 B 22.2 0.84 65.0 69.0% 15 8 26.7 26.7 0.41 4.0 3.0 1454 c0.34 0.84 17.2 1.00 4.4 21.6 C 18.0 B HCM Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service T:\ADOT Meridian Road\Calcs & Reports\Traffic\Synchro\Meridan Road_AM 2035.syn BAKER 0.90 37 0 0 6 6 14.1 14.1 0.22 4.0 3.0 343 0.01 0.05 20.2 2.98 0.3 60.4 E C 16.0 C Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Guadalupe Road & Meridian Road Movement Lane Configurations Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS 2/4/2013 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR 184 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.45 831 0.90 204 0 204 Perm 206 1900 4.0 0.95 0.96 1.00 3406 1.00 3406 0.90 229 48 258 69 1900 47 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.57 1053 0.90 52 0 52 Perm 324 1900 4.0 0.95 0.96 1.00 3390 1.00 3390 0.90 360 49 452 127 1900 163 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.35 657 0.90 181 0 181 Perm 793 1900 4.0 0.95 0.99 1.00 3501 1.00 3501 0.90 881 13 936 61 1900 32 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.22 404 0.90 36 0 36 Perm 466 1900 4.0 0.95 0.97 1.00 3416 1.00 3416 0.90 518 63 612 141 1900 4 17.0 17.0 0.38 4.0 314 c0.25 0.65 11.5 1.00 10.0 21.5 C Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay HCM Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group 2035 AM 0.90 77 0 0 4 8 17.0 17.0 0.38 4.0 398 17.0 17.0 0.38 4.0 1287 0.08 0.05 0.13 9.2 1.00 0.7 9.8 A 0.20 9.4 1.00 0.4 9.8 A 14.5 B 11.7 0.63 45.0 63.7% 15 0.90 141 0 0 8 17.0 17.0 0.38 4.0 1281 0.13 0.35 10.1 1.00 0.8 10.8 B 10.7 B 2 20.0 20.0 0.44 4.0 292 c0.28 0.62 9.6 1.00 9.5 19.1 B 0.90 68 0 0 2 6 20.0 20.0 0.44 4.0 180 20.0 20.0 0.44 4.0 1556 0.27 0.09 0.20 7.6 1.00 2.5 10.1 B 0.60 9.5 1.00 1.7 11.2 B 12.5 B HCM Level of Service B Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service 8.0 B T:\ADOT Meridian Road\Calcs & Reports\Traffic\Synchro\Meridan Road_AM 2035.syn BAKER 0.90 157 0 0 6 20.0 20.0 0.44 4.0 1518 0.18 0.40 8.5 1.00 0.8 9.3 A 9.3 A Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 35: Elliot Road & Meridian Road Movement Lane Configurations Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS 2035 AM 2/4/2013 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR 116 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.24 444 0.90 129 0 129 pm+pt 7 4 20.0 20.0 0.32 4.0 3.0 213 0.03 0.17 0.61 16.5 1.00 4.8 21.3 C 931 1900 4.0 0.91 0.98 1.00 5001 1.00 5001 0.90 1034 26 1137 116 1900 261 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.19 358 0.90 290 0 290 pm+pt 3 8 28.8 28.8 0.47 4.0 3.0 351 c0.11 0.28 0.83 12.6 1.00 14.6 27.2 C 1304 1900 4.0 0.91 0.98 1.00 4996 1.00 4996 0.90 1449 28 1614 174 1900 495 1900 4.0 0.95 0.98 1.00 3455 1.00 3455 0.90 550 25 628 93 1900 115 1900 21.6 21.6 0.35 4.0 3.0 1752 c0.32 4.0 4.0 0.06 4.0 3.0 223 c0.06 17.6 17.6 0.29 4.0 3.0 987 c0.18 0.92 19.2 1.00 8.5 27.6 C 27.6 C 0.93 28.7 1.00 40.4 69.1 E 0.64 19.2 1.00 3.1 22.3 C 33.6 C 77 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.27 502 0.90 86 0 86 pm+pt 1 6 20.0 20.0 0.32 4.0 3.0 229 0.02 0.10 0.38 15.1 1.00 1.0 16.1 B 447 1900 4.0 0.95 0.97 1.00 3430 1.00 3430 0.90 497 38 587 8 186 1900 4.0 0.97 1.00 0.95 3433 0.95 3433 0.90 207 0 207 Prot 5 Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay HCM Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group 0.90 129 0 0 4 16.8 16.8 0.27 4.0 3.0 1364 0.23 0.83 21.1 1.00 4.5 25.6 C 25.2 C 27.2 0.74 61.6 70.2% 15 0.90 193 0 0 0.90 103 0 0 2 HCM Level of Service C Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service 8.0 C T:\ADOT Meridian Road\Calcs & Reports\Traffic\Synchro\Meridan Road_AM 2035.syn BAKER 0.90 128 0 0 6 16.8 16.8 0.27 4.0 3.0 935 0.17 0.63 19.7 1.00 3.2 22.8 C 22.0 C Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 37: Warner Road & Meridian Road Movement Lane Configurations Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay HCM Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group 2035 AM 2/4/2013 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR 205 1900 4.0 0.97 1.00 0.95 3433 0.95 3433 0.90 228 0 228 Prot 7 978 1900 4.0 0.91 1.00 1.00 5085 1.00 5085 0.90 1087 0 1087 121 1900 4.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1583 1.00 1583 0.90 134 96 38 Perm 1156 1900 4.0 0.91 0.98 1.00 4997 1.00 4997 0.90 1284 28 1424 151 1900 69 1900 87 1900 0.80 27.0 1.00 14.3 41.3 D 0.75 19.6 1.00 2.3 21.9 C 24.4 C 130 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.35 659 0.90 144 0 144 pm+pt 1 6 21.8 21.8 0.36 4.0 3.0 299 c0.03 0.15 0.48 13.6 1.00 1.2 14.8 B 652 1900 4.0 0.95 0.98 1.00 3476 1.00 3476 0.90 724 17 804 17.0 17.0 0.28 4.0 3.0 1441 0.21 63 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.22 419 0.90 70 0 70 pm+pt 5 2 20.2 20.2 0.34 4.0 3.0 195 0.01 0.11 0.36 14.4 1.00 1.1 15.5 B 396 1900 4.0 0.95 0.98 1.00 3460 1.00 3460 0.90 440 23 494 5.0 5.0 0.08 4.0 3.0 286 0.07 200 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.22 414 0.90 222 0 222 pm+pt 3 8 24.0 24.0 0.40 4.0 3.0 301 c0.07 0.22 0.74 13.3 1.00 9.1 22.4 C 4 4 17.0 17.0 0.28 4.0 3.0 449 0.02 0.08 15.8 1.00 0.1 15.9 B 25.9 0.71 60.0 69.2% 15 0.90 168 0 0 8 18.0 18.0 0.30 4.0 3.0 1499 c0.28 0.95 20.6 1.00 13.0 33.6 C 32.1 C 0.90 77 0 0 2 17.8 17.8 0.30 4.0 3.0 1026 0.14 0.48 17.3 1.00 1.6 18.9 B 18.5 B HCM Level of Service C Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service 8.0 C T:\ADOT Meridian Road\Calcs & Reports\Traffic\Synchro\Meridan Road_AM 2035.syn BAKER 0.90 97 0 0 6 18.6 18.6 0.31 4.0 3.0 1078 c0.23 0.75 18.6 1.00 4.7 23.3 C 22.0 C Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 41: Ray Road & Meridian Road Movement Lane Configurations Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS 2035 AM 2/4/2013 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR 106 1900 4.0 0.97 1.00 0.95 3433 0.95 3433 0.90 118 0 118 Prot 7 532 1900 4.0 0.91 0.98 1.00 4995 1.00 4995 0.90 591 26 644 71 1900 1109 1900 4.0 0.91 1.00 1.00 5085 1.00 5085 0.90 1232 0 1232 148 1900 4.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1583 1.00 1583 0.90 164 112 52 Perm 49 1900 99 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.41 760 0.90 110 0 110 Perm 543 1900 4.0 0.95 0.98 1.00 3484 1.00 3484 0.90 603 15 658 63 1900 3.2 3.2 0.05 4.0 3.0 183 c0.03 20.6 20.6 0.34 4.0 3.0 1715 0.13 1.6 1.6 0.03 4.0 3.0 92 0.01 19.0 19.0 0.32 4.0 3.0 1610 c0.24 0.64 27.8 1.00 7.6 35.4 D 0.38 14.9 1.00 0.1 15.0 B 18.0 B 0.26 28.6 1.00 1.5 30.1 C 0.77 18.5 1.00 2.2 20.7 C 20.2 C 127 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.22 406 0.90 141 0 141 pm+pt 5 2 25.8 25.8 0.43 4.0 3.0 247 c0.03 c0.21 0.57 11.7 0.79 3.0 12.1 B 529 1900 4.0 0.95 0.99 1.00 3495 1.00 3495 0.90 588 12 630 4 22 1900 4.0 0.97 1.00 0.95 3433 0.95 3433 0.90 24 0 24 Prot 3 Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay HCM Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group 0.90 79 0 0 17.8 0.64 60.0 62.1% 15 8 8 19.0 19.0 0.32 4.0 3.0 501 0.03 0.10 14.5 1.00 0.1 14.6 B HCM Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service T:\ADOT Meridian Road\Calcs & Reports\Traffic\Synchro\Meridan Road_AM 2035.syn BAKER 0.90 54 0 0 2 6 18.6 18.6 0.31 4.0 3.0 236 25.8 25.8 0.43 4.0 3.0 1503 0.18 0.14 0.47 16.7 1.00 6.5 23.2 C 0.42 11.9 0.77 0.8 9.9 A 10.3 B 0.90 70 0 0 6 18.6 18.6 0.31 4.0 3.0 1080 0.19 0.61 17.6 1.00 2.6 20.2 C 20.6 C B 12.0 B Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 58: Williams Field Road & Meridian Road Movement Lane Configurations Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay HCM Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group 2035 AM 2/4/2013 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR 166 1900 4.0 0.97 1.00 0.95 3433 0.95 3433 0.90 184 0 184 Prot 7 839 1900 4.0 0.91 0.98 1.00 5005 1.00 5005 0.90 932 24 1018 99 1900 766 1900 4.0 0.91 0.98 1.00 4996 1.00 4996 0.90 851 28 936 102 1900 79 1900 75 1900 18.3 18.3 0.31 4.0 3.0 1527 c0.20 4.0 4.0 0.07 4.0 3.0 229 c0.05 16.3 16.3 0.27 4.0 3.0 1357 0.19 0.54 25.7 1.00 1.6 27.3 C 0.67 18.2 1.00 1.1 19.3 B 20.5 C 0.74 27.5 1.00 12.2 39.7 D 0.69 19.6 1.00 1.5 21.1 C 23.9 C 75 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.39 718 0.90 83 0 83 pm+pt 1 6 24.9 24.9 0.41 4.0 3.0 368 c0.02 0.08 0.23 11.0 0.51 0.3 5.9 A 603 1900 4.0 0.95 0.98 1.00 3481 1.00 3481 0.90 670 15 738 6.0 6.0 0.10 4.0 3.0 343 0.05 20 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.29 534 0.90 22 0 22 pm+pt 5 2 18.5 18.5 0.31 4.0 3.0 181 0.00 0.04 0.12 14.7 1.91 0.3 28.3 C 295 1900 4.0 0.95 0.97 1.00 3427 1.00 3427 0.90 328 39 377 4 153 1900 4.0 0.97 1.00 0.95 3433 0.95 3433 0.90 170 0 170 Prot 3 0.90 110 0 0 20.4 0.59 60.0 58.5% 15 0.90 113 0 0 8 HCM Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service T:\ADOT Meridian Road\Calcs & Reports\Traffic\Synchro\Meridan Road_AM 2035.syn BAKER 0.90 88 0 0 2 17.7 17.7 0.29 4.0 3.0 1011 0.11 0.37 16.8 1.90 1.0 33.0 C 32.7 C 0.90 83 0 0 6 20.9 20.9 0.35 4.0 3.0 1213 c0.21 0.61 16.2 0.45 2.1 9.4 A 9.0 A C 12.0 B Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 62: SR 24 WB on-ramp & Meridian Road Movement Lane Configurations Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay HCM Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group 2035 AM 2/4/2013 EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR 0 1900 0 1900 0.90 0 0 0 0.90 0 0 0 671 1900 4.0 0.97 1.00 0.95 3433 0.19 675 0.90 746 0 746 pm+pt 2 56 56.0 56.0 0.93 4.0 1365 c0.15 c0.36 0.55 9.5 1.24 0.9 12.7 B 466 1900 4.0 0.95 1.00 1.00 3539 1.00 3539 0.90 518 0 518 351 1900 4.0 0.95 1.00 1.00 3539 1.00 3539 0.90 390 0 390 56 6 506 1900 4.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1583 1.00 1583 0.90 562 283 279 Perm 60.0 60.0 1.00 3539 0.15 16.0 16.0 0.27 4.0 944 0.11 0.15 0.0 1.00 0.0 0.0 A 7.5 A 0.41 18.1 0.81 1.1 15.7 B 20.7 C 0.0 A 13.2 0.58 60.0 57.1% 15 6 16.0 16.0 0.27 4.0 422 c0.18 0.66 19.6 0.89 6.7 24.1 C HCM Level of Service B Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service 8.0 B T:\ADOT Meridian Road\Calcs & Reports\Traffic\Synchro\Meridan Road_AM 2035.syn BAKER Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 63: SR 24 EB off-ramp & Meridian Road Movement Lane Configurations Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay HCM Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group 2035 AM 2/4/2013 EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR 254 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.95 1770 0.90 282 0 282 559 1900 4.0 0.88 0.85 1.00 2787 1.00 2787 0.90 621 112 509 Perm 0 1900 1137 1900 4.0 0.91 1.00 1.00 5085 1.00 5085 0.90 1263 0 1263 351 1900 4.0 0.95 1.00 1.00 3539 1.00 3539 0.90 390 0 390 0 1900 2 2 16.0 16.0 0.27 4.0 1356 c0.25 16.0 16.0 0.27 4.0 944 0.11 0.93 21.5 0.81 5.2 22.5 C 22.5 C 0.41 18.1 0.71 1.2 14.1 B 14.1 B 4 12 36.0 36.0 0.60 1062 0.16 0.27 5.7 1.00 0.6 6.3 A 6.3 A 0.90 0 0 0 4 12 36.0 36.0 0.60 1672 c0.18 0.30 5.9 1.00 0.5 6.3 A 15.5 0.50 60.0 57.1% 15 0.90 0 0 0 HCM Level of Service B Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service 8.0 B T:\ADOT Meridian Road\Calcs & Reports\Traffic\Synchro\Meridan Road_AM 2035.syn BAKER Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 60: Pecos Road & Meridian Road Movement Lane Configurations Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay HCM Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group 2035 AM 2/4/2013 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR 3 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.25 466 0.90 3 0 3 Perm 27 1900 4.0 0.95 0.96 1.00 3406 1.00 3406 0.90 30 7 33 9 1900 78 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.73 1359 0.90 87 0 87 Perm 583 1900 4.0 0.95 0.99 1.00 3497 1.00 3497 0.90 648 11 693 50 1900 143 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.16 298 0.90 159 0 159 pm+pt 5 2 31.0 31.0 0.52 4.0 301 0.05 0.22 0.53 9.0 0.99 6.2 15.1 B 1058 1900 4.0 0.95 0.97 1.00 3445 1.00 3445 0.90 1176 30 1400 229 1900 904 1900 4.0 0.95 0.99 1.00 3511 1.00 3511 0.90 1004 7 1054 51 1900 2 315 1900 4.0 0.97 1.00 0.95 3433 0.95 3433 0.90 350 0 350 Prot 1 25.0 25.0 0.42 4.0 1435 c0.41 7.0 7.0 0.12 4.0 401 c0.10 26.0 26.0 0.43 4.0 1521 0.30 0.98 17.2 1.02 18.0 35.5 D 33.5 C 0.87 26.1 0.99 21.8 47.6 D 0.69 13.8 0.81 2.6 13.7 B 22.1 C 4 16.0 16.0 0.27 4.0 124 0.01 0.02 16.2 1.00 0.4 16.6 B 0.90 10 0 0 4 8 16.0 16.0 0.27 4.0 362 16.0 16.0 0.27 4.0 908 0.01 0.06 0.24 17.2 1.00 1.6 18.8 B 0.04 16.3 1.00 0.1 16.4 B 16.4 B 27.3 0.88 60.0 73.2% 15 0.90 56 0 0 8 16.0 16.0 0.27 4.0 933 c0.20 0.74 20.1 1.00 5.3 25.4 C 24.7 C HCM Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service T:\ADOT Meridian Road\Calcs & Reports\Traffic\Synchro\Meridan Road_AM 2035.syn BAKER 0.90 254 0 0 0.90 57 0 0 6 C 12.0 D Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 50: Germann Road & Meridian Road Movement Lane Configurations Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS 2035 AM 2/4/2013 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR 127 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.20 373 0.90 141 0 141 pm+pt 7 4 24.0 24.0 0.40 4.0 242 0.04 0.19 0.58 13.8 1.00 9.9 23.6 C 723 1900 4.0 0.95 0.99 1.00 3502 1.00 3502 0.90 803 9 854 54 1900 1065 1900 4.0 0.95 0.97 1.00 3427 1.00 3427 0.90 1183 40 1461 286 1900 25 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.58 1074 0.90 28 0 28 Perm 330 1900 4.0 0.95 0.95 1.00 3372 1.00 3372 0.90 367 90 446 152 1900 110 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.35 645 0.90 122 0 122 Perm 239 1900 4.0 0.95 0.99 1.00 3502 1.00 3502 0.90 266 9 277 18 1900 4 337 1900 4.0 0.97 1.00 0.95 3433 0.95 3433 0.90 374 0 374 Prot 3 20.0 20.0 0.33 4.0 1167 0.24 11.0 11.0 0.18 4.0 629 c0.11 27.0 27.0 0.45 4.0 1542 c0.43 0.73 17.6 1.00 4.1 21.7 C 22.0 C 0.59 22.5 1.00 4.1 26.6 C 0.95 15.8 1.00 13.4 29.2 C 28.7 C Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay HCM Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group 0.90 60 0 0 23.8 0.84 60.0 79.0% 15 0.90 318 0 0 8 HCM Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service T:\ADOT Meridian Road\Calcs & Reports\Traffic\Synchro\Meridan Road_AM 2035.syn BAKER 2 17.0 17.0 0.28 4.0 304 0.03 0.09 15.8 1.00 0.6 16.4 B 0.90 169 0 0 2 6 17.0 17.0 0.28 4.0 183 17.0 17.0 0.28 4.0 955 0.13 c0.19 0.67 19.0 0.52 13.6 23.4 C 0.47 17.8 1.00 1.6 19.4 B 19.3 B 0.90 20 0 0 6 17.0 17.0 0.28 4.0 992 0.08 0.28 16.7 0.42 0.5 7.6 A 12.4 B C 12.0 D Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 11: University Drive & Meridain Road Movement Lane Configurations Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay HCM Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group 2035 PM 2/4/2013 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR 73 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.55 1019 0.90 81 0 81 Perm 883 1900 4.0 0.95 0.97 1.00 3418 1.00 3418 0.90 981 50 1222 262 1900 46 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.14 260 0.90 51 0 51 Perm 253 1900 4.0 0.95 0.97 1.00 3447 1.00 3447 0.90 281 27 313 53 1900 156 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.61 1132 0.90 173 0 173 Perm 188 1900 4.0 0.95 0.94 1.00 3328 1.00 3328 0.90 209 70 277 124 1900 95 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.53 995 0.90 106 0 106 Perm 208 1900 4.0 0.95 1.00 1.00 3539 1.00 3539 0.90 231 0 231 43 1900 4.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1583 1.00 1583 0.90 48 33 15 Perm 4 30.0 30.0 0.55 4.0 556 0.08 0.15 6.2 1.00 0.6 6.7 A 0.90 291 0 0 4 8 30.0 30.0 0.55 4.0 142 30.0 30.0 0.55 4.0 1864 c0.36 0.20 0.36 7.1 1.00 6.9 14.0 B 0.66 8.8 1.00 1.8 10.7 B 10.4 B 11.9 0.60 55.0 63.9% 15 0.90 59 0 0 8 30.0 30.0 0.55 4.0 1880 0.09 0.17 6.2 1.00 0.2 6.4 A 7.4 A 2 17.0 17.0 0.31 4.0 350 c0.15 0.49 15.5 1.00 4.9 20.4 C 0.90 138 0 0 2 6 17.0 17.0 0.31 4.0 308 17.0 17.0 0.31 4.0 1029 0.08 0.11 0.34 14.7 1.00 3.0 17.7 B 0.27 14.3 1.00 0.6 15.0 B 16.8 B HCM Level of Service B Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service 8.0 B T:\ADOT Meridian Road\Calcs & Reports\Traffic\Synchro\Meridan Road_PM 2035.syn BAKER 6 17.0 17.0 0.31 4.0 1094 0.07 0.21 14.0 1.00 0.4 14.5 B 15.2 B 6 17.0 17.0 0.31 4.0 489 0.01 0.03 13.3 1.00 0.1 13.4 B Synchro 7 - Report Page 2 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 17: Apache Trail & Meridain Road Movement Lane Configurations Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS 2035 PM 2/4/2013 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR 85 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.24 438 0.90 94 0 94 pm+pt 7 4 21.0 21.0 0.35 4.0 242 0.03 0.11 0.39 13.7 1.00 4.6 18.3 B 1171 1900 4.0 0.91 1.00 1.00 5085 1.00 5085 0.90 1301 0 1301 205 1900 4.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1583 1.00 1583 0.90 228 163 65 Perm 309 1900 4.0 0.97 1.00 0.95 3433 0.95 3433 0.90 343 0 343 Prot 3 1057 1900 4.0 0.91 1.00 1.00 5085 1.00 5085 0.90 1174 0 1174 172 1900 4.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1583 1.00 1583 0.90 191 127 64 Perm 218 1900 4.0 0.95 0.90 1.00 3188 1.00 3188 0.90 242 155 560 426 1900 57 1900 20.0 20.0 0.33 4.0 1695 c0.23 0.86 26.0 1.00 20.2 46.3 D 0.69 17.3 1.00 2.4 19.7 B 24.4 C 149 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.25 466 0.90 166 0 166 pm+pt 1 6 20.0 20.0 0.33 4.0 242 c0.05 c0.18 0.69 15.5 1.00 14.7 30.2 C 300 1900 4.0 0.95 0.98 1.00 3455 1.00 3455 0.90 333 26 370 7.0 7.0 0.12 4.0 401 c0.10 188 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.46 859 0.90 209 0 209 pm+pt 5 2 20.0 20.0 0.33 4.0 347 0.04 0.16 0.60 15.7 1.00 7.5 23.2 C Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay HCM Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group 4 17.0 17.0 0.28 4.0 1441 c0.26 0.90 20.7 1.00 9.5 30.2 C 27.6 C 4 17.0 17.0 0.28 4.0 449 0.04 0.14 16.1 1.00 0.7 16.7 B 25.1 0.85 60.0 72.8% 15 8 8 20.0 20.0 0.33 4.0 528 0.04 0.12 13.9 1.00 0.5 14.4 B HCM Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service T:\ADOT Meridian Road\Calcs & Reports\Traffic\Synchro\Meridan Road_PM 2035.syn BAKER 0.90 473 0 0 2 16.0 16.0 0.27 4.0 850 0.18 0.66 19.6 1.00 4.0 23.6 C 23.5 C 0.90 63 0 0 6 16.0 16.0 0.27 4.0 921 0.11 0.40 18.1 1.00 1.3 19.4 B 22.6 C C 20.0 C Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 22: Broadway Avenue & Meridain Road Movement Lane Configurations Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS 2035 PM 2/4/2013 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR 71 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.25 466 0.90 79 0 79 pm+pt 7 4 20.0 20.0 0.31 4.0 224 0.02 0.09 0.35 17.0 1.00 4.3 21.3 C 374 1900 4.0 0.95 1.00 1.00 3539 1.00 3539 0.90 416 0 416 187 1900 4.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1583 1.00 1583 0.90 208 157 51 Perm 362 1900 4.0 0.97 1.00 0.95 3433 0.95 3433 0.90 402 0 402 Prot 3 637 1900 4.0 0.95 0.96 1.00 3403 1.00 3403 0.90 708 53 899 220 1900 608 1900 4.0 0.95 1.00 1.00 3539 1.00 3539 0.90 676 0 676 284 1900 4.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1583 1.00 1583 0.90 316 205 111 Perm 67 1900 20.0 20.0 0.31 4.0 1047 c0.26 0.95 28.3 1.00 32.9 61.2 E 0.86 21.2 1.00 9.2 30.3 C 39.5 D 186 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.27 505 0.90 207 0 207 pm+pt 1 6 23.0 23.0 0.35 4.0 295 0.06 0.18 0.70 15.7 1.00 13.1 28.7 C 515 1900 4.0 0.95 0.98 1.00 3478 1.00 3478 0.90 572 16 630 8.0 8.0 0.12 4.0 423 c0.12 296 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.21 392 0.90 329 0 329 pm+pt 5 2 27.0 27.0 0.42 4.0 332 c0.12 c0.29 0.99 15.6 1.00 47.2 62.7 E Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay HCM Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group 4 16.0 16.0 0.25 4.0 871 0.12 0.48 20.9 1.00 1.9 22.8 C 21.7 C 4 16.0 16.0 0.25 4.0 390 0.03 0.13 19.1 1.00 0.7 19.8 B 31.6 1.00 65.0 74.7% 15 0.90 244 0 0 8 HCM Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service T:\ADOT Meridian Road\Calcs & Reports\Traffic\Synchro\Meridan Road_PM 2035.syn BAKER 2 19.0 19.0 0.29 4.0 1034 0.19 0.65 20.1 1.00 3.2 23.3 C 32.1 C 2 19.0 19.0 0.29 4.0 463 0.07 0.24 17.5 1.00 1.2 18.7 B 0.90 74 0 0 6 17.0 17.0 0.26 4.0 910 0.18 0.69 21.6 1.00 4.3 26.0 C 26.6 C C 16.0 D Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 27: Southern Avenue & Meridain Road Movement Lane Configurations Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS 2035 PM 2/4/2013 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR 269 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.40 751 0.90 299 0 299 pm+pt 7 4 38.8 38.8 0.43 4.0 3.0 369 c0.04 0.31 0.81 23.3 1.00 12.6 35.9 D 360 1900 4.0 0.95 0.98 1.00 3463 1.00 3463 0.90 400 15 452 60 1900 264 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.48 901 0.90 293 0 293 Perm 356 1900 4.0 0.95 1.00 1.00 3539 1.00 3539 0.90 396 0 396 342 1900 4.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1583 1.00 1583 0.90 380 66 314 pm+ov 1 8 36.8 36.8 0.41 4.0 3.0 718 0.03 0.17 0.44 19.1 1.00 0.4 19.6 B 171 1900 4.0 0.97 1.00 0.95 3433 0.95 3433 0.90 190 0 190 Prot 5 568 1900 4.0 0.95 1.00 1.00 3539 1.00 3539 0.90 631 0 631 583 1900 4.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1583 1.00 1583 0.90 648 235 413 Perm 951 1900 4.0 0.95 0.99 1.00 3514 1.00 3514 0.90 1057 4 1106 48 1900 6.4 6.4 0.07 4.0 3.0 244 c0.06 33.2 33.2 0.37 4.0 3.0 1305 0.18 0.78 41.1 1.00 14.5 55.6 E 0.48 21.8 1.00 1.3 23.1 C 30.9 C 82 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.31 570 0.90 91 0 91 pm+pt 1 6 38.8 38.8 0.43 4.0 3.0 326 0.02 0.10 0.28 15.8 1.00 0.5 16.3 B Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay HCM Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group 0.90 67 0 0 4 8 30.8 30.8 0.34 4.0 3.0 308 38.8 38.8 0.43 4.0 3.0 1493 0.13 c0.33 0.95 28.9 1.00 38.3 67.1 E 0.30 16.7 1.00 0.1 16.9 B 24.3 C 31.0 0.90 90.0 72.5% 15 8 30.8 30.8 0.34 4.0 3.0 1211 0.11 0.33 21.9 1.00 0.2 22.1 C 33.5 C HCM Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service T:\ADOT Meridian Road\Calcs & Reports\Traffic\Synchro\Meridan Road_PM 2035.syn BAKER 2 2 33.2 33.2 0.37 4.0 3.0 584 0.26 0.71 24.2 1.00 7.0 31.3 C 0.90 53 0 0 6 32.8 32.8 0.36 4.0 3.0 1281 c0.31 0.86 26.5 1.00 7.9 34.4 C 33.0 C C 16.0 C Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 68: US 60 WB On-Ramp & Meridain Road Movement Lane Configurations Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay HCM Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group 2035 PM 2/4/2013 EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR 0 1900 0 1900 0.90 0 0 0 0.90 0 0 0 418 1900 4.0 0.97 1.00 0.95 3433 0.13 487 0.90 464 0 464 pm+pt 2 56 56.0 56.0 0.93 4.0 1240 c0.10 c0.25 0.37 9.3 0.24 0.7 3.0 A 386 1900 4.0 0.95 1.00 1.00 3539 1.00 3539 0.90 429 0 429 480 1900 4.0 0.95 1.00 1.00 3539 1.00 3539 0.90 533 0 533 56 6 184 1900 4.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1583 1.00 1583 0.90 204 150 54 Perm 60.0 60.0 1.00 3539 0.12 16.0 16.0 0.27 4.0 944 c0.15 0.12 0.0 1.00 0.1 0.1 A 1.6 A 0.56 19.0 1.00 2.4 21.4 C 20.3 C 0.0 A 10.0 0.43 60.0 70.2% 15 6 16.0 16.0 0.27 4.0 422 0.03 0.13 16.7 1.00 0.6 17.3 B HCM Level of Service B Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service 8.0 C T:\ADOT Meridian Road\Calcs & Reports\Traffic\Synchro\Meridan Road_PM 2035.syn BAKER Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 71: US 60 EB Off-Ramp & Meridain Road Movement Lane Configurations Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Grade (%) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay HCM Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group 2035 PM 2/4/2013 EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR 254 1900 1% 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1761 0.95 1761 0.90 282 0 282 1437 1900 0 1900 804 1900 0% 4.0 0.91 1.00 1.00 5085 1.00 5085 0.90 893 0 893 480 1900 0% 4.0 0.95 1.00 1.00 3539 1.00 3539 0.90 533 0 533 0 1900 2 2 16.0 16.0 0.27 4.0 1356 c0.18 16.0 16.0 0.27 4.0 944 0.15 0.66 19.6 1.00 2.5 22.1 C 22.1 C 0.56 19.0 0.77 2.0 16.8 B 16.8 B 4 12 36.0 36.0 0.60 1057 0.16 0.27 5.7 1.00 0.6 6.3 A 19.1 B 4.0 0.88 0.85 1.00 2773 1.00 2773 0.90 1597 54 1543 Perm 0.90 0 0 0 4 12 36.0 36.0 0.60 1664 c0.56 0.93 10.8 1.00 10.5 21.3 C 19.5 0.84 60.0 70.2% 15 0.90 0 0 0 HCM Level of Service B Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service 8.0 C T:\ADOT Meridian Road\Calcs & Reports\Traffic\Synchro\Meridan Road_PM 2035.syn BAKER Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 31: Baseline Road & Meridain Road Movement Lane Configurations Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS 2035 PM 2/4/2013 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR 160 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.46 848 0.90 178 0 178 pm+pt 7 4 34.6 34.6 0.38 4.0 3.0 408 c0.04 0.13 0.44 19.2 1.00 0.7 19.9 B 1085 1900 4.0 0.91 0.97 1.00 4926 1.00 4926 0.90 1206 50 1474 286 1900 42 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.18 330 0.90 47 0 47 pm+pt 3 8 25.0 25.0 0.28 4.0 3.0 130 0.01 0.09 0.36 26.0 1.00 1.7 27.7 C 246 1900 4.0 0.95 1.00 1.00 3539 1.00 3539 0.90 273 0 273 549 1900 4.0 0.88 0.85 1.00 2787 1.00 2787 0.90 610 344 266 pm+ov 1 8 39.1 39.1 0.43 4.0 3.0 1335 0.04 0.06 0.20 15.8 1.00 0.1 15.8 B 18 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.15 277 0.90 20 0 20 pm+pt 5 2 28.5 28.5 0.32 4.0 3.0 114 0.00 0.05 0.18 24.2 1.00 0.7 24.9 C 243 1900 4.0 0.91 0.96 1.00 4870 1.00 4870 0.90 270 74 302 95 1900 1453 1900 4.0 0.95 1.00 1.00 3539 1.00 3539 0.90 1614 0 1614 2 407 1900 4.0 0.97 1.00 0.95 3433 0.95 3433 0.90 452 0 452 Prot 1 38 1900 4.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1583 1.00 1583 0.90 42 11 31 Perm 26.9 26.9 0.30 4.0 3.0 1456 0.06 16.5 16.5 0.18 4.0 3.0 629 c0.13 41.8 41.8 0.46 4.0 3.0 1644 c0.46 0.21 23.6 1.00 0.3 23.9 C 24.0 C 0.72 34.6 1.00 3.9 38.5 D 0.98 23.7 1.00 18.3 42.0 D 40.7 D Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay HCM Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group 0.90 318 0 0 4 28.2 28.2 0.31 4.0 3.0 1543 c0.30 0.96 30.3 1.00 13.6 43.9 D 41.4 D 35.9 0.97 90.0 87.5% 15 8 22.6 22.6 0.25 4.0 3.0 889 0.08 0.31 27.3 1.00 0.2 27.5 C 19.9 B HCM Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service T:\ADOT Meridian Road\Calcs & Reports\Traffic\Synchro\Meridan Road_PM 2035.syn BAKER 0.90 106 0 0 6 6 41.8 41.8 0.46 4.0 3.0 735 0.02 0.04 13.2 1.00 0.1 13.3 B D 16.0 E Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Guadalupe Road & Meridian Road Movement Lane Configurations Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay HCM Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group 2035 PM 2/4/2013 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR 72 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.42 786 0.90 80 0 80 Perm 359 1900 4.0 0.95 0.98 1.00 3477 1.00 3477 0.90 399 17 435 48 1900 69 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.41 760 0.90 77 0 77 Perm 347 1900 4.0 0.95 0.98 1.00 3477 1.00 3477 0.90 386 17 420 46 1900 129 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.19 350 0.90 143 0 143 Perm 645 1900 4.0 0.95 0.98 1.00 3477 1.00 3477 0.90 717 17 796 86 1900 184 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.31 580 0.90 204 0 204 Perm 921 1900 4.0 0.95 0.98 1.00 3477 1.00 3477 0.90 1023 17 1143 123 1900 4 16.0 16.0 0.27 4.0 210 0.10 0.38 18.0 1.00 5.2 23.1 C 0.90 53 0 0 4 8 16.0 16.0 0.27 4.0 203 16.0 16.0 0.27 4.0 927 c0.13 0.10 0.38 17.9 1.00 5.3 23.3 C 0.47 18.4 1.00 1.7 20.1 C 20.6 C 12.8 0.62 60.0 65.1% 15 0.90 51 0 0 8 16.0 16.0 0.27 4.0 927 0.12 0.45 18.4 1.00 1.6 20.0 B 20.4 C 2 36.0 36.0 0.60 4.0 210 c0.41 0.68 8.1 1.00 16.4 24.5 C 0.90 96 0 0 2 6 36.0 36.0 0.60 4.0 348 36.0 36.0 0.60 4.0 2086 0.23 0.35 0.59 7.4 1.00 7.1 14.5 B 0.38 6.2 1.00 0.5 6.8 A 9.4 A HCM Level of Service B Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service 8.0 C T:\ADOT Meridian Road\Calcs & Reports\Traffic\Synchro\Meridan Road_PM 2035.syn BAKER 0.90 137 0 0 6 36.0 36.0 0.60 4.0 2086 0.33 0.55 7.2 1.00 1.0 8.2 A 9.1 A Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 35: Elliot Road & Meridian Road Movement Lane Configurations Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS 2035 PM 2/4/2013 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR 139 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.27 507 0.90 154 0 154 pm+pt 7 4 18.4 18.4 0.32 4.0 3.0 242 c0.04 0.16 0.64 14.9 1.00 5.4 20.3 C 695 1900 4.0 0.91 0.98 1.00 4996 1.00 4996 0.90 772 29 846 93 1900 123 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.27 507 0.90 137 0 137 pm+pt 3 8 18.4 18.4 0.32 4.0 3.0 242 0.04 0.14 0.57 14.9 1.00 3.0 17.9 B 613 1900 4.0 0.91 0.98 1.00 4995 1.00 4995 0.90 681 29 743 82 1900 715 1900 4.0 0.95 0.97 1.00 3440 1.00 3440 0.90 794 32 945 165 1900 123 1900 14.7 14.7 0.25 4.0 3.0 1270 0.15 2.2 2.2 0.04 4.0 3.0 131 0.02 20.4 20.4 0.35 4.0 3.0 1214 c0.27 0.58 18.9 1.00 0.7 19.6 B 19.3 B 0.44 27.2 1.00 2.4 29.6 C 0.78 16.7 1.00 5.0 21.7 C 22.1 C 78 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.19 351 0.90 87 0 87 pm+pt 1 6 24.2 24.2 0.42 4.0 3.0 221 c0.02 0.14 0.39 11.6 1.00 1.2 12.8 B 583 1900 4.0 0.95 0.97 1.00 3447 1.00 3447 0.90 648 28 757 8 52 1900 4.0 0.97 1.00 0.95 3433 0.95 3433 0.90 58 0 58 Prot 5 Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay HCM Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group 0.90 103 0 0 4 14.7 14.7 0.25 4.0 3.0 1271 c0.17 0.67 19.3 1.00 1.3 20.7 C 20.6 C 19.8 0.70 57.8 65.0% 15 0.90 91 0 0 HCM Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service T:\ADOT Meridian Road\Calcs & Reports\Traffic\Synchro\Meridan Road_PM 2035.syn BAKER 0.90 183 0 0 2 0.90 137 0 0 6 21.2 21.2 0.37 4.0 3.0 1264 0.22 0.60 14.9 1.00 2.1 17.0 B 16.5 B B 16.0 C Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 37: Warner Road & Meridian Road Movement Lane Configurations Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS 2035 PM 2/4/2013 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR 339 1900 4.0 0.97 1.00 0.95 3433 0.95 3433 0.90 377 0 377 Prot 7 1715 1900 4.0 0.91 1.00 1.00 5085 1.00 5085 0.90 1906 0 1906 208 1900 4.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1583 1.00 1583 0.90 231 123 108 Perm 606 1900 4.0 0.91 0.98 1.00 4995 1.00 4995 0.90 673 26 737 81 1900 66 1900 60 1900 0.64 25.0 1.00 2.3 27.3 C 0.92 18.2 1.00 7.1 25.3 C 24.4 C 90 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.33 612 0.90 100 0 100 pm+pt 1 6 19.3 19.3 0.30 4.0 3.0 239 0.02 0.10 0.42 17.2 1.00 1.2 18.4 B 452 1900 4.0 0.95 0.98 1.00 3477 1.00 3477 0.90 502 16 553 26.5 26.5 0.41 4.0 3.0 2073 c0.37 88 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.28 524 0.90 98 0 98 pm+pt 5 2 19.3 19.3 0.30 4.0 3.0 217 c0.02 0.11 0.45 17.3 1.00 1.5 18.8 B 397 1900 4.0 0.95 0.98 1.00 3464 1.00 3464 0.90 441 20 494 11.2 11.2 0.17 4.0 3.0 592 c0.11 121 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.22 403 0.90 134 0 134 pm+pt 3 8 21.7 21.7 0.33 4.0 3.0 202 0.03 0.19 0.66 17.8 1.00 7.9 25.8 C Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay HCM Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group 4 4 26.5 26.5 0.41 4.0 3.0 645 0.07 0.17 12.2 1.00 0.1 12.4 B 23.6 0.80 65.0 72.5% 15 0.90 90 0 0 8 18.5 18.5 0.28 4.0 3.0 1422 0.15 0.52 19.5 1.00 0.3 19.8 B 20.7 C HCM Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service T:\ADOT Meridian Road\Calcs & Reports\Traffic\Synchro\Meridan Road_PM 2035.syn BAKER 0.90 73 0 0 2 16.1 16.1 0.25 4.0 3.0 858 0.14 0.58 21.5 1.00 2.8 24.3 C 23.4 C 0.90 67 0 0 6 16.1 16.1 0.25 4.0 3.0 861 c0.16 0.64 21.9 1.00 3.7 25.5 C 24.5 C C 16.0 C Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 41: Ray Road & Meridian Road Movement Lane Configurations Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS 2035 PM 2/4/2013 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR 207 1900 4.0 0.97 1.00 0.95 3433 0.95 3433 0.90 230 0 230 Prot 7 1013 1900 4.0 0.91 0.98 1.00 4975 1.00 4975 0.90 1126 37 1280 172 1900 666 1900 4.0 0.91 1.00 1.00 5085 1.00 5085 0.90 740 0 740 389 1900 4.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1583 1.00 1583 0.90 432 310 122 Perm 42 1900 109 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.63 1170 0.90 121 0 121 Perm 219 1900 4.0 0.95 0.98 1.00 3464 1.00 3464 0.90 243 21 262 36 1900 7.8 7.8 0.13 4.0 3.0 446 c0.07 22.3 22.3 0.37 4.0 3.0 1849 c0.26 2.4 2.4 0.04 4.0 3.0 137 0.02 16.9 16.9 0.28 4.0 3.0 1432 0.15 0.52 24.3 1.00 1.0 25.3 C 0.69 15.9 1.00 1.1 17.1 B 18.3 B 0.45 28.2 1.00 2.4 30.5 C 0.52 18.1 1.00 0.3 18.4 B 18.6 B 31 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.47 878 0.90 34 0 34 pm+pt 5 2 23.3 23.3 0.39 4.0 3.0 365 0.00 0.03 0.09 11.6 1.00 0.1 11.7 B 135 1900 4.0 0.95 0.96 1.00 3413 1.00 3413 0.90 150 29 168 4 56 1900 4.0 0.97 1.00 0.95 3433 0.95 3433 0.90 62 0 62 Prot 3 Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay HCM Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group 0.90 191 0 0 17.9 0.50 60.0 51.2% 15 8 8 16.9 16.9 0.28 4.0 3.0 446 0.08 0.27 16.8 1.00 0.3 17.1 B HCM Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service T:\ADOT Meridian Road\Calcs & Reports\Traffic\Synchro\Meridan Road_PM 2035.syn BAKER 0.90 47 0 0 2 6 17.7 17.7 0.29 4.0 3.0 345 23.3 23.3 0.39 4.0 3.0 1325 c0.05 c0.10 0.35 16.6 1.00 2.8 19.4 B 0.13 11.8 1.00 0.2 12.0 B 12.0 B 0.90 40 0 0 6 17.7 17.7 0.29 4.0 3.0 1022 0.08 0.26 16.1 1.00 0.6 16.7 B 17.5 B B 12.0 A Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 58: Williams Field Road & Meridian Road Movement Lane Configurations Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS 2035 PM 2/4/2013 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR 502 1900 4.0 0.97 1.00 0.95 3433 0.95 3433 0.90 558 0 558 Prot 7 628 1900 4.0 0.91 0.97 1.00 4958 1.00 4958 0.90 698 51 787 126 1900 207 1900 4.0 0.91 0.95 1.00 4822 1.00 4822 0.90 230 100 251 109 1900 165 1900 125 1900 19.2 19.2 0.30 4.0 3.0 1465 c0.16 3.2 3.2 0.05 4.0 3.0 169 0.02 11.4 11.4 0.18 4.0 3.0 846 0.05 0.96 26.8 1.00 27.6 54.4 D 0.54 19.2 1.00 0.4 19.6 B 33.5 C 0.49 30.1 1.00 2.2 32.3 C 0.30 23.3 1.00 0.2 23.5 C 25.2 C 235 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.20 373 0.90 261 0 261 pm+pt 1 6 30.6 30.6 0.47 4.0 3.0 393 c0.10 c0.21 0.66 12.0 1.00 4.2 16.2 B 422 1900 4.0 0.95 0.97 1.00 3418 1.00 3418 0.90 469 40 568 11.0 11.0 0.17 4.0 3.0 581 c0.16 130 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.40 737 0.90 144 0 144 pm+pt 5 2 22.1 22.1 0.34 4.0 3.0 340 0.04 0.11 0.42 15.4 1.00 0.9 16.3 B 391 1900 4.0 0.95 0.96 1.00 3382 1.00 3382 0.90 434 72 545 4 74 1900 4.0 0.97 1.00 0.95 3433 0.95 3433 0.90 82 0 82 Prot 3 Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay HCM Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group 0.90 140 0 0 26.5 0.66 65.0 63.2% 15 0.90 121 0 0 8 0.90 183 0 0 2 16.5 16.5 0.25 4.0 3.0 859 0.16 0.63 21.6 1.00 3.6 25.1 C 23.4 C HCM Level of Service C Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service 8.0 B T:\ADOT Meridian Road\Calcs & Reports\Traffic\Synchro\Meridan Road_PM 2035.syn BAKER 0.90 139 0 0 6 21.0 21.0 0.32 4.0 3.0 1104 0.17 0.51 17.9 1.00 1.7 19.6 B 18.6 B Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 62: SR 24 WB on-ramp & Meridian Road Movement Lane Configurations Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay HCM Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group 2035 PM 2/4/2013 EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR 0 1900 0 1900 0.90 0 0 0 0.90 0 0 0 708 1900 4.0 0.97 1.00 0.95 3433 0.10 361 0.90 787 0 787 pm+pt 2 56 56.0 56.0 0.93 4.0 1156 c0.18 c0.45 0.68 15.6 0.88 1.1 14.8 B 532 1900 4.0 0.95 1.00 1.00 3539 1.00 3539 0.90 591 0 591 742 1900 4.0 0.95 1.00 1.00 3539 1.00 3539 0.90 824 0 824 56 6 137 1900 4.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1583 1.00 1583 0.90 152 84 68 Perm 60.0 60.0 1.00 3539 0.17 16.0 16.0 0.27 4.0 944 c0.23 0.17 0.0 1.00 0.0 0.0 A 8.5 A 0.87 21.0 1.00 11.0 32.0 C 29.8 C 0.0 A 17.3 0.74 60.0 62.8% 15 6 16.0 16.0 0.27 4.0 422 0.04 0.16 16.9 1.00 0.8 17.7 B HCM Level of Service B Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service 8.0 B T:\ADOT Meridian Road\Calcs & Reports\Traffic\Synchro\Meridan Road_PM 2035.syn BAKER Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 63: SR 24 EB off-ramp & Meridian Road Movement Lane Configurations Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay HCM Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group 2035 PM 2/4/2013 EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR 113 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.95 1770 0.90 126 0 126 1018 1900 4.0 0.88 0.85 1.00 2787 1.00 2787 0.90 1131 11 1120 Perm 0 1900 1241 1900 4.0 0.91 1.00 1.00 5085 1.00 5085 0.90 1379 0 1379 742 1900 4.0 0.95 1.00 1.00 3539 1.00 3539 0.90 824 0 824 0 1900 2 2 16.0 16.0 0.27 4.0 1356 c0.27 16.0 16.0 0.27 4.0 944 0.23 1.02 22.0 1.00 28.8 50.8 D 50.8 D 0.87 21.0 0.64 5.5 18.9 B 18.9 B 4 12 36.0 36.0 0.60 1062 0.07 0.12 5.2 1.00 0.2 5.4 A 9.7 A 0.90 0 0 0 4 12 36.0 36.0 0.60 1672 c0.40 0.67 8.0 1.00 2.2 10.2 B 28.2 0.78 60.0 62.8% 15 0.90 0 0 0 HCM Level of Service C Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service 8.0 B T:\ADOT Meridian Road\Calcs & Reports\Traffic\Synchro\Meridan Road_PM 2035.syn BAKER Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 60: Pecos Road & Meridian Road Movement Lane Configurations Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS 2/4/2013 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR 64 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.31 577 0.90 71 0 71 Perm 161 1900 4.0 0.95 0.99 1.00 3511 1.00 3511 0.90 179 6 183 9 1900 25 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.63 1179 0.90 28 0 28 Perm 157 1900 4.0 0.95 0.90 1.00 3181 1.00 3181 0.90 174 180 354 324 1900 46 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.14 266 0.90 51 0 51 pm+pt 5 2 32.0 32.0 0.49 4.0 224 0.01 0.10 0.23 13.2 1.00 2.4 15.5 B 740 1900 4.0 0.95 0.98 1.00 3455 1.00 3455 0.90 822 24 952 139 1900 1400 1900 4.0 0.95 0.98 1.00 3481 1.00 3481 0.90 1556 14 1732 171 1900 2 232 1900 4.0 0.97 1.00 0.95 3433 0.95 3433 0.90 258 0 258 Prot 1 28.0 28.0 0.43 4.0 1488 0.28 9.0 9.0 0.14 4.0 475 c0.08 33.0 33.0 0.51 4.0 1767 c0.50 0.64 14.5 1.00 2.1 16.7 B 16.6 B 0.54 26.1 1.00 4.4 30.5 C 0.98 15.7 1.00 17.2 32.9 C 32.5 C 4 16.0 16.0 0.25 4.0 142 c0.12 0.50 21.1 1.00 12.0 33.1 C Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay HCM Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group 2035 PM 0.90 10 0 0 4 8 16.0 16.0 0.25 4.0 290 16.0 16.0 0.25 4.0 864 0.05 0.02 0.10 18.9 1.00 0.7 19.6 B 0.21 19.5 1.00 0.6 20.0 C 23.6 C 26.2 0.82 65.0 79.2% 15 0.90 360 0 0 8 16.0 16.0 0.25 4.0 783 0.11 0.45 20.8 1.00 1.9 22.7 C 22.5 C HCM Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service T:\ADOT Meridian Road\Calcs & Reports\Traffic\Synchro\Meridan Road_PM 2035.syn BAKER 0.90 154 0 0 0.90 190 0 0 6 C 12.0 D Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 50: Germann Road & Meridian Road Movement Lane Configurations Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS 2035 PM 2/4/2013 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR 243 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.28 526 0.90 270 0 270 pm+pt 7 4 26.0 26.0 0.47 4.0 407 c0.08 c0.23 0.66 9.6 1.00 8.3 17.9 B 518 1900 4.0 0.95 0.99 1.00 3515 1.00 3515 0.90 576 6 597 24 1900 108 1900 4.0 0.95 0.88 1.00 3120 1.00 3120 0.90 120 227 341 403 1900 34 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.20 373 0.90 38 0 38 Perm 297 1900 4.0 0.95 1.00 1.00 3522 1.00 3522 0.90 330 4 337 10 1900 165 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.55 1018 0.90 183 0 183 Perm 680 1900 4.0 0.95 0.98 1.00 3469 1.00 3469 0.90 756 22 850 104 1900 4 27 1900 4.0 0.97 1.00 0.95 3433 0.95 3433 0.90 30 0 30 Prot 3 19.0 19.0 0.35 4.0 1214 0.17 4.0 4.0 0.07 4.0 250 0.01 16.0 16.0 0.29 4.0 908 0.11 0.49 14.2 1.00 1.4 15.6 B 16.3 B 0.12 23.9 1.00 1.0 24.8 C 0.38 15.5 1.00 1.2 16.7 B 17.1 B Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay HCM Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group 0.90 27 0 0 16.6 0.71 55.0 68.3% 15 0.90 448 0 0 8 HCM Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service T:\ADOT Meridian Road\Calcs & Reports\Traffic\Synchro\Meridan Road_PM 2035.syn BAKER 2 20.0 20.0 0.36 4.0 136 0.10 0.28 12.4 1.00 5.1 17.4 B 0.90 11 0 0 2 6 20.0 20.0 0.36 4.0 370 20.0 20.0 0.36 4.0 1281 0.10 0.18 0.49 13.6 1.00 4.7 18.2 B 0.26 12.3 1.00 0.5 12.8 B 13.3 B 0.90 116 0 0 6 20.0 20.0 0.36 4.0 1261 c0.24 0.67 14.8 1.00 2.9 17.6 B 17.7 B B 12.0 C Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 APPENDIX C ITEMIZED COST ESTIMATES FOR ALIGNMENT ALTERNATIVES Michael Baker Jr., Inc. Phoenix, Arizona Itemized Cost Estimate for Meridian Rd Southern Alternatives ‐ Southern Ave to Germann Rd Short‐Term Recommendation ITEM ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT UNIT PRICE QUANTITY ‐ (SEGMENT LENGTH) MILES ‐ 2 1 NEW PAVEMENT SY 32 46934 TOTAL ‐ $ 1,501,888.00 2 EARTHWORK LSUM N/A 25% of Item 1 $ 375,472.00 3 DRAINAGE LSUM N/A 15% of Item 1 $ 225,283.20 4 STRUCTURES LSUM 5 MAINTENANCE OF TRAFFIC LSUM N/A $ 500,000.00 0 $ 10% of Items 1‐3 $ 210,264.32 ‐ 105,132.16 6 LIGHTING LSUM N/A 5% of Items 1‐3 $ 7 SIGNING/SIGNALS LSUM N/A 15% of Items 1‐3 $ 315,396.48 8 UTILITIES LSUM N/A 5% of Items 1‐3 $ 105,132.16 9 INCIDENTAL WORK LSUM N/A 15% of Items 1‐3 $ 315,396.48 $ 3,153,964.80 Total Construction Cost = 10 11 12 ROW ACQUISITION DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT CONTINGENCY 16 $ 320,000.00 LSUM ACRE $ N/A 20,000.00 25% of Item 1‐10 $ 868,491.20 LSUM N/A 25% of Item 1‐10 $ 868,491.20 $ 5,210,947.20 Order of Magnitude Project Cost* = * This excludes cost for the US 60 interchange and improvements to Southern Avenue intersection Alternative 2 Mid/Long‐Term Recommendation ITEM ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT UNIT PRICE QUANTITY ‐ (SEGMENT LENGTH) MILES ‐ 7.5 TOTAL 1 NEW PAVEMENT SY 32 228800 $ ‐ 7,321,600.00 2 EARTHWORK LSUM N/A 25% of Item 1 $ 1,830,400.00 3 DRAINAGE LSUM N/A 15% of Item 1 $ 1,098,240.00 4 STRUCTURES LSUM 5 MAINTENANCE OF TRAFFIC LSUM N/A 6 LIGHTING LSUM 7 SIGNING/SIGNALS LSUM $ 500,000.00 1 $ 500,000.00 10% of Items 1‐3 $ 1,025,024.00 N/A 5% of Items 1‐3 $ 512,512.00 N/A 15% of Items 1‐3 $ 1,537,536.00 8 UTILITIES LSUM N/A 5% of Items 1‐3 $ 512,512.00 9 INCIDENTAL WORK LSUM N/A 15% of Items 1‐3 $ 1,537,536.00 10 ROW ACQUISITION DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT CONTINGENCY Total Construction Cost = 11 12 ACRE $ 20,000.00 $ 15,875,360.00 60 $ 1,200,000.00 $ 4,268,840.00 LSUM N/A 25% of Item 1‐10 LSUM N/A 25% of Item 1‐10 $ 4,268,840.00 $ 25,613,040.00 119 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ TOTAL ‐ 7,321,600.00 1,830,400.00 1,464,320.00 1,000,000.00 1,061,632.00 530,816.00 1,592,448.00 530,816.00 1,592,448.00 16,924,480.00 2,380,000.00 N/A 25% of Item 1‐10 $ 4,826,120.00 N/A 25% of Item 1‐10 $ $ 4,826,120.00 28,956,720.00 Order of Magnitude Project Cost = Alternative 3 Mid/Long‐Term Recommendation ITEM ‐ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT UNIT PRICE QUANTITY (SEGMENT LENGTH) MILES ‐ 7.5 NEW PAVEMENT SY 32 228800 EARTHWORK LSUM N/A 25% of Item 1 DRAINAGE LSUM N/A 20% of Item 1 STRUCTURES LSUM $ 1,000,000.00 1 MAINTENANCE OF TRAFFIC LSUM N/A 10% of Items 1‐3 LIGHTING LSUM N/A 5% of Items 1‐3 SIGNING/SIGNALS LSUM N/A 10% of Items 1‐3 UTILITIES LSUM N/A 5% of Items 1‐3 INCIDENTAL WORK LSUM N/A 15% of Items 1‐3 Total Construction Cost = ROW ACQUISITION ACRE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION LSUM MANAGEMENT CONTINGENCY LSUM Order of Magnitude Project Cost = $ 20,000.00 Itemized Cost Estimate for Meridian Rd Southern Alternatives ‐ Southern Ave to Germann Rd (continued) Alternative 4 Mid/Long‐Term Recommendation ITEM ‐ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT UNIT PRICE QUANTITY (SEGMENT LENGTH) MILES ‐ 7.5 NEW PAVEMENT SY 32 228800 EARTHWORK LSUM N/A 25% of Item 1 DRAINAGE LSUM N/A 15% of Item 1 STRUCTURES LSUM $ 500,000.00 1 MAINTENANCE OF TRAFFIC LSUM N/A 10% of Items 1‐3 LIGHTING LSUM N/A 5% of Items 1‐3 SIGNING/SIGNALS LSUM N/A 15% of Items 1‐3 UTILITIES LSUM N/A 5% of Items 1‐3 INCIDENTAL WORK LSUM N/A 15% of Items 1‐3 Total Construction Cost = ROW ACQUISITION ACRE $ DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION LSUM MANAGEMENT CONTINGENCY LSUM Order of Magnitude Project Cost = $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ TOTAL ‐ 7,321,600.00 1,830,400.00 1,098,240.00 500,000.00 1,025,024.00 512,512.00 1,537,536.00 512,512.00 1,537,536.00 $ 15,875,360.00 60 $ 1,200,000.00 N/A 25% of Item 1‐10 $ 4,268,840.00 N/A 25% of Item 1‐10 $ 4,268,840.00 $ 25,613,040.00 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ TOTAL ‐ 3,379,200.00 844,800.00 506,880.00 500,000.00 473,088.00 236,544.00 709,632.00 20,000.00 Alternative 2 Ultimate Recommendation ITEM ‐ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ITEM DESCRIPTION (SEGMENT LENGTH) NEW PAVEMENT EARTHWORK DRAINAGE STRUCTURES MAINTENANCE OF TRAFFIC LIGHTING SIGNING/SIGNALS UNIT MILES SY LSUM LSUM LSUM LSUM LSUM LSUM 8 UTILITIES LSUM 9 INCIDENTAL WORK 10 ROW ACQUISITION ACRE $ DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION LSUM MANAGEMENT CONTINGENCY LSUM Order of Magnitude Project Cost = 11 12 UNIT PRICE QUANTITY ‐ 7.5 32 105600 N/A 25% of Item 1 N/A 15% of Item 1 $ 500,000.00 1 N/A 10% of Items 1‐3 N/A 5% of Items 1‐3 N/A 15% of Items 1‐3 LSUM Total Construction Cost = N/A 5% of Items 1‐3 $ N/A 15% of Items 1‐3 709,632.00 7,596,320.00 ‐ 236,544.00 0 $ $ $ N/A 25% of Item 1‐10 $ 1,899,080.00 N/A 25% of Item 1‐10 $ $ 1,899,080.00 11,394,480.00 0 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ TOTAL ‐ 3,379,200.00 844,800.00 675,840.00 1,000,000.00 489,984.00 244,992.00 734,976.00 244,992.00 734,976.00 8,349,760.00 ‐ N/A 25% of Item 1‐10 $ 2,087,440.00 N/A 25% of Item 1‐10 $ $ 2,087,440.00 12,524,640.00 20,000.00 Alternative 3 Ultimate Recommendation ITEM ‐ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT UNIT PRICE QUANTITY (SEGMENT LENGTH) MILES ‐ 7.5 NEW PAVEMENT SY 32 105600 EARTHWORK LSUM N/A 25% of Item 1 DRAINAGE LSUM N/A 20% of Item 1 STRUCTURES LSUM $ 1,000,000.00 1 MAINTENANCE OF TRAFFIC LSUM N/A 10% of Items 1‐3 LIGHTING LSUM N/A 5% of Items 1‐3 SIGNING/SIGNALS LSUM N/A 10% of Items 1‐3 UTILITIES LSUM N/A 5% of Items 1‐3 INCIDENTAL WORK LSUM N/A 15% of Items 1‐3 Total Construction Cost = ROW ACQUISITION ACRE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION LSUM MANAGEMENT CONTINGENCY LSUM Order of Magnitude Project Cost = $ 20,000.00 Itemized Cost Estimate for Meridian Rd Southern Alternatives ‐ Southern Ave to Germann Rd (continued) Alternative 4 Ultimate Recommendation ITEM ‐ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ITEM DESCRIPTION (SEGMENT LENGTH) NEW PAVEMENT EARTHWORK DRAINAGE STRUCTURES MAINTENANCE OF TRAFFIC LIGHTING SIGNING/SIGNALS UNIT MILES SY LSUM LSUM LSUM LSUM LSUM LSUM LSUM 8 UTILITIES 9 INCIDENTAL WORK 10 ROW ACQUISITION DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT CONTINGENCY 11 12 UNIT PRICE QUANTITY ‐ 7.5 32 105600 N/A 25% of Item 1 N/A 15% of Item 1 $ 500,000.00 1 N/A 10% of Items 1‐3 N/A 5% of Items 1‐3 N/A 15% of Items 1‐3 LSUM Total Construction Cost = $ $ $ $ $ $ $ TOTAL ‐ 3,379,200.00 844,800.00 506,880.00 500,000.00 473,088.00 236,544.00 709,632.00 236,544.00 N/A 5% of Items 1‐3 $ N/A 15% of Items 1‐3 709,632.00 7,596,320.00 ‐ 1,899,080.00 0 $ $ $ LSUM N/A 25% of Item 1‐10 $ LSUM N/A 25% of Item 1‐10 $ 1,899,080.00 $ 11,394,480.00 ACRE $ 20,000.00 Order of Magnitude Project Cost = Itemized Cost Estimate for Meridian Rd ‐ McDowell Rd to Southern Ave Mid‐Term Rcommendation ITEM ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT ‐ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (SEGMENT LENGTH) MILES NEW PAVEMENT SY EARTHWORK LSUM DRAINAGE LSUM STRUCTURES LSUM MAINTENANCE OF TRAFFIC LSUM LIGHTING LSUM SIGNING/SIGNALS LSUM UTILITIES LSUM INCIDENTAL WORK LSUM Total Construction Cost = 10 ROW ACQUISITION 11 12 ACRE $ DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION LSUM MANAGEMENT CONTINGENCY LSUM Order of Magnitude Project Cost = UNIT PRICE QUANTITY ‐ 32 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 5.5 129067 5% of Item 1 15% of Item 1 0 10% of Items 1‐3 1% of Items 1‐3 10% of Items 1‐3 15% of Items 1‐3 15% of Items 1‐3 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ ‐ 4,130,144.00 206,507.20 619,521.60 ‐ 495,617.28 49,561.73 495,617.28 743,425.92 743,425.92 $ 7,483,820.93 25 $ 500,000.00 N/A 25% of Item 1‐10 $ 1,995,955.23 N/A 25% of Item 1‐10 $ 1,995,955.23 $ 11,975,731.39 20,000.00 TOTAL Long‐Term Rcommendation ITEM ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT ‐ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (SEGMENT LENGTH) MILES NEW PAVEMENT SY EARTHWORK LSUM DRAINAGE LSUM STRUCTURES LSUM MAINTENANCE OF TRAFFIC LSUM LIGHTING LSUM SIGNING/SIGNALS LSUM UTILITIES LSUM INCIDENTAL WORK LSUM Total Construction Cost = 10 ROW ACQUISITION 11 12 ACRE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION LSUM MANAGEMENT CONTINGENCY LSUM Order of Magnitude Project Cost = $ UNIT PRICE QUANTITY ‐ 32 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 5.5 96214 5% of Item 1 15% of Item 1 0 10% of Items 1‐3 1% of Items 1‐3 10% of Items 1‐3 15% of Items 1‐3 15% of Items 1‐3 20,000.00 0 N/A 25% of Item 1‐10 N/A 25% of Item 1‐10 TOTAL $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ ‐ 3,078,848.00 153,942.40 461,827.20 ‐ 369,461.76 36,946.18 369,461.76 554,192.64 554,192.64 $ 5,578,872.58 $ ‐ $ 1,394,718.14 $ 1,394,718.14 $ 8,368,308.86 APPENDIX C MERIDIAN ROAD CORRIDOR STUDY PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT REPORT Michael Baker Jr., Inc. Phoenix, Arizona Meridian Road Corridor Study Germann Road to McDowell Boulevard A Planning Assistance for Rural Areas Study Public Involvement Report June 2013 Meridian Road Corridor Study Public Involvement Report Table of Contents Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 3 Outreach ............................................................................................................................. 3 Stakeholder Outreach ..................................................................................................... 3 Communication Activities ............................................................................................... 5 Outreach Activities.......................................................................................................... 7 Phase I Public Involvement ......................................................................................... 7 Phase II Public Involvement ...................................................................................... 20 Appendix ........................................................................................................................... 23 Communication Log May 16, 2013 Sign In Sheets Post‐Meeting Feedback Submissions Page 2 of 23 Meridian Road Corridor Study Public Involvement Report Introduction ADOT, through its Multimodal Planning and Communication divisions, collaborated with Pinal County to conduct a transportation study of Meridian Road. The study, which was funded through the Planning Assistance for Rural Areas (PARA) program, focused on Meridian Road from Germann Road to McDowell Boulevard. The principal focus of the study was to address the transportation planning needs identified by the jurisdictions and to develop consensus on facility type, number of lanes and right of way requirements to guide future development of the road. The study area is generally bounded by Germann Road on the south, McDowell Boulevard on the north, Ironwood Road on the east and Signal Butte Road on the west. Meridian Road is a section line alignment road that is located on the boundary between Pinal and Maricopa counties. Pinal County, Maricopa County, Apache Junction, Queen Creek and Mesa all control portions of Meridian Road. Outreach The study began in April 2012 and was completed in June 2013. The public involvement strategy focused on three aspects: stakeholder outreach, communication activities and public outreach activities. A summary of the activities is detailed for each strategy below. STAKEHOLDER OUTREACH The Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) was comprised of key agency stakeholders with the expertise to assist in the study’s development. Members of the TAC included: • Pinal County • City of Apache Junction • City of Mesa • Central Arizona Association of Governments • Federal Highway Administration • Maricopa Association of Governments • Maricopa County Department of Transportation • Flood Control District of Maricopa County • Town of Queen Creek • Arizona State Land Department • Arizona Department of Transportation, Multimodal Planning Division • Arizona Department of Transportation, Phoenix Engineering District • Arizona Department of Transportation, Communications and Community Partnerships Page 3 of 23 Meridian Road Corridor Study Public Involvement Report TAC meetings were held on May 15, 2012; November 14, 2012; December 12, 2012; and February 26, 2013. Additionally, the technical team conducted several stakeholder interviews as outlined below. Date 5/4/12 Agency Arizona State Land Department (ASLD) Representatives Michelle Green (ASLD), Charla Glendening (ADOT) 6/26/12 ADOT J Gurrola (ADOT) Kent Kelso (HDR) 7/17/12 Flood Control District of Maricopa County (FCDMC) 7/19/12 ADOT Jennifer Pokorski FCDMC) Hernan Aristizabal (Entellus), Laurie Miller (TM Engineering) Don Gorman (ADOT), Steve Wilcox (AECOM), Dave Eberhart (ADOT) 7/24/12 ADOT Carlos Lopez (ADOT), Charla Glendenning (ADOT) 8/1/12 FCDMC Bobbie Ohler, Mike Ramirez, Felicia Terry, Michael Jones, Jeff Riddle, Tom Renkly (FCDMC) 8/16/12 FCDMC and ASLD 8/28/12 City of Apache Junction Michelle Green (ASLD), Ruben Ojeda (ASLD) Manny Patel (ASLD), Lillian Moodey (ASLD), Adam Sharp (ASLD) Jennifer Pokorski (FCDMC), Hernan Aristizabal (Entellus), Laurie Miller (TM Engineering) Giao Pham (Apache Junction) Meeting Subject Review the material we covered at the Meridian Road Corridor Study TAC meeting on 5/16/12 North‐South Corridor Study and its possible effect on the region and Meridian Road Obtain information about current East‐Mesa Area Drainage Master Plan (ADMP) up‐date. Proposed Meridian Road TI – Learn about Proposed TI DCR and timing of design and construction Intercity Passenger Rail Study – Possible locations of rail routes and station locations Obtain information regarding the flood control structures adjacent to the Meridian Rd corridor, review possible impacts and ascertain FCDMC requirements East –Mesa ADMP possible coordination between Meridian Road corridor and location of proposed drainage channels Discussion on working paper #1, road configuration, right of way preservation, multi modal facilities and future development Page 4 of 23 Meridian Road Corridor Study Public Involvement Report Date 8/28/12 Agency Pinal County Representatives Doug Hanson (Pinal County), Andy Smith (Pinal County) 11/13/12 City of Mesa Ken Hall (Mesa) 12/12/12 FCDMC and ASLD Afshin Ahouraiyan (FCDMC); Hernan Aristizabal (Entellus); Wayne Balmer (Queen Creek); Michelle Green (ASLD); Ken Hall (Mesa); Doug Hansen (Pinal County); Denise Lacey (MCDOT); Laurie Miller, (LTM Engineering); Elise Moore (Pinal County); Tom Narva (TOQC); Ruben Ojeda (ASLD); Tim Oliver (MCDOT); Manny Patel (ASLD); Giao Pham (Apache Junction); Jen Pokorski (FCDMC); Charla Glendening (ADOT MPD) 1/29/13 Central Arizona Project Aaron Ashcroft (CAP), Jim Geisbush (CAP) 3/4/13 City of Apache Junction Giao Pham (Apache Junction) 3/4/13 Pinal County Doug Hanson (Pinal County) 3/18/13 City of Mesa 4/2/13 Maricopa County Department of Transport Ken Hall, Dan Cleavenger, Alan Sanderson, Al Zubi (all from Mesa) Tim Oliver (MCDOT) Meeting Subject Discussion on working paper #1, road configuration, right of way preservation, multi modal facilities and future development Discussion on working paper #1, road configuration, right of way preservation, multi modal facilities and future development Coordination between Meridian Road corridor and location of proposed drainage channels, possible combined roadway/channel footprint and future development of state land. Discuss conflict at Meridian Road TI along with CAP requirements and future plans. Meeting to discuss contents of Memorandum of Understanding Meeting to discuss Memorandum of Understanding Meeting to discuss contents of Memorandum of Understanding Meeting to discuss contents of Memorandum of Understanding COMMUNICATION ACTIVITIES Page 5 of 23 Meridian Road Corridor Study Public Involvement Report A project Web page was developed as an information portal. Housed under Multimodal Planning Division’s PARA studies and found using an easy URL (www.azdot.gov/Meridian), the team posted project‐related materials and updated its content throughout the study. Key content included: • Project fact sheet • Project work plan and schedule • Public involvement plan • Working Paper #1: Existing and Future Conditions Inventory • Working Paper #2: Evaluation Criteria and Plan for Improvements • TAC member list and meeting summaries • Public engagement opportunities and events Figure 1: Screen capture of project Web page (May 9, 2013) Project fact sheets were developed at milestones and were used in conjunction with the public engagement opportunities as mechanisms for advertising the events and soliciting participation. A list of property owners within 300’ of the corridor was obtained from Pinal and Maricopa counties. These lists, as well as contacts for HOAs, businesses and other interests adjacent to the corridor, were utilized in soliciting feedback and advertising to the public open house (see “Outreach Activities”). Page 6 of 23 Meridian Road Corridor Study Public Involvement Report OUTREACH ACTIVITIES This section presents the involvement techniques used during the study to support the technical work program. PHASE I PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT Phase I of public engagement solicited input on issues and opportunities for the corridor. In addition to stakeholder interviews conducted by the technical team (see “Stakeholder Outreach”), an online survey was utilized to solicit feedback from the public. A total of 43 responses were received via the online survey. Communication In February 2013, fliers were mailed to property owners within 300’ of the corridor inviting them to provide feedback on the study via the online survey. The survey was housed on the project Web page and feedback was solicited from mid‐February to mid‐ April. Feedback Feedback is provided as it was received and is not edited for grammar or spelling. 1. What opportunities or constraints exist, or what observations do you have, for the Meridian Road corridor between Germann Road and McDowell Boulevard? • An interchange is needed at Meridian and Hwy 60 to relieve congestion at the Signal Butte interchange. I would use an interchange at Meridian almost exclusively. I live in Sunland Springs Village just off of Baseline between Signal Butte and Meridian. • Meridian rd. needs to be four lanes with turning lane from McDowell blvd. to baseline and four lanes from baseline to Germann rd.with enough right of way to accomadate any future expansion needs • Bike lanes would be very helpful • Meridian needs to be widened all the way and drainage needs to be established • I am less familiar with the area above US 60, but this road south of US 60 is heavily residential. A large portion of the road is incomplete on the east side as it is mostly undeveloped land. However just north of Elliott Road the water basin project was done but seems incomplete. Is this area going to be a park or other public use ground? It has almost no trees or plants leaving the area very bare. Meridian itself sometimes floods with heavy rain north of Elliott at Peterson. • The existing road needs new pavement. Extending the road south from Baseline to Germann would afford alternate route to Queen Creek and beyond. • Currently a residential area along most of Meridian. I have concerns about noise from increased traffic. Also concerned about access to Meridian from the neighborhoods along Meridian. Page 7 of 23 Meridian Road Corridor Study Public Involvement Report • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Currently, the only real outlet from Meridian, one must go through Elliot Rd. Either through to Ellsworth, or at least to Signal Butte. Being able to use Meridian to connect to US 60, would be tremendously helpful given all the residential homes in the area. Also having access to get to Baseline and to Main Street/Apache Trail would be very useful and time saving as well. There is a lot of hunters that use the state land on the east side of Meridian at around the Warner/Elliot area. Could be a safety concern. My house backs to Meridian, concern for future traffic, noise, ets... I live just east of Meridian and Pecos Rd. We would love to have Meridian Rd. paved‐ right now it is a dirt road and we have flooding and impassible roads when it rains. I do not, however, want a 4 or 6 lane highway. We moved out here to be in a rural area. We like our peace and quiet and would not like the noise and traffic that this would bring. I can see an improvement in the traffic flow by reducing traffic on Ironwood and Ellsworth. I live between Signal Butte and Ironwood and getting to Queen Creek requires a circuitous route. I travel this corridor often and the present road is in very bad condition. Ilive in Sunland Springs Baseline and Signal Butte area, I really don't want the noise, traffic, dust and dirt from construction and the stirring up of snakes, scorpians and coyotes, Hope you don't do it! My main concern would be to the value of my home. I live the equivalent of one home away from Meridian and I fear the noise and the proximity to a large/main street will reduce the value of my home. It needs to be wider and improved, with sidewalks and bus service. Because there is no freeway interchange at Meridian, Meridian Road will never be the busy street it could be. My home is backed up against Meridian road. Increasing traffic in this area will create noise pollution, what steps will be taken to ensure this doesn't occur? interest as a local property owner near this project area. Meridian Road does not 'exist' between Elliot and Baseline.It iss a 2 lane road north of Baseline and not that major of a road. I am opposed to current proposed corridor between Elliot and Baseline as it will but up to my property in Sunland Springs Village Mesa. There is not sufficient right of way between existing structures in Maricopa county and Pinal Counties for any roadway. Needs repaving between superstition and brown. Constraint on front of our property to widen. There will be alot of extra traffic and will make it difficult for several of the residential developments to exit their roads and there a lot of families that walk the main streets such as Elliott and Meridian as well as there is the State land in that area as well for a lot of the hunting opportunities that will also cause issues for them. Page 8 of 23 Meridian Road Corridor Study Public Involvement Report • • • • • • • • There are currently no problems with current Meridian Road alignment south of Baseline Road. I do not see that Meridian Road south of Baseline is hindering any current development. The land between US 60 and Elliot, Meridian to Ironwood Roads may not be viewed as favorable to development because of the earth fissure issues. Nor would the land north and east of the Powerline Flood Retention Structure because of flooding. I own 5 acres that borders Meridian, just south of Pecos. An opportunity that might be possible is the construction of a shopping plaza someplace on Meridian Road, South on the PInal County side of the line. It would bring in some extra money for the county and possibly put some people to work. I would like a part time job and to just be able to drive down one road to get there would be great.Maybe someplace to put a little park to walk your dog or just sit and relax for a while. That is all I can add for now. entrance & exit off 60 The Meridian Rd. needs much improvement from Baseline north. To extent it south of Baseline would provide an easier route south of the valley. The continue loss of open desert I believe that there is a need for improved roads in this corridor to reduce future traffic jams. I would not like to see access to HWY60 from Meridian. 2. Do you experience any problems when traveling the corridor? Please specify the kind of problem (such as the location, issue, etc.) and any solutions that might solve the problem. • Two lanes on Meridian is not enough. I travel primarily between Baseline and Apache Trail. • Drainage problems from McDowell to Southern. • It is difficult to use the raod much for local access to shopping centers. Meridian currently ends at the Meridian Pointe Homes. It does not connect to Baseline north of this area. • The junction at Baseline Road is very poorly lit and Meridian Rd is difficult to find after dark. The intersection at Southern Ave is often very congested. A traffic signal is necessary. Sidewalk adjacent to existing road is necessary. • The layout of the sidewalk along Meridian between Warner and Elliott is poorly designed and dangerous. It weaves in and out from the street with no buffer zone between the sidewalk and street in many areas. Young children ride bikes and scooters along the sidewalk. I believe there should be a small buffer zone between the sidewalk and the street, even just a few feet. So then if an accident happens on the sidewalk someone would not fall directly on to the street. • Most of my travels on Meridian are simply from Elliot to the dead end on Meridian. Page 9 of 23 Meridian Road Corridor Study Public Involvement Report • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Adding this upgrade still leaves an issue with trying to travel east and finding a road that continues through to Ironwood. Anyone that needs to travel east has to use Pecos or Baseline to get to Ironwood. This wouldn't solve the problem and isn't that far from Mountain or Signal Butte, which most people use to access the east now. Would be better use of resources to connect east west vs north south. It is difficult with only two ways into the area, via Eliott or Mountain Rd (at Pecos) We do not use Meridian road because it is a dirt road. We use our small private paved road up to Pecos. If paving Meridian would mean a big noisy highway then I would rather leave it a dirt road. I currently have to travel out of my way to shop and visit Queen Creek ‐ gas is too expensive for those extra miles. I have to drive my Motorhome over this road and the roughness is very bad on my coach. No! I would love to see the development of Signal Butte. I take my children to a charter school in queen creek and the opportunity to use signal be great ( save money{gas}and time) The roadway is beat up and in need of replacement, and you cannot use a sidewalk ‐ because they don't have any. Don't really have problems with the corridor now that Irodwood has been improved. currently there are not problems but, if the plan is to create extra lanes and more traffic it will be impossible to live in this community with all the noise pollution no problems. From Baseline north, it could be repaved with better lane markings and turn lanes and shoulders . The kind of problem ‐ first and foremost ‐ location. Solution is move corridor to the East away from residential property between Elliot and Baseline. Bad pavement. Tearing up our car. Now there is a detour south. As of now there is no exit from Elliott to Baseline Rd. this would change that as cause for more congestion and as stated above the difficulties for several developments to exit their limited exits. Speed is a problem. People fly up and down this road. Maybe traffic circles or jogs in the road that would force self imposed speed control, or something similar would be good. It would also be good to have access to the freeway, to & from Meridian. No problems with the roadway that I frequently travel (south of the transmission lines to Warner). There is no good access to my property at this time other than a man made road that goes through washes, etc. and is impossible to traverse when there is rain. Page 10 of 23 Meridian Road Corridor Study Public Involvement Report • • • • • • Problem, yes, by Walgreen's and Safeway, when making the left turn there is not much room in the road for two cars to make the left turn. And at the stop light when crossing main you get a big bump there at the stoplight by Walgreen's which is very hard on the back when you are a passenger. Then the road is rough in spots and I feel it should be coated with blacktop or an extra coat of whatever is used. That is all I have to add for now. water drainage between Broadway and Baseline We travel mostly from Baseline north to Apache Trail and that portion needs a lot of improvement. Currently Meridian at Elliot Road goes only one mile south and and 1/2 north and ends. this section of the road goes nowhere Traffic is at times slow and restricted due to too many vehicles. my only problem is that the road needs resurfacing. 3. Do you agree with this recommendation: Meridian Road between Germann Road and Southern Avenue should develop as a 6‐lane divided arterial street. Comments: • Strongly Agree: A painted median should be sufficient • Strongly Agree: Guadalupe needs to go through to Meridian as planned. • Strongly Agree: This will be a very heavily traveled road so make it 6 now rather than having to expand it later. • Strongly Agree: this will prevent a waste of tax dollars do and get it done • Agree: Need more info as to location Will you have noise barriers, will you cut off our view of The Superstitions?? Page 11 of 23 Meridian Road Corridor Study Public Involvement Report • • • • • • • • • • • • • • N/A: agree Neutral: We don't need any more traffic out here in the winter than we already have. Disagree: I say disagree, but it depends a lot on what development is planned for the areas east of Meridian. Please remember this area is currently largely residential and a six lane highway while allowing more traffic will increase noise. I had always thought that Ironwood would be the next local six lane highway like Ellsworth. Also I will note that development at Gateway Airport and surrounding area is to the west of Signal Butte. I could see Singal Butte being a six lane highway. Disagree: I'd much rather see the 4 lane between Southern and Brown developed here. Going from the area it is now around Elliot, a simply two lane street, which it has been for about 12 years now to a main arterial road would change things far too much both in the form of traffic noise. Disagree: Ironwood would be a better choice for that major of a road and has less impact to housing and other developed areas. A two to four lane road should be plenty for Meridian. Disagree: With no freeway, US 60, access a 6 lane street seems to be too wide. I believe the majority of traffic will continue to use Signal Butte or Ironwood Strongly Disagree: Because of the increased traffic and NOISE Pollution! Strongly Disagree: Four lane divided should be sufficient. Because of alignment constrains of the Siphon Draw flood control system, new development in Pinal county should be guided more towards the Ironwood Road Alignment. Strongly Disagree: I do not want a 6 lane road next to my house Strongly Disagree: It's fine as is. Strongly Disagree: no value added to current options for travel north/south. Attention should be for east/west access. Strongly Disagree: Recommend two‐lane roadway for this stretch. Strongly Disagree: The East wall of Sunland Springs Village is just west of the proposed 6 lane "street" you are proposing. The noise associated with a 6 lane street that close to our village will be extremely burdensome and stressful for our residents. Do you have any plans for noise abatement at all in your recommendations? Strongly Disagree: the traffic and noise levels will be too high for the residential areas along Meridan Page 12 of 23 Meridian Road Corridor Study Public Involvement Report 4. Do you agree with this recommendation: Meridian Road to be a four‐lane, divided arterial street between Southern Avenue and Lost Dutchman Boulevard and a two‐ lane roadway to the north. • • • • • • • • Strongly Agree: My emphasis in on the "...two‐lane roadway to the north." That section of Meridian should incorporate a way to accomodate horses. There are a lot of horse people in that area. And, why not add a planted median (rather than painted) between Lost Dutchman and Southern? Agree: Please note comments on previous question [Disagree: I say disagree, but it depends a lot on what development is planned for the areas east of Meridian. Please remember this area is currently largely residential and a six lane highway while allowing more traffic will increase noise. I had always thought that Ironwood would be the next local six lane highway like Ellsworth. Also I will note that development at Gateway Airport and surrounding area is to the west of Signal Butte. I could see Singal Butte being a six lane highway.] However I will add I am less familiar with the area north of US 60 Agree: Currently do not often use this part of Meridian Road and would not likely use it in the future if it was improved. N/A: agree N/A: I dont live up there‐that is up to the residents that live near that area. Neutral: Again we don't need any more traffic out here in the winter than we already have. Neutral: That area doesn't affect my home Strongly Disagree: It needs to be 6 lanes as well. If it is not, then it is just bad planning and this planning exercise is what it is ‐ worthless! Page 13 of 23 Meridian Road Corridor Study Public Involvement Report • • • Strongly Disagree: It's fine as is. Strongly Disagree: Not that much traffic north of University, so leave as a two lane. Just repave it. Four lane ok just to University then two lane north. Strongly Disagree: this will makefor a tearing up the road again later to make it 6 lanes later 5. In your opinion, what opportunities might exist for non‐motorized/pedestrian improvements (such as bicycle lanes or sidewalks) along the Meridian Road corridor between Germann Road and McDowell Boulevard? • Definitely should have both along the entire corridor. • Meridian is needing sidewalks especially along the east side of the street. There is now a large water basin along Meridian at Peterson; it would be great if this expansive and already completed area could focus on bicycle paths and open grass areas with plenty of trees for shade ‐ places where people can gather ‐ and desert plants to enhance the areas appeal. I see joggers using the roal often and I would think would use it more often if developed for that use. A lot more trees is a good place to start. • It would be foolish to create and improve that corridor without providing safe passage for bicyclists and pedestrians • There should be non‐motorized/pedestrian improvements for the corridor. Less pollution and noise. • Bike lanes are needed • Currently there are areas without sidewalks south of Warner. Also, the area on the east of Meridian will never be developed. No parks can be added or community benefits. • I would be open to a paved road with bike lanes. • I'm an avid bicycle rider and would love more paved riding lanes. Sidewalks would encourage walkers by providing a safe place to walk. • No opinion. • none • I do not find any new opportunities in my neighborhood for non‐motorized/pedestrian improvements but find it to be a hindrance. I, along with my children ride bikes and walk our dogs down the sidewalks on Meridian between Elliot and mesquite and I would no longer feel safe enough to do this if Meridian is made a busy large street. Again, another value lost for my home. • The entire corridor needs to be a "Complete Street" and cater to all modes of traffic, and provide access to "people" of all ages and abilities. Otherwise it will be a failed roadway project giving priorities to cars and not people. • Marked bike lanes and the normal sidwalks • None. We are currently able to use non‐motorized/pedestrian things in the area. • bicyle lanes would be good for the numerous bicyclists. • I think a pedestrian/bike path (like along the Indian Bend wash next to Hayden Rd) with landscaping between the road and the housing developments would be a good idea. Page 14 of 23 Meridian Road Corridor Study Public Involvement Report • • • • • • • • • • • as previously stated am opposed to any improvements that will border current residential property, None, it is rural land. In the residential areas there needs to be a safe place for families to ride bikes and go for the walks, now there is some areas with the state land by Elliott that allows for hunting opportunities and it also allows for families to explore the desert without having to travel distances. Horse trails/access and horse gates in areas where applicable. Pedestrian sidewalks and bicycles lane might enhance the proposed "street". Currently I do see that pedestrian traffic uses the current sidewalks along Meridian Pointe and Mountain Heights. The current non‐residential development along the alignment north of Baseline Road would does not make it attractive to pedestrian or bicycle traffic. I think that it would add greatly to the asthetics and usage. More and more resdients are taking up biking and other outdoor activities that would be enhanced by these features. We could use more room to walk and ride your bikes out here. We don't have a good route for bike riders. We think it would be a good addition to have bicycle lanes. With the open desert I think this is a great opportunity to incorporate bike and walking paths into the project. There definitely needs to be bike lanes for bicyclists to be able to travel safely along the corridor. 6. How might you or your family utilize non‐motorized/pedestrian improvements (such as bicycle lanes or sidewalks) along the Meridian Road corridor between Germann Road and McDowell Boulevard? • My family would use both pedestrian walkways and bicycle lanes for exercise. • we would not be utilizeing it at all • As noted above the local area on Meridian could be a gathering pointe for bicycling, fitness, walkers, joggers, and our kids. I think its important not to have the road to large to deter this kind of use. I personally walk my dog locally and would use it more often if shady open spaces were available. All that being said I understand the need for development and access. • Recreational use • we would bike ride and walk more often without having to worry about motorized vehicles • Could you bicycle lanes for exercise or transportation to areas along corridor. • If a four lane road was present between Elliot and Baseline, I could see walking / biking up to the shopping areas. If this were a six lane road, I would not even bother. • We are getting older, and timing of the future is???? Page 15 of 23 Meridian Road Corridor Study Public Involvement Report • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • I walk this area and ride my bike a lot. No benefits to anything different. Would honestly become a truck throughfare from the recycling and industry. Also new home construction trucks that use Signal Butte and Mountain would use this. If there were a bike lane we might use it but not on a 6 lane highway‐way too dangerous. We would definitely ride our bicycles and walk those areas if it was safe. Will not use them. would not, too busy a road to bike on and dangerous for bikes and walkers We would not‐ too busy of a street if made larger with more car traffic. No longer safe for my children to use. Through walking and biking, and taking a bus. Probably would never use them. We have not problem using those items now no because we are elderly. My family may use the path from Baseline to Guadalupe or Elliot to either bike or walk along. Will not utilize. Won't use. We're out to far in rural horse country to utilize bicycle or sidewalk. Too far to town. I have previously stated the importance of this in all of the previous questions as it is of high importance as well as the safety of being able to enter and exit the residential areas due to extra traffic flow. We would use sidewalks, bike lanes and horse trails. We have no plans or need to use those... I do not think that these improvements would be used much by our family. Not sure if we would us them personally, but if this is developed per these plans we might actually move to that area and if so would use the bike lanes, etc. There are some of us who walk our dogs daily 3‐4 times or more and would use the sidewalks to walk on. There also should be waste baskets along the pathway for the bags when we pick up after our dogs, and a sign stating for people to pick up after their dogs. Now that seems to be a plan to look into. My family and I walk and/or ride bikes almost every evening. Additional traffic would dimish that experience but bike and walking trails on the east side of Meridian would be great. We probably will not utilize non‐motorized/pedestrian improvements. Page 16 of 23 Meridian Road Corridor Study Public Involvement Report 7. Do you have any suggestions or ideas related to the long‐range plans for Meridian Road between Germann Road and McDowell Boulevard? • No • I have stated through‐out this questionnaire that the development of the new water basin on Meridian at Peterson could be developed a large open space and park for the growing area. With the potential of Superstition Vistas to the east there is a unique opportunity for a large open area for all the surrounding communities. The seniors in the area would use these type of spaces if available closer to home. I could easily see Elliott extending to Ironwood and Ironwood providing access to US 60 and points east. • sooner the better • Your plan is great! I hope you're able to implement it in my lifetime! • The area is mostly residential and large arterial roads are not needed. Large arterial roads are needed closer to Ellsworth Rd and Loop 202 to facilitate transportation to and from Williams‐Gateway Airport and the surrounding businesses. • There is a l mile stretch that will effect us greatly What plans do you have to protect property values, noise , view, etc between Baseline and Elliot? • Not value added, as stated previously. If the road doesn't access a main route east, you still backtrack to Ellsworth or connect to the future freeway. • If you want this then buy my house so I can move away from the area. • No. • Complete soon as possible. • Leave it alone • I still believe that if the improvements are made to Signal Butte ‐where people are already prepared for a larger street‐ is the better bet. What will happen to Crismon Rd.? This would be yet another main thoroughfare that should be examined. • Make it a complete street, not a highway. • Not really • Would not like to see the road in my back yard. As mentioned this will tremendously increase noise pollution. What steps will be taken to remove the noise pollution. The quiet area of this community was the reason I purchased this home. • no immediate access to freeway currently exists. • As I stated earlier, I think that Ironwood should be the major corridor, not Meridian, and it could be done ahead of development that will spring up along Ironwood. Less impact to existing developments. I think a four lane road is sufficient for Meridian. • Move it east! • Resurface the road to make it smoother. • main concerns extra traffic and safety due to the added traffic and the families sfety within the residential locations due to the area past Elliott has been a dead end for so long that the traffic has not been too congested but due to the raod improvement this is going to make a large difference to the traffic flows. For the Residential south of Elliot trying to go west is going to be difficult and again there is limited access in or out of these residential areas. There will need to be lights added to Meridian as well due to the added flows. Page 17 of 23 Meridian Road Corridor Study Public Involvement Report • • • • • • • • Since there will be a significant amount of added traffic coming from Meridian, south of US 60, freeway access becomes much more important. This would relieve congestion at intersections north/south and east/west of US 60 & Meridian Rd. There needs to be some kind of noise barrier between the road and the East wall of Sunland Springs Village!!! As mentioned before, traffic from future development in Pinal Coulty should be directed more towards the Ironwood Road corridor. There is currently no need for development of Meridian Road south of baseline. Traffic is only light use from the neighborhoods south of the powerline. Improvements to Ironwood and Signal Butte to serve regional traffic would be preferred. Get it done asap! If there are side walks put along the road way maybe a bench or two here and there wouldn't hurt. And like I mentioned a waste basket for the trash, and some trees here and there like some other areas of AZ. The speed limit from Baseline to Germann could be 55 mph. Preserve as much of the open desert as possible Let's get it done now, ASAP. 8. Do you have any other feedback regarding the Meridian Road Corridor Study? • At present I do not use Meridian very much, but will when it is improved and has an interchange at Hwy 60. • just make sure there is enough right of way to acommidate future expansion when needed • I hope the usual practice of providing plants and trees along our newly constructed roads continues even in these somewhat rural areas; the area will not remain rural much longer and beatification of our streets will attract home buyers and businesses as a pleasing area to live and to work. Lastly I will say please think about keeping the set‐backs from the roads as wide as possible. I think this helps with noise especially if trees are planted as well. some areas I have seen in Valencia California did this and it appeared to me to encourage community. • getter done • Asked and answered • I live along Meridian. I want to know if there has been an impact study done regarding an affect on property values due to increased noise and traffic. • A lot of residential areas are along Meridian Rd and the use of a six lane road would have too much noise, pollution, and light issues for the residential areas. • Get Sunland Springs and Farnsworth involved! • Previously stated. • I hope to attend a meeting to hear more. • No. • No. Page 18 of 23 Meridian Road Corridor Study Public Involvement Report • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Please don't do it, leave the land alone in SSV we have enough wild life, snakes and critters don't stir up more for us and we don't need valley fever from all the dust and dirt. Listen to your comments and give them honest consideration. No Yes! Do not put the road in my back yard no stop lights on Brown Road or any cross‐roads. How long before this project starts? No, but thanks for allowing me to provide some feedback. Strongly opposed to project! How do you plan to acquire our land and will our property taxes be affected. In all that is considered please keep safety of all in mind not just 1 area. Who is paying for all of this? (The improvement, not the study.) No... This is well over due as the access to the freeway from this area is horrible and overly congested. I think that it should be extended even further south. We should have more police. I only see one in each car, I think there should be two policemen in a car for the simple reason one is not enough. One may need help before backup can get there. That little walkway area would be a nice beat for the police to patrol in the evenings. None. 9. How often do you travel by vehicle on Meridian Road between Germann Road and McDowell Boulevard? Page 19 of 23 Meridian Road Corridor Study Public Involvement Report 10. Do you: Live… (6) Work… (2) Own property… (5) …along Meridian Road between McDowell Boulevard and US 60. Live… (18) Work… (2) Own property… (14) …along Meridian Road between US 60 and Germann Road. PHASE II PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT Phase II of public engagement solicited feedback on proposed improvements to Meridian Road via a public open house on May 16, 2013 held at the Queen Creek Branch Library. Participants reviewed displays of the proposed alignment, roadway configurations, and current and future levels of service, and discussed the project with project staff and consultants. A total of 37 signed in at registration. Communication In advance of the public open house, ADOT issued a press release on May 14, 2013 announcing the public open house; published an ad in zones 12 and 15 of the Arizona Republic’s community sections on May 1, 2013; and mailed post card invitations to property owners within 300’ of the corridor. On May 2, 2013, meeting fliers were distributed to businesses, religious institutions and mobile home/RV parks adjacent to the corridor; for business and entities not open or accessible (i.e. gated communities), Page 20 of 23 Meridian Road Corridor Study Public Involvement Report the meeting flier was mailed and/or emailed to organizational contact(s). Finally, public information officers from key project stakeholders (including those jurisdictions that control portions of Meridian Road) were asked to post the meeting flier on their organizational websites and social media outlets, and/or otherwise communicate the public open house. Feedback Feedback is provided as it was received and is not edited for grammar or spelling. • • • • • • • • If Meridian was brought straight down to about Elliot would work better. There is a two lane road down through the industrial area at this location. It would make more sense to go straight south past Baseline through the industrial area to Guadalupa then make your jog. You would not have to buy property since there is a road there already. You also wouldn’t have to cross the new cement water way or buy commercial property. Suggest that jog be moved further south to the east of drainage in the area between Baseline and Elliot Rd. Or better yet remove the jog altogether and take the road east of the drainage canal. This would minimize impact on current tax base and still provide for future growth. Instead of making the realignment of Meridian Rd at Baseline extend in straight south, through the small industrial area that has an existing road through it. Then make the realignment jog at Guadalupe or Elliot. My concern is that when the proposed highway is built it will be 19 to 29 feet from the East wall of the Sunland Springs Residential development. That is too close for the anticipated volume of Traffic for a 4 to 6 lane highway. Rather than Meridian Road dog‐legging between the 60 & Baseline, recommend Meridian Rd go straight south through the industrial area & dog‐leg over between Guadalupe & Elliott. If they go straight through next to the wall that buts up next to Sunland Springs Village as currently planned, it would create too much traffic too close to the subdivision. Also, this will prevent the retention basin from having to be moved. I would like more specifications on How this will affect each Homeowner, still have us guessing. Somewhat. SMCFD #1 (sewer) Will City ever take over? Will there be a change I am opposed to the four lane road. I live at 14216 S. Meridian Rd. I have been dealing with the county now for three years about the sheet flow and drainage on and around my property. Call me if you would like to discuss. 1. How many feet from the East Wall of Sunland Springs Village will the new extension of Meridian be? 2. Are there any plans for a noise abatement barrier between Meridian and our village? Page 21 of 23 Meridian Road Corridor Study Public Involvement Report Title VI Documentation ADOT provided related Title VI items for this public meeting, including display of the informational poster and brochures. Page 22 of 23 Meridian Road Corridor Study Public Involvement Report Appendix COMMUNICATION LOG MAY 16, 2013 SIGN IN SHEETS POST‐MEETING FEEDBACK SUBMISSIONS May 18, 2013 Letter: Alan and Joy Rash May 28, 2013 Email: Donald A. and Marlys M. Enger Page 23 of 23 Meridian Road Corridor Improvement Study Date 2/25/13 By way of Name Email to ADOT Terri DeBow Communications Agency/Org 2/27/13 Phone call to Lars Jacoby Craig Ahlstrom Sunland Springs 2/27/13 Email to Charla Glendening Bert Fellows 3/4/13 Phone call to Lars Jacoby Fred Swan 3/5/13 Email to Charla Glendening Barry Walling 3/6/13 Email to Lars Fred Swan Jacoby (previous phone call) Contact Info Casaflores6@yahoo.com 480‐313‐7471 Correspondence Why is this the first public notice I have recd? Its in my backyard! Why is proposed E/W Freeway south of elliot and north of pecos not shown on study map? This is a large area to study, too large to focus on 2 parts; north of 60 fwy occupied. south of 60 fwy very rural. Not the same type of areas. I can speak of s/o 60 fwy is rural and I wish it to stay that way. The email link on this mailer so how do you expect to get the proper feedback? craig.ahlstrom@sunlandsprings.com Study information 480‐984‐4999 bertjan@cox.net 480‐380‐1738 Difficulty in accessing online survey Questions on potential impacts of improvements to property bwalling@cox.net This is a must from 60 south 2737 S. Copperwood Mesa, AZ 85209 317‐501‐0214 ltswan@att.net Concerns that future improvements would reduce property value Comments Email response sent by Lars Jacoby on 2/26/13 Several hundred resident development at Baseline/Meridian; may want to visit HOA later in study Email and phone response on 3/5/13 by Audra Koester Thomas Phone response on 3/4/13 by Lars Jacoby Email response sent by Charla Glendening on 3/5/13 Email response sent on 3/8/13 by Lars Jacoby Communication Log ‐ A1 Meridian Road Corridor Improvement Study Date 3/25/13 By way of Email to Charla Glendening Name Mark Reeb 5/2/13 Phone call to Lars Jacoby 5/2/13 Phone call to Lars Jacoby Agency/Org The Reeb Group, Ltd. Jerry Contact Info 2812 N. Norwalk St., Ste. 105 Mesa, AZ 85215 (480) 898‐9090 Office markreeb@reebgroup.com 480‐577‐6807 Correspondence We own approximately ¾ mile of frontage on Meridian Rd. north of Pecos Rd. in Mesa. We would very much appreciate being informed of the progress of the planning project and receiving the final report when completed. Questions on project timeline Fae VanBuren 480‐357‐8134 Questions on project timeline and alignment at Baseline Road Comments Email response sent on 3/25/13 by Charla Glendening Phone response by Audra Koester Thomas on 5/3/13 Phone response by Audra Koester Thomas on 5/6/13 Communication Log ‐ A2 Meridian Road Corridor Improvement Study Date 5/6/13 By way of Name Meeting with Klaus Wolters Charla Glendening, Lars Jacoby Agency/Org PM Industrial Holdings Contact Info krwolters@planet.nl Correspondence Summary 1. PM Industrial Holdings is owner of about 104 acres along Meridian Road. About 10 acres have been sold recently and roughly 93 acres are left with only access from Meridian Road, at this time a so called ‘dirt road in the desert’. 2. For possibilities to sell these 93 acres, for us it,s important to know what the planning is for future construction of this part of Meridian Road. Comments Meeting summary detailed in “Correspondence” Meeting details a. The ‘Meridian Road Corridor Study’ will be finished in June 2013. ADOT has the ambition to come to a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with all stakeholders of this Study. This Study will have no formal status but it will only be a guide for local agencies, future developers along this corridor. b. The Meridian Road (about 13 Miles) is proposed to be a 6-lane road in future south of US 60 and will be constructed in phases. The construction of the road between Williams Field Road and Pecos Road (that is the part where our land is situated) will not be constructed before 2028 because there is no priority for that. By 2025 the Meridian Road Corridor Study is recommending an interim road of 4 lanes. New road construction in developing areas is driven by, and often funded by, development of the adjacent land. Planning studies provide a guide to anticipate future development needs and timelines. However, in a dynamically developing area like this one cannot predict with certainty when infrastructure might be constructed or who might construct it. c. The most recent Transportation Plan for the City of Mesa was completed in 2002 : ‘Mesa Transportation Plan 2002’ (June 24). In this since 2002 leading document, the construction of PM part of Meridian Road was in the ‘no funding’ period phase 5 (recommended within 21 till 25 years(2023-2027); In Meas’s Transporation Plan Meridian Road was classified as a Priority 5 roadway (low priority/long rang) project at that time with improvements scheduled for 2020- 2025. However, in order to fund the Light Rail Extension from Mesa Drive to Gilbert Road, Meridian Road was dropped from the MAG’s Arterial Life Cycle Program (ALCP) because the rate of growth was significantly less than predicted. d. Meridian Road is historically strongly involved by flooding problems from east side (Pinal County) , especially the deep washes E 11, 12, 13, 14 and 14N (enclosure) in the area of our property have huge impact on land and unprotected homes west of Meridian Road. e. To protect in future the new constructed Meridian Road and the property on west side of Meridian Road, a Flooding Channel will be constructed adjacent to Meridian Road on east side. This Flooding Channel will lead the water north of proposed SR 24 in west direction to Ellsworth Road through a Flooding Channel adjacent to SR 24. The storm water south of proposed SR 24 will be lead probably on north south side of Pecos Road in west direction. For that reason there will be constructed a basin on CMC Steel property on SE corner of Pecos Road/Meridian Road, east of existing ‘diversion dyke’. These are only conceptual designs and nothing has been finalized. The Flood Control District of Maricopa County is planning for these regional flood control facilities. Mr. Wolters should visit with FCDMC to be certain of the most current plans of the District. f. The Flooding Channel adjacent to Meridian Road will be constructed at same time as Meridian Road and that is not before 2028. Untill that time, all landowners have to protect their property against stormwater on their own account. There is no programe for the construction of the flood control channel at this time. Ideally the channel and road construction will be coincident but the funding and partnerships to make that happen do not exist today. The project development for each may follow different timelines. What is certain is that construction of either is not in the 5-year construction programs for any of the agencies. Communication Log ‐ A3 Meridian Road Corridor Improvement Study Date 5/16/13 By way of Public meeting Name Paul Leber Agency/Org Contact Info 11533 E Medina Ave. Mesa 85209‐1428 rebeljr@juno.com Correspondence 1. How many feet from the East Wall of Sunland Springs Village will the new extension of Meridian be? 2. Are there any plans for a noise abatement barrier between Meridian and our village? Comments 1. The western edge of the roadway will be approximately 14 feet from the boundary wall. 2. Because of the preliminary nature of this project, noise barriers have not been considered at this time. However, during final design, assessment for environmental considerations, such as noise, would be made at that time. Response sent by Lars Jacoby via email on June 10, 2013 Communication Log ‐ A4 Meridian Road Corridor Improvement Study Date 5/28/13 By way of Email Name Donald A. Marlys M. Enger Agency/Org Contact Info 2259 S. Copperwood Mesa, AZ 85209 612‐998‐8470 952‐835‐0748 facilitiesmanagement@live.com Correspondence We were unable to attend the presentation on May 16, 2013, however we have reviewed the printed materials regarding proposed recommendations for future improvements to Meridian Road. 1. Setbacks: The setback from the Farnsworth property line to the 'right of way' line indicate 13' for sidewalk & tree lane. The diagram does not indicate where the current waterway will be placed. This waterway contains water most of the winter months and provides drainage to the lots along the proposed roadway. We propose the Planner/Engineer retain the open waterway at the Maricopa/Pinal county line providing a greater "buffer" between the traffic lanes and the residential zoning with a minimum of 30' green/natural planted space to buffer the highway activity to provide safety and security for the single family residential homes between Copperwood & Meridian Rd. 2. Zoning/Use Permits: The 2012 online Report indicates the "Zoned Use" contiguous with Meridian, between Baseline & Elliot Rd is planned as "multi‐family residential". We recommend NO further "industial zoning" permits be issued within the Meridian corridor for property contiguous with existing "residential use" zoning. 3. Speed Limit ‐ What is the proposed speed limit on this roadway between Elliot and Baseline Rd? Comments Included in Phase II comments in public involvement report; waterway comment forwarded to FCDMC; land use comment forwarded to municipalities and counties; response to potential speed limit sent by Lars Jacoby on May 28, 2013 Communication Log ‐ A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11 Audra Koester Thomas From: Sent: To: Subject: Lars Jacoby [Ljacoby@azdot.gov] Tuesday, May 28, 2013 1:51 PM Audra Koester Thomas; Charla Glendening FW: Meridian Road Corridor Study-Response Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: Follow up Flagged FYI… Lars Jacoby Community Relations Project Manager 1655 W. Jackson St. Mail Drop: 126F Phoenix, AZ 85007 602.501.8493 azdot.gov From: Marlys Enger [mailto:facilitiesmanagement@live.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 10:48 AM To: Lars Jacoby Subject: Meridian Road Corridor Study-Response Dear Mr. Lars Jacoby: Contact Information: Name: Donald A. Marlys M. Enger Address: 2259 So. Copperwood, Mesa, AZ 85209 (Sundland Springs Development) Email address: facilitiesmanagement@live.com Comments RE: Meridian Road Study: We were unable to attend the presentation on May 16, 2013, however we have reviewed the printed materials regarding proposed recommendations for future improvements to Meridian Road. 1. Setbacks: The setback from the Farnsworth property line to the 'right of way' line indicate 13' for sidewalk & tree lane. The diagram does not indicate where the current waterway will be placed. This waterway contains water most of the winter months and provides drainage to the lots along the proposed roadway. We propose the Planner/Engineer retain the open waterway at the Maricopa/Pinal county line providing a greater "buffer" between the traffic lanes and the residential zoning with a minimum of 30' green/natural planted space to buffer the highway activity to provide safety and security for the single family residential homes between Copperwood & Meridian Rd. 2. Zoning/Use Permits: The 2012 online Report indicates the "Zoned Use" contiguous with Meridian, between Baseline & Elliot Rd is planned as "multi‐family residential". We recommend NO further "industial zoning" permits be issued within the Meridian corridor for property contiguous with existing "residential use" zoning. 3. Speed Limit ‐ What is the proposed speed limit on this roadway between Elliot and Baseline Rd? 1 A12 You may respond to our questions at 612‐998‐8470 or 952‐835‐0748 or facilitiesmanagement@live.com Confidentiality and Nondisclosure Notice: This email transmission and any attachments are intended for use by the person(s)/entity(ies) named above and may contain confidential/privileged information. Any unauthorized use, disclosure or distribution is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by email, and delete or destroy all copies plus attachments. . 2 A13 APPENDIX D SAMPLE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING Michael Baker Jr., Inc. Phoenix, Arizona MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION, PINAL COUNTY, THE CITY OF MESA AND MARICOPA COUNTY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE MERIDIAN ROAD CORRIDOR FROM GERMANN ROAD TO MCDOWELL BOULEVARD Project: The Meridian Road Corridor Study is an approximately thirteen (13) mile study between Germann Road and McDowell Boulevard. The purpose of the study is to develop a consensus driven vision for the Meridian Road Corridor, identify corridor deficiencies and requirements, and generate technically feasible alternatives designed to meet the established needs. Purpose: The purpose of this Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is to establish design guidelines for Meridian Road from Germann Road to McDowell Boulevard and to outline the mutual understanding of Apache Junction, Pinal County, Mesa and Maricopa County regarding their respective roles in the planning, programming and project development of Meridian Road as defined in the corridor study completed by the Arizona Department of Transportation on behalf of Pinal County and Apache Junction in 2013. Background: The Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) kicked off the Meridian Road Corridor Study in 2012. As part of the completion of the study, the project partners agreed to develop Meridian Road with an arterial cross section with 60 feet to 150 feet of Right‐of‐Way depending on the location as depicted in Figure 1. The ultimate roadway configuration is depicted in Figure 2 and the preferred alignment is depicted in Figure 3. Cross sections of the agreed upon roadway are depicted in Figures 4 through 6. Project Guidelines: Road design and access guidelines for Meridian Road between Germann Road and McDowell Boulevard will follow the standards of the jurisdiction responsible for the operation and maintenance of the constructed improvements which remains to be negotiated among the partners. The design and guidelines should generally comply with the parameters in the Background section of this MOU. Responsibility of the Party Initiating the Development Action: 1. Consult with and otherwise make available for review any master transportation plan, corridor study or any other planning study that impacts Meridian Road between Germann Road and McDowell Boulevard to all other parties to this MOU. 2. Consult with and otherwise make available for review any plans and specifications developed or submitted for Meridian Road to all other parties to this MOU. 3. Accept and consider in good faith, as appropriate, comments provided by other parties to this MOU. 4. Acknowledge ownership of or intent to acquire ownership of the road segment under development. 5. Provide ongoing operation and maintenance of the road segment under development. Responsibility of Others not Initiating the Development Action: 1. Review any master transportation plan, corridor study or any other planning study that impacts Meridian Road between Germann Road and McDowell Boulevard in a timely fashion. 2. Review any plans and specifications developed or submitted for Meridian Road in a timely fashion. 3. Acknowledge and encourage ownership of or intent to acquire ownership by the Party initiating the development action and assist as appropriate or necessary. 1 Effect of the MOU: The intent of this MOU is clarify the goals and objectives of Apache Junction, Pinal County, Mesa and Maricopa County for Meridian Road between Germann Road and McDowell Boulevard. It does not obligate any party to this MOU to expend any funds or take any actions to complete any projects along this section of Meridian Road. Term of the MOU: This MOU shall be in effect from the date of the last person to sign this MOU until the parties jointly concur to terminate this MOU. City of Apache Junction An Arizona Municipal Corporation By: ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Bryant Powell Date Assistant City Manager Pinal County A Political Subdivision of the State of Arizona By: ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ A.J. Blaha, P.E. Date Public Works Director City of Mesa An Arizona Municipal Corporation By: ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Jack Friedline Date Deputy City Manager Maricopa County A Political Subdivision of the State of Arizona By: ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ John B. Hauskins, P.E. Date MCDOT Transportation Director 2 Figure 1: Recommended Cross Section per Meridian Road Segment 3 Figure 2: 2035 Recommended Roadway Configuration 4 Figure 3: Meridian Road Preferred Alignment 5 Figure 4: Ultimate Roadway Cross Section – Southern Avenue to Germann Road Figure 5: Ultimate Roadway Cross Section – Lost Dutchman Boulevard to Southern Avenue Figure 6: Ultimate Roadway Cross Section – Lost Dutchman Boulevard to McDowell Boulevard 6 APPENDIX E MEETING NOTES Michael Baker Jr., Inc. Phoenix, Arizona Meeting Report Subject/Purpose Meridian Road Corridor Study Project Kick-off Meeting Summary Attendees Doug Hansen, Pinal County Giao Pham, Apache Junction Charla Glendening, ADOT MPD Lynne Hilliard, Maricopa County DOT Simon Pratt, Baker Mike Sabatini, Baker Date/Time March 5, 2012 General Notes • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • The application was written by the Central Arizona Association of Governments (CAAG). Pinal County is the local sponsor and Apache Junction has a strong interest. The Apache Junction Comprehensive Transportation Plan is about to finish. The Plan assumes a build out population of 130,000. Jacobs travel demand modeling has been provided to CAAG. The study limits are Germann to McKellips. URS completed a design concept report for MCDOT between Empire and Southern. The Siphon Draw drainage basins and channel were recently completed. There is a half diamond interchange at 30% design phase for Meridian Rd at US 60 with an $11.7 million budget for construction in FY 2013. It could be similar to the Sossaman TI. The intersection improvement/traffic signalization project at Southern/Meridian could go to construction in FY 2012. Giao has asked for 7-lane R.O.W. from the developer at the SE quad of the intersection. The development is a 55+ community similar to what exists at Ellsworth/Baseline. Mesa has road widening project in their CIP for Meridian near Elliot. Ironwood has 1-2 mile queues in the NB direction at Baseline in the a.m. Portales is a 7,700 acre master planned community on the east side of Meridian between Elliot and Baseline. The Pinal County North-South Freeway and SR 24 studies by ADOT will impact Meridian Road. There is a meeting at HDR about the NS study on March 6 to narrow 45 alternatives to 16. The SR 24 study is on hold and will proceed following the NS study. Apache Junction will look to others to fund road widening. RV resorts along Meridian in Apache Junction want improvements. ADOT can provide travel demand modeling. Need to be cognizant of floodplains and fissures. • • • • • • • • • • Study goals north of Baseline: o Prescreen drainage, R.O.W., etc. in preparation for future DCR o Conduct preliminary NEPA, develop a Purpose and Need statement o Follow the Planning and Environmental Linkages (PEL) process, ADOT has a checklist Study goals south of Baseline: o Determine timeframe of agencies’ roadway development; Mesa timing of CIP project o Affirm facility type and cross section o Germann is an important E-W connector; Tom Condit is the Queen Creek contact; meet with Queen Creek before finalizing scope o SR 24 is an important E-W connector o Provide cost estimates through plan implementation Provide road inventory up to McDowell but Pinal County does not think it is necessary to plan Public outreach at least once and maybe twice. There was poor attendance at the first Apache Junction Comprehensive Transportation Study public meeting. Subsequent on-line outreach and survey monkey was more successful. The winter population doubles the summer population in Apache Junction. Anticipate 5 TAC meetings, 2 sets of public meetings, Working Papers 1 and 2, Final Draft and Final Reports with an Executive Summary, possible Pinal BOS and AJ Council presentations. Baker to provide all public meeting materials and CCP consultant will handle all arrangements and logistics. Charla will schedule TAC meetings and send invitations. The TAC will be: o FCDMC, Felicia Terry o Pinal County, Doug Hansen, Andy o CAAG, Mark Griffin Smith o ASLD, Michelle Green o Apache Junction, Giao Pham o MAG, Bob Hazlett o Maricopa County DOT, Tim Oliver o FCDPC, Elise Moore o Mesa, Ken Hall o ADOT CCP, Lars Jacoby o Queen Creek, Tom Condit May meet as a group or separately with stakeholders: o Central Arizona Project o Phoenix-Mesa Gateway Airport, Walt Fix o Intercity Passenger Rail Study, Mike Kies o N-S Pinal Study/SR 24 Study, Javier Gurrola ADOT will establish a website for: o Meeting minutes o Working papers o Fold up executive summary o Other Baker to submit the scope and budget as separate documents in order to post the scope on the web and provide the schedule in PDF format. Send the draft scope to Giao and Doug for review. Meridian Road Corridor Study Meeting: Meridian Road Corridor Technical Advisory Committee Meeting #1 Location: Queen Creek Library, Erma Bombeck Room 21802 S Ellsworth Road, Queen Creek, Az 85242 Date: May 16, 2012 Time: 1:30 p.m. Attendance: Mark Griffin, CAAG; Ken Hall, City of Mesa; Doug Hansen, Pinal County; Tim Oliver, MCDOT; Giao Pham, City of Apache Junction; Andy Smith, Pinal County; Charla Glendening, ADOT MPD; Cathy Regester, Flood Control District of Maricopa County; Jen Pokorski, Flood Control District of Maricopa County; Wayne Balmer, Town of Queen Creek; Ralph Ellis, ADOT Environmental Planning; Simon Pratt, Baker; Mike Sabatini, Baker; Audra Koester Thomas, PSA Handouts: Agenda, Study Area Map, Work Plan, Public Involvement Plan Outline Meeting began at 1:40 p.m. 1. Introductions Charla Glendening, ADOT Project Manager, introduced the project and Planning Assistance for Rural Areas (PARA) program to the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC). She introduced the “Planning and Environmental Linkages” (PEL) program, a precursor initiative to Design Concept Reports (DCRs), that would be included as part of this planning effort. Following review of the program, participants introduced themselves. 2. Project Overview/Work Plan Mike Sabatini, Baker Project Manager, noted the purpose of the project is to gain consensus on number of lanes, facility type and right of way for the Meridian corridor between McDowell and Germann roads, and to preserve the ability for future federal funding. Mr. Sabatini reviewed a list of previous and current study efforts that would inform the Meridian Road Corridor project. Participants added the following additional studies: Mesa Transportation Plan (ongoing), Hydrology Study (2011), Power Road/Rittenhouse Flood Retarding Structure Study (ongoing), MAG RTP, and ADOT US 60/Meridian Road TI (ongoing). Mr. Sabatini noted that while alternative alignments are not anticipated with the potential exception between Baseline and Southern, alternatives will likely focus on facility types, phasing options and implementation strategies. March 16, 2012 TAC Meeting Page 1 Meridian Road Corridor Study Tim Oliver, MCDOT, noted that the challenges will be in the southern portion of the alignment, where fissures and miscellaneous development will impact alternatives. He also encouraged the team to reach consensus on the long‐term ownership and maintenance of the facility, as well as the preferred cross section. Giao Pham, City of Apache Junction, noted that the Elliot Road Study might be a good model for determining facility type, and continued that phasing options should consider initial lanes, not just longitudinal development. Wayne Balmer, Town of Queen Creek, offered scalloped, interim phasing to address future development patterns along the corridor. Ralph Ellis, ADOT Environmental Planning, reminded the group that if future federal funding was desired, multiple alternatives—including a no‐build option—would need to be considered, as well as developing a strong purpose and need. Because of the multiple jurisdictions along the corridor, Ms. Glendening inquired if a potential memorandum of understanding (MOU) regarding the facility type, right of way, phasing, etc. was a possible outcome of this effort, and after discussion, there seemed to be interest amongst the various jurisdictions to further investigating the creation of an MOU. Tim Oliver suggested looking at the MOU for Elliott Road between MCDOT and Mesa. Mr. Sabatini noted that travel demand modeling for this project was unlikely, and instead, the team would utilize existing studies to estimate future level of service needs using syncro simulation. He noted that Nona Baheshone would be conducting the environmental review for the project. 3. Project Deliverables Mr. Sabatini noted the following schedule for deliverables: • Technical Memorandum #1: May 2012 • Working Paper #1: September 2012 • PEL Questionnaire Part 1: September 2012 • Working Paper #2: November 2012 • Draft Final Report: November 2012 • Final Report: December 2012 4. Roadway Typical Sections Mr. Sabatini walked the TAC through the various road cross sections for Pinal County, Maricopa County, City of Apache Junction and City of Mesa, noting the similarities and differences of each. It was requested that access management guidelines be reviewed as part of the alternatives stage, perhaps using the 2006 study’s policy language as guidance. March 16, 2012 TAC Meeting Page 2 Meridian Road Corridor Study 5. Public Involvement Plan Audra Koester Thomas, PSA, reviewed the public involvement plan outline and asked for feedback on what tactics should be utilized for outreach. After discussion, the use of a survey instrument in the beginning of the project was considered a viable alternative to a public meeting, where agencies could forward a project fact sheet with a link to the project website and survey to garner feedback. Agencies also recommended the study team attend other project meetings as a way to engage constituents, or meet with homeowners associations along the corridor. 6. Project Stakeholders Ms. Thomas reviewed the list of project stakeholders that the study team would interview to garner technical information to inform the project. TAC members offered the following additional stakeholders as potential interviewees: Arizona State Land Department, Corps of Engineers, Western Area Power Administration, SR 24 Project Manager, Area Drainage Master Plan areas, private water companies (Arizona Water, Apache Junction Water District), utility companies, homeowner associations, and Usery Mountain Park. 7. Elected Official Outreach Discussion ensued on whether agencies preferred having elected officials briefings, and agencies noted that at this time, forwarding the project fact sheet would be sufficient. Many noted that if an MOU is developed, study team briefings to elected officials might be beneficial at that time. 8. Planning and Environmental Linkages Program Mr. Sabatini reviewed the PEL program and how the initiative intends to weave together planning and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), including a review of the various surveys that are part of the PEL process. 9. Open Discussion Mr. Oliver noted that it might be prudent to do intersection analysis at major/key intersections as part of the phasing discussion. Mr. Balmer inquired as to how the project gets memorialized. Particular to the various jurisdictions involved, Mr. Balmer wondered if an MOU would convey consensus derived as part of the project. 10. Future Meetings Many TAC members noted that Wednesday afternoons were good meeting times. Meeting adjourned at 3:35 p.m. March 16, 2012 TAC Meeting Page 3 Meeting Report Subject/ Purpose Attendees Meridian Road Corridor Study Meeting with Michelle Green, ASLD Michelle Green, ASLD Charla Glendening, ADOT MPD Mike Sabatini, Baker Date/Time: June 4, 2012 Follow Up Actions: Contacts Made Contact: Company: Phone: Email: Comments: Michelle Green Arizona State Land Department 602‐364‐2502 Mgreen@land.az.gov Real Estate Division, Planning and Engineering General Notes        Mike reviewed the PowerPoint presentation from May 16, 2012 TAC meeting. Michelle asked about Meridian Road section line transition at Baseline Road. Would it be better if it were south of Baseline instead of north as shown in the MCDOT report? Why not just extend the alignment due south from Baseline with no transition or transition at some point south of Baseline. Discussion follows about ensuring viable land uses in the transition zone or the use of the remnant strip if the alignment is offset east of the section line south of Baseline. Mike says the MCDOT alignment mimics transitions at other section line offsets at Crismon, Ellsworth, etc. and those have vibrant commercial uses in the transition zone. ASLD has not developed a detailed roadway network in Superstition Vistas which is the 275 square miles in Pinal County east of Meridian Rd and south of Baseline Rd. ASLD sold 1,000 acres of Superstition Vistas which has become the Portalis development with the stipulation that the developer deposit $6,000,000 in an escrow account to fund master planning for Portalis and the full 275 sq. mi. of Superstition Vistas. Michelle will provide a PDF of the Superstition Vistas planning document. There is no similar document for Portalis. Michelle advises to correct the Summary of Existing Studies slide to show that the Superstition Vistas document is a Conceptual Land Use Plan. ASLD does not have an advisory committee. There might be a benefit to brief the State Land Commissioner as the plan formalizes and if the partners develop an MOU. MEETING SUMMARY Project: East Mesa ADMP Update Job No.: FCD 2011C017 Date: Time: Subject: Place: ASLD ASLD Coordination Meeting Attendee Jen Pokorski Lillian Moodey Manny Patel Adam Sharp Ruben Ojeda Simon Pratt Mike Sabatini Hernan Aristizabal Laurie Miller Affiliation FCDMC ASLD ASLD ASLD ASLD Baker Baker Entellus LTM Engineering August 16, 2012 10:00 a.m. E-mail jpm@mail.maricopa.gov Lmoodey@azland.gov Mpatel@azland.gov Asharp@azland.gov Rojeda@azland.gov Spratt@mbakercorp.com Michael.Sabatini@mbakercorp.com ahernan@entellus.com miller@LTMengineering.com The following is a summary of a meeting with the Arizona State Land Department (ASLD) to discuss future drainage and transportation corridors and partnering opportunities within the East Mesa Area Drainage Master Plan (ADMP) Update study area. The agenda, attendance sheet, and handouts are attached. Project Background Jen Pokorski, project manager for the Flood Control District of Maricopa County (District), noted that Entellus was retained to update the East Mesa ADMP, originally developed in 1998. The update was initiated due to significant changes in the watershed and ongoing flooding concerns within the study area. Additionally, rainfall data has recently been updated and new mapping is available. Significant flooding in Maricopa County has occurred in the Mountain Road area and along Pecos and Germann Roads at the Meridian Road alignment. The runoff originates in Pinal County and crosses into Maricopa County at Meridian Road. The need for constructing drainage infrastructure is immediate due to active flooding; however, actual implementation will be contingent on funding partnerships. Concurrently, the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) has retained Michael Baker Corporation to perform a transportation study along Meridian Road between McDowell and Germann Roads. The corridor study is funded through ADOT’s Planning Assistance for Rural Areas (PARA), with Pinal County and the City of Apache Junction as participating jurisdictions. Mike Sabatini is Baker’s project manager for the Meridian Road Corridor Study. East Mesa ADMP Update ASLD Coordination Meeting Summary August 16, 2012 Preliminary ADMP Alternatives Hernan Aristizabal, project manager for Entellus, presented preliminary alternatives under consideration. Three alternatives have been developed for each of three geographical areas: SR 24 System: areas north of the future SR24 alignment (runoff to be captured by the future SR 24 interceptor channel) Ellsworth System: area between the future SR24 alignment and Germann Road (drains to the Ellsworth Channel) Rittenhouse System: southern portion of the study area (drains to the Rittenhouse Channel) All three systems impact state trust lands along Meridian Road alignment. The majority of adjacent land on the east side within the study area is held in trust. On the west side, the adjacent land is privately owned and is substantially more developed. It was noted that 70 feet of street right-of-way has been secured along portions of the Maricopa County side, though not along the entire length of the corridor. These existing right-of-way segments would be used for the future road, but additional land will be required for roadway right-ofway and drainage easement. Mike Sabatini noted that securing right-of-way for the entire length of the corridor will be a study recommendation. Segments of the Meridian Road drainage improvements under consideration include routing the channel alignment eastward around existing private development in Pinal County near Williams Field Road. Development has occurred on both sides of the Meridian Road alignment; although the roadway could be constructed between the developments, there is not enough available width to accommodate an adjacent open channel. Alternatively, a straight alignment could be maintained along the section lines and the channel could include a buried box or pipe section in the vicinity of Williams Field Road. ASLD expressed a preference for the underground segment. It was noted that, in addition to being less efficient hydraulically, the offset channel segment would result in a significant increase in land acquisition since the District would be required to purchase any parcels that would be segmented by a shifted channel. Additionally, the Ellsworth System alternatives include a drainageway along Pecos Road. A parcel of state trust land along the south side of Pecos Road would be impacted by two of the proposed alternatives. ASLD would not support Alternative 3 because it divides this parcel and negatively impacts its viability for future development. Future Development & Infrastructure Plans along Meridian Road Mike Sabatini reported that a prior roadway study of Meridian Road by the Maricopa County Department of Transportation (MCDOT) had recommended a six-lane arterial roadway with 130 feet of right-of-way, which includes an on-pavement bike lane and an adjacent sidewalk. The concept design also included a raised median and a 10-year channel to convey road drainage. The MCDOT study acknowledged the improvements recommended in the 1998 East Mesa ADMP, but did not include them as part of the roadway recommendations. The report recommended a series of cross road culverts with 50-year or 100-year designs, depending on the drainage identified. Page 2 of 4 East Mesa ADMP Update ASLD Coordination Meeting Summary August 16, 2012 The current Baker study is based on the same footprint and is centered on the section lines, except in the vicinity of Baseline Road where the section lines are offset. An interchange is planned for access to US 60 from Meridian Road, but implementation of the remainder of the corridor study is indefinite. ASLD requested additional information on the ADOT Meridian Road Corridor Study. Mike Sabatini will make it available on an ftp site. ASLD noted the following: • ASLD has detailed GIS coverage available of lands held in trust. Jen Pokorski will coordinate obtaining the files. • Based on typical roadway and channel cross sections for Meridian Road provided by Entellus, the overall channel widths along Meridian Road are relatively high due to the inclusion of landscaping and other aesthetic treatments. It was clarified that a moveable bed, i.e., earthen bottom, channel was assumed. ASLD seeks to achieve a balance between aesthetic enhancements with associated greater land requirements and straight, narrower channels with minimal aesthetics. • The current policy when right-of-way is required along state trust land is to share the burden equally with the adjacent landowner(s). Extenuating circumstances, e.g., the desire to avoid condemnation proceedings against existing development, may warrant a deviation from this policy. However, any such deviation would first require careful study. • ASLD’s preference is to locate a drainage channel adjacent to the roadway rather than shift the channel upstream “behind” future development: - Actual development patterns cannot be predicted; therefore, construction of a channel upstream of assumed development could reduce rather than enhance property values when the land is later offered for purchase. - Future development adjacent to Meridian Road would still need an outfall for onsite runoff. A channel on the upstream side of the roadway would provide an outfall; a channel located farther upstream would not. • Manny Patel noted that ASLD would be interested in future development being allowed to drain directly to a channel along Meridian Road with waived retention requirements. Since the area in question is within Pinal County, it would also need to allow such a waiver. Additionally, downstream facilities may need to upsized to accept the runoff directly. • The current study offers a benefit to ASLD because it eliminates the 1998 recommendation to construct detention basins on state trust land in the vicinity of Pecos Road. • ASLD would be willing to consider allowing extension of the existing 70-foot Meridian Road right-of-way eastward to accommodate the wider road/channel corridor. However, ASLD would not contribute construction funds. • The study results should recommend forming a Memorandum of Understanding or Inter-Governmental Agreement between ASLD and the District if partnering opportunities are proposed. Page 3 of 4 East Mesa ADMP Update ASLD Coordination Meeting Summary August 16, 2012 Potential Future Partnering Opportunities The East Mesa ADMP Update project will select a preliminary recommended alternative in September or October 2012 and will present it to stakeholders, including ASLD, and the public at that time. The project will be complete in February 2013. The Meridian Road Corridor Study will be completed by December 2012 and will include a public meeting at that time. Jen Pokorski will contact Michelle Green, ASLD’s planner for east Mesa, to discuss future plans for the region. Summary ASLD noted the following: 1. A narrower channel cross section is preferred in order to reduce the amount of land required. 2. In developed areas, it is acceptable to analyze extending the existing 70-foot right-ofway along Meridian Road eastward, recognizing that the overall roadway/channel width will exceed 140 feet. In undeveloped areas, the right-of-way would be split evenly between adjacent state trust lands and private owners. 3. Future development on state trust land adjacent to channels along Meridian Road should be allowed to discharge directly in lieu of retaining the 100-year, 2-hour storm. 4. Where possible, proposed channels should not be shifted onto state trust lands. Action Items The following action items were assigned: Action Items Responsible Party Obtain GIS shapefiles of state trust lands Jen Pokorski Contact Michelle Green for ASLD planning information in east Mesa Provide information via ftp on the ADOT Meridian Road Corridor Study Jen Pokorski Mike Sabatini Include Ruben Ojeda on future ADMP stakeholder notifications Laurie Miller The preceding summary was prepared by Laurie Miller. c: Attendees Page 4 of 4 MEETING AGENDA East Mesa ADMP Update Coordination with Arizona State Land Department August 16, 2012 1. Introductions & Project Background • • • 2. Presentation of Preliminary Drainage Plan Alternatives • • • 3. Project Summary Project Goals Purpose of Meeting - Coordinate future drainage and roadway corridors in East Mesa SR 24 System Ellsworth System Rittenhouse System Discussion of Future ASLC and MCDOT Plans along Meridian Road • • • Future Development Plans Meridian Road Corridor Study Drainage Constraints along Meridian Road - 4. Potential Future Partnering Opportunities • • • 5. Roadway width requirements Drainage conveyance requirements Future accommodations for commercial development Project Timeframes Funding Partnerships Regulatory Constraints Other EAST MESA AREA DRAINAGE MASTER PLAN UPDATE FCD 2011C017 Ray Rd LEGEND East Mesa ADMPU State Trust Land Parcels Ellsworth Rd Underground Landscaping Future Roadway Channel O&M Meridian Rd Signal Butte Rd Pecos Rd Hawes Rd Sossaman Rd Path: P:\300\310\310057_East_Mesa_ADMP\Global_Data\Hydraulics\Channel Sizing\StateLand\Overview.mxd Germann Rd Ri tte nh ou se N Rd 0 0.125 0.25 0.5 Miles 2255 N. 44th Street Suite 125 Phoenix, Arizona 85008.3299 Tel. 602.244.2566 Fax. 602.244.8947 Web. www.entellus.com Queen Creek Rd Alternatives Overview Map Ivanhoe St Meridian Rd Ivanhoe St Meridian Rd 70 FT Galveston St 70 FT Erie St Path: P:\300\310\310057_East_Mesa_ADMP\Global_Data\Hydraulics\Channel Sizing\StateLand\SR-24 North.mxd Williams Field Rd EAST MESA AREA DRAINAGE MASTER PLAN UPDATE FCD 2011C017 LEGEND N 0 125 250 500 Feet 2255 N. 44th Street Suite 125 Phoenix, Arizona 85008.3299 Tel. 602.244.2566 Fax. 602.244.8947 Web. www.entellus.com Parcels State Trust Land SR-24 Movable Bed Channel n Meridia Rd Ivanhoe St 14 FT 120 FT 34 FT 80 FT Ivanhoe St Meridian Rd 244 FT Galveston St 14 FT 120 FT Erie St 34 FT 120 FT 284 FT Path: P:\300\310\310057_East_Mesa_ADMP\Global_Data\Hydraulics\Channel Sizing\StateLand\SR-24 NorthChannels.mxd Williams Field Rd EAST MESA AREA DRAINAGE MASTER PLAN UPDATE FCD 2011C017 LEGEND Parcels Underground State Trust Land Landscape N 0 125 250 500 Feet 2255 N. 44th Street Suite 125 Phoenix, Arizona 85008.3299 Tel. 602.244.2566 Fax. 602.244.8947 Web. www.entellus.com Future Roadway Channel O&M SR-24 Movable Bed Channel n Meridia Rd Ivanhoe St 14 FT 120 FT 34 FT 55 FT Ivanhoe St Meridian Rd 220 FT Galveston St 14 FT 120 FT Erie St Path: P:\300\310\310057_East_Mesa_ADMP\Global_Data\Hydraulics\Channel Sizing\StateLand\SR-24 North (TypSection Alternative).mxd 75 FT 34 FT 240 FT Williams Field Rd EAST MESA AREA DRAINAGE MASTER PLAN UPDATE FCD 2011C017 LEGEND Parcels Underground State Trust Land Landscape N 0 125 250 500 Feet 2255 N. 44th Street Suite 125 Phoenix, Arizona 85008.3299 Tel. 602.244.2566 Fax. 602.244.8947 Web. www.entellus.com Future Roadway Channel O&M SR-24 Tyipcal Cross Section Channel Meridian Rd 75 FT 50 FT Field Rd Williams 40 FT Meridian Rd Pinal County Williams Field Rd Frye Rd Path: P:\300\310\310057_East_Mesa_ADMP\Global_Data\Hydraulics\Channel Sizing\StateLand\SR-24 South.mxd EAST MESA AREA DRAINAGE MASTER PLAN UPDATE FCD 2011C017 LEGEND N 0 125 250 500 Feet 2255 N. 44th Street Suite 125 Phoenix, Arizona 85008.3299 Tel. 602.244.2566 Fax. 602.244.8947 Web. www.entellus.com Parcels State Trust Land SR-24 Movable Bed Channel 130 FT Meridian Rd Williams Field Rd 14 FT 34 FT 120 FT Meridian Rd Pinal County Williams Field Rd Frye Rd Path: P:\300\310\310057_East_Mesa_ADMP\Global_Data\Hydraulics\Channel Sizing\StateLand\SR-24 SouthChannel.mxd EAST MESA AREA DRAINAGE MASTER PLAN UPDATE FCD 2011C017 LEGEND Parcels Underground State Trust Land Landscape N 0 125 250 500 Feet 2255 N. 44th Street Suite 125 Phoenix, Arizona 85008.3299 Tel. 602.244.2566 Fax. 602.244.8947 Web. www.entellus.com Future Roadway Channel O&M SR-24 Movable Bed Channel 130 FT Meridian Rd Williams Field Rd 80 FT 14 FT 34 FT Meridian Rd Pinal County Williams Field Rd Frye Rd Path: P:\300\310\310057_East_Mesa_ADMP\Global_Data\Hydraulics\Channel Sizing\StateLand\SR-24 South (TypSection Alternative).mxd EAST MESA AREA DRAINAGE MASTER PLAN UPDATE FCD 2011C017 LEGEND Parcels Underground State Trust Land Landscape N 0 125 250 500 Feet 2255 N. 44th Street Suite 125 Phoenix, Arizona 85008.3299 Tel. 602.244.2566 Fax. 602.244.8947 Web. www.entellus.com Future Roadway Channel O&M SR-24 Typical Cross Section Channel Signal Butte Rd 222nd St 222nd St Frye Rd Pecos Rd 75 FT 45 FT 10 FT Path: P:\300\310\310057_East_Mesa_ADMP\Global_Data\Hydraulics\Channel Sizing\StateLand\Pecos ROW.mxd EAST MESA AREA DRAINAGE MASTER PLAN UPDATE FCD 2011C017 LEGEND Signal Butte Rd Merrill Rd Pecos Rd N 0 0.075 0.15 0.3 Miles 2255 N. 44th Street Suite 125 Phoenix, Arizona 85008.3299 Tel. 602.244.2566 Fax. 602.244.8947 Web. www.entellus.com State Trust Land Parcels Pecos Channel Signal Butte Rd 222nd St 222nd St Frye Rd 30 FT Pecos Rd 90 FT 14 FT Path: P:\300\310\310057_East_Mesa_ADMP\Global_Data\Hydraulics\Channel Sizing\StateLand\Pecos Channels.mxd EAST MESA AREA DRAINAGE MASTER PLAN UPDATE FCD 2011C017 LEGEND Signal Butte Rd Merrill Rd Pecos Rd N 0 0.075 0.15 0.3 Miles 2255 N. 44th Street Suite 125 Phoenix, Arizona 85008.3299 Tel. 602.244.2566 Fax. 602.244.8947 Web. www.entellus.com State Trust Land Parcels Landscaping Channel O&M Pecos Channel Signal Butte Rd Merrill Rd Signal Butte Rd Germann Rd 100 FT Germann Rd 30 FT Path: P:\300\310\310057_East_Mesa_ADMP\Global_Data\Hydraulics\Channel Sizing\StateLand\Germann.mxd EAST MESA AREA DRAINAGE MASTER PLAN UPDATE FCD 2011C017 LEGEND N 0 0.075 0.15 0.3 Miles 2255 N. 44th Street Suite 125 Phoenix, Arizona 85008.3299 Tel. 602.244.2566 Fax. 602.244.8947 Web. www.entellus.com State Trust Land Parcels Germann Channel Signal Butte Rd Merrill Rd Signal Butte Rd Germann Rd Germann Rd 15 FT Path: P:\300\310\310057_East_Mesa_ADMP\Global_Data\Hydraulics\Channel Sizing\StateLand\Germann Channels.mxd EAST MESA AREA DRAINAGE MASTER PLAN UPDATE FCD 2011C017 LEGEND 50 FT N 0 0.075 0.15 0.3 Miles 2255 N. 44th Street Suite 125 Phoenix, Arizona 85008.3299 Tel. 602.244.2566 Fax. 602.244.8947 Web. www.entellus.com State Trust Land Parcels Landscaping Channel O&M Germann Channel Meridian Road Corridor Study Meeting: Meridian Road Corridor Technical Advisory Committee Meeting #2 Location: Queen Creek Library, Edward Abby Room 21802 S Ellsworth Road, Queen Creek, Az 85242 Date: November 14, 2012 Time: 1:30 p.m. Attendance: Michelle Green, Arizona State Land Department; Mark Griffin, CAAG; Ken Hall, City of Mesa; Doug Hansen, Pinal County; Micah Henry, MAG; Denise Lacey, MCDOT; Giao Pham, City of Apache Junction; Jen Pokorski, Flood Control District of Maricopa County; Charla Glendening, ADOT MPD; Simon Pratt, Michael Baker Corporation; Mike Sabatini, Michael Baker Corporation; Audra Koester Thomas, PSA Handouts: Agenda, Elliot Road Maintenance MOU Meeting began at 1:40 p.m. 1. Introductions Charla Glendening, ADOT Project Manager, provided a welcome and asked participants to introduce themselves. 2. Working Paper #1 Mike Sabatini, Michael Baker Corporation (Baker) Project Manager, reviewed that the purpose of the meeting is to present Working Paper #1, Existing & Future Condition Inventory, and to review and address comments to finalize the report. Simon Pratt, Baker Transportation Engineer, walked participants through the content of Working Paper #1. The following comments were provided: • VII. Environmental Summary: Need to add information regarding the presence of fissures [Flood Control District of Maricopa County (FCDMC) can provide fissure data] • VIII. Future Conditions: Considerable discussion ensued regarding the FCDMC plans for a future channel proximate to the corridor. Both FCDMC and ADOT are coordinating efforts, and as part of this study, it is desired that the channel recommendation be included as part of the roadway alignment and design for Meridian Road. As such, it was determined that a special meeting be held in December, prior to planned outreach by FCDMC in January 2013, to further discuss and define a recommended channel approach. • X. Future Traffic Volumes: Need to show future planned roadways, such as SR 24, to help demonstrate future needs and levels of service. November 14, 2012 TAC Meeting Page 1 Meridian Road Corridor Study In addition to the comments relative to Working Paper #1, it was recommended that the team acquires the updated North‐South Corridor Study and reflect the latest alternatives within the study. 3. Development of Alternatives Mr. Pratt highlighted the various roadway classifications, cross section details and configurations each jurisdiction defines for the Meridian Road corridor. Discussion ensued regarding an approach to defining the desired, future roadway classification, cross section and configuration for the Meridian Road corridor. It was determined that Ms. Glendening would work with Baker to determine how to meet or work with each jurisdiction in order for the consulting team to prepare an initial recommendation for discussion and review. The TAC agreed that a memorandum of understanding (MOU) to memorialize the corridor’s future functional classification, cross section and configuration would be a desired outcome of this study effort. Mr. Sabatini handed out the Elliot Road MOU for reference. 4. Public Outreach Audra Koester Thomas, PSA, noted that she’d been working with Jen Pokorski, FCDMC, regarding the potential for the study team to attend a future public meeting regarding the East Mesa ADMP project. Ms. Pokorski anticipated the public meeting to occur in January, whereby the Meridian Road study team could host a table regarding the project. In advance of that effort, the TAC confirmed that launching a survey instrument to obtain feedback on the following corridor topics would be desired: • Opportunities, constraints and observations? • Experience any problems? • Agree/disagree: 6‐lane divided arterial south of US 60 (Superstition Freeway)? • Agree/disagree: 6‐lane divided arterial between US 60 (Superstition Freeway) and Superstition Boulevard; 2‐lane roadway north? • Opportunities for non‐motorized improvements? and/or How would you utilize non‐motorized improvements? • Ideas for long‐range plans? • How often do you travel the corridor? • Do you live/work/own property along the corridor? A mailer would be developed and sent to property owners adjacent to the corridor and agency partners could forward or otherwise distribute the flier to their constituents to garner feedback. Meeting adjourned at 3:10 p.m. November 14, 2012 TAC Meeting Page 2 Meridian Road Corridor Study Meeting: East Mesa ADMP Update and Meridian Road Corridor Study Coordination Location: Queen Creek Library, Edward Abby Room 21802 S Ellsworth Road, Queen Creek, Az 85242 Date: December 12, 2012 Time: 1:30 p.m. Attendance: Afshin Ahouraiyan, Flood Control District of Maricopa County; Hernan Aristizabal, Entellus; Wayne Balmer, Town of Queen Creek; Michelle Green, Arizona State Land Department; Ken Hall, City of Mesa; Doug Hansen, Pinal County; Denise Lacey, MCDOT; Laurie Miller, LTM Engineering; Elise Moore, Pinal County; Tom Narva, TOQC; Ruben Ojeda, Arizona State Land Department; Tim Oliver, MCDOT; Manny Patel, Arizona State Land Department; Giao Pham, City of Apache Junction; Jen Pokorski, Flood Control District of Maricopa County; Charla Glendening, ADOT MPD; Simon Pratt, Michael Baker Corporation; Mike Sabatini, Michael Baker Corporation; Audra Koester Thomas, PSA Handouts: Agenda, ADMP System Alternatives, Meridian Corridor Alignment map, Meridian Corridor Existing Land Use map, Meridian Corridor Land Ownership map, Baseline Alternative Alignment map, ADMP channel data and sample cross sections Meeting began at 1:35 p.m. 1. Introductions Mike Sabatini, Michael Baker Corporation (Baker) Project Manager, provided a welcome and asked participants to introduce themselves. 2. East Mesa ADMP Jen Pokorski, Flood Control District of Maricopa County, provided an update on the East Mesa ADMP, providing maps of the alternatives for the SR 24, Ellsworth and Rittenhouse systems as well as corridor data and draft cross sections of proposed facilities. She reviewed the progress the study had been making, including meetings with key stakeholders. Jen noted that the Arizona State Land Department, a primary land holder in the study area, has articulated the desire for a facility with the smallest footprint. She also reported that initial feedback from the public indicated the desire for a facility that was multi‐use, specifically continuing to support activities such as horse riding and hiking. Jen reported that coordination with the Germann Road and Meridian Road PARA studies, as well as outreach with stakeholders, continues and, because of the desire to December 12, 2012 Coordination Meeting Page 1 Meridian Road Corridor Study reach consensus on a coordinated facility, the study timeline has been extended until summer of 2013, with another round of public outreach intended to be hosted in late January 2013 to get feedback on preferred alternative(s). 3. Meridian Road Corridor Study Mr. Sabatini provided an update on the project, handing out maps of the corridor, future land use, current land ownership, and Baseline alternative alignment. While project coordination has been a priority, Mr. Sabatini noted that particular to the Meridian Road Corridor Study, a desire to share right of way for the future roadway corridor and flood control infrastructure was sought, as the two facilities combined could require upwards of 260‐feet of right of way. Regarding the Baseline alignment, Tim Oliver, MCDOT, noted that the study team should be sensitive to fissures in the area and existing property owners. Further discussion occurred, noting that the Baseline alignment will be impacted by the future configuration of the US 60/Meridian Road traffic interchange (TI), currently in study. Charla Glendening, ADOT project manager, underscored that, as part of the Meridian Road Corridor Study, a desired product would be a memorandum of understanding (MOU) to memorialize the corridor’s future functional classification, cross section and configuration, including how a flood control infrastructure would be integrated. 4. Discussion Discussion ensued regarding coordination of the facilities. Following highlights that discussion and areas of consensus that were reached: • Arizona State Land Department would prefer to keep the flood control facility adjacent to the roadway facility and would not favor a channel that meanders or jogs away from the roadway alignment • Interest was articulated in evaluating how a flood control facility could be designed to handle built‐environment off‐site drainage from Pinal County (specifically related to future development on State Land) • Consensus was reached that the Meridian Road alignment should be on section line • Consensus was reached that the flood control facility (channel) should stay upstream (or east) of the Meridian Road corridor and that the Meridian Road Corridor Study can reference the forthcoming ADMP update to this point • Consensus was reached that the combined footprint for the flood control and roadway facilities should be refined/reduced as much as possible 5. Next Steps It was determined that the FCDMC, Pinal County and Arizona State Land Department would meet to clarify the functionality of the facility to further inform potential alternatives. Subsequent to those meetings, FCDMC would continue coordination with the Meridian Road Corridor study team to design potential facility cross sections. December 12, 2012 Coordination Meeting Page 2 Meridian Road Corridor Study Meeting adjourned at 3:35 p.m. December 12, 2012 Coordination Meeting Page 3 Meridian Road Corridor Study Meeting: Meridian Road Corridor Technical Advisory Committee Meeting #3 Location: Queen Creek Library, Edward Abby Room 21802 S Ellsworth Road, Queen Creek, AZ 85242 Date: February 26th, 2013 Time: 1:30 p.m. Attendance: Michelle Green, Arizona State Land Department; Ken Hall, City of Mesa; Doug Hansen, Pinal County; Tim Oliver, MCDOT; Giao Pham, City of Apache Junction; Amy Ritz, ADOT Urban Project Management; Lars Jacoby, ADOT Community Relations; Simon Pratt, Michael Baker Corporation; Mike Sabatini, Michael Baker Corporation Handouts: Agenda, Elliot Road Maintenance MOU Meeting began at 1:40 p.m. 1. Introductions Mike Sabatini, Michael Baker Corporation (Baker) Project Manager, provided a welcome and asked participants to introduce themselves. 2. Working Paper #2 Mike Sabatini reviewed that the purpose of the meeting is to present Working Paper #2, Evaluation Criteria and Plan for Improvements, and to review and address comments to finalize the report. Simon Pratt, Baker Transportation Engineer, walked participants through the content of Working Paper #2. The following comments were provided: • VIII. Evaluation Criteria: Need to add Stakeholder input as well as public acceptability to criteria. • X. Baseline Roadway Alternative: Consider access to businesses along Meridian Road between US 60 and Baseline Road • XVI. Exiting Right of Way: David Evans and Associates carried out research for Apache Junction to ascertain the current right of way status along Meridian Road between McDowell Road and Southern Avenue. However, there appears to be discrepancy in the dedicated right of way dedicated indicated in on the County Assessors maps. Mike February 26th, 2013 TAC Meeting Page 1 Meridian Road Corridor Study pointed out that the County Assessor is concern with ownership with regard to taxation and that the right of way may exists by easement rather than by deed. The public will have a right to use the road but there is an underlying property owner. Right of way requirements highlighted in the report were based on the information provided by David Evans for this section of the roadway. Further investigation will be necessary to ascertain actual status. Gioa restated that this project has multi-jurisdictional stakeholders and that Apache junction had been proactive to investigate the existing right of way status. He pointed out that if there was agreement by the various jurisdictions for the need to up-grade Meridian Road, then the City of Apache Junction would be seeking financial help to take this project forward in the future. 3. Public Outreach • • • • • Survey invitation mailer was went out last week Business walk – planned for the next two weeks to hand deliver the information flier and to encourage businesses to take the on-line survey. Additional outreach to partner contacts o Distribution of fliers o Solicitation via partner communications (agency newsletters, social media, etc.) Planned participation in eventual Flood Control District of Maricopa County (FCDMC) open house Audra Koester Thomas, Partners for Strategic Action (PSA), has been working with Jen Pokorski, FCDMC, regarding the potential for the study team to attend a future public meeting regarding the East Mesa ADMP project. The meeting has been put back to the end of March beginning of April. If the date slips much further it may not be able to included information in the report. There are no other public meetings planned for this project. 4. Next Step • • • • • Finalize comments on Working Paper #2 Incorporate comments into Working Paper #2 and submit Present information to public (if meeting with FCDMC goes ahead) Incorporate public feedback into final report Corridor Management Memorandum of Understanding (M.O.U) o Meetings will be set up with each of the jurisdiction to go over the wording of a MOU. This could lay the groundwork for a formal Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) for the communities to take forward in the future. Meeting adjourned at 2:30 p.m. February 26th, 2013 TAC Meeting Page 2 TO: Charla Glendenning Lars Jacoby Ralph Ellis Thor Anderson Doug Hanson Andy Smith Giao Pham Ken Hall Mark Griffin Bob Hazlett Felicia Terry Jen Pokorski Tom Condit Michelle Green Audra Koester Thomas ADOT, Multimodal Planning Division ADOT, CCCP ADOT, Environmental ADOT, Multimodal Planning Division Pinal County Pinal County City of Apache Junction City of Mesa CAAG Maricopa County Department of Transportation Maricopa County Flood Control District Maricopa County Flood Control District Town of Queen Creek Arizona State Land Department Partners for Strategic Action From: Michael Sabatini Michael Baker Jr., Inc 2929 North Central Avenue, Suite 800 Phoenix, AZ 85012 Phone: 602-798-7571 Fax: 602-279-1411 Email: msabatini@mbakercorp.com Reference: MERIDIAN ROAD CORRIDOR STUDY: GERMANN ROAD TO MCDOWELL BLVD Planning Assistance for Rural Areas (PARA) Time/Place: Wednesday, November 14, 2012, 1:30 p.m. Queen Creek Library Edward Abby Room 21802 S Ellsworth Road Queen Creek, Az 85242 Purpose: Technical Advisory Committee Meeting #2 A Meeting has been scheduled for the above referenced project at the time and place above. You are encouraged to attend this meeting and provide input for the project. Your attendance is appreciated, however, please send a representative if you cannot attend. Should you have any questions about this project please contact Michael Sabatini 602-798-7571 or Simon Pratt 602798-7525. TAC Meeting # 3 Meridian Road Corridor Study February 26th 2013 Page 2 of 2 AGENDA MERIDIAN ROAD CORRIDOR STUDY: GERMANN ROAD TO MCDOWELL BLVD Planning Assistance for Rural Areas (PARA) Subject: Location: Technical Advisory Committee Meeting #2 Queen Creek Library Edward Abby Room Date/Time: Tuesday February 26th, 2013, 1:30 p.m. 1. Introductions 2. Meeting Purpose: The purpose of this meeting is to present to the TAC Working Paper #2 (Evaluation Criteria & Plan for Improvement) for the Meridian Road Corridor Study and review/address comments to finalize the report. The TAC will discuss the next stage of the study along with the Public Involvement Process. 3. Working Paper #2 (Evaluation Criteria & Plan For Improvement): • Development of Alternatives • Evaluation Criteria • Recommendations • Right of Way Requirements 4. Public Outreach 5. Next Step 6. Open Discussion – Q & A Meridian Road Corridor Study Technical Advisory Committee Working Paper #2 Discussion February 26, 2013 Today’s Meeting  Introduction  Summary of Working Paper #2  Public Involvement  Next Steps  Open Discussion Study Area Alternatives  Northern Section – McDowell Boulevard to US 60  Lane Configuration  Roadway  Intersections  Right-of-way requirement  Southern Section – US 60 to Germann Road  Lane Configuration  Roadway  Intersections  Alignment alternatives  Right-of-way requirement Traffic Volumes Alternative Alignment  Alternative 1 – No Build  Alternative 2 – Section line alignment  Alternative 3 – Off-set alignment  Alternative 4 – Meandering alignment Alternative Alignment (cont.) Williams field Rd 15 ft. Pecos Rd Evaluation Criteria Constructability Issues Engineering Complexity Environmental/Cultural Issues Potential Utility Conflicts Traffic Operations Public Acceptability Socioeconomic Impacts Evaluation Evaluation Criteria Constructability Issues Engineering Complexity Environmental/Cultural Issues Potential Utility Conflicts Traffic Operations Public Acceptability Socioeconomic Impacts Alt 1 ○ ○ ○ ○ ● ● ○ ○ Minimal impact/high performance ◍ Moderate impact/performance ● High impact/low performance Alternative Alternatives Alt 2 Alt 3 ○ ○ ○ ◍ ○ ◍ ◍ ○ ◍ ○ ● ○ ◍ ○ Alt 4 ○ ◍ ○ ◍ ○ ○ ◍ Baseline Alternatives Recommendations  Near Term Improvements (2017)  US 60/Meridian Road Traffic Interchange  Southern Avenue/Meridian Road Signalized intersection  Extend Baseline Road to Elliott Road  Mid-Term Improvements (2025)  Widen to three-lanes from Lost Dutchman Blvd to Southern Ave  Widen to four-lanes from Southern Ave to Elliot Road  Extend Meridian Road from Warner Rd to Germann Rd  Long Term Improvements (2035)  Widen to four-lanes from Lost Dutchman Blvd to Southern Ave  SR 24/Meridian Road Interchange  Ultimate Improvements (Beyond 2035)  Full six-lane cross section between Southern Avenue to Germann Road  Full interchange between US60/Meridian Road Interim Roadway Cross Sections Roadway Typical Section Ultimate Four-Lane Cross Section Ultimate Six-Lane Cross Section Existing Right of Way Existing Right of Way Right of Way Requirements Meridian Road Segments From To ROW Width Required West of Centerline (MCDOT) East of Centerline (PCDOT) McDowell Road McKellips Boulevard None 40' None from McKellips to 1/2 mile south McKellips Boulevard Lost Dutchman Road 40' from 1/2 mile south of McKellips Blvd 40' to Lost Dutchman 5' between Lost Dutchman Rd and Concho Street 22' between Concho Street and Tepee St 5' between Tepee St and Shiprock St 22' North of Smoketree Steet Superstition 22' between Shiprock St and Silverado Lost Dutchman Road None South of Smoketree Street Boulevard Estates 5' between Silverado Estates and Superstition Boulevard Superstition Boulevard Apache Trail Apache Trail Broadway Avenue None to 350' north of Apache Trail  55' for 350' north of Apache Trail 55' from Apache Trail to 4th Street None from 4th St to 220' north of Broadway Road 10' from 220' north of Broadway Rd to Broadway Rd 5' for a 300' segment south of Superstition Boulevard 55' from 300' south of Superstition Boulevard to Gregory Street 55' from Gregory St to Apache Trail Required Pavement Width 40' 40' 76' 72' 72' 72' 72' 76' 76' 76' 76' 76' 15' 76' 55' Broadway Ave to 9th place 5' from 9th Place to 16th Avenue 22' from 16th Avenue for 1/4 mile 76' 5' from 1/4 mile south of 16th Street to Southern Avenue 15' 104' 65' 104' Broadway Avenue Southern Avenue None North of Wier Ave 55' South of Wier Ave to Puelo Ave None between Pueblo Ave to Southern Ave Southern Avenue Baseline Road Baseline Road Guadalupe Road 10' None Guadalupe Road Elliot Road None except for a 1/2 mile section south 65' of Guadalupe Road where 10' is required 104' Elliot Road Warner Road None except for a 1/4 mile section south 65' of Mesquite St where 10' is required 104' Warner Road Ray Road Williams Field Road Pecos Road 10' from Warner Rd to Starkey Ave None from Starke Ave to Ray Rd Williams Field Road None Pecos Road 10' Germann Road None Ray Road 65' 104' 65' 65' 65' 104' 104' 104' Other Considerations  Multi-Modal Considerations  Bicycle/Pedestrian  Sidewalks/Multi-use path  Transit  Access Management  Environment Public Outreach  Public Outreach Update  Survey invitation mailer  Business walk  Additional outreach to partner contacts  Distribution of fliers  Solicitation via partner communications (agency newsletters, social media, etc.)  Planned participation in eventual FCDMC open house Next Step  Finalize comments on Working Paper #2  Incorporate comments into Working Paper #2 and submit  Present information to public  Incorporate public feedback into final report  Corridor Management Memorandum of Understanding (M.O.U) Open Discussion Thank You APPENDIX F PLANNING/ENVIRONMENTAL LINKAGES QUESTIONNAIRE Michael Baker Jr., Inc. Phoenix, Arizona Meridian Road Corridor Study QUESTIONNAIRE FOR TRANSPORTATION PLANNERS – PART 1 This part of the questionnaire should be completed by transportation planners at the beginning of the transportation planning study. Please note that planners should also review the second part of the questionnaire to understand what additional issues will need to be considered and documented as the study progresses. 1.1 Project identification What is the name of the study? What cities and region does it cover? What major streets are covered? For corridor studies, what are the intended termini? Meridian Road Corridor Study: Project extends from McDowell Blvd in the north to Germann Road in the south. The project passes through the City of Apache Junction, Pinal County, Maricopa County, and the City of Mesa Who is the study sponsor? ADOT Multimodal Planning Division as a request from Pinal County and the City of Apache Junction through the PARA Study process. Briefly describe the study and its purpose. The principal focus of this study is to address the transportation planning needs identified by the jurisdictions to develop consensus on facility type, number of lanes and right-of-way requirements to guide the future development of the road. Who are the primary study team members (include name, title, organization name, and contact information)? Charla Glendening Giao Pham Doug Hansen Project Manager Public Works Director Planning Section Chief ADOT City of Apache Junction Public Works Department Multimodal Planning Division 575 E. Baseline Avenues Pinal County 206 S. 17th Avenue, Mail Drop Apache Junction, AZ 85219 31 N. Pinal Street, Building F 301B Phoenix, AZ 85007 P.O Box 727, Florence, AZ 85132 Does the team include advisory groups such as a technical advisory committee, steering committee, or other? If so, include roster(s) as attachment(s). Technical Advisory Committee (See attached) Have previous transportation planning studies been conducted for this region? If so, provide a brief chronology, including the years the studies were completed. Provide contact names and locations of the studies and study websites. See attached summary table of previous studies What current or near-future planning (or other) studies in the vicinity are underway or will be undertaken? What is the relationship of this study to those studies? Provide contact names and locations of the studies and study websites. ADOT North- South Corridor Study (http://www.azdot.gov/northsouthcorridorstudy/). This project will have a big influence on the future development of the area to the west of Meridian Road and future traffic growth; ADOT US 60 Crimson Road to Meridian Road. This study will determine the location and configuration of a future traffic Interchange between US 60 and Meridian Road.; FCDMC East Mesa ADMP (http://www.fcd.maricopa.gov/Projects/PPM/projStructDetails.aspx?ProjectID=223 ). This study will determine the location of drainage channels which potentially could be adjacent to roadway and could share right of way with Meridian Road.; ADOT Passenger Rail Corridor Study (http://www.azdot.gov/passengerrail/) One of the rail route options crosses Meridian Road north of SR 24 and location of station within Superstation Vistas will be a traffic generator. 1.2 Study objectives What are your desired outcomes for this study? (Mark all that apply.) Stakeholder identification Stakeholder roles/responsibilities definition Travel study area definition Performance measures development Development of purpose and need goals and other objectives Alternative evaluation and screening Alternative travel modes definition Scheduling of infrastructure improvements over short-, mid-, and long-range time frames Environmental impacts Mitigation identification Don't know Other: Preserve ability for federal funding and develop consensus for facility type, number of lanes and right of way requirements. Have system improvements and additions that address your transportation need been identified in a fiscally constrained regional transportation plan? Yes – Maricopa Association of Governments ‘Regional Transportation Plan’; Pinal County’s ‘Regional Significant Route For Safety and Mobility Plan’ 1|P a g e ADOT Planning and Environmental Linkages Questionnaire and Checklist Meridian Road Corridor Study Will a purpose and need statement 1 be prepared as part of this effort? If so, what steps will need to be taken during the NEPA process to make this a project-level purpose and need statement? A purpose and need statement will form part of the report, this will be developed further in the NEPA process when a formal Environmental Assessment is carried out. 1.3 Establishment of organizational relationships Is a partnering agreement in place? If so, who are signatories (for example, affected agencies, stakeholders, organizations)? Attach the partnering agreement(s). No agreement is in place. The project is expected to develop a Memorandum of Understanding to be agreed and signed by the City of Apache Junction, Pinal County, Maricopa County, City of Mesa and the Town of Queen Creek What are the key coordination points in the decision-making process? Agreement on existing and future conditions within project area. Alternative development and analysis of recommended alternatives. Agreement on typical roadway section and right-of-way requirements. Agreement of MOU. Coordination established through TAC meeting and one to one meetings. 1.4 Planning assumptions and analytical methods Is the time horizon of the study sufficiently long to consider long-term (20 years or more from completion of the study) effects of potential scenarios? Yes, the study will evaluate existing, short-range (2015-2020), and long-range (2030-2035) conditions. What method will be used for forecasting traffic volumes (for example, traffic modeling or growth projections)? What are the sources of data being used? Has USDOT validated their use? Traffic figures are to obtain from MAG travel demand model and compare with previous studies such as MCDOT corridor study and Apache Junction Transportation study. MAG model has been validated by USDOT. Will the study use FHWA’s Guide on the Consistent Application of Traffic Analysis Tools and Methods 2? If not, why not? How will traffic volumes from the travel demand model be incorporated, if necessary, into finer-scale applications such as a corridor study? Yes – Synchro traffic operation analysis. The team will use agency model forecasts. The methods and tools will be reviewed with the PMT. Do the travel demand models base their projections on differentiations between vehicles? Yes. The model predicts personal vehicles and commercial vehicles (light or heavy trucks). 1.5 Data, information, and tools Is there a centralized database or website that all State resource agencies may use to share resource data during the study? Yes - http://mpd.azdot.gov/MPD/Systems_Planning/meridian.asp 1 For an explanation of purpose and need in environmental documents, please see the Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA’s) “NEPA and Transportation Decisionmaking: The Importance of Purpose and Need in Environmental Documents,” . This website provides links to five additional resources and guidance from FHWA that should be helpful in understanding the relationship between goals and objectives in transportation planning studies and purpose and need statements of NEPA documents. 2 FHWA November 2011 publication: 2|P a g e ADOT Planning and Environmental Linkages Questionnaire and Checklist Meridian Road Corridor Study Questionnaire for Transportation Planners – Part 2 This part of the questionnaire should be completed by transportation planners at the end of the transportation planning study. This completed document should become an appendix to the study’s final report to document how the study meets the requirements of 23 Code of Federal Regulations § 450.212 or § 450.318. 2.1 Purpose and need for this study How did the study process define and clarify corridor-level or subarea-level goals (if applicable) that influenced modal infrastructure improvements and/or the range of reasonable alternatives? The Study evaluated improvements based on goals developed with input from the Technical Advisory Committee. The overall goals and objectives for the Corridor study area were to develop consensus on: • Facility type • Number of lanes • Right-of-way requirements to guide the future development of the road. • Memorandum of Opportunity (MOU) on how the agencies will corporate in the future as the area/corridor develops What were the key steps and coordination points in the decision-making process? Who were the decision-makers and who else participated in those key steps? Coordination points for the project included: Scoping process with stakeholders • Four TAC meetings (Work Plan, Current and Future Conditions, Plan for Improvements and Draft Final Report) • Identifying project stakeholders, and determining list of stakeholders for focus interviews • Agreement on traffic forecast methodology using Maricopa Association of Governments and ADOT forecasts • Public meeting in Queen Creek on May 16th 2013 • Coordinated with the Flood Control District of Maricopa County and Arizona State Land Department regarding development of East Mesa ADMP The TAC (as identified on page 15) was the decision makers for the project. Resource and regulatory agencies were contacted during the study for input. How should this study information be presented in future NEPA document(s), if applicable? Are relevant findings documented in a format and at a level of detail that will facilitate reference to and/or inclusion in subsequent NEPA document(s)? 3 The Meridian Road Corridor Study is documented in a format that will serve as a reference or supporting document; the document identifies environmental issues in the corridor. The purpose and need and reasonable range of alternatives can be utilized in a subsequence document. Were the study’s findings and recommendations documented in such a way as to facilitate an FHWA or Federal Transit Administration decision regarding acceptability for application in the NEPA process? Does the study have logical points where decisions were made and where concurrence from resource or regulatory agencies, stakeholders, and the public was sought? If so, provide a list of those points. FHWA ‘s Ed Stillings, was part of the TAC team who discussed how the study should be implemented and how PEL should be incorporated. Decisions were made by the TAC team which is composed of a variety of stakeholders. Study findings and recommendations were acceptable to agencies and are well documented in the Study. The public and stakeholder outreach is documented in the Public Involvement Summary Report (incorporated by reference); a public meeting was held in Queen Creek, Pinal County, Arizona, on May 16th, 2013. The study involved coordination and interviews with agencies identifying issues and understanding needs and concerns in the corridor (rather than concurrence). 3 For an explanation of the types of documents needed under the NEPA process and the nature of the content of those documents, please see “NEPA Documentation: Improving the Quality of Environmental Documents,”. 3|P a g e ADOT Planning and Environmental Linkages Questionnaire and Checklist Meridian Road Corridor Study 2.2 Establishment of organizational relationships – tribes and agencies 4 Tribe or agency Date(s) contacted Describe the agency’s primary concerns and the steps needed to coordinate with the agency during NEPA scoping. 5 Describe level of participation Tribal Salt River PimaMaricopa Indian Community November 9th 2012 Stakeholder None identified Fort McDowell Indian Community November 9th 2012 Stakeholder None identified Gila River Indian Community November 9th 2012 Stakeholder None identified Ak-Chin Indian Community November 9th 2012 Stakeholder None identified Bureau of Land Management November 9th 2012 Stakeholder None identified Bureau of Reclamation November 9th 2012 Stakeholder None identified Federal Highway Administration Throughout Study Technical Advisory Committee Refer to meeting notes in appendices of final report U.S. Environmental Protection Agency November 9th 2012 Stakeholder None identified U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service November 9th 2012 Stakeholder None identified November 9th 2012 Stakeholder None identified November 9th 2012 Stakeholder None identified Throughout Study Technical Advisory Committee Refer to meeting notes in appendices of final report Throughout Study Technical Advisory Committee Refer to meeting notes in appendices of final report Federal Other State Arizona Department of Environmental Quality Arizona Game and Fish Department Arizona State Land Department Other County Maricopa County Pinal County Throughout Study Technical Advisory Committee Refer to meeting notes in appendices of final report Pinal County Floodplain Administration November 9th 2012 Stakeholder None identified Flood Control District of Maricopa County Throughout Study Technical Advisory Committee Refer to meeting notes in appendices of final report November 9th 2012 Stakeholder None identified Throughout Study Technical Advisory Committee Refer to meeting notes in appendices of final report Local Salt River Project Biological & Cultural Service Central Arizona Association of Governments 4 Users may add rows to this table to accommodate additional tribes and agencies. Unused rows may be deleted. 5 If the transportation planning study final report does not adequately document interactions (for example, meeting minutes, resolutions, letters) with the relevant agencies, append such information to the end of this questionnaire and checklist. 4|P a g e ADOT Planning and Environmental Linkages Questionnaire and Checklist Meridian Road Corridor Study 2.2 Establishment of organizational relationships – tribes and agencies 4 Tribe or agency Date(s) contacted Describe the agency’s primary concerns and the steps needed to coordinate with the agency during NEPA scoping. 5 Describe level of participation Transportation Agencies Phoenix-Mesa Gateway Airport November 9th 2012 Stakeholder None identified 2.3 Establishment of organizational relationships – stakeholders and members of the public 6 Public and stakeholders Date(s) contacted Describe level of participation Describe the primary concerns expressed by members of the public and stakeholders. Public Members of the public Refer to Public Involvement Summary Report Stakeholders Other (for example, Audubon Society, Center for Biological Diversity, citizens groups, homeowners associations, Sierra Club, private mining or energy interests, railroad companies) Refer to Public Involvement Summary Report 2.4 Planning assumptions and analytical methods Did the study provide regional development and growth assumptions and analyses? If so, what were the sources of the demographic and employment trends and forecasts? Yes, the study used growth projections identified as part of the Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) Travel Demand Model (TDM) socioeconomic projections (2009) and growth projection use in Apache Junction Comprehensive Transportation Study (2012). What were the future-year policy and/or data assumptions used in the transportation planning process related to land use, economic development, transportation costs, and network expansion? Traffic forecasts for the Study were derived from the MAG TDM and Apache Junction Comprehensive Transportation Study. As such, the planning assumptions inherent in that model were carried forward. Were the planning assumptions and the corridor vision/purpose and need statement consistent with each other and with the long-range transportation plan? Are the assumptions still valid? This study compiles planning assumptions of existing studies in the region including the MAG RTP, Apache Junction Transportation Plan, Superstition Vistas Pinal County Comprehensive Plan, Mesa Transportation Plan and the multimodal approach in the Statewide Long Range Transportation Plan. 2.5 Data, information, and tools Are the relevant data used in the study available in a compatible format that is readily usable? Are they available through a centralized web portal? Yes. http://mpd.azdot.gov/MPD/Systems_Planning/meridian.asp. Are the completeness and quality of the data consistent with the quality (not scale or detail) of inputs needed for a NEPA project-level analysis 7? Yes, but given the long-range nature of the Study, updates will be necessary during project(s) development. The completeness and quality are appropriate for a corridor study. Project level analysis will follow in future DCR and scoping efforts. 6 Users may add rows to this table to accommodate additional stakeholders. 7 For an explanation of the types of information needed to evaluate impacts in environmental documents, please see FHWA’s “NEPA and Transportation Decisionmaking: Impacts,”. This website provides links to six additional resources and guidance that should be helpful in understanding the types of impacts that need to be assessed, their context, and their intensity. 5|P a g e ADOT Planning and Environmental Linkages Questionnaire and Checklist Meridian Road Corridor Study 2.5 Data, information, and tools Are the data used in the study regularly updated and augmented? If regularly updated, provide schedule and accessibility information. MAG updates traffic and socioeconomic data regularly (updates to the socioeconomic projections are expected in the later part of 2013). Have the environmental data been mapped at scales that facilitate comparison of effects across different resources and at sufficient resolution to guide initial NEPA issue definition? If not, what data collection and/or manipulation would likely be needed for application to the NEPA scoping process? Initial data has been collected of the different resources needed to develop this long-range study. Additional data collection will be necessary for environmental considerations such as water quality, biology, cultural resources and wildlife corridor evaluation. 6|P a g e ADOT Planning and Environmental Linkages Questionnaire and Checklist Meridian Road Corridor Study Examine the Checklist for Environmental Planners, at the back of this document, for more detail about potential impacts that could be mapped. Below is an abbreviated list of resources that could occur in the study area and may be knowable at this time and at the study’s various analytical scales: Is the resource or issue present in the area? Resource or issue Would any future transportation policies or projects involve the issue? Would there be impacts on the resource? Is the resource or issue present in the area? Would any future transportation policies or projects involve the issue? Would there be impacts on the resource? Resource or issue Sensitive biological resources Yes No Unknown Not applicable Yes No Unknown Not applicable Section 4(f) 8 wildlife and/or waterfowl refuge, historic site, recreational site, park Yes No Unknown Not applicable Yes No Unknown Not applicable Wildlife corridors Yes No Unknown Not applicable Yes No Unknown Not applicable Section 6(f) 9 resource Yes No Unknown Not applicable Yes No Unknown Not applicable Wetland areas Yes No Unknown Not applicable Yes No Unknown Not applicable Existing development Yes No Unknown Not applicable Yes No Unknown Not applicable Riparian areas Yes No Unknown Not applicable Yes No Unknown Not applicable Planned development Yes No Unknown Not applicable Yes No Unknown Not applicable 100-year floodplain Yes No Unknown Not applicable Yes No Unknown Not applicable Title VI/ Environmental justice populations 10 Yes No Unknown Not applicable Yes No Unknown Not applicable Prime or unique farmland or farmland of statewide or local importance Yes No Unknown Not applicable Yes No Unknown Not applicable Utilities Yes No Unknown Not applicable Yes No Unknown Not applicable Visual resources Yes No Unknown Not applicable Yes No Unknown Not applicable Hazardous materials Yes No Unknown Not applicable Yes No Unknown Not applicable Designated scenic road/byway Yes No Unknown Not applicable Yes No Unknown Not applicable Sensitive noise receivers 11 Yes No Unknown Not applicable Yes No Unknown Not applicable Archaeological resources Yes No Unknown Not applicable Yes No Unknown Not applicable Air quality Yes No Unknown Not applicable Yes No Unknown Not applicable Historical resources Yes No Unknown Not applicable Yes No Unknown Not applicable Other (list) _______________ Yes No Unknown Not applicable Yes No Unknown Not applicable 8 Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act of 1966 (49 U.S. Code § 303, as amended); see
. 9 Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act 10 refers to Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and 1994 Executive Order 12898 on environmental justice 11 under FHWA’s Noise Abatement Criterion B: picnic areas, recreation areas, playgrounds, active sports areas, parks, residences, motels, hotels, schools, churches, libraries, and hospitals 7|P a g e ADOT Planning and Environmental Linkages Questionnaire and Checklist Meridian Road Corridor Study Did the study incorporate models of, for example, species/habitat locations (predictive range maps), future land use, population dynamics, stormwater runoff, or travel demand? What models were used? Did the study adequately document what models were used, who was responsible for their use, and how they were used (with respect to, for example, calibration, replicability, contingencies, and exogenous factors)? The Study utilized existing environmental, travel demand, and socio-economic data obtained from a variety of sources. The sources of this data were substantiated by the TAC as representing the best available information. In scoping, conducting, and documenting the planning study, participants have come across documents and leads from agency staff and other sources that the environmental planners may be able to use in conducting their studies. List any applicable memoranda of understanding, cost-share arrangements, programmatic agreements, or technical studies that are underway but whose findings are not yet published, etc. ADOT North- South Corridor Study (http://www.azdot.gov/northsouthcorridorstudy/). ADOT US 60 Crimson Road to Meridian Road; FCDMC East Mesa ADMP (http://www.fcd.maricopa.gov/Projects/PPM/projStructDetails.aspx?ProjectID=223; ADOT Passenger Rail Corridor Study (http://www.azdot.gov/passengerrail/) All these projects are on-going and their findings are not published yet. 2.6 Development of alternatives Were resource agencies, stakeholders, and members of the public engaged in the process of identifying, evaluating, and screening out modes, corridors, a range of alternatives, 12 or a preferred alternative (if one was identified—the latter two refer to corridor plans)? If so, how? Did these groups review the recommendation of a preferred mode(s), corridor(s), range of alternatives (including the no-build alternative), or an alternative? Were the participation and inputs of these groups at a level acceptable for use in purpose and need statements or alternatives development sections in NEPA documents? If not, why not? Identification and valuation of range of alternatives along with selection of preferred alternatives were carried out at TAC and stakeholder meetings. The public were engaged using flyers and an on-line questionnaire along with a public meeting. Describe the process of outreach to resource agencies, the public, and other stakeholders. Describe the documentation of this process and of the responses to their comments. Is this documentation adequate in breadth and detail for use in NEPA documents? Technical Advisory Committee, meetings with stakeholders, on-line questionnaire, and public meeting (refer to Public Involvement Summary Report for additional information). Letters sent to resources agencies. If the study was a corridor study, describe the range of alternatives considered (if any), screening process, and screening criteria. Include what types of alternatives were considered (including the no-build alternative) and how the screening criteria were selected. Was a preferred alternative selected as best addressing the identified transportation issue? Are alternatives’ locations and design features specified? Concepts were developed for the northern section of the study area (McDowell to US 60) relating to lane configuration and right-of-way requirements. Conceptual alternatives for the southern section (US 60 to Germann Rd) were developed based on identified corridor issues, projected traffic volumes and transportation connectivity needs. (See Chapter IV of Working Paper #2). The screen criteria were developed based on both engineering and socioeconomic criteria. A matrix was developed to evaluate alternatives based on impacts to these criteria (See Chapter V of Working Paper #2). A ‘No-build’ alternative was included in the selection process. Also regarding whether the study was a corridor study, for alternatives that were screened out, summarize the reasons for their rejection. Are defensible, credible rationale articulated for their being screened out? Did the study team take into account legal standards 13 needed in the NEPA process for such decisions? Did the study team have adequate information for screening out the alternatives? Summary of screened out alternatives are described in Chapter V of Working Paper #2. What issues, if any, remain unresolved with the public, stakeholders, and/or resource agencies? US 60/Meridian Road Interchange design, cultural resources, biology and 404 permits will need to become better defined as the project moves into the design concept stage. 2.7 Formally joining PEL with the NEPA process Lead federal agencies proposing a project that will undergo the NEPA process will want to most effectively leverage the transportation planning study’s efforts and results. How could a Notice of Intent (for an environmental impact statement 14) refer to the study’s findings with respect to preliminary purpose and need and/or the range of alternatives to be studied? The study’s findings largely consolidated information and recommendations from other sources. Most of the projects identified are not anticipated to require an EIS based on the findings of this study. 12 For an explanation of the development of alternatives in environmental documents, please see FHWA’s “NEPA and Transportation Decisionmaking: Development and Evaluation of Alternatives,”. 13 23 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) § 771.123(c), 23 CFR § 771.111(d), 40 CFR § 1502.14(a), 40 CFR § 1502.14(b) and (d), 23 CFR § 771.125(a)(1); see FHWA Technical Advisory T 6640.8A, October 30, 1987, . 14 While Notices of Intent are required by some federal agencies for environmental assessments, they are optional for FHWA. Please see “3.3.2 Using the Notice of Intent to Link Planning and NEPA,” in Guidance on Using Corridor and Subarea Planning to Inform NEPA (Federal Highway Administration, April 5, 2011), . 8|P a g e ADOT Planning and Environmental Linkages Questionnaire and Checklist Meridian Road Corridor Study Could a Notice of Intent in the NEPA process clearly state that the lead federal agency or agencies will use analyses from prior, specific planning studies that are referenced in the transportation planning study final report? Does the report provide the name and source of the planning studies and explain where the studies are publicly available? If not, how could such relevant information come to the environmental planners’ attention and be made available to them in a timely way? Yes, documents referenced are summarized in the Study. List how the study’s proposed transportation system would support adopted land use plans and growth objectives. The recommendations that are included in the Study are a response to the needs identified in adopted land use and planning documents including MAG RTP, Apache Junction CTP and Pinal County RSRSM. What modifications are needed in the goals and objectives as defined in the transportation study process to increase their efficient and timely application in the NEPA process? No modification to the goals and objectives will be required. Jurisdictional delineations of waters of the United States frequently change. Housing and commercial developments can alter landscapes dramatically and can be constructed quickly. Noise and air quality regulations can change relatively rapidly. Resource agencies frequently alter habitat delineations to protect sensitive species. Will the study data’s currency, relevance, and quality still be acceptable to agencies, stakeholders, and members of the public for use in the NEPA process? If not, what will be done to rectify this problem? Who will be responsible for any needed updating? When a project is ready to move forward to the Design Concept Report stage and ultimately the final design the environmental information from the study will need to be reevaluated and updated. The environmental data was based solely on existing data sources and a ‘windshield survey’ and not from extensive field work. 2.8 Other issues Are there any other issues a future NEPA study team should be aware of (mark all that apply)? In the space below the check boxes, explain the nature and location of any issue(s) checked. Public and/or stakeholders have expressed specific concerns Utility problems Access or right-of-way issues Encroachments into right-of-way Need to engage—and be perceived as engaging—specific landowners, citizens, citizen groups, or other stakeholders Contact information for stakeholders Special or unique resources in the area Federal regulations that are undergoing initial promulgation or revision Other ____________________________________ Utility Problems – O/H power lines along Meridian Road north of Baseline Road, crossing of Powerline Floodway, existing FCDMC drainage channel along Meridian Rd alignment. Right of way – Further investigation required to verify existing right of way between McDowell Blvd and Baseline Road. No Right of way has been preserved on State Trust Land south of Baseline Road. 9|P a g e ADOT Planning and Environmental Linkages Questionnaire and Checklist Meridian Road Corridor Study Checklist for Environmental Planners – Part 3 By completing this checklist, environmental planners will be able to systematically evaluate the transportation planning study with regard to environmental resources and issues. It provides a framework for future NEPA studies by identifying those resources and issues that have already been evaluated, and those that have not. The role of environmental planners during the study’s various stages is laid out in the flowchart on page 3. This role includes timely advocacy for resources and issues that will later be integral to NEPA processes. 3.1 Checklist for environmental planners Is the resource or issue present in the area? Resource or issue Are impacts to the resource or issue involvement possible? Are the impacts mitigable? Discuss the level of review and method of review for this resource or issue and provide the name and location of any study or other information cited in the planning document where it is described in detail. Describe how the planning data may need to be supplemented during NEPA. Natural environment Sensitive biological resources Yes No Unknown Not applicable Yes No Unknown Not applicable Yes No Unknown Not applicable A review of biological databases was performed for this study, but a biologist did not visit the study area. At a minimum, a biological review should be performed as part of the NEPA study during project development. AGFD department Wildlife Linkages assessments indicated that a portion of the study area north of US 60 is in a Wildlife Movement area. However, much of this area is developed on both sides of Meridian Rd. Coordination with ADGF is recommended to determine if any practicable linkage opportunities exist for this project. Wildlife corridors Yes No Unknown Not applicable Yes No Unknown Not applicable Yes No Unknown Not applicable Invasive species Yes No Unknown Not applicable Yes No Unknown Not applicable Yes No Unknown Not applicable Invasive species mitigation measures should be included in the NEPA clearance. Wetland areas Yes No Unknown Not applicable Yes No Unknown Not applicable Yes No Unknown Not applicable A biologist or water quality specialist did not visit the study area; however, some washes cross Meridian Road. These areas should be surveyed for the presence of wetlands as part of the NEPA study. Riparian areas Yes No Unknown Not applicable Yes No Unknown Not applicable Yes No Unknown Not applicable The study area should be surveyed for riparian areas as part of the NEPA study. 100-year floodplain Yes No Unknown Not applicable Yes No Unknown Not applicable Yes No Unknown Not applicable Floodplain impacts should be re-evaluated during project development. Clean Water Act Sections 404/401 waters of the United States Yes No Unknown Not applicable Yes No Unknown Not applicable Yes No Unknown Not applicable Since washes cross Meridian Road, a 404 review will need to be performed during the NEPA study. Prime or unique farmland Yes No Unknown Not applicable Yes No Unknown Not applicable Yes No Unknown Not applicable There is some farmland at the southern end of the study area. Farmland should be evaluated during the NEPA study. Farmland of statewide or local importance Yes No Unknown Not applicable Yes No Unknown Not applicable Yes No Unknown Not applicable Same as above. 11 | P a g e ADOT Planning and Environmental Linkages Questionnaire and Checklist Meridian Road Corridor Study 3.1 Checklist for environmental planners Is the resource or issue present in the area? Resource or issue Are impacts to the resource or issue involvement possible? Are the impacts mitigable? Discuss the level of review and method of review for this resource or issue and provide the name and location of any study or other information cited in the planning document where it is described in detail. Describe how the planning data may need to be supplemented during NEPA. Sole-source aquifers Yes No Unknown Not applicable Yes No Unknown Not applicable Yes No Unknown Not applicable Sole-source aquifers should be evaluated during the NEPA study. Yes No Unknown Not applicable Yes No Unknown Not applicable Yes No Unknown Not applicable N/A Wild and scenic rivers Visual resources Yes No Unknown Not applicable Yes No Unknown Not applicable Yes No Unknown Not applicable Visual resources should be evaluated during the NEPA study. Designated scenic road/byway Yes No Unknown Not applicable Yes No Unknown Not applicable Yes No Unknown Not applicable N/A Archaeological resources Yes No Unknown Not applicable Yes No Unknown Not applicable Yes No Unknown Not applicable A records review revealed several archaeological sites in the study area. A cultural resources survey should be performed as part of the NEPA study. Historical resources Yes No Unknown Not applicable Yes No Unknown Not applicable Yes No Unknown Not applicable Cultural resources Historical resources should be evaluated as part of the cultural resources study during NEPA. Recognize that cultural resources may be subject to protection under section 4(f) of the USDOT Act and thus could result in changes to the preferred alternative during project development. Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) resources Section 4(f) wildlife and/or waterfowl refuge Yes No Unknown Not applicable Yes No Unknown Not applicable Yes No Unknown Not applicable None have been identified at this time; however, this should be re-evaluated during NEPA. Section 4(f) historic site Yes No Unknown Not applicable Yes No Unknown Not applicable Yes No Unknown Not applicable Historical resources should be evaluated as part of cultural resources study during NEPA. Section 4(f) recreational site Yes No Unknown Not applicable Yes No Unknown Not applicable Yes No Unknown Not applicable Recreational sites are located in the project vicinity; however, none are directly impacted by the preferred alternative. This will need to be re-evaluated during project development. Section 4(f) park Yes No Unknown Not applicable Yes No Unknown Not applicable Yes No Unknown Not applicable Parks are located in the project vicinity; however, none are directly impacted by the preferred alternative. This will need to be re-evaluated during project development. Section 6(f) resource Yes No Unknown Not applicable Yes No Unknown Not applicable Yes No Unknown Not applicable Section 6(f) resources will need to be evaluated during project development. Yes No Unknown Not applicable Yes No Unknown Not applicable Yes No Unknown Not applicable Existing development is present in the vicinity of Meridian Road and may be impacted by this project. The extent and nature of any impacts that may occur will be determined during project development. Human environment Existing development 12 | P a g e ADOT Planning and Environmental Linkages Questionnaire and Checklist Meridian Road Corridor Study 3.1 Checklist for environmental planners Is the resource or issue present in the area? Resource or issue Are impacts to the resource or issue involvement possible? Are the impacts mitigable? Discuss the level of review and method of review for this resource or issue and provide the name and location of any study or other information cited in the planning document where it is described in detail. Describe how the planning data may need to be supplemented during NEPA. Planned development Yes No Unknown Not applicable Yes No Unknown Not applicable Yes No Unknown Not applicable Development is planned in the project vicinity. The identification of a reasonable range of alternatives and a preferred alternative could help inform the direction of that development. Yes No Unknown Not applicable Yes No Unknown Not applicable Yes No Unknown Not applicable Evaluate during project development. Displacements Yes No Unknown Not applicable Yes No Unknown Not applicable This project has access control measures. Access restriction Yes No Unknown Not applicable Neighborhood continuity Yes No Unknown Not applicable Yes No Unknown Not applicable Yes No Unknown Not applicable Neighborhood continuity is considered in the development of proposed solutions in this planning study. Community cohesion Yes No Unknown Not applicable Yes No Unknown Not applicable Yes No Unknown Not applicable Community cohesion is considered in the development of proposed solutions in this planning study. Title VI/Environmental justice populations Yes No Unknown Not applicable Yes No Unknown Not applicable Yes No Unknown Not applicable At this time Title VI populations are fairly low in the project study area. This should be re-evaluated during project development. Utilities Yes No Unknown Not applicable Yes No Unknown Not applicable Yes No Unknown Not applicable Utilities will development. Hazardous materials Yes No Unknown Not applicable Yes No Unknown Not applicable Yes No Unknown Not applicable Some hazardous materials generators are present in the project study area. A hazardous materials evaluation should be performed during project development. Sensitive noise receivers Yes No Unknown Not applicable Yes No Unknown Not applicable Yes No Unknown Not applicable A noise evaluation should be performed during project development. Air quality Yes No Unknown Not applicable Yes No Unknown Not applicable Yes No Unknown Not applicable The project is located in a non-attainment area. An air quality evaluation should be performed during project development. Yes No Unknown Not applicable Yes No Unknown Not applicable Yes No Unknown Not applicable Physical environment Other (list) be addressed during project 3.2 Identification of potential environmental mitigation activities Could the transportation planning process be integrated with other planning activities, such as land use or resource management plans? If so, could this integrated planning effort be used to develop a more strategic approach to environmental mitigation measures? This study could be used to inform city and county planning efforts. Coordination with AGFD could help determine if there are any wildlife linkage opportunities in the study area. 13 | P a g e ADOT Planning and Environmental Linkages Questionnaire and Checklist Meridian Road Corridor Study With respect to potential environmental mitigation opportunities at the PEL level, who should ADOT consult with among federal, State, and local agencies and tribes and how formally and frequently should such consultation be undertaken? Coordination with AGFD could help determine if there are any wildlife linkage opportunities in the study area. 3.2 Identification of potential environmental mitigation activities Off-site and compensatory mitigation areas are often creatively negotiated to advance multiagency objectives or multiple objectives within one agency. Who determined what specific geographic areas or types of areas were appropriate for environmental mitigation activities? How were these determinations made? No off-site or compensatory mitigations were identified in this study. To address potential impacts on the human environment, what mitigation measures or activities were considered and how were they developed and documented? This project is expected to have a positive impact to the human environment in the area. Negative impacts are expected to be small and localized and mitigations for these impacts will be addressed during project development. Prepared by: Thor Anderson Date: 5-10-13 Environmental Planning Group, Arizona Department of Transportation 14 | P a g e ADOT Planning and Environmental Linkages Questionnaire and Checklist Meridian Road Corridor Study Technical Advisory Committee Members Charla Glendening Project Manager Arizona Department of Transport Multimodal Planning Division 206 S. 17th Avenue, Mail Drop 301B Phoenix, AZ 85007 cglendening@azdot.gov Giao Pham Public Works Director City of Apache Junction 575 E. Baseline Avenues Apache Junction, AZ 85219 gpham@ajcity.net Mark Griffin Transportation Planning Director CAG 1075 S. Idaho Road, Suite 300 Apache Junction, AZ 85119 mgriffin@caagcentral.org Doug Hansen Planning Section Chief Public Works Department Pinal County 31 N. Pinal Street, Building F P.O Box 727, Florence, AZ 85132 Doug.Hansen@pinalcountyaz.gov Tim Oliver Planning Manager Maricopa County Department of Transport 2901 W. Durango Street Phoenix, AZ 85009 timoliver@mail.maricopa.gov Ken Hall Senior Planner Mesa Transportation Department 300 E. Sixth Street P.O. Box 1466 Mesa, AZ 85211 Kenneth.hall@mesaaz,gov Andy Smith Senior Transportation Planner Public Works Department 31 N. Pinal Street, Building F P.O. Box 727 Florence, AZ 85132 Andrew.smith@pinalcountyaz.gov Ralph Ellis Environmental Planner Arizona Department of Transport Environmental Planning Group 1611 W. 21st Street Phoenix, AZ 85007 rellis@azdot.gov Cathy Regester Flood Control District of Maricopa County 2801 W. Durango Street Phoenix, AZ 85009 cregester@mail.maricopa.gov Jen Pokorski Flood Control District of Maricopa County 2801 W. Durango Street Phoenix, AZ 85009 jpokorski@mail.maricopa.gov Tim Wolf Assistant State Engineer Arizona Department of Transport 206 S. 17th Avenue Phoenix, AZ 85007 twolf@azdot.gov Michelle Green Arizona State Lands Department 1616 W. Adams Street Phoenix, AZ 85007 mgreen@land.az.gov Wayne Balmer Planning Administrator Town of Queen Greek 22350 S. Ellsworth Road Queen Creek, AZ 85142 Wayne.balmer@queencreek.org Audra Koester Thomas Partners for Strategic Action 13771 N. Fountain Hills Blvd, Suite 114-360 Fountain Hills, AZ 85268 audra@psaplanning.com Lars Jacoby Community Relation Project Manager Arizona Department of Transport 206 S. 17th Avenue Phoenix, AZ 85007 ljacoby@azdot.gov Ed Stillings Senior Transportation Planner FHWA Arizona Division 4000 N. Central Avenue, Suite 1500 Phoenix, AZ 85012 ed.stillings@dot.gov Mike Sabatini Baker Project Manager Michael Baker Jr., Inc. 2929 N. Central Avenue Phoenix, AZ85012 michael.sabatini@mbakercorp.com Simon Pratt Baker Project Engineer Michael Baker Jr., Inc. 2929 N. Central Avenue Phoenix, AZ 85012 spratt@mbakercorp.com 15 | P a g e ADOT Planning and Environmental Linkages Questionnaire and Checklist Meridian Road Corridor Study Summary of Previous Studies Doc. Type Jurisdiction Agency Author/Originator Report Arizona Department of Transportation, City of Apache Junction Jacobs Apache Junction Transit Feasiblity Study Update Jun-12 Report Arizona Department of Transportation, City of Apache Junction Jacobs Apache Junction Comprehensive Transportation Study May-12 Report Arizona Department of Transportation Report Arizona Department of Transportation PARA Study Application Arizona Department of Transportation Report Arizona Department of Transportation Report Arizona State Land Department Exhibit Arizona State Land Department Report Arizona State Land Department Memorandum Arizona State Land Department Report Arizona State Land Department White Paper N/A White Paper N/A White Paper N/A Report City of Mesa Report Plans Plans City of Mesa Flood Control District of Maricopa County; City of Mesa Flood Control District of Maricopa County; City of Mesa Plans Maricopa County Department of Transportation Book of Summaries Maricopa County Department of Transportation Report Maricopa County Department of Transportation Memorandum of Maricopa County Department of Transportation, City of Mesa Understanding Report Maricopa County Department of Transportation Report Maricopa County Department of Transportation Report Pinal County Report Pinal County Report Pinal County Report Pinal County Report Town of Queen Creek 16 | P a g e Document Title HDR Engineering, Inc. North-South Corridor Study Draft Purpose and Need Germann Road Corridor Improvement Study Power Road to Ironwood Road N/A A Planning Assistance for Rural Areas Study Phase I Public Involvement Report Pinal County Meridian Road Corridor Study Date Dec-11 Dec-11 Aug-11 State Route 802, Williams Gateway Freeway Final Apr-11 Environmental Assessment and Appendices Spring 2011 Robert Grow Superstition Vistas: Final Report and Strategic Actions Pinal County (Superstition Vistas) Proposed N/A May-11 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Jackie Guthrie & Superstition Vistas: Pinal County Comprehensive Plan Jun-11 Associates Amendment Underlying Assumptions and Argument in Support of Robert Charles Lesser & Household and Employment Growth Projections for May-09 Company, Inc. Superstition Vistas Arizona State Trust Land Robert Grow Superstition Vistas: Environmental Armature Concept Apr-09 Consulting Summary Apr-09 EDAW Inc. Superstition Vistas Water Strategy White Paper Kimley-Horn and Superstition Vistas Transportation Planning White Paper N/A Associates, Inc. Superstition Vistas White Paper: Land Use Scenario Fregonese Associates Mar-09 Development Mesa Gateway Strategic Development Plan: HDR Engineering, Inc. Jan-09 Transportation Analysis Memorandum Jun-02 N/A City of Mesa Transportation Plan Apr-09 Stanley Consultants, Siphon Draw Improvements Phase 2 Jan-09 Stanley Consultants, Siphon Draw Improvements Phase 1 YSMA Transportation Intersection Improvements of Southern Avenue and Jul-11 Engineering Solutions Meridian Road 2010 Maricopa County Department of Transportation Jan-11 N/A Corridor Studies Book of Summaries Signal Butte Corridor Improvement Study: US 60 to Dec-09 EPS Group, Inc. Rittenhouse Road Memorandum of Understanding Between Maricopa County and the City of Mesa for Plan Review, Plan Aug-08 N/A Approval, Permitting, Inspection, Construction, Annexation, Operation and Maintenance of Elliot Road from Power Road to Meridian Road Kimley-Horn and Elliot Road Corridor Improvement Study: Power Road to Jun-08 Associates, Inc. the Central Arizona Project Canal Meridian Road Access Control and Corridor URS Jan-06 Improvement Study Nygaard/Nelson Pinal County Transit Feasibility Study Final Report Apr-11 Consulting Associates Dec-08 Lima & Associates Regionally Significant Routes for Safety and Mobility Kirkham Michael Pinal County Small Area Transportation Study Final Aug-06 Consulting Engineers Report Kirkham Michael Pinal County Small Area Transportation Study Final Aug-06 Consulting Engineers Transit Element Report Cambridge Queen Creek Small Area Transportation Study May-07 Systematics, Inc. N/A ADOT Planning and Environmental Linkages Questionnaire and Checklist