APPENDIX 1 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM NO. 1 – EXISTING AND FUTURE CORRIDOR FEATURES 091337118 Final Report and Executive Summary 2008-046, TT005 Maricopa County Department of Transportation Hidden Waters Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study June 2010 TABLE OF CONTENTS FINAL – EXISTING AND FUTURE CORRIDOR FEATURES 1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 2. Study Background ..................................................................................................................... 1 Study Purpose and Goals .......................................................................................................... 1 Project Schedule ......................................................................................................................... 2 Project Study Area..................................................................................................................... 3 PLANS AND STUDIES .......................................................................................................................... 5 2.1 Inventory of Plans, Studies, Reports, and Documentation .................................................... 5 2.2 Summary of Findings and Recommendations from Review of Plans and Studies .............. 5 2.2.1 Maricopa County Old US Highway 80 Area Plan (May 2007) ........................................ 5 2.2.2 Maricopa County Tonopah/Arlington Area Plan (September 2000) ................................ 6 2.2.3 MAG Interstate 8 and Interstate 10 Hidden Valley Transportation Framework Study (October 2009) .................................................................................................................................... 6 2.2.4 MAG Interstate 10/Hassayampa Valley Transportation Framework Study (July 2008) .. 7 2.2.5 ADOT SR 85 in Gila Bend Draft Final Design Concept Report (June 2009) .................. 7 2.2.6 ADOT SR 85 at Gila Bend Draft Environmental Assessment and Section 4(f) Evaluation (August 2009) ...................................................................................................................................... 8 2.2.7 MCDOT Design Guideline Recommendations for the Arizona Parkway (August 2008) . 8 2.2.8 MCDOT Arizona Parkway Intersection/Interchange Operational Analysis and Design Concepts Study (August 2009) ............................................................................................................ 9 2.2.9 MAG Updated Buildout Traffic Projections(June 2009) .................................................. 9 2.2.10 Hickman’s Egg Ranch Major Comprehensive Plan Amendment (June 2009) ............... 10 2.2.11 Hidden Waters Ranch Development Master Plan [Major Amendment #1] (October 2008) 10 2.2.12 Insignia Major Comprehensive Plan Amendment (September 2006) ............................. 10 2.2.13 Belmont Site Plan (2007) ................................................................................................ 10 2.2.14 Hassayampa Village Comprehensive Plan Amendment (July 2006) .............................. 10 2.2.15 Sonoran Trails (August 2009) ......................................................................................... 11 2.2.16 Town of Gila Bend General Plan (November 2006)....................................................... 11 2.2.17 Town of Buckeye General Plan (2008) ........................................................................... 11 2.2.18 Old U.S. Highway 80 Bridge (Gillespie Dam Bridge) Final Design Concept Report – Volume I (September 2007) ............................................................................................................... 11 2.2.19 Old U.S. Highway 80 Bridge (Gillespie Dam Bridge) Final Value Engineering Report (May 2008) ........................................................................................................................................ 11 2.2.20 Draft of the Initial Location/Design Concept Report for SR 85, Gila Bend to I-10 (November 1999)............................................................................................................................... 12 2.2.21 Maricopa County Transportation System Plan (February 2007) ................................... 12 2.2.22 Maricopa County Major Streets and Route Plan: Street Classification Atlas (revised September 2004) ............................................................................................................................... 12 2.3 Summary of Programmed Roadway Improvements ............................................................ 12 3. EXISTING AND FUTURE CORRIDOR FEATURES ............................................................................. 13 3.1 3.2 3.3 Jurisdictional Responsibilities ................................................................................................ 13 Land Ownership ...................................................................................................................... 13 Zoning and Land Use .............................................................................................................. 13 091337118 Technical Memorandum No. 1 Existing and Future Corridor Features i Maricopa County Department of Transportation Hidden Waters Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study February 2010 TABLE OF CONTENTS FINAL – EXISTING AND FUTURE CORRIDOR FEATURES 3.3.1 Existing Zoning and Land Use ........................................................................................ 13 3.3.2 Future Land Use ............................................................................................................. 22 3.4 Existing and Planned Developments ...................................................................................... 22 3.5 Transportation Network ......................................................................................................... 22 3.5.1 Existing Transportation Network .................................................................................... 22 3.5.2 Future Transportation Network ...................................................................................... 26 3.6 Utilities ...................................................................................................................................... 31 3.7 Facilities .................................................................................................................................... 31 3.8 Topography .............................................................................................................................. 34 3.9 Recreational and Wildlife Areas............................................................................................. 34 4. SUMMARY OF IDENTIFIED OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSTRAINTS .................................................. 38 091337118 Technical Memorandum No. 1 Existing and Future Corridor Features ii Maricopa County Department of Transportation Hidden Waters Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study February 2010 TABLE OF CONTENTS FINAL – EXISTING AND FUTURE CORRIDOR FEATURES LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 – Project Study Area .................................................................................................................... 4 Figure 2 – Jurisdictions ............................................................................................................................ 14 Figure 3 – Land Ownership ...................................................................................................................... 15 Figure 4a – Zoning ................................................................................................................................... 16 Figure 4b – Zoning ................................................................................................................................... 17 Figure 4c – Zoning ................................................................................................................................... 18 Figure 4d – Zoning ................................................................................................................................... 19 Figure 4e – Zoning ................................................................................................................................... 20 Figure 4f – Zoning.................................................................................................................................... 21 Figure 5 – Existing Land Use ................................................................................................................... 23 Figure 6 – Future Land Use ...................................................................................................................... 24 Figure 7 – Existing and Planned Developments....................................................................................... 25 Figure 8a – Existing Transportation Network .......................................................................................... 27 Figure 8b – Existing Transportation Network .......................................................................................... 28 Figure 9a – Proposed Buildout Transportation Network ......................................................................... 29 Figure 9b – Proposed Buildout Transportation Network ......................................................................... 30 Figure 10a – Utilities and Facilities ......................................................................................................... 32 Figure 10b – Utilities and Facilities ......................................................................................................... 33 Figure 11 – Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station Emergency Planning .............................................. 35 Figure 12 – Slope Analysis ...................................................................................................................... 36 Figure 13 – Recreational and Wildlife Areas ........................................................................................... 37 LIST OF TABLES Table 1 – Project Schedule ......................................................................................................................... 3 LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix TM1-1. Appendix TM1-2. Appendix TM1-3. Appendix TM1-4. Summary Table of Documents Reviewed MAG Framework Study Data SR 85 at Gila Bend Preferred Alternative Exhibit Arizona Parkway Detailed Information 091337118 Technical Memorandum No. 1 Existing and Future Corridor Features iii Maricopa County Department of Transportation Hidden Waters Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study February 2010 1. INTRODUCTION Technical Memorandum No. 1 (TM 1), entitled Existing and Future Corridor Features, documents existing and future corridor features for the Hidden Waters Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study. The purpose of TM 1 is to provide an overview of land uses, roadway conditions, drainage, access management, socioeconomic conditions, and environmental assessments in sufficient detail to provide a foundation for the identification of issues and constraints and preparation of base maps showing feasible corridor alignments within the study area. Additional detailed information is included in the following companion documents: Environmental Overview (TM 2), Conceptual Drainage Report (TM 3), Development and Evaluation of Candidate Alternative Alignments (TM 4), and Detailed Preferred Alignment (TM 5). 1.1 Study Background In July 2008, the Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) completed the Interstate 10/Hassayampa Valley Transportation Framework Study (known as the Hassayampa Framework Study), which recommended a comprehensive roadway network to meet the future traffic demands that result when the area west of the White Tank Mountains is completely developed (hereafter referred to as buildout travel demand). This long-range regional transportation network included the “Arizona Parkway” as a new facility type to supplement more traditional roadway classifications in meeting projected travel demand within the study area. The Arizona Parkway utilizes a distinct intersection treatment that prohibits left-turns at major cross-street intersections and controls all traffic movements with simple two-phased signal control. Left-turn movements are made indirectly using directional left-turn crossovers immediately downstream of the crossroad intersection. A north-south Arizona Parkway known as the Hidden Waters Parkway was demonstrated to be needed in the Hassayampa Framework Study that generally is offset about two miles to the west of the Hassayampa River. The northern portion of the Hidden Waters Parkway is proposed to cross Interstate 10 at 339th Avenue (where a traffic interchange already exists) and extend southward to Old U.S. Highway 80 (Old US 80). Similar to the Hassayampa Framework Study, the Interstate 8 and Interstate 10 Hidden Valley Transportation Framework Study (known as the Hidden Valley Framework Study), completed by MAG in October 2009, indicates the need for a system of Arizona Parkways to meet the future buildout travel demand for the area southwest of Interstate 10 (I-10) and north of Interstate 8 (I8). In the Hidden Valley Framework Study, the need was demonstrated for the Hidden Waters Parkway identified previously in the Hassayampa Framework Study to extend further south, generally following the Old US 80 alignment, to Watermelon Road in Gila Bend. In May 2009, the Maricopa County Department of Transportation (MCDOT) retained KimleyHorn and Associates, Inc. (KHA) to conduct a corridor feasibility study for the southern portion of the Hidden Waters Parkway between Watermelon Road and I-10. 1.2 Study Purpose and Goals The primary purposes of the Hidden Waters Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study are to: 091337118 Technical Memorandum No. 1 Existing and Future Corridor Features 1 Maricopa County Department of Transportation Hidden Waters Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study February 2010 ƒ Define and assess the project study area for potential opportunities and constraints; ƒ Develop and evaluate conceptual alternative roadway alignments within the corridor study area; ƒ Recommend a preferred roadway alignment; and ƒ Define the characteristics of the preferred alignment, including right-of-way, in greater detail. The study goals for the Hidden Waters Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study are subsequently listed and relate specifically to the proposed Hidden Waters Parkway in the context of the existing and future transportation network in the study area. Specific objectives are listed below for each study goal. ƒ Goal #1: Achieve roadway network continuity and connectivity ƒ Determine preferred corridor alignment from a regional transportation corridor perspective; ƒ Provide future connectivity with primary and regional roadway facilities; and ƒ Provide crossings across alluvial fans, drainage washes, rivers, canals and the Union Pacific Railroad. ƒ Goal #2: Enhance traffic flow (capacity) and safety ƒ Preserve functional integrity of the Arizona Parkway by recommending unique segment-specific solutions where needed to address identified opportunities or constraints; ƒ Identify areas that may require additional right-of-way or easements, especially at crossings with other Parkways, alluvial fans and utility corridors; and ƒ Implement consistent design standards for enhanced traffic operation and reduced crash potential while maintaining reasonable access for developments. ƒ Goal #3: Preserve the environment ƒ Comply with governing environmental regulations for new roadway development; ƒ Minimize adverse transportation action impacts to the study area environment, including wildlife corridors, state wildlife areas, and archeological sites; and ƒ Use transportation actions to enhance important environmental features (e.g., habitat areas, parks, overlooks). ƒ Goal #4: Develop consensus-driven improvement alternatives; ƒ Work with key stakeholders in developing feasible alternatives; ƒ Develop cost-effective roadway improvement alternatives; ƒ Conduct public outreach to obtain input on alternatives and build consensus ; and ƒ Ensure consistency between the study’s transportation actions and regional and local Plans. This study is the first step in the roadway development process and is meant to aid the governing bodies in defining and protecting a continuous future roadway corridor that can accommodate projected future traffic demands. 1.3 Project Schedule The project schedule spans 14 months, from May 2009 through June 2010. Throughout the duration of the project, up to five meetings will be conducted with a Technical Advisory 091337118 Technical Memorandum No. 1 Existing and Future Corridor Features 2 Maricopa County Department of Transportation Hidden Waters Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study February 2010 Committee consisting of representatives of state, county, and local jurisdictions along the Hidden Waters Parkway corridor along with key project stakeholders. Three public meetings will be conducted at three different times during the project: during project initiation and scoping, following the assessment of existing conditions and development of conceptual alternatives, and following the evaluation of alternatives and identification of the preferred alternative. The project schedule is displayed in Table 1. Table 1 – Project Schedule Anticipated Completion Date Milestone Existing and Future Corridor Features Environmental Overview October 2009 Drainage Overview 1.4 Alternatives Development and Evaluation January 2010 Preferred Alignment Drawings March 2010 Final Report May 2010 Project Study Area The project study area for the proposed Hidden Waters Parkway is approximately 38 miles in length between Watermelon Road and I-10 and is roughly two miles wide, centered on the northsouth segment of Old US 80. North of the Cactus Rose Road/Old US 80 intersection, where Old US 80 diverges to the east, the study area broadens to a four-mile wide corridor, centered on the 347th Avenue section-line alignment, extending north to the Salome Highway. North of the Salome Highway, the study area width narrows back to two miles, following the 339th Avenue alignment north to I-10. The study area covers approximately 93.9 square miles. The project study area is shown in Figure 1. 091337118 Technical Memorandum No. 1 Existing and Future Corridor Features 3 Maricopa County Department of Transportation Hidden Waters Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study February 2010 me Hw y H as sa y amp a R r ive 331st Ave Sa lo 363rd Ave PA L O V E RD E HILLS 339th Ave W H I T E TA N K M O U N TA I N S Gila River B U C K E Y E H IL L S Project Study Area Buckeye GIL A B E ND MO UN TA IN S M AR La Paz County A Project Study Area Gila R P Gila County O Old US 80 IC Yavapai County M O U N TA IN S iver op Maric Watermelon Rd a Rd Yuma County Gila Bend Pinal County 0 1.25 2.5 Maricopa County 5 Miles Pima County Sept. 2009 Figure 1 – Project Study Area 091337118 Technical Memorandum No. 1 Existing and Future Corridor Features 4 Maricopa County Department of Transportation Hidden Waters Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study February 2010 2. PLANS AND STUDIES 2.1 Inventory of Plans, Studies, Reports, and Documentation Relevant information on existing and future corridor features was obtained from available studies, reports, and other documents. The reports and studies that were obtained and reviewed as part of the Hidden Waters Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study are listed in Appendix TM1-1. TM 2 contains a list of additional documents cited in the assessment of environmental conditions. 2.2 Summary of Findings and Recommendations from Review of Plans and Studies This section documents the findings and recommendations from existing studies and reports that are pertinent to the general existing and future corridor features of the Hidden Waters study area. Detailed documents discussing environmental and drainage issues and features are addressed in TM 2 and TM 3, respectively. 2.2.1 ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ Maricopa County Old US Highway 80 Area Plan (May 2007) The area plan for 2020 was adopted in 2007 and supersedes portions of the State Route 85 and Tonopah/Arlington Area Plans; The plan includes information on land use, transportation, environmental issues, economic development, open space, water resources, and cost of development; Old US 80 south of Salome Highway has a future classification of Minor Arterial (four lanes in width with bike lanes). The plan later states that Old US 80’s future classification is Principal Arterial (per Table 13 in plan); Old US 80 has an Emergency Management Overlay within a 10-mile radius of the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station (PVNGS); The entire length of Old US 80 is designated as a scenic/recreational overlay; Old US 80 has a school safety overlay adjacent to Palo Verde Elementary School; Old US 80 has been identified as a component of the regional bicycle network; Stakeholder comments received during public meetings included: ƒ Maintain current character of Old US 80 (bends and/or grades should not be eliminated); ƒ Closing Old US 80 access to State Route (SR) 85 would cause traffic problems; and ƒ No Bureau of Land Management (BLM) or State Land trades or sales should occur; Agricultural exemptions have been issued for livestock grazing, dairy cattle, crops, and an egg ranch within the area; Arlington Elementary School is located within the plan area. There is one proposed elementary school within the study area near the intersection of 335th Avenue and Buckeye Road. (Location is based on information provided by Arizona School Facilities Board and local school districts.); There is an existing US Post Office east of the study area at 33039 W. Old US Highway 80 in Arlington; and 091337118 Technical Memorandum No. 1 Existing and Future Corridor Features 5 Maricopa County Department of Transportation Hidden Waters Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study February 2010 ƒ The SR 85 landfill is proposed for the southeast corner of Old US 80 and Patterson Road. 2.2.2 ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ The area plan for 2020 was adopted in 2000; The plan includes information on land use, transportation, environmental issues, and economic development between I-10 and Old US 80 around the Arlington Wildlife Area; 339th Avenue is shown as a Core Arterial between I-10 and Salome Highway; BLM, State Trust, and State Wildlife land are in the plan area; and Average Daily Traffic (ADT) count data is provided for the following locations: ƒ Four locations along 339th Ave within plan area; and ƒ Four locations along Old US 80 within plan area. Both Old US 80 and 339th Avenue have a future functional classification of Rural Collector. 2.2.3 ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ Maricopa County Tonopah/Arlington Area Plan (September 2000) MAG Interstate 8 and Interstate 10 Hidden Valley Transportation Framework Study (October 2009) The proposed alignment of Hidden Waters Parkway is as follows: ƒ Northern portion runs generally east of and parallel to the proposed Hassayampa Freeway; and ƒ Southern portion runs along the Old US 80 alignment and continues through Gila Bend. Watermelon Road is recommended as an Arizona Parkway; Potential freight rail line parallels the west side of SR 85; Potential implementation timeframe for Hidden Waters Parkway includes the corridor/preliminary alignment study to occur from 2010 to 2015 and right-of-way preservation from 2010 to 2020; The facility level of development for Hidden Waters Parkway in the interim (2030) is a two-lane arterial and in the buildout is a six-lane parkway; The Hidden Waters Parkway is designated as a low priority improvement project; Arizona wildlife fracture and linkage zones are within the study area; Cross-sections of the Arizona Parkway with sample wildlife crossings are shown for use in linkage and fracture zones; A large prehistoric site cluster is located within the study area between Gila Bend and Buckeye along the Gila River; The Upper Gila River is designated as a Nature Conservancy Conservation Area; The MAG Desert Spaces Plan designates a portion of the study area as a Secured Open Space; The Maricopa County Trails Plan designates a trail along the length of the Gila River. There are several Priority 4 trails within the study area. Priority 4 trails are conceptual corridors and the lowest priority for implementation with regards to the Maricopa County trail system plan; 091337118 Technical Memorandum No. 1 Existing and Future Corridor Features 6 Maricopa County Department of Transportation Hidden Waters Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study February 2010 ƒ ƒ Gas pipeline and 500kV power transmission lines cross the study area south of the Old US 80 Bridge near Gillespie Dam; and Exhibits showing the conceptual transportation framework, the projected roadway geometry and intersection/interchange locations, and the unofficial daily traffic volume projections at buildout are provided in Appendix TM1-2. 2.2.4 ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ The study identifies a parkway traffic interchange at the existing I-10/339th Avenue interchange; Hidden Waters Parkway is proposed to originate at the Lake Pleasant Freeway extension and run south to the proposed SR 801. Within the study area, Hidden Waters Parkway runs along 339th Avenue to Yuma Road, and then heads south along 331st Avenue through to the proposed SR 801; Old US 80 south of the Hassayampa Parkway is designated as arterial; The Hidden Waters Parkway is shown as having medium priority for implementation; The Long-Range High Capacity Transit Scenario shows both bus rapid transit and commuter rail lines crossing Hidden Waters Parkway near its intersection with SR 801; and Exhibits showing the conceptual transportation framework, the projected roadway geometry and intersection/interchange locations, and the unofficial daily traffic volume projections at buildout are provided in Appendix TM1-2. 2.2.5 ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ MAG Interstate 10/Hassayampa Valley Transportation Framework Study (July 2008) ADOT SR 85 in Gila Bend Draft Final Design Concept Report (June 2009) The Design Concept Report (DCR) provides a long-range plan for a system interchange between SR 85 and I-8 to meet the anticipated capacity and operational needs through 2030; The northern study limit is SR 85 Milepost (MP) 123.00 (the Watermelon Road alignment); Phase 3 of the project includes a median crossing and a short section of Watermelon Road on the east side of SR 85; The Watermelon Road traffic interchange (TI) along SR 85 is proposed as a future improvement; and Mainline Alternative 1, the Recommended Option, includes a grade-separated interchange along SR 85 at Watermelon Road. This future Watermelon Road interchange is significantly north of the current Watermelon Road alignment. The proposed realigned Watermelon Road right-of-way is shown connecting into Old US 80 right-of-way approximately 3,000 feet north of the existing Watermelon Road/Old US 80 intersection. 091337118 Technical Memorandum No. 1 Existing and Future Corridor Features 7 Maricopa County Department of Transportation Hidden Waters Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study February 2010 2.2.6 ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ The Draft Environmental Assessment (EA) discusses the anticipated environmental impacts of the preferred alternative from the aforementioned SR 85 in Gila Bend Draft Final DCR; The preferred alternative includes a future Watermelon Road traffic interchange that is proposed to be designed and constructed by others. This future Watermelon Road interchange is significantly north of the current Watermelon Road alignment. The proposed realigned Watermelon Road right-of-way is shown connecting into Old US 80 right-of-way approximately 3,000 feet north of the existing Watermelon Road/Old US 80 intersection; An elevated signalized intersection is proposed for the Business 8/Pima Street intersection, which is just east of where Old US 80 connects to Pima Street; and An exhibit of the preferred alternative from the EA showing the proposed SR 85/Watermelon Road interchange and Business 8/Pima Street elevated intersection is provided in Appendix TM1-3. 2.2.7 ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ADOT SR 85 at Gila Bend Draft Environmental Assessment and Section 4(f) Evaluation (August 2009) MCDOT Design Guideline Recommendations for the Arizona Parkway (August 2008) Guidelines prepared in August 2008 for the indirect left-turn parkway design concept; 200-foot minimum right-of-way corridor recommended for both four- and six-lane sections. Additional right-of-way and/or easements may be needed for turn lanes, bus bays, drainage structures, drainage facilities, side slopes, utilities, and landscaping; Twelve-foot wide lanes are recommended, with four-foot wide inside paved shoulders and six-foot outside paved shoulders; An additional eight-foot minimum width public utility easement is recommended on each side of the parkway; Median width varies based on the number of lanes needed; Minimum design speeds for rolling terrain are 60 miles per hour (mph) in rural areas and 50 mph in urban areas; WB-50 is the recommended design vehicle; U-turn directional crossovers are recommended to be restricted to a maximum of eight per mile; Left turns in any direction are prohibited at all intersections; Left turns from a side-street or driveway onto the parkway are prohibited; Left turns from the parkway to a side-street or driveway are discouraged due to conflicts between u-turns and right turns; Intersections (full median breaks) will preferably be restricted to one-mile spacing, with a minimum spacing of one-half mile, and are only recommended where intersecting with arterial or major collector streets; Recommended minimum driveway spacing is– 165’ for low–volume segments and 330’ for high-volume segments. The typical driveway will be limited to right-in/right-out maneuvers; and Parkway typical cross-sections are provided in Appendix TM1-4. 091337118 Technical Memorandum No. 1 Existing and Future Corridor Features 8 Maricopa County Department of Transportation Hidden Waters Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study February 2010 2.2.8 ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ 200-foot right-of-way preservation is adequate to meet the needs of at-grade parkwayto-parkway intersections of up to eight lanes on each approach; Additional right-of-way will need to be preserved at parkway-to-parkway intersections requiring grade separations; Parkway Grade-Separated Interchanges (PGSIs) will require approximately fifteen acres of additional right-of-way to accommodate the intersection of two eight-lane parkways. An exhibit from the study depicting a typical PGSI, including the access treatment for the legs of the PGSI, is provided in Appendix TM1-4. The fifteen-acre right-of-way requirement assumes a generally flat intersection location and typical layout conditions. Right-of-way needs may increase given the presence of special conditions; Based on level of service thresholds for the buildout condition, Hidden Waters Parkway is anticipated to ultimately need six-lane and eight-lane segments within the project study area; There are three parkway-to-parkway intersections within the project study area: ƒ Hidden Waters Parkway (339th Avenue)/Yuma Parkway; ƒ Hidden Waters Parkway (331st Avenue)/Southern Avenue; and ƒ Hidden Waters Parkway (Old US 80)/ Watermelon Road. Intersection entering volumes for each of the three project area intersections are discussed in the study. The threshold-volume base intersection lane configuration for all three intersections is eight-lane to eight-lane; The Hidden Waters Parkway/Yuma Parkway intersection is recommended to be an atgrade intersection; The Hidden Waters Parkway/Southern Avenue intersection is recommended to be a PGSI, with Hidden Waters Parkway being the higher-volume mainline facility to remain at-grade; and The Hidden Waters Parkway/Watermelon Road intersection is recommended to be a PGSI in the interim (through 2030) and a PGSI with an eastbound-northbound flyover ramp and a southbound-westbound direct connector ramp in the ultimate timeframe (beyond 2030). The ultimate PGSI concept design layout from the study is provided in Appendix TM1-4. 2.2.9 ƒ ƒ ƒ MCDOT Arizona Parkway Intersection/Interchange Operational Analysis and Design Concepts Study (August 2009) MAG Updated Buildout Traffic Projections(June 2009) Updated projected daily traffic volumes for Hidden Waters Parkway range from approximately 29,000 to 85,000 vehicles per day. The buildout traffic projections are unofficial and have not been adopted by the MAG Regional Council; The recommended lane and intersection configurations for Hidden Waters Parkway are four-, six-, and eight-lane configurations at various points in the study area; and All proposed intersections with Hidden Waters Parkway are anticipated to be at-grade with the exception of the intersections with Watermelon Road, Salome Highway, and the Hassayampa Freeway. 091337118 Technical Memorandum No. 1 Existing and Future Corridor Features 9 Maricopa County Department of Transportation Hidden Waters Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study February 2010 2.2.10 ƒ ƒ ƒ Hickman’s Egg Ranch is located along the east side of 331st Avenue and is bounded by Salome Highway and the Union Pacific railroad tracks; Hickman’s Egg Ranch applied for an amendment to the Old US Hwy 80 Area Plan to change the land use to Industrial from the current Rural Residential designation; and Hickman’s Egg Ranch was requested at its pre-application to leave a 100-foot setback from the centerline of 331st Ave when planning future onsite structures and development to preserve right-of-way for the future Hidden Waters Parkway. 2.2.11 ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ Belmont Site Plan (2007) Belmont is a proposed Mixed-Use development north of I-10, generally contained within the bounds of 331st Avenue, the Cactus Road alignment, 371st Avenue, and I-10. 2.2.14 ƒ Insignia Major Comprehensive Plan Amendment (September 2006) Insignia is a proposed 543-acre development along the east side of Old US 80, south of the Riggs Road alignment and directly north of Hunt Highway; and Application has been submitted and approved for amending the SR 85 Area Plan from Rural Residential land use to Small Lot, Medium and High Density Residential, and Neighborhood Commercial land uses. 2.2.13 ƒ Hidden Waters Ranch Development Master Plan [Major Amendment #1] (October 2008) Hidden Waters Ranch is a planned 1,314-acre master planned community, bounded generally by I-10 to the north, 339th Avenue to the east, Buckeye Road to the south, and 347th Avenue to the west; Site includes several parcels of State Land along 339th Avenue; 64 percent of the site will serve as Commercial, Industrial and Employment land use; 339th Avenue is planned to serve as the major north-south regional transportation corridor for the area with a 200-foot parkway cross-section. Van Buren Street is proposed to be a Principal Arterial while Harrison Street is proposed to be a Collector; and The Master Plan Development is planned to occur in several phases, starting in 2013 and ending in 2022. 2.2.12 ƒ Hickman’s Egg Ranch Major Comprehensive Plan Amendment (June 2009) Hassayampa Village Comprehensive Plan Amendment (July 2006) Hassayampa Village is a proposed 160-acre development located north of the northwest corner of I-10 and 331st Avenue; Application has been submitted for amending the existing land use designation from the Tonopah/Arlington Area Plan from Rural Residential land use to Mixed Use, including High Density Residential, Commercial, and Business Park land uses; and A change in zoning designation has been proposed from Rural-43 to Mixed Use. 091337118 Technical Memorandum No. 1 Existing and Future Corridor Features 10 Maricopa County Department of Transportation Hidden Waters Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study February 2010 2.2.15 ƒ ƒ ƒ Sonoran Trails is a proposed 2,400-acre master planned community containing MixedUse development, including Low- to High-Density Residential neighborhoods with several areas of Commercial uses, Community Parks, and trails commemorating the historic Butterfield Stage trailhead; At buildout, Sonoran Trails is proposed to have 8,109 dwelling units; and Sonoran Trails is generally bounded by Old US 80, Fornes Road, SR 85, and Woods Road. 2.2.16 ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ Old U.S. Highway 80 Bridge (Gillespie Dam Bridge) Final Design Concept Report – Volume I (September 2007) This study evaluated the location of a new bridge to supplement the existing bridge when traffic demands or other factors require a new bridge over the Gila River; The future recommended alternative is Alternative #4, which includes a new bridge approximately 1,000 feet downstream from the existing bridge; The proposed bridge location is south of the existing gas lines and directly north of the existing 500kV electrical lines; The proposed bridge would be 14-span and 1,800 feet long and would utilize, AASHTO Type 6 Prestressed Concrete I-girders with a cast-in-place concrete deck slab supported on drilled shaft foundations; The proposed right-of-way for the new bridge is a minimum of 130’, with even greater right-of-way needed at the curved approaches to the new bridge; and The proposed six-lane bridge is assumed to be 87 feet wide, with a design speed of 55 mph. 2.2.19 ƒ Town of Buckeye General Plan (2008) Land use within the project study area consists of Very Low Density Residential (0-1 du/ac), Low Density Residential (1.01-3 du/ac), Medium Density Residential (3.01-6 du/ac), Medium High Density Residential (6.01-10 du/ac), Community Commercial, Mixed Use, Business Park, Industrial, and Open Space. 2.2.18 ƒ Town of Gila Bend General Plan (November 2006) Old US 80 is classified as a Local Street at and north of its intersection with Watermelon Road; Watermelon Road is classified as a Planned Minor Arterial at its intersection with Old US 80; and Land use within the project study area consists of Very Low Density Residential (0-1 dwelling units/acre [du/ac]), Low Density Residential (1-5 du/ac), Medium Density Residential (5-10 du/ac), Heavy Industrial, Rural, and Parks and Open Space. 2.2.17 ƒ Sonoran Trails (August 2009) Old U.S. Highway 80 Bridge (Gillespie Dam Bridge) Final Value Engineering Report (May 2008) This document is a summary of the value engineering workshop held in May 2008; 091337118 Technical Memorandum No. 1 Existing and Future Corridor Features 11 Maricopa County Department of Transportation Hidden Waters Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study February 2010 ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ The value engineering recommendation proposes to construct a new interim low-flow crossing of the Gila River along the same alignment as the ultimate bridge recommendation (Alternative #4) from the DCR; The low-flow crossing is expected to have a capacity of 10,000 vehicles per day (projected demand for 2025 is 8,500 vehicles per day); Acquisition of new right-of-way, 404 permitting, and environmental clearance will be required to implement the low-flow crossing; and The low-flow crossing does not meet ultimate traffic demands and will have to be replaced by the bridge recommended in the DCR. 2.2.20 ƒ The recommended improvements to the SR 85 roadway are described, which are based on the findings of an alternatives evaluation, available accident information, and current and forecast traffic volumes. 2.2.21 ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ 2.3 Maricopa County Transportation System Plan (February 2007) Old US 80 is functionally classified as a Major Collector; 339th Avenue, Salome Highway, and Baseline Road are classified as Minor Arterials; 331st Avenue and Arlington School Road are classified as Minor Collector roads; and Enterprise Road is classified as a Local Road. 2.2.22 ƒ ƒ Draft of the Initial Location/Design Concept Report for SR 85, Gila Bend to I-10 (November 1999) Maricopa County Major Streets and Route Plan: Street Classification Atlas (revised September 2004) Old US 80 is shown as having a scenic/recreational overlay over its entire length; The design guidelines of a scenic/recreational overlay call for the road to follow the contours of the natural terrain and to have a 50-foot scenic easement added on each side of the right-of-way to provide for a wider corridor of natural habitat preservation; and The 50-foot scenic easement does not currently exist anywhere along Old US 80. Summary of Programmed Roadway Improvements There are currently no programmed roadway improvements contained in the Capital Improvement Programs, Transportation Improvement Programs, and Regional Transportation Plans that pertain to the project study area. 091337118 Technical Memorandum No. 1 Existing and Future Corridor Features 12 Maricopa County Department of Transportation Hidden Waters Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study February 2010 3. EXISTING AND FUTURE CORRIDOR FEATURES This section summarizes the information gathered from the documents cited in the previous section into existing and future corridor feature categories. Exhibits are provided, where appropriate, to graphically display the existing and future corridor features that should be considered in determining if there are feasible alignments for the Hidden Waters Parkway. 3.1 Jurisdictional Responsibilities The entire Hidden Waters corridor study area is located within Maricopa County. Maricopa County has jurisdiction over the majority of the land and roadways within the project study area. The Town of Buckeye and the Town of Gila Bend have jurisdiction over the land within their respective town limits adjacent to and within the study area. Portions of the project study area currently under Maricopa County jurisdiction are also within the Gila Bend Municipal Planning Area and the Buckeye Municipal Planning Area. Jurisdictional boundaries are illustrated in Figure 2, as per the Geographic Information Systems (GIS) data provided by Public Works of Maricopa County in May 2009. 3.2 Land Ownership The project study area contains a mix of both public and private lands. The majority of the land in the project study area is privately owned. Public land owners in the study area are the Arizona State Land Department (ASLD) and BLM. Land ownership in the project study area is shown in Figure 3, as per the GIS data provided by Public Works of Maricopa County in May 2009. Just outside the eastern edge of the project study boundary in the central portion of the study area, the Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD) owns land that is part of the Powers Butte and Arlington Wildlife Areas. AGFD manages over 5,000 acres of wildlife areas along the Gila River adjacent to the Buckeye Hills that are collectively known as the Lower Gila River Wildlife Management Areas Complex (LGRWMAC). The LGRWMAC includes the Robbins Butte Wildlife Area, the Arlington Wildlife Area, the Powers Butte Wildlife Area, the Fred Weiler Greenbelt, and the PLO 1015 lands that are BLM lands withdrawn to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and managed by the AGFD for wildlife management. 3.3 Zoning and Land Use 3.3.1 Existing Zoning and Land Use Figures 4a, 4b, 4c, 4d, 4e, and 4f show the existing zoning and parcel boundaries in the project study area as of June 2009. Zoning data for the unincorporated portions of the project study area was obtained from the Maricopa County Assessor’s Office website (http://www.maricopa.gov/Assessor/GIS/map.html) while the zoning data for the portions of the project study area in Buckeye and Gila Bend was obtained from the towns’ respective General Plans. 091337118 Technical Memorandum No. 1 Existing and Future Corridor Features 13 Maricopa County Department of Transportation Hidden Waters Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study February 2010 Tonopah Buckeye Municipal Planning Area Perryville Wintersburg Liberty Palo Verde Goodyear Municipal Planning Area Hassayampa Arlington Rainbow Valley Cotton Center Legend Town Project Boundary Jurisdiction Limits Estrella Maricopa County City of Goodyear Gila Bend Municipal Planning Area Town of Buckeye Town of Gila Bend Bosque Gila Bend Municipal Planning Areas Buckeye Theba Gila Bend 0 1.25 2.5 5 Glendale Miles Goodyear Sept. 2009 Figure 2 – Jurisdictions 091337118 Technical Memorandum No. 1 Existing and Future Corridor Features 14 Maricopa County Department of Transportation Hidden Waters Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study February 2010 Legend Project Boundary Land Ownership Barry Goldwater Air Force Rng. Bureau of Land Mgmt. County Land Arizona Game and Fish Department San Lucy District Tohono O'odham Military Res. Painted Rock Wildlife Area Private Land State Trust Land 0 1.25 2.5 5 Miles Sept. 2009 Figure 3 – Land Ownership 091337118 Technical Memorandum No. 1 Existing and Future Corridor Features 15 Maricopa County Department of Transportation Hidden Waters Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study February 2010 359th Ave 387th Ave 1 2 RU-43 3 I 10 I1 371st Ave Indian School Rd 4 0R 5 am p Ton opa h I 10 RR S a lo me Hw y CC 6 R-5 Encanto Blvd PC Van Buren St IND-2 RU-43 331st Ave 371st Ave C-2 355th Ave Wintersburg Rd McDowell Rd RU-43 339th Ave C-3 Project Boundary Parcels Sa lom C-2 eH Rd C-2 Legend PC rg R-5 Lower Buckeye Rd Yuma Rd u nb C-2 C-3 RU-190 e ick W 343rd Ave Buckeye Rd Broadway Rd wy Wier Ave County Zoning Roeser Rd C-2 Intermediate Commercial Sunland Ave C-3 General Commercial IND-2 Light Industrial IND-3 Heavy Industrial R-5 Limited Multiple-Family Residential RU-190 Rural RU-43 Rural Buckeye Zoning CC Commercial Center PC Planned Community R1-35 Baseline Rd 331st Ave 351st Ave RU-43 R1-35 Single-Family Residential 0 0.25 0.5 RU-190 RR Rural Residential Dobbins Rd Miles d r Wa 1 Rd Sept. 2009 IND-3 Figure 4a – Zoning 091337118 Technical Memorandum No. 1 Existing and Future Corridor Features 16 Maricopa County Department of Transportation Hidden Waters Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study February 2010 351st Ave RU-43 1 R1-35 Baseline Rd 331st Ave 2 RU-190 3 4 Dobbins Rd rd Wa 5 Rd IND-3 Olney Ave 6 Elliot Rd Narramore Rd d Ol er ut h So a nP r ic T cif US 80 Arlington Canal Rd RU-43 Arlington School Rd Cactus Rose Rd RU-190 RU-43 RR C-2 Legend Project Boundary Parcels County Zoning C-2 Intermediate Commercial Com Rd sor pres IND-3 Heavy Industrial R1-35 Single-Family Residential RU-190 Rural RU-43 Rural 0 0.25 0.5 Buckeye Zoning 1 Miles RR Rural Residential Sept. 2009 d Ol U Figure 4b – Zoning 091337118 Technical Memorandum No. 1 Existing and Future Corridor Features 17 Maricopa County Department of Transportation Hidden Waters Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study February 2010 d or R ress p m Co 1 2 3 RR 4 d Ol 5 US 80 Enterp rise Rd 6 RU-190 Legend Project Boundary Parcels County Zoning RU-190 Rural 0 0.25 0.5 Buckeye Zoning 1 Miles RR Rural Residential Feb. 2010 Figure 4c – Zoning 091337118 Technical Memorandum No. 1 Existing and Future Corridor Features 18 Maricopa County Department of Transportation Hidden Waters Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study February 2010 1 2 3 4 5 RR Komatke Rd Komatke Rd 6 RU-43 RU-43 Patterson Rd RR CG d Ol US 80 Ent Legend 283rd Ave RU-190 Parcels Rd County Zoning rise erp Project Boundary C-2 Intermediate Commercial R-5 R-5 Limited Multiple-Family Residential RU-190 Rural RR C-2 RU-43 Rural Woods Rd Buckeye Zoning CG General Commerce RU-43 RR Rural Residential Gila Bend Zoning 0 0.25 0.5 PC Planned Community 1 Miles R-1 Single Family Residential R-1 Sept. 2009 PC Figure 4d – Zoning 091337118 Technical Memorandum No. 1 Existing and Future Corridor Features 19 Maricopa County Department of Transportation Hidden Waters Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study February 2010 R-5 RR C-2 Woods Rd 1 RU-43 2 3 4 R-1 5 R Enterprise 6 PC d PC AG Pierpoint Rd AG PC RU-190 Fornes Rd Legend Project Boundary Parcels County Zoning C-2 Intermediate Commercial R-5 Limited Multiple-Family Residential RU-190 Rural RU-43 Rural Buckeye Zoning RR Rural Residential AG Gila Bend Zoning RU-190 80 AG Rural Zone US I-1 Light Industrial Ol d I-3 Basic Manufacturing, Industrial PC Planned Community 1 Miles RU-190 R-1 Single Family Residential 0 0.25 0.5 RU-190 Sept. 2009 Sisson Rd Figure 4e – Zoning 091337118 Technical Memorandum No. 1 Existing and Future Corridor Features 20 Maricopa County Department of Transportation Hidden Waters Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study February 2010 AG 1 80 RU-190 4 RU-190 RU-190 Sisson Rd 5 307th Ave RU-43 Ol d 3 US 2 6 I-1 I-3 AG R-1 B-2 R-3 I-1 R-5 B-1 R-4 R-4 R-5 R-5 B-2 R-3 Martin Ave AG Hunt St ve Scott A Gila Blvd Indian Rd Stout Rd Watermelon Rd Main St AG I-2 R-3 R-5 AG B-2 PC R-4 Legend B-2 R-5 Project Boundary AG R-1 R-3 C-2 County Zoning IND-3 C-2 Intermediate Commercial C-3 C-3 General Commercial IND-3 Heavy Industrial Cemetery Rd Parcels d opa R Maric RU-43 R-3 Limited Multiple-Family Residential R-5 Limited Multiple-Family Residential RU-190 Rural RU-43 Rural Gila Bend Zoning AG Rural Zone B-1 Neighborhood Business B-2 Community Business I-1 Light Industrial I-2 Heavy Industrial I-3 Basic Manufacturing, Industrial PC Planned Community RU-190 R-1 Single Family Residential R-3 Manufactured Home Residential 0 0.25 0.5 R-4 Four-Plex Residential 1 Miles R-5 Multi-Family Residential Sept. 2009 Figure 4f – Zoning 091337118 Technical Memorandum No. 1 Existing and Future Corridor Features 21 Maricopa County Department of Transportation Hidden Waters Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study February 2010 The project study area is primarily zoned for rural agricultural activity and low-density residential uses, with some commercial and higher-density residential zoning near Gila Bend, Buckeye, and I-10. Both 339th Avenue and 331st Avenue have several segments of 80-foot full-street dedicated right-of-way within the project study area. There are also large sections of these roadway alignments that either have 40-foot or 55-foot half-street dedicated right-of-way or no existing dedicated right-of-way. Old US 80 generally has a 100-foot dedicated right-of-way throughout the project study area. Figure 5 shows the existing land uses in the study area per the GIS data provided by Public Works of Maricopa County in May 2009. The existing land uses within the project study area are primarily agriculture, open space, and vacant land, with a few clusters of residential uses. Arlington Elementary, located near 355th Avenue and Dobbins Road, and Winters’ Well Elementary, located near 355th Avenue and Buckeye Road, are the only existing public school facilities located within the project study area. 3.3.2 Future Land Use Figure 6 shows the anticipated future buildout land uses within the project study area per the MAG general plan GIS data provided by Public Works of Maricopa County in May 2009. This exhibit indicates that the existing agriculture and vacant land uses are anticipated to be converted to primarily low-density and medium-density land uses. 3.4 Existing and Planned Developments Figure 7 shows the existing and active planned developments around and within the project study area. At the time the aforementioned MAG framework studies were conducted, the Phoenix metropolitan area was experiencing significant population growth over a period of several years. In the past two years, however, the rate of growth has slowed due to the economic downturn, as evidenced by the fact there are few development or rezoning requests currently being processed by Maricopa County for land within the project study area. The rate of growth within the project study area is expected to increase following a significant economic recovery, but the development timeframes for when buildout will be reached will likely be extended. 3.5 Transportation Network 3.5.1 Existing Transportation Network Old US 80 is currently a paved two-lane Major Collector roadway that traverses the majority of the study area, running south-north from Watermelon Road in Gila Bend to the Arlington area, where Old US 80 diverges to the east. The posted speed limit along Old US 80 is primarily 50 mph. Higher-speed roads in the project study area include I-8 and I-10, along with SR 85, which is just outside of the eastern edge of the study area. Other roads of interest in the project study area include 339th Avenue and Watermelon Road, both of which are Minor Arterial roadways. There is also an existing Union Pacific railroad line that runs northeast-to-southwest through the project study area just north of Arlington. At the northern end of the project study area, there is an existing traffic interchange along I10 at 339th Avenue. At the southern end of the project study area, the Old US 80/Watermelon Road intersection is currently a “T” intersection, with a stop sign located on the Watermelon Road leg. 091337118 Technical Memorandum No. 1 Existing and Future Corridor Features 22 Maricopa County Department of Transportation Hidden Waters Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study February 2010 Tonopah Perryville Wintersburg Liberty Palo Verde Hassayampa Arlington Legend Town Rainbow Valley Project Boundary Municipal Planning Area Buckeye Gila Bend Glendale Goodyear Wlderness Area Land Use Low Density Residential Cotton Center Medium Density Residential High Density Residential Planned Community Commercial Mixed Use Industrial Estrella Airport Bosque Education/Schools Public/Quasi-Public Gila Bend Office/Employment Open Space Theba Agriculture 0 1.25 2.5 5 Vacant Land Miles Water Sept. 2009 Figure 5 – Existing Land Use 091337118 Technical Memorandum No. 1 Existing and Future Corridor Features 23 Maricopa County Department of Transportation Hidden Waters Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study February 2010 Tonopah Perryville Wintersburg Liberty Palo Verde Hassayampa Arlington Legend Rainbow Valley Town Project Boundary Municipal Planning Area Buckeye Gila Bend Glendale Goodyear Wlderness Area Cotton Center Future Land Use Low Density Residential Medium Density Residential High Density Residential Planned Community Commercial Estrella Mixed Use Bosque Industrial Airport Gila Bend Education/Schools Public/Quasi-Public Theba Office/Employment 0 1.25 2.5 5 Open Space Miles Water Sept. 2009 Figure 6 – Future Land Use 091337118 Technical Memorandum No. 1 Existing and Future Corridor Features 24 Maricopa County Department of Transportation Hidden Waters Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study February 2010 Hassayampa Village Hidden Waters Ranch Belmont Tonopah Valley View Ranchettes Perryville Buckeye Ranch Butterfield Stagecoach Dixie Park Hickman's Egg Ranch Liberty Palo Verde Verma Estates Arlington Phoenix Valley West 1 Phoenix Valley West 2 Arlington Farms Insignia Rainbow Valley Spring Mountain Ski Ranch 3 & 4 Spring Mountain Ski Ranch 1 & 2 Dos Lagos Lakeside Ski Village Sonoran Trails Legend Project Boundary Developments Estrella Town North Gila Bend Schools Municipal Planning Area Bosque Gila Bend Gila Bend Estates Buckeye Maricopa County Theba Gila Bend Gila Bend Glendale Schnell Place 0 1.25 2.5 5 Miles Goodyear Oct. 2009 Figure 7 – Existing and Planned Developments 091337118 Technical Memorandum No. 1 Existing and Future Corridor Features 25 Maricopa County Department of Transportation Hidden Waters Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study February 2010 MCDOT utilizes the Road Management System (RMS) tool to analyze the physical attributes of roadways as well as the condition of roadway pavement and ride quality. One of the data items included in the RMS is the pavement conditions rating. The 2008 MCDOT State of the System report shows the pavement condition ratings for portions of several of the major roads within the project study area. Old US 80 is predominately rated to be in ‘excellent’ condition, with some patches rated ‘very good’. 339th Avenue and 331st Avenue both have sections of pavement rated ‘excellent’, ‘very good’, and ‘good’. Existing 2008 daily traffic count volumes for the existing transportation network in the project study area were taken from the Traffic Counts web pages of MCDOT and ADOT. Figure 8a and Figure 8b depict many of the features of the existing transportation network within the project study area. 3.5.2 Future Transportation Network The existing transportation network in the project study area is anticipated to change dramatically in the future buildout condition. Most of the existing roadways are expected to change to a higher functional classification. For example, the Hidden Valley Framework Study proposes that the north-south portion of Old US 80 become the Hidden Waters Parkway and that Watermelon Road become a parkway also. According to the MAG framework studies, several new parkways, freeways, and arterial roadways are planned in the project study area as well. As has previously been mentioned, the parkway is distinguished from other roadway types by the use of an intersection treatment known as the indirect left-turn. This intersection treatment eliminates left-turns at all cross-street intersections and utilizes a wide median to facilitate u-turns downstream from the intersections. The minimum required right-of-way for the parkway is typically 200’. At the northern end of the project study area, the existing traffic interchange along I-10 at 339th Avenue is proposed to be reconstructed as a parkway-to-freeway interchange. At the southern end of the project study area, the Old US 80/Watermelon Road intersection is proposed to become a PGSI for the Hidden Waters and Watermelon Road parkways. Just east of this proposed PGSI is a planned Watermelon Road/SR 85 grade-separated interchange. The currently proposed design concept for this interchange on SR 85 shows Watermelon Road being realigned to the north of its existing alignment west of SR 85. It is not currently known how this shift in alignment would impact the location of the Hidden Waters/Watermelon Road PGSI. The Hidden Valley Framework Study also proposes a new railroad line be constructed to connect the existing railroad line that runs north of Arlington to the one that runs south of Gila Bend. This new railroad line runs generally north-south parallel to SR 85 along the eastern edge of the project study area. Future unofficial buildout daily traffic volumes for the future transportation network in the project study area were obtained from MAG framework study travel demand model outputs produced in July 2009 by MAG. The projected buildout volumes for the Hidden Waters Parkway exceed the capacity of a typical arterial roadway, indicating a long-term need for a parkway facility in the corridor. Figure 9a and Figure 9b depict many of the proposed features of the future transportation network within the project study area. 091337118 Technical Memorandum No. 1 Existing and Future Corridor Features 26 Maricopa County Department of Transportation Hidden Waters Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study February 2010 Sun Valley Pkwy Campbell Ave Ton opa h 3399 Broadway Rd 312 Johnson Rd Yuma Rd Yuma Rd Broadway Rd Palo Verde Rd 462 331st Ave 740 i ve Hassay am p a R wy Roosevelt St 92 Buckeye Rd eH wy Van Buren St 2444 347 1009 Lower Buckeye Rd Sa lom eH 3361 4 339th Ave 371st Ave 363rd Ave Van Buren St Salo m 2832 1 McDowell Rd 1822 Wintersburg Rd 355th Ave Indian School Rd Project Boundary Narramore Rd Gila R iver Robbins Butte Game Rd Target Rd 7 49 Existing Roadway Hazen Rd Old US 80 11370 Existing Interchange Oglesby Rd Turner Rd Bruner Rd Wilson Ave 313th Ave 540 454 672 319th Ave 1377 504 99 129 Railroad 214 Arlington School Rd 546 Legend 331st Ave 387th Ave 7 35 4 15 309th Ave 620 380 9 95 2 66 Traffic Volumes d 59 0 473 Narramore Rd Baseline Rd fic Union Paci gR 351st Ave 841 r Elliot Rd Olney Ave r nbu Dobbins Rd ke Wic 21 05 Southern Ave Freeway Highway Arterial 407 Komatke Rd Major Collector 0 0.5 1 Other Roads 2 Miles Sept. 2009 Figure 8a – Existing Transportation Network 091337118 Technical Memorandum No. 1 Existing and Future Corridor Features 27 Maricopa County Department of Transportation Hidden Waters Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study February 2010 37 15 0 0.5 1 2 Patterson Rd Miles Sept. 2009 8868 Rd 283rd Ave 2 48 r is e e rp Ent Woods Rd Pierpoint Rd Citrus Valley Ln Ci tru s Va lle y Rd 12 Fornes Rd Stout Rd Gila River Highway Arterial Main St 3799 Old Major Collector Other Roads Pim Hunt St d opa R Maric t aS Cemetery Rd Freeway Rd Existing Roadway Indian Rd Ajo Existing Interchange 211 59 7 Watermelon Rd Traffic Volumes Citrus Valley Rd 371st Ave 99 Gila Blvd Project Boundary 307th Ave Legend 4148 Figure 8b – Existing Transportation Network 091337118 Technical Memorandum No. 1 Existing and Future Corridor Features 28 Maricopa County Department of Transportation Hidden Waters Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study February 2010 66 Turner Pkwy Sun Valley Pkwy 90 93 76 92 64 69 Hidden Waters Pkwy Wintersburg Pkwy 16 61 McDowell Pkwy 82 Yuma Pkwy i ve Hassay am p a R r 73 20 73 79 76 Southern Ave 85 fic Railro ad Union Paci 55 80 57 801 91 57 i Gila R ver 52 Proposed System Interchange Proposed Arterial Interchange Proposed Parkway Interchange Proposed Freeway Hassayampa Frwy Project Boundary Hidden Waters Pkwy Legend 0 0.5 1 29 Proposed Arterial Feb. 2010 48 Proposed Railroad 99 Miles 40 Proposed Parkway 2 Unofficial Buildout Traffic Volumes (ADT in Thousands) 38 Figure 9a – Proposed Buildout Transportation Network 091337118 Technical Memorandum No. 1 Existing and Future Corridor Features 29 Maricopa County Department of Transportation Hidden Waters Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study February 2010 38 40 11 46 33 44 28 40 Hidden Waters Pkwy 84 52 47 9 Gila River Legend Project Boundary 58 105 Proposed Arterial Interchange 83 Proposed System Interchange 125 143 24 Watermelon Rd Proposed Parkway Interchange Paloma Rd 46 38 za de An osed p y o a r P ic W Scen Proposed Freeway Proposed Parkway Proposed Arterial Proposed Railroad 99 Unofficial Buildout Traffic Volumes (ADT in Thousands) 0 0.5 1 2 Miles Feb. 2010 Figure 9b – Proposed Buildout Transportation Network 091337118 Technical Memorandum No. 1 Existing and Future Corridor Features 30 Maricopa County Department of Transportation Hidden Waters Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study February 2010 3.6 Utilities Figure 10a and Figure 10b depict the existing and planned major utilities within the project study area. Per the Old US Highway 80 Area Plan and maps provided by Arizona Public Service (APS), 69 kV lines currently run along Old US 80 within the existing road right-of-way. An Interconnection Facilities Study published by APS in August 2009 says that APS has plans to construct a new 69kV like along the same general route as the existing 69kV line along Old US 80; however the new line will be moved into new right-of-way outside of existing Old US 80 right-of-way up to the existing APS Cotton Center substation. There are several major power transmission corridors that run through the project study area. Three 500kV lines originate from the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station (PVNGS) and run diagonally through the northern end of the project study area, eventually crossing I-10. Two other 500kV lines run south from PVNGS and along the western edge of the project study area, crossing the study area about 1,100’ south of the Old US 80 bridge over the Gila River near Gillespie Dam. Ongoing studies by APS indicate that the plans for the Solana Generating Station project include an interconnection with the existing APS Panda Substation, located at the northwest corner of Watermelon Road and Old US 80. The preferred transmission line route between the Solana Generating Station and the Panda Substation includes transmission facilities that would follow the existing 230 kV and 69 kV lines along Watermelon Road and into the Panda Substation. There are several existing gas and petroleum pipelines that cross through the project study area. A 20-inch Kinder Morgan Energy petroleum pipeline crosses through the project study area within the Union Pacific railroad right-of-way between Baseline Road and Old US 80. El Paso Natural Gas has four major gas pipelines that cross east-west through the project study area just south of Gillespie Dam. Transwestern has a major gas pipeline that parallels the 500kV lines that run diagonally through the northern end of the project study area. The Transwestern gas pipeline also crosses east-west through the project study area just south of where the El Paso Natural Gas pipelines cross the project study area. Entegra Power Group owns a gas pipeline that laterals off of one of the aforementioned El Paso Natural Gas pipelines and runs south along the east side of Old US 80 to the Gila River Power Station north of Gila Bend. 3.7 Facilities Figure 10a and Figure 10b show the locations of existing facilities within the project study area. The City of Phoenix owns and operates the SR 85 Landfill located at the southeast corner of Old US 80 and Patterson Road on 2,652 acres of land. This landfill has accepted City of Phoenix municipal solid wastes since January 2, 2006. The landfill is currently accessed via SR 85 and Patterson Road and it is the only operational landfill in the project study area. The City of Phoenix is planning on constructing a solar power plant on a portion of the landfill property. The solar power plant would remain operational until the City needs that space for landfill operations. From 1961 to 1997, Maricopa County operated the Hassayampa Landfill located at Baseline Road and Salome Highway (just outside the project study area) for municipal waste disposal. Hazardous wastes were also disposed in the northeast section of the landfill from April 1979 to October 1980. The site was added to the Superfund National Priorities List in 1987. 091337118 Technical Memorandum No. 1 Existing and Future Corridor Features 31 Maricopa County Department of Transportation Hidden Waters Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study February 2010 0 0.5 1 2 50 0k V Miles 2 x Feb. 2010 00kV 3 x 50 0k V 1x5 Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station Arlington Switch Yard 2x 50 Roose V 0k velt Ir r igat io n Distr ict C a na l Hassayampa Switch Yard Red Hawk Power Generating Station eye Buck gton Arlin Cana Cana l l Mesquite Power Generating Station Arlington Post Office Legend Project Boundary Airfield Power Generating Station Jojoba Substation Substation Arizona State Prison Complex Lewis Switching Yard Power Transmission Lines 1 x 50 0kV 69kV Existing 230kV Existing 500kV Existing G Ca ila B na en l d Natural Gas Line Solar Development Farm Facilities Landfill Well Location is e pr t er En nal Ca canal Figure 10a – Utilities and Facilities 091337118 Technical Memorandum No. 1 Existing and Future Corridor Features 32 Maricopa County Department of Transportation Hidden Waters Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study February 2010 2 ise pr t er En nal Ca 0 0.5 1 Miles Feb. 2010 1 x 230kV 2 x 500kV Gillespie Substation Cotton Center Substation Panda Substation Legend Project Boundary Airfield Power Generating Station Gila River Power Generating Station Gila Bend Power Generating Station Substation Switching Yard Power Transmission Lines 69kV Existing 230kV Existing 500kV Existing Natural Gas Line Solar Development l Cana Bend a il G Farm Facilities Landfill canal Well Location Figure 10b – Utilities and Facilities 091337118 Technical Memorandum No. 1 Existing and Future Corridor Features 33 Maricopa County Department of Transportation Hidden Waters Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study February 2010 There are three large canals in the project study area: the Gila Bend Canal, the Arlington Canal, and the Enterprise Canal. The Gila Bend Canal generally runs along the east side of Old US 80 between Gila Bend and Gillespie Dam. The Paloma Irrigation District has irrigation facilities along the Gila Bend Canal. The Arlington Canal generally runs along the east side of Old US 80 north of Gillespie Dam. The Enterprise Canal runs south from Gillespie Dam to the west of the project study area. Smaller irrigation canals exist throughout the project study area to provide water to the agriculture lands. The Arlington Post Office is located along Old US 80 near Arlington. The Gila Bend Municipal Airport is located just east of the project study area along SR 85 near Gila Bend. There are literally hundreds of private wells located in the project study area. These wells provide water to properties because there are no municipal water lines in most of the study area. The PVNGS is located two miles west of the project study area. A portion of Old US 80 is a planned evacuation route for PVNGS. Figure 11 shows the PVNGS planned evacuation routes, as well as the ten-mile radius Emergency Planning Zone, and the fifty-mile radius Ingestion Pathway Zone for PVNGS. 3.8 Topography Figure 12 illustrates the topography of the region through slope analysis around and within the project study area. Most of the project study area itself is fairly flat, but there are significant topographical changes (slopes greater than five percent) just outside much of the project study area. The southern two-thirds of the project study area are flanked by the Gila Bend Mountains on the west and the Maricopa Mountains and Buckeye Hills on the east. The northern third of the project study area contains a few hills that form the eastern edge of the Palo Verde Hills. There are three locations in the project study area where topographical constraints exist. The first and most critical topographic constraint is the narrow pass between the Gila Bend Mountains and Buckeye Hills where Gillespie Dam, the Gila River, and the Old US 80 Bridge are all located. The second topographical constraint is the large hill located approximately at the 347th Avenue alignment between Dobbins Road and Narramore Road. The third topographical constraint is the small hill located approximately at the 363rd Avenue alignment just south of Salome Highway (on the western edge of the project study area). 3.9 Recreational and Wildlife Areas Several recreational and wildlife areas exist within or adjacent to the project study area. Figure 13 shows the various Wilderness Areas, Potential Wildlife Linkage Zones, State Wildlife Areas, and regional parks within or near the project study area. There are several planned trails in the project study area according to the Maricopa County Trails Plan. These proposed trails are low-priority conceptual corridors that traverse the project study area along the Gila River, along a portion of Old US 80, and along the historic Butterfield Overland Stage Route near Gila Bend. 091337118 Technical Memorandum No. 1 Existing and Future Corridor Features 34 Maricopa County Department of Transportation Hidden Waters Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study February 2010 5 Miles 10 Miles 15 Miles 20 Miles 25 Miles Legend 30 Miles Project Boundary Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station Evacuation Route 10-mile Radius Emergency Planning Zone 35 Miles 0 1.25 2.5 50-mile Radius Ingestion Pathway Zone 5 Miles Sept. 2009 40 Miles Figure 11 – Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station Emergency Planning 091337118 Technical Memorandum No. 1 Existing and Future Corridor Features 35 Maricopa County Department of Transportation Hidden Waters Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study February 2010 W H I T E TA N K MOUNTAINS PA L O V E RD E HILLS B OUNTAIN S D M CO A E S RI IL EY LL MA PA G N BE K UC HI M O U N T A IN S Legend Project Boundary Slope Analysis 5% or less 5 - 10% 0 1.25 2.5 5 10 - 20% Miles 20% - More Sept. 2009 Figure 12 – Slope Analysis 091337118 Technical Memorandum No. 1 Existing and Future Corridor Features 36 Maricopa County Department of Transportation Hidden Waters Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study February 2010 Hassayampa R i v er Gila River Buckeye Hills Regional Park Powers Butte Wildlife Area Arlington Wildlife Area Signal Mountain Woolsey Peak North Maricopa Mountains Gila R iv er Sonoran Desert National Monument Legend South Maricopa Mountains Project Boundary Planned Trails Wilderness Area State Wildlife Area 0 1.25 2.5 5 Potential Wildlife Linkage Zone Miles Parks Feb. 2010 Figure 13 – Recreational and Wildlife Areas 091337118 Technical Memorandum No. 1 Existing and Future Corridor Features 37 Maricopa County Department of Transportation Hidden Waters Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study February 2010 4. SUMMARY OF IDENTIFIED OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSTRAINTS Based on the existing and future corridor features discussed previously, the following potential opportunities/constraints have been identified (generally listed in order from south to north and east to west in the project study area) that should be considered in determining if there are feasible alignments for the Hidden Waters Parkway: ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ Potential Watermelon Road alignment shift near the proposed interchange with Hidden Waters Parkway; Gila River Power Generating Station; Panda electrical substation; 69 kV power poles along Old US 80; Gila Bend Canal along east side of Old US 80; Gas pipeline along east side of Old US 80; Cotton Center electrical substation; Existing and proposed developments of Sonoran Trails, Dos Lagos, Lakeside Ski Village, Spring Mountain Ski Ranch, and Insignia; SR 85 Landfill; Potential wildlife linkage zones; Gas pipelines south of Old US 80 Bridge; 500 kV transmission towers south of Old US 80 Bridge; BLM land near Gillespie Dam and Old US 80 Bridge; Narrow pass between Gila Bend Mountains and Buckeye Hills at Gillespie Dam and Old US 80 Bridge; LGRWMAC, including the Arlington and Powers Butte Wildlife Areas; Arlington Canal along east side of Old US 80; Arlington Post Office; Existing and proposed developments of Arlington Farms, Phoenix Valley West, Verma Estates, and Dixie Park; Large hill near 347th Avenue/Dobbins Road; Union Pacific railroad track; Arlington Elementary School; Small hill near 363rd Avenue/Salome Highway; 500 kV transmission towers between PVNGS and I-10; Winters’ Well Elementary School; Existing and proposed developments of Butterfield Stagecoach and Hidden Waters Ranch; and Proposed reconstruction of existing I-10/339th Avenue interchange. 091337118 Technical Memorandum No. 1 Existing and Future Corridor Features 38 Maricopa County Department of Transportation Hidden Waters Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study February 2010 APPENDIX TM1-1 SUMMARY TABLE OF DOCUMENTS REVIEWED 091337118 Technical Memorandum No. 1 Existing and Future Corridor Features Maricopa County Department of Transportation Hidden Waters Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study February 2010 Summary Table of Documents Reviewed - Kimley-Horn and Associates ADOT = Arizona Department of Transportation USACE = U.S. Army Corps of Engineers FEMA = Federal Emergency Management Agency KHA = Kimley-Horn and Associates NRCS = Natural Resource Conservation Service USGS = United States Geological Survey MCDOT - Maricopa County Department of Transportation AZGS = Arizona Geological Survey ITEM LIBRARY KHA No. Hidden Waters Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study Data Collection Summary Title Description E1 Proposed Project Limits and Programmed Priorities State Route 85 E2 Gillespie Mapping Block Delivery Schedule E3 Luke Wash Watershed FDS E4 Gila Bend Area Drainage Master Plan Floodplain Hydraulics Technical Data Notebook and Delineation Study supporting appendices; comprised of 3 volumes E5 E6 E7 E8 E9 E10 E11 E12 E13 E14 E15 TRACKING Author Date Source Format/ File Type ADOT pdf Date Collected Collected By 06/11/09 BML map of SR85 mileposts and projected projects ADOT unknown shows extent and delivery date of mapping for Gillespie ADMS map of Floodplain Delineation Study boundary unknown May 2009 FCDMC pdf 06/02/09 RAE FCDMC unknown FCDMC jpg 06/11/09 BML eec Aug 2003 KHA pdf 06/11/09 BML eec Apr 2002 KHA pdf 06/11/09 BML Wood, Patel & Associates Sep 2008 KHA pdf 06/11/09 BML Maricopa County Sep 2000 unknown pdf 01/22/09 RAE Maricopa County May 2007 unknown pdf 01/22/09 RAE DMJM Harris; AECOM Aug 2008 unknown pdf 01/30/09 RAE DMJM Harris; AECOM Aug 2009 and Oct 2009 bqaz.org/ pdf/GIS on MAG CD 06/26/2009 and 02/12/2010 MLG DMJM Harris; AECOM Jul 2008 bqaz.org/ pdf/GIS on MAG CD 06/26/2009 and 02/12/2010 MLG Arizona Geological Survey Mar 2009 AZGS pdf 03/05/09 RAE KHA May 2002 KHA pdf 06/22/09 ARS KHA Feb 2004 KHA pdf 06/22/09 ARS KHA Sep 2003 KHA pdf 06/16/09 ARS Presents alternatives for drainage design in Gila Bend area, includes supporting calculations in separate Appendix volume Hydrologic Study Report for Luke Wash Zone AE Contains only the hydrology documentation Floodplain Delineation Study (Section 4) of a larger study area plan for 2020 - land use, transportation, Tonopah/Arlington Area Plan environmental, economic development (adopted in 2000) area plan for 2020 - land use, transportation, environmental, economic development, open Old U.S. Highway 80 Area Plan space, water resources, cost of development (adopted in 2007) guidelines and typical drawings for use of Arizona Design Guideline Recommendations for the Parkway Arizona Parkway overview, existing and future conditions, Interstate 8 and Interstate 10 Hidden Valley evaluation framework, travel demand forecasting, Transportation Framework Study Final Report alternatives, implementation, funding; GIS and Executive Summary shapefiles overview, existing and future conditions, Interstate 10/Hassayampa Valley Transportation evaluation framework, travel demand forecasting, Framework Study Final Report and Executive alternatives, implementation, funding; GIS Summary shapefiles Gila Bend Area Drainage Master Plan Recommended Design Report Baseline 355th Fissure screenshot of earth fissure SR 85 Gila Bend to Lewis Prison Draft Drainage Technical Memorandum SR 85, MP 122.58 - MP 126.08 Final Drainage Report SR 85, MP 126.08 - MP 130.71 Final Drainage Report short text, HEC-1 output, HY-8 output, and drainage plans for general plan (30%) text, calculation appendices, and drainage plans for widening project 8 text only for widening project 3 KHA Project No. 091337118 K:\PHX_Systems\091337118 MCDOT Hidden Waters Pkwy\Data Collection\Data Collection Summary.xls 1 of 5 Summary Table of Documents Reviewed - Kimley-Horn and Associates ADOT = Arizona Department of Transportation USACE = U.S. Army Corps of Engineers FEMA = Federal Emergency Management Agency KHA = Kimley-Horn and Associates NRCS = Natural Resource Conservation Service USGS = United States Geological Survey MCDOT - Maricopa County Department of Transportation AZGS = Arizona Geological Survey Hidden Waters Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study Data Collection Summary ITEM LIBRARY KHA No. Title TRACKING Date Source Format/ File Type BRW Nov 1999 KHA pdf 06/22/09 ARS Logan Simpson Design Inc. Aug 2009 ADOT pdf 10/05/09 MLG ADOT unknown ADOT jpg 06/16/09 BML Description traffic and accident data, alternatives considered, major design features, cost estimate, other considerations, appendices environmental impacts of alternatives, including preferred alternative SR 85 access management map -- shows land ownership Author Date Collected Collected By E16 Draft Initial Location/Design Concept Report SR 85 Gila Bend to I-10 E17 SR 85 at Gila Bend Draft Environmental Assessment and Section 4(f) Evaluation E18 access.jpg E19 Regional Transportation Plan Freeway Program Major Project Status Report January 31, 2009 shows start/completion dates and costs for ADOT ADOT projects. SR 85 on page 14 or report. Jan 2009 ADOT pdf 06/16/09 BML E20 DGM-37 Geologic Map of the Buckeye NW 7.5' Quadrangle, Maricopa County, Arizona AGS Nov 2004 AZGS CD 07/06/09 BML summary of hydrologic and hydraulic results, proposed FIS tables and profiles Burgess & Niple, Inc. Mar 1992 KHA pdf 07/07/09 RAE general documentation and correspondence, hydrologic mapping and analysis Burgess & Niple, Inc. Mar 1992 KHA pdf 07/14/09 BML FCDMC Apr 1991 KHA pdf 07/14/09 BML Stantec Mar 2006 KHA pdf 07/07/09 RAE Stantec Apr 2006 KHA pdf 07/07/09 RAE Stantec Jul 2003 KHA pdf 07/07/09 RAE TranSystems Sep 2007 MCDOT CD 07/08/09 GK Wilson & Company Jun 2009 MAG pdf/GIS on CD 06/26/09 MLG E21 E22 E23 Gila Bend Area Floodplain Delineation Study Technical Data Notebook Hydraulics (Book 1 and 2) Gila Bend Area Floodplain Delineation Study Technical Data Notebook Hydrology (Book 1 and 2) Hydrologic Analysis of Bender and Sand Tank Washes E24 El Rio Watercourse Master Plan Overview Final Report E25 El Rio Watercourse Master Plan Alternative Evaluation Report E26 El Rio Watercourse Master Plan Environmental Resources Report E27 Old US 80 Bridge (Gillespie Dam Bridge) Final Design Concept Report -- Volume 1 E28 Arizona Parkway Projected Travel Volumes and Laneage/Interchange Needs general documentation and correspondence, hydrologic analysis and model results river mechanics, environmental resources, flood control alternatives, and implementation strategies data collection, existing conditions, flood control alternatives, recommended alternative, design guidelines, implementation planning physical and wetland resources, biological resources, anthropogenic issues, recommendations Existing bridge evaluation, alternatives, recommended alternative, design features, and social, economic, and environmental considerations Projected build-out traffic volumes for Hassayampa and Hidden Valley Framework areas with laneage and interchange needs on parkways; GIS shapefiles KHA Project No. 091337118 K:\PHX_Systems\091337118 MCDOT Hidden Waters Pkwy\Data Collection\Data Collection Summary.xls 2 of 5 Summary Table of Documents Reviewed - Kimley-Horn and Associates ADOT = Arizona Department of Transportation USACE = U.S. Army Corps of Engineers FEMA = Federal Emergency Management Agency KHA = Kimley-Horn and Associates NRCS = Natural Resource Conservation Service USGS = United States Geological Survey MCDOT - Maricopa County Department of Transportation AZGS = Arizona Geological Survey ITEM LIBRARY KHA No. E29 E30 E31 Hidden Waters Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study Data Collection Summary Title TRACKING Date Source Format/ File Type 2007? MC pdf 06/23/09 MLG Beus Gilbert Jun 2006 MC pdf 06/23/09 MLG Francis Slavin Jun 2009 MC pdf 07/06/09 MLG LVA Oct 2008 MC pdf 07/01/09 MLG Rose Law Group Sep 2006 MC pdf 06/23/09 MLG Description proposed site map showing development Proposed Development: Belmont Comprehensive boundaries and primary features, vicinity map Plan Amendment showing other developments in area Proposed Development: Hassayampa Village application, citizen participation plan, proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment site plan, narrative Proposed Development: Hickman's Egg Ranch application, citizen participation plan, proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment site plan, narrative United Civil Group Date Collected Collected By E32 Proposed Development: Hidden Waters Ranch Development Master Plan Major Amendment #1 E33 Proposed Development: Insignia Comprehensive application proposed site plan application, plan, narrative Plan Amendment E34 GIS shapefiles from FCDMC drainage, floodplain, railroad, wilderness, jurisdictions, community features, subdivisions, road features, 10-ft contours, aerials FCDMC May 2009 FCDMC GIS on CD 05/22/09 ES E35 Town of Gila Bend General Plan land use, circulation, public facilities, housing HDR Nov 2006 Gila Bend pdf 07/08/09 MLG E36 Town of Buckeye General Plan Figures land use, circulation, environmental conditions, Partners for growth area land use, floodway transitional areas, Strategic Action master planned communities May 2008 Buckeye pdf 07/08/09 MLG Town of Buckeye May 2009 Buckeye pdf 07/08/09 MLG AZGS Mar 2006 AZGS CD 07/10/09 BML INCA Engineers Oct 1997 FCDMC pdf 07/14/09 BML ADOT May 1993 FCDMC pdf 07/14/09 BML BRW, Inc. Apr 1994 FCDMC pdf 07/14/09 BML BRW, Inc. Nov 1999 ADOT pdf 07/21/09 ARS BRW, Inc. Nov 1999 ADOT pdf 07/21/09 ARS E37 E38 E39 E40 E41 E42 E43 regional context, site analysis, master plans, development suitability Author Town of Buckeye Zoning and Annexation History zoning and annexation history Figures Geologic Map of the Wintersburg 7.5' DGM-47 Quadrangle, Maricopa County, Arizona Bridge Scour Investigation and Design of hydrology and hydraulics recommendations, 3 Corrective Measures For Old U.S. 80 Highway alternative countermeasures and details Bridge over Hassayampa River Plan and Profile of Proposed SR85 Gila River 12 11x17 sheets Bridge #1274 existing and future conditions, alternative SR 85 Corridor Study Initial Alternatives concepts, evaluation of alternatives and Development Report recommendations for further study report with offsite hydrology, hydraulics, subbasin, SR 85 Gila Bend to I-10 Initial Drainage Report soils, and landuse maps, and proposed drainage Vol I plans SR 85 Gila Bend to I-10 Initial Drainage Report appendices: excerpts from floodplain studies, Vol II correspondence, model input/output KHA Project No. 091337118 K:\PHX_Systems\091337118 MCDOT Hidden Waters Pkwy\Data Collection\Data Collection Summary.xls 3 of 5 Summary Table of Documents Reviewed - Kimley-Horn and Associates ADOT = Arizona Department of Transportation USACE = U.S. Army Corps of Engineers FEMA = Federal Emergency Management Agency KHA = Kimley-Horn and Associates NRCS = Natural Resource Conservation Service USGS = United States Geological Survey MCDOT - Maricopa County Department of Transportation AZGS = Arizona Geological Survey ITEM LIBRARY KHA No. Hidden Waters Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study Data Collection Summary Title TRACKING Description Author E44 1981 Report on Salt-Gila River Clearing Gillespie existing conditions, Gila River hydrology, dam Dam Analysis modification concepts, cost/benefit data E45 Gila Bend - Buckeye Highway (SR 85) Gila River summary of hydrology, hydraulics (including HECADOT Bridges Hydraulic Report 2 models) for proposed replacement bridge E46 E47 E48 E49 E50 E51 E52 E53 E54 E55 John Carollo Engineers Date Source Format/ File Type May 1981 FCDMC pdf 07/14/09 BML Jan 1991 FCDMC pdf 07/14/09 BML Date Collected Collected By Lower Centennial Wash Watershed Zone A Floodplain Delineation Study Phase I TDN Final Report, Lower Centennial Wash Watershed Zone A Delineation Study - Low Level Geomorphic Assessment FEMA forms, hydrology, hydraulics, and supporting documentation RBF Consulting Jul 2005 FCDMC pdf 07/14/09 BML methodology, landform delineation (and maps), appendices contain many AZGS geologic maps Earth Consultants International May 2005 FCDMC pdf 07/14/09 BML Lower Centennial Wash Watershed Zone A Floodplain Delineation Study Structure Survey Location, drawings Location drawings, and photos of 18 structures along railroad south of I-10 A Team Professional Associates Jul 2005 FCDMC pdf 07/14/09 BML Hydrology Report Gila Bend Canal Floodplain Delineation Study Gillespie Dam to Gila Bend Hydraulic Analysis and Floodplain Delineation Report Gila Bend Canal Floodplain Delineation Study Gillespie Dam to Gila Bend HEC-1 hydrologic analysis and supporting documentation HEC-2 hydraulic analysis and supporting documentation (including hydraulic structure methodology) Donohue & Associates Sep 1991 FCDMC pdf 07/14/09 BML Donohue & Associates Sep 1991 FCDMC pdf 07/14/09 BML Simons, Li & Associates May 1994 FCDMC pdf 07/14/09 BML FCDMC Mar 1992 FCDMC pdf 07/14/09 BML AZGS Mar 2006 AZGS CD 07/16/09 BML May 2008 MCDOT pdf 04/20/09 MLG Jul 2009 MC pdf 07/24/09 MLG 08/04/09 MLG Rainbow Wash Floodplain/Floodway Delineation hydrology, hydraulics, mapping, and supporting Study TDN Hydraulics (Vol 1 and 2) documentation Archived Projects: Gila Bend FIS, Jackrabbit Wash FIS DI-05: Geologic Data for the Phoenix South 30' x 60' Quadrangle Old US 80 Bridge Rehabilitation (Gillespie Dam Bridge) Value Engineering Final Report Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance E56 SW Maricopa County Linkage Designs and Conservation Priorities E57 ADWR GIS Data CD-ROM E58 GWSI Database CD-ROM archive of hydrologic and hydraulic model files; does not include reports or explanations 1:100,000 digital map of OFR93-18, in jpg and shp formats value engineering alternatives zoning ordinance descriptions and codes comment letter from AGFD, wildlife linkage designs, conservation priorities, environmental features and constraints Shapefiles: recharge points, industry points, depth to water and water level elev (Phoenix AMA only), irrigation polygons, hardrock Access database of Groundwater Site Inventory: well ownership, historic water levels, construction data, etc. KHA Project No. 091337118 K:\PHX_Systems\091337118 MCDOT Hidden Waters Pkwy\Data Collection\Data Collection Summary.xls RH & Associates, Inc. Maricopa County Arizona Game and Fish Department Jul 2009 KHA pdf/GIS in email ADWR Mar 2009 ADWR CD 08/05/09 BML ADWR Jul 2009 ADWR CD 08/05/09 BML 4 of 5 Summary Table of Documents Reviewed - Kimley-Horn and Associates ADOT = Arizona Department of Transportation USACE = U.S. Army Corps of Engineers FEMA = Federal Emergency Management Agency KHA = Kimley-Horn and Associates NRCS = Natural Resource Conservation Service USGS = United States Geological Survey MCDOT - Maricopa County Department of Transportation AZGS = Arizona Geological Survey Hidden Waters Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study Data Collection Summary ITEM LIBRARY KHA No. Title TRACKING Description Author Date Source Format/ File Type Date Collected Collected By E59 SR85 in Gila Bend Draft Final DCR corridor location analysis, design concept alternatives and anaylsis, major design features AMEC Jun 2009 ADOT pdf 08/18/09 MLG E60 Gila River Bridge U.S. Route 80 as-built plans for the bridge Arizona Highway Department Nov 1925 FCDMC pdf 08/20/09 BML E61 Old US-80 Highway Bridge Over Gila River Scour plan, pier elevations, and boring logs for scour Repair repair MCDOT Apr 1994 FCDMC pdf 08/20/09 BML E62 Arizona Parkway Intersection/Interchange report with R/W requirements, traffic volumes, Operational Analysis and Design Concepts Study intersection layouts Wilson & Company Aug 2009 MCDOT pdf 08/24/09 MLG E63 GIS and Volume Data Wilson & Company p y E64 Sonoran Trails Information Old US 80 Bridge (Gillespie Dam Bridge) Historic Bridge Rehabilitation -- Technical Reports Volume 2a E65 E66 GIS Data, buildout traffic volumes maps, project description Jokake Conditional Evaluation Report, Load Rating Report, Traffic Impact Analysis, Drainage Report, TranSystems Geotech Report Nondestructive Testing Pile Investigation, Old US 80 Bridge (Gillespie Dam Bridge) Historic Coating Assessment, Cultural Resources Survey, HAER Documentation, Biological Evaluation, TranSystems Bridge Rehabilitation -- Technical Reports Section 404 JD, Preliminary Structural Volume 2b Calculations KHA Project No. 091337118 K:\PHX_Systems\091337118 MCDOT Hidden Waters Pkwy\Data Collection\Data Collection Summary.xls Jun 2009 MAG CD 08/20/09 BP Aug 2009 Jokake pdf 09/01/09 BCP Aug 2007 MCDOT pdf 09/17/09 BML Aug 2007 MCDOT pdf 09/17/09 BML 5 of 5 APPENDIX TM1-2 MAG FRAMEWORK STUDY DATA 091337118 Technical Memorandum No. 1 Existing and Future Corridor Features Maricopa County Department of Transportation Hidden Waters Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study February 2010 I-8/I-10 Hidden Valley Transportation Framework Study Recommended Framework T2N R5E Salt River Pima Maricopa Indian Community Scottsdale ( ! " ) yP kw ( ! Sa n W at er m an W as h PA Pac Union O U N oad ific Railr TA Mobile za An de ay d se po nic W Pro Sce " ) ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! " ) ( ! IN South Maricopa Mountains Wilderness Area ( ! $̀ " ! Í ? Potential freight rail extension to new or improved Mexican freight container ports. A I D N SA Ra ilro ad ( ! Nissan Proving Grounds A I Hassayampa Frwy ( ( ( ! ! ! " ) ( ! ( ! ( ! Ì ? $̀ " ! Stanfield ( ! ( ! ( ! Y ³ Table Top Mountain Wilderness Area ( ! McCartney Rd ( ! Storey Rd Casa Grande ( ! ( ! Enhanced Transit Corridor Local Transit Service Area (including service to support regional transit) ( ! ( ! A I ( ! Y ³ Park-and-Ride High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Lane Selma Hwy ( ! ( ! " ) Proposed Commuter Rail A ? I ü ( ! ( ! ( ! Parkway Bus Transit Corridor Farrell Rd ( ! ! ( Y ³ ( ! Freeway Transit Corridor " ) Casa Grande Municipal Airport Kortsen Rd ( ! Proposed Transit Network Waverly Dr A I ( ! ( ! Potential Traffic Interchange " Funded System Interchange ) ) Potential System Interchange " e ? ( ! Potential Freight Railroad Safety and Operational Improvements Corridor Existing Traffic Interchange Eloy Municipal Airport " ) ( ! Arica Rd Eloy ( ! Tohono O'odham Indian Community DRAFT Battaglia Rd $ a " ! Phillips Rd Note: This proposed network is for a buildout scenario. Barrett Rd Eleven Mile Corner Rd Ellis Rd Toltec Hwy Sunland Gin Rd Trekell Rd Burris Rd Bianco Rd Indian Valley Rd Murphy Rd White and Parker John Wayne Pkwy 67th Ave 91st Ave 115th Ave Litchfield Rd Sarival Ave Perryville Rd Airport Rd Watson Rd Sources: MAG, ADOT, ALRIS, Maricopa County, Pinal County, City of Casa Grande, City of Goodyear, City of Maricopa, Town of Gila Bend; 2007 Garnet Ave Harmon Rd Rooks Rd Wilson Rd Johnson Rd ( ! ic ì ? ash 331st Ave ( ! Volkswagen Proving Grounds ac if ! ( ! ( Seed Farm Rd Sacaton ( ! W 355th Ave ( ! Improved/Proposed Freeway ro ad Casa Blanca Rd ne ee Gr S A I Y ³ nP 802 ADOT Central Arizona Bella Vista Rd Framework Study underway Ð ? Y ³ Maricopa Un io Arizona Scenic Way xPecos Rd " Queen Creek Bapchule Ak-Chin Community Airfield ( ! Ra il Proposed Hidden Valley Network Arterial Arizona Parkway Ocotillo Rd Wash MO " ) ific Existing Railroad Hunt Rd Rosa T K AN AIN UNT ( ! MARICOPA COUNTY ( ! Williams Gateway Airport ( ! j ? Study Area Boundary County Boundary ( ! Santa 379th Ave ( ! A I ( ! Locations of proposed freeway interchanges are preliminary and subject to review and approval of the FHWA and ADOT. 403rd Ave ( ! Ak-Chin Indian Community ( ! ac ( ! ` ? ( ! ( ! Alignments for new freeway, highway, parkway, arterial, high occupancy vehicle, bridge, transit, and rail facilities will be determined following the completion of appropriate corridor planning, design and environmental studies. 427th Ave er nP Chandler Muncipal Airport $ a " ! Hohokam Pima National Monument ( ! NOTES: 459th Ave h ( ! Y ³ S W as Riv ? !( ` Baseline Rd ( ! Y ³ ( ! ó ? Cr uz John Wayne Pkwy ( ! M Estrella Sailport ( ! ta Ralston Rd Y ³ ( ! While every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of this information, the Maricopa Association of Governments makes no warranty, expressed or implied, as to its accuracy and expressly disclaims liability for the accuracy thereof. Lufthansa Airlines Training Facility y Hidden Valley Rd Wa ters Pkwy Hidd en S Sce R-85 nic Wa y Paloma Rd A I Va lle ð ? Stellar Airpark sh l Wa Veko Future Volkswagen Proving Grounds ( ! O " ) ( ! Former Tucson Cornelia & Gila Bend Railroad; Out of Service Sonoran Desert National Monument ( ! A I Gila ( ! ( ! Gila River Indian Community Sierra Estrella Wilderness Area Un io Legend Lower Buckeye Rd Warner Rd Chandler ( ! S North Maricopa Mountains Wilderness Area C ( ! or an St. Johns A So n E McDowell Rd Gilbert Memorial Airfield ( ! ( ! RI Gila Bend TR LL ( ! ( ! MA Watermelon Rd Gila Bend Municipal Airport ES ( ! al iv e r RRA ( ! ( ! Gil aR Barry M. Goldwater Air Force Range ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! A I Hassayampa Frwy ( ! Woolsey Peak Wilderness Area ( ! SIE ( ! ! ( an A eC IL is rpr G N TA I N S D MOU BEN " ) ( ! Arizona State Prison Complex: Lewis te En Signal Mountain Wilderness Area ( ! Y ³ Guadalupe Phoenix South Mountain Park 303 Extension op Lo ( ! ( ! Buckeye Buckeye Hills ( Recreation! Area Cotton Ln Í ? v I Estrella Mountain Regional Park ð ? Mesa Falcon Field Mesa MAG Commuter Rail Study Phase II underway (estimated completion 2009) Tempe Anderson Rd iv er Gila River PINAL COUNTY pa R ash Goodyear 801 Warren Rd x " er Mesa Phoenix ð ? ver Sa lt Ri R iv Phoenix-Sky Harbor International Airport á ? ( ! lt Sa Trekell Rd road Unio n Pacific Rail ( ! $ c " ! Avondale yam W ters nnial Wash Tolleson PhoenixGoodyear Airport Buckeye Municipal Airport a Hass Luke Wash Win Cente $ a " ! Þ ? ¸ ? Þ ? Loop 303 Spur I-10/Hassayampa Valley Transportation Framework Study accepted by the MAG Regional Council on February 27, 2008 ÿ ? 0 8 Miles October 1, 2009 93 TO 89 Wickenburg 60 60 10 River Yuma Pkwy Wintersburg T1N R6W Hidden Waters Pkwy T1N R4W tp Wes anal ar k 85 Silver Rock Monte Verde Copper Falls Sonoran Buckeye Vista Ranch Henry Park Riata West Canal Buckeye 801 Hassayampa Rive T1S R3W T1S R4W r 303 Has say am Buckeye Hills Recreation Area Verma Ladera Wyatt Bethany Home Rd Camelback Rd 163rd Ave am Beloat Rd Elliot Rd Estrella Mountain Ranch T1S R2W Narramore Rd Estrella Mountain Regional Park Ray Rd Williams Field Rd Pecos Rd Germann Rd Queen Creek Rd Ocotillo Rd Chandler Heights Rd Seibert John Glendale Ave Baseline Rd Ranch Knorr Farms Insignia Peoria Ave Southern Ave 801 King McRae Properties y Cactus Rd Broadway Rd Rainbow Rainbow Valley Ranch Fr pa w Waddell Rd Lower Buckeye Rd Liberty Park Liberty G ila Greenway Rd Yuma Rd Canyon Trails III MC-85 Bell Rd Van Buren St Trails Southwest Ranch Union Hills Dr Thomas Rd T1N R2W Palo Verde Benessere Johnson Valley gton Canal lin Sundance Deer Valley Rd McDowell Rd INTERSTATE 10 White Tanks FRS #4 Canyon Watson T1N R3W Estates Santana Arlington T1S R5W road Rail RID C Southern Ave FRS #3 Blue Horizons Ranch Pinnacle Peak Rd Indian School Rd Palm Valley Sienna Buckeye Hills Tartesso Westwind Abel Arroyo Arroyo Seco Verde Buckeye FRS #2 Happy Valley Rd Northern Ave LUKE AIR FORCE BASE Zanjero Trails Ar Tonopah Pkwy cific n Pa Unio Buckeye Municipal Airport Cipriani h T1S R6W Was Luke Winters Wash wy T1S R7W l Pk ntia Pote tension Ex T1N R5W PALO VERDE NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION Buck eye F RS # 1 Desert Creek White Tank Foothills Jomax Rd Olive Ave Woolf Crossing Dove Trails Jackrabbit Estates Litchfield Sedella Farms Verrado Surprise Prasada Greer Ranch White Tanks Russell T2N R2W Ranch FRS #3 T2N R3W McDowell Pkwy Tartesso 303 Sycamore Farms Cortessa Maracay White Tanks Tartesso Tartesso West Sierra Negra Ranch T1N R7W Elianto Tartesso West Legacy Park Cotton Lane Tonopah T2N R4W Elianto Mountain Northwest Vista Ranch Ranch Cactus Lane Ranch Lone Mountain Rd Beardsley Rd Sun City Arizona Grand Traditions Sarah Ann Ranch Beardsley Canal Wintersburg Pkwy T2N R5W T3N R2W T3N R3W Detailed tunnel feasibility study to be conducted Sun Valley South Pinnacle Peak Country Estates Beardsley Sierra Montana Westside (ASLD) White Tanks (ASLD) Valle del Sol Hassayampa Ranch Sierra Negra Ranch Tonopah Verde T3N R4W Montiere Belmont Camelback RdT2N R6W T2N R7W Sun Valley White Tank Mountain Regional Park Jackrabbit Trail Phillips Wash Northern Ave Asante Surprise Farms Turner Pkwy CAP Canal Trillium West T3N R5W Tierra Verde Surprise Bell West Ranch Ranch Sun Valley Sun Valley Pkwy T3N R6W y Hass ayam pa h as tW T3N R7W pa am y sa as H w Fr 60 Dove Valley Rd Patton Rd/Dynamite Rd Desert Oasis Austin Northwest Ranch Bell Pointe 1, 2 Marisol Ranch Dixileta Dr T4N R2W Regional Landfill Carefree Hwy alignment Tierra Sierra Rico Norte Estates Fox Trail Sun Valley Pkwy Bell Pkwy 187th Ave VOLVO LUKE AFB PROVING Rio Rancho AUXILIARY GROUNDS Estates Whonnack FIELD Surprise Foothills Festival Ranch Del Webb Black Mountain Rd T5N R2W Sun Haven Ranch Asante North T4N R3W T4N R4W Star Wa sh i bb ra ck Ja Hummingbird Springs Wilderness Area Witman Ranch Walden Ranch Peakview Estates Buena Vista Ranch Spurlock Ranch Vistoso T4N R5W T4N R6W T4N R7W BNSF Commercial Facility TO 17 D Festival Ranch Douglas Ranch Wash Surprise Grand Vista Wittman T5N R3W T5N R4W White Tanks Frwy Coyote 211th Ave Turner Pkwy ing r ton and No Av rth en ue er n (U Sa Circle City nta S-6 Fe 0 Ra ) Broadstone ilro Mountain ad Ranch Quintero R2W wT6N y ic ke n TOYOTA TECHNICAL TESTING CENTER G Lake Lake Pleasant Pleas ant F r M cM Whispering Ranch 74 T6N R3W Wild Rose Pkwy T5N R5W Vult u T5N R6W T6N R4W Box Wash Rd ine re M T5N R7W B Morristown url T6N R5W T6N R6W Hidden Waters Pkwy T6N R7W Riggs Rd Rainbow Valley Lewis Prison Hunt Rd Patterson Rd Micca John Farms 85 Sonoran Desert National Monument TO 8 10 TO Woods Rd Estrella Pkwy Sarival Ave Cotton Ln Citrus Rd Perryville Rd Jackrabbit Trl Verrado Way/ Airport Rd Dean Rd Rainbow Rd Watson Rd Miller Rd Apache Rd Rooks Rd Oglesby Rd Turner Rd Wilson Rd Palo Verde Rd Bruner Rd Johnson Rd 315th Ave 323rd Ave 331st Ave 339th Ave 347th Ave 355th Ave 363rd Ave 371st Ave 387th Ave 379th Ave 395th Ave 403rd Ave 411th Ave 419th Ave 427th Ave 435th Ave 443rd Ave 451st Ave 459th Ave 8 TRANSPORTATION FRAMEWORK RECOMMENDATION Legend Study Area Boundary Railroads Roads Rivers/Washes Canals Unincorporated Communities Township/Range Noise Contours Notes Topography (100' contours) State Land Development Planning Areas Master Plan Buckeye National Monument Glendale Wilderness Area Proposed Service Traffic Interchanges Proposed Parkway Land Ownership Traffic Interchanges BLM Proposed System Interchanges State Land Planned Developments Regional Parks BLM Raptor Protection Military Zone Bureau of Reclamation Goodyear Surprise While every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of this information, the Maricopa Association of Governments makes no warranty, expressed or implied, as to its accuracy and expressly disclaims liability for the accuracy thereof. Arterial river crossings are conceptual to demonstrate the number of crossing needed to support development. Final locations and number will be determined in engineering and water resource studies. General alignments for new freeway, highway, arterial, and bridge facilities will be determined following the completion of appropriate design and environmental studies. Locations of proposed roadway facilities south of the study area are subject to refinement in the I-8 and I-10/Hidden Valley Roadway Framework Study to be completed in 2008, and roadways north to be planned in the New River Roadway Framework Study, schedule to be determined. Locations of proposed freeway interchanges and the use of parallel roads connecting to freeways are preliminary and subject to review and approval of the FHWA and ADOT. Olive Avenue traffic interchange on SR-303L to be a half-diamond. Interstate 10/Hassayampa Valley Transportation Framework Study Proposed Roadway Network Improvements to Existing Freeways Future Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) Freeways (Prop 400) New Freeway Proposals New Parkway Proposals New Parkway Alternatives Future Major Arterial Network 0 5 Miles 7-1 C 2007, All Rights Reserved February 22, 2008 APPENDIX TM1-3 SR 85 AT GILA BEND PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE EXHIBIT 091337118 Technical Memorandum No. 1 Existing and Future Corridor Features Maricopa County Department of Transportation Hidden Waters Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study February 2010 Figure 11. Preferred Alternative SR 85 at Gila Bend Draft Environmental Assessment and Section 4(f) Evaluation NH-085-B(AOM) 085 MA 123 H6407 01C August 2009 39 APPENDIX TM1-4 ARIZONA PARKWAY DETAILED INFORMATION 091337118 Technical Memorandum No. 1 Existing and Future Corridor Features Maricopa County Department of Transportation Hidden Waters Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study February 2010 Figure 4.1 Parkway Grade-Separated Interchange Concept Design Page 4-2