TURNER PARKWAY CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY INTERSTATE 10 TO STATE ROUTE 74 FINAL REPORT Prepared For: Prepared By: May 2010 NOTICE Technical Memoranda 1 through 6 were prepared to provide technical information required for analyses and assessments of specific topics supporting completion of the Turner Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study. Subsequent to preparation, some additional facts or understandings may have come forth resulting in information in the Technical Memoranda being amended before inclusion in the study’s Final Report. Therefore, if there are any differences between the two sets of documents, this Final Report serves as the full and complete expression of concepts, findings, and conclusions relative to the Preferred Corridor Alignment as they relate to plans for development of this facility. Disclaimer This document is for planning purposes only. While every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the information presented herein, Maricopa County makes no warranty, expressed or implied, as to its accuracy and expressly disclaims liability for the accuracy thereof. Final Report Turner Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study I-10 to SR- 74 Page i STUDY TEAM Ogbonna Abarikwu - the CK Group Inc. Mohammad Rehman - the CK Group Inc. Prashant Pachore - the CK Group Inc. Jack Wang - the CK Group Inc. Dan Marum - Wilson and Company Ted Lehman - JE Fuller Brad Stone – Sage Landscape ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The CK Group, Inc.’s team extends its appreciation to the MCDOT Staff, the members of the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) as well as the Citizens for their participation in this study. MCDOT KEY STAFF Denise Lacey Gary Pasciak Andy Wojakiewicz Alex Arriaga Roberta Crowe Mitch Wagner Tim Oliver Mike Sabatini Joe Pinto Reene Probst Jim Sargent TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEMBERS FCDMC Valerie Swick MAG Robert Hazlett ADOT Michael Bruder Terri Kennedy ASLD Melanie Headstrom AZ Army National Guard Sandy Mallach City of Surprise Randall Overmyer AZGFD Dana Warnecke Ray Schwinsburg Dan Nelson LAFB Robert Dubsky Town of Buckeye Woody Scoutten Brian Rose Final Report Turner Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study I-10 to SR- 74 Page ii CAP Paul Zellmer Aaron Ashcroft Private Developers Bob Spiers - Stardust Development David French – OMR. LLC Hans Koppenhoefer - Pulte Homes Greg Smith – CMX – Spurlock Ranch Pike Oliver – Western Holdings Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY..................................................................................................IX Study Area........................................................................................................... ix Purpose................................................................................................................ ix Public and Stakeholder Input.................................................................................. ix Corridor Alignment Alternatives ............................................................................. xi South Segment Alternative........................................................................... xi Middle Segment Alternatives ....................................................................... xi North Alignment Alternatives..................................................................... xiv Preferred Corridor Alignment............................................................................... xiv South Segment ......................................................................................... xvi Middle Segment ....................................................................................... xvi North Segment ........................................................................................ xvii Preferred Corridor Alignment Characteristics.........................................................xvii Planning-Level Cost Estimate..................................................................... xvii 1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................ 1-1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 2 Project Overview ..................................................................................... 1-1 Purpose of the Study ................................................................................ 1-2 Study Area ............................................................................................. 1-3 1.3.1 Location ....................................................................................... 1-3 1.3.2 Size and Extent ............................................................................. 1-3 1.3.3 Topography.................................................................................. 1-5 1.3.4 Visual Character ........................................................................... 1-5 1.3.5 Development Pattern...................................................................... 1-5 Study Process .......................................................................................... 1-7 1.4.1 Scoping Phase .............................................................................. 1-7 1.4.2 Planning Phase ............................................................................. 1-8 1.4.3 Conceptual Engineering Phase ....................................................... 1-8 Public Involvement Overview .................................................................... 1-9 Report Organization................................................................................ 1-9 EXISTING AND FUTURE STUDY AREA CHARACTERISTICS ..................................... 2-1 2.1 2.2 Socioeconomic Characteristics.................................................................. 2-1 2.1.1 Travel Demand Model Influence Area ............................................. 2-1 2.1.2 Existing and Future Population ....................................................... 2-3 2.1.3 Existing and Future Employment ..................................................... 2-5 2.1.4 Title VI, Environmental Justice Assessment........................................ 2-6 Land Use ................................................................................................ 2-7 2.2.1 Existing Land Use .......................................................................... 2-7 Final Report Turner Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study I-10 to SR- 74 Page iii 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 3 2.2.2 Public Land Jurisdiction.................................................................. 2-9 2.2.3 Future Land Use .......................................................................... 2-11 Existing Roadway System ....................................................................... 2-17 2.3.1 Existing State Highways ............................................................... 2-17 2.3.2 MCDOT Roadways ..................................................................... 2-19 Future Roadway Network....................................................................... 2-21 2.4.1 Maricopa Association of Governments.......................................... 2-21 2.4.2 Maricopa County ........................................................................ 2-24 2.4.3 Town of Buckeye ......................................................................... 2-26 2.4.4 City of Surprise ........................................................................... 2-26 Future Travel Demand in the Turner Parkway Corridor.............................. 2-27 2.5.1 Travel Demand Under Buildout Conditions .................................... 2-27 2.5.2 Interim-Year 2030 Travel Demand Analysis................................... 2-30 Utilities Overview................................................................................... 2-31 2.6.1 Data Collection ........................................................................... 2-32 2.6.2 Existing Major Utilities ................................................................. 2-32 2.6.3 Planned Utility Projects................................................................. 2-35 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS ................................................. 3-1 3.1 3.2 3.3 Physiography .......................................................................................... 3-1 Prime and Unique Farmlands ................................................................... 3-1 Water Resources ..................................................................................... 3-1 3.3.1 Riparian Features .......................................................................... 3-3 3.3.2 Wetlands...................................................................................... 3-3 3.3.3 Unique Waters and Aquifers.......................................................... 3-3 3.3.4 Alluvial Fans ................................................................................. 3-3 3.3.5 100-Year Floodplains.................................................................... 3-3 3.4 Vegetation .............................................................................................. 3-4 3.4.1 Biotic Communities ........................................................................ 3-4 3.4.2 Native Plants ................................................................................ 3-5 3.5 Wildlife .................................................................................................. 3-5 3.5.1 Common Species .......................................................................... 3-5 3.5.2 Special Status and Protected Species............................................... 3-5 3.5.3 Wildlife Linkages........................................................................... 3-5 3.6 Air Quality.............................................................................................. 3-5 3.7 Noise ..................................................................................................... 3-7 3.8 Hazardous Materials ............................................................................... 3-7 3.9 Cultural Resources ................................................................................... 3-8 3.10 Section 4(f) Resources .............................................................................. 3-9 3.11 Section 6(f) Resources .............................................................................. 3-9 4 SUMMARY OF DRAINAGE ATTRIBUTES............................................................... 4-1 4.1 Buckeye Flood Retarding Structure No. 1 and Inlet Channel ........................ 4-1 Final Report Turner Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study I-10 to SR- 74 Page iv 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 5 DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION OF ALIGNMENT ALTERNATIVES..................... 5-1 5.1 5.2 5.3 6 White Tank Mountains Alluvial Fans.......................................................... 4-1 Sun Valley Parkway Channel.................................................................... 4-3 Wagner Wash ........................................................................................ 4-4 CAP Canal and Flood Pool....................................................................... 4-4 Hassayampa River Tributaries .................................................................. 4-4 4.6.1 Unnamed Tributaries to Hassayampa River ..................................... 4-5 4.6.2 Little San Domingo Wash............................................................... 4-5 4.6.3 Tributary to Little San Domingo Wash ............................................. 4-5 Feasibility Study Process........................................................................... 5-1 5.1.1 Define a Baseline Corridor Alignment ............................................. 5-1 5.1.2 Identify Issues and Challenges for the Baseline Corridor Alignment.... 5-3 5.1.3 Definition and Evaluation of Conceptual Alignment Alternatives ........ 5-3 5.1.4 Special Analysis Areas .................................................................. 5-3 5.1.5 Define Preferred Corridor Alignment............................................... 5-4 Definition of Baseline Corridor Alignment .................................................. 5-4 Feasibility Analysis of the Baseline Corridor Alignment ............................... 5-6 5.3.1 South Segment – Urban Core/White Tanks ..................................... 5-6 5.3.2 Middle Segment – Sun Valley/Festival .......................................... 5-13 5.3.3 Buckeye Alignment Alternative ..................................................... 5-18 5.3.4 North Segment – State Land/SR-74 Extension ............................... 5-22 PREFERRED CORRIDOR ALIGNMENT................................................................... 6-1 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 6.6 General Description................................................................................. 6-1 Segments Descriptions ............................................................................. 6-3 6.2.1 South Segment – Urban Core/White Tanks ..................................... 6-3 6.2.2 Middle Segment – Sun Valley/Festival ............................................ 6-5 6.2.3 North Segment – State Land/SR-74 Extension ................................. 6-7 6.2.4 Summary...................................................................................... 6-9 Facility Design Concept............................................................................ 6-9 6.3.1 Roadway Design Elements ........................................................... 6-10 6.3.2 Conceptual Design Elements......................................................... 6-10 Access Management Guidelines ............................................................. 6-16 Planning-Level Cost Estimates ................................................................. 6-17 Project Phasing...................................................................................... 6-18 Final Report Turner Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study I-10 to SR- 74 Page v List of Figures Exhibit 1 Study Area and Preferred Corridor Alignment ............................................... x Exhibit 2 Corridor Alignment - South Segment........................................................... xii Exhibit 3 Corridor Alignment – Middle Segment ....................................................... xiii Exhibit 4 Corridor Alignment – North Segment .......................................................... xv Exhibit 5 Summary of Preferred Corridor Alignment.................................................xviii Exhibit 6 Planning-Level Project Total Cost Estimate ..................................................xviii Figure 1-1 Study Area Map...................................................................................... 1-4 Figure 1-2 Study Area Topography........................................................................... 1-6 Figure 2-1 Model Influence Area .............................................................................. 2-2 Figure 2-2 Municipal Planning Areas and Corporate Limits ......................................... 2-4 Figure 2-3 Existing Land Use .................................................................................... 2-8 Figure 2-4 Land Ownership and Jurisdiction ............................................................ 2-10 Figure 2-5 Buckeye MPA Buildout Land Use ............................................................. 2-12 Figure 2-6 Surprise MPA Buildout Land Use............................................................. 2-13 Figure 2-7 Approved Master-Planned Communities .................................................. 2-14 Figure 2-8 Existing Roadway Network..................................................................... 2-18 Figure 2-9 Study Area Buildout Roadway Network................................................... 2-23 Figure 2-10 Study Area Buildout Roadway Network Average Daily Traffic Volumes...... 2-28 Figure 2-11 Existing Major Utility Facilities ................................................................ 2-33 Figure 2-12 Future Major Utility Facilities................................................................... 2-36 Figure 3-1 Major Waterways and Floodplains ........................................................... 3-2 Figure 3-2 Wildlife Habitat Linkages ......................................................................... 3-6 Figure 4-1 Study Area Drainage Features.................................................................. 4-2 Figure 5-1 Study Area Analysis Segments.................................................................. 5-2 Figure 5-2 Baseline Corridor Alignment..................................................................... 5-5 Figure 5-3 South Segment Baseline Corridor Alignment Constraints ............................. 5-7 Figure 5-4 South Segment Alignment Alternatives: I-10 to McDowell Parkway ............ 5-11 Figure 5-5 PGSI Design Concept............................................................................. 5-14 Figure 5-6 Middle Segment Baseline Corridor Alignment Constraints ......................... 5-15 Figure 5-7 Middle Segment Alignment Alternatives: Greenway Road to Happy Valley Road .......................................................................................... 5-19 Figure 5-8 North Segment Baseline Corridor Alignment Constraints........................... 5-23 Final Report Turner Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study I-10 to SR- 74 Page vi Figure 5-9 North Segment Conceptual Alignment Alternative: Dixileta Drive to Rockaway Hills Road ............................................................................. 5-25 Figure 6-1 Preferred Corridor Alignment ................................................................... 6-2 Figure 6-2 Preferred Corridor Alignment: South Segment............................................ 6-4 Figure 6-3 Preferred Corridor Alignment: Middle Segment.......................................... 6-6 Figure 6-4 Preferred Corridor Alignment: North Segment ........................................... 6-8 Figure 6-5 Typical Urban Cross-Sections for the Arizona Parkway............................. 6-12 List of Tables Exhibit 5 Summary of Preferred Corridor Alignment.................................................xviii Exhibit 6 Planning-Level Project Total Cost Estimate ..................................................xviii Table 2-1 Model Influence Area Population and Growth Projections ........................... 2-3 Table 2-2 Study Area Employment Growth Projections .............................................. 2-5 Table 2-3 Environmental Justice Population by Category............................................ 2-6 Table 2-4 Study Area Land Use Distribution.............................................................. 2-7 Table 2-5 Study Area Land Ownership Distribution ................................................... 2-9 Table 2-6 Over-Capacity Roadways in the Study Area Under Buildout Conditions ..... 2-29 Table 2-7 Interim Volume Forecasts and Performance Analysis for Turner Parkway .... 2-31 Table 3-1 Summary of 100-Year Floodplains............................................................ 3-4 Table 3-2 Special Status Species (SSS) within Three Miles of the Project Study Area ..... 3-7 Table 4-1 Alluvial Fan Apex Discharges ................................................................... 4-3 Table 5-1 Comparison of Alignments: South Segment.............................................. 5-12 Table 5-2 Comparison of Alignments: North Segment ............................................. 5-26 Table 6-1 Preferred Corridor Alignment Summary..................................................... 6-9 Table 6-2 Urban Roadway Design Elements for Arizona Parkway ............................ 6-10 Table 6-3 Overhead Electric Transmission Line Clearance Requirement ..................... 6-16 Table 6-4 Planning-Level Project Cost Estimate ........................................................ 6-18 Final Report Turner Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study I-10 to SR- 74 Page vii Technical Appendices Appendix A: Technical Memorandum #1 Purpose and Needs Appendix B: Technical Memorandum #2 Existing and Future Corridor Features Overview Appendix C: Technical Memorandum #3 Environmental Overview Appendix D: Technical Memorandum #4 Drainage Overview Appendix E: Technical Memorandum #5 Corridor Alternative Alignments and Evaluation & Addendum to Technical Memorandum #5 Appendix F: Technical Memorandum #6 Preferred Alignment Appendix G: MCDOT Summary of Public Involvement Appendix H: TAC Meetings Final Report Turner Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study I-10 to SR- 74 Page viii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) accepted the Interstate 10 (I-10) /Hassayampa Valley Roadway Framework Study in February 2008. This study identified a transportation framework of Arterial roadways, Parkways, and Freeways to accommodate Buildout traffic volumes in western Maricopa County. Turner Parkway was identified in this study as an extension of State Route 85 (SR-85) from I-10 to the junction of SR-74/US-60 (Exhibit 1). The Turner Parkway corridor is located 13 miles west of Loop 303 in northwestern Maricopa County. When completed, this parkway will be the first major, high-capacity, north-south facility west of White Tank Mountains. The regional significance of Turner Parkway is highlighted by the fact that it is located between Loop 303 and the future Hassayampa Freeway, which will intersect I-10 in the vicinity of 363rd Avenue. Northwestern Maricopa County is projected to experience significant growth in the future with the addition of approximately 1.2 million new residents at Buildout. Existing and potential future development within and surrounding the corridor amplifies the importance of Turner Parkway as a local and regional facility. Study Area The Study area is approximately 32 miles in length beginning at the existing I-10/SR-85 interchange and stretching north to the US-60/SR-74 junction (Exhibit 1). The study area is further defined by a two-mile wide buffer around the alignment as identified in the I10/Hassayampa Valley Roadway Framework Study. Purpose This study examines the feasibility of Turner Parkway and establishes guidance for the preservation of right-of-way to assure the functional integrity of the transportation framework. Additional goals for the study can be found in Technical Memorandum #1. Public and Stakeholder Input A Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) was assembled early in the study process. This committee was formed to provide direction and technical review during the study process. Participants included developers, major landholders, special interest groups, jurisdictions, and technical review personnel. Three (3) public meetings were held, within the community of Sun City Festival Ranch, during the study process. MCDOT hosted Public Open Houses on May 6, 2009, and May 24, 2010. The Town of Buckeye hosted a public educational forum on October 20, 2009. These meetings were advertised and information packets as well as comment forms were handed to every participant of the meeting to assist in obtaining Final Report Turner Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study I-10 to SR- 74 Page ix R 5W R 4W R 3W T 6N Morristown Morristown D A " ) COUNTY COUNTY AREAS AREAS Rockaway Hills Rd 74 Desert Hills Rd t u 60 Circle Circle City City Joy Ranch Rd BBN N GG SSFF rraa R nnd Raail d A ilrroo Avv aad ee d North Segment T 5N " ) ) Wittmann Wittmann" Exhibit 1 Study Area & Preferred Corridor Alignment Sources: MCDOT, the CK Group, April 2010 Black Mountain Rd Carefree Hwy Legend Preferred Corridor Alignment Dove Valley Rd Study Area Lone Mountain Rd White Tank Mountain Regional Park Dixileta Dr Patton Rd Arizona Army National Guard Buckeye Training Site Jomax Rd Central Arizona Project Canal Happy Valley Rd Middle Segment T 4N al l CCaanna CCAAPP " ) ’ ­ Pinnacle Peak Rd SURPRISE SURPRISE Railroad Major Roadways Deer Valley Rd Minor Roadways Sun Sun Valley Valley Parkway Parkway Beardsley Rd Buckeye Planning Area Union Hills Rd City of Surprise Planning Area Bell Rd County Areas Surprise and Buckeye Planning Areas Overlap Greenway Rd COUNTY COUNTY AREAS AREAS T 3N BUCKEYE BUCKEYE Towns Traffic Interchange Waddell Rd Buckeye Cactus Rd Surprise Turner Parkway Connection to I-10/SR-85 and SR-74 Extension to be determined by future studies Peoria Ave Olive Ave Vicinity Map Northern Ave Glendale Ave 74 C B South Segment T 2N Bethany Home Rd Camelback Rd Indian School Rd § ¦ ¨ 17 60 t u 303 C B § ¦ ¨ 10 101 C B § ¦ ¨ 202 C B 10 Thomas Rd 202 C B McDowell Rd ’ ­ " ) Hopeville ’ ­ ’ ­ Hopeville § ¨ ¦ 10 Yuma Rd D A Lower Buckeye Rd Rainbow Rd Watson Rd Apache Rd Miller Rd Rooks Rd Oglesby Rd Turner Rd Wilson Ave Palo Verde Rd Bruner Rd 85 Johnson Rd T 1N Van Buren St Final Report Turner Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study I-10 to SR-74 Page x I 0 1 2 Miles feedback. The chosen alternatives are based upon research, technical review, and input from stakeholders and residents. Corridor Alignment Alternatives Analysis and evaluation of the Baseline Corridor Alignment and Conceptual Alternative Alignments were accomplished by examining opportunities and constraints within the study area. The number and character of potential constraints, issues and challenges associated with the Baseline Corridor Alignment varied greatly therefore, the corridor was divided into three (3) segments as explained below and shown in Exhibit 1. South Segment – from I-10 to the Olive Avenue alignment; Middle Segment – from Olive Avenue alignment to Happy Valley Road alignment; and North Segment – from Happy Valley Road alignment to SR-74/US-60 Junction South Segment Alternative The South Segment presented one (1) alternative in addition to the Baseline Alignment. Most of the Turner Parkway corridor through the South Segment traverses the master-planned communities of Tartesso, Elianto, and Anthem Sun Valley (Exhibit 2). Developers of these communities have included Turner Parkway in their circulation plans; therefore, it was not necessary to identify and evaluate alternative alignments in these locations. However, the extent of the corridor between the I-10/SR85 interchange and the future intersection of Turner Parkway/McDowell Parkway exhibited several constraints warranting investigation of an alternative alignment. The Alternative Alignment shifts Turner Parkway to the Turner Road section line south of Van th Buren Street. It proceeds from Oglesby Road (267 Avenue) in a west by northwest direction toward the Turner Road section line (275th Avenue) one mile to the west. It intersects the section line south of Van Buren Street, permitting sufficient tangent length to avoid a skewed intersection of Turner Parkway with Van Buren Street. The Turner Parkway alignment continues north along the section line from Van Buren Street to the future McDowell Parkway. Middle Segment Alternatives The middle segment presented two (2) alternatives in addition to the Baseline Alignment, the “Western Alternative” and the “Buckeye Alternative Alignment”. The Middle Segment includes four (4) approved master-planned communities: Sun Valley Villages, Sun City Festival Ranch, Spurlock Ranch, and Festival Ranch (Exhibit 3). Sun City Festival Ranch has Final Report Turner Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study I-10 to SR- 74 Page xi R 4W R 3W See Exhibit 3: Corridor Alignment - Middle Segment State Land Exhibit 2 Corridor Alignment - South Segment T 3N Olive Ave Source: the CK Group, April 2010 Northern Ave Legend Study Area Glendale Ave A n t h e m S u n Va l l e y Perferred Turner Pkwy. Alignment Alternate Alignment Studied Floodplain, Floodway, Floodprone Areas Bethany Home Rd Turner Pkwy. Connection to I-10/SR-85 to be determined by future studies Ta r t e s s o T 2N 10-Foot Contours Camelback Rd Master-Planned Community Boundary Overhead Electric Lines Elianto Planned Future Roadway Network Indian School Rd Future Parkway Proposals A AP W 5 34 Future Arterial Proposals kV Future Collector Proposals Thomas Rd 5 PA WA k 00 2) V( McDowell Rd lin e Exis ting Ba s APS e SR 74 Al US 69 k V 60 ig e nm T 1N APS & S RP 500 nt Ta r t e s s o Van Buren St CAP Canal kV Sun Valley Parkway Yuma Rd I § ¨ ¦ 10 D A Lower Buckeye Rd 85 0 0.5 1 I-10 Fi nal Report Turner Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study I-10 to SR-74 Page xii Miller Rd Rooks Rd Oglesby Rd Turner Rd Wilson Ave Miles R 4W R 3W kV 500 See Exhibit 4: Corridor Alignment - North Segment APS State Land Happy Valley Rd Source: the CK Group, April 2010 Festival Ranch t men ign l A Spurlock Ranch Pinnacle Peak Rd Legend Study Area n nm e nt Wes ter APS i ye A ke k 500 V (P lann ed) C C AP ana Perferred Turner Pkwy. Alignment l Deer Valley Rd Alternate Alignments Studied Proposed 500 kV Floodplain, Floodway, Floodprone Areas APS 500kV (3) Bu c T 4N lg Hassayampa River Exhibit 3 Corridor Alignment - Middle Segment 10-Foot Contours Sun City Festival Ranch Master-Planned Community Boundary as P ipe lin e Beardsley Rd Sun Valley Parkway 36 "G Overhead Electric Lines Planned Future Roadway Network t Union Hills Rd A nm lig en Future Parkway Proposals Future Arterial Proposals se lin e W W a gn as er h Tr an sw es te rn Underground Gas Pipeline Future Collector Proposals Ba Bell Rd [ S u n Va l l e y V i l l a g e Exact alignment between Beardsley Road and Pinnacle Peak Road to be determined through future coordination/studies Greenway Rd APS 500kV (2) Waddel Rd SR 74 US 60 State Land Cactus Rd nal CAP Ca Sun Valley Parkway I Peoria Ave 0 Final Report Turner Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study I-10 to SR-74 Page xiii 0.5 1 I-10 Miles Miller Rd Rooks Rd Oglesby Rd Turner Rd Wilson Ave See Exhibit 2: Corridor Alignment - South Segment Palo Verde Rd T 3N W h i t e Ta n k Mountain Regional Park been developed to the east of Desert Oasis Boulevard. The resistance from the developers and residents of the community to the development of Turner Parkway along the alignment of Desert Oasis Boulevard warranted investigation of alternative alignments. “The Western Alignment” diverges to the northwest north of Greenway Road and follows a path through Sun Valley Villages joining the approximate alignment of 289th Avenue at Sun Valley Parkway. After crossing the Central Arizona Project (CAP) canal, the alignment shifts back to the northeast reconnecting with the Baseline Corridor Alignment in Spurlock Ranch between Pinnacle Peak Road and Happy Valley Road. “The Buckeye Alternative Alignment” follows the same path as the Western Alternative Alignment between Greenway Road and Beardsley Road. North of Beardsley Parkway the alignment turns to the east and crosses the CAP canal at an angle, passing through the CAP canal created flood pool area for a distance of approximately three-quarters of a mile. The alignment then turns north into the Festival Ranch master-planned community approximately 1½ mile north of the CAP canal and enters into the Spurlock Ranch master planned community near the Pinnacle Peak Road alignment where it transitions back to the Baseline Corridor Alignment. North Alignment Alternatives The majority of the corridor through the North Segment traverses land controlled by the Arizona State Land Department (ASLD). This area presents the least amount of constraints or challenges among the three (3) corridor segments. Two (2) alternatives, N1-A and N1-B were developed to address multiple drainage crossings in this area (Exhibit 4). The “N1-A Alignment” shifts Turner Parkway to the east, beginning one-quarter mile north of Dixileta Drive, to follow a ridgeline separating drainage sheds. The alignment will shift as th far east as 267 Avenue at Black Mountain Road before shifting back to the west, tying into the Baseline Corridor Alignment between Desert Hills Road and Rockaway Hills Road. Alternative “N1-B Alignment” shifts Turner Parkway to the west away from the Baseline Corridor Alignment, starting one-quarter mile north of the Carefree Highway alignment and follows a ridgeline separating two small drainage sheds. This alignment shifts as far west as st 281 Avenue north of the Black Mountain Road alignment before shifting back east to the 279th avenue alignment north of Joy Ranch Road. Preferred Corridor Alignment The Preferred Corridor Alignment was chosen based upon technical review and public input. The final preferred alignment is a hybrid of alternatives in the south, middle, and northern segments of the corridor. Final Report Turner Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study I-10 to SR- 74 Page xiv R 4W R 3W S AP D A 74 69 kV " ) Morristown n Little Sa Wash o Doming ilw Source: the CK Group, April 2010 Legend ay Baseline Alignment Desert Hills Rd Study Area Perferred Turner Pkwy. Alignment Alternate Alignments Studied Floodplain, Floodway, Floodprone Areas Joy Ranch Rd Turner Pkwy. Connection to I-10/SR-85 to be determined by future studies N1-A Alignment N1-B A Ra 60 lignme n t BN SF Gates Rd/ Rockaway Hills Rd t u T 6N Exhibit 4 Corridor Alignment - North Segment 10-Foot Contours Black Mountain Rd Master-Planned Community Boundary am pa R iver Overhead Electric Lines Carefree Hwy Planned Future Roadway Network H a ss a y Future Parkway Proposals Future Arterial Proposals Future Collector Proposals N R3 W h 8E S0 as tW T 5N Lone Mountain Rd T4 es 3W Proposed 500 kV Dove Valley Rd SR 74 US 60 Dixileta Dr Festival Ranch CAP Canal Patton Rd APS 500 kV White Tan ks Fwy Jomax Rd Final Report Final Report - Turner Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study I-10 to SR-74 Page xv I I-10 Miller Rd Rooks Rd Oglesby Rd Turner Rd Wilson Ave See Exhibit 3: Corridor Alignment- Middle Segment Sun Valley Parkway South Segment The Preferred Corridor Alignment for Turner Parkway in the South Segment (Exhibit 2) extends from the I-10/SR-85 interchange to the Olive Avenue alignment at the southern end of the White Tank Mountain Regional Park. Resolution of the design of Turner Parkway with I-10/SR-85 traffic interchange connection was beyond the scope of this study. Immediately north of the future Turner Parkway/I-10/SR-85 interchange area, the Preferred Corridor Alignment proceeds in a west by northwest direction toward the Turner Road section line (275th Avenue) one mile to the west. It intersects the section line at a point that will permit an adequate tangent length along the section line to avoid a skewed intersection of Turner Parkway with Van Buren Street. The Turner Parkway alignment continues north along the section line from Van Buren Street to the future McDowell Parkway. North of McDowell Parkway, Turner Parkway proceeds north to the Bethany Home Road alignment and continues north in a meandering fashion through the Anthem Sun Valley master-planned st community. It shifts east to 271 Avenue, approximately one-quarter mile north of Bethany Home Road, and follows 271st Avenue for approximately one mile. Between Glendale Avenue and Northern Avenue, it shifts back west to the Turner Road section line. The Preferred Corridor Alignment follows the section line until it passes Northern Avenue. North st of Northern Avenue, it shifts east again, intersecting Olive Avenue at the 271 Avenue alignment. Middle Segment The Middle Segment of the Preferred Corridor Alignment (Exhibit 3) extends from the southern end of the White Tank Mountain Regional Park (in the vicinity of the Olive Avenue alignment) to just north of the future alignment of Happy Valley Road. In the southern portion of this segment, Turner Parkway continues north from Olive Avenue, turning back to the west before reaching Peoria Avenue. It crosses Peoria Avenue west of 271st Avenue, then picks up 273rd Avenue and follows it to Cactus Road. At Cactus Road, the Preferred Corridor Alignment takes up a north by northwest route, crossing the Turner Road section line at an angle. Approximately one-half mile south of Greenway Road, the Preferred Corridor Alignment picks up the alignment of 281st Avenue and goes straight north for one-mile. It enters the Sun Valley Villages master-planned community at the intersection of the Greenway Road and 281st Avenue alignments. Approximately one-half mile north of Greenway Road, Turner Parkway returns to the north by northwest route, crossing Wagner Wash before intersecting with Sun Valley Parkway. Turner Parkway continues in a northwesterly direction, turning north along the general alignment of 287th Avenue south of Beardsley Parkway. Continuing north, Turner Parkway crosses the CAP canal east of the Palo Verde Road section th line approximately at 289 Avenue. North of the CAP canal, the alignment immediately turns to the east, passing through the canal-created flood pool area for a distance of approximately three-quarters of a mile. The alignment turns in a north by northeast direction Final Report Turner Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study I-10 to SR- 74 Page xvi at the 281st Avenue alignment and continues through the Festival Ranch master-planned community. It crosses into the Spurlock Ranch master-planned community near the intersection of Pinnacle Peak Road and 279th Avenue approximately 1½ miles north of the CAP canal. North of Pinnacle Peak Road, Turner Parkway transitions back to the Baseline Corridor Alignment, continuing northeast to the Turner Road section line (275th Avenue) at Happy Valley Road. North Segment The Preferred Corridor Alignment for Turner Parkway in the North Segment (Exhibit 4) continues in a generally northerly direction from Happy Valley Road through predominantly ASLD land to the future westward extension of SR-74. Turner Parkway crosses the potential White Tanks Freeway between Patton Road and the Jomax Road alignment. As it approaches Black Mountain Road, the Preferred Corridor Alignment shifts to the west to minimize impacts on drainage and reduce facility costs. North of Black Mountain Road, Turner Parkway follows a route along the 281st Avenue alignment, shifting back to the th 279 Avenue alignment north of the Joy Ranch Road alignment. The Preferred Corridor Alignment shifts to the west north of the Desert Hills Road alignment and south of Little San Domingo Wash. This shift will permit Turner Parkway to connect with the proposed SR-74 Freeway extension west of US-60 and the BNSF Railway corridor. This alignment adjustment is consistent with preliminary long-range planning for the major street system of the City of Surprise.1 The exact alignment and connection of Turner Parkway with the proposed SR-74 Freeway will be identified by others subsequent to future, more detailed studies. Preferred Corridor Alignment Characteristics Exhibit 5 provides a summary of principal characteristics of the Preferred Corridor Alignment. Planning-Level Cost Estimate The estimated total cost of developing the Preferred Corridor Alignment Concept is $478.7 million in 2009 dollars (Exhibit 6). This estimate includes: $310.9 million for construction; $114.2 million for right-of-way; and $53.6 million for major structural elements. No cost has been estimated for the parkway-to-freeway interchange at the potential White Tanks Freeway. The exact alignment and connection of Turner Parkway with the potential White Tanks Freeway will be identified through future studies. 1 “Overview, Special Planning Area 4 and 5,” Long Range Major Street Plan, City of Surprise, December 2008. Final Report Turner Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study I-10 to SR- 74 Page xvii Exhibit 5 Summary of Preferred Corridor Alignment Facility Characteristic Segment Length (Miles) Number of Lane Miles (Assumes a six-lane parkway crosssection) South Segment Middle Segment North Segment Total 10.00 11.35 11.03 32.38 60 68.10 66.18 194.28 19 9 21 49 30 17 4 51 16 2 2 20 65 28 27 120 153 97 250 174 105 279 0 267 267 327 469 796 Number of Drainage Crossings Small Medium Large Total Right-of-Way Requirement (acres) Private State/Federal Total Source: the CK Group February, 2010 Exhibit 6 Planning-Level Project Total Cost Estimate (Millions of 2009 $$) Breakdown Anticipated Roadway Construction Cost1 Roadway Right-of-Way 2 Major Structural Elements PGSI3 White Tanks Freeway Interchange4 CAP Canal Crossing Total Estimated Project Cost South Segment Middle Segment North Segment Total $96.0 $109.0 $105.9 $310.9 $35.7 $40.0 $38.5 $114.2 $21.3 - $21.3 $11.0 - $42.6 $11.0 $153.0 $181.3 $144.4 $478.7 Notes: 1) Unit costs for roadway construction developed by averaging estimated roadway construction costs reported in recently completed MCDOT planning studies conducted for similar parkway facilities in years 2007 and 2008. 2) Unit costs for right-of-way were provided by MCDOT, which considered properties sold in 2006 around the study area. 3) Arizona Parkway Intersection/Interchange Operational Analysis and Design Concepts Study, MCDOT and Wilson & Company, September 2009. 4) Cost for the interchange with potential White Tanks Freeway not included, to be identified through future studies. Source: the CK Group February, 2010 Additional/Technical Information For detailed information on the alignment feasibility, please reference the remainder of this document and/or the Technical Memoranda 1 though 6 included as appendices to this report. Final Report Turner Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study I-10 to SR- 74 Page xviii 1 INTRODUCTION In keeping with its commitment to sensible growth, Maricopa County Department of Transportation (MCDOT) undertook the Turner Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study, Interstate 10 (I-10) to State Route 74 (SR-74). This study is the first in a series of studies to be conducted to evaluate the feasibility of constructing future parkways in Maricopa County. These parkways have been identified in the Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) Interstate 10 (I-10)/Hassayampa Valley Roadway Framework Study, accepted by the MAG Regional Council in February 2008. This Final Report documents the findings and conclusions of the Turner Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study. Information presented herein is based on findings and conclusions derived through preparation and review of six (6) technical memoranda, including: Project Work Plan (Technical Memorandum #1) Existing and Future Study Area Characteristics (Technical Memorandum #2) Environmental Overview (Technical Memorandum #3) Conceptual Drainage Report (Technical Memorandum #4) Corridor Alternatives Development and Evaluation (Technical Memorandum #5) and Addendum; and Preferred Corridor Alignment (Technical Memorandum #6). 1.1 Project Overview Based on the Transportation Framework Recommendation of the I-10/Hassayampa Valley Roadway Framework Study, a Baseline Corridor Alignment was defined for the purpose of feasibility analysis and evaluation during this study. It is anticipated that Turner Parkway will be integrated with the existing I-10/SR-85 traffic interchange; however, as noted above, the precise manner of this integration was beyond the scope of this study. Turner Parkway will follow the general alignment of the Turner Road section line northward. Variations in the alignment have been noted and identified within the context of committed rights-of-way established through the plan development process of several master-planned communities intersected by the Turner Parkway corridor. Turner Parkway, in effect, will be a northerly extension of State Route 85 (SR-85), originating at the existing I-10/SR-85 traffic interchange and terminating at the interchange of SR-74 /US-60. This feasibility study was based on Turner Parkway being constructed in accordance with the MCDOT Design Guideline Recommendations for the Arizona Parkway (August, 2008). An Arizona Parkway is a high-capacity facility that functions with indirect left-turns, permitting expeditious progress of through movements and minimizing traffic conflict points at Final Report Turner Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study I-10 to SR- 74 Page 1-1 intersections, thereby reducing the potential for crashes. Drivers desiring to turn left must first turn right then make a U-turn at a median crossover downstream from the intersection. The Arizona Parkway concept relies on a 200-foot right-of-way to accommodate the indirect left-turn functionality of the facility. The 200-foot right-of-way also supports inclusion of bicycle and pedestrian facilities to encourage multi-modal travel. The Arizona Parkway concept has been accepted for future high-capacity corridors in the West Valley by MAG, MCDOT, the Town of Buckeye, City of Surprise and the City of Goodyear. Turner Parkway has been identified as a future high-capacity corridor needed to support projected growth in the West Valley. Therefore, Turner Parkway has been designated as an Arizona Parkway facility. 1.2 Purpose of the Study The Turner Parkway corridor is located in Northwestern Maricopa County west of the White Tank Mountains. This area of Maricopa County is projected to experience significant growth in the future with the addition of approximately 1.2 million new residents through the Buildout. The corridor traverses partially built and numerous proposed master-planned communities at various stages in the planning process. The existing and future development potential within and surrounding the corridor amplifies the importance of Turner Parkway as a local and regional facility. This study examines the feasibility of constructing Turner Parkway and establishes guidance for preservation of right-of-way to assure functional integrity of the corridor. This study was guided by a set of achievable goals set forth by the study team to best meet the regional and local transportation and economic needs of the study area and beyond. The study goals for the Turner Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study are listed below: Achieve Roadway Network Continuity and Connectivity; Enhance Traffic Flow (Capacity) and Safety; Preserve the Environment; and Develop Consensus Driven Improvement Alternatives. In addition, a set of objectives was established to guide study activities and give focus to the planning and engineering analyses. The primary objectives were: Define and evaluate the corridor study area; Establish a Baseline Corridor Alignment consistent with the Transportation Framework Recommendation resulting from the I-10/Hassayampa Valley Roadway Framework Study; Develop and evaluate Conceptual Alignment Alternatives, as necessary, within the corridor study area, based on a “fatal flaws” analysis methodology; and Final Report Turner Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study I-10 to SR- 74 Page 1-2 Recommend a feasible Preferred Corridor Alignment. It is clearly understood that the participation and support of study area stakeholders and residents is paramount to the achievement of the study goals and objectives. Forward-looking planning processes need to be initiated for this corridor to provide a basis for the preservation of right-of-way for this major region-serving parkway facility. Thus, the identified corridor is the focus of planning efforts to: (1) preserve right-of-way and assure the functional integrity of the corridor; (2) attain vital regional connectivity; (3) conserve environmental qualities; and (4) protect natural drainage patterns of sensitive alluvial fans. In addition, connections with I-10 and SR-74, which is proposed to be a freeway and extend westward, must be considered. However, this study does not address nor resolve these future connections, which must be the subject of future, more detailed engineering design studies. These and other existing and future corridor conditions, as well as tremendous growth within and around the study area, reinforce the need from a local and regional perspective to complete this Turner Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study. 1.3 Study Area This section provides a brief overview of the principal features and characteristics of the Turner Parkway study area. 1.3.1 Location Turner Parkway, in effect, will be a northerly extension of SR-85 and is expected to originate in the region of the current location of the traffic interchange for SR-85 at I-10. The study area stretches from I-10 approximately 32 miles north to SR 74 and is roughly defined by a two-mile wide buffer. The study area for the Turner Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study is shown in Figure 1-1. 1.3.2 Size and Extent The study area encompasses approximately 83,200 acres or 130 square miles. It is situated almost wholly within the watershed of the Hassayampa River. The Central Arizona Project (CAP) canal, a water delivery system that stretches from the Colorado River to Tucson, is a major man-made feature crossing the study area. Construction of the canal has influenced some natural processes in the study area and affected regional mobility. White Tank Mountain Regional Park portions of which falls within the study area, occupies approximately 30,000 acres and is the largest regional park in Maricopa County. Final Report Turner Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study I-10 to SR- 74 Page 1-3 R 5W R 4W R 3W T 6N Morristown Morristown COUNTY COUNTY AREAS AREAS Figure 1-1 Study Area Map D A " ) 74 t u 60 Circle Circle City City Source: MCDOT, September 2008 " ) BBN N GG SSFF rraa R nnd Raail d A ilrroo Avv aad ee d T 5N ) Wittmann Wittman " Black Mountain Rd Legend Dove Valley Rd Study Area Lone Mountain Rd Dixileta Dr White Tank Mtn Regional Park Patton Rd S " S " " S T 4N al l CCaanna CCAAPP S " S " " S " S Arizona Army National Guard Buckeye Training Site Jomax Rd S CAP Bridge Structure S CAP Drainage Structure Happy Valley Rd Pinnacle Peak Rd S " S" Central Arizona Project Canal SURPRISE SURPRISE Deer Valley Rd Sun Sun Valley Valley Parkway Parkway Beardsley Rd " ) Towns ’ ­ Traffic Interchange Union Hills Rd Railroad Bell Rd Major Roadways Greenway Rd COUNTY COUNTY AREAS AREAS T 3N BUCKEYE BUCKEYE Minor Roadways Waddell Rd Planning Areas Cactus Rd Buckeye Planning Area Peoria Ave Olive Ave City of Surprise Planning Area Northern Ave County Areas Glendale Ave Surprise and Buckeye Planning Areas Overlap T 2N Bethany Home Rd Camelback Rd Municipal Limits Indian School Rd Buckeye Thomas Rd Surprise McDowell Rd ’ ­ " ) Hopeville ’ ­ ’ ­ Hopeville § ¨ ¦ 10 Yuma Rd D A Lower Buckeye Rd Rainbow Rd Watson Rd Apache Rd Miller Rd Rooks Rd Oglesby Rd Turner Rd Wilson Ave Palo Verde Rd Bruner Rd 85 Johnson Rd T 1N Van Buren St Final Report Turner Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study I-10 to SR-74 Page 1-4 I 0 1 2 Miles 1.3.3 Topography With the exception of a portion of White Tank Mountains and the northern terminus of the study area, the majority of the study area is relatively flat. As shown in Figure 1-2, south of the CAP canal, study area slopes are directly related to the presence of the White Tank Mountains. At the south end of the study area, slopes trend towards Buckeye; farther north, slopes trend westward from the mountains to the Hassayampa River; and, at the north end of the mountains, slopes trend toward the canal. The range, deeply serrated with ridges and canyons, rises sharply from its base to peak at over 4,000 feet. Infrequent heavy rains cause flash floodwaters to plunge through the canyons and pour onto the alluvial plains below. North of the CAP Canal, the study area mostly slopes southwards towards the CAP canal; in fact, a detention flood pool has been created where storm water runoff accumulates against the canal, which is above natural grade. The northwestern portion of the study area is an exception. Here there are numerous drainage features with an east-west orientation, merging with the Hassayampa River’s floodplains. 1.3.4 Visual Character The viewshed or viewscape within the study area varies by location, but includes a mixture of residential land use, transportation infrastructure, overhead utility corridors, and areas of undeveloped desert landscape. The majority of the study area is vacant and undisturbed, and in its natural state. Modern disturbances, which create a visual contrast with the natural setting include: I-10/SR-85 Interchange, Buckeye Flood Retarding Structure (FRS) No.1, the Sun Valley Parkway, the CAP canal, an abandoned Luke Air Force Base Auxiliary Field No. 4, scattered residential development, the BNSF Railway corridor, US-60, and SR-74. The natural physical landscape in the immediate vicinity of the study area is more reflective of the Hassayampa River Valley to the west, tributary washes and channels flowing to the river, and associated vegetation. Distant views are visually dominated silhouettes of the White Tank Mountains to the east and more distant mountains to the north and west. 1.3.5 Development Pattern Several master-planned communities proposed in the study area are currently in various stages of development. A significant amount of the undeveloped parcels of land along the study corridor is owned by State Land. The major of existing development is in the central portion of the study area directly south of the CAP canal. Sun City Festival Ranch, a master-planned community is partially developed between the canal and Sun Valley Parkway. Beyond this, there is the small community of Morristown at the north end of the study area and scattered, rural residential development to the west of this community. Final Report Turner Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study I-10 to SR- 74 Page 1-5 R 5W R 4W R 3W Morristown Morristown T 6N Figure 1-2 Study Area Topography D A " ) 74 San San ! ? Domingo Domingo Wash Wash t u 60 Circle Circle City City Sources: MCDOT, FCDMC, September 2008 " ) BBN N GG SSFF rraa R nnd Raail d A ilrroo Avv aad ee d Black Mountain Rd Legend HHaasssa sayyaam mppaa RRiv iveerr T 5N hh ass Wa yyW iliblb sshh TTrr Waa aaW IoIonn 88EE SS00 W 33W NNRR TT44 sshh Waa W sst t Wee 33W ) Wittmann Wittman " Dove Valley Rd Study Area Lone Mountain Rd Jomax Rd S CAP Bridge Structure Happy Valley Rd S CAP Drainage Structure aa IoIonn T 4N S " S " Arizona Army National Guard Buckeye Training Site Patton Rd S " S " " S Pinnacle Peak Rd S " S" al l CCaanna CCAAPP White Tank Mtn Regional Park Dixileta Dr " S " S Sun Sun Valley Valley Parkway Parkway Central Arizona Project Canal Deer Valley Rd " ) Communities Beardsley Rd ’ ­ Existing Traffic Interchanges Railroad W W W Wa aaggn assh neer h r Union Hills Rd T 3N Bell Rd ? Railroad Crossing Greenway Rd Major Roadways Waddell Rd Minor Roadways Cactus Rd Floodplains Peoria Ave Elevation (ft) Olive Ave 1260 - 1380 1721 - 1800 1381 - 1470 1801 - 1880 1471 - 1560 1881 - 1970 1561 - 1640 1971 - 2080 1641 - 1720 2081 - 2240 Northern Ave Glendale Ave T 2N Bethany Home Rd Camelback Rd Indian School Rd Thomas Rd McDowell Rd ’ ­ " ) Hopeville ’ ­ ’ ­ Hopeville § ¨ ¦ 10 Yuma Rd D A Lower Buckeye Rd Rainbow Rd Watson Rd Apache Rd Miller Rd Rooks Rd Oglesby Rd Turner Rd Wilson Ave Palo Verde Rd Bruner Rd 85 Johnson Rd T 1N Van Buren St Final Report Turner Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study I-10 to SR-74 Page 1-6 I 0 1 2 Miles 1.4 Study Process This study was accomplished within the framework of a public outreach program developed and implemented to assure adequate opportunity for public input while establishing the Preferred Corridor Alignment. The Turner Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study included public open houses, Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) meetings, individual meetings with corridor stakeholders, and numerous project meetings involving County staff. Agencies constituting the TAC, along with MCDOT and Flood Control District of Maricopa County (FCDMC) staff, included: Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG), City of Surprise, Town of Buckeye, Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT), Arizona State Land Department (ASLD), Luke Air Force Base (LAFB), Arizona Game and Fish Department (AZGFD), the Central Arizona Water Conservation District (CAWCD), Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ), Arizona Army National Guard, and major area developers. The TAC members participated in numerous meetings and contributed to the development of the study results. To satisfy the requirements of this corridor feasibility study, three (3) phases of activity were conducted: Scoping; Planning; and Preliminary Engineering. A series of technical memoranda were prepared to document the results of these separate phases of the study. 1.4.1 Scoping Phase The Scoping Phase, which included development of the Project Work Plan for this study, was completed early in the process. A Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) was assembled composed of key project stakeholders. A day-long Scoping Workshop, facilitated by RH & Associates, was conducted for the TAC at MCDOT on February 13, 2008. Key project stakeholders were provided an opportunity to express their concerns regarding the proposed Turner Parkway and the identified corridor study area. Results of the Scoping Workshop were published in Technical Memorandum #1, Project Work Plan (Appendix A). Key outcomes of the Scoping Phase include: Statement of the Problem; Boundary of the Study Area; Identification of Study Goals and Objectives; Establishment of Evaluation Criteria; and Identification of Primary Issues and Challenges. Final Report Turner Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study I-10 to SR- 74 Page 1-7 1.4.2 Planning Phase The planning phase of this effort included the study of existing and future conditions along the study corridor, including: traffic, environmental resources, major utilities, and drainage. During the Planning Phase, all general background information regarding corridor conditions was gathered, inventoried, and described. Existing and future traffic conditions were established and evaluated. Challenges and constraints to facility development were identified and evaluated. This inventory and analysis process provided the basis for identifying potential fatal flaws and defining a feasible alignment of Turner Parkway that will satisfy future travel needs. A broad consensus of the overall needs and vision of the corridor was formed by working closely with the TAC, stakeholders, and the public. Three (3) technical memoranda were prepared during the course of the Planning Phase: Technical Memorandum #2: Existing and Future Study Area Features (Appendix B); Technical Memorandum #3: Environmental Overview (Appendix C); and Technical Memorandum #4: Conceptual Drainage Report (Appendix D). 1.4.3 Conceptual Engineering Phase The Conceptual Engineering Phase included definition and evaluation of preliminary alternatives for the corridor, as required to address potential fatal flaws. This phase was initiated with identification of the Baseline Corridor Alignment. The Baseline Corridor Alignment facilitated identification of potential fatal flaws and enabled definition of technically feasible conceptual improvement alternatives. Alternatives were directed towards meeting identified transportation needs within the context of future Buildout conditions in the study area. They were evaluated for technical engineering and environmental feasibility, public acceptability, and economic viability. Detailed analyses, which included identification of mitigation measures for undesirable impacts were conducted as required, to resolve critical constraints. The alternatives analysis process yielded adequate information to compare the costs and benefits of competing engineering solutions and identify a Preferred Corridor Alignment. The Preferred Corridor Alignment reflects the optimal feasible location for Turner Parkway within the corridor. A preliminary probable estimate of capital costs to complete construction of Turner Parkway was prepared during this phase of the study. Two (2) technical memoranda and an addendum were prepared during the Preliminary Engineering phase: Technical Memorandum #5: Corridor Alternative and Evaluation and Evaluation & Addendum to Technical Memorandum #5 (Appendix E); and Technical Memorandum #6: Preferred Alternative (Appendix F). Final Report Turner Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study I-10 to SR- 74 Page 1-8 1.5 Public Involvement Overview Three (3) public input meetings and five (5) Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) meetings were held over the course of the study. Two (2) of the three (3) public input meetings were Public Open House meetings hosted by MCDOT on May 6, 2009 and May 24, 2010. The third and final public input meeting was a Public Education Forum hosted by the Town of Buckeye on October 20, 2009. A combined total of about 1,000 people attended these public meetings, during which the public had the opportunity to ask questions, provide input, as well as share their concerns. A summary of public involvement prepared by MCDOT is included in Appendix G. The TAC meetings were held at critical stages of the Project to seek input from various stakeholders and the project study team members. TAC meeting minutes and related material are included in Appendix H. 1.6 Report Organization Following this introductory chapter, this Final Report presents information in five (5) additional chapters, as described below: Chapter 2 – Existing and Future Study Area Characteristics: This chapter presents relevant study area information regarding: socioeconomic characteristics, existing physical features, existing and future roadway characteristics, land ownership and jurisdiction, travel demand modeling and analysis results, and existing and planned utilities. Additional details regarding and discussion of this subject may be referenced in Technical Memorandum No. 2, Existing and Future Study Area Features. Chapter 3 – Summary of Environmental Conditions: This chapter summarizes information regarding existing natural, physical, socioeconomic, environmental, biological and cultural resources within the study area. Environmental information establishes the basis for identifying and evaluating potential impacts associated with the alternative Turner Parkway alignments. Additional details regarding and discussion of this subject may be referenced in Technical Memorandum No. 3, Environmental Overview. Chapter 4 – Summary of Drainage Attributes: This chapter summarizes an overview of existing drainage conditions including drainage features such as natural washes, alluvial fans and floodplains; drainage channels, flood retarding and hydraulic structures; Additional details regarding and discussion of this subject may be referenced in Technical Memorandum No. 4, Conceptual Drainage Report. Chapter 5 – Development and Evaluation of Alignment Alternatives: This chapter documents the results of the feasibility assessment and addresses: facility design criteria and evaluation Final Report Turner Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study I-10 to SR- 74 Page 1-9 methodology; evaluation of the feasibility of the Baseline Corridor Alignment, definition of Conceptual Alignment Alternatives (where appropriate); evaluation of Conceptual Alignment Alternatives and special analysis areas; and formulation of summary of findings. Additional details regarding and discussion of this subject may be referenced in Technical Memorandum No. 5, Corridor Alternatives Development and Evaluation and Addendum to Technical Memorandum #5. Chapter 6 – Preferred Corridor Alignment: This chapter provides a definition of the Preferred Corridor Alignment Concept, establishes basic access management guidelines, and presents planning-level cost estimates for principal elements of the Turner Parkway facility. Additional details regarding and discussion of this subject may be referenced in Technical Memorandum No. 6, Preferred Corridor Alignment. Final Report Turner Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study I-10 to SR- 74 Page 1-10 2 EXISTING AND FUTURE STUDY AREA CHARACTERISTICS This chapter outlines the social, physical, and natural characteristics defining the existing and forecast future conditions in the study area. The information in this chapter provides foundational information regarding existing and future socioeconomic conditions in the study area, existing physical features and qualities, and prominent natural resources. Knowledge of existing characteristics provides a baseline from which to judge potential effects of project development actions. Knowledge of future conditions provides supported identification, definition, and evaluation of alternatives and, ultimately, selection of a Preferred Corridor Alignment. Specific information is provided pertaining to: demographics and environmental justice; land use; existing roadway system; expectations for future travel demand associated with projected growth; and major utilities. Additional details regarding the physical and natural characteristics of the study area are contained in Technical Memorandum No. 2, Existing and Future Study Area Features, which is provided in Appendix B. 2.1 Socioeconomic Characteristics This section presents information relating to the existing and future population and employment in the study area. A section also is included that addresses the issues of environmental justice relative to the development of transportation facilities. 2.1.1 Travel Demand Model Influence Area The Turner Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study utilized available MAG socioeconomic projections and associated travel demand forecasts developed as part of the I10/Hassayampa Valley Roadway Framework Study. The study has been accepted by the MAG Regional Council and participating jurisdictions in the study area. Population and employment projections developed by MAG have been used to determine the estimated growth in the Turner Parkway model influence area (Model Influence Area) shown in Figure 2-1. The Model Influence Area encompasses approximately 596 square miles of the 9,223-square-mile MAG planning area. It incorporates 78 Socioeconomic Analysis Zones (SAZs) selected from the MAG regional travel demand model. These zones are used as Transportation Analysis Zones (TAZs) for the purpose of modeling future travel demand associated with population and employment projections. The MAG projections established expected Buildout conditions by estimating population and employment totals for TAZs that reflect the future development vision of each affected jurisdiction. Thus, the updated Buildout database incorporates recommendations of current General Plans and Comprehensive Plans of MAG member agencies having jurisdiction within the study area. Community General Final Report Turner Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study I-10 to SR- 74 Page 2-1 Figure 2-1 Model Influence Area 0 -6 US Source: MAG I-10 Hassayampa Valley Roadway Framework Study General Plan Buildout Socioeconomic Data by TAZI03, September, 2010 SR-7 4 Legend Black Mountain Rd 4 Mile Corridor Study Area Model Influence Area Dove Valley Rd Lone Mountain Rd Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) Dixileta Dr Patton Rd Jomax Rd XXX TAZ Number Happy Valley Rd Pinnacle Peak Rd Deer Valley Rd Beardsley Rd Union Hills Rd Bell Rd Greenway Rd Waddell Rd Cactus Rd Peoria Ave Olive Ave Northern Ave Glendale Ave Bethany Home Rd Camelback Rd Indian School Rd Thomas Rd I-10 McDowell Rd Van Buren St Yuma Rd Lower Buckeye Rd Final Report Turner Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study I-10 to SR 74 Page 2-2 Citrus Rd/179th Ave Perryville Rd/187th Ave Jackrabbit Tr/195th Ave Dean Rd Airport Rd Watson Rd Rainbow Rd Apache Rd Miller Rd Rooks Rd Turner Rd Oglesby Rd Wilson Rd Bruner Rd Sun Valley Pkwy Johnson Rd 331st Ave 323rd Ave 339th Ave 347th Ave 355th Ave 371st Ave 363rd Ave 379th Ave I 0 2 Miles 4 Plans reflect expectations for annexation and expansion into the municipal planning area (MPA). Therefore, Buildout represents the best current understanding of how the region will develop in the long-term. There is no set timeframe within which Buildout will occur, but, generally, it is viewed as occurring during the next 30 to 50 years. Figure 2-2 depicts the MPA boundaries for each jurisdiction within the Model Influence Area. Potential land development patterns for State Trust Lands controlled by ASLD also were considered. State Trust Lands cover a significant portion of the Model Influence Area and study area. The ASLD holds these lands for eventual disposition by sale or lease to support Arizona public schools. The ASLD works with the State’s various jurisdictions to develop conceptual plans accommodating an appropriate use of State Lands. The General Plans of each jurisdiction and the Buildout projections developed by MAG reflect the results of this cooperative activity. Population and employment estimates contained in adopted General Plans and Comprehensive Plans were enhanced by MAG for the I-10/Hassayampa Valley Roadway Framework Study through examination of current land development plans and any known information on development trends. 2.1.2 Existing and Future Population Table 2-1 indicates the population within the Turner Parkway travel demand Model Influence Area is projected to reach almost 85,000 residents in Year 2015, in contrast to less than 17,000 in Year 2005. This represents a 400 percent increase in population in ten (10) years, and results in a projected population density of approximately 142 residents per square mile compared to a population density of only 28 residents per square mile in Year 2005. The population of the Model Influence Area is projected to increase by approximately 169,000 residents between Years 2015 and 2030, representing a 200 percent growth. The population in Year 2030 is projected by MAG to be three (3) times greater than in Year 2015. For this same period, the overall population density is expected to increase from 426 residents per square mile to 1,995 residents per square mile. Table 2-1 Model Influence Area Population and Growth Projections Socioeconomic Data Year 20151 20301 Buildout2 16,480 84,983 254,077 1,189,547 28 142 426 1,995 2005 Total Population Population per Square Mile a 1 Prepared by: Wilson & Company, September 2008. Notes: Approximately 596 square miles in Model Influence Area. Source: 1) MAG Year 2005 Socioeconomic Data by TAZI03, August 2007. 2) MAG Interstate 10 - Hassayampa Valley Roadway Framework Study General Plan Buildout Socioeconomic Data by TAZI03, September 2006. Final Report Turner Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study I-10 to SR- 74 Page 2-3 Figure 2-2 Municipal Planning Areas and Corporate 0 -6 US Limits Source: Maricopa County Web site, Sep 2008 SR-7 4 Legend Black Mountain Rd Study Area Dove Valley Rd Model Influence Area Lone Mountain Rd Planning Areas Dixileta Dr Town of Buckeye Patton Rd Jomax Rd City of Surprise Happy Valley Rd Pinnacle Peak Rd Buckeye & Surprise Deer Valley Rd Beardsley Rd Town of Wickenburg Union Hills Rd County Areas Bell Rd Greenway Rd Waddell Rd Municipal Limits Cactus Rd Town of Buckeye Peoria Ave City of Surprise Olive Ave Northern Ave Town of Wickenburg Glendale Ave Bethany Home Rd Camelback Rd Indian School Rd Thomas Rd I-10 McDowell Rd Van Buren St Yuma Rd Lower Buckeye Rd Final Report Turner Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study I-10 to SR 74 Pa ge 2-4 Citrus Rd/179th Ave Perryville Rd/187th Ave Jackrabbit Tr/195th Ave Airport Rd Dean Rd Watson Rd Rainbow Rd Apache Rd Miller Rd Rooks Rd Turner Rd Oglesby Rd Wilson Rd Bruner Rd Sun Valley Pkwy Johnson Rd 331st Ave 323rd Ave 347th Ave 339th Ave 355th Ave 371st Ave 363rd Ave 379th Ave I 0 2 Miles 4 Under Buildout conditions, the population is projected to be 4.7 times greater than in the Year 2030.2 2.1.3 Existing and Future Employment Table 2-2 presents existing and projected employment for the Model Influence Area. The data show employment is expected to grow at a lower rate than population between Years 2005 and 2015. Still, employment increases are projected to add more than 20,000 jobs to the Model Influence Area by the Year 2015, representing an increase of more than 350 percent. In the next 15 year period from Year 2015 to Year 2030, the expansion in employment will exceed population growth. Projections indicate employment in Year 2030 will be 4.2 times greater with the addition of more than 82,000 jobs. Employment is then projected to grow at a more moderate rate and less than population as Buildout approaches. Table 2-2 Study Area Employment Growth Projections Socioeconomic Data Year Total Jobs 20051 20151 20301 Buildout2 5,690 25,777 107,791 361,712 10 43 180 606 a Jobs per Square Mile Prepared by: Wilson & Company, September 2008. Notes: a) Approximately 596 square miles in Model Influence Area. Source: 1) MAG Year 2005 Socioeconomic Data by TAZI03, August 2007. 2) MAG Interstate 10 - Hassayampa Valley Roadway Framework Study General Plan Buildout Socioeconomic Data by TAZI03, September 2006. The number of jobs in the Model Influence Area is projected to more than triple from Year 2030 to Buildout with the addition of approximately 254,000 jobs. However, as noted above, population at Buildout is projected to be 4.7 times greater than the Year 2030 projection. Employment density at Buildout is projected to reach 606 jobs per square mile. This compares to an employment density of only ten (10) jobs per square mile in Year 2005. The largest percent change in employment density is projected to occur between Year 2005 2 Buildout is defined as all land within the Planning Area being designated with appropriate land use based on a series of criteria, including land ownership patterns, topographic and environmental constraints and opportunities, development opportunities, infrastructure support, and private property rights. Final Report Turner Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study I-10 to SR- 74 Page 2-5 and Year 2015. During the twenty-five year period between Year 2005 and Year 2030, employment growth in the Model Influence Area will result in eighteen (18) times more jobs. 2.1.4 Title VI, Environmental Justice Assessment Project sponsors receiving federal funds to develop and implement transportation infrastructure projects are required to follow Title VI regulations of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Act states that no person can be denied the benefits of, be excluded from participating in, or be subjected to discrimination by any program receiving federal financial assistance on the grounds of race, color, or national origin. Executive Order 12898, “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations,” issued in 1994, reaffirms the principles of Title VI and related statutes. The Executive Order requires consideration of low-income, minority, disabled, female, and elderly populations in selecting and approving transportation infrastructure improvement projects. The potential presence of Title VI population groups within the study area was assessed based on demographic data from the U.S. Census 2000. The Environmental Justice population by category is shown in Table 2-3. Compared to the state average, the study area has less of a minority population and female head of household with children younger than eighteen (18) years old. Elderly persons (age 60 or more) and people older than five (5) years old with a disability occur at higher percentages within the study area than the state average; families in poverty are represented at a lower percentage than the state average. However, the study area is largely undeveloped lands and residences are widely scattered. Construction of Turner Parkway, as currently conceived, is not likely to result in displacements or relocations of residents or businesses, or cause substantive disruptions to existing neighborhoods. Therefore, it is not anticipated that constructing Turner Parkway will have a disproportionately high or adverse impact on Title VI populations. Table 2-3 Environmental Justice Population by Category Population Category Study Area Surprise Buckeye AZ State Minority Population 11.0% 13.6% 26.8% 24.5% Population of age 60 or more 20.5% 34.1% 10.9% 16.9% Families in Poverty 7.3% 5.6% 16.2% 9.9% 17.1% 18.0% 20.4% 17.4% 5.4% 4.8% 15.2% 10.6% Population Age 5 and Over with Disability Female Head of Household with Children Less than 18 years of age Source: U.S. Census 2000. Final Report Turner Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study I-10 to SR- 74 Page 2-6 2.2 Land Use Travel demand is a function of the socioeconomic characteristics of an area and the growth and development patterns that occur in response to those characteristics. The previous section addressed projected increases in population and employment in the study area. This section provides a discussion of the existing and expected future land use pattern, based on current opinion contained in published plans of jurisdictions with authority in the study area. It also establishes foundational information regarding the existing roadway system and the level of travel demand anticipated to be associated with the expected growth and development pattern. The following two sections present information regarding the existing pattern of land uses in the study area and the expected future pattern. 2.2.1 Existing Land Use In general, the entire study area can be characterized as undeveloped desert. There are only two areas of existing development with the study area. The Sun City Festival Ranch master-planned community is situated between the CAP canal and Sun Valley Parkway. Only the eastern portion of this community has been developed to date. The second area of development is the community of Morristown at the north end of the study area. This community is largely located east of US-60; however, scattered rural residential development is present directly to the west between US-60 and the Hassayampa River. Figure 2-3 depicts the general pattern of existing land use within the study area. Land uses were derived from property use code (PUC) data provided by the Maricopa County Assessor’s Office for study area parcels and consolidated into four (4) categories: agriculture, commercial, residential and vacant. The breakdown of existing land use for the study area is summarized in Table 2-4. As shown in the table, the majority (84.7%) of the study area is classified as Vacant, a classification that includes private land holdings, developable State Trust Land controlled by ASLD, and land under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Agricultural, Commercial and Residential land uses constitute 6.5%, 6.1% and 2.7% of the study area, respectively. Table 2-4 Study Area Land Use Distribution Land Use Acres Percentage Vacant 70,527 84.7% Agriculture 5,371 6.5% Commercial 5,099 6.1% Residential 2,203 2.7% Total 83,200 100.00% Source: the CK Group September 2008 Final Report Turner Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study I-10 to SR- 74 Page 2-7 R 5W R 4W R 3W Morristown Morristown Figure 2-3 Existing Land Use D A " ) T 6N 74 t u 60 Circle Circle City City Sources: Maricopa County Assessor, September 2010 " ) BBN N GG SSFF rraa R nnd Raail d A ilrroo Avv ad ee T 5N ) Wittmann Wittman " Black Mountain Rd Legend Dove Valley Rd Lone Mountain Rd Study Area Dixileta Dr White Tank Mountain Regional Park Patton Rd Arizona Army National Guard Buckeye Training Site Jomax Rd Central Arizona Project Canal Happy Valley Rd T 4N al l CCaanna CCAAPP Sun Sun Valley Valley Parkway Parkway " ) Communities Pinnacle Peak Rd Railroads Deer Valley Rd Major Roadways Beardsley Rd Existing Landuse Union Hills Rd Agriculture Bell Rd Commercial Greenway Rd Residential T 3N Waddell Rd Vacant Cactus Rd Peoria Ave Olive Ave Northern Ave Glendale Ave T 2N Bethany Home Rd Camelback Rd Indian School Rd Thomas Rd McDowell Rd Van Buren St T 1N § ¨ ¦ 10 " ) Hopeville Hopeville Yuma Rd D A Lower Buckeye Rd Rainbow Rd Watson Rd Apache Rd Miller Rd Rooks Rd Oglesby Rd Turner Rd Wilson Ave Palo Verde Rd Bruner Rd Johnson Rd 85 Final Report Turner Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study I-10 to SR-74 Page 2-8 I 0 1 2 Miles 2.2.2 Public Land Jurisdiction Land jurisdiction refers to the city, town, county, state, or federal agency or agencies exercising governmental authority, while land ownership is identified as public or private ownership. Figure 2-4 shows the boundaries of the municipal and agency jurisdictions as well as generalized land ownership within the study area. The breakdown of land ownership within the study area is summarized in Table 2-5. The study area extends over a total of approximately 83,200 acres or 130 square miles and is a mosaic of public and private land ownerships. BLM controlled land, military facilities, and regional parks constitute 14.2% of the study area and are unlikely to be transferred to private interest. Table 2-5 Study Area Land Ownership Distribution Land Ownership Acres Percentage Arizona State Trust Land 36,404 43.8% Private 35,036 42.0% Regional Parks 5,812 7.0% Bureau of Land Management 4,770 5.8% Military 1,178 1.4% Total 83,200 100.00% Source: the CK Group September 2008 State Trust Lands, held by the ASLD, constitute the largest portion (43.8%) of the study area. ASLD land ultimately is available for development and may eventually transfer to private interest through either sale or lease. However, the rate at which the land is developed generally cannot be forecast. This agency is charged with the stewardship of State Trust lands. The mission of the ASLD is to enhance value and optimize economic return for designated beneficiaries. The State’s Common Schools (K-12) constitute the largest beneficiary, owning approximately 87% of the State Trust lands and receiving close to 90% of revenue from the sale, usually an auction, of such lands. The ASLD has authority over State Trust lands until they are sold or leased, at which time planning and development authority is transferred to the appropriate municipality or county. In support of its mission, the ASLD initiated an ASLD Conceptual Land Use Plan for the land holdings within the Buckeye MPA to explore opportunities for future auction. The goal of the plan was to reach consensus with adjacent private landowners and create a land use fabric that meshes with the master-planned communities both north and south of ASLD land holdings west of the White Tank Mountains. The study was not completed, and it is on hold. Final Report Turner Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study I-10 to SR- 74 Page 2-9 R 5W R 4W R 3W T 6N Morristown Morristown D A " ) COUNTY COUNTY AREAS AREAS Figure 2-4 Land Ownership & Jurisdiction 74 t u 60 Circle Circle City City Sources: MCDOT, BLM, ASLD, September 2008 " ) BBN N GG SSFF rraa R nnd Raail d A ilrroo Avv aad ee d ) Wittmann Wittman " Black Mountain Rd Legend Dove Valley Rd T 5N Study Area Lone Mountain Rd Central Arizona Project Canal Dixileta Dr Patton Rd " ) Jomax Rd Railroads Happy Valley Rd Major Roadways Pinnacle Peak Rd al l CCaanna CCAAPP T 4N Communities Land Ownership SURPRISE SURPRISE Deer Valley Rd BLM Sun Sun Valley Valley Parkway Parkway Beardsley Rd Local or State Parks Union Hills Rd COUNTY COUNTY AREAS AREAS T 3N BUCKEYE BUCKEYE Bell Rd Military Greenway Rd Private Waddell Rd State Cactus Rd Muncipal Limits White WhiteTank Tank Mountain Mountain Regional Regional Park Park Peoria Ave Buckeye Olive Ave Surprise Northern Ave Glendale Ave T 2N Bethany Home Rd Camelback Rd Indian School Rd Thomas Rd McDowell Rd T 1N Van Buren St Hopeville Hopeville § ¨ ¦ 10 " ) Yuma Rd D A Rainbow Rd Watson Rd Apache Rd Miller Rd Lower Buckeye Rd Rooks Rd Oglesby Rd Turner Rd Wilson Ave Palo Verde Rd Bruner Rd Johnson Rd 85 Final Report Turner Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study I-10 to SR 74 Page 2-10 I 0 1 2 Miles 2.2.3 Future Land Use Assumptions regarding planned future land use in the study area are based on adopted general plans published by agencies and organizations with jurisdiction within the study area. In the case of the Town of Buckeye and City of Surprise, land use planning encompasses the MPA, which is greater than established corporate limits. Therefore, the future land use identified herein includes land currently unincorporated but envisioned for annexation in the future. While land in the study area is mostly vacant, the category of undeveloped land would no longer exist under assumptions relating to anticipated Buildout conditions. Summaries of future land use relative to the principal influences in the study area are provided in the following paragraphs. 2.2.3.1 Town of Buckeye The incorporated municipal boundary of the Town of Buckeye includes approximately 366 square miles of land with an overall MPA encompassing approximately 600 square mile. The area north of I-10 is almost entirely entitled with large master-planned communities. These commitments are expected to result in approximately 290,000 dwelling units (DUs), a projected population of 776,000, and a population density of 4,647 persons per square mile – a development density higher than any other city within the Phoenix metropolitan area. Future land use in the Buckeye MPA is displayed in Figure 2-5. 2.2.3.2 City of Surprise The Surprise MPA is 309 square miles, while the City’s incorporated land area is approximately 94 square miles. Future development in the Surprise MPA within the study area has been given little definition by the City. The Year 2030 projected population for the City of Surprise is approximately 402,500. Future land use in the Surprise MPA is displayed in Figure 2-6. 2.2.3.3 Master-Planned Developments There are eight (8) approved major master-planned communities within the study area. These communities are at various stages of growth; some have yet to break ground. Figure 2-7 shows the major master-planned communities known within the study area, as of August 2008. Most of the land north of I-10 has been defined within the boundaries of several master-planned communities, which will provide various combinations of residential, commercial, mixed-use, open space, and office/employment land uses. The intent of master-planned communities is to provide a balance of uses and activities to foster an integrated live, work, educate, and play environment. Seven (7) master-planned Final Report Turner Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study I-10 to SR- 74 Page 2-11 R 5W R 4W R 3W Morristown Morristown D A " ) Figure 2-5 Buckeye MPA Buildout Land Use T 6N 74 t u 60 Circle Circle City City Source: Town of Buckey, September 2008 " ) BBN N GG SSFF rraa R nnd Raail d A ilrroo Avv aad ee d HHaass ssaayya am mppaa R Riviveer r T 5N ) Wittmann Wittman " Black Mountain Rd Legend Dove Valley Rd Lone Mountain Rd Study Area Dixileta Dr Central Arizona Project Canal Patton Rd " ) Communities Jomax Rd ’ ­ Traffic Interchanges Happy Valley Rd Pinnacle Peak Rd al l CCaanna CCAAPP T 4N Railroads Major Roadways Deer Valley Rd T 3N Sun Sun Valley Valley Parkway Parkway Beardsley Rd Future Land Use Union Hills Rd Low Density Residential Bell Rd Medium Density Residential Greenway Rd Medium High Density Residential Waddell Rd High Density Residential Cactus Rd Commercial Professional Office Employment Peoria Ave Business Park Olive Ave Industrial Northern Ave Master - Planned Community Glendale Ave Military T 2N Bethany Home Rd Mixed Use Camelback Rd Open Space Indian School Rd Thomas Rd McDowell Rd ’ ­ " ) Hopeville ’ ­ ’ ­ Hopeville § ¨ ¦ 10 Yuma Rd D A Lower Buckeye Rd Rainbow Rd Watson Rd Apache Rd Miller Rd Rooks Rd Oglesby Rd Turner Rd Wilson Ave Palo Verde Rd Bruner Rd 85 Johnson Rd T 1N Van Buren St Final Report Turner Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study I-10 to SR 74 Page 2-12 I 0 1 2 Miles R 5W R 4W R 3W Morristown Morristown Figure 2-6 Surprise MPA Buildout Land Use D A " ) T 6N 74 t u 60 Circle Circle City City Source: City of Surprise, September 2008 " ) BBN N GG SSFF rraa R nnd Raail d A ilrroo Avv aad ee d T 5N ) Wittmann Wittman " Black Mountain Rd Legend Dove Valley Rd Study Area Lone Mountain Rd White Tank Mtn Regional Park Dixileta Dr Arizona Army National Guard Buckeye Training Site Patton Rd Jomax Rd Central Arizona Project Canal Happy Valley Rd T 4N al l CCaanna CCAAPP Pinnacle Peak Rd SURPRISE SURPRISE " ) Communities ’ ­ Existing Traffic Interchanges Deer Valley Rd Sun Sun Valley Valley Parkway Parkway Railroads Beardsley Rd Major Roadways Union Hills Rd Aux1 F16 Noise Contours Bell Rd Future Land Use Greenway Rd Rural Residential Waddell Rd T 3N Low Density Residential Cactus Rd Medium High Density Residential Peoria Ave High Density Residential Olive Ave Commercial Northern Ave Employment Glendale Ave Suburb Bethany Home Rd T 2N Military Camelback Rd Open Space Indian School Rd Mixed Use Thomas Rd Airport Preservation McDowell Rd ’ ­ " ) Hopeville ’ ­ ’ ­ Hopeville § ¨ ¦ 10 Yuma Rd D A Lower Buckeye Rd Rainbow Rd Watson Rd Apache Rd Miller Rd Rooks Rd Oglesby Rd Turner Rd Wilson Ave Palo Verde Rd Bruner Rd 85 Johnson Rd T 1N Van Buren St Final Report Turner Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study I-10 to SR-74 Page 2-13 I 0 1 2 Miles R 5W R 4W R 3W Morristown Morristown D A Figure 2-7 T 6N 74 Rockaway Hills Rd Desert Hills Rd t u 60 Circle Circle City City BBN N GG SSFF rraa R nnd Raail d A ilrroo Avv aad ee d T 5N Wittmann Wittman Joy Ranch Rd Approved MasterPlanned Communities Source: City of Buckeye, August 2008 Black Mountain Rd Carefree Hwy Legend Dove Valley Rd Lone Mountain Rd Study Area Dixileta Dr Central Arizona Project Canal Patton Rd " ) Communities Jomax Rd Railroads Happy Valley Rd Major Roadways Pinnacle Peak Rd T 4N ll aannaa P CC CCAAP Deer Valley Rd Sun Sun Valley Valley Parkway Parkway Master - Planned Communities Beardsley Rd Festival Ranch Union Hills Rd Spurlock Ranch Bell Rd Sun City Festival Ranch Greenway Rd Sun Valley Waddell Rd T 3N Anthem Sun Valley Cactus Rd Elianto Peoria Ave Tartesso Olive Ave Broadstone Ranch Northern Ave Glendale Ave T 2N Bethany Home Rd Camelback Rd Indian School Rd Thomas Rd McDowell Rd Van Buren St T 1N § ¨ ¦ 10 Hopeville Hopeville Yuma Rd D A Lower Buckeye Rd Rainbow Rd Watson Rd Apache Rd Miller Rd Rooks Rd Oglesby Rd Turner Rd Wilson Ave Palo Verde Rd Bruner Rd Johnson Rd 85 Final Report Turner Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study I-10 to SR-74 Page 2-14 I 0 1 2 Miles communities in the study area may potentially may be impacted by construction of the proposed Turner Parkway; the features of these communities are summarized in the following paragraphs. Broadstone Ranch, at the northern end of the study area, should not be impacted and, therefore, is not further discussed. Tartesso – Tartesso is a master-planned community being developed by Stardust Companies. This community, located in the Buckeye MPA, ultimately will become one of the largest communities in the Town of Buckeye. Under current plans, it is expected to include approximately 48,000 residential units, 21 elementary schools, two (2) high schools and one (1) hospital. The community will encompass approximately 13,000 acres (20 square miles) with approximately 843 acres of commercial and 513 acres of mixed-use development. Tartesso consists of the Tartesso West Community Master Plan, located west of Sun Valley Parkway, and the Tartesso Community Master Plan, which lies east of Sun Valley Parkway. The first phase of Tartesso West, outside the study area has been developed north of Thomas Road. Tartesso Town Center, a 480-acre commercial development, is proposed for the northeast quadrant of I-10 and Sun Valley Parkway. The time frame for completion of the Tartesso community is difficult to predict with the current economic slowdown and constraints on housing development. According to information provided by the developer, development adjacent to Turner Parkway could be started by Year 2013 and be completed in 15 to 20 years. Elianto – This mixed-use development is planned to include approximately 13,661 housing units, 142.7 acres of commercial space, four (4) elementary schools and one (1) high school. The Elianto site is comprised of two (2) parcels encompassing approximately 3,900 gross acres. The larger (Village 1) and smaller parcels are located east and west, respectively of Sun Valley Parkway. The limits of Village 1 include the north half of Thomas Road from Sun Valley Parkway to one and one-half miles east, Osborn Road from Wilson Avenue to 283rd Avenue, Wilson Avenue, and 283rd Avenue from Thomas Road to Osborn Road. The development timeframe for Elianto is not known at this time. Anthem Sun Valley – Anthem Sun Valley also is planned for development on land located east and west of Sun Valley Parkway. The portion on the east side of Sun Valley Parkway lies west of the Rooks Road alignment between Northern Avenue and Camelback Road. This master-planned community is proposed for development on 13,285 acres. It is expected to include 41,370 homes and 1,265 acres of commercial space, when fully developed. Two (2) 18-hole golf courses also are planned for this community. The development timeframe for Anthem Sun Valley is not known at this time. Sun Valley Villages – The Sun Valley Villages master-planned community consists of 16,266 acres. The Turner Parkway corridor passes through Sun Valley Villages I and II, comprising the northeastern portion of the development (5,960 acres). When completed, this Final Report Turner Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study I-10 to SR- 74 Page 2-15 development will consist of 2,300 single- and multi-family dwelling units, 475,000 square feet of retail, 867,000 square feet of office, and two (2) elementary schools. Development of Sun Valley Village II is expected to be completed by Year 2020. Together, Sun Valley Villages I and II will consists of 15,236 single- and multi-family dwelling units, 1,442,000 square feet retail, 7,224,000 square feet of office, nine (9) elementary schools and two (2) high schools. Sun City Festival Ranch – This development is located northwest of the White Tank Mountains between Sun Valley Parkway and the Beardsley Road alignment. Sun City Festival Ranch extends east to west approximately four (4) miles, occupying land between the 287th Avenue alignment on the west and 259th Avenue alignment on the east. The existing Sun City Festival development east of Desert Oasis Boulevard consists of 2,345 single-family units and the 18-hole Copper Canyon Golf Course. The Lyle Anderson Company, developer of Festival Ranch, sold over 3,500 acres to Pulte Del Webb as an adjunct to Sun City Festival Ranch. Sun City Festival Ranch includes an active adult community (ages 55+) with single-story homes focused around golf and recreational amenities for retirees. Pulte Del Webb intends to develop the remainder of their property west of Desert Oasis Boulevard into a predominantly conventional housing product focused toward young families. There is an enclave of 331 acres of ASLD land within the area of Sun City Festival Ranch west of the Desert Oasis Boulevard (within Section 27). Festival Ranch – The original Festival Ranch master-planned community extended from south of Sun Valley Parkway to Black Mountain Road within the Buckeye incorporated area commonly referred to as the “Buckeye chimney.” The Lyle Anderson Company sold 3,500 acres to Sun City Festival Ranch developer Pulte Del Webb, retaining the remainder for Festival Ranch – a 10,100 acre holding north of the CAP canal. The company is planning to develop Festival Ranch as a pedestrian-oriented Village, to include over 24,000 dwelling units, upscale shopping, and restaurants. A Jack Nicklaus golf course will be a centerpiece of the development. th Spurlock Ranch – Spurlock Ranch is located west of the 259 Avenue alignment between the CAP canal and Happy Valley Road alignment. This proposed master-planned community is located directly north of the recently completed eastern phase of the Sun City Festival Community. Spurlock Ranch is a mixed-use development expected to include 7,329 dwelling units, 270 acres of commercial space, parks, four (4) elementary schools, one (1) middle school, and one (1) high school. The Project will be developed in three (3) stages with Planning Unit 1 anticipated to be built by Year 2015. The remaining two (2) planning units, along with the commercial development, are planned to be fully built-out by Year 2030. It is estimated that Planning Unit 1 will accommodate 2,046 single-family units with two (2) commercial parcels expected to accommodate 409,000 square feet of retail space and Final Report Turner Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study I-10 to SR- 74 Page 2-16 175,000 square feet of office space. An 11-acre park, 900-student elementary school, and an Arizona Public Service (APS) substation will be constructed as part of Phase1. 2.3 Existing Roadway System This section presents an inventory of existing roadway facilities and their functional classification in the study area. The information has been developed from various sources including the ADOT State Highway System Map, MCDOT’s Major Streets and Routes Plan (MSRP) and Transportation System Plan (TSP), aerial photography and a window survey of the study area. Figure 2-8 shows the existing roadway network through the study area. The existing roadway network consists of state highways, arterial roadways and service roadways in the study area west of the White Tank Mountains. 2.3.1 Existing State Highways The study area includes four (4) State highways: I-10, SR-85, US-60/Grand Avenue, and SR-74. Although I-10 and US-60 technically are Federal highways, they are considered part of the State Highway System for administrative purposes and have been given an appropriate functional classification. State highways are operated and maintained by ADOT. Interstate 10 (Papago Freeway) – I-10 is the only existing east-west freeway facility in the study area. It is classified as “Rural Principal Interstate” in the ADOT State Highway System. I-10 has four (4) general-purpose lanes, two (2) in each direction and a 70-foot open median. At Milepost 112.8, there is traffic interchange with SR-85, consisting of a mix of underpasses and overpasses with free-flow ramps for all entering and exiting traffic. At Milepost 109.7, a Rural Diamond Interchange serves traffic movements at the intersection of I-10 and Palo Verde Road/Sun Valley Parkway. At the Turner Road section line alignment, eastbound and westbound lanes of I-10 are separated by approximately 1,000 feet avoiding a butte in the middle. State Route 85 (Oglesby Road) – SR-85 has recently been upgrade to a four-lane highway extending approximately 16 miles to the south from I-10 in Buckeye, beyond which it continues as a two-lane highway to Gila Bend. Turner Parkway, connecting with the I-10/SR-85 traffic interchange, in effect, will be a northerly extension of SR-85. SR-85 is classified as “Urban Principal Other” in the ADOT State Highway System. It serves as a connector and bypass route from Interstate 8 (I-8) to I-10, allowing travelers to avoid the Phoenix metropolitan area. It also is one of the interim segments in Arizona forming the CANAMEX Corridor, which was defined by Congress in the 1995 National Highway Systems Designation Act. This transportation component of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) calls for development of a continuous four-lane roadway from Mexico Final Report Turner Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study I-10 to SR- 74 Page 2-17 R 5W R 4W R 3W Morristown Morristown D A T 6N ? ! t u 60 Circle Circle City City Ra n c h Rd BBN N GG SSFF rraa R nnd Raail d A ilrroo Avv aad ee d las ug Do T 5N Figure 2-8 Existing Roadway Network 74 Wittmann Wittman Source: MCDOT, September 2008 Black Mountain Rd Legend Dove Valley Rd Lone Lone Mtn Mtn Pkwy Pkwy Lone Mountain Rd Study Area Dixileta Dr White Tank Mountain Regional Park Patton Rd Arizona Army National Guard Buckeye Training Site Patton Patton Rd Rd Jomax Rd White Tank Moutains Happy Valley Rd T 4N al l CCaanna CCAAPP Sun Sun Valley Valley Parkway Parkway Pinnacle Peak Rd S CAP Bridge Structure Deer Valley Rd S CAP Drainage Structure Central Arizona Project Canal Beardsley Rd Union Hills Rd Bell Rd " ) Communities ’ ­ Traffic Interchange Railroads Greenway Rd T 3N Waddell Rd Cactus Rd ? Functional Classification Peoria Ave Rural Principal Interstates (ADOT) Olive Ave T 2N Railroad Crossing Urban Principal Other (ADOT) Northern Ave Rural Principal Other (ADOT) Glendale Ave Rural Major Collector (ADOT) Bethany Home Rd Principal Arterial (MCDOT) Camelback Rd Minor Arterial (MCDOT) Major Collector (MCDOT) Indian School Rd Others Thomas Rd TToon nooppa ahS-aS loam loem e wHw H y y McDowell Rd Van Buren St T 1N § ¨ ¦ 10 Hopeville Hopeville Yuma Rd D A Lower Buckeye Rd Rainbow Rd Watson Rd Apache Rd Miller Rd Rooks Rd Oglesby Rd Turner Rd Wilson Ave Palo Verde Rd Bruner Rd Johnson Rd 85 Final Report Turner Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study I-10 to SR-74 Page 2-18 I 0 1 2 Miles through the US into Canada. State Route 74 – SR-74 is a state highway in the northwest Phoenix metropolitan area that stretches from its junction with Interstate 17 (I-17) in northern Phoenix to US-60, south of Wickenburg. It is the primary access to the Lake Pleasant Regional Park and serves as a northern bypass around the often-congested stretches of US-60 through the northwest suburbs of the Phoenix metropolitan area. From end to end, it is approximately 31 miles long. SR-74 is classified as “Rural Major Collector” in the ADOT State Highway System. It primarily has two (2) 12-foot general-purpose lanes, one (1) lane in each direction, with occasional auxiliary turn lanes. US Route 60/Grand Avenue – US-60/Grand Avenue, is one of two (2) major roads, along with SR-74, that facilitates travel to/from the Greater Phoenix area to the southeast and the Wickenburg area to the northwest. US-60 runs diagonally in the northwest by southeast direction as a four-lane divided highway. It is classified as “Rural Principal Other” by ADOT and has two (2) 12-foot general-purpose lanes in each direction separated by a 45-foot wide traversable median. US-60 near Morristown crosses the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway (BNSF) tracks on two (2) northbound and southbound grade-separated structures. 2.3.2 MCDOT Roadways MCDOT operates and maintains most of the roadway miles in the study area, including those in the Town of Buckeye and City of Surprise MPA. Major relevant roadways are discussed below: Sun Valley Parkway – Sun Valley Parkway is an existing through roadway, providing a connection between I-10 and SR-303L (Estrella Freeway). This route serves the northern part of the Town of Buckeye, the western and southern sections of the City of Surprise, and unincorporated Maricopa County. It is approximately 28 miles long as it curves around the White Tank Mountains, connecting I-10 with Bell Road. The parkway runs directly north from its traffic interchange with I-10/Palo Verde Road, curves east along the Union Hills Drive th alignment, and then switches down to Bell Road east of 219 Avenue. Sun Valley Parkway between I-10 and its connection with Bell Road at the Beardsley Canal (187th Avenue) is a four-lane divided roadway with two (2) general-purpose lanes in each direction, paved shoulders, and a 16-foot raised median. The MCDOT Major Streets and Routes Plan (MSRP) classifies the Sun Valley Parkway as an Enhanced Arterial and Road of Regional Significance. Maricopa County Transportation System Plan (TSP) classifies Sun Valley Final Report Turner Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study I-10 to SR- 74 Page 2-19 Parkway as a County Island Roadway, Case 13 within the study area. It also is classified as one of the primary roadways in the Maricopa County TSP maps. Currently, it is the only continuous, major roadway facility serving the study area. It is stop controlled at the I10/Palo Verde Road (291st Avenue) traffic interchange. Turner Road – Turner Road is not shown or classified in MCDOT MSRP on the north side of I-10. On the south side of I-10, it ends at Broadway Road and is classified as “Minor Arterial.” Tonopah-Salome Highway – The Tonopah-Salome Highway originates at Miller Road north of the Miller Road/I-10 traffic interchange and continues in a northwesterly direction parallel to I-10 west of SR-85. At approximately 355th Avenue, the highway intersects with Wickenburg Road, which heads north as a two-lane paved highway toward Wickenburg. Under current conditions this roadway is a dirt road and is classified as a Minor Arterial in the MCDOT MSRP. It is identified as a secondary roadway within the Maricopa County TSP. A portion of Tonopah-Salome Highway within the study area is also identified as a County Island Roadway, Case 4.4 Patton Road – Patton Road serves as an east-west travel corridor that crosses the study area connecting Whispering Ranch, a community located west of the Hassayampa River, with US-60. Patton Road is a two-lane, 28-foot wide rural roadway. It is paved along the entire length (approximately 13 miles) between 299th Avenue and US-60. Patton Road is classified as a Minor Arterial in the MCDOT MSRP. The Maricopa County TSP identifies Patton Road as one of the County’s primary roadways, with the west segment near 299th Avenue classified as a County Island Roadway, Case 1. Douglas Ranch Road – Douglas Ranch Road is a dirt road that runs northeast from Patton Road to Gates Road. It is classified as Minor Arterial (Future) in the MCDOT MSRP. The Maricopa County TSP classifies it as a primary roadway within the study area. It crosses the BNSF tracks at-grade within the study area. Other Major Dirt Roads – Segments of Lone Mountain Road, Dove Valley Road, 243rd Avenue, and 235th Avenue along the section lines within the study area are dirt roadways. While ultimately these will be major regional arterial roadways, they currently are not identified in the MCDOT MSRP and Maricopa County TSP. 3 4 County Island Roadway; Case 1 is defined as unincorporated roadway bounded on both sides by municipality (Buckeye in this case). County Island Roadway; Case 4 is defined as roadway and adjacent lands are unincorporated but the unincorporated lands are bounded by one or more municipalities Final Report Turner Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study I-10 to SR- 74 Page 2-20 2.4 Future Roadway Network Planning for transportation infrastructure development is an ongoing activity throughout the Phoenix metropolitan area. MAG and MCDOT have completed various plans and studies that incorporate all or portions of the study area. In addition, General Plans prepared by the Town of Buckeye and City of Surprise provide guidance relating to future transportation facilities. Findings and conclusions associated with these efforts contribute to the definition of the future roadway network. Key elements of major relevant planning actions are highlighted in the following sections. 2.4.1 Maricopa Association of Governments MAG planning activity relating to Turner Parkway is summarized from two (2) documents: the MAG I-10/Hassayampa Valley Roadway Framework Study, Final Report, dated September, 2007 and the current Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) which is a comprehensive, performance based, multi-modal and coordinated regional plan, covering through Horizon Year 2031. 2.4.1.1 I-10/Hassayampa Valley Roadway Framework Study The I-10/Hassayampa Valley Roadway Framework Study was a recent collaborative effort conducted by MAG, MCDOT, ADOT, the Town of Buckeye, and the Cities of Surprise and Goodyear to satisfy a prime objective: develop an overarching plan for a major roadway network to help communities preserve necessary rights-of-way in advance of the intensive projected growth in the study area and adjacent lands. An important consideration of the I10/Hassayampa Valley Roadway Framework Study was the establishment of regional connectivity between I-10 and other regional roadways, including US-60/Grand Avenue, SR-74, SR-85, Bell Road, and SR-303L/Estrella Freeway. The area of focus was west of the White Tank Mountains from south of I-10 to SR-74 in the north and from west of the Hassayampa River to SR-303L/Estrella Freeway. The result of the I-10/Hassayampa Valley Roadway Framework Study was a comprehensive arterial roadway network developed and modeled to meet traffic demands in the West Valley under Buildout conditions. The MAG Regional Council and all affected jurisdictions have accepted the I-10/Hassayampa Valley Roadway Framework Study Transportation Framework Recommendation. In addition, the various circulation plans of the master-planned communities in the study area have been integrated into the regional roadway network. Expectations deriving from the I-10/Hassayampa Valley Roadway Framework Study are that a roadway network consisting of freeways, parkways, and major arterial roads will be able to offer significantly greater travel capacity than that provided by the typical major urban arterial road developed in other parts of the region. Final Report Turner Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study I-10 to SR- 74 Page 2-21 The Turner Road alignment is one of the travel corridors included in the Transportation Framework Recommendation of the I-10/Hassayampa Valley Roadway Framework Study as necessitating a higher capacity parkway cross-section. The proposed Conceptual Transportation Framework developed for the study area as a result of the I-10/Hassayampa Valley Roadway Framework Study is shown in Figure 2-9. Specifically, the study recommends a parkway facility be located generally along the alignment of Turner Road. Subsequent to the I-10/Hassayampa Valley Roadway Framework Study, MCDOT in its Arizona Parkway Design Guideline Recommendations has determined that future parkways will be developed as wide boulevards with indirect left turns. This operational concept has been accepted by the Town of Buckeye, City of Surprise, and MAG and referred to as the Arizona Parkway. Turner Parkway is classified, therefore, as an Arizona Parkway. The following goals and objectives support designation of the Arizona Parkway classification: Continuous, high-capacity facility linking I-10 and SR-74; Provision of a facility that would allow improved travel times within a continuous north-south corridor, especially for longer trip lengths; Provision of a facility with improved safety characteristics, as compared to a traditional arterial roadway; and Flexibility to provide six (6) or eight (8) lanes, based on growth in traffic volumes over the next 30 to 60 years. Additional details regarding the Arizona Parkway concept are provided in Section 5.1 and Technical Memorandum No. 6, Preferred Corridor Alignment, which can be referenced in Appendix F. 2.4.1.2 MAG Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) 2007 Update The MAG Arterial Street System does not identify Turner Parkway alignment in the street network. The Sun Valley Parkway is identified as a 6-lane arterial roadway with most of the arterials east of Sun Valley Parkway identified as 4-lane roads. North of Sun Valley Parkway, Beardsley Road, Jomax Road, Dixileta Road and section of Pinnacle Peak Road are classified as 6-lane arterial streets and the remaining streets are classified as 4-lane arterials. Miller Road and Apache Road are classified as north-south 4-lane arterials. Some of these classifications have been changed, based on the Transportation Framework Recommendation from the I-10/Hassayampa Valley Roadway Framework Study, which supersedes the 2007 MAG RTP Update and has been accepted by the MAG Regional Council and affected member jurisdictions. Final Report Turner Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study I-10 to SR- 74 Page 2-22 R 4W R 3W T 6N R 5W Figure 2-9 Study Area Buildout Roadway Network SR-74 Source: MAG Accepted Transportation Framework Recommendation from I-10/Hassayampa Valley Roadway Framework Study with Edits based on City of Surprise, General Plan 2030 Transportation Plan, Map 3.1A - Transportation, July 2008 Black Mountain Rd US -6 0 Legend T 5N Dove Valley Rd Study Area Lone Mountain Rd White Tank Mountains Dixileta Dr White Tanks White Tank Mountain Regional Park Patton Rd Freew ay Jomax Rd Happy Valley Rd Functional Classification Freeway Pinnacle Peak Rd T 4N Arizona Parkway Deer Valley Rd Major Arterial Beardsley Rd Union Hills Rd Bell Rd Greenway Rd T 3N Waddell Rd Cactus Rd Peoria Ave Olive Ave T 2N Sun Valley Parkway Northern Ave Glendale Ave Bethany Home Rd Camelback Rd Indian School Rd Thomas Rd McDowell Rd I-10 T 1N Van Buren St Yuma Rd Rainbow Rd Watson Rd Apache Rd Miller Rd Rooks Rd Oglesby Rd Turner Rd Wilson Ave Palo Verde Rd Bruner Rd Johnson Rd Lower Buckeye Rd Final Report Turner Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study I-10 to SR 74 Page 2-23 I 0 1 2 Miles 2.4.2 Maricopa County MCDOT regularly conducts studies to evaluate the need for roadway improvements. Several studies are relevant to the Turner Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study. 2.4.2.1 MCDOT Transportation System Plan The Maricopa County Transportation System Plan (TSP) Update, adopted February 2007, establishes an organized approach to the planning, design and construction of the County's transportation system through 2026. It includes an analysis of future traffic, a needs assessment, and establishes transportation policies for developing the County’s transportation systems. The 2007 TSP Update indicates MCDOT must consider a new category of arterial street projects that are incorporated in the MAG Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and are funded as part of Proposition 400 (Prop 400)5. According to the TSP, “where MCDOT has a logical role, due to jurisdiction over part of or all of the adjoining land along the roadway itself, Prop 400 projects may receive medium to high priority. Where MCDOT does not have a logical role, financial participation will normally be less. By focusing appropriate attention on this new category of roadways, MCDOT can play the important role of cooperating partner in the implementation of Proposition 400 projects.” Thus, MCDOT has placed emphasis on completion of the Turner Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study, due to the needs for north-south travel and the location of the future Turner Parkway within the unincorporated portion of Maricopa County. 2.4.2.2 Maricopa County Major Streets and Routes Plan (MSRP) Development of the MCDOT MSRP was coordinated with the Maricopa County TSP, which introduces the concept of overlays that may be designated to acknowledge the special importance of roads for purposes other than mobility. Six (6) overlays were identified and included in the MCDOT MSRP. A review of the overlays presented in the MCDOT MSRP with respect to the study area indicates that Sun Valley Parkway and Patton Road have been included in the Oversized Load Overlay and Sun Valley Parkway has been designated a Road of Regional Significance (RRS). In addition, US-60 at the north end of the study area has been designated under the Public Transportation Overlay and is designated a Gateway Road of Regional Significance. SR-74 and Castle Hot Springs Road, also at the north end of the study area have been designated under the Scenic/Recreational Overlay. 5 Proposition 400 was passed by Maricopa County voters on November 2, 2004. It authorizes a 20-year continuation of the half-cent sales tax for transportation projects in Maricopa County and became effective January 1, 2006. Final Report Turner Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study I-10 to SR- 74 Page 2-24 2.4.2.3 Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan Maricopa County is required by state law to prepare a Comprehensive Plan “…to conserve the natural resources of the county, to ensure efficient expenditure of public funds, and to promote the health, safety, convenience, and general welfare of the public.” (A.R.S. ξ 11-806). The current plan for 2020 was adopted October 20, 1997, and revised August 7, 2002. The General Plan Development Area (GDPA) identifies unincorporated portions of the County that likely will be annexed by a city or town. Land within the GPDA is included in an adopted municipal General Plan, which often provides specific recommendations for proposed land use. The GPDA, therefore, represents that portion of the County expected and even encouraged to accommodate future growth over the next several years. The Comprehensive Plan classifies a significant portion of the study area as GPDA including the areas north of the Surprise and Buckeye municipal limits and area south of the McDowell Road alignment. 2.4.2.4 Sun Valley Parkway Access Control and Corridor Improvement Study The Corridor Improvement Study for Sun Valley Parkway, completed in December 2006, was initiated to develop a recommendation to locate a new north-south travel corridor that essentially would connect the existing Sun Valley Parkway to SR-74. The importance of the Sun Valley Parkway study for this current study is that several alternative corridors were evaluated. However, resolution of this connection was deferred to upcoming studies, such as the I-10/Hassayampa Valley Roadway Framework Study and this subsequent study. The alignment of Turner Parkway incorporated in the Transportation Framework Recommendation of the I-10/Hassayampa Valley Roadway Framework Study supersedes the potential Sun Valley Parkway Extension. 2.4.2.5 Patton Road & Jomax Road Access Control/Area Corridor Study The Patton Road and Jomax Road Access Control/Area Corridor Study and the Hassayampa River Crossing Candidate Assessment Report (CAR) were prepared for MCDOT in the spring of 2007 .The study evaluated the future functional classification of these two roads. Jomax Road was identified as a 6-lane Parkway continuing west of US60/Grand Avenue with a new bridge crossing at the Hassayampa River. The Patton Road and Jomax Road Access Control/Area Corridor Study classifies Patton Road in the Turner Parkway study area as a minor arterial and recommends this facility remain an important linkage in the regional arterial roadway network. The subsequent I-10/Hassayampa Valley Roadway Framework Study identified the Patton-Jomax corridor for a future White Tanks Freeway. Final Report Turner Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study I-10 to SR- 74 Page 2-25 2.4.3 Town of Buckeye There are several plans, studies, and other documents pertinent to development of the Town of Buckeye and creation of its surface transportation system. Materials of specific interest to this study are summarized below. 2.4.3.1 General Plan & Development Code, January 2008 In January, 2008, the Buckeye Town Council approved the General Plan Update. The main components of the General Plan consist of land use, circulation, recreation and open space, historic preservation, economic development, water resources and downtown revitalization. The Circulation Plan identifies Turner Parkway within the Town of Buckeye’s integrated local roadway system. Turner Parkway’s inclusion in the Circulation Plan was based on the Transportation Framework Recommendation of the I-10/Hassayampa Valley Roadway Framework Study, which provides a guide for regional connectivity. An updated Development Code, adopted January, 2010, is a key to implementing the policies of the General Plan, acting as an incentive promoting new development, redevelopment of underutilized land, stimulates economic development, and improves the quality of life for the residents of Buckeye. 2.4.3.2 Comprehensive Transportation Master Plan The Town of Buckeye recently completed a preliminary comprehensive multi-modal Transportation Master Plan for the MPA. The newly developed plan establishes the framework for internal circulation and creates a seamless integration of network recommendations based on the I-10/ Hassayampa Valley Roadway Framework Study. 2.4.4 City of Surprise There are several plans, studies, and other documents pertinent to development of the City of Surprise and creation of its surface transportation system. Materials of specific interest to this study are summarized below: 2.4.4.1 General Plan A comprehensive update to the 2001 General Plan 2020 was adopted by the Surprise City Council on July 24, 2008. In July 2008, the City of Surprise incorporated specific elements of the Transportation Framework Recommendation from the I-10/Hassayampa Valley Roadway Framework Study, into the City of Surprise Year 2030 Roadway Plan, which Final Report Turner Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study I-10 to SR- 74 Page 2-26 constitutes the General Plans Transportation Element. The Plan now identifies Turner Parkway as a regional connecting roadway towards the western end of the City’s MPA boundary. 2.4.4.2 Long-Range Master Street Plan Currently, the City of Surprise is developing preliminary alignments of major streets and detailed designs for Special Planning Areas (SPA). A long-range master street plan will be developed for the six (6) SPAs defined by the General Plan. The study area of the Turner Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study interacts with the western portion of SPA 5. 2.5 Future Travel Demand in the Turner Parkway Corridor Turner Parkway is a key continuous north-south facility adopted as part of the I-10/Hassayampa Valley Roadway Framework Study Transportation Framework Recommendation. The facility is defined as roughly following the alignment of Turner Road, while being sensitive to the circulation plans of known master-planned communities along the route. The discussion in the previous section establishes the need for this facility; therefore, no additional travel demand analysis is necessary. Nevertheless, this current feasibility study focuses on following up the results of that study to further affirm the need for and feasibility of developing the recommended Turner Parkway facility. This section addresses forecasted travel demand in the study area. Travel demand for purposes of this feasibility study has been identified under Buildout conditions. Buildout conditions are consistent with the regional transportation modeling carried out for the I-10/Hassayampa Valley Roadway Framework Study. Additional details regarding the travel demand analysis and its results are contained in Technical Memorandum No. 2, Existing and Future Study Area Features, which may be referenced in Appendix B. 2.5.1 Travel Demand Under Buildout Conditions Travel demand modeling for the study area has been based on a reasonable and reliable future outlook of population and employment growth under Buildout conditions within the defined Model Influence Area (refer to Figure 2-1). The intent of this modeling activity was to fully address the purpose and need for the Turner Road alignment to be developed as a parkway facility. Travel demand modeling also aided in revealing potential roadway network deficiencies that may affect operation of a proposed facility. The evaluation of traffic operations in the study area under Buildout conditions focused on future growth scenarios for the Turner Parkway corridor, based on MAG socioeconomic data and MAG’s regional travel demand model outputs. Final Report Turner Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study I-10 to SR- 74 Page 2-27 R 3W 2 13 189 231 60 274 S R-74 0 21 65 3 31 29 38 30 15 36 30 23 10 30 55 12 Olive Ave Northern Ave 28 78 39 Indian School Rd 32 137 18 373 36 Rainbow Rd 48 60 50 41 Apache Rd 57 Watson Rd 49 Miller Rd 41 101 60 Final Report Turner Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study I-10 to SR 74 McDowell Rd Van Buren St 85 69 407 Oglesby Rd Turner Rd 43 112 126 23 51 44 46 Thomas Rd 129 420 Wilson Ave 92 86 Palo Verde Rd Camelback Rd 22 92 111 133 49 67 37 17 62 45 39 Bethany Home Rd 28 105 Bruner Rd Glendale Ave 12 30 21 116 44 Peoria Ave 67 25 Sun Valley Parkway 33 38 33 8 89 49 52 18 23 26 9 41 34 Johnson Rd 37 Average Daily Traffic Volume (1,000s) 5 28 97 292 97 XX Cactus Rd 139 80 124 Waddell Rd 46 I-10 27 77 75 94 58 25 13 21 14 11 5 35 270 106 4 107 25 35 38 Major Arterial Union Hills Rd Rooks Rd 20 27 11 T 3N 94 Arizona Parkway Deer Valley Rd 70 14 43 Pinnacle Peak Rd Greenway Rd 23 26 2 89 75 44 80 43 Freeway 40 Beardsley Rd 100 Functional Classification 1 67 12 39 White Tank Mountain Regional Park Jomax Rd 99 11 3 87 36 22 9 Patton Rd White Tank Mountains 84 7 48 242 20 1 Dixileta Dr 26 48 2 45 Bell Rd 35 1 15 Study Area Lone Mountain Rd Happy Valley Rd 69 95 Legend 4 15 5 74 38 41 16 96 35 33 219 32 15 39 47 61 64 33 30 Dove Valley Rd 37 34 39 69 22 27 50 54 24 33 35 19 70 23 84 33 36 29 8 16 54 Source: MAG Buildout Model Rerun with accepted Transportation Framework Recommendation from I-10/Hassayampa Valley Roadway Framework Study plus Inputs from US-60 Access Management Plan and Edits from City of Surprise, July 2008 0 36 35 30 16 30 Freew ay 18 8 64 11 37 29 28 27 43 26 -6 24 56 23 174 65 82 T 4N 31 Black Mountain Rd US 68 49 177 Tanks h W T 2N 47 22 ite T 1N 12 65 T 5N 37 32 50 29 57 5 11 47 13 57 30 1 14 48 29 75 28 86 23 T 6N 130 Figure 2-10 Study Area Buildout Roadway Network Average Daily Traffic Volumes 24 R 4W 47 R 5W Page 2-28 Yuma Rd Lower Buckeye Rd I 0 1 2 Miles 2.5.1.1 Buildout Traffic Volumes Figure 2-10 shows forecast traffic volumes on the roadway network modeled for Buildout conditions. A total of 286 roadway segments – 140 east-west and 146 north-south – were identified within the Model Influence Area major roadway network and analyzed under Buildout conditions. An assessment of this network was performed based on the current functional classification and principal design parameter – number of lanes – defining each segment in the network. This involved comparing forecast traffic volumes at Buildout with planned threshold capacities of the roadway segments. The analysis of the roadway segments indicates 75 roadway segments would have traffic volumes exceeding the threshold capacity of the segment functional classification. Roadways forecast to have traffic volumes exceeding planned capacity are identified in Table 2-6. Sixteen (16) east-west roadways are expected to have segments operating over capacity at traffic levels forecast at Buildout of the Model Influence Area. Ten (10) north-south roadways are expected to be over capacity under Buildout conditions assumed for the model network. The critical need for Turner Parkway is demonstrated by the forecast over capacity of the north-south roadways. All north-south roadways in the study area are forecast to exceed the threshold capacities for their functional classification. The proposed Turner Parkway, linked with I-10/SR-85, offers a high-capacity alternative for north-south regional travel. Table 2-6 Over-Capacity Roadways in the Study Area Under Buildout Conditions East-West Arterials 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. North-South Arterials Lower Buckeye Road Interstate 10 McDowell Road Thomas Road Indian School Road Sun Valley Parkway Union Hills Road Beardsley Road Pinnacle Peak Road White Tanks Freeway Patton Road Dixileta Drive Lone Mountain Road Black Mountain Road SR-74 (Carefree Highway) East-West 1 (Unnamed Road) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Johnson Road Bruner Road Sun Valley Parkway Wilson Road Turner Road SR-85/Turner Parkway North-South 5 (Unnamed Road) Miller Road Watson Road US-60 Source: Table 8-2 , Roadway Facility Segments Expected to Operate Over Capacity, Technical Memorandum 2, Turner Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study, December, 2008. Final Report Turner Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study I-10 to SR- 74 Page 2-29 2.5.1.2 Buildout Travel Demand Assessment Findings Turner Parkway is planned to be the prime north-south connector between I-10, the potential White Tanks Freeway, and SR-74 Extension. The following conclusions have been drawn from the travel demand modeling process: MAG socioeconomic projections indicate that substantial residential and commercial development is expected to occur within the study area. Growth will occur in response to the availability of an extensive amount of prime, developable land along the length of the corridor. Roadway segment capacity and cut-line analyses clearly show the White Tank Mountains present a major constraint to east-west travel. This constraint on mobility will influence traffic levels on Turner Parkway, arterial roadways in the study area, and arterial roadways intersecting with Turner Parkway. The planning-level analysis confirms I-10 will be the only viable east-west travel route into and out of a large portion of the West Valley, and it will be the primary link between the southern portion of the study area and Phoenix. The travel demand modeling process reveals major traffic capacity issues will exist at the south end of the study area, where development is expected to occur sooner. The future White Tanks Freeway, 20 miles to the north of I-10, will not provide a viable travel option for residents living or working in the southern portion of the study area. Travel demand model outputs indicate Turner Parkway will be over capacity, as it will be the first high-capacity, parkway-type facility west of the White Tank Mountains connecting the study area with I-10. The results of the roadway capacity and cut-lines analyses indicate development of Turner Parkway clearly is needed and, in fact, opportunities for additional north-south arterial capacity should be examined. 2.5.2 Interim-Year 2030 Travel Demand Analysis The structure of the travel demand modeling process also provided a companion set of data (i.e., network assumptions and socioeconomic) useful for generating interim years forecasts for the Model Influence Area and Turner Parkway. Detailed results of the interim year analysis are reported in Technical Memorandum No. 2, Existing and Future Study Area Features, which is provided in Appendix B. Table 2-7 shows the modeled growth in traffic volume forecast to occur along segments of Turner Parkway within the study area between the present and Buildout. The fact that this facility is not expected to be constructed by Year 2015 is apparent from the very low to Final Report Turner Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study I-10 to SR- 74 Page 2-30 Table 2-7 Interim Volume Forecasts and Performance Analysis for Turner Parkway From To I-10 Future Average Daily Traffic Volumes 2015a 2030b Buildoutc Thomas Rd 0 6,700 140,000 Thomas Rd Sun Valley Parkway 1,500 8,900 83,100 Sun Valley Parkway White Tanks Freeway 1,700 14,500 77,800 White Tanks Freeway SR-74 3,000 13,500 73,200 Notes: a. No facility between I-10 and Thomas Road. Traffic volumes forecast for discontinuous, six-lane, Major Arterial roadway segments between Bell Road alignment and US-60 at Castle Hot Springs Road in Morristown. b. Traffic volume forecasts for various linked six-lane, Major Arterial roadway segments between I-10 and US-60 at Castle Hot Springs Road in Morristown. c. Traffic volume forecasts for eight-lane Arizona Parkway facility between I-10 and the SR-74 Extension. Source: 2015 - MAG Year 2015 Model Run, August 27, 2008. 2030 - MAG Year 2030 Model Run, August 27, 2008. Buildout – MAG Buildout Model Rerun with accepted Transportation Framework Recommendation from MAG Interstate 10 Hassayampa Valley Roadway Framework Study plus Inputs from US-60 Access Management Plan, SR-74 to SR-303L/Estrella Freeway and Edits from City of Surprise, July 2008. Prepared by Wilson & Company, January 2009. non-existent volumes. By 2030, the facility is expected to be established as a set of linked arterial segments serving north-south travel demand between I-10 and US-60 at Castle Hot Springs Road in Morristown. Traffic volumes are expected to remain low: a maximum average daily traffic (ADT) volume of 14,500 is forecast between Sun Valley Parkway and the potential White Tanks Freeway. At Buildout, the fully developed Turner Parkway is forecast to support 140,000 ADT between I-10 and Thomas Road at the south end of the study area. Traffic volumes are forecast to exceed 70,000 ADT north of Thomas Road. In the light of these forecasts and the expected magnitude of growth along the Turner Parkway corridor, it is appropriate that early attention be given to examining the potential deficiencies of the future study area roadway network. This study of Turner Parkway is the initial step toward identifying a direction and a vision for the corridor that will: (1) support, in the near-term, development of a network with adequate capacity to accommodate economic growth; and (2) sustain, in the long-term, the qualities of community, life, and mobility desired by future residents. 2.6 Utilities Overview This section provides an overview of existing and planned major utility infrastructure in the study area. Documentation and figures contained herein provide the foundation for Final Report Turner Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study I-10 to SR- 74 Page 2-31 identifying potential conflicts of existing and planned utilities with the future Turner Parkway alignment. 2.6.1 Data Collection Utilities within or crossing the Turner Parkway study area have been identified through a number of means and resources. Utility companies were contacted to determine the location of major facilities and plans for new facilities. Geographic information system (GIS) files were requested and major utility facilities mapped to show their location within the study area. The study area also was evaluated through a field survey, during which locations of major existing, planned utility facilities were noted, and photographs were taken to record the presence of these facilities. 2.6.2 Existing Major Utilities Figure 2-11 shows the general locations of existing major utilities corridors within the study area, which consist of overhead power lines, telecommunications lines, underground gas and water lines. 2.6.2.1 Overhead Utility Lines There are three (3) forms of overhead utility lines in the study area: 500kV overhead electric (OHE) transmission lines; 69kV OHE transmission lines; and a telecommunication line. High Voltage Electric Transmission Lines - Nine (9) overhead electric (OHE) high-voltage transmission lines cross the study area in four (4) utility corridors. A 500 kilovolt (500kV) OHE transmission line is located approximately 1,200 feet north of the SR-85/I-10 traffic interchange. This OHE line is jointly owned by APS and the Salt River Project (SRP). Within the study area, it runs parallel to I-10 until it jogs down and crosses over I-10 at the approximate location of the Miller Road alignment. Two (2) 500kV OHE transmission lines, owned by the Western Area Power Administration (WAPA), cross the study area diagonally in a southeast by northwest direction. These lines enter the study area just north of Yuma Road alignment and cross over Sun Valley Parkway just south of the Glendale Avenue alignment. A third 345kV WAPA OHE transmission line enters the study area near the Thomas Road alignment and traverses the study area in a southeast by northwest direction, crossing over Sun Valley Parkway at the Northern Avenue alignment. These three (3) WAPA transmission lines pass through the future master-planned community of Tartesso within utility easements. The 345kV line has a 100 to 150 feet easement, while the two (2) 500kV OHE lines each have 250-foot easements. Final Report Turner Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study I-10 to SR- 74 Page 2-32 R 5W R 4W R 3W Figure 2-11 T 6N Existing Major Utility Facilities SR-74 Source: Arizona Public Service, Western Area Power Administration, Town of Buckeye, Transwestern Pipeline Company, Flood Control District of Maricopa County, September 2008 Black Mountain Rd US Legend -6 0 Study Area T 5N Dove Valley Rd Existing Street Network Lone Mountain Rd White Tank Mountains Dixileta Dr White Tank Mountain Regional Park Patton Rd Jomax Rd Existing Major Utility Facilities APS 500kV Happy Valley Rd APS/SRP 500kV APS 230kV T 4N Pinnacle Peak Rd Hassayampa Pumping Station (CAP) APS 69kV Deer Valley Rd WAPA 500kV -- Three 500kV Lines -- Beardsley Rd WAPA 345kV Existing Substation Union Hills Rd Transwestern 36" Gas Pipeline Greenway Rd -- Two 500 kV Lines -- T 3N Sun Valley Parkway Bell Rd Waddell Rd Cactus Rd Peoria Ave Olive Ave Northern Ave Glendale Ave Bethany Home Rd T 2N Camelback Rd Indian School Rd Thomas Rd opa wo -- T Ton Lin h-S FRS #3 es alom wy FRS #2 FRS #1 Van Buren St T 1N I - 10 McDowell Rd -- eH Yuma Rd Rainbow Rd Watson Rd Apache Rd Miller Rd Rooks Rd Oglesby Rd Turner Rd Wilson Ave Palo Verde Rd Bruner Rd Johnson Rd Lower Buckeye Final Report Turner Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study I-10 to SR 74 Page 2-33 I 0 1 2 Miles Farther north, there are three (3) 500kV OHE APS/SRP transmission lines running in an east-west direction north of and parallel to the Beardsley Road alignment south of the CAP canal. Directly west of the intersection of Beardsley Road with Desert Oasis Boulevard, two (2) of the transmission lines continue to turn in a southwesterly direction. They cross through Sun City Festival Ranch and over Sun Valley Parkway, eventually running along the west side of Sun Valley Parkway and crossing I-10. The third 500kV transmission line turns off to the northwest, hugging the western property line of the future Spurlock Ranch master-planned community within a 200-foot transmission line easement. Support towers for these 500kV OHE transmission lines are spaced at one-quarter mile intervals. Medium Voltage Electric Transmission Lines - Three (3) 69kV OHE APS transmission lines cross the study area. The first transmission line traverses the study area in a southeast by northwest direction, approximately 5,000 feet north of the SR-85/I-10 traffic interchange. This OHE line crosses the Tonopah-Salome Highway between the Turner Road and Wilson Avenue alignments. It proceeds west over Sun Valley Parkway just north of McDowell Road. Support towers are spaced at 430 to 450 feet. The second 69kV APS transmission line runs parallel to 65 feet north of Patton Road in the study area. Further north, the third 69kV APS transmission line runs on the south side of US-60 through the SR-74/US-60 intersection. The 69kV OHE transmission corridors on the north side of Patton Road and paralleling US-60 have support towers spaced at less than 400-foot intervals. Telecommunication Lines - There is an overhead telecommunications line parallel to the north side of Gates Road. In addition, the 69kV APS transmission line running along the south side of US-60 also has a telecommunication line attached to the utility poles. 2.6.2.2 Underground Utilities There are two (2) forms of underground utilities in the study area: a gas transmission line and a telecommunication line. Gas Transmission Lines - Transwestern Pipeline Company recently completed its 259-mile Phoenix Expansion Project, constructing a 36-inch natural gas pipeline from Phoenix north to Prescott. This pipeline crosses the study area in the utility corridor just north of the Beardsley Road alignment and south of the CAP canal. The pipeline passes through the Sun City Festival Ranch subdivision and continues in a southwesterly direction parallel to the two (2) 500kV OHE transmission lines. An existing Southwest Gas natural gas pipeline runs parallel to the north side of the SR-74/US-60 intersection. Telecommunication Lines - A buried communications line, owned Communications, parallels the north side of the SR-74/US-60 intersection. Final Report Turner Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study I-10 to SR- 74 Page 2-34 by Qwest 2.6.2.3 Water Service The Morristown Water Company supplies water to residents of Morristown east of US-60. It is assumed residential uses west of US-60 rely on on-site wells. The Valencia Water Company provides water service to residents near the southern end of study area. The Festival Ranch Community Facility District (CFD) No. 28880 supplies water throughout the Sun City Festival Ranch master-planned community. 2.6.3 Planned Utility Projects Based on the information obtained regarding planned APS projects, there are two (2) high-voltage OHE transmission lines planned for future construction within the study area. Figure 2-12 shows the general location of these planned future utility facilities. The West Valley-North Power Line and Substation Project will involve construction of a high-voltage OHE transmission line along the north side of Beardsley Road. The line will run along the rd south side of the CAP Canal between the TS-5 substation and 243 Avenue, where it will jog south between the Deer the Valley Road and Beardsley Road alignments and continue further east. This transmission line has been approved and will be constructed by APS in the future. The second high-voltage OHE transmission line, referred to as the TS-5 to TS-9 500/230kV Project is being evaluated. Both the preferred and alternate routes through the study area north of the CAP Canal are shown in Figure 2-12. The final location of this planned 500/230kV OHE line is still being evaluated by APS. Based on past construction methods employed for existing high-voltage OHE lines, it should be expected that APS would construct support towers at one-quarter mile intervals. This interval should not create a serious constraint to the Turner Parkway alignment, particularly as the new power corridor will be perpendicular to the proposed Turner Parkway alignment. Both alternatives will have similar impact to the Turner Parkway Corridor. No other major, backbone-type fiber optic, telephone, or gas service expansions are known to be planned for the study area in the immediate future. However, the potential for future expansion does exist in relation to continuing infrastructure improvements embarked on by land developers. Although yet to be physically developed, the Anthem Sun Valley CFD No. 38016 and Elianto CFD No. 28879 have been formed and will provide water service when development proceeds. Final Report Turner Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study I-10 to SR- 74 Page 2-35 R 5W R 4W R 3W Figure 2-12 T 6N Future Major Utility Facilities SR-74 Source: Arizona Public Service and Wilson & Company Black Mountain Rd US Legend -6 0 Study Area T 5N Dove Valley Rd Existing Street Network Lone Mountain Rd White Tank Mountains Dixileta Dr White Tank Mountain Regional Park Patton Rd Jomax Rd Future Major Utility Facilities Approved APS High-Voltage Transmission Line Happy Valley Rd Approved APS High-Voltage Substation T 4N Pinnacle Peak Rd APS 500kV Preferred Route Deer Valley Rd APS 500kV Alternate Route 1 Beardsley Rd TS-5 Union Hills Rd (Sun Valley) Bell Rd T 3N Sun Valley Parkway Greenway Rd Waddell Rd Cactus Rd Peoria Ave Olive Ave Northern Ave Glendale Ave Bethany Home Rd T 2N Camelback Rd Indian School Rd Ton opa h-S Thomas Rd alom eH wy McDowell Rd Van Buren St T 1N I - 10 Yuma Rd Rainbow Rd Watson Rd Apache Rd Miller Rd Rooks Rd Oglesby Rd Turner Rd Wilson Ave Palo Verde Rd Bruner Rd Johnson Rd Lower Buckeye Final Report Turner Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study I-10 to SR 74 Page 2-36 I 0 1 2 Miles 3 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS The study area has an abundance of physical and natural features and resources typical of the Sonoran Desert biome. This section presents a summary of existing environmental conditions in the study area. Additional details regarding the physical and natural characteristics of the study area are contained in Technical Memorandum No. 3, Environmental Overview, which is provided in Appendix C. 3.1 Physiography The study area occurs within the Low Basin and Range physiographic province of southern and central Arizona. This is an area characterized by low desert plains surrounded by fault-block mountain ranges, such as the White Tank Mountains. Geologically, the corridor crosses Precambrian igneous, metamorphic and sedimentary rocks, and Quaternary and upper Tertiary sedimentary deposits. Soils are Hyperthermic Arid, and are representative of the Torrifluvents, Mohall, Gunsight-Rillito-Pinal, Laveen-Rillito and Lithic Camborthids-Rock Outcrop-Lithic Haplargids Associations (Hendricks 1985). The White Tank Mountains, located immediately east of the study area, are composed primarily of a Tertiary or 6 Cretaceous age granitic intrusion, and proterozoic metamorphic rocks. This range of mountains reaches an elevation of approximately 4,000 feet above mean sea level (AMSL). 3.2 Prime and Unique Farmlands Neither prime nor unique farmlands have been identified in the study area. However, this type of farmland potentially exists in the sense that the land is arable and available for the uses generally identified with prime and unique farmland. 3.3 Water Resources Water resources include those characteristics and features of the study area created by or an inherent function of the presence of water. All water resources are useful or potentially useful to human habitation. Figure 3-1 shows the principal waters resources of the study area. 6 Arizona Soils, Hendricks, David M, College of Agriculture, University of Arizona, 1985. Final Report Turner Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study I-10 to SR- 74 Page 3-1 R 5W R 4W R 3W Morristown Morristown D A " ) 74 T 6N San San Domingo Domingo Wash Wash Rockaway Hills Rd Desert Hills Rd t u 60 Joy Ranch Rd Circle CircleCity City BBN NSS F GG rraa F RR a nnd d A aiillrroo Avv aad ee d 3W Carefree Hwy Legend Dove Valley Rd S0 h pa River NR as tW 8E Hassayam Source: FCDMC, The CK Group, November 2008 Black Mountain Rd " ) hh ass Wa yyW iliblb sshh TTrr Waa aaW IoIonn T4 es 3W T 5N " ) Figure 3-1 Major Waterways and Floodplains Lone Mountain Rd Study Area Dixileta Dr White Tank Mountain Regional Park Patton Rd Arizona Army National Guard Buckeye Training Site " Jomax Rd " SS Happy Valley Rd " S IoIonn Potential Turner Pkwy Alignment White Tank Mountains T 4N al l CCaanna CCAAPP Pinnacle Peak Rd S " S" Deer Valley Rd " S " S S " S " Sun Valley SunValley el Parkwa Channel Parkwayy Chann S CAP Bridge Structure S CAP Drainage Structure Beardsley Rd Sun Sun Valley Valley Parkway Parkway Central Arizona Project Canal W Wa W Wa aggnn assh eer h r Union Hills Rd " ) Communities Bell Rd Railroads Greenway Rd Major Roadways Waddell Rd T 3N Minor Roadways Cactus Rd Flood Plains Peoria Ave Existing Drainage Structures Olive Ave Northern Ave Glendale Ave T 2N Bethany Home Rd Camelback Rd Indian School Rd Thomas Rd FFRRS S NNoo.1 .1 22 NNoo.. FFRRSS oo.3.3 SSNN FFRR T 1N § ¨ ¦ 10 " ) Hopeville Hopeville D A Lower Buckeye Rd Rainbow Rd Watson Rd Apache Rd Miller Rd Rooks Rd Oglesby Rd Turner Rd Wilson Ave Palo Verde Rd Bruner Rd Van Buren St Yuma Rd 85 Johnson Rd McDowell Rd Final Report Turner Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study I-10 to SR-74 Page 3-2 I 0 1 2 Miles 3.3.1 Riparian Features The Hassayampa River, a mostly underground river characterized by seasonal and storm-related flows, runs through the northwest corner of the study area. Little San Domingo Wash empties into the Hassayampa River west of Morristown. Plus, there are numerous other un-named south, southwest, and west-flowing washes located north of the CAP canal. Most of these washes are tributaries to the Hassayampa River. One of these tributaries is Wagner Wash, which has been truncated by the CAP canal. Wagner Wash also is characterized by seasonal, storm-related flows. Drainage in the wash continues south of the CAP canal via an overchute structure located approximately 500 feet west of the Turner Road section line (Desert Oasis Boulevard). No natural perennial water courses or bodies of water are present in the study area; all drainages are seasonal in nature or storm-related. 3.3.2 Wetlands Wetlands are defined as areas periodically or permanently inundated by surface water or groundwater that support vegetation adapted for life in saturated soils. No wetlands have been identified within the study area. 3.3.3 Unique Waters and Aquifers No unique waters, as established by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) under A.A.C. R18-11-112, have been identified within the study area. Also, there are no aquifers in the study area that have been designated as a sole source aquifer by the US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 3.3.4 Alluvial Fans Alluvial fans, as defined by the FCDMC, are a geomorphologic feature characterized by gently sloping, cone- or fan-shaped deposits of boulders, gravel, and fine sediments. They are created through continual erosion of steep mountain slopes and a deposition process facilitated by flood or sheet flows. Numerous active and relict alluvial fans are located within the Turner Parkway Corridor. These fan-shaped features are clearly apparent in Figure 3-1 in relation to the White Tank Mountains. The unconsolidated and unstable deposits forming alluvial fans are subject to flash flooding, high velocity flows, debris flows, erosion, sediment movement, deposition, and channel migration. 3.3.5 100-Year Floodplains Floodplains are areas of relatively flat land that border waterways. These geomorphic features are subject to partial or complete inundation during floods. Use of property in Final Report Turner Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study I-10 to SR- 74 Page 3-3 floodplains and areas identified as pending floodplain designation is strictly regulated by FCDMC. The Hassayampa River floodplain in the northwestern corner of the study area ranges from a few hundred feet to approximately 1,500 feet wide south of Little San Domingo Wash. Low flows within the river historically have covered all of the floodplain at one time or another, but currently flows occur predominantly within several distinct channels. The maximum extent of the Little San Domingo Wash floodplain is approximately 1,300 feet. Other designated 100-year floodplains occur in the study area primarily in relation to major and minor washes. Construction of the CAP canal resulted in creation of a flood pool along its northern flank. Table 3-1 summarizes the locations of known flood prone areas. Table 3-1 Summary of 100-Year Floodplains Floodplain Location Hassayampa River Along Hassayampa River through the northwestern corner of the Study Area Little San Domingo Wash Tributary to Hassayampa River, north of Gates Road/Rockaway Hills Road CAP Canal Flood Pool North side of CAP Canal through the Study Area 3 West Wash Patton Road and 259 Avenue, east of the Turner Parkway Corridor T4N-R3W-S08E Patton Road and 251 Avenue, east of the Turner Parkway Corridor Wagner Wash Through the central portion of the study area between Patton Road and Sun Valley Parkway White Tank Alluvial Fans South of Sun Valley Parkway to I-10/SR-85 Interchange th st Source: FCDMC 2005; FEMA 2006 In addition, there are several instances of floodplain designation pending within the study area. The two most prominent locations of pending designation are associated with: (1) major drainage features north of the CAP canal to the east of the Turner Parkway Corridor; and (2) the alluvial fans located on the south and west face of the White Tank Mountains. The alluvial fans extend from the mountain slopes as far west as Wagner Wash and the Hassayampa River. 3.4 Vegetation 3.4.1 Biotic Communities The study area is located within both the Lower Colorado River Valley and Arizona Uplands Subdivisions of the Sonoran Desert scrub biotic community (Turner and Brown 1994). Final Report Turner Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study I-10 to SR- 74 Page 3-4 Dominant vegetation within the study area includes the creosote bush (Larrea tridentata) and triangle-leaf bursage (Ambrosia deltoidea). Ephemeral washes bisecting the study area contain xeroriparian habitat that supports blue palo verde (Cercidium floridum), ironwood (Olneya tesota) and velvet mesquite (Prosopis velutina). 3.4.2 Native Plants The Arizona Department of Agriculture (ADA) administers the protection of plants listed under the Arizona Revised Statutes of the Arizona Native Plant Law (ANPL). Nine (9) protected native plants were identified within the study area, including: blue palo verde (Cercidium floridum), velvet mesquite (Prosopis velutina), saguaro (Carnegiea gigantea), teddy bear cholla (Opuntia bigelovii), staghorn cholla (Optuntia versicolor), Engelmann’s prickly pear (Optuntia engelmannii), ironwood (Olneya tesota), fishhook barrel cactus (Ferocactus wislizenii), and foothills paloverde (Cercidium microphyllum). 3.5 Wildlife 3.5.1 Common Species A review of federally-listed threatened, endangered, proposed, and candidate species and their critical habitat maintained by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) revealed 13 protected species and one (1) candidate species in Maricopa County. Only one (1) species, the Lesser Long-Nosed Bat (Leptonycteris curasoae yerbabuenae), potentially could be present in the study area; however, it is highly unlikely. 3.5.2 Special Status and Protected Species Nine (9) "species of concern" have been observed within three (3) miles of the study area (Table 3-2). However, available information obtained from the Environmental On-Line Review Tool also indicates that no critical habitats occur in the study area. 3.5.3 Wildlife Linkages Three (3) wildlife linkage corridors, supporting known, substantive wildlife activity, have been identified in the study area and are shown in Figure 3-2. 3.6 Air Quality Maricopa County has an air-monitoring station in Buckeye, approximately six (6) miles south of the southern end of the study area. Carbon monoxide, ozone, nitrogen dioxide, and PM10 levels are monitored at this station. Data reported by the Buckeye monitoring station indicate Final Report Turner Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study I-10 to SR- 74 Page 3-5 R 5W R 4W R 3W Morristown Morristown 74 ? ! T 6N Figure 3-2 D A " ) t u 60 Wildlife Habitat Linkages Circle Circle City City Sources: AZGFD, February 2009 " ) BBN N GG SSFF rraa R nnd Raail d A ilrroo Avv aad ee d ) Wittmann Wittman " Black Mountain Rd Legend Dove Valley Rd T 5N Study Area Lone Mountain Rd Potential Turner Parkway Alignment Dixileta Dr S CAP Bridge Structure S CAP Drainage Structure Patton Rd S " S " " S T 4N S " S " Central Arizona Project Canal Happy Valley Rd " ) Communities ’ ­ Existing Traffic Interchanges Pinnacle Peak Rd S " S" al l CCaanna CCAAPP Jomax Rd Deer Valley Rd " S " S Railroad Sun Sun Valley Valley Parkway Parkway Beardsley Rd ? Railroad Crossing Union Hills Rd Major Roadways Bell Rd Minor Roadways Greenway Rd 10-ft Contours T 3N Waddell Rd Wildlife Habitat Linkages Cactus Rd Belmont Mountains Peoria Ave White Tank Mountains Olive Ave White Tank and Belmont Mountains Linkage Northern Ave White Tank and Vulture and Heiroglyphic Mountains Linkage Glendale Ave Potential Wildlife Habitat Linkage T 2N Bethany Home Rd Central Arizona Project Canal Linkage Camelback Rd Indian School Rd Thomas Rd FFRRS S NNoo.1 .1 ’ ­ " ) Hopeville ’ ­ ’ ­ Hopeville § ¨ ¦ 10 Yuma Rd D A Lower Buckeye Rd Rainbow Rd Watson Rd Apache Rd Miller Rd Rooks Rd Oglesby Rd Turner Rd Wilson Ave Palo Verde Rd Bruner Rd 85 Johnson Rd T 1N McDowell Rd .3.3 NNoo RRSS F F 2 2 . . Van Buren St NNoo FFRRSS Final Report Turner Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study I-10 to SR-74 Page 3-6 I 0 1 2 Miles Table 3-2 Special Status Species (SSS) within Three Miles of the Project Study Area Scientific Name Common Name ESA USFS BLM S State Cicindela oregona Maricopa Maricopa Tiger Beetle SC S Eumeces gilbertii arizonensis Arizona Skink SC S Gopherus agassizii Sonoran Desert Tortoise SC Lasiurus blossivillii Western Red Bat Macrotus californicus California Leaf-nosed Bat SC Myotis velifer Cave Myotis SC Opuntia echinocarpa Straw-top Cholla SR Opuntia engelmannii var, flavispina Englemann Prickly Pear Cactus SR Rana yavapaiensis Lowland Leopard Frog WSC WSC WSC SC WSC S S WSC Abbreviation Notes: ESA - Endangered Species Act; USFS - U.S. Forest Service; BLM - U.S. Bureau of Land Management SC - Species of Concern; WSC - Wildlife of Special Concern in Arizona; SR – Salvage Restricted; S – Sensitive Source: Arizona Game and Fish Department, Heritage Data Management System, September 12, 2008. national standards for PM10 are greatly exceeded. This could be attributed to road dust, construction, and farming activities, which could contribute to high PM10 levels within the study area. In addition, the Turner Parkway study area falls within an 8-hour ozone non-attainment area encompassing much of the Phoenix metropolitan area. 3.7 Noise The Noise Control Act of 1972 (40 CFR Parts 201-211) directed the USEPA to develop noise guidelines to protect the population from adverse effects of environmental noise. Existing noise-quality data are not currently available for the majority of the study area. 3.8 Hazardous Materials Hazardous materials are regulated by the Federal Resources Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). ADEQ implements CERCLA, commonly known as the Superfund, and its amendments, the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) of 1986. A brief review of the various state and federal hazardous materials databases was conducted for the study area; a review of aerial photographs and a detailed search of these databases were not performed. Sources accessed included: the Arizona Water Quality Assurance Revolving Fund (WQARF); the National Priority List (NPL) Sites (Federal Superfund); the Arizona Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs); the Solid Final Report Turner Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study I-10 to SR- 74 Page 3-7 Waste Landfills (SWLFs); the ADEQ Underground Storage Tanks (UST); the ADEQ Leaking Underground Storage Tanks (LUST); the ADEQ Declaration of Environmental Use Restriction (DEUR); and the Voluntary Environmental Mitigation Use Restriction (VEMUR). Based on this review, it was determined that there currently there are no known Water Quality Assurance Revolving Fund (WQARF) or National Priority List (NPL) sites within the study area. There is one Department of Defense (DoD) facility within the study area: Luke Air Force Base Auxiliary Airfield No. 4. Auxiliary Airfield No. 4 is listed in the Formerly Used Defense Sites (FUDS) cleanup program. There were no Solid Waste Landfills (SWLFs) noted during research utilizing multiple databases. The search of underground storage tanks (USTs) and leaking USTs (LUSTs) maintained by ADEQ revealed three (3) known facilities with six (6) USTs. According to ADEQ records, no properties within the study area boundaries have a Declaration of Environmental Use Restriction (DEUR) and the Voluntary Environmental Mitigation Use Restriction (VEMUR). 3.9 Cultural Resources Cultural resources may include prehistoric or historic archaeological sites or objects, historically or architecturally significant structures, buildings or landscapes, and/or Traditional Cultural Places which may be eligible for or listed on the NHRP. Literature compiled during preparation of the Sun Valley and Wittmann Area Drainage Master Plans (ADMPs) and available through AZSite (Arizona's inventory of known historic and archaeological cultural resources) indicates numerous cultural resource sites have been identified within the study area. The background review revealed 18 roads and three (3) mining properties on historic General Land Office plat maps of the study area; no other information pertaining to these properties was available at the time of the review. It was determined that 59 previously recorded archaeological sites have been identified within the study area. Forty (40) cultural resource projects have been conducted within and immediately adjacent to the study area. Twenty (20) cultural resource properties (including nine (9) archaeological sites; ten (10) road segments, and one (1) mining complex) have been previously identified as occurring within approximately 500 feet of the proposed Turner Parkway corridor. Of the ten (10) archaeological sites (including the mining complex), five (5) have been recommended by the site recorder as eligible for inclusion in the NRHP, four (4) were considered not eligible, and information was not available for one (1). The ten road segments are of indeterminate NRHP eligibility and will need to be individually evaluated to determine their significance. The Blackhawk Gold Mine Site has been recommended as not eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). However, the majority of the features associated with this property (indicated on the USGS topographic Final Report Turner Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study I-10 to SR- 74 Page 3-8 map of this section of the project area) are located in areas that have not been subjected to formal archaeological survey; thus, recordation of additional elements of this site potentially could affect its NRHP eligibility. 3.10 Section 4(f) Resources The U.S. Department of Interior (DOI) has identified the CAP canal as a National Recreation Trail, which qualifies it as a Section 4(f) property. No other known publicly-owned parks, recreation areas, or wildlife and waterfowl refuges exist within the study area. However, information from the AZSITE database search, which also includes parks and recreation resources, indicates there may be several historic sites within the project vicinity, which also fall within the framework of Section 4(f). 3.11 Section 6(f) Resources The Land and Water Conservation Fund Act (LWCF) was signed into law on September 3, 1964. The LWCF Act was established to provide a funding source for acquisition of park and recreation lands by federal, state, and local governments. No Section 6(f) funded properties are currently located within the study area. Final Report Turner Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study I-10 to SR- 74 Page 3-9 4 SUMMARY OF DRAINAGE ATTRIBUTES As noted previously, the Turner Parkway corridor, as depicted in the MAG Hassayampa Valley Study, crosses numerous sensitive alluvial fans and FEMA- or FCDMC-delineated flood zones (refer to Figure 3-1). Crossing delineated floodplains will require care not to adversely affect adjacent properties by increasing the flooding limits. The following is a list of the major drainage features that would be crossed by the future Turner Parkway alignment: FRS No. 1 and Inlet Channel White Tank Mountains Alluvial Fans Sun Valley Parkway Channel Wagner Wash CAP Canal & Flood Pool Hassayampa River Tributaries. A discussion of the critical characteristics of each of these major drainage features is presented in the following subsections, and their locations are shown graphically in Figure 4-1. Additional details regarding the drainage and hydrological characteristics of the study area are contained in Technical Memorandum No. 4 Conceptual Drainage Report that is provided in Appendix D. 4.1 Buckeye Flood Retarding Structure No. 1 and Inlet Channel Buckeye FRS No. 1 collects runoff from an area of about 74 square miles north of I-10. FRS No. 1 also collects outflows from the principal outlet pipe of Buckeye FRS No. 2 via an earthen inlet channel that runs along the south toe of the hills just north of the I-10/SR-85 traffic interchange. FRS No. 2 collects the principal outlet flows from FRS No. 3 further east. Consequently, during a significant runoff event, moderate discharges will be passed to FRS No. 1 via its inlet channel for many days. The inlet channel also collects local runoff from the drainage area between FRS No. 2 and FRS No. 1. 4.2 White Tank Mountains Alluvial Fans The southern and western slopes of the White Tank Mountains are drained by a series of coalescing unstable alluvial fans. Many of these were studied and delineated for FEMA floodplains during development of the Sun Valley Area Drainage Master Plan. In addition, Fans 37 and 38 were delineated separately by engineers for large master planned communities in the area. Fan 36 was previously delineated by the Flood Control District of Final Report Turner Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study I-10 to SR- 74 Page 4-1 R 5W R 4W R 3W Tributary Morristown D A " ) T 6N 74 Little San Domingo Wash Rockaway Hills Rd Figure 4-1 Study Area Drainage Features Desert Hills Rd t u 60 Circle City BN SF Ra ilr Joy Ranch Rd " ) Source: FCDMC, JE Fuller, November 2008 Black Mountain Rd G ra nd e Av h as y W sh a W Study Area Lone Mountain Rd Dixileta Dr Sun Valley ADMP Limits Patton Rd 8E Hassayampa Legend Dove Valley Rd a S0 3W NR h as tW River " ) ilb Tr n Io T4 es 3W T 5N Carefree Hwy _ [ Alluvial Fan Apices Baseline Alignment IoIonn S Jomax Rd " S" Happy Valley Rd " S Sun Valley Parkway Channel T 4N oa d C AP Can S " S" al Deer Valley Rd " S " S S " S " Floodplain, Floodway, SVADMP Flood Floodprone Areas, Alluvial Fan High Hazard Pinnacle Peak Rd White Tank Mountains Beardsley Rd Sun Valley Parkway Central Arizona Project Canal W W agn as e h r Union Hills Rd 1 2 13E13W [ _[ _ _[ [ _3 16 _ 16A [ CAP Bridge Structure S CAP Drainage Structure " ) Towns Greenway Rd 18 Waddell Rd _ [ 19 _ [ T 3N _ [ _ [ 17 _ [ S Bell Rd Railroads Cactus Rd 4 Major Roadways 5 _4 [[ _ _ [ Peoria Ave Minor Roadways 6 Olive Ave _ [ Northern Ave 39 _ [ Glendale Ave 38 _ [ 37 T 2N [ 36 _ _ [ Bethany Home Rd Camelback Rd 7 _ [ Indian School Rd 8 Sky _ [ FRS No.1 12 T 1N _ [ Van Buren St _ [[ __ [ 11 9 10 _ [ ¨ ¦ D A§ " ) Hopeville Yuma Rd 10 Lower Buckeye Rd Rainbow Rd Watson Rd Apache Rd Miller Rd Rooks Rd Oglesby Rd Turner Rd Wilson Ave Palo Verde Rd Bruner Rd 85 Johnson Rd Thomas Rd _ [ FRS No.3 _ McDowell Rd [ FRS No.2 Final Report Turner Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study I-10 to SR-74 Page 4-2 I 0 1 2 Miles Maricopa County (FCDMC) in 2001. The apex for each fan is identified by a star in Figure 4-1 and is labeled with the number or name it was assigned during the delineation studies. The Turner Parkway Baseline Alignment, as depicted in the MAG Hassayampa Valley Study, is located downstream of the apices of Fans 3, 13, and 16; Fans 36 and 37; and Fans 7, 8, and 12. Table 4-1 identifies the drainage area and computed 100-year peak discharge at the fan apex for each upstream watershed or tributary area. Table 4-1 Alluvial Fan Apex Discharges Fan Designation Drainage Area (square miles) 100-year Apex Discharge (cubic feet per second) 13E 0.09 202 13W 0.31 524 3 0.77 836 16 0.62 1,008 37 4.24 2,519 36 5.69 3301 7 1.55 1,453 8 0.52 646 12 1.42 1,050 Source: JE Fuller September 2008 4.3 Sun Valley Parkway Channel The existing Sun Valley Parkway channel is a mostly earthen, trapezoidal channel with numerous hardened grade control structures. Local inflow is concentrated into one of several inlets along the channel. In the vicinity of the proposed Turner Parkway crossing, the channel is a compound trapezoid with a bottom width of about 100 feet and a maximum depth of about 5.5 feet. Runoff from a portion of the northern extents of the White Tank Mountains drains in a northerly direction toward the east-west trending segment of Sun Valley Parkway. Some intercepted runoff originates from Alluvial Fans 1, 2, 3, and 13. Flows are collected in an existing channel along the south side of Sun Valley Parkway. The channel directs flows to the west into Wagner Wash. Wagner Wash carries the runoff southwest to the Hassayampa River. Final Report Turner Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study I-10 to SR- 74 Page 4-3 4.4 Wagner Wash Wagner Wash, which originates approximately seven (7) miles north of Sun Valley Parkway (refer to Figure 4-1) shows that the Baseline Corridor Alignment of Turner Parkway roughly parallels the wash north of the CAP canal. Wagner Wash and numerous smaller washes were crossed with construction of the CAP canal, and natural drainage flows were severed. The runoff north of the CAP canal now is detained in an expansive, man-made flood pool. Accumulated runoff in the flood pool is released via overchute structures (see discussion of CAP canal and flood pool below). The Wagner Wash overchute permits runoff accumulated in the flood pool to cross over the CAP canal into the original Wagner Wash drainage channel south of the canal. The original, natural channel and floodplain of Wagner Wash, south of the canal, drains southwesterly toward Sun Valley Parkway where the flow is joined by the Sun Valley Parkway Channel. 4.5 CAP Canal and Flood Pool The CAP Canal bisects the study area. The average cross-section of the canal is 80 feet wide on the top, 24 feet wide on the bottom, and the water is 16.5 feet deep. The canal is fenced along its entire length and has operations and maintenance (O&M) service roads on both sides to facilitate maintenance and security operations. The Department of the Interior (DOI) has identified the CAP Canal as a National Recreation Trail. As part of the recreational planning for the CAP Canal, the Bureau of Recreation (Recreation) has committed itself to maintaining a 20-foot recreation corridor on the right side (facing downstream) of the canal. The CAP Canal is protected from runoff by an earthen flood-retarding embankment built up along its north side. Detention of runoff in an expansive, man-made flood pool significantly reduces the flow that crosses the CAP Canal. Outflow from the flood pool occurs through one (1) of two (2) 18-foot wide concrete overchute structures in CAP Reach 8. One overchute is located at Wagner Wash (Station 248+00) directly west of the Desert Oasis Boulevard alignment, and the other at Station 181+00 to the west. Peak discharge is reduced from about 7,800 cfs to 150 cfs during a 100-year, 24-hour event [JEF, 2006c]. The Turner Parkway alignment through this area must ensure flood pool capacity is not diminished and continues to operate safely. 4.6 Hassayampa River Tributaries Figure 4-1 shows there are significant washes and tributaries feeding the Hassayampa River in the northern portion of the study area. Final Report Turner Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study I-10 to SR- 74 Page 4-4 4.6.1 Unnamed Tributaries to Hassayampa River North of the CAP canal, there are two major tributary systems feeding the Hassayampa River. As noted above, the Baseline Corridor Alignment of Turner Parkway between Happy Valley and Jomax Roads is placed through or generally contiguous with Wagner Wash. Runoff from one unnamed wash enters the river approximately 10 miles north of where the CAP canal crosses the river (Dove Valley Road alignment). The wash originates from numerous small washes south of Gates Road and east of Ogden Road southwest of Morristown, approximately four (4) miles north of its entry point in the river. The Baseline Corridor Alignment of Turner Parkway roughly parallels this tributary channel. The proposed Baseline Corridor Alignment north of the Dixileta Drive alignment would require at least 44 drainage crossings. Most of these crossings could be avoided or significantly reduced in size by an alternate alignment to the east or west that follows the natural drainage divide. 4.6.2 Little San Domingo Wash Little San Domingo Wash originates northeast of Morristown and drains in a westerly direction across the study area before entering the Hassayampa River. The 100-year FEMA floodplain in the reach crossed by the proposed Baseline Alignment is about 3,200 cfs. 4.6.3 Tributary to Little San Domingo Wash The tributary to Little San Domingo Wash enters approximately at six-tenths of a mile from the Hassayampa River along the proposed Baseline Alignment. Final Report Turner Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study I-10 to SR- 74 Page 4-5 5 DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION OF ALIGNMENT ALTERNATIVES This chapter presents a discussion of key design considerations and decisions associated with selecting and defining a Preferred Corridor Alignment for Turner Parkway. It documents the following: evaluation methodology; definition of the Baseline Corridor Alignment; definition and evaluation of Conceptual Alignment Alternatives (where appropriate); evaluation of conditions in special analysis areas; and a summary of findings. 5.1 Feasibility Study Process A framework for evaluation and decision-making was established to provide a rational and logical process for the conduct of this feasibility study. Five (5) steps were identified, which are outlined in the following sections. 5.1.1 Define a Baseline Corridor Alignment The Baseline Corridor Alignment, adopted for this feasibility study, represents a composite plan of recommendations from the I-10/Hassayampa Valley Roadway Framework Study, the Roadway Plan of the City of Surprise, the Town of Buckeye General Plan Transportation Circulation Element, and Turner Parkway alignments depicted in the published circulation plans of several master-planned communities. Analysis and evaluation of the Baseline Corridor Alignment and Conceptual Alignment Alternatives were accomplished by examining major constraints and opportunities within the study area. The number and character of potential constraints, issues, and challenges associated with the Baseline Corridor Alignment varied greatly through the study area. Therefore, the corridor was divided into the three (3) segments, as identified in Figure 5-1. South Segment – extends from I-10 to the Olive Avenue alignment in the southern portion of the White Tank Mountain Regional Park; Middle Segment – extends from the Olive Avenue alignment to just north of the of the Happy Valley Road alignment; and North Segment – extends from the Happy Valley Road alignment to SR-74, which is proposed to be extended to the west from US-60 to a future Hassayampa Valley Freeway. Alignment alternatives were defined to address and resolve issues, constraints, and challenges associated with developing Turner Parkway. Additional investigations were undertaken in special analysis areas including parkway grade-separated interchange (PGSI) locations and the CAP canal crossing to determine project feasibility. Final Report Turner Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study I-10 to SR- 74 Page 5-1 R 5W R 4W R 3W T 6N Morristown Morristown D A COUNTY COUNTY AREAS AREAS Desert Hills Rd t u 60 Circle Circle City City Joy Ranch Rd BBN N GG SSFF rraa R nnd Raail d A ilrroo Avv aad ee d North Segment T 5N Rockaway Hills Rd 74 Wittmann Wittmann Figure 5-1 Study Area Analysis Segments Sources: MCDOT, the CK Group, April 2010 Black Mountain Rd Carefree Hwy Legend Dove Valley Rd Study Area Lone Mountain Rd White Tank Mountain Regional Park Dixileta Dr Arizona Army National Guard Buckeye Training Site Patton Rd Jomax Rd Happy Valley Rd Middle Segment T 4N al l CCaanna CCAAPP Pinnacle Peak Rd SURPRISE SURPRISE Central Arizona Project Canal " ) Towns ’ ­ Traffic Interchange Deer Valley Rd Sun Sun Valley Valley Parkway Parkway Railroad Beardsley Rd Major Roadways Union Hills Rd Bell Rd Minor Roadways Master Planned Communities Greenway Rd COUNTY COUNTY AREAS AREAS T 3N BUCKEYE BUCKEYE Festival Ranch Waddell Rd Spurlock Ranch Cactus Rd Sun City Festival Ranch Peoria Ave Sun Valley Olive Ave Anthem Sun Valley Northern Ave Elianto South Segment T 2N Glendale Ave Bethany Home Rd Tartesso Camelback Rd Broadstone Ranch Indian School Rd Municipal Limits Thomas Rd Buckeye McDowell Rd Surprise T 1N Van Buren St ’ ­ ’ ­ ’ ­ Hopeville Hopeville § ¨ ¦ 10 Yuma Rd D A Lower Buckeye Rd Rainbow Rd Watson Rd Apache Rd Miller Rd Rooks Rd Oglesby Rd Turner Rd Wilson Ave Palo Verde Rd Bruner Rd Johnson Rd 85 Final Report Turner Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study I-10 to SR-74 Page 5-2 I 0 1 2 Miles 5.1.2 Identify Issues and Challenges for the Baseline Corridor Alignment The second step involved investigation of major opportunities and constraints, as defined by engineering or planning issues and challenges, that potentially would influence constructability and, therefore, feasibility of the project. Initial screening of the Baseline Corridor Alignment for Turner Parkway focused on identifying and understanding issues and challenges pertaining to: physiographic features, drainage patterns, utilities, environmental considerations, and right-of-way requirements. Comments obtained as a result of reviews of this information and input solicited from the project team, Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), and stakeholders served as guidance in the process of identifying opportunities and constraints. The Baseline Corridor Alignment was carefully assessed with respect to study area and corridor conditions to determine if and where mitigating actions were warranted. 5.1.3 Definition and Evaluation of Conceptual Alignment Alternatives This element of the feasibility evaluation involved examination of the three (3) analysis segments of the Turner Parkway corridor and resolution of significant issues and constraints associated with the Baseline Corridor Alignment. In all, five (5) Conceptual Alignment Alternatives were formulated and defined with respect to individual sections within the three (3) analysis segments that presented potential constraints. In each case except one, the Buckeye Alignment Alternative, definition of alternatives utilized technically feasible approaches or treatments based on documented data and information. Each was drawn in plan view using a scale large enough to adequately exhibit engineering details and support more detailed investigation and evaluation. The alternatives were evaluated to ascertain the extent to which each would mitigate undesirable effects or results associated with implementing the Baseline Corridor Alignment. Extensive coordination with the TAC and major stakeholders was maintained during definition and evaluation of these alternatives. In the case of the Buckeye Alignment Alternative, a compromise of two (2) alternatives was identified and approved by the Town Council. 5.1.4 Special Analysis Areas Special Analysis Areas were identified where additional engineering analysis was deemed necessary to declare with greater confidence the absence of fatal flaws. For example, questions were posed about how the parkway will cross the CAP canal and what will be the best method for addressing larger, unique parkway-to-parkway intersections. Conditions were evaluated in detail to identify critical near-term and future actions required to assure resolution of the issues and challenges. Final Report Turner Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study I-10 to SR- 74 Page 5-3 5.1.5 Define Preferred Corridor Alignment A Preferred Corridor Alignment was defined based on findings and conclusions drawn from the previous steps. It incorporates a combination of segments of the Baseline Corridor Alignment and Conceptual Alignment Alternatives. The Preferred Corridor Alignment represents a feasible route for Turner Parkway devoid of fatal flaws. Although certain sections of the alignment will present engineering challenges, construction of the Preferred Corridor Alignment, as defined, has been deemed feasible. 5.2 Definition of Baseline Corridor Alignment The Baseline Corridor Alignment shown in Figure 5-2 represents the route originally ascribed through the planning activities of the I-10/Hassayampa Valley Roadway Framework Study. It reflects adjustments made in response to detailed review of circulation plans submitted by developers of master-planned communities located in the study area. Connections to the I-10/SR-85 interchange and the proposed SR-74 Extension are fundamental to development of Turner Parkway. However, resolution of the alignments at the ends of the corridor will be accomplished by others during future studies resulting in Design Concept Reports (DCRs). Consistent with the I-10/Hassayampa Valley Roadway Framework Study, the Turner Parkway Baseline Corridor Alignment extends from I-10/SR-85 in a northwesterly direction, diagonally traversing State Land to the Turner Road section line just south of McDowell Road. North of McDowell Road, the MAG-defined Turner Parkway alignment follows the Turner Road section line through the Tartesso master-planned community, continuing along the section line between the Tartesso and Elianto master-planned communities. It proceeds directly north along the section line to Bethany Home Road in the Anthem Sun Valley master-planned community. The alignment continues in a northerly direction, following the established circulation plan for this community to Northern Avenue. The Baseline Corridor Alignment enters State Land west of the White Tank Mountain Regional Park and follows a th route that takes it as far west as the 279 Avenue alignment. The Baseline Corridor Alignment enters the Sun Valley Villages master-planned community at Greenway Road, proceeds in a northeasterly direction to Sun Valley Parkway and Desert Oasis Boulevard. It passes through the Sun Valley Festival Ranch master-planned community along the alignment of Desert Oasis Boulevard (273rd Avenue) and crosses the CAP canal and a contiguous flood pool. The Baseline Corridor Alignment enters the Spurlock Ranch master-planned community at Deer Valley Road. It follows a dedicated alignment identified in the Spurlock Ranch Master Street Circulation Plan between Deer Valley Road and Happy Valley Road and continues in a northerly direction to Happy Valley Road. Final Report Turner Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study I-10 to SR- 74 Page 5-4 R 5W R 4W R 3W T 6N Morristown Morristown D A " ) COUNTY COUNTY AREAS AREAS Rockaway Hills Rd 74 Desert Hills Rd t u 60 Circle Circle City City Joy Ranch Rd " ) BBN N GG SSFF rraa R nnd Raail d A ilrroo Avv aad ee d North Segment T 5N Figure 5-2 Baseline Corridor Alignment ) Wittmann Wittmann" Sources: MCDOT, the CK Group, MAG - April 2010 Black Mountain Rd Carefree Hwy Legend Dove Valley Rd Baseline Alignment Lone Mountain Rd Study Area Dixileta Dr White Tank Mountain Regional Park Patton Rd Middle Segment T 4N al l CCaanna CCAAPP Jomax Rd Arizona Army National Guard Buckeye Training Site Happy Valley Rd Central Arizona Project Canal Pinnacle Peak Rd SURPRISE SURPRISE Deer Valley Rd Sun Sun Valley Valley Parkway Parkway COUNTY COUNTY AREAS AREAS T 3N Communities ’ ­ Traffic Interchange Beardsley Rd Railroad Union Hills Rd Major Roadways Bell Rd Minor Roadways Greenway Rd BUCKEYE BUCKEYE " ) Planning Areas Waddell Rd Buckeye Planning Area Cactus Rd City of Surprise Planning Area Peoria Ave County Areas Olive Ave Surprise and Buckeye Planning Areas Overlap Northern Ave Glendale Ave Municipal Limits South Segment T 2N Bethany Home Rd Buckeye Camelback Rd Surprise Indian School Rd Turner Parkway Connection to I-10/SR-85 and SR-74 Extension to be determined by future studies Thomas Rd McDowell Rd ’ ­ " ) Hopeville ’ ­ ’ ­ Hopeville § ¨ ¦ 10 Yuma Rd D A Lower Buckeye Rd Rainbow Rd Watson Rd Apache Rd Miller Rd Rooks Rd Oglesby Rd Turner Rd Wilson Ave Palo Verde Rd Bruner Rd 85 Johnson Rd T 1N Van Buren St Final Report Final Report - Turner Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study I-10 to SR-74 Page 5-5 I 0 1 2 Miles North of Happy Valley Road, the Baseline Corridor Alignment meanders northward on a route slightly west of the Turner Road section line for a distance just over four (4) miles. North of Lone Mountain Road, the alignment is reestablished on the Turner Road section line and proceeds directly north to Black Mountain Road. North of Black Mountain Road, the Baseline Corridor Alignment shifts over to the 273rd Avenue alignment for two miles before adopting a northwesterly route for its connection with the SR-74 Extension. The Baseline Corridor Alignment, as defined, crosses multiple active alluvial fans south of Sun Valley Parkway, passes under several high-voltage OHE lines throughout its length, and must cross the CAP canal. The alignment passes through six master-planned communities; however, only Sun Valley Festival Ranch is under development. Grade-separated parkway-to-parkway interchanges are contemplated at the future McDowell Parkway and Sun Valley Parkway. 5.3 Feasibility Analysis of the Baseline Corridor Alignment This feasibility analysis for Turner Parkway involved planning and engineering studies of the Baseline Corridor Alignment within the three analysis segments shown previously in Figures 5-1 and 5-2. These studies focused on addressing and resolving opportunities, constraints, issues, and challenges affecting potential project feasibility. Issues of concern generally related to constructability, design, or costs, which significantly influenced potential project feasibility. Conceptual Alignment Alternatives were defined and examined, where notable weaknesses, deficiencies, or implementation issues associated with the Baseline Corridor Alignment were revealed. This section provides a discussion of issues addressed in each segment, and it identifies Conceptual Alignment Alternatives defined to mitigate the negative aspects of constraints that potentially could affect the feasibility of constructing Turner Parkway. Detailed information relating to the identification of issues and constraints and resolution of same is presented in Technical Memorandum No. 5, Corridor Alternatives Development and Evaluation, which is included in Appendix E. 5.3.1 South Segment – Urban Core/White Tanks Most of the Turner Parkway alignment in the South Segment passes through privately held land, including the master-planned communities of Tartesso, Elianto, and Anthem Sun Valley. Developers of these communities have included Turner Parkway in their circulation plans, as described in the previous section. Therefore, it was not necessary to identify and evaluate alignment alternatives through these communities. However, certain constraints were identified with respect to the Baseline Corridor Alignment that justified identifying mitigation actions or evaluating alignment alternatives (Figure 5-3). Final Report Turner Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study I-10 to SR- 74 Page 5-6 R 4W R 3W SEE FIGURE 5-6 (Middle Segment) S S tt aa tt ee LL aa nn dd W W hh ii tt ee T Taa nn kk M o u n t a M o u n t a ii nn R R ee gg ii oo nn aa ll P P aa rr kk T 3N 6 Figure 5-3 Olive Ave South Segment Baseline Corridor Alignment Constraints Source: the CK Group, April 2010 Northern Ave S7 Legend 39 Study Area Glendale Ave A A nn tt hh ee m m S S uu nn V aa ll ll ee yy Subdivision Boundary 38 Baseline Turner Pkwy Alignment Bethany Home Rd 37 Future Parkway Proposals Future Arterial Proposals S6 Future Collector Proposals 36 T 2N S5 Camelback Rd 10-Foot Contours _ [ Alluvial Fan Apex Floodplain, Floodway, Floodprone Areas E E ll ii aa nn tt oo Indian School Rd 7 Turner Parkway Corridor Watershed Boundary A AP W Recommended Drainage Corridors 0 50 kV 5 PA WA Recommended Drainage Basins Thomas Rd 00 Wildlife Habitat Linkages kV S3 8 Turner Parkway Connection to I-10/SR-85 to be determined by future studies McDowell Rd Ta r t e s s o AP T a r t e s s o SE xistin g X S2 Small (16 - 335) Van Buren St S4 Middle (336 - 1200) S1 APS 500 kV Large (1201 - 3400) CAP Canal Sun Valley Parkway 9 Yuma Rd I § ¨ ¦ 10 D A Lower Buckeye Rd 85 0 0.5 1 I-10 Final Report Turner Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study I-10 to SR-74 Page 5-7 Miller Rd Rooks Rd Oglesby Rd Turner Rd Miles Wilson Ave T 1N SR 74 60 Drainage Crossings (Discharge in cfs) 12 US 69 k V Turner Parkway Baseline Corridor Alignment Constraints 5.3.1.1 Feasibility Evaluation Potential constraints associated with the Baseline Corridor Alignment in the South Segment are discussed below. I-10/SR-85/Turner Parkway Junction (Constraint S1) – As recommended in the I10/Hassayampa Valley Roadway Framework Study, Turner Parkway begins at the I-10/SR-85 interchange. However, detailed evaluation of the southern terminus of Turner Parkway is outside the scope of work of this current study. Future Turner Parkway Intersection with Van Buren Street (Constraint S2) – The Turner Parkway intersection with Van Buren Street, a future arterial roadway, will be skewed, if the Baseline Corridor Alignment is maintained. A skewed intersection would require an undesirable intersection geometry from an operational and safety standpoint. Also, the diagonal (northwest by southeast) orientation of the Baseline Corridor Alignment will split a large parcel of State Land, which, according to the ASLD, potentially could negatively affect its market value. Therefore, investigation of the alignment alternative was considered warranted. Future Turner Parkway Intersection with McDowell Parkway (Constraint S3) – Forecast traffic volumes through the Turner Parkway/McDowell Parkway intersection under Buildout conditions indicate the need for a grade-separated interchange, which will require more right-of-way. Due to the high volume of traffic forecast through this intersection, a grade-separated, parkway-to-parkway interchange was determined to be necessary. The MCDOT Arizona Parkway Intersection/Interchange Operational Analysis and Design Concepts Study resulted in definition of a special interchange design concept for grade-separating two parkway facilities. The conceptual interchange design is discussed further in the Special Facility Design section below. The footprint of a grade-separated, parkway-to-parkway interchange design will impact the Tartesso community at the northeast and southwest quadrants of the intersection and ASLD lands at the northwest and southeast quadrants. Clustered Drainage Crossings, North of I-10 Interchange to McDowell Parkway (Constraint S4) – The Baseline Corridor Alignment of Turner Parkway diagonally cuts through active Alluvial Fans 7, 8, and 12. This results in the need to install numerous drainage structures, which would be skewed. Concerns for the accommodation of drainage focus on: concentration of flows downstream; capture-redirection of flow by the road embankment; potential need for additional right-of-way; and high construction costs of 19 crossing structures. A Turner Parkway alignment shifted east towards the apices (i.e., upper-most or origination point) of affected alluvial fans potentially could reduce the number of drainage crossings in this segment of the alignment. However, such an alignment Final Report Turner Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study I-10 to SR- 74 Page 5-8 alternative would have significant impact on the circulation plan developed by Tartesso north of McDowell Parkway, and opposition from the development community would be expected. An alignment alternative shifted to the west would reduce transverse impacts on the drainage pattern and be consistent with resolution of other constraining features previously noted with respect to Constraints S2 and S3. Right-of-Way Constraints McDowell Road to Northern Avenue (Constraint S5) – The Baseline Corridor Alignment of Turner Parkway between the McDowell Road and Northern Avenue alignments follows the Turner Road section line and passes through the master-planned communities of Tartesso and Anthem Sun Valley and alongside Elianto. The circulation plans established for these communities do not satisfy the minimum 200-foot right-of-way requirements for the Arizona Parkway cross section.7 However, developing an alignment alternative to avoid this constraint was considered unwarranted. Clustered Drainage Crossings between Indian School Road and Bethany Home Road (Constraint S6) – A cluster of 18 drainage crossings along the Baseline Corridor Alignment within a two-mile segment between Indian School Road and Bethany Home Road represents additional capacities and redundancies needed for roadway construction. Ultimately, drainage solutions in the South Segment are considered dependent upon construction phasing of the Sun Valley Area Drainage Master Plan (ADMP) basin and walled corridors concept relative to ongoing development and Turner Parkway. This phasing will not impact feasibility of constructing Turner Parkway. Construction of Turner Parkway prior to development of the basin and walled corridors, however, will result in subsequent actions to modify preexisting drainage paths crossing the facility. Nevertheless, developing an alignment alternative to avoid drainage constraints was considered unwarranted. Wildlife Linkages (Constraint S7) – Two (2) potential wildlife habitat linkages are present at the northern end of the South Segment. Wildlife linkages have been identified by Arizona Game and Fish Department (AZGFD) to aid planning and development of public facilities, such as Turner Parkway. Viable wildlife corridors, which enable connectivity to adjacent habitat blocks, are critical to the protection of in situ wildlife populations from localized extirpation and decreased genetic diversity. Specific mitigation actions, involving design of the facility were beyond the scope of this study. Future studies need to include close coordination with AZGFD to evaluate specific mitigation elements (e.g., drainage crossing enhancements) that may be available to best accommodate wildlife movements. 7 MCDOT Design Guideline Recommendations for the Arizona Parkway (August, 2008). Final Report Turner Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study I-10 to SR- 74 Page 5-9 5.3.1.2 Definition of Alignment Alternative The extent of the Turner Parkway corridor between the I-10/SR-85 interchange and the future intersection of Turner Parkway/McDowell Parkway exhibits several constraints warranting investigation of an alignment alternative. Therefore, a Conceptual Alignment Alternative was defined to avoid the skewed crossing of Van Buren Street, splitting ASLD land, and excessive drainage crossings, as shown in Figure 5-4. Immediately north of the future Turner Parkway/I-10/SR-85 interchange area, the Conceptual Alignment Alternative proceeds in a west by northwest direction toward the Turner Road section line (275th Avenue) one mile to the west. It intersects the section line at a point that will permit an adequate tangent length along the section line to avoid a skewed intersection of Turner Parkway with Van Buren Street. The Turner Parkway alignment continues north along the section line from Van Buren Street to the future McDowell Parkway. A Parkway Grade-Separated Interchange (PGSI) would be developed at the parkway-to-parkway intersection at McDowell Road. 5.3.1.3 Discussion Table 5-1 compares the characteristics of the Conceptual Alignment Alternative to the Baseline Corridor Alignment of Turner Parkway. While the Conceptual Alignment Alternative will result in approximately two (2) additional lane miles for Turner Parkway, it will satisfy several issues and concerns related to the Baseline Corridor Alignment, namely: A skewed intersection at Van Buren Street will be eliminated; There will be sufficient tangent section south of McDowell Parkway to accommodate an efficient and safe grade-separated, parkway-to-parkway interchange design; The ASLD parcel will not be fragmented; The alignment will coincide with the Turner Road section line, which is an accepted roadway alignment; and There will be a significant reduction in drainage easement requirements. Thus, the proposed Conceptual Alignment Alternative for the South Segment will yield appropriate mitigation of identified concerns and satisfy tests of feasibility. Final Report Turner Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study I-10 to SR- 74 Page 5-10 Figure 5-4 South Segment Conceptual Alternative Alignment I-10 to McDowell Parkway Page 5-11 Table 5-1 Comparison of Alignments: South Segment Characteristic Baseline Corridor Alignment Conceptual Alignment Alternative 2.2 2.5 13 15 12 5 3 20 19 2 0 21 5,610 NIL 9 49 58 32 28 60 1 1 29.7 32.3 High High High High Segment Length (Miles) Number of Lane Miles (Assumes a six-lane parkway crosssection) Number of Drainage Crossings Small Medium Large Total Drainage Easement (linear feet of frontage) Right-of-Way Requirement (Acres) Private State/Federal Total Significant Utility Crossings Anticipated Construction Cost (Millions of 2009$) Compatibility with Adopted/Proposed Plans Public Acceptability Source: the CK Group June 2009 5.3.1.4 Special Facility Design Considerations I-10/SR-85 Interchange Connection - The exact Turner Parkway alignment south of the McDowell Parkway alignment ultimately will be dependent on location and design of the I-10/SR-85/Turner Parkway interchange, which is beyond the scope of this current study. Considering the challenges associated with connection to I-10, a detailed feasibility study will need to be initiated to examine alternatives. Such a study could be led by MAG with the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT), MCDOT, FCDMC, and the Town of Buckeye as supporting agencies. I-10/SR-85 Interchange to McDowell Parkway Section There is adequate distance to shift the alignment from Oglesby Road (SR-85) to the Turner Road section line below Van Buren Street, rather than taking it diagonally over to McDowell Parkway. While this will result in approximately two (2) additional lane miles of roadway, Final Report Turner Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study I-10 to SR- 74 Page 5-12 the defined Conceptual Alignment Alternative will satisfy several issues and concerns related to the Baseline Corridor Alignment as mentioned above. McDowell Parkway Intersection The magnitude of forecast traffic volumes at the Turner Parkway/McDowell Parkway intersection instigated development of a new interchange design to accommodate travel demand. The MCDOT Arizona Parkway Intersection/Interchange Operational Analysis and Design Concepts Study, September, 2009, concluded this intersection will need to be grade separated to accommodate forecast traffic volumes. The study produced a preliminary Parkway Grade-Separated Interchange (PGSI) design concept that maintains the indirect left-turn maneuver associated with the Arizona Parkway operational scheme. The interchange concept maintains operational consistency relative to the travel experience for drivers. The PGSI design (Figure 5-5) has been tested with traffic modeling software and shown to support the heavy traffic volumes forecast for the Turner Parkway/McDowell Parkway intersection. Right-of-way requirements will be less than those associated with the standard diamond or single point urban interchange (SPUI). Guidance regarding preservation of needed right-of-way for the mainline roadway is provided in MCDOT’s Design Guideline Recommendations for the Arizona Parkway and MCDOT’s Arizona Parkway Intersection/Interchange Operational Analysis and Design Concepts Study referenced in this report. As shown previously in Figure 5-4, the future Turner Parkway/McDowell Parkway interchange will be located in the midst of the Tartesso development and be the first parkway-to-parkway access point north of I-10/SR-85. The PGSI concept was shared with project stakeholders at the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) meeting on April 29, 2009. Developers of the Tartesso community have not raised objection to the proposed PGSI design at this intersection. Nevertheless, Tartesso representatives reserved the right to further evaluate this option when additional more detailed studies are conducted in the future. 5.3.2 Middle Segment – Sun Valley/Festival The Middle Segment presents the greatest challenge to development of Turner Parkway. The Baseline Corridor Alignment crosses three (3) major utility corridors, passes through the central portion of three (3) master-planned communities, and crosses the CAP canal and the flood pool north of the CAP canal. The Baseline Corridor Alignment coincided with circulation plans established for three (3) of the master-planned communities. Still, there were several constraints with the proposed roadway network and other undesirable characteristics, as identified in Figure 5-6. Final Report Turner Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study I-10 to SR- 74 Page 5-13 Page 5-14 R 4W R 3W SEE FIGURE 5-8 (North Segment) Figure 5-6 Middle Segment Baseline Corridor Alignment Constraints 5 APS S S tt aa tt ee LL aa nn dd V 00 k Happy Valley Rd Source: the CK Group, April 2010 S S pp uu rr ll oo cc kk R R aa nn cc hh M6 M5 F F ee ss tt ii vv aa ll R R aa nn cc hh M4 S AP T 4N C AP Legend Pinnacle Peak Rd a C an k 500 Study Area V Subdivision Boundaries l Deer Valley Rd Baseline Turner Pkwy Alignment APS 500 kV Preferred Route Future Parkway Proposals M3 Future Arterial Proposals S S uu nn C C ii t y F ee ss tt ii vv aa ll R R aa nn cc hh Future Collector Proposals 50 0 kV Beardsley Rd 10-Foot Contours AP S Sun Valley Parkway _ [ Floodplain, Floodway, Floodprone Areas M2 S S uu nn V V aa ll ll ee y Turner Parkway Corridor Watershed Boundaries as P ipe lin e Union Hills Rd 36 "G Recommended Drainage Corridors rn er Bell Rd 1 Tr an sw es te h as Alluvial Fan Apices M1 Recommended Drainage Basins 2 13W 13E Wildlife Habitat Linkage Boundary X 3 Greenway Rd 16A 16 Drainage Crossings (Discharge in cfs) W W hh ii tt ee T Taa nn kk M M oo uu nn tt aa ii nn R R ee gg ii oo nn aa ll P P aa rr kk 17 Turner Parkway Baseline Corridor Alignment Constraints Small (16 - 335) Middle (336 - 1200) Waddel Rd SR 74 T 3N 60 18 US Large (1201 - 3400) S S tt aa tt ee LL aa nn dd Cactus Rd nal CAP Ca Sun Valley Parkway I 4 5 Peoria Ave 0 Final Report Turner Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study I-10 to SR-74 Page 5-15 0.5 1 I-10 Miles Miller Rd Rooks Rd Oglesby Rd Turner Rd Wilson Ave Palo Verde Rd SEE FIGURE 5-3 (South Segment) 5.3.2.1 Feasibility Evaluation Clustered Drainage Crossings North of Waddell Road to North of Bell Road (Constraint M1). – There is a cluster of 18 drainage crossings within a two-mile section of the Baseline Corridor Alignment from one-half mile north of Waddell Road to Bell Road An alignment alternative was considered that shifted Turner Parkway towards the apices of alluvial fans to reduce the number of drainage crossings. However, such an alignment will have significant impact on the Sun Valley Villages circulation plan. In addition, it will place the alignment higher up on the slopes of the White Tank Mountains. The majority of the Baseline Corridor Alignment in this portion of the corridor coincides with established right-of-way set forth in the Sun Valley Villages circulation plan. Consequently, an alternate alignment likely would face opposition from the development community. Additionally, should the Sun Valley ADMP basins and walled corridors concept be implemented prior to Turner Parkway, these drainage improvements will minimize the challenge presented by the clustered drainage crossings. Right-of-Way from Greenway Road to Sun Valley Parkway (Constraint M2) – The dedicated right-of-way of 130 feet for a Major Arterial through Sun Valley Villages does not satisfy the 200-foot right-of-way requirement for an Arizona Parkway. Additional right-of-way will be required to accommodate Turner Parkway within the Sun Valley Villages community. Also, additional right-of-way will be required at Sun Valley Parkway to accommodate a PGSI, as referenced above for the Turner Parkway/McDowell Parkway intersection. Right-of-Way through Sun City Festival Ranch (Constraint M3) – There are homes or home-site pads constructed on the east side of Desert Oasis Boulevard, which is a segment of the Baseline Corridor Alignment. Additional homes, a mixed-use area, and a second golf course are planned, but not yet platted, for the west side of this Major Arterial. Desert Oasis Boulevard has been developed with a 130-foot right-of-way, which is not adequate for an Arizona Parkway facility. The developer is opposed to the additional 70 feet of right-of-way that will be required to accommodate the Arizona Parkway cross-section. Pulte Homes is concerned the wider parkway facility would pose challenges to residents using golf carts, which are a preferred means of travel through the community for some residents. In addition, a PGSI at Sun Valley Parkway will directly impact home-site pads already prepared, which occupy the northeast quadrant of the interchange area. Therefore, investigation of an alignment alternative approximately two (2) miles west of the Baseline Corridor Alignment was undertaken to avoid direct impacts to this community. Intersection of Beardsley Parkway and Turner Parkway (Constraint M4) – Beardsley Road is identified to be a parkway east of the Baseline Corridor Alignment (Desert Oasis Boulevard), but is identified as an Major Arterial roadway to the west. This change in functional classification may require different roadway cross-sections east and west of Turner Parkway. Final Report Turner Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study I-10 to SR- 74 Page 5-16 Only 130 feet of right-of-way has been established for Beardsley Road through the Sun City Festival Ranch master-planned community. Designation as a parkway in the Transportation Framework Recommendation of the MAG I-10/Hassayampa Valley Roadway Framework Study means additional right-of-way will be needed east of the Baseline Corridor Alignment to accommodate the Arizona Parkway concept, which requires 200 feet of right-of-way. Also, additional right-of-way needs to be established for Beardsley Road west of Turner Parkway to permit design of an effective transition through the intersection. CAP Canal Crossing Influence Area (Constraint M5) – The influence area associated with the CAP canal crossing is approximately 2,200 feet in length, extending from just north of the future Turner/Beardsley parkway-to-parkway intersection to beyond the flood pool area on the north side of the CAP canal. Clearances over the canal and protection of an established flood control feature present critical engineering issues. This portion of the corridor presents the following significant challenges: 1. Existing and future OHE transmission lines cross this portion of the corridor on an east-west alignment along the south side of the CAP canal; 2. Desert Oasis Boulevard, as noted earlier, already is laid out and partially constructed on the Turner Parkway Baseline Corridor Alignment; 3. Established rights-of-way for Desert Oasis Boulevard and Beardsley Road (east and west of the Baseline Corridor Alignment) are inadequate for the cross-section requirements of the Arizona Parkway concept; 4. The Baseline Corridor Alignment of Turner Parkway must cross over the CAP canal and the flood pool, which exists on the north side of the canal; 5. Potential disturbance of the Wagner Wash floodway located directly west of the Baseline Corridor Alignment and south of the CAP canal; and 6. The CAP canal is identify as a wildlife linkage; therefore, crossing the CAP canal will require appropriate planning to create wildlife friendly crossing opportunities through consultation with AZGFD. Considering the complexity of constraints associated with the CAP canal and right-of-way issues noted above (M3 and M4), a thorough investigation of an alignment alternative was warranted (refer to M3 above). Wildlife Linkages (Constraint M6) – Two potential wildlife habitat linkages are present in the Middle Segment. Resolution of specific issues associated with wildlife linkages and Turner Parkway, a regional thoroughfare, is beyond the scope of this study. No alternative route would reduce or eliminate potential impacts to wildlife linkages, due to their broad geographic extent. Future studies need to include close coordination with AZGFD to evaluate specific mitigation elements (e.g., drainage crossing enhancements) that may be available to best accommodate wildlife movements. Final Report Turner Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study I-10 to SR- 74 Page 5-17 5.3.2.2 Definition of Alignment Alternatives The initial feasibility evaluation required definition of an alignment alternative to address certain constraints on the Baseline Corridor Alignment, particularly passage of Turner Parkway through the Sun City Festival Ranch. A Western Alignment Alternative, shifting Turner Parkway approximately two (2) miles to the west was established for evaluation (Figure 5-7). While this alignment had the advantage of avoiding Sun City Festival Ranch, it presented other less advantageous conditions, which resulted in the Baseline Corridor Alignment being the preferred route to Turner Parkway. However, public meetings in the corridor led MCDOT and the Town of Buckeye to conclude an alignment through Sun City Festival Ranch would not be viable. Therefore, discussions were conducted to identify an acceptable alignment. As a result of these discussions, the Town of Buckeye defined and approved an alignment around the western end of Sun City Festival Ranch. A definition of this alignment and discussion of special facility design considerations for its implementation are presented below. Information regarding the Western Alignment Alternative and a comparison of it to the Baseline Corridor Alignment is provided in Technical Memorandum No. 5, Corridor Alternatives Development and Evaluation included in Appendix E. 5.3.3 Buckeye Alignment Alternative The events that lead to approval of the Town of Buckeye Alignment Alternative in the middle segment by the Town Council are discussed in the sub section below. 5.3.3.1 Background With the completion of the feasibility evaluation, a corridor alignment was defined that incorporated the Baselines Corridor Alignment. The Baseline Corridor Alignment followed Desert Oasis Boulevard through the center of Sun City Festival Ranch. A Western Alignment Alternative was located approximately two (2) miles west of Desert Oasis Boulevard in the st vicinity of the Palo Verde Road section line (291 Avenue). Figure 5-7 shows the locations of these two alignments. The feasibility evaluation, summarized in the previous section, supported the Baseline Corridor Alignment, passing through Sun City Festival Ranch, as the more desirable alignment. A public Open House was conducted at Sun City Festival Ranch by MCDOT staff and Town of Buckeye officials. The purpose of this May, 2009, meeting was to obtain public feedback regarding the two (2) alignment alternatives evaluated for the Middle Segment. MCDOT anticipated making a final alignment decision by the end of June, 2009. However, input obtained during the Open House revealed residents of Sun City Festival Ranch strongly favored the Western Alignment Alternative. This alignment also was favored by Pulte Homes, Final Report Turner Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study I-10 to SR- 74 Page 5-18 Figure 5-7 Middle Segment Conceptual Alignment Alternatives Greenway Rd to Happy Valley Rd Page 5-19 developer of Sun City Festival Ranch. In addition, persons attending the Open House voiced concern that many residents reside away from the Sun City Festival Ranch community during the months of June to September. They requested that further action be suspended until the winter months to enable full involvement of their community. In response to the residents' request, MCDOT agreed to postpone a decision on the final alignment to permit additional study. During this extended study period, the Town of Buckeye undertook the responsibility of addressing objections to the Turner Parkway segment following Desert Oasis Boulevard (the Baseline Corridor Alignment). Town officials actively pursued definition of an alignment alternative that would alleviate concerns raised by residents of Sun City Festival Ranch and the community's developer. As part of its outreach, the Town of Buckeye organized an Education Forum in October, 2009, to share additional information and obtain input from residents. Progress was made toward a compromised alignment west of Desert Oasis Boulevard; however, a consensus could not be achieved.8 Additional discussions ultimately lead to a new alignment at the western edge of Sun City Festival Ranch, referred to in this report as the Buckeye Alignment Alternative. This alignment also is shown in Figure 5-7. This adjustment of the Turner Parkway alignment was presented for public review January 14, 2010, at the Town of Buckeye council work session and approved by the Town Council a week later.9 An Addendum to Technical Memorandum No. 5, Corridors Alternatives Development and Evaluation, specifically addressing adjustment of the alignment in the vicinity of Sun City Festival Ranch between Greenway Road and Pinnacle Peak Road was prepared. This Addendum is contained in Appendix E. The following sections provide definitions of the two alignment alternatives considered within the Middle Segment and discuss special facility considerations. 5.3.3.2 Definition of Alignment The approved “Buckeye Alignment Alternative” follows the Western Alignment Alternative between Greenway Road and Beardsley Road. Approximately one-half mile north of Greenway Road, Turner Parkway continues its northwesterly trend, crossing Wagner Wash before intersecting with Sun Valley Parkway. It is anticipated that a PGSI interchange will be developed at the intersection of Turner Parkway and Sun Valley Parkway. It continues northwest, south of Beardsley Road it shifts to the north generally following the 287th Avenue 8 9 “Study on parkway is postponed a 3rd time,” Arizona Republic, Tuesday, January 5, 2010. “Residents back parkway route,” Arizona Republic, Sunday, January 14, 2010; and "Buckeye council OKs new route for proposed Turner Parkway," AZCentral.com, January 22, 2010, 01:20 PM, The Arizona Republic. Final Report Turner Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study I-10 to SR- 74 Page 5-20 alignment just east of the Palo Verde Road section line. It crosses the CAP canal at an angle, passing through the canal-created floodpool area for a distance of approximately three-quarters of a mile. The alignment turns north into the Festival Ranch master-planned community approximately 1½ miles north of the CAP canal. It crosses into the Spurlock Ranch master-planned community near 279th Avenue/Pinnacle Peak Road. North of Pinnacle Peak Road, the alignment transitions back to the Baseline Corridor Alignment at 275th Avenue. 5.3.3.3 Special Facility Design Considerations This section of the report focuses on specific areas, where critical issues or challenges are present that could affect project feasibility. These critical design and development concerns must be addressed in the subsequent Design Concept Report (DCR) phase of project development to assure successful project implementation. Roadway Network – The recently completed MCDOT Arizona Parkway Intersection/ Interchange Operational Analysis and Design Concepts Study, recommends the PGSI design treatment for the Turner Parkway/Sun Valley Parkway intersection. The Town of Buckeye will need to assure adequate right-of-way is preserved for the PGSI regardless of which alignment is selected for Turner Parkway. In addition, the proximity of a PGSI at Sun Valley Parkway with a required Wagner Wash bridge will create design challenges with respect to drainage and cross-section requirements. Within this portion of the Middle Segment, there is the potential, depending on final design of the facilities involved, that Turner Parkway would have a skewed intersection with Beardsley Road. Future DCRs for both facilities will be able to address this issue with satisfactory results. Consideration will need to be given to extending Beardsley Road as a parkway west of Desert Oasis Boulevard, to remain consistent with the Transportation Framework Recommendation of the I-10/Hassayampa Valley Roadway Framework Study. This Buckeye Alignment Alternative creates greater conflicts with the circulation plans of Festival Ranch and Spurlock Ranch than either the Baseline Corridor Alignment or the Western Alignment Alterantive. However, development plans for these master-planned communities have not been finalized. This means alignment adjustments can be made to both Turner Parkway and elements of these circulation plans during preparation of future DCRs. Therefore, future, detailed studies are expected to support an efficient and effective traffic system design for the area. CAP Canal Crossing – The influence area associated with the CAP canal crossing covers a distance of approximately 1.2 miles. It extends from just north of the future Turner Parkway/Beardsley Road intersection through the flood pool area on the north side of the Final Report Turner Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study I-10 to SR- 74 Page 5-21 CAP canal. Based on the alignment approved by the Town of Buckeye, the bridging structure required to cross the CAP canal likely will be skewed. The bridging structure will span the CAP canal, service roads, and trails. Approach embankments will be required to attain the required clearance over the canal. It will traverse the canal-created flood pool area for a distance of approximately three-quarters of a mile. Required embankments north of the canal potentially will impact the flood pool. Ultimately, potential impacts will depend on the final horizontal alignment to be determined through detailed future studies. A slight adjustment of the alignment could eliminate the skew and reduce impacts to the flood pool. 5.3.4 North Segment – State Land/SR-74 Extension Most of the Turner Parkway corridor in the North Segment traverses State Land. There are minimal topographic constraints, and future developments already have established rights-of-way for Turner Parkway. Thus, with exception of the terminus of Turner Parkway at the future SR-74 Extension west of US-60, which will be addressed during future studies, the North Segment presents the least amount of constraints or challenges among the three (3) corridor segments. Potential constraints associated with the Baseline Corridor Alignment in the North Segment are discussed below and shown in Figure 5-8. 5.3.4.1 Feasibility Evaluation Clustered Drainage Crossings Dixileta Road to SR-74 (Constraint N1) – Numerous washes and drainage paths will require 38 drainage crossings between Dixileta Drive and the future SR-74 Extension. In addition, a considerable bridge structure will be required at Little San Domingo Wash. These conditions add greatly to the design challenges of the proposed Parkway facility in the North Segment. Two alignment alternative were defined that would reduce transverse impacts on the drainage pattern and be consistent with resolution of other constraining features. Wildlife Linkages (Constraint N2) – One (1) potential wildlife habitat linkage is present in the North Segment: the “White Tanks and Vulture and Hieroglyphic Mountains Linkage” (Linkage #51). The extent of this linkage ranges from the north of SR-74 into the Middle Segment and the western extent of the White Tank Mountains. The Baseline Corridor Alignment and any alternatives would pass through this linkage zone north of the Lone Mountain Road alignment (extended). Future studies need to include close coordination with AZGFD to evaluate specific mitigation elements (e.g., drainage crossing enhancements) that may be available to best accommodate wildlife movements. SR-74 Extension/Turner Parkway Junction (Constraint N3) – As recommended in the I10/Hassayampa Valley Roadway Framework Study, Turner Parkway would terminate at the SR-74 Extension. However, detailed evaluation of the northern terminus of Turner Parkway is Final Report Turner Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study I-10 to SR- 74 Page 5-22 R 4W R 3W D A S AP 74 69 kV n Little Sa Wash o Doming Figure 5-8 North Segment Baseline Corridor Alignment and Constraints Morristown Rockaway Hills Rd Source: the CK Group, April 2010 BBN NS SFF RRa aiilr lro N3 oaadd Legend T 6N N4 t u Study Area Desert Hills Rd 60 Subdivision Boundaries Baseline Turner Pkwy Alignment Joy Ranch Rd N2 Future Freeway Proposals Future Parkway Proposals Future Arterial Proposals Black Mountain Rd Future Collector Proposals am pa R iver 10-Foot Contours Floodplain, Floodway, Floodprone Areas Turner Parkway Corridor Watershed Boundaries H a ss a y Carefree Hwy Wildlife Habitat Linkage Boundary Turner Parkway Connection to SR-74/US-60 (N3) to be determined by Future studies N1 Dove Valley Rd Turner Parkway Baseline Corridor Alignment Constraints X Drainage Crossings (Discharge in cfs) R3 Middle (336 - 1200) W h 8E S0 as tW T 5N Small (16 - 335) N es 3W T4 Lone Mountain Rd Large (1201 - 3400) SR 74 US 60 Dixileta Dr F F ee ss tt ii vv aa ll R R aa nn cc hh CAP Canal Patton Rd Sun Valley Parkway I APS 500 kV White Tan ks Fwy Jomax Rd 0 Final Report Turner Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study I-10 to SR-74 Page 5-23 0.5 1 I-10 Miles Miller Rd Rooks Rd Oglesby Rd Turner Rd Wilson Ave SEE FIGURE 5-6 (Middle Segment) outside the scope of work of this current study. Impacts to Existing Homes (Constraint N4) – There are several existing large lot residences located in the northern segment of the study area. Evaluation of the baseline alignment indicates that a few of these homes could be impacted. Therefore, future studies should include further evaluation of the baseline alignment to minimize or eliminate potential impact. 5.3.4.2 Conceptual Alignment Alternatives The Baseline Corridor Alignment traverses two (2) large areas with multiple drainage paths. The alignment generally runs parallel with flow, rather than crossing these drainage paths. Therefore, two (2) Conceptual Alignment Alternatives were developed to aid in evaluating opportunities for reducing drainage impacts in this segment and, thereby, minimize structural requirements, construction challenges, and project costs (Figure 5-9). It should be noted that the bridge structure required to cross Little San Domingo Wash will be necessary with all alternatives investigated. Alignment Shift to the East (N1-A) – This alignment alternative shifts Turner Parkway to the east, beginning one-quarter to one-half mile north of Dixileta Drive, to follow a ridgeline separating drainage sheds. The alignment will shift as far east as 267th Avenue at Black Mountain Road before shifting back to the west, tying into the Baseline Corridor Alignment between Desert Hills Road and Rockaway Hills Road. Alignment Shift to the West (N1-B) – This alignment alternative shifts Turner Parkway to the west, beginning about one-quarter mile north of Carefree Highway alignment to follow a ridgeline separating two small drainage sheds. The alignment will shift as far west as 273rd Avenue at the Joy Ranch Road alignment before shifting back to the east. North of Desert Hills Road, the alignment will curve to the west, tying into the Baseline Corridor Alignment just south of Little San Domingo Wash. 5.3.4.3 Discussion Table 5-2 below provides a summary evaluation of Conceptual Alignment Alternatives relative to the Baseline Corridor Alignment. Alternative N1-B eliminates a large number of drainage crossings and reduces the length of Turner Parkway by 0.4 miles. This western alignment of Turner Parkway also will be less disruptive of and, therefore, more compatible with State Land. By comparison, shifting Turner Parkway to the east, as defined by Alternative N1-A, will eliminate fewer drainage crossings and slightly increase the length of Turner Parkway. The eastern alignment also will be less compatible with State Land. Final Report Turner Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study I-10 to SR- 74 Page 5-24 Figure 5-9 North Segment Conceptual Alignment Alternatives Dixileta Dr to Rockaway Hills Rd Page 5-25 Table 5-2 Comparison of Alignments: North Segment Baseline Corridor Alignment Characteristic Segment Length (Miles) Number of Lane Miles (Assumes a six-lane parkway cross-section) Number of Drainage Crossings Small Medium Large Total Drainage Easement (Linear feet of frontage) Right-of-Way Requirement (acres) Eastern Alignment (N1-A) Western Alignment (N1-B) 7.3 7.5 6.9 44 45 41 29 4 2 35 26 0 0 26 Similar to Baseline 11 1 1 13 2,450 Nil 0 177 177 0 183 183 0 167 167 Nil Nil Nil 95.0 98.2 90.2 Compatible Compatible Highly Compatible High High High Private State/Federal Total Significant Utility Crossings Anticipated Construction Cost (Millions of 2009$) Compatibility with Adopted/Proposed Plans Conceptual Alignment Alternatives Public Acceptability Source: the CK Group June 2009 5.3.4.4 Special Facility Considerations This section of the report focuses on specific areas, where critical issues or challenges are present that could affect project feasibility. These critical design and development concerns must be addressed in the subsequent Design Concept Report (DCR) phase of project development to assure successful project implementation. Drainage Patterns Constructability of Turner Parkway will be heavily influenced by an extensive, dense drainage pattern associated with the Hassayampa River. This pattern will result in a high number of drainage crossings. The large number of drainage crossings in this segment can be significantly reduced – even largely avoided, by implementing either of the Conceptual Alignment Alternatives evaluated. Both follow natural drainage divides, which were not readily apparent during previous regional planning studies regarding Turner Parkway. The Final Report Turner Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study I-10 to SR- 74 Page 5-26 need for drainage structures and potential impacts on drainage will be minimized under the Western Alignment Alternative (N1-B). Major Utilities A proposed 500 kV OHE transmission line is proposed to cross the study area along the alignments of Long Mountain Road or Carefree Highway. Future coordination with APS regarding the location of towers for this line will be an obvious benefit to the Turner Parkway project. Also, the existing 69kV OHE transmission lines on the north side of Patton Road and in the vicinity of the SR-74/US-60 intersection have support towers spaced at less than 400-foot intervals. Although the tower interval is sufficiently wide for a typical parkway cross-section, the Arizona Parkway cross-section preferred for Turner Parkway may push the limits established by these supports. Adaptation of these lines for crossing the parkway likely will be necessary. SR-74 Extension Connection The exact Turner Parkway alignment connecting with SR-74 ultimately will be dependent on location and design studies conducted for extension of SR-74 westward as a freeway facility. The required parkway-to-freeway interchange is beyond the scope of this current study. Preliminary review during this feasibility study revealed no fatal flaws associated with this future connection. However, the Turner Parkway alignment and its relation to SR-74 will need to be addressed in more detail through a detailed feasibility study to examine alternatives. Such a study could be led by MAG with the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT), MCDOT, FCDMC, and the City of Surprise and Town of Wickenburg as supporting agencies. Final Report Turner Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study I-10 to SR- 74 Page 5-27 6 PREFERRED CORRIDOR ALIGNMENT th This study determined that construction of Turner Parkway (275 Avenue) between I-10 and SR-74 is feasible. The Preferred Corridor Alignment is described in this chapter. Description of the Preferred Corridor Alignment does not include the north and south termini at I-10/SR-85 and SR-74 extension, respectively. Evaluation and design concepts for these termini are not within the scope of this study and will be developed during future studies. As noted previously, the Preferred Corridor Alignment, defined as a result of this feasibility study, represents a composite plan of various recommendations and proposals associated with other studies and plans recorded for master-planned communities. Initial identification of intersections along Turner Parkway was obtained from the Transportation Framework Recommendation formulated during the I-10/Hassayampa Valley Roadway Framework Study. Other circulation plans and development proposals previously cited were reviewed to identify specific locations of crossing roadways, the type of roadway (e.g., parkway, arterial, etc.), and any additional roadways not previously identified. The Preferred Corridor Alignment also incorporates alignment adjustments developed and adopted to alleviate potential and perceived impacts in response to direct stakeholder and community involvement in the Middle Segment. 6.1 General Description The Preferred Corridor Alignment of Turner Parkway, as defined herein, assumes phased construction of four-, six-, and eight-lane parkway segments as growth occurs in the study area (Figure 6-1). It includes 25 intersections with major cross streets, excluding any future connection to I-10/SR-85 and SR-74. The intersection with the potential White Tanks Freeway is included, as it will be located in the study area. However, final configuration of this intersection is not addressed herein. In addition to the major cross streets, 13 minor cross streets have been identified and are shown intersecting Turner Parkway. The number of intersections likely will be reduced as a result of adjustments to master-planned community circulation plans and detailed engineering studies conducted during preparation of future DCRs for corridor segments. Seven (7) of the 25 major cross streets have been identified as parkway-to-parkway intersections as a result of the Arizona Parkway Intersection/Interchange Operational Final Report Turner Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study I-10 to SR- 74 Page 6-1 T 6N R 5W R 4W COUNTY COUNTY AREAS AREAS R 3W H Morristown Morristown D A Figure 6-1 Preferred Corridor Alignment Desert Hills Rd t u 60 Circle Circle City City Joy Ranch Rd BBN N GG SSFF rraa R nnd Raail d A ilrroo Avv aad ee d North Segment T 5N Rockaway Hills Rd 74 Wittman Wittman Sources: MCDOT, Town of Buckeye, City of Surprise, the CK Group, April 2010 Black Mountain Rd Carefree Hwy Legend Dove Valley Rd Preferred Corridor Alignment Lone Mountain Rd Study Area Dixileta Dr White Tank Mountain Regional Park Patton Rd Central Arizona Project Canal Jomax Rd Happy Valley Rd Middle Segment T 4N al l CCaanna CCAAPP Pinnacle Peak Rd SURPRISE SURPRISE Sun Sun Valley Valley Parkway Parkway " ) Communities ’ ­ Traffic Interchange Deer Valley Rd Railroad Beardsley Rd Major Roadways Minor Roadways Union Hills Rd Bell Rd Master Planned Communities Festival Ranch Greenway Rd COUNTY COUNTY AREAS AREAS T 3N BUCKEYE BUCKEYE Waddell Rd Spurlock Ranch Cactus Rd Sun City Festival Ranch Peoria Ave Sun Valley Olive Ave Anthem Sun Valley Northern Ave Elianto Glendale Ave Tartesso South Segment T 2N Bethany Home Rd Broadstone Ranch Camelback Rd Indian School Rd Municipal Limits Thomas Rd Buckeye McDowell Rd H T 1N Surprise Van Buren St ’ ­ ’ ­ ’ ­ Hopeville Hopeville § ¨ ¦ 10 Yuma Rd D A Lower Buckeye Rd Rainbow Rd Watson Rd Apache Rd Miller Rd Rooks Rd Oglesby Rd Turner Rd Wilson Ave Palo Verde Rd Bruner Rd Johnson Rd 85 Final Report Turner Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study I-10 to SR-74 Page 6-2 I 0 1 2 Miles Analysis and Design Concepts Study.10 Grade-separation is recommended at two (2) parkway-to-parkway intersections – McDowell Parkway and Sun Valley Parkway – to accommodate forecast average daily traffic under Buildout conditions in the study area. One grade-separated traffic interchange is anticipated at the crossing of the potential White Tanks Freeway. Development of Turner Parkway will involve crossing 13 (including three future) major utility corridors and traversing three (3) confirmed and one (1) potential wildlife linkage corridors. Evaluations conducted for this feasibility study indicate the potential for construction of 120 drainage structures. 6.2 Segments Descriptions This section provides detailed description of the Preferred Corridor Alignment within each of the segments identified for this feasibility study. 11 Large-scale (1” = 1,000’) plan view drawings of the Preferred Corridor Alignment in its entirety are presented at the end of this report. These drawings show the recommended facility centerline, required rights-of-way, drainage crossings and other pertinent physical corridor features. 6.2.1 South Segment – Urban Core/White Tanks Overview: The Preferred Corridor Alignment for Turner Parkway in the South Segment (Figure 6-2) extends from the I-10/SR-85 interchange to the Olive Avenue alignment. Turner Parkway in the South Segment ultimately will be integrated with the I-10/SR-85 interchange. However, as noted above, resolution of the design of this connection was beyond the scope of this study. Exact alignment of the Turner Parkway connection with the I-10/SR-85 interchange and the segment directly north of the interchange will be the focus of future detailed studies. Immediately north of the future Turner Parkway/I-10/SR-85 interchange area, the Preferred Corridor Alignment proceeds in a west by northwest direction toward the Turner Road th section line (275 Avenue) one mile to the west. It intersects the section line at a point that will permit an adequate tangent length along the section line to avoid a skewed intersection with Van Buren Street. The Turner Parkway alignment continues north along the section line from Van Buren Street to the future McDowell Parkway. A PGSI is anticipated to be developed at the parkway-to-parkway intersection with McDowell Road (refer to Figure 5-5). 10 11 MCDOT Arizona Parkway Intersection/Interchange Operational Analysis and Design Concepts Study, MCDOT, August, 2009. Sheet references are provided to aid the reader in locating in Appendix A the facility design feature(s) discussed. Final Report Turner Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study I-10 to SR- 74 Page 6-3 - South Segment Page 6-4 This is consistent with recommendations contained in Arizona Parkway Intersection/Interchange Operational Analysis and Design Concepts Study.12North of McDowell Parkway, Turner Parkway proceeds north to the Bethany Home Road alignment and continues north in a meandering fashion through the Anthem Sun Valley master-planned community. It shifts east to 271st Avenue, approximately one-quarter mile north of Bethany Home Road, and follows 271st Avenue for approximately one mile. Between Glendale Avenue and Northern Avenue, it shifts back west to the Turner Road section line. The Preferred Corridor Alignment follows the section line until it passes Northern Avenue. North of Northern Avenue, it shifts east again, intersecting Olive Avenue at the st 271 Avenue alignment. 6.2.2 Middle Segment – Sun Valley/Festival Overview: The Middle Segment of the Preferred Corridor Alignment (Figure 6-3) extends from the Olive Avenue alignment to Happy Valley Road. The route takes Turner Parkway through five miles of ASLD land holdings and as far west as 289th Avenue before returning to the Baseline Corridor Alignment at the Turner Road section line just south of Happy Valley Road. In the southern portion of this segment, Turner Parkway continues north from Olive Avenue, turning back to the west before reaching Peoria Avenue. It crosses Peoria Avenue west of 271st Avenue, then picks up 273rd Avenue and follows it to Cactus Road. At Cactus Road the Preferred Corridor Alignment takes up a north by northwest route, crossing the Turner Road section line at an angle. Approximately one-half mile south of Greenway Road, the Preferred Corridor Alignment picks up the alignment of 281st Avenue and goes straight north for one (1) mile. It enters the Sun Valley Villages master-planned community at the intersection of the Greenway Road and 281st Avenue alignments. The Preferred Corridor Alignment north from Greenway Road to Pinnacle Peak Road was developed by the Town of Buckeye as a result of public and developer feedback. Approximately one-half mile north of Greenway Road, Turner Parkway returns to the north by northwest route, crossing Wagner Wash before intersecting with Sun Valley Parkway. A PGSI will be developed at this intersection to facilitate Turner Parkway crossing over Sun Valley Parkway. Turner Parkway continues in a northwesterly direction, turning north along the general alignment of 287th Avenue south of Beardsley Parkway. 12 Ibid. Arizona Parkway. Final Report Turner Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study I-10 to SR- 74 Page 6-5 - Middle Segment Page 6-6 Continuing north, Turner Parkway crosses the CAP canal east of the Palo Verde Road section line approximately at 289th Avenue. North of the CAP canal, the alignment immediately turns to the east, passing through the canal-created flood pool area for a distance of approximately three-quarters of a mile. The alignment turns in a north by northeast direction at the 281st Avenue alignment and continues through the Festival Ranch master-planned community. It crosses into the Spurlock Ranch master-planned community near the intersection of Pinnacle Peak Road and 279th Avenue approximately 1½ miles north of the CAP canal. North of Pinnacle Peak Road, Turner Parkway transitions back to the Baseline Corridor Alignment, continuing northeast to the Turner Road section line (275th Avenue) at Happy Valley Road. 6.2.3 North Segment – State Land/SR-74 Extension Overview: The Preferred Corridor Alignment for Turner Parkway in the North Segment (Figure 6-4) continues in a generally northerly direction from Happy Valley Road through predominantly ASLD land to the future westward extension of SR-74. In this segment, Turner Parkway crosses the potential White Tanks Freeway between Patton Road and the Jomax Road alignment. The White Tanks Freeway is recommended in the I-10/Hassayampa Valley Roadway Framework Study. This major regional transportation facility will connect US-60, approximately 10 miles to the east, with the future Hassayampa Freeway, approximately 10 miles to the west. Turner Parkway continues north from Happy Valley Road into an area of State Land, th trending slightly to the northwest to 279 Avenue at Jomax Road. It shifts back to the east, crossing Patton Road in the vicinity of 277th Avenue. North of Patton Road, it shifts back to th th 279 Avenue, following 279 Avenue to Lone Mountain Road. North of Lone Mountain Road, the Preferred Corridor Alignment shifts back east to 277th Avenue and follows th 277 Avenue to Black Mountain Road. Directly north of the alignment of Carefree Highway, Turner Parkway shifts to the west to minimize impacts on drainage and reduce facility costs. th Crossing Black Mountain Road at 278 Avenue, Turner Parkway follows a route west to 279th Avenue, shifting back to the 277th Avenue alignment north of the Joy Ranch Road alignment. The Preferred Corridor Alignment shifts east to 276th Avenue at Desert Hills Road, and reconnects with the Baseline Corridor Alignment one-half mile north of Desert Hills Road. The I-10/Hassayampa Valley Roadway Framework Study resulted in the recommendation that SR-74 be extended west of US-60 as a freeway, connecting with the future Hassayampa Freeway approximately 11 miles to the west. Consistent with this recommendation, the Preferred Corridor Alignment incorporates a shift of Turner Parkway westward north of the Desert Hills Road alignment and south of Little San Domingo Wash. This shift will permit Turner Parkway to connect with the proposed SR-74 Freeway extension west of US-60 and Final Report Turner Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study I-10 to SR- 74 Page 6-7 - North Segment Page 6-8 the BNSF Railway corridor. This alignment adjustment also is consistent with the long-range planning for the major street system of the City of Surprise.13 And, it satisfies the need for physical space to construct a grade-separated interchange at this intersection. The exact alignment and connection of Turner Parkway with the proposed SR-74 Freeway will be identified by others subsequent to future, more detailed studies. 6.2.4 Summary Table 6-1 provides a summary of principal characteristics of the Preferred Corridor Alignment including total length, lane miles, drainage crossing and Right-of-Way requirements for each segment. Table 6-1 Facility Characteristic Segment Length (Miles) Number of Lane Miles (Assumes a six-lane parkway crosssection) Preferred Corridor Alignment Summary South Segment Middle Segment North Segment Total 10.00 11.35 11.03 32.38 60 68.10 66.18 194.28 17 9 21 47 32 17 4 53 16 2 2 20 65 28 27 120 153 97 250 174 105 279 0 267 267 327 469 796 Number of Drainage Crossings Small Medium Large Total Right-of-Way Requirement (acres) Private State/Federal Total Source: the CK Group February, 2010 6.3 Facility Design Concept This section identifies foundational descriptions of roadway design elements and cross-sections associated with Turner Parkway. It also addresses guidelines for crossing the CAP canal and other facility development considerations relative to major utility crossings and environmental concerns. Various design considerations for corridor feasibility evaluation were based on Buildout conditions forecast for the study area. This means evaluations and facility design treatments presented herein are based on MAG area-wide 13 “Overview, Special Planning Area 4 and 5,” Long Range Major Street Plan, City of Surprise, December 2008. Final Report Turner Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study I-10 to SR- 74 Page 6-9 projections of population and employment beyond 2030. The expected Buildout population in the area within eight (8) to 10 miles of the future Turner Parkway is projected to approach 1.2 million persons (refer to Section 2.1 for future population and employment projections under Buildout conditions). 6.3.1 Roadway Design Elements Table 6-2 below identifies key roadway design elements associated with the Arizona Parkway concept, as adopted by MCDOT for future parkway facilities in Maricopa County. These design parameters were used for this study effort to validate the Baseline Corridor Alignment for Turner Parkway as well as define the Conceptual Alignment Alternatives. Table 6-2 Urban Roadway Design Elements for Arizona Parkway Design Element 1 Standard Right-of-Way Requirement Design Speed 2 Super Elevation 2 Longitudinal Grades 2 Urban Rural 200 feet 200 feet 55 MPH 65 MPH 4% maximum 8% maximum 5% maximum 3% maximum Notes: 1) Excludes additional right-of-way required for drainage, slope easements, and ramps that may be associated with parkway-to-parkway grade-separated intersections. 2) Reported values are for predominant level terrain conditions along the Turner Parkway Corridor. Source: Urban roadway design parameters from MCDOT Roadway Design Manual, Revised 2004, and MCDOT Design Guideline Recommendations for the Arizona Parkway, August 2008. 6.3.2 Conceptual Design Elements Turner Parkway is proposed to be an Arizona Parkway-type facility. The Arizona Parkway concept is based on a traffic flow concept that requires vehicle operators desiring to turn left at an intersection to turn right then make a U-turn to accomplish a left-turn. This “indirect left-turn” operational protocol was first adopted on a large scale in Michigan; hence, it often is referred to as the “Michigan indirect left-turn” roadway. The Arizona Parkway concept has been adopted by MCDOT and accepted by MAG, the City of Surprise, and the Town of Buckeye as the principal facility design for major arterial roadways. The Arizona Parkway concept has been determined essential to accommodate travel demand under Buildout conditions in the study area. To this end, MCDOT commissioned Final Report Turner Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study I-10 to SR- 74 Page 6-10 development and publication of guidelines for the design and operation of the Arizona Parkway.14 The MCDOT Design Guideline Recommendations for the Arizona Parkway (August, 2008), a copy of which is included in Technical Memorandum 6, Appendix F was followed by the Arizona Parkway Intersection/Interchange Operational Analysis and Design Concepts Study (September, 2009), which identified parkway-to-parkway intersections that would need grade separation to accommodate forecast traffic volumes. 6.3.2.1 Facility Cross-Section MCDOT guidelines for the Arizona Parkway incorporate the cross-sections shown in Figure 6-5. This type of facility can be developed as a four-, six-, or eight-lane roadway. The typical urban cross-sections for the Arizona Parkway shown in Figure 6-5 have an extra-wide median. The width of the median varies according to the number of lanes and the types of vehicles anticipated to be using the roadway. Longer, over-the-road truck-trailer combinations have a larger turning radius and, therefore, parkway design must incorporate a median correlated with the number of available lanes. Regardless of the number of lanes or the width of the median, the minimum right-of-way for an Arizona Parkway, established by the MCDOT guidelines for purposes of planning the roadway network and right-of-way preservation, is 200 feet. This recommended right-of-way width will accommodate an eight-lane parkway with indirect left-turns by the largest vehicles. 6.3.2.2 Conceptual Intersection Designs MCDOT has gone forward with additional planning to determine how and where the major arterial roadways will intersect and what type of intersection will be required to accommodate forecast travel demand. Its study of the operational requirements of parkway-to-parkway intersections, based on forecast traffic from the I-10/Hassayampa Valley Roadway Framework Study, identified the type of intersection needed at each 15 potential parkway-to-parkway intersection. This MDCOT study identifies the need for five grade-separated intersections along the future Turner Parkway at the following locations: I-10/SR-85 – freeway-to-parkway intersection, which already is developed as a grade-separated interchange; McDowell Parkway (PGSI) – parkway-to-parkway intersection; Sun Valley Parkway (PGSI) – parkway-to-parkway intersection; 14 Ibid. MCDOT Design Guideline. 15 Ibid. Arizona Parkway. Final Report Turner Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study I-10 to SR- 74 Page 6-11 12' Lane 1.5% 50' Ultimate Median (8) Travel Lanes if Needed 14' Lane 14' Lane 12' Lane 2% 6' 7' Sidewalk (Min.) 12' Lane 6' Bike Lane 1.5% 2% 12' Lane 37' 14' Lane 37' 14' Lane 12' Lane 74' Median 44' 44' 81' 12' Lane 6' 6' 7' Sidewalk (Min.) Bike Lane 81' 100' Min. 100' Min. ARIZONA PARKWAY TYPICAL URBAN 6-LANE SECTION (200' RIGHT-OF-WAY) (Expandable to Eight Lane Section) 1.5% 6' 2% 7' Sidewalk (Min.) 6' 12' Lane Bike Lane 1.5% 2% 49' 14' Lane 14' Lane 49' 98' Median 32' 81' 32' 81' 100' Min. 100' Min. ARIZONA PARKWAY TYPICAL URBAN 4-LANE SECTION (200' RIGHT-OF-WAY) Figure 6-5 Arizona Parkway Facility Typical Urban Cross Sections Source: MCDOT Design Guideline Recommendations for the Arizona Parkway, August, 2008 Final Report Turner Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study I-10 to SR-74 Page 6-12 12' Lane Bike Lane 6' 7' 6' Sidewalk (Min.) White Tanks Freeway – freeway-to-parkway intersection, potential new facility recommended in the I-10/Hassayampa Valley Roadway Framework Study; and SR-74 Extension – freeway-to-parkway intersection, recommended in the I-10/Hassayampa Valley Roadway Framework Study. As shown previously in Figure 5-5, the PGSI conceptual design was developed during the MCDOT study to meet the needs associated with grade separation of two parkway facilities forecast to have high traffic volumes. Future, more detailed studies to be conducted as development of Turner Parkway proceeds should incorporate appropriate reference to the two MCDOT design guideline publications prepared for the Arizona Parkway facility. In addition, ADOT is currently developing templates for Freeway to Parkway interchanges. It is anticipated that this study will be completed by the end of the year. 6.3.2.3 CAP Canal Crossing Design Considerations A new bridge structure will be required to cross the CAP canal and the impoundment area (also referred to as green-up area or flood pool) on the north side of the canal. The design solution for this crossing must satisfy requirements listed below established by the CAWCD, administrator of the CAP canal. The bridge must span the CAP canal and the Operating and Maintenance (O&M) roads on both sides. The bridge must provide a vertical clearance of 14’-6” above the O&M roads to allow maintenance vehicles to operate unimpeded. The bridge must span the future Central Arizona Project Trail. The minimum trail width will be 20 feet and located along the canal’s right bank (facing downstream). Bridge piers located on each side of the canal shall not be closer than 5’-0” from the edge of the canal lining. The O&M roads may be closed one at a time, but both roads shall not be closed simultaneously during construction. Material/debris should be prevented from falling into the canal during construction. Any material/debris falling into the canal must be removed per CAP instructions. The existing bridge may be removed, if necessary. The existing pier in the canal shall not be removed. Gated access for the O&M road to/from the crossing roadway, which in this case will be Turner Parkway, must be provided. Final selection of the corridor alignment shall implement measures to keep the pool area north of CAP canal working efficiently without affecting the CAP canal O&M. Final Report Turner Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study I-10 to SR- 74 Page 6-13 Achieving the 14½ feet of vertical clearance will require fill embankments north and south of the CAP crossing to accommodate a new Arizona Parkway bridge. This requirement will, in turn, pose vertical constraints for the alignment of the parkway facility approach on both sides of the canal. Also, the embankment on the north side of the CAP Canal could adversely impact the impoundment (or flood pool) area. In order to minimize potential impact on this area and allow cross drainage across parkway alignment, the bridge structure north of the CAP canal may need to span the full width of the impoundment area. Any loss of flood storage capacity must be reinstated through excavation of adjacent land. 6.3.2.4 Drainage Considerations The Preferred Corridor Alignment of Turner Parkway crosses numerous floodplains and tributary drainage features. Potential impacts to floodplains need to be evaluated and mitigated: roadway alignments should avoid excessively long sections in a delineated floodplain. Therefore, the size and number of drainage structures must be considered. Existing drainage conditions were identified and evaluated with reference to local and national guidance for design solutions to potential drainage challenges. Significant drainage design factors associated with the feasibility of constructing Turner Parkway are noted below (refer to Technical Memorandum #4, Drainage Overview): All floodplain studies of alluvial fans in the Turner Parkway study area provide only ‘approximate’ floodplain delineations. As such, they do not specify base flood elevations associated with each zone. FEMA has indicated flood hazards on alluvial fans cannot be sufficiently mitigated by placement of fill alone. Generally, FEMA promotes ‘whole fan solutions’ to remove floodplain zones on alluvial fans. The crossing of delineated floodplains must adhere to design guidelines of the FCDMC. Such crossings shall not adversely affect adjacent properties by increasing established flooding limits or directly impact properties adjacent to drainage crossings of the roadway facility. The design discharge for the Sun Valley Parkway Channel, primary drainage path of floodwaters from White Tank Alluvial Fans 1 and 2 and a portion of Alluvial Fans 3 and 13 is 1,840 cfs. A bridging structure, including fill embankments, constructed to cross over the CAP canal cannot adversely impact the impoundment area on the north side of the canal. The bridging structure over the CAP canal cannot adversely impact the west/east cross drainage flow of the flood pool or the capacity of the flood pool. Little San Domingo Wash has a peak flow of approximately 3,220 cfs at its crossing of the Turner Parkway Preferred Corridor Alignment. The width of the floodplain at this location is about 600 feet. Final Report Turner Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study I-10 to SR- 74 Page 6-14 Drainage crossings have been classified into three (3) types based on run-off quantity and required sizing of standard drainage facilities: Small: less than 335 cfs; Medium: 335 – 1,200 cfs ; Large: 1,200 – 3,300 cfs. 6.3.2.5 Environmental Considerations Maintaining viable wildlife corridors to facilitate connectivity between adjacent habitat blocks is critical to protecting in situ wildlife populations from localized extirpation and decreased genetic diversity. The environmental overview prepared for this study established the basis for identifying and evaluating potential impacts. Specific environmental design considerations will need to be identified and considered during future studies in accordance with established federal, state, and local laws and policies. These more detailed design studies will need to include close coordination with AZGFD and FCDMC. Parkway design treatments should seek to minimize impacts to the Sonoran Desert Tortoise as well as other Special Status Species and wildlife linkages known to be present or occur within or in the vicinity of the Preferred Corridor Alignment. AZGFD should have the opportunity to review, evaluate, and suggest changes to parkway design treatments. During subsequent environmental documentation activities for the study area, ambient noise levels may need to be monitored at specific locations. The future noise quality for the study area will need to be evaluated against the existing noise data to conform to the MCDOT Noise Abatement Policy. In addition, local noise ordinances will need to be evaluated in considering future project development. 6.3.2.6 Utility Crossings The Turner Parkway study area is crossed by high-voltage, overhead electric (OHE) transmission (550 kV, 345 kV, and 230 kV) and 69 kV transmission lines owned by APS, APS/SRP, and WAPA. The number of utility crossings and required clearances were identified and considered during development, definition, and evaluation of the Preferred Corridor Alignment. Minimum electric utility clearance requirements are noted in Table 6-3. Individual utilities will need to be contacted to secure permits for the crossing of established right-of-way and obtain specific utility clearances, depending on the final alignment and profile of Turner Parkway. The Baseline Corridor Alignment of Turner Parkway also crosses a 36-inch natural gas pipeline recently constructed by the Transwestern Pipeline Company. The pipeline runs along the north side of the Beardsley Road alignment, north of Sun City Festival Ranch. It crosses Desert Oasis Boulevard and continues in a southwesterly direction parallel to the APS/SRP OHE transmission lines. It crosses the Preferred Corridor Alignment approximately one-half mile south of Sun Valley Parkway. The minimum ground cover for the gas pipeline is four (4) Final Report Turner Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study I-10 to SR- 74 Page 6-15 feet. Flow of natural gas through the pipeline cannot be disrupted, thus eliminating any opportunity for relocating or lowering the gas pipeline. Future roadways that will cross the pipeline, including Turner Parkway, will be required to acquire utility crossing clearance from the Transwestern Pipeline Company. Table 6-3 Transmission Number of Line Transmission (kilovolts) Lines 69 kV 345 kV 500 kV Overhead Electric Transmission Line Clearance Requirement Clearance Requirement Pole/Tower Easement (feet) Spacing (feet) 1 2 (feet) Horizontal Vertical Owner Location 1 APS North side of I-10 400 NA 1 APS North side of Patton Rd 400 NA 1 APS South side of US-60 NA NA 1 WAPA Through Tartesso Development 1,000 to 1,300 100 to 150 1 APS/SRP North of I-10/SR-85 1,000 NA 2 WAPA Through Tartesso Development 1,000 to 1,300 250 1,320 NA NA NA 3 Planned APS/SRP North of Beardsley Rd APS North of Lone Mountain Rd 32 22.57 32 31.77 32 36.93 Notes: 1) AASHTO Roadside Design Guide. 2) Where the controlling authority requires a greater clearance, that clearance will be met. When it is reasonable to assume vehicles greater than 14 feet will be operating under the line, the clearance shall be increased by the difference between 14 feet and the height of the vehicles. Source: APS, the CK Group June 2009 6.4 Access Management Guidelines The MCDOT Design Guidelines Recommendations for the Arizona Parkway (August, 2008) includes guidance for access management along parkway facilities. The guidelines highlight the following design criteria for establishing access management for an Arizona Parkway facility. The Arizona Parkway consists of a divided cross-section with a 74’ typical median (exclusive of turn lanes). U-turn directional crossovers are restricted to a maximum of eight per mile. Left-turns in any direction are prohibited at all intersections (full median break). 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. However, this can be accommodated by Final Report Turner Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study I-10 to SR- 74 Page 6-16 aligning the U-turn crossover with the side-street or driveway in order to facilitate left-turns and U-turns. Intersections (full median breaks) preferably are restricted to one-mile spacing and a minimum spacing of half-mile. No on-street parking. This publication indicates “access management guidelines should be considered as a minimum and may be supplemented or superseded by the guidelines and policies of the local agency which has jurisdiction over the roadway.” It also points out that “during an interim stage when the indirect left-turn is not fully implemented, direct left-turns may be allowed.” 6.5 Planning-Level Cost Estimates Unit cost and total projects costs have been prepared for planning purposes. These costs should be reevaluated and revised accordingly, as more detail engineering solutions are defined. Planning-level cost estimates were developed for a typical Arizona Parkway facility based on previously conducted Parkway studies by MCDOT in 2007 and 2008. A roadway construction cost of $9.6 million per mile was estimated for construction of a six-lane Arizona Parkway cross-section. It was developed by averaging estimated roadway construction costs reported in recently completed MCDOT planning studies conducted for similar parkway facilities in years 2007 and 2008. This estimated unit cost includes 20 percent contingencies in anticipation of considerable drainage complications. The preliminary probable project cost to construct Turner Parkway, based on planning-level assumptions, findings, and conclusions documented herein, is estimated to be $478.7 million (2009 $$). This includes: construction of the parkway facility; right-of-way acquisition; and construction of major grade-separated interchanges at McDowell Parkway and Sun Valley Parkway. This planning level cost estimate does not include the cost for purchase or relocation of existing residences in the corridor. The Table 6-4 provides a summary of the major costs associated with construction of Turner Parkway along the Preferred Corridor Alignment. The estimated cost of the CAP canal bridge crossing structure was developed from a $123 per square-foot unit cost, based on detailed estimates developed for significant crossing structures in the MCDOT Patton Road and Jomax Road Area Corridor Study, completed in October 2007. A $21.3 million cost for the potential PGSI was obtained from Final Report Turner Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study I-10 to SR- 74 Page 6-17 Table 6-4 Anticipated Roadway Construction Cost 1 Roadway Right-of-Way Major Structural Elements PGSI2 White Tanks Freeway Interchange3 CAP Canal Crossing Total Estimated Project Cost Planning-Level Project Cost Estimate (Millions of 2009 $$) $96.0 $109.0 $105.9 $310.9 $35.7 $40.0 $38.5 $114.2 $21.3 - $21.3 $11.0 - $42.6 $11.0 $153.0 $181.3 $144.4 $478.7 Notes: 1) Unit costs for right-of-way were provided by MCDOT, which considered properties sold in 2006 around the study area. 2) Arizona Parkway Intersection/Interchange Operational Analysis and Design Concepts Study, MCDOT and Wilson & Company, September 2009. 3) The exact location of connection with the potential White Tanks Freeway will be identified through future studies. Source: the CK Group February, 2010 the MCDOT Arizona Parkway Intersection/Interchange Operational Analysis and Design Concepts Study. Unit costs for right-of-way were established at: $3.29 per square-foot or $143 thousand per acre. Unit costs for right-of-way were provided by MCDOT, which considered properties sold in 2006 around the study area. 6.6 Project Phasing The MCDOT Design Guideline Recommendations for the Arizona Parkway identify a strategy for phasing development, as may be necessary in response to area growth and travel demand. Ideally, the full 200-foot right-of-way would be obtained and available to construct full typical section initially. However, this may not always be the case. Assuming only one-half of the eventual full right-of-way width is available for the initial construction, the half-street should be constructed and operated as a traditional arterial roadway allowing left-turns at intersections. The recommendations note that median crossovers should not be developed/provided in conjunction with a partial facility. Median crossover locations should be determined after the development pattern (and accompanying access requirements) has been established. This will permit planners and engineers to optimize median crossover locations. Under conditions permitting full street construction, the number of lanes initially constructed is typically less than the planned ultimate cross-section, the phasing strategy should recognize the needs of the ultimate full-width cross-section. Thus, if a 4-lane urban cross-section is constructed, median crossovers should be designed and constructed in the location required for a 6- or 8-lane parkway, depending on the ultimate cross-section. Initially, the outermost lanes will be constructed. As warranted by traffic demands, additional lanes in each direction will be added into the median. Thus, the outside curb line can be Final Report Turner Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study I-10 to SR- 74 Page 6-18 constructed in its ultimate location with the first phase of implementation and reconstruction will not be required with the addition of travel lanes. Final Report Turner Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study I-10 to SR- 74 Page 6-19 Plan Drawings of the Preferred Corridor Alignment Concept Final Report Turner Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study I-10 to SR- 74