Town of Superior Small Area Transportation Study October 16, 2008 Town of Superior Small Area Transportation Study Prepared for: Town of Superior Prepared by: October 16, 2008 Superior Small Area Transportation Study Town of Superior Small Area Transportation Study (SATS) Acknowledgments Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) Melanie Oliver, Town Manager, Town of Superior Rebecca Brothers, Public Works Director, Town of Superior Lou Digirolamo, Police Chief, Town of Superior Robert M. Johnson, Project Manager, Town of Superior Susanna Struble, Town Engineer, Town of Superior Bill Leister, Central Arizona Association of Governments Jerry Barnes, Arizona Department of Transportation Charlene FitzGerald, Arizona Department of Transportation Doug Hansen, Pinal County Lee Thornhill, U.S. Forest Service Town of Superior Council Mayor Michael O. Hing Councilmember Lynn Heglie Councilmember Jayme Valenzuela Councilmember Olga D. Lopez Councilmember Soyla Peralta Councilmember Robert Cervantes HDR Brent Cain, Project Manager Michael Gorton Faisal Chowdhury Becky Bailly Dorothy Bungert Laura Paty Superior Small Area Transportation Study Table of Contents 1. Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1 1.1. Background......................................................................................................................................................1 1.2. Study Area Overview .......................................................................................................................................1 1.3. Key Issues .......................................................................................................................................................2 2. Transportation Goals, Objectives, and Policies ............................................................5 2.1. General Plan Vision Statement........................................................................................................................5 2.2. Goals, Objectives, and Policies .......................................................................................................................5 3. Year 2007 Transportation System Conditions ...............................................................8 3.1. Previous Plans and Studies.............................................................................................................................8 3.2. Year 2007 Roadway Characteristics and Conditions.......................................................................................9 3.3. Functional Classification ................................................................................................................................10 3.4. Roadway Characteristics ...............................................................................................................................13 3.5. Current Traffic Conditions..............................................................................................................................13 3.6. Level of Service .............................................................................................................................................18 3.7. Crash Data.....................................................................................................................................................22 3.8. Capital Improvement Programs .....................................................................................................................25 3.9. Existing Pavement Conditions .......................................................................................................................26 3.10. Transit and Non-Motorized Transportation ....................................................................................................29 4. Land Use and Socioeconomic Conditions ..................................................................30 4.1. Land Use .......................................................................................................................................................30 4.2. Socioeconomic Data......................................................................................................................................32 4.3. Interim and Planning Horizon Population and Employment Projections ........................................................36 5. Interim and Planning Horizon Transportation System Conditions ...........................40 5.1. Travel Demand ..............................................................................................................................................40 5.2. Recommended Roadway Improvements.......................................................................................................44 ii Superior Small Area Transportation Study 6. Implementation Plan ...................................................................................................47 6.1. Future Roadway Functional Classification Plan.............................................................................................47 6.2. Year 2030 Roadway Improvement Plan ........................................................................................................47 6.3. Transportation Revenue Sources ..................................................................................................................51 6.4. Future Transit Service ...................................................................................................................................56 6.5. Non-Motorized Element .................................................................................................................................57 6.6. 5-Year Priority Improvement Needs...............................................................................................................59 6.7. Implementation Action Items .........................................................................................................................59 7. Policies and Guidelines................................................................................................ 61 7.1. Roadway Functional Classification ................................................................................................................61 7.2. Access Management Guidelines ...................................................................................................................64 7.3. Design Guidelines..........................................................................................................................................67 7.4. Traffic Impact Procedures..............................................................................................................................67 Appendices Appendix A Summary of Stakeholder Comment Appendix B Summary of Public Comment Appendix C Socioeconomic Data Appendix D Employer Database iii Superior Small Area Transportation Study List of Tables Table 1 Table 2 Table 3 Table 4 Table 5 Table 6 Table 7 Table 8 Table 9 Table 10 Table 11 Table 12 Table 13 Table 14 Planning Level Roadway Capacity by Functional Classification ................................................. 18 Roadway Level of Service .......................................................................................................... 19 Unsignalized Intersection LOS Definition.................................................................................... 19 Year 2007 Intersection Level of Service ...................................................................................... 20 Collision Type at Locations with Two or More Crashes ............................................................. 22 Crashes by Severity, October 1, 2003 to September 30, 2006................................................... 24 Key Collector Segment Pavement Rehabilitation History ........................................................... 26 Population Estimates for the Town of Superior, Pinal County, and Arizona................................ 32 Year 2000 Demographics ........................................................................................................... 32 Year 2007 Employment Estimates............................................................................................ 36 Study Area Population and Employment Growth Scenario....................................................... 37 Year 2012 to Year 2030 Transportation Improvement Projects ................................................ 50 Projected Town of Superior Transportation Revenue ............................................................... 53 5-Year Priority Improvement Needs.......................................................................................... 59 iv Superior Small Area Transportation Study List of Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 Figure 6 Figure 7 Figure 8 Figure 9 Figure 10 Figure 11 Figure 12 Figure 13 Figure 14 Figure 15 Figure 16 Figure 17 Figure 18 Figure 19 Figure 20 Figure 21 Figure 22 Figure 23 Figure 24 Town of Superior and Vicinity ....................................................................................................... 2 Key Transportation Issues ........................................................................................................... 4 Existing Roadway Functional Classification .............................................................................. 12 Roadway Lanes......................................................................................................................... 15 Posted Speed Limit ................................................................................................................... 16 Year 2007 ADT, Truck and Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movements .................................. 17 Intersection Lane Configurations and Level of Service Analysis ............................................... 21 Crash Locations: October 2003 to September 2006................................................................. 23 Crash Percentages by Type: October 1, 2003 to September 30, 2006 .................................... 24 Pavement Rehabilitation Status............................................................................................... 28 Future Land Use Plan.............................................................................................................. 31 Year 2007 Estimated Population Density ................................................................................ 34 Year 2007 Estimated Employment Density ............................................................................. 35 Year 2030 Estimated Population Density ................................................................................ 38 Year 2030 Estimated Employment Density ............................................................................. 39 Year 2012 No Build Traffic Volume Estimate........................................................................... 41 Year 2017 No Build Traffic Volume Estimate........................................................................... 42 Year 2030 No Build Traffic Volume Estimate........................................................................... 43 Year 2030 Recommended Roadway Network......................................................................... 45 Year 2030 Build Traffic Volume Estimate ................................................................................ 46 Future Roadway Functional Classification............................................................................... 48 Year 2030 Roadway Improvement Plan ................................................................................. 49 Queen Creek Conceptual Trailway Plan................................................................................. 58 Typical Roadway Cross Section ............................................................................................. 63 v Superior Small Area Transportation Study 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1. Background The Town of Superior Small Area Transportation Study (SATS) was initiated by the Town of Superior in conjunction with the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT). The Town of Superior retained HDR, Inc., to conduct the study under the direction of a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), which includes representatives from the Town of Superior, Pinal County, the Central Arizona Association of Governments (CAAG), ADOT, and the U.S. Forest Service. The study was jointly funded by the Town of Superior and ADOT. The purpose of this study is to document existing roadway characteristics and operations, land use and socioeconomic conditions, and other existing transportation modes, and to craft a long-range transportation plan to meet the transportation needs of the Town of Superior. A travel demand model was prepared to forecast traffic volumes to assist in identifying the traffic impacts with the anticipated growth in and around the City. Regular TAC meetings were held at key project milestones. The first public open house was held on Tuesday, March 25, 2008. A second public open house was held on July 24, 2008. TAC member input throughout the process was critical to the development of this Plan. A summary of stakeholder comment is shown in Appendix B. Appendix A shows a summary of comment from the public meetings. The Superior SATS is intended as a planning tool for the Town of Superior, and is focused on roads that are owned and maintained by the Town. Roads located within the Town that are on the state highway system, such as US 60, are the responsibility of ADOT. Any recommendations for improvements to state highways should be considered as suggestions for further study by ADOT, and can only be implemented following approval by the State Transportation Board. 1.2. Study Area Overview Located at the crossroads of US 60 and SR 177, Superior is a small mining town surrounded by the Tonto National Forest. The Boyce Thompson Arboretum is located just a few miles west of Superior. The study area is generally bounded by the Apache Leap Mountains to the east and Picket Post Mountain to the west. Queen Creek flows through Superior from the east to the west. Figure 1 illustrates the study area location in northeast Pinal County. The study area, made up of 17.8 square miles or 11,600 acres, is included within the limits of the Town of Superior General Plan. Page 1 Superior Small Area Transportation Study Figure 1 Town of Superior and Vicinity 1.3. Key Issues Key Town of Superior issues affecting the transportation infrastructure and planning needs were identified through input from ADOT, Town of Superior staff, relevant studies, and the TAC. ¾ US 60 Widening. The eventual widening of US 60 is a key planning issue. The ADOT US 60: Superior to Globe Final Feasibility Study identifies potential alternatives that include widening US 60 along its current alignment or bypassing Superior and the environmentally sensitive canyon and tunnel requirements of Queen Creek Canyon. ¾ Goods Movement. The booming copper industry in Globe, Safford, and Morenci is increasing the heavy truck traffic traveling on US 60 to US 70. The potential re-opening of the Magma Arizona railroad, which would be associated with the development of a new copper mine, could be an opportunity for Superior to develop as an intermodal hub where freight could be transferred between truck and rail. Page 2 Superior Small Area Transportation Study ¾ Pavement Management. The last comprehensive pavement maintenance and rehabilitation program was conducted in 1995. Pavement maintenance and rehabilitation on key collector facilities needs to be revisited. ¾ High Water Crossings. A high water crossing is a bridge or culvert that allows vehicular traffic to cross a normally dry watercourse during a rain event. The only high water crossings of Queen Creek in Superior are at Magma Road and US 60. A new fire station and a hospital are planned along Mary Drive. The Mary Drive crossing of Queen Creek is a low water crossing that is closed when the creek runs after heavy rainfall. With access critical for emergency traffic, a new high water crossing over Queen Creek Wash is needed to improve emergency access to both sides of town. The Golf Course Drive Road wash crossing also floods during high water events. ¾ Non-Motorized Transportation. Town of Superior is planning a trail system that links the Boyce Thompson Arboretum with Superior and the upper Queen Creek Canyon. The Town anticipates that a hiking and bicycling trail along Queen Creek could become a tourist attraction. The proposed trails plan would also help to improve overall pedestrian safety and mobility. ¾ US 60 Safety. Ensuring safe pedestrian and bicycle crossings of US 60 is a key issue. Key elements of maximizing safety include tighter access control on US 60. ¾ Safe Routes to School. With both John F. Kennedy Elementary School elementary and the combined Superior Junior High and High School located in the Mary Drive/Sunset Drive, improvements under the Safe Route to School program created by the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users Act (SAFETEA-LU) should be implemented in this corridor. ¾ Stone Avenue/Heiner Road Intersection. The four legs of the Stone Avenue/Heiner Road intersection do not align. This skewed alignment creates a traffic operational hazard with limited sight distance and safety concerns. Figure 2 shows the transportation issues within the Town of Superior. Page 3 ights Dr Magma He ve ad al A ro Ra il op pe rC o Pin aC m ag M Mesquite Rd Stone Ave Dr ve t Dr Sunse Harrington Pl Arnett Dr Dr ap R d 1,000 he Le 500 Apac Hing Dr Golf Course Dr Smith Dr Gray Dr Highlands Dr 0 ad Medlock ve ont A South A Saguaro Dr de ro Rail e St Ray St ve kA oc am St Sm Gorh Ver Gibbs St Valentin Belm Palo Ave Western Ave Dr Kiser St East St ve La Christopher St ENLARGED AREA llo Wight St O’Donnell Dr O’Donnell Dr High water crossing oti North/south traffic movement across US 60 Crow St Martin St Oc Frieda Dr Richard Ave Richard Ave Mary ash Creek W r MarionD Edna A High water crossing Spray St t Belmont Ave oyt S Palma St ol High Scho O Magma Flats Dr e Kiser St P ld ve Kellner A Terrace Dr e Wight St d Wilh Queen Lobb Ave rR d xR ni e ho t Hill S St Railroad e Sono ar Arizona 60 Heiner Dr e idg St Magma Main St m New ra St • US 60 bypass. • Mining truck travel on US 60 and US 70. Lime St Intersection configuration Santa Rita St Br • Connectivity with local and regional roads. yry St Porph t ont S Church Av • Pavement management. Stansberry Av General Issues o St Limited access control, unauthorized parking, and unsafe pedestrian crossing along US 60 San Pedr Mine truck access Private R Molina St National Forest Silver St e Av Neary Av ow b ain St na rizo Land Ownership Copper a Ave High water crossing Magm Town Boundary Mi ne Av e A ma Ma g Study Area 177 Feet 2,000 Sources: HDR, Inc., August 2008; Pinal County GIS Division, July 2008; ADOT HPMS, 2005; ALRIS, 2004. Tonto National Forest Key Transportation Issues Figure 2 Superior Small Area Transportation Study Page 4 Superior Small Area Transportation Study 2. TRANSPORTATION GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND POLICIES The primary objective of this Small Area Transportation Plan is to develop a long term vision that will guide multimodal planning and programming on local roads to year 2030. The following key goals, objectives and policies were adapted from the Town of Superior 2003 General Plan Update. 2.1. General Plan Vision Statement “The goals of the Town’s transportation system are to improve the mobility of people and goods, protect the natural environment, support economic development, and sustain public support for transportation planning and funding efforts.” – 2003 Town of Superior General Plan Update 2.2. Goals, Objectives, and Policies GOAL: Maintain a safe system of roadways, sidewalks and pathways for vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle traffic. Objective: Continue to improve overall street conditions within the Town. Objective: Implement and update the Town’s Capital Improvement Plan annually as necessary. Objective: Recognize unsafe conditions and work to improve traffic safety along US 60. GOAL: Support alternative modes of travel by improving and expanding pedestrian and bicycle facilities. Objective: Develop and maintain a series of safe and well-designed walking thoroughfares and bicycle paths or lanes, which connect activity center destinations, trail networks and open-space areas. Objective: Work with ADOT to improve pedestrian safety along and across US 60 within the Town. Objective: Identify and work to remedy deficient pedestrian facilities. Objective: Promote the development of a multi-purpose transit system that efficiently and cost-effectively connects Superior to other communities in the region. GOAL: Cooperate with ADOT to ensure timely improvement of State facilities in the Superior planning area. Objective: Monitor and participate in ADOT improvement planning. Objective: Complete an updated Small Area Transportation Study. Page 5 Superior Small Area Transportation Study Objective: Participate in the US 60 Alignment Study, providing direction to ADOT with regard to Town preferences. GOAL: Identify financing opportunities to meet transportation needs. Objective: Pursue dedicated funding sources, assistance from other levels of government and impact fees associated with new developments. Objective: Join with other jurisdictions and communities to seek increased state and regional sources of funding. GOAL: Utilize the transportation system to foster a strong economy. Transportation system improvements encourage development and redevelopment in support of employment, educational and retail centers that contribute to Superior’s economic vitality. Objective: Support transportation improvements for economic development such as accommodating rail and truck freight movements. Objective: Enhance road systems to reduce congestion and provide access to employment sites. Objective: Improve downtown parking supply in support of local businesses. GOAL: Ensure regional connectivity. Objective: Coordinate with State, CAAG, County, and transportation agencies to expedite scheduled improvements. Objective: Plan for adequate capacities in all transportation systems to meet demand and avoid bottlenecks. Objective: Preserve traffic capacity and efficient flow on US 60. GOAL: Integrate land use and transportation. Land use patterns and transportation systems will be integrated to help reduce congestion and provide convenient access. Transportation facilities will be designed to support the character of adjacent land uses including neighborhoods, Downtown and designated historic areas. Preparedness planning ensures dedication of adequate rights-of-way for future transportation needs. Objective: Maintain excellent access to serve new development. Objective: Design transportation facilities in accordance with aesthetic expectations of the community. Page 6 Superior Small Area Transportation Study GOAL: Encourage safe, efficient and multimodal traffic circulation. There is a critical relationship between land use impacts and transportation capacity and safety. Objective: Traffic analysis is necessary for major residential, office, commercial, employment and public facility projects. Objective: Encourage incorporation of bike and pedestrian facilities within and connecting all developments. Page 7 Superior Small Area Transportation Study 3. YEAR 2007 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM CONDITIONS This section provides an overview of year 2007 socioeconomic and roadway conditions within the Town of Superior study area. It includes a review of previous and current transportation studies, an inventory of roadway facilities, an evaluation of safety conditions on key study area roadways, as well as an overview of current transit and non-motorized operations and plans. 3.1. Previous Plans and Studies Documents reviewed for the preparation of this study include: Town of Superior General Plan The Town of Superior General Plan Update (Town of Superior, 2003) was developed to guide decisions about growth and development in the Town. It includes elements on land use, circulation, and economic development. The Town has focused its efforts on reinvigorating its economy by focusing on its core small-town values and diversifying its economy from copper mining to include small-scale industry, tourism, recreation, and an emerging arts community. Town of Superior Capital Improvement Program The Town of Superior Capital Improvement Program 2001-2021 (Willdan, May 2001) establishes short term priorities and long term goals and objectives for transportation infrastructure improvements. It also identifies and prioritizes funding sources. Town of Superior Small Area Transportation Study Key elements of the Town of Superior Small Area Transportation Study (DMJM, 1994) focused on maintaining the Town’s existing roadway system. This included comprehensive recommendations for pavement rehabilitation on local streets. Other elements included a roadway circulation plan, access management plan, and transportation improvement plan. US Route 60: Florence Jct to Superior Design Concept Report Final Report The US Route 60: Florence Jct to Superior, Phoenix - Globe Highway Design Concept Report Final Report, (Jacobs Civil Inc., May 2004) describes the outcome of the ADOT study that addresses proposed improvements to US 60 from just west of the Florence junction intersection through the Town of Superior to the US 60/SR 177 traffic interchange within Pinal County. The purpose of the Design Concept Report is to develop a long-range plan that will guide future decisions regarding the ultimate improvements required to improve US 60 to meet the capacity, operational, and safety needs of the motoring public through the year 2025. US Route 60: Superior to Globe Final Feasibility Report The US Route 60: Superior to Globe, Phoenix - Globe Highway Final Feasibility Report, (Jacobs Civil Inc., October 2004) developed and evaluated preliminary alternatives for improving US 60 from Superior to Globe. The study limits begin near the Boyce Thompson Arboretum at MP 223.8 and extend Page 8 Superior Small Area Transportation Study eastward to the US 60/US 70 intersection at MP 254.5, within Pinal and Gila Counties, Arizona. This study identifies a potential bypass alternative around the environmentally sensitive canyon and tunnel requirements of Queen Creek Canyon. This potential route would diverge from the existing US 60 alignment just east of the Boyce-Thompson Arboretum and extend approximately five miles north of the existing highway bypassing the Town of Superior. Central Arizona Regional Transportation Coordination Plan The Central Arizona Regional Transportation Coordination Plan (RAE Consultants, Inc., April 2007) was prepared to meet the mandates of SAFETEA-LU legislation that require a local public transithuman service transportation plan for distribution of Federal Transit Administration (FTA) funding. This CAAG plan provides details on the human service transportation providers serving the Town of Superior. Pinal County Small Area Transportation Study The Pinal County Small Area Transportation Study (Kirkham Michael Consulting Engineers, 2006) evaluated transportation needs, including roadway and transit elements for year 2025. It included an overview of current socioeconomic and roadway conditions. The study also presented future population and employment projections and analyzed the transportation improvements needed to accommodate future travel demand. Arizona Statewide Rural Transit Needs Study The Arizona Statewide Rural Transit Needs Study (Cambridge Systematics, Inc, 2007), prepared for ADOT developed a plan for future new transit services and their improvements. The Study is intended to serve as an objective, and analytical basis for establishing Arizona’s long-term strategic direction of rural transit service provision. The Study did not include the Town of Superior among the top candidates for new or expanded local and tribal Section 5311 program service. However, the Mesa to Superior intercity route was considered one of the top candidates for new intercity Section 5311 program service. Regionally Significant Routes for Safety and Mobility Plan The Regionally Significant Routes for Safety and Mobility Plan (Lima & Associates, 2007) prepared for Pinal County summarized traffic safety, general characteristics and standards for regionally significant routes (RSRs). The plan prepared corridor preservation and a priority map as well as recommended policies and implementation steps. US 60 within the Town limit was identified as a moderate/medium priority RSR. 3.2. Year 2007 Roadway Characteristics and Conditions This section presents the key physical and operating characteristics of major roadway networks within the study area under existing conditions. Major roadway networks include US 60, SR 177, Main Street, Magma Avenue, Mary Drive, and Sunset Drive. The major existing roadways are summarized below. Page 9 Superior Small Area Transportation Study US 60 US 60 is an east-west facility serving regional traffic between the Phoenix metropolitan area, the Globe-Miami area, and Eastern Arizona with one travel lane in each direction through the Town of Superior. The US 60 bridge crossing of the Queen Creek Wash is one of only two high water crossings of this watercourse in the Town. Access control on US 60 is unrestricted within the Town limits. All streets entering US 60 within Superior are stop sign controlled. This includes intersections at Mary Drive, Western Avenue, Belmont Avenue and Church Avenue. Unrestricted access to the right-of-way along US 60 is used for parking for the businesses developed along both sides of this facility. SR 177 SR 177 is a two-lane north-south roadway connecting Superior and Winkelman. It joins US 60 at an interchange at Magma Avenue in east Superior. FHWA classifies this roadway as a Rural Major Collector. Main Street Main Street connects US 60 and Magma Avenue with downtown Superior. It is stop controlled at US 60 and at Magma Avenue. Parking is allowed on both sides of the street. This roadway is classified by FHWA as a Rural Major Collector. Magma Avenue Magma Avenue connects Main Street to US 60 and SR 177 at a traffic interchange on the east side of Superior. Magma Avenue has a bridge crossing of Queen Creek Wash. This roadway is classified by FHWA as a Rural Major Collector. Mary Drive/Sunset Drive Mary Drive and Sunset Drive are collector facilities that provide access to the south side of Superior. Mary Drive is a low water crossing of Queen Creek Wash and provides access to the elementary school and high school. Sunset Drive joins with Mary Drive to provide connectivity to SR 177. These facilities are classified by FHWA as Rural Minor Collectors. 3.3. Functional Classification Functional classification is the grouping of highways, roads and streets into classes with respect to their service and purposes. It also serves as a basis for establishing speed limits, parking restrictions, design standards and access controls. The existing roadway system is categorized into the following functional classes: ¾ ¾ ¾ ¾ Rural Minor Arterials; Rural Major Collectors; Rural Minor Collectors; Residential Collectors; and Page 10 Superior Small Area Transportation Study ¾ Local Roads. Figure 3 shows the existing roadway functional classification for the study area roadways. Roadway characteristics are described and defined below. Rural Minor Arterials ¾ Link cities and larger towns and other large traffic generators, such as major resort areas that are capable of attracting travel over similarly long distances, and form an integrated network providing interstate and intercounty service; ¾ Are spaced at intervals consistent with population density so that all developed areas of a state are within a reasonable distance of an arterial highway; and ¾ Provide service to corridors with trip lengths and travel density greater than those predominantly served by rural collector or local systems. Minor arterials should provide higher overall travel speeds with minimum interference to through movements. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) classifies US 60 as Rural Minor Arterial. Rural Major Collectors ¾ Provide service to any county seat not on an arterial route, to larger towns not directly served by higher systems, and to other traffic generators of equivalent intracounty importance, such as consolidated schools, shipping points, county parks, important mining and agricultural areas; ¾ Link those places with nearby larger towns and cities, or with routes of higher classification; and ¾ Serve the more important intracounty travel corridors. FHWA classifies SR 177, Main Street, and Magma Avenue as a Rural Major Collector. Rural Minor Collectors ¾ Are spaced at intervals consistent with population density to collect traffic from local roads and bring all developed areas within a reasonable distance of a collector road; ¾ Provide service to the remaining smaller communities; and ¾ Link locally important traffic generators with the rural hinterland. FHWA classifies Mary Drive and Sunset Drive as a Rural Minor Collectors. Page 11 ights Dr Magma He eA ve Min ve ad al A ro Pin Ra il o pe rC op aC m ag M Mesquite Rd Stone Ave Gray Dr he Le d ap R Feet 2,000 ad O’Donnell Dr Apac 1,000 Ave Harrington Pl Arnett Dr t Dr Sunse Hing Dr Golf Course Dr 500 ol High Scho Dr ve Dr 177 Highlands Dr 0 a Ave Medlock ve de ont A ve kA am St Sm Gorh oc Ver Magm e St Ray St Belm Palo e Valentin South A Dr Smith Dr O’Donnell Dr Crow St ve llo Saguaro Dr Christopher St ENLARGED AREA La Dr Richard Ave Mary Richard Ave Frieda r MarionD oti Kiser St Gibbs St East St Martin St Oc ash Creek W Queen Edna A Spray St Lobb Ave t Western Ave oyt S Belmont Ave Wilh Palma St Magma Flats Dr Neary Av Wight St O Private Tonto National Forest e Wight St Kiser St i en ho P 60 e ld t Hill S St rR d d xR Main St Terrace Dr Church Av Sono ar National Forest t St Heiner Dr e idg St Mag New ra St Ramp ona RR ma Ariz Lime St Santa Rita St Br Local Roads Stansberry Av Residential Collector yry St Porph mon o St Rural Minor Collector San Pedr Tonto National Forest Rural Major Collector Silver St e Av in Ra Molina St Rural Minor Arterial w bo St ro Rail Roadway Classification Land Ownership Copper na rizo Town Boundary A ma Ma g Study Area Sources: HDR, Inc., August 2008; Pinal County GIS Division, July 2008; ADOT HPMS, 2005; ALRIS, 2004. Existing Roadway Functional Classification Superior Small Area Transportation Study Figure 3 Page 12 Superior Small Area Transportation Study Residential Collectors ¾ Predominantly collect trips from local residential streets and distribute them to activity centers, minor collectors, and minor arterials; ¾ Accommodate longer trips and higher traffic volumes than those typically encountered on local streets; and ¾ Link locally important traffic generators with the rural hinterland. Local Roads ¾ Provide direct access to residential driveways; and ¾ Serve local residential trips with low travel speeds. 3.4. Roadway Characteristics Roadway characteristics information was collected on the existing roadway system through site visits. All study roadways are paved under existing conditions. Roadway characteristics are briefly described below. Roadway Lanes, Intersection Control and Speed Limits Figure 4 shows the number of travel lanes on study area roadways. Roadways within Superior typically have one travel lane in each direction. Several local roads are one-way facilities. US 60 has a center two-way left turn lane through most of Town. Figure 5 shows posted speed limits. The posted speed limit on local streets is 25 miles per hour (mph). The posted speed US 60 and SR 177 within the Town limits is 45 mph. Mary Drive east of Golf Course Road is designated as a school zone operating at 15 mph during school session. 3.5. Current Traffic Conditions Traffic counts were conducted within the Town of Superior during the week of December 3, 2007. This traffic data collection program included daily traffic counts, peak hour intersection turning movement counts, and vehicle classification counts. This data was used to both identify potential roadway operations deficiencies and provide traffic data for development of the travel demand forecasting model. Average Daily Traffic Twenty-four hour average daily traffic (ADT) traffic data was collected at eight locations for three consecutive mid-week work days on December 4-6, 2007. The ADT volume typically fluctuates due to seasonal variation. At present, ADOT does not have any seasonal traffic adjustment factor derived for the study area. Therefore, no adjustment factor was used to refine the traffic data to compensate for this traffic volume fluctuation. Historical average daily traffic counts from ADOT and CAAG were also summarized. The ADT flow map is shown in Figure 6. Page 13 Superior Small Area Transportation Study Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movements Based on discussions with the TAC, eight intersections were selected for the peak hour turning movement counts. Morning peak (7:00 to 9:00 AM) and afternoon peak (4:00 to 6:00 PM) intersection turning movement counts were conducted at these intersections on December 4-6, 2007. Existing peak hourly turn traffic movements are also shown in Figure 6. Vehicle Classification Vehicle classification data was collected at two locations in the study area to identify corridors with high truck volume. Trucks included both single-unit (vehicle types 4 through 7 with four or more single-unit trucks) and multi-unit (vehicle types 8 through 13 with four or fewer axles and singletrailer trucks through seven or more axle multi-trailer trucks). Vehicle classification counts were conducted on Magma Avenue, south of Copper Street, and on US 60 at the Queen Creek bridge on December 4-6, 2007. Figure 6 shows the trucks in the traffic stream at these two locations. Page 14 ights Dr Magma He Town Boundary ve ad al A ro Ra il op pe rC o Pin aC m ag M Mesquite Rd Stone Ave Dr ve t Dr Sunse Harrington Pl Arnett Dr Dr d Feet 2,000 ap R 1,000 he Le 500 Apac Hing Dr Golf Course Dr Smith Dr Gray Dr Highlands Dr 0 ad Medlock ve Saguaro Dr de ont A ve kA oc ham St or m G S Ver Ave e St Ray St Belm Palo ol High Scho Valentin South A Dr a Ave East St ve llo Gibbs St O’Donnell Dr O’Donnell Dr ENLARGED AREA Edna A La Christopher St Richard Ave Dr Richard Ave Frieda Mary M oti Kiser St Crow St Martin St Oc arionDr t Western Ave oyt S Belmont Ave Wilh Spray St Magm P Palma St e Wight St O Magma Flats Dr ve Kellner A Lobb Ave e Wight St Kiser St ni ld t Hill S St rR d d xR Terrace Dr Church Av Sono ar e ho 60 Heiner Dr e idg St ash Creek W Queen Main St t St mon New ra St P rivate Magma Arizona Railroad Lime St Santa Rita St Br National Forest yry St Porph e Land Ownership Stansberry Av o St Two Lane With Center Turning Lane San Pedr Two Lane Tonto Tonto National Forest National Forest Ra Molina St One Lane Silver St e Av Neary Av w o inb St ro Rail Roadway Lanes Copper na rizo Mi ne Av e A ma Ma g Study Area 177 Sources: HDR, Inc., August 2008; Pinal County GIS Division, July 2008; ADOT HPMS, 2005; ALRIS, 2004. Roadway Lanes Superior Small Area Transportation Study Figure 4 Page 15 ights Dr Magma He Mi ne 25 ve ad al A ro Pin Ra il o pe rC op aC m ag M Harrington Pl Mesquite Rd Stone Ave O’Donnell Dr Apac Gray Dr ap R he Le Hing Dr d 1,000 Feet 2,000 ad t Dr Sunse Arnett Dr Dr Smith Dr 500 Ave Dr ve de ve Ver ont A Palo ve kA am St Sm Gorh oc Medlock Dr Highlands Dr 0 Tonto National Forest llo Saguaro Dr Golf Course Dr ENLARGED AREA e St Ray St South A La Christopher St O’Donnell Dr Valentin Belm Frieda Dr Richard Ave Richard Ave Mary M Crow St ve oti arionDr Kiser St Gibbs St East St Martin St Oc Wash Edna A Spray St t Western Ave oyt S Belmont Ave Wilh Creek Queen Wight St O Palma St ol High Scho Wight St Kiser St Magma Flats Dr a Ave Ph ld Magm Magma Arizona Railroad rR d d xR ni oe t Hill S e S e ar e ilv Terrace Dr Church Av ra S Sono St St Neary Av t M 60 Heiner Dr e idg e in Main St nt St mo New Santa Rita St Br ng i rK Rd e Kellner Av 55 Lime St e o St 50 St yry St Porph Lobb Ave 45 Stansberry Av P rivate R San Pedr 35 Silver St e Av ain Molina St National Forest w bo Copper ro Rail Land Ownership 15 na rizo Town Boundary Av e Speed (mph) A ma Ma g Study Area 177 Note: School zone speed restriction (15 mph) applies to Mary Dr. Sources: HDR, Inc., August 2008; Pinal County GIS Division, July 2008; ADOT HPMS, 2005; ALRIS, 2004. Posted Speed Limit Superior Small Area Transportation Study Figure 5 Page 16 ights Dr Magma He 4 3 Av Av e al Pin 0.6 2 Palma St 2.0 e 6 (21) 61 (124) 68 (94) 6 (14) 38 (43) 37 (69) 2.8 0.9 d 0 (3) 0 (8) 40 (71) 1 (1) 7 (5) 7 (10) 20 (33) 32 (44) 31 (68) 65 (82) 3 (6) 13 (43) 4 (3) 4 (22) 2 (3) 5 (32) ap R he Le 8 Apac Gray Dr Hing Dr Smith Dr Feet 2,000 Highlands Dr 5 Arnett Dr Saguaro Dr 1,000 36 (45) 26 (46) One Way 1.2 t Dr Sunse Harrington Pl 7 14 (19) 111 (100) Tonto National Forest 500 68 (80) 12 (8) 41 (33) 3 (7) ENLARGED AREA Golf Course Dr 6 oc am St Sm Gorh Dr e St O’Donnell Dr O’Donnell Dr 5 de ve Ver Valentin Dr La v kA Palo East St Medlock Dr South A Frieda r ry D Christopher St Ma Richard Ave Richard Ave llo 1.6 0.9 oti Gibbs St Crow St Ray St Martin St Oc r MarionD Spray St ve 1.3 t 6 2.8 8.4 Magma Flats Dr ash Creek W Queen 0 oyt S Edna A 1 8.7 Wilh Western Ave 1.0 8.9 ve 6 1. Tonto National Forest 3 4 O 60 0.1 Stone A Ph ld 7 8.7 Wight St Kiser St 0.7 2.9 0.2 rR d 15 (19) 24 (68) 6 (6) Magma Arizona Railroad Rd Terrace Dr Belmont Ave Mesquite Rd ix t Hill S St ar n oe Mi ne 3 (3) 3 (3) 0 (1) 7 (9) 5 (9) 6 (6) ad ro Ra il o pe rC op m M ag e idg St 1.5 9.1 0.4 8 Heiner Dr ra St Sono Br aC Note: a XX (YY) AM(PM) - December 2007 b ADT is the Average Daily Traffic 1.3 Santa Rita St 1.7 ad Trucks (in thousands) Main St ro Rail #. # e ADT b (in thousands) ve Kellner A #. # Lime St o St Peak-Hour Turning Movementa yry St Porph Lobb Ave Town Boundary Silver St Neary Av Residential Collector St Copper 9 (14) 3 (7) 24 (22) Study Area 0 (1) 211 (342) 7 (15) 2 (2) 273 (275) e 12 (31) Av w bo n i Ra San Pedr Rural Minor Collector 3 (9) 266 (249) 17 (29) Molina St Private 4 (7) 204 (324) 14 (27) 21 (27) 1 (15) 29 (33) Rural Major Collector 40 (33) 280 (267) 48 (18) 18 (11) 269 (290) 17 (37) 11 (11) 246 (402) a Ave Magm 220 (371)a 50 (44) na rizo National Forest 0.7 Rural Minor Arterial 41 (43) 16 (20) e 2 A ma Ma g 1 Land Ownership <0.1 Roadway Classificaton 177 Sources: HDR, Inc., August 2008; Pinal County GIS Division, July 2008; ADOT HPMS, 2005; ALRIS, 2004. Existing ADT, Truck and Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movements Superior Small Area Transportation Study Figure 6 Page 17 Superior Small Area Transportation Study 3.6. Level of Service Level of Service (LOS) is a quantitative measurement of operational characteristics of traffic and the perception of the traffic conditions by both motorists and passengers. There are six levels of service defined by the Highway Capacity Manual 2000 (HCM), published by the Transportation Research Board (TRB). Each level of service is given a letter designation from A to F, with A representing the optimal or best condition and F the worst. Roadway segment level of service is characterized by the HCM as follows: LOS A: Best, free flow operations (on uninterrupted flow facilities) and very low delay (on interrupted flow facilities). Freedom to select desired speeds and to maneuver within traffic is extremely high. LOS B: Flow is stable, but presence of other users is noticeable. Freedom to select desired speeds is relatively unaffected, but there is a slight decline in the freedom to maneuver within traffic. LOS C: Flow is stable, but the operation of users is becoming affected by the presence of other users. Maneuvering within traffic requires substantial vigilance on the part of the user. LOS D: High density but stable flow. Speed and freedom to maneuver are severely restricted. The driver is experiencing a generally poor level of comfort and convenience. LOS E: Flow is at or near capacity. All speeds are reduced to a low, but relatively uniform value. Freedom to maneuver within traffic is extremely difficult. Comfort and convenience levels are extremely poor. LOS F: Worse, facility has failed, or a breakdown has occurred. Level of Service Thresholds Roadway segment level of service (LOS) is based on the number of travel lanes, roadway functional classification, the maximum desired capacity of the roadway, and the existing or forecast ADT volume. Table 1 shows the planning-level roadway capacities by functional classification for the Town of Superior. Table 1 Planning Level Roadway Capacity by Functional Classification Roadway Classification Daily Lane Capacity Rural Minor Arterial 8,500 Rural Collector 6,500 Local 5,000 Unpaved Source: HDR, Inc., August 2008. 500 The LOS thresholds in Table 1 were identified to facilitate analysis of roadway segment performance through the use of volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratios. The daily per lane capacity in each direction for each roadway segment was used with the daily traffic volume estimate to determine a V/C ratio. Table 2 shows how the V/C ratios related to standard LOS classifications. Page 18 Superior Small Area Transportation Study Table 2 Roadway Level of Service Roadway LOS Volume Over Capacity (V/C) Ratio LOS A – LOS C (Under Capacity) < 0.80 LOS D (Near Capacity) 0.81 – 0.90 LOS E (At Capacity) 0.91 – 1.00 LOS F (Over Capacity) > 1.00 Source: Highway Capacity Manual 2000, Transportation Research Board. LOS at unsignalized intersections was calculated based on average control delay in seconds per vehicle for the worst approach, based on the methodology in the Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, 2000. Table 3 presents the LOS criteria for unsignalized intersections. Table 3 Unsignalized Intersection LOS Definition Level of Service Description Average Control Delay (second/vehicle) A Little or no delay. 0 – 10 B Minor delays > 10 – 15 C Average delays > 15 – 25 D Moderate delays > 25 – 35 E Lengthy delays > 35 – 50 F Excessive delays/gridlock > 50 Source: Highway Capacity Manual 2000, Transportation Research Board. LOS Analysis Results Synchro is traffic operations analysis software that implements HCM methodology. It is widely applied to perform intersection traffic operations analysis. Level of service analysis for key study area intersections was prepared using Synchro with peak hour traffic, roadway lane configurations, and traffic control information. Table 4 and Figure 7 show the existing level of service at key study area intersections for the year 2007 AM and PM peak hours. This analysis showed that all intersections operate at an acceptable level of service in both the AM and PM peak hours. Based on the roadway capacities shown in Table 1 and the year 2007 ADT, all major study area roadway segments operate at an acceptable level of service C or better. This includes: ¾ ¾ ¾ ¾ ¾ US 60; SR 177; Main Street; Magma Avenue; and, Mary Drive/Sunset Drive. Page 19 Superior Small Area Transportation Study Table 4 Year 2007 Intersection Level of Service AM Peak Hour Intersection ID Intersection PM Peak Hour LOS* Average Control Delay (sec/vehicle) LOS* Average Control Delay (sec/vehicle) 1 US-60 and Mary Dr B 11.2 B 12.6 2 US-60 and Main St B 12.9 B 12.9 3 US 60 and Western Ave B 13.1 C 16.0 4 US 60 and Belmont Ave B 9.6 C 15.0 5 SR-177 and Sunset Dr A 7.4 A 9.5 6 SR 177 and US-60 EB Ramp A 7.2 A 7.3 7 SR 177 and US-60 WB Ramp A 7.3 A 7.5 8 Main St and Magma Ave B 11.3 A 7.5 Source: HDR Engineering, Inc., August 2008 Note: * As recommended in the Highway Capacity Manual 2000, level of service for side street stop controlled intersections was calculated based on average control delay in seconds per vehicle for the worst approach. All study intersections are unsignalized. Page 20 ights Dr Magma He 3 ve ad al A ro Pin Ra il o pe rC op aC m ag M ad Ave Mesquite Rd ro Rail ol High Scho A/A Kiser St Crow St Medlock St A/A 5 Dr ve ve ont A Belm k oc am St Sm Gorh South A Dr t Dr Arnett Dr Saguaro Dr de 6 Gibbs St Valentine e Av Ver 7 Ray St Dr Palo 60 East St ve llo e t Belmont Ave 3 4 B/C Edna A La Christopher St Sunse Harrington Pl O’Donnell Dr ap R he Le 8 d 7 6 Gray Dr Apac Hing Dr O’Donnell Dr Smith Dr Golf Course Dr 5 Richard Ave Dr Richard Ave Frieda r Wight St Martin St oti Kellner Av Wight St Western Ave Spray St MarionD Terrace Dr e B/C B/B Oc Ave St 2 t Hill S Kiser St oyt S Mary ash Creek W Queen rR d Rd Wilh Palma St Magma Flats Dr Lobb Ave e idg Ph Neary Ave ra S Sono Br x ni oe ld 1 A/A t O B/B mon New Santa Rita St ar Tonto National Forest t St B/A 8 Main St Heiner Dr St Magma Arizona Railroad Lime St Church Av Notes: 1) X/Y -- AM/PM Peak LOS Lane Configuration Stop Control 2) All roadway segments operate at LOS C or better. St yry St Porph e o St Intersection Location Ramp Stansberry Av Private San Pedr Residential Collector Silver St e Av in Ra Molina St National Forest w bo Copper Magma Rural Major Collector Land Ownership Rural Minor Collector e 4 Av 2 Mi ne 1 Town Boundary na rizo Rural Minor Arterial Stone Ave Study Area A ma Ma g Roadway Classificaton One Way ENLARGED AREA Highlands Dr 177 0 500 1,000 Feet 2,000 Sources: HDR, Inc., August 2008; Pinal County GIS Division, July 2008; ADOT HPMS, 2005; ALRIS, 2004. Tonto National Forest Intersection Land Configurations and Level of Service Analysis Superior Small Area Transportation Study Figure 7 Page 21 Superior Small Area Transportation Study 3.7. Crash Data A crash analysis was conducted for the Town of Superior using accident data provided by the ADOT Traffic Safety Division. This goal of this analysis was to identify crash patterns and trends that may indicate locations where additional study and possible mitigation is needed to improve roadway safety. Crash Location Analysis A total of 43 crashes involving 73 vehicles were reported within the Town during the three-year analysis period between October 1, 2003, and September 30, 2006. During this period, 74% of the reported crashes occurred at intersections, while 26% occurred at mid-block locations and driveway access points. Crashes that occurred within 200-foot radius of an intersection were analyzed as intersection crashes. Figure 8 shows the crash locations within the study area for the analysis period. The intersections of US 60 with Belmont Avenue and Western Avenue each had three crashes over three year period. In addition, two crashes were reported at each of the intersections of Main Street/Magma Avenue and Stone Avenue/Gibbs Street. Table 4 summarizes the type of collision at various crash locations with two or more crashes. Figure 9 shows that crashes within the study area were predominantly angle and single vehicle collisions. The only fatal crash, which occurred on US 60, was a single vehicle incident during the crash analysis period. An additional fatal crash involving a pedestrian occurred in 2007 on US 60 at Western Avenue. Table 5 Location Collision Type at Locations with Two or More Crashes Total Crashes Single Vehicle Angle Rear End Head-on Backing Other Intersection Crashes1 US 60/ Belmont Avenue 3 - 2 - - 1 - US 60/ Western Avenue 3 - 2 - - - 1 Main Street/ Magma Avenue 2 1 1 - - - - Stone Avenue/ Gibbs Street 2 1 - - - 1 - 2 1 2 - 1 Mid-Block US 60 between milepost 225 and 226 10 4 Crashes2 Source: ADOT Traffic Safety Division, October 2007. Notes: 1) Crashes occurred within 200-feet radius of an intersection. 2) Crashes occurred at mid-blocks, at driveways, and alleys. 3) Crash analysis was conducted for the time period from October 1, 2003 through September 30, 2006. Page 22 ights Dr Two Crashes Town Boundary ve ad al A ro Pin Ra il o op pe rC ad Stone Ave aC m ag M Mesquite Rd ro Rail Ave Arnett Dr Harrington Pl Dr t Dr Sunse Medlock Dr ve de ve Christopher St Saguaro Dr Ver ve kA oc am St Sm Gorh ont A La Palo ol High Scho e St Ray St South A Dr Gibbs St Valentin Belm llo Kiser St East St ve Frieda Dr Richard Ave Mary oti Wight St Crow St Martin St Oc a Ave Western Ave Edna A Spray St Belmont Ave * t Palma St e Wight St oyt S Richard Ave Terrace Dr Kiser St Magma Flats Dr ve Kellner A rR d Wilh r MarionD Lobb Ave P t Hill S e en ho ld ix Rd O ash e ar reek W 60 Church Av St C Queen Stansberry Av o St ra St M Magma Arizona Railroad Main St m New Sono St v Sil Lime St t ont S Heiner Dr e idg er e in yry St Porph Santa Rita St Br g Rd San Pedr Private n Ki R Molina St National Forest Fatal Crash Silver St e Av Neary Av ow b ain St Magm Land Ownership Three Crashes Copper na rizo Study Area A ma Ma g Single Crash Min eA ve Magma He O’Donnell Dr Gray Dr ap R he Le Apac Hing Dr Golf Course Dr Smith Dr O’Donnell Dr d 177 ENLARGED AREA Highlands Dr 0 500 1,000 Feet 2,000 *A recent fatal crash was reported on US 60 west of Western Avenue after the crash analysis period. Sources: HDR, Inc., August 2008; Pinal County GIS Division, July 2008; ADOT Traffic Safety Division, October 2007; ALRIS, 2004. Tonto National Forest Crash Locations: October 2003 to September 2006 Superior Small Area Transportation Study Figure 8 Page 23 Superior Small Area Transportation Study Figure 9 Crash Percentages by Type: October 1, 2003 to September 30, 2006 Head On U-Turn Single Vehicle Other Backing 7% Side Swipe 7% 5% 2% 30% 7% 14% 28% Rear End Source: ADOT Traffic Safety Division, September 2007. Angle Crash Severity Out of 43 total crashes during the three-year period, 14 crashes resulted in injuries involving 46 people. The remaining 28 crashes were non-injury, property damage only, or unreported. Table 5 illustrates the number of the crashes by severity. Table 6 Crashes by Severity, October 1, 2003 to September 30, 2006 Severity Number of Crashes Percent of Crashes Fatal Crash 1* 2% Injury Only Crash 14 33% Property Damage Only Crash 23 53% Unknown/ Unreported 5 12% Total 43 100% Note: *A fatal crash that occurred in year 2007 was not included in this table. Source: ADOT Traffic Safety Division, October 2007. The data shows that 81% of crashes occurred during clear weather conditions. About 14% and 5% crashes occurred during cloudy and rainy weather conditions, respectively. Approximately 67% of crashes were reported under daylight conditions and 33% occurred during dawn, dusk, or darkness conditions. Roadway surface conditions were reported dry during 91% crashes and wet or unknown during 9% crashes. There were five crashes over the three-year period where the drivers were under the influence of alcohol. Page 24 Superior Small Area Transportation Study 3.8. Capital Improvement Programs Town of Superior The Town of Superior Capital Improvement Program 2001-2021 (Willdan, May 2001) (CIP) includes projects for pavement rehabilitation, new structures at key Queen Creek crossings, improving pedestrian safety and mobility, airport improvements, and the development of new Town bus service. Arizona Department of Transportation The ADOT Five Year Transportation Facilities Construction Program shows that reconstruction of the Silver King section of US 60 between milepost 222.3 and 224.8 west of Superior is programmed for construction in fiscal year 2011 at an estimated cost of $15 million. Central Arizona Association of Governments The CAAG Transportation Improvement Program FY 08-12, approved May 9, 2007, by the CAAG Regional Council shows no programmed improvements within the Town of Superior. Page 25 Superior Small Area Transportation Study 3.9. Existing Pavement Conditions To help prioritize the pavement rehabilitation projects identified in the CIP, the project team conducted a detailed review of previous pavement studies and rehabilitation programs, including: ¾ 1994 Town of Superior Small Area Transportation Study ¾ 1995 Town of Superior Road Maintenance Project The project team reviewed the recommendations of the 1994 study and verified the segments that where maintenance and rehabilitation was performed in 1995. Figure 10 shows the roadway segments where pavement was rehabilitated or reconstructed in 1995 together with the roadways that would be next in line for up for rehabilitation based on the 1994 SATS. Table 7 shows roadways that were selected for field inspection. Table 7 Key Collector Segment Pavement Rehabilitation History Recommended Rehabilitation Method Segment From To US 60 O'Donnell Dr Previous SATS (1994) Town of Superior (1995) Golf Course Rd Thick Mill & Fill/Overlay No Action Golf Course Rd W Sunset Dr Mill & Fill or Overlay with Fabric No Action W Sunset Dr O’Donnell Dr Sunset Dr Thick Mill & Fill/Overlay No Action Sunset Dr W Sunset Dr Belmont Ave Thick Mill & Fill/Overlay No Action Sunset Dr Belmont Ave SR 177 Seal Coat Slurry Seal & Reclamite Mary Dr Source: HDR Engineering, Inc., August 2008. Year 2008 pavement conditions on these key collector roadway segments are summarized below. The narrative addresses both sections of Sunset Drive jointly. Mary Drive (US 60 to Golf Course Road): Conditions observed along Mary Drive, between US 60 and Palo Verde Drive, included moderate severity block cracking with moderate fatigue cracking in the wheel paths. Also identified along this segment were several utility patches that do not match roadway grade. Alligator cracking was observed adjacent to many of the utility patches. A depressed wash crossing is located in this area, and water was flowing across the road at the time of our survey. South of the crossing, there is inadequate drainage as evidenced by the presence of sand on the road. O'Donnell Drive (Golf Course Road to West Sunset Drive): Along O’Donnell Drive, west of West Sunset Drive, pavement conditions include loss of surface (where aggregate in asphalt is polished and there is a loss of asphalt), as well as moderately depressed utility patches with low to moderate severity longitudinal cracking. Page 26 Superior Small Area Transportation Study West Sunset Drive (O'Donnell Drive to Sunset Drive): Minor block cracking was observed along West Sunset Drive between O’Donnell Drive and Sunset Drive. Sunset Drive (West Sunset Drive to SR 177): The pavements along Sunset Drive appear to be in generally good condition. Drainage along Sunset Drive is directed towards outside portions of the east and westbound travel lanes. Evidence of previous overlays is present. At the intersection of Palo Verde Drive moderate asphalt bleeding was present with minor transverse cracking. East of Palo Verde Drive there is a small area where the recent overlay has spalled. The exposed pavement in the spalled area showed moderate to severe alligator cracking. Minor differential utility patching was observed at the intersection with Gomez Road. At Gomez Road a hump was identified in the middle of the road, the source of which is not clear. A culvert, located in the southeast quadrant of this intersection collects storm water runoff that is directed along the shoulder, as was evidenced by the presence of sand on the road in this area. Along the southern edge of Sunset Drive east of Mitchell Drive moderate differential utility patching was present. Utility patching differential may be the result of improperly placed backfill. Pavement Rehabilitation Strategy With traffic from the schools and the new fire station, the Town should focus its pavement rehabilitation funding on the Mary Drive/Sunset Drive corridor. ¾ ¾ ¾ ¾ Mary Dr: US 60 to Golf Course Rd – Mill and overlay O'Donnell Dr: Golf Course Rd to West Sunset Dr – Mill and overlay West Sunset Dr: O'Donnell Dr to Sunset Dr – Mill and overlay Sunset Dr: West Sunset Dr to SR 177 – Repair/level utility trench patching These rehabilitation recommendations are included in the transportation improvement plan shown in Chapter 6. Page 27 ights Dr Min e ve ad al A ro Ra il op pe rC o Pin aC m ag M Mesquite Rd Stone Ave e St Medlock Dr ve ve ont A South A de r tD Sunse Harrington Pl Arnett Dr Dr O’Donnell Dr ap R he Le d 500 1,000 Feet 2,000 Apac Hing Dr Gray Dr Highlands Dr 0 ad Valentin Ray St ve kA oc am St Sm Gorh Ver ro Rail Crow St Belm Palo Kiser St Gibbs St East St ve Dr Ave Edna A llo Smith Dr Golf Course Dr ENLARGED AREA oti Saguaro Dr Christopher St O’Donnell Dr Western Ave La Dr Richard Ave Mary Richard Ave Frieda r MarionD t Martin St Oc a Ave oyt S Belmont Ave Wilh ash ol High Scho O Creek W Queen e Wight St Kiser St Spray St e Kellner Av Wight St e P ld Terrace Dr Church Av ho t Hill S St en rR d Rd Palma St Magma Flats Dr Tonto National Forest Sono ar ix 60 Heiner Dr e idg St Do Nothing/Routine Maintenance m New ra St Mill and Fill or Overlay With Fabric Seal Coat Main St t ont S Santa Rita St Br Thick Mill and Fill/Overlay Lobb Ave Partial or Total Reconstruction Lime St Neary Av o St Up for Rehabilitation R e Private yry St Porph Stansberry Av National Forest Silver St e Av b ain San Pedr Slurry Seal ow Copper St Magm Land Ownership na rizo Town Boundary Molina St Slurry Seal and Reclamite Av e Study Area Chip Seal Reclamite Magma He A ma Ma g Rehabilitated in 1995 177 Sources: HDR, Inc., August 2008; Willdan Associates, 1995; DMJM Arizona, Inc., 1994; Pinal County GIS Division, July 2008; ADOT HPMS, 2005; ALRIS, 2004. Pavement Rehabilitation Status Superior Small Area Transportation Study Figure 10 Page 28 Superior Small Area Transportation Study 3.10. Transit and Non-Motorized Transportation Transit The Central Arizona Regional Transportation Coordination Plan identified several operators providing demand-responsive transit service for the elderly and persons with disabilities within the Town of Superior. The Superior Senior Center provides transportation to older adults within the Town limits. Service is provided on weekdays from 8 a.m. to 3 p.m. This service is assisted with funds from the Section 5310 Program and donations from participants. Primary destinations include the Senior Center, doctor and hair appointments, meal delivery, and periodic out-of-town trips. In year 2005, the Superior Senior Center reported 1,920 annual passenger trips. The Superstition Mountain Mental Health Center also provides transportation to its clients within the Town of Superior. Primary destinations are Center facilities, the Department of Economic Security, local primary care physicians, grocery stores, pharmacies, the Social Security Office and libraries. The Pinal County Division of Public Health’s On-the-Go Express is a transportation service aimed at providing mobility to elderly people, low income residents, and persons with disabilities. On-theGo Express serves eastern Pinal County including the Town of Superior. Typical trips include grocery shopping, medical appointments, dental appointments and eye appointments. Non-Motorized Transportation The beautiful mountainous scenic views, moderate climate, and low density land area make the Town of Superior an ideal location for non-motorized transportation users. The Arizona Trail is located just off US 60, west of the Boyce Thompson Arboretum. New local and collector roadways will be designed to accommodate bicycles throughout the Town. Page 29 Superior Small Area Transportation Study 4. LAND USE AND SOCIOECONOMIC CONDITIONS 4.1. Land Use The community of Superior was originally known as Hastings. It was renamed in honor of one of the mining companies driving the local economy – Lake Superior and Arizona. The town was founded in 1882 and incorporated in 1976. It has a rich history centered on silver and copper mining. Before the closure of Magma Mine and the termination of large-scale mining in 1982, Superior was a thriving mining town. Its population peaked in the early 1970s at nearly 5,000 residents. Superior is set beneath the visually stunning Apache Leap Mountains to the east and Picket Post Mountain to the west. Superior is located at the gateway to major recreational destinations including Roosevelt Lake and the White Mountains. It is home to the Boyce Thompson Arboretum. With an elevation of 2,830 feet, Superior’s winters are mild, and summer temperatures are cooler than those in the lower Sonoran desert to the west. The former Magma Copper mine borders the Town to the north. There, the Resolution Copper Mining has plans to rehabilitate the mine. If mining activity starts in future, it will be at a new location. To the east, south, and west, Superior is bordered by Tonto National Forest lands. Superior developed with compact form along Queen Creek Wash, with residences in close proximity to commercial services. During Superior’s heyday, Main Street and Magma Avenue were part of an active commercial core. Now these streets are quiet, and most commercial activity takes place in businesses located along US 60. The elementary, junior high and high schools are located along Mary Drive. A modern subdivision of newer homes is located south of the schools. The Town of Superior General Plan Update guides development in the Town. The Future Land Use Plan Map is shown in Figure 11. The Town of Superior Airport is located at the west end of Town south of US 60. It is a secondary airport with a 3,200-foot dirt runway that can be utilized by single engine and light twin-engine aircraft. The SATS area and Town General Plan encompasses 17.8 square miles or 11,400 acres. About onethird of the study area, or 3,600 acres, is privately held; the remainder is part of the Tonto National Forest. Resolution Copper Mining is a large holder of private lands. Page 30 0 500 1,000 Source: Town of Superior General Plan Update, Adopted December 18, 2003. Feet 2,000 Future Land Use Plan Superior Small Area Transportation Study Figure 11 Page 31 Superior Small Area Transportation Study 4.2. Socioeconomic Data Population Table 8 shows the year 2007 population estimates for the Town of Superior, Pinal County and Arizona. Table 9 shows demographic data from Census 2000. Recent Arizona Department of Economic Security (DES) estimates show that Pinal County has grown at a 9 percent average annual rate adding nearly 148,000 people in the seven-year period between 2000 and 2007. Pinal County population growth was almost three times that experienced by the State as a whole over the same period. Table 8 shows, however, that the growth in Superior was flat over the same seven-year period. Table 8 Population Estimates for the Town of Superior, Pinal County, and Arizona -- 3,460 Average Annual Growth Rate (%) -- 3,254 3,369 0.5% 179,727 327,670 9.0% Location 2000 2007 Study Area Town of Superior Pinal County Arizona 5,130,632 6,500,194 3.4% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000; Arizona Department of Economic Security, December 2007. Demographics Table 9 Year 2000 Demographics Arizona Pinal County Minority Population 36.2% 41.2% Town of Superior 71.1% Hispanic or Latino 25.0% 29.9% 69% Asian 1.7% 0.6% 0.2% Black 2.9% 2.6% 0.3% Native American and Native Alaskan 4.5% 6.9% 0.9% Pacific Islander and Native Hawaiian 0.1% 0.06% 0.03% More than one race 1.5% 1.1% 0.7% Percent of Population in Poverty 13.9% 16.9% 27.8% Disability2 19.3% 22.9% 25.5% Female Heads of Household with own children under 18 years 6.5% 7.3% 7.6% 13.0% 16.2% 19.9% Description Age 65 and Over Population Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000. Page 32 Superior Small Area Transportation Study Environmental Justice The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) defines Environmental Justice (EJ) as "fair treatment for people of all races, cultures, and incomes, regarding the development of environmental laws, regulations, and policies." There are three fundamental environmental justice principles: avoid, minimize, or mitigate disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental effects, including social and economic effects, on minority populations and low income populations; ensure the full and fair participation by all potentially affected communities in the transportation decisionmaking process; and, prevent the denial of, reduction in, or significant delay in the receipt of benefits by minority and low-income populations. Data from Census 2000 shown in Table 9 provides a comparison of the demographic information for Arizona, Pinal County, and the Town of Superior. This table shows that Superior is considerably different from Pinal County and the rest of Arizona. The Town has a higher concentration of Hispanic or Latino residents. Its poverty level is two times the statewide average. It also has a higher proportion of residents with a disability. The number of residents age 65 or older is also higher than State and County averages. Transportation improvements implemented from this study should not adversely impact any groups disproportionately. To identify and address environmental justice issues, community outreach and public involvement programs should involve under-represented populations from the planning to the implementation of any transportation project. A variety of possible alternatives should be developed and considered in order to ensure all groups are fairly represented in the amount and type of transportation services provided. Traffic Analysis Zones Traffic analysis zones (TAZ) are geographic areas generally bounded by roads, railroads, major watercourses or other easily identifiable physical features. Socioeconomic data is tabulated by TAZ geography. Using the travel demand model, traffic is generated by each land use within the TAZ, distributed, and then assigned to the roadway network. Subsequently, using projected land use data, future traffic forecasts can be derived. Figure 12 shows the year 2007 estimated population density by TAZ. Employment Study area employment estimates were developed from a commercial database from InfoUSA purchased for the study. This database provided information on business location, number of employees, and industry type for the Town of Superior. Table 10 shows the Town of Superior year 2007 employment estimates by generalized industrial classification. Figure 13 shows the year 2007 estimated employment density. Appendix D shows the Town of Superior employers listed in the InfoUSA data. Page 33 Study Area Town Boundary Population Per Square Mile 0 Copper Mine 0 - 1,500 M in e Rd 0 0 National Forest 14 r 0 Queen 282 234 173 0 t Sunse 112 0 C re e k 302 68 60 Dr 0 220 0 Wa s h 0 Golf Course Rd 4 6 5 9 Boyce Thompson Arboretum 362 St 362 0 11 11 ain M 0 yD Mar 0 60 198 32 0 0 124 0 Stone A ve XX - Population Estimate Land Ownership 0 Mesquie Rd in g Sil ve rK 6,500 + 120 183 Ave 4,000 - 6,500 Private 373 21 a Magm 0 1,500 - 4,000 0 164 0 2 0 0 Tonto National Forest 0 0 177 0 0 Feet 1,000 500 2,000 Sources: HDR, Inc., August 2008; Central Arizona Association of Governments, 2007; Pinal County GIS Division, July 2008; ALRIS, 2004. Year 2007 Estimated Population Density Superior Small Area Transportation Study Figure 12 Page 34 Study Area Town Boundary Copper Mine 1 0 0 0 - 500 Copper Mine 1,000 - 3,000 0 3,000 + 100 0 14 00 XX - Employment Estimate Land Ownership 20 0 0 National Forest Private 60 27 11 37 11 40 0 34 4 0 Boyce Thompson Boyce Arboretum Thompson Arboretum 12 32 0 18 0 64 21 0 0 29 14 33 0 0 0 13 0 16 0 28 St ain t M in S a M Hill St 65 6 46 22 5 0 24 35 9 9 0 31 t Dr 32 173 Sunse t Dr 0 0 Sunse 0 Mary Dr 60 0 5 51 0 0 36 112 6 42 41 0 0 42 1164 Course GolfGolf Course Rd Rd 43 0 0 6 124 15 220 39 00 40 0 0 60 19 0 Queen Q u e e n C re e k Wa s h C re e k Wa s h 185 22 Dr Mary 26 0 0 9 0 4 21 Mesquie Rd Mesquie Rd 5 0 S Sil ilver ve K r K in in g M g in M e in R eR d d 500 -1,000 ve maaAAve MMaaggm 2 0 0 Stone A Ston e Ave ve Employment Per Square Mile 0 44 2 45 0 177 0 0 46 0 0 Tonto Tonto National Forest National Forest 0 47 0 0 48 0 177 49 0 0 Feet Feet 0 1,000 0 5001,000 2,000 500 2,000 Sources: HDR, Inc., August 2008; Central Arizona Association of Governments, 2007; Source: HDR Inc., May 2008. Pinal County GIS Division, July 2008; ALRIS, 2004. 2007 Estimated Population Density YearYear 2007 Estimated Employment Density Superior Transportation Superior SmallSmall Area Area Transportation StudyStudy Figure13 12 Figure Page35 34 Page Superior Small Area Transportation Study Table 10 Year 2007 Employment Estimates Classification Retail Employment 232 Office 347 Industrial 27 Total Source: 606 InfoUSA, November 2007. Key employers include: ¾ ¾ ¾ ¾ ¾ ¾ ¾ Arnold Motor Sales; Boyce Thompson Arboretum; Omya Arizona; Resolution Copper; Superior Unified School District #15; Superior Marble; and, Town of Superior. School Enrollment The Superior Unified School District #15 has a primary school and secondary school. The school district reported year 2007 enrollment in John F. Kennedy Elementary School at 260 students. The district reported 220 students enrolled in the combined Superior Junior High and High School. 4.3. Interim and Planning Horizon Population and Employment Projections At its peak in 1970, the Census Bureau reported 4,975 people living in Superior. Since the end of active mining in 1982, the population of the community had declined steadily. Census 2000 counted 3,254 residents. Since year 2000, the Town has experience some positive growth. Surrounded by the Tonto National Forest, growth in the Town of Superior is constrained by the availability of private land. However, with the proposed new copper mine under Apache Leap Mountain east of Superior, the town has an opportunity for revitalization. However, the fate of the new mine rests on the outcome of a federal land exchange that requires Congressional approval. This makes the timing of growth uncertain. The project team prepared low, medium, and high year 2030 population and employment growth scenarios for Town of Superior. The low scenario used year 2030 Department of Economic Security (DES) population projections. The high growth scenario assumed a two percent annual growth rate through the year 2030 planning horizon. The medium growth scenario assumed over 300 new households and almost 250 new jobs. Table 11 shows the three growth scenarios. The TAC directed the project team to develop travel demand forecasts based on the medium growth scenario. With this scenario, urban growth within the Town of Superior Small Area Page 36 Superior Small Area Transportation Study Transportation Study area is expected to occur at an annual compound growth rate of 1 percent between year 2007 and year 2030. Table 11 Socioeconomic Variable Year 2007 Study Area Population and Employment Growth Scenario Scenario: Low Projection Growth Year 2030 Projection Scenario: Medium Projection Growth Scenario: High Projection Growth Households 1,327 1,475 148 1,630 305 2,090 763 Population* 3,490 3,880 390 4,280 800 5,500 2,010 Employment 606 720 74 890 244 1,020 374 *Assumes 2.63 persons per household. Source: HDR Engineering, Inc., August 2008. Figure 14 and Figure 15 show the estimated year 2030 population and employment density based on the medium growth rate. Appendix C contains tables showing the population and employment estimates for years 2007, 2012, 2017, and 2030 by traffic analysis zone. Page 37 Study Area Town Boundary Population Per Square Mile 0 Copper Mine 0 - 1,500 Rd 0 0 Land Ownership 0 0 National Forest Queen 15 6 300 234 196 t Dr Sunse 173 144 0 C re e k 309 83 100 0 509 0 Wa s h 0 Golf Course Rd Boyce Thompson Arboretum 207 0 405 5 9 4 St 362 0 11 11 ain M 0 Dr Mary 0 60 201 278 0 Stone A ve 0 124 198 Mesquie Rd in g M in e 142 Sil ve rK 6,500+ XX - Population Estimate Ave 4,000 - 6,500 Private 405 21 a Magm 0 1,500 - 4,000 0 179 0 2 0 0 Tonto National Forest 0 0 177 0 0 Feet 1,000 500 2,000 Sources: HDR, Inc., August 2008; Central Arizona Association of Governments, 2007; Pinal County GIS Division, July 2008; ALRIS, 2004. Year 2030 Estimated Population Density Superior Small Area Transportation Study Figure 14 Page 38 Study Area Town Boundary Employment Per Square Mile 0 Copper Mine 0 - 500 Rd M in e in g 63 0 0 Mesquie Rd Land Ownership 69 National Forest 0 36 r 0 Queen 38 0 0 t Sunse 0 0 Dr 6 45 38 C re e k 5 55 0 0 Wa s h 0 1 Golf Course Rd 0 Boyce Thompson Arboretum 50 0 27 0 43 ain M 60 21 St 0 ry D Ma 0 84 16 0 123 0 0 187 Stone A ve Sil ve rK XX - Employment Estimate Ave 0 3,000 + Private 0 54 1,000 - 3,000 a Magm 0 500 -1,000 0 0 0 0 0 Tonto National Forest 0 0 177 0 0 Feet 1,000 500 2,000 Sources: HDR, Inc., August 2008; Central Arizona Association of Governments, 2007; Pinal County GIS Division, July 2008; ALRIS, 2004. Year 2030 Estimated Employment Density Superior Small Area Transportation Study Figure 15 Page 39 Superior Small Area Transportation Study 5. INTERIM AND PLANNING HORIZON TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM CONDITIONS This section summarizes year 2012, year 2017 and year 2030 transportation system needs. 5.1. Travel Demand A travel demand model for the Town of Superior was developed to evaluate the long-range traffic impacts based on anticipated land use and development. The transportation planning model is a representation of the study area roadway facilities and the travel patterns associated with these facilities. This model was developed with the most recent release of TransCAD travel demand software program. TransCAD integrates Geographic Information System (GIS) with transportation planning and analysis capabilities. Travel Demand Modeling Process The transportation planning model utilizes socioeconomic data and the transportation network to estimate the roadway system travel demand. Together with the socioeconomic data, simulated roadway network, and other mathematical travel parameters, the model is calibrated and validated to replicate the base year travel patterns, making it possible to project future traffic flow. Before traffic forecasts could be derived, the 2007 base year model was calibrated and validated to simulate existing travel patterns and traffic flow on the roadway network. Model data collected for this time period includes socioeconomic data, traffic counts, and other roadway network data such as number of lanes, roadway capacity, and speeds. Calibration and validation of the travel demand model was accomplished by comparing the estimated model traffic volumes against the year 2007 ground counts to ensure the model’s ability to replicate reasonable traffic conditions. The model was considered validated based on a number of performance measures including root mean square error, coefficient of determination, and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) guidelines for allowable errors. Travel Demand Forecast Figure 16 through Figure 18 show daily traffic volume estimates and Level of Service analysis using the year 2007 roadway network for years 2012, 2017, and 2030. This future traffic assignment shows that the existing Town of Superior roadways have adequate capacity to accommodate anticipated year 2030 population and employment growth. As shown in other studies, including the March 1999 ADOT US 60, Florence Junction to Superior Traffic Analysis Report, US 60 will require widening from one travel lane in each direction to two travel lanes in each direction by year 2030. Page 40 ights Dr ve eA Min 0.3 Stone Ave 0.3 3.5 3.4 3.4 0.6 lA ve ad ro na Ra il Pi o pe rC op aC m ag M 1.3 1.3 O’Donnell Dr Apac Gray Dr ap R he Le 3.0 1.3 Ave 3.2 Mesquite Rd ad 2.0 0.7 ro Rail ve d 1,000 ol High Scho e St 3.0 500 e Valentin Highlands Dr 0 Crow St Arnett Dr t Dr Sunse Kiser St Dr Harrington Pl Hing Dr 0.3 Golf Course Dr Smith Dr 0.4 1.6 1.7 Medlock 0.6 6 0. 1.7 Dr ve de South A Ver Lobb Ave 1.1 Saguaro Dr O’Donnell Dr Belmont Palo ve kA oc St Sm Gorham 8.3 Gibbs St Ray St ve Dr 0.3 Christopher St 0.4 0.4 ENLARGED AREA llo La 0.6 Frieda 1.0 Richard Ave Richard Ave Dr 0.6 oti Wight St East St 0.3 Martin St Oc r MarionD 60 .4 10 0.3 t 12.0 Spray St .3 11 1.1 oyt S Palma St Magma Flats Dr Mary ash reek W Wilh Edna A 10.1 11.2 .0 10 Terrace Dr 1.0 11.4 Western Ave 11.8 C Queen P 6 10. Heiner Dr 0.4 ld Kiser St O 1.6 Wight St R ix en ho e Magma Arizona Railroad rR d d 6 1. t Hill S St M Church Av ra St Sono ar 1.6 Main St 1.5 0.9 e idg ng Ki St New Santa Rita St Br er v Sil e in Rd Lime St 0.3 *Note: volumes shown in thousands o St LOS F1250 (V/C > 1.0) 2500 yry St Porph 0.4 0.8 t St mon e Private Stansberry Av D (V/C 0.81—0.90) LOS F Ra San Pedr National Forest Molina St C (V/C 0.61—0.80) LOS E Silver St e Av Neary Av w o inb St gma A Land Ownership Copper na rizo Town Boundary VehicleLOS Flows E (V/C 0.91—1.00) 5000 A ma Ma g Study Area ve Kellner A D (V/C 0.51—0.60) LOS B Magma He a 0.7 M #.# Traffic volume* Level of Service A (V/C 0.0—0.50) LOS A-C 177 Feet 2,000 Sources: HDR, Inc., August 2008; Pinal County GIS Division, July 2008; ALRIS, 2004. Tonto National Forest Year 2012 No Build Traffic Volume Estimate Superior Small Area Transportation Study Figure 16 Page 41 ights Dr ve eA Min 0.3 e Av al Pin 1.6 Stone Ave 0.4 3.9 3.8 3.8 0. 7 ad ro Ra il o pe rC op aC m ag M Mesquite Rd ad 0.8 ro Rail Ave .5 14 3.5 Gray Dr ap R he Le 3.5 Apac d 1,000 3.9 .5 14 O’Donnell Dr Hing Dr Smith Dr 0.4 Golf Course Dr 500 2.5 e St Highlands Dr 0 ol High Scho Valentin Arnett Dr Harrington Pl t Dr Sunse Crow St Dr 1.8 1.8 Medlock 0.7 7 0. 1.8 Dr ve de South A Saguaro Dr Ver ve kA oc St Sm Gorham ve Belmont 1.3 Palo 0.5 O’Donnell Dr 0.5 ENLARGED AREA Dr .9 Kiser St Ray St ve La 0.7 llo 0.4 0.6 Christopher St Richard Ave 1.2 Richard Ave Frieda Dr 0.7 oti 9.9 Gibbs St East St 0.4 Martin St Oc r MarionD Edna A Spray St Western Ave 13.8 Palma St Magma Flats Dr Mary ash reek W t e oyt S ve Kellner A Wilh 60 Wight St 0.4 12.8 1.3 8 1. Lobb Ave 13.0 .8 12 2 12. .7 11 1.2 ho P Kiser St en Heiner Dr 0.5 ld 11.8 Wight St R ix O 13.3 C Queen rR d d 8 1. e ar M t Hill S 1.7 11 Terrace Dr Church Av ra St Sono St St Magma Arizona Railroad 1.7 1.1 e idg ng Ki New Santa Rita St Br er v Sil e in Rd t St mon 0.3 *Note: volumes shown in thousands o St LOS F1250 (V/C > 1.0) 2500 Lime St Main St 1.0 e Private yry St Porph 0.4 Stansberry Av D (V/C 0.81—0.90) LOS F Silver St e Av Ra San Pedr National Forest Molina St C (V/C 0.61—0.80) LOS E w o inb St A agma Land Ownership Copper na rizo Town Boundary VehicleLOS Flows E (V/C 0.91—1.00) 5000 A ma Ma g Study Area Neary Av D (V/C 0.51—0.60) LOS B Magma He 0.7 M #.# Traffic volume* Level of Service A (V/C 0.0—0.50) LOS A-C 177 Feet 2,000 Sources: HDR, Inc., August 2008; Pinal County GIS Division, July 2008; ALRIS, 2004. Tonto National Forest Year 2017 No Build Traffic Volume Estimate Superior Small Area Transportation Study Figure 17 Page 42 ve eA Min 3 Stone Ave 0.4 4.3 4.2 e Av al Pin 0. 8 ad ro Ra il o pe rC op aC m ag M Mesquite Rd 1.2 2. Gray Dr ap R he Le 4.8 Apac d 1,000 ad O’Donnell Dr Hing Dr Smith Dr 0.6 0.4 Golf Course Dr 500 ro Rail 2.8 Highlands Dr 0 na rizo Harrington Pl Ave t Dr Sunse 5.7 2.1 2.2 4.8 0.7 8 0. 2.7 Arnett Dr Dr ve de e St Dr Saguaro Dr O’Donnell Dr Ver ve kA oc St Sm Gorham Medlock 2.4 Dr Palo 0.4 Christopher St 0.6 0.8 ENLARGED AREA llo Valentin Ray St South A 0.8 oti La Richard Ave Frieda 1.6 0.8 Richard Ave Dr r MarionD Kiser St Gibbs St East St Martin St Oc Mary ash reek W C Queen .2 15 Wight St ve Spray St 13 Crow St Belmont 2.2 18.1 Palma St Magma Flats Dr 3.3 t ol High Scho oyt S e Wilh Edna A 16.1 17.2 Western Ave 17.1 17.2 .0 16 60 .5 Heiner Dr Terrace Dr 2.1 40 Lobb Ave P 4 15. Neary Av ho ld Kiser St en O 2. Wight St R ix .1 16 1.7 Magma Arizona Railroad rR d d 4 2. 1.9 Main St 0.3 M e ar 0.5 0.5 St St t Hill S Church Av ra St Sono e idg ng Ki 2.0 1.4 Br er v Sil e in Rd t St mon New Santa Rita St St Lime St 1.4 e *Note: volumes shown in thousands o St LOS F1250 (V/C > 1.0) 2500 yry St Porph Stansberry Av Private Silver St e Av Ra San Pedr D (V/C 0.81—0.90) LOS F Molina St C (V/C 0.61—0.80) LOS E National Forest w o inb Copper a Ave Magm Land Ownership VehicleLOS Flows E (V/C 0.91—1.00) 5000 A ma Ma g Town Boundary ve Kellner A D (V/C 0.51—0.60) LOS B ights Dr Magma He Study Area 0.9 #.# Traffic volume* Level of Service A (V/C 0.0—0.50) LOS A-C 177 Feet 2,000 Sources: HDR, Inc., August 2008; Pinal County GIS Division, July 2008; ALRIS, 2004. Tonto National Forest Year 2030 No Build Traffic Volume Estimate Superior Small Area Transportation Study Figure 18 Page 43 Superior Small Area Transportation Study 5.2. Recommended Roadway Improvements Figure 19 shows the year 2030 roadway network that includes the planned widening of US 60 to SR 177. Figure 20 shows the year 2030 travel demand volume estimates and Level of Service analysis on this improved roadway network. This figure shows that Town roadways are anticipated to function at an acceptable level of service through year 2030. Improvements to US 60 east of SR 177 are not anticipated until after year 2030. This segment of the state highway would operate at LOS E by year 2030. Page 44 ights Dr Magma He Town Boundary ve ad al A ro Ra il op pe rC o Pin aC m ag M Mesquite Rd Stone Ave Arnett Dr t Dr Sunse Harrington Pl O’Donnell Dr ap R he Le d 1,000 Feet 2,000 Apac Gray Dr Hing Dr Smith Dr Golf Course Dr 500 ad Dr Dr Highlands Dr 0 Ave Medlock ve de ve Saguaro Dr Ver ve kA oc ham St or m G S ont A Palo ol High Scho e St Ray St Belm Dr a Ave Valentin South A llo Magm Belmont Ave La Christopher St O’Donnell Dr ENLARGED AREA oti Gibbs St East St Martin St Oc Frieda Dr Richard Ave Richard Ave Mary r MarionD Kiser St Crow St ve Spray St Edna A Palma St t Western Ave oyt S Magma Flats Dr e P ld ve Kellner A Lobb Ave Wight St O Wilh ash Creek W Queen e Wight St Kiser St ni e ho t Hill S St rR d d xR Terrace Dr Church Av Sono ar Magma Arizona Railroad 60 Heiner Dr e idg St P rivate Main St t St mon New ra St Land Ownership National Forest Lime St Santa Rita St Br Future Roadway Improvement yry St Porph e Four Lane With Center Turning Lane Stansberry Av o St Four Lane San Pedr Two Lane Tonto National Forest Ra Molina St One Lane Silver St e Av Neary Av w o inb St ro Rail Roadway Lanes Copper na rizo Mi ne Av e A ma Ma g Study Area 177 Sources: HDR, Inc., August 2008; Pinal County GIS Division, July 2008; ALRIS, 2004. Year 2030 Recommended Roadway Network Superior Small Area Transportation Study Figure 19 Page 45 ights Dr ve eA Min 2. Stone Ave Gray Dr ap R he Le 4.8 Apac d 1,000 4.3 O’Donnell Dr Hing Dr Smith Dr 0.6 0.4 500 4.2 e Av al Pin 0. 8 ad ro Ra il o pe rC op aC m ag M Mesquite Rd 1.2 3 0.4 2.8 Highlands Dr 0 ad Harrington Pl ro Rail t Dr Sunse Ave 2.1 2.2 4.8 0.7 8 0. 2.7 Arnett Dr Dr ve de e St Dr Ver ve kA oc St Sm Gorham Valentin Ray St Medlock 2.4 Saguaro Dr O’Donnell Dr Golf Course Dr ENLARGED AREA Dr Palo 0.4 Christopher St 0.6 0.8 Crow St South A 0.8 llo La Richard Ave oti Frieda 1.6 0.8 Richard Ave Dr r MarionD Kiser St Gibbs St East St Martin St Oc Mary ash reek W C Queen .2 Wight St ve Edna A Spray St .0 16 Belmont 2.2 18.1 Palma St Magma Flats Dr 5.7 t 3.3 oyt S ol High Scho Wilh e 17.2 ve Kellner A 17.2 Western Ave 16.1 P 4 15. 2.1 40 17.1 ho Lobb Ave ld Kiser St en O 2. Wight St R ix 13 15 1.7 Magma Arizona Railroad rR d d 4 2. Neary Av M e ar Terrace Dr 60 .5 Heiner Dr 0.5 St St t Hill S Church Av e idg ng Ki ra St Sono .1 16 1.4 Br er v Sil e in Rd 2.0 1.9 Main St 0.3 *Note: volumes shown in thousands o St LOS F1250 (V/C > 1.0) 2500 t St mon New Santa Rita St 0.5 Lime St 1.4 e Private yry St Porph Stansberry Av D (V/C 0.81—0.90) LOS F Silver St e Av Ra San Pedr C (V/C 0.61—0.80) LOS E National Forest w o inb St a Ave Magm Land Ownership Copper na rizo Town Boundary VehicleLOS Flows E (V/C 0.91—1.00) 5000 A ma Ma g Study Area Molina St D (V/C 0.51—0.60) LOS B Magma He 0.9 #.# Traffic volume* Level of Service A (V/C 0.0—0.50) LOS A-C 177 Feet 2,000 Sources: HDR, Inc., August 2008; Pinal County GIS Division, July 2008; ALRIS, 2004. Tonto National Forest Year 2030 Build Traffic Volume Estimate Superior Small Area Transportation Study Figure 20 Page 46 Superior Small Area Transportation Study 6. IMPLEMENTATION PLAN This section of the document lays out the measures identified to maintain and enhance multimodal mobility and safety. These improvements are in addition to those shown in the Town of Superior Capital Improvement Program. The Town of Superior Small Area Transportation Study has three principal plan elements: roadways, transit and a non-motorized element. The recommendations for these elements are based on technical analyses of existing and future conditions as well as stakeholder and public participation. This chapter presents cost estimates, a funding plan, and an implementation action plan. 6.1. Future Roadway Functional Classification Plan Figure 21 shows the future roadway functional classification plan. This plan reflects the roadway system shown in the Town of Superior General Plan. The purpose of the roadway functional classification plan is preservation of right-of-way to meet eventual roadway needs. The Town of Superior will use this plan as a tool to negotiate with developers to obtain right-of-way for future roads. 6.2. Year 2030 Roadway Improvement Plan Figure 22 shows the recommended roadway improvements for the Town of Superior. Table 12 shows improvement cost estimates based on generalized unit construction costs for planning and programming purposes only. These estimates do not include any consideration for major structures or right-of-way acquisition. Engineering studies will be required to develop more detailed project cost information. This list of projects includes the transportation improvements identified in the CIP. US 60 The travel demand analysis conducted for this study shows that widening of US 60 is needed by year 2030. This corresponds to recommendations of the March 1999 ADOT US 60, Florence Junction to Superior Traffic Analysis Report. Alternatives for widening US 60 are addressed by the US Route 60: Florence Jct to Superior, Phoenix - Globe Highway Design Concept Report Final Report, (Jacobs Civil Inc., May 2004). The widening of US 60 through Superior should include consolidation of driveways and access points to businesses in the commercial core. Reducing access points in this busy area would improve traffic flow, protecting the public investment in additional capacity. It would also benefit both driver and pedestrian safety. Page 47 Study Area Town Boundary Roadway Classification Rural Minor Arterial Tonto National Forest Potential Silver King Mine Road Extension Copper Mine a Magm Rural Major Collector Ave 60 in g M in e Rd Rural Minor Collector Heiner Dr Sil ve rK Residential Collector Mesquie Rd Land Ownership St Stone A ve National Forest ain M P rivate ry Ma t Dr Sunse Dr Boyce Thompson Arboretum C re e k Wa s h Golf Course Rd Queen 0 Feet 1,000 500 2,000 Note: ADOT conducts in-depth planning and engineering studies prior to programming any roadway improvement on the state highway system. Further, it requires approval from the State Transportation Board. All traffic interchange and system interchange improvements must be approved by the Federal Highway Administration. Improvement plans on a State Facility serve as a recommendation only and are subject to approval from the designated authority. 177 Sources: Town of Superior General Plan, 2003; HDR, Inc., August 2008; Pinal County GIS Division, July 2008; ALRIS, 2004. Future Roadway Functional Classsification Superior Small Area Transportation Study Figure 21 Page 48 ights Dr Min eA ve Town Boundary ro ad ve ma Co pp er Co Ra il Ave Mesquite Rd ad ol High Scho Smith Dr: Mill and Overlay al A Pin Stone Ave Arnett Dr Ma g Gray Dr ap R he Le Apac d Feet 2,000 Dr Harrington Pl Hing Dr 1,000 t Dr Sunse O’Donnell Dr Smith Dr Golf Course Dr 500 Medlock Dr O’Donnell Dr Highlands Dr Sunset Dr: Repair/Level Utility Trench Patching and Street Lighting ve de ve Ver ve kA oc am St Sm Gorh ont A Palo Saguaro Dr Christopher St ENLARGED AREA e St Belm La Dr New Crossing Structure on Golf Course Dr Valentin South A Dr Stone Ave: Pedestrian and Access Ramps Ray St ve Frieda llo O'Donnell Dr: Mill and Overlay Richard Ave Mary Dr: Mill and Overlay and Street Lighting Richard Ave Mary New Crossing Structure on Mary Dr oti Gibbs St Crow St East St Martin St Oc r MarionD Belmont Ave Edna A Spray St ash t Western Ave Palma St Magma Flats Dr 0 Wight St Kiser St oyt S reek W e Wight St Kiser St O US-60: Widen to two travel lanes in each direction ve Kellner A P rR d Wilh C Queen Lobb Ave en ho ld ix Rd Terrace Dr e Pedestrian underpass at Los Hermanos t Hill S St Magma Arizona Railroad Tonto National Forest Sono ar Westbound Truck Acceleration/ Deceleration Lanes 60 Heiner Dr e idg St M High Water Crossing Main St Santa Rita St Br v Sil er e in Rd Main St: Improvements Phase I/II m New ra St Truck Accel/Decel Lanes g n Ki Lime St t ont S Church Av US-60: Access Consolidation Neary Av Stone Ave Realignment Access Consolidation o St US 60 Widening yry St Porph e Heiner Dr. Intersection Realignment Stansberry Av Private Silver St e Av R San Pedr Safe Route to School National Forest ow b ain Molina St Planned Improvements New Crossing Structure on Stone Ave St a Ave Magm Land Ownership Copper ro Rail Leveling Study Area na rizo Mill/Overlay Magma He A ma Ma g Pavement Rehabilitation Safe Route to School 177 Note: ADOT conducts in-depth planning and engineering studies prior to programming any roadway improvement on the state highway system. Further, it requires approval from the State Transportation Board. All traffic interchange and system interchange improvements must be approved by the Federal Highway Administration. Improvement plans on a State Facility serve as a recommendation only and are subject to approval from the designated authority. Sources: HDR, Inc., August 2008; Town of Superior Capital Improvement Program, May 2001; Pinal County GIS Division, July 2008; ALRIS, 2004. Year 2030 Roadway Improvement Plan Superior Small Area Transportation Study Figure 22 Page 49 Superior Small Area Transportation Study Table 12 ID Year 2012 to Year 2030 Transportation Improvement Projects Location Type Length Cost Estimate (2008$) Responsible Agency Funding Year 2012- 20172017 2030 2 mi $14 million ADOT 2011 0.6 mi N/A ADOT 2011 US 60 1 US 60: Milepost 224.8 to SR 177 (Milepost 226.8) Widen to two travel lanes in each direction 2 US 60: Milepost 226 to Milepost 226.6 Access Consolidation Pavement Rehabilitation 3 Mary Dr: US 60 to Golf Course Rd Mill and Overlay 0.53 mi $221,000 Town X 4 O’Donnell Dr: Golf Course Rd. to Smith Dr. Mill and Overlay 0.27 mi $112,600 Town X 5 Smith Dr: O’Donnell Dr to Sunset Dr. Mill and Overlay 0.07 mi $29,200 Town X 6 Sunset Dr.: Smith Dr. to SR 177 Repair/ Level Utility Trench Patching 0.71 mi $30,000 Town X 7 Main St, Phase II: US 60 to Lobb Ave Mill and Overlay 1.0 mi $611,000 Town X Wash Crossing 8 Golf Course Road at Wash Crossing New Crossing Structure -- $100,000 Town X 9 Stone Ave at Queen Creek New Crossing Structure -- $2,100,000 Town X 10 Mary Dr at Queen Creek New Crossing Structure -- $2,100,000 Town X Circulation Enhancement 11 Stone Avenue: Terrace Drive to Main Street Heiner Dr Intersection Realignment 0.14 mi $285,000 Town 12 US 60/Stone Ave Pedestrian and Access Ramps -- $680,000 Town New US 60 Westbound Truck Acceleration/Deceleration Lanes -- $80,000 ADOT X X X Truck Access Enhancement 13 US 60/Main St X Pedestrian Safety Enhancement 14 Sunset Dr/ Mary Dr Safe Route to School -- $50,000 Town X 15 US 60 @ Los Hermanos Pedestrian Crossing Underpass -- $450,000 Town X Street Lighting 16 Mary Drive New Street Lights along Mary Dr -- $410,000 Town X 17 Sunset Drive New Street Lights along Sunset Dr -- $410,000 Town X Source: HDR, Inc., August 2008. The reconstruction of US 60 should also include a new westbound truck deceleration lane at Main Street and a new westbound truck acceleration lane. With warehousing facilities for the proposed Page 50 Superior Small Area Transportation Study Resolution Copper Mine anticipated on mine property accessed from Smelter Road, the US 60/Main Street intersection will be a key truck access location. ADOT conducts in-depth planning and engineering studies prior to programming any roadway improvements on the State highway system. Further, it requires approval from the State Transportation Board. All traffic interchange and system interchange improvements must be approved by the FHWA. Improvement plans on state facilities will serve as a recommendation only and will be subject to approval from the designated authority. Pavement Rehabilitation Maintaining existing roadways is a top Town priority. The project team inspected four roadway segments and made recommendations for pavement rehabilitation and maintenance. Figure 10 shows roadway segments where pavement maintenance was recommended in 1994 and no action has been taken. This is for use in prioritizing future maintenance activities. Wash Crossings Town of Superior emergency responders noted in stakeholder outreach that Golf Course Road is impassable during high water. A new high water crossing structure is recommended at this wash location. Circulation Enhancements Stone Avenue between Terrace Drive and Main Street should be realigned in conjunction with the design and construction of new Queen Creek crossing structure programmed at Stone Avenue. The Stone Avenue-Heiner Drive intersection does not align and has an accident history. Pedestrian Safety Enhancements With both John F. Kennedy Elementary School elementary and the combined Superior Junior High and High School located on Mary Drive/Sunset Drive, improvements under the Safe Route to School program created by the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users Act (SAFETEA-LU) should be implemented in this corridor. 6.3. Transportation Revenue Sources The following section describes and summarizes the revenue sources that are currently available for funding roadway transportation projects in the Town of Superior. It should be noted that in the current environment the funding of significant transportation projects is complex and in most cases requires multiple sources. Also, transportation funding is dynamic and there is a need to continuously monitor the existing sources and new sources that may become available as state and federal legislation changes. Innovation has become the mainstay of successful transportation funding. Page 51 Superior Small Area Transportation Study Existing and Potential Revenue Sources Town of Superior Capital Improvement Program 2001-2021 (Willdan, May 2001) identified $19.9 million in transportation capital improvements between 2001 and 2021. Funding for these improvements came from the following existing sources: ¾ Revenue Bonds. The issuance of bonds against town revenues can be used to accelerate project construction. While not a direct funding source, bonding can be used to mitigate the immediate impacts of significant capital improvement projects and spread the costs over the useful life of the project. Though interest costs are incurred, the judicious use of debt financing can serve not only as a practical means of funding major improvements, but is also viewed as an equitable funding strategy, spreading the burden of repayment over existing and future citizens and businesses that will benefit from the projects. ¾ Highway User Revenue Fund (HURF). HURF represents the most significant source of transportation funds in the State of Arizona. Funds are derived primarily from motor vehicle fuel taxes and vehicle license taxes. HURF funds are shared with and allocated through ADOT and distributed as an entitlement to cities, towns and counties based on population. ¾ Local Transportation Assistance Fund (LTAF). LTAF I is funded from State lottery proceeds up to $23 million per year and the funds are distributed to cities and towns on the basis of population. The funds can be used for public transportation and transportation purposes depending on the jurisdiction's population. ¾ Grants. Community Development Block Grants and other one-time only funding sources are available from some federal, state, and private entities to fund infrastructure development. ¾ Town of Superior General Fund. The CIP identified Town general fund monies used for improvements and operations and maintenance. ¾ Other Funding Sources. The CIP identified other unspecified sources of revenue used for transportation funding. Table 13 shows that approximately $12.5 million in projected revenue is available to the Town of Superior for both transportation improvements and operations and maintenance between the year 2012 and 2030. These revenue projections are based on current socioeconomic conditions. Page 52 Superior Small Area Transportation Study Table 13 Funding Source Revenue Bonds Grant Projected Town of Superior Transportation Revenue Period Total Notes $434,000 $976,000 1 2012-2017 2017-2030 $542,000 $3,424,000 $2,739,000 $6,163,000 2 HURF/LTAF $442,000 $1,150,000 $1,592,000 3 General Fund $288,000 $748,000 $1,036,000 4 Other $773,000 $2,009,000 $2,782,000 5 Total $5,469,000 $7,080,000 $12,549,000 Sources: Town of Superior Capital Improvement Program 2001-2021, May 2001. Notes: 1) The CIP shows that $1.6 million in revenue bonds for transportation projects will be issued between FY06 and FY21. This amount is prorated over the 9-year period between 2012 and 2021. 2) The CIP shows $10.27 million in grant awards for transportation projects anticipated between FY06 and FY21. This amount is prorated over the 9-year period between FY12 and FY21. 3) HURF/LTAF allocation for FY06-21 is $1.33 million or $88,400 per year. This value is held constant for forecast purpose. 4) The CIP shows the general fund contributing $57,500 annually to transportation projects. This value is held constant for forecast purposes. 5) The CIP shows other sources of revenue contributing $155,000 annually to transportation projects. This value is held constant for forecast purposes. Other revenue sources potentially available to the Town of Superior include: Development Impact Fees An increasing number of growing Arizona communities are relying on a transportation development impact fees for both residential and commercial development. Development impact fees are onetime payments for public facilities based on a pro-rata share of costs incurred for facilities needed to accommodate new development. Development fees relate to only capital facility expansions benefiting new development and are not to be utilized for rehabilitation efforts or operating expenses. County Regional Area Road Fund The Pinal County Transportation Excise Tax, or Half-Cent Sales Tax, was approved by voters in year 2005 and its mandate extends to the year 2025. This revenue stream may also be available to fund transportation improvements. The net revenues collected from this sales tax are deposited in the county's regional area road fund. Funds are distributed from the monies in the county's regional area road fund to the individual county and to the individual cities and towns in the county in a manner determined by the board of supervisors. The jurisdiction receiving the revenues may only use the revenues for street and highway purposes or for transportation projects included in the regional transportation plan of the county as prepared by the county regional planning agency. Improvement Districts Improvement districts are authorized by the State legislature for the construction of a wide range of public works facilities. They are formed to fund repaving projects, construction of roadways or sidewalks, installation of landscaping and other public improvements within a defined geographic area. The districts are initiated by property owners who combine resources with the town to finance Page 53 Superior Small Area Transportation Study the improvements. Property owners are assessed over a several year timeframe to repay their share of the cost of the improvement. Highway Extension Expansion and Loan Program (HELP) HB 2488, enacted into law on August 21, 1998, established a comprehensive loan and financial assistance program for eligible highway projects in Arizona. The program designated as Highway Expansion and Extension Loan Program or HELP provides communities in Arizona a new financing mechanism to stretch limited transportation dollars and bridge the gap between the needs and available revenues. The HELP Program provides the State and its communities with an innovative financing mechanism to accelerate the funding of road construction projects and has proven to be a significant tool for financing the construction of highway projects throughout the State. Greater Arizona Development Authority (GADA) The Greater Arizona Development Authority (GADA) was created by the Arizona State Legislature to assist local and tribal governments and special districts with the development of public infrastructure. GADA leverages its funds to lower the costs of financing and help accelerate project development for public facilities owned, operated and maintained by a political subdivision, special district or Indian tribe. GADA has both financial and technical assistance programs LTAF II The 1998 Legislature passed HB 2565 to provide additional statewide transit and transportation funding to incorporated cities and towns as well as the counties. In 2000, additional legislation was passed making the use of LTAF II funds “transit use only” (public transportation sponsored by a local government entity or special needs transportation) for jurisdictions allocated more than $2,500. The LTAF II funding is in the form of multi-state lottery game and instant bingo game monies along with a portion of the State Highway Fund's Vehicle License Tax monies. The Arizona Department of Transportation administers the LTAF II and the State Treasurer's Office distributes the funds to the Regional Public Transportation Authority (RPTA), Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs), and cities, towns and counties not represented by a RPTA or MPO. On August 6, 2005 the six year, $286.4 billion, Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient, Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), the largest investment in surface transportation in the nation’s history was signed into law. This act provides numerous ways for local government to fund transportation including non-motorized as well as roads and public transportation. Surface Transportation Program (STP) The Surface Transportation Program provides flexible funding that may be used by States and localities for projects on any Federal-aid highway, including the National Highway System, bridge projects on any public road, transit capital projects, and intra-city and intercity bus terminals and facilities. For projects programmed with STP funds from a COG Transportation Improvement Program, local project sponsors may exchange STP funds for a reduced amount of HURF funds from ADOT, enabling the project sponsor to assume greater control over project development and implementation. Page 54 Superior Small Area Transportation Study Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) The purpose of the program is to achieve a significant reduction in traffic fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads. Each State's apportionment of HSIP funds is subject to a set aside for construction and operational improvements on high-risk rural roads. High-risk rural roads are roadways functionally classified as rural major or minor collectors or rural local roads with a fatality and incapacitating injury crash rate above the statewide average for those functional classes of roadways; or likely to experience an increase in traffic volume that leads to a crash rate in excess of the average statewide rate. Economic Strength Project (ESP) Program The Arizona Department of Commerce in collaboration with the Arizona Department of Transportation administers the Economic Strength Project (ESP) program. This joint program for local governments provides grants for road projects that result in economic development and meet three primary goals: create and retain a significant number of jobs in Arizona; lead to significant capital investment in Arizona; and, make a significant contribution to the economy of Arizona. The ESP program has a continuous funding source through the Arizona Department of Transportation. Annually there are two funding rounds in which at least $500,000 is available for new road construction, upgrading existing roads, turn lanes, acceleration or deceleration lanes, and reconstruction and paving. Bridge Program (BR) The BR provides funding for replacement of a structurally deficient or functionally obsolete highway bridges or rehabilitates the structural integrity of a bridge. Railway-Highway Crossings The program purpose is to reduce the number of fatalities and injuries at public highway-rail grade crossings through the elimination of hazards and/or the installation/upgrade of protective devices at crossings. National Highway System (NHS) Program The program provides funding for improvements to rural and urban roads that are part of the NHS, including the Interstate System and designated connections to major intermodal terminals. Under certain circumstances, NHS funds may also be used to fund transit improvements in NHS corridors. Safe Routes to School Program The program purpose is to enable and encourage children, including those with disabilities, to walk and bicycle to school; to make walking and bicycling to school safe and more appealing; and to facilitate the planning, development and implementation of projects that will improve safety, and reduce traffic, fuel consumption, and air pollution in the vicinity of schools. Page 55 Superior Small Area Transportation Study Transportation, Community and System Preservation Program (TCSP) The TCSP Program is intended to address the relationships among transportation, community, and system preservation plans and practices and identify private sector-based initiatives to improve those relationships. Transportation Enhancement Program (TE) The TE program’s purpose is to strengthen the cultural, aesthetic, and environmental aspects of the nation's intermodal transportation system. Funding is derived from the State’s annual STP apportionment. The program provides funding for facilities such as pedestrian walkways and bicycle paths, acquisition of scenic easements, restoration of scenic or historic sites, landscaping and other scenic beautification. 6.4. Future Transit Service The Town of Superior is currently served by several Section 5310 private non-profit and public agencies that provide transportation to the elderly and disabled. These providers are the Superior Senior Center, the Superstition Mountain Mental Health Center, and the Pinal County Division of Public Health’s On-the-Go Express. With multiple providers serving the community, the Town should encourage service coordination between these operators. The Arizona Statewide Rural Transit Needs Study (Cambridge Systematics, Inc, 2007), identified a new intercity Section 5311 route between East Mesa, Superior and Miami as a top candidate for funding. Section 5311 programs provide commuter-oriented service so residents in rural communities can travel to urban areas for employment, medical appointments, shopping, education, and other services. The Town of Superior Transportation Capital Improvement Program (FY 2001 -2021) identifies $300,000 to start a new bus system for the Town of Superior. It is recommended that the Town partner with current transit service providers, including the ADOT Rural Transit Assistance Program, to leverage this funding to improve existing and planned service for its residents. The ADOT Multimodal Planning Division staff provides technical support, training and planning assistance to rural transit providers. Transit Funding Assistance Transit services are funded through a variety of federal, state and local programs, as well as farebox revenue, advertising, and other nongovernmental sources. Most local government funding for transit service is provided by general fund revenues of municipalities and/or counties. Sources of potential transit funding include: Section 5311 Formula Funds The funding being sought by the Express includes FTA Section 5311 funding. This funding supports capital expenditures (based on an 80%/20% match with municipality or other entity), operating Page 56 Superior Small Area Transportation Study expenses (50%/50% match) and administrative expenses (80%/20% match). The funding is allocated through an annual competitive application process. STP Flex Funds Surface Transportation Program (STP) funds are also available through ADOT in support of the Section 5311 Program. Typically these funds are used to augment the capital procurement process. STP funding is determined annually by the State Transportation Board. LTAF II Funds The LTAF II fund is financed through the Arizona Lottery. These funds are distributed to cities, towns, and counties, some of which allocate them to rural transit providers to use for capital purchases, to match federal funds or enhance operations. The downside of this funding is that it is contingent upon lottery proceeds in excess of a certain threshold; therefore the funding is periodic and cannot be budgeted annually. 6.5. Non-Motorized Element Figure 23 shows the recommended Town of Superior Queen Creek Trail System Plan. Queen Creek Trail System The purpose of the planned trail system is to link the Boyce Thompson Arboretum with Superior and the upper Queen Creek Canyon. The Town anticipates that a hiking and bicycling trail along Queen Creek could become a tourist attraction. Key elements of the trail system are included in the Town of Superior CIP. Page 57 Source: Town of Superior, 2008. Queen Creek Trailway Conceptual Plan Superior Small Area Transportation Study Figure 23 Page 58 Superior Small Area Transportation Study 6.6. 5-Year Priority Improvement Needs The Town of Superior Capital Improvement Program 2001-2021 (Willdan, May 2001) commits Town funding to projects addressing many of the issues that were discussed by both stakeholders and Town staff through outreach conducted for this study. This 5-year priority improvement needs list prioritizes projects from both the currently adopted and the transportation improvement recommendations shown in Table 12 using numerous inputs including safety considerations, TAC input, Town staff input, circulation issues, and traffic capacity considerations. This list shown in Table 14 is intended to assist the Town in identifying pavement rehabilitation and other safety and mobility improvement priorities to update its CIP. Future engineering studies are required to develop detailed cost estimates. Table 14 ID 5-Year Priority Improvement Needs Project Description Length Cost Estimate Notes 1 mi $611,000 2 1 Main Street Phase II: Lobb Ave to US 60 Drainage Improvements; Mill and Overlay 2 Mary Dr: US 60 to Golf Course Rd Mill and Overlay 0.53 mi $221,000 1 3 O’Donnell Dr: Golf Course Rd. to Smith Dr. Mill and Overlay 0.27 mi $112,600 1 4 Smith Dr: O’Donnell Dr to Sunset Dr. Mill and Overlay 0.07 mi $29,200 1 5 Sunset Dr: Smith Dr. to SR 177 Repair/ Level Utility Trench Patching 0.71 mi $30,000 1 6 Sunset Dr/ Mary Dr Safe Route to School N/A $50,000 1 7 Highway 60 Underpass @ Los Hermanos Pedestrian Underpass N/A $450,000 2, 3 8 Stone Avenue Pedestrian and Access Ramps @ U.S. 60 Pedestrian access ramps between US 60 and Stone Avenue N/A $680,000 2, 3 9 Mary Drive @ Queen Creek Install 10' X10' box culvert crossing N/A $2100,000 2 10 Stone Avenue @ Queen Creek Install 10' X10' box culvert crossing N/A $2,100,000 2 11 Stone Avenue: Terrace Drive to Main Street Heiner Dr Intersection Realignment 0.14 mi $285,000 1 12 Golf Course Road at Wash Crossing New Crossing Structure N/A $100,000 1 Source: HDR, Inc., August 2008. Notes: 1) Table 12 - Year 2012 to Year 2030 Transportation Improvement Projects. 2) Town of Superior Transportation Capital Improvement Program 2001 -2021, Willdan, 2001. 3) ADOT conducts in-depth planning and engineering studies prior to programming any roadway improvement on the state highway system. Further, it requires approval from the State Transportation Board. All traffic interchange and system interchange improvements must be approved by the Federal Highway Administration. Improvement plans on a State Facility serve as a recommendation only and are subject to approval from the designated authority. 6.7. Implementation Action Items Key action items required to support and implement key elements of this transportation plan include updating the CIP, stakeholder coordination, maintaining a current database of traffic information, participating in regional planning efforts, and periodically updating this transportation study. Page 59 Superior Small Area Transportation Study Stakeholder Coordination An important part of the long-term transportation improvement plan is continued coordination between stakeholders at the federal, state, county, and local level, including the development community. Roadway Safety Review Town of Superior should also conduct periodic reviews of roadway accident data to identify safety trends and take mitigation actions with necessary counter measures. Traffic Count Data CAAG and ADOT continuously update their traffic count databases. At a minimum, these traffic counts should be reviewed once every three years to monitor activity. On Town roadways, counts should be conducted at the previous count locations to identify trends annually and seasonally. Monitor and Update Transportation Plan Significant changes in growth or development patterns should trigger a transportation plan update. This would include revising travel demand forecasts. At a minimum a major review of this transportation plan should be conducted every five years. Capital Improvement Program Update The Town should update its 5-year Capital Improvement Plan annually to reflect its current revenue outlook and new transportation improvement priorities. Page 60 Superior Small Area Transportation Study 7. POLICIES AND GUIDELINES This section presents the policies and guidelines needed to implement the recommendations of this transportation study. This includes typical roadway cross-sections by functional classification, access management guidelines, and traffic impact study guidelines. 7.1. Roadway Functional Classification Roads are classified based upon design and traffic characteristics. Functional classification categorizes roads by how they perform with regard to providing access and mobility. A principal arterial, for example, typically provides mobility for longer distance trips with higher speeds and less access to adjoining properties. Conversely, the function of a local street is to provide direct access to neighborhoods at lower speeds. Note that, within the Town of Superior study area there is no roadway classified as a principal arterial. The full functional classification definitions are listed below: Principal Arterial. This facility serves regional circulation needs. It moves traffic at moderate speeds while providing limited access to adjacent land. Access is controlled through raised medians and through spacing and location of driveways and intersections. Minor Arterial. This facility is generally a four-lane and sometimes a two-lane roadway. Its purpose is to serve regional/sub-regional traffic circulation needs by moving traffic at moderate speeds while providing limited access to adjacent land. Major Collector. This facility provides for shorter distance trips, generally less than three miles, and primarily serves to collect and distribute traffic between key traffic generators, local streets and arterial streets. This classification provides direct access to abutting land. Urban Collector. Urban Collectors serve shorter distance trips than the Major Collector (generally less than one mile). They provide direct access to adjacent land and collect and distribute traffic between key traffic generators, local streets and arterial streets. Local Street. Local Streets provide direct access to adjacent land and distribute traffic to collector facilities. Roadway Cross Section The typical roadway cross sections and street standards from the 1994 SATS were applied in this study with minor modifications. Wider sidewalks and a landscape buffer zone were added to the local street cross section. The revised cross section shows five-foot sidewalks per AASHTO guidelines. Where sidewalks are less than five-feet, a passing space of five feet should be provided at reasonable intervals for wheelchair users to pass one another or turn around. The arterial and collector cross sections were updated to include a 14-foot outside lane to accommodate both bicycle Page 61 Superior Small Area Transportation Study and vehicular traffic. Descriptions of roadway cross-sections by functional classification are shown below. Arterial Street An arterial, as shown in Figure 24, is constructed on 90-feet of right-of-way. In urban areas, there are typically four travel lanes and a 12-foot median that could be either a raised median or a center two-way left turn lane. The two outside lanes are 16 feet in width, measured to the back of curb. In rural areas, there are typically two 12-foot travel lanes with a paved shoulder. Bike lanes become a part of the outside multi-lane. Collector Street A major collector is two travel lanes constructed on 70 feet of right-of-way. As shown in Figure 24, opposing travel directions are separated by a 16-foot two-way left turn lane. A 5-foot sidewalk, 6foot buffer and shared bike lane are included in the cross-section. Access to major collector streets is typically limited to intersections at eighth-mile spacing and to driveways adjacent to developments. All vehicles entering the traffic stream must be driving forward; no backing into traffic is allowed. Local Street The local street cross-section, as shown in Figure 24, includes two travel lanes constructed on 50 feet of right-of-way. The 50-foot roadway consists of a 10-foot travel lane and eight feet for onstreet parallel parking or a bike lane. Detached sidewalks with a minimum of 5-foot buffer space are recommended. Page 62 8’ P.U.E. 8’ P.U.E. 50’ ROW 36’ BOC TO BOC 5’ SIDEWALK 2’ BFR 8’ PARKING/ BICYCLE LANE 10’ VEHICLE LANE 8’ PARKING/ BICYCLE LANE 10’ VEHICLE LANE 2’ 5’ BFR SIDEWALK 2” AC 6” ABC Local Street Typical Section 8’ P.U.E. 8’ P.U.E. 70’ ROW 48’ BOC TO BOC 5’ SIDEWALK 6’ BUFFER 2’ 14’ MULTI-MODE LANE 14’ MULTI-MODE LANE 16’ CENTER LANE 2’ 6’ BUFFER 5’ SIDEWALK 3” AC 9” ABC Collector Street Typical Section 8’ P.U.E. 8’ P.U.E. 90’ ROW 68’ BOC TO BOC 5’ SIDEWALK 6’ BUFFER 2’ 14’ MULTI-MODE LANE 12’ VEHICLE LANE 12’ CENTER LANE 12’ VEHICLE LANE 14’ MULTI-MODE LANE 2’ 6’ BUFFER 5’ SIDEWALK 4” AC 12” ABC Arterial Street Typical Section Source: HDR Inc., May 2008. Typical Street Standards Figure 24 Superior Small Area Transportation Study Page 63 Superior Small Area Transportation Study 7.2. Access Management Guidelines Purpose Access management is the systematic control, location, spacing, design, and operation of driveways and street connections, medians, median openings, turn lanes, traffic signals, and interchanges. The purpose is to provide (or improve upon the existing) access to land development while at the same time preserving the constant flow of traffic on surrounding roadways, keeping crucial factors such as speed, safety and capacity needs in mind. ADOT defines access management as the control of the location and design of all vehicular approaches to the state highway system including driveways and public and private roads. This control includes the option to deny a direct highway connection when it is appropriate. Key Category Access Factors ¾ ¾ ¾ ¾ Intersection spacing Allowing direct access or require to obtain alternative access Proof of access necessity Scope of access improvement, such as requiring auxiliary lanes, (deceleration and acceleration lanes) ¾ Defining the levels of allowable access and spacing for different kinds of roads. Providing a mechanism for granting variances in cases where reasonable access to adjacent roadways cannot be provided The challenge of access management is making the effort towards creating and maintaining a balance between land development plans and the functional integrity of the roadways that serve these developments and the region. Legal Issues of Access Control All private property rights including access rights are subservient to the State and its jurisdiction and are always subject to reasonable regulation through the local government or the State for public health, safety, and welfare. The right of access is one of reasonable access, rather than private or direct access. However, once a direct access has been provided to a non-controlled access highway then the property owner has an access easement. Any destruction or unreasonable restriction of said access will require compensation. Local governments and the state have the power to regulate traffic on the highway including restricting driveway location, spacing, size and design, restricting traffic movement to one direction. In general, property owners have the right of reasonable access to an adjacent roadway but sometimes this may be restricted in order to enhance public safety or where it is of public interest to do so. Private rights of abutting landowners to access their property tend to be subservient to those of the public (i.e. their rights to free and safe use of the public street-system of travel). Page 64 Superior Small Area Transportation Study Different types of roads are administered by different authorities or entities, including the State and the county. It is important to understand the relationship between land use and the functionality of the road that passes through it. Subdivision Regulations State legislation gives the Town of Superior authority to regulate subdivisions. Subdivisions can be regulated with regard to the following access management techniques: ¾ Control the number of access points in relation to road deceleration and acceleration lanes to avoid conflict points; ¾ Ensure design of adequate driveway throat length to avoid a conflict with the flow of off-site traffic; ¾ Provide adequate driveway spacing requirements, corner clearance, and joint and cross access configurations; ¾ Orient lots, buildings, and access points to local streets and not to high-traffic-volume arterials; and ¾ Require reverse frontage to ensure that lots abutting the roadway obtain access from a local road. A city, town or county site plan review process can require documentation of all access points and the internal circulation system. Intersection controls, medians and on-site circulation controls can be required to ensure that access and design standards for roadways are followed, and that lots are not configured in a manner that encourages inadequate spacing between access points. On state highways, what constitutes “legal” access is a determination by ADOT. Since ADOT has adopted access standards, engineering requirements and a regulatory permitting program, legal access to a state highway may only be determined by ADOT under the authority of the Director, not by county, city or town officials. Absent an ADOT determination of legal sufficiency, the property deed should note that the property does not have legal access established. Zoning Ordinance To promote effective access management, the Town of Superior zoning ordinances can: require larger minimum lot frontages; adopt minimum spacing standards for driveways; encourage joint and cross access; require complete on-site circulation; and promote activity centers rather than strip development. General Plan The next update of the Town of Superior General Plan should identify access issues and problems; establish goals, objectives and policies regarding access; identify access management approaches; and designate key transportation corridors for special treatment. Page 65 Superior Small Area Transportation Study Methods of Controlling Access Access management, as an important means for maintaining mobility, encompasses a set of techniques that are available for use to the state and local governments to control access to highways, major arterials and other roads. These include the following: ¾ Access Spacing: increasing the distance between intersections/access points can reduce congestion and improve traffic flow, it can also improve air quality on heavily traveled roads. Subdivision regulations such as lot split regulations can ensure correct and safe spacing between access points. ¾ Driveway spacing: fewer driveways that are spaced further apart would allow for more orderly merging of traffic and would present fewer challenges for drivers. ¾ Safe Turning Lanes: dedicated left- and right-turn, indirect left-turns and U-turns, and roundabouts keep through-traffic flowing. Roundabouts represent an opportunity to improve an intersection with many conflict points or a severe crash history (e.g., T-bone crashes) to one that operates with fewer conflict points and less severe crashes (e.g., sideswipes) if they occur. ¾ Median Treatments: two-way left turns and non-traversable raised medians are two of the most effective ways to regulate access and reduce crashes ¾ Right-of-Way Management: this pertains to right-of-way reservation for future widening, good sight distance, access location, and other access-related issues. Access Planning and Design Access planning and design should aim to coordinate the three components of the access system: the public roadway, the private roadway, and the activity center or land development itself. The elements that must be taken into account surrounding these components are: 1) limiting the number of conflict points, 2) separating conflict areas (e.g., through use of traffic signals), 3) reducing acceleration and deceleration impacts at access points, 4) removing vehicles from through traffic lanes, 5) spacing major intersections to facilitate progressive travel speeds along arteries, and 6) providing adequate on-site storage. Permitting Considerations ¾ Allow some variation from spacing standards at an administrative level - Distinguish between major and minor deviations from spacing standards - Require more vigorous review of major deviations ¾ Establish permit conditions - Type and volume of traffic - Interim access until alternative access is obtained ¾ Address when existing access must be brought into confirmatory - Substantial enlargements or improvements Page 66 Superior Small Area Transportation Study - Significant change in trip generation - Beyond any specific permit term or condition - If use is discontinued ¾ Need to be clearly defined Additional Resources ADOT is currently developing a Statewide Access Management Plan in accordance with the policies of the State Transportation Board. This plan is to develop an access management classification system for the State Highways and also a manual to guide the uniform application of access management throughout the state. Current general guidance for access management criteria may be found in Roadway Design Guidelines and Traffic Engineering Policies, Guidelines and Procedures. 7.3. Design Guidelines Design guidelines for future roadways should be based on the recommended roadway cross section. It is recommended that where possible all above ground utilities be placed behind sidewalks. In addition, the town should establish an eight foot public utility easement (PUE) on either side of the road to allow for additional utility placement and work. The Town should adopt and enforce a wall/fence and sight triangle ordinance. This ordinance would restrict property owners from constructing walls, fences, or placing any objects taller than 2.5 feet within 30 feet of an intersection. Driveway widths should not exceed 30 or 40 feet for commercial and industrial uses, respectively. Traffic control should be provided at driveways in accordance with the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). 7.4. Traffic Impact Procedures A Traffic Impact Study (TIS) is an important tool in the overall development planning process. The TIS provides information which identifies existing, short range and long term impacts of proposed developments on the roadway system. The study also identifies mitigation measures for the identified traffic impacts. Requirements for Traffic Impact Study A TIS will be required on all new developments that generate 100 or more peak hour two-way trips. Traffic impact studies for new developments affecting State Highways must be conducted in accordance with ADOT traffic impact analysis study guidelines. This ensures that projects which are anticipated to create traffic impacts will be required to mitigate those impacts, while those smaller projects are not unduly burdened with a requirement to perform a traffic study. If it is determined by the Town that a TIS is required, the applicant and Town Engineer must obtain agreement on the specific requirements. A meeting may be held prior to the initiation of the TIS on the following items: Page 67 Superior Small Area Transportation Study ¾ TIS guidelines will be discussed to ensure understanding by both the Town and TIS applicant. The Town has the final decision on the TIS requirements; ¾ Study area limits; ¾ Locations and type (AM, PM, and/or Midday, Daily) of traffic counts will be identified; ¾ Identifications of intersections to be evaluated; ¾ Study horizon years; and ¾ Any additional project specific requirements. The applicant must also coordinate with ADOT and Pinal County as appropriate. The TIS will be prepared under the supervision of a registered Arizona Professional Engineer (Civil). The report will be sealed and signed. Traffic volumes generated by the proposed development will use the latest edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation. Other rates may be used with prior approval by the Town Engineer in cases where Trip Generation may not include specific land use category rates, have limited data, or where local rates may differ. Capacity analysis methodology will be based on the most current edition of the Transportation Research Board’s Highway Capacity Manual. Traffic Study Outline The following outline provides guidance for the topics that should be addressed when a traffic study is warranted. 1 2 3 4 Executive Summary a. Project Description b. Existing Conditions c. Probable Impacts of the Project (No-Build and Build Conditions) d. Traffic Operations Analysis (Existing, No-Build and Build Conditions) e. Mitigation Measures/Recommendations f. Conclusions Introduction a. Project Description b. Site Location and Plan c. Study Area d. Site Accessibility Existing Conditions a. Geometric and Traffic Control b. Traffic Volumes c. Level of Service d. Safety No-Build Condition (Forecasted Traffic Without Proposed Development) a. Background Traffic Volumes i. Annual Growth ii. Site Specific Development (Other approved developments located within the designated study area scheduled for completion prior to proposed project) Page 68 Superior Small Area Transportation Study 5 6 7 8 9 10 b. Planned Roadway Improvements Build Condition (Forecasted With Proposed Project) a. Trip Generation b. Trip Distribution and Trip Assignment c. Phasing of Project d. Build Traffic Volumes Traffic Operations Analysis a. Methodology b. Analysis Results i. No-Build Condition ii. Build Condition Special Analyses/Issues a. Traffic Signal Warrants b. Others, as appropriate Mitigation Measures/Recommendations a. Off Site Improvement Needs b. Proposed Site Access c. Traffic Safety Conclusions Appendix a. Traffic Count Data b. Capacity Analysis Summary Sheets c. Crash Data and Summaries Page 69 Superior Small Area Transportation Study Appendix A Summary of Stakeholder Comment Superior Small Area Transportation Study The project team conducted meetings with key Town of Superior stakeholders on March 25, 2008, at the Town of Superior offices to identify transportation-related issues as part of the Small Area Transportation Study (SATS) process. Interviews were conducted with four (4) participant stakeholders including: • • • • Resolution Copper Superior Marble Fire Department Police Department Key topics discussed during the stakeholders meeting include: • • • • • Impact of possible new Resolution Copper mine Potential re-opening of the Magma Arizona Railway Impact of heavy truck activity Need for improved crossings of Queen Creek Wash US 60 pedestrian safety and access concerns A summary of the stakeholder interviews is shown in Table 1. Detailed meeting notes follow. A-1 Superior Small Area Transportation Study Table 1 Stakeholder Future Growth Plan John Rickus Resolution Copper ƒ Possible new copper mine to create up to 1,300 new jobs Transportation Stakeholder Interview Summary Transportation System Issues ƒ No concern noted Potential Mobility Enhancements ƒ No concern noted ƒ Development of mine hinges on federal land exchange Goods Movement Safety Concerns ƒ Better truck access routes will be needed to support the mining activity ƒ No concern noted ƒ Magma Arizona Railway would be reopened with the mine ƒ Up to 3,000 construction workers needed during ore concentrator construction Rick Erman Lori Stevens Superior Marble ƒ No concern noted ƒ Mesquite Road needs pavement rehabilitation and periodic maintenance due to heavy truck activities ƒ Possible reopening of Magma Arizona Railway reopening would add options for transporting commodities ƒ Heavy trucks used to transport both raw materials and finished products via US 60 ƒ Truck parking and strapping operations on Mesquite Road create congestion and traffic hazard Todd Pryor Superior Fire Department ƒ No concern noted ƒ No concern noted ƒ New all-weather wash crossing on Mary Drive needed to avoid circuitous rerouting during an emergency event ƒ No concern noted ƒ Milepost 164 on SR 177 which is located outside the study area is a key traffic crash location Matt Campbell Superior Police Department ƒ No concern noted ƒ Intersections of US 60/Magma Avenue on ramp and Stone Ave/Heiner Rd have limited visibility ƒ New all-weather wash crossings needed for enhanced mobility during an emergency response ƒ No concern noted ƒ Traffic calming device on Mary Drive would be beneficial to improve safety ƒ Pedestrian access improvements across US 60 needed ƒ Traffic calming device on Mary Drive may alleviate speeding issues Source: HDR, Inc., August 2008. A-2 Superior Small Area Transportation Study A-3 Superior Small Area Transportation Study A-4 Superior Small Area Transportation Study A-5 Superior Small Area Transportation Study A-6 Superior Small Area Transportation Study A-7 Superior Small Area Transportation Study Appendix B Summary of Public Comment Superior Small Area Transportation Study Public involvement is a key part of the Town of Superior SATS. The public involvement process is a conduit between the study project team, Town of Superior stakeholders, and residents to exchange information on transportation issues, solutions, including study findings and recommendations. The study work plan outlines two phases of public involvement. The first phase focuses on public scoping and issue identification. In the second phase, the project team reports back to the public to verify that issues and concerns have been addressed by the planning effort. The first public meeting was held on March 25, 2008. This open house event presented existing conditions information and sought public input on transportation issues to be addressed through the study process. The second public meeting was held on July 24, 2008. This open house presented the draft transportation plan and improvement recommendations. In the public open house format, display boards summarizing key plan information are presented. The study team is available for questions and a presentation is made summarizing plan milestones and recommendations. Announcements for each of these public meetings were distributed to Superior residents in their monthly utility bills. Flyers were posted around the town at key gathering places. Public Open House #1 The purpose of the first open house was to introduce the study and gather information on transportation issues. Display boards were providing showing existing transportation in the Town of Superior study area. Topics included: • • • • • • • • • • Study Process and Schedule Goals and Objectives Roadway Classification Traffic Counts Crash Frequency LOS Definitions Levels of Service Town of Superior General Plan Key Transportation Issues Study Area and Phasing The study project manager welcomed the attendees and provided a brief introduction of the project. The study team gave a presentation that described the study background and overview, explained the study process, reviewed the study schedule and next steps, and listed ways that the public could provide input. Public comments from Open House #1 include: • Speed on US 60 through the business section (between the Queen Creek Crossing Bridge and SR 177) appears to be high and should be reduced B-1 Superior Small Area Transportation Study • • • • • • US 60 corridor through the Town should be widened Proximity between the intersections on US 60 at Main Street and Mary Drive appear to be a safety concern. There is a need for a pedestrian crossing across US 60 Need for a comprehensive pavement rehabilitation plan on Main Street and other local streets Crossing structures of Queen Creek on Mary Drive and Stove Avenue should be provided Roadways within residential should provide sidewalks The study team included recommendations in the recommended transportation plan to address these issues and concerns. Public Open House #2 The purpose of the second open house was to report back to the public with the transportation plan recommendations to verify that the planning effort had addressed the public’s issues and concerns. Display boards were providing showing existing transportation in the Town of Superior study area. Topics included: • • • • • • • • • • Study Process and Schedule General Issues Population and Employment Projection General Plan Existing Traffic Counts LOS Definitions Future Traffic Volume Estimate Future Roadway Classification Planned and Recommended Improvements Queen Creek Trailway The study project manager welcomed the attendees and provided a brief introduction of the project. The study team described the study background and gave an overview of the transportation plan’s recommendations. No public comment was received. B-2 Superior Small Area Transportation Study B-3 Superior Small Area Transportation Study Appendix C Socioeconomic Data Study Area 1 XX - Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) Number Copper Mine 2 3 4 5 Sil ve rK 10 14 8 9 12 18 20 37 29 33 35 Boyce Thompson Arboretum 15 23 28 32 r 34 St 31 t Dr C re e k 30 17 25 Sunse 39 Queen 11 22 24 27 ain M 60 13 19 yD Mar 26 21 16 6 Stone A ve in g Private Mesquie Rd M in e Rd 7 Ave National Forest a Magm Land Ownership 36 38 40 Wa s h 41 Golf Course Rd 42 43 51 44 45 46 Tonto National Forest 47 48 177 49 0 Feet 1,000 500 2,000 Sources: HDR, Inc., August 2008; Central Arizona Association of Governments, 2007; Pinal County GIS Division, July 2008; ALRIS, 2004. Town of Superior Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) Numbers Superior Small Area Transportation Study Superior Small Area Transportation Study C-1 Superior Small Area Transportation Study C-2 Superior Small Area Transportation Study C-3 Superior Small Area Transportation Study C-4 Superior Small Area Transportation Study Appendix D Employment Database Superior Small Area Transportation Study D-1 Superior Small Area Transportation Study D-2 Superior Small Area Transportation Study D-3