Picture Rocks Multimodal Transportation Study

Working Paper No. 2
Plan for Improvements
June 2014

Working Paper No. 2

i

Picture Rocks Multimodal Transportation Study

THIS REPORT HAS BEEN FUNDED IN PART THROUGH GRANTS FROM THE FEDERAL
HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION. THE CONTENTS
OF THIS REPORT REFLECT THE VIEWS OF THE AUTHORS, WHO ARE RESPONSIBLE
FOR THE FACTS AND THE ACCURACY OF THE DATA, AND FOR THE USE OR
ADAPTATION OF PREVIOUSLY PUBLISHED MATERIAL, PRESENTED HEREIN. THE
CONTENTS DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE OFFICIAL VIEWS OR POLICIES OF
THE ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OR THE FEDERAL HIGHWAY
ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION. THIS REPORT DOES NOT
CONSTITUTE A STANDARD, SPECIFICATION, OR REGULATION. TRADE OR
MANUFACTURERS’ NAMES THAT MAY APPEAR HEREIN ARE CITED ONLY BECAUSE
THEY ARE CONSIDERED ESSENTIAL TO THE OBJECTIVES OF THE REPORT. THE U.S.
GOVERNMENT AND THE STATE OF ARIZONA DO NOT ENDORSE PRODUCTS OR
MANUFACTURERS.

Working Paper No. 2

iii

Picture Rocks Multimodal Transportation Study

Table of Contents
1.

Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 1
1.1 Study Background and Purpose ................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Study Objectives .......................................................................................................................... 1
1.3 Study Area .................................................................................................................................... 2
1.4 Organization of Working Paper 2 ................................................................................................ 2
2. Transportation Needs ......................................................................................................................... 5
2.1 Needed Planning and Engineering Studies .................................................................................. 5
2.2 Transportation Infrastructure Needs ........................................................................................... 9
2.2.1
Roadway Segments ........................................................................................................... 9
2.2.2
Intersections Needs ......................................................................................................... 15
2.3 Roadway-Flooding Mitigation Needs......................................................................................... 17
2.4 Alternate Modes Needs ............................................................................................................. 17
2.4.1
Transit Needs .................................................................................................................. 17
2.4.2
Transit Demand ............................................................................................................... 18
2.4.3
Pedestrian Needs ............................................................................................................ 19
2.4.4
Bicycle Needs................................................................................................................... 20
2.5 Roadway Maintenance Needs ................................................................................................... 20
2.5.1
Non-Maintained County Roads ....................................................................................... 20
2.5.2
Pavement Preservation Needs ........................................................................................ 23
3. Recommended Projects .................................................................................................................... 25
3.1 Roadway Infrastucture Projects................................................................................................. 25
3.2 Pavement Maintenance and Rehabilitation Projects ................................................................ 25
3.2 Transit Recommendation .......................................................................................................... 33
3.2.1
Transit Service and Route Alternatives Evaluation ......................................................... 33
3.2.2
Revenue Hours, Revenue Miles, and Costs...................................................................... 39
3.2.1
Recommended Transit Alternative.................................................................................. 43
4. Project Prioritization and Plan of Improvements.............................................................................. 44
4.1 Near-Term Project Performance Evaluation.............................................................................. 44
4.2 Project Priorities ........................................................................................................................ 46
4.2.1
Short-Range Priorities (0 to 5 years) ............................................................................... 46
4.2.2
Mid-Range Priorities (6 to 10 years) ............................................................................... 46
4.2.3
Long-Range Priorities (11 to 20 years) ............................................................................ 46
5. Funding Sources for Transportation Projects ................................................................................... 47
5.1 Highway User Revenue Fund (HURF)......................................................................................... 47
5.2 Federal Funding Sources ............................................................................................................ 47
5.3 Other Funding Sources .............................................................................................................. 47

Working Paper No. 2

iv

Picture Rocks Multimodal Transportation Study

Figures
Figure 1 – Vicinity Map ................................................................................................................. 3
Figure 2 – Study Area Map ........................................................................................................... 4
Figure 3 – Roadway Flooding Areas ............................................................................................. 7
Figure 4 – Diagnostic Safety Study Locations ............................................................................... 8
Figure 5 – Study Area Land Use .................................................................................................. 11
Figure 6 – Rural Activity Center and Medium Intensity Street Sections .................................... 12
Figure 7 – County Maintenance System ..................................................................................... 22
Figure 8 – Pavement Preservation Priorities .............................................................................. 24
Figure 9 – Recommended Infrastructure Projects ..................................................................... 32
Figure 10 – Transit Alternatives 1A and 1B ................................................................................ 34
Figure 11 – Transit Alternatives 2A and 2B ................................................................................ 35
Figure 12 – Transit Alternative 3 ................................................................................................ 36
Figure 13 – Sun Van Service Area in Northwest Tucson ............................................................ 39
Tables
Table 1 – Estimate of Reasonable Transit Demand .................................................................... 19
Table 2 – Summary of Infrastructure Projects ........................................................................... 26
Table 3 – Transit Alternatives ..................................................................................................... 37
Table 4 – Estimated System Non-Capital (Administrative and Operating) Costs ...................... 40
Table 5 – Annual Revenue Hours and Revenue Miles for Transit Alternatives ......................... 41
Table 6 – Capital Costs - Transit System Start up ....................................................................... 43
Table 7 – Near-Term Project Priority Matrix .............................................................................. 45
Table 8 – MAP-21 Federal Programs .......................................................................................... 48
Table 9 – Other Funding Sources................................................................................................ 49

Working Paper No. 2

v

Picture Rocks Multimodal Transportation Study

1. Introduction
1.1

STUDY BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Citizens for Picture Rocks is a community advocacy group representing the Picture Rocks Fire
Department, Pima County Sheriff’s Department, Picture Rocks American Association of Retired Persons
(AARP), Picture Rocks Elder Initiative, and other community stakeholders. The group approached Pima
County representatives to express concerns regarding transportation issues in the community. These
concerns related to lack of transit service, safety-related issues, and the need for pedestrian and
bicycle facilities. As a result, with a letter of support from the Citizens for Picture Rocks, Pima County
submitted an application to the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) Planning Assistance for
Rural Areas (PARA) Program to conduct a multimodal transportation study to address transportation
issues in the community.
The purpose of the Picture Rocks Multimodal Transportation Study is to identify the most critical multimodal transportation infrastructure and service needs within the Picture Rocks study area and
recommend a program of short-range (0-5 years), mid-range (6-10 years), and long-range (11-20 years)
improvements that address:





Roadway safety;
Regional access and mobility;
Bicycle and pedestrian safety and mobility; and
Rural transit service.

The study will serve as a guide for community and economic development, project funding
applications and grants, and project implementation.
Study activities include the following:






Collect and review existing and future conditions related to traffic volumes, crashes,
socioeconomic and demographic conditions, and roadway conditions;
Evaluate the performance of the transportation system and document needs and deficiencies;
Project future travel demand and transportation needs for 5-, 10-, and 20-year planning
horizons;
Evaluate the demand and opportunities for providing expanded rural transit service; and
Recommend improvements that address the identified needs and deficiencies.

1.2

STUDY OBJECTIVES

The primary objectives of the study are to:





Improve safety through recommendations for shoulder improvements, geometric
improvements, and traffic control;
Identify feasible alternatives and recommendations for non-county-maintained roads to
improve drivability, reduce dust pollution, and reduce vehicle maintenance costs. Currently
there are approximately 140 miles of roads in the study area that are not maintained by the
County, many of which are unpaved. By comparison, there are approximately 46 miles of
paved roads that are maintained by the County or other jurisdictions in the study area, and
approximately nine miles of dirt roads that are maintained by the County;
Confirm the need for and provide recommendations for transit service;

Working Paper No. 2

1

Picture Rocks Multimodal Transportation Study




Improve multimodal mobility with projects for sidewalks, paths, and shoulders to
accommodate bicyclists and pedestrians; and
Recommend improvements that address the identified needs and deficiencies.

1.3

STUDY AREA

Picture Rocks, Arizona is located in unincorporated Pima County approximately 20 miles northwest of
the City of Tucson. The community is located west of the Tucson Mountains. The study area borders
the southern town limits of Marana and is adjacent to Saguaro National Park (SNP). A vicinity map is
shown in Figure 1 and a study area map is shown in Figure 2.

1.4

ORGANIZATION OF WORKING PAPER 2

Working Paper No. 2 (this working paper) develops a prioritized plan of transportation improvement
projects. This Working Paper is organized into the following chapters:







Chapter 1: Introduction – Describes the study background, purpose, objectives, and study
area.
Chapter 2: Transportation Needs – Summarizes transportation needs that will be addressed
by the recommended projects. Transportation needs were documented in Working Paper No.
1 (Current and Future Needs Assessment) and organized in this Working Paper to facilitate
project recommendations.
Chapter 3: Recommended Projects – Describes recommended projects, development issues,
and planning-level cost estimates.
Chapter 4: Project Prioritization and Plan for Improvements – Describes project priorities in
terms of short-, mid-, and long-range timeframes.
Chapter 5: Funding Sources – Summarizes potential project funding sources.

Working Paper No. 2

2

Picture Rocks Multimodal Transportation Study

Figure 1 – Vicinity Map

Working Paper No. 2

3

Picture Rocks Multimodal Transportation Study

Figure 2 – Study Area Map

Working Paper No. 2

4

Picture Rocks Multimodal Transportation Study

2. Transportation Needs
This chapter provides an overview of multimodal transportation needs within the study area. The
needs were documented in Working Paper No. 1 (Current and Future Needs Assessment). Needs
resulted from assessments of the following information and analyses:









Stakeholder input from the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), civic groups, and the general
public;
Completed and ongoing plans and studies;
Traffic data analysis;
Crash data analysis;
Transit ridership analysis;
Community and environmental resources; and
Field review of road and pavement conditions.

The needs documented in Working Paper No. 1 have been organized to inform the development of
projects in this Working Paper. Needs have been organized into the following categories:







Planning and engineering studies;
Transportation infrastructure;
Roadway-flooding mitigation;
Alternate transportation modes; and
Roadway maintenance.

2.1

NEEDED PLANNING AND ENGINEERING STUDIES

Field observations and limited data analysis were performed in support of project recommendations.
However, more detailed planning and engineering studies and design analysis are needed to confirm
the presence of deficiencies that can be addressed though improvement projects and to provide input
to project scoping. Typical studies include hydrological studies, diagnostic crash studies, and traffic
studies.
Hydrological Studies - Mitigation of flood-prone areas to reduce road closures for area residents and
improve accessibility for emergency service providers are among the highest priority needs expressed
by stakeholders. Roadway locations that are prone to flooding, as documented in Working Paper No.
1, are shown in Figure 3. Hydrological studies should review available completed studies (Brawley
Wash drainage studies) to confirm roadway locations that are prone to flooding and to estimate
project limits, depths of flow, and flow rates. These studies should determine priorities and
implementation strategies that minimize flooding impacts on access.
Diagnostic Safety Studies - A review of crash locations in the study area identified a number of road
segments and intersections with high concentrations of total and injury crashes (see Figure 4). Limited
crash analyses and field visits were conducted in support of project recommendations.
Traffic Studies - A number of locations in the study area were identified by stakeholders as needing
operational, traffic control, and/or safety improvements. Traffic studies are needed to confirm the
need for changes in traffic control or to supplement diagnostic crash studies. Stakeholder input on
traffic studies are listed below.

Working Paper No. 2

5

Picture Rocks Multimodal Transportation Study










Review the passing zone on Sandario Road, north of Picture Rocks Road to determine the
safety benefits of a no-passing zone;
Review need to upgrade bus stop advance warning signs (S3-1) and other school signs to
current Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Device (MUTCD) standards;
Review need to upgrade and increase the size for cross-street name signs at intersections and
on approaches to major intersections;
Review the need to upgrade curve advance warning signs on Sandario Road from Camper Road
to Ina Road;
Coordinate with the National Park Service on the need to inform and direct traffic destined to
the SNP to Twin Peaks Road and Sandario Road to reduce traffic on Picture Rocks Road;
Review the need for variable message signs to redirect traffic during flooding events and
crashes;
Review the need for changes in posted speed limits, speed enforcement, or speed message
signs to reduce travel speeds on Sandario Road, Picture Rocks Road, and Orange Grove Road;
and
Review the need for additional enforcement of weight limits on Picture Rocks Road.

Working Paper No. 2

6

Picture Rocks Multimodal Transportation Study

Figure 3 – Roadway Flooding Areas

Working Paper No. 2

7

Picture Rocks Multimodal Transportation Study

Source: ADOT Safety Data Mart

Figure 4 – Diagnostic Safety Study Locations

Working Paper No. 2

8

Picture Rocks Multimodal Transportation Study

2.2

TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS

2.2.1 ROADWAY SEGMENTS
Sandario Road – Rudasill Road to Emigh Road
Sandario Road is a county-maintained paved roadway and is the major north-south corridor in the
study area with daily traffic volumes of 4,500 vehicles per day (vpd). Development along Sandario
Road has resulted in residential and business driveways near the Picture Rocks Road intersection. The
intersection improvements and future development should be compatible with a land use planning
framework developed in accordance with Pima County special area policies to accommodate all
transportation modes and parking in rural activity areas.
Stakeholder interviews documented road maintenance, traffic operational, safety, alternate modes,
and traffic control needs for Sandario Road. According to stakeholders, the fire station located on
Sandario Road, north of Picture Rocks Road needs a preemptive traffic signal to warn motorists of
emergency vehicles entering the roadway (note: these types of signals typically do not meet warrant
criteria used by Pima County; however, Pima County does work with fire districts to install preemptive
traffic signals using fire district funding sources). There is also a need for bicycle facilities along
Sandario Road for recreational bicyclists and residents. Other needs recommended in road safety
assessments (RSAs) conducted by Pima County on Sandario Road in 2012 included new or upgraded
signage to improve night-time visibility of street signs, and road widening to three lanes (one lane in
each direction with a two-way left-turn lane) with paved shoulders as the principle strategy for
reducing crash potential associated with vehicles entering and exiting driveways in areas with limited
sight visibility.
Stakeholder input was received on the need for intersection improvements and increased
enforcement on Sandario Road which is supported by the crash history over the last five years that
includes a fatal crash. Field visits were made to the intersections at Picture Rocks Road, Orange Grove
Road, and Rudasill Road, as well as the segment of Sandario Road, north of Picture Rocks Road to
determine safety improvement issues that need to be addressed. The field visits resulted in the
following observations:






The posted speed limit of 40 miles per hour (mph) may be incompatible with the Picture Rocks
rural community area. Speed studies should be conducted to investigate the need for a lower
speed limit on Sandario Road in and approaching the Picture Rocks community area.
The passing zone on Sandario Road north of Picture Rocks Road should be reviewed by Pima
County to determine the need for a no-passing zone approaching the Picture Rocks community
area.
The combination of vehicular speed, limited sight distance, and vehicles entering and exiting at
driveways on Sandario Road, contribute to crashes on Sandario Road, north and south of
Picture Rocks Road. A preemptive traffic signal at the fire station is needed to reduce the
potential for crashes with emergency vehicles.
Significant safety issues were not observed at the intersection of Sandario Road and Rudasill
Road.

Sandario Road is not an all-weather road in the vicinity of low-flow crossings of the Brawly Wash.
Stakeholders identified the need for drainage improvements at the Brawley Wash crossing on Sandario
Road north of Magee Road.

Working Paper No. 2

9

Picture Rocks Multimodal Transportation Study

The Pima County Comprehensive Plan contains Special Area Policies for the Picture Rocks rural activity
center (refer to Figure 5). The Special Area Policy describes the goal of using streetscape to encourage
slower traffic speeds. Potential streetscape elements include on-street parking, sidewalks, planters,
and street trees. The Special Area Polices describe that development should enhance the pedestrianscale environment and enhance the area as a “main street” for the Picture Rocks community.
Illustrative three-lane cross-sections that reflect these policies are shown in Figure 6 and are described
in more detail in the project recommendations in Chapter 3.

Working Paper No. 2

10

Picture Rocks Multimodal Transportation Study

Figure 5 – Study Area Land Use
Source: Pima County

Working Paper No. 2

11

Picture Rocks Multimodal Transportation Study

Figure 6 – Rural Activity Center and Medium Intensity Street Sections

Working Paper No. 2

12

Picture Rocks Multimodal Transportation Study

Picture Rocks Road – Guthrie Road to Saguaro National Park
Picture Rocks Road is a county-maintained paved road
providing east-west access to Picture Rocks from SNP and I-10
via Wade Road and Ina Road. Picture Rocks Road within the
study area is classified as a two-lane scenic collector with
average daily traffic volumes of 8,000 to 9,000 vpd.
Pima County is currently conducting a scoping study for this
segment of Picture Rocks Road that will review alternatives
including shoulder improvements and intersection turn lanes,
and widening to a three-lane cross-section with two-way leftturn lanes and with shoulder improvements. The study is to
be completed by August 2014.
Field visits to review safety conditions confirmed that the
combination of traffic volumes, travel speeds, unpaved
shoulders, the presence of bicycle and pedestrian traffic,
limited sight distance in areas of driveways and intersections,
and road maintenance contribute to the concentration of
crashes along this roadway segment. Field visits supported the
recommendations from the Pima County Department of
Transportation RSAs on Picture Rocks Road (geometric
roadway realignment in the vicinity of the Picture Rocks Wash
and roadway widening to three lanes with paved shoulders).
Improvements to Picture Rocks Road are in addition to
improvements at the Sandario/Picture Rocks
intersection. Federal Highway Safety Improvement Program
(HSIP) funding is being considered as a funding resource for
improvements to Picture Rocks Road.
During the field visit, improvements were observed on Picture
Rocks Road by the National Park Service to manage vehicle speeds and warn motorists in advance of
curves (refer to the photo images to the right). If effective, these speed management and warning
strategies may be applicable for other locations in the study area.
Rudasill Road – Sanders Road to Van Ark Road
Rudasill Road is a county-maintained paved roadway providing
east-west access within the study area and provides the
principal access to the Picture Rocks Community Center
located on Sanders Road. Documented stakeholder needs
resulted from the combination of travel speeds, limited sight
distance, lack of pedestrian and bicycle facilities, graded
shoulders, and low light levels which create the potential for
traffic crashes. However, there was not a significant
concentration of crashes on this segment of Rudasill Road and
field visits to the Rudasill-Sandario intersection did not observe
significant safety issues.

Working Paper No. 2

13

Picture Rocks Multimodal Transportation Study

Avra Valley Road – El Paso Road to Garvey Road
Avra Valley Road is a county-maintained two-way paved road providing east-west access in the
northern part of the study area. The roadway lies in both Pima County and the Town of Marana. The
County-owned roadway is designated as a scenic major route in the Pima County Major Streets and
Scenic Routes Plan (2011 map amendment). This segment of Avra Valley Road was identified as a highcrash concentration segment based on five years of crash data. A field visit identified the following
potential safety issues:





The Avra Valley Road-El Paso Road T-intersection is located on a curve and the El Paso Road
approach is angled. Observed travel speeds and posted speed limits appear to be high in
relation to the existing intersection geometry and available sight distances on the approaches
to the intersection.
Sight distance is restricted on all approaches to the intersection of Avra Valley Road and
Garvey Road due to roadway alignment and foliage.
A predominant crash type at both intersections are rear-end collisions, many occurring during
night time lighting conditions.

Near-term needs included improvements to existing advance warning signs on the Avra Valley Road
(larger signs with warning beacons) approaches to the El Paso Road and Garvey Road intersections,
increasing the size of existing stop signs at both intersections, removal of sight distance restrictions at
both intersections, installation of roadway lighting, and speed studies to determine the need for
reducing the posted speed limit. Longer term improvement needs include reconstruction of the El Paso
Road approach to Avra Valley Road and construction of left-turn lanes on Avra Valley Road at both
intersections.
Twin Peaks Road – Silverbell Road (North) to White Stallion Road
Twin Peaks Road is a county-maintained two-way paved road providing east-west access in the
northeastern part of the study area (through Rattlesnake Pass). This roadway is designated as a scenic
major route in the Pima County Major Streets and Scenic Routes Plan (2011 map amendment) and is a
“transition roadway segment” from urban roadway design standards on Silverbell Road (South) and
Twin Peaks Road in the Town of Marana to rural design standards in unincorporated Pima County.
This segment of Twin Peaks Road was identified as a high-crash concentration segment based on five
years of crash data. A field visit identified the following potential safety issues:




The Twin Peaks - Silverbell Road (North) T-intersection is located on a horizontal and vertical
curve on Twin Peaks Road and the intersection design promotes high vehicle speeds for
vehicles travelling from urban design conditions to rural design conditions. Roadway curvature
combined with pavement-shoulder differential creates crash potential for vehicles that leave
the pavement surface. More traditional design of the T-intersection and advance warning
signs would result in slower vehicle speeds in this transition area.
Sight distance is restricted on all approaches to the intersection of Twin Peaks Road and White
Stallion Road due to roadway alignment and foliage.

Near-term needs included improvements to existing advance warning signs on the Twin Peaks Road
(larger signs with warning beacons) intersection, shoulder maintenance to remove pavement-shoulder
differential, and removal of sight distance restrictions at the Twin Peaks Road-White Stallion Road
intersection. Longer term improvement needs include reconstruction of the Twin Peaks Road-Silverbell
Road (North) T-intersection and curve geometry on Twin Peaks Road, and construction of a left-turn
lane on Twin Peaks Road at White Stallion Road.

Working Paper No. 2

14

Picture Rocks Multimodal Transportation Study

2.2.2 INTERSECTIONS NEEDS
The roadway segment needs described above include operational, safety, and traffic control needs at
intersections. This section provides additional details for improvements to specific intersections based
on a review of crash concentrations and the results of field visits to each of the following intersections.
Sandario Road / Manville Road
The Sandario Road / Manville Road intersection is currently a T- intersection with a stop sign on
Manville Road. Manville Road and Sandario Road are both two-lane county-maintained paved
roadways with Manville Road being a major route and Sandario Road being a scenic major route in the
Pima County Major Streets and Scenic Routes Plan (2011 map amendment). According to residents
and stakeholders, vehicle speeds, limited sight distance, and low lighting levels contribute to crashes at
this intersection. Residents and stakeholders suggest that the construction of left-turn lanes at this
intersection is needed. A review of crash data and field visits did not identify a significant crash
concentration or safety issues; however, the need for all-way stop control or the need for a
northbound left-turn lane on Sandario Road for vehicles turning onto Manville Road should be
considered as traffic volumes increase or as crashes occur in the future.
Sandario Road / Orange Grove Road
The Sandario Road / Orange Grove Road intersection is currently a two-way stop controlled
intersection with stop signs on Orange Grove Road. Orange Grove Road east of Sandario Road is a twolane non-county-maintained unpaved roadway. Orange Grove Road west of Sandario Road is a twolane county-maintained paved roadway. Sandario Road is classified as a scenic major route in the
Pima County Major Streets and Scenic Routes Plan (2011 map amendment). The westbound approach
of the intersection does not align with the eastbound approach. Residents and stakeholders suggest
that the realignment of Orange Grove Road to form a typical four-legged intersection is needed. A
review of crash data and field visits did not identify significant safety issues; however, the need for
geometric realignment of Orange Grove Road should be considered as traffic volumes increase or as
crashes occur in the future.
Sandario Road / Rudasill Road
The Sandario Road / Rudasill Road intersection is a two-way stop controlled intersection with stop
signs on both approaches of Rudasill Road. Rudasill Road and Sandario Road are two-lane countymaintained roadways with Sandario Road being a rural major collector. Sandario Road is classified as a
scenic route. According to stakeholders, vehicle speeds, limited sight distance, and low night time
lighting levels have contributed to a concentration of crashes at this intersection. Residents and
stakeholders suggest that roadway lighting, advance warning signs on the approaches to the
intersection, and possibly all-way stop control are needed. A review of crash data and field visits did
not identify significant safety issues; however, the need for roadway lighting, warning signs, and
intersection control changes should be considered as traffic volumes increase or as crashes occur in
the future.
Anway Road / Avra Valley Road
The Anway Road / Avra Valley Road intersection is currently a two-way stop controlled intersection
with the Anway Road approaches controlled by stop signs. Avra Valley Road is designated as a scenic
major road and Anway Road, south of the intersection is a major road according to the Pima County
Major Streets and Scenic Routes Plan (2011 map amendment). The intersection was identified as a

Working Paper No. 2

15

Picture Rocks Multimodal Transportation Study

location of high-crash concentration based on five years of crash data. A field visit identified the
following potential safety issues:




Observed travel speeds and posted speed limits appeared to be high in relation to the existing
horizontal geometry and available sight distances on the approach to the intersection.
Anway Road alignments approaching the intersection were off-set creating alignment
discontinuity for north-south travel.
Sight distance was restricted on all approaches to the intersections due to roadway alignment
and foliage.

Near-term needs included improvements to existing advance warning signs on the Avra Valley Road
(larger signs with warning beacons) approaches to the intersection, removal of sight distance
restrictions, and speed studies to determine the need for reducing the posted speed limit. Longer term
improvement needs include consideration of left-turn lanes on Avra Valley Road, transition an all-way
stop control, and realignment of the Anway Road approaches to the intersection.
Avra Valley / Trico Road
The Avra Valley Road / Trico Road intersection is currently a two-way stop controlled intersection with
the Trico Road approaches controlled by stop signs. Avra Valley Road is designated as a scenic, major
road and Trico Road is a major road according to the Pima County Major Streets and Scenic Routes Plan
(2011 map amendment). The intersection and its approaches on Avra Valley Road were identified as a
location of high-crash concentration based on five years of crash data. A field visit identified the
following potential safety issues:





Observed travel speeds and posted speed limits appeared to be high in relation to the existing
horizontal geometry and available sight distances on the approach to the intersection.
Trico Road alignments approaching the intersection were off-set creating alignment
discontinuity for north-south travel.
Sight distance was restricted on all approaches to the intersections due to roadway alignment
and foliage.
The percentage of crashes occurring during night time conditions may suggest a need for
roadway lighting at the Trico Road intersection.

Near-term needs included improvements to existing advance warning signs on the Avra Valley Road
(larger signs with warning beacons and warning sign relocation further from the intersection)
approaches to the intersection, placement of advance warning signs on Trico Road, removal of sight
distance restrictions at the intersection, intersection lighting at the Trico Road intersection, and speed
studies to determine the need for reducing the posted speed limit. Longer term improvement needs
include construction of left-turn lanes on Avra Valley Road at Trico Road and Voak Road intersections,
construction of a right-turn lane on Trico Road (southbound approach), transition an all-way stop
control, and realignment of the Trico Road approaches to the intersection.
Sanders Road / Twin Peaks Road
The Sanders Road / Twin Peaks Road intersection is currently a T-intersection with stop control on the
Sanders Road approach to the intersection. This intersection is located in the Town of Marana but
within the study area limits. The intersection was identified as a location of high-crash concentration
based on five years of crash data. A field visit identified the following potential safety issues:


Observed travel speeds and posted speed limits appeared to be high in relation to the existing
vertical geometry associated with the wash on the east approach to the intersection.

Working Paper No. 2

16

Picture Rocks Multimodal Transportation Study

Near-term needs included improvements to existing advance warning signs on the Twin Peaks Road
(larger signs with warning beacons) approaches to the intersection, placement of advance warning
signs on Sanders Road, and speed studies to determine the need for reducing the posted speed limit.
Longer term improvement needs include improvements to vertical geometry associated with the wash
located on Twin Peaks Road east of the intersection and transition an all-way stop control.

2.3

ROADWAY-FLOODING MITIGATION NEEDS

The roadway segment and intersection needs described above include mitigation of roadway floodprone areas. This section includes justification for flood mitigation improvements to improve access
for study area residents and emergency service providers. All improvement projects should be
coordinated to leverage improvement costs.
Manville Road
Manville Road is a two-lane county-maintained rural minor collector that provides east-west access to
the southern portion of the study area. The eastern end of Manville Road terminates at the SNP
boundary where it intersects Sandario Road. Manville Road has a posted speed limit of 50 mph and
has an average daily traffic volume of around 1,000 vpd. Brawley Wash crosses Manville Road just
west of the Central Arizona Project (CAP) canal. Hydrological studies and drainage improvements
should be considered on Manville Road to mitigate road closures.
Anway Road
Anway Road is a two-lane county-maintained rural minor collector that provides north-south access in
the western portion of the study area. Anway Road has a posted speed limit of 50 mph and an average
daily traffic volume of around 1,400 vpd. Blanco Wash crosses Anway Road just south of Avra Valley
Road. Road closures during flooding events create access issues for the Marana School District, fire
department, police department, and other emergency providers. Hydrological studies and drainage
improvements should be considered on Anway Road to mitigate road closures.
Avra Valley Road
Avra Valley Road is a two-lane county-maintained rural major collector that provides east-west access
in the northern portions of the study area. Avra Valley Road has a posted speed limit of 55 mph and an
average daily traffic volume of around 4,000 vpd. Brawley Wash crosses Avra Valley Road east of
Anway Road. Road closures during flooding events create access issues for the Marana School District,
fire department, police department, and other emergency providers. Hydrological studies and
drainage improvements should be considered on Avra Valley Road to mitigate road closures.
Sandario Road
Sandario Road is a county-maintained roadway and is the major north-south access in the study area
and has an average daily traffic volume of 4,500 vpd. There are two locations, north of Manville Road
and north of Emigh Road, where hydrological studies and drainage improvements should be
considered to mitigate road closures.

2.4

ALTERNATE MODES NEEDS

2.4.1 TRANSIT NEEDS
The need for transit service was first demonstrated in the Picture Rocks Transportation Survey
conducted by Sun Tran in 2013. The purpose of the survey was to gather information regarding the

Working Paper No. 2

17

Picture Rocks Multimodal Transportation Study

transportation needs of the Picture Rocks community from civic groups including the Picture Rocks
Community Conversation Transportation Committee, the Pictures Rocks AARP Community Group, and
the Elder Initiative. The survey identified a potential location for a park-and-ride lot may be at the
Sandario Baptist Church at 6971 North Sandario Road.
Key transit service destinations in the study area include:


Picture Rocks Community Center



Sandario Road / Picture Rocks Road intersection



Arizona Pavilions Shopping area at the Cortaro Road/I-10 interchange

Procedures described in Transit Cooperative Research (TCR) Program Report 161 – Method for
Forecasting Demand and Quantifying Need for Rural Passenger Transportation: Final Workbook, were
used to estimate study area transit needs in two ways:


The number of people in study area likely to need passenger transportation, and



The number of person trips required by individuals without personal vehicles (at a level of
mobility equal to those having personal vehicles).

Passenger Transportation Need
Estimates of passenger transportation need consider the number of persons residing in the study area
with income below the poverty level, estimated to be 1,081 persons (source: US Census Bureau, Table
B17001) plus the number of persons residing in households with no vehicles, estimated to be 212
persons (source: US Census Bureau, Table B08201).
Using this methodology, approximately 1,293 persons have passenger transportation needs in the
study area.
Person Trips
A second measure of transit need, expressed in daily one-way person trips, was estimated using a
factor called the mobility gap which is based on the total number of daily trips not taken by
households with zero vehicle availability compared to the number of daily trips taken by households
with access to a vehicle. The mobility gap for the Picture Rocks Census Division is 0.8 from TCR
Program Report 161.
Using the following formula, with 110 study area households with no vehicles, the estimated transit
need was calculated to be 90 one-way trips per day or 26,400 annual one-way passenger trips.
Need (one-way trips per day) = Number of households having no car x mobility gap.

2.4.2 TRANSIT DEMAND
TCRP Report 161 states that the estimate of need using the mobility gap method is typically greater
than the number of trips actually observed on rural passenger transportation systems and at best, only
about 20 percent of the mobility gap trip-based needs are typically met.
Based on analysis of data reported to the Rural National Transit Database for 2009, TCRP Report 161
developed the following equation to estimate passenger transportation demand in rural areas:
Demand = (2.20 × Population age 60+) + (5.21 × Mobility Limited Population age 18 to 64) +
(1.52 × Residents of Households having No Vehicle)

Working Paper No. 2

18

Picture Rocks Multimodal Transportation Study

Using input data presented in Table 1, passenger transportation demand was estimated to be 5,638
trips per year for “non-program passenger transportation” (i.e., transportation demand not resulting
from participation in a particular social-service transportation program).

Table 1 – Estimate of Reasonable Transit Demand
Number of Persons – Picture Rocks
Census Designated Place
Population Age 60+

2024

Mobility Limited Population age 18 to 64

176

Residents of Households having No Vehicle

212

Non-program related passenger transportation demand

1

5,638 Trips per Year

Sources: U.S Census American Community Survey Tables B101001, S1810, and B08201, 2008-2012 American Community
Survey 5-Year Estimates

Transportation demand was addressed by considering daily and peak-period transit service options to
determine the best “fit” for the Picture Rocks study area. Transit service options include fixed route
service. Deviated fixed route service would be required to provide a complementary paratransit
service to meet Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements, which is discussed in more detail
on Table 3 in Chapter 3.


Fixed route service – a bus travels over an established route with fixed times for stops. It is
assumed that paratransit service will be available to meet transportation services for those
individuals unable to use the fixed route service due to their disability.



Deviated fixed route service – a bus or van travels over an established fixed route and keeps to
a timetable, but the vehicle can deviate from the route to go to a specific location.

Vanpool service which is currently operating in the Picture Rocks study area on a volunteer basis
through the Neighbors Care Alliance (NCA) was not further evaluated as a transit service option for the
Picture Rocks study area (the NCA is a program of “neighbors helping neighbors” and is a volunteer
organization that is becoming established in the Picture Rocks study area).
The recommended transit service alternative is presented in Chapter 3.

2.4.3 PEDESTRIAN NEEDS
The roadway segment needs described above include pedestrian needs documented from input from
stakeholders and the public. This section includes additional detail on pedestrian needs that should be
addressed in the roadway segments. Pedestrian needs expressed by residents and stakeholders
included:


Pedestrian paths are needed to link the Community Center on Sanders Road, the Sandario
Road / Picture Rocks Road intersection, and Marana High School;



Pedestrian paths are needed along Rudasill Road;



Conduct and implement a Safe Routes to School program;



Construct school bus pullouts along Sandario Road and Picture Rocks Road;

Working Paper No. 2

19

Picture Rocks Multimodal Transportation Study



Install crosswalks at the Sandario Road / Picture Rocks Road intersection;



Construct parking areas and pedestrian facilities at trail head locations at the Manville Road /
Sanders Road intersection and at the Rudasill Road / Sanders Road intersection;



Rudasill Road (Sandario Road to Tula Lane), has high volumes of recreational pedestrians with
no pathways or roadway shoulders on which to walk;



A walking trail along Picture Rocks Road from Sandario to Tula;



Some type of parking accessibility needs to be provided at intersection of Sandario Rd. and
Rudasill Rd. to accommodate the Saguaro National Monument Trailhead at southeast corner
of the intersection. Heavy usage by both hikes (especially large groups in multiple vehicles) and
horse riders (often 4 or more vehicles with horse trailers); and



Sidewalks are needed to and from the -cross walks at the intersectin of Sandario Road and
Picture Rocks Road. There needs to be a safe pedestrian route from high school to community
center.

2.4.4 BICYCLE NEEDS
The roadway segment needs described above address bicycle needs documented from stakeholder
and public input. Bicycle needs should be addressed in the roadway segments, including paved
shoulders for bikes on Sandario Road, Picture Rocks Road, and sections of Rudasill Road to link the
Community Center on Sanders Road, the Sandario Road / Picture Rocks Road intersection, and Marana
High School. Bicycle needs expressed by residents and stakeholders included:




Bike lanes (especially on Sandario Road). Stakeholders noted that bike lane should extend
along Sandario Road to Twin Peaks to discourage bicyclists from using Picture Rocks.
Separated trail/shared use path on Sandario Road, Picture Rocks Road, and Twin Peaks Road.
Encourage completion of bicycle safety education course for all residents and visitors (these
are taught by Pima County Department of Transportation).

2.5

ROADWAY MAINTENANCE NEEDS

2.5.1 NON-MAINTAINED COUNTY ROADS
Maintenance of County roads was the highest priority roadway infrastructure need in 2013 surveys of
Picture Rocks residents conducted as part of the Pima County Comprehensive Plan Update. Currently
there are approximately 140 miles of roads in the study area that are not maintained by the County,
many of which are unpaved. By comparison, there are approximately 46 miles of paved roads that are
maintained by the County or other jurisdictions in the study area, and approximately nine miles of dirt
roads that are maintained by the County.
Pima County is responsible for maintaining paved and unpaved roads on the Pima County
Maintenance System (refer to Figure 7). The County is authorized to spend public funds to maintain
only the County Maintenance System. Roads that are not on the County Maintenance System may be
placed on the Maintenance System by the Board of Supervisors if the roadway is laid out, constructed,
and opened in accordance with County roadway design standards at no cost to Pima County (Pima
County Code of Ordinances, Section 10.04.030).

Working Paper No. 2

20

Picture Rocks Multimodal Transportation Study

Stakeholder interviews recorded numerous requests for paving, maintaining, and improving roads that
are not on the Maintenance System. The Marana Unified School District maintains a map of roads
designated by the District as “not travelable” by school buses. All of the designated roads are not on
the County Maintenance System except for Avra Road from Sunset Road to Yankee Ranch Road. Other
roads in the study area such as Emigh Road are within the jurisdiction of and are maintained by the
Town of Marana. Emergency service providers maintain similar maps of roads that become impassible
during storm events. Stakeholder comments on road maintenance suggest that there is not a broad
public understanding of the requirements for roads to be placed on the Maintenance System and be
maintained by the County.

Working Paper No. 2

21

Picture Rocks Multimodal Transportation Study

Source: Pima County

Figure 7 – County Maintenance System

Working Paper No. 2

22

Picture Rocks Multimodal Transportation Study

2.5.2 PAVEMENT PRESERVATION NEEDS
Pima County administers an annual pavement preservation and rehabilitation program. The program
varies annually depending on funding availability. Completed and in-progress pavement preservation
and rehabilitation projects within the study area since 2012 are shown in Figure 8. Also shown in
Figure 8 are roads with Failed and Poor pavement conditions as rated by Pima County in 2013. The
County-maintained roadway listed as Failed and Poor in Figure 8 are priorities for Pima County annual
pavement preservation programs in the future.

Working Paper No. 2

23

Picture Rocks Multimodal Transportation Study

Source: Pima County

Figure 8 – Pavement Preservation Priorities

Working Paper No. 2

24

Picture Rocks Multimodal Transportation Study

3. Recommended Projects
The projects recommended in this chapter address the transportation needs documented in
Chapter 2 (Transportation Needs) to improve roadway safety, regional access and mobility,
bicycle and pedestrian safety and mobility, and rural transit service. Improvement projects
were developed based on needs documented in Working Paper No. 1 and reviewed in this
Working Paper (Working Paper No. 2). Pima County has performed safety studies and
recommended improvements that should be integrated with the projects recommended in this
Working Paper. Initial project scoping was developed by a multi-disciplinary engineering team
to determine project features and planning-level cost estimates. The planning-level cost
estimates include general costs for items typically associated with similar types of projects.

3.1

ROADWAY INFRASTUCTURE PROJECTS

Eleven roadway infrastructure projects along with related planning and engineering studies
were developed to address the infrastructure needs documented in Chapter 2. Project features
are provided in Table 2 and shown geographically in Figure 9. Preliminary project costs are
subject to further refinement in future scoping and design analysis.

3.2

PAVEMENT MAINTENANCE AND REHABILITATION PROJECTS

Pavement preservation priorities for future updates of the annual pavement preservation and
rehabilitation program were identified from 2013 pavement conditions data collected by Pima
County as part of the Annual Pavement Preservation and Rehabilitation Program. Pavement
priorities include County maintained roadway segments with predominant pavement rating of
“poor” or “fair.” These priority segments will require further scoping to determine the
preservation techniques such as structural overlay or mill/fill. The estimated cost is
$140,000/mile for structural overlay and $200,000/mile for mill/fill. These costs were
determined from similar completed and planned pavement preservation projects in the study
area. Because the County Pavement Preservation and Rehabilitation Program is dependent on
the availability of funds, pavement preservation priorities shown in Figure 8 should be
considered in future annual programs.

Working Paper No. 2

25

Picture Rocks Multimodal Transportation Study

Table 2 – Summary of Infrastructure Projects
Project
Number
1

Project Name

Sandario Road, Rudasill
Road to North of Emigh
Road

Project Features

Near-Term









$2,500,000

Construct multi-use path from Sandario Road / Picture Rocks Road intersection to
Emigh Road (Marana High School).
Coordinate with fire district on funding to install a pre-emption traffic signal at fire
station.
Upgrade traffic control signs and markings.
Implement speed control devices and/or speed enforcement.
Conduct planning and engineering studies to evaluate the need for left-turn lanes at
intersections on Sandario Road-Picture Rocks Road.
Conduct planning and engineering studies to evaluate need for intersection
operations, geometric, traffic control, and lighting improvements at Sandario Road /
Picture Rocks Road intersection.
Conduct hydrology studies to evaluate the need for improvements to wash crossing on
Sandario Road including placement of near-term warning and detour signs in advance
of roadway reconstruction.
Conduct a study to develop a planning framework for street design and land use
zoning along Sandario Road from Ina Road to Orange Grove Road. The street design
framework should include pedestrian and equestrian-scale streetscape consistent with
Pima County Comprehensive Plan Special Area Policies. Street elements should
encourage slower traffic speeds and may include on-street parking, sidewalks,
planters, and street trees.
$3,500,000

Long-Term



Working Paper No. 2

Preliminary
Project
Cost ($)

Construct all-weather three-lane roadway with paved (bikeable) shoulders from Ina
Road to Orange Grove Road. Design should include intersection and drainage
improvements as determined by planning and engineering studies.
Monitor crash history and traffic operations at the Orange Grove Road and Rudasill

26

Picture Rocks Multimodal Transportation Study

Project
Number

Project Name

Project Features

Preliminary
Project
Cost ($)

Road intersections to determine the need for geometric, operational, traffic control,
and roadway lighting improvements.
2

Picture Rocks Road,
Guthrie Road to SNP West
Boundary

Near-Term










$2,000,000

Construct multi-use path from Sandario Road to SNP West Boundary.
Upgrade traffic control signs and markings.
Implement speed control devices and/or speed enforcement.
Conduct planning and engineering studies to evaluate the need for left-turn lanes and
operations, geometric, traffic control, and lighting improvements at Sandario Road /
Picture Rocks Road intersection.
Implement speed control devices and/or speed enforcement.
Conduct planning and engineering studies to evaluate the need for left-turn lanes at
intersections on Picture Rocks Road intersections.
Conduct planning and engineering studies to evaluate need for intersection
operations, geometric, traffic control, and lighting improvements at Picture Rocks
Road intersections between Stone Mountain Road and SNP boundary.
Conduct hydrology studies to evaluate the need for improvements to wash crossing on
Picture Rocks Road including placement of near-term warning and detour signs in
advance of roadway reconstruction.
Conduct a study to develop a planning framework for street design and land use
zoning along Picture Rocks Road from Guthrie Road to Stone Mountain Road. The
street design framework should include pedestrian and equestrian-scale streetscape
consistent with Pima County Comprehensive Plan Special Area Policies. Street
elements should encourage slower traffic speeds and may include on-street parking,
sidewalks, planters, and street trees.
$3,500,000

Long-Term

Working Paper No. 2

Construct all-weather three-lane roadway with paved (bikeable) shoulders from
27

Picture Rocks Multimodal Transportation Study

Project
Number

Project Name

Project Features

Preliminary
Project
Cost ($)

Guthrie Road to Stone Mountain Road. Design should include intersection and
drainage improvements as determined by planning and engineering studies.
3

Avra Valley Road—El Paso
Road to Garvey Road

Near-Term






$300,000

Upgrade existing advance warning signs on the Avra Valley Road with larger signs and
warning beacons on approaches to the El Paso Road and Garvey Road intersections.
Relocate sign placement on approaches to intersections and curves.
Increase the size of existing stop signs at the El Paso Road and Garvey Road
intersections.
Remove sight distance restrictions at the El Paso Road and Garvey Road intersections.
Conduct studies to determine the need to install roadway lighting.
Conduct speed studies to determine the need for reducing the posted speed limit.

Long-Term



4

Twin Peaks Road—
Silverbell Road (North) to
White Stallion Road

Reconstruct the El Paso Road approach to Avra Valley Road.
Construct left-turn lanes on Avra Valley Road at El Paso Road and Garvey Road
intersections.

Near-term




$400,000

Upgrade existing advance warning signs on the Twin Peaks Road with larger signs and
warning beacons on approaches to the Silverbell Road (north). Relocate sign
placement on approaches to intersections and curves.
Grade shoulders to remove pavement-shoulder differential.
Remove sight distance restrictions at the Twin Peaks Road-White Stallion Road
intersection.

Long-Term


Working Paper No. 2

$1,500,000

$2,000,000

Reconstruct the Twin Peaks Road-Silverbell Road (North) T-intersection and curve
geometry on Twin Peaks Road.

28

Picture Rocks Multimodal Transportation Study

Project
Number

Project Name

Project Features


5

Anway Road / Avra Valley
Road

Construct a left-turn lane on Twin Peaks Road at White Stallion Road.

Near-Term




$300,000

Upgrade existing advance warning signs on the Avra Valley Road with larger signs and
warning beacons on approaches to Anway Road. Relocate sign placement on
approaches to intersection.
Remove sight distance restrictions.
Conduct speed studies to determine the need for reducing the posted speed limit.

Long-Term


6

Avra Valley / Trico Road

$2,500,000

Construct left-turn lanes on Avra Valley Road or conduct studies to determine the
need to transition to all-way stop control.
Realign the Anway Road approaches to the intersection.

Near-Term





Preliminary
Project
Cost ($)

$300,000

Upgrade existing advance warning signs on the Avra Valley Road with larger signs and
warning beacons on approaches to Avra Valley Road. Relocate sign placement on
approaches to intersection.
Remove sight distance restrictions at the intersection.
Conduct studies to determine the need for intersection lighting at the Trico Road
intersection.
Conduct speed studies to determine the need for reducing the posted speed limit.

Long-Term



Working Paper No. 2

Construct left-turn lanes on Avra Valley Road at Trico Road and Voak Road
intersections and construct a right-turn lane on Trico Road (southbound approach) or
conduct studies to determine the need to transition to all-way stop control.
Realign the Trico Road approaches to the intersection.

29

$2,000,000

Picture Rocks Multimodal Transportation Study

Project
Number
7

Project Name

Sanders Road / Twin Peaks
Road

Project Features

Near-Term



$200,000

Upgrade existing advance warning signs on the Twin Peaks Road with larger signs with
warning beacons approaches to the intersection. Relocate sign placement on
approaches to intersection.
Conduct speed studies to determine the need for reducing the posted speed limit.

Long-Term


8

Manville Road Drainage
Mitigation Project

Reconstruct vertical geometry associated with the wash located on Twin Peaks Road
east of the intersection.
Conduct studies to determine the need to transition to all-way stop control.

Near-Term


Preliminary
Project
Cost ($)

Additional
study
required

$50,000

Conduct hydrology studies to evaluate the need for improvements to wash crossing on
Picture Rocks Road including placement of near-term warning and detour signs in
advance of roadway reconstruction.

Long-Term

9

Anway Road Drainage
Mitigation Project

Construct all-weather crossing.

Near-Term


$4,500,000
$50,000

Conduct hydrology studies to evaluate the need for improvements to wash crossing on
Picture Rocks Road including placement of near-term warning and detour signs in
advance of roadway reconstruction.

Long-Term


Working Paper No. 2

Construct all-weather crossing.

30

$1,500,000

Picture Rocks Multimodal Transportation Study

Project
Number
10

Project Name

Avra Valley Road Drainage
Mitigation Project

Project Features

Near-Term


Preliminary
Project
Cost ($)
$50.000

Conduct hydrology studies to evaluate the need for improvements to wash crossing on
Picture Rocks Road including placement of near-term warning and detour signs in
advance of roadway reconstruction.

Long-Term

11

Sandario Road Drainage
Mitigation Project

Construct all-weather crossing.

Near-Term


$50.000

Conduct hydrology studies to evaluate the need for improvements to wash crossing on
Picture Rocks Road including placement of near-term warning and detour signs in
advance of roadway reconstruction.
$1,500,000

Long-Term


Working Paper No. 2

$1,500,000

Construct all-weather crossing.

31

Picture Rocks Multimodal Transportation Study

Figure 9 – Recommended Infrastructure Projects

Working Paper No. 2

32

Picture Rocks Multimodal Transportation Study

3.2

TRANSIT RECOMMENDATION

This section documents the development and evaluation of transit service and route alternatives to
meet the transit service needs in the study area.

3.2.1 TRANSIT SERVICE AND ROUTE ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION
Three transit service and route alternatives were examined for the fixed route service:


Alternative 1 - New Transit Route from Picture Rocks Community to Sun Shuttle Route 411 at
Twin Peaks Road/ Silverbell Road – This alternative provides a new transit route that would link
to Sun Shuttle Route 411 at the Twin Peaks Road / Silverbell Road intersection. Options for this
service are hourly (Alternative 1A) or peak period only (Alternative 1B). This route is shown in
Figure 10. It is assumed that Alternative 1A would operate 12 hours per day, Monday through
Friday, with 60-minute headways. It was assumed that this route would run a shortened sixhour schedule on Saturday. The length of the route is approximately 10.8 miles in one direction.
Alternative 1B would provide express service for four hours per day, Monday through Friday
with approximately 30-minute headways.



Alternative 2 - New Transit Route from Picture Rocks Community to Sun Shuttle Route 411
and Route 104X at Arizona Pavilions Shopping Area – This alternative provides a new transit
route that would link to Sun Shuttle Route 411 and Route 104X at the Arizona Pavilions
Shopping area near the Cortaro Road /I-10 interchange. Options for this alternative are hourly
(Alternative 2A) or peak period only (Alternative 2B). This route is shown in Figure 11. It was
assumed that Alternative 2A would operate 12 hours per day, Monday through Friday, with 60minute headways. It is assumed that this route would run a shortened six-hour schedule on
Saturday. The length of the route is approximately 15.4 miles in one direction. Alternative 2B
would operate four hours per day, Monday through Friday with approximately 30-minute
headways.



Alternative 3 - New Transit Route from Picture Rocks Community to Regency Plaza transfer
point on Ina Rd near Thornydale Road – This alternative provides a new transit route that
would link the Regency Plaza on Ina and Thornydale Road to the Picture Rocks Community
Center via Picture Rocks Road. The Regency Plaza Transfer point serves a number of routes,
including Sun Shuttle Routes 412 and 413 and Sun Tran Routes 16 and express route 104X. This
route is shown in Figure 12. This route is approximately 13.7 miles in one direction. It was
assumed that this route would run with 60-minute headways. This route could be expanded to
serve the Saguaro National Park Red Hills Visitor Center and other SNP access points such as the
trail access points at Manville Road / Sandario Road and the Desert Discovery Nature Trail
access on Kinney Road. This route may not be feasible because commercial vehicle traffic is not
allowed through the Saguaro National Monument. This route also has the disadvantage of not
serving the Marana High School area and residential areas north of Picture Rocks Road. This
route may be feasible for the SNP to consider implementing.

Additional features for each transit alternative are summarized in Table 3.

Working Paper No. 2

33

Picture Rocks Multimodal Transportation Study

Figure 10 – Transit Alternatives 1A and 1B

Working Paper No. 2

34

Picture Rocks Multimodal Transportation Study

Figure 11 – Transit Alternatives 2A and 2B

Working Paper No. 2

35

Picture Rocks Multimodal Transportation Study

Figure 12 – Transit Alternative 3

Working Paper No. 2

36

Picture Rocks Multimodal Transportation Study

Table 3 – Transit Alternatives
Service Alternative

Alternative 1 A - New transit
route to Route 411 at Twin Peaks
Road / Silverbell Road – hourly
service

Need for ADA
Complimentary
Paratransit Service
Sun Shuttle vehicles are
equipped with lifts. Typically
each Sun Shuttle carries two
personal mobility devices.
ADA complimentary
paratransit service is required
and would likely need to be
provided through a routedeviated service.

Alternative 1B - New transit route
to Route 411 at Twin Peaks Road /
Silverbell Road – peak period only.

Sun Shuttle vehicles are
equipped with lifts. Typically
each Sun Shuttle carries two
personal mobility devices.

Passenger Needs

Costs

Streets served:
 Twin Peaks Road (Silverbell Road to Sandario Road)
 Sandario Road (Twin Peaks Road to Rudasill Road
 Rudasill Road (Sandario Road to Sanders Road)
 Sanders Road (Sunset Road to Picture Rocks Road)
 Orange Grove Road (Sanders Road to Sandario Road)

This route directly serves the
Safeway at Twin Peaks Road/
Silverbell Road. A transfer would
need to be made to Route 411 in
order to travel to locations such
as the Arizona Pavilions area.

Operating and administrative costs=
$162,162
Capital costs for system start up:
$213,900 - $318,900

See above

Sun Shuttle vehicles are
equipped with lifts. Typically
each Sun Shuttle carries two
personal mobility devices.

Added key destinations beyond 1A and 1B:

Arizona Pavilions area

Shopping plaza at Twin Peaks Road/ Coachline Road

ADA complimentary
paratransit service is required
and would likely need to be
provided through a routedeviated service.
Alternative 2B - Express transit
route to Route 411 and Route
104X at Arizona Pavilions
Shopping Center – peak period
only.

Sun Shuttle vehicles are
equipped with lifts. Typically
each Sun Shuttle carries two
personal mobility devices.

Added key destinations beyond 1A and 1B:

Arizona Pavilions area

Shopping plaza at Twin Peaks Road/Coachline Road

This route is estimated to have 5,638 passengers / 3432
revenue hours = 1.64 passengers /revenue hours

This express route provides
service to the Marana-Downtown
Express (Route 104X) at the
Arizona Pavilions.

Operating and administrative
costs=$49,140

This route, although longer,
serves the Arizona Pavilions area
and provides service to more
locations. This increases
potential ridership.

Operating and administrative
costs=$162,162

This route is estimated to have 5,638 passengers / 3,432
revenue hours = 1.64 passengers /revenue hours

Capital costs for system start up:
$213,900 – $318,900

Assuming only weekday service, the route is estimated to
carry 5,638/ 3,120=1.81 passengers/revenue hour

This express route provides
service to the Marana-Downtown
Express (Route 104X) at the
Arizona Pavilions.

Operating and administrative
costs=$49,140

According to the PAG Short Range Transit Implementation
Plan 2014-2018, Sun Shuttle fixed routes all follow a
standard threshold of two passengers per revenue hour.

ADA complimentary
paratransit service is required
and would likely need to be
provided through a routedeviated service.

Working Paper No. 2

According to the PAG Short Range Transit Implementation
Plan 2014-2018, Sun Shuttle fixed routes all follow a
standard threshold of two passengers per revenue hour.

Assuming only weekday service, the route is estimated to
carry 5,638/ 3,120=1.81 passengers/revenue hour

Key destinations:
 Picture Rocks Community Center (Potential park-and-ride)
 Commercial area at Picture Rocks Road/ Sandario Road intersection
 Picture Rocks Baptist Church T 6971 North Sandario Road (potential
site for park-and-ride lot)
 Marana High School (within 0.2 miles of route)
 Desert Winds Elementary School
 Picture Rocks Elementary School
 Safeway at Twin Peaks Road/Silverbell Road

Capital costs for system start up:
$318,900 - $423,900

ADA complimentary
paratransit service is required
and would likely need to be
provided through a routedeviated service.
Alternative 2A - New transit route
to Route 411 and Route 104X at
Arizona Pavilions Shopping Center
- hourly service.

Other Comments

Service Area Characteristics

37

Capital costs for system start up:
$318,900 - $423,900

According to the PAG Short Range Transit Implementation
Plan 2014-2018, Sun Shuttle fixed routes all follow a
standard threshold of two passengers per revenue hour.
This route is estimated to have 5,638 passengers / 1,040
revenue hours = 5.42 passengers /revenue hour

This route is estimated to have 5,638 passengers / 1,040
revenue hours = 5.42 passengers /revenue hour

Picture Rocks Multimodal Transportation Study

Service Alternative

Alternative 3 - New transit route
from Picture Rocks Community to
Regency Plaza on Ina and
Thornydale Road. Regency Plaza
Transfer point serves a number of
routes, including Sun Shuttle
Routes 412 and 413 and Sun Tran
Routes 16 and express route 104X
– peak period only.

Working Paper No. 2

Need for ADA
Complimentary
Paratransit Service
Sun Shuttle vehicles are
equipped with lifts. Typically
each Sun Shuttle carries two
personal mobility devices.
ADA complimentary
paratransit service is required
for portions of this route
outside of the current Sun
Shuttle service area (refer to
Figure 13) and would likely
need to be provided through a
route-deviated service.

Passenger Needs

Costs

Other Comments

Service Area Characteristics

Streets served:
 Ina Road (Thornydale Road to Wade Road)
 Wade Road (Ina Road to Picture Rocks Road)
 Picture Rocks Road (Wade Road to Sandario Road)
 Sandario Road (Picture Rocks Road to Rudasill Road
 Rudasill Road (Sandario Road to Sanders Road)
 Sanders Road (Rudasill Road to Picture Rocks Community Center
Road)

This route, although longer,
serves the Regency Plaza Transfer
Point which will increases
potential ridership.

Key destinations:
 Picture Rocks Community Center (Potential park-and-ride)
 Commercial area at Picture Rocks Road/ Sandario Road intersection
 Picture Rocks Baptist Church T 6971 North Sandario Road (potential
site for park-and-ride lot)
 Desert Winds Elementary School
 Regency Plaza Sun Shuttle Transfer Point

38

Operating and administrative
costs=$49,140
Capital costs for system start up:
$318,900 - $423,900

According to the PAG Short Range Transit Implementation
Plan 2014-2018, Sun Shuttle fixed routes all follow a
standard threshold of two passengers per revenue hour.
This route is estimated to have 5,638 passengers / 1,040
revenue hours = 5.42 passengers /revenue hour

Picture Rocks Multimodal Transportation Study
It should be noted that all transit options considered are required to have complimentary paratransit
service to meet standards set by ADA. The Sun Van service operates within a specific service area to
provide transit service to individuals who, because of their disability, are unable to ride Sun Tran. The
Sun Van Service operates within a specific service area, shown in Figure 13.

Ina Road

Figure 13 – Sun Van Service Area in Northwest Tucson
Since transit alternatives in Corridors 1 and 2 are outside of this service area, a route deviated service
should be provided if an expansion of the Sun Van service area is not feasible. For route-deviated
service, passengers can schedule a pick-up or drop-off within 3/4 mile of Sun Shuttle routes.

3.2.2 REVENUE HOURS, REVENUE MILES, AND COSTS
Revenue Hours and Revenue Miles
A key input to the evaluation of alternatives is the annual revenue hours and revenue miles for each
alternative are provided in Table 4.
Revenue miles are higher for the Alternative 2 options because this route is longer. However, it serves
the key destination of Arizona Pavilions more directly.
Estimated Non-Capital Costs
Estimated system non-capital costs (administrative and operating) costs were developed using historic
cost per revenue hour data from the Pima Association of Governments (PAG). Applying the average cost
per revenue hour to the transit alternatives results in the estimated operating and administrative costs
shown in Table 5.

Working Paper No. 2

39

Picture Rocks Multimodal Transportation Study

Table 4 – Estimated System Non-Capital (Administrative and Operating) Costs
Alternative

Alternative 1A New Transit Route to Sun
Shuttle Route 411 at Twin
Peaks Road/ Silverbell
Road

Total Vehicle Revenue
Hours

3,432

Estimated Cost per
Revenue Hour*

Total Estimated
Administrative and
Operating Costs

$47.25

$162,162

Alternative 1B Express Transit Route to
Sun Shuttle Route 411 at
Twin Peaks Road/ Silverbell
Road

1,040

$47.25

$49,140

Alternative 2A New Transit Route to Sun
Shuttle Route 411 and
Route 104X at Arizona
Pavilions Shopping Center

3,432

$47.25

$162,162

Alternative 2B Express Transit Route to
Sun Shuttle Route 411 and
Route 104X at Arizona
Pavilions Shopping Center

1,040

$47.25

$49,140

Alternative 3 - New transit
route to Regency Plaza on
Ina and Thornydale Road
Regency Plaza Transfer
point serves a number of
routes, including Sun
Shuttle Routes 412 and
413 and Sun Tran Routes
16 and express route 104X
– peak period only.

1,040

$47.25

$49,140

*Source: Pima Association of Governments, based on historic costs per revenue hour over the past three years

Working Paper No. 2

40

Picture Rocks Multimodal Transportation Study

Table 5 – Annual Revenue Hours and Revenue Miles for Transit Alternatives
Revenue Hours
Alternative

Revenue Miles

Revenue
Hours per
week

Weeks per
year

Revenue
Hours per
Year

Number of
vehicles

Route
Miles per
round trip

Number
of trips
per week

Revenue
Miles per
week

Number
of
vehicles

Total Vehicle
Revenue
Miles

Alternative 1A - New
Transit Route to Sun
Shuttle Route 411 at Twin
Peaks Rd/ Silverbell Rd

66

52

3,432

1

21.6

73

1,577

1

1,577

Alternative 1B - Express
Transit Route to Sun
Shuttle Route 411 at Twin
Peaks Rd/ Silverbell Rd

20

52

1,040

2

21.6

30

648

2

1,296

Alternative 2A - New
Transit Route to Sun
Shuttle Route 411 and
Route 104X at Arizona
Pavilions Shopping Center

66

52

3,432

1

30.8

73

2,248

1

2,248

Alternative 2B - Express
Transit Route to Sun
Shuttle Route 411 and
Route 104X at Arizona
Pavilions Shopping Center

20

52

1,040

2

30.8

30

924

2

1,848

Alternative 3 - New transit
route to Regency Plaza on
Ina Rd and Thornydale Rd

20

52

1,040

2

27.4

30

822

2

1644

Working Paper No. 2

41

Picture Rocks Multimodal Transportation Study

Estimated Capital Costs
Capital costs include the cost of buses, bus shelters, and bus stop signs. For this study a range of costs
are provided for the number of buses required, because the specific bus needs would need to be refined
based on a more detailed implementation plan that would define specific bus stops and route timing
and headways.
Buses
The buses used for the Sun Shuttle service are light duty vehicles that are equipped with a lift and the
ability to carry as many as two personal mobility devices. Based on costs for the Sun Shuttle fleet
replacement, the average vehicle cost is $105,000. Since the exact routing and number of bus stops is
subject to more detailed analysis, a range of buses needed for each alternative is assumed.
Bus Stop Signs
Bus stop signs will need to be erected at all designated bus stop locations. At larger bus stop locations
and locations where right-of-way is available to provide a bus shelter, these can encourage ridership
particularly during the summer months.
Capital cost assumes bus stop signs and bus shelters at nine stop locations, which are:
 Picture Rocks Community Center (also could potentially serve as a park-and-ride location).
 Intersection of Sanders Road / Rudasill Road (two stops—inbound and outbound). This location
serves a number of schools.
 Sandario Road / Picture Rocks Road (two stops—inbound and outbound). This stop location serves a
commercial area.
 Sandario Road / Camper Road (two stops—inbound and outbound). This stop location is near the
Sandario Baptist Church on Camper Road, which may serve as a potential park-and-ride location.
 Sandario Road / Emigh Road (two stops—inbound and outbound). This stop location serves Marana
High School.
A summary of capital costs by alternative is provided in Table 6.

Working Paper No. 2

42

Picture Rocks Multimodal Transportation Study

Table 6 – Capital Costs - Transit System Start up
Alternative
Alternative 1A - New Transit
Route to Sun Shuttle Route 411
at Twin Peaks Road / Silverbell
Road

Buses

Bus Stop Signs

1*$105,000=$105,000

Bus Shelters

9*$100=$900

9*$12,000=$108,000

$213,900 $318,900

9*$100=$900

9*$12,000=$108,000

$318,900 $423,900

9*$100=$900

9*$12,000=$108,000

$213,900$318,900

2*$105,000=$210,000

Alternative 1B - Express Transit
Route to Sun Shuttle Route 411
at Twin Peaks Road/ Silverbell
Road

2*$105,000=$210,000

Alternative 2A - New Transit
Route to Sun Shuttle Route 411
and Route 104X at Arizona
Pavilions Shopping Center

1*$105,000=$105,000

Alternative 2B - Express Transit
Route to Sun Shuttle Route 411
and Route 104X at Arizona
Pavilions Shopping Center

2*$105,000=$210,000

Alternative 3 - New transit
route to Regency Plaza on Ina
Rd and Thornydale Rd

1*$105,000=$105,000

Total Capital
Costs

3*$105,000=$315,000

2*$105,000=$210,000

9*$100=$900

9*$12,000=$108,000

$318,900$423,900

9*$100=$900

9*$12,000=$108,000

$213,900 $318,900

3*$105,000=$315,000

2*$105,000=$210,000

3.2.1 RECOMMENDED TRANSIT ALTERNATIVE
Future transit service in the Picture Rocks area is dependent upon funding. Commitment of local funding
is decided by PAG in consideration of regional needs and priorities. If funding can be identified, it is
recommended that route Alternative 2B - Express Transit Route to Sun Shuttle Route 411 and Route
104X at Arizona Pavilions Shopping Center be initially implemented. Providing peak-hour service to the
Arizona Pavilions area will help to encourage and grow ridership demand, while providing a cost–
effective service.

Working Paper No. 2

43

Picture Rocks Multimodal Transportation Study

4. Project Prioritization and Plan of Improvements
4.1

NEAR-TERM PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

Project performance criteria were developed to provide a basis for establishing near-term infrastructure
project priorities. Long-term projects which require higher construction costs will be dependent on
funding availability and to the outcome of studies that are recommended for project scoping. The
performance criteria include measurable factors representing the goals of the Picture Rocks Study.
These criteria cover three categories—study area multimodal mobility and safety, regional multimodal
accessibility, and study area economic development and quality of life. The performance criteria are
defined below and included in the project priority matrix in Table 7.
Study Area Multimodal Mobility and Safety





Improved Multimodal Mobility within the Picture Rocks Community – Each improvement
project was evaluated on how well it improved multimodal connectivity within the Picture Rocks
Community and the study area in general. Projects that address mobility and accessibility
between Community facilities and neighborhoods for all modes rated very high for this criterion.
Improved Multimodal Safety – Each improvement project was evaluated on how well it
improved multimodal safety in the study area with a focus on crash concentration locations.
Projects that address safety improvement for all roadway users rated very high for this criterion.
Improved Traffic Operations – Each improvement project was evaluated on how well it
improved multimodal capacity and operations. Projects that improve traffic operations through
improved traffic control and added capacity rated very high for this criterion.

Regional Multimodal Accessibility




Improved Regional Multimodal Connections – Each improvement project was evaluated on
how well it improves multimodal Community accessibility with regional transportation features
and destinations. Projects that address connectivity to Marana, I-10, and regional employment
centers and destinations rated very high for this criterion.
Increased Travel Choices – Each improvement project was evaluated on how well it increased
multimodal transportation choices for the Community. Projects that address multimodal and
transit service needs rated very high for this criterion.

Study Area Economic Development and Quality of Life



Improved Potential for Community Development – Each improvement project was evaluated
on its contribution to community-scale development. Projects that improve aesthetics, land
use controls, and sustainable community development rated very high for this criterion.
Improve Quality of Life/Air Quality – Each improvement project was evaluated on how well it
improves quality of life and air quality. Projects that increase the use of alternate modes of
transportation and address pavement condition needs rated very high for this criterion.

Performance criteria were rated for each infrastructure project on the following quantitative rating scale
to illustrate the benefits of each project.




Significant Benefit (with a value of 5 points)
Moderate Benefit (with a value of 3 points)
Limited Benefit (with a value of 1 point)

Rating scores were used to establish a relative priority for each near-term project.
Working Paper No. 2

44

Picture Rocks Multimodal Transportation Study

Table 7 – Near-Term Project Priority Matrix
Performance Criteria

Study Area Multimodal Mobility and Safety

Regional Multimodal Accessibility

Study Area Economic Development and
Quality of Life

Near-Term Project

Location

Project
Ranking

Improved
Multimodal
Community
Mobility

1

Sandario Road Improvement
Project

Sandario Road, Rudasill Road
to Emigh Road

1

5

5

5

5

5

5

3

2

Picture Rocks Road
Improvement Project

Picture Rocks Road, Sandario
Road to SNP West Boundary

1

5

5

5

5

5

5

3

3

Avra Valley Road
Improvement Project

Avra Valley Road—El Paso
Road to Garvey Road

3

3

5

5

1

3

1

3

4

Twin Peaks Road
Improvement Project

Twin Peaks Road—Silverbell
Road (North) to White Stallion
Road

2

3

5

5

3

3

1

3

Project
No.

Improved
Multimodal Safety

Improved Traffic
Operations

Improved Regional
Multimodal
Connections

Increased Travel
Choices

Improved Potential
for Community
Development

Improve Quality of
Life/Air Quality

5

Anway Road / Avra Valley Anway Road / Avra Valley Road
Road Improvement Project
Intersection

3

3

5

5

1

3

1

3

6

Avra Valley / Trico Road Avra Valley / Trico Road
Improvement Project
Intersection

3

3

5

5

1

3

1

3

7

Sanders Road / Twin Peaks Sanders Road / Twin Peaks
Road Improvement Project
Road Intersection

3

3

5

5

1

3

1

3

8

Manville Road Drainage
Mitigation Project

Manville Road

4

5

3

3

1

1

1

5

9

Anway Road Drainage
Mitigation Project

Anway Road

4

5

3

3

1

1

1

5

10

Avra Valley Road Drainage
Mitigation Project

Avra Valley Road

4

5

3

3

1

1

1

5

11

Sandario Road Drainage
Mitigation Project

Sandario Road

4

5

3

3

1

1

1

5

Rating scale: 5 = Significant Benefit; 3 = Moderate Benefit; 1 = Limited Benefit

Working Paper No. 2

45

4.2

PROJECT PRIORITIES

Using the project priority matrix, projects were assigned to short-range, mid-range, and long-range
time frames to maximize benefit to the Picture Rocks Community. Pima County should consider these
priorities in future updates of the Transportation Improvement Program and the Long-Range
Transportation Plan.

4.2.1 SHORT-RANGE PRIORITIES (0 TO 5 YEARS)




Pavement Preservation (Funding Dependent)
Picture Rocks Road, Sandario Road to SNP West Boundary
Sandario Road, Rudasill Road to Emigh Road

4.2.2 MID-RANGE PRIORITIES (6 TO 10 YEARS)






Twin Peaks Road, Silverbell Road (North) to White Stallion Road
Anway Road / Avra Valley Road Intersection
Avra Valley / Trico Road Intersection
Sanders Road / Twin Peaks Road Intersection
Avra Valley Road, El Paso Road to Garvey Road

4.2.3 LONG-RANGE PRIORITIES (11 TO 20 YEARS)





Manville Road Drainage Mitigation Project
Anway Road Drainage Mitigation Project
Avra Valley Road Drainage Mitigation Project
Sandario Road Drainage Mitigation Project

Working Paper No. 2

46

5. Funding Sources for Transportation Projects
5.1

HIGHWAY USER REVENUE FUND (HURF)

In Arizona, highway construction, operation, and maintenance are principally funded through stateshared revenues known as Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF). HURF revenues are generated by
gasoline and use fuel taxes, motor carrier fees, vehicle license taxes, motor vehicle registration fees,
and other miscellaneous fees. These revenues are distributed to the cities, towns, and counties of the
state and to the State Highway Fund, which is administered by ADOT. These taxes and fees represent a
source of revenues available for highway-related expenses.
HURF revenues increased steadily through Fiscal Year (FY) 2006/07. Decreases in HURF since FY
2006/07 placed 2012 HURF distributions of approximately $45 million at a level similar the HURF
distribution levels lower than 13 years ago.
HURF growth has declined, as well as the fund losses associated the State legislature’s discretionary
authority under ARS 28-6537 to divert up to $20M of the fund each session. In addition, they also
diverted other funds including the Vehicle Licensing Tax which sometimes supplements HURF Federal
funding sources.

5.2

FEDERAL FUNDING SOURCES

Federal programs authorized under Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21) include
the Surface Transportation Program (STP), Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP), Federal
Lands Transportation and Access Programs, Tribal Transportation Program, Railway-Highway Crossings
(RHC), Transportation Alternatives (TA) Program, National Highway Performance (NHP) Program, and
other relevant programs. Federal funding for transportation improvements is available through these
programs, subject to eligibility requirements and approval by ADOT and the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA). Utilizing federal funds requires obtaining environmental, utility, and right-ofway clearances before proposed improvements can be implemented. The federal programs under
MAP-21 are described in more detail in Table 8.

5.3

OTHER FUNDING SOURCES

Pima County adopted transportation impact fees (TIFs) in 1997. State law prohibits the use of TIFs on
any highway improvements other than capacity improvements, and the roadway must be located in
the unincorporated area of Pima County in geographic benefit areas. TIFs have limited applicability in
the study area. TIFs have been used productively to augment transportation capacity improvements
throughout Pima County. Other potential sources of funding are listed in Table 9.

Working Paper No. 2

47

Table 8 – MAP-21 Federal Programs
Program Name

Description

National Highway
Performance Program
(NHPP)

Under MAP-21, the enhanced National Highway System (NHS) is composed of approximately 220,000 miles of
rural and urban roads serving major population centers, international border crossings, intermodal transportation
facilities, and major travel destinations. It includes the Interstate System, all principal arterials (including some not
previously designated as part of the NHS) and border crossings on those routes, highways that provide motor
vehicle access between the NHS and major intermodal transportation facilities, and the network of highways
important to U.S. strategic defense (STRAHNET) and its connectors to major military installations. MAP-21
establishes a performance basis for maintaining and improving the NHS.

Surface Transportation
Program (STP)

MAP-21 continues the STP, providing an annual average of $10 billion in flexible funding that may be used by
States and localities for projects to preserve or improve conditions and performance on any Federal-aid highway,
bridge projects on any public road, facilities for non-motorized transportation, transit capital projects, and public
bus terminals and facilities.

Highway Safety
Improvement Program
(HSIP)

Safety throughout all transportation programs remains the number one priority. MAP-21 continues HSIP, with
average annual funding of $2.4 billion, including $220 million per year for the Rail-Highway Crossings program.
HSIP emphasizes a data-driven, strategic approach to improving highway safety on all public roads that focuses on
performance. The foundation for this approach is a safety data system, which each State is required to have to
identify key safety problems, establish their relative severity, and then adopt strategic and performance-based
goals to maximize safety.

Congestion Mitigation and
Air Quality (CMAQ)

The CMAQ program provides a flexible funding source to State and local governments for transportation projects
and programs to help meet the requirements of the Clean Air Act. CMAQ funding is currently restricted for use
within Maricopa Association of Governments planning area, under ADOT’s discretionary powers.

Transportation Alternatives
(TA)

MAP-21 establishes a new program to provide for a variety of alternative transportation projects that were
previously eligible activities under separately funded programs. Eligible activities include:
-Transportation alternatives (new definition incorporates many transportation enhancement activities and several
new activities)
-Recreational trails program (program remains unchanged)
-Safe routes to schools program
-Planning, designing, or constructing roadways within the right-of way of former Interstate routes or other divided
highways.

Federal Lands and Tribal
Transportation Programs

MAP-21 creates a unified program for Federal lands transportation facilities, Federal lands access transportation,
and tribal facilities. The Federal Lands Transportation Program provides funding annually for projects that improve
access within the Federal estate, such as national forests and national recreation areas, on infrastructure owned
by the Federal government. This program combines the former Park Roads and Refuge Roads programs, and adds
three new Federal land management agency (FLMA) partners. The Federal Lands Access Program provides
funding annually for projects that improve access to Federal lands on infrastructure owned by States and local
governments.

Emergency Relief

The Emergency Relief (ER) program assists Federal, State, tribal, and local governments with the expense of
repairing serious damage to Federal-aid, tribal, and Federal Lands highways resulting from natural disasters or
catastrophic failures.

Workforce Development
and DBE

MAP-21 continues current law goals for use of small business concerns owned and controlled by socially and
economically disadvantaged individuals. On-the-Job Training and Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE)
Supportive Services programs are continued without change.

Bridge and Tunnel
Inspection

To provide for continued improvement to bridge and tunnel conditions essential to protect the safety of the
traveling public and allow for the efficient movement of people and goods on which the U.S. economy relies,
MAP-21 requires inspection and inventory of highway bridges and tunnels on public roads. No dedicated funds
are provided for inspections, but it is an eligible use of NHPP, STP, HSIP, FHWA administrative, Tribal
Transportation, and Research funds.

Projects of National and
Regional Significance

MAP-21 authorizes funding in FY 2013 only, to fund critical high-cost surface transportation capital projects that
will accomplish national goals. States, tribes, transit agencies, and multi-State or multi-jurisdictional groups of
these entities are eligible to apply for competitive grant funding.

Working Paper No. 2

48

Table 9 – Other Funding Sources
Program
Name

Description

Bonds

Municipal bonds are securities that are issued for the purpose of financing the infrastructure needs of the issuing municipality.
These needs vary greatly but can include schools, streets and highways, bridges, hospitals, public housing, sewer and water
systems, power utilities, and various public projects. Municipal bonds may be general obligations of the issuer or secured by
specified revenue.

General Funds

In public sector accounting, the primary or catchall fund of a government is called the general fund. It records all assets and
liabilities of the entity that are not assigned to a special purpose fund. It provides the resources necessary to sustain the day-today activities and thus pays for all administrative and operating expenses. General funds generally receive revenue from sources
such as state-shared income and sales taxes, local sales tax, and licensing fees.

Property Tax

A municipality or county can levy a property tax for general purposes or for a specific purpose that has a time limit or can extend
until rescinded or revised. The property tax amount is based on a percentage of the assessed value of the property.

Sales Tax

A municipality or county can levy a sales tax for general purposes or for a specific purpose such as transportation, it can have a
time limit or can extend until rescinded or revised. A sales tax is charged at the point of purchase for certain goods and services.
The tax amount is usually calculated by applying a percentage rate to the taxable price of a sale and adding the tax to the price at
the point of sale.

Impact Fees

A fee imposed on property developers by municipalities for the new infrastructure that must be built or increased due to new
property development. These fees are designed to offset the impact of the additional development and residents on the
municipality's infrastructure and services.

Community
Facilities
Districts

The Arizona Community Facilities District Act addresses a critical issue for developers: the financing of increasingly costly
infrastructure requirements without unduly burdening the developer. The law authorizes bonds to be issued and repaid with a
mechanism that taxes (or assesses) only the lands directly benefiting from the new infrastructure. This allows community
development which would otherwise be unfeasible due to the prohibitive costs. All community facilities districts are required to
be included within an incorporated city or town.

Improvement
Districts

An improvement district allows a local government agency to levy and collect special assessments on property that is within the
boundaries of the improvement district for the purpose of making infrastructure improvements within the improvement district.

Community
Development
Block Grant
Program
(CDBG)

The Arizona Department of Housing administers the federal CDBG program for non-entitlement areas (i.e., communities with a
population below 50,000). Communities receiving CDBG funds from the State may use the funds for many kinds of community
development activities including, but not limited to acquisition of property for public purposes; construction or reconstruction of
streets, sidewalks, pathways, water and sewer facilities, neighborhood centers, recreation facilities, and other public works;
public services; and planning activities.
A local funding match is typically required. http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/

comm_planning/communitydevelopment/programs
The Arizona Division of Emergency Management administers several FEMA pre-disaster and post-disaster grant programs. The
goal of these programs is to prevent and mitigate hazards. Grant programs include the following:

Federal
Emergency
Management
Agency
(FEMA) Grant
Program



Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program;



Hazard Mitigation Grant Program;



Flood Mitigation Assistance Program;



Repetitive Flood Claims Program; and



Severe Repetitive Loss Program.

A local funding match is typically required.

http://www.fema.gov/government/grant/index.shtm
Governor’s
Office of
Highway
Safety

The Arizona Governor's Office of Highway Safety (GOHS) is the focal point for highway safety issues in Arizona. Funding is
available for issues considered high priorities at a statewide level. Projects typically funded include public education and
awareness campaigns.

Working Paper No. 2

49