Pinal County Corridors Definition Study Final Report ADOT Project No. T04-49-P0001 ADOT Purchase Order No. PGKG 2465 Prepared by: In association with: Cambridge Systematics, Inc., Kaneen Advertising and Public Relations January 2007 091374010 Copyright © 2007, Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 1. INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................. 2 2. CORRIDOR DEFINITION STUDY AREAS ........................................................................................ 4 3. PLANS AND STUDIES ..................................................................................................................... 6 4. EXISTING CONDITIONS DATA....................................................................................................... 9 4.1 Land use information ............................................................................................................. 9 4.2 Existing (2004) Population and Employment Data.............................................................. 13 4.2.1 Data Sources ................................................................................................................... 13 4.2.2 Base Year Estimates......................................................................................................... 13 4.3 Existing Roadway Conditions .............................................................................................. 16 4.3.1 Growth in Traffic Volumes between 2001 and 2003.......................................................... 18 4.3.2 Crash Data Analysis ........................................................................................................ 18 4.3.3 Existing Traffic Congestion.............................................................................................. 20 5. PUBLIC AND JURISDICTIONAL PERSPECTIVES ........................................................................... 22 6. FUTURE CONDITIONS ................................................................................................................. 23 6.1 6.2 2030 Population and Employment ....................................................................................... 23 2030 Travel Demand Volumes.............................................................................................. 25 7. TRANSPORTATION NEEDS AND DEFICIENCIES........................................................................... 27 8. ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT AND FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS ................................................... 28 8.1 Needs and Feasibility Evaluation Process ............................................................................ 28 8.1.1 Needs Evaluation Criteria................................................................................................ 28 8.1.2 Feasibility Evaluation Overview ...................................................................................... 28 8.2 Pinal County Planning Model .............................................................................................. 29 8.3 Needs Analysis Findings ....................................................................................................... 30 8.3.1 Needs Analysis Findings for North-South Corridor .......................................................... 37 8.3.2 Needs Analysis Findings for East-West Corridor.............................................................. 37 8.3.3 High-Capacity Transit ..................................................................................................... 38 8.4 2030 Corridor Concept......................................................................................................... 41 8.5 Regional Traffic Performance.............................................................................................. 42 9. CORRIDORS FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS .......................................................................................... 46 9.1 Evaluation Criteria ............................................................................................................... 46 9.2 North-South Corridor Definition Development................................................................... 47 9.2.1 Jurisdictional, Stakeholder, and Public Perspectives........................................................ 47 9.2.2 Alternative Corridor Definitions ...................................................................................... 47 9.3 Engineering Opportunities and Constraints ........................................................................ 50 9.3.1 Drainage ......................................................................................................................... 50 9.3.2 Land Subsidence and Fissures ......................................................................................... 50 9.3.3 The Central Arizona Project Canal .................................................................................. 50 9.3.4 SRP 500 kV Line.............................................................................................................. 51 091374010 ADOT PCC FR (01-30-07).doc i Pinal County Corridors Definition Study Final Report 01/30/07 9.3.5 Shared Use Paths and Trails............................................................................................ 51 9.3.6 Shared CAP/SRP 500 kV Line/Trails/North-South Corridor............................................. 51 9.3.7 Gila River Crossing ......................................................................................................... 51 9.3.8 Right-of-Way Requirements ............................................................................................. 52 9.3.9 Summary of Engineering Opportunities and Constraints .................................................. 52 9.4 Social and Environmental Opportunities and Constraints ................................................. 53 9.5 Land-Use Compatibility Opportunities and Constraints .................................................... 62 10. CORRIDOR DEFINITION .............................................................................................................. 65 10.1 10.2 10.2.1 10.2.2 Description of Preliminary North-South Corridor Definition...................................... 65 Estimate of Probable Cost ............................................................................................. 70 Planning, Engineering, and Construction Costs ............................................................... 70 Right-of-Way Acquisition Costs........................................................................................ 71 11. CORRIDOR DEVELOPMENT ........................................................................................................ 72 11.1 11.2 11.3 Steps Required for Pinal Corridors Development ........................................................ 72 Funding Options ............................................................................................................ 72 Financing Options.......................................................................................................... 72 12. FINAL CORRIDOR DEFINITION RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................ 73 12.1 Combined Recommendation for Corridors Definition, Approved by the State Transportation Board ..................................................................................................................... 73 12.2 Evaluation of Corridor Definition Alternatives in the Florence and Coolidge Area ... 74 12.3 Recommended Corridor Definition in the Florence and Coolidge Area...................... 77 091374010 ADOT PCC FR (01-30-07).doc ii Pinal County Corridors Definition Study Final Report 01/30/07 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1-1 –North-South, and East Valley corridors as proposed by the Southeast Maricopa and Northern Pinal County Transportation Study ............................................................... 3 Figure 2-1 –Pinal County Corridors Definition Study Area................................................ 5 Figure 4-1 –Land Ownership........................................................................................... 10 Figure 4-2 –Major Infrastructure and Utilities ................................................................. 11 Figure 4-3 –Existing and Future Master Planned Communities........................................ 12 Figure 4-4 –Comparison of Pinal County Population Estimates, 2004 ............................. 14 Figure 4-5 –PCPM 2004 Population Estimates by Zone .................................................. 15 Figure 4-6 –PCPM 2004 Total Employment Estimates by Zone ...................................... 15 Figure 4-7 –Existing Roadways....................................................................................... 17 Figure 4-8 –Vehicle Miles Traveled, 2001 and 2003 ....................................................... 18 Figure 4-9 –Crashes, 2001 to 2003.................................................................................. 19 Figure 4-10 –Crash Rate, 2001 and 2003......................................................................... 19 Figure 4-11 –Existing (2004) Road Congestion............................................................... 21 Figure 6-1 –Comparison of Pinal County Population Projections, 2030 ........................... 23 Figure 6-2 –Projected Population Growth in Pinal County............................................... 24 Figure 6-3 –PCPM 2030 Population Projections by Zone ................................................ 24 Figure 6-4 –PCPM 2030 Employment Projections by Zone............................................. 25 Figure 6- 5 –Road Congestion and Traffic Volumes on 2030 Transportation Network...... 26 Figure 8-1 –2030 Base Future Network........................................................................... 31 Figure 8-2 –2030 Enhanced Future Network ................................................................... 32 Figure 8-3 –2030 Four-Corridors Network ...................................................................... 33 Figure 8-4 –2030 Base Future Network Traffic Volumes................................................. 34 Figure 8-5 –2030 Four-Corridors Network Traffic Volumes............................................ 35 Figure 8-6 –Four-Corridors Study Segments ................................................................... 36 Figure 8-7 –Needs Analysis Overview ............................................................................ 43 Figure 8-8 –2030 Corridor Concept Network .................................................................. 44 Figure 8-9 –2030 Corridor Concept Network Traffic Volumes ........................................ 45 Figure 9-1 –Drainage Features ........................................................................................ 56 Figure 9-2 –Water Table Declination and Areas of High Concentrations of Fissures........ 57 Figure 9-3 –Approved Route for SRP 500 kV Line ......................................................... 58 Figure 9-4 –Existing ADOT Right-of-Way ..................................................................... 59 Figure 9-5 –Environmental Feasibility Study Area .......................................................... 60 Figure 9-6 –Cultural Resources ....................................................................................... 61 Figure 10-1 –Corridor Definiton, Land Ownership ......................................................... 66 Figure 10-2 –Corridor Definition, Existing/Future Master Planned Communities ............ 67 Figure 10-3 –Corridor Definition, Drainage and Major Utilities ...................................... 68 Figure 10-4 –Corridor Definition, Cultural Resources ..................................................... 69 Figure 12-1 – Combined Recommendation for Corridors Definition, Approved by State Transportation Board ....................................................................................................... 73 Figure 12-2 –Recommended Corridor Definition in the Florence and Coolidge Area ....... 78 091374010 ADOT PCC FR (01-30-07).doc iii Pinal County Corridors Definition Study Final Report 01/30/07 LIST OF TABLES Table 3-1 –Summary of Collected Documentation ............................................................ 6 Table 4-1 –BFS Population Estimates by Study Area ...................................................... 14 Table 8-1 –Needs Analysis Scenarios.............................................................................. 29 Table 8-2 –Needs Analysis Summary: North-South Corridor........................................... 39 Table 8-3 –Needs Analysis Summary: East Valley Corridor ............................................ 40 Table 8-4 –Corridor Concept Segment Descriptions ........................................................ 41 Table 8-5 –Mobility Performance Measures by Scenario................................................. 42 Table 9-1 –Jurisdictional and Stakeholder Input .............................................................. 48 Table 9-2 –Summary of Engineering Opportunities and Constraints ................................ 52 Table 9-3 –Summary of Environmental/Social Opportunities and Constraints ................. 55 Table 9-4 –Summary of Land-use and Local Jurisdictions Opportunities and Constraints 63 Table 10-1 –Estimate of Probable Cost by Source ........................................................... 71 Table 10-2 –Potential right-of-way costs (in 2004 land values)........................................ 71 Table 12-1 –Summary of Jurisdictional and Stakeholder Input ........................................ 75 091374010 ADOT PCC FR (01-30-07).doc iv Pinal County Corridors Definition Study Final Report 01/30/07 1. INTRODUCTION The Southeast Maricopa/Northern Pinal County Transportation Study (SEMNPTS), completed in September 2003 by the Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG), the Central Arizona Association of Governments (CAAG), and the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT), recommended $12 to $14 billion in transportation improvements to meet the transportation needs of the over one million people that are projected to live in the area roughly bounded by US 60 and SR 79 on the east, Loop 101 and the Gila River Indian Community on the west, US 60 on the north, and Coolidge and Florence on the south, by the year 2030. Recommended improvements included nearly 3,000 lane miles of new and improved arterials, an enhanced transit system, improvements to existing freeway corridors, and 95 miles of new freeways. Specific SEMNPTS recommendations included the development and/or improvement of four highway corridors that would improve mobility within the region for both Maricopa and Pinal Counties: § § § § East Valley Corridor (I-10 to Florence Junction); Apache Junction/Coolidge (North-South) Corridor (I-10 to US 60); US 60 Freeway Re-route (Baseline to Ray Roads); and Williams Gateway Corridor (Loop 202 to US 60). Since completion of the SEMPTS, several actions were taken to advance the development of the new freeway corridors including: § The CAAG Regional Council adopted a resolution and requested that ADOT conduct transportation planning efforts on the four corridors. § House Bill 2456 was passed by the Arizona Legislature assigning to MAG, CAAG, and ADOT the responsibility for carrying out further definition of the corridors identified in the SEMNPTS for rightof-way preservation and to provide the State Transportation Board with information to consider these corridors for adoption into the State Highway System by December 31, 2008. ADOT assumed responsibility for initiating and managing the studies required by House Bill 2456 and conducted three separate studies for the four corridors – the Williams Gateway Corridor Definition Study, the US 60 Corridor Definition Study, and the Pinal County Corridors Definition Study (NorthSouth Corridor and the East Valley Corridor). In September 2004, ADOT awarded a contract for the Pinal County Corridors Definition Study to Kimley-Horn and Associates. The scope of the Pinal County Corridors Definition Study included the following activities: § Confirm the need for the East Valley and the North-South corridors; § Define planning-level corridor definition alternatives; § Perform a technical assessment of engineering, environmental, and land use compatibility constraints opportunities for the planning-level corridor definition alternatives. § Identify to the extent possible, feasible and preferred planning-level corridor definitions on the basis of the technical evaluation; § Document planning-level costs of corridor development (including studies, design, construction, and right-of-way costs) for the preferred corridor definitions. The Pinal County Corridors Definition Study resulted in sufficient detail to provide a basis for the future establishment of geometric roadway alignments and corridor design concepts, the preservation of rightof-way, and the identification of required environmental clearance studies. 091374010 ADOT PCC FR (01-30-07).doc 2 Pinal County Corridors Definition Study Final Report 01/30/07 Hawes TEMPE Southern Meridian æ A APACHE JUNCTION MESA Recker Elliot Warn er Moeur Lin dsay Williams Field 144th Gilb ert Peco s McQu een Ge rman n 60 1 Peco s Ge rman n GILBERT Lin dsay Qu een C reek Greenfield Cooper Chandler Vineyard Ray Dobson Price Ironw ood × A Base line Sossa ma n Gu adalupe Idaho Mill Southern Ocotillo Hunt Highwa y Vineyard Riggs Hash Knife D raw Sign al Butte Hawes Indian Route 5 6 Moeur Ellsworth Power Recker Val Vista Chandler Heights Cooper Dobson Alma School CHANDLER Price QUEEN CREEK Higle y Ocotillo A Á Skylin e hw a y Qu ail Run Hu nt Hi g Comb s Hash Knife D raw þ A Bella Vista É A Magma Arizo na Farms Arizo na Farms Anderson ton Attawa y Skou sen Arizo na É A Signal Peak Russell ú A FLORENCE Cain â A ay hw S a ca ig GILA RIVER INDIAN COMMUNITY a Bla nc a 10 H nt Hu C as ñ A Vah Ki Inn COOLIDGE Kenilworth Kleck Tweedy Toltec Buttes Lamb Trekell 10 ( ' & % Battaglia Gila River Indian Community Overfield Other Road Sunshine ELOY Phillip s 0 1 2 3 4 5 Miles Data Source: Arizona Land Resource Information System Hauser Battaglia Tumble weed Lamb Peart Hauser Railroad Vail Arica Shedd Estrella Shedd Sunland Gin Chuichu Hanna Arica Future Roadway Highway Cornman Toltec Cornman Hanna Hanna SEMNPTS Corridor Earley Vail 8 % ( ' & Cox Cornman Kleck Overfield Burris Bianco Selma É A ñ A Earley Thornton Midway Selma Randolph Storey Peart Curry Burris Russell And erson Peters Figure 1-1 North-South and East Valley corridors as proposed by the Southeast Maricopa and Northern Pinal County Transportation Study ¯ 5th Randolph Kortsen Kortsen la Pa lma Anderson Barne s Bartlett la Pa lma ( ' & % ú A wn Martin Bartlett Sunshine to Val Vista Skou sen Val Vista CASA GRANDE Signal Peak Co w Toltec Butte s Val Vista A Á Valley Farms Casa Blanca Indian Route 1 Magma Phillip s Coolidge Airpo rt Nelson Atta wa y Judd 2. CORRIDOR DEFINITION STUDY AREAS The Pinal County Corridors Definition Study included two study areas –the East Valley study area and the North-South study area (refer to Figure 2-1). The East Valley study area (I-10 to Florence Junction) included parts of Maricopa County, Chandler, Gilbert, the Gila River Indian Community, Queen Creek, and Pinal County and extends from I-10 to US 60 in Pinal County. This 31-mile long study area lies in the CAAG planning area, with 19 miles bordering the MAG planning area and the Gila River Indian Community. The North-South study area is a 36-mile long area connecting US 60 near Apache Junction on the north to I-10 south of Coolidge. 091374010 ADOT PCC FR (01-30-07).doc 4 Pinal County Corridors Definition Study Final Report 01/30/07 TEMPE 1 APACHE JUNCTION 60 GUADALUPE × A æ A GILBERT 1 60 CHANDLER æ A Proposed Loop 202 Alignment QUEEN CREEK East Valley Corridor Study Area Á A þ A North-South Corridor Study Area É A COOLIDGE A â ú A FLORENCE É A ñ A COOLIDGE ( ' & ú % A 10 CASA GRANDE A É ñ A Æ A ( ' & % 8 Figure 2-1 Pinal County Corridors Definition Study Area ( ' & % 10 Highways Major Arterials ELOY Collector Railroad ¯ 0 1 2 4 6 8 Miles Data Source: Arizona Land Resource Information System Á A 3. PLANS AND STUDIES The first task of the Pinal Corridors Definition Study was to compile available information and data and to prepare a summary of existing conditions within the corridor study areas. Relevant information on existing conditions as described in collected studies, reports, and other documents are summarized in Working Paper No. 1. Working Paper No. 1 can be accessed at ADOT’s website at http://tpd.azdot.gov///planning/cds_pinal.php. Table 3-1 provides a listing of the reviewed documents. Table 3-1 – Summary of Collected Documentation Doc. Type Jurisdiction Agency Document Title Author/ Originator Date Proposal Arizona State University Morrison Institute for Public Policy Conceptualization of a Future for “Superstitions Vistas” September, 2004 (estimated) Report Central Arizona College Applied Economics Central Arizona College Bond Feasibility Study Demographic Analysis May 14, 2004 Report City of Apache Junction Kirkham Michael Consulting Engineers City of Apache Junction, Arizona Small Area Transportation Study May, 2004 Hand-out City of Apache Junction City of Apache Junction General Plan Land Use Element Summary Not available Report City of Casa Grande Lima & Associates Casa Grande Multi-modal Transportation Study December, 2001 Report City of Chandler DFD Architects Chandler General Plan November 1, 2001 Report City of Chandler Parsons Brinckerhoff Chandler Transportation Study, Final Report Revised October 23, 2003 Manual City of Chandler Not Available Street Design and Access Control, Technical Design Manual #4 January, 2002 Report City of Chandler, Valley Metro, MAG BRW, Inc. City of Chandler Transit Plan Update, Final Report November, 2002 Report City of Chandler, Valley Metro, MAG BRW, Inc. City of Chandler High Capacity Transit Major Investment Study November, 2002 Report City of Coolidge Stantec Consulting City of Coolidge General Plan Update November 10, 2003 List City of Coolidge City of Coolidge Developments Scheduled for Coolidge January 19, 2005 Memorandum City of Coolidge Tischler & Associates, Inc. Demographic Data and Development Projections February 12, 2004 Map Maricopa Association of Governments Maricopa Association of Governments Roads of Regional Significance Changes approved April 28, 1999 091374010 ADOT PCC FR (01-30-07).doc 6 Pinal County Corridors Definition Study Final Report 01/30/07 Table 3-1 – Summary of Collected Documentation (continued) Doc. Type Jurisdiction Agency Document Title Author/ Originator Date Report Maricopa Association of Governments Maricopa Association of Governments Regional Transportation Plan November 25, 2003 Report Maricopa Association of Governments Parsons Brinckerhoff Southeast Maricopa/Northern Pinal County Area Transportation Study September, 2003 Report Maricopa County Not Available Maricopa County Major Streets and Routes Plan, Street Classification Atlas Adopted April 18, 2001 Revised September, 2004 Report Maricopa County Department of Transportation Lee Engineering Riggs Road Access Control and Corridor Improvement Study, Final Report, Volume I, II, and III of IV July 20, 1999 Report Maricopa County Department of Transportation CH2M Hill Corridor Study for Ellsworth Road, Elliot Road to Hunt Highway November, 1997 Report Maricopa County Department of Transportation AGRA Infrastructure, Inc. Final Access Control and Improvement Study, Power Road, Hunt Highway to Guadalupe Road June, 2000 Report Maricopa County Department of Transportation Not Available Bicycle Transportation System Plan Adopted May 19,1999 Report Pinal County Lima & Associates Pinal County Transportation Plan 2000 Update, Final Report and Executive Summary September, 2000 Report Pinal County Entellus Hunt Highway and Vineyard Road Limited Access Study July 2, 2001 Report Pinal County Entranco, Inc. Southern Pinal County Regional Transportation Plan April 24, 2003 Report Pinal County Not Available Pinal County Comprehensive Plan 2001 December 19, 2001 Report Pinal County Department of Civil Works JHK & Associates, Johnson-Brittain Associates Hunt Highway Corridor Assessment Report October, 1995 Letter, Support Material Pinal County Department of Public Works Kirkham Michael Consulting Engineers Superstition Freeway Extension – Project Assessment March 10, 2003 091374010 ADOT PCC FR (01-30-07).doc 7 Pinal County Corridors Definition Study Final Report 01/30/07 Table 3-1 – Summary of Collected Documentation (continued) Doc. Type Jurisdiction Agency Document Title Author/ Originator Date Report Pinal County Department of Public Works Curtis Lueck & Associates Superstition Valley Transportation Study, Final Report July 19, 1999 Report Town of Florence URS Corporation Florence Area General Plan Update April 9, 2003 Application Salt River Project Salt River Project Application for a Certificate of Environmental Compatibility, Palo Verde to Pinal West 500kV Transmission Project Not Available Report Town of Gilbert Parsons Brinckerhoff Town of Gilbert Arterial Street Plan November, 2004 Report Town of Gilbert Parsons Brinckerhoff Gilbert / East Valley Transit System Study, Long-Range Transit Plan August, 2003 Report Town of Queen Creek Partners for Strategic Action, Lima & Associates, Design Workshop, PAA Town of Queen Creek General Plan, 2002 May 15, 2002 Report Williams Gateway Airport Authority, and the Maricopa County Department of Transportation JHK & Associates, Lima & Associates, Transit Plus, Applied Economics Williams Area Transportation Plan., Final Report and Executive Summary March, 1997 Meeting Summary Pinal County Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Ironwood Drive DCR and Final Design December 7, 2004 Site Plan Dell Web Dell Web Preliminary site plan December 9, 2004 091374010 ADOT PCC FR (01-30-07).doc 8 Pinal County Corridors Definition Study Final Report 01/30/07 4. EXISTING CONDITIONS DATA In addition to the summary of existing conditions information gathered from other reports and studies (see chapter 3), supplemental existing conditions data were collected from local agencies and jurisdictions. This data were used in the needs and deficiencies evaluation process: § Land use information; § Roadway conditions; § Travel data; § Crash history of selected corridors; § Traffic operations; and § Socioeconomic conditions. The following is a brief summary of information collected. The reader is referred to Working Paper No. 1 for a comprehensive summary of this information. 4.1 Land use information Land ownership within the study area is depicted in Figure 4-1, Land Ownership. As illustrated in Figure 4-1, the study area contains property within unincorporated Pinal County, City of Apache Junction and the Town of Florence. The largest landowner within the study area is the State of Arizona (Arizona State Trust Land). A significant portion of the study area lies within the Gila River Indian Community. The study area contains two land parcels owned by the United States Department of Defense. The first parcel is located adjacent to the CAP canal near Arizona Farms Road. The second parcel is the Rittenhouse Auxiliary Field (closed) located north of Queen Creek. The Bureau of Land Management controls several land parcels within the study area, most of which are located adjacent to the CAP. Development patterns within the study area have in large part been influenced, and will continue to be influenced, by existing man-made features and geographic constraints including the CAP canal, and the Union Pacific and Magma Arizona Railroad. These and other existing and future man-made features are depicted in Figure 4-2, Major Infrastructure and Utilities. Agricultural lands compose the southern and western portions of the study area with scattered residences throughout. The intensity of development and land use increases towards the northern and central portions of the study area. As seen in Figure 4-3, Existing and Future Master Planned Communities, development is particularly concentrated between Florence and Queen Creek along the Hunt Highway corridor. Riggs Road and Hunt Highway are identified in the SEMNPTS study as potential alignment alternatives for the East Valley corridor. The western 1 ½ miles of Hunt Highway and Riggs Road between I-10 and Price Road is currently undeveloped land owned by the Gila River Indian Community. East of Price Road, significant development exists along both Hunt Highway and Riggs Road including the Sun Lakes community. Significant residential housing developments exist or are planned along Riggs Road and Hunt Highway between Price Road and the Maricopa County/Pinal County line. 091374010 ADOT PCC FR (01-30-07).doc 9 Pinal County Corridors Definition Study Final Report 01/30/07 Hawes Idaho Sossam n tr æ A APACHE JUNCTION Ce MESA Ironwood Meridian Baseline an 60 1 Southern al na iz o Vineyard ct Proje Moeur Recker Ar Warner C ana l 60 1 Pecos Germann GILBERT Qu C een ree as W k h Hash Knife Draw Vineyard Moeur Indian Route 56 Riggs Signal Butte Ellsworth Hawes Power Recker QUEEN CREEK tH Hash Knife Draw Skyline i gh A Á wa y Quail Run Hu n Combs Bella Vista Attaway Judd Magma Magma Arizona Farms Arizona Farms igh y wa iver tH aR n Hu Gil Sa c aton GILA RIVER INDIAN COMMUNITY Figure 4-1 Land Ownership Gil a Local, State, and National Park / Monument Pinal County Land Military Signal Peak Central Arizona Project Canal Highway Martin Bartlett 1 2 3 4 Data Source: Arizona Land Resource Information System 5 Miles FLORENCE A Á Val Vista 5th Gila River Indian Community Toltec Buttes Railroad ¯ Vah Ki Inn COOLIDGE Kenilworth Other Road Val Vista 0 ñ A Bartlett Coolidge Airport Future Roadway Arizona É A State Trust Land Skousen ú A Valley Farms Bureau of Reclamation Attaway Skousen Bureau of Land Management Cain Corridor Concept er v i R 1 Hawes Broadway Southern Ironwood Meridian ntr æ A APACHE JUNCTION Ce So ssam an Baseline MESA Idaho 60 al izo Recker Ar Warner na Moeur Vineyard Proje c t C ana 60 1 Pecos l Germann GILBERT Hash Knife Draw Quee Vineyard Moeur Indian Route 56 Riggs Signal Butte Ellsworth Hawes Power Recker QUEEN CREEK tH ash Combs Hash Knife Draw Skyline igh A Á wa y Quail Run Hu n nC kW ree Bella Vista Attaway Judd Magma Magma Arizona Farms Arizona Farms igh y wa aR tH Gil Figure 4-2 Major Infrastructure and Utilities n Hu Sa c aton GILA RIVER INDIAN COMMUNITY Gil a iver e R iv r Approved 500kv Route ! Existing 500kv Transmission Line ! FLORENCE Attaway Existing 115kv Transmission Line Cain Skousen Existing 230kv Transmission Line ! Santan Pipeline Corridor Concept Highway Other Road ñ A Vah Ki Inn COOLIDGE Kenilworth Gila River Indian Community ¯ Martin Bartlett 0 1 2 3 4 Data Source: Arizona Land Resource Information System, Salt River Project 5 Miles 5th Potential Substation Site Val Vista Skousen Railroad Toltec Buttes Val Vista A Á Bartlett Coolidge Airport Future Roadway Valley Farms Arizona É A Central Arizona Project Canal Signal Peak ú A Hawes Idaho ntr æ A MESA APACHE JUNCTION Ce Ironwood Meridian an Baseline Sossam 60 1 Southern al na izo 60 1 e ct Ca Vineyard Proj Moeur Recker Ar Warner Pecos nal Germann GILBERT C en e u Q ree as W k h Hash Knife Draw Vineyard Moeur Indian Route 56 Riggs Signal Butte Ellsworth Hawes Power Recker QUEEN CREEK tH Hash Knife Draw Skyline i gh A Á wa y Quail Run Hu n Combs Bella Vista Attaway Judd Magma Magma Arizona Farms Arizona Farms igh y wa Gil a r FLORENCE Corridor Concept Highway Other Road ñ A Vah Ki Inn COOLIDGE Kenilworth Toltec Buttes Railroad Val Vista A Á Valley Farms Signal Peak Arizona É A Future Roadway Central Arizona Project Canal Val Vista Existing / Future Master Planned Community 1 2 3 4 Data Source: Arizona Land Resource Information System 5 Miles Bartlett Coolidge Airport Bartlett 0 5th Martin Skousen Gila River Indian Community ¯ e R iv Attaway Cain Skousen i ve r Figure 4-3 Existing and Future Master Planned Communities ú A tH aR n Hu Gil Sa c aton GILA RIVER INDIAN COMMUNITY 4.2 Existing (2004) Population and Employment Data A travel demand model, referred to as the Pinal County Planning Model was developed to serve as the primary tool used to project existing and projected future traffic volumes within the study area. Base year (2004) socioeconomic projections were developed to support the Pinal Corridor Planning Model (PCPM). A detailed description of the methodology, data sources used, and the final socioeconomic projections are contained in Working Paper No. 1 and in the Socioeconomics Estimate and Forecast Report that was prepared for the Corridor Definition Studies. The following is a brief summary of this data. 4.2.1 Data Sources Population, dwelling unit, and employment estimates were based on data from three existing regional modeling systems: § The 2003 Southeast Maricopa/Northern Pinal County Transportation Study (SEMNPTS) model that extended the Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) model into Pinal County; § The Pinal County model developed for the 2000 Pinal County Transportation Plan; and § The Apache Junction model developed for the 2003 Apache Junction Small Area Transportation Study. In addition, two sources of control data were used: § The 2004 Arizona Department of Economic Security (ADES) estimates of city and county population; and § The 2004 Bond Feasibility Study (BFS) developed by Applied Economics for the Central Arizona College. 4.2.2 Base Year Estimates Figure 4-4 summarizes the total 2004 population estimates from each source listed above. Overall, the four data sources used produce relatively consistent estimates of current population. The SEMNPTS data are somewhat higher, but this is likely a function of the linear extrapolation method used to generate 2004 data. Table 4-1 provides a summary of the BFS population estimates by study area. Each of the studies used somewhat different definitions of study areas, making a direct comparison between the estimates impossible at the study area level. Final population estimates for 2004 are shown in Figure 4-5 and final total employment estimates are shown in Figure 4-5. 091374010 ADOT PCC FR (01-30-07).doc 13 Pinal County Corridors Definition Study Final Report 01/30/07 Population (Thousands) 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 Bond Feasibility Study SEMNPTS Model Pinal County Model Arizona DES Figure 4-4 – Comparison of Pinal County Population Estimates, 2004 Source: Central Arizona College, 2004; Southeastern Maricopa County/Northern Pinal County Transportation Study, 2003; Pinal County, 2000; Apache Junction, 2003; and Cambridge Systematics, Inc., 2005. Table 4-1 – BFS Population Estimates by Study Area BFS Study Area Population 1 Apache Junction 56,695 2 Superior 4,652 3 Maricopa-Stanfield 20,693 4 Casa Grande 52,486 5 Coolidge 14,933 6A San Tan 18,663 6B Florence 21,184 8 Eloy 17,497 Pinal County Total 206,803 Source: Central Arizona College, 2004. 091374010 ADOT PCC FR (01-30-07).doc 14 Pinal County Corridors Definition Study Final Report 01/30/07 Figure 4-5 – PCPM 2004 Population Estimates by Zone Source: Cambridge Systematics, Inc., 2005. Employment Figure 4-6 – PCPM 2004 Total Employment Estimates by Zone Source: Cambridge Systematics, Inc., 2005. 091374010 ADOT PCC FR (01-30-07).doc 15 Pinal County Corridors Definition Study Final Report 01/30/07 4.3 Existing Roadway Conditions The East Valley corridor and the North-South corridor as proposed by SEMNPTS could be constructed through a combination of improving existing roads and constructing new roadways. The functional classification, average annual daily traffic (AADT), and number of lanes for existing regionally significant roadways that could be considered incorporated into a future corridor alignment are shown in Figure 4-7. 091374010 ADOT PCC FR (01-30-07).doc 16 Pinal County Corridors Definition Study Final Report 01/30/07 æ A × A 10 % ( ' & 7000 2 60 1 5219 5219 2 4 A Ê 60 1 æ A 4390 2 289 2 õ A þ A 821 2 502 2 535 2 937 2 A Á 2343 2 26 14 2 502 2 13803 1352 1070 2 2 2 465 2 A É 1024 2 ú A ñ A A É A Á 1009 2 õ A 2326 2 â A ú A 10 % ( ' & A É ñ A A Æ 8 % ( ' & KEY: ( ' & % Figure 4-7 Existing Roadways 10 821 = ADT 1 Thru Lanes Functional Classification Major Collector Minor Collector Collector Local ¯ 0 2 4 6 Data Source: Arizona Land Resource Information System, Salt River Project 8 Existing roadways that could be incorporated into Apache Junction/Coolidge or East Valley Corridors alignments 10 Miles ( ' & % 4.3.1 Growth in Traffic Volumes between 2001 and 2003 The 2003 average annual daily traffic (AADT) for selected existing roadways within the corridor study areas is shown in Figure 4-8. 2001 traffic volumes were also obtained for selected major roadways that serve the region – Riggs Road, Hunt Highway, SR 87, Ellsworth Road, Meridian Road, and Vineyard Road. A comparison of the 2001 traffic volumes to the 2003 traffic volumes demonstrates (see Figure 4-8) that vehicles miles traveled increased significantly between 2001 and 2003, particularly on Hunt Highway, Riggs Road, and Ellsworth Road. 4.3.2 Crash Data Analysis Crash data for 2001 to 2003 data were obtained for Riggs Road, Hunt Highway, SR 87, Ellsworth Road, Meridian Road, and Vineyard Road. An analysis of the data demonstrated (see Figure 4-9) that the number of crashes increased during the analysis period while the total number of fatalities decreased. This trend reflects the continued urbanization of the area where higher traffic volumes are resulting in more lower-speed crashes that are less severe (e.g. fewer fatalities). Figure 4-10 shows a corresponding increase in the crash rate in million vehicles miles traveled (MVMT). Vehicle Miles Traveled Vehicle Miles Traveled 120,000,000 100,000,000 80,000,000 2001 60,000,000 2003 40,000,000 20,000,000 0 Riggs Hunt SR-87 Ellsworth Meridian Vineyard Figure 4-8 – Vehicle Miles Traveled, 2001 and 2003 091374010 ADOT PCC FR (01-30-07).doc 18 Pinal County Corridors Definition Study Final Report 01/30/07 Crash Summary - Selected Roadways of Southeast Maricopa and Northern Pinal Counties Number of Crashes 600 521 500 419 400 312 300 252 213 200 107 288 189 144 2002 100 9 8 2001 2003 5 0 Total Number of Crashes Fatal Crashes Injury Crashes No Injury Crashes Category Figure 4-9 – Crashes, 2001 to 2003 Crash Rate (per MVMT) Crash Rate (per MVMT) 2.50 2.00 1.50 2001 2003 1.00 0.50 0.00 Total Crashes Fatal Crashes Injury Crashes No-Injury Crashes Figure 4-10 – Crash Rate, 2001 and 2003 091374010 ADOT PCC FR (01-30-07).doc 19 Pinal County Corridors Definition Study Final Report 01/30/07 4.3.3 Existing Traffic Congestion The volume-to-capacity ratio (v/c) is a performance statistic commonly used to quantify congestion on a roadway. The volume-to-capacity ratio was calculated for each roadway within the study area using traffic volumes generated by the Pinal County Planning Model (2004 PCPM). The results are displayed in Figure 4-11. Roadway segments with a volume-to-capacity ratio of less than 0.8 are shown as uncongested. Roadway segments with a volume-to-capacity ratio between 0.8 and 1.0 are shown as moderately congested. Roadway segments with a volume-to-capacity ratio exceeding 1.0 are shown as highly congested. While the 2004 PCPM was calibrated against available existing ground counts, the traffic volumes used in the volume-to-capacity calculations are generated by the model, and are not actual ‘ground’counts. The volume-to-capacity calculation is based on a 24-hour average daily volume, and is not a peak-hour volume. As such, drivers may perceive congestion during the peak-hour that is not reflected on the map in Figure 4-11. 091374010 ADOT PCC FR (01-30-07).doc 20 Pinal County Corridors Definition Study Final Report 01/30/07 TEMPE 1 APACHE JUNCTION 60 GUADALUPE × A ( ' & % æ A GILBERT 1 60 CHANDLER æ A Proposed Loop 202 Alignment QUEEN CREEK Á A þ A É A COOLIDGE A â ú A MARICOPA FLORENCE É A ñ A COOLIDGE ( ' & úCASA% A 10 A É ñ A GRANDE Æ A Figure 4-11 Existing (2004) Road Congestion ( ' & % Highly Congested Roads 8 Moderately Congested Roads ( ' & % Uncongested Roads 10 Highways Major Arterials ELOY Collector Railroad ¯ 0 1 2 4 6 8 Miles Data Source: Arizona Land Resource Information System Á A 5. PUBLIC AND JURISDICTIONAL PERSPECTIVES Stakeholder and public perspectives are an important element of the study. The following activities were completed to receive stakeholder and public input. § Meetings were held with representatives from the following jurisdictions within the study area to receive input as to the preferred locations of the corridors, desired facility level, and community perspectives that may affect the corridors: § § § § § § § § § § § § City of Apache Junction Arizona State Land Department City of Casa Grande City of Chandler § § § § Town of Gilbert Pinal County Town of Queen Creek Salt River Project § § § City of Coolidge City of Eloy Central Arizona Association of Governments § § § § Valley Metro Town of Florence Maricopa Association of Governments Maricopa County Department of Transportation The Gila River Indian Community was invited to participate in the jurisdictional meetings but postponed participation pending meetings with ADOT staff on this and other studies that affect the Community. A presentation was made to the Chandler Transportation Commission on February 17, 2005. A first round of open houses was held in the communities of Apache Junction, Coolidge (Central Arizona College), Queen Creek, and Chandler in April 2005. A summary of information presented and public comments received at the first round of open houses is contained in Summary Report No. 1 –Public Involvement and is available at http://tpd.azdot.gov///planning/cds_pinal.php. A consultation meeting was held with Pinal County elected officials on August 15, 2005. A summary of information presented and comments received at consultation meeting is contained in Working Paper No. 1 and is available at http://tpd.azdot.gov///planning/cds_pinal.php. A second round of public open houses was held in the communities of Apache Junction, Florence, Gilbert, and Queen Creek in August 2005. A summary of information presented and public comments received at the open houses is contained in Summary Report No. 2 –Public Involvement, Round Two, and is available at http://tpd.azdot.gov///planning/cds_pinal.php. Three additional public open houses were held in January 2006 in Gilbert, Florence, and Apache Junction. These public open houses were sponsored by ADOT Communications and Community Partnerships. A third round of public open houses was held at Central Arizona College on June 21, 2006. A summary of information presented and public comments received at the open house is contained in Summary Report No. 3 – Public Involvement, Round Three, and is available at http://tpd.azdot.gov///planning/cds_pinal.php. A working meeting with the Florence Town Council was conducted on July 24, 2006 that was attended by representatives from ADOT Transportation Planning Division. This was advertised by the Town of Florence as a public meeting. A public open house was held in Coolidge on August 30, 2006. This public open house was sponsored by ADOT Communications and Community Partnerships. 091374010 ADOT PCC FR (01-30-07).doc 22 Pinal County Corridors Definition Study Final Report 01/30/07 6. FUTURE CONDITIONS The next step in the study was to estimate future population, employment, and travel volumes on study area roadways. Population and employment projections are used to estimate project the traffic conditions on the study corridors in the year 2030. 6.1 2030 Population and Employment Population and employment projections were developed for all three corridor definitions studies. These projections are described in detail in the Socioeconomic Estimates and Forecast Report and are available at http://tpd.azdot.gov///planning/cds_pinal.php. Figure 6-1 provides a comparison of 2030 Pinal County population projections from the Bond Feasibility Study, the Southeast Maricopa Northern Pinal Transportation Study model, the Pinal County model, and the Arizona Department of Economic Security. As demonstrated in Figure 6-2, the annual rate of population growth in the study area is projected to increase over the next several years. However, as the total population increases, the growth rate is expected to moderate over time. For the purposes of the PCPM, the CAC Bond Feasibility projections were used for each of the study areas as control totals. These estimates are the best available estimates of population growth in Pinal County and were developed using sophisticated methods that take into account actual development plans, available developable land in the County, expected demographic changes, and other related information. Final population projections for 2030 are shown in Figure 6-3 and final total employment projections are shown in Figure 6-4. Population (Millions) 1.2 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 Bond Feasibility Study SEMNPTS Model Pinal County Model Arizona DES Figure 6-1 – Comparison of Pinal County Population Projections, 2030 Source: Central Arizona College, 2004; Southeast Maricopa/Northern Pinal County Transportation Study, 2003; Pinal County, 2000; Apache Junction, 2003; and Cambridge Systematics, Inc., 2005. 091374010 ADOT PCC FR (01-30-07).doc 23 Pinal County Corridors Definition Study Final Report 01/30/07 Figure 6-2 – Projected Population Growth in Pinal County Source: Central Arizona College Bond Feasibility Study, 2003. Source: Cambridge Systematics, Inc. Figure 6-3 – PCPM 2030 Population Projections by Zone 091374010 ADOT PCC FR (01-30-07).doc 24 Pinal County Corridors Definition Study Final Report 01/30/07 Source: Cambridge Systematics, Inc., 2005. Figure 6-4 – PCPM 2030 Employment Projections by Zone 6.2 2030 Travel Demand Volumes Population and employment projects were input into the travel demand model that was developed for the ADOT Corridor Definition Studies. The primary output of the travel demand model is traffic volumes for each study area roadway from which the volume-to-capacity ratio of each roadway, a key measure of congestion, within the study area can be calculated. Figure 6-5 depicts 2030 traffic congestion on study area roadways based on the volume-to-capacity ratio. Roads with a volume-tocapacity ratio of less than 0.8 are classified as uncongested roads. Roads with a volume-to-capacity ratio between 0.8 and 1.0 are classified as moderately congested roads. Finally, roads with a volume-tocapacity ratio exceeding 1.0 are classified as highly congested roads. The future 2030 transportation network depicted in Figure 6-5 assumes the following: § A comprehensive 4-lane arterial system will be developed in Pinal County by the year 2030. § Roadway improvements depicted in Maricopa County are consistent with the Maricopa Association of Governments Regional Transportation Plan § The number of lanes on state highways remains constant between 2004 and 2030. Analysis of the 2030 future roadway network shows that a large percentage of roads will likely operate under congested conditions – 690 miles out of 1,111 total center-line miles of roads within the study area will operate at volume-to-capacity ratios exceeding 0.8. The areas of highest congestion are in the northern sections of the study area including Chandler, Gilbert, Queen Creek, San Tan, and Apache Junction. As seen in Figure 6-5, roadways within these jurisdictions are expected to operate at near-capacity or over-capacity conditions. Roadways within the Coolidge and Florence areas are projected to operate reasonably well, though roadways carrying traffic to and from these areas, in a north/south direction, including Hunt Highway, SR 87, and SR 79, are projected to be congested in 2030. 091374010 ADOT PCC FR (01-30-07).doc 25 Pinal County Corridors Definition Study Final Report 01/30/07 Figure 6- 5 –Road Congestion and Traffic Volumes on 2030 Transportation Network 091374010 ADOT PCC FR (01-30-07).doc 26 Pinal County Corridors Definition Study Final Report 01/30/07 7. TRANSPORTATION NEEDS AND DEFICIENCIES A review of existing and future conditions reveals several transportation deficiencies within the Pinal County Corridors Study area. Identification of deficiencies provided a baseline for use in evaluating alternative planning level corridor definitions during the alternatives and feasibility analysis phases of the Corridor Definition Study. § Transportation Network Safety - Crash statistics show that an increase crash rate has accompanied an increase in the number of vehicle miles traveled, characteristic of an urbanizing area. § Transportation Network Performance - A limited arterial system currently provides connectivity between Pinal County and Maricopa County. As development continues, it is projected that the performance of roads such as Ironwood, Vineyard, and Hunt Highway, even if they are improved to major 6-lane arterials, will continue to degrade. As previously illustrated in Figure 6-5, a large percentage of roads may experience congestion in the year 2030 - even with an enhanced arterial network. § Local Transportation Planning - Population increases and the associated increase in traffic have begun to exceed the capacity of the local and regional transportation system and in some cases are projected to exceed the capacity of planned system enhancements. Several local jurisdictions recognize that current general plans and transportation studies do not adequately account for the amount of development that has occurred and will continue to occur with the study area over the next several years. Agencies agree that the current and planned transportation network may not be able to accommodate the anticipated population. In an effort to respond to the rapid pace of development, several jurisdictions including Casa Grande, City of Maricopa, Florence, Coolidge, and Pinal County have conducted or are currently conducting Small Area Transportation Studies (SATS). The primary objective of a SATS is to develop a transportation plan to guide programming on local roads (i.e., city and county roads) over a 20-year time frame. However, a significant level of uncertainty exists within these jurisdictions’SATS until new corridors, even after adoption by the State Transportation Board, are programmed for funding. Regardless of whether funds are programmed for the construction of new corridors, local agencies must develop an arterial system within the study area to accommodate growth. This must happen whether or not new corridors are constructed. Furthermore, a local transportation network must accommodate traffic to and from the corridors. § Development Pressure within Study Area - The rapid pace of development within the study area will continue to limit opportunities for transportation corridors. Corridor opportunities (e.g., large linear tracts of vacant land where a new transportation corridor could be constructed without negatively impacting existing homes and neighborhoods) are quickly disappearing as new homes and subdivisions are constructed. The corridors recommended by this study may eventually be infeasible to construct because of the high costs of right-of-way and the potential negative impact of the corridors on adjacent neighborhoods. Immediate action is required to preserve right-of-way for the recommended corridors. 091374010 ADOT PCC FR (01-30-07).doc 27 Pinal County Corridors Definition Study Final Report 01/30/07 8. ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT AND FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS The next phase of the Pinal County Corridors Definitions Study was to document transportation needs within the study area, develop alternative corridor definitions that meet transportation needs, and subject each alternative to a feasibility analysis. The needs and feasibility analysis is documented in Working Paper No. 2, available at http://tpd.azdot.gov///planning/cds_pinal.php and is summarized in the following sections. Specifically, this chapter contains a summary of the following: § § § § § Findings and conclusions of the needs analysis; Development of corridor definition alternatives; Feasibility analysis of corridor definition alternatives; Recommended corridor definition alternative; Summary of the next steps that are required for corridor development. 8.1 Needs and Feasibility Evaluation Process As previously stated, a primary purpose of the Pinal County Corridors Definition Study was to evaluate the need for and the feasibility of constructing state highway corridors in Pinal County to supplement the future transportation system to be developed in northeast Pinal County. 8.1.1 Needs Evaluation Criteria The corridor needs evaluation process includes four primary criteria: § First, it must be demonstrated that the future (2030) transportation network (without the proposed corridors) will not be able to accommodate the projected vehicle demand in 2030. § Second, the state highway corridor(s) must attract enough volume in 2030 to warrant a new roadway. Corridors that do not attract enough volume to warrant a new roadway will not be recommended. § Third, the corridors must provide some degree of relief to other transportation facilities within the study area. Corridor segments that do not attract a sufficient amount of traffic will not be recommended. § Fourth, the corridors must establish connectivity with the existing state highway system. Policies of the State of Arizona Transportation Board assert that the State Highway System should include routes that are primarily designed to carry through traffic and that connect regions and population centers to improve mobility and commerce throughout the state. Corridors that primarily serve local traffic are the responsibility of local jurisdictions. The results of the needs analysis are documented in Section 9 of this report. 8.1.2 Feasibility Evaluation Overview The next step following corridors needs analysis is to determine the feasibility of constructing the corridors. The purpose of the feasibility analysis is to identify potential opportunities and constraints for the location of the corridor and to identify any engineering, environmental, socioeconomic, and land use compatibility issues that would make it impractical to construct the corridor. The results of the feasibility analysis are presented in Section 9 of this report. 091374010 ADOT PCC FR (01-30-07).doc 28 Pinal County Corridors Definition Study Final Report 01/30/07 8.2 Pinal County Planning Model The needs analysis is based upon the projected number of vehicles that will use the roadway system within the study area in the year 2030. This vehicle demand is estimated by creating various scenarios in the PCPM travel demand model that was developed for the definition studies. Several PCPM analysis scenarios were developed. These ranged from the base condition ‘no-build’(no new corridors are constructed), to ‘construct all new corridors’. These scenarios were incrementally analyzed to create a final scenario –the Corridor Concept. The Corridor Concept scenario includes the portions of the study corridors that meet the needs evaluation criteria listed in section 8.1.1. Table 8-1 describes each step of the scenario modeling process that was followed to develop the Corridor Concept. The emergent Corridor Concept was then carried forward to the feasibility analysis that is described in Section 9.0. Table 8-1 – Needs Analysis Scenarios Scenario Step 1 –2030 Base Future Network Step 2 –2030 Enhanced Future Network (See Figure 8-2) Step 3 –2030 Four-Corridors Network 091374010 ADOT PCC FR (01-30-07).doc Description • No new freeway corridors; • All planned or programmed investments in Maricopa County consistent with 2030 Maricopa Association of Governments Regional Transportation Plan (MAG RTP); • Planned and programmed investments in Pinal County; as consistent with Pinal County Transportation Improvement Program, Pinal County Small Area Transportation Study, Apache Junction Small Area Transportation Study, plus a basic arterial infrastructure that will be required to support future development that will be constructed in conjunction with large developments and master planned communities. • Development of an arterial system through State Trust Lands; • Widening of existing arterials to 4 lanes throughout Pinal County; • No change to the existing state highway system, except for I-10, which is expected to be widened to 6 lanes. • No new freeway corridors; • Improvements as described in the 2030 Base Future Network, with the following modifications: - Widening the future arterial network in Pinal County from 4 to 6 lanes north of SR 287; - Widening the non-interstate state highway network from 2 to 4 lanes. • All planned or programmed investments in Maricopa County consistent with 2030 MAG RTP; • Improvements as described in the 2030 Base Future Network; • The four corridors proposed by the 2003 Southeast MaricopaNorthern Pinal Transportation Study; - North-South Corridor - East Valley Corridor - US 60 Re-route (Refer to US 60 Corridor Study); - Williams Gateway Corridor, extending from Pinal County line to US 60 (Refer to MAG Williams Gateway Corridor Study); 29 Pinal County Corridors Definition Study Final Report 01/30/07 Table 8-1 – Needs Analysis Scenarios (continued) Scenario Step 4 –2030 Corridor Concept Network Step 5 –2030 Corridor Concept Network (Plus State Highway Improvements) Description • Improvements as described in 2030 Base Future Network; • New corridors with facility level and number of lanes determined based upon a joint study team review of traffic volumes on the 2030 All Corridors Network, and from analysis of a number of “what-if” scenarios. The Corridor Concept includes: - North-South corridor extending from Williams Gateway corridor alignment (approx. Frye Road) to SR 287 in Florence. - US 60 Re-route (Refer to US 60 Corridor Study); - Williams Gateway corridor, extending from Pinal County line NorthSouth corridor (Refer to MAG Williams Gateway Corridor Study); • All improvements as described in Corridor Concept Network. • Improvement of existing non-interstate state highway facilities (e.g., SR 79, SR 287) to 4-lanes. 8.3 Needs Analysis Findings Figure 8-1, Figure 8-2, and Figure 8-3 illustrate the number of lanes modeled in the 2030 Base Future Network, 2030 Enhanced Network and the 2030 Four-Corridors Network scenarios, respectively. The resulting 2030 traffic volumes and level of congestion for the Base Network and for the All Network scenarios are shown in Figure 8-4 and Figure 8-5. Level of congestion is determined by calculating a traffic volume-to-roadway capacity ratio for each roadway segment. Roads with a traffic volume-toroadway capacity ratio of less than 0.8 are considered uncongested. Roads with a traffic volume-toroadway capacity ratio between 0.8 and 1.0 are considered moderately congested, and roads with a volume-to-capacity ratio greater than 1.0 are considered congested. To facilitate the needs analysis process, the study corridors were divided into segments consistent with the location of other infrastructure, proposed roads, and the level of traffic volume. The corridors segments are illustrated in Figure 8-6. Each segment was subsequently re-assigned the number of lanes commensurate with modeled traffic volumes. The PCPM was re-run yielding updated traffic volumes for each of the revised corridor segments, and for a number of additional ‘what-if’scenarios as described in Working Paper No.2. Through this iterative process, a Corridor Concept was developed. The Corridor Concept is explained in detail in Section 8.4. 091374010 ADOT PCC FR (01-30-07).doc 30 Pinal County Corridors Definition Study Final Report 01/30/07 Hawes Broadway Recker Ironwood Meridian So ssam an Baseline MESA Idaho Southern æ A APACHE JUNCTION Moeur Vineyard Warner 60 1 Pecos Germann GILBERT Hash Knife Draw Vineyard Moeur Indian Route 56 Riggs Signal Butte Ellsworth Hawes Power Recker QUEEN CREEK tH Hash Knife Draw Skyline igh A Á wa y Quail Run Hu n Combs Bella Vista Attaway Judd Magma Magma Arizona Farms Arizona Farms n Hu Signal Peak 6 Attaway Kenilworth 3 4 Data Source: Arizona Land Resource Information System 5 Miles 5th ¯ Martin Bartlett 2 A Á Val Vista Skousen Gila River Indian Community Toltec Buttes Railroad 1 Vah Ki Inn COOLIDGE Future Roadway Val Vista 0 ñ A Bartlett Coolidge Airport 4 Valley Farms É A 2 FLORENCE Cain Skousen Lanes Arizona ú A y wa Figure 8-1 2030 Base Future Network igh Sa c aton tH GILA RIVER INDIAN COMMUNITY Hawes Broadway æ A APACHE JUNCTION Vineyard Warner Moeur Recker Ironwood Meridian So ssam an Baseline MESA Idaho Southern 60 1 Pecos Germann GILBERT Hash Knife Draw Vineyard Moeur Indian Route 56 Riggs Signal Butte Ellsworth Hawes Power Recker QUEEN CREEK tH Hash Knife Draw Skyline igh A Á wa y Quail Run Hu n Combs Bella Vista Attaway Judd Magma Magma Arizona Farms Arizona Farms n Hu Kenilworth Future Roadway Toltec Buttes Railroad Martin ¯ Bartlett 1 2 3 4 Data Source: Arizona Land Resource Information System 5 Miles Skousen Gila River Indian Community 0 A Á Val Vista 5th Val Vista Vah Ki Inn COOLIDGE Bartlett Coolidge Airport 6 ñ A Valley Farms 4 Attaway Arizona É A 2 FLORENCE Cain Skousen Lanes Signal Peak ú A y wa Figure 8-2 2030 Enhanced Future Network igh Sa c aton tH GILA RIVER INDIAN COMMUNITY MESA TEMPE APACHE JUNCTION æ A Price × A 60 1 Pecos GILBERT QUEEN CREEK CHANDLER A Á þ A É A GILA RIVER INDIAN COMMUNITY 10 â A FLORENCE ú A ñ A É A COOLIDGE CASA GRANDE ú A ( ' & % É A ñ A Figure 8-3 2030 Four-Corridors Network Lanes Cornman Hanna 2 4 Shedd 6 SEMNPTS Corridor Chuichu Midwa y Selma 8 % ( ' & 10 % ( ' & Future Roadway Railroad Gila River Indian Community ¯ 0 1 2 3 4 5 Miles Data Source: Arizona Land Resource Information System ELOY A Á 11 20 31 30 13 21 9 Idaho 54 Ironwood 44 59 68 72 36 Vineyard 21 8 22 54 49 Moeur 46 30 31 27 17 46 25 Vineyard 47 Combs Skyline 70 A Á 60 Quail Run 51 54 39 33 32 wa y 20 75 43 Hash Knife Draw Bella Vista 62 38 31 Judd 23 Moeur 54 43 33 25 Signal Butte 33 52 48 47 45 45 27 Ellsworth 46 14 16 Hawes 10 18 17 27 30 34 33 55 52 40 Power Recker 4 35 18 igh 60 1 50 tH 30 34 50 35 5 2 4 52 2 27 41 31 40 38 21 32 35 38 34 33 37 38 50 61 Hu n 22 8 25 33 30 2 39 39 20 46 60 43 27 26 32 35 Riggs 41 Hash Knife Draw 25 22 21 19 51 58 49 QUEEN CREEK 54 39 54 61 59 Indian Route 56 51 38 35 33 28 32 24 44 29 38 29 41 29 Germann 44 76 34 48 27 38 GILBERT 65 57 Pecos 68 66 48 52 24 57 39 42 29 APACHE JUNCTION 53 52 50 45 56 55 37 38 45 45 35 38 33 58 29 29 Note: volumes depicted for MAG Williams Gateway Freeway are one way link volumes 39 29 23 73 Warner Meridian 35 13 38 æ8 A 52 36 Recker 31 42 46 54 So ssam an Baseline MESA Southern 31 65 66 79 24 42 37 29 Hawes Broadway 40 Attaway 34 11 igh 14 13 1 2 3 4 Data Source: Arizona Land Resource Information System Bartlett 5 Miles 13 18 16 19 18 22 25 14 4 Valley Farms 16 13 Arizona 17 Attaway Martin 8 3 8 3 7 A Á 3 5 1 15 3 17 4 11 16 Bartlett Coolidge Airport 0 20 Vah Ki Inn Kenilworth 13 11 12 5th 28 23 A 16 ñ 16 4 17 69 ¯ 25 16 COOLIDGE 15 Skousen Gila River Indian Community 19 15 14 5 Railroad Val Vista 5 29 Toltec Buttes Future Roadway 15 7 11 Congested Road 16 13 FLORENCE 13 Signal Peak Moderately Congested Road A 15 É 2 7 17 Uncongested Road Val Vista Cain Skousen Forecasted Volume in Thousands 16 A5 ú 9 22 10 25 14 Figure 8-4 29 2030 Base Future Network 7 Traffic Volumes 00 22 13 14 11 14 15 27 17 9 8 28 32 20 26 22 y wa 16 26 17 tH 24 n Hu Sa c aton 25 25 22 GILA RIVER INDIAN COMMUNITY Arizona Farms 37 29 15 19 15 9 19 29 Arizona Farms Magma 52 Magma Hawe s Sou the rn 31 36 40 83 ¯ Data Source: Arizona Land Resource Information System 17 8 18 2 14 6 Coolidg e Airport 3 Vail Sun shine Valley Fa rms 4 1 5th 14 la Palma 5 4 13 6 3 Atta way Arizona 16 Rand olph 2 0 7 3 5 4 Kleck Twee dy 12 6 13 3 6 Curry 5 7 8 12 14 11 4 15 Cain Skousen 1 2 9 15 11 13 14 3 Bartlett 2 Store y 5 2 4 9 3 Toltec 10 Hann a 8 4 4 6 4 9 Sun shine 6 4 Hauser ELOY 7 34 9 6 1 38 10 33 8 9 la Palma 3 12 She dd 5 10 4 7 6 8 Phillips 0 1 2 3 4 5 Miles 2 Earley Tumblew eed Gila River Indian Community Overfield Railroad 12 15 Estrella Pea rt Lamb Battaglia 12 Corn ma n 25 11 Future Roadway Ma rtin 6 Signa l Peak 18 29 21 37 Hauser SEMNPTS Corridors 4 Signa l Peak Congested Road Sun la nd Gin She dd Overfield 20 Bartlett 7 24 68 Pea rt Lamb 56 Arica Cox Chu ichu Moderately Congested Road Hann a Toltec Buttes 49 Trekell Hann a Uncongested Road Corn ma n 8 74 Forecasted Volume in Thousands49 Selma 68 Th ornton Corn ma n 23 17 83 62 57 Burris Bianco Burris 55 COOLIDGE Skousen 14 44 68 Midw ay Selma 6 10 1 10 8 Vah Ki Inn Ken ilw orth 23 22 Earley 14 15 16 And erson Russell And erson Russell And erson Figure 8-5 2030 Four-Corridors Network Traffic Volumes 88 48 37 14 11 FLORENCE 16 Kleck Kortsen 90 70 85 Peters 13 Val Vista 22 1 14 Kortsen 00 32 Rand olph 80 46 67 17 26 24 22 1 n 83 29 45 ow 61 CASA GRANDE 91 Co wt Val Vista Toltec Butte s 111 60 70 21 20 9 7 4 49 Val Vista 25 48 61 11 8 14 28 29 9 26 29 13 3 30 ay 16 hw 10 at o n Hig S ac nt Hu GILA RIVER INDIAN COMMUNITY 33 4 63 19 10 34 ca 41 18 20 52 Arizona Farms 29 33 B la n 17 60 Ca sa Ma gma 7 Atta way 35 Arizona Farms 53 Casa Blanca 32 40 Judd 18 35 42 41 79 21 Bella Vista 15 12 80 36 13 Skyline Ma gma 58 29 ay Nelso n Ind ia n R oute 1 16 29 Vineyard Hash Knife Dra w Quail R un H ig hw 53 70 23 14 21 23 8 Hu nt 20 33 35 33 31 15 10 43 Mo eur Hash Knife Dra w Combs 36 17 Ida ho 43 Iro nwoo d 35 Mo eur 42 14 38 Signa l Butte 13 Riggs 39 13 14 13 32 25 22 11 28 33 19 20 Ellsw orth 17 8 Hawe s 7 Ind ia n R oute 56 26 51 36 50 43 125 47 89 QUEEN CREEK Pow er 34 Recker Higley 23 31 33 44 39 51 144th Lindsay Val Vista 36 29 55 64 Green field Coop er Gilb ert 49 Coop er 27 35 49 58 Alma Schoo l 27 28 56 37 50 57 59 McQuee n 54 Dobson 41 44 34 40 39 Lindsay Dobson Price Price Ocotillo 14 8 33 11 5 45 28 60 45 Hunt Highw ay GILBERT 20 46 121 74 Germann 95 62 28 45 22 72 81 Chan dler Heig hts Pecos 29 45 36 32 CHANDLER 61 83 32 Ocotillo 63 58 58 54 92 37 84 76 5 1 5 41 31 4 39 9 16 20 8 101 45 49 22 5 15 31 58 Queen Creek 40 Germann Willia ms Field 36 81 97 51 Pecos 16 22 78 81 Ray Chan dler 79 76 Wa rner 27 16 APACHE JUNCTION 78 Recker Elliot 9 39 41 67 2 Guadalu pe Me ridian Baseline MESA 62 15 71 47 Sou the rn Vineyard TEMPE NOTE: volumes depicted on MAG Williams Gateway Freeway, I-10 and I-8 are one-way link volumes Hawes × A Idaho æ A APACHE JUNCTION MESA Recker Elliot 4 Warn er Moeur Lin dsay Williams Field 144th Gilb ert Peco s 3 GILBERT Lin dsay Qu een C reek 60 1 Peco s Ge rman n McQu een Ge rman n Greenfield Cooper Chandler Vineyard Ray Dobson Price Base line Sossa ma n Gu adalupe Southern Ironw ood Southern Meridian TEMPE Ocotillo Hash Knife D raw Sign al Butte Hash Knife D raw A Á Skylin e hw a y Qu ail Run Hu nt Hi g 7 Comb s þ A 2 Bella Vista É A Nelson Magma ú A É A Signal Peak Segment 1 FLORENCE Attaway Skou sen Cain â A Refer to Other ADOT Corridor Definition Studies ñ A Vah Ki Inn COOLIDGE Kenilworth Gila River Indian Community ¯ 5th Toltec Toltec Buttes Vail Arica Sunshine Cox 10 % ( ' & Shedd Battaglia ELOY Phillip s 0 1 2 3 4 5 Miles Data Source: Arizona Land Resource Information System Vail Overfield Lamb Hanna Hauser Battaglia Tumble weed Railroad Cornman Estrella Future Roadway Hauser Overfield 6 Sunland Gin 4 1 Arica Shedd Lamb 2 Kleck Earley Cornman Hanna Hanna Trekell Lanes 8 % ( ' & É A ñ A Peart Bianco Cornman Peart Segment 7 Selma Chuichu Midway Selma Randolph Storey Earley Burris Peters Segment 6 Thornton Russell And erson Segment 5 Tweedy Curry Burris Kleck la Pa lma Anderson Kortsen Bartlett la Pa lma Randolph Segment 4 Kortsen Skou sen ( ' & % ú A wn Martin Bartlett Sunshine to Val Vista Signal Peak ow Val Vista CASA GRANDE Segment C3 Toltec Butte s Segment 2 Val Vista A Á Valley Farms Figure 8-6 Study Corridor Segments ton ay hw S a ca ig GILA RIVER INDIAN COMMUNITY a Bla nc a 10 Anderson Arizo na Farms H nt Hu C as Russell Magma Arizo na Farms Casa Blanca Arizo na Indian Route 1 Atta way Judd Phillip s Coolidge Airport 5 6 Riggs Moeur Hawes Indian Route 56 Hunt Highwa y Vineyard Ellsworth Power Recker Val Vista Chandler Heights Cooper Dobson Alma School CHANDLER Price QUEEN CREEK Higle y Ocotillo 8.3.1 Needs Analysis Findings for North-South Corridor Needs analysis findings for each segment of the North-South corridor, and the degree to which 2030 travel on each corridor segment satisfies the required criteria are summarized in Table 8-2. The following conclusions can be drawn from the needs assessment for the North-South corridor: § In the future, major travel movement is forecast between northern Pinal and southeast Maricopa Counties. Residents in Florence, Coolidge, and along the Hunt Highway will require access to employment centers that will be located to the northwest in the Williams Gateway area and in Maricopa County. A need is demonstrated for the North-South corridor as an access controlled multi-lane freeway to accommodate the projected travel demand. § A need is demonstrated for the Williams Gateway corridor to be extended eastward into Pinal County until it intersects with the North-South corridor. The connection with the North-South corridor will establish connectivity between the Coolidge/Florence area and the MAG Freeway System, including in the Loop 202. § No need is demonstrated for the North-South corridor south of SR 287. The future arterial system will be able to accommodate the projected traffic demand. § No need is demonstrated for the North-South corridor north of the Williams Gateway corridor. A local parkway facility can accommodate the projected traffic volumes. § Implementation of the North-South corridor does not eliminate congestion issues on the arterial networks, but significantly improves their operations. This is particularly true for north-south arterials. 8.3.2 Needs Analysis Findings for East-West Corridor Analysis of the PCPM scenarios reveals that while traffic volumes may justify the need for certain segments of an East-West corridor, other considerations do not demonstrate that an East-West corridor would provide a system-wide benefit. Table 8-3 contains a summary of the needs analysis findings for each segment of the East-West corridor, and the degree to which 2030 travel on each corridor segment satisfies the required criteria. From the analysis, the following conclusions can be drawn: § No need is demonstrated for the East-West corridor along segment 5 between I-10 and Val Vista Road. Traffic volumes may be accommodated by an arterial facility. § Traffic volumes between Val Vista Road and the Central Arizona Project Canal (segment 6), may warrant a freeway-level facility. However, improving this segment to a freeway-level facility does not meet other criteria, including: - Establishing regional connectivity between population centers. As segment 5 of the East-West corridor does not attract enough volume to warrant a freeway-level facility, the East-West corridor would not provide continuity with the existing state highway system. - Segment 6 of the East-West corridor replicates the arterial system by primarily serving local traffic. Model results show that even if this corridor segment was developed as a freeway facility, the condition of parallel arterials would not considerably improve. The absence of a mature arterial network in Gilbert, and Queen Creek creates congestion that is not resolved by the East-West corridor § No need is demonstrated for the East-West corridor, as a freeway facility, east of the Town of Queen Creek/Central Arizona Project Canal (segment 7). In the future (beyond 2030), this segment may be considered for development by local jurisdictions as a semi-access controlled parkway or expressway facility. A summary of the needs analysis findings for the North-South corridor and for the East-West corridor is presented in Figure 8-7. 091374010 ADOT PCC FR (01-30-07).doc 37 Pinal County Corridors Definition Study Final Report 01/30/07 8.3.3 High-Capacity Transit Residents in Coolidge, Florence, San Tan, and along the Hunt Highway corridor will desire access to employment centers located to the northwest. However, significant geographic constraints (Gila River Indian Community, mountains, and regional parks), as well as continuing development pressures, limit the opportunity for multiple southeast-northwest corridors to accommodate them. As such, local jurisdictions and regional agencies should consider multi-modal alternatives in conjunction with roadway facilities within the study area, and particularly along the Hunt Highway corridor. The Maricopa Association of Governments is already considering expanding high-capacity transit to the southeast valley. The MAG Regional Transportation Plan (funded by Proposition 400 that was approved by voters in 2004) contains $5 million dollars for the study, planning, and design of highcapacity transit from the Williams Gateway and Queen Creek area and connecting to Gilbert, Mesa, Tempe, and downtown Phoenix. Although the MAG Regional Transportation Plan does not allocate funding for high-capacity transit along this corridor until after the year 2025, local and regional jurisdictions recognize that the rapid pace of development may necessitate high-capacity transit alternatives in this area prior to the year 2025. The availability of existing infrastructure may facilitate the implementation of high-capacity transit within the study area. The Union Pacific railroad line is a single-track facility with segments of doubletracked sidings. Sufficient right-of-way exists for double-tracking this corridor. A double-track facility would not only enhance the freight capacity of a rail corridor between Coolidge, Florence and the Phoenix metropolitan area, but would enable the rail line to be used for high-capacity transit. A highcapacity transit corridor could alleviate some of the congestion that is anticipated to occur within the study area by the year 2030 by providing an alternative mode of transportation to commuters and travelers. Commuter rail service from Florence with intermediate stops at five to ten mile spacing could address the peak trip needs of communities along the corridor and could reduce pressure on the regional road system. 091374010 ADOT PCC FR (01-30-07).doc 38 Pinal County Corridors Definition Study Final Report 01/30/07 Table 8-2 – Needs Analysis Summary: North-South Corridor Needs Analysis Criteria Segment No. Criteria # 1 – Is the 2030 local transportation system overburdened? Criteria # 2 – Are the corridor segments utilized (Do they ‘ load’ )? Criteria # 3 – Do the corridor segments improve arterial operations in the study area without replicating arterials? Criteria # 4 – Do the corridor segments improve or establish regional connectivity? 1 – I-10 to SR 287 þ Local transportation system will be able to accommodate the projected travel demand in the year 2030. Projected traffic volumes on 2030 Base Network range from 6,000 vpd to 25,000 vpd – well within the capacity limits of a 4-lane arterial. ý Traffic volumes do not warrant a freeway-level facility. The projected traffic volumes south of SR 287 range from less than 4,000 vpd to 18,000 vpd. Traffic volumes on the northern end of the segment approach 40,000 vpd at Hunt Highway. ý Not applicable, as corridor segment does not meet criteria # 2. ý Not applicable, as corridor segment does not meet criteria # 2. 2 – SR 287 to East Valley Corridor / Riggs Road þ The 2030 local transportation system, without significant investment, will not be able to accommodate the projected traffic volumes. North-south and northwest-southeast diagonal arterials are particularly overburdened. þ Traffic volumes increase from 30,000 – 40,000 vpd at Hunt Highway to more than 140,000 vpd. þ Significantly off-loads parallel arterials. Portions of Hunt Highway are reduced in excess of 20,000 vpd. Traffic volumes on Attaway Rd, Felix Rd, and Valley Farms Rd, are reduced by up to 15,000 vpd. SR 79 is off-loaded by nearly 5,000 vpd. þ Segment 2 improves connectivity between the Florence/Coolidge, and the Williams Gateway area. Segment 2 connects to the existing state highway system at SR 79 or alternatively at SR 287 3 – East Valley Corridor / Riggs Road to Williams Gateway Corridor þ Volumes on north-south arterials (Ironwood, Meridian, Ellsworth, and Hunt Highway) range from 50,000 to 70,000 vpd –nearing the upper range for 6-lane arterials. Additional north-south capacity is needed. þ This segment would serve nearly 140,000 vpd – a highcapacity, controlled access corridor is required to accommodate these volumes. þ Segment significantly offloads parallel north-south arterials. Volumes on Ironwood and Meridian, as well as future arterials on State Land are reduced by up to 30,000 vpd. þ Segment enables connectivity to be established between Florence/Hunt Highway corridor and the Williams Gateway area. 4 –Williams Gateway Corridor to US 60 þ Traffic volumes on northsouth arterials operate at conditions that approach the capacity of the roadways, though volumes on north-south corridors are somewhat less than those that parallel segment 3. ý Traffic volumes on the corridor significantly decrease north of the Williams Gateway freeway. Traffic volumes south of the Williams Gateway exceed 120,000 vpd; volumes north of the Williams Gateway range from 30,000 – 70,000 vpd. þ Corridor decreases volumes on parallel north-south arterials if corridor extends to US 60 as a freeway. However, if Idaho Rd is extended south to the Williams Gateway freeway as an arterial, in lieu of the North-South corridor, traffic volumes are redistributed to other northsouth arterials. ý Not applicable, as corridor segment does not meet criteria # 2. 091374010 ADOT PCC FR (01-30-07).doc 39 Pinal County Corridors Definition Study Final Report 01/30/07 Table 8-3 – Needs Analysis Summary: East Valley Corridor Needs Analysis Criteria Segment No. Criteria # 1 – Is the 2030 local transportation system overburdened? Criteria # 2 – Are the corridors segments utilized (Do they ‘ load’ )? Criteria # 3 – Do the corridors segments improve arterial operations in the study area without replicating arterials? 5 – I-10 to Val Vista Road þ Local transportation system operates at near-capacity or over-capacity conditions. Roads that provide access to I-10 (Riggs Road between Price Rd and I-10 Rd is particularly overburdened. Volumes on northsouth arterials are generally higher than those on east-west arterials. þ East Valley corridor along Hunt Highway, when modeled as a freeway facility, loads to approximately 60,000 to 80,000 vpd. ý East Valley corridor replicates the arterial system. Traffic volumes on Riggs Road are shifted to Hunt Highway / East Valley corridor. East Valley corridor provides no significant benefit to east-west arterials north of Riggs Road. ý Not applicable, as corridor segment does not meet criteria # 2. 6 – Val Vista Road to North-South corridor þ Local transportation system is significantly distressed. Discontinuity of the arterial grid system because of diagonals (Rittenhouse Rd., railroad, canals), and geographic constraints (mountains) reduce the efficiency of the local arterial system. þ Segment is characterized by discontinuous, localized loading between Val Vista and Vineyard Road. As corridor approaches Apache Junction interchange, volumes significantly decrease. These patterns indicate that the corridor is primarily serving local traffic, and not through trips. þ Traffic volumes on east-west arterials are reduced by up to 10,000 vpd through Queen Creek area. East Valley corridor does not provide noticeable relief to north-south arterials. ý Corridor, if implemented in its entirety, may improve connectivity between Queen Creek and I-10. However, as segment 5 does not meet criteria, implementation of segment 6 would not establish regional connectivity. 7 – North-South Corridor – US 60 at Florence Junction ý The local transportation system appears to be able to accommodate traffic within the area that desires access from US 60 at Florence Junction to Queen Creek. ý East Valley corridor does not attract volumes that warrant a freeway-level facility – projected volumes range from 30,000 to 50,000 vpd. þ Traffic volumes are shifted from adjacent arterials to East Valley corridor. Adjacent arterials operate well below capacity. þ Corridor would improve connectivity between US 60 at Florence Junction and Queen Creek. 091374010 ADOT PCC FR (01-30-07).doc 40 Criteria # 4 – Do the corridor segments improve or establish regional connectivity? Pinal County Corridors Definition Study Final Report 01/30/07 8.4 2030 Corridor Concept The proposed Corridor Concept was developed consistent with the findings presented for the study corridors needs analysis and findings (as presented in previous section), and from coordination with study teams for the Williams Gateway corridor and the US 60 corridors. The Corridor Concept includes a North-South corridor from Florence north to the Williams Gateway Corridor which would then extend westward to connect with SR 202L. This combined corridor will significantly improve mobility between the Florence/Coolidge area and southeast Maricopa County. The Corridor Concept is depicted in Figure 8-8 and explained in Table 8-4. Traffic volumes projected for the 2030 Corridor Concept are shown in Figure 8-9. The Corridor Concept includes the following: § Six-lane, fully access controlled, North-South freeway facility beginning in Florence and extending north to an intersection with the Williams Gateway freeway. Interchanges will be located at a preferred spacing of 2 miles, with a minimum spacing of 1 mile. § Six-lane Williams Gateway freeway facility extending from the connection with the North-South freeway westward to the Pinal County/Maricopa County line and connecting with the MAG Williams Gateway Freeway. The MAG Williams Gateway Freeway then continues west and connects to the Loop 202. For a comprehensive description of the Williams Gateway Corridor, please refer to the ADOT Williams Gateway Corridor Definition Study. § Six-lane US 60 Re-route. For a comprehensive description of this corridor, please refer to the US 60 Corridor Definition Study. Each corridor segment that is included in the Corridor Concept meets the conditions set forth in the needs analysis criteria. Most importantly, the corridors significantly enhance connectivity between the Florence/Coolidge area, the Williams Gateway area, and the Loop 202, thereby providing relief to an over-burdened local arterial network. Table 8-4 – Corridor Concept Segment Descriptions Corridor Segment Segment Description Facility Level and Number of Lanes North-South Corridor 1 I-10 to SR 287 Not included in Concept. Corridor may be preserved for corridor implementation beyond the year 2030 by local zoning officials. 2 SR 287 to East Valley Corridor Access controlled, 6 lane freeway facility 3 East Valley Corridor to Williams Gateway Access controlled , 6 lane freeway facility 4 Williams Gateway to US 60 Not included in Corridor Concept. Local jurisdictions may consider developing corridor as a parkway, semi-access controlled facility. East Valley Corridor 5 I-10 to Queen Creek Not included in Corridor Concept 6 Queen Creek to North/South Corridor Not included in Corridor Concept. Local jurisdictions may consider developing Riggs Road/Combs Road as a parkway, semi-access controlled facility. 7 North/South Corridor to Florence Junction Not included in Concept. Corridor may be preserved for corridor implementation beyond the year 2030 by local zoning officials. 091374010 ADOT PCC FR (01-30-07).doc 41 Pinal County Corridors Definition Study Final Report 01/30/07 8.5 Regional Traffic Performance The network scenarios described in Section 8.2 were evaluated using a common set of performance measures that are linked to key planning factors established by the ADOT’s MoveAZ long-range transportation plan. The factors evaluated as part of this process include mobility, accessibility, safety, resource conservation and environmental justice. The results of the evaluation for mobility, accessibility, safety, and resource conservation are documented in the Corridor Definition Study Performance Analysis report. The performance analysis presented is one piece of the overall process, and needs to be evaluated in context with other information generated for these studies including: § The demand for the proposed corridors; § The impact of the proposed corridors on the congestion of the arterial network and the existing state transportation system; § The feasibility of implementing a particular corridor based on engineering, social and environmental, and land use compatibility criteria along with stakeholder, and public input; § The system performance and congestion benefits of a new corridor relative to the cost to develop that corridor. Results of the mobility performance assessment are presented in Table 8-5. The reader is referred to the Performance Analysis Report for information on the other performance factors including accessibility, safety, and resource conservation. The measures used to estimate mobility were vehicle miles of travel (VMT), vehicle hours of travel (VHT), and percent of miles in congested conditions. The mobility performance analysis shows that: § Vehicles miles of travel (VMT) grow slightly over the base future scenario for all scenarios, except enhanced future. This growth represents additional latent demand that is not satisfied by the base future case. A decline in VMT for the enhanced future scenario suggests that trips are more direct in this scenario, but that the additional capacity does not provide improved mobility for the latent demand. § Vehicle hours of travel decline significantly, representing improved travel conditions and the use of shorter travel paths for some trips. § Overall congestion declines in each of the scenarios and mileage that is very congested improves significantly. Roadways that are very congested are reduced by over 50 percent in all scenarios. Table 8-5 – Mobility Performance Measures by Scenario Network Scenario Total VMT VMT Deviation from Base Total VHT VHT Deviation from Base 4,551,023 Percent of Network Congested Percent of Network Very Congested 41% 7.9% Base Future 32,113,122 Enhanced Future 31,619,784 -1.54% 3,261,492 -28.33% 32.2% 3.0% SEMNPTS Corridors 32,973,195 2.68% 2,682,051 -41.07% 26.1% 2.1% Refined All Corridors 32,955,369 2.62% 2,497,108 -45.13% 24.4% 1.7% Corridor Concept 32,438,746 1.01% 3,207,121 -29.53% 29.2% 3.5% Corridor Concept Plus 32,252,439 0.43% 2,994,424 -34.20% 27.9% 2.8% Source: Cambridge Systematics, Corridor Definition Study Performance Analysis, August 2005 091374010 ADOT PCC FR (01-30-07).doc 42 Pinal County Corridors Definition Study Final Report 01/30/07 Hawes × A Idaho æ A APACHE JUNCTION MESA Recker Elliot 4 Warn er Moeur Lin dsay Williams Field 144th Gilb ert Peco s 3 GILBERT Lin dsay Qu een C reek 60 1 Peco s Ge rman n McQu een Ge rman n Greenfield Cooper Chandler Vineyard Ray Dobson Price Base line Sossa ma n Gu adalupe Southern Ironw ood Southern Meridian TEMPE Ocotillo Hash Knife D raw Sign al Butte Hash Knife D raw A Á Skylin e hw a y Qu ail Run Hu nt Hi g 7 Comb s þ A 2 Bella Vista É A Nelson Magma Arizo na Farms Arizo na Farms Anderson ton Figure 8-7 Needs Analysis Overview Toltec Butte s Martin ú A Overfield Vail Lamb Trekell Arica 10 ( ' & % Battaglia Railroad Gila River Indian Community Overfield Future Roadway Sunshine ELOY Phillip s 0 1 2 3 4 5 Miles Data Source: Arizona Land Resource Information System Hauser Battaglia Tumble weed Hauser Shedd Estrella Peart Lamb 4 Sunland Gin Cox Chuichu Hanna Arica Shedd 6 Cornman Toltec Cornman Hanna 2 1 Earley Toltec Buttes Thornton 8 % ( ' & Hanna Lanes ¯ 5th Peart Burris Bianco Cornman Regional Connectivity not Achieved Kleck ñ A Earley Selma Midway Selma É A Storey Tweedy Curry Burris Russell And erson Additional Capacity not Justified Randolph la Pa lma Anderson Kleck Sunshine Signal Peak Randolph Kortsen Kortsen Bartlett la Pa lma Bartlett Capacity Justified, Connectivity Achieved A Á Val Vista Skou sen Val Vista CASA GRANDE wn Peters Vah Ki Inn COOLIDGE Refer to Other ADOT Corridor Definition Studies C Freeway not Justified ñ A Kenilworth Val Vista to Arizo na É A Signal Peak Russell ú A FLORENCE Attaway Skou sen Cain â A ay hw S a ca ig GILA RIVER INDIAN COMMUNITY a Bla nc a 10 ( ' & % H nt Hu C as Valley Farms Casa Blanca ow Magma Vail Indian Route 1 Atta way Judd Phillip s Coolidge Airport 5 6 Riggs Moeur Indian Route 56 Hunt Highwa y Vineyard Ellsworth Hawes Power Recker Val Vista Chandler Heights Cooper Dobson Alma School CHANDLER Price QUEEN CREEK Higle y Ocotillo Hawes Broadway æ A APACHE JUNCTION Vineyard Warner Moeur Recker Ironwood Meridian So ssam an Baseline MESA Idaho Southern 60 1 Pecos Germann GILBERT Hash Knife Draw Vineyard Moeur Indian Route 56 Riggs Signal Butte Ellsworth Hawes Power Recker QUEEN CREEK tH Hash Knife Draw Skyline igh A Á wa y Quail Run Hu n Combs Bella Vista Attaway Judd Magma Magma Arizona Farms Arizona Farms n Hu FLORENCE Attaway Cain Lanes É A 2 Signal Peak 6 Corridor Concept Kenilworth Toltec Buttes Martin ¯ Bartlett 1 2 3 4 Data Source: Arizona Land Resource Information System 5 Miles Skousen Gila River Indian Community 0 A Á Val Vista 5th Railroad Vah Ki Inn COOLIDGE Future Roadway Val Vista ñ A Bartlett Coolidge Airport 4 Arizona ú A Valley Farms Skousen y wa Figure 8-8 2030 Corridor Concept Network igh Sa c aton tH GILA RIVER INDIAN COMMUNITY 12 14 16 21 28 21 7 16 33 Hash Knife Draw Skyline 98 24 41 Quail Run 39 35 A Á 83 30 wa y Bella Vista 23 31 86 Judd 18 36 35 15 26 21 44 35 24 27 18 15 26 27 31 48 49 Vineyard 27 Moeur 50 Signal Butte 24 7 39 36 Vineyard 29 33 6 Ellsworth 36 36 33 43 35 43 29 Ironwood 45 33 35 38 14 48 50 56 37 28 13 Hawes 9 17 Idaho Meridian 29 33 40 28 36 36 35 45 16 Moeur an So ssam 36 53 40 Power Recker 5 47 33 13 igh 24 30 tH 27 Hu n 30 60 1 23 Combs 52 44 19 32 Hash Knife Draw 47 43 57 14 6 27 23 20 Riggs 34 26 43 19 29 30 33 83 7 27 56 41 13 30 14 0 QUEEN CREEK 56 32 35 30 26 28 21 31 33 23 27 28 16 6 9 4 30 2 40 48 46 29 Indian Route 56 Germann 15 150 41 64 65 62 46 84 29 30 9 15 19 22 17 GILBERT 68 60 Pecos 72 13 125 36 15 143 69 24 31 17 16 37 96 Recker 17 15 22 25 20 17 65 49 62 54 70 APACHE JUNCTION 21 3 29 28 Warner 28 Note: Traffic volumes depicted for MAG Williams Gateway Freeway are one way link volumes 58 12 36 0 21 2 2 13 æ A 51 30 6 8 30 13 16 61 71 52 33 Baseline MESA 24 37 29 82 Southern 15 Hawes 37 Broadway 39 11 Magma 10 17 18 tH igh 28 35 28 13 0 0.7 1.4 2.1 2.8 3.5 Miles Data Source: Arizona Land Resource Information System 13 23 10 5 2 Valley Farms 16 20 Attaway 14 16 6 Vah Ki Inn 6 6 A Á 4 2 Martin 4 2 6 1 18 13 12 11 Kenilworth 8 13 12 Bartlett COOLIDGE A 14 ñ Bartlett Coolidge Airport 19 11 10 16 5th 25 Val Vista Skousen 63 ¯ 27 5 10 Gila River Indian Community 20 14 16 5 16 Toltec Buttes 29 4 Future Roadway 14 13 14 FLORENCE 13 Corridor Concept 7 Congested Road Railroad 25 A13 É 15 14 Signal Peak Moderately Congested Road 2 9 Uncongested Road Arizona 22 A4 ú Val Vista Cain Skousen Forecasted Volume7in Thousands 4 28 11 00 32 11 29 29 16 26 10 13 42 13 14 17 Figure 8-9 2030 Corridors Concept 2 Network Traffic Volumes 6 5 21 32 28 11 y wa 29 16 n Hu Sa c aton 10 55 34 19 GILA RIVER INDIAN COMMUNITY 34 12 Arizona Farms 49 42 19 20 17 10 52 33 Arizona Farms 32 Attaway 35 Magma 9. CORRIDORS FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS The next step in the Pinal Corridors Definition Study was to identify opportunities and constraints that may impact the corridor definition for the Corridors Concept introduced in Section 8.4. The feasibility analysis included an assessment of engineering considerations, social and environmental issues, land-use compatibility opportunities and constraints, and public and jurisdictional perspectives that would facilitate or prohibit future development of the Corridor Concept. Corridor definition alternatives with significant engineering, environmental, or land-use compatibility issues were not included in the final corridor definition recommendation presented in chapter 10. The general location for new freeway corridors is depicted by the Corridor Concept in Figure 8-8. The land area generally represented by the Corridor Concept served as the starting point for the feasibility analysis. The feasibility analysis process refined and narrowed the Corridor Concept for the NorthSouth corridor into a more specific corridor definition. The narrowing of the North-South Corridor Concept is accomplished by identifying opportunities and constraints that may significantly impact the future alignment of a new freeway corridor. A detailed summary of the feasibility analysis is presented in Working Paper No. 2. This chapter contains a summary of this information. Specifically, this chapter contains the following sections: § Section 9.1: describes the feasibility analysis criteria. § Section 9.2: describes the development of the North-South corridor definition alternatives that are considered in the feasibility analysis. § Section 9.3: summarizes engineering opportunities and constraints. § Section 9.4: summarizes social and environmental considerations. § Section 9.5: summarizes land-use opportunities and constraints. Information is presented in the above named sections for the North-South corridor only. The feasibility analyses for the Williams Gateway corridor and the US 60 reroute are contained in Working Paper No. 2 that was developed for each of the Corridor Definition Studies. These reports are available at: http://tpd.azdot.gov/planning/corridorstudies.php. 9.1 Evaluation Criteria The feasibility evaluation is comprised of four major components. These are physical and engineering, social and environmental, land use compatibility, and jurisdictional, stakeholder, and public perspectives. § Physical and Engineering: Roadway conditions and structures, right-of-way, topography, geological characteristics, major drainage features, and major utilities within the study area. The outcome of this feasibility analysis will be the determination of challenges, issues, and opportunities associated with corridor development and construction. § Social and Environmental: The environmental analysis reviews the socioeconomic environment, physical and natural environmental character, cultural resources, and section 4(f) resources of the Transportation Act in the study area. Environmental considerations, issues, and sensitive areas are identified. § Land-use Compatibility: Land use compatibility criteria include issues of corridor compatibility with jurisdictional development and local land use plans. § Jurisdictional, Stakeholder, and Public Perspectives: Jurisdictional input was received through input received from the Technical Advisory Committee and from two rounds of meetings held with each jurisdiction in the study area that were held in January and July, 2005. Public perspectives 091374010 ADOT PCC FR (01-30-07).doc 46 Pinal County Corridors Definition Study Final Report 01/30/07 input was received through two rounds of open houses held in April and August 2005, and from several meetings and briefings of local elected officials. 9.2 North-South Corridor Definition Development The development of the corridor definition considered three principal inputs: (1) existing corridor conditions, (2) future corridor conditions, and (3) jurisdictional, stakeholder, and public perspectives. 9.2.1 Jurisdictional, Stakeholder, and Public Perspectives Jurisdictional, stakeholder, and public perspectives are critical to the alternatives development process. In order to garner stakeholder and jurisdictional input into the corridor alternatives development process, the study team presented the needs analysis to representatives from each jurisdiction in the study area. The study team also participated in an ADOT Rural Consultation Meeting with Pinal County elected officials. Comments received from each of these outreach meetings are summarized in Table 9-1. 9.2.2 Alternative Corridor Definitions Existing conditions, future conditions1, and stakeholder and public input2 were reviewed to develop a set of corridor definition alternatives that are consistent with the needs analysis and Corridor Concept described in Section 8.4. Portions of the study area that provide opportunities or present constraints for corridors definition alternatives were identified. Areas with significant adverse impacts or constraints were excluded from consideration. Input received from stakeholders and jurisdiction representatives consistently pointed to a corridor definition that generally follows the CAP alignment from the Williams Gateway corridor (Frye Road alignment) south to the intersection of the CAP with the Arizona Magma Railroad. This definition is consistent with and is supported by information collected during the existing and future conditions analysis. A corridor definition south of the Arizona Magma Railroad is less certain. Two potential alternative definitions are identified: 1. Connect the North-South corridor to SR 79 in the vicinity of Arizona Farms Road, or 2. Connect the North-South corridor to SR 287 near Valley Farms Road. From a travel demand perspective, a connection to SR 287 (alternative #2) may provide more benefit to parallel north-south arterials than would a connection to SR 79 (alternative # 1). Future north-south traffic on Felix Road and Attaway Road, for example, may be higher alternative #2 if the corridor is connected to SR 79 rather than to SR 287. However, as described in the following sections, a connection to SR 287 is more impactful to future master-planned communities than is a connection to SR 79. A summary of opportunities and constraints for the corridor definition alternatives from an engineering, environmental, land-use, and jurisdictional perspectives is presented in the section 9.3, section 9.4, and section 9.5. 1 Pinal County Corridors Definition Study, Working Paper No. 1, Existing and Future Conditions, Needs and Deficiencies, June 1, 2005. Available at http://tpd.azdot.gov/planning/corridorstudies.php 2 Pinal County Corridors Definition Study, Summary Report No. 1, Public Involvement Round One, May 19, 2005. Available at http://tpd.azdot.gov/planning/corridorstudies.php 091374010 ADOT PCC FR (01-30-07).doc 47 Pinal County Corridors Definition Study Final Report 01/30/07 Table 9-1 – Jurisdictional and Stakeholder Input Jurisdiction Key Input • The City supports the needs analysis and the corridor concept, as proposed. • After development patterns begin to emerge and some of the variables relating to State Lands are known, it is likely that another study will need to take another look at whether the Williams Gateway corridor should be extended to Florence Junction. • Apache Junction expressed support for a combined corridor alignment consisting of the CAP, SRP 500 kV line, and the corridor. • Locating the corridor to the east of the CAP will require significantly more drainage infrastructure. ASLD strongly prefers that the corridor be located on the west side of the CAP. • ASLD has been looking at potential locations for interchanges, and that it will try to design the major arterial system at two-mile spacing. One-mile spaced interchanges would be the absolute minimum spacing. Frontage roads are not being considered for the corridor. • ASLD would support combining the 500 kV line, CAP, and the north/south corridor into a single utility corridor. City of Casa Grande • The city desires a corridor connecting to I-10 and I-8, but is not surprised that the needs analysis did not support this. City of Chandler • City of Chandler agrees with the needs analysis and preliminary findings. City of Coolidge • Coolidge, in general, agrees with the needs analysis, though Coolidge City Council would like the North-South corridor extended further into Coolidge. • City staff expressed a preference for the North-South corridor to intersect with SR 287 at the Clemens Road intersection and is preparing a General Plan Amendment that will begin preserving 500 feet of right-of-way for a future transportation corridor along Clemens Road. • Coolidge staff feels that the population projections may still be conservative. • This study should recommend that access on SR 87 and SR 287 be aggressively preserved. City of Eloy • The City of Eloy agrees with the needs analysis though they hope that a connection to I-10 will be considered in the future. Town of Florence • The Town sees significant issues trying to connect the North-South corridor to SR 287. Pulte Anthem, Sun City, and Merrill Ranch are all large master-planned communities that would be affected by the North-South corridor if it were to connect to SR 287. Felix Road will be 6-lanes through Anthem. • The Town doesn’ t see need for another bridge in the immediate future, though they recognize that additional all-weather crossings will be required in the long-term. • Right-of-way on SR 79 through Florence is limited. However, the Town feels that it is more feasible to improve SR 79 to accommodate the corridor than any other alignment. Town of Gilbert • Town of Gilbert largely agrees with the needs analysis findings. However, they believe that other infrastructure, and in particular sanitary sewer, will not be able available to accommodate the projected population by the year 2030. Town of Queen Creek • Queen Creek staff would like this study to identify specific alignments so that they are able to begin to preserve right-of-way. Apache Junction Arizona State Land Department 091374010 ADOT PCC FR (01-30-07).doc 48 Pinal County Corridors Definition Study Final Report 01/30/07 Table 9-1 – Jurisdictional and Stakeholder Input (continued) Jurisdiction Pinal County Valley Metro Pinal County Rural Consultation Meeting with Elected Officials (August 15, 2005) Salt River Project Key Input • Pinal County agrees with the needs analysis. Significant issues will need to be resolved with both a connection to SR 287 or to SR 79. • Pinal County supports combining the corridor with other utilities. However, they believe that the corridor should be located further to the east because of the improvements that area occurring on Ironwood. Clemens Road is the preferred alignment. Valley Farms is too populated. • An additional crossing over the Gila River is important. • Pinal County staff stated that they will preserve the corridor if the study results in corridor definitions that are supported by the Board of Supervisors and associated policies for corridor preservation. • Proposition 400 has $5,000,000 designated for planning/design of high-capacity transit facilities to be initiated after 2025. Local jurisdictions recognize that this funding may need to be advanced because of the explosive growth in the area. • Existing and projected residential development follows alignment of Rittenhouse Road and then Hunt Highway down to Florence. This is also the alignment of a Union Pacific Railroad line. The Union Pacific Line is a single-track facility with segments of double-track. Sufficient right-of-way exists for double tracking the rail corridor which could also for an opportunity for commuter rail and freight operations within the corridor. Commuter rail service from Florence with intermediate stops at five to ten mile spacing could address the peak trip needs of emerging bedroom suburbs and reduce pressure on the regional road system. • Express bus service between bedroom communities in Pinal County and major employment centers in southeast Maricopa County could address work trips and address peak period congestion. Potential lines include San Tan Express, Chandler/Williams Field Road, Power Road, and Queen Creek routes that terminate in the Williams Gateway area. • Several elected officials and staff members voiced concern that the 2030 population projections that were used in the transportation planning model are low and do not properly reflect the rate of growth anticipated for Pinal County. • An elected official stated that it was preferable for the North-South corridor to cross the Gila River and connect to SR 287 rather than connect to SR 79. • An elected official stated that the location of the North-South corridor on the west side of the Central Arizona Project (CAP) was “too far west”and consideration should be given to placing the corridor east of the CAP. • An elected official supported the finding that a corridor was not needed along the Hunt Highway alignment in Maricopa County. • An elected official supported the effort to accommodate regional utilities within a single corridor. • An elected official stated that transfer of portions of US 60 was acceptable to Pinal County if the recommended US 60 corridor was developed and constructed. • The SRP preferred route is a 1000’wide corridor on the west side of the CAP. SRP will ultimately require only a 160’wide corridor. • A 30-acre substation is proposed immediately adjacent to the CAP between Germann Road and Ocotillo Road. • SRP would not object to a corridor directly adjacent to the power line easement. A 160’ROW is sufficient for maintenance, etc. Vertical clearance would need to be considered. 091374010 ADOT PCC FR (01-30-07).doc 49 Pinal County Corridors Definition Study Final Report 01/30/07 9.3 Engineering Opportunities and Constraints Engineering, environmental, and land-use compatibility opportunities and constraints associated with the Corridor Concept and alternative corridor definitions were identified. These include a review of drainage and environmental characteristics, the potential for a combined corridor with the Salt River Project 500 kV line, crossings of the Gila River, and multi-modal/inter-modal opportunities within the study area. 9.3.1 Drainage Major drainage features and characteristics within the study area are depicted in Figure 9-1, Drainage Features. Several issues were considered in selection of the corridor definition. These are: § Areas downstream of the flood retarding structures (Vineyard Road, Rittenhouse, and Powerline FRS) are protected from the 100-year return frequency storm event. The Central Arizona Project Canal adds additional flooding protection. § Lands immediately downstream of the dams and the Central Arizona Project canal also become the new apex for the alluvial fan areas downstream. Sediment movement and volume in this area is minimized by being cut off from the upstream sediment supply. § Drainage plans must consider the effects of alluvial fan formations and flooding in the upstream sections of the project areas. § Bridges or culverts crossing major washes should be designed to protect the roadway from impacts of scouring or erosion. § Any alteration to any Natural Resource Conservation Service structure – including the Vineyard Road, Rittenhouse, Magma, or Powerline Flood Retarding Structures, or any of the associated floodways would require the approval of the NRCS. § Alteration to the Sonoqui Detention Dam would require the approval of the CAP and or US Bureau of Reclamation. 9.3.2 Land Subsidence and Fissures Land subsidence and earth-fissure damage are important considerations during the design of major engineering structures in areas of measured subsidence. Within the Pinal County Corridors study area, land subsidence and fissures are particularly evident near US 60 in the Apache Junction area and along Hunt Highway in southeast Maricopa County as depicted in Figure 9-2, Land Subsidence and Earth Fissures. 9.3.3 The Central Arizona Project Canal The Central Arizona Project canal (CAP) comprises a 336-mile-long system of aqueducts, tunnels, pumping plants, and pipelines that extend from Lake Havasu to the southern boundary of the San Xavier Indian Reservation near Tucson. The CAP is managed and operated by the Central Arizona Water Conservation District (CAWCD). The CAP passes through the heart of the Pinal County Corridors study area, approximately bisecting the study area in two. The average width of the canal is 80 feet across. Some segments of the canal are oversized sections that act as an internal reservoir system and are 160 feet across. Because of the CAP’s geographic span and magnitude, new transportation corridors within the study area will have to consider the CAP throughout the corridor development process including grade-separated crossings, drainage, and environmental protection. Because of the CAP’s centralized location within the study area, and its northwest to southeast orientation, locating the transportation corridor directly west of the CAP has been suggested by multiple 091374010 ADOT PCC FR (01-30-07).doc 50 Pinal County Corridors Definition Study Final Report 01/30/07 stakeholders as a desirable alternative corridor for a transportation corridor. This is discussed in more detail in Section 9.3.5. 9.3.4 SRP 500 kV Line The Arizona Corporation Commission voted on August 16, 2005 to confirm a Certificate of Environmental Compatibility for the Pinal West-to-Southeast Valley/Browning project. The project includes new 500 kilovolt (kV) and 230 kV transmission lines and substations that will serve Pinal and Maricopa Counties. The project is managed by SRP 3. The approved route for the transmission line is depicted in Figure 9-3, Approved Route for SRP 500 kV. The approved route generally provides SRP with a 1000 ft. corridor of which it will ultimately select 160 feet for an easement. In order to minimize the impact of the SRP 500 kV line and a transportation corridor on future master planned communities and developments, it has been suggested by multiple stakeholders to locate the transportation corridor, where feasible, adjacent to the 500 kV transmission line. This is discussed in more detail in Section 9.3.6. 9.3.5 Shared Use Paths and Trails The Pinal County Trails Plan (2005) states that the CAP canal system that could provide a quality trail system for county residents. Discussions with Pinal County staff suggested that a transportation corridor may be compatible with a combined CAP/500kV/Trail corridor, as is discussed in Section 9.3.6. 9.3.6 Shared CAP/SRP 500 kV Line/Trails/North-South Corridor As described above, the CAP, SRP 500 kV transmission line approved route and the North-South corridor all share a common element – transport of goods and commodities (e.g. water, electricity, and vehicles) in a northwest-southeast direction. Because of the potential common ‘footprint’of these large, horizontal engineering structures (CAP and 500 kV line), and the potential for a new large transportation corridor (North-South corridor), stakeholders have suggested that where possible, the SRP line and the North-South corridor could be collocated into a common corridor. Consolidation of infrastructure into a common corridor would minimize adverse impacts to future residents and reduce the mitigation that will be required as development continues. SRP has stated that they would not object to transportation corridor directly adjacent to the 500 kV line. SRP would need to consider a transportation corridor in the design and construction of the transmission line structures. The Arizona State Land Department, which owns much of the land over which the corridor crosses, has stated that they would prefer a common corridor be located on the west side of the CAP thus minimizing the impact to State Land east of the CAP. Furthermore, a corridor located on the west side of the CAP would receive much-needed protection from alluvial fan flooding that is seen to the east of the CAP. 9.3.7 Gila River Crossing The Gila River is a major east-west feature that passes through the study area. The river, particularly during times of inclement weather, can significantly inhibit north-south travel. Stakeholders have expressed a strong desire for an additional crossing of the Gila River. A new crossing of the Gila River would be required in order to connect the North-South corridor to SR 287. A connection to SR 79 would not require a new crossing of the Gila River, though improvements to the existing crossing on SR 79 may be required. 3 Salt River Project, “AZ Power Planning for Arizona’s Future, PW-SEV/BRG transmission project”, August 12, 2005. http://www.azpower.org/pwsevbob/ 091374010 ADOT PCC FR (01-30-07).doc 51 Pinal County Corridors Definition Study Final Report 01/30/07 9.3.8 Right-of-Way Requirements A new 6-lane, access controlled freeway corridor would require approximately 300 feet of right-of-way. Connections to both SR 79 and SR 287 would require that new right-of-way be obtained for the entire length of the corridor. Existing right-of-way within the study area is shown in Figure 9-4, Existing ADOT Right-of-Way. 9.3.9 Summary of Engineering Opportunities and Constraints A summary of engineering opportunities and constraints for the definition alternatives is presented in Table 9-1. Table 9-2 – Summary of Engineering Opportunities and Constraints Engineering Opportunities Corridor Definition Alternative North-South corridor from Williams Gateway Corridor (Frye Rd. alignment) to Arizona Magma Railroad near Judd Rd Alternative 1: North-South corridor from Arizona Magma Railroad near Judd Road to connection with SR 79 Engineering Constraints • North-end connection of corridor definition can accommodate any alignment ultimately identified for Williams Gateway Corridor. • Design must consider effects of alluvial fan formations and flooding in upstream sections of the study area. Bridges or culverts crossing major washes should be designed to protect the roadway from impacts of scouring or erosion. • Corridor location west of CAP is preferable from drainage perspective. Areas downstream of the Flood Retarding Structures are protected from the 100-year return frequency storm event. The Central Arizona Project canal adds additional flooding protection. • Any alteration to any Natural Resource Conservation Service structure – Powerline, Vineyard Road, Rittenhouse, or Magma Flood Retarding Structure, or any of the associated floodways would require the approval of the NRCS. • Alteration to the Sonoqui Detention Dam would require the approval of the CAP and or US Bureau of Reclamation. • Collocating corridor with railroad, CAP, and 500 kV transmission line increases the length of east-west grade-separated interchanges and crossings required. At potential interchange areas the corridor may need to be offset from the CAP, SRP 500 kV line and railroad by up to 1500 feet to provide the necessary vertical clearance above the railroad and under the transmission line. • Transmission lines may need to be constructed higher than would normally be required to provide minimum vertical clearance. • Proposed SRP substation sites are located adjacent to the CAP alignment. However, ultimate location for substations has not been selected, allowing opportunity to coordinate with SRP. • A connection to SR 79 may require significant improvements to SR 79 in Florence including r/w acquisition that may significantly impact existing structures. This connection would also require access and interchange improvements at Corrections facilities and at SR 287 /SR 79 junction. • Connection to SR 79 ‘ misaligns’the North-South corridor with Clemens Road alignment, which may become a major facility beyond the year 2030. • A connection to SR 287 could parallel the approved 500 kV transmission line alignment where feasible. A shared corridor is compatible with both CAP and SRP 500 kV transmission line uses • Fissures and subsidence has been well documented along CAP alignment. Future fissures could be mitigated for both the CAP and transportation corridor. • A connection to SR 79 reduces the total project cost by ADOT as the overall corridor is shorter and a connection to SR 79 does not necessitate a new bridge over the Gila River • A connection to SR 79 via Magma Dam area is an opportunity 091374010 ADOT PCC FR (01-30-07).doc 52 Pinal County Corridors Definition Study Final Report 01/30/07 Table 9-2 – Summary of Engineering Opportunities and Constraints Engineering Opportunities Corridor Definition Alternative Alternative 2: North-South corridor from Arizona Magma Railroad near Judd Road to connection with SR 287 near Valley Farms Road. • A connection to SR 287 could parallel the approved 500 kV transmission line alignment where feasible. • A connection to SR 287 would provide an additional crossing of the Gila River. Valley Farms, Felix, and Attaway Roads are assumed to be multi-lane roadways with bridges over the river. If these are not constructed as river crossings, then the SR 287 connection is desirable to provide a river crossing. • A connection to SR 287 near Valley Farms Road is more closely aligned with the Clemens Road alignment, which is envisioned by City of Coolidge to become a major transportation facility beyond 2030 that would provide access to the Coolidge airport, regional shopping centers, and to SR 87/I-10. Engineering Constraints • A connection to SR 79 may require improvements to SR 79 in Florence including right-of-way acquisition that may significantly impact existing structures. This connection may also require access and interchange improvements at Corrections facilities and at SR 287 /SR 79 junction. 9.4 Social and Environmental Opportunities and Constraints An overview of social and environmental conditions within the proposed Pinal County Corridor Study Area is contained within Working Paper No. 2. The purpose of the overview was to identify potential environmental concerns or “fatal flaws”, obstacles, issues, and sensitive areas for future development of the Corridor Concept. The analysis documents the socioeconomic environment, physical and natural environmental character, cultural resources, and section 4(f) resources of the Transportation Act in the study area. The analysis also addressed surveying, permitting, and agency coordination requirements that would need to be addressed in future studies prepared in accordance with NEPA. The analysis is not intended to meet the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The area included in the social and environmental overview is shown in Figure 9-5, Environmental Feasibility Study Area. The environmental overview included a summary of the existing natural environment within the study area in terms of wildlife, sensitive species, plants, water resources, visual character, air quality, noise, and hazardous material concerns. The inventory of the natural environment of the study area consisted of gathering data and information from various local, state, and federal agencies, including the Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). The characteristics of the natural environment were also identified based on a visual survey of the study area. 091374010 ADOT PCC FR (01-30-07).doc 53 Pinal County Corridors Definition Study Final Report 01/30/07 The environmental overview included an archaeological assessment and cultural resources overview was performed for the environmental feasibility study area 4. The purpose of the overview was to identify any cultural resources sites that would significantly impact the definition of the future corridor. The full text of the Archaeological Assessment and Cultural Resources Overview is available separately from Working Paper No. 2. An over-view of areas that have been identified as containing a high concentration of cultural resources is depicted in Figure 9-6, Cultural Resources. The following issues identified during the environmental overview must be considered during future corridor development: § During the Design Concept Report or Final Design new scoping letters should be submitted to the AGFD and USFWS and a biological evaluation should be completed to determine the potential affects to threatened and endangered species. § It may be necessary to conduct a survey for burrowing owls and Sonoran desert tortoise. § For any proposed roadway project, a survey will be required by a qualified noxious weed authority to determine if any noxious weeds are present within the project boundaries. § A jurisdictional delineation would need to be conducted to determine waters of the United States. A Section 404 Permit would be required if the project impacts waters of the United States. § A noise analysis would be required if the proposed roadway is located near noise receptors. § If new right-of-way is to be acquired for future construction, a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment should be conducted to determine if potential hazmat concerns are Recognized Environmental Conditions. § During the Design Concept Report or Final Design, the demographic composition and Title VI/Environmental Justice should be reevaluated and block groups be included in this reevaluation. § The density and diversity of the cultural resources in the study area is high. Although only a small portion of the entire study area has been systematically surveyed, patterns of site distribution can be observed based on the existing data. The Queen Creek floodplain and the Gila River corridor are the areas of highest site density. The Corridor Concept and the North-South corridor in particular, will have to contend with the high site densities along Queen Creek and the Gila River that cut east to west across the study area. It is estimated that at least 50 percent of any newly recorded archaeological sites will require testing and/or data recovery investigations to mitigate the potential impacts related to the construction of the new transportation corridors. § The CAP right-of-way has already been cleared of cultural resources. A summary of environmental opportunities and constraints is presented in Table 9-3. 4 An Archeological Assessment and Cultural Resources Overview of the Pinal County Transportation Corridors Definition Study Area in Northern Pinal County, Arizona. Soil Systems Technical Report No. 05-32. July, 2005. 091374010 ADOT PCC FR (01-30-07).doc 54 Pinal County Corridors Definition Study Final Report 01/30/07 Table 9-3 – Summary of Environmental/Social Opportunities and Constraints Environmental/Social Opportunities Corridor Definition Alternative North-South corridor from Williams Gateway Corridor (Frye Rd. alignment) to Arizona Magma Railroad near Judd Rd Alternative 1: North-South corridor from Arizona Magma Railroad near Judd Road to connection with SR 79 • The CAP right-of-way has already been cleared of cultural resources. • Construction of the corridor to the west of the CAP would have the least amount of environmental impacts, as the area to the east of the CAP remains largely undisturbed and thus provides more suitable habitat for wildlife and biotic communities. Alternative 2: North-South corridor from Arizona Magma Railroad near Judd Road to connection with SR 287 near Valley Farms Road. 091374010 ADOT PCC FR (01-30-07).doc Environmental/Social Constraints • The density and diversity of the cultural resources in the study area is high. Although only a small portion of the entire study area has been systematically surveyed, patterns of site distribution can be observed based on the existing data. The Queen Creek floodplain and the Gila River corridor are the areas of highest site density. A connection that crosses, or approaches the Gila River will encounter a significant number of cultural resources. • 38 sites with underground storage tanks (UST) records are located within or immediately adjacent to the study area. See Working Paper No. 2 • Sixteen sites with leaking underground storage tanks (LUST) case files are located within or immediately adjacent to the study area. See Working Paper No. 2 • Eighteen hazardous material incidents occurred within or immediately adjacent to the study area, as recorded in the Hazardous Material Incident Logbook. The records are summarized in Working Paper No. 2 • Two landfills are located within the study area. The Apache Junction is located in the northern portion of the study area and the Ironwood Landfill is located in the southern portion. • The burrowing owl and Sonoran desert tortoise are known to occur within the project area. Potential impacts to these species should be evaluated during the environmental clearance process. • A review of the U.S. Department of Agricultural Soil Surveys for Pinal County indicates that prime irrigated farmland exists within the study area. If federal funds are used for any roadway improvements that would require right-of-way acquisition, a farmland impact assessment may need to be performed in accordance with the Farmland Protection Policy Act. • Populations considered in Title VI are relatively high within the study area. Additional considerations should be given to Title VI populations as the corridor is developed. • A Section 404 Permit would be required if the project impacts waters of the United States. 55 Pinal County Corridors Definition Study Final Report 01/30/07 Southern Meridian Ironwood ne FR æ A APACHE JUNCTION rli So ss am an Baseline S MESA Warner ard Vineyard ntr Moeur Ce d FR Ro a Powerline Floodway Vineyard Moeur Skyline igh wa y The dams and the CAP protect the areas downstream from the 100-year frequency storm event h Dams and CAP canal are a major drainage divide in the watershed A Á g Ma Quail Run Ellsworth Hawes Power Signal Butte tH Hash Knife Draw ree m Da on nti Hu n Combs C een as W k te De Hash Knife Draw Qu i qu no So ct Canal QUEEN CREEK Riggs FRS je na Pro GILBERT Indian Route 56 e hous Ritte n rizo Germann 60 1 S al A Pecos Recker The area upstream of the dams and CAP is prone to wide-spread alluvial fan flooding y Vine Recker we Po 60 Idaho 1 Hawes Broadway Bella Vista ma FR Judd Attaway S Magma Magma Arizona Farms Arizona Farms tH igh y wa Gil a ton n Hu R iver Figure 9-1 Drainage Features Flood Retarding Structure Vah Ki Inn COOLIDGE Future Roadway Kenilworth Val Vista Bartlett 0 1 2 3 4 Data Source: Arizona Land Resource Information System 5 Miles 5th Martin Skousen Gila River Indian Community Toltec Buttes Highway Other Road ¯ FLORENCE A Á Bartlett Coolidge Airport Central Arizona Project Canal ñ A Valley Farms É A Corridor Concept Railroad Val Vista r ve Flow Direction Arizona ú A i il a R Attaway Floodway G Cain Skousen Dam Signal Peak Sa c a GILA RIVER INDIAN COMMUNITY 1 Hawes Broadway Southern Ironwood Meridian nt r æ A APACHE JUNCTION Ce So ss am an Baseline MESA Idaho 60 al na izo Vineyard Proje Moeur Recker Ar Warner l ct Cana 60 1 Pecos Germann GILBERT C en e u Q ree h as W k Hash Knife Draw Vineyard tH Combs Hash Knife Draw Skyline igh A Á wa y Quail Run Hu n Moeur Indian Route 56 Riggs Signal Butte Ellsworth Hawes Power Recker QUEEN CREEK Bella Vista Attaway Judd Magma Magma Arizona Farms Arizona Farms tH igh y wa Gil a ton n Hu R iver Figure 9-2 Water Table Declination and Areas of High Concentrations of Fissures -100 to -300 -300 to -500 r ve FLORENCE Earth Fissure Zone Central Arizona Project Canal Future Roadway ñ A Vah Ki Inn COOLIDGE Kenilworth Val Vista Martin Bartlett 0 1 2 3 4 Data Source: Arizona Land Resource Information System 5 Miles Skousen Gila River Indian Community 5th Other Road Toltec Buttes Highway Val Vista A Á Bartlett Coolidge Airport Railroad Valley Farms É A Corridor Concept Arizona ú A ¯ i il a R Attaway 0 to -100 G Cain Skousen Change in Water Level, in Feet Signal Peak Sa c a GILA RIVER INDIAN COMMUNITY Hawes Broadway 1 Southern Ironwood Meridian nt r æ A APACHE JUNCTION Ce So ss am an Baseline MESA Idaho 60 al na izo Vineyard Proje Moeur Recker Ar Warner l ct Cana 60 1 Pecos Germann GILBERT C en e u Q ree h as W k Hash Knife Draw Vineyard tH Combs Hash Knife Draw Skyline igh A Á wa y Quail Run Hu n Moeur Indian Route 56 Riggs Signal Butte Ellsworth Hawes Power Recker QUEEN CREEK Bella Vista Attaway Judd Magma Magma Arizona Farms Arizona Farms tH igh y wa R iver G Approved 500kv Route Highway Kenilworth Martin Bartlett 1 2 3 4 Data Source: Arizona Land Resource Information System 5 Miles 5th Gila River Indian Community ¯ FLORENCE A Á Val Vista Skousen Potential Substation Site Toltec Buttes Other Road 0 Vah Ki Inn COOLIDGE Bartlett Coolidge Airport Future Roadway ñ A Valley Farms Arizona É A Railroad Central Arizona Project Canal Val Vista r ve Corridor Concept Signal Peak ú A i il a R Attaway Skousen Figure 9-3 Approved Route for SRP 500kv Line Cain Gil a ton n Hu Sa c a GILA RIVER INDIAN COMMUNITY Hawes 1 Southern Ironwood Meridian æ A ntr MESA APACHE JUNCTION Ce So ssam an Baseline Idaho 60 i zo Ar Recker al Warner na Moeur Vineyard Proj e c t Cana 60 1 Pecos l Germann GILBERT C en e u Q ree as W k h Hash Knife Draw Vineyard tH Combs Hash Knife Draw Skyline igh A Á wa y Quail Run Hu n Moeur Indian Route 56 Riggs Signal Butte Ellsworth Hawes Power Recker QUEEN CREEK Bella Vista Attaway Judd Magma Magma Arizona Farms Arizona Farms aR 80 y wa 0 igh Gil Feet of Right of Way tH Sa c aton n Hu GILA RIVER INDIAN COMMUNITY Figure 9-4 Existing ADOT Right of Way iver 100 300 Signal Peak Central Arizona Project Canal Future Roadway ñ A Vah Ki Inn COOLIDGE Kenilworth ¯ Martin Bartlett 0 1 2 3 4 Data Source: Arizona Land Resource Information System 5 Miles 5th Gila River Indian Community Val Vista Skousen Other Road Toltec Buttes Highway Val Vista A Á Bartlett Coolidge Airport Railroad Valley Farms É A Corridor Concept Arizona ú A FLORENCE Attaway 200 Gil a Cain Skousen 180 er v i R Hawes 1 Southern Ironwood Meridian æ A ntr MESA APACHE JUNCTION Ce So ssam an Baseline Idaho 60 i zo Ar na Vineyard Proj e Moeur Recker al Warner c t Cana 60 1 Pecos l Germann GILBERT C en e u Q ree as W k h Hash Knife Draw Vineyard tH Combs Hash Knife Draw Skyline igh A Á wa y Quail Run Hu n Moeur Indian Route 56 Riggs Signal Butte Ellsworth Hawes Power Recker QUEEN CREEK Bella Vista Attaway Judd Magma Magma Arizona Farms Arizona Farms igh y wa FLORENCE Attaway ñ A Vah Ki Inn COOLIDGE Highway Kenilworth Toltec Buttes Other Road A Á Valley Farms Signal Peak Arizona É A Railroad Future Roadway Val Vista Environmental Feasibility Study Area 0 1 2 3 4 Data Source: Arizona Land Resource Information System 5 Miles Bartlett Coolidge Airport Bartlett 5th Martin Skousen Gila River Indian Community ¯ er v i R Corridor Concept Central Arizona Project Canal Val Vista Gil a Cain Skousen iver Figure 9-5 Environmental Feasibility Study Area ú A tH aR n Hu Gil Sa c aton GILA RIVER INDIAN COMMUNITY Hawes Idaho n tr æ A MESA APACHE JUNCTION Ce Ironwood Meridian an Baseline Sossam 60 1 Southern al na iz o Vineyard ct Proje Moeur Recker Ar Warner C ana l 60 1 Pecos Germann GILBERT Qu C een ree as W k h Hash Knife Draw Vineyard tH Combs Hash Knife Draw Skyline i gh A Á wa y Quail Run Hu n Moeur Indian Route 56 Riggs Signal Butte Ellsworth Hawes Power Recker QUEEN CREEK Bella Vista Attaway Judd Magma Magma Arizona Farms Arizona Farms igh y wa FLORENCE Attaway Kenilworth Other Road 2 3 4 Data Source: Arizona Land Resource Information System 5 Miles 5th Martin Bartlett 1 A Á Val Vista Skousen Gila River Indian Community Toltec Buttes Railroad 0 Vah Ki Inn COOLIDGE Bartlett Coolidge Airport Highway ñ A Valley Farms Signal Peak Arizona É A Corridor Concept Central Arizona Project Canal ¯ er v i R Documented Cultural Resource Concentration Area Future Roadway Val Vista Gil a Cain Skousen iver Figure 9-6 Cultural Resources ú A tH aR n Hu Gil Sa c aton GILA RIVER INDIAN COMMUNITY 9.5 Land-Use Compatibility Opportunities and Constraints Land use compatibility criteria include issues of corridor compatibility with jurisdictional development and local land use plans. An outcome of this analysis is how the Corridor Concept alternative fits with adopted transportation and land use plans. Both alternative corridor definitions (connection to SR 79 and a connection to SR 287) will impact to some degree future residential developments and master planned communities. A corridor connection to SR 79 affords the most opportunity to minimize wide-scale impact to existing and future master planned communities. In fact, a corridor definition could potentially be identified that would bypass most, it not all, of these communities. A corridor connection to SR 287 provides fewer opportunities to avoid wide-scale impact to future master planned communities and residential development. However, collocation of the North-South corridor with the SRP 500 kV line could consolidate the infrastructure that would require mitigation, and would have less of an impact on future development than would a transportation corridor on a separate alignment. A summary of opportunities and constraints from a land-use and local jurisdiction perspective is presented in Table 9-4. 091374010 ADOT PCC FR (01-30-07).doc 62 Pinal County Corridors Definition Study Final Report 01/30/07 Table 9-4 – Summary of Land-use and Local Jurisdictions Opportunities and Constraints Corridor Definition Alternative North-South corridor from Williams Gateway Corridor (Frye Rd. alignment) to Arizona Magma Railroad near Judd Rd Land Use and Local Jurisdictions Perspectives Opportunities Land Use and Local Jurisdictions Perspectives Constraints • Agency and stakeholders have expressed support for collocation of the corridor with the CAP, to the extent feasible, to create a ‘ transport and utility corridor’ . This corridor would also include the 500 kV line, and the railroad in some segments. This provide the following benefits: • The US Bureau of Reclamation owns significant parcels of land that are located mostly on the east side of the CAP. In addition, large drainage and flood control easement exists on the east side of the CAP, limiting corridor opportunities directly to the east of the CAP. - Bisects the study area and serves future developments both east and west of the CAP. • The United States Military owns two parcels within the study area: - Provides opportunity to integrate land use and freeway concepts on currently undeveloped State Trust Land. ASLD is interested in identifying potential locations of interchanges to integrate into their planning concepts. - Minimizes mitigation required as compared to separate power line and transportation corridors. • The majority of the corridor definition alternative is located on State Trust Land. This provides the opportunity for ADOT to identify and purchase right-ofway in advance of development. • Arizona State Land Department is currently conducting an infrastructure planning study for the Superstition Vistas and Lost Dutchman Heights areas. • Location of the North-South corridor on the west side of the CAP is consistent with ASLD land use plans. • This facility is consistent with Pinal County perspectives and plans. Pinal County is interested in combining the corridor with a linear trail system. • Terminus of freeway facility at Williams Gateway corridor is consistent with City of Apache Junction plans to develop a parkway facility through a commercial area that connects to the US 60. 091374010 ADOT PCC FR (01-30-07).doc 63 1) Florence Military Reservation is generally bounded on the north by Arizona Farms Road, on the south by the Union Pacific/Copper Basin Railroad. The parcel extends 1mile to the east of SR 79. 2) Rittenhouse Auxiliary Airfield is located adjacent to the west side of the CAP and bounded by the Ocotillo Rd alignment on the north, Pima Rd alignment on the south, Tomahawk Rd alignment on the west, and Goldfield Road alignment on the east. • Because most of the corridor definition is located on State Trust Land, arterials to provide access to and from the corridor will likely not be developed until the ASLD land is sold for development. • Access to the corridor from the east side of the CAP will require crossings to be constructed. • While a corridor alignment can ultimately be identified that would minimally impact existing and proposed residential development, the following master planned communities may be impacted: - Castlegate - Lorado Ranch - Quail Run Estates - Bella Vista - Sonoran Village Pinal County Corridors Definition Study Final Report 01/30/07 Table 9-4 – Summary of Land-use and Local Jurisdictions Opportunities and Constraints (continued) Land Use Opportunities Corridor Definition Alternative Alternative 1: North-South corridor from Arizona Magma Railroad near Judd Road to connection with SR 79 • A connection to SR 79 is more consistent with goals and objectives of the Town of Florence. A definition could be identified that would minimally impact proposed master planned communities. • This alternative provides some opportunity to identify an alignment to minimize impact to existing and proposed master planned communities. • Alternative 2: North-South corridor from Arizona Magma Railroad near Judd Road to connection with SR 287 near Valley Farms Road. Land Use Constraints Magma Dam/Flood Retarding Structure may provide opportunities for corridor alignment. The NCRS recently retained a consultant to evaluate the condition of the structures. If it is determined that the structure requires reconstruction, corridor facility may be considered in the design. • A new hospital is planned south of Hunt Highway, south of Main Street in Florence. Corridor definition would need to circumvent this facility. This alternative may also significantly impact Arizona Department of corrections facilities located on SR 79. • While a corridor alignment can ultimately be identified that would minimally impact existing and proposed residential development, the following master planned communities may be impacted: - Ocotillo Verde - Caballero - Magma Ranches II - Magma Ranches - Sky View Farms - Sun Valley Farms - Arizona Farms - Dobson Farms • Connection to SR 79 disconnects the North-South corridor from ‘ straight-line’ path connectivity to Clemens Road alignment, which is envisioned by City of Coolidge to become a major transportation facility. • Connection to SR 287 near Valley Farms Road positions the corridor for more direct access to a future extension of corridor to Coolidge airport. • However, future definitions could be identified to provide access to the airport if the corridor is connected to SR 79. • Enables collocation of the North-South corridor with the approved route of the 500 kV line. Corridor alignment would likely impact the following existing and proposed master planned communities: - Dobson Farms - Arizona Farms - Anthem - Merrill Ranch - Wild Horse Estates - Mesquite Groves - Oasis at Magic Ranch - Sonoran Village • Collocation of the North-South corridor with the 500 kV line creates a large ‘ footprint’area that may require a very wide right-of-way to accommodate utilities, the CAP, and the railroad. • • • City of Coolidge is preparing a General Plan Amendment that will enable preservation of a corridor for a future transportation facility on Clemens Road. A connection to SR 287 is more consistent with these plans than is a connection to SR 79. In addition, Westcor has purchased a large parcel of property near the Clemens Road alignment. A connection to SR 287 may improve access to and from the mall. An additional crossing the Gila River is important for future mobility and accessibility within the study area. 091374010 ADOT PCC FR (01-30-07).doc 64 Pinal County Corridors Definition Study Final Report 01/30/07 10. CORRIDOR DEFINITION The needs assessment phase of the corridor definition study identified the need for a corridor to connect SR 202L via the Williams Gateway corridor to the Florence/Coolidge area. Chapter 10 presents a preliminary recommended North-South corridor definition considering engineering, environmental, jurisdiction, and public perspectives opportunities and constraints that were presented in Chapter 9. A more detailed description of the recommended corridor definition is presented in Working Paper No. 2, and is available at http://tpd.azdot.gov///planning/cds_pinal.php 10.1 Description of Preliminary North-South Corridor Definition As a final alignment has not been selected for the MAG Williams Gateway corridor, the proposed definition is flexible enough to accommodate whichever alignment is ultimately selected by ADOT and MAG for the Williams Gateway freeway. The proposed North-South corridor definition begins at a future intersection with the Williams Gateway corridor at the CAP. The definition proceeds in a south-southeasterly direction along the CAP until the intersection with the Magma Arizona Railroad. The definition in this area is narrowly focused, approximately ¼ mile wide, and lies directly adjacent to the 1000 feet corridor that has been identified for the SRP 500 kV line. As the definition reaches the Arizona Magma railroad, it broadens and becomes less specific. A future corridor alignment could be identified within this definition that extends to SR 79 or alternatively to SR 287. A connection to SR 79 would have less of an impact on future master planned communities, but may provide less relief and benefit to future north-south arterials within the Florence area. In addition, this definition would not provide an additional, and much needed, crossing of the Gila River. The recent approval of the SRP 500 kV transmission line alignment provides an opportunity to connect the North-South corridor to SR 287, generally following the same alignment as the 500 kV transmission line resulting a consolidated transportation and utility corridor that impacts less land overall than would separate transmission line and transportation corridors. In addition, a connection to SR 287 better positions the corridor for future continuation south of SR 287. A connection to SR 287 is more centrally located within the study area and thus may provide more relief to future arterials. Finally, a connection to SR 287 provides an additional crossing of the Gila River. An outline of the preliminary corridor definition is superimposed upon land ownership, master planned communities, drainage, environmental information in Figures 10-1 through 10-4. 091374010 ADOT PCC FR (01-30-07).doc 65 Pinal County Corridors Definition Study Final Report 01/30/07 Hawes Idaho al Ar Sossam Warner ADOT Williams Gateway Preliminary Corridor Vineyard ct Proje Moeur Existing U.S. 60 Corridor na iz o Recker n tr MAG Williams Gateway Freeway Preferred Alignment U.S. 60 Preliminary Reroute Corridor APACHE JUNCTION Ce æ A MESA Ironwood Meridian Baseline an 60 1 Southern C ana l 60 1 Pecos Germann GILBERT Qu C een ree as W k h Hash Knife Draw Vineyard Pinal County Preliminary Corridor tH Combs Hash Knife Draw Skyline i gh A Á wa y Quail Run Hu n Moeur Indian Route 56 Riggs Signal Butte Ellsworth Hawes Power Recker QUEEN CREEK Bella Vista Attaway Judd Magma Magma Arizona Farms Arizona Farms y wa aR igh Gil tH Figure 10-1 Land Ownership n Hu Sa c aton GILA RIVER INDIAN COMMUNITY iver State Trust Gil a Skousen Military Other MAG Williams Gateway Preferred Alignment Central Arizona Project Canal Other Road Railroad ñ A Vah Ki Inn COOLIDGE Kenilworth ¯ Martin Bartlett 0 1 2 3 4 Data Source: Arizona Land Resource Information System 5 Miles 5th Gila River Indian Community Val Vista Skousen Preliminary Corridor Area Toltec Buttes Existing / Future Master Planned Community Val Vista A Á Bartlett Coolidge Airport Highway Valley Farms Arizona É A Future Roadway Signal Peak ú A FLORENCE Attaway Local, State or National Parks Cain Bureau of Land Management er v i R Hawes Idaho al Ar Warner ADOT Williams Gateway Preliminary Corridor Vineyard ct Proje Moeur Existing U.S. 60 Corridor na iz o Recker n tr MAG Williams Gateway Freeway Preferred Alignment U.S. 60 Preliminary Reroute Corridor APACHE JUNCTION Ce æ A MESA Ironwood Meridian an Baseline Sossam 60 1 Southern C ana l 60 1 Pecos Germann GILBERT Qu Castlegate C een ree as W k h tH Pinal County Preliminary Corridor Combs Quail Run Estates Hash Knife Draw Skyline i gh A Á wa y Quail Run Hu n Moeur Hash Knife Draw Signal Butte Indian Route 56 Riggs Vineyard Lorado Ranch Ellsworth Hawes Power Recker QUEEN CREEK Bella Vista Ocotillo Verde Bella Vista Magma Ranches II Sonoran Village Caballero Judd Attaway Dobson Farms Magma n Hu Magma Sun Valley Farms Dobson Farms tH Arizona Farms igh Arizona Farms Magma Ranches y wa Arizona Farms iver MAG Williams Gateway Preferred Alignment Central Arizona Project Canal Future Roadway Signal Peak Arizona É A Highway Other Road Railroad Vah Ki Inn Toltec Buttes Kenilworth Val Vista 1 2 3 4 Data Source: Pinal County, Town of Florence, Commerce Realty Advisors Ltd., Arizona Land Resource Information System 5 Miles Bartlett Coolidge Airport Bartlett 0 5th Martin Skousen Gila River Indian Community er v i R FLORENCE A Á Existing / Future Master Planned Community w/in Corridor Preliminary Corridor Area ¯ ñ A COOLIDGE Existing / Future Master Planned Community Val Vista Gil a Miller Holdings / Others Valley Farms Skousen Figure 10-2 Existing / Future Master Planned Communities ú A Merrill Ranch / Vanguard Properties Anthem Attaway aR Wild Horse Estates Cain Gil Sa c aton Mesquite Groves Oasis @ Magic Ranch GILA RIVER INDIAN COMMUNITY Sky View Farms Hawes Ironwood Idaho Meridian Vineyard e hous Ritte n Pecos Germann Ce GILBERT Ar et e ti o D Quail Run g Ma ma Vineyard Moeur Signal Butte FR Judd S Attaway Hawes Power Recker Ellsworth Dams and CAP canal Bella Vista are a major drainage divide in the watershed The dams and the CAP protect the areas downstream from the 100-year frequency storm event A Á m a wa y n Skyline igh The area upstream of the dams and CAP is prone to wide-spread alluvial fan flooding iD Hash Knife Draw oq u tH Combs Son Hu n Pinal County Preliminary Corridor l ct C ana Proje Hash Knife Draw na Riggs i zo QUEEN CREEK h as W k ree C en Que FRS al ntr ADOT Williams Gateway Preliminary Corridor Indian Route 56 60 1 S MAG Williams Gateway Freeway Preferred Alignment Existing U.S. 60 Corridor d FR Ro a Moeur Recker e ard n rli y y Vine we Po a dw oo l F S Warner FR æ A U.S. 60 Preliminary Reroute Corridor APACHE JUNCTION ne MESA rli So ssam an Baseline we Po 60 1 Southern Magma Magma Arizona Farms Arizona Farms Figure 10-3 Drainage and Major Utilities Approved 500kv Route R iv ! er Existing 500kv Transmission Line Skousen ! Existing 230kv Transmission Line ! Gil a Existing 115kv Transmission Line Railroad Kenilworth Martin Bartlett 1 2 3 4 Data Source: Arizona Land Resource Information System, Salt River Project 5 Miles 5th Gila River Indian Community ¯ FLORENCE A Á Val Vista Skousen Preliminary Corridor Area Toltec Buttes Potential Substation Site 0 Vah Ki Inn COOLIDGE Bartlett Coolidge Airport Other Road ñ A Valley Farms Arizona É A Santan Pipeline Highway Val Vista r Flow Direction Signal Peak ú A e R iv Attaway Floodway Cain Gi la Flood Retarding Structure y wa Dam igh Central Arizona Project Canal tH GILA RIVER INDIAN COMMUNITY Future Roadway Sa c aton n Hu MAG Williams Gateway Preferred Alignment Hawes Idaho Ironwood æ A ntr MESA U.S. 60 Preliminary Reroute Corridor APACHE JUNCTION Ce So ssam Meridian Baseline an 60 1 Southern Ar Existing U.S. 60 Corridor izo na Vineyard 60 1 c t Cana MAG Williams Gateway Freeway Preferred Alignment P roje Moeur Recker al Warner Pecos h as W k ree C en Que l Germann GILBERT ADOT Williams Gateway Preliminary Corridor Hash Knife Draw Vineyard Pinal County Preliminary Corridor tH Combs Hash Knife Draw Skyline igh A Á wa y Quail Run Hu n Moeur Indian Route 56 Riggs Signal Butte Ellsworth Hawes Power Recker QUEEN CREEK Bella Vista Attaway Judd Magma Magma Arizona Farms Arizona Farms tH igh y wa i ve r Documented Cultural Resource Concentration Areas Other Road Vah Ki Inn COOLIDGE FLORENCE Kenilworth Martin Bartlett 0 1 2 3 Data Source: Arizona Geological Survey, Arizona Land Resource Information System 4 5 Miles 5th Gila River Indian Community Val Vista Skousen Preliminary Corridor Area Toltec Buttes Railroad Val Vista A Á Bartlett Coolidge Airport Highway ñ A Valley Farms Arizona É A Future Roadway Central Arizona Project Canal ¯ r MAG Williams Gateway Preferred Alignment Signal Peak ú A e R iv Attaway Skousen Figure 10-4 Cultural Resources Gil a Cain la R n Hu Gi Sa c aton GILA RIVER INDIAN COMMUNITY 10.2 Estimate of Probable Cost Corridor planning-level cost estimates were developed to provide an approximation that is suitable for use in programming and the next steps of highway development. The developed cost estimates reflect the total highway development costs of planning and engineering studies, design, roadway construction, and right-of-way acquisition. 10.2.1 Planning, Engineering, and Construction Costs Planning and engineering costs are based on per mile unit costs for constructing limited access roadway sections. The per mile construction costs include provisions for typical drainage improvements, structures, environmental mitigation, and other related infrastructure. A recent report, Performance Audit of Arizona Department of Transportation: Review of the Oversight and Management of the Maricopa County Regional Freeway System, June 2005, provides average construction cost averages for freeway construction in the Phoenix Metropolitan area. The report states that capital construction costs for a selected number of segments in the MAG Regional Freeway System varied between $2.38 and $3.78 million per lane mile. For a 6-lane freeway, this is approximately $14 to $22 million per centerline mile. This figure does not include right-of-way, design, and landscaping costs. The audit report states that these costs are comparable with the construction cost standards adopted by the California Department of Transportation (CalTrans), where the actual costs per lane mile should be within the $5 million range. In April of 2004 the Maricopa Association of Governments reported that the total cost per Regional Freeway System centerline mile was $39 million. This figure represents all costs associated with the design, property acquisition, utilities, landscape and construction of the freeway. Input received from ADOT staff indicates that future costs will be higher due to rising construction and right-of-way costs. ADOT staff has suggested that recent projects indicate that costs in the near future will be closer to $42 million per centerline mile due to increased land prices and escalating construction costs. The MAG Williams Gateway Corridor, as estimated by the MAG Williams Gateway Corridor Alignment Study, July 2005, is projected to cost between $243 million to $333 million. This study does not provide a detailed break-down in costs, but this corridor would equate to an estimated unit cost of $54 million per mile for this 4.5 mile corridor. The study states that this estimated cost is within the amount allocated by the MAG Regional Transportation Plan, implying that this estimate includes total development costs including design, drainage facilities, system and service interchanges and right-ofway. Based upon the various information sources cited above, an estimate of probable cost for a 6-lane NorthSouth corridor extending from approximately the Frye Road alignment to either SR 79 or SR 287 is presented in Table 10-1. The estimate of probable cost assumes that the corridor would range from approximately 17 miles to 21 miles in length, depending upon the final alignment that is selected. A corridor that connects to SR 79 could range from 17 to 19 ½ miles in length, while a corridor connecting to SR 287 could be approximately 22 miles in length. The estimate assumes that the corridor would include 1 system interchange and 6 service interchanges at a spacing of approximately 2 miles. 091374010 ADOT PCC FR (01-30-07).doc 70 Pinal County Corridors Definition Study Final Report 01/30/07 Table 10-1 – Estimate of Probable Cost by Source Item Units 6-Lane Freeway Facility Miles Number of Units Estimated Unit Probable Cost 17 Total Estimated Probable Cost $170 million $10 million 22 $220 million System Interchange Each 1 $50 - $150 million $75 - $150 million Service Interchange Each 6 $15 million $90 million Roadway Subtotal $335 - $460 million Construction Contingency 20% of Roadway Construction Cost $67 - $92 million Construction Administration 15% of Roadway Construction Cost $50 - $69 million Construction Total $452 - $621 million Pre-Design Studies 5% of Construction Total Cost $23 - $31 million Design Costs 10% of Construction Total Cost $45 - $62 million Total North-South Corridor Cost (excluding right-of-way) Total North-South Corridor Cost per Mile (excluding right-of-way) $520 - $714 million $30 - 32 million 10.2.2 Right-of-Way Acquisition Costs As land continues to appreciate each year within the study area, right-of-way costs will inevitably increase. As such, right-of-way costs for future corridors are nearly impossible to estimate with any degree of certainty. Furthermore, much of the land being considered for the corridor definition is within the jurisdiction of Arizona State Land Department which typically auctions land to the highest bidder. Information provided by stakeholder committee members indicated that land within the study area is currently selling for approximately $45,000 per acre. Assuming that the corridor definition will require 300 feet of right-of-way, an estimate of probable cost for required right-of-way is presented in Table 102. This estimate does not include right-of-way required for system and service interchanges. As land values continue to increase, right-of-way costs will also increase. Table 10-2 – Potential right-of-way costs (in 2004 land values) Corridor Length Right-ofway Total Acres Unit Cost / Acre Total Right-ofWay Cost 17 miles 300 feet 618 acres $45,000 $27.8 million $187,200 $115.7 million $45,000 $36 million $187,200 $149.8 million 22 miles 300 feet 800 acres Potential right-of-way cost per mile 091374010 ADOT PCC FR (01-30-07).doc 71 $1.6 – $6.8 million Pinal County Corridors Definition Study Final Report 01/30/07 11. CORRIDOR DEVELOPMENT This section discusses the steps and activities that will be required to develop the recommended corridors. 11.1 Steps Required for Pinal Corridors Development While not explicitly spelled out in state statutes or ADOT policy, State Route designation by the State Transportation Board has historically made the route eligible for ADOT planning studies to develop, evaluate, and refine corridor alternatives and to resolve other planning issues to justify State Highway designation. Highway development is carried out by the ADOT Roadway Engineering Group in accordance with the ADOT Policy and Implementation Memorandum 89-5 which contains procedures for scoping studies, feasibility studies, location and design concept studies, and environmental studies. Development of the corridors ultimately adopted by the State Transportation Board will require that the following reports and activities be performed. § § § § § Feasibility Report Location/Design Concept Report and Environmental Clearance Construction Plans, Specifications, and Cost Estimates Right-of-way Acquisition Construction 11.2 Funding Options As illustrated by the estimates of probable cost presented in Table 11-1 and Table 11-2, development costs for the North-South corridor are considerable. This section describes potential state, federal, and local funding and financing options that have potential to be used on this project. Working Paper No. 2 contains a comprehensive description of state, federal, local and other potential funding sources for the corridors. § State funding sources include Highway Users Revenue Fund (HURF) and Local Transportation Assistance Fund; § Federal funding sources include the National Highway System and Surface Transportation Funds (STP Funds); § Local funding sources include bonds and the Pinal County sales tax; § Other funding sources include toll roads, cost sharing with developers, state land dedication. 11.3 Financing Options Multiple financing options exist for corridor development. These include: § § § § § HURF Bonds Highway Expansion and Extension Loan Program (HELP) Grant Anticipation Notes (GANs) Board Funding Obligations (BFOs) Transportation Infrastructure and Innovation Act (TIFIA) 091374010 ADOT PCC FR (01-30-07).doc 72 Pinal County Corridors Definition Study Final Report 01/30/07 12. FINAL CORRIDOR DEFINITION RECOMMENDATIONS 12.1 Combined Recommendation for Corridors Definition, Approved by the State Transportation Board The preliminary North-South corridor definition presented in Chapter 10.1 of this report was presented at a series of public open houses in August 2005 to receive input from the public, stakeholders, and elected officials. Input received from public meetings resulted in a decision by ADOT to conduct a series of follow-up meetings with stakeholder groups in Pinal and Maricopa counties to obtained focused input on the information presented at the October open houses. ADOT staff held meetings with the following stakeholder groups in late 2005 and early 2006. § Maricopa County § City of Mesa § General Motors Proving Grounds § Williams Gateway Airport Authority § Pinal County § Gila River Indian Community § Central Arizona Council of Governments § Arizona State University § East Valley Partnership § Town of Queen Creek § Arizona State Land Department § Town of Gilbert § City of Apache Junction Stakeholder input was combined by ADOT staff with the results of the public open houses to develop a recommendation for the Pinal County Corridor Definition Study that was presented for consideration by the State Transportation Board at their February 2006 meeting. The recommendation depicted in Figure 12-1 was approved by the Board. Figure 12-1 – Combined Recommendation for Corridors Definition, Approved by State Transportation Board 091374010 ADOT PCC FR (01-30-07).doc 73 Pinal County Corridors Definition Study Final Report 01/30/07 The recommendations approved by the State Transportation Board (refer to Figure 12-1) include the North-South Freeway between Apache Junction and the Florence-Coolidge area. The recommended North-South Freeway corridor definition begins at the US 60 and extends south to the Central Arizona Project (CAP) Canal. The definition continues in a south-southeasterly direction adjacent to the CAP alignment and the future Salt River Project 500 kV power line until it intersects with the Magma Arizona Railroad. South of the intersection of the Arizona Magma Railroad, two alternative corridor definitions (orangedash lines in Figure 12-1 were recommended for further analysis that connect the North-South Freeway corridor to SR 79 or alternatively to SR 287. The two corridor definition alternatives are described as follows: § Alternative 1 connects the North-South Freeway corridor from the intersection with Magma Arizona Railroad near Judd Road to SR 79 north of Florence. § Alternative 2 connects the North-South Freeway corridor from the intersection with Arizona Magma Railroad near Judd Road to SR 287 generally along Valley Farms Road and following the approved future alignment for the Salt River Project (SRP) 500 kV utility corridor. South of SR 287, a corridor definition was recommended that connects the North-South Freeway corridor to SR 87 south of Coolidge. 12.2 Evaluation of Corridor Definition Alternatives in the Florence and Coolidge Area To resolve issues associated with the two North-South Freeway corridor definition alternatives identified above, additional planning-level analysis was performed to select a preferred corridor alternative as discussed in Section 12.2. Working Paper No. 3 entitled Evaluation of Corridor Definition Alternatives in the Florence and Coolidge Area documented the planning-level evaluation of the two North-South Freeway corridor definition alternatives described above. The study also considered refinements to the above described corridor alternatives that were identified during stakeholder meetings. Stakeholder and public perspectives were an important element of the study. Table 12-1 summarizes input received from stakeholder meetings and from public open houses held on June 21, 2006 and on August 30, 2006. The purpose of the open houses was to receive input from the public regarding the corridor definition alternatives. A comprehensive summary of public input received during the June 21 open house is contained in Summary Report No. 3. Key input received during the public meetings included: § City of Coolidge elected officials support the recommended corridor definition. § Consider existing communities such as Florence Gardens and Valley Farms when formulating corridor definition. Impacts to and interests of current residents should be prioritized over those of future residents. § The corridor definition should be located on Arizona State Trust Land as much as possible. § Impacts to future master planned communities should be minimized. § The SR 77/SR 79 corridor connects Phoenix and Tucson. Consideration should be given to locating the North-South Freeway corridor east of SR 79 and improving the SR 77/SR 79 corridor. § More communication is needed between ADOT and the elected officials. 091374010 ADOT PCC FR (01-30-07).doc 74 Pinal County Corridors Definition Study Final Report 01/30/07 Table 12-1 – Summary of Jurisdictional and Stakeholder Input Key Input Jurisdiction/Stakeholder Organization Arizona State Land Department City of Coolidge Town of Florence 091374010 ADOT PCC FR (01-30-07).doc • The status of the reconstruction of the Magma Dam should be considered. • The corridor definition should minimize the distances required to cross washes, drainage ways, and the railroad (e.g. they should run perpendicular to washes and the railroad). • The corridor definition should not create unusable parcels of Arizona State Trust Land. • The corridor definition should take advantage of the natural topography. • ASLD recommended two alternative alignments, both of which connect to SR 79. • Coolidge prefers the Valley Farms Road alignment within the Coolidge planning area. • A significant need exists for an additional crossing over the Gila River. • Corridor definition should serve Coolidge Airport and new commercial development planned near Bartlett Road and Attaway Road. • A Planned Area Development (Sontesta) shows 300’of right-of-way designated for a new freeway corridor. • Coolidge will update their General Plan to depict the North-South corridor. Coolidge is beginning to plan around the SRP 500kV line and freeway approved by the State Transportation Board. • Coolidge would not support a toll road. • Corridor definition should connect to SR 79 to avoid impact to future master planned communities in the Florence area. Corridor definition should not go through Anthem at Merrill Ranch. • A corridor connection to SR 79 could help preserve the Army National Guard testing range located north of Florence. However, there is a possibility that the testing range may be closed. • Several homes on SR 79 in the Florence area are on the Historic Register. • A corridor on SR 287 is acceptable. A natural division already exists with the river. • A corridor definition east of SR 79 and the Arizona Department of Corrections facilities should be considered. However, a bypass of Florence may not be acceptable. To date, there hasn’ t been interest expressed in development east of SR 79. • Right-of-way acquisition on SR 79 south of Butte Road is feasible. Acquisition on SR 79 north of Butte Road could be more difficult. Business impacts are a major consideration. Existing businesses that could potentially be impacted include McDonald’ s and Big-O Tire. Sand and gravel operations are an important consideration. Rinker Materials is a significant land owner. • The City of Florence could support a toll road. • A new crossing of the Gila River is desirable, but staff recognizes that it is expensive. • Providing access to the Coolidge Airport is an important planning consideration. • Residents along Valley Farms Road south of SR 287 would likely be opposed to a freeway in that area. 75 Pinal County Corridors Definition Study Final Report 01/30/07 Table 12-1 – Summary of Jurisdictional and Stakeholder Input (continued) Key Input Jurisdiction/Stakeholder Organization Salt River Project Pinal County • It is feasible to construct a roadway adjacent to the power line. • SRP is not aware of any legal challenges to the approved route for the 500 kV line. • There is a possibility that the Army National Guard intends to relocate the Papago facility to the Rittenhouse Airfield location. • SRP would like to work with ADOT in discussing possibilities for identifying a route for the SRP line across the Rittenhouse Airfield property. • The City of Mesa is preparing to sell portions of its water rights holdings in Pinal County located west of SR 87 and south of Coolidge. This area of the County is zoned industrial and provides opportunities for a freeway corridor connecting to SR 87. • Pinal County does not support providing North-South corridor continuity with SR 287 and converting SR 287 to a freeway facility due to existing and future developments along SR 287 (east of Casa Grande) and a planned Westcor commercial development on the northeast corner of SR 287 and I-10. • The Pinal County Small Area Transportation Study identifies SR 287 from I-10 to the future North-South corridor as a route of regional significance. • Establishing North-South corridor continuity with SR 87 and converting to a freeway facility to I-10 in Eloy should be considered, but the corridor should be on an alignment other than the existing SR 87. The existing SR 87 is necessary for north-south mobility and access. However, Pinal County understands that utilizing existing available right-of-way on SR 87 would be the most economically feasible. • The following options were identified for connecting the North-South corridor segments north and south of SR 287: 1. Pinal County prefers a Plant Road alignment for the North-South corridor so that another bridge could be constructed across the Gila River. 2. A second option is to follow the canals south of SR 287 and develop a corridor east of the prison to connect with SR 79 in the vicinity of the military preserve. 3. A third option is for the North-South corridor to follow the canals south of SR 287 and to connect directly to SR 79 at the SR 287 / SR 79 intersection. However, this option is not preferred due to the loss of SR 79 as an arterial route for north-south mobility and access. Property owner representatives 091374010 ADOT PCC FR (01-30-07).doc • A connection of the North-South corridor to SR 79, north of Florence is favorable with respect to minimizing impacts on the Anthem and Merrill Ranch developments. • Sunbelt Holdings, Pulte, and Merrill Ranch developments all favor a routing of the North-South corridor to SR 79. 76 Pinal County Corridors Definition Study Final Report 01/30/07 12.3 Recommended Corridor Definition in the Florence and Coolidge Area Based upon input received at the stakeholder meetings, public open houses, and the evaluation of additional data and information received, a corridor definition in the Florence and Coolidge area was recommended and is depicted in Figure 12-2. As illustrated in Figure 12-2, the North-South corridor definition departs from the Central Arizona Project (CAP) Canal and the future Salt River Project (SRP) 500 kV line corridor south of Skyline Road and heads in an easterly direction towards the Magma Flood Retarding Structure (FRS). Impacts to existing or planned developments are minimal. Upon its arrival to the Magma FRS, the North-South corridor definition generally follows the Magma FRS south-southeast and will be accessible for future east-west arterials including Bella Vista, Judd, Magma, and Arizona Farms. After departing from the Magma FRS the corridor turns in a southerly direction and passes along the western edge of the Florence Military Reservation, crosses the CAP, passes west of Florence Gardens Mobile Home Park, and crosses the Magma Railroad. The corridor definition then bends west along the north side of the Gila River to approximately the vicinity of Plant Road or a location to be determined in future studies, and crosses the Gila River. After crossing the Gila River, the corridor definition turns west-southwest and returns to the SRP 500 kV line corridor south of the Gila River and crosses SR 287. The corridor definition follows the SRP 500 kV corridor until approximately Bartlett Road. At Bartlett Road, the corridor follows the Florence Canal to its termination in the vicinity of Storey Road. The corridor then turns to the westsouthwest, passes north of the Picacho Reservoir, to connect to SR 87 south of SR 287. The recommended North-South corridor definition provides the following features: § Minimizes direct impact to master-planned communities, but is located near future population centers and areas of concentrated development so as to maximize congestion relief benefits to local arterial streets; § Provides an additional crossing of the Gila River; § Is accessible for east-west arterials including Bella Vista, Judd, Magma, and Arizona Farms Road in the Florence area, and for SR 287, Kenilworth, Bartlett, and Kleck in the Coolidge area. § Along the majority of its length, the corridor definition is collocated with the SRP 500 kV line to the extent feasible to create a combined/shared utility corridor; § Provides access to regional facilities such as the Coolidge Municipal Airport, and the future regional shopping center to be located near Attaway Road and Bartlett Road. In addition to the corridor definition described in Figure 12-2, the Arizona State Land Department identified two alternative alignments for the North-South corridor definition. The recommended corridor definition presented in Figure 12-2 does not exclude these two potential alignment alternatives for the North-South corridor. The two ASLD preferred alignments should be considered during the future alignment and environmental studies that will be conducted for the North-South corridor. As such, the two alternatives are included in Figure 12-2 as potential definition alternatives. 12.4 State Transportation Board Approval On January 19, 2007, the State Transportation Board approved a resolution to adopt the recommendations for the southern portion (through the Coolidge and Florence area) of the North-South corridor definition area as depicted in Figure 12-2 into the MoveAZ Long Range Transportation Plan. As a reminder, the northern portion of the recommended corridor definition, as depicted in Figure 12-1, was adopted into MoveAZ on February 16, 2006. 091374010 ADOT PCC FR (01-30-07).doc 77 Pinal County Corridors Definition Study Final Report 01/30/07 Vineyard Signal Butte Hash Knife Draw Combs Moeur Ellsworth Hawes Riggs Hi gh Skyline A Á wa y Quail Run Hu nt Hash Knife Draw Bella Vista Attaway Judd Magma Magma Arizona Farms Arizona Farms g Hi ay hw iv er Gila Cain ñ A Vah Ki Inn COOLIDGE Figure 12-2 Recommended Corridor Definition Val Vista in the Florence / Coolidge Area Kenilworth Toltec Bu ttes Recommended Corridor Definition 5th Bartlett Bureau of Reclamation Bartlett Local, State, and National Park / Monument Pinal County Land Kleck Sunshine Existing / Future Master Planned Community Central Arizona Project Canal Highway Curry Other Road Approved 500kv Route ñ A Flood Retarding Structure ¯ Earley Earley 0 1 É A Kleck Storey Tweedy Railroad Randolph Vail State Trust Land la Palma Signal Peak Military 2 3 Data Source: Arizona Land Resource Information System 4 5 Miles Coolidge Airport Martin Skousen Bureau of Land Management r FLORENCE A Á Valley Farms Signal Peak Arizona É A ASLD Preferred Alignments ve Ri Attaway Skousen aR nt Hu Gil GILA RIVER INDIAN COMMUNITY