Prepared for:

In Coordination with:

FINAL REPORT
July 2015

Prepared by:

This study has been prepared by Parsons Brinckerhoff, with market analysis support by RCLCO, for Pinal
County as part of the Arizona Department of Transportation Planning Assistance for Rural Areas (PARA)
Program.
Pinal County
Public Works Department
31 N Pinal Street
Building F
PO Box 727
Florence, Arizona 85132
Project Manager
Travis Ashbaugh
travis.ashbaugh@pinalcountyaz.gov

Arizona Department of Transportation
Multimodal Planning Division
206 S 17th Avenue
Phoenix, Arizona 85007

Parsons Brinkerhoff
350 W Washington Street
Suite 300
Tempe, Arizona 85201

Project Manager
Charla Glendening
cglendening@azdot.gov

Project Manager
Jennifer Love, PE, AICP
love@pbworld.com

Disclaimer
The content of this document is furnished for informational use only, is subject to change without notice,
and should not be construed as a commitment by Parsons Brinckerhoff, Inc. or RCLCO. Every effort has
been made to ensure that the information contained herein is correct. Parsons Brinkerhoff, Inc. and
RCLCO assume no responsibility or liability for any errors or inaccuracies that may appear in this document.
The suggestions and recommendations made in this document are for the purposes of discussion and
debate in regard to regional transportation needs. Some of the ideas contained herein have regard to
public and private lands. These ideas have been developed as a professional service without the full
consultation of property owners.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0

2.0

3.0

Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 1

4.3.2 Freight Market ............................................................................................................ 38

1.1

Background ........................................................................................................................... 1

4.3.3 Freight-related Development Opportunities ........................................................ 38

1.2

Purpose and Need ............................................................................................................... 1

1.3

Study Process ......................................................................................................................... 1

1.4

Study Area and Regional Context ..................................................................................... 2

5.1.1 Baseline Transportation Network ............................................................................. 39

Summary of Plans and Opportunities ......................................................................................... 4

5.1.2 Proposed Transportation Network .......................................................................... 39

2.1

Previous Studies and Reports .............................................................................................. 4

5.1.3 Freight and Commuter Corridors ............................................................................ 39

2.2

Existing and Future Conditions ............................................................................................ 5

5.2

Stakeholder Workshop ......................................................................................................... 43

2.2.1 Socioeconomic Conditions ..................................................................................... 5

5.3

Evaluation ............................................................................................................................... 44

2.2.2 Land Use ...................................................................................................................... 9

5.4

Recommendations and Programming ............................................................................. 44

Strategic Transportation Investments ......................................................................................... 39
5.1

Transportation Network ........................................................................................................ 39

2.2.3 Land Management and Jurisdictions .................................................................... 14

5.4.1 Programming Thresholds .......................................................................................... 44

2.2.4 Open Space ............................................................................................................... 16

5.4.2 Project Ranking and Programing............................................................................ 44

2.2.5 Transportation Network ............................................................................................ 20

5.4.3 Recommendations by Focus Area ......................................................................... 50

2.2.6 Estimated Cost of Plan .............................................................................................. 25

5.4.3.1 Focus Area One – I-10...................................................................................... 51

2.3

Workshop 1 Summary ........................................................................................................... 26

5.4.3.2 Focus Area Two – Eloy ..................................................................................... 52

2.4

Define Planning Focus Areas .............................................................................................. 27

5.4.3.3 Focus Area Three – Red Rock......................................................................... 53

Market Understanding .................................................................................................................. 30

5.4.3.4 Focus Area Four – Pinal Airpark ...................................................................... 53

3.1

Market Analysis Methodology ............................................................................................ 30

5.4.3.5 Focus Area Five – Marana .............................................................................. 54

3.2

General Demographic Trends ............................................................................................ 30

5.4.3.6 Focus Area Six – SR 87 ...................................................................................... 54

3.3

Study Area and Focus Area Trends ................................................................................... 32

5.4.3.7 Outside Focus Areas ........................................................................................ 55

3.4

Land Use Projections............................................................................................................. 32

5.4.4 Operational Improvements ..................................................................................... 56

3.4.1 Study Area .................................................................................................................. 32

5.4.5 Traffic Interchanges................................................................................................... 56

3.4.2 Focus Area .................................................................................................................. 32

5.4.6 Multimodal Transportation ....................................................................................... 56

3.5
4.0

5.0

Market Assumptions .............................................................................................................. 34

5.5

Scenario Development ................................................................................................................ 34
4.1

6.0

6.1

Governance/Planning Strategy ......................................................................................... 58

4.1.1 Baseline Scenario....................................................................................................... 34

6.2

Capital Improvements ......................................................................................................... 58

4.1.2 Planned Development ............................................................................................. 34

6.3

Services and Performance Monitoring.............................................................................. 59

7.0

Demographic Trends ............................................................................................................ 35
4.2.1 Study Area .................................................................................................................. 35
4.2.2 Comparisons by Focus Area .................................................................................... 35

4.3

Policy Opportunities ..................................................................................................................... 58

Baseline Scenario and Proposed Scenario ...................................................................... 34

4.1.3 Proposed Scenario .................................................................................................... 35
4.2

Corridor Preservation Needs ............................................................................................... 57

Freight Opportunities ............................................................................................................ 35
4.3.1 Context: Freight Transportation Framework Study.............................................. 35
i

Next Steps ...................................................................................................................................... 59

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 40: Scenario B Future Employment ..........................................................................................................................36
Figure 41: CAG RTP and Adopted PAG 2040 Network ....................................................................................................40

Figure 1: Study Area .............................................................................................................................................................. 2

Figure 42: CAG RTP and Adopted PAG 2040 Network Level of Service .......................................................................40

Figure 2: Comparison of Study Area Size to Urban Areas................................................................................................ 3

Figure 43: Proposed Scenario Roadway Changes ...........................................................................................................41

Figure 3: City Scale Comparison (Phoenix and Eloy) ....................................................................................................... 3

Figure 44: Proposed Scenario Network...............................................................................................................................41

Figure 4: Diagram of Related Studies ................................................................................................................................. 4

Figure 45: Freight and Commuter Corridors ......................................................................................................................43

Figure 5: 2010 Population Density........................................................................................................................................ 5

Figure 46: Workshop 2 Photos ..............................................................................................................................................43

Figure 6: 2040 Population Density........................................................................................................................................ 6

Figure 47: Focus Areas...........................................................................................................................................................50

Figure 7: 2010 Employment Density .................................................................................................................................... 7

Figure 48: Long Term High Capacity Transportation Corridors........................................................................................57

Figure 8: 2040 Employment Density .................................................................................................................................... 8
Figure 9: Existing Land Use .................................................................................................................................................... 9

LIST OF TABLES

Figure 10: Buildout Land Use ................................................................................................................................................ 11

Table 1: Job Counts in Work Blocks to Home Blocks by Distance ..................................................................................7

Figure 11: Development Start Year ..................................................................................................................................... 12

Table 2: Top 5 Job Counts by NAICS Industry Sector........................................................................................................8

Figure 12: Near-Term Committed Land Use (10 years) .................................................................................................... 13

Table 3: Residential Development Trends ..........................................................................................................................12

Figure 13: Land Management ............................................................................................................................................. 14

Table 4: Land Management within Study Area ................................................................................................................15

Figure 14: Jurisdictions and Census Designated Places .................................................................................................. 15

Table 5: Sun Corridor Air Cargo Facilities ...........................................................................................................................24

Figure 15: Drainage and Floodplains.................................................................................................................................. 17

Table 6: Nearest Transload Facilities to Study Area ..........................................................................................................24

Figure 16: Habi-Map .............................................................................................................................................................. 18

Table 7: RSR Miles and Dollars ..............................................................................................................................................25

Figure 17: Recreation, Parks, and Trails .............................................................................................................................. 19

Table 8: State Growth by County ........................................................................................................................................31

Figure 18: Existing Facility Type ............................................................................................................................................ 20

Table 9: Projected Demand for Industrial, Office/Flex, and Retail Land Uses in Square Feet and

Figure 19: Existing Number of Lanes .................................................................................................................................... 20

Acres, 2010-2035 ......................................................................................................................................................32

Figure 20: Existing Average Daily Traffic and Posted Speed ........................................................................................... 20

Table 10: Growth by Study Area..........................................................................................................................................33

Figure 21: Planed Roadway/Transportation Network ...................................................................................................... 21

Table 11: Study Area Population and Employment, Scenario ........................................................................................35

Figure 22: Future Facility Type .............................................................................................................................................. 22

Table 12: Project List ..............................................................................................................................................................42

Figure 23: Future Number of Lanes ..................................................................................................................................... 22

Table 13: Population and Employment Thresholds ...........................................................................................................44

Figure 24: Future Average Daily Traffic and Posted Speed ............................................................................................ 22

Table 14: Estimated Unit Costs .............................................................................................................................................44

Figure 25: Workshop 1 Photos .............................................................................................................................................. 26

Table 15: Project Evaluation .................................................................................................................................................45

Figure 26: Workshop 1 Summary.......................................................................................................................................... 27

Table 16: Cost by Programmed Timeframe .......................................................................................................................46

Figure 27: Focus Area One – 1-10........................................................................................................................................ 28

Table 17: Cost by Programmed Jurisdiction and Timeframe ..........................................................................................46

Figure 28: Focus Area Two – Eloy ......................................................................................................................................... 28

Table 18: Project Ranking and Programming (Near-Term) .............................................................................................47

Figure 29: Focus Area Three – Red Rock ............................................................................................................................ 28

Table 19: Project Ranking and Programming (Mid-Term)................................................................................................48

Figure 30: Focus Area Four – Pinal Airpark ......................................................................................................................... 29

Table 20: Project Ranking and Programming (Long-Term) .............................................................................................49

Figure 31: Focus Area Five – Marana.................................................................................................................................. 29

Table 21: Project Ranking and Programming (Corridor Preservation) ...........................................................................49

Figure 32: Focus Area Six – SR 87 ......................................................................................................................................... 29

Table 22: Focus Area One (I-10) Improvements ................................................................................................................51

Figure 33: Share of State Growth by Population, 2010-2035 ........................................................................................... 31

Table 23: Focus Area Two (Eloy) Improvements................................................................................................................52

Figure 34: Share of State Growth by Households, 2010-2035 .......................................................................................... 31

Table 24: Focus Area Three (Red Rock) Improvements ...................................................................................................53

Figure 35: Share of State Growth by Employment, 2010-2035 ........................................................................................ 31

Table 25: Focus Area Four (Pinal Airpark) Improvements ................................................................................................53

Figure 36: Share of Study Area Growth by Population, 2010-2035 ................................................................................. 33

Table 26: Focus Area Six (SR 87) Improvements ................................................................................................................54

Figure 37: Share of Study Area Growth by Households, 2010-2035 ................................................................................ 33

Table 27: Improvements Outside Focus Areas ..................................................................................................................55

Figure 38: Share of Study Area Growth by Employment, 2010-2035.............................................................................. 33
Figure 39: Scenario B Future Population ............................................................................................................................. 36

ii

1.0 INTRODUCTION
Pinal County and the Arizona Department of Transportation
(ADOT) jointly conducted the Southern Pinal County Regional
Corridors Study, in coordination Eloy, Marana, and Coolidge, to
address southern Pinal County’s existing and future multimodal
travel demand, identify market opportunities, evaluate priority
investment areas, and identify improvements to the regional
transportation system. This study was conducted through
ADOT’s Planning Assistance for Rural Areas (PARA program.

1.1

Background

Situated in the center of the Sun Corridor, Pinal County is
positioned within one of the 11 megaregions of the United
States. Over the last decade, the county’s population more
than doubled from approximately 179,700 in 2000 to 375,800 in
2010.

As stated in the Pinal County Comprehensive Plan (2009), Pinal
County’s prime location between Phoenix and Tucson present
numerous diverse opportunities that attract many people to
the area. Changes to the area will have a statewide impact
on many levels. As the county continues to grow, the county
and its residents stress the importance of preserving the natural
environments while emphasizing the value of:







1.2

Open Space
Rural Atmosphere and environments
Natural beauty
History and heritage
Night sky and clean air
Diversity

Purpose and Need

The primary purpose of the Southern Pinal County Regional
Corridors Study was to review and evaluate the area’s
transportation system to enhance the transportation network,
Encompassing a geographical area of roughly 1,300 square
facilitate freight movement, and improve access to and from
miles, the southern Pinal Region is rich with man-made and
major employment centers, all of which will improve regional
natural resources. The region is home
connectivity
and
increase
economic
to numerous recreational destinations,
development potential for the area. The
such as Skydive Arizona at Eloy
region must adapt to evolving economic
Megaregions are
Municipal Airport, Picacho Peak State
conditions, including shifting markets for
characterized by interlocking
Park, and the Tortolita Mountains near
housing,
commercial,
and
industrial
economic systems, shared
Marana.
development, and address critical issues to
natural resources and
implement a vision for the region. How the
ecosystems, and common
With three publicly owned airports, the
region plans for post-recession growth today
transportation systems. The core
Interstate 10 (I-10), and Union Pacific
will directly impact economic opportunities
(UP) rail line centrally located, the
of the Sun Corridor megaregion
and open space systems paramount to the
southern Pinal County region is
is comprised of three counties –
future health and livability of the region. This
emerging as a key transportation hub.
Maricopa, Pinal, and Pima and
study is unique in that it describes the market
Economists1
predict
that
has the highest degree of
opportunities
to
ultimately
create
a
transportation industries, such as UP’s
developable lands in the State
prioritization of transportation projects that
proposed classification yard in the
of Arizona
responds to the area’s growth patterns.
Red Rock area, and general aviation
are expected to drive future
Source: Regional Plan
Association (2009)
expansion of this region.

1

1.3

Study Process

This study was conducted between January 2014 and June
2015. It was conducted with guidance and oversight from the
Technical Working Group (TWG), which was composed of
members representing the following agencies:









Pinal County
City of Eloy
Town of Marana
City of Coolidge
Arizona State Land
Union Pacific Railroad
ADOT
Sun Corridor Metropolitan Planning Organization

Through the course of the study, the following working papers
were developed in cooperation with the TWG and
stakeholders:






Working Paper #1: Summary of Plans and Opportunities
Working Paper #2: Market Understanding
Working Paper #3: Scenario Development
Working Paper #4: Strategic Transportation Investments
Working Paper #5: Policy Opportunities &
Recommendations to Implement Strategic
Transportation Investments

This final report is comprised of the input provided into the entire
project process and is a compilation of the findings and
recommendations from these working papers.
Pinal County recognizes the importance of the region’s
strategic location between Phoenix and Tucson and its
relationship to the overall well-being of the State of Arizona.
The decisions made here will impact the entire state on many
levels – business development, mobility, land management, air
quality, water, and overall quality of life.
Source: Pinal County Comprehensive Plan (2009)

1.4

Study Area and Regional Context

Figure 1: Study Area

The Southern Pinal County Regional Corridors Study area is situated in the
southern portion of Pinal County. As shown in Figure 1, the study area includes
the City of Eloy, The Town of Marana, a segment along State Route (SR) 87
annexed by the City of Coolidge, unincorporated areas of southern Pinal
County and northern Pima County, and portions of the City of Casa Grande.
The study area is bounded by Avra Valley Road on the south, Selma Highway
on the north, SR 79 on the east, and Trekell Road on the west.
The study area spans approximately 1,300 square miles. As depicted in Figure
2 on the following page, the area is so vast that it exceeds the size of the
urbanized area of the Phoenix-Mesa Metropolitan Statistical area. In a similar
comparison, the study area is nearly three times larger than the urbanized area
of the Tucson Metropolitan area. Established economic, social and cultural
networks are strongest in Phoenix and Tucson urbanized areas and will
continue for the foreseeable future. The study area must identify and fulfill a
regional role and scale to complement the activity in these urbanized areas.
I-10 and SR 87 are the primary regional connections into and through the study
area. The city of Eloy incorporated in 1949 utilizing a grid plan of streets forming
right intersections at right angles. The scale of city blocks and infill opportunities
compared to the areas near the Phoenix city center is also shown on the
following page in Figure 3. The existing grid structure in Eloy is an asset,
providing an opportunity for infill development and the creation of a robust
multimodal transportation network. The Town of Marana, incorporated in 1977,
was significantly influenced by prevailing post World War II practices that
emphasized automobile access in the street arrangements.

2

Figure 2: Comparison of Study Area Size to Urban Areas

This is a very large study area – larger than the Phoenix
metropolitan area and three times larger than the Tucson
metropolitan area. This means there will be a range of
activity centers throughout the region and a range of
transportation infrastructure that is needed.

Study Area Boundary

Study Area Boundary

Figure 3: City Scale Comparison (Phoenix and Eloy)

Scale of street grid in Eloy is similar to downtown Phoenix
and has the potential to infill as the community grows.

Phoenix

Eloy

3

2.0 SUMMARY OF PLANS AND OPPORTUNITIES
2.1

Figure 4: Diagram of Related Studies

Previous Studies and Reports

A review of previous studies and plans was conducted for this study. These
previous studies provided background data for policy guidance, corridor plans
with countywide and statewide implications, and smaller focused studies
within the study area. A summary of the key relevant outcomes of these
completed and active state, regional and local transportation and economic
development plans is provided in the Appendix, including key findings,
recommendations, considerations, timelines, and development objectives.
An overview of these studies is shown in Figure 4. Since these studies were
completed during varying economic conditions, it is necessary to compile and
evaluate them together under currently understood conditions.
This study is intended to focus on updating a few key previous studies that
identified transportation improvements under a different economic climate.
The Pinal County Small Area Transportation Study (SATS) (2006) evaluated the
county’s transportation needs to the year 2025. According to that study, the
western and north central areas were expected to grow rapidly.
Recommendations from this study provided the baseline for more detailed
studies within the study area, including the Southern Pinal/Northern Pima
Corridors Definition Study (2008), the Regionally Significant Routes for Safety
and Mobility (RSRSM) Study (2008), the City of Eloy Small Area Transportation
Study (SATS) (2010), and the MAG Freight Transportation Framework Plan
(2012/2013). Given changing economic conditions and growth patterns,
these studies no longer accurately describe conditions in the area, which led
to the development of this Southern Pinal County Regional Corridors Study.

4

2.2
2.2.1

Existing and Future Conditions

Figure 5: 2010 Population Density

Socioeconomic Conditions

Socioeconomic conditions for the study area were first evaluated by analyzing
population and employment data from the Central Arizona governments
(CAG) and Pima Association of Governments (PAG) Focus Area Models, within
the Pinal County and Pima County areas, respectively. Future estimates are
based on projections for the year 2040. The following conditions assessment is
based on the most reliable date currently available.
Population
Current Population
Figure 5 shows that the vast study area exhibits few existing population centers.
Primarily, the centers exist within the incorporated limits of the cities. Existing
densities for the predominant land area is undeveloped or agricultural and
had less than 250 people per square mile. The more densely populated
centers of Eloy and Marana have higher concentrations of residents adjacent
to I-10. In 2010, there were 48,100 residents and 17,300 households within the
study area.

Source: CAG and PAG Focus Area Model (2014)

5

Future Population

Figure 6: 2040 Population Density

The CAG and PAG Focus Area Models predicts that the 2040 population will
experience growth within the current population centers. As shown in Figure
6, agricultural and undeveloped lands continue to have less than 250 residents
per square mile. Eloy and Marana continue to experience further growth in
existing areas of development, with higher residential populations along I-10,
especially north of Marana Road. A total of 160,600 residents and 58,200
housing units are predicted by 2040 within the study area.

Source: CAG and PAG Focus Area Model (2014)

6

Employment

Figure 7: 2010 Employment Density

Current Employment
Figure 7 exhibits a jobs-to-housing imbalance suggesting that employment
opportunities for residents exist outside the study area. This means the number
of residents in the study area exceeds employment opportunities and many
residents are leaving the study area for jobs elsewhere, thus placing a burden
on the transportation system. The employment centers within the study area
exist in Eloy along I-10 and within the Main Street civic center. Employment
density is greatest near Marana south of Park Link Drive. The largest
concentration of employees (over 2,000 employees per square mile) is located
in Marana north of Moore Road along I-10. Within the study area, in 2010, there
was a ratio of 19 jobs per 100 residents, or 53 jobs per 100 households.
Current Employment Travel Patterns
The U.S. Census 2011 Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics (LEHD)
Origin-Destination Employment Statistics (LODES) dataset was used to map
low-wage job and worker density in and throughout the study area. The LODES
data includes the number of jobs by workplace location and the number of
workers by household location at the census block level.
As shown in Table 1, the majority of residents in the study area travel outside
the study area for work. In the northwest, 80.5 percent of residents travel
farther than 50 miles one way. In the southeast, 47.2 percent travel between
10 to 24 miles one way. The travel patterns suggest that the majority of
residents commute 60 minutes or longer to work on a daily basis. Without the
growth of an employment base, future residents will continue to rely on jobs
outside the study area. This will result in increasing demands on the
transportation network, including higher infrastructure costs.

Table 1: Job Counts in Work Blocks to Home Blocks by Distance
Northwest (2011)

Southeast (2011)

Count

Share

Count

Share

Total Primary Jobs

1,997

100.0%

2,045

100.0%

Less than 10 miles

83

4.2%

153

7.5%

10 to 24 miles

110

5.5%

966

47.2%

25 to 50 miles

197

9.9%

741

36.2%

1,607

80.5%

185

9.0%

Greater than 50 miles

Source: CAG and PAG Focus Area Model (2014)

Source: U.S. Census 2011 LEHD Origin-Destination Employment Statistics

7

Currently, a significant number of residents within the study area travel long
distances to work, which will lead to progressively more difficult commutes and
decreased quality of life. The impact of residents traveling outside the study
area is an increase in congestion and degraded environmental conditions.
However, the travel patterns can change as the area infills with residential and
employment opportunities.

2040 are the service industry, leisure and healthcare. Within the study area, in 2040, there is anticipated to be a
ratio of 28 jobs per 100 residents, or 77 jobs per 100 households.

Figure 8: 2040 Employment Density

Current Job Market
Table 2 shows the current job market sectors in the study area. Educational
Services is the top job sector, providing 27.3 percent of total employment.
While the sectors listed in Table 2 represent the current job types, the future
land use plan seeks to diversify the employment base to emphasize both basic
and non-basic economic activities. Both basic and non-basic activities sustain
jobs, but basic activities (such as manufacturing) tend to sustain higher wage
jobs than non-basic activities (such as services and retail). Basic activities bring
new dollars into the community. Non-basic activities, in most cases, circulate
existing dollars within the community.

Table 2: Top 5 Job Counts by NAICS Industry Sector
2011
Count

Share

1,950

27.3%

Transportation and Warehousing

684

9.6%

Retail Trade

616

8.6%

Health Care and Social Assistance

523

7.3%

Manufacturing

500

7.0%

2,875

40.2%

Educational Services

Other*

Source: North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) provided from the U.S.
Census 2011 LEHD Origin-Destination Employment Statistics (LODES)
*Other includes 15 other industries, such as food service, public administration, construction,
utilities, mining, and real estate.

Future Employment
By year 2040, a relatively stable employment base is predicted for the study
area. As shown in Figure 8, the majority of the region is expected to see
employment growth within exiting employment centers. The trend suggests an
infill pattern of land use surrounding the civic centers. Employment in Eloy is
anticipated to be stable for the foreseeable future. In Marana, employment
growth is evident along I-10. Small pockets of employment south of Pinal
Airpark Road and around Moore Road are predicted to have over 2,000
employees per square mile. The top three employment sectors anticipated in

Source: CAG and PAG Focus Area Model (2014)

8

2.2.2

Land Use

Figure 9: Existing Land Use

Land use data for Pinal County utilizes the CAG database, which compiles
regional land use data from member agency land use and comprehensive
plans. Land use data for Pima County is from the PAG database and the Town
of Marana General Plan (2010). Each agency has its respective land use
designations. The following land use designations were utilized in this study:












Residential – Single- and multi-family residential.
Mixed Use – apartments and condominium projects with a mix of
commercial and employment.
Commercial – retail, office, amusement and tourist facilities.
Industrial – all industrial facilities, sand and gravel, cemeteries, mining,
storage facilities, distribution centers, and warehouses.
Institutional – public, military, institutional, religious, educational, and
medical uses.
Transportation – railroads, freeways/highways, and streets.
Agriculture – all agricultural, field crop, and ranch uses.
Undeveloped – land without structures, improvements, and open space
without designation.
Dedicated Open Space – wildlife/wilderness areas, parks, national
forests, and national monuments.
Indian Lands – reserved for a Native American tribe.
Military – area managed by the Department of Defense.

Land Use
Residential
Mixed Use

Existing Land Use
Figure 9 shows existing land use in the study area. In Eloy, residential
neighborhoods are located in the area surrounding the existing city center and
public institutional buildings. The portions of Marana located within the study
area are primarily agricultural. Residential planned-unit developments are
located south of Moore Road and west of the Marana incorporated limits.
Existing industrial areas are located on Avra Valley Road, west of I-10.
Commercial areas reflect the proximity to residential developments within the
study area. Areas outside the city centers are predominantly undeveloped
and agricultural. Due to the dispersed nature of residential development, it is
difficult and costly to provide an adequate transportation network that
supports connectivity, mobility, and efficient movement.

Commercial
Industrial
Institutional
Transportation
Agriculture
Undeveloped
Dedicated Open Space
Indian Lands
Militaryand
andFederal
Federal
Source: CAG, PAG, Town of Marana General Plan (2010)

9

Buildout Land Use

Future Land Use
As stated in the Pinal County Comprehensive Plan, Pinal County
residents emphasize the value of open space and agriculture.
Protection of existing agriculture and productive agricultural
lands is limited in the current form of the Comprehensive Plan. The
trend toward speculation and development will continue for the
foreseeable future given current policies.
Three tiers of mixed-use activity centers are identified in the
Comprehensive Plan, ranging from low intensity activity centers
that cover approximately 100 acres to high intensity activity
centers that are approximately 1,000 acres with a mix of
professional office, business parks, and industrial uses.
Approximately 50 activity centers are identified in the plan. Eight
centers are envisioned within the study area.
Significant
infrastructure needs will constrain development of these centers
in a cohesive manner consistent with plan goals. The travel
demand between existing centers and future centers will be a
counter balance to the desired outcomes of reducing vehicle
travel and encouraging the completion of trips via alternatives to
personal vehicle travel.
Market demand for planned industrial space near the Pinal
Airpark is not yet well-understood. Market momentum will
continue to show preference for the industrial areas with existing
transportation access. A diverse building stock of warehousing
and distribution centers exists near competing air cargo facilities
in Tucson, Phoenix, and Mesa. Transportation networks in Pinal
County will need to promote land division, diverse routing options,
and successional planning strategies to address long-term market
preferences and development cycles.
As the region grows, it is important to encourage the location of
job growth with residential growth, which will reduce long
distance travel for job access and economic development.

ACTIVITY CENTERS
The Urban Land Institute (largest
international organization representing the
development industry) and the National
Home Builders Association have promoted
the advantages of mixed-use development
over the last 20 years, and this concept has
more recently been embraced as a “smart
growth” strategy. Mixed-use developments
incorporate residential units, commercial
properties, and employment uses. These
areas may also contain cultural amenities,
such as performing arts centers,
entertainment venues, museums, education
and training centers, and community gather
places. Mixed-use developments allow
residents to minimize and shorten trips by
clustering multiple services and activities
and by supporting alternatives to
automobile transportation. Focusing
development on activity centers can
reduce sprawl, conserve open space, and
protect irreplaceable natural resources on
the urban fringe.
Source: Pinal County Comprehensive Plan (2009)

10

Future land use projections made by the CAG and PAG models
reflect existing planning documents, indicating a predominantly
urbanized study area with selected locations preserved for future
parks and dedicated open space. The plans maintain the
publicly accessible open space and natural areas for mega
regional parks exceeding 50,000 acres. Within the abundance of
existing open space along the boundaries of Pinal County, seven
regional parks are proposed, of which four are proposed to be
centrally located.
Within the PARA study area, the Pinal County Open Space and
Trails Master Plan also identifies Regional Park #1, proposing the
regional park north of Picacho Peak State Park and consisting of
conservation and development open space.
The total
developed open space acreage would be no larger than 100
acres of the total approximately 50,680 acres.
Proposed
amenities include trailheads with shade armadas, vehicle
parking, and multi-use paths and trails.
Figure 10 shows the study area’s land use at buildout when
existing agriculture and undeveloped land is replaced by
residential uses. The residential land use will expand to include a
full range of residential options, such as higher-density
neighborhoods consistent with demographers and researchers
who describe the preference of younger people to choose
locations closer to work, recreational activities, and other
amenities. A large portion of the planning area is designated as
moderate low-density residential (1.0 to 3.5 dwelling units per
acres). To provide flexibility and promote mixed use concepts,
alternative land uses may be allowed if certain guidelines are
met. Within the land use, medium- and high-density residential,
commercial, and employment (office and light industrial)
developments are permitted to some extent without a
Comprehensive Plan amendment.

The Pinal County Comprehensive Plan permits the medium-density residential
uses at the intersection of higher roadway classifications. As the development
footprint grows, the plan calls for locations adjacent to higher roadway
classifications.

Figure 10: Buildout Land Use

Commercial uses are allowed anywhere up to 25 acres. For commercial uses
greater than 25 acres, at least 1/4 mile separation from planned or existing
single-family residential development is required.
Within this study area, the Pinal County Comprehensive Plan identifies highintensity activity centers that are approximately 1,000 acres and are located
at the confluence of I-8 and I-10, I-10 and SR 87, and near the Pinal Airpark. A
high-intensity activity center, as defined in the Comprehensive Plan, is
approximately 1.4 miles in diameter and consists of three concentric zones. In
the center core zone, the activity mix suggests 50 percent basic employment,
20 percent service employment, and 30 percent residential. The primary
means of mobility are transit circulator, walking, and bicycling. Surrounding
the core zone is the core periphery zone, consisting of 40 percent basic
employment, 35 percent service employment, and 25 percent residential. The
transition zone surrounds the core periphery zone and is suggested to consist
of 50 percent basic employment, 15 percent service employment, and 35
percent residential. In the transition zone, primary means of mobility include
transit circulator, bicycling, fixed route bus, and private automobile.
In Eloy, areas designated for commercial and industrial use are adjacent to I10 and SR 87. In Marana, there are more commercial areas located on either
side of I-10 between Tangerine Road and Moore Road. Industrial areas are
concentrated along existing highways, I-8, I-10, SR 84, and SR 87.

Land Use
Residential
Mixed Use
Commercial

Mixed Use Activity Center
Low Intensity Activity Center
Mid Intensity Activity Center

Industrial

High Intensity Activity Center

Institutional

Hospitality Tourism Activity Center

Transportation
Agriculture
Undeveloped
Dedicated Open Space
Indian Lands

The Pinal County Open Space and
Trails Master Plan provides the
base open space network.
Designations of private State Trust
or Bureau of Land Management
lands as open space or regional
park has no regulatory impact.

Military and Federal
Source: CAG, PAG, Town of Marana General Plan (2010)

11

Near-Term Land Use and Development Plans

Figure 11: Development Start Year

The Pinal County Comprehensive Plan is a broad policy document that guides
decision-making about growth and development. While the Comprehensive
Plan projects buildout conditions in the region, it is important to also understand
near-term land use and development plans to determine infrastructure needs
and prioritization of funding.
Entitlements
Near-term development, anticipated to start within the next 10 years, and
recent development, within the past 10 years, can be seen in Figure 11 and
summarized in Table 3. Entitlements and recently completed developments
provide insight into the location and character of anticipated development,
requisite regional approvals, and potential future for the study area.
Data collection methodologies vary by agency throughout the study area.
Available data includes a number of planned area developments, acres for
total area approved by PUD or similar requisite development entitlements, and
the total number of units within the entitled development area.
Information, provided by CAG, for the Eloy and Pinal County area consists of
a 2012 survey of developers intended to gauge timing and development
intentions.
The total number of units contained within the approve
development does not distinguish between the constructed number of units
and future development. In Marana, the town tracks entitlements with
additional detail to estimate the constructed number of units within each
anticipated development.
Entitled areas in Pinal County are predominantly residential and surround the
Eloy area. In Marana, the most significant anticipated development is located
between the Moore Road and Tangerine Road corridor.

Residential Development Start Year
Started Within Past 10 years
Started Within Past 5 years
Next 5 years
Next 10 years
Next 15 years

Industrial Development
Zoned
Proposed

Land Use

Table 3: Residential Development Trends
Started – Past 10 Years
Casa Grande
Coolidge
Eloy
Marana
Unincorporated
Study Area

Existing Open Space

Anticipated To Start – Next 10 Years*

Number

Acres

Built Units

Number

Acres

Anticipated Units**

27
14
5
8
8
62

3,930
2,810
3,700
1,445
2,490
14,370

5,620
1,340
670
6,176
690
14,500

54
13
48
21
15
151

14,870
7,250
36,730
6,031
8,780
73,650

45,050
25,360
134,510
15,244
28,330
248,500

Proposed Open Space
Indian Lands
Militaryand
andFederal
Federal

Source: Pinal County: CAG Development Database, 2012; Town of Marana, 2014

* Based on CAG’s 2012 Developer Survey on when a particular development would start and does not suggest all units will be completed within
10 year period and will be dependent as demand is needed which may take several years for completion.
** Total number of units entitled within the development plans and does not suggest all units will be completed as construction will be
dependent as demand is needed which may take several years for completion.

12

The overall trend remains a challenge for all areas of the study area. With a
lack of job centers and employment opportunities to accompany residential
development, residents are driving long distances to access jobs.

Figure 12: Near-Term Committed Land Use (10 years)

Development Plans
As the study area is very dynamic, in addition to the documented planned
development and growth reflected in the existing plans and identified in the
previous sections, Pinal County is currently working to attract additional
opportunities. These are not reflected in the current adopted plans. However,
they are documented in this section and will be included in future travel
demand projections in subsequent phases of this study. Known planned
residential and industrial projects are depicted in Figure 11. Potential industrial
parks within and adjacent to the study area are listed below, with a summary
of status provided in the Appendix.










Toltec Industrial Park
Sunshine Industrial Park
Eloy Industrial Park
Arizona Central Distribution Center
Central Arizona Commerce Center
Regional Gateway Commerce Center
Red Rock Industrial Park
Inland Port Arizona
Pinal Industrial Park

Land Use
Residential
Mixed Use

Near‐Term Committed Land Use
Near-term committed land use is based on existing land use estimates with
entitled areas as shown in Figure 12. In the near-term, several existing
agricultural areas in Eloy will be replaced with residential growth. However, as
a whole, the study area is predicted to maintain the majority of existing
agricultural areas. Dedicated open space in the form of parks will be located
in the northeast segment of the study area between SR 79 and I-10. There is
no current dataset for planned commercial development to accompany the
anticipated residential growth.

Commercial
Industrial
Industrial (Proposed)
Institutional
Transportation
Agriculture
Undeveloped
Dedicated Open Space
Indian Lands
Military and Federal
Source: CAG, PAG, Town of Marana General Plan (2010)

13

A large amount of land within the corridor is entitled. However, the character
of development has not been well-defined in the corridor, nor are there welldefined standards or guidelines to guide future development patterns. There
are opportunities to create integrated, multijurisdictional, development
standards and guidelines that describe the character of future development.
Standards and guidelines can either be created by the county with input from
the adjacent cities, or a combined policy can be created and attributed to a
geographically defined overlay area. As an alternative to standards and
guidelines, other development regulations or policies could be created to
better define development patterns in Pinal County, especially along the I-10
Corridor.
2.2.3

Figure 13: Land Management

Land Management and Jurisdictions

Land Management within the study area can be understood in three relatively
evenly distributed types. These areas are shown in Figure 13 and summarized
in Table 4 on the following page.
One third of the study area is privately managed lands within incorporated
and unincorporated areas that cover roughly 460 square miles.
The
incorporated areas and jurisdictions are shown in Figure 14, which represents
approximations of the jurisdictional boundaries. Another third is State Trust
Lands outside of federal and regional designations that constitute 435 square
miles of the study area. Although the Pinal County Open Space and Trails
Master Plan provides the base open space network, designations of private
state trust or Bureau of Land Management lands as open space or regional
parks has no regulatory impact. The remaining third of the study area is
comprised of federal lands (including Bureau of Land Management and
Bureau of Reclamation), federal open space (predominately the Ironwood
Forest National Monument), tribal lands (Tohono O’odham Nation), and parks
(Picacho Peak State Park). These lands cover 429 square miles.

14

Geographically, the boundaries of Pinal County and periphery of the study
area are controlled by State Trust Land and managed by the Arizona State
Land Department (ASLD). These lands, held in trust, are intended to benefit 14
beneficiaries of the trust and may eventually transfer to alternative interests
through sale or lease. Due to recent interpretation of state law, ASLD is limited
in its ability to comprehensively plan future uses of the trust lands. The history
and role of ASLD is described in the following section.

Figure 14: Jurisdictions and Census Designated Places

Tracts of federal and military land are scatted throughout the study area. The
largest contiguous blocks of federal open space include the Ironwood Forest
National Monument in the southwest, Tribal land consists of the Tohono
O’odham Nation in the west.

Table 4: Land Management within Study Area
Square Miles

%

Incorporated and Unincorporated Areas

460

34.7%

Eloy incorporated area

113

8.5%

Marana incorporated area

96

7.3%

Casa Grande incorporated area

12

0.9%

7

0.5%

Arizona City (unincorporated)

11

0.8%

Private lands (unincorporated)

221

16.7%

State Trust Lands

435

32.9%

State trust lands

435

32.9%

Federal Lands and Open Space

429

32.4%

Federal open space

170

12.8%

13

1.0%

Park and wilderness area

9

0.7%

Federal land and military

30

2.3%

207

15.6%

1,324

100%

Coolidge incorporated area

Tribal land

Future park and protected open space
Total

15

Arizona State Land Department
State trust lands are not public lands but are, instead, the
subject of a public trust created to support the education of
Arizona’s children. On February 24, 1863, by an Act of
Congress, the Territory of Arizona was established, reserving
Sections 16 and 36 of each township for the benefit of the
common schools. The State enabling Act, passed June 20,
1910, allowed the Territory of Arizona to prepare for statehood,
adding that Sections 2 and 32 of each township to be held in
trust for the common schools, as well as other selected
beneficiaries. Currently, Arizona has approximately 9.28 million
surface acres and 9 million subsurface acres of land held in
trust. The trust lands constitute approximately 13 percent of
land in Arizona.
State trust land is distinguished from public land, such as parks
or national forests, because all uses of the land must benefit the
trust beneficiaries. Congress, in granting the state trust land,
recognized the value of the land and the importance of
providing support to public schools and public institutions. The
Common Schools (K-12) are the largest beneficiary owning
approximately 87 percent of the land and receiving close to 90
percent of the revenue.
The trust law requires that trust lands be sold or leased for their
highest and best appraised use to the highest bidder at public
auction. Trust lands can generate income for schools through
the sale as well as lease of trust lands for grazing, agriculture,
municipal, school site, residential, commercial, and open
space purposes.
In the case of this study, there are many ASLD lands potentially
affected by a proposed transportation system in the area. In
general, improved access will benefit state lands and improve
the ability to general funds for its mission from the sale of
property at auction. At the same time, if the market does not
support the sale of property in a particular area, improved
access may have limited effect on property value. During this
study process, ASLD expressed concerns that the introduction
of a UP Red Rock Classification Yard along I-10 near Picacho

Peak will limit access to the I-10 freeway for land that is not yet
believed to be beneficially marketable but that it could
become so in the future. In light of that, ASLD requested
assurance that access not be unnecessarily restricted to its
lands east of a potential future UP Red Rock Classification Yard.
This may require alternative access from I-10 interchange
locations north and south of the proposed yard and will have
an influence over how the remainder of the transportation
system is configured within the area.
In areas closer to near term commercial or residential activity,
how the transportation system is configured could affect when
and how much land is made available to the market in the next
few years. Typically, ASLD meters the release of land to prevent
leapfrog growth patterns and encourages efficient use of
resources for the state as well as local communities. For the
PARA analysis, this focused attention on the areas adjacent to
or near the I-10 corridor.
Identifying corridors for future transportation options, with ASLD
participation, helped to provide understanding around a trunk
transportation system when remote areas of ASLD property
become more attractive in the market place. Consequently,
ASLD’s responsibility for and control of land within the study
area has a potentially significant influence on the decisions at
both the regional and the local levels regarding the
transportation plan for the area.
Land Ownership Next Steps
The benefit of having large assemble state lands is that
organized and integrated land development is possible and
easier to achieve than many areas in the region that have
fragmented ownership. Fragmented ownership occurs when
multiple entities, with inconsistent development intentions, own
small areas or parcels. This makes the creation of organized
development, or the ability to create a consistent character,
difficult to achieve.
Additionally, it is difficult to plan for transportation
improvements since development may occur along different
16

timelines,
thereby
triggering
different
infrastructure
improvements in an uncoordinated manner that could be
more costly and less efficient. A goal should be to encourage
multiple contiguous owners to work together and create a
master development plan for their lands. This would allow more
efficient provision of infrastructure improvements, create more
efficient and valuable development, increase municipal
revenues and distribute developer responsibility more fairly.
Given the large areas of land currently undeveloped, phased
development of these areas adjacent to existing developed
areas can leverage infrastructure funding, promote desired
development activity, and preserve future opportunities.
Maintaining open space will also help to preserve the
character of the area, which is highly valued by the area
residents as a unique asset. By leveraging this as an asset and
strategically focusing development and infrastructure, the
region can maximize its economic development potential and
market value and its attractiveness to new investment. As the
areas grow over time, it is important to focus the timeline of
development to be contiguous with previous development to
ensure infrastructure funding is available to provide adequate
facilities to newly developed areas.

2.2.4

Open Space

There is approximately 386 acres of open space (29.1%) and
represents a large portion of the study area. How that open
pace develops will be critical to planning the region and local
road network, effective access management, drainage, and
overall character of the area. The benefits of opens space can
be leveraged to create community value through
preservation, access and character of the opens space in the
community.
Open space can then lead to increasing
economic value by increasing development premiums through
visual and physical access to improve open space.

Drainage and Floodplains

Figure 15: Drainage and Floodplains

Figure 15 shows the existing drainage pattern in the study area and the
presence of the 100-year floodplain identified by the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) along the east side of I-10 and south of the
county line. The proximity of flood zones to major transportation facilities, such
as I-10 and I-8, pose potential issues and limitations to development.
Integrating these zones as an amenity within development or as public open
space may form part of a mitigation strategy, promoting development
adjacent to the existing urbanized and incorporated areas.
Development in the study area is partially guided by the drainage features
that traverse the study areas. With the exception of Eloy and Marana, west of
I-10, rivers and washes follow natural water courses and traverse the study
area. The CAP canal runs north to southeast of the study area and is managed
by the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR). The BOR constructs and operates dams,
reservoirs, canals, and other water management facilities. Its overall mission is
to meet the increasing water demands while protecting the natural
environment and the public’s investment in these structures. The BOR
preserves open space by managing public lands for multiple uses, including
agriculture and recreation, and by conserving natural, historic, and cultural
resources through resource management plans. The BOR’s consideration of
applications to use project lands and water surface is completely discretionary
and it reserves the right to refuse to authorize any use that may be
incompatible with the federally authorized purposes of reclamation projects or
interfaces with rights or operations. Developable areas are somewhat limited
by rivers, washes, and flood zones that traverse large portions of the study area.
It is important to preserve these areas as assets and encourage sensitively
designed adjacent development. Drainage features can be incorporated
into development as an amenity as the area grows.

Drainage
River / Wash
CAP Canal
Canal / Ditch
Pipeline
FEMA Flood Zone

Land Use
Existing Open Space
Proposed Open Space
Indian Lands
Militaryand
andFederal
Federal
Source: Pinal County, FEMA

17

Conservation Potential

Figure 16: Habi-Map

Special Status Species and Critical Habitats
The conservation potential assessment was conducted based upon the
Species and Habitat Conservation Guide (SHCG) tool published in 2011 by the
Arizona Game and Fish Department. This SHCG tool provided a broad regional
assessment of conservation potential in the study area. In the SHCG,
conservation potential is measured in six levels, as shown in Figure 16, where
the lowest conservation potential is shown in the lightest blue color and the
highest conservation potential is shown in darkest blue.
The department’s work supports efforts to identify wildlife resources that are an
important component of Arizona’s natural environment. As new roads,
communities, and energy corridors are built, the wildlife that traditionally
moved through the area is forced to find ways around or through the new
features, increasing the likelihood of interactions with humans. Some of these
interactions are simply nuisance encounters, but some may be more serious
where harm can come to a human or animal. Increasing connectivity for
wildlife in a planned manner will reduce the frequency of negative interactions
and will allow animals to access the resources they need.
Areas of high conservation potential should be closely examined prior to
potential development. It is important to preserve sensitive wildlife and
conservation areas as well as maintain wildlife corridors. According to the
Gallup Arizona Poll and recorded in the report The Arizona We Want, Arizonans
highly value aesthetics and the natural environment. The report states, “It’s
important that growth and development in the future respect the passion that
citizens feel for their environments.” The poll indicates that the policy ideas
most favored by citizens to protect the environment include adopting water
management plans statewide and implementing policies that balance
population growth with preserving open space.

Conservation Potential
Greatest Conservation Potential

Least Conservation Potential

Land Use
Existing Open Space
Proposed Open Space
Indian Lands
Militaryand
andFederal
Federal
Source: Species and Habitat Conservation Guide (SHCH) tool (2011). Arizona Game and Fish Department

18

Recreation, Parks, and Trails
The Pinal County Open Space and Trails Master Plan (2007) and the Town of
Marana Parks, Recreation, Trails, and Open Space Master Plan (2010) provide
the base open space and trail network shown in Figure 17.

designated open space/parks and treat them as assets. Development adjacent to open space and preservation
areas would be premium and increase the attractiveness of area development. Transportation access to these
areas, while maintaining the character of the area, would be essential.
Figure 17: Recreation, Parks, and Trails

Open Space
Existing open space areas within the study area consist of the Ironwood Forest
to the southwest and the centrally located Picacho Peak State Park. Proposed
open spaces are located to the southwest and east. Two regional parks are
proposed to the north and east of Picacho State Park, which are easily
accessible from the existing transportation network.
Trail Network
The Town of Marana designates trails as either river, park, greenway,
paved/unpaved path, unpaved trail, or single track trail, all of which allow for
multiple non-motorized uses. There are currently no designated or proposed
motorized trails in Marana. For the purpose of this study, trails are defined
according to the Pinal County Open Space and Trails Master Plan (2007) as
follows:




Multi-Use Trails – non-motorized trails that provide for a range of uses,
including hiking, equestrian, and biking
Off-Highway Vehicle (OHV) Trails – motorized trails that are separate
from multi-use trails and allow OHV usage
County Trails – trails which provide regional connections

The existing trail network consists of two county trails, the CAP Canal Trail and
the Juan Bautista de Anza Trail, which provides national and regional trail
connections to Maricopa County and Pima County. Existing multi-use trails are
both paved and unpaved and are located in the northwest and southwest of
the study area. Proposed connections follow drainages and the existing
transportation network to link existing and planned trails to open space. A
proposed OHV trail is located adjacent to SR 79.
Proposed multi-use trail corridors include open space buffers and connect to
Santa Cruz River, Picacho Peak, Tortolita Mountains, Black Mountains, and
Coronado National Forest.

Trails
Existing/Planned Multi‐Use Trail Corridor
Proposed Multi‐Use Trail Corridor
Adopted County Trail Corridor
Adopted Proposed County Trail Corridor
Planned/Existing OHV Trail
Proposed OHV Trail

Land Use
Existing Open Space
Proposed Open Space
Indian Lands

Utilizing the areas of high conservation potential in concert with the need for
recreation areas and parklands, the region can take advantage of

Militaryand
andFederal
Federal
Source: Pinal County Open Space and Trails Master Plan

19

2.2.5

Existing Roadway Network

Transportation Network

Currently, the transportation network within the study area, is centered in and around Casa
Grande, Eloy, and Marana. It is important to build upon the existing transportation network to
maximize value capture from existing fund that is available. As the region grows, resolving facility
gaps or inconsistencies within the current transportation network will ultimately enhance
circulation options, while increase opportunities for more desirable development. Also, it is
important to have complementary facilities to support long-distance trips. An improved, more
robust transportation network will improve market potential by improving access, mobility, and
circulation for people and goods.

Figure 18: Existing Facility Type

The existing roadway network, depicted in Figure 18 and Figure 19, is comprised of two interstates,
four state highways, major roads, and local roads. There are a total of 13 interchanges located
along I-10 and two along I-8. Within the study area, I-10 is used for long distance travel, with state
routes serving as major arterials. Minor arterials and collectors provide local circulation.
Figure 20 details traffic data volumes on the system, based on the CAG and PAG Focus Area
Model, which utilizes 2010 average daily traffic (ADT). I-10 carries the highest volume of traffic
within the study area, with Jimmy Kerr Boulevard, Selma Highway, SR 287 (just outside the study
area), Sunland Gin Road, and Marana Road carrying significant volumes.

Figure 19: Existing Number of Lanes

Facility Type (2010)

ADT (2010)

Posted Traffic Speeds (2010)

Freeway
Major Arterial

Figure 20: Existing Average Daily Traffic and Posted Speed

Number of Lanes (2010)

Less than 25 mph

Minor Arterial

2

25 – 34 mph

Collector

4

35 – 44 mph

Minor Collector

6

45 – 54 mph

Other Roadway

Unpaved Other Roadway

Land Use

Greater than 55 mph

Land Use

Land Use

Existing Open Space

Existing Open Space

Existing Open Space

Proposed Open Space

Proposed Open Space

Proposed Open Space

Indian Lands

Indian Lands

Indian Lands

Military and
and Federal
Federal

Military and Federal

Military and Federal

Source: CAG and PAG Focus Area Model (2014)

Source: CAG and PAG Focus Area Model (2014)

20

Source: CAG and PAG Focus Area Model (2014)

Future Roadway Network

Figure 21: Planned Roadway / Transportation Network

The future transportation network shown in Figure 21 is based on data gleaned
from previous studies including, but not limited to, the Pinal County RSRSM
Study (2008), PAG 2040 RTP (2010), Pinal County Transit Feasibility Study (2011),
and the PAG RSC Study (2014). Ongoing transportation facility studies, such as
the Passenger Rail Corridor Study, I-11 Intermountain West Study, and NorthSouth Corridor Study were also considered.
If constructed, the I-11 and North-South corridors will provide a north-south
connection and alternative to I-10 by connecting Pinal County to Pima County
in the south and to Maricopa County to the north. Local traffic will also provide
north-south and east-west connections throughout the study area via six-lane
arterials and parkways as proposed by the Pinal County RSRSM Study (2008).
As shown in Figure 21, anticipated transit service within the study area is
concentrated along major highways. Future transit includes:








Transit centers in Casa Grande and Eloy
3 park-and-ride lots along I-10
Passenger rail along I-10 south of Eloy and near UPRR north of Eloy
Bus rapid transit service along I-10 south of Marana Road
Express bus service along Tangerine Road
Regional bus service along I-10, SR 87, and SR 84 connecting Eloy, Red
Rock, and Casa Grande to northern Pinal County
Local circulator service within Marana provided by Marana Sun Shuttle

As stated in the Pinal County Transit Feasibility Study (2011), transit service and
regional connections between Casa Grande and Eloy are important due to
anticipated future growth. Eloy is expected to be Pinal County’s fastest
growing community with increased employment opportunities.

Source: Pinal County RSRSM Study (2008), PAG 2040 RTP (2010), Pinal County Transit Study (2011), PAG RSC Study (2014), Passenger
Rail Corridor Study, I-11 Intermountain West Study, North-South Corridor Study

21

Figure 24 depicts the future projected traffic volumes within the study area. Traffic volumes are
anticipated to increase significantly on I-10, as well as on Eleven Mile Corner Road, Toltec Road,
Battaglia Road, Houser Road, and Marana Road. These future projections indicate there may
be a need for additional facilities carrying both local and longer distance trips.

The facility type projected for the 2040 network is depicted in Figure 22 and Figure 23, as reflected
in the CAG and PAG Focus Area Model. In the future, within the study area, I-10, SR 87, and SR
287 (just outside the study area) continue to be the primary major facilities.

Figure 22: Future Facility Type

Figure 23: Future Number of Lanes

Facility Type (2040)
Freeway

Figure 24: Future Average Daily Traffic and Posted Speed

ADT (2040)

Number of Lanes (2040)

Posted Traffic Speeds (2040)

Major Arterial

2

Less than 25 mph

Minor Arterial

4

25 – 34 mph

Collector

6

35 – 44 mph

Minor Collector

8

45 – 54 mph

Other Roadway

Unpaved Other Roadway

Land Use

Greater than 55 mph

Land Use

Land Use

Existing Open Space

Existing Open Space

Existing Open Space

Proposed Open Space

Proposed Open Space

Proposed Open Space

Indian Lands

Indian Lands

Indian Lands

Military and
andFederal
Federal

Military and Federal

Military and Federal

Source: CAG and PAG Focus Area Model (2014)

Source: CAG and PAG Focus Area Model (2014)

22

Source: CAG and PAG Focus Area Model (2014)

Freight
Existing Freeway Truck Volume
The annualized average 24-hour volume of vehicles at a given
point or section of highway is called a traffic count. It is
normally calculated by determining the volume of vehicles
during a given period and dividing that number by the number
of days in that period. Four ADOT facilities within the study area
(Appendix 2) describe the vehicle and truck volumes on the
roadway for the year 2012.
A strong freight network is crucial to attracting and retaining
businesses and jobs because how the network performs will
ultimately shape the logistics performance that Arizona
businesses will use to compete with other regions, states and
countries. There are two pillars to competitive performance.
The first is fast, reliable, productive freight service for which the
risks of disruption are managed and the pressures of growth on
the network are addressed. The second pillar is freight service
end-to-end – from pick-up at shippers’ doors to delivery to
receivers’ doors – because the premise of freight shipment is
that buyer’s receive the goods. This means that the regional
roadway network that connects towns and businesses and the
urban network that serve industrial parks and commercial
zones are as much a part of competitive freight performance
as the interstates.
Major Freight Generators
Major freight generators within the study area reflect the
agricultural, resource mining, and construction trades and form
a significant composition of the economic activity.
The prominent freight generators within Eloy are:








Ballard Truss
HASA Chemicals
Monsanto Company
San Juan Pools
Townley Manufacturing Co.
Schuff Steel
Republic Plastics





Otto Environmental Systems, Inc.
Elrus Aggregate Systems
Arizona Pacific Wood Preserving, Inc.

is a series of tracks used for sorting and consolidating cars into
trains. Railroads had operated as a hub and spike system built
around their yards long before airlines adopted a similar
operating model.

The prominent freight generator within Marana is:


Marana Stockyards and Livestock

Within the study area and the surrounding context, the
following freight generators rely upon the transportation
network:











Red Rock Feeding Co., Red Rock
Cal Portland Rillito Plant, Rillito
Hayden Concrete Products, Rillito
M C Davis Co., Arizona City
Cardinal IG Co., Casa Grande
Fertizona, Casa Grande
Fresh Start Bakeries, Casa Grande
Graham Packaging Co., Casas Grande
Norm Bingham Equipment Co., Casa Grande
Pinal Ways Magazine, Casa Grande

While existing major freight generators are another important
consideration when making long-term transportation planning
decisions, regional clusters of freight generators will provide
planning an economic development opportunities to support
an efficient and reliable surface transportation network. Such
strategies to optimize supply chains and concentrate
complementary industries in a common location could
enhance the ability of the region to attract additional major
shippers and carriers.
Freight Rail Operating Facilities
The railroad network in the U.S. is mostly privately owned and
includes not only the track over which the rail carrier operates
and its trains, but also terminals and facilities. There are two
principal categories of facilities. One category comprises
facilities that support the railroad’s operations, effectively a
component of a railroad’s “factory.” An example of this type
of facility is the rail classification or marshalling yard. A “yard”
23

Rail yards where trains from all parts of a railroad’s network
converge to exchange freight cars can be large, covering
several thousand acres. The proposed Red Rock Classification
Yard, to be located adjacent to I-10 near Picacho Peak, is an
example of a yard where trains from Tucson and Phoenix will be
combined into larger trains destined for the east or west. Yards
can also be smaller facilities distributing and collecting cars on
trains serving local industries. The Buckeye Yard on the western
edge of the Phoenix metropolitan area is an example of this
type of terminal.
UP’s “Sunset Route” connects Southern California to El Paso,
Texas, and through the State of Texas and the Midwest to
Chicago.
The Sunset Corridor is UP’s principal corridor
connecting the Los Angeles Basin, including the Ports of Los
Angeles and Long Beach, with markets in the Midwest and East.
Although the line is currently a mix of double and single track,
UP is completing improvements that will eventually double
track the Sunset Corridor in its entirety. The line serves
communities and economic centers in the southern part of the
State of Arizona, including Yuma, Wellton, Gila Bend, Maricopa,
Casa Grande, Eloy, Marana, Tucson, Benson, and Willcox.
Primary commodities carried on the route are intermodal, coal,
metallic ores mined in Arizona, automobiles, and general
merchandise.
While UP serves Tucson and Pinal County directly through the
Sunset Corridor, UP accesses the Phoenix area by a lesser used
line, the Phoenix Subdivision. This 125 mile route connects to the
Sunset Corridor near Eloy and terminates at a point west of
Phoenix. Maximum operating speed on the line is 60 mph with
train activity currently at fewer than 10 trains per day.

UP also has direct access to markets in Mexico through its
Nogales Subdivision that connects Tucson to Nogales, Mexico.
At the U.S./Mexico border near Nogales, UP connects with
Ferrocarril Mexicano (Ferromex) giving the railroad (and the
region) access to the maquiladora industry and Mexico’s
industrial centers. Ferromex also serves the Port of Guaymas.
The line as a maximum speed of 40 mph. The line to Nogales
as well as the connecting Ferromex line is also restricted to
lower capacity freight cars, a disadvantage to shippers
because of the higher operating cost per ton transported.
Despite the crossing location at Nogales, currently, the majority
of UP’s Mexico traffic flows through the U.S. ports of entry at
Laredo, Texas (37 percent) and Eagle Pass, Texas (32 percent).
Nogales is UP’s third largest border crossing with 12 percent of
the traffic.
Air Freight Inventory
Most airports with scheduled commercial passenger service
have some level of freight activity in the form of belly cargo.
Freight forwarders are general active in every market, and
integrated express services like UPS and FedEx serve all major
airports within the Sun Corridor. The major difference in the
services between airports is the frequency of service and the
size of aircraft utilized. The air-cargo business has shifted in
three significant ways:
1. More shipments have shifted to trucks because of cost,
2. More air cargo is carried via passenger aircraft, and
3. FedEx and UPS have emerged as a near duopoly in
expedited parcel shipments.
Within the Sun Corridor, four airports of varying sizes have cargo
handling ability, including belly cargo or all-cargo. Table 5
provides a list of these airport facilities and their runway
dimensions. As shown, these airports each have a runway with
sufficient length to accommodate take off and landings for a
smaller integrated express carrier or all-cargo carrier jet, such
as a Boeing 727 aircraft (minimum runway length of 5,800 feet).

Three airports have the ability to accommodate larger freight
aircraft that would likely be flown by an integrated express
carrier or all-cargo carrier utilizing an airport facility for a hub
operation, such as a McDonnell Douglas MD-10 or Boeing 747
aircraft (runway length greater than 9,800 feet). Such a hub
operation would include package sorting facilities rather than
straight transfer of packages to trucks.

container services require shippers to truck their freight to
specially designed terminals that have the equipment for
transferring trailers and containers to or from flat cars. These
facilities are located strategically on the Class I railroad network
to take advantage of large markets and concentrated
movements of containerized freight, most often near major
metropolitan areas or adjacent to major marine port facilities.

Table 5: Sun Corridor Air Cargo Facilities

While intermodal growth over the past 20 years was primarily
driven by international trade, development of new intermodal
facilities and railroad operating and marketing practices has
increased the viability of all-domestic intermodal moves.
Nationally, rail carriers, with the assistance of some public
subsidies, have invested heavily in creating terminals bridging
the modal capabilities of roadway, rail, and marine cargo.

Longest
Runway Length
x Width (feet)

Airport Facility

County

Phoenix Sky Harbor International
Airport (PHX)

Maricopa

11,490 x 150

Tucson International Airport (TUS)

Pima

10,996 x 150

Phoenix-Mesa Gateway Airport
(IGA)

Maricopa

10,401 x 150

Pinal Airpark (MZJ)

Pinal

6,849 x 150

Source: Sun Corridor Freight Framework, 2012

In addition to the runway length, factors that would influence
the selection of one of these airports as a hub for air cargo
could include air traffic control during night time hours,
available land on or surrounding the airport for sorting facilities,
roadway access to the interstate system, and environmental
concerns such as noise control.
In lieu of attracting new air-cargo hubs, which requires
significant investment, public private partnership, and longterm commitments, leveraging existing assets for air-cargo
operations and new uses will be the most advantageous
strategy in the short-term. Although air-hub operations may not
be likely for these airports, there is still potential for substantial
logistics operations, and with that potential, a need to improve
connecting road networks.
Intermodal Facilities and Transload Terminals with Transfer Capacity
Traditionally, railroads would serve all their customers at their
loading docks. The introduction of intermodal trailer and

24

Railroads also recognized that by providing central facilities for
loading or unloading other types of freight cars, they could
both penetrate a competitor’s market without direct access to
a shipper and provide rail service to customers lacking spur
track access. By also serving multiple shippers through these
“transload” or transfer terminals, railroads enjoy the added
benefit of avoiding the high cost to shippers. Table 6 details the
nearest transload facilities to the study area.
Railroad
customers, in turn, benefit from the value-added services that
can be provided at these transfer terminals. These facilities are
often equipped with specialized equipment to facilitate
expedited loading/unloading. These may include specialized
pumps and piping, conveyors, and cranes.

Table 6: Nearest Transload Facilities to Study Area
Operator

Location

Facility Type

Freeport Logistics

4625 N 45th Street,
Phoenix

Break bulk products;
warehouse storage

Port of Tucson

6964 E Century Park
Drive, Tucson

Break bulk products,
produce, frozen
foods

2.2.6

Estimated Cost of Plan

In response to land use plans, traffic engineers have described preliminary
concept of regional routes and corridors. A series of six-lane parkways and
arterials describes a means to address the travel demand generated from the
land use plans. The 130- to 150-foot roadway cross sections feature 12- to 14foot travel lanes. Design standards describe posted speeds of 50-65 miles per
hour (mph) for Parkways and 35-50 mph on arterials.
Vehicles speeds play a critical role in the cause and severity of crashes.
Lowering the frequency of injuries and fatalities is a crucial public health goal
for the study area. The risk of pedestrian fatalities where vehicle speeds top 50
mph increases substantially, while 30 mph speeds reduce the risk to 40 percent
and 20 mph speeds lower the risk further to less than 10 percent.
Total cost to implement the Regionally Significant Routes is estimated at nearly
$10 billion for all of Pinal County. Within the study area, rough magnitude cost
estimates anticipate planned buildout to exceed $5 billion (Table 7). The unit
estimates of probable costs in the plan assume that new roadways include a
minimum level of landscaping limited to gravel or decomposed granite and a
minimum number of plants. The unit estimate of probable cost does not
include costs for right-of-way acquisition. Inclusion of right-of-way unit costs will
require detailed right-of-way investigation in future studies.
While the vision for the multimodal transportation improvements is to provide a
“high level of safety … for automobile, transit, and pedestrian trips,” the high
vehicle speeds, wide travel lanes, and limited amenities for pedestrians are
gaps between vision and outcomes which can be overcome. The financial
constraints of initial infrastructure capital cost, as well as long-term operations
and maintenance, will burden development over the long term.

Table 7: RSR Miles and Dollars.

Existing
Length
Classification (miles)
Parkway
30
Parkway
5
Parkway
30
Arterial
10
Arterial
135
Arterial
80
Arterial
85

Number
of Lanes
2
2
4
2
2
-

Future

Rough Magnitude of Cost

Pavement Number Pavement
Condition of Lanes Condition

Per Mile

Total Capital and
20-year O & M

Paved
Unpaved
Paved
Paved
Unpaved
-

$8 - 9.5 Million
$8 - 9.5 Million
$25 - 28 Million
$4 - 6 Million
$8 - 9.5 Million
$8 - 9.5 Million
$20 - 23 Million

$260 - 310 Million
$40 - 50 Million
$830 - 920 Million
$40 - 70 Million
$1190 - 1410 Million
$700 - 840 Million
$1870 - 2150 Million

TOTAL:

$4.9 - 5.7 Billion

6
6
6
6
6
6
6

Paved
Paved
Paved
Paved
Paved
Paved
Paved

Annual Capital Per Year
25 Year Plan
$200 - 230 Million
50 Year Plan
$100 - 120 Million
75 Year Plan
$70 - 80 Million
100 Year plan
$50 - 60 Million
Source: Rough magnitude of cost estimates utilized methodology from a November 2010 bqAZ Memorandum and were updated to
present dollars.

Real estate development describes these pre-development costs and preoccupancy costs as the amount of investment, or “lift”, required prior to
development for an area.

25

2.3

Workshop 1 Summary

Project Workshop #1 was conducted on May 8, 2014. While
other focused outreach and agency meetings had previously
occurred as part of the project scope, this meeting was the first
meeting where all the stakeholders were invited to provide
feedback on the findings to date and provide input to shape
the scenarios and alternatives for the tasks to follow. The
meeting included representation from Pinal County, City of
Eloy, Town of Marana, Maricopa Association of Governments
(MAG), ADOT, UP, ASLD, and private sector businesses and
landowners.
Members of the project team discussed the scope, schedule,
and analysis to date in a general presentation to kick off the
meeting, which included discussion of existing trip travel
pattern data, combined land uses from the cities and counties,
environmental data, and findings from the Regionally
Significant Routes for Safety and Mobility (RSRSM) Study. A
breakout session followed with the intention being to collect
input and discuss opportunities and issues in the study area.
Attendees formed three breakout groups that focused on
addressing a series of questions related to how the area could
logically develop, understanding infill potential, and what
attributes should be considered in planning such a large area.
Figure 25 depicts the workshop breakout groups.
Based on input collected from the three groups, the following
themes were identified, in no particular order:


Infrastructure
o A reliever or parallel facility to I-10 should be
considered to relieve future congestion and improve
emergency and traffic management.
o Union Pacific Rail line transverses the corridor, which
provides an infrastructure barrier and also potential
opportunities for development.
o Future Passenger Rail Corridor is proposed within
study area.
o Central Arizona Project (CAP) canal provides some
infrastructure barriers within the study area.



Environment
o Extensive floodways throughout the study area which
support species diversity and create a robust habitat
for flora and fauna, but also somewhat limits
development or creates increased development
costs.
o Significant topographical considerations within study
area, which also can become assets for habitat
conservation, recreation, and open space.



Open Space
o A significant regional open space/environmental
corridor stretching from Ironwood Forest north to SR
79 and beyond could be a valued environmental,
cultural,
and
economic
asset
if
planned
appropriately.



Development
o If the Red Rock Classification Yard is approved,
access from I-10 to lands north will need to be
reevaluated.
o Landscaped screening/buffering treatments should
be considered to mitigate visual impacts of the Red
Rock Classification Yard from I-10 and other
surrounding uses.
o Red Rock Classification Yard as a catalyst to other
growth and development.
o Portions of the corridor along I-10, between Eloy and
Marana, may be constrained for development due
to the CAP, UP, and floodway/drainage, which may
lead to increases in infrastructure costs that will need
to be mitigated.
o Pinal Airpark is a focus area for Marana to expand as
jobs center.
o Large tracts of single-owner land that have potential
to develop at the nexus of SR 87 and I-10.
o State land has major land holdings in study area
which can impact timeline of development.

Figure 26 is a compilation of the specific issues, concerns, and
potential opportunities identified during the breakout session.
26

Figure 25: Workshop 1 Photos

2.4

Figure 26: Workshop 1 Summary

Define Planning Focus Areas

Great imagining has occurred within the study area to describe how the region
can create value and fulfill a role within the Sun Corridor. In response, plans
have described how transportation, land use, development, and
environmental resources will be created, preserved, maintained, and
leveraged within the study area. Today, indicators point to several trends that
pose barriers and opportunities to achieving outcomes desired by the citizens
of Eloy, Marana, and Pinal and Pima Counties.
Central to understanding the opportunities in the study area will be
understanding, at a high planning level, the utilization of built infrastructure
along the corridor. To accomplish this, the team has defined six geographical
study areas. These study areas can also be used to understand the potential
market demand along the corridor. Through the integration of existing public
infrastructure assets, with the market-based anticipation of development
patterns, the project team will be able to identify key priority areas that would
best leverage public resources to promote community goals and maximize
economic development.
The following pages describes additional opportunities that could be explored
in the six focus areas listed below:


Focus Area One – (I-10)



Focus Area Four – (Pinal Airpark)



Focus Area Two – (Eloy)



Focus Area Five – (Marana)



Focus Area Three – (Red Rock)



Focus Area Six – (SR 87)

Focus Area One – I-10
Focus area one, depicted in Figure 27, represents the lands along the I-10
corridor that connect Eloy to Marana. Additionally, this corridor is presently the
most traveled connection between Phoenix and Tucson. This corridor
accommodates a high percentage of vehicle trips and is located through
natural desert open spaces (which is very rare). Most of I-10 is becoming highly
urbanized with a lack of natural character. The high concentration of trips
along this corridor creates an opportunity for expanded economic
development, which accounts for the existing urbanized areas along the
corridor. However this stretch of I-10 is either undeveloped or is highly
underutilized from an economic development perspective. The project team
understands that large amounts of industrial-related development is
anticipated to occur along the corridor over the next 5 to 15 years.
27

The challenge will be to design development patterns and
character types that create economic development centers
that can be more sustainable than typical highway strip
development and can also preserve and leverage natural
open space to increase development premium. Focusing on
centers would greatly benefit the future transportation system
needed within this area of Pinal County.
Focus Area Two – Eloy
Focus area two, Eloy, is depicted in Figure 28. Bounded on
three sides by major regional transportation facilities, the
existing built area of the City of Eloy is well connected to trading
partners at all levels. It has the components to grow into a
highly desirable urban center. However, the city core and
downtown area has not seen significant investment for
decades. While there is much opportunity, a lot of work is
needed to improve the character of the area in a manner that
can attract private investment.
In addition, the ADOT Passenger Rail Corridor Study describes
rail corridor alternatives with connections to Eloy. Given the
desire for long-term economic development and livability, the
city is well-positioned to leverage the transportation assets and
enhance the last mile connection to mixed-use districts in the
city. For these connections, the historic street grid is a valuable
asset that was established by the city founders and can be
expanded to the east to promote land division and high
intersection densities. It is possible that infill land-use strategies
could sustain a large portion of forecasted growth in the area.
To Leverage the existing assets, the city can identify small focus
areas for promotion of a “Main Street” district, Entrepreneurial
ventures, and small businesses. Larger industrial uses proposed
by developers can expand the economic base and job market
adjacent to SR 87. A range of partnerships could be created
that can be combined with main street business consulting and
retention programs to enhance the civic core and establish a
foundation to catalyze future growth opportunities.

Focus Area Three – Red Rock

Figure 27: Focus Area One – 1-10

Focus area three, depicted in Figure 29, centers on the area of
Red Rock. Today the area is undeveloped with transportationoriented uses (fueling stating and rest and recovery) adjacent
to the I-10 Interchange, with the recreation uses of Picacho
Peak. The double-tracked railway alignment carries significant
east-west traffic for UP. Development in the area will be
supported by labor forces present in Marana and Eloy and
farther yet from Phoenix and Tucson. In the current condition,
development in this area will promote an increase in both
cumulative vehicle miles traveled and vehicle hours traveled.
Additionally, impacts from development due to traffic loading
onto I-10 may reduce national and regional mobility unless
secondary and tertiary transportation networks are created,
which will be identified as part of this study. Considerations for
new development must address both site constraints due to
topography, canals, State and Indian lands, and state parks
and regionally significant transportation corridors. Given the
significant contiguous undeveloped land areas in Pinal County,
the area adjacent to UP railroad provides a unique opportunity
for industrial development that would need to utilize rail,
potentially fir distribution and delivery.
The project team understands that there is a desire by UP to
create a classification yard within this focus area directly
adjacent to I-10. The classification yard could be developed
to include a future privately developed industrial component
that could include direct rail-served spurs to development
parcels. While this use could be accommodated within this
focus area, there are many possible conditions that would
require mitigation, mainly access to lands beyond the yard and
character treatments along the I-10 corridor. Additionally, the
proposed location is opposite Picacho Peak and could limit
future regional open space connections.
Within this focus area it will be important to understand the
location and timeframe for development of market-based uses
since there is an opportunity for this area to create long-term
economic value through strategic development that can
28

Figure 28: Focus Area Two – Eloy

Figure 29: Focus Area Three – Red Rock

benefit from preservation of natural assets. This opportunity
could address economic development goals, preserve cultural
heritage, and expand positive health benefits. Understanding
this opportunity will influence how the transportation network
should be planned through this centrally located focus area.
Focus Area Four – Pinal Airpark
Focus area four, depicted in Figure 30, centers on Pinal Airpark
and its immediate surroundings. It’s strategically located
adjacent to I-10 and contains substantial aviation-related
transportation infrastructure with available undeveloped and
underutilized lands surrounding the facility. Majority of the
current infrastructure is outdated but programs to being
updating them have begun. Additionally, its nearness to UP rail
line could create an opportunity to expand this facility into an
intermodal facility located north of Tucson.
A facility in this location could support the region and provide
cargo services directly connected to rail and the interstate
highway system to distribute goods east of I-8 and the future
possible alignment of the Intermountain West Corridor. This link
of resources could also create new opportunities in education,
research and development, and other sectors and businesses
that do no currently exist. Furthermore, this area is near a
distributed transportation network as well as close to the
growing skilled labor force in Marana and Tucson and could be
developed into a viable regional employment center.

vehicle trips and improve community character by
strengthening the relationships between the various types and
uses of building and their adjacent street spaces.
The proximity to the Pinal Airpark and anticipated future growth
will provide new opportunities for economic diversification. The
south side of the Airpark provides access to the labor force in
Marana and requires a transportation network of routes that
promote land subdivision and route redundancy. Coordination
with the airport and surrounding industrial uses can preserve this
long-term opportunity while creating alternative development
patterns that promote a more sustainable mix of uses and
possibly form a business cluster of related sectors.
Major hubs of employment, office parks, and other commercial
areas can be significant generators of activity that could
support future transit ridership. Buildings set back from the street
and dispersed between large surface parking lots create long
walking distances for pedestrians, which discourage walking.
Circuitous road patterns lengthen travel times and result in an
inefficient transportation system.

While the economic activities desired by the town are well
articulated, the town could emphasize more integrated
development patterns in a way to promote fewer private

Figure 31: Focus Area Five – Marana

Focus Area Six – 87
Focus area six, depicted in Figure 32, is located at a strategic
center comprised of the interstate highway system, a newly
planned regional north-south roadway, a possible passenger
rail corridor, and the nearby communities of Eloy, Coolidge,
and Casa Grande.

Focus Area Five – Marana
Focus area five consists of the Marana area, depicted in Figure
31. With proximity to the Tucson market, Marana established
itself as a residential alternative for labor employed in Tucson.
The town’s economic roadmap provides specificity to target
markets and specific districts north of Avra Valley Road located
within the study area.

Figure 30: Focus Area Four – Pinal Airpark

SR 87 is a regional connector from I-10 north to the Phoenix East
Valley cities. This facility is also a major connector to SR 79,
which parallels I-10 south to Tucson. Adjacent to SR87 is the
planned north-south corridor that will provide increased trip
capacity and provide enhanced connectivity to the region.
Additionally, a large land owner in this focus area is currently
interested to developing land into a multi-phased commercial
and industrial employment and distribution center. Significant
development in this area will likely absorb a high percentage
of planned growth.

29

Figure 32: Focus Area Six – SR 87

3.0 MARKET UNDERSTANDING
Among the inputs to this strategic transportation effort for this
study is a forecast that looks at potential development
opportunities that build on recent development patterns and
institutional forecasts of population and employment. The
magnitude and character of these opportunities will be an
important driver of future transportation investments.
This section serves to characterize the population, household
and employment growth, bringing to light trends and growth
patterns within the study area and focus areas. The analysis
relies on the socioeconomic forecasts provided by ADOT and
utilizes the resulting trends, projected demand for commercial
land uses (industrial, office and retail) for the study area.

3.1



Commercial Real Estate Land Use Projections




Market Analysis Methodology

In order to characterize economic and demographic growth
trends and project demand for commercial land uses,
statistical and qualitative methods were used, as described
below:





Economic and Demographic Growth Trends




The study team utilized data provided by ADOT for the
study area as well as for the defined focus areas defined
in Transportation Analysis Zones (TAZs). The data includes
historical 2010 numbers as well as 2035 projections for
population, households, and employment. In addition to
this data, outside sources were utilized, such as the U.S.
Bureau of the Census and ESRI Business Analyst, to
provide additional insight where applicable.
The data were then aggregated from the TAZ level to
express the changes in population, households, and
employment from 2010 to 2035 for Maricopa, Pima, and
Pinal Counties, as well as the Study area and focus areas.

These changes were then used to identify projected
shifts in household size, as well as employment per
household, in order to characterize how each area is
growing.





Once economic and demographic projections were
established and characterized, historical commercial
real estate land uses for industrial, office/flex, and retail
land uses by total inventory, occupancy, net absorption,
and rent using data from Costar Group, Inc., were
summarized.
Employment data was categorized at the MSA level by
sector, and estimated the percent of employed persons
that would utilize industrial and office/flex land uses, to
arrive at a total industrial and office/flex use figure.
These employment figures were then compared
historically to establish employment density (square
footage per employee).
The industrial and office/flex employment density factors
were then applied to the projected new industrial and
office/flex-using employment to arrive at a projected
2035 floor area space requirement.
Projected new retail square feet was obtained by
examining the current retail square feet per household
(per Costar) at the county level and multiplying this by
the projected new households in each of the relevant
areas.
New commercial square feet for each land use were
then translated into acres use a Floor to Area Ratio (FAR)
obtained from anecdotal evidence in Costar.

30

3.2

General Demographic Trends

From 2000 to 2010, Pinal County was by far the fastest growing
of the three counties examined on a percent basis in terms of
population, households, and employment.


Pinal County annual population growth averaged
17,600 (7.3%) per year over this period, compared to
Maricopa County at 81,200 (2.4%), and Pima County at
14,700 (1.4%).



Households shows a similar trend with Pinal, Maricopa,
and Pima Counties growing by 6,400 (7.4%), 27,900
(2.2%), and 5,600 (1.6%) per year respectively.



Employment projections were no different, with Pinal
County growing by 1,400 (3.2%), Maricopa County by
10,000 (0.7%), and Pima County by 540 (0.2%).



Yet projections for 2035 shift dramatically away from the
2000 -2010 growth trend, with Pinal County growing by
6,600 (1.6%) people per year, compared to figures of
78,400 (1.7%) in Maricopa County and 7,400 (1.7%) in
Pima County.



Households projections are unsurprisingly similar with
Pinal County growing by 2,600 (1.7%) per year, and
Maricopa and Pima Counties growing by 34,900 (1.9%)
and 6,800 (1.5%) respectively.



Pinal County is projected to grow by 1,200 (1.9%) jobs per
year, while Maricopa and Pima Counties are projected
to grow by 52,000 (2.4%) and 7,400 (1.7%) respectively.
See Figure 33, Figure 34, Figure 35, and Table 8 on the
next page for more detail.

Table 8: State Growth by County
POPULATION
AVERAGE ANNUAL
GROWTH

TOTAL
TOTAL

HOUSEHOLDS

EMPLOYMENT
AVERAGE ANNUAL
GROWTH

TOTAL

AVERAGE ANNUAL
GROWTH

TOTAL

CAGR

SHARE OF
STATE

TOTAL

SHARE OF
STATE

TOTAL

CAGR

SHARE OF STATE

TOTAL

SHARE OF
STATE

TOTAL

CAGR

SHARE OF
STATE

TOTAL

SHARE OF STATE

MARICOPA COUNTY
2000

3,004,985

--

59.8%

--

--

1,132,886

--

59.6%

--

--

1,497,231

--

66.8%

--

--

2010

3,817,117

2.4%

60.2%

81,213

61.6%

1,411,583

2.2%

59.3%

27,870

58.1%

1,597,898

0.7%

69.3%

10,067

157.7%

2035

5,776,300

1.7%

59.5%

78,367

58.2%

2,283,494

1.9%

61.8%

34,876

66.3%

2,901,686

2.4%

72.0%

52,152

75.6%

PINAL COUNTY
2000

173,364

--

3.5%

--

--

61,364

--

3.2%

--

--

37,697

--

1.7%

--

--

2010

349,688

7.3%

5.5%

17,632

13.4%

125,625

7.4%

5.3%

6,426

13.4%

51,788

3.2%

2.2%

1,409

22.1%

2035

514,304

1.6%

5.3%

6,585

4.9%

190,409

1.7%

5.2%

2,591

4.9%

82,262

1.9%

2.0%

1,219

1.8%

2000

828,905

--

16.5%

--

--

332,350

--

17.5%

--

--

346,900

--

15.5%

--

--

2010

975,580

1.6%

15.4%

14,668

11.1%

388,660

1.6%

16.3%

5,631

11.7%

352,300

0.2%

15.3%

540

8.5%

2035

1,385,982

1.4%

14.3%

16,416

12.2%

557,462

1.5%

15.1%

6,752

12.8%

538,112

1.7%

13.4%

7,432

10.8%

2000

5,025,823

--

100.0%

--

--

1,901,327

--

100.0%

--

--

2,242,900

--

100.0%

--

--

2010

6,343,154

2.4%

100.0%

131,933

100.0%

2,380,990

2.3%

100.0%

47,966

100.0%

2,306,749

0.3%

100.0%

6,385

100.0%

2035

9,706,653

1.7%

100.0%

134,540

100.0%

3,696,464

1.8%

100.0%

52,619

100.0%

4,030,253

2.3%

100.0%

68,940

100.0%

PIMA COUNTY

ARIZONA

Source: U.S. Census Bureau; CAG; MAG; PAG; RCLCO

Figure 33: Share of State Growth
by Population, 2010-2035

Figure 34: Share of State Growth
by Households, 2010-2035

31

Figure 35: Share of State Growth
by Employment, 2010-2035

3.3



Study Area and Focus Area Trends

The study area saw significant growth from 2000 to 2010, with
population and household growth of 2,200 (5.8%) and 959
(7.3%) respectively.






Projected growth through 2035 is even more focused on
Focus Area Five, with 78.5% of the annual population
growth and 79.5% of the household growth occurring in
this area. Growth in the other five Focus Areas is
moderate ranging from 1.4% in Area Three to 1.7% in
Focus Area Six.

in the additional capacity requirement of 151,000 square
feet, or 15 acres, per year.




Of the Focus Areas, Focus Area One, Three, and Five saw
significant average annual population growth on a
percentage basis of 7.7%, 9.2%, and 11.1% respectively,
while Focus Areas Two, Four, and Six saw very little or
negative growth.
On an absolute scale, Focus Area Five is the only area
with significant growth, accounting for 39% of the
population growth and 27.5% of the household growth in
the study area from 2000-2010.

Employment growth follows the same trend, with Focus
Area Five taking the largest share of the growth (87.7%)
in the study area.
The other Focus Areas show moderate growth on a
percentage basis, but relatively insignificant on an
absolute basis with the next largest growth, Focus Area
Two, accounting for 29 new jobs per year. Figure 36,
Figure 37, Figure 38, and Table 10 (all on the following
page) provide a detailed breakdown of these
demographic trends.

3.4

Land Use Projections

3.4.1

Study Area

Projected land requirements within the study area based upon
the previously presented methodology result in little demand
for land for the study area.


The study area is projected to require a total of 3.8 million
square feet, or 328 acres, of industrial, office/flex, and
retail space through 2035. On an annual basis this results

Given that the size of the study area is approximately
1,100 square miles (704,000 acres), this volume of land
use would be insignificant.

3.4.2

Focus Area

Similarly, the focus areas provide little function indication of
large-scale commercial development based on the
population, household, and employment projections.


Excluding Focus Areas Two and Five, none of the other
focus areas are projected to require more than 10
additional acres through 2035.



Focus Area Five (the section of Marana within the study
area) is projected to require 231 acres, or 9.25 acres per
year through 2035. This represents 70% of the total
demand in the study area.
Table 9 shows the
breakdown by focus area.

Table 9: Projected Demand for Industrial, Office/Flex, and Retail Land Uses In Square Feet and Acres, 2010-2035
Focus Area 1
(I-10)

Study Area
Projected Land Use (SF)
Industrial
Office/Flex
Retail
Total

Focus Area 2
(Eloy)

Focus Area 3
(Red Rock)

Focus Area 4
(Pinal Airpark)

Focus Area 5
(Marana)

Focus Area 6
(SR 87)

411,000
838,110
2,529,270
3,778,380

3,833
3,035
18,162
25,029

33,474
32,624
78,761
144,859

0
0
0
0

210
42
36,498
36,750

326,813
696,812
1,666,449
2,690,073

3,161
13,671
55,176
72,008

31
64
232
328

0
2
2
4

3
2
7
12

0
0
0
0

0
0
3
3

25
53
153
231

0
1
5
6

Projected Land Use (Acres)
Industrial
Office/Flex
Retail
Total
Source: CAG; MAG; PAG; Costar Group, Inc.; RCLCO

32

Table 10: Growth by Study Area
POPULATION

HOUSEHOLDS

TOTAL
TOTAL

AVERAGE ANNUAL GROWTH
CAGR

STUDY AREA
SHARE

TOTAL

STUDY AREA
SHARE

TOTAL
TOTAL

CAGR

EMPLOYMENT

AVERAGE ANNUAL GROWTH
STUDY AREA
SHARE

TOTAL

STUDY AREA
SHARE

TOTAL

AVERAGE ANNUAL GROWTH

TOTAL

CAGR

STUDY AREA
SHARE

TOTAL

STUDY AREA
SHARE

STUDY AREA, TOTAL
2000

29,292

--

--

--

--

9,315

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

2010
2035

51,582
126,336

5.8%
3.6%

---

2,229
2,990

---

18,901
49,302

7.3%
3.9%

---

959
1,216

---

9,070
32,066

-5.2%

---

-920

---

597
1,255
1,844

-7.7%
1.6%

2.0%
2.0%
1.0%

-66
24

-3.0%
0.8%

203
418
635

-7.5%
1.7%

-2.2%
1.3%

-22
8

-2.2%
0.7%

-160
256

--1.9%

-2.0%
1.0%

--4

--0.4%

9,901
9,275
13,639

--0.7%
1.6%

34.0%
18.0%
11.0%

--63
175

--2.8%
5.8%

2,404
3,020
4,583

-2.3%
1.7%

-16.0%
9.3%

-62
63

-6.4%
5.1%

-1,236
1,965

--1.9%

-14.0%
6.0%

--29

--3.2%

-9.2%
1.4%

0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

-4
1

-0.2%
0.0%

17
36
51

-7.8%
1.4%

-0.2%
0.1%

-2
1

-0.2%
0.0%

-0
0

--0.0%

-0.0%
0.0%

--0

--0.0%

-19.5%
1.5%

0.6%
2.1%
1.3%

-91
20

-4.1%
0.7%

64
365
553

-19.0%
1.7%

-1.9%
1.1%

-30
8

-3.1%
0.7%

-7
11

--1.8%

-0.0%
0.0%

--0

--0.0%

-11.1%
7.0%

15.9%
25.7%
56.9%

-862
2,347

-38.6%
78.5%

1,622
5,200
29,373

-12.4%
7.2%

-27.5%
59.6%

-358
967

-37.3%
79.5%

-5,452
25,623

--6.4%

-60.0%
80.0%

--807

--87.7%

2000
3,136
-2010
1,749
-5.7%
2035
2,571
1.6%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau; CAG; MAG; PAG; RCLCO

10.7%
3.4%
2.0%

--139
33

--6.2%
1.1%

493
550
836

-1.1%
1.7%

-2.9%
1.7%

-6
13

-0.6%
1.1%

-303
482

--1.9%

-3.0%
2.0%

--7

--0.8%

FOCUS AREA 1 – (I-10)
2000
2010
2035

FOCUS AREA 2 – (ELOY)
2000
2010
2035

FOCUS AREA 3 – (RED ROCK)
2000
2010
2035

31
75
105

FOCUS AREA 4 – (PINAL AIRPARK)
2000
2010
2035

183
1,090
1,601

FOCUS AREA 5 – (MARANA)
2000
2010
2035

4,646
13,261
71,941

FOCUS AREA 6 – (SR 87)

Figure 37: Share of Study Area Growth
By Households, 2010‐2035

Figure 36: Share of Study Area Growth
By Population, 2010‐2035

33

Figure 38: Share of Study Area Growth
By Employment, 2010‐2035

3.5

Market Assumptions

The conclusions of the market analysis are based on the
analysis of the most currently understood information available.
Certain assumptions wer3e made about the future
performance of the global, national, and local economy and
real estate market. Given the fluid and dynamic nature of the
economy and real estate markets, as well as the uncertainty
surrounding particularly near-term future, it is critical to monitor
the economy and markets continuously and to revisit the
market analysis periodically.
It is assumed that the economy and real estate markets will
grow at a stable and moderate rate starting in 2010, more or
less in a straight line average to 2020 and beyond. However,
history tells us that stable and moderate growth patterns are
not sustainable over extended periods of time, and that the
economy is cyclical and that the real estate markets are
typically highly sensitive to business cycles. It is difficult to
predict when the current economic and real estate downturns
will end, and what will be the shape and pace of growth once
they are recovered. It is assumed that the long term average
absorption rates and price changes will be as projected.
Realizing that most of the time performance will be either
above or below said average rates.
This analysis does not take into account the potential impact of
future economic shocks on the local economy, and does not
necessarily account for the potential benefits from major
“booms.” Similarly, the analysis does not necessarily reflect the
residual impact on the real estate market and the competitive
environment of such a shock or boom.
Close monitoring of the economy and the marketplace is
recommended. It is assumed that once the current cycle is
over, the following will occur in accordance with current
expectations:


Economic, employment, and household growth.



Forecasts of trends and demographic and economic
patterns, including consumer confidence levels.



The cost of development and construction.



Tax laws (i.e., property and income tax
deductibility of mortgage interest, and so forth).



The availability and cost of capital and mortgage
financing for real estate developers, owners and buyers,
at levels present in the market before the most recent run
up (i.e., early 2000s levels).



Competitive projects will be developed as planned
(active and future) and that a reasonable steam of
supply offerings will satisfy real estate demand.



Major public works projects occur and are completed as
planned.

rates,

Should any of the above change, this analysis should be
updated, with the conclusions reviewed accordingly.

Transportation Plan (RTP).
Because the CAG RTP was
concurrent with this study, and overlapped this study area, it
was determined that the RTP should be utilize as the baseline
future scenario, referred to as Scenario A.
Following protocol as outlined in State Statutes, the CAG RTP
utilized total population and employment estimates within the
study area consistent with projections established by the
Arizona State Demographer’s Office, working with official
population estimates and projections for the State of Arizona.
The CAG Population Technical Advisory Committee (POPTAC)
working group, which includes the coordinating parties of this
study, determined the sub-regional distribution of population
and employment forecasts at the Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ)
level for the transportation planning process. ADOT’s travel
demand model (AZTDM) was utilized as the platform for the
CAG travel demand model. The existing (2010) and future
(2040) population and employment distribution based on
AZTDM was presented in Section 2.2. The CAG 2040 condition,
together with the PAG future condition, was considered
Scenario A, based on the distribution within the CAG RTP.
4.1.2

4.0 SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT
4.1

Baseline Scenario and Proposed Scenario

Travel forecasts are estimated for future conditions based on
population and employment growth projections that build
upon existing population and employment conditions. This
section describes the scenario development process, the
baseline scenario and the proposed scenario utilized for this
study. Detail about revision to the travel demand model as part
of this process can be found in the Appendix.
4.1.1

Baseline Scenario

In summer 2014, CAG completed the development of a
regional travel demand model as part of their Regional
34

Planned Development

The Technical Working Group (TWG) for this PARA study
acknowledged that the CAG RTP model and the conducted
market analysis did not account for all the currently known
planned development with the study area. Therefore, the TWG
requested that this study develop a future socioeconomic
scenario that would address several entitled residential
developments and eleven zoned or planned industrial
developments within the study area. These residential and
industrial developments were documented in Figure 11.
Residential development is fully entitled and industrial is
proposed or zoned.
Working with the TWG and the Pinal County Economic
Development Department, this study created a future scenario
that quantifies job, population, and household figures for the
future condition when all currently identified development is
complete.

4.1.3

Proposed Scenario

A proposed socioeconomic scenario, referred to as Scenario B,
was developed as part of this study in order to capture the
planned development anticipated beyond that identified as
part of the CAG RTP (Scenario A). Scenario B accounts for
known opportunities, including population and employment
that may occur beyond the 2040 horizon year. Due to Scenario
B accounting for known opportunities in which developments
may occur beyond the 2040 horizon year, population and
employment thresholds were utilized, with direction by the
TWG, for future needs and not linked to a specific design year.
The population and the employment for Scenario B is identified
in Figure 39 and Figure 40 respectively on the next page.

4.2

Demographic Trends

The development trends depicted in Scenario B will redistribute
population centers in significant ways. This section describes
the demographic characteristics of Scenario B within the study
area and by Focus Area, as previously established in Section
2.4.
4.2.1

Study Area

As summarized in Table 11, the population and employment in
Scenario B is a substantial increase over Scenario A. This
expansion of population and employment will have significant
effects on infrastructure. The population projected in Scenario
B is based on buildout of the residential development identified
to have start years by 2040. The population assumes buildout
of these housing developments, which may occur after 2040.
While close to 100,000 jobs will be the result of new economic
opportunities for residents, it is anticipated that employment
growth will lag residential growth, which follows typical
development trends. When a large mismatch exists between
housing and employment, called the jobs-to-housing ratio,
significant pressure on the transportation system may occur
due to the need to travel long distances for work. In this case,
within the study area, due to the jobs-to-housing ratio, there will

be continued demand on the transportation network for longer
distance works trips, although hit should be noted that a major
employment center of Casa Grande is located slightly outside
the study area.

Table 11: Study Area Population & Employment, by Scenario

Population
Employment

Existing

Scenario A

Scenario B

(2010)

(CAG RTP 2040)

(CAG RTP 2040 +
Additional Development)*

45,000
8,000

161,000
45,000

674,000
110,000

*Additional development may occur beyond the 2040 horizon year. Population and
employment projections should be utilized as thresholds for needed infrastructure
improvements, instead of being linked to a specific year.

4.2.2

Comparisons by Focus Area

The six Focus Areas previously identified help to understand
how the growth trends vary throughout the study area, thus
providing insights into potential real estate submarkets and
associated infrastructure needs. The anticipated housing
growth is strongest within the incorporated area of Eloy, with
more than one-third of all future development.
Future
employment is highest in Marana, followed by the Eloy and the
SR 87 Corridor focus areas.
The anticipated growth in the area contiguous with existing
development is consistent with the market demand
assessment, noting that the market demand would naturally
extend from the areas with existing infrastructure. As such, the
areas of Eloy and Marana, as well as the corridor along SR 87,
are most likely to experience near-term development.

4.3

Freight Opportunities

The study area includes many areas where freight-related
business are established as well as opportunity areas for
increased fright-based economic development. This section
describes the potential for these freight opportunities.

35

4.3.1

Context: Freight Transportation Framework Study

In 2012, the Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG)
completed a regional study for the Sun Corridor in concert with
two other Planning Agencies:
Pima Association of
Governments (PAG) and CAG. The study, known as the Freight
Transportation Framework Study, included five focus areas in
Pinal County that were identified by County staff as opportunity
sites. The five areas include:


Pinal Airpark (included within this study’s Pinal Airpark
Focus Area)



La Palma (SR 87 & SR 287) (north of study area)



I-8/I-10 Interchange (just west of study area)



Casa Grande (SR 84 & SR 387) (just west of study area)



Magma Rail Road (north of SR 287 & west of SR 79) (north
of study area)

The 2012 MAG study focus areas were evaluated against
qualitative and quantitative screening criteria, including
distance, economic value, demographic and land use
performance measures. The focus areas were ranked, with
higher screening results for Pinal Airpark and the lands
surrounding the I-8 and I-10 interchange.
Freight related land use opportunities were defined through the
creation of supply chain facility typologies and associated
location principles. Four typologies were defined in the 2012
MAG study, relevant descriptions of these typologies are
excerpted in the upcoming section.


Import Center: As products enter the country, an import
center states them for inland distribution. Possible
functions of an import center include redirection of
goods to the precise markets currently demanding
them; combining goods from multiple sources into load
sets for individual stores and customers (referred to as

Figure 39: Scenario B Future Population

Figure 40: Scenario B Future Employment

36

tertiary educated personnel with advance
technical and/or managerial skills demanding
higher pay, while distribution can range from
relatively demanding logistical work in a
production environment, to relatively simple
warehousing and trucking for local consumption.

deconsolidation and consolidation); changing modes
(e.g., to transfer goods from rail to truck, or to expedite a
shipment through forwarding it by air); and processing
goods via packaging, labeling, or more complex
preparation. Distinguishing principles for an Import
Center are:
o Sites should be close to the international gateway
so that goods may be accessed as soon as
possible;



o Sites benefit from being within an anchor market
providing opportunities for immediate local
distribution;
o Location should have strong connections to
highway system for regional and national
distribution, and be in reach of air service and
other modal options;
o The labor pool should find warehouse wages
(roughly $14/hour) attractive, and have a
reasonable commute to work;


o Access to international gateways, either by
proximity or by location enroute to market;
o Sites should be situated on the threshold of
destination markets, and be enroute from
domestic origins;
o Access to an extensive highway network and
broad availability of air service are critical, and rail
options are desirable;

Manufacturing and Local Distribution Center: Facility
functions are production, storage, and direct distribution
(with little intermediate staging in the local area).
Distinguishing principles for a Manufacturing and
Location Distribution Center are:

o Locations should be anchored by substantial local
demand;

o Sites focus closely on the population: for proximity
to labor in the case of manufacturing, and for
proximity to consumers for distribution;

o Labor should find warehouse wages attractive
and be able to commute to work, but the greater
complexity of work also necessitates more
sophisticated and diversity in the labor pool;

o A comprehensive and efficient highway network
is necessary in all directions;

o Distance to the boarder should be sufficient to
support round trips by Mexican truck fleets.

o Air service is essential for manufacturing supplies
and distribution;

o Labor requirements are divers; manufacturing
process and management skills necessitate

Mixing Center: Products traveling from sources all over
the country and world may be staged for destination
markets in a mixing center, which combines the
characteristics of an import center with forward
distribution. The essential functions of a mixing center are
redirection, deconsolidation and consolidation, and
modal change, along with processing and storage.
Distinguishing principles for a Mixing Center are:

Forward Distribution Center: As products travel across
the country, a forward distribution center assembles
goods from many long distance origins and local
37

manufacturing and warehousing facilities, and stages
them for delivery to major destination markets within
reach of the center. Deconsolidation and consolidation
are the key facility functions, but others include mode
change (such as rail to truck), redirection, processing,
and storage. Distinguishing principles for a Forward
Distribution Center are:
o Sites should be enroute between origins and
destinations, thus requiring few additional travel
miles to reach the facility;
o Locations should be near the threshold of
destination markets so as to serve as jumping off
points, ideally within overnight truck service range
(approximately 550 miles);
o Excellent general highway access and good
modal alternatives are important;
o Immediate proximity to a large local anchor
market improves location economics;
o The labor pool should find warehouse wages
attractive and be able to commute to work.
The location principles are summarized here, but should be
referenced from the 2012 MAG Freight Transportation
Framework Study for greater detail. Import Centers are
generally located at international gateways so that goods can
be accessed as soon as possible. For the 2012 MAG study, the
only focus area that satisfied this principle was the Tucson
International Airport. The Manufacturing and Local Distribution
Center typology is heavily influenced by the proximity to
consumers for distribution services. Based on these principles,
the La Palma and Pinal Airpark focus areas were most
appropriate. Among many functions, Mixing Center facilities
redirect, deconsolidate and consolidate goods, and are most
appropriately located at the thresholds to destination markets,
which in many cases are the interchanges of state highways
and interstate freeways. In Pinal County, the focus areas
located at the I-8/I-10 Interchange and in Casa Grande were

identified as mixing center typologies. No Forward Distribution
Centers were identified in Pinal County.

available from Casa Grande and Eloy, is roughly threequarters of a mile long, offers highway and rail servicing
for large scale destinations, and is located at a
significant interstate highway interchange.
This
particular area is unique based on the existence of
parallel roadway and rail facilities that can be accessed
and loaded separately.
This allows for additional
roadway network expansion and railway spur extensions
without modal conflict. Based on the proximity to the
interchange, this focus area could complement a
broad-based mixing center facility type presented in the
Freight Transportation Framework Study. The risk to this
focus area is development in a piecemeal pattern that
does not take significant advantage of the interstate
network proximity or parallel modes and transportation
facilities. This area should be considered for high value
regional freight-related industries.

Each of the typologies can be expanded to include
transportation requirements based on the assumed operations
for each facility. The 2012 MAG study acknowledged that
transportation improvements were needed for these locations
and typologies to be realized as economic development
centers.
However, that study did not identify specific
transportation improvements for each focus area.
4.3.2

Freight Market

As part of this study, an assessment of development trends was
prepared to inform the study team about specific land uses
and potential absorption. In general, the assessment identified
that demand for industrial-based uses is higher than that
assumed in the currently adopted AZTDM and the CAG 2040
RTP. In order to capture these opportunities and realized higher
absorption rates, Pinal County will depend on the quality of
needed transportation infrastructure and the readiness of sites
for development and business needs.
4.3.3

Red Rock Classification Yard: Situated on the north side
of I-10, just south of Picacho Peak, lies the proposed Red
Rock Classification Yard that is planned to contain
approximately a seven (7) mile long rail classification
yard for rail operations. In addition to the rail operations,
it is possible that other freight-related industries could
locate in the area if they can benefit from the proximity
of the new facility. However, there are a number of
challenges to this area for land development. This would
include the proximity to the CAP, transportation access
and circulation, and environmental impacts related to
the proximity to natural features, topography and view
sheds.



SR 87: A large area of land in the City of Coolidge,
located east of SR 87 and north of Houser Road is
envisioned for significant freight related development.
This area is well positioned to contribute to the mixing
center facility type due to its nexus to I-10 and SR 87.
Based on the proximity of skilled labor and transportation
infrastructure, this focus area could also contribute to a
manufacturing and local distribution center.
The
particular area is owned by a single entity and is actively

Freight-related Development Opportunities

Building on the Freight Transportation Framework Study and
information collected previously in this study, freight-related
development opportunities were identified based on
information provided by County staff and data analysis.
Additionally, and consistent with the methodology for the
Freight Transportation Framework Study, significant freightrelated opportunities are most likely near the interstate and
state highway network. Within the study area, I-10, I-8, and SR
87 are the appropriate corridors to expand existing freightrelated services and create new services. Along these corridors
there are four distinct opportunity focus area, as described
below.




Interstate 10 Corridor: the portion of the corridor located
between Sunshine Boulevard and Sunland Gin Road in
Eloy is unique in that it has access to skilled labor

38

planning freight-based development and business
creation.


Pinal Airpark: This existing facility is planned for expansion
of development and employment opportunities; Pinal
County has prepared a master plan for the facility. Pinal
Airpark is located along the southern boundary of Pinal
County, west of I-10. More broadly, it is between Tucson
International Airport (TIA) and the interchange of I-10
and I-8, with the Union Pacific rail line operating
adjacent to the east side of I-10. This location, coupled
with the extensive planning for the Airpark, and the
assets of the existing facility, provides extensive
development opportunities that can expand job growth
through aviation, logistics and manufacturing.

A strong freight network is crucial to attracting and retaining
businesses and jobs. How the network performs will ultimately
shape the logistics performance that Arizona businesses will use
to compete with other regions, states, and countries. The two
pillars of competitive performance are having fast, reliable,
productive freight service and freight service end-to-end.
Therefore the regional roadway network connecting businesses
and the network serving industrial parks and commercial zones
are equally important, when compared with the interstates,
when looking at competitive freight performance.

5.0

STRATEGIC TRANSPORTATION INVESTMENTS

This section outlines a plan for strategic transportation
investments to support the development scenario detailed in
Section 4. The development of the strategic transportation
network results in a planning level estimate of required
transportation investment. Strategic transportation investments
consider transportation options to realize the specific public,
private, community, and stakeholder goals.

5.1
5.1.1

Transportation Network
Baseline Transportation Network

In 2014, CAG, which serves Gila and Pinal Counties, developed
their first Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) which included the
study area for this study. The future transportation network that
was recommended as part of the CAG RTP was utilized as the
baseline transportation condition. For the portion of the study
area outside the CAG RTP boundary the adopted Pima
Association of Governments (PAG) plans were utilized. The
socioeconomic condition utilized in the CAG and PAG future
condition reflects a constrained population and employment
scenario. This study builds upon the transportation needs
identified in CAG and PAG plans to identify any additional
transportation infrastructure to address additional population
and employment beyond those currently identified. The
proposed socioeconomic scenario, referred to as Scenario B,
identified planned development anticipated beyond that
identified in the CAG and PAG RTSs.
This study utilized the ADOT Travel Demand Model (AZTDM) for
analysis of transportation infrastructure needs. The first step in
the transportation analysis process involved running AZTDM
using the adopted CAG and PAG transportation network and
the Scenario B population and employment. This provide an
understanding of where infrastructure needs exist beyond
those identified in the current CAG and PAG plans in order to
accommodate future growth. Because some of this growth is
planned to occur in areas not currently developed,
adjustments were made to the model including a refined TAZ

network and new centroid connectors. Capacity analysis
assumptions are included in the Appendix.
The results of the initial capacity analysis of the CAG and PAG
2040 network are depicted in Figure 41, with the Scenario B
socioeconomic conditions presented in Figure 42 on the next
page. This analysis indicates that there are significant capacity
concerns with regard to north-south travel with particular focus
on access to I-10 for regional and long distance trips, as well as
east-west travel within Eloy. Approximately 41 miles of arterial
and 100 miles of collector roadways in this future condition are
anticipated to operate at a level of service E (slow movement
or frequent stoppages) or F (traffic jams or stoppages of long
duration).
Capacity improvements are necessary for these deficient
roadways to accommodate future traffic demand as a result
of population growth and new developments.
Critical
roadways include:
North-South

East-West

 Sunland Gin Road
 Toltec Highway
 Sunshine Boulevard
 Picacho Highway
 Milligan Road/Frontier Street

 Battaglia Road
 Houser Road
 Hanna Road
 Selma Highway

5.1.2

Proposed Transportation Network

Using the transportation analysis results present in the previous
section, the study team proposed a range of transportation
improvements to increase roadway capacity and create a
more robust circulation network.
These improvements,
depicted in Figure 43 and listed in Table 12 within the ensuing
pages, create a long term transportation network to support
the planned residential and employment growth identified as
part of Scenario B. The proposed grid framework is needed to
support both transportation demand and access, and to
create strategic redundancies in the roadway network.
Routes shown with dashed lines in Figure 43 represent needed
connections to facilitate regional circulation and connectivity.
39

Future studies are recommended for these alignments,
including detailed environmental and drainage analysis, to
determine the specific alignment of these roadways.
The key recommended improvements include developing the
major grid network to enhance access to I-10, access to
planned residential and employment, and to facilitate overall
circulation and build an appropriate level of redundancy into
the network. The final recommended network is depicted in
Figure 44 along with Table 12, within the ensuing pages, which
presents the recommended roadway widths and I-10
interchanges needed to meet the anticipated transportation
demand for the population and employment projected in
Scenario B. The level of service analysis on this recommended
network, as well as the network analysis with the addition of a
parkway southwest of Eloy, is included in the Appendix, which
verifies the level of future congestion given these
improvements. Overall, the improvements proposed address
major congestion issues. Outstanding congestion issues reflect
limitations in the travel demand model network coverage as
well as localized intersection capacity constraints.
Interchanges that will be vital to facilitating regional travel
demand are identified based on currently assumed growth
forecasts. Several interchanges that were identified in the I-10
DCR were not deemed needed based on currently understood
needs. Those are proposed for removal from the network or
postponed until socioeconomic forecasts change to reflect
higher growth in areas served by those interchanges.
5.1.3

Freight and Commuter Corridors

Identification of the backbone freight and commuter network
helps to identify key regional corridors. These corridors provide
access to jobs and facilitate freight movement. As these
corridors are developed, they should follow design standards
that support significant commuter and freight movements,
such as wider rights-of-way, turning radii and more robust
pavement sections to accommodate trucks.
The
recommended network, identified in Figure 45, focuses on
movement throughout the region, including access to I-10 and
industrial areas.

Figure 41: CAG RTP and Adopted PAG 2040 Network

Figure 42: CAG RTP and Adopted PAG 2040 Network Level of Service

Roadway Width
8 Lanes
6 Lanes
4 Lanes
2 Lanes
Unpaved Other Roadway

Roadway Level of Service (Year 2040)
Level of Service E/F
Other Level of Service

Interchanges

Interchanges

New Interchange
Relocated Interchange
Existing Interchange

New Interchange
Relocated Interchange
Existing Interchange

Land Use

Land Use

Industrial Development (Zoned or Proposed)
Existing Open Space
Indian Lands
Military and Federal

Industrial Development
Development (Zoned
(Zoned or
or Proposed)
Proposed)
Industrial
Existing Open
Open Space
Space
Existing
Project Study
Boundary
Military
and Federal
MilitaryStudy
and Federal
Project
Boundary

Project Study Boundary

40

Figure 43: Proposed Scenario Roadway Changes

Figure 44: Proposed Scenario Network

Roadway Changes
Compared to CAG 2040 RTP
Add Four Lanes
Add Two Lanes ‐ Existing
Add Two Lanes – Not‐Existing
Add Six Lanes – Not‐Existing
No Change
Unpaved Other Roadway

Roadway Width
8 Lanes
6 Lanes
4 Lanes
2 Lanes
Unpaved Other Roadway

Interchanges

Interchanges

New Interchange
Relocated Interchange
Existing Interchange

New Interchange
Relocated Interchange
Existing Interchange

Land Use
Land Use

Industrial Development (Zoned or Proposed)
Existing Open Space
Indian Lands
Military and Federal

Industrial Development (Zoned or Proposed)
Existing Open Space
Indian Lands
Military and Federal

Project Study Boundary

Project Study Boundary

41

Table 12: Project List
ID #
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48

Road
Battaglia Dr (Phase I)
Battaglia Dr (Phase II)
Sunland Gin Rd (Phase I)
Sunland Gin Rd (Phase II)
Milligan Rd/Frontier St
Milligan Rd/Frontier St (Phase I)
Milligan Rd/Frontier St (Phase II)
Phillips Rd (Phase I)
Phillips Rd (Phase II)
Phillips Rd (Phase I)
Phillips Rd (Phase II)
Sunland Gin Rd (Phase I)
Sunland Gin Rd (Phase II)
Sunshine Blvd (Phase I)
Sunshine Blvd (Phase II)
Toltec Rd (Phase I)
Toltec Rd (Phase II)
Milligan Rd/Frontier St (Phase I)
Milligan Rd/Frontier St (Phase II)
New Link Parallel Picacho Hwy
Battaglia Dr
Harmon Rd
Harmon Rd
Sunland Gin Rd
Sunshine Blvd
Toltec Rd
Trekell Rd
11 Mile Corner Rd
Battaglia Dr
Milligan Rd/Frontier St
Milligan Rd/Frontier St
Picacho Hwy
Toltec Rd
Houser Rd
Picacho Hwy
Selma Highway
Deep Well Ranch
Harmon Rd
Harmon Rd
Houser Rd
Selma Highway
Sunshine Blvd
Baumgartner Rd
Baumgartner Rd
Pinal Air Park Rd
Toltec Rd
New Link Parallel to Pecan Rd
Pretzer Rd

From
West of Toltec Rd
West of Toltec Rd
Frontier St
Frontier St
Sunshine Blvd
Toltec Rd
Toltec Rd
Lamb Rd
Lamb Rd
Sunshine Blvd
Sunshine Blvd
Battaglia Dr
Battaglia Dr
Alsdorf Rd
Alsdorf Rd
Houser Rd
Houser Rd
SR‐87
SR‐87
I‐10
Trekell Rd
Sunland Gin Rd
Sunshine Blvd
Harmon Rd
South of Phillips Rd
South of Harmon Rd
Jimmie Kerr
Hanna Rd
East of Sunshine Blvd
Battaglia Dr
East End
I‐10
Hanna Rd
Trekell Rd
South of Pretzer Rd
Jimmie Kerr Blvd
Houser Rd
I‐10
Picacho Hwy
East End
SR‐87
South of Pretzer Rd
Red Rock
Sunland Gin Rd
Red Rock
Hanna Rd
Park Link Rd
Sunland Gin Rd

To
East of Sunshine Blvd
East of Sunshine Blvd
Battaglia Dr
Battaglia Dr
Battaglia Dr
Peart Rd
Peart Rd
Sunshine Blvd
Sunshine Blvd
I‐10
I‐10
Harmon Rd
Harmon Rd
South of Phillips Rd
South of Phillips Rd
South of Harmon Rd
South of Harmon Rd
Sunshine Blvd
Sunshine Blvd
Baumgartner Rd
Toltec Rd
Sunshine Blvd
Picacho Hwy
South of Harmon Rd
South of Pretzer Rd
Pretzer Rd
Battaglia Dr
Frontier St
SR‐87
Toltec Rd
SR‐87
South of Pretzer Rd
Houser Rd
SR‐87
Baumgartner Rd
SR‐87
SR‐79
Pecan Rd
I‐10
Deep Well Ranch
SR‐79
Baumgartner Rd
Camino Adelant
Picacho Hwy
Trico Rd
Selma Hwy
Harmon Rd
Picacho Rd

Length (mile)

Jurisdiction

4.3
4.3
4
4
1.7
7.3
7.3
8
8
2.1
2.1
6
6
3.4
3.4
7.8
7.8
2.2
2.2
9
7
6
3
1
4.6
1
7
4.1
2.3
3.4
3
5.6
3.2
13
3
11.5
3.4
6.3
3.7
8.5
15.7
3
3.6
10.1
6.9
2
4.2
10

Eloy
Eloy
Eloy/Pinal County
Eloy/Pinal County
Eloy
Eloy/Pinal County/Casa Grande
Eloy/Pinal County/Casa Grande
Eloy/Pinal County
Eloy/Pinal County
Eloy/Pinal County
Eloy/Pinal County
Eloy/Pinal County
Eloy/Pinal County
Eloy
Eloy
Eloy/Pinal County
Eloy/Pinal County
Eloy/Pinal County
Eloy/Pinal County
Pinal County
Pinal County/Eloy
Eloy/Pinal County
Eloy/Pinal County
Eloy/Pinal County
Eloy/Pinal County
Eloy/Pinal County
Eloy/Pinal County/Casa Grande
Eloy/Pinal County
Eloy/Pinal County
Eloy
Eloy/Pinal County
Pinal County
Eloy
Eloy/Pinal County/Casa Grande
Pinal County
Eloy/Pinal County/Casa Grande/Coolidge
Pinal County
Pinal County
Pinal County
Pinal County
Pinal County/Coolidge
Pinal County
Pinal County
Pinal County
Pinal County
Eloy
Pinal County
Eloy/Pinal County

42

Existing
# of Lanes
2
4
2
4
4
2
4
Not exist
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
Not exist
2
Not exist
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Not exist
Not exist
Not exist
Not exist
Not exist
Not exist
Not exist
Not exist
Not exist
Not exist
Not exist
Not exist

Facility Type
Collector
Collector
Collector
Collector
Major Arterial
Collector
Collector
Not exist
Collector
Collector
Collector
Collector
Collector
Collector
Collector
Collector
Collector
Major Arterial
Major Arterial
Not exist
Collector
Not exist
Collector
Collector
Collector
Collector
Collector
Collector
Collector
Collector
Collector
Major Arterial
Collector
Collector
Major Arterial
Collector
Not exist
Not exist
Not exist
Not exist
Not exist
Not exist
Not exist
Not exist
Not exist
Not exist
Not exist
Not exist

Proposed Improvements
# of Lanes
Facility Type
4
Major Arterial
6
Major Arterial
4
Major Arterial
6
Major Arterial
6
Major Arterial
4
Major Arterial
6
Major Arterial
4
Major Arterial
6
Major Arterial
4
Major Arterial
6
Major Arterial
4
Major Arterial
6
Major Arterial
4
Major Arterial
6
Major Arterial
4
Major Arterial
6
Major Arterial
4
Major Arterial
6
Major Arterial
6
Major Arterial
4
Collector
4
Major Arterial
4
Collector
4
Collector
4
Collector
4
Collector
4
Collector
4
Major Arterial
4
Major Arterial
4
Major Arterial
4
Major Arterial
4
Major Arterial
4
Major Arterial
4
Minor Arterial
4
Minor Arterial
4
Minor Arterial
2
Collector
2
Collector
2
Collector
2
Collector
2
Collector
2
Collector
2
Minor Arterial
2
Minor Arterial
2
Minor Arterial
2
Minor Arterial
2
Minor Arterial
2
Collector

5.2

Figure 45: Freight and Commuter Corridors

Stakeholder Workshop

A stakeholder meeting was held on February 10, 2015 in Casa Grande. A total
of 39 attendees representing a range of agencies, land owners and interest
groups joined the meeting. During the meeting, the stakeholders reviewed
and commented on Working Papers #1 and #2, projected population and
employment, and preliminary transportation scenarios. Stakeholders provided
input into known residential and employment planned in the study area,
transportation needs, and major issues that should be addressed. Following
the meeting, several stakeholders provided comment and the study team
worked with agencies to refine the inputs into the process. These comments
were incorporated into the scenario development process as well as the
transportation network and evaluation criteria. The workshop is depicted in
Figure 46.

Figure 46: Workshop 2 Photos

43

5.3

Evaluation

The process developed to aid in the documentation, discussion
and assessment of the strategic transportation investments that
considers the overall regional significance, demand, ranking,
sequencing, magnitude of impact and anticipated impacts to
associated development. A planning level fatal flaw analysis,
including a review of environmental issues, was conducted to
understand any major, known issues that may hinder the
development of the proposed transportation network.
Throughout the study process, input regarding values and
important issues within the study area were provided by the
project management team, Technical Working Group, and
stakeholders, including representatives from participating
agencies. This input was used to develop criteria appropriate
for a planning level evaluation in this study. The evaluation was
used to rank and prioritize the range of transportation
improvements identified. The criteria applied in this assessment
were grouped into the following categories:





Supports Growth and Economic Development,
Environment,
Mobility, and
Safety.

Within each category, specific criteria were identified that
could be utilized to qualitatively assess each of the proposed
roadway segments using previously documented information
as well as the results of the travel demand modeling efforts. As
an example, in the environment section of the evaluation
matrix “Minimal impact on wildlife corridors” was evaluated
using wildlife corridors documented as part of the 2010 Building
a Quality Arizona (bzAZ) statewide planning effort. As the
development of these transportation corridors advances, more
detailed analysis will be required.
The planning level evaluation of the segments is summarized in
Table 15 on the next page. The overall ranking of these
segments based on this planning level evaluation was utilized
to determine project sequencing based on need and potential

impacts. The ranking is such that a high value is a more
favorable ranking and a low value is a less favorable ranking,
as depicted below.

5.4

Recommendations and Programming

Table 13: Population and Employment Thresholds
NearTerm

MidTerm

LongTerm

Corridor
Preservation

Approximate
Population in Study
Area

45,000 –
250,000

250,000 –
450,000

450,000 –
674,000

Greater
than
674,000

Approximate
Employment in Study
Area

8,000 –
42,000

42,000 –
76,000

76,000 –
110,000

Greater
than
110,000

Based upon the planning level evaluation of proposed projects
described in the previous section, the identified projects were
ranked and prioritized. The prioritization of projects was
determined by how effectively they address near-term, midterm and long-term needs. Corridor preservation projects
addressing regional circulation and connectivity needs
beyond projected population and employment thresholds of
Scenario B were also identified. These recognized needs
beyond the currently understood future condition, identifying
opportunities for right-of-way preservation and protection prior
to future development approvals. These corridor preservation
projects are intended to create the backbone of the
circulation network in currently underdeveloped and
undeveloped areas. They will require further study in the future
to better define alignments, roadway characteristics and cost.

Planning Level unit costs are detailed in Table 14. Using these
unit costs, planning level costs estimates, not including right-ofway costs, were provided for each of the projects ranked in the
near-term, mid-term and long-term categories. Table 16 details
the total cost for the near-term, mid-term and long-term
program, Table 17 by jurisdiction, and are detailed in Table 18,
Table 19, Table 20, and Table 21. A cost range is provided,
indicating potential low and high costs, including assumptions
for 20-year operations and maintenance (O&M) costs to reflect
a reasonable lifecycle assessment. A project summary for
corridor preservation projects is provided in Table 21, but does
not include costs as further study is needed to better refine
these corridors.

5.4.1

Table 14: Estimated Unit Costs

Programming Thresholds

Using population and employment projections previously
established, the population and employment presented in
Table 13 approximate the thresholds were near-term, mid-term
and long-term transportation improvements would be needed.
Corridor preservation projects are identified to create the
backbone of the transportation network that would be needed
as the population and employment grows beyond that
currently projected long-term condition.

5.4.2

Project Ranking and Programming

Existing

Future

Rough Magnitude of Cost

Number of Lanes

Number of Lanes

Per Mile

Not Exist
Not Exist
2
4
2
Not Exist

2
4
4
6
6
6

$10 – 12.5 Million
$15 – 17.8 Million
$4 – 6 Million
$4 – 6 Million
$8 – 9.5 Million
$20 – 23 Million

Source: bqAZ unit costs adjusted to 2015 dollars

44

Table 15: Project Evaluation

45

Table 16: Cost by Programmed Timeframe

Rough Magnitude of Cost (Millions)
Total Capital and
20-year O&M (Low)

Total Capital and
20-year O&M (High)

Total Near-Term

$ 497.9

$ 699.5

Total Mid-Term

$ 591.8

$ 809.9

Total Long-Term

$ 419.0

$ 513.3

Table 17: Cost by Programmed Jurisdiction and Timeframe

Rough Magnitude of Cost (Millions)
Jurisdiction / Program

Total Capital and
20-year O & M (Low)

Total Capital and
20-year O & M (High)

Pinal County Near-Term

$ 147.5

$

207.3

Pinal County Mid-Term

$ 251.9

$

337.0

Pinal County Long-Term

$ 419.0

$

513.3

$ 818.4

$ 1057.8

Eloy Near-Term

$ 309.8

$

431.3

Eloy Mid-Term

$ 334.4

$

464.8

$ 644.2

$

896.1

$

13.2

$

19.8

$

13.2

$

19.8

Casa Grande Near-Term

$

27.4

$

41.0

Casa Grande Mid-Term

$

5.5

$

7.9

$

32.9

$

48.9

Pinal County Total

Eloy Total
Coolidge Near-Term
Coolidge Total

Casa Grande Total
46

Table 18: Project Ranking and Programming (Near-Term)
Rough Magnitude of Cost (Millions)
From

Existing
# of
Lanes

Future #
of
Lanes

Jurisdiction

Length
(Miles)

West of Toltec Rd

East of Sunshine Blvd

2

4

Eloy

4.3

$

4.0

$

6.0

$

18.9

$

28.4

Sunland Gin Rd (Phase I)

Frontier St

Battaglia Dr

2

4

Eloy/Pinal County

4.0

$

4.0

$

6.0

$

17.6

$

26.4

6

Milligan Rd/Frontier St (Phase I)

Toltec Rd

Peart Rd

2

4

Eloy/Pinal County/Casa Grande

7.3

$

4.0

$

6.0

$

32.1

$

48.2

Near-Term

8

Phillips Rd (Phase I)

Lamb Rd

Sunshine Blvd

Not exist

4

Eloy/Pinal County

8.0

$

15.0

$

17.8

$

132.0

$

156.2

Near-Term

10

Phillips Rd (Phase I)

Sunshine Blvd

I-10

2

4

Eloy/Pinal County

2.1

$

4.0

$

6.0

$

9.2

$

13.9

Near-Term

12

Sunland Gin Rd (Phase I)

Battaglia Dr

Harmon Rd

2

4

Eloy/Pinal County

6.0

$

4.0

$

6.0

$

26.4

$

39.6

Near-Term

14

Sunshine Blvd (Phase I)

Alsdorf Rd

South of Phillips Rd

2

4

Eloy

3.4

$

4.0

$

6.0

$

15.0

$

22.4

Near-Term

16

Toltec Rd (Phase I)

Houser Rd

South of Harmon Rd

2

4

Eloy/Pinal County

7.8

$

4.0

$

6.0

$

34.1

$

51.2

Near-Term

18

Milligan Rd/Frontier St (Phase I)

SR 87

Sunshine Blvd

2

4

Eloy/Pinal County

2.2

$

4.0

$

6.0

$

9.7

$

14.5

Near-Term

27

Trekell Rd

Jimmie Kerr

Battaglia Dr

2

4

Eloy/Pinal County/Casa Grande

7.0

$

4.0

$

6.0

$

30.8

$

46.2

Near-Term

28

11 Mile Corner Rd

Hanna Rd

Frontier St

2

4

Eloy/Pinal County

4.1

$

4.0

$

6.0

$

18.0

$

27.1

Near-Term

29

Battaglia Dr

East of Sunshine Blvd

SR 87

2

4

Eloy/Pinal County

2.3

$

4.0

$

6.0

$

10.1

$

15.2

Near-Term

33

Toltec Rd

Hanna Rd

Houser Rd

2

4

Eloy

3.2

$

4.0

$

6.0

$

14.1

$

21.1

Near-Term

34

Houser Rd

Trekell Rd

SR 87

2

4

Eloy/Pinal County/Casa Grande

13.0

$

4.0

$

6.0

$

57.2

$

85.8

Near-Term

36

Selma Highway

Jimmie Kerr Blvd

SR 87

2

4

Eloy/Pinal County/Casa
Grande/Coolidge

11.5

$

4.0

$

6.0

$

50.6

$

75.9

Near-Term

46

Toltec Rd

Hanna Rd

Selma Hwy

Not exist

2

Eloy

2.0

$

10.0

$

12.5

$

22.0

$

27.5

Programming

ID #

Segment Name

Near-Term

1

Battaglia Dr (Phase I)

Near-Term

3

Near-Term

To

47

Per Mile
(Low)

Total Capital
and 20-year
O&M (Low)

Per Mile
(High)

Total Capital
and 20-year
O&M (High)

Table 19: Project Ranking and Programming (Mid-Term)
Rough Magnitude of Cost (Millions)
From

Existing
# of
Lanes

Future #
of
Lanes

Jurisdiction

West of Toltec Rd

East of Sunshine Blvd

4

6

Eloy

$

4.0

$

6.0

$

18.9

$

28.4

Sunland Gin Rd (Phase II)

Frontier St

Battaglia Dr

4

6

Eloy/Pinal County

$

4.0

$

6.0

$

17.6

$

26.4

5

Milligan Rd/Frontier St

Sunshine Blvd

Battaglia Dr

4

6

Eloy

$

4.0

$

6.0

$

7.5

$

11.2

Mid-Term

7

Milligan Rd/Frontier St (Phase II)

Toltec Rd

Peart Rd

4

6

Eloy/Pinal County/Casa Grande

$

4.0

$

6.0

$

32.1

$

48.2

Mid-Term

9

Phillips Rd (Phase I)

Lamb Rd

Sunshine Blvd

4

6

Eloy/Pinal County

$

4.0

$

6.0

$

35.2

$

52.8

Mid-Term

11

Phillips Rd (Phase II)

Sunshine Blvd

I-10

4

6

Eloy/Pinal County

$

4.0

$

6.0

$

9.2

$

13.9

Mid-Term

13

Sunland Gin Rd (Phase II)

Battaglia Dr

Harmon Rd

4

6

Eloy/Pinal County

$

4.0

$

6.0

$

26.4

$

39.6

Mid-Term

15

Sunshine Blvd (Phase II)

Alsdorf Rd

South of Phillips Rd

4

6

Eloy

$

4.0

$

6.0

$

15.0

$

22.4

Mid-Term

17

Toltec Rd (Phase II)

Houser Rd

South of Harmon Rd

4

6

Eloy/Pinal County

$

4.0

$

6.0

$

34.1

$

51.2

Mid-Term

19

Milligan Rd/Frontier St (Phase II)

SR 87

Sunshine Blvd

4

6

Eloy/Pinal County

$

4.0

$

6.0

$

9.7

$

14.5

Mid-Term

21

Battaglia Dr

Trekell Rd

Toltec Rd

2

4

Pinal County/Eloy

$

4.0

$

6.0

$

30.8

$

46.2

Mid-Term

22

Harmon Rd

Sunland Gin Rd

Sunshine Blvd

Not exist

4

Eloy/Pinal County

$

15.0

$

17.8

$

99.0

$

117.2

Mid-Term

23

Harmon Rd

Sunshine Blvd

Picacho Hwy

2

4

Eloy/Pinal County

$

4.0

$

6.0

$

13.2

$

19.8

Mid-Term

24

Sunland Gin Rd

Harmon Rd

South of Harmon Rd

2

4

Eloy/Pinal County

$

4.0

$

6.0

$

4.4

$

6.6

Mid-Term

25

Sunshine Blvd

South of Phillips Rd

South of Pretzer Rd

2

4

Eloy/Pinal County

$

4.0

$

6.0

$

20.2

$

30.4

Mid-Term

26

Toltec Rd

South of Harmon Rd

Pretzer Rd

2

4

Eloy/Pinal County

$

4.0

$

6.0

$

4.4

$

6.6

Mid-Term

30

Milligan Rd/Frontier St

Battaglia Dr

Toltec Rd

2

4

Eloy

$

4.0

$

6.0

$

15.0

$

22.4

Mid-Term

31

Milligan Rd/Frontier St

East End

SR 87

2

4

Eloy/Pinal County

$

4.0

$

6.0

$

13.2

$

19.8

Mid-Term

45

Pinal Airpark Rd

Red Rock

Trico Rd

Not exist

2

Pinal County

$

10.0

$

12.5

$

75.9

$

94.9

Mid-Term

48

Pretzer Rd

Sunland Gin Rd

Picacho Hwy

Not exist

2

Eloy/Pinal County

$

10.0

$

12.5

$

110.0

$

137.5

Programming

ID #

Segment Name

Mid-Term

2

Battaglia Dr (Phase II)

Mid-Term

4

Mid-Term

To

48

Length
(Miles)

Per Mile
(Low)

Total Capital
and 20-year
O&M (Low)

Per Mile
(High)

Total Capital
and 20-year
O&M (High)

Table 20: Project Ranking and Programming (Long-Term)
Rough Magnitude of Cost (Millions)
Existing
# of
Lanes

Future #
of
Lanes

Jurisdiction

Length
(Miles)

Not exist

6

Pinal County

9.0

$

20.0

$

23.0

$

198.0

$

227.7

South of Pretzer Rd

2

4

Pinal County

5.6

$

4.0

$

6.0

$

24.4

$

36.6

South of Pretzer Rd

Baumgartner Rd

2

4

Pinal County

3.0

$

4.0

$

6.0

$

13.2

$

19.8

Sunshine Blvd

South of Pretzer Rd

Baumgartner Rd

Not exist

2

Pinal County

3.0

$

10.0

$

12.5

$

33.0

$

41.3

43

Baumgartner Rd

Red Rock

Camino Adelant

Not exist

2

Pinal County

3.6

$

10.0

$

12.5

$

39.6

$

49.5

44

Baumgartner Rd

Sunland Gin Rd

Picacho Hwy

Not exist

2

Pinal County

10.1

$

10.0

$

12.5

$

110.5

$

138.5

Programming

ID #

Segment Name

To

From

Long-Term

20

New Link Parallel Picacho Hwy

I-10

Baumgartner Rd

Long-Term

32

Picacho Hwy

I-10

Long-Term

35

Picacho Hwy

Long-Term

42

Long-Term
Long-Term

Per Mile
(Low)

Total Capital
and 20-year
O&M (Low)

Per Mile
(High)

Total Capital
and 20-year
O&M (High)

Table 21: Project Ranking and Programming (Corridor Preservation)
Rough Magnitude of Cost (Millions)
Existing
# of
Lanes

Future #
of
Lanes

Jurisdiction

Length
(Miles)

SR 79

Not exist

2

Pinal County

3.4

I-10

Pecan Rd

Not exist

2

Pinal County

6.3

Harmon Rd

Picacho Hwy

I-10

Not exist

2

Pinal County

3.7

40

Houser Rd

East End

Deep Well Ranch

Not exist

2

Pinal County

8.5

Corridor
Preservation

41

Selma Hwy

SR 87

SR 79

Not exist

2

Pinal County/Coolidge

15.7

Corridor
Preservation

47

New Link Parallel to Pecan Rd

Park Link Rd

Harmon Rd

Not exist

2

Pinal County

4.2

Programming

ID #

Segment Name

To

Corridor
Preservation

37

Deep Well Ranch

Houser Rd

Corridor
Preservation

38

Harmon Rd

Corridor
Preservation

39

Corridor
Preservation

From

49

Per Mile
(Low)

Per Mile
(High)

Total Capital
and 20-year
O&M (Low)

Total Capital
and 20-year
O&M (High)

Not included at this time due to lack of detailed
information on specific corridor. Additional study would
be required.

5.4.3

Recommendations by Focus Area

Figure 47: Focus Areas

This section groups the recommended projects by the Focus Area previously
presented in Section 2.4 in order to understand the distribution of investment.
The previously defined Focus Areas are depicted for reference in Figure 47,
which shows the focus areas overlaid on the transportation recommendations.
The improvements are summarized and described by Focus Area in the
following section. Because there is overlap in the Focus Areas, some roadway
segments may be included in multiple focus area. Therefore, the total miles of
roadways in all focus areas should not be utilized in summation to avoid
double-counting. For a summary of total miles, Table 18 through Table 21
should be used.
As is consistent with previous findings, the primary needs within the study area
are contiguous with existing infrastructure development as well as corridors
which facilitate local and regional freight movements.

Focus Areas
Focus Area 1
Focus Area 2
Focus Area 3
Focus Area 4
Focus Area 5
Focus Area 6

Compared to CAG 2040 RTP
Add Four Lanes
Add Two Lanes – Existing
Add Two Lanes – Not‐Existing
Add Six Lanes – Not‐Existing
No Change
Unpaved/Other Roadway

Interchanges
New Interchange
Relocated Interchange
Existing Interchange
Future Viable Interchange (Not modeled)

50

5.4.3.1
Focus Area One – I-10
The improvements in Focus Area One (I-10), summarized in Table 22, are intended to provide better
access to I-10 and provide for freight needs as the area develops. Corridor preservation needs
focus on providing connectivity across I-10 and access to land to the north and east of I-10.

Table 22: Focus Area One (I-10) Improvements
Existing # of
Lanes

Future # of
Lanes

Focus Area One I-10
(Total Miles)

I-10

2

4

1.1

SR 87

Sunshine Blvd

4

6

1.1

Phillips Rd (Phase II)

East of Sunshine Blvd

I-10

2

4

1.1

19

Milligan Rd/Frontier St

SR 87

Sunshine Blvd

4

6

1.1

Mid-Term

31

Milligan Rd/Frontier St

East End

SR 87

Not exist

6

1.5

Long-Term

20

New Link Parallel Picacho Hwy

I-10

Baumgartner Rd

2

4

1.5

Long-Term

32

Picacho Hwy

I-10

South of Pretzer Rd

2

4

2.5

Long-Term

43

Baumgartner Rd

Red Rock

Camino Adelant

Not exist

2

6.3

Corridor Preservation

38

Harmon Rd

I-10

Pecan Rd

Not exist

2

2.4

Corridor Preservation

39

Harmon Rd

Picacho Hwy

I-10

Not exist

2

4.2

Corridor Preservation

47

New Link Parallel to Pecan Rd

Park Link Rd

Harmon Rd

Not exist

2

4.2

TOTAL MILES

26.4

Programming

ID #

Segment Name

To

From

Near-Term

10

Phillips Rd (Phase II)

East of Sunshine Blvd

Near-Term

18

Milligan Rd/Frontier St (Phase II)

Mid-Term

11

Mid-Term

51

5.4.3.2
Focus Area Two – Eloy
A significant number of improvements in Focus Area Two (Eloy), detailed in Table 23, address the
near-term and mid-term needs associated with new residential growth as well as employment and
freight circulation. They provide capacity to accommodate projected travel demand due to

major regional employment and residential planned in this area. These projects address current
congestion, demand from increasing number of residential developments in southern Eloy, and
facilitation of freight access to industrial areas intended to grow along the I-10/Frontier
Street/Milligan Road corridor.

Table 23: Focus Area Two (Eloy) Improvements
Programming

ID #

Near-Term
Near-Term
Near-Term
Near-Term
Near-Term
Near-Term
Near-Term
Near-Term
Near-Term
Near-Term
Near-Term
Near-Term
Near-Term
Near-Term
Near-Term
Near-Term
Mid-Term
Mid-Term
Mid-Term
Mid-Term
Mid-Term
Mid-Term
Mid-Term
Mid-Term
Mid-Term
Mid-Term
Mid-Term
Mid-Term
Mid-Term
Mid-Term
Mid-Term
Mid-Term
Mid-Term
Long-Term

1
3
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
27
28
29
33
34
36
46
2
4
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
22
23
25
26
30
48
20

Segment Name

Battaglia Dr (Phase I)
Sunland Gin Rd (Phase I)
Milligan Rd/Frontier St (Phase I)
Phillips Rd (Phase I)
Phillips Rd (Phase I)
Sunland Gin Rd (Phase I)
Sunshine Blvd (Phase I)
Toltec Rd (Phase I)
Milligan Rd/Frontier St (Phase I)
Trekell Rd
11 Mile Corner Rd
Battaglia Dr
Toltec Rd
Houser Rd
Selma Hwy
Toltec Rd
Battaglia Dr (Phase II)
Sunland Gin Rd (Phase II)
Milligan Rd/Frontier St
Milligan Rd/Frontier St (Phase II)
Phillips Rd (Phase II)
Phillips Rd (Phase II)
Sunland Gin Rd (Phase II)
Sunshine Blvd (Phase II)
Toltec Rd (Phase II)
Milligan Rd/Frontier St (Phase II)
Battaglia Dr
Harmon Rd
Harmon Rd
Sunshine Blvd
Toltec Rd
Milligan Rd/Frontier St
Pretzer Rd
New Link Parallel Picacho Hwy

To

From

West of Toltec Rd
Frontier St
Toltec Rd
Lamb Rd
East of Sunshine Blvd
Battaglia Dr
Alsdorf Rd
Houser Rd
SR 87
Jimmie Kerr
Hanna Rd
East of Sunshine Blvd
Hanna Rd
Trekell Rd
Jimmie Kerr Blvd
Hanna Rd
West of Toltec Rd
Frontier St
Sunshine Blvd
Toltec Rd
Lamb Rd
East of Sunshine Blvd
Battaglia Dr
Alsdorf Rd
Houser Rd
SR 87
Trekell Rd
Sunland Gin Rd
Sunshine Blvd
South of Phillips Rd
South of Harmon Rd
Battaglia Dr
Sunland Gin Rd
I-10

East of Sunshine Blvd
Battaglia Dr
Peart Rd
East of Sunshine Blvd
I-10
Harmon Rd
South of Phillips Rd
South of Harmon Rd
Sunshine Blvd
Battaglia Dr
Frontier St
SR 87
Houser Rd
SR 87
SR 87
Selma Hwy
East of Sunshine Blvd
Battaglia Dr
Battaglia Dr
Peart Rd
East of Sunshine Blvd
I-10
Harmon Rd
South of Phillips Rd
South of Harmon Rd
Sunshine Blvd
Sunland Gin Rd
Sunshine Blvd
Picacho Hwy
South of Pretzer Rd
Pretzer Rd
Toltec Rd
Picacho Hwy
Baumgartner
52

Existing # of Lanes

Future # of Lanes

Focus Area One I-10
(Total Miles)

2
4
2
4
4
2
4
Not exist
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
Not exist
2
Not exist
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Not exist
Not exist

4
6
4
6
6
4
6
4
6
4
6
4
6
4
6
4
6
4
6
6
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
2
2
TOTAL MILES

4.3
4.3
2.5
2.5
1.7
3.5
3.5
8.0
8.0
1.0
1.0
2.0
2.0
3.1
3.1
7.8
7.8
1.1
1.1
1.5
2.0
5.5
1.1
3.0
1.0
1.0
4.1
0.5
3.4
3.2
12.0
7.5
2.0
7.0
122.8

5.4.3.3

Focus Area Three – Red Rock

The Red Rock area that is included in Focus Area Three accommodates long-term and corridor
preservation needs that would be required as the area grows. These improvements are detailed
in Table 24. The roadways that are identified are all new alignments facilitating network circulation
and redundancies in the network. As these are new roadways, specific alignments should be
determined in future corridor studies. As this Focus Area is not inclusive of or adjacent to any
currently planned developments, it therefore does not have significant near-term demand for
roadway improvements. The recommendations do support the development of the Union Pacific
Red Rock classification yard, providing freight focused connectivity to proposed industrial area
between I-10 and the CAP canal, as well as ensuring access and circulation to the area east of
the CAP canal.

Table 24: Focus Area Three (Red Rock) Improvements
Existing # of
Lanes

Future # of
Lanes

Focus Area One I-10
(Total Miles)

Camino Adelant

Not exist

2

6.3

I-10

Pecan Rd

Not exist

2

3.6

Harmon Rd

Picacho Hwy

I-10

Not exist

2

4.2

New Link Parallel to Pecan Rd

Park Link Rd

Harmon Rd

Not exist

2

4.2

TOTAL MILES

18.3

Existing # of
Lanes

Future # of
Lanes

Focus Area One I-10
(Total Miles)

Not exist

2

3.5

TOTAL MILES

3.5

Programming

ID #

Long-Term

43

Baumgartner Rd

Red Rock

Corridor Preservation

38

Harmon Rd

Corridor Preservation

39

Long-Term

47

5.4.3.4

Segment Name

To

From

Focus Area Four – Pinal Airpark

Focus Area Four (Pinal Airpark) has one additional transportation improvement beyond current
plans, detailed in Table 25, which will accommodate additional access to the Pinal Airpark. As
the area grows as a major center, redundancies in the transportation network beyond I-10 will be
needed to connect to potential workforce, residential and employment opportunities, and
accommodate increasing freight needs.

Table 25: Focus Area Four (Pinal Airpark) Improvements
Programming

ID #

Mid-Term

45

Segment Name
Pinal Air Park Rd

To

From

Red Rock

Trico Rd

53

5.4.3.5

5.4.3.6

Focus Area Five – Marana

Focus Area Six – SR 87

Improvements identified within Focus Area Six, located along SR 87, are detailed in Table 26,
address the near-term needs of this area emerging as an industrial corridor, which will require
additional freight accommodations. Corridor preservation provides for overall area circulation.

Within Focus Area Five (Marana), no additional roadway improvements were required beyond
those currently programmed. Spot operational improvements and interchange improvements,
beyond the requirements of the local jurisdiction, will be necessary and are discussed in
subsequent sections.

Table 26: Focus Area Six (SR 87) Improvements
Existing # of
Lanes

Future # of
Lanes

Focus Area One I-10
(Total Miles)

East of Sunshine Blvd

2

4

0.5

Alsdorf Rd

South of Phillips Rd

2

4

1.0

Milligan Rd/Frontier St (Phase I)

SR 87

Sunshine Blvd

2

4

2.2

29

Battaglia Dr

East of Sunshine Blvd

SR 87

2

4

2.3

Near-Term

34

Houser Rd

Trekell Rd

SR 87

2

4

2.1

Near-Term

36

Selma Hwy

Jimmie Kerr Blvd

SR 87

2

4

2.5

Mid-Term

2

Battaglia Dr (Phase II)

West of Toltec Rd

East of Sunshine Blvd

4

6

0.5

Mid-Term

15

Sunshine Blvd (Phase II)

Alsdorf Rd

South of Phillips

4

6

1.0

Mid-Term

19

Milligan/Frontier St (Phase II)

SR 87

Sunshine Blvd

4

6

2.2

Mid-Term

31

Milligan Rd/Frontier St

East End

SR 87

2

4

2.0

Corridor Preservation

41

Selma Hwy

SR 87

SR 79

Not exist

2

1.3

TOTAL MILES

17.6

Programming

ID #

Segment Name

To

Near-Term

1

Battaglia Dr (Phase I)

West of Toltec Rd

Near-Term

14

Sunshine Blvd (Phase I)

Near-Term

18

Near-Term

From

54

5.4.3.7

are most likely to support the regional vision. Projects identified for corridor preservation will retain
opportunities for a backbone circulation network in the State Land area east of I-10. Identification
of these corridors now provides for the preservation of rights-of-way for these future corridors as
development activity in the area occurs. Proposed interchanges provide access to I-10 for long
distance travel. Additionally, creating network capacity redundancy facilitates regional
circulation which reduces dependency on I-10 by offering alternative routes through the area.

Outside Focus Areas

Many projects exist outside of the study focus areas. This is due to the growth within the region
outside of the currently developed areas. Projects identified outside the focus areas, detailed in
Table 27, provide local and regional circulation, addressing needs associated with planned
development. Projects within focus areas support economic development within these areas that

Table 27: Improvements Outside Focus Areas
Existing # of
Lanes

Future # of
Lanes

Focus Area One I-10
(Total Miles)

Battaglia Dr

2

4

1.5

Toltec Rd

Peart Rd

2

4

3.8

Sunland Gin Rd (Phase I)

Battaglia Dr

Harmon Rd

2

4

4.0

27

Trekell Rd

Jimmie Kerr Blvd

Battaglia Dr

2

4

6.0

Near-Term

36

Selma Hwy

Jimmie Kerr Blvd

SR 87

2

4

1.6

Mid-Term

4

Sunland Gin Rd (Phase II)

Frontier St

Battaglia Dr

4

6

1.5

Mid-Term

7

Milligan Rd/Frontier St (Phase II)

Toltec Rd

Peart Rd

4

6

3.8

Mid-Term

13

Sunland Grin Rd (Phase II)

Battaglia Dr

Harmon Rd

4

6

4.0

Mid-Term

21

Battaglia Dr

Trekell Rd

Sunland Gin Rd

2

4

5.0

Mid-Term

22

Harmon Rd

Sunland Gin Rd

Sunshine Blvd

Not exist

4

0.5

Mid-Term

23

Harmon Rd

Sunshine Blvd

Picacho Hwy

2

4

1.9

Mid-Term

24

Sunland Gin Rd

Harmon Rd

South of Harmon Rd

2

4

1.0

Mid-Term

25

Sunshine Blvd

South of Phillips Rd

South of Pretzer Rd

2

4

1.6

Mid-Term

45

Pinal Airpark Rd

Red Rock

Trico Rd

Not exist

2

3.4

Mid-Term

48

Pretzer Rd

Sunland Gin Rd

Picacho Hwy

Not exist

2

3.0

Long-Term

32

Picacho Hwy

I-10

South of Pretzer Rd

2

4

3.0

Long-Term

35

Picacho Hwy

South of Pretzer Rd

Baumgartner Rd

2

4

3.0

Long-Term

42

Sunshine Blvd

South of Pretzer Rd

Baumgartner Rd

Not exist

2

3.0

Long-Term

44

Baumgartner Rd

Sunland Gin Rd

Picacho Hwy

Not exist

2

10.1

Corridor Preservation

37

Deep Well Ranch

Houser Rd

SR 79

Not exist

2

3.4

Corridor Preservation

40

Houser Rd

East End

Deep Well Ranch

Not exist

2

8.5

Corridor Preservation

41

Selma Hwy

SR 87

SR 79

Not exist

2

14.4

TOTAL MILES

88.0

Programming

ID #

Segment Name

To

Near-Term

3

Sunland Gin Rd (Phase I)

Frontier St

Near-Term

6

Milligan/Frontier St (Phase I)

Near-Term

12

Near-Term

From

55

5.4.4

Operational Improvements

The project recommendations include ancillary intersection,
signal, and intelligent transportation system (ITS) improvements
associated with these listed projects. However, additional
operational improvements should be expected throughout the
study area to address spot improvements at intersections, ITS
advancements, and other operational improvements.
5.4.5

A range of types of transit would be appropriate within the
study area, including local circulator buses, regional commuter
bus, commuter rail, and intercity rail. As the communities within
the options to support transit access to residential and
employment centers.

Traffic Interchanges

The traffic interchanges recommended as part of this study
provide for regional access and circulation needs within the
study area. The new interchanges would be beyond local
jurisdictions’ programs, most likely to be included as part of an
ADOT-funded program and include the following:




5.4.6

Tortolita Boulevard
Missile Base Road
Park Link Drive
Harmon Road





Battaglia Road
Sunland Grin Road
Selma Highway

Multimodal Transportation

Detailed
bicycle,
pedestrian,
transit
and
trails
recommendations from previously adopted studies were
detailed in Section 2.2. As the region grows, these detailed
corridor level recommendations accommodating a range of
modal choices should be included as mobility options to
reduce dependency on personal vehicles.
Roadway design should accommodate bicycles and
pedestrians to facilitate short distance trips that can be made
by bicycles and pedestrians.
This includes design
accommodating continuous bicycle lanes, sidewalks, and
trails. It is important to have continuity in the networks so that
users can make a complete trip. Also, the transportation
network design should consider bicycle and pedestrian access,
such as pathways at cul-de-sacs and ingress/egress to gated
communities.
Future considerations should be made to
develop detailed bicycle and pedestrian guidelines.
56

5.5

Corridor Preservation Needs

Figure 48: Long Term High Capacity Transportation Corridors

The identification of needs beyond that projected in Scenario B is important to
ensure corridor preservation as the region grows beyond the population and
employment projected. Corridor preservation allows for advanced planning
for future studies, right-of-way preservation and an understanding of future
circulation to provide access to undeveloped and underdeveloped areas as
interest and activity as those areas begin to materialize.
Future growth needs include access to areas to the north and east of I-10, as
well as higher capacity facilities in addition to I-10. Higher capacity facilities
would facilitate regional circulation within the study area as well as longer
distance trips through the study area. Additional studies are being conducted
by the ADOT to examine higher capacity needs including the I-11 and
Intermountain West Corridor Tier I Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and
North-South Corridor Study. Additionally, the 2008 Pinal County Regionally
Significant Routes for Safety and Mobility (RSRSM) identified the need for a
parkway to the southeast of Eloy. Although this study could not verify a need
for this parkway based on currently understood growth plans, this future
parkway could be needed as growth in the areas exceeds current plans,
providing for higher capacity movement in the southwest of the study area
and possibly serving as a viable alternative in the Intermountain West Corridor
Tier I EIS.
High capacity transportation corridors provide key regional access and
circulation, highlighted in Figure 48. The corridors identified here needs further,
more detailed study. The map also depicts a base layer of known constraints
or impediments, including the Arizona Game and Fish Habi-map, flood zones
and canals. This is intended to convey the areas which may be more
developable in the near term versus areas which have long-term development
potential. These documents are not regulatory in nature. Areas which have
better access to existing infrastructure and limited environmental impacts are
most likely to be developed sooner than areas which will require more
investment in infrastructure development.

57

6.0 POLICY OPPORTUNITIES

6.1

This section defines the policy elements of a strategy that will
allow the study findings to be built into a coherent
implementation plan. The underlying focus of the study has
been to improve mobility in the study area recognizing how it
will change in the future. The policy strategies that will foster
the realization of the plan must be specific and flexible to meet
expectations for sustainable growth and improved circulation
and access. The policy guidance will also encourage a long
range view of how the area will develop to preserve
opportunities for facilities that will accommodate increased
growth that may not yet be identified in local plans or
technological opportunities still under development.

How the plan or portions of the plan are implemented will
depend on who manages the policies for implementation and
what that implementation is designed to achieve. In general,
the Comprehensive Plan will provide direction, but the
affected local agency, through its own policies, will be
responsible for the implementation of specific projects.

In many cases, the guidance offered by the Pinal County
Comprehensive Plan will serve as a point of departure in
organizing policy and strategic planning for the region and the
study area. The study, however, identifies some insights and
opportunities that require their own emphasis in how they will
be accomplished. Findings related to the six Focus Areas, for
example, will call for focused policy support to encourage
compliance with the unique transportation objectives within
the Focus Areas. The Pinal County Comprehensive Plan should
be reviewed and updated to reflect policy advancements and
refinements.









The three main components of the policy opportunities and
recommendations include:
1.
2.
3.

Governance / Planning Strategy
Capital Improvements
Services and Performance Monitoring

These will be discussed individually for the study area in the
pursuing sections. Where appropriate, each proposed policy
presented here may need to be modified to fit within an
individual jurisdiction’s program.





Governance / Planning Strategy

Ensure compatibility between the county-wide
transportation system and local community networks.
Each community’s local and network should have
seamless access to the regional network (e.g., Interstate
10) for regional trips and be planned to be as effective
as possible in handling local trips without reliance on the
regional network.
Encourage Pinal County’s and local communities’
development patterns to support a diverse range of
travel modes (single-occupant vehicle, multi-occupant
auto, pedestrian, bicycle, and public transit) designed to
effectively meet regional and local mobility needs.
The identified network and character of proposed
facilities should encourage the development pattern in
Pinal County to support a diverse range of travel modes.
Develop bicycle and pedestrian designed guidelines to
ensure multimodal transportation options are included in
development of communities.
Promote vehicular and pedestrian access to corridors in
the development of all commercial centers, mixed use
activity centers, employment centers, and public
facilities.
Identify and adopt freight focus areas to ensure
compatible land uses and transportation network such
as in the Focus Areas of Red Rock, I-10 (in Eloy), State
Route 87 (between Eloy and Coolidge) and Pinal Airpark
(in Marana).
58



Provide connectivity among county, cities and towns,
the six identified Focus Areas and other major activity
centers.



Maintain continuity of network and access to all
developable lands throughout the study area.

6.2

Capital Improvements

The approach to constructing facilities must be guided by the
objectives set forth in the study and in supporting plans. These
proposed implementation policies also recognize anticipated
changes in growth practices and locations, travel options and
sustainability opportunities.


Work with ADOT to ensure the efficiency and
functionality of Interstate 10 or other high capacity
transportation facilities to serve anticipated growth in
population, employment and recreation within Pinal
County.



Construct principal arterials, parkways, and enhance
parkways as multimodal roadways, incorporation design
features such as bus queue jumps or dedicated high
capacity vehicle lanes where warranted, and sufficient
right-of-way width to accommodate bicycles and
sidewalks.



Design supporting transportation systems for each of the
six Focus Areas to address their unique needs and to
strengthen their economic development appeal.



Require development to adhere to the Pinal County
Regionally Significant Routes for Safety and Mobility
(RSRSM) Access Management Manual on designated
facilities to ensure functionality that mitigates congestion
and encourages sustainable growth.





Construct key facilities, such as the freight and
commuter corridors identified in Section 5, that provide
access and circulation to freight centers such as in Focus
Areas at Red Rock, I-10, SR 87 and Pinal Airpark, to
standards that will accommodate the higher loads of
heavy freight activity to help reduce long term
maintenance and replacement costs.
Identify long term right-of-way corridors to be preserved
as development activity warrants, ensuring future system
continuity, capacity and integrity. These corridors must
also consider emerging options for the use of highway
rights-of-way to provide for evolving transportation and
other societal-related needs (e.g., automated
technology such as vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V), solar and
wind power, kinetic-energy recapture, transmission line
placement, truck idling facilities and inter-modal uses).



Coordinate with the Arizona State Land Department
(ASLD) and future development interests on corridor
placement to maximize land use access and minimize
impacts to sensitive resources.



Acquire designated rights-of-way necessary to construct
roadways through dedication and/or easements as
development approvals are requested.



Identify opportunities
for funding infrastructure
construction through development or investment
opportunities adjacent to and/or within the corridor
rights-of-way.

6.3





Engage the State Demographer as the currently
anticipated development in the study area would
significantly alter the state’s understanding of long-term
infrastructure needs.



Identify and preserve desired locations for employment
centers, which will require the Pinal County
Comprehensive Plan to be reviewed and refined.



Refine land use categories in the Comprehensive Plan to
better understand transportation impacts. This includes
more detailed types of employment, refined residential
categories, refine open space, and more detailed
characteristics for Mixed Use Activity Centers. In general,
the land use categories should evolve to prescribe
“either/or” instead of “and/or”.



Continually assess timing of anticipated development,
allowing the region to advance the planning,
preservation, and study of regional corridors. The
ultimate timing of development will require a continual
assessment corresponding to the timing of infrastructure
needs.



Adopt appropriate performance measures compatible
with the requirements of MAP-21 and ADOT’s Planningto-Programming (P2P) Link process.



Establish a performance review cycle to assess the
quality of transportation performance across the region.



Define a formal process in the Comprehensive Plan to
strengthen
the
connection
between
ongoing
development monitoring of the impacts of land use on
the
transportation
system
with
transportation

Services and Performance Monitoring

Integrating services into existing processes and addressing new
performance monitoring requirements from MAP-21 must be
supported moving forward in order to integrate multimodal
transportation and economic development. This will meet
local needs as well as help to achieve regional, statewide and
national requirements.

Development information across Pinal County will
continue to be aggregated by CAG. Updates on
development should occur on an ongoing basis or
through a defined and agreeable schedule by all
member agencies.

59

performance-based
projects.


requirements

for

development

Review and revise the Comprehensive Plan checklist to
ensure development review process and approvals
reflect County vision and performance measures.

7.0 NEXT STEPS
This study recommended near-term, mid-term, and long-term
transportation improvements based on population and
employment thresholds, to address needs as the region grows.
These improvements identify infrastructure needs to
accommodate known development, build out the
transportation network to create redundancies and facilitate
economic development. These improvements will enable
freight movements and development of the region as a major
freight center. An update to the Pinal County Comprehensive
Plan is recommended to be able to accommodate the
recommended policy level changes that are recommended.
Additionally, the various municipalities encompassed in this
study area will also need to revisit various adopted plans and
policies to advance the recommended improvements.