Prepared for: In Coordination with: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 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. INTRODUCTION STUDY AREA AND REGIONAL CONTEXT Pinal County and the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) jointly conducted the Southern Pinal County Regional Corridors Study, in coordination with 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. The Southern Pinal County Regional Corridors Study area is situated in the southern portion of Pinal County. 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, depicted in Figure 1, spans approximately 1,300 square miles. 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. Interstate 10 (I-10) and SR 87 are the primary regional connections into and through the study area. STUDY PROCESS This study was conducted between January 2014 and June 2015 with guidance and oversight from the Technical Working Group (TWG), which was composed of members representing the following agencies:         Figure 1: Study Area 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: Working Paper #2: Working Paper #3: Working Paper #4: Working Paper #5: Summary of Plans and Opportunities Market Understanding Scenario Development Strategic Transportation Investments Policy Opportunities & Recommendations to Implement Strategic Transportation Investments The 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. 1 SOCIOECONOMIC CONDITIONS Figure 2: 2010 Population Density Figure 4: 2010 Employment Density Source: CAG and PAG Focus Area Models (2014) Source: CAG and PAG Focus Area Models (2014) Figure 3: 2040 Population Density Figure 5: 2040 Employment Density Source: CAG and PAG Focus Area Models (2014) Source: CAG and PAG Focus Area Models (2014) 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. Population Figure 2 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 has 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 household within the study area. The CAG and PAG Focus Area Models predicts that the 2040 population will experience growth within the current population centers. As shown in Figure 3, 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. Employment Figure 4 exhibits a jobs-to-housing imbalance, suggesting that employment opportunities for residents exist outside the study area. This means the number of residents exceeds employment opportunities and many residents are leaving the study area for jobs elsewhere, thus placing a burden on the transportation system. Within the study area, in 2010, there was a ratio of 19 jobs per 100 residents, or 53 jobs per 100 households. A total of 160,600 residents and 58,200 housing units are predicted by 2040, as depicted in Figure 5. In 2040, there is anticipated to be a ratio of 28 jobs per 100 residents, or 77 jobs per 100 households. The majority of residents in the study area travel outside of the area for work. Without the growth of an employment base, future residents will continue to rely on jobs outside the study area. 2 Future Land Use Three tiers of mixed-use activity centers are identified in the Pinal County 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. Eight activity centers are envisioned within the study area. Significant infrastructure needs will constrain development of these centers in a cohesive manner consistent with plan goals. Market momentum will continue to show preference for the industrial areas with existing transportation access. 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 increase economic development. Figure 6: Build-out Land Use ... Residential Development Start Year Started Within Past 10 years Land Use Started Within Past 5 years Residential Mixed Use Institutional Hospitality Tourism Activity Center Dedicated Open Space Indian Lands Information, provided by CAG, for the Eloy and Pinal County areas consists of a 2012 survey of developers intended to gauge timing and development intentions. The total number of units contained within the approved 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. 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. Industrial Development Zoned Proposed 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. Land Use Existing Open Space Proposed Open Space Indian Lands Military and Federal Military and Federal Source: CAG, PAG, Town of Marana General Plan (2010) Source: Pinal County: CAG Residential Development Database, 2012; Town of Marana, 2014 Table 1: Residential Development Trends Near-Term Land Use and Development Plans Near-term development, anticipated to start within the next 10 years, and recent development, started within the past 10 years, can be seen in Figure 7 and summarized in Table 1. 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. Next 15 years Mid Intensity Activity Center High Intensity Activity Center Undeveloped Next 10 years Low Intensity Activity Center Industrial Transportation Next 5 years Mixed Use Activity Center Commercial Agriculture 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. Figure 6 shows the study area’s land use at build-out, as reflected in the Pinal County Comprehensive Plan, when existing agriculture and undeveloped land is replaced by residential uses. Figure 7: Residential Development Start Year Started – Past 10 Years Anticipated To Start – Next 10 Years* Number Acres Built Units Number Acres Anticipated Units** Casa Grande 27 3,930 5,620 54 14,870 45,050 Coolidge 14 2,810 1,340 13 7,250 25,360 Eloy 5 3,700 670 48 36,730 134,510 Marana 8 1,445 6,176 21 6,031 15,244 Unincorporated 8 2,490 690 15 8,780 28,330 62 14,370 14,500 151 73,650 248,500 Study Area * 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. 3 Land Management Figure 8: Land Management Land management within the study area can be understood in three relatively evenly distributed types. These areas are summarized in Table 2 and shown in Figure 8 and Figure 9. Table 2: 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 Figure 9: Jurisdictions and Census Designated Places 4 OPEN SPACE Conservation Potential There is approximately 386 identified acres of open space (29.1%) within the study area. How that open space develops will be critical to planning the regional and local road network, effective access management, drainage, and overall character of the area. The benefits of open space can be leveraged to create community value through preservation, access, and character within the community. Open space can then lead to increased economic value by increasing development premiums through visual and physical access to improve open space. 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, as shown in Figure 11. 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. Drainage and Flood Plains Recreation, Parks and Trails Figure 10 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. 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 12. Utilizing the areas of high conservation potential in concert with the need for recreation areas and parklands, the region can take advantage of designated open space/parks and treat them as assets. Figure 10: Drainage and Floodplains Figure 11: Habi-Map Figure 12: Recreation, Parks, and Trails Conservation Potential Drainage Trails Existing/Planned Multi‐Use Trail Corridor Greatest Conservation Potential River / Wash Proposed Multi‐Use Trail Corridor CAP Canal Adopted County Trail Corridor Canal / Ditch Adopted Proposed County Trail Corridor Planned/Existing OHV Trail Pipeline FEMA Flood Zone Land Use Proposed OHV Trail Least Conservation Potential 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 Federal Military and Federal Military and Federal Source: Pinal County: FEMA Source: Species and Habitat Conservation Guide (SHCG) tool (2011), Arizona Game and Fish Department 5 Source: Pinal County Open Space and Trails Master Plan TRANSPORTATION NETWORK Future Roadway 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 funding 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. The facility type projected for the 2040 network, as reflected in the CAG and PAG Focus Area Models, is depicted in Figure 14. In the future, I-10, SR 87, and SR 287(just outside the study area) continue to be the primary major facilities. The future transportation network, shown in Figure 15 is based on data gleaned from previous and ongoing studies. Freight 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. Existing Roadway Network The existing roadway network, depicted in Figure 13, 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 13: Existing Number of Lanes Figure 14: Future Number of Lanes Figure 15: Planned Roadway/Transportation Network Number of Lanes (2040) Number of Lanes (2040) 2 2 4 4 6 6 8 Unpaved/Other Roadway Land Use Unpaved/Other Roadway Land Use Existing Open Space Existing Open Space Proposed Open Space Proposed Open Space Indian Lands Indian Lands Military and Federal Military and Federal Source: CAG and PAG Focus Area Models (2014) Source: CAG and PAG Focus Area Models (2014) 6 Source: Pinal County RSRSM Study (2008), PAG 2040 RTP (2010). Pinal County Transit Feasibility Study (2011), PAG RSC Study (2014), Passenger Rail Corridor Study, I-11 Intermountain West Study, North-South Corridor Study PLANNING FOCUS AREAS The Focus Area boundaries displayed in Figure 16 reflect six geographical study areas that define potential market demand along the corridors and is the foundation for the recommendations. Figure 16: Focus Areas Focus Area One: I-10 Focus Area One represents the lands along the I-10 corridor that connect Eloy and Marana and is presently the most traveled connection between Phoenix and Tucson. Large amounts of industrial-related development are anticipated to occur along the corridor over the next 5 to 15 years. Number of Lanes (2040) 2 4 6 Unpaved/Other Roadway Land Use Existing Open Space Proposed Open Space Focus Area Two: Eloy Indian Lands Military and Federal Focus Area Two is 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. Focus Area Three: Red Rock Focus Area Three centers on the area of Red Rock. The potential Union Pacific Classification Yard adjacent to I-10 provides a unique opportunity for industrial development that would need to utilize rail, for uses such as distribution and delivery. Focus Area Four: Pinal Airpark Focus Area Four centers on Pinal Airpark and have available undeveloped and underutilized lands surrounding the facility. It’s 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. Focus Area Five: Marana Focus Area Five consists of the Marana area. The south side of Pinal Airpark provides access to the labor force in Marana and requires a transportation network of routes that promote land subdivision and route redundancy. Focus Area Six: SR 87 Focus Area Six 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 a large land owner interested in developing land into a multi-phased commercial and industrial employment and distribution center. 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) 7 MARKET UNDERSTANDING Proposed Scenario Among the inputs to this strategic transportation effort was a forecast that looked at potential development opportunities that built on recent development patterns and institutional forecasts of population and employment. The conclusions were based on the analysis of the most currently understood information available. General demographic trends of Pinal County, such as population, households, and employment were compared with Maricopa and Pima Counties and was then followed by trends specifically within the six focus areas. 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 within the study area. Therefore, the TWG requested that this study develop a future socioeconomic scenario that would address the several entitled residential developments and eleven zoned or planned industrial developments within the study area. Scenario B was then developed as part of this study in order to capture these developments anticipated beyond that identified in Scenario A (CAG RTP). 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 developments are complete. The analysis, however, 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”. Given the fluid and dynamic nature of the economy and real estate markets, as well as the uncertainty surrounding the near-term future, it is critical to monitor the economy and markets continuously and to revisit the market analysis periodically when appropriate. 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 17 and Figure 18 respectively, and summarized in Table 3. Figure 17: Scenario B Future Population Figure 18: Scenario B Future Employment SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT In summer 2014, the Central Arizona Governments (CAG) completed the development of a regional travel demand model as part of their Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). Because the CAG RTP was concurrent with this study, and overlapped the study area, it was determined that the RTP should be utilized as the baseline future scenario, referred to as Scenario A. The CAG RTP utilized total population and employment estimates 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. The CAG 2040 condition, together with the PAG future condition, was considered as Scenario A. Table 3: Study Area Population and Employment, by Scenario Existing (2010) Scenario A (CAG RTP 2040) Scenario B (CAG RTP 2040 + Additional Development) Population 45,000 161,000 674,000 Employment 8,000 45,000 110,000 8 STRATEGIC TRANSPORTATION INVESTMENTS Figure 19: CAG RTP and Adopted PAG 2040 Network Figure 20: CAG RTP/Adopted PAG 2040 Level of Service This study built upon the transportation needs identified in the CAG and PAG plans. The proposed socioeconomic scenario, Scenario B, identified planned development anticipated beyond that identified in the CAG and PAG RTPs. 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 provided an understanding of where infrastructure needs exist beyond those identified in the current CAG and PAG plans in order to accommodate future growth. The results of the initial capacity analysis of the CAG and PAG 2040 network are depicted in Figure 19, with the Scenario B socioeconomic conditions presented in Figure 20. This analysis indicates that there are significant capacity concerns with approximately 41 miles of arterial and 100 miles of collector roadways in this future condition and are anticipated to operate at a level of service (LOS) E (slow movement or frequent stoppages) or F (traffic jams or stoppages of long duration). The study team proposed a range of transportation improvements to increase roadway capacity and create an improved and more robust circulation network. These improvements, depicted in Figure 21, 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 21 represent needed connections to facilitate regional circulation and connectivity. Future studies are recommended for these alignments, including detailed environmental and drainage analyses, 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 22, which presents the recommended number of lanes and I-10 interchanges needed to meet the anticipated transportation demand for the population and employment projected in Scenario B. Roadway Width 8 Lanes 6 Lanes 4 Lanes 2 Lanes Roadway Level of Service (Year 2040) Level of Service E/F Unpaved Other Roadway Other Level of Service Interchanges Interchanges New Interchange Relocated Interchange New Interchange Relocated Interchange Existing Interchange Existing Interchange Land Use Land Use Industrial Development (Zoned or Proposed) Existing Open Space Industrial Development (Zoned or Proposed) Existing Open Space Indian Lands Indian Lands Military and Federal Military and Federal Project Study Boundary Project Study Boundary Figure 21: Proposed Scenario Roadway Changes Roadway Changes Compared to CAG 2040 RTP Figure 22: Proposed Scenario Network Roadway Width Add Four Lanes Add Two Lanes – Existing Add Two Lanes – Not‐Existing Add Six Lanes – Not‐Existing No Change Unpaved/Other Roadway 8 Lanes 6 Lanes 4 Lanes 2 Lanes Unpaved Other Roadway Interchanges New Interchange Relocated Interchange Existing Interchange Interchanges New Interchange Relocated Interchange Existing Interchange Land Use Industrial Development (Zoned or Proposed) Existing Open Space Indian Lands Military and Federal Land Use Industrial Development (Zoned or Proposed) Existing Open Space Indian Lands Military and Federal Project Study Boundary Project Study Boundary 9 EVALUATION Table 4: Population and Employment Thresholds An evaluation process was utilized to aid in the documentation, discussion and assessment of the strategic transportation investments that considered the overall regional significance, demand, ranking, sequencing, magnitude of impacts and anticipated impacts to associated development. A planning level fatal flaw analysis was then conducted to understand any major, known issues that may hinder the development of the proposed transportation network. Input regarding values and important issues within the study area was provided by the Project Management Team, Technical Working Group, and stakeholders and 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: 1) Supports Growth and Economic Development, 2) Environment, 3) Mobility, and 4) Safety. Near-Term Mid-Term Long-Term 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 Table 5: Estimated Unit Costs 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 the development of these transportation corridors advances, more detailed analysis will be required. The overall ranking of the recommended projects based on the planning level evaluation was utilized to determine project sequencing based on need and potential impacts. RECOMMENDATIONS AND PROGRAMMING The prioritization of projects was determined by how effectively they address near-term, mid-term, 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 recognize needs beyond the currently understood future condition, identifying opportunities for right-of-way preservation and protection prior to future development approvals. Table 6: Cost by Programmed Timeframe Existing Future Rough Magnitude of Cost # of Lanes # of Lanes Per Mile Not Exist 2 $10 – 12.5 Million Not Exist 4 $15 – 17.8 Million 2 4 $4 – 6 Million 4 6 $4 – 6 Million 2 6 $8 – 9.5 Million Not Exist 6 $20 – 23 Million 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 7: Cost by Programmed Jurisdiction and Timeframe Rough Magnitude of Cost (Millions) Jurisdiction / Program Using population and employment projections previously established, the population and employment presented in Table 4 approximate the thresholds where near-term, mid-term, and long-term transportation improvements would be needed. Project Ranking and Programing Total Capital and 20-year O & M (Low) 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 Planning level cost estimates detailed in Table 5, not including right-of-way costs, were provided for each of the projects ranked in the near-term, mid-term, and long-term categories. Table 6 details the total cost for the near-term, mid-term, and long-term program, Table 7 by jurisdiction, and are detailed in Table 8. 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. However, the project summary for corridor preservation projects does not include costs as further study is needed to better refine these corridors. Eloy Total Coolidge Near-Term Coolidge Total Casa Grande Total 10 Total Capital and 20-year O & M (High) Table 8: Recommended Project List – (Alphabetized by Road per Programming Threshold) ID # Programming 28 1 Near-Term Near-Term Road From To Existing # of Lanes Future # of Lanes Jurisdiction Length (mile) Eloy / Pinal County Eloy 4.1 4.3 $ $ 4.0 4.0 $ $ 6.0 6.0 4.0 $ 6.0 11 Mile Corner Rd Battaglia Dr (Phase I) Hanna Rd West of Toltec Rd Frontier St East of Sunshine Blvd 2 2 4 4 Per Mile (Low) Per Mile (High) Rough Magnitude of Cost (Millions) Total Capital and 20-year O & M (Low) $ 18.0 $ 18.9 29 Near-Term Battaglia Dr East of Sunshine Blvd SR-87 2 4 Eloy / Pinal County 2.3 $ 34 6 18 8 10 36 3 12 14 33 46 16 27 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 Houser Rd Milligan Rd / Frontier St (Phase I) Milligan Rd / Frontier St (Phase I) Phillips Rd (Phase I) Phillips Rd (Phase I) Selma Hwy Sunland Gin Rd (Phase I) Sunland Gin Rd (Phase I) Sunshine Blvd (Phase I) Toltec Rd Toltec Rd Toltec Rd (Phase I) Trekell Rd Trekell Rd Toltec Rd SR-87 Lamb Rd Sunshine Blvd Jimmie Kerr Blvd Frontier St Battaglia Dr Alsdorf Rd Hanna Rd Hanna Rd Houser Rd Jimmie Kerr Blvd SR-87 Peart Rd Sunshine Blvd Sunshine Blvd I-10 SR-87 Battaglia Dr Harmon Rd South of Phillips Rd Houser Rd Selma Hwy South of Harmon Rd Battaglia Dr 2 2 2 Not Exist 2 2 2 2 2 2 Not Exist 2 2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 2 4 4 Eloy / Pinal County / Casa Grande Eloy / Pinal County / Casa Grande Eloy / Pinal County Eloy / Pinal County Eloy / Pinal County Eloy / Pinal County / Casa Grande / Coolidge Eloy / Pinal County Eloy / Pinal County Eloy Eloy Eloy Eloy / Pinal County Eloy / Pinal County / Casa Grande 13.0 7.3 2.2 8.0 2.1 11.5 4.0 6.0 3.4 3.2 2.0 7.8 7.0 $ 4.0 $ 4.0 $ 4.0 $ 15.0 $ 4.0 $ 4.0 $ 4.0 $ 4.0 $ 4.0 $ 4.0 $ 10.0 $ 4.0 $ 4.0 $ 6.0 $ 6.0 $ 6.0 $ 17.8 $ 6.0 $ 6.0 $ 6.0 $ 6.0 $ 6.0 $ 6.0 $ 12.5 $ 6.0 $ 6.0 $ 57.2 $ 32.1 $ 9.7 $ 132.0 $ 9.2 $ 50.6 $ 17.6 $ 26.4 $ 15.0 $ 14.1 $ 22.0 $ 34.1 $ 30.8 $ 85.8 $ 48.2 $ 14.5 $ 156.2 $ 13.9 $ 75.9 $ 26.4 $ 39.6 $ 22.4 $ 21.1 $ 27.5 $ 51.2 $ 46.2 21 2 22 23 5 30 31 7 19 9 11 45 48 24 4 13 25 15 26 17 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 Mid-Term Mid-Term Mid-Term Battaglia Dr Battaglia Dr (Phase II) Harmon Rd Harmon Rd Milligan Rd / Frontier St Milligan Rd / Frontier St Milligan Rd / Frontier St Milligan Rd / Frontier St (Phase II) Milligan Rd / Frontier St (Phase II) Phillips Rd (Phase II) Phillips Rd (Phase II) Pinal Air Park Rd Pretzer Rd Sunland Gin Rd Sunland Gin Rd (Phase II) Sunland Gin Rd (Phase II) Sunshine Blvd Sunshine Blvd (Phase II) Toltec Rd Toltec Rd (Phase II) Trekell Rd West of Toltec Rd Sunland Gin Rd Sunshine Blvd Sunshine Blvd Battaglia Dr East End Toltec Rd SR-87 Lamb Rd Sunshine Blvd Red Rock Sunland Gin Rd Harmon Rd Frontier St Battaglia Dr South of Phillips Rd Alsdorf Rd South of Harmon Rd Houser Rd Toltec Rd East of Sunshine Blvd Sunshine Blvd Picacho Hwy Battaglia Dr Toltec Rd SR-87 Peart Rd Sunshine Blvd Sunshine Blvd I-10 Trico Rd Picacho Hwy South of Harmon Rd Battaglia Dr Harmon Rd South of Pretzer Rd South of Phillips Rd Pretzer Rd South of Harmon Rd 2 4 Not Exist 2 4 2 2 4 4 4 4 Not Exist Not Exist 2 4 4 2 4 2 4 4 6 4 4 6 4 4 6 6 6 6 2 2 4 6 6 4 6 4 6 Pinal County / Eloy Eloy Eloy / Pinal County Eloy / Pinal County Eloy Eloy Eloy / Pinal County Eloy / Pinal County / Casa Grande Eloy / Pinal County Eloy / Pinal County Eloy / Pinal County Pinal County Eloy / Pinal County Eloy / Pinal County Eloy / Pinal County Eloy / Pinal County Eloy / Pinal County Eloy Eloy / Pinal County Eloy / Pinal County 7.0 4.3 6.0 3.0 1.7 3.4 3.0 7.3 2.2 8.0 2.1 6.9 10.0 1.0 4.0 6.0 4.6 3.4 1.0 7.8 $ 4.0 $ 4.0 $ 15.0 $ 4.0 $ 4.0 $ 4.0 $ 4.0 $ 4.0 $ 4.0 $ 4.0 $ 4.0 $ 10.0 $ 10.0 $ 4.0 $ 4.0 $ 4.0 $ 4.0 $ 4.0 $ 4.0 $ 4.0 $ 6.0 $ 6.0 $ 17.8 $ 6.0 $ 6.0 $ 6.0 $ 6.0 $ 6.0 $ 6.0 $ 6.0 $ 6.0 $ 12.5 $ 12.5 $ 6.0 $ 6.0 $ 6.0 $ 6.0 $ 6.0 $ 6.0 $ 6.0 $ 30.8 $ 18.9 $ 99.0 $ 13.2 $ 7.5 $ 15.0 $ 13.2 $ 32.1 $ 9.7 $ 35.2 $ 9.2 $ 75.9 $ 110.0 $ 4.4 $ 17.6 $ 26.4 $ 20.2 $ 15.0 $ 4.4 $ 34.1 $ 46.2 $ 28.4 $ 117.2 $ 19.8 $ 11.2 $ 22.4 $ 19.8 $ 48.2 $ 14.5 $ 52.8 $ 13.9 $ 94.9 $ 137.5 $ 6.6 $ 26.4 $ 39.6 $ 30.4 $ 22.4 $ 6.6 $ 51.2 43 44 20 32 35 42 Long-Term Long-Term Long-Term Long-Term Long-Term Long-Term Baumgartner Rd Baumgartner Rd New Link Parallel Picacho Hwy Picacho Hwy Picacho Hwy Sunshine Blvd Red Rock Sunland Gin Rd 1-10 1-10 South of Pretzer Rd South of Pretzer Rd Camino Adelant Picacho Hwy Baumgartner Rd South of Pretzer Rd Baumgartner Rd Baumgartner Rd Not Exist Not Exist Not Exist 2 2 Not Exist 2 2 6 4 4 2 Pinal County Pinal County Pinal County Pinal County Pinal County Pinal County 3.6 10.1 9.0 5.6 3.0 3.0 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 39.6 $ 110.8 $ 198.0 $ 24.4 $ 13.2 $ 33.0 $ 49.5 $ 138.5 $ 227.7 $ 36.6 $ 19.8 $ 41.3 37 38 39 40 47 41 Corridor Preservation Corridor Preservation Corridor Preservation Corridor Preservation Corridor Preservation Corridor Preservation Deep Well Ranch Harmon Rd Harmon Rd Houser Rd New Link Parallel to Pecan Rd Selma Hwy Houser Rd I-10 Picacho Hwy East End Park Link Rd SR-87 SR-79 Pecan Rd I-10 Deep Well Ranch Harmon Rd SR-79 Not Exist Not Exist Not Exist Not Exist Not Exist Not Exist 2 2 2 2 2 2 Pinal County Pinal County Pinal County Pinal County Pinal County Pinal County / Coolidge 3.4 6.3 3.7 8.5 4.2 15.7 Not included at this time due to lack of detailed information on specific corridor. Additional study would be required. 11 10.0 10.0 20.0 4.0 4.0 10.0 12.5 12.5 23.0 6.0 6.0 12.5 $ 10.1 Total Capital and 20-year O & M (High) $ 27.1 $ 28.4 $ 15.2 Operational Improvements Corridor Preservation Needs 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. 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, rightof-way preservation and an understanding of future circulation to provide access to undeveloped and underdeveloped areas as interest and activity in those areas begin to materialize. 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 ADOT-funded programs and include the following:        Totolita Boulevard Missile Base Road Park Link Drive Harmon Road Battaglia Road Sunland Gin Road Selma Highway Multimodal Transportation As the region grows, detailed corridor level recommendations accommodating a range of modal choices should be included as mobility options to reduce dependency on personal vehicle. Roadway design should accommodate bicycles and pedestrians to facilitate short distance trips that can be made by bicycles and pedestrians or other travel modes. This includes design accommodating continuous bicycle lanes, sidewalks, and trails. 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. 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 study area grow and evolve, further study is recommended. 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 1 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), and the North-South Corridor Study. Additionally, the 2008 Pinal County Regionally Significant Routes for Safety and Mobility (RSRSM) Plan identified the need for a parkway to the southwest 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. The corridors identified in Figure 23 needs further 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, however, 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. High capacity transportation corridors provide key regional access and circulation and are highlighted in Figure 23. 12 Figure 23: Long-Term High Capacity Transportation Corridors FREIGHT OPPORTUNITIES Freight and Commuter Corridors Within the study area, Interstate 10, Interstate 8, and State Route 87 are appropriate corridors to expand existing freight-related services and create new services. Along these corridors there are four distinct opportunity areas: 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 24, focuses on movement throughout the region, including access to I-10 and industrial areas.  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 available from Casa Grande and Eloy, is roughly three-quarters 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.  Red Rock Classification Yard: Situated on the north side of Interstate 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.  State Route 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 Interstate 10 and SR 87.  Pinal Airpark: Located along the southern boundary of Pinal County and west of Interstate 10, this existing facility is planned for expansion of development and employment opportunities. More broadly, it is between Tucson International Airport (TIA) and the interchange of Interstates 10 and 8, with the Union Pacific rail line operating adjacent to the east side of Interstate 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. Figure 24: Freight and Commuter Corridors Land Use Industrial Development (Zoned or Proposed) Transportation Proposed Freight/Commuter Corridors Project Study Boundary 13 POLICY OPPORTUNITIES Capital Improvements 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.   Governance / Planning Strategy       Ensure compatibility between the county-wide transportation system and local community networks.  Service and Performance Monitoring  Development information will continue to be aggregated by CAG. Updates should occur on an ongoing basis.  Engage the state demographer as the currently anticipated development would significantly alter long-term needs. Construct principal arterials, parkways, and enhanced parkways as multimodal roadways, incorporating 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.  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. Design supporting transportation systems for each of the six focus areas to address their unique needs and to strengthen their economic development appeal.  Continually assess timing of anticipated development.  Adopt appropriate performance measures compatible with the requirements of MAP-21 and ADOT’s Planning-to-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 developments monitoring of impacts of land use on the transportation system with transportation performance-based requirements.  Review and revise Comprehensive Plan checklist to ensure development review process and approvals reflect County vision and performance measures. Work with ADOT to ensure the efficiency and functionality of I-10 or other high capacity transportation facilities to serve anticipated growth in population, employment and recreation within Pinal County. Encourage Pinal County’s and local communities’ development patterns to support a diverse range of travel modes 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.  Construct key facilities, such as the freight and commuter corridors, 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.  Identify long term right-of-way corridors to be preserved as development activity warrants, ensuring future system continuity, capacity and integrity.  Coordinate with the Arizona State Land Department and future development interests on corridor placement to maximize land use access and minimize impacts to sensitive resources. Develop bicycle and pedestrian design 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), SR 87 (between Eloy and Coolidge) and Pinal Airpark  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. Require development to adhere to the Pinal County Regionally Significant Routes for Safety and Mobility (RSRSM) Access Management Manual.  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. 14 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.