2024 CITY OF MESA 2050 RESOLUilON NO.12.110 A RESOLUTION OF TIIE CITY COUNCIL OF TIIE CITY OF MESA, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA, ADOPTING AND PUBLISHING TIIE CITY OF MESA 2050 TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN AS A GUIDING DOCUMENT REGARDING TIIE VISION FOR TRANSPORTATION INVESTMENT AND POLICY IN TIIE CITY OF MESA. WHEREAS, the Transportation Department, in coordination with other City of Mesa ("City'') departments and consultant Kittleson and Associates, Inc., prepared the City of Mesa 2050 Transportation Master Plan ("Plan"). WHEREAS, in preparing the Plan, the City conducted wide-ranging public outreach and incorporated citizen feedback into the Plan to create a strategic transportation vision for Mesa. WHEREAS, the Plan also represents a collaborative effort for residents, the business community, regional partners, local stakeholders, and internal City departments to address Mesa's growing multimodal needs. WHEREAS, the City Council desires to adopt and publish the Plan as a guiding document for transportation investment, policy, and future needs in Mesa to address local and regional transportation issues. Now, therefore, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Mesa as follows: Section 1: The City of Mesa 2050 Transportation Master Plan is hereby adopted and published as a guiding document for transportation investment, policy, and future needs in Mesa. Section 2: The City of Mesa officers and employees who respond to transportation conditions are hereby authorized to take such actions as are appropriate to consider and use the guidance outlined in the City of Mesa 2050 Transportation Master Plan. Passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Mesa, Maricopa County, Arizona this 9th day of December, 2024. ATTEST: {00544162.1} EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CITY OF MESA 2050 Mesa is changing – more people and businesses are moving here every day, and the mobility needs of our residents are increasing. To provide our residents, visitors, and businesses with a transportation system that works, we need to face our transportation future headon. The Mesa Transportation Master Plan (TMP) serves as a roadmap for transportation investment, policy, and future needs in Mesa for the next 25 years so everyone can safely and comfortably drive, walk, bike, or ride. While the Maricopa Association of Governments’ (MAG) Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and the Regional Strategic Transportation Infrastructure Investment Plan (RSTIIP) sets forth a regional vision for transportation for all of the Phoenix metro area, the Mesa TMP focuses on mobility needs in the City of Mesa at a macro-level. How Mesa Will Use the TMP The TMP builds on the City’s strategic goals, past planning efforts, and aligns transportation needs and recommendations with other City and regional planning efforts. Ultimately, the TMP serves as the guiding vision for transportation investment, policy, and future needs in the City’s current limits and within the greater Mesa Municipal Planning Area (MPA). 1 Mesa Transportation Master Plan MESA’S TRANSPORTATION FUTURE The TMP sets the foundation for rethinking the way Mesa plans and designs its transportations system. The TMP outlines a way forward to improve how people move in and through the City, by developing complete, balanced networks that allows everyone, regardless of their age, ability or socioeconomic status, to comfortably and safely travel to the places that matter to them most. Building Mesa’s Transportation System of Tomorrow Compared to previous plans, the 2024 TMP includes several unique and innovative elements. Phased Multimodal Action Plan. Based on extensive data analysis and feedback from the community and stakeholders, the TMP provides a roadmap for projects and programs to bring to life Mesa’s multimodal vision. At the end of the day, the phased improvement plan systematically guides transportation investments and project development. Travelsheds - Transportation Improvements for Mesa’s Unique Subareas. Mesa is comprised of a variety of neighborhoods and subareas, each with their own unique character. Beyond distinct physical characteristics, each subarea/travelshed has diverse cultural and population groups that help drive transportation needs. The TMP evaluated each of these unique travelsheds to understand what transportation improvements residents and businesses need and how they would like to travel. Complete, Transportation Networks. Mesa’s vision for mobility includes a transportation system that is safe, reliable, and complete for everyone. To achieve this vision, the TMP created complete and connected networks for all modes so that people traveling through, to, and around Mesa have a variety of options regardless of their age, ability, or travel mode. Working together as a system, these complete networks create reliable and attractive transportation choices for all modes including biking, walking, and transit. Street Typologies. Current one-size-fits-most design standards make it difficult to accommodate all modes and to adjust designs based on the unique needs of a neighborhood. The TMP developed street typologies that strike a balance between roadway functional classification, adjacent land use, and competing travel needs and uses. Within limited right-of-way, street typologies allow Mesa to make design trade-offs to design a street to best fit the function and need of various travel modes. Corridors of Opportunity. The City of Mesa street network and the adjacent land uses have evolved over the years and the user needs have evolved as well. There are several streets in the City that could be reconfigured to better support the land uses adjacent to the streets and address the changing modal needs of the users. Mesa Transportation Master Plan 2 DEVELOPING THE PLAN The development of the Mesa Transportation Master Plan was a collaborative effort that brought together residents, the business community, regional partners, local stakeholders, and internal City departments to create a strategic transportation vision for Mesa. The Plan’s process included listening, complex technical analysis, as well as coordination with the Mesa 2050 General Plan, the Mesa Transit Master Plan, and the Mesa Balanced Housing Plan updates. Ultimately, the plan developed a series of short-, mid-, and longterm improvements to address Mesa’s growing multimodal needs. The multi-phased process included the following steps: Mesa Municipal Planning Area (Mesa MPA) Beyond the incorporated jurisdictional boundary of the City, the TMP covers a larger area of influence called the Municipal Planning Area (MPA). Mesa’s MPA includes the incorporated City limits and land in unincorporated areas within Maricopa County. The Mesa MPA and unincorporated county areas, or “County Islands” are denoted in Figure 1. 3 Mesa Transportation Master Plan FIGURE 1. STUDY NETWORK Study Network Streets are the physical backbone of Mesa’s transportation network and one of the City’s largest public assets. Mesa’s street network generally follows a grid pattern allowing the public to easily navigate in and through the City. Developing a complete and connected multimodal network begins with identifying a wider transportation network of city roadways called the “Study Network”. The Study Network served as the basis for analyzing the performance and function of the City’s transportation network. Figure 1 illustrates the Mesa TMP’s study network. Mesa Transportation Master Plan 4 MESA’S MOBILITY VISION AND GOALS The establishment of a clear vision and goals is important because they set a foundation for plan development and ultimately inform decision-making and prioritizing transportation improvement investments. The TMP goals and objectives outlined in this section were founded and informed by the Mesa 2050 General Plan, community feedback during the TMP, regional and federal goals, other City plans, and City staff feedback. Mesa’s Mobility Vision The Mesa TMP carries forward the General Plan’s connectivity, safety, and multimodal principles to establish a framework for developing and implementing a transportation system that enhances the community’s quality of life, provides travel options for all users, embraces technology, and better connects people to the places that matter to them, regardless of the mode of travel. The following is Mesa’s transportation vision statement: “Mesa’s transportation network is a safe, resilient, efficient, and interconnected multimodal system that supports and strengthens Mesa and its economy.” Mesa’s Guiding Principles The guiding principles and strategies for the TMP will help achieve the desired outcomes established in the vision statement. Guiding principles are general statements that the TMP aims to achieve over time. These goals align with – and do not replace – adopted policies and goals from the General Plan. Manage and Maintain Promote stewardship of a sustainable and efficient transportation system through strategic system management and preservation. Create a transportation network that consists of safe and comfortable mobility options for all current and future users. Recognize that the transportation sector has been experiencing rapid change in recent years due to technological advancements and initiatives from both the public sector and the private sector. Adapt to emerging technologies, land use changes, and transportation mobility demands by being innovative and flexible to ensure a resilient and responsive transportation system. Connections and Choices Thrive and Prosper Safety First Develop an integrated and complete multimodal transportation network that provides improved and accessible mobility options for all modes, including focused consideration for disadvantaged and underserved communities and groups. 5 Anticipate and Adapt Strengthen the City, its residents, and its businesses, by advancing equity, inclusion, and economic competitiveness through improved transportation access to jobs, education, services, and goods. Mesa Transportation Master Plan HOW WE ENGAGED THE COMMUNITY Throughout the TMP planning process, input was gathered from residents, businesses, organizations, City leaders and staff, and regional planning partners to ensure that the TMP reflects the needs and priorities of those that use our transportation system. Project Website In coordination with the Mesa General Plan Update, a Mesa Transportation Master Plan (TMP) project website was developed and launched in January 2023, allowing the public easy access to important information about the TMP. The website TomorrowsMesa.com included document links, survey links, and a way to sign up for the project mailing list. Spreading the Word To provide opportunities for our planning partners and stakeholders to participate in the planning process, the following activities were conducted: • Interactive workshops were conducted with stakeholders and regional partners to gather feedback on current issues and draft recommendations. • A project specific booth was hosted at numerous community events, including I Love Mesa Day, Downtown Mesa’s Farmers Market, Celebrate Mesa, CycloMesa, and major events hosted by the 2050 General Plan. • Flyers and signs were distributed to key activity centers throughout the City. • Social media posts and e-mail blasts to direct community members to the project website. Surveys and Mapping Activities During outreach efforts, we heard from thousands of people through surveys and online mapping tools. Shared on the project website, via social media, and by community members, the Mesa TMP surveys invited people to share their values; describe the type of improvements they would most like to see; and map ideas for specific walking, biking, bus, and driving projects. Mesa Transportation Master Plan 6 MESA IS GROWING AND CHANGING Mesa continues to grow steadily. While this growth creates opportunities, it poses challenges to our transportation network. Understanding where growth is greatest is imperative to creating a plan that manages the increased demands on our transportation system. Population and Employment Growth Since 1990, the City of Mesa’s population has increased by 77% and population growth is not expected to slow down. As shown in Table 1, the Mesa Municipal Planning Area’s population is anticipated to increase by another 18%. Much of this growth is expected to be in-fill development and growth south of US 60 in southeast Mesa and the Eastmark Areas. Furthermore, with over 158,230 people working in the City today, Mesa is one of the fastest growing job markets and economies in the Phoenix metropolitan area. By 2050, employment in the Mesa Municipal Planning Area is projected to increase by over 48%. Table 1: Projected Socioeconomic Conditions for the Mesa Municipal Planning Area Total Population1 Current (2021) 544,976 Near-Term (2030) 589,900 Mid-Term (2035) 609,800 Long-Term (2050) 645,500 Total Housing Units 243,003 263,017 279,982 285,254 Total Employment 208,200 237,500 259,600 308,900 1 Future Growth Strategy Source: MAG 2024 Updated Socioeconomic Data Scenario Runs includes resident population and group quarter (correction, institutional, and military) population Figure 2 illustrates future land use / place type designations that describe the land uses, densities, intensities, and the character of residential, commercial, and industrial areas within the MPA. These future land use designations offer guidance for City staff, elected officials, residents, business owners, and developers for navigating and reviewing development proposals. 7 Mesa Transportation Master Plan FIGURE 2. GENERAL PLAN FUTURE LAND USE / PLACE TYPES Mesa Transportation Master Plan 8 What Happens to Roadway Congestion Levels If We Do Nothing? Population and employment changes can increase demand on Mesa’s current transportation system and directly affect roadway conditions. To quantify the impact of projected growth on Mesa’s transportation system, a No-Build analysis was conducted to forecast congestion levels due to projected growth. Level of Service (LOS) is a term used to describe traffic operations and congestion levels. LOS values were determined for each roadway segment using a ratio of volume to capacity (V/C). LOS represents: 9 • LOS A to LOS C - little or no congestion) • LOS D - moderate congestion) • LOS E - at or nearing capacity) • LOS F - over capacity) Mesa Transportation Master Plan FIGURE 3. PROJECTED LONG-TERM (2050) LEVEL OF SERVICE Mesa Transportation Master Plan 10 WHAT ARE MESA’S CURRENT AND FUTURE TRANSPORTATION NEEDS? The Transportation Master Plan (TMP) identifies a universe of needs for the City to consider for implementation. Together, the recommended needs will help reshape Mesa’s transportation system to better move vehicles and people. Needs identified in the TMP include a variety of types that combined create a transportation system that helps to improve safety and mobility for everyone. Recommended needs include investments in the following types: A Phased Approach Transportation needs were evaluated and assessed on how well they met the goals of the TMP, their overall benefits, and the level of feasibility of the project need. Based on the evaluation, needs were categorized into three Tiers that represent priority for implementation. ShortTerm Short-Term Horizon (Y2024 to Y2030): Needs that help achieve the goals of the TMP that the City should consider implementing within a 1 to 7-year timeframe. MidTerm Mid-Term Horizon (Y2031 to Y2035): Needs that help achieve the goals of the TMP but may not be needed in the immediate future or may be too expensive to find funding in the short-term horizon. Mid-Term needs may be considered for implementation over an 8 to 15-year timeframe or if funding opportunities arise early or needs of the community change. LongTerm Long-Term Horizon (Y2036 to Y2050): Needs that also help achieve the goals of the TMP but have a major cost or other constraints or may not be needed in the immediate future. Long-Term needs should be considered for implementation over a 16 to 25-year timeframe or if funding opportunities arise early or needs of the community change. Figures 4 – 8 illustrate recommended transportation needs as presented in the Mesa TMP Final Report. Detailed information for each identified need is also provided in the Mesa TMP Final Report. 11 Mesa Transportation Master Plan FIGURE 4. RECOMMENDED ROADWAY IMPROVEMENT NEEDS Mesa Transportation Master Plan 12 FIGURE SHARED-USE PATH NETWORK NEEDS NEEDS FIGURE 6. 5. RECOMMENDED SAFETY IMPROVEMENT 13 Mesa Transportation Master Plan FIGURE 6 SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENT NEEDS Mesa Transportation Master Plan 14 FIGURE 7. RECOMMENDED NEW BICYCLE FACILITY NEEDS 15 Mesa Transportation Master Plan FIGURE 8. RECOMMENDED TRANSIT SERVICE NEEDS FROM THE TRANSIT MASTER PLAN 16 Mesa Transportation Master Plan PLANNING FOR MESA’S UNIQUE TRAVEL SHEDS Travel sheds are geographic sub areas with similar socioeconomic, land use, and travel characteristics where residents and visitors who have similar transportation needs reside. Within each travel shed there are streets and multimodal facilities to help move people and goods. By analyzing travel sheds, the Mesa TMP creates strategies for the physical and operational improvements and investments necessary to meet Mesa’s unique mobility needs while preserving Mesa’s neighborhoods and communities. Figure 9 illustrates Mesa’s unique travel sheds. What Defines a Travel Shed? The development of each travel shed was a multi-step process that overlaid the following data items to determine the socioeconomic and travel trends and ultimately the extent of each travel shed. Population and Socioeconomic Makeup Land Use Characteristics Physical Features and Natural Barriers Mobility Trends 17 Mesa Transportation Master Plan FIGURE 9. Travel Sheds Mesa Transportation Master Plan 18 CREATING COMPLETE NETWORKS Mesa’s transportation system is made up of a collection of streets that move people and goods to and through the City. With street space at a premium, however, cars, buses, pedestrians, cyclists, emergency vehicles and trucks compete for space. Fortunately, there are actions Mesa can take to manage and design streets to prioritize moving vehicles, people, and goods more efficiently and safely. Complete networks recognize that not every street can prioritize every mode, but rather that some streets prioritize one or more modes so that collectively, every mode has a complete and interconnected system. Working together as a system, these complete networks create reliable and attractive transportation choices regardless of what mode of travel is used. Each complete network is comprised of: • • The Primary Network represents a collection of streets that create vital local and regional connections by mode. Collectively, the primary network creates a high-quality, high-performing network to move people by mode. The Supporting Network strengthens the complete network by connecting the primary network to residents, businesses, and activity centers throughout the City. The outcomes of the complete networks lay the groundwork for strategic investments and decision-making along the primary multimodal corridors to better move people and goods no matter what mode. Chapter 7 of the Mesa TMP provides additional information on the recommended complete networks. 19 VEHICLE NETWORK Allows vehicles to travel efficiently, while safely sharing the streets with other modes. FREIGHT NETWORK Allows for the efficient, reliable, and safe movement of goods in and through the City. TRANSIT NETWORK Connects people to homes, schools, jobs, and other important destinations. PEDESTRIAN NETWORK People walking and rolling are our most vulnerable users and require a safe and comfortable space to travel. BICYCLE NETWORK Create a comfortable, convenient, and safe network for people biking. Mesa Transportation Master Plan FIGURE 10. Corridors of Opportunity Corridors of Opportunity Mesa’s street network and the adjacent land uses have evolved over the years and the user needs are changing as well. There are several streets in the City that could be reconfigured to better support the land uses adjacent to the streets and address the changing modal needs of the users. Figure 10 illustrates potential corridors that may be reconfigured to better serve the modal needs of Mesa’s residents and visitors. Chapter 8 of the Mesa TMP provides additional information on potential roadway reconfiguration projects and the benefits and challenges of implementation. Mesa Transportation Master Plan 20 Future Number of Lanes 21 WHAT’S NEXT? The completion of the Transportation Master Plan is the first of many steps that need to occur to realize Mesa’s multimodal transportation future. The TMP provides a starting point and tools to help developers, planners, engineers, and community advocates to expand and enhance Mesa’s transportation system to meet the City’s growing needs. Making the TMP vision a reality requires a comprehensive approach that includes policy, design, partnerships, and above all, dedication, and commitment by Mesa staff. Mesa Transportation Master Plan 22 2024 CITY OF MESA 2050 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. PLAN OVERVIEW.................................................................................................................... 1 What is the Mesa Transportation Master Plan? ...................................................................... 3 Developing the Plan ................................................................................................................ 4 How We Got Here .................................................................................................................... 6 Mesa’s Mobility Goals ........................................................................................................... 11 2. MESA TODAY ....................................................................................................................... 15 Overview of Mesa .................................................................................................................. 16 Living and Working in Mesa ................................................................................................... 18 Where We Shop, Play, and Learn ......................................................................................... 26 How We Get Around ............................................................................................................. 28 Our Social Needs.................................................................................................................... 30 Mobiliy Conditions, Trends, and Challenges ........................................................................ 32 3. MESA TOMORROW .............................................................................................................. 71 Mesa is Growing and Changing ........................................................................................... 73 What Happens to Congestion Levels if We Do Nothing? ................................................... 77 4. WHAT WE HEARD ................................................................................................................. 87 How We Engaged the Community ...................................................................................... 88 What Did They Say? ............................................................................................................... 89 5. MESA’S TRANSPORTATION NEEDS....................................................................................... 93 Transportation Needs in Mesa ............................................................................................... 94 Citywide Roadway Needs..................................................................................................... 96 Citywide Multimodal Needs ................................................................................................ 110 Public Transit Needs ............................................................................................................. 126 Additional Projects and Studies .......................................................................................... 130 Mesa Transportation Master Plan 6. MESA’S UNIQUE TRAVEL SHEDS .......................................................................................... 131 What is a Travel Shed? ........................................................................................................... 132 Downtown Mesa .................................................................................................................... 134 US 60 Corridor.......................................................................................................................... 140 Dobson Ranch ........................................................................................................................ 146 Riverview ................................................................................................................................. 152 Southeast Mesa ...................................................................................................................... 158 Central Mesa .......................................................................................................................... 164 North Central Mesa ................................................................................................................ 170 Fiesta District............................................................................................................................ 176 Falcon Field Area ................................................................................................................... 182 Northeast Mesa ...................................................................................................................... 188 East Mesa ................................................................................................................................ 194 7. MESA’S FUTURE MOBILITY NETWORKS ................................................................................ 201 Creating Complete Networks ............................................................................................... 203 Vehicle Network ..................................................................................................................... 204 Freight Network....................................................................................................................... 206 Transit Network ........................................................................................................................ 208 Bicycle Network ...................................................................................................................... 210 Pedestrian Network ................................................................................................................ 212 Build-Out Primary Networks ................................................................................................... 214 8. MOVING FORWARD ............................................................................................................ 217 What’s Next? ........................................................................................................................... 219 Integrating the TMP ................................................................................................................ 220 Seek Opportunities ................................................................................................................. 223 Investing in Mesa .................................................................................................................... 235 Tracking and Evaluating ........................................................................................................ 236 Appendix A. Mesa Street Typologies Appendix B. Existing Conditions Technical Memo Appendix C. Future Conditions Technical Memo Appendix D. Community Engagement Phase #1 Summary Report Appendix E. Community Engagement Phase #2 Summary Report Appendix F. Transit Master Plan Appendix G. Community Engagement Phase #3 Summary Report Mesa Transportation Master Plan PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Mesa Transportation Master Plan 1 PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 2 Mesa Transportation Master Plan WHAT IS THE MESA TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN? Mesa is changing – more people and businesses are moving here every day, and the mobility needs of our residents are increasing. To provide our residents, visitors, and businesses with a transportation system that works, we need to face our transportation future headon. The Mesa Transportation Master Plan (TMP) serves as a roadmap for transportation investment, policy, and future needs in Mesa for the next 30 years so everyone can safely and comfortably drive, walk, bike, or ride. While the Maricopa Association of Governments’ (MAG) Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and the Regional Strategic Transportation Infrastructure Investment Plan (RSTIIP) sets forth a regional vision for transportation for all of the Phoenix metro area, the Mesa TMP focuses on mobility needs in the City of Mesa at a macro-level. How Mesa Will Use the TMP The TMP builds on the City’s strategic goals, past planning efforts, and aligns transportation needs and recommendations with other City and regional planning efforts. Ultimately, the TMP serves as the guiding vision for transportation investment, policy, and future needs in the City’s current limits and within the greater Mesa Municipal Planning Area (MPA). Mesa Transportation Master Plan 3 DEVELOPING THE PLAN The development of the Mesa Transportation Master Plan was a collaborative effort that brought together residents, the business community, regional partners, local stakeholders, and internal City departments to create a strategic transportation vision for Mesa. The Plan’s process includes listening, complex technical analysis, as well as coordination with the Mesa 2050 General Plan, the Mesa Transit Master Plan, and the Mesa Balanced Housing Plan updates. Ultimately, the plan developed a series of short-, mid-, and longterm improvements to address Mesa’s growing multimodal needs. The multi-phased process included the following steps: Mesa Municipal Planning Area (Mesa MPA) Beyond the incorporated jurisdictional boundary of the City, the TMP covers a larger area of influence called the Municipal Planning Area (MPA). Mesa’s MPA includes the incorporated City limits and land in unincorporated areas within Maricopa County. The Mesa MPA and unincorporated county areas, or “County Islands” are denoted in Figure 1-1. and proceeding maps. 4 Mesa Transportation Master Plan FIGURE 1-1. STUDY NETWORK Study Network Streets are the physical backbone of Mesa’s transportation network and one of the City’s largest public assets. Mesa’s street network generally follows a grid pattern allowing the public to easily navigate in and through the City. Developing a complete and connected multimodal network begins with identifying a wider transportation network of City roadways called the “Study Network”. The Study Network served as the basis for analyzing the performance and function of the City’s transportation network. Figure 1-1 illustrates the Mesa TMP’s study network. Mesa Transportation Master Plan 5 HOW WE GOT HERE Previous transportation plans, studies, and reports were reviewed to acknowledge recommendations and implemented plans that apply to the existing roadway, freight, transit, bicycle, and pedestrian network in the City. A review of surrounding jurisdictions’ completed studies and plans was completed to better understand the local, regional, and statewide network of transportation facilities that will directly or indirectly impact Mesa’s transportation system. The following outlines previous plans that informed the development of the TMP. Local Plans and Studies Gateway Tomorrow – Eastside Terminal Planning Study (2024) The purpose of this Study was to create a shared vision for an eastside commercial passenger terminal complex concept. The timetable for the relocation of the commercial operation is unknown. The site is in close proximity to the airfield and regional highway network. Study’s preferred alternative accommodates a 25-gate terminal; 140 acres for other development activities; provides convenient and easy access to State Route 202, the designated future main entrance to the Airport; and provides flexibility and scalability to accommodate emerging aviation industry trends and future passenger activity increases. miles traveled in single occupancy vehicles. This can include strategies such as identifying pedestrian networks and increasing shade at transit stops. Smart Mesa Today (2021) The Smart Mesa Today Strategic Plan was developed to review smart city technologies and to consider their application in helping the City to support economic development and enhance the quality of life for its residents. Major recommended priorities from the plan that could impact transportation in the City included, but not limited to: • Expand and upgrade traffic data services and intelligent transportation systems. Sensors and the metadata they collect can provide insight into vehicle traffic data, pedestrian data, and tourist travel patterns. • Consider investing in parking system technology that can provide information about the number of parking spaces available, increase utilization of existing spaces, or make it easier to pay. • Develop pilot opportunities for new multimodal transit and microtransit vehicles. Microtransit can be used to complement light rail and bus networks by providing access to populations that otherwise could not reach public transit. Mesa Climate Action Plan (2022) The Climate Action Plan provides a guide to reduce the City’s impact on the environment by reducing carbon emissions and investing in renewable energy. In order to reach carbon neutrality, the City aspires to build a “carbon-free transportation system, with walking, biking, carpooling.” The Plan recommends developing an EV charging master plan for the deployment of charging infrastructure throughout the City and especially where charging infrastructure is currently not available. In addition, the City will advocate for access to EVs for lowincome people. In order to further decarbonize transportation, the plan recommends increasing access to healthy transportation options like active transportation, carpooling, and public transportation with the goal of reducing vehicle 6 Mesa Transportation Master Plan Long Range Analysis and Prioritization of Select Intersections (2021) This Plan evaluated and prioritized 85 intersections in the City of Mesa to aid in appropriately planning and funding infrastructure improvements to address safety, operations, deficiencies, and needs. Results found that a total of 39 out of the 85 intersections have existing and/or future capacity or safety levels that warrant intersection improvements. The top intersections include Southern Avenue/Country Club Drive, University Drive/Mesa Drive, University Drive/Country Club Drive, Brown Road/Gilbert Road, and Broadway Road/Higley Road. 2020 Mesa Moves Bond Program The Mesa Moves Bond Program was approved by voters in 2020 and created a $100 Million General Obligation Bond that included a list of potential transportation projects that fall into three categories: • Regional Roadway Improvements: These projects widen existing streets, improve intersection capacity and safety, and/or construct new major street segments. • Arterial Road Reconstruction: These projects reconstruct the existing pavement of major roads throughout Mesa. • Active Transportation: These projects enhance Mesa’s bike and pedestrian network by expanding Mesa’s shared use path network. Department. Likewise, Active Transportation projects are not specifically identified within the Bond Program but notes that projects will be identified through a public feedback process led by the City’s Transportation Department. Southeast Mesa Land and Transportation Plan (2019) The Southeast Mesa Land and Transportation Plan is intended to guide future transportation improvements in southeast Mesa by evaluating the current conditions and future projected needs of the area. The study encompasses portions of the Mesa MPA south of Southern Avenue and east of Higley Road. The report predominantly focused on the transportation needs of people who drive cars and maintaining an acceptable level of service. A list of recommended near-term (immediate need), mid-term (needed by 2030), and long-term (needed by 2040) projects are provided in the Appendix B. Shared Active Transportation Vehicles Pilot Program (2019) On December 2, 2019, the City Council approved a pilot period of one year starting on February 1, 2020, to allow licensed providers of Shared Active Transportation Vehicles (SATV), including shared bicycles, e-bikes, and scooters, to operate in Mesa if they abide by the City’s Terms & Conditions. The program was renewed on February 1, 2022, and can be renewed annually at the operator’s request. The City has discretion to renew an SATV license so long as the operator maintains compliance with the City’s terms and conditions. While the Bond Program provides funding for new arterial road reconstructions, specific project segments are not listed in the bond and are left to be prioritized by the City’s Transportation Mesa Transportation Master Plan 7 Mesa Bicycle Master Plan (2018) The City of Mesa Bicycle Plan is part of the overall Mesa Transportation Master Plan update providing guidance in managing bicycle facilities and policy recommendations that meet the current and future demand within the public right-of-way. The 2018 Mesa Bicycle Plan also incorporates policy recommendations and project priorities, which serve as the basis for future funding requests. The Plan also developed a vision for a complete bicycle network, identified gaps and needs to bring this vision to life, and created a prioritized list of projects. In addition to the planned facilities, the plan proposes to expand programs as well. These include safety education for children, adults, bicyclists, and motorists; improving the existing Safe Routes to School Program within the Mesa Public Schools; reducing bicycle related citations through traffic diversion classes; establishing a viable media campaign to deliver bicycle related information to the public; and establishing a tourism campaign that will successfully promote Mesa as a bicycling destination and encourage travel to Mesa for bicycling. 2040 Mesa Transportation Master Plan (2014) The Mesa Transportation Master Plan provides the City a framework and direction for the future of its transportation network. Major goals identified for the future development of the City’s transportation network are: • Develop a safe and efficient transportation system that provides access to all public places by multiple modes of travel and by various users. • Develop inviting streets that identify with the context of the surrounding neighborhood and help to create a sense of community and vibrant public space. • Develop a transportation network concentrated around activity centers that encourages dense, diverse public places and fosters economic growth. Additional City of Mesa Plans and Studies Reviewed 8 • Mesa 2050 General Plan • West Main Street Area Plan (2008) • Mesa Transit Master Plan 2050 (see Appendix F) • Falcon Field Sub-Area Plan • City of Mesa Traffic Calming Technical Memorandum (2021) • Lehi Sub-Area Plan (2006) • City of Mesa Design Guidelines • City of Mesa Fiesta District Design Handbook • City of Mesa Desert Uplands Guidelines • Ellsworth Road Operations Analysis Report • City of Mesa Central Main Plan (2012) • City of Mesa ADA Transition Plan • Gateway Strategic Development Plan (2008) • Broadway Road Corridor Study Report Mesa Transportation Master Plan Regional Plans and Studies These projects may impact transportation conditions of the City of Mesa and should be considered although may not be directly within the purview of this report. Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) MOMENTUM Plan (2021) Phoenix-Mesa Gateway Airport Master Plan (2020) MAG Active Transportation Plan (2020) Maricopa County Department of Transportation (MCDOT) Transportation System Plan (TSP) 2040 (2020) MAG’s Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) is updated every two to four years and guides transportation planning for the next 20 years and beyond. The dedicated half-cent sales tax that has been in place for 35 years will expire in 2025. In preparation for voters to consider its renewal, MAG developed the new Regional Transportation Plan, called “MOMENTUM 2050.” Ultimately, the RTP took a fresh look at the needs of the region and developed a long-term plan to guide major roadway and public transit system investments for the next 20 years and beyond. The MAG RTP also allocates funds to implement the MAG Active Transportation Plan which includes bicycle lanes, paths, sidewalks, and other projects. This plan serves as a guide for improving, expanding, and connecting the regional active transportation network to increase mode choices for people who walk, bike, and take transit. Strategies that were identified to bolster the region’s active transportation network include the Active Transportation Grid, Regional Conduits, and Activity Centers. The western portion of Mesa is part of the regional conduit network, including a series of north-south corridors and canal trails to create a “Mesa Loop” bounded roughly by Dobson Road, Brown Road, Center Street, and Baseline Road. The identified “Mesa Loop” is in the Active Transportation Grid and includes a variety of high scoring alignments, including: Center Street, Horne, Brown Road, Tempe Canal, Baseline Road, Guadalupe Road, and Dobson Road. Furthermore, the MAG Active Transportation Toolbox provides guidance for developing this active transportation infrastructure to meet the needs of all people. Mesa Transportation Master Plan The Phoenix-Mesa Gateway Airport Master Plan was completed in June 2020, updating the previously completed plan from 2009. This plan determines the long-range Airport development needs, examines viable and reasonable alternatives, and recommends a plan in consideration of potential environmental impacts. In addition to recommendations regarding aircraft operating areas of the Airport, this plan includes consideration of passenger terminal improvements to meet potential demand. TSP 2040 reaffirms the goals, objectives, and strategies from TSP 2035 and strengthened them with guiding principles and performance measures for current and future transportation needs and investments, and compliments Maricopa County’s Comprehensive Plan guidelines for transportation. With TSP 2040, MCDOT updated its approach to include complete projects, which comprehensively addresses transportation system needs beyond capacity, in addition to active transportation, safety, and Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS). To achieve these goals, projects have been identified to address near-, mid-, and long-term needs for roadways maintained by MCDOT, including several corridor recommendations located in county islands within the Mesa MPA. 9 MAG Regional Commuter Rail System Study (2018) The 2018 Regional Commuter Rail System Study Update analyzed the feasibility, cost, and productivity of different commuter rail alignments from Wickenburg to Florence. The only alternative affecting the City of Mesa is the Estrella/ San Tan Line alignment alternative, running between Buckeye and Queen Creek. This study suggested two regional commuter rail stops in Mesa (one in Downtown Mesa and one at Price/SR 101 freeway. MAG Regional Freight Transportation Plan (2017) MAG completed its Freight Transportation Plan in 2017. The overarching objective is to designate a forward-looking core roadway freight network for long-term protection and investment that will attract industry and support household needs through better performance in terms of speed, reliability, cost, productivity, and safety. The freight network developed through this study was used to establish “Critical Urban Freight Corridors”, as required by the FAST Act. Based upon estimated existing and forecasted truck volumes, concentrations of industrial activities, and the flow of goods, the following freeways, highways, and roadways have been designated as part of the Freight Network within the City of Mesa: • US-60 • Red Mountain Freeway (Loop 202) • Broadway Road from US 101 to Country Club Drive • • • • 10 Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) Passenger Rail Study: Tucson to Phoenix (2016) The Passenger Rail Corridor Study was a five-year study that was conducted by the Arizona Department of Transportation in coordination with other federal agencies to determine the feasibility of passenger rail between Tucson and Phoenix. Although no funding or schedule is identified for the project, a Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement was published that considered two potential routes named “Orange” and “Yellow”. Within the Mesa MPA each route takes a distinctive path. The Yellow route follows the existing UPRR freight lines operating within the City which would be the least disruptive but provide the least connections to the City. Alternatively, the Orange route would run parallel to the US-60 ROW before turning south near SR 202 and add more potential stops within the City. Country Club Drive from Broadway Road until it becomes SR-87 Higley Road from Loop 202 to McKellips Road McKellips Road Higley Road to Greenfield Road Greenfield Road from McKellips Road to Loop 202 Mesa Transportation Master Plan MESA’S MOBILITY GOALS A key step in the TMP planning process was developing a guiding vision and a set of goals that clearly articulate the transportation outcomes desired by the community. The establishment of a clear vision and goals is important because they set a foundation for plan development and ultimately inform decision-making and prioritizing transportation improvement investments. The TMP goals and objectives outlined in this section were founded and informed by the Mesa 2050 General Plan, community feedback during the TMP, regional and federal goals, other City plans, and City staff feedback. Appendix C provides additional information on the development of the TMP’s vision and goals. Mesa’s Mobility Vision A vision statement is a long-range aspirational statement that is meant to articulate the ultimate outcomes. The Mesa 2050 General Plan includes several strategies to create a connected, efficient, safe, and well-connected transportation system that accommodates all users. The Mesa TMP carries forward the General Plan’s connectivity, safety, and multimodal principles to establish a framework for developing and implementing a transportation system that enhances the community’s quality of life, provides travel options for all users, embraces technology, and better connects people to the places that matter to them, regardless of the mode of travel. To carry forward community feedback heard during the General Plan and the TMP development, the following is Mesa’s transportation vision statement: “Mesa’s transportation network is a safe, resilient, efficient, and interconnected multimodal system that supports and strengthens the community and its economy. Mesa’s Guiding Principles & Strategies The guiding principles and strategies for the TMP will help achieve the desired outcomes established in the vision statement. Guiding principles are general statements that the TMP aims to achieve over time. Strategies are specific actions that will guide the decisionmaking process to help achieve the goals of the study. Mesa Transportation Master Plan 11 Manage and Maintain Promote stewardship of a sustainable and efficient transportation system through strategic system management and preservation.  Improve the efficiency of the transportation system by optimizing traffic operations and management.  Uphold a maintenance schedule of transportation facilities to increase their useful life and to sustain and upkeep best in class shared use paths, sidewalks, ADA compliant facilities, bike lanes and roads for Mesa.  Provide for efficiency, convenience, and reliability in the design, operation, and maintenance of the transportation system and the connections between modes.  Plan transportation improvements and capacities that support land uses and employment for both current and projected traffic volumes.  Identify roads with excess capacity and/or right-of-way and evaluate options to right-size the roads to better accommodate the surrounding land use and needs of the corridor.  Develop a systematic process for project selection and prioritization that improves the City's competitiveness when applying for infrastructure funding opportunities.  Identify sources and various financing techniques that better situate Mesa for applying and obtaining funding grants and monies for the implementation of transportation infrastructure projects and programs.  Provide partnership and support for planned transportation projects in the region that benefit Mesa.  Educate the public and stakeholders on the costs associated with constructing and preserving the system. Safety First Create a transportation network that consists of safe and comfortable mobility options for all current and future users.  Cross collaboration between City departments to implement roadway improvements to increase road safety for all user groups.  Evaluate, assess, and prioritize safety improvements across Mesa by conducting a citywide safety study.  Provide safe and comfortable multimodal connections to expand the reach of the transit system.  Implement infrastructure improvements and strategies to reduce the number of serious injuries and fatalities caused by motor vehicle crashes.  Plan, design, construct, and apply equity considerations, context-sensitive and flexible street cross sections/treatments to accommodate the needs of all mobility types, users, and ability levels.  Work as a community to create a supportive and inclusive environment for alternative transportation modes that includes engineering, education, enforcement, encouragement, and evaluation methods. 12 Mesa Transportation Master Plan Connections and Choices Develop an integrated and complete multimodal transportation network that provides improved and accessible mobility options for all modes.  Initiate a Downtown Micromobility Plan and a citywide Active Transportation Plan to evaluate the on-going multimodal needs of the City  Evaluate the efficiency, expansion, or development of new transit bus routes to service new areas while increasing the reliability of existing transit routes  Enhance the user experience of corridors by developing corridor-specific plans that foster a more pleasant pedestrian, cyclist, and transit experience through structural shade, public art, and trees.  Continue to support and build-out a highly functional, safe, and well-maintained bicycle and shared use path network within roadway right-of-way, along canal banks and through other locations such as utility easements, alleys, and parks.  Support and promote the design and implementation of protected bike facilities to increase cyclist safety and encourage more ridership.  Identify major obstacles or gaps in the multimodal network and system connections and implement projects that mitigate these barriers.  Consider the needs of all travelers, including those who have limited mobility options because of age, ability, or socio-economic position, in the planning and operation of transportation facilities and services.  Continue to support and plan for regional and local transit service into and around Mesa.  Improve multimodal access to schools, businesses, recreational facilities, and trails to support healthy lifestyles.  Provide access to arts and culture sites, and healthy food source sites as defined in the General Plan.  Complete building out the street network in Mesa to provide access and connections for all residents Mesa Transportation Master Plan 13 Anticipate and Adapt Adapt to emerging technologies, land use changes, and transportation mobility demands by being innovative and flexible to ensure a resilient and responsive transportation system.  Promote flexibility in design standards by incorporating recommended street design typologies to be able to adjust for and accommodate changes from future technologies, such as automated vehicles and alternative transportation modes.  Assess technology needs to support connected and electric vehicles, including building out ITS infrastructure, and working with the private sector to improve the charging station network.  Implement smart technology and systems on the transportation network to support safety, optimize efficiency, reduce congestion, and increase system reliability and resilience.  Identify and pursue policies and solutions that take advantage of and integrate new technologies to enhance the quality and efficiency of transportation facilities.  Provide flexibility in City processes and policies to explore new and emerging modes of mobility. Thrive and Prosper Strengthen the City, its residents, and its businesses, by advancing equity, inclusion, and economic competitiveness through improved transportation access to jobs, education, services, and goods.  Establish inclusive and context-sensitive design options that integrate the City’s sub-area contexts and promote neighborhood health and safety and property values.  Create a Mesa-specific Urban Streets Design Guide (USDG) that provides design guidance, and rules, based on City sub-areas.  Coordinate transportation and land use planning to reflect the unique needs of the City, specific character areas and to support economic development.  Ensure compatibility with existing and future planned local projects, regional initiatives, and regional transportation plans and improvements.  Coordinate with ADOT and MAG and provide input and support into the planning and development of the region’s freeway and proposed passenger rail network.  Improve transportation access for disadvantaged community members to jobs, transit, education, goods, and services. 14 Mesa Transportation Master Plan Mesa Transportation Master Plan 15 OVERVIEW OF MESA Understanding mobility and land use trends and challenges happening today and tomorrow lays the foundation for the Mesa TMP. This chapter provides an overview of existing socioeconomics, land use patterns, and economic characteristics and trends that sets a baseline for evaluating the City’s transportation system. Mesa Planning Area (MPA) at a Glance Today, Mesa is a thriving city still growing in certain areas, while developing infill parcels in other areas. According to the US Census Bureau American Communities Survey (2021 5-Year ACS), the Mesa MPA has just over half a million residents. Lay of the Land Having a strong understanding of the land use context and development patterns is imperative to creating a transportation network that complements surrounding character and facilitates movement. Just as land use influences the transportation network, the transportation network influences land use. For example, a local roadway in a residential neighborhood serves a very different purpose than a major roadway that connects the freeway to an industrial park. The Mesa MPA is predominantly made up of residential uses with just over 45% of the land dedicated to this use. Unincorporated County Islands Throughout Maricopa County, unincorporated areas surrounded by incorporated cities or towns are called county islands. Throughout east Mesa, there are several county islands that include roadways owned and maintained by Maricopa County Department of Transportation (MCDOT). 16 Development Trends As a land locked community with little undeveloped land remaining, Mesa’s ability to expand is limited. Much of Mesa’s traditional suburban growth and development pattern is anticipated to continue to occur where undeveloped land exists today, largely in the eastern and southern portions of the City. The City is taking intentional steps to prioritize infill and redevelopment and Mesa needs to prepare its transportation network to support a future where the City’s growth comes more from infill and redevelopment than from greenfield development. Mesa Transportation Master Plan FIGURE 2-1. EXISTING LAND USE MAP Mesa Transportation Master Plan 17 LIVING AND WORKING IN MESA Mesa is steadily growing and, while this creates opportunities, it poses challenges to our transportation network. Understanding where growth is greatest is imperative to creating a plan that manages the increased demands on our transportation system. Mesa is Growing Since 1990, the City of Mesa’s population has increased by 77%. As illustrated in Figure 2-2 and Figure 2-3, much of this growth has been in-fill development and the rapid growth south of US 60 in southeast Mesa. City of Mesa Population Growth Through the Years 1990 2000 288,091 396,375 439,041 2010 509,492 TODAY 2020 Source: US Census, 2021 ACS, Arizona Commerce Authority FIGURE 2-2. POPULATION GROWTH THROUGH THE YEARS 18 Mesa Transportation Master Plan FIGURE 2-3. 2021 POPULATION DENSITY Mesa Transportation Master Plan 19 Business is Booming With over 158,230 people working in the City today, Mesa is one of the fastest growing job markets and economies in the Phoenix metropolitan area. As illustrated in Figure 2-4, employment opportunities can be found throughout the Mesa MPA. In addition to a strong job market, Mesa is home to the Arizona State University’s Polytechnic Campus, Mesa Community College, the Phoenix-Mesa Gateway Airport, and a variety of major employment centers. Major Employers Mesa is home to many of the top companies and brand names in the world. As illustrated in Table 2-1, major employers include the Boeing Company, Banner Desert Medical Center, and Maricopa Community College District. Healthcare, finance, manufacturing, and aerospace are all thriving industries within the City today. Target growth opportunities for Mesa include healthcare, education, aerospace/aviation/defense, technology, and tourism. Employment Centers Major job centers are locations with a high density of jobs resulting either from a cluster of many different employers in a small geographic area or large individual employers with a high number of workers. Major job centers in Mesa, as shown in Figure 2-5 include: • Downtown Mesa • Falcon Field Airport • Fiesta District • Mesa Gateway Area • Riverview Table 2-1. Top Ten Employers in the City of Mesa Today Employers Mesa Public Schools Banner Health (Multiple Locations) City of Mesa The Boeing Company Maricopa Community College Dexcom Drivetime Automotive Group Empire Southwest Santander Consumer USA United Parcel Service AT&T Employees 7,726 6,826 5,294 4,428 2,191 1,700 1,367 852 828 709 686 Source: Mesa Economic Development Additional employment centers exist throughout Mesa including the Superstition Freeway Corridor East, the Broadway Corridor, and along US 60. 20 Mesa Transportation Master Plan FIGURE 2-4. 2021 EMPLOYMENT DENSITY Mesa Transportation Master Plan 21 FIGURE 2-5. MAJOR JOB CENTERS 22 Mesa Transportation Master Plan Where We Commute To Utilizing the US Census Bureau’s Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics (LEHD) OnTheMap application, regional commuting patterns can be identified. The portal is a nationwide database that reports where workers are employed and where they live. Understanding commuting patterns within Mesa and between cities helps us determine local and regional travel needs. Figure 2-6. City of Mesa Commute Characteristics According to the LEHD, approximately 31.8% of Mesa workers live within the city limits. Another 30% of those that work in Mesa commute from Phoenix, Gilbert, or Chandler. As illustrated in Figure 2-6, Mesa exports more workers than they import or retain internally. This illustrates the regional nature of commuter patterns for Mesa residents and workers. Figure 2-7 and Figure 2-8 provide additional detail on commute patterns in Mesa today. Largely, Mesa residents either work in Mesa or travel to Phoenix for work. Table 2-2 and Table 2-3 outline the top 5 places where Mesa residents work and where Mesa employees live, respectively. Table 2-2 .Top 5 Places Where Mesa Residents Work Place Phoenix Mesa Tempe Chandler Scottsdale Percent Share 24.3% 23.7% 14.6% 8.2% 8.2% Source: US Census Bureau’s Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics (LEHD) Table 2-3. Top 5 Places Where People Working in Mesa Live Place Mesa Phoenix Gilbert Chandler San Tan Valley Percent Share 31.8% 12.2% 10.6% 7.2% 4.1% Mesa Transportation Master Plan 23 FIGURE 2-7. MESA RESIDENT EMPLOYMENT DESTINATIONS 24 Mesa Transportation Master Plan FIGURE 2-8. WHERE MESA WORKERS LIVE Mesa Transportation Master Plan 25 WHERE WE SHOP, PLAY, AND LEARN Activity centers represent key destinations that generate transportation trips for people looking to work, play, live, and learn. Activity centers are made up of a variety of land uses such as shopping and retail, commercial, hospitals, or education centers, etc. Understanding where key activity centers are located is imperative to developing a transportation system that conveniently connects major transportation generators through a variety of modes. Figure 2-9 illustrates major activity centers and transportation generators in the City, including: • • • • • • K-12 Schools. There are several school districts within the City of Mesa: Mesa Unified School District 4, Gilbert Unified School District 41, Higley Unified School District, and the Queen Creek Unified School District 95. Alone, the Mesa Unified School District represents 73 of the 87 combined public elementary, junior high, or high schools managed by these four districts. Higher Education. Those seeking higher educational opportunities within Mesa have many institutions to choose from. Mesa’s largest secondary educational institutions are Mesa Community Colleges, Arizona State University Polytechnic Campus, and Arizona State University’s Media and eXperience (MIX) Center. Additional private and trades schools such as Benedictine University Mesa, DeVry, and the Pima Medical Institute also reside within the City. Health Care Facilities. The largest medical institution within Mesa is Banner Health with multiple branches across the City including Desert Medical Center, Baywood Medical Center, and Gateway Medical Center. Other large hospitals include the Arizona Regional Medical Center and Mountain Vista Medical Center. Civic, Arts, and Community Centers. Mesa is home to eight aquatic centers and five community centers. Live performances can be seen at the Mesa Arts Center, and the Mesa Amphitheatre. There is a diversity of museums in Mesa including the Children’s i.d.e.a. Museum, the Commemorative Air Force Museum, the Arizona Museum of National History, and the Mesa Historic Museum. Commercial Centers. Most commercial centers within Mesa take the form of strip malls anchored by large, nationally recognized big box stores and ample surface parking. An exception to this form is the Superstition Springs Center, a large indoor shopping mall, and Fiesta Mall, planned for redevelopment into a mixed-use development. Recreation. The Usery Mountain Regional Park overlaps with the northeastern portion of Mesa and is a 3,648-acre park offering outdoor activities such as camping and 29 miles of recreational trails. Within Mesa there are many urban parks such Riverview Park, Pioneer Park, and Red Mountain Park which offer amenities for adults and children to enjoy nature. In addition, Mesa boasts 80 miles of paved, shared use paths and another 42 miles of unpaved trails (mostly service roads along the canals) which provide offstreet walking, jogging, and biking opportunities throughout the City. Major Residential Areas Providing direct and convenient transportation connections between major residential communities and key activity centers creates opportunities to connect people to the places they need to travel; however, large residential developments can often create barriers to access. Large developments with circuitous, disconnected internal roadways, walled perimeters that limit access, and land uses that create large distances between individual homes and destinations, all create barriers to access. In Mesa, just over 45 percent of the area is zoned as residential with many following these residential development patterns. 26 Mesa Transportation Master Plan FIGURE 2-9. MAJOR ACTIVITY CENTERS Mesa Transportation Master Plan 27 HOW WE GET AROUND Today, we have more choices than ever before to get to the places we want to go and the people we want to see. Understanding how we get around can help define needs and opportunities for the transportation system today and in the future, regardless of whether we choose to walk, bike, ride transit, or drive. This analysis considers average weekday and weekend days to gain an understanding of how we move around. The analysis uses data from Replica, a software that incorporates anonymized data from a variety of sources like the US Census Bureau, mobile location data, land use, economic activity, and others to create a simulation of an area to model how people get around, where they are going, and when they travel. Where We Want to Go We travel for many reasons every day. This analysis considered several trips we might take: Figure 2-10. Typical Trip Purpose (Destination) Shop • Getting to Work: all trips that end at a person’s workplace (including commute trips and things like a trip back from lunch). • Getting to School: all trips to a person’s school or college. • Traveling for Daily Needs: all social trips and trips to places where people shop, dine, and run errands. Social • Getting Outside: all trips to recreational destinations like parks and trailheads (this does not include trips without a destination, like walking the dog or jogging). Work As shown in Figure 2-10, more than 3 out of every 4 trips we take are to do the things that make up our quality of life, like shop, eat, socialize, and run errands. However, we travel differently on weekdays and weekends: • While trips for shopping, eating, and socializing always make up most of our trips, we tend to do these things more on weekends than on weekdays. • We travel much more for work and school on weekdays than on weekends. In fact, even when combining these trips, they make up the lowest percentage of weekend trips evaluated. • We travel more for recreation on the weekends. 28 Eat Errands Recreation School 0% 5% 10% 15% Weekday 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% Weekend Source: Replica Southwest Fall 2022 Mesa Transportation Master Plan How We Get There We choose to travel in different ways depending on where we are going, as shown below in Table 2-4. While we are more likely to drive longer distances to work, we are much more likely to walk or bike for our shorter trips to get to school, meet daily needs, and get outside for recreational activities. We also tend to choose to drive more for our trips on weekends than we do on weekdays. Table 2-4. How We Travel (Weekday / Weekend) WEEKDAY Getting To Work Getting to School Travel for Daily Needs Getting Outside WEEKEND Drive Transit Bike Walk Other Average Travel Distance 94% 0.5% 0.5% 3.5% 1.5% 25 mi 16 min 95% 0.5% 0.5% 2.5% Average Average Travel Travel Time Other Distance 1.5% 23 mi 17 min 77% 0.5% 5.5% 16% 1% 8 mi 19 min 94.5% 0.5% 0.5% 1.5% 3% 20 mi 31 min 85.5% 0.5% 1% 11.5% 1.5% 10 mi 16 min 87% 0.5% 0.5% 10% 2% 10 mi 15 min 88.5% 0.5% 1% 7.5% 2.5% 11 mi 17 min 92% 0.5% 1% 4% 2.5% 11 mi 17 min Average Travel Time Drive Transit Bike Walk Source: Replica Southwest Fall 2022 Getting to Work: • We mostly choose to drive alone to work, and our travel patterns are similar on weekdays and weekend days. Getting to School • Most students are driven to school, but 1 in 5 students walk or bike to school on weekdays. • Although the average travel distance to school is 8 miles, it takes much longer to make the 8-mile trip when compared to our other types of trips. This may be due to AM/PM congestion approaching school or slower moving traffic in school areas. • Weekend students tend to overwhelmingly drive and go to school significantly further away. Mesa Transportation Master Plan Traveling for Daily Needs • We generally choose to travel in the same ways, go similar distances, and spend a similar amount of time on weekends and weekdays. • One in 10 trips to meet daily needs are done by walking. Getting Outside (Recreation) • We tend to drive to get outside whether it is a weekend or weekday. Making Short Trips • We tend to travel longer distances and choose to drive for those trips. However, when we are traveling 2 miles or less to get to work, school, daily needs, or outside, our travel patterns look different. In fact, when traveling these shorter distances, we choose to walk one third of the time. 29 OUR SOCIAL NEEDS Often, transportation and land use decisions place unfair burdens on disadvantaged communities. Conducting an analysis of traditionally underserved populations helps identify locations with high concentrations of people or groups who may not be physically or financially capable of owning or driving a vehicle and rely on walking, riding bicycles, and transit to meet their daily travel needs. Table 2-5 illustrates the current socioeconomic populations within the City of Mesa and the Mesa MPA. Table 2-5. Mesa Socioeconomic Conditions Age 65 and Older Minority Population Population with a Disability (<65 years) Population below the Poverty Level Limited English Proficient Persons (LEP) Households with no Vehicles City of Mesa Mesa MPA Arizona Statewide 16.5% 39.5% 12.2% 12.6% 6.8% 5.7% 17.8% 38.4% 12.3% 6.2% 5.4% 17.6% 46.6% 13.2% 13.5% 8.1% 5.6% Source: US Census 2021 American Community Survey. Disability status is determined for the civilian noninstitutionalized population based on six types of difficulty: hearing, vision, cognitive, ambulatory, self-care, and independent living difficulty. Justice40 Disadvantaged Communities Justice40 is a federal initiative and policy goal that 40 percent of Federal investments should flow to disadvantaged communities. To define disadvantaged communities, the Climate and Economic Justice Screening Tool (CEJST) was developed that defines seven categories for which a community may be disadvantaged (including health, housing, transportation, workforce development, among others). Several areas within Mesa are considered disdvantaged failing one or more of the thresholds defined for each of the seven categories and are shown in Figure 2-11. Of the disadvantaged areas in Mesa, 27% of them failed on workforce equity, 26% failed on housing equity, 26% failed on health, 15% failed on transportation equity, and 6% failed due to climate and disaster risk burden.  Workforce. Of the communities that met the workforce equity threshold 63% were due to households in poverty or median household incomes much lower than the area median income. Another 20% were communities facing linguistic isolation and 17% are experiencing disproportionately high unemployment rates.  Housing. 54% of communities that are facing housing inequity are doing so due to the cost burden of housing. Another 33% of the communities that failed this category did so due to lack of greenspace—or the amount of area covered by impervious materials such as cement and asphalt. Finally, another 13% are disproportionally experiencing households without either indoor plumbing or kitchens.  Health. 47% of the communities facing health inequities are doing so due to disproportionate rates of heart disease, 21% have higher rates of diabetes, and 27% have a lower life expectancy. Finally, 11% have higher instances of asthma.  Transportation. 70% of the communities facing transportation inequity in Mesa have disproportionate exposure to diesel particulate matter. The other 30% are faced with higher traffic speeds and volumes. 30 Mesa Transportation Master Plan FIGURE 2-11. JUSTICE40 DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES Justice40 defines disadvantaged communities at the Census Block Group level. Census Block Groups with disadvantage communities outside the MPA may include overlapping portions within the Mesa MPA. These Census Block Groups may not be representative of the community within Mesa. Mesa Transportation Master Plan 31 MOBILITY CONDITIONS, TRENDS, AND CHALLENGES Understanding how we travel in and through the City is vital for developing a plan to address our complex transportation needs. The following summarizes existing travel conditions. Mesa’s Street Network Today Figure 2-12 illustrates the functional classification of the TMP’s study network. Functional classification is the process by which streets and highways are grouped into classes, or systems, according to the character of service they are intended to provide. All vehicle trips include two distinct functions: mobility and land access. Functional classification is a hierarchy of roadway classes based on their role in providing access and mobility. Arterial roadways provide high mobility but low access, collectors provide a balance between mobility and access, and local streets have lower mobility but the highest degree of access. Mobility Arterials • • Collectors • Travel Lanes As illustrated in Figure 2-13, the number of travel lanes on Mesa’s streets varies from two lanes on locals to eight lanes on major arterials. It is important to note that the figure represents the general number of through lanes and there may be short sections with more lanes where development has occurred or fewer lanes in a county island. The number of lanes provided at individual intersections also varies. There are locations where additional through and/or turn lanes exist to improve intersection capacity. Higher mobility Low degree of access Balance between mobility and access Locals Access • • Lower mobility High degree of access Key findings show: • Arterials are typically 4 lanes or greater o 5-8 lanes: 40.4% of all arterial roads o 4 lanes: 39.5% of all arterial roads o 49% of arterials streets have a two way left turn lane present • Collectors in the Mesa MPA mostly have one through lane in each direction with some exceptions. 15% of collectors have 4 lanes. 32 Mesa Transportation Master Plan FIGURE 2-12 FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION Local roads illustrated in green line color in the Figure represent critical multimodal links included in the study network only. Other local roads are illustrated in the background in white line color. Mesa Transportation Master Plan 33 FIGURE 2-13. NUMBER OF TRAVEL LANES 34 Mesa Transportation Master Plan Posted Speed Limit The speed limit of a corridor not only impacts traffic flows, but also can be a critical factor in the number and severity of crashes. Speed impacts crash severity in many ways - at higher speeds, a driver’s peripheral vision is reduced and a car’s stopping distance is greater. As shown on the right, the likelihood that a pedestrian hit by a vehicle will survive sharply decreases when speeds increase. To determine the posted speed limits of study corridors (which are largely comprised of arterial and collector streets), speed limits were compiled from readily available GIS data from the City and via a Google StreetView review of conditions. Figure 2-14 illustrates current posted speed limits. Findings show: • Posted speed limits vary from 25 to 50 MPH. • Arterials largely have posted speed limits of 40 MPH or higher. Pedestrian Survival by Speed 20 9 out of 10 pedestrians survive 40 1 out of 10 pedestrians survive • 45% of collectors are 25 MPH and just over half have a posted speed of 30-35 MPH. Traffic Control Traffic control devices help manage the movement of people and goods in an efficient manner. Traffic control devices include: • Signalized Intersections and Crossings: controls the flow of vehicles on the roadway network and allows pedestrians and bicyclists to cross a roadway. Improving traffic signal timing can increase mobility and reduce overall congestion. • Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB): devices that users can manually activate flashing lights to increase driver awareness of pedestrians crossing at unsignalized intersections or midblock crosswalks. • Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons (PHB): designed to help pedestrians safely cross busy or higher-speed roadways at midblock crossings and uncontrolled intersections. • Traffic Signs: A STOP or YIELD sign alerts drivers to come to a complete stop or yield at intersections. Figure 2-15 illustrates the location of traffic signals, PHBs, RRFBs, and other traffic control devices across the study network. The City has about 500 traffic signals; 9 PHBs; and 8 RRFBs. Along Mesa’s improved canal shared use paths, all major crossings are signalized. With the exception of a few crossings planned for future pathway improvements, most other crossings are unsignalized. Mesa Transportation Master Plan 35 FIGURE 2-14. POSTED SPEEDS 36 Mesa Transportation Master Plan FIGURE 2-15. TRAFFIC CONTROL Mesa Transportation Master Plan 37 Medians Figure 2-16 illustrates the location of medians on the study network. A majority of the arterials include a two-way left turn lane for median separation. Other key arterial corridors such as Ellsworth Road, Power Road, Main Street, and most of Baseline Road have raised medians. Most collector streets do not have a median separation. Railroad Crossings A small segment of the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) line traverses through west Mesa. This segment of UPRR is an active line with 4 trains each day. The rail corridor includes 10 at-grade street crossings, two grade separated crossings, and one at-grade pedestrian only crossing. The proposed Pecos Industrial Rail Access and Train Extension (PIRATE) is a 6-mile east-west freight line between CMC Steel in far east Mesa and the Union Pacific Phoenix Subdivision line at Rittenhouse and Sossaman Roads. This line proposes new at-grade crossings with Pecos Road, Sossaman Road, Elsworth Road, Crimson Road, and Signal Butte Road. As shown in Table 2-6 traffic volumes at 7 of 12 at-grade crossings are significantly high (over 20,000 vehicles per day). If the number of trains each day increases in the future, it could impact the safety and mobility of the streets. Proposed Pecos Industrial Rail Access and Train Extension (PIRATE) Table 2-6. Traffic Volumes at Railroad Crossings Street Crossing Dobson Road Alma School Road Extension Road Country Club Drive MacDonald Drive Center Street Broadway Road 8th Avenue Southern Avenue 10th Avenue/Center Street Pedestrian US 60 Baseline Road (2 crossings) 38 Crossing Type Train Crossings Per Day 2021 Traffic Count At-grade At-grade At-grade Grade-Separated At-grade At-grade At-grade At-grade At-grade At-grade Grade-Separated At-grade 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 20,812 29,075 9,852 27,608 N/A 3,750 24,203 6,386 23,019 N/A N/A 24,827 Mesa Transportation Master Plan FIGURE 2-16. EXISTING MEDIANS AND RAILROAD CROSSINGS Mesa Transportation Master Plan 39 Network Gaps The purpose of the roadway network gaps analysis is to identify physical connection gaps, roads with inconsistent number of lanes, and scalloped streets. Identification of these gaps helps with determining future roadway improvements that could address traffic bottlenecks and improve overall local and regional traffic circulation. • Physical connection gaps: Gaps in roadway network may occur due to physical constraints, located in undeveloped areas, or other reasons. These gaps, if located in urban/suburban areas, often impede regional travel, and increase emergency response times. • Roads with inconsistent number of lanes: Inconsistent number of lanes may be a result of right-of-way constraints, adjacent land use context, or in some cases due to staggered development patterns. These locations may result in traffic bottlenecks and safety issues, especially during peak hours. • Scalloped streets: Developers are often required by jurisdictions to build their portions of the roadway infrastructure. In areas of the City where staggered or uneven development patterns occur, this process results in inconsistent roadway configuration where only one side of the street exists, or a portion of the road is narrower compared to other areas. Scalloped streets on arterial roads create significant traffic flow issues. Network Gap on Crismon Road south of Guadalupe Road Figure 2-17 illustrates network gaps across the roadway system. The Phoenix-Mesa Gateway and Eastmark areas where staggered development patterns have occurred over the past 5-10 years has resulted in several arterial streets with scalloped configurations and network gaps. Meridian Road south of Guadalupe, Germann Road between Sossaman and Ellsworth, and Ellsworth Road between Warner and SR 24 are examples of scalloped road configurations that result in congested roadway conditions, especially during peak periods. Roadway connection gaps exist on key arterials such as Crismon Road between Elliot Road and Guadalupe Road, Hawes Road between SR 202 and Elliot Road, and Sossaman Road between Warner Road and SR 202. Closing these gaps may significantly improve overall mobility in these areas. 40 Mesa Transportation Master Plan FIGURE 2-17. ROADWAY NETWORK GAPS Mesa Transportation Master Plan 41 System Management Mesa has made a tremendous investment in their transportation network, and maintaining these facilities in good working order is no small task. But this essential maintenance not only provides the public with safe infrastrucutre but also reduces costly repairs. Pavement Condition The City has a robust pavement maintenance program to help keep the streets in the best possible condition and to extend their service life. Each year, the City conducts pavement condition surveys on over 1,200 miles of streets and identifies specific areas for preventive maintenance treatments. Figure 2-18 llustrates the current pavement conditions based upon the City’s Pavement Management System (PMS). Key Observations/Findings: Most of the roadways that are in poor condition are located in Downtown Mesa and older areas in west Mesa. The deterioration may be due to ongoing repair and construction. Other key pavement condition findings include: • Good Condition: 61.8 percent • Fair Condition: 16.4 percent • Poor Condition: 4.9 percent • No Data or Maintained by Other Jurisdiction: 16.9 percent Structures Maintaining bridges and culverts in a state of good repair is essential for preserving mobility and connectivity. Weight limits or closures on structurally deficient bridges negatively impact freight and traffic movement, while functionally obsolete structures that are inadequate to carry current traffic volumes may cause traffic congestion. To analyze structure conditions in the study network, bridge condition ratings were obtained from the City and the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT). Figure 2-19 illustrates the location and condition of structures along the study network. It’s important to note that the construction year and/or age of the structure does not reflect more recent reconstructions or bridge improvements. • Total Structures within the Mesa MPA: 133 structures • Good Condition: 43 percent (57 total structures) • Fair Condition: 57 percent (76 structures) • Average Structure Age: 40 years since the structure was built. • The oldest structure was constructed in 1925; however, it was reconstructed in 1990. • Bridges in fair condition were primarily constructed prior to 1988. 42 Mesa Transportation Master Plan FIGURE 2-18. PAVEMENT CONDITIONS Mesa Transportation Master Plan 43 FIGURE 2-19. STRUCTURE CONDITIONS 44 Mesa Transportation Master Plan Traffic Volumes and Congestion Levels Traffic volumes are an important variable in understanding the function of a corridor. Current daily traffic volumes were obtained from the City of Mesa and supplemented with traffic estimates from MAG’s regional travel demand model. Figure 2-20 illustrates existing daily traffic volumes in Mesa in 2021. Level of Service (LOS) is a term used to describe traffic operations. Level of Service can be calculated for the various elements of a street system including road segments, signalized intersections, and unsignalized intersections. The various levels of service range from LOS A (free flowing traffic) to LOS F (forced flow, or very congested). Corridor Segment Level of Service Figure 2-21 illustrates existing (2021) LOS by corridor segment. Generally, LOS D is considered the threshold of acceptable conditions in an urban area. Table 2-7 outlines corridor segments that currently operate at LOS E or F based on average daily traffic volumes. As the figure and table show, portions of Ellsworth Road, Main Street, Pecos Road, Power Road, and McKellips Road have the highest congestion/worst operating conditions in the MPA. Table 2-7. Corridor Segments Operating at a LOS E and LOS F Corridor Ellsworth Road Pecos Road Power Road Val Vista Road Mesa Drive Broadway Road McKellips Road Location Ray Road to Williams Field Road Williams Field Road to North of Pecos Road North of Pecos Road to Germann Road Power Road to Sossaman Road South of Williams Field Road Southern Avenue to US 60 South of Broadway Road 8th Avenue to Southern Avenue East of Dobson Road to Alma School Road West of SR 202 near City Limits LOS F E F F E E E E E F Intersection Level of Service To understand how intersections operate in Mesa, analysis was extracted from the Mesa Intersections Study, Ellsworth Road Corridor Study, and the Broadway Road Corridor Study to determine their LOS. Figure 2-22 and Figure 2-23 illustrate existing LOS by intersection during the AM and PM peak periods, respectfully. The top congestion intersections are outlined in Table 2-8. Table 2-8. Top Congested Intersections Intersection Ellsworth Road/Germann Road Ellsworth Road/SR 24 Ellsworth Road/Pecos Road North Ellsworth Road/Pecos Road South Sossaman Road/Pecos Road Mesa Transportation Master Plan AM Peak Period F F E B C PM Peak Period E E D F E 45 FIGURE 2-20. DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES (2021) 46 Mesa Transportation Master Plan FIGURE 2-21. EXISTING CORRIDOR LEVEL OF SERVICE (2021) t Mesa Transportation Master Plan 47 FIGURE 2-22. EXISTING INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE – AM PEAK (2021) Intersection LOS results were obtain from the City’s “2021 Long Range Analysis and Prioritization of Select Intersections Study”. Not all signalized intersections were evaluated as part of this study. 48 Mesa Transportation Master Plan FIGURE 2-23. EXISTING INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE – PM PEAK (2021) Intersection LOS results were obtain from the City’s “2021 Long Range Analysis and Prioritization of Select Intersections Study”. Not all signalized intersections were evaluated as part of this study. Mesa Transportation Master Plan 49 PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 50 Mesa Transportation Master Plan Travel Time Reliability and Speeds While congestion and travel times can vary greatly from day to day, motorists depend on having a consistent, predictable travel route to get to where they are going on time, all the time. While most drivers expect some form of congestion, particularly during peak hours, having a predictable travel time is important for users so they can get to where they are going on time. Freight carriers also require dependable travel times to remain competitive. Travel time reliability, the level of congestion, average delay time, and average travel speeds provide valuable metrics for assessing roadway performance. Travel Time Index Travel Time Index represents a ratio of travel time in the peak period to the travel time at free-flow conditions. Travel Time Index values are the highest on many north-south arterials in Mesa, primarily those connected to US 60, SR 24, SR 202, and in Downtown Mesa. Travel Delay is the average amount of additional time (in seconds per mile traveled) that it will take a motorist to traverse a road segment during a peak period in comparison to free-flow conditions. Arterials with higher delays are located largely in west Mesa, north-south corridor segments connected to the US 60, and along Ellsworth Road. Average Travel Delay AM Travel Time Index More Reliable Travel Delay Less Reliable Mesa Transportation Master Plan Low Delay High Delay 51 5,324 5,958 5,357 5,494 Street safety for all users – motorists, transit riders, people walking, and people riding bicycles – is a top concern for the City. Crash data analysis helps identify trends, patterns, predominant crash types, and high crash rate corridors and intersections. This analysis also helps identify potential safety improvements to reduce the frequency and severity of crashes. Total Crashes (2017 - 2021) 5,611 How Safe Are Our Streets? 2019 2020 What the Data Tells Us Crash analysis presented in this section is based on the City of Mesa 2021 Annual Crash Report and reflects the years 2017 to 2021. • A Safe Community. Compared to peer cities (i.e., Phoenix, Glendale, Tempe, Chandler, and Scottsdale) Mesa has one of the lowest number of fatal crashes. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Mesa has 8.9 fatalities per 100,000 population, which is significantly lower than Phoenix (13.1) and Scottsdale (11.0), but higher than Chandler (7.5). • Fatal Injury Crashes are on the Rise. Since 2017, fatal crashes in Mesa have increased by 24%; however, since 2019 there has been a 22.5% decrease in serious injury crashes. • A significant number of crashes happen at intersections. Within Mesa, there is a disproportionate split between crashes occurring at intersections and along corridors, with nearly 41 percent of all crashes occurring at intersections. 22 percent of all fatal crashes and 46 percent of serious injury crashes were intersection related. 2017 2018 2021 High Injury Network To identify high injury crash corridors and intersections today, the Equivalent Property Damage Only (EPDO) for each was calculated. Figure 2-24 illustrates the locations of the top 30 high injury intersections and segments in the City by ranking. 52 Mesa Transportation Master Plan FIGURE 2.-24. HIGH INJURY NETWORK Note: Segments are grouped based on EPDO score ranking. Mesa Transportation Master Plan 53 Walking in Mesa Walking is the oldest and most basic form of transportation, as every trip – regardless of mode - begins and ends by foot. At some point in the day, everyone is a pedestrian - whether they are being pushed by a parent in a stroller, taking a leisurely stroll, or using a wheelchair or mobility device. Main Street in Downtown with wide sidewalks, shade trees, and places to rest Mesa’s Pedestrian Network Today Sidewalks and crossings are the basic building blocks of a walkable and connected community. To complete the pedestrian network, sidewalks are supported by a collection of facilities to create a more visible, navigable, and enjoyable walking experience. Facilities include signage, crosswalks, curb ramps, median refuge islands, overpasses, and signalized crossings. Figure 2-25 illustrates the City’s expansive network of sidewalks, unsignalized crossings (with crosswalks present), and off-street shared use paths that help connect people and places. Barriers to Walking Simply having a sidewalk doesn’t necessarily mean that people will feel comfortable on the street. The conditions on a street - such as the presence of streetlights - directly impacts how people feel when walking. While the City has made significant investments in expanding and enhancing its pedestrian network, barriers to walking exist, including: Crosswalk with bulb out that encourages drivers to slow down when approaching the crosswalk and reduces the distance and time needed for people to cross • Freeways, roads, and canals create physical barriers. • Sporadic corridor and business development create gaps in sidewalks. • Uneven surfaces, obstructions, or poor sidewalk conditions create deterrents, particularly for persons using wheelchairs or mobility devices. Crossing the Street One of the most significant barriers to walking is how frequently and Unmarked crossing of the Eastern Canal and University Drive comfortably someone can cross the street to get to their destination. Having frequent crossings and pedestrian access points can significantly decrease the distance needed to walk to a destination. Downtown Mesa has a high density of crosswalks along Main Street which allows people walking to more easily and spontaneously visit a shop or business that they see across the street or to make it to a transit stop on time. Outside of Downtown, there are several blocks in Mesa that would require someone walking to travel a half mile or more to reach a signalized crossing. This can lead to people choosing to cross at unsafe locations to avoid excessive walking distances or time delays to get to their destinations. Signalized intersections provide walk phases and crosswalks to indicate to all road users when and where people walking should travel. 54 Mesa Transportation Master Plan • FIGURE 2-25. EXISTING PEDESTRIAN NETWORK Mesa Transportation Master Plan 55 Walkability Assessment Access to destinations is fundamentally different for people walking and biking than those who drive. Drivers can travel much longer distances and access many more destinations than people walking or biking within the same time frame. Mesa has a fairly complete network of sidewalks along its roadways—the ability for people walking to reach their destination is primarily a factor of how long and how far people are willing to walk. In general, most people find it acceptable to walk approximately 10-minutes to their destination. To determine how accessible Mesa is to people walking, an accessibility assessment was conducted to determine how far someone can walk from key destinations in 10-minutes. Steps in the walkability assessment include: • Key destinations (as illustrated on the right) were identified. • Based on available sidewalk facilities, 10-minute travel walksheds were calculated for each key destination. • Using Census Block Group Data, population estimates were calculated to determine how many residents reside within the 10-minute walkshed. Figure 2-26 shows the 10-minute walkshed for identified destinations and Table 2-9 outlines the estimated residents that live within each 10minute walk shed. While most destinations evaluated are abutted by a sidewalk, implying that while walking infrastructure may exist, only 65% of residents live within a walkable distance of those destinations. Only 5% of high-quality transit and bus stops and only 6% of caretaker trips are accessible by residents. Walk sheds for specific destination categories such as Essential Needs, Transit, Youth Activities, and Shared Use Path and Other Canal Trail Access Points can be found in the Appendix B. Table 2-9. Residents Living Within Walking Distance of Destinations Access to All Destinations % of Residents with Access 65% Access to Essential Needs 6% Access to Transit 5% Access to Shared Use Path and Other Canal Trail Access Points Access to Youth Activities 21% 63%* * Taken as a percentage of school aged children (5-19 years of age) with access to youth activities 56 Mesa Transportation Master Plan FIGURE 2-26. WALKING ACCESS TO ALL DESTINATIONS For transit, only light rail stations and transit centers are shown. Mesa Transportation Master Plan 57 Biking in Mesa A complete, connected bike network that is comfortable and safe for people of all ages and abilities is critical to make biking a viable transportation option for travel in Mesa. Expanding and enhancing the bicycle network can help reduce congestion and stress on the City’s streets, as people can choose to bike rather than drive. Figure 2-27 illustrates the location of over 496 miles of bicycle facilities throughout Mesa. Shared Use Paths (SUP) (~17 Miles) Shared use paths provide a dedicated facility for people biking, walking, or rolling. Within the Mesa MPA there is a complex network of private and public SUPs. • Comfortable for all bike users. • Not preferred by large groups of sports or fitness riders and sports enthusiasts who may not have enough space to pass slower riders. Bike Route / Shared Street (~68 Miles) A street where drivers share the travel lane with cyclists. It may have signage or markings to promote use by bicyclists. Bicycle Boulevards are another form of shared street with additional traffic calming. These can provide a higher level of comfort than a bike route. They are permitted in Mesa although none have been proposed or built yet. • Comfortable for road users that are ok riding with traffic. Bike Lanes (~270 Miles) Bike lanes are a portion of road designated for people biking through use of pavement markings and optional signs. • Comfortable for sports or fitness riders, some cycling enthusiasts. A large number of Mesa’s bike lanes are located on arterials, which may not be comfortable for most riders. • Not preferred by bike riders that aren’t confident cycling with traffic and kids and families, depending on speeds, volumes, and lanes. Buffered and Protected Bike Lanes (1.6 Miles) These one- or two-way bikeways are exclusive to bicyclists and are separated from vehicular traffic. Buffered and protected bike lanes have a painted buffer space and/or horizontal and vertical devices to enhance protection. • • Comfortable for most bike users, depending on speeds, volumes, barrier types, and lanes. Not preferred by some cycling enthusiasts who prefer greater space to maneuver and prefer to ride in the roadway. Canal Trails Canal trails are a network of paths that follow along open water canals that connect Mesa to the greater Phoenix Metropolitan Area. Through easement agreements with canal management agencies, the City of Mesa has improved many canal banks to provide SUPs. These City of Mesa SUPs provide some of the most comfortable, low-stress facilities for users walking, bicycling, or rolling regardless of their ages and abilities. Equestrians are also frequent users of the SUPs. Other canal paths and trails are managed by the canal owners and are often hard-packed, graded dirt trails which provide recreational opportunities including easy walking paths and off-road biking within the City but are not accessible to all users. Canal banks are owned by a range of public and private entities and require the City to coordinate with them in order to make improvements to existing paths or to expand the SUP network. Currently, 68% of all SUPs within the Mesa MPA are run along the canals, 83.4% of which are along canals managed by the Salt River Project (SRP). 58 Mesa Transportation Master Plan FIGURE 2-27. EXISTING BICYCLE FACILITIES Mesa Transportation Master Plan 59 How Comfortable Are Our Streets for Cyclists? According to NACTO’s Designing for All Ages and Abilities, among adults in the US, only 6–10% of people generally feel comfortable riding in mixed traffic or with striped bike lanes. However, nearly two-thirds of the adult population may be interested in riding more often, given better places to ride, and as many as 81% of those would ride in protected bike lanes. How do we Calculate Comfort? Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) is a method of quantifying the perceived sense of comfort for a cyclist riding along a given roadway. Whether a rider feels comfortable on a street depends on a variety of factors such as: As illustrated below, LTS ranges from low-stress streets suitable for children (LTS 1) to high-stress streets only suitable for experienced riders (LTS 4). Depending on a person’s skill level, roads with high LTS scores may deter potential bicyclists from riding, leading them to choose a different mode of transportation or forcing them to make lengthy detours to avoid high-stress streets. Figure 2-28 illustrates the LTS of Mesa’s streets today. LTS 1 Very low stress, comfortable for all ages and abilities Numbered Bike Routes LTS 2 Low volume, low speed road suitable for most adults LTS 3 Moderate volumes and speeds comfortable for confident bicyclists Mesa uses wayfinding, marked maps, and numbered signs to encourage cyclists to use “Numbered Bike Routes.” Numbered Routes are city-recommended routes that help people bicycling navigate to more comfortable roads and biking infrastructure. While called “Numbered Bike Routes” these routes include a variety of cycling infrastructure types: bike lanes, bike routes, paved canal paths, and separated bike lanes. “Numbered Bike Routes” play a critical role in how Mesa residents navigate by bike and share directions with others. They also provide visibility and set the expectation to drivers that cyclists are commonly riding along these roadways in particular. However, not all facilities along the Numbered Bike Routes are low-stress. All six “Numbered Bike Routes” have one or more portions along their routes that are rated as LTS 3 or 4. 60 LTS 4 High volumes and speeds, uncomfortable for most bicyclists Numbered Bike Routes Mesa Transportation Master Plan FIGURE 2-28. BICYCLE LEVEL OF TRAFFIC STRESS Mesa Transportation Master Plan 61 Biking Assessment Cyclists experience the roadway differently than drivers and may be dissuaded from riding entirely if the infrastructure does not feel safe. Bike LTS was used to establish a “Low Stress Network” that cyclists would feel comfortable using to reach destinations. Biking sheds were developed from these networks. Steps in the biking assessment include: • Key destinations (as illustrated in the Walking Assessment section) were identified. • Evaluate roads for Biking LTS and define the Low Stress Network as LTS 1 & 2 roads and paths. • High-stress roads (LTS 3 & 4) are considered barriers to cyclists and are not displayed or analyzed as part of the network. Only signalized intersections or PHBs that provide a place for people bicycling to cross these roads are included in the Low Stress Network. • Based on available Low Stress Network, create 15-minute biking sheds for the following types of riders: • o Athletic or eBike Rider: Travels 12 MPH, or up to 3 miles, on a 15-minute trip. o Typical Bike Rider: Travels 8 MPH, or up to 2 miles, on a 15minute trip. Using ACS 2021 Census Block Group Data, population estimates were calculated to determine how many residents reside within each bikeshed. Figure 2-29 shows the 15-minute bike shed for both rider types. Notably, the Low Stress Network is not continuous enough to provide distances of travel that would differentiate bikesheds between Typical Bike Riders from Athletic or eBike Riders for All Destinations. As shown in Table 2-10, 43% of residents can reach a destination using the Low Stress Network, 17% can access high quality paths, 11% can reach health and services—including shopping destinations, and 5% have access to major transit stops. Bikesheds for specific destination categories such as Essential Needs, Transit, Youth Activities, and Shared Use Path and Other Canal Trail Access Points can be found in Appendix B. 62 Table 2-10. Residents Biking Access via the Low Stress Network (by Census Block) Low Stress Network Access Access to All Destinations % of Residents with Access 43% Access to Essential Needs 11% Access to Transit 5% Access to SUP and Canal Trails 17% Access to Youth Activities 47%* * Taken as a percentage of school aged children (5-19 years of age) with access to youth activities Mesa Transportation Master Plan FIGURE 2-29. BIKING ACCESS TO ALL DESTINATIONS Mesa Transportation Master Plan 63 Public Transit A strong public transit network is a key component to a great transportation system. Public transit provides important access and connectivity to key destinations and regional access to employment, education, shopping, and services. Transit services in Mesa are provided by the City of Mesa and Valley Metro, the regional public transportation authority for the Phoenix metropolitan area, and a variety of social service agencies. Figure 2-30 illustrates existing public transit conditions in Mesa today. Our System Today Over the last two decades, Mesa and Valley Metro have made significant investments in its transit system. Our transit system includes: Light Rail: High-capacity transit route along Main Street east of Gilbert Road that connects Downtown Mesa to Tempe, Phoenix Sky Harbor, Downtown Phoenix, and Metro Center. Mesa Downtown Buzz Service: A free neighborhood 23-passenger bus provided by the City of Mesa that connects visitors to major bus routes and other attractions in Mesa including Mesa Arts Center, library and more. Mesa Fiesta Buzz Service: The Fiesta Buzz is a free neighborhood circulator provided by the City of Mesa, connecting the Fiesta District, Asian District, and Mesa Riverview. Express Service: Express buses operate Monday-Friday during morning and evening peak-times to provide commuters with direct, enhanced-speed access to key regional destinations. Local and Regional Fixed Routes: Service operates on a grid system, and provides a straight-forward, convenient way for riders to connect their homes to work, school, and other key destinations. Park-and-Ride: Park-and-Ride lots provide parking spaces for commuters to board longer-distance express buses or meet their carpool or vanpool. There are currently seven park-andride lots in the Mesa MPA. 64 Transit Support Facilities: Transit routes are supported by a network of passenger facilities. In total, there are 736 bus stops and three transit centers in the Mesa MPA with varying amenities (i.e., shelters, bike racks, etc.). Vanpool: Commuter vanpools allow groups of employees to selforganize and lease a vehicle from Valley Metro to use to operate a carpool service, providing a flexible transit solution for those trips not well served by more conventional fixed route service. ADA Paratransit and RideChoice: Mesa provides two types of services for residents with disabilities that prevent them from accessing regular local bus routes - ADA Paratransit and RideChoice. ADA paratransit service provides door-to-door and curb-to-curb transportation to people with disabilities who are unable, or have limited ability because of their disability, to use fixed-route buses or trains. RideChoice provides transportation services to ADA paratransit-certified people with disabilities and/or seniors aged 65 and above who reside in participating communities, like Mesa. Regular ADA Paratransit service is offered within ¾miles of local service, RideChoice service is available city-wide. Mesa Transportation Master Plan v FIGURE 2-30. EXISTING PUBLIC TRANSIT NETWORK Mesa Transportation Master Plan 65 Ridership Valley Metro is one of the largest public transportation agencies in the Nation, with over 31.8 million boardings in 2022. Mesa accounts for approximately 10.8 percent of Valley Metro’s total boardings (2022). Since 2021, the total number of boardings in Mesa rose by more than 12.3% from the previous fiscal year; however, bicycle boardings decreased by a staggering 25.9 percent. Table 2-11 outlines the total number of boardings in Mesa for FY 2022. Table 2-11. Ridership by Route (FY 2021-2022) Route 30 – University Drive 40 – Main Street 45 – Broadway Road 61 – Southern Avenue 77 – Baseline Road 96 – Dobson Road 104 – Alma School Road 108 – Elliot Road/48th Street 112 – Country Club Road/Arizona Avenue 120 – Mesa Drive 128 – Stapley Drive 136 – Gilbert Road 156 – Chandler Boulevard 184 – Power Road 515 - Fountain Hills-Mesa Connector 531 - Mesa/Gilbert Express 533 – Mesa Express 535 – Northeast Mesa Express 541 (no longer in service) Buzz Metro Rail Total Source: Valley Metro Annual Ridership 2022 Total Boardings 138,843 313,526 139,518 249,626 8,804 203,609 97,354 10,738 286,769 59,736 48,712 114,908 6,939 76,810 249 1,786 8,507 8,274 2,339 69,603 1,590,233 3,436,883 Bicycle Boardings 6,861 19,847 5,171 9,732 375 6,220 2,946 554 9,969 1,475 1,898 4,923 420 5,031 2 10 135 25 0 1,380 Not Available 76,974 Wheelchair Boardings 1,433 3,812 1,176 1,697 40 1,677 1,023 84 2,258 1,218 1,129 890 31 688 4 0 3 0 0 1,343 Not Available 18,506 High Ridership Stops Figure 2-31 illustrates bus stops that have the highest average daily boarding within Mesa in 2022. It is important to note that these stops are largely located immediately adjacent to the intersection. High ridership stops occur largely along Main Street (along light rail) through downtown Mesa and at the Superstition Mall Transit center. 66 Mesa Transportation Master Plan FIGURE 2-31. HIGH TRANSIT RIDERSHIP LOCATIONS Mesa Transportation Master Plan 67 Goods Movement Another major function of the transportation system is to move goods and services for commercial purposes. The efficient movement of freight, goods, and packages is extremely important to Mesa and the region’s economic prosperity. This section outlines existing conditions in relation to the movement of goods in and through the Mesa MPA. Existing Truck Routes Currently, the City of Mesa does not have a formally designated truck route designation in place; however, Mesa does have some freight-related regulations. According to Mesa Ordinance 2256: commerical vehicles are restricted on certain streets. When authorized signs are erected, commercial vehicles having a manufacturer’s rating of one and one-half (1 1/2) tons or more or any commercial vehicle having a length of twenty-two feet (22') or more, inclusive of front and rear bumpers, or a commercial vehicle coupled to a trailer or semi-trailer having a length of twenty two feet (22') or more, inclusive of the front and rear bumpers, may not operate on those portions of streets so posted except for the delivery and pickup of merchandise, materials, or equipment going to or from a specific location requiring travel on streets so posted. The commercial vehicle must use the shortest and most direct route on such streets. Critical Freight Corridors In 2017, MAG completed a regional assessment to identify a Freight Transportation Network to prioritize optimal locations for freight-focused investments and to designated Critical Urban Freight Corridors (CUFCs). CUFCs provide critical connectivity to the National Highway Freight Network. Figure 232 illustrates the CUFCs in Mesa. CUFCs are identified based on an evaluation of freight infrastructure assets (highways, air, and rail), existing and future forecasted truck traffic, current and forecasted flow of the goods, concentration of industrial and commercial activity, development potential, and network performance. Within Mesa, the top scoring CUFCs include: 68 • Gilbert Road (south of US 60) • US 60 corridor • Stapley Drive (south of US 60) Mesa Transportation Master Plan FIGURE 2-32. EXISTING TRUCK ROUTES Mesa Transportation Master Plan 69 PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 70 Mesa Transportation Master Plan Mesa Transportation Master Plan 71 PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 72 Mesa Transportation Master Plan MESA IS GROWING AND CHANGING Understanding where growth is greatest is imperative to creating a plan that manages the increased demands of the City’s transportation system. As part of the 2050 General Plan’s planning process, future land use designations and growth strategies were identified to ensure preservation of the unique character of Mesa while setting the stage for its future. Projected Population and Employment Growth Forecasting future socioeconomic conditions allows Mesa to anticipate changes in future travel demand and to envision potential solutions. The Maricopa Association of Governments’ (MAG) regional travel demand model estimates future population, housing units, and various types of employment categories for Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZs) within the model. TAZs are geographic subdivisions of the study area bounded by roads, political boundaries, natural and man-made geographical constraints (such as rivers, washes, etc.). Table 3-1 shows a tabular summary of the projected population, employment, and the number of housing units within the Mesa Planning Area. By the long-term (2050) horizon, population and housing unit projections are reflective of mostly build-out conditions. The Appendix includes population and employment details for each horizon year. Table 3-1: Projected Socioeconomic Conditions from the Mesa Municipal Planning Area Total Population1 Current (2021) 544,976 Near-Term (2030) 589,900 Mid-Term (2035) 609,800 Long-Term (2050) 645,500 Total Housing Units 243,003 263,017 279,982 285,254 Total Employment 208,200 237,500 259,600 308,900 Source: MAG 2024 Updated Socioeconomic Data Scenario Runs Future Growth Strategy 1 includes resident population and group quarter (correction, institutional, and military) population Figure 3-1 illustrates future land use designations that describe the land uses, densities, intensities, and the character of residential, commercial, and industrial areas within the MPA. These future land use designations offer guidance for City staff, elected officials, residents, business owners, and developers for navigating and reviewing development proposals. Figure 3-2 outlines the Growth Strategy from the 2050 General Plan. The Growth Strategy depicts where growth should be focused, and the level of transition envisioned for these areas. The General Plan identifies three distinctive growth categories: CONSERVE SUSTAIN Areas that should be preserved and protected and remain largely in their current condition. These areas include land with significant development constraints, historic resources, neighborhoods with a significant heritage, school sites, public lands, and parklands. Areas of stability that are encouraged to remain generally in their current condition but may see minor changes and transition of use over time. Mesa Transportation Master Plan EVOLVE Developed areas are encouraged to improve as development ages. Vacant, transitioning, or underdeveloped land that supports new development will bring reinvestment to Mesa. These areas will continue to develop or be reused as the development patterns change and align with City priorities. 73 FIGURE 3-1. GENERAL PLAN FUTURE LAND USE / PLACE TYPES 74 Mesa Transportation Master Plan FIGURE 3-2. GENERAL PLAN GROWTH STRATEGY MAP Mesa Transportation Master Plan 75 PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 76 Mesa Transportation Master Plan WHAT HAPPENS TO CONGESTION LEVELS IF WE DO NOTHING? The primary purpose of forecasting future (2050) traffic volumes is to estimate the additional travel demand added to existing roadways and to forecast congestion levels due to projected growth in population and employment. This analysis also provides valuable insight into potential transportation solutions. The following section presents corridor traffic volumes and levels of congestion if no roadway improvements are made (No-Build). Level of service (LOS) values were determined for each roadway segment using a ratio of volume to capacity (V/C). V/C ratios for each LOS type and the typical level of congestion it represents are listed below: • LOS A to LOS C (little or no congestion): v/c ratio less than or equal to 0.7 • LOS D (moderate congestion): v/c ratio greater than 0.7 and less than or equal to 0.85 • LOS E (At or nearing capacity): v/c ratio greater than 0.85 and less than or equal to 1.0 • LOS F (Over capacity): v/c ratio greater than 1.0 It is important to note that all future no-build analysis results presented in this section do not incorporate projects in Mesa’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP). Figure 3-3 illustrates the baseline roadway network and number of travel lanes. Near-Term (2030) Projected Traffic Conditions Figure 3-4 displays the projected traffic volumes and Figure 3-5 illustrates the Level of Service for the near-term planning horizon, if no roadway improvements are made. As illustrated in the figures, several corridors start to operate at LOS E and F with the additional demand, including: University Drive, Main Street, and Broadway Road in downtown Mesa; the majority of US 60 interchanges; and several arterials in southeast Mesa (including portions of Sossaman Road, Ellsworth Road, and Ray Road). Mid-Term (2035) Projected Traffic Conditions Figure 3-6 displays the projected traffic volumes and Figure 3-7 illustrates the Level of Service for the mid-term planning horizon, if no roadway improvements are made. As illustrated in the figures, congestion levels continue to increase from the near-term levels with significantly more corridors operating at LOS E and F. Mesa Transportation Master Plan 77 Long-Term (2050) Projected Traffic Conditions Figure 3-8 displays the projected traffic volumes and Figure 3-9 illustrates the Level of Service for the long-term planning horizon, if no roadway improvements are made. Listed in no particular order, the following are some of the key roadways in the City of Mesa that are projected to operate at LOS E or worse by 2050: 78 • McKellips Road: west of Center Street • University Drive, Main Street and Broadway Road west of Gilbert Road • Guadalupe Road: west of Dobson Road • Elliot Road: portions west of Ellsworth Road • Warner Road: west of Sossaman Road • Ray Road: west of Ellsworth Road and east of Signal Butte Road • Pecos Road: west of Signal Butte Road and portions west of Ellsworth Road • Dobson Road: north of US 60 and north of Broadway Road • Alma School Road: portions north of the MPA boundary to Rio Salado Parkway • Country Club Drive: north of the MPA boundary to University Drive • Mesa Drive: Baseline Road to Adobe Street • Stapley Drive: Baseline Road to University Drive • Gilbert Road: Baseline Road to Main Street • Val Vista Road: Baseline Road to Pueblo Avenue • Higley Road: Baseline Road to Broadway Road • Sossaman Road: north of Germann Road and north of Warner Road • Ellsworth Road: north of Germann Road Mesa Transportation Master Plan FIGUREproject 3-3. BASE (2022) NUMBER OF LANES ins not YEAR completed. Mesa Transportation Master Plan 79 FIGURE 3-4. PROJECTED NEAR-TERM (2030) TRAFFIC VOLUMES 80 Mesa Transportation Master Plan FIGURE 3-5. PROJECTED NEAR-TERM (2030) LEVEL OF SERVICE Mesa Transportation Master Plan 81 FIGURE 3-6. PROJECTED MID-TERM (2035) TRAFFIC VOLUMES Source: City of Mesa, Maricopa County, ALRIS, MAG 82 Mesa Transportation Master Plan FIGURE 3-7. PROJECTED MID-TERM (2035) LEVEL OF SERVICE Mesa Transportation Master Plan 83 FIGURE 3-8. PROJECTED LONG-TERM (2050) TRAFFIC VOLUMES Source: City of Mesa, Maricopa County, ALRIS, MAG 84 Mesa Transportation Master Plan FIGURE 3-9. PROJECTED LONG-TERM (2050) LEVEL OF SERVICE Mesa Transportation Master Plan 85 PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 86 Mesa Transportation Master Plan Mesa Transportation Master Plan 87 HOW WE ENGAGED THE COMMUNITY Throughout the TMP planning process, input was gathered from residents, businesses, organizations, City leaders and staff, and regional planning partners to ensure that the TMP reflects the needs and priorities of those that use our transportation system. This chapter represents the voices, ideas, needs, and challenges of Mesa residents. Project Website In coordination with the Mesa General Plan Update, a Mesa Transportation Master Plan (TMP) project website was developed and launched in January 2023, allowing the public easy access to important information about the TMP. The website TomorrowsMesa.com included document links, survey links, and a way to sign up for the project mailing list. Spreading the Word To provide opportunities for our planning partners and stakeholders to participate in the planning process, the following activities were conducted: • Interactive workshops were conducted with stakeholders and regional partners to gather feedback on current issues and draft recommendations. • A project specific booth was hosted at numerous community events, including I Love Mesa Day, Downtown Mesa’s Farmers Market, Celebrate Mesa, CycloMesa, and major events hosted by the 2050 General Plan. • Flyers and signs were distributed to key activity centers throughout the City. • Social media posts and e-mail blasts to direct community members to the project website. Surveys and Mapping Activities During outreach efforts, we heard from thousands of people through surveys and online mapping tools. Shared on the project website, via social media, and by community members, the Mesa TMP surveys invited people to share their values; describe the type of improvements they would most like to see; map ideas for specific walking, biking, bus, and driving projects in our community; and help shape the Mesa TMP recommendations. Appendix F and Appendix G include a full summary of engagement findings during the TMP. 88 Mesa Transportation Master Plan WHAT DID THEY SAY? The following outlines a few of the key results from the first two community surveys. Additional survey results are provided in Appendix F, Appendix G, and in Chapter 6. How easy is it for you to travel around Mesa today? Not Easy What is the greatest transportation need in Mesa today? (Select up to 3) Very Easy to Somewhat Easy Other By Wheelchair or Other Mobility Device 12% By Public Transit 38% By Bicycle 43% By Walking 64% By Car 93% Mesa Transportation Master Plan Adding and enhancing public transit services Enhancing and expanding bicycle and pedestrian facilities Reducing vehicle congestion on roads Optimizing traffic operations at intersections Improving safety for all users Maintaining existing roadways Least Need Greatest Need 89 What transportation investments should Mesa focus on? Rank from 1 (most important) to 6 (least important). Other 7% Embracing new technologies and innovation In 20 years, what do you think our greatest transportation challenge will be? (Select up to 3) Maintenance of existing facilities Safer and more comfortable bike facilities Better sidewalks and pedestrian crossings Making public transit a more viable travel option Improving roadway conditions (i.e., safety, pavement conditions, and congestion) Least Important 90 Most Important Mesa Transportation Master Plan In your travel shed, what transportation investments would you most like to see? 1 (highest priority) to 6 (lowest priority) During the second phase of engagement, respondents were asked to rank a list of transportation investments where “1” is a top priority and “6” is the lowest priority. Please see Chapter 6 for additional information on Mesa’s travel sheds. 1. Downtown Mesa 2. US 60 Corridor 3. Dobson Ranch 4. Riverview 5. Southeast Mesa 6. Central Mesa 7. North Central Mesa 8. Fiesta District 9. Falcon Field Area 10. Northeast Mesa 11. East Mesa Highest Priority 2nd 3rd 4th 5th Lowest Priority Improvements to reduce vehicle congestion Pedestrian and bicycle safety improvements More sidewalks and bike lanes Improvements to enhance safety for travel by vehicles Expand public transit service Technology improvements Improvements to reduce vehicle congestion Improvements to reduce vehicle congestion Improvements to reduce vehicle congestion Improvements to reduce vehicle congestion Improvements to reduce vehicle congestion Pedestrian and bicycle safety improvements Improvements to reduce vehicle congestion Improvements to enhance safety for travel by vehicles Improvements to enhance safety for travel by vehicles Expand public transit service More sidewalks and bike lanes Pedestrian and bicycle safety improvements Technology improvements Expand public transit service Technology improvements Expand public transit service Technology improvements More sidewalks and bike lanes Technology improvements Expand public transit service Technology improvements Expand public transit service Technology improvements Expand public transit service More sidewalks and bike lanes Technology improvements Improvements to reduce vehicle congestion More sidewalks and bike lanes Expand public transit service Pedestrian and bicycle safety improvements Expand public transit service Technology improvements Improvements to enhance safety for travel by vehicles Technology improvements Improvements to enhance safety for travel by vehicles Improvements to enhance safety for travel by vehicles Improvements to reduce vehicle congestion Mesa Transportation Master Plan More sidewalks and bike lanes Improvements to enhance safety for travel by vehicles Pedestrian and bicycle safety improvements More sidewalks and bike lanes Improvements to enhance safety for travel by vehicles Pedestrian and bicycle safety improvements More sidewalks and bike lanes Pedestrian and bicycle safety improvements More sidewalks and bike lanes Pedestrian and bicycle safety improvements Expand public transit service More sidewalks and bike lanes Improvements to reduce vehicle congestion Pedestrian and bicycle safety improvements Technology improvements (i.e., electric charging stations, etc.) Improvements to reduce vehicle congestion More sidewalks and bike lanes Pedestrian and bicycle safety improvements Improvements to enhance safety for travel by vehicles Pedestrian and bicycle safety improvements Improvements to enhance safety for travel by vehicles Improvements to enhance safety for travel by vehicles Expand public transit service 91 PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 92 Mesa Transportation Master Plan Mesa Transportation Master Plan 93 TRANSPORTATION NEEDS IN MESA The Transportation Master Plan (TMP) identifies a universe of needs for the City to consider for implementation. Together, the recommended needs presented in this chapter will help reshape Mesa’s transportation system to better move vehicles and people. It is important to recognize that recommendations in the TMP represent the needs only and are not programmed projects. Each need should go through the traditional project development process – detailed project planning, public and stakeholder outreach, project development/preliminary engineering, funding identification, Council approval, project programming, and design; followed by construction. What are the Different Types of Needs? Needs identified in the TMP include a variety of types that combined create a transportation system that helps to improve safety and mobility for everyone. Recommended needs include investments in the following types: 94 Mesa Transportation Master Plan How Were Needs Identified? Needs were identified based on: Extensive community feedback received during public/stakeholder phases 1 &2 Focus group meetings with community organizations, businesses, schools, police, fire, adjacent partner agencies, etc. Meetings with City departments and coordination with ongoing plans including the General Plan and Transit Plan Coordination with the City’s Transportation Advisory Board TMP Vision and Goals established at the onset of the project Comprehensive data analysis How were Needs Evaluated? To evaluate the needs, the TMP study team utilized a multi-step screening process as illustrated below: Step 1. Collect a Universe of Ideas The study team gathered project needs and program ideas, including recommendations from previous plans, the current Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), new suggestions from the public and stakeholders, ideas from City staff, and results of data analysis to create a universe of potential needs/ solutions to address the transportation system issues, gaps, and deficiencies identified during the existing and future conditions analysis. Mesa Transportation Master Plan Step 2. Evaluate Needs Needs were grouped into logical categories (roadway capacity, safety, pedestrian, bicycle, etc.) by need type and the study team screened and evaluated them using appropriate methodologies/ processes to confirm that they • Addressed the specific issue/gap. • Was helping achieve the TMP vision and goals. Step 3. Determine Priority/Phasing Based on the evaluation results, needs were further screened to confirm implementation feasibility and then categorized by priority/phasing tiers for implementation. 95 CITYWIDE ROADWAY NEEDS A well-managed roadway system comprises of capital construction projects, regular maintenance activities, and efficient/flexible/adaptable traffic operations systems to the meet current and future traffic demand. The following sections identify the recommended roadway improvements and a phased implementation plan to help meet the traffic demand. Screened roadway needs were evaluated and assessed on how well they met the goals of the TMP, their overall benefits, and the level of feasibility of the project need. Based on the evaluation, needs were categories into three Tiers that represent priority for implementation. ShortTerm Short-Term Horizon (Y2024 to Y2030): Needs that help achieve the goals of the TMP that the City should consider implementing within a 1–7-year timeframe. MidTerm Mid-Term Horizon (Y2031 to Y2035): Needs that help achieve the goals of the TMP but may not be needed in the immediate future or may be too expensive to find funding in the short-term horizon. Mid-Term needs may be considered for implementation over an 8–15-year timeframe or if funding opportunities arise early or needs of the community change. LongTerm Long-Term Horizon (Y2036 to Y2050): Needs that also help achieve the goals of the TMP but have a major cost or other constraints or may not be needed in the immediate future. Long-Term needs should be considered for implementation over a 16–25-year timeframe or if funding opportunities arise early or needs of the community change. The actual implementation of these improvements will depend on several factors, including available funding, pace of development/growth, community feedback, and Council approval. Recommended Roadway Capacity Improvement Needs Based on forecasted growth and development in Mesa, several of the current roadways will not be able to meet future demand. Capacity related improvement needs, such as widening existing roadways and constructing new roadways, were evaluated to identity potential needs to alleviate existing or projected traffic congestion. Roadway capacity needs were evaluated and prioritized using the following steps: • Used the existing conditions level of service (LOS) analysis findings and the future no-build analysis findings to determine the horizon year range when a roadway segment would potentially exceed acceptable congestion levels. • Confirmed using the Maricopa Association of Governments’ (MAG) regional travel demand model that the recommended needs addressed the congestion issues. • Categorized the needs into appropriate phasing horizon for implementation taking into consideration when the roadway segment would fail to operate at acceptable LOS level. This section outlines recommended roadway capacity and reconstruction needs, new roadway needs, and bridge/crossing needs. 96 Mesa Transportation Master Plan Recommended Widening and Reconstruction Needs Table 5-1 and Figure 5-1 illustrate recommended capacity improvement needs. The ID number merely serves as an identification number to track the project/need going forward. It does not represent an implementation priority. Where applicable, needs are also tagged with appropriate CIP number. TABLE 5-1: RECOMMENDED WIDENING AND RECONSTRUCTION NEEDS ID Location Description Short-Term (Y2024 to Y2030) 2 Pecos Road Improvements: Ellsworth Road to Meridian Road Roadway work along Pecos Road that completes the drainage work not completed by developers and infill activities. CIP #C06040 5 Val Vista Drive: Pueblo Avenue to US 60 Improve Val Vista Drive between Pueblo Avenue and US 60. Widen road from US 60 to Enid Avenue to six-lanes; reconstruct pavement; add raised medians; add bike lanes and other improvements. CIP #CP0062, construction anticipated to commence in 2024. 6 Mesa Drive: Main Street to McKellips Road Complete improvements along the Mesa Drive Corridor tying into the newly improved Mesa Drive to the south. Add additional lanes at intersections to increase capacity and enhance safety. Improve the mobilization characteristics for pedestrians, bicyclists, transit, and vehicular traffic along Mesa Drive. Identified in MAG's RSTIIP. Main Street to Brown Road segment is CIP #CP0664. 7 Broadway Road: Lesueur to Spur Add additional lanes at the intersection of Broadway/Stapley to increase capacity and enhance safety; replace pavement; accommodate bike lanes and pedestrian sidewalks. CIP #CP0666, construction anticipated to commence in 2024. 8 Southern Avenue & Country Club Drive Roadways Reconstruct two major arterials where pavement is failing. The two segments are Southern Avenue; Alma School Road to Center Street and Country Club Drive; US 60 to 1st Avenue. CIP #CP0844 9 Ellsworth Road: From southern City Limits to Ray Road Widen Ellsworth Road to full 6-lane cross-section with bike lanes. CIP #CP0969 11 Elliot Road: Ellsworth Road to Sossaman Road Construct 2.5 miles of a six-lane roadway on Elliot from Ellsworth Road to Sossaman Road. CIP #CP0982 13 Williams Field Road: SR24 to Ellsworth Road Construct Williams Field Road between Ellsworth Road and SR24 to a six-lane arterial cross section. CIP #CP1017 15 Stapley Drive: University Drive to McKellips Road Reconstruct arterial street segments that are at the end of their life cycle and can no longer be maintained by conventional means. Concurrent work will include upgrades to any concrete ramps, driveways, and sidewalks to current ADA standards. Utilize street typology guidelines to reconfigure roadway to possibly accommodate appropriate biking and walking facilities. CIP #CP1089 16 Broadway Road: Stapley Drive to Gilbert Road Reconstruct arterial street segments that are at the end of their life cycle and can no longer be maintained by conventional means. Concurrent work will include upgrades to any concrete ramps, driveways, and sidewalks to current ADA standards. Utilize street typology guidelines to reconfigure roadway to possibly accommodate appropriate biking and walking facilities. CIP #CP1090 17 Greenfield Road: Main Street to Adobe Road Reconstruct arterial street segments that are at the end of their life cycle and can no longer be maintained by conventional means. Concurrent work will include upgrades to any concrete ramps, driveways, and sidewalks to current ADA standards. CIP #CP1091, construction anticipated to commence in 2024. 18 Stapley Drive: Main Street to University Drive Reconstruct arterial street segments that are at the end of their life cycle and can no longer be maintained by conventional means. Concurrent work will include upgrades to any concrete ramps, driveways, and sidewalks to current ADA standards. CIP #CP1092 19 Southern Avenue: Gilbert to west of Val Vista Drive Reconstruct arterial street segments that are at the end of their life cycle and can no longer be maintained by conventional means. Concurrent work will include upgrades to any concrete ramps, driveways, and sidewalks to current ADA standards. CIP #CP1093, construction anticipated to commence in 2024. 20 Greenfield Road: Southern Avenue to Main Street Reconstruct arterial street segments that are at the end of their life cycle and can no longer be maintained by conventional means. Concurrent work will include upgrades to any concrete ramps, driveways, and sidewalks to current ADA standards. CIP #CP1095, construction anticipated to commence in 2024. Mesa Transportation Master Plan 97 FIGURE 5-1. RECOMMENDED ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS 98 Mesa Transportation Master Plan TABLE 5-1: RECOMMENDED WIDENING AND RECONSTRUCTION NEEDS (CONTINUED) ID Location Description Short-Term (Y2024 to Y2030) 21 Sossaman Road: Velocity Way to Southern City Limits Build out to a four-lane cross section w/raised median from Velocity Way to Pecos Road, to be transitioned to striped median to the south. Add bike lanes. CIP #CP1133 22 McKellips Road: 64th Street to Jasmine Street Widen north side of McKellips to create a 6-lane cross section and add curb, gutter, and sidewalk on both sides. CIP #CP1135 23 Mountain Road: SR24 to Pecos Road Widen Road to a four-lane cross section with striped median. CIP #CP1136 24 Broadway Road: Country Club to Mesa Drive Construct lane extensions around the intersections and various roadway improvements from Country Club to Mesa Drive. 36 Ellsworth Road: US 60 to Baseline Road 117 Power Road: East Maricopa Floodway to Loop 202 Widen roadway to six-lanes. Utilize street typology guidelines to reconfigure roadway to possibly accommodate appropriate biking and walking facilities. This need could be addressed as adjacent development occurs. Identified in MAG's RSTIIP Improve the mobility and access in this area of Power Rd, completing any sections that have not been completed by adjacent development. This is a joint project with the Town of Gilbert and Maricopa County. #CP0104 Mid-Term (Y2031 to Y2035) 37 Hawes Road: Baseline Road to Elliot Road Widen roadway to six-lanes. Utilize street typology guidelines to reconfigure roadway to possibly accommodate appropriate biking and walking facilities. This need could be addressed as adjacent development occurs. Identified in MAG's RSTIIP 38 Hawes Road: Broadway Road to US 60 Widen roadway to six-lanes. Utilize street typology guidelines to reconfigure roadway to possibly accommodate appropriate biking and walking facilities. This need could be addressed as adjacent development occurs. Identified in MAG's RSTIIP 44 Southern Avenue: Sossaman Road to Meridian Road Widen roadway to consistent six-lane configuration from Sossaman Road to Crismon Road and four-lanes from Crismon Road to Meridian Road. This need could be addressed as adjacent development occurs. Utilize street typology guidelines to reconfigure roadway to possibly accommodate appropriate biking and walking facilities. Most of this segment is under the County jurisdiction but within Mesa planning area boundary. Identified in MAG's RSTIIP. 45 McKellips Road: SR 202 to Hawes Road Widen roadway to consistent six-lane configuration from SR 202 to Hawes Road. This need could be addressed as adjacent development occurs. Utilize street typology guidelines to reconfigure roadway to possibly accommodate appropriate biking and walking facilities. 48 Warner Road: East of Power Road to Eastmark Parkway Widen roadway to consistent four-lane configuration. This need could be addressed as adjacent development occurs. Utilize street typology guidelines to reconfigure roadway to possibly accommodate appropriate biking and walking facilities. 49 Ray Road: East of Power Road to East of Hawes Road Widen roadway to consistent six-lane configuration. This need could be addressed as adjacent development occurs. Utilize street typology guidelines to reconfigure roadway to possibly accommodate appropriate biking and walking facilities. 53 Germann Road: Sossaman Road to Meridian Road Widen roadway to four-lane configuration. This need could be addressed as adjacent development occurs. Utilize street typology guidelines to reconfigure roadway to possibly accommodate appropriate biking and walking facilities. Segment is largely within the Town of Queen Creek and will require coordination. Mesa Transportation Master Plan 99 TABLE 5-1: RECOMMENDED WIDENING AND RECONSTRUCTION NEEDS (CONTINUED) ID Location Description Long-Term (Y2036 to Y2050) 3 Pecos Road Widening: Ellsworth Road to Crismon Road Roadway may need to be widened to four-lanes to accommodate future development along the corridor. 4 Pecos Road Widening: Crismon Road to Meridian Road Roadway may need to be widened to six-lanes to accommodate future development along the corridor. 34 Broadway Road: Country Club Drive to Alma School Road Reconstruct roadway. Utilize street typology guidelines to reconfigure roadway to possibly accommodate appropriate biking and walking facilities. Identified in MAG's RSTIIP 39 McKellips Road: Hawes Road to Meridian Road Widen roadway to continuous five/four-lanes configuration. Utilize street typology guidelines to reconfigure roadway to possibly accommodate appropriate biking and walking facilities. This need could be addressed as adjacent development occurs. Identified in MAG's RSTIIP. A portion of this project is located in Unincorporated Maricopa County and will require coordination with MCDOT. 42 Signal Butte Road: Germann Road to Broadway Road Widen roadway to consistent six-lane configuration to address scalloped street conditions along the corridor. This need could be addressed as adjacent development occurs. Identified in MAG's RSTIIP. 43 Sossaman Road: 1/2 mile south of Guadalupe Road to Warner Road Widen roadway to four-lane configuration. This need could be addressed as adjacent development occurs. Utilize street typology guidelines to reconfigure roadway to possibly accommodate appropriate biking and walking facilities. Identified in MAG's RSTIIP. A portion of this project is located in Unincorporated Maricopa County and will require coordination with MCDOT. 46 Baseline Road: 72nd Street to east of Crismon Road Widen roadway to consistent six-lane configuration. Utilize street typology guidelines to reconfigure roadway to possibly accommodate appropriate biking and walking facilities. 47 Elliot Road: Power Road to Sossaman Road Widen roadway to six-lanes. This need could be addressed as adjacent development occurs. Utilize street typology guidelines to reconfigure roadway to possibly accommodate appropriate biking and walking facilities. Bridge across RWCD is part of CIP #CP1132. A portion of this project is located in Unincorporated Maricopa County and will require coordination with MCDOT. 50 Ray Road: West of Mountain Road to Meridian Road Widen roadway to consistent six-lane configuration. This need could be addressed as adjacent development occurs. Utilize street typology guidelines to reconfigure roadway to possibly accommodate appropriate biking and walking facilities. A portion of this project is located in Unincorporated Maricopa County and will require coordination with MCDOT. 51 Meridian Road: Elliot Road to Ray Road Widen roadway to consistent six-lane configuration. This need could be addressed as adjacent development occurs. Utilize street typology guidelines to reconfigure roadway to possibly accommodate appropriate biking and walking facilities. A portion of this project is located in Unincorporated Maricopa County and will require coordination with MCDOT. 100 Mesa Transportation Master Plan Recommended New Roads The TMP also identifies new roadway needs to support local street circulation and support future development. Developers may be responsible for new street construction. Table 5-2 and Figure 5-1 illustrate recommended new roads. Like the previous table, the ID number merely serves as an identification number to track the project/need going forward. It does not represent an implementation priority. Where applicable, needs are also tagged with appropriate CIP number. TABLE 5-2: RECOMMENDED NEW ROAD NEEDS ID Location Description Short-Term (Y2024 to Y2030) 10 Sossaman Road: Ray Road to Warner Road Construct approximately 1 mile of new road with four-lanes including curb, gutter, lights and sidewalks to connect Ray Rd to Warner Road in the inner loop area. CIP #CP097, construction anticipated to commence in 2024. 12 Ray Road connections at Ellsworth Road Construct a 6-lane road including curb, gutter, lights, and sidewalk to connect the two different Ray Road alignments at Ellsworth Road. CIP #CP0983, construction anticipated to commence in 2024. 14 Crismon Road Extension (1/2 mile south of Guadalupe) Build 1/2 Street Improvements - extending Crismon Road south 1,000 ft. CIP #CP1049 41 Meridian Road: Ray Road to SR 24 Construct four-lane roadway. Utilize street typology guidelines to reconfigure roadway to possibly accommodate appropriate biking and walking facilities. This need could be addressed as adjacent development occurs. Identified in MAG's RSTIIP. A big portion of this project is located in Unincorporated Maricopa County and will require coordination with MCDOT. Mid-Term (Y2031 to Y2035) 1 Hawes Road/Ray Road intersection to Ellsworth Road/Williams Field Road intersection New four-lane roadway to provide access to the proposed new eastside terminal at Phoenix-Mesa Gateway Airport. 35 Crismon Road: Williams Field Road to Germann Road Construct new four-lane roadway with appropriate bike and pedestrian facilities. Identified in MAG's RSTIIP. Project should be completed in cooperation with ADOT when the SR24 is upgraded to a freeway. 40 Meridian Road: Baseline Road to Elliot Road Construct six-lane roadway. Utilize street typology guidelines to reconfigure roadway to possibly accommodate appropriate biking and walking facilities. This need could be addressed as adjacent development occurs. Identified in MAG's RSTIIP. This should be constructed in cooperation with MCDOT, Apache Junction and Pinal County. 52 Hawes Road: Elliot Road to Ray Road Construct six-lane roadway and widen existing facility. This need could be addressed as adjacent development occurs. Utilize street typology guidelines to reconfigure roadway to possibly accommodate appropriate biking and walking facilities. A small segment is in the Unincorporated Maricopa County jurisdiction but within the Mesa planning area boundary. 119 Willis Road: Ellsworth Road to Crismon Road Construct new four-lane roadway with appropriate bike and pedestrian facilities. Long-Term (Y2036 to Y2050) 118 Thomas Road: Gilbert Road to SR 202 Mesa Transportation Master Plan Construct new two-lane roadway with appropriate bike, pedestrian, and equestrian facilities. 101 Recommended Bridge and Crossing Needs Table 5-3 and Figure 5-1 illustrate recommended bridge and crossing needs to address current and future circulation demands. Like the previous table, the ID number merely serves as an identification number to track the project/need going forward. It does not represent an implementation priority. TABLE 5-3: RECOMMENDED BRIDGE AND CROSSING NEEDS ID Location Description Short-Term (Y2024 to Y2030) 54 Elliot Road RWCD Bridge 60 Warner Road between Power Road and Sossaman Road Across East Maricopa Floodway (EMF) Elliot Road RWCD Bridge widening to a 6-lane cross section with raised median. Located approximately 1600 feet east of Power Road. New bridge crossing over RWCD and East Maricopa Floodway. Long-Term (Y2036 to Y2050) 55 Alma School Road and UPRR Railroad Continue to monitor the need for grade-separation at this railroad crossing as traffic volumes are expected to continue to increase to over 50,000 vehicles per day. 56 Dobson Road and UPRR Railroad Continue to monitor the need for grade-separation at this railroad crossing as traffic volumes are expected to continue to increase to over 50,000 vehicles per day. 57 Broadway Road and UPRR Railroad at Center Street Continue to monitor the need for grade-separation at this railroad crossing as traffic volumes are expected to continue to increase to over 50,000 vehicles per day. 58 Southern Avenue and UPRR Railroad Continue to monitor the need for grade-separation at this railroad crossing as traffic volumes are expected to continue to increase to over 50,000 vehicles per day. 59 Baseline Road and UPRR Railroad Continue to monitor the need for grade-separation at this railroad crossing as traffic volumes are expected to continue to increase to over 50,000 vehicles per day. Highway-rail grade crossings should be considered for grade separation across the railroad right of way whenever the cost of grade separation can be economically justified based on fully allocated life-cycle costs. Applicable criteria for the City to track include: 102 • AADT exceeds 50,000 in urban areas or 25,000 in rural areas. • Crossing exposure (the product of the number of trains per day and AADT) exceeds 500,000 in urban areas or 125,000 in rural areas Maximum authorized train speed exceeds 161 km/hr. (100 mph). • The expected accident frequency for active devices with gates, as calculated by the U.S. DOT Accident Prediction Formula including five-year accident history, exceeds 0.2. • Vehicle delays exceed 30 vehicle hours per day. • An average of 75 or more trains per day or 150 million gross tons per year. • An engineering study indicates that the absence of a grade separation structure would result in the highway facility performing at a level of service below its intended minimum design level 10 percent or more of the time. Mesa Transportation Master Plan Recommended Corridor Studies Some roadway corridor segments such as University Drive from Dobson Road to Gilbert Road, Country Club Drive from University Drive to Baseline Road are already built to their maximum number of lanes; the surrounding land is mostly built out; and these roads are expected to continue operating at congested levels. Widening the roads is not feasible without significant right of way takes. To address future mobility on these corridors, the TMP recommends conducting comprehensive corridor studies to perform a more deepdive traffic operations analysis to determine innovative and targeted improvements (implementing smart signal technologies, adding additional turn and through lanes at intersections, installing medians, consolidate access management, etc.) to maximize capacity along these corridors. Table 5-4 and Figure 5-1 illustrate recommended congestion improvement needs. TABLE 5-4: RECOMMENDED ROADWAY CORRIDOR STUDIES ID Project Name Description Short-Term (Y2024 - Y2030) 61 University Drive Corridor Study from western City limits to Gilbert Road Corridor is expected to operate at LOS E/F by 2030 and beyond. Widening the corridor to add additional travel lanes is not feasible without significant ROW takes. Conduct a corridor evaluation study to identify specific operational (signal timing and infrastructure), widening (segments and intersections), safety improvements, and access management strategies to address roadway congestion on University Drive. The study should also evaluate and recommend multimodal improvements along the corridor. 62 Country Club Drive Corridor Study from southern City limits to University Drive Corridor is expected to operate at LOS E/F by 2030 and beyond. Widening the corridor to add additional travel lanes is not feasible without significant ROW takes. Conduct a corridor evaluation study to identify specific operational (signal timing and infrastructure), widening (segments and intersections), safety improvements, and access management strategies to address roadway congestion. The study should also evaluate and recommend multimodal improvements along the corridor. 63 Mesa Drive Corridor Study from Baseline Road to Main Street Corridor is expected to operate at LOS E/F by 2030 and beyond. Widening the corridor to add additional travel lanes is not feasible without significant ROW takes. Conduct a corridor evaluation study to identify specific operational (signal timing and infrastructure), widening (segments and intersections), safety improvements, and access management strategies to address roadway congestion. The study should also evaluate and recommend multimodal improvements along the corridor. 116 US 60 Corridor – Interchanges and Cross-street Improvements Study from Dobson Road to Power Road Most traffic interchanges are expected to continue operating at LOS E/F into the future without improvements. Widening the cross-streets to add additional travel lanes may not be feasible at most interchanges. Conduct a corridor evaluation study to identify specific operational (signal timing and infrastructure), widening (segments and intersections), safety improvements, and access management strategies to address roadway congestion. The study should also evaluate and recommend improvements to address any barriers to multimodal travel along the corridor. Close coordination with MAG and ADOT would be needed. Mesa Transportation Master Plan 103 Recommended Safety and Intersection Improvement Needs Analysis and recommendations from the recently completed “Long-Range Analysis and Prioritization of Select Intersections” study and safety analysis performed as part of the TMP served as the primary basis for the intersection capacity and intersection safety need recommendations. Existing conditions report identified high-injury intersections in the City using an EPDO score methodology. Needs include: • Conducting comprehensive corridor safety studies to determine elements that pose a safety concern on the existing roadway and to identify mitigation measures to improve safety. • Conducting intersection evaluation studies to assess the need for additional turn lanes or traffic control enhancements. • Constructing safety and intersection improvements, including signage, marking, adding lighting, and constructing grade separated railroad crossings. The City of Mesa is in the process of preparing a Citywide Safety Action Plan. It is anticipated that the preliminary safety recommendations identified in this section will be further evaluated and refined as part of the Safety Action Plan. Recommended Intersection Improvements Needs Table 5-5 and Figure 5-2 illustrate recommended intersection improvement needs. The ID number merely serves as an identification number to track the project/need going forward. It does not represent an implementation priority. Where applicable, needs are also tagged with appropriate CIP number. TABLE 5-5: RECOMMENDED INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT NEEDS ID Location Description Short-Term (Y2024 to Y2030) 64 Stapley Drive and University Drive Intersection Construct an additional left turn lane and right turn lane in all directions to reduce traffic congestion at this intersection. This project has been identified as a Regional Transportation Plan project. CIP #CP05041 65 Country Club Drive and University Drive Intersection Construct intersection improvements to reduce traffic congestion and improve safety. CIP #CP0028 68 Germann Road and Sossaman Road Intersection Study Participate in a design concept report to evaluate the traffic impacts of the intersection of Germann and Sossaman Road. IGA with MCDOT & Queen Creek. CIP #CP1098. Study is being conducted by Town of Queen Creek and no funds will be committed to construction from Mesa. 69 Southern Avenue and Country Club Drive Intersection Conduct project assessment to identify and implement intersection capacity and safety improvements. CIP #CP0844 70 Pecos Road and Sossaman Road Intersection Conduct project assessment to identify and implement intersection capacity improvements 72 Brown Road and Gilbert Road Conduct project assessment to identify and implement intersection capacity and safety improvements 73 Baseline Road and Gilbert Road Conduct project assessment to identify and implement intersection capacity and safety improvements 75 University Drive and Lindsay Road Intersection Conduct project assessment to identify and implement intersection capacity and safety improvements 82 Germann Road and Ellsworth Road Intersection Conduct project assessment to identify and implement intersection capacity and safety improvements 94 Pecos Road (S) and Ellsworth Road Intersection Conduct project assessment to identify and implement intersection capacity improvements 107 Pecos Road (N) and Ellsworth Road Intersection Conduct project assessment to identify and implement intersection capacity improvements 104 Mesa Transportation Master Plan FIGURE 5-2 . RECOMMENDED INTERSECTION NEEDS Mesa Transportation Master Plan 105 TABLE 5-5: RECOMMENDED INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT NEEDS (CONTINUED) ID Location Description Mid-Term (Y2031 to Y2035) 89 Baseline Road and Country Club Drive Intersection Conduct project assessment to identify and implement intersection capacity improvements 90 Southern Avenue and Gilbert Road Intersection Conduct project assessment to identify and implement intersection capacity improvements 91 McKellips Road and Country Club Drive Intersection Conduct project assessment to identify and implement intersection capacity improvements Long-Term (Y2036 to Y2050) 93 Ray Road (S) and Ellsworth Road Intersection Conduct project assessment to identify and implement intersection capacity improvements 95 Ray Road and Hawes Road Intersection Conduct project assessment to identify and implement intersection capacity improvements 96 Warner Road and Ellsworth Road Intersection Conduct project assessment to identify and implement intersection capacity improvements 97 Guadalupe Road and Sossaman Road Intersection Conduct project assessment to identify and implement intersection capacity improvements 98 Baseline Road and Extension Road Intersection Conduct project assessment to identify and implement intersection capacity improvements 99 University Drive and Greenfield Road Intersection Conduct project assessment to identify and implement intersection capacity improvements 100 Brown Road and Val Vista Drive Intersection Conduct project assessment to identify and implement intersection capacity improvements 101 Guadalupe Road and Ellsworth Road Intersection Conduct project assessment to identify and implement intersection capacity improvements 102 Baseline Road and Signal Butte Road Intersection Conduct project assessment to identify and implement intersection capacity improvements 103 Southern Avenue and Signal Butte Road Intersection Conduct project assessment to identify and implement intersection capacity improvements 104 McKellips Road and Mesa Drive Intersection Conduct project assessment to identify and implement intersection capacity improvements 105 Southern Avenue and Crismon Road Intersection Conduct project assessment to identify and implement intersection capacity improvements 106 Juanita Avenue and Greenfield Road Intersection Conduct project assessment to identify and implement intersection capacity improvements 106 Mesa Transportation Master Plan Recommended Safety Improvement Needs Table 5-6 and Figure 5-3 illustrate recommended intersection safety improvement needs identified in the Mesa Today Existing Conditions Report. The ID number merely serves as an identification number to track the project/need going forward. It does not represent an implementation priority. TABLE 5-6: RECOMMENDED SAFETY IMPROVEMENT NEEDS ID Location Short-Term (Y2024 to Y2030) Description 25 Dobson Road: Southern Avenue to 8th Avenue Identified as a high-injury segment. Further evaluate segment as part of the City of Mesa Safety Action Plan to determine and implement appropriate safety improvements. 26 Mesa Drive: Brown Road to McKellips Road Identified as a high-injury segment. Further evaluate segment as part of the City of Mesa Safety Action Plan to determine and implement appropriate safety improvements. 27 Dobson Road: Broadway Road to Main Street Identified as a high-injury segment. Further evaluate segment as part of the City of Mesa Safety Action Plan to determine and implement appropriate safety improvements. 28 McKellips Road: Country Club Drive to Center Street Identified as a high-injury segment. Further evaluate segment as part of the City of Mesa Safety Action Plan to determine and implement appropriate safety improvements. 71 University Drive and Mesa Drive Intersection Conduct project assessment to identify and implement intersection safety improvements 74 Rio Salado Parkway and Dobson Road Intersection Conduct project assessment to identify and implement intersection safety improvements 76 Broadway Road and Lindsay Road Intersection Conduct project assessment to identify and implement intersection safety improvements 77 Baseline Road and Crismon Road Intersection Conduct project assessment to identify and implement intersection safety improvements 78 Hampton Avenue and Power Road Intersection Conduct project assessment to identify and implement intersection safety improvements 79 Brown Road and Mesa Drive Intersection Conduct project assessment to identify and implement intersection safety improvements 80 Juanita Avenue and Country Club Drive Intersection Conduct project assessment to identify and implement intersection safety improvements 81 Iron Avenue and Country Club Drive Intersection Conduct project assessment to identify and implement intersection safety improvements 108 Guadalupe Road and Power Road Identified as a high-injury intersection. Further evaluate intersection as part of the City of Mesa Safety Action Plan to determine and implement appropriate safety improvements. Mid-Term (Y2031 to Y2035) 29 University Drive: Greenfield Road to Higley Road Identified as a high-injury segment. Further evaluate segment as part of the City of Mesa Safety Action Plan to determine and implement appropriate safety improvements. 30 Southern Avenue: Val Vista Road to 32nd Street Identified as a high-injury segment. Further evaluate segment as part of the City of Mesa Safety Action Plan to determine and implement appropriate safety improvements. 31 Broadway Road: Dobson Road to Roosevelt Road Identified as a high-injury segment. Further evaluate segment as part of the City of Mesa Safety Action Plan to determine and implement appropriate safety improvements. 32 Southern Avenue: Horne Street to Stapley Drive Identified as a high-injury segment. Further evaluate segment as part of the City of Mesa Safety Action Plan to determine and implement appropriate safety improvements. 33 Higley Road: Broadway Road to Main Street Identified as a high-injury segment. Further evaluate segment as part of the City of Mesa Safety Action Plan to determine and implement appropriate safety improvements. The evaluation should also incorporate review of the Broadway Road and Higley Road and Main Street and Higley Road intersections 84 Brown Road and Lindsay Road Intersection Conduct project assessment to identify and implement intersection safety improvements Mesa Transportation Master Plan 107 TABLE 5-6: RECOMMENDED SAFETY IMPROVEMENT NEEDS (CONTINUED) ID Location Description Mid-Term (Y2031 to Y2035) 85 Ray Road and Sossaman Road Intersection Conduct project assessment to identify and implement intersection safety improvements 86 Rio Salado Parkway and Alma School Road Intersection Conduct project assessment to identify and implement intersection safety improvements 87 Baseline Road and Ellsworth Road Intersection Conduct project assessment to identify and implement intersection safety improvements 88 University Drive and Higley Road Intersection Conduct project assessment to identify and implement intersection safety improvements 92 Brown Road and Center Street Intersection Conduct project assessment to identify and implement intersection safety improvements 109 Greenfield Road and Southern Avenue Identified as a high-injury intersection. Further evaluate intersection as part of the City of Mesa Safety Action Plan to determine and implement appropriate safety improvements. 110 Broadway Road and Mesa Drive Identified as a high-injury intersection. Further evaluate intersection as part of the City of Mesa Safety Action Plan to determine and implement appropriate safety improvements. 111 Higley Road and McKellips Road Identified as a high-injury intersection. Further evaluate intersection as part of the City of Mesa Safety Action Plan to determine and implement appropriate safety improvements. 112 Alma School Road and Main Street Identified as a high-injury intersection. Further evaluate intersection as part of the City of Mesa Safety Action Plan to determine and implement appropriate safety improvements. 113 Greenfield Road and Main Street Identified as a high-injury intersection. Further evaluate intersection as part of the City of Mesa Safety Action Plan to determine and implement appropriate safety improvements. 115 Broadway Road and Dobson Road Identified as a high-injury intersection. Further evaluate intersection as part of the City of Mesa Safety Action Plan to determine and implement appropriate safety improvements. 108 Mesa Transportation Master Plan FIGURE 5-3 RECOMMENDED SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS Mesa Transportation Master Plan 109 CITYWIDE MULTIMODAL NEEDS Mesa recognizes the need for developing a complete network of multimodal facilities and a policy framework for prioritizing and implementing bicycle and pedestrian projects. The following section outlines recommended multimodal improvement needs. These needs include: • Shared-use path and crossing needs. • Pedestrian improvements that close sidewalk gaps, improve pedestrian crossing, and expand the pedestrian network. • Bicycle improvements which include adding on-street bicycle facilities. It is important to recognize that these recommendations represent the needs only and are not projects. Each need should go through the traditional project development process – detailed project planning, public and stakeholder outreach, project development/preliminary engineering, funding identification, Council approval, project programming, and design; followed by construction. In addition, projects should incorporate facilities for safe equestrian use when appropriate. Recommended Shared Use Path Network Needs The recommended shared use path network creates a complete network connecting local and regional destinations and providing multimodal options across the City. By addressing crossing and infrastructure gaps in the existing Mesa Shared Use Path Network first, the City can see immediate benefits because the network is already in use. People who are using these paths today will immediately be able to travel further and to more locations, and new people may choose to use them due to increased comfort and connectivity. These paths can also provide comfortable spaces for runners, cyclists, and equestrians within Mesa and to the larger regional path network. Recommended needs are illustrated in Figure 5-4 and Table 5-7. Short-term recommendations include programmed projects currently within Mesa’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP). Develop New Connections Once the existing network is complete, the City can focus on providing new connections to key destinations. This will open the network up to a wider range of potential users and provide new transportation options in locations where people want to go. In working with neighboring communities, ADOT, and MAG, the City has an opportunity to create a network that provides a seamless connection between communities. Access Inventory The first step in building out the complete Shared Use Path Network is determining right-of-way, maintenance agreements, and ownership of potential paths, as Mesa does not own canal banks. It is recommended that the City conduct a full inventory and analysis to identify ownership, lease agreements, right-ofway availability, and access issues of all multi-use path segments and crossings. Within the Lehi area, additional considerations should be given to equestrian usage and needs. TABLE 5-7: RECOMMENDED SHARED USE PATH NETWORK NEEDS ID Location ID Location P 1* South Canal Lehi Crossing: McDowell Road to Val Vista Dr and Loop 202 (or north of Loop 202), CIP #CP672 (Canal owned by Bureau of Reclamation) P3 Lehi Crossing: McDowell Road to Val Vista Road, CIP #CP0990CAP P2 Eastern Canal: Brown Road to Broadway Road, CIP #CP1060 and CIP #CP0673 (Canal owned by Bureau of Reclamation) P4 US 60: Consolidated Canal to the Eastern Canal, CIP #CP1180 (right-of-way owned by ADOT) Short-Term (In Mesa’s CIP) 110 Mesa Transportation Master Plan TABLE 5-7: RECOMMENDED SHARED USE PATH NETWORK NEEDS (CONTINUED) ID Location ID Location P 5* Tempe Canal: University Drive to Rio Salado Parkway, (Canal owned by Bureau of Reclamation) P8 Loop 202: Power Road to Brown Road CIP #CP0732 (Right-of-way owned by ADOT) P 6* Loop 202: Higley Road to Lehi Crossing Shared Use Path, CIP #CP0674 (Rightof-way owned by ADOT) P9 Power Road: Park and Ride to Northern City Limit, CIP #CP0733 P7 Eastern Canal: Broadway Road to Baseline Road, CIP #CP0730CAP (Canal owned by Bureau of Reclamation) P 10 Loop 202 (Santan): Power Road to Hawes Road, CIP #CP1178 (Right-of-way owned by ADOT) Short-Term (In Mesa’s CIP) Long-Term P 11 Eastern Canal Trail: McKellips Road to Lindsay Road, (Canal owned by Bureau of Reclamation) P 28 South Canal: Loop 202 to Granite Reef Dam (Canal owned by Bureau of Reclamation) P 12 US 60: Gilbert Road to Consolidated Canal (Right-of-way owned by ADOT) P 29 SR 24: Hawes Road to Ellsworth (Right-of-way owned by ADOT) P 13 US 60: Country Club Drive to Gilbert Road (Right-of-way owned by ADOT) P 31 RWCD: Broadway Road to Southern Avenue (Canal owned by RWCD) P 14 Loop 202: University Drive to Southern Avenue (Right-of-way owned by ADOT) P 32 RWCD: Ray Road to Williams Field Road (Canal owned by RWCD) P 16 CAP Canal: Main Street to Southern Avenue (Canal owned by CAP. Main Street to Broadway Road is in Unincorporated Maricopa County) P 33 RWCD: Southern Avenue to Baseline Road (Canal owned by RWCD) P 17 US 60: Recker Road to Loop 202 (Right-of-way owned by ADOT) P 34* Eastern Canal Trail: McKellips Road to McDowell Road (Canal owned by Bureau of Reclamation.) P 18 RWCD Canal: Brown Road to Broadway Road (Canals owned by RWCD and FCDMC. Shared use path is partially improved on east side of FCDMC) P 35 US 60: Eastern Canal to Recker Road (Right-of-way owned by ADOT) P 36 Marlborough Mesa Park: Peralta Avenue to Sun Circle Trail P 19 Loop 202: Brown Road to University Drive (Right-of-way owned by ADOT) P 20 Loop 202: Baseline Road to US 60 (Right-of-way owned by ADOT) P 37* South Canal: Lehi Crossing to McKellips Road (Canal owned by Bureau of Reclamation) P 21 Greenbelt SRP Powerline Easement: Power Road to Val Vista Drive P 38 RWCD: Brown Road to South Canal (Canal owned by RWCD) P 22 Greenbelt: Gilbert Road to Val Vista Drive P 39 Tempe Canal: Rio Salado Parkway to Alma School Road (Canal owned by Bureau of Reclamation) P 23 Powerline Easement: Ellsworth Road to Signal Butte Road (easement privately owned and owned by FCDMC and RWCD) P 40 Tempe Canal: 8th Avenue to US 60 (Canal owned by Bureau of Reclamation) P 24 Powerline Easement: Power Road to Ellsworth Road (easement privately owned) P 41 SR 24 SUP: Ellsworth to Eastern City Limit (Right-of-way owned by ADOT) P 25 Loop 202: Southern Avenue to US 60 (Right-of-way owned by ADOT) P 42 RWCD: Power Road and Ray Road (Canal owned by RWCD. Improvements on east side of channel would be led by Flood Control District of Maricopa County) P 26 CAP Canal: Loop 202 to Main Street (Canal owned by CAP. Located in Unincorporated Maricopa County) P 43 Thomas Road/Higley Road to South Canal (land owned by Arizona State Land Department) P 27 US 60: Western City Limit to Country Club Drive (Right-of-way owned by ADOT) P 44 Tempe Canal: East bank from Broadway Road to 8th Avenue * Projects should incorporate facilities for safe equestrian use where appropriate. Equestrian Design Guidebook for Trails, Trailheads, and Campgrounds https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/recreational_trails/publications/fs_publications/07232816/index.cfm may be utilized during the design phase to accommodate equestrians. Mesa Transportation Master Plan 111 PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 112 Mesa Transportation Master Plan FIGURE 5-4 SHARED-USE PATH NETWORK NEEDS Mesa Transportation Master Plan 113 Recommended Pedestrian Improvement Needs To provide a connected pedestrian network that serves people for transportation and recreation purposes, a connected and comfortable network of sidewalks, pedestrian pathways, and street crossings is necessary. Combined with Mesa’s extensive existing pedestrian network, the identified pedestrian projects/needs create a more robust, connected, and comfortable walking network in Mesa. Many of the needs identified in this section can be incorporated in regular roadway maintenance activities. Sidewalk Gaps on Collectors and Arterials Sporadic corridor and business development has caused small gaps in the existing pedestrian network, which creates a barrier to pedestrian travel. Filling in these gaps, has the potential to link thousands of people to jobs and provide choices for convenient travel by foot. Table 5-8 and Figure 5-5 illustrate recommended sidewalk improvements. The Mesa American Disability Act (ADA) Transition Plan includes a detailed inventory and ADA assessment of sidewalks, bus stops, and curb ramps along arterial and collector streets. TABLE 5-8: RECOMMENDED SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENT NEEDS ID Location ID Location Fill-in Sidewalk Gaps S1 Warner Road from the RWCD canal to Ellsworth Road S 18 Southern Avenue: CAP Canal to Eastern City Limits (MCDOT Maintained) S2 Williams Field Road: Ellsworth Road to Eastern City Limits S 19 Sossaman Road: Main Street to Guadalupe Road S3 Ellsworth Road: Southern City Limits to South of Guadalupe Road S 20 Signal Butte: Jenson Road to Apache Trail (MCDOT Maintained) S4 Signal Butte Road: Southern City Limits to Ray Road S 21 Brown Road: 99th Street to Eastern City Limits (MCDOT Maintained) S5 Mountain Road: Ray Road to Pecos Road (portion MCDOT Maintained) S 22 Adobe Road: SR 202 to Eastern City Limits (portion MCDOT Maintained) S6 Pecos Road: Ellsworth Road to Eastern City Limits S 23 University Drive: Power Road to Eastern City Limits (portion MCDOT Maintained) S7 Elliot Road: Power Road to Ellsworth Road (portion MCDOT Maintained) S 24 96th Street: Brown Road to Southern Avenue (MCDOT Maintained) S8 Sossaman Road: Warner Road to Just south of Peralta Avenue (portion MCDOT Maintained) S 25 Baseline Road: Power Road to Eastern City Limits S9 Ray Road: Mesa Dexcom Driveway to Ellsworth Road S 26 72nd Street: Southern Avenue to Main Street S 10 Pecos Road: Ellsworth Road to Power Road S 27 Pueblo Road: Power Road to Sossamon Road S 11 Sossaman Road: Germann Road to North of PIRATE Rail Line S 28 Hawes Road: Main Street to Southern Ave S 12 Hawes Road: Ray Road to Peralta Ave S 35 Jensen Street: Crismon Road to Signal Butte Road (MCDOT Maintained) S 13 Ellsworth Road: Adobe Road to Baseline Road (MCDOT Maintained) S 36 McLellan Road: 101st Street to Signal Butte Road (MCDOT Maintained) S 14 Crismon Road: McKellips Road to Broadway Road (MCDOT Maintained) S 37 McLellan Road: Ellsworth Road to 96th Street (portion MCDOT Maintained) S 15 Apache Trail: Sossaman Road to Eastern City Limits (ADOT/MCDOT Maintained) S 38 80th Street: University Drive to Broadway Road (portion MCDOT Maintained) S 16 Mountain Road: University Drive to Sunland Avenue (MCDOT Maintained) S 39 Glenmar Road: Main Street to Broadway Road S 17 Broadway Road: Eastern City Limits to Hawes Road (portion MCDOT Maintained) S 40 McKellips Road: 77th Place to Crismon Road (portion MCDOT Maintained) 114 Mesa Transportation Master Plan TABLE 5-8: RECOMMENDED SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENT NEEDS (CONTINUED) ID Location ID Location Fill-in Sidewalk Gaps S 41 McKellips Road: 76th Street to The Montelena Fenceline S 49 Recker Road: Broadway Road to Albany Street S 42 64th Street: Hermosa Vista Drive to McKellips Road S 50 64th Street: Billings Street to Main Street S 43 64th Street: Princess Drive to McLellan Road S 51 University Drive: Higley Road to Power Road (MCDOT Maintained) S 44 76th Street: McKellips Road to End (portion MCDOT Maintained) S 52 80th Street: Paloma Avenue to Elliot Road S 45 McDowell Road: 76th Street to Hawes Road (MCDOT Maintained) S 53 Lehi Road/Thomas Road: Val Vista Drive to South Canal S 46 Hawes Road: Ranger Rider Trail to Hermosa Vista Drive (MCDOT Maintained) S 54 McKellips Road: Val Vista Drive to Higley Road S 47 Greenfield Road: McDowell Road to Hobart Street S 60 Higley Road: Thomas Road to Longbow Parkway S 48 Higley Road: Longbow Parkway to McKellips Road Upgrade or Enhance Existing Facilities S 30 Meridian Road: Baseline Road to Brown Road (portion MCDOT Maintained) S 55 Grove Avenue: Alma School road to Extension Road S 31 Mountain Road: Cholla Road to University Drive (MCDOT Maintained) S 56 8th Avenue: Country Club Drive to Alma School Road S 32 Merrill Road: Apache Trail to Adobe Road (MCDOT Maintained) S 57 Dobson Road: Main Street to SR 202 S 33 Signal Butte Road: Broadway Road to 4th Avenue (MCDOT Maintained) S 58 1st Place: Dobson Road to Sycamore Street S 34 Pueblo Avenue: Hawes Road to 96th Street (MCDOT Maintained) S 59 2nd Street: 2nd Street to Extension Road Sidewalk Gaps and Extensions on Local Roads As illustrated in Figure 5-5, there are numerous local roads that currently do not have a sidewalk present. Many of these sidewalk gaps are due to development patterns, locations in unincorporated Maricopa County that cannot independently be addressed by the City of Mesa, and the desire of residents. Going forward, Mesa should assess the need and desire for sidewalks on these local streets and strategically fill-in gaps as needed. Mesa Transportation Master Plan 115 PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 116 Mesa Transportation Master Plan FIGURE 5-5 SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENT NEEDS Mesa Transportation Master Plan 117 Recommended Bicycle Improvement Needs People who ride bicycles vary in their physical abilities, experience levels, and comfort level riding adjacent to motor vehicles. The identified bicycle network needs include gaps in the current network that may limit a person’s ability to bike to their destination. In addition, opportunities to expand Mesa’s bicycle network and create regional transportation routes were also identified. Many of the needs identified are on low-speed, low-volume neighborhood streets that may only require bike route designation to provide a welcoming environment for bicycling. Addressing all identified needs creates a robust bicycle network that provides a more comfortable riding experience for experienced bicyclists, and low-stress options for children and those not as confident riding a bike. Recommended Bicycle Gaps and Extensions A bicycle network is only as strong as its weakest link. Gaps in the bike network are intermittent facilities that are usually a result of inconsistent corridor development and standards, roadway designs governed by physical constraints, and right-of-way issues. Table 5-9 and Figure 5-6 illustrate recommended bicycle needs in the following categories: • Create Slow Streets with Traffic Calming – To provide a low stress route for bicyclists, incorporating traffic calming elements along these corridors with low posted speed limits and traffic volumes helps maintain and create a more comfortable experience for people of all ages and abilities to bike on. • New Bicycle Facilities – These roadways currently do not have any existing bicycle facilities. Adding new biking infrastructure on these corridors will either expand Mesa’s bicycle network or fill-in critical gaps. New bike facilities could be as simple as new bike routes, standard or buffered bike lanes, or separated bike lanes depending on the roadway and neighborhood context defined by the Street Typologies. TABLE 5-9: RECOMMENDED NEW BICYCLE FACILITY NEEDS ID Location ID Location Create Slow Streets with Traffic Calming B1 Everton Terrace/Crismon Road: Ray Road to Powerline Easement B6 Pima Road: Hampton Avenue to Southern Avenue B2 1st Place / Auburn / 2nd Street from Tempe Canal to Extension Road B7 Hampton Avenue: Horne to Pima Road B3 McLellan Road: 48th Street to Higley Road B8 Hobson: Holmes Avenue to 2nd Avenue B4 Grand: University Drive to Brown Road B9 Peralta Avenue: Extension Road to Marlborough Mesa Park B5 2nd Avenue, Lesueur, 1st Avenue: Hobson to Mesa Drive New Bicycle Facilities B 10 Dobson Road: Bass Pro Drive to SR 202 B 17 Southern Avenue: Horne to Stapley Drive B 11 Broadway Road: Gilbert Road to Western City Limits B 18 University Drive: Mesa Drive to Stapley Drive B 12 Stapley Drive: Pueblo/8th Avenue to 8th Street B 19 Mesa Drive: Broadway Road to Southern Avenue B 13 Dobson Road: Main Street to 1st Street B 20 Mesa Drive: Hampton Avenue to Southern City Limits B 14 Mesa Drive: Broadway Road to University Drive B 21 Stapley Drive: Hilton Avenue to 8th Avenue B 15 University Drive: Higley Road to Power Road (MCDOT Maintained) B 22 Power Road: University Drive to Baseline Road B 16 Mountain Road: Ray Road to SR 24 (partially MCDOT Maintained) B 23 Southern Avenue from Superstition Springs Road to Clearview Avenue 118 Mesa Transportation Master Plan TABLE 5-9: RECOMMENDED NEW BICYCLE FACILITY NEEDS (CONTINUED) ID Location ID Location B 24 Southern Avenue: Hawes Road to Loop 202 B 38 96th Street: Hampton Avenue to Brown Road B 25 Crimson Road: US 60 to Hampton Avenue B 39 Main Street: Consolidated Canal to Power Road B 26 Brown Road: 96th Street to Signal Butte Road B 40 Main Street: Gilbert Road to Consolidated Canal B 27 Hawes Road: Saddleback Street to Hermosa Vista Drive B 41 Main Street: Power Road to Sossaman Road B 28 Las Sendas Mountain Drive: Eagle Crest Drive to Hawes Road B 42 Main Street: Sossaman Road to Ellsworth Road New Bicycle Facilities B 29 Alma School Road: US 60 to Baseline Road B 43 Dobson Road: Broadway Road to 8th Avenue B 30 Hawes Road: Loop 202 to Powerline Easement B 44 Dobson Road: Guadalupe Road to 8th Avenue B 31 Eastmark Parkway: Elliot Road to Existing Eastmark Parkway End B 45 1st Avenue: Mesa Drive to Hibbert Street B 32 Williams Field Road: SR 24 to Ellsworth Road B 46 University Drive: Extension Road to Robson B 33 Signal Butte Road: University Drive to Apache Trail (partially MCDOT Maintained) B 47 Center Street: Lehi Road to McKellips Road B 34 McLellan Road: Power Road to Sterling Road B 48 Apache Trail: Ellsworth Road to Eastern City Limits (MCDOT Maintained) B 36 Signal Butte Road: Usery Mountain Park to University Drive (MCDOT Maintained) B 51 Ellsworth Road: University Drive to Baseline Road (partially MCDOT Maintained) B 37 Hampton Avenue: 96th Street to Crimson Road B 52 Signal Butte Road: Apache Trail to US 60 (partially MCDOT Maintained) Mesa Transportation Master Plan 119 FIGURE 5-6. RECOMMENDED NEW BICYCLE FACILITY NEEDS 120 Mesa Transportation Master Plan Recommended Upgrades to Existing Bicycle Facilities To make the bicycle network a viable transportation option for people of all ages and abilities, the bike facility needs by each corridor unique roadway conditions. Bike Level of Traffic Stress or Bike LOS considers roadway conditions such as existing bicycle facilities, number of lanes, and posted or observed speeds to rate whether a roadway is stressful to people biking. In general, providing more separation between people riding bicycles and people driving motor vehicles is necessary to improve comfort levels, especially on corridors with higher speeds and volumes. Roadways that have existing bicycle facilities but were still deemed to have a “high stress” Bike LOS score as a potential segment to upgrade including many existing bicycle facilities on arterials and collectors. Potential upgrades should be evaluated against Street Typologies developed by the TMP to determine if existing facilities are adequately designed to provide a safe environment for people biking to access jobs, services, and commercial centers. Recommended needs are illustrated in Table 5-10 and Figure 5-7 and are broken down by the following categories: • Adding Traffic Calming Measures – These segments currently have bicycle facilities, but wide roads or high observed speeds and volumes may not be comfortable for people riding on biking along them. Incorporating traffic calming measures can help to achieve a more comfortable ride for cyclists of all ages and abilities. • Evaluate for Potential Upgrades – Corridors currently have bicycle facilities but may benefit from upgraded buffered or protected bicycle facilities to create a more comfortable riding experience. For instance, a current bike route may need to be upgraded to a bike lane or a buffered bike lane may need to be upgraded to a separated lane to be comfortable for cyclists. Evaluation should consider roadway and neighborhood context and be selected using the Street Typologies. TABLE 5-10: RECOMMENDED BICYCLE UPGRADES ID Location ID Location Adding Traffic Calming Measures B 49 8th Avenue: Lindsay Road to Stapley Drive B 51 Hobson Street: 2nd Street to Main Street B 50 1st Street: Country Club Drive to Mesa Drive B 93 Heather Drive: McLellan Drive to Alma School Road Evaluate for Potential Upgrades B 52 24th Street: Southern Road to Broadway Road B 58 Baseline Road: Superstition Springs Road to Loop 202 SUP B 53 24th Street: Southern City Limit to Southern Avenue B 59 Broadway Road: 56th Street to Higley Road B 54 32nd Street from McDowell Road to McKellips Road B 60 Center Street: McKellips Road to Southern Avenue CIP #CP0988 B 55 Alma School Road: Proposed Shared Use Path to Southern Avenue B 61 Clearview Avenue: Southern Avenue to Superstition Springs Boulevard B 56 Alma School Road: Heather Drive to Bass Pro Drive B 62 Elliot Road: Signal Butte Road to Mountain Road B 57 Alta Mesa Drive: Adobe Road to McKellips Road B 63 Ellsworth Road: Baseline Road to Southern City Limit Mesa Transportation Master Plan 121 TABLE 5-10: RECOMMENDED BICYCLE UPGRADES (CONTINUED) ID Location ID Location Evaluate for Potential Upgrades B 64 Extension Road: University Drive to Western Canal B 79 Power Road: University Drive to Loop 202 B 65 Guadalupe Road: Springwood Boulevard to Power Road B 80 Ridgecrest / Eagle Crest Drive: McDowell Road to Power Road B 66 Guadalupe Road: Western City Limit to Country Club Drive B 81 Rio Salado Parkway: Date to Western City Limits B 67 Hampton Avenue: Signal Butte Road to Crimson Road B 82 Signal Butte Road: US 60 to Elliot Road B 68 Harris Drive: Southern City Limit to 8th Avenue B 83 Southern Avenue: Country Club Drive to Center Street B 69 Higley Road: Thomas Road to Loop 202 Overpass B 84 Southern Avenue: Alma School Road to Country Club Drive B 70 Higley Road: Baseline Road to Loop 202 B 85 Southern Avenue: 54th Street to Superstition Springs Boulevard B 71 Horne: Baseline Road to McKellips Road B 86 Stapley Drive: Southern City Limit to Harmony / Hilton Avenue B 72 Lindsay Road: Southern City Limit to McDowell Road B 87 Superstition Springs Boulevard from Southern Avenue to 72nd Street B 73 Longmore: Linder Avenue to Pueblo Avenue B 88 Thomas Road: Higley Road to Power Road B 74 Main Street: Mesa Drive to Gilbert Road B 89 B 75 McDowell Road: Ellsworth Road to Loop 202/Gilbert Traffic Interchange B 90 Warner Road: Ellsworth Road to Mountain Road Westwood / Holmes Avenue: Southern Avenue to Alma School Road B 76 McLellan Road: Center Street to Heather Drive B 91 Longbow Parkway: Recker Road to Higley Road B 77 Mesa Drive: University Drive to Brown Road B 92 Recker Road: Thomas Road to Longbow Parkway B 78 Mountain Road: Elliot Road to Ray Road B 93 Ellsworth Road: McDowell Road to University Drive 122 Mesa Transportation Master Plan FIGURE 5-7 . RECOMMENDED UPGRADES TO EXISTING BICYCLE FACILITIES Mesa Transportation Master Plan 123 Recommended Crossing Improvements Evaluations Several locations have been identified that may benefit from pedestrian and bicycle crossing facilities. Potential crossing facilities typically include high visibility crosswalks and/or crossing aids such as a Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (PHB) or traffic signals. As needed, there may also be scenarios where an overpass or underpass provides the greatest level of connectivity due to roadway conditions. Table 5-11 and Figure 5-8 illustrate recommended crossing improvements. TABLE 5-11: RECOMMENDED CROSSING IMPROVEMENT NEEDS ID Name Description Low Stress Crossings Assessment These crossings represent where high stress roadways are either multi-lane, high speed, or do not have bike facilities that are comfortable for cyclists. The lack of crossings on roads that are lower stress for people biking, such as slow streets, can create high-stress crossings. To complete the bicycle and pedestrian network, safe and comfortable crossings are needed to improve connectivity. It is recommended to perform an engineering evaluation at identified Low Stress Crossings locations to determine the need and feasibility of upgrading the intersections/crossings to incorporate signalization, bike detection, or other crossing treatments. Mesa Shared Use Paths Crossings Assessment As Mesa constructs more shared use paths a study should be conducted to identify crossing locations that may warrant signalization. The study should evaluate crossings located where a future shared use path meets or intersects with a roadway and should limit the interruption to people walking and biking as much as feasible. It is recommended to perform an engineering evaluation at identified locations to determine the need and feasibility for incorporating signalization, bike detection, enhanced crossing treatments, or install an overpass or underpass. Intersection Pedestrian and Bicycle Crossing Assessment These intersections have signalization but are particularly high stress to people biking and where two existing or future bike facilities may cross through. These intersections currently may not have bike facilities that follow through the intersection, have bike specific signalization, do not facilitate comfortable left-turn movements for people biking, or have turn pockets that merge people biking with drivers turning right. Perform an engineering evaluation to determine crossing needs at existing signalized and unsignalized intersections that may currently create barriers to connectivity due to high volumes, high speeds, or limited infrastructure. Example Location In addition to the identified needs, all intersections along the complete bike network should be review and analyzed to determine potential improvements to enhance pedestrian and bicycle safety and connectivity, including: • Bike box at a signalized intersection that provides bicyclists • Bicycle detection to alert the signal controller of bicycle with a safe and visible way to get ahead of queuing traffic crossing demand on a particular approach. during the red signal phase. • Increased phasing time for pedestrians and bicycles. • Bicycle pavement markings through intersections indicate • Protected intersections that give a dedicated path for the intended path of bicyclists through an intersection or pedestrians and/or cyclists through the intersection. across a driveway or ramp. • Curb extensions to enhance pedestrian safety by increasing pedestrian visibility, shortening crossing distances, slowing turning vehicles, and visually narrowing the roadway. 124 Mesa Transportation Master Plan FIGURE 5-8. FUTURE MULTIMODAL CROSSING AND INTERSECTION NEEDS Mesa Transportation Master Plan 125 PUBLIC TRANSIT NEEDS Developed in conjunction with the Transportation Master Plan and the General Plan, the Mesa Transit Master Plan analyzed Mesa’s rapidly developing landscape and reexamined existing transit recommendations to: • Improve internal circulation • Provide new regional service connections • Enhance service offerings • Serve new residential and employment centers The following presents key recommendations and findings from the Mesa Transit Master Plan. Service Option Recommendations Based on existing service levels and future transit demands, a series of transit service concepts to improve service in Mesa were developed. The transit service concepts were designed to meet the current and future community needs and priorities identified through the study, as well as regional service standards. As illustrated in Figure 5-9 recommended transit service options include: • Route Modifications and Extensions: Includes route extensions and reroutes to connect new areas • Service Improvements: Increases in peak weekday and weekend frequencies to meet current and future needs • New route alignments: To serve additional Mesa communities • Emerging Markets: Microtransit zones or circulator areas for neighborhood-level transit • New Routes: Streetcar extension; future light rail and high-capacity transit (HCT) for long-term needs Information on routing, service levels and time scale for these service recommendations are provided in detail in the Mesa Transit Master Plan. To understand the phasing of the recommendations, the Transit Master Plan used the criteria illustrated on the right to prioritize needs in the short-, mid-, and long-term horizons. By overlaying Mesa’s Complete Networks (located in Chapter 3) with these recommended improvements planners, designers, and decision-makers can make important investment and design decisions to prioritize transit efficiency and first-last mile connectivity. 126 Mesa Transportation Master Plan FIGURE 5-9. RECOMMENDED TRANSIT SERVICE NEEDS Mesa Transportation Master Plan 127 Recommended Transit Crossing Needs Transit users often rely on different travel modes to get to and from their bus stop - like walking, using an e-scooter, bicycle, wheelchair, or a skateboard, among other modes. The distance to and from a transit stop to your destination is referred to as the “first and last mile,” although distances, of course, are different for every person. The TMP identified existing public transit stops that have limited connectivity and crossing opportunities, creating a barrier to transit. Solutions to these barriers can be achieved by providing safe, efficient, and comfortable access to transit facilities, such as installing pedestrian and bicycle crossings. Table 5-12 and Figure 5-10 illustrate recommended crossing needs at existing public transit stops. Criteria used to determine crossing locations included average daily boardings at the bus stop, pedestrian and bicycle crashes and fatalities, nearest crossing distance, traffic volume levels, and street width. Tier 1 crossings are locations that should be evaluated in the short-term based on high transit ridership, long crossing distance, and roadway characteristics. TABLE 5-12: RECOMMENDED TRANSIT CROSSING NEEDS Stop ID Tier 1 Crossing Needs 5957 Southern Avenue/Solomon 8969 Main Street /54th Street 695 Southern Avenue /Spur 5451 Broadway Road /Barkley 153 Broadway Road /Hunt Drive 8977 Main Street /65th Street 6776 Main Street /Date Tier 2 Crossing Needs Stop Location Stop ID Stop Location 8961 3442 8893 7099 6063 820 Main Street/Norfolk Mesa Drive/Franklin Avenue Power Road/Redfield Road University Drive/Date University Drive /Hibbert University Drive /Hobson 9587 8th Street /Center Street 9138 Power Road/Melrose Street 8963 Main Street/Quinn Drive 687 Southern Avenue /54th Stree 124 Broadway Road/Acacia 692 Southern Avenue /Chestnut 4492 Center Street /8th Place 703 Southern Avenue /Hobson 3348 Dobson Rd/Hallcraft Villas 727 Southern Avenue /Los Alamos 4614 Gilbert Road/Main Street 726 Southern Avenue /Roanoke 2898 Gilbert Rd/University Drive 5954 Southern Avenue /Rose 8958 Main Street /38th Street 5914 Southern Avenue/Somerset 8960 Main Street /40th Street 3106 Stapley Drive /McLellan Road 8978 Main Street /66th Street 826 University Drive /22nd Place 1473 Main Street /Beverly 821 University Drive /4th Avenue 8952 Main Street /Lindsay Drive 6103 University Drive /Creston 8959 Main Street /Sulleys Drive 839 University Drive /Hunt Drive 8953 Main Street /Val Vista Drive 842 University Drive /Los Alamos 8950 Main Street /Winsor 817 University Drive /Maple 5183 Mesa Drive /Marilyn 6073 University Drive /Norfolk 8888 Power Road/Kiowa Avenue 128 Mesa Transportation Master Plan FIGURE 5-10. RECOMMENDED TRANSIT STOP CROSSING NEEDS Mesa Transportation Master Plan 129 ADDITIONAL PROJECTS AND STUDIES In addition to the needs identified in this chapter, additional studies and projects are recommended to continue planning for short-, mid-, and long-term transportation needs in Mesa, including: City of Mesa Active Transportation Plan Building on the TMP's complete networks and City’s existing Bike Master Plan, develop an Active Transportation Plan that identifies specific projects and policies and design guidance for implementing active transportation facilities throughout the City. Urban Street Design Guide Develop a comprehensive Urban Street Design Guide customized for the City of Mesa's street conditions that builds on the street typologies guidance prepared as part of the TMP and the Complete Streets policy adopted by the City. Electric Vehicle (EV) Readiness Plan Create an EV Infrastructure deployment plan customized for the City of Mesa. The plan should build off MAG and ADOT's recently developed EV readiness plans and utilize available guidance from national and peer agencies. Transportation Systems Management and Operations (TSMO) Plan In recent years, the City of Mesa has started implementing newer TSMO related technologies. Create a more formalized TSMO plan that considers state-of-the-practice and peer agencies experience to develop comprehensive strategies, needs, and priority actions to implement and advance TSMO at the City. Mobility Hubs Plan and Pilot Programs Mobility hubs are places where transit and other shared mobility services, amenities, and supporting technology converge to offer a seamless travel experience. It is recommended that the City complete a Mobility Hub Plan that outlines the potential location and design of mobility hubs throughout the City. Following the Plan’s completion, a pilot program can be conducted to introduce the concept of mobility hubs to the public and help inform a long-term approach to implementing a larger mobility hub network. Shared Use Path Management Plan Conduct an inventory and analysis of all shared use paths to identify ownership, lease agreements, right-of-way availability, and access issues of all shared use path segments and crossings. Consider establishing a Shared Use Path Management Program that develops standards for maintenance responsibilities, path usage, and guidelines and processes to upgrade existing shared use paths. 130 Mesa Transportation Master Plan Mesa Transportation Master Plan 131 WHAT IS A TRAVEL SHED? Travel sheds are geographic sub areas with similar socioeconomic, land use, and travel characteristics where residents and visitors who have similar transportation needs reside. Within each travel shed there are streets and multimodal facilities to help move people and goods. By analyzing travel sheds, the Mesa TMP creates strategies for the physical and operational improvements and investments necessary to meet Mesa’s unique mobility needs while preserving Mesa’s neighborhoods and communities. Figure 6-1 illustrates Mesa’s unique travel sheds. How were Mesa’s Travel Sheds Defined? The development of each travel shed was a multi-step process that overlaid the following data items to determine the geographic trends and ultimately the extent of each travel shed. • Socioeconomics: 2021 5-year American Community Survey census block data was used to identify geographic trends of: o Population and housing unit densities o Seasonal population trends o Concentrations of underserved population groups, including people of color; families residing below the poverty level; elderly; children, and households without access to a vehicle • Land Use Characteristics: General Plan’s existing and future land use designations, coupled with General Plan’s future growth strategies, were used to understand spatial trends in the current and future land use growth and changes. • Physical Features and Natural Barriers: Features such as canals, freeways, and mountain ranges also helped define the boundaries of the travel sheds. • Mobility Trends: Replica is a software that incorporates anonymized data from a variety of sources like the US Census Bureau, mobile location data, land use, economic activity, and others to create a model of how, when, and where people travel. Replica data provided critical insight into mobility trends and characteristics across Mesa, including: • o Modal split o Average travel distances and times o Origins and Destinations City of Mesa Staff Input: Preliminary travel shed boundaries were reviewed and refined based on additional feedback from City staff. This process identified 11 travel sheds, as illustrated in Figure 6-1. Following Figure 6-1 are multi-page spreads detailing recommended needs within each travel shed. On figures, unincorporated Maricopa County land is illustrated in a light background. 132 Mesa Transportation Master Plan FIGURE 6-1. Travel Sheds Mesa Transportation Master Plan 133 DOWNTOWN MESA Travel Shed # 1 Incorporating Mesa’s vibrant downtown, the Downtown Mesa Travel Shed is the heart of the City. Home to a dense mix of dining, retail, nightlife, arts and culture, residential and employment centers, the Downtown Mesa Travel Shed is a hot bed of activity. TRAVEL SHED CHARACTERISTICS AND NEEDS Anticipated Boom in Population and Employment Growth Both population and employment density are expected to increase by over 20% by 2050. WHO LIVES AND WORKS HERE? 7,529 31,308 3,275 Population Heavy Pedestrian and Bicycling Demand The Travel Shed has one of the highest percentages of people walking and biking. The current bike network, however, is largely un-separated facilities that may not be comfortable for most. In addition, there are numerous gaps in the pedestrian and bicycle network that cause barriers to access. 101,875 A Hub for Public Transit With the regional light rail system, numerous bus routes, and a potential new streetcar extension, Downtown Mesa is the City’s hub to local and regional transit services. Dense, Urban Form Anticipated to Grow and Transform Adding to the complexity of the travel shed is the fact that most of the land in the Downtown Travel Shed was largely designated as an area of growth and transformation by the 2050 Mesa General Plan. Safety Concerns The Travel Shed includes 1/3 of Mesa’s high injury network segments and 13 of the 30 high injury intersections. Four of the segments and three of the intersections are in the top ten worst segments and intersections. 134 per sq mi Employees BY 205O employees/sq mi 22% population increase 42% employment increase 8% elderly population EQUITY Land use / Growth Strategy 19% families below poverty 11% no vehicle households HOW ARE PEOPLE TRAVELING THE CURRENT SYSTEM AT A GLANCE* 490 lane miles 28% arterials 64% locals 42 miles of bike facilities 146 signalized 85% Drive 12% Walk 1% Bike Travel Time All Trips 20.3 minutes Work Trips 23.6 minutes <1% Transit <1% Other Travel Distance 8.7 miles 11.3 miles intersections 341 bus stops *Numbers are approximations and may include facilities overlapping with adjacent travel sheds. Mesa Transportation Master Plan DOWNTOWN MESA Travel Shed # 1 WHAT HAVE WE HEARD? • Safety concerns, caused by speeding vehicles or unsafe connections to transit, is a concern for residents. • Desire to develop Main Street and Downtown Mesa into a vibrant space that integrates placemaking, additional pedestrian and bicycle facilities and amenities; supports high frequency transit; and increases green spaces. • Enhance public transit access to major regional centers and increase connectivity between the light rail and major bus routes. • Increase comfort and connectivity of the bike network, including connecting paths to Riverview Park, along Main Street, and along the Tempe Canal. • Add bike lanes and shared-use paths along Main Street and the Tempe Canal. Prioritize protected bike lanes on arterials and on wide roads with high vehicle speeds. • Increase comfortability by providing shade, adding amenities, and increasing crossing times at signals in areas with heavy pedestrian and bicycle traffic. What Investments Do Residents Want to See? Improvements to reduce vehicle congestion Pedestrian and bicycle safety improvements More sidewalks and bike lanes What Trade-Offs Do Residents Prefer? Meeting Capacity Needs Increase Capacity with More Lanes Increase Capacity with Technology or Other Modes Public Transit Expanding Service What Goals Are Most Important? Manage and Maintain Increasing Frequency WHAT DOES THE TRAVEL SHED NEED TO ADDRESS CURRENT AND FUTURE MOBILITY NEEDS? To address current and future mobility needs, it is imperative that the Downtown Mesa Travel Shed focus on: Addressing safety and congestion concerns in a developing area Creating ways for people to get to and through the Travel Shed efficiently and safely Incorporating transit supportive street design and first-last mile connections Increasing the comfort and connectivity of walking and biking facilities Bicycle Facilities Less Expensive Bike Lanes Connections and Choices Safety First More Expensive Protected Facilities Neutral 135 DOWNTOWN MESA Roadway Improvement Needs 136 Mesa Transportation Master Plan DOWNTOWN MESA Roadway Improvement Needs ID Project Location Short-Term Improvement Needs Need Type 6 Mesa Drive: Main Street to McKellips Road Widening 7 Broadway Road: Lesueur to Spur Widening 8 Southern Avenue & Country Club Drive Roadways Reconstruction 15 Stapley Drive: University Drive to McKellips Road Reconstruction 16 Broadway Road: Stapley Drive to Gilbert Road Reconstruction 18 24 26 27 64 Stapley Drive: Main Street to University Drive Broadway Road: Country Club to Mesa Drive Mesa Drive: Brown Road to McKellips Road Dobson Road: Broadway Road to Main Street Reconstruction Widening Complete improvements along the Mesa Drive Corridor tying into the newly improved Mesa Drive to the south. Add additional lanes at intersections to increase capacity and enhance safety. Improve the mobilization characteristics for pedestrians, bicyclists, transit and vehicular traffic along Mesa Drive. Identified in MAG's RSTIIP. Main Street to Brown Road segment is CIP # CP0664. Add additional lanes at the intersection of Broadway/Stapley to increase capacity and enhance safety; replace pavement; accommodate bike lanes and pedestrian sidewalks. CIP # CP0666, construction anticipated to commence in 2024. Reconstruct two major arterials where pavement is failing. The two segments are Southern Avenue; Alma School Road to Center Street and Country Club Drive; US 60 to 1st Avenue. CIP # CP0844 Reconstruct arterial street segments that are at the end of their life cycle and can no longer be maintained by conventional means. Concurrent work will include upgrades to any concrete ramps, driveways and sidewalks to current ADA standards. Utilize street typology guidelines to reconfigure roadway to possibly accommodate appropriate biking and walking facilities. CIP # CP1089 Reconstruct arterial street segments that are at the end of their life cycle and can no longer be maintained by conventional means. Concurrent work will include upgrades to any concrete ramps, driveways and sidewalks to current ADA standards. Utilize street typology guidelines to reconfigure roadway to possibly accommodate appropriate biking and walking facilities. CIP # CP1090 Reconstruct arterial street segments that are at the end of their life cycle and can no longer be maintained by conventional means. Concurrent work will include upgrades to any concrete ramps, driveways and sidewalks to current ADA standards. CIP # CP1092 Construct lane extensions around the intersections and various roadway improvements from Country Club to Mesa Drive. Safety Identified as a high-injury segment. Evaluate in the City of Mesa Safety Action Plan to determine appropriate safety improvements. Safety Identified as a high-injury segment. Evaluate in the City of Mesa Safety Action Plan to determine appropriate safety improvements. Stapley Drive and University Drive Intersection 65 Country Club Drive and University Drive 71 University Drive and Mesa Drive 74 Rio Salado Parkway and Dobson Road 79 Brown Road and Mesa Drive Intersection Mid-Term Improvement Needs Broadway Road: Dobson Road to 31 Roosevelt Road Southern Avenue: Horne Street to Stapley 32 Drive 86 Rio Salado Parkway and Alma School Road 90 Southern Avenue and Gilbert Road 92 Brown Road and Center Street Intersection 110 Broadway Road and Mesa Drive 112 Alma School Road and Main Street 115 Broadway Road and Dobson Road Long-Term Improvement Needs Broadway Road: Country Club Drive to 34 Alma School Road 55 Alma School Road and UPRR Railroad 56 Dobson Road and UPRR Railroad Broadway Road and UPRR Railroad at 57 Center Street 58 Southern Avenue and UPRR Railroad Intersection Safety Safety Safety Mesa Transportation Master Plan Description Safety Construct an additional left turn lane and right turn lane in all directions to reduce traffic congestion at this intersection. This project has been identified as a Regional Transportation Plan project. CIP #CP05041 Construct intersection improvements to reduce traffic congestion and improve safety. CIP # CP0028 Conduct project assessment to identify and implement intersection safety improvements Conduct project assessment to identify and implement intersection safety improvements Conduct project assessment to identify and implement intersection safety improvements Identified as a high-injury segment. Evaluate in the City of Mesa Safety Action Plan to determine appropriate safety improvements Safety Identified as a high-injury segment. Evaluate in the City of Mesa Safety Action Plan to determine appropriate safety improvements. Safety Intersection Safety Safety Safety Safety Conduct project assessment to identify and implement intersection safety improvements Conduct project assessment to identify and implement intersection capacity improvements Conduct project assessment to identify and implement intersection safety improvements Identified as a high-injury segment. Evaluate in the City of Mesa Safety Action Plan to determine appropriate safety improvements Identified as a high-injury segment. Evaluate in the City of Mesa Safety Action Plan to determine appropriate safety improvements Identified as a high-injury segment. Evaluate in the City of Mesa Safety Action Plan to determine appropriate safety improvements Reconstruction Reconstruct roadway. Crossing Crossing Grade-separated crossing over UPRR railroad Grade-separated crossing over UPRR railroad Crossing Grade-separated crossing over UPRR railroad Crossing Grade-separated crossing over UPRR railroad 137 DOWNTOWN MESA Multimodal Travel Needs 138 Mesa Transportation Master Plan DOWNTOWN MESA Multimodal Travel Needs Upgrade or Enhance Existing Sidewalk S 56 8th Avenue: Country Club Drive to Alma School Road Bicycle Facility Need B 11 Broadway Road: Gilbert Road to Western City Limits S 57 Dobson Road: Main Street to SR 202 B 12 Stapley Drive: Pueblo/8th Avenue to 8th Street S 58 1st Place: Dobson Road to Sycamore Street B 13 Dobson Road: Main Street to 1st Street S 59 2nd Street: 2nd Street to Extension Road B 14 Mesa Drive: Broadway Road to University Drive B 17 Southern Avenue: Horne to Stapley Drive B 18 University Drive: Mesa Drive to Stapley Drive B 19 Mesa Drive: Broadway Road to Southern Avenue B 21 Stapley Drive: Hilton Avenue to 8th Avenue B 43 Dobson Road: Broadway Road to 8th Avenue B 45 1st Avenue: Mesa Drive to Hibbert Street B 46 University Drive: Extension Road to Robson Shared Use Path Need Tempe Canal: University Drive to Rio Salado Parkway, (Canal owned by P5 Bureau of Reclamation) P 44 Tempe Canal: East bank from Broadway Road to 8th Avenue Slow Streets with Traffic Calming B2 1st Place / Auburn / 2nd Street from Tempe Canal to Extension Road B4 Grand: University Drive to Brown Road B5 2nd Avenue, Lesueur, 1st Avenue: Hobson to Mesa Drive B8 Hobson: Holmes Avenue to 2nd Avenue Evaluate for Potential Upgrade B 60 Center Street: McKellips Road to Southern Avenue B 64 Extension Road: University Drive to Western Canal B 68 Harris Drive: South City Limit to 8th Avenue B 71 Horne: Baseline Road to McKellips Road B 74 Main Street: Mesa Drive to Gilbert Road B 77 Mesa Drive: University Drive to Brown Road B 81 Rio Salado Parkway: Date to West City Limits B 83 Southern Avenue: Country Club Drive to Center Street Enhance Street with Traffic Calming Mesa Transportation Master Plan B 49 8th Avenue: Lindsay Road to Stapley Drive B 50 1st Street: Country Club Drive to Mesa Drive B 51 Hobson Street: 2nd Street to Main Street 139 US 60 Corridor Travel Shed # 2 The US 60 Corridor serves as a vital economic artery, facilitating access to jobs and freight connections crucial for local industries and retail sectors. However, it also accommodates low-density residential areas, parks, and schools, necessitating a balance between diverse land use and transportation needs. TRAVEL SHED CHARACTERISTICS AND NEEDS Growth in a High Traffic Area Anticipated population (23% growth) and employment growth (26% growth) along the US 60 corridor will increase demand in an already congested area. Land use / Growth Strategy WHO LIVES AND WORKS HERE? 3,527 45,572 3,738 Population Travel Time and Access to Jobs and Regional Destinations Optimizing traffic on arterials and US 60 interchanges is imperative to efficient and safe travel to those commuting to work, school, or shopping. Additionally, increased transit access to major employment destinations within the travel shed is needed to meet the growing needs of employees and businesses. 50,729 Employees BY 205O Freight Access is Essential Ensuring freight access along arterials and at intersections is paramount for sustaining the flow of goods in and out of Mesa. Safety Concerns The Travel Shed includes 4 of Mesa’s high injury network segments, including Southern Avenue, Power Road, and Gilbert Road. The Travel Shed also has the second highest number of crashes resulting in an injury in the City. 140 employees/sq mi 23% population increase 26% employment increase 14% elderly population EQUITY 7% families below poverty 4% no vehicle households Opportunities to Reconnect Residents Despite its focus on cars, 7% of residents residing in the corridor opt for walking, likely due to the proximity of commercial services, schools, and parks. Additionally, US 60 acts as a barrier to other modes of transportation as pedestrians and cyclists have few comfortable places to cross the freeway. per sq mi HOW ARE PEOPLE TRAVELING THE CURRENT SYSTEM AT A GLANCE* 446 lane miles 49% arterials 24% locals 41 miles of bike facilities 102 signalized 90% Drive 7% Walk <1% Bike Travel Time All Trips 20.6 minutes Work Trips 25.9 minutes <1% Transit 1.1% Other Travel Distance 10.7 miles 16.5 miles intersections 86 bus stops *Numbers are approximations and may include facilities overlapping with adjacent travel sheds. Mesa Transportation Master Plan US 60 Corridor Travel Shed 2: Travel Shed # 2 US 60 Corridor WHAT HAVE WE HEARD? • Safety concerns at major intersections, interchanges, and along major roadways is a concern for residents. • Reducing turning movement conflicts at driveways and intersections. • Desire to expand public transportation to increase access to jobs and regional destinations, especially on the far eastern portion of the travel shed. • Increase comfort and connectivity of the bike network, including connecting paths along the RWCD Canal and Consolidated Canal and providing low-stress connections across US 60 to Gilbert and regional trails. • Incorporate protected bike facilities to improve comfort. What Investments Do Residents Want to See? Improvements to reduce vehicle congestion Improvements to enhance safety for travel by vehicles Expand public transit service What Goals Are Most Important? Manage and Maintain Connections and Choices To address current and future mobility needs, it is imperative that the US 60 Corridor Travel Shed focus on: Optimizing traffic operations to move traffic more efficiently What Trade-Offs Do Residents Prefer? Meeting Capacity Needs Increase Capacity with More Lanes Increase Capacity with Technology or Other Modes Public Transit Expanding Service Safety improvements to minimize conflicts at intersections/driveways and between vehicles and other modes Integrating multimodal and public transit improvements to increase local and regional access Reduce barriers for pedestrians and bicyclists Increasing Frequency Bicycle Facilities WHAT DOES THE TRAVEL SHED NEED TO ADDRESS CURRENT AND FUTURE MOBILITY NEEDS? Less Expensive Bike Lanes More Expensive Protected Facilities Safety First Neutral 141 US 60 Corridor Roadway Improvement Needs 142 Mesa Transportation Master Plan US 60 Corridor Roadway Improvement Needs ID Project Location Short-Term Improvement Needs Need Type Description Improve Val Vista Drive between Pueblo Avenue and US 60. Widen road from US 60 to Enid Avenue to six-lanes; reconstruct pavement; add raised medians; add bike lanes and other improvements. CIP # CP0062, construction anticipated to commence in 2024. 5 Val Vista Drive: Pueblo Avenue to US 60 Widening 8 Southern Avenue & Country Club Drive Roadways Reconstruction 19 Southern Avenue: Gilbert to west of Val Vista Drive Reconstruction 36 Ellsworth Road: US 60 to Baseline Road Widening Country Club Drive Corridor Study from southern City limits to University Drive Mesa Drive Corridor Study from Baseline 63 Road to Main Drive 69 Southern Avenue and Country Club Drive 73 Baseline Road and Gilbert Road 77 Baseline Road and Crismon Road 78 Hampton Avenue and Power Road 80 Juanita Avenue and Country Club Drive 81 Iron Avenue and Country Club Drive US 60 Corridor – Interchanges and Crossstreet Improvements Study from Dobson 116 Road to Power Road Mid-Term Improvement Needs Southern Avenue: Val Vista Road to 32nd 30 Street Southern Avenue: Horne Street to Stapley 32 Drive 62 37 Hawes Road: Baseline Road to Elliot Road Corridor Study Corridor Study Intersection Intersection Safety Safety Safety Safety Corridor Study Safety Safety Widening 87 89 90 Southern Avenue: Sossaman Road to Meridian Road Baseline Road and Ellsworth Road Baseline Road and Country Club Drive Southern Avenue and Gilbert Road Safety Intersection Intersection 109 Greenfield Road and Southern Avenue Safety 44 Long-Term Improvement Needs Signal Butte Road: Germann Road to 42 Broadway Road Baseline Road: 72nd Street to east of 46 Crismon Road 58 Southern Avenue and UPRR Railroad 59 Baseline Road and UPRR Railroad 98 Baseline Road and Extension Road 102 Baseline Road and Signal Butte Road 103 Southern Avenue and Signal Butte Road 105 Southern Avenue and Crismon Road 106 Juanita Avenue and Greenfield Road Mesa Transportation Master Plan Widening Widening Widening Crossing Crossing Intersection Intersection Intersection Intersection Intersection Reconstruct two major arterials where pavement is failing. The two segments are Southern Avenue; Alma School Road to Center Street and Country Club Drive; US 60 to 1st Avenue. CIP # CP0844 Reconstruct arterial street segments that are at the end of their life cycle and can no longer be maintained by conventional means. Concurrent work will include upgrades to any concrete ramps, driveways and sidewalks to current ADA standards. CIP # CP1093, construction anticipated to commence in 2024. Widen roadway to six-lanes. Utilize street typology guidelines to reconfigure roadway to possibly accommodate appropriate biking and walking facilities. This need could be addressed as adjacent development occurs. Identified in MAG's RSTIIP Conduct a corridor evaluation study to identify specific operational (signal timing and infrastructure), widening (segments and intersections), safety improvements, and access management strategies to address roadway congestion. Conduct a corridor evaluation study to identify specific operational (signal timing and infrastructure), widening (segments and intersections), safety improvements, and access management strategies to address roadway congestion. Conduct project assessment to identify and implement intersection capacity and safety improvements Conduct project assessment to identify and implement intersection capacity and safety improvements Conduct project assessment to identify and implement intersection safety improvements Conduct project assessment to identify and implement intersection safety improvements Conduct project assessment to identify and implement intersection safety improvements Conduct project assessment to identify and implement intersection safety improvements Conduct a corridor evaluation study to identify specific operational (signal timing and infrastructure), widening (segments and intersections), safety improvements, and access management strategies to address roadway congestion. The study should also evaluate and recommend improvements to address any barriers to multimodal travel along the corridor. Close coordination with MAG and ADOT would be needed. Identified as a high-injury segment. Evaluate in the City of Mesa Safety Action Plan to determine appropriate safety improvements. Identified as a high-injury segment. Evaluate in the City of Mesa Safety Action Plan to determine appropriate safety improvements. Widen roadway to six-lanes. Utilize street typology guidelines to reconfigure roadway to possibly accommodate appropriate biking and walking facilities. This need could be addressed as adjacent development occurs. Identified in MAG's RSTIIP Widen roadway to consistent six-lane configuration from Sossaman Road to Crismon Road and four-lanes from Crismon Road to Meridian Road. This need could be addressed as adjacent development occurs. Conduct project assessment to identify and implement intersection safety improvements Conduct project assessment to identify and implement intersection capacity improvements Conduct project assessment to identify and implement intersection capacity improvements Identified as a high-injury segment. Evaluate in the City of Mesa Safety Action Plan to determine appropriate safety improvements. Widen roadway to consistent six-lane configuration to address scalloped street conditions along the corridor. This need could be addressed as adjacent development occurs. Identified in MAG's RSTIIP. Widen roadway to consistent six-lane configuration. Utilize street typology guidelines to reconfigure roadway to possibly accommodate appropriate biking and walking facilities. Grade-separated crossing over UPRR railroad Grade-separated crossing over UPRR railroad Conduct project assessment to identify and implement intersection capacity improvements Conduct project assessment to identify and implement intersection capacity improvements Conduct project assessment to identify and implement intersection capacity improvements Conduct project assessment to identify and implement intersection capacity improvements Conduct project assessment to identify and implement intersection capacity improvements 143 US 60 Corridor Multimodal Travel Needs 144 Mesa Transportation Master Plan US 60 Corridor Multimodal Travel Needs Fill-in Sidewalk Gap S 13 Ellsworth Road: Adobe Road to Baseline Road (MCDOT Maintained) S 19 Sossaman Road: Main Street to Guadalupe Road S 25 Baseline Road: Power Road to Eastern City Limits Upgrade or Enhance Existing Sidewalk S 30 Meridian Road: Baseline Road to Brown Road (portion MCDOT Maintained) Shared Use Path Need P4 US 60: Consolidated Canal to the Eastern Canal, CIP #P1180 (Right-ofway owned by ADOT) P7 Eastern Canal: Broadway Road to Baseline Road, CIP #CP0730CAP (Canal owned by Bureau of Reclamation) P 12 US 60: Gilbert Road to Consolidated Canal (Right-of-way owned by ADOT) P 13 US 60: Country Club Drive to Gilbert Road (Right-of-way owned by ADOT) P 16 CAP Canal: Main Street to Southern Avenue (Canal owned by CAP) P 17 US 60: Recker Road to Loop 202 (Right-of-way owned by ADOT) P 20 Loop 202: Baseline Road to US 60 (Right-of-way owned by ADOT) P 31 RWCD: Broadway Road to Southern Avenue (Canal owned by RWCD) P 33 RWCD: Southern Avenue to Baseline Road (Canal owned by RWCD) P 35 US 60: Eastern Canal to Recker Road (Right-of-way owned by ADOT) Mesa Transportation Master Plan Slow Streets with Traffic Calming S6 Pima Road: Hampton Avenue to Southern Avenue S7 Hampton Avenue: Horne to Pima Road S8 Hobson: Holmes Avenue to 2nd Avenue Bicycle Facility Need B 20 Mesa Drive: Hampton Avenue to South City Limits B 21 Stapley Drive: Hilton Avenue to 8th Avenue B 22 Power Road: Main Street to Baseline Road B 25 Crimson Road: US 60 to Hampton Avenue B 37 Hampton Avenue: 96th Street to Crimson Road B 38 96th Street: Hampton Avenue to Brown Road Ellsworth Road: University Drive to Baseline Road (partially MCDOT Maintained) Signal Butte Road: Apache Trail to US 60 (partially MCDOT Maintained) B 51 B 52 Evaluate for Potential Upgrade B 53 24th Street: South City Limit to Southern Avenue B 58 Baseline Road: Superstition Springs Road to Loop 202 SUP B 61 Clearview Avenue: Southern Avenue to Superstition Springs Boulevard B 63 Ellsworth Road: Baseline Road to Southern City Limit B 67 Hampton Avenue: Signal Butte Road to Crimson Road B 68 Harris Drive: South City Limit to 8th Avenue B 70 Higley Road: Baseline Road to Loop 202 B 71 Horne: Baseline Road to McKellips Road B 72 Lindsay Road: Southern City Limit to McDowell Road B 82 Signal Butte Road: US 60 to Elliot Road B 86 Stapley Drive: South City Limit to Harmony / Hilton Avenue B 87 Superstition Springs Boulevard from Southern Avenue to 72nd Street 145 Dobson Ranch Travel Shed # 3 Dominated by the Dobson Ranch master plan community, this travel shed is largely a mix of residential neighborhoods and a few key commercial and retail centers. Dobson Ranch has one of the highest walking and biking rates in the City, illustrating the need for multimodal connections to schools, parks, and key destinations. TRAVEL SHED CHARACTERISTICS AND NEEDS Low Growth Rates Combined with Built-Out Network As an established area, Dobson Rach is expected to have minor population and employment growth by 2050. However, significant growth in neighboring travel sheds and communities may impact local congestion and mobility. WHO LIVES AND WORKS HERE? Accessible Transit, but Low Ridership Despite having low transit ridership rates; Dobson Ranch residents have great transit coverage with transit routes along Baseline Road, Dobson Road, and Alma School Road. Safety Concerns on Major Corridors Dobson Road, the main north-south connector in Dobson Ranch, is part of the high injury network. Additionally, high speed and wide arterials like Alma School Road, Baseline Road, and Guadalupe Road, create barriers to multimodal access. 10,728 5,405 2,015 Population Residents Walk and Bike More Dobson Ranch residents are among those more likely to take trips by walking (11%) and biking (1%) and is among the top 3 travel sheds whose residents are least likely to drive (87%). This may be in part due to Dobson Ranch residents having to travel the least to get to work and for all trips. 32,234 per sq mi Employees BY 205O employees/sq mi 1% population increase 12% employment increase 14% elderly population EQUITY 4% families below poverty 3% no vehicle households HOW ARE PEOPLE TRAVELING THE CURRENT SYSTEM AT A GLANCE * 234 lane miles 27% arterials 61% locals 22 miles of bike facilities 34 signalized 87% Drive 11% Walk 1% Bike Travel Time 146 Land use / Growth Strategy All Trips 20.0 minutes Work Trips 21.3 minutes <1% Transit <1% Other Travel Distance 9.5 miles 11.8 miles intersections 65 bus stops *Numbers are approximations and may include facilities overlapping with adjacent travel sheds. Mesa Transportation Master Plan Dobson Travel ShedRanch 3: Travel DobsonShed Ranch# 3 WHAT HAVE WE HEARD? • Uncomfortable and unsafe crossing along major arterials, especially Dobson Road, when walking and biking. • Dobson Road is a desired walking and biking route, but current street configuration makes it uncomfortable for most. • Integrate increased pedestrian and bicycle protection and crossing times at major intersections. • Increase comfort and connectivity of the bike network, including providing protected bike facilities along major corridors. • Reduce turning movement conflicts at driveways and intersections. • Desire to expand public transportation, and trip frequency, to Downtown Mesa, the Light Rail, and Fiesta District • Incorporate protected bike facilities to improve comfort. What Investments Do Residents Want to See? Improvements to reduce vehicle congestion Improvements to enhance safety for travel by vehicles More sidewalks and bike lanes What Trade-Offs Do Residents Prefer? Meeting Capacity Needs Increase Capacity with More Lanes Increase Capacity with Technology or Other Modes Manage and Maintain Safety First Thrive and Prosper Rethinking street space to better accommodate people walking, biking, rolling, and riding transit Optimizing traffic operations to not only reduce congestion, but to better move people walking, biking, and riding transit Increasing Frequency Less Expensive Bike Lanes Expanding public transit to key regional destinations Expanding Service Bicycle Facilities To address current and future mobility needs, it is imperative that the Dobson Ranch Travel Shed focus on: Improving multimodal crossing and facilities to improve safety for people walking and biking to schools, parks, and neighborhood destinations Public Transit What Goals Are Most Important? WHAT DOES THE TRAVEL SHED NEED TO ADDRESS CURRENT AND FUTURE MOBILITY NEEDS? More Expensive Protected Facilities Neutral 147 Dobson Ranch Roadway Improvement Needs 148 Mesa Transportation Master Plan Dobson Ranch Roadway Improvement Needs ID Project Location Need Type Description Long Improvement Needs 98 Baseline Road and Extension Road Intersection Mesa Transportation Master Plan Intersection Conduct project assessment to identify and implement intersection capacity improvements 149 Dobson Ranch Multimodal Travel Needs 150 Mesa Transportation Master Plan Dobson Ranch Multimodal Travel Needs Shared Use Path Need P 36 Marlborough Mesa Park: Peralta Avenue to Sun Circle Trail Slow Streets with Traffic Calming B9 Peralta Avenue: Extension Road to Marlborough Mesa Park Evaluate for Potential Upgrade B 64 Extension Road: University Drive to Western Canal B 66 Guadalupe Road: Western City Limit to Country Club Drive B 73 Longmore: Linder Avenue to Pueblo Avenue Bicycle Facility Need B 29 Alma School Road: US 60 to Baseline Road B 44 Dobson Road: Guadalupe Road to 8th Street Mesa Transportation Master Plan 151 Riverview Travel Shed # 4 Home to the Sloan Park, Mesa Country Club, the Mesa Riverview Shopping Center, Bass Pro Shop shopping center and Rio Salado Shared Use Path, the Riverview travel shed could be considered the recreation, entertainment, and shopping epicenter of Mesa. Located adjacent to SR 202 and north of Downtown Mesa, the Riverview Travel Shed is currently made up of largely low-density residential but is poised to grow and transform. TRAVEL SHED CHARACTERISTICS AND NEEDS Anticipated Significant Growth and Transformation Anticipated population (21% growth) and employment growth (31% growth) will significantly increase congestion levels and mobility needs in the Travel Shed. WHO LIVES AND WORKS HERE? Strong Demand for Multimodal Access As one of the top three travel sheds for households with no vehicle (9%); leveraging alternative modes will be an important part of the Travel Shed’s growth plan. The Riverview Travel Shed also boasts the highest rate of biking with residents biking 1.5% of trips. This may be due to the density of high-quality bike infrastructure nearby and in the area including the Rio Salado Shared Use Path, Tempe Canal, and the protected bike lane along Date and Alma School Road 19,898 3,728 10,032 2,599 Population Equity Considerations are Critical The Riverview Travel Shed has one of the highest rates of residents below the poverty level (13%). Additionally, 9% of households do not have access to a vehicle. Low-cost transportation options and equity considerations will be a critical consideration as this area transforms. Opportunities to Expand and Enhance Public Transit Services As growth and development occurs, increase need for higher-frequency public transit routes to connect activity centers to Downtown Mesa and neighboring destinations may be warranted. Safety Concerns McKellips Road and the McKellips Road/Country Club Drive is part of the high injury network. In addition; most crashes in the Travel Shed occur on the wide, multilane corridors with high speeds and high vehicle volumes. 152 per sq mi Employees BY 205O employees/sq mi 21% population increase 31% employment increase 9% elderly population EQUITY Land use / Growth Strategy 13% families below poverty 9% no vehicle households HOW ARE PEOPLE TRAVELING THE CURRENT SYSTEM AT A GLANCE * 124 lane miles 31% arterials 58% locals 27 miles of bike facilities 28 signalized 88% Drive 8% Walk 1.5% Bike Travel Time All Trips 23.0 minutes Work Trips 24.7 minutes <1% Transit 1.4% Other Travel Distance 12.0 miles 13.9 miles intersections 44 bus stops *Numbers are approximations and may include facilities overlapping with adjacent travel sheds. Mesa Transportation Master Plan Riverview Travel Shed 4: Travel Shed # 4 Riverview WHAT HAVE WE HEARD? • Heavy congestion levels on major routes, especially Alma School Road and McKellips Road • Traffic calming on collectors and local streets are needed to improve safety, reduce vehicle speed, and minimize cut through traffic. • Integrate increased pedestrian and bicycle protection and crossing times along major corridors and at busy intersections. • Increase comfort and connectivity of the bike network, including extending the Rio Salado path along SR 202. • Reduce turning movement conflicts at driveways and intersections. • Desire to expand public transportation, and trip frequency, to Downtown Mesa, the Light Rail, and to Riverview Baseball Complex What Investments Do Residents Want to See? Improvements to reduce vehicle congestion More sidewalks and bike lanes Pedestrian and bicycle safety improvements What Trade-Offs Do Residents Prefer? Meeting Capacity Needs Increase Capacity with More Lanes Increase Capacity with Technology or Other Modes Public Transit Expanding Service What Goals Are Most Important? Safety First Connections and Choices Manage and Maintain Increasing Frequency Bicycle Facilities Less Expensive Bike Lanes WHAT DOES THE TRAVEL SHED NEED TO ADDRESS CURRENT AND FUTURE MOBILITY NEEDS? To address current and future mobility needs, it is imperative that the Riverview Travel Shed focus on: Optimize traffic operations to move traffic more efficiently Improve safety and integrate traffic calming measures especially on routes to schools, parks, and within residential areas Expand and upgrade the bike network throughout the Travel Sheds, especially on leading to Canal Trails. Improve crossings for bikes and pedestrians that minimize their wait times especially across major arterials More Expensive Protected Facilities Neutral Expand high-frequency transit routes connecting Riverview to light rail 153 Riverview Roadway Improvement Needs 154 Mesa Transportation Master Plan Riverview Roadway Improvement Needs ID Project Location Need Type Description Safety Identified as a high-injury segment. Further evaluate segment as part of the City of Mesa Safety Action Plan to determine and implement appropriate safety improvements. Safety Identified as a high-injury segment. Further evaluate segment as part of the City of Mesa Safety Action Plan to determine and implement appropriate safety improvements. Safety Conduct project assessment to identify and implement intersection safety improvements Safety Conduct project assessment to identify and implement intersection safety improvements Safety Conduct project assessment to identify and implement intersection capacity improvements Intersection Conduct project assessment to identify and implement intersection capacity improvements Safety Conduct project assessment to identify and implement intersection safety improvements Intersection Conduct project assessment to identify and implement intersection capacity improvements Short-Term Improvement Needs 26 Mesa Drive: Brown Road to McKellips Road McKellips Road: Country Club Drive to Center Street Rio Salado Parkway and Dobson Road Intersection 28 74 79 Brown Road and Mesa Drive Intersection Mid-Term Improvement Needs Rio Salado Parkway and Alma School Road Intersection McKellips Road and Country Club Drive Intersection 86 91 92 Brown Road and Center Street Intersection Long Improvement Needs 104 McKellips Road and Mesa Drive Intersection Mesa Transportation Master Plan 155 Riverview Multimodal Travel Needs 156 Mesa Transportation Master Plan Riverview Multimodal Travel Needs Upgrade or Enhance Existing Sidewalk S 57 Dobson Road: Main Street to SR 202 Shared Use Path Need P 39 Tempe Canal: Rio Salado Parkway to Alma School Road (Canal owned by Bureau of Reclamation) Evaluate for Potential Upgrade B 56 Alma School Road: Heather Drive to Bass Pro Drive B 60 Center Street: McKellips Road to 10th Avenue B 76 McLellan Road: Center Street to Heather Drive B 81 Rio Salado Parkway: Date to West City Limits Enhance Street with Traffic Calming Bicycle Facility Need B 10 Dobson Road: Bass Pro Drive to SR 202 B 47 Center Street: Lehi Road to McKellips Road CIP #CP0988 Mesa Transportation Master Plan B 93 Heather Drive: McLellan Road to Alma School Road 157 Southeast Mesa Travel Shed # 5 Southeast Mesa has some of the newest communities and industrial development in the City. Thus far, development has mimicked car-centric neighborhoods with low-density residential and big box stores along arterials. But as new residents and new businesses continue to flock to the area there is increased opportunity to develop differently. Land use / Growth Strategy TRAVEL SHED CHARACTERISTICS AND NEEDS Significant Population and Employment Growth With an expected 62% population growth and a 205% increase in employment opportunities by 2050, Southeast Mesa will grow the most of any travel shed – further putting demand and stress on the young transportation network. WHO LIVES AND WORKS HERE? 66,587 1,628 Smart Development Opportunities Population As an undeveloped area, land use and transportation patterns are not yet established. With this development there are numerous opportunities to work with developers to integrate quality street designs that improve safety and mobility for all modes, including enhanced pedestrian and bicycle facilities. 25,517 1,906 Regional and Freight Considerations per sq mi Employees BY 205O employees/sq mi 62% population increase 205% employment increase As commercial and industrial growth continues in the Travel Shed, transportation options need to be considered that provide direct and efficient routes to SR 24, SR 202, and the airport. The PECOS Industrial Rail Access and Trail Extension (PIRATE) proposed rail line will also provide freight train access to the southern portion further impacting traffic and multimodal connectivity. EQUITY Transit is Limited HOW ARE PEOPLE TRAVELING 17% elderly population 3% families below poverty 2% no vehicle households Numerous corridors are included in the High Injury Network, including portions of Ellsworth Road, Power Road, and Baseline Road. 158 891 lane miles 31% arterials 58% locals 69 miles of bike facilities With very limited transit, as development occurs public transit services may be warranted to provide much needed connections to major employers. Increasing Safety Concerns THE CURRENT SYSTEM AT A GLANCE 81 signalized 89% Drive 9% Walk 0.5% Bike Travel Time All Trips 23.7 minutes Work Trips 33.9 minutes 0% Transit 1.1% Other Travel Distance 12.9 miles 22.5 miles intersections 35 bus stops *Numbers are approximations and may include facilities overlapping with adjacent travel sheds. Mesa Transportation Master Plan Southeast Travel Shed 5: Mesa Travel Shed #5 Southeast Mesa WHAT HAVE WE HEARD? • Major safety concerns along Guadalupe Road, including at major intersections and unsignalized intersections. • Scalloped streets and unbuilt network impedes circulation and mobility. Desire to buildout street connections to improve traffic flows. • Improve traffic operations and explore opportunities to reduce cut through traffic and integrate roundabouts. • Concerns over freight movements in residential areas and along routes to schools. • Integrate increased pedestrian and bicycle protection and crossing times along major corridors and at busy intersections. • Increase comfort and connectivity of the bike network, including filling in gaps in the existing network and providing off-street facilities. • Maintenance concerns of roadway and bicycle facilities. What Investments Do Residents Want to See? Improvements to reduce vehicle congestion What Trade-Offs Do Residents Prefer? Meeting Capacity Needs Increase Capacity with More Lanes Improvements to enhance safety for travel by vehicles Expand public transit service Increase Capacity with Technology or Other Modes Public Transit Expanding Service What Goals Are Most Important? Manage and Maintain Increasing Frequency Bicycle Facilities Less Expensive Bike Lanes Safety First More Expensive Protected Facilities Connections and Choices Neutral WHAT DOES THE TRAVEL SHED NEED TO ADDRESS CURRENT AND FUTURE MOBILITY NEEDS? To address current and future mobility needs, it is imperative that the Southeast Mesa Travel Shed focus on: Complete the roadway network and invest in network efficiencies through innovative technology Address major safety concerns on highspeed corridors, at major intersections, and between truck traffic and other modes Define freight corridors and implement infrastructure, policies and regulations to reduce conflicts with other modes Fill in bike network gaps to connect local and regional destinations Expand the off-street bike and pedestrian network especially to provide safe routes to school and avoid street-grade crossings 159 Southeast Mesa Roadway Improvement Needs Pecos Industrial Rail Access and Train Extension (PIRATE) 160 Pecos Rd Mesa Transportation Master Plan ID Project Location Need Type Short-Term Improvement Needs Pecos Road Improvements: Ellsworth Road to Meridian 2 Widening Road 9 Ellsworth Road: southern City Limits to Ray Road Widening 10 Sossaman Road: Ray Road to Warner Road 11 Elliot Road: Ellsworth Road to Sossaman Road Widening 12 Ray Road connections at Ellsworth Road New Road 13 14 21 23 Williams Field Road: SR24 to Ellsworth Road Crismon Road Extension (1/2 mile south of Guadalupe) Sossaman Road: Velocity Way to South City Limits Mountain Road: SR24 to Pecos Road Widening New Road Widening Widening 41 Meridian Road: Ray Road to SR 24 New Road 54 60 68 70 77 82 94 107 108 Elliot Road RWCD Bridge Warner Road: Power Road to Sossaman Road Germann Road and Sossaman Road Pecos Road and Sossaman Road Baseline Road and Crismon Road Germann Road and Ellsworth Road Pecos Road (S) and Ellsworth Road Pecos Road (N) and Ellsworth Road Guadalupe Road and Power Road Crossing Crossing Intersection Intersection Safety Intersection Intersection Intersection Safety 117 Power Road: East Maricopa Floodway to SR202 Widening Mid-Term Improvement Needs Hawes Road/Ray Road intersection to Ellsworth 1 Road/Williams Field Road New Road New Road 35 Crismon Road: Williams Field Road to Germann Road New Road 37 Hawes Road: Baseline Road to Elliot Road Widening 40 Meridian Road: Baseline Road to Elliot Road New Road 48 Warner Road: Power Road to Eastmark Parkway Widening 49 Ray Road: East of Power Road to East of Hawes Road Widening 52 Hawes Road: Elliot Road to Ray Road Widening 53 Germann Road: Sossaman Road to Meridian Road Widening 85 87 Ray Road and Sossaman Road Baseline Road and Ellsworth Road Safety Safety 118 Eastmark Parkway: Elliot Road to Current Terminus Widening Long-Term Improvement Needs Pecos Road Widening: Ellsworth Road to Crismon 3 Road 4 Pecos Road Widening: Crismon Road to Meridian Road Widening Widening 42 Signal Butte Road: Germann Road to Broadway Road Widening 43 Sossaman Road: 1/2 mile south of Guadalupe Road to Warner Road Widening 46 Baseline Road: 72nd Street to east of Crismon Road Widening 47 Elliot Road: Power Road to Sossaman Road Widening 50 Ray Road: West of Mountain Road to Meridian Road Widening 51 Meridian Road: Elliot Road to Ray Road Widening 93 Ray Road (S) and Ellsworth Road 95 Ray Road and Hawes Road 96 Warner Road and Ellsworth Road 97 Guadalupe Road and Sossaman Road 101 Mesa Guadalupe Road and Ellsworth Transportation MasterRoad Plan 102 Baseline Road and Signal Butte Road Intersection Intersection Intersection Intersection Intersection Intersection Description Roadway work only on this segment of Pecos Road includes completing any sections including related drainage work that have not been completed by adjacent development at the time of development construction. CIP # C06040 Widen Ellsworth Road to full 6-lane cross-section with bike lanes. CIP # CP0969 Construct a 6-lane road including curb, gutter, lights and sidewalk to connect the two different Ray Road alignments at Ellsworth Road. CIP # CP0983, construction anticipated to commence in 2024. Construct 2.5 miles of a six-lane roadway on Elliot from Ellsworth Road to Sossaman Road. CIP # CP0982 Construct a 6-lane road including curb, gutter, lights and sidewalk to connect the two different Ray Road alignments at Ellsworth Road. CIP # CP0983, construction anticipated to commence in 2024. Construct Williams Field Road between Ellsworth Road and SR24 to a six-lane arterial cross section. CIP # CP1017 Build 1/2 Street Improvements - extending Crismon Road south 1,000 ft. CIP # CP1049 Build out to a four-lane cross section w/raised median from Velocity Way to Pecos Road, to be transitioned to striped median to the south. CIP # CP1133 Widen Road to a four-lane cross section with striped median. CIP # CP1136 Construct four-lane roadway. Utilize street typology guidelines to reconfigure roadway to possibly accommodate appropriate biking and walking facilities. This need could be addressed as adjacent development occurs. A portion of this project is located in Unincorporated Maricopa County and will require coordination with MCDOT. Elliot Road RWCD Bridge widening to a 6-lane cross section with raised median. Located approximately 1600 feet east of Power Road. New bridge crossing over RWCD and East Maricopa Floodway. Participate in a design concept report to evaluate the traffic impacts of the intersection of Germann and Sossaman Road. Conduct project assessment to identify and implement intersection capacity improvements Conduct project assessment to identify and implement intersection safety improvements Conduct project assessment to identify and implement intersection capacity and safety improvements Conduct project assessment to identify and implement intersection capacity improvements Conduct project assessment to identify and implement intersection capacity improvements Identified as a high-injury segment. Evaluate in the City of Mesa Safety Action Plan to determine appropriate safety improvements. Improve the mobility and access in this area of Power Rd, completing any sections that have not been completed by adjacent development. This is a joint project with the Town of Gilbert and Maricopa County. #CP0104 New four-lane roadway to provide access to the proposed new eastside terminal at Phoenix-Mesa Gateway Airport Construct new four-lane roadway with appropriate bike and pedestrian facilities. Identified in MAG's RSTIIP. Project should be completed in cooperation with ADOT when the SR24 is upgraded to a freeway. Widen roadway to six-lanes. Utilize street typology guidelines to reconfigure roadway to possibly accommodate appropriate biking and walking facilities. This need could be addressed as adjacent development occurs. Identified in MAG's RSTIIP Construct six-lane roadway. Utilize street typology guidelines to reconfigure roadway to possibly accommodate appropriate biking and walking facilities. This need could be addressed as adjacent development occurs. This should be constructed in cooperation with MCDOT, Apache Junction and Pinal County. Widen roadway to consistent four-lane configuration. This need could be addressed as adjacent development occurs. Utilize street typology guidelines to reconfigure roadway to possibly accommodate appropriate biking and walking facilities. Widen roadway to consistent six-lane configuration. This need could be addressed as adjacent development occurs. Utilize street typology guidelines to reconfigure roadway to possibly accommodate appropriate biking and walking facilities. Widen roadway to six-lanes. This need could be addressed as adjacent development occurs. Utilize street typology guidelines to reconfigure roadway to possibly accommodate appropriate biking and walking facilities. A small segment is in the Unincorporated Maricopa County jurisdiction Widen roadway to four-lane configuration. This need could be addressed as adjacent development occurs. Utilize street typology guidelines to reconfigure roadway to possibly accommodate appropriate biking and walking facilities. Segment is largely within the Town of Queen Creek and will require coordination. Conduct project assessment to identify and implement intersection safety improvements Conduct project assessment to identify and implement intersection safety improvements Construct new four-lane roadway with appropriate bike and pedestrian facilities. Identified in MAG's RSTIIP. Project should be completed in cooperation with ADOT when the SR24 is upgraded to a freeway. Roadway may need to be widened to four-lanes to accommodate future development along the corridor. Roadway may need to be widened to four-lanes to accommodate future development along the corridor. Widen roadway to consistent six-lane configuration to address scalloped street conditions along the corridor. This need could be addressed as adjacent development occurs. Widen roadway to four-lane configuration. This need could be addressed as adjacent development occurs. Utilize street typology guidelines to reconfigure roadway to possibly accommodate appropriate biking and walking facilities. A portion of this project is located in Unincorporated Maricopa County. Widen roadway to consistent six-lane configuration. Utilize street typology guidelines to reconfigure roadway to possibly accommodate appropriate biking and walking facilities. Widen roadway to four-lane configuration. This need could be addressed as adjacent development occurs. Utilize street typology guidelines to reconfigure roadway to possibly accommodate appropriate biking and walking facilities. A portion of this project is located in Unincorporated Maricopa County. Widen roadway to four-lane configuration. This need could be addressed as adjacent development occurs. Utilize street typology guidelines to reconfigure roadway to possibly accommodate appropriate biking and walking facilities. A portion of this project is located in Unincorporated Maricopa County. Widen roadway to four-lane configuration. This need could be addressed as adjacent development occurs. Utilize street typology guidelines to reconfigure roadway to possibly accommodate appropriate biking and walking facilities. A portion of this project is located in Unincorporated Maricopa County. Conduct project assessment to identify and implement intersection capacity improvements Conduct project assessment to identify and implement intersection capacity improvements Conduct project assessment to identify and implement intersection capacity improvements Conduct project assessment to identify and implement intersection capacity improvements Conduct project assessment to identify and implement intersection capacity improvements 68 Conduct project assessment to identify and implement intersection capacity improvements Southeast Mesa Multimodal Travel Needs Pecos Industrial Rail Access and Train Extension (PIRATE) 162 Pecos Rd Mesa Transportation Master Plan Southeast Mesa Multimodal Travel Needs Fill-in Sidewalk Gap S1 Warner Road from the RWCD canal to Ellsworth Road S2 Williams Field Road: Ellsworth Road to Eastern City Limits S3 Ellsworth Road: Southern City Limits to South of Guadalupe Road S4 Signal Butte Road: Southern City Limits to Ray Road S5 Mountain Road: Ray Road to Pecos Road (portion MCDOT Maintained) S6 Pecos Road: Ellsworth Road to Eastern City Limits S7 Elliot Road: Power Road to Ellsworth Road (portion MCDOT Maintained) S8 Sossaman Road: Warner Road to Just south of Peralta Avenue (portion MCDOT Maintained) S9 Ray Road: Mesa Dexcom Driveway to Ellsworth Road S 10 Pecos Road: Ellsworth Road to Power Road S 11 Sossaman Road: Germann Road to North of PIRATE Rail Line S 12 Hawes Road: Ray Road to Peralta Ave S 19 Sossaman Road: Main Street to Guadalupe Road S 52 80th Street: Paloma Avenue to Elliot Road Bicycle Facility Need B 16 Mountain Road: Ray Road to SR 24 (partially MCDOT Maintained) B 30 Hawes Road: Loop 202 to Powerline Easement B 31 Eastmark Parkway: Elliot Road to Existing Eastmark Parkway End B 32 Williams Field Road: SR 24 to Ellsworth Road Evaluate for Potential Upgrade B 58 Baseline Road: Superstition Springs Road to Loop 202 SUP B 62 Elliot Road: Signal Butte Road to Mountain Road B 63 Ellsworth Road: Baseline Road to Southern City Limit B 65 Guadalupe Road: Springwood Boulevard to Power Road B 78 Mountain Road: Elliot Road to Ray Road B 82 Signal Butte Road: US 60 to Elliot Road B 87 Superstition Springs Boulevard from Southern Avenue to 72nd Street B 89 Warner Road: Ellsworth Road to Mountain Road Shared Use Path Need P 10 P 23 P 24 Loop 202 (Santan): Power Road to Hawes Road, CIP #CP1178 (Right-ofway owned by ADOT) Powerline Easement: Ellsworth Road to Signal Butte Road (easement privately owned and owned by FCDMC and RWCD) Powerline Easement: Power Road to Ellsworth Road (easement privately owned) P 29 SR 24: Hawes Road to Ellsworth (Right-of-way owned by ADOT) P 32 RWCD: Ray Road to Williams Field Road (Canal owned by RWCD) P 41 SR 24 SUP: Ellsworth to East City Limit (Right-of-way owned by ADOT) P 42 RWCD: Power Road and Ray Road (Canal owned by RWCD. Improvements on east side of channel would be led Flood Control District of Maricopa County Slow Streets with Traffic Calming B1 Everton Terrace/Crismon Road: Ray Road to Powerline Easement Mesa Transportation Master Plan 163 Central Mesa Travel Shed # 6 Central Mesa is marked by a unique mix of 55 and older residential communities and local shopping centers. While mostly serving residential needs, major arterials and canals that cut through the neighborhood provide unique multimodal transportation opportunities. TRAVEL SHED CHARACTERISTICS AND NEEDS Unique Socioeconomic Make-Up with Specific Transportation Needs Nearly 31% of the population is aged 65 and older, the Travel Shed’s transportation system needs to accommodate the unique needs of seniors and promote aging in place. This includes providing non-motorized transportation options, integrating long pedestrian and bicycle crossing times, and providing ADA compliant walking and biking facilities. WHO LIVES AND WORKS HERE? 4,879 21,493 1,472 Population Changing Land Use along Major Corridors Growth and development along Broadway Road and Main Street may require rethinking the street design to better accommodate all modes of travel to support the surrounding land uses. Abundant Multimodal Opportunities 83,469 per sq mi Employees BY 205O employees/sq mi 2% population decrease 17% employment increase Today, 9% of people within the Travel Shed walk and 1% of people bike— more than most other travel sheds. While Consolidated Canal already has a shared use path, plans to add Eastern Canal Trail, and Roosevelt WCD Canal as part of the Mesa Shared Use Path network would significantly increase bike and walking opportunities. In addition, Main Street has a planned shared use path that will help connect residents to non-recreational destinations. EQUITY Limited Public Transit Options in and area with Equity Concerns HOW ARE PEOPLE TRAVELING Central Mesa ranks forth among travel sheds with the highest rates of poverty. Limited transit is available and access to routes may require long, unshaded walks to unshaded bus stops and along uncomfortable road. Major Safety Concerns High injury corridors and intersections are located on Higley Road, University Drive, Main Street. 164 Land use / Growth Strategy 31% elderly population 10% families below poverty 6% no vehicle households THE CURRENT SYSTEM AT A GLANCE * 490 lane miles 27% arterials 66% locals 43 miles of bike facilities 48 signalized 89% Drive 9% Walk 1% Bike Travel Time All Trips 20.8 minutes Work Trips 27.1 minutes <1% Transit <1% Other Travel Distance 9.3 miles 14.0 miles intersections 153 bus stops *Numbers are approximations and may include facilities overlapping with adjacent travel sheds. Mesa Transportation Master Plan Central Travel ShedMesa 6: Travel CentralShed Mesa # 6 WHAT HAVE WE HEARD? • Significant input received in regards to congestion and lack of alternative routes within the Travel Shed. • Reduce turning movement conflicts along major corridors and at key destinations, including Higley Road, Main Street, and Southern Avenue. • Need for enhanced pedestrian and bicycle crossing on major roadways and at canal trails. • On-going pavement maintenance needed to maintain a smooth driving experience. • Integrate increased pedestrian and bicycle protection and crossing times along major corridors and at canal crossings, including along Adobe Road. • Increase comfort and connectivity of the bike network, including adding protected bike facilities and finishing gaps in the canal paths. • Desire to expand public transportation, and trip frequency, to Downtown Mesa and the Light Rail What Investments Do Residents Want to See? Improvements to reduce vehicle congestion More sidewalks and bike lanes Meeting Capacity Needs Increase Capacity with More Lanes Increase Capacity with Technology or Other Modes Public Transit Expanding Service What Goals Are Most Important? Manage and Maintain Safety First Increasing Frequency Bicycle Facilities Less Expensive Bike Lanes More Expensive Protected Facilities Connections and Choices To address current and future mobility needs, it is imperative that the Central Mesa Travel Shed focus on: Improve unsafe corridors and intersections by reducing turn conflicts Expand and upgrade the bike network for all ages and abilities riders What Trade-Offs Do Residents Prefer? Pedestrian and bicycle safety improvements WHAT DOES THE TRAVEL SHED NEED TO ADDRESS CURRENT AND FUTURE MOBILITY NEEDS? Neutral Evaluate and improve accessibility for elderly or those who have visual or physical impairments to mobility Provide frequent, signalized or gradeseparated crossings for people walking and biking and minimize their wait time at intersections and crossings Extend transit east while expanding transit-oriented development opportunities to support it 165 Central Mesa Roadway Improvement Needs 166 Mesa Transportation Master Plan Central Mesa Roadway Improvement Needs ID Project Location Short-Term Improvement Needs Need Type 5 Val Vista Drive: Pueblo Avenue to US 60 Widening 17 Greenfield Road: Main Street to Adobe Road Reconstruction 19 Southern Avenue: Gilbert to west of Val Vista Drive Reconstruction 20 Greenfield Road: Southern Avenue to Main Street Reconstruction 75 University Drive and Lindsay Road Intersection 76 Broadway Road and Lindsay Road Safety Mid-Term Improvement Needs University Drive: Greenfield Road to Higley 29 Road Southern Avenue: Val Vista Road to 32nd 30 Street University Drive and Higley Road 88 Intersection 90 Southern Avenue and Gilbert Road Safety Safety Conduct project assessment to identify and implement intersection safety improvements Identified as a high-injury segment. Further evaluate segment as part of the City of Mesa Safety Action Plan to determine and implement appropriate safety improvements. Identified as a high-injury segment. Further evaluate segment as part of the City of Mesa Safety Action Plan to determine and implement appropriate safety improvements. Intersection Conduct project assessment to identify and implement intersection capacity improvements Identified as a high-injury segment. Further evaluate segment as part of the City of Mesa Safety Action Plan to determine and implement appropriate safety improvements. Identified as a high-injury segment. Further evaluate segment as part of the City of Mesa Safety Action Plan to determine and implement appropriate safety improvements. Safety 113 Greenfield Road and Main Street Safety Long-Term Improvement Needs Mesa Transportation Master Plan Conduct project assessment to identify and implement intersection capacity and safety improvements Conduct project assessment to identify and implement intersection safety improvements Greenfield Road and Southern Avenue University Drive and Greenfield Road Improve Val Vista Drive between Pueblo Avenue and US 60. Widen road from US 60 to Enid Avenue to six-lanes; reconstruct pavement; add raised medians; add bike lanes and other improvements. CIP # CP0062, construction anticipated to commence in 2024. Reconstruct arterial street segments that are at the end of their life cycle and can no longer be maintained by conventional means. Concurrent work will include upgrades to any concrete ramps, driveways and sidewalks to current ADA standards. CIP # CP1091, construction anticipated to commence in 2024. Reconstruct arterial street segments that are at the end of their life cycle and can no longer be maintained by conventional means. Concurrent work will include upgrades to any concrete ramps, driveways and sidewalks to current ADA standards. CIP # CP1093, construction anticipated to commence in 2024. Reconstruct arterial street segments that are at the end of their life cycle and can no longer be maintained by conventional means. Concurrent work will include upgrades to any concrete ramps, driveways and sidewalks to current ADA standards. CIP # CP1095, construction anticipated to commence in 2024. Intersection 109 99 Description Intersection Conduct project assessment to identify and implement intersection capacity improvements 167 Central Mesa Multimodal Travel Needs 168 Mesa Transportation Master Plan Central Mesa Multimodal Travel Needs Fill-in Sidewalk Gap S 18 Southern Avenue: CAP Canal to Eastern City Limits (MCDOT Maintained) S 43 64th Street: Princess Drive to McLellan Road S 49 Recker Road: Broadway Road to Albany Street S 50 64th Street: Billings Street to Main Street S 51 University Drive: Higley Road to Power Road (MCDOT Maintained) Bicycle Facility Need B 15 University Drive: Higley Road to Power Road (MCDOT Maintained) B 22 Power Road: Main Street to Baseline Road B 23 Southern Avenue from Superstition Springs Road to Clearview Avenue B 39 Main Street: Consolidated Canal to Power Road B 40 Main Street: Gilbert Road to Consolidated Canal Enhance Street with Traffic Calming Shared Use Path Need P2 Eastern Canal: Brown Road to Broadway Road, CIP #CP1060 and CIP #CP0673 (Canal owned by Bureau of Reclamation) P7 Eastern Canal: Broadway Road to Baseline Road, CIP #CP0730CAP (Canal owned by Bureau of Reclamation) P 18 RWCD Canal: Brown Road to Broadway Road (Canals owned by RWCD and FCDMC. Shared use path is partially improved on east side of FCDMC) P 21 B 49 8th Avenue: Lindsay Road to Stapley Drive Evaluate for Potential Upgrade B 52 24th Street: Southern Road to Broadway Road B 57 Alta Mesa Drive: Adobe Road to McKellips Road B 59 Broadway Road: 56th Street to Higley Road Highline SRP Powerline Easement: Power Road to Val Vista Drive B 70 Higley Road: Baseline Road to Loop 202 P 31 RWCD: Broadway Road to Southern Avenue (Canal owned by RWCD) B 72 Lindsay Road: Southern City Limit to McDowell Road P 38 RWCD: Brown Road to Lehi Crossing (Canal owned by RWCD) B 79 Power Road: University Drive to Loop 202 RWCD: Power Road and Ray Road (Canal owned by RWCD. Improvements on east side of channel would be led by Flood Control District of Maricopa County) B 85 Southern Avenue: 54th Street to Superstition Springs Boulevard P 42 Slow Streets with Traffic Calming B3 McLellan Road: 48th Street to Higley Road Mesa Transportation Master Plan 169 North Central Mesa Travel Shed # 7 North Central Mesa is a mostly residential area with low-density singlefamily homes with pockets of rural residential and active farming lands. The area adjacent to SR 202 is referred to as Lehi and has an active equestrian community. North Central Mesa’s development patterns, access to canal trails, equestrian culture, parks, and agricultural lands make it unique in the City. Land use / Growth Strategy TRAVEL SHED CHARACTERISTICS AND NEEDS Limited Future Development The 2050 Mesa General Plan identified the North Central Mesa Travel Shed as an area largely sustaining land use patterns; however, there are pockets of growth expected to transform resulting in a 32% employment increase. WHO LIVES AND WORKS HERE? Limited Public Transit Access 3,453 14,312 1,061 Population Indirect Access to Mesa’s Multimodal Transportation Network Resources While North Central Mesa contains South Canal and Eastern Canal, large portions of the canals do not have built out shared use paths, are unpaved, or are inaccessible. Furthermore, there is limited direct low-stress connections to canal paths, requiring most people to use stressful arterial roads which may dissuade them from being used. 61,459 per sq mi Employees BY 205O employees/sq mi 1% population increase 32% employment increase 14% elderly population There is very little transit coverage for residents living north of McKellips Road. South of McKellips Road, most transit access to residents is along Stapley Drive, Gilbert Road, and University Drive. EQUITY Wide, High-Speed Corridors Can Create Safety Concerns. HOW ARE PEOPLE TRAVELING McKellips Road, University Drive, and Mesa Drive are all part of the high injury network. Additionally, wide arterials and collectors with speeds of 30 – 45 MPH may create uncomfortable walking and biking conditions, especially at crossings. 5% families below poverty 2% no vehicle households 490 lane miles 29% arterials 62% locals 55 miles of bike facilities 69 signalized 89% Drive 9% Walk 1% Bike Travel Time 170 THE CURRENT SYSTEM AT A GLANCE * All Trips 20.5 minutes Work Trips 28.0 minutes <1% Transit <1% Other Travel Distance 8.6 miles 13.4 miles intersections 94 bus stops *Numbers are approximations and may include facilities overlapping with adjacent travel sheds. Mesa Transportation Master Plan North Central Mesa Travel Shed 7: Travel Shed Mesa #7 North Central WHAT HAVE WE HEARD? • Significant input received in regards to improving walking and biking conditions, while also providing equestrian facilities. Reported needs include adding protected bike facilities, enhancing pedestrian amenities, and enhancing crossings to the Eastern Canal Trail and along Lindsay Road, Stapley Drive, and Gilbert Road. • Rethinking street designs to better accommodate equestrian riders and horses. • Gilbert Road Bridge over the Salt River is a critical project to respondents. • Major arterials pose safety concerns due to high-speed traffic and “No Right Turn on Red” compliance. • Desire to maintain neighborhood character and quality of life in the Lehi area. What Investments Do Residents Want to See? Pedestrian and bicycle safety improvements Improvements to reduce vehicle congestion Meeting Capacity Needs Increase Capacity with More Lanes Increase Capacity with Technology or Other Modes Public Transit Expanding Service What Goals Are Most Important? Safety First Increasing Frequency Bicycle Facilities Less Expensive Bike Lanes Connections and Choices Manage and Maintain To address current and future mobility needs, it is imperative that the North Central Mesa Travel Shed focus on: Fill-in gaps, expand, and enhance the bicycle network, including connectivity to the canal trails What Trade-Offs Do Residents Prefer? More sidewalks and bike lanes WHAT DOES THE TRAVEL SHED NEED TO ADDRESS CURRENT AND FUTURE MOBILITY NEEDS? Rethink street designs to better accommodate the movement of people walking, biking, and riding horses Provide additional pedestrian crossings to enhance connectivity Seek measures to reduce turning movement conflicts at busy intersections and to reduce speed on arterials and collectors More Expensive Protected Facilities Neutral 171 North Central Mesa Roadway Improvement Needs 172 Mesa Transportation Master Plan North Central Mesa Roadway Improvement Needs ID Project Location Short-Term Improvement Needs Need Type Description Reconstruct arterial street segments that are at the end of their life cycle and can no longer be maintained by conventional means. Concurrent work will include upgrades to any concrete ramps, driveways and sidewalks to current ADA standards. Utilize street typology guidelines to reconfigure roadway to possibly accommodate appropriate biking and walking facilities. CIP # CP1089 Reconstruct arterial street segments that are at the end of their life cycle and can no longer be maintained by conventional means. Concurrent work will include upgrades to any concrete ramps, driveways and sidewalks to current ADA standards. CIP # CP1091, construction anticipated to commence in 2024. 15 Stapley Drive: University Drive to McKellips Road Reconstruction 17 Greenfield Road: Main Street to Adobe Road Reconstruction 26 Mesa Drive: Brown Road to McKellips Road 61 University Drive Corridor Study from western City limits to Gilbert Road Corridor Study 72 Brown Road and Gilbert Road Intersection Conduct project assessment to identify and implement intersection capacity and safety improvements 75 University Drive and Lindsay Road Intersection Conduct project assessment to identify and implement intersection capacity and safety improvements 79 Brown Road and Mesa Drive Mid-Term Improvement Needs University Drive: Greenfield Road to Higley 29 Road Safety Conduct project assessment to identify and implement intersection safety improvements Safety Identified as a high-injury segment. Further evaluate segment as part of the City of Mesa Safety Action Plan to determine and implement appropriate safety improvements. Safety Conduct project assessment to identify and implement intersection safety improvements 84 Brown Road and Lindsay Road Intersection Safety Identified as a high-injury segment. Further evaluate segment as part of the City of Mesa Safety Action Plan to determine and implement appropriate safety improvements. Conduct a corridor evaluation study to identify specific operational (signal timing and infrastructure), widening (segments and intersections), safety improvements, and access management strategies to address roadway congestion on University Drive. The study should also evaluate and recommend multimodal improvements along the corridor. Long-Term Improvement Needs 99 University Drive and Greenfield Road Intersection Conduct project assessment to identify and implement intersection capacity improvements 100 Brown Road and Val Vista Drive Intersection Conduct project assessment to identify and implement intersection capacity improvements 104 McKellips Road and Mesa Drive Intersection 118 Thomas Road: Gilbert Road to SR 202 New Road Mesa Transportation Master Plan Conduct project assessment to identify and implement intersection capacity improvements Construct new two-lane roadway with appropriate bike, pedestrian, and equestrian facilities. 173 North Central Mesa Multimodal Travel Needs 174 Mesa Transportation Master Plan North Central Mesa Multimodal Travel Needs Fill-in Sidewalk Gap S 53 Lehi Road/Thomas Road: Val Vista Drive to South Canal S 54 McKellips Road: Val Vista Drive to Higley Road Shared Use Path Need P1 South Canal Lehi Crossing: McDowell Road to Val Vista Dr and Loop 202 (or north of Loop 202), CIP #CP672 (Canal owned by Bureau of Reclamation) P2 Eastern Canal: Brown Road to Broadway Road, CIP #CP1060 and CIP #CP0673 (Canal owned by Bureau of Reclamation) P3 Lehi Crossing: McDowell Road to Val Vista Road, CIP #CP0090CAP P 11 Eastern Canal Trail: McKellips Road to Lindsay Road, (Canal owned by Bureau of Reclamation) P 18 RWCD Canal: Brown Road to Broadway Road (Canals owned by RWCD and FCDMC. Shared use path is partially improved on east side of FCDMC) P 21 Greenbelt SRP Powerline Easement: Power Road to Val Vista Drive P 22 Greenbelt: Gilbert Road to Val Vista Drive P 34 Eastern Canal Trail: McKellips Road to McDowell Road (Canal owned by Bureau of Reclamation.) P 37 South Canal: Lehi Crossing to McKellips Road (Canal owned by Bureau of Reclamation) P 38 RWCD: Brown Road to South Canal (Canal owned by RWCD) Mesa Transportation Master Plan Evaluate for Potential Upgrade B 54 32nd Street from McDowell Road to McKellips Road B 71 Horne: Baseline Road to McKellips Road B 72 Lindsay Road: Southern City Limit to McDowell Road B 75 McDowell Road: Ellsworth Road to Loop 202/Gilbert Traffic Interchange 175 Fiesta District Travel Shed # 8 The Fiesta District is a unique cultural and business district in the heart of Mesa. Designated as a redevelopment area and home to the Mesa Community College, the Fiesta District is anticipated to continue to grow and change, while celebrating the strong ethnic diversity of it’s unique neighborhoods. TRAVEL SHED CHARACTERISTICS AND NEEDS Land use / Growth Strategy A Place you Can Live, Work, and Play Already an economic powerhouse providing financial and business services, healthcare, and higher education, the Fiesta District is expected to increase employment opportunities by 14% while welcoming 39% new residents by 2050. WHO LIVES AND WORKS HERE? 18,455 7,635 Walking and Biking Opportunities are Improving Population 11% of all trips in the Travel Shed are walking or rolling trips – illustrating the need for safe and comfortable pedestrian facilities and crossings. Examples of highquality infrastructure like the shared use path on Southern Avenue and plans extending across the entire Fiesta District will help provide more multimodal opportunities. Improving safety conditions along major corridors, at major intersections, and at entrances to activity centers will help remove barriers to walking and biking. 17,025 7,995 Equity Considerations are Critical The Fiesta Travel Shed has one of the highest rates of residents below the poverty level (19%). The travel shed has the lowest percent of people that drive (86%), which may be due to 11% of households do not have access to a vehicle. Low-cost transportation options and equity considerations will be a critical consideration as this area transforms. Transit is A Part of the Transportation Fabric The Fiesta District is among the top three highest ridership travel sheds in Mesa. Most transit trips are taken along Southern Avenue, but Dobson Road and Alma School also see significant ridership. 176 per sq mi Employees BY 205O employees/sq mi 39% population increase 14% employment increase 6% elderly population EQUITY 19% families below poverty 11% no vehicle households HOW ARE PEOPLE TRAVELING THE CURRENT SYSTEM AT A GLANCE * 67 lane miles 29% arterials 62% locals 10 miles of bike facilities 24 signalized 86% Drive 11% Walk 1% Bike Travel Time All Trips 21.0 minutes Work Trips 20.5 minutes 0.5% 0.9% Transit Other Travel Distance 10.2 miles 10.5 miles intersections 50 bus stops *Numbers are approximations and may include facilities overlapping with adjacent travel sheds. Mesa Transportation Master Plan Fiesta District Travel Shed 8: Travel Shed # 8 Fiesta District WHAT HAVE WE HEARD? • Significant input received in regards to improving walking and biking conditions. Reported needs include adding additional shared use paths, connections to the Tempe Canal and Consolidated Canal, and repaving bike facilities in poor condition. • Desire to create a transportation hub in the District that provides higher frequency trips to the light rail, Downtown Mesa, and major activity centers. • Integrate traffic calming measures along residential roads to reduce high speeds within neighborhoods. • Manage street parking to improve safety and mobility constraints. WHAT DOES THE TRAVEL SHED NEED TO ADDRESS CURRENT AND FUTURE MOBILITY NEEDS? To address current and future mobility needs, it is imperative that the Fiesta District Travel Shed focus on: Manage vehicular volumes and parking in existing and new residential areas as the area changes and grows What Investments Do Residents Want to See? Improvements to reduce vehicle congestion What Trade-Offs Do Residents Prefer? Meeting Capacity Needs Increase Capacity with More Lanes Improvements to enhance safety for travel by vehicles Pedestrian and bicycle safety improvements What Goals Are Most Important? Manage and Maintain Safety First Increase Capacity with Technology or Other Modes Public Transit Expanding Service Increasing Frequency Bicycle Facilities Less Expensive Bike Lanes More Expensive Protected Facilities Connections and Choices Neutral Create new multimodal connections designed for all ages and abilities to allow existing and new residents to reach activity centers and transit stops Enhance pedestrian and bicycle crossings, including providing midblock crossing opportunities Improve transit frequency and service, including integrating signal prioritization, enhance bus stop amenities, and mobility hubs 177 Fiesta District Roadway Improvement Needs 178 Mesa Transportation Master Plan Fiesta District Roadway Improvement Needs ID Project Location Need Type Description Short-Term Improvement Needs 8 Southern Avenue & Country Club Drive Roadways Reconstruction Reconstruct two major arterials where pavement is failing. The two segments are Southern Avenue; Alma School Road to Center Street and Country Club Drive; US 60 to 1st Avenue. CIP # CP0844 25 Dobson Road: Southern Avenue to 8th Avenue Safety Identified as a high-injury segment. Further evaluate segment as part of the City of Mesa Safety Action Plan to determine and implement appropriate safety improvements. 69 Southern Avenue and Country Club Drive Intersection Intersection Conduct project assessment to identify and implement intersection capacity and safety improvements CIP # CP0844 US 60 Corridor – Interchanges and Crossstreet Improvements Study from Dobson Road to Power Road Corridor Study 116 Mesa Transportation Master Plan Most traffic interchanges are expected to continue operating at LOS E/F into the future without improvements. Widening the cross-streets to add additional travel lanes may not be feasible at most interchanges. Conduct a corridor evaluation study to identify specific operational (signal timing and infrastructure), widening (segments and intersections), safety improvements, and access management strategies to address roadway congestion. The study should also evaluate and recommend improvements to address any barriers to multimodal travel along the corridor. Close coordination with MAG and ADOT would be needed. 179 Fiesta District Multimodal Travel Needs 180 Mesa Transportation Master Plan Fiesta District Multimodal Travel Needs Upgrade or Enhance Existing Sidewalk Bicycle Facility Need S 55 Grove Avenue: Alma School road to Extension Road B 29 Alma School Road: US 60 to Baseline Road S 56 8th Avenue: Country Club Drive to Alma School Road B 44 Dobson Road: Guadalupe Road to 8th Avenue Shared Use Path Need P 27 US 60: Western City Limit to Country Club Drive (Right-of-way owned by ADOT) P 40 Tempe Canal: 8th Avenue to US 60 (Canal owned by Bureau of Reclamation) P 44 Tempe Canal: East bank from Broadway Road to 8th Avenue Mesa Transportation Master Plan Evaluate for Potential Upgrade B 55 Alma School Road: Proposed Shared Use Path to Southern Avenue B 64 Extension Road: University Drive to Western Canal B 73 Longmore: Linder Avenue to Pueblo Avenue B 84 Southern Avenue: Alma School Road to Country Club Drive B 90 Westwood / Holmes Avenue: Southern Avenue to Alma School Road 181 Falcon Field Area Travel Shed # 9 Named after the airport it contains, the Falcon Field Travel Shed is comprised of master plan communities and industrial and employment centers surrounding the airport. With anticipated growth and transformation, Falcon Field requires thoughtful transportation solutions as the needs of residents and businesses change. Land use / Growth Strategy TRAVEL SHED CHARACTERISTICS AND NEEDS Differing Regional and Local Needs Falcon Field Airport, and the industrial and employment centers that surround it, require both regional freight and commuter access from SR 202. With employment opportunities expected to increase by 31% by 2050 these needs will only increase. On the other hand, residential population is also expected to grow by 26% by 2050, amplifying the demand for local trips to schools, parks, groceries and other daily needs. Aging in Place 33% of the population is over the age of 65 making this travel shed the oldest. People over 65 have unique transportation challenges such as needing more time to cross the road or facing a future inability to drive. Regional Bike Recreation and Local Needs Red Mountain Ranch is popular with sport cyclists and for local and regional mountain bikers looking to reach the unpaved trails beyond them. However, daily trips for going to grocery stores, school, or to parks by bike would not be comfortable for most people as the network is predominantly bike lanes on either high-speed arterial roads or on local roads that require crossing at uncomfortable intersections. Transit is Inaccessible to Most Major transit available to residents is along Power Road which services the Mesa Community College Red Mountains Campus and at the L202 and Power Road. 182 WHO LIVES AND WORKS HERE? 19,011 1,870 16,730 2,153 Population per sq mi Employees BY 205O employees/sq mi 26% population increase 31% employment increase 33% elderly population EQUITY 6% families below poverty 4% no vehicle households HOW ARE PEOPLE TRAVELING THE CURRENT SYSTEM AT A GLANCE * 225 lane miles 36% arterials 53% locals 31 miles of bike facilities 31 signalized 91% Drive 8% Walk 0.8% Bike Travel Time All Trips 22.8 minutes Work Trips 29.5 minutes 0% Transit 1% Other Travel Distance 12.2 miles 26.1 miles intersections 39 bus stops *Numbers are approximations and may include facilities overlapping with adjacent travel sheds. Mesa Transportation Master Plan Falcon Field Area Travel Shed 9: Travel ShedArea #9 Falcon Field WHAT HAVE WE HEARD? • Significant input received in regards to improving walking and biking conditions. Reported needs include adding additional shared use paths, fill-in sidewalk gaps and gaps in the canal trail paths, as well as enhancing pedestrian crossings. • Desire for additional transportation options to Falcon Field from regional destinations, including vanpools. • Prioritize environmental considerations such as incentivizing people to live close to work to reduce traffic. WHAT DOES THE TRAVEL SHED NEED TO ADDRESS CURRENT AND FUTURE MOBILITY NEEDS? To address current and future mobility needs, it is imperative that the Falcon Field Area Travel Shed focus on: Define freight corridors and implement infrastructure, policies and regulations to reduce conflicts with other modes What Investments Do Residents Want to See? Improvements to reduce vehicle congestion What Trade-Offs Do Residents Prefer? Meeting Capacity Needs Increase Capacity with More Lanes Pedestrian and bicycle safety improvements Technology improvements What Goals Are Most Important? Safety First Connections and Choices Manage and Maintain Public Transit Increase Capacity with Technology or Other Modes Expanding Service Increasing Frequency Bicycle Facilities Less Expensive Bike Lanes More Expensive Protected Facilities Neutral Multimodal infrastructure needs to be focused on all ages and abilities and accommodate seniors, children, and employee needs Expand and enhance multimodal connections, including building-out canal paths Coordinate with major businesses to create opportunities for employees to carpool or encourage mode shift 183 Falcon Field Area Roadway Improvement Needs 184 Mesa Transportation Master Plan Falcon Field Area Roadway Improvement Needs ID Project Location Need Type Description Short-Term Improvement Needs 22 McKellips Road: 64th Street to Jasmine Street Widening and Reconstruction Widen north side of McKellips to create a 6-lane cross section and add curb, gutter, and sidewalk on both sides. CIP # CP1135 Safety Improvement Identified as a high-injury intersection. Further evaluate intersection as part of the City of Mesa Safety Action Plan to determine and implement appropriate safety improvements. Mid-Term Improvement Needs 111 Higley Road and McKellips Road Mesa Transportation Master Plan 185 Falcon Field Area Multimodal Travel Needs 186 Mesa Transportation Master Plan Falcon Field Area Multimodal Travel Needs Fill-in Sidewalk Gap Evaluate for Potential Upgrade S 42 64th Street: Hermosa Vista Drive to McKellips Road B 57 Alta Mesa Drive: Adobe Road to McKellips Road S 47 Greenfield Road: McDowell Road to Hobart Street B 69 Higley Road: Thomas Road to Loop 202 Overpass S 48 Higley Road: Longbow Parkway to McKellips Road B 70 Higley Road: Baseline Road to Loop 202 S 53 Lehi Road/Thomas Road: Val Vista Drive to South Canal B 75 McDowell Road: Ellsworth Road to Loop 202/Gilbert Traffic Interchange S 54 McKellips Road: Val Vista Drive to Higley Road B 79 Power Road: University Drive to Loop 202 S 60 Higley Road: Thomas Road to Longbow Parkway B 88 Thomas Road: Higley Road to Power Road B 91 Longbow Parkway: Recker Road to Higley Road B 92 Recker Road: Thomas Road to Longbow Parkway Shared Use Path Need P1 South Canal Lehi Crossing: McDowell Road to Val Vista Dr and Loop 202 (or north of Loop 202), CIP #CP672 (Canal owned by Bureau of Reclamation) P3 Lehi Crossing: McDowell Road to Val Vista Road, CIP #CP0990CAP P6 Loop 202: Higley Road to Lehi Crossing Shared Use Path, CIP #CP0674 (Right-of-way owned by ADOT) P8 Loop 202: Power Road to Brown Road CIP #CP0732 (Right-of-way owned by ADOT) P9 Power Road: Park and Ride to Northern City Limit, CIP #CP0733 P 28 South Canal: Loop 202 to Granite Reef Dam (Canal owned by Bureau of Reclamation) P 38 RWCD: Brown Road to South Canal (Canal owned by RWCD) P 43 Thomas Road/Higley Road to South Canal (land owned by Arizona State Land Department) Mesa Transportation Master Plan Slow Streets with Traffic Calming B3 McLellan Road: 48th Street to Higley Road 187 Northeast Mesa Travel Shed # 10 Northeast Mesa is a mostly rural residential area intermixed with new suburban development all straddling the border of Usery Mountain Regional Park. Small, strip-mall style shopping centers that provide retail and business goods and services to the area are along University Drive. Land use / Growth Strategy TRAVEL SHED CHARACTERISTICS AND NEEDS Dueling Needs between Rural and Suburban Areas The Northeast Travel Shed is comprised of a large portion of unincorporated Maricopa County land and MCDOT maintained roadways. While many residents want to maintain the rural character of neighborhoods and streets, this may create challenges for pedestrians and those using a mobility device as many corridors do not have sidewalks. Additionally, several two-lane arterial and collector roads have narrow shoulders that may not be sufficient enough to use for people biking. WHO LIVES AND WORKS HERE? 1,325 4,064 224 Population BY 205O employees/sq mi 1% population increase 27% employment increase 19% elderly population EQUITY 4% families below poverty Transit is Non-existent This area is currently not serviced by transit; however, directly west of the travel shed is the Power Road Park-and-Ride at Power Road and SR 202. per sq mi Employees Regional Bike Recreation and Local Needs The Travel Shed is a popular recreational cyclist location with Ridgecrest, Ellsworth Road, and Signal Butte Road serving as popular routes for local and regional mountain bikers looking to reach the trails in the Usery Mountains and along the Salt River. For the average cyclists; however, arterial corridors may not be comfortable for most to bike to daily needs (i.e., grocery stores, schools, parks). 30,633 1% no vehicle households HOW ARE PEOPLE TRAVELING 188 257 lane miles 30% arterials 55% locals 23 miles of bike facilities 20 signalized Safety is a Growing Concern While the area does not have any high injury network segments, 10 serious injuries and fatalities have occurred between 2017 – 2021; several along Brown Road. Further the wide, multi-lane segments on Brown Road and University Drive with few signalized crossings may feel uncomfortable for people walking and biking. THE CURRENT SYSTEM AT A GLANCE * 89% Drive 9% Walk 0.5% Bike Travel Time All Trips 24.9 minutes Work Trips 35.1 minutes 0% Transit 0.9% Other Travel Distance 13.5 miles 22.6 miles intersections 0 bus stops *Numbers are approximations and may include facilities overlapping with adjacent travel sheds. Mesa Transportation Master Plan Northeast Travel Shed 10:Mesa Travel Shed # 10 Northeast Mesa WHAT HAVE WE HEARD? • Significant input received in regards to improving safety along corridors. Reported needs include addressing high posted speeds on arterials (i.e., McKellips Road, Ellsworth Road, Brown Road, and Crismon Road), reducing speeding on collectors and residential streets, and addressing turning movement conflicts at intersections. • Limited traffic signals on Ellsworth Road make it difficult for those leaving residential areas. • Expand and enhance bicycle facilities to connect to regional bike facilities and to provide additional space for riders. • Accommodate public transit needs through a paratransit program that connects to the regional public transit network. What Investments Do Residents Want to See? Improvements to enhance safety for travel by vehicles What Trade-Offs Do Residents Prefer? Meeting Capacity Needs Increase Capacity with More Lanes More sidewalks and bike lanes Improvements to reduce vehicle congestion What Goals Are Most Important? Manage and Maintain Connections and Choices Safety First Increase Capacity with Technology or Other Modes Public Transit Expanding Service WHAT DOES THE TRAVEL SHED NEED TO ADDRESS CURRENT AND FUTURE MOBILITY NEEDS? To address current and future mobility needs, it is imperative that the Northeast Mesa Travel Shed focus on: Safety is key: Speed needs to be managed as high posted speeds and observed speeding by motorists makes it uncomfortable for people walking and biking to use the roadways. Intersections without traffic control leads to turning conflicts. Coordination with MCDOT to address multimodal gaps in the network Increasing Frequency Bicycle Facilities Less Expensive Bike Lanes More Expensive Protected Facilities Neutral 189 Northeast Mesa Roadway Improvement Needs 190 Mesa Transportation Master Plan Northeast Mesa Roadway Improvement Needs ID Project Location Need Type Description Mid-Term Improvement Needs 45 McKellips Road: SR 202 to Hawes Road Widening and Reconstruction Widen roadway to consistent six-lane configuration from SR 202 to Hawes Road. This need could be addressed as adjacent development occurs. Utilize street typology guidelines to reconfigure roadway to possibly accommodate appropriate biking and walking facilities. Widening and Reconstruction Widen roadway to continuous five/four-lanes configuration. Utilize street typology guidelines to reconfigure roadway to possibly accommodate appropriate biking and walking facilities. This need could be addressed as adjacent development occurs. Identified in MAG's RSTIIP. A portion of this project is located in Unincorporated Maricopa County and will require coordination with MCDOT. Long-Term Improvement Needs 39 McKellips Road: Hawes Road to Meridian Road Mesa Transportation Master Plan 191 Northeast Mesa Multimodal Travel Needs 192 Mesa Transportation Master Plan Northeast Mesa Multimodal Travel Needs Fill-in Sidewalk Gap S 14 Crismon Road: McKellips Road to Broadway Road (MCDOT Maintained) S 20 Signal Butte: Jenson Road to Apache Trail (MCDOT Maintained) S 21 Brown Road: 99th Street to Eastern City Limits (MCDOT Maintained) S 22 Adobe Road: SR 202 to Eastern City Limits (portion MCDOT Maintained) S 24 96th Street: Brown Road to Southern Avenue (MCDOT Maintained) S 35 Jensen Street: Crismon Road to Signal Butte Road (MCDOT Maintained) S 36 McLellan Road: 101st Street to Signal Butte Road (MCDOT Maintained) S 37 S 40 McLellan Road: Ellsworth Road to 96th Street (portion MCDOT Maintained) McKellips Road: 77th Place to Crismon Road (portion MCDOT Maintained) S 41 McKellips Road: 76th Street to The Montelena Fenceline S 44 76th Street: McKellips Road to End (portion MCDOT Maintained) S 45 McDowell Road: 76th Street to Hawes Road (MCDOT Maintained) S 46 Hawes Road: Ranger Rider Trail to Hermosa Vista Drive (MCDOT Maintained) Upgrade or Enhance Existing Sidewalk Shared Use Path Need P8 Loop 202: Power Road to Brown Road CIP #CP0732 (right-of-way owned by ADOT) P9 Power Road: Park and Ride to Northern City Limit, CIP #CP0733 P 19 Loop 202: Brown Road to University Drive (Right-of-way owned by ADOT) P 29 CAP Canal: Loop 202 to Main Street (Canal owned by CAP. Located in Unincorporated Maricopa County) Bicycle Facility Need B 26 Brown Road: 96th Street to Signal Butte Road B 27 Hawes Road: Saddleback Street to Hermosa Vista Drive B 28 Las Sendas Mountain Drive: Eagle Crest Drive to Hawes Road B 36 Signal Butte Road: Usery Mountain Park to University Drive B 38 96th Street: Hampton Avenue to Brown Road Evaluate for Potential Upgrade B 64 Ellsworth Road: McDowell Road to University Drive S 30 Meridian Road: Baseline Road to Brown Road (portion MCDOT Maintained) B 75 McDowell Road: Ellsworth Road to Loop 202/Gilbert Traffic Interchange S 31 Mountain Road: Cholla Road to University Drive (MCDOT Maintained) B 80 Ridgecrest / Eagle Crest Drive: McDowell Road to Power Road S 32 Merrill Road: Apache Trail to Adobe Road (MCDOT Maintained) B 93 Ellsworth Road: McDowell Road to University Drive Mesa Transportation Master Plan 193 East Mesa Travel Shed # 11 Land use / Growth Strategy East Mesa is a transforming community marked by a diverse mix of low density residential, senior and mobile home communities, golf courses, undeveloped plots, schools, colleges, and parks. It's dominated by car-centric design with arterial roadways acting as a backbone grid, providing swift access to the bordering SR 202. However, population and employment growth in the area is expected to transform the needs and of the area. TRAVEL SHED CHARACTERISTICS AND NEEDS Multi-Agency Coordination The East Mesa Travel Shed is comprised of a large portion of unincorporated Maricopa County land and MCDOT maintained roadways. As roadway design standards vary between the agencies, changes in street design and multimodal accommodations vary greatly in the Travel Shed. WHO LIVES AND WORKS HERE? Limited Multimodal Options Sidewalks are not consistently present throughout the travel shed especially in areas where land is not yet developed. The bike network is comprised of bike lanes along roadways that would not be safe or comfortable for most riders. Additionally, the area currently has limited transit connections. .Safety Concerns Arterial corridors in the Travel Shed have numerous safety concerns. University Drive is part of the high injury network with fatal crashes occurring along Broadway and Power Road. 194 3,703 14,489 1,037 Population per sq mi Employees Special Needs in a Community Transforming and Growing With 27% of the population above the age of 65, the ability to age in place—potentially without the ability to drive—is critical for this area. Additionally, nearly 9% of families reside below the poverty level. To support quality of life and economic opportunities, transportation investments are necessary to allow residents to access jobs, goods, and services without a vehicle. 61,626 BY 205O employees/sq mi 10% population increase 19% employment increase 27% elderly population EQUITY 9% families below poverty 4% no vehicle households HOW ARE PEOPLE TRAVELING THE CURRENT SYSTEM AT A GLANCE * 482 lane miles 34% arterials 60% locals 23 miles of bike facilities 62 signalized 89% Drive 9% Walk 0.7% Bike Travel Time All Trips 20.0 minutes Work Trips 29.8 minutes 0% Transit 0.9% Other Travel Distance 9.7 miles 18.4 miles intersections 66 bus stops *Numbers are approximations and may include facilities overlapping with adjacent travel sheds. Mesa Transportation Master Plan East Travel Mesa Shed 11: Travel Shed # 11 East Mesa WHAT HAVE WE HEARD? • Significant input received in regards to improving safety along corridors. Reported needs include reducing turning movement conflicts at intersections and driveways along arterials, reducing speeding, and addressing safety concerns on high crash corridors. • Limited pedestrian crossing and short crossing times, especially for senior residents. • High need to fill-in sidewalk gaps and enhance pedestrian facilities for seniors using a mobility device and lower income residents to access daily needs. • Expand and enhance bike facilities to connect to popular destinations and the regional bike network. • Desire for additional public transit service, including connections to the light rail. • Need for additional electric vehicle charging stations. What Investments Do Residents Want to See? Improvements to enhance safety for travel by vehicles What Trade-Offs Do Residents Prefer? Meeting Capacity Needs Increase Capacity with More Lanes Pedestrian and bicycle safety improvements More sidewalks and bike lanes What Goals Are Most Important? Manage and Maintain Increase Capacity with Technology or Other Modes Public Transit Expanding Service WHAT DOES THE TRAVEL SHED NEED TO ADDRESS CURRENT AND FUTURE MOBILITY NEEDS? To address current and future mobility needs, it is imperative that the East Mesa Travel Shed focus on: Expand and enhance multimodal facilities to accommodate nonmotorized access to daily destinations Significant safety issues need be addressed including speeding by motorists and turning conflicts. Coordination with MCDOT to address multimodal gaps in the network Increasing Frequency Bicycle Facilities Less Expensive Bike Lanes Connections and Choices More Expensive Protected Facilities Safety First Neutral 195 East Mesa Roadway Improvement Needs 196 Mesa Transportation Master Plan East Mesa Roadway Improvement Needs ID Project Location Need Type Description Mid-Term Improvement Needs 38 Hawes Road: Broadway Road to US60 Southern Avenue: Sossaman Road to Meridian Road 44 Widening and Reconstruction Widening and Reconstruction Widen roadway to six-lanes. Utilize street typology guidelines to reconfigure roadway to possibly accommodate appropriate biking and walking facilities. This need could be addressed as adjacent development occurs. Identified in MAG's RSTIIP Widen roadway to consistent six-lane configuration from Sossaman Road to Crismon Road and fourlanes from Crismon Road to Meridian Road. This need could be addressed as adjacent development occurs. Utilize street typology guidelines to reconfigure roadway to possibly accommodate appropriate biking and walking facilities. Most of this segment is under the County jurisdiction but within Mesa planning area boundary. Identified in MAG's RSTIIP. Long-Term Improvement Needs Widen roadway to consistent six-lane configuration to address scalloped street conditions along the corridor. This need could be addressed as adjacent development occurs. Identified in MAG's RSTIIP. 42 Signal Butte Road: Germann Road to Broadway Road Widening and Reconstruction 103 Southern Avenue and Signal Butte Road Intersection Intersection Improvement Conduct project assessment to identify and implement intersection capacity improvements 105 Southern Avenue and Crismon Road Intersection Intersection Improvement Conduct project assessment to identify and implement intersection capacity improvements Mesa Transportation Master Plan 197 East Mesa Multimodal Travel Needs 198 Mesa Transportation Master Plan East Mesa Multimodal Travel Needs Fill-in Sidewalk Gap S 13 Ellsworth Road: Adobe Road to Baseline Road (MCDOT Maintained) S 14 Crismon Road: McKellips Road to Broadway Road (MCDOT Maintained) S 15 S 16 S 17 Apache Trail: Sossaman Road to Eastern City Limits (ADOT/MCDOT Maintained) Mountain Road: University Drive to Sunland Avenue (MCDOT Maintained) Broadway Road: Eastern City Limits to Hawes Road (portion MCDOT Maintained) Shared Use Path Need P 14 Loop 202: University Drive to Southern Avenue (Right-of-way owned by ADOT) P 16 CAP Canal: Main Street to Southern Avenue (Canal owned by CAP. Main Street to Broadway Road is in Unincorporated Maricopa County) P 19 Loop 202: Brown Road to University Drive (Right-of-way owned by ADOT) P 29 CAP Canal: Loop 202 to Main Street (Canal owned by CAP. Located in Unincorporated Maricopa County) S 19 Sossaman Road: Main Street to Guadalupe Road S 20 Signal Butte: Jenson Road to Apache Trail (MCDOT Maintained) S 23 University Drive: Power Road to Eastern City Limits (portion MCDOT Maintained) B 22 Power Road: Main Street to Baseline Road S 24 96th Street: Brown Road to Southern Avenue (MCDOT Maintained) B 23 Southern Avenue from Superstition Springs Road to Clearview Avenue S 26 72nd Street: Southern Avenue to Main Street B 24 Southern Avenue: Hawes Road to Loop 202 S 27 Pueblo Road: Power Road to Sossamon Road B 33 S 28 Signal Butte Road: University Drive to Apache Trail (partially MCDOT Maintained) Hawes Road: Main Street to Southern Ave B 34 McLellan Road: Power Road to Sterling Road S 38 80th Street: University Drive to Broadway Road (portion MCDOT Maintained) B 38 96th Street: Hampton Avenue to Brown Road S 39 Glenmar Road: Main Street to Broadway Road B 41 Main Street: Power Road to Sossaman Road B 42 Main Street: Sossaman Road to Ellsworth Road B 48 Apache Trail: Ellsworth Road to Eastern City Limits (MCDOT Maintained) B 51 Ellsworth Road: University Drive to Baseline Rd (partially MCDOT Maintained) B 52 Ellsworth Road: Apache Trail to US 60 (partially MCDOT Maintained) Upgrade or Enhance Existing Sidewalk S 30 Meridian Road: Baseline Road to Brown Road (portion MCDOT Maintained) S 32 Merrill Road: Apache Trail to Adobe Road (MCDOT Maintained) S 33 Signal Butte Road: Broadway Road to 4th Avenue (MCDOT Maintained) S 34 Pueblo Avenue: Hawes Road to 96th Street (MCDOT Maintained) Mesa Transportation Master Plan Bicycle Facility Need Evaluate for Potential Upgrade B 64 Ellsworth Road: McDowell Road to University Drive B 79 Power Road: University Drive to Loop 202 B 82 Signal Butte Road: US 60 to Elliot Road B 93 Ellsworth Road: McDowell Road to University Drive 199 PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 200 Mesa Transportation Master Plan Mesa Transportation Master Plan 201 PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 202 Mesa Transportation Master Plan CREATING COMPLETE NETWORKS Mesa’s transportation system is made up of a collection of streets that move people and goods to and through the City. With street space at a premium, however, cars, buses, pedestrians, cyclists, emergency vehicles and trucks compete for space. Fortunately, there are actions Mesa can take to manage and design streets to prioritize moving vehicles, people, and goods more efficiently and safely. Complete networks recognizes that not every street can prioritize every mode. The complete networks enable some streets to prioritize one or more modes so that collectively, every mode has a complete and interconnected system. Working together as a system, these complete networks create reliable and attractive transportation choices regardless of what mode of travel is used. The following section outlines the recommended complete networks. Each complete network is comprised of a primary network and supporting network, as outlined below: • The Primary Network represents a collection of streets that create vital local and regional connections by mode. Collectively, the primary network creates a high-quality, high-performing network to move people by mode. • The Supporting Network strengthens the complete network by connecting the primary network to residents, businesses, and activity centers throughout the City. As mentioned earlier, not every street has the room or capacity to serve every mode, nor do they all have the demand for each mode, so priorities have to be determined based on the adjacent land uses, network needs, ability of the right-of-way to accommodate various modes and major destinations. Many of these priorities have evolved over time already, and are in place today, in the form of transit service, wider sidewalks, and bicycle facilities on certain streets. The complete networks presented here will build upon this foundation and are intended to present a path to completion of networks so that all people can choose the mode that best suits their travel needs and lifestyles. Mesa Transportation Master Plan VEHICLE NETWORK Allows vehicles to travel efficiently, while safely sharing the streets with other modes. FREIGHT NETWORK Allows for the efficient, reliable, and safe movement of goods in and through the City. TRANSIT NETWORK Connects people to homes, schools, jobs, and other important destinations. PEDESTRIAN NETWORK People walking and rolling are our most vulnerable users and require a safe and comfortable space to travel. BICYCLE NETWORK Create a comfortable, convenient, and safe network for people biking. 203 VEHICLE NETWORK Providing a strong connected network can help distribute traffic, reduce travel distances and times, improve transit operations, reduce walking distances, and improve the movement of goods. Mesa is fortunate that most of its major streets follow a consistent grid pattern, although the grid is occasionally interrupted by freeways and natural features. A grid street network greatly increases the resiliency and efficiency of the overall system - providing people with more route options and more direct paths from their origins to their destinations. Figure 7-1 illustrates the build-out vehicle network. Primary Vehicle Network The primary vehicle network includes arterial streets that allow drivers to safely travel long-distances, access major activity centers, and provide local and regional connectivity. The primary vehicle network illustrated in Figure 7-1 provides a fundamental framework for moving people though the City. The Vehicle Network was prioritized based on: Design Trade-Offs Changes to the design of a roadway can improve safety for everyone and improve the predictability and reliability of vehicle travel in the City. Street space should be prioritized in context with its surroundings and designed in a way that maximizes limited space to better move people, enhance public life, support economic development, and manage environmental impacts. Along the vehicle network, consideration should be given to: 204 Mesa Transportation Master Plan FIGURE 7-1. Build-Out Vehicle Network The complete vehicle network illustrates the long-term vision for roadways for vehicle travel in Mesa. Roadway facilities/corridors illustrated in the map may not exist today. Mesa Transportation Master Plan 205 FREIGHT NETWORK Due to its optimal location to major regional and international markets, Mesa has grown to become a hub for distribution and manufacturing. Additionally, with the increase of online shopping, the movement of freight is also evolving beyond traditional commercial vehicles and delivery trucks. To allow for the safe and efficient movement of freight, goods, and packages, our transportation network must provide clear networks for the movement of goods. Figure 7-2 illustrates the build-out freight network. It is important to note that Mesa currently does not have designated freight routes. Primary Freight Network On freight priority streets, design and operation prioritizes the movement of goods. By prioritizing freight along a particular street, the movement of goods is more efficient and reliable. Figure 7-2 illustrates the proposed freight primary and supporting network. The Freight Network was prioritized based on: Design Considerations As freight movement enhancements are considered, it must be acknowledged that in many instances, this priority will require prioritizing space over some other mode. Additionally, policies and standards along primary freight streets to improve the safety of other modes should be considered. Along the freight network, consideration should be given to: . 206 Mesa Transportation Master Plan FIGURE 7-2. Build-Out Freight Network The complete freight network illustrates the long-term vision for freight facilities in Mesa. Freight facilities/corridors illustrated in the map may not exist today. Mesa Transportation Master Plan 207 TRANSIT NETWORK A strong public transit network is a key component to a great transportation network. As our congestion continues to increase, creating a high-quality transit network allows us to move more people and more rapidly within limited street space. When transit is prioritized, it has the potential to curb vehicle congestion, create a more environmentally efficient transportation option, and reduce personal mobility expenses. The Mesa Transit Master Plan created a vision for a more robust, complete transit network that is carried forward within the TMP. Primary Transit Network Working with City staff, transit priority streets are designed to emphasize transit in areas where there is a high potential or need for transit services. By prioritizing transit along a particular street, the transit service is more efficient and convenient, and can move more people rapidly and reliably. Figure 7-3 illustrates the proposed transit primary and supporting network. The Transit Network was prioritized based on: Design Considerations To move more people, higher-capacity modes (such as transit) need to be prioritized to provide reliable and high-quality service. Where design and operations trade-offs are needed, transit reliability and access may take precedence on transit priority streets. In some instances, these trade-offs may include removal of a vehicle travel lane if overall vehicle/bike/ped mobility is not significantly impacted; or removal of on-street parking to provide a transit-only lane. 208 Access to Transit Transit stops should be accessible and safe via any mode, but particularly for people walking and riding a bicycle. Improving walking and bicycling connections to transit increases the area transit stations serve, and transit enables bicyclists and pedestrians to combine trips and travel longer distances. Thoughtful integration of these modes can increase transit, walking and bicycling mode-share. Wider sidewalks, shade, lighting, and pedestrian amenities make waiting for the bus more comfortable and safer and improves the overall user experience. Mesa Transportation Master Plan FIGURE 7-3. Build-Out Transit Network The complete transit network illustrates the long-term vision for transit facilities in Mesa. Transit facilities/corridors illustrated in the map may not exist today. Mesa Transportation Master Plan 209 BICYCLE NETWORK To make riding a bicycle a viable option for travel in Mesa, a complete, connected bicycle network that is comfortable and safe for people of all ages and abilities is needed. A well-connected bicycle network provides space for alternative modes of transportation, potentially providing tangible environmental, safety, and health and wellness benefits. Creating a bicycle-friendly environment is also an important part of regional mobility. Figure 7-4 illustrates the complete bicycle network that builds on the projects identified in previous chapters. This map shows what the complete network can look like when those facilities are built out. Primary Bicycle Network The primary bicycle network illustrated in Figure 7-4 creates a system of on-street and off-street low-stress (high-comfort) facilities for people of all ages and abilities riding bicycles. The Bicycle Network was prioritized based on: Safety and Comfort Continued investments in expanding and improving the City’s bicycle infrastructure should focus on improving the comfort and safety of the bicycle network, while incorporating best practices. Providing more separation between people riding bicycles and people driving motor vehicles is necessary to maintain comfort levels, especially as speeds and volumes increase. In addition to adding new facilities as stand-alone projects, bicycle facilities should be improved and maintained whenever appropriate, as streets or sidewalks are repaved or reconstructed. Properly designed intersections increase the predictability and visibility of bicyclists moving through intersections – benefiting both bicyclists and motorists. 210 Design Trade-Offs To make a complete and connected bicycle network that feels safe, comfortable and is convenient, there may be trade-offs to vehicle mobility and on-street parking. These trade-offs may result in reducing lane widths, reducing vehicle speeds, restricting turning movements at intersections or driveways, drivers frequently having to stop at traffic signals, and a reduction of the availability of on-street parking. In some instances, a reduction in the number of travel lanes could also be considered if overall vehicle mobility is not significantly impacted. Mesa Transportation Master Plan FIGURE 7-4. Build-Out Bicycle Network The complete bicycle network illustrates the long-term vision for bicycle facilities in Mesa. The network includes City maintained and private facilities. To complete the network, easement agreements may be needed with agencies such as SRP, RWCD; and private landowners or HOAs. Mesa Transportation Master Plan 211 PEDESTRIAN NETWORK The pedestrian network is a backbone of our transportation network as every trip we take - whether by bus, bike, car, or train - begins or ends with walking. Improving pedestrian connectivity and safety means that more trips can be accomplished on foot, which in turn helps reduce traffic congestion, adds to the City’s livability, and improves the environment and public health. Currently, however, there are numerous sidewalk gaps that impede the City’s goal of creating a complete pedestrian network. Primary Pedestrian Network While people walking and rolling are a priority on every street, the primary pedestrian network identifies areas of opportunities to enhance the pedestrian environment to create more vibrant, safe, and walkable streets. Walkable streets are inviting places, safe places, accessible places, and comfortable places. Figure 7-5 illustrates the proposed pedestrian core and supporting network. The City should encourage placemaking for pedestrians in areas surrounding the core network corridors. The Pedestrian Network was prioritized based on: Building Walkability The pedestrian priority streets reflect areas where the surrounding land uses offer opportunities to enhance the pedestrian environment to create more walkable and vibrant public spaces. Enhancements to the pedestrian experience may include: • Wider and/or Detached Sidewalks: allow more people to walk and provides room for placemaking. • Safe Crossings: conduct location specific engineering analysis to determine appropriate pedestrian crossing facilities. • Lighting: adding pedestrian-scaled lighting to improve visibility and safety. • Green Infrastructure: trees and landscaping provide shade, can lower temperatures, and create a buffer from vehicle traffic. Design Trade-offs Enhancing pedestrian spaces not only improves walkability, but it also improves comfort levels for those using a wheelchair, skating, skateboarding, scootering, or even waiting for a bus. As pedestrian enhancements are considered, it must be acknowledged that in some cases, this priority will require prioritizing space over some other mode. This is particularly true with vehicular traffic. Widening sidewalks alone does not provide a high-comfort pedestrian realm. Reducing vehicle speeds, restricting turning movements, adding traffic signals, and consolidating driveways, are a few examples of trade-offs the City must analyze to determine appropriate measures to improve the pedestrian experience in priority pedestrian areas. • Amenities: café seating, benches, public art, trash/recycling receptacles and bicycle parking. 212 Mesa Transportation Master Plan FIGURE 7-5. Build-Out Pedestrian Network The complete pedestrian network illustrates the long-term vision for pedestrian facilities in Mesa. The network includes City maintained and private facilities. To complete the network, easement agreements may be needed with agencies such as SRP, RWCD; and private landowners or HOAs. Mesa Transportation Master Plan 213 BUILD-OUT PRIMARY NETWORKS Every journey begins with a step – and the development of the TMP and associated complete network is the first of many steps needed to reshape Mesa’s transportation system to meet the needs of today and tomorrow. As illustrated in Figure 7-6, the outcomes of the complete networks lay the groundwork for strategic investments and decision-making along the primary multimodal corridors to better move people and goods no matter what mode. As previously mentioned, design trade-offs will need to occur on corridors with competing priorities. 214 Mesa Transportation Master Plan FIGURE 7-6. Build-Out Primary Networks Mesa Transportation Master Plan 215 PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 216 Mesa Transportation Master Plan Mesa Transportation Master Plan 217 PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 218 Mesa Transportation Master Plan WHAT’S NEXT? The completion of the Transportation Master Plan is the first of many steps that need to occur to realize Mesa’s multimodal transportation future. The TMP provides a starting point and tools to help developers, planners, engineers, and community advocates expand and enhance Mesa’s transportation system to meet the City’s growing needs. Making the TMP vision a reality requires a comprehensive approach that includes policy, design, partnerships, and above all, dedication, and commitment by Mesa staff. Mesa Transportation Master Plan 219 INTEGRATING THE TMP Integrating TMP principles into documents, policies, ordinances, procedures, plans, and programs that guide daily decisions at the City will be a crucial step in successfully aligning City practices with the objectives of the TMP. This is how TMP principles become the default way of doing business: not an option or add-on, not something that we would like to do, but something that must be done. Achieve Consensus on Street Typologies The TMP developed a set of street typologies that provides the City with context-specific design guidance for retrofitting existing streets or developing new corridors to create streets that are safe, convenient, and comfortable for everyone, whether they drive, walk, bike, or use transit. With a typology design process, streets with the same functional classification receive different design treatments based on the adjacent land use place type, modal priorities, and surrounding context. The TMP street typologies apply to the design of new streets, both by the City and by private developers, as well as resurfacing and reconstructing streets. Mesa’s street typologies are provided in the Appendix. Institutionalize the TMP To create a culture that integrates TMP philosophies and principles, core documents need to be reviewed and updated to better influence planning, programming, project development, design, and operations on a daily basis. Table 8-1 outlines list of documents recommended to be revised to incorporate TMP findings and principles. A key early step during implementation will be identifying teams of staff within the responsible lead offices listed in Table 8-1 who will be tasked with championing and spearheading the update processes for each document. 220 Mesa Transportation Master Plan Table 8-1. Recommended Documents to Review Document Mesa Engineering & Design Standards Responsible Office Transportation and Engineering Development Services Recommendations • Modify functional classification of existing and future roadways to meet recommendations in the TMP. • Integrate a context-based, flexible approach that incorporates the street typologies developed in the TMP throughout the manual. • Modify overall approach for selecting design speed and target (travel) speed. • Update standards to include recommended width ranges and preferred widths for facilities. • Incorporate more discussion of how to consider, address, and balance the needs of all transportation system users based on context. • Update existing design standards and criteria for specific modes of travel to align with national best practices. General Plan Planning • Integrate mobility recommendations found in the TMP. • Incorporate context-sensitive design, street typologies, and recommended design approaches. • Discuss how decisions impact transportation and land use and how corridors have different characters and needs. Parks, Recreation and Community Facilities Comprehensive Master Plan Parks, Recreation and Community Facilities • Integrate TMP pedestrian, bicycle, and shared use path recommendations. Mesa Transportation Master Plan 221 Working Together The recommendations identified in the TMP require multiple Mesa departments and partner agencies to work together to plan, design, fund, deliver, and maintain Mesa’s transportation system. These coordination efforts vary in terms of project size, complexity, and need. The following outlines key roles for internal and partner agencies to bring the vision of the TMP to life. Roadway/ Intersection Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Shared Use Paths Transit Land Use and Development TRANSPORTATION | Serves as the core coordinator and collaborator for all transportation planning activities in the City. Plans, designs, constructs, and maintains projects within the public right-of-way. ENGINEERING | Performs analysis, design, and bidding of all of the City of Mesa's capital projects PLANNING | Conducts all short- and long-range land planning for the City, including zoning, development review, and historic preservation. TRANSIT | Provides public transportation within the City of Mesa through contractual arrangement with Valley Metro. PARKS, RECREATION AND COMMUNITY FACILITIES | Plans and oversees parks, recreation facilities, and recreational trails. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT | Handles all internal, external, and digital communications, public relations, marketing, and coordination with neighborhood groups. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES | Issues permits and inspects private development and public right-of-way uses and process all land development projects. Supporting Role Primary Role Other Important Partners 222 Projects located within unincorporated Maricopa County, on MCDOT maintained roadways, and along the Flood Control facilities. Project funding and regionally significant enhancements, as well as transportation data and modeling. Plans, designs, constructs, and operates public transit projects. Projects involving state roads, as well as funding for many local transportation projects. Mesa Transportation Master Plan SEEK OPPORTUNITIES The TMP creates a new vision for streets in Mesa, spurring numerous transportation improvement needs. These needs include a variety of types, including re-striping and retrofitting streets, safety improvements, new streets as part of new development, multimodal projects, and additional planning studies. Funding limitations limit the number of transportation projects that can be built at once. To ensure that projects that get built are aligned with the TMP’s vision, Mesa needs to focus on prioritizing projects to best serve the mobility needs of people in Mesa. The following outlines opportunities to implement TMP principles in strategic, cost-effective methods. Pavement Preservation Program Each year, Mesa’s Pavement Preservation Program identifies and prioritizes over 6 million square yards of needed pavement maintenance work. This program is an excellent mechanism to implement TMP philosophies to connect multimodal networks and to make streets more complete. Working with the Pavement Preservation Program, opportunities to prioritize and integrate TMP recommendations is a cost-effective strategy to bring ideas in the TMP to life. Already, the City leverages roadway restriping and resurfacing projects to strategically accommodate bike facilities, change lane widths, or add ADA improvements. This has several advantages in that it reduces the project costs through reduced mobilization and contracting costs, and it speeds the process since paving is already being provided. By not just restriping streets to their current conditions, the City can capitalize on opportunities to include high visibility crosswalks, bike facilities, narrower lanes, curb extensions, and conduct pilot projects. The City can further integrate the TMP in the five-year pavement management program through a variety of methods, including: • Identify upcoming projects within the program and evaluate potential to integrate TMP street typologies. • Corridors included in the bicycle network should be reviewed to determine available pavement space for installing bicycle facilities and wayfinding. • Streets located on the transit and pedestrian network should be reviewed to determine the need for crossing opportunities, sidewalks, ADA facilities, and other amenities to make walking more comfortable. • Review streets with four or more lanes and less than 30,000 average daily traffic for potential reconfiguration to accommodate other modes. Mesa Transportation Master Plan Integrating the TMP in Pavement Preservation Integrating TMP principles with programmed pavement preservation improvements is a cost-effective strategy to connect multimodal networks and make streets more complete. During roadway restriping and resurfacing, the existing pavement could be restriped to the recommended street typology design, accommodate bicycle facilities, and incorporate safety measures. 223 Roadway Reconstruction Projects The Capital Improvement Program (CIP) includes ongoing major maintenance of streets and bridges, new and expanded streets, mobility improvements, pedestrian traffic safety improvements, technology enhancements and storm water improvements, and prioritizes an accelerated citywide pavement maintenance program. The following identifies opportunities to leverage the TMP in developing the CIP: • Review recommended projects list against the CIP to determine if there are additional project recommendations that can be incorporated into already programmed improvements. • Evaluate roadway reconstruction to integrate recommended TMP street typologies by reconfiguring street cross-sections. • Examine projects located on the bicycle network to determine available pavement space for installing bicycle facilities. • Streets located on the transit and pedestrian network should be reviewed to determine the need for crossing opportunities, sidewalks, ADA facilities, and other amenities to make walking more comfortable. Corridors of Opportunity The City of Mesa street network and the adjacent land uses have evolved over the years and the user needs are changing as well. There are several streets in the City that could be reconfigured to better support the land uses adjacent to the streets and address the changing modal needs of the users. Table 8-2 lists the potential corridors to consider for refiguring the right-of-way space to include the street elements that are appropriate for the context. Table 8-2 also presents the existing street context and configuration; and identifies potential benefits or impacts due to reconfiguration. Figure 8-1 illustrates the corridor of opportunity. The criteria used to determine these potential corridors of opportunity included: 224 • Functional classification • Current and future land use • Existing and future traffic volume levels • Current and future population density • Existing and future level of service • Locations of disadvantaged population groups • Available ROW width • • Location of key activity areas, land use types, and major job centers Areas with high percentage of population with disproportionately poor health outcomes • Impact of reconfiguration on surrounding streets Mesa Transportation Master Plan FIGURE 8-1. Corridors of Opportunity Mesa Transportation Master Plan 225 Table 8-2. Corridors of Opportunity Location McLellan Road: Alma School Road to Center Street Street Configuration and Context Today Four-lane collector roadway from Alma School Road to Center Street. Two-lane collector roadway from Country Club Drive to Center Street with a wide curb-to-curb width. Opportunity • Current and projected traffic volumes may be supported by one travel lane in each direction. • Potential to reconfigure roadway using Mesa' street typologies to create a multimodal corridor that is supportive of the adjacent land uses. Corridor traverses fully built out medium density neighborhoods. Current traffic volumes range from 7,500 to 8,500 vpd and have stayed consistent over the past decade. Benefits/Impacts • Connects to the proposed Center Street Complete Streets corridor. • Provides multimodal access to Riverview complex, a major employment destination. • Identified as a primary bike corridor in the TMP. The City of Mesa Transportation Department has developed traffic calming designs for this corridor. 8th Avenue: Longmore to 32nd Street Four-lane collector roadway in fully built out neighborhood with mixed uses and several apartment complexes. Current Traffic volumes are 7,600 vpd and have historically decreased over the past decade. Thomas Road: Higley Road to Power Road Four-lane arterial roadway in a medium density neighborhood with potential for some more residential development. Current traffic volumes range from 1,500 to 3,900 vpd and projected future volumes could increase to 6,000-10,000 vpd. The street was built for a 6-lane section but has striped edges to provide the 4-lane section. The City of Mesa Transportation Department is currently developing design concepts to modify the street for multimodal uses. 226 • Current and projected traffic volumes may be supported by one travel lane in each direction. • Area identified as a disadvantaged community in the Justice40 initiative. • Potential to reconfigure roadway using Mesa' street typologies to create a multimodal corridor that is supportive of the adjacent land uses. • High bike use corridor. • Corridor is near the Fiesta District, a major employment center. Identified as a primary pedestrian corridor in the TMP. Current and projected traffic volumes may be supported by one travel lane in each direction. Traffic volumes need to be monitored along the corridor as area builds out and a detailed study may be needed before considering this corridor for reconfiguration. • Corridor is in close proximity to the Falcon Field job center. Moderate to high bike use corridor. • Provides connectivity to a network of recreation trails in the area. Identified as a primary pedestrian corridor in the TMP. • • Potential to reconfigure roadway using Mesa' street typologies to create a multimodal corridor that is supportive of the adjacent land uses. Mesa Transportation Master Plan Table 8-2. Corridors of Opportunity (Continued) Street Configuration and Context Today Location McDowell Road: Gilbert Road to Power Road Arterial corridor traverses a mostly built out corridor with mixed land uses. Number of travel lanes along the arterial corridor varies from four to six lanes. A significant portion of the corridor also includes a generous unused buffer between the bike lane and the curb. Opportunity • • Traffic volumes vary significantly along the corridor with a peak volume of 20,000 vpd in the vicinity of SR 202 and projected peak volumes are expected to increase to around 25,000 in the same area. Main Street: Gilbert Road to SR 202 Arterial six-lane corridor in a mostly developed area. Current traffic volumes vary from 15,000 to 20,000 vpd and the projected future volumes are expected to increase to 20,000 to 25,000 vpd. • • General Plan identifies that the corridor land uses are likely to evolve in the future. 1st Street: Extension Road to Mesa Drive Predominantly two-lane roadway with a wide curb-to-curb width, pockets of on-street parking located in Downtown Mesa. Current Traffic volumes range between 3,000 to 4,000 vpd and have historically decreased over the past decade. Mesa Transportation Master Plan • • Benefits/Impacts Corridor traverses through the Falcon Field job center. Moderate to high bike use corridor. • Current and projected traffic volumes may be supported by two travel lanes in each direction with the exception of the segments • adjacent to the freeway. Potential to reconfigure roadway using Mesa' street typologies to create a multimodal corridor that is supportive of the adjacent land uses. Provides connectivity to a network of recreation trails on the east side of the City. Identified as a primary bike corridor in the TMP. • Current and projected traffic volumes may be supported by two travel lanes in each direction. Potential to reconfigure roadway using Mesa' street typologies to create a multimodal corridor that is supportive of the adjacent land uses. Majority of the area adjacent to corridor is identified as a disadvantaged community in the Justice40 initiative and a significant percentage of the population is classified as having disproportionately poor health outcomes. Moderate to high bike use corridor. • Provides connectivity to key active transportation corridors in the area. Identified as a primary transit and pedestrian corridor in the TMP. • Current and projected traffic volumes may be supported by one travel lanes in each direction. Potential to reconfigure roadway using Mesa' street typologies to • create a multimodal corridor that is supportive of the adjacent land uses. Corridor provides access to key destinations in the Downtown and is identified as a key pedestrian and transit corridor in the TMP. The area adjacent to the corridor is identified as a disadvantaged community in the Justice40 initiative and a significant percentage of the population that is classified as having disproportionately poor health outcomes. High bike use corridor. 227 Table 8-2. Corridors of Opportunity (Continued) Location Extension Road: Baseline Road to 1st Street Street Configuration and Context Today Four-lane collector roadway in a fully built out neighborhood with mixed uses. One of a very few continuous collector roadways that crosses the US 60 freeway. Opportunity Current and projected traffic volumes may be supported by one travel lanes in each direction. Potential to reconfigure roadway using Mesa' street typologies to create a multimodal corridor that is supportive of the adjacent land uses. A project to add separated bike lanes along this corridor is included in the Mesa Moves Bond Program. • Current and projected traffic volumes may be supported by two travel lanes in each direction. Potential to reconfigure roadway using Mesa' street typologies to create a multimodal corridor that is supportive of the adjacent land uses. A Design Assistance project is currently underway. • • Current and projected traffic volumes may be supported by one travel lanes in each direction. • • Potential to reconfigure roadway using Mesa' street typologies to create a multimodal corridor that is supportive of the adjacent land uses. Corridor provides access to key Downtown destinations and the Oakland A's spring training facility and the Hohokam stadium. It is identified as a key pedestrian corridor, and the northern segment is identified as a primary bike corridor in the TMP. • A Design Concept Report study is currently underway that is evaluating the corridor for Complete Streets improvements from McKellips Road to Broadway Road. • A major portion of the corridor area is identified as a disadvantaged community in the Justice40 initiative, and a significant percentage of the population is classified as having disproportionately poor health outcomes. High bike use corridor. • • Current Traffic volumes range from 10,000 to 13,000 vpd and have remained at the same levels over the past decade. • Higley Road: McKellips Road to McDowell Road Arterial six-lane segment in a mostly developed area with mixed land uses. Current traffic volumes vary from 2,000 to 18,000 vpd and the projected future volumes are expected to be in the same level or lesser. General Plan identifies that the corridor land uses are likely to evolve in the future. Center Street: McKellips Road to 8th Avenue Four-lane collector roadway in fully built out neighborhood with mixed uses and is a key corridor through Downtown Mesa. One of a very few continuous collector roadways. • • • Current Traffic volumes range from 3,000 to 10,000 vpd and have remained at the same levels over the past decade. 228 Benefits/Impacts • • • • • Corridor provides access to key destinations in the Fiesta District and the Broadway Corridor employment area. Identified as a key pedestrian corridor in the TMP. The area adjacent to the corridor is identified as a disadvantaged community in the Justice40 initiative. A future project can look at extending south limit to the Western canal. Corridor traverses through the Falcon Field job center. Moderate to high bike use corridor. Identified as a primary bike corridor in the TMP. Mesa Transportation Master Plan Table 8-2. Corridors of Opportunity (Continued) Street Configuration and Context Today Location Longmore: Baseline Road to 8th Avenue Four-lane collector roadway from Baseline Road to Pueblo Avenue and twolane collector roadway from Pueblo Avenue to Broadway Road. Corridor traverses a mostly developed corridor with large employers, apartment complexes, and medium density residential neighborhoods. Opportunity • • Future traffic volumes may change as the Fiesta Mall area redevelops. A detailed study may be needed before considering this corridor for reconfiguration. • Traffic counts need to be obtained to determine if current traffic volumes may be supported by one travel lane in each direction. However, the Fiesta Mall area is currently undergoing redevelopment. Current traffic volumes range from 4,000 to 7,00 vpd and have decreased over the past decade. Westwood/Holmes Road: Alma School Road to 8th Avenue Grove Avenue: Alma School Road to Extension Road Four-lane collector segment in a mostly built out area with large commercial uses and high-density residential uses. Traffic volumes are not available for this corridor. Four-lane collector segment in a mostly built out area with large commercial uses and high-density residential uses. • Future traffic volumes may change as the Fiesta Mall area redevelops. A detailed study may be needed before considering this corridor for reconfiguration. • Current and projected traffic volumes may be supported by one travel lanes in each direction. However, the Fiesta Mall area is currently undergoing redevelopment. • Future traffic volumes may change as the Fiesta Mall area redevelops. A detailed study may be needed before considering this corridor for reconfiguration. Traffic volumes are around 4,000 vpd with limited potential for future increases. Mesa Transportation Master Plan Current and projected traffic volumes may be supported by one travel lanes in each direction. However, the Fiesta Mall area is currently undergoing redevelopment. Benefits/Impacts • Corridor is at the heart of the Fiesta District and is one of a few collector roadways that crosses US 60 freeway. A major portion of the corridor area is identified as a disadvantaged community in the Justice40 initiative, and a significant percentage of the population is classified as having disproportionately poor health outcomes. High bike use corridor. • Corridor is located within the Fiesta District. • The corridor area is identified as a disadvantaged community in the Justice40 initiative. High bike use corridor. Identified as a primary bike corridor in the TMP. • Corridor is located within the Fiesta District. The corridor area is identified as a disadvantaged community in the Justice40 initiative. High bike use corridor. Identified as a primary bike corridor in the TMP. 229 Table 8-2. Corridors of Opportunity (Continued) Location Horne Ave: Baseline Road to South Canal Street Configuration and Context Today Two-lane collector roadway with low to medium density neighborhoods. Corridor is mostly built out. Current Traffic volumes range from 3,000 to 6,000 vpd and have remained at the same levels over the past decade. Future volumes are expected remain at the same levels. Opportunity • Current and projected traffic volumes may be supported by one travel lane in each direction. • Potential to reconfigure roadway using Mesa' street typologies to create a multimodal corridor that is supportive of the adjacent land uses. Benefits/Impacts • • Most of the corridor has wide curb-to-curb widths. • Hibbert Road: University Drive to Broadway Road Harris Drive: Baseline Road to 8th Avenue Two-lane collector roadway in Downtown Mesa with wide curb-to-curb widths and onstreet parking. Traffic volumes are not available for this corridor. Two-lane collector roadway traverses a mostly developed corridor along medium density residential neighborhoods and some large activity centers. Corridor has wide curbto-curb widths and on-street parking. One of a very few collector roadways that crosses the US 60 freeway. Current traffic volumes range from 1,500 to 3,000 vpd and have decreased over the past decade. 230 • Traffic counts need to be obtained to determine if current traffic volumes may be supported by one travel lane in each direction. A detailed study may be needed before considering this corridor for reconfiguration. • • Corridor traverses the Superstition Freeway Corridor West employment area and provides access to some parts of Downtown Mesa. Parts of the corridor area is identified as a disadvantaged community in the Justice40 initiative and a portion of the population along the corridor is also classified as having disproportionately poor health outcomes. High bike use corridor. Identified as a primary pedestrian corridor in the TMP. Corridor provides access to key Downtown destinations. It is identified as a key pedestrian corridor in the TMP. The corridor area is identified as a disadvantaged community in the Justice40 initiative, and a significant percentage of the population is classified as having disproportionately poor health outcomes. • High bike use corridor. • Current and projected traffic volumes may be supported by one travel lanes in each direction. • Corridor traverses the Superstition Freeway Corridor West employment area. • Potential to reconfigure roadway using Mesa' street typologies to create a multimodal corridor that is supportive of the adjacent land uses. • High bike use corridor. Identified as a primary pedestrian corridor in the TMP. Mesa Transportation Master Plan Table 8-2. Corridors of Opportunity (Continued) Street Configuration and Context Today Location 24th Street: Baseline Road to Consolidated Canal Two-lane collector roadway traverses a mostly developed corridor along medium density residential neighborhoods. Corridor has wide curb-to-curb widths and on-street parking. One of a very few collector roadways that crosses the US 60 freeway. Opportunity • • Potential to reconfigure roadway using Mesa' street typologies to create a multimodal corridor that is supportive of the adjacent land uses. • Current and projected traffic volumes may be supported by one travel lanes in each direction. Current traffic volumes range from 4,000 to 5,000 vpd and remained steady over the past decade. 32nd Street: Baseline Road to 8th Avenue Two-lane collector roadway traverses a mostly developed corridor along low to medium density residential neighborhoods. Corridor has wide curb-to-curb widths and on-street parking. One of a very few collector roadways that crosses the US 60 freeway. • Potential to reconfigure roadway using Mesa' street typologies to create a multimodal corridor that is supportive of the adjacent land uses. • Current and projected traffic volumes may be supported by one travel lanes in each direction. Current traffic volumes range from 2,000 to 3,000 vpd and remained steady over the past decade. 39th Street: Baseline Road to Southern Ave Two-lane collector roadway traverses a mostly developed corridor along medium density residential neighborhoods. Corridor has wide curb-to-curb widths and on-street parking. One of a very few collector roadways that crosses the US 60 freeway. Current traffic volumes are around 3,000 vpd and have remained steady over the past decade. Mesa Transportation Master Plan Current and projected traffic volumes may be supported by one travel lanes in each direction. Benefits/Impacts • High bike use corridor. • Identified as a primary pedestrian corridor in the TMP. • Medium to high bike use corridor. • Identified as a primary pedestrian corridor in the TMP. • Medium to high bike use corridor. • Identified as a primary pedestrian corridor in the TMP. Potential to reconfigure roadway using Mesa' street typologies to create a multimodal corridor that is supportive of the adjacent land uses. 231 Table 8-2. Corridors of Opportunity (Continued) Location Inverness/Sunview: Higley Road to Recker Road Superstition Springs Boulevard: Baseline Road to Sossaman Road Street Configuration and Context Today Low volume collector street that has wide curb-to-curb widths and on-street parking. Four-lane collector roadway with center turn lane that traverses through median density residential neighborhood. Corridor has wide curb-to-curb widths. Opportunity • Current and projected traffic volumes may be supported by one travel lanes in each direction. • Potential to reconfigure roadway using Mesa' street typologies to create a multimodal corridor that is supportive of the adjacent land uses. • Current traffic volumes range from 2,000 to 3,000 vpd; however, they are project to increase. Alma School Road: McLellan Road to Bass Pro Drive Six-lane arterial roadway with a center turn lane that transverse through developed residential and commercial areas. Current traffic volumes are around 20,000 vpd and are expected to increase. 232 • • Benefits/Impacts • Identified as a secondary bicycle corridor in the TMP. Potential to reconfigure roadway using Mesa' street typologies to create a multimodal corridor that is supportive of the adjacent land uses. • Medium bike use corridor. • Identified as a primary bicycle corridor in the TMP. Potential to reconfigure roadway using Mesa' street typologies to create a multimodal corridor that is supportive of the adjacent land uses. • Provides connection from McLellan Road and commercial activity center. • Provides connections to the Stadium Connector SUP. Separated bike lanes of the Stadium Connector SUP can be continued into this segment. Mesa Transportation Master Plan Demonstration Projects Reconfiguring roadways and public spaces can help calm traffic and achieve more walkable, bikeable, and activity-oriented places. But permanent, large-scale changes can be difficult to launch. “Pop-up” demonstrations and pilot projects use low cost, nonpermanent materials (such as planters, spray chalk, cones, and flexible bollards) to temporarily reconfigure a street. Examples of projects where pilots or pop-ups are used include but are not limited to: • Lane reconfiguration • Curb extensions • Pedestrian refuge areas/crossings • Bike lanes (protected, buffered, conventional) • Pedestrian plazas and parklets • Traffic calming Mesa is encouraged to use pop-up demonstration and pilot projects to evaluate TMP recommendations, street design, and traffic operations so community members and City leaders can experience how the street environment can be reutilized. For a pilot project to be successful, it is important to provide the community enough time to adjust to the proposed changes and incorporate input from the community early and often. In some cases, pilot projects may be better indicators than traditional traffic and design studies, which can be costly and may not account for the latest innovations in street designs. Even if the demonstration projects are not successful, it provides invaluable information for future implementations and could potentially spark long-term changes. Try Before You Buy “Pop up” demonstration and pilot projects use low-cost, nonpermanent materials to “test before you invest.” New Street Development The new road and development process and approval is an important avenue for implementing TMP principles, particularly in areas where redevelopment and new development is expected to occur. Policies and procedures should be updated to spell out new requirements for developers and property owners that support implementation of the TMP. Integrating the TMP in new street development can include: • Development plans should address how the design complied with complete networks, street typology design, land use context, and safety needs. • Connectivity standards to provide mobility between neighboring developments. At a minimum, bicycle and pedestrian connectivity should be required. Designing for Vulnerable Users Prioritizing the safety and comfort of people who walk, ride bicycles, and use public transportation is a core component of the TMP. By prioritizing the most vulnerable users first, streets are safer for all users. Mesa Transportation Master Plan 233 PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 234 Mesa Transportation Master Plan INVESTING IN MESA Bringing the full vision of the Mesa TMP to life will take significant on-going investments over the next 25+ years. Funding is the greatest challenge to implementing TMP principles as existing resources are not sufficient to fund all the transformative multimodal improvements proposed in this Plan. Although federal, state, and regional funds for transportation projects have increased over the last decade, the increase has not kept pace with the demand for funding and project cost inflation. This leaves jurisdictions to fill the gap in available funding with local sources, grants, and private sources. Key major federal and local funding opportunities include: Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) On November 15, 2021, President Biden signed the $1.2 trillion Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) into law. The IIJA makes generational investments to repair the nation’s roads and bridges, boost transit and rail funds, electrify vehicles, ensure broadband deployment, and modernize energy systems. Example grant programs that may be applicable for projects in Mesa include: • Active Transportation Infrastructure Investment Program (ATIIP) • Airport Improvement Program (AIP) • Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and Safety Improvements (CRISI) Program • Infrastructure for Rebuilding America (INFRA) Grant Program • National Infrastructure Project Assistance (Mega) Program • Railroad Crossing Elimination Grant Program • Reconnecting Communities Pilot (RCP) Program • Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) Grant Program RAISE Grants Replacing the Better Utilizing Investments to Leverage Development (BUILD) grant program, for projects that will have a significant local or regional impact, including multi-modal and multijurisdictional initiatives. With the passing of the IIJA, RAISE grant funding available had increased to $1.5 billion. Regional Funding Sources Maricopa Association of Governments provides numerous funding opportunities to bring the TMP vision to life. Potential MAG funding programs include: Arterial Life Cycle Program, Highway Safety Improvement Program, Design Assistance, Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvements, and Transit Life Cycle Program. Prop 479 initiative proposes extending the half-cent sales tax from the ongoing Prop 400. RSTIIP investment plan outlines how the Prop 479 funds would be spent throughout the MAG region. Mesa Transportation Master Plan 235 TRACKING AND EVALUATING Performance measures help determine tangible and beneficial benefits and progress for TMP’s goals. The simple framework included in the Mesa TMP will help us better align transportation investment decisions with tangible and measurable benefits. Performance measures help to track the TMP’s progress and effectiveness over time. Table 8-3 outlines suggested performance measures to assess the success of the TMP, track changes in the built environment, identify trends in travel behaviors, and provide performance information to decision-makers. Tracking and reporting the progress of performance measures provides more transparency while building momentum and public support. Table 8-3. TMP Progress Checklist TMP Goals Manage and Maintain Actions  Completed – Yes/No/Ongoing  Two-year cycle  Plan and perform routine maintenance on Mesa maintained roads, paths, bike facilities, sidewalks, and other transportation facilities.  Maintain current, or increase, in percent of roadway miles in fair or better pavement condition  Annually  Maintain current or increase in percent of bridges in fair or better condition  As needed  Maintain current, or increase, in percent of bridges in fair or better condition  Alternate years  Arterials - Maintain or improve miles of roadways operating at LOS E or worse  3-year cycle  Collectors - Maintain or improve miles of roadways operating at LOS E or worse  Annually  Evaluate traffic signal timing and operations.  Maintain or improve number of intersections operating at LOS E or worse  Alternate years  Prepare a citywide Safety Action Plan.  Completed – Yes/No/Ongoing  One time  Conduct a yearly safety review of Mesa’s high injury network and intersections and determine potential safety countermeasures.  Have less fatalities per capita from the previous year  Annually  Have less serious injury crashes per capita from the previous year  Annually  Have less pedestrian and bicyclist crashes per capita from the previous year  Annually  Completed – Yes/No/Ongoing  As needed  Plan, design, and construct corridor improvements to incorporate safety measures. 236 Track Progress  Collect traffic counts along major arterials and bicycle and pedestrian counts along key shared use path locations.  Evaluate mobility performance (LOS) of key arterial corridors. Safety First Performance Measure And Desired Trend Mesa Transportation Master Plan Table 8-3. TMP Progress Checklist (Continued) TMP Goals Connections and Choices Anticipate and Adapt Thrive and Prosper Actions Performance Measure And Desired Trend Track Progress  Identify streets with excess capacity and develop efficient street designs to right-size streets.  Completed – Yes/No/Ongoing  As needed  Conduct a citywide Active Transportation Plan (ATP).  Completed – Yes/No/Ongoing  One time  Conduct a Downtown Micromobility Plan and program recommendations into CIP.  Completed – Yes/No/Ongoing  One time  Identify opportunities to accommodate, improve and increase bicycle and pedestrian facilities, then implement into CIP.  Increased miles of safe and comfortable bike facilities  Annually  Increased miles of safe and comfortable sidewalks and shared use path facilities  Annually  Increased number of safe shared use path crossing locations  Annually  Support efficient transit operations through street and transit stop designs, and modal connections, on transit priority streets.  Maintain current, or increase, transit ridership  Annually  Develop Smart ITS Technologies, including integration with autonomous vehicles.  Completed – Yes/No/Ongoing  Ongoing  Evaluate the need and accommodate emerging technologies such as car charging stations, micromobility, etc.  Completed – Yes/No/Ongoing  Ongoing  Work with CIP/Engineering to revisit designs of planned street construction projects to include technology solutions identified as priorities in the TMP.  Completed – Yes/No/Ongoing  Annually  Create a Mesa-specific Urban Streets Design Guide (USDG).  Completed – Yes/No/Ongoing  One time  Track implementation of transportation projects in sub-areas with high concentrations of disadvantaged population groups.  Completed – Yes/No/Ongoing  As needed  Identify opportunities to integrate recommended street typology designs.  Completed – Yes/No/Ongoing  Annually  Evaluate access to arts, food source, health care and education facilities.  Completed – Yes/No/Ongoing  Alternate years  Continue implementation of ADA Transition Plan.  Increased number of ADA compliant ramps, sidewalks, and pedestrian pushbuttons.  Annually Mesa Transportation Master Plan 237 TMP 2050 APPENDIX A. MESA STREET TYPOLOGIES City of Mesa Street Typologies A context-sensitive approach for designing Mesa’s streets Why Street Typologies? Cities across the United States use the Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) functional classification to organize their streets into a system of arterial, collector, and local streets. The functional classification system defines a street’s role in moving cars within a larger network, considering the balance between ‘mobility’— the street’s ability to move cars— and ‘access’— the ease with which cars can access adjacent streets and property along the road. For example, arterial streets provide higher levels of mobility for cars but lower levels of access to abutting land. While the functional classification system helps to create an structured street network for moving cars, it does not consider the diversity of users on Mesa’s streets—people walking, biking, and taking transit—and their needs. The functional classification system also applies a “one size fits all” approach to streets, assuming that all collectors or all arterials should function and be designed in the same manner regardless of surrounding land uses, diverse modal needs, or the destinations a street connects. As Mesa continues to grow and expand, its streets should adapt so that people of all ages and abilities and using all modes have access to complete and connected networks that enable them to safely, conveniently and comfortably travel across the City. Mesa must also ensure that newly built roadways serve the intended purposes based on planned land use, and unplanned trip generators. 2 City of Mesa Street Typologies What Are Street Typologies? Street typologies provide context-specific design guidance for retrofitting existing streets or developing new corridors to create streets that are safer, more convenient, and comfortable for everyone, whether they drive, walk, bike, or use transit. Typologies provide additional guidance to help develop or redevelop streets that are responsive to the local context and needs of the adjacent land uses. Lastly, Street Typologies provide a process to determine and implement the proper roadway cross section despite competing needs, or limited Right-of-Way, to achieve outcomes consistent with the values stated above. Mesa's Street Typologies work hand-in-hand with the City’s existing engineering standards and the General Plan to help define the City’s vision for transportation. 3 Proposed Street Typologies in Mesa Mesa’s Street Typologies are organized by 1) the City’s roadway functional classification, and 2) land use place types. In consultation with City staff, the General Plan’s land use categories were consolidated to create eight land use place types. In total, there are 18 street typologies, each a unique combination of functional classification and land use place type. Not every functional classification runs through all place types. Functional Classifications Arterial Collector Local Land Use Place Types Open Space / Preserve / Rural Residential Low to Medium Density Residential / Neighborhoods High Density Residential / Mixed Use Activity Centers Employment / Activity Center Industrial Downtown 4 City of Mesa Street Typologies Using Street Typologies The Street Typologies can be applied to the design of new streets, both by the City and private developers, as well as projects where the City is conducting significant work on an existing street (e.g., resurfacing, reconstruction, utility work) which are usually part of the City's CIP program. Taking advantage of these opportunities when work is already being conducted within the right-of-way to implement additional street enhancements is an efficient pathway to consistently upgrade Mesa's streets. Applying the Street Typologies can help streamline and systematize these improvements. When applying typologies to street design, adjacent street segments current design should also be taken into consideration. As with any project, budget limitations may need to be considered as streeet typologies are applied. A traditional street design process typically involves applying just the standards for the appropriate functional classification. With a typology design process, streets with the same functional classification receive different design treatments based on the adjacent land use place type, modal priorities, and surrounding context. The flow chart below demonstrates how the typology design process can be used in conjunction with the City’s existing standards through coordination and collaboration across staff and other stakeholders. 5 Customizing Streets with Typologies 1 Determine functional classification and street context of corridor + = Locate typology guidance: Arterials: Collectors: Locals: 2 Determine modal priorities Reference complete modal networks from the Mesa TMP and identify overlap/ connections. Page 11 Page 23 Page 35 3 For existing corridors, gather existing ROW width, traffic volumes, and safety data Total Available Corridor Right-of-Way (ROW) 130’ 0 150 Current and Projected Traffic Volumes Specific Safety Issues Speeding, high pedestrian crash rates, nearby schools, frequent driveways, etc. 4 6 Allocate space to accommodate all users Identify Minimum: Travel lanes needed Landscape width Sidewalk width Bicycle facilities 5 Allocate remaining street right-of-way Allocate space based on modal overlay, safety and land use context. City of Mesa Street Typologies How to Use This Document Each of the 18 street typologies has its own sheet which details its functional classification and place type designation; describes the typology and its key characteristics; lays out a preliminary process for determining the appropriate number of travel lanes; provides details on the dimensions of street elements and provides additional guidance on certain street design elements. Street typology name and description with functional classification and street context. Preferred and allowable dimensions for street design elements tailored to the street context. Description of the street typology's available Right-of-Way, target speed, and target shade covering. Target speed is not the same as speed limit. Target Speed is the desired speed at which vehicles should operate given the specific context. Initial guidance on the appropriate number of travel lanes given anticipated volumes. Guidance should be complemented by detailed traffic analysis. 7 Page Intentionally Left Blank 8 City of Mesa Street Typologies Street Zones Design guidance for each street type is organized by zones, as illustrated below. The zones provide distinct spaces where similar street users and uses typically gather, move, or operate and provides a critical framework for design guidance. The typical concepts for each street type include dimensions for each zone to inform project concepts and preliminary design. The width and uses of the zones may change along a street segment or vary by time of day based on land use context and demands. 9 Street Design Elements The street design elements for each typology is broken down by street zone as detailed below. Most elements have a preferred standard for each typology as well as an allowable range for unique or exceptional circumstances. General Guidance Target Shade Coverage: Accommodation for shade should be considered in all street design to create a more comfortable experience for people walking. Target Vehicle Speed: Roadways and signal timing should be designed to influence a target vehicle speed on the corridor. Transit: Arterial typologies feature guidance for designing streets to best accommodate comfortable and efficient transit service. Pedestrian: Each typology includes specific recommendations on relevant pedestrian infrastructure. Traffic Calming: Each collector/local street typology includes design solutions/guidance to keep vehicle traffic traveling at safe Bicycle: Each typology includes recommendations on the appropriate bikeway types and additional design solutions. Surrounding Context The urban design immediately adjacent to street right-of-way can have a significant impact on the experience of street users, especially people walking and cycling. Zero-lot lines, facade transparency, front porches, rear parking lots and commercial uses with direct sidewalk access can all enhance the adjacent street space. 10 City of Mesa Street Typologies Vehicle Zone Vehicle Travel Lanes: The total number of vehicle travel lanes will be based on existing and anticipated future traffic volume demands. Right-sizing the number of lanes helps avoid costly over-building, excessive impermeable paving and long pedestrian crossing distances. A lanes map is included in the appendix that is based on current and projected 2050 traffic volume outputs from the MAG model that takes into account planned growth in the City of Mesa. Changes to the lanes map may be needed based on future updates to the MAG model and the City's future growth plans and projections. Designing for wider medians can accommodate plantings as well as turn lanes. Travel and Turn Lane Width: Adjusting travel lane widths keeps traffic moving while also encouraging appropriate speeds and keeping pavement to a minimum. Median: Each typology includes recommendations on median type. See appendix for map of proposed medians on the City's street network. Median Width: Wider medians can provide space for plantings and pedestrian refuge at crossings. Sidewalk Zone Mid-block crossings can increase pedestrian crossing frequencies, reducing trip times. Sidewalk Width: Wider sidewalks, especially in areas of higher pedestrian traffic, allow multiple people to walk comfortably alongside each other and let others pass. They also provide space for micro-mobility vehicles. Near parks, schools and commercial areas, wider sidewalks also facilitate high-quality public gathering space. Landscaped Buffer Width: Providing a landscaped buffer between vehicle lanes and people walking/ bicycling creates a more comfortable experience and provides space for shade trees. Landscaped buffers are also important to separate pedestrian and bike facilities. Pedestrian Crossing Frequency: Frequent crossings reduce pedestrian trip times and improve accessibility. Flex zones allow for curb lanes to fill Flex Zone many uses, including, for instance, bike share docks. Flex zones reimagine curb space on Collectors and Locals not just for vehicle parking and loading, but for more dynamic functions based on adjacent land use that change throughout the day, seasons or years. 11 Bikeway Zone The quality of bike infrastructure matters as simply striping a bike lane on any corridor can be a missed opportunity to build out a low-stress/ high comfort bike network that serves all users and all abilities. The street typologies outlines a set of preffered and applicable bike facilities, and their recommended dimensions, based on a street's classification and surrounding street context. Bike facilities may include: Bike Boulevard: Typically traffic calmed residential streets with low vehicle volumes and low speeds where motor vehicles and bicycles share the road space. Often referred to as Neighborhood Bike Routes or Neighborhood Greenways, Bike Boulevards use pavement markings, signs, and traffic calming elements to enhance safety and comfort for people on bicycles. 12 Striped Bike Lane: Designate exclusive space for people biking through the use of pavement markings. Bike lanes are intended for one-way travel and are typically provided on both sides of two-way streets, and on one side of one-way streets. Conventional bike lanes may vary in width. Buffered Bike Lane: Provide additional horizontal separation between the bike and travel or parking lanes, increasing comfort and separation for people biking. Buff ered bike lanes are preferred along streets with higher volumes and speeds, where conventional bike lanes may not adequately enhance comfort and safety for people biking. Buffers provide a greater space for bicycling without making the bike lane appear overly wide, as overly wide space may attract unintended motor vehicle use for driving or parking. City of Mesa Street Typologies Protected Bike Lane: Protected bike lanes, also known as cycle tracks and separated bike lanes, incorporate physical, vertical separation from motorized traffic, parking lanes, and adjacent walking facilities. Physical separation varies and includes fl exible post delineators, raised medians, landscaping, or another physical object. This vertical element differentiates protected bike lanes from striped and buffered bike lanes. Shared Use Path: Designate Shared use paths are bi-directional paths for nonmotorized uses. They may run fully separate from a road or e directly adjacent to streets as a sidepath. These facilities may include separated lanes for people walking and biking or mix all modes together, and they may also include an adjacent unpaved path to accommodate equestrian use. These facilities off er network connectivity outside of the roadway network and are usually located in parks, along rivers, canals, greenbelts, or utility corridors. 13 Page Intentionally Left Blank 14 Street Typologies Arterials 15 Arterials Arterials help form the backbone of Mesa's transportation system, providing access to key destinations across the city. Arterials move the largest volumes of vehicles but also have significant rightof-way that can be used to separate people walking and biking from vehicle traffic. Space should also be allocated for wide medians with landscaping and lighting. Many arterials serve as major transit routes, so enabling efficient transit service and access to transit are important goals. Additionally, arterials also provide access for trucks and heavy vehicles to access industrial and warehouse areas. On arterials, minimizing conflicts between modes and at intersections is critical. Existing Engineering Standards Total Right-of-Way (ROW)* 130’ Number of Travel Lanes 4-6 Travel Lane Width 11’ Median Width 11 - 16’ Sidewalk Width 6’ Landscaped Buffer Width 9.5' Bikeway Width (one-way) 5.5 - 6’ Bikeway Type On-street On-Street Parking N/A * Additional width may be needed to accommodate any Public Utility and Facilities Easements (PUFE) Source: 2023 Mesa Standard Details and Specifications 16 City of Mesa Street Typologies Arterial Roads with Surrounding Street Context 17 Arterials Low to Medium Density Residential / Neighborhoods Arterials traversing low to medium residential and neighborhood land uses often support high traffic volumes with widely spaced intersections and crossings. Residential properties are typically separated from the road by a privacy wall. Because vehicles travel at relatively high speeds, providing space between vehicles and pedestrian and/or bicycle facilities is a top priority. Many existing major arterials have ample space to separate modes and increase comfort for those walking or biking. Key Characteristics How many lanes are needed? Street Design Elements Preferred Allowable Range Travel Lane Width 11’ 10-12' Raised Median (Preferred) 14-20' 11-24' Striped Median (Alternate Option) 12-14' 11-16' 0 0 - 3k volume 2 lanes (unmarked) 0 - 12k volume 2 lanes 50 Target Speed 40 – 45 miles per hour 10 - 20k volume 2 lanes + median Target Shade Covering 30% 30k+ volume 6 lanes + median 20 - 30k volume 4 lanes + median BIKEWAYS feet SIDEWALK Right-of-Way 130 VEHICLES 130 Preferred: Protected Bike Lane or Shared Use Path Alternate Option: Buffered Bike Lane Protected Bike Lane Width 6’ 5-8' Protected Bike Lane Buffer* 4' 2-6' Shared Use Path Width** 12’ 8-16' Buffered Bike Lane Width 6' 5-8' Buffered Bike Lane Buffer 4’ 2-6' Sidewalk Width 6’ 5-8' Landscaped Buffer Width 8-12' 4-15' Pedestrian Crossing Frequency 1300’ 1300-2600' * Buffer width may be smaller if using vertical separation ** A shared use path acts as both the bikeway and sidewalk 18 Arterials High Density Residential / Mixed Use Activity Centers Arterials in High Density Residential / Mixed Use Activity Centers provide access to local destinations and services. Many trips from adjacent neighborhoods to access these destinations can be made by walking or biking, so safety and convenience for these users should be balanced with the street’s overall efficiency. Safe crossings for people walking and access to transit are important considerations. Key Characteristics How many lanes are needed? Street Design Elements 0 0 - 3k volume 2 lanes (unmarked) 0 - 12k volume 2 lanes 50 Target Speed 35 – 40 miles per hour 10 - 20k volume 2 lanes + median Target Shade Covering 3030k+ volume 6 lanes + median 20 - 30k volume 4 lanes + median BIKEWAYS feet SIDEWALK Right-of-Way 130 VEHICLES 130 Preferred Allowable Range Travel Lane Width 11’ 10-12' Raised Median (Preferred) 14-20' 11-24' Striped Median (Alternate Option) 12-14' 11-16' Preferred: Protected Bike Lane or Shared Use Path Alternate Option: Buffered Bike Lane Protected Bike Lane Width 6’ 5-8' Protected Bike Lane Buffer* 4' 2-6' Shared Use Path Width** 12’ 8-16' Buffered Bike Lane Width 6' 5-8' Buffered Bike Lane Buffer 4’ 2-6' Sidewalk Width 8’ 5-10' Landscaped Buffer Width 8-12' 3-15' Pedestrian Crossing Frequency 800’ 800-1300' * Buffer width may be smaller if using vertical separation ** A shared use path acts as both the bikeway and sidewalk 19 Arterials Employment / Activity Center Arterials within Employment / Activity Centers are important corridors for moving people and providing access to employment, services, and commercial centers. Many trips cover longer distances, either by car or transit, but Employment / Activity Center also include higher density housing and must provide a safe environment for people walking and accessing transit. Key Characteristics How many lanes are needed? Street Design Elements Preferred Allowable Range Travel Lane Width 11’ 10-12' Raised Median (Preferred) 14-20' 11-24' Striped Median (Alternate Option) 12-14' 11-16' 0 0 - 3k volume 2 lanes (unmarked) 0 - 12k volume 2 lanes 50 Target Speed 35 – 40 miles per hour 10 - 20k volume 2 lanes + median Target Shade Covering 30% 30k+ volume 6 lanes + median 20 - 30k volume 4 lanes + median BIKEWAYS feet SIDEWALK Right-of-Way 130 VEHICLES 130 Preferred: Protected Bike Lane or Shared Use Path Alternate Option: Buffered Bike Lane Protected Bike Lane Width 6’ 5-8' Protected Bike Lane Buffer* 4' 2-6' Shared Use Path Width** 12’ 8-16' Buffered Bike Lane Width 6' 5-8' Buffered Bike Lane Buffer 4’ 2-6' Sidewalk Width 8’ 6-10' Landscaped Buffer Width 8-12' 3-15' Pedestrian Crossing Frequency 800’ 800-2600' * Buffer width may be smaller if using vertical separation ** A shared use path acts as both the bikeway and sidewalk 20 Arterials Industrial Arterials in Industrial areas need to provide direct, convenient, and efficient access between commercial and industrial locations to regional routes and destinations. These high-volume routes should pay careful attention to ensuring lane widths and turning radii are designed with pedestrian safety in mind, but do not prohibit freight movement. Key Characteristics How many lanes are needed? Street Design Elements 0 0 - 3k volume 2 lanes (unmarked) 0 - 12k volume 2 lanes 50 Target Speed 35 – 40 miles per hour 10 - 20k volume 2 lanes + median Target Shade Covering 30% 30k+ volume 6 lanes + median 20 - 30k volume 4 lanes + median BIKEWAYS feet SIDEWALK Right-of-Way 130 VEHICLES 130 Preferred Allowable Range Travel Lane Width 11’ 11-14' Raised Median (Preferred) 14-20' 11-24' Striped Median (Alternate Option) 12-14' 11-16' Preferred: Protected Bike Lane or Shared Use Path Alternate Option: Buffered Bike Lane Protected Bike Lane Width 6’ 5-8' Protected Bike Lane Buffer* 5' 2-6' Shared Use Path Width** 12’ 8-16' Buffered Bike Lane Width 6' 5-8' Buffered Bike Lane Buffer 5’ 4-6' Sidewalk Width 6’ 6-10' Landscaped Buffer Width 8-12' 5-15' Pedestrian Crossing Frequency 1300’ 1300-2600' * Buffer width may be smaller if using vertical separation ** A shared use path acts as both the bikeway and sidewalk 21 Arterials Downtown Downtown Mesa experiences some of the highest amount of street-level activity in Mesa today. Therefore, arterials should be designed to provide a safe, pleasant environment for people walking and create an inviting public realm. Providing access to key destinations for people using all modes is a primary goal, which must be balanced with moving people on these corridors. Key Characteristics How many lanes are needed? Street Design Elements 90 Preferred Allowable Range Travel Lane Width 10’ 10-11' Raised Median (Preferred) 12' 10-14' 0 0 - 3k volume 2 lanes (unmarked) 0 - 12k volume 2 lanes 50 Target Speed 25 – 30 miles per hour 10 - 20k volume 2 lanes + median Target Shade Covering 40-60% 30k+ volume 6 lanes + median 20 - 30k volume 4 lanes + median BIKEWAYS feet SIDEWALK Right-of-Way 90-130 VEHICLES 130 Preferred: Protected or Buffered Bike Lane Alternate Option: Striped Bike Lane Protected Bike Lane Width 6’ 5-8' Protected Bike Lane Buffer* 3 2-6' Shared Use Path Width N/A N/A Buffered Bike Lane Width 6' 5-8' Buffered Bike Lane Buffer 4’ 2-6' Sidewalk Width 8-10’ 6-12' Landscaped Buffer Width 2-5' 2-8' Pedestrian Crossing Frequency 400’ 400-600' * Buffer width may be smaller if using vertical separation 22 Arterials Open Space / Preserve / Rural Residential Recreation and open spaces attract large numbers of visitors, particularly from surrounding neighborhoods and including many children. Helping residents access these spaces safely and without needing a vehicle are top priorities. Increased plantings provide more shade, and robust pedestrian and bicycle facilities help provide comfortable and safe connections. Key Characteristics How many lanes are needed? Street Design Elements Preferred Allowable Range Travel Lane Width 11’ 10-12' Raised or Striped Median 14-20' 11-24' Right-of-Way 130 feet 0 - 3k volume 2 lanes (unmarked) 0 - 12k volume 2 lanes VEHICLES 130 50 Target Speed 40- 45 miles per hour 10 - 20k volume 2 lanes + median 20 - 30k volume 4 lanes + median SIDEWALK 0 BIKEWAYS Preferred: Buffered Bike Lane or Shared Use Path Target Shade Covering 30-60% 30k+ volume 6 lanes + median Shared Use Path Width** 12’ 8-16' Buffered Bike Lane Width 6' 5-8' Buffered Bike Lane Buffer 5’ 4-6' Sidewalk Width 6’ 5-8' Landscaped Buffer Width 8-12' 3-15' Pedestrian Crossing Frequency 1300’ 1300-2600' ** A shared use path acts as both the bikeway and sidewalk 23 Arterials Pedestrian Guidance Arterials must provide a safe environment for people walking from their homes to transit and other key destinations. Crosswalk Type: High visibility crosswalks (A) are recommended at all arterial crossings. Pedestrian Signals: Leading pedestrian intervals and actuated pedestrian signals are recommended near schools, parks, and areas with high numbers of people walking. A Mid-Block Crossings: Mid-block crossings can be used to create direct connections between neighborhoods and important destinations for people walking, such as parks, playgrounds, and schools. Because of the speeds and volumes on arterials, signalized or pedestrian hybrid beacon crossings (B) with high visibility signage and a refuge island are needed to create safe mid-block crossings. Speed Reduction Guidance Additional design tools may be needed to ensure speeds are safe for all street users on arterials. Examples include: Roundabout: Roundabouts reduce speeds and organize traffic by routing vehicles around the island rather than directly across the intersection. B Signal Coordination: Signals should be timed to enable the progression of vehicles traveling at the speed limit and to disincentivize speeding. Speed Feedback Sign: Speed limits may be lowered adjacent to parks, recreation areas and open spaces, and speed feedback signs help remind drivers that they are passing at through a slower travel zone. Narrow Travel Lanes: Reducing the width of travel lanes requires more cautious driving and can reduce vehicle speeds. Speed Limit Reduction: Reduced posted speed limits can lead to measurable decrease in travel speeds and crashes. 24 C City of Mesa Street Typologies Bicycle Guidance Arterials provide the dual function of enabling access to local destinations and connecting neighborhoods to the wider bike network. Shared Use Path: Off-Street Shared Use Paths (D) should be applied where bike and pedestrian volumes are anticipated to be low and very limited crossings (driveways and intersections) are present. D Protected Bike Lanes: Protected bike lane (E) can be one- or two-way bicycle-only paved paths on each side of street with buffers between them and the street and sidewalks. They should be used in areas of higher bike and pedestrian activity. Buffered Bike Lane: If off-street bikeway is not feasible, an on-street lane with a buffer (F) may be applicable, but not preferred. Shared Use Path Crossings: Where shared use paths cross arterials, consider a raised center median to slow vehicles and create a two-stage crossing for bicyclists. Crossings may also benefit from signalization or Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (B). Median Guidance E Planted center medians (C) narrow the field of vision for drivers and can result in slower vehicle speeds. Design of the raised median should focus on visually narrowing the street, which slows traffic, and also provide pedestrian and bicycle refuge space for two-stage crossings. Green infrastructure and street lighting can also be included in raised medians. On Main Street in Downtown Mesa, however, the light rail makes having a traditional raised median with landscaping and refuge for two-stage crossings not feasible. Transit Guidance Transit shelters should be provided at every stop to offer protection from the sun and wind and a place to sit. Each stop should include information on the routes that service that stop and their schedules. Off-street bicycle lanes are recommended for streets with transit stops to prevent conflicts. For on-street bikeways, clear markings should highlight conflict area. F 25 Page Intentionally Left Blank 26 Street Typologies Collectors 27 Collectors Collector streets link residents to nearby destinations and adjacent neighborhoods and connect to Mesa's arterials, which enables longer, cross-town trips. Many trips on collectors are shorter, making walking and biking more feasible. Collectors should be designed for moderate vehicle volumes and lower speeds. Combined with high-quality sidewalks and bike facilities, enhanced landscaping, furniture, and shading, collector streets can be attractive corridors for walking and biking. In some locations, collector streets may include flex zones. Existing Engineering Standards Total Right-of-Way (ROW)* 80-130’ Number of Travel Lanes 2-4 Travel Lane Width 11’ Median Width 11 - 16’ Sidewalk Width 6’ Landscaped Buffer Width 9.5' Bikeway Width (one-way) 5.5’ Bikeway Type On-street On-Street Parking 8' * Additional width may be needed to accommodate any Public Utility and Facilities Easements (PUFE) Source: 2023 Mesa Standard Details and Specifications 28 City of Mesa Street Typologies Collector Roads with Surrounding Street Context 29 Collectors Low to Medium Density Residential / Neighborhoods Collectors in Low to Medium Density Residential/Neighborhoods connect neighborhood streets to the City's broader transportation network and nearby destinations. These streets typically carry low to moderate volumes of traffic at low speeds and, with additional design elements, can make walking and biking an attractive option for many short trips. Key Characteristics How many lanes are needed? Street Design Elements 80 50 Target Speed 25-30 miles per hour 10 - 20k volume 2 lanes + center turn Target Shade Covering 30% 30k+ volume 6 lanes + center turn 30 0 - 12k volume 2 lanes Travel Lane Width 10’ 10-11' Median Width 11' 10-12' Low Volumes: Bike Boulevard, Shared Lane Moderate Volumes: Striped or Buffered Bike Lane BIKEWAYS 0 0 - 3k volume 2 lanes (unmarked) Buffered Bike Lane Width 5’ 4-6' Buffered Bike Lane Buffer 3' 2-5' Striped Bike Lane Width 6’ 5-6' Sidewalk Width 6’ 5-8' Landscaped Buffer Width 5-8' 3-10' Pedestrian Crossing Frequency 600’ 600-1300' 8’ 7-9' 20 - 30k volume 4 lanes + center turn FLEX ZONE feet Allowable Range SIDEWALK Right-of-Way 80 – 130 VEHICLES Preferred Flex Zone Width Collectors High Density Residential / Mixed Use Activity Centers Collectors in High Density Residential / Mixed Use Activity Centers link neighborhoods to nearby services and shopping. These streets should be designed to enable people to walk and bike for short trips both within their neighborhood and to nearby destinations and to help support nearby businesses. Key Characteristics How many lanes are needed? Street Design Elements VEHICLES 80 Right-of-Way 80 – 130 0 - 12k volume 2 lanes Target Speed 25-30 miles per hour 10 - 20k volume 2 lanes + center turn Target Shade Covering 30% 30k+ volume 6 lanes + center turn 20 - 30k volume 4 lanes + center turn Travel Lane Width 10’ 10-12' Median Width 11' 10-12' Low Volumes: Bike Boulevard, Shared Lane Moderate Volumes: Striped or Buffered Bike Lane BIKEWAYS 50 Allowable Range Buffered Bike Lane Width 5’ 4-6' Buffered Bike Lane Buffer 3' 2-5' Striped Bike Lane Width 6’ 5-6' SIDEWALK 0 0 - 3k volume 2 lanes (unmarked) Sidewalk Width 8’ 6-10' Landscaped Buffer Width 5-8' 3-10' Pedestrian Crossing Frequency 600’ 600-1300' 8’ 7-9' FLEX ZONE feet Preferred Flex Zone Width 31 Collectors Employment / Activity Center Collectors in Employment/Activity Centers link people to major employment and commercial centers and services. They also can provide circulation within these centers and allow for people to move between destinations. They should deliver an efficient experience for people using all modes of transportation, and their design should anticipate significant numbers of people walking. Key Characteristics How many lanes are needed? Street Design Elements 80 50 Target Speed 25-30 miles per hour 10 - 20k volume 2 lanes + center turn Target Shade Covering 30% 30k+ volume 6 lanes + center turn 32 0 - 12k volume 2 lanes Travel Lane Width 10’ 10-12' Median Width 11' 10-12' Low Volumes: Bike Boulevard, Shared Lane Moderate Volumes: Striped or Buffered Bike Lane BIKEWAYS 0 0 - 3k volume 2 lanes (unmarked) Buffered Bike Lane Width 5’ 4-6' Buffered Bike Lane Buffer 3' 2-5' Striped Bike Lane Width 6’ 5-6' Sidewalk Width 8’ 6-10' Landscaped Buffer Width 5-8' 3-10' Pedestrian Crossing Frequency 600’ 600-1300' 8’ 7-9' 20 - 30k volume 4 lanes + center turn FLEX ZONE feet Allowable Range SIDEWALK Right-of-Way 80 – 130 VEHICLES Preferred Flex Zone Width BIKEWAYS Collectors Industrial Collectors in Industrial areas link commercial and industrial to regional routes and destinations. Although volumes and speeds are lower, bicycle facilities should still be protected or separated from vehicle traffic. In constrained situations under low volume conditions, striped bike lane is allowable. Key Characteristics How many lanes are needed? Street Design Elements Preferred Allowable Range Travel Lane Width 11’ 11-13' Median Width 12' 11-14' VEHICLES 80 Right-of-Way 80 – 130 feet 0 - 12k volume 2 lanes BIKEWAYS 50 Target Speed 35-40 miles per hour Low Volumes: Striped Bike Lane Moderate Volumes: Buffered Bike Lane or Shared Use Path 10 - 20k volume 2 lanes + center turn 20 - 30k volume 4 lanes + center turn SIDEWALK 0 0 - 3k volume 2 lanes (unmarked) Target Shade Covering 30% 30k+ volume 6 lanes + center turn Buffered Bike Lane Width 6’ 5-8' Buffered Bike Lane Buffer 4' 3-6' Shared Use Path Width** 12’ 8-14' Striped Bike Lane Width 6’ 5-8' Sidewalk Width 6’ 6-8' Landscaped Buffer Width 5' 4-10' Pedestrian Crossing Frequency 800’ 800-1300' ** A shared use path acts as both the bikeway and sidewalk 33 Collectors Downtown Downtown Mesa experiences some of the highest amount of street-level activity in Mesa. Collectors in Downtown Mesa should be designed to maximize space for people walking and to create an inviting public realm. To support this goal, flex zones provide many opportunities for varied uses. Key Characteristics How many lanes are needed? Street Design Elements 80 50 Target Speed 25 miles per hour 10 - 20k volume 2 lanes + center turn Target Shade Covering 30-60% 30k+ volume 6 lanes + center turn 34 0 - 12k volume 2 lanes Travel Lane Width 10’ 10-11' Median Width 11' 10-12' Low Volumes: Bike Boulevard, Shared Lane Moderate Volumes: Striped or Buffered Bike Lane BIKEWAYS 0 0 - 3k volume 2 lanes (unmarked) Buffered Bike Lane Width 5’ 4-6' Buffered Bike Lane Buffer 3' 2-5' Striped Bike Lane Width 6’ 5-6' Sidewalk Width 8-16’ 6-20' Landscaped Buffer Width 5-8' 3-10' Pedestrian Crossing Frequency 400’ 400-800' 9’ 7-9' 20 - 30k volume 4 lanes + center turn FLEX ZONE feet Allowable Range SIDEWALK Right-of-Way 80 – 130 VEHICLES Preferred Flex Zone Width Collectors Open Space / Preserve / Rural Residential Collector streets within the Open Space/Preserve/Rural Residential areas should enable everyone, from our youngest to our oldest residents, to comfortably access Mesa’s parks and open spaces. Low volumes and travel speeds, plentiful trees and vegetation, wide sidewalks and bike facilities create a welcoming environment for people walking and biking. Key Characteristics How many lanes are needed? Street Design Elements Preferred Right-of-Way 80 – 130 50 Target Speed 25-30 miles per hour 10 - 20k volume 2 lanes + center turn Target Shade Covering 30- 60% Allowable Range Travel Lane Width 10’ 10-11' Median Width 11' 10-12' Low Volumes: Bike Boulevard, Shared Lane, Shared Use Path Moderate Volumes: Striped or Buffered Bike Lane BIKEWAYS 0 - 12k volume 2 lanes 20 - 30k volume 4 lanes + center turn SIDEWALK 0 0 - 3k volume 2 lanes (unmarked) 30k+ volume 6 lanes + center turn FLEX ZONE feet VEHICLES 80 Buffered Bike Lane Width 5’ 4-8' Buffered Bike Lane Buffer 3' 2-5' Shared Use Path Width** 12’ 8-14' Striped Bike Lane Width 6’ 5-6' Sidewalk Width 6’ 6-8' Landscaped Buffer Width 5-8' 3-10' Pedestrian Crossing Frequency 800’ 800-1300' 8’ 7-9' Flex Zone Width ** A shared use path acts as both the bikeway and sidewalk 35 Collectors Pedestrian Guidance Safety and convenience for people walking are primary design objectives for Collector streets. Crosswalk Type: High visibility crosswalks (A) are recommended. Pedestrian Signals: Leading pedestrian intervals and automatic pedestrian signals are recommended near schools, parks, and areas with significant numbers of people walking. A Mid-Block Crossings: Mid-block crossings (B) with bumpouts should be used to create direct connections between neighborhoods and important destinations for people walking, such as schools and commercial centers. Raised crosswalks (C), rectangular rapid flashing beacons, and clear signage (including in-street ‘yield to pedestrian’ signs) can all help pedestrians navigate mid-block crossings. Traffic Calming Guidance Keeping traffic speeds low is essential to create a safe, attractive environment for people walking. Examples incude, but are not limited to: Roundabouts and Mini Roundabouts: Circular intersections with raised center islands designed to slow vehicles without impacting traffic flow. Roundabouts have been shown to significantly reduce serious crashes. B Chicanes: Introducing a slight “s” curve into the street encourages drivers to reduce their speed. Chicanes can be created by alternating the flex zone/on-street parking from one side of the street to the other; using temporary, low-cost materials; or by constructing concrete curb extensions that can include green infrastructure and landscaping. Using a pair of chicanes further reduces vehicle speeds. Narrow Travel Lanes: Reducing the width of travel lanes requires more cautious driving and can reduce vehicle speeds. C 36 City of Mesa Street Typologies Bicycle Guidance Collectors provide the dual function of enabling access to local destinations and connecting neighborhoods to the wider bike network. Protected Bike Lane: Protected Bike Lanes (D) are one- or two-way bicycle-only paved paths on each side of street with buffers between them and the street and sidewalks. They should be used in areas of higher bike and pedestrian activity. D Buffered Bike Lane: A Buffered Lane (E) is recommended if there is not space for offstreet facilities. Shared Lanes: If space is constrained and vehicle volumes and speeds are low (less than 5,000 vehicles per day with 30 mph or lower), an on-street lane can be used. Bike Boulevard: On residential streets with low vehicle volumes and low speeds, bike boulevards can be used where motor vehicles and bicycles share the road space. Crossings: Where bike routes on collector streets cross major streets, special treatments (F) should be incorporated to enhance the safety of the crossing, such as speed tables, refuge islands, and rectangular rapid flashing beacons. Median Guidance E If traffic and turning volumes dictate that a center turn lane is necessary on collector streets, it is recommended that a center turn lane is implemented in conjunction with a raised planted median, creating median openings where turning volumes dictate. Raised planted medians visually narrow the street, which slows traffic, and also provide pedestrian and bicycle refuge space for two-stage crossings. Flex Zone Guidance Flex zones can be converted to a curb extension within 20 feet of intersections or mid-block pedestrian crossings. May be used to incorporate additional green infrastructure, landscaping, May be used to incorporate additional green infrastructure, landscaping, and trees into the streetscape to provide additional shade and vegetation and manage stormwater. F Flex zones can be used for on-street parking and passenger loading/unloading zones. The amount of space dedicated for parking and loading should be based on anticipated usage. May be used to provide additional bike parking and space for shared electric scooters. 37 Page Intentionally Left Blank 38 Street Typologies Locals 39 Local Local streets connect residents to the City's transportation network and act as places for neighbors to recreate, socialize, and play. Local streets are designed to carry very little traffic and for cars to move slowly; they should be calm, shaded, and kid-friendly. Local streets include flex zones that can be used for on-street parking and green infrastructure, as well as additional uses in higher density areas. Existing Engineering Standards Total Right-of-Way (ROW)* 50-80’ Number of Travel Lanes 2 Sidewalk Width 5’ Landscaped Buffer Width 0-5' Bikeway Type On-street On-Street Parking N/A * Additional width may be needed to accommodate any Public Utility and Facilities Easements (PUFE) Source: 2023 Mesa Standard Details and Specifications 40 City of Mesa Street Typologies Local Roads with Surrounding Street Context 41 Local Low to Medium Density Residential / Neighborhoods Local streets in Low to Medium Density Residential / Neighborhoods areas enable residents to step out their front door and connect to Mesa's broader transportation network. They also serve as shared community spaces and an extension of residents’ front yards and should encourage drivers to travel at safe speeds. Key Characteristics How many lanes are needed? Street Design Elements 50 feet 50 Target Speed 25 miles per hour 10 - 20k volume 2 lanes + center turn Target Shade Covering 30% 30k+ volume 6 lanes + center turn 42 0 - 12k volume 2 lanes 20 - 30k volume 4 lanes + center turn Travel Lane Width Bikeway Type Shared Lane or Bike Boulevard Sidewalk Width 5’ 5-8' Landscaped Buffer Width 4' 0-8' Pedestrian Crossing Frequency 600’ 300-1000' Flex Zone Width 8’ 7-9' FLEX ZONE 0 0 - 3k volume 2 lanes (unmarked) BIKEWAYS VEHICLES Right-of-Way 50 – 80 Allowable Range SIDEWALK Preferred 10’ 10-11' Curb-to-Curb Width 36' 26-51' Local High Density Residential / Mixed Use Activity Centers Local streets in High Density Residential / Mixed Use Activity Centers connect residents to their homes and their daily needs (i.e., grocery stores, restaurants, shopping centers, etc.). Local streets are often residential, which means that the street’s function as a public space, social space and play space should be encouraged and prioritized. Key Characteristics How many lanes are needed? Street Design Elements Preferred feet 0 - 12k volume 2 lanes Travel Lane Width Striped Bike Lane Width 6’ 5-6' 10’ 10-11' Curb-to-Curb Width 36' 26-51' Sidewalk Width 8’ 5-10' Landscaped Buffer Width 4' 0-8' Pedestrian Crossing Frequency 400’ 300-1000' Flex Zone Width 8’ 7-9' Bikeway Type Shared Lane, Bike Boulevard, Bike Lane 50 Target Speed 25 miles per hour 10 - 20k volume 2 lanes + center turn 20 - 30k volume 4 lanes + center turn FLEX ZONE 0 0 - 3k volume 2 lanes (unmarked) BIKEWAYS VEHICLES Right-of-Way 50 – 80 Allowable Range SIDEWALK 50 Target Shade Covering 30% 30k+ volume 6 lanes + center turn 43 Local Employment / Activity Center Local streets in Employment/Activity Centers link people to major employment and commercial centers and services. They also can provide circulation within these centers and allow for people to move between destinations. Key Characteristics How many lanes are needed? Street Design Elements 50 feet 50 Target Speed 25 miles per hour 10 - 20k volume 2 lanes + center turn Target Shade Covering 30% 30k+ volume 6 lanes + center turn 44 0 - 12k volume 2 lanes 20 - 30k volume 4 lanes + center turn Travel Lane Width Striped Bike Lane Width 6’ 5-6' Sidewalk Width 8’ 5-10' Landscaped Buffer Width 4' 2-8' Pedestrian Crossing Frequency 600’ 300-1000' Flex Zone Width 8’ 7-9' FLEX ZONE 0 0 - 3k volume 2 lanes (unmarked) BIKEWAYS VEHICLES Right-of-Way 50 – 80 Allowable Range SIDEWALK Preferred 10’ 10-11' Curb-to-Curb Width 51' 26-51' Bikeway Type Shared Lane, Bike Boulevard, Bike Lane Local Industrial Local streets in Industrial areas provide vital, short-distance connections from commercial and industrial buildings to the larger ZONE transportation network. Designated freight routes help keep large volumes of freight traffic concentrated on specific roadways and clear of roadways that may features large numbers of pedestrians and bicyclists. Preferred Allowable Range Travel Lane Width 11’ 11-13' Curb-to-Curb Width 38' 32-40' BIKEWAYS Street Design Elements Buffered Bike Lane Width 5’ 5-8' Buffered Bike Lane Buffer 2' 2-6' Shared Use Path Width** 12’ 8-16' SIDEWALK How many lanes are needed? Sidewalk Width 6’ 6-10' Landscaped Buffer Width 5-8' 4-8' Pedestrian Crossing Frequency 800’ 800-1300' FLEX ZONE Key Characteristics Flex Zone Width 8’ 7-9' Right-of-Way 50 – 80 feet 0 0 - 3k volume 2 lanes (unmarked) 0 - 12k volume 2 lanes 50 Target Speed 25 miles per hour 10 - 20k volume 2 lanes + center turn Target Shade Covering 30% 30k+ volume 6 lanes + center turn VEHICLES 50 Preferred: Shared Use Path Alternative: Buffered Bike Lane 20 - 30k volume 4 lanes + center turn ** A shared use path acts as both the bikeway and sidewalk 45 Local Downtown Downtown Mesa experiences some of highest amount of street-level activity in Mesa, and local streets should be designed to maximize space for people walking and to create an inviting public realm. Local streets carry very little traffic moving at slow speeds and include on-street parking, bike parking, seating, and space for mingling in the shade to create activity and support local businesses. Key Characteristics How many lanes are needed? Street Design Elements 50 Right-of-Way 50 – 80 feet 50 Target Speed 25 miles per hour 10 - 20k volume 2 lanes + center turn Target Shade Covering 30-60% 30k+ volume 6 lanes + center turn 46 0 - 12k volume 2 lanes 20 - 30k volume 4 lanes + center turn FLEX ZONE 0 0 - 3k volume 2 lanes (unmarked) BIKEWAYS VEHICLES SIDEWALK BIKEWAYS Preferred Allowable Range Travel Lane Width 10’ 10-11' Curb-to-Curb Width 36' 26-51' Bikeway Type Shared Lane or Bike Boulevard Sidewalk Width 8-10’ 6-12' Landscaped Buffer Width 4' 2-8' Pedestrian Crossing Frequency 600’ 300-800' Flex Zone Width 8’ 7-9' BIKEWAYS Local Open Space / Preserve / Rural Residential Local streets within the Open Space/Preserve/Rural Residential areas should enable everyone, from our youngest to our oldest residents, to comfortably access Mesa’s parks and open spaces. Low volumes and travel speeds, plentiful trees and vegetation, wide sidewalks and bike facilities create a welcoming environment for people walking and biking. Key Characteristics How many lanes are needed? Street Design Elements Preferred Right-of-Way 50 – 80 feet 0 - 12k volume 2 lanes Allowable Range Travel Lane Width 10’ 10-11' Curb-to-Curb Width 36' 26-51' Shared Use Path Width** 12’ 8-16' Sidewalk Width 6’ 5-10' Landscaped Buffer Width 4' 2-8' Pedestrian Crossing Frequency 600’ 300-1000' Flex Zone Width 8’ 7-9' Preferred: Shared Use Path Alternative: Shared Lane or Bike Blvd 10 - 20k volume 2 lanes + center turn 20 - 30k volume 4 lanes + center turn SIDEWALK 50 Target Speed 25 miles per hour FLEX ZONE 0 0 - 3k volume 2 lanes (unmarked) BIKEWAYS VEHICLES 50 Target Shade Covering 30 - 60% 30k+ volume 6 lanes + center turn ** A shared use path acts as both the bikeway and sidewalk 47 Local Pedestrian Guidance Local streets must provide a safe environment for children walking to nearby schools and parks and families visiting their neighbors and recreating. Crosswalk Type: All pedestrian crossings should be marked. High visibility crosswalks are recommended at intersections with arterials, near schools and parks, and where significant pedestrian demand is anticipated. A Traffic Calming Guidance Additional design tools may be needed to ensure speeds are safe for all street users on Local streets. Raised Crosswalks (A): Elevates crosswalk to sidewalk level. Cars must ramp up to move through, slowing vehicles and signaling pedestrian priority. Raised Intersection (B): Elevates entire intersection to sidewalk level. Cars moving through the entire section must slow down, reinforcing pedestrian priority. Chicanes (C): Introducing a slight “s” curve into the street encourages drivers to reduce their speed. Chicanes can be created by alternating the flex zone/on-street parking from one side of the street to the other; using temporary, low-cost materials; or by constructing concrete curb extensions that can include green infrastructure and landscaping. B Mini Roundabout (D): Guides vehicles through an intersection around a central island, forcing vehicles to slow down. Mini roundabouts can incorporate landscaping to further improve neighborhood livability and can be installed using low-cost, temporary materials or constructed with concrete for a permanent installation. Vehicle Traffic Calming: Creating a change in height on the roadway surface forces drivers to slow down. Speed tables and raised crosswalks and intersections can all be used to introduce this vertical change and slow drivers. 48 C City of Mesa Street Typologies Bicycle Guidance Local streets provide calm routes for people biking and, with some additional improvements, can be transformed into high-quality routes for people of all ages and abilities. D Shared Lane Markings: Shared Lane Markings (E) should be used to reinforce that people biking and driving share the lane and indicates the proper riding position for people biking. Only recommended on streets with very low traffic volumes and speeds (<3,000 vehicles per day and <25 mph). Striped Bike Lane: If space is available and a significant number of people biking are anticipated, an Striped Bike Lane is recommended. Crossings: Where bike routes on local streets cross major streets, special treatments should be incorporated to enhance the safety of the crossing, such as crossing markings, signage, refuge islands, and pedestrian hybrid beacons (F). Network Connectivity Local streets should follow a grid pattern as closely as possible and cul-de-sacs should be avoided. A grid of short blocks with four-way intersections leads to more direct routes and shorter trips. E Flex Zone Guidance Flex zones can be converted to a curb extension within 20 feet of intersections or mid-block pedestrian crossings. May be used to incorporate additional green infrastructure, landscaping, and trees into the streetscape to provide additional shade and vegetation and manage stormwater. Flex zones can be used for on-street parking and passenger loading/unloading zones. The amount of space dedicated for parking and loading should be based on anticipated usage. May be used to provide additional bike parking and space for shared electric scooters. F 49 Page Intentionally Left Blank 50 Appendix 51 Future Number of Lanes 52 City of Mesa Street Typologies Existing and Proposed Median 53 TMP 2050 SNAPSHOT OF MESA ................................................................................................................... 1 LAY OF THE LAND ........................................................................................................................ 2 HOW HEALTHY ARE WE?.............................................................................................................. 3 TRAVEL TIME RELIABILITY AND SPEEDS ....................................................................................... 5 HOW SAFE ARE OUR STREETS ...................................................................................................... 8 WALKING IN MESA .................................................................................................................... 19 BIKING IN MESA ........................................................................................................................ 25 MULTIMODAL CONNECTIVITY .................................................................................................. 45 FREIGHT DEMAND ...................................................................................................................... 46 Mesa Transportation Master Plan SNAPSHOT OF MESA Understanding mobility and land use trends and challenges happening today and tomorrow lays the foundation for the Mesa TMP. This chapter provides an overview of existing socioeconomics, land use patterns, and economic characteristics and trends that sets a baseline for evaluating the City’s transportation system. Mesa MPA at a Glance Today, Mesa is a thriving city transitioning growth from outward expansion of the past to infill developments. According to the US Census Bureau American Communities Survey (2021 5-Year ACS), the Mesa MPA has just over half a million residents.  Total Population (2021): 544,976  Minority Population: 38.4%  Total Housing Units: 243,003 Trends and Changing According to the 2021 5-Year ACS and 2010 US Census Data (2010 Census):  We are getting a tad older. In 2010, the median age was 34.5, in 2021 the median age increased to 36.6. Just under half (48%) of the population is under 35 years of age.  We are getting more educated. In 2010, 23.4% of Mesa residents 25 years or older had a bachelor’s degree or higher. In 2021 29.5% of residents have attained a bachelor’s degree or higher.  We are getting slightly wealthier. In 2010, the median household income was $62,792 (adjusted to 2021 dollars) and increased 3.1% to $65,725 in 2021. 1 Mesa Transportation Master Plan LAY OF THE LAND Having a strong understanding of the land use context and development patterns is imperative to creating a transportation network that complements surrounding character and facilitates movement. Just as land use influences the transportation network, the transportation network influences land use. For example, a local roadway in a residential neighborhood serves a very different purpose than a major roadway that connects the freeway to an industrial park. Land Use at a Glance     Residential: 45.4% Non-residential Uses: 25.6% Open Space: 13.8% Agricultural and Vacant: 15.2% Land Use in the Mesa MPA The Mesa MPA is predominantly made up of residential uses with just over 45% of the land dedicated to this use. The second major land use is park or open space with the Usery Mountain Regional Park contributing the most acreage to this category within the Mesa MPA. While Mesa is a well-established City, just over 11% of its land is still vacant providing opportunities for infill development. Unincorporated County Islands Throughout Maricopa County, unincorporated areas surrounded by incorporated cities or towns are called county islands. County islands are usually due to a city/town that grows and, for various reasons, the town/city omits to annex the particular area. Throughout east Mesa, there are several county islands that include roadways owned and maintained by Maricopa County Department of Transportation (MCDOT). Snapshot of Land Use in the Mesa MPA (2021) Single-family Residential 41.0% Parks and Open Space 13.8% Vacant 11.6% Transportation (Roads, etc) 9.9% City owned properties or Other 7.2% Multi-family residential 4.4% Commercial 4.4% Agricultural 3.6% Industrial 3.6% Office 0.6% Source: City of Mesa 2040 General Plan, Maricopa County Elections Department, ALRIS, MAG Development Trends As a land locked community with little undeveloped land remaining, Mesa’s ability to expand is limited. Much of Mesa’s traditional suburban growth and development pattern is anticipated to continue to occur where undeveloped land exists today, largely in the eastern and southern portions of the City. However, as readily available land decreases, the City may experience a greater focus on infill and redevelopment project types. 2 Mesa Transportation Master Plan HOW HEALTHY ARE WE? Transportation networks shape how people move, and influence when, where, and what modes people use to travel. Because the transportation system is used by people daily, it can provide opportunities to incorporate physical activity into their daily lives. One opportunity to engage in daily physical activity is during a person’s daily trips; however, driving is the predominant travel mode in Mesa. Providing opportunities for people to walk or bike for short, daily trips instead of using their car may help mitigate chronic public health concerns, such as diabetes, heart disease, stroke, and other chronic health conditions. Public Health Trends Table 1 provides key public health conditions in the City of Mesa in comparison to nationwide averages. Generally, residents of Mesa have similar health outcomes when compared to the United States as a whole. Rates of obesity and diabetes are within a percentile, but Mesa does have slightly higher rates of people experiencing physical distress and high blood pressure than the nation. Perhaps this similarity is due in part to Mesa having similar rates of smoking and limited physical activity among its population. 30.5% MESA ADULTS ARE OBESE 24.8% OF ADULTS IN MESA HAVE LIMITED ACTIVITY Table 1. City of Mesa Public Health Indicators City of Mesa Obesity Limited Physical Activity Diabetes Smoking Life Expectancy Frequent Physical Distress High Blood Pressure Air Pollution - Particulate Matter (PM2.5 per cubic meter) 30.5% 24.8% 9.9% 16.4% 78.3 years 12.9% 31.1% 7.9 Nationwide 30.8% 25.8% 9.9% 16.2% 79.1 years 12.4% 29.5% 9.1 Source: PLACES Project, Centers for Disease Control (2019) *Data is for the City of Mesa limits, not the Mesa MPA Health Index While Mesa overall has similar health metrics when compared to the nation, some areas of Mesa are much more likely to have poor health outcomes than others. The Climate and Economic Justice Screening Tool (CEJST) health category determines if communities are disadvantaged due to health outcomes. The index only considers communities that are low income burdened and if they are within the 90th percentile in the nation for one or more of the following: rate of adults with asthma, diabetes, heart disease, or low life expectancy. Figure 1 illustrates the locations identified by the CEJST with disproportionately poor health outcomes. As mentioned in Our Social Needs section, just under half of the communities facing health disparities in Mesa are due to high rates of heart disease and another approximately 20% experience high rates of diabetes. These health outcomes are usually—in part—due to inactivity and rates of obesity within the community. 3 Mesa Transportation Master Plan FIGURE 1. Areas of Disproportionately Poor Health Outcomes CEJST defines disadvantaged communities at the Census Block Group level. Census Block Groups with disadvantage communities outside the MPA may include overlapping portions within the Mesa MPA. These Census Block Groups may not be representative of the community within Mesa. 4 Mesa Transportation Master Plan TRAVEL TIME RELIABILITY AND SPEEDS Travel time reliability and travel speeds are generally better measures of examining congestion conditions and how motorists feel traveling across the network. While most drivers expect some form of congestion, particularly during peak hours, having predictable travel time is important for users so they can get to where they are going on time. Freight carriers also require dependable travel times to remain competitive. Travel Delay Another metric often used to quantify travel time reliability is Delay. Delay is the average amount of additional time (in seconds per mile travelled) that it will take a motorist to traverse a road segment during a peak period in comparison to free-flow conditions. A delay value of 20 indicates that travel times are slower by 20 seconds for each mile compared to free-flow conditions. As illustrated in Figure 2, arterials with higher delays are located largely in west Mesa, north-south corridor segments connected to US-60, and along Ellsworth Road. Making it There On time, All the Time Travel time reliability provides a valuable metric for assessing roadway performance. While congestion and travel times can vary greatly from day to day, motorists depend on having a consistent, predictable travel route to get to where they are going on time, all the time. Travel Time Index provides a metric for quantifying how reliable travel times are on a given corridor. The Travel Time Index represents a ratio of travel time in the peak period to the travel time at free-flow conditions. A Travel Time Index of 1.3 indicates that a 30-minute free-flow trip takes approximately 39-minutes during peak periods. As shown in Figure 3, Travel Time Index values are the highest on many north-south arterials in Mesa, primarily those connected to US 60, SR 24, SR 202, and in Downtown Mesa. 5 Mesa Transportation Master Plan FIGURE 2. AVERAGE TRAVEL DELAY Note: Delays at Southern Ave / Stapley Dr may be due to ongoing construction 6 Mesa Transportation Master Plan FIGURE 3. PEAK PERIOD TRAVEL TIME INDEX 7 Mesa Transportation Master Plan HOW SAFE ARE OUR STREETS? Street safety is a top concern for Mesa. Street safety for all users – motorists, transit riders, pedestrians, and bicyclists. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Arizona has one of the highest pedestrian fatality rates and the Phoenix metropolitan area consistently ranks as one of the highest regions in the nation for collision deaths. As illustrated below, however, Mesa has one of the lowest fatality rates among peer communities. Fatalities Per 100k 25 22.6 20 19.2 13.1 15 11.8 11.0 10 8.9 8.5 7.5 Mesa Tempe Chandler 5 0 Historical Crash Trends Crashes data analysis helps identify trends, patterns, predominant crash types, and high crash rate corridors and intersections. This analysis also helps identify potential safety improvements to reduce the frequency and severity of crashes. Crash analysis presented in this section is based on the City of Mesa 2021 Annual Crash Report and reflects the years 2017 to 2021. According to the report, between 2017 and 2021, a total of 27,744 crashes were reported within Mesa city boundaries. As the chart on the right illustrates, total crashes have increased over the fiveyear time period. Figure 4 illustrates locations with the highest density of crashes. As the figure shows, crashes occur throughout the City but are largely located at major intersections. The following section outlines key crash characteristics to help better understand the “who,” “what,” “when,” “where,” and “how” of transportation safety in Mesa. 8 Total Crashes (2017 - 2021) 2017 5,958 Scottsdale 2018 5,324 United States 5,357 Phoenix 5,494 Glendale 5,611 Tucson 2019 2020 A crash takes place every 2021 1.5 HOURS Mesa Transportation Master Plan FIGURE 4. CRASH DENSITY (2017 – 2021) 9 Mesa Transportation Master Plan Who is Involved? In a traditional crash data report, passenger vehicles and freight vehicles are grouped together in the crash database as vehicles. Vehicles make up the largest percentage of user types involved in crashes in Mesa. 5,335 5,217 5,154 5,145 5,739 Vehicle Crashes (2017 - 2022) 2017 2018 2019 2020 80 92 2018 79 2017 87 2020 Bicyclist involved crashes significantly increased from 2020 to 2021. 2.3% of all crashes in 2021 involved a bicyclist. 10 109 139 168 2019 104 Pedestrian-Related Crashes 124 172 2018 According to the report, vehicle crashes significantly increased in 2021, which may be reflective of limited single vehicle travel during the COVID 19 pandemic in 2020. 2021 Bicycle-Related Crashes 2017 96% of crashes involved vehicles only. 2021 2019 2020 2021 1.7% of all crashes from 2017 to 2021 involved a pedestrian. Pedestrian-related crashes decreased by 13% from 2020 to 2021. Mesa Transportation Master Plan How Severe Are the Crashes? Figure 5 illustrates locations of fatal and serious injury crashes in Mesa. As the figure shows, fatal and serious injury crashes occur throughout the City, but are largely located along arterial corridors. In 2021, Mesa has experienced an increase in fatal and a decrease in serious injury crashes compared to year 2017. Fatal and Serious Injury Crashes Fatal 194 Serious Injury 163 133 2017 (January to December 2021) 5739 total crashes reported 186 169 29 Mesa by the Numbers 32 2018 28 2019 35 2020 36 fatal crashes 36 163 serious injury crashes 2021 Fatal crashes increased by 24% since 2017. Since 2017, serious injury crashes are generally trending down. Fatal crashes accounted for 0.6% of all crashes reported. 22.5% decrease in serious injury crashes since 2019. Fatal crashes slightly increased from 2019 to 2021. 11 Mesa Transportation Master Plan FIGURE 5. FATAL AND SEVERE INJURY CRASHES (2017 – 2021) 12 Mesa Transportation Master Plan What Type of Crashes are Occurring? While every crash is unique, they are often categorized according to the circumstances of the crash. Each vehicle crash can be grouped into different collision types, including rear-end crashes, angle crashes, left turn crashes, and head on crashes. Each crash type can indicate a particular problem that may be addressed through a targeted engineering, enforcement, or behavioral countermeasure. As illustrated below, rear-end and angle crashes make up over 56% of all crashes in Mesa historically. Crash by Type 30.4% 25.9% 19.1% 12.3% 7.2% 2.3% Angle Head On Left Turn Rear End Sideswipe Single Vehicle 3.0% Other What Types of Crashes Resulted in Serious Injuries and Fatalities? The graphs below illustrate the distribution of fatal crashes and serious injury crashes by crash type, respectively. Pedestrian and bicyclist fatalities account for 37% of all fatal crashes in Mesa, in addition to another 21% of serious injury crashes. Fatal Crashes by Type 100% Serious Injury Crashes by Type 100% Other, 17% 80% 60% Single Vehicle, 16% Sideswipe, 5% Rear End, 7% Single Vehicle, 12% 80% Head On, 6% 20% 0% 13 Angle, 32% Sideswipe, 5% Rear End, 14% 60% Left Turn, 28% Left Turn, 18% 40% Other, 3% 40% 20% Head On, 5% Angle, 34% 0% Mesa Transportation Master Plan Where are the Crashes Happening? Understanding the locational context of crashes is an important step in identifying location specific safety issues that may be addressed through targeted engineering, enforcement, or behavioral countermeasures. Within Mesa, there is a disproportionate split between crashes occurring at intersections and along corridors, with nearly 41% of all crashes occurring at intersections. Intersection Related, 41% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% According to the Arizona Strategic Traffic Safety Plan, between 2016 and 2018, 28% of all fatalities and 44% of all serious injuries in Arizona occurred at or were related to an intersection. Historically, crashes in Mesa fall in line with these statewide averages with 22% of fatal and 46% of serious injury crashes occurring at or related to an intersection. To gain a better understanding of why high severity crashes may be occurring and possible mitigation strategies, high severity crashes at intersections and roadways were broken down by crash types, see below. Injury Classification on Crash Type by Location Angle Head On Left Turn Rear End Sideswipe Single Vehicle Other 14 60% 70% 100% Crash Severity by Location Not Intersection Related Serious Injury Fatal 32% 35% 5% 8% 23% 10% 14% 5% 4% 5% 18% 19% 5% 17% Other or Unknown, 36% Non Intersection Related, 24% Intersection Related Serious Injury Fatal 36% 19% 4% 0% 34% 47% 13% 11% 6% 3% 6% 3% 1% 17% 80% 80% 90% 0.4% 1% 4% 3% 100% 60% 40% 96% 96% Intersection Related Non Intersection Related 20% 0% Minor, Possible, or No Injury Serious Injury Fatal 22% of all fatal crashes were intersection related 46% of all serious injury crashes were intersection related Mesa Transportation Master Plan Equivalent Property Damage Only (EPDO) The Equivalent Property Damage Only (EPDO) performance measure assigns weight to individual crashes based on the severity of the crash. The weighting is based on the cost of a property-damage-only (PDO) crash, giving each crash a relative severity score in terms of a PDO crash. The weighting factors used for the network screening are based on the crash costs by severity and derived from ADOT. Table 2 illustrates the crash cost for each crash severity type and the corresponding EPDO weights. The weights generally reflect an order of magnitude difference between the societal costs of fatal, severe injury, minor injury, and no-injury crashes. Table 2. Crash Costs and Weights by Severity Crash Severity Type Crash Cost EPDO Weights Fatal Severe Injury Minor Injury Possible Injury No Injury $9,515,371 $550,499 $149,132 $103,145 $10,680 890.9 51.5 13.9 9.6 1.0 High Injury Crash Intersections EPDO weights for each crash severity type as illustrated in Table 2 was utilized to determine high injury crash intersections. The EPDO score for intersection was calculated by multiplying the number of crashes for each severity type with the corresponding EPDO weights and aggregating the results using the formula below: EPDO Score = Fatal EPDO Weight x Number of Fatal Crashes + Severe Injury EPDO Weight x Number of Severe Injury Crashes + Minor Injury EPDO Weight x Number of Minor Injury Crashes + Possible Injury EPDO Weight x Number of Possible Injury Crashes + No Injury EPDO Weight x Number of No Injury Crashes EPDO score for each intersection was then annualized by dividing the score by the number of years used in the analysis. Figure 6 illustrates the locations of the top 30 high injury intersections in the City of Mesa. Table 2 lists the top 10 high injury crash intersections in the City based on their EPDO score. 15 Mesa Transportation Master Plan Table 2. Top 10 High Injury Intersections Crashes Intersection EPDO Score Fatal Incapacitating Non Incapacitating Possible Injury Property Damage Only Total Crashes Guadalupe Road / Power Road 2 1 13 16 39 71 442 Baseline Road / Sossaman Road 2 1 12 12 35 62 430 Higley Road / University Drive 2 2 5 12 52 73 425 Greenfield Road / Southern Avenue 1 6 10 10 43 70 296 Broadway Road / Mesa Drive 1 5 6 16 69 97 291 Higley Road / McKellips Road 1 5 8 14 41 69 287 Alma School Road / Main Street 1 3 8 20 56 88 281 Greenfield Road / Main Street 1 6 5 4 38 54 269 Higley Road / Main Street 1 3 11 12 30 57 269 Broadway Road / Dobson Road 1 2 6 17 54 80 259 High Injury Crash Network Segments The EPDO score for roadway segments was calculated by multiplying the number of crashes for each severity type with the corresponding EPDO weights and aggregating the results using the formula below: EPDO Score = Fatal EPDO Weight x Number of Fatal Crashes + Severe Injury EPDO Weight x Number of Severe Injury Crashes + Minor Injury EPDO Weight x Number of Minor Injury Crashes + Possible Injury EPDO Weight x Number of Possible Injury Crashes + No Injury EPDO Weight x Number of No Injury Crashes EPDO score for each segment was then annualized by dividing the score by the number of years of crash data used in the analysis. Figure 6 illustrates the locations of the top 30 high injury network segments in the City of Mesa. Table 3 lists the top 10 high injury crash segments in the City based on their EPDO score. Key Observations/Findings: Dobson Road between Main Street and US 60; University Drive between Higley Road and Nassau St; and Higley Road between Broadway and McKellips stand out as corridor segments/intersections that experience high number of crashes resulting in serious injuries. Majority of the high injury intersections and network segments also seem to occur in areas with high concentrations of disadvantaged population groups. 16 Mesa Transportation Master Plan Table 3. Top 10 High Injury Corridors Crashes Intersection EPDO Score Fatal Incapacitating Non Incapacitating Possible Injury Property Damage Only Total Crashes Dobson Road: Southern Avenue to 8th Avenue 3 2 10 12 55 82 617 Mesa Drive: Brown Road to McKellips Road 3 0 5 5 21 34 562 Dobson Road: Broadway Road to Main Street 3 0 5 5 18 31 562 McKellips Road: Country Club Drive to Center Street 2 3 5 6 40 56 421 Broadway Road: Stapley Drive to Williams Street 2 3 1 8 25 39 411 University Drive: Greenfield Road to Higley Road 2 3 5 2 15 27 408 Southern Avenue: Val Vista Road to 32nd Street 2 2 4 2 7 17 393 Broadway Road: Dobson Road to Roosevelt Road 2 0 1 10 27 40 384 Southern Avenue: Horne Street to Stapley Drive 2 1 2 3 7 15 379 Higley Road: Broadway Road to Main Street 2 1 0 2 19 24 374 17 Mesa Transportation Master Plan FIGURE 6. HIGH INJURY NETWORK Note: Segments are grouped based on EPDO score ranking. 18 Mesa Transportation Master Plan WALKING IN MESA Sidewalk terminates at an undeveloped lot in eastern Mesa along Main Street Mesa is transitioning from a City that is expanding to one that is growing from within. The resulting mixed use infill development increases opportunities for people to walk and bike as the distances between their destinations decrease. As Mesa develops, the demand for transportation options are increasing. To address these changing needs and desires, it is important to understand what makes a place safe and comfortable for walking. People walking are: • Sensitive to detours that increase the time or distance to their destination; • More comfortable when routes provide shade, water, and places to rest; and • In need of walkways with safety and comfort designs for people who use mobility devices and people with hearing and visual impairments. Pedestrian walking along Country Club Drive with no vegetative buffer between them and fast moving traffic Building on Success The City’s expansive network of sidewalks, unsignalized crossings (with crosswalks present), and off-street shared use paths that help connect people and places. While new developments are installing high-quality sidewalks, the existing sidewalk network may no longer meet the growing needs of the City. Many existing sidewalks are the basic 4-5-foot width, which may not be wide enough to comfortably accommodate increased pedestrian traffic. In addition, there is a lack of vegetative buffer on fastmoving and high-volume streets which may not feel comfortable for people walking. Fast moving traffic can also contribute to noise making it difficult to hold a conversion and dissuade groups from choosing to walk. Despite these challenges, the City of Mesa already has a successful history of improving walking experiences in urbanizing environments as is apparent along Main Street in Downtown. 19 Main Street in Downtown with wide sidewalks, shade trees, and places to rest Mesa Transportation Master Plan Signalized crosswalk in Downtown Mesa Crossing the Street One of the most significant barriers to walking is how frequently and comfortably someone can cross the street to get to their destination. Having frequent crossings and pedestrian access points can significantly decrease the distance needed to walk to a destination. Downtown Mesa has a high density of crosswalks along Main Street which allows people walking to more easily and spontaneously visit a shop or business that they see across the street or to make it to a transit stop on time. In addition to providing frequent crossing opportunities, Main Street also provides high quality and comfortable crossings by using signalized crossings for mid-block crosswalks. Unmarked crossing of Eastern Canal and University Drive Outside of Downtown, there are several blocks in Mesa that would require someone walking to travel a half mile or more to reach a signalized crossing. This can lead to people choosing to cross at unsafe locations to avoid excessive walking distances or time delays to get to their destinations— including some crossings along Many of Mesa’s crosswalks in school zones have additional features to increase visibility and comfort for people walking. Mesa uses RRFBs, pedestrian warning signs, PHBs, and traffic calming treatments, such as pinch points, and crossing guards during school hours to encourage drivers to yield to people walking in school zones. While treatments like signs and paint may increase visibility, they may not create a comfortable place for people to cross. Some school zone crosswalks require crossing guards and children to navigate high-speed and multilane roads without a traffic signal. One example is the crosswalk at Lowell Elementary which requires staff and students to cross a four-lane road with a two-way left turn lane (TWLTL) and a posted speed limit of 40MPH (15 MPH when school is in session). Crosswalk with pinch point that encourage drivers to slow when approaching the crosswalk and reduces the distance and time needed for people to cross 20 Unsignalized school crosswalk to Lowell Elementary across Broadway Road Mesa Transportation Master Plan Where are People Walking? Understanding how our streets are used today is a critical first step in determining transportation improvement needs and can ultimately help to prioritize investments in areas where they might be used most. Strava Data To understand usage patterns, walking, running, and bicycling information was extracted from Strava. Strava is a mobile fitness application that allows people walking and biking to track their activities using Global Positioning System (GPS)-enabled mobile devices. As Strava predominantly markets to athletes, it is likely to represent people walking or jogging for fitness purposes over other trip purposes – even if users can track commute trips. However, it is expected that people who walk or jog for fitness do so on walking facilities where they feel the least amount of stress from traffic and that Strava can help identify places where others may prefer to walk. As shown in Figure 7, recreational walking trips are heavily canal paths, recreational trails in Usery Mountain Regional Park, and residential roads and walking paths. Additionally, east-west connections in the north like McDowell Road, Brown Road, Adobe Street and in the south, in nearby communities of Gilbert and Chandler, the Western Canal and Guadalupe Road are popular with people walking and jogging. Replica Data Replica is a software that incorporates data from a variety of sources like the US Census Bureau, mobile location data, land use, economic activity, and others to create a simulation of an area to model how people travel and why. To further understand walking trips, Replica data was used to determine where non-recreational walking trips (trips which have a destination, as opposed to looping trips like on trails or canal paths, going for a run, or walking the dog) are being taken. As shown in Figure 8, significant activity is concentrated near K-12 schools, colleges and universities, and the most densely populated and developed areas of Mesa see the highest number of walking trips. When considering the two datasets together, it is apparent recreational trips tend to occur more so on trails with concentrations on certain roadways; whereas utility trips are more dispersed across Mesa with slightly more concentration in the more developed western portion. Mesa Transportation Master Plan 21 FIGURE 7. STRAVA WALKING AND JOGGING DATA Darker red and thicker lines indicate higher walking and jogging activity 22 Mesa Transportation Master Plan FIGURE 8. FREQUENCY OF NONRECREATIONAL WALKING TRIPS Replica data from Fall 2021, Typical Thursday Afternoon 23 Mesa Transportation Master Plan Speeds and Walking A variety of factors impact safety and comfort for people walking, but interaction with vehicles is one of the most critical to consider. Significant research has been conducted which indicates vehicle speed along a roadway is a major indicator for the potential for death or serious injury in the event of a crash. The change in potential for death or serious injury when a person is hit by a car while walking increases from 18% when a vehicle is moving at 20 MPH to 77% when a vehicle is moving at 40 MPH. As driving speed increases, a driver’s line of sight of the roadway and its surroundings is also impacted. Research shows that when driving at a higher speed, the location on the road one naturally focuses on while driving is further down the road. Because of this, the area a driver can see on the periphery is reduced, and therefore people driving at faster speeds are less likely to notice a person waiting to cross the street. On the other hand, people driving at slower speeds are more likely to have better awareness of people around them. In Mesa, the speeds on neighborhood streets are often slow (with posted speeds of 25 MPH), creating comfortable walking environments. However, most streets which connect to destinations outside of a neighborhood, like schools, shopping, and employment, tend to be 35 MPH or greater, making it uncomfortable for people to walk to destinations. Source: Impact Speed and a Pedestrian’s Risk of Severe Injury or Death. Brian Tefft, AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety, 2011 24 Mesa Transportation Master Plan BIKING IN MESA A complete, connected bike network that is comfortable and safe for people of all ages and abilities is critical to make biking a viable transportation option for travel in Mesa. Expanding and enhancing the bicycle network can help reduce congestion and stress on the City’s streets, as people can choose to bike rather than drive. Canal Trails Canal trails are a network of paths that follow along open water canals that connect Mesa to the greater Phoenix Metropolitan Area. Through easement agreements with canal owners, the City of Mesa has improved many canal banks to provided SUPs. These City of Mesa SUPs provide some of the most comfortable, low-stress facilities for users walking, bicycling, or rolling regardless of their ages and abilities. Other canal paths and trails are managed by the canal owners and are often dirt trails which provide recreational opportunities including easy walking paths and off-road biking within the City but are not accessible to all users. Canal banks are owned by a range of public and private entities and require the City to coordinate with them in order to make improvements to existing paths or to expand the SUP network. Currently, 68% of all SUPs within the Mesa MPA are run along the canals, 83.4% of which are along canals owned by the Salt River Project (SRP). FIGURE 9 shows where the City of Mesa SUPs run along the canals, Other Canal Paths (unpaved), and each canal owner. Note: Parts of the Tempe Canal and Western Canal Path run along Mesa MPA’s border and are not included in this analysis. These trails are part of the Tempe and Chandler MPAs, respectively. 25 Mesa Transportation Master Plan FIGURE 9. CANAL TRAIL OWNERSHIP 26 Mesa Transportation Master Plan Bicycle Comfort The Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) is a method of quantifying the perceived sense of comfort for a person biking along a given roadway. As with walking, a variety of factors are known to influence comfort for biking, such as the speed and volume of traffic, presence and type of bicycle facility, and the design of the road. As illustrated below, LTS ranges from lowstress streets suitable for children (LTS 1) to high-stress streets only suitable for experienced riders (LTS 4). Depending on a person’s skill level, roads with high LTS scores may deter potential bicyclists from riding, leading them to choose a different mode of transportation or forcing them to make lengthy detours to avoid high-stress streets. LTS Scoring The criteria shown in Table 4 were used to determine the LTS score for each street and bike facility in Mesa considering the following: 〉 Roadways without designated bike infrastructure are analyzed as “Mixed Traffic” 〉 Dirt pathways, especially unpaved Canal Trails, are used by some people bicycling but are not accessible to all riders as they require different biking equipment or riding skills. These paths are not included as part of this analysis because they are not owned or managed by the City. The results of these scores are shown in Figure 10. Table 4. Level of Traffic Stress Criteria for Streets in Mesa Speed Limit 25 MPH or Lower Number of Lanes Mixed Traffic / Bike Routes Bicycle Boulevards LTS 1 Striped Bike Lane Buffered Bike Lane LTS 2 Protected Bikeway LTS 3 LTS 4 Shared Use Path 2 Lanes 3 Lanes 4+ Lanes 2 - 3 Lanes 30 MPH 4-5 Lanes 6+ Lanes 2 - 3 Lanes 35 MPH 4-5 Lanes 6+ Lanes 40 MPH or Greater 27 2 - 3 Lanes 4-5 Lanes 6+ Lanes Mesa Transportation Master Plan FIGURE 10. LTS OF STREETS AND BIKE NETWORK 28 Mesa Transportation Master Plan Biking Conditions LTS helps measure biking stress, but there are many other conditions which may impact a person’s level of comfort when biking. For example, observed speeds of people driving on the roadway, conditions of the infrastructure, the number of driveways that interrupt the bike path, and width or type of separation from vehicles can also impact user comfort. These factors may deter people from bicycling or using existing biking infrastructure when provided. Porter Park Pathway connecting Escobedo Historic District to the Consolidated Canal Path High Quality Paths High quality bike paths within Mesa provide the greatest comfort to people bicycling and walking and connect neighborhoods and people to destinations. These paths include paved, off-street shared use paths like the Consolidated Canal and the Rio Salado Pathway and street-adjacent shareduse paths that provide a vegetative buffer like the Southern Avenue shared use path. Although Southern Avenue shared use path is more comfortable than other facilities, frequent driveways may make it stressful for cyclists. Speed humps on Portobello Avenue calming traffic by encouraging slower speeds Traffic Calming & Bicycle Boulevards While they are not a formally designated type of biking infrastructure, low stress local and residential streets make up the largest part of the bike network. This can pose a major challenge, as previously mentioned, as observed speeds-even on residential roads--may be higher than the posted speed limit. Traffic calming elements that can encourage drivers to slow include speed humps, chicanes, road pinch points, lane shifts. When traffic calming elements are applied along bike routes, a Bike Boulevard can be created. The traffic calming elements slow speeds which make it much more comfortable to ride in mixed traffic. While Mesa has plans to expand the use of traffic calming elements across the city, existing speed humps in some residential neighborhoods help slow traffic and increase the comfort of riders. Mesa recognized Bicycle Boulevards as an infrastructure type but has not formally planned to build any yet. 10th Street with low speeds, low traffic volumes, bike signage and bump outs may be a good candidate to consider for such a designation. Numbered Bike Routes Numbered Bike Routes Mesa uses wayfinding, marked maps, and numbered signs to encourage cyclists to use “Numbered Bike Routes.” Numbered Routes are cityrecommended routes that help people bicycling navigate to more comfortable roads and biking infrastructure. While called “Numbered Bike 29 Mesa Transportation Master Plan Routes” these routes include a variety of cycling infrastructure types: bike lanes, bike routes, paved canal paths, and separated bike lanes. “Numbered Bike Routes” play a critical role in how Mesa residents navigate by bike and share directions with others. They also provide visibility and set the expectation to drivers that cyclists are commonly riding along these roadways in particular. However, not all facilities along the Numbered Bike Routes are low-stress. All six “Numbered Bike Routes” have one or more portions along their routes that are rated as LTS 3 or 4. Bike lane is interrupted at intersection with no access available Bike Lanes Bike lanes make up a large portion of the bike infrastructure in Mesa (Figure 44) but many of these bike lanes are on multi-lane and fast-speed roadways and are uncomfortable for most people to bike on. Even though bike lanes may be provided, these uncomfortable routes may push people riding to find alternative, circuitous routes or deter people from biking all together. In some cases, high stress bike lanes may result in some people riding on inappropriate infrastructure. Bike lane ends on Alma School Road before the intersection with Main Street Intersections Intersections are also uniquely challenging for cyclists. Several bike lanes terminate before reaching the intersection forcing people bicycling to jostle for space with cars potentially traveling high speeds and over multiple lanes. Often where a bike lane is provided through an intersection, right-turn pockets for cars conflict with the bike lane, requiring cyclists to negotiate space with traffic regardless. Finally, there is no dedicated method for people riding to turn left or right through intersections encouraging riders to exit any dedicated biking infrastructure into traffic. Outdated Infrastructure Infrastructure that does not meet the latest guidance may also impact visibility and the comfort of cyclists. The following practices have been observed in Mesa: • Combination bike and parking lanes are common in residential neighborhoods throughout Mesa. In some areas, these lanes are not sufficiently wide enough to provide both parking for cars and space for cycling. MUTCD recommends that bike lanes are fully dedicated with a parking strip painted between the bike lane and parking. • Bike symbols in bike lanes are smaller than recommended by MUTCD. This may impact their visibility to both cyclists and drivers. Marana Transportation Plan Shared bike and parking lane no longer meets the latest MUTCD Guidance 30 Where are People Cycling? Strava is a useful tool to understand where people bike. For biking, Strava is advertised to recreational and sports riders and the data collected is from a self-selecting pool of typically whiter, wealthier, and more athletic individuals. Even so, a recent study determined that while Strava data is not representative of the demographics of the population as a whole, it still provides an accurate estimation of where people of all income levels, races, genders, and skill levels are biking. Strava Data Figure 4-7 shows where people who use Strava are biking. Some conclusions from this data indicate higher levels of biking occur at: • Canal trails including the Rio Saldo Pathway, Consolidated Canal, Eastern, Roosevelt Canal, and Western Canal • Trails within Usery Mountain Regional Park and Tonto National Forest and on the roadways in neighborhoods surrounding these parks including the Red Mountain Ranch, Thunder Mountain, and Las Sendas communities • Along east-west connecting roadways like McDowell Road, Brown Road, Adobe Street, and Guadalupe Road • Along north-south roadways like Extension Road, Crismon Road, Ellsworth Road, Power Road, Higley Road, and Lindsay Road • County Club Drive / SR 87 north of McKellips Road is a popular route for cyclists from Tempe to Fort McDowell Replica Data Like with walking, the most densely populated and developed areas of Mesa see the highest number of biking trips, as reported by Replica and shown in Figure11. Comparing Strava and Replica, it appears recreational trips are concentrated around canal paths, trails within Usery Mountain Regional Park, and roadways in northern and eastern Mesa as potential connectors to these trails, utilitarian trips are concentrated in the western part of Mesa where land use and destinations are most concentrated. Figure 12 reveals that most non-recreational trips are originating from this area as well. Travel patterns for recreational trips show people bicycling along uninterrupted routes over greater distances, while utilitarian trips reveal a denser, gridded pattern within Mesa’s core. 31 Marana Transportation Plan FIGURE 11. STRAVA BIKE HEAT MAP Darker red and thicker lines indicate higher biking activity 32 Mesa Transportation Master Plan FIGURE 12 FREQUENCY OF NONRECREATIONAL BIKING TRIPS Replica data from Fall 2021, Typical Thursday Afternoon 33 Mesa Transportation Master Plan Access to Destinations The layout of the street network dictates the directness and convenience of every trip we make, whether driving, walking, or biking. A street grid with shorter block lengths and four-way intersections maximizes access to destinations, minimizes trip distances, and increases the possible number of routes from Point A to Point B. Walkscore.com measures how “walkable” and “bikeable” a community is by measuring walking and biking routes and connectivity to nearby amenities. How Walkable and Bikeable is Mesa? 34 Mesa Transportation Master Plan Observed Accessibility Gaps • Low stress networks are contained within a mostly gridded pattern of high-stress roadways across Mesa. Without high-quality crossings, such as underpasses, overpasses, PHB, or signalized intersections or crossings, these high-stress roadways create significant barriers to walk and bike across the City. • Although signalized intersections and crossings can increase access across high-stress roadways for people walking there can still be barriers to bicyclists. Many signalized intersections and crossings within Mesa do not provide dedicated infrastructure to cyclists forcing them to either dismount to use the crosswalk or to enter into high-speed and high-volume traffic. Left turn movements at intersections in particular are challenging to those bicycling. There is no way for people riding bikes to take left hand turn without dismounting to use the crosswalk across two-legs or to enter into traffic. • While the sidewalk network is fairly complete—especially in Western Mesa—the opportunities to cross the street may not be frequent enough to provide a direct-enough path to destinations. There are some segments of roadway—especially in eastern Mesa---where people walking would need to walk over a mile, before being able to cross. • The sidewalk network in most places in Mesa provides the minimum sidewalk width (4 – 6ft depending on the roadway and when it was built) and, although newer standards require detached sidewalks along arterials, most existing sidewalks provide little or no buffer between people walking and fast moving and loud traffic. These conditions are not comfortable for most people walking along arterials and some collectors. Lack of Formalized Access to High Quality Paths Most blocks adjacent to high quality paths have an internal low-stress network but there is no direct low stress connection forcing residents to use an LTS 3 or 4 roadway or the sidewalk. While LTS is a measure of bike stress, these roadways are defined by multi-lane, high speed, and high volume roadways which would be uncomfortable for people to walk near as well. While “cow paths” (worn areas in grass/dirt indicating where people might frequently choose to walk) and other informal connections can provide access to some, they are not ADA accessible. The following are the types of barriers preventing access from lowstress neighborhoods to high quality paths: 35 • Adjacent parks without ADA accessible paths to canal trails; • Fencing between public and private parks with no gate to allow access to canal paths; • Residential development abutting the canal with no gaps between properties to allow access; and • Parts of the canal paths are only paved on one-side, preventing nearby adjacent neighborhoods from reaching the paved side without a bridge. Mesa Transportation Master Plan Identified Gaps and Opportunities The following gaps and opportunities were identified within Mesa. Matching active transportation facilities to land use context. While there are bike lanes, sidewalks, and other facilities for walking and biking present throughout Mesa, many of them are along roads with high vehicular speeds and volumes do not provide a buffer from vehicular traffic. Therefore, they are not comfortable for most people to walk, bike, or ride micromobility devices along and limit the places people can travel. There are “islands” of low stress networks. Many neighborhood streets have low speeds and volumes and are comfortable to walk and bike on. However, high stress streets often bisect neighborhoods, creating “islands” of low stress streets and limiting the area people can access on these networks. There are limited places to comfortably cross high stress roads, limiting access to destinations. There are still many car-centric locations in Mesa where there are few places to comfortably cross high stress streets, with long distances between signalized intersections that require people to travel far out of their way to access destinations. 36 Downtown Mesa is cut off from the surrounding neighborhoods. While Downtown Mesa has been redeveloped and has made some progress to provide a more comfortable place for people to walk and bike within, it is surrounded by high stress roads. Downtown Mesa remains disconnected from the surrounding neighborhoods due to a lack of low stress connections and comfortable crossings, limiting the number of people who can access it on foot or by bike. There are high quality paths, but connectivity to them is limited. There is an existing high quality path system that continues to be expanded and runs adjacent to many destinations. However, the paths often lack direct connections to surrounding neighborhoods and destinations. US 60, Loop 202 Freeway, and Railroads limit access to nonmotorized travel While US 60 and Loop 202 freeway provide important regional connections for vehicles, they also act as barriers dividing different areas within Mesa as well as between Mesa and the adjacent municipalities of Tempe and Gilbert. However, shared use paths, such as the Rio Salado Path and the Consolidated Canal provide a dedicated means for people walking and biking to cross these freeways. The UPRR also creates similar barriers, in particular to pedestrian crossings. Mesa Transportation Master Plan Shared Mobility Mesa’s active transportation vehicles (SATVs) program has been in effect since February 1, 2020. The program has existed as a pilot program that is reevaluated every year. While Bird, Spin, and Razor all sought permits and operated within Mesa, by 2023 only Bird remained an active provider. Shared E-Scooter Program Details Bird is the only SATV operator currently active and offering regular data updates. This analysis focuses on data provided by Bird between March 1, 2022 and February 28, 2023 that can provide insights into e-scooter usage in Mesa. The average trip distance traveled is approximately 2.2 miles, and the average trip length is around 19 minutes. Therefore, the average trip speed is just over 8 minutes and 30 seconds per mile. • Bird deployed approximately 160 scooters at a time. While the number of average scooters in the fleet fluctuated from a low of 95 to a high of 230 over the year, increases in fleet size did not necessarily correspond to increases in ridership. • The most popular days for riding scooters were Friday, Saturday, and Sunday and the least used day was Wednesday. Popular destinations include Downtown Mesa, Mesa Community College, and the Price 101/Apache Boulevard Park & Ride (just west of Mesa in Tempe). 37 4,276 7 949 1,215 3,004 2,598 1,362 2,438 1,638 1,501 Total E-Scooter Trips Per Month 2,320 • 2,366 Scooter usage varied throughout the year, with a peak of almost 4,300 trips in November of 2022. 3,606 • Mesa Transportation Master Plan Mesa’s Shared Active Transportation Vehicle Operating Environment Currently Operating Yes (through Feb 1, 2022) Geography The City has not imposed a service area, but coverage may be limited by operator. RULES AND REGULATIONS • Cannot ride on sidewalks along Main Street in downtown Mesa. • Allowed on sidewalks in other parts of the City. • Users must yield to people walking. • Users must ride with traffic within the street. Max Speed Age Restrictions Driver's License Required 15 mph Not specified Not Required Helmet Rules Parking Helmets are encouraged but not required; Vendors must provide 100 helmets that the city distributes Overnight Collection None Locking Device • Cannot stage on city-owned property, in city parks, under bus shelter canopies • Cannot stage more than 5 vehicles in a row. • Groups of 5 must be separated by 20 feet. • Must stage 20 feet from Grid bike racks and business entrances. • Must give 8 feet clearance at bus boarding areas. Must leave 4 feet clearance on sidewalks. None Fleet Size Vendors Hours of Operation No maximum or minimum devices • Bird • Spin • Razor No current restrictions. If Issues Arise Enforcement Vendor has two hours to correct issue after being notified by the city • City can impound a vehicle immediately if there is an immediate safety hazard. • Must remove device within 24 hours of notification Data Reporting City Fees Monthly reports on fleet, trips, crashes, complaints $400 annual fee; No per-vehicle or per-ride fee 38 Mesa Transportation Master Plan Design Standards Today Design standards guide how our streets are built, how space is allocated, and what the walking and biking environment looks like. Understanding these standards helps to identify opportunities and constraints that can be addressed through the planning process. The following documents control where and how facilities for walking and biking are designed and built in Mesa: • Engineering & Design Standards (2022): provides standard details for the design of streets in Mesa for city CIP projects and private developers. These include discussions of traffic studies, traffic calming, pedestrian facilities, and transit facilities. • Standard Details (2022): a companion to the Engineering & Design Standards, the details provide guidance on things like lane width. While typical sections are generally not included, the guidance includes guidance on roadway design at intersections. • Traffic Signal Design Manual (2014): focuses on the design of traffic signals, including pedestrian signals and bicycle detection. • Bicycle Master Plan (BMP) (2018): identifies bike facility types and design standards. • Mesa Code of Ordinances defines requirements for all development in Mesa, including guidance on things like vehicle speeds, parking, facilities for people walking and biking, and roadway design. The City has adopted a Form Based Code in Downtown with unique road design standards. • Community Plans: Mesa allows planned communities to develop their own planning documents and zoning code, including street typologies and standards, via a formally adopted community plan. Such plans exist for Eastmark and Cadence. 39 Marana Transportation Plan Citywide Transportation Related Standards This section summarizes the relevant elements from the Engineering & Design Standards (2022), Standards Details (2022), Traffic Signal Design Manual (2014) and the Mesa Code of Ordinances as they relate to transportation Citywide. Vehicle Traffic Traffic Calming must be approved by the Transportation Department. Typical Sections are provided for some locations or developments such as Downtown, Eastmark, and Cadence and can provide guidance on how to design roadways given a particular context or roadway type. Parking requirements are reduced near transit stations and are allowed elsewhere with a study. Traffic Studies assume all people will drive in new developments unless approved by the City Traffic Engineer. However, developers are required to incorporate transit, walking, and biking connections with a focus on safety for non-motorized users. Other Relevant Standards Experimental Traffic Control may be authorized by the City Traffic Engineer with the approval of the City Manager. This testing shall consist of conducting research and tests on current devices and traffic control devices not presently included in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. Joint Use of Driveways (with cross-access easements) is encouraged for commercial developments. Bus Pullouts are required on 4-lane arterials at intersections between arterials and where higher ridership is expected (schools, shopping areas, hospitals, large mutli-family developments, etc). They should also be considered on 6-lane arterials. Far side pullouts are preferred. Walking ADA Compliant Sidewalk Ramps required at public intersections: • Local Streets: single / diagonal ramps • Collectors / Arterials: dual / directional ramps Sidewalks are required on all public streets: • Local Streets: 5’ minimum attached to back of curb • Collectors / Arterials: 6’minimum detached from curb • Bridges: 8’ minimum Shared Use Paths are permitted: • One-Way Travel: 6’ minimum + 2’ shoulder on either side • Two-Way Travel: 12’ minimum + 2’ shoulder on either side • Separation from the Curb: 5’ minimum • Vertical Clearance: 8’; 10’ if horses are expected Countdown Pedestrian Timers are required for all signals. New Crossings can be designated, designed, and constructed at the discretion of the City Traffic Engineer, particularly where safety concerns are identified or at other places where they deem necessary. Access to Facilities: the City can require developers to designate space for walking and biking with ROW widths or 10-12’ for access to schools, playgrounds, shopping centers, and transportation or other community facilities. 40 Mesa Transportation Master Plan Bike Facilities • Bike Lanes: Standard width 5.5”-6.5” feet provided all the way to the intersection. • If Leading to Intersections, bike lanes must be provided all the way to the intersection. If there is a right turn lane, the bike lane • should be placed between the right turn lane and the through lane. • Sharrows: shared lane markings intended to indicate proper positioning of a person biking in the street; not recommended on streets with speed limits greater than 35 mph. 41 • Shared Bike and Parking Lanes are permitted and should be 13’ minimum in width. These are not included in the Bike Master Plan but are included in Mesa’s Standard Details. Bike Parking is required for most development types and is specified based on use. Racks should be easy to lock to and in close proximity to entrances, highly visible, and well lighted without interfering with pedestrian movements. Mesa Transportation Master Plan Location Specific Transportation Related Standards Downtown Mesa Form Based Code The Mesa Code of Ordinances includes a Form Based Code for Downtown and the Temple/Pioneer Park Neighborhoods aimed at allowing new development while preserving character and fostering a walkable urban environment. The Code defines allowable land uses, urban design, and street sections based on a transect (Figure 4-11) which defines a variety of land use contexts. Downtown Mesa includes T3, T4, T5, T6, and D elements of the transect. The code provides the following transportation related guidance: • • 42 Figure 4-11: Mesa's Transect • Street Network design criteria requires an interconnected network and dictates maximum block perimeters to maintain a walkable environment. Thoroughfare Typologies reflect context classifications and include design standards based on design movement types: Curb Radius is dictated by movement type to slow turning speeds. • Yield: 5-10’ radius • Slow: 10-15’ radius • Low: 15-20’ radius o Yield – drivers proceed slowly and yield to each other (design speed <20 mph) o Slow – drivers move slowly and respect other roadway users (design speed 20-25 mph) • Shared facilities and bike boulevards are allowed on all streets o Low – drivers travel at design speed; streets intended to connect longer distances (design speed 30-35 mph) o o Suburban – conventional thoroughfare design with separation of modes (design speed 35+ mph) Bike lanes, if provided, must be 5-6’ minimum in width and Require review on streets with speed >30 MPH and in T4-6 zones • • Bike Facilities are allowable as follows: Shared Use Paths are allowable as follows: • Only allowed in T1 through T3 contexts. • One-Way Travel: 10’ minimum • Two-Way Travel: 12’ minimum Mesa Transportation Master Plan Cadence (Pacific Proving Grounds North) Cadence is envisioned as a “New Traditional Community” that is walkable and interconnected. Land uses are intended to be mixed and encourage accessibility by all modes, as opposed to traditional auto-oriented design. The plan provides the following transportation related guidance: • • Eastmark uses a transect of land uses along with a transportation plan focused on moving people as opposed to vehicles. The plan provides the following guidance: • Street Network principles include: o A connected network of streets o Prioritizing the walking environment o Amenities like lighting, shade, and street tree • Parking requirements as follows: o o • Eastmark (Mesa Proving Grounds) Includes both bike and vehicle parking minimums based on square footage. o Arterials: 4-6 lane section with 11’ travels lanes, 16’ medians, 6’ striped bike lane, and 6’ sidewalks. o Community Collectors: 2-4 lane section with 11-12.5 travel lanes, 9-15’ median, 6’ striped bike lanes, and 6’ sidewalks. • Local Streets: 2 lane undivided section with 12 lanes (17’ with on street parking) and 4’ sidewalks. • 43 o Prioritizing the walking environment o Amenities like lighting, shade, and street trees Street Typologies: • District and Arterial Streets: 2, 4, and 6 lane sections with and without bike lanes and parking. Generally include 10’ to 11’ wide lanes. • Neighborhood Streets: One and two-way streets with and without parking. Generally include 10-12’ lanes for oneway streets and 12-24’ lanes with parking (based on angle of parking). • Service Lanes: One and two-way streets with and without parking. Include 10-12’ lanes for one-way streets and 1224’ lanes with parking (based on angle of parking) Bike parking requirements match city standards. Street Typologies reflect a variety of street types proposed at 3 levels: o Street Network principles include: o A connected network of streets Bike Facilities are required on all streets as follows: • Shared streets (bike and neighborhood electric vehicles allowed) for streets with speeds 35 MPH or less. • Striped bike lanes along all arterials (6’ without parking, 5’ with parking). • 10-12’ wide multi use path through the Great Park as well as along Business Boulevard and Point Twenty-Two Blvd Parking requirements as follows: • Includes both bike and vehicle parking minimums based on square footage or bedrooms; varies by business type. • Shared parking is allowed when uses have different travel patterns. Mesa Transportation Master Plan Summary When reviewing the design standards and codes, several conclusions can be drawn: • While the form-based codes and design standards in Downtown, Eastmark, and Cadence provide good guidance on how to design streets in those areas, the lack of context based typical sections which can be applied city-wide make it difficult to ensure streets match contexts and include necessary features. • Providing wider sidewalks, shared use paths, and designated bike facilities may make streets with higher vehicular speeds and volumes more comfortable for people walking and biking. • The City Traffic Engineer is provided with significant flexibility to improve crossings and the environment for people walking and biking. • The Engineering and Design Standards and Code of Ordinances provide opportunities for the City to require developers to provide easements for walking and biking improvements to access destinations. • The BMP provides useful guidance on facility types, but there are several gaps, such as: 44 o Formal guidance regarding which facility type should be used based on comfort factors like vehicle speeds, volumes, and number of lanes. o Shared street guidance is inconsistent between Bicycle Routes, Shared Routes, and Sharrows. For example, speed guidance is provided for sharrows but not for other shared lane types. o Bicycle Boulevards are noted as a separate typology that may include traffic calming, signage, and markings. However, if traffic calming is not included, they do not provide an environment that is significantly different than shared streets. o While the BMP notes a maximum speed recommendation of 35 mph for sharrows, FHWA guidance recommends 25 mph if designing for people of all ages and abilities. o Shared parking and bike lanes are not included in the BMP but are included elsewhere. These facilities can provide an inconsistent biking experience. o There is discussion of intersection treatments, but the BMP does not provide specific guidance to address high stress crossings. Mesa Transportation Master Plan MULTIMODAL CONNECTIVITY Understanding where bicycle and pedestrian facilities exist and where they offer connections to transit stops is critical to creating a sustainable and accessible transit system. Barriers that interfere with first and last mile connections should be addressed and play a role in determining the most advantageous locations for transit stops. First/Last Mile Connections Walking and biking are complementary to transit, as every transit rider is either a pedestrian or a bicyclist at some point of their trip. For example, a rider must first walk, bike, drive, or roll themselves to and from the nearest bus stop. This is commonly referred to as “first/last mile”. Some riders have a short walk from a parking lot and others have a longer walk or ride from their home, office, or shopping center. The majority of stops in Mesa have sidewalk connections; however, some stops have sidewalks gaps leading to the stop or the sidewalks are in need of repair. A detailed analysis of pedestrian and bicycle access to high ridership stops is located in the Walking and Biking section of this report. Transit Stop Amenities Amenities can include stop signage, bus shelters, benches, timetables, trash cans, bike racks, and more. Currently, a large number of stops in Mesa lack shelter. Transit shelters are important to improving rider satisfaction as they improve a rider’s perception of safety, provide an area to wait during hot summer days or during rain, and help rider’s recognize bus stop locations. 45 Mesa Transportation Master Plan FREIGHT DEMAND Where Trucks are Traveling Replica data provides truck usage estimates for vehicles classified by Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) as class 4 or higher, which ranges from medium size city delivery trucks to large freight vehicles. Using Replica data, key routes heavily used by trucks can be identified. As illustrated in Figure 13, higher truck volumes can be found on freeways and several key arterials. Many of these corridors not only have high truck volumes, but also have high percentages of trucks. As illustrated in the figure, corridors with high truck usage include: • McKellips Road (west of Val Vista Road) • Higley Road (south of University Drive) • University Drive (west of Lindsay Road) • Power Road (south of Broadway Road) • Broadway Road (west of Country Club Drive) • Ray Road (west of Signal Butte Road) • Apache Trail (east of SR 202) • Elliot Road (west of Crismon Road) • Ellsworth Road (south of SR 24) • Ray Road and Elliot Road in southeast Mesa • Dobson Road (north of US 60) • • Country Club Drive North-South arterials providing access to US 60, including Mesa Drive, Stapley Drive, and Gilbert Road Heavy Trucks Usage The American Transportation Research Institute (ATRI) collects and analyzes heavy truck GPS movement data to aid in important freight decision making. Figures 14 and 15 illustrate locations with heavy freight trips and stop locations, respectively. Findings show: 46 • Locations surrounding the Phoenix-Mesa Gateway Airport, along Country Club Drive, through downtown Mesa, and along SR 24 experience the highest heavy truck usage. • While trucks travel along most arterials in the Mesa MPA, key stop locations include areas surrounding the Phoenix-Mesa Gateway Airport, along SR 24, adjacent to the US 60, industrial sites along Broadway Road, surrounding Falcon Field, and growing industrial areas in southeast Mesa. Mesa Transportation Master Plan FIGURE 13 CORRIDORS WITH HIGH TRUCK VOLUMES 47 Mesa Transportation Master Plan FIGURE 14 LOCATIONS WITH HIGH HEAVY TRUCKS VOLUMES 48 Mesa Transportation Master Plan FIGURE 15 HEAVY TRUCKS STOP LOCATIONS 49 Mesa Transportation Master Plan TMP 2050 Walking and Biking Access Mesa Transportation Master Plan 70 Walking and Biking Access The following maps are developed from the methodology discussed in “Access to Destinations”. These figures provide walking and biking sheds for each destination category (as defined in “Access to Destinations”) to provide additional insights. Viewing these maps side by side helps illustrate that not all the needs of Mesa residents are equally accessible by biking or walking. Walking Access to Essential Needs i Mesa Transportation Master Plan Walking Transit Access ii Mesa Transportation Master Plan Walking to Youth Activities iii Mesa Transportation Master Plan Walking to Shared Use Paths and Other Canal Trail Access Points iv Mesa Transportation Master Plan Biking Access to Essential Needs v Mesa Transportation Master Plan Biking Transit Access vi Mesa Transportation Master Plan Biking to Youth Activities vii Mesa Transportation Master Plan Biking to Shared Use Paths and Other Canal Trail Access Points viii Mesa Transportation Master Plan ix Mesa Transportation Master Plan TMP 2050 2024 PROJECTED SOCIOECONOMIC CONDITIONS Forecasting future socioeconomic conditions allows us to anticipate changes in future travel demand and to envision potential solutions. Development of rational projections for population, housing units, and employment for each horizon year is vital to the process of forecasting realistic traffic volumes. The Maricopa Association of Governments’ (MAG) regional travel demand model projects future population, housing units, and various types of employment categories for each Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) within the model. TAZs are geographic subdivisions of the study area bounded by roads, political boundaries, natural and man-made geographical constraints (such as rivers, washes, etc.). Table 1 shows a tabular summary of the projected population, employment, and the number of housing units within Mesa. By the long-term (2050) horizon, population and housing unit projections are reflective of mostly build-out conditions for Mesa. TABLE 1: PROJECTED SOCIOECONOMIC CONDITIONS FOR MPA Total Population1 Current (2021) 544,976 Near-Term (2030) 589,900 Mid-Term (2035) 609,800 Long-Term (2050) 645,500 Total Housing Units 243,003 263,017 279,982 285,254 Total Employment 208,200 237,500 259,600 308,900 1 Source: MAG Socioeconomic Projections 2023 includes resident population and group quarter (correction, institutional, and military) population Projected Population Growth Figures 1, 2, and 3, illustrate the projected population for the near-, mid-, and long-term horizon years, respectively. As illustrated in the figures, the majority of population growth is infill development in Downtown Mesa, Central Mesa, and along US 60. Southeast Mesa is also projected to have a significant increase in new growth and development. Projected Employment Growth Figures 4, 5, and 6, illustrate the projected employment for the near-, mid-, and long-term horizon years, respectively. As illustrated in the figures, Southeast Mesa is projected to have significant employment growth surrounding the Phoenix-Mesa Gateway airport. In addition, pockets of in-fill development are projected to occur in Downtown Mesa, along SR 202 east of Alma School Road, in Central Mesa, and north of Falcon Field. 1 Mesa Transportation Master Plan FIGURE 1 PROJECTED NEAR-TERM (2030) POPULATION Near-Term Population By TAZ Source: City of Mesa, Maricopa County, ALRIS, MAG 2 Mesa Transportation Master Plan FIGURE 2. PROJECTED MID-TERM (2035) POPULATION Mid-Term Population By TAZ Growth Areas (Compared to Year 2030) 3 Mesa Transportation Master Plan FIGURE 3. PROJECTED LONG-TERM (2050) POPULATION Long-Term Population By TAZ Growth Areas (Compared to Year 2035) Source: City of Mesa, Maricopa County, ALRIS, MAG 4 Mesa Transportation Master Plan FIGURE 4. PROJECTED NEAR-TERM (2030) EMPLOYMENT Near-Term Employment By TAZ 5 Mesa Transportation Master Plan FIGURE 5. PROJECTED MID-TERM (2035) EMPLOYMENT Mid-Term Employment By TAZ Growth Areas (Compared to Year 2030) Source: City of Mesa, Maricopa County, ALRIS, MAG 6 Mesa Transportation Master Plan FIGURE 6 PROJECTED LONG-TERM (2050) EMPLOYMENT Long-Term Employment By TAZ Growth Areas (Compared to Year 2035) Source: City of Mesa, Maricopa County, ALRIS, MAG 7 Mesa Transportation Master Plan TMP 2050 APPENDIX D. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT PHASE #1 SUMMARY REPORT COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT Mesa’s transportation system is designed to serve the thousands of residents, visitors, and commuters that travel to and through Mesa every day. Involving residents early and often allows City staff to make informed decisions that meet the needs of those that use our transportation network the most. Phase I of the Mesa TMP community engagement focused on hosting an online survey for residents, visitors, and employers to voice their opinion on transportation challenges they face today. Results of the survey aid in understanding the unique issues and needs of Mesa residents and visitors and ultimately will aid in developing recommended infrastructure improvements. Outreach Methods To garner input from a wide cross-section of the public, multiple outreach methods were utilized, including: • Project website • Online survey and mapping exercise • Informational booths at community events • Press releases • Social media posts A full copy of the online survey is available in the Appendix. Project Website In coordination with the Mesa General Plan Update, a Mesa Transportation Master Plan (TMP) project website was developed and launched in January 2023, allowing the public easy access to important information about the TMP. The website TomorrowsMesa.com included outreach event dates, project document links, and survey links. A comment form was also provided to allow the public to submit a question or concern directly to the study team and the City. A full list of comments received via the project website are provided in the Appendix. Summary of comments received included: • A desire for additional bike paths and protected bike facilities. • Safety and comfort enhancements along canal paths and bike routes for walking and biking, such as lighting and crossings at major roads. • Roadway and canal path maintenance. Mesa Transportation Master Plan 1 Advertisement and Promotion To make the public aware of the purpose of the Mesa TMP and to invite them to participate in an online survey and mapping exercise, the study team advertised and promoted the TMP utilizing various platforms. Promotion of the TMP directed participants to the online survey and mapping exercise and offered the opportunity to learn more about the TMP through the project website. Advertisements and promotions were conducted on a rolling basis from January 2023 – April 2023 and included: • Social media posts on the City of Mesa’s Facebook, X, and Instagram feeds. • E-mail information and link to website via the City of Mesa’s Homeowner’s Association email list. • Press release and news article on Mesa Tribune. • Flyers and signs were distributed to key activity centers throughout the City. Informational Booths at Community Events At community events, study team members hosted booths and asked participants to fill out a the online survey on their transportation concerns, issues, and needs. Events attended to date include: • Asian Festival – January 28, 2023 • I Love Mesa Day – February 25, 2023 • Eastmark Safety Day – March 4, 2023 • Downtown Mesa Farmer’s Market – March 25, 2023 • CycloMesa – April 1, 2023 • Celebrate Mesa at Pioneer Park – April 15, 2023 Mesa Transportation Master Plan 2 ONLINE COMMUNITY SURVEY To gain insight in the transportation challenges and needs of Mesa’s residents, visitors, and employers, an online survey was developed. The survey was available online at TomorrowsMesa.com and was distributed at community events and other outreach activities. The survey was open from January 2023 to April 2023 and included 15 questions and three main sections: • Travel behavior today • Transportation issues and improvement ideas • Future transportation challenges • Demographic information Over 690 people participated in the community survey. Summary of Survey Results The following section summarizes the survey results (690 total surveys) noting interesting findings and comments received. Question 1: Select the ways you travel most in Mesa today. (Select all that apply) Approximately 80% of the respondents indicated that they drive alone to travel around Mesa. While this was the most popular response, a significant number of respondents also indicated use of walking/wheelchair/other mobility device (21.3%), biking (20.6%), and/or carpooling/vanpooling (18.5%) to travel. It is important to note that respondents were able to select more than one response, illustrating that while Driving Alone is the highest use travel mode, respondents also travel through a variety of modes. Mesa Transportation Master Plan 3 Question 2: How easy is it for you to travel around Mesa today? The majority of respondents found traveling by car in Mesa to be either very easy (43.5%) or easy (29.9%). Respondents generally indicated that traveling by walking, biking, or public transit was somewhat easy or not easy. Approximately half of the respondents who gave a response for traveling by wheelchair or other mobility device indicated it is not easy to travel by these methods. Question 3: What is the greatest transportation need in Mesa today? (Select up to 3) Half (48.9%) of the respondents selected maintaining existing roadways as one of the greatest transportation needs in Mesa today, followed by improving safety for all users (37.9%). The remaining needs, besides the other category and reducing congestion on nonMesa maintained facilities, were each selected by approximately 30% of the respondents. Mesa Transportation Master Plan 5 Question 4: What transportation investments should Mesa focus on? Rank from 1 (most important) to 6 (least important). The answers in the chart below represent the average score of each investment item. Investments ranked 1 (most important) were given a weight of 6 points and investments ranked 6 (least important) were given a weight of 1 point. Therefore, investments with the highest total weight were deemed the most important investment choices in Mesa. Improving roadway conditions was the number one recommended transportation investment Mesa should make as deemed by the respondents. After improving roadway conditions, improving public transit and improving vulnerable road user crossings were the second and third most important investments. Maintenance of existing facilities 3.22 Embracing new technologies and innovation 2.80 Better sidewalks and pedestrian crossings 3.46 Safer and more comfortable bike facilities 3.35 Making public transit a more viable travel option 3.69 Improving roadway conditions (i.e., safety, pavement conditions, and congestion) 4.77 0 Mesa Transportation Master Plan 1 2 3 4 5 6 6 Question 5: In 20 years, what do you think our greatest transportation challenge will be? (Select up to 3) The greatest future transportation challenge anticipated by the respondents was increased traffic congestion (63.4%) followed by road maintenance on our current streets (45.9%). This concern around road maintenance for existing roadways is in line with the needs expressed through the responses to Question 3 (What is the greatest transportation need in Mesa today?). Mesa Transportation Master Plan 7 Question 11: What are the biggest challenges to walking and biking in Mesa today? (Select up to 3) Approximately half (51.2%) of the respondents identified lack of continuous, comfortable routes to destinations as a current challenge around walking and biking in Mesa today. Similarly, lack of separation between vehicles and people walking or biking (48.2%) and lack of shade and/or places to walk or bike to (45.0%) were frequently selected. Question 12: In your opinion, what are the biggest challenges to taking transit in Mesa today? (Select up to 3) The biggest challenge identified for taking transit in Mesa today was routes that don’t go where the respondents want or need them to (53.4%). The next most identified challenge was limited/no transit options for neighborhood-level trips 36.2%). Mesa Transportation Master Plan 9 Respondent Demographic Information Question 13: What are the most important factors in how you choose Question 14: Do you live, work, or go to school in Mesa? (Select to get around on a normal day in Mesa? (Choose up to 2 options) all the Apply) Convenience (63.5%), travel time (55.9%), and personal safety 84.4% of the survey participants live in Mesa while less than (34.3%) were the top three important factors for respondents when one-third of them work in, attend school in, or solely visit Mesa. it comes to choosing how they get around Mesa on a normal day. Question 15: How many days a week do you commute for work? Question 18: What is your age? Most often, respondents commute 4-5 days a week to work. Over One-third of the survey participants fell between 35 and 49 years 60% of the respondents commute to work at least one day a week. of age. ONLINE MAPPING EXERCISE RESULTS The feedback map was presented as an opportunity to provide location-based comments. Once the online survey was completed, a message appeared encouraging the user to provide additional information, along with a direct link to the feedback map. The map allowed users to indicate the category of their comment. A total of 186 comments were made and participants were able to like comments made by others. Most of the comments were made in reference to biking, walking, and safety, however the top two liked comments were of categories ‘other’ (7 likes) and ‘transit’ (5 likes). The other comment was requesting a high-density housing/mixed use transit-oriented development in the large vacant lots along the light rail. The fifth most liked comment requested something similar. The transit comment was requesting an extension of the Streetcar to Mesa Riverview and Spring Training Fields. Below is a comprehensive summary of the feedback map comments. Driving in Mesa Comments • • There is a thorough concern regarding aggressive driving and drivers not abiding by traffic laws. o Aggressive driving along McDowell Road and Ridgecrest Drive in east Mesa. o Speeding (generally and Hobson was mentioned). o Failing to yield at crosswalks. Pedestrian signals are wanted along north-south corridors between Broadway Road and Southern Avenue. Walking/Biking in Mesa Comments • Several locations were identified as needing drinking fountains. o Along 8th Street/Adobe Street Mesa Transportation Master Plan 13 • • o In the Bass Pro Shop area o Baseball park and stadium connector trail There is a general high demand for more bike paths across Mesa, Locations noted were: o Within Eastmark and in Southeast Mesa o Along Guadalupe Road o Along US 60 to connect Tempe Canal with the Sun Circle Trail and beyond. o Along Ellsworth Road There are a significant number of concerns regarding vulnerable road user safety. These are issues noted across all of Mesa: o Two comments along Baseline Road o Going from multi-use path at Elliot Road and Loop 202 Santan Freeway o Dangerous crossings are a general issue, and several locations were identified:  Along McLellan Road crossing arterials  Broadway Road east of Ellsworth Road  Along 8th Avenue/Pueblo Street at arterials  Baseline Road in Dobson Ranch  Within Las Sendas neighborhood o Too-narrow bike lanes o Lack of lighting (generally and north side of University Drive) o Lack of clear markings at pedestrian and bicyclist crossings o Drivers are not yielding at crosswalks. Transit in Mesa Comments • • Much like what was seen in the survey open-ended responses, there is high demand for extending the light rail and bus rapid transit. These specific extensions were noted: o Additional access in west Mesa o Along Power Road o Extend the light rail down Country Club to downtown Chandler. o A transportation hub at MCC and Banner Desert o To downtown Gilbert, ASU Poly, and the airport o Intercity rail stop in downtown Mesa Fast track service to downtown Phoenix and Tucson Environmental Concerns in Mesa Comments • A lot of notes on parking and housing along Main Street Phase I Online Survey Comments Below are the individual responses to the open-ended survey questions. Question 8: What roadway improvements would you like to see in Mesa? Respondent ID 114380104354 114380100980 114380100232 114380098451 114380096047 114380091763 114380089743 114380089065 114380086988 114380080031 114380077136 114380072451 114380068840 114380066236 114380063363 114380057425 Response Date Aug 01 2023 08:46 AM Aug 01 2023 08:42 AM Aug 01 2023 08:41 AM Aug 01 2023 08:39 AM Aug 01 2023 08:36 AM Aug 01 2023 08:32 AM Aug 01 2023 08:29 AM Aug 01 2023 08:28 AM Aug 01 2023 08:26 AM Aug 01 2023 08:19 AM Aug 01 2023 08:16 AM Aug 01 2023 08:10 AM Aug 01 2023 08:07 AM Aug 01 2023 08:04 AM Aug 01 2023 08:00 AM Aug 01 2023 07:54 AM 114380055432 Aug 01 2023 07:52 AM 114380053584 Aug 01 2023 07:50 AM 114380052161 114380051001 114380046931 114380036518 114380028183 114380026794 Aug 01 2023 07:48 AM Aug 01 2023 07:47 AM Aug 01 2023 07:43 AM Aug 01 2023 07:31 AM Aug 01 2023 07:22 AM Aug 01 2023 07:20 AM 114380025122 Aug 01 2023 07:18 AM Mesa Transportation Master Plan Responses no more crashes more sidewalks. lots of roadways don't have sidewalks more bike/pedestrian paths more bike lanes and better sidewalks road improvements - especially the 60 more car pool options, easy bike rental traffic longer yellow lights public transit southern fixing potholes better roads freeway constant more light rail less congestion much more bike safe lanes/pathways unless you drive it's hard to get to downtown mesa. It'd be great if the light rail ran N&S down gilbert and bike lanes were wider left turn arrows at all busy intersections an use them. It's hard to see oncoming traffic and people running red lights more bike lanes more protected bike lanes any would be nice more connectivity in far east mesa better road surface pot holes filled I'd like to see more dedicated bikeways, but many lanes seem pretty safe to me 15 114380016303 114380012532 114380010552 114380008464 114372576689 Aug 01 2023 07:12 AM Aug 01 2023 07:05 AM Aug 01 2023 07:03 AM Aug 01 2023 07:01 AM Jul 21 2023 08:15 AM 114320241394 May 15 2023 04:53 PM 114319673026 May 15 2023 06:01 AM 114319438144 May 14 2023 10:29 PM 114319378418 May 14 2023 07:03 PM 114319322455 May 14 2023 03:35 PM 114319244056 114319067315 114318988761 114318915907 114318891909 114318875762 May 14 2023 10:17 AM May 13 2023 11:11 PM May 13 2023 05:03 PM May 13 2023 12:28 PM May 13 2023 11:14 AM May 13 2023 10:29 AM 114318870951 May 13 2023 10:23 AM 114318870560 114318731210 May 13 2023 10:19 AM May 13 2023 04:09 AM safe connection to nearby cities Just keep as is everything is fine Better biking/walking paths not limit to cars Better biking/walking paths not limit to cars more safe streets More bike trails that have tunnels or overpasses that allows people on bikes to not have to cross roads. Better bike lanes that connect to bike trails My biggest concern is drivers speeds on side streets that speed limit is 25. There are children, animals and they j u st don't care Reduce 7 lane roadway and build more landscape medians and tree lined streets to beautify Mesa and provide shade and reduce heat island. 1. Change traffic light timing so we can get all green lights while driving the speed limit. Curruntly we have to go roughly 20mph under the speed limit to catch greens. 2. Don't let canal path lights, and smaller side street lights interupt the traffic pattern. These should all be timed so that they only cycle to green after the bulk of timed traffic has already passed by. 3. Change all canal path lights so that we can go through after path is clear (stop on red, proceed if clear) Get rid of the light rail More chip sealing Holes & dips No traffic cameras or speed traps Complete bike paths. Most just stop before any desired destination Quicker routes to the queen creek area. Lower speed limits. Coordinate traffic lights and consistent left turn arrows. One should ALWAYS get an arrow at the intersections equipped with arrows. More crosswalks. People can’t/won’t walk a literal mile to cross a street. Aging population can’t use bikes in hot weather or walk long distances. More trolleys more often.more safer than park and rides. The one At Dobson and sycamore is terrible. Remember you can’t build your way out of a traffic jam. Bus lines and/or light rail expanded into the south East area of mesa Safety. Too many red light runners. 114317621502 May 11 2023 07:35 PM 114314411562 May 08 2023 03:34 PM 114314046415 May 08 2023 08:57 AM 114313434576 May 07 2023 02:59 PM 114312836558 May 06 2023 08:25 AM 114312610911 May 05 2023 09:47 PM 114312206593 May 05 2023 10:27 AM 114311487356 114311449584 114311198280 May 04 2023 09:40 PM May 04 2023 07:58 PM May 04 2023 01:11 PM 114310350532 May 03 2023 06:02 PM 114310331029 May 03 2023 05:27 PM 114309916626 May 03 2023 09:55 AM 114309735757 May 03 2023 07:15 AM 114309179898 114309162154 May 02 2023 03:21 PM May 02 2023 02:58 PM 114309064926 May 02 2023 01:01 PM 114308645266 May 02 2023 06:12 AM Mesa Transportation Master Plan Streets needing to make a left hand turn on main from Longmore needs to be shorter. Also turn left from main on to Longmore needs to be shorter. Na more lanes. more dedicated right turn lanes at major intersections. more left turn yield when flashing intersections at major intersections. more red light cameras at major intersections. a lot more dedicated bus turnouts for bus stops at major intersections. Dedicated bike lanes and bike lanes from Phoenix to Mesa when the road is under construction and some lanes are closed it would be nice if there were actually some people working there to get it back open. The intersection at Baseline and Sossaman has been under construction for months. I live by this intersection and many, many, many days there has been nobody working to get it reopened. It is a night mare trying to get through that intersection in under 10 minutes. But 75% of the time there is nobody working there. More safety and less fatal accidents! It is terrifying having teen drivers. Especially with the entitled drivers who ride your butt and cut you off.. oh and speed and run red lights! Narrower and fewer car lanes to make drivers slow down and streets safer for all road users better and safer bike lanes Protected bike lanes. I’m tired of those hippies endangering my car. Homeless on the light rails and buses without passes Better traffic management so cars are not sitting idle when there is no need for it. Finish resurfacing and restriping More public bus routes than cars, and without needing to have your own car in Mesa at all Main Street / Apache Trail From Sossaman to Idaho EB/WB Specifically Main St @ Cheshire East and west bound Decrease congestion, decrease poor driving Painting them white More Sossaman & Baseline turn lanes are needed for both left & right turns. (Traffic is awful right now & for too long it’s been only 1 lane on Baseline). As a bike rider,more bike paths, better maintenance of existing shoulder paths. 17 114308066819 May 01 2023 12:57 PM 114307935655 May 01 2023 10:24 AM 114307837166 May 01 2023 08:36 AM 114307422863 Apr 30 2023 06:13 PM 114307359218 Apr 30 2023 03:17 PM 114307021343 Apr 29 2023 10:45 PM 114306894397 Apr 29 2023 04:02 PM 114306883426 Apr 29 2023 03:29 PM 114306871319 Apr 29 2023 02:52 PM 114306846006 114306829778 Apr 29 2023 01:31 PM Apr 29 2023 12:40 PM 114306727245 Apr 29 2023 08:21 AM 114306459799 Apr 28 2023 08:21 PM I would like to see the lightrail extended further East and additional bus routes (and more frequent). Wider roads Getting rid of all the potholes and providing more space for those who bike. There's several roads without bike lanes and I always worry for bikers safety. The timing of the lights. Why are there THREE lights in about a block at Lindsay and Pueblo? Infuriating! Why do some lights not give pedestrians enough time to safely cross? Like Main and Center. You better be steepping fast to cross four lanes and light rail tracks in the whopping 12 seconds allowed! Why are side streets not more intuitive for the different times of the day. Such as those near schools or businesses that are busy for only a few hours a day. Why are those lights not set up to allow more than two cars thru per cycle? How much exhaust fumes do idling cars at poorly timed lights spew into the air daily? Lagging left arrow. Light rail serving Southeast Mesa. Raised median Dobson Road from southern-broadway. High traffic, speeders way to many deadly accidents!!! Keeping the homeless out the city, and from running out on the streets, and getting in the way of drivers In East Mesa it seems like streets are torn up, lanes closed, then reopened, then torn up and lanes closed. When road work is needed, please complete ALL tasks so its torn up once, and for all Light rail and more bus stops so that using public transportation is actually feasible for work and other necessities. Currently having to waste hours to take public transportation makes using it for work cost lost wages, and hours of your life. People actually working instead of leaning on shovels or just talking. more bike lanes along mains street Crackdown on speeding and unsafe driving. Roadways being used as raceways ie Ellsworth and McKellips. More synchronization to keep traffic flowing. Educate drivers on proper use of roundabouts. Bicyclists need to be educated on rules of the roadways not just drivers. Too many aggressive drivers in Mesa. Need crackdown on them. Intersections being more pedestrian and bike friendly. If lights are timed to give them a head start and jut out a bit from where cars stop, it is much safer for everyone. People in our area drive incredibly fast and speeds are not monitored. They often make fast turns at intersections and are not looking. I would ride quite a bit if I felt more safe and have in other places I have lived. 114306104814 114306084404 Apr 28 2023 10:43 AM Apr 28 2023 10:22 AM 114305370960 Apr 27 2023 05:39 PM 114305140669 Apr 27 2023 01:30 PM 114304791251 Apr 27 2023 07:42 AM 114304367175 Apr 26 2023 08:21 PM 114304312270 Apr 26 2023 06:41 PM 114304199640 Apr 26 2023 03:39 PM 114304103750 Apr 26 2023 01:20 PM 114303040360 114302956403 114302819281 Apr 25 2023 12:55 PM Apr 25 2023 11:21 AM Apr 25 2023 09:09 AM 114302069028 Apr 24 2023 01:49 PM 114302024562 Apr 24 2023 01:07 PM 114301590177 Apr 24 2023 05:51 AM 114301588881 Apr 24 2023 05:49 AM 114301224250 Apr 23 2023 04:18 PM 114301218286 114300344498 Apr 23 2023 03:57 PM Apr 21 2023 06:50 PM 114299390560 Apr 20 2023 07:11 PM 114299254048 114299037727 Apr 20 2023 03:01 PM Apr 20 2023 10:57 AM 114298916166 Apr 20 2023 08:58 AM Mesa Transportation Master Plan Smooth freeways and less cars Bike lanes and Bike only pathways Fix the pot holes. Add some sound barriers. Better signage and options when working on major roads. Quit closing the freeway all weekend long. substatially increased road capacity, better commute times, better maintainace. Elimination of projects that reduce vehicle traffic. e.g. southern near mcc, light rail on main street, reclamation of lost lanes for automobile traffic. Not to have a square mile under construction at one time Protected bike lanes. Plastic bollards and paint lines are NOT cycling infrastructure. Better coordination. When closing the freeway, don't also limit baseline and southern to 1 lane. Too much construction all at once. Traffic signals that have left turns, when there's less than 3 vehicles waiting as well as safety crossings for bicycles using the canal paths, at all of the crossings. Patch holes in road on University between Greenfield & Val Vista. Longer green left turn signals so all traffic in the lane can safely get through. Widening some streets less potholes and smoother roads Safer, separated bike lanes. Fewer car-driving lanes. Add iridescent lines to highway lines so they are visible during high brightness hours and at night. The lines are very hard to see especially on the 60 and it’s very dangerous. Please fix this ASAP!!! Maintain the streets, quit wasting money on recreational trails. Pull offs for the busses, many spots do not have them and traffic gets log jammed behind the causing back up's. Better management to run the city Completely replacing street asphalt instead of just putting a top coat on old asphalt. More public transit options safer bicycle lanes Do something about traffic flow and lights. Absolutely terrible at some intersections Eliminate lightrail Fill in potholes Clearview Ave needs to be addressed with people driving too fast and used as the autobahn. Road humps need to be put down. The people that 19 114298268932 Apr 19 2023 05:12 PM 114297870832 Apr 19 2023 10:15 AM 114297614815 Apr 19 2023 06:05 AM 114297296500 114297246600 114297158221 Apr 18 2023 08:49 PM Apr 18 2023 07:19 PM Apr 18 2023 04:55 PM 114297132448 Apr 18 2023 04:15 PM 114297061029 Apr 18 2023 02:33 PM 114296901450 Apr 18 2023 11:47 AM 114296768370 Apr 18 2023 09:38 AM 114296749919 Apr 18 2023 09:20 AM work at Bridgecrest on Hampton always seem to be late so about 10 min before each top of the hour you get people driving what seems like 100 mph. I’ve seen it about 25 times and once I sat in my car and watched the ridiculous speeds at those times a few times that day. Either way, people race down clearview at all hours. My backyard also faces clearview so I can hear it as well at all hours. We have less of a problem on the 60 freeway which is on the other side of my house Lower the speeds at major intersections. The quality of the roads are terrible. Change the asphalt contractor or mix. Keep Cargo lanes, stop putting medians that are restricting/congesting traffic and mobility. Stop with median lights that reduce visibility on roads and freeways at night. Paint the speed limit on the asphalt. Get rid of crosswalks at the canals, put in bridges. The bus system is terrible , dangerous to use and can't be fixed. Light rail should not go past Gilbert road, it has destroyed downtown Mesa with less patronage and more homeless and dangerouspeople. Traffic circles do not work in all locations, take more consideration when putting them in. I drive all over the US for my work. Mesa needs to really think before implementing, we aren't California yet, and other States roadways are atrocious and engineered like a 5yr olds imagination (OK, IN, IL to name a few). AZ used to be the easiest place to drive around with the best roads (15yrs ago). TY Not so many stop lights every block.Remove the people who are wandering in and out of traffic for begging ju consistant traffic light patterns. Road maintenance on run down pavement. Lower speed limits Less rocks on the freeway, less noise on the freeway and less congestion downtown Flashing signs for speed, improved signage and lighting at intersections. Speed humps in neighborhood areas with high traffic/rate of speed. Offset turn lanes at intersections so you can see oncoming traffic better rather than the other car turning left opposite of you. Lagging turn arrows. In a lot of the older community areas that are not gated, we find we are inundated with drive-through traffic as a short cut from the congestion With the increase in e-bike use, there needs to be am improved bike lane system on main roadways to protect bicyclist 114296572971 Apr 18 2023 06:27 AM 114296205787 Apr 17 2023 06:34 PM 114296139426 Apr 17 2023 04:39 PM 114296120847 114296118420 Apr 17 2023 04:02 PM Apr 17 2023 03:58 PM 114296093521 Apr 17 2023 03:22 PM 114296079707 Apr 17 2023 03:02 PM 114295996483 114295682902 114295666571 114295618429 114295410121 114295281373 114295031255 Apr 17 2023 01:10 PM Apr 17 2023 07:46 AM Apr 17 2023 07:30 AM Apr 17 2023 06:39 AM Apr 17 2023 12:50 AM Apr 16 2023 08:52 PM Apr 16 2023 05:59 PM 114295020599 Apr 16 2023 05:32 PM 114294938637 114294866300 Apr 16 2023 01:25 PM Apr 16 2023 10:00 AM 114294674361 Apr 15 2023 10:45 PM Mesa Transportation Master Plan Stop building so many apartments that increases the number of people per square mile More shade and water stations at bus stops. Perhaps vending machines before summer. Secure Wi-Fi connectivity and charging station if possible. - More energy efficient solutions (solar powered lights, heat absorbent pavements, more sidewalks from point to point, more shade coverings especially at parks, affordable & available electric bikes, scooters, & alternative modes of transportation for rent. I would also like it if there was a rewards program for using alternative modes of transportation. Road diet, safe alternatives to driving Take the roundabout out at Main and Horne. Stop signs in neighborhoods with schools and at student pick up and drop off locations Stop adding lanes and lights, replace wide roadways with public transit/bike and pedestrian paths, if options other than cars are made viable, congestion will take care of itself. Replace small intersections containing traffic lights with roundabouts and traffic will flow more efficiently and safety will be great improved. Create protected bike/pedestrian paths, if citizens see that biking or walking can be safe and efficient they are more likely to embrace it, rather than the current situation where they must share the road with lifted trucks that could run them over without noticing Connecting roads Police patrol for speeders and tuner cars dragracing More bike lanes and fixing potholes/cracks More police presence More shade, improved speed limits. Separate bike/pedestrian travel lanes. Pave the 60 and main streeteast of power Please insure drivers safety by forcing people to stop throwing materials from cars less bad projects like light rail more lanes of road for vehicles to travel on Repair!! Yes, congestion is always a pain. Reducing congestion could be a side benefit of a multimodal transportation system. However, I propose no improvements to roadway congestion due to a greater need to improve the conditions for other mobility modes. 21 114294636942 Apr 15 2023 08:32 PM 114294634476 Apr 15 2023 08:14 PM 114294626572 Apr 15 2023 07:46 PM 114294575160 Apr 15 2023 04:32 PM 114294561693 114294525554 Apr 15 2023 03:36 PM Apr 15 2023 01:28 PM 114294523947 Apr 15 2023 01:27 PM 114294524517 Apr 15 2023 01:25 PM 114294517972 114294517878 Apr 15 2023 01:01 PM Apr 15 2023 01:01 PM 114294514702 Apr 15 2023 12:55 PM 114294513992 114294509256 114294509065 114294507945 114294502522 114294501976 114294500107 Apr 15 2023 12:48 PM Apr 15 2023 12:31 PM Apr 15 2023 12:30 PM Apr 15 2023 12:26 PM Apr 15 2023 12:08 PM Apr 15 2023 12:07 PM Apr 15 2023 12:00 PM Alma School and McClellan- need the left turn arrow light l to work every time a 1 car is in the lane. Also the 3 signal lights need to be synced in order not to cause backup during am and pm hour hour. Country club and McKellips the left Tuen signal need to be longer time it literally is for 5-10 seconds causing cars to run the red light to try and make the left turn from McKellips on to county club south. Lots of near misses. Resurface east mesa freeway 60. Road is rough and lane markings at sunset heading west are dangerously difficult to see. Landscaping bushes make it hard to see when turning onto major roads from neighborhoods. Also, would be nice to have right hand turn lanes to help with congestion at intersections. Why require an answer when not everyone will have input here, but we are forced to enter text and you are then forced to read this ridiculous waste of time. Improving the conditions of our roads. Cleaner roads I'd like to se a change in the stoplights at canals, where bicyclists, wheelchairs, pedestrians cross the street... It's frustrating when a bicyclist comes to the crossing, pushes the button, crosses before the light turns because of such light traffic, and the cars still have to stop for 2 minutes--long enough for a slow walker to cross. Two solutions: make it a blinking red light for drivers, or post signs that say "when the crosswalk has cleared, it's ok to proceed." Lower speed limits, fewer lanes. The more lanes we add the more people will want to drive and the worse congestion will get. Also incredibly unsafe for anyone walking or biking. The freeway to be open soon. Better timing on traffic lights and road conditions Traffic cameras at intersections Triangle flashing crosswalk and bike lanes where they cross the canals Less traffic Roads Finish all the construction More roads Everything Some speed bumps in some neigbohoods Pavement conditions 114294498134 Apr 15 2023 11:56 AM 114294496187 114294496180 114294493019 114294486168 114294485277 114294475633 114294473759 114294468624 114294464982 114294463561 114294457598 114294450628 Apr 15 2023 11:47 AM Apr 15 2023 11:47 AM Apr 15 2023 11:38 AM Apr 15 2023 11:14 AM Apr 15 2023 11:11 AM Apr 15 2023 10:41 AM Apr 15 2023 10:35 AM Apr 15 2023 10:21 AM Apr 15 2023 10:10 AM Apr 15 2023 10:05 AM Apr 15 2023 09:49 AM Apr 15 2023 09:28 AM 114294447267 Apr 15 2023 09:20 AM 114294440141 114294438822 Apr 15 2023 08:59 AM Apr 15 2023 08:56 AM 114294438001 Apr 15 2023 08:54 AM 114294405028 114294418952 114294215077 Apr 15 2023 08:32 AM Apr 15 2023 08:04 AM Apr 14 2023 08:47 PM 114294205518 Apr 14 2023 08:19 PM 114294205398 Apr 14 2023 08:18 PM 114294194039 114294181883 Apr 14 2023 07:56 PM Apr 14 2023 07:09 PM 114294147080 Apr 14 2023 05:43 PM Mesa Transportation Master Plan US 60 is always a mess. Require all trucks to have a cover! Trucks, even pickup trucks, are constantly spewing gargage over the road- not just paper, but mattresses, wheel barrows, dangerous stuff.. More ways of traveling Lots of potholes Better streets less construction Longer turn lights More places to cross the rode University Paved oars kept up Freeway improvements, more lanes, improvement of emergancy response Better asphalt Maintain highway conditions Superheros New roads No lag time after red light, too many red light runners and too many turning on a red light keep up the decent work on the roads. light rail expansion which would help with congestion I would like to see the speed limits reduced in primary residential areas to 35-40 from 45. Bikers and others traveling and living off secondary roads with these speed limits are in danger from speeders and excessive motor noise. Increasing bus services to include all of Mesa ,going out to Signal Butte Rd . Roads that can handle the amount of vehicles use them More bike paths/lanes safe from traffic Better planning for Traffic flow in and out of neighborhoods when improvement projects are being done. Prevent cars from turning left from E. 101 to W. McKellips so cars going west on McKellips don't have to stop. Just fix the roads. And get it right! Better timing at stop lights. Resurface all roads including neighborhoods, requiring businesses and apartments, townhomes, etc to resurface their parking lots 23 114294137102 Apr 14 2023 05:20 PM 114294126163 Apr 14 2023 04:58 PM 114294113272 Apr 14 2023 04:26 PM 114294103287 Apr 14 2023 04:02 PM 114294096575 Apr 14 2023 03:49 PM 114294086366 Apr 14 2023 03:28 PM 114294071607 Apr 14 2023 03:09 PM 114294076751 Apr 14 2023 03:08 PM 114294038310 Apr 14 2023 02:11 PM 114294039444 Apr 14 2023 02:04 PM 114294037893 Apr 14 2023 02:04 PM 114294035240 114294016207 114294007538 114293996703 Apr 14 2023 01:58 PM Apr 14 2023 01:28 PM Apr 14 2023 01:15 PM Apr 14 2023 01:01 PM 114293968284 Apr 14 2023 12:20 PM 114293960317 Apr 14 2023 12:09 PM 114293950411 Apr 14 2023 11:57 AM 114293948101 Apr 14 2023 11:55 AM 114293937169 Apr 14 2023 11:40 AM Leave Elliott Rd alone. You gave us 6 lanes and then there is always construction on it reducing the lanes sometimes to only 1 heading East from the 202 to Signal Butte Better traffic signs & signal Funding for continuation of maintenance of existing transportation roadways. Restrict approval of high density housing in close proximity. This leads to traffic congestion. Continuation of no toll roads Make handicap travel accessible no matter where you are in Mesa for an affordable price More connecting roads between the major intersection. Please, please fix the terrible bumps at the transition from 202 Loop North onto the 60 West. The bumps on that ramp are so big they are dangerous. Just keep potholes filled Lagging left turn lights. I drive everyday. Current accidents are from side impacts from 2 directions. Lagging left, last traffic in motion is coming at you, without having to turn your head you can see them still moving and you won't pullout in front of them. ie: snowbirds have tunnel vision! safer bike lanes Light rail and bus systems extended further into Mesa, especially around Higley & Baseline area. Better bike paths and bike lanes better transportation to far east mesa Transportation options for Senior Citizens. Better synchronized traffic lights throughout the city. I would like to see more walkable areas in cities to encourage people to use cars less. Sightlines need to be monitored and improved to increase safety at intersections, and bicycle lanes need to be more consistent - both in safety and presence. Portions of Power Road north of Broadway, for example, see the lane change size or disappear at random. safer bike lanes Safety. Too much speeding and red light running. Increased number of cars backfiring and modified mufflers increasing pollution. Lack of police involvement and enforcement of current laws at local and state levels. No more building and expansion. Better laws with trailers that don't belong on local roads. Traffic lights should always include a green arrow for left hand turns. Flashing Yellows in Left turn lane when light is green for thru traffic is 114293936797 Apr 14 2023 11:38 AM 114293925197 Apr 14 2023 11:27 AM 114293922164 Apr 14 2023 11:24 AM 114293924241 114293913757 Apr 14 2023 11:20 AM Apr 14 2023 11:08 AM 114293908051 Apr 14 2023 11:05 AM 114293910273 Apr 14 2023 11:04 AM 114293905911 Apr 14 2023 11:02 AM 114293899104 114293895969 114293894905 Apr 14 2023 10:53 AM Apr 14 2023 10:47 AM Apr 14 2023 10:47 AM 114293889673 Apr 14 2023 10:42 AM 114293885483 Apr 14 2023 10:37 AM 114293886671 114293880701 Apr 14 2023 10:37 AM Apr 14 2023 10:30 AM 114293874972 Apr 14 2023 10:23 AM 114293875519 114293874882 Apr 14 2023 10:23 AM Apr 14 2023 10:22 AM 114293871412 Apr 14 2023 10:20 AM 114293870096 114293870035 114293864917 Apr 14 2023 10:18 AM Apr 14 2023 10:17 AM Apr 14 2023 10:13 AM 114293865530 Apr 14 2023 10:12 AM 114293865000 Apr 14 2023 10:11 AM Mesa Transportation Master Plan confusing for many people. Out of town visitors get confused. Always provide a Green Arrow for Left turns. This will improve safety. Extend Hawes North to Warner at 202 and Extend Crismon South to Elliot. Old University Drive to be safer and not so congested with street parking day and night. Also, create sound barriers for residents from University Drive. Bring back red light cameras. I watched 6 cars run a red left turn signal. Also we have drag racing on N Gilbert Rd about once a week around 2am. More frequent repaving Public transportation in the east valley. Power Road southbound at Southern needs a dedicated right-turn only lane. Traffic gets backed up due to the number of cars that want to turn onto Southern. Better movement of traffic reducing stops and starts. Power and McDowell intersection needs improvement. Better improvement on fixing busy intersections roads - maybe intersections should be concrete. Asphalt repaired more timely Synchronized lights Increased maintenance Redesigning intersections like Signal Butte turning East onto Baseline helped the congestion for many cars making a left turn. Right turn lane at the northeast corner of baseline and sossaman. People have to wait up to 3lghts to get through the intersection. Crismon connection N/S in southeast Mesa Outdoor sitting benches for people while waiting for public transportation Long traffic-light cycles during high-volume times (already good here) and short cycles during how-volume time (not good here; waste time with no one using the intersection at present). Better Maintenance Fix the streets! Meaning rip up the old deteriorated asphalt and replace it Widen US 60 east of Crismon rd. widen and connect Meridian rd. from SR24 to US 60 and add access to SR24 at Meridian rd. Maintenance of existing roads, smoother pavement near railroad crossings. Safe road , better traffic system safe bicycle places to ride Fix the roads. Create a three lane rd for stapley dr. More security at light rail. Especially at night and evenings I'd like to see more pedestrian and bike focused improvements. 25 114293835949 114293821729 114293508170 114293280836 Apr 14 2023 09:38 AM Apr 14 2023 09:22 AM Apr 14 2023 02:46 AM Apr 13 2023 08:12 PM 114293051941 Apr 13 2023 06:16 PM 114292985416 Apr 13 2023 04:30 PM 114292970897 114292529301 114292510478 114292496259 114292434950 114292018215 114292013167 Apr 13 2023 04:05 PM Apr 13 2023 08:09 AM Apr 13 2023 07:51 AM Apr 13 2023 07:36 AM Apr 13 2023 06:33 AM Apr 12 2023 05:11 PM Apr 12 2023 05:04 PM 114291846789 Apr 12 2023 12:57 PM 114291835693 Apr 12 2023 12:45 PM 114291750951 Apr 12 2023 11:13 AM 114291710300 114291671177 114291657968 114291654883 Apr 12 2023 10:28 AM Apr 12 2023 09:51 AM Apr 12 2023 09:34 AM Apr 12 2023 09:30 AM 114291556295 Apr 12 2023 07:53 AM 114291479092 Apr 12 2023 06:30 AM 114291456167 Apr 12 2023 06:06 AM More speed enforcement for safer roads, such as red light cameras. Freeway has tons of rocks I go through 2 windshields a year Roundabouts utilized Improved traffic signals/signage Better left turn options, no school zone speeds when school isn’t starting or ending (remove during actual class time) There needs to be a protected bike lane down main street and enclosed bike lockers near light rail stations More lightrail stops Better traffic light timing. Needs to take all directions into consideration. Traffic sensors at intersections instead of just timers. Safer roads and more bike Homeless All yellow lights last the same amount of time More public transportation and accessibility, especially for seniors. Less car lane, mor bike lane. Actual dedicated bike lanes where cars are not allowed Slowing traffic down Main between Ellsworth and power needs repaved. Light between Broadway and leisure world o. Power Improve the light sequence at intersections Pot holes on the roads covered up, trash removed from road, Less traffic lights, overhead pass through Maintenance in West Mesa I would like to see the roads become slower. People drive too fast. Growing up here I have seen countless of horrible accidents. Especially on Brown and Center. I specifically want there to be connectivity to L-202 at southern and at baseline. The intersection for Sossaman north of US-60, where people access Costco, is also a congested and dangerous nightmare. Cleaning them more often, pot holes and cracks filled. On Bike there is so much stuff that is dangerous in the bike lane. People also drive partially in the bike lane and too close to cyclists. Signs like what Gilbert has warning of the state law of 3’ works well. Also, arrows showing new cyclists to go with 114291342182 Apr 12 2023 03:05 AM 114291192471 Apr 11 2023 10:03 PM 114291096163 Apr 11 2023 06:54 PM 114290529360 Apr 11 2023 06:46 AM 114290415329 Apr 11 2023 04:21 AM 114289900229 Apr 10 2023 11:52 AM 114289421915 Apr 09 2023 08:05 PM 114289326817 Apr 09 2023 01:45 PM 114289250608 Apr 09 2023 08:04 AM 114289246087 Apr 09 2023 07:40 AM 114289103866 Apr 08 2023 08:22 PM 114288836906 Apr 08 2023 05:21 AM Mesa Transportation Master Plan the flow of traffic. The cracks in the pavement grab your tire and can throw you from the bike, if you’re going 20mph this can be very dangerous. I don’t think we have much problem right now, just maintain the road conditions Roads in Mesa are better than most cities. But we really need to focus on safety. The number of red light runners in Mesa is horrendous. The traffic activated traffic lights do not synchronize with major intersection traffic lights. Going anywhere in Mesa is painfully slow...and a major reason we do not go to downtown Mesa. Congestion would not be such an issue if traffic was allowed to flow rather than continual stop and go due to poorly timed/untimed traffic lights. In residential areas, I would like to see better road safety for children playing - speed humps, addressing blind spots, etc. Traffic calming, pneumatic ballards deployed at red lights to reduce fatal red light running, ban turn-on-red when pedestrians present, more midblock marked and signaled crosswalks. Make roads consistent number of lanes. Better grould markings, reflector lights in roadway. Left turk traffic lights at places like the corner of Broadway and S Roosevelt Road---the Post office turn in. Heavy use. Always dangerous. We need more signs on the freeway to indicate what fast food restaurant is coming up at the next exit. I really would like to see speed reduction , traffic number reductionmeasures and developed horse trails in and through the Lehi area. The safety issues posed to youth here is unecessary. It is the highest concentration of horses in Mesa, and one of the highest density per square mile in the state, yet nothing more than horse signs. Speeding persista, and horses get killed. It may not be a giant area, but has needs nonetheless. It would be great to see the remaining rural areas gain their own catagory for transportation needs as they are seperate and unique compared to the rest of the city. Simply leaving them unaddressed is dangerous. There are department of agricultural guidelines regarding horse travel. Expansion of the light rail, expanded bus hours We need widening of current roads and development on some roadways which would make for easier access. We could also use more walkable sidewalks I think better bicycle pathways to encourage more people to ride bikes. Less dependent on roadways strictly for cars. And better policing of light rail so people are encourage to use it as a means of transportation. With more 27 114288694125 Apr 07 2023 08:28 PM 114288571030 Apr 07 2023 02:43 PM 114288432394 Apr 07 2023 10:25 AM 114288273089 Apr 07 2023 05:54 AM 114288219326 Apr 07 2023 04:03 AM 114288080413 Apr 06 2023 09:44 PM 114288070366 Apr 06 2023 09:14 PM 114288031090 Apr 06 2023 07:32 PM 114288025786 Apr 06 2023 07:17 PM 114287995982 Apr 06 2023 06:16 PM 114287991383 114287962049 114287958947 114287914294 114287896956 Apr 06 2023 06:07 PM Apr 06 2023 05:14 PM Apr 06 2023 05:07 PM Apr 06 2023 03:37 PM Apr 06 2023 03:04 PM 114287742690 Apr 06 2023 11:38 AM 114287708692 Apr 06 2023 11:00 AM 114287176420 Apr 05 2023 10:42 PM 114287019752 Apr 05 2023 05:46 PM 114287003987 Apr 05 2023 05:23 PM bike transportation it would be nice to see additional bike locker that are more than mere metal tubes to lock your bike to. If the law was enforced we wouldn't need as many changes. I hear talk of making yellow lights last longer, but why bother - no one pays any attention. I miss my green but they can do whatever. More turn lanes especially right turns. I am not an avid biker like most I see but they sure do get in the roadway a lot so maybe making their bike lane larger. safe Better connectivity for bikes and pedestrians like multi use paths in Phoenix that go under roads Remove the bike lanes that cause traffic restrictions especially since they are seldom used. It's too hot for biking. Something with traffic patterns at Rio Salado & Dobson; then possibly addressing the incoming development at Dobson & 202 Slower speed limits on all mesa city streets. Maximum enforcement of speed limits on everyvstreet in Mesa Add safe trails to bike lanes on roads Better timing at intersections based off flow of current traffic, wider bike laanes, Traffic calming devices Better inforcement of traffic laws More bike paths along freeways like along 202 between baseline and eliott More areas for buses to pull out of traffic to pick up or leave out passengers. Light rail running north & south Get rid of flashing yellow lights. These are a distraction and, extra expense to install and maintain, and are not necessary for the flow of traffic. They seem especially challenging for our winter visitors. Finish Crismon Road between Elliott and Guadalupe. If it's in Mesa, finish Warner Road between Power and Sossamon. Complete the 24. Would love to see Crismon as a thru Street to eastmark. Would love the pt 22 center lane be able to go straight and turn left onto elliot Currently getting on the 24 to the 202 at Ellsworth in a nightmare during rush hour. It backs up to go North on the 202 so bad and people are driving so fast on the 24 that getting over to go South is awful. Better selection of contractors to minimize never-ending construction projects 114286937864 Apr 05 2023 03:43 PM 114286918281 114285573671 114283837870 Apr 05 2023 03:14 PM Apr 04 2023 08:01 AM Apr 02 2023 12:54 AM 114283775116 Apr 01 2023 07:40 PM 114283771344 Apr 01 2023 07:22 PM 114283768589 Apr 01 2023 07:13 PM 114283758630 Apr 01 2023 06:27 PM 114283730317 Apr 01 2023 04:38 PM 114283707370 Apr 01 2023 03:06 PM 114283689720 114283683553 114283682868 114283680446 114283675821 114283668653 114283667938 114283667258 114283664725 114283664006 114283661146 114283659984 114283657301 114283656031 114283653814 Apr 01 2023 02:02 PM Apr 01 2023 01:41 PM Apr 01 2023 01:38 PM Apr 01 2023 01:29 PM Apr 01 2023 01:14 PM Apr 01 2023 12:51 PM Apr 01 2023 12:49 PM Apr 01 2023 12:47 PM Apr 01 2023 12:39 PM Apr 01 2023 12:38 PM Apr 01 2023 12:28 PM Apr 01 2023 12:24 PM Apr 01 2023 12:15 PM Apr 01 2023 12:11 PM Apr 01 2023 12:04 PM 114283651221 Apr 01 2023 12:00 PM 114283646838 Apr 01 2023 11:43 AM Mesa Transportation Master Plan Put traffic signals on different schedules to adapt to different times of the day. In the middle of the night the entire duration of the signal doesn't need to run. Or turn red for non existent traffic. More options for Stapley and southern. Way too much traffic Shade Less people Turn pockets into shopping centers (eg not having to slow and turn from the through lane). Better construction planning. Shutting down major roadways or bringing them to one lane for months at a time is terrible. Faster response for pedestrian signals at road crossings. Fewer pot holes I guess but I don’t really think the quality of the road is a big issue PLEASE less focus on cars. Give non-cars the right of way anywhere possible (pedestrians, bicycle riders, bus, light rail, all of it). Make alternative transportation as convenient as possible. Timing of signals. Terrible at Broadway and Sossaman. Turn off yellow flashing arrows at rush hour. Dangerous! Nitbablevto get through intersevtion Please fix potholes No traffic Wider lanes Safe Clean and clear lanes no pot holes Better safer bike lanes Wider streets Public transportation Better for cyclists Make the roads bigger for large trucks Improved potholes and safer roads Better maintenance Multi-lane roadways Stapley and broadway More road Enhanced combination leisure and commuter trails that would not necessarily involve motor traffic. Pot holes 29 114283644007 Apr 01 2023 11:35 AM 114283642878 Apr 01 2023 11:33 AM 114283640248 114283639675 114283638854 114283634768 114283635084 114283633210 114283632698 114283631018 114283627578 114283625740 114283624455 114283625125 114283622663 114283620575 114283618538 114283618255 Apr 01 2023 11:23 AM Apr 01 2023 11:22 AM Apr 01 2023 11:20 AM Apr 01 2023 11:09 AM Apr 01 2023 11:09 AM Apr 01 2023 11:04 AM Apr 01 2023 11:03 AM Apr 01 2023 10:58 AM Apr 01 2023 10:47 AM Apr 01 2023 10:42 AM Apr 01 2023 10:41 AM Apr 01 2023 10:40 AM Apr 01 2023 10:33 AM Apr 01 2023 10:28 AM Apr 01 2023 10:22 AM Apr 01 2023 10:21 AM 114283615683 Apr 01 2023 10:16 AM 114283615207 114283614035 114283611440 Apr 01 2023 10:14 AM Apr 01 2023 10:10 AM Apr 01 2023 10:03 AM 114283608640 Apr 01 2023 10:00 AM 114283605908 114283605490 114283601427 114283595974 Apr 01 2023 09:50 AM Apr 01 2023 09:47 AM Apr 01 2023 09:37 AM Apr 01 2023 09:24 AM 114283593988 Apr 01 2023 09:20 AM More continuous bike lanes and trails Get rid of travel lanes and use the space for protected and separated bike facilities! And/or use additional space to add a planting strip with trees so sidewalks can be covered in shade. Bike lanes Protected bike lanes that aren’t made of plastic and paint Safer bike lanes Clearer crosswalks, segregated bike lanes. Better bike lanes Potholes Safer bike lane markings ecoansuin Safer bike lames More bike lanes Crosswalks larger bike lanes, bus only Lanes Just less traffic in general More freeways Improve traffic congestion More pedestrian Better control of red lights and no turn on red The growth of the city and downtown area is amazing. Hopefully the infrastructure can accommodate all the new people being concentrated in the downtown area. More public ev charging stations More dedicated and safe bike and walking Fix rough roads There are literally holes in the road everywhere I drive. The worst for the past 2 weeks in in the left southbound lane at the intersection of Recker Road and Adobe. I have seen cars swerve into the other lane to avoid it every single day. There are so many other ones that I feel like I am going to witness or experience a car accident everytime I drive. Expanding one way road travel More speed bumps Visability at residential corners parked cars More accessibility and more lanes Need to do something about the railroad crossing and how long they stop traffic 114283590639 114283372505 114283317850 114283206919 Apr 01 2023 09:10 AM Mar 31 2023 10:35 PM Mar 31 2023 07:44 PM Mar 31 2023 03:33 PM 114282948722 Mar 31 2023 10:32 AM 114282739111 Mar 31 2023 07:10 AM 114282719048 Mar 31 2023 06:51 AM 114282376943 Mar 30 2023 07:57 PM 114282244837 Mar 30 2023 03:35 PM 114282232265 Mar 30 2023 03:12 PM 114282208158 Mar 30 2023 02:36 PM 114282194104 Mar 30 2023 02:21 PM 114282175395 114282147164 114282124996 114282110837 114282110458 Mar 30 2023 01:54 PM Mar 30 2023 01:20 PM Mar 30 2023 12:55 PM Mar 30 2023 12:38 PM Mar 30 2023 12:38 PM 114282097728 Mar 30 2023 12:26 PM 114282080634 Mar 30 2023 12:06 PM 114282075407 Mar 30 2023 12:03 PM 114281509503 114281439682 Mar 29 2023 11:30 PM Mar 29 2023 08:26 PM Mesa Transportation Master Plan Better lights at inersections Eastside county roads Remove roundabouts and phot red-light enforcement. Wide enough lanes so that. cars can safely move about. Extension Rd. protected bike lane to connect from canal to downtown Mesa. Landscaped median separation, tree lined. One way driving signage. Immediately repair road damage (potholes, etc) enforce traffic laws and require address numbers to be prominently displayed. Seems never ending construction. As soon as a road is repaved, they start digging it up again. Also need linemarkers that are easier to see in dark and in the rain. More readable street signs More lights at congested intersections or crossing major thoroughfares. Improved public transit options (extend light rail east!) Expanded use of rubberized asphalt to reduce freeway and major city street noise. Better maintenance on bike lanes. paving walkways alongside canals making them available to bikes and e-trikes thereby shortening travel distances for bikes an e-trikes while removing them from traffic congested streets. Wider better maintained Fixing pot holes throughout Mesa. Many lights at intersections should have a flashing YELLOW turn light. Wider roads. Fix the potholes A light rail option in NE Mesa that can connect with existing line. Would be awesome to have one that runs along the 202 red mountain section into Tempe - like stops at Mesa Riverview and Tempe marketplace. More rail lines going down main Improve traffic light timing. Use new technologies to reduce frustration such as left turn lanes that promote pulling ahead into the intersection before the green arrow (used in China) and counters to show your wait time (also used in China). Light Rail More bike lanes 31 114281409511 Mar 29 2023 07:18 PM 114281406864 Mar 29 2023 07:12 PM 114281359170 Mar 29 2023 05:42 PM 114281349142 Mar 29 2023 05:24 PM 114279319753 114278789757 Mar 27 2023 05:12 PM Mar 27 2023 07:36 AM 114278250234 Mar 26 2023 12:36 PM 114278237681 Mar 26 2023 11:55 AM Eliminating the light rail. I’m putting it in somebody else’s neighborhood. How about putting it in your neighborhood. Do you realize the traffic that people are having from people that are on the light rail that go through your carport then walk around looking at stuff. The Circle K on Alma school in Maine is terrifying. You’re free to go there. Changes to canal stop lights, way too many. Timing lights correctly so traffic can flow better. More intersections with right turn only lanes Some of the roads need resurfaced and a better job needs to be done with manhole cover areas, most are poorly done and not level with the road surface. Most of the lights need to be synchronized better for traffic flow. Many of the through street lifts stay green too long and the side streets may get two cars safely through the intersection. Example Broadway and Haws Extend public transit east of Power Rd to the county line. Stop adding to traffic by building more apartments Road diets, wider sidewalks/multi-use paths, protected bike lanes, HAWK signals, more shade coverage Right of way priority given to all non-personal motor vehicles (pedestrians, bicyclists, scooters, and public transportation). Working streetlights. So many are out along 202 from Dobson to Brown, maybe farther but I don’t drive that. Potholes. 114278044685 Mar 26 2023 12:48 AM Reckless drivers and high speeders. Always someone going over 80 on 202 and 60 Better signage for no right on red at Greenfield and McDowell. Stop opposite turn lanes turning at same time on arrows. Example Power and McKellips. Just takes 1 to make a wide turn to cause a major accident. 114277804309 114277803437 Mar 25 2023 10:23 AM Mar 25 2023 10:22 AM 114277797811 Mar 25 2023 10:19 AM Restaurant drive thru lanes from spilling onto main roads. Canes Greenfield Is a big offender More public transit More bike paths Improved timing of multiple traffic lights (center between University and Main- including motion sensor at Pepper - for example). Adding more of the yellow left turn signals to keep traffic flowing and where you can’t add 114277766428 114277621723 114274686761 114274556060 114272257071 Mar 25 2023 08:50 AM Mar 25 2023 02:49 AM Mar 21 2023 10:06 PM Mar 21 2023 05:04 PM Mar 18 2023 02:03 PM 114268919068 Mar 14 2023 03:47 PM 114268709002 114266936714 Mar 14 2023 11:51 AM Mar 12 2023 01:58 PM 114266298196 Mar 11 2023 01:03 AM 114266031111 Mar 10 2023 01:55 PM 114264095359 Mar 08 2023 04:07 PM 114263089613 Mar 07 2023 03:17 PM 114262750370 114262635655 114262274972 114262070269 114261911236 114261654599 114261576835 114261371669 114261269122 Mar 07 2023 08:51 AM Mar 07 2023 07:05 AM Mar 06 2023 09:05 PM Mar 06 2023 02:44 PM Mar 06 2023 11:32 AM Mar 06 2023 07:30 AM Mar 06 2023 06:22 AM Mar 06 2023 12:47 AM Mar 05 2023 07:55 PM 114261217397 Mar 05 2023 05:32 PM 114261214652 Mar 05 2023 05:22 PM Mesa Transportation Master Plan them make sure left turn arrow works. Another example:We can get stuck in peak eastbound traffic on Brown Rd while trying to turn south on Gilbert because left arrow only works with 3 or more cars. An obvious improvement is adding right turn lanes at major intersections. Best example is Southbound Dobson at Rio Salado. That’s an easy fix by making right lane right turn only (since half traffic is turning anyway). Above grade rules crossings Better street lighting. Some areas are dark. Remove light rail Keep the roads paved and well maintained. More right-hand turn lanes and fewer medians. Not sure about diamond grinding - unpleasant driving experience. Whatever happened to rubberized pavement? Freeways maintained Why are all the UNUSED sidewalks legal for biking. Keep good roads stop with this public transportation green new deal garbage The middle class does and will not be using public transportation Turning lanes at major intersections, red turning signals replaced by flashing yellow Stop lights are timed poorly in mesa, where you either barely avoid stopping at every single one, or stop at every single light along your trip. finish paving highway 60. The unpaved highway is rough and destroys on our tires. Finish the job! Better roads Better maintenance of existing roads Potholes fixed I think Mesa's roads are good. We just need to maintain our infrastructure. Maintenance expanded vehicle access in downtown Mesa reduced speed approaching intersections Maintenance and wise spending Keeping up maintenance on roads Fixing the Superstition Freeway. Repairing damaged side roads. Better/wider North/South roadways. Fixing potholes and resurfacing 33 114261210065 114261164101 114261120127 Mar 05 2023 05:11 PM Mar 05 2023 02:50 PM Mar 05 2023 12:24 PM 114261075162 Mar 05 2023 10:06 AM 114261033873 Mar 05 2023 07:55 AM 114261020724 114260791000 114260788296 114260786298 114260779308 114260746313 114260729040 114260718999 114260698809 114260694964 114260692569 114260588236 114260314540 114259974053 114259925456 114259846646 Mar 05 2023 07:11 AM Mar 04 2023 02:52 PM Mar 04 2023 02:39 PM Mar 04 2023 02:33 PM Mar 04 2023 02:08 PM Mar 04 2023 12:20 PM Mar 04 2023 11:28 AM Mar 04 2023 10:59 AM Mar 04 2023 10:12 AM Mar 04 2023 10:03 AM Mar 04 2023 09:56 AM Mar 04 2023 05:30 AM Mar 03 2023 04:57 PM Mar 03 2023 08:59 AM Mar 03 2023 08:03 AM Mar 03 2023 06:35 AM 114259427222 Mar 02 2023 05:06 PM 114259379662 114259354342 Mar 02 2023 03:43 PM Mar 02 2023 03:04 PM 114259316077 Mar 02 2023 02:10 PM 114259302927 114259294015 114259292670 114259286389 Mar 02 2023 01:53 PM Mar 02 2023 01:41 PM Mar 02 2023 01:39 PM Mar 02 2023 01:32 PM 114259262847 Mar 02 2023 01:04 PM Invest in what we have. Traffic lights--eliminate the yellow flashing at intersections. Less bike lanes—dangerous for bikers and car drivers Not much. Just keep the roads paved and the signals working. We don't need more grasping clever ideas. Anything the gives more freedom and choice rather than what you are planning Better markings in construction areas. Speed enforcement. No speed bumps More room for bicycles Keep up maintenance Keep up the roadways better. fix pot holes Repair existing roads Change the left turn signal to the end of the green lights like in Scottsdale. Surface improvements. Left turn signals at all intersections. Improve roads and sidewalks so people can continue to drive and thrive. Streets all the way around the city for being able to access places via car staggering construction sites Smooth roads and safe flow of traffic Better timing of intersections for traffic flow efficiency. We need a smarter light system. The opening of the 24 bypass and Ironwood has helped a lot. More roadways to the east will help ease congestion on Ellsworth. Fill cracks in streets in newer developments Improved roadways and access for Southeast Mesa In the Eastmark area, straightening out Ray Road. Finishing 24 all the way to Ironwood. Work on increasing the 202 access from 24. Focus on roadway upkeep. Ellsworth intersections More new roads. upgrade the paving on bad roads. More lanes and turning lanes Better timing of stop lights to improve through traffic (best example is Ellsworth & AZ24. 114258921542 Mar 02 2023 06:51 AM 114254944964 114254931825 114254885875 114254885803 Feb 25 2023 02:18 PM Feb 25 2023 01:36 PM Feb 25 2023 11:25 AM Feb 25 2023 11:25 AM 114254870891 Feb 25 2023 10:45 AM 114253134549 114252807938 Feb 24 2023 01:18 PM Feb 23 2023 04:52 AM I want to reach to the downtown for work faster currently i spent 15 mins everyday in stop and go traffic Pot hole repair Repair roadways Main Fixing of the road. Make Lindsay rd a freeway or expressway at the least. There is a severe need for another north/south freeway in between the 101 and the most northern leg of the 202 more mill and overlay projects vs crack sealing Country Club from Baseline to 202 RM, Widen McKellips and Recker Question 19: Please note any additional comments. Respondent ID 114380057425 114380053584 114372576689 Aug 01 2023 07:55 AM Aug 01 2023 07:51 AM Jul 21 2023 08:16 AM 114320241394 May 15 2023 04:59 PM 114319673026 May 15 2023 06:08 AM 114319438144 May 14 2023 10:36 PM 114319378418 May 14 2023 07:06 PM Response Date Responses right of way through mesa country club people need to stay off their phones! cops harassing native americans It would be wonderful to see a roadway be removed, and redeveloped as a walking, biking, and public transit throughfare. Too often, east Mesa and west Mesa are 2 completely different neighborhoods. Our family live east Mesa and do many activities in West Mesa. Different mindset of what is being done with transportation, city activities and development Just the people speeding on side streets and major roads. Some speed up to get to the red light. I think it's funny but not safe Same as above, reduce lanes in certain roadways and provide landscape medians and tree lined streets. Also connect Crismon between Guadalupe and Elliot. 1. Change traffic light timing so we can get all green lights while driving the speed limit. Curruntly we have to go roughly 20mph under the speed limit to catch greens. 114319322455 May 14 2023 03:37 PM Mesa Transportation Master Plan 2. Don't let canal path lights, and smaller side street lights interupt the traffic pattern. These should all be timed so that they only cycle to green after the bulk of timed traffic has already passed by. 35 3. Change all canal path lights so that we can go through after path is clear (stop on red, proceed if clear) With more homeless/mental health problems in Mesa. That does affect if I'm going to take the bus or light rail. Shade will help with summer walking or biking. 114319067315 May 13 2023 11:19 PM Cooling pavement would help too. Cars are not going away. 114318891909 May 13 2023 11:19 AM 114318870951 May 13 2023 10:34 AM 114318875762 May 13 2023 10:31 AM 114318731210 May 13 2023 04:13 AM 114317621502 May 11 2023 07:40 PM 114313434576 May 07 2023 03:04 PM 114312610911 May 05 2023 09:55 PM 114312206593 May 05 2023 10:31 AM 114311487356 May 04 2023 09:45 PM Getting more bus access to far east valley would help. I commute by bicycle 4-5 days a week, 15 miles each way. My biggest concern is how dangerous it is with construction zones and inattentive drivers, please have police watch and cite the drivers that purposely "buzz" cyclists in the bike lanes I used to commute to downtown Phoenix daily and for about 10 years. I liked it until I had to fight off an armed with a knife robber. I didn’t get seriously hurt. Infrequent service and nonexistent service makes it impractical or impossible to use a bus or train for ordinary errands. My husband used to commute to Mayo hospital, the bus (three of them) was over 2 hours one way assuming everything ran on time. Driving was the only realistic way. We love the trams in Amsterdam. Much smaller area. Every area within walking distance of communities should include, grocery shopping and entertainment if some sort. More dollars would be spent within the community if it didn’t cost so much driving etc to get to the community things. I hate using public transportation. The busses are unsafe. Too many sketchy people ride the bus and make me feel unsafe. Is there anything that can be done on Fraser and university. You need to pull out dangerously far just to see if someone is going east. There’s a huge pole plus a block fence. Please add more shade. More patrol and steeper Penalties for unsafe driving behavior and increased technology at intersections especially roads like Baseline would be welcomed in addition to better road surfaces/less potholes etc. Investing in pedestrian, cycling, and public transit infrastructure will improve quality of life for everyone and reduce traffic congestion for drivers. The focus should be on moving people, not cars, around. why are you wasting so much money o this survey. It like you are pushing more public transit. Some one that sponsors this survey will benefit financially at taxpayers expense it's a little too obvious. 114310350532 May 03 2023 06:06 PM 114309735757 May 03 2023 07:18 AM 114309162154 114309064926 May 02 2023 03:02 PM May 02 2023 01:07 PM In general you are doing quite well. Would love to see enforcement efforts targeting the out of town cyclists groups that routinely blow intersections and have more than two abrest. Nearly been hit several times in cross walks by cyclists who don't understand the rules. Stop them and educate them. Please create more sidewalks and bike paths as well as maintain roadways. Signal Butte Ranch doesn't have safe sidewalk access or bike lane access around the area. Create a pathway under the road to access Parkwood Ranch via Bike or walking path. FIX MAIN STREET!!!!!!! Painting roads white We enjoy light rail & wish it had more routes in the East Valley. On major arterial streets where there are three or more lanes, is it possible to create a right turn only lane? One of my biggest complaints with other drivers are the one's who use the right lane to proceed straight while holding up those drivers wanting to turn right on red. For example Southbound Power Road at Southern. I'm sure there are many, many more major roads like this. It would keep those motorists moving if they could make that turn without having to sit idle for the light to change. Why can't Mesa design its traffic lanes with the manhole covers in the middle of the lane instead of the tire-track of your vehicle? There needs to be greater emphasis on repairing the concrete around manhole covers! 114308862012 May 02 2023 09:50 AM Why hasn't Mesa created Large Truck routes through the city? Instead of every major arterial street being "grooved" by the heavy weight of Semi's, Cement trucks, Gravel trucks, etc. Make them use certain roads to travel N,S,E,W. Why does it seem like Mesa resurfaces a street that seems to be in perfectly good shape, while other streets are let go to disrepair? Why can't McKellips Road be completely resurfaced all at one time? 114307935655 May 01 2023 10:27 AM 114307837166 May 01 2023 08:41 AM 114307422863 Apr 30 2023 06:23 PM Mesa Transportation Master Plan Why is it that a street gets repaved, and then weeks or months later there's some utility crew digging into it? And why can't utility job sites be repaired better? Would love to ride through some awesome bike trails Please improve our transit system. It should be maintained and a lot more accessible. Thank you :) Please tend to the bus stops so that the approaching bus can see riders, and so riders (who can never ever ever rely on most routes arriving when they are supposed to) do not have to stand in the blazing sun so the driver doesn't go hurtling past because they could not see the rider. There are huge bushes from the corner of 25th and 37 114307359218 Apr 30 2023 03:22 PM 114307133165 Apr 30 2023 05:24 AM 114307021343 Apr 29 2023 10:56 PM 114306871319 Apr 29 2023 02:55 PM 114306829778 114306428626 Apr 29 2023 01:26 PM Apr 28 2023 07:03 PM 114306084404 Apr 28 2023 10:36 AM 114305951380 Apr 28 2023 08:22 AM 114305370960 Apr 27 2023 05:48 PM 114305140669 Apr 27 2023 01:39 PM 114304312270 Apr 26 2023 06:46 PM 114304199640 114304103750 Apr 26 2023 03:43 PM Apr 26 2023 01:24 PM University to the westbound stop there that seriously need to be trimmed down so as to avoid this daily game of jack in the box as riders must pop up and down from the bus stop to make sure the bus doesn't fly past. And you definitely need more consistent security on the light rail and at the end station at Gilbert and Main, especially after 9pm;. Great opportunity in Southeast Mesa to enhance major N/S thoroughfares like Ironwood, Signal Butte and Ellsworth by limiting cross traffic. The ideal would be overpasses for E/W traffic. I visit Mesa at least once a week to wash my car and grocery shopping also run errands. I mainly stay in east valley red mountain area because its familiar to me and my daughter lives there. Every time I venture out to visit the zoo or other places I find myself nervous because I don’t like the roads in Tempe and I always see on the news wrong way drivers around Indian school so I really avoid those areas. Address Dobson Road- dangerously heavy traveled, high speed, deadly accidents road. Just last night motorcyclist killed walking bike across Dobson road. All of my answers are based on what is currently available to me. I would love to use public transportation more often, but I cannot due to all the problems that I mentioned. build a bike lane on main street I would love more bike paths and walking trails that are separated from the roadways. Need a fresh look at new transportation innovations and stop pushing the old Bus and SLOW RAIL services - That is not the future We need to make it easier for students in Mesa to get to our community colleges. The streetcar expansion is being studied. Are there other options - perhaps partnering on special bus service to MCC campuses? Could we pilot service from the light rail stop to the Southern/Dobson campus during peak times? Please research connecting routes for buses. Each one comes every 30 minutes, but the connecting bus always gets there 5 or 10 min before and usually causes a long wait ----in the heat and uncovered, noisy, unsafe, seating area. I would also like more security on the light rail. If I take that at night, there are always homeless or SMI people asking for money. Light rail should have been elevated or below pavement, it should also be automated like sky harbor sky train. Any crossing of mesa drive on east west road is bad. Total lack of north south expressways in mesa. Mesa needs to provide outdoor restrooms for people walking with dogs long distances. Or more parks with restroom facilities. The pavement in our 55 plus community has a lot to be desired. It is rare to see anyone pulled over for violating traffic laws. 114302956403 Apr 25 2023 11:24 AM 114302819281 Apr 25 2023 09:14 AM 114302069028 Apr 24 2023 03:16 PM 114301224250 Apr 23 2023 04:26 PM 114298916166 Apr 20 2023 09:07 AM 114298268932 Apr 19 2023 05:17 PM 114297296500 Apr 18 2023 08:54 PM 114297246600 Apr 18 2023 07:27 PM 114297132448 Apr 18 2023 04:20 PM 114297061029 Apr 18 2023 02:37 PM 114296205787 Apr 17 2023 06:36 PM Mesa Transportation Master Plan please clear the sidewalks more frequently, there is often glass and other garbage on or near pathways Not everyone can afford a car, and forcing poor people to be out in the sun with no shade at bus stops is inhumane. This is AZ. I need to commute to school by myself from Eastmark to Mesa Community College 4 days a week. Please develop a bus line that comes out this way! I would travel to more places on my own than just school if I could and on a regular basis! In regards to buses, I don’t understand why ValleyMetro has a disability ride service (the small white buses) if disabled people just ride the regular buses and take up seats. Maybe cut costs by getting rid of one or the other. Also, VM really needs to time their routes so people can connect to any bus they choose instead of going out of the way to catch one that they really shouldn’t have/need to. Please highly consider getting the traffic on Clearview to slow down with speed humps, that will result in the slowing and if not, maybe these people will trash the bottoms of their cars and learn a lesson and either slow down, take a more major road or not drive down clearview because they are without a car due to dropping the bottom of it all over clearview for hitting a speed hump to fast. Option #3 is optimal for me because the less loud and speeding cars, the more peace and quiet I get, also I don’t have to fear for my life and my neighbors lives when we pull out of our development. Collisions at high-speed intersections is my main concern. Safety is the number one priority! The traffic light at University ad Greenfield is an accident waiting to happen, Everyday. The left turn signal is not consistant. I personally love using the light rail and walking around main street. And have been meaning to use the bus system more often such as for commuting to work however the travel time triples due to the larger distances when heading south. I've looked into taking public transportation and if there is a bus during my work hours, the time it takes to get to my destination is more than triple the time to drive plus there is no bus close to my home. I'd have to drive to a bus stop and leave my car. That doesn't make sense to me when I can drive an additional 15 min and be at work. If I take a bus or public transportation, it should be close to the time to drive (or something reasonable - not 1 hour or more for a 20 min ride) and it should be within walking distance to my home. It should also be safe. Keep up the great work on our streets in Mesa! If possible, improve on signage/more visible. Paint crosswalks a brighter color or design to get drivers attention to look for pedestrians. Make public transit options safe and clean. Keep up the exceptional work, cleaning bus stops and taking surveys. I’ve taken one along my route and have seen others. It’s good to know the city cares. 39 114296118420 Apr 17 2023 04:02 PM 114296079707 Apr 17 2023 03:09 PM 114295826315 Apr 17 2023 10:19 AM 114295281373 Apr 16 2023 08:58 PM 114294674361 Apr 15 2023 10:59 PM 114294636942 Apr 15 2023 08:36 PM 114294524517 Apr 15 2023 01:29 PM 114294502522 114294486168 114294481813 114294463561 Apr 15 2023 12:11 PM Apr 15 2023 11:19 AM Apr 15 2023 11:03 AM Apr 15 2023 10:07 AM 114294447267 Apr 15 2023 09:26 AM 114294440141 Apr 15 2023 09:02 AM Mesa drive sidewalks going North at Main need work. My scooter gets banged up every day from bad sidewalks. I appreciate that the city of Mesa is conducting a survey and looking to improve their infrastructure, I would recommend looking into transitioning Mesa into a walkable city, this would involve creating places where people feel comfortable to be walking/biking and also want to be walking/biking. Reducing the citizens’ and visitors’ dependence on cars would improve small business’s viability and would improve the health and wellness of the community as a whole. Transitioning to a walkable/bikeable city would also reduce the crime rate in Mesa, more eyes out in public has been proven to reduce crime, there are many benefits to becoming a walkable and accessible city, thanks again for looking for the input of the community! Heard about micro transit from Weride Avondale and Chandler Flex. Recommend for Mesa residents who don't drive such as students 13+, blind, elderly who can still walk around easily-- but driving is challenging. Or an approved background check for drivers in Mesa of uber, lyft, taxi's, limo's so I can feel confident that my family members will be safe getting a ride from someone. Thanks for the opportunity to comment. Lydia Warnick pawarnick@yahoo.com Better option to get to the airport from outlying areas. Improving pedestrian and cycling infrastructure can reciprocate in better transit thanks to better access to and from transit stops and stations. Plus, transit line reliability can be boosted by making dedicated enforced (by cameras and physical curbs) transit lanes; they can be doubled as protected bike lanes to further improve multimodality. Potholes need attention on Broadway, university and main Road maintenance is important, but the most important investment we can make is to get people out of cars. Cars are dangerous, inefficient, and bad for the environment. Improved transit and safer biking/walking options are the most beneficial changes we can make. Everything is good Wider bike lane Promote the great bike paths Keep up to the work No bus service on Lindsey Rd & Mckellips Rd, why not? Over 3000 people at Mountain View school and no metro bus service to get to Walmart, etc. Many neighborhood people work at Walmart and way too hot in summer to walk to work and walk home from Walmart. more sat/sun running of shuttles and buses. get the light rail out to power rd. 114294438822 Apr 15 2023 09:00 AM 114294438001 Apr 15 2023 08:58 AM 114294418952 Apr 15 2023 08:09 AM 114294228299 Apr 14 2023 09:44 PM 114294205398 114294181883 114294137102 Apr 14 2023 08:23 PM Apr 14 2023 07:12 PM Apr 14 2023 05:25 PM 114294113272 Apr 14 2023 04:37 PM 114294103287 Apr 14 2023 04:06 PM 114294086366 Apr 14 2023 03:32 PM 114294071607 Apr 14 2023 03:19 PM 114294076751 Apr 14 2023 03:10 PM 114294038310 114294016207 Apr 14 2023 02:16 PM Apr 14 2023 01:32 PM 114294007538 Apr 14 2023 01:19 PM 114293987046 Apr 14 2023 12:56 PM Mesa Transportation Master Plan would love to see light rail service more of Mesa. Running it to Power road and main would be great. As stated before, just because we have boulevard style roads with 2 lanes in each direction, does the speed limit need to be 45? If in a heavy residential neighborhood, could the speed limit be reduced to 35 or 40 from the now 45 to try to alleviate speeding and excessive noise on these roads to those that live on them? Thanks! I felt safer riding my bicycle on the road in Mesa 10 years ago compared to now. Public transportation is needed in this area (we currently have NO access to public transportation)! Too many man hole covers where the tires hit and red lights take way too long. I love the bike path at Brown and Country Club. More of those would be great. Thank you for this opportunity to speak out. Please make available to all Mesa's residents the actual construction costs of the Valley Light Rail, the ridership, and the financial bottom line. How do the profits and metrics compare with other mass transit systems in America? Be sure to publish a comparison of Mesa's Air Quality Index with cities of similar size in countries such as China, Thailand, Pakistan, etc. If Green Energy is on the agenda, what guarantees do we have that China will not "bottleneck" the chain of custody to America. Tell the truth about those battery powered vehicles in comparison to petroleum based vehicles. If the only cars permitted in Arizona were battery powered, where do you suggest we dispose of the "dead" batteries? Excellent roads, no tolls. Save water by using desert landscape No trees or bushes that need water. We are in the desert!!!! My disabled adult daughter cannot use the Access buses due to her ability to walk long distances, but she also can't use the public buses due to her high anxiety and vulnerability issues. There should be another transit choice for her instead of us always taking her wherever she wants to go. I am a power wheelchair user, and like anyone else, I have a need for on-demand transportation where I live. We need good roads. We can't get rid of roads of freeways. The Arizona heat is too hot in the summer and we are too spread out to expect us to walk/bike. No more apartments in 85215 Need more regularly scheduled security officers on the ligh trail. I have no way of getting to and from doctors appointments, etc when I can't drive, except by Taxi, which is very expensive for me as a retired person. Expand map for Paratransit to included ALL of Mesa 41 114293972222 Apr 14 2023 12:27 PM 114293960317 Apr 14 2023 12:16 PM 114293948101 Apr 14 2023 12:00 PM 114293942521 Apr 14 2023 11:49 AM 114293936797 Apr 14 2023 11:46 AM 114293937169 114293932022 Apr 14 2023 11:44 AM Apr 14 2023 11:34 AM 114293925197 Apr 14 2023 11:34 AM 114293922164 Apr 14 2023 11:31 AM 114293905911 Apr 14 2023 11:10 AM 114293910273 Apr 14 2023 11:06 AM 114293894905 Apr 14 2023 10:58 AM 114293889673 Apr 14 2023 10:51 AM 114293875519 Apr 14 2023 10:28 AM 114293870096 Apr 14 2023 10:23 AM I want to see more walkable neighborhoods. I literally live less than a mile from a lot of things, but because of the road network I can't walk to anything. It's unsafe and not designed for walking. My wish list is that the bike path by Riverview be extended further along the river bed, possibly extending all the way to Power road. Along with, paving the canals for smoother bike rides. Bikers riding 3 or more across are a danger - and this is frequent. Bike events close our roads with no viable alternatives. We cannot leave our neighborhood without driving all the way up to the lakes. Want a sound wall on st 24 near cadence Make the roadway connections to limit the time cars are on the road. The number of vehicles will keep increasing, so focus on limiting the time they are on the road by completing roadway connections so that uneccessary drive time "around a block" to complete the missing connection is not required. This will also help spread the traffic to more roadways thus reducing congestions on the limited connected roadways. A daytime trolley would be helpful in retirement communities. None Clean up our neighborhood and cut down on single family dwellings turned into multiple rental facilities I am serious about the drag racing. That has to be stopped. I see traffic enforcement of laws to be a major issue. Some observations include many people crossing double yellow line in high traffic areas to make a turn - I even see people in turn lanes for oncoming traffic. Speeding is a big issue with many drivers 10mph or 15mph over the speed limit. These are big safety factors. Eliminating snow birds would go a long way in reducing traffic and congestion. I believe we need to look further into the future and get ahead of our neighbors and financing in planning for Light-Rail. The Light Rail operator can see people getting on the train. If they are throwing up, they should not be allowed on. On evening trips from Chase Field, a single passenger's words and actions should not threaten the entire carload. I love living in Mesa I realize the 101 is not maintained by City of Mesa, but the over-pass decking on the 101 north & south bound at the 202 is so un-even that it is dangerous to drive over. Multiple times I've seen trucks eject cargo from their bed directly into traffic when bouncing over these "ramps". 114293835949 Apr 14 2023 09:42 AM 114293042651 Apr 13 2023 06:09 PM 114292985416 Apr 13 2023 04:33 PM 114292571144 Apr 13 2023 09:07 AM 114292510478 Apr 13 2023 07:55 AM 114292013167 114291710300 Apr 12 2023 05:15 PM Apr 12 2023 10:32 AM 114291671177 Apr 12 2023 10:15 AM 114291556295 Apr 12 2023 07:58 AM 114291479092 Apr 12 2023 06:33 AM 114291456167 Apr 12 2023 06:13 AM 114289421915 Apr 09 2023 08:10 PM 114289326817 Apr 09 2023 01:52 PM Mesa Transportation Master Plan I would love to see more separated bike lanes (like the stadium connector route) and paved canal paths to connect our city in a less vehicle-oriented way. In a city this big a car should not be required for daily living. Bus routes should go farther into east Mesa, past Power, and into areas like the shopping areas along Signal Butte so that people don't have to take a car just so they can watch a movie at the theater or have dinner at a restaurant. more protected bike lanes in residential neighbohoods I want Mesa to be a car city. I was against the light rail because it only attracts homeless and low income residents. Keep Mesa a suburb with middle to high income families. No low income housing, multi unit housing. Some selective traffic enforcement would be nice. The posted speed limit signs and restricted turn signs seems to be a waste of public funds. More clear traffic signals for tourists and seniors Better access to light rail My biggest struggle with public transit is that there isn’t enough Public Security . As a woman I am approached by multiple unwanted people while on transits. When I don’t deliver what they want whether that may be money or conversation they become very aggressive. Mesa public transits dont make me feel safe I live in the Evergreen historic district. Just moved here from NYC to work from home and the proximity to downtown Mesa was a selling point. Almost weekly we ride bikes to Downtown. The street crossing by University and Country Club is a wonderful addition and has made it very easy for the commute. I wish it was faster. We would also be willing to use the light rail, but it's very slow and there aren't many places for us to leave our bikes. Also, the hours are not long enough. Looking forward to the street car on Rio Salado, but hoping the speed will improve. I cannot stress enough how dangerous of is for pedestrians, including many children and those with mobility issues, to try to get around. Just look at the stretch from Hawes to Signal Butte akonv Southern. More than half of that segment has zero sidewalks. Our streets are in bad shape and very dangerous to cyclists. There’s chunks of cement missing on the Guadalupe over pass to the 202 where bikes have to go past exit ramps forcing us into the lane of traffic or blind spots. Pot holes up and down Guadalupe from Ellsworth to Sossaman are extreme and dangerous. Someone is going to get hurt. Thenk you for the opportunity to offer suggestions and feedback. Transportation isn't really a big issue in Mesa.The streets flow easy because one comes here because there is nothing to do. It's like the Disneyland of fast food, high density housing and storage units. This survey should be on how do we get people into Mesa so we can get some tax revenue and have traffic issues. 43 114289250608 Apr 09 2023 08:08 AM 114288836906 Apr 08 2023 05:24 AM 114288736525 Apr 07 2023 10:57 PM 114288694125 Apr 07 2023 08:30 PM 114288432985 Apr 07 2023 10:36 AM 114288432394 Apr 07 2023 10:32 AM 114288219326 Apr 07 2023 04:07 AM 114288080413 Apr 06 2023 09:53 PM 114288070366 Apr 06 2023 09:17 PM 114288031090 Apr 06 2023 07:37 PM 114287995982 Apr 06 2023 06:18 PM 114287991383 Apr 06 2023 06:13 PM 114287962049 Apr 06 2023 05:20 PM 114287962946 114287914294 Apr 06 2023 05:18 PM Apr 06 2023 03:44 PM Please take time to address equine users needs in Mess. Road capacities in high equine pedestrian use areas should be examined and measures taken to ensure roads do not see changes due to capacity limits that would further limit equestrian access I travel a lot throughout the state of Arizona. I see more bigger roads coming out and less construction of beautiful walking pathways that encourage the public to engage in walking in the mornings or evenings. I think there's a lot of room for bus rapid transit lanes on our roads. I will say the city is very good about coming out and fixing roads. My only issue is if it's close to the county Island like we are, who it belongs to is confusing. I'm in Mesa and in Phoenix some I think the roadways and travel options are pretty nice. They e done a good job with the maintenance and figure planning and innovation on transportation! Good job. I think it could s a good idea if there was a light or button one could push at Bus stop to let the driver of the bus know that to stop at that next bus stop. � I would love to see more EVs on the road. Just for the safety factor. I was only born with two eyes but having all those extra cameras definitely play an important role on safety. Also, there are a ridiculous amount of bikers that ride in the middle of the road rather than in the bike lane so I suppose them riding safely would be important as well. It's like they are intentionally trying to get harmed by weaving in and out of the bike lane into the road. Or they take a route that doesn't offer any bike path or side areas. My 18 mile commute to work is dangerous by bicycle and my leisure riding is SEVERELY hampered by a lack of connectivity The light rail constriction of vehicle traffic flow on Main Street has forced cars to use near by residential streets as by passes and the drivers go 45 to 50 miles an hour down them. The building of apartment complexes with inadequate parking has created a nightmare of parked cars plugging up near by streets. Id love to have access to reasonable & safe options for transportation out and around our community. Please enfoce speed limits and protect pedestrians at all intersections Lots of safety upgrades such as dedicated right hand turn lanes would be a great way to improve traffic As a landlord, I've lost several tenants due to public transit taking between 1 - 2 hours to reach destinations that take 15 minutes by car. Lack of traffic law enforcement and poor executation on traffic flow planning for new commercial development in my area of Mesa parking around mesa arts center is confusing for weekend events Val Vista is very dangerous. Way too many accidents. Speeding is a huge problem. 114287876507 Apr 06 2023 02:38 PM 114287742690 Apr 06 2023 11:42 AM 114287708692 Apr 06 2023 11:05 AM 114286937864 Apr 05 2023 03:45 PM 114283946443 114283837870 Apr 02 2023 08:05 AM Apr 02 2023 01:02 AM 114283730317 Apr 01 2023 04:41 PM 114283707370 Apr 01 2023 03:10 PM 114283651221 Apr 01 2023 12:11 PM 114283649790 114283625125 114283615683 Apr 01 2023 11:54 AM Apr 01 2023 10:43 AM Apr 01 2023 10:19 AM 114283608640 Apr 01 2023 10:08 AM 114283605490 114283595974 Apr 01 2023 09:48 AM Apr 01 2023 09:29 AM 114283593358 Apr 01 2023 09:23 AM Mesa Transportation Master Plan Public transportation is nice to have and necessary or convenient for many residents. However, it cannot replace the efficiency and convenience of taking one's own vehicle. Not even close. Public transportation and electric vehicles are not the wave of the future that politicians seem to think they are. Tax payer money has been used on these for decades to little benefit. If these methods are useful, then let private industry fund and operate them. Continuous bike trails as in Tempe and Gilbert need to be constructed. Elliott Corridor and canals in far east Mesa need to have bike trails that connect to existing trails in other cities. Existing trails are too far from Eastmark area to be accessed. Other cities around Phoenix need to have traffic signals run on different schedules. Instead of just one schedule. Please make bike lanes separate from roads. Much more traffic, noise, accidents and less safe for cyclists. Thank you for doing this survey. As someone who tries to use my bike to get around as much as possible, it can be pretty tough here, so I look forward to positive improvements. Very difficult to cross Main Street (north south) in downtown Mesa. East west signals are timed long for light rail. No shade at crossings making waiting in hot summer difficult. Traffic awareness signage would be appropriate on Horne north of McKellips as Mesa turns in to Lehi. Changes in roadway, shoulderage, bike lane, pedestrian and equestrian usage all converge near Horne/Kael. Control drug dealers and homeless clusters along canal paths Cool event We love Mesa keep up the great work!!! I am a public school teacher. My time is precious. I cannot believe the horrible condition of so many roads and the amount of time that it takes to fill these huge holes in the road. Recker and Adobe, southbound left lane, 2 weeks, it is now a crater that causes out of state drivers to swerve almost killing other drivers every single day! I am a homeowner. I pay taxes. This is unacceptable that I feel like I am going to be crashed into by someone avoiding a hole in the road. This is just one example. Awesome Please have the light rail expand near superstition springs Ebikes are the future and we need to make sure we have plenty of infrastructure to cater to them. 45 114283317850 Mar 31 2023 07:49 PM 114283206919 Mar 31 2023 03:39 PM 114282798273 Mar 31 2023 08:13 AM 114282739111 Mar 31 2023 07:13 AM 114282719048 Mar 31 2023 06:59 AM 114282285124 Mar 30 2023 04:55 PM 114282244837 Mar 30 2023 03:51 PM 114282216379 Mar 30 2023 02:49 PM 114282194104 Mar 30 2023 02:24 PM 114282175395 114282124996 114282110458 Mar 30 2023 01:56 PM Mar 30 2023 12:58 PM Mar 30 2023 12:41 PM 114282075407 Mar 30 2023 12:10 PM 114282080634 Mar 30 2023 12:08 PM 114281409511 Mar 29 2023 07:22 PM 114279319753 114278789757 Mar 27 2023 05:21 PM Mar 27 2023 07:42 AM 114278250234 Mar 26 2023 12:40 PM 114278237681 Mar 26 2023 12:00 PM Take a look a the recent resurfacing project between Center and Country on University. The two way turn lane is lower and looks unfinished and pools with water went is rains. I don't having the Green New shoved down my throat nor the back handed manner that being a Smart City has deceptively advertised. An off-street bike path system in Mesa is where the emphasis should go (overdue). After just normal, good maintenance of the road system. None Distracted drivers, discourcerteous drivers and road rage are the most hazardous for all others on the roads Concentrate on vehicles...this is not an area whose weather is conducive to wallking or biking in the hot weather or the cold weather. We've been shocked at the length of time the Superstition Freeway has been under repair, and have even lost track of how many years the work has been neglected. Stop with all the electric car bullshit. Tired of all this leftist commie bullshit I AM WILLING TO CONVERSE WITH THE TRANSPORTATION BOARD CONCERNING MY SUGGESTIONS AND EXPERIENCE. No green deals!! Mesa...do better! No 15 minute cities or green new deal nonsense Traffic light timing here is among the worst I have ever seen. It is actually worse than what I experienced in a town where the traffic engineer’s stated goal was that his job was to slow down personal vehicle traffic and promote public transportation. Need rail to come down past power road Wished you put light rail in someone else’s neighborhood. Wish the google internet wasn’t hear either. Who’s decision was that? How much money was put in someone’s pocket? No Dial a Ride service out here for the elderly and disabled Some questions in the survey don't allow a correct answer traffic is major issue. We need high speed rail, commuter rail and expanded light rail and street car routes. Better and more reliable buses. We need safer sidewalks that are shaded and protected bike facilities. I would LOVE to sell my car and rely entirely on public transportation. I am educated, able-bodied, a high wage-earner, and a home-owner - I should be the definition of someone who wants to own a car. But I would love to rely 100% on other modes of transportation. But, I cannot do it in Mesa -- at least not yet. I would love to see the City radically embrace public transportation and implement options for folks who cannot own and/or do not want to own a personal vehicle. And I would encourage 114278044685 114277797811 Mar 26 2023 12:51 AM Mar 25 2023 10:22 AM 114277621723 Mar 25 2023 03:12 AM 114274686761 Mar 21 2023 10:11 PM 114272257071 Mar 18 2023 02:05 PM 114268709002 Mar 14 2023 12:04 PM 114266298196 Mar 11 2023 01:06 AM 114266031111 114263089613 114261911236 Mar 10 2023 02:05 PM Mar 07 2023 03:20 PM Mar 06 2023 11:37 AM 114261217397 Mar 05 2023 05:36 PM 114261214652 Mar 05 2023 05:25 PM 114261210065 Mar 05 2023 05:17 PM 114261033873 Mar 05 2023 07:59 AM 114261021402 Mar 05 2023 07:17 AM 114260849900 Mar 04 2023 06:24 PM 114260729040 Mar 04 2023 11:33 AM 114260718999 Mar 04 2023 11:05 AM 114260694964 Mar 04 2023 10:06 AM Mesa Transportation Master Plan everyone at the City and working on this Plan to utilize and experience what our Public Transit has to offer! We are missing out! Stop car racing, burnouts, and car meet up. Thanks for asking!! No one wants to take public transportation during the summer months. The wait times are long. It is unsafe at times. We need communities to take back their neighborhoods through Community Policing with Mesa PD. Clean up old and abandoned buildings. Provide assistance to help homeowners with home improvement projects. Touch up the City of Mesa. Become newer, cleaner, safer. Then, just then...people may feel safe to walk, bike or ride the buses or shuttles. Please don’t make anymore circus sidewalks (Dobson between Main and tracks) Right Hand only turn lanes are needed everywhere. It would be nice to have the left lane be normal speed land and the right lane be a snowbird and slow lane. I support fiscally smart management solutions as opposed to the frustrating tax and spend slush fund options that don't solve our transportation problems responsibly. We are against esg and green new deal it's a managed decline of our nation trying to get rid of middle class and make richer richer and poor poorer Need to reduce carbon emission of today's transit options Stop trying to add bike paths and hiking trails on the freeways. Stop the corruption and smaller government and more businesses Public safety, physical road conditions, and traffic congestion are the primary concerns for Mesa Please just fix and improve what we have and stop trying to turn us into a 15-minute city. I like Mesa the way it is. I do not want to spend more money on empty busses and trains. See the Constitution for all future plans. Mesans will not tolerate more losses is personal sovereignty. Use your imagination. I need to go to dialysis 3 days a week, and the ValleyMetro options for bus service is difficult due to my frail health. Driving gives me the flexibility and safety to drive to my dialysis center. WE DO NOT WANT A 15 MINUTE CITY. WE WANT TO BE FREE TO TRAVEL BY CAR WHERE AND WHEN WE WANT. Public transportation is hardly used because it is never convenient, safe, etc. No one want the transit system expanded. Few people use it where it exists now. Stop taking our tax money and using it for things we don’t want! Continue to support our gas powered cars. Do. not follow the woke Socialist agenda ! 47 114260692569 Mar 04 2023 09:59 AM 114260588236 Mar 04 2023 05:33 AM 114259974053 Mar 03 2023 09:03 AM 114259427222 Mar 02 2023 05:18 PM 114259316077 Mar 02 2023 02:15 PM 114259302927 Mar 02 2023 01:59 PM 114259292670 Mar 02 2023 01:42 PM 114259286389 114254870891 Mar 02 2023 01:36 PM Feb 25 2023 10:48 AM Please improve roads and sidewalks so people can choose to move freely by car, walk or mode of transportation they desire. I want single family homes and continuous support for roads for cars to drive on Make the freedom of driving ourselves feel amazing and smooth. Put in a Drag Race track and challenging driving course for citizens to get their training and thrills and help with street racing. I greatly enjoy Eastmark and Encore. I enjoy the walking paths and the parks and lakes. More affordable single family homes and areas like this are needed. No one wants to look at concrete buildings and high rises. We need more walking and biking options. I have a major concern regarding the 24 / Ellsworth area. I understand the Airport Terminal is going to be relocated to the East side of the airport. That will create a traffic disaster in that area without some substantial improvements. Don't waste taxpayer money on adding more light rail or other public transportation. This city is too hot for regular use of public transportation. This is a city for raising families and most families in Mesa travel by car. Families do not regularly travel day to day using public transportation to school, grocery stores, athletic events, meeting with friends, going to church, etc. Please keep Mesa affordable. All the new electric vehicles and stations are more expensive for us and the town. Won't work. Please don't go toward electric costly items. Be real. The more I see apartments going up the more congestion there will be Make Lindsay rd a freeway Phase I Online Map Survey Comments 1. 24 2023 | Added February Needs signalized crossing or HAWK. This is a numbered bike route. 2. Added February 24 2023 I would like the City to improve the east bank of the Tempe Canal with a shared use path between Broadway and Southern. 3. Added February 24 2023 This area is very congested and there are many close calls. Added March 06 4. 2023 Traffic Congestion is very high on the Superstition during all times of day. 5. | Added March 26 2023 MCC and Banner Desert would be an amazing place for a transportation hub that can provide Bus rapid transit (BRT), bus access, and a future stop for light rail, commuter rail, or a streetcar! Mesa Transportation Master Plan 49 | Added March 26 2023 6. As Mesa Gateway expands, it is in desperate need of a light rail, commuter rail, and/or high-speed rail connection to the rest of the valley. | Added March 26 2023 7. Downtown Mesa could really use a public transit hub (like Tempe's Tempe Transportation Center) to help encourage transit options and be able to reduce downtown parking needs. And it would be amazing if the city would incentivize city employees for using public transportation! | Added March 26 2023 8. Would love to see more high-density housing options along the light rail corridor. 9. Added March 26 2023 Extend light rail down Country Club to DT Chandler 10. Added March 26 2023 Extend Streetcar to Mesa Riverview and Spring Training Fields 11. Added March 26 2023 Would love to see high density housing/mixed use TOD similar to Culdesac here in these large vacant/decrepit lots along the light rail 12. Added March 26 2023 Mesa needs a stop near downtown for Intercity rail, commuter rail with fast track service to DT PHX and Tucson 13. Diane Dowling | dianekiss7@aol.com | 4804164580, Added March 28 2023 Need public transport and Dial a Ride service serig Brown Rd and the 202 freeway 14. Added March 30 2023 Many accidents at this intersection 15. Added March 30 2023 Many accidents at this intersection 16. Added March 30 2023 Many accidents at this intersection 17. Added March 30 2023 Impatient drivers running red lights especially those making left hand turns Mesa Tr 51 18. Added April 01 2023 Long wait to cross Main Street (north south) due to timing of light rail. Shade needed at intersections while waiting for light 19. Added April 01 2023 No bus service on Broadway Road 20. Added April 01 2023 Extend light rail to Power Rd 21. Added April 02 2023 Faster response to pedestrian activation. Otherwise pedestrian and cyclists will cross on a gap. 22. Added April 02 2023 Rough pavement makes bicycling jarring. Would appreciate smoother pavement in bike lane. 23. Added April 06 2023 Light rail makes getting around downtown mesa a challenge to the point that going downtown is not enjoyable anymore. 24. Added April 06 2023 This existing facility is not identified on the Master Plan 25. Added April 06 2023 Now it appeared - after the comment was added (???) 26. Added April 07 2023 How am I supposed get here safely by bicycle from East Mark? 27. Added April 07 2023 The bike lane here is narrow and dangerous 28. Added April 07 2023 The bike lane here is ignored by drivers since the connection to the 24 opened 29. Added April 07 2023 Is this multi use paths EVER going to safely connect to anything? Mesa Transportation Master Plan 53 30. Added April 07 2023 This is unusable to commute west by bicycle, there are no lights on the north side of baseline! 31. Added April 07 2023 No lights on north side of University! Also very narrow bike lane makes for a dangerous bicycle commute 32. Added April 07 2023 Sidewalks needed 33. Added April 07 2023 Green light to cross Brown Road at Sterling entrance to Red Mountain Park does not stay green long enough for older pedestrian to cross without attempting to run. Added April 08 2023 34. Agreed, and I would add that I think extending the street car to the end of Rio Salado was under prioritized in the study. All other corridors are already somewhat well served by busses, while the neighborhoods adjacent to Rio Salado are forced to walk to their nearest cross street or further to access transit. 35. Added April 08 2023 Where I live in Mesa, if I know I won't be able to get a ride to the airport I'll pay $30 more for a flight from sky harbor because that's how much more expensive the Uber will be. 36. Added April 10 2023 High Density Transit-Oriented Development is not a sincere or honest public policy if we are only displacing low income citizens and building apartments that low-income citizens cannot afford. All new housing must include apartments that are affordable to low and moderate income citizens---as well as more affluent citizens; this is a mixed-income apartment community. 37. Added April 10 2023 No bike lane, no sholder for cyclists along Crismon (both north and south for 1/2 mile) from Main St. going both directions. Choke point for cyclists and no room for cars. 38. Added April 10 2023 Very dangerous intersection for cyclists, pedestrians to go from the multi use path at Elliott and the 202. You have to go from the North East side of the intersection to the South West side with no way to safely connect the path. No clear path, markings or signs. Very dangerous. 39. Added April 10 2023 Please include bike land when finishing this road. No shoulder and cyclist forced to ride in lane. | Added April 10 40. 2023 No shoulder or bike lane. Cyclist forced to ride in lane. 41. Added April 11 2023 It would be nice to access this rapidly developing location via Bus. Either extending the existing Baseline route or adding additional North/South routes would suffice. Mesa Tr 55 42. Added April 12 2023 Bike lane is in bad shape and often has pot holes, debris and gravel 43. Added April 13 2023 Wide cracks throughout the intersection. They are wide enough to grab a bike tire and throw the rider. 44. Added April 13 2023 Deep ruts through out the bike lane from where previous stripes were removed…in 2001 and never fixed 45. Added April 13 2023 WB on NE corner. Bike lane suddenly just disappears where the sidewalk curves causing the need to merge suddenly with traffic that is changing lanes and very close to the intersection 46. April 13 2023 Added There are so many empty and underused strip malls that can be converted into apartments mix used retail and multi-family housing. 47. April 13 2023 It would be great to have Bus rapid transit for buses to have their own bilke lane. 48. Added April 13 2023 Build protected bike lanes down main street. There are a lot of people that already ride bikes down main and a lot of elderly that use their mobility scooters. 49. Added April 13 2023 Enclosed bike lockers at all light rail stops. if people know that their bikes will not be stolen or damaged then they are more likely to use their bikes when they commute to work or leave their bikes their long periods of time. Its too easy to puncture a bike tire and bike locks can be picked too easily. 50. Added April 13 2023 A Bus Rapid Transit line to Downtown Gilbert and ASU Poly and the Airport. From the end of the light rail 51. Added April 13 2023 Eliminate parking requirements for new housing in Mesa and especially along the light rail. When the city of Buffalo eliminated parling requirements 80% of the new developments had parking and 50% of the developments used less than what, was previously required. Less asphalt more housing i would love to have a Cul de Sac development in Mesa. 52. April 13 2023 4 Added Turn more of the canals into biking super highways like they have in London. All of the North-South Canal bike lanes will connect with the protected bike lanes down the main street. 53. April 13 2023 Added No sidewalk and no lights Mesa Transportation Master Plan 57 54. Added April 14 2023 Transit-oriented development on all of the parking lots. 55. Added April 14 2023 it would be great to have transit oriented development near the mall as well. April 14 2023 56. There is no public transportation over here but we need it. So many car trips could be stopped if we were not forced to use a car just to get somewhere to eat or to get to the superstition springs mall. 57. Added April 14 2023 Long roads between destinations. No public transportation and wouldn’t feel safe. Everything is on Mckellips Southern or baseline nothing on north south streets. Boring grocery stores everywhere 58. Added April 14 2023 Extend the Rio Salado path along the 202 and connect with north/south canals 59. Added April 14 2023 A pedestrian light to make crossing at this location safer. 60. Added April 14 2023 Perhaps a study to see if any of the side streets off Main St. could be pedestrianized permanently like we do during the Christmas market. 61. Added April 14 2023 Widen US 60 East bound at Crismon 62. Added April 14 2023 Connect access at Meridian to SR24 and widen/connect Meridian to US60 63. Added April 14 2023 Yes, would love to have the baseline bus route extend to this area and/or include North/South routes near here. 64. | Added April 14 2023 The large bumps at the pavement transitions on the ramp are so large that they are dangerous. There are several of these bumps on the ramp from 202 Loop N to 60 W. 65. Added April 14 2023 The large bumps at the pavement transitions on the ramp are so large that they are dangerous. There are several of these bumps on the ramp from 202 Loop N to 60 W. Mesa Transportation Master Plan 59 66. Added April 14 2023 The large bumps at the pavement transitions on the ramp are so large that they are dangerous. There are several of these bumps on the ramp from 202 Loop N to 60 W. 67. Added April 15 2023 Allow left turn with blinking yellow from westbound McDowell onto southbound 202 while eastbound McDowell has green light. Currently the left turn traffic often has to wait on red even though there is no oncoming traffic. Visibility for oncoming traffic is unobstructed allowing safe left hand turns with caution. 68. Added April 15 2023 This applies to this intersection but would be a good idea for all intersections with blinking left turn arrows. Currently the solid yellow arrow goes out, the light switches to red, then switches to blinking yellow when the through traffic signals change to green. This is very confusing if just about to turn left but too close to stop before the intersection and the signal switches to red light. My recommendation is to go from solid yellow arrow to blinking yellow arrow with the same delay that was used for red before through traffic gets the green light. Basically this eliminates the short red light between the solid yellow arrow and the blinking yellow arrow by starting the blinking yellow arrow earlier. The switch from yellow arrow to red light causes confusion and many drivers will suddenly brake, potentially causing a rear end collision from a car behind. 69. Added April 15 2023 The left turn arrow from southbound Alma School to eastbound 202 is timed badly. It is too short to allow all the traffic under the bridge to make the turn. Then when the light before the bridge turns green, there is limited space under the bridge for the next left turn arrow. This backs up traffic on Alma School. This is exasperated by McKellips being close due to river flow but is always an issue during busy evening rush hour. 70. Added April 15 2023 Brookview Apartments needs to be cleaned up and secure more with police or security guards. 71. Added April 15 2023 Agreed. Love that there is a path here but to cross under the 202 is difficult and unsafe. Possibly a pedestrian light or clearer markings in the intersection. 72. Added April 15 2023 Seems like this would be a promising area to build a bike path that was off of Ellsworth which congested and dangerous to bike/walk. A bike path in this area would be great to connect Mesa to QC. 73. Added April 15 2023 Please consider reducing the speed limit on Ellsworth and McKellips from 45 to 35 mph. This has become a mainly residential area over the last 10 years. If your home happens to be adjacent to either road, the road noise, excessive speeding that occurs as residents and visitors with non-mufflered vehicles which go north/south to/from the Salt River Canyon area and increased use by semi trucks has become a severe safety and noise nuisance. 74. Added April 15 2023 light rail expansion would be good to power 75. Added April 15 2023 Consider a traffic light here for the residents of Canyon Preserve to safely enter Ellsworth. 76. Added April 15 2023 Consider a traffic light here for the residents and users of McLellan to safely enter the flow of traffic onto Ellsworth in both directions and to reduce the speed on this road. Mesa Transportation Master Plan 61 77. Added April 15 2023 Need bike lanes 78. Added April 15 2023 Need bike lanes 79. Added April 15 2023 Need bike lanes 80. Added April 15 2023 Need bike lanes 81. Added April 15 2023 Need separated / dedicated bike lanes safe from speeding traffic 82. Added April 15 2023 Need a signal for pedestrian crossing at minimum. Very difficult to cross here. 83. Added April 17 2023 Not comfortable crossing the street as a pedestrian. 84. Added April 17 2023 Appreciate this bike route to Mesa Community College that does not intersect with the US 60. 85. April 17 2023 Years ago, I assumed there was a bus route along Baseline from Dobson to Alma School, but there wasn't. I think there is one now. 86. Added April 17 2023 I don't feel comfortable taking the bus and train for fear of getting bedbugs. 87. Added April 17 2023 Recommend 4 way stop sign in this intersection. There is a school and students are picked up and dropped off here via school bus. This intersection is active because of Highway 60. The people that know the area take this route to avoid the congestion on the main roads and drive at high speeds since the existing stop sign is only 2 way and the speed bumps are too far apart to effectively slow down traffic on E Holmes Ave. Many come barreling down south on Hobson Rd since there is no stop sign at all and the road makes a sudden right turn which can be dangerous as well. 88. Added April 17 2023 We need restrooms out here. We are disabled. Mesa Tr 63 89. Added April 18 2023 Agreed. Bring light rail to Power Rd. Mesa is much further East than Gilbert Rd. We need to empower those who live in East Mesa to have safe, reliable options for transportation. 90. Added April 20 2023 Speeds are too high at this intersection. Slow it down to 35 mph within 200 yards of the stop lights. 91. Added April 20 2023 People driving WAY too fast from superstition to Hampton.One day there will be an accident and a car will fly off clearview and on to the freeway or through my backyard 92. Added April 21 2023 Controlled crossing needed for ped / bike crossing on Stapley. This is a very dangerous street to cross due to heavy traffic. 93. Added April 21 2023 Controlled crossing needed for ped / bike crossing on Stapley. This is a very dangerous street to cross due to heavy traffic. 94. Added April 21 2023 Controlled crossing needed for ped / bike crossing on Lindsay. Or place signage directing ped / bike users to the crossing the the canal trail. This is a very dangerous street to cross due to heavy traffic. 95. Added April 21 2023 Meant to say Gilbert as the crossing. Gilbert is very heavy traffic and very dangerous for ped / bike users to cross. 96. Added April 21 2023 Controlled crossing needed for ped / bike crossing on Val Vista. This is a very dangerous street to cross due to heavy traffic. 97. Added April 21 2023 Controlled crossing needed for ped / bike crossing on Greenfield. This is a very dangerous street to cross due to heavy traffic. 98. Added April 21 2023 Controlled crossing needed for ped / bike crossing on Higley. This is a very dangerous street to cross due to heavy traffic. 99. Added April 21 2023 Controlled crossing needed for ped / bike crossing on Higley. This is a very dangerous street to cross due to heavy traffic. 100. Added April 21 2023 Controlled crossing needed for ped / bike crossing on Recker. This is a very dangerous street to cross due to heavy traffic. Mesa Transportation Master Plan 65 101. Added April 21 2023 Many bad accidents at this intersection 102. Added April 21 2023 Rampant speeding in this area. 103. Added April 21 2023 Rampant speeding in this area. 104. Added April 21 2023 Rampant speeding in this area. 105. Added April 21 2023 Rampant speeding in this area. Racing at night on weekends. 106. Added April 21 2023 Frequent speeding in this area. People need to slow down! 107. Added April 21 2023 Signal needed for ped / bike crossing. Broadway is a very busy and dangerous street to cross. 108. Added April 21 2023 Signal needed for ped / bike crossing. Broadway is a very busy and dangerous street to cross. 109. Added April 21 2023 Signal needed for ped / bike crossing. Higley is a very busy and dangerous street to cross. 110. Added April 21 2023 Signal needed for ped / bike crossing. Higley is a very busy and dangerous street to cross. 111. Added April 21 2023 Signal needed for ped / bike crossing. Val Vista is a very busy and dangerous street to cross. 112. Added April 21 2023 Signal needed for ped / bike to cross, or signage directing to the nearby canal crossing. Lindsay is very busy and dangerous to cross. Mesa Transportation Master Plan 67 113. Added April 21 2023 Signal needed for ped / bike to cross, or signage directing to the nearby canal crossing. Lindsay is very busy and dangerous to cross. 114. Added April 21 2023 Thanks for the bike lanes on 1st Ave, but how about bike lanes on Main St where everyone wants to be? 115. Added April 21 2023 There should be a working water fountain every mile. This is the desert! For God's sake! 116. Added April 21 2023 There should be a working water fountain every mile. This is the desert! For God's sake! 117. Added April 21 2023 There should be a working water fountain every mile. This is the desert! For God's sake! 118. Added April 21 2023 There should be a working water fountain every mile. This is the desert! For God's sake! 119. Added April 21 2023 There should be a working water fountain every mile. This is the desert! For God's sake! 120. Added April 21 2023 There should be a working water fountain every mile. This is the desert! For God's sake! 121. Added April 21 2023 There should be a working water fountain every mile. This is the desert! For God's sake! 122. Added April 21 2023 There should be a working water fountain every mile. This is the desert! For God's sake! 123. Added April 21 2023 There should be a working water fountain every mile. This is the desert! For God's sake! 124. Added April 21 2023 EXTREMELY DANGEROUS INTERSECTION. This needs revision before someone gets hurt or killed. Mesa Transportation Master Plan 69 125. Added April 21 2023 EXTREMELY DANGEROUS INTERSECTION. This needs revision before someone gets hurt or killed. 126. Added April 21 2023 EXTREMELY DANGEROUS INTERSECTION. This needs revision before someone gets hurt or killed. 127. Added April 21 2023 EXTREMELY DANGEROUS INTERSECTION. This needs revision before someone gets hurt or killed. 128. Added April 21 2023 DRIVERS DO NOT YIELD TO PEDESTRIANS IN CROSSWALK at this intersection. VERY DANGEROUS! 129. Added April 21 2023 This ped crossing is basically useless. Far better to just use the signal at Brown Rd. You can grow very old waiting for this signal to change. 130. Added April 21 2023 How about a public drinking fountain at our city-owned baseball park? Would be nice to have along the Stadium Connector trail! 131. Added April 21 2023 How about a public drinking fountain at our city-owned baseball park? Would be nice to have along the Stadium Connector trail! 132. Added April 21 2023 There are transients panhandling, camping and trashing the place up here all the time. Clean it up! 133. Added April 21 2023 The section of this path where it goes under the 202 / 101 interchange is a favorite transient camping spot. They block the trail and litter the area with their trash. Please clean this up! 134. Added April 21 2023 Great spot for a public drinking fountain! 135. Added April 21 2023 Please clear out the people who are camping / living here. This is city / state property and they can't live here. Thank you. 136. Added April 21 2023 The mirror at this corner has been broken for over a year. It needs to be replaced before someone has a head-on. Mesa Transportation Master Plan 71 137. Added April 21 2023 Drivers exiting Bass Pro Drive at this intersection do not respect the rights of pedestrians or bicyclists in the crosswalk with the signal in their favor. Someone is going to get hurt or worse. 138. Added April 26 2023 Lots of holes in the roadway on University between Greenfield & Val Vista, especially around man hole covers. 139. Added April 26 2023 All of these bike path crossings without signals are an accident waiting to happen! 140. Added April 27 2023 There is no bike lane at this intersection. There is bike path east and west of intersection but none at intersection. This is a very busy intersection and bicycles going east on Brown are forced to ride on sidewalk or in the road. Riding in the road at this location is a death wish. 141. Added April 29 2023 Crossing for cyclists is very dangerous here 142. Added April 29 2023 Crossing is very dangerous at the intersection 143. Added April 29 2023 No public transit or elderly transit exists in Eastmark. Since supportive services are limited, a car is needed to do most things. Concerned if elderly parents move in with us that they will not have the independence and be able to get where they would like to, go to appointments, etc. 144. Added May 02 2023 Create a "Right Turn Only" lane at Southbound Power Road @ Westbound Southern Avenue in order to keep traffic moving. Drivers "clog" up the right lane that don't turn right. There are two other straight ahead lanes. Then adjust the length of the green light to clear North-South traffic. 145. Added May 03 2023 Add a stop sign to this intersection 146. Added May 03 2023 Speed control NB/SB Higley 147. Added May 03 2023 Drivers take left turns onto University out of Flower shop into oncoming EB Traffic on University Daily. The left turns into the Flower Shop off EB Uni into the flower shop can back up traffic into the intersection on Higley/Uni for multiple cylces because the parking is so tight in there. 148. Added May 03 2023 dangerous intersection with the NB/SB speeds of drivers on Higley. Taking a left hand turn is very difficult. Mesa Transportation Master Plan 73 149. Added May 03 2023 U-Turns by seasonal vistors are especially dangerous out of the turn lands in the center median on Main. They make them without regard for oncoming traffic. 150. Added May 03 2023 Make the far right lane a turn lane only 151. Added May 03 2023 This right turn lane creates dangerous merge situations daily, as well people using it to get in front of traffic, rather then a turn lane. 152. Added May 03 2023 The travel lane combined with bike lane is to narrow in this section of the road, additionally it is frequently covered in gravel from people leaving the parking at brown mtn. 153. Added May 03 2023 Everyone from Able steel parks here and blocks the bike lanes 154. Added May 03 2023 Bike lanes get blocked over weekends from sporting events at Quail run 155. Added May 03 2023 No bike lane 156. Added May 03 2023 Groups of bikers speed thru here during school hours 157. May 03 2023 The roadway is washboard, this stretch of roadway from EB from Idaho WB to Sossaman This roadway needs major improvements. PLEASE! Also consider more businesses to revive the area and look nicer this place is a dump 158. Added May 03 2023 This intersection has an unsafe entry and cross over to both EB turning NB and NB to SB traffic crossing the intersection is dangerous for smaller vehicles with potential to bottom out even at slow speeds. 159. Added May 04 2023 Red light camera or something to dissuade North/South redlight traffic running the red light, especially around school hours. 160. Added May 04 2023 High speed corridor Mesa Transportation Master Plan 75 161. Added May 04 2023 Please expand hawes and sossaman all the way through. Opening these roads are vital to commuters getting to and from gateway airport 162. Added May 05 2023 Pedestrian light needed at canal crossing to make it safe for people to cross 163. Added May 05 2023 Many people ride the Beeline Highway. There should be a protected bike lane from McLellan to McDowell. Also a better connection from the Salt River Path to the Beeline would be great. 164. Added May 05 2023 Mesa should work with the City of Tempe and ADOT to build a pedestrian bridge over the 101 connecting Alameda/Balboa to 8th Avenue. It would increase connectivity for pedestrians and cyclists and create an awesome east-west bike route. 165. Added May 06 2023 Unsafe 4 way stop due to speeding and ref light running 166. Added May 13 2023 Please complete this bike path to Power Road to connect to the existing path going west 167. Added May 14 2023 Right turn lane needed. Driving south on Lindsay to turn west on baseline. 168. Added May 14 2023 Also on baseline to turn left need red arrow not flashing. Too many accidents 169. | Added May 16 2023 It would be great to have a safe bike path that links the Tempe Canal path with Riverview Park, and the Salt River Walking/Biking Path. 170. | Added May 16 2023 It would be great to have a long East-West bike path that runs along the US 60 and the canal on the north side of the highway. It could connect the Tempe Canal with the Sun Circle Trail and beyond. 171. Added May 16 2023 This canal trail dies at the Country Club, and you have to ride through neighborhoods without bike lanes in order to get back on the canal trail heading south. Is it possible the Country Club would allow a bike path through? Maybe something similar to Ken McDonald Golf Course? 172. Added May 16 2023 It would be great to have a bike trail that runs along the US 60 canal that links the Sun Cir Trail with the Tempe Canal trail. It would make a giant loop around most of Mesa! Mesa Transportation Master Plan 77 173. | Added May 16 2023 Perhaps if there was a east-west bike trail running along the US 60 flood control canal, and a bike trail that runs along Ellsworth. That would do it. Mesa Transportation Master Plan 78 Comments Submitted on the Project Website “I would love to see more dedicated bike paths for accessing local amenities and necessities. Especially between Dobson, Longmore, Southern, Baseline, and Alma School. There's a great little hub of international markets and local restaurants, and local green space that is within biking distance, but it presently doesn't feel very safe to do so without being hyper-alert to not be hit by vehicle traffic. ” “As someone who would rather bike than take a car, I would like to see more *protected* bike lanes. Often bike lanes consist of just the street gutter alongside cars going 45+ mph. These are not practical nor safe for people to ride in. More people biking = less cars on the road.” “I am a cyclist, and I appreciate the canal path traffic lights. However, please change all canal path lights so that we can go through after the path is clear (stop on red, proceed if clear). It is often clear long before the light changes green. See the ones that are installed in Tempe. These are much better. Much less gas and time is wasted. I understand that an expensive project is planned for bike lanes etc. on Val Vista. I wasn't able to attend the meeting because of a conflict. I don't think this is a good use of money. Val Vista is a very busy road (near Southern for example) with (a typical) high speed limit and many business entrances along it. I very rarely see anyone cycling on Val Vista, and as a cyclist, I wouldn't do so even with the proposed improvements. Linday is only 1 mile away and is a much better road for cycling (no freeway entrance makes a huge difference). The ROI for better cycling lanes on Val Vista is very low. The money could be used instead to improve some existing roads that are in rather poor shape. The 32nd street bridge over the I-60 is a good example. Driving this bridge is like an off-road experience. The payment quality is poor/a patch job and receives a lot of traffic.” “I walk daily along the canal path that runs from Main to McDowell (and beyond). A few years ago, the section from Brown to Lindsay was paved, lighting installed and a pedestrian signal was installed at McKellips and another at Lindsay. The signage at the time stated that this project was in response to a recent bond passage. It is a great path and I very much appreciate the improvements. I have been hoping to see a similar improvement along the canal from Main to Brown. I walk this path from Adobe to McKellips everyday. It has been a couple of years since the afore mentioned improvements have been made, and I have lost hope that this section will be addressed. My son, who is knowledgeable in this type of construction in the municipal arena, has given me a myriad of reasons that may have stymied the project. It is important to note that the paving and lighting would be a nice addition, but they can wait. What cannot wait is a pedestrian signal at the canal/Brown Road. It is very difficult to cross Brown Road at this point and I find myself crossing half of the traffic and then waiting in the yellow-lined left turn lane to cross the other half of the traffic. I see a couple of students each morning that ride their bikes to Mt. View HS--they turn on to the sidewalk from the canal and ride against traffic presumably crossing at the Lindsay intersection. The installation of a pedestrian signal would make it safer for them to ride with traffic in the provided bike lane. Please give this your consideration.” “1. Change traffic light timing so we can get all green lights while driving the speed limit. Curruntly we have to go roughly 20mph under the speed limit to catch greens. 2. Don't let canal path lights, and smaller side street lights interupt the traffic pattern. These should all be timed so that they only cycle to green after the bulk of timed traffic has already passed by. 3. Change all canal path lights so that we can go through after path is clear (stop on red, proceed if clear) ” “It would be nice to have a few more 4 way stop intersections with crosswalks on Farnsworth between Baseline and Guadalupe. That road goes through Sunland Village East for a mile and there is only one intersection with crosswalks. That intersection isn't even close to the two highest traffic areas by our north and south complexes where all our amenities are 79 Transportation Master Plan Mesa located. Two new four way stop intersection with crosswalks are needed at Lakeview and Natal. This would also slow down the traffic speed on Farnsworth. It is a 30mph zone but 45-55mph through our village is very commonplace. ” “It would be nice to see Horne Ave repaired since the construction of the industrial buildings south of the 60. It wasn't built to handle semi traffic and the potholes are horrible. Also a left turn arrow at Horne & Southern would avoid accidents that happen there on a weekly basis. ” “I would love, love, love to see more bike lanes/paths to promote it as a mode of transportation. Especially down Ellsworth to connect East Mesa to Queen Creek. ” “Can you please trim the bushes and trees on Lindsey between Southern and Pueblo. It is really hard to see oncoming traffic when turning out from Robin Lane. Thanks! ” “Please, please put a left turn light at the corner of McKellips and Horne turning south. It's a dangerous corner to be turning south from McKellips onto Horne.” TMP 2050 APPENDIX E. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT PHASE #2 SUMMARY REPORT COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT Mesa’s transportation system is designed to serve the thousands of residents, visitors, and commuters that travel to and through Mesa every day. Involving residents early and often allows City staff to make informed decisions that address the needs of those that use our transportation network the most. Phase I of the Mesa Transportation Master Plan (TMP) community engagement focused on hosting an online survey for residents, visitors, and employers to voice their opinion on transportation challenges they face today. Phase II reengaged the residents, visitors, and employers to determine what types of transportation investments and trade-offs they would prefer to see in Mesa. Additionally, in this phase the City held focused discussions with stakeholders and planning partners. Phase II Outreach Methods To garner input from a wide cross-section of the public, multiple outreach methods were utilized, including: • Project website • Online survey and mapping exercise (survey instrument available in the Appendix) • Informational booths at community events conducted with the General Plan • Focus group meetings (meeting summaries available in the appendix) To make the public aware of the purpose of the Mesa TMP and to invite them to participate in an online survey and mapping exercise, the study team advertised and promoted the TMP utilizing various platforms. Promotion of the TMP directed participants to an online survey and mapping exercise and offered the opportunity to learn more about the TMP through the project website. Advertisements and promotions included: • Social media posts on the City of Mesa’s Facebook. • E-mail information and link to website via the City of Mesa’s Homeowner’s Association email list. Project Website A Phase II Mesa TMP-specific project website was developed and launched in Fall 2023, allowing the public easy access to important information about the TMP. Phase II outreach ended January 31st, 2024. The website MesaTMP.com included a summary of existing conditions, review of the unique travel sheds in Mesa, and an online survey. A comment form was also provided to allow the public to submit a question or concern directly to the study team and the City. A full list of comments received via the project website are provided in the Appendix. Summary of comments received included: • A desire for increased comfort, safety and connectivity for vulnerable users through enhanced street and facility designs. • Enhanced bicycle and pedestrian facilities, including widening sidewalks; installing protected bike facilities; increasing off-street paths; and incorporating signal priorities for pedestrians, cyclists, and transit. • Parking concerns included eliminating parking minimums and evaluating limited parking facilities in Downtown Mesa Additionally, several comments were received about transit operations that will be forwarded to the Transit Department. Mesa Transportation Master Plan 1 Informational Booths at General Plan Community Events At community events, study team members hosted booths and asked participants to fill out a survey on their transportation concerns, issues, and needs. Events attended during the Phase II engagement period include: • Urban Lab District #5 June 26, 2023 (6-8 PM) | Mesquite Room of Red Mountain Multi-Generational Center • Urban Lab District #6 June 27, 2023 (6-8 PM) | Gilbert Community Education Center • Urban Lab District #2 July 8, 2023 (9-11 AM) | Jefferson Recreation Center • Urban Lab District #4 July 8, 2023 (6-8 PM) | NE and NW Community Rooms at the Luster Building • Urban Lab District #1 July 12, 2023 (6-8 PM) | St Luke’s Lutheran Church of Mesa • Urban Lab District #3 July 26, 2023 (6-8 PM) | Grande Room Dobson Ranch Community Center • Celebrate Mesa Event October 14, 2023 • Dia De Los Muertos Event October 21, 2023 Appendix includes images of the poster boards used to obtain public feedback during the Urban Labs community events. Focus Group Meetings To hear directly from stakeholders, community representatives, and planning partners a series of focus group meetings were conducted. The meetings were held virtually and included a presentation from the study team, open discussion between participants, and an interactive survey to garner input and feedback. Meetings hosted included: • City of Mesa Internal Staff | November 15, 2023 • Local Mesa Social Organizations, Community Groups, Schools, and Major Organizations | November 16, 2023 • Regional and Local Planning Partners | November 16, 2023 • City of Mesa Internal Staff | December 11, 2023 A summary of each focus group, attendees, and feedback received is provided in the Appendix. Transportation Advisory Board Meeting The study team presented existing conditions findings and conducted an interactive polling survey to the Transportation Advisory Board on November 21, 2023. The results of the survey are presented in the Appendix. Mesa Transportation Master Plan 2 ONLINE COMMUNITY SURVEY The Phase II survey focused on understanding the type of transportation investments people wish to prioritize in the identified travelsheds (see Figure 1). The survey was available online at TomorrowsMesa.com and MesaTMP.com and was distributed at community events and other outreach activities. It included 8 questions to determine: • Preferred trade-offs in strategies to address transit, bike lanes, and managing roadway capacity • Community priorities for transportation investments overall Understanding these trade-offs – determining support for converting travel lanes for other modes versus maintaining roadway (vehicle) capacity – will inform the City of Mesa’s future decision making. Figure 1 Travel Sheds Mesa Transportation Master Plan 3 Summary of Survey Results The following section summarizes the survey results (446 total surveys) noting interesting findings and comments received Citywide and by Travel Shed. • For 7 of the 11 travel sheds, the transportation investment with the highest support is “improvements to reduce vehicle congestion”. o •  North Central Mesa: “Pedestrian and bicycle safety improvements”  Falcon Field Area, Northeast Mesa, and East Mesa: “Improvements to enhance safety for travel by vehicles” In trade-offs, the approaches with the highest support were: o o o o 4 Travel sheds with a differing priority included: Citywide, 47% of respondents prefer to manage demand with technology or by enhancing other transportation modes.  5 travel sheds expressed strong support (over 50%) for managing demand with technology or by enhancing other transportation modes: North Central Mesa, Downtown Mesa, Dobson Ranch, Falcon Field Area, and Riverview.  2 travel sheds expressed strong support (over 50%) for increasing capacity by adding lanes or other infrastructure: Southeast Mesa and Fiesta District. Citywide, 52% of respondents prefer to expand public transit to new areas.  7 travel sheds had over 50% of respondents indicate a preference to expand public transit coverage over increasing frequency and stop amenities: US 60 Corridor, Southeast Mesa, Central Mesa, Fiesta District, Falcon Field Area, Northeast Mesa, and East Mesa.  2 travel sheds (Riverview and North Central Mesa) had over 50% of respondents indicate a preference for increasing frequency and stop amenities over expanding public transit coverage: Riverview and North Central Mesa. Citywide, 48% of respondents prefer a trade-off of less connectivity but more comfortable and safer bicycle facilities.  4 travel sheds had over 50% of respondents indicate a preference for investing in more expensive bicycle facilities: Downtown Mesa, North Central Mesa, Fiesta District, and Falcon Field Area.  No travel sheds had a preference for inexpensive bike lanes with US 60 Corridor equally split between the two approaches. Citywide, 62% of respondents prefer to convert a lane to enhance/add pedestrian and bicycle facilities instead of maintaining the lane for vehicle travel.  No travel shed preferred to maintain a lane for vehicle travel.  8 of the 11 travel sheds had over 50% of respondents indicate a preference for converting a travel lane: Downtown Mesa, Riverview, Southeast Mesa, Central Mesa, North Central Mesa, Fiesta District, Falcon Field Area, and East Mesa. Mesa Transportation Master Plan •  2 travel sheds had exactly 50% of respondents prefer converting a travel lane (the rest split between “neutral” and the maintaining a travel lane): Dobson Ranch and Northeast Mesa.  A plurality of respondents in US 60 Corridor (43%) prefer the approach to converting a lane (39% prefer to maintain a lane). Two goals – “Manage and Maintain” and “Safety First” were consistently ranked as most important followed by “Connections and Choices” whereas “Anticipate and Adapt” was consistently ranked as the lowest priority for survey respondents. o “Manage and Maintain” was largely ranked the highest priority by travel shed. o Riverview, North Central Mesa, and Falcon Field Area identified “Safety First” as the top priority. Mesa Transportation Master Plan 5 Question 1: What travel shed do you live or most travel in today? Nearly half (49%) of survey respondents indicated that they spend the most time in one of three travel sheds: Southeast Mesa (20%), Downtown Mesa (16%), or East Mesa (13%). 22 people completed paper surveys, most of them represented by the East Mesa travel shed. Percentage of Online Responses by Travel Shed 20% 16% 7% 1. Downtown Mesa 2. US 60 Corridor 5% 10% 5% 3. Dobson 4. Riverview 5. Southeast 6. Central Ranch Mesa Mesa 9% 7. North Central Mesa 2% 4% 8. Fiesta District 9. Falcon Field Area 13% 9% 10. North East Mesa 11. East Mesa Percentage of Hardcopy Responses by Travel Shed 13% 1. Downtown Mesa 5% 5% 2. US 60 Corridor 3. Dobson Ranch 9% 4. Riverview 14% 5% 5. Southeast Mesa 6. Central Mesa 18% 22% 9% 7. North 10. North East 11. East Mesa Central Mesa Mesa Trade-Offs To mitigate specific transportation needs within each travel shed, there are a variety of strategies the City may take. The survey asked a series of questions to determine respondents’ preferred approach to transportation investments for specific needs from bicycle infrastructure and transit to managing demand on City roadways. For each survey question, a option for respondents to comment “neutral” was provided if they had no preference or opinion. Question 3: Meeting Capacity Needs: More Travel Lanes vs. Managing Demand – Within the travel shed what approach do you prefer to improve mobility? Manage demand with technology or by enhancing other transportation modes Neutral 47% 13% Increase capacity by adding lanes and/or other infrastructure Respondents expressed slightly higher support for managing demand with technology or enhancing other transportation modes than for increasing capacity by adding lanes. 40% Question 4: Expand Transit vs. Enhance Transit: Considering there is limited funding available for transit, what approach would you prefer to improve public transit in your travel shed? Increase frequency and stop amenities on existing popular routes Neutral Expand public transit to new areas (may result in less frequency on existing/future routes) In a cost-constrained reality, we have to make choices about how to improve transit service and how those investments might affect the quality or quantity of the existing or future service. For example, investment in high quality service 1 requires running buses more frequently where expanded geographic access to transit means that more people have access to transit in more areas. 33% 14% 53% 1 Typically defined as transit service with 15 minute or less frequency at peak hours. Respondents expressed higher support for expanding transit coverage (more people are closer to transit routes) over investing in frequency or stop amenity improvements. Question 5: Bike Lanes vs. Bike Paths: To improve cycling in that travel shed, which approach do you prefer? More expensive buffered or protected bike facilities that provide more comfort and safety but fewer miles of bike facilities 48% 22% Neutral Inexpensive bike lanes that increase connectivity (more miles of bike lanes) Nearly half (48%) of people who responded to this question (342) indicated that they prefer investment in bicycle infrastructure that prioritizes the comfort and safety of cyclists. Although a small sample size, this is the opposite of the reference indicated by people who responded to the paper survey. 30% Question 6: If a travel lane on a road was no longer needed, how would you like to see the space used? Continue maintaining the lane for vehicle travel 24% Neutral 14% Converting the lane to enhance/add pedestrian and bicycle facilities Mesa Transportation Master Plan 62% The majority (62%) of respondents prefer converting a lane over maintaining a lane for vehicle travel. The 38 point difference between the preferred approach (62% for converting a lane) and the alternative (24% for continue the status quo) is the strongest consensus among all the trade-off questions. 9 Individual Comments by Travel Shed Below are the individual responses to the open-ended survey question by Travel Shed. # of Open-Ended Responses by Travel Shed 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Southeast Mesa Downtown North Central Mesa Mesa East Mesa Central Mesa North East Mesa Dobson Ranch US 60 Corridor Falcon Field Area Riverview Fiesta District Open-Ended Survey Question Responses Question 8: What roadway improvements would you like to see in Mesa? Travel Shed Central Mesa Respondent ID 118502823998 Central Mesa Central Mesa 118443654981 118503218354 Central Mesa 118515320233 Central Mesa 118513999496 Mesa Transportation Master Plan Response Implementing cheap, low quality transit is basically a guarantee that no-one will use it, because then it sucks. It's worth it to invest in safe infrastructure that people actually WANT to use. We need to reduce the amount of cars driving in the city. Please remove truncated domes Extend the railway beyond Gilbert & Main, preferably all the way to Recker or Superstition Springs mall. I use the railway to commute to work and would love more accessibility. Get rid of the light rail!!!!! Get rid of the traffic lights at the canals!!!! Quit building apartments- too many cars on the roads!!! I was born and raised on Mesa. I used to be proud of it. Reevaluate existing lighting and sidewalks throughout the area. Increased safety for pedestrian/bicycle use would allow for less cars in neighborhoods. Mixed use retail areas could see an increase in foot traffic, improving sales. More small stores with easy access is prefered versus larger national chains. 17 Comments Submitted on the Project Website Last year I used the buses in West Mesa for several weeks. During the Day: Too many of the bus stops have no shelter from the sun, so unless you have the exact time of the bus, you will die waiting in the heat. During the day I saw many students or working folks getting to their destinations. Unfortunately, there are also too many crack-heads on the buses as well, typically arguing with the drivers or harassing other passengers, or doing some sort of ticket/pass scam. At Night: Too many of the bus stops are poorly lit and in dangerous locations. I often would stand 20-ft *away* from the bus shelter to avoid the shady activity going on there (and then dash to the bus when it arrived). But if you need drugs or sex, several stops can fulfill your needs! Also many of the routes are abbreviated at night. So I'd have to walk the last mile at 10pm on the route I'd take earlier in the day. Many of the signs at the bus shelters are damaged, defaced, or out of date. (I confirmed this with Valley Metro. The phone number to text for bus schedule was the OLD number, and they admitted that.) The bus fare was a bargain, and the drivers courteous and helpful. 1) Painting a line in the side of the street does NOT constitute a Bike Lane! It's an insult. Stop pretending Mesa is "bike friendly" or has "bike routes". 2) Who do I have to sleep with to get Mesa to fix someone of the dangerous pot-holes? Same complaints month after months; never fixed. 3) Same complaint for dead streetlights. I've given up on reporting them. The never get fixed. 4) The mid-block crossing light on Main Street between Macdonald and Robson is a DANGEROUS HAZARD (140 W Main). Poorly marked and confusing stop stop lights. Cars ROUTINELY zip thru the red light, or screech to a halt PAST the light (rather than before the crosswalk). Eventually there will be a fatality here. 5) Speeding cars on Main St (downtown area). Speed limit is 25mpg. It's a congested area with many pedestrians, but cars often exceed 45mph. (Especially Fri & Sat nights.) 6) Late evenings is a nightmare to get thru downtown Mesa. The PARKED TRAINS block traffic on most the streets (e.g. Extension, Alma School), and people are forced to back-track to Country Club Drive to the only underpass under the train tracks. 7) Excessive Jay-Walking throughout the city. Especially on (Alma School south of Main St.) (Extension & Broadway) (Country Club & Main St). Something about the design of these areas encourages Jay-Walking either against the light or outside the cross-walks. Often people trying to dash for bus stop to bus stop. Some pedestrian barriers or police enforcement is needed. 8) Light Rail platforms in downtown Mesa ROUTINELY have people jumping off the platform, crossing tracks, and jay-walking thru traffic lanes. Other cities don't have this problem. Something about the design is lacking. 9) Too many downtown events block off the streets with poorly placed traffic barricades, or confusing detours. The limited parking is even less available. 10) We understand the difference between a construction zone and an auto accident. But Mesa constantly used Red & Blue flashing lights on Police cars parked at construction zones which just adds to the confusion. (Is there an accident ahead and area to be avoided?) Flashing Yellow lights should be sufficient for construction zones. 11) Some construction projects go on forever. The same lanes are blocked and barriers left standing for months. Yet there appears to be no construction activity for weeks at a time. It's nice to see overdue repairs being made, but a tighter construction schedule would be appreciated. 12) It would be nice if the city was open FIVE days a week like normal people work. Waiting a long 3-day weekend to get some problems addressed is too long. There are a lot of existing conditions that Mesa should be very serious about establishing good data for that provides a floor for measurable improvements for its goals. Key issues involve conditions for comfort, safety, and usefulness for a variety of users. 32 Mesa Transportation Master Plan Decades of prioritizing motorist capacity has left the City of Mesa with a heavy burden of maintenance, burdens of enforcement, burdens of crashes with fatalities and serious injuries, impacts of tailpipe emissions, and burdens of expensive-toretrofit for accessibility to people experiencing a disability (or other vulnerabilities). Decades of prioritizing motorist capacity has left the people of Mesa with hostile roadway conditions to navigate on foot, bike, or rolling on small devices of all kinds, inefficient land use patterns that are burdened with excessive parking, excessive drive-thrus, excessive heat-inducing asphalt, inadequate tree shade, inadequate activity levels to maintain healthy bodies, insufficient levels of access by active transport, and excessive monetary and/or time investments of transporting themselves around to everyday destinations. Both city operations and people of Mesa would benefit from a transformational ambition to remake the roads and streets of Mesa to improve access, safety, interest, utility, comfort, and ultimately the experience of the public realm in our most underappreciated public asset: The Street. With properly designed street networks, we can improve upon all the above burdens and impacts listed. And improved experiences for people lead to curb appeal that improves the conditions for economic development, public safety, and operation/maintenance burdens. Transportation system build-out is a responsibility that is squarely on the City (unlike housing, jobs, commerce, and various land development goals via private investment). The current hellish landscape that we accept for our roadways are miserable places for an experience, with a few notable exceptions (thank you downtown!). The wrong priorities have shaped our streetscape experiences for too long. We have a huge backlog of streets to bring back to life for people, safety, redevelopment, and equitable access for all. We need clear baseline standards to improve from, and we need clear criteria to meaningfully prioritize the experience. We need to do this with as much focus as we dedicated to bringing back Downtown Mesa. The Streetcar vision must acknowledge these transformative ambitions or risk being a boondoggle of a project. And that's only the start of my list. 1. More priority lights for Bikes, Light Rail, Bus and People. Emergency vehicles can also be included in this so they do not have to turn on sirens at every stop. 2. Sidewalk widening by 6 inches. Cars only have peak 4 hours a day. Mass Transit is all day and night. Prioritize what most people will use in a city of 500k and above all day everyday, Not cars. 3. Research Dedicated Bus Lanes w photo enforcement. Emergency Vehicles can have exemption to use as well to shortcut around traffic. 4. Mass transit goals should be to connect Density of residential areas like Condos, Multifamily, connecting to density of huge popular spots like Asian District, Fiesta Mall etc with higher frequency. Than to lower frequency on low density areas like Suburbs, causing low ridership. Current system is not efficient resulting in low use because lack of frequency. 5. No park and rides because like mentioned above you are prioritizing what not many people use longer than 4 hours a day and goes unused the rest of the day, it needs to be TOD W Mixed Use Areas and absolutely NO PARKING to have Transit become important fixture of Mesa and spur ridership growth. Will end by saying Light Rail has helped Asian District attract tons of high end business from Japan to South Korea same can be done anywhere else thanks to the stop here. Mass Transit if implemented really well can attract even more business opportunities, prevent bad inequities. Look no further than any E. Asian Country. South Korea, Japan or China. Light Rail is a success, only selfish person think it's not.” More Road Diets, Bike Paths, and a focus on TOD for Mass Transit in regards to the Light Rail which i support the Light Rail. Also painted Bus Routes would be a great idea and camera enforcement as well would be beneficial to support more Mass Transit in the future. Also I do think Busses should focus on Frequency in key dense areas like Apartments and Condos to popular hub spots rather than random areas to bring efficiency and speed up. It's time to 86 the light rail. As a resident nearby I can tell you it's more trouble than it's worth and it's killing the city. Main has one lane for traffic and basically THREE lanes for the train that you can't cross and you can't pass a slower vehicle in front of you. We can all clearly see the number of people riding the train is peanuts compared to the amount of traffic that to get through. For every train rider there's at least 100 motorists traveling in that area. Local businesses are suffering for this billion dollar boondoggle. Time to tear it out and open up the city before it's too late. Young people want lanes for bicycles, scooters and E-bikes not the costly monstrosity that goes right down the middle of the road. Be a leader with a mind for what's right and toss it!! You'll save the city millions and generate so much more in commerce, it's not the way of the future and we want our city back. Mesa Transportation Master Plan 33 Connectivity of transportation alternatives is a worthy goal. It isn't enough to have bike paths, they need to be safe and connected. The Phoenix-Tempe multiuse path is a great way to commute toward downtown phoenix via bike, but it just dumps you off unsafely on Alma School Road in Mesa. Look at the MAG map, and you will see all these beautiful orange multi-use paths that are all connected...except the gauntlet between Alma School and Country Club. Paint doesn't protect cyclists, as those paths are often uneven shoulders filled with road debris and motorists driving 55mph over your shoulder. I would love to be one of those people who never got in a car again, but I don't want to die. Safe, connected, multi-use paths along the Salt River and canals in Mesa would provide a direct alternative to car-commuting and help to get people off the roadways. As someone that lives in Mesa Full Time near Dobson Ranch and Fiesta Mall, I do have ideas to move Mesa to be a transportation pioneer in the 21st century because very few cities have a place where you do not need a car to get anywhere which i am passionate about. Here is a few major plans I have envisioned for Mesa and criticisms to help make it greater within the next 25 years. 1. Like others would I like to take to go bicycling by taking my scooter E-Bike but the infrastructure is very subpar and there is zero protected Bike Lanes and even Bike Paths. Paint is not protection for cyclists and as other cities are learning Bike Lanes reduce pedestrian and cycling deaths by 50% and cycling traffic increases as does walking due to both feeling safe. 2. Red Painted Dedicated Bus Lanes. As Buses do not need to be protected like cyclists and pedestrians do. But it would help those in Cars know where Buses will be parking and not look sudden and also help Bus Drivers know where to park. 3. BRT aka Bus Rapid Transit should be considered for all hubs until more Streetcars and Light Rail is built and co-exist alongside it to help out of Trains are late. 4. Transit Orientated Development for huge hubs where Light Rail stops and also for the eventual areas where Streetcar Tempe-Mesa ends up in this city. 5. Please end parking minimums and let the market decide as not doing so will in turn cause Mesa to be more reliant on DriveThru's as I agree with the city council that Mesa deserves better than this. Parking Lots take up so much space that is hardly used and is bad land use, that better things could be built like Mixed Use Developments, Parks or even just Cycling paths. I will end off by pleading with the city of Mesa Council members and Mayor John Giles to implement these plans. This is not unreasonable, it is the future and many statistics will bear out that future generations desire freedom of transit options not restrictions of transit options. It's beneficial for the ADA, the elderly, children and serves everyone in the community equally. Online and Paper Survey 35 Mesa Transportation Master Plan 5) Bike Lanes vs Bike Paths To improve cycling in that travel shed, which approach do you prefer? (Pick one) Inexpensive bike lanes that increase connectivity - more miles of bike lanes Neutral More expensive buffered or protected bike facilities that provide more comfort and safety but less miles of bike facilities 6) If a travel lane on a road was no longer needed, how would you like to see that space used? (Pick one) Continue maintaining the lane for vehicle travel Neutral Converting the lane to enhance/add pedestrian and bicycle facilities 7) In the travel shed, rank the following by importance. Rank from 1 (most) to 6 (least) Manage and Maintain: Create a sustainable and efficient transportation system through strategic system management and preservation. Connections and Choices: Develop an integrated transportation system that provides mobility options for all modes. Thrive and Prosper: Advance equity and economic competitiveness through improved transportation access to jobs, education, services, and goods. Safety First: Develop safe and comfortable mobility options for all current and future users Anticipate and Adapt: Adapt to emerging technologies, land use changes, and mobility demands through innovation Other Improvements You Would Like to See? 5) Carriles para bicicletas vs. Caminos para bicicletas Para mejorar el ciclismo en esa subárea, ¿qué enfoque prefieres? (Elija uno) Carriles para bicicletas económicos que aumentan la conectividad: más kilómetros de carriles para bicicletas Neutral Instalaciones para bicicletas protegidas o amortiguadas más caras que brindan más comodidad y seguridad, pero menos kilometros de instalaciones para bicicletas 6) Si ya no fuera necesario un carril de automóvil, ¿cómo le gustaría que se utilizara ese espacio? (Elija uno) Continuar manteniendo el carril para circulación de vehículos. Neutral Convertir el carril para mejorar/añadir instalaciones para peatones y bicicletas 7) En el subárea, clasifique lo siguiente por importancia. Clasifique del 1 (más importante) al 6 (menos importante) Gestionar y mantener: crear un sistema de transporte sostenible y eficiente a través de la gestión y preservación estratégica del sistema. Conexiones y opciones: Desarrollar un sistema de transporte integrado que brinde opciones de movilidad para todos los modos. Prosperar y prosperar: promover la equidad y la competitividad económica a través de un mejor acceso al transporte para empleos, educación, servicios y bienes. La seguridad es lo primero: desarrollar opciones de movilidad seguras y cómodas para todos los usuarios actuales y futuros Anticipar y adaptarse: adaptarse a las tecnologías emergentes, los cambios en el uso del suelo y las demandas de movilidad a través de la innovación. Proporcione cualquier comentario adicional Phase II Online Map Comments 174. Added July 01 2023 Please extend the turning lane this is an unsafe merging area and the vehicle turning SB onto Signal Butte isn't aware of the merging traffic!! 175. Added July 01 2023 Low visibility when turning onto Signal Butte NB and SB 176. Added July 01 2023 Please consider a trail or adding access to canal biking or walking in this area. 177. Added July 01 2023 Vagrants and homeless living in tunnels 178. Added July 01 2023 Needs a bike lane and walking path on North side of roadway 179. Added July 01 2023 Speeding is commonplace for this stretch of road 180. Added July 01 2023 Speeding is commonplace for this stretch of road 181. Added July 11 2023 I am not comfortable biking or walking along Baseline Road. There is no protected bike lane alongside cars going ~50 mph. 182. Added July 11 2023 A bus rapid transit (BRT) service along Dobson would be great as it would reduce a lot of car traffic AND connect riders to the light rail on Main St 183. Added July 11 2023 Ged rid of parking lots along the light rail corridor and replace with places people can be and enjoy. A bus rapid transit service could do the job of bringing people to Main St instead of cars. 184. Mesa Tr Added July 19 2023 As the addition of businesses surrounding this intersection has grown, there have been safety concerns when driving in this area particularly with right on red situations when vehicles turn right from Southwest corner of Mckellips onto Gilbert road. I witness multiple near accidents daily due to this interference with vehicles making a U-turn from Northbound Gilbert rd to U-turn southbound (which is required for access to businesses such as Gunnel’s tire and Tutortime daycare - where many cars are in/out multiple times per day). I believe this intersection needs to be looked at and quick fixes instituted (ex. No right on red) to make it safer to keep up with the growing traffic in this area. 37 185. Added July 19 2023 Poor adherence to no right turn on red signs (despite multiple signs present). Consider adding an LED lighted “no right on red” sign to catch drivers attention better. 186. Added July 19 2023 When bus is present at bus stop area, it blocks visibility significantly to left while attempting to turn right out of the Frys parking lot - increasing risk for accident especially since it’s so close to intersection 187. Added August 09 2023 This intersection is dangerous to the canal path traffic, to those EB on Southern, and those turning left or right on 58th. 188. Added August 09 2023 Ind's from the Independent Living facility frequently jaywalk rather then using the intersection and cross walk. 189. Added August 09 2023 Light rail down to East Mesa 190. Added October 16 2023 It would be nice if there was a shaded place to sit when waiting for the Stapley northbound bus. 191. Added October 16 2023 A shaded seating area for the Northbound bus would be appreciated. 192. Added October 16 2023 For over a mile, the manhole covers in the Westbound middle lane of E McKellips Rd are as deep as potholes, only more regular. These need to be brought level with the asphalt. 193. Added October 26 2023 Eastbound lane at 80th street needs to be marked as right turn only. 194. Added November 17 2023 Let's plan for light rail to connect to the future Gateway terminal on the east side of the freeway 195. Added November 17 2023 Please make this sidewalk/intersection ADA compliant and add bike push buttons on the legs of Horne (so you don't have to get off your bike to push the crosswalk button). 196. Added November 17 2023 Would like to see bus service on Val Vista so I can go shopping at Dana Park. Mesa Transportation Master Plan 39 197. Added November 17 2023 Make street light timing in downtown mesa pedestrian friendly. The wait is too long in the summer for the lights to turn. 198. November 17 2023 Added Access needs to be wider for horses to transit (ie livestock gate) 199. November 17 2023 Added Access for horses is currently limited. 200. November 17 2023 Added Light needed for pedestrian, Bike and Horse crossing. 201. November 17 2023 Added Acacia is not a road in this area it ends at the cul-de-sac north of here 202. November 17 2023 Added Acacia circle should end here, there are no more public streets beyond this point to the south. 203. Added November 17 2023 Chestnut Circle ends at this cul-de-sac beyond it is a private drive. 204. Added November 17 2023 Narrowing of asphalt should is needed as it is more conducive to horse transit with quarter minus DG. Narrower shoulders assist with speed reduction. 205. Added November 17 2023 reduce asphalt shoulder 206. Added November 17 2023 Needs a sign indicating horse trailer entry and parking. 207. November 19 2023 I agree with the other two commentary observing the large, dangerous bumps on these flyover ramps. Please consider smoothing them out. 208. Added November 19 2023 Please consider working with ADOT to bring back transit signal priority along the Country Club Bus Route (112). I know this used to be a LINK BRT-esque line that had it. Mesa Transportation Master Plan 41 209. Added January 02 2024 Please connect Crismon to provide easier access from the South to the North 210. Added January 03 2024 There is a school light just after Alma School (going east) on University which is being hidden by tree growth. This is just one of many signs in Mesa I've seen that could cause accidents because signs have become obscured by tree/plant growth. 211. Added January 03 2024 This span of Longmore -- from University to Main -- has a number of "rain gutters" which cross intersections. These have not been raised as the road has been re-paved and the difference in road height has people traveling <5mph down a road with speed bumps advising 20mph as a top limit. People have started swinging their car to the parking edge to avoid the big divots, creating some confusion as to what the driver is doing. (Obviously this behavior is not correct, but the problem causing it needs addressing.) 212. Added January 03 2024 This intersection needs leveling due to re-paving because the rain gutters crossing the street are so much lower. There are already speed-bumps on this road, so this cannot be a speed issue. Can grates be installed over these divots? They would still allow rain water to flow, while leveling the road for a car / bike / scooter. 213. Added January 05 2024 Canal should be lit up like downtown Scottsdale 214. Added January 05 2024 More police patrolling this area- people use Mesa dr as a race track day and night 215. Added January 09 2024 Do not connect Crismon. The traffic corridor is Elliot and this is where semi traffic is suppose to route through. There are too many schools in this location to have to deal with that. 216. Added January 09 2024 Stop light here. 217. Added January 09 2024 Place two turn lanes on East Guadalupe to North Signal Butte and place a turn arrow for this. 218. Added January 09 2024 Very difficult to view on coming traffic with the way the entrance is set up coming into Legacy. When cars line up to pull into the parking lot, those vehicles trying to leave after having picked up their students have a very limited view due to the line of cars trying to get in. Makes it very hard to see around the vehicles and pull out safely. 219. Added January 09 2024 The layout of this parking lot entrance is wonky. If there are 2-3 cars attempting to leave this parking lot and waiting at the light to turn left, no vehicles are able to pull up to the right side and pull out heading North on Crismon as those in the left turn lane are blocking those trying to turn right. Then if 3-4 people are waiting to pull out at this light, no one can pull into the lot due to those cars sitting and waiting to leave. The wonky angle at which this parking lot entrance was designed causes these issues. 220. Added January 09 2024 Speed bumps through here. Not sure if this is a City of Mesa thing, but with the building of the apartments, hotels, restaurant, people already drive through here too fast, and the addition of the aforementioned buildings will cause an even bigger issue with speed. This building is full of Infants-13year old's and speeding through here is too dangerous. Mesa Transportation Master Plan 43 221. Added January 09 2024 Speed humps through here, as families cut through here to get back onto Guadalupe after pulling out of Legacy school. Families are not able to turn left onto Signal Butte. 222. Added January 09 2024 Speed humps through here, as families cut through here to get back onto Guadalupe after pulling out of Legacy school. Families are not able to turn left onto Signal Butte. 223. Added January 09 2024 Speeding is commonplace for this area. 224. Added January 09 2024 Speeding is commonplace for this stretch of road. 225. Added January 09 2024 School zone speed limit notification lights (Blinking signal light informing drivers of school zone) There needs to be additional blinking notice lights added both NB and SB as too many people speed through the school zone. 226. Added January 15 2024 Main St., the 3 lane roads East and West conditions from Power Rd to Apache Junction are horrible! Been here 20 years and the roads have gotten worse. The lanes are so bumpy and ruin your alignment on your vehicle. 227. Added February 01 2024 Speed Control. Please consider Speed bumps and lower the speed limit withing residential comminuties. 25 mph is too fast 228. Added February 01 2024 Please lower the speed limit or provide traffic control. 25 MPH is too fast for neighborhoods 229. Added February 01 2024 Speed Control. Please consider Speed bumps and lower the speed limit within residential communities. 25 mph is too fast 230. Added February 01 2024 Lower the speed limit or provide traffic control and a bike lane 231. Added February 01 2024 PLEASE ADD A CROSSWALK :) 232. Added February 01 2024 Would be nice to have a traffic light installed Mesa Transportation Master Plan 45 233. Added February 01 2024 Please add an arrow at this light 234. Added February 01 2024 Need sidewalks and bike lanes, very dangerous 235. Added February 01 2024 Broadway East of elsworth NB and SB & Broadway west of Signal Butte Needs sidewalks and/or bike lanes, it's a very dangerous stretch of roadway 236. Added February 01 2024 Urban camping or trash and debris under bridge 46 Mesa Transportation Master Plan Feedback Received On Poster Boards At The Urban Labs In-Person Events 47 Mesa Transportation Master Plan Focus Group Meeting Summaries 48 Mesa Transportation Master Plan City of Mesa 2050 Transportation Master Plan What approach do you prefer to improve vehicle congestion and mobility? (Slido) • • • 75% - Manage demand with technology or by enhancing other transportation modes 25% - Increase capacity by adding lanes and/or other infrastructure 0% - Neutral To improve cycling in the City, which approach do you prefer? • • • 100% - More expensive buffered or protected bike facilities that provide more comfort and safety. (Expensive and fewer miles of bike facilities) 0% - Inexpensive striped bike lanes that increase connectivity (more bike lane miles) 0% - Neutral If a travel lane on a road was no longer needed, how would you like to see that space used? • • • 100% - Converting the lane to enhance/add pedestrian and bicycle facilities 0 % - Continue maintaining the lane for vehicle travel 0% - Neutral What transportation investments would you most like to see (Rank 1 to 6 with 1 most desired)? This question had 4 participants. 2|Page City of Mesa 2050 Transportation Master Plan 3. Transportation Master Plan Elements a. Street Typologies b. Complete Networks Do you have any concerns about this new approach (creating street typologies and complete networks)? • • Are you factoring in access to shade in your plan? If we have active transportation infrastructure how do we get people safely and comfortably between their destinations o Response: We can incorporate guidance from City of Mesa Sustainability departments, otherwise will follow standard guidance. Gilbert had a shade structure plan that we incorporated into a similar TMP effort. The ROW could be used for other amenities and low impact development such as stormwater, landscaping, shade, placemaking 4. Open Discussion Are there any unique transportation challenges or investment ideas we should consider for a specific travel shed? • • Mike – SE Mesa community expressed concerns about speeding; they want connections to parks, open space, regional canals. Prop 400 E on the ballot has long term improvement plans for the US 60 Corridor. This creates opportunity for City. Elisha – Lehi community (urban living meets country life) in North Central Mesa. Important to them to have trails and equestrian activity functionally and visually (e.g. placemaking). Elisha can be point of contact to that community. 3|Page City of Mesa 2050 Transportation Master Plan Within your department, are there things the TMP needs to consider? (e.g. Maintenance constraints/issues, challenges, upcoming plans/projects, etc) • • • • Elisha – Outreach should be inclusive of the diverse population (Spanish speaking population, Asian community). Connect with Elisha to strategize. Andrea – We point to the TMP to how we are being equitable in our approaches (meeting federal requirements). ADA is also a priority. Stacy – can pose this question to their team / leadership to get a deeper understanding Denise – can pose this question to their team / leadership to get a deeper understanding Other • • Can you share what you are doing to assess technology? o Response: Doing emerging technology assessment – existing conditions, best practices, identifying the technology that is most realistic to be used in mesa in short term and what policies would need to be in place to set Mesa up to leverage the technology. Mark – Consider connecting with operations and maintenance departments directly to solicit feedback 5. Next Steps Public engagement website www.MesaTMP.com is live with a survey and online map (users can drop pins). Please distribute this information to boost awareness and input. 4|Page City of Mesa 2050 Transportation Master Plan o o o o • Mesa Chamber of Commerce: Has City considered TOD parking reductions in the downtown? This has worked in developments in Tempe and encouraged LRT and bus use. SE Mesa businesses need transit badly. Lehi: Repurposing unused lanes for pedestrians, bike, and equestrian use would be more desirable for mass transit. Chicanos Por La Causa: Country Club Road from US60 to University has terrible congestion both ways Washington Escobedo: I'd also love to see more parts of the city connected via consistent mass transit. I think the cost-free bus services are a good start, and I'm intrigued by things I've heard regarding connecting west Mesa to the Tempe Street car. What would your ideal vision for mobility in Mesa include (Free Response) o o o Keo – I would like to see dedicated horse trails throughout Lehi. We are the largest horse community in the state. Chicanos Por La Causa – Analysis of company telecommuting policies which could potentially lessen traffic; working with ADOT for future plans and connectivity Lehi – horse transit doesn’t burn fossil fuels! 3. Transportation Master Plan Elements Overview of street typologies and complete networks. 4. Open Discussion Are there any unique transportation challenges or investment ideas we should consider for a specific travel shed? • • • Washington Escobedo: in downtown, because main street has become single road (due to LRT) University and Broadway are experiencing substantial increase in volume including semis/etc. To get to downtown we have to cross University and it can feel really dangerous for vulnerable road users especially during peak hour. Chicanos Por La Causa – what areas are prone to future development? How do MAG and ADOT fit in? Response: The proposition 400E project list is a collaboration of organizations including MAG/ADOT. Input like this helps us prioritize the implementation order of that project list. 2|Page City of Mesa 2050 Transportation Master Plan 5. Next Steps Public engagement website www.MesaTMP.com is live with a survey and online map (users can drop pins). Please distribute this information to boost awareness and input. 3|Page City of Mesa 2050 Transportation Master Plan ATTACHMENT #1 SLIDO RESULTS 4|Page City of Mesa 2050 Transportation Master Plan 5|Page City of Mesa 2050 Transportation Master Plan 6|Page City of Mesa 2050 Transportation Master Plan 7|Page City of Mesa 2050 Transportation Master Plan I would walk or bike more if…. • Safer streets, fewer drivers on cell phones. • More pedestrian friendly roads • There was more connectivity of Trails and paths. Horseback riding should be included in the considerations for bike and pedestrian trails. • Feel safe walking or biking, especially at night. More shade to walk. • I were younger • More shade • I lived closer What would your ideal vision for mobility in Mesa include? • Better enforcement of traffic violations; make busses feel safer; have a trail system like through Gilbert with paths, shade, electric bike chargers and hydration station; incentify [sic] non vehicle use (rather than penalizing them). • Multimodal to southeast valley while maintaining vehicle connectivity everywhere. • Connectivity with trails and use paths throughout the city, well maintained roads with construction being completed quickly, a light rail system where users feel safe to use. • Gradually diminishing car use in and near downtown, to help mitigate heat island effects and help increase safety for pedestrians and bikes. I’d also love for different parts of East, North, and Southeast Mesa to be better connect to our downtown • Flexibility increased valley metro connections • Shorter travel times that connect population and job centers. • mix of telecommuting and Valley Metro 8|Page City of Mesa 2050 Transportation Master Plan o o o o • Tempe: political power doesn’t seem there yet for reallocating space. Had to re-establish a lane that was removed on McClintock after pushback. We are investing in high capacity transit studies to prepare for long range where political will catches up. Gilbert: it’s hard to imagine a scenario in which we wouldn’t need a lane. It seems like locations where we would reduce a lane and could build a bike lane, we don’t have the ridership because of the density and vice versa where we would have ridership we are built out. Mike James – simple improvements like bike signal push buttons can go a long way that isn’t just lane focused Mark – Trying to keep “visioning hat” on to look toward future planning even as we find the current environment challenging to make these type of lane conversions. How is your city/agency prioritizing transportation investments? (Rank 1 to 6 with 1 most desired)? 3. Transportation Master Plan Elements a. Street Typologies b. Complete Networks 4. Open Discussion Are there unique design practices your agency has been integrating (i.e. placemaking, shade, etc)? • • Tempe: Working on shade canopy in upcoming Resiliency Master Plan. Working to reduce heat island effect. Traffic calming initiatives integrate local art, adding sharrows to bike lanes. Have requirements for development services (required tree canopy, etc) to manage street frontages for new development which makes this more site specific. Tempe also in process of updating General Plan and addressing design guidelines. No internal standards for pedestrian placemaking internally (reference things like ADA plan, climate action plan). Mike James – other cities I’ve worked with, we developed street typologies based on two aspects (1) what is the movement desired based on type of street e.g principle arterials (2) and what does destinations does it service - what kind of place is it (industrial, neighborhood connections, downtown, special district) What technologies has your agency been experiencing and how are you handling them (e.g. Micromobility, telecommuting, urban air mobility, smart traffic signals)? • Gilbert – working through micromobility policy and seeing decrease of use of shared scooters but seeing an increase in personal ownership as privately owned devices become more affordable. Will need to adjust policy to address this shift in the market. • Queen Creek – council updated policy – led by police chief - for micromobility. Writing study for micromobility in Queen Creek. 5. Next Steps Public engagement website www.MesaTMP.com is live with a survey and online map (users can drop pins). Please distribute this information to boost awareness and input. 2|Page City of Mesa 2050 Transportation Master Plan ATTACHMENT #1: SLIDO RESULTS 3|Page City of Mesa 2050 Transportation Master Plan 4|Page City of Mesa 2050 Transportation Master Plan 5|Page City of Mesa 2050 Transportation Master Plan 6|Page City of Mesa 2050 Transportation Master Plan Participants were asked the following questions via the interactive survey poll Slido. Results from the live exercise are provided as an attachment to this agenda. A summary of any discussion that followed each question is provided if that additional conversation occurred. • • Select the way you travel most in Mesa today. (Select 2) In one or two words how would you describe transportation in Mesa today? o Ryan Hudson – seeing a lot of competing demands on the system such as walking and biking which leads to competing requests for improvements. • What is your biggest challenge when driving? o • Forrest – selected “too close to people biking on roads”; mainly on the single-lane Mesa Dr east toward Gilbert (along LRT). Observed that some riders on the corridor will travel both in bike lanes and the vehicle lane, causing traffic to slow significantly. What approach do you prefer to improve vehicle congestion and mobility? o Maria – It really depends. If roadway is interim where you know you’ll build capacity then you know you’ll add lanes. But if you know the road is built-out then that determines your strategy of technology to manage demand. • To improve cycling in the City, which approach [more bike lanes, less protection; fewer bike lanes, more protection] do you prefer? • If a travel lane on a road was no longer needed, how would you like to see that space used? • What transportation investments would you most like to see (Rank 1 to 6 with 1 being most desired) 3. Transportation Master Plan Elements a. Street Typologies b. Complete Networks o Maria - Based on some Dutch and Canadian research for true traffic calming & multimodal & road topology to work, the psychology of drivers and biker, they need to go from slow to faster network within 6 minutes. Are we using something similar? There needs to be a justification for why slower typologies link to others, and the areas that are concentrated on.  Response: As we evaluate street typologies, we could consider how to incorporate that into analysis. We currently have not included that. 4. Open Discussion Are there unique transportation challenges or investment ideas we should consider for a specific travel shed? o Shawn Alexander  As we add infrastructure for other vehicles like bikes, want to make sure we are keeping in mind min roadway widths to base fire code to ensure emergency access (can follow up with these details); historically, eg Fiesta district, made tradeoffs to add space for peds or light rail (main street) and it went down to one lane. From a fire dept POV that limits our ability to use those roadways for emergency response. Very dependent upon the street and context. East Market is an example of where exceptions were make to the fire code and it made it really difficult to operate on. Illegal parking exacerbates problem.  https://fire.mesaaz.gov/residents/fire-medical/fire-prevention/fire-details 2|Page City of Mesa 2050 Transportation Master Plan Some areas can accommodate certain traffic calming treatments where others do not; current policy is to limit speed humps/cushions because they have significant brake/acceleration impacts to a fire truck. We work closely with transportation in City to address concerns and areas. Stephanie Derivan – Vehicles are required to be at least 3’ away from cyclists. Roadway widths need to accommodate this requirement. Speed is a prominent problem in collisions and traffic calming is important. Construction creates issues and rear -end collisions; this year, motorcyclists have made up significant fatal injuries; adding Ped hybrid beacons could be helpful in higher pedestrian collision areas such as Dobson Rd. Impairment is also a factor in many crashes.  o o Deryl Smith - Are greening the infrastructure, landscaping, a part of the plan? How does public pressure to shade/cool the environment play into the plan? Green vs. the ROW availability  Response: We are working with City to determine how we can incorporate shade guidance into this plan. o Rachel Butler - In line with the Mesa Climate Action Plan and the 1,000,000 tree initiative, it would be great to see trees and shade features included in the plan to help mitigate heat exposure.  Response: Yes, we are looking at how best to integrate shading as part of the street typology guidance. 5. Next Steps Public engagement website www.MesaTMP.com is live with a survey and online map (users can drop pins). Please distribute this information to boost awareness and input. 3|Page City of Mesa 2050 Transportation Master Plan 4|Page City of Mesa 2050 Transportation Master Plan 5|Page City of Mesa 2050 Transportation Master Plan ATTACHMENT #1: SLIDO RESULTS 6|Page APPENDIX G Transportation Advisory Board Meeting Slido Results 49 Mesa Transportation Master Plan MesaTAB 14 Nov - 30 Nov 2023 Poll results Table of contents 1. What transportation investments would you most like to see? 2: What approach do you prefer to improve vehicle congestion and mobility 3: To improve cycling in the City, which approach do you prefer? 4: Considering there is limited transit funding, would you prefer? 5: If a travel lane on a road was no longer needed, how would you like to see that space used? Multiple-choice poll 2: What approach do you prefer to improve vehicle congestion and mobility 0 0 9 Increase capacity by adding lanes and/or other infrastructure 44 % Neutral 11 % Manage demand with technology or by enhancing other transportation modes 44 % Multiple-choice poll 3: To improve cycling in the City, which approach do you prefer? 0 0 9 Inexpensive striped bike lanes that increase connectivity - more miles of bike lanes 11 % Neutral 0% More expensive buffered or protected bike facilities that provide more comfort and safety – are expensive. Less miles of bike facilities 89 % Multiple-choice poll 4: Considering there is limited transit funding, would you prefer? 0 0 9 Expand public transit to new areas - may result in less frequency on existing/future routes 33 % Neutral 22 % Increase frequency and stop amenities on existing popular routes 44 % Multiple-choice poll 5: If a travel lane on a road was no longer needed, how would you like to see that space used? 0 0 9 Continue maintaining the lane for vehicle travel 11 % Neutral 0% Converting the lane to enhance/add pedestrian and bicycle facilities 89 % TMP 2050 APPENDIX F. MESA TRANSIT MASTER PLAN 2050 MESA TRANSIT MASTER PLAN 2050 MAY 2024 MESA TRANSIT MASTER PLAN 2050 Source: City of Mesa CONTENTS Introduction......................................................................................................................................6 Our Vision Framework.....................................................................................................................8 Transit Today ................................................................................................................................10 Community Engagement...............................................................................................................22 Needs and Gaps...........................................................................................................................27 Transit Tomorrow...........................................................................................................................32 Transit-Supportive Strategies........................................................................................................43 Implementation .............................................................................................................................46 Conclusion.....................................................................................................................................49 Figures Figure 1. Mesa’s Transit Network Today�����������������������������������������������������������11 Figure 2. Light Rail Ridership in Mesa��������������������������������������������������������������13 Figure 3. Bus Stop Ridership in Mesa���������������������������������������������������������������15 Figure 4. BUZZ Circulators��������������������������������������������������������������������������������18 Figure 5. Mesa Transit Plan Community Engagement Efforts���������������������������23 Figure 6. Transit Propensity������������������������������������������������������������������������������29 Figure 7. Future Employment Density and Major Employers����������������������������31 Figure 8. Example Microtransit Vehicle�������������������������������������������������������������33 Figure 9. Needs Evaluation Process�����������������������������������������������������������������35 Figure 10. Recommendation Phasing���������������������������������������������������������������36 Figure 11. Short-Term Plan��������������������������������������������������������������������������������38 Figure 12. Mid-Term Plan����������������������������������������������������������������������������������40 Figure 13. Long-Term Plan��������������������������������������������������������������������������������42 Figure 14.Valley Metro Mobile App��������������������������������������������������������������������43 Figure 15. Example Mobility Hub����������������������������������������������������������������������44 Figure 16. MesaCONNECTED TOD Study�������������������������������������������������������45 Figure 17. Example of a Complete Street���������������������������������������������������������45 Figure 18. ADA Paratransit Areas by Phase������������������������������������������������������47 Tables Table 1. Local Bus Routes Frequency...............................................................14 Table 2. Transit Recommendations...................................................................34 Table 3. Short-Term Plan Transit Recommendations........................................37 Table 4. Mid-Term Plan Transit Recommendations...........................................39 Table 5. Long-Term Plan Transit Recommendations.........................................41 Table 6. Estimated New Bus Stops...................................................................46 3 Source: City of Mesa MESA TRANSIT MASTER PLAN 2050 Basic Terms Arterial street A major thoroughfare used for through traffic Capital costs Costs for long-term assets like buildings, vehicles, benches, or other purchases Circulator bus A bus operating in a closed loop to serve an area (like Downtown or a specific neighborhood) that connects to major corridors Corridor Defined area following a street or rail guideway Demand-response Type of transit where shared vehicles alter their routes during each journey based on rider locations and requested drop-offs Express bus A bus that operates for some portion of the route without stops or with very limited stops Fixed-route Service is provided on a regular and fixed-schedule basis along a consistent route Frequency Time between trips (also called headway) Guideway Surface used for travel, such as a street or train tracks High-capacity transit Transit mode using vehicles with a higher capacity than traditional bus, typically paired with exclusive lanes or right-of-way, signal priority, and upgraded stations Light rail Electric railway using specific light rail vehicles along dedicated tracks with level passenger boarding and fixed stations. Generally larger with more spaced out stations than streetcar Multimodal Using or involving more than one mode of transportation, like walking to a bus stop or driving to a park and ride facility Off-peak Non-rush periods of the day when travel activity and demand is generally lower Paratransit Comparable transportation service required by the Americans with Disabilities Act for persons with disabilities unable to use fixedroute bus service Peak Morning and afternoon times when travel and demand is highest Public transit Method of group travel using technologies like buses and trains available to members of the public Micromobility Use of small, lightweight personal vehicles like electric scooters or bicycles Ridership The number of rides taken by people in a given time period Streetcar (modern) Electric railway using modern streetcar vehicles along shared or dedicated tracks with level passenger boarding and fixed stations. Generally smaller with more closely spaced stops compared to light rail Transit-oriented development Type of development linking transit facilities to land use, typically includes housing and retail services Trip A time-specific journey taken by a person or vehicle 4 MESA TRANSIT MASTER PLAN 2050 Abbreviations ADA Americans with Disabilities Act ADOT Arizona Department of Transportation CFD Community Facility District CIG Capital Investment Grant EV Electric Vehicle FRA Federal Rail Administration FTA Federal Transit Administration FY Fiscal year HOV High-occupancy vehicle ID Improvement District LRT Light rail transit LTAF Local Transportation Assistance Fund MaaS Mobility-as-a-Service MAG Maricopa Association of Governments MYC Mayor’s Youth Committee NOFO Notice of Funding Opportunity PTF Public Transit Fund TLCP Transit Life Cycle Program TMP Transit Master Plan TOD Transit-oriented development VLT Vehicle License Tax 5 MESA TRANSIT MASTER PLAN 2050 INTRODUCTION The City of Mesa Transit Master Plan (TMP) is a 25-year plan designed to meet the needs of the city for both the short and long term. The TMP is the result of extensive analysis and identification of current gaps and future needs. The TMP reflects input from community members, local leaders, and other key stakeholders to propose a vision for transit that will best serve Mesa residents. The state of transit in Mesa today is described here in the plan, including all modes that make up Mesa’s system as well as essential facilities like bus stops and transit centers. The plan also includes a summary of anticipated population and employment growth, land use trends, and identifies key destinations that should be served by transit. Using this analysis, transit recommendations were developed and organized into phased plans to create visions for the short-term, mid-term, and long-term. Finally, transit does not operate in a vacuum. Transit-supportive strategies are documented here to use technology, urban design, and policy to make transit work even better in Mesa. Source: City of Mesa INTRODUCTION VISION TRANSIT TODAY COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT NEEDS AND GAPS TRANSIT TOMORROW STRATEGIES IMPLEMENTATION CONCLUSION 6 MESA TRANSIT MASTER PLAN 2050 Why a Transit Master Plan? The goal of the Transit Master Plan is to develop a framework for future transit services in Mesa based on productivity, application of emerging transit technologies, assessment of potential new transit markets, and in coordination with other modal opportunities such as pedestrian, bicycle, and automobile. The plan acts as a guide for phased investment in Mesa’s transit system that works in conjunction with other planning efforts both locally and regionally. The TMP is needed to ensure that the transit network responds to growth and change, provides connection to significant activity centers, and maintains a strong link to the regional network. The TMP works together with Mesa’s Transportation Master Plan, a vision for the future of the city’s transportation network for all modes and users. Together, the Transportation Master Plan and the Transit Master Plan feed into the overall Mesa General Plan. The General Plan is an overarching policy document that provides guidance on development, land use, transportation, open space and recreation, cultural amenities, the environment, and city services through 2050. INTRODUCTION VISION TRANSIT TODAY COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT NEEDS AND GAPS TRANSIT TOMORROW STRATEGIES IMPLEMENTATION CONCLUSION 7 MESA TRANSIT MASTER PLAN 2050 OUR VISION FRAMEWORK The City of Mesa Transit Services’ mission is to collaborate with regional partners to provide innovative, safe, and efficient transit options that support mobility, accessibility, and economic vitality for community members. The goal of the TMP is to develop a transit network so that Mesa residents and visitors have mobility options within the city and region to access significant employment/activity centers and residential areas. VISION “Support a reliable, productive, and well-connected multimodal transit system that fosters economic growth, diversity, and inclusiveness for the City of Mesa.” GOALS Safety and Reliability Mobility and Accessibility Connectivity Productivity Sustainability Provide an equitable transit system that provides mobility and access to all residents in the City of Mesa. Connect the City with neighboring communities and destinations with strong links to the regional transit network. Construct and manage the transit system, infrastructure, and transit operations efficiently with a high degree of transparency. Improve the quality of life and support future development in the City of Mesa through sustainable transit improvements and infrastructure. INTRODUCTION VISION TRANSIT TODAY COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT NEEDS AND GAPS TRANSIT TOMORROW STRATEGIES Improve rider comfort as well as the operational safety and reliability of transit services. IMPLEMENTATION CONCLUSION 8 MESA TRANSIT MASTER PLAN 2050 The department aims to serve the public by planning, operating, and maintaining a high-quality transit system. This is achieved through three primary components: • Enhancing mobility, reduce traffic congestion, promote sustainable transportation options, and improve the overall quality of life. • Offering safe and affordable transit options that connect people to employment centers, educational institutions, healthcare facilities, shopping areas, and other key destinations within Mesa and the surrounding areas. • Addressing the needs of vulnerable populations, promoting equity and supporting economic development through transit service. Five goals support this vision, each with corresponding objectives: Mobility and Accessibility • Expand transit service in the community. • Incorporate new and emerging mobility solutions into the existing transit system. • Support regional initiatives to reduce technological and financial barriers to better allow disadvantaged groups access to transit services. Connectivity • Increase opportunities for riders to transfer between regionally connected services and other transportation modes. • Invest transit capital funding in facilities that advance regional economic vitality and development strategies. • Educate and inform about the City of Mesa transit services to help better use the system. INTRODUCTION VISION TRANSIT TODAY COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT Productivity • Improve operational efficiencies by focusing resources on the most productive services. • Advocate for cutting-edge technologies to modernize the existing service operations and infrastructure and evaluate emerging transit market needs within the City. • Share key performance indicators relative to benchmarks to increase transparency for service changes. • Improve operational efficiencies by leveraging outside resources. Safety and Reliability • Improve bus stop amenities with an emphasis on rider security and comfort. • Support initiatives that bolster rider trust in transit schedules by improving on-time performance and providing real-time rider information. • Improve communication with users during emergencies and service disruptions to ensure timely and effective sharing of information. • Mitigate transit-related safety and security risks to minimize the frequency and severity of incidents. Sustainability • Transition to a low/no-emission transit fleet and infrastructure to improve health outcomes in environmentally susceptible areas. • Build financially sustainable assets while prioritizing the preservation, maintenance, and enhancement of the existing transit system. • Provide quality and attractive service that serves to reduce singleoccupancy-vehicle miles traveled by making transit a more viable travel option. • Leverage transit investments and steer the development of land use to bolster economic growth. • Increase shade at bus stops to mitigate the heat island effect. NEEDS AND GAPS TRANSIT TOMORROW STRATEGIES IMPLEMENTATION CONCLUSION 9 MESA TRANSIT MASTER PLAN 2050 TRANSIT TODAY Mesa’s transit network, as shown in Figure 1, contains a diverse set of modes to meet the wide range of residents’ travel needs. Light rail provides high-capacity service along Main Street, connecting Mesa to Tempe and Phoenix. Local bus service forms the backbone of the city’s overall network, with both regional routes that stretch to neighboring communities and local routes providing intracity connectivity. Express buses quickly move passengers from strategic parkand-ride facilities to major employment and activity hubs and BUZZ circulators in two busy districts provide neighborhood access to major bus routes and light rail. Mesa also provides two types of services for residents with disabilities that prevent them from accessing regular local bus routes- ADA Paratransit and RideChoice. Types of Transit in Mesa Light Rail Local Bus Express Bus BUZZ Circulators ADA Paratransit RideChoice Source: City of Mesa INTRODUCTION VISION TRANSIT TODAY COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT NEEDS AND GAPS TRANSIT TOMORROW STRATEGIES IMPLEMENTATION CONCLUSION 10 MESA TRANSIT MASTER PLAN 2050 Figure 1. Mesa’s Transit Network Today INTRODUCTION VISION TRANSIT TODAY COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT NEEDS AND GAPS TRANSIT TOMORROW STRATEGIES IMPLEMENTATION CONCLUSION 11 MESA TRANSIT MASTER PLAN 2050 Light Rail Light rail transit (LRT) is a type of passenger rail service characterized by electric-powered transit vehicles that operate along a rail guideway. LRT service provide riders with more frequent service and faster travel times when compared to buses. LRT is generally, but not always, at the street level, and it often has its own guideway (travel lane). LRT has a higher capacity compared to regular bus or streetcar vehicles and uses dedicated stations along the route, often with seating and shade structures. Valley Metro operates the regional LRT system which provides service to Phoenix, Tempe, and Mesa. Figure 2 shows the LRT route in Mesa. Branded as Valley Metro Rail, the LRT service operates Monday – Sunday and provides 15-minute peak and 20-minute off-peak service for eastbound and westbound travel. As of May 2024, the base fare for local service is $2.00 for a single ride or $4.00 for a 1-day pass. 6 1 Miles of LRT in Mesa LRT route OVER 1.3M Passengers for FY 2023 Mesa includes approximately six miles of LRT which connects major destinations within Mesa, such as the Mekong Plaza, major grocery retailers, Downtown Mesa, and Pioneer Park. For fiscal year (FY) 2023, over 1.3 million passengers rode the LRT in Mesa. Top three LRT stations by ridership (FY 2023): • Gilbert Road/Main Street • Sycamore Road/Main Street • Alma School Road/Main Street Source: City of Mesa INTRODUCTION VISION TRANSIT TODAY COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT NEEDS AND GAPS TRANSIT TOMORROW STRATEGIES IMPLEMENTATION CONCLUSION 12 MESA TRANSIT MASTER PLAN 2050 Figure 2. Light Rail Ridership in Mesa INTRODUCTION VISION TRANSIT TODAY COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT NEEDS AND GAPS TRANSIT TOMORROW STRATEGIES IMPLEMENTATION CONCLUSION 13 MESA TRANSIT MASTER PLAN 2050 Local Bus Local bus service is a fixed-route transit service with established schedules for weekday and weekend service. Local buses serve bus stops that are typically located every ¼-mile along an established route. Bus stops can have amenities like seating and shelters or can simply be marked with a signpost that shows route information like the route number and direction of travel. In Mesa, the local bus service operates as part of the Valley Metro regional transit system, crossing city boundaries and offering a uniform fare structure across the region. Mesa is served by 14 local bus routes, as shown in Figure 3. Local bus service is available Monday - Sunday. As of May 2024, the base fare for local service is $2.00 for a single ride or $4.00 for a 1-day pass. Source: Valley Metro Table 1. Local Bus Routes Frequency 14 6.3K OVER 2.1M Frequency (Minutes) Local bus routes in Mesa Route Name Average weekday boardings (FY 2023) Annual passengers for FY 2023 Top three local bus routes by ridership (FY 2023): • Route 112 (Country Club Drive) • Route 40 (Main Street) • Route 61 (Southern Avenue) Table 1 shows the frequencies for each of Mesa’s local bus routes. With the exception of four high-frequency routes, the majority of local routes operate every 30 minutes. Route 108 (Elliot Road) operates on a 60 minute frequency on weekends, as does Route 184 (Power Road). While Route 30 (University Drive) provides service every 30 minutes on Saturdays, Sunday service is provided every 60 minutes. All other routes operate every 30 minutes. INTRODUCTION VISION Weekday TRANSIT TODAY COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT NEEDS AND GAPS Saturday Peak Off-Peak 30-University Drive 30 30 60 40-Main Street 15 30 30 45-Broadway Road 15 30 30 61-Southern Avenue 15 30 30 77-Baseline Road 30 30 30 96-Dobson Road 30 30 30 104-Alma School Road 30 30 30 108-Elliot Rd/ 48th Street 30 60 60 112-Country Club Drive / Arizona Avenue 15 30 30 120-Mesa Drive 30 30 30 128-Stapley Drive 30 30 30 136-Gilbert Road 30 30 30 156-Chandler Boulevard / Williams Field Road 15 30 30 184-Power Road 30 60 60 IMPLEMENTATION CONCLUSION TRANSIT TOMORROW STRATEGIES 14 MESA TRANSIT MASTER PLAN 2050 Figure 3. Bus Stop Ridership in Mesa INTRODUCTION VISION TRANSIT TODAY COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT NEEDS AND GAPS TRANSIT TOMORROW STRATEGIES IMPLEMENTATION CONCLUSION 15 MESA TRANSIT MASTER PLAN 2050 Express Bus Express bus service is designed to reduce travel time by making a limited number of stops before entering a freeway for non-stop travel to employment centers in downtown Phoenix. On the freeway, Express buses travel in high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes and use HOV entrance and exit ramps where available. Express buses often serve park-and-ride and transit facilities, in addition to the limited stops along the route. Mesa is served by three Express bus routes that operate during the peak commute hours on weekdays. Express bus service is available Monday – Friday. As of May 2024, the base fare for express routes is $3.25 for a single ride or $6.50 for a 1-day pass. 3 47K OVER Express bus routes in Mesa Annual boardings (FY 2023) Increase in annual passengers between FY 2022 and FY 2023 2x Express routes by ridership (FY 2023): • Route 533 (Mesa Express) • Route 535 (Northeast Mesa Express) • Route 531 (Mesa/Gilbert Express) Source: City of Mesa INTRODUCTION VISION TRANSIT TODAY COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT NEEDS AND GAPS TRANSIT TOMORROW STRATEGIES IMPLEMENTATION CONCLUSION 16 MESA TRANSIT MASTER PLAN 2050 BUZZ Circulators BUZZ is a neighborhood circulator service. Neighborhood circulators operate with a smaller 30-foot vehicle compared to the 40-foot vehicle operating on local bus routes. The BUZZ circulator routes are short routes aimed at connecting local routes in a specific neighborhood, augmenting regular local bus service. BUZZ circulators stop at existing bus stops along major roads. Both BUZZ routes use existing bus stops and stop approximately every ¼-mile or less. Mesa transit services provide two routes, the Downtown BUZZ and the Fiesta BUZZ, shown in Figure 4. BUZZ service is available Monday to Friday on a 30-minute frequency for weekday service and 60-minute for Saturday service. The Downtown BUZZ route connects the Mesa Riverview shopping center to Downtown Mesa and provides service to the Mesa Grande neighborhood. The Fiesta BUZZ route connects the Mesa Riverview shopping center with the Fiesta District. As of May 2024, BUZZ service is free. 2 BUZZ routes in Mesa 171K Annual boardings (FY 2023) 2022 New Fiesta BUZZ route Source: City of Mesa INTRODUCTION VISION TRANSIT TODAY COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT NEEDS AND GAPS TRANSIT TOMORROW STRATEGIES IMPLEMENTATION CONCLUSION 17 MESA TRANSIT MASTER PLAN 2050 Figure 4. BUZZ Circulators INTRODUCTION VISION TRANSIT TODAY COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT NEEDS AND GAPS TRANSIT TOMORROW STRATEGIES IMPLEMENTATION CONCLUSION 18 MESA TRANSIT MASTER PLAN 2050 ADA Paratransit Ride Choice ADA paratransit service provides door-to-door and curb-to-curb transportation to people with disabilities who are unable, or have limited ability because of their disability, to use fixed-route buses or trains. All public transit agencies that provide fixed-route bus and rail service are required by the ADA to provide this service. Riders must meet the eligibility requirements and complete an ADA paratransit certification process prior to using the service. Paratransit service in Mesa is available for trips that begin and end within ¾-miles of local fixed-route bus service or LRT stations within the city boundaries. There are a few key differences between the RideChoice service and the ADA paratransit service though eligibility requirements remain the same for both services. RideChoice provides transportation services to ADA paratransit-certified people with disabilities and/or seniors aged 65 and above who reside in participating communities, like Mesa. Whereas regular ADA Paratransit service is offered within ¾-miles of local service, RideChoice service is available city-wide. RideChoice also does not require advance booking, unlike regular ADA paratransit service. Overall, the program has a steady demand of over 4,000 ride requests throughout the year, similar to ADA Paratransit trips. Paratransit services are available throughout the Maricopa County region through local and regional paratransit programs offered by Valley Metro and partnering cities. The local and regional ADA paratransit service is operated by Valley Metro Paratransit. Participating cities in the East Valley service region (local ADA paratransit) include the City of Chandler, City of Gilbert, City of Mesa, City of Scottsdale, City of Tempe, and unincorporated Maricopa County. Regional ADA paratransit service is available to ADA riders for travel outside the East Valley service region supporting the regional travel needs. This includes regional trips between the East Valley, and West Valley, as well as the cities of Phoenix, Glendale, and Peoria. East Valley paratransit services are available daily from 4 a.m. to 1 a.m. Regional paratransit services are available daily from 5 a.m. to 10 p.m. Riders must book their trips one (1) to fourteen (14) days inadvance by calling Valley Metro customer service. Source: City of Mesa Source: City of Mesa INTRODUCTION VISION TRANSIT TODAY COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT NEEDS AND GAPS TRANSIT TOMORROW STRATEGIES IMPLEMENTATION CONCLUSION 19 MESA TRANSIT MASTER PLAN 2050 Transit Facilities Mesa’s transit network depends on support from various types of facilities, from larger facilities like park-and-rides to stations and bus stops. These facilities allow passengers to access transit and provide important functions for transit operations and staff. 1. Main Street and Sycamore Road has over 20 benches and shelters for passengers as well as trash cans, public art, bicycle parking, and a connection to the LRT. Passengers can transfer between five routes- Route 30 (University Drive), Route 40 (Main Street), Route 96 (Dobson Road), Valley Metro Rail, and the Fiesta BUZZ. 2. Superstition Springs has a fare machine so riders can purchase their tickets before boarding in addition to the benches, shelters, and other amenities. This transit center does not connect to the LRT but is served by six routes-Route 40 (Main Street), Route 45 (Broadway Road), Route 61 (Southern Avenue), Route 108 (Elliot Road), and Route 184 (Power Road). 3. Gilbert Road and Main Street is a smaller transit center with fewer amenities and fewer connections. Four total routes are available at this center- Route 40 (Main Street), Route 45 (Broadway Road), Route 136 (Gilbert Road), and Valley Metro Rail. Park-and-Rides Source: City of Mesa Transit Centers Mesa currently has three transit centers that act as transfer points for multiple transit routes, including local bus routes, Express routes, BUZZ routes, and LRT. Transit centers typically have limited or no passenger parking but may be adjacent to a park-and-ride lot. Transit centers often provide passenger information and may provide additional transit amenities such as ticket sales, bike parking, and transit operator layover locations. INTRODUCTION VISION TRANSIT TODAY COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT Park-and-ride facilities offer parking for passengers, where people can drive their personal vehicle to the lot and park to access local and Express bus routes. Park-and-ride lots may be dedicated, meaning that their sole function is to provide parking space for transit passengers, or be shared with other uses during off-peak times. Mesa currently has seven dedicated park-and-ride lots, which provide connections to Express routes, local bus routes, and LRT service. NEEDS AND GAPS TRANSIT TOMORROW STRATEGIES IMPLEMENTATION CONCLUSION 20 MESA TRANSIT MASTER PLAN 2050 Light Rail Stations Bus Stops Mesa is home to seven light rail stations that provide connection to the LRT system. Three of the LRT stations, the Main Street/ Sycamore Road, Main Street/Mesa Drive, and Main Street/ Gilbert Road, operate as transit centers with park-and-ride lots for commuters. Light rail stations offer various levels of amenities, including bike racks, benches, transit shelters, trash cans, and passenger information signage. Within Mesa, there are approximately 700 bus stops where passengers can access the local bus network. Bus stops offer various levels of amenities depending on the location, including benches, transit shelters, trash cans, and passenger information signage. The City of Mesa is responsible for maintaining and cleaning the bus stops within the city limits. 7 LRT stations in Mesa 3 LRT park and rides Top three local bus stops by ridership (FY 2023): • Country Club Drive & Main Street • Main Street & Gilbert Road • Sycamore & Main Street Transit Center 700 Bus stops in Mesa serving Local bus routes 14 Source: City of Mesa INTRODUCTION Source: City of Mesa VISION TRANSIT TODAY COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT NEEDS AND GAPS TRANSIT TOMORROW STRATEGIES IMPLEMENTATION CONCLUSION 21 MESA TRANSIT MASTER PLAN 2050 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT Thousands of people use transit in Mesa to meet their daily needs, visit friends, get to school, go to work, and attend events both locally and regionally. Understanding the diverse needs, challenges, and preferences of residents plays an essential role in shaping the future of Mesa’s transit network. Community engagement took place throughout the entire plan development process. Figure 5 shows a timeline of the engagement. The feedback collected is reflected in the proposed plans and improvements in this plan. Outreach Efforts Community outreach took many forms, from individual interviews to events and surveys. Outreach efforts prioritized engagement with Mesa youth and current transit riders. Surveys were widely publicized and advertised at major bus stops and transfer locations to gather feedback from the people who use Mesa’s transit system regularly. The Transit team also set up booths at major local events to connect with residents and hear their concerns and their vision for the future of transit in Mesa. Additionally, the team surveyed Valley Metro bus operators at both East Valley bus garages to solicit suggestions they had to improve service to passengers. After hearing from city leaders, the Mesa Transit team identified other key stakeholders to engage. These stakeholders were chosen to better understand the challenges faced by students and young adults in Mesa. These stakeholders included: • Mayor and City Council members • City Leadership • Mesa Community College Student Life & Leadership • Mesa Public Schools • City of Mesa Workforce Development Wh at We Lear ned... • Focus on transit dependent populations—those who use the system. • Provide a mix of virtual and in-person engagement opportunities. Key Stakeholders • Engage the City’s youth. To set the stage for community engagement, the Mesa Transit team conducted individual interviews with city leaders to help shape the outreach program. Every city leader hears specific input from constituents and has valuable knowledge about the community. These interviews reinforced the need to connect with everyday transit users and youth in particular. City leaders also emphasized the need to provide bilingual materials and a mix of in-person and online engagement opportunities so that all residents had the chance to provide their feedback on Mesa’s transit system. INTRODUCTION VISION TRANSIT TODAY COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT NEEDS AND GAPS that shaped the Outreach and Engagement Plan • Provide materials and surveys in English and Spanish. TRANSIT TOMORROW STRATEGIES IMPLEMENTATION CONCLUSION 22 MESA TRANSIT MASTER PLAN 2050 Figure 5. Mesa Transit Plan Community Engagement Efforts October November December January February March April May June July August September October November December January 2022 2023 2023 2023 2023 2023 2023/2024 City Leadership Interviews October 2022 through December 2023 Online Community Survey #1 January 2023 Pinnacle Prevention Community Advisory Group Presentation February 2023 Mesa City Council Study Session March 2023 Online Community Survey #2 June 2023 Transportation Advisory Board Presentation November 2023 City Council Update December 2023 General Plan Urban Lab Workshops June and July 2023 Human Relations Advisory Board Presentation November 2023 Bus Operator Survey November 2022 Mesa Community College Stakeholder Meeting January 2023 Hacktivate Mesa January 2023 Mayor’s Youth Committee February 2023 City of Mesa Human Services Advisory Board Presentation February 2023 City of Mesa Transportation Advisory Board Presentation March 2023 Celebrate Mesa April 2023 Asian Festival January 2023 Online Community Survey #3 January 2024 Asian Festival January 2024 Mesa Public Schools and City of Mesa Workforce Development Stakeholder Meeting August 2023 I Love Mesa Event February 2023 KEY INTRODUCTION VISION TRANSIT TODAY COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT NEEDS AND GAPS TRANSIT TOMORROW Stakeholder Meetings Community Events Presentations Bus Operator Survey Online Surveys Youth Outreach STRATEGIES IMPLEMENTATION CONCLUSION 23 MESA TRANSIT MASTER PLAN 2050 Youth Outreach Two events offered opportunities for direct engagement with Mesa youth to hear their priorities and concernsHacktivate Mesa and the Mayor’s Youth Committee (MYC). Hacktivate Mesa is an annual 2-day experience run by the City of Mesa and Mesa Public Schools for local high school students to discover, study, analyze, and present data about an issue or challenge facing the Mesa community. The Mayor's Youth Committee is a select group of juniors and seniors from high schools throughout Mesa. Each year, school principals and counselors choose students through a competitive process to represent their school on the committee. The committee is a yearlong program where students interact with the mayor, city council, and city staff on a regular basis to learn about the ins and outs of city government. Community Events Community events present great opportunities for meeting local residents. The Mesa Transit team participated in 10 events, equipped with signs and interactive activities at a designated booth. The team asked: "Which transit options are most important for Mesa's future?" Participants were provided four tickets so they could vote using ballot boxes. Banners displayed information about the different transit options, and signs provided links and survey codes so people could complete the community survey. A map of the city also allowed people to place dots on areas they think need new or expanded services. Source: City of Mesa, Hacktivate Mesa February 2023 Source: City of Mesa, Celebrate Mesa April 2023 INTRODUCTION VISION TRANSIT TODAY COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT NEEDS AND GAPS TRANSIT TOMORROW STRATEGIES IMPLEMENTATION CONCLUSION 24 MESA TRANSIT MASTER PLAN 2050 Surveys Surveys were deployed in three phases. The first survey was distributed to bus operators to gain insight into current operations from operators’ points of view and hear their recommendations on improving transit services in Mesa. Surveys were also distributed citywide and advertised in many different forms to encourage residents to participate and provide their feedback. SURVEY #1 asked residents to share how they currently travel throughout the city and what they believe the biggest changes needed to encourage people to use transit. GOAL ACCOMPLISHED: established current needs for Mesa residents. SURVEY #2 asked participants to select what type of improvements they would prefer. GOAL ACCOMPLISHED: understanding Mesa residents’ preferences for types of service and priorities. SURVEY #3 was aimed at soliciting feedback on proposed recommendations for Mesa’s transit network. GOAL ACCOMPLISHED: determining how improvements should be prioritized to best serve community members’ needs. INTRODUCTION VISION TRANSIT TODAY COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT What We Heard Mesa residents, in general, expressed their continued support for light rail and a desire for expanded service. This includes more bus routes, circulator service (like BUZZ), and rail service. Community members also said they would like improved frequencies on existing routes to speed up their travel times and more service on weekends. We heard that transit connections to regional centers like the Phoenix-Mesa Gateway Airport and East Mesa communities were high priorities for improvements. NEEDS AND GAPS TRANSIT TOMORROW STRATEGIES IMPLEMENTATION CONCLUSION 25 MESA TRANSIT MASTER PLAN 2050 Thinking about the future, what transit modes do you envision will be important for Mesa? Ride Choice/Paratransit 68% Would YES you like to see the BUZZ Neighborhood Circulator in other areas of Mesa? Streetcar Microtransit (on-demand shared ride) 32% NO BUZZ Neighborhood Circulator Bus Light Rail What would improve bus service quality? The overall ranking by survey participants with 1 being most important and 6 being least important: More weekend service More frequent service 1 2 3 Expand service to earlier in the morning or later in the evening Cleaner stops or buses 4 5 Better real-time transit information 6 Service to new areas What type of rail improvements would you prefer? Extend light rail to East Mesa More frequent service on light rail Longer service hours on light rail Extend streetcar from Tempe to West Mesa INTRODUCTION VISION TRANSIT TODAY COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT NEEDS AND GAPS TRANSIT TOMORROW STRATEGIES IMPLEMENTATION CONCLUSION 26 MESA TRANSIT MASTER PLAN 2050 NEEDS AND GAPS Mesa is home to over a half million residents today and is expected to continue growing over the next several decades. The metropolitan region is growing quickly both in population and employment, with major employers in health, technology, and education adding jobs. Where are potential gaps in Mesa’s current system, and what are the future needs that Mesa’s transit system should adapt to? to experience population growth. These neighborhoods are currently not served or underserved by the existing transit network. The area west of Val Vista Drive has the highest share of employment today. Jobs are highly concentrated along major corridors such as Southern Avenue, Broadway Road, and Alma School Road and within job centers like Downtown Mesa and Riverview. Employment Population and Employment Growth Today, Mesa’s population density is concentrated west of Gilbert Road with the highest densities near the Mesa Community College campus at Dobson Road and Southern Avenue. The areas surrounding both airports- Falcon Field Airport and the Phoenix-Mesa Gateway Airport have some of the lowest population densities. By 2050, Mesa’s population will increase, primarily west of Gilbert Road. Population 645,500 545,000 2021 VISION 2021 TRANSIT TODAY COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT 308,900 2050 Land Use Trends Land use has a significant impact on transit and some types of use are more strongly correlated with transit trip generation and attraction. An industrial area, for example, with a low population and large warehouses, is less likely to generate or attract transit trips than an office building downtown. Understanding the current and future land use within Mesa is the first step in matching service levels and types to potential transit demand. 2050 As the population grows, neighborhoods like Guerro Park, Downtown, and the Fiesta District are likely to have the highest densities. Higher densities are easier to serve with transit as they put more potential passengers within reach of transit infrastructure. Increasing frequencies on existing transit lines along key corridors like Main Street, Alma School Road, and Southern Avenue would improve access to these growing areas. Other neighborhoods in East Mesa, like Parkwood Ranch and Eastmark, are also expected INTRODUCTION 208,200 Total Housing Units 243,000 2021 285,000 2050 Note: All growth figures are from MAG Socioeconomic Projections 2023. Total population includes resident population and group quarters. NEEDS AND GAPS TRANSIT TOMORROW STRATEGIES IMPLEMENTATION CONCLUSION 27 MESA TRANSIT MASTER PLAN 2050 At present, most of Mesa’s land is designated for single-family residential use. Commercial uses are largely found along arterial streets like Main Street and Southern Avenue. Just under 12 percent of Mesa’s land is currently vacant and the city is surrounded by other jurisdictions. As the city grows, these vacant areas will be developed and other areas will be redeveloped to accommodate additional people, jobs, and attractions. Higher transit propensity groups include: Minority populations generally use transit more often than non-minority populations. Low-income households also tend to use transit to a greater degree than higher income households, as transit offers significant cost savings compared to automobile ownership and use. Seniors (over 64 years of age) and youths (under 18 years of age) are more likely to be unable to drive or choose not to drive. Providing non-auto alternatives is essential to ensuring participation in daily activities and needs. The future land use vision for Mesa retains a significant amount of land reserved for traditional residential use, which includes singlefamily, low-height (under four stories) multi-family, and mixed-use development. The Main Street corridor is envisioned as an Urban Center with higher density multi-family and mixed-use development as well as commercial uses like offices, retail, and restaurants. Opportunities for added development and transit-oriented development around light rail stations position Main Street as a vital transit corridor. Zero-car households with limited transportation options are more likely to use transit. Local employment centers along Main Street and Broadway Road and regional employment centers surrounding both the Falcon Field and Phoenix-Mesa Gateway airports will be important to serve with transit as residents commute to existing and future opportunities in these areas. Persons with disabilities are unable to drive. This group uses transit, including regular fixed-route or ADA Paratransit service, to remain active and access daily needs. Demand Current public transit users are generally predisposed to continue riding transit. Other factors that influence transit demand include job centers, activity centers, and transit propensity. Transit propensity refers to the likelihood of certain population groups to use transit services. Concentrations of high transit propensity groups can drive transit demand that would otherwise be potentially overlooked when evaluating only population and employment densities. High transit propensity populations are dispersed across Mesa, as shown in Figure 6. Some concentrations are served by transit now, like those along Main Street between Dobson Road and Alma School Road, while others (like those between Elliot Road and Ray Road north of the Phoenix-Mesa Gateway Airport) are not. Source: City of Mesa INTRODUCTION VISION TRANSIT TODAY COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT NEEDS AND GAPS TRANSIT TOMORROW STRATEGIES IMPLEMENTATION CONCLUSION 28 MESA TRANSIT MASTER PLAN 2050 Figure 6. Transit Propensity INTRODUCTION VISION TRANSIT TODAY COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT NEEDS AND GAPS TRANSIT TOMORROW STRATEGIES IMPLEMENTATION CONCLUSION 29 MESA TRANSIT MASTER PLAN 2050 Mesa is home to a variety of activity centers from parks to museums and cultural centers, colleges and schools to medical centers. While many of these attractions are located west of Stapley Drive and served by transit, others near Falcon Field Airport and east of Power Road are not. Job centers form another type of activity center, drawing residents from across the city and region to job opportunities. Major job centers are formed by either clusters of smaller businesses or one large employer with a high number of employees. Major job centers in Mesa: Mesa Falcon Field Airport, Downtown Mesa, Mesa Fiesta District, Mesa Broadway Corridor, Mesa Riverview, Mesa Superstition Freeway Corridor West, Mesa Superstition Freeway Corridor East, Mesa Gateway Area, and Mesa Banner Health. Figure 7 shows the major employers located in Mesa. Some employers, like Mesa Public Schools and the City of Mesa, have dispersed locations, while others are based entirely at one location. Understanding where major employers and job centers are located is a vital step in matching where people live with where they are trying to go. Mesa’s current network is primarily oriented east-west with a gap in north-south service between Gilbert Road and Power Road. Employment growth and population growth is anticipated both in areas served today, like West Mesa and in underserved areas, like Falcon Field and Southern Avenue east of Loop-202. These underserved areas are also home to residents who are more likely to use transit. Looking ahead, improvements to Mesa’s transit network will balance increasing the frequency of services for higher density Frequency areas with expanding new services to growing communities. New service Source: Valley Metro INTRODUCTION VISION TRANSIT TODAY COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT NEEDS AND GAPS TRANSIT TOMORROW STRATEGIES IMPLEMENTATION CONCLUSION 30 MESA TRANSIT MASTER PLAN 2050 Figure 7. Future Employment Density and Major Employers INTRODUCTION VISION TRANSIT TODAY COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT NEEDS AND GAPS TRANSIT TOMORROW STRATEGIES IMPLEMENTATION CONCLUSION 31 MESA TRANSIT MASTER PLAN 2050 Streetcar TRANSIT TOMORROW By 2050, Mesa’s population is projected to grow to about 645,500. New job centers will emerge and previously vacant areas will be home to new residents and communities. Transit recommendations have been identified to ensure Mesa’s transit network is prepared to meet the needs of current and future residents. These improvements have been organized into phases for implementation from short-term to long-term. Modern streetcar operate very much like light rail. Like light rail, modern streetcar vehicles are powered by overhead electric power. Streetcar vehicles travel along a rail guideway (travel lane/ travel path), typically at street level. This guideway can either be exclusive to the streetcar or shared with general purpose traffic. Streetcar stations are smaller than light rail stations and generally provide shelter from weather, seating, lighting, and real-time arrival/ departure information. Transit Recommendations These recommendations were developed to meet the needs of the future and fill the gaps in the current system while balancing coverage with frequency. The transit recommendations proposed here in Table 2 balance providing frequent service in high demand areas with expanding service into lower-density communities. Today, Mesa is served by many different forms of transit, from local bus and express bus service to BUZZ circulators and light rail. The transit recommendations proposed to meet the current gaps and future needs are likewise diverse. This plan identifies: • More frequency for existing bus routes • Modifications or extensions to existing bus routes • New local bus routes • More frequency for existing light rail • New streetcar service • New service in emerging markets Source: Valley Metro, Tempe Streetcar Emerging Markets Local bus service and light rail have been introduced in Transit Today. Mesa is not currently served by streetcar but an extension of the Tempe streetcar into Mesa is currently being studied. INTRODUCTION VISION TRANSIT TODAY COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT Emerging markets is a term used to describe areas of Mesa that have not historically been served by transit but through land use and/or demographic changes are in need of new transit services. The two emerging markets identified in this plan are Falcon Field and its immediate surroundings and the growing Eastmark neighborhood in southeast Mesa. Neither area is served by transit today but both areas are growing in terms of population and jobs. These areas could be served by new circulator service, like BUZZ, or new on-demand microtransit. NEEDS AND GAPS TRANSIT TOMORROW STRATEGIES IMPLEMENTATION CONCLUSION 32 MESA TRANSIT MASTER PLAN 2050 Microtransit is a small-scale, on-demand public transit service that can offer fixed routes and schedules, as well as flexible routes and on-demand scheduling. An example of a typical microtransit vehicle is shown in Figure 8. While Mesa does not currently offer microtransit service, other neighboring municipalities in the Valley have recently implemented microtransit. Chandler has launched a microtransit service called Chandler Flex and several West Valley communities offer WeRIDE on-demand service. Further study is needed to determine exactly what form this new service will take. Figure 8. Example Microtransit Vehicle In 2016, MAG initiated the Regional Commuter Rail System Study Update. The goal of the study was to update the data in the MAG 2010 Commuter Rail System Study with new forecasts and estimates. The study was completed in 2018, and its results will inform planning for long-range high-capacity transit investments to support mobility throughout the region. The corridor was accepted into the FRA’s Corridor Identification and Development Program in 2023, and ADOT was granted funds to conduct the next phase of the study. This corridor travels through Mesa between Tucson and Phoenix. At this time, station locations have not been finalized; however, Mesa will coordinate with ADOT and other governmental agencies to integrate future stations with Mesa’s transit system. Facilities and Programs To support the transit recommendations proposed in this plan, new facilities are needed. New routes will require capital investment in bus stop infrastructure and new mobility hubs will require investment in amenities such as electric vehicle charging, seating, and shelters. Bus stop shelters with shade were also identified as a priority through conversations and surveys of community members. Other amenities, such as bike racks, particularly at future mobility hubs, will better connect with first-mile/last-mile modes and expand access to the transit network. Source: WeRIDE Passenger Rail The Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) conducted a Passenger Rail Corridor study in 2015 to evaluate passenger rail between Tucson and Phoenix. During the five-year study, ADOT worked closely with the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) and other federal agencies, as well as local governments and planning organizations in Maricopa, Pinal and Pima counties, to determine the feasibility of a passenger rail system. INTRODUCTION VISION TRANSIT TODAY COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT Programs such as transit-oriented development (TOD) plans and policies can also play a role in supporting the transit recommendations outlined in this plan. Other potential programs can include a transit ambassador program, which would place uniformed agency representatives onboard vehicles and/or at transit stations to provide wayfinding and other assistance to passengers. A limited number of agencies at present provide transit ambassadors. The City of Mesa and Valley Metro would need to undertake further study before piloting a program in Mesa. NEEDS AND GAPS TRANSIT TOMORROW STRATEGIES IMPLEMENTATION CONCLUSION 33 MESA TRANSIT MASTER PLAN 2050 Table 2. Transit Recommendations Type of Improvement Route Extensions/Modifications Route Name Service Improvements New Routes 30-University Drive 40-Main Street 45-Broadway Road 48-48th Street 77-Baseline Road 104-Alma School Road 108-Elliot Road 112-Country Club Drive 120-Mesa Drive 128-Stapley Drive 136-Gilbert Road 156-Chandler Boulevard Williams Field Road 184-Power Road 277-Signal Butte Road + Lindsay Road + Greenfield Road + Higley Road + Sossaman Road + Val Vista Drive + Falcon Field Emerging Market + Eastmark Emerging Market + Light Rail + Streetcar INTRODUCTION VISION TRANSIT TODAY COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT NEEDS AND GAPS TRANSIT TOMORROW STRATEGIES IMPLEMENTATION CONCLUSION 34 MESA TRANSIT MASTER PLAN 2050 Phased Transit Plans Figure 9. Needs Evaluation Process Land Use Trends & Affordable Housing Implementing transit improvements requires planning, funding, and collaboration. As a result, the proposed transit recommendations have been organized into different implementation phases. A two-step evaluation methodology was devised to determine the phasing of recommendations and the prioritization within each phase. The first step was a Needs Evaluation to quantify the relative need between each recommendation and phase them into ShortTerm, Mid-Term, and Long-Term phases. The second step was a Productivity Evaluation to prioritize recommendations within each phase based on the potential cost-to-benefit ratio of implementing a given recommendation. Population & Employment Growth Needs Evaluation The Needs Evaluation, summarized in Figure 9, was conducted using seven evaluation criteria assessed using data from the American Community Survey, Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) 2050 projections, and the National Housing Preservation Database. Each recommendation was evaluated on a relative scale (compared with each other) and scored for each criterion. Higher scoring recommendations were prioritized for Short-Term and MidTerm implementation. Population: One of the most common indicators of a successful transit route is the number of residents within walking distance of transit stops/stations. The more people who live close to transit, the higher ridership the transit route is likely to generate. This criterion analyzed the existing (2021) and projected (2050) population density. Employment: Similar to population, walking proximity to employment centers from transit stops/stations is an important factor in generating transit trips. This criterion analyzed the existing (2021) and projected (2050) employment (job) density. Service Equity: This criterion analyzed demographic factors that may indicate the presence of traditionally underserved, INTRODUCTION VISION TRANSIT TODAY COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT Demand (Propensity & Activity Centers) Transit Need underrepresented, or transit-dependent communities that could most benefit from transits’ ability to provide “ladders of opportunity” through better access to housing, jobs, services, and education. Six population groups (scored at 5 points max each)—people under 18 years of age, people over 64 years of age, people with disabilities, zero-vehicle households, minority populations, and low-income households—were used as indicators to gauge transit needs. Affordable Housing: Enhancing public transit options in areas with affordable housing can help residents save on transportation costs and expand job opportunities. This criterion documented the number of affordable housing units around transit stops/stations. Inactive affordable housing properties were not included in the counts. Study Compatibility: Previously completed plans and studies were reviewed to identify proposed and planned transit projects relevant NEEDS AND GAPS TRANSIT TOMORROW STRATEGIES IMPLEMENTATION CONCLUSION 35 MESA TRANSIT MASTER PLAN 2050 to Mesa. Some of these proposed and planned transit projects were considered as transit recommendations in this Transit Master Plan. These relevant transit projects were given a higher priority due to their previous regional and local significance. Land Use: Transit-supportive land use is defined as higherdensity categories of multi-family residential plus mixed use that are typically prevalent in TOD patterns. This evaluation criterion identifies the presence of existing transit-supportive land uses and potential for development near transit stops/stations. The criterion analyzed the influence of single-family high-density, multi-family, commercial high-density, and mixed-use land, along with emerging developments. Current land use data was analyzed at the parcel level to score the number of high-density parcels. Key Destinations: Regional and local destinations were analyzed because they are primed to become development catalysts as Mesa grows in both population and employment. Key destinations included major employers, recreational/cultural amenities, educational facilities, and community resources. Productivity Evaluation Two main components formed the foundation of the Productivity Evaluation- projected ridership and estimated costs. This evaluation served to evaluate the productivity of transit recommendations to rank and prioritize them within each phase. The Productivity Evaluation, summarized in Figure 10, was also conducted on a relative scale and assigned each recommendation a score. Higher scores suggest that a given route could add more ridership while incurring a lower cost of implementation and these high scoring routes have been prioritized. Figure 10. Recommendation Phasing Needs Evaluation Productivity Evaluation Phasing Improvements complete transit route network at each horizon year (2026, 2035, and 2050). Cost Estimates: Cost estimates used in the evaluation were developed using the annual revenue miles for each local bus route within Mesa and cost per mile rates provided by Valley Metro for FY 2024. The following phased plans proposed here are the result of the Needs and Productivity Evaluations. The horizon years for each phase aligns with the funding timelines in the MAG Regional Strategic Transportation Infrastructure Investment Plan, which outlines the funding allocation for transportation and transit-related projects between 2026 and 2050 based on the availability of funds. Projected Ridership: Ridership projections were calculated using the most updated MAG transportation model and are based on the INTRODUCTION VISION TRANSIT TODAY COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT NEEDS AND GAPS TRANSIT TOMORROW STRATEGIES IMPLEMENTATION CONCLUSION 36 MESA TRANSIT MASTER PLAN 2050 Short-Term (2026) The Short-Term plan includes transit recommendations to be implemented between 2024 and 2026. Mesa aims to provide 15-minute service frequency across all local bus routes operating within the city. As shown in Table 3, the majority of short-term transit recommendations are service improvements to increase frequencies to align with Mesa’s goal. Route 40 (Main Street) ranked highest in the Needs Evaluation for local bus routes, which contributed to its inclusion in the Short-Term plan. The full build-out of the Short-Term network is shown in Figure 11. The extension of Route 48 (48th Street) will serve to build a ridership base for future streetcar extension along the route. Following the initiation of streetcar service, duplicate Route 48 (48th Street) service will be eliminated. Other route extensions, such as Route 77 (Baseline Road), will improve access to the regional transit network for more Mesa residents and provide additional connections to major destinations. In addition to local bus recommendations, the Short-Term plan also includes a proposed frequency improvement for the Valley Metro Rail LRT. This recommendation would bring LRT weekday frequencies to 12-minute headways during peak service. Table 3. Short-Term Plan Transit Recommendations Route Name Change Type Description 40-Main Street Saturday service improvement to 15-minute headways. 112-Country Club Drive Improve weekday frequency to 15-minute headways from Main Street to the end of the line at McKellips Road. 120-Mesa Drive Improve weekday frequency to 15-minute headways north of Main Street to the end of the line at McKellips Road. 104-Alma School Road Improve weekday frequency to 15-minute headways. 136-Gilbert Road Improve weekday frequency to 15-minute headways. Light Rail Improve weekday frequency to 12-minute headways. 48-48th Street Extend along Rio Salado Parkway to Mesa Riverview with overlapping end of the line with Fiesta Buzz, Downtown Buzz, and Route 96, matching Tempe span of service and frequency. 77-Baseline Road Extend along Baseline Road to Gilbert Road. 156-Chandler Blvd/Williams Field Road Extend the route along Innovation Way to Tahoe Avenue, Sossaman Road, and Phoenix-Mesa Gateway Passenger Terminal, returning to Innovation Way via Texas Avenue. Route Extensions / Modifications INTRODUCTION VISION Service Improvements TRANSIT TODAY + New Route COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT NEEDS AND GAPS TRANSIT TOMORROW STRATEGIES IMPLEMENTATION CONCLUSION 37 MESA TRANSIT MASTER PLAN 2050 Figure 11. Short-Term Plan INTRODUCTION VISION TRANSIT TODAY COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT NEEDS AND GAPS TRANSIT TOMORROW STRATEGIES IMPLEMENTATION CONCLUSION 38 MESA TRANSIT MASTER PLAN 2050 Mid-Term (2035) The horizon years for the proposed Mid-Term plan fall between 2026 and 2035. It was assumed that at this point regional funding collected as part of the Proposition 400 extension, Proposition 479, will begin to be available. In total, 10 recommendations have been identified for the Mid-Term plan, as shown in Table 4 and Figure 12. In addition to the service improvements and route extensions/modifications planned for Mesa, new service is proposed for the Mid-Term plan. A new north-south route along Greenfield Road originating at Red Mountain Community College and terminating at Baseline Road will fill the existing gap in north-south routes between Gilbert Road and Power Road. Other new services include the reinstatement of Route 277 (Signal Butte Road), which serves east Mesa between Broadway Road and Baseline Road and the Falcon Field emerging market. Further study to determine the most effective service delivery (microtransit or circulator service) is needed prior to implementation of emerging markets like Falcon Field. Phase 1 of the Tempe/Mesa Streetcar Extension is expected to be completed by 2035 and is included in the Mid-Term plan. Table 4. Mid-Term Plan Transit Recommendations Route Name Change Type Description 30-University Drive Improve weekday frequency to 15-minute headways and Sunday service to 30-minute headways. 112-Country Club Drive Improve weekday frequency to 15-minute headways all day. 128-Stapely Drive Improve weekday frequency to 15-minute headways. 77-Baseline Drive Extend along Baseline Road from Gilbert Road to Power Road. 120-Mesa Drive Extend the route north and along McKellips and interline with Route 128. 108-Elliot Road Route modification to end at Superstition Springs P&R and remove duplicative service with Route 277 East of Power Road Streetcar Phase 1 Extend the streetcar along Rio Salado Parkway to Dobson Road and along Dobson Road to Main Street. 277-Signal Butte Road + Reinstitute the discontinued route along Broadway, Power Road, Baseline, Signal Butte, and Southern Avenue. Greenfield Road + New North-South route from McKellips Road to Baseline Road, with service on McKellips Road to Mesa Community College Red Mountain campus. Falcon Field Emerging Market + Implement either a circulator or microtransit zone. Connect residential areas with supermarkets and commercial establishments. Currently, this area has no service and high concentrations of transit propensity populations. Route Extensions / Modifications INTRODUCTION VISION Service Improvements TRANSIT TODAY + New Route COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT NEEDS AND GAPS TRANSIT TOMORROW STRATEGIES IMPLEMENTATION CONCLUSION 39 MESA TRANSIT MASTER PLAN 2050 Figure 12. Mid-Term Plan INTRODUCTION VISION TRANSIT TODAY COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT NEEDS AND GAPS TRANSIT TOMORROW STRATEGIES IMPLEMENTATION CONCLUSION 40 MESA TRANSIT MASTER PLAN 2050 Long-Term (2050) The Long-Term plan spans from 2035 to 2050 and includes 10 transit recommendations. Table 5 and Figure 13 illustrate these recommendations. As discussed, the City of Mesa aims to bring all local routes to a minimum of 15-minute frequencies during weekday peak hours and a minimum of 30-minute frequencies on Saturdays. Routes that do not currently meet these standards have been identified for service improvement to reach this goal, including Route 108 (Elliot Road) and Route 184 (Power Road). Both routes are currently operating on 30-minute weekday and 60-minute weekend frequencies. The Long-Term plan also features several new routes, filling in the remaining gaps in the north-south direction between Gilbert Road and Power Road in central Mesa. North-south routes are proposed for Lindsay Road, Val Vista, Higley Road, and Sossaman Road. These routes will provide additional service between McDowell Road and Baseline Road, operating entirely within the City of Mesa. The second identified emerging market, Eastmark, is proposed as part of the Long-Term plan. As described in the Mid-Term plan (2035), the specific form of service in this emerging market has not yet been determined. Additionally, the second phase of the Tempe/ Mesa Streetcar Extension is anticipated to be complete by 2050 and is included in the plan. Table 5. Long-Term Plan Transit Recommendations Route Name Change Type Description 45-Broadway Road Improve weekday frequency to 15-minute headways. 77-Baseline Road Improve weekday frequency to 15-minute headways. 108-Elliot Road Improve weekday frequency to 15-minute headways and Saturday service to 30-minute headways. 184-Power Road Improve weekday frequency to 15-minute headways and weekend service to 30-minute headways. Streetcar Phase 2 Extend the streetcar along Dobson Road from Main Street to Southern, then along Country Club North to Main Street. Higley Road + North-South route along Higley from McDowell Road to Baseline Road. Lindsay Road + North-South route along Lindsay Road from McDowell Road to Baseline Road. Sossaman Road + New North-South route from the Red Mountain Park/High School along Brown Road, 80th Street, and University Drive to Sossaman Road, traveling south on Sossaman Road to the Superstition Springs Transit Center. Val Vista Drive + North-South route along Val Vista Dr from McDowell Road to Baseline Road. Eastmark Emerging Market + Implement either a circulator or microtransit zone. This area is currently not served by the existing transit network and has strong projected future employment growth. Route Extensions / Modifications INTRODUCTION VISION Service Improvements TRANSIT TODAY + New Route COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT NEEDS AND GAPS TRANSIT TOMORROW STRATEGIES IMPLEMENTATION CONCLUSION 41 MESA TRANSIT MASTER PLAN 2050 Figure 13. Long-Term Plan INTRODUCTION VISION TRANSIT TODAY COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT NEEDS AND GAPS TRANSIT TOMORROW STRATEGIES IMPLEMENTATION CONCLUSION 42 MESA TRANSIT MASTER PLAN 2050 TRANSIT-SUPPORTIVE STRATEGIES Many factors can support or hinder transit performance from land use to technology. Coordinated planning and collaboration between city departments will allow Mesa to reap the greatest benefits from future transit investments. Through strategic land use and anticipation of land use changes, Mesa can increase ridership and ensure that the transit system continues to serve residents’ needs. Understanding how key corridors are used and how they can be improved will likewise allow the City to use current strengths and address any weaknesses to enhance mobility within Mesa. Transit also benefits from the adoption of new technologies that improve the ease of use and overall operations of the transit system. transit agencies are critical to help implement and potentially fund technology enhancements. The City of Mesa will work in partnership with Valley Metro and MAG to support improvements to transit operations, including technological improvements. Valley Metro initiated a systemwide fare technology modernization that will allow riders to purchase fares on their mobile device or through a reloadable fare card to scan or tap on new fare readers, as shown in Figure 14. Future studies, such as a Mobility-as-a-Service (MaaS) feasibility study or a microtransit feasibility study, could add new modes and features to the regional transit network, improving the passenger experience. Regional and Local Planning MaaS as a technology refers to “a single platform where travelers can source and pay for rides across multiple transportation modes.”1 MaaS is inclusive of all transportation modes, such as peer-to-peer car sharing, rideshare and other private transportation modes, microtransit, e-scooter and bike sharing, and public transit. Other agencies use MaaS to host an all-in-one travel tool that gives customers real-time travel information, mobile ticketing, and ondemand services through their phones for transit. Regional and local planning can support transit performance through short-range and long-range plans that strategically guide investment. Land use policy changes, development and transportation impact fees, and long-term planning work together to proactively seed future transit investment. Capital improvement projects, transportation master plans, and general plans can document justification for needed transit service upgrades and provide guidance to improve transit efficiency and coverage. Along with local planning efforts, regional coordination between the City of Mesa, Valley Metro, and MAG will ensure that, as the region grows, it does so in a more transit-accessible way. Figure 14.Valley Metro Mobile App As Mesa conducts future land use or master planning, the City can identify opportunities to support and prioritize transit access as a key element of community growth. The City can also identify opportunities to acquire sites and develop them with transit-oriented development (TOD) principles in mind. Emerging Technologies Partnership between cities, regional planning organizations, and Source: Valley Metro 1 https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2018/04/uber-pivots-to-on-demand-everything/557528/. INTRODUCTION VISION TRANSIT TODAY COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT NEEDS AND GAPS TRANSIT TOMORROW STRATEGIES IMPLEMENTATION CONCLUSION 43 MESA TRANSIT MASTER PLAN 2050 Corridor Optimization Transit-Oriented Development Program Individual transit routes typically serve areas or corridors with different blends of population, employment opportunities, roadway characteristics, and transit dependency. It is important for cities to understand and classify the types of corridors in their city by evaluating a corridor’s existing conditions (demographic plus physical and environmental context), needs, and opportunities at various neighborhood levels. It is critical to have an awareness of distinct neighborhoods along a corridor because one end of a corridor can be very different from the other end. Optimization efforts incorporate safety and other transportation data while considering rider experience to improve key corridors and support mobility within the city. The primary goal of implementing a TOD program in Mesa would be to create a vision that is focused on improving the integration of land use and mobility near stations and stops. A TOD program can create bridges between several City departments to accomplish similar goals around infrastructure and assets developed and owned by the City. Participation within the program could come from the Mesa Transit, Planning, Transportation, Economic Development, Real Estate Services, Sustainability, and Community Engagement departments. Figure 15. Example Mobility Hub Source: City of Tempe Undertaking corridor optimization efforts can also lead to identification of potential mobility hub locations. An example mobility hub is shown in Figure 15. Mobility hubs can increase the reach of the transit network by facilitating expanded first-mile/lastmile connections. Mobility hubs bring together multiple modes of transportation, such as micromobility (bicycle or scooter share), active transportation, microtransit, and ride-hailing. These hubs can also include complementary features like electric vehicle (EV) charging, secure bicycle parking, seating, and wayfinding elements. Other goals of the program could include: • Evaluating stations and stops to determine typologies based on station size, amenities, and adjacent land uses. • Identifying potential locations for higher-density development in proximity to transit and major activity centers • Facilitating development that meets the City of Mesa’s Quality Development Design Guidelines. • Understanding the user experience at stations/stops and within broader station/stop areas. • Establishing a joint development policy. Joint development is the process of forming a partnership to develop property around transit stations/stops to create additional value for the city through three opportunities—new revenue streams, increased ridership, or improvements to transit assets. Joint development projects do not require the property to be owned by the city or transit agency. Joint development is commonly associated with rail projects; however, the FTA recognizes joint development projects can occur around any mode of transit.2 Under their definition of joint development, the FTA also includes: • Intermodal facilities • Regional bus and rail facilities • Transit malls • Historic transportation facilities 2. FTA. August 2020. FTA Guidance on Joint Development (Circular 7050.1B). INTRODUCTION VISION TRANSIT TODAY COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT NEEDS AND GAPS TRANSIT TOMORROW STRATEGIES IMPLEMENTATION CONCLUSION 44 MESA TRANSIT MASTER PLAN 2050 The City of Mesa has been awarded a $920,000 federal grant to conduct comprehensive TOD planning along a 5-mile streetcar route in west Mesa. The project is called MesaCONNECTED and is ongoing as of May 2024. Figure 16 shows the project logo. The streetcar route would connect four major economic activity centers in Mesa - Riverview Marketplace, Asian District, Fiesta District, and downtown Mesa. Mesa will use the grant funding to conduct comprehensive planning efforts, define design guidelines, and develop economic strategies. overall streetscape and work together to implement complete streets improvements. As the City continues to invest in active transportation infrastructure around LRT stations and bus stops, it will provide safe connectivity and access to transit riders and enhance ridership. Figure 17. Example of a Complete Street Figure 16. MesaCONNECTED TOD Study Source: City of Mesa Complete Streets Complete streets integrate spaces for multiple types of mobility choices. Implementing complete streets is helpful in supporting transit because most people access bus stations by walking, bicycling, or perhaps using an electric scooter. Complete streets provide safe and welcoming spaces because the purpose of the street is to move people, not just cars. A safer street environment is more likely to attract pedestrians and bicyclists, who may also choose to use transit. Figure 17 shows an example of a complete street. Different city departments are involved in the INTRODUCTION VISION TRANSIT TODAY COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT Source: City of Mesa NEEDS AND GAPS TRANSIT TOMORROW STRATEGIES IMPLEMENTATION CONCLUSION 45 MESA TRANSIT MASTER PLAN 2050 IMPLEMENTATION Table 6. Estimated New Bus Stops The Mesa Transit Plan describes the current transit service in Mesa and identifies existing system gaps and potential future needs of Mesa residents. Transit recommendations have been presented to meet these needs, whether through providing new services, modifying existing services, or improving frequencies. Mesa is growing and changing, with emerging transit markets and shifting travel patterns. The recommendations outlined in this plan play an important role in Mesa residents’ quality of life by supporting mobility and access for all residents. The City of Mesa has identified a path forward to realizing the vision presented in this plan. Route Number of Bus Stops Phase 156- Chandler Boulevard 7 Short-Term 77- Baseline Road (Phase 1) 16 Mid-Term 120-Mesa Drive 13 Mid-Term 277- Signal Butte Road 36 Mid-Term Greenfield Road 54 Mid-Term 77 - Baseline Road (Phase 2) 41 Long-Term Higley Road 42 Long-Term Lindsay Road 44 Long-Term Sossaman Road 43 Long-Term Val Vista Drive 42 Long-Term Total 438 - Capital Investments Recommendations to add new local bus routes and extend existing bus routes will also require additional capital investment. Existing Mesa bus routes (not including commuter routes) generally have stops every 1/4 mile. The estimated number of bus stops was calculated for each new route and route extension following this same average stop spacing. The exact number of bus stops will be determined closer to the implementation of each route. The number of stops presented in Table 6 reflect the target stop spacing of the bus stops every quarter-mile along local bus routes. 438 Potential expansion INTRODUCTION VISION Estimated new bus stops of Superstition Springs Transit Center to accommodate future transit services TRANSIT TODAY COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT Note: Bus stop values have been estimated by multiplying the route length by ¼- mile. ADA Paratransit Changes New services will also expand the ADA Paratransit service area as well as require new bus stops to serve the forthcoming routes. ADA Paratransit service will expand throughout the implementation of this plan. In compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, ADA Paratransit service is provided within ¾-mile of fixed routes to provide equal access to transportation for people with disabilities that prevent them from using regular bus service. Figure 18 shows how the paratransit service area will grow in each phase. For example, the addition of a new local bus service, such as Route 277 (Signal Butte) in the Mid-Term plan adds additional service area. Long-Term recommendations, such as the new route along Sossaman Road and Val Vista Drive, will also result in increased area coverage by 2050. NEEDS AND GAPS TRANSIT TOMORROW STRATEGIES IMPLEMENTATION CONCLUSION 46 MESA TRANSIT MASTER PLAN 2050 Figure 18. ADA Paratransit Areas by Phase INTRODUCTION VISION TRANSIT TODAY COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT NEEDS AND GAPS TRANSIT TOMORROW STRATEGIES IMPLEMENTATION CONCLUSION 47 MESA TRANSIT MASTER PLAN 2050 Funding Opportunities Mesa has several options to explore when looking to fund the transit recommendations identified in this chapter. Funding is available at various levels, including federal sources, the State of Arizona, regional funding from MAG, and local sources. Federal Sources The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) distributes annual formula grants to transit agencies and maintains a host of discretionary funding programs. These programs are competitive and eligible applicants (such as transit agencies or local governments) submit applications to receive funding for local projects. Key federal funding programs include: • 5307 Urbanized Area Formula Grants • 5309 Capital Investment Grants (CIG) • 5337 State of Good Repair Formula Program • 5339(a) Bus and Bus Facilities Formula Program • 5339(b) Bus and Bus Facilities Discretionary Program • 5339(c) Low or No Emission Vehicle Program • Congressional Member Designated Projects • Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Program (CMAQ) When considering potential federal funding opportunities, carefully reviewing the associated federal requirements is crucial. The FTA provides detailed requirements for each program in both the published Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) as well as in its Circulars. the Arizona Lottery Fund (ALF) for transit. Up to $23 million may be deposited into the ALF each FY. This funding is distributed by the Arizona Department of Transportation to counties, cities, and towns to maintain and improve their public transportation programs. Funding is distributed proportionally by population with a minimum amount of $10,000. Municipalities with more than 300,000 residents, like Mesa, must use these funds for mass transit. According to the approved FY 24 budget, Valley Metro received approximately $11.2 million in ALF funding for FY 2023 and FY 2024. Regional Sources Regional funding is a key funding source for Valley Metro transit operations, including transit routes operating within Mesa. Prop 400, a 20-year voter approved sales tax, replaced Prop 300 when the original provision expired and extended this half-cent tax. Revenue from Prop 400 is intended to fund freeways/highways, arterial streets, and transit. Of this revenue, 33.30 percent is used to fund the Public Transportation Fund (PTF), which supports capital expenditures, maintenance work, and regular operations. PTF dollars are allocated through the Transit Life Cycle Program (TLCP), which is updated annually by Valley Metro. Non-rail transit funds, which include regional local bus routes, Express bus routes, and ADA Paratransit, are distributed based on jurisdictional equity to its member cities. Over the life of Prop 400, Mesa will receive just under $300 million. Prop 400 expires December 31, 2025. Further extension of the regional tax will be put to local voters for approval during the November 2024 election cycle. In planning for a potential extension of this funding source, MAG has developed an updated framework to guide regional transit funding. State Sources Two main sources of funding are available at the state level—the Arizona Lottery and funds from the Vehicle License Tax (VLT). A portion of proceeds from Arizona Lottery ticket sales are placed in INTRODUCTION VISION TRANSIT TODAY COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT Local Sources The City of Mesa also supports local transit operations from the general fund and does not have a dedicated transit-specific tax. NEEDS AND GAPS TRANSIT TOMORROW STRATEGIES IMPLEMENTATION CONCLUSION 48 MESA TRANSIT MASTER PLAN 2050 CONCLUSION This document was developed to direct future investment in the City of Mesa’s transit network. The planning process was guided by the Mesa Public Transit Department’s vision for a reliable, productive, and well-connected multimodal transit system that fosters economic growth, diversity, and inclusiveness for the City of Mesa. It is the culmination of extensive community engagement that took place over the course of two years, from stakeholder outreach to public surveys and community events. The recommendations outlined here are aimed at bridging gaps in the existing system and addressing anticipated future needs to best serve Mesa residents. The resulting Short-Term, Mid-Term, and Long-Term plans were designed to meet these needs through service improvements, extensions and modifications, and new services. New modes have been envisioned for Mesa, including streetcar and emerging technologies. Implementing the changes detailed here will require capital and operating investments. To this end, funding opportunities have been identified for potential pursuits to fund additional services and infrastructure. Enacting recommendations presented in the Transit Master Plan plays an important role in making strides to fulfill the City’s vision for transit in Mesa. Source: City of Mesa INTRODUCTION VISION TRANSIT TODAY COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT NEEDS AND GAPS TRANSIT TOMORROW STRATEGIES IMPLEMENTATION CONCLUSION 49 TMP 2050 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT Mesa’s transportation system is designed to serve the thousands of residents, visitors, and commuters that travel to and through Mesa every day. Involving residents early and often allows City staff to make informed decisions that address the needs of those that use our transportation network the most. • Phase I of the Mesa Transportation Master Plan (TMP) community engagement focused on hosting an online survey for residents, visitors, and employers to voice their opinion on transportation challenges they face today. • Phase II re-engaged the residents, visitors, and employers to determine what types of transportation investments and trade-offs they would prefer to see in Mesa. • Phase III provided opportunities for the public to provide feedback and input on the Draft Final TMP. Based on feedback received, the Draft TMP was updated to address feedback received. Phase III Outreach Methods Phase III engagement was conducted July 8, 2024, to August 5, 2024 to garner feedback on the Draft TMP. This phase of engagement asked respondents to review the document and to submit any comments or concerns directly on the project website. To promote the Draft TMP, the following methods were used: • Promotion of the public review period on City of Mesa Newsletters, including the Economic Reporter and MesaNow. • Social media posts on the City of Mesa’s Facebook. • E-mail information and link to website via the City of Mesa’s Homeowner’s Association email listserv. • Direct emails were sent to stakeholders previously engaged in the TMP planning process. Project Website The website MesaTMP.com was updated to include a full draft of the Draft TMP, appendices, and maps of recommended improvements. A comment form was also provided to allow the public to submit a question or concern directly to the study team and the City. Mesa Transportation Master Plan 1 PHASE III COMMENTS This section presents a full list of comments received via the project website. A summary of comments received includes: • Desire to maintain existing character of travel sheds by enhancing multimodal connectivity and reducing vehicle congestion. • Strong support for expanding and enhancing multimodal travel along Mesa’s canal system to provide increased transportation and recreation opportunities. • Concerns with the limited transit expansion and enhancement projects, with a strong desire for additional high-capacity transit routes in Mesa. Comments Received Via the Project Website As noted in this plan, more bike connections are needed to downtown. As streets are redone, particularly arterials, separated bike infrastructure is needed to effectively move people. Current bike lines against traffic on arterials are not used because, as this report notes, they are not safe. For biking to be a realistic alternative to driving, they must be a safe path. I am disappointed at the lack of light rail expansion discussed. The light rail has been a huge boon for downtown. Expanding that system and connecting more destinations would also more effectively move people in our community while at the same time making our community more accessible. Thank you for putting this plan together, it was awesome and so comprehensive! I would like to advocate for the Alma school rd & UPRR Railroad crossing improvements to be moved into the short term category. That train sits there blocking the intersection for 15+ minutes! I look forward to the Corridor Study of University Drive from Gilbert to the west. It’s an interesting area. Stapley Drive and University getting turn lanes is much needed! Very excited. And for the country club improvements! I’m biased but I’d also hope to prioritize safety improvements along Rio salado and Alma School as well as Alma School and Main Street. That light rail stop is right by that railroad crossing where traffic gets blocked, it can get messy! Thank you! Very impressed. Thank you to everyone involved! I don't see any improvements noted for the intersections of US 60 at Ellsworth, Crismon, or Signal Butte relative to adding additional through lanes, dual left turn lanes or right turn lanes. During existing peak hours there is a need for some of these improvements, and definitely needed in the long term. I am a downtown mesa resident.35 years old incase you need that. I've lived between center, university and southern all my Mesa Transportation Master Plan 2 Life. I'm all for this BUT it's weird that mesa drive and Broadway is always in construction. These projects need to be sped up. By the time it's done I'll be 60 it seems. Anyways my advice is to keep thinking on ways it could go wrong or whatever to avoid 24/7 and forever construction. Just please over analyze this. Nothing is more annoying than never ending construction on busy roads cannot say enough places how against any light rail expansion, commuter rail or street car (depending on the section) down Dobson I am. I remain unconvinced by what I believe are inflated ridership numbers and do not see the community value. I do not want a people mover for Cubs Spring training that will go unused by Mesa residents year round. The canal pathways would be a much better served project and continue to be neglected in proposals with no actionable items outside of noting how unusable they currently are. I am an avid cyclist for both daily cycling and commuting. All year round. I want better and safer cycling infrastructure. Too many drivers, especially pickup and SUV drivers are reckless when it comes to their aggressive behavior against cyclists and pedestrians. Many people dont cycle because of dangerous reckless drivers. I want the canal cycling paths to be increased and made available for even greater safety and protection. I also come from cities that support public transportation, which includes light rail and cycling. I want city of Mesa to increase its light rail and cycling infrastructure and also expansion of the canal cycling and pedestrian paths to create a harmonious route so as to give people the opportunity to walk, run and cycle year round. I am against anyone who is opposed to the above and light rail expansion or destruction of pedestrian and cycling pathways. Thank you to Vice Mayor Heredia for providing a link to the plan and comment page in his e-mail. Wish I had time to comment during the decision process. I would have suggested that the light rail be extended to Higley Rd. I live in one of the winter visitor RV parks between Gilbert and Higley. My park has 1719 units. AZ thrivess economically on winter visitors. Many visit with out autos. As for me, I lived in Chicago area were rail and the "L" were essential. Bus transportation moved the residents. As Phoenix area grows hopefully citizens will use the metro system more as it too grows. I also wish people would be more tolerant of other riders "who don't wear a suit and tie." For the transit system, will you be able to add a service like We Ride Surprise or Chandler Flex? Biking and walking on neighborhood streets is nice. Trying to get out of the neighborhood to go to a nearby store, bus stop, school, or doctor's office for students and elderly can be challenging. Thanks for your consideration. *On page 111 P42, page 163 P42, and page 164 P42 - Change Maricopa County Flood Control Department to Flood Control District of Maricopa County. *Please consult with the City of Mesa Engineering Division (Drainage) with any proposed transportation plans to see if they conflict with any existing and/or proposed drainage/flood facilities within the City. I appreciate the opportunity to submit public comments on these important matters. I am fully in support of the comments listed below, some submitted by a Lehi resident which I have appended here to my remarks. Of particular concern to me is the absence of references to accommodations for equestrians that I know many citizens have voiced throughout this process, yet the Plan in its present form seems to omit. There are plenty of references and accommodations for cyclists, so let's not forget our friends with equestrian concerns please. P 8 — Additional City of Mesa Plans and Studies Reviewed -- It would have been helpful for to have reviewed the Lehi Sub Area [PDF] Plan. I’ll note several areas below that are in direct conflict with plan. P 30-31 — I'm guessing the project team didn't create the map on page 31 that indicated "Justice40 Disadvantaged Communities", but for the record, there are several areas labeled as "Disadvantaged Community" that doesn't make sense based upon the criteria given. One example is between Higley Road and Power Road north of the 202 -- that’s primarily vacant land to my knowledge, so it’s odd that that would be marked as a disadvantage community. The challenge in the map is that some area – such as east of Center street between Lehi Mesa Transportation Master Plan 3 Road and McKellips include two very diverse communities. The parcels along Lehi Rd, both sides, are distinctively different from the sections, just south of them. The northern edge of the “Justice40” area should be around Lynwood Lane, not all the way north to Lehi Road. Why is that a concern? Because several proposed projects reference later in this plan – sidewalks and bikes paths along Lehi Road-- could be considered as benefiting a “disadvantaged” area, when in fact those projects are too far away to have minimal benefit to the areas that really need them. When the policy goal of Justice40, as referenced on page 30, is that “40% of Federal investments should flow to disadvantaged communities”, projects such as those referenced above can get pushed on residents that don’t want or need them, to help meet that goal, instead of being used to benefit the residents that really need and want them. So, my question is – who created this map and how do we get the boundary lines corrected to accurately represent the needs of the community? P 52 How Safe Are Our Streets -- this page is well laid out graphically. It’s concerning to read that there has been a 24% increase in fatal crashes since 2017 and 41% of all crashes were intersection related. We need to remember those statistics the next time, the legislature tries to pass legislation to get rid of photo radar cameras that identify speeders and probably more importantly, cameras that capture red light runners at intersections. As a community concerned about safety, we need to quit rewarding bad behavior. Those that choose to NOT follow the traffic rules should pay the price. P 58 Biking in Mesa --Shared Use Path and Canal Trails sections. Equestrians are frequent users as well. While I realize the page is relating to biking, equestrian should be included in the list of possible users. Canal trails are one of the few places within the city that equestrians can use somewhat safely. So, equestrians should be listed there as an additional user when there is a surface that accommodates them safely. P 58 & 60 The sections "Buffered and Protected Bike Lanes" and “How Comfortable Are Our Streets for Cyclists” underscore something that I’ve heard frequently--safety concerns from bicyclists when they are forced to ride next to traffic. We have to take a hard look at other communities such as Scottsdale and how they have worked to separate bicycle traffic from vehicle traffic. Just one recent example that should be looked at is Shea Boulevard heading east to the 101 freeway, on the south side. The bike lane is move away from the vehicle traffic lanes. This is a good example of how some communities, in this case Scottsdale, has made an effort to separate bicycle traffic from vehicle traffic. This link will provide more information and examples how safety concerns can be more effectively addressed: https://ww2.scottsdaleaz.gov/Assets/ScottsdaleAZ/Transportation/Trails/2019+Active+Transportation+Map.pdf(External link) Mesa is growing fast; new communities are being created. As a city we sell the image of a place where a recreational lifestyle is supported and promoted. Separating bikes lanes from traffic lanes should be a priority in the planning and design process. P 75– Just an area that needs to be checked or compared to the general plan growth scenario. There is a small triangular parcel that is south of Thomas Road and east of the 24th St. alignment which, according to the last city council meeting was designated as "Sustain” but all of the rest of that area should be noted as "Conserve". There's also a section north of Thomas Road labeled "Sustain" and my understanding is that it should have been labeled as "Conserve" P 101, Table 5-2 Recommended New Road needs, ID# 118 -- I realize this is a long-term future project, but it involves a road that will eventually intersect a major horse crossing for the NE Lehi Community. It's the only way that community has to access the new Lehi Trail. So the comment "Construct new two-lane roadway with appropriate bike and pedestrian facilities” should be corrected to "Construct a roadway with appropriate bike, pedestrian and equestrian facilities”. When completed this plan will be a key document that will be built on in the future, and we cannot afford to not have an equestrian use noted in relationship to that project. P110 Citywide Multimodal Needs — When it comes to referencing citywide, multimodal needs, a statement needs to be added to reflect equestrian use of many of those facilities. So, adding a phrase such as "incorporate facilities for safe equestrian use" needs to be added. Specifically, ID P1, ID P5, ID P 6, ID P 15, ID P 34 and P 37. All of those project’s interface with Trails that equestrian riders utilize today. These projects are close to the Lehi community which has the highest concentration of horses and riders in the Mesa area. Acknowledging equestrian use and creating facilities that reflect that use is critical in this area and should be carefully considered is near properties zoned R43. This resource, Equestrian Design Guidebook for Trails, Trailheads, and Campgrounds https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/recreational_trails/publications/fs_publications/07232816/index.cfm(External link) should be utilized for all trail designs where the user could include equestrians. There are numerous safety issues that can be easily avoided if the recommendations in this guidebook are followed. One general guideline that comes to mind is that, what ever possible, bike paths and equestrian paths should be separated with as much space in between as Mesa Transportation Master Plan 4 possible, and proper signage confirming horses have the right of way and to maintain a safe distance. Often ALL users have to share the same path—such as using an underpass--, but as soon as possible a bifurcated trail is preferred, for the safety of ALL users. P 114 Table 5-8 Recommended Sidewalk Improvement Needs; ID S29 Lehi Road. The Lehi Sub Area plan on page 24 item 5 reads “ sidewalk should not be required in Lehi. Residents are of the opinion that ribbon curbing is sufficient except adjacent to public buildings.” So even the mention of the idea of putting sidewalks down Lehi Road would create an uproar in our neighborhood. The main reason for this is that we have granite Horse Trails along both sides of Lehi Road, to accommodate the safe travel of horse riders along with other users, and it’s been that way for over 100 years. Any addition of sidewalks would create a hazard for equestrian users. Item S53 Lehi Road/Thomas Road; McDowell Road to South Canal should be scrutinized as well depending on how close it is to existing horse paths or impacts them in any way. P 118-119 Recommended New Bicycle Facility Needs. ID B35 Lehi Road: South Canal to Center Street. The Lehi Community would most likely object to any new bicycle facilities being implemented along Lehi Road in that section primarily because we have bicycle traffic on the horse path. In general, concrete is not a safe surface for equestrians. And should be replaced with decomposed granite whenever possible. In the Lehi community along Lehi Road, we have a horse path on both the north and the south side of Lehi Road that bicyclist and pedestrians use safely as well. Recommend elimination of that proposed project. P156 157 ID P30 and P15 Shared Use Path Need Question --Where can I find out more about these two proposed projects? It’s running along the north side of the 202 freeway and currently ends at Center street. The east side of Center Street is regularly used by equestrians to access in the river bottom so again we have to make sure whatever is constructed there acknowledges and incorporates the safe use of that area by equestrians. Potential Project -- Another potential projects that I didn’t see on this plan was continuing that shared use path farther east, utilizing the excess ADOT right of way on the north side of the 202, eventually connecting up with McDowell Road, and then continuing along between McDowell and the 202 heading east. At the Stapley overpass, the path could head south, pickup the excess right of way long the south side of the 202 freeway until it meets the end of Lehi Road. At that point there’s easy access to the north side of the canal bank, where at that point, you can ride or bike all the way to Granite Reef dam without crossing another major street (Gilbert Rd, McDowell and Val Vista already have underpasses.) PLUS now the path connected it to the Rio Salado path. Question – what’s the process to explore this idea further? What are the next steps? ID S29 Fill-in Sidewalk Gap – Lehi Road and B35 – Bicycle Facility Need—Lehi Road: South Canal to Center Street. As noted above these two proposed projects are incompatible with the Lehi Sub Area Plan and the desires of the Lehi Community. P170 - 171 North Central Mesa – Travel Shed #7– Appreciate the careful reference that Lehi has an active equestrian community. That acknowledgment shows that you’ve carefully read the comments submitted by residents in the Lehi Community. ID 118 is noted on the map on page 172 but is not described on page 173--Which I think was intended. The important note there as referenced earlier in my comments, this road will intersect a major equestrian use multimodal path crossing and is the only way that horse riders can get out of the neighborhood to access, the Lehi Trail, which runs along the river bottom. So it needs to be emphasized that any road construction must allow for the safe use by equestrians in surrounding communities. P174 as noted earlier project S 29 and B 35 would not be acceptable to the Lehi community based upon the equestrian use of Lehi Road as a major thoroughfare in the Lehi community. Just one final comment you mentioned the Sun Circle trail on page 150 and 151 under project ID P 38. I don’t think the Sun Circle Trail is correctly labeled on many of your maps. The Sun Circle Trail is a national trail that was established back in the 60s, where it follows the South Canal you can literally ride it all the way to the granite reef Dam. Attached is some additional documentation confirming the location of the trail. It’s a big deal to equestrians because it is one of the few places that we can ride safely for long distances. As the Sun Circle Trail (north side of the South Canal) crosses Val Vista, all users (pedestrians, bikes and equestrians ) are able to experience “Mesa’s most spectacular view” unobstructed. Mesa Transportation Master Plan 5 Thank you for giving my input and these concerns condideration. hank you for all of your efforts, this is a very large document with alot to review. Sun Circle Trail should be labeled throughout and incorporated into all maps as it is a Nationally recognized trail. P 8 — Incorporate the subarea plans, review and verify. I cannot speak all Sub Area plans but there are areas that conflict with the Lehi Sub Area plan, I can only assume that with the immense undertaking of this project it would be a good idea to double check others. City of Mesa Lighting zones should also be considered as additional lighting is incorporated throughout. P 21 Existing land use map should incorporate the land use map and categories of the 2050 general plan P 30-31 — Reassess "Justice40 Disadvantaged Communities", there are areas that do not seem to meet the criteria identified P47 street condition map has sections recently resurfaced in 2022-2023that are listed as poor condition, recheck the list of projects from last year they were likely completed after this document was started. P 52 The crash data is good but I also think we need to consider # of crashes regardless of injury as well as those that are injurious and fatal. If an intersection is producing a higher than average number of minor incidents it is an indicator that we have an issue. P 58 Biking in Mesa --Shared Use Path and Canal Trails sections. Horses are frequent transitors it would be useful identify areas intentionally designed for the safety of riders as well as bikers like the canal system P 101, Table 5-2 Recommended New Road needs, ID# 118 include reference to equestrian uses P110 — When it comes to referencing citywide, multimodal needs, a statement needs to be added to reflect equestrian use of many of those facilities. The river and the canal system are a good portion of the horse use areas, again making sure SunCIrcle Trail indicated throughout the plan. P114: S-29 Remove sidewalk recommendation on Lehi Road this is an equestrian area, sidewalks are incompatible with the neighborhood uses. Sidewalks are often accompanied with additional lighting which in not in compliance with the lighting classification “dark skies” of the area. Even ribbon curbs are hazardous as concrete is a higher slip hazard. P 118-119 ID B35 Remove: The neighborhood would most likely object to any new bicycle "facilities" being implemented along Lehi Road in that section bikes transit this section constantly without issue both mountain bikers and road cyclists. In the Lehi community along Lehi Road we have a horse path on both the north and the south side of Lehi Road. Horses have been hit by cars in this area not cyclists. So I would eliminate that from the project list. Mesa Transportation Master Plan 6 P156 -157 ID P15 —Center Street is regularly use by equestrians to access in the river bottom so again we have to make sure whatever is constructed there acknowledges and incorporates the safe use by equestrians. ID S29 and B35 — as noted above these two project areas are incompatible with the Lehi Sub Area Plan and the desires of the Lehi Community. ID 118 is noted on the map on page 172. Add in description on 173 this road will intersect a major equestrian use multimodal path crossing and is the only way that horses can get out of the neighborhood to access, the Lehi Trail, which runs along the river bottom. So it needs to be emphasized that any road construction must allow for the safe use by equestrians. 157: B-35 mentioned above no bicycle facility needed, wide DG shoulders offer riding space; remove sidewalk fill in on Lehi Road. P174 as noted earlier project S 29 and B 35 would not be acceptable to the Lehi community based upon the equestrian and livestock uses of the area Mesa Transportation Master Plan 7