DOCSLIB.ORG

Area Transportation Plan Transportation Master Plan & Regional Connectivity Plan December 2015

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Area Transportation Plan Transportation Master Plan & Regional Connectivity Plan December 2015 Area Transportation Plan Transportation Master Plan & Regional Connectivity Plan December 2015 FINAL REPORT Prepared by : AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN Transportation Master Plan & Regional Connectivity Plan Prepared by Engineers & Architects December, 2015 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This Area Transportation Plan (ATP), comprised of a Transportation Master Plan and Regional Connectivity Plan, was developed with the extensive participation of City officials, staff, stakeholders, and the public. A special thanks is extended to the following individuals for their participation and insight that lead to the approval of the Plan by Maricopa’s City Council on December 15, 2015. City Council City Staff Mayor Christian Price City Manager Gregory Rose Vice Mayor Marvin L. Brown Dana Burkhardt, General Plan Update Project Councilmember Peggy Chapados Manager Councilmember Bridger Kimball Bill Faye, Director of Public Works Councilmember Vincent Manfredi David R. Maestas, ATP Project Manager Councilmember Nancy Smith Kazi Neaz-E-Haque, Zoning Administrator Councilmember Henry Wade Rodolofo Lopez, Senior Planner Joshua Plumb, Engineering/Floodplain Manager Transportation Advisory Committee Rob Dolson, Engineering Inspector Committee Chair Joel Saurey Committee Member Brian Hoffman ATP Technical Advisory Group Committee Member Christopher Labye Tim Strow, Maricopa Association of Committee Member Glen Chern Governments Committee Member Harold Cole Doug Hansen, Pinal County Committee Member James Jordan Travis Ashbaugh, Pinal County Committee Member Ken Austin Charla Glendening, Arizona Department of Transportation Planning and Zoning Commission Kevin Louis, City of Casa Grande Duane Eitel, City of Casa Grande Commission Chair Ron Batt Irene Higgs, Sun Corridor Metropolitan Planning Commissioner Bob Marsh Organization Commissioner James Irving Andy Smith, Central Arizona Governments Commissioner Linda Huggins Michelle Green, Arizona State Land Department Commissioner Michael Sharpe Zoe Richmond, Union Pacific Railroad Commissioner Nicholas Sheppard Commissioner Ted Yocum Area Transportation Plan TABLE OF CONTENTS Transportation Master Plan 1.0 TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN ........................................................................................................................... 1-1 STUDY AREA .................................................................................................................................................................... 1-1 City Limits ............................................................................................................................................................................ 1-1 Municipal Planning Area ...................................................................................................................................................... 1-1 Ak-Chin Indian Community .................................................................................................................................................. 1-3 Pending Annexation Actions ............................................................................................................................................... 1-3 STUDY PURPOSE .............................................................................................................................................................. 1-4 STUDY PROCESS .............................................................................................................................................................. 1-4 STUDY GOALS AND OBJECTIVES........................................................................................................................................ 1-5 2.0 VISION & GOALS .......................................................................................................................................................... 2-1 CITY OF MARICOPA 2040 VISION STRATEGIC PLAN ............................................................................................................ 2-1 TRANSPORTATION GOALS ................................................................................................................................................. 2-1 3.0 STAKEHOLDER AND PUBLIC OUTREACH ............................................................................................................... 3-1 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT STRATEGIES & METHODS ................................................................................................................ 3-1 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT COMPONENTS ................................................................................................................................. 3-2 Transportation Advisory Committee Meetings .................................................................................................................... 3-2 Planning and Zoning Committee Meetings ......................................................................................................................... 3-2 Technical Advisory Group Meetings .................................................................................................................................... 3-2 Public Open Houses ............................................................................................................................................................ 3-3 Council Work Sessions ....................................................................................................................................................... 3-3 Developer Outreach Forums ............................................................................................................................................... 3-3 Multi-jurisdictional Coordination .......................................................................................................................................... 3-3 4.0 KEY AREA & REGIONAL PLANS ................................................................................................................................ 4-1 RELEVANT GENERAL AND SPECIFIC PLANS ........................................................................................................................ 4-1 RELEVANT PLANS RELATING TO PARKS, TRAILS, BICYCLING, AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ............................................... 4-3 MAJOR REGIONAL PLANNING STUDIES ............................................................................................................................... 4-3 RELEVANT AREA TRANSPORTATION STUDIES ..................................................................................................................... 4-3 5.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS ............................................................................................................................................... 5-1 ROADWAY NETWORK ........................................................................................................................................................ 5-1 Network Operational Characteristics ................................................................................................................................... 5-1 Existing Plus Committed Roadway Network ....................................................................................................................... 5-8 Major Roadways .................................................................................................................................................................. 5-8 EXISTING TRANSIT SERVICES .......................................................................................................................................... 5-14 Demand Response Service ............................................................................................................................................... 5-14 Fixed-Route Service .......................................................................................................................................................... 5-14 Vanpool Service ................................................................................................................................................................ 5-18 Transit-Oriented Design .................................................................................................................................................... 5-18 Regional Transit Services ................................................................................................................................................. 5-19 FACILITIES FOR NON-MOTORIZED TRAVEL MODES ........................................................................................................... 5-19 General Plan Recommendations ...................................................................................................................................... 5-19 Subdivision Regulations .................................................................................................................................................... 5-19 Regional Bicycle Facilities ................................................................................................................................................. 5-20 Pedestrian Accommodations ............................................................................................................................................. 5-23 RAILROAD SERVICE .......................................................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • SATS Final Transit Element Report
    PPPINAL CCCOUNTY small area transportation study FINAL Transit Element Report PPPREPARED FFFOROROR ::: PPPINAL CCCOUNTY DDDEVELOPMENT SSSERVICES DDDEPARTMENT OF PPPUBLIC WWWORKS PPPREPARED BBBYYY::: KKKIRKHAM MMMICHAEL CCCONSULTING EEENGINEERS IIININ AAASSOCIATIONASSOCIATION WITH LLLIMA &&& AAASSOCIATES August 2006 KM Project # 0504900 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. EXISTING TRANSIT CONDITIONS ..............................................................1 1.1 Existing Transit Characteristics ................................................................................... 1 1.1.1 Demographics ....................................................................................................................1 1.1.2 Current Mode to Work .......................................................................................................2 1.2 Existing Transit Services ............................................................................................. 2 1.2.1 Coolidge Cotton Express....................................................................................................2 1.2.2 Inter-city Bus Service..........................................................................................................3 1.2.3 Special Needs Transit Services ...........................................................................................4 1.2.4 Amtrak Passenger Rail Service ...........................................................................................4 1.2.5 Regional Airport Shuttle .....................................................................................................7
    [Show full text]
  • SR 347 Final Environmental Assessment
    Intentional blank page Intentional blank page Intentional blank page Table of Contents List of Acronyms and Abbreviations ............................................................................................................... iii I. Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 1 A. Project Description ................................................................................................................................. 1 B. Summary of the Environmental Assessment .......................................................................................... 1 C. Selected Alternative ................................................................................................................................ 1 II. Mitigation Measures ............................................................................................................................. 3 III. Errata From Draft Environmental Assessment ...................................................................................... 10 Mitigation Measures ....................................................................................................................................... 10 O. Secondary and Cumulative Impacts ...................................................................................................... 12 IV. Public Comments ...............................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Arizona State Rail Plan March 2011
    Arizona State Rail Plan March 2011 Arizona Department of Transportation This page intentionally left blank Acknowledgements The State Rail Plan was made possible by the cooperative efforts of the following individuals and organizations who contributed significantly to the successful completion of the project: Rail Technical Advisory Team Cathy Norris, BNSF Railway Chris Watson, Arizona Corporation Commission Bonnie Allin, Tucson Airport Authority Reuben Teran, Arizona Game and Fish Department Zoe Richmond, Union Pacific Railroad David Jacobs, Arizona State Historic Preservation Office Jane Morris, City of Phoenix – Sky Harbor Airport Gordon Taylor, Arizona State Land Department Patrick Loftus, TTX Company Cathy Norris, BNSF Railway Angela Mogel, Bureau of Land Management ADOT Project Team Jack Tomasik, Central Arizona Association of Governments Sara Allred, Project Manager Paul Johnson, City of Yuma Kristen Keener Busby, Sustainability Program Manager Jermaine Hannon, Federal Highway Administration John Halikowski, Director Katai Nakosha, Governor’s Office John McGee, Executive Director for Planning and Policy James Chessum, Greater Yuma Port Authority Mike Normand, Director of Transit Programs Kevin Wallace, Maricopa Association of Governments Shannon Scutari, Esq. Director, Rail & Sustainability Marc Pearsall, Maricopa Association of Governments Services Gabe Thum, Pima Association of Governments Jennifer Toth, Director, Multi-Modal Planning Division Robert Bohannan, RH Bohannan & Associates Robert Travis, State Railroad Liaison Jay
    [Show full text]
  • Pinal County Transit Governance Study Technical Working Group Meeting #1 October 30, 2019 Agenda
    Pinal County Transit Governance Study Technical Working Group Meeting #1 October 30, 2019 Agenda • Welcome and Introductions • Project Overview • Pinal County and Public Transit: Existing Conditions, Needs and Opportunities • Discussion: Pinal County Transit Service Goals and Opportunities • Peer Review • Next Steps Project Overview Develop structure and system to govern regional transit investments • Service goals • Service network and markets • Performance expectations • Sharing and allocating funds • Decision making and policy development • Flexibility to accommodate growth and change Schedule Fall 2019 Winter Spring Summer Fall Refined Scope of Work Existing Transit Service and Governance Structures Governance Peer Review Governance Assessment and Recommendations Governance Implementation Schedule Document Title VI Implementation Activities TWG Meetings – Proposed Schedule No. Meeting Topic / Goal Indicative Schedule 1 Existing Conditions, Opportunities and Needs October 30, 2019 Identify Peer Communities / Agencies 2 Draft Findings: Peer Review January, 2020 Discuss: Governance Options and Strategies 3 Stakeholder Workshop #1: March, 2020 Transit Service Design, Governance and Options 4 Draft Findings: Governance Assessment and Recommendations June, 2020 Discuss Implementation Schedule 5 Stakeholder Workshop #2: August, 2020 Draft Recommendations 6 Discuss: Draft Final Recommendations and Implementation October, 2020 Schedule Schedule Fall 2019 Winter Spring Summer Fall Refined Scope of Work Existing Transit Service and Governance
    [Show full text]
  • Transportation Alternatives (TA) / CMAQ Application for FY 2021 and FY 2022 Projects
    MAR-21-01ModalApps__2021-2022 9/27/2017 Transportation Alternatives (TA) / CMAQ Application For FY 2021 and FY 2022 Projects Due: September 25, 2017 at 10:00 a.m. (LATE AND/OR INCOMPLETE APPLICATIONS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED) TA Amount Available: $4,178,521, and $ 4,248,246 ($8,426,767 total) CMAQ Amount Available: $8,765,780, and $8,905,080 ($17,670,860 total) Title Page Page 1 of 33 MAR-21-01ModalApps__2021-2022 9/27/2017 INSTRUCTIONS AND SCHEDULE The due date and time for project applications to be submitted to MAG is Monday, September 25, 2017 at 10:00 a.m. General Instructions This Excel form is to be used to request federal Transportation Alternatives (TA) and CMAQ funding available through the Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) for projects to be included in the FY2018-FY 2022 MAG Transportation Improvement Program. Funding is available for Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) 2021 and 2022. This application form includes: - Instructions and Schedule - Cover Sheet - Part A - Contact and Project Description - Part B - Detailed Project Description - Part C - Required and Optional Attachments - Part D - Cost Estimate Spreadsheet - Part E - Total Project Budget and Schedule - Part F - Checklist and Signature Page - GIS Submittal Instructions - ADOT Fee Sheet - Transportation Alternatives Program and Map - Congestion Mitigation Air Quality Program and Map Each part is a separate tab of this excel file. Please complete the Cover Sheet and Parts A - F. Alternative application forms are available upon request. Transmittal Instructions All applications are due on Monday, September 25, 2017 by 10:00 a.m. Both an electronic and printed copy of the application and all attachments are required.
    [Show full text]
  • Market Study for Full-Service Hotels
    FEASIBILITY STUDY Proposed Extended-Stay Hotel MARICOPA, ARIZONA SUBMITTED TO:PR OPOSED PREPARED BY: Ms. Denyse Airheart HVS Consulting & Valuation 39700 W Civic Center Plaza Division of TS Worldwide, LLC Maricopa, Arizona, 85239 221 East Indianola Avenue Phoenix, Arizona, 85012 +1 (520) 316-6992 +1 (608) 658-0587 February-2018 March 2, 2018 Ms. Denyse Airheart 39700 W Civic Center Plaza Maricopa, Arizona, 85239 HVS PHOENIX - LOS ANGELES OFFICE Re: Proposed Extended-Stay Hotel 221 East Indianaola Avenue Maricopa, Arizona Phoenix, Arizona, 85012 +1 (608) 658-0587 HVS Reference: 2017022183 +1 (415) 896-0516 FAX www.hvs.com Dear Ms. Airheart: Pursuant to your request, we herewith submit our feasibility study pertaining to the above-captioned property. We have inspected the real estate and analyzed the hotel market conditions in the Maricopa, Arizona area. We have studied the proposed project, and the results of our fieldwork and analysis are presented in this report. We have also reviewed the proposed improvements for this site. Our report was prepared in accordance with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP), as provided by the Appraisal Foundation. We hereby certify that we have no undisclosed interest in the property, and our employment and compensation are not contingent upon our findings. This study is subject to the comments made throughout this report and to all assumptions and limiting conditions set forth herein. Sincerely, TS Worldwide, LLC Ryan Wall, Director [email protected], +1 (608) 658-0587 State Appraiser License (AZ) 32100 Superior results through unrivaled hospitality intelligence. Everywhere. Table of Contents SECTION TITLE PAGE 1.
    [Show full text]
  • City of Maricopa Small Area Transportation Study – Final Report
    CITY OF MARICOPA SMALL AREA TRANSPORTATION STUDY FINAL REPORT JULY 22, 2005 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1. INTRODUCTION............................................................................................ 1 REPORT ORGANIZATION ............................................................................... 1 BACKGROUND............................................................................................... 1 PURPOSE....................................................................................................... 2 STUDY AREA................................................................................................. 2 STUDY PROCESS............................................................................................ 3 2. SUMMARY OF EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS................................... 5 CURRENT SOCIOECONOMIC CONDITIONS ..................................................... 5 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT............................................................................. 6 CURRENT TRANSPORTATION CONDITIONS.................................................... 7 FUTURE POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT.................................................... 9 FUTURE YEAR TRAFFIC DEMAND ................................................................10 3. VISION AND GOALS.....................................................................................12 VISION..........................................................................................................12 GOALS .........................................................................................................13
    [Show full text]
  • Final Environmental Assessment for Department
    DOE/EA-1797 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY LOAN GUARANTEE FOR THE AGUA CALIENTE SOLAR PROJECT IN YUMA COUNTY, ARIZONA U.S. Department of Energy Loan Guarantee Program Office Washington, DC 20585 November 2010 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page Executive Summary .................................................................................................................ES-1 Introduction ..........................................................................................................................ES-1 Purpose and Need ...............................................................................................................ES-1 Proposed Action and Alternatives........................................................................................ES-2 Summary of Environmental Effects......................................................................................ES-2 Chapter 1 Purpose and Need................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Purpose of and Need for Action ................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 Background................................................................................................................... 1-2 1.3 Scope of this Environmental Assessment .................................................................... 1-2 1.4 Public Participation ....................................................................................................... 1-3 1.5
    [Show full text]
  • Editorial President San Diego Improvements Post Pandemic Rail
    ISSN 2325-629X Jackson: Editorial President San Diego Improvements Post Pandemic Rail High Speed Rail Timetable Confusion Arizona Report LA-PHX Intercity Bi-Levels Solution? Amtrak at 50 Europe Night Trains Battery or Hydrogen? STEEL WHEELS / FIRST QUARTER 2021 1 A Happy New Year for All Rail Advocates Guest Editorial by Russ Jackson, RailPAC Editor Emeritus You’ve seen them... every writer is Jensen’s website, and every day the California Zephyr train 5 runs it saying the same thing: “Goodbye to shows riders getting on and off there. The same situation is happening 2020 and here’s hoping 2021 is better.” on the Empire Builder, the Coast Starlight, and the Sunset Limited/ It seems like the same thing is said at Texas Eagle from reports we’ve heard, and railroad timekeeping still the end of every year, but this time the delays trains unmercifully. So, what is Amtrak saving? Is it saving the reasons for saying fond farewell to an expenses of running the trains daily, or is it losing the revenue it would old year seemed to be more intense be having from daily service and broader allocation of expenses? Rail than ever. The same must be said not advocates have been saying that revenues will be hard hit because only because of the virus that is ripping 4/7 of the potential is not there. At least Amtrak did the right thing the world apart, but, for rail advocates it is because so many systems during the Holiday period by adding a Sleeping Car and a Coach to that we all have been working so hard to ensure their success, and to most consists, and probably could have added more.
    [Show full text]
  • Pinal County Transit Feasibility Study
    FINAL REPORT April 2011 Pinal County Transit Feasibility Study Table of Contents CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................1-1 CHAPTER 2 STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEW RESULTS ...........................................................2-1 Stakeholder Interview Process .............................................................................................2-1 Overview of Interview Results ...............................................................................................2-2 CHAPTER 3 EXISTING CONDITIONS ....................................................................................3-1 Community Profiles ..............................................................................................................3-1 Activity Centers and Major Employers ................................................................................ 3-15 Population and Employment Density .................................................................................. 3-17 Transit Propensity ............................................................................................................... 3-17 Travel Flows ....................................................................................................................... 3-18 Current Work Trip Modes ................................................................................................... 3-19 Implications for Transit Service ..........................................................................................
    [Show full text]