HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution 2001-077 adopting and declaring the transportation plan update as a public recordMARANA RESOLUTION NO. 2001-77
A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF MARANA,
ARIZONA, DECLARINO THE TOWN OF MARANA TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE
TO BE A PUBLIC RECORD AND DECLARING AND ADOPTING THE MARANA
TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE AS AN AMENDMENT TO THE CIRCULATION
ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN.
WHEREAS, the Town of Marana/asr approved and adopted a Transportation Master
Plan in December, 1989 within the Town's General Plan boundary; and
WHEREAS, The Marana Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing and
voted to unanimously recommend that the Town Council adopt the Marana Transportation P/an
Update as an amendment to the Circulation Element of the Gen~d Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Marana Town Council has heard from the Town's staff~ and members of
the public at the regular Town Council meeting on this date; and
WHEREAS, the Mayor and Council of the Town of Marana, after a public hearing
conducted on this date, have determined that approving the proposed Marana Transpo~n
Plan Update of the Circulation Elemem of the General Plan is in the best interest of the residents
of Marana.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Mayor and Council of the Town of
Maraaa, Arizo~ as follows:
Section 1: threDeeClaring the Marana Tramportation Plan Update of the Oeneral Plan to
he a public Record, cop/es ofwhich are to be kept on file at the office ofthe Town Clerk.
Section 2: The proposed Marana Transportation Plan Update ofthe General Plan be
adopted as presented in the staff report.
Section 3: All ordinances, resolutions, or motions and parts of ordinances,
resolutions, or motions of the Council in conflict with the provisions of this Resolutions are
hereby repealed, effective as of the effective date of this Resolution.
Section 4: If any section, subsection, sentence, chuse, phrase or portion of this
Resolution is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of
competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions
hereof.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Mayor and Council of the Town of Marana, Arizona,
this 19u' day of June 2001.
ATTEST:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
$. Hochuli, As Town Attorney
and not personally
~ON J/C
I
I
I
I
,I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'I
I
MARANA
TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE
2001-2025
Final Report
Prepared for:
~~,
MARANA
.....v'-"v/ I "-
....""......... "-
IOWN or UAUNA.
The Town of Marana
Department of Public Works
3696 W, Orange Grove Road
Tucson, Arizona 85741
Prepared by:
F~
'00
YEARS
~
Curtis Lueck & Associates
Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc,
177 N, Church Avenue, Suite 500
Tucson, Arizona 85701
Curtis Lueck & Associates
5780 W, EI Camino del Cerra
Tucson, Arizona 85745
July 2001
Adopted by the Marana Mayor and Council on June 19, 2001 - Resolution No. 2001-77
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
MARAN A
TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE
2001.2025
Final Report
Prepared for:
A"~
- ~
MARANA
~/l"
TOWN Of MARANA
Prepared by:
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The Town of Marana
Department of Public Works
3696 W. Orange Grove Road
Tucson,Arizona85741
--
--
--
--
----
----
----
---
--
--
--
---
- --
- --
- --
- -
- -
- -
tclL~
100
~s
Curtis Lueck &: Associates
Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc.
177 N. Church Avenue, Suite 500
Tucson, Arizona 85701
Curtis Lueck & Associates
5780 W. EI Camino del Cerra
Tucson, Arizona 85745
July 2001
Adopted by the Marana Mayor and Council on June 19, 2001 - Resolution No. 2001-77
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'I
I
I
I
I
Marana Transportation Plan Update
Final Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ............................................ v
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY... ....... ... .......................................... ...... ... ...... ..... vi
1 .0 INTRODUCTION ......... ... ....... ... ... ... ...................................................1
1.1 Study Purpose And Need............................................................................. 1
1.2 Study Area. ...... ..... ...... ........ .... ............ ... ..... ...... ... ... ... ...... ... ..... ... ... ... ......... ...1
2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS MAP OF AREA OF INFLUENCE .................4
2.1 Land Use (General Plan and Northwest Plan) .............................................. 4
2.2 Socio-Economic Data ... .......... .... ... ........... ... ................... ... ... ... .......... ..... ......4
2.2.1 Su b-Reg ions.. . . . . . . . .. . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2.2 Current Land Use............................................................................ 7
2.2.3 Socio-Econom ic Data.................................................................... 1 0
2.3 Street System Inventory.. ...... ... .... ... ............ ... ....... ......... ... .......... ...... ....... ...11
2.3.1 Roadway Inventory........................................................................ 11
2.3.2 Freeway.. ... ..... .... ... ........... .., ....... .... ............ .... ........ ... ... ..... ... .........19
2.4 Bicycle and Pedestrian Circulation............................................................. 21
2.4.1 Paved Shoulders, Bicycle Lanes and Multiuse Lanes ..................21
2.4.2 Shared Use Pathways................................................................... 23
2.4.3 Sidewalks...................................................................................... 23
2.5 Pub I i c T ran s po rtatio n. .. .. .. .. . . .. . .. . .. .. .. .. .. . .. . .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. . .. . .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. . 23
2.5.1 Sun Tran. ... ...... ... ... ........ ... ... ... .... ................. ... ... .............. ..... ... ......25
2.5.2 Marana Public Transit.................................................................... 27
2.5.3 Pima County Rural Transit ............................................................. 28
2.5.4 Trans it F ac i I iti es . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . . .. . . .. . .. . . .. . . .. . .. .. . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . . .. .. .. . . .. .. ... 29
2.6 Interviews and Surveys............................................................................... 29
2.6.1 Staff Interviews ..............................................................................29
2.6.2 Gatekeeper Surveys.. .................. ........ ............................... ...........30
2.6.3 On-Board Surveys......................................................................... 30
2.6.4 Telephone Surveys...... ... ........... ...... ................. ..... ... .................. ...31
2.7 System Deficiencies ..................... ... .............. ... ........... ........ ................ .......31
2.7.1 Roadways.. ...... ... ...... ... ........... ........ ... ... ... ... ....... ........ ... ... ..... .........31
2.7.2 Bicycle and Pedestrian................................................................. 32
2.7.3 Transit.... ...... ... ..... .............. ... ... ... ..... ......... ... ......... ...... ..... ........... ...34
3.0 FUTURE CONDITIONS ...... ... .......... ............................... .................35
3. 1 Growth Forecasts ....................................................................................... 35
3.1.1 Future Land Use. .............. ... .... ... .......... ... ....... ... ........... ... ... ........ ...35
3.1.2 Future Socio-Economic Data......................................................... 35
3. 1 .3 Fi n din 9 s . . . . . . . . .. . .. . . . . .. . .. . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. . .. 4 1
3.1.4 Opportunities and Constraints...................................................... 41
.,.'7'"~,
MAI~^N^
~~~~/ I "
Page i
July 2001
I
I
I
I
I
,
r
I,
I
I
I
I,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Marana Transportation Plan Update
Final Report
3.2 Travel Demand Modeling........................................................................... 41
3.2. 1 Basel i n e Model.............................................................................. 42
3.2.2 Calibration of Existing Conditions Model....................................... 42
3.3 Future Roadway Forecasts ............. ... ... ... ... ..... ...... ... ... .... .......... ...... ... ........42
3.3.1 Future Conditions Model Output................................................... 43
4.0 ROADWAY COMPONENT ...............................................................4 7
4.1 Roadway Needs......................................................................................... 47
4.2 Alternatives Studied.................................................................................... 47
4.3 Future Conditions I - 10.............................................................................. 47
4.3.1 Findings......................................................................................... 49
4.4 Preferred Roadway Alternative Including Costs......................................... 50
4.5 Conclusions and Recommendations............................................................. 52
5.0 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN COMPONENT ...................................56
5.1 Recommended Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities ......................................56
5.1.1 On-Street Bikeways ..... ... ... ........ ....... ................. ... ...... .......... ... ... ...56
5.1.2 Shared Use Paths......................................................................... 56
5.1.3 Sidewalks ......................................................................................58
5.1.4 Support Facilities.............. .......... ...... ... ................ ... .................. .....58
5.2 Planni ng-Level Cost Estimates................................................................... 58
5.3 Conclusions and Recommendations.......................................................... 59
6.0 TRANSIT COMPONENT.. ................. ......... ...................................... 62
6. 1 Transit Altern ati ves .... .. . .. . . .. .. .. . .. .. . .. . .. .. . .. . .. . .. . .. .. . .. . .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. . .. .. . .. .. .. . .. 62
6.1.1 Commuter Intensive Alternative .................................................... 62
6.1.2 Neighborhood Circulator Intensive Alternative.............................. 64
6.1.3 Fixed-Route Transit Alternative .....................................................66
6.2 Preferred Transit Alternative....................................................................... 68
6.2.1 Transit Implementation Period 2001-2005..................................... 68
6.2.2 Transit Implementation Period 2006-2011..................................... 75
6.2.3 Transit Implementation Period 2011-2025..................................... 79
6.2.4 Concl usions................................................................................... 84
6.3 Management Options .... ...... ... ... ... ..... ...... ........... ...... ... ... ... ... ... ....... ... .... .....84
6.3.1 I nternal Management: Advantages/Disadvantages...................... 85
6.3.2 Contractual Management: Advantages/Disadvantages................ 85
6.3.3 Conclusions. ...... ... ...... .... ..... ... ... ... ........... ... ......... ... ... ... ........... ... ...86
6.4 Federal Transportation Administration Requirements................................ 86
6.5 Conclusions and Recommendations.......................................................... 88
7.0 FU NDI NG ................ ............. ................ ... ............. .................. ........89
7.1 Introduction ... ...... ........... ... ... ... .............. ...... ... ... ............... ......... ... ..............89
7.2 Existing Funding Sources .... ... ...... ... ..... '" ... ..... ...... ... ... ... ... .................... .....89
7.2.1 Highway User Revenues ............................................................... 89
,...~'\. Page ii
MAUANA July 2001
~~=.:~:/ , \.
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
--..-
Marana Transportation Plan Update
Final Report
7.2.2 Local Transportation Assistance Fund.......................................... 90
7.2.3 PAG Funds.................................................................................... 91
7.2.4 Local. . . . . . . .. . . . . .. .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . .. . .. . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . 91
7.2.5 Federal.......................................................................................... 92
7.3 Forecast Methodology................................................................................ 93
7.4 Forecast of Existi ng Reven ues ................................................................... 94
7 .4.1 Total Existing Revenues 2001-2025 .............................................. 94
7.4.2 Highway User Revenue Funds...................................................... 95
7.4.3 Local Transportation Assistance Fund .......................................... 95
7.4.4 PAG Funds ....................................................................................96
7.4.5 Local.............................................................................................. 96
7.4.6 Federal............... ... ...... ... ... ... ... ........... ... ........ ................ ............. ...96
7.5 Forecasts of Proposed Funding Sources ...................................................97
7 .5.1 Total Existi ng Revenues 2000-2025 ..............................................97
7.5.2 Recently Adopted Construction Sales Tax Increase..................... 98
7.5.3 Recently Adopted Development Impact Fees .............................. 98
7.5.4 Proposed New Sources............. .... ... ... .............. ... ...... ............ .......98
7.6 Summary.................................................................................................... 99
7.6.1 Potential Changes to Revenue Forecasts..................................... 99
7.7 Shortfall Analys is ...................................................................................... 101
7.8 Fund i n g Str ateg i es ................................................................................... 1 01
I
I
I
IJ
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
8.0 AGENCY AND PUBLIC MEETINGS............................................... 1 06
8.1 T AC Meetings .... ... ...... ... ..... ...... ... ... ... ... ........... ... ... ..... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ..... ....106
8.2 Public Meetings.. ........ ... ..... ... ... ... ...... ........ ...... ... ........ ... ... ... ...... ... ............106
9.0 CO NCLUSIONS . .... ............... .......... ......... .... ...... ............. ......... .....1 09
9.1 Integration With The General Plan ............................................................ 109
9.2 Plan Implementation and Maintenance Strategies................................... 109
APPENDIX
Table 2-1
Table 2-2
Table 2-3
Table 2-4
Table 2-5
Table 2-6
Table 2-7
Table 2-8
Table 3-1
Table 3-2
LIST OF TABLES
Existing Socio-Economic Data.............................................................. 9
Existing Major Roadway Inventory...................................................... 12
I ntersection Analysis Results for Present and Future year................. 20
Route 16 ............................................................................................. 26
Route 102. ..... ......... ... ......... ... ... ... ... ........ ... ... .... ...... ... .......... ... ... .........26
Route 103. ... ... ... ..... ... ... ...... ...... .... ....... ... .......... ...................... ... .........27
Marana Pu bl ic Transit......................................................................... 28
Pima County Rural Transit .................................................................. 28
Build-Out Conditions in Northwest Marana......................................... 37
Summary of Future Socio-Economics by Sub-Region........................ 40
....'7'"~'\.
MAI~^N^
~~~~/ I '\.
Page iii
July 2001
I
I
I
I
I
I:
I
I'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Marana Transportation Plan Update
Final Report
Table 3-3
Table 3-4
Table 4-1
Table 4-2
Table 5-1
Table 6-1
Table 6-2
Table 6-3
Table 6-4
Table 6-5
Table 6-6
Table 6-7
Table 6-8
Table 6-9
Table 8-1
Table 8-2
Figure 1-1
Figure 2-1
Figure 2-2
Figure 2-3
Figure 2-4
Figure 2-5
Figure 2-6
Figure 3-1
Figure 3-2
Figure 3-3
Figure 3-4
Figure 3-5
Figure 4-1
Figure 4-2
Figure 4-3
Figure 5-1
Figure 6-1
Figure 6-2
Figure 6-3
Figure 6-4
Figure 6-5
Figure 6-6
Figure 6-7
Figure 7-1
Figure 7-2
Planned Roadway Improvements, ,....,....,......,..,.....,.....,... ......,... ......,.43
Summary of Current and Future Traffic Volumes.......................,........ 46
Summary of Roadway Improvements and Estimated Costs..........,.... 48
Summary of Roadway and Estimated Construction Costs........,..,..... 55
Town of Marana Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities ..,..,.......................60
Operations Costs Implementation Period 2001-2005..............,..,..,.... 70
Capital Needs Implementation Period 2001-2005....,..............,..,.......74
Operational and Capital Costs 2001-2005 ,..,................,......,............, 74
Operations Costs 1m plementation Period 2006-2010..,..,..,......,..,...... 76
Capital Needs Implementation Period 2006-2010....................,........,78
Operational and Capital Costs 2006-2010 ......,........,..,..,..,............,..,78
Operations Costs Implementation Period 2011-2025...,........,..,......,..82
Capital Needs 1m plementation Period 2011-2025............................., 83
Operational and Capital Costs 2011-2025 .....................,................... 83
Members of Technical Advisory Committee,................,..,..,............, 106
Comments Received from the Public .....................,..............,........., 107
LIST OF FIGURES
Study Area,........................................,.......,..........,.....,..,...................... 3
Study Area Sub-Regions ........ .............. ... .......... ................... ... ... ....... ...5
Existing Land Uses in the Study Area.................................................. 8
Current Socio-Economics .... ... ... ................. ..... ...... ............ .......... ... ....10
Operating Level of Service ........ ... .............. ... ........ ...... ... ... ....... ... .......20
Existing Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities ..........................................22
Existing Transit Services ... ............... ................. ........... ... .... ... ... ... .......24
Planned Development Units in Northwest Area.................................. 36
Socio-Economics for 2010 Model....................................................... 38
Socio-Economics for 2025 Model.......................................................39
Traffic Volumes and Roadway Capacity Requirements, 2010............44
Average Daily Traffic & Cross-Section Lane Requirements ...............45
Year 2025 11- and Cross Streets - Level of Service........................... 51
Recommended 2010 Roadway Improvements ..................................53
Recommended 2020 Roadway Improvements ..................................54
Future Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities............................................. 57
Commuter Routes............................................................................... 63
Neig hborhood Circulator Routes........................................................ 65
Fixed Route Service............................................................................ 67
2001-2005 Transit Implementation Plan Period ..................................69
Neig hborhood Circulator Zone........................................................... 73
2006-2010 Transit Implementation Plan .............................................76
Transit I mplementation Period 2011-2025.......................................... 81
Marana Transportation Plan Expenditures 2002-2025..................... 103
Marana Transportation Plan Revenues 2002-2025........................... 104
.,.,"=""~'
MAI~^N^
~~~~:/ I'\.
Page iv
July 2001
I
I
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Marana Transportation Plan Update
Final Report
ACC
ADOT
ADT
CLA
FHWA
HCM
HCS
ISTEA
ITE
LOS
MMP
MUTCD
PAG
PB
SPRR
SR
VPD
VPH
LIST of ACRONYMS and ABBREVIATIONS
Arizona Corporation Commission
Arizona Department of Transportation
Average Daily Traffic
Curtis Lueck & Associates
Federal Highway Administration
Highway Capacity Manual
Highway Capacity Software
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act
I nstitute of Transportation Engi neers
Level of Service
Mobility Management Plan
Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices
Pima Association of Governments
Parsons Brinckerhoff
Southern Pacific Railroad Company
State Route
Vehicles per Day
Vehicles per Hour
~~~"
MAI~ANA
~~~~:/ I"
Page v
July 2001
I
I
I
I
I
,I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
'I
'I
I
I
I
I
Marana Transportation Plan Update
Final Report
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
MARAN A TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE
BACKGROUND
The Town of Marana ("Town") continues to experience considerable growth in population
and employment. This growth has resulted in significant congestion on many local
streets, especially those that connect with 1-10. This growth is expected to continue so
that the Town's population, which is now about 15,000, will approach 90,000 by 2025.
The Town, which incorporated in 1977, adopted its first Transportation Plan in 1989. The
purpose of this study is to update the 1989 plan to reflect the Town's growth and help
accommodate future development. This study investigates the existing conditions of all
transportation facilities within the Town including roadways, bicycle facilities, pedestrian
facilities and transit systems. Deficiencies in the current operations of these modes are
identified and recommendations are presented to address existing and future limitations.
Additional funds will be needed to implement the study recommendations and possible
funding sources have been outlined for each mode. The recommendations in this study
will become a part of the Marana General Plan, which will guide future development in
the community.
SYSTEM DEFICIENCIES
The study identified deficiencies in the existing transportation systems for roads,
bicycles, pedestrians, and transit. These deficiencies need to be addressed in the
development of a Transportation Plan for the Town.
Roadways
Traffic congestion is now concentrated along Cortaro Road, lna Road, and Orange
Grove Road in the vicinity of 1-10, and at major arterial roadway intersections near retail
centers. Current roadway deficiencies are primarily due to capacity constraints that can
be mitigated through intersection and roadway widening projects, and improvements are
now under design or construction for most of these existing problem areas. As the Town
grows, however, there will be significant capacity problems in new locations throughout
the Town.
.,."7"""~'\.
MAI~^N^
~~~~/ I '\.
Page vi
July 2001
I
I
I'
I
I
,I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'I
I
\1
I
I
I
I
Marana Transportation Plan Update
Final Report
Bicvcle/Pedestrian
Various impediments to walking and bicycling exist within the Town. Following is a brief
listing of some of the challenges the Town must overcome to promote bicycling and
walking.
. A lack of bicycle and pedestrian facilities throughout the Town.
. Non-continuous bike lanes and sidewalks at structures, washes, and roadway
crossings.
· A lack of trees for shade, rest and water facilities, bike racks, and lockers.
. Limited bicycling and walking opportunities due to low densities and long travel
distances, particularly in the summertime heat.
. Insufficient access points in subdivisions and at schools to facilitate bicycle and
pedestrian travel.
Transit
Existing transit services within Marana are very limited. Fixed route service is provided
by Sun Tran along Ina Road and serves commercial developments on Ina Road and
provides commuter service to major employers. Pima County provides limited in-town
service; however, the service area is vast and headways are long. Transit facilities are
scattered, and generally consist only of a sign designating the bus stop. As Marana
continues to develop, residential and new employment trip generators within the Town
will generate a demand for increased transit service.
FUTURE LAND USE
The Town will continue to grow in population and employment over the next 25 years.
Current developments such as Continental Ranch will be built out in about 10 years,
whereas the northwest Marana area will experience most of its growth after 2010. Much
of the developable land east of 1-10 is severely constrained because it is designated as
pygmy owl habitat; consequently, growth is being driven into agricultural areas and infill
locations.
TRAFFIC FORECASTS
Traffic from the proposed developments and other potential development in the study
area was projected using a computer based travel demand model - QRSII. The
transportation network is represented by a series of nodes (intersections) and links
(streets) and the land uses are represented by centroids that identify socioeconomic
attributes of the area including the number of homes and employment. Once the study
area has been defined, the program estimates the number of trips to and from each
centroid, distributes the trips by purpose, and assigns the trips to the roadways. The
end result is a projection of the average daily traffic (ADT) on each roadway segment.
'""~~"
MAI~ANA
~~~~/ I "
Page vii
July 2001
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Marana Transportation Plan Update
Final Report
LEVEL OF SERVICE
Level of service (LOS) is a grading system of A through F that measures how well a
roadway or intersection operates under prevailing traffic conditions and is based on the
traffic volumes and capacity of the roadway. Except for portions of Cortaro Road and
Ina Road near 1-10, which operate at LOS D or worse, the roads in the study area
currently operate at LOS C or better. The Town desires to maintain this level of service in
order to preserve the rural character of the community.
PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONS
Roadwav
More than 40 roadway improvement projects have been identified for implementation by
2025. These improvements are categorized by priority. Figure 1 shows the roadway
network that should be in place by 2025 to accommodate future traffic within the study
area. Some of the proposed roadway improvements are:
· Avra Valley Road: Sanders - 1-10
· Barnett Road: Sanders - west of Lon Adams
· Grier Road: 1-10 - Sanders
. Hurvie E. Davis Drive: extension of Costco Drive to Regency Plaza Drive
· Moore Road: Sanders to 1-10
· Sanders Road: Avra Valley Road to Marana
. Three new arterial roadways and three new collector streets
. New interchanges with 1-10 at Twin Peaks and Moore Road; reconstruction of
three existing interchanges
. Camino de Manana extension from Twin Peak interchange to Tangerine
Road/Dove Mountain Boulevard.
The approximate construction cost for these improvements (in 2001 dollars) is $475
million, including debt service for bond-funded projects. Roadway operation and
maintenance costs for the plan period are expected to be about $105 million.
Bicvcle/Pedestrian
Bicycle and pedestrian facilities are proposed over the plan horizon. The plan calls for:
. On-street bikeways that include 5-foot to 8-foot wide paved shoulders and
multiuse lanes with curbs. All existing collector and arterial roadways will
include on-street paved shoulders or multiuse lanes, except in areas where
topographic constraints may be prohibitive. All new collector and arterial
roadways will include on-street bikeways.
.,...-:-~" Page viii
MAI~AN^ July 2001
~~~~/ I '\.
Marana Transportation Plan Update
Final Report
• Shared use paths that are 10-foot- to 12-foot-wide paved paths for
pedestrians and bicycles are proposed for construction along the Santa
Cruz River and Canada del Oro Wash. New arterial roadways are also
planned to include shared use paths within the right-of-way on one side of
the roadway, with crossings limited to intersections with collectors and
other arterials (no local street or driveway access is proposed to be
allowed directly with the arterials). These arterials and collector crossings
will include safety enhancements to maximize pedestrian and bicycle user
safety.
• Sidewalks will be built at least 6 feet wide to accommodate pedestrians,
especially people with disabilities. Existing collector and arterial roadways
will include sidewalks on both sides of the roadway in areas where primary
activity centers, parks, residential areas, employment centers, and schools
are located. All new collector and arterial roadways will include sidewalks
on both sides of the roadway.
• Support facilities are primarily oriented to the implementation of shared
use paths. These facilities include parking areas, bathrooms, water, and
rest facilities. "Pocket parks," built as part of linear park pathways, are
also attractive as support facilities for families. Support facilities
consisting of benches, bike parking, and water fountains can also be
located along on-street bikeways and pedestrian facilities, and can serve
to facilitate use of transit service, when implemented.
The costs for these bicycle and pedestrian improvements are estimated to be in excess
of $20 million over the planning period. Operations and maintenance costs approach $3
million during this period.
Transit
Based upon the responses from the telephone survey conducted and the public open
house meetings, Marana residents are interested in the expansion of transit service.
Three types of service are proposed:
• Commuter express service from Marana to downtown Tucson and the Tucson
Airport employment area.
• Neighborhood circulator and dial-a-ride that serves areas in the Town, the
Northwest Hospital area, and the regional malls.
• Expanded Sun Tran service along major arterials.
The operating and capital cost of the proposed transit system is about $82 million over
the next 25 years.
Page ix
_
MARANA, July 2001
I
I 4)"
.. ..
III 0
'a a-
I a-4)
:)D:
cia
III c
A:ii:
I c
0
::::
III
..
..
I 0
a-
m
c
III
..
I t-
III
C
III
..
III
I :2
I
I
I'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
>-
ca
~
....-a
G) ca
.. 0
;11:
.- an
y.C',I
o
C',I
-a
G)
-a
c
G)
E
E
o
u
G)
II:
I
x......
Q)O
010
eelN
o....~
::::l
J
~
~
o
o
::;;
~
Q)
.~
Q)
Ol
c::
~
~
~ c:: !!! ~
ex: ...... $
'" 1:: c::
'c:- Q) ~ g
-0
~ E ~
~ '" .S 0
...... ......
~
~
e
(::J
Q)
Ol
c::
~
o
~
~
ex:
...
~
ii:
~~
e Q) Q) "'b
ra Q) Q) 0:
t:: ~f6> ra
<3 ::;;::;; ..s
en
..
C
G)
E
G)
>
o
..
A
E
E!pE!UE!J E!7
-
&>v&>~
E!/I04J E!7 ~ ~
E!Sn E!UOW 00;
UOUUE!4S .~~
E!JJa/l E!I ap OUlWE!J 13 .. jL, _" ~
aWPAUJ04l ~ . . ~
Ja4JE!jPIO L
alsao ap OUIWE!J . . L.,
u!E!Junow aAOa i'.
UE!w)JE!H (:~.
~ ~
L.~
pl:iapE!M
1c;:~1 ~I
SWE!p'l u07
ofJE!pues
ofJepUE!S
SJapUE!S
SJapUE!S
ualfan7
Pl:i oa!Jl
Q)
OJ
C
l/l l/l l/l l/l ca
Q) Q) Q) Q) .c
c c c c ~
c ca ca ca ca Q)
Z ....J ....J ....J ....J "E
w ~ C\l
~ co (0
w I
...J I I I
~'" ~t:: ~ e ~ ~ 0
~ ~ ~ E 8 j.::: ~ E
4' "'.91 '" ::;; u; '== Ll.J
::;;t5CCl ~
8 ~
~ '"
'<(
pI:iAeMU'I
t'. <!. /
II ~~
/,.Q::N
I.. <!. ~~
I. ::?://
I
I
,I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Marana Transportation Plan Update
Final Report
FUNDING
Existing transportation revenues for the Town consist of the Arizona Highway User
Revenue Fund (HURF), the Arizona Local Transportation Assistance Fund, Pima
Association of Governments (PAG) funds (including 12.6 percent HURF funds and
federal Surface Transportation Program funds), development impact fees, and the
transportation component of the Town's construction sales tax. These state, federal, and
local funds are available to fund roadways, bicycle, pedestrian, and transit improvements
and are expected to total approximately $525 million through the plan horizon year.
Current estimates indicate that there will be a shortfall of about $160 million in available
transportation funding that must be generated by new funding sources. Potential new
funding sources are the Town's transportation sales tax and expansion of Marana's
development impact fees to encompass the Town's limits. Other potential sources
include Improvement Districts and Community Facility Districts in selected areas of the
Town.
PLAN IMPLEMENTATION
The total cost of the improvements is estimated at about $685 million, including capital,
construction, operations, and maintenance costs. The Town will gather and spend about
$525 million and the remaining $160 million in shortfall will be needed from other new
sources, cost sharing with other agencies, and public/private partnerships.
The Town can meet these financial requirements and achieve the objectives of the
transportation plan by adopting recommended transportation policies and incorporating
them into the Town's General Plan.
RECOMMENDED TRANSPORTATION POLICIES
· Integrate the major findings of this plan into the PAG Regional Transportation Plan
update, scheduled for 2002. Plan integration includes not only the projects identified
herein, but also the land use and socio-economic information utilized in the technical
analysis.
· Working with PAG and ADOT, initiate an update to the 1-10 General Plan to reflect the
interchange and access changes contained in the Marana Transportation Plan. The
General Plan update should include a construction traffic management component
that assesses how traffic in the 1-10 corridor is redistributed during the construction
phases. These activities are considered regionally significant; therefore, PAG and
ADOT should take the lead with ongoing coordination from the Town.
· Expand staff capabilities by hiring up to five professional staff, along with support
staff, to act as project managers, planners, points-of-contact, and champions of this
transportation plan. One of the first activities of this staff should be the preparation of
a strategic plan for the physical construction of the capital projects. The strategic
,...-:-~"
MAI~AN^
~~~~:/ I "
Page xi
July 2001
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Marana Transportation Plan Update
Final Report
plan should identify project phasing, timing, and available funding, much like a long-
range capital improvement program. The strategic plan will likely identify that some
projects (such as Tangerine Road west of 1-10) will need to be built to a larger cross
section than shown in this plan due to the phased nature of development and the
variations in traffic flow in developing areas.
· Expand staff capabilities by hiring a transportation professional to champion the
transit, bicycle, and pedestrian components of the plan.
· Monitor land use, traffic, and environmental constraints on an ongoing basis. If trends
change significantly, this plan may need to be revised or updated to reflect the
changes. For instance, if the pygmy owl constraint on development is lifted,
development trends will shift markedly into what is now owl habitat area.
· Initiate new revenue sources within the next three years to counteract the shortfall.
This will help ensure that the projects and maintenance activities can be provided
when needed by the community.
· Given the rapid growth in the Town and the continuing expansion of its boundaries,
the plan should be reviewed and updated at least every three years. The plan should
be updated in advance of, or concurrent with, the Regional Transportation Plan. The
Town should annually monitor progress towards implementation of the preferred plan.
· Introduce legislation that allows HURF to be based on current population estimates
rather than census data. This will create equity for faster growing communities like
Marana with only a nominal impact on the slower growth areas.
..."7""~"
MAI~^N^
~~~~/ , '\.
Page xii
July 2001
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Marana Transportation Plan Update
Final Report
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1 .1 Study Purpose and Need
The Town of Marana (Town) is experiencing considerable growth in population and
employment. This growth has resulted in significant congestion on many local streets,
especially those that connect with 1-10. This growth is expected to continue so that the
Town, which has a current population estimate of 15,185, is expected to reach 88,678
in 2025.
The purpose of this study is to investigate existing conditions on all transportation
facilities within the Town including roadways, bicycle facilities, pedestrian facilities and
transit systems. Deficiencies in the current operations for these modes are identified
and recommendations are presented to address existing and future limitations.
Additional funds will be needed to implement the study recommendations and possible
funding sources have been outlined for each mode. The recommendations in this
study will become a part of the Marana General Plan, which will guide future
development in the community. This report contains the information on the following:
· Existing Conditions
· Future Conditions
· Roadway Components and Improvements
· Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities
· Transit Improvements
· Funding
· Conclusions and Recommendations
1 .2 Study Area
The Town of Marana undertook a Master Transportation Study in December 1989.
Since that time, population has increased 800 percent and the town boundaries have
expanded nearly 17 percent. Marana has evolved from its original founding as a
railroad and agricultural center to a developing suburban community. Through the
years since incorporation in 1977 and various annexations, Marana has developed into
a community with five areas of concentrated development. Each of these five has its
own distinctive qualities and lifestyles. These five distinct regions (shown in Figure 2-1)
are:
.
Old Town Marana
Picture Rocks/Avra Valley
Continental Ranch
Dove Mountain
Business District
.
.
.
.
...~~"
M^I~^NA
~~~~/ l '\.
Page I
July 2001
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Marana Transportation Plan Update
Final Report
These regions reflect the uniqueness of Marana. The regions also present a challenge
in that they necessitate a plan that meets each area's distinctive existing and future
roadway, transit, bicycle and pedestrian needs.
The boundaries for this study are:
· Ruthrauff/EI Camino del Cerro alignment on the south, La Cholla Boulevard on the
east;
· Pima/Pinal County line on the north;
· Anway Road on the west.
The study area, which is shown in Figure 1-1, includes unincorporated Pima County
and the far-northwest portion of the Tucson city limits. Much of this area may be within
the Town boundaries by 2025, which is the planning horizon for this study.
,.."7""~'\.
MAUANA
~~~~:/ I "
Page 2
July 2001
I
I GJ"
.. ..
ea 0
~a.
a.GJ
I :;)a:
c'i
ea c
a:ii:
I c
0
..
ea
..
..
I 0
a.
III
c
ea
..
I I-
ea
c
ea
..
ea
I 2:
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.... ca
. Q)
.... ..
Q)CI
.. =-
~'a
C)~
.- ..
1&.(1)
?::-
~
u
~
it
epeue:) e7
ellOl./:) e..,
esn euow
uouueqs
eJJa/1 Ell ap OU!WEla /3
a/epAwolll
Jaqj8/PIO
a/sea ap OU!W/!:)
U!/!lUOOW ailOO
uewueH
SWWv' uo7
opepues
SJapuf?S
ua;.pnl
Pti (X)fJ1
PtiAeJ.\u't
~
~ ~ <:: ~
-.J .....
~ <l.> t:: :;.
t: .~
't: Q) ~
q, :g, ~ -g
~ .50
<:: ~ 1ij -.J
~ -.J
~
'b
0::
~
e
(.:J
'"
g>
~
o
~~
e Q,)l1,) "b
'" """ 0::
t:: 0>0> '"
(3 ~:; ~
""""""
~'h
o~_
- "",9
D-6>
SL,.._..~
: ~
L.,L... .
? .~..
~' '-L-
t~ I
, ( ,
. -.J .
~ (
t.~
~ ~I
lJjJ~
o!Jepuf?S
SJapues
.....
-><
'"
'"
Cl..
<::
~
<l>
_0
QC
co<l>
(1).2
~5
~~~~'&
~ e..... E
if ~~&i
8
jS
b
0::
t-
~
(!l
,.
<l;
o
z
w
C)
w
.....
] &
-= ijj
b
'"
<:>
0::
....
~
a:
(")~
Q)o
0>0
ajN
Q...?o
::J
....,
';:4:/,
II ~~l
'" ,It e
//'-uI
I: 4:N
I. ::!'EN
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Marana Transportation Plan Update
Final Report
2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS
This chapter provides information regarding existing conditions of the study area.
These existing conditions include land use, population and local employment data.
The status of existing transportation modes is summarized and deficiencies are noted.
2.1 Land Use
Like all Arizona communities, Marana is required to adopt and maintain land use plans
and zoning standards for the entire community. Land uses in Marana are governed by
the Town's General Plan, which was recently updated with a new sub-regional plan for
the Northwest Marana area. The General Plan is used to define future land uses in
areas outside of master planned developments and specific plans such as Dove
Mountain and Continental Ranch.
2.2 Socio-Economic Data
This section documents the results of the study Team's work with the Land Use Advisory
Committee to identify existing residential and non-residential development in the study
area. Chapter 3 presents the future development plans in the Town.
2.2.1 Sub-Regions
The study area was divided into six geographic sub-regions which were defined by the
development status of the land uses in the area, the relationship to the study area as a
whole, and the transportation facilities in the area. Current land uses in the area were
determined from Pima County's Engineering Geographic Information System (EGIS)
database, aerial photographs, and through information provided by the Town. These sub-
regions are illustrated in Figure 2-1. Following the exhibit is a description of each sub-
region.
Northwest Marana (Old Marana Region)
The Northwest area was the subject of a general plan update conducted separately by the
Town while this study was underway. The project team provided input to the circulation
element of the Northwest Plan and reviewed its socio-economic assumptions. This area is
the primary focus of the study because it has the greatest potential for growth in both the
short-term and long-term. This growth potential exists because the area is not constrained
by environmental regulations protecting the pygmy owl and because conversion of
agricultural land to urban uses is a time-proven process in the State. Currently, the land
uses are mostly agricultural. A small business core exists near the Marana Traffic
Interchange (TI) that includes some of the Town of Marana offices, neighborhood
.,..~~"
M^I~^NA
~~~ ~:./ l "
Page 4
July 2001
I
I
I
4l~
... 0
ea A
~ 41
A a::
;:)
cia
ea c
iii:
c
o
..
ea
...
..
o
A
III
C
ea
..
I-
ea
c
~
ea
:E
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
en
c
o
'g,
G)
.... ..
.
l.a
C\I ~
G)en
.. ca
~ G)
g,..
,- <I:
II.
=-
"a
~
..
en
\J")~
(1)0
0>0
roC\J
o...~
::J
J
CIl:I '3"WOI\N!lOHl
lli30 30 ONII'I\'J
I>-
'It""'''
0/\'8 NJ.f'4 31\00 ?~O
Ot>). I
~
& ~ -
w ..
Z J-
ii] \
~ ~ ~
<{ r
.... .1
---
c'f
8
0
0::1 !: ':
w
0 g
~ c:r: [;;'
~/
, <<- x Cl.
~<}.,. 0 il ~~~-
c:r:
.-,~~ > .:.~
w o~ OlllVONV5
~. -1
0 0 :>
a: a: ~
~ ~ W I
Z 8 ct re-
e:
.. ~ ~ ~3ONVS
!Xl
..'
fl 0
~ a:
a:
<{ !!!
~ a: :1
~ 0 tf
CIl:I llN3M AfF
~
Cltf 'j,g.pn, fJ(
1-- ;.
r o~ I\VI\\N'rI
~O;)1ll1 ~ -I
I
-o- j
a:
0 I
~--- a:
Cil ,::
...
W
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Marana Transportation Plan Update
Final Report
businesses, and freeway commercial uses. Residential development surrounds this core
area. Other major businesses in the sub-region include the Marana Northwest Regional
Airport, a State of Arizona correctional facility near Avra Valley Road and Sanders Road,
Arizona Portland Cement and CTI Trucking near Avra Valley Road and 1-10.
Access to this sub-region is from 1-10 at the Marana TI, the Avra Valley TI, and the
Tangerine Road TI and from the 1-10 Frontage Road System.
Area 1 (Dove Mountain Reaion)
This area is most constrained by the protection of the pygmy owl habitat. It contains the
Dove Mountain master planned community, which is an on-going development expected to
be completed in about ten years. Other residential development in the area is low-density,
single family homes. A few light industrial uses and the Breakers Water Park exist along
Tangerine Road near 1-10. Several planned-use developments have been approved for
undeveloped property situated south of Tangerine Road and west of EI Camino de
Manana. But because of environmental concerns and restrictions associated with the
pygmy owl habitat, these plans are not expected to be built at the densities approved by
prior agreement. Growth in this sub-region includes the completion of Dove Mountain and
the future development of business uses along the 1-10 corridor.
Access to this sub-region from the north and west is from Tangerine Road at 1-10.
Access from the east is through Tangerine Road and Lambert Lane, and access to the
south is from Thornydale Road, Camino de Oeste, and El Camino de Manana.
Area 2 (Continental Ranch Region)
This area contains Continental Ranch and several planned developments surrounding it.
This area has been growing rapidly over the past several years and is expected to continue
for about ten more years. Commercial and business uses exist along 1-10 and along
Cortaro Road. The remainder of the area comprises mostly residential development.
Growth in this area is based on the build-out of all currently planned development including
Continental Ranch, Saguaro Springs, and Continental Reserve.
Access to this sub-region is primarily through the Cortaro Road TI and from Silverbell Road.
Area 3 (Business District Reaion)
This area contains over half of the employment and over one-third of the population in the
entire study area. It is currently the Town's major business district with regional shopping
areas including major developments such as Target, Kmart, Home Depot, and Costco.
This area is considered to be about 95 percent built out at this time.
.,..'7'"~"
MAI~ANA
~~~~/ l '\.
Page 6
July 2001
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Marana Transportation Plan Update
Final Report
The area is accessible from the east along Ina Road, Cortaro Road, and Orange Grove
Road and from the west at the Cortaro Road, Ina Road, and Orange Grove Road 1-10 traffic
interchanges. It can be accessed from the north from Thornydale Road and from Camino
de Oeste.
Avra Vallev Reqion
This area is located west of the Northwest Marana sub-region and is in unincorporated
Pima County. Current land uses are agricultural and low-to-medium-density residential. It
is a rural area that is only expected to grow by about 50 percent over the 25-year study
period. The major business in this area is Evergreen Air Center located at the Pima/Pinal
County line.
Primary access to this area is through Marana along Avra Valley Road and Marana Road.
Picture Rocks Reqion
This area is southwest of the Continental Ranch Area (Area 2) and comprises mostly Iow-to-
medium-density residential development. Neighborhood commercial uses exist in the area
but there are no major businesses. This area is also in unincorporated Pima County. The
sub region's population is only expected to increase by about 20 percent over the study
period.
North and east access to this area is through Picture Rocks Road, which connects to Ina
Road near Silverbell and from Sandario Road, which connects to Avra Valley Road and
Twin Peaks Road. Access is also available from the south through Sandario Road. Traffic
volumes indicate that most of the traffic from this area uses Avra Valley Road to access 1-10
and the major arterials.
2.2.2 Current Land Use
Existing land uses in the study area are shown on the map in Figure 2-2. Commercial
development is concentrated along arterials such as Ina Road and Cortaro connecting the
Interstate. Agricultural property is located in the northwest area.
..~~"
MAI~^N^
~~~~./ I "
Page 7
July 2001
I
I 41"
.. ..
lIS 0
~a.
I a. 41
::)11:
cii
lIS c
- .-
a.....
I c
0
..
lIS
..
..
I 0
a.
III
c
lIS
..
I l-
llS
C
lIS
..
lIS
I :::IE
ca
G)
~
I <l
>-
"g
:s
..
I en
G)
C"I,c
I"
I C"I .5
G) en
~ G)
:s en
.2>> ::)
I u""g
c
ca
...
I r:n
c
.-
..
en
.-
><
I 11,I
0
I oC(
0
-'0:::
oC(
z
oC(
a:
I oC(
~
I
I
I
I
1'1
~ ..
....
" M.
... \
J'
'*...
"
. 1-
3WOA ~OHl.
..
;- -.I
'1
~
Oeo
.......,
~'-
E~
~:t
Q
o
0:::
~; €"I I
IPI"Ii ..
~~~ ";:. _. ~i' .-.:>.
... ~~, ~:-\-
"~::,,' Ai
..... - ,. Y'
~
~ _.. ..1' f:
./'
.- ...
, ..
It- ..
."
.J.{i' .
lit&
lo!'..
I' >-
, ~p~,
~ '.1
~ ".-
-e;!
.": ilL l
>-
~ ~ /: "~a '..,
~~
oC Ill: ~
Ill: - ~
> oC t.~
oC
OCj OI~\fON\fS
/
't
-r
Q
~
Q:'
... !2
;8
Q:'
UJ
a::
.::l
l-
e.>
It
-""
Ii
. ..
.
,.,.J...."
/
Ii
"
"
, !
0::: . /
ffi /" ~.
a:
C)
OCj S~30N\fS ~
01
Q;-~ ,;
~"v .
(j
{P
... '1f
C:;
II ".
-~ - ..1i, ~~~-,
.... - -~' :"
di'~'-.;~. _
~Cil
r~
-g~
~ roO
c:: c:: >.-
::l .Ql E.~
_ E Vl Cl.o
Cii.~ E ~ _ ~ tt ~
w ~~~i~6D
(/) 'iji E:O'C:: ::l Vl
::l lllO::lCl-glll
o o:::ua..<x:-ct:
~ OJ J:I
OCj O::>I~.l
00 ..-
Q)O
010
CON
Q..2?;-
::::l
J
i'
t: <l: /
II z-;
<l: " I
/,.""'1'
I.. :;:~~I
I. ~)J
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Marana Transportation Plan Update
Final Report
Table 2-1 summarizes the current socio-economic data for each sub-region that was used
in the Existing Conditions Travel Demand Model (described in Chapter 3).
Table 2 - 1
Existing Socio-Economic Data
Acres Dwelling Retail Non-Retail
Area (Approximate) Units Employees Employees
Northwest Marana 36,000 950 175 665
(Old Marana Region)
Percent of Total 24% 5% 6% 19%
Area 1 25,000 1,830 200 60
(Dove Mountain
Region)
Percent of Total 16% 11% 6% 2%
Area 2 10,500 3,200 490 850
(Continental Ranch
Region)
Percent of Total 7% 19% 16% 24%
Area 3 6,000 6,150 1,900 1,285
(Business District)
Percent of Total 4% 36% 61% 36%
Avra Valley Region 50,000 2,570 240 540
Percent of Total 33% 15% 8% 15%
Picture Rocks 25,000 2,590 130 130
Region
Percent of Total 16% 15% 4% 4%
,..'7"").'~
MAI~ANA
~~~~::/ I'\.
Page 9
July 2001
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Marana Transportation Plan Update
Final Report
2.2.3 Socio-Economic Data
Figure 2-3 illustrates information taken from the Pima County Assessors records as
contained in Pima County's GIS database from April 2000. Each area contains the current
number of occupied homes. The number of retail and non-retail employees at non-
residential developments was estimated to produce a daily trip rate that reasonably
matches the ITE trip rate for the type of development. Figure 2-3 provides a summary of
the number of homes and employment within each area that are contained in the Existing
Conditions, or Baseline model described in Chapter 3.
Figure 2 - 3
Current Socio-Economics
n
NORTHWEST MARANA
AREA 1
1 mlle.'-
-
I
I
fl'
01
vi
al
I--
fl'
!
~
~,
w'
3 MAIlANA AD
CRIER Ro
1830 DWELLINGS
200 RETAIL
60 NON RETAIL
~-t--
I
BARNETT Ro
MOORE Ro
~-""'.--
'%-~
...,~
10
Ei. TIRO Ro I
---,- ~
L _ I I
I
~,,~
9~
-90
950 DWELLINGS
175 RETAIL
665 NON RETAIL
,,-
...
TANGERINE Ro
-- --
~
m
z
....
:::;
~
~l
fl
lit
~
~ A~ VAl..tfY Ro
r
....,
i!-'" ~L
~... ~
~... a
Q'" ~
cl ~
<V U
lINOA VI5T"
a
g:
~
<(
o
~
~
J:
....
I
1--1.-0
TWIN PeAKs Ro
- ......-.~
AREA 2
\-
o
cr
~
<
"'t 61
3200 DWELLINGS, 1
490 RETAIL --' .s:
850 NON RETAIL'tp<,;
'1'"
~(
'%
PICTURE ROCK~:'RERREA r~-- ' IN~ol "
. .0Ck5 Rn
2590 DWELLINGS
130 RETAIL
130 NON RETAIL J
I
o
cr
Q
a:
'"
o
Z
<(
'"
AVRA VALLEY AREA
2570 DWELLINGS
240 RETAIL
541 NON RETAIL
MANVILLE Ro
...'7""~':\.
MAI~ANA
~~~~-/ I "
Page 10
July 2001
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Marana Transportation Plan Update
Final Report
2.3 Street System Inventory
The summary of existing conditions contained in Table 2-2, on the following page, includes
roadways as they existed in April 2000. This table provides an inventory of the significant
roadways in the study area and includes the physical characteristics, the recorded ADT,
and the current operating level of service (LOS). Level of service is a grading system of A
through F that measures how well a roadway or intersection operates under prevailing
traffic conditions and is based on the Average Daily Traffic (ADT) and cross section of the
roadway.
The various levels of service are generally described as follows:
· Level of Service A represents free flow.
· Level of Service B is in the range of stable flow, but the presence of other users in
the traffic stream begins to be noticeable.
· Level of Service C is in the range of stable flow, but marks the beginning of the
range of flow in which the operation of individual users becomes significantly affected
by interaction with others in the traffic stream.
· Level of Service D represents high-density but stable flow. Speed and freedom to
maneuver are severely restricted, and the driver or pedestrian experiences a generally
poor level of comfort and convenience.
· Level of Service E represents operation conditions at or near the capacity level. All
speeds are reduced to a low but relatively uniform value.
· Level of Service F is used to define forced or breakdown flow. This condition exists
wherever the amount of traffic approaching a point exceeds the amount which can
traverse the point.
The recorded volumes were obtained from several sources including the Pima Association
of Governments (PAG) annual traffic counting program, Pima County Department of
Transportation, and Town of Marana. The source is identified in Table 2-2.
2.3.1 Roadwav Inventorv
The physical inventory of roadways shows that most of the Town's streets meet the
current demand placed on them. Marana's traffic congestion on surface streets is now
concentrated near the commercial areas along Ina Road and Thornydale Road, and
along major commuter routes including Cortaro Road and Ina Road as shown in Figure
2-4. The congestion occurs primarily during the "rush hours" and during heavy
shopping periods such as Saturdays in the winter tourist season, and during the
Christmas holiday season. There is minimal congestion in the more rural areas.
On the other hand, 1-10 interchanges perform less favorably because of the
concentration of commuter traffic to and from the freeway during rush hours. The
Cortaro Road and Ina Road interchanges, in particular, are congested and operate
..'7""~"
MAI~ANA
~~~~:/ I '\.
Page 11
July 2001
G>" N..-
.. .. - 0
~ 0 R g C'? g g ~ 8 <.D ~ C'? -N ~ ~ ~ ~ g R [t) ~ (1)0
" Q, 0> ..- co co ON
CO 0 CO N N ..- ..". CO ..- N <.D L.O 0> CO N C'? <.D N 0
Q,G> I"- C'? L.O l"- N <.D ..- ..". N ..". ..- ..". N C'? C'? ..- CO >,
::)a: ..- ..- ..- ..- ..- 0.... :J
-:l
C iii c:
~ C .~
- .-
Do&&. '0
C CI)
.2 :E
..
~
Gl't M ~
- 0
.. 0 ~ t6 f5 ~ as g gs ~ ~ ~ C") ~ ~ ~ g (J)O
ra a. co OlN
~ Gl N '<:t '<:t <0 C") CO '<:t '<:t ..- l.() ..- r-- r-- r-- Q)
!a: ..- C") '<:t 0 <0 l.() l.() CO >-
C") '<:t ..- 0... :J
J
C i c
ra c .~
i5:it '0
c al
0 :!:
:::
ra
..
..
0
a. 0 a a a a a a l.() L{) l.() l.() a l.() a a
III Q) r-- l.() '<:t co a '<:t N ..- N '<:t Q) <0 C") a
C .c Q) <0 '<:t co C") co <0 '<:t C"') <0 C") C") a ..- '<:t
ra .21 ..- C") r-- ..- Q) <0 ..- ..- <0
.. I- C") '<:t ..-
t- O ::I:
ra ~
c ... a a a a a a l.() l.() a a a l.() l.() a l.() a C") a Q) '<:t l.() l.() l.() a a
ra ::3 Q) l.() l.() ..- co a r-- N '<:t l.() N <0 N C") <0 ..- N N ..- l.() ..- <0 C") co a
.. Q. '<:t N '<:t l.() C") co ..- '<:t a '<:t a ..- l.() l.() '<:t <0 r-- Q) <0 Q) co C") N '<:t '<:t
ra - ~ C") Q) C") l.() C") Q) Q) <0 <0 r-- <0 r-- N a l.()
::3 ..-
:IE 0 0 C") C") ..- ..-
...J
.!: l/) "C
OJ Q) e:
:c OJ co
l/) ro e: "C ~~
- ro l/) ro
c e: .!:e: .0
al ro (.) 0 e: e: E
E .... (J) 0
ro +oJ :;::::
E 2 'E ~ C e: _ "C
e: e:
0 co- =l/) Q) 0 Q) ro
U "C.... E:;:; E ....
l/) 0 Q)2 Q)'O Q)2
"CO Q).~ > e: > ....
e:.!: 0.- ro 0 ro ro
llJ~ Cf)ro a..(.) a..Cil
c
'iij 0 - ro ro
.. ro ro
c C'Cl 'C 'C 'C 'C
0 (J Q) Q) 2 Q) "C ro
.. :E t t .... t Q) 'C
(J <( <( <( <( ;;: Q)
c l/) .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... ~ co co 'ii) .... t ....
::3 l/) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ro l/) 0 <( 0
u. C'Cl t5 t5 t5 t5 t5 t5 t5 t5 ro co ro ro co t5 t5 .9 .9 .9- ro t5 t5
(3 ....
U ~ ~ ~ Q) ~ ~ ~ ~ 'C 'C 'C 'C 'C ~ ~ (.) (.) (.) (.) ~ 0 ~
2 Q) 2 Q) Q) e: e: e: e:
(5 (5 (5 (5 (5 (5 (5 (5 t t t (5 (5 'C 'C 'C 'C (5 (5 e: (5
.... .... ~
() () () () () () () () <( <( <( <( <( () () a.. a.. a.. a.. z () ()
tJ)
0 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
...J -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
() () () () () () () 0 0 u.. u.. 0 u.. 0 () () u.. 0 () 0 u.. () u.. 0 () () () () ()
~ a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a C") a a C") C") a C") a a a a a a a a a a
'(j N N N N N N N N r-- r-- r-- l.() r-- N N N C") r-- l.() C") C") l.() C") l.() l.() N N N N l.() l.() <0 Q)
C'Cl a a a a a a a a ..- ..- ..- C") ..- a a a l.() ..- C") l.() l.() C") l.() C") C") a a a a C") C") '<:t a
Q. ..- ..- ..- ..- ..- ..- ..- ..- C") C") C') ..- C") ..- ..- ..- ..- C") ..- ..- ..- ..- ..- ..- ..- ..- ..- ..- ..- ..- ..- ..- ..-
>- C'Cl
.. U
0 '0 <0 r-- Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) a a a Q) a Q) a a a a a a a a Q) Q) Q) Q)
.. Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) a a a Q) a Q) a a a a a a a a Q) Q) Q) Q)
C al Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) a a a Q) a Q) a a a a a a a a Q) Q) Q) Q)
... '0 ..- ..- ..- ..- ..- ..- ..- N N N ..- N ..- N N N N N N N N ..- ..- ..- ..-
Q) C'Cl ...
al 0
> >- (J
C al
- 0::
N"O
I ns al 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
N 0 (J
... () () () ro () () () () () () () ()
= ::3 <( <( a:; Q) <( e: <( <( Q) <( <( <( <( <( <(
Q) 0 c.9 c.9 c.9 c.9 ro c.9 c.9 c.9 c.9 c.9 c.9 c.9 c.9 c.9
.. tJ) ~ ~ "C "C ~ ... ~ ~ "C ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
- <( <( <( <( 0 0 ro <( <( <( 0 <( <( <( <( <( <(
.a.a a.. a.. a.. a.. a.. a.. ~ ~ a.. ~ a.. a.. a.. a.. a.. ~ a.. a.. il: a.. a.. a.. a.. a.. il: a.. a.. a..
ns ns '0 co a N N N a a co C") <0 r-- l.() l.() l.() '<:t l.() <0 C") a r-- N l.() ..- ..- ..- C") co a
~::E '<:t r-- l.() l.() l.() Q) a a '<:t l.() <0 Q) C") Q) C") Q) N '<:t l.() r-- '<:t co co l.() l.() r-- r-- <0
al C") r-- r-- r-- r-- N co '<:t C") C") a r-- a r-- '<:t r-- l.() l.() N N Q) '<:t ..- r-- '<:t '<:t N C")
'0 I- ..- ..- C") co C") <0 ..- <0 r-- N l.() r-- C") ..- <0 r-- N l.() <0 ..-
...
~ 0 0 N C") C") ..- C") N N ..- N ..- ..-
C (J ~
.- al
.. 0::
fn
.-
>C '0
u.I al
>
C'Cl l/) l/) l/) l/) l/) l/) l/) l/) l/) l/) l/) l/) l/) l/) l/) l/) l/) l/) l/) l/) l/) l/) l/) l/) l/)
Il. l/) l/) l/)
Q) Q) Q) Q) 0 Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) ~ Q) ~ ~ Q) ~ Q) Q) Q) ~ ~ Q) Q) ~ Q)
>- >- >- >- Z >- >- >- >- >- >- >- >- >- >- >- >- >- >- >- >- >-
l.() l.() l.() l.() a a l.() l.() l.() l.() l.() l.() l.() l.() l.() l.() l.() l.() l.() l.() l.() l.() l.() l.() a l.() l.()
C") N N C") l.() l.() C") C") '<:t '<:t '<:t '<:t '<:t C") N C") '<:t '<:t '<:t '<:t '<:t '<:t '<:t C") '<:t C") '<:t
'0 ::
al
al E l.()
Q. :J
tJ) C")
I
a I
l.()
C
.~
'0 l/) l/) I-
al 0 0 0 0 0 0 l/) l/) l/)
:!: 0 0 Q) Q) ~ ....J ~ 0 0 0 0 !!; 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z >- >- () Z e: Z e: e: e: e: e: e: e: e: e: e: e: Z e: e: e: Z
al l/) N N N N N N N N '<:t '<:t '<:t N '<:t N N N N '<:t N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
> al
C'Cl C
... C'Cl
I- ...J
0 ~ Q) Q)
I- > Cil
l/) ro ~ 0 ~ Q)
ro E ... t5 ~ z
0 c 0 Cil Q) ro ~ "C Q) ro ~ 0
ro .!: e: Q) 0:: ~ e: - Q) e:
~ 'C 0 "C 'C - :> co -g (5 0 ~ ~ .~ e: ~ .~ .... ~ ~ (5 0 Q)
ro ... ro (j) e: .0 .tj Q) 0 Q) .0 "C
u.. <( Q) Q) e:
"C "C ro u.. e: .!: ... ~ e: t ~ .0 ... e: .!:
- ~ ..lI:: "C .... () e: Q) e: e: ro .... Q) .... () e: 0
c e: a e: e: a (.) "C ro "C 0 a ro ~ ~ Q) ro .... Q) e: E 0 ~ ~ 0 ro E
al e: ro ..- 0 ro ..- :J e: ~ 0 .!: ro ..- .!: e: ~ 0 ro ro > ro ro ro ro 0 e: .!: ro .!:
~ <( C/) I ....J C/) I ....J ~ I- ....J I C/) U5 <( ~ Z 0 ~ l- e: ....J ~ U5 <( I- ....J C/) ()
al
tJ)
E l/) Q) ~
0 E "C > ro
... l/) .... Q) 0:: 0 ~
u.. E ro ... .... ~ Q)
.... 0 u.. 0 Q) co ... en c.9 Q) ... ro e: a
~ l/) ro 'C l/) e: .!: e: Q) ~ ~ t e: ~ e: e: ~ ...
.... "C ... - 0 co 0 - ~ .~ ~ e: 'C ~ ro 0 0 ro
e: Q) <( ro Q) (j) ... .!!1 e: .0 (j) Q) Q) 0 ~ Q) e: .!: llJ
'C "C "C "C 0 ro l/) u.. e: ... e: Q) e: l/) .0 ~ ~ e: t .~ S e:
e: ..lI:: t Q) ... "C 'C ..lI:: t E ro e: .~ ~ ... e: ... I- "C
... e: e: e: (.) (.) Q) a "C ro ~ 0 ... (.) .... ro Q) e: ... ... ro 0
Q) ro 0 ro ro :J 'C 0 t .!: .!: ro Q) :J ro ro ro ro ... > "C e: Q) ro 0
0 ..- 0 ~ :J ro ro .!: .!: ro
C/) ....J C/) C/) ....J I- () <( I C/) U5 I- 0 ....J () C ....J ~ ~ Z 0 0 I- <i <( 0 I C/) I- a; co
al
E
C'Cl
Z "C
1; (J) Q) Q) >
l/) 1i5
Q) e: e: e:
~ ~ ro ro ro ro ro
'0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ....J ....J ....J Cil Cil
C'Cl e: "C "C "C "C "C "C "C :J t t t t t t
0 ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro I (5 (5 (5 (5 (5 (5 (5 (5 (5 :> :> / </
0 .!: e: e: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ... Q) Q) Q) Q) (J) Q) z-
0:: ... :Q ... ... .... E 0:: 0:: 0:: 0:: 0:: 0:: 0:: ro ~ .!: .!: .c .!: .!: .!: .!: .c .!: .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 ro ro i,l <"
i= (J) Q) Q) '0 "C t ~ () () () () () () () () () E E E E E E "C "C
E ... ... ~n
'C 'C 'C ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ... e: e: I: <II
i:U llJ c.9 c.9 c.9 I I I e: e: e: e: e: e: e: ~ ~ ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ~ ~ ~II
....J ....J ....J ....J ....J ....J ....J ....J ....J ....J ....J ....J ....J ....J ....J I. II
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I
Gj" 7"'-
.. .. ~ ~ 8 g C") ~ - 0
l'Il 0 C") (0 ~ ~ C") ~ ~ ~ 8 ~ ~ ~ ~ u Q)O
'a ~ .,.... 0 N N ON
(0 '>t CO N '>t ,.... C") N CO 0 .,.... 0 CO (0 ,.... (0 CO (0
~Gj N CO C") 0) C") '>t (0 LO N C") .,.... LO N CU~
::;)11: N N 0.... :J
J
C i l:
l'Il C .~
D:ii: '0
c ell
.2 ~
..
l'Il
..
..
0
~ LO (0 0 0 LO 0 0 LO 0 LO LO 0 LO 0 0 0 0 0 0 LO
III
41" V) ..-
.. .. -g ~ CO ~ :g C"") ~ ~ ~ g a5 ~ ~ g ~ - 0
ca 0 C"") ~ ~ ~ g g ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0)0
N .,- CO OlN
'tJ a, <0 t- O> CO .,- -.:t .,- .,- 0 t- <0 <0 0 N -.:t <0 .,- C"") t- N 0> <0 C"") C"") lC) .,-
a, 41 .,- 0 0> .,- N
G>" \D ..-
.. .. - 0
III 0 (1)0
"Dc, 0lC\J
c,G> l'I:l~
::)a: 0.... :J
-:J
C III t:
III C III
- .-
A.I&. "C
C CIl
0 :E
:;;
III
..
..
0
C,
III
C .J::.
III I- .!2l
..
t- O J:
III <(
C -
III ::::l
.. c.
III - ~
::::l
~ 0 0
...J
1Il
ro c::
...J .21 ro
1Il
- 0 c:: ;>, 1Il .... CO
t: C 0 ..... Ql
CIl ro .~ .:::: 1Il
E rll c:: ~ m "0
c:: 0 .J::. - .....~ c::
E U :Q1 Ql .
.... "0 .J::. ro "0
0 .2t :J .J::. Ql .g>~ "0 c::
U Ql Ql ~ ro Ql ~ ro Ql
c::.o 1Il= 1Il E e"O
'EE c:: 0 c:: 1Il "00
~ tro
.- ro O.J::. 0 C::.J::. .- Ql
<{.....I ()() T""" Z WI- "0 "0
t:
iij 0
:;::
t: III
0 (,)
:;:: :E
(,)
t: III
::::l III
11.. ~
U
C/)
0
...J
0 0 LL LL 0 0 0
~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
(,) CD CD N N CD CD CD
III T""" T""" CD CD CO CO CO
C. 0 0 CD CD I{) I{) I{)
III T""" T""" I
>- U
..
0 "C
.. CIl
C ... "C
G) III ... I
CIl 0
> >- (,)
c CIl i
- 0:: I
C'I"C
I ftS CIl
N& (,)
... ell ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro
::::l c:: c:: c:: c:: c:: c:: c:: c:: c:: c:: t: c:: c:: c:: c:: c::
G) 0 <.9 <.9 <.9 <.9 <.9 <.9 <.9 ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro
.. rn .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... ... .... .... .... .... ....
- 0 <{ <{ <{ <{ <{ <{ <{ ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro
.a._ Ql 0.... 0.... 0.... 0.... 0.... 0.... 0.... ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
E
ftS ftS "C :J CO CO CO CO ~ ~ ~ T""" M ~ M I{) I{) M CD O'l CO N T""" 0 T""" N 0
~:& CIl (5 T""" T""" T""" T""" T""" T""" T""" 0 CO I{) T""" O'l 0 ~ I{) ~ 0 CD CO T""" 0 I{) r--
"C I- > I{) I{) I{) I{) ~ ~ ~ I{) ~ CD I{) N T""" I{) CO O'l I{) O'l r-- CD 0 ~ ~
... CO CO CO CO M M M M '1{) M N ~ N N M T""" T""" 0 N M M
= 0 0 iO O'l O'l O'l O'l M M M T""" T""" T""" T""" T""" T"""
C (,) <( I{) I{) I{)
.- CIl ~
.. 0:: I
en N
.-
>< "C
III CIl
>
III
Q.
"C ~
CIl
CIl E
c. :J
C/)
E -- - --
.!!!
"C
CIl
:E
CIl 1Il CD CD ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
> CIl
III t:
... III
I- ...J
0 Ql
>
I- 0 ~
.... Ql ~
<.9 c:: ....
~ 0 ro .;: ro ro
.... > ~ c:: 0....
- c:: ro ro ro CO
t: ro t .... c:: ....
CIl .... ro 0 > ro ro c::
E 0 c:: () <{ I- ~ c:
CI
CIl
C/)
E Ql
0 >
... 0 ~
11.. .... Ql
:::: <.9 c::
:J ~ 0 ro .~ ro
ro .... > c::
.... ~
W .J::. c:: ro ro
:J ro .... .... c:: ....
Z .... ro 0 > ro ro
:J 0::: 0 c:: () <{ I- ~
Z
<( c:: - z :::: c:: :::: z ::::
CIl - c:: :::: z :::: 0 0 0 0
E :E 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
III Q CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD
Z .... Z Z C/) C/) c:: :::: z :::: CD CD CD CD Z Z C/) C/)
~ w 0 0 0 0 z z C/) C/) "0 "0 "0 "0
Ql Ql Ql Ql
~ > > > > CD CD CD CD "0 "0 "0 "0 0::: 0::: 0::: 0:::
~ 0 0 0 0 ro ro ro ro ~ ~ ~ iV
.... .... .... .... z z C/) C/) 0 0 0 0
"C I- <.9 <.9 <.9 <.9 0::: 0::: 0::: 0:::
III C/) "0 "0 "0 "0
0 0:: rn ~ ~ ~ ~ ro ro ro ro 0 0 0 0 ro ro CO ro / < /
0:: Q. 0 0 0 0 .... .... .... .... > > > > /1 z-
w :E c:: c:: c:: c:: 0::: 0::: 0::: 0::: ro ro ro ro /,,~;)
I- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 t t t t ro ro ro ro
<( ro ro ro ro .... .... .... .... I: - <~~
Z T""" T""" T""" T""" T""" T""" T""" ... .... .... .... ro ro ro ro 0 0 0 0 J J J J
I I I I I I I 0:: 0 0 0 0 c:: c:: c:: c:: () () () () I. ::!:n
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
ell"
.. ~
ftI 0
"a.
a. ell
:)a::
ci
ftI c
iti:i:
c
.2
..
ftI
..
~
o
a.
III
c
ftI
~
to-
ftI
C
ftI
~
ftI
~
-
l:
I1l
"C
(I)
:i:
.r:.
I- .2'
c :J:
<(
-
~
Q,
- ~
;j
0 0
..J
....
III co $
- --
l: (I) co
....
(I) co :;;
E ~ "0
E (/)
0 C al (/)
al ....
() E al
:Q 0"0
(/) U c
al al co
0::: CD(/)
l:
iij 0
..
l: I1l
0 (J
.. ~
(J
l: III
;j III
LL ~
()
UJ
0
..J
~
'u
I1l
Q,
>- I1l
~ ()
0 "C
.. (I)
c ... "C
G.l I1l ...
(I) 0
> > (J
c (I)
- l:t::
C'I't:J
I ~ (I)
~& (J co co co co co co co
...
;j C l: C C C C c
G.l ~ 0 co 10 10 10 10 10 10
UJ .... .... .... .... .... .... ....
- 0 co co co co co co co
J:I._ ::a: ::a: ::a: ::a: ::a: ::a: ::a:
~ ~ "C Q) co f'.. N T""" 0 0
"'::2 ("') f'.. '<t N f'.. '<t ("')
(I) ("') co N N co N '<t
"C l- T""" T""" N T""" N N
0) ... c
0
C (J <(
.- (I)
.. l:t::
en
.-
>C "C
&&I (I)
>
I1l
0.
"C ~
(I)
(I) E
Q, :J
UJ
l:
.~
"C
(I)
:i:
(I) III
> (I)
I1l l:
... I1l
I- ..J
0
I-
-
l:
(I)
~
(I)
UJ
E
0
...
LL
(I) c ~ Z ~
E 0 0 0 0 c ~ Z
I1l CD CD CD CD 0 0 0
z z z (/) (/) CD CD CD
~ "0 "0 "0 "0 Z Z (/)
~ 0::: 0::: 0::: 0::: ....:
al al al al ~ ~
"C c .!: c .!: I-
I1l
0 .... .... .;:: .... co co co
~ ~ ~ ~ c c c
l:t:: co co co
c c c c .... .... ....
~ ~ ~ ~ co co co
::a: ::a: ::a:
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
~
-
-
-
-
-
-
t"-r-
- 0
alO
OJC\J
10.2:"-
0... :J
J
/ -< /
/lz-
/r.;2~
I. -< /I
, ..". /I
I. ~;;
-
-
-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,I
I
I
Marana Transportation Plan Update
Final Report
Pr1aIParilway
~n Roo<l
dl
!
Mar,.,. Rd
Gnor Rd
I ()~ t: nr Qp"pr
T_d MonN
LOSD
LOS E
LOSF
FIGURE 2-4
2000 Operating Level of Service
-
,-.
il!
j
li j
I ~
T~ne Reoo
Avra "*' Roo<l
,..... P89U RM1
li
j
~lI"I".I'I~t1
,..~~,
MAI~AN^
~~~~:/ I "
Page 18
July 2001
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Marana Transportation Plan Update
Final Report
poorly for most commuters. Although the mainline itself operates acceptably, access
to and from the freeway is difficult.
2.3.2 Freeway
A separate capacity analysis of 1-10 through the Town of Marana was conducted with
existing and proposed traffic volumes. Capacity analysis at the 1-10 traffic
interchanges including ramps and crossroads operations was also conducted. The
frontage roads east and west of 1-10 were also modeled. The 1-10 study area spans
from Trico-Marana Road to Orange Grove Road interchanges.
Peak hour and daily traffic volumes on 1-10, crossroads and ramps were obtained from
the Pima Association of Governments (PAG) traffic count program. AM and PM peak
hour traffic volumes were developed from the average daily traffic using directional
distribution factor and peak hour factor associated with the traffic counts. The existing
lane geometry, traffic control, and AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes for the 1-10
roadway network were entered into CORSIM software.
CORSIM is a microscopic model developed for the Federal Highway Administration
FHWA) that models both arterial streets and freeways together. A microscopic model
simulates every vehicle in the roadway network as opposed to a macroscopic model
that looks at the roadway network as a whole. The format of the roadway system in
CORSIM is simulated as a series of links and nodes. The nodes are the intersections
in the roadway network and the links are the roadway segments between the
intersections.
Traffic volumes collected by PAG and as-built lane geometry on 1-10, ramps and
crossroads were used to model the existing conditions. From Trico-Marana Road to
Ina Road, 1-10 was analyzed as a divided freeway with two lanes in each direction. 1-
10 was analyzed with three lanes in each direction from Ina Road to south of Orange
Grove Road. Both the East and West Frontage Roads were modeled as two-lane
roadways. The frontage roads were analyzed as two-way roadways north of Cortaro
Road. The frontage road improvements underway from Ina Road to Sunset Road were
also included in the analysis.
The intersections at the 1-10 ramp junctions with Trico-Marana Road, Tangerine Road
and Avra Valley Road were analyzed as unsignalized intersections with stop control on
the ramps. The intersections at the 1-10 ramp junctions with Cortaro Road, Ina Road
and Orange Grove Road were modeled as signalized intersections with actuated
signal operations.
7""~,
MAI~ANA
I '\.
Page 19
July 2001
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Marana Transportation Plan Update
Final Report
The Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) trains operating on tracks east of 1-10 were also
simulated using the CORSIM program. There are at-grade crossings located on
Tangerine Road, Cortaro Road and Ina Road. Approximately 40 trains per day and
three trains per peak hour travel on these tracks. Trains 1.5 miles long and traveling at
50 mph were assumed to stop the crossroad traffic for about two minutes. This delay
at the railroad crossings was simulated in the traffic analysis.
Level of service was calculated at the signalized and unsignalized intersections and on
freeway and frontage road roadway segments. Table 2-3 shows the AM and PM peak
hour level of service for 1-10 and its intersections with crossroads.
In the AM peak hour many of the freeway and crossroad roadway segments operated
at LOS A or 8 except for the 1-10 Westbound off-ramp at Ina Road and the 1-10
Eastbound on-ramp at Ina Road. These ramps were shown as operating at LOS F due
to the heavy traffic volumes on Ina Road and the ramps. The presence of an at-grade
railroad crossing east of 1-10 on Ina Road also contributed to the delays.
Table 2 - 3
Intersection and 1-10 Segment Analysis Results
Scenario
2000 2000
AM Peak PM Peak
Intersection LOS LOS
Trico-Marana Road/ 1-10 Eastbound' A A
Trico-Marana Road/ 1-10 Westbound' A A
Tangerine Road/ 1-10 Eastbound' A A
Tangerine Road/ 1-10 Westbound' A A
Avra Valley Road/ 1-10 Eastbound' A A
Avra Valley Road/ 1-10 Westbound' A A
Cortara Road/ 1-10 Eastbound .. B B
Cartara Road/ 1-10 Westbound .. C 0
Ina Road/ 1-10 Eastbound .. C 0
Ina Road/ 1-10 Westbound .. 0 E
Orange Grave Road/ 1-10 Eastbound 0 C
Orange Grave Road/ 1-10 Westbound .. 0 0
unsignalized intersections
signalized intersections
In the AM peak hour, the ramp junction intersections of 1-10 Eastbound and Westbound
with Cortaro Road were operating at LOS 8 and C, respectively. Similarly, the ramp
junction intersections on Ina Road were operating at LOS C and LOS D, and the
intersections on Orange Grove Road were both operating at LOS D.
MAI~ANA
Page 20
July 2001
I',
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Marana Transportation Plan Update
Final Report
I n the PM peak hour all of the 1-10 Eastbound freeway and crossroad roadway
segments operated at LOS A or B. Conversely, many of the 1-10 Westbound lanes and
cross road segments experienced congestion from south of Orange Grove Road to the
Ina Road off-ramp. The 1-10 Westbound freeway segment between the Orange Grove
Road on-ramp and the Ina Road off-ramp was operating at LOS F. The 1-10
Westbound roadway segment south of the Orange Grove Road off-ramp was operating
at LOS C. The 1-10 Westbound off-ramps at Orange Grove Road and Ina Road were
both operating at LOS F.
2.4 Bicycle and Pedestrian Circulation
This section documents existing bicycle and pedestrian facilities within the Town of
Marana. It identifies gaps and other impediments to bicycle and pedestrian travel and
safety. This information is contained in Technical Memorandum Number Five,
contained in the Appendix. Existing bicycle and pedestrian facilities were inventoried
and are presented in Figure 2-5. As shown, sidewalks and bicycle lanes and paved
shoulders exist in limited locations. Following is a brief description of existing facilities
by type.
2.4.1 Paved Shoulders, Bicvcle Lanes. and Multiuse Lanes
On-street bicycle lanes and paved shoulders exist in scattered parts of the Town on
collector and arterial roadways, but are generally isolated facilities that do not
interconnect. These facilities are generally a minimum of 5 feet in width and in some
locations up to 8 feet in width. Some jurisdictions will designate 8-foot to 10-foot lanes
as "multiuse lanes," allowing disabled vehicles to clear the travel lane, use by
bicyclists and pedestrians, pullout area for transit buses at bus stops, use by right-
turning vehicles, and in some cases, use by golf carts and "neighborhood electric
vehicles." Bicycle lanes or shoulders that are less than 5 feet wide generally facilitate
bicycle travel (and sometimes pedestrian travel) but should not be considered to meet
appropriate design standards. (NOTE: 5' is the standard for on-street bike-lanes).
Similarly, paved shoulders or multiuse lanes that exceed 8 feet in width sometimes are
used by motorists and can conflict with bicyclists or pedestrians.
MAI~^N^
I "
Page 21
July 2001
II ~...
0a.
I
a.~
11:c'
ic
ii:
U::
I
c0
I
0a.IIIc
I ...
c
I :::
E
IIIIIIIIIIII
enQ)ucacca
U) ~
loa
C\.
I
Q)
Q)
A.oaC
a'
lcaii:
Q)uuma'
Icen1&
1
N
r-NOlDO0lC\
J
ro :>,Cl.::;
l
lX:
lX:Si;go
c:: .
ll! '=>
lX: ...... ~
lX:
t::
c::
l:>
0
0 ~
t::
l
E ."
0
0lX:g;?e '=>
lX:
0
e ~<
l:> -
e <
l:>
lX:
g ~ <
l:>
lX:
f?
Q;
g>
g> '"
r::: ,.
3 ::
i;::
i; .
s;
0
i:
E
epeueQ
e?
elJOIIJ !!") ~
c>!
esn
euorv :
0000,
UOUU!!IIS . ~
1Wa1le/
apOU!
WeQB ..~ _..~aWP,{
WOl/
1 ~ . . ~laqleJPIO
L
alSaQ
ap
Ou!
WeJ ..
L,
u!
eJunoyy ",
lOG
i'.
uewueH
t~
t--..../'
s :t.~
El ~
I
swept!
UO")OIlepues
OP!!
PU!!S
SJepues
slapues
IJel(.
Jn?
Q..St.::::
CiiIJ
C ~:
g
Z ._
U)o
PI:
iO:
J!
ll
pl:
i,{
eAlUV
it
fU "
t:
J ~ ~
e
C::
lX:<
l:>
8
j.::
r,; ~ ~
E
i."{; '" .~
Q3::
i;
i:
U
i;
t:)
@I-':
elX:is
c::2>
PI:
i
apeM
lX:tla:
c
0-roCO00...celDJlc;:)
O.
l.OJ'
S
u;-
co
x.
W<
c
IJ000"
30co..
c0lU)C-
oIJ
S!! >xCOwo...
I
I
I
1 ~~
1
I <,
I
Q::
N;
I.. <~~!
I. ~
n
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Marana Transportation Plan Update
Final Report
Existing bicycle lanes that best meet engineering standards are located on Silverbell
Road from Twin Peaks Road to Cortaro Road, and on short sections of other Town
roads. These lanes are of appropriate width, are signed and marked as bicycle lanes,
and have appropriate intersection design treatments. Additional discussion of
appropriate bicycle lane design is presented later in this memorandum.
Bicycle lanes and paved shoulders are generally not needed on residential Town
streets due to lower traffic volumes and travel speeds.
2.4.2 Shared Use Pathways
Off-road two-way shared use pathways have their
own alignment (i.e., are not part of a roadway) and
are usually a minimum of 10 feet in width. In higher
use locations, they should be at least 12 feet in width.
Currently there are no shared use pathways located
within Town limits. Examples of shared use pathways
within the region include the Rillito River Park and
Santa Cruz River Park.
Desert paved and unpaved pathways
function best with ample shade
2.4.3 Sidewalks
Concrete sidewalks are located in some residential neighborhoods and shopping
districts. However, discontinuities in the sidewalks often result in a dysfunctional
pedestrian pathway system. In areas of high pedestrian activity, sidewalks should be
at least 5 feet wide so that foot traffic in opposite directions can pass without having to
step into adjoining landscaped areas or the street. Sidewalk ramps are necessary
whenever a sidewalk intersects a curb so that wheelchairs are accommodated
according to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). ~
2.5 Public Transportation
Marana is served by three transit providers:
Sun Tran
Marana Public Transit (Discontinued July 1, 2000)
Pima County Rural Transit.
Transit service is focused primarily along the Ina Road commercial corridor
where a majority of the employment and trip generators are located within
Marana. However, service extends into the growing suburban and rural areas of
Marana and Avra Valley. The service areas and routes of the three transit
providers are shown in Figure 2-6. Each transit provider and the status of
transit facilities in the community are profiled in the following sections.
Bus stop with lack of
sidewalk, shade,
shelter, and bench
MAI~^N^
I "
Page 23
July 2001
II
4It:0
ra
a.
a
41
I
a.
a:ciara
c
a::
i:
i:
I
c0ra
I
0a.IIIcra
I
l-racrara
I ::
E
IIIIIIIIIIII
IIQ)CJ
CD:
I..
C\
I .
en
Q)
Cca
s ..g)
1-g)
II.
CIICIII
NOQ)
O
O)
N
CO >-0...::;
J
0CI:CD
0 > "
0
0
CI:
0 '"
0 '" "
0
ZCi)
0
CI: "
0
c:
Vi
CI:
CD
CI:
CI: ....
J
0 "
0
C'
l
Qj
0
CD :>
CD
CD
c: .
S '"
Qj
n;
CD
CD
CI:
c: >
l
CI: '
c '"
1:: = '"
a:
0
CD
Q; .
0 "
0
0 "'''' '"
0
u
0
C'
l '"
E
c:
u ~ .
E
c:
n; '" :.::::;
m
0 ~
Z ....
J
c: :::
ii
a:
BplWBJ
Bl
6>v~
v6>b.
Bll04J
Ell '
Y ~
ElS!
l
BUO~
o~~
UOUUEl4S <
1>0 ~
ElJJall
BI
ap
OU!
WBJ
13 .,
jl, _.....
r;:.
alBpAUJ041 ~ " ~Ja41B:
l
PIO
L .
alSaO
ap
OU!
WBJ "
L... .
ulEllunO~
aMa ~
I"--
v--
UElWjJBH
t'..0 :t; ~t.~
J).... ~
I
15 ~z ~
SWElP\
t
UOlOpBpUBS
OpBpUElS
SJapUBs
SJapues
ija>
1::
Jnl
Pl::
l
oO!
Jl
PI:!
ABMU\
t
0 =
CD
e
CI:
2!
8
F
l; );
oQjn;:::
ii
w
q ~
t3C:
C
8
0CI:
cC'
lELU
PI:!
apeM
ozwc.:
lWJ
Q)'ieQ)E
Jl
a
c::~
Cts.....Iiic::
Cts
CtsJlS'::
J!!
a:<..>
J .-a
a:
Q
a:
C::::
J
c::::
Ja..aCtsc::CtsCts
S;; ~ ~cJ5Q:~
I
I
I
II
z~C2~~
N
I, ~
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Marana Transportation Plan Update
Final Report
2.5.1 Sun Tran
Sun Tran is the fixed bus route transit provider for the City of Tucson. Sun Tran service
extends into Marana through an Inter-Governmental Agreement (IGA) between
Marana, Pima County, and the City of Tucson. The Town reimburses Pima County for
the cost of Sun Tran service and Pima County reimburses the City of Tucson. Four Sun
Tran routes serve Marana:
Route 16
Route 102 Ina Road Express
Route 103 Oldfather Express
Route 186 Aeropark Express
Route 16 operates primarily along Oracle Road and connects to the Tohono Tadai, Roy
Laos and Downtown Ronstadt transit centers. This route also extends into Marana
along I na Road.
Route 102, Ina Road Express service, operates from La Cholla and Magee, along Ina
Road to 1-10, and connects to downtown Tucson and the University of Arizona. Route
103, Oldfather Express service, operates along Ina Road from 1-10 to Oracle Road and
serves the University of Arizona, and then terminates in downtown Tucson. Both routes
serve the Ronstadt Transit Center.
Route 186, Aeropark Express service, operates from La Cholla Road to Ina Road, then
west to 1-10 and extends southward to the Raytheon and aero-modification
employment centers near Tucson International Airport. Sun Tran is presently modifying
this route to provide additional service to the aerospace employment centers near the
Tucson International Airport.
Sun Tran Route 16 operates on 30-minute headways (intervals) on the Ina Road
segment of the route. Route 16 provides the only weekday and Saturday fixed-route
transit service in Marana. Sun Tran routes 102 and 103 operate weekdays only, and
provide a total of eight round-trips per day. Route 186 operates only four weekday
roundtrips. These trips are during the peak morning and afternoon commute hours.
Sun Tran utilizes standard 40-foot transit coaches on these routes.
The fares for Sun Tran service have recently been increased. The one-way fare on
Routes 16,102, and 103 increased from $.85 to $1.00.
The fares for Route 186 are currently being determined at the time of this report. Since
this service is provided under a contractual agreement between Raytheon,
Bombardier, and Sun Tran, the fares will undoubtedly be higher than the regular Sun
Tran fares. As noted previously, the Town of Marana provides funds for the cost of
Routes 16, 102, and 103 services, less the revenues generated.
MAI~AN^
I "
Page 25
July 2001
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Marana Transportation Plan Update
Final Report
Ridership on the Sun Tran routes serving Marana is varied. Routes 102 and 103
provide direct service to their respective destinations. These express routes operate
with limited stops primarily along Ina Road. Route 16 is a fixed-route that serves Ina
Road, with service extending beyond the Marana town limits to Oracie Road. Route 16
is also the only Sun Tran route that offers Saturday service in the area. No bus service
is provided on Sunday within the Town limits. Ridership data for each of the respective
Sun Tran routes, presented in the following tables, was gathered from the Sun Tran
Comprehensive Operations Analysis (COA).
Table 2-4 lists the ridership data for Route 16. Saturday ridership is four times the level
of weekday service which is a result of riders going to the retail establishments along
the route.
Table 2 - 4
Route 16
A verage Daily Average Average
Passenger Boardings Passengers!Hour Passengers!Mile
Wkdy Sat Sun Wkdy Sat Sun Wkdy Sat Sun
Oracle & Ina 97.0 333.0 263.0 4.3 35.9 31.0 1.7 3.1 2.7
Ina & Paseo del Norte 52.0 211.0 - 3.5 31.4 - 1.4 2.7 -
to Ina & Thornydale
Oracle & Ina to 33.0 - - 6.6 - - 9.3 - -
Oracle & Maqee
Source: Sun Tran Comprehensive Operations Analysis, 1997-98.
Includes route segment outside of Marana Town Limits.
Table 2-5 contains the overall ridership for Route 102. Route 102 is an express service
operating on weekdays only with no weekend service.
Table 2 - 5
Route 102
A verage Daily Average Average
Passenger Boardings Passengers!Hour Passengers!Mile
Wkdy Sat Sun Wkdy Sat Sun Wkdy Sat Sun
Ina & Camino de la Cruz 2.6 - - 1.5 - - 0.3 - -
Ina & Oldfather to 9.6 - - 12.0 - - 2.5 - -
Ina & La Cholla
Ina & La Cholla to 2.8 - - 14.0 - - 3.0 - -
La Cholla & Magee
Source: Sun Tran Comprehensive Operations Analysis, 1997-98
Includes route segment outside of Marana Town Limits.
Table 2-6 lists the overall ridership of Route 103. Route 103 operates only as a
weekday express service to downtown Tucson and the University of Arizona campus
and has no weekend service.
MAI~^N^
I"
Page 26
July 2001
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Marana Transportation Plan Update
Final Report
Table 2 - 6
Route 103
A verage Daily Average Average
Passenger Boardings PassengerslHour Passengers!Mile
Wkdy Sat Sun Wkdy Sat Sun Wkdy Sat Sun
Oracle & Oranqe Grove 3.0 - - 2.0 - - 0.5 - -
Ina & Oracle to 3.2 - - 5.38 - - 1.4 - -
Ina & La Cholla
Ina & Omar to 0 - - 0.0 - - 0.0 - -
Ina & Camino de la Cruz
Source: 1996-1997 Sun Tran Comprehensive Operations Analysis
Includes route segment outside of Marana Town Limits.
2.5.2 Marana Public Transit
Marana Public Transit service was discontinued on June 30, 2000. The Town of
Marana had contracted with a private transit provider, American Pony Express, to
operate the service. The system was a fixed-route community circulator open to the
general public. The service also operated as a deviated fixed-route with door-to-door
service for special needs passengers with advanced reservations.
The Marana Public Transit service area connected the InafThornydale business area to
the residential areas west of 1-10 along Silverbell and Cortaro roads. Marana Public
Transit also serviced the commercial and business corridors along Ina and Orange
Grove roads. The schedule facilitated transfers to Sun Tran routes 16,102 and 103.
The former Marana Public Transit operated three round-trips per weekday along its
service route. Headways were approximately 2 hours, with a 3-hour midday lag time
between trips. The fare for service was $1.00 one-way throughout the service area. A
single 15-passenger cutaway vehicle with wheelchair lift provided service.
Ridership on the former Marana Public Transit was poor. The low ridership numbers
are reflective of overall system design. Marana Public Transit had long headways, a
single operational vehicle, inadequate routing, weekday-only service, and a lack of
facilities. Marana Public Transit attempted to serve as both a fixed-route and a dial-a-
ride transit provider, which combined, were not successful in serving riders. The
annual ridership for Marana Public Transit is highlighted in Table 2-7.
7""~'~
MAI~AN^
I'\.
Page 27
July 2001
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Marana Transportation Plan Update
Final Report
Table 2 - 7
Marana Public Transit
A verage Daily
Passenger Boardings
Wkdy Sat Sun
Total Service Area 6.6
Source: 1999 Town of Marana General Services
2.5.3 Pima County Rural Transit
Pima County Rural Transit provides transportation services to greater unincorporated
Pima County. Pima County contracts with A&K Transportation, a private contractor.
The Town pays for the service with local and federal shared revenue funds.
Pima County Rural Transit is a general public transit provider and meets Americans
with Disabilities Act (ADA) regulations for providing transit service to special needs
passengers. The service area encompasses "Old Town" Marana, parts of Avra Valley,
and the Ina Road Commercial Corridor. Passengers can transfer from this service to
Sun Tran Route 16 along Ina Road. Pima County Rural transit schedules to allow
passengers to transfer to the other Sun Tran routes in Marana.
Pima County Rural Transit operates four round-trips per weekday. The service utilizes
15-passenger cutaway vehicles, with wheelchair lifts, on this route.
The route has 3-hour headways between roundtrips. The route coordinates its final
westbound departure times from Ina and Thornydale roads with the last Sun Tran
Routes 102 and 103 express buses in order to assure that transferring passengers will
be able to meet their connecting bus. Fares on the system are $0.75 one-way system
wide.
Ridership on the Marana segment of Pima County Rural Transit is illustrated in Table 2-
8. The service is offered on weekdays only. The composition of riders for Pima County
Rural Transit is mostly transit dependent individuals from both inside and outside of the
Town limits; however, it also serves as a para-transit provider for the area.
Table 2 - 8
Pima County Rural Transit
7""~,
MAI~ANA
I"
Page 28
July 2001
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Marana Transportation Plan Update
Final Report
2.5.4 Transit facilities
Existing transit facilities within the Town of Marana are categorized into two areas: bus
facilities and bicycle facilities. Bus facilities include benches, bus shelters, and transit
stations with their associated amenities. Bicycle facilities include bike lane striping,
bikeways, and supportive facilities such as lockers and racks for bike commuters and
general users.
Bus facilities in Marana are scattered throughout the Town. There are a total of ten bus
stops throughout Marana. Bus shelters are primarily along Ina Road at the various bus
stops served by both providers. These shelters lack amenities such as shade or water
fountains for waiting passengers. The majority of bus stops within the Town are
designated with only a sign and a bench.
Marana does not have a Park and Ride facility within the Town limits (the commuter
parking lot at Cortaro and 1-10 is not served by transit). Marana has an expanded bus
stop located at Ina and Thornydale roads in the Kmart shopping center parking lot.
This stop serves the four Sun Tran routes and Pima Rural Transit. It also functions as a
transfer point for passengers. It has a shelter with a trash receptacle and limited
landscaping that provides some shade for waiting passengers.
There are no bike racks or lockers for bicyclists to secure their bikes at existing bus
shelters and stops. Sun Tran buses offer bike racks on their vehicles for passengers to
transport their bicycles while traveling.
2.6 Interviews and Surveys
As part of the transit plan, interviews were conducted with stakeholders and with
Marana staff to determine major issues relating to transit that should be addressed in
the plan. In addition, a telephone survey was conducted of residents living within the
study area. Users of the existing transit systems were also surveyed. The full results of
these interviews and surveys are contained in Technical Memorandum Number 6,
contained in the Appendix; however, the major findings are summarized below.
2.6.1 Staff Interviews
Staff of the Town of Marana and other local jurisdictions who have been involved in the
provision of transit services within the Town and region were interviewed to obtain their
insight into the existing transit operations in the area and the potential for additional
services. The results from staff interviews were mixed. Most staff responded that
transit service is needed in Marana. However, the extent and type of transit service
needed varied based upon population and areas served. Staff responses varied on
fare structures and frequencies of service as well as destinations. Service within the
Town was viewed as necessary but should be limited to the Inaffhornydale Road
MAI~AN^
I"
Page 29
July 2001
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Marana Transportation Plan Update
Final Report
corridors with an emphasis of transit service to the Northwest Hospital medical
complex and the Foothills Mall. Responses also indicated a need for a future transit
service to connect with existing fixed-route transit services.
Rural transit services were described as a need that currently is unmet. Staff
respondents stated that they were aware of transit needs from the Avra Valley and
Picture Rocks areas, but were uncertain as to the extent of those needs.
2.6.2 Gatekeeper Surveys
The clients of many of the social service agencies within the Town of Marana rely on
public transportation and/or others to transport them to agency activities, hot meals, or
medical appointments. To determine the magnitude of this population and its unique
needs, representatives of these organizations were interviewed.
The results of the gatekeeper interviews differed significantly from the staff interviews.
While the gatekeeper responses shared similar opinions regarding the need for transit
service in Marana, they focused on different priorities. The priorities expressed by the
gatekeepers are as follows:
Low or reasonable fares.
Reliable and frequent transit service.
Frequent and extended hours transit schedules.
Reliable transit service to employment/medical/commercial destinations.
Service provisions for the transit dependent.
Gatekeeper respondents stated that while there is a need for transit services in
Marana, there was some disagreement as to the method for implementing such a
service if obtaining the required funds resulted in the neglect of basic community
needs or services. Interviewees also clearly stated if a transit service was to be
implemented and successful, that it would have to meet the needs of the riders through
affordable fares and convenient schedules and routing.
2.6.3 On-Board Surveys
Surveys were conducted of existing riders (including the Marana transit route prior to
its termination) to determine where they were going and for what purpose. A copy of
the survey form, and the data spreadsheet for each individual route surveyed is
included in Technical Memorandum Number 6. Based upon the on-board survey
responses, transit users in Marana are generally satisfied with the existing commuter
transit services provided. Marana commuter transit users overwhelmingly placed
expansion of existing services as a high priority. All the survey respondents indicated
that if transit services were expanded and improved, transit would be used more often.
Another significant indication from the survey is that a majority of survey respondents
7""~,
MAI~^N^
I"
Page 30
July 2001
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Marana Transportation Plan Update
Final Report
indicated that they would be willing to support a dedicated funding source for transit in
Marana.
2.6.4 Teleohone Survev
Telephone surveys were conducted with adult heads of households residing in the
study area to determine the transit market. Professional interviewers conducted this
survey during the first week of July 2000. The questionnaire was designed and pre-
tested by Dr. Bruce D. Merrill, Director of the Media Research Center at Arizona State
University. Dr. Merrill conducted the survey as a private consultant to Parsons
B ri nckerhoff.
The telephone survey was based upon a random sample of 536 adult heads of
households. The sampling the survey is plus or minus 4.2%. This survey was
supplemented by additional interviews to generalize adult heads of household in the
Marana study area that have a high probability of using a mass transit system if one
became available. In this survey, 362 residents who have used mass transit in the past
or who say that they would frequently or occasionally use mass transit in Marana if it
became available, were included in this sample. The sampling error for the "likely"
users is plus or minus 5.1 %.
Technical Memorandum Number 6 provides a detailed spreadsheet of the telephone
survey questions and their respective responses. The telephone surveys and their
results indicate that respondents would use public transit if it were more affordable
than operating their private vehicles, and their primary destination would be
employment destinations. Survey respondents also stated that bus stops close to their
homes were important. Park and ride facilities were deemed important as well. Transit
service to Tucson International Airport and the high tech employment centers located
near there, were deemed important by 78% of the potential transit users. In addition to
the airport, survey respondents also indicated that transit service to regional shopping
malls and downtown Tucson was important. The information from this survey was
utilized to develop transit alternatives in Chapter 6.
2.7 System Deficiencies
The prior sections describe the existing transportation systems for roads, bicycles,
pedestrians and transit. This section details the deficiencies in those systems, which
need to be addressed in the development of a Transportation Plan for the Town.
2.7.1 Roadwavs
Many of the current roadway deficiencies, described above can be mitigated through
intersection and roadway widening projects. Most of these existing problems areas
are identified in the current Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP), and several
MAI~^N^
l '\.
Page 31
July 2001
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Marana Transportation Plan Update
Final Report
projects are now under design or construction. There are, however, safety concerns
associated with doglegged intersections along Tangerine Road, and with the
numerous at-grade railroad crossings. The doglegs will be eliminated with corridor
improvements. Some of the rail crossings will be converted to grade separations with
future interchange and roadway improvements.
The analysis of collision records shows that the only high accident location on Town
roadways is on Ina Road between Old Father and Meredith. The rate is attributable to
the number of access points serving local business and could be alleviated by
implementing the access management strategies proposed in the 1998 Ina Road
Study. Examples of viable strategies include consolidating existing driveways, closing
some low-volume driveways, encouraging joint-use access during project planning
and design, considering frontage roads, and utilizing directional median openings that
prohibit left-out maneuvers. Examples of viable strategies include consolidating
existing driveways, closing some low-volume driveways, encouraging joint-use access
during project planning and design, considering frontage roads, and utilizing
directional median openings that prohibit left-out maneuvers.
2.7.2 Bicycle and Pedestrian
Various impediments exist within the Town to walking and bicycling. Following is a
brief listing of some of the challenges the Town faces to promote bicycling and
walking.
Lack of bike/pedestrian facilities: As discussed earlier in this chapter there is a lack
of bicycle and pedestrian facilities in the Town, which is a major impediment to
alternate mode use. Additional facilities will be necessary to effectively promote
travel by these modes.
Barrier effect: The barrier effect exists at structures and geographic features such
as roadway crossings of 1-10, where bicycle lanes and sidewalks of sufficient width
do not exist, at bridges over washes, and at bicycle and pedestrian crossings of
major roadways. These relatively short barriers can effectively discourage a cyclist
or pedestrian from making a trip along a route that may otherwise be quite usable.
Lack of support facilities: Support facilities include trees for shade, rest and water
facilities, restrooms, bike racks and lockers, and amenities. Support facilities can
also include readily available maps and user guides to promote rules of the road
and safety, and promotional/educational programs in the schools and businesses
to promote safe bicycling and walking. "Marketing" of bicycling and walking is
important to raise awareness that these modes are viable.
Dispersed origins/destinations: In many areas of the Town, bicycling and walking
opportunities are limited due to low densities and long travel distances, particularly
in the summertime heat. As the Town develops, multiuse commercial, residential,
MAI~ANA
I"
Page 32
July 2001
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Marana Transportation Plan Update
Final Report
and employment developments may be desirable, especially if designed with
pedestrians and cyclists in mind. Location of residences near schools, libraries
and parks will promote bicycling and walking if appropriate connections are made.
Barriers between subdivisions/schools/other destinations: -
I
Developments are often approved which do not have
sufficient access points to facilitate bicycle and pedestrian
travel to desired destinations, including to area schools I -
t'
e.g., Coyote Trails Elementary School). This occurs
frequently, even with non-gated communities, and results
in parents driving their children even short distances to
the schools. Developments that provide either local street
access or bicycle-pedestrian only access at intervals of
200 to 400 feet will support non-motorized travel. Local
street and/or pathway links that provide connectivity
between neighborhoods and business areas are also
important to foster longer distance bicycle and pedestrian
trips within communities.
Difficult street crossings: One of the greatest
challenges to promoting bicycle and pedestrian
travel is major street crossings. This is
particularly a problem for linking bicyclists and
pedestrians to transit service, and for
schoolchildren to ride or walk to school. Wide,
high-speed and high-volume roadways may
intimidate cyclists and walkers from crossing
roadways to the degree that they will drive short
distances to destinations rather than attempt to
get there by non-motorized means. Enhanced
roadway crossings, with high-visibility crosswalks,
median refuge areas, and in some cases traffic
signals can promote safe crossings of major
roadways. Standard traffic signals should be designed to accommodate bicycles,
particularly with loop detectors, push button actuators, or video detection that can
sense bicyclists who are trying to cross a signalized intersection.
I
1', .
rk-'-
0' , , . 0, ,,\ If"J/ . _"
Walls and fences separating
subdivision from Coyote Trails
Elementary School
Wide street crossings can be
intimidating for pedestrians and
bicyclists
Commercial and other areas designed for driving: One often overlooked area that
discourages cycling and walking trips is commercial driveways and parking lots
that are designed exclusively for motor vehicles. This often occurs even at schools
where the emphasis should be on high-safety bicycle and pedestrian facilities.
Strong support should be given for safety and access of cyclists and pedestrians to
and within these areas. Access control at entrances is important not only to
promote the function of adjacent arterials and collectors, but also to limit conflict
points with cyclists and pedestrians traveling along the major roadways.
MAI~^N^
I "
Page 33
July 2001
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Marana Transportation Plan Update
Final Report
Unsafe parking lots: Parking lots are often not even designed to promote safe or
comfortable walking (i.e., through use of shaded sidewalk areas) between a
customer's car and the store. Bicycle racks or lockers are either not provided at
the commercial area, or if provided, are of inferior quality or are hidden in unusable
locations around the commercial area. Through encouragement measures such as
air quality credits, if bicycle and pedestrian facilities are provided or improved
zoning allowances, commercial and other areas can go a long way in improving
bicycle and pedestrian access.
2.7.3 Transit
Existing transit services within Marana are limited due to the limited resources of the
two transit providers. While service along the Ina Road commercial corridor functions
as a commuter service and connects with inter-city service at Oracle Road, in-town
service is limited. The service areas for the transit providers are vast and service
headways are long. Transit facilities are scattered, and generally consist only of a sign
designating the bus stop. As Marana continues to develop, residential and new
employment trip generators within the Town will generate a demand for increased
transit service.
The interviews and surveys of staff, gatekeepers of social service agencies, on-board
surveys and telephone surveys of transit users in the study area indicated the
following, as important transit needs:
Service to Downtown Tucson
Service to Tucson International Airport & Employment Centers
Service to Regional Malls
Service to Northwest Hospital & Medical Centers
Service to Old Marana
Based upon the responses from the surveys conducted, two types of transit service for
Marana should be developed: 1) a commuter express service from Marana to
downtown Tucson and the Tucson Airport employment area, and 2) a circulator transit
system that could serve the Northwest Hospital area and the regional malls.
MAI~^N^
I',
Page 34
July 2001
Marana Transportation Plan Update
Final Report
3.0 FUTURE CONDITIONS
This chapter presents future land use and socio-economic data in the Town This
information is utilized to forecast future traffic on local roads and the Interstate.
3.1 Growth Forecasts
3.1.1 Future Land Use
Future land use in each of the sub-regions shown previously in Chapter 2 is based on
current development plans and zoning. The timing and intensity of development was
determined through the Land Use Advisory Committee established for this planning
process. All current development plans in Areas 1, 2, and 3 are assumed to be complete
by 2010. Avra Valley is assumed to grow by 20 percent in 2010 and by 50 percent in 2025.
Growth rates applied to Picture Rocks are 10 percent in 2010 and 20 percent in 2025.
Northwest Marana land use is based on the Northwest Marana Area Plan adopted by the
Town of Marana on October 17, 2000. The following graphic, Figure 3-1, identifies the
development units used in this study that are contained in the adopted plan.
The Land Use Advisory Committee concluded that build-out of the area would occur after
2025 and advised that 75 percent of total build-out is a reasonable assumption of
development for the study period. The Committee also indicated that there would be no
new development east of Interstate 10 by 2010. Growth factors for the development west
of I-10 were applied at different rates for the various development units. Table 3-1
summarizes the estimated land use in the northwest area at build-out.
3.1.2 Future Socio-Economic Data
Figures 3-2 and 3-3 present the socio-economic data for employment and housing for the
future. Table 3-2 shows the growth rates (dwelling units) in each area for the two time
horizons. This information was utilized in the travel model to estimate traffic for 2010 and
2025.
The rocedures used in the lan to forecast future o ulation and em lo ment are differentpPpPpY
from those used by the Pima Association of Governments (PAG). This study utilizes a
ground up" approach that estimates the number of homes and businesses based on land
use decisions made by the Town. This information is then input in the QRSII travel demand
model. This model does not require population, per se, as an input, but rather the number
of homes, household income, retail and non-retail employment.
Page 35
M,4lznNA July 2001
i
O
Q
O
Q, ~
c~
7 ~R
C
d
LL
o
i
c
i+
mv
i
D~
m
a
i
p
S
m
o
c
n
Q
C`,
I
m~
v~
U~
I
N
3
m ~
m
c
lr/
I
a
E
p
G
m
O
7
1
L
ns
N
m
Fdip ~
E~
0
f
9?
N
C
N
E
V
D«~
7,
U~
4
I
I
m`~
m ~°~'^
rn
o'~
U~
7
C
U
O
3
u
O
y
S
0
r°-=~ ~
a
a=
i
q
0
W
o :
n
o
Q
W
m
3
O
of
3
u
a
O
C~,.
G
j
OI
U
m.
v
Q
atii
j
ccY
i+
i
a
w
ua5
I
m
Q
o'
c
i
3~
w
cC
y
a"
Z
a
Z
a
a
y
v
a
1
m
z ,
i
O
4
i
r
H
Z
W-
3
o
P
n~
o
1
1
y
3
C
2
c
m
oa
oiavanns ~
i
d
a,
c~
z~
ft21 ~
IMVONVS
3
0
3~
o
a~
i
r
o
o~
1
I ~
y~
W ~ ~
q
7
m
f
w
f
Z ~
a
O ~ }
a~
Q
n~
Te
n
Q?! ~
b34NVS
i
i
W
Qy~
P~
S
y
Q
aa
ad
i
aa
uNaM
j
w,
I
2
N
w
a
F.
1J/,~.:
Y
m
K
Q
I
Ii
i
Y
y - .
O
3
f:_
o
o
Ot!
113N~~
Sl
a~
2
z
y
ea
o
o~
x
dy
Q
E
Q.
y
t~,
l
H
w
e
C
J ~
a
iu
j
9
Q
4'
Q
3
1
aa
o~
ial
j
i
i
l
Q/
I
tCiioii°
b ~ ~
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Marana Transportation Plan Update
Final Report
Table 3 - 1
Build-out Conditions in Northwest Marana
Commercial Land Use Summary
Commercial/Business Floor/Area Total Building
Acres Ratio Square Footage
315 15% 2,685,850
160 12% 84,100
20 12% 105,000
100 12% 523,000
70 12% 366,000
90 12% 470,000
o 0
o 0
800 18% 6,272,000
230 20% 3,004,000
390 20% 3,398,000
Unit
Town Center
SE Medium Density Villaqes
SE Low Density Villaqes
NE Medium Density Villaqes
NE Low Density Villaqes
South Medium Density Villaqes
Ranchettes/Estates South
Ranchettes/Estates North
1-10 Commercial Corridor
Airport Commercial Zone
Industrial/Business Parks
lL-- - .--....- - - ~. ~~~ ~.- ~.~ ~~~
Unit
Town Center
SE Medium Density Villaqes
SE Low Density Villaqes
NE Medium Density Villaqes
NE Low Density Villaqes
South Medium Density Villaqes
Ranchettes/Estates South
Ranchettes/Estates North
Residential Land Use Summary
Acres Units Per Acre Total Dwellings
260 6 1 ,560
1,450 4 5,800
310 3 935
1,495 4.5 6,730
1 ,255 3 3,765
1,075 4 4,280
6,100 0.75 4,575
3,395 0.75 2,545
Total 30,195
PAG utilizes a more-or-Iess "top down approach" incorporating State-sanctioned
population and employment forecasts for the region, which are then sub allocated through
an expert panel process. This process is mandated by a gubernatorial executive order.
During the course of this study, the Marana Town Council approved a significant shift in
development patterns that reflect the constraints imposed by the pygmy owl habitat and
the availability of developable agricultural fields. This resulted in a major shift of future
homes and jobs to the Northwest Area that was not yet included in PAG's forecasts.
Accordingly, the new distribution resulted in obvious variances between the two forecasts
which will be rectified as PAG updates its socio-economic models in consultation with the
Town in the future.
MAI~^N^
Page 37
July 2001
I "
II
III
0s:
a.
s:
a.~
11:
c-III ~ii:
u::
coIIIos:
a.IIICIIII-IIICIIIIIIE
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
aiVoEoo
C'<
IC'<
I
I ..
2
Q)
IIIU
s .-
E
I&.
0CoU1&
1ouoen
ccwa:cc
en ..,
j
l.:) -2: ~
Q!2:QltOoll'
l2:0....
0CllIOll'
l
ll'
lN....
J
p"'~
i:-
CCZCC
El
ctCC <(
0
e '
Z
a:D:UJ
l-
e(
a:j
ct) ~
ZlN3M
W
f1l
I-a:0Z
a~
Ojlli!
Cil
r-
Ofl
18
N.
LW
3.\
oa
oa:
0a:
ti ~
E
en ..,
j
l.:) -2: ~
i..,
jll.
lIt
1l.
I~
2:0
QQ!
2:
ll'
loll'
l
N...
N
Fff
O~
3WON'-
l!
lOH!
ll530
30
oNll'
l'
I'
J
o
0""
Ol
oa:UJza:w
oa:ctSli30NVS
01a:o ;--:-
c.-
D:t=w
19C"
l
q.<:J
4'
c,'ll.
I
en ~
II.
IIt
j ~
12:
Il.
I
11.
I'
0lt2:
Qll'
lQo....
ll'
l
Q)
C"
lN10......
CII
NCCwa:CC
fi' ~
a:
1 :I
Ot!
OIlivaNVS-
O~ ~~-iD..
ccwa:CC
I >-
en
W
l.:)::2: ~
Jo,;
cc ::
j...
1I.
I
I ;~~~
i
g:
gSl
C"
lNIO
fiZ
JlEI
ft'i2/
I
I
en ...l.:) -
I ~L
11.
I
jiji::
It2:
l,
QII.
IO
o>-
It2:-
ll'
l
ll'
lll'
l
O~
IIVMN'
rj
00 ..-
0
0)
0OlNell >.0...-
JJ
JI
5zE
1
Z_
11
I"~
II;
i
I. ~
II
II
CD"la
0aD.
I
D.
CD11:c'
i
la
c
I
ii:
i:
c0la
I
0D.ellCla
I ...
laClala
I :
I
I
G)a0E
I
InC"
I0MC"
I
I ..
I
M-
2
G)
enu
I
g,
E0
LI.
C0U1&
1
I .
0u0en
IIIIIII
Cil
01\
18
Nl.~ ~
oa
I
Cwa:C
CI) ~
l4.
IIte:
l4.
IOQlte:CI/)CCNCOlC'
l:t
II)
C')'-
p
c(<.
i
0cz:
0cz:
Iii
w
z '"
00
Xl ~
CZCa:CEenwz:a:oz
acz:
0
2
cz:
c
a:
a:
W
0(
ctt.)
ziN3M ~-
o~ .
11$
1
I -
fi
IJ
r---- - --.....
I
W
tf
it
0Cf
31~
0f.
Nl:
lOHl
31S30
30
oNlIWJ
1-
0
o~
O~
Q
1/>'<,':.
I<,Q'
CI) ~
l4.
IIte:0e:QI/)Ccr-.:Q
0i)
C').-00'-
01
ocz:Wzctc
NCwa:C
CI) ~i
l4.
IItqe:
0
iO ~
O
cz:
Q
l4.
I
e: ~
II)
It
C --
1'
CC <
l
N
Oi)
C :>
l:
tN <(
N
Oi) ~_ _ ~
t
filz
l ,,,,,,,"\
is
S1l3QN~
S
J
Cwa:CWII
J <
CCa:
Ti
II
1
l
CI) ....Cl -
l4.
IIte:
Ql4.
IOCite:ooll)
C
0i)
1I).-
C')
C')
0i)ocz:1Cwa:CenCJ0.a:wa:CJa.
J
Ii8,01cri
J!
CI) ..,Cl -l~ ..,
l4.
I- - - --------.---
I.
LI -
Ite:
Q
l4.
IO
I/)
It
e: ----.,- -
C
II)
II)
I/)
II)
C') .-.-
Ot1 ^
VMN'
rj-- -
0\ ..--100)
0
O)
C\
J
CO >-0..-
l
Il'
ocz:WJJ5z
1:
II
Z
I,~
II
G)'"Ia
0
a
a.
I
a.
G)11:ciiIa
c
a.....
I
c0Ia
I
0a.IIIcIa
C
I
I-
0
Ia
g)
C
Q)
Ia ..Ia .
a
I, ::& ~
ena
I
enE
I ~ ~
I
0
M ~Q) .
0
I .
a .-I-~
Q)
I ~I
0E
I
Een
IIIIII
ll'
l
o!:
ll'
l0
00
ll'
l
00
ll'
l ~
00
Oll'
l
l
I'-
ll'
l
oll'
l
N ~ <'
l
I'-
0
0
0
0
0
ON
OCO <
00
l
1'-
0
CO
Nv
V ~
0><
0
CO ~
v
ll'
l
N <'
l <'
l
N
ll'
l0> <'
l <'
l
0III
ll'
l
Qill'
l
ll'
l
0
0
0
Oll'
l
N
0::
1'-
Oll'
l
ll'
lll'
l
ll'
l
ll'
l
CO
0
0
ll'
l
ll'
l0
0
ll'
lll'
l
Oll'
l
0
1'-<
0 <
00
0
ll'
l
N
NO
ll'
l ~
ll'
l
N
cO> ;
01'- <'IN
N
CO ~ <
0
V
NN
I'-
N<'
l
CO ~
oV ~Zo<
ii
0
00
Oll'
l
ll'
l
0
ll'
l
0
ll'
l
ll'
l0
ll'
lll'
l
Q)~
ll'
l~ ~
O
0 ~ <
0
0
0
ll'
l
OCO
I'-
I'-
0>
ll'
lll'
l
O>
v<'
l <'
l
0
0
V <
0 <'
lCO <'
l ~
0::
ll'
l
CO
N ~ <'
l
o~
ll'
l0
0
Oll'
lll'
l
ll'
l
0
00
ll'
l0
a;:!:
0
COCO
COll'
l
Qi ~
I'-
va
0 ~~
O>
0
0
0
0
0
0> <
Ov
o
CO
lCO ~
N
ll'
l
0><
0 <'
IN
III
0
Qill'
l
ll'
l
ll'
l
Oll'
l
Oll'
l
O::
N
Oll'
l :
go
0
0
ll'
l
Oll'
l
0
ll'
lll'
l
0 ~~
00
0
I'-
00
N
ll'
l
ll'
lv
N
c<'
l <'
l
CO ~
ll'
l ~ ~
N
I'-
N<'
l <
O~
o~
N ~~
Zo<
ii
ll'
l
ll'
lo
0
0
ll'
l
ll'
l0
ll'
lll'
l
Qi<'
l
00:
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
ll'
l
O~
I'-
I'-
0>
COV
N
0
I'- ~ <
0 <'
lCO
o::~ ~ ~
N ~ <'
l
N~
g :;
CD
0 ~~ ?
f??
ft.
cF.?
f!. ?
f?'# :::
R :::
R :::
R :::
R :::
R
0 :::
R ~:::
R. ~?
f? ?
f!.
2
0
0
0
0
0 '';: ?
f? :
2
0
00
os
oll'
l
ll'
lll'
l
ll'
lll'
l
ll'
lll'
l
ll'
l
ll'
l
ll'
l
ll'
l
ll'
l
o~ ~
os
0
00
CD
00
lD
NI'- 1'-
1'-
I'-
I'-
I'-
I'-
I'-
I'-
I'-
I'-
I'-
lD ~ ~~
t;
ll)
N
UJ
c
0 '
0
c: - -
c:
c
c
c
c: :::
R ?
f??
f!.
CD
CD ~?
f? ?
f!.?
f!. ?
ft.*- *,
cf!. :::
R :::
R '#. :::
R ~ .~
CD
0 ~ ?
f??
f!.
0
0
Uj ~
0
0
0
00
ll'
lll'
l
ll'
lll'
l
ll'
l
ll'
l
0
CD
00
CD
NN
00
ll'
l
ll'
l
Ox
Ox
Ox
CD
0
0
0
ll.
N ~
ll.
UJ
UJUJ
ll.
g
ll'
l0
ll'
l
o!:
ll'
l0
ll'
l
Oll'
l
ll'
l
co
0
ON
Qi <
00 <'
l<'
l <
0
CO
I'- <'
l
0
0
0
0
0
ON
0
COCO
ll'
l
CO
0>
1'-
I'-
Nll'
l
0> <
Ov
ll'
l <
0 <'
l
V
V <
0
CO
ll'
l
0><
0
N
0o<
ii
0
Qill'
l
0
2
00
00
0
ll'
l
ll'
l
0
0
ll'
l
Oll'
l
0
Ov
oS
O::<'
l ~
0
Oll'
l
ll'
l0
0
I'-
I'- <'
l
0
N
00>
ll'
l
ll'
lll'
l
5~
V
ll'
l ~
N<'
l
lD
CO ~
ll'
l<'
l <'
l
N ~
N <
0 <'
lll'
l
I'-
Z
0-
0
0
0
ll'
l
ll'
l~
lIlll'
l
00
00
0
CO
N
0
I'-
I'-
0>
Qi<
o
I'-
N
ON
NO
0 <
0
V
0
0
ll'
l
O<'
l <
0 <'
l
CO
0::<
0
0> ~ <
Ovv <
0 ~
N ~<'
l
CO
CO
0>
0><
0
NO>
N
Oll'
l
I'-
CO
l
V
0
0
Ov
CO
O~
ll'
lll'
l
0>
0> ~ <'
l<
O
NN
0
O_
c~
Q)
0
ll'
l
oll'
l
0>
1'- ~
O
o~
0::
CO
0
N <
0
vCO
v<'
l
UJC
V
ll'
l ~ ~~
ll'
l
CO~
ll'
l~
0Zo<
ii <
0
0 ~
0
coO>
COO
Qi
ll'
l
ll'
l
01'-
0
coO> <'
l <'
l
0:: ~ ~ ~
N
v~
N~
IIICD
en
en
CD
CD
en
en .<:: .<:: -
III
VJ ~
en "
S
t .~ ~ ~
c::
g,"'->-;
g,~
OO~
Olll ~
III
III
0-
en
z
CD
N
ll. <
11
g
en
en
E- ::!!:
o~ :>
o~:>
CD
2
2
E
o!)! ::: ....
o~~
o~~
U)
o
O(
ii
0
O(
ii
E
en
en
U
E
O(
ii
Gl
C
c"
UJUJ..... "
l:
t
2ECDECD'
6u;
u;
oElD [
ii..
t:
C::~
O::::
JOQ)~~~
o:::::
dlc:
t::
3 '
6 ~ '
6 ~ :
2
Qi
Qi ~
U
o~ ~
o~ ~
CDOCDO .<::.<::
u1:-
1:"-
2...
J:
2...
J:
S00
o~
oo.~
C;
oW
W
W
W
S:~
ffi ~ .~"
O ,
e- ~ ~ '
0
l-
enenzzeno::o::...!.<(
oS<(
o::
i-
Sj..;.
N<'
l
III
III
III
CD
CD
CD
en0
CD
00::
III "
ll.
ll'
lN0N2I-0NCDenIII0oSU0 :::
R '#.# '#. ?
ft.;!!,
0I'-
00
0 <'
l ~
ll.
I'- ~ ~
00N2I-00NCDenIIICDt;oSU0 :::
R ** '#. ?
f?';
f!.
oc
0
CD
0>
NN
N~
ll.
N <'
l <'
l ~ ~~c: "
2
c:
0O2
0
0
CD
02>
011
0::
CD
CD .<::
0::
0::
0
tl
c
CIII
oc
O<
ii
O::
Uj
c
c:
roO
0
c
109J
III "
c:
en
0
c
0
CD
e! :
2
CD
en
102>
0::
c
CD
CD
III
CD
0-
c
0::
en
2
1: '(
i) -'"
I~
0
Uj
0
o "
0
0
UlD
0::
CD
III
C ~
N<'
l > ~
0 .<::011
1:
III
III
III
e! "
CD
0 ~ ~ ~ > .
2
0::
z <( <(<( <(
ll.
enoC~
Cf:)
CJ
g)C
C
Q)
C ~CleQ)
Or-o
0)
0OlNro >-Cl..:;
j)o-
t=CJ0>cQ)5:00Q)DEJCCo0Q)j)eelDQ)COc5:oCJ
I'. <( /II
z-
I .. ~ ,)
I.. ~~~I. .
en
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Marana Transportation Plan Update Final Report
Table 3-2, provides a summary of the socio-economics for each of the sub-regions at
2010 and 2025. The table also shows the existing and build-out estimates for each
sub-region and the growth factor used to estimate the 2010 and 2025 socio-economics
3.1.3 Findings
The prior pages indicate that the Town will continue to grow in population and employment
over the next 25 years. However, current development sub-regions such as Continental
Ranch will be built out in about ten years, whereas the northwest Marana sub-region will
experience most of its growth after 2010. A comparison of socio-economic characteristics
used in this study with those of PAG shows that there is general consistency in the planning
assumptions, although the employment base in this plan is about twice PAG's. This is due
primarily to the inclusion of the recently adopted Northwest Marana Plan into this study,
which may not be in the PAG database. The Land Use Advisory Committee was
instrumental in guiding some of the key decisions about the location and pace of
development.
3.1.4 Opportunities and Constraints
After adoption of the previous transportation plan, development in the Town has been
severely impeded by environmental concerns for the ferruginous cactus pygmy owl.
The listing of the species as endangered, and subsequent federal rulings, have
imposed onerous pre-development study requirements that can take two years or
more, modify development proposals, and greatly reduce the development yield of a
parcel containing habitat. This has affected all types of projects that could potentially
remove owl habitat, including land development and roadway construction. Although
some measures are being explored to set aside public lands for the owl, the regional
issues associated with habitat protection are not expected to be resolved in the near
future. In the meantime, new roadway construction is expected to remain an arduous
and restrictive process compared with the development protocols in place before the
listing of the pygmy owl.
3.2 Travel Demand Modeling
The travel demand modeling process utilized in this study consists of four primary steps:
trip generation,
trip distribution,
mode split,
and traffic assignment.
7""~'\.
MAI~ANA
Page 41
July 2001
I ',-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Marana Transportation Plan Update
Final Report
The four steps are carried out on a graphical network of roadway links that define the street
network and land uses described in "centroids" and "external stations." The software used
in the study is ORSII, a standard four-step travel demand model. The software is user-
friendly, affordable, and could be used regularly by Town staff with minimal training. The
ORSII software has two components. The General Network Editor is the graphic user
interface that supports the ORSII protocol. The second component is the numerical model
which performs the rigorous calculations resulting in the forecasts displayed by the network
editor.
The basic modeling process is described in detail in Technical Memorandum Number 2.
The results of the modeling process are summarized in the following paragraphs.
3.2.1 Baseline Model
The modeling process requires the creation of a roadway network and associated land
uses that closely reflect current traffic conditions. This is called the baseline model. When
the network is correctly established and the settings of the software adjusted correctly, the
baseline model output will replicate existing conditions within 20 percent on any given
section of roadway, and within 5 percent overall. Once the baseline model is prepared and
calibrated, the probable changes in land use and the transportation system within the
study area are added to the baseline model to forecast future traffic volumes.
For this study, the baseline model was calibrated against current traffic counts provided by
the Town of Marana, Pima County DOT, and the Pima Association of Governments
Transportation Planning Division. Current land uses in the area were determined from Pima
County's EGIS database, aerial photographs, and through information provided by the
Town.
3.2.2 Calibration of Existina Conditions Model
The existing conditions model was calibrated using the data contained in Table 2-2. The
model was calibrated within 20 percent on most of the major routes, particularly in the
northwest area where this study is focused. A detailed list provided in Technical
Memorandum Number 2 shows the comparison of recorded ADT and model output ADT
on the major roadway segments. The model produced an average daily trip rate of about
10.9 per dwelling unit. This compares favorably with the ITE average trip generation rate of
9.57 trips for single-family detached housing.
3.3 Future Roadway Forecasts
Future roadway conditions were analyzed for the two horizon years - 2010 and 2025 and
traffic forecasts prepared.
Planned roadway improvements were incorporated into the network including Marana,
ADOT, and Pima County projects. Table 3-3 lists roadway improvements included in the
MAI~ANA
I'\.
Page 42
July 2001
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Marana Transportation Plan Update
Final Report
two future roadway conditions models. In addition to these improvements, the roadways
included in the Northwest Marana Area Plan, Transportation Network were included.
Table 3 - 3
Planned Roadway Improvements
Future Conditions at 2010
Construct the new Twin Peaks Interchange
Extend Dove Mountain Boulevard to Twin Peaks Extension
Improve Cortaro Road to four lanes between Silverbell Road and Thornydale Road
Improve Thornydale Road to six lanes between Orange Grove and Ina Road
Improve Thornydale Road to four lanes between Ina Road and Overton Road
Improve Silverbell Road to four lanes south of Cortaro Road
Improve Ina Road to four lanes between Silverbell Road and 1-10
Improve Ina Road to six lanes east of 1-10
Extension of River Road to La Canada Drive
Improve Orange Grove to four lanes east of 1-10
Improve 1-10 to three lanes in each direction between Ina Road and Cortaro Road
Convert all frontaqe roads to one-way
Future Conditions at 2025
All 2010 Improvements
Improve Tangerine Road to four lanes east of 1-10
Extend Lambert Lane from the Avra Valley Traffic interchange east to Oro Valley
Improve 1-10 to three lanes in each direction from Cortaro Road to the Pima/Pinal County line
Reconstruct the Avra Valley, Tangerine, and Marana Traffic Interchange's
Construct the Moore Road Traffic Interchange.
3.3.1 Future Conditions Model Output
Review of the model output shows that the 2010 trip rate per dwelling unit is about 10.2 and
the trip rate in 2025 is 10.7. External trips increased by about 70 percent at 2010 and by
about 7 percent between 2010 and 2025. The results of the 2010 and 2025 model runs are
provided graphically in Figures 3-4 and 3-5. The graphics show the future ADT on the
roadways and the capacity requirements, or number of lanes required at each horizon
year. This information is summarized and compared to current conditions in Table 3-4.
MAI~AN^
I '\.
Page 43
July 2001
I Marana Transportation Plan Update Final Report
I Table 3 - 4
Summary of Current and Future Traffic Volumes
I
I
Wj.f~_~~~: __ ~-:_-::~:~~i9~e_;;i}~:~- ':~~~~_= -. -_=_-:H_~__
er!~lA_ __________ ____ .__.J:il'!.aLpl~~'L1:J_ _.~~Ile_~o!_~_ __ -.
Arterial A Collector C Collector 0
rA'=::_-___- . __:~__ -_-~-~C~I!?~t~r_ O_~-'~_-_J:an9~n~_Rd ~~:_::~:
I~~~I._E,l.____ _. _____ _;Mar~!,a_R~__ _ __ Ta.~gE!~n_e..!~.l!... - ---
Arterial C 'Bamett Rd Moore Rd
ri~.rL~f:___~--__~:~::~~__~~~~~-re_B_(L_ ____ _ J_anged~e-fid=_~_~
Xal!eY.B.l!.a~ __'_" _._ _l~~nd~r~ B.lf__ __!f!! R.~gip.!l~I~rport
Avra__'{a!!.E!Y_.Bo~-L_ .______: ~B~g~!PQ~ ___ A.!~il!.E!._B_O!tt -----
Y~lIeYB_o~d ___ '_ ______.'~~_E!._B.Q~L_ __.o.u.!'!Y B!!!'d_______
Y~~E!Y _R.o_~ __ _. . _____~guarr:L8.!!___ _. _~~'{<'l~~Y_Tl.____
Barnett Road 'Sanders Rd .Lon Adams
Bam-ett-Road-----. -----.--...,.COil-Adam;,-Rd-.uArterial c --------
tl1~~~~iQ.~_:~r~I:.-.':.-=~5io=:_-_~-:=~~=:~e~~.~~' --=::=
if!!_(;hlE!_C.~rlyo_rl.T.!<l.i!.__ ___ .~A1E!~~I.!,-__ ____C_o.Uec-'~!.A __ _ __.
c_oJ!.e~o.rA_.__ .______ __n_~~..rt..~~aL~_ ___. __ __~ _C.o_c_~!e~~!!y.o_l'!.._ .___
C._o~_0o~JL. .____..___ j-'5~!:!!Y.I_Il!gh!l~___ ~~~~n~
p!<
d _ ___ __
Q.rierEoad__.. Sanders Rd Lon Adams
t:!l!~.E!.p~~J?!."~e:~=~ '~~--~~p~i~_~~D_~e~_=-R.E!g~~iy~pj~J<.:QC:":--
LucketVMoore Ext '1-10 Sanders Rd
iMa-ran~-ROad ----.. ----.-----~-E;andersRd----.-~1O-------- ----
fMoore-Road-- ---------.-'Sanders-Rd--- -LOri-MarrIs -- ---
Moore-R'oad-- - - --------.~Lon Ad a mSRd--- +MeiriaIC.' --------
I-MooreRo~ldn_-___
n .-- -
A"rteriai"c---- "'---MerlaTA- -- ----
l.e.!.~)~~'!d -~~~_~=:~-=-A~'!-y~jTey-_~~.~~_~__~ilvirii.:e-[}~~:::-_-: =
Sanders Road ,Silverbell Rd Moore Rd
cSand8riFio~d-----" --- ---
C-MooreRd- --.M~rana-Rd--'-----
s-R~ad-' -'- --- '-"Mara~a' Rd-- - -' C'oiiector-S .----.--
S!t>t~~eJI_Roa~ _ . _._. - - --'-Sandelrs-R-ci-' -----Tind~;trial Area - - --
T~~ge_~_n_~8~a~_. _:== _Mi!j~j_-~ -::~_-__-- M~If~~c__~~_
m_ -
f!?~g~~~ R!l~~ _ ... ______AJ:I_~ri~I_c:_ _. _ __~e_ri~!A
vr.a_\!.'!ILeYll)Dgerine Ext_. Ay!a_yal.lE!y..Road __IaDge.rin..e. ~o~~_ _
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
8
I
I
I
Current__~~_~~___. ..___1f!?~__
AOT AOT ADT
N1A 0 7,600
N/A--- :==C!-.---- -.=~_~~@~~__
N1A 0 ..11,)gJ____
NiA -..- ~),~-Q.:.~ _LA]P__..
N1A _.J,4.Q.D __ .__19~~L-
ll'~___ .J},@l___ ___1.6ZCP.__
E.!.:po__ __1.9.,~__ _..1U)~_--
6,Dl 10 ,00l 28 ,800
@=~ -~:__!C@~=.
5_,~C!__ ___~,0Cl:!_ ---??,@----
@___ _. 2,~_ _ ___L~____
z,4QQ--- __JJ,~~---
250 0 V ,600
Q= ~:.=jj==~~ -_==~.!!!C=
N1A.___Q.____ ____~ ,~_ _nO.
N1A _~,.~.1L_ ____?_.3QQ__
750 500 9,000
E~~. '=:~_.9:~:_-_~_ - --1~=c[~~_:~
N1A __1,):!)O__
u_~.~_____
000 __ __!:i,~!L.____J3 ,@.____
Bl!J__ __;!~.__ _u.1!5..!.!:iCl:l____
3J:!9.... _ ___A3_,~~__
4l(]O___ __ ~,Q.C!l___
1~__ ___.?..!C!lQ__ __~9I~__..
f.,~.Q_ .__.4_,~Q...__ ___~J~____
Q__ _.__B[)!L_. ____7Z()O___
500.___ .____900.__..
9__ __3,[!JlL- ___:2D,5CP___
N1A __fiJQJQ._ _. 1 ~,QCJ;l
N1A_19}J!lu ._,__ 5O,QC.II __
N1A 21 ,300
n
I Page 46
July 2001
MARANA
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Marana Transportation Plan Update
Final Report
4.0 ROADWAY COMPONENT
4.1 Roadway Needs
The prior chapters noted that congestion currently exists on arterials serving 1-10 and
major retail developments. Travel will continue to increase in the future as the
population and employment grows. In this chapter, recommendations are made for
construction of new roadways and expansion of existing facilities to accommodate this
growth.
4.2 Alternatives Studied
Several alternate roadway concepts were considered during the travel demand model
development. These alternatives are documented in the model development report
and project files. The alternatives included potential new roadways in the northwest
area, and in areas heavily impacted by the pygmy owl habitat. The final roadway
configuration was achieved by deleting land uses and their supporting roadways in owl
habitat, and by reconfiguring the alignment and capacity of some roadways so that
additional roads would be unnecessary. The selected alternative is a hybrid of the
alternatives evaluation process, and has been approved by the project steering
committees.
4.3 Future Conditions I - 1 0
Traffic volume projections developed for this study, and the lane geometry shown in
the 1-10 General Plan for 1-10, ramps and crossroads were used to model the Year
2025 future conditions. Peak hour volumes were developed from PAG's average daily
traffic projections and a 51 percent directional factor and an 8 percent peak hour
factor. From Trico-Marana Road to Tangerine Road, 1-10 was analyzed as a divided
freeway with two lanes in each direction. 1-10 was analyzed with three lanes in each
direction from Tangerine Road to Twin Peaks Road and four lanes in each direction
south of Twin Peaks Road to Ina Road. 1-10 freeway was analyzed with five lanes in
each direction south of Ina Road to past Orange Grove Road. Both the East and West
Frontage Roads were modeled as two lane roadways. The frontage roads were
analyzed as one-way roadways through out the study area limits. A new traffic
interchange is planned at Twin Peak Road/ Linda Vista Road. This interchange is
located in between Avra Valley Road and Cortaro Road.
The intersections at the 1-10 ramp junctions with Trico-Marana Road and Avra Valley
Road were analyzed as unsignalized intersections with stop control on the ramps. The
intersections at the 1-10 ramp junctions with Tangerine Road, Moore Road, Twin Peaks
Road, Cortaro Road, Ina Road and Orange Grove Road were modeled as signalized
intersections with actuated signal operations. Table 4-1 summarizes the model
assumptions for number of lanes and signalization.
7'"~'\.
MAI~^N^
I'\.
Page 47
July 2001
II ..
0a.
I
GJII:iacii:
I
GJcaaa.
I ::)
ccaa::c
I
0ca0
I
a.III
II)
C
C
ca
0
l-
I-
ca
I-
I
c '
1:
J
ca
C0
ca ()I
I '
1:
JCcaII)
I
C
I ~ ,
s!
G)"
a.
a
E
I
ca ~I-
II)II)CI
I
G)1:
J0E
I
anN0N
IIIIII
aJW~
en
en
en
en
en
en
en
en
lL.
C -0
aJ ~
U
en
en
en <( <(
w <(
CJ
w,::;
C
U)
0.
aJ
Q)
E :
l:~
0
u
U
en <(
en
w <(
C'
G0::
U)
aJ ,
0.
W0 :
t:
E
0
u
u <(
en
en
LL
en
OC'
G0::
aJl:~
en
en
en
U
en
en
en
en
LL
C -0
aJ~
U
U
0
en <(
w
en <(
CJ
W,::;
C
U)
0. -
aJQ)
E :
l:~
w
en
en
en <(
en
w
C'
G0::
U)
aJ ,
0.
l:0 :
t:
E
0
u
U
en
en
en
U <(
OC'
G0::
Q)C)
1Il
C'
G1J
C'
G >- >- >- >- >- >- >- >-
C
0eo::
lL.
1Il
C'
G
Q)
3:
CaJ
Ii) "<
t "<
t <") <") <")
N
N
jw
U:~
1Il
C'
G
Q)
3:
caJ
Ii) "<
t "<
t <") <") <")
N
N
j:
l:
U:~
Q)
C'
G1J
Z
Z
o::~
z
z
z
z
z
Z
O::
C)1JQ)N
aJ= >- >- >- >-
z >- >-
z
wC'
GCIII1JQ)N
aJ= >- >- >- >-
z >- >-
z
l:~
U)
C
1Il >-
I1l
0
Q)
C
l<: ~
I1l
Q)
Q)
e
I1l
c
Q)
ij .;:: ....
CJ
0)>
I1l
Q) ....
I1l
Q)
c
0
I1l
t:::
D. >
Q)
0 ~
Ie
I1l ....
c
0)
0
0(
9
0
c ~
c ~
0
Q)
u ~ >
I1l
U
I-
C <( .;::
I-
00 ..-toQ)
OOlNCIl >-D.-
sJ
j
l
z-Q::
N
I.. ~~~
1/
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Marana Transportation Plan Update Final Report
Level of service was calculated at the signalized, unsignalized intersections and on
freeway and frontage road roadway segments. Figure 4-1 shows the 2025 peak hour
level of service for 1-10 and its intersections with crossroads.
During the peak hour the freeway segments on 1-10 Eastbound from Trico-Marana
Road to Tangerine Road operated at LOS D. All the rest of 1-10 Eastbound freeway
segments operated at LOS B. The 1-10 Westbound freeway south of Orange Grove
Road was operating at LOS E. The 1-10 Westbound segment between Ina Road and
Orange Grove Road was operating at LOS D. 1-10 Westbound segments between
Twin Peaks Road and Ina Road were operating at LOS C. The freeway segments north
of Twin Peaks Road were operating at LOS B.
During the 2025 peak hour, the ramp junction intersections of 1-10 Eastbound and
Westbound with Twin Peaks Road were operating at LOS Band C, respectively.
Similarly, the ramps junction intersections with Cortaro Road and Ina Road were
operating at LOS C. However, the ramp junction intersections with Orange Grove
Road were operating at LOS D.
4.3.1 Findinqs
The capacity on 1-10 through the Town of Marana including ramps and crossroads was
analyzed. Based on the capacity analysis for 2025 peak hour, the following
conclusions are provided:
Town of Marana traffic projections for 2025 show traffic volumes evenly distributed all
over Marana from Trico-Marana Road to Orange Grove Road. Conversely, PAG traffic
projections for 2025 show traffic volumes concentrating in south Marana and Tucson
downtown areas. Heaviest traffic volumes occur at Cortaro Road, Ina Road and
Orange Grove Road. 1-10 traffic volumes projected by PAG were higher south of Twin
Peaks Road. Overall the ramp and cross road volumes were higher in the Town of
Marana projections.
Based on the extensive efforts undertaken to model, analyze and simulate the 1-10
roadway network within the Town of Marana, the following recommendations are
provided:
All the turning movement volumes at intersections were developed from PAG traffic
counts. The traffic operations at the intersections were modeled adequately
however because actual turning movement counts were not conducted at these
intersections, traffic operations were not modeled precisely.
Obtaining turning movement counts at the 1-10 ramp junctions with I na Road and
Orange Grove Road it may be possible to design interim improvements to reduce
MAI~AN^
I'\.
Page 49
July 2001
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Marana Transportation Plan Update
Final Report
traffic delays. These interim improvements should work in conjunction with the
frontage road improvements taking place.
The effects of railroad preemption at 1-10 ramp junctions with Cortaro Road and Ina
Road were modeled in this report. These at-grade railroad crossings resulted in
greater delays at the 1-10 Westbound ramp junction intersections.
Using Year 2025 traffic volumes, the 1-10 roadway network was operating
satisfactorily except for a few locations. All the freeway, surface street roadway
segments and intersections were operating satisfactorily. The reason for these
conditions is the enormous capacity added with the proposed roadway
improvements on 1-10 and surface streets as shown in the 1-10 General Plan.
Traffic volumes projected by PAG have increased dramatically to require the
necessary roadway improvements. During the next 20 years, 1-10 has to be
widened from four or six lanes to eight or ten lanes. Major roadway widening is
needed on crossroads and ramp junctions. Frontage road improvements are
already taking place.
Traffic signals may be needed at the 1-10 ramp junction intersections with Moore
Road, Tangerine Road and Avra Valley Road. It may be necessary to widen the
two lane section to three lanes on 1-10 Eastbound from Trico-Marana Road to Twin
Peaks Road.
4.4 Preferred Roadway Alternative
The information from the model output was used to determine the improvements that will
need to be in place in Marana at the two horizon years (2010 and 2025). These
recommended improvements are shown in Figure 4-2 and Figure 4-3 and they are in
addition to the planned projects listed in Table 3-3 (Planned Roadway Improvements). The
associated costs for these improvements are provided in Table 4-2. It should be noted that
the four-lane extension of Collector B was included at the request of a developer who will
fund it. Costs are based on the assumption that existing roadways in Marana must be
reconstructed to current standards to support future development.
MAI~ANA
I '\.
Page 50
July 2001
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
oa.II:ci:
i:aa.cii:cooa.IIIcto-c
oQ)Q)IenQ)
I
Q)b
Q)
enen
s
en
21
0
L!.
uaCftSo
c:oU0;a:
EpI?
UI?:
J
1?
1
C
1:
l
a: "
C
V) ,-
a:
CD "
0
a:
u
0
CD .
S
a:
5
J!! "
0
a:
Q)
0
l5
Q; .~ ~ .!!
l
a:
1:
l :
1!
ON
0
0> >
a: ~~
0
g
C\
l
0 -
lB
e <
5 ~
E "'''' "
0
0...
z ~ .
5 '" '" "'''' '" '" :::::
l
1::
0
J
0
0
0>
0> :?
a:
J
U "''''
Q;
c5 .<
e:a:
Q)Q)en
21104:
J
21
2S!
1I?
UOI'
j ~
G>
o!>l/.
UOUUE4S ~
O!
I?
ne!!
1? ~
n.
I
ep
OU!
WI?:
J
13 -'
10-
all?
p~
wo41
IS --
1-.. _
l>.;> ~
Ja411?:
lPIO ..
Ie
ajsao
ap
OUIWI?:
J .
U!
l?
lunoYI
e^
co ~
Ul?
wUI?
H
L:
I"~" :'-'
1..
I
f~ :I
swep\
l
UOlOpEpUI?
S
OIJEpUBSsJapues
JUD
InC\
IoC\
IftSQ)
ua~
onl
ozww
Cl.
Pl;
l
00111
0 '"a:
CDj
0 '
0
Q;
c .=
a:
3 ~
iIi ~ .
s=
0 .!
2'
1<
g
EUJ
I
1
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Marana Transportation Plan Update Final Report
4.5 Conclusions and Recommendations
Following is a preliminary listing of actions to further implement the recommended
roadway and intersection improvements within the Town of Marana:
Projects shown in Figure 4-2 have priority for implementation in the first ten years of
this plan. Projects shown in Figure 4-3 should be constructed in the later years but
planning activities for them should be initiated earlier.
Work with P AG and ADOT to initiate an update to the 1-10 General Plan to reflect the
recommended interchange and access changes. The General Plan update should
include a construction traffic management component that assesses how traffic in
the 1-10 corridor is redistributed during the construction phases.
Expand staff capabilities by hiring up to five professional staff, along with support
staff, to act as project managers, planners, points-of-contact, and champions of the
roadway component of is transportation plan. One of the first activities of this staff
should be preparation of a strategic plan for the physical construction of the capital
projects. The strategic plan should identify project phasing, timing, and available
funding, much like a long-range capital improvement program.
Monitor land use, traffic, and environmental constraints on an ongoing basis. If
trends change significantly, this plan may need to be revised or updated to reflect
the changes. For instance if the pygmy owl constraint on development is lifted,
development trends will shift markedly into what is now owl habitat area.
Initiate new revenue sources to counteract the shortfall for the needed roadway
improvements within the next three years. This will help ensure that the projects
and maintenance activities can be provided when needed by the community.
Given the rapid growth in the Town and the continuing expansion of its boundaries,
the Plan should be reviewed and updated at least every 3 years. The Town should
annually monitor progress towards implementation of the preferred plan.
MAI~^N^
I',
Page 52
July 2001
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
oI:
LGIa:l'
lIci:
i:GIl'
lI
I:
LCl'
lIii:col'
lIoI:
LIIICl'
lII-l'
lICl'
lI
l'
lIE
C'
I
ftS
I ;:
a
Ill'
ftS0a::iou.
oC'
IaaCEEoua::
0
Q)
O
O)
Nell>,
0....::;
J
d!8
d!CI>CI>0,c:
bCJ::5;
c:g
c: ~
0
CI>eCI>0,c:o
bCJ::CI>i::
i:
d!
c:JCI>01::uJ
bCJ::~
alal
d!
l:;:
0,
0,
o ~
ct!
q]S;
litCEoa.E
E!
PE!
UE!~
E!
7
9"
9"
E!
1I014~
E!
7 ~
E!
Sn
E!
UOW '!
b
UOUUE!
14S
o0-0~
E!
JJa!
l
E!/
ap
OU!
WE!~ /
3 . _
jL,
V ~
aWPAUJ0141 ~ - - -" ~Ja14/
E!
JP/
O
L
a/
sao
ap
OU!
WE!~ . .
L.,
u!
E!/
unoW
alooO ;:
UE!
WIlE!
H ('.:---'
o :
p~
apE!
M
I
SWE!
PV
u07
O!
JE!
pUE!
S
O!
JE!
pUE!
S
SJapUE!
S
sJapUE!
S
ua){:Jn7
p~
O:
J!
Jl
Clzwc:
JWJ
Q)OJC
t/
1
t/
1
ell
Q)
Q) ..
c
c
c ~
ell
ell
Q)
J ....
J
C
t
N
p~
AE!
MUV
II
0
iE
d! ~ ~
e
Q,' ~...
EO
0
i.:::
9 ~.~ &
l ~
liJ
0(:)
0,
I'. <( /II
z-Q'
2 ,;
I.. ~~~
I. ~;;
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
oDo41a:icii:41IIIDoCIII5:coIIIoDoIIICIIIt-IIICIIIIII
InInocoC,)sInCoogG)faEIn1&
1
C"
IogI
C
lilt
fa
G)~
C
a
G)EG)oa-E
oo
J'"
cto
008880.g~.
C"'
ir-:;:
5C"cQ)EQ)oa.
00008888lliciciciNl.()
Ol.()
C'\
lLONN
v.
N
iiir:;1::2o2
I()
oaa
6~~~
Ow
ZC'\
l"'
1"'<
TNvvv'
o;tv(
O
Oct2...
J
fa3ogfaoII:ofaEEsen
WJ_SEgtDffi~~~S
a..
g ('
I")
N~~
oeo
g
l.()
NN~
J-oo
Jwaaa
ctWJ_Egffi~- ~o..
g
a
Ii; ,:oe0
00000000000000acooccoouiciooooU1NlOOl.()l.()
O
I'-
NU1NC'\
IO
M-.....
N~
Nl.
l'ir-:
5~ ~
z...
J .
w:
E
N
J-
Ol.
O0U10aOOa
aNl.()I"--
L{)
al.()~~
NMNO '
M ...........
Owo::
l
2...
J
oaONNNNNVV
oa:
JO~~-
c
g>
g>
o
88~~~f-' '"f~
C:~~"
Ca::
Q.
c313~~~~
Eg-
g
o:
88~~:!~
cctoa:
moo
mroron;
iU(
U
fi .~ .~ .~ '
iii .~
tt:
t:
t:'
t::
t:
1::
c
2<
1::oQ.
J
2<;:
0
0'
0"'
0"'
0
lG
lG
tG
ro
o
000
a::
a::
a::
a::
9:!
l!:!..
9:!
m(
UfU(
U 88.
88gggg
It) .
0
N
o"":~
ri..
n"'
C
I~ .~
cQ)EQ)
I~ ~
iiir:;1::2o2
Q)g>
f-
s::;OJo,:
E
o
Ol1;;xW13Jc:oQ)0::
0~
008
8.
08.
8..,;
g~~
f5N
f"-.~
cor---~
cQ)o
l.()
o..
l,()
l.()l""
i
OJr:;1::2o2
l(
l~:
e
ou1oc::
ioi
l()
l.()
lf.!
M .......
o8or--
5C"coa.",OJr:;1::2o2
o
oo008008
5C"Q)
1-
1-
CQ)
Q)Ol
K:
g
aEmol.()
OJ
Q)
r:;
2
1::2
0002f-
f-
2
2
0olri
800080000
0.
8880_
8888
8~:
f~
gggg~~:
f
to.....
N .
0
a.....
to
gN......:
N~
ltilti~
N
13Jc:
NV~~
NNNNNV<
ONN8
Q)0::
f-'
o
Q)
0::=J !;;0<
1;<
1;<
Q)
wwC)
C)
Q)
c:
c:
n:
J
l'
lJ
l'
lJ
Cft;m
8000.8~
rir--
0"'",
c " "
0000"'
N
aNN
Q) '"iii
a:::
I/)
U "~ ~c:
c:
c:
8~.
3
u~-
t~
u
di
c
41 ~
1::
l'
lJ
1::
0o
o '"0::
0::
iU'~ ~ij ~
l'
lJ
41 ~g
cc7J.
3
c:
cu '
cuii
n:
J -
C
C
o
41
l'
lJ <<
l
O:::'
OU()c;
o
CIJ
41
U
U
EE~~.!!.!!
lQ <<
l
0
0"
0 "
0
al()
UU()U 8
8
o
00000008C""
i
OOOlOOl/)
cicci"
ci "
l.
tl0
l.
tl0
00
Nl.(),....
Ol.
tlO
aci~
MaNOOONON
oe~
c:oc: '"
O::
Q) ..c :;g
ft;0:;Q) '"r:;
0::
C:(-
t~-
t~
o
lU
I "
lU
CIJ
0
g ~
Ji~:
ic7J8
m
oN
c:(
Eii:~~g~~
c:(
CIJ ... '
0
oS~~:;
O
J
a:::
t-
Ul_
Oil0130::
8&
5
C"
C"ccQ)
Q)
o
0
a.
a.
di
Iii
r:; .
r:;
1::
1::2.
2
Q)g>
f-
r:;OJ
lOl.()O
C)
I":
to-: ~
c.....
o.....
xW
000000aliior--co0",ONon~NN
000000lIil.().oo
NNcoN_
Oci0
to-:
I"-:~o_NNNc:(
c
CIJ
Iii01::1::
Q)Olc:s::;OJ5
3 ~ "
5
C"
C"
C"
c
c
c
Q)
Q)
Q)
E
E
E
Q)
Q)
Q)000
a.
a.
l.
tla.
l.()~ri_
li:!
Q)2
r--,,:0-
VVNNVNCON888888088
o.
o.
o.
o.
o.
o.
go.
o.
88~~~~
g8~
It)
l.().....
NN..... <
0(")
lOlOlt)
lt)C"
i
It)
lOOlOOOO
1"-:~,....
lOOO
a..........
0
0 ~ "NNNNNNV
0::
0::
8c;~g ~en:;:;
Q)c:ocQ)a.~~ '
O~
1I)~::;
ij~~~~
di~~~
C7J
n ~
O:
g0
c: '"
c:
Q) ..
41 .
cC)_
X ~ ~~
8.
w'
O~ ~~~'
O'
O'
O'
O'
O
5
5 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
0:::-=
000041410:::
0:::
0:::
0:::
l<<
la:::
o:::
o:::
o:::~:;~~~~~JJjjjj~~
iii~~
5
Q)
Q)g
o;~Q) .
a
Q)
E
ti
J .. ::
JJ
0::OJ
00
c:
0::I>
0lU
c
c '~3Ji
oooor--
di
iii
Iii
r:;.
r:; .
r:;
1::
1::
1::
2.
2 .
2000ZZ~
Z
ooQ)
m<8~
0'"o.!:
0<
1::
iii"
iii1!
E
1::
1:: ..
al () "~lU
ru
Iii
ii":
ii ~
1::
1:: ..
I-
Q)Olc:Q) ..
1:: ~-
fi
0'
0..
8 '
01ii
0:::
0:::...
J
0:::
II)
Q.
l
Q.
l
OJ'"
Q.
l ~
E"
E "
Ec3"
E :
g
CIJ
CIJ
41
11l
cu
a...
C)
C)
C)
CC)
c
8~~
88cillior--
C""
iri
Olc:xW
0",ONN
8oooooQ)Olc:r:;OJ51321;;c:oQ)0::Q)Olc: '"
Q)
5 ::;
g
c: -
1;;
g>",x
CIJ
W
Ol
U ;J .
r:;8.
5
Q) ;:0::
Q)2 ooogoo
8
N
r--
I--~
J5iii5I-
8
on ,-onOQ.)
oOlNell >-0...."
3J
f-
I'. <!!. /II
Z-
l
N:
I.. ~~~!I.
o<!:.
1/
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Marana Transportation Plan Update Final Report
5.0 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN COMPONENT
5.1 Recommended Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities
Numerous bicycle and pedestrian facilities have been identified and are planned for
implementation over the next 25 years. These facilities have been identified from work
with Marana Town staff, a citizen representative to the project, and from input from
citizens who attended December 2000 and January 2001 public open houses.
It is important to consider that these programmed and planned facilities are only a
starting point to eventual development of bicycle-and pedestrian-friendly infrastructure
throughout the Town. Many projects may change over time, and many new projects
may be proposed and developed through the planning horizon. It is hoped that this
planning effort, however, will provide guidance and set the tone for the implementation
of effective bicycle and pedestrian facilities and programs as the Town continues to
grow. Figure 5-1 illustrates the proposed new bicycle and pedestrian facilities which
are described below.
5.1.1 On-Street Bikewavs
On-street bikeways include 5-foot to 8-foot wide paved shoulders and multiuse lanes
with curbs. Figure 5-1 presents proposed on-street bikeways throughout the Marana
region. All existing collector and arterial roadways are proposed to include on-street
paved shoulders or multiuse lanes, except in areas where topographic constraints may
be prohibitive. All new collector and arterial roadways are planned to include on-street
bikeways.
5.1.2 Shared Use Paths
Ten-foot-to 12-foot-wide paved shared use paths are planned for construction along
the Santa Cruz River and Canada del Oro Wash, illustrated in Figure 5-1. New arterial
roadways are also proposed to include shared use paths within the right-of-way on one
side of the roadway, with crossings limited to intersections with collectors and other
arterials (no local street or driveway access is proposed to be allowed directly with the
arterials). These arterials and collector crossings will require safety enhancements to
maximize pedestrian and bicycle user safety. Examples of enhancements include
traffic signs and marking indicating the crossings, raised crossing "platforms," lighting,
and landscape elements emphasizing the crossing location.
MAI~ANA
I'\..
Page 56
July 2001
II ... -
0
l' ..--
ex: ""'
0
0 -
0 <
1>
0)
0
Do -
0
ex: :::.
ON
Q)
ex: -
0
c: .!!! -
0 -
0 ~
e -
0
CI:
l >-
I -
0 <
1>
ex: ......
ex:
ex:
C.:
J '"
Cl..":
J
II:
ex: .~
1:: ~ ------
0
c:
e <
1> <
1> -
0 <
1>
ex:
J
i ~ '<=, <
1> .
g
Ol
Cl:
l .
0 ~ ~ &&
ex:
c: ....
g> ~
Cl:
l
0
E <
1> ~ :::.
C ~ ~ ,
S :::.
0 ~~ .
s
i:
I:
0
Cl
0
ii: ...... ......
I
Q)
epeueJ
e7
c$>':;'&
l
ca
ello4J
e7
v&
l
Do ~
01
eSn
euow :
Va
I
c
uouue4S ~~~
ca
i.?
a: !
wall
e/
ap
ou!
weJ
13 . _ ~ ~
c
a/
epAwo41 ~ .. -" ~
I
0
Ja4jeJP/
O
L
ca
ajsao
ap
Ou!
weJ . .
L..,
u!
e/
unow
altoo ?
0
I
Do
uewjJeH ~.
III
II) (..:
cca
Q)
o :
ca .-
I
c
U : ~
ca
ca
t.-.
J
caE
c <
lJ
Cii
ca
c
I .- <
1l ~
Ln ...
J ::
J
I~- ~ ~
I
N <
lJ
0
II) <:> (
f)
Cii .
c
N =>
CI)
Q) .
s , ~ "
0
an "
a ::
J
CD ::
s:.
0 <
lJ
I
Q)
Q) <:> ~ ::
J .
c >
1l
N ~
CI)
a..
lJ -
0 -
0
S"
a
LL -
0 <
1l <
lJ
Ol
II
U5
0 > .
5
2'
c :::. "
0
a: <
1l (
jj
ca "<
C
C1>
i.?
c
a.. '
x
I
r:::r:::
en
0
Lo
w
Q)
swePII
uo7
coc:
U
O!
Jepues
I
u
c
m
SJapues
z .
c
w
ro
C)
Q)
w
a..
J <
lJ
s (
f)
I ..
Ln =>
s ..-' <:> -
6 <
lJ
Jal/
an7 <:>
c
N <
lJ <
1l
s
ro ...
J
c <
lJ '-
CI) (
f)
lJ
I
N -
0 -
0
1l , "
S
LL
0 ::
s:.
0
Pi:
i
W!
Jl
a:
co ::
J .
c
II ~0 :::: ~
CI)
C1>
0 <
lJ -
0 -
0
pi:
iAeMuv
E '
0
ro <
lJ
I
E
N
U5
0 >
co ......
i.?
a:
ro
e -
0 ..
c::
C, ,
C
a..
0
i.:::
ex: .
g,
0
0
Lo
0
Lo
j ~ '-
E ~ ~
JJ
0:
cy ~.~ &
5
LU
I
I
I
I
I
oC.:
J ~
C
I /. < /
II
z-O:::
N
I
I: ~~~
I.
n
I
I,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I'
I
I
I
I
I
Marana Transportation Plan Update Final Report
5.1.3 Sidewalks
Figure 5-1 shows proposed sidewalks throughout the Marana region. Sidewalks
should be built at least 6 feet in width to accommodate pedestrians, especially people
with disabilities. Existing collector and arterial roadways are proposed to include
sidewalks on both sides of the roadway in areas where primary activity centers, parks,
residential areas, employment centers, and schools are located. All new collector and
arterial roadways are planned to include sidewalks on both sides of the roadway. On
roadways that include a separate shared use path, the path will serve as the sidewalk
for that side of the roadway.
5.1.4 Support Facilities
Support facilities are primarily oriented to implementation of shared use paths. These
facilities include parking areas, restrooms, water, and rest facilities. "Pocket parks"
built as part of linear park pathways are also attractive as support facilities for families.
Support facilities in terms of benches, bike parking, and water fountains can also be
located along on-street bikeways and pedestrian facilities, and can serve to facilitate
use of transit service, when implemented. Bike parking as part of employment
locations, schools, and apartments is also very important in supporting bicycle use. A
sample parking ordinance is included in the appendix of Technical Memorandum
Number 5 for Town consideration and potential adoption.
5.2 Planning-Level Cost Estimates
Bicycle and pedestrian facilities can range widely in cost, depending on available
right-of-way, need for drainage improvements and bridges, and topographic
constraints. Guidelines from the Florida Department of Transportation (described in
Technical Memorandum Number 5) were used to provide some planning-level cost
estimates based on the facility type (Source: FOOT Office of Transportation Planning,
1999 Transportation Costs, July 2000). These unit costs were used to estimate costs of
the proposed bicycle facilities.
The total estimated cost to implement the programmed and planned bicycle and
pedestrian facilities in the Town of Marana ranges from $18.1 million to $50.8 million.
This cost estimate is for new pedestrian and bicycle facilities only and does not include
pedestrian and bicycle facilities that are built as part of the standard roadway cross
section (the Florida Department of Transportation estimates that bicycle lanes and
sidewalks add less than two percent to the cost of a new or widened roadway). The
following chapter evaluates the potential funding mechanisms to implement the
recommended bicycle improvements.
7""~'
MAI~AN^
I"
Page 58
July 2001
I
1\
1\
I
I
I.
I
I
I
IJ
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Marana Transportation Plan Update
Final Report
The cost estimates reflect two levels of bicycle/pedestrian improvements that may be
desired by the Town as the system develops. The first level is considered the low
estimate or basic level, with new multiuse lanes/paved shoulders and sidewalks built
along all new major roadways; additional multiuse lanes/paved shoulders and
sidewalks built along existing roadways that are not planned for widening; and shared
use paths built along the Santa Cruz River and Canada del Oro River within the Town
limits. The second level, or high estimate, includes all of the first level facilities plus
additional shared use paths built on one side of all new and reconstructed major
roadways. The two levels have been presented to assist the Town in prioritizing
pedestrian and bikeway facility development. The two levels are summarized in Table
5-1.
5.3 Conclusions and Recommendations
Following is a preliminary listing of recommendations to further implement bicycle and
pedestrian facilities and programs within the Town of Marana:
Conduct a major public survey for bicycle and pedestrian needs and develop the
Marana Master Trails and Pathways Plan and the Alternative Transportation Modes
Master Plan, as called for in the Marana General Plan. Review and model the plans
after existing successful bicycle and pedestrian planning efforts throughout the
region, state of Arizona, and for other similar-sized towns throughout the United
States.
Dedicate more local, state, federal, and private funding to construction and
maintenance of bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Continue with funding proposals
to obtain federal Transportation Enhancement funds for bicycle and pedestrian
facilities. Establish a program to implement facilities over the near-term.
Require that on-street bicycle lanes, multi-use lanes or paved shoulder be included
on all new or reconstructed arterial and collector roadways, including those funded
by private developers. Require bicycle lanes be provided when left-turn or right-
turn lanes are constructed at developments.
Ensure land use planning accounts for bicycle and pedestrian circulation and
safety; require connectivity from subdivisions.
Review and provide incentives for mixed-use developments, "infill" projects, and
residential, commercial, educational, and cultural nodes that naturally promote
bicycling and walking due to their proximity of uses.
Utilize new 1999 AASHTO and 2000 MUTCD standards in the design of bicycle
facilities. Utilize AASHTO standards in the design of pedestrian facilities when they
become available (anticipated in 2001).
7'"~"
MAI~ANA
I \.
Page 59
July 2001
I
Marana Transportation Plan Update
I
Final Report
Table 5 - 1
I
Town of Marana Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities
Phasing Plan
Millions of 2001 $)
I Proposed Phasing Time Period
2001-2005 2006.2010 2011-2025
I 2001 . 2006 . 2011 - Total
Cost per Miles! 2005 Miles! 2010 Miles! 2025 2001.2025
Facility MilelUnit Units Cost Units Cost Units Cost Cost
New Multiuse lanesl paved $0.190 5 $ 0.950 7 $ 1.330 13 $ 2.470 $4.750
I shoulders:
Multiuse lane/paved N/A N/A N/A
shoulder maintenance
I New Sidewalks (incl. Spot sidewalk $0.054 3 $ 0.162 4 $0.216 4 $ 0.216 $0.594
improvements as needed)
I'
Sidewalk maintenance N/A N/A N/A
New Shared Use Paths (Santa Cruz $0.480 2 $ 0.960 4 $1.920 8 $ 3.840 $6.720
River, Canada del Oro)
I
Shared Use Path maintenance $0.010 2 $ 0.020 6 $ 0.060 14 $ 0.140 $1.682
Bicycle/pedestrian program staff $0.180 4 $ 0.720 5 $ 0.900 15 $ 2.700 $4.320
needs, education program
I Total Estimated Costs (Low Estimate) $ 2.812 $ 4.426 $ 9.366 $18.066
Hhth Estimate:
I New Multiuse lanesl paved $0.190 5 $ 0.950 7 $ 1.330 13 $ 2.470 $4.750
shoulders:
I
Multiuse lane/paved shoulder maintenance N/A N/A N/A
New Sidewalks (incl. Spot sidewalk $0.054 3 $0.162 4 $0.216 4 $0.216 $0.594
improvements as needed)
I, Sidewalk maintenance N/A N/A N/A
New Shared Use Paths (Santa Cruz $0.480 2 $ 0.960 4 $ 1.920 8 $ 3.840 $6.720
I River, Canada del Oro)
Shared Use Path maintenance $0.010 2 $ 0.020 6 $ 0.060 14 $0.140 $1.682
I New Shared Use Paths (New paths $0.300 8 $ 2.400 26 $ 7.800 44 $ 13.200 $23.400
along all new roads, one side)
I
Shared Use Path maintenance $0.010 8 $ 0.080 34 $ 0.340 78 $ 0.780 $9.358
Bicycle/pedestrian program staff $0.180 4 $ 0.720 5 $ 0.900 15 $ 2.700 $4.320
needs, education program
I
Total Estimated Costs (High Estimate) $ 5.292 $ 12.566 $ 23.346 $ 50.824
I .,.~;--,:\, Page 60
MAI~^N^ July 2001
I ~~~~./
I "
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
r
I
I
I
I
I
Marana Transportation Plan Update
Final Report
Conduct a thorough review of subdivision standards, traffic circulation
requirements, pedestrian/bike facilities, traffic calming opportunities, and
landscaping which can provide shade for cyclists and pedestrians.
Consider establishment of additional ordinances such as bicycle parking
requirements for new or expanded commercial and institutional areas (see
appendix) and improved pedestrian and landscape requirements for parking lots.
Evaluate development plans for commercial projects and residential subdivision
plats with a focus on alternate modes facilities, system continuity, access to/from
neighborhoods, and conflicts between users. This can be achieved very easily by
color-coding the transportation components of the plans and plats during the
development review process, and then looking for missing links in the same color
and intersections of different colors. The gaps represent breaches in continuity and
the intersecting colors represent potential conflict points. The Town's technical
staff can then work with the developers and their design consultants to resolve
conflicts and missing system elements.
Review successful bicycle and pedestrian support programs and projects, as well
as educational and enforcement efforts that can improve overall conditions for
cycling and walking.
Establish a bike/pedestrian planning or engineering position, provide continuing
education to staff engineers and consultants on bicycle and pedestrian planning
and engineering. Establish a bicycle/pedestrian safety education program for the
elementary schools, modeled after successful programs nationwide. Establish a
citizens advisory committee on bicycle and pedestrian issues.
Target bicycle and pedestrian projects to fill in critical gaps within the existing
system, and to projects that provide the greatest positive impact for many users
e.g., the Santa Cruz Shared Use Path to serve the Coyote Trails Elementary School
and area residents). Build upon these "demonstration projects" to expand the
bicycle and pedestrian system throughout the Town.
7'"~ '\.
MAI~ANA
Page 61
July 2001
I "
Marana Trans ortation Plan U datepp
Final Report
6.0 TRANSIT COMPONENT
This chapter describes the three alternatives developed for transit service in the Town
and presents recommendations for an improved transit system in the Town of Marana.
6.1 Transit Alternatives
Three alternatives were developed and presented to the public during the course of
the study. Each of these alternatives is described in the following sections. Technical
Memorandum Number 8, contained in the Appendix, contains a more detailed
description.
6.1.1 Commuter Intensive Alternative
Survey respondents and comments received during the Open House ranked this
transit alternative as the most attractive. Currently, the only options available to most
Marana commuters are private automobiles and the limited stop express bus service
provided by Sun Tran routes 102 and 103. These commuter transit routes currently
offer two round-trips per day. Although this service provides some commuter transit
service, based upon Sun Tran demand estimates, the service provided does not meet
the current demand.
Elements of Commuter Transit Service
Additional commuter service could be the easiest service to implement in Marana.
Commuter service could be provided by standard 40-foot buses and/or by vans
seating 12-15 people. This study focuses on commuter service utilizing standard
buses, which would serve a large number of people. Vanpools with vehicles operated
by individuals or a management firm for a fee (such is successfully done in Phoenix) is
another strategy which smaller groups of potential users may wish to investigate as an
alternative. New bus commuter service should originate near the population centers
where the commuter market exists The key elements for the commuter transit service
are:
Fre uent headwa s: 4 mornin 2 midda and 4 evenin tri s.q Y 9 Y J P
Conveniently located transit station with park & ride facility at Orange Grove & I-10
or Cortaro Farms & I-10.
Direct service to major employment centers, such as Raytheon, Bombardier and
1
downtown Tucson.
Standard 40-foot buses similar to those that Sun Tran currently operates along Ina
Road could be used to provide for this service. These service vehicles offer the
maximum seating capability and could eventually be augmented into a fixed-route
service during off-peak commuting hours.
Page 62
MAllANA July 2001
i i..
v
o
O
b
t
Q
p
Q.
m
2
Z~
C7
o
c~
t
c
o
a>
a~ -
a
d
a~
c
cu
m
m ~
0
0~
m
t
o~
ai
m
Z
O
U
O
ii
epeue~
e7
G
p
y~
G~~
L
Q
ES1~
pIIOW
O
UOf1UEUS
G~
Pi~
e~~
ail
e~
ap
ourwe~
13
a
a~
ep~fuaoyl
p
aa~
lae{PIO ~ _ ,
a~
sap
ap
ouiwe~
e~
uie~
unoW
anoQ
t5'~'~
t
e
y
uewaaeH
r~.
Z,.
L~
z
UP~
1
aP~
M
Q
oachline
o
N)
L.
L:
r~
VBr
J
T
J
3
z
r'_'
p
Q
o
c0 ~
c
O
N
d
i
tia~~
N~
m
C
L
y
e~`'
Q
o
ca
n
j~
O
a
i
c
X
Q
U
L.
L
LL
I-
swepyuo~
oue
ues
a
Io
ouepueg
ai
o
s~
apues
Slapu2$
ro
a
G~
a~~~
y
W
m
a
I
W
o
e -
ua~~
n~
a
o.
x
ro
ro
U~
ti
a
Pd
o~
ul
o
c
0
0
o~
a~
Pd~
feMUy
a
i~
o
m
e\ ~ ~ ~
o
j~
G~\,~
m ~
W
W
R
U
LL
LL
f-
U p ~
j
a
F-
jQ
Q /Z-~
I,
Cii~
I, ~.
i;i .
6 ~
ii
I
Marana Trans ortation Plan Update Final Reportp
Fi ure 6-1 illustrates the ro osed routin of the commuter transit service in Marana.9 P P g
As indicated in Figure 6-1, three main commuter routes are recommended. Those
routes are:
Silverbell/Ina Road.
I-10 to Linda Vista Road.
An extension of the I-10 route from Linda Vista to Tangerine/Old Town.
These three commuter routes were presented to the public as a part of the ultimate
commuter transit intensive alternative for the planning horizon.
6.1.2 Neighborhood Circulator Intensive Alternative
Neighborhood Circulators were rated as the second priority transit alternative by the
public meeting and telephone survey respondents.
The revious Marana Public Transit service was a deviated-fixed-route transit s stem.p Y
Service was provided through the Continental Ranch area with a connection to Sun
Tran on Ina Road. Currently, Pima County Rural Transit serving Old Town Marana and
Avra Valley operates the only circulator type transit service that exists in Marana. This
alternative builds upon these limited services.
Elements of Neiahborhood Circulator Service
The key elements for Neighborhood Circulator service in Marana are to implement a
service that serves the identified transit market. These elements should be:
Convenient routing to desired destinations.
Deviated fixed-route ability.
Appropriate headways, 30 minute optimum.
Transit station construction for connections to regional transit service.
Fifteen-foot cut-away vans, ADA compatible.
Neighborhood circulator service should be desi ned to be eligible for participation in9
the Arizona Department of Transportation/Federal Transportation Administration
ADOT/FTA) Elderly and Persons with Disabilities (EPD) Transportation Program. This
ADOT-funded program could assist in capital purchases for para-transit vans. Figure
6-2 illustrates the potential neighborhood circulator routes in Marana.
Page 64
July 2001
MARANA
i I ~
i
V'
O
O ~oT77
MC.
c
o~[
Z
v~
C'`
3
m0
a
t
e
o~~,
m
Q
Q+
a ~
t
a~°'
c, ~
m
0
Z
S
C~
U ~ ~
C
O
a
epeue~
e7
dG
IICU`
J
E]
Q~`~
O
1'
7 ~
u~
W
d~~
i
ouueyg
0
i211
pJ
C'
JIWB~'}
f3
jT
N
9~~^,
1u:
0!{
j .
IC
ati;~
iP~O ~
OQ', .
a;
sa~
ep
ou~
urea
e~
L°
cy~~
y
u;
etu~
o~
r
anoa
L'
tytia~
U2li'
k2fj
1"; `
Ee
a'
I~.
QU
i
5-'
J
4F~
1 ~
A~
M
r
Q
Coactilrne
N
C
L.
p
3
3
V
5~
V~
a~ ~
i
ci
o ;
o = ~ _
L ~ ~
J ~
C
r
z
U
V
y
7
O
C
U ~
o
o`~~
y`~e
o~ ~°~_
w~~
a
E ~
i
a ~
i~
p
c
a3 ` ~ -~
p
Q
Marana Transportation Plan Update Final Report
The proposed neighborhood circulator routes shown in Figure 6-2 are:
Continental Ranch/Sunflower
Old Town-Rural
Eastern Tier Suburbs
6.1.3 Fixed-route Transit Alternative
The public at the open house meetings viewed fixed-route transit as the third priority
transit alternative. This type of transit service would serve a much larger geographical
area, and provide access to commuters and alleviate some of the distances that a
neighborhood circulator would need to travel by providing transfer connections to the
regional system.
Currently, the only fixed route in Marana is Sun Tran Route 16, along Ina Road.
Elements of Fixed-route Transit Service
Fixed-route transit provides service along a"fixed" route. Unlike a"deviated-fixed"
route in which the transit provider deviates off a set route, this type of transit service
remains on a selected route. The service is commonly provided by a standard 40-foot
bus; however, smaller vehicles are used in smaller cities and towns. Fixed-route transit
service implementation in Marana could be reasonably affordable to implement.
Service should be located near the population concentrations and trip generators
where the identified market exists. The key elements for the fixed-route transit service
are:
Frequent headways, 20 minutes operating on a 14-hour, 7-day a week service.
Central Transit station with Park & Ride facility, Orange Grove and I-10 or Cortaro
Farms and I-10.
Fixed-route transit service should offer convenient service to local trip generators
and downtown Tucson.
It is proposed that standard 40-foot buses similar to those that Sun Tran currently
operates along Ina Road could be used to provide for this service. These service
vehicles offer the maximum seating capacity.
The proposed fixed-route transit services are illustrated in Figure 6-3.
Page 66
M;aiznNn July 2001
o!.`
o0N
l~
T
n- ~
Q
L~
U
Z]
ti0
U
6
a
a~
n ~
C
2
C%
C.^,
sv
C
c
y
o
o
v~ ~
m
C
a
Rs
Rs
a;
m~
41
Z
O
U°
O
o2
2AeU°~ '-'
l
G~
etIQ4~ ~
7
G~'
esn
euayy
o
uouu~
u$
e~~~~~
ao
o~~~
e~
13 ~ ~
aiep,
iurcyl
0
aBUl~
lA(0
i
2;
sa~ ~
o
ou+
ure~
C
vti"
1
c~~
a
y
ureFunoNr
anoQ
e
ua;
u~.~ey
L:~
l
o
F
t .
z
m
T;
Fl~ ~
PerYt
p
r
Q
Ccach!
ir,
i
LL
ero
ti
m ~
M
G~
C~
c-~
A
y
3
U
i°
z'
ti _
o
i ~
i
m `
b ~ ~
3
3
m
m
a~
O
4
v ~ ~
p
tie~
o
Q
v
c
W~
3
o ~
c ~ ~
4
a~a
O
o
U
c
OC
su,~
e
uoi
r
Q°
ro
ro
s
x
Py
a.
e
ues
s~
q~
m
Y
or~
eou~g
I
1 `
u
aC ¢ ~
a
zU
C~
d
S18/
1!:'BC
r
O
saap•
ueS
C
S~~
z
c
i
w
a~'
Y
W
T ~
ti ~
y
a ¢
a~~
r ~
F3
0 = ~
c
U ~
U
E "
v',
N
a
e
ro
m
g
a
o
o
r
py
o~
ul
u
c~
fl~
i
I
c
s~
a
s
o
U
t
N
e
R
c
Q
1 ° ~
py,
fe,
v~:;
y
o
m
v ~
a
o '
a~',
c
0
m ~
o
Q
o~~ ~
y~
l
a~
i
C
m
a ~
a
m ~
C
m
o~~ ~
W
w
LL ~
Q
c
Ul
Q
lt ~
6
L
Q
l
i
Z~:.
I,
c % ~
1
Marana Transportation Plan Update Final Report
As shown in Figure 6-3, the proposed fixed-routes would operate along:
Ina/Silverbell Roads
La Cholla/Cortaro Farms Roads
Thornydale/Orange Grove Roads
Twin Peaks/Avra Valley Roads
Sanders/Trico Marana Roads
Tangerine/Sandario Roads
6.2 Preferred Transit Alternative
The previous sections examined three transit alternatives. Implementing one type of
service without consideration of the other transit services would not address an overall
comprehensive transit system and meet the needs of all Marana residents. Therefore,
this section presents the preferred transit alternative, incorporating elements of all
three-transit alternatives to serve the transit markets in Marana. The routing, timeline of
implementation and estimated costs of the preferred transit alternative are outlined.
It should be noted that the commuter transit service detailed in the following sections
assumes the use of buses operating on Interstate 10. Commuter passenger trains
operating on the existing Union Pacific Railroad could also provide commuter service.
In tandem with this report, a separate examination into the feasibility of commuter rail
transit service between Marana and Tucson is detailed in Technical Memorandum
Number 9.
6.2.1 Transit Implementation Period 2001-2005
This is the first transit implementation plan period. The recommended routes and
services introduced during this time frame will serve as the "starter" routes to build and
expand the transit services over the planning horizon. Figure 6.4 shows the
1
recommended transit routes for the three transit elements.
Transit service implemented during this period should be concentrated in the
Continental Ranch area of Marana. The majority of the town's population will be
concentrated in this area, and during the 2001-2005 implementation period, the areas
should be approaching build-out. This area has been identified as a dual-need transit
market. There is an identified need for commuter service and a desire for a
neighborhood circulator.
Page 68
July 2001
M,A[lANA
x~~ ~
i
OOT
p
a
i
0~°
C ~
n
C7
c
c
o ~ ~
m
m
c
ccs
m
m ~
Z
O
U
O
epeue~
e~
G~
0
u~esl~
BuO~
I
O',
O
c
uouueyS
G'~~
eaaail
e~
ap
ouiwe~
13
i~
r
a~
ep~fuaoyl
Q
a
a4J~
lPIO ~
z
0
a~
sap
ap
ourwe~
e~
d
u~
eaunoW
anoQ
ytia
e
x
d
uewuey
r~,~ ~
4
z
o~
C
a~
d
s
a
o
PJ
apeM
oachline~
Z
G~
i
ve~
a
Z
o '
Z _
Q
li
y~
a~e
y
c~
e~
C
J
I~
swep
y
uo7
orae
ueg
L
o,
aep~es
N
J
r
s~
apues
s~
apueg
o
N
i
i
a~`°
N
p
X
U
U
a
Z
LL
0
c~
ua~~
n~
3
o
o
J
Q
E
n
o
a~
cc
PFi
o~
ul
m
U
z
d
F=
Ptl~
eMUy
0~; ~ ~ ~
m
o
a~
c~~~
e`
as
W
W
o ~U
Q
Q /
I
ZQCi~~
I,
Q.~
p
6 ~ ~
i
Marana Transportation Plan Update Final Report
Commuter Transit Service
Commuter transit service should have priority for implementation. Commuter service is
based upon the identified transit market and on the existing and future land use
development in Marana. A key finding of the public participation process was that a
large number of Raytheon employees reside in Continental Ranch and commute to the
Raytheon facility. Estimated operations costs for implementing this service are detailed
in Tabie 6-1.
TABLE 6 - 1
Operations Costs Implementation Period 2001-2005
Cost/Number of
Trips/Day/ Service Unit Service Total Annual
Route Distance Units Cost
C Silverbell-Ra theon 3/156 159,120 2 318,240/ r.
N Continental Ranch-Ina 16/112 37,000 4 148,000/ r.
FR Sun Tran Route 16 27/54 125,000 2 250,000/ r.
Total Cost Plantyr.716,240
C) = Commuter Route. Trips/Day/Distance is based on 6 roundtrips a day, 255 operational days/yr at
156 miles roundtrip. Also includes "deadhead" miles from Sun Tran Price Service Center.
Cost/service unit based upon Sun Tran November 2000 quarterly report. Cost includes driver's wages &
service vehicle costs at $4.00/mile.
N) = Neighborhood Circulator. Trips/Day/Distance is based on 30-minute headways, 112 miles a day,
255 service days a year. Cost/service unit based upon 1999-2000 Oro Valley Coyote Run Annual Report.
Cost includes driver's wages, farebox revenues & service vehicle costs.
FR) = Fixed-Route. Trips/Day/Distance is based on 30-minute headways, 54 miles a day, 255 service
days a year. Cost/service unit based upon November 2000 Sun Tran Quarterly Report. Cost includes
driver's wages & service vehicle costs.
Continental Ranch Commuter Route
The primary commuter route recommended is the Continental Ranch Route. This route
would serve the largest identified commuter market and highest density residential
area. Service should operate initially from the proposed Park & Ride facility at
1
Coachline and Silverbell Roads, stop at the proposed Park & Ride facility in the Fry's
Center parking lot at Silverbell and Cortaro Farms and then stop at the proposed
Orange Grove Transit Station. Service should then continue to downtown Tucson
Ronstadt Transit Center and/or directly to aerospace employment centers near Tucson
International Airport. Recommendations are for this service to be phased in starting in
2001 and fully implemented by 2005.
Full implementation requires building the proposed Park & Ride transit facilities at
Silverbell and Coachline roads, and the transit station at Orange Grove and Thornydale
roads. The route can start in 2001, without these facilities and be extended to them
once constructed. Initially, the service could operate from multiple bus shelters
installed in the Fry's Center parking lot at Silverbell and Cortaro Farms roads. The
Page 70
Ma?znNn July 2001
K'a!.`
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Marana Transportation Plan Update
Final Report
existing Ina Road transfer point in the Kmart parking lot can serve as an interim transit
transfer point until the construction of the Orange Grove Transit Station.
During the development of this transit plan, the City of Tucson developed a route
restructuring plan for Sun Tran. Included in this restructuring plan was the proposed
elimination of the limited stop express Route 103. Because of the initial start-up costs
associated with implementation of a commuter service. it is recommended that the
Town of Marana contract the provision of the recommended commuter service with the
City of Tucson throuqh an interqovernmental aqreement. Sun Tran would be able to
provide the service by re-routing Route 103.
Neiqhborhood Circulator Service Area
Neighborhood circulator service should be implemented in the Continental Ranch-
Sunflower area to compliment the commuter service. Initially, this service should be a
circulator similar to the TICET system that operates in downtown Tucson on a set route.
However, the service should also provide dial-a-ride service in this part of Marana with
advanced reservations providing transportation to transit dependent patrons.
The dial-a-ride service should charge a graduated fare for service to Northwest
Marana and outside of the Marana town limits to offset the operational costs. Figure
6.5 illustrates the recommended graduated fare areas for the neighborhood circulator.
Continental-Sunflower Route 2001-2005
This neighborhood circulator route would serve an identified transit market. The former
Marana Public Transit served this area until July 2000 and had a small but dedicated
ridership. Since the Sunflower development is an age-restricted community, there is a
latent demand within that community. The Continental Ranch community with its mix of
older adults and adolescent residents has also been identified as a possible market
that requires connection to regional transit service.
Neighborhood Circulator Transit Operational Costs
As noted in Technical Memo Number 8, neighborhood circulators that operate also as
a dial-a-ride or known as a deviated fixed route provider, incur higher annual mileage
on their vehicles. This fact, and the lighter weight construction of cut-away vans
require replacement more often than commuter or fixed-route service vehicles. Table
6-1 includes the operational costs for a neighborhood circulator.
The recommendation is to initiate the neighborhood circulator fleet with 4 vehicles,
three for an active fleet with one vehicle held in reserve. Initially, the service fleet could
be stored at the Town's development services building parking lot rather than at the
Marana Unified School District Fleet Yard to minimize the "deadhead" mileage that
MAI~ANA
I "
Page 71
July 2001
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Marana Transportation Plan Update
Final Report
would be put on the service vehicles until the Town's service fleet facility is
constructed.
Fixed-Route Service Area
During the 2001-2005 implementation period, Marana should establish an
Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) with the City of Tucson for the provision of fixed-
route Sun Tran service.
The IGA would enable the Town of Marana to assume direct responsibility for the
segment of Route 16 currently operating within Town boundaries. Route 16 service
currently terminates at the Ina Road Kmart stop. It is recommended that the route be
extended west to Interstate 10 to serve the existing commercial developments and
residential areas adjacent to Ina Road.
Fixed Route Operational Costs
Because the recommendation is for the contracting of this service with Sun Tran, the
Town of Marana will only need to compensate Sun Tran on a per mile basis of the
service within the Town limits. Service vehicle maintenance would be performed by
Sun Tran, and not require additional facilities to be constructed for these service
vehicles by the town.
Capital Needs 2001-2005
The capital needs for this implementation period are constrained to the available
funding sources mentioned earlier in this study. Table 6-2 summarizes the capital
requirements for each service.
The capital needs for implementation of commuter service will require the acquisition,
design and construction of bus facilities. Neighborhood circulator capital costs, unlike
commuter and fixed-route services, will include the purchase of service vehicles and
the required facilities to support the service. These are illustrated in Table 6-2. The
upgrade of Route 16 along Ina Road will require minimal capital infrastructure costs.
As noted in Table 6-2, it is anticipated that during the 2001-2005 implementation
period, the Coachline Park and Ride facility will be constructed.
Total Costs 2001-2005 Transit Implementation Period
The 2001-2005 Transit Implementation Period focuses on the Continental Ranch area
of Marana. Land uses in this area of Marana will be the most concentrated, and contain
the highest demand for the transit services. The operational and capital costs
associated for this implementation period of the transit component are detailed in
Table 6-3.
MAI~^N^
I"
Page 72
July 2001
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
oa.Q)Ill:iicu::Q)eaaa.ceaa:coeaoa.IIIceaI-eaceaeaE
enQ)coNoan.!
U) ~Q) .-
CJ
2'
00coQctnQ)Z
flpflUfl:) fl7 ·
t>",
t:>",
0",
V-$>
L,.._
ooIl;
el/
OI./:)
e7
esn
euowUOUUflLjS
flJJa!
l
fl/
ap
ou!
we:) /3aWPAWOLjlJaLjJeJP/
O
ajsao
ap
OU!
Wfl:)
U!
flJUnow
131100uflwjJeH
swepv
U07
O!
JepUflSSJapUflSiiaJf:
m7
PI::
I
o:
J!
Jl
pl::
IAeMUV
a:Q
lJ)lJ)OlC:
a:s ~S
c::
@5 ~c:: ~J
0
a:Q)lJ)o
1'
00
O)
N
ctl >-Q..:
il
c::Jt::Q)QEOCl3J
e
lJ)
Cl:
l ~
fl ~~
a:
Q
Cl3Cl3
Cl3
l :::: .
s
Cl3Qa:a:
1-,o :t.~
I
sJapues
0(;.
G\~
l
J2Cl3Q)Q1==
w
w
w
z
z
z000
N
N
N000000
N
C":
i '<
t
tf7
tf7
tf7
en
c
w
z
z
w
0
c:
l
N
W
W
J
a:Lf
ODD
Cl3 ~
l::: ~
2
c::
a:
Cl:
lQ
j.:::
Q ~ (
j;
E
Q
q ~.;::: &
S::
li:
i
8~
a:Cl3S:
Q>
I'. <( /II
z-Q::
N
I. ~
N
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Marana Transportation Plan Update Final Report
TABLE 6 - 2
Capital Needs Implementation Period 2001.2005
Capital Item Quantity Cost per Unit Land Cost* Total
Commuter
Service
Bus Stop 3 $8,000 $5,500 $40,500
Bus Pullouts 3 $50,000 $25,000 $225,000
Park & Ride 1 $120,000 $100,000 $220,000
Total Commuter $485,500
Service
Neighborhood
Circulator
Bus Stop 3 $8,000 $5,500 $40,500
Bus Pullouts 3 $50,000 $25,000 $225,000
Service Vehicle 4 $150,000 N/A $600,000
Total
Neighborhood $865,500
Circulator
Fixed Route
Service
Bus Stop 6 $8,000 $5,500 $81,000
Bus Pullouts 6 $50,000 $25,000 $450,000
Total Fixed $531,000
Route Service
Grand Total $1,882,000
Per Unit
Commuter = Bus stops include shelter, signage & ADA requirements based on current Sun Tran
standard shelter. Bus pullouts include engineering and design costs based 2001 costs. Park & Ride
costs are based on the costs for engineering, design for 200 parking space Coachline Park & Ride
facility.
Neighborhood Circulator = Service Vehicle costs are based on 2000 model Heavy Duty Ford F-350
Cab unit cut-a-way 15- passenger service vehicle.
Fixed-Route = Bus stops include shelter & signage based on current Sun Tran standard shelter.
Bus pullouts include engineering and design costs based 2001 costs, at !4 mile spacing.
TABLE 6 - 3
Operational and Capital Costs 2001.2005
Operational Capital
Service Costs Costs Total
Commuter $1,272,960 $485,500 $1,758,460
NeiQhborhood Circulator $592,000 $865,500 $1,457,500
Fixed-Route $1,000,000 $531,000 $1,531,000
TOTAL $4,746,960
7""~,
MAI~ANA
I"
Page 74
July 2001
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
J
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Marana Transportation Plan Update
Final Report
6.2.2 Transit Implementation Period 2006-2011
This planning period includes expansion of the commuter transit service and
expansion of the fixed-route transit service. Figure 6-6 illustrates the recommended
routings and service extensions for the three transit elements. Transit service
implementation during this period will be continue to be concentrated in the
Continental Ranch area. The development in this area will be at build-out. Because of
this, only minimal expansion of commuter transit service will be required. Expansion
should be made to the constructed Coachline Park & Ride facility, and to the Orange
Grove Transit Station, when completed during this time period. Figure 6-6 illustrates
the commuter route extensions
Commuter Transit Operational Costs
It is recommended that provision for this service continue to be contracted with Sun
Tran during the 2006-2010 period. An additional bus could be required to maintain
adequate hourly trips over the extension of the route to the Coachline Park & Ride and
the Orange Grove Transit Station.
As noted in Table 6-4, the construction of the Orange Grove Transit Station at the
corners of Orange Grove and Thornydale roads is anticipated to be accomplished
during the 2005-2010 implementation period.
Neighborhood Circulator Service Area
No expansion of neighborhood circulator service is recommended during this period.
However, the dial-a-ride service could experience additional demand since the
Sunflower community should be a build-out during this period. The neighborhood
circulator system should continue to provide dial-a-ride service with advanced
reservations and should continue to charge a graduated fare for service to Northwest
Marana and outside of the Marana town limits.
Neiqhborhood Circulator Transit Operational Costs
Operational costs for the neighborhood circulator service during this implementation
period should only increase based upon fuel, wages and maintenance costs. Table 6-
4 outlines the operational costs for a neighborhood circulator.
Town mechanic personnel could perform maintenance for neighborhood circulator
vehicles during the 2006-2010 timeframe. It is anticipated that during this
implementation period, the Town service yard should be constructed and operational.
Fixed-Route Service Area
During the 2006-2010 implementation period, it should be anticipated that the demand
for fixed-route transit should increase. The contract for this service should continue
with Sun Tran and include the extension of Route 16 to the Orange Grove Transit
Station, and to Cortaro Farms and Silverbell roads.
7'"~ '"
MAI~ANA
I '\.
Page 75
July 2001
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
oa.41a:icu:41CISga.cCISitcoCISoa.UlcCISt-CIScCISE
cC'
CIa:coC'
CICII)
CD
E
I.!
CD
a.
11).
5t:elf/)C
I,
i"
C'
CIt-OoC'
ICDooC'
I
1!
p1!
U1!
01!
7
1>
ex:tl
ex:g
g: ~
0
e (
l)
Ql "
l:
J
1> <
1>
ex:
1::
0>
0> ~
3 ~~ .
s
ex:c:-
J1::1>J
v~
v~
o~,
V~
D~
1!/
I0lf01!
7
1!
Sn
1!
UOW
UOUU-
elfS
1!
llall
1!/
ap
OU!
W1!
O
B
a/-
epAUlOlfllalfJ1!
Jp/
O
L
a/
sao
ap
OU!
W1!
O ' ,
L.,. .
u!-
ewnow
allOO ~
U1!
wJj1!
H (:'
0 :l) ~t.-.
J
LJi: ~
I
5 ~z ~
SW1!
p'
tr'
u07
O!
l-
epU1!
S
SlapU1!
S
na>
t::
m7
Pl::
i
0:
J!
l1
PI::
iA1!
MUV
OIl-
e~
U-
eS
ozwt:)WJ
v<::
ex:~
o
i- ~........ ~
1i ~<
1>~<:
q ~
0C1:
l
o
ex:SC
0ex:eCl1>g>o
a:
U)I>5oa:U)lCO0I>Xu:::06
5Cil3G0ooco0cOlwZ
U)0IIILLI>0ir06IIIa..
cQCilen
I>5EEoII
00cIII
I
0 ,....r--
o
1>
0
O)
NIll>>
0...
3J
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Marana Transportation Plan Update Final Report
Fixed-Route Operational Costs
Maintaining 30-minute intervals between trips on Route 16 extensions to Silverbell and
Cortaro Farms roads would require the addition of at least one bus on the route. The
cost of contracting this service with Sun Tran is reflected in Table 6-4.
TABLE6-4
Operations Costs Implementation Period 2006-2010
Number of
Costl Service Total
Service Unit Units Annual Cost
159,120 4 $636,480/yr.
37,000 4 $148,000/yr.
125,000 3 $375,000/yr.
Total Cost Plan!year $1,159,480
C) = Commuter Route. Trips/Day/Distance is based on 6 roundtrips a day, 255 operational days/yr at
156 miles roundtrip. Also includes "deadhead" miles from Sun Tran Price Service Center.
Cost/service unit based upon Sun Tran November 2000 quarterly report. Cost includes driver's wages &
service vehicle costs at $4.00/mile.
N) = Neighborhood Circulator. Trips/Day/Distance is based on 30-minute headways, 112 miles a day,
255 service days a year. Cost/service unit based upon 1999-20000ro Valley Coyote Run Annual Report.
Cost includes driver's wages, farebox revenue & service vehicle costs.
FR) = Fixed-Route. Trips/Day/Distance is based on 30-minute headways, 57 miles a day, 255 service
days a year. Cost/service unit based upon November 2000 Sun Tran Quarterly Report. Cost includes
driver's wages & service vehicle costs.
Route
C) Silverbell-Ravtheon
N) Continental Ranch-Ina
FR) Sun Tran Route 16
TripslDayl
Distance
3/156
16/112
28/58
Capital Needs 2006-2010
The capital requirements for the three services for this planning period are included in
Table 6-5. Commuter transit capital needs will be for the completion of the Orange
Grove Transit Station and the facilities required for extending service to the transit
station.
Capital needs for the neighborhood circulation will continue during this implementation
period. However, since service expansion is not anticipated, the capital costs are only
for the replacement of the service vehicles. Because of the additional mileage
accumulated by neighborhood circulators that operate on deviated fixed-routes, it is
recommended that these service vehicles be replaced every five years.
The extension of Route 16 along Ina Road to the Orange Grove Transit Station and
ultimately to Silverbell and Cortaro Farms will require additional capital infrastructure
costs as detailed in Table 6-5.
MAI~^N^
I '\.
lO......Cf''>U.......
Page 77
July 2001
I Marana Transportation Plan Update
I
Final Report
TABLE 6 - 5
I
Capital Needs Implementation Period 2006-2010
Capital Item Quantity Cost per Unit Land Cost Per Unit Total
Commuter Service
I Bus Stop 6 $8,000 $5,500 $81,000
Bus Pullouts 6 $50,000 $25,000 $450,000
Transit Station 1 $250,000 $200,000 $450,000
I Total Commuter Service $981,000
Neighborhood
Circulator
I
Bus Stop 0 0 0 0
Bus Pullouts 0 0 0 0
Service Vehicle 4 $150,000 N/A $600,000
I
Total Neighborhood Circulator $600,000
Fixed Route Service
Bus Stop 12 $8,000 $5,500 $162,000
I
Bus Pullouts 12 $50,000 $25,000 $900,000
Total Fixed Route Service $1,062,000
Grand Total $2,643,500
I
Commuter = Bus stops include shelter, signage & ADA requirements based on current Sun Tran
standard shelter. Bus pullouts include engineering and design costs based 2001 costs. Park & Ride costs
are based on the costs for engineering, design for 200 parking space Coachline Park & Ride facility.
Neighborhood Circulator = Service Vehicle costs are based on 2000 model Heavy Duty Ford F-350
I Cab unit cut-a-way 15- passenger service vehicle.
Fixed-Route = Bus stops include shelter & signage based on current Sun Tran standard shelter.
Bus pullouts include engineering and design costs based 2001 costs, at % mile spacing.
I Total Costs 2006-2010 Transit Implementation Period
The 2006-2010 Transit Implementation Period will be focused on the growing
I commuter and fixed-route transit demand. This demand will be primarily in the
southern portion of Marana. Land uses in this area of Marana will continue to be the
most developed and contain the highest concentration of activity centers for the transit
I services. The operational and capital costs associated for this implementation period
of the transit component are detailed in Table 6-6.
I TABLE6-6
I
Operational and Capital Costs 2006-2010
Service Operational Costs Capital Costs Total
I
Commuter $2,545,920 $981,000 $3,526,920
Neiqhborhood Circulator $1,184,000 $600,000 $1,784,000
Fixed-Route $2,000,000 $1,062,000 $3,062,000
TOTAL $8,372,920
I
I ...."':"'";-.,:\. Page 78
MAI~^N^ July 2001
I ~~~>~/
I "
w....OI'..........
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Marana Transportation Plan Update
Final Report
6.2.3 Transit Implementation Period 2011-2025
Areas within the Town of Marana requiring transit service during the 2011-2025 fifteen-
year planning period will not be contiguous. Based on the Marana General and
Northwest Plans, developments will be concentrated south of the Linda Vista Road
alignment, west of 1-10 north of Tangerine Road, and the final build-outs of the Dove
Mountain developments in the northeast of Marana. These separate concentrations of
residential and activity centers will need to be linked with a system that will meet the
increased needs of the Marana residents to go from one developed area to another. It
must also be realized that the transit system needs will be in competition with the
needs to develop an adequate roadway infrastructure as the northwest Marana area
undergoes the rural to urban transition. The following sections will detail the estimated
operational and capital expenses for this 15-year period. Figure 6-7 illustrates the
recommended service routes.
Commuter Transit Service Area
The demand for commuter transit service will increase during this period. Residential
developments nearing completion or build out will place increased strain on the
existing roadway networks and increase congestion. Employment centers in Marana
will be established along the 1-10 corridor. Demand for commuter service to downtown
Tucson and the industrial parks in south Tucson will also increase. Figure 6-6
illustrates the recommended service route extensions for the commuter service.
Commuter Transit Service
Because of this demand, the Silverbell Road express route should be extended along
Twin Peaks Road to Interstate 10 where a Transit Station should be built. In addition,
another commuter route should be established along Interstate 10. The route should
begin in Old Town Marana where another new transit station should be constructed.
From that point, the route should go to Interstate 10 and Tangerine Road where an
additional Park & Ride facility is recommended. The operational requirements for this
service are detailed in Table 6-7.
During this implementation period, the Town of Marana could continue to contract for
this service with Sun Tran, or the Town could assume operation of commuter service
vehicles. Two additional buses would be necessary to maintain adequate hourly
headways given the addition of a new commuter route to the Tangerine Park & Ride
facility and the Old Town Transit Center.
Neiohborhood Circulator Service Area
During this implementation period Neighborhood circulator service will need to
continue to the Continental Ranch-Sunflower area. In addition, demand from the
Heritage Highlands age-restricted development could necessitate expansion of
service by the addition of a second neighborhood circulator route operating along
Thornydale Road to the Dove Mountain area. It is also expected that the dial-a-ride
7""~'
MAI~^N^
I '\.
Page 79
July 2001
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Marana Transportation Plan Update
Final Report
service could experience increased demand as the population in Marana ages. The
two neighborhood circulators should continue to provide dial-a-ride service with
advanced reservations and continue a graduated fare for service within and outside of
the Marana town limits.
Neighborhood Circulator Transit Operational Costs
Operational costs for the neighborhood circulator service during this implementation
period will increase with the extension of service to the Heritage Highlands area, and
again increase based upon fuel, wages and maintenance costs. Table 6-7 outlines the
operational costs for the neighborhood circulator.
Maintenance for the neighborhood circulator vehicles should continue to be performed
by Town mechanic personnel.
Fixed-Route Service Area
Demand for fixed-route transit service could increase during this implementation
period primarily due to the need to link the developed and developing activity centers
in Marana. Several new routes or route extensions are recommended. These
recommendations are:
1) A new route along Thornydale and Linda Vista Roads, linking the proposed
Twin Peaks/Linda Vista Transit Station with the proposed Orange Grove
Transit Station.
2) An extension of the above route generally along Twin Peaks, Silverbell,
Lambert, and Sandario serving Marana High School, the correctional facility,
Trico-Marana and to the proposed Old Town Transit Station.
3) A new route along Thornydale and Tangerine roads, ending at the proposed
Old Town Transit Station.
The Town of Marana may consider purchasing and operating a smaller 30' bus to
provide this service, or contract with Sun Tran. Table 6-7 summarizes the annual
operating costs associated with the three services (Commuter Route, Neighborhood
Circulator, and Fixed Route). These routes will cost approximately $4.5 million per
year.
Capital Needs 2011-2025
The capital needs for this implementation period could be constrained to the available
funding. Table 6-8 summarizes the capital needs and costs to meet the needs for this
implementation period for commuter, neighborhood circulator and fixed-route transit.
Infrastructure improvements will be necessary to implement the recommended levels
of transit service.
MAI~^N^
I"
Page 80
July 2001
II ....
0DoQ)
I
II:ici:
i:
I
Q)CISgDo
I
cCISa:c
I
0CIS0Do
I
ellCCIS
I
CIScCISIE
JIIIIIIIIII
cCISa:c2l'
l:ICE
I.!
D
DoE
I~aJU)C
LI.
l'
l:Iinoo
elloljO
e7
E!
Sn
E!
UOWuouueljS
eJJa!
l
E!/
ap
ou!
weo
13
a/
ep.
1WOlj1JaljJeJP/
O
a/
saG
ap
OU!
weO
u!
e/
unow
alloa
UE!
w/
leH
SWE!
pV
u07
O!
JE!
puesSJapuE!
S
na>{:Jn7
Pl:
i
0:
J!
J1
pl:
i.
1eMUV
000aJOONIj>-
0..."
3J
8i
CIJc::a30>c::
0
c:: ~ "
0
c:
r: -.
I ~
c:
r:
C\]
1:::
g
CO'
CIJQ {
g
1:::
EO .
S: ~
C\]
0
I -.
I
0c:
r:e -
0
e ()}()} "
0
CIJg. ....
g ()}
CIJ
c:
r: ())
0>
0>
C\] ~ ".
0 ~~ .
s:
a:
0
epeueo
137
v.
a
D~
L,.._
n~
LnL,1'-.../ .
S :
J
ga:t;i:
i:
Pl:
i
apeM
WI
d~
C/)OJ50a:
0
J)J ]
i
CO (
J)
J
OJ
0
U :
e
OJ .....
0
x
U '(
3
z
u:: "
0
ell
c
W
0
LL .
Q
CI ~
0
CD
1U
w ..... ..
c :
Q
I
CD
0
a: (
jj
5 .
0 ~ -
E ..
c '
00
E
OJ ~
C
jj .....
ell
0
ell ~
U
Z
a...
II
I . .
C\]"
O::: ())
0 "
0 .
c:
Cs ~
c:
r: .
g,
f
@~
E
iU'
Jj
q ~~&
l ~
i:
U "'"
8 ~
t
C/
II
z-c:::::
n
I.. <~~
I. ~
n
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Marana Transportation Plan Update
Final Report
Oranqe Grove Transit Station
This location is highly recommended as an origin transit station, rather than a center. A
transit center usually has nine or more transit routes, and a station has nine or less
transit routes. The population growth and the residential development adjacent to this
site meets location warrants that Orange Grove could be the primary station for Marana
and the northwest valley. The station should be located on the southwest corner of
Orange Grove and Thornydale roads. The existing surrounding commercial and
residential development would compliment the location of a transit station at this
location.
Sun Tran routes 102, 103 and 16 should be rerouted to serve this station and could
provide regional bus service to the station during the 2006-2010 implementation
period. Additionally,. Pima County Rural Transit could route to this station as well and
provide a wider scope of regional transit service to rural residents. Future development
in Marana will provide a steady growing transit market and the Orange Grove site
would provide easy access from the eastern tier suburbs. This site would also be able
to easily accommodate 200 parking spaces and the amenities required for a transit
station; and, as future transit demands increase, this site could be expanded to a
transit center.
TABLE 6 - 7
Operations Costs Implementation Period 2011-2025
Trips/Day Annual Cost/ Number of Total Annual
Route /Distance Service Unit Service Units Cost
C) Silverbell-Raytheon 3/156 $159,120 4 $636,480
C) Old Town Tangerine- 7/182 $185,640 7 $1,299,480
Downtown Tucson
N) Continental Ranch-Ina 16/112 $37,000 4 $148,000.
N) Heritaqe Hiqhlands 8/80 $37,000 2 74,000
FR) Linda Vista 5/174 $177,480 5 $877,400
Silverbell-
Downtown Tucson
Raytheon
FR Thornydale Tanqerine 22/171 $174,000 6 $1,044,000
FR Sun Tran Route 16 28/58 $125,000 3 $375,000
Total Cost Plan/yr. $4~464~360
e) = Commuter Route. Trips/Day/Distance is based on 6 roundtrips a day, 255 operational days/yr at
156 miles roundtrip. Also includes "deadhead" miles from Sun Tran Price Service Center.
Cost/service unit based upon Sun Tran November 2000 quarterly report. Cost includes driver's wages &
service vehicle costs at $4.00/mile.
N) = Neighborhood Circulator. Trips/Day/Distance is based on 30-minute head ways, 112 miles a day,
255 service days a year. Cost/service unit based upon 1999-20000ro Valley Coyote Run Annual Report.
Cost includes driver's wages, farebox revenue & service vehicle costs.
FR) = Fixed-Route. Trips/Day/Distance is based on 30-minute headways, 57 miles a day, 255 service
days a year. Cost/service unit based upon November 2000 Sun Tran Quarterly Report. Cost includes
driver's wages & service vehicle costs.
MAI~ANA
I "
Page 82
July 2001
I Marana Transportation Plan Update
I
Final Report
TABLE6-8
I
Capital Needs Implementation Period 2011-2025
Capital Item Quantity Cost per Unit land Cost Per Unit Total
Commuter Service
I Bus Stop 8 $8,000 $5,500 $108,000
Bus Pullouts 8 $50,000 $25,000 $600,000
Park & Ride 1 $250,000 $100,000 $350,000
I Transit Station 2 $250,000 $200,000 $900,000
Total Commuter Service $1,958,000
I Neighborhood
Circulator
Bus Stop 12 $13,000 $5,500 $222,000
I
Bus Pullouts 12 $50,000 $25,000 $900,000
Service Vehicle 6 $150,000 N/A $900,000
Total Neighborhood Circulator $2,022,000
I Fixed Route Service
Bus Stop 32 $8,000 $5,500 $432,000
Bus Pullouts 32 $50,000 $25,000 $2,400,000
I Total Fixed Route Service $2,832,000
GRAND TOTAL $6,812,000
Commuter = Bus stops include shelter, signage & ADA requirements based on current Sun Tran standard shelter.
I
Bus pullouts include engineering and design costs based 2001 costs. Park & Ride costs are based on the costs for
engineering, design for 200 parking space Coachline Park & Ride facility.
Neighborhood Circulator = Service Vehicle costs are based on 2000 model Heavy Duty Ford F-350 Cab
I
unit cut-a-way 15- passenger service vehicle.
Fixed-Route = Bus stops include shelter & signage based on current Sun Tran standard shelter.
Bus pullouts include engineering and design costs based 200 1 costs, at !4 mile spacing.
I Total Costs 2011-2025 Transit Implementation Period
Improvements during the 15-year period will be focused on the growing commuter and
fixed-route transit demand. The service extensions recommended will provides links to
I the expanding concentrations of population and activity centers. Additional extension
of the neighborhood circulator system to Heritage Highlands should be planned. The
total operational and capital costs associated for this implementation period are
I detailed in Table 6-9.
I
TABLE 6-9
Operational & Capital Costs 2011-2025
I
Service Operational Costs Capital Costs Total
Commuter $27,103,440 $1,958,000 $29,061 ,440
Neiahborhood Circulator $3,108,000 $2,022,000 $5,130,000
I
Fixed-Route $32,289,600 $2,832,000 $35,121,600
TOTAL $69,313,040
I Page 83
7"";--'''- July 2001
MAI~AN^
I ~~~~:/
I "-
ro"""Ill'........,..
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Marana Transportation Plan Update
Final Report
6.2.4 Conclusions
The transit plan implementation periods of 2001-2005 and 2005-2010 will require
significant upfront capital and operational expenses. The funding for these services will
be in competition with other transportation infrastructure needs as the Town of Marana
develops over this nine-year implementation period. The Town of Marana will be
pressed to meet both the transit and roadway demands of its residents. If a regional
transportation authority is formed with dedicated transit funding, it could be in the best
interest for the Town of Marana to allow the operations and planning for transit in
Marana to be undertaken by the regional transit authority.
6.3 Management Options
Transit system management throughout the United States is typically accomplished in
one of two ways. One is "in-house management," where the management and
administrative staff are government employees hired by the municipality for the sole
purpose of managing the transit system, and the other is private management. This
latter option is when a private transportation management firm is contracted by the
municipality to manage and administrate the transit system. In the following sections,
the advantages and disadvantages of these two management options are examined
along with the federal regulations regarding transit management. The Town should
consider these advantages and disadvantages when determining which option to
utilize.
If the Town of Marana chooses to manage its transit system, the Town would need to
hire management professionals, administrative staff, drivers and mechanics. These
individuals would then become employees of the Town of Marana. This type of
management structure is known as "internal management."
The second choice for the Town of Marana would be to contract-out the management
and administration of the transit system. The contractor winning the contract would
then be responsible for providing employees to operate the system. The transit
management and operations staff would be employees of the contractor, either directly
through a subsidiary formed to do business locally. This is how the City of Tucson
operates Sun Tran and Van Tran. This type of contract management should be done
through the Town's TransportationfTraffic Engineering Department.
The next section details the specific advantages and disadvantages of the two
management structures examined.
MAI~AN^
I"
Page 84
July 2001
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Marana Transportation Plan Update
Final Report
6.3.1 Internal Manaaement: Advantaaes/Disadvantages
This section summarizes the viability of pursuing internal management for the Town of
Marana and the potential advantages and disadvantages of this management
structure.
One potential benefit for the Town of Marana for internal management of the transit
system would be direct control and possibly more easily achieved cost containment.
Another potential advantage would be possible savings due to profit margin
eliminated. The primary savings would come from the elimination of the management
fee paid to a for-profit company. Typically, for-profit companies' management fees
may be 5 percent to 15 percent of the management budget.
A disadvantage would be the likely higher cost of hiring the management,
administrative and operations staff. These individuals would be employees of the
Town of Marana and would require the wages and benefits packages typical for Town
personnel. An additional disadvantage is that with internal management and
operations, maintenance facilities would have to be provided by the Town prior to start-
up. However, if services were contracted, the private contractor should be expected
to provide necessary operations and maintenance facilities.
6.3.2 Contractual Management: Advantaaes/Disadvantaaes
The option of contractual management of the Town of Marana transit system and the
potential advantages and disadvantages of this type of management summarized
below.
One advantage is that if the Town of Marana hired a for-profit transit management
company, that company would carry the long-term costs of wages and benefits for it's
employees and the associated administrative costs.
Another consideration is the effect of a contracted management on the quality of transit
service. Depending on the perspective, this could be an advantage or disadvantage.
The advantage could be that the profit motive is the incentive for the management
company to provide quality transit service. The disadvantage could be equally argued
that once a contract is signed, a minimal effort might be applied by the transit
management to meet the basic transit needs of the community since a set fee and
profit margin has been established.
A specific disadvantage of contracting for management services is the relative lack of
responsiveness to transit demand. If new transit demands arise, a new contract and
associated fees may need to be negotiated between the transit management company
and the Town. Additionally, there could also be a relative lack of cost control or quality
MAI~ANA
I \.
Page 85
July 2001
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Marana Transportation Plan Update
Final Report
control over the contracted transit management firm by the Town. If a transit
management company was not meeting expectations for transit service, then the Town
of course could exercise the option to terminate the contract.
6.3.3 Conclusions
The previous sections detailed the management options available to the Town of
Marana for their transit system. The section summarized the two types of transit
management organizational structures for public transit:
In-house"
Contract managers
The advantages and disadvantages of each type of management organizational
structure were detailed. With each structure, there are federal regulations; however,
contract management has the additional requirements of open competitive bidding
process, as well as the potential of additional FT A regulations. An "in-house"
management structure would allow for the most control by the Town of Marana.
Considering the future land use plans and development of Marana, as well as the need
to establish and react to changes in transit service demand, either an "in-house" or
contract manager type of transit management structure would meet the needs for the
Marana transit system during the planning period. Either of these two management
structures would enable the Town to monitor and control transit costs, especially labor
and administrative costs and to respond to the changes in transit demand that will
inevitably occur during the 25-year planning period.
6.4 Federal Transportation Administration Requirements
Because the Town of Marana would most likely apply for a portion of the regional share
of federal transit funds to assist in establishing the transit system, there are specific
regulations that apply to private management structures, labor negotiations and public
entities that would need to be met. This section outlines the Federal Transportation
Administration (FT A) requirements regarding changes in management structure of a
transit system receiving FT A assistance funds. If the Town of Marana chose to change
their future transit management structure from public to private, or to terminate one
private firm to hire another, any change in the management structure would have to
comply with these FT A regulations.
FT A Requlations
The FT A's requirements are outlined in the "FT A Fiscal Year 2000 Certifications and
Assurances," and are used in connection with all federal assistance programs
MAI~AN^
I '\.
Page 86
July 2001
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Marana Transportation Plan Update
Final Report
administered by FT A. These certifications and assurances include all annual
certifications required by 49 U.S.C. 5307 (d) (1) for FTA's Urbanized Area Formula
Program, as well as other certifications and assurances needed for compliance with
various other federal statutes and regulations affecting FT A assistance programs. All
states providing certifications and assurances of prospective sub-recipients must
provide documentation from those sub-recipients for 15 categories of requirements in
order to be approved to receive funding. The 15 categories cover all areas of
contractual, legal and procedural requirements. The complete text is available on the
FTA website at the following address: www.fta.gov/library/legal/fr11698b.htm.
Under these regulations, a transit agency can terminate its contract with a for-profit
management company. Reasons for termination must be included in the original
contractual agreement, and the management company must be compensated for any
losses incurred as a result of the termination. If a company's contract has expired or is
up for renewal there is no obligation to continue with that company. A new transit
management company could be selected through the proper competitive bid process.
Specific FT A Regulations
Specific FT A regulations for contracting with a private transit management company
are found in Section 1 B of the "FT A Fiscal Year 2000 Annual List of Certifications and
Assurances for Federal Transit Administration Grants and Cooperative Agreements:
Procurement Compliance." Specific FTA regulations are detailed in the following
section. More detailed FT A regulatory guidance is provided in the FT A Circular
Third Party Contracting Requirements." The circular is available at
www.fta.dot.gov/library/policy/tpcr.html.
The contracting requirements apply to any contractual agreement, regardless of
whether it is for-profit or non-profit management companies. These requirements
include all traditional federal requirements regarding non-discrimination, ability to
perform (adequate financial resources, experience in the field) a drug-free workplace,
prohibition against lobbying, ADA compliance, etc. Additional requirements include:
Competitive bid process
No conflict of interest, which means current employees are prohibited from
bidding.
A sole source contract may be awarded only if the competition has been
determined to be inadequate.
Performance bonds for the amount of the contract are required to be put up by
the subcontractor for contracts exceeding $100,000. However, if a contract
exceeds $1 million, the required bond will be less.
7'"~"
MAI~^N^
I '\.
Page 87
July 2001
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Marana Transportation Plan Update
Final Report
Contracts must contain definitions of breach, including "for cause" and "for
convenience" and the basis for sanctions, penalties and settlement.
Employees are paid in accordance with the Davis-Bacon Act, Copeland Act and
the Contract Hours and Safety standards Act regarding labor standards for
federally assisted sub-agreements.
6.5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Following is a preliminary listing of recommendations to implement transit facilities and
programs with the Town of Marana over the next few years:
Begin discussions with the City of Tucson/Sun Tran to expand commuter transit
service from the Town to major employment sites downtown and in the vicinity of
the ai rport.
Give service priority to enhance the current commuter service from the
Continental Ranch area to Raytheon.
Implement neighborhood circulator service in the Continental Ranch-Sunflower
area to compliment the commuter service. The service should be fixed route but
also provide advanced reservation dial-a-ride to transit dependents.
Charge graduated fare for neighborhood circulator service to offset operating
costs.
Amend current intergovernmental agreement with the City of Tucson/Sun Tran to
increase service on Route 16 which should operate on Sundays and extended
west along Ina Road to Interstate 10.
I nvestigate the potential use of vanpools with private management firm and
major employers.
Budget required capital ($1.9 million) and operating ($2.9 million) funds during
the four-year period to implement these services.
Select a management organizational structure for the recommended transit
services - either in-house or contract manager.
Provide additional staff support to the Department of Public Works to administer
the transit program.
MAI~^N^
I "
Page 88
July 2001
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Marana Transportation Plan Update
Final Report
7.0 FUNDING
7.1 Introduction
The Town of Marana, like all other jurisdictions in the region, does not have sufficient
revenues to build, operate and maintain all of the roads, walkways, bike facilities, and
transit services necessary to meet all the needs of its businesses and residents. With
continued strong population growth anticipated for the Town, meeting transportation
needs and funding challenges will be a major concern for Town planners and
policymakers well into the future. Unlike other cities, Marana has taken great initiative
to generate local funds for transportation improvements because state and federal
government has been unresponsive to local needs.
This chapter identifies existing transportation funding sources for the Town of Marana
and forecasts reasonably expected transportation funding through the year 2025 from
these sources. This task also identifies potential transportation funding sources and
provides a forecast for the existing plus new sources through 2025. Possible future
changes (both increases and decreases) to these sources are discussed.
This investigation is focused on funding sources that are primarily used for roadway
purposes. To a certain degree, most of these sources can also be used for pedestrian
and bicycle facilities, particularly if located within the roadway right-of-way. In
addition, some transit facilities such as bus stops, bus pullouts, and shelters may be
constructed using some of these sources, and one of the sources (the transportation
component of the Town's Construction Sales Tax or "CST") can be used to purchase
transit capital facilities. There are separate State and federal sources that are available
to fund transit services. Transit is also partially self-funded through fare box receipts.
The variety of potential funding sources is described below.
7.2 Existing Funding Sources
The Town has a variety of funding sources available for operation and improvement of
roadway, bicycle, pedestrian and transit facilities. This section describes available
funding programs for implementation of the Marana Transportation Plan.
7.2.1 Highwav User Revenue Funds (HURF)
The primary source of existing transportation funding is the HURF, derived from the
gasoline and use fuel tax, the vehicle license tax and registration fees, and other
miscellaneous taxes and fees. The HURF also includes 12.6 percent funds distributed
for regional facilities through PAG. These funds are also derived from motor vehicle
fees and taxes and were formerly restricted to controlled-access facilities within Pima
7'"~"
MAI~^N^
I "
Page 89
July 2001
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Marana Transportation Plan Update
Final Report
County. For the purposes of this the subsequent forecasting analysis, 12.6 percent
HURF revenues are listed separately within the PAG funding category. HURF
revenues are restricted to roadway purposes, but they can include pedestrian, bicycle,
and transit facilities built within the roadway right-of-way. The ADOT1 2.6 percent funds
can also be used to pave shoulders and build sidewalk facilities but only on State
Highways or State Routes, such as Tangerine Road within Marana.
7.2.2 Local Transportation Assistance Fund
The Local Transportation Assistance Funds (L T AF) is derived from revenue generated
from multi-state, on-line lottery game revenues. The funds are allocated based on local
population and distributed statewide to communities to assist in funding transit needs.
Recent legislation has changed the eligibility of L T AF funds, which now must be used
for transit purposes in all jurisdictions. These funds may be available for construction
of sidewalks, bicycle racks, and other facilities that directly relate to transit use.
The L T AF is distributed to the Town from the State and is derived from lottery revenues.
The LTAF is comprised of two funds, LTAF I and LTAF II, and for the purposes of this
analysis are combined. L T AF I funds may be used for roadway, transit, pedestrian and
bicycle facilities in jurisdictions under 300,000 population, while L T AF II funds are now
restricted to transit purposes in all Arizona jurisdictions.l
Future funding from L T AF is expected beyond the 2003 sunset year of the state lottery.
However, because the major source of L T AF funds are derived from state lottery and
vehicle license revenues, these funds are not expected to keep pace with inflation, or
be raised significantly by the legislature. Future revenues from this source are actually
expected to decline.
House Bill 2565 (L TAF II)
In 1997 the Arizona legislature passed HB 2565, which was based on a fairly complex
set of funding rules. In essence, the bill authorized the Arizona Department of
Transportation (ADOT) to transfer a portion of its vehicle license tax to local
communities if federal transportation monies appropriated in TEA 21 were above a set
limit. In FY 1997-1998, HB 2565 distributed $6.785 million dollars based on a
population formula. However, since the HB 2565 money was approved during the FY
98-99 fiscal year, next year's appropriation is likely to be closer to $9 million. ADOT's
reported amount of HB 2565 money distributed to Marana in FY 1998-1999 was
I
58 1556, enacted into law in the 2000 session, requires L T AF II monies to be used for public transit
purposes including operating and capital purposes for all counties, cities and towns, except that any
jurisdiction that receives less than $2,500 may use it for general transportation purposes.
MAI~ANA
I "
Page 90
July 2001
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Marana Transportation Plan Update
Final Report
approximately $13,602.00 dollars. The funds distributed to Marana for FY 1999-2000
was approximately $37,651.
Potential future local revenues that should be available for use on transportation
facilities include an increase in the transportation portion of the construction sales tax,
a new general sales tax dedicated to transportation, and new development impact
fees.
7.2.3 PAG Funds
PAG funds consist of HURF 12.6 percent funds, federal Surface Transportation
Program (STP) funds, and Project Development Activity (PDAF) funds. The 12.6
percent funds are primarily targeted to regional highway facilities, and can be used for
transit and alternate mode improvements as with the HURF funds described
previously. Nearly 95 percent of PAG funds are comprised of the 12.6 percent funding
category. The STP funds may be used for the same purposes as well as for roadway
repaving and for major roadway rehabilitation, and PDAF funds are used for
developing design concept reports and other feasibility reports for transportation
projects.
7.2.4 LocalfTown of Marana
Existing local funds include the transportation component of the CST. Three-fourths of
the 4 percent tax is dedicated to transportation capital facilities. This revenue source
can be used on roadway, pedestrian, bicycle, and transit capital facilities. Total
forecast local funds for transportation are approximately $101.0 million through 2025,
which is an update of the forecast presented in Technical Memorandum Number 3,
Funding.
The primary local revenues currently available for use on transportation facilities are
the transportation component of the construction sales tax and private development
dedications, exactions, and facilities built as part of major and local roadway
improvements serving the development. Additional bicycle and pedestrian facilities,
particularly shared use pathways along washes and the Santa Cruz River, may be
constructed through local revenues from the Pima County Flood Control District.
Development impact fees are paid by developers to help cover the additional
transportation costs resulting from new residential construction, and these funds may
be used on provision of multiuse lanes, paved shoulders, and sidewalks built as part of
the required roadway cross section. In some circumstances, shared use paths have
been constructed by jurisdictions using impact fees if they serve transportation needs
generated by the new development. The Town recently enacted a $2,435 roadway
7""~"
MAI~AN^
I '\.
Page 91
July 2001
I
I
I,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Marana Transportation Plan Update
Final Report
impact fee per new residence for all residential development south of Avra Valley
Road.
Private "revenues" may come in the form of dedications, exactions, monetary
contributions, and construction of facilities to required standards. Development impact
fees can be considered as a private contribution. However, for the purposes of this
report they are included in the local revenues category because they are utilized to
pay for construction off-site of transportation capacity facilities on collector and arterial
roadways under jurisdiction of the Town.
An estimate of private contributions is not included in this study. However, it is
necessary to recognize the important contribution that private development makes to
the local and major roadway network, and to the bicycle and pedestrian system. As
the Town's transportation system grows, in part due to facilities constructed by
developers, it will be essential for the Town to ensure that high-standard bicycle,
pedestrian, and transit facilities are included as part of the roadway improvements and
that local street and pathway accesses are maintained to the degree feasible between
developments and important area destinations.
7.2.5 Federal
On June 9, 1998, the President signed into law the Transportation Equity Act for the
2151 Century (TEA-21), authorizing highway, safety, transit and other surface
transportation programs for a six-year period. TEA-21 revenues available to the Town
for pedestrian and bicycle uses are primarily received through the Surface
Transportation Program (STP), which includes set-aside funding categories specifically
available for pedestrian/bicycle facilities and programs such as the Transportation
Enhancements program.
The STP provides flexible funding categories and ensures the consideration of
bicyclists and pedestrians in the planning process and modification of sidewalks to
meet Americans with Disabilities Act requirements, for shared use paths, paved
shoulders and multiuse lanes facility design. STP funds can be used for provision of
sidewalks and, and for pedestrian and bicycle safety and educational programs.
Ten percent of STP funding is set aside for Transportation Enhancements, which can
be spent on environmentally related improvements including pedestrian and bicycle
provisions. Enhancement funds can be used for paved shoulders, bicycle lanes,
multiuse lanes, sidewalks, and both paved as well as unpaved pathways that primarily
serve a transportation purpose.
The Town is currently applying for a Transportation Enhancement grant to construct a
paved shared-use path along the west bank of the Santa Cruz between Cortaro Road
MAI~AN^
I '\.
Page 92
July 2001
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
Marana Transportation Plan Update
Final Report
and Twin Peaks Road. This pathway will enable local school children to access the
Coyote Trails Elementary School as well as provide transportation and recreation
opportunities for area residents.
Section 5311 Funds
Funds from Section 5311 are federal monies distributed to rural communities under
50,000 in population by the Federal Transportation Administration. In Arizona, ADOT
administers this program and the distribution of funds. In FY 1999, Marana received
37,081 from 5311 funds. These funds currently are distributed to Pima County Rural
Transit, which uses these capital funds for expenses. Marana could be eligible to use
these funds for transit.
FTA Section 5310
The expansion of the 5310 program, which is administered by ADOT, from
approximately $700,000 annually to approximately $2.2 million annually, could mean
additional capital revenues for transit. This potential future revenue source could be
considered if the Town implements its own transit service in the near future.
FTA Formula Funds
FTA formula funds could be distributed to the Town automatically when it reaches a
population of 50,000 or more. These funds could include capital or operating dollars
from either the discretionary or formula programs. However, at present the Town does
not meet the qualifications for a share of FT A revenue, nor is it obligated to follow the
strict services guidelines that the FT A mandates. Such guidelines include the
protection of unionized labor, non-competition with private sector providers, and
buying transit vehicles manufactured in America.
7.3 Forecast Methodology
The existing and proposed revenues forecasts have been prepared through
consultation with Town and Pima Association of Governments (PAG) staff, review of the
adopted FY 2000-04 PAG Transportation Improvement Program (PAG TIP), and review
of the draft FY 2001-2005 TI P. The forecasts have been developed usi ng constant
year 2001 dollars through 2025 in order to provide a total 2001-2025 funding forecast.
The forecasts utilize official ADOT inflation factors through 2006, planning level ADOT
factors from 2007-2017, and the PB team estimates for inflation for 2018-2025.
The forecasts have been prepared using conservative assumptions. Potential changes
in transportation revenues on a constant dollar, per capita basis may more likely be
downward than upward, (particularly for State funding sources). The current
supermajority requirement in the State for increasing revenues (or even adjusting them
to keep pace with inflation), potential changes in State and federal legislation, voter
MAI~^N^
I '\..
Page 93
July 2001
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Marana Transportation Plan Update
Final Report
initiatives, slowing in growth, technological changes, and downturns in the economy
may have negative effects on transportation revenues.
This forecast does not include bonds, which are a financing mechanism rather than
revenue source. It is important to note that debt service on bonds, however, often
makes up a substantial portion of the transportation cost flow stream of jurisdictions.
This forecast also does not account for costs attributed to interest jurisdictions must
pay on bonds, which should rather be included in the transportation facility cost
analysis conducted as a separate task of this project.
Additional explanation of the forecasting methodology, assumptions, and potential
changes in future funding levels is provided in a subsequent section.
7.4 Forecasts of Existing Revenue
7.4.1 Total Existing Revenues 2001-2025
Existing transportation revenues for the Town of Marana consist of the Arizona Highway
User Revenue Fund (HURF), the Arizona Local Transportation Assistance Fund (L T AF),
PAG funds including 12.6 percent HURF funds and federal Surface Transportation
Program (STP) funds, development impact fees, and the transportation component of
the Town's Construction Sales Tax.
As contained within the FY 2001-05 PAG TIP, total existing local revenues dedicated to
transportation purposes within the Town of Marana are $11.0 million. As part of the
financial forecast in Technical Memorandum Number 3, Funding for the Marana Master
Transportation Plan, the proposed increase in the construction sales tax would
generate an additional $5.5 million through 2005. Imposition of the proposed
development impact fees would generate approximately $6.9 million over that time
period, and establishment of the sales tax for transportation would result in
approximately $7.6 million in new revenues.
The future funding sources for transit services in Marana could be a combination of all
of the sources described above. Based upon the availability of funds, approximately
75,000 (in FY 1999 dollars) will be available annually for public transit expenditures in
the planning period horizon. However, it should be noted that some of these funding
sources cover only capital expenses. Capital expenses are classified as buses, bus
shelters, benches, or other facilities that could be purchased. Operating funds are
those that pay salaries and operating expenses such as fuel and vehicle maintenance.
Aside from LTAF, LTAF II, and local General Funds, funding for the proposed transit
services will need to come from a combination of revenue sources, including fare box
revenues.
MAI~^N^
I "
Page 94
July 2001
Marana Transportation Plan Update
Final Report
7.4.2 Highway User Revenue Funds
•
As presented in Technical Memorandum Number 3, total forecast HURF revenues (not
including the PAG 12.6 percent HURF funds) are approximately $70.0 million through
2025.
Town staff provided data on HURF funding for FY 2001. This analysis also included
research into the Town's historic HURF funding, FY 1990 through FY 2000, provided by
Town staff and presented in Technical Memorandum Number 3, Funding.
Based on these historic data, HURF revenues were projected through 2025. The
HURF was adjusted upwards sharply for FY 2002 to account for the expected
adjustment for year 2000 Census population data. An average HURF per capita of
$75.00 was used to adjust more approximately to year 1990 HURF, which was
• calculated at $83.15 per capita. Because current HURF received by the Town is
based on the 1990 population, the year 2000 HURF per capita is actually only $30.96
when compared with the estimated year 2000 population. It is apparent from this
review that population counts conducted at least once every five years should be very
cost effective.
Due to inflation and other factors, the HURF per capita is expected to decline over
time. This analysis assumes an increase to the gas tax of two cents per gallon in years
2005, 2010, 2015, and 2020. As can be seen in Technical Memorandum Number 3,
these increases do not keep pace with inflation, and coupled with population counts
that are assumed to be updated once each five years as part of special Census
counts, HURF per capita is expected to decline to approximately $49.79 by year 2025.
Approximately half of the vehicle license tax (VLT) is included in HURF, and is also
expected not to keep pace with inflation due to potential legislative or voter initiative
changes over time.
7.4.3 Local Transportation Assistance Fund
As presented in Technical Memorandum Number 3, total forecast LTAF revenues are
approximately $7.8 million through 2025.
Town staff provided data on LTAF funding for FY 1990 through FY 2001, with historic
1990-1999 data. LTAF revenues have declined from a high of $11 .62 per capita in
1990 to $4.14 in 1999 (when 1999 revenues are divided by 1999 population). The
current LTAF funding is also predicated on 1990 population counts, as with HURF.
It is assumed that the current $23.0 million per year statewide cap is kept on the LTAF
through the forecast horizon year, with no adjustments for inflation. It is also assumed
in this analysis that population counts for the Town are conducted once every five
•
Page 95
July 2001
MARANA
Marana Transportation Plan Update
Final Report
• years and that the LTAF is adjusted for the new population. An average LTAF per
capita of $11.00 was used to adjust more approximately to year 1990 LTAF, with the
LTAF expected to decline over time with inflation to approximately $5.00 per capita in
2025.
7.4.4 PAG Funds
Total PAG funds forecasted are approximately $132.4 million through 2025. Data for
PAG funds were compiled from Town staff and from the FY 2000-04 TIP and draft FY
2001-05 TIP. PAG funds are expected to average nearly $4.9 million per year over
the six-year period covered by the two TIPs, or approximately $220 per capita.
Prior to year 2000, the Town of Marana received little PAG funding. Due to the varying
or "lumpy" nature of transportation projects, wherein very large projects require large
amounts of funding, it is possible that the draft FY 2001- 05 TIP is not representative of
some future TIPs.2 For this reason as well as potential changes in funding levels and
economic downturns, a more conservative assumption of $100 per capita is utilized for
the 2006-2025 period. This forecast also assumes 2-cent per gallon gas tax increases
in 2010, 2015, and 2020, with VLT assumed to decline due to inflation and legislative
adjustments or voter initiatives.
7.4.5 Local/Town of Marana
Data for the sales tax were provided by Town staff for 1999 through 2000 (the
Construction Sales Tax was established by Town ordinance in May, 1998). Historic
CST data and projections are provided in Technical Memorandum Number 3. The
transportation component of all Town sales taxes comprises about 18 percent of the
total sales tax revenues. Historic sales tax revenue data for all sales taxes provided
by Town staff have shown a large fluctuation in revenues, from a low of $198 per capita
in 1990 to a high of approximately $1 ,118 per capita in 1995 after the annexation of the
"Golden Triangle" commercial area at the intersection of Thornydale and Ina Roads.
Total sales tax revenues had declined to $712 per capita by 1999 (excluding the CST).
The transportation component of the CST currently provides over $111 per capita.
7.4.6 FEDERAL
Total STP revenues programmed for the Town are $1.4 million for FY 2001-05. These
revenues do not include the 10 percent Transportation Enhancement set aside, which
2 For most of the 1990s nearly all PAG 12.6 percent(which were included as part of 15 percent funds at
the time) were utilized on SR 210(Aviation Highway) in Tucson. The draft FY 2001-05 TIP includes three
large-scale roadway reconstruction projects in the Town of Marana: Cortaro Road ($9.9 million),
Silverbell Road ($3.9 million), and Ina Road ($8.8 million). PAG staff indicated future funding for the
• Town should not necessarily be based on these programmed amounts.
Page 96
July 2001
MARANA
:�:: i \
Marana Transportation Plan Update
Final Report
is administered by ADOT in a competitive statewide reimbursement program.
Approximately $11 .1 million per year in Transportation Enhancement funds is •
anticipated to be available statewide over the remaining years of TEA-21 . The Town of
Marana has not yet been successful in applying for Enhancement funds. However, it is
assumed for planning purposes that the Town should receive a total of approximately
$500,000 in enhancement funds within the next five years for the Santa Cruz Shared
Use Path. Transit enhancement funds are also available for use on bicycle and
pedestrian facilities. However, for the purposes of this memorandum these funds are
not considered a potential revenue source for these facilities within the near future.
7.5 Forecasts of Proposed Funding Sources
7.5.1 Total Existina Revenues 2000-2025
In addition to historic state, federal and local revenues, new local revenues were
adopted in January 2001 as a result of a financial options study conducted for the
Town.3 The new local revenues include an increase in the Construction Sales Tax from
3 percent to 4 percent, with three-quarters of this amount dedicated to transportation,
and a $2,435 impact fee on new residences for construction of new transportation
capacity required by the new developments. In January 2001 , the Marana Town
Council approved the proposed increase in the Construction Sales Tax and adopted
the $2,435 development impact fee. The financial study also recommended a new '
percent sales tax dedicated to transportation, which has not yet been adopted
because it requires a public vote, and is yet not considered a committed revenue
source.
The forecast for total existing revenues from 2001 through 2025 is presented in
Technical Memorandum Number 3. Total forecast revenues for transportation is
approximately $527 million which includes the $448.3 million of existing sources, plus
additional revenues anticipated as a result of this plan. For example, federal grants for
transit capital and O&M are anticipated, and additional regional and federal revenues
are expected for freeway improvements in the Marana plan, but not yet on the regional
plan. The following sections provide descriptions of the forecast for each of the new
and proposed revenue sources and the methodology and assumptions used in
estimating the future revenues.
3 The Town of Marana Development Impact Fee Study by Curtis Lueck and Associates, Inc. and Frank
Cassidy, P.C. was completed in year 2000. The Town Council adopted a development impact fee in
January 2001 of$2,435 per new residence for all new construction south of the Ina Road alignment. The
Town Council also increased the Construction sales tax by 1%to a total of 4%, of which 3% is dedicated
to transportation projects. •
Page 97
July 2001
MARANA
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Marana Transportation Plan Update
Final Report
7.5.2 Recentlv Adopted Construction Sales Tax Increase
The increase of 1 percent to the existing CST results in approximately $151.5 million
generated through 2025 and dedicated to transportation capital facilities. The
transportation component is assumed to decline from approximately $111 per capita in
2001 to $74 per capita in 2006, with a floor of $72 per capita assumed from 2007
through 2025. This floor is assumed to be held constant by Town actions to raise the
tax rate if necessary to maintain the constant purchasing powering, or by shifting of
other local tax resources to the transportation component (such as committing the
entire 4 percent of the CST to transportation). The CST revenue per capita is also
expected to decline due to a strong increase in population in comparison to a slower
rate of increase in sales tax on construction activities.
7.5.3 Recentlv Adopted Development Impact Fee
This revenue involves establishment of a Development Impact Fee (DIF) on new
residential construction, with funds dedicated to new transportation capacity
improvements required by the new development. A DIF of $2,435 per equivalent
demand unit (essentially a new detached non-age restricted residence) was formally
approved by Marana Town Council in January 2001, for all new construction south of
the Avra Valley Road alignment. The DIF should generate approximately $16.4 million
through 2025, assuming an average of 270 new homes per year are constructed in the
areas which are required to pay the DIF. The DIF is also assumed to be indexed with
inflation, with periodic adjustments upwards to maintain a constant purchasing power
for the revenues.
7.5.4 Proposed New Sources
There are three proposed new sources of funds: General Sales Tax Increase,
Expansion of Impact Fee Benefit Area and Improvement Districts (IDs). These
possible revenues involve an increase in the general sales tax (excluding the CST) by
1;4 percent, with the entire new revenue generated by this increase dedicated to
transportation; use of Improvement Districts and Community Facility Districts; and
expansion of the Development Impact Fee benefit area to include the balance of the
Town.
The sales tax funding source could technically be used for any transportation purpose,
unless established by law for only certain transportation facilities or programs. The tax,
if approved by the voters of Marana, would generate approximately $70.2 million
through 2025, as presented in Exhibits 5 and 6. The 1;4 percent sales tax revenue per
capita excluding the CST is estimated to decline from $77 per capita in 2001 to $52 in
2006, with a floor of $50 per capita held from 2007 through 2025. This decline is
MAI~ANA
I"
Page 98
July 2001
Marana Transportation Plan Update
Final Report
anticipated due to a strong increase in population while sales tax revenues are •
expected to grow at a slower rate than the population growth.
The use of Improvement Districts and Community Facility Districts would allow the
Town to pass the costs of some projects to the development that contains the
improvements. For example, Dove Mountain utilized the CFD for on-site infrastructure,
and has a commitment to use a portion of the sales tax generated by the project for off-
site improvements to major roadways. CFDs and IDs both utilize bonding capability to
build projects in advance of need or to mitigate current deficiencies. The money would
not be available for maintenance.
Expansion of the development impact fee benefit area to include the entire Town,
except Dove Mountain, which is exempt by agreement between the developer and the
Town. The expanded area would approximately double the development fee
collected, except that the time frame would be later, perhaps beyond the 2025 horizon
of this plan.
7.6 Summary
Existing transportation revenues for the Town of Marana are expected to total
approximately $527 million from 2001 through 2025. This includes existing sources,
newly adopted sources, and additional revenues associated with transit fares and
grants, freeways, and development exactions related to the plan itself.4 •
There are several potential changes to the revenue forecast over this long planning
period, with changes assumed to more likely cause revenues to decrease rather than
increase. Following is a discussion of some of these possible changes.
7.6.1. Potential Changes to Revenue Forecast
The revenue forecast has been developed using reasonably conservative
assumptions, yet additional changes may occur which can further affect anticipated
revenues. Potential negative changes include downturns in the economy at local as
well as state and national levels; slowing of growth and/or growth management
requirements which depress growth rates; legislative adjustments or voter initiatives to
drastically reduce or eliminate the VLT;' and technological changes such as strong
increases in purchases of hybrid gas-electric vehicles or compressed natural gas
vehicles which reduce the HURF and VLT generated per vehicle (the VLT is waived for
qualifying vehicles).
4 This represents an update to the forecasts in Technical Memorandum Number 3.
5 The Arizona legislature has reduced the VLT several times over recent legislative sessions. A voter
initiative to repeal the VLT was attempted for fall, 2000. However, sufficient signatures were not received
to place the initiative on this fall's ballot. The initiative supporters have committed to pursuing the
initiative for the fall 2001 ballot. •
Page 99
July 2001
MARANA
ZZ,ZZ/i'.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Marana Transportation Plan Update
Final Report
It is also possible that some factors may occur in the future, which have positive effects
on transportation revenues. Growth rates could always increase in the region,
depending on economic and other circumstances in other parts of the country. At the
local, State, and federal levels it is possible for new legislation which increases
transportation revenues, as evidenced by current Town of Marana initiatives to
increase transportation revenues and by the sharply-increased federal surface
transportation program funding over the past 10 years.
At the State level, it is more problematic to increase revenues due to a two-thirds
majority requirement of the legislature to raise taxes. However, one area of State
influence involves the distribution of HURF, wherein HURF is distributed based on 10-
year Census population counts (or 5-year Special Census counts paid for by the local
jurisdiction). If the State were to allow HURF distribution based on approved
population estimates rather than Census data, as it does for distribution of sales tax
revenues, fast-growing small towns such as Marana would see a sharp real increase in
HURF and VL T on an annual basis. In fact, even paying for 5-year counts rather than
waiting for 10-year counts results in an increase to the Town of about $7.8 million (not
including PAG 12.6 percent funds) from 2005 through 2025, excluding costs for
conducting the years 2005 and 2015 counts.
Finally, at either a regional or State level, increasing the gas tax by a small amount and
then indexing it to inflation would maintain the purchasing power of this revenue source
at least at current levels. This is one of the three primary funding recommendations of
the 1998 PAG Metropolitan Transportation Plan (PAG MTP). The Town of Marana has
adopted one of the other main funding recommendations of the MTP, the development
impact fee, and is considering the other main recommendation, which is to establish a
1,4 cent regional (or local) sales tax dedicated to transportation. It is not likely that at
the State level, however, the increased and indexed gas tax would be supported
without a concurrent major reduction in the VL T, probably resulting in a net overall loss
for transportation revenues.
Any positive or negative shift in the above described areas, as well as involving other
factors (many of which cannot be foreseen over a 25-year forecasting period), could
result in a major shift in revenues forecast for the Town of Marana. It is probably safe
to say that future Town revenues could vary by up to 40 percent either above or below
this forecast if one or more major changes occur. This analysis provides an estimation
of reasonably expected revenues over the plan period, hopefully a conservative
estimate, so that Town transportation professionals and policymakers may
appropriately match its planned transportation expenditures with forecast revenues.
MAI~^N^
I '\.
Page 100
July 2001
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Marana Transportation Plan Update
Final Report
7.7 Shortfall Analysis
The shortfall analysis is essentially a comparison of the anticipated costs and revenues
over the planning period. The revenues are outlined above. The costs include the
following line items:
Roadway capital costs, including and additional 20 percent of construction costs to
cover the costs of debt service for project bonds. This totals $475 million.
Roadway operation and maintenance costs for the plan period, which is expected
to be approximately $105 million. The Town's HURF allocation will essentially need
to be dedicated to O&M, along with funds from other sources.
Transit capital costs of $11 million and operating costs of $71 million. The fare box
revenues are expected to be about 20 percent of the operating costs, or $14
million.
Bike and pedestrian improvements of $20 million for capital and $3 million for O&M,
which can come from a variety of sources, including local funds, regional funds,
and federal grants.
The analysis assumes that ADOT will participate financially as much as 50 percent
for 1-10 interchange improvements north of Cortaro Road, and will fully fund
interchange improvements from Cortaro Road south. Also, ADOT is expected to be
fully responsible for mainline and frontage road improvements. As shown in
Figures 7-1 and 7-2, there will be an anticipated revenue shortfall of approximately
160 million (in year 2001 dollars), which will need to be overcome with additional
revenues, grants, user fees, or partnerships. The shortfall is indicated in the exhibit
as "New Sources/Unfunded" revenues to balance the revenues and expenses.
7.8 Funding Strategies
Strategies to overcome the revenue shortfall fall into two categories: augmenting
current revenue sources and enabling new sources of funding. The strategies are
described below for future consideration by the Town staff and policy makers. Note
that the list is not exhaustive and includes only those revenue sources that are deemed
practicable to the Town.
Expansion of current revenues could include the following sources:
Increase the State gas tax from its current 18i per gallon to 23i, plus annual
indexing to inflation. This concept is included in the PAG Metropolitan
Transportation Plan; however, its implementation requires action by the State
legislature. If enacted, it would cause an initial jump in HURF allocations that would
remain relatively constant in real terms due to indexing. This proposal is being
considered by other jurisdictions in the State.
MAI~^N^
I \.
Page 101
July 2001
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Marana Transportation Plan Update
Final Report
Modifying the HURF distributions to reflect annual population estimates, rather than
decennial or special census data required by statute, could benefit Marana
substantially. Currently, Marana is shortchanged because the population base is
understated given that census data do not reflect the current population.
Implementing this concept would require a change in State law.
Expand the development impact fee benefit area to include the entire Town, except
for areas excluded by prior agreement. This would essentially double the impact
fee receipts to the Town. However, because the northwestern section of the Town
will develop later in the planning horizon, the actual fee receipts could occur
beyond 2025.
MAI~^N^
J '-
Page 102
July 2001
I
I
I
I
I
I
I .....0
0
N
c::
ns
I
III
c::
0
u
iii
I
c::
III
I
C1l
t=
C
c::
C1l
c..
I ><w
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
7'"';:--':\.
MAI~ANA
I "
Marana Transportation Plan Update
Final Report
Figure 7 - 1
Marana Transportation Plan Expenditures 2002.2025
Ii Capital
o Operation and Maintenance
rff
f L __ _ _'
Streets Transit
Mode
Bikel Pedestrian
Page 103
July 2001
I
I
I
I
I
I
I ~
0
0
C'\l
I -s:::
ns
III
s:::
0
I
0
1Il~
s:::
I ~III
Q)
s:::
Q)
I >Q)
0:::
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
700
Marana Transportation Plan Update
Final Report
Figure 7 - 2
Marana Transportation Plan Revenues 2002-2025
200
100
0
7'";-":-..
MAI~^N^
I "
192
70
43
5.0
12.514
8 3.5
Streets Bike! PedestrianTransit
Mode
Page 104
July 2001
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Marana Transportation Plan Update
Final Report
Potential new sources include the following:
Utilize Improvement Districts, and the variant concept of Community Facility
Districts, to build or rebuild roadways with major developments. The Town has
authority for both CFDs and IDs, but has not used them except for the Dove
Mountain project.
A general sales tax of 1;4 percent dedicated to transportation uses would generate
substantial revenues for the Town. The estimated amount has been quantified in
separate studies and in Technical Memorandum Number 3. Since this is a local
revenue source, it could be used for all modes, and for both construction and O&M.
Others have suggested a statewide transportation sales tax of 112 percent. This
could conceivably generate substantial increases to HURF, but would probably not
provide as much to the Town as the 1;4 percent local sales tax due to distribution to
ADOT and other jurisdictions statewide. The Town should thoroughly evaluate any
statewide sales tax proposal and support it only if in the best interest of Town
residents and business.
7"'~"
MAI~ANA
I'\.
Page 105
July 2001
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Marana Transportation Plan Update
Final Report
8.0 AGENCY AND PUBLIC MEETINGS
8.1 T AC Meetings
A Technical Advisory Committee was established to guide this study. The agencies
and organizations that were represented on this T AC are listed in Table 8-1. Four
meetings were conducted to review the study materials and to assist in development of
the transportation Plan.
The Study Team also met twice with the Planning and Zoning Commission. At the first
meeting, a presentation was made regarding the study and initial findings.
Subsequently, after conduct of the open houses, a public hearing was conducted by
the Planning and Zoning Commission to officially obtain input on the transportation
plan, which would become an element of the town's General Plan. The Commission
developed a recommendation on the plan, which was approved by the Mayor and
Council.
Table 8 - 1
Members of Technical Advisory Committee
Town of Marana Development Services
Town of Marana Public Works
Town of Marana Finance Office
Marana Chamber of Commerce
Pima Association of Governments
Arizona Department of Transportation
Continental Ranch Community Association
City of Tucson Transportation Department
8.2 Public Meetings
Three open houses and one community meeting were held to obtain public input
regarding current and future transit needs. One open house was held in December
19, 2000 at the Sunflower Village Activity Center. There were approximately 30 people
in attendance at this meeting. Information was presented regarding existing transit
services, roadway performance and bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Information was
also presented on funding mechanisms. The public was encouraged to complete a
questionnaire and to indicate their preference for transit and funding alternatives by
using red and green dots to mark their preferences. The preferences were commuter
transit service and a use of a combination of funding sources to fund transportation
improvements. Listed in Table 8-2 are the comments received from participants at the
December 19, Open house.
7""~'\.
MAI~^NA
I '\.
Page 106
July 2001
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Marana Transportation Plan Update
Final Report
Table 8 - 2
Comments Received from the Public
December 19, 2000 Open House
Roads:
1. Top priority- Twin Peaks extended to 1-10 to relieve stress off Cortaro Farms & Ina. (6 comments)
2. Roads are too narrow, sharp turns leading from main road into public parking areas from Silverbell into
Fry's.
3. Intersection at Ina and Silverbell is a mess.
4. Ina & Silverbell-peak times a traffic light control system needed.
5. Developer must put in more streetlights, charge extra for homes.
6. Cortaro Road is a nightmare! Need moratorium on building east of 1-10.
Hartman Road needs paving.
Bicycles:
1. Not any type of priority-this is a luxury - should wait until terrible traffic situation is resolved- no money
should be spent on recreation routes.
2. Would like to see multiple use path connected to the Rillito path, which will cross-town eventually. The trail
system should be established in Continental Ranch.
3. Bike paths- such as on Twin Peaks is part of a rough road surface. Others like on Coachline are smooth.
Rough ones cause me to ride on sidewalks instead. Please repave them when possible.
4. When planning bicycle paths, use Albuquerque, NM concepts as a model. Complete current trails &
paths before starting new ones!
5. More bike lanes on Marana's roads!
6. I feel more roads should be dedicated to bikes with more space between them and traffic.
7. Children using their bicycles without lights, unable to see-must have lights & light clothes police dept.
does not cite.
8. Add a bike lane on eastbound Cortaro east of 1-10 & Silverbell & Cortaro intersection to improve bike
detection please and signal.
9. Santa Cruz corridor for multi use needs parking areas.
Transit:
1. Resume transit system ASAP and advertise its availability!
2. Park and ride lot needed at 1-1 O/Cortaro Road. Bus service easy to use to commute to in town.
3. Park and ride area near Fry's.
4. Look at a rail system.
5. Buses from Marana to Tucson and to Tucson Mall.
6. As the population ages, frequent mass transit to health care and shopping will be absolutely necessary.
7. Rail service to downtown Tucson, to airport. My big concern is unavailability of public transportation
system for handicapped (wheelchair bound) from home, esp. to other areas within this facility.
Pedestrian:
1. Better lighting at 1-10 interchanges, Ina & Cortaro.
2. Watch out for all the cars!
3. In the Town of Marana, according to Police Chief you can block sidewalk with your auto and people must
go around. No city ordinance or state law cited.
4. I love to walk but I would like some more shade! Not really anything can be done about that.
MAUANA
I',
Page 107
July 2001
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Marana Transportation Plan Update
Final Report
Another open house was held at the Home Depot in Marana on January 25, 2001
people signed in at this location. Participants at this Open House were asked to
provide their comments on specific locations in Marana where they have observed
traffic congestion, safety or operational problems, or where they would like the study
team to investigate. Although the public was encouraged to provide comments on
motor vehicle, bike, transit, or pedestrian travel, only comments were received for
roads:
More roads such as Ina and Cortaro Farms Roads should go under the railroad
grade separated interchange) or railroad should be re-routed.
On Cortaro Farms Road at the new Wendy's either install a stop sign or light to
allow traffic in or out. Two very bad accidents already.
Silverbell Road (needs improvements) between Grant Road and Cortaro Farms
Road.
The last Open house to present the draft transportation plan was conducted February
28, 2001 at Coyote Trails School. Seven people attended and the input received was.
Separate bicycles and cars
Separate pedestrians from curb by at least 6 feet
Information on the draft plan was also provided at the Founders' Day event at the old
Town Center on March 17, 2001. A display was provided and handouts describing the
draft plan recommendations were available. Approximately 50 people stopped by the
booth.
A presentation on the draft plan was made to approximately 40 business
owners/operators on Wednesday, March 21, 2001 at a luncheon sponsored by the
Marana Chamber of Commerce. There was considerable interest in the components of
the plan, in particular the funding needs.
MAI~AN^
Page 108
July 2001
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Marana Transportation Plan Update
Final Report
9.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
9.1 Integration with the General Plan
This Transportation plan should be incorporated into the Town's General Plan as the
Circulation Element. The recommendations of this plan should be utilized to direct
future development in the community. All components of the plan, for all modes should
be aggressively implemented.
9.2 Plan Implementation and Maintenance Strategies
Implementation of the capital element of the transportation plan will be a difficult, long-
term effort requiring dedication and commitment of financial and staff resources. The
extent of new construction is fairly major in the near term and almost overwhelming in
the long term. Many projects have at least 10 years lead-time for planning,
environmental clearances, design, and advance right-of-way acquisition. Accordingly,
project initiation needs to begin now for many of the projects in the 2010-2025
program. The following actions are recommended to help implement the plan
effectively.
Integrate the major findings of this plan into the PAG Regional Transportation Plan
update, scheduled for 2002. Plan integration includes not only the projects
identified herein, but also the land use and socio-economic information utilized in
the technical analysis.
Working with PAG and ADOT, initiate an update to the 1-10 General Plan to reflect
the interchange and access changes contained in the Marana Transportation Plan.
The General Plan update should include a construction traffic management
component that assesses how traffic in the 1-10 corridor is redistributed during the
construction phases. These activities are considered regionally significant, and so
PAG and ADOT should take the lead, with ongoing coordination from the Town.
Expand staff capabilities by hiring up to six professional staff, along with support
staff, to act as project managers, planners, points-of-contact, and champions of this
transportation plan.
A transportation professional should champion the transit, bike, and pedestrian
components of the plan and another of the roadway component.
One of the first activities of this staff should be preparation of a strategic plan for the
physical construction of the capital projects. The strategic plan should identify
project phasing, timing, and available funding, much like a long-range capital
improvement program. The strategic plan will likely identify that some projects
such as Tangerine Road west of 1-10) will need to be built to a larger cross section
than shown in this plan due to the phased nature of development and the variations
in traffic flow in developing areas.
MAI~AN^
J '\.
Page 109
July 2001
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Marana Transportation Plan Update
Final Report
Monitor land use, traffic, and environmental constraints on an ongoing basis. If
trends change significantly, this plan may need to be revised or updated to reflect
the changes. For instance, if the pygmy owl constraint on development is lifted,
development trends will shift markedly into what is now owl habitat area.
Initiate new revenue sources to counteract the shortfall within the next three years.
This will help ensure that the projects and maintenance activities can be provided
when needed by the community.
Introduce legislation that allows HURF to be based on current population estimates
rather than census data. This will create equity for faster growing communities like
Marana with only a nominal impact on the slower growth areas.
Due to the rapid growth in the Town, the plan should be updates at least every
three years. The plan should be updated in advance of, or concurrent with, the
Regional Transportation Plan.
K:\11476\Final Report\Final Report Drafts\Final Report 011102.doc
MAI~ANA
I '\.
Page 110
July 2001
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Marana Transportation Plan Update
Final Report
APPENDIX A
TECHNICAL MEMORANDA
Memorandum Number 1: Land Use and Socio-Economic Assumptions
Memorandum Number 2: Marana Travel Demand Model
Memorandum Number 3: Funding Analysis
Memorandum Number 4. 1-10 Traffic Study
Memorandum Number 5: Existing Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities
Memorandum Number 6: Existing Transit Service
Memorandum Number 7: Existing Transit Demand, Performance Data and Future
Needs
Memorandum Number 8: Transit Alternatives Analysis
Memorandum Number 9: Commuter Rail
Memorandum Number 10: Rillito Depot
Copies of these Memoranda can be found on file with the
Marana Development Services Office
3696 W. Orange Grove Road
Tucson, AZ 85741
520-297 -2920
7""~'\.
MAI~^NA
I "
Page 111
July 2001
,
MARANA
TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE
Technical Memorandum # 1
Land Use and Socio-Economic Assumptions
Prepared for.
~r~--~~
MA_
~
~/i~
~ TOWN OF MAAANA . .
The Town of Marana
Department of Public Works
3696 W. Orange Grove Road
Tucson, Arizona 85741
Prepared by.:
= ~ ~
--10o Curtis Lueck & Associates
YEARS
Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc. Curtis Lueck & Associates
177 N. Church Avenue, Suite 500 5780 W. EI Camino del Cerro
Tucson, Arizona 85701 Tucson, Arizona 85745
February 2001
~
• Land Use and Socio Economic Assumptions
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Background 1
1.2 Findings 1
2. SOCIO-ECONOMICS OF THE STUDY AREA 2
2.1 Sub-regions ...........................................................................................2
2.2 Current Conditions 5
2.3 Future Conditions 6
2.4 Comparison with PAG Socio-Economic Forecasts 10
APPENDIX: Socio-Economic Data
LIST OF EXHIBITS
Exhibit 1 Study Area Subregions 2
Exhibit 2 Existing Land Uses in the Study Area 5
Exhibit 3 Summary of Current Socio-economics 5
Exhibit 4 Planned Development Units in Northwest Marana 7
Exhibit 5 Buildout Conditions in Northwest Marana 8
Exhibit 6 Summary of Future Socio-economics by Subregion 9
Exhibit 7 PAG Traffic Analysis Zones in the Study Area .....................................................................................10
Exhibit 8 Comparison of PAG Data to Socio-Economics of this Study .:............................................................11
Marana Transportation Plan Technical Memorandum 1 Page 2
F
• Land Use and Socio Economic Assumptions
1.0 INTRODUCTION
11 Background
The Marana Transportation Plan is an intermodal, interdisciplinary, multi-jurisdictional approach
to evaluate Marana's current and long-term transportation needs. The planning activities include
all modes of ground passenger transportation and as assessment of development patterns in
the Town. The study utilizes a micro-computer based travel demand model to identify roadway
system performance and test the effectiveness of future investments. The analysis includes
existing conditions, 2010, and 2025.
This technical memorandum is the first in a series of ten memorandums that document the
planning process, and which become the foundation of the draft and final plan documents.
Since the transportation system is intended to meet the needs of Town residents and
businesses through 2025, the underlying land use and socio-economic assumptions need to be
reasonably represent what is truly expected to occur given physical, environmental, financial,
and political constraints. This memorandum documents the results of the study Team's work
with the Land Use Advisory Committee to identify future residential and non-residential
development in the study area, and the pace of the this development. Note that the study area
extends beyond the current Town limits, and includes a sphere of influence into unincorporated
Pima Counry.
The Pima Association of Governments also addresses socio-economics at a regional level,
including all of the study area. However, PAGs activities typically are at a more aggregated
level, i.e., the subregions or traffic analysis zones that PAG uses are larger than used in this
study. A comparison between the PAG forecasts and those prepared for the Marana
Transportation Plan is provided herein.
1.2 Findings
The following pages indicate that the Town will continue to grow in population and employment
over the next 25 years. However, current development subregions such as Continental Ranch
will be built out in about 10 year, whereas the northwest Marana subregion will experience most
of its growth after 2010. A comparison of socio-economic characteristics used in this study with
those of PAG show that there is general consistency, although the employment base in this plan
is about twice PAG's. This is due primarily to the inclusion of the recently adopted Northwest
Marana Plan into this study, which may not be in the PAG database. The Land Use Advisory
Committee was instrumental in guiding some of the key decisions about the location and pace
of development.
Page 1
February 2001
Land Use and Socio Economic Assumptions
2A SOCIO-ECONOMICS OF TNE STUDY AREA
2.1 Subregions
The study area was divided into six geographic subregions, which were defined by the
development status of the land uses in the area, the relationship to study area as a whole, and
the transportation facilities in the area. Current land uses in the area were determined from Pima
County's EGIS database, aerial photographs, and through information provided by the Town.
These subregions are illustrated in Exhibit 1 below. Following the exhibit is a description o of
each subregion.
Exhibit i Study Area Subregions
_ - ~
%
;y='
x
~w°
~
~
~ I
_ _ - ~ iy, ~
~ t
~ j
.
. ~
~
~-s ~ \ ~
l
'
~
- ~ a -
~ '
`
~ ~
~ ~
° ~
~
~ ~ 3 ~ $
r
~ ~~~r'~ "x~~,..,--_.~~ ~ .
Northwest Marana
The Northwest area was the subject of a general plan update conducted separately by the
Town while this study was underway. The project team provided input to the circulation element
of the Northwest Plan and reviewed its socio-economic assumptions. This is the area that is the
primary focus of the study because it has the greatest potential for growth in both the near term
Page 2
February 2001
• Land Use and Socio Economic Assumptions
and long term. This growth potential exists because the area is not constrained by
environmental regulations protecting the pygmy owl and because conversion of agricultura~
land to urban uses is a time-proven process in the State. Currently, the land uses are mostly
agricultural. A small business core exists near the Marana traffic interchange (TI) that includes
some of the Town of Marana offices, neighborhood businesses, and freeway commercial uses.
Residential development surrounds this core area. Other major businesses in the subregion
include the Marana Northwest Regional Airport, a State of Arizona correctional facility near Avra
Valley Road and Sanders Road, and Arizona Portland Cement and CTI Trucking near Avra
Valley Road and I-10.
Access to this subregion is through I-10 at the Marana T.I, the Avra Valley TI, and the Tangerine
Road TI
Area 1
Ttiis area can best be described as the area most constrained by the protection of the pygmy
owl habitat. The area contains the Dove Mountain master planned community, which is an on-
going development expected to be completed in about ten years. Other residential
development in the area is low-density, single family homes. A few light industrial uses and the
Breakers Water Park exist along Tangerine Road, near I-10. Several planned-use developments
have been approved for undeveloped property situated south of Tangerine Road and west of EI
Camino de Manana. But, because of the environment concerns and restrictions associated with
the pygmy owl habitat, these plans are not expected to be built at the densities approved, if they
are built at all. Growth in this subregion includes the completion of Dove Mountain and future
development of business uses along the I-10 corridor.
Access to this subregion from the west is from Tangerine Road at I-10. Access from the east is
through Tangerine Road and Lambert Lane, and access to the south is from Thornydale Road,
Camino de Oeste, and EI Camino de Manana.
Area 2
This area contains Continental Ranch, and several planned developments surrounding it. This
area has been growing rapidly over the past several years and is expected to continue for about
ten more years. Commercial and business uses exist along I-10 and along Cortaro Road. The
remainder of the area is currently comprised mostly of residential development. Growth in this
area is based on the buildout of all currently planned development including Continental Ranch,
Saguaro Springs, and Continental Reserve.
Access to this subregion is primarily through the Cortaro Road TI and from Silverbell Road.
Area 3
This area contains over half of the employment and over one-third of the population in the entire
study area. It is currently the Town's major business district with regional shopping areas
including Target, K-Mart, Home Depot, and Costco. This area is considered to be about 95
percent built out at this time.
The area is accessible from the east along Ina Road, Cortaro Road, and Orange Grove Road
and from the west at the Cortaro, Ina Road, and Orange Grove Road Tls. It can be accessed
from the north from Thornydale Road and from Camino de Oeste.
Page 3
February 2001
~ Land Use and Socio Economic Assumptions
Avra Vallev
This area is located west of the Northwest Marana subregion and is in unincorporated Pima
County. Current land uses are agricultural and low- to medium density residential. It is a rural
area that is only expected to grow by about 50 percent over the 25-year study period. The
major business in this area is Evergreen Air Center located at the Pima/Pinal County line.
Primary access to this area is through Marana along Avra Valley Road and Marana Road.
Picture Rocks
This area is southwest of the Continental Ranch Area (Area 2) and is comprised mostly of low- to
medium-density residential development. Neighborhood commerciat uses exist in the area, but
there are no major businesses. This area is also in unincorporated Pima County. The
subregion's population is only expected to increaseby about 20 percent over the study period.
North and east access to this area is through Picture Rocks Road, which connects to Ina Road
near Silverbell and from Sandario Road, which connects to Avra Valley Road and Twin Peaks
Road. Access is also available from the south through Sandario Road. Most of the traffic from
this area uses Marana Roads to access I-10 and the major arterials.
Page 4
February 2001
Land Use and So~io Ecoiwmic Assumptions
Z2 Curre~nt Conditions
Existing land uses in the study area are shown on the map in Exhibit 2, below.
Exh~it 2 Existing Land Uses in the Study Area
,
~ ~ ~ -
. ~
~ ~ ~ .s :
,
~ ~ , ~ ~
~ ~
~ ' a ~
~ ~
~
~ ~
~ ~ ~ ° ~ ~ '
y
~ Q. ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~
~ ~~v~ ~i~..'
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~r
. ~ ` ~ a x ~ x ~ ~ # xs~ -
~ ~ ~ ~ a
~ ~~~a k' ~ rt, ~ ~ f ~
f' ~ ~ , ~ ,:1~
: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~
.x~ f'~: ~ r « ~^`v.'~ ~ t :
~ + .
~ . ~ r~~~~~ # ~.u ~ ~ ~ ~ .
~ ~ ~
~ _ x~ ~ ~~'~.~,.y,, ;s~
~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ' _
-7' ~ ~
~ ~ , t ~ . ~k ~ ~ r; I +
~ - d~'"~" ~ ~ i~t ff~y 1 ~ ~iii k~ ~ I 1' ~1 Y'` } ~
~
. ~r- , y `~`s° ,t a a~.>.~
~,~'c a 1 l~ ~ ~
: s ° I ~I~, V~
~ - ' I I I 4 I ~ i~ il'~ ~ ~ ~!F ~}1 ~ ! .'SU
.
. . ,
.
I
. . F'{ ~ Yy4 ~ ~ ~ .
~
.a , . _ , ~
+ Y
, I ~
~ ~ ~ ~ '
*~y: ,sf.
~
~ "t
. ~-j~~ ` -
~ ~f
~~W.~ T ~ ~ ~ ~ .
- L ~ j ~ . .
G~k~+~Ai ~ '
, £
~ ~ Ri~BOrt ;r.z,
~s
.
~ . .
_
~
- ~ ' IIrIYIrMI1~Ml~. ~ ~ ~~~i ~ ~ ~ - ~
. B . s
i
t.,~ ~ } , .
'n ~c' .~i2 ~ .>'tt,•~
~r. . r .N .;Fs. ~~,P ,r~ .aa`~.r.:-, _ , m. , ,
The following table, Exhibit 3 summarizes the current socio-economic data for each .
subregion that was used in the Existing Conditions Travel Demand ModeL
Exhibit 3 Summary of Current Socio-economics
Area Acr+es Dwelting Retail Non-Retail
(Approxi~nate) Units Employees Employees
Northwest Marana 36,000 950 175 665
Percentaf Total 24~ 5% 6% 19~
Area 1 25,000 1,830 200 60
Percentof Total 16% 1~% 6% 2%
Area 2 10,500 3,200 490 850
Percentof Total 7% 19% 16% 24%
Area 3 6,000 6,150 1,900 1,285
Percent of Total 4% 36 % 61 % 36 %
Avra Valley 50,000 2,570 240 540
PercentofTotal 33% 15% 8% 15%
Picture Rocks 25,000 2,590 130 130
Page 5
February 2001
~ Land Use and Socio Economic Assumplions
Percent of Total 16% 15% 4% 4%
2.3 Future Conditions
Future land use in each of the subregions is based on current development plans and zoning.
The timing and intensity of development was established through the Land Use Advisory
Committee established for this planning process. All current development plans in Areas 1, 2,
and 3 are assumed to be complete by 2010. Avra Valley is assumed to grow by 20 percent in
2010 and by 50 percent in 2025. Growth rates applied to Picture Rocks are 10 percent in 2010
and 20 percent in 2025.
Northwest Marana land use is based on the Northwest Marana Area Plan adopted by the Town
of Marana on October 17, 2000. The following graphic, Exhibit 4 identifies the development
units used in this study that are contained in the adopted plan.
Page 6
February 2001
Land Use and Socio Ecorwmic Assumptions
Exhibit 4 Planned Devebpment Units in Northwest Marana
PINAt PARIC~dAY
1~,
( E Low villages
NE Med lages
i
1 ~
I
~
SE Me villa ~
I I
SE
0
~
~ , rCial
0
~ RINE RD
~ rc~l Z
~ il
~ ~ ~
~
~ , ~ Y` ~1,I 'i
j" I
'~~I~I ~~~I~~,, ~'~I,iu,, I
Industrial b I
I I I I Y
~
AVRA VALLEY RD
South Med villages
f ~
iWIN PEAKS Rfl
~ ~ ~
The Land Use Advisory Committee concluded that buildout of the area wouid occur after 2025
and advised that 75 percent of total buildout is a reasonable assumption of development for the
study period. The Committee also indicated that there would be no new development east of
Interstate 10 at 2010. Growth factors for the development west of I-10 were applied at different
rates for the various development units. The following tables summarize the estimated land use
in the northwest area at buildout.
Page 7
February 2001
• Land Use and Socio Economic Assumptions
Exhibit 5 Buildout Conditions in Northwest Marana
Commercial Land Use Summary
Unif Commercia// F/oor/~Irea Total6ui/ding
Business Acres Rafio Square Footage
Town Center 315 15% 2,685,850
SE Medium Density Villages 160 12% 84,1000
SE Low Density Villages 20 12% 105,000
NE Medium Density Villages 100 12% 523,000
NE Low Density Villages 70 12% 366,000
South Medium Density Villages 90 12% 470,000
Ranchettes/Estates South 0 0
Ranchettes/Estates North 0 0
I-10 Commercial Corridor 800 18% 6,272,000
Airport Commercial Zone 230 20% 2,004,000
Industrial/Business Parks 390 20% 3,398,000
Residential Land Use Summary
Unit Acres Units Tofa?
Per Acre Dwel/ings
Town Center 260 6 1,560
SE Medium Density Villages 1,450 4 5,800
SE Low Density Villages 310 3 935
NE Medium Density Villages 1,495 4.5 6,730
NE Low density Villages 1,255 3 3,765
South Medium Density Villages 1,075 4 4,280
Ranchette/Estates South 6,100 0.75 4,575
Ranchette/Estates North 3,395 OJ5 2.545
Total 30,195
The following table, Exhibit 6, provides a summary of the socio-economics for each of the
subregions at 2010 and 2025. The table also shows the existing and buildout estimates for
each subregion and the growth factor used to estimate the 2010 and 2025 socio-economics.
Page 8
February 2001
. y
~ ~
C h O ~ O Ln O O~ ~
d r e`7 ~ O ONO N~ n O O O O O O N ~°D ~ O - ~
N V n tf) N M c'7 ~ N N~ c`~ M ~
~
~i.~i ~ ~ . p . ~
~ O ~ ~ ~ ^ ~ t0 (~D O O ~ C~O O l~ N N O ~ ~ ~ ~ 1!~ . ~ .
lt)
N O~. f0 c7 N N N N I~ N~ W ~
y Z
Q 'moo ou~~n o'r~ o u~~o
~ I~A f~ ~ V M c"> O O O ll7 O~ N M M l~[) U . .
~ M ~
_ ~ N ~ . .
Q ~ tn~ O O O~~ . . lA O O O 1A O~
W ~MGnO~~~~~~00004'O~ ~(~Oe~~ 00~0
Q. ~ N W Cb~ C~ N~.
~ _ _
V O ~ w
~9 O ~
y N ~ M~.. (V O O ~ Q O ~ ~ .D ~ N ~ N t~ N ~ L~] . ~ ~ T .
N I~ ~ YO < . . ~
~ ~ Z ~ O
= 3 ~ N
~ y ~r`~i~NOO~ooo~o~~o~°n ~~rn a ~
; ~ ~ LL'~ e~- ~N~c~7 ~N ~ i
.Q
~ ~ ~ N e o 0 0 o e o e o o e o~.C-. o ~ O o 0 o N o e ~ ~
-o~nu~~n~n~n~n~n~nu~~n~nu~ v~u~ °OO°o°o f0oo
O ~c~tn~n~i.n~~~r~ni.~Xr~ du~cv
= m w m~
o ~
O °
~ ~ _
~ $°o~°e o~°~o o~°e a o o c c c ~ooo ~
O a N N tn N°O O N N~ t[i °t!\j ~,41 .N ,N O O O d O O .
~ W W W d ~ ~ d N ~
V
0 y
. y C ~ o ~ o tn o In ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .
O N
- ~ i~ p~p N~j ~ O O O O O O N ~ ~
i 2~- IC) CO M V V N t~0 ~ . . ~ ~ .
~ b
i~
~ O
,F. ,d ~ M O O O O O f~ n M O tn O~ O l~f) ~~fl . ~ .
O m C~ CO M~v~j O O. O N O~ tn N~ . ~ , . .
N ~ N(O ~ l'7 tn f~ e-
i Z
~~N, 1!') O O O O O . ~ ~ p ~ ~ . ~ .
~ ~ CO t~ N O N N O O O O ~ O~ ~ . . ~
~(O (O a V (D ~ N ~ c'~
,~w
Y,w/ N
• ~ ~
W C
3 ~ ooo~ °~N°°~ 'A~
~chco~ .c.iN~.
~ ~
~ ~ ~
W ~ o'~ o'~ co a' o^o e~ a
UJ p ~ ~ N ~ f~0 ~ N tn e~-~ . ~ . .
Z
N ~ ~~Or ~0~~~ MM~~~ .
~ N a. aD N ~ . ~
C
O
N
N
y y Of ~
N N ~ N
~ N ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ C 'L~ ~ ~ .
~ ~ N~ N'y~_j C~ Z N N d C q . .
Q 'C ~ C Q ~ ~ ~ fC ~ U .
N ~ N ~ N C
~ fq 0 v~ E W u V E N O 3 N
v
~ p ~ p ~ in in o o m a~'~C m o
a> a~
a> c
U`c 3'v 3~ a~i m o U w ` a °
J~ J'C U U U O O O.~- 2 ~ N~ ~
~ c c o a n a:-
N G~`1 N ~ U
f°-uWi~zzc°n~~='a ~Q~ =i°- ¢aa a'a
~ Land Use and Socio Economic Assumptions
24 Comparison with PAG Sociaeconomic Forecasts
The Pima Association of Governments also includes Marana in its regional transportation plans
and programs. Therefore, it is prudent to compare the socio-economic assumptions used in the
PAG models with those derived in this Plan. The PAG TAZ's that are included in the study area
are shown in the graphic below at Exhibit 7. The details of each TAZ are included in the
appendix. A comparison of the PAG data to the socio-economic data used in this study at 2025
is provided in the table in Exhibit 8.
Exhibit 7 PAG Traffic Analysis Zones in the Study Area
~Ad ~
t
: ~ 547
<
s, ~
, ~
~ ~
5111
~ ~ 502~", ~ ~ ~'i~ ~
~s
~~~Y
. ~ , -
~ ~ ° ~ : >x~~
, . . ~ r
'~0~ ~ ,
"~ltt 44Q dd2
~ ' ~W8 ~ ±t50 ~ ~ ~
~ A~1 ~ ~4d fi: z +~6 4~'t
~ ~ ~ ` ~ 4~d9' d51
~ ~ ~ ~ 3~ ~
~ ~ s~ ^
~ ,
~ a ~ ~~377 ~ ~ 387 ~
~ s ~ : ~ 37 ,L ~
~ ss ~ ~ ~ ~
~
y4 ~
> T ~ ~
- - ~ ~ , ~ ~ . .
? .„a' 5 r
t
:
~
, ' . . . . ~ ~ \ n.. .
„ . ; . ~ ;
. : ~ , ~ : ; .
r z?i
Page 10
February 2001
' Land Use and Socio Economic Assumptions
Exhibit 8 Comparison of PAG Data to Socio-Economics of this Study
PAG 2025 TOM STUDY DIFFERENCE PERCENT OF PAG
(~OM minus PAG) ESTIMATE
Area Dwellings Employment Dwellings Employment Dwellings Employment Dwellings Employment
Northwest M 9,379 4,338 21,215 20,480 11,837 16,143 226°/a 472%
Area 1 13,510 2,799 5,900 4,425 (7,610) 1,626 44% 158%
Area 2 9,886 2,329 9,700 2,625 (186) 296 98% 113%
Area 3 5,875 3,088 6,500 5,245 625 2,157 111% 170%
Avra Valley 3,777 805 3,860 1,165 83 360 102% 145%
Picture Roc 2,357 581 3,105 310 748 (271) 132% 53%
TOTAL 44,783 13,940 50,280 34,250 5,498 20,310 112% 246%
Page 11
February 2001
~
APPENDIX
Page 1
February 2001
~
` Land Use and Socio Economic Assumptions
PAG Socio-economic data
PAG SOCIO-ECONOMIC DATA TOTAL ASSIGNED TO AREA
AREA TAZ DU Retail Non Retail Dwellings Retail Non Retail Total
Employment
AREA 1 100% 381 0 127 1067 0 127 1067 1194
AREA 1 100% 446 1026 68 264 1026 68 264 332
AREA 1 100% 447 2116 93 143 2116 93 143 236
AREA 1 100% 448 563 50 78 563 50 78 128
AREA 1 100% 449 1268 84 110 1268 84 110 194
AREA 1 100% 450 657 93 121 657 93 121 214
AREA 1 100% 451 966 74 94 966 74 94 168
AREA 1 100% 549 5313 35 281 5313 35 281 316
AREA 1 75% 551 2134 0 23 1601 0 17 17
13510 624 2175 2799
Difference (TOM Study - PAG Data)
AREA 2 30% 374 2118 27 296 635 8 89 97
AREA 2 100% 375 3060 60 191 3060 60 191 251
AREA 2 100% 376 1307 98 226 1307 98 226 324
AREA 2 100% 377 2368 139 163 2368 139 163 302
AREA 2 100% 378 90 89 422 90 89 422 511
AREA 2 100% 379 1527 296 388 1527 296 388 684
AREA 2 75% 445 1198 41 173 899 31 130 161
9886 721 1609 2329
AREA 3 100% 301 252 20 546 252 20 546 566
AREA 3 100% 380 714 171 412 714 171 412 583
AREA 3 100% 383 1564 71 152 1564 71 152 223
AREA 3 100% 384 457 0 98 457 0 98 98
AREA 3 100% 386 2888 637 981 2888 637 981 1618
5875 899 2189 3088
AV 80% 437 246 3 121 197 2 97 99
AV 30% 438 1784 134 430 535 40 129 169
AV 100% 496 78 17 52 78 17 52 69
AV 100% 497 1409 37 142 1409 37 142 179
AV 100% 498 1051 23 126 1051 23 126 149
AV 100% 543 83 0 75 83 0 75 75
AV 20% 374 2118 27 296 424 5 59 65
3777 125 680 805
NWM 100% 439 813 23 53 813 23 53 76
NWM 100% 440 744 49 224 744 49 224 273
NWM 100% 441 7 31 230 7 31 230 261
NWM 100% 442 1335 197 354 1335 197 354 551
NWM 100% 443 1140 2 39 1140 2 39 41
NWM 100% 444 555 6 730 555 6 730 736
NWM 25% 445 1198 41 173 300 10 43 54
NWM 100% 499 637 15 110 637 15 110 125
NWM 100% 500 331 15 206 331 15 206 221
NWM 100% 501 613 68 149 613 68 149 217
NWM 100% 502 193 63 704 193 63 704 767
NWM 100% 544 121 20 65 121 20 65 85
NWM 100% 545 49 15 92 49 15 92 107
NWM 100% 546 1342 29 102 1342 29 102 131
NWM 100% 547 599 50 278 599 50 278 328
NWM 100% 548 600 50 315 600 50 315 365
9379 643 3694 4338
PR 50% 374 2118 27 296 1059 14 148 162
PR 70% 20% 437 246 3 121 49 1 24 25
PR 70% 70°/a 438 1784 134 430 1249 94 301 395
2357 108 473 581
Page 2
February 2001
M
r
MARANA
TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE
Technical Memorandum #2
Marana Travei Demand Modei
Prepared for:
~
MA_
~-i' 1 ~
. TOWNOFMARANA ~ ~
The Town of Marana
Department of Public Works
3696 W. Orange Grove Road
Tucson, Arizona 85741
Prepared by:
- _ ~ ~
--~oo Curtis Lueck & Associates
YEANS
Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc. Curtis Lueck & Associates
177 N. Church Avenue, Suite 500 5780 W. EI Camino del Cerro
Tucson, Arizona 85701 Tucson, Arizona 85745
February 2001
, I
i
~
I
+ Marana Trave/ Demand Mode/ I
I
I
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS j
1.0 OVERVIEW ................................................................................................1
2.0 TRAVEL DEMAND 1
2.1 Trip Generation 1
2.2 Trip Distribution 2
2.3 Mode Split 2
2.4 Traffic Assignment 2
2.5 Model Output 2
3.0 BASELINE MODEL 2
3.1 Socio-Economic Data 3
3.2 Roadway Segments 3
3.3 Calibration of Existing Conditions Model 6
4.0 FUTURE CONDITIONS MODEL 6
4.1 Roadway Segments 8
4.2 Future Conditions Model Output 9
4.3 Freeway Volumes 12
5.0 ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS 14
APPENDIX
List of Exhibits
Exhibit 1 Current Conditions Sociaeconomics 3
Exhibit 2 Existing Major Road Inventory 5
F~chibit 3 Calibration Model 6
Exhibit 4 Socio-economics for 2010 Model 7
Exhibit 5 Socio-economics for 2025 Model 8
Exhibit 6 Planned Roadway Improvements 8
Exhibit 7 Traffic Volumes and Roadway Capaciry Requirements at 2010 ........................................................10
Exhibit 8 Traffic Volumes and Roadway Capaciry Requirements at 2025 ........................................................11
Exhibit 9 Summary of Current and Future Traffic Volumes .................................................................................12
Exhibit 10 Analysis of Interstate 10 Pass-Through Traffic .................................................................................12
Exhibit 11 Current and Future Freeway Volumes ........................................:.....................................................13
Exhibit 12 Summary of Roadway Improvements and Estimated Construction Costs ....................................15
' Marana Trave/ Demand Model
1.0 OVERVIEW
This is the second in a series of ten technical memorandums prepared for the Marana
Transportation Plan. it documents the preparation of the microcomputer based travel demand
model that is the foundation for assessing curcent system performance and defining future
improvements. Travel demand models are used extensively throughout the United States and
abroad to help understand how changes in the transportation system and land use will
influence each other. The concepts employed during modeling are simple and logical, yet
mathematically rigorous. Accordingly, modeling is usually carried out on a personal
computer, although manual calculations can be performed for the simplest of problems. The
Pima Association of Governments uses a travel demand model which is suitable for regional
planning, but is often not detailed enough to deal with more finite sub-regional issues or
operational analysis. The Town of Marana has elected to prepare a more detailed model for
use in this plan.
2.0 TRAVEL DEMAND MODEL
The travel demand modeling process consists of four primary steps: trip generation, trip
distribution, mode split, and traffic assignment. The four steps are carried out on a graphical
network of roadway links that define the street network and land uses described in "centroids"
and "external stations." The software used in the study is QRSII, a standard four-step travel
demand model. The software is user-friendly, affordable, and could be used regularly by
Town staff with minimal training. The QRSII software has two componen#s. The General
Network Editor is the graphic user interface that supports the QRSII protocoL
The basic modeling process is described below, followed by a discussion of how the model
was applied to this project and the outcome of the modeling efforts.
2.1 Trip Generation
Trip generation is a function of the land use and intensity of development, and is comprised of
two elements: productions and attractions. The trips generated by a land development
include those produced on-site and those attracted to the site from outside areas. As
examples, the typical detached single-family residence generates about ten trips per day and
apartments generate about seven trips per day. The number of trips generated by a home
depend on the economic characteristics of the residents such as the number of cars that they
own, the availability of alternative modes such as public transit, and the age of the occupants.
Age-restricted communities generate slightly fewer trips that are less likely to occur during
rush hours because there are fewer trips to and from work.
The QRSII model uses three land use attributes to help define trip generation: the number of
dwelling units, retail employment, and non-retail employment. Additional demographic
characteristics can be used if necessary. Household income can be expressed in dollars or
as the number of autos in the household. Trips are produced and attracted at these land uses
based on their relative magnitude and other socio-economic attributes. The socio-economic
characteristics of Marana, now and in the future, are discussed in detail in Technical
Memorandum 1.
The model does not directly incorporate the familiar ITE trips rates used in manual trip
generation estimates. However, the trip generation from the QRS II model results in similar trip
Page 1
~ ~ ^ February 2001
Curtis Lueck & Associates ~
' Marana Travel Demand Model
rates to ITE. The model can be calibrated to reproduce ITE trip rates for individual land uses
by fine-tuning the socio-economic data for the specific use. This is typically not done because
it could compromise the overall calibration of the modeL
2.2Trip Distribution
The trips produced at each land use zone or centroid are attracted to other zones, and to
other uses within the same zone. The model creates a trip interchange table for travel between
zones based on the size of the project and distance between zones.
2.3 Mode Split
In this step, the model allocates person-trips to available travel modes, i.e., highway or transit.
The result is vehicle-trips, which are needed for estimating the amount of vehicular traffic on
the roadway. The model allows vehicle occupancy to differ by trip purpose and by time of
day, which is consistent to actual travel behavior. For the Marana Transportation Plan, only
trips by personal vehicle are considered.
2.4Traffic Assignment
The projected trips are assigned to the roadway network based on a minimum time path
analysis from the trips' origins to their destinations. The assignment process considers
congestion and delay through a series of iterations. The final routing is captured by the model
in an output data file, that can be viewed graphically or in tabular form. The number if
iterations can affect the results. A single iteration represents an "all-or-nothing" assignment,
whereas extens~ve iteration results in an "equilibrium" assignment. The model was set to run
enough iterations to represent know travel behavior and distribution between different
classifications of roadway.
2.5Model Output
The results of the modeling process are saved in detailed digital files, in network plots, and in
tabular listings. Output can include daily traffic volumes, hourly volumes, turning movements,
person-trips, travel time, system speed, etc. Most output can be displayed graphically on a
network plot.
3.0 BASELINE MODEL
The modeling process requires the creation of a roadway network and associated land uses
that closely reflect current traffic conditions. This is called the baseline model. When the
network is correctly established and the settings of the software are adjusted correctly, the
baseline model output will replicate existing conditions within 20% on any given section of
roadway, and within about 5% overall. Once the baseline model is prepared and calibrated,
the probable changes in land use and to the transportation system within the study area are
added to the baseline model to forecast future traffic volumes.
For this study, the baseline model was calibrated against current traffic counts provided by
the Town of Marana, Pima Counry DOT, and the Pima Association of Governments
Transportation Planning Division. Current land uses in the area were determined from Pima
County's EGIS database, aerial photographs, and through information provided by the Town.
Page 2
~ ~ A February 2001
Curtis Lueck & Associates ~
Marana Trave/ Demand Modei
3.1 Socio~ca~omic D~ata
The centroid data contains information taken from the Pima County Assessors records as
contained in Pima County's GIS database from April 2000. Generally, each centroid
represents a subdivision or development and contains the current number of occupied
homes. The number of retail and non-retail employees at non-residential devefopments were
estimated to produce a daily trip rate that reasonably matches the ITE trip rate for the type of
development. The following graphic, Exhibit 1, provides a summary of the number of homes
and employment within each area that are contained in the Existing Conditions, or Baseline
modeL
Exhibit i Current Conditions Socio-economics
„ , ~ , ~ ~
, ' ~~r'
;
~ , ~ ~ ~ ~ , ~ h~~ ~
, 4
~ ~d i ~ ~j ~ ~ ~
~u,p~ ~
~
~
~
~
~
~ ,
_ , , , . . .
f.
r - ~ x
~ux
-LYw '!Yi _ t
~ .y ~
~ ~
~ t . _ ~
~
j ~S ~5~~ .
~Xk:
~ . ,s
; _
~ ~ ..a .
° . ry~y~~y~~~~
: . . - . . , .7GW.f/)n°r+~~. ~
.
~ 490 Ret~il ~ ~
~ ; , ~ : ~ 850 ~
_ ~ Non ~Retail ~ ~
- ,
.
_ - ~ . ~ _ ~
~ . :
.
r ~
~ ' ~ : ~~1'~ ~ ~ ~
~ . AREA 2
, _
~ ~
r
- .
, : s ' ~ r k . . . . ~ '
~ yg~
S 4 . .~;-t ~ _
` _ , . ~ ~ Si _ .
d:.
. ~ : . ~ . . v . . . . } 5
" 1 . . , ~ - Y' " - . t
" S.} '\h k " S "2
~
~ f
~ ~ z
~
: ` ~ ; a : rr y .
r ~ '
. _ ,
.
, ~ " : :
} ,
,
~ ~ : t . , .
; : _ , . . . ~
~ ~
.
_
~
' . . s. - ' E : _ . .
~ , , ; } ~ ~ , = ' . ' . _
t
~ X,> p
t ~
x? r.
. . i . . .
3.2Roadway Segments
The existing conditions model represents roadways, as they existed in April 2000. The
following table, F~chibit 2, provides an inventory of the significant roadways in the study area
Page 3
1 A February 2001
y Marana Travel Demand Model
and includes the physicai characteristics, the recorded ADT, and the current operating level of
service (LOS).
The recorded volumes were obtained from several sources including the Pima Association of
Governments (PAG) annual traffic counting program, Pima County Department of
Transportation, and Town of Marana. The source is identified in the table.
Page 4
~ ~ A February 2001
CurHs Lueck ffi Associates .
' Marana Trave/ Demand Model
Exhibit 2 Existing Major Road Inventory
Roadway Name Segment Travel Median Speed Paved Recorded Source Year Capacity LOS Functio~al
From To Lanes Limit ADT Recorded Classi~cation
Avra Valley Road West of Anway 2 No 55 Yes 450 Marana 2000 13500 G+ Arterial
Avra Valley Road Anway Trico 2 No 55 Yes 2938 Marana 2000 13500 G+ Arterial
Avra Valley Road Trico Clayton 2 No 55 Yes 5160 Marana 2000 13500 G+ Arteriai
Avra Valley Road Gayton Sanders 2 No 55 Yes 5761 PAG 200Q 13500 G+ Arteriai
Avra Valley Road Sanders Airline 2 No 55 Yes 6225 PAG 2000 13500 G+ Arterial
Avra Valley Road Airline Santa Cruz River 2 CLT 55 Yes 6225 PAG 2000 14175 G+ Arterial
Avra Valley Road Santa Cruz River I-10 2 No 55 Yes 6225 PAG 2000 13500 G+ Arterial
Bamett Road Sanders I-10 Frontage 2 No 35 Yes 894 PAG 2000 10200 G+ Coliector
EI Cmo de Manana I-10 Frontage Rd Linda Vsta 2 No 35 Yes 422 PAG 1999 10200 C/+ Coliector
EI Crta de Manana Linda ~sta Cmo de Oeste 2 No 35 Yes 346 Marana 2000 10200 G+ Collector
EI ario de Manana Tangerine Moore 2 No 35 No 85 Model 10200 G+ Collector
Camino de Oeste Cortaro Linda Vsta 2 CLT 35-45 Yes 11713 PIMA CO 1999 10710 F Collector
Carrrno de Oeste Linda vsta EI cmo de Manana 2 f~b 35 Yes 1285 PIMA CO 1996 10200 G+ Collector
Coachline Sliverbell Twin Peaks 4 CLT 35 Yes . 2787 Marana 2000 22500 G+ Collector
Cortaro Road Ina Silverbell 2 No 40 Yes 1800 CLA est 1998 10200 G+ Colledor
Cortaro Road Silverbell I-10 2 CLT 45 Yes 20365 PAG 2000 15330 F Arterial
Cortaro Road 1-10 Hartman 2 No 45 Yes 16661 Marana 2000 15300 F Arterial
Cortaro Road Hartman Thomydale 2 No 45 Yes 17264 PAG 2000 15300 F Arterial
Cortaro Road Thomydale Shannon 2 No 45 Yes 15071 PIMA CO 1999 15300 F Arterial
Dove Mountain Blvd Tangerine Moore 4 Yes 40 Yes 4201 Marana 2000 29300 G+ Arterial
Dove Mountain Blvd Moore Northwest 4 Yes 40 Yes 390 Model 29300 G+ Arterial
Emigh Sanders Sandario 2 No 35 Yes 1770 PIMA CA 1997 10200 G+ Collector
Grier Sanders Sandario 2 No 35 Yes 752 PAG 1999 10200 G+ Collector
Grier Sandario Lon Adams 2 No 25 Yes 752 PAG 1999 10200 G+ Colledor
Grier Lon Adams I-10 Frontage 2 No 25 Yes 752 PAG 1999 10200 G+ Colledor
Hardin Trico Ludcett 2 No 50 Yes 800 Model 10200 G+ Colledor
Hardin Luckett I-10 2 No 50 No 290 PAG 1999 10200 G+ Colledor
Hartman Cortaro Fartns Linda Vsta 2 No 35 Yes 3408 Model 10200 Colledor
Ina Road Artesiano Wade 2 No 35 Yes 343 PIAAA CO 1999 10200 D Colledor
Ina Road Wade Silverbell 2 No 35 Yes 7434 PIMA CO 1999 10200 D Collector
Ina Road Silverbell I-10 2 CLT 45 Yes 11035 PIMA CO 1999 13500 D Arterial
Ina Road i-10 Old Father 4 Yes 45 Yes 28356 Marana 2000 31700 D Arterial
Ina Road Old Father Thomydale 4 Yes 45 Yes 33067 PAG 2000 31700 E Arterial
Kirby Hughes Luckett Wentz 2 No 35 Yes 795 Modd 10200 G+ Collector
Lambert Lane Hartman Thomydale 2 No 35 Yes 451 PIMA CO 1999 10200 G+ Colledor
linda vsta Bivd Camirro de Manana Bald Eagle 2 No 45 Prt 305 PAG 1999 10200 G+ Collector
Linda Vista Blvd Bald Eagle Cmo de Oeste 2 No 45 Yes 1360 PIMA CO 1999 10900 G+ Colledor
Linda V sta Bivd Cmo de Oeste Thomydale 2 No 45 Yes 7166 PIMA CO 1999 10900 D Colled~
Lon Adams Bamett Grier 2 No 35 Yes 1232 Marana 2000 10200 G+ Colledor
Ludcett Grier Hardin 2 No 35 Yes 276 PAG 2000 10200 G+ Colledor
Marana Road Trico Sandario 2 No 4~50 Yes 2818 Marana 2000 13500 G+ Arterial
Oasis EI aro de Manana Cmo de Oeste 2 No 35 Yes 720 Model 10200 G+ Colledor
Orange Grove I-10 Thomydale 4 Yes 45 Yes 31382 PAG 2000 31700 D Arterial
Orange Grove Thomydale EI Cmo de la Tierra 4 CLT 45 Yes 15941 PAG 2000 31700 G+ Arterial
Pecos Way Thomydale Cmo de la Tierta 2 No 45 Yes 4678 PIMA CO 1999 10200 C Coiledw
Picture Rodcs Sanders Sandario 2 No 40 Yes 1472 PIMA CO 1996 10200 G+ Colledor
Pidure Rocks Sandario Nbnument Ebundary 2 No 40 Yes 5035 PIMA CA 2000 10200 C Colledor
Pidure Rocks Monument Boundary Wade 2 No 40 Yes 6211 PIMA CO 1999 10200 C Coliector
Pinal Air Park Trico I-10 2 No 50 Yes 875 Model 13500 G+ Arterial
PosNale Moore Bamett 2 No 35 Yes 0 Model 10200 G+ Collector
Sandario Road Manville Pidure Rodcs 2 No 55 Yes 3432 PAG 2000 13500 G+ Arterial
Sandario Road Pidure Rocks Twin Peaks 2 No 45 - 55 Yes 5723 PAG 2000 13500 G+ Arterial
Sandario Road Twin Peaks Avra Vailey 2 No 55 Yes 3429 PAG 2000 13500 G+ Arterial
Sandario Road Moore I-10 2 No 35 Yes 2451 Merana 2000 13500 G+ Arterial
Sanders Manville Orange Grove 2 No 25 Yes 478 PAG 1999 13500 G+ Arterial
Sanders Road Avra Valley Moore 2 No 35-50 Yes 2121 PAG 2000 13500 G+ Arterial
Sanders Moore Rd Marana Rd 2 No 45 Yes 2121 PAG 2000 13500 G+ Arterial
Sanders Marana Rd {Grby Hughes 2 No 35 Yes 95 Model 10200 G+ Collector
Sliverbeil Ca~tio Trico 2 No 45-50 Yes 170 Malel 10200 G+ Coliector
Silverbell Trico Sa~ders 2 No 50 Yes 1215 Marana 2W0 102U0 G+ Colled~
Capacity is based on LOS D
Capaciry and LOS are taken from the Florida DOT Generalized Annual Leve/ of Service tables
Page 5
~ L A February 2001
Curtis Lueck & Associates
Marana Travel Demand Model
3.3Cali~ration af Existing Conditions Moclel
The existing conditions model was calibrated using the data contained in the table above.
Exhibit 3 is a graphic produced from the model, which shows the result of the calibration effort.
The model was calibrated within 20 percent on most of the major routes, particularly in the
northwest area where this study is focused. A detailed list is provided in the appendix that
shows the comparison of recorded ADT and output ADT on the major roadway segments.
The model produced an average daily trip rate of about 10.9 per dwelling unit. This compares
favorably with the ITE average trip generation rate of 9.57 trips for single-family detached
housing.
Exhibit 3 Calibration Model
~
~ ~ m
~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ -S ~
~ ~
~ ~
Pinal Pkwy
Hardin Rd ~
~ ~
6
Marana Rd ' ,
t3~ Rd ~ m...w ~
8azn~t Rd ~ = ~..~w.
- d
Moae Rd ~ ~ ~ ~
" Tangerine Rs1
~ l< ~
I
3
~
~ Avra Valley Rd ~ ~ ~
,
Y~
x
; Linda Vista
win Peaks Rd ~
~
„
v zx ~ ~ ~ COn3Ffl
H/I~hlTl ~
c
. ~
~
Low ~ ~ fna Rd
~
~ ~~_.a_
High T QrangeGro
~a..,~.,,.,,,. ° ~ ~
4.0 FUTURE CONDITIONS MODELS
Future conditions were analyzed for the two horizon years - 2010 and 2025. The background
information pertaining to the socio-economic data for each of these periods is discussed in the
Land Use and Economics Section. The following graphics, Exhibit 4 and 5 provide a
summary of the employment and dwelling units contained in the models for each horizon year.
Page 6
February 2001
r t w
Marana Travel Derr~and Model
Exhibit 4 Socio-economics fo~ 2010 Model
~ , , ~
~ ~
, r
i i~ ~
r
. f ~f . P ~ s
~i
~
fMe~:~~~ ' ««.~.,,,k .
~
" ; .
~ ,
: .
~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ e ~ ~ ~ {
~ ~ ~ i
~ 3
~ ~ r
~ , ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ; ~ ~
~ ~
3 ~
~ # ~ ~
~ ~ s ~ ~ _
~
~ 96 ~
, ~~,u.4
~ ~ ~ ~ . ~
12~ ~ it
~ ~ ~ ~~2 f ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~"~3 ~ ~ ~ ~
, ~ d Z . ~ j / 9 ~k d l .
3} ~a *,2 A t~ ~ g~ ~ ~ ~ .~ej..«.-f.~+.d. _
t t. v r t j {
~ ~ ~
; ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
_ ~ ~ ~ ~ ___,.~1r~"` ~ " , . . .
i z , .~~,,,,~,1~
.n : s ~ ; . ~
~
~ ~
~ . pk a . s~.. x
F, ~
. . . ~ ~ . ` , ~ e . .
.
~t ~ - . 3~~ ` .
, ~
~
~ Y
5 a ~ . .
f ~ . ~ .
~ i
~y
~
Page 7
r~T7, February 2001
Marana Travei Demand Model
Exhibit 5 Socio-economics fo~ 2025 Model
` ~ '
~
~ ~f~' ~ ~
~ ; ~ ~
~
~
i { ~ rj ~
~ ~ ~
~ ~L~r+1il~~
~ ~
..~..d....
, ~ , _
~ ~ ~
-
,
~ ~ ~
_
' t~ww.w ~ ~ _
~ ~ ~ j'' ~
- r , ~ ~ ? a
~
,g y ; ~ . , . .~8~ ~~.5
. ~ 1375 Refa(f
~ ~ ' ~ . : " ~ 125f1 Nan Ret~! ~
~x ~
. ~ . ' 4 . ~45~~ .
~ AREA 2
~ x ~
~ ~
,_A. r ~ ~
;
~
t . `
~ . ;
; ~
F ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
_ -
~
~ ~ ~ ~
i f ~ tu
{ ~ r ~ x~ _
~ p . ~ , " ~ 6 . h ~ 3 .
f k ~ _
F3
! ~P~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ , . . : ~ ~ . ~
Y ~ f
J `+3
~
t, ~ a.~_. ~ .
~ s
~ } ,
y ~ , , ~ . ,p ~ 3 . . .
g _ . . _a..
~ M
k k
v ,
! O ;
z ~
~
2
4.1 Roadway Segmc~ts
Planned roadway improvements were incorporated into the network including Marana, ADOT,
and Pima County projects. FoNowing is a list of roadway improvements included in the two
future conditions models.
Exhibit 6 Planned Roadway Improvements
Future conditior~s at 2010:
• Construct the new Twin Peaks Interchange
• Extend Dove Mountain Boulevard to Twin Peaks Extension
• Improve Cortaro Road to four lanes between Silverbell Road and Thornydale
Road
• Improve Thomydale Road to six lanes between Orange Grove and Ina Road
• Improve Thomydale Road to four lanes between Ina Road and Dverton Road
• Improve Silverbell Road to four lanes south of Cortaro Road
• Improve Ina Road to four lanes between Silverbell Road and I-10
• fmprove Ina Road to six lanes east of I-10
• Extension of River Road to La Canada Drive
Page 8
~ ' w February 2001
• Marana Travel Demand Model
• Improve Orange Grove to four lanes east of i-10
• lmprove I-10 to six lanes in each direction between Ina Road and Cortaro
Road
• Convert all frontage roads to one-way
Future conditions at 2025
• A1120101mprovements
• Improve Tangerine Road to four lanes east of I-10
• Extend Lambert Lane from the Avra Valley T.I. east to Oro Valley
• Improve I-10 to six lanes in each direction from Cortaro Road to the Pima/Pinal
County line
• Reconstruct the Avra Valley, Tangerine, and Marana T.I.'s
• Construct the Moore Road T.L
In addition to these improvements, the roadways included in the Northwest Marana Area Plan,
Transportation Network were included.
4.2Future Conditions Model Output
Review of the model output shows that the 2010 trip rate per dwelling unit is about 10.2 and
the trip rate at 2025 is 10.7. External trips increased by about 70 percent at 2010 and then
only by about 7 percent between 2010 and 2025. This is due to the large increase in
employment within the region after 2010. The results of the 2010 and 2025 model runs are
provided graphically in Exhibit 7 and 8. The graphics show the future ADT on the roadways
and the capacity requirements, or number of lanes required at each horizon year. This
information is summarized and compared to current conditions in the table at Exhibit 9.
Page 9
C ~ ~ February 2001
Curtis Lueck & Assocfates ~
Ma,~.~a ha~e~ Dema.Kr Mode~
Exhibit 7 TraffiC Yolume~ and Roadway Cap~city Requirements at 2010
2 Lanes
~ ~4 L.a~
6 L~es
; 8 Lar~s
ass
~ ~ ~
~a~:.
ti
~
~ ~ ;
Y.~
_
~ ~ k`,,
Page 10
1 A February 2001
Ma~~ r~a~.~ v~nd
Exhibit 8 Traffic Volurr~es and Roadway Capacity Requirements at 2025
21:~ttres
.w.~..~:
6 l;~'r~s
8 tran~s
: =z.
~y
~ ~
. . '~."g . ~ .
~ ~ ~
~
. . * ~ ~ .
~ ~ - . . . . ~ .
~ ~ - ~ . .
~ ~
. ~ _ .
i ~
~
I~ LaM~t . r.
. . . . . ~ ~ M1 ~T .
i:
~
`R,?a
Page 11
~ A February 2001
' Marana Travel Demand Mode/
Exhibit 9 Summary of Current and Future Traffic Volumes
Current 2010 2025
Roadway Segment From To ADT ADT ADT
Arterial A Pinal Pkwy T.I. Collector C N/A 0 7,600
Arterial A Collector C Collector D N/A 0 26,300
Arterial A Collector D Tangerine Rd N/A 0 21,100
Arterial B Marana Rd Tangerine Rd N/A 2,900 7,400
Arterial C Bamett Rd Moore Rd N/A 7,400 19,200
Arterial C Moore Rd Tangerine Rd N/A 13,500 16,700
Avra Valley Road Sanders Rd NW Regional Airport 6,300 10,900 27,500
Avra Valley Road NW Reg Airport Airline Road 6,300 10,900 28,800
Avra Valiey Road Airiine Road Quarry Road 6,300 21,000 30,500
Avra Valley Road Quarry Rd Avra Valley T.L 6,300 29,000 37,500
Barnett Road Sanders Rd Lon Adams 900 2,000 7,000
Bamett Road Lon Adams Rd Arterial C 900 7,400 14,200
Cochie Canyon Trail I-10 Arterial A 250 0 27,600
Cochie Canyon Trail Arterial A Coliector A 250 0 6,000
Collector A Arterial A Cochie Canyon N/A 0 8,800
Collector B Kirby Hughes Marana Rd N/A 2,500 3,300
Grier Road Sanders Rd Lon Adams 750 500 9,000
Luckett/Moore Ext I-10 Sanders Rd N/A 1,000 4,400
Marana Road Sanders Rd I-10 3,000 5,500 8,500
Moore Road Sanders Rd Lon Adams 800 3,500 26,500
Moore Road Lon Adams Rd Arterial C 800 3,300 28,800
Moore Road Arterial C Arterial A 800 4,700 39,000
Sanders Road Avra Valley Silverbell Rd 2,200 5,000 24,200
Sanders Road Silverbell Rd Moore Rd 2,200 4,800 28,200
Sanders Road Moore Rd Marana Rd 2,200 800 7,700
Sanders Road Marana Rd Collector B 50 500 900
Silverbell Road Sanders Rd Industrial Area 1,250 3,000 20,500
Tangerine Road Arterial B Arterial C N/A 6,000 13,000
Tangerine Road Arterial C Arterial A N/A 19,000 50,000
Avra Valley/Tangerine Ext Avra Valley Road Tangerine Road N/A 21 300
4.3 Freeway Volumes
The freeway volumes produced by the models do not include pass-through traffic because
the model does not take traffic from one external station to another. This traffic can be
estimated by reviewing the current recorded volumes against the output from the current
conditions model. This comparison is presented in the table below. It appears that about
25,000 vehicles per day can be attributed to pass-through traffic.
Exhibit 10 Analysis of Interstate 10 Pass-Through Traffic
Mainline Segment Recorded Model Difference
Orange Grove Rd to Ina Rd 64,500 39,800 24,700
Ina Road to Cortaro Rd 57,000 34,150 22,850
Cortaro Rd to Avra Valley Rd 37,900 20,050 17,850
Avra Valley Rd to Tangerine Rd 40,500 11,650 28,900
Tangerine Rd to Marana Rd 38,720 8,500 30,250
The following table provides a summary of current and future traffic on the I-10 mainline,
ramps and frontage roads. The current ADT is from recorded data and the future volumes are
taken from the model output. The future mainline volumes include an estimate of 25,000
vehicles per day for pass-through traffic.
Page 12
C ~ ^ February 2001
CurHs Lueck & Associates ~
' Marana Travel Demand Model
Exhibit 11 Current and Future Freeway Volumes
FREEWAY RAMPS CURRENT 2010 2025
Orange Grove TI
NB On 3500 21850 25400
N B Off 15500 9900 8900
SB On 13700 8400 8050
SB Off 2500 16600 22500
Ina Road TI
NB On 4300 8000 11025
NB Off 12100 11850 8200
SB On 12500 8800 8100
SB Off 3900 11400 16350
Cortaro Road TI
NB On 1950 9750 15350
NB Off 11500 9200 6650
SB On 11000 7700 5200
SB Off 2800 7050 12150
Twin Peaks TI
NB On 9800
N B Off 9400
SB On 9800
SB Off 8600
Avra Valley TI 300 2100
NB On 3000 20600 8300
NB Off 3450 11400 12650
SB On 500 5200 13250
SB Off 7600
Tangerine TI
NB On 1350 1500 6100
NB Off 1900 2500 24500
SB On 2250 14200 20900
SB Off 1250 300 5900
Moore Rd TI
NB On 2850
NB Off 21200
SB On 19300
SB Off 2850
Marana TI
NB On 900 2550 800
NB Off 2250 9250 15100
SB On 2400 7500 17900
SB Off 850 2650 800
Page 13
~ ~ ~ February 2001
Curtis Luttk & Associates
' Marana Trave/ Demand Mode1
FRONTAGE ROADS CURRENT 2010 2025
East Frontage Road
Orange Grove to Ina 1650 4650
Ina to Cortaro 4400 3800
Cortaro to Twin Peaks 0 1050
Twin Peaks to Avra Valley 9000 1700
Avra Valley to Tangerine 0 4650
Tangerine to Moore 800 350
Moore to Marana 10 10
West Frontage Road
Orange Grove to Ina 11800 2400 2150
Ina to Cortaro 4000 2000 3850
Co~taro to Twin Peaks 2300 3150 4650
Twin Peaks to Avra Valley 2300 0 2550
Avra Valley to Tangerine 2000 1900 5000
Tangerine to Moore 2000 4450 450
Moore to Marana 0 0
- not available
MAINLINE
Orange Grove to Ina 64500 93650 115685
Ina to Cortaro 57000 92200 126745
Cortaro to Twin Peaks 37900 92200 142410
Twin Peaks to Avra Valley 37900 67500 137505
Avra Valley to Tangerine 40550 52600 127505
Tangerine to Moore 38750 41100 97035
Moore to Marana 38720 41100 63255
5A ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS
The information from the model output was used to determine the improvements that will need
to be in place in the Northwest Area at the two horizon years. With the exception of the I-10
mainline and interchange improvements, they are in addition to the planned projects above
listed in Exhibit 6(Planned Roadway Improvements). These improvements and the
associated costs are provided in the table at F~chibit 12. These improvements are based on
the assumption that existin~ roadways in the Northwest Area must be reconstructed to current
standards to support future development.
Page 14
C L ~ February 2001
Curfis Lueck & Associates .
' Marana Travel Demand Mode/
Exhibit 12 Summary of Roadway Improvements and Estimated Construction
Costs
0 0 5
COST PER COST PER
NO.OF LENGTH MILE NO.OF LENGTH MILE
ROAD TO FROM 1000 N TA T
Arterial A Pinal Pkwy T.I. Collector C 0 5 0.0 0 2 225 1.5 3 375 000
Arterial A ~ Colieclw C Collector D 0 0 7 ~
Artenal A Collector D Tangerine Rd 3. 0 4 5 3.5 1 75 0
Arterial B Marana Rd Tangenne Rd 0 r v ir
AAerial C Bamett Rd Moore Rd 75 1.5 1 125 000 4 0.75 1.5 1 125 000
Arterial C Moore Rd Tangerine Rd
Avra Valley Road Sanders Rd NW Regional Airport 2 3.00 1.5 4 500 000 4 3.00 1.5 4 500 000
Avra Valley Road NW Reg Airport Airfine Road 2 7.50 1. 250 0 4 1.50 2 250 000
Avra Valley Road Aidine Road Quarry Road 4 1.50 .5 5 50 0 4 rth r im r v m nts ir
Avra Valley Road Quarry Rd Avra Valley T.I. 4 1.00 3.5 3 500 000 6 0 ~.5 1 5 000
Avra Valley Interchange Re nst t xi tin Int h n 000 000
Avra Valley/Tangenne Ext ConsVuct Bridge 3 000 000
Avra Valley/Tangerine Ext Avra Valley Road Tangerine Road 1. 0 0 0 0 4 1.50 .5 5 250 000
Bamett Road Sanders Rd Lon Adams 2 .00 1.5 3 0 000 2 N rth r im r v m nts re ir
Bamett Road Lon Adams Rd Arterial C 2 0.50 1.5 000 4 0 0 1.5 750 000
Cochie Canyon Treil I-10 Arterial A 0 0 0.0 0 4 025 3.5 875 000
Cochie Canyon Trail Arterial A Collector A 0 0.50 0.0 0 2 0.50 .5 750 000
Colleclor A Arterial A Cochie Canyon 4. 0.0 0 2 . 5 1.5 712 0
Collector B Kirby Hu9hes Marana Rd 00 1.5 4 500 000 N furth r i v nt i
Collector C Artenal A Collector A 0 0. 0 0.0 0 2 0.5 1.5 50 0 "
Grier Road Sanders Rd Lon Adams 2.00 1.5 3 000 000 2 rth r im v m nts i
LucketUMoore Ext I-10 Sanders Rd 00 1.5 7 0 0 rth r' v nt r ir
Matana Road Sanders Rd I-10 1. 5 1.5 875 000 2 Ah r im v nt ir
Marana Interchange R const t i tin Int h n e 30 00 0
Moore Road Sanders Rd Lon Adams 5 5 2 625 000 175 1.5 2 6 5 000
Moore Road Lon Adams Rd Arterial C 0.75 1.5 1 125 0 4 0.7 1.5 1 5 000
Moore Road Arterial C Arterial A 50 0.5 750 0 0 4 50 1.5 250 000
Moore Road Interchange 0 N Int n e 50 000 000
Sanders Road Avre Valley Silverbell Rd 0.75 1 1 1 5 000 75 1 1 1 5 000
Sanders Road Silverbell Rd Moore Rd 1 5 1.5 6 5 00 4 1.7 1.5 0 0
Sanders Road Moore Rd Marana Rd 2 1.50 5 2 50 000 N rt r i nt uir
Sanders Road Marana Rd Collector B 0 1 125 000 Rh r i v m nl ir
Silverbeil Road Sanders Rd Industrial Area 2 0.50 1.5 750 000 4 0.50 1.5 750 000
Tangenne Road Artenal B Arterial C A 5 6 000 000 N R v nt re i
Tangerine Road Arterial C Arterial A 4 1.00 3.5 3 500 000 8 1.00 3 3 500 000
Tangerine Road Interchange R in f h n R tr t i' In h n 30 00
65,125,000 205,875,000
Ith 2025
000 000
Page 15
~ L ~ February 2001
Curtis Lueck & Associates
Directory of General Network Editior Files
Existing Conditions
DescriAtion File Name
Input file before signals EX input B4 signals.dt4
Input file with signals EX input with signals.dt4
Output file before signals EX Output Oct2000 B4 signals.dta
Output file with signals EX Output OCT2000 with signals.dta
Calibration presentation (Exhibit 2) CALIBRATION MODEL.dta
LOS presentation (Exhibit 3) EX LOS presentation.dta
Committed Conditions
Description File Name
Input file (Exhibit 4) committed conditions input.dt4
Output file committed conditions output.dta
LOS presentation (Exhibit 5) COM LOS presentation .dta
Buildout Conditions
Description File Name
Input file (Exhibit 6) buildout input.dt4
Output file (Exhibit 8) Buildout Output.dta
LOS presentation BLD LOS presentation.dta
c L A Page A-1
Curtls Lueck & Associates ~
~
QRS i I Parameters
Marana Travel Demand Models
February 2001
Trip Production
Make NHB Productions Equal Attractions
Use Average P's
Totai 7
HBW 22
HBNW 33
NHB 45
Balancing Type Hold Productions (All)
Trip Attraction Rates
HBW HBNW NHB
Retail Employment 1.7 8 5
Nonretail Employment 1.7 2 2.5
Dwelling Units 0 1 0.5
Trip Distribution Parameters
Exponential Power
HBW 0.1
HBNW 0.1
NHB 0.1
Friction Factor Function Exponential
Iterations 1
Vehicle Occupancy
Trip Type Vehicle
Assianment
Options
Equilibrium/Incremental
Incremental Exponent 1
Equilibrium Iterations 1
Force Vine Building
BPR Global
Travel Time Step Size 1
Base Traffic Multiplier 1
Actual Speed Multiplier 1
Free Speed Multiplier 1.15
Opposite Direction Factor 0.4
Auto Costs per Minute 0
Auto Value of time 8
C L^ Page A- 2
Curtis Lueck & Associa[es
~
.
BPR Classes
V/C V/ C Hour Ave
Multiplier Exponent Factor
Freeway 0.8 4 1
Major 0.8 4 1
Minor 0.8 4 1
Collector 0.8 4 1
Local 0.8 4 1
Other 0.8 4 1
Intersections General
Signalized 1994 HCM
Some Way 1994 HCM
Acceleration Rate 3.5
Deceleration Rate 5
Unsignalized PCE 1.1
Signalized
1994 HCM
Rough Saturation 1800
Fm Lane Adjust 0.91
Volc Power 0.762
Qro Power 1.061
Gq Multiplier 4.943
LTC Multiplier, 1 -0.86
LTC Multiplier, 2% -0.882
LTC Power, 1 0.629
LTC Power, 2+ 0.717
X> 1 Power 0.45
Force Defacto Left Lanes
General
Max Opp for Left 1400
Left Sat Adjust 0.95
Max Left Sat Fact 0.875
Total/Stopped 1.3
Overflow Period 0.25
Right Turn Factor 0.15
Timing
Min Flow ratio, Y 0.33
Max Flow Ration, Y 1.
Protect G Extend 1
Signal Iterations 6
Through Lost Time 3
Protect Lost Time 1
~ L ^ Page A- 3
Curtis Lueck & Associates
.
.
Some Way Stop -
1994 HCM
Minor Right Gap 5.5
Major Left Gap 5
Minor Thru Gap 6
Minor Left Gap 6.5
S5 1700
S6 1700
Minor Right Follow 2.6
Major Left Follow 3.3
Minor Left Gap 3.4
Time Period 1
General
One Lane Volume 1800
Minimum Capacity 33
All Way Stop
Subject Unit Wait 3.6
1 Left Wait 1
2 Lefts Wait 1
1 right Wait -0.5
2 Rights Wait -1
Another Lane Wait 1
1 Opp Lane Wait 0.25
2 Opp Lanes Wait 1
1 Lane added Wait -0.5
1 +Right Added Wait 0
2 Lane Added Wait 0.5
Delay Coefficient 0
All-Way Iterations 12
Metered Ramps
One Lane Capacity 1800
Two Lane Capacity 3600
Time Period (h) 1
Metered Period Fraction 0.5
Metered Volume Fraction 0.6
Low V/C Interpolation 0.9
High V/C Interpolation 1.15
Meter Green Time (s) 2
Jam Density (veh/mile) 240
c L~ Page A- 4
Curtis Lueck & Associates
.
I-10 Traffic Stud
y
Technical Memorandum No. 4
Marana Master Transportation Plan
c
E m F
m
¢ ~ m ¢ - p a
~ c ° c m m
m m
in rn o~ v ~E o ~--~e °m
LL
. r m.~ $ U m C U U
~ ~ . . 2 ~ U O ~ W tn ~ ~ ~
Pinal County
- - ~ ~ 7~~~~~ Z ~
r `~f ~ r ~
Trico Marana ~ Trico Marana ~ Y~
~
Grier Rd - ~ ~
Barnetl S,. ~ ~ \ ~o~
Moore ~@~~~ 'fd~~o~ ~ ~ ~ MooreRd
EI Tiro Tan enne Rtl
TOWN OF MARANA 7angerioeRd
~ ~ . Naranja Rd
Arra Val Rd '
Avra Valley Rd ~ ~ym~ ~ Lamhert Ln
°}i ~ i ~
~ Ll Linda Vista Rd
Emigh Twin Peaks ~ m
Overton Rd
Pima Farms Coharo Rd Cortaro Rd
0
~ Magee (N
° Magee (S;
in ~
• Ina Rd
PicN~e Rocks t
NOR7H . ~ Orange Grove Rd
~ s~
1 Mile ;
~ 3
River Road
Prepared for: Prepared hy:
~~/1 ~ \ PARSONS
MARANA ~ BR?NCKERHOFF
~~wv/ ~ ~
TOWN OF MARANA
FEBRUARY 200i
February 27, 2001 l-10 Tra~c Analysis - Technical Memorandum No. 4
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION Page
DATA COLLECTION 1
STUDY METHODOLOGY
3
EXISTING CONDITIONS CAPACITY ANALYSIS 4
FUTURE CONDITIONS CAPACITY ANALYSIS 6
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 9
List of Figures
Fiqure
1 Study Area P.. 2
2 Year 2000 Conditions - Level of Service 5
3 Year 2025 Conditions - Level of Service 8
List of Tables
Table
1 Intersection Analysis Results for Present and Future Year P 6
Parsons Brinckerhoff
February 27, 2001 1-10 Tra~c Analysis - Technical Memorandum No. 4
INTRODUCTION
The Marana Master Transportation Plan is a comprehensive transportation plan
that will serve as a guide for addressing current and projected transportation
needs in the Town of Marana.
This Technical Memorandum is part of the Roadway Analysis task to determine
roadway improvements that will be needed over the next 25 years to
accommodate the increase in traffic in Marana. The purpose of this study was to
complete a capacity analysis of I-10 freeway through the Town of Marana with
existing and proposed tra~c volumes. Capacity analysis at the I-10 traffic
interchanges including ramps and crossroads operations was also conducted.
The frontage roads east and west of I-10 were also modeled. The I-10 study
area spans from Trico-Marana Road to Orange Grove Road and is shown in
Figure 1. The I-10 traffic interchanges located within the study area are at Trico-
Marana Road, Tangerine Road, Avra Valley Road, Cortaro Road, Ina Road and
Orange Grove Road. A new traffic interchange at Twin Peaks Road planned for
the future year was also analyzed.
DATA COLLECTION
Peak hour and daily traffic volumes on I-10, crossroads and ramps were
obtained from the Pima Association of Governments (PAG) traffic count
program. These traffic volumes were collected in April 2000 using pneumatic
tube counters in 15-minute intervals. The AM and PM peak hours were
determined at each location based on the highest consecutive four 15-minute
periods. The traffic volume information is attached in Appendix A.
As-built plans for I-10 and the traffic interchanges were obtained from Arizona
Department of Transportation (ADOT). Signing and pavement marking plans
were examined to verify the traffic control and lane geometry on I-10, crossroads
and ramps. ADOT also provided the traffic signal timing/ program charts for
three signalized study intersections.
Pima County roadway network was obtained as an electronic file from Pima
County Department of Transportation (PCDOT) GIS section. This file was used
as a background for creating the I-10 roadway network for analysis in CORSIM
software. Pima County maps were also used to create the I-10 roadway
network.
Parsons Brinckerhoff Page 1
v
~
-o
-a o~ >
oC o
o ~ c ~ ~ N ~ ~ Z
Cn C'3 0
V cu ~C ~ c o a~ ~
~ ~ N . •C ~ ~ ~ ~ c0 N N ~ ~ .
~ Z J J O C
d ~ . ~ ~ ~ E C ~ U ~ ~ ~
BPBUB~ B~
L'Si~ BUOW ~G~G~'~
a
uouueys ~0~~,~
A~
e~~a~ e~ ap ouiwe~ 13 i~
r--- ~
a~ep~twoyl ;_l
~
~a43~~ PIO I ~ ~\,e~
a~sap ap ouiwe~ : L - - - ~ ~
~ ~ o
we~unow anoa
~ . j
uewueH ~ ~..L ~ . ~
~ ~
I ~z~ ~
J i ~
~ pt3 aP~M ~
Q
S~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Co chline ~ ~ ~
~
` ~ ~ ~
S~Ne~°e\\ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~
= a~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ; ~ I ~ ~
z ,~p ~ ~ ~ ~
I ~ z ¢ J - ~
~ ~ 1
~ ~
-o ~ I
swepy uo~ ~ O
ouepues ~ --J oiaepueg
~ `
= o L.._
~ ~
$ s~apues
saapu~g ~ ~
I- ~ o0
~ r G~a~
f ~ I N
~ ~
~a~~n~ - - ~ - - ~ a
_
~
~
~
,
p~i o~ul
-a
ca -a ~ a~ o ~ ~
~ ~ c ~ i= aTi
m ~ w j w
~ ~ ~ o
U ~ ~
>
I~ ¢
February 27, 2001 1-90 Tra~c Analysis - Technical Memorandum No. 4
PAG provided the 2025 Tra~c Projections dated January 2001 from their Long
Range Transportation Plan. These traffic projections are included in Appendix B.
Lane geometry on I-10 roadway network for Year 2025 was researched from 1-10
Corridor Improvements General Plan prepared for ADOT.
STUDY METHODOLOGY
AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes were developed from the average daily
traffic using directional distribution factor and peak hour factor associated with
the traffic counts. The existing lane geometry, traffic control, AM and PM peak
hour traffic volumes for the I-10 roadway network were entered into CORSIM
software.
CORSIM is a microscopic model developed for the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) that models both arterial streets and freeways together.
A microscopic model simulates every vehicle in the roadway network as opposed
to a macroscopic model that looks at the roadway network as a whole. The
format of the roadway system in CORSIM is simulated as a series of links and
nodes. The nodes are the intersections in the roadway network and the links are
the roadway segments befinreen the intersections.
Since CORSIM requires a unique way to input the roadway network, the output
from CORSIM summarizes the roadway measures of effectiveness by individual
links or roadway segments. This causes a problem when an intersection level of
service is desired. To obtain a level of service for an intersection, each link's
average delay and volume leading into the intersection must be known. Then
using these two values, an intersection average vehicle delay can be found and
level of service for the intersection is known. A program developed in PB
Michigan office was utilized to summarize the interseetion volume, intersection
average delay, and the intersection level of service. The level of service is
summarized based on delay criteria outlined in the 1997 Highway Capacity
Manual.
Reports were created listing the input data, intersection and approach delays,
Levels of Service (LOS) and volume to capacity (v/c) ratios.
Different scenarios were modeled for the I-10 study area. A present year
analysis with Year 2000 traffic volumes, lane geometry and signal timings was
performed for the AM and PM peak hours. The proposed traffic conditions in
Year 2025 were then analyzed using CORSIM software. The output from
CORSIM software is attached in Appendix C.
Parsons Brinckerhoff Page 3
February 27, 2001 1-10 Tra~c Analysis - Technical Memorandum No. 4
EXISTING CONDITIONS CAPACITY ANALYSIS
Traffic volumes collected by PAG and as-built lane geometry on I-10, ramps and
crossroads were used to model the existing conditions. From Trico-Marana
Road to Ina Road, 1-10 was analyzed as a divided freeway with two lanes in
~ each direction. I-10 was analyzed with three lanes in each direction from Ina
Road to south of Orange Grove Road. Both the East and West Frontage Roads
were modeled as finro lane roadways. The frontage roads were analyzed as two-
way roadways north of Cortaro Road. The frontage road improvements
underway from Ina Road to Sunset Road were also included in the analysis.
The intersections at the I-10 ramp junctions with Trico-Marana Road, Tangerine
Road and Avra Valley Road were analyzed as unsignalized intersections with
stop control on the ramps. The intersections at the I-10 ramp junctions with
Cortaro Road, Ina Road and Orange Grove Road were modeled as signalized
intersections with actuated signal operations. The I-10 Eastbound ramp junction
with Orange Grove Road was modeled as an unsignalized intersection with stop
control. However, it is understood that this intersection will be signalized soon.
Level of service was calculated at the signalized, unsignalized intersections and
on freeway and frontage road roadway segments. Figure 2 shows the AM and
PM peak hour level of service for I-10 and its intersections with crossroads.
In the AM peak hour all the freeway and crossroad roadway segments operated
at LOS A or B except for the I-10 Westbound off-ramp at Ina Road and the I-10
Eastbound on-ramp at Ina Road. These ramps were shown as operating at LOS
F due to the heavy traffic volumes using these ramps.
In the AM peak hour, the ramp junction intersections of I-10 Eastbound and
Westbound with Cortaro Road were both operating at LOS B. Similarly the
intersections on Ina Road were operating at LOS E and LOS C and the
intersections on Orange Grove Road were operating at LOS C and LOS D.
In the PM peak hour most of the freeway and crossroad roadway segments
operated at LOS A or B. All of I-10 Eastbound segments operated at LOS A or
B. The exceptions were I-10 Westbound lanes from south of Orange Grove
Road to Ina Road off-ramp. The I-10 Westbound freeway segment between
Orange Grove Road on-ramp and Ina Road off-ramp was operating at LOS F.
The I-10 Westbound roadway segment south of Orange Grove Road off-ramp
was operating at LOS C. The I-10 Westbound off-ramps at Orange Grove Road
and Ina Road were both operating at LOS F.
Parsons Brinckerhoff Page 4
n ~
< ~
a, ~ o
m w m ~ m c~ w
~ ~ ° m 70 ~
~ ~ o m ~ ~ a~
~ ~ ~
D Trico Rd
n
~ ~ ~ ~~Q
~ m
~ o ~ Luckett
~ ~ D I~.. ~
~ I D D :
o Jo~~~~ D D o~~
c
D ~ Sanders
~ ~ Sanders ~ ~
a' E O ~ y ~
N .
~ Sandario ~ Z Sandario
~ _ _ _ ~ ~ Lon Adams
~ ~ ~.I
~ ( ~
D
O ` y D
O - ~ Z ~5
C ~ D `
n ' a n •
O ~ ~ ; C'~` ~ 1 p
a ~ ~ ~ ~ _
„ ~ ~o ~ ~
~ ~ ~ \\~an~~S i ~ ^y y
~ _ " ^y
~ y D~
y ~ . ; ~
~
, ~ ~ aui ~4 0~
~
~ ~ ( D n .5
t~D D ~
~ m
O p C~ D D: C`~.~
~
m . I
~
c~D ~0 ~ ~--J~ ~ D . ~ ~'J H m
~ ~ ~-~~i art an
Dove Mountain
n ~ . ~
~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ; Camino de Oeste
• Q~°~~ ~ ~ I Old Father
~ ~ ~ ' ~ Thomydale
0~p~\ ~
` Fi EI Camino de la Tierra
C
~ ~ ' ~ a~%~o Shannon
n C7 , ~ W C7 a~'~i~~ ~ Mona Lisa
y ~ d d La Cholla
" v
La Canada
~o o ~ ~ ~ c~ o r: ~ z ~ ~ ~
~ o < ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ° ~
Q ~ ~
o ~ m m o ~ < ..CDZ sii ~ o
Q L~ cn Z Q Q ~ j Q m Q =
m Q ~
~
n
February 27, 2001 1-10 Tra~c Analysis - Technical Memorandum No. 4
In the PM peak hour, the ramp junction intersections of I-10 Eastbound and
Westbound with Cortaro Road were operating at LOS B and C respectively.
Similarly the intersections on Ina Road were operating at LOS D and LOS E and
the intersections on Orange Grove Road were operating at LOS A and LOS D.
The AM and PM peak hour intersection LOS with existing signal timing is shown
in Table 1.
Table 1. Intersection Analysis Results for Present and Future Year Conditions
Scenario
2000 2000 2025
AM Peak PM Peak Peak Hour
lntersection LOS LOS LOS
Trico-Marana Road/ I-10 Eastbound * A A A
Trico-Marana Road/ 1-10 Westbound * A A A
Tangerine Road/ I-10 Eastbound A A A
Tangerine Road/ I-10 Westbound * A A A
Avra Valley Road/ I-10 Eastbound * A A A
Avra Valley Road/ I-10 Westbound " A A A
Twin Peaks Road/ I-10 Eastbound g
Twin Peaks Road/ I-10 Westbound C
Cortaro Road/ I-10 Eastbound B g C
Cortaro Road/ I-10 Westbound B C C
Ina Road/ I-10 Eastbound E D C
Ina Road/ I-10 Westbound C E C
Orange Grove Road/ I-10 Eastbound C'` A'' D*`
Orange Grove Road/ I-10 Westbound D D D
* Unsignalized Intersection
Signalized Intersection
FUTURE CONDITIONS CAPACITY ANALYSIS
Traffic volume projections developed by PAG and lane geometry shown in 1-10
General Plan for 1-10, ramps and crossroads were used to model the Year 2025
future conditions. Peak hour volumes were developed from PAG's average daily
traffic projections and a 51 % directional factor and a 8% peak hour factor. From
Trico-Marana Road to Tangerine Road, I-10 was analyzed as a divided freeway
with two lanes in each direction. I-10 was analyzed with three lanes in each
direction from Tangerine Road to Twin Peaks Road and four lanes in each
direction south of Twin Peaks Road to Ina Road. I-10 freeway was analyzed
with five lanes in each direction south of Ina Road to past Orange Grove Road.
Both the East and West Frontage Roads were modeled as two lane roadways.
The frontage roads were analyzed as one-way roadways through out the study
area limits. A new tra~c interchange is planned at Twin Peak Road/ Linda Vista
Parsons Brinckerhoff Page 6
February 27, 2001 /-10 Traffic Ana/ysis - Technical Memorandum No. 4
Road. This interchange is located in between Avra Valley Road and Cortaro
Road.
The intersections at the I-10 ramp junctions with Trico-Marana Road, Tangerine
Road and Avra Valley Road were analyzed as unsignalized intersections with
stop control on the ramps. The intersections at the I-10 ramp junctions with Twin
Peaks Road, Cortaro Road, Ina Road and Orange Grove Road were modeled as
signatized intersections with actuated signal operations.
Level of service was calculated at the signalized, unsignalized intersections and
on freeway and frontage road roadway segments. Figure 3 shows the 2025
peak hour level of service for I-10 and its intersections with crossroads.
During the peak hour the freeway segments on I-10 Eastbound from Trico-
Marana Road to Tangerine Road operated at LOS D. All the rest of I-10
Eastbound freeway segments operated at LOS B. The I-10 Westbound freeway
south of Orange Grove Road was operating at LOS E. The I-10 Westbound
segment between Ina Road and Orange Grove Road was operating at LOS D. I-
10 Westbound segments befinreen Twin Peaks Road and Ina Road were
operating at LOS C. The freeway segments north of Twin Peaks Road were
operating at LOS B.
During the 2025 peak hour, the ramp junction intersections of 1-10 Eastbaund
and Westbound with Twin Peaks Road were operating at LOS B and G
respectively. Similarly, the ramps junction intersections with Cortaro Road and
Ina Road were operating at LOS C. However, the ramp junction intersections
with Orange Grove Road were operating at LOS D.
The 2025 peak hour intersection LOS with proposed signal timing is shown in
Table 1.
Parsons Brinckerhoff Page 7
-a
~
~ ~ ~ o
~ O ~ . C ~ J ~ ~ ~ Z C/~ C.~ ~
(C ~ ~ C OO N ~
. V ~ 'C . N O ~ NN -p ~ . .
~ Rf O 0I ~ "~6 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ d
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ C ~ V C ~ ~
d ~ ~ Z ~ J Q
BpEUB~ B~
~1104~ ~l ~'O~G~ V
BS1~ BUOW
UODUBys ~~~~p,~ ~ 0~0
~~~ail e~ ap owwe~ 13 U. ~1
~ o~~
a~ep~tuaoyl . . ~1
~
~ayi~~ PIO ~ ~
a~sap ap ouiw~~ : L-- - Q, 0 00 J ~
~ C~
we~unoW anoQ Q Q j
uew~eH ~-•L Q a m V ~
~
~ ~
0
_
I Q m ~ ,
~
? m J
Q ~ Co hline ~ ~
- a~ ~
_ _
_ ~et`c~~~ ~ ~ ~ Q
~ ; Sd r' a
~ ~
~ Q ~ _
Z ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O
~ Q ~ C~
~ Z J ~ N
Q
Q N
~ ~ L
~
a LL
SLUL'pd U0~ ~ ~ I .
oiaepueg ~ -i Z . - J ouepueg ~
~ ~ M
~ ~ ~
~ O saapueg ~
s~apues ~ ` ~
Q G~a~°~ ~
- ~ Y J
O
; . t~ ~
~a~~~~ a . - - ~ o >
~ ~ ~ O
~ ~J~~f\
~ j J W
~ g~ / ~ ~
~ ~ '
Pa o~ul ' '
~ ~ ; ~ Q~
f ~
. 'O ~ N O ~ t . .
N ~ C ~ F- ~ ~
. ~ . . . . ~ . , ~ ~ m ~ W j W ~ ~ . .
~ - ~ . ~..0 ~ ~ .
V >
. ~ . . ~ Q ~ .
February 27, 2001 1-10 Traffic Analysis - Technicai Memorandum No. 4
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This report analyzed the capacity on I-10 through the Town of Marana including
ramps and crossroads. Based on the capacity analysis for 2000 AM and PM
peak hours, and 2025 peak hour, the following conclusions are provided:
For the present year conditions, Interstate 10 is operating satisfactorily both
during AM and PM peak hours except for some locations. The freeway segment
on 1-10 Westbound between Orange Grove Road and Ina Road is operating at
LOS F during the PM peak hour. The heavy traffic volumes exiting onto Ina
Road in the PM peak hour cause backups and affect the operations on I-10.
Both the I-10 Westbound off-ramps at Ina Road and Orange Grove Road are
operating at LOS F due to the heavy exiting volumes. The I-10 Eastbound On-
ramp at Ina Road is operating at LOS E during the AM peak hour.
All the signalized and unsignalized intersections within the study area are
operating satisfactorily except for few locations. The traffic signal at I-10
Eastbound ramp junction at Ina Road is operating at LOS E and D during the AM
and PM peak hours respectively. The traffic signal at I-10 Westbound ramp
junction with Ina Road is operating at LOS C and E during the AM and PM peak
hours. The traffic signal at I-10 Westbound ramp junction with Orange Grove
Road is operating at LOS D during both AM and PM peak hours.
During the 2025 peak hour conditions all the freeway and surface street
segments were operating satisfactorily except for I-10 Eastbound from Trico-
Marana Road to Tangerine Road and I-10 Westbound south of Ina Road. The I-
10 Eastbound freeway segment from Trico-Marana Road to Tangerine Road was
operating at LOS D. The segment between Ina Road and Orange Grove Road
was operating at LOS D and the segment south of Orange Grove Road was
operating at LOS E. All the signalized and unsignalized intersections were also
operating satisfactorily except for the signals on Orange Grove Road. The
Orange Grove Road intersections with I-10 Eastbound and Westbound ramp
junctions were operating at LOS D.
Based on the extensive efforts undertaken to model, analyze and simulate the I-
10 roadway network within the Town of Marana, the following recommendations
are provided:
All the turning movement volumes at intersections were developed from PAG
traffic counts. The traffic operations at the intersections were modeled
adequately however because actual turning movement counts were not
conducted at these intersections, traffic operations were not modeled precisely.
Parsons Brinckerhoff Page 9
February 27, 2001 1-10 Tra~c Analysis - Technical Memorandum No. 4
Obtaining turning movement counts at the I-10 ramp junctions with Ina Road and
Orange Grove Road it may be possible to design interim improvements to
reduce traffic delays. These interim improvements should work in conjunction
with the frontage road improvements taking place.
Currently I-10 roadway network is operating satisfactorily except for Ina Road off-
ramp from I-10 Westbound during the PM peak hour. Even though the frontage
road roadway improvements were modeled in the analysis, the traffic volumes
still reflected the roadway network without the frontage road improvements from
Ina Road to Sunset Road. Adding a traffic interchange at Twin Peaks Road will
provide another option for Marana traffic to enter and exit I-10. This may reduce
the traffic congestion experienced at Ina Road and Orange Grove Road.
During the future year 2025 peak hour conditions, the I-10 roadway network was
operating satisfactorily except for a few locations. All the freeway, surface street
and intersections were operating satisfactorily. The reason for these conditions
is the enormous capacity added with the proposed roadway improvements on I-
10 and surface streets as shown in the I-10 General Plan. Traffic volumes
projected by PAG have increased dramatically to require the necessary roadway
improvements. During the next 20 years, I-10 has to be widened from four or six
lanes to eight or ten lane section. Major roadway widening is needed on
crossroads and ramp junctions. Frontage road improvements are already taking
place.
It may be necessary to widen the two lane section to three lanes on I-10
Eastbound from Trico-Marana Road to Win Peaks Road.
The modeling, analysis and simulation of the I-10 roadway network using
CORSIM in this report represents a good beginning and a resource for
examining various roadway improvement options with minimal efforts.
Parsons Brinckerhoff Page 10
February 27, 2001 1-10 Traffic Analysis - Technical Memorandum No. 4
APPEND/ CES
A. PAG Traffic Count Information ( Collected in
2000)
B. PAG 2025 Trafific Projections
C. Roadway and Intersection Capacity Analysis
(CORS/M Output)
D. Signal Timing Cards .
APPENDIX
February 27, 2001 1-10 Tra~c Analysis - Technical Memorandum No. 4
APPEND/X A
PAG Traffic Count Information
(Collected in 2000)
APPENDIX
PAG Traffic Countsxlsroad segments
Roadway Name Segment Lanes xiliary lanes ADT Source Year Functional
From To Trevel Lanes Classiflcation
Airline Avra Valley Lambert 2
Anway Manville Avra Valiey Rd 2
Anway Avra Vailey Lambert 2 1517 Marana Apr-00
Anway Lambert Jaguar 2
Anway Jaguar EI Tiro 2
Avra Valley Rd West of Anway 2 450 Marana Apr-00
Avra Valley Road Anway Trico 2 2938 Marana Apr-00
Avra Valley Road Trico Clayton 2 5160 Marana Apr-00 Minor Arterial
Avra Valley Road Clayton Sanders 2 5761 PAG 2000
Avra Valley Sanders Airline 2 6225 PAG 2000 MinorArterial
Avra Valley Road Airline Santa Cruz River 2 CLT 6225 PAG 2000 Minor Arterial
Avra Valley Road Santa Cruz River I-10 2 6225 PAG 2000
Bamett Sanders I-10 Frontage 2 894 PAG 2000
EI Cmo de Manana I-10 Frontage Rd Linda Vista 2 422 PAG 1999 Principal Arterial
EI Cmo de Manana Linda Vista Cmo de Oeste 2 346 Marana May-00
EI cmo de Manana Tangerine Moore 2
Camino de Oeste Ina Magee 2 CLT 3472 PIMA CO Jui-98 Not classified
Camino de Oeste Magee Cortaro may not be dedicated
Camino de Oeste Cortaro Linda Vista 2 CLT 11713 PIMA CO Apr-99 Minor Arteriai
Camino de Oeste Linda Vista EI cmo de Manana 2 Minor Arterial
Cmo de la Tierra Shumaker Orange Grove 2
Cmo de la Tierra Orange Grove Ina 2 7099 PIMA CO Aug-96 ~ot classified
Coachline Sliverbell Twin Peaks 4 CLT 2787 Marana Apr-00
Cortaro (Farms) Rd Ina Siberbell 2 Principal Arterial
Cortaro (Farms) Rd Silverbeil I-10 2 CLT 20365 PAG 2000 Principal Arterial
Cortaro (Farms) Rd 1-10 Hartman 2 16661 Marana May-00 Principal Arterial
Cortaro (Farms) Rd Hartman Thomydale 2 17264 PAG 2000 Principal Arterial
Cortaro (Farms) Thomydale Shannon 2 15071 PIMA CO Mar-99
Cocio Sliverbell EI Tiro 2 810 PIMA CO Jun-96
Derringer Lambert Jaguar 2
Derringer Jaguar EI Cmo de Tres Arr 2
Derringer EI Cmo de Tres ArroyEi Tiro 2
Dove Mountain Blvd Tangerine Moore 4 4201 Marana May-00 Principal Arterial
Dove Mountain Blvd Moore Northwest 4 Minor Arterial
EI Cm de Tres Arroycaerringer Anway 2
EI Cmo de Tres Arroy4nway Trico 2
EI Tiro Cocio Trico Rd 2 3342 Marana Mar-00
Emigh Sanders Sandario 2 1770 PIMA CO Apr-97
Grier Sanders Sandario 2 752 PAG 1999
Grier Sandario Lon Adams 2
Grier Lon Adams i-10 Frontage 2
Hardin Trico Luckett 2 .
Hardin L~ckett I-10 2 290 PAG 1999
Hartman Cortaro Farms Linda Vista 2
Hartman Linda Vista Lambert 2 Minor Arterial
Ina West of Sandario Sandario 2
Ina Road Artesiano Wade 2 343 PIMA CO Jul-99 Principal Arterial
Ina Road Wade Siiverbeli 2 7434 PIMA CO Jul-99 Principal Arterial
Ina Road Silverbeli I-10 2 CLT 11035 PIMA CO Jui-99 Principal Arterial
Ina Road I-10 Old Father 4 28356 Marana May-00 Principal Arterial
Ina Road Oid Father Thomydale 4 33067 PAG 2000
Ina Road Thomydale Shannon 4 36795 PAG 2000 Principal Arterial
Ina Road Shannon La Cholla 4 36795 PAG 2000 Principal Arterial
Jaguar Derringer Rd Anway Rd 2
Kirby Hughes Luckett Wentz 2
La Cholla Curtis Orange Grove 2 22526 PAG 2000
La Cholla Orange Grove Ina 2 17181 PAG 2000 Principal ARerial
La Cholla Ina Magee(S) 4 25543 PAG 2000 Principal Arterial
La Cholla Magee(S) Magee(N) 2 21942 PAG 2000
La Cholla Magee Overton 2 13277 PAG 2000
La Cholla Overton Lambert 2 12751 PAG 2000 Principal ARerial
La Cholia Lambert Naranja 2 7250 PIMA CO May-00 Principal Arterial
La Cholla Naranja Tangerine 2 6485 PIMA CO May-00
La Choila Tangerine Moore 2 Not classified
Lambert Derringer Anway 2
Lambert Anway 2
Lambert Airline Sliverbeil 2
Lambert Lane Hartman Thomydale 2 451 PIMA CO Apr-99 Minor Arterial
Lambert Lane Thomydale Shannon 2 6278 PIMA CO Mar-99 Minor Arterial
Lambert Lane Shannon La Cholla 2 5473 PIMA CO Mar-99
Linda Vista Blvd Camino de Manana Bald Eagle 2 305 PAG 1999 Local Street
Linda Vista Bivd Bald Eagle Cmo de Oeste 2 1360 PIMA CO Apr-99
Linda Vista Bivd Cmo de Oeste Thomydale 2 7166 PIMA CO Nov-99 Minor Arterial
Linda Vista e!o Thornydale 2
Z/27/01 1 of 3
PAG Traffic Counts.xlsroad segments
/
Roadway Name Segment Lanes xiliary Lanes ADT Source Year Functional
From To Trevel Lanes Classification
Lon Adams Barnett Grier 2 1232 Marana Apr-00
Lon Adams Grier I-10 Frontage Rd 2
Luckett Grier Hardin 2 276 PAG Jun-05
Magee w/o Sandario 2
Magee Thomydale Shannon 2
Magee Rd Shannon La Cholla 2 19905 PAG 2000
Manville Anway Sandario 2 1187 PIMA CO Aug-97
Marana Road Trico Sandario 2 2818 Marana Apr-00 Principal Arterial
Marena Road Wentr Sanders 2
Massingale Rd I-10 Frontage Cmo de Oeste 2 781 PIMA CO Jul-98
Massingale Rd Cmo de Oeste Old Father 2 802 PIMA CO Jul-98
Massingale Rd Old Father Thomydale 2 1505 PIMA CO 1996
Mona Lisa Orange Grove Ina 2
Mona Lisa Ina Crown King 2
Mona Lisa Crown King Magee 2 2663 PIMA CO Jul-00
Moore La Cholla Tangerine 2
Moore Road Sanders I-10 2 Minor Arterial
Moore Road Thomydale La Cholla 2 504 PAG 1999 Minor Arterial
Oasis El cmo de Manana Cmo de Oeste 2
Old Father Ina Cortaro 2 6970 PIMA CO 1996 No ciassified
Orange Grove Sanders Sandario 2
Orange Grove I-10 Thomydale 4 31382 PAG 2000
Orange Grove Thomydale EI Cmo de la Tierra 2-4 15941 PAG 2000
Orange Grove EI cmo de la Tierta Shannon 2 15941 PAG 2000
Orange Grove Shannon La Cholla 2 16891 PIMA CO Jan-97
Overton Road Thomydale La Cholla 2 8051 PAG 2000 Not classified
Pecos Way Thomydale Cmo de la Tierra 2 4678 PIMA CO Apr-99
Picture Rocks Sanders Sandario 2 1472 PIMA CO Jun-96
Picture Rocks Sandario onument Boundary 2 5035 PIMA CO May-00
Picture Rocks Monument Boundary Wade 2 6211 PIMA CO Aug-99
Pima Farms Scenic Silverbell 2
Pinal Air Park Trico I-10 2
PosNale Tangerine Moore 2
Postvale Moore Bamett 2
Postvale Bamett 1-10 Frontage Rd 2
Sandario Road Manville Picture Rocks 2 3432 PAG 2000
Sandario Road Picture Rocks Twin Peaks 2 5723 PAG 2000 Local Street
Sandario Road Twin Peaks Avra Valley 2 3429 PAG 2000 Local Street
Sandario Road Moore I-10 2 2451 Marana Apr-00 Local Street
Sanders Manville Orange Grove 2 478 PAG 1999
Sanders Road Avra Vailey Moore 2 2121 PAG 2000 Principai Arterial
Sanders Moore Rd Marana Rd 2 2121 PAG 2000
Sanders Marana Rd Kirby Hughes 2
Scenic Ina Silverbel~ 2
Shannon Curtis Orange Grove 2 4799 PIMA CO Sep-96
Shannon Orange Grove Ina 2 7134 PIMA CO Sep-97 Principai Arterial
Shannon Ina Cmo de la Tierra 2 7448 PIMA CO Jul-00 Prinapai ARerial
Shannon Cmo de la Tierra Magee/Cortaro 2 9860 PIMA CO Sep-97
Shannon Magee Overton 2 7386 PIMA CO Jan-99 Principal Arterial
Shannon Overton Naranja 2 Principal AAerial
Sliverbell Cocio Trico 2
Silverbell Trico Sanders 2 1215 Marana Apr-00 :
Silverbell Ina Cortaro 2 6435 PAG 1999 Principal Arterial
Silverbell Cortaro Twin Peaks 4 18923 PAG 1999 Principal Arterial
Silverbell Twin Peaks Lambert 2 5601 Marana Apr-00 Not classified
Tangerine Road I-10 Thomydale 2 6702 PAG 2000 Expressway Route
Tangerine Road Thomydale La Cholla 2. 6594 PAG 2000
Thomydale Orange Grove CDO Wash 4 24838 PAG 2000 Principal Arterial
Thomydale CDO Wash Ina 4 24838 PAG 2000 Principal Arteriai
Thornydale Ina Cortaro 2 22824 PAG 2000 Principal Arteriai
Thomydale Cortaro Overton 2 20183 PAG 2000 Principal ARerial
Thomydale Overton Linda Vista 2 16681 PIMA CO Apr-99
Thomydale Linda Vista Lambert 2 14149 PIMA CO Apr-99
Thomydale LambeR Tangerine 2 5558 PAG 2000 Principal Arterial
Thomydale Tangerine Moore 2 5558 PAG 2000 Minor Arterial
Trico Avra Valley Silverbell 2 2146 Marana Mar-00
Trico Silverbell Marana Rd 2 2384 Marana Mar-00
Trico Marana Road Pinal Air Park 2 732 Marana Mar-00
Twin Peaks Clayton Sandario 2 7190 Marana Apr-00 Principal Arterial
Twin Peaks Sandario Sliverbell 2 4153 PAG 1999 principal arterial
Twin Peaks Silverbell Santa Cruz River 4 Principal ARerial
Wade Sliverbell Picture Rocks 2 6436 PIMA CO Aug-99
Wade N/o Ina 2 261 PAG Jun-05
Wen~ Kirby Hughes Marana 2 143 PAG 1999
2127/01 2 of 3
PAG Traffic Counts.xlsroad segments
Roadway Name Segment Lanes xiliary Lanes ADT Source Year Functional
From To Travel Lanes Classiflcation
INTERSTATE 10 MAINLINE
EB WB way Volume
I-10 Ruthrauff Orange Grove 6 56795 41723 98518 PAG 2000
I-10 Orange Grove Ina 8 56795 41723 98518 PAG 2000
I-10 Ina Cortaro 4 56795 41723 98518 PAG 2000
I-10 Cortaro Avra Valley 4 56795 41723 98518 PAG 2000
I-10 Avra Valley Tangerine 4 27093 26249 53341.5 PAG 2000
I-10 Tangerine Marana 4 27093 26249 53341.5 PAG 2000
~-1~ Marana Pinal Park 4 27093 26249 53341.5 PAG 2000
FRONTAGE ROADS NB SB
Orange Grove Ina 11758 Marana Apr-00
Ina Cortaro 1593 2360 Marana Apr-00
WFR Cortaro Avra Valley 1051 1250 Marana Apr-00
WFR Avra Valiey Tangerine 465 1511 Marana Apr-00
WFR Ta~gerine Bamett 401 1221 Marana Apr-00
RAMPS
Orange Grove NB On 3501 Marana Apr-00
Orange Grove NB Off 15483 Marana Apr-00
Orange Grove SB ON 13654 Marana Apr-00
Orange Grove SB Off 2513 Marana Apr-00
Ina Road NB On 4295 Marana Apr-00
Ina Road NB Off 12105 Marana Apr-00
Ina Road SB ON 12543 Marana Apr-00
Ina Road SB Off 3856 Marana Apr-00
Cortaro Road NB On , 1949 Marana Apr-00
Cortaro Road NB Off 11508 Marana Apr-00
Cortaro Road SB ON 10962 Marana Apr-00
Cortaro Road SB Off 2781 Marana Apr-00
Avra Valley Rd NB On 610 Marana Apr-00
Avra Valley Rd NB Off 3001 Marana Apr-00
Avra Valley Rd SB ON 3452 Marana Apr-00
Avra Valley Rd SB Off 470 Marana Apr-00
Tangerine Rd NB On 1339 Marana Apr-00
Tangerine Rd NB Off 1878 Marena Apr-00
Tangerine Rd SB ON 2247 Marana Apr-00
Tangerine Rd SB Off 1222 Marana Apr-00
Marana T.I. NB On 871 Marana Apr-00
Marana T.I. NB Off 2240 Marana Apr-00
Marana T.I. SB ON 2430 Marana Apr-00
Marana T.I. SB Off Marana Apr-00
2/27/01 3 of 3
February 27, 2001 1-90 Tra~c Analysis - Technical Memorandum No. 4
APPENDIX B
PAG 2025 Traffic Projections
APPENDIX
r ~v
O°
ZN
~ ~ ~
~ ~ W ~
~ ~ "
~ ~
~
m n ~
~ ~
m~ i
c~ o ,
°z ~ ~
n~ ~
r - `
~
z ~ w
~
~ ~ ~
~
-v
~ ~
~
_
0 0
Z r 918V 3683 293
~ C ~~y~ ~
n rn ~ ~ ~
Z ~ V
~
~
~ ,
~ ; ~
N ~ ~
o ti
~ ~
tiw~ y~
68ZZ 2480 ~O~
V
~
CO ~
~
Q!'0
O~'
4064
m
cn
v~
rN
ON ~
Z ~
cn ~
~ ~
~ ~
Z ~
G~ -
m C~ aosa
R~1 70
G~ O
zm
r ~ ~o,'
~ Z
~ ~
Z
~ ~
~
~ O ~
S`
n ~
z 0 ~
~ ~ti
-o ~ ~
n ~
zm
~
titi
wti
~
~
O
N
O d°`~~ ~~°y
~
~
~
V
q/ ~
/^q\
. 70',~ ~ V . ~ . .
~
~
~w ° ~
~o
~
~
~ ~
~
v
6~
oo~v
r o .
ON
z
~
~ ~ ~ ~
z
G) _
rn c~ -
~o ~
co
o~
zm
r~
Z
~ ~ ~
t~n ~
~
O~
~ ~
~
~
- <
O
z ~ ~
r w~ ~
~ C
r ~ N
z ~
L ~
i?
~
~
~ 8901
~ 549Z
O ~ ~~ti ti
wc~ ~oti , ~o`O
6~ ~
~
cbv ~ L~a7
1~i ~w't,
20071 ~ ~
~
~ti ~
22311 ~ ~ ~ rZ..~
w~' Or~
1,°~~~ ~~i °Ay~
~ ,~~~ZL ~a ~
~ Z ZZ
~ v~ y V ~j
J '4~ ~ ~
o~'w ~~~w~
v ~ ~
,~Lti~ m ~
yp~4' 88
w
N
~
~
February 27, 2001 I-10 Tra~c Analysis - Technical Memorandum No. 4
APPEND/X C
Roadway and Intersection Capacity Analysis
(CORS/M Output)
APPENDIX
. ~ . r
Parsons Brinckerhoff Michigan, Inc.
Netsim/Fresim Summary Program
Using HCM 1997 Control Stop Delay Criteria
Created February 2000, Versi 0
Input Filename: arana am 2000.out
Output Filename 2000 am output
Number of Nodes Prc~cessed: 150
Number of Links Processed: 144
Current date and time is Fri Feb 23 13:25:41 2001
NETSIM SUMMARY
Node Volume Delay S/U/A LOS From Volume Delay LOS
I
1 71 1.68 U A
i 5 29 2.8 A
83 42 .9 A
2 5 .90 U A
4 5 .9 A
3 714 20.48 U C
~•~p~,~ ~x~ ~ 2 4 2 2 7 8 4 2. 9 E
133 288 1.7 A
163 148 14.9 B /
4 5 1.50 U A
6 5 1.5 A
5 70 2.59 U A
9 29 4.7 A
1 41 1.1 A
6 5 1.00 U A '
11 5 l.0 A
7 459 .57 U A
211 202 1.3 A '
8010 257 .0 A ~
8 39 .46 U A
8001 21 .0 A
12 18 1.0 A ~
9 70 2.87 U A
15 29 3.4 A
5 41 2.5 A
10 6 1.40 U A
13 6 1.4 A
11 6 .30 U A
18 6 .3 A
12 39 2.93 U A
8 21 1.5 A
16 18 4.6 A
13 6 3.50 U A
17 6 3.5 A
14 366 .63 U A
8009 237 .0 A
210 129 1.8 A
15 70 2.76 U A
19 28 4.8 A
9 42 1.4 A
16 94 4.32 U A
12 22 7.1 A
21 26 .1 A
. , ,
33 28 1.0 A
36 18 12.2 B
17 38 2.16 U A
8012 24 .0 A
34 5 .9 A
37 9 8.6 A
18 6 .10 U A
20 6 .l A
19 69 4.29 U A
22 32 4.4 A
15 37 4.2 A
20 6 .40 U A
35 6 .4 A
21 54 .57 U A
16 28 1.1 A
8014 26 .0 A
22 73 3.08 U A
32 33 2.7 A
19 40 3.4 A
24 33 .30 U A
46 33 .3 A
25 62 2.82 U A
56 41 3.5 A
52 21 1.5 A
26 39 1.40 U A
29 39 1.4 A
27 35 .40 U A
153 35 .4 A
28 35 1.70 U A
27 35 1.7 A
29 59 1.72 U A
30 39 2.6 A
8019 20 .0 A
30 59 2.75 U A
52 39 3.7 A
29 20 .9 A
31 37 .40 II A
28 37 .4 A
32 73 2.53 U A
176 33 1.6 A
22 40 3.3 A
33 76 1.62 U A
34 30 2.2 A
7001 20 .0 A
16 26 2.2 A
34 72 1.16 U A
17 26 .0 A
7002 19 -.3 A !
33 27 3.3 A ~
35 6 .20 U A I
175 6 .2 A ~I
36 40 3.35 U A
16 22 5.1 A
40 18 1.2 A
37 9 2.30 U A
38 9 2.3 A
38 9 3.20 U A
41 9 3.2 A
39 328 .65 U A
197 162 . 7 A
100 166 .6 A
' t •
40 40 1.73 U A
36 22 .2 A
42 18 3.6 A
41 11 5.10 U A
43 11 5.1 A
42 46 3.73 U A
40 21 .9 A
47 25 6.1 A
43 11 3.90 U A
49 11 3.9 A
45 120 .50 U A
158 120 .5 A
46 35 .50 U A
31 35 .5 A
47 45 3.44 U A
42 20 1.5 A
48 25 5.0 A
48 51 4.61 U A
47 21 1.9 A
50 30 6.5 A
49 12 3.80 U A
51 12 3.8 A
50 52 4.62 U A
48 22 2.2 A
55 30 6.4 A
51 12 3.50 U A
54 12 3.5 A
52 61 2.71 U A
25 40 3.5 A
30 21 1.2 A
53 33 .10 U A
24 33 .l A
54 13 3.80 U A
60 13 3.8 A
55 51 4.42 U A
50 20 2.9 A
61 31 5.4 A
56 63 2.65 U A
58 41 3.1 A
25 22 1.8 A
57 32 .10 U A
53 32 .l A
58 66 2.45 U A
64 46 3.0 A
56 20 1.2 A
59 32 .10 U A
57 32 .1 A
60 10 4.60 U A '
62 10 4.6 A '
61 54 4.16 U A ~i
55 21 3.3 A
63 33 4.7 A ~
62 11 4.80 U A
66 11 4.8 A
63 51 3.94 U A
61 20 4.0 A
67 31 3.9 A
64 65 3.03 U A
75 46 3.5 A
58 19 1.9 A
65 29 .40 U A
• ' 1
59 29 .4 A
66 12 4.80 U A
68 12 4.8 A
67 49 3.29 U A
63 16 3.9 A
69 33 3.0 A
68 12 3.60 U A
71 12 3.6 A
69 51 2.00 U A
67 16 4.2 A
72 35 1.0 A
70 173 1.05 U A
237 82 1.4 A
78 66 .6 A
7004 25 1.1 A
71 12 .70 U A
137 12 .7 A
72 53 2.42 U A
69 16 4.3 A
78 37 1.6 A
75 70 2.91 U A
102 50 3.4 A
64 20 1.7 A
76 28 .30 U A
65 28 .3 A
78 191 2.84 U A
72 16 10.0 A
70 75 1.0 A
8237 71 .0 A
83 29 10.6 B
79 142 .25 U A
237 71 .5 A
8013 71 .0 A
80 108 .22 U A
108 40 .6 A
8015 68 .0 A
82 3 1.20 U A
2 3 1.2 A
83 71 3.45 U A
78 42 3.7 A
1 29 3.1 A
85 118 .20 U A
94 118 .2 A
90 119 .00 U A
~ 85 119 .0 A
~,,~q~ 9 3 101 13 5. 2 0 U ,
9 5 101. 13 5. 2 ~
~ 94 121 1.70 U A
~ J 4 5 121 1. 7 A
95 184 1.20 U A
116 184 1.2 A
100 330 2.01 U A
39 164 .5 A
101 166 3.5 A
101 327 4.33 U A
100 159 • 8.9 A
8101 168 .0 A
102 70 3.50 U A
127 49 4.4 A
75 21 1.4 A
107 157 3.98 U A
I
8008 68 .0 A
178 39 2.0 A
176 35 11.9 B
111 15 8.7 A
108 167 3.64 U A
178 30 1.2 A
80 68 .2 A
138 69 8.1 A
111 73 4.35 U A
107 58 4.9 A
119 15 2.2 A
112 28 2.80 U A
113 28 2.8 A
113 28 3.90 U A
130 28 3.9 A
116 188 .90 U A
121 188 .9 A
119 74 2.18 U A .
111 56 2.2 A
150 18 2.1 A
121 186 2.40 U A
148 186 2.4 A
123 118 .30 U A
90 118 .3 A
126 29 .00 U A
76 29 .0 A
127 71 3.16 U A
129 51 3.3 A
102 20 2.8 A
128 29 1.80 U A
126 29 1.8 A
129 74 3.40 U A
150 53 4.0 A
127 21 1.9 A
130 28 .30 U A
128 28 .3 A
132 294 .33 U A
8007 185 .0 A
98 109 .9 A
133 355 .21 U A
8006 287 .0 A
3 68 1.1 A
134 52 .10 U A
82 4 1.3 A
7006 48 .0 A
137 47 .90 U A
237 47 .9 A
138 71 .51 U A
112 28 1.3 A
7012 43 .0 A
139 47 2.30 U A
108 47 2.3 A
140 74 .69 U A
7010 35 .0 A
26 39 1.3 A
143 225 3.20 U A
98 225 3.2 A
146 186 .28 U A
154 58 .9 A
7014 128 .0 A
148 187 .50 U A
168 187 .5 A
150 74 2.70 U A
119 56 2.7 A
129 18 2.7 A
151 68 .20 U A
143 68 .2 A
153 107 2.30 U A
97 107 2.3 A
154 58 .60 U A
161 58 .6 A
155 115 .00 U A
204 74 .0 A
7016 41 .0 A
158 400 8.70 U A
,r---~_ 210 4 0 0 8. 7 A
~ 159 1 87.26 U F
. . _
93 63 300 2 F~`'~
i~~~]
~ ~.~.~-.9 _-__--_.18-8 ~..15 9_ C---Y`3
160 110 1.70 U A
211 110 1.7 A
161 57 .40 U A
182 57 .4 A
163 150 .23 U A
7020 34 .0 A
123 116 .3 A
166 369 2.30 U A
~ 3 369 2.3 A
4
4~-10 5.. 7._.v.~...1 U~_..____ F~ 4,a.4..~.~.__....._.._:~--.., w,.
.._----~-_°M...~,.
~ ~ ' , _ 19 8 81 2 9 7 . 1 F
~ ~023 163 10.6 B~~ )
168 255 1.80 U A
242 255 1.8 A
172 68 1.60 U A
151 68 1.6 A
175 5 .20 U A
139 5 .2 A
176 71 2.84 U A
107 32 1.8 A
32 39 3.7 A
178 136 1.87 U A
108 79 3.1 A
107 48 .2 A
7009 9 .0 A
180 68 .20 U A
172 68 .2 A
182 57 .50 U A
190 57 .5 A
190 56 .60 U A
201 56 .6 A
196 276 4.90 U A
166 276 4.9 A
197 333 1.55 U A
39 169 1.6 A
97 164 1.5 A
198 125 10.60 U B
212 125 10.6 B
199 70 .30 U A
180 70 .3 A
200 72 .10 U A
199 72 .l A
201 54 .50 U A
203 54 ,5 A
202 71 .20 U A
200 71 .2 A
203 54 2.00 U A
209 54 2.0 A
204 74 .10 U A
202 74 .l A
205 278 3.90 U A
196 278 3.9 A
209 55 .70 U A
160 55 .7 A
212 139 .50 U A
216 139 .5 A
215 276 1.40 U A
205 276 1.4 A
216 138 .00 U A
8017 138 .0 A
237 203 2.60 U { A?
70 80 1.6 A
79 71 .0 A
134 52 7.7 A
245 484 .65 U f°A
242 225 1.4 A
8018 259 .0 A
9 7 4 6 4 19 . 3 2 A B
, `,~~~~~~~q,~ 197 173 24.4 C
98 108 13.6 B
146 183 17.9 B
98 446 18.92 A ~
~1 „~97 192 14 . 7 B
~ ~ 13 2 18 5 9. 7 A ~
140 69 55.4 E
210 643 57 . 49 A J E J
s~,~ 14 233 19.2 B
~~,r~' 11 292 102.9 F
155 118 20.7 C
211 623 31.68 A C
I~ 10 120 16.5 B
7 2 4 6 2 8. 4 C
159 257 41.9 D
242 775 38.80 A / D) !
245 255 38.1 D
~~~~3'~~~~ 167 246 57.8 E
FRESIM SUMMARY
ANode BNode F/R Lanes FFSpd Vol Cap V/C Speed Dens
LOS
8002 99 F 2 70 0 4800 .00 .0 .0
A
99 104 F 2 70 386 4800 .08 67.9 11.4 ~
B
104 189 F 2 70 385 4800 .08 68.6 11.3
B
189 219 F 2 70 364 4800 .08 67.9 10.7
B
218 195 F 2 70 69 4800 .Ol 68.6 2.0
A
229 231 F 2 70 382 4800 .08 67.7 11.3
B
230 225 F 2 70 96 4800 .02 69.2 2.8
A
262 260 F 2 70 110 4800 .02 69.1 3.2
A
260 258 F 2 70 109 4800 .02 69.3 3.2
A
258 256 F 2 70 109 4800 .02 69.3 3.2
A
256 243 F 2 70 104 4800 .02 69.2 3.0
A
243 230 F 2 70 99 4800 .02 68.7 2.9
A
231 232 F 2 70 385 4800 .08 67.5 11.4
B
232 255 F 2 70 386 4800 .08 67.2 11.5
B
255 257 F 2 70 388 4800 .08 66.8 11.6
B
257 259 F 2 70 388 4800 .08 65.8 11.9
B
259 261 F 2 70 387 4800 .08 65.7 11.8
B
313 311 F 2 70 148 4800 .03 69.6 4.2
A
311 309 F 2 70 146 4800 .03 69.7 4.2
A
309 306 F 2 70 143 4800 .03 69.5 4.1
A
306 301 F 2 70 142 4800 .03 69.3 4.1
A
301 291 F 2 70 140 4800 .03 68.6 4.1
A
261 250 F 2 70 385 4800 .08 66.3 11.6
B
250 252 F 2 70 385 4800 .08 66.0 11.7
B
252 254 F 2 70 387 4800 .08 65.9 11.7
B
254 265 F 2 65 359 4700 .08 61.9 11.6
B
265 290 F 2 70 376 4800 .08 64.4 11.7
B
290 299 F 2 70 373 4800 .08 66.1 11.3
B
299 305 F 2 70 369 4800 .08 66.3 11.1
B
305 310 F 2 70 365 4800 .08 66.8 10.9
B
310 312 F 2 70 360 4800 .08 67.1 10.8
B
312 314 F 2 70 356 4800 .07 66.4 10.7
B
314 316 F 2 70 353 4800 .07 65.9 10.7
B
335 333 F 2 70 240 4800 .05 67.8 7.1
A ~
333 331 F 2 70 239 4800 .05 65.7 7.3 '
A
. ,
331 329 F 2 70 239 4800 .05 65.4 7.4
A
329 327 F 2 70 109 4800 .02 68.2 3.2
A
323 322 F 2 70 176 4800 .04 67.8 5.2
A
322 319 F 2 70 176 4800 .04 68.7 5.1
A
319 317 F 2 70 177 4800 .04 68.4 5.2
A
317 268 F 2 70 177 4800 .04 68.4 5.2
A
268 248 F 2 70 176 4800 .04 68.3 5.2
A
248 184 F 2 70 176 4800 .04 68.4 5.1
A
184 181 F 2 70 176 4800 .04 68.7 5.1
A
145 142 F 2 70 115 4800 .02 69.0 3.4
A
316 141 F 2 70 350 4800 .07 66.6 10.5
B
141 144 F 2 70 336 4800 .07 66.6 10.1
B
144 156 F 2 70 328 4800 .07 64.2 10.2
B
156 162 F 2 70 386 4800 .08 64.2 12.1
B
162 165 F 2 70 379 4800 .08 65.9 11.5
B
165 173 F 2 70 369 4800 .08 66.5 11.1
B
173 179 F 2 70 362 4800 .08 66.6 10.9
B
179 183 F 2 70 359 4800 .07 66.3 10.9
B
183 240 F 2 70 351 4800 .07 65.7 10.8
B
240 249 F 2 70 340 4800 .07 65.9 10.3
B
249 269 F 2 70 333 4800 .07 66.0 10.1
B
269 318 F 2 70 329 4800 .07 65.7 10.1
B
318 320 F 2 70 323 4800 .07 66.2 9.8
A
320 321 F 2 70 318 4800 .07 66.0 9.6
A
321 324 F 2 70 312 4800 .06 64.9 9.6
A
324 325 F 2 70 306 4800 .06 66.3 9.3
A
325 328 F 2 70 302 4800 .06 66.0 9.2
A
332 334 F 2 70 404 4800 .08 64.8 12.4
B
334 336 F 2 70 402 4800 .08 65.7 12.2
B
8005 343 F 3 65 0 7050 .00 .0 .0
A
343 342 F 3 70 493 7200 .07 67.0 9.8
A
342 339 F 3 70 494 7200 .07 67.6 9.8
A
339 337 F 3 70 329 7200 .05 67.6 6.5
A
337 293 F 3 70 395 7200 .05 65.6 8.0
A
293 149 F 3 70 392 7200 .05 68.6 7.6
A
149 136 F 3 70 391 7200 .05 67.1 7.8
A
136 135 F 2 70 386 4800 .08 50.3 9.8
A
103 335 F 2 70 242 4800 .05 68.5 7.1
A
336 105 F 2 70 399 4800 .08 65.7 12.2
B
105 117 F 2 70 390 4800 .08 64.3 12.1
B
117 120 F 2 70 374 4800 .08 64.4 11.6
B
152 302 F 3 70 553 7200 .08 66.6 11.1
B
302 338 F 3 70 548 7200 .08 67.3 10.8
B
338 340 F 3 70 513 7200 .07 66.2 10.3
B
340 341 F 3 70 603 7200 .08 63.5 12.6
B
23 115 F 2 70 107 4800 .02 69.6 3.1
A
195 23 F 2 70 107 4800 .02 66.1 3.2
A
189 7001 R 1 65 20 2200 .O1 62.0 1.3
A
253 73 F 2 70 118 4800 .02 68.7 3.4
A
73 262 F 2 70 114 4800 .02 69.5 3.3
A
218 7002 R 1 65 20 2200 .Ol 63.8 1.2
A
266 77 F 2 70 86 4800 .02 69.0 2.5
A
77 253 F 2 70 119 4800 .02 65.4 3.7
A
254 7004 R 1 65 26 2200 .Ol 61.3 1.8
A
266 7006 R 1 65 48 2200 .02 62.6 3.1
A
110 145 F 2 70 119 4800 .02 69.0 3.5
A
141 7009 R 1 65 9 2200 .00 63.7 .6
A
110 7012 R 1 65 43 2200 .02 63.0 2.7
A
164 125 F 2 70 168 4800 .04 68.1 5.0
A
125 110 F 2 70 165 4800 .03 68.9 4.8
A
147 164 F 2 70 169 4800 .04 68.7 4.9
A
~
328 7010 R 1 65 35 2200 .02 52.6 2.7
A
328 157 F 2 70 264 4800 .05 61.7 8.6
A
157 332 F 2 70 412 4800 .09 57.8 14.1
B
118 92 F 2 70 244 4800 .05 65.8 7.4
A
92 103 F 2 70 244 4800 .05 68.1 7.2
A
120 124 F 2 65 315 4700 .07 55.7 11.3
B
135 118 F 2 70 190 4800 .04 68.2 5.6
A
329 7014 R 1 65 129 2200 .06 52.4 9.8
A
120 7016 R 1 65 41 2200 .02 57.9 2.9
~ A
135 7019 R 1 65 190 2200 .09 6.8 90.1
i~` ~ t
124 ~ 6 F 2 70 577 4800 .12 61.2 12.5
B
96 152 F 3 70 564 7200 .08 66.1 11.4
B
341 345 F 3 70 599 7200 .08 66.4 12.0
B
338 7020 R 1 65 33 2200 .Ol 53.6 2.5
A ~
9 7023 R 1 65 164 2200 .07 10.6 53.4
F
291 266 F 2 70 137 4800 .03 69.5 4.0
A
225 218 F 2 70 93 4800 .02 69.0 2.7
A
219 229 F 2 70 383 4800 .08 67.1 11.4
B
142 44 F 2 70 153 4800 .03 67.0 4.5
A
44 313 F 2 70 150 4800 .03 69.3 4.4
A
181 74 F 2 70 175 4800 .04 68.7 5.1
A
74 147 F 2 70 172 4800 .04 68.7 5.0
A
7003 81 R 1 65 21 2200 .O1 35.8 2.5
A
81 219 R 1 65 21 2200 .Ol 52.5 1.6
A
7000 84 R 1 65 38 2200 .02 29.6 5.5
A
84 195 R 1 65 38 2200 .02 42.1 3.7
A
7005 86 R 1 65 35 2200 .02 25.5 6.0
A
86 77 R 1 65 35 2200 .02 36.8 3.8
A
7007 87 R 1 65 17 2200 .Ol 34.2 2.1 '
A
87 265 R 1 65 18 2200 .Ol 49.6 1.5
A
7008 89 R 1 65 40 2200 .02 35.3 4.8
.
A
89 142 R 1 65 41 2200 .02 50.9 3.3
A
7011 88 R l 65 65 2200 .03 35.9 7.7
A
88 156 R 1 65 66 2200 .03 51.6 5.0
A
7013 91 R 1 65 76 2200 .03 27.8 11.9
B
91 327 R 1 65 76 2200 .03 41.2 7.4
A
15 106 R 1 65 155 2200 .07 30.7 21.2
1r
~~~~l
~~Y^'
~ 106 157 R 1 65 155 2200 .07 47.1 13.6
B
7017 109 R 1 65 52 2200 .02 32.0 6.9
A
109 118 R 1 65 52 2200 .02 45.3 4.7
e~, A
.1`~`"' 018 _114~ R 1 65 280 2200 . 13 27 .2 43. 8
.n_m ~
114 124 R 1 65 279 2200 .13 42.5 26.7
D
7021 122 R 1 65 68 2200 .03 27.5 10.7
B
122 337 R 1 65 68 2200 .03 41.5 6.8
A
7022 131 R 1 65 92 2200 .04 32.8 11.7
B
131 340 R 1 65 91 2200 .04 49.6 7.5
A
327 169 F 2 65 183 4700 .04 58.0 6.3
A
169 323 F 2 65 179 4700 .04 62.8 5.7
A
w
Parsons Brinckerhoff Michigan, Inc.
Netsim/Fresim Summary Program
Using HCM 1997 Control Stop Delay Criteria
Created February 2000, Version 1.0
Input Filename: ra~m 2000.out
Output Filenamec m 2000 output
Number of Nodes Processed: 150
Number of Links Processed: 144
Current date and time is Fri Feb 23 13:33:15 2001
NETSIM SUMMARY
Node Volume Delay S/U/A LOS From Volume Delay LOS
1 80 1.39 U A
5 28 2.5 A
83 52 .8 A
2 4 .00 U A
4 4 .0 A
3 745 9.90 U
2 4 2 2 7-0 2 0. 0 C
i" 133 353 2.2 A
163 122 9.8 A
4 4 1.20 U A
6 4 1.2 A
5 80 2.18 U A
9 28 4.0 A
1 52 1.2 A
6 6 .20 U A
11 6 .2 A
7 517 .74 U A
211 255 1.5 A
8010 262 .0 A
8 52 .20 U A
8001 35 .0 A
12 17 .6 A
9 81 2.74 U A
15 28 3.0 A
5 53 2.6 A
10 8 1.00 U A
13 8 1.0 A
11 6 .00 U A
18 6 .0 A
12 52 1.85 U A
8 36 .8 A
16 16 4.2 A
13 9 3.30 U A
17 9 3.3 A
14 510 .61 U A
8009 326 .0 A
210 184 1.7 A
15 81 3.00 U A
19 28 4.5 A
9 53 2.2 A
16 107 6.05 U A
12 36 7.3 A
21 26 .2 A
'
33 27 1.0 A
36 18 19.6 C
17 41 2.27 U A
8012 23 .0 A
34 8 1.0 A
37 10 8.5 A
18 6 .40 U A
20 6 .4 A
19 81 4.49 U A
22 30 3.8 A
15 51 4.9 A
20 8 .10 U A
35 8 .l A
21 54 .41 U A
16 28 .8 A
8014 26 .0 A
22 84 3.74 U A
32 31 2.1 A
19 53 4.7 A
24 56 .20 U A
46 56 .2 A
25 68 3.10 U A
56 46 4.1 A
52 22 1.0 A
26 35 1.40 U A
29 35 1.4 A
27 59 .40 U A
153 59 .4 A
28 60 1.60 U A
27 60 1.6 A
29 57 1.77 U A
30 36 2.8 A
8019 21 .0 A
30 68 3.34 U A
52 46 4.5 A
29 22 .9 A
31 59 .50 U A
28 59 .5 A
32 83 3.20 U A
176 30 1.6 A
22 53 4.1 A
33 80 1.62 U A
34 32 2.5 A
7001 22 .0 A
16 26 1.9 A
34 76 1.21 U A
17 25 .0 A
7002 24 .0 A
33 27 3.4 A
35 8 .00 U A
175 8 .0 A
36 55 3.76 U A
16 37 5.0 A
40 18 1.2 A
37 10 2.20 U A
38 10 2.2 A
38 10 3.20 U A
41 10 3.2 A
39 399 5.24 U A
197 202 .8 A
100 197 9.8 A
40 55 1.11 U A
36 37 .0 A
42 18 3.4 A
41 11 5.10 U A
43 11 5.1 A
42 65 2.95 U A
40 38 .5 A
47 27 6.4 A
43 11 4.20 U A
49 11 4.2 A
45 103 .60 U A
158 103 .6 A
46 60 .40 U A
31 60 .4 A
47 65 3.25 U A
42 38 1.8 A
48 27 5.3 A
48 69 4.33 U A
47 38 2.8 A
50 31 6.2 A
99 12 3.80 U A
51 12 3.8 A
50 68 4.91 U A
48 35 3.7 A
55 33 6.2 A
51 12 3.50 U A
54 12 3.5 A
52 68 3.23 U A
25 46 4.2 A
30 22 1.2 A
53 56 .00 U A
24 56 .0 A
54 13 3.80 U A
60 13 3.8 A
55 68 4.98 U A
50 35 4.4 A
61 33 5.6 A
56 71 2.50 U A
58 49 3.0 A
25 22 1.4 A
57 58 .00 U A
53 58 .0 A
58 71 2.40 U A
64 49 2.9 A
56 22 1.3 A
59 59 .00 U A
57 59 .0 A
60 10 5.40 U A
62 10 5.4 A
61 68 4.40 U A
55 35 4.4 A
63 33 4.4 A
62 9 5.20 U A
66 9 5.2 A
63 70 4.12 U A
61 36 4.8 A
67 34 3.4 A
64 69 2.84 U A
75 49 3.1 A
58 20 2.2 A
65 56 .20 U A
59 56 .2 A
66 11 5.10 U A
68 11 5.1 A
67 70 3.31 U A
63 36 5.2 A
69 34 1.3 A
68 11 3.60 U A
71 11 3.6 A
69 70 3.01 U A
67 34 6. 1 A
72 36 .1 A
70 181 1.20 U A
237 82 1.1 A
78 65 .8 A
7004 34 2.2 A
71 12 .70 U A
137 12 .7 A
72 67 3.67 U A
69 31 6.3 A
78 36 1.4 A
75 75 2.79 U A
102 54 3.1 A
64 21 2.0 A
76 53 .20 U A
65 53 .2 A
78 202 3.57 U A
72 26 12.5 B
70 81 1.4 A
8237 68 .0 A
83 27 10.5 B
79 145 .26 U A
237 75 .5 A
8013 70 .0 A
80 113 .35 U A
108 50 .8 A
8015 63 .0 A
82 4 .00 U A
2 4 .0 A
83 80 3.22 U A
78 52 3.4 A
l 28 2.9 A
85 96 .20 U A
94 96 .2 A
90 93 .30 U A
85 93 .3 A
93 53 328.50 U F
95 53 328.5 F
94 100 1.70 U A
45 100 1.7 A
95 223 4.50 U A
116 223 4.5 A
100 401 3.61 U A
39 200 .5 A
101 201 6.7 A
101 399 5.09 U A
100 197 10.3 B
8101 202 .0 A
102 73 3.58 U A
127 52 4.3 A
75 21 1.8 A
107 170 5.22 U A
~
8008 64 .0 A
178 46 2.2 A
176 45 14.8 B
111 15 8.0 A
108 200 6.21 U A
178 27 .9 A
80 63 .3 A
138 110 10.9 B
111 80 4.35 U A
107 62 5.0 A
119 18 2.1 A
112 45 2.70 U A
113 45 2.7 A
113 45 3.20 U A
130 45 3.2 A
116 237 1.50 U A
121 237 1.5 A
119 80 2.42 U A
111 62 2.6 A
150 18 1.8 A
121 236 2.80 U A
148 236 2.8 A
123 87 .40 U A
90 87 .4 A
126 49 -.30 U A
76 49 -.3 A
127 73 3.31 U A
129 53 3.5 A
102 20 2.8 A
128 47 1.70 U A
126 47 1.7 A
129 79 3.51 U A
150 58 4.2 A
127 21 1.6 A
130 47 .20 U A
128 47 .2 A
132 350 .49 U A
8007 207 .0 A
98 143 1.2 A
133 415 .15 U A
8006 351 .0 A
3 64 1.0 A
134 52 .11 U A
82 5 1.1 A
7006 47 .0 A
137 48 .80 U A
237 48 .8 A
138 112 .68 U A
112 40 1.9 A
7012 72 .0 A
139 53 2.70 U A
108 53 2.7 A
140 76 .78 U A
7010 41 .0 A
26 35 1.7 A
143 216 3.80 U A
98 216 3.8 A
146 275 1.91 U A
154 76 6.9 A
7014 199 .0 A
148 229 .60 U A
,I
168 229 .6 A
150 82 2.62 U A
119 61 2.8 A
129 21 2.1 A
151 69 .80 U A
143 69 .8 A
153 186 2.60 U A
97 186 2.6 A
154 78 .70 U A
161 78 .7 A
155 123 .00 U A
204 70 .0 A
7016 53 .0 A
158 354 7.50 U A
_F_ 210 3 5 4 7. 5 A
a_..~,._
159 - 234 ~85. 47 U F_ _
93 36 459. 3 F.~, f
~ . _.._,~____T_._~_.a._.,,,..,..._. _ :
7019 198 17.5 C"`
~ . _
160 155 1.90 U A ' -
211 155 1.9 A
161 79 .70 U A
182 79 .7 A
163 121 .00 U A
7020 36 .0 A
123 85 .0 A
166 391 2.00 U A
_.__.u..._~.
3._ _ . , ~-9~3. , _ 2_.: 0~. . A
T
67 300 129,. 93_ :,..,,U, ~ F
~ ' ~ . . .
, 198 111 336.0 F
, .
7 0 2 3 18.9 ,~.,....~,.._~.8 • 9.~.._.---A` F
..m,
16 8 317 1. 7 0 U A"~"'°°"`"" ~"W~
292 317 1.7 A
172 67 2.00 U A
151 67 2.0 A
175 7 .00 U A
139 7 . 0 A ~
176 80 3.57 U A
107 29 2.1 A
32 51 4.4 A
178 145 2.64 U A
108 95 3.9 A
107 48 .2 A
7009 2 1.2 A
180 66 .20 U A
172 66 .2 A
182 80 .90 U A
190 80 .9 A
190 82 .80 U A
201 82 .8 A
19 6.~ 2
8.~_ -,-2 - 6 0 U A
~ ~-~'3' ~ ;.~A'"""' '""R`-,-~,,"""'°r: _ _ _ . ...wl:b.b.,_,. 2 8 3 _ . . 2 . 6 A
r,:,.:.
197 401 18.55 U C1 '
r., ~ 39 197 35. 8 E~,,
~ ~
' 97 204 1.9 A
~
. F
~ 198 121 282.70 U F f~A
I~ Fz ' _ r...a... ..:...-~,..,,,-...,.~.....,.....,_,ti
i ~ , ""~,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,w. ~-mm~...._..w.-..~212 121 2 8 2x = •
19 9 6 7 .10 U A . ..c.. _ _ . .
180 67 .1 A i
200 68 .10 U A
199 68 .1 A
201 81 .50 U A
203 81 .5 A
202 70 .30 U A
200 70 .3 A
203 80 2.10 U A
209 80 2.1 A
204 70 .20 U A
202 70 .2 A
205 290 3.40 U A
196 290 3.4 A
209 78 .80 U A
, _ . - --~m-°~ 6`0' _."_°"'_._._.~_8__._._~. ...s _ A
_
,
, t''' 21 193 14 3.10 U. F
~
w ~ 3 : `l _ . _ F
, .,,,T.,216~~rt~ . 7..~~3"..~."°~
215 287 1.50 U A
:a ~Z~,~
a 4'~° 205 287 1. 5 A
216 296 .00 U A
8017 296 .0 A
237 205 2.31 U A ~
70 83 1.6 A
79 71 .0 A
134 51 6.7 A
245 606 .59 U ~'A
242 296 1.2 A
8018 310 .0 A
97 625 29.09 A ~C~~
~"~19 7 19 2 4 8. 4 D
98 162 11.7 B
146 271 25.8 C
98 521 17.23 A ~B
~~~~°,,~R:a 97 236 16.6 B
132 209 17.6 B
140 76 18.2 B
210 735 51.08 A ;'D~
~~~,~?,~~~~~ri~ 318 69.5 E
211 290 43.7 D
155 127 21.8 C
211 704 58.77 A
~ ~10 207 34.2 C
~ 7 254 84.8 F
159 243 52.5 D
242 885 35.83 A ;'D~
` ~ 245 301 43.0 D
3 285 22. 1 C
~ ` 167 299 41.7 D
FRESIM SUMMARY
ANode BNode F/R Lanes FFSpd Vol Cap V/C Speed Dens
LOS
8002 99 F 2 70 0 4800 .00 .0 .0
A
99 104 F 2 70 440 4800 .09 67.6 13.0
B
104 189 F 2 70 440 4800 .09 68.6 12.9
B
189 219 F 2 70 419. 4800 .09 66.9 12.5
B
218 195 F 2 70 147 4800 .03 66.4 4.4
A
229 231 F 2 70 442 4800 .09 65.8 13.5
B
230 225 F 2 70 185 4800 .04 67.4 5.5
A
262 260 F 2 70 211 4800 .04 68.1 6.2
A
260 258 F 2 70 204 4800 .09 68.1 6.0
A
258 256 F 2 70 196 4800 .04 68.2 5.8
A
256 243 F 2 70 189 4800 .04 68.0 5.6
A
243 230 F 2 70 186 4800 .04 68.1 5.5
A
231 232 F 2 70 443 4800 .09 66.0 13.4
B
232 255 F 2 70 442 4800 .09 66.2 13.4
B
255 257 F 2 70 439 4800 .09 65.9 13.3
B
257 259 F 2 70 441 4800 .09 65.9 13.4
B
259 261 F 2 70 444 4800 .09 65.5 13.4
B
313 311 F 2 70 286 4800 .06 65.7 8.7
A
311 309 F 2 70 281 4800 .06 66.4 8.5
A
309 306 F 2 70 279 4800 .06 66.6 8.3
A
306 301 F 2 70 274 4800 .06 66.0 8.3
A
301 291 F 2 70 270 4800 .06 65.8 8.2
A
261 250 F 2 70 440 4800 .09 64.8 13.6
B
250 252 F 2 70 438 4800 .09 65.1 13.5
B
252 254 F 2 70 439 4800 .09 64.7 13.6
B
254 265 F 2 65 405 4700 .09 61.4 13.2
B
265 290 F 2 70 418 4800 .09 62.4 13.4
B
290 299 F 2 70 412 4800 .09 64.7 12.7
B
299 305 F 2 70 409 4800 .09 65.1 12.6
B
305 310 F 2 70 407 4800 .08 65.3 12.5
B
310 312 F 2 70 403 4800 .08 65.3 12.4
B
312 314 F 2 70 396 4800 .08 64.6 12.3
B
314 316 F 2 70 390 4800 .08 64.5 12.1
B
335 333 F 2 70 480 4800 .10 60.4 16.0
B
33 331 F 2 70 473 4800 .10 56.2 16.8
C
,~~31 3~9 F 2 70 466 4800 .10 60.7 15.4
`~B._ _ . .
329 327 F 2 70 259 4800 .05 60.8 8.5
A
323 322 F 2 70 378 4800 .08 63.5 11.9
B
322 319 F 2 70 376 4800 .08 65.7 11.4
B
319 317 F 2 70 376 4800 .08 65.8 11.5
B
317 268 F 2 70 375 4800 .08 64.5 11.6
B
268 24$ F 2 70 372 4800 .08 64.7 11.6
B
248 184 F 2 70 370 4800 .08 65.0 11.4
B
184 181 F 2 70 367 4800 .08 65.6 11.2
B
145 142 F 2 70 259 4800 .05 63.3 8.2
A ~
316 141 F 2 70 384 4800 .08 63.9 12.0
B
141 144 F 2 70 375 4800 .08 63.2 11.8
B
144 156 F 2 70 369 4800 .08 61.3 12.0
B
156 162 F 2 70 430 4800 .09 60.7 14.3
B
162 165 F 2 70 413 4800 .09 64.6 12.8
B
165 173 F 2 70 403 4800 .08 64.5 12.5
B
173 179 F 2 70 396 4800 .08 64.9 12.2
B
179 183 F 2 70 382 4800 .08 64.4 12.0
B
183 240 F 2 70 370 4800 .08 64.8 11.4
B
240 249 F 2 70 365 4800 .08 64.0 11.4
B
249 269 F 2 70 356 4800 .07 63.7 11.2
B
269 318 F 2 70 347 4800 .07 63.2 10.9
B
318 320 F 2 70 343 4800 .07 64.8 10.6
B
320 321 F 2 70 337 4800 .07 65.4 10.3
B
321 324 F 2 70 330 4800 .07 64.9 10.1
B
324 325 F 2 70 324 4800 .07 64.7 10.1
B
325 328 F 2 70 322 4800 .07 65.2 9.9
A
332 334 F 2 70 416 4800 .09 62.5 13.3
B
334 336 F 2 70 409 4800 .09 63.1 13.0
B
8005 343 F 3 65 0 7050 .00 .0 .0
343 3''~2 F~ 3 70 962 7200 .13 65.7 19.6
! ~i~ ~ ~ ~ r~'':
~
, ~ '
342 339 F; 3 70 962 7200 .13 63.8 20.2
C
339 337 F; 3 70 782 7200 .11 61.9 16.9
C
337 293 F 3 70 861 7200 .12 52.2 21.6
C , _
3 149~~~ F~~` 3 70 805 7200 .11 22.5 46.5
F
149 136 F 3 70 708 7200 .10 11.3 82.0
F
136 135 F 2 70 618 4800 .13 9.4 83.1
F
,
335 F 2 70 478 4800 .10 62.6 15.2
336 105 F 2 70 402 4800 .08 63.5 12.7
B
105 117 F 2 70 394 4800 .08 63.3 12.5
B
117 120 F 2 70 384 4800 .08 64.5 11.9
B
152 302 F 3 70 525 7200 .07 67.2 10.5
B
302 338 F 3 70 520 7200 .07 67.2 10.4
B
338 340 F 3 70 478 7200 .07 66.4 9.6
A
340 341 F 3 70 577 7200 .08 63.1 12.2
B
23 115 F 2 70 172 4800 .04 67.7 5.1
A
195 23 F 2 70 178 4800 .04 65.7 5.4
A
189 7001 R 1 65 22 2200 .Ol 62.3 1.4
A
253 73 F 2 70 228 4800 .05 67.9 6.7
A
73 262 F 2 70 218 4800 .05 67.8 6.4
A
218 7002 R 1 65 24 2200 .01 64.1 1.5
A
266 77 F 2 70 212 4800 .04 64.7 6.5
A
77 253 F 2 70 239 4800 .05 64.2 7.4
A
254 7004 R 1 65 34 2200 .02 58.8 2.4
A
266 7006 R 1 65 49 2200 .02 61.1 3.2
A
110 145 F 2 70 261 4800 .05 63.7 8.2
A
141 7009 R l 65 2 2200 .00 60.3 .l
A
110 7012 R 1 65 73 2200 .03 61.2 4.8
A
164 125 F 2 70 345 4800 .07 61.5 11.2
B
125 110 F 2 70 340 4800 .07 64.2 10.6
B
147 164 F 2 70 349 4800 .07 65.6 10.7
B
328 7010 R 1 65 41 2200 .02 56.3 2.9
A
328 157 F 2 70 279 4800 .06 62.1 9.0
A
157 332 F 2 70 420 4800 .09 58.2 14.4
B
118 92 F 2 70 458 4800 .10 57.1 16.0
B
92 103 F 2 70 467 4800 .10 61.7 15.2
B
120 124 F 2 65 317 4700 .07 58.5 10.9
B
135 118 F 2 70 382 4800 .08 53.6 14.2
B
329 7014 R 1 65 199 2200 .09 45.0 17.8
C
120 7016 R 1 65 53 2200 .02 52.7 4.1
A
~~'F'~^~ e~ '~~7019 ~.~~"R 1 65 2D3 2200 .09 5.6 127.6
~y.. . ~ 3
5 #
~~-r 124 96 F 2 70 548 4800 .11 63.1 11.6
B
96 152 F 3 70 536 7200 .07 67.4 10.6
B
341 345 F 3 70 574 7200 .08 66.5 11.6
B
338 7020 R 1 65 36 2200 .02 57.1 2.5
A
3~23 R 1 65 184 2200 .08 9.6 69.7
,
~ r'~~ `
266 F 2 70 266 4800 .06 66.5 8.0
A
225 218 F 2 70 179 4800 .04 67.7 5.2
A
219 229 F 2 70 444 4800 .09 65.3 13.5
B
142 44 F 2 70 299 4800 .06 63.8 9.3
A
44 313 F 2 70 293 4800 .06 66.1 8.9
A
181 74 F 2 70 361 4800 .08 65.0 11.0
B
74 147 F 2 70 354 4800 .07 65.5 10.8
B
7003 81 R 1 65 25 2200 .01 35.4 3.0
A
81 219 R 1 65 25 2200 .O1 50.9 1.9
A
7000 84 R 1 65 36 2200 .02 28.9 5.4
A
84 195 R 1 65 36 2200 .02 41.2 3.6
A
7005 86 R 1 65 36 2200 .02 25.9 6.1
A
86 77 R 1 65 36 2200 .02 36.8 3.8
A
7007 87 R 1 65 17 2200 .Ol 33.5 2.2
A
87 265 R 1 65 18 2200 .Ol 49.7 1.5
A
7008 89 R 1 65 44 2200 .02 34.3 5.4
A
89 142 R 1 65 44 2200 .02 48.6 3.7
A
7011 88 R 1 65 72 2200 .03 35.7 8.5
A
88 156 R 1 65 73 2200 .03 52.2 5.5
A
7013 91 R 1 65 126 2200 .06 26.5 20.9
C
91 327 R 1 65 126 2200 .06 39.6 12.6
B
7015 106 R 1 65 145 2200 .07 30.6 20.0
C
106 157 R 1 65 145 2200 .07 45.6 13.0
B
7017 109 R 1 65 73 2200 .03 30.5 10.2
B
109 118 R 1 65 72 2200 .03 44.5 6.6
7"y
0~~114
~ R 1 65 248 2200 .11 28.2 37.2
~ ~
`v `~c,,;
~`*~"""'1 4 124 R 1 65 248 2200 .11 44.2 23.0
C
7021 122 R 1 65 92 2200 .04 28.1 14.4
B
122 337 R 1 65 92 2200 .04 41.0 9.2
A
7022 131 R 1 65 106 2200 .05 33.2 13.5
B
131 340 R 1 65 106 2200 .05 49.3 8.6
A
327 169 F 2 65 382 4700 .08 53.7 14.2
B
169 323 F 2 65 380 4700 .08 58.7 12.9
B
I
` . ~
Parsons Brinckerhoff Michigan, Inc.
Netsim/Fresim Summary Program
Using HCM 1997 Control Stop Delay Criteria
Created February 2000, Version 1.0
Input Filename:'ma~~ra
a~~pk 2025.ot
Output Filename: ~~u put
Number~of Nodes Processed: 163
Number of Links Processed: 150
Current date and time is Thu Feb 22 16:39:00 2001
NETSIM SUMMARY
Node Volume Delay S/U/A LOS From Volume Delay LOS
l 11 6.20 U A
83 11 6.2 A
2 3 .00 U A
4 3 .0 A
4 3 .00 U A
6 3 .0 A
5 12 .10 U A
1 12 .1 A
6 3 .00 U A
11 3 .0 A
7 693 .93 U A
211 381 1.7 A
8010 312 .0 A
8 35 .00 U A
8001 35 .0 A
9 11 .00 U A
5 11 .0 A
10 14 4.80 U A
13 14 4.8 A
11 3 .00 U A
18 3 .0 A
12 36 .80 U A
8 36 .8 A
13 11 3.60 U A
174 11 3.6 A
14 579 .94 U A
8009 320 .0 A
210 259 2.1 A '
15 12 .00 U A
9 12 .0 A
16 195 .34 U A '
21 129 .0 A
33 66 1.0 A
17 46 .00 U A '
72 1 .0 A
7004 45 .0 A li
7-8 3 .50 U A
20 3 .5 A
19 13 2.20 U A
15 13 2.2 A
20 4 1.60 U A
35 4 1.6 A
21 194 .10 U A
, `
16 65 .3 A
8014 129 .0 A
22 14 .40 U A
19 14 .4 A
24 82 .80 U A
46 82 .8 A
25 24 .70 U A
56 24 .7 A
26 23 .20 U A
29 23 .2 A
27 87 .80 U A
153 87 .8 A
28 87 1.80 U A
27 87 1.8 A
29 23 .60 U A
30 23 .6 A
30 23 1.00 U A
52 23 1.0 A
31 86 .80 U A
28 86 .8 A
32 14 .40 U A
22 14 .4 A
33 230 5.20 U A
34 32 2.8 A
16 129 3.6 A
170 69 9.3 A
34 111 5.13 U A
33 73 3.9 A
177 38 7.5 A
35 5 .00 U A
175 5 .0 A
36 2 -1.00 U A
171 2 -1.0 A
37 10 .10 U A
38 10 .l A
38 11 .30 U A
41 11 .3 A
39 628 .90 U A
197 312 1.0 A
100 316 .8 A
40 1 2.60 U A
36 1 2.6 A
41 11 .00 U A
43 11 .0 A
42 1 .00 U A
40 1 .0 A
43 11 .40 U A
49 11 .4 A
45 150 1.20 U A
158 150 1.2 A
46 85 .90 U A
31 85 .9 A
47 1 .00 U A
42 1 .0 A
48 1 .00 U A
47 1 .0 A
49 14 .70 U A
51 14 .7 A
50 1 .00 U A
48 1 .0 A
51 16 .70 U A
.
54 16 .7 A
52 24 .80 U A
25 24 .8 A
53 82 .80 U A
24 82 A
54 16 .90 U A
60 16 .9 A
55 1 .00 U A
50 1 . 0 A
56 23 .50 U A
58 23 .5 A
57 82 .50 U A
53 82 .5 A
58 24 3.80 U A
64 24 3.8 A
59 442 5.88 U A
57 67 38.8 E
7027 375 .0 A
60 19 .60 U A
62 19 . 6 A
61 1 .00 U A
55 1 .0 A
62 21 1.00 U A
66 21 1.0 A
63 1 .00 U A
61 1 . 0 A
64 234 5.00 U A
188 234 5.0 A
65 19 2.40 U A
194 19 2.4 A
66 23 1.40 U A
68 23 1.4 A
67 1 .00 U A
63 1 . 0 A
68 25 1.10 U A
71 25 1.1 A
69 1 .00 U A
67 1 . 0 A
70 229 2.23 U A
237 100 2.1 A
78 84 . 9 A
17 45 5.0 A
71 26 .40 U A
137 26 .4 A
72 1 .00 U A
69 1 .0 A
75 39 .60 U A
102 39 .6 A
76 20 5.40 U A
65 20 5.4 A
78 153 .22 U A
70 68 .5 A
8237 85 .0 A
79 173 .42 U A
237 81 .9 A
8013 92 .0 A
80 204 .65 U A
108 120 1.1 A
8015 84 .0 A
82 3 .00 U A
2 3 .0 A
' , .
83 11 1.40 U A
185 11 1.4 A
85 145 1.30 U A
94 145 1.3 A
90 142 .90 U A
85 142 .9 A
93 168 1.50 U A
95 168 1.5 A
94 148 2.70 U A
45 148 2.7 A
95 166 1.10 U A
116 166 1.1 A
100 627 4.78 U A
39 311 .6 A
101 316 8.9 A
101 611 6.23 U A
100 293 13.0 B
8101 318 .0 A
102 39 1.10 U A
127 39 1.1 A
107 264 .30 U A
8008 166 .0 A
178 98 .8 A
108 363 4.87 U A
178 76 .8 A
80 83 .4 A
138 204 8.2 A
111 47 .60 U A
187 47 .6 A
112 17 .30 U A
113 17 .3 A
113 19 .10 U A
130 19 .1 A
116 167 .90 U A
121 167 .9 A
119 47 2.00 U A
111 47 2.0 A
121 167 2.60 U A
148 167 2.6 A
123 141 .90 U A
90 141 .9 A
126 20 .00 U A
76 20 .0 A
127 42 .80 U A
129 42 .8 A
128 19 1.70 U A
126 19 1.7 A
129 45 .70 U A
150 45 .7 A
130 20 .00 U A
128 20 .0 A
132 541 .68 U A
8007 295 .0 A
98 246 1.5 A
133 161 .77 U A
8006 48 .0 A
3 113 l.l A
134 95 .02 U A
82 3 .7 A
7006 92 .0 A
137 71 2.40 U A
237 71 2.4 A
138 205 .16 U A
112 16 2.1 A
7012 189 .0 A
139 68 2.80 U A
140 186 .00 U A 108 6g 2,g A
7010 163 .0 A
26 23 .-0 A
143 316 4.30 U A
146 336 2.29 U A 98 316 4.3 A
154 113 6.8 A
7014 223 .0 A
148 159 .90 U A
150 45 .70 U A 168 159 .9 A
119 45 p,
151 96 1.10 U A
153 239 2.90 U A 143 96 1.1 A
154 113 .80 U A 9~ 239 2'9 A
161 113 .g A
155 172 .37 U A
204 90 .7 A
158 390 7.20 U A 7016 82 .0 A
159 444 16.22 U 210 390 7,2 A
93 146 47.5 E
160 199 1.70 U A 7019 2gg ,g A
211 199 1.7 A
161 114 .70 p A
182 114 .'7 A
163 214 .60 i7 A
7020 72 .p A
123 142 .9 A
166 471 7.10 U A
167 447 12.24 U ~ 3 471 7.1 A
198 150 33.1 D
7023 297 1.7 A
168 301 2.10 (7 A
242 301 2.1 A
170 69 .00 U A
12 36 .0 A
7001 33 .0 A
171 90 3.10 U p,
33 90 3.1 A
172 93 2.10 U A
151 93 2.1 A
174 79 1.30 U A
34 79 1.3 A
175 5 .00 U A
176 16 .90 t7 139 5 .0 A
A
l~~ 39 .38 U A 32 16 .9 A
37 10 1.5 A
7002 29 .0 A
178 393 3.25 U A
108 170 3.2 A
107 168 1.8 A
186 55 7.8 A
180 95 .80 U A
172 95 .8 A
182 117 .70 U A
190 117 .7 A
185 94 2.90 U A
70 94 2.9 A
186 59 .00 U A
176 16 .0 A
7009 43 .0 A
187 218 2.70 U A
178 218 2.7 A
190 119 .60 U A
201 119 .6 A
193 505 .96 U A
8012 157 .0 A
188 348 1.4 A
194 156 3.30 U A
191 156 3.3 A
196 275 1.50 U A
166 275 1.5 A
197 630 1.89 U A
39 321 1.6 A
97 309 2.2 A
198 162 .30 U A
212 162 .3 A
199 94 .90 U A
180 94 .9 A
200 95 1.00 U A
199 95 1.0 A
201 121 .60 U A
203 121 .6 A
202 93 1.10 U A
200 93 l.l A
203 117 2.10 U
209 117 2.1 A
204 92 .90 U A
202 92 .9 A
205 272 2.40 U A
196 272 2.4 A
206 85 .00 U A
7024 45 .0 A
75 40 .0 A
208 615 .42 U A
191 260 1.0 A
8019 355 .0 A
209 116 .70 U A
160 116 .7 A
212 163 .40 U A
216 163 .4 A
215 265 1.40 U A
205 265 1.4 A
, 216 163 .00 U A
8017 163 .0 A
237 253 2.97 U A
70 67 1.7 A
79 92 .7 A
i
134 94 6.1 A
245 857 .50 U A
242 309 1.4 A
8018 548 .0 A
3 709 36.45 A ~
242 456 39.0 D
133 49 17.9 B
163 204 35.2 D
97 890 20.39 A ~
197 323 10. 7 B
~ 98 245 18.3 B
146 322 31.7 C
98 807 20.69 A ~
~ ,~u-T~~~ 97 330 28.3 C
132 289 10.7 B
~ 140 188 22.7 C
18 8 6 9 4 16 . 91 A
~~191 452 20.2 C
+ti~ 206 84 15.4 B
193 158 8.3 A
191 8 71 2 7.12 A ~'~,~,'~t
. 18 8 10 9 12 . 0 B
59 409 39.8 D
208 353 17.1 B
210 8 9 4 2 7. 17 A ~ i~,~~.~
14 317 17.6 B
211 409 35.4 D
''~;~~155 168 25.2 C
211 1008 26.11 A ~C 1ti`~~
=a,~ 210 258 26.0 C
7 306 12.3 B
159 444 35.7 D
242 1101 47.62 A D
245 554 40.7 D
3 10 8 2 9. 5 C
167 439 60.8 E
FRESIM SUMMARY
ANode BNode F/R Lanes FFSpd Vol Cap V/C Speed Dens
LOS
8002 99 F 2 70 0 4800 .00 .0 .0
A
99 104 F 2 70 772 4800 .16 65.8 23.5
C
104 189 F 2 70 772 4800 .16 64.1 24.1
D
189 219 F 2 70 736 4800 .15 47.6 31.0
D
218 195 F 2 70 317 4800 .07 62:4 10.2
B
~ 229 231 F 2 70 811 4800 .17 56.2 28.9
D
230 225 F 2 70 366 4800 .08 63.3 11.6
~262 260 F 2 70 456 4800 .09 63.3 14.4
B
260 258 F 2 70 430 4800 .09 63.8 13.6
B
258 256 F 2 70 409 4800 .09 64.1 12.7
B
256 243 F 2 70 394 4800 .08 63.4 12.5
B
243 230 F 2 70 380 4800 .08 64.9 11.7
B
~231 232 F 2 70 820 4800 .17 57.5 28.4
D
~32 255 F 2 70 827 4800 .17 56.8 29.2
D~+-
255 257 F 2 70 819 4800 .17 57.1 28.8
D
~257 259 F 2 70 802 4800 .17 58.2 27.4
D
,~'259 261 F 2 70 801 4800 .17 58.7 27.3
~13 311 F 3 70 659 7200 .09 64.5 13.6
B
fll 309 F 3 70 651 7200 .09 64.8 13.4
B
~09 306 F 3 70 642 7200 .09 64.3 13.3
B
306 301 F 3 70 633 7200 .09 61.3 13.8
B
~/301 291 F 3 70 617 7200 .09 55.6 14.8
B
261 250 F 2 70 799 4800 .17 57.0 28.0
D
250 252 F 2 70 787 4800 .16 55.8 28.4
D
252 254 F 2 70 776 4800 .16 58.3 26.7
/D~
z54 265 F 2 65 721 4700 .15 48.3 29.9
D
265 290 F 2 70 792 4800 .17 56.9 18.5
C
290 299 F 3 70 785 7200 .11 62.7 16.6
C
,~2'99 305 F 3 70 778 7200 .11 63.7 16.3
C
305 310 F 3 70 764 7200 .11 64.3 15.8
B
310 312L F 3 70 750 7200 .10 64.5 15.5
B
312 314 F 3 70 740 7200 .10 64.5 15.3
B
~14 316 F 3 70 728 7200 .10 64.2 15.1
335 333 F 4 70 1393 9600 .15 58.4 23.9
C
,/333 331 F 4 70 1385 9600 .14 52.1 26.6
D
~31 329 F 4 70 1361 9600 .14 55.7 24.5
D/
-'329 327 F 4 70 1122 9600 .12 57.4 19.5
C
.r~3 3 322 F 4 70 1266 9600 .13 60.5 20.9
C
322 319 F 4 70 1262 9600 .13 61.3 20.7
C
319 317 F 4 70 1248 9600 .13 48.4 25.8
D
317 268 F 3 70 1229 7200 .17 53.8 22.8
~
~ 268 248 F 3 70 829 7200 .12 59.9 18.5
C
rE 248 184 F 3 70 813 7200 .11 56.4 19.2
/C
l 184 181 F 3 70 935 7200 .13 57.7 21.6
C/
? 145 142 F 3 70 635 7200 .09 62.0 13.7
B
~16 141 F 3 70 715 7200 .10 63.8 15.0
B
141 144 F 3 70 659 7200 .09 64.7 13.6
B
144 156 F 3 70 640 7200 .09 61.8 13.8
B
156 162 F 3 70 793 7200 .11 60.8 17.4
C
162 165 F 3 70 776 7200 .11 63.5 16.3
C
165 173 F 3 70 756 7200 .10 64.7 15.5
B
173 179 F 3 70 737 7200 .10 65.1 15.1
B
~79 183 F 3 70 720 7200 .10 64.5 14.9
183 240 F 3 70 706 7200 .10 65.5 14.3
B
240 249 F 3 70 649 7200 .09 65.0 13.3
B
249 269 F 3 70 639 7200 .09 59.5 14.3
B
269 318 F 3 70 834 7200 .12 59.3 15.9
B
?318 320 F 4 70 823 9600 .09 65.3 12.6
B
„~20 321 F 4 70 809 9600 .08 66.5 12.2
B
321 324 F 4 70 794 9600 .08 63.9 12.4
B
324 325 F 4 70 781 9600 .08 64.9 12.0
B
325 328 F 4 70 773 9600 .08 65.5 11.9
B
332 334 F 4 70 808 9600 .08 66.3 12.2
B/
/334 336 F 4 70 799 9600 .08 67.1 11.9
"~B
8005 343 F 5 65 0 11750 .00 .0 .0
A
,/343 342 F 5 70 1781 12000 .15 40.5 35.6
E
~42 339 F 4 70 1781 9600 .19 36.8 38.2
E
~,,r339 337 F 4 70 1488 9600 .16 46.0 32.4
E
~37 293 F 4 70 1626 9600 .17 52.7 24.6
D
293 149 F 5 70 1616 12000 .13 56.4 22.9
C
149 136 F 5 70 1620 12000 .14 53.3 24.4
D
136 135 F 4 70 1637 9600 .17 99.2 26.6
D
~03 335 F 4 70 1407 9600 .15 60.0 23.5
C
336 105 F 4 70 788 9600 .08 67.1 11.7
B
~05 117 F 4 70 780 9600 .08 65.6 11.9
117 120 F 4 70 771 9600 .08 66.1 11.6
B
/1`52 302 F 5 70 865 12000 .07 63.4 10.9
i~~B
302 338 F 4 70 850 9600 .09 65.8 10.3
B
338 340 F 4 70 762 9600 .08 65.6 11.6
B
~0 341 F 4 70 943 9600 .10 64.0 11.8
B
~3 115 F 2 70 359 4800 .07 66.1 10.9
~5 23 F 2 70 372 4800 .08 63.3 11.7
~$9 7001 R 1 65 33 2200 .O1 59.6 2.2
A
253 73 F 2 70 496 4800 .10 63.8 15.5 ~
B
, /3 262 F 2 70 478 4800 .10 62.8 15.3
.~B
218 7002 R 1 65 29 2200 .O1 61.4 1.9
A
266 77 F 2 70 479 4800 .10 61.0 15.7
B
~ 77 253 F 2 70 510 4800 .11 61.1 16.7
C
254 7004 R 1 65 44 2200 .02 61.7 2.8
A
266 7006 R 2 65 94 4400 .02 60.6 3.1
A
110 145 F 3 70 647 7200 .09 63.3 13.7
B
1 7009 R 1 65 43 2200 .02 62.0 2.8
110 7012 R 1 65 195 2200 .09 51.9 15.0
B
164 125 F 3 70 873 7200 .12 51.1 22.8
C
~25 110 F 3 70 858 7200 .12 58.2 19.7
C
147 164 F 3 70 892 7200 .12 61.0 19.5
C
328 7010 R 1 65 163 2200 .07 47.9 13.6
B
328 157 F 4 70 603 9600 .06 65.8 9.2
A
~157 332 F 4 70 814 9600 .08 63.2 12.8
B
8 92 F 4 70 1426 9600 .15 54.7 26.0
• Y `
~-'92 103 F 4 70
1422 9600 .15 59.3 23.9
C
120 124 F 4 70 682 9600 .07 65.3 10.5
B
135 118 F 4 70 1344 9600 .14 52.2 25.7
D
329 7014 R 1 65 222 2200 .10 47.7 19.0
C
~120 7016 R 1 65 81 2200 .04 56.9 5.8
A
135 7019 R 2 65 301 4400 .07 45.3 13.5
B
~ ~ 152 F 5 70 885 12000 .07 67.1 10.6
~B.i
341 345 F 5 70 928 12000 .08 67.0 11.1
B
338 7020 R 2 65 73 4400 .02 50.2 3.0
A
339 7023 R 2 65 297 4400 .07 36.0 16.6
C
291 266 F 2 70 596 4800 .12 59.3 13.4
B
225 218 F 2 70 356 4800 .07 63.9 11.2
B
19 229 F 2 70 812 4800 .17 52.1 31.1
D
142 44 F 3 70 681 7200 .09 63.4 14.3
B
44 313 F 3 70 667 7200 .09 64.3 13.9
B
181 74 F 3 70 925 7200 .13 60.8 20.3
C
74 147 F 3 70 912 7200 .13 61.8 19.7
C
7003 81 R 1 65 87 2200 .04 35.8 10.3
B
81 219 R 1 65 87 2200 .04 50.5 6.9
A
7000 84 R 1 65 69 2200 .03 28.6 10.5
B
84 195 R 1 65 68 2200 .03 41.0 6.8
A
7005 86 R 1 65 45 2200 .02 32.4 5.8
A
86 77 R 1 65 45 2200 .02 48.0 3.9
A
7007 87 R 1 65 82 2200 .04 34.4 10.1
B
87 265 R 1 65 82 2200 .04 48.7 6,8 '
A I
7008 89 R 1 65 63 2200 .03 36.2 7.3
A
89 142 R 1 65 62 2200 .03 50.6 5.0
A
7011 88 R 1 65 173 2200 .08 35.3 20.7
C
88 156 R 1 65 173 2200 .08 50.5 13.6
B
7013 91 R 1 65 151 2200 .07 27.0 24.3
D
91 327 R 1 65 150 2200 .07 40.5 14.8
. '
B
7015 106 R 1 65 220 2200 .10 29.9 31.2
D
106 157 R l 65 221 2200 .10 46.2 19.5
C
7017 109 R 1 65 82 2200 .04 30.9 11.1
B
109 118 R 1 65 82 2200 .04 48.8 6.8
A
7018 114 R 1 65 239 2200 .11 28.7 35.3
E
7021 122 R 1 65 141 2200 .06 30.6 19.5
C
122 337 R 1 65 140 2200 .06 45.2 12.8
B
7022 131 R 1 65 197 2200 .09 27.5 30.6
D
131 340 R 1 65 197 2200 .09 44.7 18.0
C
327 169 F 4 65 1272 9400 .14 55.1 22.9
C
169 323 F 4 65 1271 9400 .14 57.3 22.2
C
240 7024 R 1 65 47 2200 .02 60.0 3.1
A
207 184 R 1 65 137 2200 .06 47.8 11.5
B
7025 207 R 1 65 137 2200 .06 34.5 16.8
C
7026 192 R 1 65 204 2200 .09 36.7 23.2
C
192 269 R 1 65 205 2200 .09 53.4 15.1
B
268 7027 R 2 65 382 4400 .09 53.3 14.4
B
114 124 R 1 65 238 2200 .11 46.3 21.1
C
124 96 F 4 70 906 9600 .09 65.6 11.0
B
i
2, i~
.
MARANA
TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE
DRAFT
Technical Memorandum #5
EXISTING BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN
FACILITIES
Prepared for.
^
MARANA
~
t1~t ~
. ~ ~ . ~ 1OWN OF MARANA ~ . ~ ~ .
The Town of Marana
Department of Pubiic Works ~
3696 W. Orange Grove Road
~ ~ Tucson, Arizona 85741 ~ ~ ~ ~
-r~
Prepared by:
Curtis Lueck & Associates
5780 W. EI Camino dei Cerro
Tucson, Arizona 85745 I
September 2000
Y
Marana Transportation Plan Update
DRAFT Technical Memorandum #5
Table of Contents
Paqe
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Purpose of Memorandum 1
2.0 EXISTING BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN SYSTEM
INVENTORY AND CIRCULATION 1
2. i Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities System inventory ....................................1
2.2 Impediments to Use of Alternate Modes ............................:........................4
3.0 LITERATURE REVIEW 6
3.1 Documents Reviewed 6
3.2 key Findings 6
4.0 PROJECT NEEDS AND IDENTIFY GAPS ..................................................9
4.1 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facility Gaps 9
4.2 Marana Public Transit 11
4.3 Pima County Rural Transit 11
5.0 IDENTIFY CANDIDATE PROJECTS .............................:....:.......:.:.............12
6.0 FUNDIN NITIES ......................................................................13
.
7.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 17
. _ _
.
• : ~
List of Exhibits
Pacte
Exhibit 1 Existing Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities 2
DRAFT Pagei I
September 2000 ,
x
Marana Transportation Plan Update
• DRAFT Technical Memorandum #5
DRAFT
Technical Memorandum #5
Exisiting Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Purpose of Memorandum
The purpose of this memorandum is to document existing bicycle and pedestrian facilities
within the Town of Marana and to identify gaps and other impediments to bicycle and
pedestrian travel and safety. This task also includes a literature review of relevant Town of
Marana as well as regional and state documents to determine key policies, standards, and
recommendations that can assist in the development of an effective bicycle and pedestrian
system.
This memo then identifies candidate projects to improve bicycle and
pedestrian safety and access, including intermodal connections with
potential transit service in the future. Example bicycle and
pedestrian facility standards are reviewed and presented. Finally,
- the task provides planning-level cost estimates for the candidate
projects, and identifies potential funding sources to implement the
facilities.
Bicycle and pedestrian
facilities are strong
indicators of quality of life
in the community
2.0 EXISTING BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN SYSTEM
INVENTORY AND CIRCULATION
~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ _
2.1 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities ~ ~ s ~ ~ ~ ~
4 -
~a 7' ¢ - ~
Systetn Inventory
~ ~ ~
Existing bicycle and pedestrian facilities were inventoried
~ . ~
as part of this task and are resented in Exhibit 1 Ma
P
~ P
I
showing existing bike and ped facilities). As ~I
identified within the exhibits, sidewalks and bicycle lanes
and paved shoulders exist in limited locations. Following is
a brief description of existing facilities by type. Multiuse lane on Silverbell Road,
but /ack of sidewa/k or shade for
pedestrians and cyclists
Page 1
September 2000
Y
Marana Transportation Plan Update
. DRAFT Technical Memorandum #5
Exhibit i
Existing Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities
_ _ ~
_
- ~ ~ ~ ~ , ~ ~„r""''`
'"'1~~
- ~ ~
_ ~
_ _
~w"~"..,,,,,,,~
_ _ _ _
, _ ~
~.~K.» _
! ~
;
; a .
. e
.
Bicycle Rflu6e.S _
~ eus ~
/4/ ~ ~e~~a~o Rioe~s ; - % .
MULTI-USE PATH . . , .
PAiiH~ ~DER , . r .
~ f RESIDETT~IAL STR~7'S ' ~ ? ~
SIGNED RC)l1TE ~ ~ ,
~ VIA-IIT~ PAINI'8~ LWE ~
Stt~eet Netivwrk
Page 2
September 2000
Y
Marana Transportation Plan Update
„ DRAFT Technical Memorandum #5
Paved Shoulders, Bicycle Lanes, and Multiuse Lanes
On-street bicycle lanes and paved shoulders exist in scattered parts of the Town on coilector
and arterial roadways, but are generally isolated facilities that do not interconnect. These
facilities are generally a minimum of 5 feet in width and in some locations are up to 8 feet in
width. Some jurisdictions will designate 8-foot to 10-foot lanes as "multiuse lanes", allowing
disabled vehicles to clear the travel lane, use by bicyclists and pedestrians, pullout area for
transit buses at bus stops, use by right-turning vehicles, and in some cases, use by golf carts
and "neighborhood electric vehicles." Bicycle lanes or shoulders that are less than 5 feet wide
generally facilitate bicycle travel (and sometimes pedestrian travel) but should not be
considered to meet appropriate design standards. Similarly, paved shoulders or multiuse
lanes that exceed 8 feet in width sometimes are driven in by motorists and can therefore
present hazards to bicyclists or pedestrians.
~ Existing bicycle lanes that best meet engineering standards are located on Silverbell Road,
from ;Twin Peaks Road to Cortaro Road, and on short sections of other Town roads. These
i ,~r lane~ are of appropriate width, are signed and marked as bicycle lanes, and have appropriate
~,~intersection design treatments. Additional discussion of appropriate bicycle lane design is
~ kt ~ presented later in this memorandum.
. ,
Bicycle lanes and paved shoulders are generally not needed on residential Town streets due
- to lower traffic volumes and travel speeds. Traffic calming applications may help improve
bicycle and pedestrian safety in these locations, where necessary.
Shared Use Pathways : ;
.~-ss::
Shared use pathway~ are liave their own alignment I
(i.e., are not part of aTD~dway) and are usually a '
minimum of 10 feet in width and in higher use
locations should be at least 12 feet in width.
Currently, there are no shared use pathways
located within Town limits. Examples of shared use
pathways within the region include the Rillito River Desert paved and unpaved pathways
Park and Santa Cruz River Park. (The Town is in function best with amp/e shade
the process of applying for Federal funding for a
shared use pathway, described later in this memorandum.)
~ ~
~ Sidewalks ~ F~,, pr . ~ ~
;x
Paved sidewalks are located in limitec~~~reas within the Town, and
are often discontinuous (see Exhibi~-;~~). On arterials and collectors,
sidewalks should be a minimum o~5 feet in width, and wider in
higher use areas. Where curbing exists ramping at intersections is
~ ~ e ~
necessary. Pedestrian crossings of major roadways should also ~
~ ~
receive emphasis to promote safe walking. Sidewalks need to be
planned and constructed to comply with the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA).
Bus stop with lack of
sidewa/k, shade,
she/ter, and bench
Page 3
September 2000
Y
Marana Transportation Plan Update
~ DRAFT Technicai Memorandum #5
2.2 impediments to use of Aiternate Modes
Various impediments exist within the Town for walking and bicycling. Following is a brief listing
of some of the challenges the Town will face to promote bicycling and walking.
• Lack of Bike/Ped facilities: As discussed above, the lack of bicycle and pedestrian facilities
is a major impediment to alternate mode use. Additional facilities will be necessary to
effectively promote travel by these modes. .
• Barrier Effect: The barrier effect exists at structures and geographic features such as
roadway crossings of I-10, where bicycle lanes and sufficient-width sidewalks may not
exist, at bridges over washes, and at bicycle and pedestrian crossings of major roadways.
These relatively short barriers can effectively discourage a cyclist or pedestrian from
making a trip along a route that may otherwise be quite usable.
• Lack of Support Facilities: Support facilities may include trees for shade, rest and water
facilities, restrooms, bike racks and lockers, and other items. Support facilities can also
include readily available maps and user guides to promote rules of the road and safery,
and promotional/educational programs in the schools and businesses to promote safe
bicycling and walking. "Marketing" of bicycling and walking is important to raise
awareness that these modes are viable.
• Spread out Origins/Destinations: In many ar.eas of the Town, bicycling and walking
oppartunities are limited due to low densities and longer travel distances, particularly when
summertime heat is also present. As the Town develops; multiuse comrnercial, residential,
and work developments as discussed within the TQwn's General Plan may be desirable;
especially if designed with pedestrians and cyclists in mind. Location of residences near
schools, libraries and parks will promote bicycling and walking if appropriate connections
are made.
• Barriers between Subdivisions/Schools/Other Destinations: Often times, developments are
approved which do not have sufficient access points from the developments to facilitate
bicycle and pedestrian travel to desired destinations, including to area schools such as
Coyote Trails Elementary School. This occurs frequently even with non-gated communities,
~ and results in parents driving their children
~ ~
£ even short distances to get to the schools.
~ ~ Developments that provide either local street
s' ~E ~ ~ t i a?~t :
',~:3 a~,a~€''~.k;~m.+~Sfi' 4," s~~rt ~ .
a~~sr ~,F~,~,~. access points or bicycle-pedestrian only
access at intervafs of 200 to 400 feet witl
- support non-motorized travel. Local street
and/or pathway links that provide connectivity
between neighborhoods and business areas
are also important to foster longer distance
Walls and fences separating subdivision bicycle and pedestrian trips within
from Covote Trails E/ementary Schoo/
communities.
Page 4
September 2000
Marana Transportation Plan Update
DRAFT Technical Memorandum #5
. Difficult sireei crossings: One of the greatest L~
challenges to promoting bicycle and pedestrian s„~-~~ ~ b~;
; ~ ~
travei is crossings of major streets. This is ~ t , ~
par ti c u l a r l y a problem for linking bicyclists and
pedestrians to transit service, and for
schoolchildren to ride or walk to school. Wide,
high speed and high volume roadways may
intimidate cyclists and walkers from crossing
roadways to the degree that they will drive short W'de street crossings can be intimidafing
distances to destinations rather than attempt to
get there by nonmotorized means. Enhanced forpedestnans and b?cyclists
~ . _
roadway crossings, with high-visibility - " "
crosswalks, median refuge areas, and in some ca nafs n~edsal~so to be des gned tofe
crossings of major roadways. Standard traffic sig ush button actuators, or video
accommodate bicycles, pa~ticularly with loop detectors, p
detection that can sense bicyclists who are trying to cross a signalized intersection.
. Commercial and Other Areas Designed for Drive~g:a0ae efWays and park geots that are
discourages cycling and walking trips is comm
designed first or exclusively for motor vehicles. b ~~S~Ie and pedestrian faclilit esW Strong ~
the most impo~tant areas to provide high-safety Y edestrians to and within
support should be given for safety and access of cyclists and p romote the function of
these areas. Access co Ilect rs, but atso to limitp ornflict po nts
w~h cyeiists and
adjacent arterials and co
pedestrians traveling along the major roadways.
' often arking lots are not even designed to promote safe ~
s car and bhe stoken9
Quite , p
(i.e., through use of shaded sidewalk areas) between a custome
Bicycle racks or tockers are either not provided a~ ns around the c'omme crial areaa Through
of inferior qualiry or are hidden in unusable locatio
"carrot and stick" measures, such as air quality credits if bicycle and pedestrian facilities
~ rovided or improved zoning requirements, commercial and other areas can go a long
are p
way in improving bicycle and pedestrian access.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Survey Data
in from Transit Service On-Board and Telephone Surveys)
(Forthcom 9,
Page 5
September 2000
y
Marana Transportation Plan Update
~ DRAFT Technical Memorandum #5
3.0 LITERATURE REVIEW
Review of existing plans and programs is important in determining (1) what bicycle and
pedestrian standards are already in place or are recommended, (2) what specific alternate
mode projects are either programmed or planned, (3) what projects will be built as part of
roadway projects, and (4) other important bicycle and pedestrian issues within the Town. The
review is also important to get ideas from other jurisdictions to address bicycle and pedestrian
safety and access, support facilities, and land use applications which foster bicycle and
pedestrian activity.
This review involves a number of federal, state, local, and regional documents that incorporate
bicycle and pedestrian provisions. Documents from other local jurisdictions within Pima
County are also reviewed to evaluate information they contain on supporting bicycle and
pedestrian travet, and how this information can aid the Town of Marana in•improving alternate
mode opportunities.
3.1 Documents Reviewed
Sixteen documents were reviewed as part of this task for elements that relate to bicycle and
pedestrian travel. Many of the documents address bicycle and pedestrian facility standards,
while others address planning for bicycle and pedestrian access as part of land use planning.
The documents include the 1999 AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities,
1997 Marana General Plan, 2000 PAG Regional Bicycle Plan, 20~0 PAG fiegional Pedestrian -
Plan, 1998 Pima CountyDepartment of Transportation Roadway Design Manual, FY 2000-04 -
PAG Transportation (mprovement Program (TIP), and other local and regional documents. A
full listing of the reviewed documents is provided in the appendix of this memorandum.
3.2 Key Findings
The literature review produced some key findings from the dbcuments that will aid in improving
bicycle and pedestrian conditions within the Town. First, it is important to note that bicycle
travel is promoted through the 1998 Pima Counry Roadway Design Manual, which the Town
has adopted for development of its major roadways. Within the manual, bicycle facilities are
incorporated within the roadway cross section in the form of paved shoulders, bicycle lanes,
and multiuse lanes.
The manual also evaluates separated shared use paths as a design supplement to paved
shoulders where right-of-way widths are 200 feet or more and side street and driveway
connections are limited. Pedestrian sidewalks from 4 feet to 6 feet in width must be provided
along major roadways where warranted by pedestrian travel. Other pedestrian considerations
include the consideration of pedestrian crosswalks, overpasses, underpasses, or school zones
where existing public or private schools operate adjacent to the arterial or collector.
The 1997 Town of Marana General Plan calls for the development of mixed use developments
to support better integration of housing, jobs, shopping, and recreational/cultural facilities.
This type of development usually lends itself better to bicycling and walking, and often in fact
requires effective integration of bicycle and pedestrian facilities. The Plan includes
community-expressed goals to design a townwide multi-purpose path and alternative
transportation modes system to accommodate anticipated development buildout, serve
Page 6
September 2000
Marana Transportation Plan Update
DRAFT Technical Memorandum #5
schools and libraries, and provide for recreational as well a ea snoptheaa'doption,of t e Geneaal
_
Plan recommends that two plans be completed withm wo y _ .
Plan: ~f~e Marana Master Trails and Patt~ways Plan and the Alternative Transportation Modes
- , , _
Master Plan. - . , , - . , _
' ent documents include the 1998 PAG Metropolitan Transport n ioT~?~ ~TP d
Additional pertm
2000 PAG Regional Plan for Bicyclin9 ~a anoa, and Pima Coun~ty have rpo~~ ce in place to
notes that the City of Tucson, Town of
provide bicycle lanes or paved shoulders and Pe
onalrPlan forltBicYcli ng and Regionaadway
construction or reconstruction projects. The Reg
Pedestrian Plan, developed in conjunction with localesesdrotects arelshownMn Exhib ts 2e
several desired bicycle and pedestrian pro~ects. Th p 1
and 3(PAG Regional Bicycle Plan Map and RebUOa a~ on t~he PAG eg o a p apn
ng
Marana area). This current analysis will confirm and P
efforts for bicycle and pedestrian facilities within the Marana area.
Bicycle and pedestrian safety was a major concern
as documented within the 1998 Bicycle Access
Analysis for the Town of Marana and Coyote Trail
Elementary School, completed by the PAG
Transportation Planning Division. The school is
located next to Silverbell Road, a designated g
arterial roadway, and bicycle and pedestrian
h~ ~ ~
access is restricted to primarily utilizing the W~~
Silverbell Road right-of-way to reach the school. -
Recommendations within the study include Thouqh school is out of session, Coyote
improving bicycle and pedestrian crossing r~i~s Elementary p?ans for bike use
safety by establishing a second controlled
school crossing of Silverbell and developing a
paved shared use path along the Santa Cru ~en~afeand middle schoots along collector or
recommendation from the study is to site ele Y
local roadways only, and to provide access to the scho~o~ll from adjacent subdivisions through
trails and local streets within a 1-mile radius of the sch
Review of the Town of Marana Land Development Code as at Isidewalks' a e equ'red in all
Subdivision Street Standards (utilized by the Town) found th
subdivisions having a density of more than one lot P st eet ark ng for~bui d
ngs but doeaenot
includes motor vehicle access requirements and off p
edestrian and bicycle access requirements. The Code also dOrr entsta ddalong the~r
specify p ivit within and between develop
vehicle, bicycle, or pedestrian connect y mention of
local street system, especially to schools an~ between s bdvSSion~sr to mprove nonmotorized
connective sidewalks or pathways within a
circulation opportunities.
19g9 AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities ned andaconlstr'gctedyunder
The
except those where cyclists are legally prohibited, should be es g
the assumption that they will be used by cyclists. Bic~cae ~econstlrbct
o~n an~dreapac typhases
of transportation plannmg, new roadway design, road y
Page 7
September 2000
Marana Transportation Plan Update
, DRAFT Technical Memorandum #5
improvement and transit projects. The Guide provides standards for the development of
bicycle routes, bicycle lanes, wide curb lanes, and shared use paths.
The literature review also included documents from other local jurisdictions, including the
Tucson Major Streets and Routes Plan and Town of Oro Valley Zoning Code. The Major Streets
and Routes Plan includes bicycle lanes and sidewalks within the standard roadway cross-
section. The Oro Valley Zoning Code includes several important requirements to improve
bicycle and pedestrian access and safety, including requirements of developers to provide '
bicycle and walking routes between residential developments and schools. Several of the
requirements within Oro Valley's code and potentially other codes could be helpfut in
establishment of effective bicycle and pedestrian access and safety provisions within the Town
of Marana Land Development Code.
In sum, the literature review confirmed that most jurisdictions in the PAG area, including
Marana, have provisions for accommodating bicycle and pedestrian travel. This literature
review was helpful not oniy in affirming the Town of Marana's desire to improve bicycle and
pedestrian conditions, as stated within the Town's General Plan, but also in providing ideas to
effect tangible improvements throughout the community.
The Town's current commitment to provide bicycle facilities as part of roadway construction is
reinforced by the strong AASHTO policy statement that bicycle facilities should be
incorporated into roadway planning and design. The primary area for improvement evident
from the literature review is to ensure safe bicycle and pedestrian access within and between
residential areas and other developments, especially for school children: to access schools,
libraries, and recreation facilities.
Page 8
September 2000
Marana Transportation Plan Update
- DRAFT Technical Memorandum #5
4.0 PROJECT NEEDS AND IDENTIFY GAPS
4.1 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facility Gaps
Major Roadways
Various bicycle and pedestrian facility gaps currently exist within the Town of Marana, and
ongoing development practices may lead to future gaps and needs unless standards are
improved. The recent construction of some major roadway facilities, including Dove Mountain
Road north of Tangerine Road, have not
resulted in the fevel of bicycle and pedestrian
~ v. facilities which the Town may currently consider
x`~'~ as acceptable. Adherence to the Pima County
major roadway development standards, which ,
~ the Town has adopted, will help ensure
provision of bicycle and pedestrian facilities as
part of the construction or reconstruction of I
major roadways.
Well-shaded pedestrian.and bicycle areas and Working with Town staff and citizens,
attractive streets facilitate walking and bicycling bicycle and pedestrian facility gaps on
major roadways are identified in Exhibits
4 and 5(Bicycle and pedestrian facility maps, showing existing and future
needs on rr~ajor ~oadways. Need to work with staff and M. Fairfield from ~
BAC). These maps incorporate and augment the bicycle and pedestrian planning performed
as part of the PAG Regional Bicycle and Pedestrian plans.
Local Streets
Local streets and connector pathways are important in order to link neighborhoods with other
local streets and neighborhoods, with local schools, rec'reational facilities, and libraries, and
with other important destinations. Local streets can also serve as continuous commute routes
across larger distances or as part of a commute route that utilizes major roadways, local
streets, and pathways. Local streets are important "incubators" for children learning to cycle
and walk in traffic, and provide access to residences and other destinations.
Development of the future local street network as well as potential modifications to the existing
local street network within the Town should take into consideration these functions. It should
also consider the fact that lack of local street connections or pathway connections will force
children to utilized major roadways when bicycling or walking to some destinations, or more
likely require them to be driven to destinations which would otherwise be accessible through
nonmotorized means. The issues identified with schoolchildren's access to Coyote Trails
Elementary School, as documented within the Coyote Trails study, clearly illustrate this
situation.
As mentioned previously, the Town of Marana currently utilizes the 1989 Pima County
Subdivision Street Standards. These standards address local streets and bicycle and
pedestrian facilities within developments, but not connectivity of such facilities between
developments. Nor do these standards address appropriate design of traffic calming devices
Page 9
September 2000
.
Marana Transportation Plan Update
, DRAFT Technical Memorandum #5
and alternative subdivision stre~t design that can help improve safety for bicyclists,
pedestrians, and drivers.
Local street and pathway connections are important to many new homebuyers, not only for
accessing schools but also for recreational purposes. A recent study of American homebuyers
by a market research firm for major homebuilders found that readily accessible bike and
walking paths and natural open spaces were among the highest priorities for homebuyers, and
ranked well ahead of gated communities and golf courses (American Lives, lnc., 1999).
Although this technical memorandum does not include a comprehensive review of specific
local street and pathway access needs, it is recommended that four particular actions be taken
with regard to this issue: 1) a comprehensive review of existing needs of Marana residents for
local street or pathway access points; 2) a review of existing zoning and subdivision street
requirements and revisions where necessary to improve nonmotorized access (model
subdivision street standards should be reviewed); 3) effective enforcement of access
requirements, including provision of development incentives when developers provide bicycle
and pedestrian amenities above and beyond zoning code requirements; and 4) appropriate
traffic calming altematives which can contribute to safer subdivision streets.
Support Facilities
There are a number of bicycle and pedestrian support facilities and programs that effectively
promote bicycling and walking. These support facilities and programs c. omplement the
physical bicycte and pedestrian network, helping people cycle and walk far many of their daily
activities.
Bicycle and pedestrian support facilities are facilities that aid cyclists and wafkers in their trips, ,
including trees to provide shade, rest areas with water and restrooms, and secure bicycle ~
parking. Support facilities can be almost as important in attracting cyclists and pedestrians as I,
sidewalks, shared use paths, and bicycle lanes themselves. Key support facilities include:
• Landscaping: The provision of trees is highly ~°~~~~k ~
important to the success of sidewalk and shared I
.
use paths, and contribute as well to the
attractiveness and the ability to use multiuse lanes
and paved shoulders. The landscaping element is
~ ~ often the most overlooked and under-funded item~ ~
in the design of bikeway and pedestrian systems. '
n~~~.
The provision of shade trees in groupings along a
pathway, or if possible the provision of a"corridor"
of shade trees, greatly increases the enjoyment Support facilities include rest areas,
and usefulness of the pathway. Location of trees, water, landscaping and bicycle parking
which can shade both sidewalks and bicycle lane
areas, are also very helpful. It is important that transportation safety and security design
principles are followed carefully in the design and placement of landscaping elements.
• Bicycle Parking: Bicycle parking, as with automotive parking, is important if use by this
mode is expected and desired. Bicycle parking includes Class 1 and Class 2 facilities.
Class 1 facilities provide long-term parking, and include bicycle lockers, check-in facilities,
monitored parking, restricted access parking, or other means. Class 2 parking is short-
Page 10
September 2000
Marana Transportation Plan Update
. DRAFT Technical Memorandum #5
term, and typicaliy includes bicycle racks to which the bicycle frame and wheels can be
attached. Placement of bicycle parking in well-lit areas and in the front of destinations is
imperative for safe and secure use.
• Water and Rest Stops: Water and rest stops are generally provided for pedestrians
and bicyclists along shared use paths, but should also be provided in areas served by
sidewalk facilities and on-street bicycle facilities.
These stops are very helpful for traveling in the
desert, and can provide a"focal point" with
s~
~ public art for~ bikeway and walkway users. The ~ ~
? stops serve to break up the travel distances,
and if outfitted with adequate shade can
contribute to the enjoyable experience of using
bikeways and walkways. The stops can also
include restrooms, "pocket" parks, interpretive
sites, and parking areas. They should be
Parking areas and restroom provlde designed to minimize graffiti and misuse.
support to pedestrians, cyclists, . Directional Signage and Maps: Signage
rollerbladers, and other users and maps are very important in not only
indicating where pathways and bike routes are, but also in "marketing" the pathways.
Many people are unaware these facilities exisf, especially if located outside the roadway
right-of-way. Also, directional signage with distances listed on them can help people who
are traveling to certain destinations. Maps are aiso considered support facilities; especially
if they include the bicycle and pedestrian traffic laws as well as rules and etiquette on for
pathway use.
~ Parking Areas: These facilities, generally located along shared use paths, provide
important support for pathway users who either prefer or must drive to the paths, induding
rollerbladers and families. Parking areas can be combined with parks and other public
facilities, as mentioned above. In limited instances, parking areas can serve as "park and
ride" lots for people traveling to locations or special events with limited parking.
There are numerous other items that may be considered valuable support facilities to help and
encourage people bicycle and walk. These facilities range from bicycle commuter and safety
publications, walking and bicycling clubs, showers and lockers, "Share the Road" and
pedestrian caution signing, and a number of other helpful provisions. These and other support
facilities can be invaluable in the development and effective use of pedestrian and bikeway
systems.
I~~
Page 11
September 2000
Marana Transportation Pian Update
_ DRAFT Technical Memvrandum #5
5.0 IDENTIFY CANDIDATE PROJECTS
Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects
On-street Bikeways
Shared Use Paths
Sidewalks
Support facilities
Intermodal Projects
Parking facilities
Transit/bike/ped
Planning-Level Cost Estimates (may have to do this on per unit basis
only)
E
~
' , ,
~
~
,
, ~
I
Page 12 '
September 2000
I
Marana Transportation Plan Update
. DRAFT Technical Memorandum #5
6.0 FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES
~1' Bicycle and pedestrian
The Town has a variety of funding sources directly available for construction of bicycle and
pedestrian facilities and for implementation of support programs. The Town also has good
potential to secure Federal reimbursements, which have increased dramatically in size and
number since the early 1990's. Private contributions by developers must also be recognized
for their importance to the development of the Town's ~,,pl ,i~~~,~~y~,~ g~~~.~`,~~+;~~ti~l i~
edestrian and bic cle s stem. ';'~,d~~ ~s~ ;a~
p Y Y 10
It is important to note that many bicycle and pedestrian
facilities will be built as part of roadway improvements
because they are included in the Town's adopted roadway ~
cross sections. It is also important to note that nearly all
local, state, federal, and private revenue sources are Flexibtlity exists in transportation
available for pedestrian and bicycfe provisions, including: funding to construct various transh,
pedestrian and bicycle facillties
• Local revenues: The primary local revenues currently
available for use on bicycle and pedestrian improvements are the transportation
component of the construction sales tax and private development dedications, exactions, :
and facilities built as part of major and local roadway improvements serving the
development. The transportation component of the construction sales tax can be used for
the constru~tion of capital transportation facilities; :including bicycle and pedestrian ~
_ . _ .
facilities,. ~`1~ddifional bicycle and pedestrian facilities, particularly shared use pathvirays
along washes and the Santa Cruz River, may be constructed through local revenues from
the Pima County Flood Control District.
-~°~~w-__._.-~_. r . , • ~ - . . . ~
Potential future local revenues which should be available for use on bicycle and pedestrian
facilities include an increase in the transportation portion of the construction sales tax, a
new general sales tax dedicated to transportation, and new development impact fees. The
Marana Town Council is currently considering these revenue sources to help meet existing
and future transportation needs. The increase in the transportation component of the
construction sales tax should be available for all bicycle and pedestrian facilities, as well as
part or all of the new general sales tax for transportation.
Development impact fees are paid by developers to hetp cover the additional
transportation costs resulting from new residential construction, and these funds may be
used on provision of multiuse lanes, paved shoulders, and sidewalks built as part of the
required roadway cross section. In some circumstances, shared use paths have been
constructed by jurisdictions using impact fees if they serve transportation needs generated
by the new development.
As contained within the FY 2001-05 PAG TIP, total existing local revenues dedicated to
transportation purposes within ihe Town of Marana are $11.0 million. As part of the
financial forecast prepared by CLA for the Marana Master Transportation Plan, the
proposed increase in the construction sales tax would generate an additional $5.5 million
through 2005. Imposition of the proposed development impact fees would generate
Page 13
September 2000
Marana Transportation Plan Update
- DRAFT Technical Memorandum #5
approximately $6.9 million over that time period, and establishment of the sales tax for
transportation woutd result in approximately $7.6 million in new revenues.
Total existing and proposed local revenues are an estimated $31.0 million through 2005,
with the funding available for use on bicycle and pedestrian facilities in addition to
roadways,. This do`es not include an estimate for linear park and pafhway projects°funded °
through the Pima County Flood Control District, none of which are programmed within the
Marana area at this time. (NEED TO CONFIRM THIS. MZ WILL DO) .~,t
_ _ r.
_ _ .r.
_ . _ _ _ - _
• State revenues: State revenues include the State-shared sales tax, Highway User Revenue
Funds (HURF), ADOT 12.6 percent and 2.6 percent funds, and Local Transportation
Assistance Funds (LTAF). Although available for bicycle and pedestrian facilities and
programs, sales tax revenues go into the Town's General Fund, which is generally
budgeted to other high priority programs and needs within the Town.
The HURF, made up of State gas tax revenues, the vehicle license tax, and other
miscellaneous fees and services, is a revenue source constitutionally restricted to roadway
purposes. However, Arizona jurisdictions have
utilized HURF to construct paved~ shoulders, multiuse ~
lanes, and sidewalk facilities that are within the
roadway right-of-way. In some instances, such as
with the Aviation-Golf Links Highway in Tucson,
HURF has also been used to construct shared use
paths located within fhe right-of-way.
~ ~
,,4
- • The ADOT 12.6 percent funds, also derived
State and other transportation funds can from motor vehicfe fees and taxes and formerly
be used to construct pedestrian and restricted to controlled-access facilities within
bicycle facilities inc/uded within the Pima County, can now be used on local Town _
roadway cross section roadways to construct paved shoulders, multiuse
lanes and sidewalks. The ADOT 2.6 percent funds
can be used to pave shoulders and build sidewalk facilities on State Highways or State
Routes, such as Tangerine Road within Marana.
Recent legislation has changed the eligibility of LTAF funds, which now must be used for
transit purposes in all jurisdictions. These funds may be available for construction of
sidewalks, bicycle racks, and other facilities that directly relate to transit use. Another
category of funding is Project Development Activity Funds (PDAF), primarily used for the
development of transportation plans and design concept reports.
As indicated within the FY 2001-05 PAG TIP, total ADOT 12.6 and 2.6 percent funds, HURF
revenues, and LTAF and PDAF revenues programmed for the Town of Marana are $35.0
million through 2005. This breaks down into $27.5 million in 12.6 and 2.6 percent funds,
$6.6 million in HURF revenues, $0.7 million in LTAF, and $0.2 million in PDAF revenues.
• Federal revenues On June 9, 1998, the President signed into law the Transportation Equity
Act for the 21s1 Century (TEA-21), authorizing highway, safety, transit and other surface
transportation programs for a six-year period. TEA-21 revenues available to the Town for
pedestrian and bicycle uses are primarily received through the Surface Transportation
Page 14
September 2000
Marana Transportation Plan Update
. DRAFT Technical Memorandum #5
Program (STP), which includes setaside funding categories specifically available for
pedestrian/bicycle facilities and programs such as the Transportation Enhancements
program.
The STP provides flexible funding categories and ensures the consideration of bicyclists
and pedestrians in the planning process and facility design. STP funds can be used for
provision of sidewalks and modification of sidewalks to meet Americans with Disabilities
Act requirements, for shared use paths, paved shoulders and multiuse lanes, and for
pedestrian and bicycle safety and educational programs.
Ten percent of STP funding is set aside for Transportation Enhancements, which can be
spent on environmentally related improvements including pedestrian and bicycle
provisions. Enhancement fund~ can be used for paved shoulders, bicycle lanes, multiuse
lanes, sidewatks, and both paved as well as unpaved pathways that primarily serve a
transportation purpose.
The Town is currently applying for a Transportation Enhancement grant to construct a
paved shared-use path along the west bank of the Santa Cruz between Cortaro Road and
Twin Peaks Road. This pathway will enable local school children to access the Coyote
Trails Elementary School as well as provide transportation and recreation opportunities for
area residents.
Total STP revenues programmed for the Town are $1.4 million for FY 2001-05. These
revenues da not include the 10 percent Transportation:Enhancement setaside, w~ich is
administered by ADOT in a competitive statewide reimbursement program. Approximately
$11.1 million per year in Transportation Enhancement funds is anticipated to be available
statewide over the remaining years of TEA-21. The Town of Marana has not yet been
successful in applying for Enhancement funds: However, it is assumed for planning
purposes that the Town should receive a total of approximately $500,000 in Enhancement
funds within the next five years for the Santa Cruz Shared Use Path. Transit Enhancement
funds are also available for use on bicycle and pedestrian facilities. However, for the
purposes of this memorandum these funds are not considered a potential revenue source
for these facilities within the near future. '
• Prrvate revenues: Private "revenues" may come in the form of dedications, exactions,
monetary contributions, and construction of facilities to required standards. Development
impact fees can be considered as a private contribution. However, for the purposes of this
memorandum they are included in the local revenues category because they are utilized to
pay for construction off-site of transportation capacity facilities on collector and arterial
roadways under jurisdiction of the Town.
An estimate of private contributions is not included within the scope of this study. However,
it is necessary to recognize the important contribution that private development makes to
the local and major roadway network, and to the bicycle and pedestrian system. As the
Town's transportation system grows, in part due to facilities constructed by developers, it
will be essential for the Town to ensure that high-standard bicycle and pedestrian facilities
are included as part of the roadway improvements and that local street and pathway
accesses are maintained to the degree feasible between developments and imporCant area
destinations.
Page 15
September 2000
Marana Transportation Pian Update
• DRAFT Technical Memorandum #5
The review of existing and proposed funding sources available to the Town of Marana
indicates that a large potential for funding bicycle and pedestrian facilities and programs
exists. As documented within the Town's General Plan, there is currently a high desire among
Town residents for additional bicycle and pedestrian facitities. With the strong public demand
for bicycle and pedestrian, the Town can designate a higher proportion of local, state, and
federal funds for pedestrian and bicycle uses than what is currently designated.
~
I
~
Page 16
September 2000
SEP-09-1999 09~19 FROM PARSONS ~ HRINCKE~HOFF T0 2973930 P.~2
f M~r1ma Tr~n9por~tiore Plan Update
DRAICT Te~shni~al INaq1o~~ trm 4~5
~.O CO~GL~SIdNS AND REC~MIIAEND4TION~
This technicai memorandum has documented existing bicycle and pe~gstrian iacilitles within
the Town af Marana, ider~tified project needs, reviewed existinq policies, plans and sta ~~rds,
and identified potential fiunding for hicycle and pedestrian facilities.; This mer"nor~ndu ;''rn ~
cvmbinatfon with the PAG Regionaf Btcycle Plan and PA~ Regfonal Pedestrlan Pian, n senre
~s the basis for develQping a mcre comprehensiv~ and ciatalled pian and pragram for ha
~ €~eveloprrzent of bicycle and pedestrisn facilities throughqut thE_Town. -
Fol!owing Is a pr~lln~hiary Ilstiny ~f recommendailuiis to further tmpl~ment blcycle and
, pedestrian facilities and programs within the Town of Marsna:
f .
. •~Conduct a major pubiic survey for bicycle and pedestrian needs and deveiop the arana
Master T~ails and Pathways plan and the Alternative Transpo~tatian Modes Master lan, as
called for in the Mtarana General Plan. Revlew and model the plans aiter exlstlhg
successful bicycle and pedestrian planning eiforts throughout the region, s#ate of iaona,
and far 4ther sirr~ilar-sized towns throughout the United States.
Dedicate more local, state, federal, and private funding ta constructian and mai~te anca af
bicycie and pedestrian facilitles. Contir?ua wlth funding proposals to attaln federal .
Tr~,nsport~tlpn Enh~ncement funds for biCyCla and pedestriah f~cititiee. EEtsblish
program to implement facifities over the near-term.
• Ensurg I~nd use plan~ing accourrts for bieycle and pedestrian eirculation ar,d safa ;
require connecti~iiy from subdlvisions.
. ~t~viAw anrJ ~ravida incentivas for mixed-use developmQnts, "infilt" pr~j~cts, and
residsntial/cqmmercl~,t/educatlonalJCUltur~f nodes ihat naturally prcmote bicyciing nd
walking due to tf~elr proxlmiry of uses.
• Utfllze n~w 1g99 AASHTO standards in the design of bicyct~ Pacilities. .Utilize AAS C7
standards in the design af pedestrian facilities, when they becnme availeble (antici ated in
20pt~).
• Gonduct a thorough r~view of subdivision standar~s, traffic circulation requiremen ,
p~d/bike facilities, tr~ffic calming opportunities. and landscaping which can provid sha~le
for cycl~sts and pedestrians.
~ Con~ider eotsb(ivhment of ~dditional or~~nances such a9 bicyel~ parkinq requirerrt nta for
new or expanded commercial and ins~itutional are~s, improved pedestri~n and len SCS~JE '
requirements for parking lots. ~
• Review successful bicycfe ar~i pedestrFan support programs a~d projects, ~s well
educatiQn~f and enforcem~nt efforts lhat can irnprove overa(I conditions for cycling nd
walking.
• Establish g bike/pe~~estrian planning or ~gineering position, provide continuing ed cation
to staff englneers and consul;ants on bicycfe and pedestrian pianning and enginee ing.
Establish a citizens ~dvisory committee on bicycle and pedestrian issues. :
+ Tar~~t bicycle a~d p~destrian proJects to ~III in crlllcal gaps wlth~n the exlstlrtg syst , and ~
t~ projects which provide the greatest positive impact for many users (e.g.. the San Cruz
Page t ~
Septem er 2000
;
, TOTA_ P.~2
Marana Transportation Plan Update
. DRAFT Technical Memorandum #5
Shared Use Path to serve the Coyote Trails Elementary School and area residents). Build
upon these "demonstration projects" to expand the bicycle and pedestrian system
throughout the Town.
;
I
Page 18
September 2000
Marana Transportation Plan Update
• DRAFT Technical Memorandum #5
APPENDICES
, I
~I
Review of Existing Plans, Policies, and Programs
Marana Transportation P/an Update
The purpose of this task is to identify current policies, adopted plans and improvement
programs related to bicycle and pedestrian travel within the Town and its sphere of
influence. As part of this task, policies and programs are evaluated in terms of current
and anticipated problem areas relative to access, safety, modal interchange (bike to
bus, for example), and facility needs. This task also evaluates current Marana design
standards for pedestrian and bicycle facilities.
Presented below is a review of twelve principal documents that relate to pedestrian and
bicycle travel in the Town of Marana and its environs. This working paper summarizes
the key findings of the documents that pertain to pedestrian .and bicycle travel to help
guide the development and implementation of the Marana Transportation Plan Update.
1. Town of Marana General Plan, February 1997
Key Findings:
• Land Use Goal 3 Objective A encourage mixed use developments to support
housing, jobs, shopping, recreational/cultural facilities in several portions of the
community.
• Public Facilities and Services Goal 2 Ac#ion: Flood control projects financed by
other agencies might be augmented with Town funds to create trail, pathway or
open space amenities adjacent to drainage channels.
• Circulation Goals: Design, followed by phased construc#ion, of a Town-wide
trail/multi-purpose path system is a high citizen-articulated circulation priority.
• Circulation Goal 1, Look for Intelligent, Long-Term Transportation Solutions.
Roads, as well as supplementary trails, ideally are sized to accommodate
anticipated development buildout.
• Circulation Goal 2. Establish Foundation for Full-Service Circulation Systems.
For convenience, reduced transportation costs, air quality and community image
reasons, plans for alternative local transportation modes are recommended.
Planning trails is seen as an early success project for General Plan
implementation. Reduction in auto trips as well as creation of outdoor enjoyment
for residents and visitors provide strong justification for considering a wide range
of options for in-town circulation. Policy 2: Provide bicycle, equestrian and
pedestrian linkages.
• Under Future Demand (p. 46), As many as eight new elementary schools, four
middle schools, and one or two high schools, together with expansion at existing
facilities, may be required. Branch libraries, parks, playgrounds and a
community-wide pathway-trails system are among other public assets that will be
expected.
• Under Future Development Pattern Implications (p. 50): The neighborhood
clusters approach is intended to allow variety in density and use mix, thereby
1
estabiishing different images for Marana's new residential areas. Facilities may
be quite variable: rural streets augmented by trails in some sectors, full
curb/gutter/sidewalk with surfaced pathways in others.
• Circulation Element (p. 54): Scenic drives and a community-wide trails system
are quality objectives in local transportation planning.
• Full-Service Circulation Systems (p. 55): Marana's future transportation vision
embraces much more than simply roadway building. It is intended to be
comprehensive: integrating specialized routes, such as scenic drives-providing
opportunities for trips or recreational opportunities on foot, bicycle or horseback.
Future development scenarios, featuring neighborhood clustering, will be
significantly enhanced by connection to a community-wide system of trails and
pathways. Equestrian, cycling and hiking or jogging recreational uses are to be
accommodated together with options for commuting to work, shopping, and
schools.
• Full-Service Circulation Systems, Action (p. 56): Additional transportation plans
shall be developed: the Marana Master Trails and Pathways Plan and the
Alternative Transportation Modes Master Plan.
• Recommendations (p. 61): Master Trails and Pathways Plan and Alternative
Transportation Modes Master Plan shall be completed within two years of
General Plan adoption.
• Circulation Actions (p. 76): Commitments are required for alternative ~modes of
transportation as welt as, by popular demand, a eommunity-wide pathway/trails
network. The pathway alternative for pedestrian and bicycle trips to schools,
shops, work or recreation is one of the Plan's major transportation emphases.
One measure for all future development proposals is their potential contribution
to the community's non-vehicular byways system.
• Mid Term Actions 1999-2005 (p. 80): Following completion of trails and alternate
transportation modes masterplans, construction commences on path/trail
linkages to connect neighborhoods. Priority is ascribed to Anza Trail
improvements.
2. Pima County Subdivision Street Standards, October 1989 (Town of Marana
utilizes these standards)
Key Findings:
• Local street cross sections require 12 to 14-foot travel lanes, parking allowed.
Depending upon ADT and other circumstances, some cross sections require
sidewalks on either one or both sides, while other sections do not require
sidewalks.
• Collector street cross sections require 13 to 15-foot travel lanes. Bike lanes shall ~
be required for all streets identified on the Major Streets and Routes Plan and on
section line roads. Bike lanes/distress lanes may be designed as a combined
2
feature if a total minimum pavement widening of 8 feet is provided. Bike lanes
may also be required on other collector streets.
~ Intersection sight distance: Clear line of sight shall be maintained along all
streets and driveways to provide for the safety of motorists, pedestrians, and
bicyclists.
• For roadways with a 25-mph design speed, the clear zone must be 8 to 10 feet
measured from edge of travel lane. For roadvriays with a 35-mph design speed
the clear zone must be 15 feet, and for roadways having 45-mph design speed
the clear zone must be 20 feet. A suitable traffic barrier may be used if this clear
zone cannot be achieved.
• Minimum sidewalk width is 4 feet where required, with additional sidewalk width
required for special tra~c generators such as schools, recreation sites and
certain businesses.
• The Subdivision Sfreet Standards do not address connectivity of local streets,
sidewalks, shared use paths, and bicycle facilities between local developments.
3. Town of Marana Land Development Code, 1998 (includes Zoning Code and
Subdivisions)
Key Findings:
• Title 5, Zoning (p. 54), includes motor vehicle acGess requirements and off-street
parking for buildings, but does not specify pedestrian and bicycle access
requirements. Also does not address connectivity within and between
developments and along local street system, nor does it address pedestrian and
bicycle connectivity to desirable destinations such as schools.
• Title 6, Subdivisions (p. 133), states that paved sidewalks shall be required in all
subdivisions having a density of more than one lot per acre. As with zoning,
does not address connectivity within and befinreen developments and along local
street system, does not address pedestrian and bicycle connectivity, especially to
schools and recreation areas.
4. Bicycle Access Analysis for the Town of Marana and Coyote Trail Elementary
School, 1998
• Assessed bicycle and pedestrian facilities, usage, and safety issues from
surrounding neighborhoods to Coyote Trail Elernentary School.
• Recommended against construction of paved shared use path along Silverbell
Roadway due to safety concerns with intersecting streets.
• Recommended existing sidewalk on east side of Silverbell remain as is, and that
bicycle use continue to be permitted. Recommended potential widening of
sidewalk if safety issues can be resolved.
3
• Recommended development of a paved shared use trail along Santa Cruz to
increase access for students to Coyote Trail SchooL
• Recommended strengthening the bicycle safety education program currently
taught at the school, with emphasis on bicycle Jane usage, roadway traffic law,
and sidewalk courtesy.
• Recommended that the Town of Marana consider the placement of another
controlled school crossing of Silverbell Road.
• Recommended that Marana Unified School District adopt schooi siting criteria
with pedestrian and bicycle access as a primary factor in the location of schools:
? Elementary and middle schools should have direct access only from
collectors with speed limits 35 mph or below; do not locate the schools
adjacent to arterials.
? Residential developments located within one mile of school sites should have
connecting collector streets with bicycle lanes and, were applicable,
connective trails that will provide pedestrian and bicycle access to the school.
6. Pima Association of Governments M~tropolitan Transportation Plan, 1998 .
Key Findings:
• The plan notes that the City of Tucson, Town of Marana, and Pima County have
policies in place to provide bicycte lanes or paved shoulders and pedestrian
facilities as part of major roadway constru~tion or reconstruction projects. The
plan anticipates that the majority of the arterial and collector roadway
improvement projects will include these facilities.
~ Planned roadway widenings or new roads in Marana..inclucfe--~:fDllowing:
1. Dove Mountain Boulevard, Dove Mountain Road to 1-10 Frontage:~`~ New 4
lane roadway ~ * ' . . _ . ~
- . - . - ~
2. Camino de Manana, Linda Vista TI toTangerine/Dove Mountain Road: New 6':'
r .
lane roadway
3. Hartmann Lane, Cortaro Farms Road to 0.5 mi north: New 2 lane
_
, .
4. Cortaro Farms Road, Silverbell to Thornydale: Expand existing 2 lane to 4
5. Silverbell Road, Cortaro Farms Road~to soutFi
Tow~i`~Limits: Expand existing
2 lane to 4
6. Linda Vista Road, I-10 to Silverbell: New 4 lane
7. Ina Road, Silverbell to I-10: Expand existing 2 lane to 4
. . , . -
4
8. Ina Road, I-1Q to 0.5 mile east of Thornydale: Expand existing 4 lane to 6
9. Thornydale Road, Orange Grove Road to Ina: Expand existing 4 lane to 6
10. Thornydale Road, lna Road to Linda Vista: Expand existing 2 lane to 4
11.Orange Grove Road, Thornydate to La ChoNa: Expand existing 2 lane to 4
, . -
~
- ~ ~r -
a:..,~ > . _ .
12. Moore Road, Sanders to 1-10: Reconstruct existing 2 tane to 2
~;f . { , , j, -:,1 ,
13. Tangerine Road, I-1~0 to Thomydale: Reconstruct existing 2 lane to 2
• Based on this listing of projects and assuming 1998 Town boundaries,
approximately 16 centerline miles of new bicycle and pedestrian facilities can be
built within the Town by 2020 included as part of the standa~d roadway cross
section. This does not include additional pedestrian and bicycle facilities that
may be programmed and built separately as stand-alone projects.
6. PAG Regional Plan for Bicycling, Final Draft, June 2000
Key Findings:
• Plan proposes 400 new miles of signed bike coutes, paved shoulders and bike
lanes and 50 miles of new shared use paths throughout the PAG reg~on by the
year 2010. A majority of the on-street bikeway m'tles will be built as part of
roadway reconstruction or construction projects. At a total construction cost of
$104.1 million, this plan will increase the regional bikeway system to nearly 950
miles by 2010. The plan calls for a total of approximately 1,390 bikeway miles by
2020.
• In surveys conducted for the plan, 25 percent of respondents indicated they
travel to work or school by bike; 25 percent indicated that more bike lanes and
paths would encourage them to ride a bike; and 17 percent indicated they would
like to see construction of more shared-use paths.
• The plan includes an Action Plan with numerous Education, Enforcement,
Engineering, and Encouragement goals. These goals include effective actions to
improve bicycling conditions throughout the PAG planning area.
• The plan includes a matrix listing various standards and regulations followed by
jurisdictions. For the Marana area, the matrix indicates the Town includes bike
lanes per Pima County standard on collectors and arterials; development
regulations require trails, bike lanes, bicycle parking per Pima County standards;
AASHTO is followed for shared-use pathway standards; and alternative or
enhanced bicycle roadway crossings are used on a case by case basis.
• For the Marana area, planned bicycle lanes and shared use paths are depicted
on the maps at the end of the plan.
5
7. PAG Regional Pedestrian Plan, Final Draft, June 2000
Key Findings:
• As the first regional pedestrian plan, the plan presents a vision for a more
accessible and safer pedestrian environment in the Tucson region.
• Incorporates recommendations from the 1989 Eastern Pima County Master
Trails Plan and the 1996 Pima County River Parks Master Plan.
• Serves as a policy plan guiding the development and enhancement of pedestrian
elements in the urban landscape and does not detail specific pedestrian projects.
• Identi~es connectivity of pedestrian walkways, directional signage and shade
features as essential etements of pedestrian friendly provisions.
• Lists critical elements for accessible pedestrian facilities: directness, continuity,
improved street crossings, visual interest and amenity, shade, and security.
• Documented that 9 out of 10 respondents to the public survey effort indicated
that the Tucson region is not pedestrian friendly, and over 75 percent said they
would walk more if there were more sidewalks, street lighting, safer streets, and
safer street crossings.
• Includes an action plan and several goals to improve pedestrian conditions, ~ :
including 1) Educating officials and the public_to be aware of pedestrian issues
and encourage walking; 2) Developing facilities that are direct, safe, com€ortable,
continuous, and interesting; 3) Improving pedestrian visibility and safety; 4)
Improving the maintenance of ped facilities; and 5) IdentifXing and securing
pedestrian funding.
8. Pima Association of Governments Transportation Improvement Program, FY
2000-2004
Key Findings:
• A TIP open house was held March 1998 and a survey was distributed to request
public input on transportation issues. The top five rated goals included:
1. 81 percent of respondents rated "Improve and/or avoid any negative impacts
on air quality" as an important goal;
2. 78 percent rated "Address points of congestion" as an important goal;
3. 76 percent rated "Complete gaps in the transportation system for bicycles,
pedestrians, transit, and automobiles" as an important goal;
4. 75 percent rated "Projects should accommodate bicycles, pedestrians, and
transit, in addition to automobiles" as an important goal; and
5. 72 percent rated "Projects should enhance the quality or livability of
neighborhoods and other community areas" as an important goal.
6
:
• The following projects for the Town of Marana area (including relevant Pima
County and ADOT projects) are included in the TIP:
1. Camino de la Manana: Design (FY 2003)
2. Cortaro Road: I-10 to Silverbell: Design and construct arterial upgrade from
2 to 4 lanes w/ sidewalk, landscaping, and drainage (FY 2000-02) o.: ,
3. Ina Road, Camino Martin to Town Limits: Design, ROW, and Construction -
Overlay and widen 4 lanes to 6 w/ bus tum-outs, landscaping and street
lighting (FY 2003-04)
4. Pavement rehabilitation (unde~ned) (FY 2000-04) ~ ' . , x ~ _
5. Silverbell Road, Ina to Cortaro: Design and repave road 2 lanesto~2, add `
bicycle lanes (FY 2001-2002) -
6. Tangerine Road, Breakers Road to Thornydale Road: Rebuild/overlay lanes
and shoulders 2 lanes to 2, minor drainage improvement (FY 2002)
7. Thornydale Road, Orange Grove to Horizon Hills: Design, ROW, and
construction for arterial upgrade, 4 lanes to 6(FY 2003)
8. Cortaro Farms Road, I-10 to Thornydale Road: Widen existing road 2 lanes
to 4 w/ new RR crossing, curbs, multi-use lanes, and storm drains (Pima
County project, FY 2002-04) ~
9. Hartmann Lane, Cortaro Road to 0.5 miles north: Design, ROW, and
construction 01a~es to 2(Pima County proje~tr FY 2000-02)
10. Orange Grove Road, Thornydale to Oracle: Design, ROW and construction 2
lanes to 4/6 (Pima County project, FY 2002-04)
11. Shannon Road, Ina to Magee: Design, RQW and construction 2 lanes to 4
(Pima County project, FY 2000-02)
12. Thornydale Road, Ina to Cortaro Farms: ROW and construction 2 lanes to 4
(Pima County project, FY 2000-02)
13. Thornydale Road, Cortaro Farms to Linda Vista: ROW and construction 2
lanes to 4(Pima County project, FY 2000-04)
14. Twin Peaks Road, Sidewinder to Marana Town Limits: ROW and construction
2 lanes to 4(Pima County project, FY 2003-04)
15. Tangerine Corridor Study Update (ADOT project, FY 2000)
9. Tucson Bicycle Map, 10th Edition, 1998
Key Findings:
• There are no existing bike routes on local streets or paved shared-use paths in
the Marana area
• Existing bike routes with white painted edge lines on collectors and arterials (bike
lanes or paved shoulders) in the Marana area include:
7
1. Avra Valley Road, west Town limits to Airline Drive
2. Silverbell Road, Scenic Road to Cortaro Road
3. Twin Peaks Road, Silverbell to Coachline Boulevard
4. Ina Road, I-40 to Thornydale Road
10. ADOT Map of Suitable Bicycle Routes on the State Highway System, 1998
Key Findings:
• Ina Road from Oracle Highway to I-10 Frontage Roads is listed as "More
Suitable" for bicycle travel (suitability is ranked on average number of cars per
day per lane, lane width and paved shoulders, and percent commercial vehicles)
• Frontage Roads from Ina north toward Phoenix is listed as "More Suitable" for
bicycle traveL
• Tangerine Road is not listed on the map. (Tangerine is a State Route and not on
the State Highway System).
11. Pima County Department of Transportation Roadway Design Manual, 1998
(Town of Marana ufilizes these standards)
Key Findings:
• Bicycle facilities and activities within Pima County are an important part of the
overall transportation system. For designs using curbed roadways, a minimum of
8 feet is to be added to the typical width of travel lanes to accommodate bicycles
and other users. This 8-foot width is designated as a multiuse lane.
• For roadways considered rural and non-curbed, the typical width to
accommodate travel lanes shall be increased by a minimum of 5 feet for the
same purpose. Separated bicycle paths shall be examined as a design
alternative where right-of-way widths are 200 feet or more and side street and
driveway connections are limited.
• There are several design features which must be considered when major
roadways are being planned and designed. These include:
1. Appropriate striping and signing along roadway sections and at intersections
to identify proper bicycle-vehicle interactions.
2. Location of push buttons and vehicle detectors at signalized intersections to
accommodate bicycle and pedestrian activity.
3. Design of curb inlets and catch basins that do not impede bicycle activity.
• Pedestrian sidewalks shall be provided along major roadways where warranted '
by pedestrian travel. The standard sidewalk width is 4 feet, but may be
increased to accommodate special conditions. When the sidewalk is designed to
be flush with the back of the raised curb, the standard width is 6 feet. ~
.
, I f
a . ~ . - ~ ~ .
8 . ,
-
• Other pedestrian considerations include the consideration of pedestrian
crosswalks, overpasses, underpasses, or school zones where existing public or
private schools operate adjacent to the arterial or collector.
12. Pima County Major Streets and Scenic Routes Plan, amended 1998
Key Findings:
• Designated Major Routes and Scenic Major Routes follow the requirements for
pedestrian and bicycle facilities as described within the Pima County Department
of Transportation Roadway Design ManuaL
• Town of Marana (and other incorporated entities) is excluded from the map. ~
However, adjacent roadways are designated as follows
1. Tangerine Road -Scenic Major Route, east of Town limits
2. Silverbell Road - Scenic Major Route, Trico Road to Tangerine Road
alignment
3. EI Tiro Access Road - Scenic Major Route, Trico Road to Silve~bell Road
4. Avra Valley Road - Scenic Major Route, west of Sanders Road
5. Avra Valley Road - Scenic Major Route, east of Town limits
6. Sandario Road - Scenic Major Route, south of Town limits
7. Twin Peaks Road - Scenic Major Route, Silverbell to west Town 6mits
8. Trico-Marana Road and Sanders Road - Major Routes, north of Town limits
Numerous other roadways located between Marana and Tucson city limits are
designated Major Routes and Scenic Major Routes, thus also subject to the pedestrian
and bicycle facility requirements of the Roadway Design Manual.
13. City of Tucson 1992 Major Streets and Routes Plan (Amended 7/28198)
Key Findings:
• City of Tucson 1992 Major Streets and Routes Plan requires the following
improvements for bicyclists and pedestrians:
1. Improvement of major streets shall include provisions for pedestrian ways.
Sidewalks shall be located on both sides of major streets.
2. Bus stops shall be placed every one-fourth mile except where demand warrants
otherwise. Where possible, bus stops shall be located at activity nodes.
Shelters and benches shall be set back at least four feet from the curb.
3. To provide for safe use by bicyclists, major streets shall be designed with 17-foot
outside lanes to rovide 5-foot stri ed bic cle lanes, where feasible.
p Y
p
9
I
14.Town of Oro Valley Zoning Code, Revised 1998
Key Findings
• For proposed developments within 1 mile of a public school, describe and map
safe walk/bike paths for students. Student walk/bike paths should be designed,
with easements between selected lots, as required, to reduce walk/ride
distances.
• Where applicable, describe and map how the proposed development will
facilitate access to off-site trails. Discuss how access will be maintained.
• Pedestrian and bikeways with rights-of-way of 8 feet or greater may be required
where essential for circulation or access to schools, playgrounds, shopping
centers, transportation and other community facilities. Pedestrian and bikeways
may be used for utility purposes.
• Planned Residential Developments may have a 5 percent increase from base
density if interior amenities such as tennis courts, recreation centers, bike paths
and equestrian trails which are accessible to the residents of the development
are provided.
• Planned Area Developments should encourage patterns of land use which
decrease trip length of automobile travel and encourage trip consolidation;
increase public access to mass transit, bicyc4e routes, and other alternative
modes of transportation; and reduce energy consumption and demand.
• Requirements for Planned Area Developments:
1. Residential neighborhoods are afforded multi-modal access to, and are in
close proximity to, activity centers to minimize travel times.
2. Bike lanes a~e included in all planned arterial improvements and on collectors
deemed appropriate in the development review process.
3. Homeowners associations are required to maintain pedestrian-bicycle paths,
within approved master-planned communities.
4. Bicycle parking facilities are provided.
5. Safe pedestrian/bicycle access to schools and parks is provided within the
boundaries of the development.
6. Sidewalks or related pedestrian facilities are incorporated within
neighborhoods.
7. All new roadway and future pedestrian-bicycle improvements meet public
design standards.
8. Pedestrian, equestrian and bicycle trails are designated including picnic/rest
areas.
9. Handicapped accessible facilities are provided to users.
10. Nei hborhood scale recreation and a ro riate linka es to existin and
9 PP p 9 9
planned trail systems are provided.
10
11. Bike paths are constructed, where feasible and appropriate, ta separate
pedestrian and bike traffic from motorized vehicle in order to provide safe
access to schools and parks.
12. Public access to mass transit, pedestrian and bicycle circulation systems is
provided and designed to assure that pedestrians can move safely and easily
to properties and activities in the site and in the neighborhood.
13. The Planned Area Development provides for safe pedestrian and bicycle
access to schools and parks.
• Ensure sufficient off street motor vehicle and bic cle
establishing minimum parking requirements for land uses. parking facilities by
• Encourage safe, convenient, and efficient design of motor vehicle and bicycle
parking spaces, circulation, and access areas.
15. Town of Oro Valley Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan, 1999
Key Findings:
• The plan resulted in part from the 1996 Town of Oro Valley Geneca/ Plan, which
established a major goai to "Ensure safe, convenient and e~cient vehicular and
nonmotorized traffic circulation to serve both within and through the com~nunity.
• The plan addresses "urban" pedestrian and bicycle facilities, and calls for the
construction of approximately 27 miles of new sidewalks, 14 enhanced
pedestrian/bicycle roadway crossings, 30 miles of local street bicycle routes, 20
miles of multiuse lanes on major streets, and 9 miles of paved shared-use paths.
• Numerous °support facilities," including water and rest stops, bicycle parking,
trailheads and parking areas, and landscaping are also included within the plan.
The estimated construction and maintenance cost for all facilities over the lan
period is $3.8 million. Implementation of these improvements within this ti e period
will more than triple the available pedestrian and bicycle facilities within the Town.
• The plan also includes a new funded position for a pedestrian and bicycle
coordinator, establishes a standing citizens advisory committee, and implements
education and enforcement procedures to improve safety for pedestrians and
bicyclists.
16.AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, 1999
Key Findings:
~ States that all highways, except those where cyclists are le all
be designed and constructed under the assumption that they w I behused by cycl'sts.
Bicycles should be considered in all phases of transportation planning, new roadway
design, roadway reconstruction, and capacity improvement and transit projects.
11
~ Guide provides information for the development of bicycle facilities including bicycle
routes, bicycle lanes, paved shoulders, wide curb lanes, and shared use paths. Also
provides guidance for the selection of facilities based on advanced, basic (novice),
and children bicyclists.
• Bicycle routes can be established with signing on local streets and in some cases
with traffic calming improvements to help slow automotive traffic speeds. Paved
shoulders should be a minimum of 4 feet wide, and wider where higher bicycle use,
higher traffic volumes, or higher percentage of trucks and buses are anticipated.
Wide curb lanes should be a minimum of 14 feet of usable lane width (exclusive of
gutter pan). Bicycle lanes should be a minimum of 5 feet in width from the face of
curb. Shared use paths should be a minimum of 10 feet in width, and wider in if high
bicycle and pedestrian use is anticipated.
• Guide acknowledges that bicycle use will occur on sidewalks, especially in
~esidential areas, but generally recommends against signing these facilities as
bikeways. In limited instances sections of sidewalk which provide critical access
needs and are designed at high safety standards may be developed and signed as
bikeways.
~ Shared use paths located immediately adja~ent to roadways are recommended
against due to several safety considerations: Pathways should have adequate ~
separation from the roadway, shoufd not be established along roadways which have
many intersecting cross streets and driveways, and any ~ntersections with cross
streets should have high-standard design treatments to improve user safety.
12
V ~
~ 9
~ -
o E `~c o q
2 e 'g Z o c ~
c ~ cg • Y a~ o ~ ~ C C V ~ a o .
'v ~ m m 3 " a u ° `o i a
q `s ~ ~ e~0 Y a ~ rpp q o 00
J v ~ ~ y n q o ; $ ~ Y q C ~ C ~ a~ . o f
e m N v O a N v ~ q n ~ ~ ° 3 c N ¢r .
~ o t ~ c A v z c E W ~ ~ m . ~ o € ~ a-~ o ° m ~ 4 n
~T-i c o m ° 2 c z t'~
~ 2c c B 9t o c` Te = o jS t c~ ~ ° ~cw~ ic m
0 o W~ ~ f ot c ° m ~ 2 v ~ v ~ ET ~~°Eev va ~inaa mvsl _
o o~ a° w ° m~°e A t o v c ° ° c b = 0 0 y ~A.~~ o° m
. ~ U K Gp Q o. tl c c a e = ; o n.o w fftjj m -e m ~.E 9`cm .
~ . 2 ~ W W ~ ~ Vl a a !O ln c l7Z ~ Zm ~ W ma W..H ~
t Y
fq . , 0
o c
. . o m ~ u m ~ ~ ~
. m a o 0 0 o c°°c m a ~ c c° c° °c ~o 0 o u o o d g-. _
m~ ~ ~ ~ ° ° ~ ° ° ~ ~ ~ °c c° c c °c °c °c c° °c ° ° o 0 o rS -e g °c °cc°cccc°~c°c°c°OCC°°c°c°¢ec ~.m.mmauuo raooumme o
~ c c c c c c.c °c °c °c c~OCC°cDOCC °e cc°c~OC~OCC°c °c °c°c c°O¢ °cc° °
c °
c °
c°
c°c°
c c c ecc.~~c
~ . rb o c o 0 0 0
n ' @ ° @ g ~ <<
m; ~ c g ` ` ` ` ° ~ °c °c " °c c° c c g °c °c °c °c °c ° c° ° ~~ooooo0 00 og°c@°cc°c°OC°ce°c° o00000000 »a
° < < c c c c c c c° c c c c
_ 2<<<<< <~~o
3
i
N c e C c c c c m e ~ "
~ O
~ ~ @ @ @ @ g ~ ~ o 0 0 o c < < < @ @ ~ @ < < < €@°°~@@@°~°~@~Sooo ~a~~°~@~@@~@°mgm
~ " _ _ <<<<<<<
0 0
n ~ ~ < < < < < < @ @ ~ @ < < @ ~ g <<@~S@<<<~@~@@<<<<<<<<<<<<@~@@~~@~@~°
9
o ~
n Y ~ ~ V d O ~
a ° m m°o m u m u g
~ ~ n ~ x
M~ p ~ a 0~ Y O~ Y~
y C q ~ ~
~ O V b Y Y C O~ O O O m U O
y J < Y < O ~t~] < < ~~q ~ O `~f M ~ ~ ~
N O n~ O P O~ Y Y~I N N~ l~~l r fh~l ~ fH~1 b Vf N h YI ~ O h N~~
lV til tY Ol 1'! N v1 Ol ~ g f Y~~~j N PY!! ' ~/~l h l~V ~ S O N r r~~.~'! f~ N O N t~~! [~~i
o o~ a ~ a o v v y
O N > > ~ > > > > > q > > >
$ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ° 8 ' ~ ~ $ ° i ° ~ e o o °o °o $ o pi°m o°o m °o°u° °m°o°o o a 9Dm °o °o°u m °a ~ o o°o°o ~ o u °o°m u°u°moa mo
n > > > J J ~ J m > > > J ~ J > > < < < C C C s , > > > > ~ m C 4 ~ ~ W > > > > > > m > > > > > > > ! > > > Y Y > Y ~
, C J j> j c C C C ~ 4 W R 10 0 N
~ c O ~ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 7 > > > > ~ > > J ~ 7 > > > p m j A
~ C Y O C d ~ p C C ~ ~ C C O C .
N N ~ c c °c °c c °°c c c°c °cc°OCCC°c°c°c°c°c°c°°c°cccc°pcc°O~goo~o°cc°°°ccov°m
c
~S G'
0
~ ~ N N
Z O
I- L C . ` m C q y ~ r. ~
~ N ry ~
my ~ ~
o~ ~ vge~me o~ o~ ~ e~o "
~ O~ n~~ L m~ E c7 n m cG U E S E L c~~~ o° < o w_ Y c9; c- ~ o a`u `u c u [7 o K C d=~ ~ ~
U _ ~ ~ E ~ C - c n
~~:7 ~ N ~ U f.~ tg m ~ (g H i° 3~ tn @~^ d~n~o~A_4~~3eEU~E~E~~c~cv~N .>~a ~au~
uvj ° m u v ~ t7 m.~m rn a~ f y~~~n~wgw8 n y @~ L~F~i L° m
e e e e q~ u p
o G ~ = -~O~Q~NOrn'aa ~ ¢ri~~ ~ cg~ma
A
„ ~ c~ c~ ~ _ d " ~
LL~@ m V°° Y c° e~ m e E c° ~ ~ Q a= = m C'OC C C ~ ~ e x .
m ~ C L° ~ O~'° c~ a~ o V o m~ o i1 c o m u s C m ° c ° C~~c° c c c c u-c° ~ Y
u O~.~ f o O O cEi ~ cg r= A c' C 5 3 q ` e°c ~,`o~~CEoev°~OC?'~ e e mcg ~ u mmwwaa
i- ~ LLa h~ 4 34 ~ w nnogAa3i4i~H~i=~~~Ey J g c~L°°c°c°cc°cn.~cEi~ii i
V1U' fq Vlmr2~pJ 41 W Q W~~O Q~41 ONNVIfnNFt~J4lN Vl41Iq
~ C ~
~ u v ~ ~ W s
p o R F. ` 0 0 n ~ .
~ oa ~D-De~osg °~ga t s e
ci u u o 0 o g~ q~ ~ LL v.~ u a i ~ m p " ~ e ~ s €
v 5 ~ c° a -O C- c `u n w t7 0~° q q~ ~
~~~~FHUUin~inOC.Ei ~'°~cEc3E C~~`m~~ E'~~°~> ~uL ~ .-OU°'~ a ~~Y.~~C
u O=~~ ~ U u~= Y 3~ N ~1 U' U'~ u~ m~ o o m~ c~.? o~- E U~~~E € c' ~~°c ~ c°u' t ~ a m~~g`
c ~n ~n n r~ a ~ io n m rn o.- ~aam¢Q~ri~UwBw~~~~~~tnOi~a ~ E o t~
~ N N N l'.~ ,rv ~o n m m o -`¢`fw~nr-~nmmua
. n•`~ n n~ n~Tin.~innn°v: «°aa v v e~i~n u~iu~'iu~v"'i'~i~ivmiv°'i~°e~cu~om m m
.
~
0
~ ~
~
N
N y
y C
N
C ~
~
x 2 C ~o
~ c° >
m
v v m ~ Vl ~ C
SR o o CQ ~ o > 'c
° o ~ c o
y~ ~ ~ O C ~ 01 C N p.~.. C ~
E C ~ y y C v~1 y..~. C ~ C~l C C ~
U C N C N lC N J ~ '~~r d C N yj cC
m ~ lC m N N ~ l0 ~ ~ N d..~. ~ C ~
a 3 ~ E E .o m o~ ~ a~ccm v m~~
d O L C~ ~ ~ ~ N y m C ~ J H= N~ VI O C
10 ~ C C ~n
A ~n o d o r ~ ~ ~ ~~o ~ N~ m' L~ d~
` c ~ a c.c a c`° m m~ ~ c~ ~,v_i E°~v m~'~' ~ ~ a~
m o° a~ c~° U E o r o o° v Ewr'°gWY=my°ca`>u`_>~ dw
c ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a~~i ~ ~ rL ~ ~ ~02 t= ~-E~~~~U' Um ~ ~
z ~ m O O O~ O O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ pl ~ . N ld ~N W Y W lC l0 N iO l6 m~
m ~ C ~ N N ~ VJ 41 W M C O ~ ~ Q.~.. ~ Ol a.~. O O O O O
~ C N ~ l0 l0 C l0 N N l0 G1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ H ~ N N N M H N H C N N M W Ul 1q Vl fn y .
U N U 3 c3 N N ~ o' 3 3 0 3 3 E ~ 3333~33~3333333 ~3
J~ ~ U a N U e- V~ a- N r r- _ ~ N N N N N N N N
N
Zsu6~gdo~g m a`"i a"'i ayi w w~ m ~ m yt/1 ~O1fay`~'maNima`~i mm m°'
a~
Lpazlleu6~g a`~i ~ aNi w d w w m w a w. a vi vi
~ d w a~ m a~
c u~nj~y6~a o o.- o 0 0. ~ o 0 0 0 0 0 ~ ~ o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000000000000000
3
0
y n~y O~~ ~f~! p~- .r ~ ~ N N ~ N .
3 N r- N r- ~ ~ ~ ~
uinl ~a~ O.- O O O O O O O O ~ e- N~- e- ~ a- ~ ~ ~ r ~.r
r O.- O ~ O O ~ O~ O O O O O O O O O O O O O.O O
~ LLJO1 ~y6ib ° ~ o a.- o 0 0 0 ~ o o ~ o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~
o ~ooooo00000000000
~ ti41 ~ ~ ~ N O ~ ~ N ~ ~ N N ~
~ e- e- e- ~ ~ ~ N r.e+ ~ ~ O~~ ~ O ~ ~ O O ~ ~
~ W u~nl ua~ O O.- O O O O O O O ~ ~ N N ~ ~ ~ ~ r ~ ~ ~ ~
C ~ e- O~- O O r- O O O O O O O C O O O O O O O O O
N ~ ~
_~~li4g!a o o.- o r- o 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ o o ~ o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ o 0000000000000000
0
« ~~y ~ o r- N u?
~ o ~ o o ~ o o.-
0
u~ u~nl ual o o 0 0 0 0 0 o r- N N ~ ~
o ~ o 0 0 0 0000000000000000
~°J01346i21 ~ o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.-
~ o 0 0 0 0000000000000000
o ~
a n~yl c.~ N N
t
C o.- o 0 0
0
Z wnl 31a1 0 0.- o 0 0 0 0 0 0.- a.- ~ ~ ~ r
o ~ o 0 0 ~ o000000000000000
E
N ~ ~ IL
o r ~ v m E m v m w~n > i
~ m o ~ m ar ~u ~ o 0 0 o r E E m p; m ~n a
y a~ ~ C r~ v C y ~ LL C7 C7 C7 C9 V LL tL in gy~ m L L
~ ~ ~ y y a m d ~ E ~ m ~ `m ~ ~ °i d m a~ o m ° ° y o > ~ ~ ~ 2 = ~ N ° ° ~ ~
~ c 1° ~ E t° m o.c° ~ c> o m~~ m m a~i a C C v°'v v c v v v v~ v v
~ O O ~ O`~ ~ ~ f- J J O U S O O ~ c c`° o o cEmc s~~E~S~mmmmmm
. - O O O J U U JUO.JH=J~Y>fn(n(n~~~
N
N
{C N IO tV f0 f0 !O fO f0 !E N O/ N N G7 Ol N N F- t0 ~C lC ~ Vl N N ~~/1 N U U
O C iC N N N lO 10 ~p N C C N tq N ~ N N J O/ a. ~
~ O O O O O O O O O O~C D C C C 0 L 0
L L L L L.C L L L.C ~ E E E E ~ E ~ ~ C C J J J C C C N [O N~ O ~ Q ~ eC c0
U U U U U U U U U U c o 0 0 0 0 o D~ c~c A c c c c c c v ti v~ v E_ ~ m~I c c ~ z
m m m m co m m m m m m t t L r t.c E E.c r o 0 o L t.`0c E~ E~Em~~`m~vm`m`010~~~0
J J J J J J J J J J f- F- f- F„ ~ U U~~~~~~~ N U O U J U= d~= J~~~(, Ur m m~
#
N
C ~ N M V N tD h CO Ql ~ ~ N M Y ~q t0 el~- p ~ N M V N tD 1~ 00 Of O~ ~ N M V Yl tD P CO O1 C
J ~ ~ ~ N N N N N N N N N N ~+f M M e+~ M c~f iy t+~ a ~
et~a~~
. ? . 1 ` Z ~ ~
~
~
~ ,
MARANA
TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE . ~ p~
~
DRAFT
Technical Memorandum #6
EXISTING TRANSIT SERVICES
~
Prepared for: ,I
~ ~
MARANA !
~
~.~t_
w. ,
~ Vt1~4~~ ~ ~ ~ . ~II
. . 70Wft Oi MARANA ~ ~ . i
The Town of Marana
Department of Pubiic Works
3696 W. Orange Grove Road
Tucson, Arizona 85741
Prepared by:
==~oo
YEARS
Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc.
177 N. Church Avenue, Suite 500
Tucson, Arizona 85701
September 2000
Marana Transportation Plan Update
DRAFT Technical Memorandum #6
Table of Contents
Paae
1.0 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................1
2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS 1
2.1 Transit Service Providers 1
2.2 Sun Tran 2
2.3 Marana Public Transit ....................................................:............................4
2.4 Pima County Rural Transit 4
2.5 Level of Transit Service 5
2.6 Transit Facilities 6
2.7 Conclusions ................................................................................................7
3.0 AREA OF INFLUENCE ...................................................................................8
4.0 RIDERSHIP AND PERFORMANCE DATA ..................................................9
4.1 Sun Tran Routes 9
4.2 Marana Public Transit 11
4.3 Pima County Rural Transit 11
5.0 EXISTING AND fUGURE TRANSIT FUNDING SOURCES 11
5.1 Introduction 11
I', 5.2 Existing Transit Funding Sources 12
' 5.3 Future Transit Funding Sources 13
6.0 STAFF INTERVIEWS 14
6.1 Staff Interview Results 15
7.0 GATEKEEPER SURVEYS
16
7.1 Gatekeeper Interview Results 16
8.0 ON-BOARD SURVEYS 17
8.1 Marana Public Transit 17
8.2 Sun Tran 17
8.3 Pima County Rural Transit 19
9.0 MARKET SURVEYS 19 .
10.0 CONCLUSIONS . 20
DRAFT Pagei
September 2000
Marana Transportation Plan Update
DRAFT Technical Memorandum #6
List of Figures
Paqe
Figure 1 Existing Transit Services 2
Figure 2 Sun Tran Routes 3
Figure 3 Marana Public Transit Route ....................................................................4
Figure 4 Pima County Rural Transit 5
Figure 5 Marana Area of Influence (Study Area) 8
List of Tables
Pa4e
Table 1 Route 16 10
Table 2 Route 102 ..............................................................................................10
Table 3 Route 103 ..............................................................................................10
Table 4 Marana Public Transit ......................:.....................................................11
Table 5 Pima County Rural Transit........._ 11
Table 6 Staff Interviewees . 15
Table 7 Gatekeeper Interviewees 16
~
I
~
DRAFT Pageii
September 2000
Marana Transportation Plan Update
DRAFT Technical Memorandum #6
DRA FT
Technical Memorandum #6
Existing Transit Services
.
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This memorandum documents the inventory of current transit services in the Town of
Marana. Information presented includes the following:
¦ Area of Influence (Study Area)
¦ Existing Services
¦ Transit Ridership
• Performance Data
¦ Existing and Future Transit Funding Sources
• Results of Surveys Conducted
This information will serve as the basis for the development of future transit demand
and alternatives analysis. After a preferred transit alternative is identified, the Transit
Development Plan for the Town will be prepared.
2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS
This section examines the existing transit services in Marana. Additionally, the social,
political, financial and demographic environment for public transit that currently exists
and influences the systems could face in the 5-10 year timeframe horizon for this study
are presented.
2.1 Transit Service Providers
Transit service in Marana is provided through three transit providers,
• Sun Tran
~ ~ ~ ~
• ima County Rural Transit.
Service is focused primarily along the Ina Road commercial corridor where a majority of
the employment and trip generators are located within Marana. However, service
extends into the growing suburban and rural areas of Marana and Avra Valley. The
service areas and routes of the three transit providers are shown in Figure 1. Each
transit provider is profiled in the following sections.
DRAFT Page1
September 2000
• ' ~ Marana Transportation Plan Update
DRAFT Technicai Memorandum #6
~
a
v
E=H
b Q ~ ~
~ .o o ~ o m w .r o ~ ~
° ~q 'd °'b.~a a...
m P4 v~" ~ ¢ ~ ~ ~ m ~ ~ .a o
e~ o.~w o U~ oU ~
F .=a m m.~ xA UO~wm~~ ~
~
. Interstate 10
Trico Marana ~
Grier Road ' ~
B~~ Moore Road
ri~~e~s ~ .
Moore ' ~ ' Tangerine Road ~ ~ ~
El Tiro ~
~~~1j~'+ ~ ~}~1~~.~~'s ~ N~nja Road ~ ~
~ Avra Valley Rd. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ` ` " . i'~ Lambert I.ane
~.s~
; ~ r ~ ~ Linda Vista
~ Emigh ` ~ Twin Peaks , . - ~ ~ ~ ~ Overton Road ~
~ ~ Cortaro Road
s ~ ~ _ Pima Farms ~ ~ ~ ' Magee (N) ~
~ ~ ~ Magee (S)
Ina Road
~ Pidure Rocks , p~ge Grove Road
i~r ~ 'b
a
~ Rivet Road
3 Silverbell Rd. Interstate 10
5un Tran Rou~s
P~County Rural Trarsit
Marana Public Trarsit (fotrrer rflu~)
Figure i Existing Transit Services
2.2 Sun Tran
Sun Tran is the fixed bus route transit provider for the City of ~T ~ iGA Sb ~een Marana,
extends into Marana through an son rThe Towneeimbug es Pima County for the cost of
Pima County and the City of Tuc
the provision of Sun Tran service and Pima County reimburses the City of Tucson. Fou~
Sun Tran routes serve Marana;
. Route 16
. Route 102 Ina Road Express
. Route 103 Oldfather Express
. Route 186 Aeropark Express I
Figure 2 shows these four routes and their respective routing.
Pa e 2
9
D R A F T September 2000
Marana Transportation Plan Update
DRAFT Technical Memorandum #6
~
~
v
~ ~
b ~ ~ ~
~ ° ° ~ ~ ~
3 0 ~ ~ ~ Gq ~ ~ q ~ O ~ ot ~yC~ .~t.' ~
~ E~ ~l C~ V~] r-1 ~ O ~ ~ O U C)
xA C)O~WV~~~ ~
,
Silverbell Interstate 10
• .
Trico Marana ~ ,y~~~
Grier Road ~ ` ~;t""' Moore Road
Bamett
Moore ~ Tangerine Road
~ EI Tito ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~Q~~1 ~ C~~~~~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ Naranja Road ~
Avra Valiey Rd. ~ L~ Lambert Lane
c ~
Linda Vista
Twin Peaks
~ ~ Overton Road
Emigh ' , Cortaro Road
~ Pima Farms ; . ~ Magee (I~ ~
~ Magee (S)
~ - Ina Road
Picture Rocks
~ Orange Grove Road
a
~ ~ River Road
~ Silvetbeil Rd_
I~rterstate 10
Sun Tran Rvu~ 16 S un Tran RPou~ 1 Q3
Sun Tren Fbu~ 102 Sun Tran Rvu~ 186
Figure 2 Sun Tran Routes
Route 16 operates primarily along Oracle Road and connects #o the Tohono Tadai, Roy
Laos and Downtown Ronstad# Transit Centers. This route also extends in#o Marana
along Thornydale Road.
Route 102 tna Road Express service operates from La Cholla and Magee, along Ina
Road to l-10 and connects to Downtov~rn Tucson. Route ~03 Oldfather Expres~ service
area is from I-10, along Ina Road to Oracle Road where the route terminates in
downtown Tucson. Both rou#es serve the Ronstadt Transit Center.
Route 186 Aeropark Express service operates from La Cholla Road to Ina Road, then
west to 1-~0 and extends southward to the Raytheon and aero-modification employment
centers near Tucson International Airport. Sun Tran is presently restructuring this route
to potentially provide additional service to the aerospace employment centers near the
Tucson lnternationa! Airport.
D R A F T Pa9e 3
September 2000
Marana Transpo~tation Pian Update
DRAFT Technical Memorandum #6
2.3 Marana Pubiic Transit
Marana Public Transit service was discontinued June 30, 2000. This service was
provided through a contractual agreement between the Town of Marana and a private
transit provider, American Pony Express. The system was a fixed route community
circulator open to the general public. The service also operated as a deviated fixed route
with door-to-door service for special needs passengers with advan ed reservations.
!~w ~ ! ~ ~t~,^rn~ `
he Marana Public Transit service area , °~s
Pea~14s-a~ia~ the residential areas west of I-10 along SilverbelJ and Cortaro Roads:
- Marana Public Transit a+sa serviced the commercial and business corridors along--~a--
. Figure 3 details the former
Marana Public Transit service area and the approximate route. The schedule facilitated
trans#ers to Sun Tran rou#es 1 D2,103 and 16.
~
a
~
~ H
~ m ~ ~
o ~ ~ o
x o 0
~ ~ o ~ ~
3 ~ v°' ~o ~ or~~•~oao ~
~ E~ ~ ~ ~ ~ > ~ o ~ ~ o U U
xA UO~W~~,~ ~
I?rter~ate 10
Silverbell
~
Trico Marana a ~
Grier Road
B~~ ~ Moore Road
Moore
~ El Tiro ~ . ~ ~
~ ~ ~ Tangerine Road
~ ,,:~~~~„~i
Avra Valley Rd ` ~ ~ ~ ~ , ` Naranja Road
~
~ ~ ~ ; " ~ ' ~ Lambert Lane
~
w.~,,, ~ Linda Vista
Emigh T~ p~s Overton Road
Cortaro Road
Pima Farms ~ > . . „ _ ~ Magee (1~
Ina Road
~ ' ~g~ (S)
~
j, Picture Rocks " ~ ~ ~ : Orange Grove Road ~
~
t
~
.a Sdverbell Rd. ~ver Road
3 Interstate 10
r-¦-- Merana Pwoic ~ ~arisit ~fam~er rau~)'
Figure 3 Marana Pub/ic Transit Route
2.4 Pima County Rural Transit
Pima County Rural Transit provides transportation services to greater unincorporated
Pima County. Pima County contracts with A&K Transportation, a private contractor, to
D R A F T Page 4
` September 2000
Marana Transportation Plan Update
DRAFT Technical Memorandum #6
provide these transit services. The Town contributes local and federal shared revenue
funds for the provision of this service.
Pima County Rural Transit is a general public transit provider and meets Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA) regulations for providing transit service to special needs
passengers. The service area encompasses "OId Town" Marana, parts of Avra Valley,
the Ina Road Commercial Corridor. Figure 4 details the Pima Rural Transit service area
and its approximate route. Passengers can transfer from this service to the Sun Tran
Route 16 at !na and Oracle Roads. Pima County Rural transit also adheres to a
schedule to allow passengers to transfer to the other Sun Tran routes in Marana.
~
d
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
a ~ ~ ~ ~ b
a ~ ~ b b;=~ ~
3 ~ ~ b.~y a o~~.~ oa o~
~ F ~n ~n >
~ ~ S ~ ~ o U ~ o V ~
IiUerstate 10 x(~ U Q~ W~~~ ~
Silverbell
Triw Mardna ~
Griet Road
B3illCtt - - g .
Moore ~ ~ ~ `A~~
El Tiro ~ Moore Road
7~'~ ~=~1~~~;~ ~ TangerineRoad
Avra Valley Rd. Naranja Road
~ > : ~ a
: ~ Twin Peaks ~ Laznbert Lane
Emigh Linda Vista
Overton Road
~ Pima Farms ~ Cortaro Itoad ~ ~
Magee (I~
Ina Road
~ ~g~ (S)
Picture Rocks
~ k ' Orange Grove Road
3~a
River Road
Silverbell Rd. Int~te 10
Pima'Cvurriy Rural Transit
Figure 4 Pin~a County Rural Transit
2.5 Level of Transit Service
Transit service in Marana is concentrated in the south-easternmost region of #he town.
Since the termination of Marana Public Transit service, only Pima County Rural Transit
serves the areas of Marana north of Ina Road and west o# I-10. Sun Tran service is
focused along the Ina Road commercial corridor and along La Cholla and TMornydale
Roads.
D R A F T Page s
September 2000
Marana Transportation Plan Update
DRAFT Technical Mernorandum #6
Sun Tran Service
Sun Tran Route 16 operates on thirty-minute headways (intervals) on the Ina and
Thornydale segment of the route. Route 16 provides the only weekday and weekend
fixed route transit service in Marana. Sun Tran routes 102 and 103 operate weekdays
only, and provide a total of eight round trips per day. Route 186 operates four
roundtrips weekday only service. These trips are during the peak morning and
afternoon commute hours. Sun Tran utilizes standard 40-foot v.e.Y~.gn these routes.
~'f
`~t~t~~i~'~. , ,
The fares for Sun Tran service recently increased at the time of this study. The average
one-way fare on Routes 16,102 and 103 increased from .85 cents to $1.00.
The fares for Route 1.86 are currently being determined at the time of this report. Since
this service is a contractual agreement between Raytheon, Bombardier and Sun Tran
the fares will undoubtedly be very different than the standard fares.
As noted previously, the Town of Marana provides funds for the cost of Routes 16, 102,
and 103 services less the revenues generated.
Marana Public Transit Service
The former Marana Public Transit operated three round trips per weekday along its
service route. Headways were approximately two hours, with a three-hour midday lag
time between headways. The fare for service was $1.00 one way throughout the service
area. A single 15-passenger cutaway vehicle with wheelchair lift provided service.
i
Pima County Rural Transit Service
Pima County Rural Transit operates four round trips per weekday along its service
route. The service utilizes 15-passenger cutaway vehicles with a wheelchair lift on this
route.
The system has three-hour headways between roundtrips. The system also
coordinates its final westbound departure times from Ina and Thornydale Roads with
the last Sun Tran Route 102 and 103 express buses in order to assure that transferring
passengers will be able to meet their bus. Fares on the system are .75 cents one way
system wide.
2.6 Transit Facilities
Existing transit facilities within the Town of Marana are categorized into two areas, bus
facilities that include benches, bus shelters, park and ride facilities and transit stations
with their associated amenities. The other area is bicycle facilities. These include bike
lane stripping, bikeways and supportive facilities such as lockers and racks for bike
commuters and general users.
Bus facilities in Marana are scattered throughout the town. There are a total of ten (10}
bus stops throughout Marana. Bus shelters are primarily along Ina and Thornydale ~
Roads at the various bus stops served by all three providers. These shelters lack
amenities such as shade or water fountains for waiting passengers. Additionally, the
DRAFT Page6
September 2000
Marana Transportation Plan Update
DRAFT Technical Memorandum #6
overall lack of sidewalks in most areas does not ailow for easy access for those
individuals who have special needs. The majority of bus stops within the town are
designated with only a sign and a bench 4 ' s'°C~~°~~i~
g A d ~ ~ > ~ l~~~~ .
1 f ~
4.
~ ~ ' w ~ ` ~
~
s
i
~ T~~ l~~ :`nJ '
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ A'4 ^s ~ . .
~ ~ ~ :i 4~4 ~l~? a~~~1~~ ~11~ ! ' '
~ ~ ~~i ~
. f - _
~
~ , ~ ~
, ~v~~.,. . _
Typical bus facilities along Ina Road
/-1S
'Marana dc~a
~t have a park and ride
facility within the Tow~n limits. There is one Sun
Tran park and ride facility located outside of Marana: This facility is located at Ina and
La Cholla Roads. The facility is a shared parking lot with the First Baptist Church.
Marana does not have a transit center or station. An expanded bus stop is located at
Ina and Thornydale Roads in the K-Mart shopping center. This stop serves the four Sun
Tran routes, Pima Rural Transit and serves as the transfer point for passengers. This
stop has limited amenities. This stop has a shelter with a trash receptacle and limited
landscaping that provides minimal shade for waiting passengers.
There are no bike racks or lockers for bicyclists to secure their bikes at existing bus
shelters and stops. Sun Tran buses offer bike racks on their vehicles for passengers to
transport their bicycles while traveling. ~t.e~t,. ~"•C.
v.
2.7 Conclusions
Existing transit services within Marana are limited due to the~three-transit
provider's resources. While service along the Ina Road commercial corridor
serves as a commuter service and connects with inter-city service at Oracle
Road, in-town service is timited. The service areas for the transit providers are
vast and service headways are long. Transit facilities are scattered, and
generally consistent only of a sign designating the bus stop. As Marana
continues to develop, residential and new employment trip generators within the
town wi~l generate a demand for increased transit service.
DRAFT Page7
September 2000
Marana Transportation Plan Update
DRAFT Technicai Memorandum #6
3.0 AREA OF INFLUENCE ~
The area o# influence is defined as a region or sub-region where a community
influences it's surrounding region politically, socially and commercially. The
Marana area of influence or study area has been defined and is illustrated in
Figure 5. ~
~ ~
F
5 ~ = ~
~
~ O ~
~ ~ o
~ ~ ~ d ~ ~ 5~ ~ m.~
o x .o v ~ b o U ~ o U U
~ F~+ ' a ~ m~ xA UO~Wr'~i~`,~"~ ~ I
~ ~ :F ° ~ . L
SCfltC IU _
~ ~
Silverbell
~
Trico Marana ~
s
Grier Road
Bamett ~~'g
Moore ~ Moore Road ~
~ ~
El Tiro ~ " ~ - ~ Tangerine Road
T,.~'i'~6R~ ` ~1~1~:1~.~; '
Naranja Road '
Avra Valley Rd. ~ ~ Lambert Lane ~ ~ ~4~ ~
, ~ ~ Linda Vista `
~
Emigh p~s Overton Road ~
Pima Farms - Cortaro Road
~g~ (s)
~ Mag~ (N)
Picture Rocks Ina Road
~
~ Orange Gmve Road
~ ~ ~ .bs Silverbell Rd. ~ ~
m
~ ~ River Road
Area of tnfl~nce
Figure 5
Marana Area of Inf/uence (Study Area)
The Marana area of influence, or study area boundaries are; Ruthrauff/EI Camino del
Ce~ro alignment on the south, La Cholla Road on the east, the Pima/Pinal County line on
the north and Pump Station Road alignment on the west. The area includes the far-
northwest portion of the Tucson city limits, unincorporated Pima County and portions of
those communities known as Casas Adobes and Tartolita. These two unincorporated
communities recen#ly attempted incorporation. However recent legal proceedings have
nullified those efforts. Study areas often overlap other communities' boundaries and
refleet the regional nature and influences of adjacent communities.
Marana serves as the primary destination for commercial and local government
activities in the study area. The Ina Road commercial corridor and the
commercial/employment centers along Thornydale and Orange Grove Roads attract
D R A F T Page 8
September 2000
Marana Transportation Plan Update
DRAFT Technical Memorandum #6
residents from nearby Casas Adobes, Tortolita and Oro Valley. An important destination
within the area of influence is Northwest Hospital and the associated health clinics in
the vicinity. This destination acts not only as a health service destination for residents
from the study area, but also as an important employment center. Another important
employment center is the Pinal Air Park Aero-modification facility located north of
Marana in Pinal County. Foothills Mall an important commercial center is also within the
study area.
During specific periods of the year, agricultural activities in Marana are an important
employment generator for the area. Harvest times for cotton, and other cash crops
create temporary employment demands primarily in the area of Marana northwest of I-
10. The agricultural economy and the associated employment created from it is an
important component to the economic base of the Town and the overall study area.
Marana has developed through the original founding by the railroad and agricultural
community to a developing suburban community. Through the course of the years
since incorporation in 1977 and the annexations the Town has undertaken, Marana has
developed into a community with five areas of concentrated development. Each one of
these five areas has their own distinctive qualities, and lifestyles. These five distinct
areas are;
~ Old Town Marana
• Picture Rocks/Avra Valley
~ Continental Ranch
• Dove Mountain
• Eastern Tier Suburbs
Each area has distinct qualities and characteristics. These five areas, or "villages"
constitute the uniqueness of Marana. These "villages" also present challenges of
providing transit services to meet each area's distinctive existing and future transit
needs.
4.0 RIDERSHIP AND PERFORMANCE DATA
4.1 Sun Tran Route.s
Ridership on the Sun Tran routes serving Marana is varied. Routes 102 and 103 are
express routes operating primarily along Ina Road, with limited stops and provide direct
service to their respective destinations. Route 16, is a fixed route that serves primarily
Ina and Thornydale Roads with service extending beyond Marana Town Limits to
Oracle Road. Route 16 is also the only Sun Tran service that offers weekend service in
the area. Each respective Sun Tran route's ridership data was gathered from the Sun
Tran Comprehensive Operations Analysis (COA), and is presented in the following
tables
D R A F T Page s
September 2000
Marana Transportation Plan Update
DRAFT Technical Memorandum #6
Table 1
Route 16
Passenger Boardings Passengers/Hour Passengers/Mile
Wkdy Sat Sun Wkdy Sat Sun Wkdy Sat Sun
"Oracle& Ina 97 333 263 4.32 35.9 31.0 1.7 3.1 2.7
Ina& Pdel Norte to 52 211 - 3.5 31.4 - 1.4 2.7 -
Ina & Thorn dale
Oracle & Ina to 33 - - 6.6 - - 9.3 - -
Oracle & Ma ee
Source: Sun Tran Comprehensive Operations Analysis, 1997-98.
" Includes route segment outside of Marana Town Limits.
Table 2 illustrates the overall ridership for Route 102. The Marana segment and nearby
county segment of the route has been aggregated from the COA analysis. Route 102 is
an express service, operating on weekdays only with no weekend service.
Table 2
Route 102
Passenger Passengers/Hour Passengers/Mile
Boardin s
Wkdy Sat Sun Wkdy Sat Sun Wkdy Sat Sun
Ina& Cmo dl Crz 2.6 - - 1.48 - - 0.3 - -
Ina& Oldfather 9.6 - - 12.0 - - 2.5 - -
to Ina & La
Cholla
"Ina & La Cholla 2.8 - - 14.0 - - 3.0 - -
to La Cholla &
Ma ee
Source: Sun Tran Comprehensive Operations Analysis, 1997-98
' Includes route segment outside of Marana Town Limits.
Table 3 illustrates the overall ridership of this route. The Marana segment, and nearby
county segment has been aggregated from the COA analysis. Route 103 operates only
as a weekday express service to downtown Tucson and the University of Arizona
campus and has no weekend service.
Table 3
Route 103
Passen er Boardin s Passen ers/Hour Passen ers/Mile
Wkdy Sat Sun Wkdy Sat Sun Wkdy Sat Sun
'`Oracle & 3 - - 2.0 - - 0.5 - -
Oran e Grove
Ina& Oracle to 3.2 - - 5.38 - - 1.4 - -
Ina & La Cholla
Ina & Omar to 0 - - 0.0 - - 0.0 - -
Ina & Cmo dl
Crz
Source: 1996-1997 Sun Tran Comprehensive Operafions Anatysis ,
'Includes route segment outside of Marana Town Limits. ~
i
DRAFT Page~o '
September 2000
~
Marana Transportation Plan Update
DRAFT Technical Memorandum #6
4.2 Marana Public Transit
Ridership on the former Marana Public Transit was ~cr~eraU.y poor. The low ridership
numbers are reflective of overall system design. The former Marana Public Transit had
long headways, a single operational vehicle, inadequate routing and weekday only
service as well as a lack of facilities. Marana Public Transit attempted to serve as both a
fixed route and a dial-a-ride transit provider. The annual ridership for Marana Public
Transit is highlighted in Table 4. ~f' 5~~~
Table 4
Marana Public Transit
Passen er Boardin s Passen ers/Hour Passen ers/Mile
Wkdy Sat Sun Wkdy Sat Sun Wkdy Sat Sun
Total Service 33.2 - - .8 - - N/A - -
Area
Source: 1999 Town of Marana General Services
4.3 Pima County Rural Transit
Ridership on the Marana segment of Pima County Rural Transit is illustrated in Table 5.
The service is offered on weekdays only. The composition of riders for Pima County
Rural Transit is mostly transit dependent individuals from both inside and outside of the
Town limits, however it also serves as a para-transit provider for the area.
Table 5
Pima County Rural Transit
Passen er Boardin s Passen ers/Hour Passen ers/Mile
Wkdy Sat Sun Wkdy Sat Sun Wkdy Sat Sun
Total Service 146.1 - - 2.68 - - 0.10 - -
Area
Source: 1999 Pima County Department of Transportation
5.0 EXISTING AND FUTURE TRANSIT FUNDING
SOURCES
5.1 Introduction
Transit funding in Marana has been primarily through a series of Intergovernmental
Agreements between Marana, Pima County and the City of Tucson. Marana reimburses
Pima County for both Pima County Rural Transit and Sun Tran services within Marana.
The following section examines the current and future transit funding options for the
Town .
DRAFT Page~~
September 2000
• ' , Marana Transportation Plan Update
DRAFT Technical Memorandum #6
5,2 Existing Transit Funding Sources
O erating transit funds for the Marana transit systems ar from' four~sources:~ a newly
P
annual budget. The transportation funds primarily come
adopted Town local development impact fee W~he Public Transporaation Assistance~ Act
Local Transportation Assistance Fund (LTAF),
or House Bill (HB) 2565, and farebox re ana Public Trans
t servi ces.nTwono f hese
County Rural Transit and the former Ma formulas and
sources, the LTAF and~mg cal~t5 v a s ate sha ed ue ~enuese statutory
come to the Town au Y
The primary purpose of this investigation into existing and future financial trends to
describe the public transportation fund's existing r n~inu en~ ronmenta Secondly,tt e
fund's sustainability in light of the existing transit fu 9
analysis will briefly examine the potential of al iera~a~e~f~ nth~e Townrs general bu~dget
general sa1es tax on building matenals recent y
that could provide a dedicated revenue sour stin r reve ue souffce that onp ibut s t°
2000. Below is a brief description of each ex 9 ~ in the
the Town's public transportation and several funding sources that could app y
future.
The Local Transportation Assistance Fund (LTAF)
The Marana segment of Sun Tran's Routes are~p Sed on aevren etgenegat d from multi-
Marana's share of the LTAF. These funds are
state, on-tine lottery game revenues. The funassast inlfunding t~ransportation needslation
and distributed statewide to communities to
Marana's 1998-1999 fiscal year LTAF appropriation was $54,176. Based upon the LTAF
population/revenue formula, Marana's LTAF current appropriation for fiscal year 1999-
2000 is $61,913. The lottery, on which the $23-million-dollar statewide appropriation is
generated, was recently the subject °extenseon'~Todayuthe ottery is~author zed in state
overwhelming approval of a five-year
statute until the year 2003.
House Bill 2565
~n 1gg7 the Arizona legislature passed HB 2565, whicADOT bo teansfe aa portion op~ ts
set of funding rules. In essence, the bill authorized ro riated in
vehicle license tax to local communities if Federal trans 997
t1998, HB 2565 dp tributed
TEA 21 were above a set limit. In Fisulat
on formula. However, since the HB 2565
$6.785 million dollars based on a pop ro riation is likely
money was approved during the FY98-99 fiscal year, next year's app P
to be closer to $9 million. The Arizona Department of Transportation reported~ mat I t
of HB 2565 money distributed to Mara~ d to~ Maranarfo998cal9yeaa 1999-2000 was
$13,602.00 dollars. The funds distnbu
approximately $37,651:Funds from HB 2565 ar adfans t sy~stemcHB 2565 es authorized
funds cannot be used as operating funds fo m
until the year 2003.
~ Page 12
D R A F T " September 2000 ~
Marana Transportation Plan Update
DRAFT Technical Memorandum #6
Section 5311 Funds
Funds from Section 5311 are federal monies distributed to rural communities under
50,000 in population by the Federal Transportation Administration. In Arizona, the
Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) administers this program and the funds
distribution. Marana currently received $37,081 in fiscal year 1999 from 5311 funds.
These funds currently are distributed to Pima County Rural Transit, which uses these
capital funds for expenses.
Farebox Revenues
Farebox revenues for the transit operators in the Marana service area are based upon
services provided, and the distance traveled during a trip. Round trip fares range from
$1.00 per trip within the Town limits on Sun Tran routes to $.75 per trip within the
Marana area between the west end of Pima County Rural Transit's west end and Rillito.
The actual farebox revenues per revenue mile for FY 1997-1998, based on the COA for
the Sun Tran routes in Marana were:
Route Number Revenue/Revenue Mile Cost/Revenue Ratio
• Route 102 $0.37 8.6%
• Route 103 $0.25 5.3%
• Route 186 $0.42 11.2°/a ~
I
Route 16 operates primarily outside of Marana, and the farebox revenue per revenue
mile is not broken out from the aggregate farebox revenue firom the entire route. Sun
Tran fares are flat fares collected no matter the distance traveled and are retained by
Sun Tran. The fares collected by Sun Tran are used to offset the contractual costs for
providing transit service to Marana so no direct revenue is realized.
Farebox revenues for Marana Public Transit based on information provided by the Town
of Marana wer.e statistically too low to account. The Town of Marana spent $5,000
_
dollars~r~~kin provision for the service and received in 1999 a return of $127.00
dollar r approximately 2.2% cost recovery.
Farebox revenues for Pima County Rural Transit based on information provide by Pima
County Department of Transportation for Fiscal Year 1999 were $14,340. The fare
A~~~ ~ recovery ratio for Pima County Rural Transit Marana route was 22% for 1999.
~
5.3: Future Transit Funding Sources
There are several funding sources that could be available to Marana over the course of
the plan horizon. These potential sources are listed as follows:
¦ A new local source of revenue potentiafly for transit is the recently added capacity
in the Town of Marana's transportation component of the Construction Sales Tax.
This component allocates a portion of general sales taxes derived from construction
material sales to be dedicated to funding transportation.
¦ An increase in the General Sales Tax with a dedicated percentage could be applied
to transportation. This revenue could be dedicated for any transportation purpose.
DRAFT Page~3
September 2000
Marana Transportation Plan Update
DRAFT Technical Memorandum #6
• Potential future revenue sources that could be considered if the Town implements
it's own transit service in the near future are expanded ADOT FTA Section 5310
program from approximately $700,000 annually to approximately $2.2 million
annually. The expanded ADOT 5310 program could mean additional capital '
revenues. This program obtains funds from ADOT's share of the vehicle license tax. j
¦ Another potential revenue source is the ADOT Surface Transportation Program I
(STP) Local Match, which would match HB 2565 money dollar for dollar with flexible
ADOT STP money.
• Future funding from LTAF is expected passed the 2003 sunset year of the state
lottery, the major source of LTAF funds. However, because these funds are derived
from state lottery and vehicle license revenues these funds are not expected to
keep pace with inflation, or be raised significantly by #he legislature. Future
revenues from this source are expected to actually decline.
¦ A future revenue source is FTA formula funds, which could be distributed to the
Town automatically when it reaches a population of 50,000 or more. These funds
could include capital or operating dollars from either the discretionary or formula
programs. However, at present the Town does not meet the qualifications for a
share of FTA revenue, nor is it obligated to follow the strict services guidelines that
the FTA mandates. Such guidelines inctude the protection of unionized labor, non-
competition with private sector providers, and buying transit vehicles manufactured
in America.
The future funding sources for transit services in Marana could be combination of all of
the sources mentioned. Based upon the availability of funds, approximately $75,000 (in
FY 1999 dollars) will be availabte annually for public transit expenditures per year in the
planning period horizon. However, it should be noted that most of these funding
sources cover only capital expenses. These expenses are classified as buses, bus
shelters, benches or other facilities that could be purchased. These state and federal
funding sources for the most part cannot be used as transit operating funds. Transit
operating funds are funds that pay salaries, and operating expenses such as fuel and
vehicle maintenance. These funds will need to come from farebox revenues as well
another dedicated funding source.
6.0 STAFF INTERVIEWS ~
Staffs of the Town of Marana and other local jurisdictions have been involved in the
provision of transit services within the town and region. They can provide important
insight into the existing operations and potential for additional services. Ten
individuals, listed in Table 6-1 will be interviewed. The information solicited from these
people is contained in questionnaire shown in the Appendix.
D R A F T Page ~4
September 2000
Marana Transportation Plan Update
DRAFT Technical Memorandum #6
Table 6
Staff Interviewees
Name Organization Title Contact
Number
AI Cook Town of Marana Transit Administrator 297-2920
Ben Goff Pima County DOT Senior Transportation 740-6403
Planner
Aimee Sun Tran Scheduling Director 623-4301
Ramse ext.226
Ed Burke Pima County Rural Transit - Manager-A&K Transportation 881-3391
Handicar
Harry Bush Pima County Rural Transit - Driver- A&K Transportation 881-3391
Handicar
Rita PAG Trip Reduction Program Manager 743-1093
Hildebrand Pro ram
Rich Corbett PAG Trans ortation Plannin PAG Intermodal Mana er 743-1093
~ Nate Van Tran General Manager 798-1000
Peterson ext.308
Lynn Pottler PAG Social Service Agency PAG Social Service Agency 743-1093 ,
Coordinator '
,
6.1 Staff Interview Results
The results from staff interviews were mixed. Most staff responded that transit service
is needed in Marana. However, the extent and type of transit service based upon
population and areas served varied. The most common responses from the staff
interviews expressed the needs for the following:
• Extension or implementation of commuter express bus service.
• Unmet transit needs assessment should be undertaker~.
t--- Rural transit depen~tpopulation needs will continue to increase:
• Need to establi h ar..~s~~ed para-transit a+a~-tra~sit systBm. „ ~
• ~tt,.~, ~c t.~
.~a~~ ~c~.r,~.~ Q~ ~ ,iJ ~,t ~ ~
Staff responses varied on fare structures, and frequencies of service as well as st~ fu..~..
destinations. Service within the Town was viewed as necessary but to be limited along
the Ina /Thornydale Road corridors with an emphasis of transit service to Northwest '
Hospit~al Medical Complex and the Foothills Mall. Responses also included a need for a'~~
future transit service to connect with existing fixed route transit services.
-
Rural transit services were expressed as a need that currently is unmet. St~ff
respondents stated that they were aware of transit needs from the Avra Valley and
Picture Rocks areas, but were uncertain as to ihe extent of those needs.
, ; ~
ac
DRAFT Page15
September 2000
, Marana Transportation Plan Update
DRAFT Technicai Memorandum #6
7.0 GATEKEEPER SURVEYS
The clients of many of the social service agencies within the Town of Marana rely on
public transportation and/or others to transport them to the agency activities, hot meals
or medical appoin#ments. To determine the magnitude of this population and the
unique needs of this group, representatives of these organizations were interviewed.
Table 7
Gatekeeper Interviewees
Name Organization Title Contact
_ Number
Jane Town of Marana Human Resource Manager 682-3401
Howell
Ora Harn Marana Health Center Pro ram Mana er 682-4111
Christine Project PPEP Eligibility Specialist- ~622-3553
Valle Behavioral Health Division
Urma Perez United Wa Job Ex ress Su ervisor 623-8080
Teresa Marana Correctional Facility Human Resources Assistant 682-2077 ext.
West
Sandra Marana School District Transportation Supervisor 682-4766
Pesina Trans ortation Division
Andrea Dept. of Economic Security Transit Coordinator 628-6836
Lam man
Russell Continental Ranch President 628-3315
Clana an Homeowners Association
7.1 Gatekeeper Interview Results
The results of the Gatekeeper interviews differed significantly from the Staff interviews
that were conducted. While the gatekeeper responses shared the similar opinions that
there is a need for a transit service in Marana, their emphasis appears to focus on
different priorities. The priorities expressed by the gatekeepers are as follows
• Low or reasonable fares. I
• Reliable and frequent transit service. I
~ Frequent and extended hours Transit schedules.
• Reliable transit service to employment/medical/commercial destinations
• Service provision for the transit dependent.
Gatekeeper respondents stated that while there is a need for transit services in Marana,
there was some disagreement as to the method of implementing such a service if the
funds required doing so neglected basic community needs or services. Interviewees
also clearly stated that if a transit service was to be implemented and successful, that it
would have to meet the needs of the service population through convenient fares,
schedules and routing.
D R A F T Page 16
September 2000
~ ~ ' '
Marana Transportation Plan Update
DRAFT Technical Memorandum #6
8.0 ON-BOARD SURVEYS
As described earlier in this technical memorandum, there are two services currently
being operated in the Town of Marana. A third service operated by the Town was
discontinued on June 30, 2000. Surveys were conducted of existing riders (including
the Marana service) to determine where they are going and for what purpose. A copy
of the survey form, and the data spreadsheet for each individual route surveyed is
• included in the Appendix.
8.1 Marana Public Transit
On-board surveys were distributed June 19, 2000 on Marana Public Transit prior to the
discontinuance of the service on June 30, 2000. A total of twenty (20) surveys were
distributed to Marana Public Transit riders. The surveys were distributed to riders by the
bus driver, and collected by the driver or respondents mailed in their completed
surveys to the Town of Marana. A total of seven (7) on-board surveys were completed,
giving an overall response rate of 28% returned.
Survey Results
The results from the Marana Public Transit on-board survey indicated that riders of the
service were nearly split evenly on the quality of service provided. Riders utilized the
service on a weekly basis for shopping and appointments. Respondents indicated that
the transit service allowed riders to get to most of their destinations, however improved
service area coverage was desired. Additionally more frequent headways and weekend
service was desired. A spreadsheet detailing the questions and responses is located
in the Appendix.
8.2 Sun Tran
On-board surveys were distributed on the Sun Tran route segments serving Marana ~I
July 26 through August 12, 2000. A total of 400 surveys were distributed among the
four Sun Tran Marana route segments, each route receiving 100 on-board surveys. Sun
Tran staff distributed the surveys to riders, and riders completed the surveys and I
deposited them in collection boxes on the bus. For maximum accuracy, Sun Tran staff
distributed surveys to riders only on the Marana segments of each route. The following
details the results of the on-board surveys by route. The on-board survey responses for
each route are highlighted in greater detail in the Appendix.
Route 16
Surveys~were distributed on the Route 16 Marana segment. The 100 surveys were
distributed during both weekday and weekend service hours. From the 100 surveys
distributed, 28 completed surveys or a 28% response rate were returned.
Survey Results
The respondents on Route 16 stated that they were usually satisfied with the current
level of transit service provided. Most of the respondents use the route to get to and
from work, and the general ages of the respondents were between 18 and 35 years of
age. And over half of the completed and returned surveys were from the Saturday
DRAFT Page~7
September 2000
Marana Transportation Plan Update
DRAFT Technical Memorandum #6
service hours. This would indicate that most of the survey respondents work at the
various service sector employers along the route. Respondents indicated that -
expanded service was a very high priority, and ihat expanded service would be used
more. Survey responses indicate that riders are willing to fund transit through a
dedicated source if service hours were extended and service improved.
Route 102 Ina Exaress
A total of 100 surveys were distributed on the Route 102 Ina Express, with 55 surveys
completed. This gave an overall response rate of over 50%. Surveys were distributed
on one of the morning peak headways, and on one afternoon peak headways.
Survev Results
Riders responded that they were generally satisfied with the level of service provided.
Since this service is an express bus service, the overwhelming responses were from
riders en route to employment related destinations. When asked if they would use
transit more often if service improved, the majoriry of responses were negative.
Ironically though, respondents believed overwhelmingly that transit service in Marana
needed to be improved and were willing to pay for the improved service through some
form of dedicated funding for transit.
Route 103 Oldfather Express
A total of 100 surveys were distributed on the Route 103 Oldfather Express during the
moming and aftemoon peak headways. Only 5 surveys were completed and returned.
While these low numbers of survey responses are statistically insignificant, they do
provide some insight from the users of this route into the quality of service provided on
Route 103.
Survey Results
Survey responses regarding quality of service on this route was mixed. A even split of
responses were that riders were always or usually satisfied with the level of service.
And riders responses stated that this route allowed them to get to most places, they
needed to go. Survey responses stated that if service improved, they would use it
more. The majority of responses stated that they felt that expanding transit was a very
high priority, and would be willing to fund expansion through a dedicated funding
source.
Route 186 Aeropark Express
Surveys distributed on the Route 186 Aeropark Express totaled 100. There were 59
surveys completed by bus riders. This provided nearly a 60% return rate. Route 186 is
an express service to Raytheon, Bombardier and other aerospace employment centers
on Tucson's south side. '
Survev Results
The majority of responses indicated that riders were usually satisfied with the service
provided. And that the transit service enabled the respondents to reach the
destinations they wanted to go to. Survey response indicated that if service improved,
they would use it more often, and there is a need for improved service. However, survey
responses indicate that the need for improved transit service in Marana was somewhat
DRAFT Page~s
September 2000
_ . . .
Marana Transportation Plan Update
DRAFT Technical Memorandum #6
of a priority. Despite the mixed responses regarding the need for improved transit
service and its priority, survey respondents indicated that they would be willing to fund
transit through a dedicated source.
8•3 Pima County Rural Transit
On-board surveys for Pima County Rural Transit were distributed on July 25, 2000. The
driver distributed the surveys to riders as they boarded the bus. Completed surveys
were then deposited in a collection box on board the vehicle. Fifty surveys were
distributed over the course of the service day, and a total of 18 surveys were
completed, giving a 30% res onse.
p
Survev Results
Survey responses indicated that riders were always satisfied with the service provided,
and that they could get to most of their destinations using the service. Respondents
indicated that they would use the service more often if improved and service hours
were extended. Survey responses overwhelmingly believe there is a need for more
transit service in Marana, and that it is a very high priority. Respondents also indicated
that they would be willing to fund transit in Marana through a dedicated funding source.
Detailed responses for the Pima County Rural Transit survey are located in the
Appendix.
Conclusions
Based upon the on-board survey responses, transit users in Marana are generally
satisfied with the existing commuter transit services provided. The overwhelming
indications are for improving and expanding the existing services, and that is
recognized as a high priority among Marana commuter transit users. All of the survey
responses indicated that if transit services were expanded and improved, transit would
be used more often. And a significant indication from the survey is that a majority of
: survey respondents indicated that they would be willing to support a dedicated funding
source for transit in Marana.
9.0 MARKET SURVEYS
Telephone surveys were conducted with adult heads of households residing in Marana
area to determine the transit market. The specific area surveyed is located in the
Appendix. Professional interviewers conducted the interviewing for this survey during
the first week in July 2000. The questionnaire was designed and pre-tested by Dr.
Bruce D. Merrill. Dr. Merrill is Professor of Mass Communication and Director of the
Media Research Center at Arizona State University. Dr. Merrill conducted the survey as
a private consultant to Parsons Brinckerhoff.
The first telephone survey was based upon a random sample of 536 adult heads of
household. The sampling error for that interview giving a response of 50% is plus or
minus 4.2%.
A second telephone survey was conducted which generalizes adult heads of
household in the Marana study area that have a high probability of using a mass transit
DRAFT
Page 19
September 2000
a < I ~
Marana Transportation Plan Update
DRAFT Technical Memorandum #6
system if one becomes aVailable. In this survey, 362 residents who have used mass
transit in the past or who say that they would frequently or occasionally use mass transit
in Marana if it becomes availabte were included in this sample. The sampling error for
the "likely" users when the proportion giving a response of 50% is plus or minus 5.1 ~
A detailed spreadsheet of the telephone survey questions and their respective
responses and percentage results are illustrated in the Appendix of this study.
Survey Results
The telephone surveys and their results indicate that respondents would use public
transit if it were more affordable than operating their private vehicles, and their primary
destination would be to employment destinations. Survey respondents also stated that
bus stops close to their homes were important. Park and Ride facilities were deemed '
important as well. Transit service to Tucson Airport and the high tech employment
centers located near there was deemed important by 78% of the potential transit users.
In addition to the airport, survey respondents also indicated that transit service to
regional shopping malls, and downtown Tucson were important.
10.0 CONCLUSIONS
Technical Memo 6 has examined the existing transit conditions and existing and future
tran'sit fundin .
g sources in the M r
a ana study area. Surveys of social and over
nment
servic . g
e staff as well as gatekee ers of the
. p se a en
determme the need for transit service in the st dy a ea. On board sut veysrandut to
telephone surveys of transit users in the study area were conducted to determine the
potential market for expanding transit services. The majority of the surveys respondents
indicated the following, as important transit needs:
• Service to Downtown Tucson
• Service to Tucson Airport & Employment Centers
• Service to Regional Malls
• Service to Northwest Hospital & Medical Centers
Based upon the responses from the surveys conducted, two types of transit service for
Marana should be develaped. The potential exists for a commuter express service from
Marana to downtown Tucson and the Tucson Airport employment area. Additionally,
potential exists for a circulator transit system that could serve the Northwest Hospital
and the regional malls.
Technical Memo #7 will examine the implementation steps to develop these transit
services to serve the identified transit markets in the Marana study area.
L:\11476\Tech Memo 6
DRAFT
Page 20
September 2000
MARANA
TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE
Technical Memorandum # 7
Existing Transit Demand, Performance Data and Future
Needs
Prepared for.~
.~~zy,~~,
_
MA-
;.,°:~'/1\
rowN or Maw,Nn
The Town of Marana
Department of Public Works
3696 W. Orange Grove Road
Tucson, Arizona 85741
Prepared by:
_ ~
~ L ~
_
Curtis Lueck 8t Associates
Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc. Curtis Lueck & Associates
177 N. Church Avenue, Suite 500 5780 W. EI Camino del Cerro
Tucson, Arizona 85701 Tucson, Arizona 85745
~
~
March 2001 ~
I
i
Technical Memo #7
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION .......3
2. EXISTING TRANSIT DEMAND 3
2.1 Transit Markets 3
2.1.1 Telephone Survey Results 3
2.1.2 On-Board Surveys 4
2.1.3 Open House and Community Meetings 4
3. PERFORMANCE DATA 5
3.1 Ridership tnformation 5
3.2 Observations ..............................................................................6
4. FUTURE NEEDS 6
4.1 Introduction 6
4.2 Activity Centers 7
4.3 Land Use Plans 8
4.4 Identification of Future Transit Market 8
4.4.1 Commuter Transit 8
4.4.2 Neighborhood Circulator 9
4.4.3 Fixed Route Transit 9
5. CONCLUSIONS 10
I
i
~
i
~
~
Page 2
March 2001
Technical Memo #7
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The Town of Marana at current growih rates and annexation activities, is expected to
reach a municipal population of 90,000 residents by 2025. This population will place
demands upon the Town's infrastructure and services. One of those services that will
need to be expanded to meet the demands of the Town's population is transit.
Developing a comprehensive transit system requires identifying the demand for service
and understanding the performance of existing transit services. Coupled with existing
and future land uses plans, these data provide valuable information in forecasting
future transit needs and developing a comprehensive transit plan to serve those needs.
~
This technical memorandum documents the investigations regarding existing and future
demand for transit in the Town of Marana. Potential transit markets are outlined based I
on the results of several surveys. Information is also presented on the performance of I
the existing transit services. This information, along with an assessment of future plans
serves as the basis for the estimation of future transit demand and form the basis of the
alternatives analysis. After a preferred transit alternative is identified, the Transit
Development Plan for the Town will be prepared.
.
2.0 Ex~sting Demand
Transit service in Marana is currently being provided by Sun Tran and Pima County
Rural Transit. The service areas of those providers were detailed in Technical
Memorandum Number 6, Existing Conditions. The following sections identify how these
services are meeting the existing transit demand in Marana.
2.1 Transit Markets
As a part of this study, a telephone survey of Marana residents was conducted to
determine the transit needs of the community. Additionally, onboard surveys to
determine satisfaction with existing services and potential for utilizing new services
were conducted on the two existing transit systems and Marana Public Transit prior to
the end of service. This information was supplemented with the input provided by
Marana residents at two public open houses, as well as two targeted community
meetings. The information sought was public opinion regarding current and future
transit needs.
2.1.1 Telephone Survey Results
Telephone surveys were conducted of the three zip codes that cover the project area.
The full results are presented in Technical Memorandum #6 but pertinent information is
summarized here. In the survey, respondents were asked to indicate their preferences
for transit services in a ranked order. From the over 536 surveys conducted, the ranked
preferences were:
¦ Express Commuter Service
¦ Neighborhood/Deviated-Fixed Fioute Circulator Service
Page 3
March 2001
Technical Memo #7
A majority of the respondents stated that they believed that better commuter service to
employment centers in Tucson from Marana was very important. Many of the
respondents also stated that they worked in Tucson, and would use a more frequent
commuter express service to the downtown.
Over half of the respondents indicated that service around the town was important.
Other respondents to the telephone survey stated that they believed a neighborhood
circulator that offered door-to-door service would be used as well. Only 9~o indicated
that if Marana had a public bus system, would they us it, but 67% felt that "having a
good public transportation system in Marana" is a high or very high priority.
2.1.2 On-Board survevs
Surveys were conducted of existing riders (including the Marana service) to determine
where they were going and for what purpose. A copy of the survey form, and the data
spreadsheet for each individual route surveyed is included in Technical Memo #6. The
on-board surveys included asking transit patrons about their general satisfaction with
the performance of service provided, and what additional services transit patrons
desired. These on-board surveys were used to help estimate transit demand and transit
markets in Marana.
Based upon the on-board survey responses, transit users in Marana are generally
satisfied with the existing commuter transit services provided. The overwhelming
indications are for improving service frequencies and providing more service vehicles
and that doing so is recognized as a high priority among Marana commuter transit
users. All the survey respondents indicated that if transit services were expanded and
improved, transit would be used more often.
From the on-board and telephone surveys existing transit demand was identified.
Existing transit service demands were identified as follows:
¦ Increased Commuter Transit Service
¦ Increased Fixed-Route Service
Sun Tran Routes 102, 103 and 186 provide limited express commuter transit service.
Based on the on-board surveys, an increase in transit service to meet a growing
demand is desired. Additionally, increased frequencies and expanded service area on
Sun Tran Route 16 was desired.
2.1.3 Open House and Community Meetings ,
~
Two open houses and one community meeting were held to elicit more public input I~
regarding current and future transit needs. One open house was held in December I,
2000 at the Sunflower Village Activity Center, and the other was held at the Home Depot
in Marana. In addition to the Open Houses, one community meeting for Continental
Ranch was held at Coyote Trail Elementary School in February 2001 provided valuable
public input as to the transit needs of the residents of Marana.
Page 4
March 2001
Technical Memo #7
Similar to the telephone survey respondents, the open house and community meeting
participants indicated a preferred ranking of transit services. Those preferences were:
¦ Commuter Service
¦ Neighborhood Circulator
¦ Fixed Route Transit Service
Neighborhood circulators were popular with residents of Sunflower Village, and
Heritage Highlands communities. These communities are age-restricted developments
and the residents expressed concern about having access to transportation to get to
medical centers and shopping as they aged. Public participants also indicated that a
local transit station with facilities enabling the transfer to regional transit service was
desired.
3.0 Performance Data
3.1 Ridership Information
Transit service in Marana is provided through three transit providers,
¦ Sun Tran
¦ Marana Public Transit (Discontinued July 1, 2000)
¦ Pima County Rural Transit
Information regarding the performance of these systems is contained in Technical
Memorandum Number 6 and summarized here.
Ridership on the Sun Tran routes serving Marana is varied as shown in Table 3-1.
Routes 102 and 103 provide direct service to their respective destinations. These
routes operate with limited stops primarily along Ina Road. Route 16 is a fixed route
that serves primarily Ina and Thornydale Roads, with service extending beyond the
Marana town limits to Oracle Road. Route 16 averages 1.4 passengers per mile on a
weekday with Saturday ridership are double that of weekday ridership. Based on
information supplied by Sun Tran, this increase in ridership is due to usage by
teenagers and workers at the local shopping centers along the route.
Ridership on the former Marana Public Transit was poor averaging less than 1
passenger per hour. The low ridership reflects the system design that includes 3-hour
headways and inadequate routing.
Ridershi on the Marana se ment of Pima Count Rural Transit is included in Table 3-1.
p 9 Y
The service is offered on weekdays only but the passengers per hour of 2.6 were over
three times as high as the former Marana service. Service headways are 1'/2 hours.
Page 5
March 2001
Technicai Msmo #7
Table 3-1
Ridership Information
Average Daily Average Average
Passen er Boardin s Passen ers/Hour Passen ers/Mile
Wkdy Sat Sun Wkdy Sat Sun Wkdy Sat Sun
Sun Tran
Route 16: Ina & 52.0 211.0 - 3.5 31.4 - 1.4 2.7 -
Pdel Norte to Ina
& Thorn dale*
Route 102**: Ina 9.6 - - 12.0 - - 2.5 - -
& Oldfather to Ina
& La Cholla
Route 103**: Ina 3.2 - - 5.4 - - 1.4 - -
& Oracle to ina &
La Cholla
Marana Public
Transit ~2~
Total Service Area 6.6 - - 0.8 - - N/A - -
Pima Rural
Transit ~3~
Marana Riders 29.2 - - 2.7 - - 0.10 - -
(1) Source: Sun Tran Comprehensive OperationsAnalysis, 1997-98.
" does not Includes route segment outside of Marana Town Limits.
express routes
(2) Source: 1999 Town of Marana General Services
(3) Source: 1999 Pima Counry Department of Transportation
3.2 Observations
• Sun Tran weekend ridership on Route 16 shows a significant demand for service
to major activity centers on weekends
• Commuter express service on Route 102 is highly utilized whereas ridership on
Route 103 is poor suggesting a need to consider modifications to the route.
• Performance of the recently eliminated Marana service cannot be indicative of
ridership on a new system with frequent headways and more direct routings
4.0 FUTURE NEEDS
4.1 Introduction
Future transit needs for Marana will be intrinsically tied to future land use. Land use
linked to effective transit service is the critical elements in providing for an adequate
transit system. It is also critical in helping to reduce potential roadway congestion and
preserving the quality of community life. Planning Marana's development into a
desirable community where the attributes of attractive amenities such as linking land
uses to well balanced transit needs and preserving community character are important
to a vital community. As identified in the previous sections, there exists three identified
transit needs for Marana. These transit needs will grow with future development. The
Page 6
March 2001
Technical Memo #7
following sections detail the future land use plans that will be used as key transit system
planning components.
4.2 Activity Centers
Transportation networks and transit must be matched to land use and ideally should be
planned concurrently. For the update to the Master Transportation Plan, the land use
plans of the Town of Marana General Plan, and the recently adopted Northwest Marana
Plan were utilized as the foundation for the transit element. Current and future land use ,
with emphasis on activity centers, served as the foundation of developing the
transportation plan update. Figure 4-1 details the current and future planned activity
centers within the study area.
Figure 4-1
Activities Center Map
~e~as~ E ~tur. wcc~vfty
~ ~ ~ ~
Pima Air P~)c ~
,s . : ~
: ~
~
~ ~
~t
~ ~ ~ ~Yeae~
$ Teo . ~ ~ ~
~ ~Nd
i: :
~t~
, _
A~a Wf~rAd ~
F, ~ ~ : . .
" ~ . 4am4ortU~
1
7~ z
'9. ~ . LitJ7~V~bflC
. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _ ~
~ ~.i
~ . t~u J ~ 4bffi919I
N
~ ~ ~ ~ ~+~~5
r. i SwIW
~ ~
. ~ ~ _ t9sq~t3~ewl~
. ~ ~ -
~ Residenfiat Concerrtratrons ~
~ InsGtulional (Sctaols, Fiospitals, Gwemment
Employment Ceriters
Page 7
March 2001
~
Technical Memo #7
4.3 Land Use Plans
The Town of Marana General Plan addresses the overall land use plans for the town
within the current incorporated limits. It includes general land use recommendations
regarding residential, industrial and commercial/retail zoning. The general plan also
serves as the basis for individual development master plans within the community.
The Northwest Marana Plan is a geographically focused land use development plan
that was partly the result from environmental concerns about designated critical habitat
for the endangered Cactus Ferruginous Pygmy Owl. This plan shifts the development
emphasis from areas identified as critical habitat, to the area known as Old Town
Marana. The Northwest Marana Plan details extensive roadway improvements,
residential and commercial development over the next 25 years in an area that is
currently agriculturaL
As Marana grows, the town will have a mixture of varying density residential
communities as well as concentrated employment activity centers along Interstate 10.
The employment activity centers in Tucson will continue to draw Marana residents who
chose to live in Marana and commute to Tucson.
The comprehensive transit services plan accounts for current and future land uses in
Marana using these two significant land use plans. The transit plan was refined through
the public involvement process identifying the preliminary transit alternatives and transit
markets.
4.4 Identification of Future Transit Market
Three distinct transit markets were identified through the public involvement process; a
commuter market, a neighborhood circulator market and a fixed route market. Each
market reflects a very different population and requires a different type of service. The
geographic areas for these services are identified and detailed in the next sections. The
fixed-route transit market, was identified but not as a priority. Fixed route service will be
examined primarily as a long-term market, but also to serve in the near term as a link
between the other identified transit markets and the rest of the regional system.
4.4.1 Commuter Transit
The commuter transit market geographic area is concentrated in the residential areas of
Continental Ranch and the Eastern Tier suburbs that are in unincorporated Pima County
adjoining Marana. Trips generated in these areas are generally to employment centers
in Tucson. This market currently is served only by Sun Tran routes102, 103 and 186 that
run along Thornydale and Ina Roads and ultimately to the downtown Ronstadt transit
center and to the airport area. Based upon public input, this service as currently
configured does not adequately provide transit service for the majority of commuters in
Marana.
In the telephone survey, 14~0 of the respondents said that they would probably use an
express bus from Marana to Tucson "frequently". It is expected that ridership on an
Page 8
March 2001
Technical Memo #7
express bus route to the downtown and airport would draw from the Northwest Marana
area and Area 2 as shown in Technical Memorandum Number 1. As shown in the
Technical Memorandum, these two areas are expected to have nearly 32,000 dwelling
units (DU) by 2025. Assuming that there would be an average of 0.3 persons per DU
that commutes to Tucson, this would translate into a potential market of 9600 people.
Recognizing that people often overstate their possible usage of transit service, the 14%
from the survey could be reduced by half, to 79'0. This would translate into 672 riders.
To estimate daity ridership, this amount should be further reduced by 20qo to account
for the fact that generally people do not ride 5 days a week. Utilizing this methodology,
one-way ridership on commuter express service could be as high as 540 riders per day
in 2025.
4.4.2 Neiahborhood Circulator
The neighborhood circulator market was identified in three geographic areas that are
more distant and contain a diverse more socio-economic population than the commuter
market. Two of the areas are the age restricted and somewhat affluent residential
communities of Sunflower and Heritage Highlands. The other area a transit dependent
market in the Old Town/Avra Valley area of Marana. Since the termination of Marana
Public Transit in July 2000, these neighborhoods are no longer served by public transit
with the exception of the Old Town/Avra Valley area, which is served by Pima Rural
Transit, operated by Pima County. The growing number of residents in age restricted
communities such as Sunflower and Heritage Hightands and their retative distance from
the Northwest Medical Complex indicates a latent and growing need for this type of
transit service. Additionally, given the distances that would need to be covered by
neighborhood circulators to serve the current and future community developments
within Marana, a fixed route market albeit limited, is considered essential.
The tetephone survey asked about potential use of a Marana public transportation
system (no description was provided regarding the type of system or frequency of
service): About 9% of the respondents said that they would use this generic system
"frequently". The combined service area of the proposed neighborhood circulator and
fixed routes (shown in Technical Memorandum Number 8) would be within a quarter
mile of roughly 60% of the DUs in the study area. Again, decreasing the possible
usage expressed in the survey by half, this would result in use by about 4.5~0 of the
76,000 people in the service area This results in an estimate of 3400 transit riders
per day on both systems.
4.4.3 Fixed-Route Transit
Although this transit market currently is the smallest, demand over the planning period
to 2025 will increase. In the near term, improvements to Sun Tran Route 16, which
operates along Ina Road, and connects with several key activity centers will address
this need. Route 16 also serves the pre-automobile driving adolescent market that
utilizes this service to commute to iheir weekend employment, and to the two regional
malls.
The estimated ridership from this service is combined with the demand for the
neighborhood circulator service described above.
Page 9
March 2001
Technical Memo #7
Footnote: (1). Based on the sociaeconomic data presented in Technical Memorandum Number 2, about
26,000 DUs are in the transit service area. PAG's Population Handbook indicates that there are 2.9
persons per DU in Marana.
5.0 Conclusions
Based upon the information gathered in telephone surveys, the public open houses and
community meetings and a review of the Town's plans for the future, the existing and
future transit needs and markets were identified within Marana. Increased commuter
transit service, and the desire for neighborhood circulator service are the two transit
services most in demand. An analysis of these transit alternatives, as well as an
expansion of fixed-route transit service will be examined in more detail in Technical
Memorandum Number 8.
K:/11476/tech memo/tech memo #7 existing demand
Page 10
March 2001
'
C
MARANA
' TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE
~
Technical Memorandum # 8
'
Transit Aiternatives Analysis
'
' Pnepar+ed for.•
.
~
MARANA
, I
J TOWN Of MARANA - . .
, The Tawn of Marana
Department of Pubiic Works
3696 W. Orange Grove Road
, Tucson, Arizona 85741
Prepar~ed by.~
_ = C ~
° c~ ~r A~~
Parsons Brinckefioff Quade & Douglas, Inc. Curtis Lueck & Associates
177 N. Church Avenue, Suite 500 578Q W. EI Camino del Cerro
Tucson, Arizona 85701 - Tucson, Arizona 85745
~
_ March 2001
~
I
I
Technical Memo #8
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION .....................................................................................3
1.1 Transit Alternatives 3
2 COMMUTER INTENSIVE ALTERNATIVE 3
2.1 Elements of Commuter Transit Service 4
2.2 Route Implementation 5
2.2.1 Continental Ranch Route 5
2.2.2 Tangerine Route 6
2.3 Estimated Commuter Transit Service Costs 6
2.3.1 Maintenance Facilities 7
2.4 Conclusion 7
3. NEIGHBORHOOD CIRCULATOR INTENSIVE ALTERNATIVE 8
3.1 Elements of Neighborhood Circulator Service 8
3.2 Route Implementation 8
3.2.1 Continental-Sunflower Route 9
3.2.2 Old Town-Rural Circulator Route 9
3.2.3 Eastem Tier Suburb Circulator Route 10
3.3 Neighborhood Circulator Transit Costs 10
3.3.1 Maintenance Facilities 11
3.4 Conclusion 11
4. FIXED ROUTE TRANSIT ALTERNATIVE 11
4.1 Elements of Fixed Route Transit Service 11
4.2 Fixed Route Implementation 13
4.2.1 Improved Sun Tran Route 16 13
4.2.2 Silverbell Route 13
4.3 Estimated Fixed-Route Transit Service Costs 13
4.4 Maintenance Facilities 14
4.5 Conclusions ....................................................................................14
5. CONCLUSIONS 15
Page 2
March 2001
Technical Memo #8
1.0 Introduction
The Town of Marana at current growth rates should expect a municipal population of
about 90,000 residents by 2025. This population will place demands upon the
municipality's infrastructure and services. One of those services that will need to meet
the demands of the entire population is transit service.
The transit alternatives analysis detailed in the following sections is the result of
examining current and future land use, analyzing public input and refining data
gathered in the project planning process. The this analysis is used to develop the
preferred transit alternative to address current and future transit needs for the residents
of Marana.
As a part of this study, a telephone survey of Marana residents was conducted to
determine the transit needs of the community. Additionally, public input was sought
from Marana residents at two public open houses, and one targeted community
meeting. The meetings were held to gather further public opinion regarding the current
and future transit needs of the residents of Marana.
1.1 Transit Alternatives
Based upon the information obtained through public involvement, and using the Town
of Marana Northwest Area Plan as well as the General Plan, three transit intensive
alternatives where identified. These three transit intensive alternatives are commuter,
neighborhood circulator and fixed route transit services. Individually, each transit
intensive alternative serves a specific population segment within Marana, but would not
provide a comprehensive transit network to serve the general transit needs of all the
residents of Marana over the course of the planning period to 2025. Each transit
intensive alternative will contain a fixed-route element to serve as a linkage to provide a
comprehensive transit network.
The following sections detail each transit intensive alternative, with routing, potential
costs and operational service specifics for each alternative. Each transit alternative is
presented on the basis of publicly ranked preference, an estimated timeline for
implementation and associated costs and how each transit alternative will augment the
planned land uses within the various areas of Marana. Additionally, two transit station
locations are examined to serve the current and future population and transit services
of Marana.
2.0 Commuter Intensive Altemative
Survey respondents and public involvement ranked this transit alternative as the
highest priority. Currently, most Marana residents commute to employment centers in
Tucson. The only options available to Marana commuters are private automobiles, and
limited stop express bus service provided by Sun Tran routes 102 and 103. These
commuter transit routes currently offer two morning trips, and two afternoon trips from
Ina Road to the downtown Tucson Ronstadt Transit Center. Although this service
provides some commuter transit benefit, based upon Sun Tran ridership estimates the
service provided is not sufficient to meet the current commuter transit market demand.
Page 3
March 2001
Technical Memo #8
Sun Tran Route 186 known as the Aeropark Express serves employees of Raytheon
and Bombardier exclusively.
2.1 Elements of Commuter Transit Service
Commuter transit service implementation in Marana could be the easiest transit service
to implement. Service should originate and be located near the population centers
where the market exists. The key elements for the commuter transit service are:
¦ Frequent service, 4 morning trips, 2 midday, and 4 evening trips.
¦ Central Transit station with park & ride facility, Orange Grove & I-10 or Cortaro
Farms & I-10.
¦ Commuter service should offer direct service to major employment centers,
such as Raytheon, Bombardier and downtown Tucson.
Standard forty- (40)-foot buses similar to those that currently operate along Ina Road
could be used for this service. These vehicles offer the maximum seating capacity and
could eventually be transitioned into fixed route service during off-peak hours.
Routing for the commuter transit service should be concentrated near the market
population centers identified. Figure 2-1 illustrates the proposed routing of the two
commuter transit services in Marana. Additionally, fixed route service is recommended
along Thornydale Road, and Orange Grove Road to link the residential areas of the
Eastern Tier suburbs and their commuters to the proposed Orange Grove Transit
Station. These fixed routes would provide the necessary transit linkage to that identified
commuter market. Commuters could then transfer to the commuter express service.
~
Page 4
March 2001
Technical Memo #8
Figure 2 - 1
Commuter Routes
car+MUr~ RaurE
~ 3 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~NTF.tiSIYE ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
U L ~
~ ~
~Y~s
tuic M~iha ~ ~ ~
i>'F~ fiE ~
fii+»k
5i~x- ~ ~ Na~e M .
~
-F :>o ~ , _
~
~ ~V~ ~~~t~~
N~a PQG
r~~sm5~tera~.! ~ . . -
. ~ ~ {yp~t imA~mtln
Tas~skris ~i Ltr9ei~pRe .
~ . Qforlm R0
k~
~ Rire f~ ~c f~
~re
~~~i~S
t~ P-0
~
~ R'.gve 96Ste+ ;~yt~p Gtv+e i~
¢ ~
, ~
Plipf_~_~1-
_~3 PI~! {~!*[~1__~?'~f~ Pli(~ ~iod .~0~ ~'21f25 F8ao+4mad
ComR~uier & Fixed t3us Fioutes Corrxruater & Fixed Hus Routes Cc~r~ruter 8 Fized Bus Rot~tes
~ Park & Ride Pacifitea
~ Park $ Ride Faci~ities ~ Perk 8 Ride FaciGfies
Transit Station ~ Transit St3ticxi
2.2 Route Implementation
Commuter route implementation is based upon the identified commuter markets, and
on the existing and future land, use development in Marana. The implementation dates
recommended for the commuter routes are approximate, and should be reviewed and
revised based upon the actual rate of development in Marana.
2.2.1 Continentat Ranch Route
The primary commuter route recommended for implementation is the Continental Ranch
Route. This route would serve the largest identified commuter market and the highest
residential density in Marana. Service should originate at the proposed Park & Ride
transit facility at Silverbell & Coachline Roads, and stop at the proposed Orange Grove
Transit Sta#ion. There, the route would continue to the downtown Tucson Ronstadt
Transit Center and or directly to the aerospace employment centers near Tucson
International Airport. Recommendations are for this transit service route to be phased
in by 2005 and fully implemented by 2010.
During the course of the development of this transit plan, the City of Tucson's fixed
route provider Sun Tran developed a restructuring plan for its routes. Included in this
Page 5
March 2001
Technical Memo #8
restructuring was the proposed elimination of the Route 103. Due to the initial start up
costs associated with implementation of a commuter service, it is highly recommended
that the Town of Marana, Sun Tran and City of Tucson enter into discussions and re-
route the Sun Tran Route 103 to implement the recommended Continental Ranch
commuter route by 2002
2.2.2 Tangerine Route
The next commuter route recommended for implementation is the Tangerine Route.
Based upon the General Plan and the Northwest Marana Plan, land use development in
this area is expected to accelerate between 2005 and 2015. The future residential
developments will require commuter service to the employment centers along the
existing and planned industrial I-10 corridor in Marana and in Tucson. Utilizing the
frontage roads along I-10, this commuter service would originate at the proposed
Tangerine Park & Ride facility, drawing commuters from the future residential
developments in Northwest Marana and Dove Mountain areas. As northwest Marana
develops, this service will become more popular. Based upon the anticipated
residential development build-out estimates in the Northwest Marana Plan, it is
recommended that this commuter transit route be phased in beginning 2015 with full
service implemented by 2020.
2.3 Estimated Corr~rr~uter Transit Service Costs
Estimated costs for implementing commuter transit service are minimal when compared
to other forms of transit. Since the recommendation is to implement the Continental
Ranch Route as the highest priority, the estimated costs for implementing that route will
be examined. The costs for implementing the Tangerine Route will be an estimation
based on 2001 dollars since the recommendation for phasing in that route is 2015. The
proposed transit station at Orange Grove and the associated costs for that facility will
be detailed in a following section.
~ The recommendations for implementing the commuter transit intensive alternative are
for a minimum of 6 40-foot buses, at least two park & ride facilities and a transit station
with parking. Since this recommendation is for a commuter express, there should be no
other stops for the proposed Continental Ranch route. Trips will originate at the
proposed park & ride facility at Silverbell & Coachline with one stop at the proposed
park & ride at Silverbell & Cortaro Farms and a stop at the Orange Grove Transit
Station. Table 2-1 contains the estimated costs for implementing the Continental Ranch
route.
Page 6
March 2001
Technical Memo #8
TABLE 2.1
Estimated Capital Costs
2005-201 O Itnpiementation Planning Period
Continental Ranch Commuter Route
Infrastwcture ~ Vehicles
Capital Item Quantity Cost per Unit Land Cost Total
Standard 40' Bus 6 $350,000 N/A $2,100,000
Park & Ride 2 $250,000 $100,000 $350,000
Bus Sto 4 $13,000 $5,500 $74,000
Bus Puilouts 4 $50,000 $25,000 $75,000
Commuter 1 $120,000 $200,000 $320,000
Station
$2,919,000
Figures are estimated casis in 21D01 dollars. Transif Station includes 200 parking spaces, restroom facilities
& lighting. Estimate does not include price of land due to fluctuations in land prices.
~press Commuter Stops include the cost of a shelter, design and construction of a bus pullout.
Annual operating costs for a standard 40' bus, accounting for operator wages and
benefits, vehicle maintenance and depreciation are approximately $125,000 per
vehicle. Under Federal Transportation Administration guidelines, buses used for public
transit can only be used for a maximum of ten years before replacement.
2.3.1 Maintenance Facilities
Routine maintenance for 40' commuter buses is a not a service that can be performed
without specialized equipment and expertise. Specialized mechanics with certified
training as well as special refueling facilities are required. Under existing Arizona State
Regulatory Statutes, all buses used for public transit must be alternate fueled vehicles.
The most common fuel currently in use in Arizona by public transit systems is
compressed natural gas (CNG). Refueling vehicles with CNG requires specialized
pumps, and buildings.
Should the Town of Marana decide to purchase and operate a bus fleet to provide
commuter transit service, a maintenance and refueling facility will need to be eventually
constructed. It is recommended that in the early years of implementing the commuter
transit senrice that the buses and their associated maintenance and refueling be
contracted with Sun Tran.
2.4 Conclusion
Commuter transit service is perhaps the easiest transit service alternative to implement.
The transit market for this service is well defined, and the demand is currently high in
the Continental Ranch area. The success of the implementation will depend upon the
frequency of service, proximity of destination stops to employment centers and the
expedient routing selected for this service. Funding mechanisms are in place currently
that can implement the senrice. Operational funds will need to be apportioned from a
Page 7
March 2001
Technical Memo #8
source that allows such expenditures. A partnership between Marana, Sun Tran, the
City of Tucson and employers to provide this commuter transit service could form the
foundation of a truly regional commuter transit service.
3.0 Neighborhood Circulator Intensive Alternative
Neighborhood Circulators were viewed as the second priority transit alternative by
public participants and as stated through the results of the telephone survey. Similar to
commuter transit, this type of transit service would serve a select transit market
however, with a larger geographical area.
The previous Marana Public Transit service was a deviated-fixed route transit provider
until July 2000. The service provided transportation through the Continental Ranch area
and also the Old Town Marana area with a connection to Sun Tran on Ina Road.
Currently, Pima County Rural Transit serving Old Town Marana and Avra Valley
operates the only circulator type transit senrice that exists in Marana.
3.1 Elements of Neighborhood Circulator Service
The key elements for neighborhood circulator service in Marana will be:
¦ Convenient routing to desired destinations.
¦ Deviated fixed-route ability.
¦ Appropriate headways, 30 minute optimum.
¦ Transit Station construction for connections to regional transit service.
Neighborhood circulator service should seek eligibility to participate in the Arizona
Department of Transportation /Federal Transportation Administration (ADOT/FTA)
Elderly and Persons with Disabilities (EPD) Transportation Program. This ADOT funded
program could assist in capital purchases for paratransit vans.
3.2 Route Implementation
Two routes within the existing town limits and a third route that would serve
neighborhoods within the project area of influence have been identified. It is
recommended that the neighborhood circulator service be offered as a deviated fixed-
route system to qualify for EPD eligibility. The timeline of implementation and the routing
of these services are detailed in the following section.
Page 8
March 2001
Technical Memo #8
Figure 3 - 1
Neighborhood Circulator Routes
we~csowxooo ctt~cuu?mrs
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~N~snrE _ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ e~ : _
~ ~ ~
~
~
~
?
~
e
~
1 I~ ~ 1~~s'f~ rs~alaaa ~ .
Fse~na ~ . .
iarw~ . +.aeic~?7.n .
l~'~a W
T £bikt ~
fiae~hFi Fk3
h
h~yC.~ ; ;
~ ~n :.rabtrskA
~ A~ycc+~t$ .
hY~
~ ' ~ ~
~ ~si.az ~ps. .r]'a~.ge~ ~s5ve F3
~
~ ~ ~
AtAr iB~A
F-.;XE.'~. R(51S{L-v ~.`':.i~t$:GS!?~?tIC ~€fr~:.Sli3SOt i3tkQF':;
~ . '~lcarr~a.anS~erk~e."or?aro'rurr~.Rv~aVni:eY t}`r.xpan3e~CartLneNa~Ran~t~4iurd(awe~r.-ac-~tsUc~c
~ 3~ncr,-Mnra"m. Lcri Ade.. . rAew Tanp Pi;~~ :vl,gmrarn. z) te r. fr.~Tnnrt i~*cuE3ta {bsse~i on `uiure ennexatk~nsj .
ar,~ Sand~ar~,~ Fw:1d. ~J fievased Fi'kaa~aan3czd Jwnt Tov r'r(;u:nf Grcu~ator fGreen L~rw)
AY routes trarsfer ~~aa tt;! CesAe; Park 14 Ride F~r= pArtrerstx~ wAh F n.i C~x;nh~ f? x,~: "`reamitJ
. ~ R+ew ~t arr~.it Cc=rr;ter ~ Pzj;~e ~ R~dfl '~cAS .
3.2.1 Continental-Sunflower Route
This particular neighborhood circulator route would serve a geographically distinct
transit market. The former Marana Public Transit served this area until July 2000, and
had a small but dedicated ridership. Since Sunflower is an age-restricted community,
there is a latent transit demand market identified within that community. The Continental
Ranch community with its mix of residents also has been identified as a potential transit
market, primarily with older adults and adolescents requiring transportation to connect
to regional service.
3.2.2 Old Town-Rural Circulator Route
The Old Town area of Marana, and Avra Valley area is currently served by Pima County
Rural Transit. Service is limited with few daily trips but it provides connections to Sun
Tran along Ina Road. As Marana develops, especially in the northwest and Old Town
areas, Pima County will no longer be able to adequately serve the demand of this area.
Therefore, a shared expansion of this service is proposed in this area of Marana. As
Marana develops, the town should provide the circulator service within the Old Town
and northwest Marana areas. The service should connect where the rural and Old Town
circulator routes meet. The implementation of this service should be within the 2010-
2015 capital planning period of the transportation plan. This implementation timeline for
Page 9
March 2001
Technical Memo #8
this route should be flexible to accommodate the actual growth and demand in this
area of Marana.
3.2.3 Eastern Tier Suburb Circulator Route
This routing is currently outside of the existing town limits, but well within the project
area of influence. This proposed routing would connect the eastern tier suburbs and the
Marana public schools within this area. This route would ultimately connect with a
transit station at Orange Grove to connect to regional transit service. Implementation of
this route will be determined by future annexations to the Town of Marana within the
2025 planning period of this transportation plan.
3.3 Neighborhood Circulator Transit Capital Costs 2005-201 O
Costs for a neighborhood circulator system, when compared to commuter or fixed route
systems, are higher. More infrastructure is required due to the nature of the transit
market. Shelters at every stop, and provision of shade are examples of additional
infrastructure. Unlike commuter or fixed route transit service vehicles which can last for
ten or more years, circulator vehicles accrue average annual service mileage of the
+60,000 miles a year. This increased mileage requires more frequent replacement of
neighborhood circulator vehicles. Table 3-1 lists the estimated capital costs to initiate
neighborhood circulator service in Marana.
TABLE 3 - 1
Estimated Capital Costs
2005-2010 Implementation Planning Period
Neighborhood Circulator System
Infrastructure & Vehicles
_ Capital Item Quantity Cost per Unit Land Cost Total
15' Cut-away 14 $180,000 N/A $2,520,000
Van
Park & Ride 2 $250,000 $100,000 $350,000
Bus Sto 4 $13,000 $5,500 $74,000
Bus Pullouts 4 $50,000 $25,000 $75,000
Commuter 1 $120,000 $200,000 $320,000
Station
~3,390,000
NOTES:
1) Cast figures are estimated costs in 2001 dollars.
2) Transit Station includes 200 parking spaces, restroom facilities & lighting.
3) Land price subject to fluctuation during planning period.
4) Bus Stop includes standard shelter, based on Sun Tran average cost of $5,000 each with signage.
5) Eastem Tier neighborhood circulator nof included in cost estimate.
Recommendations are that the neighborhood circulator service phase in with a service
fleet of 8 vehicles purchased at four vehicles from 2005, with three vehicles purchased
from 2006 to 2010 for a fleet of seven active vehicles and one vehicle in reserve. As the
Page 10
March 2001
i
Technical Memo #8 ~'I
~
fleet ages, replacement vehicles should be procured on a staggered purchase plan II~I,
basis to offset the undependability of aged vehicles in the service fleet.
3.3.1 Maintenance Facilities ~I
Maintenance facilities for circulator vehicles are relatively inexpensive. Since the I'I
i
vehicles are manufactured by automotive manufacturers and contain standard gasoline I
or diesel engines, maintenance of these vehicles can be included with regular fleet
maintenance of town vehicles. I
Recommendations are that maintenance and servicing of the neighborhood circulator
vehicles be contracted with local automotive dealers until the Town of Marana
constructs a town vehicle fleet maintenance facility. Once that facility is constructed,
then maintenance of the neighborhood circulator vehicle fleet could be performed at
that facility.
3.4 Conclusion
Neighborhood circulator transit service provides the most personal transit service of the
three identified transit alternatives for the Town of Marana. This alternative provides
transit service to a large population, and could offer door-to-door transit service through
a prescheduled subscription service. Despite the appeal of the more personal nature of
neighborhood circulators, the service is expensive due to the number of miles accrued
by vehicles per year, and the increased maintenance schedules required on the
vehicles.
4.0 Fixed Route Transit Alterr~ative ~
Fixed Route transit was viewed as the third priority transit alternative by the public. This
type of transit service would serve a much larger geographical area, and provide a vital
linkage for commuter service and neighborhood circulators to the region. Fixed-route
transit is a necessary component in providing a comprehensive transit system for
Marana. A fixed-route transit service could provide more transit patrons access to
commuter transit service, and also alleviate some of the distances that a neighborhood
circulator would need to travel.
Currently, the only fixed route transit provided in Marana is a small segment of the Sun
Tran Route 16, along Ina Road. As detailed earlier in this study, limited stop commuter
service with Routes 102 and 103 are also provided by Sun Tran.
4.1 Elements of Fixed Route Transit Service
Fixed route transit service provides transportation along a"fixed" route. Unlike a
"deviated-fixed" route in which the transit provider deviates from a set route, this type of
transit service stays on an assigned route. The service is commonly provided by a
standard 40' bus, however smaller vehicles are used in some cities and towns. Fixed-
route transit service should be located near population centers and trip generators
where the identified market exists. The key elements for the fixed-route transit service
are:
Page 11
March 2001
Technical Memo #8
¦ Frequent headways, 20 minutes operating on a 14 hour, 7 day a week service.
¦ Central Transit station with park & ride facility, Orange Grove & I-10 or Cortaro
Farms & I-10.
¦ Fixed-route transit service should offer convenient service to local trip
generators and downtown Tucson.
Standard forty- (40)-foot buses similar to those that currently operate along Ina Road
could be used to provide for this service. These service vehicles offer maximum seating
capacity and could eventually be augmented into a fixed route service during off-peak
commuting hours.
Routing for fixed-route transit service should be concentrated near the market
population centers and trip generators identified in this analysis. Figure 4-1 illustrates
the proposed routing of the fixed-route transit service in Marana.
Figure 4 - 1
Fixed Route Service
FIXED ROUTE INTENSlVE
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ . ~ p ~ $ ~ ~
~ ~
~
K1o Rq ~
a
~ :
~x
1`Q1?e+{*} ~ ; ,~i
~
~
~..~.r
~
;
v~
~ ~ i
~
~
~ N=~
~
~
~a~nd
r-ixea Rowes ~ . .
»---.-«-w~ ?+t~:tt~~hood G'itc;ta":~ior R~e-^s
lvew rcwtr~<a an.si!vsrbeii. C.or*aro Farms. Avfa Va~b_y
~ 1 `t ~Er,oar+de~ Cantt*'~nt~a Ranchl``rs[lvwer Ciscuiotor
7~rcr~Mara~. Lczf Aa~rra;, nsvv Tange.irw aizgnrt~ent. -
~ 2; H~vrsetl {s Expanded 3~tr~T ~7t~wnlRiaai C~rcu!aLw
a~d Sarx#arta Hctt~d ~ ~ .
~ AN scnAes c~{aerate c~n ~5 m_ruRe hesciwnyy {~een izr~p3 ~ . .
#~ixe~ Ra,des tie irno Trartst? C.e~er $ Park R R~de: servsce exp:i.~,~on to 11vea Vaitey v3a Sandario Road
ie~~ t,*ira+.sgfi Srarr~i€:rs . ~ (ira partner,tvp wr{h P:t~se Cw.mtY R~~1 Trar~it)
~ New+ T r~rrit i:enter . ~ark & Rt:~r ~o?~s
Orar.pe ~rbve ~ Thorrryd:i;e ~tckvct, ~
Page 12
March 2001
Technical Memo #8
4.2 Fixed-Route In~plementation
The implementation of fixed-route t~ansit routes is a necessary component in providing
a comprehensive transit system for Marana. Two routes are recommended for the
implementation of fixed-route transit service in Marana. The first recommendation is
expanding service on Sun Tran Route 16. The second recommendation is to rename
and relocate the proposed elimination of Sun Tran Route 103 and rename the service
as the Silverbell Route. The third recommendation is to implement fixed-route transit
routes along Thornydale and Orange Grove Roads. The routing and implementation of
these routes are detailed in the following section.
4.2.1. Imnroved Sun Tran Route 16
fmproving Route 16 would entail expanding the current service route initially to Ina and
Silverbell Roads. Ultimately, this should go to the proposed transit station at Orange
Grove and Thornydale Roads. Service improvements would include more frequent
service, and extending operating hours to 14 hours, 7 days a week.
4.2.2 Silverbell Route
The new Silverbell Route would utilize the former Sun Tran Route 103 service vehicles
and reroute the service. The proposed service would extend the route from Silverbell &
Coachline down Silverbell Road to Ina Road, and then to the proposed Orange Grove
Transit Station. This service would provide transit service linkage to the recommended
expanded Sun Tran Route 16 transit service.
Marana Public Transit served this area until July 2000, and had a small but dedicated
ridership. Since Sunflower is an age-restricted community, there is a latent transit
demand market identified within that community. The Continental Ranch community has
the highest concentration of residents in Marana. The identified transit markets with
.
older adults and adolescents have requirements for transit service. Implementation of
- this service should be within the 2005 capital planning period of the transportation plan.
4.3 Estimated Fixed-Route Transit Service Costs
Estimated costs for implementing fixed-route transit service are similar to commuter
transit since similar vehicles and facilities are utilized. Similar to the commuter transit
service the recommendation is to implerr~ent service along Silverbell Road to serve the
population centers at Continental Ranch. The costs for implementing the Route 16
service expansion are estimated based on 2000 fiscal 4th quarter report on operations
by Sun Tran.
The recommendations for implementing fixed-route transit service alternative are for a
minimum of six 40-foot buses, at two park & ride facilities and a transit station with
parking. Fixed-route service requires more stops, usually at'/a mile distances. Table 4-1
summarizes the estimated costs for implementing fixed-route Transit..
Page 13
March 2001
Technical Memo #8
TABLE 4 -1
Estirr~ated Capital Costs
2005-2010 Implementation Planning Period
Fixed-Route Transit Service
Infrastructure ~ Vehicles
Capital Item Quantity Cost per Unit Land Cost Total
Standard 40' Bus 6 $350,000 N/A $2,100,000
Park & Ride 2 $250,000 $100,000 $350,000
Bus Sto 4 $13,000 $5,500 $74,000
Bus Pullouts 4 $50,000 $25,000 $75,000
Commuter 1 $120,OOp $200,000 $320,000
Station
$2,9f9,000
Figures are estimated casts in 2~01 dollars. Transit Station includes 2a0 parking spaces, restroom facilities
& lighting. Estimate does not include price of land due to fluctuations in land prices.
Express Commuter Stops include the cost of a shelter, design and construction of a bus pullout.
4.4 Maintenance Facilities
As mentioned earlier, routine maintenance for 40' commuter buses is a not a service
that can be easily performed. Specialized mechanics and certified training as well as
refueling facilities are required. Under existing Arizona State Regulatory Statutes, all
buses used for public transit must be alternate fueled vehicles. The common fuel
currently in use in Arizona by public transit systems is compressed natural gas (CNG).
Refueling vehicles with CNG require specialized pumps, and buildings.
Should the Town of Marana decide to purchase and operate a bus fleet to provide fixed
~ route service, a maintenance and refueling facility will need to be constructed. It is
recommended that in the early years of implementing the commuter transit service that
- the buses and their associated maintenance and refueling be contracted with Sun Tran.
4.5 Conclusions
Fixed route service is a vital component in a comprehensive transit system. Fixed route
service can alleviate congestion and provide links to land uses, and provide access for
transit patrons to commuter service. Additionally, fixed route service can provide
neighborhood circulator patrons access to the larger regional transit system.
Page 14
March 2001
Technical Memo #8 'I
I
5.0 Conclusions
~
The recommended transit improvements for the period of 2001-2010 will require
significant upfront capital and operational expenses. The funding for these '
services will be in competition with other transportation infrastructure needs as '
the Town of Marana develops. The Town of Marana may be pressed to meet
both the transit and roadway demands of its residents. If a regional 'I
transportation authority is formed with dedicated transit funding, it could be in
the best interest for the Town of Marana to allow the operations and planning for I
transit in Marana to be undertaken by the regional transit authority.
I
K:/11476/tech memo/tech memo 8 transit altematives analysis- final draft 03028011 ,
' i
~
~
Page 15
March 2001
, ~
MARANA
TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE
Technical Memorandum #9
Commuter Rail
Prepared for:
~,1
~
MA~
;`~/I\
. . TOWMOiMARAPtA . ~
The Town of Marana
Department of Public Works
3696 W. Orange Grove Road
Tucson, Arizona 85741
Prepared by:
- - ~
--roo Curtis Lueck & Associates
VEANS
Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc. Curtis Lueck & Associates
177 N. Church Avenue, Suite 500 5780 W. EI Camino del Cerro
Tucson, Arizona 85701 Tucson, Arizona 85745
February 2001
. ~
Marana Transportation Plan Update
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. BACKGROUND ....................................................................................4
1.1 Introduction 4
1.2 Previous Passenger Rail Feasibility Studies 4
1.2.1 Stations ...............................................................................4
Orange Grove Station 5
Downtown Tucson Depot 5
Valencia Station 5
1.2.2 Running Time Between Stations 5
1.2.3 Operation and Maintenance Costs 6
1.2.4 Capital Costs 6
1.3 Summary 7
2. PEER CITIES COMMUTER RAIL 8
2.1 Peer Cities Shared Rail Experience 8
2.2 Tri-Rail, Pompano Beach, Florida 9
2.2.1 The Tri-Rail Experience 9
2.2.2 Operations and Management 9
2.2.3 Funding 10
2.2.4 Recent Developments 10
2.3 Virginia Rail Express, Northern Virginia 10
2.3.1 Virginia Rail Express Experience 10
2.3.2 Operations and Management 11
2.3.3 Funding 11
2.3.4 Summary 11
2.4 Sounder, Seattle-Tacoma, Washington 11
2.4.1 Sounder Experience 12
2.4.2 Funding 12
2.4.3 Summary 12
2.5 Commuter Rail Providers Summary 13
3. COMMUTER RAIL SERVICE IMPLEMENTATION 14
I ntroduction . . . . . 14
3.1 Administrative Organization 14
3.2 System Planning 14
3.2.1 Station Configuration 15
3.2.2 Station Locations 16
Cortaro Farms Road 16
Orange Grove Station 17
Downtown Tucson Depot 18
Irvington/Tucson Electric Park Station 19
AeroPark/TIA Station 19
3.2.3 Summary 20
3.3 Operations and Maintenance 20
3.3.1 Scheduling ........................................................................21
3.3.2 Operations Personnel 21
3.3.3 Maintenance 22
3.3.4 Equipment 22
3.4 Infrastructure Improvement 22
3.5 Management 24
Page 2
February 2001
. ,
Marana Transportation Plan Update
3.6 Estimated Costs 25
3.7 Funding Sources 26
3.7.1 Federal Funding Sources 26
3.7.2 State Funding Sources 27
3.7.3 Locai Funding Sources 28
3.7.4 Summary 28
3.8 Negotiations with the Union Pacific 29
3.8.1 Summary 29
4. CONCLUSION 29
Page 3
February 2001
, Marana Transportation Plan Update
1.0 BACKGROUND
1.1 Introduction
Growth and development in the Marana area and the northwest valley has been
accelerating. The corresponding growth has created considerable traffic congestion
on I-10, the only interstate highway connecting Marana and northwest valley commuters
to major employment centers in the Tucson area. In addition, over the next six years
the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) will be reconstructing I-10 between
Marana and the I-10/1-19 interchange. The duration of this widening project, from 2000
to 2004 and beyond, will exacerbate the growing traffic congestion and diminish air
quality in the area.
This study examines the feasibility of implementing commuter rail service to alleviate
traffic congestion on I-10 between Marana and Tucson. Additionally, other shared-rail
commuter service operations in the United States will be investigated for "lessons
learned." The recommendations from this study will also consider the potential
components of tying into a possible statewide intercity rail network.
Intercity and commuter rail feasibility has been under study in Arizona since 1993. The
first Arizona Rail Passenger Feasibility Study' was completed for ADOT in 1993, and the
subsequent Arizona Rail Passenger Feasibility Continuation Stud~, completed in 1994,
detailed and recommended the possible routing, stations, operations and capital costs
of implementing such services in Arizona. The recommendations from the 1993 and
1994 rail passenger studies will be used as the basis for this investigation.
This Technical Memorandum documents prior rail studies conducted in Arizona,
summarizes the operations of three other shared rail services, recommends stops and
headways, and explores funding sources for a commuter rail system in the Tucson
metropolitan area.
1.2 Previous Passenger Rail Feasibility Studies
The studies conducted in 1993 and 1994 explored passenger and commuter rail
services in Tucson and Phoenix. These studies examined the possibility of
implementing passenger rail services using the existing Union Pacific Railroad tracks.
While the recommendations from both studies were focused along the Phoenix-Tucson-
Nogales corridor, the commuter rail recommendations specific to this study are outlined
below.
1.2.1 Stations
Both studies recommended that stations be located at Orange Grove Road, the
Downtown Tucson Depot, and Valencia Road. These locations were recommended
based on the following:
~ Arizona Rail Passenger Feasibility Study 1993
Z Arizona Rail Passenger Feasibility Continuation Study 1994
Page 4
February 2001
Marana Transportation Plan Update
¦ Population warrants
¦ Trip generators
¦ Intermodal connections
Each station would serve a specific area within the region. The trip generators and
intermodal connections are described in the next sections.
Orange Grove Station
The Orange Grove Road Station met the classification of an origin station, and would
serve the communities of Marana, Oro Valley, and the northwest area. Residents would
have access to the station from the nearby I-10 interchange and would have easy
access to the regional arterials of Thornydale Road and ina Road. The location has
ample vacant land to accommodate the 200 parking spaces. The intermodal
connections for the recommended Orange Grove Road station would be Sun Tran
routes 102 and 103 that could be rerouted to serve the station.
Downtown Tucson Depot
The Downtown Tucson Depot also met the classification of a destination station in these
studies. Located on the eastern edge of downtown near numerous employment
generators and the Fourth Avenue Shopping District, and with access to the University
of Arizona provided by Old Pueblo Trolley, the Downtown Tucson Depot would serve a
large area. In addition, the Downtown Depot is located across the street from Sun
Tran's Fionstadt Transit Center and the Greyhound Bus station, and is served by
Amtrak's Sunset Limited and Texas Eagle trains. The Downtown Depot would serve as
a regional intermodal transit transfer center.
Valencia Station
This proposed station would be located at Valencia Road and Old Nogales Highway,
either southeast or northeast of the Union Pacific tracks. This site was chosen as a
logical location to serve Tucson International Airport and the residents of Southern
Arizona. The Valencia Station was classified as an intercity origin station, serving
airport travelers and local residents. Either site would have the capacity to
accommodate the estimated 200 parking spaces required for the station.
The Valencia Station would be served by Sun Tran routes 29, 24, and 25. Airport
travelers would require a shuttle from the station to the airport terminal. Shuttles to the
major employment generators near the Valencia Station or utilization of the available
Sun Tran service would also be required for commuters.
1.2.2 Running Time Between Stations
The distances and travel times between the proposed rail station locations were
calculated in the 1994 Rail Passenger Continuation Study. These calculations, based
upon the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) guidelines listed below, are shown in
Table 1.1.
¦ Maximum train cruise speed = 79 mph;
¦ Initiai acceleration rate = 1 mph/sec.;
Page 5
February 2001
Marana Transportation Plan Update
¦ Deceleration rate = 1.5 mph/sec.;
¦ Station time = 2 minutes/stop
As shown in Table 1.1, the estimated travel time from one end of the proposed Tucson
commuter rail system to the other would take a cumulative time of 28 minutes. The
1993 and 1994 passenger rail studies noted that the travel times between stations
could be affected by track conditions, signaling limitations, and freight traffic volume.
Table 1.1
Proposed Rail Station-to-Station Distances and Travel Times
Segment Distance Travel Time Avg. Speed Cumulative Time
(miles) (min.) (mph) (travel/station)
Orange Grove - Tucson Depot 9.2 10 55 14
Tucson Depot - Valencia 6.5 8 49 12
Totals 15.7 18 52 28
Based on one-way travel, origin at either Orange Grove or Valencia stations
1.2.3 Operation and Maintenance Costs
Operation and maintenance (O&M) costs are the costs incurred from the operation of
transit equipment and the maintenance of that equipment and infrastructure. The 1993
and 1994 studies estimated the potential O&M costs for the commuter rail, based on
the following assumptions
¦ Number of one-way runs/day = 8
¦ Length of trip (one-way) = 15.7 miles
¦ Number of passenger cars/train = 4
¦ Annual vehicle miles = 183,376 miles
The O&M costs of infrastructure, based on the standard of the industry in 1994,
equaled $8.00 per vehicle mile. Based on this estimate, and assuming operations of
365 days a year, the total estimated 1994 annual O&M costs for the Tucson area rail
network would be $1,467,008.
1.2.4 Capital Costs
The 1993 and 1994 studies estimated the capital costs for intercity and commuter rail
service. Capital costs are the expenditures made to construct new or replace or
renovate existing rail infrastructure. The studies detailed the costs of constructing new
track and roadbed, signals, stations (including renovating existing passenger
structures to 1994 standards), as well as purchasing or rehabbing rolling stock.
The 1994 study found that most of the existing track and roadbed in the Tucson area
was in good condition. Two new stations would need to be constructed, and renovation
of the Downtown Tucson Depot, while not required, could possibly improve the appeal
of using the proposed rail service. Table 1.2 lists the estimated capital costs for the
metropolitan Tucson segment.
Page 6
February 2001
Marana Transportation Plan Update
Table 1.2
Proposed Commuter Rail Project Capital Budget
Metro Tucson Area Segment
Capital Item Unit of No. of Units Cost/Unit Total Cost
Measure (thousands (thousands $j
FACILITIES:
Renovate Downtown De ot Each 1 $200 $200
New Stations Each 2 $300 $600
Park & Ride Lots S aces 400 $5 $20
Maint. & Stora e Facilit Each 1 $8,000 $8,000
SUBTOTAL $8~820
ROLLING STOCK:
Rebuilt Diesel Locomotives Each 4 $1,500 $6,000
New Bi-Level Passen er Cars Each 10 $1,800 $18,000
SUBTOTAL $24,000
OTHER COSTS:
Contin encies 30% $16,020
En ineerin , CM & Admin. 25% $8,205
TOTAL CAPITAL COSTS $57,045
Source: 1993-i994 Rail Passenger Feasibiliry Siudies
All costs are in 1994 dollars
Based upon the estimates from the 1994 study, the costs associated with implementing
rail service in the metro Tucson area utilizing existing railroad infrastructure was
estimated at $57,045,000.
1.3 Summary
The 1993 and 1994 Rail Passenger Feasibility studies examined the possibilities for
commuter and intercity passenger rail service in Arizona. The studies made key
recommendations for the location of possible stations and estimated travel times as well
as operational and capital costs for implementing rail passenger service in the metro
Tucson area. These recommendations and estimated costs form the basis for the
further study of implementing commuter rail service between Marana and Tucson.
Page 7
February 2001
Marana Transportation Plan Update
2.0 PEER CITIES COMMUTER RAIL
The previous section described the key recommendations of the 1993 and 1994 rail
passenger feasibility studies for implementing passenger rail service in the metropolitan
Tucson area. This section examines the development of commuter rail services in the
United States that operate on shared rail. The experiences of these services indicate
the needed steps to be followed to implement passenger rail service in the Tucson
area.
2.1 Peer Cities Shared-Rail Experience
Commuter rail in the United States is undergoing a renaissance. Numerous cities have
implemented commuter rail service over the last several years. The Los Angeles area
implemented their service, Metrolink, in the late 1980's. Altamont Commuter Express,
which began in the mid-1990's, serves the San Francisco Bay Area and links the
Central Valley communities of Tracy and Stockton with the Bay Area. The state of
Virginia initiated Virginia Rail Express, and Trinity Rail Express started up this year in the
Dallas-Fort Worth area. Seattle and Tacoma, Washington are served by the Sounder
commuter rail service, which started this year as well. Other commuter rail services,
such as MARC in the Baltimore-Washington D.C. area, Metra in the Chicago metro area
and Tri-Rail in Florida have been operating for well over ten years.
These commuter rail services have been implemented as an alternative to automobile
highway commuting. Urban areas around the country are suffering from increasing
traffic congestion. Commuter rail systems have been viewed as a means to relieve
roadway congestion and improve air quality. Several of these systems operate on
dedicated right-of-way; i.e., their own rail line. However, most of the systems
mentioned operate on shared raiL
Shared rail, literally means that the commuter rail service shares the existing rail line
with an operating freight railroad. Through engineered signaling, computerized train
control, and enhanced dispatching, commuter rail lines and freight railroads have
operated on shared rail lines in some of the most congested urban centers including
Chicago, Los Angeles, New York, and the Baltimore-Washington D.C. area.
Commuter rail service utilizes shared rail primarily for two reasons, reasonably quick
implementation of the service, and ability to contract maintenance of the track.
Commuter rail service can quickly be implemented on existing rail infrastructure using
existing crossings, signals, and facilities without building new rail line. Additionally,
commuter services defer maintenance of the track they share to the freight railroad and
compensate the freight railroad for the required maintenance.
The 1993 and 1994 rail passenger studies recommended that the existing rail
infrastructure be utilized for the implementation of service. For the purpose of this
study, three commuter rail services in peer metropolitan areas that share rail with a
freight railroad were interviewed to learn about their experiences and to identify the
necessary steps to plan and implement commuter rail service between Marana and
Tucson.
Page 8
February 2001
Marana Transportation Plan Update
2.2 Tri-Rail, Pompano Beach, Florida
Tri-Rail has been in service since January 1989. The system was implemented as a
temporary mitigation arrangement to alleviate traffic congestion on the parallel
Interstate 95 resulting from the widening and reconstruction of that roadway. Tri-Rail
began serving South Florida with 18-weekday trains, and within one year had
celebrated its one-millionth rider. The Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) had
initiated studies of commuter rail in 1971 when long-range mass transit planning for
South Florida was undertaken. Detailed planning for the regional rail system began in
1983, with construction beginning on the system in 1986. In 1988, FDOT purchased
the 71-mile long rail corridor from CSXTfor $264 million dollars. The system serves
Miami-Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach Counties in South Florida through
intergovernmental agreements and links two international airports.
2.2.1 The Tri-Rail Experience
Tri-Rail currently operates 28 weekday commuter trains that share a single track with
CSXT Railroad and Amtrak. CSXT handles all freight operations in South Florida,
including intermodal container shipments from the Port of Miami. CSXT has a perpetual
easement from FDOT to operate in the corridor, and pays a per mile royalty to use the
tracks. Under agreement with FDOT, CSXT maintains the tracks for all the users of the
corridor. Amtrak operates six daily intercity passenger trains within the corridor.
Operations for Tri-Rail have improved significantly over the last few years. On-time
performance for the provider was below 80%, and ranged as low as 47% in 1998. This
was due to CSXT freight and maintenance operations occurring during Tri-Rail's peak
rush hour trains. An agreement with CSXT was necessary to garner better on-time
performance for Tri-RaiL The negotiations between Tri-Rail and CSXT to give Tri-Rail
exclusive right to the corridor during peak rush hour service led to the signing of an
agreement that gave Tri-Rail the rights to the corridor during the four-train peak rush
hour. In February 2000, on-time performance reached 96%.
2.2.2 Oaerations and Management
Operations and management at Tri-Rail is a public/private arrangement. Tri-Rail
manages the governmental financial and planning aspects of the system for the three
counties that the system serves. Tri-Rail operations and maintenance are contracted
with Herzog Transit Services. Herzog hires the operators and maintenance personnel
for Tri-Rail and manages the personnel who operate the locomotives and stations.
Herzog also manages contracts that Tri-Rail has with another company for facility
maintenance and with Boise Locomotive who maintains the system's locomotives. The
maintenance contracts were awarded through an open bid process.
Page 9
February 2001
Marana Transportation Plan Update
2.2.3 Fundina
Tri-Rail operates under an intergovernmental agreement between Miami-Dade,
Broward, and Palm Beach counties. The system operates under the Tri-County
Commuter Rail Authority, which was created in 1989. Tri-Rail also has an agreement
with FDOT to operate on the state-owned tracks and right-of-way.
2.2.4 Recent Developments
The continued success of Tri-Rail and the need to increase ridership initiated Tri-Rail's
application to the federal government for a grant to begin double tracking along the 71-
mile corridor. In order for Tri-Rail to increase service, it needed to increase train
frequency to 20-minute headways and acquire more equipment. Double tracking was
the only method to increase service frequency on an already congested corridor. On
June 5, 2000 Tri-Rail received a$327 million Full Funding Grant from the Federal Transit
Administration. This grant provides the necessary funds to complete the double
tracking of the corridor.
2.3 Virginia Rail Express, Northern Virginia
Virginia Railway Express (VRE) is a transportation partnership between two regional
transportation agencies, Northern Virginia Transportation Commission and the Potomac
& Rappahannock Transportation Commission. VRE provides commuter rail service
from the northern Virginia suburbs of Fredericksburg and Manassas to Alexandria and
Washington D.C. Passenger service commenced in July 1997. The commuter service
was implemented to alleviate growing congestion on the interstate highway system in
the Alexandria-Washington D.C. area. Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT)
had reviewed the possible expansion of the regional interstate system, but the costs
and congestion associated with undertaking a roadway-widening program was
deemed too short-range. The implementation of the VRE commuter rail system was
selected as the preferred long-range alternative to accommodate future commuter
needs.
2.3.1 Virginia Rail Express Experience
Similar to Tri-Rail, VRE shares the rail it operates on. However, the key difference with
VRE is that VRE shares the rail with two separate freight railroads, CSXT and Norfolk
Southern, as well as Amtrak. Negotiations with both CSXT and Norfolk Southern for use
of the shared rail were difficult. Both CSXT and Norfolk Southern operate extensive
freight schedules on the rail, and negotiations also included Amtrak, who operates
intercity passenger service on the CSXT rail line. VRE, through cooperative efforts with
CSXT and Norfolk Southern, was able to reach a lease agreement for the track mileage
on which it operates. The agreement included the implementation of a computerized
signaling system that moved freight trains onto passing sidings to allow passenger
trains to maintain their respective schedules. VRE paid for the installation of the signals
and passing sidings as a part of the agreement between the commuter agency and the
freight railroads to enhance the existing rail capacity to accommodate passenger rail
traffic. As with Tri-Rail in Florida, VRE compensates with CSXT and Norfolk Southern for
the maintenance of the rail line.
Page 10
February 2001
Marana Transportation Plan Update
2.3.2 Operations and Management
The VRE is a political sub-agency of the Northern Virginia Transportation (NVTC) and
the Potomac & Rappahannock Transportation Commissions (P&RTC). VRE is divided
into two separate groups, Operations and Management.
The Operations Group is comprised of VRE employees who handle ali personnei and
contracting services. Train service personnel and rolling stock maintenance is
contracted with Amtrak. The contract negotiations with Amtrak and the lease
agreements with CSXT and Norfolk Southern are also negotiated by the VRE Operations
Group.
The Management Group is comprised of VRE operations managers and representatives
from the NVTC and P&RTC as well as representatives from the Virginia Department of
Rail and Public Transit, a subsidiary of VDOT. Exceeding set dollar ceiling for contract
negotiations conducted by the VRE Operations Group triggers involvement by the VRE
Management Group, otherwise the VRE Management Group handles all of the financial
matters for the agency.
2.3.3 Fundina
Funding for the operations of VRE comes from an intergovernmental agreement
between the P&RTC, NVTC, the communities these agencies serve, and the Virginia
Department of Rail & Public Transit. A 2% gasoline sales tax from the P&RTC member
jurisdictions provides over $4,000,000 of dedicated revenue for the VRE, as well as
state and federal monies channeled through the NVTC. The VRE and the Virginia
Department of Rail & Pubiic Transit also cooperate to obtain grant monies for the VRE.
2.3.4 Summarv
VRE has seen a steady increase in ridership since operations began in July 1997.
Beginning with a monthly ridership of 5,000 riders, VRE now provides transit service to
nearly 9,500 riders a month. Average on-time performance for VRE is at the 88% level,
and operations has experienced minimal scheduling problems with the freight
operators. Additionally, the train service operations under contract with Amtrak have
been beneficiaL
2.4 Sounder, Seattle-Tacoma, Washington
The Puget Sound region suffers from the fourth worst traffic congestion in the nation.
Planners with the local jurisdictions and the Washington Department of Transportation
(WDOT) initiated a feasibility study to determine the possible implications of widening
Interstate 5, which serves as the region's primary north-south corridor. The findings of
the study indicated that congestion would not be alleviated by widening the interstate,
and the proposed widening would not serve the long-term mobility needs of the region.
Sound Transit was created in 1993 when the State Legislature of Washington enabled
Snohomish, Pierce, and King counties to form a single agency, Sound Transit-Central
Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority to provide long-range multi-modal
Page 11
February 2001
Marana Transportation Plan Update
transportation planning for the Puget Sound region. In May 1996, Sound Move - A Ten
Year Regional Transit System Plan was adopted. The two-stage transit plan provides a
balanced approach to increasing the region's transportation system capacity by
offering a"mix" of transit modes designated as "high-capacity transit" (HCT). HCT
includes a High Occupancy Vehicle Expressway, regional express bus, local transit,
and light rail and commuter rail systems that are integrated to provide a seamless
regional transportation system.
Sounder is the commuter rail component of Sound Transit. Sounder commuter rail
service was initiated on September 18, 2000 with four trains operating between Seattle
and Tacoma. Sounder links these communities' local transit services and provides
service to Sea-Tac International Airport. Ultimately, Sounder will operate an 81-mile rail
service along existing railroad tracks with connections serving suburban Puget Sound
communities from Everett on the north to Lakewood on the south. Sounder shares track
with Amtrak and the freight railroads Union Pacific, Burlington Northern, and Santa Fe
Railway (BNSF).
2 4 1 Sounder Experience
Since the Sounder commuter rail service has not been in operation for less than a year,
the relatively recent experience the provider has had negotiating with Amtrak, BNSF,
and the Union Pacific to share the rail corridor with the freight railroads is especially
relevant to this study. ~
Negotiations with BNSF, Union Pacific, and Amtrak began in 1998. The WDOT and the
regional ports of Seattle and Tacoma were included in these negotiations since the
shared rail line connected these facilities and BNSF and Union Pacific served the port
facilities. In order to address the potential rail traffic congestion resulting from the
addition of commuter rail passenger service, Sounder had to approach negotiations
first through analyzing the existing traffic on the rail lines. Using computer modeling,
they were able to show how, with improved dispatching, signals, and safety
improvements, additional commuter rail service could be implemented on the existing
rail lines. In April 1999, Sounder reached an agreement with the region's freight
railroads, WDOT, Amtrak, and the port authorities for $322 million in track, signal, and
safety improvements to the rail line.
2.4.2 Fundina
Funding for Sounder is derived through the RTA. Funding sources include a
combination of local tax revenues generated in the three member counties of the RTA.
The RTA funds the system with a 0.4% sales tax and a 0.3% Motor Vehicle Excise Tax
(MVET). The sales tax and MVET are collected through the State of Washington
Departments of Revenue and Licensing, and then allocated to the three RTA counties
based upon the amount of infrastructure and population in each of the counties.
2.4.3 Summarv
Sounder commuter rail service was initiated as part of a regional transportation
planning effort that realized that the regional roadway network would not be able to
Page 12
February 2001
Marana Transportation Plan Update
meet the demands of the region. Through effective planning, Sounder service
compliments the roadway network and is a part of the overall Puget Sound region's '
transportation network of express buses and light rail. The implementation of Sounder
commuter rail service on a rail line that serves two container ports, two freight raiiroads,
as well as daily Amtrak Cascades and Coast Starlight passenger train service
demonstrates that with adequate planning such a service can be successful.
2.5 Commuter Rail Providers Summary
The three commuter rail transit providers examined, Tri-Rail, Virginia Railway Express,
and Sounder, have all experienced varying service issues regarding implementation of
their services and sharing railroad access with active freight railroads and Amtrak. The
negotiations for use of track was not an easy process and in some cases took years to
accomplish. However, the common lessons learned from these three providers'
experiences provide well-structured steps to follow when considering the possible
implementation of commuter rail service between Marana and Tucson. These common
steps are:
1) Establish a joint political agreement between local, regional, and state jurisdictions
and transportation departments either through an intergovernmental agreement or
some form of a regional transit organization to garner dedicated funding.
2) Establish a proactive, cooperative negotiating environment with the freight railroad
and Amtrak.
3) Approach rail access and rail maintenance issues recognizing the needs of both
the passenger service and the freight railroad. The establishment of open
communications between the commuter rail provider and freight railroad is critical to
the success of the service implementation.
4} Contracting operations and maintenance for the commuter railroad has been very
successful, and has proven effective overall for cost controL
5) Public involvement in the planning stages for the impJementation of the service and
in addressing service requirements is an important component to the successful
implementation and operation of the transit service.
The experiences of Tri-Rail, Virginia Railway Express and Sounder as well as the
recommendations from the 1994 Arizona Rail Passenger Continuation Study provide
direction for the possible implementation of commuter rail service. In the following
sections of this study, expansion and modification of the recommendations from the
1994 Arizona Rail Passenger Continuation Studywill be detailed and the key
recommendations to achieve and implement commuter rail service between Marana
and Tucson will be examined.
Page 13
February 2001
Marana Transportation Plan Update
3.0 Commuter Rail Service Implementation
Introduction
To be successful, the implementation of commuter rail service between Marana and
Tucson will require the involvement of several state and local jurisdictions and
agencies, Amtrak, and the Union Pacific Railroad. Adequate funding will need to be
procured, and an efficient commuter rail system will need to be planned that will
complement the existing regional transit systems and the long-range regional
transportation policies. The system's stations will need to be located to adequately
serve the region's users, and the implementation of an efficient operations and
maintenance plan will assure the success of the commuter rail system.
The following sections detail the necessary steps to initiate commuter rail service
between Marana and Tucson. These recommendations build upon the key
recommendations from the 1994 Arizona Rail Passenger Continuation Study and
consider the experiences of the peer cities commuter rail services described previously
section. However, these recommendations are regionally specific to address the
contemporary needs of the potential commuter rail transit market.
3.1 Administrative Organization
Because a regional transit authority does not exist in the Tucson region, consideration
should be given to the establishment of a Commuter Rail Committee (CRC). The CRC
could serve as the primary administrative and negotiating organization, and through the
cooperation of the local jurisdictional transportation departments and PAG be the
commuter rail planning and financial entity for the commuter rail service.
The composition of the CRC should include representatives from the Town of Marana,
City of Tucson, and Pima County departments of transportation and the Arizona
Department of Transportation Rail Planning Division. A representative of the Pima
Association of Governments' (PAG), Transportation Planning Division should also be
included.
In addition to the local jurisdictions and agencies representatives, consideration should
also be given to include representatives of major employers in the region on the CRC.
Such employers as Raytheon, Bombardier and the University of Arizona should be
considered.
Once the administrative organization is structured and in place, the next step of
implementing commuter rail service is planning the actual rail system. This includes
planning the route, stations, and operations and maintenance of the commuter rail
system. The next section provides the recommended system plan, station iocations,
and the equipment and operations of the commuter rail system.
3.2 System Planning
The commuter rail system to connect Marana and Tucson would be along the existing
Union Pacific railroad right-of-way. The rail line could accommodate six trains a day,
operating on a schedule that best serves the region's commuters. The schedule will be
Page 14
February 2001
Marana Transportation Plan Update
detailed later in this study. Station sites, have been identified as shown in Figure 3-1,
and are further described in the following paragraphs.
Figure 3-1. Proposed Rail Route with Stations
.
~ .
a,
~w~, ~ ,
~
_ ~ ~ ~ ~ )i ,~~I i~~l i F~
~ " i~~ ~I~.
~
µ ~ ~ k ~
. ~ a, '~I
G . ~'~fyllil I~~~II . ~
f ~ Cc~ta~cs Fa€xri3 ~
h y
e
y'
~ ~ N. ,'`r~.':.
~ sg
; ~ = r ~
_ ~~j$ U'3'CYY+G ~
t
f ~
. ~ i4 ~f ~ ~ ~ fi~~ ~ ~ t .
'
~ x ~ ~
.c.
~
g ,z ~
$ a .
. , . , ~
~ ~
~ 3 ~ ~
, . ,7 `
~ ~ ~ ; ~ ~
2 ~
~
~s
~ ~ k
~
y. & F ..v .
i „
:
~ ~ ~ {~~.y~}~
~Mbf+~~t,
:.;s .y,e .
~
.
~
e~
F~ ~
. ! `Y~ ;~X~, F ~H {~Jf~:x, .
5 ',~l>/ , 9 .
g ~
.
y ~ .
~ q e S
's
. ~%Y f ~ ;
3 G i k p
_
v ~NtFI~~F'
~
> ~Y ~ ~ i :
a ~L e . > ~ ; s ~~dt~ ~v 1°~ A .
~ ~f~ ; ~"e .
r
a ,
1 : ~
t~ ±~y i ~ ~r
i ~ ~ . , ~ .d, x~~ ^
~ ~ -
. . .5 r ~~~r i ~ f~rs k s . .
¢
~ r - F '`i III,~ !
~ ~ ~
v ~ z~~ S-.
, ~ 4 ~
~y~i',_
, ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ ir~~j
, l~lBC'D~
Rs~ Route , ' ` ; ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
•~W~ ~ Y ; C n~
f c _ j r a~
;
,
, , . i , .':,:_t.r,;.~ .
. ~ ,
Couriesy Phoenix Map Service
3.2.1 Station Configuration
Stations for the commuter rail service between Marana and Tucson should be
configured as recommended in the 1994 Arizona Rail Passenger Continuation Study.
These stations would be a covered low-level "at grade" platform, which means that the
station would allow direct boarding access to the train. An example of a typical station
sty~e that could be implemented with minimal costs is similar to what Amtrak has
Page 15
February 2001
Marana Transportation Plan Update
installed at small suburban stations. Each station wouid be placed on both sides of the
tracks to accommodate travel direction. One of the positive aspects of this type of
station is that the commuter train can stop directly on the main line, and sidings are not
required. Figure 3-2 illustrates an example of this type of "at grade" commuter rail
station.
Each station should include amenities such as lighted and paved parking facilities and
ticketing systems. Stations could also include newsstands and beverage and food
vendors.
Figure 3-2 "At Grade" Commuter Station
;
°
Courtesy Rail Stations Compendium ?
3.2.2 Station Locations
The 1994 Arizona Rail Passenger Continuation Study recommended three rail stations
for the region. This study recommends that two more stations be considered in
addition to the original three recommended in the 1994 study. The locations for the
commuter rail stations are described as follows:
Cortaro Farms Station
This location was not recommended in the 1994 study because it did not meet
population warrants at the time of that study. However, between 1994 and the time of
this study, existing, current, and future residential development in this area would
warrant this location as an origin station for commuters. The Cortaro Farms station
would draw potential rail patrons from not only the local residential developments but
also the Dove Mountain area of Marana, Tortolita, and possibly Oro Valley commuters.
The placement of this station should be east of I-10, one-half-mile northwest of the
intersection of Hartman and Cortaro Farms Roads. This location provides adequate
space for a large park-and-ride facility and easy access for rail patrons west of I-10.
Additionally, the rail station at this location could also support commuter and residential
scale business development such as coffee shops.
Page 16
February 2001
Marana Transportation Plan Update
~ ~
~ ~~~6 ~
~ ~
,z-
.
~ ~
~~~s~ ~ ~'~~x
9z~~~ w
~ ~
~
.a , rs~ ~ fi
x. i . . . 3F 'h"x~
. . . ~_,x~
~YF"
r.
~ tli~
~ I
i I~ '
a
,I, ~I I;I.I I I I~~I
~
t ,
~ `
e:~ F
r~w,'~ ~~'y
r ~ r
~
~ 6
~
~
k
. - k .~V s. ~.'l' ~ ~ .
. ~.m,_. , _ .
Cortaro Farms Commuter Rail Station Site
Orange Grove Station
Originally recommended in the 1994 study, this location is again proposed as an origin
station. The residentiai development and resulting population growth in the region
since the 1994 study has warranted that the Orange Grove Station coufd be the primary
station for Marana and the northwest valley. The station should be located on the
southwest corner of Orange Grove and Thornydale Roads. The existing surrounding
commercial and residential development would compliment the location of a station at
this location. Sun Tran routes 102,103, and 16 should be rerouted to serve this station
and provide regional bus service to the station. Additionally, Pima County Rural Transit
could route to this station as well and provide a wider scope of regional transit service
to rural residents. Future development in Marana will provide a steadily growing transit
market and the Orange Grove Station provides easy access from the eastern tier
suburbs. This site also provides the necessary parking for rail patrons. Additional
overflow parking could be accommodated in the adjacent commercial development
parking lots.
Page 17
February 2001
Marana Transportation Plan Update
~
~ ~ f~ ~ ~d >
~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~
~ y ~ ~
~`~~~~~r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ . ~r u
> , t
~t ~ , ~ : ~ ~ ~
- ~ ~ ~ , :
o < 6
~ a ~
~
Orange Grove Commuter Rail Station Site
Downtown Tucson Depot
The Downtown Tucson Depot was recommended as a destination station in the 1994
study, and is recommended again in this study. The planned renovation of the Tucson
Depot as a part of the City of Tucson's intermodal transportation center, access to
Amtrak trains, the Fourth Avenue Business District, Ronstadt Transit Center, Greyhound
Bus terminal, the University of Arizona; and coupled with the emerging Rio Nuevo
project would not only increase the utilization of this station by daily commuters to the
downtown employment centers, but would also increase regional accessibility to the
planned attractions of Rio`Nuevo and downtown Tucson.
~
„i
~n~pg ~d~+;
~ ~~u~t~~i~~~~~~~~~~IVp~~pii~i4~'i~~~i'~ u~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~
~ F
r~ H,«~- ,,'a ~ i
~x , ~
, . ~
.6„..«..-~+„~_ * ~ ~ ~ ~ " ~
~ M~. s s > % , ~ .
~ ~
.
m t`-= a
~ a:~ , . . .
„ .
g^~ „ ~
Downtown Tucson Depot
Page 18
February 2001
Marana Transportation Plan Update
Irvington/Tucson Electric Park Station
This study recommends that a station be located in the area of Irvington/Tucson Electric
Park (TEP). The 1994 study recommended Valencia Road as a station site. However,
the population and the number of activity centers in this area warrant the Irvington site
as a substitute site. The Irvington/TEP station would provide direct access to the
Tucson Rodeo Grounds as well as to Tucson E~ectric Park with the vse of shuttles, Roy
Laos Transit Center, as well as the industrial/business parks in Tucson southern area.
Sun Tran could reroute bus routes 6 and 26 to directly serve the Irvington/TEP
commuter rail station.
~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~3
~ ~
r
~ ,~~'~~~t 3~ a~~~ ~z ~Ti~~ ~'~x~'~I .
~ I~~ •~p`~~ ,f v ~r ~ ,~,~z ~,n° ?,y ~ .
s .~v. ~q ! y • ~ J' x ~ : ~
4 ..e -C a
~ ~ ~ t~,i' y+~ r ' . y ~ s ~ ~i I'- ~ sc a~ ~ . g`::.
. ~
~ ~ ~ .r ~ r F ~ ~ ~
:.S~iX ~`.~~,s ~ w.~' ~ , ~ { s`~~' i ' i
~ - z4~~' s~,_
~ ~ Pf
~ ~ ; ~"~f ' j ~
~ ~ ;t
~ ~R~~ ~~~~~~~B~~I~~~~~ IP~iI~~9~~I~~~:~4~~~1 ~ i~~fP'E~~~~y~~~~~
~ ~ g
~ ~r~ Y 4 ill I I!
Proposed Irvington/TEP Station Site
AeroPark/TIA Station
The final station recommended for the commuter rail pilot program is the
AeroPark/Tucson International Airport (TIA) Station. Similar to the Irvington/TEP Station,
this site is a recommendation solely of this study. This station should be located at the
Raytheon entrance on Hermans Road to serve the manufacturing and aero-modification
employment clusters located near Tucson International Airport. This location would
also provide access to Tucson International Airport with the utilization of direct shutttes
and to the nearby Desert Diamond Casino. The AeroPark/TIA Station would qualify as
an origin station since a majority of the study's Marana and northwest valley survey
respondents are employees at these employment centers. Provision of commuter rail
service to these employment clusters coutd contribute significantly to the reduction of
traffic congestion on the interstate system.
Page 19
February 2001
Marana Transportation Plan Update
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a,~~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ y ~ ~ « ~ ~
~ u.
~
~ s~ ~ ,r~~~:_
3 ~ ~ ~ ~
Y;
~
<
~
~m
.
G~~
Proposed AeroPark/TIA Station Sife
3.2.3 Summarv
Station location is critical to serve the commuter transit market. For the initial
implementation of commuter rail service between Marana and Tucson, the five station
locations are recommended to serve the needs of the identified transit market.
3.3 Operations and Maintenance
The next step in system implementation is the identification of operations and
maintenance services for the commuter rail system. Operations personnel and
maintenance for the commuter rail system will be the heart of the service. Providing
attractive, modern equipment will encourage use by commuters in the region. As noted
earlier in this technical memorandum, the three peer cities operate their respective
systems through contractors. Because of the high success of this arrangement, it is
recommended that a similar arrangement be pursued for commuter rail operations
between Marana and Tucson.
3.3.1 Schedulina
The frequency and flexibility of service will be the determining factors for the success of
the system. The capacity of the rail line plays a major role in scheduling, however this
factor can be mitigated through cooperative dispatching with the Union Pacific.
The telephone surveys conducted for the Marana Master Transportation Plan indicated
a demand for commuter transit service. Employment centers for most of the survey
respondents are located near downtown Tucson and in the vicinity of Tucson
International Airport. The commuter rail schedule should be developed that meet this
demand as well as accommodates other commuters. The following potential schedules
were developed to serve commuters.
Page 20
February 2001
Marana Transportation Plan Update
Commuter Rail Schedule Morning Commute
Cortaro Orange Grove Tucson Depot Irvington/TEP AeroParkR1A
Farms
6:16 6:22 6:34 6:44 6:50
7:16 7:22 7:34 7:44 7:50
10:16 10:22 10:34 10:44 10:50
Commuter Rail Schedule Afternoon Commute
Aero Park/TIA Irvington/TIA Tucson Depot Orange Grove Cortaro
Farms
3:40 3:48 3:58 4:10 4:16
4:40 4:48 4:58 5:10 5:16
7:40 7:48 7:58 8:10 8:16
Schedule includes aero industry swing shifts & station dwell times
3.3.2 Operations Personnel
Operations personnel include train service crews, station attendants, and on-board
attendants. Under FFiA regulations, these personnel need to be trained or familiar with
the rules and regulations of passenger railroad operation. Virginia Railway Express and
Sounder commuter operations personnel are contracted Amtrak employees. Herzog
Transportation Company, a private contractor, operates Tri-Rail in Florida. It is
recommended that for commuter rail operations between Marana and Tucson that open
bids be solicited to operate and maintain the commuter system. Amtrak West would
most likely bid on operations between Marana and Tucson. Amtrak West has a positive
and notable record for operating the commuter rail systems in California and would
provide dependable, trained personnel for the proposed commuter rail operations
between Marana and Tucson.
3.3.3 Maintenance
Maintenance for the proposed commuter rail operations can be divided into two areas,
infrastructure and equipment.
Infrastructure maintenance to maintain track, signals, and crossings for the commuter
system should be contracted with the Union Pacific. Compensation would be
established through a negotiated contract between the CRC and the Union Pacific.
Such a contract should be modeled after existing systems that have shared rail access
and maintenance contracts with their respective freight railroads.
Equipment maintenance should be contracted with a private company such as Herzog,
which maintains Tri-Rail equipment in Florida. Another option would be an equipment
maintenance contract similar to what Virginia Railway Express has with Amtrak. Even
with contractual equipment maintenance, a maintenance facility will need to be
constructed in order to perform these functions and FRA 90-day inspections of railway
equipment. The recommended maintenance facility should be a two-bay, sanding and
Page 21
February 2001
Marana Transportation Plan Update
refueling facility capable of accommodating routine maintenance of locomotives and
rolling stock.
3.3.4 Equipment
The commuter raii service should be operated with modern equipment that will provide
dependable service and a comfortable ride for commuter rail patrons. The equipment
should also provide some amenities that would enable commuters to work while in
transit. Equipment for commuter rail service is available in several configurations. In
most commuter rail operations, the locomotive of choice is the F40PH diesel-electric
manufactured by General Motors Electro-Motive Division. This type of locomotive is
capable of reaching speeds of 100 mph and can pull up to eight passenger cars. The
F40PH has been in passenger train service since the mid-1970s and is gradually being
replaced by the new streamlined F59PH1. The F40PH locomotive is recommended as
the locomotive to be used for the commuter service between Marana and Tucson due
to the availability of dependable rebuilt units that are available either for purchase or
lease. These locomotives are current?y in commuter rail service in the San Francisco
Bay Area, Maryland suburbs of the Washington D.C. area, Chicago metro area, New
Jersey Transit, and the Boston area.
~ , d~ .
t~li. 3
Y+
~
re~r, ti
~~~~a~.
~d~ e, ~ ~
~
a,:x.~
~;~,"t.,'
~ ~
4
. ~
EMD F40PH Passenger locomotive with bi-leve/ passenger cars
Passenger cars for commuter rail service are usually bi-level passenger cars, which are
manufactured by Bombardier or Kawasaki. Passengers board on the lower level where
there are ADA accommodations for passengers as well as storage for bicycles. The
seating arrangements are on the upper level, which can accommodate up to 135
passengers comfortably in each car. These cars provide such amenities as reversible,
reclining seats, computer hook-ups, worktables and on-board restrooms. Cafe cars
could also be included.
Page 22
February 2001
Marana Transportation Plan Update
Sounder Bi-level commuter passenger cars
These bi-level cars are also available in a cab-car configuration. An operator's cab is
located in the end car, with power supplied by a single diesel-electric locomotive on the
lead end. This configuration is used on the Sounder commuter rail service, as pictured
above. This "push-pull" configuration enables a quick turnaround of service and '
eliminates switching moves to relocate the locomotive to the lead of the train.
Another possible option for commuter rail equipment is the Talgo Pendular Cab-cars.
These are modern cab-units that have an operators cab in each car with passenger
seats that can function individually or in a tandem set. The Talgo Pendular equipment
is currently in revenue service between Vancouver, British Columbia, and Seattle,
Washington.
Ya* 4 4, .4'"~ A e.~''w~k; / ~i`ir~~- .
~ .
J~ , {
d i , i ~
~ ;
~ ~ ~
- - ~ ~ . .
tr ~~i ~ ~ ;
~ ~ ~ ~
~ "
# ~ f ~a: ~
~ 'sk~i~ , % . y
~
~v L ,~r'~ .
n <
~ ~ ~ ~ g.. , ~
~y i ? y;y~~
; a s ; ~ ' ~ .
~ ~
~ ~ ~
N .
. .
~
. ~a," 1 ;'u%' .
Talgo Pendular Cab Unit
Page 23
February 2001
Marana Transportation Plan Update
Train units on these trains can be added or removed more easily than on standard bi-
level train to better respond to passenger load requirements. These passenger cars
are a single levei and do not seat as many passengers but include the same amenities
found on board the bi-level passenger cars, are ADA compatible, and can
accommodate bicycle storage. Currently, the Talgo Pendular Cab Units are operating
only in the Pacific Northwest under a demonstration permit through the FRA.
3.4 Infrastructure Improvements
The proposed route of the commuter rail service is along the existing Union Pacific rail
line. The Cortaro - Tucson segment of the service would be on the recently upgraded
Class I main freight line. Little to no infrastructure improvements, with the exception of
adding two new switches and passenger-dedicated track at the Tucson Depot are
anticipated for this segment.
The Tucson-AeroPark segment of service route will require infrastructure improvements.
This segment will be operating on the Nogales branch-line. The urban portion of this
branch-line is still jointed rail, and has FRA speed restrictions of 40 mph. The
recommendation is for the installation of approximately .75 mile of new track to be
installed south from the Tucson Depot along the Toole Avenue alignment to wye into the
Nogales branch-line. This new track would be passenger rail dedicated, and allow for
commuter rail service to proceed without interfering with main line Union Pacific freight
traffic into the Union Pacific freight classification yard.
3.5 Management
The management for the commuter rail service should be contracted out. Management
for the system could be similar to that of Tri-Rail in Florida which contracts with Herzog.
Herzog manages the daily operations of the Tri-Rail system and handles all labor and
maintenance agreements with oversight from the FiTA.
Amtrak manages the daily operations and maintenance of Virginia Railway Express
commuter services. The equipment maintenance contract with Amtrak also presents a
more streamlined managerial structure for VRE. The two regional transportation
authorities through VRE administer Amtrak's services.
The managerial structure recommendation for the proposed commuter rail system
between Marana and Tucson is the following:
¦ A contractor, either Amtrak West, Herzog or similar agency should manage the
system.
¦ Contractor would handle all daily operations and maintenance issues.
¦ Contractor would negotiate all labor arrangements.
¦ Contractor is administered and financed through the CRC.
Page 24
February 2001
Marana Transportation Plan Update
3.6 Estimated Costs
The administrative, system plan, operations and maintenance structure
recommendations for implementing commuter rail service between Marana and Tucson
have been detailed in the previous sections. The total cost for the necessary
improvements to the existing rail infrastructure was based upon the contemporary costs
of designing a five-station system. Table 2.0 details the estimated costs of purchasing
the equipment, constructing the facilities, and upgrading the infrastructure of the
proposed 22-mile commuter rail-line. The total capital costs for implementation of
commuter rail service in a 15.7 mile corridor is over $99 million. This does not include
annual costs for operation of the service.
Table 2.0
Proposed Commuter Rail Project Capital Expenditures
Marana-Tucson
Capital Item Unit of No. of Units Cost/Unit Total Cost
Measure (thousands (thousands
TRACK & ROADBED:
NewTrack Miles 1 $1,000 $1,000
Structure Renovations:
River Brid e Each $500
Other Brid es Each $50
SUBTOTAL $1,000
SIGNALS & PROTECTION:
New Block Si nals Miles $500
Crossin Protection:
U rade Each $100
New Installation Each 1 $125 $125
SUBTOTAL $1,125
FACILITIES:
Passen er Stations
New Stations Each 4 $300 $1,200
Park & Ride Lots S aces 500 $5 $25
Maint. & Stora e Facilit Each 1 $8,000 $8,000
SUBTOTAL $9,225
ROLLING STOCK:
Rebuilt Diesel Locomotives Each 4 $1,750 $6,000
New Bi-Level Passen er Cars Each 7 $1,900 $18,000
New Bi-Level Cab Units Each 4 $2,100 $8,400
SUBTOTAL $32,400
OTHER COSTS
Contin encies 30% $45,063
En ineerin , CM & Admin. 25% $10,937
TOTA! CAPITAL COSTS $99,750
The next section will examine the possible federal, state and local funding mechanisms
that could be utilized to fund the infrastructure improvements and implement the
commuter rail system.
Page 25
February 2001
Marana Transportation Plan Update
3.7 Funding Sources
Funding for the implementation of commuter rail service could be accomplished
through several options. These options could be either a singular source or a
combination of funding sources. The CRC would be responsible for applying for and
obtaining the necessary funding sources through the regional fransportation-funding
agency, PAG. The following describes the potential federal, state, and local funding
sources for implementing commuter rail service.
3.7.1 Federal Fundina Sources
Federal Transit Administration (FTA) funding could provide the largest amount of
funding available for the implementation of commuter rail service between Marana and
Tucson. The most applicable federal funding source would be TEA-21 funds. The
funding from TEA-21 is detailed as follows:
Section 5309 New Starts Funds
Section 5309 New Starts Funds are funded under FTA Capital Investment Grants.
Grants are available for the capital improvements to new fixed guideway systems or
extensions of existing systems. Fixed guideway refers to any transit service that uses
exclusive or controlled rights-of-way or rails, entirely or in part. This includes commuter
rail services.
Eligible applicants include transit or other public agencies including states,
municipalities, and counties. This also includes certain public boards and commissions
established under state law.
The proposed commuter rail system would be eligible for Section 5309 New Starts
funding. The proposed system would include the development of a transit corridor and
market and the construction of park and ride facilities. This proposed project would
become a candidate for funding under this program by successfully completing the
appropriate steps in the capital investment and project development process. Some of
the criteria include:
¦ Mobility Improvements
¦ Environmental Benefits
¦ Operating Efficiencies
¦ Cost Effectiveness
¦ Transit Supportive Land Use & Future Land Use Patterns
Section 5309 New Starts funding requires local matching funds. Federal funds typically
account for 80% with a required 20% from local funds for the total cost of implementing
the system. Funding availability is for the year of appropriation plus two years for a total
of three years.
Projects that seek less than $25 million in Section 5309 funding and have statutory
exemptions in TEA-21 are exempt from the New Starts criteria. However, it should be
noted that TEA-21 prohibits FTA from entering full funding grant agreement for any
project that is not rated against the Section 5309 criteria. The City of Tucson intends to
Page 26
February 2001
Marana Transportation Plan Update
utilize this funding source for extension of the Old Pueblo Trolley through the downtown,
and the commuter rail service would have to compete for these funds.
Section 1110 Title I Congestion Mitigation & Air Quality Improvement Program
The Congestion Mitigation & Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ) was established
under the Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991 (ISTEA) to assist
nonattainment and maintenance areas in attaining the national ambient air quality
standards (NAAQS) by funding transportation projects and programs that improve air
quality. CMAQ funds are issued to the respective state's department of transportation,
and the amount of funding is based upon the number of programs in piace to meet the
NAAQS.
CMAQ funds have been used in a variety of projects nationally including air quality
improvement, congestion relief and quality of life enhancements. CMAQ funds can be
used for the following:
¦ Improved Public Transit (based upon reductions in pollution)
¦ New transit facilities
¦ Acquisition of vehicles
¦ Operating assistance
Under the last item, operating assistance is eligible for new start-ups of transit service,
and is only for three years. Tri-Rail, one of the peer cities comrnuter rail systems
reviewed, utilized this funding mechanism to begin operations to mitigate the traffic
congestion and air quality concerns as a result of the construction on I-95 began.
Similarly, as ADOT begins construction of the main trunk line of I-10, traffic congestion
and air quality could suffer significantly. According to the Arizona Department of
Environmentat Quality (ADEQ) the Tucson area is currently listed as a Carbon Monoxide
(CO) Nonattainment Area. Additionally, the region has an ADEQ Particulate Matter (PM)
10 Nonattainment rating near Rillito. The recommendation is to pursue this funding
mechanism as a source to possibly fund commuter rail operations between Marana and
Tucson under the traffic congestion and air quality issues presented.
3.7.2 State Funding Sources
State funding sources are primarily federal highway funds that are derived from federal
gasoline taxes, and returned to the state and channeled locally through only a few
mechanisms. These sources include:
Surface Transportation Proqram Fund
Surface Transportation Program Funds (STP) are made available to ADOT for surface
transportation projects through the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). ADOT
utilizes these funds primarily for roadway improvement projects. For example, the I-10
improvements are partially funded by this source. However, these funds are deemed
"flexible" under ISTEA and TEA-21, and several states nationally have "flexed" a portion
of their STP funds to transit projects. Funds for the implementation of commuter rail
service between Marana and Tucson could be acquired from this source through
cooperative efforts between ADOT and the CRC. The rail service would be in
competition with local transportation projects.
Page 27
February 2001
Marana Transportation Plan Update
Local Transportation Assistance Fund
The Local Transportation Assistance Fund (LTAF) is generated from lottery revenues
and is shared throughout the state. This fund is deemed extremely limited due to the
unreliable levels of annual funding, and these funds are in open competition with local
transit services such as Sun Tran, Coyote Run, and Pima Rural Transit. Additionally,
this funding source is slated to sunset in 2003 with the required general election re-
approval for continuation of the state lottery. While it is anticipated that this funding
mechanism will be re-approved in 2003,at this time it should not be considered as an
adequate funding source for this project.
3.7.3 Local Funding Sources
Local funding sources are quite limited due to the lack of a dedicated transportation
funding source in the region. However, several methods, as described below, are
potentially available in the region to garner the necessary funding for commuter rail
service.
Intergovernmental Agreements
For decades, intergovernmental agreements have assisted in paying for transit services
provided in the region. Intergovernmental agreements between Marana, Pima County,
and Tucson could provide sufficient funds to be applied to the capital needs of the
commuter rail service. Funding could be calculated on a per-mile formula basis, or on
a per-capita formula based on population of each CRC member jurisdiction.
Reaional Employer Subsidies
Large regional employers, such as Raytheon, Bombardier and the University of Arizona
could contribute employee-based or user fee based funding to the service based on
the number of employees that utilize the service. This precedent already exists with the
certain regional employers subsidizing selected bus routes in the region.
Construction Fees/Development Fees
As development and growth continue to strain local transportation network resources,
the option of applying construction fees or development fees toward paying for
transportation infrastructure becomes appealing to local municipalities. This funding
mechanism is an option that is recommended to fund the implementation of commuter
rail service in the region.
3.7.4 Summarv
Secured, dedicated funding for commuter rail service should be in place prior to
undertaking the next step of implementing commuter rail service. Dedicated funding
does not need to come from a single source but could come from a combination of
funding mechanisms. Funding for the provision of services and the necessary
infrastructure improvements are necessary for negotiating shared-rail access rights with
the railroad. Local funding sources are not feasible because of the substantial cost of
the commuter rail service and the higher priority of other transportation projects in the
region (such as operation of Sun Tran).
Page 28
February 2001
Marana Transportation Plan Update
3.8 Negotiations with the Union Pacific
An essential step in implementing passenger rail service is negotiating with the Union
Pacific Railroad, which owns the rail infrastructure in the region. Negotiations should be
approached early in the planning process to gain shared-rail access. It should be
expected that the Union Pacific would seek additional capacity added to the existing
system, as noted through other peer cities' experiences.
Negotiations with the Union Pacific may actually be the most challenging aspect of
implementing commuter rail service; however, the successes of the peer-cities
presented previously in this study provide precedence and successful negotiating
methodologies to follow in order to obtain shared-rail access. The recommended
negotiation methods are:
• A well-planned, non-confrontational approach, asserting and recognizing both the
right;to shared-rail passenger rail access and the needs of the freight railroad.
¦ The negotiating team should be familiar with the existing freight railroad
infrastructure constraints, operations and requirements for signaling, scheduling
and maintenance.
¦ The offer should be made to bear the costs of constructing new sidings, signals and
upgrading crossings, if necessary.
¦ Inclusion of Amtrak West representatives, or a rail passenger operator/contractor
such as Herzog Transportation Services who have a successful reputation of
dealing with shared-rail access with freight railroads should be included on the
negotiating team. A representative such as Amtrak West could prove to be a
valuable negotiating partner and also provide additional funding sources for
capacity improvements.
3.8.1 Summarv
Only after negotiations with the Union Pacific for shared-rail access are successfully
accomplished can the commuter rail system implementation move forward.
Negotiations will need to be conciliatory, and with the understanding that additional
capital expenses to add capacity may be required to reach shared-use agreement with
the Union Pacific. It could be beneficial to have another party, such as Amtrak West or
Herzog Transportation as a negotiating partner in this aspect of service implementation.
4.0 Conclusion
Implementing commuter rail service between Marana and Tucson could be a viable
alternative to commuters between the two communities. This study has built upon the
1994 Arizona Rail Passenger Continuation Feasibility Study. This study has taken those
recommendations and has updated and expanded upon them to address the specific
needs for the region's commuters.
Page 29
February 2001
_ ,
Marana Transportation Plan Update
As detailed earlier in this study, several commuter rail services have been implemented
and are successfully operating with shared-rail access. Using these peer services as
exampies, the key elements and recommendations for successfully implementing
commuter service are:
¦ Forming a Commuter Rail Commission to administer the system.
¦ Designing stations and schedules to meet the regions commuter needs.
¦ Acquiring modern well-maintained equipment to provide fast, efficient service.
¦ Securing dedicated funding revenues through federal, state and local sources.
¦ Contracting operational and maintenance services.
¦ Forming a cooperative, negotiated trackage rights agreement with the Union Pacific
Railroad.
¦ Obtaining state and federal funding.
The regional legislative influence would be needed for the appropriation of necessary
state and federal funding to implement the commuter rail service. Recognizing these
factors, and the planned 10-year reconstruction of the mainline of Interstate 10,
implementing a commuter rail service could mitigate the traffic congestion and the
potential air quality issues that will result from the I-10 widening project. Additionally, a
commuter rail service would diversify the transit modes for the region and provide for a
proven efficient transit mode for a growing metropolitan area. Residents of the Tucson
metropolitan area would have to agree that the commuter rail service from Marana is a
top priority for the region to obtain necessary funding and political support.
L:\11476\TechMemo\Commuter Rail Tech Memo2
Page 30
February 2001
. ~ _
MARANA
TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE
Technical Memorandum # 10
Rillito Depot Investigation
Prepared for:
MA~
I
i4WH Of MAAANA
The Town of Marana
Department of Public Works
3696 W. Orange Grove Road
Tucson, Arizona 85741
Prepared by:
- ~
-~oo CurHs Lueck ~ Associates
Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc. Curtis Lueck & Associates
177 N. Church Avenue, Suite 500 5780 W. EI Camino del Cerro
Tucson, Arizona 85701 Tucson, Arizona 85745
February 2001
Rillito Depot Investigation
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. BACKGROUND ....................................................................................3
1.1 Introduction 3
1.2 History 4
2. EXISTING RAILROAD STRUCTURE 5
3. POTENTIAL RESTORATION FUNDING SOURCES 7
3.1. Potential Funding Sources 7
3.2. Observations 8
4. CONCLUSION 8
APPENDIX A 9
Page 2
February 2001
Rillito Depot Investigation
TECH MEMO #10
Rillito Depot Investigation
1.0 Background
1.1 Introduction
Rillito, located near Marana (Figure 1) was for a number of years one of the freight
depots for the northwest valley. The depot and related facilities were used from
approximately the 1920's through the 1970's. Rillito was also the maintenance-of-way
section break for the Tucson Division of the Southern Pacific Railroad (SPRR). Although
today, very little remains of this site with exception of the water tower and what is
believed to be the only remaining structure from the old Rillito freight station.
In this technical memorandum, the remaining structure and its possible restoration and
use as a part of the commuter rail element will be examined. The following sections
detail the investigation of the remaining structure, and the funding mechanisms
available for restoring the structure for possible incorporation into the commuter rail
system.
FIGURE 1
Rillito & Location of Depot
; ;
, ~ 't
. ~ T:= I TANGEflNtlE flG ~ ~ .
_
, ~ _ .
. ~ SCAF.£~ 1 X,(' .
i ~ - ~ I (
f
_
~a~a~ua
I ~ ~ ~
t ~ ~ .
_ _
~~.1 ~ SITE i
~ ~ ~
~ h- ~ , ~
-`r -'~i~ ti ~ ;
~ ~ ~_Ji
3 . 4so 4\ ~ii
~ ~ ' FIItUTO ~
~ \ ~
`
\
I ~ ~
. I ~ ~ .
, , ` . .
~ ~ ~ _ ~ _ ~ ~ .
I
. ~ ~ .
~ ~ ` i
,
- ~\,~e` ,
~ a~~~,i (
' AYRA VALLEYI F1D I : i
_ ~5.~ -,~y, ' - .
~ . . 1_~~' ' \ ~ ~
. _ ~ _ . _ - .
~ r- . ,s'`j~'
` ~
. i ~ - ~ ~t,.-.
~)+~6':e t 1 .noe9:.d~i.- ~ ~ E3 230. .~:4>e0:0e .
Page 3
February 2001
Rillito Depot Investigation
1.2 Historv
The Rillito Freight and Section complex was a series of structures along the mainline of
the Southern Pacific. Over 70 years ago, there were twelve structures on the site. These
included the freight house, section foreman's house, tool house, concrete bunkhouses;
telegraph office, operators house; pump house; 200,000 gallon water tank and water
column for re-watering of steam locomotives. In addition to these structures, there were
also two passing sidings at Rillito to accommodate local freight loading. Local freight
loading included cattle and agricultural products for export from the region and other
goods that were being imported into the area on the railroad.
Then as now, the area was rural, and there were few land developments in the region.
The section complex also served as a watering point for the steam locomotives that
pulled the freight and passenger trains through the area. The Rillito section complex is
situated on what is known as the Sunset Route, which is the all weather primary train
corridor for the Southern Pacific. This corridor carried the majority of freight and
passenger traffic for the Southern Pacific during the operational life of the Rillito section
complex.
Figure 2 illustrates the site plan of Rillito as it appeared in 1929 according to Southern
Pacific engineering drawings.
Figure 2 Southern Pacific Rillito Freight & Section Site, 1929
Courtesy of Howard Greenseth Collection
Page 4
February 2001
Rillito Depot Investigation
During the late 1930's and 1940's, Southern Pacific began the dieselization of it's
locomotive fleet, and the phasing out of steam locomotives that had been pulling
passenger and freight train loads since the railroad arrived in Southern Arizona in 1871.
After the end of World War II in 1945, steam locomotives were relegated to branch-line
freight operations and diesel locomotives were the primary motive power on the
mainline through Rillito and Tucson. Since watering was no longer required for diesel
locomotives, and the advent of two-way radio communication eliminated the
telegraphing of dispatches, the Rillito watering and telegraphy operations were
centralized into the Tucson Main Yard and the Rillito facility was closed. Switching for
freight operations continued to serve the agricultural customers who brought their
freight goods to the site where the freight dock and conveyors were installed for the
loading of boxcars during the 1950' and 1960's. During the 1960's, Interstate 10 was
constructed and ran parallel to the Southern Pacific mainline. Throughout the 1970's,
more freight traffic went to trucks, and the freight dock at Rillito finally was closed.
The Rillito structures over the course of time from 1945 to the 1970's fell into disrepair,
demolition and were the victims of arsonists. Ultimately the only two surviving structures
are the steel 200,000-gallon water tank, and the wood frame structure believed to be a
part of the Rillito section facility.
2.0 Existing Railroad Structure
The existing wood frame structure was relocated off of the original site in the mid-
1970's. A section of the original Rillito Southern Pacific freight property is currently
owned and occupied by Tucson Trux and Parts Company, as well as a small truck
trailer storage yard. The remainder of the original site has the 200,000-gallon water
tower and the foundations of the freight dock. The existing railroad structure is
approximately 1/2 mile west of the original Rillito Southern Pacific freight site. The
building presently sits on privately owned land west of Interstate 10.
After a review of the Southern Pacific blueprints of the site, measurements were taken
from the site plan, and the actual structure was then meas~red and compared to the
blueprints. Based upon the measurement comparisons, and reviewing the blueprints
the wooden structure that stands meets the measurements of the Rillito Section
Foreman's structure that is specified on the Southern Pacific blueprints.
The Rillito section foreman's house had been until recently, the subject of acquisition,
restoration and utilization as a depot for the rural community of Maricopa, Arizona.
Figure 3 shows the existing railroad structure in Rillito.
Page 5
February 2001
Rillito Depot Investigation
FIGURE 3 EXISTING RAILROAD STRUCTURE
t~
3 ~~xy/ ~
~ J?4m ~~,q A~ ~fi F Yg^~~ a,
~
~
~ s~ ~ i~,~"~~~
~ ~
~ _ r ~v 7. ~a`~ ~
~ 5~ s
~x~ /z~ ~ ~ ~~~~t~ .
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~
Cd
";i: . ~ ~e
. ~ 5._ ~
, / ee ~ . ~
xr,r
<y~
~ ~ ~
~ ~ .e
~r t
, . ~'^t .c.cr ;9i .~..ry.`~. ' ~$'~.4:'' . .
Existing Rillito Railroad Structure
Pinal County Planning Department investigated the possibility of purchasing, moving
and restoring the structure for use as the new Amtrak station in Maricopa from 1998 to
2000. The structure's background and historic significance was investigated. During
this process, Pinal County hired building inspectors to assess the structure's condition
and the amount of stabilization required to physically relocate the building to Maricopa.
In tandem with these efforts, Pinal Counry planners secured partial restoration funding
grants through the State Parks Department Heritage Fund. Restoration of the structure
was to include a small waiting area, ticket booths and package and luggage handling
capabilities. When the building inspectors report with the estimated stabilization and full
restoration costs for the structure exceeded the Heritage Fund grants, Pinal County
examined other additional funding sources to restore the structure. The 1998 and 1999
contractor estimates for the purchase, stabilization, relocation and ultimate restoration
of the Rillito building for use as the Maricopa Depot unfortunately were not available.
Cheryl Banta, interim Chief of Planning for Pinal County stated in several telephone
Page 6
February 2001
' , Rillito Depot Investigation
interviews that the records for the Rillito Depot acquisition were not complete. However,
she recalled the events led to the subsequent decision to evaluate another alternative.
During the analysis and additional funding source research performed by Pinal County,
Amtrak officials offered to sell to Pinal County a 1940's dome car that Amtrak was
retiring from it's Heritage Fleet of rolling stock. Pinal County examined the dome car
and associated conversion costs required to make the dome car function as a working
depot and deemed that the Heritage Fund grants would cover the majority of the costs
for the dome car conversion to a functioning passenger depot for Maricopa.
Figure 4 illustrates the dome car purchased by Pinal County that will be converted to
serve as the Maricopa Depot.
FIGURE 4 FUTURE MARICOPA DEPOT
k:,
~
, .a
~ ~ ~
a .
~ . ~y`~
i!f ~~'~~id~ab,i~,~r~ b . .
ia fg
. dt~~' ~,~°~il, ~ .
' ? iil,Vl ~
III~, I, I, i I I ~II~I i~.
I V
1940's California Zephyr pome Car
Courtesy Pinal County Planning
3.0 Potential Restoration Fundina Sources
3.1 Potential Funding Sources
The available potential restoration funding sources for the Rillito railroad structure are
available through several sources. No single source may provide all of the required
funds for the purchase and restoration of the structure; instead, several funding sources
should be sought. Some of the recommended potential funding sources are as follows.
Federal Transqortation Equity Act Funds for the 21St Century
Federal Transportation Equity Act for the 21St Century (TEA-21) Funds is made available
through the US Department of Transportation. These funds, including the Transportation
Page 7
February 2001
Rillito Depot Investigation
Enhancement Program are available for use under capital grants for such projects as
the acquisition and restoration of historic transportation structures and other purposes
to enhance the use of alternate modes of transportation. These grants are competitive
nationally and statewide through ADOT and there are specific criteria that each project
must meet. Information about transportation enhancements is contained in Appendix B.
State Heritage Funds
State Heritage Funds are available through the Arizona State Parks Department. These
funds, partially derived through the state lottery revenues, are a statewide open
competitive process. Heritage Funds are awarded to preserve, restore and maintain
historic structures or properties throughout Arizona. Pinal County was successful in
obtaining a Heritage Fund grant for their original plan to obtain, move and restore the
Rillito railroad structure for use as the new Maricopa depot.
Local Restoration Funds
Locally derived funds for the purchase and restoration of the Rillito railroad structure
are another possible funding source. These funds could be raised with the
establishment of a Historic Restoration Committee, with the purpose of raising funds for
the purchase and preservation of historic structures in Marana. The funding for a local
source could be through donations or endowments from private employers within the
community. Several towns such as Olathe, Kansas and Dublin, California have
established local fund raising organizations for the purchase and preservation of
historic transportation structures and properties in their respective communities.
Additionally, Marana's construction sales tax account could be tapped for this project,
as could the Town's proposed transportation sales tax if one is adopted.
3.2 Observations
There are several funding sources available for the Town of Marana to pursue for the
purchase and restoration of the Rillito railroad structure. A combination of federal, state
and local funds could be the best formula for restoration funding success. The Pinal
County example, and their respective funding sources give a mechanism to model
from. The City of Benson, and their experience provides another example of a small
community's success in reconstructing a historic replica transportation structure. A
summary of Benson's process to restore their historic train depot is contained in the
Appendix.
4.0 Conclusions
Research demonstrates that the Rillito section foreman's structure in Rillito is one of the
surviving structures from the Southern Pacific freight operations that operated until the
1970's. Pinal County investigated the relocation and restoration of the Rillito Depot to be
used as an operating Amtrak depot for Maricopa but ultimately pursued a less
expensive alternative structure.
Funding for restoration of the Depot could be available through the State of Arizona
Heritage Fund, as well as TEA-21 enhancement program funding mechanisms as a
result of Pinal County's efforts to purchase and restore the structure. If the Town of
Marana pursues commuter rail transit service as described in Technical Memorandum
Page 8
February 2001
Rillito Depot Investigation
#9, they should consider acquiring and relocating the Rillito section foreman's house. if
this occurred the structure could be restored to serve as an operational depot for rail
commuters in Marana.
The Town could also consider acquiring the structure and relocating the building to Old
Town Marana to be a part of a town heritage center. The ideal location for the relocation
of the structure would be next to the Marana Cotton Gin, the historic adobe cotton gin
located on Sanders Road. The two structures could compliment the desired intentions
of preserving the historic agricultural and transportation heritage of the community.
Another alternative that the Town may consider, is the acquisition of a passenger car
from the surplus Amtrak Heritage Fleet, or consider a reconstructed replica of the
existing structure similar to what the City of Benson accomplished. The reconstruction
of the Southern Pacific Freight/Passenger Depot in Benson is described in Appendix A.
Page 9
February 2001
A ~ ,
Rillito Depot Investigation
APPENDIX A
Benson Train Depot- A Reconstruction Success
The Southern Pacific and now its successor, Union Pacific railroad, have served
Benson since 1878. When passenger and freight operations ceased in the 1960's, the
depot fell into disrepair and a fire destroyed the structure in the early 1970's. From that
time until 1998, Amtrak, and a"whistle-stop" rural passenger shed have served rail
passengers in Benson. Figure A-1 illustrates the existing Amtrak rural passenger
facilities.
FIGURE A-1 EXISTING AMTRAK RURAL PASSENGER FACILITY
~
~ , ~
s
~ ~ ~ ~
~
a
F A ~ ~ ~r, ~
~ £
. . : , ~ ~ NY
;i~ Y _ l. : .
k '
~ *s~~~~ ~ ffi'^~~i-~,i s°"r ~ 3
. - ~:C,~.°~a
. . . - , , .
' . .;3' ; ' '
~
_
a. ,
„ 4 ~ ~ ; i '.~n* ~
Y, ~
~ :
~ ~i : a ~ .
~ ri
ti..<so
i'~+ <r. ~ y ' "g~fi ~`i: :
re ; ~ ,r
F ~
`Y7
In 1995, the City of Benson and the San Pedro Valley Chamber of Commerce embarked
on a reconstruction program to built a replica of the original passenger/freight depot in
Benson that could serve as the Town's visitor center, the Chamber's offices, and more
importantly as a structure of civic pride. Using Southern Pacific construction services
drawings, construction began in 1996 and the Benson depot was rebuilt, and
dedicated in 1998. Figure A-2 shows the successful reconstruction of the Benson
depot.
Page 10
February 2001
, ` ~
Riilito Depot Investigation
FIGURE A-2 BENSON TRAIN DEPOT
~
~j ~ ~ ~
~ ~ 3 ~4 , , t~1le'~.f^~~~uL~~
_ ~ g , , `~"~Y Y' ? a
~ ~ ~x x ~ .,a„v,"'%'~,. ~ ~ i
x~ ~g ~ ~~a~, ~~dr, ~ ~
w.c
,c:~,
ti;; ~
>
. , 4k+s.sr - ~
- , ,
~ c'
~ ~ a,
~ E~a~` r
~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ti,,, . ~ ~ ~ ~
I
: xa ; s~'" A - ~
s r x~
i~ ` ~xr,:~
!;t
~
,t'~~'~ ~";t~ . . z~ ; ,~~€s'~
~ ~ a ~
r.,~; ; , ~ g
~ 3 t . . ,w~: , .
Page 11
February 2001