TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN 2035 2-7-17.PDF

Draft
DRAFT

page intentionally left blank
DRAFT

Director’s Office
2901 W. Durango Street
Phoenix, AZ 85009
Phone: 602-506-4700
Fax: 602-506-4750
www.mcdot.maricopa.gov
February 1, 2017
I am proud to present the Maricopa County Department of Transportation (MCDOT)
Transportation System Plan (TSP) 2035. The purpose of the TSP is to provide
future guidance for roadway planning to meet user needs. At the heart of it is
MCDOT’s mission to provide transportation connections that improve Maricopa
County residents’ lives. This plan uses three horizon years – 2020, 2025 and 2035 –
to plan for the future of Maricopa County’s transportation system.
MCDOT conducted a thorough outreach effort to ensure that residents, local
governments and stakeholders participated in the development of this plan. Our goal
was to build relationships among Maricopa County’s communities and collaborate to
provide projects that benefit all of our residents. Together, we continue to pursue
our DRAFT goal of providing vital connectivity throughout the region.
The Transportation System Plan 2035 identifies the budget needed to
implement future projects. MCDOT has developed a prioritization process to help
identify which projects satisfy the greatest public need and that these projects are
given priority. Additionally, MCDOT will continue to evaluate and monitor other
projects identified to ensure that the TSP meets the County’s transportation and
safety needs as future projects and their budgets are considered.
I would like to acknowledge and thank the MCDOT staff members for their
commitment to creating a comprehensive process to ensure all voices were included
in the development of the Transportation System Plan 2035. The TSP was
developed to meet the changing needs of a growing population and our community
is a better place because of these efforts.
Jennifer Toth, P.E.
Transportation Director/County Engineer

DRAFT page intentionally left blank

Acknowledgements
The Transportation System Plan 2035 was a collaborative process among the stakeholders, public and project
team. The Maricopa County Department of Transportation would like to thank the following groups for their
efforts in developing this plan.
Maricopa County Board of Supervisors
DISTRICT 1 DISTRICT 2 DISTRICT 3 DISTRICT 4 DISTRICT 5
Denny Barney Steve Chucri Andy Kunasek Clint L. Hickman Steve Gallardo
Transportation Advisory Board
DISTRICT 1 DISTRICT 2 DISTRICT 3 DISTRICT 4 DISTRICT 5
Marc Erpenbeck Ted Geisler Wes Gullett Merlyn Carlson Terrance Evans
MCDOT TSP Team City of Avondale Town of Fountain Hills Transportation Entities
Ron Coleman City of Buckeye Town of Gila Bend BNSF-Railway
Angela Horn City of Chandler Town of Gilbert Union Pacific Railroad
Reed Kempton City of El Mirage Town of Paradise Valley Valley Metro
Denise Lacey City of Glendale Town of Queen Creek
Teresa Welborn City of Goodyear Town of Wickenburg Consultants
Bob Woodring City of Litchfield Park Yavapai County Burgess & Niple, Inc.
DRAFT City of Maricopa Youngtown Central CreativeTM
MCDOT Divisions City of Mesa EPS Group, Inc.
Transportation Systems City of Peoria State Departments Jacobs Engineering Group,
Management City of Phoenix Arizona Department of Inc.
Roadway Maintenance City of Scottsdale Transportation Kimley-Horn & Associates,
Engineering City of Surprise Arizona Game and Fish Inc.
Permitting, Construction, City of Tempe Department
and Inspections Arizona Public Service
City of Tolleson
Financial Services Arizona State Land
Fort McDowell Department
Strategic Communications
and Outreach Gila River Indian
Community
Federal Departments
Laveen
Maricopa County Bureau of Land
Departments New River Management
Air Quality Pinal County Federal Highway
Finance Rio Verde Administration
Flood Control District Salt River Pima – Maricopa
Parks and Recreation Indian Community Other Government NOTE:
Office of Enterprise Sun City Central Yavapai Photos taken by MCDOT
Technology Tohono O’odham Nation Metropolitan Planning unless noted otherwise.
Tonopah Organization All graphics developed
Cities, Towns, and Tonto Apache Tribe Maricopa Association of by Burgess & Niple, Inc.
Communities Town of Carefree Governments unless noted otherwise.
AK Chin Indian Community Town of Cave Creek Central Arizona Project *Cover Copyright, Map 1895 Original
Maricopa County Department of Transportation page i of viii
Transportation System Plan 2035

page intentionally left blank
DRAFT
page ii of viii Maricopa County Department of Transportation
Transportation System Plan 2035

Table of Contents
Acknowledgements................................................................................................................................ i
Acronyms............................................................................................................................................ vii
INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................3
PLAN for the Future .................................................................................................9
1.1 Planning Process....................................................................................................................... 9
1.1.1 Systems Planning.................................................................................................................... 10
1.1.2 Project Rating System............................................................................................................. 11
1.2 Transportation System Plan 2035 Development.....................................................................12
1.2.1 Project Post-Processing........................................................................................................... 13
1.2.2 Technical Advisory Committee................................................................................................13
1.2.3 Partnering Process.................................................................................................................. 14
1.2.3.1 Partnering Agreement............................................................................................................. 15
1.2.3.2 Goals of Partnership................................................................................................................ 15
1.2.4 Public Outreach....................................................................................................................... 16
1.3 Next Steps............................................................................................................................... 17
DESIGN a Seamless Network..................................................................................21
2.1 Socioeconomic Profile............................................................................................................. 21
2.1.1 Land Use.................................................................................................................................. 21
2.1.2 Major Destinations.................................................................................................................. DRAFT 22
2.1.2.1 Employment Areas.................................................................................................................. 22
2.1.2.2 Regional Recreational Facilities...............................................................................................25
2.1.2.3 Health Care Facilities............................................................................................................... 25
2.1.3 Demographic Trends............................................................................................................... 25
2.2 Existing Roadway Network...................................................................................................... 27
2.2.1 Roadway Measurements......................................................................................................... 27
2.2.2 Functional Classification.......................................................................................................... 31
2.2.3 Crash Rates.............................................................................................................................. 35
2.3 Traffic Analysis......................................................................................................................... 39
2.3.1 Traffic Count Program............................................................................................................. 39
2.3.2 Methodology........................................................................................................................... 39
2.3.3 Future Traffic Volume Projections...........................................................................................39
2.3.4 Level of Service....................................................................................................................... 40
2.4 Alternative Modes................................................................................................................... 43
2.4.1 Bicycle Facilities....................................................................................................................... 43
2.4.2 Pedestrian Facilities ................................................................................................................ 49
2.4.3 Transit Facilities....................................................................................................................... 53
2.4.4 Future Accommodations......................................................................................................... 53
2.5 Next Steps............................................................................................................................... 53
Maricopa County Department of Transportation page iii of viii
Transportation System Plan 2035

BUILD a Connected Community..............................................................................57
3.1 Potential Projects.................................................................................................................... 57
3.2 Funding Analysis..................................................................................................................... 58
3.2.1 Projected Revenue.................................................................................................................. 58
3.2.2 Projected Expenditures........................................................................................................... 59
3.2.3 Funding Analysis..................................................................................................................... 60
3.2.4 Additional Revenue Sources...................................................................................................61
3.3 Next Steps............................................................................................................................... 63
MAINTAIN through Strategic System Preservation..................................................67
4.1 Pavement Management.......................................................................................................... 67
4.1.1 Low Volume Roads Program...................................................................................................69
4.2 Bridge Management............................................................................................................... 70
4.3 Asset Management ................................................................................................................ 71
4.4 Next Steps............................................................................................................................... 71
OPERATE a Safe and Efficient Transportation System..............................................75
5.1 Traffic Management System....................................................................................................75
5.2 Traffic Management Center.................................................................................................... 75
5.3 Regional Collaboration............................................................................................................ 76
5.3.1 AZTech..................................................................................................................................... 76
5.3.2 Regional Archived Data System...............................................................................................78
5.3.3 Regional Emergency Action Coordinating Team.....................................................................79
5.4 Safety management system....................................................................................................80
5.4.1 Evaluation of Safety................................................................................................................. 80
5.4.2 State and Regional Safety....................................................................................................... 80
DRAFT
5.5 MCDOT SMARTDrive ProgramSM ............................................................................................81
5.6 Next Steps............................................................................................................................... 82
CONCLUSION.........................................................................................................85
APPENDIX..............................................................................................................89
List of Figures
Figure 1 – MCDOT Project Development Process..............................................................................9
Figure 2 – Transportation System Plan Needs Analysis Process.......................................................13
Figure 3 – Phase I Comment Summary............................................................................................16
Figure 4 – Unincorporated Maricopa County Existing Land Use (2012)...........................................23
Figure 5 – Travel Lanes..................................................................................................................... 27
Figure 6 – Existing Number of MCDOT Lanes...................................................................................29
Figure 7 – Functional Classification of County Maintained Roads....................................................31
Figure 8 – Functional Classification of MCDOT Roadways................................................................33
page iv of viii Maricopa County Department of Transportation
Transportation System Plan 2035

Figure 9 – Crash History per Year..................................................................................................... 35
Figure 10 – Crash Density on MCDOT Roadways................................................................................37
Figure 11 – Level of Service................................................................................................................ 40
Figure 12 – 2020, 2025, and 2035 Roadway Conditions....................................................................41
Figure 13 – Maricopa County Existing Bicycle Facilities.....................................................................47
Figure 14 – Maricopa County Regional Trails System Plan (2004)......................................................51
Figure 15 – Breakdown of Expenditures by Horizon..........................................................................59
Figure 16 – Potential Highway User Revenue Fund Scenarios (Millions ($2015))..............................63
Figure 17 – Pavement Rating Systems................................................................................................68
Figure 18 – Sufficiency Rating Formula..............................................................................................70
Figure 19 – Regional Coordination..................................................................................................... 77
Figure 20 – AZTech Regional Archived Data System (RADS)...............................................................78
List of Tables
Table 1 – Investment Potential Matrix.............................................................................................12
Table 2 – 2012 Land Use................................................................................................................... 22
Table 3 – 2012 Maricopa County Population, Housing Units, and Employment..............................25
Table 4 – Projected Population, Occupied Housing Units, and Employment...................................26
Table 5 – MCDOT Functional Classification......................................................................................31
Table 6 – Committed DRAFT Roadway Improvement Projects....................................................................39
Table 7 – Percentage of Roadways Exceeding Acceptable Level of Service by Horizon Year............40
Table 8 – On-Roadway Bicycle Facilities...........................................................................................44
Table 9 – Off-Roadway Bicycle Facilities...........................................................................................45
Table 10 – Bicycle Facilities in Maricopa County................................................................................45
Table 11 – Existing and Proposed Pedestrian Trails............................................................................49
Table 12 – Existing Transit Facilities....................................................................................................53
Table 13 – Potential Projects (Lane Miles)..........................................................................................57
Table 14 – Summary of Estimated Revenue (In Thousands)..............................................................58
Table 15 – Summary of Projected MCDOT Expenditures (In Thousands)...........................................60
Table 16 – Summary of Projected Revenues and Expenditures (In Thousands).................................61
Table 17 – Preventative Maintenance Treatment Longevity..............................................................68
Table 18 – Growth of Intelligent Transportation System Features for FY 2006 and FY 2015..............76
Maricopa County Department of Transportation page v of viii
Transportation System Plan 2035

page intentionally left blank
DRAFT
page vi of viii Maricopa County Department of Transportation
Transportation System Plan 2035

Acronyms
ABS – Annual Business Strategies P3 – Public Private Partnership
ADA – Americans with Disabilities Act PCR – Pavement Condition Rating
ADOT – Arizona Department of Transportation PDM – Project Development Manual
ADT – Average Daily Traffic PM-10 – Particulate Matter greater than 10 microns
ALCP – Arterial Life Cycle Program PRS – Project Rating System
ALERT – Arizona Local Emergency Response Team PRC – Project Review Committee
ALISS – Accident Location Identification Surveillance RADS – Regional Archived Data System
System RDM – Roadway Design Manual
ARS – Arizona Revised Statutes REACT – Regional Emergency Action Coordinating
ATIS – Advanced Traveler Information System Team
ATP – Active Transportation Plan RMS – Road Management System
AZDPS – Arizona Department of Public Safety RTP – Regional Transportation Plan
AZSHSP – Arizona Strategic Highway Safety Plan RTS – Regional Transportation Study
BOS – Board of Supervisors RTSP – Regional Trail System Plan
CAD – Computer-Aided Dispatch SAC – Stakeholder Advisory Committee
CAR – Candidate Assessment Report SATS – Small Area Transportation Study
CCTV – Closed-Circuit Television SMART – Systematically Managed ARTerial
CIS – Corridor Improvement Study SMS – Safety Management System
CMAQ – Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality SOS – State of the System
Improvement Program SR – State Route
CTL – Center Turn Lane STSP – Strategic Transportation Safety Plan
DMP – Development DRAFT Master Plan TAB – Transportation Advisory Board
DMS – Dynamic Message Sign TAC – Technical Advisory Committee
DSRC – Dedicated Short Range Communications TDM – Travel Demand Model
FHWA – Federal Highways Administration TIF – Tax Increment Financing
FMS – Freeway Management System TIM –Traffic Incident Management
FRI – Fuel Revenue Indexing TIP – Transportation Improvement Program
FS – Feasibility Study TIRZ – Transportation Increment Reinvestment Zone
FY – Fiscal Year TMC – Traffic Management Center
GO – General Obligation TOC – Traffic Operations Center
HCRS – Highway Condition Reporting System TRZ – Transportation Reinvestment Zone
HOA – Homeowners Association TSP – Transportation System Plan
HURF – Highway User Revenue Fund USDOT – United States Department of Transportation
I – Interstate V/S – Volume to Standard
ICM – Integrated Corridor Management V2I – Vehicle to Infrastructure
IGA – Intergovernmental Agreement V2V – Vehicle to Vehicle
IRI – International Roughness Index VLT – Vehicle License Tax
ITS – Intelligent Transportation Systems
LOS – Level of Service
LVR – Low Volume Roads
MAG – Maricopa Association of Governments
MCDOT – Maricopa County Department of
Transportation
MDI – Model Deployment Initiative
MSRP – Major Streets and Routes Plan
MUTCD – Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices
Maricopa County Department of Transportation page vii of viii
Transportation System Plan 2035

page intentionally left blank
DRAFT
page viii of viii Maricopa County Department of Transportation
Transportation System Plan 2035

P L A N
E D
T E
DRAFT A S
R I
G
E
P N
O
B
N
I U
A I
L
T D
N
I
A
M
This spectrum represents the method in which Maricopa County Department of Transporta on manages the
transporta on system. This process includes five categories; Plan for short and long term needs, Design
based upon condi ons and community need, Build to accommodate need u lizing latest technology,
Maintain the system to ensure longevity, and Operate the system to a level of service standard that best
meets the needs of the traveling public.

page intentionally left blank
DRAFT
page 2 of 94 Maricopa County Department of Transportation
Transportation System Plan 2035

INTRODUCTION
Guided by the Core Purpose, “Providing connections that improve
people’s lives,” the Maricopa County Department of Transportation
(MCDOT) is responsible for the County transportation system. As Core Purpose
staff plans, designs, builds, maintains, and operates the County Providing Connections that
transportation system, they embrace MCDOT's values of being service Improve People’s Lives
minded, team builders who get it (the job) done with a smile.
Core Values
To accomplish its core purpose, MCDOT develops its Transportation Service Minded
System Plan (TSP) that guides the planning of limited resources in a
large geographic area. The County's roadway network must support Team Builder
safe and efficient movement of goods and people, be environmentally Get it Done with a Smile
compatible with its surrounding conditions, and support economic
development activities. TSP 2035 reviewed the County transportation
system, planning documents and processes, stakeholder plans, and funding information to establish a plan for the
future transportation needs of County residents across three planning horizons: 2020, 2025, and 2035.
TSP 2035 sets the overall goals, objectives, and strategies for current and future transportation needs and
investments, and compliments the County’s Comprehensive Plan guidelines for transportation.
The fluctuation of the housing market, economic conditions, and growth projections warrant a complete update
to the existing TSP adopted in 2007. Additionally regional plans and construction of facilities, as indicated in the
following bullet points, DRAFT have changed the transportation framework and travel patterns.
Completion of the Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) Interstate 10 (I-10)/Hassayampa Valley
Transportation Framework Study in 2008
and the I-8 and I-10 Hidden Valley Trans-
portation Framework Study in 2009. These
studies recommended a comprehensive
roadway network in the areas west of the
White Tank Mountains and south of I-10
(the Hassayampa Valley region) and west of
Sierra Estrella Mountains and south of I-10
(the Hidden Valley region) to meet projected
travel demands.
Construction, reconstruction, and expansion
of regional transportation facilities located
within or in proximity to unincorporated
County areas, such as State Route (SR) 303
in the West Valley and SR-202, from Arizona
Avenue to Gilbert Road, in the East Valley. Expansion of Transportation Facilities in Maricopa
County: Northern Parkway from SR-303 to US-60/Grand
Avenue on Northern Avenue
The TSP 2035 Purpose, Goals, Objectives, and
Strategies were derived through a collaborative process with various stakeholders, including the Arizona Department
of Transportation (ADOT), MAG, Valley Metro, Arizona Department of Public Safety (AZDPS), cities, towns, tribal
communities, and other partners.
Maricopa County Department of Transportation page 3 of 94
Transportation System Plan 2035

The following Goals, Objectives, and Strategies support the overall purpose
TSP 2035 Purpose of TSP 2035, “Plan a transportation network to meet the changing needs of a
Plan a transportation growing population”.
network to meet the
changing needs of a
growing population.
Goal: Promote quality of life and economic vitality
Objective: Anticipate and accommodate the needs of a growing population
Strategies:
Design the transportation system to accommodate drivers with different needs and abilities, including
aging and inexperienced drivers
Identify all user needs (physical, social, and economic abilities) and create networks and systems that
respond to the needs
Develop designs that are context sensitive
Objective: Provide opportunities for economic development
Strategies:
Support economic growth and the associated infrastructure needs
Strengthen partnerships with the development and business community to identify long-term needs
Ensure the MCDOT Transportation System Plan 2035 aligns with the goals and objectives of the Maricopa
County Comprehensive Plan
Recognize key freight facilities and routes
DRAFT
Objective: Evaluate potential impacts to socioeconomic, cultural and natural resources
Strategies:
Review socioeconomic data within the project development process
Respect the needs of the public; seek out and facilitate the involvement of those potentially affected
Perform preliminary investigations for cultural, biological, and natural resources for projects during the
planning stage
Goal: Provide a system that is safe and efficient for all modes of travel
Objective: Provide safe and efficient connectivity among infrastructure, transportation modes, and users
Strategies:
Consider shared-use transportation corridors when relevant to roadway classification
Ensure accommodation of all travel modes (bike, pedestrian, etc.)
Leverage use of Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) to facilitate efficiency between travel modes
page 4 of 94 Maricopa County Department of Transportation
Transportation System Plan 2035

Objective: Develop Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) technologies
Strategies:
Continue to participate in and enhance the coordination and connectivity of ITS systems across
jurisdictions
Incorporate connected vehicle technologies into ITS systems
Continue to co-lead AZTech partnership and participate in ITS committees
Objective: Monitor the transportation system as warranted; enhancing capacity and safety
Strategies:
Enhance corridor monitoring and improve communication, including advanced traveler information, with
the traveling public
Prioritize new projects based on safety and capacity performance goals
Collaborate and advance traffic incident management through the Regional Emergency Action
Coordinating Team (REACT)
Goal: ENCOURAGE A SEAMLESS REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION NETWORK
Objective: Develop and integrate operational technology throughout transportation corridors by partnering with
other agencies
Strategies:
Continue traffic management and operations leadership in AZTech and work to achieve its goals and
strategies DRAFT
Expand the MCDOT ITS network and support other local agencies’ ITS activities and increase
communication across jurisdictions
Objective: Facilitate coordination for regional projects
Strategies:
Keep partners informed of regional projects and clearly identify roles and expectations
Provide adequate time and information for each plan and project to allow adequate input from all
affected
Establish regularly scheduled coordination meetings with all partners
Objective: Build and sustain regional partnerships and relationships
Strategies:
Provide regular forums for information sharing amongst TSP partners
Facilitate the sharing of information and data
Develop and maintain partnerships with private entities to ensure proper land use development,
economic development, and community investment
Maricopa County Department of Transportation page 5 of 94
Transportation System Plan 2035

Goal: PROTECT PAST AND FUTURE TRANSPORTATION INVESTMENTS THROUGH STRATEGIC
SYSTEM PRESERVATION
Objective: Preserve capacity through efficient traffic management
Strategies:
Update and adopt access management guidelines
Foster and create opportunities for regional and corridor traffic management through signal timing, ITS,
technical updates, Integrated Corridor Management (ICM), or other emerging methods
Apply Transportation Systems Management & Operations (TSMO) principles to optimize existing
infrastructure and respond to future transportation needs
Objective: Manage and maintain infrastructure that meets or exceeds widely accepted industry standards
Strategies:
Update methodology used to monitor the maintenance needs of the existing system
Balance funding priorities between capital investment and maintenance and operational needs
Periodically evaluate and improve facility standards; seek opportunities for innovation
Consider lifecycle costs when assessing whether to maintain or reconstruct a facility
Develop performance measures and assess annual achievements
Apply dust mitigation strategies for dirt roads within the PM-10 (particulate matter less than 10 microns)
Nonattainment Area
The TSP 2035 Goals, Objectives, and Strategies serve as a guide for MCDOT and jurisdictional planning partners
in developing a connected DRAFT and comprehensive transportation network. The following chapters provide
information regarding existing and future needs and the next steps to be considered to meet these overarching
goals.
page 6 of 94 Maricopa County Department of Transportation
Transportation System Plan 2035

DRAFT

page intentionally left blank
DRAFT
page 8 of 94 Maricopa County Department of Transportation
Transportation System Plan 2035

PLAN for the Future
Maricopa County, the fourth most populous county in the nation according to the 2010 Census, covers more
than 9,200 square miles. MCDOT planning efforts focus on the more than 7,000 square miles of unincorporated
area. These efforts include coordination with 24 cities and towns, which make up the incorporated areas, to
ensure a seamless transportation network.
This chapter presents an overview of the MCDOT planning processes and the
methods used in the development of TSP 2035.
1.1 Planning Process
MCDOT plans, designs, builds, maintains, and operates roadways within the Maricopa County Department of Transportation
County’s unincorporated areas. MCDOT is responsible for the operation and PROJECT
maintenance of approximately 2,000 miles of roadway and 424 structures. MANUAL Development
The MCDOT Systems Planning Branch (Planning Branch) identifies
transportation improvements to meet the needs of County residents now and
into the future. Planning is the first step in the Project Development Process May 2016 AX 3:1 6:1 Shoulder Graded 20:1 7' Shoulder Paved 5' Traffic 12' 2% Lane Two-Way 7' 14 Left ’ Turn 7' Lane Traffic 2% 12' Lane Shoulder Paved 5' Shoulder Graded 20:1 7' 6:1 3:1 MAX
as outlined in the MCDOT Project Development Manual (PDM). The PDM 65' minimum 24' 24' 65' minimum
provides guidance on project development and specifies the steps required
to streamline Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) project delivery, as MCDOT Project
outlined in Figure 1. The MCDOT Planning Branch prioritizes and recommends Development Manual
projects for programming based upon need and available funding using tools
such as the TSP, recurring DRAFT reports, and planning studies. Recommended projects then continue through the
Project Development Process including scoping, design, and construction.
Legend
System Transportation Prepare Plan Needs Start / Finish Decision
Analysis
Planning Complete Study Is a Identified? MCDOT Need NO No Scoping
Operational Major Step Approval
Projects
YES
Warrant Candidate Develop Perform Project Rating Tier 1 Select Prioritized Approved Project for Complete
Studies Project List System Projects for Scoping Scoping PRC by Scoping Phase
Safety Projects
Perform Tier 2 Select Prioritized Approved Project for Complete Complete
Project Rating Projects for Final Final Design Final Design Construction Project Closeout
System Design by PRC Phase Phase
Figure 1 – MCDOT Project Development Process
Maricopa County Department of Transportation page 9 of 94
Transportation System Plan 2035

1.1.1 Systems Planning
The MCDOT Planning Branch generates reports that are cyclical in nature to assist in identifying needs for the
roadway network. These reports include the TSP, State of the System (SOS) Report, and Major Streets and Routes
Plan (MSRP).
Transportation System Plan (Five-
Year Cycle)
The TSP identifies short-, mid-, and Transportation System
long-range roadway improvements Plan 2035
and is updated on a five-year cycle.
The development of TSP 2035 is
discussed in more detail in Section
1.2.
F I S C A L Y E A R
2015
State of the System Report
(Annual Cycle)
The SOS Report is a compilation
of the physical inventory, status,
and performance of the County
transportation system including:
road, bridge, bicycle, traffic STATE OF THE
management, and other facilities. SYSTEM
Major Streets and Routes Plan P R O G R A M M I N G A N R D S E Y S T P E M O A N A R L Y S T I S
www.mcdot.maricopa.gov
(Two- to Three-Year Cycle) Department of Transportation ROUTES PLAN
The MSRP identifies future roadway Maricopa County MAJOR STREETS AND Classification Atlas
classifications for County DRAFT roads and Policy Document and Street Adopted September April 18, 2001 2004 2014 1
facilitates right-of-way preservation Revised Revised June 2011
for future roadways. Functional Fiscal Year 2015
classifications are determined by State of the System Report
utilizing national classification
criteria, MCDOT service volume
standards, and regionally accepted
growth rates. Typical cross sections
for each functional classification MCDOT Major Streets and
are included based on the MCDOT Routes Plan
Roadway Design Manual standards.
Planning Studies (As Needed)
Planning studies are high level
evaluations of specific locations, corridors, or areas and may include conceptual engineering plans (typically less
than 15 percent design). There are varying levels of planning evaluations and studies including:
Candidate Assessment Report (CAR): A CAR is used to evaluate a specific improvement such as a canal
crossing, roadway improvement, or low volume road (LVR) analysis and is typically less than one mile in
length.
Corridor Improvement Study (CIS): A CIS is used to evaluate the need for improvements for existing
roadways or for roadways with gaps in connectivity and is typically greater than one mile in length.
Recommendations may include short-, mid-, and long-range improvements.
Feasibility Study (FS): A FS is used to evaluate a potential corridor with limited, gapped, or nonexistent right-
of-way. FS may include an identified roadway alignment, enabling MCDOT and other jurisdictional agencies
to preserve right-of-way for the future roadway.
page 10 of 94 Maricopa County Department of Transportation
Transportation System Plan 2035

Small Area Transportation Study (SATS): A SATS is used to evaluate an existing or potential network
of roadways serving a designated area, usually in a rural community. This enables MCDOT and other
jurisdictional agencies to plan appropriately for the future roadway network.
Regional Transportation Study (RTS): A RTS is used to evaluate regional connections between multiple
communities, jurisdictional agencies, and unincorporated Maricopa County. The purpose of this study is
to ensure preservation of future right-of-way. This study may include multiple partners.
The primary objectives of planning studies are to:
Evaluate and determine need
Clearly define and assess the study area to identify strategic issues
Develop and evaluate candidate alternatives or alignments within the study area
Recommend a preferred alternative or alignment
Subsequently define characteristics of the preferred alternative or alignment in greater detail
Identify and include opportunities for project partnerships
Planning studies typically include the following elements:
Existing and future conditions
Environmental overview
Drainage overview
Development and evaluation of candidate alternatives or alignments
Detailed preferred alternatives or alignment
Public outreach
Phasing plan (when appropriate)
Planning level DRAFT project costs
Planning Studies determine whether a need exists that will warrant a project advancing to the Project Rating
System (PRS) in the Project Development Process.
1.1.2 Project Rating System
MCDOT employs the PRS to identify and prioritize roadway improvements.
The PRS has been used since 1998 and is updated periodically, most The PRS uses target
recently in 2016, to keep the process aligned with current needs and goals.
The PRS uses the following five categories to evaluate a project. scores in 5 different
Traffic Volumes and Congestion: Average Daily Traffic (ADT) is categories to evaluate
compared to roadway level of service (LOS) expectations to define the a project.
volume to standard (V/S) ratio for both existing and future conditions.
Safety: The number of crashes from the latest three years of
available crash data provided by ADOT, length of roadway to be improved, and the current ADT. This data is
used to calculate the crash rate per million vehicles.
Cost per Future Vehicle Miles of Travel: The estimated project cost, length of roadway to be improved,
and number of users anticipated to benefit from the improvement. This data is combined to determine an
estimated cost per vehicle miles of travel.
Regional Travel: The role the project plays in supporting regional travel is determined based on the percent
of all trips on the roadway segment that are more than 10 miles long.
Land Use: The roadway type and category of adjacent land use is defined by the matrix in Table 1 and
explained in the following paragraph.
Maricopa County Department of Transportation page 11 of 94
Transportation System Plan 2035

The Land Use category is subject to the following investment potential matrix, shown in Table 1. This matrix
provides guidance on the investment of County funds. The matrix considers the land development area and type
of project to identify the priority for investment. Investment priority is defined as follows:
MCDOT will participate in “(H)igh” priority projects for planning, design, and construction. Under this
scenario, the availability of partnering opportunities is an advantage, but is not always a requirement.
MCDOT will participate in “(M)edium” priority projects for planning, design, and construction. Under this
scenario, partners are required.
MCDOT will participate in “(L)ow” priority projects for planning and design. Under this scenario, partners
are required.
MCDOT will not (N) participate in secondary or local road projects in incorporated areas, and will require
project developers (DR) to assume primary responsibility for road projects within Development Master
Plans (DMPs).
Table 1 – Investment Potential Matrix
Primary/
Land Development Area Secondary Local
Prop. 400
Urban Service Area H M to H** L
Rural Development Area H L L
Established Areas/Existing DMP H L L
General Plan Development Area M L L
Incorporated Area L to M* N N
New DRAFT Development Master Plan DR DR DR
* Priority will vary based on percentage of adjoining land under county jurisdiction.
** Priority will vary based on continuity of corridor and percentage of adjoining land under county
jurisdiction.
1.2 Transportation System Plan 2035 Development
TSP 2035 identifies future roadway capacity needs of the County across three planning horizons: short- (2020),
mid- (2025), and long-range (2035). TSP 2035 was developed by the MCDOT Planning Branch with support
from County staff and planning partners, including regional partners, transportation planning and engineering
consultants, and input from various stakeholders and the public. The planning process included technical tasks
and meetings with stakeholders and the public. Through this collaboration, MCDOT developed TSP 2035 to
address future capacity needs and facilitate the creation of a seamless regional transportation network. TSP 2035
development generally followed the process outlined below.
Phase I Research and Data Collection – Phase I consisted of gathering information on the County’s existing
and planned transportation system, analyzing the information, and developing forecasts for future
transportation needs. This phase also included identifying the members of the Working Group, Technical
Advisory Committee (TAC), and Stakeholder Advisory Committee (SAC). During Phase I, methodologies for
public outreach were developed and a series of public open houses were conducted.
Phase II Plan Development – Phase II consisted of organizing the information gathered during Phase I and
developing a draft TSP 2035 document for technical and public review.
Phase III Plan Adoption – Phase III consisted of reviews by the public and the Transportation Advisory Board
(TAB), followed by a final review and formal adoption by the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors (BOS).
page 12 of 94 Maricopa County Department of Transportation
Transportation System Plan 2035

1.2.1 Project Post-Processing
As part of TSP 2035, capacity needs were identified and processed through the PRS to score and prioritize
potential projects, as shown in Figure 2.
Transportation System Plan Needs Analysis
No Identified Identified
need need
Project Rating
System
Does not May
warrant project warrant project
area Change type Reclassify programmed Currently Recommend Monitor
See PDM Report
Figure 1 annually in SOS
Figure 2 – Transportation System Plan Needs Analysis Process
The MCDOT Planning Branch reviewed each identified capacity need to determine potential project impacts,
including land use, development potential, safety concerns, and others. During post-processing, the following
criteria were used to refine roadway ranking:
Programmed: Identified project is currently programmed in the TIP.
Recommend: Requires further analysis of roadway capacity needs.
DRAFT
Monitor: Inconsistencies were identified and the project will be monitored and reported annually as
a part of the SOS Report. For example, the project has identified capacity constraints, inconsistent
horizon year ADTs, development potential, centroid connection issues, or is unattainable due to other
circumstances.
Change Area Type: Roadway setting classification, urban or rural, is incorrect. The reclassification of the
roadway changes the service volume standard and the roadway is now within standard. For example, the
roadway is currently classified as rural, but is either currently or projected to be in an urban setting.
Reclassify: Roadway is currently classified incorrectly for the functionality of the roadway. Changing
the functional classification also changes the service volume standard and the roadway is now within
standard. For example, the roadway is currently classified as a collector when it should be an arterial.
Once the potential projects were reviewed and MCDOT recommendations for project classifications and
rankings were finalized, they were published for public review and input. At the close of the public comment
period, all comments were considered and a Final Project Recommendation List was developed. Recommended
projects will continue through the Project Development Process and will be reviewed to determine further
recommendation and potential programming. It is anticipated that some projects may not advance to funding
but will continue to be monitored through the SOS annual report.
1.2.2 Technical Advisory Committee
As with most documents and plans, it was important to establish a TSP 2035 TAC. The TAC was responsible
for guiding technical aspects of the TSP including data collection, research, and review. The following MCDOT
divisions aided in the development of TSP 2035:
Maricopa County Department of Transportation page 13 of 94
Transportation System Plan 2035

Roadway Maintenance
Transportation Systems Management
Engineering
Permitting, Construction and Inspections
Financial Services The following technical documents were
Strategic Communications and Outreach prepared as part of the
Transportation System Plan 2035.
Consultant firms were engaged to provide additional Public Participation Plan
technical assistance in specific areas. The following Existing Conditions
is a list of the consulting firms and their roles during • Socioeconomic Profile
the TSP 2035 process.
• Transportation System Profile
Burgess & Niple, Inc. – Transportation Future Travel Demand and Needs Analysis
System Plan 2035 document and program Alternative Modes Element
management; and Financial Element • Existing Studies Overview
Central CreativeTM – Partnering and Public
• Goals and Objectives for Bicycle and
Involvement Pedestrian Facilities
EPS Group, Inc. – Alternative Modes Element
• Bicycle Gaps Identification Report
Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc. –
State of the System Report - Fiscal Years 2013,
Socioeconomic Profile, Inventory of Existing 2014, and 2015
Transportation System, and Future Travel
Demand and Capacity Needs Analysis Existing and Potential Revenues White Paper
Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc. – Fiscal Year Life Cycle System Costs and Funding Analysis
2015 State of the System Report White Paper
1.2.3 Partnering DRAFT Process
In an effort to ensure MCDOT evaluated the roadway network with regional connectivity in mind, MCDOT
embraced and engaged planning partners in the TSP 2035 process. Planning partners included representatives
of the County, local and regional governments within and surrounding the County, private utilities and railroads,
and state agencies.
Planning partners attended stakeholder workshops to represent agency and constituency interests. In addition to
participating in the review process and stakeholder engagement process, MAG provided technical data, including
the regional travel demand model. The following lists a summary of the regional coordination process.
A stakeholder meeting was held at plan
initiation to provide an introduction to the
process, a presentation on the work plan, and
a preview of information for the Phase I public
open houses.
Stakeholders were invited to participate in
five workshops. The focus of each workshop
corresponded to the progression of TSP 2035
development. Workshop titles were as follows:
• Establishment of Partnership and
Identification of Transportation System
Needs
• TSP Purpose, Goals, Objectives, and
Strategies Stakeholders During Partnering Workshop
page 14 of 94 Maricopa County Department of Transportation
Transportation System Plan 2035

• Project Rating System
• Draft TSP Project Recommendations
• Draft TSP Document
1.2.3.1 Partnering Agreement
The Partnering Agreement was developed during the
April 21, 2015, Stakeholder Partnering workshop. The
stakeholders agreed that their partnership is important
to collectively support MCDOT in developing a solid and
effective plan for the future. Stakeholders committed to:
Setting and achieving common goals and
viewing the TSP as OUR plan
Collaborating rather than pushing individual Stakeholder Meeting
agendas
Seeking opportunities to share information and resources
Encouraging one another to bring forth new, innovative, and creative ideas
Participating in the planning process and providing timely review and feedback on questions and elements of
the plan as requested
Sharing information within their agency on behalf of all of the partners to promote the TSP 2035 effort
Holding one another accountable for collective success
1.2.3.2 Goals of Partnership
The Partnering Goals included:
Schedule: The partners have a clear understanding of the schedule for the TSP 2035 efforts and are making every
DRAFT
effort to ensure the schedule is met.
Responsiveness: The partners will respond in a timely manner to requests for information or input related to
development of TSP 2035.
Coordination: The partners will work well together to ensure
TSP 2035 reflects or is incorporated into plans developed by
partner agencies, and to avoid redundancy and overlap in
planning efforts.
Sharing/communication: The partners clearly demonstrate
a desire and willingness to collaborate and share information
and resources for the benefit of TSP 2035 as well as all
transportation system planning efforts occurring within the
County.
Good outcome: It is clear throughout its development that
TSP 2035 will support each individual partner and helps their
agency/entity in ongoing efforts to develop and maintain a
transportation system that performs well for the travelling
public. The plan will provide a clear framework and path for
implementation of system improvements over the next two
decades.
Signed Partnering Agreement
Maricopa County Department of Transportation page 15 of 94
Transportation System Plan 2035

1.2.4 Public Outreach
In an effort to ensure MCDOT was evaluating the roadway network with County residents in mind, MCDOT
embraced and engaged the public in the TSP 2035 process. Public outreach and involvement was a critical
element of MCDOT planning efforts; the public was continually encouraged to be engaged and informed through
MCDOT's overall communication strategy. This included the use of relevant tools such as online engagement,
media, social media, and community events. Public outreach for TSP 2035 was divided into three phases.
Phase I - Phase I of public outreach was conducted in the spring of 2015 and provided opportunity for comment
on any roadway throughout the County (Figure 3). The following is a summary of the Phase I of public outreach.
Public Open Houses - MCDOT hosted 13 public open houses with over 200 attendees in areas where
County facilities are most prominent, including the following:
• Anthem
• Arlington
• City of Goodyear
17% 15%
• City of Mesa
Traffic Bike/Pedestrian
• City of Surprise
• City of Tempe
• New River
• Rio Verde 16% 21%
• Sun City
Safety Connectivity
• Tonopah
• Town of Fountain Hills
• Town of Queen Creek
• Town of DRAFT Wickenburg 15% 5%
Interactive Map - MCDOT developed an Other 11% Dust
interactive map allowing the public to provide
input across seven categories. 750 comments Maintenance
were received.
Public input helped MCDOT understand the Figure 3 – Phase I Comment Summary
main issues to be addressed on the system
overall: connectivity, traffic (congestion), and safety.
Phase II - Phase II of public outreach was conducted in the spring and summer of 2016. The draft list of projects
through 2035 and the project ranking methodology were presented for public comment. The following lists a
summary of Phase II of public outreach.
Meetings - MCDOT attended 14 meetings with stakeholders, including the following:
• City of Avondale
• City of Buckeye
• City of Glendale
• City of Goodyear
• City of Peoria
• City of Phoenix
• City of Surprise
• Laveen
• New River/Desert Hills Community Association
page 16 of 94 Maricopa County Department of Transportation
Transportation System Plan 2035

• Rio Verde Homeowner Association
• Sun City Home Owners Association
• Property Owners and Residents
Association of Sun City West
• Town of Queen Creek
• Town of Wickenburg
Interactive Map - Phase II of the interactive
map received 22 responses on potential
projects identified in the needs analysis.
Phase III - Phase III of public outreach was
conducted in the fall of 2016, which included
publishing the Draft TSP 2035 to the MCDOT
website to solicit public input. Public Outreach Meeting
DRAFT
Word Cloud of Comments Received from Stakeholders and Public Input
Source: Central Creative, Inc.
1.3 Next Steps
In support of the TSP 2035 Goals MCDOT should continue to hold stakeholder workshops on an annual basis.
These workshops will bring together jurisdictional agencies to discuss existing and future transportation facilities
and identify potential for project partnering.
Maricopa County Department of Transportation page 17 of 94
Transportation System Plan 2035

page intentionally left blank
DRAFT
page 18 of 94 Maricopa County Department of Transportation
Transportation System Plan 2035

DRAFT

page intentionally left blank
DRAFT
page 20 of 94 Maricopa County Department of Transportation
Transportation System Plan 2035

DESIGN a Seamless Network
MCDOT develops standards and designs roads and bridges to safely and efficiently accommodate all modes
of travel across a complex network. Population and employment growth will stress the existing transportation
system. MCDOT has a responsibility to consider multiple factors to determine roadway design that will increase
functionality, consider safety, and provide a network that works now and into the future.
This chapter presents an overview of the projected growth patterns and transportation system functionality to
identify improvements that address current and future system needs. These trends directly impact projected
roadway design needs.
2.1 Socioeconomic Profile
Socioeconomic trends help identify existing and future demographics, including where County residents live and
work. Identifying existing land use, population, and employment, and their predicted changes and intensification
will help determine the number of vehicle trips, their origin, and their destination. This provides the foundation
for identifying current and future transportation needs to develop and implement improvements to the
transportation system.
MCDOT has developed a robust Title VI program with the goal to ensure all people have a meaningful role
in processes associated with the delivery of MCDOT projects. This program outlines the roles, method of
administration, and analysis that supports equity in transportation projects, planning, and programs.
MCDOT continues to reach out to people in all corners of the County to ensure processes at MCDOT reflect the
voices and visions of our diverse population. Title VI activities are mandated by the federal government to ensure
that people of all races, DRAFT income levels, ages, and abilities have an equal voice in the planning and project delivery
processes and receive equal benefit from the results of such planning. The MCDOT Title VI Program is an integral
part of developing transportation projects, plans, and programs that are responsive to the needs and priorities
of the County’s diverse population. The process effectively engages the public, fully integrates their feedback,
analyzes the benefits and burdens of various alternatives, and recommends the most equitable solutions.
2.1.1 Land Use
MAG land use data (2012) was compiled in cooperation with its member
agencies. This data was modified to compliment the County Comprehensive
Plan. Predominant land use types include:
Recreation
Approximately 37 percent of unincorporated County is designated as recreation.
This includes mountain preserves such as wilderness and forest areas, regional
parks, restricted open spaces, washes and/or floodplains, limited open space,
golf courses, and other outdoor opportunities. Large tracts of passive/restricted
open spaces occupy the southern and northeastern portions of the County,
including the Maricopa Mountains and Tonto National Forest.
Vacant
Approximately 37 percent of unincorporated County is classified as vacant
land. This includes undeveloped and/or underused land, as well as unused
agricultural land. Vacant land is predominantly found west of the City White Tank Mountain
of Buckeye, although pockets of vacant land are scattered throughout Regional Park
unincorporated County.
Maricopa County Department of Transportation page 21 of 94
Transportation System Plan 2035

Agricultural Land
An estimated four percent of the unincorporated
County is designated as agricultural land. This
includes land and/or buildings associated with
agriculture such as field crops, orchards, feedlots,
and dairies. Agricultural land primarily occupies the
central and western portions of the County, with
several large tracts clustered along the Salt River.
Less Prominent Land Uses
Less prominent land uses within unincorporated
County include Other, Residential, Water,
Employment, and Retail Commercial uses. The
"Other" land use designation includes uses such
as medical nursing facilities, educational facilities, Agricultural Land Use
military bases, and transportation facilities.
Figure 4 shows the 2012 land use designations in
unincorporated County; these are also listed in Table 2.
Existing land use within incorporated areas
Table 2 – 2012 Land Use of the County was not reviewed. However,
the County as a whole was included in the
Land Use Designation Percent of demographic analysis; as transportation needs in
Unincorporated County unincorporated County may be driven by growth
Recreation 37.1% within unincorporated and incorporated County.
Vacant 36.7% While land use planning in adjoining jurisdictions
Other 16.8% is outside of the County’s purview, it influences
Agriculture 4.4% the County transportation network.
DRAFT
Residential 2.4%
2.1.2 Major Destinations
Water 1.9%
Employment 0.7% Areas of unincorporated County with the highest
Retail Commercial 0.1% population and employment concentrations
*Small portions of incorporated County may be reflected in are located in Sun City and Sun City West in the
percent totals. northwest portion of the County, Anthem in
the northern portion of the County, Sun Lakes
in the southeast portion of the County, and
near the City of Mesa in the eastern portion of
the County. The Palo Verde Nuclear Generating
Station and Lockheed Martin are major employers
in the far west portion of the County. The
subsections below provide a summary of the
major destinations within unincorporated County
including employment areas, regional recreational
facilities, and health care facilities.
2.1.2.1 Employment Areas
Large concentrations of businesses are located
in Sun City, Anthem, and Sun Lakes. The largest
employment sectors in unincorporated County
Retail Center are health care and social assistance (20 percent),
construction (12 percent), and retail (8 percent).
Examples of each include hospitals, heavy and civil engineering construction, and food and beverage stores,
respectively.
page 22 of 94 Maricopa County Department of Transportation
Transportation System Plan 2035

Figure 4 – Unincorporated Maricopa County Existing Land Use (2012)
Existing Land Use (2012)
Agriculture
Aguila Wickenburg Employment
Yavapai
County
New River
Other
TO NTO
Morristown Anthem Cave Creek NATIONA L Recreation
FORES T
Residential
Wittmann Peoria
Retail Commercial
Rio Verde
M c D o w e l l
County M o u n t a i n Vacant
Sun City West R e g i o n a l
P a r k Fort
Surprise McDowell
Paz Sun City Yavapai Water
W h i t e Ta n k Nation
La M o u n t a i n Scottsdale Gila
R e g i o n a l P a r k Glendale
Phoenix
County
Paradise
Citrus Park Valley Salt River
Pima-Maricopa
Indian Community
Tonopah Buckeye
Wintersburg Avondale Mesa
Tempe
Gilbert REFERENCE LAYERS
Goodyear
Arlington
Komatke Chandler Interstate Indian Reservation
B u c k e y e
H i l l s DRAFT
R e g i o n a l Gila Crossing
P a r k Gila River
Indian State Route/US Highway Military
Community
Sun Lakes
Lake/Reservoir Incorporated Areas
Pinal County
River or Major Wash County Boundary
County
Yuma
Gila Bend
Theba
MilesK
0 10 20
Barry M. Goldwater Range
Tohono O'odham Nation
Source: Maricopa County; Flood Control District of
Maricopa County (FCD); Arizona Department of
Transportation (ADOT); Arizona State Land
Pima County Resource Information System (ALRIS);
Source: Jacobs
Maricopa County Department of Transportation
page 23 of 94
Transportation System Plan 2035

page intentionally left blank
DRAFT
page 24 of 94 Maricopa County Department of Transportation
Transportation System Plan 2035

2.1.2.2 Regional Recreational Facilities
A variety of recreational/open space areas are
located throughout the unincorporated County
including, but not limited to:
Regional parks
Conservation areas
Wilderness areas
Arizona Trust Land
Tonto National Forest
Wildlife areas
2.1.2.3 Health Care Facilities
There are more than 160 medical/health care
facilities in unincorporated County. Banner Health is Banner Del E. Webb Medical Center
the largest employer in unincorporated County with
3,578 employees. Its facilities include Banner Boswell Medical Center, Banner Del E. Webb Medical Center, Banner
Sun Health Research Institute, Banner Arizona Medical Clinic - Sun City West, Restora Hospital of Sun City, and Dignity
Health.
2.1.3 Demographic Trends
Table 3 summarizes the County socioeconomic data. The largest growth in the County occurred in areas
identified as partially in the unincorporated County and partially within a city/town, or partial areas. The total
population and total residential population in the partial areas increased at a rate of 1.5 and 1.7 percent per
year, respectively, nearly five times faster than unincorporated County. Within unincorporated County areas,
projected population and employment are anticipated to intensify in Sun City, Sun City West, Anthem, and Sun
DRAFT
Table 3 – 2012 Maricopa County Population, Housing Units, and Employment
Total Total Total Total
Geographic Area Year Populationa Residential Occupied Employment
Populationb Housing Unit
2010 174,639 173,870 80,191
Unincorporated
2012 175,702 174,933 80,750 35,431
Area
% GR/YRe 0.3% 0.3% 0.3%
2010 3,088,870 3,068,785 1,144,293
Incorporated
2012 3,138,414 3,115,826 1,164,011 1,595,319
Areac
% GR/YRe 0.8% 0.8% 0.9%
2010 553,608 545,394 187,099
Partial
2012 570,554 563,591 192,956 149,853
Aread
% GR/YRe 1.5% 1.7% 1.6%
2010 3,817,117 3,788,049 1,411,583
Maricopa
2012 3,884,670 3,854,350 1,437,717 1,780,603
County Total
% GR/YRe 0.9% 0.9% 0.9%
a includes group quarter populations (i.e. correctional, institutional, and military), but does not include seasonal and transient
populations; b does not include group quarter populations; c includes Indian Reservations; d consists of areas that are partially in the
County and partially in the city/town boundary; e percent growth per year
Source: MAG Year 2012 Socioeconomic Data and U.S. Census Bureau
Maricopa County Department of Transportation page 25 of 94
Transportation System Plan 2035

Lakes. In the last two years, the total population and
total residential population in the incorporated portion
of the County grew nearly three times faster than in the
unincorporated areas.
The total population shown in Table 3, which consists
of all residential and group quarter populations (i.e. 2020, 2025, and 2035
correctional, institutional, and military population) in
unincorporated County, increased less than one percent Residential and employment
over the last two years, with an average growth of 0.3
populations in the County are
percent per year. This could be attributed to the slow
economic recovery from the 2008 recession. This is projected to intensify in existing
evident in that nearly 66 percent of planned housing concentration areas.
units in active developments in unincorporated County
have not been built.
2020, 2025, and 2035 Population and
Employment or the number of jobs provided in Employment Growth Trends
unincorporated County accounted for only two percent
of the total employment in the County and was primarily a mix of other, retail, office, and non-site specific
employees. The majority of employment (90 percent) in the County was in incorporated areas, while eight
percent was in partial areas.
Table 4 summarizes the 2020, 2025, and 2035 population, housing unit, and employment data for the County
and provides the growth rate from the previous horizon data. MAG socioeconomic data for years 2020, 2025,
and 2035 was obtained and evaluated for the County. Similar to the 2012 socioeconomic data, future data was
comprised of population, housing unit, and employment estimates aggregated by areas. The data was revised
Table DRAFT 4 – Projected Population, Occupied Housing Units, and Employment
Total
Total % % Total %
Geographic Area Year Occupied
Populationa Growth Growth Employment Growth
Housing Unit
2020 199,460 14% 89,387 11% 50,378 42%
Unincorporated
2025 224,760 13% 98,478 10% 58,238 16%
Area
2035 287,207 28% 122,149 24% 81,152 39%
2020 3,565,513 14% 1,324,192 14% 2,025,630 27%
Incorporated
2025 3,843,588 8% 1,427,901 8% 2,152,795 6%
Areab
2035 4,358,882 13% 1,619,101 13% 2,421,756 13%
2020 738,310 29% 248,565 29% 235,347 57%
Partial Areasc 2025 863,422 17% 291,674 17% 279,302 19%
2035 1,128,308 31% 384,085 32% 388,602 39%
2020 4,503,283 16% 1,662,144 16% 2,311,355 30%
Maricopa County
2025 4,931,770 10% 1,818,053 9% 2,490,335 8%
Total
2035 5,774,397 17% 2,125,335 17% 2,891,510 16%
a includes group quarter populations (i.e. correctional, institutional, and military), but does not include seasonal and transient
populations b includes Indian Reservations; c consists of areas that are partially in the County and partially in the city/town boundary;
Source: MAG Year 2020, 2025, and 2035 Socioeconomic Data (Data as of May 2014), U.S. Census Bureau, Maricopa County and Arizona
Department of Administration, Office of Employment and Population Statistics
page 26 of 94 Maricopa County Department of Transportation
Transportation System Plan 2035

to more accurately depict travel demand based on updated trends and/or projections obtained from the State
Demographer Office, and input from MCDOT. The County is expected to experience an increased density in
population and employment in developed areas, rather than a more sprawling development pattern.
2.2 Existing Roadway Network
TSP 2035 inventoried transportation facilities owned, 93% of County Maintained Roads
operated, and/or maintained by the County. County are 2 Lanes
roadway facilities vary from unpaved two-lane local roads
in rural areas to six-lane principal arterials that provide 83% of County Maintained Roads
intercity travel in urbanized areas. are Paved
The data and information presented herein is based on the County Maintained Roads Statistics
MAG travel demand model (TDM), unless noted otherwise.
The MAG TDM is focused on regional travel and is generally limited to arterials and some collector roadways.
The data and information obtained for TSP 2035 reflects the conditions at the time the data was received in
July 2015. Not all roadway segments highlighted in the figures below are County maintained roadways. Some
roadways identified in the 2015 network and SOS Report Fiscal Year (FY) 2015 are not highlighted in the figures.
For the comprehensive roadway network inventory, see the latest SOS Report.
2.2.1 Roadway Measurements
TSP 2035 uses several measurements to analyze roadways. The total number
of lanes within a segment of roadway refers to the total number of travel/
through lanes; turn lanes and auxiliary lanes are not included. For example,
Travel Lane Travel Lane the roadway cross section shown in Figure 5 has one travel/through lane in
each direction for a total of two lanes. Lane miles are defined as the number
DRAFT of lanes in a one mile long roadway segment. For example, a one mile segment
of the roadway cross section shown Figure 5 is two lane miles. Centerline
miles are defined as the linear distance of a length of roadway, regardless of
the number of lanes. For example, a one mile segment of the roadway cross
section shown Figure 5 is one-centerline mile.
The amount of roadway lanes data and information compiled for TSP 2035
reflects 2012 conditions. A majority of County maintained roads, 93 percent,
are two-lane roadways and 83 percent of all County maintained roads are
paved. The remaining seven percent are either four or six-lane roadways.
Figure 5 – Travel Lanes The existing number of lanes is shown in Figure 6.
Source: Jacobs Engineering
Maricopa County Department of Transportation page 27 of 94
Transportation System Plan 2035

page intentionally left blank
DRAFT
page 28 of 94 Maricopa County Department of Transportation
Transportation System Plan 2035

Figure 6 – Existing Number of MCDOT Lanes
NUMBER OF LANES (2012)
6-Lanes
Aguila Iv Wickenburg Yavapai 5-Lanes
County
New River
4-Lanes
TO NTO
Aguila
Rd Morristown Anthem Cave Creek NAT IONA L 3-Lanes
? Â er
Rd Riv F ORES T
Mine A ÿ 2-Lanes
Vulture Wittmann Peoria Verde
Patton Rd 1-Lane
Rio Verde
Rd e r ? Ð
County Eye R i v Sun City West
Eagle Jackrabbit ampa Surprise McDowell Fort
Paz W ay A ÿ Sun City !"c$ A Þ Yavapai Nation
ash
La Hass Scottsdale Gila
Salome Glendale Rive r
Hwy Phoenix Salt County
Iv
Ave Pkwy Citrus Park Paradise Valley Salt River
!"a$ ? ¸ Pima-Maricopa
355th Valley Indian Community
Tonopah Buckeye A Þ A ð
Sun
Wintersburg Avondale Mesa
Tempe Iv
Dobbins Rd
Elliot Rd Gila Rive r Gilbert REFERENCE LAYERS
Goodyear
Arlington Komatke Chandler Interstate National Forest
DRAFT
Gila Crossing
Gila Indian River State Route/US Highway Indian Reservation
Community !"a$
Sun Lakes
Pinal County Other Major Roadway Military
Lake/Reservoir Incorporated Areas
? Í
River or Major Wash County Boundary
Gila
Rive r A ó
County
Yuma
Gila Bend
Theba
!"`$
MilesK
0 10 20
? Í
Barry M. Goldwater Range
Tohono O'odham Nation
Source: Maricopa County; Flood Control District of
Maricopa County (FCD); Arizona Department of
Transportation (ADOT); Arizona State Land
Pima County Resource Information System (ALRIS);
Source: Jacobs
Maricopa County Department of Transportation
page 29 of 94
Transportation System Plan 2035

page intentionally left blank
DRAFT
page 30 of 94 Maricopa County Department of Transportation
Transportation System Plan 2035

2.2.2 Functional Classification
Functional classification is the identification and
grouping of roads into classes based on their
particular role in moving traffic through the 5% Principal Arterial
roadway network. Traffic is channeled through a
hierarchy of inter-connected roads that progress
from higher classifications, where trips are
longer and connect to regional traffic generators, 21% Minor Arterial
to lower classifications, where trips are shorter
and localized. Functional classification is used
by transportation planners and engineers as the 8% Major Collector
basis for establishing design standards, speed
limits, access control, and adjacent land use
development. 14% Minor Collector
52% Local
Roads
The functional classification of a roadway also
determines a road’s eligibility for federal or state Figure 7 – Functional Classification of County
funding for improvements or maintenance. Maintained Roads
Federal funding is generally restricted to roads
with a federal functional classification of major
collector or higher in a rural area or minor collector or higher in an urban area.
The functional classification data obtained for TSP 2035 reflects information as of February 2015. Functional
classification information is updated every two to three years in the MSRP. Currently, the majority of the County
maintained network is local roads (52 percent), followed by minor arterials (21 percent), minor collectors
(14 percent), major collectors (8 percent), and principal arterials (5 percent). Figure 7 depicts the functional
classification of MCDOT DRAFT roadways.
The MCDOT functional classifications are described in Table 5 and shown in Figure 8.
Table 5 – MCDOT Functional Classification
Rural Urban
Parkway
Traffic movements intended for regional and Traffic movements intended for regional and
statewide travel statewide travel
Typically four lanes divided with wide median to Typically four lanes divided with wide median to
accommodate U-turn movements accommodate U-turn movements
Traffic signals at all intersections operate on a two- Traffic signals at all intersections operate on a two-
phase system phase system
Restricted left turn movements Restricted left turn movements
Posted Speed: 55 mph or less Posted Speed: 45 mph or less
LOS Standard: C LOS Standard: D
(table continued next page)
Maricopa County Department of Transportation page 31 of 94
Transportation System Plan 2035

(table continued from previous page)
Rural Urban
Principal Arterial
Traffic movements intended for travel between rural Traffic movements intended for travel between rural
and urban communities and urban communities
Typically four lanes divided with median and Typically four to six lanes divided with median and
exclusive turn lanes where applicable exclusive turn lanes where applicable
Posted Speed: 55 mph or less Posted Speed: 45 mph or less
LOS Standard: C LOS Standard: D
Minor Arterial
Traffic movements intended for land access, intra- Traffic movements intended for land access and
community travel, and connecting local traffic to the connecting local traffic to the arterial network
arterial network Typically four lanes undivided
Typically four lanes undivided with a CTL Posted Speed: 45 mph or less
Posted Speed: 50 mph or less LOS Standard: C
LOS Standard: C
Major Collector
Traffic movements intended for intra-community Traffic movements intended for moderate trip
continuity and connectivity to the arterial network lengths and connectivity to the arterial network
Typically varies from two to four lanes depending Typically two lanes undivided with a CTL
on the adjacent land use and density. A CTL may be Posted Speed: 35 mph or less
included for additional capacity LOS Standard: C
DRAFT
Posted Speed: 45 mph or less
LOS Standard: B
Minor Collector
Traffic movements intended for moderate to short
Traffic movements intended for intra-community
trip lengths in rural areas and connectivity to the
continuity and connectivity to the arterial network
arterial network
Typically varied from two to four lanes depending on
Typically two lanes undivided in rural areas
adjacent land use and density
Posted Speed: 40 mph or less
A CTL may be added for additional capacity
LOS Standard: B
Posted Speed: 35 mph or less
LOS Standard: B
Local
Traffic movements intended for short trip lengths and Traffic movements intended for short trip lengths and
connectivity to routes with higher classification connectivity to routes with higher classification
Typically two lanes undivided Typically two lanes undivided
Posted Speed: 30 mph Posted Speed: 30 mph
LOS Standard: A LOS Standard: A
page 32 of 94 Maricopa County Department of Transportation
Transportation System Plan 2035

Figure 8 – Functional Classification of MCDOT Roadways
FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION (2015)
Principal Arterial
Aguila Iv Wickenburg Yavapai Minor Arterial
County
New River
TO NTO Major Collector
Aguila
Rd Morristown Anthem Cave Creek NATIONA L Minor Collector
? Â er
Rd Riv FORES T
Mine A ÿ Local
Vulture Wittmann Peoria Verde
Patton Rd
Rio Verde
Rd e r ? Ð
County Eye R i v Sun City West
Eagle Jackrabbit ampa Surprise McDowell Fort
Paz W ay A ÿ Sun City !"c$ A Þ Yavapai Nation
ash
La Hass Scottsdale Gila
Salome Glendale Rive r
Hwy Iv Phoenix Salt County
Ave Pkwy Citrus Park Paradise Valley Salt River
!"a$ ? ¸ Pima-Maricopa
355th Valley Indian Community
Tonopah Buckeye A Þ A ð
Sun
Wintersburg Avondale Mesa
Tempe Iv
Dobbins Rd
Elliot Rd Gila Rive r Gilbert REFERENCE LAYERS
Goodyear
Arlington Komatke Chandler Interstate National Forest
DRAFT
Gila Crossing
Gila Indian River State Route/US Highway Indian Reservation
Community !"a$
Sun Lakes
Pinal County Other Major Roadway Military
Lake/Reservoir Incorporated Areas
? Í
River or Major Wash County Boundary
Gila
Rive r A ó
County
Yuma
Gila Bend
Theba
!"`$
MilesK
0 10 20
? Í
Barry M. Goldwater Range
Tohono O'odham Nation
Source: Maricopa County; Flood Control District of
Maricopa County (FCD); Arizona Department of
Transportation (ADOT); Arizona State Land
Pima County Resource Information System (ALRIS);
Source: Jacobs
Maricopa County Department of Transportation
page 33 of 94
Transportation System Plan 2035

page intentionally left blank
DRAFT
page 34 of 94 Maricopa County Department of Transportation
Transportation System Plan 2035

2.2.3 Crash Rates
The crash analysis conducted for TSP 2035 identified the following:
Cause of roadway crashes
Potential safety improvements to minimize the frequency and/or severity of roadway crashes due to
roadway/traffic operational characteristics
A complete safety analysis which considers driver behavior, weather conditions, and the influence of other
elements was not conducted.
Crash data for TSP 2035 was obtained from the ADOT Accident Location Identification Surveillance System (ALISS)
database from September 2009 to September 2014. During the 5-year period, a total of 13,024 crashes occurred
on County maintained roadways. The number of crashes per year steadily increased through 2013 as shown in
Figure 9.
2800 2773
2700
2629
2612 2606
2600
Total
Crashes
2500
2400
2404
DRAFT 2300
2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014
Year
Figure 9 – Crash History per Year
A summary of the five-year crash data obtained is below.
Crash Severity
Property damage only crashes at 65 percent
Injury crashes at 34 percent
Fatal crashes at one percent
Collision Manner
Collisions with motor vehicles at 70 percent
Collisions not with motor vehicles, such as with fixed or non-fixed objects, ran off road, and overturn/
rollover at 20 percent
Collisions not reported or categorized as other at seven percent
Collisions with pedestrians or bicyclists at two percent
Collisions with animals at one percent
Maricopa County Department of Transportation page 35 of 94
Transportation System Plan 2035

Collision Type
The following collision types are the most common crashes occurring on County maintained roads:
Rear end crashes at 30 percent
Single vehicle crashes at 20 percent
Angle crashes at 19 percent
Left turn crashes at 14 percent
Intersection/Interchange
Intersection crashes at 50 percent
Interchange crashes at 11 percent
Common Driver Citations
Driver inattention or distraction at 23 percent
Failure to yield right-of-way at 16 percent
Speed too fast for conditions at 13 percent
Figure 10 displays the overall density of crashes. Large concentrations of crashes occurred in the eastern portion
of the County and in Sun City and Sun City West.
DRAFT
page 36 of 94 Maricopa County Department of Transportation
Transportation System Plan 2035

Figure 10 – Crash Density on MCDOT Roadways
CRASH DENSITY (2009 - 2014)
High
Aguila Iv Wickenburg
Yavapai
County
New River
TO NTO
Aguila
Rd Morristown Anthem Cave Creek NATIONA L
? Â er
Rd Riv FORES T
Mine A ÿ
Vulture Wittmann Peoria Verde
Patton Rd Low
Rio Verde
County Eye Rd v e r ? Ð
Jackrabbit R i Sun City West
Eagle ampa Surprise McDowell Fort
Paz W ay A ÿ Sun City !"c$ A Þ Yavapai Nation
ash
La Hass Scottsdale Gila
Salome Glendale Rive r
Hwy Iv Phoenix Salt County
Ave Pkwy Citrus Park Paradise Valley Salt River
!"a$ ? ¸ Pima-Maricopa
355th Valley Indian Community
Tonopah Buckeye A Þ A ð
Sun
Wintersburg Avondale Mesa
Tempe Iv
Dobbins Rd
Elliot Rd Gila Rive r Gilbert REFERENCE LAYERS
Goodyear
Arlington Komatke Chandler Interstate National Forest
DRAFT Gila
Crossing Gila Indian River State Route/US Highway Indian Reservation
Community !"a$
Sun Lakes
Pinal County Other Major Roadway Military
Lake/Reservoir Incorporated Areas
? Í
River or Major Wash County Boundary
Gila Rive
r A ó
County
Yuma
Gila Bend
Theba
!"`$
MilesK
0 10 20
? Í
Note: Crash data was obtained from ADOT's Accident Location Identification Surveillance System
Barry M. Goldwater Range (ALISS) database - Sept. 2009 to Sept. 2014 and include crashes with vehicles only.
Tohono O'odham Nation
Source: Maricopa County; Flood Control District of
Maricopa County (FCD); Arizona Department of
Transportation (ADOT); Arizona State Land
Pima County Resource Information System (ALRIS);
Source: Jacobs
Maricopa County Department of Transportation
page 37 of 94
Transportation System Plan 2035

page intentionally left blank
DRAFT
page 38 of 94 Maricopa County Department of Transportation
Transportation System Plan 2035

2.3 Traffic Analysis
The purpose of the traffic analysis conducted for TSP 2035 was
to establish an understanding of the deficiencies on existing
and committed roadways currently owned or maintained by
the County, with the exception of County park roads. Future
needs were determined based on forecasted population and
employment growth in the County.
2.3.1 Traffic Count Program
MCDOT annually collects 24-hour, AM peak hour, and PM peak
hour traffic counts for County maintained arterials to analyze
traffic operations and other network features. Traffic count
data is also collected regularly for County owned roadways in
developments such as Sun City, Sun City West, and Sun Lakes.
This collection process results in raw data which is then converted
to ADT volumes. The ADT volumes, combined with projected
socioeconomic conditions, serve as a base to develop future traffic
volume projections. Traffic count data is available on the MCDOT
website.
2.3.2 Methodology Traffic on Bell Road
The 2012 MAG TDM was utilized for TSP 2035. The
socioeconomic and roadway network data were revised and updated to more accurately depict the current travel
demand and patterns in unincorporated County. The MAG socioeconomic data helped MCDOT forecast realistic
traffic volumes for future horizon years and anticipate changes in future travel demand and trip patterns. The
MAG socioeconomic DRAFT data for the years 2012, 2020, 2025, and 2035 was presented in Section 2.1. The existing
roadway network information was presented in Section 2.2.
2.3.3 Future Traffic Volume Projections
Traffic volume projections were developed for the projected 2020, 2025, and 2035 socioeconomic conditions. The
projected socioeconomic data was used to assess the effects of increased population and employment on the
transportation system with the existing roadway network plus committed and funded projects. This is referred to
as the “No-Build” scenario. Table 6 lists the committed projects incorporated into the No-Build network.
Table 6 – Committed Roadway Improvement Projects
Project Location Capacity Improvement
Deer Valley Rd: 117th Ave to 109th Ave Construct 4-lane road with CTL
Riggs Rd: Ellsworth Rd to Meridian Rd Construct 2-lane road with CTL
Riggs Rd: Hawes Rd to Ellsworth Rd Widen road to 4-lanes with CTL
Riggs Rd: Power Rd to Hawes Rd Widen road to 4-lanes with CTL
Riggs Rd: Recker Rd to Power Rd Widen road to 6-lanes with CTL
Olive Ave: Citrus Rd to Cotton Ln Widen road to 4-lanes with CTL
Northern Pkwy: Dysart Rd to 111th Ave Widen road to 4-lanes
El Mirage Rd: Northern Ave to Peoria Ave Widen road to 4-lanes
McQueen Rd: Ocotillo Rd to Riggs Rd IGA Contribute to Chandler project (Widen to 4-lanes)
Source: MCDOT, Data as of July 2015
Maricopa County Department of Transportation page 39 of 94
Transportation System Plan 2035

2.3.4 Level of Service An estimated 11 percent of local
roads exceed the recommended
LOS is a qualitative measure used to relate the quality 11% LOS standards.
of traffic service. LOS is divided into six letter grades: A
through F, indicating best to worst service respectively
(see Figure 11). LOS provides a generalized and conceptual
planning measure that assesses service inside the roadway
right-of-way. LOS is a critical measurement allowing
planners and engineers to determine the level of traffic a Less than <5%
given facility can accommodate. Service volumes represent five percent of all
functionally classified
the maximum threshold of vehicles for a given LOS. roadways in the county
exceed the recommended LOS standards.
The MCDOT roadway LOS information reflects data as
of December 2015. To improve planning efforts, MCDOT Existing Level of Service Statistics
recently developed service volume tables with LOS
standards for County maintained roadways by functional
classification, number of lanes, median type, and area type (rural or urban). Currently, based on the updated
service volumes, excluding local roads, less than five percent of all MCDOT roadways currently exceed the
recommended LOS standard. An estimated 11 percent of local MCDOT
roadways currently exceed the recommended LOS standard.
Free Flow
The future traffic volume projections for 2020, 2025, and 2035 were
A correlated to the updated LOS standards to determine if the County
LOS
maintained roadways meet or exceed the recommended roadway LOS
standards. Table 7 provides a summary of the percentage of roadways
Reasonably projected to exceed recommended LOS standards based on the No-Build
Free Flow scenario. This information is also presented in Figure 12. Congestion
DRAFT B is expected to increase with population if no additional improvements
LOS are made to the transportation network. Local roads are expected to
experience the greatest impact to LOS.
Stable Flow
LOS C Table 7 – Percentage of Roadways Exceeding
Acceptable Level of Service by Horizon Year
Approaching Functional Class 2020 2025 2035
Unstable
Flow Principal Arterial 2% 8% 31%
LOS D
Minor Arterial 4% 8% 19%
Major Collector 7% 10% 18%
Unstable
Flow Minor Collector 5% 9% 28%
Local 13% 32% 55%
LOS E
Forced
Flow
LOS F
Figure 11 – Level of Service
page 40 of 94 Maricopa County Department of Transportation
Transportation System Plan 2035

Figure 12 – 2020, 2025, and 2035 Roadway Conditions
CONDITIONS (2015)
Meets LOS Standard
Aguila Iv Wickenburg Yavapai 2020 Exceeds LOS Standard
County New River
2025 Exceeds LOS Standard
TO NTO
Aguila
Rd Morristown Anthem Cave Creek NATIONA L 2035 Exceeds LOS Standard
Rd ? Â er FORES T
Riv
Mine A ÿ
Vulture Wittmann Peoria Verde
Patton Rd
Rio Verde
County Eye Rd v e r ? Ð
Jackrabbit R i Sun City West
Eagle ampa Surprise McDowell Fort
Paz W ay A ÿ Sun City !"c$ A Þ Yavapai Nation
ash
La Hass Scottsdale Gila
Salome Glendale Rive r
Hwy Iv Phoenix Salt County
Ave Pkwy Citrus Park Paradise Valley Salt River
!"a$ ? ¸ Pima-Maricopa
355th Valley Indian Community
Tonopah Buckeye A Þ A ð
Sun
Wintersburg Avondale Mesa
Tempe Iv
Dobbins Rd
Elliot Rd Gila Rive r Gilbert REFERENCE LAYERS
Goodyear
Arlington Komatke Chandler Interstate National Forest
DRAFT Gila
Crossing Gila Indian River State Route/US Highway Indian Reservation
Community !"a$
Sun Lakes
Pinal County Other Major Roadway Military
Lake/Reservoir Incorporated Areas
? Í
River or Major Wash County Boundary
Gila Rive
r A ó
County
Yuma
Gila Bend
Theba
!"`$
MilesK
0 10 20
? Í
Note: Not all roadway segments highlighted are MCDOT Maintained roadways. Roadway
Barry M. Goldwater Range segments identified in the 2015 network and State of the System Report FY 2015 are not
included in the map.
Tohono O'odham Nation
Source: Maricopa County; Flood Control District of
Maricopa County (FCD); Arizona Department of
Transportation (ADOT); Arizona State Land
Pima County Resource Information System (ALRIS);
Source: Jacobs
Maricopa County Department of Transportation
page 41 of 94
Transportation System Plan 2035

page intentionally left blank
DRAFT
page 42 of 94 Maricopa County Department of Transportation
Transportation System Plan 2035

Alternative Modes of Transportation
2.4 Alternative Modes
Alternatives modes of transportation include bicycling, walking, and mass transit. Many people choose to
leave their cars at home and commute using alternative modes of transportation. These active people and
their alternative mode choices have led to the development of the term “active transportation.” The County
recognizes this transition and will be creating the MCDOT Active Transportation Plan (ATP) to support the Goals,
Objectives, and Strategies developed for TSP 2035 as they relate to pedestrian and bicycle facilities.
Since the ATP will not DRAFT be complete by the time TSP 2035 is finalized, this section serves as an introduction to
the more detailed document. The ATP will update the 1999 MCDOT Bicycle Transportation System Plan; the
MCDOT Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Transition Plan; and identify gaps in regional pedestrian and bicycle
networks, including accessible routes to transit, that are on, adjacent to, or intersect with MCDOT right-of-way.
The ATP will serve to develop ranking methodologies and identify a list of recommended projects for near-term, mid-
term, and long-term funding similar to the TSP process for identifying roadway needs. Federal funding for bicycle and
pedestrian projects is generally determined by functional classification. Some programs target local routes, such as
Safe Routes to School, while others target higher functionally classified facilities, such as the Surface Transportation
Block Grant Program. The ATP will identify existing MCDOT policies and other local, regional, and state agencies that
have an interest in the implementation of
active transportation projects, and provide
recommendations for policy modifications.
The following subsections provide
an overview of the existing active
transportation facilities in the County
including bicycle, pedestrian, and transit
infrastructure.
2.4.1 Bicycle Facilities
Existing bicycle facilities within the
County can be grouped into two general
categories: facilities that are integrated Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon
Maricopa County Department of Transportation page 43 of 94
Transportation System Plan 2035

into the existing roadway system and facilities that are located off of the roadway system. On-roadway bicycle
facilities in the County typically consist of dedicated bicycle lanes, paved shoulders, and bicycle routes; these
are described in Table 8. Off-roadway bicycle facilities in the County typically include shared use paths (paved/
unpaved) and other recreational trails; these are shown in Table 9.
Table 8 – On-Roadway Bicycle Facilities
Bicycle Buffered Bicycle Separated Bicycle Lane or
Lane Lane Cycle Track
A portion of the roadway A portion of the roadway Exclusive bicycle facility
designated for the exclusive use designated for the exclusive use Separated from motor vehicle
of bicycles of bicycles traffic with a vertical element
Separated from motor vehicle Separated from motor vehicle May be one-way on each side of
traffic with a white line traffic with two white lines the street or two-way on one side
Designated by word, symbol, and Designated by word, symbol,
arrow pavement markings and arrow pavement markings
Must meet certain standards for
width, striping, and markings
Contra-Flow Bicycle Lane Left-Side Bicycle Lane Paved Shoulder
Typically added to one-way Conventional bicycle lane placed A portion of a highway
streets to allow cyclists to travel on the left side of one-way contiguous to the roadway
in the opposite direction of all streets or two-way median that can be used by bicyclists,
other traffic divided streets pedestrians, equestrians,
Designated with same markings stopped vehicles, and
as bicycle lane emergencies
DRAFT
May be separated with vertical
barrier
Bicycle Route Colored Bicycle Facility Bike Box
On-street, off-street, or Colored pavement, usually green, A designated area at the head
combination of facility types used to increase the overall of a traffic lane at a signalized
Designated for bicycle travel by visibility of a bicycle facility along intersection that provides
mapping or signage the length, as a spot treatment, bicyclists with a safe and visible
or intersection crossing marking way to get ahead of queuing
traffic during the red signal phase
Bicycle Boulevard Sidewalk Marked Shared Lane
A street with low motorized Sidewalk is the portion of a street Designated with shared lane
traffic volumes and speeds, between the curb lines or the marking
designated and designed to give lateral lines of a roadway and Assists bicyclists with lateral
bicycle travel priority the adjacent property lines and positioning in lanes too narrow
Typically on residential streets that is intended for the use of for a motor vehicle and bicycle to
Use signs, pavement markings, pedestrians. travel side-by-side
and speed and volume Can be used by bicyclists except Assists bicyclists with lateral
management measures to where “No Bicycle” signs are positioning in a shared lane with
discourage through trips by posted or restricted by local on-street parallel parking to
motor vehicles and create safe, statutes reduce the chance of a bicyclist
convenient bicycle crossings of impacting the open door of a
busy arterial streets parked vehicle
page 44 of 94 Maricopa County Department of Transportation
Transportation System Plan 2035

Table 9 – Off-Roadway Bicycle Facilities
Shared Use Path Recreational Trail
Non-motorized use only except for personal mobility devices Does not serve a transportation
May be paved or unpaved function by connecting an origin
If paved, intended for use by bicyclists, pedestrians, people on with a destination
skateboards or using inline skates Typically provides a loop starting
If unpaved, intended for use by bicyclists, pedestrians, and equestrians and ending at the same location
Primarily located within parks or along canals, rivers, and green belts Non-motorized use only except
for personal mobility devices
If paved may be striped with center line and/or edge lines
Intended for use by bicyclists,
May have paved and unpaved surfaces adjacent to each other in same pedestrians, and equestrians
corridor
Usually unpaved but may
May function as sidewalk when located within street right-of-way be treated with stabilized
Should be designed to meet nationally recognized criteria and must decomposed granite
comply with all ADA requirements when no other ADA route exists
Other facilities that promote regional connectivity and safety on existing bicycle facilities include:
Grade-separated crossing
• Overpass – Crosses over the top of freeway, street, canal, river, or wash
• Underpass – Crosses underneath a bridge using
a path or trail typically located in a river, wash, or Table 10 – Bicycle Facilities in Maricopa
County
drainage DRAFT corridor
• Tunnel – Provides a sub-grade crossing of freeway, Bicycle Facilities (in
street, or other barrier usually installed to facilitate centerline miles) Total
continuous access along a path or trail corridor Bike Lane 1,690
At-grade crossing Bike Route 558
• Signalized trail and path crossings Shared Use Path Paved 379
• Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (HAWK - High Intensity Share Use Path Unpaved 350
Activated Crosswalk) Paved Shoulder 258
• Pedestrian refuge locations Recreational Trail 351
Local 3,586
There are approximately 3,500 centerline miles of existing bicycle
facilities within the County, including incorporated areas, as Source: Bike Pathways Map Dataset 2014 – MAG
illustrated in Figure 13. Table 10 summarizes the existing bicycle
facilities within the County.
Maricopa County Department of Transportation page 45 of 94
Transportation System Plan 2035

page intentionally left blank
DRAFT
page 46 of 94 Maricopa County Department of Transportation
Transportation System Plan 2035

Figure 13 – Maricopa County Existing Bicycle Facilities
EXISTING BICYCLE FACILITIES (2014)
Facility Locations
Aguila Iv Wickenburg
Yavapai
County
New River
TO NTO
Aguila
Rd Morristown Anthem Cave Creek NAT IONA L
? Â er
Rd Riv F ORES T
Mine A ÿ
Vulture Wittmann Peoria Verde
Patton Rd
Rio Verde
Rd e r ? Ð
County Eye R i v Sun City West
Eagle Jackrabbit ampa Surprise McDowell Fort
Paz W ay A ÿ Sun City !"c$ A Þ Yavapai Nation
ash
La Hass Scottsdale Gila
Salome Glendale Rive r
Hwy Phoenix Salt County
Iv
Ave Pkwy Citrus Park Paradise Valley Salt River
!"a$ ? ¸ Pima-Maricopa
355th Valley Indian Community
Tonopah Buckeye A Þ A ð
Sun
Wintersburg Avondale Mesa
Tempe Iv
Dobbins Rd
Elliot Rd Gila Rive r Gilbert REFERENCE LAYERS
Goodyear
Arlington Komatke Chandler Interstate National Forest
DRAFT Gila
Crossing Gila River
Indian State Route/US Highway Indian Reservation
Community !"a$
Sun Lakes
Pinal County Other Major Roadway Military
Lake/Reservoir Incorporated Areas
? Í
River or Major Wash County Boundary
Gila
Rive r A ó
County
Yuma
Gila Bend
Theba
!"`$
K
0 10 20
? Í
Miles
Barry M. Goldwater Range
Tohono O'odham Nation
Source: Maricopa County; Flood Control District of
Maricopa County (FCD); Arizona Department of
Transportation (ADOT); Arizona State Land
Pima County Resource Information System (ALRIS);
Source: EPS Group
Maricopa County Department of Transportation
page 47 of 94
Transportation System Plan 2035

DRAFT page intentionally left blank
page 48 of 94 Maricopa County Department of Transportation
Transportation System Plan 2035

2.4.2 Pedestrian Facilities
Pedestrian facilities within the County include
walkways, sidewalks, shared use paths, crosswalks,
curb ramps, traffic calming and control devices,
grade separations, wide shoulders in rural areas,
and furnishings that create a pedestrian friendly
atmosphere, such as benches.
Trails are shared use paths intended for use by
pedestrians and bicyclists. The Maricopa County
Regional Trail System Plan (RTSP), completed in 2004,
identified over 1,500 miles of proposed trail corridors
throughout the County, designated the Maricopa Maricopa County Maricopa Trail
Trail, and confirmed the importance of the Sun Circle
Trail. The plan recommended 114 trail segments for
improvements and prioritized them into four groups. The highest priority was given to Sun Circle and Maricopa
trail corridors. Figure 14 presents the trail improvements recommended by the RTSP along with existing County
trails. These trails are sorted by priority and summarized in Table 11.
Table 11 – Existing and Proposed The Maricopa County Parks and Recreation Department is
Pedestrian Trails responsible for the coordination, development, construction,
and maintenance of the Maricopa Trail and other trail segments
Trails Total Miles within County parks and unincorporated County. The Maricopa
County Parks and Recreation Department coordinates with
Existing Trails 406 MCDOT to provide trail crossings on County roadways. Many of
Priority 1 Trail Project 311.1 the trail segments identified by the RTSP are located within and
Priority 2 Trail Project DRAFT 170.3 under the jurisdiction of numerous federal, state, tribal, and
local agencies. These agencies are working with utilities, water
Priority 3 Trail Project 258.5 districts, and the County to implement a unified and connected
Priority 4 Trail Project 781.6 trail system.
Total 1927.5 Maricopa County Regional Trail System Plan
Source: Regional Trail System Plan Dataset 2004 – Adopted August 16, 2004
Maricopa County Trail Commission
Maricopa Trail
Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Flood Control County County County County District Planning Department Parks Trail of and Maricopa and Recreation Commission of Development Transportation County
Maricopa County Regional Trail
System Plan
Maricopa County Department of Transportation page 49 of 94
Transportation System Plan 2035

page intentionally left blank
DRAFT
page 50 of 94 Maricopa County Department of Transportation
Transportation System Plan 2035

Figure 14 – Maricopa County Regional Trails System Plan (2004)
PRIORITY TRAIL PROJECTS
Priority 1 Trail Project
Aguila Iv Wickenburg Yavapai Priority 2 Trail Project
County
New River
Priority 3 Trail Project
TO NTO
Aguila
Rd Morristown Anthem Cave Creek NATIONA L Priority 4 Trail Project
? Â er
Rd Riv FORES T
Mine A ÿ Existing Park Trails
Vulture Wittmann Peoria Verde
Patton Rd
Rio Verde
County Eye Rd v e r ? Ð
Jackrabbit R i Sun City West
Eagle ampa Surprise McDowell Fort
Paz W ay A ÿ Sun City !"c$ A Þ Yavapai Nation
ash
La Hass Scottsdale Gila
Salome Glendale Rive r
Hwy Iv Phoenix Salt County
Ave Pkwy Citrus Park Paradise Valley Salt River
!"a$ ? ¸ Pima-Maricopa
355th Valley Indian Community
Tonopah Buckeye A Þ A ð
Sun
Wintersburg Avondale Mesa
Tempe Iv
Dobbins Rd
Elliot Rd Gila Rive r Gilbert REFERENCE LAYERS
Goodyear
Arlington Komatke Chandler Interstate National Forest
DRAFT Gila
Crossing Gila Indian River State Route/US Highway Indian Reservation
Community !"a$
Sun Lakes
Pinal County Other Major Roadway Military
Lake/Reservoir Incorporated Areas
? Í
River or Major Wash County Boundary
Gila Rive
r A ó
County
Yuma
Gila Bend
Theba
!"`$
MilesK
0 10 20
? Í
Barry M. Goldwater Range
Tohono O'odham Nation
Source: Maricopa County; Flood Control District of
Maricopa County (FCD); Arizona Department of
Transportation (ADOT); Arizona State Land
Pima County Resource Information System (ALRIS);
Source: EPS Group
Maricopa County Department of Transportation
page 51 of 94
Transportation System Plan 2035

DRAFT page intentionally left blank
page 52 of 94 Maricopa County Department of Transportation
Transportation System Plan 2035

2.4.3 Transit Facilities
Local
MCDOT does not operate or provide regional
transit services. Valley transit providers operate LINK
under a unified public brand known as “Valley Express
Metro.” The regional transit network is comprised
of Local, LINK, Express, and Rapid commuter bus Rapid Commuter Bus Service
service, light rail, neighborhood circulators, rural route, Dial-a-Ride, van Light Rail
pool service, and an online carpool and vanpool matching system. Existing Neighborhood Circulators
transit facilities are summarized in Table 12.
Rural Route
The regional bus network Dial-a-Ride
Table 12 – Existing Transit Facilities operates on roadways and
freeways. Future bus route Van Pool Service
Existing Transit Facilities Total expansion projects are Online Carpool & Vanpool
outlined in the MAG 2035 Matching System
Light Rail Line (miles) 23 Regional Transportation
Light Rail Stops (stops) 33 Plan (RTP). While many Types of Regional Transit
Metro Bus Routes (miles) 2,275 of the expansions will be Network Facilities
need/population driven,
Source: Valley Metro Bus & Light Rail datasets general expansion plans in
2014 – MAG
the western portion of the
County, super grid routes in the eastern portion of the County, and other
express/LINK routes were highlighted in this plan.
The Metro Light Rail provides service to Phoenix, Tempe, and Mesa.
Future Light Rail expansions are planned to extend service further into
Phoenix, Mesa, and the DRAFT western portion of the County. The recently
constructed Sky Train connects the Light Rail to Sky Harbor International
Airport.
Paratransit services provide transportation to people with disabilities.
This form of transit is demand-based and provides greater flexibility than
conventional fixed-route transit. Within the County, paratransit services
are provided by Dial-a-Ride and private organizations. 2035 REGIONAL
TRANSPORTATION
2.4.4 Future Accommodations PLAN (RTP)
The County recognizes there is a general trend towards active JANUARY 2014
transportation. A Goal of TSP 2035 is to provide a seamless network with
connectivity between different modes of travel. TSP 2035 provides a brief
overview of pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities in the County and
is intended to serve as an introduction to the ATP. The ATP will set goals
Maricopa Association
for future visioning for multimodal facilities and will primarily focus on of Governments 2035
pedestrian and bicycle modes of transportation. The ATP is anticipated to Regional Transportation Plan
be completed in late 2017.
2.5 Next Steps
In support of the TSP 2035 Goals MCDOT should consider developing a
Complete Streets Policy allowing consideration for all roadway users.
Maricopa County Department of Transportation page 53 of 94
Transportation System Plan 2035

page intentionally left blank
DRAFT
page 54 of 94 Maricopa County Department of Transportation
Transportation System Plan 2035

DRAFT

page intentionally left blank
DRAFT
page 56 of 94 Maricopa County Department of Transportation
Transportation System Plan 2035

BUILD a Connected Community
The following chapter presents an overview of potential projects, projected MCDOT revenues and expenditures,
and potential additional revenue sources.
Based on the TSP 2035 Needs Analysis discussed in the Design chapter, MCDOT identified approximately 1.5
billion dollars worth of transportation improvements over the next 20 years to address capacity and safety
projects. In addition, nearly 900 million dollars will be needed to operate and maintain the transportation
system. If all identified projects were to be constructed, a funding shortfall of approximately 146 million dollars
would be projected through 2035. This shortfall assumes that MCDOT revenue sources remain throughout the
20-year planning horizon. However, regional funding through MAG, consisting of approximately nine percent of
the total MCDOT projected revenue, will sunset in 2026 unless a new regional action is taken.
The previous statements do not take into consideration that some identified projects require monitoring to
determine actual date of need, other projects may be required as part of new development (with developers
absorbing the cost), and some improvements may be addressed through solutions that increase capacity without
widening existing roadways. This further supports the need for MCDOT to continually monitor growth and traffic
needs; follow trending traffic solutions; prioritize projects; and be prudent with revenues and expenditures,
ensuring investments are cost beneficial. MCDOT is committed to these processes as well as proactively working
with the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors, jurisdictional partners, and others in identifying opportunities to
leverage County revenue streams.
3.1 Potential Projects
Two basic sources were DRAFT used to identify potential projects.
TIP Projects – Projects identified in the TIP spanning FY 2016 to FY 2021. Projects currently programmed for
scoping and/or design may move to construction based on input from various MCDOT branches. A list of current
TIP projects can be found on the MCDOT website.
Identified Needs Analysis –The capacity needs analysis was conducted utilizing the MAG TDM output for each
planning horizon to determine growth on roadways owned, operated, and/or maintained by the County. The
data was then correlated to the service volume standards to identify roadways exceeding the LOS standard. This
process and information was presented in the Design chapter. The complete list of potential projects identified
through this process is included in the Appendix.
The TIP, project lengths, and input from various MCDOT branches were used to develop project costs and project
lengths to determine probable life cycle system costs for programmed and anticipated projects. Project lengths,
in lane miles, projected for each horizon are shown in Table 13.
The lane miles presented in Table 13 and the Table 13 – Potential Projects (Lane Miles)
raw data from the needs analysis presented in
FY 2016 to FY 2021 to FY 2026 to
the Appendix are current as of August 2016. The 2020 2025 2035
data, such as project lengths, may be revised
as appropriate during the MCDOT Project Identified Needs 91.11 19.96 136.63
Development Process described in the Plan Analysis Projects
chapter. TIP Project lane miles in Table 13 may not TIP Projects 73.56 6.60 0.00
include already programmed lane miles that will be
annexed after construction. TOTAL 164.67 26.56 136.63
Maricopa County Department of Transportation page 57 of 94
Transportation System Plan 2035

3.2 Funding Analysis
MCDOT conducted a funding analysis for TSP 2035 based on typical revenues and expenditures through FY
2035. The results from the funding analysis indicated the level of funding available to support the transportation
system. Projected revenues and expenditures are divided in three horizons corresponding with the project
implementation schedule: FY 2016 to FY 2020, FY 2021 to FY 2025, and FY 2026 to FY 2035. Funding information
is presented in 2016 dollars and does not consider inflation.
3.2.1 Projected Revenue
Revenue projections were developed for the 20-year planning period based on existing sources of funding.
Existing revenue sources are categorized as follows:
State Shared Revenue Other Revenue Sources
• Highway User • Permits
Revenue Fund (HURF) • Intergovernmental
• Vehicle License Tax (VLT) Charges STATE Shared Revenue
Regional Revenue • Interest Earnings REGIONAL Revenue
• MAG Arterial Life Cycle • Asset Sales FEDERAL Revenue
Program (ALCP) • Miscellaneous Revenue OTHER Revenue Sources
Federal Revenue • Grants
• Congestion Mitigation • Other Partnership
and Air Quality Revenue Revenue Sources
Improvements Program
(CMAQ)
In general, it is anticipated that existing revenue sources will be available through the TSP 2035 planning period
in comparable scale to today’s values. Forecasted MCDOT revenues are projected to be nearly 3.8 billion dollars
through FY 2035. Table DRAFT 14 summarizes the projected revenue from each source by planning period through FY 2035.
Table 14 – Summary of Estimated Revenue (In Thousands)
Revenue Source FY 2016 to FY 2021 to FY 2026 to Total Projected % of
2020 2025 2035 Revenue Total
State HURF $542,860 $664,110 $1,797,190 $3,004,160 80%
Shared VLT $55,380 $66,230 $170,930 $292,540 8%
Regional ALCP $107,530 $100,420 $114,340* $322,290* 9%
Federal CMAQ $8,530 $8,530 $17,060 $34,120 <1%
Permits $4,750 $4,750 $9,500 $19,000 <1%
IGA $910 $80 $160 $1,150 <1%
Interest $2,500 $2,500 $5,000 $10,000 <1%
Earnings
Other
Asset Sales $1,000 $1,000 $2,000 $4,000 <1%
Sources
Miscellaneous $1,000 $1,000 $2,000 $4,000 <1%
Grants $0 $0 $0 $0 <1%
Other $28,280 $13,810 $27,620 $69,710 2%
Partnerships
TOTAL $752,740 $862,430 $2,145,800 $3,760,970
*Funds projected based on the current ALCP through FY 2026. After FY 2026, half of the funds are projected but not
guaranteed.
page 58 of 94 Maricopa County Department of Transportation
Transportation System Plan 2035

Based on projections, state shared revenue is the largest contributor
to the MCDOT budget, providing approximately 88 percent of the ALCP funds, which
total revenue for the duration of the program. HURF constitutes 80
percent of state shared revenues, while VLT constitutes 8 percent. account for over $320
The next largest contributor is the MAG ALCP, providing nearly nine
percent of the total revenue. Federal revenue from CMAQ constitutes million in revenue over
less than one percent of the total. Other revenue, including permits, 20 years, expire in 2026.
intergovernmental agreements (IGAs), interest earnings, asset sales,
miscellaneous revenue, grants, and partnership revenue collectively
contribute less than three percent of the total.
3.2.2 Projected Expenditures
Life cycle system costs were developed based on three categories: capital, operations and maintenance, and
other. Capital and operations and maintenance costs were developed using the current network size, TIP
Projects, and the TSP 2035 Identified Needs Analysis Projects. Other, includes costs attributed to personnel,
supplies, and overhead costs defined in the Maricopa County Annual Business Strategies (ABS).
Operations and maintenance costs were calculated using the existing network size, 5,309 lane miles (March 2016).
Table 13 identifies new roadway lane miles from the TIP and TSP 2035 Identified Needs Analysis Projects. These
lane miles were multiplied by unit costs to estimate capital improvement costs for each horizon. Once added to
the network, new lane miles will become part of the existing network and must be maintained. New lane miles
were assumed to be constructed by the midpoint of the planning horizon to average maintenance costs across the
period. New lane miles (at the midpoint of the planning horizon) and the existing network lane miles at the start
of the horizon were multiplied by unit costs provided by MCDOT to estimate operations and maintenance costs.
Figure 15 illustrates the process for determining capital, operations, and maintenance costs for each horizon.
LEGEND DRAFT
OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS EXISTING FACILITIES
*Costs for projects programmed in TIP FY 2016 2020 were updated if programmed in TIP by 2017 2021
HORIZON MIDPOINT HORIZON MIDPOINT
Other Other
Improvements Improvements
TIP* Identified Needs
Analysis
HORIZON MIDPOINT Identified Analysis Needs
Other }
Improvements
TIP*
Identified Needs FACILITIES} EXISTING FACILITIES
Analysis EXISTING FACILITIES
EXISTING
FY2016−2020 FY 2021−2025 FY2026−2035
Figure 15 – Breakdown of Expenditures by Horizon
Capital Costs
Capital improvements include projects that increase capacity and/or connectivity, encompassing both
enhancements to existing infrastructure and construction of new facilities. An average project construction unit
cost of 2.2 million dollars per lane mile was developed by reviewing recent engineering estimates. The estimates
included costs for items such as new roadway, roadway widening, structures, drainage, utilities, and right-of-
Maricopa County Department of Transportation page 59 of 94
Transportation System Plan 2035

way. Projected capital costs include an
additional 66 million dollars per five-year
period for other improvements, including
new roads and structures. Capital
expenditures were projected using the
average project construction unit cost
per lane mile for TIP Projects, Identified
Needs Analysis Projects, and other
improvements.
Operations and Maintenance
Operations and maintenance includes the
cost of keeping the transportation system
functioning and efficient. Operations and
maintenance expenditures were projected
based on an ideal unit cost per lane mile. Roadway Construction
The unit cost was increased 10 percent in
the mid-term planning horizon and 15 percent in the long-term planning horizon. A separate cost was developed
for operations and maintenance of traffic signals and structures.
Other
Other costs include personnel, supplies, and overhead costs. Personnel costs, including pay, overtime, and fringe
benefits, were developed using the budgeted total in the ABS FY 2015 Adopted Budget at 30 million dollars
annually. Supplies costs, including general supplies, fuel, and non-capital equipment, were developed using the
budgeted total in the ABS FY 2015 Adopted Budget at three million dollars annually. Overhead costs, including
travel, education and training, freight, utilities, and legal services were developed using the budgeted total in the
ABS FY 2015 Adopted Budget at 40 million dollars annually.
DRAFT
Table 15 shows projected MCDOT expenditures by capital, operations and maintenance, and other. It is projected
that MCDOT will expend approximately 3.9 billion dollars through FY 2035 to address needs, operate and
maintain the system, and pay for other items.
Table 15 – Summary of Projected MCDOT Expenditures (In Thousands)
FY 2016 to FY 2021 to FY 2026 to TOTAL
2020 2025 2035
Capital $749,310 $226,170 $594,330 $1,569,810
Operations and Maintenance $195,170 $218,670 $463,440 $877,280
Other $365,000 $365,000 $730,000 $1,460,000
TOTAL $1,309,480 $809,840 $1,787,770 $3,907,090
3.2.3 Funding Analysis
Table 16 shows a summary of revenue and expenditure projections. Based on the revenue and life cycle system
costs projections, a funding shortfall of 557 million dollars was identified from FY 2016 to 2020. MCDOT will
experience a total funding shortfall of approximately 146 million dollars through FY 2035.
page 60 of 94 Maricopa County Department of Transportation
Transportation System Plan 2035

Table 16 – Summary of Projected Revenues and Expenditures (In Thousands)
FY 2016 to FY 2021 to FY 2026 to TOTAL
2020 2025 2035
Revenue Projections
State Shared $598,240 $730,340 $1,968,120 $3,296,700
Regional $107,530 $100,420 $114,340 $322,290
Federal $8,530 $8,530 $17,060 $34,120
Other Sources $38,440 $23,140 $46,280 $107,860
TOTAL $752,740 $862,430 $2,145,800 $3,760,970
Life Cycle System Costs
Capital $749,310 $226,170 $594,330 $1,569,810
Operations and Maintenance $195,170 $218,670 $463,440 $877,280
Other $365,000 $365,000 $730,000 $1,460,000
TOTAL $1,309,480 $809,840 $1,787,770 $3,907,090
Surplus (Shortfall) ($556,740) $52,590 $358,030 ($146,120)
MCDOT is projected to experience a funding shortfall of approximately 557 million dollars during the first
planning horizon and a total shortfall of 146 million dollars through FY 2035. The projected shortfall of 146
million dollars considers only capacity improvements outlined in the Design chapter; the projected shortfall will
likely increase when Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS), bicycle, and pedestrian improvements are added
to the analysis. This projected DRAFT shortfall will make it critical to monitor revenue sources, such as the regional tax
supporting MAG ALCP which expires in 2026, and enhance funding opportunities. In an effort to address this
potential funding shortfall, MCDOT has identified potential additional revenue sources.
3.2.4 Additional Revenue Sources
Additional revenue sources were investigated to mitigate the shortfall identified for the planning period. This
includes identifying new sources of revenue used by similar entities and modifying existing revenue sources to
generate additional revenue. These sources were categorized as authorized or not authorized by the State of
Arizona legislation.
3.2.4.1 State Authorized Sources
The State of Arizona legislation authorizes various funding mechanisms that are not being utilized by MCDOT, but
could generate new revenue. This includes Public Private Partnerships (P3)s, bonds, and tax levies for County roads.
Public Private Partnerships – P3s are allowed under Title 28 of the Arizona Revised Statutes (ARS) and enable a
public agency and a private sector entity to enter into an agreement allowing the private sector partner to have
an increased level of participation in a public project. This may include funding, design, construction, operation,
and/or management with terms agreed upon by the two entities. MCDOT does not currently have any P3
projects planned. The amount of funding available from this mechanism would vary on a project specific basis.
Bonds – Counties and municipalities have the authority to issue bonds under Title 28 of the ARS. There are two
types of bonds generally used by counties: General Obligation (GO) and revenue bonds. GO bonds are secured
by a full faith and credit of repayment from general revenue as well as by the ability to increase taxes to recover
debt. The Arizona Constitution limits county debt to six percent of a county’s taxable property per Article 9,
Maricopa County Department of Transportation page 61 of 94
Transportation System Plan 2035

Section 8. Revenue bonds allow counties to issue bonds against their revenues to accelerate project construction,
although they are higher risk because repayment is not guaranteed. This reduces the short-term impacts of
funding capital improvement projects and distributes the costs over the life of the project. There is no statutory
limit on revenue bonds. The amount of funding available from bonds would depend on the type of bond.
Property Tax Levy – The BOS may levy a property tax of up to 25 cents per 100 dollars of property in the County
per Title 28 of the ARS. The County Treasurer would collect the tax money for the County to use for highways and
roads. The amount of funding available from this mechanism would vary based on assessed property values in
the County.
3.2.4.2 State Non-Authorized Sources
The following funding mechanisms, including Fuel Revenue Indexing (FRI), Tax Increment Financing (TIF)/ Tax
Increment Reinvestment Zone (TIRZ), and Transportation Reinvestment Zones (TRZ), are not currently authorized
in Arizona. If favorable legislation was passed, MCDOT could generate additional revenue.
Fuel Revenue Indexing – FRI is the process of increasing the fuel tax over time by indexing the tax to inflation.
Arizona state excise gasoline tax (18 cents per gallon) is below the national average, the eighth lowest in the
nation and is below the average in the western region. Based on a review of other state gasoline tax rates using
the American Petroleum Institute monthly publications of gasoline tax in the nation, an increase is reasonable
to consider. Two scenarios were investigated to potentially
generate additional revenue. Scenarios included increasing
the state gasoline tax to the regional average; and increasing
the state gasoline tax and indexing the tax to inflation
from FY 2016 to FY 2024. The additional new revenue was
compared to the projected HURF revenues from Section
3.2.1 to identify the additional MCDOT revenue.
Scenario 1 illustrates DRAFT the effects of increasing the gasoline
tax by 11 cents per gallon to the western region average of
29 cents per gallon. In FY 2016, the modified tax rate would
increase statewide revenue from 474 million dollars to 763
million dollars; nearly a 300 million dollar increase in revenue
in one year in present dollar value. The total revenue
generated from the gasoline tax from FY 2016 to FY 2024
would increase from 4.6 billion dollars to 7.4 billion dollars,
a 2.8 billion dollar difference in present dollar value. The
County would receive an additional 217 million dollars from
HURF based on the total revenue projected from FY 2016 to
FY 2024 in Scenario 1.
Scenario 2 illustrates increasing the gasoline tax by 11 cents
per gallon to the western region average of 29 cents per
gallon and indexing the gas tax to inflation based on the State Excise Tax
consumer price index. The inflation rate was determined
to be 2.225 percent, which was used to index the tax rate starting in FY 2016 at 29 cents per gallon. The total
revenue generated by the gasoline tax, indexed to inflation, from FY 2016 to FY 2024 total would increase from
7.4 billion dollars to 8.1 billion dollars. This is a 1.7 billion dollar difference from Scenario 1 and a 3.5 billion
dollar difference compared to the projected revenue based on the current tax rate. Based on the total revenue
projected through FY 2024 from Scenario 2, the County would see an additional 273 million dollars from HURF.
page 62 of 94 Maricopa County Department of Transportation
Transportation System Plan 2035

Figure 16 shows the HURF revenue that would be generated for the two potential scenarios and the current
projected revenue. In the eight-year period, the tax rate would increase to approximately 35 and 44 cents per
gallon, respectively, by the end of 2035.
$2,200
$2,100 Scenario 2 (Increase
$2,000 and Index Gas Tax)
$1,900
Scenario 1 (Increase
Revenue $1,800 Gas Tax Rate
(in Millions)
$1,700
$1,600 ADOT HURF
Forecasts
$1,500
$1,400
$1,300
2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026
Fiscal Year
Figure 16 – Potential Highway User Revenue Fund Scenarios (Millions ($2015))
Tax Increment Financing/Tax Increment Reinvestment Zone –TIF/ TIRZs are intended to provide funding
for underdeveloped or blighted lands that would otherwise remain unimproved. A tax district is established
around the proposed DRAFT area of improvement, and once improvements are complete, increased property values
are attributed to said improvement. The property tax revenue collected on properties within the tax district
when the improvement is complete continues to be funneled through existing channels; the incremental
property tax increase due to increased property value is collected into a separate fund used to repay the cost of
improvements. The amount of funding available from this mechanism would vary on a project specific basis.
Transportation Reinvestment Zone – TRZs are similar to TIF/TIRZ, but require the tax increment funding
collected to be used for transportation projects. The amount of funding available from this mechanism would
vary on a project specific basis.
3.3 Next Steps
In support of the TSP 2035 Goals MCDOT should continue to annually monitor revenue sources and
expenditures, and prioritize projects based upon available funding. Information from this review is available in
the annual MCDOT State of the System report.
Maricopa County Department of Transportation page 63 of 94
Transportation System Plan 2035

page intentionally left blank
DRAFT
page 64 of 94 Maricopa County Department of Transportation
Transportation System Plan 2035

DRAFT

page intentionally left blank
DRAFT
page 66 of 94 Maricopa County Department of Transportation
Transportation System Plan 2035

MAINTAIN through Strategic System Preservation
MCDOT proactively monitors and evaluates the County transportation system, consisting of nearly 2,000 miles
of roadway and 424 structures. This chapter presents an overview of how MCDOT protects past and future
investments through system preservation program methods and activities.
System preservation methods allow MCDOT to
evaluate the condition of infrastructure and plan
for maintenance, rehabilitation, and complete
reconstruction when necessary. Through the
development and use of system preservation methods
the life of infrastructure such as paved and unpaved
roads, and structures are extended.
4.1 Pavement Management
All roads deteriorate over time due to environmental
conditions and the volume and type of traffic using the
road. Routine and preventative pavement maintenance
are broadly defined as work accomplished to preserve Roadway Clearing
or extend the functional life of a pavement surface
until major rehabilitation or complete reconstruction
is performed. County owned roads are maintained at a high level of service through the following MCDOT
procedures:
DRAFT
Continuous monitoring and evaluation of road conditions. Road evaluation ratings are stored in the Road
Management System (RMS) database
Report road conditions annual reports
Model pavement conditions and maintenance strategies
Annual and long-term maintenance plans and implementation as funding permits
Preventive maintenance preserves the capacity or
strength of the pavement. Timely treatment proves
to be the most cost effective because it extends the
life of the pavement and provides for better road
performance. The majority of treatments for pavement
involve sealing the existing surface and providing a new
wearing surface for traffic.
MCDOT has used preventive maintenance practices
for decades with excellent results. Table 17 shows the
breakdown of each treatment that is typically used, the
frequency of application, and the observed increase in
pavement life per application.
Pavement Preservation
Maricopa County Department of Transportation page 67 of 94
Transportation System Plan 2035

Table 17 – Preventative Maintenance Treatment Longevity
Treatment Pavement Age at Time Frequency of Observed Increase in
of First Application (years) Application (years) Pavement Life (years)
Fog Seal/Rejuvenate 3 to 4 3 to 4 3 to 4
Crack Filling/Sealing 8 to 10 4 to 5 4 to 5
Single Chip Seal 10 to 12 5 to 6 5 to 6
Double Chip Seal 10 to 12 5 to 6 5 to 6
Micro Surfacing 10 to 12 5 to 6 5 to 6
Slurry Seal 10 to 12 5 to 6 5 to 6
Arterial – Thin Overlay – (ARHM) 12 to 15 12 to 15 12
Local – Mill & Resurface 35+ To be determined To be determined
Life Cycle Program
A certain level of maintenance is required to ensure the maximum life of the roadway is achieved resulting in
the best return on investment. This is known as a Life Cycle Program. The program provides management and
oversight for street projects.
MCDOT forecasts its five-year pavement preservation and preventative maintenance needs to support the
existing serviceability level. Preservation treatments typically considered include: arterial asphalt rubber overlay,
local mill and reconstruct or rehabilitation, hot in place recycling, chip seal (low and high volume), microseal,
slurry seal, preservative seal, and crack seal. Pavement conditions are evaluated by Pavement Conditions Ratings
(PCR) and International Roughness Index (IRI). MCDOT uses these scores to monitor pavement conditions and
prioritize maintenance activities. Figure 17 shows a comparison of the two methods used to evaluate pavement
conditions.
DRAFT
Pavement Condition International Roughness
Rating Index
Measures Surface Measures Roughness
Distress
12 - 18 Month Cycle Annual
Figure 17 – Pavement Rating Systems
Pavement Condition Ratings – The PCR is a measurement of surface distress such as cracking, weathering, and
depressions. MCDOT evaluates pavement conditions for surface distress every 12 to 18 months for arterial and
collector roads and every other year for local roads. A field inspection is conducted for each road segment for
surface distress type and frequency to determine the PCR. The results provide an indication of the pavement’s
level of deterioration and can be used in the management and maintenance of paved roads. MCDOT utilizes the
PCR ratings to forecast preventive maintenance programs and for TIP planning.
page 68 of 94 Maricopa County Department of Transportation
Transportation System Plan 2035

International Roughness Index – The IRI is a
measurement of the difference of the pavement surface
from a flat surface. The IRI indicates the roughness of
an arterial road segment on a scale from 1 to 500, with
500 representing an extremely rough road. MCDOT
annually collects the IRI for each arterial road segment,
with a length greater than a quarter mile and uses the
values to forecast preventive maintenance programs
and for TIP planning.
4.1.1 Low Volume Roads Program
Roadway Resurfacing Low volume, unpaved roadways are located throughout
the County in both urban and rural settings. LVRs, when
frequently traveled, can cause air quality concerns. To
address these concerns, MCDOT initiated a program in 1998 to identify roadways for dust abatement.
Maricopa County Air Pollution Control Regulations, Section 302, indicates air quality dust control measures
must be applied to roadways that exceed 150 vehicle trips per day (August 2010). MCDOT typically evaluates
roadways in excess of 100 vehicle trips per day in compliance with Arizona Revised Statute 49-474.01.
Identification of unpaved roads is done on a regular basis utilizing existing roadway data, aerial mapping, and
annexation information. A list of roadways is developed and traffic counts are performed. Roadways are then
evaluated for consideration based on the following:
County maintained
Length of roadway segment
DRAFT
ADT count greater than 100
Connection to an existing paved road
Existing right-of-way
Serves a public facility
Safety concerns
Cost/Benefit ratio
Roadways meeting the criteria are then processed
through a prioritization procedure. Projects
meeting a minimum scoring are considered for
dust mitigation measures. Measures may include
one or more of the following:
Dirt road dust suppression Low Volume Road
Shoulder stabilization
Dirt road paving
Placement of rock products
The MCDOT LVR Program is currently being updated. Additional requirements and prioritization methods may be
recommended.
Maricopa County Department of Transportation page 69 of 94
Transportation System Plan 2035

4.2 Bridge Management
As of June 2015, the County maintains and inspects 424 structures, including 78 bridges and 346 culverts. Every
structure within MCDOT jurisdiction is inspected in accordance with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
National Bridge Inspection Standards Recording and Coding Guide. Through this inspection procedure, MCDOT
is able to maintain thorough, consistent records on each bridge and structure in the County system when
considering how best to appropriate funds and prioritize in-house projects.
MCDOT utilizes the FHWA bridge sufficiency rating formula. The sufficiency rating formula is a method to
quantify a bridge’s sufficiency to remain in service based on the bridge’s structural adequacy and safety,
serviceability, and functional obsolescence (including substandard horizontal and/or vertical clearance), and
essentiality to the public. Special reductions lower the total rating. This formula is explained in Figure 18. A low
sufficiency rating does not necessarily indicate an unsafe condition. If, during annual inspection, a bridge was
determined to be unsafe, mitigating actions would be taken immediately. Mitigation actions could range from
immediately closing the bridge to reducing the legal load limit allowed on the bridge.
Evaluation Criteria
In 1997, the MCDOT Bridge Investment Study
recognized the need to evaluate bridges separately
from road projects. MCDOT scores and prioritizes bridge
projects in the following categories:
Replacement projects
Replacement of dip sections with new structures
Scour protection projects
New bridge projects (not included in major road
projects) DRAFT
A bridge is considered for replacement if the following
conditions are met: Inspection of Historic Gillespie Dam Bridge
The cost of rehabilitation is 50 percent or more
than the cost of a new bridge
The Bridge Engineer agrees replacement is justifiable
The MCDOT bridge inspection program is kept current, complete, and meets or exceeds all current Federal
National Bridge Inspection Standards. MCDOT bridge inspection data is included in the ADOT managed database
which uses the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Bridge Management software
electronic database, AASHTOWareBrM.
COMPATIBILITY
STRUCTURAL WITH DESIGN VALUE FOR SUPPLEMENTAL
BRIDGE INTEGRITY STANDARDS CONNECTIVITY CONSIDERATIONS
SUFFICIENCY Structural Serviceability and Essentiality for Special
Adequacy Functional Public Use Reductions
Obsolescence
Factors Combine to Determine Programming Needs.
Low Score Does Not Necessarily Indicate Unsafe Conditions.
Figure 18 – Sufficiency Rating Formula
page 70 of 94 Maricopa County Department of Transportation
Transportation System Plan 2035

4.3 Asset Management
Asset management is recognized as a way of doing
business and is meant to provide a strategic and
systematic process in operating, maintaining, upgrading
and expanding assets throughout their lifecycle. An
Asset Management Plan is typically distinguished by the
following:
Policy-driven – Resource allocation decisions
based on well-defined policy goals and objectives
including evaluation of alternatives using credible
and current data.
Performance-based – Policy objectives translated Cotton Lane Bridge
into system performance measures used for both
day-to-day and strategic management.
Analytical Evaluation of Options and Tradeoffs – Decisions on allocation of funds and resources based
upon how different allocation scenarios will affect achievement of relevant policy objectives.
Clear Accountability and Feedback – Performance is monitored and results are evaluated for both
efficiency and effectiveness.
MCDOT is currently updating the Asset Management process which will be identified as the Transportation
Asset Management Program. The process will include an analysis to determine where the agency is currently;
where it wants to be – goals and objectives; and a roadmap of what steps need to be taken to achieve strategic
objectives.
4.4 Next Steps
In support of the TSP DRAFT 2035 Goals MCDOT should continue to improve the PRS, Asset Management Program, and
update the life cycle analysis process.
Maricopa County Department of Transportation page 71 of 94
Transportation System Plan 2035

page intentionally left blank
DRAFT
page 72 of 94 Maricopa County Department of Transportation
Transportation System Plan 2035

DRAFT

page intentionally left blank
DRAFT
page 74 of 94 Maricopa County Department of Transportation
Transportation System Plan 2035

OPERATE a Safe and Efficient
Transportation System
MCDOT is a regional and national leader in Transportation System Management. This includes a variety of
technologies and programs, from Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) technology to incident management. As
the nation continues to push autonomous vehicle technology, MCDOT continues to partner and spearhead these
and other exciting advanced technologies to promote the quality of life and economic vitality of the County.
This chapter presents an overview of the infrastructure, systems, and programs used to operate the County
transportation system.
5.1 Traffic Management System
The MCDOT Transportation Systems Management Division is responsible for the traffic management system.
This system monitors the operations and management of traffic on County roads, oversees the infrastructure,
policies, and procedures to manage traffic congestion, and shares information with other agencies and the
traveling public.
The purpose of the traffic management system is to identify and measure:
Traffic growth and congestion on County roads
Improvements to traffic operations through innovation, ITS, incident management, and traveler information
5.2 Traffic Management Center
The Traffic Management DRAFT Center (TMC) improves safety and transportation system efficiency for County residents.
The TMC is staffed and/or monitored 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. ITS devices, such as traffic signals, closed-
circuit television (CCTV) cameras mounted on traffic signals, dynamic message signs (DMS), traffic detection, and
communications infrastructure allow MCDOT to respond to roadway incidents and communicate the latest traffic
information.
TMC staff members monitor and analyze information from a number of sources including CCTV cameras, road
sensors, public safety monitors and radios, the media, and AZTech regional partners. This information allows TMC
staff members to respond to traffic incidents by adjusting signal timing, deploying incident management crews,
and sending out alerts to travelers through a variety of ways. Access to other jurisdictional agency ITS devices is
based upon active IGAs.
MCDOT Traffic Management System
Maricopa County Department of Transportation page 75 of 94
Transportation System Plan 2035

Table 18 compares the FY 2006 and FY 2015 levels of deployment for ITS infrastructure to measure growth in ITS
devices.
Table 18 – Growth of Intelligent Transportation System Features for FY 2006 and FY 2015
ITS Feature FY 2006 FY 2015 % Growth
Amount Amount 2006-2015
CCTV Cameras 32 561 75%
DMS with Travel Time Posting Capabilities 0 5 -
Traffic Signals with Communication to MCDOT TMC 36 120 233%
The TMC has access to incident data on freeways from the AZDPS and the Computer-Aided Dispatch (CAD) system
of the Phoenix Fire Department for arterial incidents. Incident management is one of the primary functions of the
TMC. For incidents occurring on County-owned roads and local agency-owned roads, the TMC supports the County
Sheriff’s Office, AZDPS, and local public safety agencies via alerts, closure reporting, scene monitoring through
camera images (where available), and media relations (if needed).
System Performance
System performance is critical to effective traffic management. TMC staff members routinely perform system
health checks and log the status of devices and systems in the Performance Activity Log. MCDOT collects data to
support established performance metrics as well as the analysis of incidents and other as needed requests for
performance reporting.
Traveler Information
The TMC provides various traveler information functions for
the County, as well as the region. This includes e-mail traffic EMAIL TWEET TEXT DMS PHONE
& WEB
alerts, tweets, text alerts, and travel time messages to DMS.
Data is entered into MCDOT’s DRAFT Advanced Traveler Information MCDOT Traffic Management Center
System (ATIS) for arterial incidents and events for automated
posting to the statewide 511 traveler information system. Traveler Information
5.3 Regional Collaboration
MCDOT leads and participates in multiple programs developed to enhance connectivity across jurisdictional
boundaries, including ITS planning, data sharing, communication, and incident management. Through these
efforts, MCDOT partners with municipalities, ADOT, and law enforcement/first responders to better serve the
public. The relationship between these programs and their leadership is shown in Figure 19 on the next page.
5.3.1 AZTech
MCDOT, jointly with ADOT, serves as a program leader for the AZTech Regional Transportation Partnership. Through
regional collaboration, this partnership aims to integrate and improve regional traffic management. Individual
cities and towns deploy, operate, and maintain their ITS systems and equipment; MCDOT helps to integrate these
efforts to facilitate better regional traffic management and coordination. The regional AZTech activities that are
coordinated through the MCDOT Transportation Systems Management Division include:
Institutional collaboration and public-private partnerships
Center-to-Center communications infrastructure development
Interagency operations
Regional traveler information support
Incident management
page 76 of 94 Maricopa County Department of Transportation
Transportation System Plan 2035

AZTech was established in 1996 as one of four metropolitan
areas selected by the United States Department of
Transportation (USDOT) for the ITS Metropolitan Model
Deployment Initiative (MDI). The AZTech partnership
was formed as a result of this MDI to integrate the
PLANNING AND region’s transportation system and give travelers up-
COORDINATION
ITS DATA to-the-minute traffic information through innovative
STORAGE & AZTech – MCDOT/ADOT partnerships among public sector and private
MANAGEMENT sector technology companies. AZTech successfully
RADS completed the MDI in 2000 and has transitioned into a
MCDOT – Maintenance and Oversight permanent partnership that continues to serve as a forum
ADOT – Server and Tech Support
for innovation in transportation systems operations and
management in the County.
INCIDENT AZTech brings together decision makers and practitioners
MANAGEMENT with a consensus-based approach to traffic management.
REACT – MCDOT Members of AZTech include the MCDOT, ADOT, MAG, Valley
ALERT – ADOT Metro, AZDPS, cities, towns, and private partners. Members
represent state and county traffic management and operations,
regional transit operations, regional planning, municipal traffic
Figure 19 – Regional Coordination and transportation agencies, state and regional law enforcement,
and public safety and emergency services.
MCDOT and ADOT continue their leadership roles chairing the AZTech Executive Committee, which sets strategic
direction for the AZTech partnership. The AZTech Strategy Task Force is a subgroup of the Executive Committee
and is comprised of senior staff from member agencies across the region. AZTech also includes the following
committees and working DRAFT groups, which meet regularly and include representation from multiple partner
agencies. These committees include:
Operations Committee
Traffic Incident Management Coalition
Strategic Steering Committee
ATIS Working Group
MCDOT TMC Operators Working Group
The AZTech Traffic Incident Management (TIM) Coalition was established in 2011. AZDPS is the lead agency for
the TIM Coalition and its members include MCDOT, FHWA, ADOT, MAG, first responders, medical examiners,
towing and recovery entities, and public information officers. The focus is to achieve the TIM National Unified
Goal. The National Unified Goal priorities include:
Responder safety
Safe, quick clearance
Prompt, reliable, interoperable communications
The TIM Coalition has helped to improve cross discipline communications, increase exposure to TIM training
courses in Arizona, debrief secondary incidents, and conduct joint training and planning. As of July 2014, the
TIM Coalition had conducted 108 TIM 4-hour classes with 2,815 first responders and produced 2 training videos
illustrating how traffic reporters play a critical role in reducing congestion and improving safety.
Maricopa County Department of Transportation page 77 of 94
Transportation System Plan 2035

5.3.2 Regional Archived Data System
In 2003, MCDOT, ADOT, and FHWA developed and implemented an innovative archive and retrieval system for ITS
data. The Regional Archived Data System (RADS) was designed to provide and maintain valid, classified ITS derived
data for use in transportation system planning and modeling. MCDOT is responsible for management and oversight
of RADS, and local jurisdictions provide data as appropriate to the RADS server as shown in Figure 20. The RADS
server is housed in the ADOT Traffic Operations Center (TOC); ADOT provides technical support for maintenance
activities to the server. RADS has become a critical part of the region’s data sharing strategy.
FMS Field Devices ADOT TOC Operations Traveler Information
CCTV Cameleon Camera ISP &
ADOT Operators TOC ADOT Operators District ADOT FTP FMS Data Data Users
RWIS Browse Enter Freeway Browse Events Enter Freeway AZ511.COM
Winter Maint. Post Events Events Events AZ511.COM Web Site
Dust Warning Message HCRS
DMS 511 Phone
Manual Text Freeway
Travel Time Management Public Safety
MINUTES TO System Data Event Data Integration
SR-143 I-10 TUNNEL 14 6 Control Sign Phoenix Fire Maricopa Department County 9-1-1 RCRS CAD Data and
Post Emergency Response Data CAD 9-1-1
Ramp Meter Control Travel Time RADS RADS Calls
Data Ramp
Meter Operation Tools
Detector Station Detector Data Processing FMS Data & Archive TransSuite Inter-jurisdiction
i2 Traffic Signal Timing
DRAFT KITS Data (9 jurisdictions) Sharing
Travel Time Service
Travel Time AZTech Information Regional System
Incident Real-time, Notification multi-jurisdiction and Monitoring Tool
Traveler Information Display at ARID (12 jurisdictions)
Sky Harbor Airport & MCDOT Offices Sensors Freeway
Travel Performance Measures
Time Third-Party For Traffic Signals
Travel Time (SPM)
Jurisdiction Travel Travel Time Data Data (4 jurisdictions)
Arterial DMS Time Systems
Figure 20 – AZTech Regional Archived Data System (RADS) Source: System Report State of FY the 2015
The RADS is linked with the ADOT Highway Condition Reporting System (HCRS) to provide real time traffic data
to support speed maps on the AZ511 website as well as supplemental road condition information collected from
public safety agencies and local agencies not already provided through the HCRS. RADS takes ITS data from systems
throughout the Phoenix metropolitan area, stores the data in a centralized archived data server, and then makes the
data available for a variety of users through a common internet interface. Processes incorporated into the RADS system
include:
ADOT freeway management system (FMS) detector station data
Travel times from FMS detector station data that are displayed on freeway DMS, at the Sky Harbor
International Airport Rental Car Center, and at County buildings in downtown Phoenix
ADOT HCRS events
Phoenix Fire incident data
Traffic signal timing and traffic characteristic data from local jurisdictions
page 78 of 94 Maricopa County Department of Transportation
Transportation System Plan 2035

Additional RADS capabilities will be added to the TMC to support regional traffic signal operations and traveler
information. The systems at MCDOT will serve as backup to the current systems at ADOT.
5.3.3 Regional Emergency Action Coordinating Team
The REACT Program applies the principles of traffic incident
management; a planned and coordinated process to detect, respond
to, and remove traffic incidents and restore traffic capacity as safely
and quickly as possible. The REACT Program started as an expansion of the AZTech MDI with the goal to assist
with traffic management by setting up emergency lane/road closures, installing and maintaining signed detour
routes and providing directional information to motorists. REACT provides on-call emergency traffic management
services within unincorporated County and partnering local agency jurisdictions.
MCDOT, as the lead agency
for the implementation of the
REACT Program, has created
sustainable partnerships
with different communities
in the County to promote the
traffic incident management
principles. REACT also
coordinates its activities
with the ADOT Arizona Local
Emergency Response Team
(ALERT) freeway incident Regional Emergency Action Coordinating Team
response program and is a
member of the AZTech TIM Coalition. IGAs have REACT benefits include:
been developed with DRAFT the following jurisdictions: Reduction in hours of travel time delay
City of Glendale Reduction in gallons of wasted fuel consumption
City of Peoria Reduction in tons of vehicle pollution emissions
City of Avondale
City of Tolleson These reductions are primarily achieved by allowing partial
City of Scottsdale closures of roadway versus complete closures and by providing
clearly marked detour routes and advanced information
through truck mounted DMS.
REACT fosters improved safety for emergency
responders and investigators by providing better traffic management at incident scenes, increases safety to the
public and reduces secondary accidents through deployment of clear and efficient traffic control.
REACT reduces the adverse economic impacts associated with long-term incident congestion. It provides an
efficient use of community resources through interjurisdictional cooperation. Some of the specific benefits
include:
Reduction in hours of travel time delay
Reduction in gallons of wasted fuel consumption
Reduction in tons of vehicle pollution emissions
These reductions are primarily achieved by allowing partial closures of roadway versus complete closures and by
providing clearly marked detour routes and advanced information through truck mounted DMS.
Maricopa County Department of Transportation page 79 of 94
Transportation System Plan 2035

5.4 Safety management system
The County Safety Management System (SMS) is a systematic process that has three goals. These include:
Document road safety improvements made by the County during the previous fiscal year;
Identify the location, type, and severity of traffic crashes in the unincorporated portions of the County; and
Report trends in traffic crashes and recommended improvements to reduce the number and rate of crashes.
MCDOT makes an effort to respond quickly to identified safety problems. These problems are frequently
identified through public complaints about unsafe road conditions, first-hand observations by County staff
members, and reviews of recent crash records for County roads. When an actual or potential problem is
encountered, a detailed engineering analysis may be conducted and recommendations are made to correct the
situation. These recommendations are handled in one of three ways:
Relatively simple and inexpensive solutions are handled through the maintenance process.
More complex problems are handled by the Transportation Systems Management Division.
Complex problems involving significant changes that require substantial funding amounts are handled
through the programming process.
This tiered approach enables MCDOT to respond to needs of all sizes.
5.4.1 Evaluation of Safety
MCDOT continually monitors the system to identify and evaluate
potential safety concerns. This allows MCDOT to prioritize and schedule
improvements for upcoming years. The initial step each year is to identify Including and Revision Revision 1 2 dated dated May May 2012 2012
locations with potential safety concerns by examining the location and
number of crashes, crash DRAFT rates, injury severity, and the types of crashes
occurring on County roads. At these locations, crash history is used to
evaluate the road and determine if improvements are required.
The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) provides
guidance to determine if an identified safety problem meets the warrant
criteria for the installation of multi-way stop control or traffic signals.
Crash data, ADT count, and posted speed are just a few of the criteria
considered in the warrant analysis. Potential projects meeting warrant
criteria are typically programmed according to highest need and available
funding.
FHWA Manual on Uniform
5.4.2 State and Regional Safety Traffic Control Devices
MCDOT identified 4 main focus areas based on the 12 Emphasis Areas
established in the 2014 Arizona Strategic Highway Safety Plan (AZSHSP) and the 6 Action Areas for the 2015
MAG Strategic Transportation Safety Plan (STSP). These focus areas were identified as those that MCDOT, as a
transportation agency, could most directly influence and take actions to improve. The MCDOT focus areas are:
Intersection crashes
Fatal and incapacitating injury crashes
Non-motorized (e.g. bicycle or pedestrian) crashes
Work zone crashes
page 80 of 94 Maricopa County Department of Transportation
Transportation System Plan 2035

5.5 MCDOT SMARTDrive ProgramSM
Through a federal initiative called “Connected Vehicles”, USDOT is working
to leverage ITS technology to improve traffic operations to support public
safety and surface transportation mobility. The Arizona Connected Vehicle
initiative is a partnership between MCDOT, ADOT, and the University of
Arizona. The initiative has developed and deployed connected vehicle
applications that integrate vehicles with Systematically Managed
ARTerial (SMART) roadway systems in the County. Through the MCDOT
SMARTDrive ProgramSM, MCDOT has invested in planning, designing, and
implementing a connected vehicle test bed in Anthem, a community
of approximately 25,000 residents. The test bed includes 5.5 miles of
roadway and 11 intersections equipped with roadside technology.
CONNEC
With this new technology, vehicles will be able to interact with other
vehicles through Dedicated Short-Range Communications (DSRC)
radios. They are similar to Wi-Fi, except DSRC communications have less
latency. This is what provides vehicles with a 360 degree awareness of
their surroundings, as well as awareness of other vehicles that may be
around them. Instead of focusing on surviving crashes, the USDOT has
concentrated its efforts on helping people avoid crashes. Preventing
crashes with other cars could potentially be achieved through Vehicle-
to-Vehicle (V2V) Communications; alternatively, Vehicle-to-Infrastructure
(V2I) Communications would provide intelligent priority to emergency,
transit, and freight vehicles. It will also make drivers cognizant of road
infrastructure related advisories and warnings. Drivers will receive
messages when their vehicle is entering school zones, construction zones,
or even receive recommendations DRAFT on optimum speed to minimize delays
at upcoming traffic signals. Alerts provided through in-vehicle systems
will be designed not to distract drivers. V2V and V2I applications are
anticipated to address up to 80 percent of crashes that involve unimpaired
drivers.
MCDOT SMARTDrive ProgramSM, which originated in 2007, represents an
evolution of connected vehicle research, testing, and implementation.
Initiated as a research project supported by the Arizona Transportation
Research Center, the program has successfully demonstrated live signal
priority operations and connectivity at the Anthem test bed.
80%
+ =
Vehicle-to-Vehicle (V2V) Vehicle-to-Infrastructure Potential Crash
Communications (V2I) Communications Reduction*
*Crashes involving
unimpaired drivers
Connected Vehicle Technology
Maricopa County Department of Transportation page 81 of 94
Transportation System Plan 2035

The MCDOT SMARTDrive ProgramSM test bed will
continue to focus on traffic signal operations, safety,
and mobility applications. MCDOT has deployed
applications under the USDOT and the Connected
Vehicle Pooled Fund Program Multimodal Intelligent
Traffic Signal System initiative. The test bed in Anthem
will continue to be expanded and demonstrated to
local, regional state, and national stakeholders in the
upcoming years.
Key components of the MCDOT SMARTDrive ProgramSM
demonstrations include:
Eleven signalized intersections equipped with MCDOT SMARTDrive ProgramSM
DSRC radios
Installation of traffic signal priority applications
Representative emergency vehicle and transit vehicle used to test application priority logic
Field test for emergency and transit applications
Pedestrian crosswalk application using smartphones to display crossing status
Collection of detailed vehicle and traffic operations data for post-operational analysis
These demonstrations are among the first steps in implementation of autonomous vehicle technology.
Developing technologies and trends such as autonomous vehicles, the virtualization of work environment, and
the increasing use of ride-sharing services have the potential to substantially change the way people travel and
goods are transported. These changes will likely challenge conventional transportation planning practices and
affect the development DRAFT and investment in the transportation system. The development and implementation
of these rapidly evolving technologies will be affected by legislation, policy, insurance industry requirements,
and other non-transportation oriented factors. There are numerous unknowns that the industry, through
organizations such as the Transportation Research Board, is investigating. What is known is that MCDOT
recognizes the changing transportation environment, is proactively tracking and participating in the development
of these technologies, and will adapt to changes within standards of practice.
5.6 Next Steps
In support of the TSP 2035 Goals MCDOT should continue efforts as a regional and national leader in supporting
and discovering new technology to increase roadway operations.
page 82 of 94 Maricopa County Department of Transportation
Transportation System Plan 2035

DRAFT
The above spectrum iden fies ac vi es that support the MCDOT Plan, Design, Build, Maintain and Operate
process. These support ac vi es are fully involved to ensure MCDOT can successfully evaluate and monitor
the transporta on system providing connec vity and service to meet the needs of the traveling public today
and into the future.

page intentionally left blank
DRAFT
page 84 of 94 Maricopa County Department of Transportation
Transportation System Plan 2035

CONCLUSION
Throughout chapters Plan, Design, Build, Maintain, and Operate; research, data, and methods were identified
that support the TSP 2035 Goals. The TSP 2035 Goals were established through a proactive partnering process,
and drove the overall development of TSP 2035. The following summary outlines how the Goals were or will be
achieved.
GOAL: PROMOTE QUALITY OF LIFE AND ECONOMIC VITALITY
TSP 2035 is based on updated socioeconomic data. Existing and future demographic trends, including where
County residents live and work, allows MCDOT to anticipate and accommodate the needs of a growing
population. Growth trends were identified to develop traffic projections and identify potential projects that
support growth, as well as provide opportunities for economic development. Moving forward evaluation
of potential impacts to socioeconomic, cultural and natural resources, will be further refined based on the
established project development processes.
GOAL: PROVIDE A SYSTEM THAT IS SAFE AND EFFICIENT FOR ALL MODES OF TRAVEL
TSP 2035 establishes potential improvements to the existing roadway network. Alternative modes of
transportation, including existing bicycle, pedestrian, and transit facilities, were evaluated. This evaluation led to
the kickoff of the County Active Transportation Plan in the fall of 2016. To support efficient and safe County-wide
transportation, TSP 2035 continues the support and expansion of the MCDOT ITS program, including regional and
national influences. MCDOT’s focus on safety is further exemplified through prioritizing projects using safety as a
primary measure and facilitating incident management through MCDOT’s REACT.
DRAFT
GOAL: ENCOURAGE A SEAMLESS REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION NETWORK
The TSP 2035 foundation is built on the input and information gathered from MCDOT partner agencies. Through
multiple meetings and proactive coordination activities, MCDOT continues to sustain and strengthen its regional
partnerships and relationships. This includes facilitating regional projects and expanding the regional ITS
infrastructure, coordination, and value. Moving forward, MCDOT plans to facilitate the recurring gathering of TSP
2035 partners to ensure plans evolve with the ever developing County-wide needs.
GOAL: PROTECT PAST AND FUTURE TRANSPORTATION INVESTMENTS THROUGH STRATEGIC
SYSTEM PRESERVATION
A TSP 2035 focal point is to preserve capacity through efficient traffic management. This will be accomplished
through continued support of ITS and TSMO principals to optimize existing infrastructure and respond to
future transportation needs. A key component to preserving the County transportation assets is the TSP 2035
incorporation of recurring MCDOT tasks, including the SOS Report and the MSRP, as well as operation and
maintenance activities and the LVR programs. Through these activities and established performance measures,
MCDOT has the system in place to preserve County investments and maximize the long term success of County
development.
As is evidence in the efforts identified in TSP 2035, MCDOT is committed to “Providing Connections that Improve
People’s Lives” now and into the future.
Maricopa County Department of Transportation page 85 of 94
Transportation System Plan 2035

page intentionally left blank
DRAFT
page 86 of 94 Maricopa County Department of Transportation
Transportation System Plan 2035

DRAFT

page intentionally left blank
DRAFT
page 88 of 94 Maricopa County Department of Transportation
Transportation System Plan 2035

APPENDIX
The following tables include MCDOT roadways projected to exceed Level of Service (LOS) standards. Potential
projects are sorted by horizon year (2020, 2025, and 2035) and listed in alphabetical/numerical order.
SHORT-TERM HORIZON: FY 2016 TO FY 2020 - Identified Needs
Road Name At/From To
51st Ave Santa Cruz Rd Estrella Dr
67th Ave Southern Ave Broadway Rd
83rd Ave Northern Ave Las Palmaritas Dr
91st Ave Baseline Rd 0.50 miles north of Baseline Rd
103rd Ave US-60 Thunderbird Rd
152nd St Rio Verde Dr Peak View Rd
195th Ave I-10 McDowell Rd
Baseline Rd 71st Ave 0.10 miles east of 61st Dr
Baseline Rd 91st Ave 83rd Ave
Bell Rd 111th Ave Del Webb Blvd
Beltline Rd Maricopa Rd Santa Cruz Rd
DRAFT
Broadway Rd 43rd Ave 39th Ave
Broadway Rd 0.08 miles east of 35th Ave 0.50 miles east of 35th Ave
Broadway Rd 75th Ave 0.02 miles east of 67th Ave
Broadway Rd 0.08 miles east of 67th Ave 63rd Ave
Broadway Rd 59th Ave 0.30 miles east of 59th Ave
Broadway Rd 55th Ave 0.25 miles east of 55th Ave
Camelback Rd 0.02 miles west of Village Pkwy Valley Glen
Center St Crozier Rd Dove Valley Rd
Chandler Heights Rd Recker Rd 0.13 miles east of 182nd St
Crismon Rd Broadway Rd Balsam Ave
Del Webb Blvd US-60 Thunderbird Rd
El Mirage Rd Glendale Ave Northern Ave
Elliot Rd 0.17 miles east of SR-202/Santan Fwy Signal Butte Rd
Forest Rd Loredo Ln Rio Verde Dr
Germann Rd Ellsworth Rd 212th St
Germann Rd Sossaman Rd 195th St
Granite Valley Dr Meeker Blvd White Rock Dr (table continued next page)
Maricopa County Department of Transportation page 89 of 94
Transportation System Plan 2035

(table continued from previous page) SHORT-TERM HORIZON: FY 2016 TO FY 2020 - Identified Needs
Road Name At/From To
Happy Valley Pkwy 117th Ave 109th Ave
Hunt Hwy Bell Rd Sossaman Rd
Hunt Hwy Higley Rd Power Rd
Hunt Hwy Dobson Rd 0.25 miles east of McQueen Rd
Indian School Rd 201st Ave 195th Ave
Johnson Rd Roosevelt St Portland St
Litchfield Rd Northern Pkwy Peoria Ave
Lower Buckeye Rd 71st Ave 67th Ave
Meridian Rd US-60 Southern Ave
MC 85 Southern Ave Sarival Ave
New River Rd 24th Ln 15th Ave
New River Rd Honda Bow Rd Wild Field Dr
Ocotillo Rd 138th St 142nd St
Ocotillo Rd 228th St Meridian Rd
Olive Ave 103rd Ave 99th Ave
Olive Ave Cotton Ln 0.50 miles east of Litchfield Rd
Patton Rd DRAFT 235th Ave 224th Ave
Power Rd Los Altos Rd 0.40 miles north of Los Altos Rd
Power Rd Orchid Ln 0.05 miles south of SR-202/Santan Fwy
Rio Verde Dr 152nd Ave Forest Rd
Rittenhouse Rd 0.03 miles south of Riggs Rd Riggs Rd
Rittenhouse Rd 0.20 miles north of Cloud Rd Via De Palmas
Roosevelt St Johnson Rd 299th Ave
Southern Ave SR-202/South Mountain Fwy 59th Ave
Southern Ave 49th Dr 46th Dr
Southern Ave 46th Ave 45th Ave
Southern Ave 41st Ave 39th Ave
Thomas Rd/Lehi Rd Thomas Rd 0.10 miles north of Thomas Rd/Lehi Rd
Thunderbird Blvd 103rd Ave Cedar Dr
Tuthill Rd Elliot Rd Beloat Rd
Val Vista Dr Brooks Farms Rd Ocotillo Rd
Wescott Dr Old El Mirage Rd El Mirage Rd
Yuma Rd Dean Rd 0.15 miles east of Dean Rd
page 90 of 94 Maricopa County Department of Transportation
Transportation System Plan 2035

MID-TERM HORIZON: FY 2021 TO FY 2025 - Identified Needs
Road Name At/From To
91st Ave Pinnacle Peak Rd Villa Lindo Dr
107th Ave Villa Chula Adela Drive
107th Ave Avenida Del Sol Hatfield Rd
Broadway Rd Bullard Ave Litchfield Rd
Broadway Rd 91st Ave 75th Ave
Camelback Rd Valley Glen Litchfield Rd
Happy Valley Pkwy SR-303 117th Ave
Indian School Rd 0.20 miles east of Jackrabbit Trl Perryville Rd
Jomax Rd 0.20 miles east of 163rd Ave 0.15 miles west of 147th Ave
Lindsay Rd Spur Rd Applyby Rd
Lower Buckeye Rd Dysart Rd 127th Ave
MC-85 Jackrabbit Trl Perryville Rd
New River Rd 15th Ave Fig Springs Rd
Northern Ave Cotton Ln SR-303
Peoria Ave Cotton Ln 0.20 miles east of Cotton Ln
Peoria Ave 0.20 miles west of Sarival Ave Sarival Ave
Peoria Ave DRAFT 107th Ave 105th Ave
Peoria Ave Cortessa Pkwy Citrus Rd
Power Rd 0.30 miles north of Williams Field Rd Galveston St
Val Vista Dr Chandler Heights Rd Brooks Farm Rd
LONG-TERM HORIZON: FY 2026 TO FY 2035 - Identified Needs
Road Name At/From To
27th Ave 0.10 miles north of Carlise Rd Joy Ranch Rd
27th Ave 29th Ave 0.05 miles north of Maddock Rd
71st Ave Acoma Dr Banff Ln
91st Ave 0.35 miles south of Broadway Rd 0.05 miles south of Broadway Rd
99th Ave 0.60 miles north of Glendale Ave Northern Ave
107th Ave Roosevelt Pkwy Van Buren St
107th Ave Sequoia Dr Union Hills Dr
195th Ave Thomas Rd Indian School Rd
195th Ave Camelback Rd Medlock Dr
(table continued next page)
Maricopa County Department of Transportation page 91 of 94
Transportation System Plan 2035

(table continued from previous page) LONG-TERM HORIZON: FY 2026 TO FY 2035- Identified Needs
Road Name At/From To
211th Ave 0.10 miles south of Wildcat Dr US-60
339th Ave Van Buren St I-10
387th Ave Camelback Rd 0.70 miles north of Bethany Home Rd
Baseline Rd MC-85 Apache Rd
Beloat Rd 0.25 miles east of Apache Rd Watson Rd
Beloat Rd Rainbow Rd Dean Rd
Beloat Rd Tuthill Rd/Jackrabbit Trl Verrado Wy
Broadway Rd Dean Rd Jackrabbit Trl
Camelback Rd 195th Ave 0.30 miles east of 193rd Dr
Camelback Rd 0.50 miles east of El Mirage Rd 0.20 miles west of 111th Ave
Chandler Heights Rd 122nd St Adams Ave
Cloud Rd 33rd Ave 29th Ave
Crismon Rd Balsam Ave McKellips Rd
Dean Rd Lower Buckeye Rd 0.15 miles north of Lower Buckeye Rd
Deer Valley Access Rd Deer Valley Dr El Mirage Rd
Deer Valley Dr 135th Ave Deer Valley Access Rd
Deer Valley Rd DRAFT El Mirage Rd 109th Ave
Dobbins Rd 0.25 miles east of 59th Ave 0.10 miles west of 51st Ave
Dobbins Rd 0.10 miles east of 51st Ave 43rd Ave
Dobbins Rd 0.65 miles east of 43rd Ave 0.15 miles west of 35th Ave
Dobbins Rd 33rd Ave 0.45 miles west of 27th Ave
Dove Valley Rd 215th Ave 211th Ave
El Mirage Rd Denton St Marshall Ave
El Mirage Rd Corte Bella Drive SR-303
Elliot Rd 0.40 miles east of Power Rd 0.01 miles east of Sossaman Rd
Elliot Rd Tuthill Rd Rainbow Valley Rd
Elliot Rd 0.75 miles west of Hawes Rd 0.28 miles east of Hawes Rd
Germann Rd 212th St Merrill Rd
Happy Valley Rd 0.80 miles east of Dysart Rd El Mirage Rd
Hazen Rd SR-85 Miller Rd
Indian Rd Gila Blvd San Lucy Rd
Indian School Rd El Mirage Rd 111th Ave
Jackrabbit Trl Durango St Yuma Rd
(table continued next page)
page 92 of 94 Maricopa County Department of Transportation
Transportation System Plan 2035

(table continued from previous page) LONG-TERM HORIZON: FY 2026 TO FY 2035 - Identified Needs
Road Name At/From To
Jackrabbit Trl Van Buren St I-10
Jackrabbit Trl Beloat Rd MC-85
Jomax Rd 195th Ave Gordon Wy
Lower Buckeye Rd 127th Ave El Mirage Rd
Lower Buckeye Rd Dean Rd Perryville Rd
Lower Buckeye Rd 0.10 miles east of 170th Ln 167th Ave
McDowell Rd 199th Ave 197th Ave
McDowell Rd 0.05 miles east of SR-101 92nd St
McDowell Rd 0.01 miles west of Jackrabbit Trl Jackrabbit Trl
Meridian Rd Warner Rd Mesquite St
Meridian Rd Baseline Rd US-60
New River Rd I-17 Black Canyon Hwy
New River Rd Black Canyon Hwy Coyote Pass Rd
New River Rd Desert Hills Dr Honda Bow Rd
Northern Ave 0.30 miles west of Sarival Ave Sarival Ave
Old US-80 0.50 miles east of Wilson Ave Turner Rd
Peoria Ave DRAFT 105th Ave 99th Ave
Perryville Rd Roosevelt St McDowell Rd
Power Rd Galveston St Orchid Ln
Power Rd 0.05 miles south of Ranch Rd Elliot Rd
0.05 miles north of SR-202/South Mountain 0.07 miles north of SR-202/South
Power Rd
Fwy Mountain Fwy
Rainbow Valley Rd Ray Rd Elliot Rd
Ray Rd Tuthill Rd Rainbow Valley Rd
Reems Rd Northern Pkwy Peoria Ave
Riggs Rd 211th Pl Meridian Rd
Rio Verde Dr 142nd St 152nd St
Southern Ave 0.50 miles east of Perryville Rd MC-85
Southern Ave 69th Ave SR-202/South Mountain Fwy
Sun Valley Pkwy 0.20 miles north of I-10 Van Buren St
Sun Valley Pkwy 219th Ave 195th Ave
Thunderbird Blvd Sahara Dr 0.30 miles east of Boswell Blvd
Tonopah Salome Hwy Johnson Rd 0.20 miles south of Hassaympa Dr
(table continued next page)
Maricopa County Department of Transportation page 93 of 94
Transportation System Plan 2035

(table continued from previous page) LONG-TERM HORIZON: FY 2026 TO FY 2035 - Identified Needs
Road Name At/From To
Tuthill Rd Ray Rd Elliot Rd
Union Hills Dr 107th Ave 99th Ave
Van Buren St Jackrabbit Trl Perryville Rd
Verrado Wy Lower Buckeye Rd Yuma Rd
Vulture Mine Rd 0.05 miles north of Lipinski Ln County Line
Waddell Rd 0.01 miles east of 175th Ave 0.12 miles east of 172nd Ave
Waddell Rd 0.07 miles east of 182nd Ave Citrus Rd
Waddell Rd 183rd Ave 0.07 miles east of 182nd Ave
Woods Rd Old US-80 0.15 miles west of SR-85
Yuma Rd 181st Ave Citrus Rd
Yuma Rd Jackrabbit Trl Perryville Rd
DRAFT
page 94 of 94 Maricopa County Department of Transportation
Transportation System Plan 2035