sr 77/oracle road multimodal corridor profile study final report - Pima ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

The capacity and level of service analysis conducted by this study indicates that the planned sixlane cross-section for SR 77 will not provide sufficient capacity to accommodate year 2030 traffic at an acceptable level of service. However, it should be noted that the Arizona Department of Transportation does not build eight-lane urban or fringe urban arterials. Several alternative routes have been proposed for improvement by the Pima Association of Governments Regional Transportation Authority Plan being developed at the time this study was conducted. These improvements include widening of La Canada Boulevard, La Cholla Boulevard, and First Avenue. These improvements will provide some congestion relief along some sections of SR 77, but based on the congestion information provided by PAG for this study, it does not appear that these improvements will mitigate congestion along SR 77. It should also be noted that at this time there are only a few projects in the PAG 2030 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), including the Regional Transportation Authority (RTA) projects, that directly address the congestion, safety, and access management issues on SR 77 identified in this study. Therefore, significant additional multi-modal improvements will be required to mitigate the deficiencies identified by this study. Transit projects primarily involve feasibility studies to determine the eventual phasing of transit improvements in the corridor. The PAG 2030 RTP and RTA projects include several transit system improvements affecting Oro Valley and the SR 77 corridor that directly address transit issues identified in this study. 9.3 COST ESTIMATES Exhibit 9-2 provides generalized unit cost estimates for various types of transportation projects. Most estimates are based on similar project cost estimates from the Regional Transportation Plan, previous corridor profiles, and on costs of similar projects in the current State Five-Year Transportation Facilities Construction Program. All costs are in 2005 dollars. It should be emphasized that these are tentative cost estimates for planning purposes only. Site-specific cost estimates will be developed at the time of project scoping. Where a previously planned or programmed project for the PAG 2030 RTP, RTA, or TIP directly address an identified deficiency, the project cost estimate form these planning documents was used in this study. Also, costs are based on programmed project cost estimates, project assessment reports, and other corridor profile studies. These estimates are for planning purposes and may not be reflective of true construction or implementation cost estimates. A summary of the estimated costs for widening SR 77 to an eight-lane facility in comparison to, and in conjunction with, the use of up to three grade separated intersections is provided in Exhibit 9-3. SR 77/Oracle Road Multimodal Corridor Profile Study May 2007 Final Report Page 9-2
Exhibit 9-1 LIST OF PROPOSED PROJECTS Number Milepost Location SR 77 Deficiency Deficiency Priority Ranking Project Total Cost ($ X 1,000) Affected Jurisdiction Time Frame Planned or Programmed CAPACITY PROJECTS C-1 TBD TBD Need for alternative high capacity corridor to relieve congestion along SR 77. 2 Feasibility study for alternative high capacity corridor. Study to evaluate regional impacts of new high capacity corridor N/S connecting to a new high capacity E/W corridor. This study would determine whether sufficient traffic could be diverted from Oracle Rd. to eliminate the need to widen to 8-lanes or construct GSIs. $400 Pima County, ADOT, Oro Valley, City of Tucson near No C-2 C-3 C-4 103.3 - 91.1 SR 77-79 junction to Town of Oracle Poor LOS by 2030 2 DCR for 4-lane widening $500 Pinal County long No 103.3 - 91.1 SR 77-79 junction to Town of Oracle Poor LOS by 2030 2 103.3 - 91.1 C-5 91.9 Milepost 91.9 C-6 92 SR 77, Milepost 92 SR 77-79 junction to Town of Oracle (12.2 mi) Poor LOS by 2030 2 C-7 91.14 SR 77/SR 79 junction C-8 C-9 C-10 91.14 - 88.2 91.14 - 88.2 91.14 - 88.2 C-11 88.2 - 81.8 C-12 C-13 C-14 C-15 C-16 C-17 C-18 81.8 - 79.4 and 79.1 - 77.5 85.75 - 84.25 85.75 - 84.25 85.75 - 84.25 84.25 - 76.37 84.25 - 76.37 84.25 - 76.37 Drainage culvert headwall is in the clear zone 1 Identified need in ADOT Statewide Plan Intelligent Transportation Infrastructure (Dec. 2002) 3 Safety concerns include elevation changes, narrow road, poor sight distance, late afternoon sun blinds motorists. Also, second highest ratio of day to night crashes. 1 SR 77/79 junction to Pinal County Line Poor LOS by 2030 2 DCR for 6-lane widening $500 SR 77/79 junction to Pinal County Line Poor LOS by 2030 2 Design for 6-lane widening $1,800 SR 77/79 junction to Pinal County Line Poor LOS by 2030 2 Design of 4-lane widening project $3,700 Pinal County long No Construction of four lane widening $36,600 Pinal County long No Reconstruct Drainage Culvert $650 Pinal County near No Provide Variable Message Sign at MP 92 $200 Pinal County mid No Reconstruct intersection with widening. Provide roadway lighting. $500 Pinal County near No Widen to 6 lane divided roadway, possibly with roadway segment lighting. $18,000 ADOT/Pinal County long No ADOT/Pinal County long No ADOT/Pinal County long No SR 77: Pinal County Line to Tangerine Road, Phase 1 Capacity deficiencies 1 Widen to 6 lanes $18,000 ADOT near Widen to 6 lanes SR 77: Tangerine Road to La (incorporate equestrian ped Reserve Drive & Pusch View Lane pushbutton at Linda Vista to Calle Concordia Capacity deficiencies 1 Blvd. Intersection) $26,500 ADOT near SR 77, Golder Ranch Road to Oro Valley Town Limits (north limits)(1.5 miles) Poor LOS by 2030 1 DCR for 8-lane widening $200 Pima County long No SR 77, Golder Ranch Road to Oro Valley Town Limits (north limits)(1.5 miles) Poor LOS by 2030 1 Design for 8-lane widening $1,000 Pima County long No SR 77, Golder Ranch Road to Oro Valley Town Limits (north limits)(1.5 miles) Poor LOS by 2030 1 SR 77, Oro Valley northern Town limits to Oro Valley southern Town limits (south of Magee Road) Poor LOS by 2030 1 DCR for 8-lane widening $500 SR 77, Oro Valley northern Town limits to Oro Valley southern Town limits (south of Magee Road) Poor LOS by 2030 1 Design for 8-lane widening $5,300 SR 77, Oro Valley northern Town limits to Oro Valley southern Construction of 8-lane Town limits (south of Magee widening including $700K Road) Poor LOS by 2030 1 for ROW $53,700 Yes (PP-1) Yes (PP-2) Construction of 8-lane widening $10,000 Pima County long No Town of Oro Valley long No Town of Oro Valley long No Town of Oro Valley long No C-19 79.5 SR 77 / First Avenue Crash rate increase 1 Intersection improvements $500 ADOT / Oro Valley near Yes (PP-3) SR 77/Oracle Road Multimodal Corridor Profile Study May 2007 Final Report Page 9-3
Page 1:
& InAsociationwith: Lima&Asociates
Page 5 and 6:
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1. INTRODUCT
Page 7 and 8:
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Page
Page 9 and 10:
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Page
Page 11 and 12:
7. INVESTMENT OPTIONS 7-1 7.1 SUMMA
Page 13 and 14:
LIST OF EXHIBITS Page Exhibit 1-1 S
Page 15 and 16:
LIST OF EXHIBITS (Continued) Page E
Page 17 and 18:
LIST OF EXHIBITS (Continued) Page E
Page 19 and 20:
1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 PROJECT BACKGRO
Page 21 and 22:
1.3.2 Objectives The primary object
Page 23 and 24:
2. STUDIES, CONTACTS AND ISSUES Thi
Page 25 and 26:
Exhibit 2-1 LIST OF STUDY DOCUMENTS
Page 27 and 28:
2.1.6 Final Project Assessment, SR
Page 29 and 30:
Intersection Spacing, Location, and
Page 31 and 32:
lane and the northbound acceleratio
Page 33 and 34:
amended Regional Transportation Pla
Page 35 and 36:
• Park-and-Ride Lots with bike lo
Page 37 and 38:
2.5 TOWN OF ORO VALLEY PLANNING DOC
Page 39 and 40:
• A Feasibility Study was complet
Page 41 and 42:
Recommendations for the Calle Conco
Page 43 and 44:
• A near term transit development
Page 45 and 46:
• The Miracle Mile to Fort Lowell
Page 47 and 48:
unmarked crosswalks. Quarter mile p
Page 49 and 50:
2.8.6 Pinal County Issues raised at
Page 51:
enough shoulders, and feasibility f
Page 54 and 55:
Exhibit 3-2 FUTURE POPULATION PROJE
Page 56 and 57:
La Cholla Blvd La Canada Dr Exhibit
Page 58 and 59:
La Cholla Blvd La Canada Dr Exhibit
Page 60 and 61:
Exhibit 3-8 AGE, DISABLED, AND LOW-
Page 63 and 64:
4. PHYSICAL AND NATURAL ENVIRONMENT
Page 65 and 66:
Biotic Community Arizona Upland Son
Page 67 and 68:
Exhibit 4-4 ARIZONA GAME AND FISH D
Page 69 and 70:
The statutory goal of the Tucson AM
Page 71 and 72:
Exhibit 4-6 DRAINAGES AND RIPARIAN
Page 73 and 74:
Exhibit 4-6 DRAINAGE AND RIPARIAN A
Page 75 and 76:
United States.” The phrase “wat
Page 77 and 78:
vehicle miles traveled (VMT). On Ap
Page 79 and 80:
An archaeological survey is recomme
Page 81 and 82:
Exhibit 4-9 PUBLIC SCHOOLS WITHIN T
Page 83 and 84:
5. EXISTING TRANSPORTATION FACILITI
Page 85 and 86:
Exhibit 5-2 CROSS SECTION GEOMETRY
Page 87 and 88:
Exhibit 5-4 TYPICAL RIGHT-OF-WAY WI
Page 89 and 90:
Exhibit 5-5 PAVEMENT TYPE ON SR 77
Page 91 and 92:
Structure Number Structure Name 236
Page 93 and 94:
(Watershed 1 - Watershed 5, excludi
Page 95 and 96:
FEMA Flood Insurance Study Exhibit
Page 97 and 98:
Thornydale Rd Shannon Dr La Canada
Page 99 and 100:
Exhibit 5-13 YEAR 1992, 2002 AND FO
Page 101 and 102:
Exhibit 5-15 YEAR 2002 LEVELS OF CO
Page 103 and 104:
except for the first segment listed
Page 105 and 106:
• In general, as the number of ac
Page 107 and 108:
Exhibit 5-20 SUN TRAN LEVEL OF SERV
Page 109 and 110:
5.3 INTERMODAL FACILITIES The exten
Page 111 and 112:
Exhibit 5-22 LOCATIONS OF SIDEWALKS
Page 113 and 114:
5.6 ITS FACILITIES 5.6.1 Traffic Si
Page 115 and 116:
Exhibit 5-25 SR 77/ORACLE ROAD ALRE
Page 117 and 118:
Exhibit 5-26 CORRIDOR NORTH/SOUTH A
Page 119 and 120:
Exhibit 5-27 CORRIDOR EAST/WEST ROA
Page 121 and 122:
East/West Capacity Projects Signifi
Page 123:
Exhibit 5-30 PLANNED AND PROGRAMMED
Page 126 and 127:
The existing and forecast levels of
Page 128 and 129:
Exhibit 6-3 CORRIDOR CONGESTION DEF
Page 130 and 131:
Thornydale Rd La Canada Dr Wells Rd
Page 132 and 133:
The realignment alternative selecte
Page 134 and 135:
Exhibit 6-7 SEGMENTS FOR POSSIBLE L
Page 136 and 137:
Exhibit 6-10 LOCATION OF LEVEL 1 AN
Page 138 and 139:
• A need exists for a grade-separ
Page 140 and 141:
In addition, key stakeholders ident
Page 142 and 143:
6.4.1 Open House Comments on Pedest
Page 144 and 145:
Project Assessment Begin MP End MP
Page 146 and 147:
Exhibit 6-16 ITS DEFICIENCIES SR 77
Page 148 and 149: Exhibit 6-17 DEFICIENCIES BY SEGMEN
Page 150 and 151: From MP 79.1 78.5 Pusch View Lane t
Page 156 and 157: provide little congestion relief al
Page 158 and 159: Exhibit 7-2 SUMMARY OF ROADWAY CAPA
Page 160 and 161: Exhibit 7-3 PORTION OF THE SR 77 CO
Page 162 and 163: 7. The assumption of an eight-lane
Page 164 and 165: The fringe urban section might incl
Page 166 and 167: area of this segment, from Rancho V
Page 168 and 169: Exhibit 7-6 SUMMARY OF POTENTIALLY
Page 170 and 171: Exhibit 7-7 SEGMENTS FOR POSSIBLE L
Page 172 and 173: The proposed recommendations for bi
Page 174 and 175: Exhibit 7-9 CONSOLIDATION OF WORKSH
Page 176 and 177: Exhibit 7-11 BRIDGES WITH SUFFICIEN
Page 178 and 179: Exhibit 7-12 ITS IMPROVEMENTS SR 77
Page 180 and 181: Segment I-10 to Oracle Road 1.4 Urb
Page 183 and 184: 8. OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSTRAINTS Th
Page 185 and 186: Exhibit 8-2 GENERAL OPPORTUNITIES O
Page 187 and 188: The impacts to existing businesses,
Page 189 and 190: Exhibit 8-5 PYGMY OWL SURVEY ZONES
Page 191 and 192: equire special consideration. In ad
Page 193 and 194: 8.3.7 Pusch Ridge Wilderness Area T
Page 195: alternative would be a new bridge o
Page 200 and 201: Exhibit 9-1 LIST OF PROPOSED PROJEC
Page 202 and 203: Number Milepost Location SR 77 Defi
Page 204 and 205: Exhibit 9-2 COST ESTIMATES FOR CONS
Page 207 and 208: 10. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT The public i
Page 209 and 210: Exhibit 10-2 OVERVIEW OF SURVEY RES
Page 211 and 212: Exhibit 10-3 OVERVIEW OF SURVEY RES
Page 213 and 214: Exhibit 10-4 ANALYSIS OF FIRST TRAN
Page 215 and 216: Prior to the tour, the project team
Page 217 and 218: There was a question about whether
Page 219 and 220: Exhibit 10-5 PUBLIC COMMENTS SUBMIT
Page 221 and 222: Exhibit 10-7 PUBLIC COMMENTS SUBMIT
Page 223 and 224: Exhibit 10-8 (Continued) COMMENTS F
Page 225 and 226: Exhibit 10-9 (continued) COMMENTS P
Page 227: APPENDIX A Properties Listed on the
Page 230 and 231: NRHP Properties within the Study Ar
Page 233 and 234: Previous Archaeological Surveys wit
Page 245 and 246: Brew, Susan A. 1979 Letter Report t
Page 247 and 248: 2001d Cultural Resources Survey of
Page 249 and 250:
Goldstein, Beau J. 2001 A Cultural
Page 251 and 252:
1998e A Cultural Resource Inventory
Page 253 and 254:
2001c Cultural Resources Survey of
Page 255 and 256:
1986a Letter Report to the State La
Page 257 and 258:
Roth, Barbara J. 1993 Letter Report
Page 259 and 260:
1996a Coronado Ridge Right of Way (
Page 261 and 262:
1980b Clearinghouse Report No. 80-8
Page 263:
1996 Cultural Resource Survey of Mi
Page 269:
APPENDIX D Corridor Crash Character
Page 272 and 273:
SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION NUMBER OF C
Page 274 and 275:
Mile Post SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION C
Page 276 and 277:
ROADWAY SEGMENT NUMBER OF CRASHES B
Page 278 and 279:
Beginning Mile Post Roadway Segment
Page 280 and 281:
ACCESS RELATED CRASH ANALYSIS SOUTH
Page 282 and 283:
180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 S
Page 284 and 285:
ACCESS RELATED CRASH ANALYSIS THREE
Page 286 and 287:
2.15 2.42 3.88 4.80 5.20 5.63 5.88
Page 289:
NIGHT/DAY CRASH AND ROADWAY LIGHTIN
show all

sr 77/oracle road multimodal corridor profile study final report - Pima ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?