broadway road 90th street to meridian road

BROADWAY ROAD: 90TH STREET TO MERIDIAN ROAD

C O R R I D O R I M P R O V E M E N T S T U D Y

Final Report

March 2021

Project Number TP028

Maricopa County Department of Transportation

BROADWAY ROAD 90TH STREET TO MERIDIAN ROAD Corr id or Improvement Study| F inal Report

Contents

Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................................................................... 1

Implementation Plan ......................................................................................................................................................................... 2

1 Study Overview .................................................................................................................................................................... 3

1.1 Study Purpose ......................................................................................................................................................... 3

1.2 Study Area ............................................................................................................................................................... 3

1.3 Study Process .......................................................................................................................................................... 3

1.3.1 Advisory Committee ........................................................................................................................................ 4

1.3.2 Public Outreach ............................................................................................................................................... 4

1.3.3 Study Documents ............................................................................................................................................ 4

2 Existing and Future Conditions ............................................................................................................................................. 5

2.1 Land Ownership and Jurisdictional Responsibility .................................................................................................. 5

2.2 Land Use & Zoning .................................................................................................................................................. 6

2.2.1 Land Use .......................................................................................................................................................... 6

2.2.2 Zoning .............................................................................................................................................................. 8

2.3 Major Transportation Generators........................................................................................................................... 8

2.4 Demographics ......................................................................................................................................................... 9

2.4.1 Demographic Overview ................................................................................................................................... 9

2.4.2 Future Population and Employment ............................................................................................................. 10

2.5 Transportation System Conditions........................................................................................................................ 11

2.5.1 Infrastructure Characteristics ....................................................................................................................... 11

2.6 Traffic & Mobility .................................................................................................................................................. 15

2.6.1 Existing Vehicle Volumes and Level of Service ............................................................................................. 15

2.6.2 Future Volumes and Level of Service ............................................................................................................ 15

2.6.3 Pedestrian and Bicycle Activity ..................................................................................................................... 17

2.6.4 Level of Traffic Stress .................................................................................................................................... 18

2.6.5 Existing Transit Services ................................................................................................................................ 18

2.7 Safety .................................................................................................................................................................... 19

2.7.1 Crashes by Injury Severity ............................................................................................................................. 20

2.7.2 First Harmful Event ....................................................................................................................................... 20

2.7.3 Pedestrian and Bicycle Involved Crashes ...................................................................................................... 20

2.8 Environmental ....................................................................................................................................................... 21

2.9 Summary of Issues and Opportunities .................................................................................................................. 23

3 Alternatives Evaluation ...................................................................................................................................................... 23



3.1 Conceptual Alternatives ........................................................................................................................................ 23

3.1.1 Advisory Committee Feedback ..................................................................................................................... 23

3.2 Candidate Alternatives .......................................................................................................................................... 24

3.2.1 Advisory Committee Feedback ..................................................................................................................... 25

3.2.2 Public Outreach ............................................................................................................................................. 26

3.3 Evaluation Approach ............................................................................................................................................. 27

3.4 Alternatives Evaluation Results ............................................................................................................................. 29

4 Preferred Alternative .......................................................................................................................................................... 30

4.1 Advisory Committee Feedback ............................................................................................................................. 30

4.2 Public Outreach ..................................................................................................................................................... 30

4.3 Implementation Plan............................................................................................................................................. 31

4.3.1 Segment Evaluation ...................................................................................................................................... 31

4.3.2 Recommended implementation Phasing ...................................................................................................... 32

4.3.3 Planning Level Cost Estimate Summary ........................................................................................................ 32

5 Conclusion and Next Steps ................................................................................................................................................. 33

Appendix A: Advisory Committee Members .................................................................................................................................... 34

Appendix B: Public Comments ......................................................................................................................................................... 35

Appendix C: Planning Level Cost Estimates ...................................................................................................................................... 36

Figures

Figure 1.1 Study Area .............................................................................................................................................................. 3

Figure 1.2. Study Process and Timeline .................................................................................................................................. 4

Figure 2.1 Land Ownership ..................................................................................................................................................... 5

Figure 2.2 Jurisdictional Responsibility ................................................................................................................................... 6

Figure 2.3 Existing Land Use ................................................................................................................................................... 7

Figure 2.4 Future Land Use ..................................................................................................................................................... 8

Figure 2.5 Current Employers (2018) ...................................................................................................................................... 9

Figure 2.6 Current and Projected Population, Dwelling Units, and Employment ................................................................ 10

Figure 2.7 Population Density (2018) ................................................................................................................................... 10

Figure 2.8 Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities .......................................................................................................................... 11

Figure 2.9 Structures and Culverts ........................................................................................................................................ 13

Figure 2.10 Utilities ............................................................................................................................................................... 14

Figure 2.11 Level of Service Definition.................................................................................................................................. 15

Figure 2.12 2020 ADT ............................................................................................................................................................ 16

Figure 2.13 2040 ADT ............................................................................................................................................................ 16

Figure 2.14 Average Daily Pedestrian Counts at Busiest Intersections ................................................................................ 17

Figure 2.15 Average Daily Bicycle Counts at Busiest Intersections....................................................................................... 17

Figure 2.16 Level of Traffic Stress ......................................................................................................................................... 18

https://jacobsengineering.sharepoint.com/sites/IC_PhoenixTransportationPlanning/Shared%20Documents/MCDOT%20Broadway%20Road%20CIS%202019-2021/05_FinalReport/1Draft_FinalReport.docx#_Toc65854894





Figure 2.17 Crashes by Year .................................................................................................................................................. 19

Figure 2.18 Crashes by Severity ............................................................................................................................................ 20

Figure 2.19 Crashes by First Harmful Event .......................................................................................................................... 20

Figure 2.20 Bicycle and Pedestrian Crashes by Injury Severity ............................................................................................. 20

Figure 2.21 Pedestrian and Bicycle Involved Crash Density ................................................................................................. 21

Figure 3.1 Candidate Alternative 1 Cross Section ................................................................................................................. 24

Figure 3.2 Candidate Alternative 2 Cross Section ................................................................................................................. 25

Figure 3.3 Candidate Alternative 3 - No Build Cross Section ................................................................................................ 25

Figure 3.4 AC Meeting Poll Results ....................................................................................................................................... 26

Figure 3.5 Public Candidate Alternative Preferences ........................................................................................................... 27

Figure 4.1 Preferred Alternative Cross Section ..................................................................................................................... 30

Figure 4.2 Implementation Phases ....................................................................................................................................... 32

Tables

Table 2.1 Share of Parcels by Existing and Future Land Use ................................................................................................... 7

Table 2.2 Ten Largest Employers (2018) ................................................................................................................................. 9

Table 2.3 Roadway Characteristics ....................................................................................................................................... 12

Table 2.5 Environmental Resources Evaluation .................................................................................................................... 22

Table 3.1 Evaluation Criteria, Sub-criteria, and Evaluation Definitions ................................................................................ 28

Table 3.2 Final Alternative Evaluation Matrix ....................................................................................................................... 29

Table 4.1 Implementation Plan Ranking ............................................................................................................................... 31

Table 4.2 Planning Level Cost Estimates ............................................................................................................................... 33




Maricopa County Department of Transportation 1


E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Y

Maricopa County Department of Transportation’s (MCDOT’s) 2018 Active Transportation Plan identified connectivity

needs on Broadway Road from 90th Street to Meridian Road to support safe bicycle and pedestrian mobility. The

Broadway Road: 90th Street to Meridian Road Corridor Improvement Study identified potential short- and long-term

improvements within the study corridor to expand the bicycle and pedestrian network.

S T U D Y O V E R V I E W A N D P R O C E S S

The study area includes the corridor of Broadway Road from 90th Street to Meridian Road and a half-mile influence area

(see ES Figure 1).

ES Figure 1. Broadway Road: 90th Street to Meridian Road CIS Study Area

The study was guided by an Advisory Committee (AC) representing staff from MCDOT, Maricopa Association of

Governments, Arizona Department of Transportation, Pinal County, City of Mesa, City of Apache Junction, Arizona State

Land Department, Central Arizona Project, Maricopa County Real Estate Department, and the Flood Control District of

Maricopa County. The AC advised on all aspects of the study and provided input on the alternatives evaluation and the

selection of a preferred alternative. Public outreach, including the opportunity to review and provide feedback on the

study, was accomplished through a project website and two public comment periods. Public outreach was conducted

online due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

This study identified existing and future conditions along the corridor, developed conceptual and candidate alternatives,

and evaluated these alternatives to advance a preferred alternative and implementation plan. Technical Memos provide

detail on each of the three phases of the study. The Study Planning Process is shown below in ES Figure 2.

ES Figure 2. Study Planning Process



P R E F E R R E D A L T E R N A T I V E

The Preferred Alternative was selected following a comprehensive alternatives evaluation that incorporated input from

the AC and public. The Preferred Alternative cross section planning level cost is $16.3 million and includes the following

features:

• Cross section width varying from 77 to 96 feet

• Two travel lanes in each direction (varies from 11 to 12 feet)

• Two-way center turn lane (varies from 12 to 14 feet)

• Minimum 5.5-foot bike lane in each direction

• Minimum 5 -foot sidewalk with buffers of varying widths, depending on available right-of-way

The Preferred Alternative cross section is shown in ES Figure 3.

ES Figure 3. Preferred Alternative Cross Section

I M P L E M E N T A T I O N P L A N

A phased implementation plan was developed to promote logical and continuous improvements to the corridor. These

phases, including planning level cost estimates, are identified below:

Planning Level Cost Estimates by Phase

Phase I Phase II* Phase III

Limits 90th Street to CAP

Canal CAP Canal to Signal

Butte Road Signal Butte Road to

Meridian Road

Total Project Cost Estimate $10,269,492 $1,799,389 $4,254,026

*Phase II of the implementation plan consists of sections of the corridor under the city of Mesa’s jurisdiction. Further coordination with the city of Mesa will be needed to ensure concurrent improvements in this area.



1 S T U D Y O V E R V I E W

Maricopa County Department of Transportation’s (MCDOT) 2018 Active Transportation Plan (ATP) identified Broadway

Road from 90th Street to Meridian Road for bicycle and pedestrian needs. This Corridor Improvement Study (CIS)

evaluated existing conditions along this corridor, developed concepts and alternatives to address transportation issues,

and selected a preferred alternative with a proposed implementation plan.

1 . 1 S T U D Y P U R P O S E

The purpose of the CIS was to identify, prioritize, and recommend potential short- and long-term improvements that will

address capacity needs and support pedestrians and bicyclists along the study corridor, supporting the

recommendations outlined in the ATP. Motorized vehicle capacity was also analyzed to ensure a complete and efficient

corridor.

1 . 2 S T U D Y A R E A

Broadway Road from 90th Street to Meridian Road is a 3.2-mile, four-lane, principal arterial located in eastern Maricopa

County north of US 60 and east of Loop 202. MCDOT owns and operates this roadway except for Broadway Road from

the Central Arizona Project (CAP) Canal to Signal Butte Road, which is under the jurisdiction of the city of Mesa. To

provide detailed information, the corridor is divided into seven segments between eight major intersections. The study

area, shown in Figure 1.1, includes the corridor, divided into seven segments, and a half-mile influence area.

1 . 3 S T U D Y P R O C E S S

Developing potential improvements for this corridor was a technical and collaborative process involving internal MCDOT

staff, local agencies, and the public.

Figure 1.1 Study Area



1 . 3 . 1 A d v i s o r y C o m m i t t e e

The Advisory Committee (AC) offered planning and engineering expertise to guide technical aspects of the study. AC

members were selected by their respective agencies including staff from MCDOT, Maricopa Association of Governments

(MAG), Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT), Pinal County, City of Mesa, City of Apache Junction, Arizona State

Land Department, CAP, Maricopa County Real Estate Department, and the Flood Control District of Maricopa County.

Appendix A provides the list of representatives from each agency and their contact information.

A total of three AC meetings were held to provide updates on the study progress and solicit the committee’s input. AC

members were also given the opportunity to review all study materials. The AC feedback was incorporated into each

step of the process and assisted in shaping the study outcomes.

1 . 3 . 2 P u b l i c O u t r e a c h

Public outreach was conducted to inform the public and gather input regarding the study findings, evaluation criteria,

alternatives, and recommendations. A project webpage was created to make study information available to the public

and gather input. Two public outreach phases were conducted online due to the COVID pandemic to solicit input on the

proposed improvements. Direct mail and social media posts directed the public to the project web page. Input received

from the public is discussed in the Alternatives Evaluation and Preferred Alternative sections below.

1 . 3 . 3 S t u d y D o c u m e n t s

A Work Plan and three technical memorandums documented the study process leading to this Final Report. The

Advisory Committee (AC) was consulted throughout the study for technical expertise and feedback; and the outreach

was conducted to involve the public in the selection of improvements.

• Work Plan: Established the planning process and project management.

• Technical Memorandum 1 – Existing and Future Conditions (Tech Memo 1): Identified existing and future

features and conditions of the corridor including challenges and opportunities for improvements.

• Technical Memorandum 2 – Alternatives Evaluation (Tech Memo 2): Developed alternative improvements and

described the initial alternatives evaluation.

• Technical Memorandum 3 – Preferred Alternative (Tech Memo 3): Described the Preferred Alternative selection

process and implementation plan development.

The study process and timeline are shown in Figure 1.2.

Figure 1.2. Study Process and Timeline



2 E X I S T I N G A N D F U T U R E C O N D I T I O N S

Existing and future conditions were analyzed throughout the study area. This analysis summarized land use,

jurisdictional responsibility, major employers and transportation generators, sociodemographic characteristics,

infrastructure conditions, traffic volumes, crash data, and environmental conditions. The existing conditions were

presented to the AC on March 25, 2020. The categories impacting the development of improvements to the corridor are

discussed below. Additional details about existing conditions in the corridor are contained in Tech Memo 1.

2 . 1 L A N D O W N E R S H I P A N D J U R I S D I C T I O N A L R E S P O N S I B I L I T Y

The corridor traverses two jurisdictions: unincorporated Maricopa County and the city of Mesa with the city maintaining

from the CAP canal to Signal Butte Road. Directly east of the corridor is the city of Apache Junction in Pinal County and

to the west is the ADOT State Route 202 (SR 202). Figure 2.1 and Figure 2.2 show land ownership and jusrisdictional

responsibility along the corridor.

Figure 2.1 Land Ownership



Figure 2.2 Jurisdictional Responsibility

2 . 2 L A N D U S E & Z O N I N G

2 . 2 . 1 L a n d U s e

2.2.1.1 Existing Land Use

According to MAG Existing Land Use data (2018), current land uses along the corridor are predominantly medium- and

high-density residential, with commercial development located at major intersections. Residents along the corridor have

access to local commercial and shopping amenities. Figure 2.3 shows existing land use and Table 2.1 shows the

breakdown in existing and planned (future) land uses by type in the study area. In total, 275 parcels are located

immediately adjacent to the study corridor.



Figure 2.3 Existing Land Use

2.2.1.2 Future Land Use

According to MAG Future Land Use data (2018), which represents the buildout state in the region, infill development of existing vacant lots is anticipated in the study area. Future land use data show that single-family residential land uses will increase from 24 percent to 31 percent of the study area, while commercial uses will increase from 15 percent to 30 percent of the study area. Figure 2.4 shows the future land use along the corridor and Table 2.1 shows the breakdown of existing and future land use on the study corridor. Table 2.1 Share of Parcels by Existing and Future Land Use

Land Use Existing Land Use Future Land Use

Commercial 15% 30%

Industrial 3% 5%

Multi-Family Residential 8% 7%

Office 1% 2%

Open Space 4% 5%

Other/Public Employment 11% 13%

Single Family Residential 24% 31%

Transportation <1% 4%

Vacant 34% 2%

Mixed Use - 1% Source: MAG 2018



Figure 2.4 Future Land Use

2 . 2 . 2 Z o n i n g

Current zoning classifications place commercially zoned properties at major intersections along the corridor. Single- and

multi-family development is placed between major intersections or located behind the commercial uses. Approximately

52 percent of parcels in the study area are zoned for single-family residential use, and 32 percent of parcels are zoned

for multi-family residential use. Less than 10 percent of parcels are zoned for general commercial use. The remaining

parcels are zoned for agricultural, industrial, public, or mobile home park use.

2 . 3 M a j o r T r a n s p o r t a t i o n G e n e r a t o r s

According to the MAG 2018 Employer Database, 79 employers employing 1,573 people are in the study area as shown in

Figure 2.5. Industries in the study area are primarily retail (31 percent), accommodation and food service (18 percent),

construction (12 percent), and health care and social assistance (10 percent). The ten largest employers in the study area

are shown in Table 2.2.



Table 2.2 Ten Largest Employers (2018)

Figure 2.5 Current Employers (2018)

2 . 4 D E M O G R A P H I C S

2 . 4 . 1 D e m o g r a p h i c O v e r v i e w

In 2018, a total of 34,974 people lived in 18,121 dwelling units in the MAG Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZs) within the study area. Figure 2.6 shows the 2018 population density in the study area. According to the US Census American Community Survey (2013-2017), 14 percent of housing units are seasonally vacant in the study area. This is nearly twice as many seasonal vacancies as the five percent in the unincorporated county. Approximately 40 percent of the households live in mobile homes compared with seven percent in the broader unincorporated county.

Rank Employer Employees Industry 1 Fry’s Food Stores 173 Retail Trade 2 Stevenson Elementary School 90 Educational Services 3 Patterson Elementary School 76 Educational Services 4 Safeway Stores Inc. 75 Retail Trade 5 Bashas Inc. 60 Retail Trade 6 Sak Electric Plumbing Inc. 53 Construction 7 Denny’s 42 Accommodation and Food Services 8 Goodwill 36 Retail Trade 9 McDonalds 35 Accommodation and Food Services

10 Valero Energy Corp 30 Retail Trade Source: MAG 2018



2 . 4 . 2 F u t u r e P o p u l a t i o n a n d E m p l o y m e n t

According to MAG projections,

between 2020 and 2050 in TAZs

adjacent to the corridor, population is

projected to increase by 3,539 (10

percent), dwelling units are projected

to increase by 718 (4 percent), and

employment is projected to increase by

2,320 jobs (41 percent) (Figure 2.6 and

Figure 2.7).

Figure 2.7 Population Density (2018)

5,381 5,605 6,745 7,455 7,925

18,121 18,351 18,794 19,020 19,069

34,974 36,25738,989 39,629 39,796

2018 2020 2030 2040 2050

Employment Dwelling Units Population

Figure 2.6 Current and Projected Population, Dwelling Units, and Employment



2 . 5 T R A N S P O R T A T I O N S Y S T E M C O N D I T I O N S

2 . 5 . 1 I n f r a s t r u c t u r e C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s

2.5.1.1 Roadway Characteristics

The corridor has a continuous two-way left turn lane (TWLTL) and two through lanes in each direction. Along most of the

corridor, pedestrian facilities, such as sidewalks, paths, and crosswalks, are sporadic, and no bike lanes exist along the

corridor. Figure 2.8 shows pedestrian and bicycle facilities while Table 2.3 summarizes the lane configuration, right-of-

way (ROW) width, shoulder conditions, pedestrian facilities, and street lighting within each segment.

Figure 2.8 Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities



Table 2.3 Roadway Characteristics

Segment Lane

Configuration ROW Width

Posted Speed Limit

Curbs or Shoulders Sidewalks Streetlights

1

4 Lanes +

Two Way Left

Turn Lane

95 feet

(MCDOT) 45

mph Curb on both sides. No shoulders.

Sidewalks on the south side between 90th Street and 91st Street and adjacent to the Jack in the Box fast-food restaurant west of Ellsworth Road

0

2 110 – 130 feet

(MCDOT) 45

mph

Mix of curb and 4 – 14-foot paved

shoulders

Sidewalks on the south side from Ellsworth Road to east of 93rd Way and on the north side in front to the CVS east of Ellsworth and from east of 93rd Way to 96th Street

10

3 110 feet

(MCDOT) 45

mph

No curb. 3 – 4-foot paved shoulders. 10 –

20-foot compact gravel/dirt shoulder

present beyond paved shoulders

No sidewalks present 0

4

105 – 120 feet

(MCDOT)

120 – 130 feet

(city of Mesa)

45 mph

Curb on south side with no shoulders.

Curb on north side from E of CAP Canal

bridge to Cheshire/104th Pl. 4-foot

paved shoulder on north side from

Crismon to CAP Canal bridge.

Sidewalks on the south side for the entire length and on the north side from the CAP Canal to 104th Place

15

5 130 feet (city

of Mesa) 45

mph

Curb on both sides except on the south

side between 106th St and 107th St

where 4-foot paved shoulders are

present. 20-foot dirt shoulders present

beyond the paved shoulders.

Sidewalks on the south side from Cheshire to 106th Street and from 107th Street to Signal Butte Road and on the north side for the entire length

8

6 110 – 120 feet

(MCDOT) 45

mph

Curb on north side. Curb on south side

from Signal Butte Road to west of 110th

St. South side from 110th St to Mountain

Road has 3 – 4-foot paved shoulders with

a 20-foot dirt shoulder

Sidewalks on the south side from Signal Butte Road to just west of 110th Street

5

7 80 – 105 feet

(MCDOT) 35-45 mph

Curb on both sides. No shoulders. No sidewalks present 0



2.5.1.2 Drainage Runoff within the influence area generally flows southwesterly, whereas CAP Canal flows southeasterly, traversing under

Broadway Road near Cheshire. As depicted in Figure 2.9 there are drainage channels and culverts located along

Broadway Road to help capture and direct water. Further information regarding drainage issues and possible future

improvements in the study area are outlined in The Drainage Report: North Mesa Area 2 Flood Mitigation, Flood Control

District of Maricopa County, 2020.

Figure 2.9 Structures and Culverts



2.5.1.3 Utilities

Aerial and underground utilities extend along Broadway Road. Cox Communications and the Salt River Project (SRP) have

aerial utilities located just west of 90th Street to Ellsworth Road, west of 96th Street to Crismon Road, and crossing

Meridian Road and the Canal west of Cheshire. Underground utilities owned and operated by AZ Water Co, ADOT, cities

of Mesa and Apache Junction, Southwest Gas span along the entire corridor. Figure 2.10 shows utility locations.

Figure 2.10 Utilities



2 . 6 T R A F F I C & M O B I L I T Y

Traffic data was gathered from the MAG travel demand model for 2020 and 2040 and from intersection counts collected

by United Civil Group on January 15-16, 2020 and January 18-19, 2020. A high-level summary of traffic conditions in the

corridor is presented here. More detailed summaries of intersection counts, including turning

movement counts, is included in Tech Memo 1.

2 . 6 . 1 E x i s t i n g V e h i c l e V o l u m e s a n d L e v e l o f S e r v i c e

As shown in Figure 2.12, 2020 ADT range from 13,906 to 20,865, with the highest volumes

near SR 202 and the lowest volumes near Meridian Road.

Roadway level-of-service (LOS) is a qualitative measurement describing traffic conditions that

captures speed, travel time, freedom to maneuver, comfort, convenience, traffic

interruptions, and safety. Six classifications, designated by the letters A through F, are used to

describe level-of-service. LOS A represents the best free flow conditions, whereas LOS F

represents heavily congested flow with traffic demand exceeding capacity (Figure 2.11).

According to MCDOT’s Roadway Design Manual (RDM), an urban principal arterial like

Broadway Road should have a LOS D or better. On a 4-lane, divided principal arterial, the

threshold for LOS D is 36,300 ADT. Existing volumes along the corridor do not exceed the

maximum ADT.

2 . 6 . 2 F u t u r e V o l u m e s a n d L e v e l o f S e r v i c e

As shown in Figure 2.13, 2040 ADT range between 12,366 and 21,918, with heavier volumes

near SR 202 and lower volumes between Cheshire and Signal Butte Road. The future 2040 volumes along the corridor do

not exceed the allowable maximum ADT threshold for LOS D.

Figure 2.11 Level of Service Definition



Figure 2.12 2020 ADT

Figure 2.13 2040 ADT



2 . 6 . 3 P e d e s t r i a n a n d B i c y c l e A c t i v i t y

Bicycle and pedestrian crossings were counted at all intersections on a Wednesday, Thursday, Saturday, and Sunday in

January 2020 by United Civil Group. Counts were conducted from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m., 11:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m., and

4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. Of the intersections on the corridor, Broadway Road at Ellsworth Road, 96th Street, and Crismon

Road had considerably higher crossings than the others. Figure 2.14 and Figure 2.15 show the average daily pedestrian

and bicycle counts at these intersections.

Figure 2.14 Average Daily Pedestrian Counts at Busiest Intersections

Figure 2.15 Average Daily Bicycle Counts at Busiest Intersections

63

86 8790

32

62

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Ellsworth Road 96th Street Crismon Road

Weekdays Weekends

36

23

17

35

14

22

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Ellsworth Road 96th Street Crismon Road

Weekday Weekend



2 . 6 . 4 L e v e l o f T r a f f i c S t r e s s

The 2018 ATP measured the Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) throughout Maricopa County, including the Broadway Road

corridor. LTS assesses the comfort and connectivity of bicycle networks based on posted speed, number of lanes,

presence and width of a bike facility, presence and width of on-street parking, presence and width of physical separation

from motor vehicle traffic, and frequency of bicycle facility blockage. As described in the MCDOT ATP, LTS categories

range from LTS 1 – LTS 5 and are defined as follows:

• LTS 1: Low stress, requires little attention; suitable for all ages and abilities, including children

• LTS 2: Low stress, suitable for majority of the population

• LTS 3: Moderate stress; suitable for adults with confidence on a bicycle

• LTS 4: More stressful, bicycle facility present; suitable for traffic-tolerant cyclist

• LTS 5: Most stressful, with no bicycle facility present

The 2018 ATP identified the study corridor as primarily LTS 5, with a small section west of 96th Street and east of Signal

Butte Road as LTS 3. This means that the study corridor is currently the most stressful type of facility for people on bikes

and currently does not have bicycle facilities (Figure 2.16). LTS for the segment maintained by the city of Mesa was not

calculated.

Though LTS was not measured for the walking environment, pedestrians’ experience on the corridor may be stressful

given the gaps in the sidewalks and high travel speeds.

Figure 2.16 Level of Traffic Stress

2 . 6 . 5 E x i s t i n g T r a n s i t S e r v i c e s

No transit service exists on the study corridor. The closest bus stop to the corridor is approximately two miles northwest

of Broadway Road and 90th Street at Apache Trail and Sossaman Road.



2 . 7 S A F E T Y

Crashes along the corridor were analyzed to identify trends, patterns, predominant crash types, and high crash

intersections and segments. Crash data for a five-year crash analysis period, from 2014 through 2018, were obtained

from the ADOT Arizona Crash Information System database. Crashes are summarized here, while a full description of

crash statistics, including detailed analysis of high-crash intersections, is provided in Tech Memo 1.

During the five-year period, a total of 330 crashes occurred along the study corridor, including intersections. Crashes are

dispersed throughout the corridor and largely occur at intersections. Figure 2.17 shows the total number of crashes that

occurred along the corridor during the five-year study period. The highest number of crashes on the corridor occurred in

2017 (80 total crashes).

Figure 2.17 Crashes by Year

50

6266

80

72

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Nu

mb

er o

f C

rash

es

Year



2 . 7 . 1 C r a s h e s b y I n j u r y S e v e r i t y

Figure 2.18 shows crashes by injury severity. A total of three fatal

crashes and 14 severe injury crashes occurred along the corridor

from 2014 to 2018.

2 . 7 . 2 F i r s t H a r m f u l E v e n t

The first harmful event typically identifies the first object struck

during a crash. While most crashes occurred between vehicles,

16 total crashes were bicycle related (5 percent) and nine were

pedestrian related (3 percent). Figure 2.19 shows the breakdown

of crashes by first harmful event.

2 . 7 . 3 P e d e s t r i a n a n d B i c y c l e I n v o l v e d

C r a s h e s

A total of 25 pedestrian- and bicyclist-involved crashes were

reported on the study corridor between 2014 and 2018, 13 of

which occurred at an intersection, and the remaining 12

occurred between intersections. Seven severe or fatal injuries

occurred in pedestrian and bicyclist crashes (28 percent). The

two fatal crashes involved pedestrians struck by vehicles near

Ellsworth Rd. Figure 2.20 shows the share of bicycle and

pedestrian crashes by injury severity.

Broadway Road at Ellsworth Road had the most pedestrian- and

bicyclist-involved crashes. Figure 2.21 shows pedestrian- and

bicycle-involved crashes by crash density.

Fatal1% Severe Injury

4%

Minor Injury41%

No injury54%

Figure 2.18 Crashes by Severity

Motor Vehicle in Transport

85%

Bicycle5%

Pedestrian3%

Other8%

Figure 2.19 Crashes by First Harmful Event

Fatal

8%

Severe

Injury

20%

Minor

Injury

68%

No Injury

4%

Figure 2.20 Bicycle and Pedestrian Crashes by Injury Severity



Figure 2.21 Pedestrian and Bicycle Involved Crash Density

2 . 8 E N V I R O N M E N T A L

A review of environmental features considered topography, geology, prime and unique farmlands, threatened and

endangered species, migratory birds, protected native plants, wildlife movement corridors, hydrology, wells, noise, air

quality, hazardous materials, cultural resources, and Section 4(f)/6(f) properties. This review did not uncover any

significant environmental resources that could be impacted by the type of improvements considered during this corridor

study. Details on the findings are summarized below in Table 2.4.



Table 2.4 Environmental Resources Evaluation

Resource Description Impact/Mitigation

Topography and Geology

Flat terrain, 1450 – 1600 feet above sea level, primarily Holocene Surficial Deposits, Proterozoic Granite Rocks west of SR 202

None/not applicable

Prime and Unique Farmlands

NRCS Aguila-Carefree Area, parts of Maricopa and Pinal Counties; “prime farmland if irrigated” exists within study area

None/not applicable

Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species

4 ESA-listed species with potential to occur; no suitable habitat in the study area

None/not applicable

Migratory Birds Treaty Act

AZGFD data indicates potential for MBTA species including burrowing owls, suitable nesting habitat for migratory birds

Pre-construction surveys for burrowing owls and migratory bird nests

Protected Native Plants

May occur in the study area as landscape vegetation within undeveloped parcels

Removal requires landowner permission or AZ Dept. of Ag. Permit.

Wildlife Movements

AWLW Linkage 152 and WCA CAP Landscape Movement area crosses study area

No impact/not applicable

Hydrology Two drainageways within the study area are potential WOTUS

Not subject to current CWA 404 permitting requirements/not applicable.

Wells ADWR Registry of Wells indicates 30 known wells along Broadway Road within study area

No impact/not applicable

Noise

FHWA Category B (residential) uses within 300-feet of Broadway Road and study area

No impact, not a Type I (capacity increasing) project/noise from permitted construction exempt. During design noise analysis may be required to determine the need for traffic noise abatement in compliance with MCDOT Policy T3103.

Air Quality Serious non-attainment area for PM10 24-hour and O3 8-hour federal standards

Project exempt per 40 CFR § 93.126/Maricopa County Rule 310 applies to project construction.

Hazardous Materials

29 hazmat sites identified within 0.5-miles of Broadway Road

Not likely to negatively impacts/pre-construction ACM and LBP testing.

Cultural Resources

2 previously recorded CR sites are located within the study; 11 extant historic residential buildings and 99 historic residences/commercial buildings are located adjacent to the Broadway Road corridor, and the Broadway Road alignment itself

No Impact/complete updated desktop background review, Section 106 consultation depending upon funding source.

Section 4(f)/6(f) Resources

3 properties within the study corridor are afforded Section 4(f) protection – a park, school recreation facilities and segments of the CAP canal; no Section 6(f) properties were identified

During the design phase, determine if there would be a direct or constructive use, or temporary occupancy of these properties if warranted by the funding source.

Notes: NRCS – Natural Resources Conservation Service; ESA – Endangered Species Act; MBTA – Migratory Bird Treaty Act; AZGFD – Arizona Game and Fish Department; AZ Dept. of Ag. – Arizona Department of Agriculture; AWLW - Arizona Wildlife Linkages Workgroup; WCA – Wildlife Connectivity Assessment; WOTUS – Waters of the United States; CWA 404 - Clean Water Act Section 404; ADWR – Arizona Department of Water Resources; FHWA – Federal Highway Agency; PM10 – particulate matter 10-microns in diameter or less; O3 – ozone; ACM- asbestos containing materials; LBP – lead based paint; CR – cultural resources



2 . 9 S U M M A R Y O F I S S U E S A N D O P P O R T U N I T I E S

The review of existing and future conditions along the corridor identified several issues and opportunities that guided

the next steps of the study. A full summary of issues and opportunities at the segment level is included in Tech Memo 1.

Major issues and opportunities include the following:

• Additional residential units are planned, and the population and employment within the study area will increase

throughout the next 20 years.

• Sidewalk gaps exist throughout the corridor.

• There are currently no bicycle facilities and the LTS for bicyclists is at the highest level.

3 A L T E R N A T I V E S E V A L U A T I O N

The study team developed alternative improvement options to address issues and opportunities identified in the review

of existing and future conditions. The Alternatives were evaluated through a multiple-phase process in which Conceptual

Alternatives were screened by the study team and AC, then refined into Candidate Alternatives. Candidate Alternatives

were evaluated based on criteria developed with AC input and presented to the public. The following sections

summarize the development and analysis of Alternatives. More information on the alternatives’ analysis can be found in

Tech Memo 2 and Tech Memo 3.

3 . 1 C O N C E P T U A L A L T E R N A T I V E S

The Conceptual Alternatives were developed based on issues and opportunities identified in the existing conditions

analysis. Conceptual Alternatives present solutions to sidewalk gaps and options for bicyclists such as on-street bike

lanes, separated bike lanes, or a shared-use path (SUP) used by bicyclists and pedestrians along one side of the corridor.

The Conceptual Alternatives included:

• Conceptual Alternative 1: MCDOT standard Urban Principal Arterial which includes on-street bike lanes and

detached sidewalks.

• Conceptual Alternative 2: Modified City of Mesa standard 4-Lane Arterial including on-street bike lanes and

detached sidewalks.

• Conceptual Alternative 3: Modified City of Mesa standard 4-Lane Arterial featuring a separated bike lane and

detached sidewalks.

• Conceptual Alternative 4a: Modified MCDOT Urban Principal Arterial featuring a SUP on one side, a sidewalk

with no buffer on the other, and on-street bicycle lanes.

• Conceptual Alternative 4b: Modified City of Mesa 4-Lane Arterial featuring a SUP on one side, a detached

sidewalk on the other, and on-street bicycle lanes.

3 . 1 . 1 A d v i s o r y C o m m i t t e e F e e d b a c k

Once the five conceptual alternatives were developed, the AC was given the opportunity to rate them and provide

feedback using a sliding scale of 1-5, with 1 being least desirable and 5 being most desirable. The AC’s rating is provided

in Figure 3.1 below.



Figure 3.122: AC Conceptual Alternative Ratings

3 . 2 C A N D I D A T E A L T E R N A T I V E S

AC feedback and technical reviews were used to refine the Conceptual Alternatives into two Candidate Alternatives to

compare with a no build option. The Candidate Alternatives were a combination of the Conceptual Alternatives 1 and 2

(Candidate Alternative 1) and Conceptual Alternatives 4a and 4b (Candidate Alternative 2). Conceptual Alternative 3 did

not advance as a Candidate Alternative. This alternative is an inconsistent bikeway type based on current MCDOT

bikeways and has potential maintenance concerns due to equipment limitations.

Candidate Alternative 1 follows a combination of MCDOT’s Urban Principal Arterial standard and the city of Mesa’s 4-

Lane Arterial standard, including continuous sidewalks and bike lanes on both sides of the street. MCDOT or city of Mesa

standards would be applied based on segment ownership. Actual ROW will vary segment by segment based on local

constraints. Figure 3.23 shows the typical cross section of Candidate Alternative 1.

Figure 3.23 Candidate Alternative 1 Cross Section

Candidate Alternative 2 combines the MCDOT Urban Principal Arterial standard and the city of Mesa’s 4-Lane Arterial

standard. This Alternative includes bike lanes and sidewalks on one side of the corridor with a SUP and bike lane on the

other side. Actual ROW will vary segment by segment based on local constraints. Figure 3.24 shows the typical cross

section.

3.4 3.22.8

4.2

3.6

0

1

2

3

4

5

Alternative 1

MCDOT Standard

Alternative 2

Mesa Standard

Alternative 3

Separated Bike

Lane

Alternative 4a

SUP, Bike Lanes,

No buffer

Alternative 4b

SUP, Bike Lanes,

Buffer

AC Conceptual Alternative Ratings



Figure 3.24 Candidate Alternative 2 Cross Section

The No Build Alternative represents no improvements to the corridor. Figure 3.25 shows the typical No Build cross

section. The ROW will not alter from current width, which varies from 80 to 130 feet.

Figure 3.25 Candidate Alternative 3 - No Build Cross Section

3 . 2 . 1 A d v i s o r y C o m m i t t e e F e e d b a c k

The three Candidate Alternatives were presented to the AC during a virtual meeting on September 9, 2020. The

presentation included cross section graphics and a high-level walkthrough of each Candidate Alternative using Google

Earth. The purpose of the meeting was to determine AC acceptability of each Candidate Alternative.

During the meeting, the AC had the opportunity to provide comments and were asked to indicate their support for each

Candidate Alternative. A total of 12 AC members participated in the activity by responding to a virtual poll asking

whether they agreed a given alternative was a desirable option for the corridor. Figure 3.26 shows the poll results for

each alternative. The AC feedback indicated Candidate Alternative 1 was the most desirable while the No Build

Alternative was least desirable.



Figure 3.26 AC Meeting Poll Results

3 . 2 . 2 P u b l i c O u t r e a c h

A month-long public outreach effort for the Candidate Alternatives was conducted from September 21, 2020 – October

21, 2020. The purpose of the outreach was to inform residents of the study and gauge their preferences for the

Candidate Alternatives.

A total of 37 comments were received. The following are major takeaways from the public outreach:

• Twenty-five participants submitted comments stating general support for improving the corridor, and 12

participants submitted a preference for a specific Candidate Alternative.

• Of the 12 participants who submitted a preference for an alternative, nine chose Candidate Alternative 2 and

three chose Candidate Alternative 1 (Figure 3.27). No participants expressed support for the No Build

Alternative.

• Most participants, including those who did not express a preference for a specific alternative, supported

improving sidewalks and adding bicycle facilities.

• Safety improvements such as more lighting, reducing speed, more prominent crossings at busy intersections,

and better drainage design to reduce flooding were recorded as well.

A comprehensive summary of public feedback is provided in Tech Memo 3.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Strongly Agree Agree Undecided Disagree Strongly Disagree

AC Meeting Poll Results

Candidate Alternative 1 Candidate Alternative 2 No Build Alternative



Figure 3.27 Public Candidate Alternative Preferences

3 . 3 E V A L U A T I O N A P P R O A C H

To conduct a full evaluation of each Candidate Alternative, the team rated alternatives against six high-level categories

and 13 specific sub-criteria. The six categories used to evaluate the candidate alternatives include: Safety, Infrastructure

Continuity, Mobility, Feasibility, AC Acceptability, and Public Acceptability.

The performance of each alternative was then evaluated using the specific sub-criteria as a “Most desirable,”

“Somewhat desirable,” or “Least desirable” solution. Table 3.1 defines the criteria, sub-criteria, and the description of

Most, Somewhat, and Least desirable alternatives.

25%

75%

0%0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Candidate Alternative 1 Candidate Alternative 2 No Build Alternative

Public Candidate Alternative Preferences



Table 3.1 Evaluation Criteria, Sub-criteria, and Evaluation Definitions

Category Sub-criteria Most desirable Somewhat desirable

Least desirable

Safety Increases safety for all

modes.

Alternative mitigates existing crash hot spots

Addresses safety concerns at existing hot spots

- Does not address safety concerns at existing hot spots

Proximity of pedestrians to traffic

Adds detached sidewalk

- Does not add detached sidewalk

Proximity of bicyclists to traffic

Physical/maximum separation

Some separation No separation

Infrastructure Continuity

Provides connectivity to major destinations for

all modes.

Alternative connects to or fills in gaps within the non-motorized network

Fills the most gaps Fills some gaps Fills the least gaps

Mobility

Vehicle traffic is not impeded and/or LTS is

not increased.

LOS is maintained or improved


- LOS worsens

LTS is maintained or improved

LTS improved - LTS maintained or worsened

Feasibility The alternative reflects a low-cost/high benefit

solution.

Private property owners impacted

No private property owners impacted

Some private property owners impacted

Many private property owners impacted

Utility impacts No potential impacts Some potential impacts

Many potential impacts

ROW impacts Lowest square footage of acquisition

Average square footage of acquisition

Highest square footage of acquisition

Impact to other structures (e.g. bridge/drainage)

No impact Some impact High impact

Planning-level costs including operations and maintenance

Lowest cost Average cost Highest cost

AC Acceptability The alternative reflects

feedback from AC members.

The alternative is supported by the Advisory Committee

Highly supported Partially supported Not supported

Public Acceptability The alternative reflects

feedback received during the first public

outreach phase.

The alternative is supported by the public

Highly supported Partially supported Not supported



3 . 4 A L T E R N A T I V E S E V A L U A T I O N R E S U L T S

The results of the alternatives evaluation were compiled into an Evaluation matrix, shown in Table 3.2. The matrix

follows a rating scale of “Most Desirable”, “Somewhat Desirable”, and “Least Desirable”. Total Desirability was

calculated by tallying the number of sub-categories for which an Alternative was rated Most or Somewhat Desirable.

Candidate Alternative 1 was rated Somewhat or Most Desirable on 12 of 13 criteria (92 percent), the highest among the

Alternatives. By contrast, Candidate Alternative 2 was rated Somewhat or Most Desirable on 9 of 13 criteria (69 percent)

compared to 5 of 13 criteria (38 percent) for Candidate Alternative 3.

Table 3.2 Final Alternative Evaluation Matrix

Candidate

Alternative 1

Candidate

Alternative 2

No Build

Alternative

92% 69% 38%

Most desirable Somewhat desirable Least desirable

Total desirability

Key

The alternative is supported by

the public

Alternatives Evaluation Matrix

Category

Safety

Increases safety for all modes.

Public Acceptability

The alternative reflects feedback received

during the first public outreach phase.

AC Acceptability

The alternative reflects feedback

from AC members.

Feasibility

The alternative reflects a

low-cost/high benefit solution.

Mobility

Vehicle traffic is not impeded

and/or LTS is not increased.

Infrastructure Continuity

Provides connectivity to major

destinations for all modes.

The alternative is supported by

the Advisory Committee

Planning-level cost estimate

Impact to other structures (e.g.

bridge/drainage)

ROW impacts

Utility impacts

Proximity of pedestrians to traffic

Alternative mitigates existing

crash hot spots

Sub-category

Private property owners impacted

LTS is maintained of improved


Alternative connects to or fills in

gaps within the non-motorized

network

Proximity of bicyclists to traffic



4 P R E F E R R E D A L T E R N A T I V E

Based on the alternatives’ evaluation, Candidate Alternative 1 was selected as the Preferred Alternative. This alternative

directly addresses safety and mobility concerns identified in the existing conditions assessment and is preferred by the

AC and accepted by public. The preferred alternative would have a lower construction cost, less ROW impacts, and

fewer utility impacts than Candidate Alternative 2.

The Preferred Alternative includes two major improvements: It would 1) create a continuous sidewalk with appropriate

street buffers throughout the corridor and 2) add a 5.5-foot to 6-foot bike lane. Depending on the segment ownership,

the improvements would follow either the MCDOT Urban Principal Arterial standards or City of Mesa 4-Lane Arterial

standards.

In addition to the corridor-wide improvements, the existing two-way center turn lane on the CAP canal bridge would be

replaced by an 8-foot-wide raised median to accommodate on-street bike lanes. The raised median would be wide

enough to accommodate a pedestrian refuge for a potential future trail crossing. Actual ROW will vary segment by

segment based on local constraints. Figure 4.1 shows the Preferred Alternative cross section.

Figure 4.1 Preferred Alternative Cross Section

4 . 1 A D V I S O R Y C O M M I T T E E F E E D B A C K

A virtual meeting with the AC was held on November 12, 2020. The alternatives evaluation process, incorporating public

and previous AC feedback, was discussed, and the Preferred Alternative was presented. At the meeting and following

the review of Tech Memo 3, the AC concurred with the study findings and did not have any significant comments.

4 . 2 P U B L I C O U T R E A C H

A month-long virtual public outreach effort for the Preferred Alternative was conducted from November 12, 2020 –

December 12, 2020. The outreach was used to describe the evaluation process used to identify the Preferred

Alternative. Candidates Alternatives were described to offer context for the selection.

There were 16 responses collected. The following are major takeaways from the public outreach:

• Nine participants submitted comments stating general support of improving the corridor. Three participants

submitted a preference for a specific alternative.

• Of the three participants that submitted a preference for an alternative, two chose the Preferred Alternative

and one chose Candidate Alternative 2. No comments objected to the Preferred Alternative.

• Improvements such as lighting, shade along sidewalks, speed enforcement, and signal changes were recorded as

well.

Public comments received during this outreach period are provided in Appendix B.



4 . 3 I M P L E M E N T A T I O N P L A N

A phased implementation approach is recommended for the Preferred Alternative improvements. The implementation

plan was developed by ranking the seven segments and grouping them to promote logical improvements to the

corridor. The implementation plan development and results are described briefly in the following sections.

4 . 3 . 1 S e g m e n t E v a l u a t i o n

Using data collected for each segment during the existing conditions evaluation as well as impacts of implementing the

Preferred Alternative, a set of variables was developed to help rank the improvements for phasing. The variables

consider existing pedestrian, bicyclist, and vehicular traffic volumes, historical crashes, nearby activity centers, and

existing sidewalks. They also measure readiness for completion by considering additional pavement needs, potential

ROW impacts, the potential number of utilities that would need to be relocated, and the need for new or reconstructed

driveways. The segments were first ranked for each variable. Then, to calculate the overall segment ranking, the variable

rankings were averaged. Table 4.1 provides a detailed description of the variables.

The segments were first ranked for each variable. Then, to calculate the overall segment ranking, the variable rankings

were averaged.

Table 4.1 Implementation Plan Ranking

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Pedestrian counts The counts show pedestrian demand. The higher the count the

greater the need for sidewalk improvements.4 2 1 3 5 7 6

Bicycle countsThe counts show bicycle demand. The higher the count the greater

the need for bike facility improvements.3 1 2 4 6 7 5

Total crashes

Higher traffic volumes show high demand. Busier streets can make

pedestrians and bicyclists feel unsafe. Segments with higher

volumes are a higher priority for improvements.

3 1 2 6 4 7 5

Ped crashes A high number of crashes could imply a general safety issue which

would make improvements a higher priority.2 1 2 7 2 2 2

Bike crashes

A high number of crashes involving pedestrians implies a lack of

pedestrian facilities or substandard facilities. This makes pedestrian-

related improvements a priority.

2 1 3 3 3 3 3

ROW impacts

A high number of crashes involving bicycles implies a lack of bicycle

facilities or unsafe facilities. This makes bicycle-related

improvements a priority.

6 1 1 1 1 1 7

Gaps

A high number of activity centers typically means an increased

number of pedestrian and bicycle traffic. Segments with more

activity centers ranked higher.

2 3 6 4 1 5 7

Additional pavementMissing sidewalks cause gaps in the pedestrian network. Filling in

small sidewalk gaps are “quick wins” and are ranked higher.3 5 7 2 1 6 4

Driveways

If the improvement can be implemented without adding pavement,

the segment ranked higher. Additional pavement costs more and

takes more time than restriping.

4 2 3 5 1 6 7

Utility impacts

Adding driveways and making existing driveways compliant with the

American Disabilities Act requires additional ROW in some cases.

Segments with fewer driveways rank higher.

7 4 6 1 1 3 4

Traffic volume

Improvements that do not require ROW acquisition can be

completed faster and for less money and therefore are ranked

higher.

2 1 7 5 6 3 4

Activity centersRelocating utilities increases improvement costs. Segments with

fewer utility impacts will rank higher.3 1 3 2 5 5 5

3 1 4 4 2 6 7

Rank by SegmentVariable Description

Overall Ranking



4 . 3 . 2 R e c o m m e n d e d i m p l e m e n t a t i o n P h a s i n g

Following the evaluation, segments were grouped into three implementation phases reflecting the technical evaluation

and promoting logical and continuous improvements to the corridor. The implementation phases are as follows (Figure

4.2):

• Phase I: 90th St to CAP Canal– Segments 1, 2, 3, and a portion of 4

• Phase II: CAP Canal to Signal Butte Rd – The potions of this corridor maintained by city of Mesa – A portion of Segment 4 and all of Segment 5

• Phase III: Signal Butte Rd to Meridian Rd – Segments 6 and 7

Phase II consists of sections of the corridor under the city of Mesa’s jurisdiction. These sections were included in the

development of alternatives and in the implementation plan for consistency. Increased coordination would need to

occur with the city of Mesa for concurrent improvements near this area.

Figure 4.2 Implementation Phases

4 . 3 . 3 P l a n n i n g L e v e l C o s t E s t i m a t e S u m m a r y

Planning level cost estimates for each phase of implementation are summarized in Table 4.2. Full planning level cost

estimates by segment are provided in Appendix C. The cost summary provides an order of magnitude cost estimate for

each of the implementation phases. For known items, unit costs were obtained from MCDOT’s Cost Estimation Viewer

which uses historic construction bid prices. For unidentified items, like design and administrative costs, planning level

percentages based on MCDOT candidate alternative stage recommendations were used. Percentages are applied to the

previous subtotal to determine overall cost estimate.



Table 4.2 Planning Level Cost Estimates

Cost Element Phase I Phase II Phase III

Total Construction Cost $6,885,808 $1,207,644 $2,834,609

Other Project Costs $3,383,684 $591,745 $1,419,417

Total Project Cost Estimate $10,269,492 $1,799,389 $4,254,026

5 C O N C L U S I O N A N D N E X T S T E P S

The Preferred Alternative directly addresses safety and mobility concerns identified along the corridor, has moderate impacts on ROW and utilities, and has been vetted by the AC and the public. The improvements recommended by the Broadway Road CIS would fill in gaps in the bicycle and pedestrian network along the Broadway Road Corridor and improve multimodal connectivity in Maricopa County. Once funding is identified, the project would move into the scoping phase followed by final design and construction. Coordination with impacted property owners, utility providers, and other agencies will occur during scoping and design.



A P P E N D I X A : A D V I S O R Y C O M M I T T E E M E M B E R S

Agency Representative Email

City of Apache Junction Mike Wever [email protected]

Arizona Department of Transportation Clem Ligocki [email protected]

Arizona State Land Department Mark Edelman [email protected]

CAP Canal (CAWCD) Tom Fitzgerald Adam Muszynski

[email protected] [email protected]

City of Mesa Mark Venti [email protected]

Maricopa Association of Governments Tim Strow [email protected]

Pinal County Tara Harman [email protected]

Flood Control District of Maricopa County Hasan Mushtaq Matt Carroll


Maricopa County Real Estate Department Kimberly Romero Pat Martz


MCDOT Transportation Systems Management

Nicolaas Swart [email protected]

MCDOT Planning Denise Lacey [email protected]

MCDOT Utilities Kelly Roy [email protected]

MCDOT Structural Engineering Jimmy Camp [email protected]

MCDOT Roadway and Drainage David Fritz [email protected]

MCDOT Materials Technology John Shi [email protected]

MCDOT Environmental Marinela Papa Konomi [email protected]

MCDOT Project Management Randy Dunsey [email protected]

MCDOT Traffic Studies John Counts [email protected]

MCDOT ITS April Wire LeShawn Charlton


MCDOT Traffic Design Rajanikanth (Raj) Thoutam [email protected]

MCDOT Outreach and Communications Bryan Pahia [email protected]

MCDOT IGA Kellee Salas [email protected]

MCDOT Roadway Maintenance Alfred Erives [email protected]

MCDOT Area Road Maintenance Stefan Whitfield [email protected]

MCDOT Countywide Maintenance Skip Harris [email protected]

MCDOT Traffic Road Maintenance John Hatler [email protected]

MCDOT Permits Jason Mahkovtz [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]







Date Comment Submission Method Comment Source Comment Preference Improvement

11/18/2020 Online Online FormI accumulate over 2000 miles a month in this neighborhood as a rideshare driver. This is mostly accomplished in the evening . This expansion is sorely needed. Along with the changes you describe I would also suggest better lighting. I seldom drive in the right lane as people in dark clothing make it a challenge to avoid tragedy. I fully support any effort to improve the conveyance of all.

No Preference Lighting

11/18/2020 Online Online FormPlease don’t start building out here. We pay a higher monthly cost to live in East Mesa to stay on the out skirts of the dangerous, disgusting, busy city not to have the city built up around us putting us back in a major city with traffic clogging up all the roads & 5 more Jack In The Boxes on every corner. We like nature out here. We enjoy quiet , peace and safety. Don’t ruin the environment & land all for greedy money.

No Preference General Disapproval

11/19/2020 Online Online Form

These proposals would greatly improve the look and feel of Broadway Rd. I am not sure a bike lane is needed on both sides of the street though. I live on unincorporated lot just east of Signal Butte. 11021 E. Broadway Rd. How much land will be needed from my frontage to complete this project? Will it eliminate to a great extent my buffer between my house and the road? Also, what steps will be taken to reduce the speeding and drag racing being done from Signal Butte to Meridian? We have people going 80+ miles per hour in front of our home and the Signal Butte/Broadway intersection is very dangerous. There are serious accidents there quite often. But all in all, it would be nice to have a sidewalk instead of having to walk in mud and dirt to get to the sidewalk to the west of us and to eliminate the mess we have to drive in to get to the street after a rain. Is there any consideration being given to the fact many of us are still on septic systems and maybe putting in the ability for us to connect to city sewer? Thank you for your consideration of my comments.

No PreferenceSpeed Enforcement

Sidewalks

11/19/2020 Online Online Form I would love to see a sidewalk put in on the north side of Broadway to eliminate all the gravel and weeds No Preference Sidewalks

11/20/2020 Online Online FormI agree there should be improvements I see people walking or riding their bikes in the road all the time.If there is a car in the other lane, you can't go around them, I'm always afraid I'm going to hit them by accident.

No Preference Sidewalks

11/20/2020 Online Online Form I say MCDOT Standard Alternative 1 Alternative 1 General Approval11/21/2020 Online Online Form No Comment No Preference n/a

11/23/2020 Online Online Form Please put left turn signals in at Signal Butte and Broadway. Thank You. No PreferenceProtected left turn at

Signal Butte

11/30/2020 Online Online Form

I would like to ride my bicycle on Broadway, but even with your preferred (alt 1) improvement, with bike lanes adjacent to vehicle lanes, I would NOT feel safe. I would gladly cross the road to ride my bike in a PROTECTED bike lane if only one such lane was feasible. Whether it be a raised wide sidewalk or street level with curbing or some barrier drivers must pay attention to. I drive this part of Broadway everyday and could use a bike for many of my errands but just do not feel safe. Speeds are high (50‐55mph actual) and people have their heads buried in their phones.

No Preference Separated Bikelane

12/6/2020 Online Online Form I like alternative 2 the best. I have done extensive bicycle riding in the area. Alternative 2 General Approval

11/20/2020 Other/Unknown Email

I am a resident within the effective region of the Broadway Road CIS. I would like to say that I am in favor of renovation to this section of road. I would like to make several comments. First, when I arrived at the provided website, there was no obvious location for me to submit a comment. Second, I am for the Prefered Alternative Plan. Lastly, I believe that this study, as explained on the website and news flyer, lacks consideration of walkability. Sidewalks will be a waste if none of us want to walk instead of drive. I believe that the sidewalks would benefit from shade, perhaps located in the buffer zone. I also believe that the bicycle lane should be separated from the road via the buffer as well.

Alternative 1Provide shade for

sidewalks

n/a Other/Unknown PhoneWould like to see bike walk and bike path with street lighting. Hard to cross Broadway Road. 114th should be closed off before median because of cut through traffic. Mountain Road project watched the construction and they would not work everyday and signage for construction was in accurate. Would like nice landscape along Broadway Road. Everyone speeds down Broadway, should be more enforcement.

No Preference Speed Enforcement

n/a Other/Unknown PhoneWanted more information non the corridor improvements and if we were going to need more right‐of‐way in this location, because his home is set close to Broadway Road he felt that would be very problematic.

No Preference More information

n/a Other/Unknown Phone Wanted more information on the preferred alternative and to know when the improvements would be completed. No Preference More information

n/a Other/Unknown PhoneInterested in the project, was not able to provide comments on the website or click on the alternatives, wanted to know what the recommendations would be for his part of Broadway road

No Preference More information

n/a Other/Unknown PhoneLives along Pueblo Avenue. He wanted to know about detours and if there would be impacts to his street. He says there is enough traffic and speeding vehicles along Pueblo already especially with the two schools nearby.

No Preference Speed Enforcement

APPENDIX B: PUBLIC COMMENTS

Segment 1 CostRoadway Construction $268,131Traffic Signal Improvements $150,000Removals $39,400Drainage Improvements $154,800Signing and Marking $30,616Subtotal 1 (Identified Items) $642,947Unidentified Items 20%Subtotal 2 (with Contingencies) $771,536Traffic Control 10%Environmental Mitigation Measures 5%Mobilization / Demobilization 10%Subtotal 3 (Total Construction Cost) $964,421Construction Management 15%Design 12%Right‐of‐Way $7,874Utility Relocation 10%Administration Costs 12%Total Project Cost $1,444,861

Segment 2 CostRoadway Construction $456,842Traffic Signal Improvements $300,000Removals $56,003Drainage Improvements $319,200Signing and Marking $56,602Subtotal 1 (Identified Items) $1,188,647Unidentified Items 20%Subtotal 2 (with Contingencies) $1,426,377Traffic Control 10%Environmental Mitigation Measures 5%Mobilization / Demobilization 10%Subtotal 3 (Total Construction Cost) $1,782,971Construction Management 15%Design 12%Right‐of‐Way $1,764Utility Relocation 10%Administration Costs 12%Total Project Cost $2,658,391

APPENDIX C: PLANNING LEVEL COST ESTIMATES

Segment 3 CostRoadway Construction $608,689Traffic Signal Improvements $300,000Removals $24,917Drainage Improvements $600,000Signing and Marking $76,680Subtotal 1 (Identified Items) $1,610,286Unidentified Items 20%Subtotal 2 (with Contingencies) $1,932,344Traffic Control 10%Environmental Mitigation Measures 5%Mobilization / Demobilization 10%Subtotal 3 (Total Construction Cost) $2,415,429Construction Management 15%Design 12%Right‐of‐Way $0Utility Relocation 10%Administration Costs 12%Total Project Cost $3,598,990

Segment 4a CostRoadway Construction $309,004Traffic Signal Improvements $150,000Removals $10,956Drainage Improvements $624,000Signing and Marking $54,698Subtotal 1 (Identified Items) $1,148,658Unidentified Items 20%Subtotal 2 (with Contingencies) $1,378,390Traffic Control 10%Environmental Mitigation Measures 5%Mobilization / Demobilization 10%Subtotal 3 (Total Construction Cost) $1,722,987Construction Management 15%Design 12%Right‐of‐Way $0Utility Relocation 10%Administration Costs 12%Total Project Cost $2,567,251

Segment 4b CostRoadway Construction $41,266Traffic Signal Improvements $0Removals $3,616Drainage Improvements $19,200Signing and Marking $3,204Subtotal 1 (Identified Items) $67,286Unidentified Items 20%Subtotal 2 (with Contingencies) $80,743Traffic Control 10%Environmental Mitigation Measures 5%Mobilization / Demobilization 10%Subtotal 3 (Total Construction Cost) $100,929Construction Management 15%Design 12%Right‐of‐Way $0Utility Relocation 10%Administration Costs 12%Total Project Cost $150,384

Segment 5 CostRoadway Construction $182,467Traffic Signal Improvements $150,000Removals $10,209Drainage Improvements $360,000Signing and Marking $35,134Subtotal 1 (Identified Items) $737,810Unidentified Items 20%Subtotal 2 (with Contingencies) $885,372Traffic Control 10%Environmental Mitigation Measures 5%Mobilization / Demobilization 10%Subtotal 3 (Total Construction Cost) $1,106,715Construction Management 15%Design 12%Right‐of‐Way $0Utility Relocation 10%Administration Costs 12%Total Project Cost $1,649,005

Segment 6 CostRoadway Construction $465,392Traffic Signal Improvements $150,000Removals $22,401Drainage Improvements $159,600Signing and Marking $39,870Subtotal 1 (Identified Items) $837,263Unidentified Items 20%Subtotal 2 (with Contingencies) $1,004,715Traffic Control 10%Environmental Mitigation Measures 5%Mobilization / Demobilization 10%Subtotal 3 (Total Construction Cost) $1,255,894Construction Management 15%Design 12%Right‐of‐Way $0Utility Relocation 10%Administration Costs 12%Total Project Cost $1,871,282

Segment 7 CostRoadway Construction $495,656Traffic Signal Improvements $150,000Removals $44,703Drainage Improvements $312,000Signing and Marking $50,118Subtotal 1 (Identified Items) $1,052,477Unidentified Items 20%Subtotal 2 (with Contingencies) $1,262,972Traffic Control 10%Environmental Mitigation Measures 5%Mobilization / Demobilization 10%Subtotal 3 (Total Construction Cost) $1,578,715Construction Management 15%Design 12%Right‐of‐Way $30,458Utility Relocation 10%Administration Costs 12%Total Project Cost $2,382,744