SE Mesa Land Use & Transportation Plan by City of Mesa, AZ

Southeast Mesa Land Use and Transportation Plan

Final Report July 2019

Southeast Mesa Land Use and Transportation Plan

Final Report

Prepared for:

Prepared by:

and

July 2019

Final Report

TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction .......................................................... 1 Baseline Roadway Network Conditions ............................. 3 Character Area / District Analysis ............................ 8 Land Use Scenario Development ............................. 22 Transportation Implementation Plan ........................ 30 Community Involvement Plan ................................. 63 Appendices 1-8

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Study Area ................................................ 2 Figure 2: Existing and Future Roadway Functional Classification 4 Figure 3: Number of Existing Through Lanes ...................... 5 Figure 4: Roadway Segment Existing Daily Traffic Volumes ..... 6 Figure 5: MGSDP Framework Districts ............................ 10 Figure 6: 2016 MAG Existing Land Uses .......................... 12 Figure 7: City of Mesa Existing Zoning Designations ............ 14 Figure 8: General Plan Future Land Use Character Area Types . 16 Figure 9: City of Mesa Zoning in Potential New Growth Areas .. 18 Figure 10: Areas of Influence in Existing Context ................ 20 Figure 11: Proposed New Framework Districts ................... 21

Southeast Mesa Land Use and Transportation Plan | i

Southeast Mesa Land Use and Transportation Plan

Figure 12: 2040 Future Land Use Buildout Scenario ............. 26 Figure 13: 2030 Percent Buildout of Developable Land ......... 28 Figure 14: 2018 Total Employment by TAZ ....................... 32 Figure 15: 2030 Total Employment by TAZ ....................... 33 Figure 16: 2040 Total Employment by TAZ ....................... 34 Figure 17: 2018 Total Population by TAZ ......................... 35 Figure 18: 2030 Total Population by TAZ ......................... 36 Figure 19: 2040 Total Population by TAZ ......................... 37 Figure 20: Programmed/Committed Roadway Improvements .. 40 Figure 21: 2018 Baseline Total Number of Lanes ................ 41 Figure 22: 2030 Baseline Total Number of Lanes ................ 42 Figure 23: 2040 Baseline Total Number of Lanes ................ 43 Figure 24: 2018 Baseline Level of Service ........................ 44 Figure 25: 2030 Baseline Level of Service ........................ 45 Figure 26: 2040 Baseline Level of Service ........................ 46 Figure 27: Near-Term Recommended Improvements ........... 49 Figure 28: Mid-Term Recommended Improvements ............. 50 Figure 29: Long-Term Recommended Improvements ........... 51 Figure 30: All Recommended Improvements ..................... 52 Figure 31: 2018 Improved Total Number of Lanes ............... 54 Figure 32: 2030 Improved Total Number of Lanes ............... 55 ii | Final Report

Final Report

Figure 33: 2040 Improved Total Number of Lanes .............. 56 Figure 34: 2018 Improved Level of Service ...................... 57 Figure 35: 2030 Improved Level of Service ...................... 58 Figure 36: 2040 Improved Level of Service ...................... 59

LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Roadway Centerline Miles by Functional Classification .. 3 Table 2: 2016 MAG Existing Land Uses ........................... 11 Table 3: City of Mesa Existing Zoning ............................. 13 Table 4: General Plan Future Character Area Types Summary . 15 Table 5: Potential New Growth Areas ............................. 17 Table 6: Future Land Uses Based on City of Mesa Zoning ...... 23 Table 7: Future Land Uses Based on Inner Loop Development 23 Table 8: Future Land Uses Based on Character Areas ........... 24 Table 9: Total Developable Land Area for 2040 Buildout ....... 24 Table 10: 2040 Future Land Use Buildout Scenario Summary . 24 Table 11: 2040 Future Land Use Buildout Scenario Detail ...... 25 Table 12: 2030 Future Land Use Scenario Detail ................ 27 Table 13: Recommended Improvements ......................... 53 Table 14: Prioritized Recommended Improvements ............. 62

Southeast Mesa Land Use and Transportation Plan | iii

Final Report

Introduction The Southeast Mesa Land Use and Transportation Plan (LUTP) is a guide for programming future transportation improvement priorities that was developed by identifying and understanding existing and future land use trends in the southeast area of Mesa.

accommodate existing and projected traffic demands. Through the LUTP, the City of Mesa seeks to enhance the quality of life in southeast Mesa through the programming and delivery of timely multimodal transportation enhancements.

Project Need

Figure 1 shows the LUTP study area boundary. The study area encompasses approximately 50 square miles. Portions of the study area are bounded by the City of Apache Junction, Town of Gilbert, Town of Queen Creek, and Pinal County. Portions of the State Route (SR) 24, SR 202 (Loop 202), and US 60 freeways are within the study area. The study area also includes the Phoenix-Mesa Gateway Airport (PMGA) and the Arizona State University (ASU) Polytechnic campus.

In 2008, the City of Mesa completed the Mesa Gateway Strategic Development Plan (MGSDP), which provided a planning analysis and vision for future growth in the southeast portion of Mesa. Since that time, southeast Mesa has developed into a major economic, employment, and educational center for the region.

Study Area

The LUTP updates the land use and transportation portions of the MGSDP. The City of Mesa recognized the need for the LUTP updates because land development market trends have deviated somewhat from what was assumed in the MGSDP, and the existing roadway network cannot adequately

Southeast Mesa Land Use and Transportation Plan | 1

Southeast Mesa Land Use and Transportation Plan

Figure 1: Study Area

2 | Final Report

Final Report

Baseline Roadway Network Conditions Existing Conditions The roadway network within the northern and eastern portions of the study area is fairly well developed with arterial, collector, and residential streets. Much of the southern portion of the study area (south of Elliot Road), however, is less-developed or undeveloped. Figure 2 shows the current functional classification (i.e., freeways, arterials, and collectors) for the study area segments of the roadway network. Where new roadway segments are planned or a change of functional classification is anticipated per the City’s 2040 Transportation Plan, the future functional classification is also shown in the same figure. Table 1 shows the number of centerline miles of roadway of each functional classification within the study area. Table 1: Roadway Centerline Miles by Current Functional Classification Fu n ct ion al C la ss i f ica ti o n

reviews. Most of the arterial streets north of Elliot Road are built out with four or more through lanes. South of Elliot Road, there are many arterial roadway segments that have not been built or that are only two-lane roadways. Figure 4 shows the daily traffic volumes on study area roadways. These volumes were derived from traffic counts collected in 2017 and 2018 by the City of Mesa, Town of Gilbert, Maricopa County Department of Transportation (MCDOT), and Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT). The highest recorded daily traffic volumes occur on the freeway segments and on arterial segments near freeway traffic interchanges. The highest arterial traffic volumes occur along Power Road near the US 60 and Loop 202 traffic interchanges and on Ellsworth Road south of SR 24.

M i le s

◼

Freeway

◼

Arterial

◼

Collector

◼

Figure 3 shows the number of through travel lanes on each arterial or collector roadway segment. This laneage information was developed in coordination with the City of Mesa and confirmed using aerial photography or field

Southeast Mesa Land Use and Transportation Plan | 3

Southeast Mesa Land Use and Transportation Plan

Figure 2: Existing and Future Roadway Functional Classification

4 | Final Report

Final Report

Figure 3: Number of Existing Through Lanes

Southeast Mesa Land Use and Transportation Plan | 5

Southeast Mesa Land Use and Transportation Plan

Figure 4: Roadway Segment Existing Daily Traffic Volumes

6 | Final Report

Final Report

Planned Roadway Improvements Within the study area, there are several roadway improvement projects that are underway or within the current five-year plan for the City of Mesa (2019-2023 Capital Improvement Program (CIP)) and the Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) (2018-2022 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)). There are also several impending developerfunded roadway improvements and longer-term public agency planned improvements in the study area. These improvement projects will influence traffic patterns and operations within the study area. The major planned roadway improvements include the following and are anticipated to be constructed prior to 2030 except as noted: City of Mesa ◼

Widen Power Rd to 6 lanes between south of Guadalupe Rd and Loop 202;

◼

Construct Signal Butte Rd as a 4-lane arterial between Williams Field Rd and Pecos Rd;

◼

Construct Signal Butte Rd as a 2-lane arterial between Pecos Rd and Germann Rd; and

◼

Construct Hawes Rd/Williams Field Rd connector loop as a 2-lane collector through the airport that connects Ray Rd to SR 24.

◼

Construct Germann Rd as a 2-lane arterial between Meridian Rd and Ironwood Rd;

◼

Construct Signal Butte Rd as a 2-lane arterial between Germann Rd and Queen Creek Rd;

◼

Construct Meridian Rd as a 2-lane arterial between SR 24 and Germann Rd;

◼

Construct Pecos Rd as a 4-lane arterial between Meridian Rd and Ironwood Rd (by 2040); and

◼

Construct Ray Rd as a 4-lane arterial between Meridian Rd and Ironwood Rd (by 2040).

Private Development/Others ◼

Construct Copernicus Rd as a 2-lane collector between Point Twenty-Two Blvd and Ray Rd;

◼

Construct Inspirian Pkwy as a 4-lane arterial between District St and Point Twenty-Two Blvd;

◼

Construct Eastmark Pkwy as a 4-lane arterial between Elliot Rd and Warner Rd;

◼

Construct Everton Terrace as a 2-lane arterial between Point Twenty-Two Blvd and Ray Rd;

◼

Construct Parc Joule as a 2-lane collector north of Point Twenty-Two Blvd for ¼ mile;

◼

Construct Warner Rd as a 4-lane arterial between Ellsworth Rd and Eastmark Pkwy;

◼

Construct Hawes Rd as a 2-lane arterial between Elliot Rd and Warner Rd; and

◼

Construct Verona Ave as a 2-lane collector between Power Rd and Sossaman Rd (by 2040).

MAG/ADOT ◼

Construct SR 24 with 2 general purpose freeway lanes in each direction between Loop 202 and Ironwood Rd with interchanges at Ellsworth Rd, Williams Field Rd, Signal Butte Rd, Meridian Rd, and Ironwood Rd.

Queen Creek/Pinal County ◼

Widen Ellsworth Rd to 6 lanes between Germann Rd and Queen Creek Rd;

Southeast Mesa Land Use and Transportation Plan | 7

Southeast Mesa Land Use and Transportation Plan

Character Area / District Analysis MGSDP Vision The MGSDP set out to establish a vision for this area that would set the standard for how an active and thriving airport environment could not only co-exist with its neighbors but leverage the strengths of both the airport and surrounding area to establish a national live/learn/work/play destination. As the MGSDP describes, this approach is referred to as a “marriage of form and function in airport planning and development.” To realize this approach, the MGSDP further described the following steps as being necessary for success: ◼

◼

Establish the “aviation envelope” that will support the regional interests of airport and airline users; unless specific lands are absolutely essential for uninterrupted regional airport operations, they should be considered for development; Promote compatible land uses; a wide range of commercial, recreational, and residential uses can occupy land in close proximity to the airport and its active airspace; and Ultimately transfer the focal point of the passenger and commercial experience to the east side of the property, where a new passenger terminal should be developed as a regional landmark.

MGSDP Districts To aid in implementation, the MGSDP established a framework comprised of four subareas referred to as districts. These districts were created for the more undeveloped

8 | Final Report

portions of the study area, which is the land south of the powerline corridor that runs halfway between Guadalupe Road and Elliot Road. The districts were created to guide future growth and development to ensure compatibility with the airport and leverage the land areas’ specific locational advantage, based on their proximity to the airport and the regional transportation network. Design, form, and character goals were identified for the four districts to guide future development. The four districts were: ◼

The Mixed-Use Community District;

◼

The Inner Loop District;

◼

The Airport/Campus District; and

◼

The Logistics and Commerce District.

As part of the LUTP effort, the MGSDP districts were evaluated against current development trends to determine if the districts needed to be updated. The following sections provide a description of the MGSDP districts. Figure 5 contains a supporting map. The district descriptions and map are based on information provided in the MGSDP. Mixed-Use Community District This district was envisioned to be the area that solidifies the goal to balance land uses and provide sustainability through the creation of a live/learn/work/play community. It was

Final Report

envisioned to contain the widest variety of land uses within the planning area, with ultimate development including low- to high-density residential, commercial, employment, civic, and recreational uses to provide a complete community experience. While the other districts allow for residential uses, this district will be the primary area for residential development. Providing for residential use is critical to attaining the balance that is sought within the Mesa Gateway area amidst the employment, education, commercial, and industrial uses found primarily within the other districts. This district will also include walkable mixed-use “urban core” areas to provide focus and identity. The boundaries of this district are existing and planned freeways that serve as a transition zone to the other districts. Development in this transitional area can take advantage of freeway frontage and access. Business park, light industrial, and other higher-intensity employment uses, as well as regional community commercial uses, are compatible with this designation. High-density residential will be integrated with commercial and employment uses in urban cores and other mixed-use development areas. Inner Loop District The Inner Loop District was envisioned to contain a wide variety of uses. This district should provide a high-quality, mixed-use environment that is compatible with increasing over-flight activities associated with PMGA operations. Because this area will likely be subject to the most revisions to the airport noise contours, land uses in this area may need to be generally nonresidential and the City should weigh new developments carefully. Over time, flexibility will be important as development

should begin to transition to mixed uses, with concentrations of light industrial, office, and retail, with a possibility of higher-density residential uses in the future. The Elliot Road corridor is envisioned as a multimodal corridor linking Elliot Road with an urban center at Ellsworth Road. A transit system is ultimately envisioned to limit the need for use of personal automobiles for residents within this area. The high intensity of development in this area will be balanced with a significant area of community open space and connections to the regional recreational path system. Close to the area’s Loop 202 boundary, higher intensity uses will help to transition the district to meet the adjacent land uses. While the uses near the freeway will be similar to those found throughout the district, building orientation that presents attractive facades to the freeway and contains high-quality design elements will be of importance. Airport/Campus District This district refers to the area encompassing the ASU Polytechnic/Chandler-Gilbert Community College (CGCC), East Valley Institute of Technology (EVIT), PMGA, and the area immediately outside the airport’s future main terminal. It is envisioned as a mixed-use district centered around educational opportunities, research and development functions, and airport-related uses that support the traveling public. Uses on the airport will relate to the uses across the airport boundary.

Southeast Mesa Land Use and Transportation Plan | 9

Southeast Mesa Land Use and Transportation Plan

Figure 5: MGSDP Framework Districts

10 | Final Report

Final Report

Development in the Airport/Campus District will be high-intensity and pedestrian-oriented. Its pedestrian friendliness will distinguish this district from more typical airport-adjacent developments. The transitional area or boundary of this district will predominantly be high-intensity employment uses that integrate well with the on-airport uses. Uses in this area will also address the needs of travelers and visitors and provide a smooth transition from the airport into the rest of the community. High-density residential uses can be integrated within a mixed-use development, when appropriate. This area will be a hub of visitor activity and create the first and last impression visitors have of the community. It must therefore provide a very high-quality image. Logistics and Commerce District This designation applies to areas south of the Airport/Campus District and SR 24. Heavy industrial, light industrial, business park, and

commercial uses were envisioned to be predominant within this district. Desired uses include manufacturing facilities, large warehouses, distribution facilities, planned employment parks, and similar uses. This district should provide a high-quality employment environment that is compatible with increasing over-flight activities associated with PMGA. Greater intensity and higher density uses will be encouraged for development approaching the northern boundary of this area as it transitions approaching SR 24.

Existing Land Uses To identify trends in growth and development, it is important to consider the current, existing uses on the ground. A table showing the MAG 2016 existing land uses and associated map are provided in Table 2 and Figure 6, respectively. Referring to this information, approximately 46% of the project area is currently Vacant or utilized for Agriculture.

Table 2: 2016 MAG Existing Land Uses E xi st in g Lan d U se

Acr e s

Sq . M il es

% O ver a l l

Vacant

11,288

17.64

35.46%

Single Family

6,290

9.83

19.76%

Transportation

4,885

7.63

15.34%

Agriculture

3,224

5.04

10.13%

Open Space

1,833

2.86

5.76%

Other Employment

1,412

2.21

4.43%

Industrial

1,157

1.81

3.63%

Commercial

1,108

1.73

3.48%

Multi Family

543

0.85

1.71%

0.15

0.30%

31,834

49.74

100.00%

Office Grand Total

Southeast Mesa Land Use and Transportation Plan | 11

Southeast Mesa Land Use and Transportation Plan

Figure 6: 2016 MAG Existing Land Uses

12 | Final Report

Final Report

Existing Zoning Existing zoning designations also provide insight to potential for growth and development. A data table showing the City of Mesa current

zoning designations within the project area (not including zoning for county islands) and associated map are provided in Table 3 and Figure 7, respectively.

Table 3: City of Mesa Existing Zoning E xi st in g Zon in g

Acr e s

Sq . M il es

% O ver a l l

County Land / Road Right-of-Way

8,044

12.57

25.27%

LI - Light Industrial

5,821

9.10

18.29%

PC - Planned Community

3,412

5.33

10.72%

RS-6 Single Residence 6

3,262

5.10

10.25%

AG - Agricultural

1,970

3.08

6.19%

RS-7 Single Residence 7

2,045

3.19

6.42%

GI - General Industrial

1,528

2.39

4.80%

LC - Limited Commercial

1,489

2.33

4.68%

PS - Public and Semi-Public

1,268

1.98

3.98%

RM-2 Multiple Residence 2

640

1.00

2.01%

PEP - Planned Employment Park

539

0.84

1.69%

RS-9 Single Residence 9

479

0.75

1.50%

RM-4 Multiple Residence 4

454

0.71

1.43%

RS-43 Single Residence 43

237

0.37

0.75%

RM-3 Multiple Residence 3

204

0.32

0.64%

NC - Neighborhood Commercial

0.13

0.26%

HI - Heavy Industrial

0.12

0.24%

RSL-4.5 Small Lot Single Residence 4.5

0.14

0.28%

RSL-2.5 Small Lot Single Residence 2.5

0.11

0.28%

OC - Office Commercial

0.10

0.20%

RS-15 Single Residence 15

0.04

0.07%

RSL-3.0 Small Lot Single Residence 3.0

0.03

0.05%

0.01

0.00%

31,834

49.74

100.00%

GC - General Commercial Grand Total

Southeast Mesa Land Use and Transportation Plan | 13

Southeast Mesa Land Use and Transportation Plan

Figure 7: City of Mesa Existing Zoning Designations

14 | Final Report

Southeast Mesa Land Use and Transportation Plan

Final Report

General Plan Future Land Uses Future land use designations – as indicated in the City’s current 2040 General Plan character area types – were assessed for the study area. The purpose of this approach was to include and consider the development potential of vacant infill parcels that may impact the area.

A data table showing the City’s General Plan future character area types within the study area and associated map showing their location are provided in Table 4 and Figure 8, respectively. Because future land uses consider all property (city or county), the total shown in Table 4 includes land use designations for the full study area, including county islands.

Table 4: General Plan Future Character Area Types Summary Fu tu r e Lan d U se Ch ar ac ter Ar ea T yp e s

Acr e s

Sq . M il es

% O ver a l l

Neighborhood

10,319

16.12

32.39%

Employment

5,323

8.32

16.71%

Mixed Use Activity/Employment

5,278

8.25

16.57%

Mixed Use Community

4,887

7.64

15.34%

Specialty

4,256

6.65

13.36%

Mixed Use Activity District

1,572

2.46

4.93%

109

0.17

0.34%

Neighborhood Village

0.08

0.15%

Station Area

0.05

0.10%

Park

0.05

0.10%

31,855

49.77

100.00%

Transit Corridor

Grand Total

Southeast Mesa Land Use and Transportation Plan | 15

Southeast Mesa Land Use and Transportation Plan

Figure 8: General Plan Future Land Use Character Area Types

16 | Final Report

Southeast Mesa Land Use and Transportation Plan

Final Report

Potential New Growth Areas of potential new growth include properties that are currently vacant, in agriculture production, or certain open space areas.

properties that are vacant, in agriculture production, or certain open space areas within the study area (not including zoning for county islands) are provided in Table 5 and Figure 9, respectively.

A data table and map showing the location and existing zoning of potential new growth Table 5: Potential New Growth Areas (excluding unincorporated properties) E xi st in g Zon in g o f New Gr o wth Ar ea s

Acr e s

Sq . M il es

% O ver a l l

AG - Agricultural

1,466

2.29

14.46%

832

1.30

8.21%

0.06

0.35%

621

0.97

6.12%

2,557

4.00

25.22%

NC - Neighborhood Commercial

0.03

0.17%

OC - Office Commercial

0.02

0.12%

2,722

4.25

26.85%

PEP - Planned Employment Park

453

0.71

4.47%

PS - Public and Semi-Public

437

0.68

4.31%

RM-2 Multiple Residence 2

0.07

0.41%

RM-3 Multiple Residence 3

0.02

0.11%

RM-4 Multiple Residence 4

0.09

0.57%

RS-15 Single Residence 15

0.01

0.07%

RS-43 Single Residence 43

0.09

0.56%

RS-6 Single Residence 6

292

0.46

2.88%

RS-7 Single Residence 7

356

0.56

3.51%

RS-9 Single Residence 9

0.08

0.49%

RSL-2.5 Small Lot Single Residence 2.5

0.06

0.41%

RSL-3.0 Small Lot Single Residence 3.0

0.02

0.15%

RSL-4.5 Small Lot Single Residence 4.5

0.09

0.56%

10,139

15.86

100.00%

GI - General Industrial HI - Heavy Industrial LC - Limited Commercial LI - Light Industrial

PC - Planned Community

Grand Total

Southeast Mesa Land Use and Transportation Plan | 17

Southeast Mesa Land Use and Transportation Plan

Figure 9: City of Mesa Zoning in Potential New Growth Areas

18 | Final Report

Southeast Mesa Land Use and Transportation Plan

Final Report

Adjustments to MGSDP Framework Districts To evaluate the validity of the MGSDP current framework districts, the context of the area surrounding the airport was assessed to determine local conditions. Referring to the context map shown in Figure 10, four areas of influence have emerged. These areas are: ◼

PMGA;

◼

ASU Polytechnic;

◼

Master planned communities; and

◼

Transition areas.

◼

Inner Loop;

◼

Airport and Business;

◼

Master Planned Communities;

◼

Campus; and

◼

Logistics and Commerce.

The proposed new districts and their boundaries are shown in Figure 11.

Since the adoption of the original MGSDP in 2008, development patterns have not adhered exactly to the framework district boundaries. The ASU Polytechnic area has become more defined, and, while compatible with PMGA, the ASU Polytechnic area may need to be considered as a separate district to meet campus goals. Additionally, the master planned communities area has become more defined as zoning for master planned communities has been approved and development is underway. In reference to the PMGA area, the MGSDP framework district boundary for the airport is somewhat limited and does not include transition areas north and southeast of the airport that may have development restrictions due to proximity to the airport or the noise contour overlay. The emerging development pattern suggests that an adjustment to the MGSDP framework districts is needed. This adjustment includes a change in district boundaries as well as a bifurcation of the Airport/Campus District into two separate districts, creating a total of five districts. The five proposed districts are:

Southeast Mesa Land Use and Transportation Plan | 19

Southeast Mesa Land Use and Transportation Plan

Transition Area Master Planned Communities

PMG Airport ASU Polytechnic Transition Area

Figure 10: Areas of Influence in Existing Context

20 | Final Report

Final Report

Figure 11: Proposed New Framework Districts

Southeast Mesa Land Use and Transportation Plan | 21

Southeast Mesa Land Use and Transportation Plan

Land Use Scenario Development Baseline Scenario The baseline land use scenario for the study area was established utilizing the existing zoning of vacant property within the City of Mesa incorporated boundary, assuming no future rezoning and/or annexations. Areas of potential new growth in the baseline scenario include properties that are currently vacant, in agricultural production, or in certain open space conditions. The previously referenced Table 5 shows the existing zoning of properties that meet this baseline scenario criteria within the study area (excluding zoning for county islands). The total land available for development in the baseline scenario is approximately 10,139 acres. Of this amount, approximately 66% is made up of the following zoning types: ◼

Planned Community (27%);

◼

Light Industrial (25%); and

◼

Agricultural (14%).

2040 Future Land Use Buildout Scenario Following the establishment of the baseline scenario, the 2040 future land use (FLU) scenario was developed based on the following:

22 | Final Report

◼

Public input received at the first community meeting;

◼

Assumption that all property is developed according to the future land use category; and

◼

Assumption that all unincorporated property is successfully annexed into the City.

For the 2040 future land use buildout scenario, it was assumed that all available undeveloped property (incorporated and unincorporated), would develop (i.e., buildout condition). To develop this buildout scenario, data was first standardized in two phases: 1) isolate undeveloped properties; and then 2) identify the planned development categories within those properties. The second phase included several sub-steps to more accurately assess future development potential. First, the MAG 2016 existing land use layer data was used to isolate the land available for development. MAG is the regional authority for existing land use in Maricopa County and 2016 was the most recent data available at the time of this study. All the vacant, agricultural, and open space land use data within the study area were extracted to identify all undeveloped land within the study area. To the extent feasible, City of Mesa parcel data was used to establish accurate proposed development boundaries.

Final Report

For the buildout condition, the following predictors of future development were referenced to develop 2040 future land use assumptions: 1. City of Mesa Existing Zoning. Except for the Agricultural zone, an undeveloped incorporated parcel was assumed to develop at the highest and best use of its existing zoning (see previously referenced Figure 7), as shown in Table 6.

2. Inner Loop Proposed Development. The “Inner Loop” refers to the land west and north of Loop 202 to the north of PMGA (see previously referenced Figure 11). Within the Inner Loop, the future buildout land uses shown in Table 7 were derived from the draft Inner Loop Plan proposed development designations contained in the draft October 2018 Land Use Plan submitted to the City by Greey|Pickett / Hilgart Wilson.

Table 6: Future Land Uses Based on City of Mesa Zoning

Table 7: Future Land Uses Based on Inner Loop Development

E xi st in g Zo n in g

Acr e s

Pr op o sed Lan d U se

Light Industrial

2,557

Commercial

High Density Residential

General Industrial

832

Heavy Industrial

Acr e s

Low Medium Density Residential

152 278

Planned Employment Park

453

Medium Density Residential

Limited Commercial

621

Office

Neighborhood Commercial

Park/Open Space

Office Commercial

Technology Mixed Use

349

Urban Mixed Use

188

Planned Community

2,722

Public and Semi-Public (Areas 1-3)

437

RM-2 Multiple Residence 2

RM-3 Multiple Residence 3

RM-4 Multiple Residence 4

RS-15 Single Residence 15

RS-43 Single Residence 43

RS-6 Single Residence 6

292

RS-7 Single Residence 7

356

RS-9 Single Residence 9

RSL-2.5 Small Lot Single Residence 2

RSL-3.0 Small Lot Single Residence 3

RSL-4.5 Small Lot Single Residence 4

Total

8,673

Total

1,127

3. City of Mesa 2040 General Plan Character Area Types. For unincorporated areas within the study area, future buildout land uses were assigned as shown in Table 8 based on the City of Mesa’s 2040 General Plan future land use character area type designations (see previously referenced Figure 8). In addition, it was assumed that all agriculturally zoned properties (incorporated or unincorporated) will be built out based on the future land use character area types designated for those agricultural properties by the 2040 General Plan if not otherwise categorized as part of

Southeast Mesa Land Use and Transportation Plan | 23

Southeast Mesa Land Use and Transportation Plan

the Inner Loop proposed development. The character areas were intentionally drawn in the 2040 General Plan as conceptual, somewhat amorphous shapes; however, when overlaid with a real-world buildout scenario for the SE Mesa LUTP, the boundaries needed to be adjusted for accuracy. For example, a square corner lot that may have had a curved character area boundary drawn through it, resulting in a hypothetical 90% / 10% mix of Employment and Neighborhood character areas, respectively, was given a resulting land use scenario of the predominant Employment character area. Some of the smaller character areas were divided more evenly to be more realistic for development and represented as separate polygons.

Table 8: Future Land Uses Based on Character Areas Ch ar a cter Ar e a Lan d U s e T yp e

Employment Mixed Use Activity/Employment Mixed Use Activity District

Acr e s

759 1,601 73

Mixed Use Community (North of SR 24)

264

Mixed Use Community (South of SR 24)

926

Neighborhood

199

Total

3,822

In summary, the total land available for the 2040 buildout scenario, inclusive of unincorporated areas is 13,622 acres, as shown in Table 9, which constitutes 43% of the total land area within the study area.

24 | Final Report

Table 9: Total Developable Land Area for 2040 Buildout Lan d Ar e a

Acr e s

Mesa Existing Zoning

8,673

Proposed Inner Loop Development

1,127

Character Area Future Land Uses

3,822

Total

13,622

Table 10 provides summary characteristics of the 2040 preferred future land use buildout scenario, which were determined using assumptions for how developable land will be split between commercial, industrial, and residential land uses and the corresponding assumed floor-area ratios (FAR), target densities, and persons per household (PPH) values. More detail on the 2040 preferred future land use buildout scenario is provided in Table 11, with a map showing the preferred future land uses in Figure 12. Table 10: 2040 Future Land Use Buildout Scenario Summary Com p on en t

Un it

New Commercial Acreage

2,433

New Industrial Acreage

6,290

New Residential Units

24,598

New Population

71,862

2030 Land Use Scenario A 2030 land use scenario was developed from the buildout scenario using assumed growth rates based on historical and forecasted trends. The detailed assessment of the 2030 land use scenario is provided in Table 12, with a map showing 2030 percent buildout in Figure 13.

Final Report Table 11: 2040 Future Land Use Buildout Scenario Detail

Cit y o f M e sa E x ist in g Z o n in g

Cit y of M e sa Fu tu r e Lan d U se

In n er Loop Pr op o sed M ast er Pl an

Pr o j ect ed Fu tu r e Lan d Us e

Inner FLU: COMM Inner FLU: HDR Inner FLU: LMDR Inner FLU: MDR Inner FLU: OFFICE Inner FLU: OS Inner FLU: TECH MIX5 Inner FLU: URB. MIX4 Mesa Char Area: Employment Mesa Char Area: Mixed Use Activity / Employment Mesa Char Area: Mixed Use Activity District Mesa Char Area: Mixed Use Community (North of SR24) Mesa Char Area: Neighborhood (South of SR24) Mesa Char Area: Neighborhood Mesa Zoning: LI - Light Industrial Mesa Zoning: GI - General Industrial Mesa Zoning: HI - Heavy Industrial Mesa Zoning: PEP - Planned Employment Park Mesa Zoning: LC - Limited Commercial Mesa Zoning: NC - Neighborhood Commercial Mesa Zoning: OC - Office Commercial Mesa Zoning: PC - Planned Community Mesa Zoning: PS - Public and Semi-Public (Area 1) Mesa Zoning: PS - Public and Semi-Public (Area 2) Mesa Zoning: PS - Public and Semi-Public (Area 3) Mesa Zoning: RM-2 Multiple Residence 2 Mesa Zoning: RM-3 Multiple Residence 3 Mesa Zoning: RM-4 Multiple Residence 4 Mesa Zoning: RS-15 Single Residence 15 Mesa Zoning: RS-43 Single Residence 43 Mesa Zoning: RS-6 Single Residence 6 Mesa Zoning: RS-7 Single Residence 7 Mesa Zoning: RS-9 Single Residence 9 Mesa Zoning: RSL-2.5 Small Lot Single Residence 2* Mesa Zoning: RSL-3.0 Small Lot Single Residence 3* Mesa Zoning: RSL-4.5 Small Lot Single Residence 4* Grand Total

Tota l Acr e s

44 94 152 278 9 13 349 188 759 1,601 73 264 926 199 2,557 832 35 453 621 17 12 2,722 76 188 173 42 11 58 7 57 292 356 50 42 15 57 13,622

Com m er c i al

In d u s tr i a l

% Tot a l Acr e s

FA R

Tota l s f.

100% 25% 15% 5% 100%

0.5 0.25 0.2 0.18 0.15

956,021 255,507 199,256 108,880 58,109

50% 20% 20% 50% 80% 10% 15% 5%

0.4 0.65 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.25 0.2 0.2

3,038,824 1,062,251 1,322,830 6,972,749 1,276,012 287,572 1,210,162 86,710

% Tot a l Acr e s

50% 80% 50% 20% 80% 100% 100% 100% 100%

100% 100% 100% 10%

0.2 0.25 0.25 0.18

0.25 0.25 0.25 0.5 0.25

Tota l s f.

23% 24,695,508

6,290

% Tot a l Acr e s

Tar get D en s it y

PP H

Tota l Un it s

Po p u lat io n

75% 85% 95%

16.5 4.5 8

1.7 3.2 2.7

1,161 583 2,111

1,974 1,866 5,699

80%

2.7

1,201

3,241

90% 5% 95%

4.5 4.5 4.5

3.2 3.2 3.2

1,069 208 851

3,422 667 2,723

90%

4.5

3.2

11,026

35,282

100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 4,524

16.5 16.5 16.5 8 8 4.5 4.5 4.5 8 8 8 5.44

1.7 1.7 1.7 2.7 2.7 3.2 3.2 3.2 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.9

693 176 962 52 458 1,314 1,604 226 332 118 452 24,598

1,178 299 1,635 141 1,238 4,204 5,133 724 897 318 1,221 71,862

1,899,265 6,614,148 8,715,936 319,003 8,067,748

0.25 27,849,436 0.2 7,244,168 0.15 231,334 0.25 4,927,727

5,410,485 189,176 126,422 2,134,542 100% 100% 100%

2,433

FA R

Res id en ti a l

0.1 0.25 0.51

331,056 2,047,320 3,843,299

26% 72,090,438

Southeast Mesa Land Use and Transportation Plan | 25

Southeast Mesa Land Use and Transportation Plan

Figure 12: 2040 Future Land Use Buildout Scenario

26 | Final Report

Final Report Table 12: 2030 Future Land Use Scenario Detail

Cit y o f M e sa E x ist in g Z o n in g

Cit y of M e sa Fu tu r e Lan d U se

In n er Loop Pr op o sed M ast er Pl an

Pr o j ect ed Fu tu r e Lan d Us e

Tota l Acr e s

Inner FLU: COMM 44 Inner FLU: HDR 94 Inner FLU: LMDR 152 Inner FLU: MDR 278 Inner FLU: OFFICE 9 Inner FLU: OS 13 Inner FLU: TECH MIX5 349 Inner FLU: URB. MIX4 188 Mesa Char Area: Employment 759 Mesa Char Area: Mixed Use Activity / Employment 1,601 Mesa Char Area: Mixed Use Activity District 73 Mesa Char Area: Mixed Use Community (North of SR24) 264 Mesa Char Area: Neighborhood (South of SR24) 926 Mesa Char Area: Neighborhood 199 Mesa Zoning: LI - Light Industrial 2,557 Mesa Zoning: GI - General Industrial 832 Mesa Zoning: HI - Heavy Industrial 35 Mesa Zoning: PEP - Planned Employment Park 453 Mesa Zoning: LC - Limited Commercial 621 Mesa Zoning: NC - Neighborhood Commercial 17 Mesa Zoning: OC - Office Commercial 12 Mesa Zoning: PC - Planned Community 2,722 Mesa Zoning: PS - Public and Semi-Public (Area 1) 76 Mesa Zoning: PS - Public and Semi-Public (Area 2) 188 Mesa Zoning: PS - Public and Semi-Public (Area 3) 173 Mesa Zoning: RM-2 Multiple Residence 2 42 Mesa Zoning: RM-3 Multiple Residence 3 11 Mesa Zoning: RM-4 Multiple Residence 4 58 Mesa Zoning: RS-15 Single Residence 15 7 Mesa Zoning: RS-43 Single Residence 43 57 Mesa Zoning: RS-6 Single Residence 6 292 Mesa Zoning: RS-7 Single Residence 7 356 Mesa Zoning: RS-9 Single Residence 9 50 Mesa Zoning: RSL-2.5 Small Lot Single Residence 2* 42 Mesa Zoning: RSL-3.0 Small Lot Single Residence 3* 15 Mesa Zoning: RSL-4.5 Small Lot Single Residence 4* 57 Grand Total 13,622

Com m er c i al % Tot a l Acr e s FA R

100% 25% 15% 5% 100% 50% 20% 20% 50% 80% 10% 15% 5%

0.5 0.25 0.2 0.18 0.15

Tota l s f.

In d u s tr i a l % Tot a l Acr e s FA R

382,408 102,203 79,702 43,552 23,244

0.4 1,215,530 0.65 424,901 0.2 529,132 0.2 2,789,100 0.5 510,405 0.25 115,029 0.2 484,065 0.2 34,684

50% 80% 50% 20% 80% 100% 100% 100% 100%

100% 100% 100% 10%

0.25 0.25 0.25 0.5 0.25

9% 9,878,203

6,290

% Tot a l Acr e s

Res id en ti a l Tar get D en s it y PP H

To ta l Un it s

Po p u lat io n

75% 85% 95%

16.5 4.5 8

1.7 3.2 2.7

690 346 1,254

1,173 1,109 3,386

80%

2.7

713

1,926

90% 5% 95%

4.5 4.5 4.5

3.2 3.2 3.2

635 124 506

2,033 396 1,618

90%

4.5

3.2

6,550

20,961

100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 4,524

16.5 16.5 16.5 8 8 4.5 4.5 4.5 8 8 8 3.23

1.7 1.7 1.7 2.7 2.7 3.2 3.2 3.2 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.9

412 104 751 31 272 781 953 134 197 70 269 14,613

700 177 971 84 735 2,498 3,049 430 533 189 725 42,693

791,234 2,755,454 3,631,059 132,897 3,361,024

0.25 11,602,075 0.2 3,017,920 0.15 96,374 0.25 2,052,891

0.2 2,164,194 0.25 75,671 0.25 50,569 0.18 853,817 100% 100% 100%

2,433

Tota l s f.

0.1 0.25 0.51

137,918 852,914 1,601,118

11% 30,032,877

Southeast Mesa Land Use and Transportation Plan | 27

Southeast Mesa Land Use and Transportation Plan

Figure 13: 2030 Percent Buildout of Developable Land

28 | Final Report

Final Report

Economic Analysis An economic model was developed to identify tax collections and the multiplier benefits resulting from the development of land for different uses (e.g., residential, office, industrial, etc.) to support the LUTP land use scenario evaluation. To provide perspective on the different economic and fiscal implications resulting from developments of different land uses, the model calculated the impacts generated by the following five land use categories: ◼

Commercial/retail;

◼

Office;

◼

Industrial;

◼

Single family residential; and

◼

Multi-family residential.

Results of the economic analysis indicated that development of all future available land at full buildout would support 240,538 direct jobs with $12.3 billion in annual wages. The annual economic output generated by direct activities equals $57.6 billion. An additional 238,363 indirect and induced regional jobs would be supported by the new developments. The total annual economic output generated by the buildout scenario is estimated at $94.5 billion. The City of Mesa would also collect $253.9 million annually in tax revenues from the development of the 13,622 acres. More detail regarding the economic model development and results is presented in the Economic Analysis report provided in Appendix 1.

Southeast Mesa Land Use and Transportation Plan | 29

Southeast Mesa Land Use and Transportation Plan

Transportation Implementation Plan Introduction This section of the report describes the existing and future baseline and proposed improved roadway networks for the years 2018 (existing), 2030, and 2040. Projected future daily traffic volumes were modeled and analyzed to determine potential future roadway operating conditions, identify baseline capacity constraints and needed improvements, and prioritize recommended future roadway capacity improvements.

Subarea Travel Demand Model Development and Validation A subarea travel demand model was developed to forecast future year traffic volumes in the study area. The subarea model was based on, and extracted from, the current version of the MAG regional travel demand model. Because the regional model mainly focuses on arterial roadways in the entire region, it has insufficient granularity on both traffic analysis zones (TAZs) and the roadway network in the study area. To introduce the needed granularity into the subarea model, large TAZs were split into several smaller TAZs and study area roadways were added to the model network where missing. These changes allowed the model to more

30 | Final Report

accurately depict where traffic is generated and what travel routes are used. To forecast the future traffic condition more accurately in the study area, a 2018 base year subarea model was developed and validated. The associated demographic and economic data were refined and developed for the 2018, 2030, and 2040 analysis years. The subarea model traffic assignment results were compared with available traffic counts to validate the accuracy of the model performance, with minor adjustments made to model parameters to improve the accuracy of the subarea model. More detail regarding the subarea model development and validation is presented in the Mesa Subarea Travel Demand Model technical memorandum provided in Appendix 2.

Existing and Projected Employment and Population Figure 14 shows the 2018 study area employment by TAZ as identified in the subarea travel demand model. Most of the existing employment within the study area is located near PMGA and along US 60 west of Sossaman Road. Figure 15 and Figure 16 show the projected study area employment by TAZ for the years 2030 and 2040, respectively.

Final Report

By 2040, the study area is anticipated to effectively be built out in terms of employment. Notable increases in employment occur in the southern portion of the study area in and around PMGA, the Inner Loop, and along US 60 west of Power Road and east of Ellsworth Road. Figure 17 shows the 2018 study area population by TAZ as identified in the subarea travel demand model. Most of the study area population is located in TAZs in the northern portion of the study area, west of the airport, within the Eastmark development, and north of Ray Road between Signal Butte Road and Meridian Road. Figure 18 and Figure 19 show the projected study area population by TAZ for the years 2030 and 2040, respectively. By 2040, the study area is anticipated to effectively be built out in terms of population. Notable increases in population occur within the Inner Loop and Eastmark areas, as well as east of Ellsworth Road between Ray Road and the expected SR 24 alignment. More detailed population and employment information by TAZ is available in Appendix 3.

Southeast Mesa Land Use and Transportation Plan | 31

Southeast Mesa Land Use and Transportation Plan

Figure 14: 2018 Total Employment by TAZ

32 | Final Report

Final Report

Figure 15: 2030 Total Employment by TAZ

Southeast Mesa Land Use and Transportation Plan | 33

Southeast Mesa Land Use and Transportation Plan

Figure 16: 2040 Total Employment by TAZ

34 | Final Report

Final Report

Figure 17: 2018 Total Population by TAZ

Southeast Mesa Land Use and Transportation Plan | 35

Southeast Mesa Land Use and Transportation Plan

Figure 18: 2030 Total Population by TAZ

36 | Final Report

Final Report

Figure 19: 2040 Total Population by TAZ

Southeast Mesa Land Use and Transportation Plan | 37

Southeast Mesa Land Use and Transportation Plan

Programmed/Committed Improvements Programmed/committed roadway projects within the study area were identified based on input from the City of Mesa, MAG, ADOT, Town of Queen Creek, Pinal County, and the private development community. The programmed improvements are shown in Figure 20. These programmed/committed roadway projects are anticipated to be constructed prior to 2030 except as noted previously in this report.

Baseline Number of Lanes and Level of Service The 2018, 2030, and 2040 baseline number of lanes were determined by taking the existing roadway network and incorporating any changes due to the programmed/committed improvements. Figure 21, Figure 22, and Figure 23 show the baseline total number of lanes for the years 2018, 2030, and 2040, respectively. The 2018, 2030, and 2040 baseline roadway segment levels of service (LOS) were determined by running the subarea model using the baseline number of lanes and socioeconomic data for each of the analysis years. LOS ranges from LOS A (no congestion) to LOS F (at or over capacity), with LOS D or better generally considered “acceptable”. LOS values are based on the ratio of volume-tocapacity (v/c ratio) for a given roadway segment, with the subarea model assuming differing daily volume capacity values for the various types of roadway facilities. The relationship in the subarea model between LOS and v/c ratios is as follows:

38 | Final Report

◼

Minimal congestion (LOS C or better) = v/c ratio < 0.70;

◼

Moderate congestion (LOS D) = v/c ratio > 0.70 and < 0.85;

◼

Nearing capacity (LOS E) = v/c ratio > 0.85 and < 1.00; and

◼

At or over capacity (LOS F) = v/c ratio > 1.0.

Figure 24 shows the segment LOS for the 2018 baseline network. More detailed LOS information is available in Appendix 4. Based on the model results, most of the study area roadway segments operate at an acceptable LOS with minimal to moderate congestion. City roadway segments nearing, at, or over capacity in 2018 include: ◼

Sossaman Rd: Pecos Rd to Germann Rd; and

◼

Ellsworth Rd: Williams Field Rd to Germann Rd.

Figure 25 shows the segment LOS for the 2030 baseline network. More detailed LOS information is available in Appendix 4. Based on the model results, several more roadways segments are expected to operate near, at, or over capacity in 2030 under these baseline conditions, particularly in the southern portion of the study area. City roadway segments projected to be nearing, at, or over capacity in 2030 include: ◼

Power Rd: Loop 202 to Ray Rd;

◼

Power Rd: Williams Field Rd to Verona Ave;

◼

Sossaman Rd: Velocity Way to Germann Rd;

◼

Hawes Rd: Loop 202 to Ray Rd;

◼

Ellsworth Rd: Elliot Rd to ½ mile south of Elliot Rd;

◼

Ellsworth Rd: Warner Rd to Germann Rd;

◼

Signal Butte Rd: Eastmark Pkwy to Williams Field Rd;

Final Report

◼

Signal Butte Rd: SR 24 to Germann Rd;

◼

Ray Rd: Sossaman Rd to Ellsworth Rd;

◼

Meridian Rd: Pecos Rd to Germann Rd;

◼

Pecos Rd: Power Rd to Meridian Rd;

◼

Elliot Rd: Power Rd to ½ mile east of Power Rd;

◼

Germann Rd: Sossaman Rd to ½ mile east of Ellsworth Rd;

◼

Elliot Rd: Hawes Rd to Ellsworth Rd;

◼

Germann Rd: Crismon Rd to Signal Butte Rd; and

◼

Germann Rd: 228 th St to Meridian Rd

◼

Warner Rd: 80

St to Ellsworth Rd;

◼

Ray Rd: Hawes Rd to Ellsworth Rd;

◼

Pecos Rd: Power Rd to Crismon Rd;

◼

Pecos Rd: 222 nd St to Signal Butte Rd; and

◼

Germann Rd: Sossaman Rd to 196 th St.

Figure 26 shows the segment LOS for the 2040 baseline network. More detailed LOS information is available in Appendix 4. Based on the model results, many more roadways segments are expected to operate near, at, or over capacity in 2040 under these baseline conditions, particularly in the southern portion of the study area. City roadway segments projected to be nearing, at, or over capacity in 2040 include: ◼

Power Rd: Elliot Rd to Warner Rd;

◼

Power Rd: Loop 202 to Pecos Rd;

◼

Sossaman Rd: ½ mile north of Elliot Rd to Warner Rd;

◼

Sossaman Rd: Velocity Way to Germann Rd;

◼

196 th St: Pecos Rd to Germann Rd;

◼

Hawes Rd: Guadalupe Rd to Warner Rd;

◼

Hawes Rd: Loop 202 to Ray Rd;

◼

Ellsworth Rd: Portobello Ave to Germann Rd;

◼

222 nd St: Frye Rd to Pecos Rd;

◼

Signal Butte Rd: Guadalupe Rd to Elliot Rd;

◼

Signal Butte Rd: Ray Rd to Germann Rd;

◼

Mountain Rd: Ray Rd to north of Pecos Rd;

◼

Meridian Rd: Southern Ave to north of US 60;

◼

Meridian Rd: SR 24 to Germann Rd;

◼

Elliot Rd: Power Rd to Eastmark Pkwy;

◼

Warner Rd: Sossaman Rd to Ellsworth Rd;

◼

Ray Rd: Power Rd to Sossaman Rd;

Southeast Mesa Land Use and Transportation Plan | 39

Southeast Mesa Land Use and Transportation Plan

Figure 20: Programmed/Committed Roadway Improvements

40 | Final Report

Final Report

Figure 21: 2018 Baseline Total Number of Lanes

Southeast Mesa Land Use and Transportation Plan | 41

Southeast Mesa Land Use and Transportation Plan

Figure 22: 2030 Baseline Total Number of Lanes

42 | Final Report

Final Report

Figure 23: 2040 Baseline Total Number of Lanes

Southeast Mesa Land Use and Transportation Plan | 43

Southeast Mesa Land Use and Transportation Plan

Figure 24: 2018 Baseline Level of Service

44 | Final Report

Final Report

Figure 25: 2030 Baseline Level of Service

Southeast Mesa Land Use and Transportation Plan | 45

Southeast Mesa Land Use and Transportation Plan

Figure 26: 2040 Baseline Level of Service

46 | Final Report

Final Report

Future Roadway Network Improvements Recommended City roadway improvements are based on the 2018, 2030, and 2040 baseline roadway networks and LOS results. The intent of the improvements is to better accommodate the projected daily traffic for each analysis year by increasing capacity to keep the level of service for the City’s study area roadways within the minimal to moderate congestion range (LOS D or better) where practical. The improvement timeframes into which improvements were grouped were split into the following three periods based on which improvements address the LOS needs identified from the subarea model results within each timeframe: ◼

Near-term – Immediate need;

◼

Mid-term – Needed by 2030; and

◼

Long-term – Needed by 2040.

Figure 27 shows the recommended near-term roadway improvements. Figure 28 shows the recommended mid-term roadway improvements. Figure 29 shows the recommended long-term roadway improvements. Figure 30 shows the combination of the recommended roadway improvements across all three analysis periods. These figures only show the recommended improvements that the City of Mesa would likely financially contribute to directly. The limits of the recommended roadway improvements for all three analysis periods are listed in Table 13. It should be noted that the recommended improvements are ordered geographically in this table (prioritization of improvements within timeframes is presented in a subsequent table in this document).

The recommended near-term improvements address existing congestion and connectivity issues. The recommended mid-term improvements focus primarily around the airport and freeways, where significant growth in traffic volumes is projected over the next few years. The recommended long-term improvements address connectivity and congestion issues that are anticipated to become critical as the study area approaches the buildout condition.

Future Roadway Network Improvements by Others Improvements are also projected to be necessary along US 60, Loop 202, and SR 24 (all of which are ADOT facilities) as described in the subsequent bullets (with suggested timeframes provided for ADOT’s consideration): ◼

Widen US 60/Higley Rd eastbound (EB) offramp to 2 lanes (near-term);

◼

Widen US 60 to 3 general purpose freeway lanes in each direction: west of Signal Butte Rd to east of Meridian Rd (nearterm);

◼

Widen Loop 202/Power Rd westbound (WB) off-ramp to 2 lanes (mid-term);

◼

Widen SR 24 to 3 general purpose freeway lanes in each direction: Ellsworth Rd to Signal Butte Rd (mid-term);

◼

Widen SR 24/Signal Butte Rd EB off-ramp to 2 lanes (mid-term);

◼

Widen Loop 202/Elliot Rd northbound (NB) off-ramp to 2 lanes (long-term); and

◼

Widen SR 24 to 3 general purpose freeway lanes in each direction: Signal Butte Rd to Meridian Rd (long-term).

Southeast Mesa Land Use and Transportation Plan | 47

Southeast Mesa Land Use and Transportation Plan

Improved Number of Lanes and Level of Service The 2018, 2030, and 2040 improved number of lanes were determined by adding the future proposed roadway network improvements by the City and ADOT to the baseline roadway network for each analysis year. Figure 31, Figure 32, and Figure 33 show the improved total number of lanes for the years 2018, 2030, and 2040, respectively. The 2018, 2030, and 2040 improved roadway LOS were determined by running the subarea model using the improved number of lanes and corresponding socioeconomic data. Figure 34 shows the segment LOS for the 2018 improved network. Based on the model results, the only study area roadway segments that donâ€™t operate at an acceptable LOS with minimal to moderate congestion are along US 60 and Loop 202. Figure 35 and Figure 36 show the segment LOS for the 2030 and 2040 improved networks, respectively. Based on the model results, the roadway segments nearing, at, or over capacity in 2030 are along the freeways or on the arterials near the freeways. By 2040, these same segments plus other segments of Ellsworth Road, Power Road, and Elliot Road are projected to be nearing, at, or over capacity.

48 | Final Report

Final Report

Figure 27: Near-Term Recommended Improvements

Southeast Mesa Land Use and Transportation Plan | 49

Southeast Mesa Land Use and Transportation Plan

Figure 28: Mid-Term Recommended Improvements

50 | Final Report

Final Report

Figure 29: Long-Term Recommended Improvements

Southeast Mesa Land Use and Transportation Plan | 51

Southeast Mesa Land Use and Transportation Plan

Figure 30: All Recommended Improvements

52 | Final Report

Final Report

Table 13: Recommended Improvements (organized geographically and by timeframe) Im p r o vem en t De scr i p t i on N ear -ter m

Construct Sossaman Rd as a 4-lane arterial: Warner Rd to Ray Rd Widen Ellsworth Rd to 6 lanes: SR 24 to Germann Rd Widen Sossaman Rd to 4 lanes: ½ mile south of Guadalupe Rd to Warner Rd Widen Sossaman Rd to 4 lanes: Velocity Way to ¼ mile south of Rittenhouse Rd Construct Hawes Rd as a 6-lane arterial: Warner Rd to Loop 202 Widen Hawes Rd to 6 lanes: Loop 202 to Ray Rd Widen Ellsworth Road to 6 lanes: Elliot Rd to SR 24 Construct Crismon Rd as a 4-lane arterial: ¼ mile south of Ray Rd to Germann Rd Widen Signal Butte Rd to 6 lanes: Ray Rd to Germann Rd

M id -ter m

Widen Meridian Rd to 4 lanes: Pecos Rd to Germann Rd Widen Elliot Road to 6 lanes: Power Rd to Loop 202 Widen Warner Rd to 4 lanes: Hawes Rd to Ellsworth Rd Widen Ray Rd to 4 lanes: Sossaman Rd West to Ellsworth Rd and realign it with a curve to the south to connect directly to Ray Rd east of Ellsworth Rd Construct Williams Field Rd as a 4-lane arterial: Ellsworth Rd to SR 24 Construct Williams Field Rd as a 4-lane arterial: SR 24 to Signal Butte Rd Widen Pecos Rd to 4 lanes: Power Rd to Ellsworth Rd Widen Pecos Rd to 6 lanes: Ellsworth Rd to Signal Butte Rd and realign it with a curve to the south to connect directly to Pecos Rd west of Ellsworth Rd

Lo n g- ter m

Widen Sossaman Rd to 6 lanes: Velocity Way to Rittenhouse Rd Widen Hawes Rd to 4 lanes: Guadalupe Rd to Warner Rd Construct Hawes Rd as a 4-lane arterial: Pecos Rd to Germann Rd Widen Ellsworth Rd to 6 lanes: US 60 to Baseline Rd Widen Ellsworth Rd to 6 lanes: ¼ mile south of Guadalupe Rd to Elliot Rd Construct Crismon Rd as a 4-lane arterial: ½ mile south of Guadalupe Rd to Elliot Rd Widen Crismon Rd to 6 lanes: Williams Field Rd to Pecos Rd Widen Signal Butte Rd to 6 lanes: Guadalupe Rd to Elliot Rd Construct Meridian Rd as a 4-lane arterial: Baseline Rd to Elliot Rd Construct Meridian Rd as a 4-lane arterial: Ray Rd to SR 24 Widen Meridian Rd to 4 lanes: SR 24 to Pecos Rd Construct Warner Rd as a 4-lane arterial: Power Rd to Sossaman Rd Widen Warner Rd to 4 lanes: Sossaman Rd to Hawes Rd Widen Warner Rd to 6 lanes: Hawes Rd to Ellsworth Rd Widen Ray Rd to 6 lanes: Power Rd to Ellsworth Rd Widen Pecos Rd to 6 lanes: Power Rd to Ellsworth Rd Widen Pecos Rd to 4 lanes: Signal Butte Rd to Meridian Rd Widen Germann Rd to 4 lanes: Sossaman Rd to Signal Butte Rd

Southeast Mesa Land Use and Transportation Plan | 53

Southeast Mesa Land Use and Transportation Plan

Figure 31: 2018 Improved Total Number of Lanes

54 | Final Report

Final Report

Figure 32: 2030 Improved Total Number of Lanes

Southeast Mesa Land Use and Transportation Plan | 55

Southeast Mesa Land Use and Transportation Plan

Figure 33: 2040 Improved Total Number of Lanes

56 | Final Report

Final Report

Figure 34: 2018 Improved Level of Service

Southeast Mesa Land Use and Transportation Plan | 57

Southeast Mesa Land Use and Transportation Plan

Figure 35: 2030 Improved Level of Service

58 | Final Report

Final Report

Figure 36: 2040 Improved Level of Service

Southeast Mesa Land Use and Transportation Plan | 59

Southeast Mesa Land Use and Transportation Plan

Improvement Prioritization in Analysis Timeframes Prioritization criteria were developed in consultation with the City of Mesa to determine the suggested order in which the recommended improvements should be implemented within each of the analysis timeframes (i.e., near-term, mid-term, and long-term). This prioritization differs from the determination of which improvements correspond to each analysis timeframe in that it includes more factors than only addressing LOS needs. The prioritization criteria were split into the following four categories (with the noted weighted percentages): ◼

◼

Improves mobility and safety (42% weighting factor) – Project reduces mobility issues (i.e., congestion, delay, unreliability, access concerns) or safety issues, thereby improving the regional and local transportation network; Enhances economic vitality (27% weighting factor) – Project has a positive impact on the economy because it improves infrastructure or access within an economically strategic area (i.e., designated growth area, important economic corridor, employment center) or provides new strategic development opportunities, thereby improving general livability;

◼

Can feasibly be funded and is cost effective (18% weighting factor) – Project makes timely and efficient use of available funding; and

◼

Is compatible with approved plans and public input (12% weighting factor) – Project is a recommendation in an approved plan or has public support.

Each recommended improvement was scored within each of these four categories. These four scores were added together to give each recommended improvement project a total

60 | Final Report

prioritization score. Between improvement projects within the same analysis timeframe, a project with a higher prioritization score was prioritized above a project with a lower prioritization score. If two or more improvement projects had the same prioritization score, the improvement project with the higher number of projected employees in 2040 on adjacent land was ranked higher. Prioritization scores were compared only within analysis timeframes. For example, a low priority improvement in the near-term has a higher overall priority than a high priority improvement in the mid-term because near-term improvements address near-term needs and would likely be constructed by the time of need for mid-term improvements. The prioritization criteria matrix detailing the scoring within each prioritization criterion is provided in Appendix 5. Table 14 shows the resulting prioritization score and ranking of the recommended improvement projects, along with the factors considered in the prioritization scoring.

Estimates of Probable Cost for Improvements Planning-level opinions of estimated probable cost were developed for each of the improvement projects based on the following unit cost assumptions: ◼

New 2-lane road - $14 million/mile;

◼

New 4-lane road - $18 million/mile;

◼

New 6-lane road - $22 million/mile;

◼

Widen from 2-lane road to 4-lane road $16 million/mile;

◼

Widen from 2-lane road to 6-lane road $18 million/mile;

Final Report

â—ź

Widen from 4-lane road to 6-lane road $14 million/mile;

â—ź

Widen to add 1 lane in 1 direction $7 million/mile; and

â—ź

Bridge - $200/square foot.

These unit cost assumptions were derived from recent planning-level unit costs provided by the City of Phoenix and the City of Chandler and include costs for design, construction, administration, and right-of-way. The planning-level estimates of probable cost for the recommended improvements are presented in Appendix 5, with improvements listed in priority order from top to bottom within each analysis timeframe per the previously described prioritization.

Southeast Mesa Land Use and Transportation Plan | 61

Southeast Mesa Land Use and Transportation Plan

Table 14: Prioritized Recommended Improvements with Scores and Ranking

Improvement Timeframe

Improvement Description Widen Ellsworth Rd to 6 lanes between SR 24 and Germann Rd

Prioritization Score Can Is Feasibly Compatible be with Improves Funded Approved Mobility Enhances and is Plans and and Economic CostPublic Safety Vitality Effective Input 42 27 12 12

Near-Term

Improves Mobility and Safety

Rank Baseline (highest V/C Baseline/ Total to Improved Improved LOS Score Lowest) V/C & V/C 93 1 0.24 E/D 0.98/0.74 C/C 0.56/0.53 -/C -/0.10 72 2 0.03 92 1 0.74 F/C 1.10/0.36 92 2 0.29 F/E 1.26/0.97 F/D 1.25/0.73 92 3 0.52 -/C -/0.67 F/E 1.17/0.87 88 4 0.30 -/C -/0.28 86 5 0.62 F/C 1.20/0.58

Construct Sossaman Rd as a 4-lane arterial between Warner Rd and Ray Rd Widen Elliot Road to 6 lanes between Power Rd and Loop 202 Widen Ellsworth Road to 6 lanes between Elliot Rd and SR 24

21 35 35

27 27 27

12 18 18

12 12 12

Construct Crismon Rd as a 4-lane arterial between ¼ mile south of Ray Rd and Germann Rd

Construct Hawes Rd as a 6-lane arterial between Warner Rd and Loop 202 Widen Warner Rd to 4 lanes between Hawes Rd and Ellsworth Rd Widen Ray Rd to 4 lanes between Sossaman Rd West and Ellsworth Rd and realign it with a curve to the south to connect directly to Ray Rd east of Ellsworth Rd Widen Signal Butte Rd to 6 lanes between Ray Rd and Germann Rd

35 35

27 27

18 12

8 12

35 35

27 27

12 12

86 86

6 7

Construct Williams Field Rd as a 4-lane arterial between Ellsworth Rd and SR 24

Construct Williams Field Rd as a 4-lane arterial between SR 24 and Signal Butte Rd Widen Pecos Rd to 6 lanes between Ellsworth Rd and Signal Butte Rd and realign it with a curve to the south to connect directly to Pecos Rd west of Ellsworth Rd Widen Sossaman Rd to 4 lanes between Velocity Way and ¼ mile south of Rittenhouse Rd Widen Pecos Rd to 4 lanes between Power Rd and Ellsworth Rd Widen Sossaman Rd to 4 lanes between ½ mile south of Guadalupe Rd and Warner Rd Widen Hawes Rd to 6 lanes between Loop 202 and Ray Rd Widen Meridian Rd to 4 lanes between Pecos Rd and Germann Rd

35 35 35 21 21 21

27 27 27 27 27 27

12 12 12 18 18 12

8 8 8 8 8 8

82 82 82 74 74 68

10 11 12 13 14 15

0.79 0.59 0.48 0.40 0.52 0.54

Construct Warner Rd as a 4-lane arterial between Power Rd and Sossaman Rd Widen Warner Rd to 4 lanes between Sossaman Rd and Hawes Rd Widen Warner Rd to 6 lanes between Hawes Rd and Ellsworth Rd

35 35 35

27 27 27

18 18 18

12 12 8

92 92 88

1 2 3

1.48 1.54 1.09

Widen Crismon Rd to 6 lanes between Williams Field Rd and Pecos Rd Widen Ray Rd to 6 lanes between Power Rd and Ellsworth Rd Widen Signal Butte Rd to 6 lanes between Guadalupe Rd and Elliot Rd Widen Pecos Rd to 6 lanes between Power Rd and Ellsworth Rd Widen Sossaman Rd to 6 lanes between Velocity Way and Rittenhouse Rd Widen Pecos Rd to 4 lanes between Signal Butte Rd and Meridian Rd Widen Meridian Rd to 4 lanes between SR 24 and Pecos Rd Widen Hawes Rd to 4 lanes between Guadalupe Rd and Warner Rd

35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35

27 27 18 27 27 27 27 18

18 12 18 12 12 12 12 18

8 12 12 8 8 8 8 8

88 86 83 82 82 82 82 79

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

0.43 0.66 0.58 1.24 0.84 0.48 0.53 0.44

Construct Hawes Rd as a 4-lane arterial between Pecos Rd and Germann Rd

0.24

Construct Meridian Rd as a 4-lane arterial between Ray Rd and SR 24 Construct Crismon Rd as a 4-lane arterial between ½ mile south of Guadalupe Rd and Elliot Rd Widen Ellsworth Rd to 6 lanes between ¼ mile south of Guadalupe Rd and Elliot Rd Widen Germann Rd to 4 lanes between Sossaman Rd and Signal Butte Rd Widen Ellsworth Rd to 6 lanes between US 60 and Baseline Rd

0.67

21 21 21 21

27 18 27 27

12 18 12 12

12 12 8 8

72 69 68 68

14 15 16 17

0.28 0.28 0.29 0.21

Construct Meridian Rd as a 4-lane arterial between Baseline Rd and Elliot Rd

0.04

Mid-Term

Long-Term

62 | Final Report

0.29 F/E 1.26/0.97 0.88 F/C 1.37/0.49 C/C 0.40/0.43 -0.03 -/C -/0.15 C/C 0.36/0.28 0.08 -/C -/0.23 F/C F/D F/D D/C E/C E/C F/C

1.09/0.30 1.39/0.80 1.22/0.74 0.84/0.44 0.91/0.39 0.85/0.31 1.92/0.44 -/C -/0.54 F/C 2.22/0.68 F/D 1.81/0.72 F/F 1.49/1.06 -/D -/0.84 F/F 1.78/1.12 F/C 1.12/0.54 F/F 2.33/1.09 F/E 1.71/0.87 F/C 1.08/0.60 F/D 1.24/0.71 F/D 1.19/0.75 F/E 1.11/0.87 -/C -/0.14 F/C 1.14/0.47 -/C -/0.46 E/C 0.96/0.68 -/C -/0.46 E/C 0.96/0.68 E/C 0.92/0.63 D/C 0.83/0.62 C/C 0.54/0.50 -/C -/0.38

Baseline Volume/ Improved New Volume Connection 34.7/39.7 No 20.1/18.7 -/3.6 Yes 19.6/19.1 No 55.9/51.8 No 44.4/38.9 -/23.8 Yes 41.5/46.4 -/15.0 Yes 17.5/20.7 No 22.3/34.5 24.4/26.4 21.2/22.9 -/5.3 19.2/15.0 -/24.8 19.3/15.9 24.7/28.5 21.8/26.4 14.9/15.5 16.2/20.9 15.1/11.2 34.1/23.4 -/19.2 32.4/24.0 26.4/38.3 66.1/56.3 -/44.7 31.6/59.5 39.9/28.6 41.4/58.0 30.4/46.6 19.2/21.2 22.0/25.1 21.2/26.7 16.2/12.6 -/5.0 16.6/6.8 -/16.2 42.5/36.0 -/16.3 42.5/36.0 24.5/22.5 29.5/33.2 29.0/26.9 -/13.4

Enhances Economic Vitality

Crash Pattern Yes

Growth Area in GA

Can Feasibly be Funded and is Cost-Effective

Adjacent 2040 Likely Funding Employees Source 25k Mesa

Is Compatible with Approved Plans and Public Input

Compatible Relative with Cost/Length Approved Public (mi) Plans Support $$$/2.8 TMP (partial) Strong

in GA in GA in GA

9k Mesa, Developer 20k Mesa, Developer 12k Mesa, Developer

$/0.6 TMP $$/2.5 TMP $$/2.2 TMP

Moderate Strong Strong

in GA

11k Mesa, Developer

$$/2.8 TMP

Strong

in GA in GA

3k Mesa, Developer 15k Mesa, Developer

$/0.3 TMP $/1.0 TMP

No No

in GA in GA

14k Mesa, Developer 9k Developer

$$$/3.0 TMP $$$/3.0 TMP

Strong Strong

Yes

in GA

8k Mesa, Developer

$/0.8 TMP

Strong

Yes

in GA

3k Mesa, Developer

$/1.2 TMP

Strong

Yes No No No No No

in GA in GA in GA in GA in GA in GA

23k 23k 21k 9k 5k 1k

Yes No No

in GA in GA in GA

Yes No No No No No No No

$$$/2.5 TMP (partial) $$/2.0 TMP $$$/3.2 TMP $$/1.5 TMP $/0.6 TMP $/1.0 TMP

Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate

9k Mesa, Developer 5k Mesa, Developer 15k Mesa, Developer

$$$/1.0 TMP $/1.0 TMP $/1.0 -

Strong Strong Strong

in GA in GA partially in GA in GA in GA in GA in GA partially in GA

11k 13k 3k 25k 22k 4k 2k 12k

$$/1.0 $$$/3.3 TMP (partial) $/1.0 TMP $$$/3.2 $$/1.8 $/1.0 TMP $/0.5 TMP $$/2.0 TMP

Strong Strong Strong Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate

Yes

in GA

16k Mesa, Developer

Yes

partially in GA

Yes No No No

in GA partially in GA in GA in GA out of GA but directly benefits

Yes

Mesa, Developer Mesa, QC Mesa, Developer Mesa, Developer Mesa, Developer Mesa, PC, QC

Moderate Strong

Mesa, Developer Developer Mesa, Developer Mesa Mesa, QC Mesa, Developer Mesa, PC, QC Mesa, Developer

1k Mesa, PC 5k 5k 15k 1k

Mesa Mesa, Developer Mesa, QC Mesa, ADOT

0k Mesa, PC

$/0.6 TMP

Moderate

$$/1.5 TMP

Moderate

$$/0.5 TMP $$/0.8 TMP $$$/4.0 TMP $$/0.6 TMP

Strong Strong Moderate Moderate

$$/2.0 TMP

Moderate

Final Report

Community Involvement Plan Purpose

Staff Advisory Committee meetings were held on a bi-weekly basis during most of the project. The Staff Advisory Committee provided guidance and feedback on preliminary findings and recommendations and reviewed interim deliverables and community outreach materials.

Through a coordinated public outreach effort, community engagement helped create a community-based plan. The outreach effort for the LUTP was guided by this Community Involvement Plan, which details the approach for engaging the public throughout the LUTP process.

Stakeholder Coordination

Key components of the Community Involvement Plan included the following items:

Stakeholders were identified through the scoping process and included the following: ◼

City departments;

◼

Staff Advisory Committee;

◼

Southeast Business Group;

◼

Stakeholder Coordination;

◼

Arizona State Land Department;

◼

Community Meetings;

◼

Fujifilm;

◼

Citizen Board Updates;

◼

TRW;

◼

Informational Brochures; and

◼

SkyBridge;

◼

Project Website.

◼

Cadence;

◼

Sunbelt Invest Holdings;

◼

Commercial Metals Company (CMC);

◼

ASU Polytechnic Campus;

◼

Phoenix-Mesa Gateway Airport;

◼

DMB;

◼

Town of Queen Creek;

◼

Town of Gilbert;

◼

City of Apache Junction; and

◼

Pinal County.

Staff Advisory Committee The LUTP was guided by a Staff Advisory Committee, comprised of the following staff from the City of Mesa’s Transportation Department, Planning Department, and Economic Development Department: ◼

Aric Bopp;

◼

Lesley Davis;

◼

Erik Guderian;

◼

RJ Zeder;

◼

Al Zubi; and

◼

Mark Venti.

A presentation was made at the Southeast Mesa Economic Resource Forum (SMERF) on September 27, 2018. Stakeholders were invited

Southeast Mesa Land Use and Transportation Plan | 63

Southeast Mesa Land Use and Transportation Plan

to attend the meeting and provide feedback on the study. In-person meetings and phone calls with several stakeholders were completed to gain a clear understanding of the issues and expectations for the LUTP. These meetings were done either individually or in small groups. Stakeholder meetings/calls were conducted with:

vision. This input was used to build consensus as well as identify what residents value about living in southeast Mesa. This input helped to identify community priorities that guided the LUTP. Community Meeting #2 Community Meeting #2 was held on March 27, 2019 at Desert Ridge High School. Approximately 120 people attended the meeting. The primary purpose of the second public meeting was to present and obtain input on the draft LUTP findings and recommendations.

◼

Fujifilm;

◼

CMC;

◼

TRW;

◼

DMB;

◼

ASU Polytechnic Campus;

Citizen Board Updates

◼

Pinal County;

◼

Town of Queen Creek;

◼

City of Apache Junction; and

◼

Arizona State Land Department.

Two presentations were made to the Transportation Advisory Board (November 20, 2018 and May 21, 2019). One presentation was made to the Planning and Zoning Board (May 22, 2019). The presentation materials from these meetings are provided in Appendix 7.

Community Meetings Two community meetings were held during the LUTP process to allow the public to provide input. Many of the identified stakeholders also attended the community meetings. Postcards announcing the community meetings were mailed to the approximately 40,000 property owners with the LUTP study area. Eblasts and social media posts were also sent out to subscribers making them aware of the community meetings. A summary of community meeting materials and input received is provided in Appendix 6. Community Meeting #1 Community Meeting #1 was held on November 7, 2018 at the Eastmark Community Center. Approximately 120 people attended the meeting. The primary purpose of this initial public meeting was to receive public input on issues, opportunities, community values, and

64 | Final Report

Informational Brochures Kimley-Horn prepared two informational brochures that included relevant information regarding the LUTP. The intent of the brochures was to provide decision-makers, the public, and landowners with a solid understanding of the LUTP process at critical stages of the update. The informational brochures were distributed at the community meetings and are provided in Appendix 8.

Project Website The City hosted and maintained a website dedicated to the LUTP. This project website was a source of information concerning upcoming events, contained documents and presentations that the public could download, and provided the public with a way to leave comments and suggestions related to the project.

Southeast Mesa Land Use and Transportation Plan

Appendix 1: Economic Analysis

Final Report

SOUTHEAST MESA LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION PLAN â€“ ECONOMIC ANALYSIS

April 4, 2019

Prepared for:

Prepared by:

Table of Contents INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................... 1 MODEL METHODOLOGY DESCRIPTION ................................................................................... 1 Economic Impact Model Methodology ...........................................................................................1 Fiscal Impact Model Methodology ..................................................................................................3 Model Assumptions .......................................................................................................................3

POTENTIAL LAND USE IMPACTS ............................................................................................. 4 Commercial/Retail Impacts ............................................................................................................4 Office Impacts................................................................................................................................6 Industrial Impacts ..........................................................................................................................7 Single Family Residential Impacts ...................................................................................................9 Multi-Family Residential Impact ................................................................................................... 10 Impact Comparisons .................................................................................................................... 12

BUILD-OUT OF SUB-AREAS ................................................................................................... 13 Build-Out of the Inner Loop Sub-Area ........................................................................................... 15 Build-Out of the Logistics & Commerce District Sub-Area .............................................................. 17

BASELINE BUILD-OUT SCENARIO .......................................................................................... 19 FUTURE LAND USE SCENARIO .............................................................................................. 21 BASELINE V. FUTURE LAND USE BUILD-OUT SCENARIOS ....................................................... 23

Rounds Consulting Group, Inc. 51 W.

3rd

Street, Suite E-110, Tempe AZ 85281 | Phone: 480-508-4911 | www.roundsconsulting.com

List of Tables Table 1: Commercial/Retail Impacts - Construction ................................................................ 5 Table 2: Commercial/Retail Impacts - Annual Operations ....................................................... 5 Table 3: Office Impacts - Construction .................................................................................... 6 Table 4: Office Impacts - Annual Operations ........................................................................... 7 Table 5: Industrial Impacts - Construction .............................................................................. 8 Table 6: Industrial Impacts - Annual Operations ..................................................................... 8 Table 7: Single Family Residential Impacts - Construction ....................................................... 9 Table 8: Single Family Residential Impacts - Annual Operations ............................................ 10 Table 9: Multi-Family Residential Impacts - Construction...................................................... 11 Table 10: Multi-Family Residential Impacts - Annual Operations........................................... 11 Table 11: Impacts by Type of Development - Construction.................................................... 13 Table 12: Impacts by Type of Development - Annual Operations .......................................... 13 Table 13: Inner Loop Sub-Area Impacts - Construction .......................................................... 16 Table 14: Inner Loop Sub-Area Impacts - Annual Operations................................................. 17 Table 15: Logistics & Commerce Sub-Area Impacts - Construction......................................... 18 Table 16: Logistics & Commerce Sub-Area Impacts - Annual Operations ............................... 18 Table 17: Vacant/Underutilized Land in the SE Mesa LUTP Study Area .................................. 19 Table 18: Baseline Build-Out Scenario Impacts - Construction ............................................... 20 Table 19: Baseline Build-Out Scenario Impacts - Annual Operations...................................... 20 Table 20: Future Available Vacant Land for Development ..................................................... 21 Table 21: Future Land Use Build-Out Scenario Impacts - Construction ................................... 22 Table 22: Future Land Use Build-Out Scenario Impacts - Annual Operations.......................... 22 Table 23: Baseline v. Future Land Use Build-Out Scenarios - Construction ............................. 23 Table 24: Baseline v. Future Land Use Build-Out Scenarios - Annual Operations .................... 23

List of Figures Figure 1: SE Mesa LUTP Study Area and Sub-Areas ............................................................... 14 Figure 2: Inner Loop Sub-Area .............................................................................................. 15 Figure 3: Logistics & Commerce Sub-Area ............................................................................. 15 Rounds Consulting Group, Inc. 51 W.

3rd

Street, Suite E-110, Tempe AZ 85281 | Phone: 480-508-4911 | www.roundsconsulting.com

INTRODUCTION Rounds Consulting Group, Inc. (“RCG”) was tasked with developing an economic model to identify tax collections and the multiplier benefits resulting from the development of land for different uses (e.g., residential, office, industrial, etc.) to support a land use scenario evaluation as part of the Southeast Mesa Land Use and Transportation Plan (“SE Mesa LUTP”). To provide perspective on the different economic and fiscal implications resulting from developments of different land uses, the model calculates the impacts generated by five different land use categories. These were identified as: 1) commercial/retail, 2) office, 3) industrial, 4) single family residential, and 5) multi-family residential. The model assumes the different developments would occur on the same hypothetical 10-acre property. The model was developed to be incremental and is the basis for modeling different scenarios – meaning it can be scaled to match the various development scenarios. For example, if one assumes the property available for development is double in size (i.e., 20 acres) the impact estimates can be doubled. The same principle applies if one assumes a site to be smaller. The incremental model was used to model build-out scenarios (development of all available vacant/underutilized land) for: 1) two independent sub-areas within the region, 2) the overall region with current zoning and land availability, and 3) the overall region with preferred future land uses.

MODEL METHODOLOGY DESCRIPTION Economic and fiscal impact models are an effective way to demonstrate regional implications of a particular project, policy, business, development or other activities in a given area. The study area can range from a single neighborhood or city to an entire state or country. Typically, the level of effects resulting from the activity are estimated in terms of output, earnings, employment, and tax revenues. RCG developed an economic and fiscal impact model to analyze the effects resulting from potential developments. The RCG model employs an input-output methodology commonly used by economists to determine impacts. This method was used to estimate the “multiplier” effects caused by the activities being analyzed. These activities were then converted into tax revenues in each of the relevant categories.

Economic Impact Model Methodology An economic impact model provides a quantifiable method to estimate the economic effects of a particular activity in a given area. Impacts can be used to measure existing activity and to measure potential expansions/contractions of an area’s economy resulting from changes in economic activity. In general, the level of economic effects resulting from the activity are estimated in terms of output, earnings, and employment. These are defined as:

•

Output captures the broader level of economic activity, or the total value of goods and services produced, in the region similar to how statistics like Gross Domestic Product (GDP) capture economic volume in individual states and across the country.

•

Earnings, a component of output, represent income to employees. The earnings component is used to measure the total change in income throughout the economy due to the economic or business activity.

•

Employment is the job count on an annualized basis.

The economic effects occurring as a direct consequence from the initial activity create additional activity in the regional economy. This relationship is known as the “multiplier” effect. The basis for multiplier effects (or “spinoff” effects) is the interdependencies between industries, how one industry impacts other sectors, and the cycle of spending and responding within the regional economy. An input-output model is used to generate these multipliers. The multipliers quantify relationships among industries and estimate the extent that the area being analyzed can capture sales, earnings, and job impacts within the region. Input-output models measure impacts based on their source. Direct effects are the result of the initial activity being analyzed. The multiplier effects, or secondary effects, are measured as either indirect or induced. These are defined as: •

Direct effects, or impacts, measure business activity at an individual site or the initial change in the economy attributed to the development under consideration. For example, if a manufacturing facility is under construction, this would include the workers that construct the facility and the manufacturing employees that later occupy the building on a regular basis.

•

Indirect impacts capture additional output, earnings, and employment changes generated as a result of increased demand in the industries which supply services or products to the direct business or development under consideration. For example, when the direct manufacturing facility purchases goods for the production of its products, the supplier must respond to the increased demand by hiring new employees to support its operations.

•

Induced impacts capture additional output, earnings, and employment changes generated as a result of increased spending in the local economy made by the households of both the direct and indirect employees. These induced companies respond by hiring, increasing payroll hours, and increasing wages.

A commonly used input-output model used to generate economic multipliers is IMPLAN (short for “impact analysis for planning”). Originally developed by the United States Forest Service in the 1970s, the responsibility for developing IMPLAN data sets shifted to the University of Minnesota as demand grew for regional models. Now, IMPLAN runs as its own private organization and is the leading provider of nationwide economic impact data and analytical software.

The RCG custom economic impact model employs this input-output methodology and uses area-specific IMPLAN multipliers.

Fiscal Impact Model Methodology Fiscal impact models provide estimates for the governmental revenues that are generated by a particular project, policy, business, development, or activity in a given area. Typically, fiscal impacts examine revenues that are likely to result from a project or activity and are determined by the study area’s tax structure. Fiscal impacts are categorized similar to economic impact studies and are broken down at the direct, indirect, and induced levels in which they are created. These revenues are expressed as either primary or secondary based on their source. In general, primary revenues can be estimated by definable sources such as sales taxes calculated from construction expenditures. For example, when a contractor builds a manufacturing facility, 65% of the contractor’s gross receipts are subject to Arizona’s state and local construction sales taxes. Those taxes are paid to the state, and to the county and city where the construction was performed. Secondary revenues are generated by the wages, residency, and spending of those direct, indirect, and induced employees who are supported by the business or economic activity. For example, this would include sales tax revenues generated when the manufacturing employees purchase dinner on their way home from work. The RCG custom fiscal impact model employs this methodology. The model was designed to produce revenue information for the City of Mesa (“Mesa,” or “City”).

Model Assumptions Economic and fiscal implications of an activity are determined by the interaction of a number of factors including business characteristics (e.g., type of businesses, number of employees, etc.), location and study area characteristics (e.g., state and local tax structure), taxable activity (e.g., area retail sales), and by the nature of any economic or demographic effects resulting from the activity (e.g., new employment/population added to area). Typical analyses involve the short-term (e.g., effects from construction) and the ongoing (operational) regional economic impacts of a particular project or activity. Short-term impacts are typically analyzed as construction impacts. Effects related to construction impacts are generally related to on- and off-site construction employment and the other industries that support construction. Ongoing impacts typically analyze the annual operational impacts. Effects related to ongoing impacts are generally related to the day-to-day operations of a particular activity or business. Inputs needed to calculate operational impacts vary by the type of activity. In general, impacts can be derived from employment counts and annual salaries, and by the type of business or industry the activity is in. Impacts were calculated based on the assumptions derived from industry standards. These estimates were based on currently available information and tax structures. Such information was compiled from a

variety of sources and is subject to uncertainty and variation. Therefore, actual impacts may vary, and some impacts may not materialize due to unanticipated events, locations, and changing circumstances.

POTENTIAL LAND USE IMPACTS An economic and fiscal impact model was developed for this assignment to provide perspective on the different economic and fiscal implications resulting from various development types on different land uses. The following land use categories were identified to provide perspective on the different impacts of developments for each type: 1) commercial/retail, 2) office, 3) industrial, 4) single family residential, and 5) multi-family residential. To use the various impacts as comparisons, the model assumes the different developments would occur on the same hypothetical property (i.e., the same size of property but designated by a different land use category). For this assignment, the example property is a 10-acre site located within the study area. This incremental impact model can then be scaled to match various development scenarios. Building assumptions are based on the City of Mesa’s Zoning Ordinances and Development Standards. Market statistics for vacancies, rental rates, home prices, floor area ratios, construction costs, etc. are based on current Mesa estimates from CoStar, Cromford Associates LLC, Maricopa County Assessor’s Office, Maricopa Association of Governments (“MAG”), Matrix Design Group, Inc. (“Matrix”), and various other sources.

Commercial/Retail Impacts Using industry standards, it is estimated that 113,256 square feet of commercial/retail space could be built on the 10-acre property. Construction of this type of development would directly support 70 persons earning a combined $5.0 million in wages and generate an economic output of $11.2 million. Another 57 employees, $3.0 million in wages, and $8.3 million in economic output are supported by the spinoff benefits. In total, an estimated 126 jobs, $8.0 million in wages, and $19.4 million in economic output is generated by construction of commercial/retail space on a 10-acre site. The City of Mesa collects an estimated $173,700 from construction activity. Once construction is completed, the commercial/retail space supports 207 direct jobs annually. These employees earn $8.0 million in wages and generate an economic output of $18.2 million. Annually, 111 indirect and induced jobs are supported with $5.3 million in wages and produce an economic output of $15.6 million. In total, 319 jobs, $13.3 million in wages, and $33.8 million in economic output is generated by commercial/retail operations. Each year, the City of Mesa collects $560,400 from the commercial/retail development. Impacts for construction are summarized in Table 1 and impacts for annual operations are summarized in Table 2.

Table 1: Commercial/Retail Impacts - Construction Commercial/Retail Development – Example 10-Acre Site Economic & Fiscal Impacts - Construction Economic Impact

Direct

Indirect & Induced

Totals

126

$4,976,700

$2,984,800

$7,961,400

$11,151,500

$8,291,800

$19,443,300

Primary

Secondary

Totals

$126,800

$19,500

$9,800

$29,300

$6,300

$2,100

$9,200

$11,300

$148,400

$25,300

$173,700

Jobs Wages Economic Output Fiscal Impact Construction Sales Tax Retail Sales Tax Property Tax State Shared Revenues Totals May not sum to total due to rounding. Source: IMPLAN; Rounds Consulting Group, Inc.

Table 2: Commercial/Retail Impacts - Annual Operations Commercial/Retail Development – Example 10-Acre Site Economic & Fiscal Impacts – Annual Operations Economic Impact

Direct

Indirect & Induced

Totals

207

111

319

$7,962,500

$5,336,800

$13,299,300

$18,226,600

$15,580,200

$33,806,800

Primary

Secondary

Totals

$462,400

$19,200

$481,600

Lease Tax

$24,200

Property Tax

$18,600

$15,800

$34,400

State Shared Revenues

$11,500

$8,700

$20,200

$516,700

$43,700

$560,400

Jobs Wages Economic Output Fiscal Impact Retail Sales Tax

Totals May not sum to total due to rounding.

Source: IMPLAN; Rounds Consulting Group, Inc.

Office Impacts Using industry standards, it is estimated that 130,700 square feet of office space could be built on the 10acre property. Construction of office space would directly support 117 persons earning a combined $8.4 million in wages and generate an economic output of $18.7 million. The indirect and induced effects bring the total number of jobs to 212. These employees earn $13.4 million in wages and generate $32.7 million in economic output. The City of Mesa collects $292,000 in tax revenues from a hypothetical office complex built on a 10-acre site. Once operational, the office development supports an estimated 400 direct jobs each year. These employees earn $25.4 million in wages and generate an economic output of $51.0 million. In total, 780 jobs, $43.9 million in wages, and $101.0 million in economic output is generated by office operations (includes direct, indirect, and induced impacts). Annually, the City collects $200,000 from taxes levied on activity derived from the office development. Impacts for construction are summarized in Table 3 and impacts for annual operations are summarized in Table 4. Table 3: Office Impacts - Construction Office Development â€“ Example 10-Acre Site Economic & Fiscal Impacts - Construction Economic Impact

Direct

Indirect & Induced

Totals

117

212

$8,361,300

$5,014,700

$13,376,000

$18,735,600

$13,931,000

$32,666,600

Primary

Secondary

Totals

$213,100

$32,800

$16,500

$49,300

$10,500

$3,500

$15,600

$19,100

$249,400

$42,600

$292,000

Table 4: Office Impacts - Annual Operations Office Development â€“ Example 10-Acre Site Economic & Fiscal Impacts - Annual Operations Economic Impact

Direct

Indirect & Induced

Totals

400

380

780

Wages

$25,374,200

$18,549,700

$43,923,900

Economic Output

$50,968,500

$50,048,100

$101,016,700

Fiscal Impact

Primary

Secondary

Totals

Retail Sales Tax

$12,600

$56,400

$69,000

Lease Tax

$35,200

Property Tax

$31,600

$38,800

$70,400

$300

$25,300

$25,600

$79,700

$120,500

$200,200

Jobs

State Shared Revenues Totals May not sum to total due to rounding. Source: IMPLAN; Rounds Consulting Group, Inc.

Industrial Impacts Using industry standards, it is estimated that 139,400 square feet of industrial space could be built on the 10-acre property. About 124 total jobs are supported by construction activity. This includes 68 direct and 56 indirect and induced jobs. The combined wages earned by total construction jobs equals $7.8 million and generates $19.1 million in economic output. The City of Mesa collects $170,700 in tax revenues from an industrial development on the example 10-acre site. Each year the industrial facility directly employs 247 persons with $14.1 million in wages. The economic output produced by those jobs equals $76.5 million. Another 297 indirect/induced jobs are supported by annual operations. In total, 544 jobs, $30.5 million in wages, and $123.3 million in economic output is generated by industrial operations. Each year, the City of Mesa collects $133,000 in tax revenues from the industrial development. Impacts for construction are summarized in Table 5 and impacts for annual operations are summarized in Table 6.

Table 5: Industrial Impacts - Construction Industrial Development – Example 10-Acre Site Economic & Fiscal Impacts - Construction Economic Impact

Direct

Indirect & Induced

Totals

124

$4,886,400

$2,930,600

$7,817,100

$10,949,200

$8,141,400

$19,090,700

Primary

Secondary

Totals

$124,500

$19,200

$9,700

$28,900

$6,200

$2,000

$9,100

$11,100

$145,700

$25,000

$170,700

Table 6: Industrial Impacts - Annual Operations Industrial Development – Example 10-Acre Site Economic & Fiscal Impacts - Annual Operations Economic Impact

Direct

Indirect & Induced

Totals

247

297

544

Wages

$14,070,100

$16,402,100

$30,472,200

Economic Output

$76,501,600

$46,831,600

$123,333,200

Fiscal Impact

Primary

Secondary

Totals

Retail Sales Tax

$13,200

$39,200

$52,400

Lease Tax

$17,700

Property Tax

$19,800

$27,100

$46,900

$200

$15,800

$16,000

$50,900

$82,100

$133,000

Jobs

State Shared Revenues Totals May not sum to total due to rounding. Source: IMPLAN; Rounds Consulting Group, Inc.

Single Family Residential Impacts Using industry standards, it is estimated that 50 single family residential units could be built on the 10acre property. Construction of this type of development would directly support 79 persons earning a combined $4.9 million in wages and generate an economic output of $12.0 million. Another 89 employees, $4.2 million in wages, and $11.7 in economic output is supported by spinoff activity. In total, an estimated 168 jobs, $9.1 million in wages, and $23.7 million in economic output is generated from construction. The City of Mesa collects an estimated $164,700 in tax revenues from construction of the 50 single family homes. Residents who later occupy the newly constructed housing units support a total of 84 jobs, $3.5 million in wages, and $8.9 million in economic output each year. Of the total, 55 workers are employed as a direct result of household spending and another 29 workers are supported by spinoff activity. Annually, Mesa collects $60,400 from taxes levied on the spending of the 50 households and the spending of the employees supported by residents. Impacts for construction are summarized in Table 7 and impacts for annual operations are summarized in Table 8. Table 7: Single Family Residential Impacts - Construction Single Family Residential Development â€“ Example 10-Acre Site Economic & Fiscal Impacts - Construction Economic Impact

Direct

Indirect & Induced

Totals

168

$4,881,500

$4,193,000

$9,074,500

$12,000,000

$11,691,000

$23,691,000

Primary

Secondary

Totals

$110,900

$21,000

$11,900

$32,900

$8,300

$1,900

$10,700

$12,600

$133,800

$30,900

$164,700

Table 8: Single Family Residential Impacts - Annual Operations Single Family Residential Development â€“ Example 10-Acre Site Economic & Fiscal Impacts - Annual Operations Economic Impact

Direct

Indirect & Induced

Totals

Wages

$2,100,100

$1,407,600

$3,507,700

Economic Output

$4,807,300

$4,109,300

$8,916,600

Fiscal Impact

Primary

Secondary

Totals

Retail Sales Tax

$27,600

$5,000

$32,600

$4,900

$15,800

$4,200

$20,000

$600

$2,300

$2,900

$48,900

$11,500

$60,400

Jobs

Lease Tax Property Tax State Shared Revenues Totals May not sum to total due to rounding. Source: IMPLAN; Rounds Consulting Group, Inc.

Multi-Family Residential Impact Using industry standards, it is estimated that 200 multi-family residential units could be built on the 10acre property. Construction of the multi-family complex directly supports 138 persons earning a combined $8.6 million in wages and generates an economic output of $21.0 million. The indirect and induced effects bring the total number of jobs supported to 294. These employees earn $15.9 million in wages and generate $41.5 million in economic output. The City of Mesa collects $288,600 in tax revenues from a multi-family development at the 10-acre site. Each year the completed multi-family complex supports 183 persons with $7.7 million in wages. The economic output produced by those jobs equals $19.4 million. This includes the direct jobs who are employed at the development, the jobs supported by residential spending, and the spinoff effects created by those jobs. Each year, the City collects $168,400 in tax revenues from the multi-family complex. Impacts for construction are summarized in Table 9 and impacts for annual operations are summarized in Table 10.

Table 9: Multi-Family Residential Impacts - Construction Multi-Family Residential Development – Example 10-Acre Site Economic & Fiscal Impacts - Construction Economic Impact

Direct

Indirect & Induced

Totals

138

156

294

$8,552,200

$7,346,100

$15,898,300

$21,023,700

$20,482,400

$41,506,200

Primary

Secondary

Totals

$194,300

$36,800

$20,700

$57,500

$14,700

$3,300

$18,800

$22,100

$234,400

$54,200

$288,600

Table 10: Multi-Family Residential Impacts - Annual Operations Multi-Family Residential Development – Example 10-Acre Site Economic & Fiscal Impacts - Annual Operations Economic Impact

Direct

Indirect & Induced

Totals

119

183

$4,576,600

$3,067,400

$7,644,000

$10,476,100

$8,955,000

$19,431,100

Fiscal Impact

Primary

Secondary

Totals

Retail Sales Tax

$60,800

$11,100

$71,900

Lease Tax

$52,500

Property Tax

$28,500

$9,100

$37,600

$1,500

$4,900

$6,400

$143,300

$25,100

$168,400

Jobs Wages Economic Output

State Shared Revenues Totals May not sum to total due to rounding. Source: IMPLAN; Rounds Consulting Group, Inc.

Impact Comparisons The development of the 10-acre property into industrial, commercial/retail, or office space will yield a minimum of 113,256 square feet of utilized space. A hypothetical commercial/retail development will occupy 113,256 square feet of space, an industrial development will occupy 139,400 square feet, and an office development will occupy 130,700 square feet. Construction impacts vary for the type of development. An industrial facilityâ€™s construction would support a total of 124 jobs with combined wages of $7.8 million and an economic output of $19.1 million. The construction of an office development would support 212 jobs earning $13.4 million in wages with an economic output of $32.7 million. Finally, the construction of a commercial/retail development would support 126 jobs earning $8.0 million in wages with an economic output of $19.4 million. The City would see significant tax revenues from each type of development. Mesa will collect $170,700 in tax revenues from the construction of an industrial development, $292,000 in tax revenues from the construction of an office development, and $173,700 from the construction of a commercial/retail development. The operational impacts from each type of development are significant for the City. An industrial facility would support, through direct, indirect, and induced employment, 544 jobs annually earning $30.5 million in wages with an economic output of $123.3 million. An office development would support 780 jobs earning $43.9 million in wages with an economic output of $101.0 million. A commercial/retail development would support 319 jobs earning $13.3 million in wages with an economic output of $33.8 million. The City will collect $133,000 in tax revenues from an industrial development, $200,000 in tax revenues from an office development, and $560,400 in tax revenues annually from a commercial/retail development. The development of the 10-acre property into either multi-family or single-family residential units will also generate impacts for the City. Approximately 200 multi-family residential units can be constructed on the 10-acre site. The construction of approximately 200 multi-family units would support 294 total jobs earning $15.9 million in wages with an economic output of $41.5 million. The City would collect $288,600 in tax revenues from the construction of multi-family units on the property. It is estimated that 50 singlefamily residential units could be built on the 10-acre property. The construction of 50 single-family units would support 168 total jobs earning $9.1 million in wages with an economic output of $23.7 million. The City would collect $164,700 in tax revenues from the construction of 50 single-family residential units. The multi-family residential development would support 183 total jobs annually once built. Those jobs would include individuals employed at the property, jobs supported by residentsâ€™ spending, and the additional effects created by those jobs. The 183 jobs would earn $7.7 million with an economic output of $19.4 million. The City would collect $168,400 in tax revenues annually from the spending of a multifamily residential development. The single-family residential development would support 84 total jobs earning $3.5 million in wages with an economic output of $8.9 million. The City would collect $60,400 in tax revenues annually from the spending of a single-family residential development. Total Impacts for construction are summarized in Table 11 and impacts for annual operations are summarized in Table 12.

Table 11: Impacts by Type of Development - Construction Impact by Development Type Economic and Fiscal Impact Summaries – Construction (Totals) Development Type Jobs Wages Economic Output Commercial/Retail 126 $7,961,400 $19,443,300 Office 212 $13,376,000 $32,666,600 Industrial 124 $7,817,100 $19,090,700 Single-Family Res. 168 $9,074,500 $23,691,000 Multi-Family Res. 294 $15,898,300 $41,506,200

Tax Revenues $173,700 $292,000 $170,700 $164,700 $288,600

Source: IMPLAN; Rounds Consulting Group, Inc.

Table 12: Impacts by Type of Development - Annual Operations Impact by Development Type Economic and Fiscal Impact Summaries - Annual Operations (Totals) Development Type Jobs Wages Economic Output Commercial/Retail 319 $13,299,300 $33,806,800 Office 780 $43,923,900 $101,016,700 Industrial 544 $30,472,200 $123,333,200 Single-Family Res. 84 $3,507,700 $8,916,600 Multi-Family Res. 183 $7,644,000 $19,431,100

Tax Revenues $560,400 $200,000 $133,000 $60,400 $168,400

Source: IMPLAN; Rounds Consulting Group, Inc.

BUILD-OUT OF SUB-AREAS The aforementioned incremental modeling was used to estimate the economic and fiscal impacts resulting from the development of all vacant/underutilized (i.e., vacant or used for agricultural and open space) land in two independent sub-areas. The two sub-areas were identified within the Inner Loop and Logistics & Commerce Districts. The SE Mesa LUTP study area and sub-areas are depicted in Figure 1, Figure 2, and Figure 3, respectively. Building assumptions are based on the City of Mesa’s Zoning Ordinances and Development Standards. Market statistics for vacancies, rental rates, home prices, floor area ratios, construction costs, etc. are based on current Mesa estimates from CoStar, Cromford Associates LLC, MAG, Maricopa County Assessor’s Office, Matrix, and various other sources.

Figure 1: SE Mesa LUTP Study Area and Sub-Areas SE Mesa LUTP Study Area

Elliot Rd

Inner Loop Sub-Area

Pecos Rd

Logistics & Commerce Sub-Area Germann Rd

Source: City of Mesa; Rounds Consulting Group, Inc.

Signal Butte Rd

Sossaman Rd

Warner Rd

State Route 202

Sossamon Rd

Peralta Ave

Figure 2: Inner Loop Sub-Area

Hawes Rd

Peralta Ave

Sossaman Rd

Elliot Rd

State Route 202

Inner Loop Sub-Area

Warner Rd Source: City of Mesa; Rounds Consulting Group, Inc.

Pecos Rd

Logistics & Commerce Sub-Area Germann Rd

Signal Butte Rd

Sossaman Rd

Figure 3: Logistics & Commerce Sub-Area

Source: City of Mesa; Rounds Consulting Group, Inc.

Build-Out of the Inner Loop Sub-Area In total, there are approximately 1,056 acres of developable land within the Inner Loop sub-area. If all available land is developed (including vacant/underutilized land located within county islands), construction directly supports 7,733 workers earning a combined $515.9 million in wages and generates $1.2 billion in economic output. Another 7,545 indirect and induced workers are supported by construction activity. About $372.5 million in wages and $1.0 billion in economic output is generated as a

result of these secondary impacts. Overall, 15,279 jobs, $888.4 million in wages, and $2.2 billion in economic output is generated by construction. The City of Mesa collects $17.7 million in tax revenues from construction. After construction, the sub-areaâ€™s developed 1,056 acres support 16,305 direct jobs with $862.9 million in wages annually. The economic output generated by direct activities equals $4.3 billion. An additional 17,223 indirect and induced jobs are supported by the newly constructed developments. In total, 33,528 jobs, $1.8 billion in wages, and $6.9 billion in economic output is generated by the build-out of the Inner Loop sub-area. Annually, the City of Mesa collects $12.2 million in tax revenues from operational activities of the 1,056 acres that are currently vacant/underutilized in the sub-area. Impacts for construction are summarized in Table 13 and impacts for annual operations are summarized in Table 14. Table 13: Inner Loop Sub-Area Impacts - Construction Build-Out of the Inner Loop Sub-Area Economic & Fiscal Impacts - Construction Economic Impact

Direct

Indirect & Induced

Totals

Jobs

7,733

7,545

15,279

$515,898,500

$372,519,300

$888,417,800

$1,208,957,600

$1,036,995,900

$2,245,953,500

Primary

Secondary

Totals

$12,475,500

$2,115,600

$1,129,400

$3,245,000

$761,900

$208,100

$1,043,500

$1,251,600

$14,799,200

$2,934,800

$17,734,000

Wages Economic Output Fiscal Impact Construction Sales Tax Retail Sales Tax Property Tax State Shared Revenues Totals May not sum to total due to rounding.

Source: IMPLAN; Rounds Consulting Group, Inc.

Table 14: Inner Loop Sub-Area Impacts - Annual Operations Build-Out of the Inner Loop Sub-Area Economic & Fiscal Impacts - Annual Operations Economic Impact

Direct

Indirect & Induced

Totals

Jobs

16,305

17,223

33,528

$862,946,600

$937,786,700

$1,800,733,200

$4,258,793,400

$2,683,508,300

$6,942,301,700

Primary

Secondary

Totals

Retail Sales Tax

$3,965,400

$2,354,800

$6,320,200

Lease Tax

$1,260,500

Property Tax

$1,861,000

$1,672,200

$3,479,400

$91,600

$965,700

$1,057,300

$7,178,500

$4,992,700

$12,171,200

Wages Economic Output Fiscal Impact

State Shared Revenues Totals May not sum to total due to rounding.

Source: IMPLAN; Rounds Consulting Group, Inc.

Build-Out of the Logistics & Commerce District Sub-Area Within the Logistics & Commerce District sub-area, there are approximately 1,831 acres of available vacant/underutilized land. Development of the 1,831 acres supports 12,502 direct jobs with $894.7 million in wages and generates $2.0 billion in economic output. Another 10,174 indirect and induced jobs are supported by construction with $536.6 million in wages. In total, 22,675 jobs, $1.4 billion in wages, and $3.5 billion in economic output are generated by construction of the developable land within the Logistics & Commerce District sub-area. The City of Mesa collects $31.3 million in tax revenues from construction activity. The newly constructed developments support 45,128 direct jobs each year. These jobs earn a combined $2.6 billion in wages and generate $13.9 billion in economic output. Another 54,132 indirect and induced jobs are supported annually by operations. In total, 99,260 jobs, $5.6 billion in wages, and $22.5 billion in economic output is generated by operations of the sub-areaâ€™s 1,831 acres. Each year, the City of Mesa collects $24.8 million in tax revenues. Impacts for construction are summarized in Table 15 and impacts for annual operations are summarized in Table 16.

Table 15: Logistics & Commerce Sub-Area Impacts - Construction Build-Out of the Logistics & Commerce Sub-Area Economic & Fiscal Impacts - Construction Economic Impact

Direct

Indirect & Induced

Totals

Jobs

12,502

10,174

22,675

$894,734,100

$536,621,400

$1,431,355,400

$2,004,876,800

$1,490,746,000

$3,495,622,800

Primary

Secondary

Totals

$22,805,500

$3,508,500

$1,769,800

$4,571,900

$1,130,900

$371,400

$1,667,700

$2,039,100

$26,685,400

$4,568,400

$31,253,800

Wages Economic Output Fiscal Impact Construction Sales Tax Retail Sales Tax Property Tax State Shared Revenues Totals May not sum to total due to rounding.

Source: IMPLAN; Rounds Consulting Group, Inc.

Table 16: Logistics & Commerce Sub-Area Impacts - Annual Operations Build-Out of the Logistics & Commerce Sub-Area Economic & Fiscal Impacts - Annual Operations Economic Impact

Direct

Indirect & Induced

Totals

Jobs

45,128

54,132

99,260

$2,568,918,100

$2,990,094,500

$5,559,012,600

$13,938,488,500

$8,537,785,600

$22,476,274,100

Primary

Secondary

Totals

Retail Sales Tax

$2,941,600

$7,160,500

$10,102,100

Lease Tax

$3,255,600

Property Tax

$3,533,200

$4,950,500

$8,483,700

$54,500

$2,891,100

$2,945,600

$9,784,900

$15,002,100

$24,787,000

Wages Economic Output Fiscal Impact

State Shared Revenues Totals May not sum to total due to rounding.

Source: IMPLAN; Rounds Consulting Group, Inc.

BASELINE BUILD-OUT SCENARIO A baseline build-out scenario was developed using the existing zoning of properties within the SE Mesa LUTP study area that are vacant or underutilized (i.e., used for agriculture and open space). Vacant/underutilized land located within county islands is excluded. For this baseline scenario, it is assumed all currently vacant/underutilized land would be developed under existing zoning. The aforementioned economic and fiscal impact model is used to extrapolate the baseline impacts. In total, Matrix identified 10,391.8 acres as vacant, in agricultural production, or certain open space areas within the study area that could potentially by developed. Table 17 summarizes the 10,391.8 acres. Table 17: Vacant/Underutilized Land in the SE Mesa LUTP Study Area Vacant/Underutilized Land Zoning

Acres

Commercial/Retail

632

Office

Industrial

3,991

Single Family

835

Multi-Family

118

Agricultural

1,644

Planned Community/Open Space

3,160

Total May not sum to total due to rounding. Source: Matrix Design Group, Inc.

10,391.8

In this baseline scenario, if all potential land is developed, construction directly supports 73,861 persons earning a combined $5.0 billion in wages and generate an economic output of $11.6 billion. The indirect and induced effects bring the total number of jobs supported by construction to 142,795. These employees earn $8.5 billion in wages and generate $21.2 billion in economic output. The City of Mesa collects $173.4 million in tax revenues from construction. Development of all the potential land would support 182,995 direct jobs with $9.7 billion in wages annually. The economic output generated by direct activities equals $47.9 billion. An additional 193,831 indirect and induced jobs are supported by the newly constructed developments. The total annual economic output generated by this build-out scenario equals $78.1 billion. Annually, the City of Mesa collects $152.6 million in tax revenues from the development of the 10,391.8 acres that are currently vacant/underutilized. Impacts for construction are summarized in Table 18 and impacts for annual operations are summarized in Table 19.

Table 18: Baseline Build-Out Scenario Impacts - Construction Baseline Build-Out Scenario Economic & Fiscal Impacts - Construction Economic Impact

Direct

Indirect & Induced

Totals

Jobs

73,861

68,934

142,795

$5,021,253,800

$3,456,456,500

$8,477,710,200

$11,624,758,500

$9,617,123,600

$21,241,881,800

Primary

Secondary

Totals

$123,232,100

$20,343,400

$10,699,800

$31,043,200

$7,121,900

$2,041,400

$9,936,200

$11,977,600

$145,616,900

$27,757,900

$173,374,800

Wages Economic Output Fiscal Impact Construction Sales Tax Retail Sales Tax Property Tax State Shared Revenues Totals May not sum to total due to rounding.

Source: IMPLAN; Rounds Consulting Group, Inc.

Table 19: Baseline Build-Out Scenario Impacts - Annual Operations Baseline Build-Out Scenario Economic & Fiscal Impacts - Annual Operations Economic Impact

Direct

Indirect & Induced

Totals

182,995

193,831

376,826

$9,706,307,400

$10,555,627,600

$20,261,934,800

$47,930,206,300

$30,200,013,900

$78,130,220,500

Primary

Secondary

Totals

Retail Sales Tax

$60,396,400

$26,484,600

$86,881,000

Lease Tax

$16,046,400

Property Tax

$18,554,500

$18,794,200

$37,348,700

$1,427,400

$10,859,300

$12,286,700

$96,424,700

$56,138,100

$152,562,800

Jobs Wages Economic Output Fiscal Impact

State Shared Revenues Totals May not sum to total due to rounding.

Source: IMPLAN; Rounds Consulting Group, Inc.

FUTURE LAND USE SCENARIO A future build-out scenario was developed using the preferred future land use of property within the SE Mesa LUTP study area. For this future land use scenario, it is assumed all future available vacant land would be developed under the preferred zoning presented below. The aforementioned economic and fiscal impact model is used to extrapolate the future land use impacts. In total, Matrix identified 13,622 acres of developable vacant land. Table 20 summarizes the 13,622 acres by the preferred zoning designations. Table 20: Future Available Vacant Land for Development Future Available Vacant Land Zoning

Acres

Commercial/Retail

1,816

Office

617

Industrial

6,652

Single Family

4,342

Multi-Family

182

Agricultural

Planned Community/Open Space

Total May not sum to total due to rounding. Source: Matrix Design Group, Inc.

13,622

In this future land use scenario, if all potential land is developed, construction directly supports 99,028 persons earning a combined $6.7 billion in wages and generate an economic output of $15.6 billion. The indirect and induced effects bring the total number of jobs supported by construction to 191,315. These employees earn $11.4 billion in wages and generate $28.5 billion in economic output. The City of Mesa collects $232.6 million in tax revenues from construction. Development of all the future available land would support 240,538 direct jobs with $12.3 billion in wages annually. The economic output generated by direct activities equals $57.6 billion. An additional 238,363 indirect and induced jobs are supported by the newly constructed developments. The total annual economic output generated by this build-out scenario equals $94.5 billion. Annually, the City of Mesa collects $253.9 million in tax revenues from the development of the 13,622 acres. Impacts for construction are summarized in Table 21 and impacts for annual operations are summarized in Table 22.

Table 21: Future Land Use Build-Out Scenario Impacts - Construction Future Land Use Build-Out Scenario Economic & Fiscal Impacts - Construction Economic Impact

Direct

Indirect & Induced

Totals

Jobs

99,028

92,287

191,315

$6,736,269,800

$4,629,818,700

$11,366,088,700

$15,589,172,500

$12,881,634,800

$28,470,807,400

Primary

Secondary

Totals

$165,399,000

$27,281,000

$14,342,000

$41,623,000

$9,542,000

$2,739,400

$13,320,500

$16,059,900

$195,419,400

$37,204,500

$232,623,900

Wages Economic Output Fiscal Impact Construction Sales Tax Retail Sales Tax Property Tax State Shared Revenues Totals May not sum to total due to rounding.

Source: IMPLAN; Rounds Consulting Group, Inc.

Table 22: Future Land Use Build-Out Scenario Impacts - Annual Operations Future Land Use Build-Out Scenario Economic & Fiscal Impacts - Annual Operations Economic Impact

Direct

Indirect & Induced

Totals

240,538

238,363

478,901

Wages

$12,291,542,900

$12,875,590,100

$25,167,133,000

Economic Output

$57,598,861,100

$36,888,809,600

$94,487,670,700

Primary

Secondary

Totals

$134,389,200

$33,174,800

$167,564,000

Lease Tax

$20,773,800

Property Tax

$24,755,900

$23,885,300

$48,641,200

$3,250,000

$13,714,300

$16,964,300

$183,168,900

$70,774,400

$253,943,300

Jobs

Fiscal Impact Retail Sales Tax

State Shared Revenues Totals May not sum to total due to rounding.

Source: IMPLAN; Rounds Consulting Group, Inc.

BASELINE V. FUTURE LAND USE BUILD-OUT SCENARIOS For perspective, the total impacts of the baseline scenario and future land use scenario are summarized side-by-side in Table 23 (construction impacts) and Table 24 (annual operations impacts). Table 23: Baseline v. Future Land Use Build-Out Scenarios - Construction Baseline v. Future Land Use Build-Out Scenarios Economic & Fiscal Impacts - Construction (Totals) Economic Impact

Baseline Scenario

Future Scenario

142,795

191,315

$8,477,710,200

$11,366,088,700

$21,241,881,800

$28,470,807,400

Baseline Scenario

Future Scenario

$123,232,100

$165,399,000

$31,043,200

$41,623,000

$7,121,900

$9,542,000

$11,977,600

$16,059,900

$173,374,800

$232,623,900

Table 24: Baseline v. Future Land Use Build-Out Scenarios - Annual Operations Baseline v. Future Land Use Build-Out Scenarios Economic & Fiscal Impacts - Annual Operations (Totals) Economic Impact

Baseline Scenario

Future Scenario

376,826

478,901

Wages

$20,261,934,800

$25,167,133,000

Economic Output

$78,130,220,500

$94,487,670,700

Baseline Scenario

Future Scenario

Retail Sales Tax

$86,881,000

$167,564,000

Lease Tax

$16,046,400

$20,773,800

Property Tax

$37,348,700

$48,641,200

State Shared Revenues

$12,286,700

$16,964,300

$152,562,800

$253,943,300

Jobs

Fiscal Impact

Totals May not sum to total due to rounding.

Source: IMPLAN; Rounds Consulting Group, Inc.

Southeast Mesa Land Use and Transportation Plan

Appendix 2: Subarea Model Development

Final Report

Southeast Mesa Subarea Model – Base Year 2018 Model Development and Validation

Technical Memorandum - Mesa Subarea Travel Demand Model Base Year 2018 Model Development and Validation This memorandum details the base year (2018) subarea travel demand model development process for the southeast area in the City of Mesa.

1.0 Introduction As part of the Southeast Mesa Land Use and Transportation Plan Study, Kimley-Horn developed a subarea travel demand model to forecast the future year traffic volume in the study area. The subarea model is based on the current version of the Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) Travel Demand Model (the Regional Model). Because the Regional Model mainly focuses on arterial roadways in the entire region, it has insufficient granularity on both traffic analysis zones (TAZs) and highway network in the study area. To forecast the future traffic condition more accurately in the study area, a subarea model with a base year 2018 needed to be developed and validated. TAZs and associated demographic and economic data also had to be refined. More roadways that are significant in the study area had to be added to the highway network. The traffic assignment results were compared with the collected traffic counts to evaluate the model performance. This Memorandum details the base year (2018) subarea model development process.

2.0 Subarea Model Boundary and Input Data As the first step of the subarea travel demand model development process, the base year (2018) model was developed and validated to make sure that the subarea model would reproduce and represent the base year traffic conditions with reasonable accuracy. Existing TAZs in the study area were reviewed and recommendations were made to split 57 TAZs in the study area into 126 new TAZs. This refined TAZ structure allowed enough granularity to capture the full build-out land use, zoning, and new future roadways in the study area. Next, additional roadways that are significant in the study area but are not included in the regional model were added to the highway network with their characteristics coded properly. Then, the demographic and employment distribution information was adjusted based on the new TAZ structure.

Subarea Model Boundary Using MAG’s Regional Model, a subarea analysis was conducted by MAG staff to extract the subarea from the Regional Model. After the process, all roadways crossing the subarea boundary became external stations of the proposed subarea model. Subarea highway network, trip tables, and assignment results were provided to Kimley-Horn by MAG. The boundary of the subarea model was carefully selected using the following criteria: 

Provide a sufficiently large buffer zone around the Southeast Mesa study area,



Include logical diversion points when traveling towards the study area, and



Minimize the number of external stations

Figure 2-1 shows the subarea model boundary, in relation to the City limit and the Southeast Mesa study area boundaries.

Southeast Mesa Land Use and Transportation Plan | 1

Southeast Mesa Land Use and Transportation Plan

Figure 2-1 Subarea Model Boundary

Refinement of Traffic Analysis Zone Structure The Regional Model consists of 57 TAZs in the study area. Figure 2-2 shows the existing regional TAZ boundaries in the study area. To more accurately model the development of the study area, TAZs were generally split into smaller geographic areas based on the future land use type and density, major road locations, and the plausible redevelopment phases of adjacent parcels. In the development of the new TAZ structure, the following TAZ boundary criteria or guidelines were followed to the extent possible: 

Geographic features such as rivers, streams, and ditches



Existing and planned transportation facilities



Consistent land uses across the zone as much as possible



Evaluation of existing and future land uses and zoning



Configuration consistent with the available transportation network/infrastructure serving the zone



Configuration of zones and zonal boundaries such that trips can be loaded to the proper roadway functional classification of the internal transportation network within the TAZ itself.

The expanded and refined TAZ structure now consists of 126 zones in the study area. The new TAZ structure allows enough granularity to capture the evaluation of proposed land use, zoning, and new future roadways in the area. A map of the new TAZ boundaries is shown in Figure 2-3.

2 | Southeast Mesa Subarea Model – Base Year 2018 Model Development and Validation

Southeast Mesa Subarea Model â€“ Base Year 2018 Model Development and Validation

Figure 2-2 Traffic Analysis Zone Boundaries â€“ MAG Regional Model

Southeast Mesa Land Use and Transportation Plan | 3

Southeast Mesa Land Use and Transportation Plan

Figure 2-3 Traffic Analysis Zone Boundaries â€“ Southeast Mesa Subarea Model To get more accurate household distribution, the number of households in the base year for each TAZ was estimated from the aerial photography. The employment distribution was adjusted based on the estimated commercial space availability from aerial photography.

4 | Southeast Mesa Subarea Model â€“ Base Year 2018 Model Development and Validation

Southeast Mesa Subarea Model â€“ Base Year 2018 Model Development and Validation

The total estimated number of households for base year 2018 inside the study area is 34,411, with a total estimated population of 92,630. Figure 2-4 shows the household density in units of number of households per acre.

Figure 2-4 Base Year 2018 Household Density

Southeast Mesa Land Use and Transportation Plan | 5

Southeast Mesa Land Use and Transportation Plan

The total estimated employment for base year 2018 inside the study area is 36,469. Figure 2-5 is a color themed map showing the employment density in total amount of employment per acre by TAZ.

Figure 2-5 Base Year 2018 Employment Density

6 | Southeast Mesa Subarea Model â€“ Base Year 2018 Model Development and Validation

Southeast Mesa Subarea Model â€“ Base Year 2018 Model Development and Validation

Highway Network Development The highway network carried over from the regional model was verified based on the Arizona Department of Transportationâ€™s functional classification map and aerial photography. Some collector roads, feeder roads, and local roads were added to the subarea model network. These roads provide necessary connectivity in the study area. Figure 2-6 shows the base year highway network by functional classification.

Figure 2-6 Base Year 2018 Highway Network

Southeast Mesa Land Use and Transportation Plan | 7

Southeast Mesa Land Use and Transportation Plan

3.0 Subarea Model Components and Parameters The subarea model is a four-step model with trip generation, distribution, mode split, and traffic assignment. Compared with the Regional Model, the subarea model was simplified in the following major aspects: 

No transit component



Uses gravity models for trip distribution



Uses a simplified mode split model based on distance only



No time-of-day component

Trip Generation The same trip production and attraction models and their specifications from the Regional Model were used by the subarea model. Internal trip generation models were developed for the following six trip purposes: 

Home-based work (HBW)



Home-based school (HBSC)



Home-based shopping (HBSP)



Home-based university (HBU)



Home-based other (HBO)



Non-home based (NHB)

Trip Production Households are cross-classified by size, number of workers, vehicle ownership, and income levels. Crossclassification distribution was directly borrowed from the Regional Model. Table 3-1 and Table 3-2 show the assumed trip production rates for each trip purpose. Table 3-1 Trip Production Rates (HBW)*

*From MAG Regional Model online documentation

8 | Southeast Mesa Subarea Model – Base Year 2018 Model Development and Validation

Southeast Mesa Subarea Model â€“ Base Year 2018 Model Development and Validation

Table 3-2 Trip Production Rates (HBSC, HBSP, HBU, HBO, NHB)*

*From MAG Regional Model online documentation

Southeast Mesa Land Use and Transportation Plan | 9

Southeast Mesa Land Use and Transportation Plan

Trip Attraction Coefficients of size variables in the Regional Modelâ€™s destination choice model were directly borrowed as the attraction rates for the subarea model. Table 3-3 and Table 3-4 show the assumed trip attraction rates for each trip purpose. Table 3-3 Trip Attraction Rates (HBW)*

*From MAG Regional Model online documentation Table 3-4 Trip Attraction Rates (All Other Trip Purposes)*

*From MAG Regional Model online documentation

Trip Distribution The subarea model uses the most common type of trip distribution model, the gravity model, for all trip purposes. The gravity model formulation can be expressed as the equation below: đ?‘‡đ?‘–,đ?‘— =

đ?‘ƒđ?‘– Ă—đ??´đ?‘— Ă—đ??šđ?‘–,đ?‘— Ă—đ??žđ?‘–,đ?‘— âˆ‘đ?‘—â€˛âˆˆđ?‘?đ?‘œđ?‘›đ?‘’đ?‘ đ??´đ?‘—â€˛ Ă—đ??šđ?‘–,đ?‘—â€˛ Ă—đ??žđ?‘–,đ?‘—â€˛

10 | Southeast Mesa Subarea Model â€“ Base Year 2018 Model Development and Validation

Southeast Mesa Subarea Model â€“ Base Year 2018 Model Development and Validation

where: đ?‘‡đ?‘–,đ?‘—

trips produced in zone i and attracted to zone j

đ?‘ƒđ?‘–

total trips produced by zone i

đ??´đ?‘—

total trips attracted by zone j

đ??šđ?‘–,đ?‘—

friction factor (function of impedance) between zones i and j

đ??žđ?‘–,đ?‘—

trip adjustment (K) factor between zones i and j

The friction factors for the subarea model are entered into the TransCAD modeling process as a gamma function equation. The gamma function is described below: đ?‘? đ??šđ?‘–,đ?‘— = a Ă— đ?‘Ąđ?‘–,đ?‘— Ă— đ?‘’ đ?‘? Ă— đ?‘Ąđ?‘–,đ?‘—

Where: đ??šđ?‘–,đ?‘—

Friction factor from zone i to zone j

a , b, c =

Gamma function coefficients

đ?‘Ąđ?‘–,đ?‘—

Travel time, or impedance from zone i to zone j

Base of the natural logarithms

For each internal trip purpose, gamma function parameters were adjusted in an iterative process to produce reasonable average trip lengths based on the target trip length distribution from the Regional Model. Table 3-5 shows the final calibrated gamma function parameters for each trip purpose. Table 3-5 Calibrated Gamma Function Parameters) Trip Purpose

Gamma Function Parameters b

HBW

1.63

0.09

HBSC

1.73

0.19

HBSP

1.13

0.81

HBU

0.73

0.19

HBO

0.48

0.38

NHB

0.75

0.26

Light Truck

0.83

0.10

Medium Truck

0.72

0.07

Heavy Truck

0.27

0.05

Mode Split The utility-based mode choice model in the Regional Model cannot be directly borrowed as the subarea model does not include a transit component. A simplified mode split process was used instead. For each trip

Southeast Mesa Land Use and Transportation Plan | 11

Southeast Mesa Land Use and Transportation Plan

purpose, a set of mode split factors was developed based on the travel distance between productionattraction zone pairs. These factors were estimated using the person and modal-person trip tables from the Regional Model. The calculated auto mode shares by trip purpose are shown in Table 3-6 below: Table 3-6 Auto Mode Share by Travel Distance P-A Distance 0 - 0.5 miles

HBW

HBSC

HBSP

0.529

0.116

0.366

HBU 0.125

0.5 - 1 miles

0.645

0.187

0.531

0.135

HBO 0.155

NHB 0.479

0.264

0.535

1 - 2 miles

0.793

0.301

0.669

0.213

0.44

0.615

2 - 3 miles

0.865

0.377

0.743

0.322

0.587

0.699

3 - 4 miles

0.888

0.414

0.764

0.467

0.634

0.722

4 - 5 miles

0.914

0.446

0.774

0.653

0.659

0.732

> 5 miles

0.916

0.446

0.774

0.653

0.659

0.766

The factors can be read as percentages. For example, a HBW factor of 0.529 for trips less than one-half mile means 52.9% of these trips are automobile trips. As the trip distance increases, the share of non-auto trips decreases. This approach allows a slightly more realistic conversion, as travel distance is a statistically significant variable in most mode choice models.

Traffic Assignment The subarea model assigned highway trips in two steps: a multimodal multi-class (MMA) all-or-nothing preload assignment, and a MMA User Equilibrium (UE) assignment. The initial all-or-nothing assignment was used to “preload” through trips and large commercial vehicle trips. These trips are less sensitive to travel time and do not reroute trips based on congestion as often as trips such as an internal home-basedwork auto trip. Volume-delay functions used for the assignment were based on time and period capacity and are modified versions of the Bureau of Public Road (BPR) curves. The volume-delay curves have varied coefficients for different roadway functional classification and link speed. Preload Assignment The first step of the highway assignment procedure was to “preload” through trips. The preload assignment used an all-or-nothing method, which assigns trips between origin-destination pairs based on the shortest path established by the free-flow travel time. This assignment procedure is intended to reflect the insensitivity congestion has on external trips, especially long-haul truck trips, as they are typically much less likely to divert to another roadway than other types of trips, either due to lack of knowledge about the area, perceived inconvenience, or restrictions against heavy trucks. The following trip tables were loaded during the preload assignment procedure: 

External-External (through trips) single-unit (SU) trucks



All combination-unit (CU) trucks

Since there is no reflection of delay in the choice of path for these trips, no volume-delay function is required and only one assignment iteration is required.

12 | Southeast Mesa Subarea Model – Base Year 2018 Model Development and Validation

Southeast Mesa Subarea Model – Base Year 2018 Model Development and Validation

MMA User Equilibrium Assignment The second step of the highway assignment procedure was to load all remaining trips not considered in the preload assignment. Preloaded trips are addressed in the assignment procedures as background traffic that reduces capacity but does not divert to another route. The remaining trips are loaded using an MMA userequilibrium assignment, which assigns trips between origin-destination pairs in an iterative fashion that accounts for link congestion on route choice. The user-equilibrium assignment procedure computes the link travel time, assigns link traffic based on shortest path, and then recalculates the link travel time. This step is repeated until the user equilibrium conditions are met: all used paths for each O-D pair are minimal and equal; and any unused path for a given O-D pair has a greater travel time than any used paths for that O-D pair. In TransCAD’s implementation, the convergence of user equilibrium is measured by the “relative gap,” which is an estimate of the “distance” between current solution and the user equilibrium solution. The relative gap is defined as follows:

x

Relative gap =

links

UE t i



x

links UE t i

AON t i

x

links

Where:

xiUE

= Current flow on link i

xiAON

All-or-nothing flow on link i

xiUE t

Current travel time on link i

The traffic assignment stops when the current iteration relative gap is below a user specified threshold or the maximum number of iterations is reached. For user equilibrium assignment, light trucks are combined with auto trips, and are assigned to the network as automobile trips. Volume-Delay Function The subarea model uses the Bureau of Public Roads (BPR) formula as the volume-delay function to relate travel time to the volume/capacity ratio. The BPR formula is shown below, 4  V   TN  T0  1  0.15    C   

Where:

TN T0 V C

= = = =

Congested link travel time Initial link travel time under free-flow conditions Assigned traffic volume Capacity

Southeast Mesa Land Use and Transportation Plan | 13

Southeast Mesa Land Use and Transportation Plan

In the equation, the coefficient 0.15 is known as the alpha value and the exponent of 4 is known as the beta value. Different functionally classified roads are known to have different alpha and beta values. The values of 0.15 and 4 are recognized as the most generic. The alpha and beta settings are based on the type of facility and its posted speed. Settings are automatically applied in the code and have been developed based on the coefficients presented in NCHRP Report 716. Table 3-7 lists the alpha and beta settings, by functional classification, for the Southeast Mesa model. Table 3-7 Alpha and Beta Settings by Speed and Functional classification Roadway Functional Classification Freeways Multilane Highways 2-lane Roads Centroid Connectors

Free Flow Speed >= 70 mph Alpha Beta 0.88 9.8 1.0 5.4 0.71 2.1 1.0 5.4

Free Flow Speed >= 55 and <70 mph Alpha Beta 0.83 5.5 0.83 2.7 0.71 2.1 1.0 5.4

Free Flow Speed <55 mph Alpha Beta 0.56 3.6 0.71 2.1 0.71 2.1 1.0 5.4

Passenger Car Equivalency (PCE) Factors Table 3-8 shows the assumed PCE factors for the assignment process. The same PCEs are used for both preload and user equilibrium assignment steps. Table 3-8 Passenger Car Equivalency Factors for Assignment Assignment Class

Passenger Car Equivalency

Auto

1.0

1.5

2.0

User Equilibrium Assignment Convergence Criteria The standard user equilibrium algorithm was used for the user equilibrium assignment model. The maximum number of iterations is set to 100, and convergence is set to 0.0001.

14 | Southeast Mesa Subarea Model â€“ Base Year 2018 Model Development and Validation

Southeast Mesa Subarea Model – Base Year 2018 Model Development and Validation

4.0 Base Year Model Validation and Performance Review Each step of the models was calibrated and validated individually first. As the starting point of the overall model calibration effort, the initial highway assignment was made using the trip tables produced by the upstream models. The steps of model calibration involved the following calibration strategies: 

Review and eliminate highway network coding errors



Adjust centroid connector locations based on adjacent network link loading



Adjust gravity model friction factors/average trip lengths



Review assigned volume target based on traffic count data



Review capacity equations and volume delay function parameters by functional classification

This section presents the final model validation results after the model calibration and validation steps above. The model results were validated at varying levels of aggregation, based on the requirements from Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Travel Demand Modeling Guidelines.

Trip Generation The trip generation models were applied using the base year 2018 demographic and employment data. Table 4-1 summarizes the aggregate person trip rates per TAZ, person, households, and employment. Table 4-1 Aggregate Trip Rates Statistics

Subarea Model

Benchmark

6,666

Low N/A

Person Trips/Person

3.2

3.3

4.0

Person Trips/HH

8.6

8.0

10.0

HBW Trips/Employee

1.37

1.20

1.55

Person Trips/TAZ

High 15,000

Table 4-2 shows the aggregate person trip rates per household and the percent of trips by trip purpose after applying the trip production models. Table 4-2 Trip Production Rates and Percent of Trips by Trip Purpose Trip Purpose

Trip Rates (Person Trips / HH)

Percent of Trips

Benchmark

HBW HBSC HBSP HBSR HBO NHB Total

1.48 0.82 1.51 0.20 2.37 2.19 8.58

17.3% 9.6% 17.7% 2.3% 27.7% 25.6% 100.0%

12% - 24% 5% - 8% 10% - 20% 9% - 12% 14% - 28% 20% - 33% 100%

Southeast Mesa Land Use and Transportation Plan | 15

Southeast Mesa Land Use and Transportation Plan

Trip Distribution Because there is no existing database that provides an accurate picture of trip interchanges at the TAZ level, the following aggregate measures were used to validate the trip distribution models: 

Average trip length



Percentage of intrazonal trips



Trip length distribution

Table 4-3 shows the comparison between the results of the calibrated trip distribution model and the MAG Regional Model for mean travel times by trip purpose. Note that university trips in the Regional Model treated Arizona State University (ASU) trips as a special generator, whereas the subarea model combines ASU trips with other university trips. Table 4-3 Comparison of Subarea Model and MAG Model Average Travel Times Predicted Average Trip Length (minutes)

Trip Purpose

MAG Regional Model

Subarea Model

+/- (%)

Benchmark (low - high)

HBW HBSP HBSC HBU HBO NHB LT Truck SU Truck CU Truck

20.85 11.04 10.02 13.11 11.73 13.21 24.59 26.72 29.47

21.46 11.81 12.35 22.94 11.89 12.52 24.21 27.48 30.23

2.9% 7.0% 23.3% 75.0% 1.4% -5.2% -1.5% 2.8% 2.6%

12 - 35 7 - 16 9 - 19 11 - 19 8 - 20 6 - 19

Another validation measure closely related to trip length distributions is the fraction of intrazonal trips. Intrazonal trips are made within the same zone and are not assigned to the model network. The percentage of intrazonal trips provides a measure for the amount of “very short” trips. Table 4-4 shows the comparison between the calibrated trip distribution models and the Regional Model. Table 4-4 Comparison of Subarea Model and MAG Model Percentage of Intrazonal Trips Trip Purpose

Predicted Percent Intrazonal Trips MAG Regional Model

SE Subarea Model

Benchmark (low - high)

HBW

1.9%

2.2%

1% - 4%

HBSP

9.2%

14.6%

10% - 12%

HBSC

14.7%

9.0%

3% - 9%

HBU

23.8%

2.0%

4% - 10%

HBO

13.7%

10.1%

3% - 7%

NHB

9.4%

7.9%

5% - 9%

HBW

0.0%

2.2%

HBSP

0.0%

1.2%

HBSC

0.0%

0.8%

16 | Southeast Mesa Subarea Model – Base Year 2018 Model Development and Validation

Southeast Mesa Subarea Model â€“ Base Year 2018 Model Development and Validation

Figure 4-1 through Figure 4-6 show the travel time frequency distribution curves for each trip purpose.

HBW - All households 12.0% 10.0%

% Trips

8.0% 6.0% 4.0% 2.0% 0.0% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Travel Time (Minutes) Predicted

Figure 4-1 Predicted Trip Length Distribution for HBW Trips

25.0% 23.0% 21.0% 19.0% 17.0% 15.0% 13.0% 11.0% 9.0% 7.0% 5.0% 3.0% 1.0% -1.0%

<2 2-4 4-6 6-8 8-10 10-12 12-14 14-16 16-18 18-20 20-22 22-24 24-26 26-28 28-30 30-32 32-34 34-36 36-38 38-40 40-42 42-44 44-46 46-48 48-50 50-52 52-54 54-56 56-58 58-60 60+

% Trips

HBSP - All households

Travel Time (Minutes) Predicted

Figure 4-2 Predicted Trip Length Distribution for HBSP Trips

Southeast Mesa Land Use and Transportation Plan | 17

Southeast Mesa Land Use and Transportation Plan

22.0% 20.0% 18.0% 16.0% 14.0% 12.0% 10.0% 8.0% 6.0% 4.0% 2.0% 0.0%

<2 2-4 4-6 6-8 8-10 10-12 12-14 14-16 16-18 18-20 20-22 22-24 24-26 26-28 28-30 30-32 32-34 34-36 36-38 38-40 40-42 42-44 44-46 46-48 48-50 50-52 52-54 54-56 56-58 58-60 60+

% Trips

HBSC - All households

Travel Time (Minutes) Predicted

Figure 4-3 Predicted Trip Length Distribution for HBSC Trips

HBU - All households 12.0% 10.0%

6.0% 4.0% 2.0% 0.0%

<2 2-4 4-6 6-8 8-10 10-12 12-14 14-16 16-18 18-20 20-22 22-24 24-26 26-28 28-30 30-32 32-34 34-36 36-38 38-40 40-42 42-44 44-46 46-48 48-50 50-52 52-54 54-56 56-58 58-60 60+

% Trips

8.0%

Travel Time (Minutes) Predicted

Figure 4-4 Predicted Trip Length Distribution for HBU Trips

18 | Southeast Mesa Subarea Model â€“ Base Year 2018 Model Development and Validation

Southeast Mesa Subarea Model â€“ Base Year 2018 Model Development and Validation

22.0% 20.0% 18.0% 16.0% 14.0% 12.0% 10.0% 8.0% 6.0% 4.0% 2.0% 0.0%

<2 2-4 4-6 6-8 8-10 10-12 12-14 14-16 16-18 18-20 20-22 22-24 24-26 26-28 28-30 30-32 32-34 34-36 36-38 38-40 40-42 42-44 44-46 46-48 48-50 50-52 52-54 54-56 56-58 58-60 60+

% Trips

HBO - All households

Travel Time (Minutes) Predicted

Figure 4-5 Predicted Trip Length Distribution for HBO Trips

22.0% 20.0% 18.0% 16.0% 14.0% 12.0% 10.0% 8.0% 6.0% 4.0% 2.0% 0.0%

<2 2-4 4-6 6-8 8-10 10-12 12-14 14-16 16-18 18-20 20-22 22-24 24-26 26-28 28-30 30-32 32-34 34-36 36-38 38-40 40-42 42-44 44-46 46-48 48-50 50-52 52-54 54-56 56-58 58-60 60+

% Trips

NHB - All Households

Travel Time (Minutes) Predicted

Figure 4-6 Predicted Trip Length Distribution for NHB Trips

Southeast Mesa Land Use and Transportation Plan | 19

Southeast Mesa Land Use and Transportation Plan

Mode Split Table 4-5 compares the subarea modelâ€™s auto mode share by trip purpose with the Regional Model. Table 4-5 Aggregated Auto Mode Share by Trip Purpose

HBW

1,176,562

1,044,511

Auto Mode Share (Subarea Model) 88.8%

HBSC

643,533

241,642

37.5%

34.0%

HBSP

1,171,800

796,372

68.0%

70.7%

HBU

155,775

85,506

54.9%

44.7%

HBO

1,879,250

1,034,143

55.0%

52.4%

NHB

1,736,836

1,207,819

69.5%

69.2%

Trip Purpose

Total Person Trips

Auto Mode Person Trips

Auto Mode Share (MAG Model) 89.4%

Highway Assignment Vehicle Miles of Travel (VMT) Table 4-6 shows the subarea model VMT per person and per household. Not all local roads are included in the subarea model. Table 4-6 VMT per Person and Household Subarea Model

Guidelines

VMT per Person

20.2

24 - 32

VMT per Household

53.9

60 - 75

Daily Traffic Volumes Compared to Counts The coefficient of determination (đ?‘… 2) is a useful measure to compare system-wide observed traffic counts with estimated volumes. The subarea model has an đ?‘… 2 value of 0.84. The model area within the City limit has an đ?‘… 2 value of 0.87. The Southeast Mesa study area has an đ?‘… 2 value of 0.89. The closer to 1.0 the đ?‘… 2 value is, the closer the modeled volumes and counted volumes are. The subarea modelâ€™s root mean square error (%RMSE) is 36.3%. The model area within the City limit has a %RMSE value of 31.3%. The Southeast Mesa study area has a %RMSE value of 32.1%. All of these percentages are below the acceptable maximum %RMSE value of 45% suggested by FHWA Guidelines. Table 4-7 through Table 4-9 compare the daily volumes with targets by functional classification. Table 4-10 through 4-12 present the model volumes and validation targets by volume groups. The results show that the model effectively estimates volumes both by functional classification and volume group.

20 | Southeast Mesa Subarea Model â€“ Base Year 2018 Model Development and Validation

Southeast Mesa Subarea Model â€“ Base Year 2018 Model Development and Validation

Table 4-7 Volume-to-Count Percent Difference by Functional Classification (Subarea) Roadway Functional Classification Freeways Principal Arterials Collectors Total

Volume Per Day Observed (Traffic Counts)

Subarea Model Estimated

Number of Traffic Count Locations

% Difference Model Compared to Observed

9,119,702

8,800,260

156

-3.50%

Benchmark (FHWA Targets) 7%

15,352,930

16,049,658

772

4.50%

15%

555,573

428,102

-22.90%

25%

25,028,205

25,278,020

1,018

1.00%

Table 4-8 Volume-to-Count Percent Difference by Functional Classification (City of Mesa) Roadway Functional Classification

Volume Per Day

Freeways

2,572,015

2,603,030

1.20%

Principal Arterials

6,131,859

5,574,454

316

-9.10%

15%

348,149

244,428

-29.80%

25%

9,052,023

8,421,912

422

-7.00%

Total

Subarea Model Estimated

% Difference Benchmark (FHWA Targets) 7%

Collectors

Observed (Traffic Counts)

Number of Traffic Count Locations

Model Compared to Observed

Table 4-9 Volume-to-Count Percent Difference by Functional Classification (Southeast Mesa Study Area) Roadway Functional Classification Freeways Principal Arterials Collectors Total

Volume Per Day Observed (Traffic Counts)

Subarea Model Estimated

Number of Traffic Count Locations

% Difference Model Compared to Observed

824,995

876,217

6.20%

Benchmark (FHWA Targets) 7%

1,326,761

1,236,155

-6.80%

15%

93,073

64,202

-31.00%

25%

2,244,829

2,176,574

126

-3.00%

Southeast Mesa Land Use and Transportation Plan | 21

Southeast Mesa Land Use and Transportation Plan

Table 4-10 Percent Difference Volume Targets by Daily Volume Groupings (Subarea)

Volume Group

Volume Per Day Observed Model (Traffic Estimated Counts)

Number of Traffic Count Locations

% Difference Model Benchmark Compared to (FHWA Observed Targets) 200% 210.00%

<1,000

6,351

19,688

1,000-2,500

74,833

127,790

70.80%

100%

2,500-5,000

237,835

266,215

11.90%

50%

5,000-10,000

819,802

949,496

107

15.80%

25%

10,000-25,000

7,200,552

7,734,178

406

7.40%

20%

25,000-50,000

8,074,166

7,971,920

264

-1.30%

15%

>50,000

8,614,666

8,208,733

124

-4.70%

10%

Table 4-11 Percent Difference Volume Targets by Daily Volume Groupings (City of Mesa)

Volume Group

Volume Per Day Observed Model (Traffic Estimated Counts)

Number of Traffic Count Locations

% Difference Model Benchmark Compared to (FHWA Observed Targets) 200% 96.60%

<1,000

2,851

5,605

1,000-2,500

29,921

28,054

-6.20%

100%

2,500-5,000

121,335

110,418

-9.00%

50%

5,000-10,000

376,338

323,550

-14.00%

25%

10,000-25,000

3,099,986

2,943,148

178

-5.10%

20%

25,000-50,000

3,127,801

2,765,992

102

-11.60%

15%

>50,000

2,293,791

2,245,144

-2.10%

10%

Table 4-12 Percent Difference Volume Targets by Daily Volume Groupings (Southeast Study Area)

Volume Group

Volume Per Day Observed Model (Traffic Estimated Counts)

Number of Traffic Count Locations

% Difference Model Benchmark Compared to (FHWA Observed Targets) 200% 109.40%

<1,000

2,097

4,390

1,000-2,500

13,351

16,932

26.80%

100%

2,500-5,000

54,336

50,327

-7.40%

50%

5,000-10,000

162,002

155,773

-3.80%

25%

10,000-25,000

707,150

696,766

-1.50%

20%

25,000-50,000

533,196

437,658

-17.90%

15%

>50,000

772,697

814,727

5.40%

10%

22 | Southeast Mesa Subarea Model â€“ Base Year 2018 Model Development and Validation

Southeast Mesa Subarea Model â€“ Base Year 2018 Model Development and Validation

Screen Line and Cut Line Volumes As a part of the model calibration and validation process, nine screen lines were developed for the subarea model to gauge how well the model replicates traffic between different areas within the model. Figure 4-7 shows the screen line locations. Table 4-13 shows the percent errors at screen lines. All screen lines and cut lines fell within the desired targets. Figure 4-8 shows the daily traffic volume and level of service in the study area for base year 2018

Figure 4-7 Screen Lines / Cut Line Locations

Southeast Mesa Land Use and Transportation Plan | 23

Southeast Mesa Land Use and Transportation Plan

Table 4-13 Volume-to-Count Percent Difference at Screen Lines / Cut Lines

Screen Line Name Subarea South-East

Volume (VPD) Observed Model (Traffic Estimated Counts) 113,248 130,088

Number of Traffic Count Locations 8

% Difference Model Benchmark Compared to (FHWA Observed Targets) 14.9% 23%

Subarea North-West

933,119

933,242

0.0%

18%

Mesa West

755,120

740,483

-1.9%

18%

Mesa South

266,140

269,453

1.2%

18%

Mesa North

321,775

291,983

-9.3%

18%

Study Area West

328,878

327,689

-0.4%

18%

Study Area South

69,446

63,404

-8.7%

25%

Study Area East

105,212

107,826

2.5%

23%

Study Area North

203,753

177,064

-13.1%

20%

24 | Southeast Mesa Subarea Model â€“ Base Year 2018 Model Development and Validation

Southeast Mesa Subarea Model â€“ Base Year 2018 Model Development and Validation

Figure 4-8 Base Year 2018 Daily Model Volume and Level of Service (Southeast Mesa Study Area)

Southeast Mesa Land Use and Transportation Plan | 25

Southeast Mesa Land Use and Transportation Plan

5.0 Conclusion The model validation results indicate that, in general, the subarea travel demand model validation checks meet the industry standard modeling benchmarks. The subarea model appears to be modeling volumes accurately enough that it can be used as a planning tool to project future volumes and roadway network capacity needs.

26 | Southeast Mesa Subarea Model â€“ Base Year 2018 Model Development and Validation

Southeast Mesa Land Use and Transportation Plan

Appendix 3: TAZ Socioeconomic Data

Final Report

2018 TAZ Data ID TOTPOP TOTHH TOTALEMP EMP1 EMP2 EMP3 EMP4 EMP5 CONSTEMP KTO8ENROLL HSENROLL ENROLL RETAILE RETAILE_SQ WHOLESALEE MININGE FARME MANUFACTUR 1454 2275 977 789 176 213 242 27 2 0 1977 0 0 178 31684 4 0 6 5 1459 2990 1131 590 0 84 118 230 0 0 699 0 0 77 5929 14 0 3 3 1473 2738 1296 70 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 36 2 0 0 5 1474 2581 820 123 0 0 47 1 0 0 0 0 0 15 225 1 0 0 4 1484 833 315 1169 621 0 278 178 32 2 0 0 0 227 51529 10 0 0 1 1485 1720 644 1336 1 36 1132 30 20 0 0 0 0 931 866761 5 0 1 35 1488 5 3 374 0 0 361 0 0 1 0 0 0 31 961 1 0 0 0 1502 4 1 6 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1504 6339 2222 1174 10 129 697 13 3 1 1110 0 0 327 106929 14 0 9 7 1508 315 117 339 7 48 188 48 0 35 798 88 0 3 9 2 0 0 1 1531 496 223 3559 768 11 102 30 57 4 0 0 385 40 1600 0 0 1 6 1927 0 0 1963 269 140 2 504 841 143 0 0 0 38 1444 156 0 1 92 1933 0 0 734 0 3 15 110 531 49 0 0 0 1 1 189 0 0 418 2785 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2796 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2845 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3182 2405 781 957 38 15 8 548 255 20 224 0 0 4 16 18 0 1 13 6000 1698 760 727 291 39 154 71 97 5 0 0 0 11 121 7 0 0 0 6001 20 9 2813 2366 0 200 34 98 9 0 0 1333 0 0 6 1 0 16 6002 178 89 1090 30 0 918 65 7 1 0 0 0 737 543169 17 0 0 10 6003 170 66 3667 30 0 3500 32 10 0 0 0 0 1721 2961841 42 0 0 23 6004 509 287 751 115 0 383 163 2 0 0 0 0 26 676 36 0 0 2 6005 607 246 970 80 0 700 190 0 0 0 0 0 240 57600 55 0 0 0 6006 0 0 1113 0 19 941 100 23 0 0 0 0 562 315844 17 0 0 10 6007 295 286 967 0 0 100 795 24 2 0 0 0 461 212521 16 0 0 60 6008 0 0 801 0 0 650 100 22 0 0 0 0 361 130321 17 0 0 10 6009 0 0 976 0 0 495 394 38 0 0 0 0 461 212521 17 0 0 60 6010 1335 557 380 8 0 324 4 0 0 0 0 0 130 16900 3 0 0 16 6011 0 0 454 3 0 440 0 11 0 0 0 0 130 16900 5 1 0 0 6012 1537 647 142 0 0 45 0 0 0 0 0 0 35 1225 1 0 0 0 6013 3988 1916 170 26 40 32 0 3 13 0 0 0 31 961 2 0 0 0 6014 272 118 314 0 101 123 0 4 16 790 0 0 127 16129 5 0 1 2 6015 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6016 1707 607 247 25 94 15 25 0 0 0 0 0 11 121 2 0 0 3 6017 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6018 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6019 2396 783 521 6 37 227 108 23 0 0 0 0 126 15876 14 0 0 7 6020 1046 343 164 3 54 30 10 0 0 1212 0 0 10 100 5 0 0 0 6021 2200 716 112 4 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 100 4 0 0 0 6022 653 215 183 3 90 25 5 0 0 605 0 0 10 100 4 0 1 0 6023 2490 1200 134 11 0 12 5 0 6 0 0 0 8 64 4 0 0 10 6024 1012 488 54 4 0 5 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6025 1036 499 57 5 0 5 3 0 3 0 0 0 3 9 4 0 0 0 6026 810 390 45 4 0 4 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 6027 1225 589 63 5 0 5 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6028 1359 701 445 15 49 275 22 0 8 0 0 0 72 5184 8 0 0 4 6029 1811 907 343 11 215 58 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 6030 3917 1174 220 0 0 0 0 0 75 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6031 0 0 394 1 275 20 0 0 72 1447 2851 0 7 49 6 0 1 4 6032 973 493 107 15 0 45 11 0 1 0 0 0 30 900 5 0 0 5 6033 974 494 28 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6034 974 494 118 15 0 14 22 11 1 0 0 0 10 100 4 0 1 15 6035 976 495 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6036 1358 505 410 0 137 0 10 127 104 1266 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 6037 294 109 90 0 30 0 2 28 22 274 0 0 2 4 0 0 0 0 6038 2007 612 105 5 7 37 5 0 0 0 0 0 36 1296 2 0 0 0 6039 1273 390 182 2 61 70 5 0 0 731 0 0 70 4900 2 0 0 0 6040 0 0 26 2 3 0 5 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 12 6041 0 0 25 2 5 0 2 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 13 4 6042 1327 406 70 2 9 5 2 0 0 0 0 0 10 100 0 0 0 0 6043 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6044 2299 766 84 0 0 2 5 2 5 0 0 0 8 64 1 0 0 3 6045 0 0 23 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 6046 2987 969 820 43 106 111 57 0 0 997 0 0 27 729 6 0 0 5 6047 0 0 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 6048 3261 987 137 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 36 5 0 0 3 6049 0 0 13 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 6050 1621 526 73 0 0 0 0 0 18 0 0 0 6 36 1 0 0 0 6051 1381 448 94 0 19 0 0 0 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 6052 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6053 0 0 323 97 0 47 162 0 8 421 0 0 12 144 3 0 85 0 6054 302 124 147 46 0 0 25 40 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 0 6055 11 3 23 15 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 6056 41 11 104 26 0 0 9 65 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 0 53 0 6057 0 0 105 35 0 0 35 31 0 0 0 0 0 0 39 0 0 1 6058 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6059 20 5 76 20 0 0 8 42 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 30 0 6060 0 0 61 2 0 0 2 35 21 0 0 0 30 900 0 0 1 0 6061 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6062 15 6 129 2 0 0 4 67 47 0 0 0 27 729 1 0 6 2 6063 3 1 17 0 0 0 0 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 6064 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6065 0 0 63 0 0 30 14 1 14 0 0 0 15 225 5 0 0 0 6066 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6067 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6068 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 6 36 0 1 0 2 6069 0 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 6 36 1 1 0 2 6070 0 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 6 36 1 0 0 3 6071 0 0 17 0 0 0 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 1 0 3 6072 0 0 204 0 0 67 59 76 1 0 0 0 8 64 150 0 0 3 6073 2909 846 229 0 96 2 6 2 3 1044 0 0 4 16 12 0 0 4 6074 2816 819 117 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 4 16 0 1 1 2 6075 2922 915 111 0 0 21 24 0 47 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 6076 4245 1325 163 0 0 31 35 0 69 0 0 0 7 49 1 0 0 2 6077 3031 932 118 0 0 1 4 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 6078 3072 944 121 0 0 2 4 1 3 0 0 0 12 144 5 0 2 4 6079 0 0 171 35 22 62 25 18 2 0 0 0 7 49 8 0 0 30 6080 1685 451 1364 612 157 9 381 130 18 0 173 3356 0 0 0 0 0 66 6081 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6082 762 264 1752 0 0 333 7 0 188 0 0 0 32 358 4 0 0 17 6083 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6084 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6085 280 95 77 0 0 0 15 0 46 0 0 0 7 49 0 0 0 2 6086 0 0 32 0 0 0 0 0 24 0 0 0 7 49 0 0 0 1

2018 TAZ Data ID TOTPOP TOTHH TOTALEMP EMP1 EMP2 EMP3 EMP4 EMP5 CONSTEMP KTO8ENROLL HSENROLL ENROLL RETAILE RETAILE_SQ WHOLESALEE MININGE FARME MANUFACTUR 6087 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6088 44 14 16 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 6089 5 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6090 0 0 69 0 0 0 17 9 41 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 2 6091 818 272 38 0 0 0 0 0 25 0 0 0 2 4 1 0 0 0 6092 316 106 40 0 0 0 0 1 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 6093 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 2 3 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 6094 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6095 0 0 275 0 0 0 12 250 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 213 6096 0 0 166 1 0 0 6 143 7 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 110 6097 0 0 97 0 0 0 0 46 29 0 0 0 31 961 1 0 0 0 6098 0 0 27 0 0 0 0 0 26 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6099 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6100 0 0 121 0 0 1 14 65 39 0 0 0 2 4 7 0 0 13 6101 5 2 101 1 0 0 14 44 39 0 0 0 1 1 6 0 0 12 6102 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6103 174 50 229 0 0 15 20 146 32 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 12 6104 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6105 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6106 0 0 34 0 0 0 2 11 21 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 6107 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6108 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6109 11 3 34 0 0 0 0 0 33 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6110 0 0 13 0 0 0 0 2 11 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 97889 36030 40028 5745 2131 13555 4860 3525 1590 11618 3112 5074 7426 5555812 1055 8 277 1384 Sum for 2018

2030 TAZ Data ID TOTPOP TOTHH TOTALEMP EMP1 EMP2 1454 2456 1044 791 170 213 1459 2990 1131 605 0 84 1473 2738 1296 70 0 0 1474 3533 1166 219 0 0 1484 833 315 2969 621 0 1485 1723 645 1552 1 36 1488 5 3 1481 0 0 1502 213 124 1879 6 0 1504 6339 2222 1210 10 129 1508 2777 886 514 7 48 1531 1105 473 4981 3709 0 1927 0 0 3172 271 139 1933 0 0 714 0 4 2785 0 0 3252 0 0 2796 0 0 804 0 0 2845 0 0 652 0 0 3182 2586 887 4145 38 15 6000 1698 760 988 291 39 6001 137 49 4243 2366 0 6002 179 89 1186 30 0 6003 170 66 3667 30 0 6004 509 287 794 115 0 6005 607 246 970 80 0 6006 0 0 1113 0 19 6007 295 286 996 0 0 6008 0 0 812 0 0 6009 0 0 1125 0 0 6010 1335 557 380 8 0 6011 0 0 454 3 0 6012 1537 647 142 0 0 6013 4191 2035 170 26 40 6014 832 385 2322 0 101 6015 1946 608 0 0 0 6016 2736 929 460 25 94 6017 0 0 651 0 0 6018 0 0 126 0 0 6019 2396 783 521 6 37 6020 1047 343 201 3 54 6021 2200 716 164 4 0 6022 827 269 306 3 90 6023 2490 1200 134 11 0 6024 1014 489 54 4 0 6025 1036 499 57 5 0 6026 902 444 93 4 0 6027 1490 672 63 5 0 6028 2450 1343 445 15 49 6029 1811 907 343 11 215 6030 4047 1215 230 0 0 6031 841 303 394 1 275 6032 973 493 107 15 0 6033 974 494 28 0 0 6034 974 494 193 15 0 6035 976 495 23 0 0 6036 1436 529 1365 0 137 6037 436 162 237 0 30 6038 2057 628 126 5 7 6039 1322 405 271 2 61 6040 5 2 934 2 3 6041 794 299 662 0 0 6042 1870 607 198 2 9 6043 0 0 1371 0 0 6044 2301 767 191 0 0 6045 0 0 612 0 0 6046 2987 969 820 43 106 6047 0 0 1531 0 0 6048 3389 1027 147 0 0 6049 0 0 2180 1 0 6050 1754 602 73 0 0 6051 1381 448 255 0 19 6052 0 0 14 0 0 6053 0 0 783 12 0 6054 302 124 1871 11 0 6055 628 251 457 15 0 6056 1340 510 551 26 0 6057 0 0 597 35 0 6058 1017 399 691 0 0 6059 1028 378 2690 20 0 6060 0 0 321 2 0 6061 0 0 892 0 0 6062 309 115 1028 2 0 6063 123 45 109 0 0 6064 0 0 1532 0 0 6065 0 0 733 0 0 6066 0 0 2127 0 0 6067 0 0 926 0 0 6068 1196 374 92 0 0 6069 2147 671 165 0 0 6070 3341 1044 253 0 0 6071 3476 1086 263 0 0 6072 612 285 585 0 0 6073 2909 846 229 0 96 6074 2816 819 117 0 0 6075 2922 915 111 0 0 6076 4245 1325 163 0 0 6077 3031 932 118 0 0 6078 3096 953 137 0 0 6079 0 0 326 35 22 6080 1685 451 1364 612 157 6081 0 0 207 0 0 6082 5088 1616 2145 0 0 6083 20 6 484 0 0 6084 27 8 2198 0 0 6085 3131 986 279 0 0 6086 2297 718 195 0 0 6087 2292 716 425 0 0 6088 325 109 16 0 0 6089 91 29 804 0 0 6090 0 0 323 0 0 6091 1278 416 40 0 0 6092 635 206 64 0 0

EMP3 EMP4 237 27 133 230 0 0 143 1 1721 178 1348 30 954 0 1318 0 733 13 363 48 510 761 2 525 17 102 960 0 0 0 0 0 73 548 183 126 205 34 954 65 3500 32 383 163 700 190 941 100 100 795 650 100 570 394 324 4 440 0 45 0 32 0 1393 0 0 0 228 25 349 0 68 0 227 108 67 10 67 0 148 5 12 5 5 2 5 3 4 50 5 2 275 22 58 0 10 0 20 0 45 11 0 0 89 22 0 0 139 10 110 2 58 5 130 5 445 5 460 0 73 2 1088 0 83 5 464 0 111 57 204 0 10 0 793 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 199 162 923 25 289 5 447 9 263 35 611 79 2021 8 139 2 86 0 520 4 92 0 1302 0 30 14 523 0 224 0 85 0 152 0 237 0 246 0 448 59 2 6 0 0 21 24 31 35 1 4 18 4 189 25 9 381 0 0 726 7 86 0 481 0 202 15 163 0 422 0 0 0 66 0 31 17 2 0 24 0

EMP5 CONSTEMP KTO8ENROLL HSENROLL ENROLL RETAILE RETAILE_SQ WHOLESALEE MININGE FARME MANUFACTUR 4 0 2277 27 0 178 31684 6 0 0 5 0 0 778 0 0 92 12368 14 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 6 36 2 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 111 41302 1 0 0 4 389 2 0 0 0 1670 667343 367 0 0 1 20 0 0 0 0 1147 958964 5 0 0 35 514 1 0 0 0 624 253927 515 0 0 0 555 0 0 0 0 1318 562670 555 0 0 0 3 1 1155 0 0 363 122161 14 0 0 7 0 35 798 88 0 178 74489 2 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 510 217643 1 0 0 0 2235 0 0 0 0 2 854 2235 0 0 0 542 49 0 0 0 17 7255 542 0 0 0 2292 0 0 0 0 960 409705 2292 0 0 0 804 0 0 0 0 0 0 804 0 0 0 652 0 0 0 0 0 0 652 0 0 0 3379 20 224 0 0 69 27676 3142 0 0 13 275 5 0 0 0 40 30908 185 0 0 0 1523 9 0 0 2093 5 2144 1431 0 0 16 67 1 0 0 0 773 558696 77 0 0 10 10 0 0 0 0 1721 2961841 42 0 0 23 45 0 0 0 0 26 676 79 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 240 57600 55 0 0 0 23 0 0 0 0 562 315844 17 0 0 10 53 2 0 0 0 461 212521 45 0 0 60 33 0 0 0 0 361 130321 28 0 0 10 113 0 0 0 0 536 244488 92 0 0 60 0 0 0 0 0 130 16900 3 0 0 16 11 0 0 0 0 130 16900 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 35 1225 1 0 0 0 3 13 0 0 0 31 961 2 0 0 0 743 16 932 5 0 1397 558120 744 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 224 90976 2 0 0 3 302 0 0 0 0 349 148776 302 0 0 0 59 0 0 0 0 68 28819 59 0 0 0 23 0 0 0 0 126 15876 14 0 0 7 0 0 1275 0 0 47 16057 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 62 22206 4 0 0 0 0 0 747 0 0 133 52607 4 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 8 64 4 0 0 10 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 3 9 4 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 16182 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 72 5184 8 0 0 4 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 75 0 0 0 10 4099 0 0 0 0 0 72 1607 3023 0 7 49 6 0 0 4 0 1 0 0 0 30 900 5 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 1 0 0 0 85 32285 4 0 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 944 104 1300 0 0 139 59390 818 0 0 0 65 22 292 0 0 112 46951 37 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 57 10230 2 0 0 0 29 0 815 0 0 130 30293 31 0 0 0 469 0 0 0 0 445 190069 465 0 0 12 201 0 0 0 0 460 196470 201 0 0 0 59 0 0 0 0 78 29248 59 0 0 0 283 0 0 0 0 1088 464411 283 0 0 0 28 5 0 0 0 89 34631 27 0 0 3 125 5 0 0 0 464 198025 125 0 0 0 0 0 1110 0 0 27 729 6 0 0 5 1300 0 0 0 0 204 87257 1300 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 4126 5 0 0 3 1375 0 0 0 0 792 338189 1375 0 0 0 0 18 0 0 0 6 36 1 0 0 0 161 30 0 0 0 0 0 161 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 307 8 471 0 0 164 65164 310 0 0 0 820 18 0 0 0 923 393896 801 0 0 0 145 0 500 0 0 289 123428 151 0 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 447 190626 30 0 0 0 259 0 0 0 0 263 112403 267 0 0 1 1 0 0 250 0 611 287450 1 0 0 0 604 0 0 0 0 2021 862461 603 0 0 0 156 21 0 0 0 169 60285 121 0 0 0 806 0 0 0 0 86 36633 806 0 0 0 439 47 0 0 0 547 222589 380 0 0 2 0 16 0 0 0 92 39289 1 0 0 0 229 0 0 0 0 1302 741037 229 0 0 0 671 14 0 0 0 15 250 675 0 0 0 1605 0 0 0 0 523 223002 1605 0 0 0 702 0 0 0 0 224 95545 702 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 91 36226 0 0 0 2 0 9 0 0 0 158 64975 1 0 0 2 0 11 0 0 0 243 101109 1 0 0 3 16 0 0 0 0 246 105161 5 0 0 3 76 1 0 0 0 389 162666 150 0 0 3 2 3 1092 0 0 4 16 12 0 0 4 0 2 0 0 0 4 16 0 0 0 2 0 47 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 69 0 0 0 7 49 1 0 0 2 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 28 6895 5 0 0 4 46 2 0 0 0 134 54219 36 0 0 30 130 18 0 173 4087 0 0 0 0 0 66 207 0 0 0 0 0 0 207 0 0 0 0 188 619 381 0 425 168028 4 0 0 17 398 0 0 0 0 86 36732 398 0 0 0 1717 0 0 0 0 481 205301 1717 0 0 0 0 46 0 0 0 209 86277 0 0 0 2 0 24 1339 661 0 170 69529 0 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 422 180117 3 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 738 0 0 0 0 66 28172 738 0 0 0 232 41 0 0 0 32 13245 224 0 0 2 0 25 0 0 0 4 1046 1 0 0 0 1 25 0 0 0 24 10166 0 0 0 2

2030 TAZ Data ID TOTPOP TOTHH TOTALEMP EMP1 EMP2 EMP3 EMP4 6093 868 321 445 0 0 219 0 6094 946 296 195 0 0 0 0 6095 0 0 682 0 0 123 12 6096 0 0 495 1 0 11 6 6097 0 0 1914 0 0 0 0 6098 0 0 924 0 0 0 0 6099 0 0 2229 0 0 372 0 6100 0 0 861 0 0 1 14 6101 5 2 986 1 0 0 14 6102 0 0 2193 0 0 150 0 6103 174 50 1694 0 0 49 122 6104 0 0 834 0 0 206 0 6105 0 0 1944 0 0 0 0 6106 0 0 1379 0 0 0 2 6107 0 0 1108 0 0 0 0 6108 0 0 1109 0 0 0 0 6109 11 3 1096 0 0 0 0 6110 33 12 1110 0 0 0 0 143094 51757 111561 8736 2328 37224 5913 45205 15727 71533 2991 197 23669 1053

EMP5 CONSTEMP KTO8ENROLL HSENROLL ENROLL RETAILE RETAILE_SQ WHOLESALEE MININGE FARME MANUFACTUR 222 3 0 0 0 220 93541 220 0 0 0 192 3 0 0 0 0 0 192 0 0 0 534 6 0 0 0 123 52334 199 0 0 298 461 7 0 0 0 11 4568 320 0 0 110 1863 29 0 0 0 31 961 1818 0 0 0 897 26 0 0 0 0 0 897 0 0 0 1857 0 0 0 0 372 158840 1857 0 0 0 805 39 0 0 0 2 4 747 0 0 13 929 39 0 0 0 1 1 891 0 0 12 2043 0 0 0 0 150 64146 2043 0 0 0 1476 32 0 0 0 34 47974 1337 0 0 12 622 6 0 0 0 206 88048 622 0 0 0 1930 14 0 0 0 0 0 1930 0 0 0 1356 21 0 0 0 1 1 1345 0 0 0 1108 0 0 0 0 0 0 1108 0 0 0 1109 0 0 0 0 0 0 1109 0 0 0 1062 33 0 0 0 0 0 1062 0 0 0 1099 11 0 0 0 1 1 1097 0 0 0 49612 1443 17331 4608 6180 31076 15915789 48259 0 0 954 Sum for 2030 46087 -147 5713 1496 1106 23650 10359977 47204 -8 -277 -430 Comparison 2030-2018

2040 TAZ Data ID TOTPOP TOTHH TOTALEMP EMP1 EMP2 EMP3 EMP4 EMP5 CONSTEMP KTO8ENROLL HSENROLL ENROLL RETAILE RETAILE_SQ WHOLESALEE MININGE FARME MANUFACTUR 1454 2517 1067 791 170 213 242 27 4 0 2715 230 0 178 31684 6 0 0 5 1459 2990 1131 610 0 84 138 230 0 0 778 0 0 97 14515 14 0 0 3 1473 2738 1296 70 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 36 2 0 0 5 1474 3533 1166 219 0 0 143 1 0 0 0 0 0 111 41302 1 0 0 4 1484 833 315 3568 621 0 2202 178 507 2 0 0 0 2151 872615 485 0 0 1 1485 1723 646 1624 1 36 1420 30 20 0 0 0 0 1219 989699 5 0 0 35 1488 5 3 6200 0 0 3481 0 2706 1 0 0 0 3151 1332361 2707 0 0 0 1502 839 492 5626 6 0 3956 0 1664 0 0 0 0 3956 1688012 1664 0 0 0 1504 6339 2222 1222 10 129 745 13 3 1 1155 0 0 375 127238 14 0 0 7 1508 3598 1143 572 7 48 421 48 0 35 2072 623 0 236 99316 2 0 0 1 1531 1128 482 5185 3741 0 682 761 1 0 0 0 0 682 291044 1 0 0 0 1927 0 0 3511 272 139 2 533 2565 0 0 0 0 2 854 2565 0 0 0 1933 0 0 673 0 4 20 97 552 0 0 0 0 20 8535 552 0 0 0 2785 0 0 4888 0 0 1446 0 3442 0 0 0 0 1446 616943 3442 0 0 0 2796 0 0 1608 0 0 0 0 1608 0 0 0 0 0 0 1608 0 0 0 2845 0 0 1304 0 0 0 0 1304 0 0 0 0 0 0 1304 0 0 0 3182 2586 887 7269 38 15 73 548 6502 20 224 0 0 69 27676 6265 0 0 13 6000 1698 760 1076 291 39 193 144 334 5 0 0 0 50 41170 244 0 0 0 6001 176 62 4720 2366 0 207 34 1998 9 0 0 2380 7 2858 1906 0 0 16 6002 179 89 1218 30 0 967 65 87 1 0 0 0 786 563872 97 0 0 10 6003 170 66 3667 30 0 3500 32 10 0 0 0 0 1721 2961841 42 0 0 23 6004 509 287 808 115 0 383 163 59 0 0 0 0 26 676 93 0 0 2 6005 607 246 970 80 0 700 190 0 0 0 0 0 240 57600 55 0 0 0 6006 0 0 1113 0 19 941 100 23 0 0 0 0 562 315844 17 0 0 10 6007 295 286 1005 0 0 100 795 62 2 0 0 0 461 212521 54 0 0 60 6008 0 0 816 0 0 650 100 37 0 0 0 0 361 130321 32 0 0 10 6009 0 0 1175 0 0 595 394 137 0 0 0 0 561 255144 116 0 0 60 6010 1335 557 380 8 0 324 4 0 0 0 0 0 130 16900 3 0 0 16 6011 0 0 454 3 0 440 0 11 0 0 0 0 130 16900 5 0 0 0 6012 1537 647 142 0 0 45 0 0 0 0 0 0 35 1225 1 0 0 0 6013 4258 2075 170 26 40 32 0 3 13 0 0 0 31 961 2 0 0 0 6014 1019 474 2992 0 101 1816 0 989 16 932 5 0 1820 738783 990 0 0 2 6015 2595 811 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6016 3079 1036 531 25 94 299 25 0 0 0 0 0 295 121261 2 0 0 3 6017 0 0 3427 0 0 1835 0 1592 0 0 0 0 1835 783032 1592 0 0 0 6018 0 0 664 0 0 355 0 308 0 0 0 0 355 151680 308 0 0 0 6019 2396 783 521 6 37 227 108 23 0 0 0 0 126 15876 14 0 0 7 6020 1048 344 214 3 54 80 10 0 0 1300 0 0 60 21375 5 0 0 0 6021 2200 716 181 4 0 84 0 0 0 0 0 0 79 29574 4 0 0 0 6022 885 287 347 3 90 189 5 0 0 817 0 0 174 70110 4 0 0 0 6023 2490 1200 134 11 0 12 5 0 6 0 0 0 8 64 4 0 0 10 6024 1014 489 54 4 0 5 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6025 1036 499 57 5 0 5 3 0 3 0 0 0 3 9 4 0 0 0 6026 902 444 93 4 0 4 50 0 2 0 0 0 0 16182 0 0 0 0 6027 1490 672 63 5 0 5 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6028 2813 1556 445 15 49 275 22 0 8 0 0 0 72 5184 8 0 0 4 6029 1811 907 343 11 215 58 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 6030 4091 1228 233 0 0 13 0 0 75 0 0 0 13 5465 0 0 0 0 6031 1122 404 394 1 275 20 0 0 72 1676 3105 0 7 49 6 0 0 4 6032 973 493 107 15 0 45 11 0 1 0 0 0 30 900 5 0 0 5 6033 974 494 28 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6034 974 494 369 15 0 265 22 11 1 0 0 0 261 107385 4 0 0 15 6035 976 495 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6036 1668 602 2165 0 137 186 10 1697 104 1302 0 0 186 79187 1634 0 0 0 6037 862 319 677 0 30 440 2 175 22 300 0 0 442 187792 147 0 0 0 6038 2115 646 133 5 7 65 5 0 0 0 0 0 64 13208 2 0 0 0 6039 1380 424 345 2 61 169 5 64 0 856 0 0 169 47317 66 0 0 0 6040 11 4 2001 2 3 968 5 1012 0 0 0 0 968 413194 1008 0 0 12 6041 1726 649 1464 2 5 1001 2 444 0 0 0 0 1001 427108 440 0 0 4 6042 1870 607 347 2 9 153 2 129 0 0 0 0 158 63466 129 0 0 0 6043 0 0 2981 0 0 2366 0 615 0 0 0 0 2366 1009590 615 0 0 0 6044 2309 770 514 0 0 326 5 108 5 0 0 0 332 138331 107 0 0 3 6045 0 0 2378 0 0 1856 0 499 5 0 0 0 1856 792101 499 0 0 0 6046 2987 969 820 43 106 111 57 0 0 1145 0 0 27 729 6 0 0 5 6047 0 0 2533 0 0 341 0 2166 0 0 0 0 341 145428 2166 0 0 0 6048 3432 1041 150 0 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 5489 5 0 0 3 6049 0 0 2965 1 0 661 1 2292 0 0 0 0 661 281825 2292 0 0 0 6050 2063 779 73 0 0 0 0 0 18 0 0 0 6 36 1 0 0 0 6051 1381 448 631 0 19 0 0 537 30 0 0 0 0 0 537 0 0 5 6052 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6053 0 0 2161 12 0 656 162 1229 8 499 0 0 621 260223 1232 0 0 0 6054 302 124 3585 11 0 1846 25 1611 18 0 0 0 1846 787792 1602 0 0 0 6055 1352 541 967 15 0 629 5 316 0 1000 0 0 629 268322 322 0 0 0 6056 2866 1096 1075 26 0 971 9 12 0 0 0 0 971 414405 30 0 0 0 6057 0 0 1174 35 0 573 35 528 0 0 0 0 573 244354 536 0 0 1 6058 2212 868 1503 0 0 1328 173 2 0 0 500 0 1328 624890 2 0 0 0 6059 2212 817 4345 20 0 3301 8 980 0 0 0 0 3301 1408580 979 0 0 0 6060 0 0 832 2 0 418 2 389 21 0 0 0 440 178830 362 0 0 0 6061 0 0 2677 0 0 257 0 2419 0 0 0 0 257 109898 2419 0 0 0 6062 1190 441 2810 2 0 1560 4 1182 47 0 0 0 1580 666127 1137 0 0 2 6063 482 179 293 0 0 276 0 0 16 0 0 0 276 117866 1 0 0 0 6064 0 0 1532 0 0 1302 0 229 0 0 0 0 1302 555778 229 0 0 0 6065 0 0 1738 0 0 30 14 1006 14 0 0 0 23 188 1009 0 0 0 6066 0 0 3192 0 0 784 0 2407 0 0 0 0 784 334503 2407 0 0 0 6067 0 0 1388 0 0 336 0 1052 0 0 0 0 336 143318 1052 0 0 0 6068 1595 498 120 0 0 113 0 0 5 0 0 0 119 48290 0 0 0 2 6069 2862 894 216 0 0 203 0 0 9 0 0 0 209 86621 1 0 0 2 6070 4455 1392 332 0 0 316 0 0 11 0 0 0 322 134800 1 0 0 3 6071 4635 1449 346 0 0 329 0 16 0 0 0 0 329 140215 5 0 0 3 6072 2404 845 712 0 0 575 59 76 1 0 0 0 516 216866 150 0 0 3 6073 2909 846 229 0 96 2 6 2 3 1092 0 0 4 16 12 0 0 4 6074 2816 819 117 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 4 16 0 0 0 2 6075 2922 915 111 0 0 21 24 0 47 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 6076 4245 1325 163 0 0 31 35 0 69 0 0 0 7 49 1 0 0 2 6077 3031 932 118 0 0 1 4 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 6078 3193 989 200 0 0 81 4 1 3 0 0 0 91 33900 5 0 0 4 6079 0 0 326 35 22 189 25 46 2 0 0 0 134 54219 36 0 0 30 6080 1685 451 1364 612 157 9 381 130 18 0 173 4644 0 0 0 0 0 66 6081 0 0 413 0 0 0 0 413 0 0 0 0 0 0 413 0 0 0 6082 6169 1954 2243 0 0 824 7 0 188 1296 704 0 523 209946 4 0 0 17 6083 101 32 2422 0 0 430 0 1991 0 0 0 0 430 183661 1991 0 0 0 6084 135 42 5496 0 0 1203 0 4293 0 0 0 0 1203 513253 4293 0 0 0 6085 3843 1208 330 0 0 253 15 0 46 0 0 0 260 107836 0 0 0 2 6086 2871 897 236 0 0 204 0 0 24 2036 964 0 211 86900 0 0 0 1 6087 2865 895 533 0 0 528 0 5 0 0 0 0 528 225299 5 0 0 0 6088 512 172 16 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 6089 436 137 4020 0 0 330 0 3690 0 0 0 0 330 140860 3690 0 0 0 6090 0 0 1340 0 0 155 17 1124 41 0 0 0 156 66221 1116 0 0 2 6091 3118 991 50 0 0 12 0 0 25 0 0 0 14 5204 1 0 0 0 6092 1912 605 159 0 0 119 0 1 25 0 0 0 119 50830 0 0 0 2 6093 1446 535 738 0 0 365 0 369 3 0 0 0 366 155902 367 0 0 0 6094 1577 493 323 0 0 0 0 320 3 0 0 0 0 0 320 0 0 0 6095 0 0 2037 0 0 341 12 1670 6 0 0 0 341 145574 997 0 0 636 6096 0 0 1809 1 0 54 6 1733 7 0 0 0 54 22841 1592 0 0 110 6097 0 0 3731 0 0 0 0 3680 29 0 0 0 31 961 3635 0 0 0 6098 0 0 2258 0 0 0 0 2231 26 0 0 0 0 0 2231 0 0 0 6099 0 0 5574 0 0 931 0 4643 0 0 0 0 931 397100 4643 0 0 0 6100 0 0 1972 0 0 1 14 1916 39 0 0 0 2 4 1858 0 0 13

2040 TAZ Data ID TOTPOP TOTHH TOTALEMP EMP1 EMP2 EMP3 EMP4 EMP5 CONSTEMP KTO8ENROLL HSENROLL ENROLL RETAILE RETAILE_SQ WHOLESALEE MININGE FARME MANUFACTUR 6101 5 2 2314 1 0 0 14 2257 39 0 0 0 1 1 2219 0 0 12 6102 0 0 5483 0 0 376 0 5107 0 0 0 0 376 160366 5107 0 0 0 6103 174 50 3888 0 0 95 275 3471 32 0 0 0 80 119936 3332 0 0 12 6104 0 0 1662 0 0 413 0 1243 6 0 0 0 413 176096 1243 0 0 0 6105 0 0 3875 0 0 0 0 3861 14 0 0 0 0 0 3861 0 0 0 6106 0 0 2724 0 0 0 2 2701 21 0 0 0 1 1 2690 0 0 0 6107 0 0 2215 0 0 0 0 2215 0 0 0 0 0 0 2215 0 0 0 6108 0 0 2219 0 0 0 0 2219 0 0 0 0 0 0 2219 0 0 0 6109 11 3 2159 0 0 0 0 2125 33 0 0 0 0 0 2125 0 0 0 6110 66 24 2206 0 0 0 0 2195 11 0 0 0 1 1 2193 0 0 0 167894 60470 192136 8771 2333 61067 6183 105407 1394 21195 6304 7024 54908 25990253 103806 0 0 1296 Sum for 2040 70005 24440 152108 3026 202 47512 1323 101882 -196 9577 3192 1950 47482 20434441 102751 -8 -277 -88 Comparison 2040-2018

Southeast Mesa Land Use and Transportation Plan

Appendix 4: LOS Maps

Final Report

1, 85

3 (0. 03)

8,418 (0.47)

0 (0)

BASELINE RD

2018 Baseline Bi-directional Level of Service

Legend Study Area

Canal

Railroad

GUADALUPE RD

Major Street C+

ELLIOT RD

2 (0)

6,064 (0.11) 28 (0)

11 (0)

0 (0)

WARNER RD

Daily Traffic Volume (Volume-to-Capacity Ratio)

1 (0)

7 (0)

5,233 (0.1) 4 (0) 3,155 (0.11) 353 (0.01) 491 (0.03) 1,207 (0.08)

Airport

2018 Level of Service

116 (0.01) 120 (0.01)

55 (0)

MERIDIAN RD

SIGNAL BUTTE RD

2,231 (0.13)

8,993 (0.25)

961 (0.07)

1,840 (0.06)

3,272 (0.18)

CRISMON RD

34,688 (0.98)

5,390 (0.3)

3,284 (0.18)

v I

5,517 (0.31)

20,802 (0.47)

16,898 (0.32) 15,757 (0.44) 23,185 (0.43) 12,204 (0.23) 0 (0) 3,459 (0.19) 16,243 (0.3) 15,194 (0.43) (0.39) 13,960 (0.33) 17,582 5,077 (0.29) 5,749 (0.11) 117 (0.01)

7,801 (0.15) 11,213 (0.32) 0 (0)

8,868 (0.25) 32,943 (0.74)

ELLSWORTH RD 32,943 (0.93)

7,714 (0.53)

7,212 (0.41)

0 (0)

HAWES RD

15,475 (0.87) 14,540 (0.82)

9,227 (0.26)

(0) 53(0. 69 12,2 )

327 (0.02) 265 (0.01)

30,767 (0.55) 29,586 (0.4)

1,333 (0.07) 1,875 (0.11)

10 (0)

1 (0)

1,009 (0.06) 3,823 (0.21) 3,503 (0.1)

7) 0 (0) 49(0.2

16,708 (0.31)

8, 9 73 (0. 41 ) 21,265 (0.38)

4,721 (0.32)

6, 1 29 (0 9,632 (0.27) . 17)

1,148 (0.08)

20,268 (0.38)

7) 26,145 (0.49)

9, 5

SOSSAMAN RD

1,585 (0.09) 8,170 (0.46)

)

Phoenix Mesa Gateway Airport

. (0

28,642 (0.54)

(0) 11,774 (0.22) 10,662 (0.2) 13,097 (0.25) 11,890 (0.22) (0) 0 (0) 76 (0 .0 1 28

(0.26) (0.02) 363

) 16,004 (0. 6

POWER RD

1) 0.1 2( 3 3,3

) .07 2 (0 6 9 1, ) (0

3,954 (0.14)

24 Ð ?

7, 084

10,393 (0 . 58 )

402 (0.03)

1 9,10

3, 5 45 (0.2)

17,504 (0.33) 17,013 (0.32)

(0) 15

) .28 10,108 (0

17,514 (0.33)

9) .2 (0 10,389 659 (0.04)

0 (0) 21,919 (0.39) 5,858 (0.53)

12, 5 36 (0 .4

RECKER RD

HIGLEY RD 32, 378(0.

GREENFIELD RD

61 )

203

6) (0. 3 6,496 ) 0. 38 21,281 (

ð ?

14,819 (0.28) 9,248 (0.17) 11,737 (0.22) 10,392 (0.19)

(0)

18,311 (0.51) 19,918 (0.56) 20,066 (0.56) 18,289 (0.51)

4,915 (0.28) 4,228 (0.24)

(0.01)295 (0.02) 429 (0.03)

33,645 (0.94)

SOUTHERN AVE

) . 03 371 (0

8,807 (0.5) 6,115 (0.34)

31,875 (0.34) 32,941 (0.44)

11,053 (0.21) 11,015 (0.21) 12,485 (0.23) 15,702 (0.29)

9,912 (0.56)

34,767 (0.62)

8,175 (0.23) 8,290 (0.19) 11,913 (0.22) 10,315 (0.23) 5,962 (0.11) 9,091 (0.17)

9) 2,042 (0.1

0 (0)

7,311 (0.16)

8,260 (0.31)

21,825 (0.39) 8,447 (0.47) 9,488 (0.53) 35,954 (0.39)

4) 2,031 (0. 1

19,501 (0.89)

20,796 (0.58)

(0)

9 (0)

0 (0)

2,658 (0.07) 4,168 (0.12)

1,463 (0.05)

14)

14,657 (1.33) 12,167 (0.68) 59,421 (0.64) 11,594 (0.65) 66,804 (0.72) 63,474 (0.68) 53,210 (0.57) 5,00 7 (0 .17) 10,591 (0.2) (0.49) 17,404 23,073 (0.43) ) 0 (0 10,084 (0.19) 17,669 (0.33) 17,462 (0.33)

11,889 (0.33)

20,252 (0.57)

15,139 (0.28)

14,421 (0.41)

21,405 (0.6)

6,511 (0.12) 19,907 (0.37)

4,159 (0.

13,796 (0.39) 8,887 (0.17) 12,087 (0.23)

2018 Southeast Mesa Land Use and Transportation Plan

1,666 (0.09) 11 (0) 10,133 (0.57) 1,743 (0.1) 1,599 (0.09) 1,578 (0.09)

RAY RD

WILLIAMS FIELD RD

PECOS RD 0

0.5

² 1

Miles

GERMANN RD

23,286 (0.44) 22,353 (0.42)

7 (0)

0 (0)

10,769 (0.61)

1,331 (0.07) 1,423 (0.08) 1,173 (0.07)

26,684 (0.75)

23,476 (0.66) 25,584 (0.72)

28,318 (0.53)

(0.06)

1,287 (0.04) 8,167 (0.56) 9,054 (0.62) 4,062 (0.14)

1,083

478 (0.03)

Airport Canal

Railroad

Major Street C+

ELLIOT RD

D E F

WARNER RD

Daily Traffic Volume (Volume-to-Capacity Ratio)

RAY RD

WILLIAMS FIELD RD

5,379 (0.37)

24,787 (0.7)

15,136 (0.85)

MERIDIAN RD

7,546 (0.42)

24,407 (1.37)

4,371 (0.25)

Study Area

2030 Level of Service

7,028 (0.13) 1,636 (0.03)

14,371 (0.81) 17,986 (0.34) 20,315 (0.38) 18,114 (1.02) 14,262 (0.8)

0 (0)

13,223 (0.74) 12,463 (0.7)

Legend

GUADALUPE RD

0 (0)

5,757 (0.11) 5,726 (0.21)

SIGNAL BUTTE RD

12,586 (0.43)

1 (0. 04)

19,505 (0.55) 20,651 (0.58)

9,337 (0.53)

4,732 (0.27)

17,272 (0.39)

18,721 (0.35)

0 (0)

5,049 (0.17)

42,584 (0.96) 43,586 (0.98)

45,575 (1.28)

ELLSWORTH RD

24 Â ?

17,787 (1) 13,304 (0.75) 15,370 (0.86)

34,719 (0.98)

HAWES RD

18,500 (1.04)

SOSSAMAN RD

(0 .8 5)

CRISMON RD

77 )

(0 .

( 699 0. 36 12, )

(0. 24 )

BASELINE RD

2030 Baseline Bi-directional Level of Service

8,173 (0.46)

8,123 (0.56)

19,708 (0.55)

0 (0)

)

14,455 (0.81) 11,656 (0.66)

2, 03

19,242 (0.36)

41,545 (1.17) 27,882 (0.78)

15,122 (0.85)

14,845 (0.83)

6,619 (0.19)

11,952 (0.67) 7,902 (0.44) 9,433 (0.53)

13,376 (0.38)

17,303 (0.31) 14,211 (0.65)

5,936 (0.17) 7,270 (0.2)

3,950 (0.27)

0.3 )

10, 695 ( 13,373 (0.75) 13,203 (0.37) 9,768 (0.55) 14,946 (0.84)

1,839 (0.13) 70 (0)

751 (0.03)

33,901 (0.54)

1,300 (0.09)

49,460 (0.93) 37,762 (0.71)

21,245 (0.4) 16,260 (0.3)

17,829 (1)

9) .2 (0

Phoenix Mesa Gateway Airport

(0)

81 7,0

7 24 4,

17,459 (0.98)

24 Ð ?

) .22 9 (0 7 2 6,

6) .8 (0 00 1 ,7 7 30 0, 3 3

7 (0.64)

601

7) (0.4 (0)

42,895 (0.8)

11 , 40

14 ,3 23 12 (0 )

7,064 (0.24)

7) 0. 4 6,907 (

16,

17,649 (0.99)

POWER RD

RECKER RD

HIGLEY RD 31, 184(0.

26,785 (0.5) 28,118 (0.53)

26,167 (0.49)

34,602 (0.65) 34,497 (0.65) 31,736 (0.59)

12,985 (0.73)

12,980 (0.73) 2) .4 (0 79 ,7 14

) 24,069 (0. 9

18, 2 80 (0 .6

61 ) 5,4 . 86 0 ( 6 638 15, 40 13, (0.73) 13,010

14,682 (1.01) 5)

) . 32 (0 10 9, 3 89 9) (0. 4

.2 (0

6,367 (0.18) 7,836 (0.22)

17,503 (0.33) 21,728 (0.41) 0 (0)

ð ?

v I

SOUTHERN AVE

) . 02 360 (0

40,798 (0.76)

.47) 13,660 (0 0 (0)

0 (0)

11,612 (0.8) 7,300 (0.5)

19,543 (0.37) 11,320 (0.21) 14,118 (0.26) 11,951 (0.22)

08) 1,152 (0.

8,200 (0.46)

29,638 (0.83)

10,400 (0.23) 11,610 (0.22) 14,442 (0.32) 7,148 (0.13) 9,422 (0.18)

0 (0)

20,360 (1.14)

19,233 (0.36) 21,542 (0.4)

370 (0.02) 398 (0.02) 42,664 (0.46)

7,920 (0.18)

) (0.6 44,649 (0.6)

17,889 (0.34)

0 (0)

8,677 (0.33)

166 56,

5) 2,252 (0. 1

28 (0)

17,757 (0.81) 11,412 (0. 32)

22,297 (0.63)

(0)

GREENFIELD RD

58 )

11,112 (0.62) 6,08 2 (0 .21) 10,602 (0.2) (0.56) 19,794 22,399 (0.42) ) 0 (0 19,010 (0.36) 19,590 (0.37) ) (0.31 6,843

12,723 (0.36) 13,776 (0.31) 10,617 (0.3)

24,059 (0.68)

60,205 (0.65) 62,090 (0.67)

0 (0)

24,184 (0.68)

13)

13,837 (1.26) 11,697 (0.66)

6,049 (0.11)

3,909 (0.

13,474 (0.38) 8,076 (0.15) 11,647 (0.22) 13,474 (0.25)

2018 Southeast Mesa Land Use and Transportation Plan

5,821 (0.33) 6,397 (0.36)

PECOS RD 0

0.5

² 1

Miles

GERMANN RD

29,040 (1.63)

9,625 (0.54)

Study Area Airport Canal

Railroad

GUADALUPE RD

Major Street

11,193 (0.63) 10,579 (0.59) 11,477 (0.65) 12,336 (0.69)

12,045 (0.23) 17,064 (0.32)

1,893 (0.11)

C+

ELLIOT RD

D E

WARNER RD

Daily Traffic Volume (Volume-to-Capacity Ratio)

RAY RD

WILLIAMS FIELD RD

23,060 (0.65)

15,859 (0.45)

16,650 (0.94)

MERIDIAN RD

13,224 (0.74)

19,382 (1.09) 19,401 (1.09)

20,777 (1.17)

Legend

2040 Level of Service

30,621 (1.72)

SIGNAL BUTTE RD

15,073 (0.85)

BASELINE RD

2040 Baseline Bi-directional Level of Service

0 (0)

1,242 (0.04) 3,436 (0.12) 14,248 (0.98) 13,137 (0.9) 1,228 (0.04) 16,555 (1.14) 4,983 (0.17)

35,534 (0.67)

(0.04)

20,925 (0.59) 20,051 (0.56)

20,116 (1.13)

CRISMON RD

13,449 (0.76)

92 5

8,912 (0.17) 29,031 (0.54) 30,474 (0.57) 18,976 (1.07)

0 (0 )

34, 9 46 (0 . 98)

24 Â ?

32,131 (1.81) 28,189 (1.59)

51,744 (1.45)

10 , 47 6

15,189 (0.85)

14,493 (0.33)

29,979 (0.56) 39,941 (1.12) 28,953 (0.54) 36,199 (1.02) 38,680 (1.09)

0 (0)

20,472 (0.7)

6,285 (0.22)

66,132 (1.49) 60,942 (1.37) 69,589 (1.3)

ELLSWORTH RD 66,632 (1.87)

HAWES RD

15,371 (0.43)

30,991 (0.58)

55,820 (1.57)

(0 .8

0 (0)

SOSSAMAN RD

22,870 (0.43)

18 , 08 5

15,765 (0.89) 16,076 (0.9) 22,437 (1.02)

(0. 8)

4,093 (0.28) 3,346 (0.23)

39,770 (1.12) 46,040 (1.29)

3,188 (0.22)

9,486 (0.27) 23,743 (1.34) 15,424 (0.87) 10,558 (0.3) 10,927 (0.31) 16,928 (0.95)

786 (0.03)

2,977 (0.2) 15, 118 24,989 (1.41) 27,379 (0.77) (0. 43) 28,292 (0.8) 27,357 (1.54)

21,693 (1.22)

15,514 (1.07)

59 )

35,478 (0.57)

1,771 (0.12)

RECKER RD

28,270 (0.53)

31,108 (0.58)

30,707 (0.58)

47,148 (0.88) 43,532 (0.82)

52,050 (0.98) 52,181 (0.98)

POWER RD

2) .7 (0 ) (0 0

25, 6 65 (0 .9

) 56

0 (0)

SOUTHERN AVE

) . 03 441 (0

0 (0)

22,657 (1.27) 21,652 (1.22)

3) (0. (0. 7 294 16,

27,183 (0.51)

v I

7,907 (0.22) 9,422 (0.26)

(0 .0 4) 22,189 (0.42) 29,284 (0.55)

6) .9 (0

26,781 (1.51)

8,694 (0.3)

5) .6 (0

Phoenix Mesa Gateway Airport

16 )

28 ,1 34

1 51 9,

7 (0.72) ,48 25

(0.7) 10,148

63,047 (1.18)

33)

24 Ð ?

) .33 4 (0 5 5 9, 9) (0.3 22 3 , 11

9 07

(0.84)

) 33,111 (1.24

4) 3,467 (0. 2 6,479 (0.45)

23,697 (1 .

9) .8 (0 12, 983

43 30, 0

18 ,43 0 (1.04)

(0 .

(0. 11 13,167 (0.74) )

0) 21, 25 116 ( 8 02 4, 6

35 2,4

5 19 4, 1 ) . 96 5 (0 434 17, 03 14, (0.83) 14,830

13,210 (0.74)

32,130 (0.9)

28,300 (0.53) 35,280 (0.66)

.73) 21, 141 (0 14 (0)

15,029 (1.03)

ð ?

58,548 (1.1)

13,171 (0.74)

33,253 (0.6)

26,714 (0.5) 18,845 (0.35) 19,880 (0.37) 19,706 (0.37)

(0.91)

26,447 (0.5)

28,653 (0.54) 28,100 (0.53)

9,158 (0.34)

11,808 (0.27)

15,965 (0.36) 17,079 (0.32) 19,585 (0.55) 12,912 (0.24) 16,154 (0.3)

47 16, 2

HIGLEY RD 31,231(0.

23,088 (0.65)

6) 2,376 (0. 1

0) 28 (

340 (0.02) 45,874 (0.49) (0.51)

12,481 (0.57)

) .89 15,798 (0

10,515 (0.2) 23,595 (0.66) 23,398 (0.44) 0 (0) 13,109 (0.25) 20,721 (0.39) 23,065 (0.43) 4) 2,038 (0. 1

GREENFIELD RD

17,830 (0.81)

9,940 (0.37)

26,907 (0.76)

0(0)

12,037 (0.34)

12,849 (0.36)

10,692 (0.49) 10,799 (0.61)

61,877 (0.66) 66,653 (0.72) 11,224 (0.63) ) 0.33 ( 9,190 .32) 0 0 7,2 (0

32 (0)

20,359 (0.57)

13,036 (1.19) 11,707 (0.66)

6,075 (0.11)

17) 4,903 (0.

14,153 (0.4) 9,031 (0.17) 14,153 (0.27) 13,642 (0.26)

2018 Southeast Mesa Land Use and Transportation Plan

15,326 (0.86)

PECOS RD 0

0.5

² 1

Miles

GERMANN RD

1, 87

2 (0. 04)

11,936 (0.67)

3,311 (0.19)

SOUTHERN AVE

0 (0)

2018 Improved Bi-directional Level of Service

Legend Study Area

BASELINE RD

Airport Canal

Railroad GUADALUPE RD

Major Street

2018 Level of Service C+ D

ELLIOT RD

2 (0)

6,064 (0.11) 28 (0)

11 (0)

0 (0)

WARNER RD

Daily Traffic Volume (Volume-to-Capacity Ratio)

7 (0) 1 (0)

3,152 (0.11) 363 (0.01) 413 (0.03) 1,120 (0.08)

5,235 (0.1) 4 (0)

116 (0.01) 120 (0.01)

55 (0)

MERIDIAN RD

694 (0.05) 1,306 (0.09)

3,413 (0.19)

SIGNAL BUTTE RD

2,061 (0.12)

37,116 (0.7)

4,764 (0.27) 2,965 (0.17)

3,426 (0.19)

CRISMON RD

6,241 (0.43)

39,745 (0.74)

HAWES RD

14,715 (0.83) 13,819 (0.78)

SOSSAMAN RD

27,509 (0.52)

2,975 (0.17) 8,066 (0.45)

ELLSWORTH RD

96(0.2 8, 8 5) 0 (0)

)

Phoenix Mesa Gateway Airport

v I

5,064 (0.14) 6,386 (0.18)

16,440 (0.31) 15,605 (0.44) 23,037 (0.43) 12,027 (0.23) 0 (0) 3,080 (0.17) 4,717 (0.27) 15,786 (0.3) 15,043 (0.42) (0.39) 13,808 (0.33) 17,436 5,530 (0.1) 116 (0.01) 3,065 (0.17)

18,215 (0.41)

14,896 (0.28)

8,072 (0.15) 11,462 (0.32)

0 (0)

86(0. 72 12,8 )

257 (0.01) 223 (0.01)

(0 )

0 (0)

1,386 (0.08) 1,898 (0.11)

10 (0)

1 (0)

5,584 (0.31) 3,541 (0.2) 5,162 (0.15) 3,764 (0.21)

3,607 (0.1)

9,248 (0.26) 9,491 (0.27) 9,214 (0.26)

1,760 (0.06)

8,634 (0.24)

) (0

15,453 (0.58)

(0) 12,896 (0.24) 11,486 (0.22) 10,242 (0.19) 11,601 (0.22) (0) 0 (0) 34 28

(0.47) 24,703 (0.46) 24,797 (0.46)

) (0

3,944 (0.14)

1) 0.1 2( 2 3,3

) .07 3 (0 9 9 1,

(0) 15

) .3 (0 1 , 58 10 485 (0.03)

6,300 (0.22)

284 (0.02)

24 Ð ?

17,502 (0.33) 17,010 (0.32)

ð ?

17,513 (0.33)

3) (0. 4 7,699 ) 0. 38 21,039 ( 3, 43 3 (0.19)

30,957 (0.55)

2,756 (0.08) 4,243 (0.12)

4,707 (0.32)

6, 9 21 (0 10,584 (0.3) . 19)

1,152 (0.08)

123 (0.01) 39 (0) 292 (0.02)

22,408 (0.4) 6,330 (0.58) 0 (0) 9) (0. 1 8 1 7 6,

12,4 07

4,800 (0.27) 4,453 (0.25)

14,900 (0.28) 9,031 (0.17) 11,868 (0.22) 10,181 (0.19)

(0)

17,700 (0.5) 16,086 (0.45) 18,556 (0.52) 18,699 (0.53) 17,440 (0.49)

5,199 (0.29)

0 (0)

POWER RD 27,562 (0.52)

RECKER RD

20,026 (0.38) 23,196 (0.43)

HIGLEY RD 32,122(0.

11,380 (0.21) 11,183 (0.21) 12,364 (0.23) 16,185 (0.3)

6,694 (0.38)

) . 02 352 (0

0 (0)

6,694 (0.25)

6,456 (0.59) 39,540 (0.71)

7,851 (0.22) 7,799 (0.18) 10,622 (0.2) 9,987 (0.22) 5,278 (0.1) 7,686 (0.14)

(0.34) 7,628 (0.69) 31,943 33,274 (0.45)

5) 2,203 (0. 1

9 (0)

5,678 (0.13)

7,584 (0.28)

4,993 (0.45) 43,096 (0.46) 9,894 (0.56) 6,515 (0.59)

20,666 (0.58)

(0)

GREENFIELD RD

10,404 (0.19)

11,737 (0.33)

8) 2,035 (0.1

17,458 (0.49) 22,906 (0.43) 0 (0) 17,658 (0.33) 17,557 (0.33)

8, 6 59 (0. 39 )

19,807 (0.9)

21,323 (0.38)

817 (0.03)

32,812 (0.53)

14)

9,868 (0.45) 17,717 (0.81) 12,636 (0.71) 58,409 (0.63) 10,877 (0.61) 10,958 (0.62) 11,241 (0.63) 62,512 (0.67) 10, 02 0. 34) 6(

14,200 (0.4)

19,855 (0.56)

0 (0)

21,397 (0.6)

6,469 (0.12)

4,104 (0.

13,494 (0.38) 8,911 (0.17) 12,137 (0.23)

2018 Southeast Mesa Land Use and Transportation Plan

1,661 (0.09) 10 (0) 10,435 (0.59) 1,738 (0.1) 1,594 (0.09) 1,573 (0.09)

RAY RD

WILLIAMS FIELD RD

PECOS RD 0

0.5

² 1

Miles

GERMANN RD

1,914 (0.11)

23,577 (0.44) 22,663 (0.42)

1,340 (0.08) 1,405 (0.08) 1,186 (0.07) (0.06)

7 (0)

0 (0)

3,102 (0.21) 717 (0.02) 3,283 (0.23) 3,959 (0.27) 4,050 (0.28) 3,710 (0.13)

1,124

572 (0.03)

Study Area Airport Canal

Railroad

Major Street C+

ELLIOT RD

D E F

WARNER RD

Daily Traffic Volume (Volume-to-Capacity Ratio)

RAY RD

WILLIAMS FIELD RD

17,524 (0.49) 0) 0(

4,822 (0.27)

11,175 (0.31)

26,369 (0.49)

Legend

2030 Level of Service

MERIDIAN RD

26,644 (0.75)

23,519 (0.66) 25,562 (0.72)

27,826 (0.52)

1,965 (0.11) 0 (0)

SIGNAL BUTTE RD

15,978 (0.45)

18,602 (0.35) 16,869 (0.32) 20,718 (0.39) 16,948 (0.32)

0 (0)

9,040 (0.31)

11,779 (0.33)

CRISMON RD 23,804 (0.67)

13,292 (0.75)

16,012 (0.36)

18,640 (0.35)

9,920 (0.19) 13,299 (0.37) 0 (0)

8,539 (0.29)

35,415 (0.66)

46,423 (0.87)

38,316 (0.72)

38,886 (0.73)

HAWES RD

5,325 (0.37)

ELLSWORTH RD 35,039 (0.66)

3,907 (0.27)

28,500 (0.8)

26,220 (0.74)

38,186 (0.72)

17,289 (0.49) 13,984 (0.39)

15,521 (0.44)

1,784 (0.12) 70 (0)

1,289 (0.09)

10, 446 (0. 29)

SOSSAMAN RD

23,668 (0.44)

28,100 (0.53) 28,138 (0.53) 26,023 (0.49)

RECKER RD

26,410 (0.5) 27,767 (0.52)

HIGLEY RD 30, 880(0.

BASELINE RD

2030 Improved Bi-directional Level of Service

GUADALUPE RD

0 (0)

6,936 (0.13) 1,553 (0.03)

18,228 (0.33)

7,138 (0.4) 8,003 (0.45) 7,104 (0.4)

SOUTHERN AVE

6,960 (0.39)

( 162 0. 43 15, )

)

18,833 (0.53)

8,029 (0.23)

24 Â ?

(0.34) 89 ,0 18

7,263 (0.41)

19,863 (0.74)

38 6,5

(0.65) 35,472 (0.66) 40,807 (0.76)

(0)

9) .6 (0

32,287 (0.61)

13,468 (0.76) 10,798 (0.61)

2) (0. ) 00 01 5, 9 (0.

27 ,8 10 (0.5 5,265 (0.15) )

(0. 22 )

7 (0. 04)

5,532 (0.1)

) .16 7 (0 4 6 0 4, (0 7) ) 0.1 ( 65 5,0 3 09 6,008 (0.21) 31 )

7 50

17,2 14

0 (0)

(0 .

22,855 (0.43) 10 ,0 27 50 ,21 (0 0 (0) 8 ( . 28) 0.4 9)

6) .2 (0

Phoenix Mesa Gateway Airport

23,772 (0.67)

24 Ð ?

2 77 3,

0 (0)

2, 02

21,168 (0.4) 17,004 (0.32)

. 04) 583 (0

, 38

468

6) (0.4

0 (0)

1) 0. 4 5,893 (

16,

36,959 (0.69)

2 9, 1 0 (0)

533 13, 63 ) 3, 3 12,846 (0.72) 13,251 (0.74 .85) 1 0 ( 3 15,11 13,075 (0.73) 13 , 30 4 (0.37)

4,117 (0.12) 5,624 (0.16)

19,702 (0.37) 10,948 (0.21) 14,311 (0.27) 11,459 (0.21)

ð ?

6,304 (0.35)

20,657 (0.77)

POWER RD 35,677 (0.67)

0 (0)

18,437 (0.35)

0 (0)

14,695 (0.28) 16,906 (0.32)

v I

33,419 (0.6)

10,419 (0.23) 10,797 (0.2) 13,507 (0.3) 6,888 (0.13) 8,352 (0.16)

46, 558 (0.63)

14,012 (0.26)

6,782 (0.38)

) . 02 361 (0

6) 2,326 (0. 1

28 (0)

21,923 (0.62)

(0)

GREENFIELD RD

10,416 (0.2)

) .89 15,774 (0

19,790 (0.56) 22,200 (0.42) 0 (0) 18,528 (0.35) 19,631 (0.37)

366 (0.02) 220 (0.01) 44,253 (0.48)

6) 12,316 (0. 5

5,460 (0.15) 10,795 (0.61) 8,877 (0.5) 6,671 (0.19) 5,988 (0.17) 6,480 (0.36) 12,861 (0.72) (0 (0 . 76 .7 ) 14,832 (0.67) 5) 14,855 (0.83) 15,148 (0.85)

752 (0.03)

34,078 (0.55)

18,189 (0.83)

58 )

17,369 (0.79) 11,884 (0.67) 60,361 (0.65) 66,320 (0.71) 11,099 (0.62)

24,728 (0.7)

13)

0 (0) 9,691 (0.44) 10,795 (0.61)

6,807 (0.15)

8,070 (0.3)

12,515 (0.35) 13,754 (0.31) 10,474 (0.29)

20,992 (0.59)

6,136 (0.12)

3,899 (0.

12,994 (0.37) 8,237 (0.15) 11,786 (0.22) 12,994 (0.24)

2018 Southeast Mesa Land Use and Transportation Plan

7,685 (0.43) 4,231 (0.24)

PECOS RD 0

0.5

² 1

Miles

GERMANN RD

(0.44)

15,843 (0.45) 12,575 (0.35) 13,149 (0.37) 9,829 (0.55) 15,896 (0.45)

Legend Study Area

Airport Canal

Railroad

GUADALUPE RD

Major Street

2040 Level of Service C+

ELLIOT RD

D E

WARNER RD

Daily Traffic Volume (Volume-to-Capacity Ratio)

RAY RD

WILLIAMS FIELD RD

20,647 (0.37)

14,378 (0.4) 14,348 (0.4)

8,079 (0.23)

35,652 (0.67)

18,288 (0.51)

BASELINE RD

2040 Improved Bi-directional Level of Service

25,978 (0.47)

MERIDIAN RD

9,061 (0.51) 0 (0)

SIGNAL BUTTE RD

26,731 (0.75)

12,344 (0.69) 15,035 (0.42) 9,698 (0.55) 12,977 (0.73) 16,221 (0.46)

660 (0.02)

33,531 (0.63)

0 (0)

23,555 (0.44) 29,130 (0.55) 30,325 (0.57) 25,603 (0.48) 26,286 (0.49)

23,424 (0.66)

(0.66) 59 ,1 35

17,034 (0.48)

9,172 (0.17)

2,038 (0.14) 1,842 (0.06) 6,841 (0.47) 6,722 (0.46) 5,418 (0.37) 3,517 (0.12)

16,344 (0.46) 16,344 (0.37)

14,661 (0.5)

922 (0.06)

Â ?

18,687 (1.05)

14,318 (0.32)

27,989 (0.52) 28,623 (0.54) 26,869 (0.5) 26,569 (0.5) 27,743 (0.52)

15,841 (0.3) 18,032 (0.51)

23,146 (0.65)

13,728 (0.39) 32 , 8 16,470 (0.46) 86 (0.5 9) 24 24,410

CRISMON RD 40,781 (0.76)

55,579 (1.04) 47,240 (0.89)

3,451 (0.24) 96 (0. 01 )

44,499 (0.83) 47,696 (0.89) 63,380 (1.19)

56,333 (1.06) 52,721 (0.99)

ELLSWORTH RD 46,549 (0.87)

5,016 (0.14)

HAWES RD

SOSSAMAN RD

(0. 56 )

(0. 27 )

)

29(0. 6 7)

0 (0)

8 23,

23,505 (0.44)

9,539 (0.27) 20,587 (0.58) 18,497 (0.52) 10,547 (0.3) 17,416 (0.49) 24,148 (0.43) (0 .7 17,058 (0.78) 17,115 ( 8) 0.3 1) 15,956 (0.9) 16,387 (0.92)

3,110 (0.21)

3,173 (0.22) 20,071 (0.56) 18,804 (0.53) 13, 100 24,055 (0.68) (0. 37)

1,564 (0.11)

RECKER RD

28,901 (0.54) 29,729 (0.56)

28,522 (0.53)

33,274 (0.62) 46,776 (0.88) 51,178 (0.96)

24,052 (0.45)

POWER RD

63 2

8) (0.2

38 (0.12)

7,105 (0.13) 6,392 (0.24)

1 91 7,

23,127 (0.65)

33,128 (0.62)

61 8,1

) . 46 ) (0 02 (0. 269 13, ) 58 (0.

39,627 (0.74)

(0 .0 2)

1) .8 (0

Phoenix Mesa Gateway Airport

45 ,1 45

16 ,7

7,738 (0.27)

24 Ð ?

8 12 8,

36, 506 (0.68)

6(0. 72) ,67 38

2,836 (0.19)

(0.4)

385

9) (0.6

0 (0)

960 13,

6 ,6

24,623 (0.46) 19,947 (0.37) 25,988 (0.49)

0 44

(0.8)

24,150 (0.91)

24,

7) (0.8

) 38,020 (0.71) 72 (0. 10,530

0 28,57

3 15, 51 12,840 (0.72) ) 13,326 (0.75 13,128 (0.74) 21 ,5 45

42,408 (0.79)

137 (0.01)

38,283 (0.72)

5,938 (0.17) 7,474 (0.21)

26,277 (0.49) 15,715 (0.29) 22,819 (0.43) 16,193 (0.3)

.55) 16,057 (0 0 (0)

ð ?

19,190 (0.54) 19,036 (0.54) 11,544 (0.32)

0 (0)

(0 )

v I

SOUTHERN AVE

0 (0)

23,395 (0.44)

0 (0)

11,570 (0.65)

9,221 (0.84) 37,215 (0.67)

13,349 (0.3) 16,635 (0.31) 19,554 (0.44) 9,959 (0.19) 15,110 (0.28)

19,282 (0.36) 21,195 (0.4)

17,179 (0.32)

9,569 (0.22)

9,456 (0.35)

379 (0.02) 8 (0) 548 (0.03) 46,764 (0.5)

) (0.7

0) 28 (

11,415 (0.32)

986 64,

32 (0)

23,2 55 (0 .87) 26,024 (0.98)

58 )

11,400 (0.64) 5,57 1 (0 .19) 9,096 (0.17) 21,168 (0.6) 21,811 (0.61)

18,390 (0.84) 10,317 (0.29)

7) 2,400 (0. 1

HIGLEY RD 30, 945(0.

11,014 (0.62)

3) 1,835 (0.1

GREENFIELD RD

22,918 (0.43) 0 (0) 20,512 (0.38)

62,407 (0.67) 63,682 (0.68)

0 (0) 11,659 (0.65) 9,432 (0.43)

12,355 (0.35)

27,123 (0.76)

16,128 (0.73) 12,046 (0.68) 11,607 (0.65)

6,364 (0.12) 16,795 (0.31) 141 (0)10,750 (0.2)

21,298 (0.6)

13,567 (0.38) 9,175 (0.17) 13,668 (0.26) 13,567 (0.25)

2018 Southeast Mesa Land Use and Transportation Plan

13,734 (0.77) 8,533 (0.48)

PECOS RD 0

0.5

² 1

Miles

GERMANN RD

Southeast Mesa Land Use and Transportation Plan

Appendix 5: Project Prioritization Details

Final Report

Southeast Mesa Land Use and Transportation Master Plan Transportation Improvements Prioritization Criteria

Weighted Score

Prioritization Criteria

Improves mobility and safety Project reduces mobility issues (i.e., congestion, delay, unreliability, access concerns) or safety issues, thereby improving the regional and local transportation network 42 Addresses major mobility issues on the arterial street network, directly improves connectivity to the regional freeway system and regional multimodal facilities, and addresses specific identified severe crash pattern 35 Addresses major mobility issues on the arterial street network, directly improves connectivity to the regional freeway system and regional multimodal facilities, or addresses specific identified severe crash pattern 28 Addresses minor mobility issues on the arterial street network, indirectly improves connectivity to the regional freeway system and regional multimodal facilities, and addresses specific identified frequent (but not severe) crash pattern 21 Addresses minor mobility issues on the arterial street network, indirectly improves connectivity to the regional freeway system and regional multimodal facilities, or addresses specific identified frequent (but not severe) crash pattern 14 Addresses mobility issues on the local or collector street network, indirectly improves connectivity to the arterial street network or local multimodal facilities, or addresses specific identified non-severe and non-frequent crash pattern 0 Does not improve mobility and safety Enhances economic vitality Project has a positive impact on the economy because it improves infrastructure or access within an economically strategic area (i.e., designated growth area, important economic corridor, employment center) or provides new strategic development opportunities, thereby improving general livability 27 Improves infrastructure or access within an economically strategic area or provides new strategic development opportunities 18 Improves infrastructure or access outside of an economically strategic area but would directly benefit it 9 Improves infrastructure or access outside of an economically strategic area but would indirectly benefit it 0 Does not enhance economic vitality Can feasibly be funded and is cost-effective Project makes timely and efficient use of available funding 18 Can likely be funded with an existing CIP source or outside entity (e.g., MAG, developer) and is very cost-effective compared to other potential projects 12 Can likely be funded with future bonds or joint funding and is somewhat cost-effective compared to other potential projects 6 Has no identified likely funding source and is not very cost-effective compared to other potential projects 0 Cannot feasibly be funded and is not cost-effective Is compatible with approved plans and public input Project is a recommendation in an approved plan or has public support 12 Specifically referenced in, or directly supports, objectives and policies in the City of Mesa General Plan or another approved City of Mesa plan or has strong public support 8 Specifically referenced in, or directly supports, another agencyâ€™s approved plan or has moderate public support 4 Generally compatible with approved plans or has minimal public support 0 Is not compatible with approved plans and does not have public support

Total Score Potential

Recommended Improvement Project Phasing and Cost Estimates Improvement Timeframe Near-Term

Improvement Description Widen Ellsworth Rd to 6 lanes between SR 24 and Germann Rd Construct Sossaman Rd as a 4-lane arterial between Warner Rd and Ray Rd Widen Elliot Road to 6 lanes between Power Rd and Loop 202 Widen Ellsworth Road to 6 lanes between Elliot Rd and SR 24 Construct Crismon Rd as a 4-lane arterial between ¼ mile south of Ray Rd and Germann Rd Construct Hawes Rd as a 6-lane arterial between Warner Rd and Loop 202 Widen Warner Rd to 4 lanes between Hawes Rd and Ellsworth Rd Widen Ray Rd to 4 lanes between Sossaman Rd West and Ellsworth Rd and realign it with a curve to the south to connect directly to Ray Rd east of Ellsworth Rd Widen Signal Butte Rd to 6 lanes between Ray Rd and Germann Rd

Mid-Term

Construct Williams Field Rd as a 4-lane arterial between Ellsworth Rd and SR 24 Construct Williams Field Rd as a 4-lane arterial between SR 24 and Signal Butte Rd Widen Pecos Rd to 6 lanes between Ellsworth Rd and Signal Butte Rd and realign it with a curve to the south to connect directly to Pecos Rd west of Ellsworth Rd Widen Sossaman Rd to 4 lanes between Velocity Way and ¼ mile south of Rittenhouse Rd Widen Pecos Rd to 4 lanes between Power Rd and Ellsworth Rd Widen Sossaman Rd to 4 lanes between ½ mile south of Guadalupe Rd and Warner Rd Widen Hawes Rd to 6 lanes between Loop 202 and Ray Rd Widen Meridian Rd to 4 lanes between Pecos Rd and Germann Rd

Long-Term

Construct Warner Rd as a 4-lane arterial between Power Rd and Sossaman Rd Widen Warner Rd to 4 lanes between Sossaman Rd and Hawes Rd Widen Warner Rd to 6 lanes between Hawes Rd and Ellsworth Rd Widen Crismon Rd to 6 lanes between Williams Field Rd and Pecos Rd Widen Ray Rd to 6 lanes between Power Rd and Ellsworth Rd Widen Signal Butte Rd to 6 lanes between Guadalupe Rd and Elliot Rd Widen Pecos Rd to 6 lanes between Power Rd and Ellsworth Rd Widen Sossaman Rd to 6 lanes between Velocity Way and Rittenhouse Rd Widen Pecos Rd to 4 lanes between Signal Butte Rd and Meridian Rd Widen Meridian Rd to 4 lanes between SR 24 and Pecos Rd Widen Hawes Rd to 4 lanes between Guadalupe Rd and Warner Rd Construct Hawes Rd as a 4-lane arterial between Pecos Rd and Germann Rd Construct Meridian Rd as a 4-lane arterial between Ray Rd and SR 24 Construct Crismon Rd as a 4-lane arterial between ½ mile south of Guadalupe Rd and Elliot Rd Widen Ellsworth Road to 6 lanes between ¼ mile south of Guadalupe Rd and Elliot Rd Widen Germann Rd to 4 lanes between Sossaman Rd and Signal Butte Rd Widen Ellsworth Road to 6 lanes between US 60 and Baseline Rd Construct Meridian Rd as a 4-lane arterial between Baseline Rd and Elliot Rd

Project Length (mi) 2.8 0.6 2.5 2.2

Estimated Cost (millions of current dollars) $ 32.2 $ 10.8 $ 45.4 $ 30.8

2.8 $

50.4

0.3 $ 1.0 $

6.6 16.0

3.0 $

48.6

3.0 $

50.0

0.8 $

14.4

1.2 $

21.6

2.5 $

49.0

2.0 $

32.0

3.2 $

51.2

1.5 $

24.0

0.6 $ 1.0 $

10.8 16.0

1.0 $

18.6

1.0 1.0 1.0 3.3 1.0 3.2 1.8 1.0 0.5 2.0 0.6 1.5

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

16.0 18.0 14.0 46.9 14.0 44.8 25.2 16.0 8.0 32.0 10.8 27.0

0.5 $

9.0

0.8 $

5.6

4.0 $ 0.6 $

59.5 8.4

2.0 $

36.0

Southeast Mesa Land Use and Transportation Plan

Appendix 6: Community Meeting Summaries

Final Report

Southeast Mesa Land Use and Transportation Plan Community Meeting #1 Summary Overview The City of Mesa held the first community meeting for the Southeast Mesa Land Use and Transportation Plan on November 11, 2018 at the Eastmark Visitor Center, where 126 people attended. During the community meeting, attendees were shown a presentation that introduced the project and then invited to participate in an interactive exercise that included an eight-question keypad survey and a mapping activity. Due to the large attendance, attendees were broken up into three smaller groups and the presentation and interactive exercises were given three times. Having smaller groups allowed for a more comfortable meeting space as well as a more personal environment for attendees to provide input and ask questions. Prior to the presentation, residents were asked to place a dot on the general area of where they live. This was to help get a reading of where in the project area (if anywhere) the attendees were coming from and their familiarity with the area. The Where Do You Live? Map can be seen on Page 5. A number of poster boards were also provided that detailed the project study area and additional information regarding the project area. Residents were also provided with a comment card on which they could provide detailed, written comments. A total of nine (9) comment cards were received with comments. Comments from the cards were varied, but a few of the common comments included a request to leave Crismon Road as is, as well as extending Meridian Road and improving Signal Butte Road. Scans of all the comment cards received during the community meeting are available on Pages 7 through 15. The full presentation and additional materials used at the community meeting can be found on the project website here. City staff and members of the project team were made available at all points during the community meeting to answer any questions attendees may have had.

Community Meeting #1 Summary

Southeast Mesa Land Use and Transportation Plan

Keypad Survey An eight-question survey was included as part of the presentation. The questions were intended to gain a general understanding of where the public would like to see transportation improvements. While the survey was broad in topic, the mapping exercise portions of the community meeting was more specific and definitive. This survey was posted online for two weeks after the first community meeting. A total of 28 respondents participated in the survey. A full portrayal of the survey and responses, inclusive of the online survey, are available on Pages 16 through 19. The following are highlight points of the survey results from the community meeting: ◼ ◼ ◼

◼ ◼ ◼

33.6% of respondents identified they have lived in Mesa between 1 and 5 years, 30.2% identified they have lived in Mesa greater than 20 years. 80.7% of the respondents live, work, or own a business in the northeast part of the project area. (roughly north of Williams Field Road and east of the Loop 202) 28.2% and 23.9% of respondents felt that Collectors (minor roads) and Bicycle/Pedestrian facilities, respectively, should be improved within the next 1-5 years. Subsequent discussions with attendees after the survey discovered that some attendees interpreted Collectors (minor roads) to be any road with two lanes, rather than the more traditional definition of Collectors being lower volume/lower speed roads that connect Local roads to the Arterial network. In light of this discovery, it is believed many of the survey respondents who picked Collectors (minor roads) intended to mean two-lane roads with lots of traffic, which matches the description of many of the Arterials that have not been improved. Long term (6-10 years), the highest percentage of respondents, 23.9%, felt public transit should be improved. The north/south roadway that was identified as needing improvements first was Signal Butte Road, followed closely by Ellsworth Road. The east/west roadway that was identified as needing improvements first was Warner Road, followed by Elliot Road and Ray Road.

Mapping Exercise After the presentation and keypad survey, attendees were invited to participate in a mapping exercise in which they were able to identify 5 positive attributes (green dots) about Mesa and 5 attributes that need to be improved (red dots). Two wall maps were made available, one outside the presentation room and one inside. Along with the dots, attendees provided a comment on the attribute and the comment was assign a category based on its topic. The categories were transportation, land use, and economic development. Each dot was assigned a number that corresponded with its comment. The full comment sheets and photos of the wall maps are provided on Pages 21 through 26. The majority of the positive attributes were related to the high-quality master planned communities in the project area including Eastmark, Bella Via, Mesquite Canyon, and Sunland Springs Village. The majority of the negative attributes were transportation related, specifically along Ellsworth Road and Signal Butte Road. The following are highlights of the map exercise:

Positive Attributes ◼ View of the mountains to the east ◼ Good neighborhoods, schools, and parks 2

Community Meeting #1 Summary

Community Meeting # 1 Summary

◼ ◼

Love SR 24 Airport and higher education

Areas of Improvement ◼ Heavy congestion along Ellsworth Road ◼ SR 24 back-ups at Ellsworth Road ◼ Discontinuous roads: o Signal Butte Road o Meridian Road o Warner Road ◼ Traffic/speeding on Mountain Road

Community Meeting #1 Summary

Southeast Mesa Land Use and Transportation Plan

Where Do You Live? Map

Community Meeting #1 Summary

Community meeting #1 Summary

Southeast Mesa Land Use and Transportation Plan

Comment Cards

Community Meeting #1 Summary

Southeast Mesa Land Use and Transportation Plan

Keypad Survey Results 1. How long have you lived in Mesa? Responses Workshop Percent

Web Survey

Count

Percent

Total Combined

Count

Percent

Count

< 1 year

13.8%

8.3%

13.3%

1-5 years

33.6%

33.3%

33.6%

6-10 years

6.0%

5.5%

11-20 years

14.7%

13.3%

> 20 years

30.2%

41.7%

31.3%

Donâ€™t live in Mesa

1.7%

16.7%

3.1%

Totals

100%

116

100%

128

2. In which part of the Project Area do you live, work or own a business? Responses Workshop Percent

Web Survey

Count

Percent

Total Combined

Count

Percent

Count

Northwest

14.0%

16.7%

14.3%

Northeast

80.7%

75.0%

80.2%

101

Southeast

1.8%

8.3%

2.4%

Southwest

0.9%

0.8%

Donâ€™t live in Mesa

2.6%

2.4%

Totals

100%

114

100%

126

Community Meeting #1 Summary

Community Meeting # 1 Summary

3. What most satisfies you about being in southeast Mesa (select up to 3)? Responses Workshop Percent

Web Survey

Count

Percent

Total Combined

Count

Percent

Count

Close to the airport

9.2%

18.2%

10.6%

Close to City services

6.7%

5.7%

Close to dining and shopping

10.9%

22.7%

12.8%

Close to job opportunities

5.0%

9.1%

5.7%

Access to transportation

10.1%

18.2%

11.3%

Access to recreation

16.0%

13.6%

15.6%

Access to education

5.0%

4.6%

5.0%

Other

37.0%

13.6%

33.3%

Totals

100%

119

100%

141

4. What needs to be improved in southeast Mesa (select up to 3)? Responses Workshop Percent

Web Survey

Count

Percent

Total Combined

Count

Percent

Count

Airport access/expansion

6.1%

13.1%

7.3%

City services

16.7%

4.3%

14.6%

Dining and shopping

7.9%

21.7%

10.2%

Job opportunities

9.6%

8.7%

9.5%

Transportation facilities

29.8%

21.7%

28.5%

Expanded recreation

16.7%

13.1%

16.1%

Expanded education

5.3%

4.3%

5.1%

Other

7.9%

13.1%

8.8%

Totals

100%

114

100%

137

Community Meeting #1 Summary

Southeast Mesa Land Use and Transportation Plan

5. What transportation facilities need to be improved in the next 5 years (select up to 3)? Responses Workshop Percent

Web Survey

Count

Percent

Total Combined

Count

Percent

Count

Freeways

12.0%

27.6%

15.1%

Arterials (major roads like Ellsworth, Pecos)

12.0%

34.5%

16.4%

Collectors (minor roads)

28.2%

20.7%

26.7%

Public Transit

19.7%

3.4%

16.4%

Bike/Pedestrian facilities

23.9%

13.8%

21.9%

Donâ€™t know / Not sure

4.3%

3.4%

Totals

100%

117

100%

146

6. What transportation facilities need to be improved in the next 6-10 years (select up to 3)? Responses Workshop Percent

Web Survey

Count

Percent

Total Combined

Count

Percent

Count

Freeways

13.3%

23.1%

15.1%

Arterials (major roads like Ellsworth, Pecos)

15.9%

26.9%

18.0%

Collectors (minor roads)

23.0%

26.9%

23.7%

Public Transit

23.9%

19.2%

23.0%

Bike/Pedestrian facilities

18.6%

3.9%

15.8%

Donâ€™t know / Not sure

5.3%

4.3%

Totals

100%

113

100%

139

Community Meeting #1 Summary

Community Meeting # 1 Summary

7. Which North/South roadways should be improved first (select up to 3)? Responses Workshop Percent

Web Survey

Count

Percent

Total Combined

Count

Percent

Count

Higley

1.9%

1.8%

Power

8.1%

3.6%

7.7%

Sossaman

10.1%

3.6%

9.5%

Hawes

6.2%

14.3%

6.8%

Ellsworth

23.1%

35.7%

24.1%

Crismon

15.6%

14.3%

Signal Butte

23.4%

28.6%

23.8%

Meridian

11.4%

14.3%

11.6%

Donâ€™t know / Not sure

0.3%

Totals

100%

308

100%

336

8. Which East/West roadways should be improved first (select up to 3)? Responses Workshop Percent

Web Survey

Count

Percent

Total Combined

Count

Percent

Count

Southern

2.5%

6.6%

2.9%

Baseline

6.0%

5.5%

Guadalupe

7.6%

7.0%

Elliot

15.9%

26.7%

16.8%

Warner

19.0%

16.7%

18.8%

Ray

15.9%

13.3%

15.7%

Williams Field

14.3%

16.7%

14.5%

Pecos

12.4%

16.7%

12.8%

Germann

4.1%

3.3%

4.1%

Donâ€™t know / Not sure

2.2%

2.0%

Totals

100%

315

100%

345

Community Meeting #1 Summary

Southeast Mesa Land Use and Transportation Plan

Mapping Exercise Results

Community Meeting #1 Summary

SE Mesa LUTP Community Meeting #1 Nov 7 Mapping Exercise Category: (Transportation, Green or Red Land Use, Economic Development)

Count

Comment

113, 144, 255, 266, 268, 269

Like the 24

283, 284

Like the improvement on Elliot

280, 281

2 1

224

145

218

274

T T T T T T

Happy way Ray extending to Ellsworth

123

G G G G G G

137, 138, 143, 201, 264, 265, 267

Too many lights, too much traffic (Ellsworth and Ray)

101, 111, 112, 115, 118, 127

Ray and Ellsworth has too much traffic

130, 216, 225

Elliott construction needs to be completed

Skybridge Bring in Southwest Likes that the road ends (Crismon) Extend Mountain Road Like that Ray connects to Ellsworth

Category: (Transportation, Green or Red Land Use, Economic Development)

Count

Comment

108, 109

HOV lane expansion to the 60

206, 207

Signal Butte 1 lane

122, 131

Warner needs to go all the way through

272, 273

Improve Ellsworth

275, 276

Widen / align Ray

277, 278

2 1

106

110

114

116

117

119

121

128

134

139

142

202

209

210

211

213

214

T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T

Connect Williams Field through Ellsworth

102

R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R

Speeding and congestion on Ellsworth (to Queen Creek) Meridian traffic Traffic lights to coordinate better flow (Guadalupe and Ellsworth) Misplaced light to entrance (Ellsworth) No U turns at school Ramps need to be opened up (202 and 24 Interchange) Better coordination with city road closures Need rail (Rittenhouse) Needs an exit (US 60 and Sossaman) Finish the south bound only 1 lane (Signal Butte) Needs to continue Signal Butte to Queen Creek Heavy congestion (Signal Butte and 134) Signal Butte should go through to Pecos Traffic due to training facility Signal Butte between Ray and Williams floods. Galveston Flooding (Williams Road east of Signal Butte) Meridian south of Ray, dead ends should be extended Double-turn lane Ray and Ellsworth

Count

215

217

223

234

248

249

250

258

259

260

262

263

270

285

279

Category: (Transportation, Green or Red Land Use, Economic Development)

Comment

T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T

Ray alignment, double to get onto SR 24, double lanes onto Ellsworth north bound onto Ray

R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R

141, 232, 212, 233

Love the retail (Guadalupe and Signal Butte by Fry's)

124, 125

2 1

129

105

228

120

229

ED ED ED ED ED ED ED

New airport terminal

132

G G G G G G R

Do not let Signal Butte go through (to Pecos) Public transit should extend to Eastmark for community Traffic (US 60 and Signal Butte) Connect Meridian (south of Baseline) Road service improvement / widened (Meridian) Finish Warner Traffic on Ellsworth Connect Ray to Meridian Traffic on SR 24 Traffic lights to coordinate better flow (Ellsworth and Ray) Need left turn signal (Ellsworth and Ray) Extend SR 24 Don't extend Meridian (south of Baseline) Extend Signal Butte into Queen Creek

Glad to see ASU campus Aviation business Airport boom economic Great retail at Superstition Gateway West (Baseline and Signal Butte) Heavy industrial zoning positive (Pecos Road, south of airport) More retail (Signal Butte and Ray - southwest corner)

Category: (Transportation, Green or Red Land Use, Economic Development)

Count

Comment

104, 107, 133, 135, 136

Eastmark: Great development / love the neighborhood

103, 203, 204, 205, 208

Eastmark Great Park - good

226, 230, 231, 256, 286

Love the mountains / mountain views

219, 220, 221, 222

Development is fine the way it is. No need for extra roads

282

1 1

252

253

254

227

247

126

146

140

261

LU LU LU LU LU LU LU LU LU LU LU

Love the schools

257

G G G G G G R R R R R

Love the restaurant Innovation businesses Love open area. No development Love the Safeway Love the landscaping (Eastmark) No more dairy farms Airport noise level Road turned into a dumping ground. Trash (Neighborhood road south of Canyon Rim Elementary School) Drainage problem (Baseline and Signal Butte) Lack of development (Ellsworth and Ray)

Southeast Mesa Land Use and Transportation Plan Community Meeting #2 Summary

Overview The City of Mesa held the second community meeting for the Southeast Mesa Land Use and Transportation Plan on March 27, 2019 at Desert Ridge High School, Lecture Hall, where 128 people attended. As residents signed in, they were asked to identify where they live by placing a dot on the map of the study area. The majority of participants came from Eastmark and the neighborhoods along Guadalupe Road between Loop 202 and Meridian Road. The Where Do You Live? Map results can be seen on Page 3. During the community meeting, attendees were shown a presentation that provided an overview of the planning process and introduced the recommended improvements to the transportation network. A copy of the presentation begins on Page 4. After the presentation, the meeting broke out into an open house format in which participants were invited to view boards and ask City staff and the consultants questions. The boards displayed were:          

Public input results from Community Meeting #1 2030 Buildout State in Currently Undeveloped Properties 2040 Buildout State in Currently Undeveloped Properties Zoning and Future Land Use in Vacant, Agricultural, and Open Space Existing Land Uses Programmed/Committed Roadway Improvements 2018 Baseline Bi‐directional Level of Service 2030 Baseline Bi‐directional Level of Service 2040 Baseline Bi‐directional Level of Service Future Roadway Network Improvements 2040 Improved Bi‐directional Level of Service

The open house boards are shown on Page 5.

Community Meeting #2 Summary

Southeast Mesa Land Use and Transportation Plan

Comments Received Comment cards were made available to participants to provide feedback on the recommended improvements. The comment cards included three questions for participants to answer. A total of 17 comment cards were submitted during the meeting. The following is a summary of the responses to the questions organized by question:

What proposed improvement recommendations do you agree with (if any) and why? Thirteen (13) participants responded to this question. The following is a summary of the responses:            

All recommendations up to 2040 look well thought out Agree with all of them – improvements welcome Bringing Signal Butte Rd through to SR 24; completing SR 24 all the way to Ironwood Rd Priority ‐ get SR 24 stretched to Florence Through streets to Queen Creek Continue Elliot Rd to Ironwood Rd Prioritize Ellsworth Rd Ellsworth Rd and SR 24 Ellsworth Rd widening is creating congestion Intersection of Loop 202 and Ray Rd very congested Continue Meridian Rd to SR 60 Make Signal Butte Rd six lanes initially so there is not continuous construction

What proposed improvement recommendations do you disagree with (if any) and why? Seven (7) participants responded to this question. The following is a summary of the responses:     

Signal Butte Rd can help to take traffic off Ellsworth Rd NOT Sossaman Rd None – all good especially with new high school and other new communities in the area None Meridian Rd from US 60 and Baseline Rd to Elliot Rd – Sunland Springs is a quiet neighborhood and major concerns about noise level from traffic Meridian Rd improvements from Elliot Rd to Germann Rd. It needs to stay rural

Any other input you would like to provide? Fourteen (14) participants responded to this question. The following is a summary of the responses.       

Would like to see Crismon Rd go all the way through to Queen Creek Priority should be given to widening Signal Butte Rd between Ray Rd and Germann Rd, and Ray Rd and Power Rd Would like to see Meridian Rd complete from Baseline Rd to at least Ray Rd to help alleviate traffic on Signal Butte Rd. Hawes Rd completion to Warner Rd seems important Need Meridian Rd to run completely north to south from US 60 to SR 24 – can Mesa annex State Land east of Meridian Rd? Traffic light synching is in need of review Bicycle safety considerations

Scans of all the comment cards received during the community meeting are available on Page 6.

Community Meeting #2 Summary

Community Meeting # 2 Summary

Where Do You Live? Map

Community Meeting #2 Summary

Southeast Mesa Land Use and Transportation Plan

Presentation

Community Meeting #2 Summary

Southeast Mesa Land Use and Transportation Plan

City of Mesa

March 27, 2019 Community Meeting #2

Project Team City Project Manager • Al Zubi, P.E. PTOE, Transportation Department

Project Lead • Michael Grandy, P.E. Kimley-Horn, Project Manager, Transportation

Project Support • Felipe Zubia, AICP, Matrix, Land Use • Jim Rounds, Rounds Consulting, Economics

Agenda 1. Project Need/Scope/Schedule 2. Community Meeting #1 Input Received

3. Draft Future Land Use Plan 4. Draft Future Transportation Plan 5. Next Steps 6. Break-out for Open House

Need for Southeast Mesa LUTP ▪ Land Development • Few Remaining Large Undeveloped Parcels • Changing Markets & Trends • Updated Land Use Assumptions

▪ Road Project Prioritization • SR 24 Extension • Which Roads to Build First? • How Many Lanes are Needed?

Project Scope ▪ Existing Conditions Update • Market Analysis • Land Use Update • Transportation Update

▪ Public Engagement • • • •

Community Involvement Plan Stakeholders Workshops Council, Committee Board updates

▪ Plan Updates • Vision, Goals, and Policies • Infrastructure Programming and Prioritization

mesaaz.gov/SEMesaPlan

Project Schedule

Community Meeting #1

Community Meeting #2

Community Meeting #1 Input Received 120+ attendees at meeting!!

Interactive Exercise Input ▪ Transportation facilities are what needs to be improved the most in the study area ▪ Narrow roads, bicycle/pedestrian facilities, and public transit should be improved ▪ High-priority north-south roads to improve are Signal Butte Rd, Ellsworth Rd, and Crismon Rd ▪ High-priority east-west roads to improve are Warner Rd, Elliot Rd, and Ray Rd 8

Mapping Exercise Results ▪ Positive Attributes • View of the mountains to the east • Good neighborhoods, schools, and parks • SR 24 • Airport and higher education

▪ Areas Needing Improvement • Heavy congestion on Ellsworth Rd • SR 24 back-ups at Ellsworth Rd • Discontinuous roads: • Signal Butte Rd • Meridian Rd • Warner Rd

• Traffic/speeding on Mountain Rd

Draft Future Land Use Plan

Growth Analysis Population Growth ▪ In 2016, U.S. Census estimated study area includes 21% of the City’s overall population ▪ By 2040, population in the study area is expected to grow by 72,000 people, representing 26% of the City’s overall population.

Year

City of Mesa

Project Area

% of Project Area

2016*

470,456

99,930

21%

2030+ (est.)

620,100

142,623

23%

2040+ (est.)

661,200

171,792

26%

* U.S. Census + State of Arizona and buildout model estimates

Future Land Use Plan 2030 Percent Built Out ▪ Population in study area expected to grow by approximately 47,000 people, a 47% increase over the current population ▪ Population growth primarily focused between Ellsworth Rd and Signal Butte Rd north of SR 24 ▪ Employment uses will develop south of airport and along the two freeways, tripling employment in study area 12

Future Land Use Plan 2040 Buildout ▪ By 2040, study area is expected to be nearly built out ▪ An additional 25,000 people expected to move to area ▪ Employment growth (light industrial and commercial) to bring 100,000 additional employees between 2030 and 2040 ▪ Based on existing zoning assumptions 13

Economic Impact Analysis Future Land Use Scenario ▪ Development of future available land = 13,622 acres ▪ Jobs at build-out = 478,901 ▪ Total economic output generated at build-out = $94.5 billion

Draft Future Transportation Plan

“Baseline” Scenario ▪ Several improvements already under construction, funded (programmed), or committed ▪ SR 24 extension to Ironwood Rd as 4-lane interim freeway ▪ New segments of Signal Butte Rd and Meridian Rd to connect to SR 24 ▪ Some privately funded roads (e.g., Eastmark) 16

Traffic Conditions – 2018 Baseline ▪ Ellsworth Rd south of SR 24 close to capacity ▪ Sossaman Rd near Pecos Rd close to capacity ▪ Much of rest of road network has minimal congestion ▪ Several gaps in grid network

Traffic Conditions – 2030 Baseline ▪ Ellsworth Rd south of Warner Rd at or over capacity ▪ Signal Butte Rd south of SR 24 at or over capacity ▪ Parts of Elliot Rd and Warner Rd over capacity ▪ Pecos Rd at or over capacity ▪ Congestion at several Loop 202 traffic interchanges 18

Traffic Conditions – 2040 Baseline ▪ Much of network south of Elliot Rd over capacity ▪ Demand on Ellsworth Rd is double the available capacity ▪ SR 24 over capacity ▪ Elliot Rd at or over capacity ▪ Northern part of study area generally still has minimal congestion 19

Draft Recommended Improvement Plan ▪ Most of network will have minimal or moderate congestion if implement recommended improvements ▪ Near-term: widen Ellsworth Rd and extend Sossaman Rd across Loop 202 to Ray Rd ▪ Long-term: grid network of 4-lane and 6-lane arterial roads 20

Next Steps

Remaining Tasks ▪ Finalize recommendations – April 2019 ▪ Prioritize recommendations – May 2019 ▪ Draft Final Report – June 2019 ▪ Final Report – July 2019

Break-out for Open House We want to hear from you!! Please come talk to us and fill out a comment card or post a comment on the project website.

Community Meeting # 2 Summary

Open House Boards

Community Meeting #2 Summary

Southeast Mesa Land Use and Transportation Plan

City of Mesa

March 27, 2019 Community Meeting #2

Public Input ▪ Survey Responses

• High-priority north-south roads to improve: • Signal Butte Rd • Ellsworth Rd • Crismon Rd

• High-priority east-west roads to improve • Warner Rd • Elliot Rd • Ray Rd

▪ Positive Attributes • SR 24 • Airport

▪ Areas Needing Improvement

• Heavy congestion on Ellsworth Rd • SR 24 back-ups at Ellsworth Rd • Discontinuous roads: • Signal Butte Rd • Meridian Rd • Warner Rd

• Traffic/speeding on Mountain Rd

SOUTHERN AVE

2018 Southeast Mesa Land Use and Transportation Plan 2030 Buildout State in Currently Undeveloped Properties Legend 2030 Buildout %

Study Area

0% - 19%

20% - 39%

RECKER RD

40% - 59% 60% - 79%

80% - 100%

City Boundary Airport Canal

Railroad

Major Street Local Street

GUADALUPE RD

ELLIOT RD

WARNER RD

RAY RD

WILLIAMS FIELD RD

PECOS RD

MERIDIAN RD

SIGNAL BUTTE RD

CRISMON RD

ELLSWORTH RD

HAWES RD

SOSSAMAN RD

Phoenix Mesa Gateway Airport

POWER RD

HIGLEY RD

BASELINE RD

0.5

Miles

GERMANN RD

SOUTHERN AVE

2018 Southeast Mesa Land Use and Transportation Plan 2040 Buildout State in Currently Undeveloped Properties

Legend 2040 Buildout - 100% Developed

Study Area

City Boundary Airport

RECKER RD

Canal

Railroad

Major Street Local Street

GUADALUPE RD

ELLIOT RD

WARNER RD

RAY RD

WILLIAMS FIELD RD

PECOS RD

MERIDIAN RD

SIGNAL BUTTE RD

CRISMON RD

ELLSWORTH RD

HAWES RD

SOSSAMAN RD

Phoenix Mesa Gateway Airport

POWER RD

HIGLEY RD

BASELINE RD

0.5

Miles

GERMANN RD

SOUTHERN AVE

Legend Proposed Inner Loop Amendment

Study Area

City Boundary

Proposed Master Plan

Zoning in Vacant Areas

RECKER RD

Airport

Residential Single Dwelling Districts 6, 7, and 9

Canal

Residential Small Lot Single Dwelling Districts 2.5, 3, and 4.5

GUADALUPE RD

Railroad

Residential Multiple Dwelling Districts 2, 3, and 4

Major Street Local Street

NC - Neighborhood Commercial LC - Limited Commercial OC - Office Commercial

ELLIOT RD

LI - Light Industrial

GI - General Industrial HI - Heavy Industrial

PEP - Planned Employment Park PS - Public and Semi-Public PC - Planned Community

WARNER RD

Mesa Character Areas in Vacant County Areas Employment

Mixed Use Activity District

Mixed Use Activity / Employment Mixed Use Community Neighborhood

RAY RD

WILLIAMS FIELD RD

PECOS RD

MERIDIAN RD

SIGNAL BUTTE RD

CRISMON RD

ELLSWORTH RD

HAWES RD

SOSSAMAN RD

Phoenix Mesa Gateway Airport

POWER RD

HIGLEY RD

BASELINE RD

2018 Southeast Mesa Land Use and Transportation Plan Zoning and FLU in Vacant, Agricultural, and Open Space Existing Land Uses

0.5

Miles

GERMANN RD

SOUTHERN AVE

Programmed/Committed Roadway Improvements

Legend BASELINE RD

Study

RECKER RD

Airport Canal

Railroad

GUADALUPE RD

Major Street

Improvements

Programmed/Committed

ELLIOT RD

ð ? WARNER RD

RAY RD

24 Ð ?

WILLIAMS FIELD RD

PECOS RD MERIDIAN RD

CRISMON RD

ELLSWORTH RD

HAWES RD

SOSSAMAN RD

SIGNAL BUTTE RD

24 Â ?

Phoenix Mesa Gateway Airport

POWER RD

HIGLEY RD

GREENFIELD RD

v I

2018 Southeast Mesa Land Use and Transportation Plan

0.5

² 1

Miles

GERMANN RD

SOUTHERN AVE

2018 Baseline Bi-directional Level of Service

Legend Study Area

BASELINE RD

City Boundary

RECKER RD

Airport Canal

Railroad

GUADALUPE RD

Major Street

2018 Level of Service

Minimal congestion

ELLIOT RD

Moderate congestion Nearing capacity

ð ?

At or over capacity

WARNER RD

RAY RD

24 Ð ?

WILLIAMS FIELD RD

PECOS RD MERIDIAN RD

SIGNAL BUTTE RD

CRISMON RD

ELLSWORTH RD

HAWES RD

SOSSAMAN RD

Phoenix Mesa Gateway Airport

POWER RD

HIGLEY RD

GREENFIELD RD

v I

2018 Southeast Mesa Land Use and Transportation Plan

0.5

² 1

Miles

GERMANN RD

SOUTHERN AVE

2030 Baseline Bi-directional Level of Service

Legend Study Area

BASELINE RD

City Boundary

RECKER RD

Airport Canal

Railroad

GUADALUPE RD

Major Street

2030 Level of Service

Minimal congestion

ELLIOT RD

Moderate congestion Nearing capacity

ð ?

At or over capacity

WARNER RD

RAY RD

24 Ð ?

WILLIAMS FIELD RD

PECOS RD MERIDIAN RD

CRISMON RD

ELLSWORTH RD

HAWES RD

SOSSAMAN RD

SIGNAL BUTTE RD

24 Â ?

Phoenix Mesa Gateway Airport

POWER RD

HIGLEY RD

GREENFIELD RD

v I

2018 Southeast Mesa Land Use and Transportation Plan

0.5

² 1

Miles

GERMANN RD

SOUTHERN AVE

2040 Baseline Bi-directional Level of Service

Legend Study Area

BASELINE RD

City Boundary

RECKER RD

Airport Canal

Railroad

GUADALUPE RD

Major Street

2040 Level of Service

Minimal congestion

ELLIOT RD

Moderate congestion Nearing capacity

ð ?

At or over capacity

WARNER RD

RAY RD

24 Ð ?

WILLIAMS FIELD RD

PECOS RD MERIDIAN RD

CRISMON RD

ELLSWORTH RD

HAWES RD

SOSSAMAN RD

SIGNAL BUTTE RD

24 Â ?

Phoenix Mesa Gateway Airport

POWER RD

HIGLEY RD

GREENFIELD RD

v I

2018 Southeast Mesa Land Use and Transportation Plan

0.5

² 1

Miles

GERMANN RD

SOUTHERN AVE

2018 Southeast Mesa Land Use and Transportation Plan Future Roadway Network Improvements

BASELINE RD

Legend Study Area

RECKER RD

o GUADALUPE RD

Airport Canal

Railroad

Major Street

ELLIOT RD

Improvements

Near-Term Recommendations Mid-Term Recommendations

ð ?

Long-Term Recommendations WARNER RD

RAY RD

24 Ð ?

WILLIAMS FIELD RD

PECOS RD MERIDIAN RD

CRISMON RD

ELLSWORTH RD

HAWES RD

SOSSAMAN RD

SIGNAL BUTTE RD

24 Â ?

Phoenix Mesa Gateway Airport

POWER RD

HIGLEY RD

GREENFIELD RD

v I

0.5

² 1

Miles

GERMANN RD

SOUTHERN AVE

2040 Improved Bi-directional Level of Service

Legend Study Area

BASELINE RD

City Boundary

RECKER RD

Airport Canal

Railroad

GUADALUPE RD

Major Street

2040 Level of Service

Minimal congestion

ELLIOT RD

Moderate congestion Nearing capacity

ð ?

At or over capacity

WARNER RD

RAY RD

24 Ð ?

WILLIAMS FIELD RD

PECOS RD MERIDIAN RD

CRISMON RD

ELLSWORTH RD

HAWES RD

SOSSAMAN RD

SIGNAL BUTTE RD

24 Â ?

Phoenix Mesa Gateway Airport

POWER RD

HIGLEY RD

GREENFIELD RD

v I

2018 Southeast Mesa Land Use and Transportation Plan

0.5

² 1

Miles

GERMANN RD

Southeast Mesa Land Use and Transportation Plan

Comment Cards

Community Meeting #2 Summary

Southeast Mesa Land Use and Transportation Plan

Appendix 7: Citizen Board Presentations

Final Report

Southeast Mesa Land Use and Transportation Plan

City of Mesa

November 20, 2018

Transportation Advisory Board

Project Team City Project Manager • Al Zubi, P.E. PTOE, Transportation Department

Project Lead • Michael Grandy, P.E. Kimley-Horn, Project Manager, Transportation

Project Support • Felipe Zubia, AICP, Matrix, Land Use • Jim Rounds, Rounds Consulting, Economics

Agenda 1. Project Background

2. Project Details •

Need

•

Scope

•

Schedule

3. Project Status 4. Community Meeting #1 Results

5. Next Steps 3

Project Background

Prior 2008 Study ▪ Mesa Gateway Strategic Development Plan • Adopted Dec. 2008

2008 Districts & Target Markets ▪ Sub-area Districts in LessDeveloped Southern Part of Study Area • • • •

Inner Loop Mixed Use Airport/Campus Logistics & Commerce

▪ Identified Target Markets • • • •

Aerospace Airline Services High Tech Healthcare 6

2008 Preferred Concept Land Uses ▪ Identified Land Use Assumptions • Industrial South of Airport • Intense Land Uses along SR 24 • Mixed Use Centers

2008 Transportation Strategies ▪ Identified Transportation Strategies • • • • • •

High Capacity Boulevards Connector Roads Transit Shared Use Paths Bike Lanes Potential Future Commuter Rail

Project Details

Need for Southeast Mesa LUTP ▪ Land Development • Few Remaining Large Undeveloped Parcels • Changing Markets & Trends • Updated Land Use Assumptions

▪ Road Project Prioritization • SR 24 Extension • Which Roads to Build First? • How Many Lanes are Needed?

Project Scope ▪ Existing Conditions Update • Market Analysis • Land Use Update • Transportation Update

▪ Public Engagement • • • •

Community Involvement Plan Stakeholders Community Meetings Council, Committee Board updates

▪ Plan Updates • Vision, Goals, and Policies • Infrastructure Programming and Prioritization

mesaaz.gov/SEMesaPlan

Project Schedule

Community Meeting #1

Community Meeting #2

Project Status

Project Update Roadway Network Conditions

▪ Describes the existing and planned roadway network • City of Mesa 2019 - 2023 CIP • MAG 2018 - 2022 TIP

Project Update Framework Districts in 2008 Plan ▪ Created to promote a live/work/ learn/play destination by: • Ensuring compatibility • Supporting growth in education campus • Leveraging economic development opportunities ▪ Evaluated Framework Districts and identified need for refinements

Proposed Update to Framework Districts

Community Meeting #1 Results of Interactive Exercises 120+ attendees at meeting!!

Interactive Participation Instructions

1. Presenter will announce polling is open. 2. Press the number / letter that corresponds with the answer you wish to select. 3. Change your mind? Just click the right one. Your last push will count. 4. Presenter will close the polling and you will see results from all participants. 18

Q1. How long have you lived in Mesa?

A. B. C. D. E. F.

< 1 year 1-5 years 6-10 years 11-20 years > 20 years Donâ€™t live in Mesa

33.6% 30.2%

14.7%

13.8% 6.0%

1.7%

< 1 year

1-5 years

6-10 years

11-20 years

> 20 years

Donâ€™t live in Mesa 19

Q2. In which part of the Project Area do you live, work or own a business?

A. B. C. D. E.

Northwest Northeast Southeast Southwest Don’t live in Mesa

80.7%

D C 14.0% 1.8%

0.9%

2.6%

Northwest Northeast Southeast Southwest Don’t live in Mesa 20

Q3. What most satisfies you about being in southeast Mesa (select up to 3)?

A. B. C. D. E. F. G. H.

Close to the airport Close to City services Close to dining and shopping Close to job opportunities Access to transportation Access to recreation Access to education Other (Top 3) • Outside Urban Area • Master Planned Community • The People

37.0%

16.0%

9.2%

10.9% 6.7%

10.1% 5.0%

5.0%

H. 21

Q4. What needs to be improved in southeast Mesa (select up to 3)? 29.8%

A. Airport access/expansion B. City services C. Dining and shopping D. Job opportunities E. Transportation facilities F. Expanded recreation G. Expanded education H. Other

16.7%

7.9%

6.1%

16.7%

9.6%

7.9% 5.3%

H. 22

Q5. What transportation facilities need to be improved in the next 5 years? (select up to 3)

A. Freeways B. Arterials (major roads like Ellsworth, Pecos) C. Collectors (minor roads) D. Public Transit E. Bike/Pedestrian facilities

28.2% 23.9% 19.7%

12.0%

F. Donâ€™t know / Not sure

4.3%

F. 23

Q6. What transportation facilities need to be improved in the next 6-10 years? (select up to 3)

A. Freeways B. Arterials (major roads like Ellsworth, Pecos) C. Collectors (minor roads) D. Public Transit E. Bike/Pedestrian facilities

23.0%

23.9% 18.6%

15.9% 13.3%

F. Donâ€™t know / Not sure

5.3%

F. 24

Q7. Which North/South roadways should be improved first (select up to 3)? 23.4%

23.1%

A. B. C. D. E. F. G. H. I.

Higley Power Sossaman Hawes Ellsworth Crismon Signal Butte Meridian Donâ€™t know / Not sure

15.6%

11.4%

10.1%

8.1% 6.2% 1.9% A.

0.3% B.

Q8. Which East/West roadways should be improved first (select up to 3)? 19.0%

A. B. C. D. E. F. G. H. I. J.

Southern Baseline Guadalupe Elliot Warner Ray Williams Field Pecos Germann Donâ€™t know / Not sure

15.9%

15.9% 14.3% 12.4%

7.6% 6.0% 4.1% 2.5%

2.2%

Mapping Exercise 1. 1 Wall Map 2. Each participant received 5 green dots and 5 red dots 3. Green - Positive Attributes of Mesa 4. Red - Things to be Improved

▪ Positive Attributes • View of the mountains to the east • Good neighborhoods, schools, and parks • Love SR 24 • Airport and higher education

▪ Areas Needing Improvement • Heavy congestion on Ellsworth Rd • SR 24 back-ups at Ellsworth Rd • Discontinuous roads: • Signal Butte Rd • Meridian Rd • Warner Rd

• Traffic/speeding on Mountain Rd

Next Steps

What’s Next? ▪ Future Land Use and Economic Analysis • When, and With What Land Use Types and Intensities, are Undeveloped Parcels Likely to Develop? • What is Likely Future Traffic Demand Generated by New Land Uses?

▪ Future Roadway Network Analysis • What is the Level of Service? • How Many Lanes are Needed? • Where are New Roads Needed?

▪ Prioritization Criteria for Improvements • How to Determine Which Roads to Widen or Build First?

▪ Community Meeting #2 in February 2019 30

Transportation Advisory Board Comments/Questions

Southeast Mesa Land Use and Transportation Plan

City of Mesa

May 21, 2019

Transportation Advisory Board

Project Team City Project Manager • Al Zubi, P.E. PTOE, Transportation Department

Project Lead • Michael Grandy, P.E. Kimley-Horn, Project Manager, Transportation

Project Support • Felipe Zubia, AICP, Matrix, Land Use • Jim Rounds, Rounds Consulting, Economics

Agenda 1. Project Need/Scope/Schedule

2. Community Meeting Input Received 3. Draft Future Land Use Plan

4. Draft Future Transportation Plan 5. Prioritization of Improvements

6. Next Steps

Need for Southeast Mesa LUTP ▪ Land Development • Few Remaining Large Undeveloped Parcels • Changing Markets & Trends • Updated Land Use Assumptions

▪ Road Project Prioritization • SR 24 Extension • Which Roads to Build First? • How Many Lanes are Needed?

Project Scope ▪ Existing Conditions Update • Market Analysis • Land Use Update • Transportation Update

▪ Public Engagement • • • •

Community Involvement Plan Stakeholders Workshops Council, Committee Board updates

▪ Plan Updates • Vision, Goals, and Policies • Infrastructure Programming and Prioritization

mesaaz.gov/SEMesaPlan

Project Schedule

Community Meeting #1

Community Meeting #2

Community Input Received 120+ attendees at each of two meetings!

Meeting #1 Interactive Exercise Input ▪ Transportation facilities are what needs to be improved the most in the study area ▪ Narrow roads, bicycle/pedestrian facilities, and public transit should be improved ▪ High-priority north-south roads to improve are Signal Butte Rd, Ellsworth Rd, and Crismon Rd ▪ High-priority east-west roads to improve are Warner Rd, Elliot Rd, and Ray Rd 8

Meeting #1 Mapping Exercise Results ▪ Positive Attributes • View of the mountains to the east • Good neighborhoods, schools, and parks • SR 24 • Airport and higher education

▪ Areas Needing Improvement • Heavy congestion on Ellsworth Rd • SR 24 back-ups at Ellsworth Rd • Discontinuous roads: • Signal Butte Rd • Meridian Rd • Warner Rd

• Traffic/speeding on Mountain Rd

Meeting #2 Comments Provided ▪ Agree with Proposed Recommendations Widen Ellsworth Rd Extend Signal Butte Rd Extend SR 24 farther east Extend Hawes Rd north of Loop 202 More streets into Pinal County and Queen Creek • Make Meridian Rd continuous • • • • •

▪ Disagree with Proposed Recommendations • Make Signal Butte Rd improvements higher priority • Don’t make Meridian Rd continuous – keep it rural 10

Draft Future Land Use Plan

Economic Impact Analysis Future Land Use Scenario ▪ Development of future available land = 13,622 acres ▪ Direct and indirect jobs at build-out = 479,000 regionally ▪ Total economic output generated at build-out = $94.5 billion

Draft Future Transportation Plan

Traffic Conditions – 2030 Baseline ▪ Ellsworth Rd south of Warner Rd at or over capacity ▪ Signal Butte Rd south of SR 24 at or over capacity ▪ Parts of Elliot Rd and Warner Rd over capacity ▪ Parts of Sossaman Rd and Pecos Rd at or over capacity ▪ Congestion at several Loop 202 traffic interchanges 18

Draft Prioritization Criteria and Weighting ▪ Improves mobility and safety (42%) ▪ Enhances economic vitality (27%) ▪ Can feasibly be funded and is cost-effective (18%) ▪ Is compatible with approved plans and public input (12%)

Draft Recommended Improvement Plan ▪ Minimal to moderate congestion if implement improvements ▪ Near-term: widen Ellsworth Rd and extend Sossaman Rd across Loop 202 to Ray Rd ▪ Mid-term: widen/extend roads near airport and freeways ▪ Long-term: grid network of 4-lane and 6-lane arterial roads 21

Input on Recommended Improvement Plan â–Ş Focus is on near-term and mid-term recommendations â–Ş Any comments on the overall analysis process or results? â–Ş Any comments on the recommended improvements and priorities?

Next Steps

Remaining Tasks ▪ Transportation Advisory Board presentation – May 2019 ▪ Planning & Zoning Board presentation – May 2019 ▪ Finalize prioritization of recommendations – May 2019 ▪ Draft Final Report – June 2019 ▪ Final Report – July 2019

Comments or Questions?

Detailed Prioritization of Improvements

Near-Term and Mid-Term Prioritization ▪ Near-Term:

• Widen Ellsworth Rd to 6 lanes – SR 24 to Germann Rd • Construct 4-lane Sossaman Rd – Warner Rd to Ray Rd

▪ Mid-Term:

• Widen Ellsworth Rd to 6 lanes – Elliot Rd to SR 24 • Construct 4-lane Crismon Rd – S. of Ray Rd to Germann Rd • Widen Elliot Rd to 6 lanes – Power Rd to Loop 202 • Construct 6-lane Hawes Rd – Warner Rd to Loop 202 • Widen Warner Rd to 4 lanes – Hawes Rd to Ellsworth Rd • Widen Ray Rd to 4 lanes – Sossaman Rd to Ellsworth Rd (with curve at Ellsworth Rd)

Mid-Term Prioritization (continued) ▪ Mid-Term:

• Construct 4-lane Williams Field Rd – SR 24 to Signal Butte Rd • Construct 4-lane Williams Field Rd – Ellsworth Rd to SR 24 • Widen Signal Butte Rd to 6 lanes – Ray Rd to Germann Rd • Widen Sossaman Rd to 4 lanes – Velocity Way to S. of Rittenhouse Rd • Widen Pecos Rd to 4 lanes – Power Rd to Ellsworth Rd • Widen Pecos Rd to 6 lanes Ellsworth Rd to Signal Butte Rd (with curve at Ellsworth Rd) • Widen Hawes Rd to 6 lanes – Loop 202 to Ray Rd • Widen Sossaman Rd to 4 lanes – S. of Guadalupe Rd to Warner Rd • Widen Meridian Rd to 4 lanes – Pecos Rd to Germann Rd 28

Next Steps

Southeast Mesa Land Use and Transportation Plan

City of Mesa

May 22, 2019

Planning & Zoning Board

Project Team City Project Manager • Al Zubi, P.E. PTOE, Transportation Department

Project Lead • Michael Grandy, P.E. Kimley-Horn, Project Manager, Transportation

Project Support • Felipe Zubia, AICP, Matrix, Land Use • Jim Rounds, Rounds Consulting, Economics

Agenda 1. Project Need/Scope/Schedule

2. Community Meeting Input Received 3. Draft Future Land Use Plan

4. Draft Future Transportation Plan 5. Prioritization of Improvements

6. Next Steps

Need for Southeast Mesa LUTP ▪ Land Development • Few Remaining Large Undeveloped Parcels • Changing Markets & Trends • Updated Land Use Assumptions

▪ Road Project Prioritization • SR 24 Extension • Which Roads to Build First? • How Many Lanes are Needed?

Project Scope ▪ Existing Conditions Update • Market Analysis • Land Use Update • Transportation Update

▪ Public Engagement • • • •

Community Involvement Plan Stakeholders Workshops Council, Committee Board updates

▪ Plan Updates • Vision, Goals, and Policies • Infrastructure Programming and Prioritization

mesaaz.gov/SEMesaPlan

Project Schedule

Community Meeting #1

Community Meeting #2

Community Input Received 120+ attendees at each of two meetings!

Meeting #1 Mapping Exercise Results ▪ Positive Attributes • View of the mountains to the east • Good neighborhoods, schools, and parks • SR 24 • Airport and higher education

▪ Areas Needing Improvement • Heavy congestion on Ellsworth Rd • SR 24 back-ups at Ellsworth Rd • Discontinuous roads: • Signal Butte Rd • Meridian Rd • Warner Rd

• Traffic/speeding on Mountain Rd

▪ Disagree with Proposed Recommendations • Make Signal Butte Rd improvements higher priority • Don’t make Meridian Rd continuous – keep it rural 10

Draft Future Land Use Plan

Draft Future Transportation Plan

Traffic Conditions – 2030 Baseline ▪ Ellsworth Rd south of Warner Rd at or over capacity ▪ Signal Butte Rd south of SR 24 at or over capacity ▪ Parts of Elliot Rd and Warner Rd over capacity ▪ Parts of Sossaman Rd and Pecos Rd at or over capacity ▪ Congestion at several Loop 202 traffic interchanges 18

Next Steps

Comments or Questions?

Detailed Prioritization of Improvements

Near-Term and Mid-Term Prioritization ▪ Near-Term:

• Widen Ellsworth Rd to 6 lanes – SR 24 to Germann Rd • Construct 4-lane Sossaman Rd – Warner Rd to Ray Rd

▪ Mid-Term:

Mid-Term Prioritization (continued) ▪ Mid-Term:

Next Steps

Southeast Mesa Land Use and Transportation Plan

Appendix 8: Informational Brochures

Final Report

Southeast Mesa Land Use and Transportation Plan Informational Brochure

What is the Southeast Mesa Land Use and Transportation Plan?

Southern Ave.

Phoenix Mesa Gateway Airport

Many transportation network improvements have come to the area in recent years, including: §§Loop 202

What Does the Plan Do?

§§State Route 24’s first mile (soon to be extended southeast to Ironwood Road)

The Southeast Mesa LUTP will be a stand-alone document used as guidance for City staff and City Council to identify and program future transportation priorities. This will be accomplished by understanding existing and future land use and transportation trends in the southeast area of Mesa.

Aug 2018

Pecos Rd. Germann Rd.

The Southeast Mesa Land Use and Transportation Plan (LUTP) is meant to update the land use and transportation portions of the 2008 Mesa Gateway Strategic Development Plan.

Jul 2018

Meridian Rd.

In 2008, the City of Mesa completed the Mesa Gateway Strategic Development Plan, which provided a planning analysis and vision for future growth in the southeast portion of Mesa. Since that time, southeast Mesa has developed into a major economic, employment, and educational center for the region.

What’s Next?

Elliot Rd. Signal Butte Rd.

Higley Rd.

Power Rd.

Baseline Rd.

Southeast Mesa is a vibrant, growing area that is quickly becoming a destination for families, business and industry. Through this project, the City of Mesa is seeking to enhance the quality of life in southeast Mesa through the programming and delivery of timely multimodal transportation enhancements.

§§Arterial street segments being widened

Sep 2018

Oct 2018

Nov 2018

Dec 2018

Jan 2019

Feb 2019

Mar 2019

Apr 2019

May 2019

Jun 2019

Public and Stakeholder Engagement Land Use and Economic Analysis Transportation Master Plan Final Report

For more information contact: City of Mesa Transportation Department Phone: 480-644-4912 Al Zubi, Project Manager Email: al.zubi@mesaaz.gov

Visit the Website at www.MesaAZ.gov/SEMesaPlan

Southeast Mesa Land Use and Transportation Plan Informational Brochure

What is the Southeast Mesa Land Use and Transportation Plan? Southeast Mesa is a vibrant, growing area that is quickly becoming a destination for families, business and industry. Through this project, the City of Mesa is seeking to enhance the quality of life in southeast Mesa through the programming and delivery of timely multimodal transportation enhancements. In 2008, the City of Mesa completed the Mesa Gateway Strategic Development Plan, which provided a planning analysis and vision for future growth in the southeast portion of Mesa. Since that time, southeast Mesa has developed into a major economic, employment, and educational center Study Area for the region. Baseline Rd.

Meridian Rd.

Elliot Rd. Signal Butte

Power Rd.

What Does the Plan Do?

Southern Ave. Higley Rd.

The Southeast Mesa Land Use and Transportation Plan (LUTP) is meant to update the land use and transportation portions of the 2008 Mesa Gateway Strategic Development Plan.

Pecos Rd. Germann Rd.

Public Input Over 120 participants attended the first community meeting on November 11, 2018 at the Eastmark Visitor Center. During the community meeting, attendees participated in a keypad survey about transportation improvements in the study area. The survey was also posted online, making up a total of 130 respondents. Participants at the community meeting also engaged in a mapping activity where positive attributes and attributes that need to be improved in Mesa were identified.

Positive Attributes:

§§ §§ §§ §§ §§

View of the mountains Good neighborhoods, schools, and parks SR 24 Airport Higher education

Areas of Improvement:

§§ §§ §§ §§

Heavy congestion along Ellsworth Road SR 24 back-ups at Ellsworth Road Discontinuous roads Traffic and speeding on Mountain Road

The results of the community meeting and survey influenced the development of the Plan.

Southeast Mesa Land Use and Transportation Plan

Projected Future Population and Employment Growth By 2040, the population in the study area is expected to grow by approximately 72,000 people representing 26% of the City’s overall population. Future growth scenarios for 2030 and 2040 were established to determine areas of potential new growth in the study area based on the land use mix. Areas of potential new growth include properties that are currently vacant, in agricultural production, or in certain open space conditions.

In 2030:

Projected Percent Built Out by 2030

2018 Southeast Mesa Land Use and Transportation Plan 2030 Buildout State in Currently Undeveloped Properties

SOUTHERN AVE

§§ Population in the study area is expected to grow by approximately 47,000 people, a 47% increase over the current population. Legend

2030 Buildout %

BASELINE RD

City Boundary

20% - 39%

RECKER RD

HIGLEY RD

Study Area

0% - 19%

Airport

40% - 59% 60% - 79%

Canal

80% - 100%

Railroad

§§ Population growth will be primarily focused between Ellsworth Road and Signal Butte Road north of the SR 24 extension. Major Street Local Street

GUADALUPE RD

ELLIOT RD

WARNER RD

SOUTHERN AVE

RAY RD

§§ Employment uses will develop south of the airport and along the two freeways, 2018 Southeast Mesa tripling the amount Land Use and Transportation Plan of employment in the 2030 Buildout State in study area from 40,000 employees today to Currently Undeveloped Properties approximately 120,000 employees in 2030. Legend

WILLIAMS FIELD RD

Study Area City Boundary

0% - 19% 20% - 39%

SIGNAL BUTTE RD

PECOS RD

MERIDIAN RD

CRISMON RD

ELLSWORTH RD

HAWES RD

SOSSAMAN RD

POWER RD

2030 Buildout %

BASELINE RD

Phoenix Mesa Gateway Airport

Airport

40% - 59% 0

0.5

60% - 79% 80% - 100%

Canal

Miles

Major Street

GERMANN RD

Local Street

GUADALUPE RD

Projected Future Land Uses

ELLIOT RD 2018 Southeast Mesa Land Use and Transportation Plan Zoning and FLU in Vacant, Agricultural, and Open Space Existing Land Uses

In 2040:

SOUTHERN AVE

BASELINE RD

Proposed Inner Loop Amendment

Study Area

City Boundary

RECKER RD

Proposed Master Plan

Zoning in Vacant Areas

Airport

Residential Single Dwelling Districts 6, 7, and 9

Canal

Residential Small Lot Single Dwelling Districts 2.5, 3, and 4.5

GUADALUPE RD

RAY RD

Railroad

Residential Multiple Dwelling Districts 2, 3, and 4

Major Street Local Street

NC - Neighborhood Commercial LC - Limited Commercial

Proposed Inner Loop Amendment

LI - Light Industrial

RECKER RD

ELLIOT RD

Zoning in Vacant Areas

HI - Heavy Industrial

Residential Single Dwelling Districts 6, 7, and 9

PC - Planned Community

WILLIAMS FIELD RD WARNER RD SOUTHERN AVE

Residential Small Lot Single Dwelling Districts 2.5, 3, and 4.5

Mesa Character Areas in Vacant County Areas Employment

Residential Multiple Dwelling Districts 2, 3, and 4

Mixed Use Activity District

Mixed Use Activity / Employment Mixed Use Community

NC - Neighborhood Commercial

Neighborhood

RAY RD

WILLIAMS FIELD RD

ELLIOT RD 0

Proposed Inner Loop Amendment

0.5

Proposed Master Plan

SIGNAL BUTTE RD

Residential Single Dwelling Districts 6, 7, and 9

GERMANN RD

PECOS RD

GUADALUPE RD GERMANN RD

Residential Small Lot Single Dwelling Districts 2.5, 3, and 4.5 GUADALUPE RD

WARNER RD

0.5

Residential Multiple Dwelling Districts 2, 3, and 4 Miles

NC - Neighborhood Commercial LC - Limited Commercial OC - Office Commercial

ELLIOT RD

ELLIOT RD LI - Light Industrial RAY RD

Railroad

Major Street Local Street

Study Area

GIProposed - GeneralMaster Industrial Plan Study Area HIin- Vacant Heavy Industrial Zoning Areas 2 City Boundary PEP - Planned Employment Residential Single DwellingPark Districts 6, 7, and 9 PS - Public and Semi-Public Airport Residential Small Lot Single PC Planned Community Dwelling Districts 2.5, 3, and 4.5

City Boundary

Canal Mesa Character Areas in Vacant County Areas Residential Multiple Dwelling Districts 2, 3, and 4 Railroad Employment 2 NC - Neighborhood Commercial Major Street Mixed Use Activity District LC - Limited Commercial Local Street Mixed Use Activity / Employment OC - Office Commercial Mixed Use Community LI - Light Industrial Neighborhood GI - General Industrial HI - Heavy Industrial

GI - General Industrial

PEP - Planned Employment Park

HI - Heavy Industrial PS - Public and Semi-Public PC - Planned Community

WARNER RD

Canal

LI - Light Proposed InnerIndustrial Loop Amendment

PS - Public and Semi-Public

PEP - Planned Employment Park

Airport

OC - Office Commercial

Zoning in Vacant Areas Miles

CRISMON RD

MERIDIAN RD

ELLSWORTH RD

BASELINE RD

City Boundary

LC - Limited Commercial

BASELINE RD Legend

MERIDIAN RD

SIGNAL BUTTE RD

PECOS RD

HAWES RD

SOSSAMAN RD

POWER RD

CRISMON RD

Study Area

Southeast Mesa §§ Employment growth2018 (mostly light Land Use and Transportation Plan 2018 Southeast Mesa industrial and commercial) in the SOUTHERN AVE Land Use and Transportation PlanZoning and FLU in Vacant, study area is projected to Agricultural, result inandan Zoning and FLU Open Space Existing Land Uses GUADALUPE RD in Vacant, Agricultural, andemployees between additional 100,000 Open Space Existing Land Uses 2030 and 2040. Legend PS - Public and Semi-Public

ELLSWORTH RD

RECKER RD HAWES RD

Proposed Master Plan

GI - General Industrial

PEP - Planned Employment Park

Phoenix Mesa Gateway Airport

Open Space Existing Land Uses

§§ An additional 25,000 people are Legend expected to live in the study area. BASELINE RD OC - Office Commercial

hoenix Mesa ateway Airport

2018 Southeast Mesa

Land Use and Transportation Plan §§ The study area is expected to be nearly Zoning and FLU SOUTHERN AVE in Vacant, Agricultural, and built out. Legend

WARNER RD HIGLEY RD

Railroad

PC - Planned Community Mesa Character Areas in Vacant County Areas

WARNER RD Mesa Character Areas in Vacant County Areas WILLIAMS FIELD RD Employment

Employment Mixed Use Activity District Mixed Use Activity / Employment

Airport Canal Railroad Major Street Local Street

Informational Brochure

Future Roadway Network By assessing projected future population and employment growth, the City of Mesa can better identify where roadway network enhancements are needed to accommodate future growth.

2040 Traffic Conditions Without Improvements

Baseline Traffic Analysis: §§ Without improvements beyond the currently funded projects, most of the roadway network south of Elliot Road is projected to be near or over capacity. §§ Projected vehicular demand on Ellsworth Road south of SR 24 will be double the current capacity of the roadway. §§ SR 24 freeway, with two lanes in each direction, will be over capacity by 2040.

Draft Recommended Improvement Plan

Preliminary Recommendations: §§ With the recommended improvements, almost all of the roadway network is projected to have minimal or moderate congestion. §§ Near-term priorities (besides currently funded projects) include widening Ellsworth Road between SR 24 and Germann Road and extending Sossaman Road across Loop 202 to Ray Road. §§ Ultimate roadway network needs to be a fully developed grid network of 4-lane and 6-lane arterials to provide sufficient capacity and travel route choices for drivers.

Southeast Mesa Land Use and Transportation Plan Informational Brochure

Whatâ€™s Next?

Please fill out a comment form and give us your input on the Draft Southeast Mesa Land Use and Transportation Plan.

Project Schedule

Jul 2018

Aug 2018

The next step will be to finalize recommended improvements to the transportation network. This will include prioritization of the recommended improvements. These prioritized improvements will be in the Draft Final Report, which will be available for public review and comment in June 2019. We want your input on the Draft Land Use and Transportation Plan!

Sep 2018

Oct 2018

Nov 2018

Dec 2018

Jan 2019

Feb 2019

Mar 2019

Apr 2019

May 2019

Jun 2019

Jul 2019

Public and Stakeholder Engagement Land Use and Economic Analysis Transportation Master Plan Final Report

For more information contact: City of Mesa Transportation Department Al Zubi, Project Manager

Phone: 480-644-4912 Email: al.zubi@mesaaz.gov

Visit the Website at www.MesaAZ.gov/SEMesaPlan

4 Rev. 2019 03 21

Al Zubi, P.E., PTOE

Transportation Department City of Mesa 300 E Sixth St. PO Box 1466 Meza, AZ 85211 (480) 644-4912

Michael Grandy, P.E. Kimley-Horn 1001 W. Southern Ave. Suite 131 Mesa, AZ 85210 (480) 207-2662

Felipe Zubia, AICP

Matrix Design Group 2020 N. Central Ave. Suite 1140 Phoenix, AZ 85004 (602) 288-8344

Jim Rounds

Rounds Consulting Group, Inc. 51 W. Third St. Suite E110 Tempe, AZ 85281 (602) 739-0844