gilbert road extension: park-and-ride facility size

To: Robert Forrest, METRO

From: Alec More, HDR

Date: November 13, 2012

Re: Gilbert Road Extension: Park-and-Ride Facility Size Recommendations

1. Introduction

As a component of the Gilbert Road Extension (GRE) project, Valley Metro and the City of Mesa will be developing a park-and-ride facility adjacent to the proposed Gilbert Road Station at Main Street and Gilbert Road. At the same time, a park-and-ride facility at the future Mesa Drive Station has been programmed as a component of the Central Mesa Extension (CME) project (currently under construction). The CME project is scheduled for completion in 2016, with the GRE project scheduled for completion in late 2017. The two stations are separated by a distance of approximately 2 miles.

Valley Metro and the City of Mesa determined the need for the Gilbert Road station park-and-ride facility based on strong demand of existing LRT line riders who use the Sycamore Station park-and-ride lot to access LRT at Sycamore. License plate survey’s conducted periodically continue to demonstrate park-and-rider demand at the Sycamore LRT Station originate from zip codes in central and east Mesa, and the East Valley region collectively. The development of park-and-ride facilities at both the Mesa Drive and Gilbert Road stations will allow surrounding neighborhood residents and persons traveling from points east to access the LRT more proximate.

This memorandum discusses the short- and long-term parking needs within the corridor and specifically at the Mesa Drive and Gilbert Road stations. Supplementing previous memorandums detailing park-and-ride facility sizing, design, and joint development potential, this memorandum specifies the minimum number of parking stalls required for each facility to satisfy projected demand. It is important to recognize that the estimates of parking capacity recommended in this memorandum are based on travel demand forecasts, and it is therefore possible that actual parking demand may be more or less than the estimates provided herein.

2. Park-and-Ride Facility Locations Considered

According to current travel forecasts of drive access and parking demand, both the Mesa Drive and Gilbert Road stations are anticipated to attract park-and-riders from points in central and east Mesa, including drivers as far away as Apache Junction. Results of travel demand model runs already suggest that the demand for parking at stations will increase in the future as the region’s light rail system extends further east beyond Gilbert Road. However, as parking supply is provided at future stations further east of existing parking facilities, it is anticipated that park-and-ride travelers will seek to connect with rail transit at the closest location approximate to their origin point. Current travel forecasts and license plate survey data suggest that as future park-and-ride facilities are implemented east of the Sycamore Station, the heavy demand for access to rail transit and parking facilities – especially from points in the East Valley region – will shift to stations that provide parking further east of the Sycamore Station.

Gilbert Road Extension: Park-and-Ride Facility Size November 13, 2012 The Mesa Drive Station park-and-ride facility will be located on the northeast corner of Main Street and Mesa Drive, adjacent to the Mesa Drive Station. Property acquisition for this facility has already begun, with construction expected to begin in 2016.

Two park-and-ride locations were considered for the proposed Gilbert Road Station, both at the intersection of Main Street and Gilbert Road. Each location is described as follows:

North Option: On the northwest quadrant of the intersection, the North Option is comprised of 7 parcels (approximately 10.2 acres), a land area currently occupied by an existing parking lot serving a mixture of retail commercial businesses.

South Option: On the southwest quadrant of the intersection, the South Option is comprised of 3 parcels (approximately 7.0 acres), used by a recreational vehicle sales and service business and an automobile resale dealership.

To date, the number of parking stalls needed at the proposed Gilbert Road Station has been estimated at between 500 and 700 spaces. This memorandum seeks to refine these parking space estimates.

3. Analysis Methods

This analysis was conducted using regional travel demand forecast model run results completed for the CME project in 2009 using the MAG regional travel demand model. Model year 2015 was used for this analysis as it was the closest model year available to the potential CME and GRE project opening dates. During the CME project, a series of model runs were completed to determine park-and-ride trips and parking demand within the Main Street corridor. Model runs were conducted separately for park-and-rides located at Mesa Drive and Gilbert Road, which allowed project planners to evaluate park-and-ride demand at both stations. However, each model run conducted assumed that a park-and-ride facility would be available at the Mesa Drive Station. Therefore, the question as to what the parking demand would be at the Gilbert Road Station without a Mesa Drive Station cannot be answered with available data.

4. Analysis Results

The analysis yielded the following findings:

In 2015, park-and-ride demand at the Mesa Drive Station is anticipated to be 584 vehicles without a park-and-ride at the Gilbert Road Station.

In 2015, park-and-ride demand at the Mesa Drive Station drops by 247 vehicles (a 42% difference) with the addition of a park-and-ride at the Gilbert Road Station. This results in an anticipated total park-and-ride demand at the Mesa Drive Station of 337 vehicles.

Total park-and-ride demand at the Gilbert Road Station is anticipated to be 556 vehicles in 2015.

In 2015, the total corridor park-and-ride vehicle demand is approximately 1,000 (between the Sycamore and Mesa Drive stations), and 1,350 (between the Sycamore and Gilbert Road stations). The data suggest there is demand for parking between Mesa Drive and Sycamore however these riders could be accommodated at the Sycamore Station park-and-ride facility as total estimated demand at Sycamore with these additional riders would be approximately 450 vehicles.

Gilbert Road Extension: Park-and-Ride Facility Size November 13, 2012 Between 2015 and 2031, park-and-ride demand in the corridor is expected to increase by

60%, from 1,350 vehicles to 2,150 vehicles. Park-and-ride demand at the Gilbert Road Station is anticipated to increase by 87%, and park-and-ride demand at the Mesa Drive Station is estimated to increase by 56%, assuming the Gilbert Road Station is the end-of-line station.

Estimates of parking demand and park-and-ride trips derived from the regional travel demand model did not determine the number parking spaces required for each lot. The estimates provided are for total vehicles. The number of parking spaces required should be less than total estimated vehicle demand to account for shared parking or parking space turn over in a 24-hour time frame.

To identify the number of parking spaces necessary at each facility planned, a parking factor was developed based on the estimated number of vehicle trips made to each station. Because the travel demand model outputs represent the total number of vehicles, this does not equate to the number of spaces that may or may not be necessary. Typically, the travel demand model assumes one person in each vehicle; however, there may be multiple persons in one vehicle that are all considered park-and-riders. A vehicle occupancy factor was applied to account for both single occupant and multi-occupant vehicles.

Additionally, vehicle turnover should also be accounted for. According to current Valley Metro statistics and travel survey information, a 25% turnover rate was assumed for both park-and-ride facilities. This turnover rate is based on the observed rate of turnover at existing park-and-rides and the travel patterns and trip characteristics of current LRT riders. Specifically, a relatively low proportion of trips currently made are for commuting purposes during normal weekday hours. According to current Valley Metro and MAG regional travel survey information, a significant number of rail transit trips that involve parking-and-riding are for entertainment purposes or traveling to school. A strong proportion of East Valley residents use light rail to access Arizona State University, or to attend concerts, sporting events, or local festivals in Tempe and central Phoenix. As a result, the short-term duration of these trips leads to a more frequent rate of turnover at park-and-ride facilities.

Applying Valley Metro’s current parking factors for a variety of trip-making purposes, the total number of vehicle trips made to both the Mesa Drive and Gilbert Road stations in 2015 was divided by a shared parking factor of 1.25 to determine the approximate number of spaces needed. The estimated number of parking spaces was rounded to the nearest hundred spaces. For the Mesa Drive station, this equates to approximately 500 spaces in 2015 without a park-and-ride at Gilbert Road. However, assuming that parking demand shifts to the Gilbert Road Station park-and-ride (once operational), applying this same factor to the new demand estimated at the Mesa Drive Station suggests that approximately 300 spaces are necessary in 2015 at the Mesa Drive Station. With the parking demand projected to increases at the Gilbert Road Station, it is anticipated that 500 spaces at the Gilbert Road Station are necessary in 2015.

Recognizing that parking demand at each station is anticipated to increase by 2031 (56% at Mesa Drive and 87% at Gilbert Road), the project team sought to estimate planning horizon year parking supply needs for 2031. It was assumed that both stations would be open and operational in 2031. Applying the parking demand growth percentages to the total number of vehicles in 2015, it is estimated that 525 vehicles would seek parking at the Mesa Drive park-and-ride. Dividing this number by the shared parking factor of 1.25, it is estimated that 425 spaces would be necessary at Mesa Drive Station. Comparatively, a growth in parking demand at Gilbert Road of 87% above the

Gilbert Road Extension: Park-and-Ride Facility Size November 13, 2012 current forecast of 556 vehicles suggests that over 1,000 vehicles would seek parking at the Gilbert Road Station. Applying the shared parking ratio of 1.25 suggest that approximately 850 spaces would be necessary at the Gilbert Road Station in year 2031.

Table 1 displays the results of the parking space requirement analysis conducted and outlined in this memorandum.

Table 1. Summary of Parking Space Requirements by LRT Station

Station Estimated Parking Spaces

(2015) Estimated Parking Spaces

(2031)a

Mesa Drive (w/out Gilbert Road) 500 N/A

Mesa Drive (w/Gilbert Road) 300 425

Gilbert Road 500 850 Source: HDR, Inc. 2012 a The estimate of parking spaces in 2031 assumes both the Mesa Drive and Gilbert Road stations are operational and

include parking capacity. N/A – Not Applicable

5. Recommendations

Based upon anticipated park-and-ride utilization, the findings of this analysis suggest that a park-and-ride facility at Mesa Drive should be sized to accommodate 300 vehicles in year 2015. Comparatively, a park-and-ride facility at Gilbert Road should be sized to accommodate 500 vehicles in year 2015. However, assuming that parking demand will increase at both stations by 2031 (56% for Mesa Drive and 87% for Gilbert Road), it is assumed that the Mesa Drive park-and-ride should be sized to accommodate up to 425 vehicles, while the Gilbert Road park-and-ride be capable of serving up to 850 vehicles. It is important to note that the 850 parking spaces required at the Gilbert Road Station park-and-ride by 2031 assumes that the Gilbert Road Station is the end-of-line station for LRT, without extensions further east. If LRT is extended further east by 2031, and future stations include parking, then park-and-ride demand at the Gilbert Road Station will decrease accordingly.

It is important to remember that these estimates of facility size are based on travel demand forecasts that are also predicated on a number of planning assumptions. Increases in transit service frequencies, population and/or employment densities, or other changes to corridor characteristics that could affect transit ridership or the demand for trips to the east side of downtown Mesa will undoubtedly influence parking demand.

Since the Mesa Drive Station will be a temporary end-of-line station until the Gilbert Road Extension project is completed (approximately 1 year), parking demand at Mesa Drive could be satisfied through the negotiation of a temporary shared use agreement.

Page Intentionally Left Blank

Transportation Technical Report Page 1 December 2012

Environmental Assessment

Gilbert Road Extension



Draft Transportation Technical Report

By

Grijalva Engineering

and HDR, Inc.

December 2012




TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION PAGE

1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 4

1.1 2031 No-Build Alternative .................................................................................... 5

1.2 2031 Build Alternative (4-Lane) ............................................................................ 5

1.3 2031 Build Alternative (2-Lane) ............................................................................ 5

1.4 2031 Build Alternative (2-Lane Roundabouts) ...................................................... 5

1.5 End-of-Line Park and Ride ................................................................................... 6

2.0 2012 EXISTING CONDITIONS ............................................................................ 6

2.1 Roadway Characteristics ...................................................................................... 6

2.2 Land Use ............................................................................................................ 11

2.3 Roadway Classification ...................................................................................... 13

2.4 Traffic Volume .................................................................................................... 15

2.5 Transit Service .................................................................................................... 16

2.6 Bicycle Facilities ................................................................................................. 19

2.7 Pedestrian Facilities ........................................................................................... 21

3.0 TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSIS ................................................................ 21

3.1 Methodology ....................................................................................................... 22

3.2 Transportation Operations Analysis and Approach ............................................ 23

3.3 Traffic Operations Analysis Results .................................................................... 41

3.4 Traffic Operations Key Findings and Suggested MIitigation ............................... 42

4.0 OTHER TRANSPORTATION IMPACTS ASSESSMENTS................................ 47

4.1 Impacts to Signalization ...................................................................................... 47

4.2 Impacts Due to Traffic Diversion ......................................................................... 48

4.3 Turning Movements ............................................................................................ 49

4.4 Design and Operating Speeds............................................................................ 49

4.5 Impacts to Transit ............................................................................................... 50

4.6 Impacts to On-Street Parking ............................................................................. 50

4.7 Impacts to Bicycle Facilities ................................................................................ 51

4.9 Impacts to Freight Mobility .................................................................................. 55

4.10 Impacts to Emergency Services and Vehicles Access ....................................... 55

5.0 IMPACTS ANTICIPATED DURING CONSTRUCTION ................................................ 57




TABLE OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Gilbert Road Extension Study Area .................................................................. 4

Figure 2: Intersections Studied, 2031 Build Alternatives (4-Lane) and (2-Lane) ............. 7

Figure 3: Intersections Studied, 2031 Build Alternative (2-Lane Roundabouts) .............. 8

Figure 4: 2012 Existing Signalized Intersections ............................................................. 9

Figure 5: Street Character Designations – Central Main Plan, 2012 ............................. 12

Figure 6: Arterial Functional Classification .................................................................... 13

Figure 7: Street Character Designations – Central Main Plan, 2012 ............................. 15

Figure 8: Valley Metro LINK Main Street Route ............................................................ 17

Figure 9: Bicycle Master Plan Ultimate Citywide Bicycle Network ................................. 19

Figure 10: Bicycle Facilities and Arterial Sidewalks ...................................................... 20

Figure 11: PM Peak North PNR Trip Distributions ........................................................ 37

Figure 12: PM Peak South PNR Trip Distributions ........................................................ 37

Figure 13: Bicycle Route Through a Roundabout (WSDOT) ......................................... 52

Figure 14: Bicycle Ramps at a Roundabout (FHWA) .................................................... 52

Figure 15: Typical Roundabout Design, May 2012 Concept Plan ................................. 54

TABLE OF TABLES

Table 1: Main Street Existing Roadway Characteristics at a Glance ............................. 10

Table 2: Average Weekday 24-Hour Traffic Volume ..................................................... 16

Table 3: Existing Transit Service Summary ................................................................... 18

Table 4: Signalized Intersection Level of Service Definitions ........................................ 23

Table 5: Unsignalized Intersection Level of Service Definitions .................................... 23

Table 6: 2012 Existing PM Peak Turning Movement Counts ........................................ 26

Table 7: 2031 No Build PM Peak Turning Movement Counts ....................................... 28

Table 8: 2031 Build Alt. (4-Lane) PNR South PM Peak Turning Movement Counts ..... 30

Table 9: 2031 Build Alt. (4-Lane) PNR North PM Peak Turning Movement Counts ...... 31

Table 10: 2031 Build Alternative (2-Lane) PNR South PM Peak Turning Movement

Counts also the Counts for (2-Lane Roundabouts) ...................................................... 33

Table 11: 2031 Build Alternative (2-Lane) PNR North PM Peak Turning Movement

Counts also the Counts for (2-Lane Roundabouts) ...................................................... 34

Table 12: PNR PM Peak Hour Vehicle Trips: North and South PNR ............................ 36

Table 13: PNR and KNR PM Peak Hour Volumes: North and South PNR .................... 37

Table 14: Intersection Level of Service Results – PM Peak Hour ................................. 43

Table 15: Intersection LOS Results – AM Peak Hr at Gilbert Rd PNR .......................... 44

Table 16: LOS Comparison of 2031 Build Alternatives ................................................. 45

Table 17: On-Street Parking Impacts ............................................................................ 51




1.0 INTRODUCTION

This Transportation Technical Report has been prepared in support of the Gilbert Road

Extension Environmental Assessment (EA) for Light Rail Transit (LRT) improvements

along Main Street from east of Mesa Drive to Gilbert Road. This report provides an

assessment of the 2031 No-Build and 2031 Build Alternatives for the Gilbert Road

Extension (GRE) project on the following transportation system components: traffic

operations, on-street parking, transit, pedestrian and bicycle facilities, and vehicular

access within the project study area, including freight mobility and emergency services.

Figure 1 depicts the GRE project study area, and shows where the project connects to

the Central Mesa LRT Extension at its terminus station and park and ride east of Mesa

Drive.

FIGURE 1: GILBERT ROAD EXTENSION STUDY AREA

The information provided in this report is intended to assist Valley Metro and the City of

Mesa in understanding the transportation-related differences between the proposed

alternatives and to assist with a selection of a preferred alternative. This report

describes potential transportation impacts for each of the proposed project alternatives,

and develops appropriate design strategies, where needed, to avoid or minimize

impacts.

Full definitions of the 2031 No-Build, Build Alternatives and Design Option, may be

found in Chapter 2 of the Environmental Assessment (EA), and are summarized as

follows:




1.1 2031 NO-BUILD ALTERNATIVE

The 2031 No-Build Alternative serves as the basis for comparison of effects with the

“build” alternatives. The No-Build Alternative includes all roadway and bus system

improvements for which funding has been committed in the appropriate agency

Transportation Improvement Programs (TIPs) and the Maricopa Association of

Governments (MAG) 2031 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). In this alternative, Main

Street retains the existing four-lane configuration with a raised median divider, on-street

parking, bus transit stops, bicycle lanes and sidewalks. Local transit and LINK bus rapid

transit continue to serve the Main Street corridor. This scenario also includes the

Central Mesa Extension LRT project expected to be operational in 2016.

1.2 2031 BUILD ALTERNATIVE (4-LANE)

Light rail would be developed in a semi-exclusive, center-running guideway, retaining

two-travel lanes in each direction, with bicycle and pedestrian facilities; on-street

parking would be removed. Local bus service would continue to operate along Main

Street, providing transit service to bus stops between LRT stations. Two LRT stations

are proposed, located east of Stapley Drive and west of Gilbert Road. A park and ride

facility is proposed at the Gilbert Road Station with two site options; one on the north

side of Main Street and one on the south side. The Main Street LINK would terminate at

the proposed new Gilbert Road Station. Figure 2 shows the intersections to be studied

and includes three new proposed signalized intersections as well as one additional

proposed pedestrian signal along the corridor. Lindsay Road is also included in the

2031 traffic analysis performed but it is outside of the EA GRE Study Area.

1.3 2031 BUILD ALTERNATIVE (2-LANE)

Light rail would be developed in a semi-exclusive, center-running guideway. Main Street

would be narrowed to one lane in each direction. Bicycle lanes would be retained. Local

bus service would continue to operate along Main Street, providing transit service to bus

stops between LRT stations. A park and ride facility is proposed at the Gilbert Road

Station with two site options; one on the north side of Main Street and one on the south

side. The Main Street LINK would terminate at the proposed new Gilbert Road Station.

Figure 2 shows the intersections to be studied and includes three new proposed

signalized intersections as well as one additional proposed pedestrian signal along the

corridor. Lindsay Road is also included in the 2031 traffic analysis performed but it is

outside of the EA GRE Study Area.

1.4 2031 BUILD ALTERNATIVE (2-LANE ROUNDABOUTS)

This design option to the 2031 Build Alternative (2-Lane) would provide modern

roundabouts rather than signalized intersections along Main Street at Horne, Miller




Street, North Lazona Drive, North Harris Drive, and South Williams. Unlike typical

modern roundabouts, those along Main Street would have gate operations actuated by

an approaching train, and would include pedestrian actuated signals for Main Street

crossings east and west of the intersection. Figure 3 shows the intersections to be

studied and includes seven signalized and five roundabout intersections along the

corridor. The design would add one new traffic signal at the proposed Gilbert Road

Station Park and Ride (PNR) and remove three existing traffic signals and replace them

with roundabouts. Roundabouts would also be added at two locations that are not

currently controlled by traffic signals. New pedestrian signals would generally be placed

on each side of the roundabouts.

1.5 END-OF-LINE PARK AND RIDE

For this traffic analysis, a 500–850 space PNR facility would be developed at the east

end of the light rail corridor at the Gilbert Road Station. The PNR could include surface

parking or a structure may be built. The type and capacity of facility will be determined

as design advances and estimates of demand are better known. There are two PNR

options. One option is a PNR facility on the north side of Main Street, and the other

option is a PNR facility on the south side of Main Street. In each option, the PNR access

from Main Street would be at a new signalized intersection with left turn lanes. Access

from Gilbert Road is proposed as “uncontrolled” access either north or south of Main

Street, respectively. A full description of the PNR facility may be found in Section 2 in

the EA.

2.0 2012 EXISTING CONDITIONS

2.1 ROADWAY CHARACTERISTICS

Table 1 documents the 2012 existing roadway conditions along Main Street between

Mesa Drive and Gilbert Road. Included in the documentation of existing conditions is

the current Main Street travel lane configuration, the configuration of turn lanes at all

signalized and unsignalized intersections, transit service, on-street parking quantities

and locations, and bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Information in Table 1 is grouped

according to Main Street “segments”; these are related to the roadway segments

between the existing signalized intersections. Figure 4 shows the seven existing

signalized intersections within the study area, data for which is included in Table 1.




FIGURE 2: INTERSECTIONS STUDIED, 2031 BUILD ALTERNATIVES (4-LANE) AND (2-LANE)




FIGURE 3: INTERSECTIONS STUDIED, 2031 BUILD ALTERNATIVE (2-LANE ROUNDABOUTS)




FIGURE 4: 2012 EXISTING SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS




TABLE 1: MAIN STREET EXISTING ROADWAY CHARACTERISTICS AT A GLANCE

MAIN STREET

SEGMENT

TRAVEL

LANES

SIGNALIZED

INTERSECTIONS

UNSIGNALIZED

INTERSECTIONS

DRIVEWAYS/

CURB CUTS*

2010 Traffic

Volume

vehicles/day

SPEED

LIMIT TRANSIT

ON-STREET

PARALLEL

PARKING

BICYCLE PEDESTRIAN

Mesa Drive to

Horne Street

Main Street has

two travel lanes

each direction

(three lanes in

short segment

just west of

Gilbert Road)

Raised median

with gaps for left

turn lanes to

streets and

driveways

Hobson

EB and WB left turn lanes

Horne Street


EB and WB right turn lanes

NB and SB left turn lanes

S. Udall: EB/WB left

Lesueur: EB/WB left

S. Olive: EB/WB left

N. Edgemont: RIRO

N/S Ashland: EB/WB left

N. Bellview: EB left

North side: 6

South side: 5

24,805

EB: 12,495

WB: 12,310

Count location:

800 block

Main Street

35 mph

Local Route 40

30-minute service weekday/weekend

WB stop at Horne

LINK- Main Street BRT

Stations at Mesa Drive with connection to

Route # 120 on Mesa Drive

North side

7 spaces

South side

0 spaces

There are

continuous

striped bicycle

lanes in each

direction on Main

Street.

Bicycle lanes are

located next to

the curb or to the

on-street parallel

parking where

parking exists.

Sidewalks are

continuous on both

sides of Main

Street.

Sidewalks are

located adjacent to

the back of curb

with no landscape

strip.

Sidewalk width

varies, generally

about 6-feet

Horne Street to

Stapley Drive

Horne Street




Stapley Drive




N. Frasier Dr: EB left

S. Temple St: WB left

Miller St: EB/WB left

Matlock St: EB/WB left

N. Spencer St: EB left

N. Parsell St: EB left

North side: 19

South side: 21

Local Route 40


EB stops at Horne and Miller

WB stop at Matlock

Stations at Stapley Drive


15-minute peak service

30-minute service weekday only

Stations at Stapley Drive with connection to

Route #128 on Stapley Drive

North side

33 spaces

South side

37 spaces

Stapley Drive to

N. Lazona Drive

Stapley Drive




N. Lazona Drive (T)


SB left turn lane

S. Allen St: WB left

S. Lazona Dr: WB left

North side: 5

South side: 10

25,943

EB: 13,304

WB: 12,639

Count location:

1600 block

Main Street

40 mph

Local Route 40


WB stop at N. Lazona


No LINK stations in this segment

North side

27 spaces

South side

11 spaces

N. Lazona Drive to

S. Williams

N. Lazona Drive (T)


SB left turn lane

S. Williams (T)


EB right turn lane

NB left turn lane

S. Barkley: EB/WB left

N. Hunt Dr: EB/WB left

N. Harris Dr: EB/WB left

North side: 16

South side: 16

Local Route 40


EB stop at N. Lazona and Harris

WB stops at Harris


No LINK stations in this segment

North side

31 spaces

South side

30 spaces

Williams to

Gilbert Road

S. Williams (T)


EB right turn lane

NB left turn lane

Gilbert Road

Dual EB/WB left turn lanes

WB right turn lane

EB through/right lane

Dual NB/SB left turn lanes

NB right turn lane

N. Guthrie St: EB/WB left

Driveways: EB/WB left

North side: 12

South side: 16

Local Route 40


EB/WB stops at Guthrie

Stations at Gilbert Road


15-minute peak service

30-minute service weekday only

Stations at Gilbert Road with connection to

Route #136 on Gilbert Road

North side

9 spaces

South side

19 spaces

* Most driveways are right-in/right-out due to the raised median, except where a left-turn lane and median break enables left turns into and out of the driveway 2010 Traffic Volume: City of Mesa Transportation Division, 2012 Traffic Volume Map 2012 Draft Mesa Bicycle Master Plan: Bicycle lanes are planned on Main Street west of Gilbert Road – currently no bicycle lanes Abbreviations: Eastbound (EB), Westbound (WB); right-in-right-out (RIRO); T intersection at Main Street (T)




2.2 LAND USE

Along Main Street, land use between Mesa Drive and Gilbert Road is typical of auto-

oriented, suburban development, with low-scale single use commercial buildings the

dominant land use feature. Although no single family residential neighborhoods are

located adjacent to Main Street, neighborhoods border the commercial strip to the north

and south, and they also abut strip commercial development along University Drive and

Broadway Road.

The City of Mesa’s Central Main Plan

(January 2012) supplements the adopted

Mesa 2025 Land Use Plan and prepares the

community to take advantage of the public

investment in light rail. The Central Main

Plan is intended to facilitate redevelopment

along Main Street into a mixed-use, higher

intensity, transit-oriented development pattern, as shown in Figure 5. The Central Main

Planning Area is situated generally between University Drive and Broadway Road and

between Country Club Drive and Gilbert Road. Light rail is viewed as a catalyst for

change from the auto-oriented development pattern, toward a mixed-use, pedestrian

friendly urban environment. The Plan acknowledges that while improvements to the

pedestrian and bicycling environment may reduce vehicular mobility, the grid street

system will continue to provide reasonable vehicular access through the Central Main

Area.




FIGURE 5: STREET CHARACTER DESIGNATIONS – CENTRAL MAIN PLAN, 2012




2.3 ROADWAY CLASSIFICATION

The arterial pattern east of Downtown Mesa consists of a grid system, typically with one

mile spacing on surveyed section lines between arterial streets such as the east-west

running University Drive and Broadway Road, and the north-south arterials: Mesa Drive,

Stapley Drive, and Gilbert Road. Formerly designated as US Highway 60, Main Street

runs on a mid-section line between University Drive and Broadway Road. It continues to

serve as a regional route while it also provides local access. The regional freeway

system, including the Superstition Freeway (US 60) is to the south and the Red

Mountain Freeway (US 202) is to the north, see Figure 6.

In the City of Mesa 2025 Transportation Plan (2002), Main Street is designated a

“Transit Priority” corridor, and it has a “Town Center/Main Street Corridor” overlay, both

of which provide guidance for the preferred use and development of the street. Table 1

provides details of the existing roadway characteristics.

Sidewalks are located on both sides of Main Street and on the intersecting arterials, and

there are bicycle lanes on Main Street, University Drive, Broadway Road and Lindsay

Road; see Figure 10.

FIGURE 6: ARTERIAL FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION

MESA 2025 TRANSPORTATION PLAN




Referred to in Section 2.2 of this report, the Central Main Plan updates the Mesa 2025

Transportation Plan in consideration of the regional light rail investment and the urbanist

vision for Downtown and the Main Street Corridor. New “street character” designations

apply according to Figure 7. Within the study area along Main Street and intersecting

streets, the following street character designations apply:

Village Connector: Intended to create walkable segments that will encourage

pedestrian and bicycle use, with light rail accommodated in a center median (Main

Street).

Downtown/Village Main Street: Intended to create short walkable segments of Main

Street that will help identify the commercial center of Transit Village areas – the

areas around planned light rail stations.

Urban Connector: Intended to create walkable segments of local major streets in

areas less influenced by light rail (Mesa Drive and Stapley Drive).

Regional Arterial: Intended to create walkable segments of regional major streets

that intersect with Main Street, but in areas less influenced by light rail (Gilbert

Road).

Collector Street: Intended to create walkable segments of local streets that should

help encourage safe pedestrian and bicycle use from residential areas to the light

rail system (Horne).




FIGURE 7: STREET CHARACTER DESIGNATIONS – CENTRAL MAIN PLAN, 2012




2.4 TRAFFIC VOLUME

Table 2 provides the current (2010) and historical measured average number of

weekday vehicle trips along the study corridor on Main Street at 2 to 3 measurement

points between Mesa Drive and Gilbert Road. Traffic volume data was obtained from

the City of Mesa Traffic Counts maps.

An observed long-range trend in traffic volume is perhaps counter-intuitive in that the

volume is not on a trajectory of year-over-year increases. While some peaking of traffic

volume is observed in 2005/2006, volumes in 2010 are less than that in the late 1990’s.

This is not only occurring on a local basis, but on a regional and national level as well.

This historic trend will help inform traffic projections to the 2031 No-Build and the 2031

Build alternatives.

TABLE 2: AVERAGE WEEKDAY 24-HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUME

MAIN STREET

TRAFFIC COUNT LOCATION

1996 1998 2000 2002 2005 2006 2008 2010

Mesa – Horne* 28,300 31,000 26,200 29,200 30,200 27,700 25,297 24,805

Horne – Stapley 28,700 31,000

Stapley – Gilbert 27,800 29,700 24,400 31,700 35,800 34,400 26,247 25,943

Source of traffic counts 1996 – 2010: City of Mesa Traffic Counts Map

*Mesa/Horne traffic counts discontinued after 1998

2.5 TRANSIT SERVICE

Existing transit service along Main Street and on the major intersecting streets of Mesa

Drive, Stapley Drive and Gilbert Road is noted in Table 1 and more fully documented in

Table 3. The transit routes that serve Main Street are the traditional local transit service,

route 40 operated by Valley Metro, and a new bus rapid transit-like service provided by

Valley Metro LINK – Main Street, initiated in 2008. Local Valley Metro routes 120, 128

and 136 serve the north-south intersecting streets, Mesa Drive, Stapley Drive and

Gilbert Road, respectively. Running parallel to Main Street are routes 30, that runs on

University Drive to the north and

route 45 that runs on Broadway

Road to the south.

All Valley Metro buses are

equipped with front-mounted

bicycle racks that hold up to 3

bicycles. These bicycle racks are

available on a first-come, first-

served basis. If the bicycle rack is




full, accommodations cannot be made onboard buses for the bicycle, and the bicyclist

will have to wait for the next bus.

Valley Metro operates the Main Street LINK bus rapid transit service traveling between

the Superstition Springs Park-and-Ride and the Sycamore Transit Center where it

connects to METRO light rail, as shown in Figure 8. This is a state-of-the-art bus service

in Mesa that provides rail-like comfort, and better speeds and reliability. LINK stations

are generally spaced at one-mile intervals in association with major intersecting

arterials.

All LINK vehicles provide wireless connectivity, allowing passengers to connect to the

internet with a smartphone or laptop. LINK vehicles employ traffic signal priority, a

technology that communicates with traffic signals to provide reliable travel time along

the route. The LINK route features a real time bus tracker system that communicates

bus location to riders when buses can be expected to arrive at specific stations along

Main Street and Power Road.

FIGURE 8: VALLEY METRO LINK MAIN STREET ROUTE

Main St




TABLE 3: EXISTING TRANSIT SERVICE SUMMARY

Transit

Route

Roadway

Corridor

Transit Stops and LINK

Station Locations within

study area*

Transit Route

Span of Service

Transit Route

Frequency

LINK

BRT

Main Street:

Sycamore to

Superstition

Springs

Main Street at:

Mesa Drive

Stapley Drive WB station near side

Gilbert Road

Lindsay Road WB station near side

Weekday

4 AM – 10 PM

30 Minute Off-Peak

15 Minute Peak

Saturday: No Service

No service

Sunday: No Service

Local

# 40

Main Street:

Price to

Superstition

Springs

Main Street at:

Mesa Drive

Hobson

Horne

S. Miller St./ N. Matlock Stapley Dr. WB near side

North Lazona Drive

North Harris Drive

North Guthrie Street

Gilbert Road

Chesnut

Windsor

Lindsay Rd. WB near side

Weekday

5 AM – 10 PM

30 Minute service

all day every day

Saturday

6 AM – 10 PM

Sunday

6 AM – 10 PM

Local

# 30

University

Drive South

Mtn. CC to

Sossaman

University Drive

Route #30 bus stops @

major arterials and

intermediate streets

Weekday: 5 AM-12 AM 30 Minute service

Saturday: 5 AM-12 AM 60 Minute service

Sunday: 6 AM-10 PM

(SMCC to Price only) 60 Minute service

Local

# 45

Broadway

Road

19th/Southern

to Superstition

Springs

Broadway Road

Route #45 bus stops @

major arterials and

intermediate streets

Weekday: 5 AM-11 PM 30 Minute service

Saturday: 6 AM-11 PM 60 Minute service

Sunday: No service in study area

Local

# 120

Mesa Drive:

Fitch Park to

Lewis/Coury

Mesa Drive at

Main Street

Weekday: 9 AM – 9 PM 30 Minute service

Saturday: 9 AM-9 PM

Sunday: No Service No Service

Local

# 128

Stapley Drive:

Inverness to

McKellips

Stapley Drive at

Main Street

Weekday

6 AM – 6 PM 30 Minute service

Saturday 6 AM – 7 PM

60 Minute service


Local

# 136

Gilbert Road:

Germann Road

to Boeing

Gilbert Road at

Main Street

Weekday 5 AM – 7 PM

30 Minute service

Saturday

8 AM – 7 PM 60 Min. at Main St.


Source: ValleyMetro.org

* Station and stop locations are at the far side of intersections unless noted




2.6 BICYCLE FACILITIES

Bicycle lanes exist in both directions on Main Street next to the curb or to on-street

parallel parking. The draft Mesa Bicycle Master Plan (August 2012) defines the future

bicycle network vision for the city. When adopted, the Bicycle Master Plan will update

the Bicycle component of the Mesa 2025 Transportation Plan (2002). The “Ultimate

Bicycle Network” envisioned in the Plan, is shown in Figure 9. For the Gilbert Road

Extension study area, the existing and planned bicycle facilities are shown in Figure 10.

The Bicycle Master Plan includes design guidelines for bicycle lane widths on Main

Street. The existing five-foot wide bicycle lanes along Main Street would be extended

east of Gilbert Road. Bicycle lanes on Gilbert Road would intersect with bicycle lanes on

Main Street. University Drive east of Stapley Drive, and Broadway Road east of Gilbert

Road also have bicycle lanes. The complete network of bicycle facilities will provide

non-motorized access to transit, employment, schools, shopping, recreation and

regional destinations.

FIGURE 9: BICYCLE MASTER PLAN ULTIMATE CITYWIDE BICYCLE NETWORK




FIGURE 10: BICYCLE FACILITIES AND ARTERIAL SIDEWALKS

Source: Mesa Draft Bicycle Master Plan (2012), aerial photography and field reconnaissance




2.7 PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES

Sidewalks along Main Street are continuous on both sides. They are located at the back

of the curb with no intervening landscape strip. On-street parked cars and/or bicycle

lanes provide a buffer between pedestrians and vehicles traveling the posted speed

limit between 35 and 40 miles per hour. Existing sidewalks are generally 6 feet wide or

greater, although some locations have narrower sidewalks. The travel speeds of

vehicles, coupled with the narrow sidewalk design and lack of pedestrian separation

creates an environment not conducive to regular pedestrian activity. Sloping driveway

ramps across sidewalks are common but this design is not consistent with current City

of Mesa M-42 Driveway Detail (City of Mesa Public Street Access Guidelines, February

15, 2005). Standard Detail M-43 requires a separation from the curb of sidewalks along

arterials, with the width of separation and the landscape to be determined by the City.

The City of Mesa Design Guidelines, Section 261 (Pedestrian Facilities) requires a

minimum of 6-foot wide sidewalks on collector and arterial streets.

At signalized intersections, standard crosswalk striping is provided and pedestrian

signal heads inform pedestrians of crossing opportunities. Section 501 of the City of

Mesa Traffic Signal Manual (October 2009) requires countdown pedestrian signals to be

installed at new signal locations and with all signal replacements. Sidewalk design and

other pedestrian considerations are included in the Pedestrian Plan section of the Mesa

2025 Transportation Plan.

3.0 TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSIS

This section summarizes the traffic operations analysis conducted for the Gilbert Road

Extension study. Traffic analysis was conducted for the PM peak hour traffic conditions

at the study intersections shown in Figures 2, 3 and 4 for the following alternatives:

2012 Existing Conditions

2031 No-Build

2031 Build Alternative (4-Lane) – with north and south PNR options

2031 Build Alternative (2-Lane) – with north and south PNR options

2031 Build Alternative (2-Lane Roundabouts)– with north and south PNR options

This traffic operations analysis is based on the conceptual designs prepared by HDR

dated May 2012 for this phase of the study. At this level, the traffic operations analysis

will assist staff in understanding the relative impacts of the alternatives on a

comparative basis. Future detailed traffic operational analysis using more advanced

traffic analysis software, such as VISSIM, will be conducted in the design phase of the

project.




3.1 METHODOLOGY

Traffic analysis of roadway and intersection operational performance for the study

scenarios was performed using the Synchro/SimTraffic simulation analysis package

(version 7, Build series 755) developed by Trafficware, Ltd, which evaluates intersection

delay and congestion based on procedures similar to those given in the 2000 Highway

Capacity Manual (Chapters 16 and 17). Basic inputs used for Synchro relate primarily to

traffic data including traffic volumes, lane geometry (i.e., number of lanes, lane widths,

and turn-lane storage lengths), signal timing data, heavy vehicle traffic levels, on-street

parking, bus blockage and a variety of other data items.

It should be noted that Synchro is limited when assessing light rail operations. Since

light rail will operate in semi-exclusive right of way and will be in coordination with auto

traffic operations, the Synchro model will consider light rail as part of progressive auto

traffic operations and with protected auto and pedestrian movements across the light

rail tracks at all crossings. This was agreed to be a sufficient method by City of Mesa

and Valley Metro staff and that results obtained for each alternative can be compared

relative to each other and to the 2031 No-Build scenario. As mentioned, more

sophisticated traffic software will be used in Final Design of the project.

The methodology used in this study was based on the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual

(HCM), for the determination of Level of Service (LOS) for existing and future traffic

conditions. Analysis results are expressed as LOS and Intersection Delay.

For the 2031 Build Alternative (2-Lane Roundabouts), in addition to Synchro, RODEL 1,

release 1.9.7, was used to provide roundabout intersection delay and level of service

anticipated for this option. Basic inputs used for RODEL include traffic volumes, and

effective roundabout geometry including roundabout lane widths, entry and exit widths

and flare lengths. The analysis results for the roundabout intersections are expressed

using average delays calculated and associated LOS for unsignalized intersections, see

Table 5.

Level of Service (LOS) is a quantitative measure of intersection delay and capacity.

LOS is frequently expressed in qualitative terms as LOS A (free-flow) to LOS F

(congested). Tables 4 and 5 provide LOS descriptions for signalized and unsignalized

intersections; respectively. The “Description” column qualitatively describes the

perception of traffic conditions by motorists and passengers, while the “Average Delay”

column quantitatively describes the number of seconds of delay per vehicle associated

with each LOS.




TABLE 4: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITIONS

Level

of

Service

Description Average Delay

(second/vehicle)

A Operations with very low delay occurring with favorable progression

and/or short cycle length. ≤ 10

B Operations with low delay occurring with good progression and/or

short cycle lengths. > 10 – 20

C

Operations with average delays resulting from fair progression

and/or longer cycle lengths. Individual cycle failures begin to

appear.

> 20 – 35

D

Operations with longer delays due to a combination of unfavorable

progression, long cycle lengths, or high V/C ratios. Many vehicles

stop and individual cycle failures are noticeable.

> 35 – 55

E

Operations with high delay values indicating poor progression, long

cycle lengths, and high V/C ratios. Individual cycle failures are

frequent occurrences. This is considered to be the limit of

acceptable delay.

> 55 – 80

F Operations with delays unacceptable to most drivers occurring due

to over saturation, poor progression, or very long cycle lengths. > 80

Source: Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, 2000

TABLE 5: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITIONS

Level of

Service Description

Average Delay (second/vehicle)

A Little or no delay 0 – 10

B Minor delay > 10 – 15

C Average delay > 15 – 25

D Moderate delay > 25 – 35

E Lengthy delay > 35 – 50

F Excessive delay/gridlock > 50

Source: Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, 2000

3.2 TRANSPORTATION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS AND APPROACH

This traffic operations analysis employed a conventional approach that included basic

data collection, investigation of existing roadway and traffic conditions, utilizing the 2031

Build alternative design concepts dated May 2012, and then analysis of the above

mentioned study scenario operational impacts.




Available historical traffic volumes were collected from City of Mesa data base (years

2007, 2008 and 2009) and new traffic counts (auto, pedestrian and bicycle) were

performed at all signalized intersections within the study area, including University Drive

and Broadway Road. Traffic counts were performed in April and May of 2012. Due to

construction that was underway along Main Street at that time, traffic counts were found

not to be indicative of actual travel patterns and were not used in this traffic analysis –

refer to section 3.2.1.2.

Signal timings and phasings were obtained from the 2011 City of Mesa Synchro model

provided by the City of Mesa.

The traffic operations study analyzed the PM peak hour traffic conditions, as the

evening peak period is expected to generate the most congested traffic conditions

during a weekday.

Additional intersections were added to the study area as the project progressed. For

the North and South PNR’s - Gilbert Road/North PNR Access and Gilbert Road/South

PNR Access intersections were added. These were studied as unsignalized

intersections. The City also requested to study three intersections during the AM peak

period for both the 2031 Build Alternative (4-Lane) (north and south PNR options) and

the 2031 Build Alternative (2-Lane) (north and south PNR options) at Main Street/PNR

Access intersection, Main Street/Gilbert Road intersection and Gilbert Road/PNR

Access intersection. These locations were thought to be impacted, especially Main

Street and Gilbert Road, by the additional traffic volumes generated by the PNR in the

AM Peak period. These will be further studied in the project design phases based on a

selection of the PNR location.

3.2.1 Traffic Volume Development

3.2.1.1 MAG Travel Demand Models (TDM’s)

Development of the traffic volumes/turning movement counts for each of the 2031 No-

Build and 2031 Build Alternatives and Build Option required review, understanding and

in some cases interpretation of the MAG Travel Demand Models developed for this

study.

Comparing the TDM 2031 No-Build and 2031 Build Alternative (4-Lane) volumes found

little change between the two and at many locations the 2031 Build Alternative (4-Lane)

volumes were less than the 2031 No-Build. This was due mainly to the introduction of

the Central Mesa Extension LRT project which reduces Main Street to 2 travel lanes

between Country Club Drive and Mesa Drive and also due to a travel mode shift that

includes more rail transit ridership and reduced auto traffic volumes.

The TDM’s were also used as a basis of volume development for pedestrians, transit

boardings and alightings and the Gilbert Road PNR volume development.




3.2.1.2 2012 Existing Traffic Volumes/Turning Movement Counts (TMC’s)

As mentioned above, both historical traffic counts and new traffic counts were obtained.

But due to the construction that occurred along Main Street, it was agreed to use the

historic counts as the basis to develop the 2012 traffic volumes/turning movement

counts. This was considered to be conservative as the trend in traffic volume over the

last 5 years was shown to be decreasing, as evident in Table 2 and MAG Travel

Demand Models. This was considered acceptable to City of Mesa and Valley Metro

staff. The 2012 Existing Traffic Volumes/Turning Movement Counts (TMC’s) are shown

in Table 6.




TABLE 6: 2012 EXISTING PM PEAK TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS

INTERSECTION # ** Approach

Total

EASTBOUND (EB) WESTBOUND (WB) NORTHBOUND (NB) SOUTHBOUND (SB)

Total EBL EBT EBR Total WBL WBT WBR Total NBL NBT NBR Total SBL SBT SBR

Main Street

1 Mesa 3824 1075 54 881 140 694 113 470 111 898 79 666 153 1157 202 909 46

_ Station Ped

Signal No Signal in 2012

2* Lesueur 1987 1137 15 1109 13 740 26 693 21 63 8 10 45 47 17 5 25

3 Hobson 2053 1211 29 1162 20 709 41 640 28 53 13 8 32 80 40 20 20

4 Horne 2727 1328 33 1240 55 809 74 686 49 318 77 150 91 272 62 194 16

5* Miller 2250 1320 25 1250 45 770 25 700 45 80 25 10 45 80 25 10 45

6 Stapley 3982 1298 53 1133 112 778 101 623 54 924 127 660 137 982 57 855 70

_ Station Ped

Signal No Signal in 2012

7 Lazona 2340 1380 25 1320 35 830 15 770 45 50 15 10 25 80 25 10 45

8* Harris 2340 1400 25 1375 0 870 0 825 45 0 0 0 0 70 25 0 45

9 Williams 2411 1446 1 1400 45 891 25 865 1 71 25 1 45 3 1 1 1

10* PNR Access No Signal in 2012

11 Gilbert 5157 1493 152 1039 302 903 205 607 91 1334 186 951 197 1427 166 1150 111

12 Lindsay 4297 1275 120 931 224 803 119 566 118 992 116 752 124 1227 132 1011 84

Source: HDR – HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 11/12

* 2012 unsignalized intersection

**Refer to Figure 4 for signalized intersection locations

R – Right turn

T – Through traffic

L – Left Turn




3.2.1.3 2031 No-Build Alternative Traffic Volumes/Turning Movement Counts

Development of the 2031 No-Build traffic volumes considered existing and planned

economic growth for Mesa, review and use of the 2031 Travel Demand Modeling

growth output, and use of growth factors and corridor balancing and adjustments at

select locations using engineering judgment. The 2031 No-Build traffic volume turning

movement counts (TMC’s) included the following process:

Adding the difference between the MAG TDM 2031 No-Build volumes and the

MAG TDM 2010 TDM volumes, proportionally, to the 2012 traffic volumes/TMC’s

to obtain the 2031 No-Build TMC’s.

At some locations, if the above difference between the TDM 2031 No-Build

volume and the 2010 TDM volume was less than or equal to zero, than a 0.5%

growth rate per year was applied to the 2012 Traffic Volume/TMC to obtain the

2031 No-Build TMC.

At some locations, if the newly obtained 2031 No-Build TMC was less than zero,

it was agreed to use the 2012 traffic volume/TMC in its place. This was

considered conservative.

For the 2031 No-Build Alternative, two new signalized intersections were included along

the study corridor, Main Street/Mesa Station Pedestrian Signal and Main

Street/Lesueur. These locations are proposed to be signalized as part of the Central

Mesa Extension LRT project, to be constructed in 2016. For the Lesueur intersection,

the 2012 TMC’s were estimated using Maricopa County Assessor land use maps and

engineering judgment. 2031 No-Build TMC’s were then calculated using a 0.5% growth

rate per year applied to the 2012 TMC.

The pedestrian volumes for the Mesa Station pedestrian signal were obtained from the

TDM. This was considered conservative and the process was approved by City of Mesa

and Valley Metro staff.

2031 No-Build Alternative Traffic Volumes/Turning Movement Counts (TMC’s) are

shown in Table 7.




TABLE 7: 2031 NO BUILD PM PEAK TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS

INTERSECTION # Approach

Total



Main Street

1 Mesa 3818 796 62 594 140 483 184 230 69 1105 119 928 58 1434 295 1118 21

_ Station Ped

Signal 1430 947 - 947 - 483 - 483 - No vehicles northbound or southbound

2 Lesueur 1583 949 16 919 14 514 29 462 23 69 9 11 49 51 19 5 27

3 Hobson 1758 1032 32 978 22 580 45 504 31 58 14 9 35 88 44 22 22

4 Horne 2374 1077 36 991 50 608 82 494 32 392 88 160 144 297 92 183 22

5* Miller 2020 1150 27 1074 49 696 27 620 49 87 27 11 49 87 27 11 49

6 Stapley 3980 1107 34 931 142 840 147 619 74 1024 98 847 79 1009 103 880 26

_ Station Ped

Signal No Signal in 2031 No Build

7 Lazona 2269 1216 27 1151 38 912 16 847 49 54 16 11 27 87 27 11 49

8* Harris 2271 1239 27 1212 - 956 - 907 49 - - - - 76 27 - 49

9 Williams 2348 1289 1 1239 49 979 27 951 1 77 27 1 49 3 1 1 1

10* PNR Access No Signal in 2031 No Build

11 Gilbert 5707 1356 141 983 232 1024 225 667 132 1618 229 1172 217 1709 279 1318 112

12 Lindsay 5057 1573 123 1204 246 1025 154 741 130 1087 128 823 136 1372 257 1023 92


* Unsignalized intersection

R – Right turn


L – Left Turn




3.2.1.4 2031 Build 4-Lane Alternative Traffic Volumes/Turning Movement

Counts

Development of the 2031 Build Alternative (4-Lane) traffic volumes utilized the TDM

2031 Build Alternative (4-Lane) volumes, TDM 2031No-Build volumes and engineering

judgment. As stated above, comparing the TDM 2031 No-Build and TDM 2031Build

Alternative (4-Lane) volumes found little change between the two and at many locations

the 2031 Build 4-Lane volumes were less than the 2031No-Build. This was due mainly

to the introduction of the Central Mesa Extension LRT project which reduces Main

Street to 2 travel lanes between Country Club Drive and Mesa Drive and also due to a

travel mode shift that includes increased light rail transit ridership and reduced auto

traffic volumes. Thus, the 2031 Build 4-Lane traffic volume/turning movement counts

(TMC’s) included the following process:

Adding the difference between the TDM 2031 Build Alternative (4-Lane) and the

TDM 2031 No-Build TDM volumes, proportionally, to the 2031 No-Build traffic

volumes/TMC’s (described above) to obtain the 2031 Build Alternative (4-Lane)

TMC’s.

At some locations, if the difference between the TDM 2031Build Alternative (4-

Lane) and TDM 2031 No-Build volumes was less than negative 20, than it was

agreed to use the 2031 No-Build traffic volume/TMC in its place.

For the 2031 Build Alternative (4-Lane), four new signalized intersections were included

along the study corridor: Main Street/Miller Street, Main Street/Stapley Station

Pedestrian Signal, Main Street/Harris Drive, and Main Street/Park and Ride (PNR)

Access. Signals at these locations, shown in the HDR May 2012 design plans, are

proposed to assist with protected left turns and cross street movements across the LRT

tracks. The 2012 TMC’s for these intersections were estimated using Maricopa County

Assessor land use maps and engineering judgment. 2031 Build Alternative (4-Lane)

TMC’s were then calculated using a 0.5% growth rate per year applied to the 2012

TMC. The pedestrian volumes for the Stapley Station Pedestrian signal were obtained

from the TDM 2031 Build Alternative (4-Lane) model. This process was approved by

City of Mesa and Valley Metro staff.

2031 Build Alternative (4-Lane) Traffic Volumes/Turning Movement Counts (TMC’s) are

shown in Table 8 and Table 9. Table 8 shows the additional traffic generated by the

South PNR facility and Table 9 shows additional traffic generated by the North PNR

Facility.




TABLE 8: 2031 BUILD ALTERNATIVE (4-LANE) PNR SOUTH PM PEAK TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS

INTERSECTION # * Approach

Total



Main Street

1 Mesa 3806 793 66 587 140 482 184 228 70 1099 122 919 58 1432 297 1113 22

_ Station Ped


2 Lesueur 1583 949 16 919 14 514 29 462 23 69 9 11 49 51 19 5 27

3 Hobson 1758 1032 32 978 22 580 45 504 31 58 14 9 35 88 44 22 22

4 Horne 2364 1073 36 986 51 606 82 490 34 390 87 160 143 295 90 183 22

5 Miller 2020 1150 27 1074 49 696 27 620 49 87 27 11 49 87 27 11 49

6 Stapley 4027 1103 30 931 142 885 163 616 106 1028 99 843 86 1011 107 878 26

_ Station Ped


7 Lazona 2334 1231 27 1166 38 962 16 897 49 54 16 11 27 87 27 11 49

8* Harris 2346 1259 27 1232 - 1011 - 962 49 - - - - 76 27 - 49

9 Williams 2431 1312 1 1262 49 1039 27 1011 1 77 27 1 49 3 1 1 1

10 PNR Access 2545 1350 5 1322 23 1017 23 989 5 168 67 0 101 10 5 0 5

11 Gilbert 5852 1450 191 1026 233 1056 242 682 132 1619 229 1172 218 1727 280 1330 117

12 Lindsay 5114 1601 139 1218 244 1040 153 757 130 1093 133 822 138 1380 258 1024 98


*Refer to Figure 2 for intersection locations

R – Right turn


L – Left Turn




TABLE 9: 2031 BUILD ALTERNATIVE (4-LANE) PNR NORTH PM PEAK TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS


Total



Main Street

1 Mesa 3805 793 66 587 140 482 184 228 70 1099 122 919 58 1432 297 1113 22

_ Station Ped


2 Lesueur 1583 949 16 919 14 514 29 462 23 69 9 11 49 51 19 5 27

3 Hobson 1758 1032 32 978 22 580 45 504 31 58 14 9 35 88 44 22 22

4 Horne 2368 1073 36 986 51 610 82 494 34 390 87 160 143 295 90 183 22

5 Miller 2020 1150 27 1074 49 696 27 620 49 87 27 11 49 87 27 11 49

6 Stapley 4050 1103 30 931 142 919 180 633 106 1023 99 843 81 1005 101 878 26

_ Station Ped


7 Lazona 2354 1216 27 1151 38 997 16 932 49 54 16 11 27 87 27 11 49

8 Harris 2361 1239 27 1212 - 1046 - 997 49 - - - - 76 27 - 49

9 Williams 2454 1294 1 1244 49 1080 27 1052 1 77 27 1 49 3 1 1 1

10 PNR Access 2546 1339 12 1322 5 1029 5 989 35 10 5 0 5 168 67 0 101

11 Gilbert 5924 1416 140 1009 267 1060 224 687 149 1642 241 1183 218 1806 331 1363 112

12 Lindsay 5152 1634 139 1234 261 1045 153 763 130 1093 133 822 138 1380 258 1024 98


*Refer to Figure 2 for intersection locations

R – Right turn


L – Left Turn




3.2.1.5 2031 Build Alternative (2-Lane) Traffic Volumes/Turning Movement

Counts

Development of the 2031 Build Alternative (2-Lane) traffic volumes utilized the TDM

2031 Build 2-Lane volumes, TDM 2031No-Build volumes and engineering judgment.

Thus, the 2031 Build Alternative (2-Lane) traffic volume/turning movement counts

(TMC’s) involved the following process:

Adding the difference between the TDM 2031 Build (2-Lane) and the TDM 2031

No-Build TDM volumes proportionally to the 2031 No-Build traffic volumes/TMC’s

(described above) to obtain the 2031 Build Alternative (2-Lane) TMC’s.

At some locations, if the above difference is less than or equal to zero, it was

agreed to use the 2031 No-Build traffic volume/TMC in its place.

For the 2031 Build Alternative (2-Lane), the same four new signalized intersections

were included along the study corridor as the 2031 Build Alternative (4-Lane). The traffic

volumes at these locations are the same as well, except they were adjusted and

rebalanced to account for the lane reduction on Main Street.

The 2031 Build Alternative (2-Lane) Traffic Volumes/Turning Movement Counts (TMC’s)

are shown in Table 10 and Table 11.

3.2.1.6 2031 Build Alternative (2-Lane Roundabouts) Traffic

Volumes/Turning Movement Counts

It is assumed that the 2031 Build Alternative (2-Lane Roundabouts) traffic volumes will

be the same as the 2031 Build Alternative (2-Lane) traffic volumes/TMC’s. The 2031

Build Alternative (2-Lane Roundabouts) Traffic Volumes/Turning Movement Counts

(TMC’s) are shown in Tables 10 and 11.




TABLE 10: 2031 BUILD ALTERNATIVE (2-LANE) PNR SOUTH PM PEAK TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS

THESE ARE ALSO THE COUNTS FOR (2-LANE ROUNDABOUTS)


Total



Main Street

1 Mesa 3308 749 88 455 206 447 155 200 92 1070 143 887 40 1042 189 815 38

_ Station Ped


2 Lesueur 1273 679 16 649 14 474 29 422 23 69 9 11 49 51 19 5 27

3 Hobson 1418 732 32 678 22 540 45 464 31 58 14 9 35 88 44 22 22

4** Horne 2003 780 36 676 68 520 56 441 23 354 96 218 40 349 86 242 21

5** Miller 1634 850 27 774 49 606 27 530 49 87 27 11 49 87 27 11 49

6 Stapley 3697 883 34 722 127 697 151 454 92 1065 93 936 36 1051 42 980 29

_ Station Ped


7** Lazona 1734 831 27 766 38 762 16 697 49 54 16 11 27 87 27 11 49

8** Harris 1746 859 27 832 - 811 - 762 49 - - - - 76 27 - 49

9** Williams 1831 912 1 862 49 839 27 811 1 77 27 1 49 3 1 1 1

10 P&R Access 1897 950 5 922 23 769 23 741 5 168 67 0 101 10 5 0 5

11 Gilbert 5469 1047 220 572 255 961 297 513 151 1684 209 1271 204 1791 243 1485 49

12 Lindsay 4556 1102 118 671 313 1036 184 683 169 1079 123 838 118 1339 256 999 84


*Refer to Figures 2 and 3 for intersection and roundabout locations

** Roundabout locations for 2031 Build Alternative (2-Lane Roundabouts)

R – Right turn


L – Left Turn




TABLE 11: 2031 BUILD ALTERNATIVE (2-LANE) PNR NORTH PM PEAK TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS

THESE ARE ALSO THE COUNTS FOR (2-LANE ROUNDABOUTS)


Total



Main Street

1 Mesa 3308 749 88 455 206 447 155 200 92 1070 143 887 40 1042 189 815 38

_ Station Ped


2 Lesueur 1273 679 16 649 14 474 29 422 23 69 9 11 49 51 19 5 27

3 Hobson 1418 732 32 678 22 540 45 464 31 58 14 9 35 88 44 22 22

4** Horne 2003 780 36 676 68 520 56 441 23 354 96 218 40 349 86 242 21

5** Miller 1630 850 27 774 49 606 27 530 49 87 27 11 49 87 27 11 49

6 Stapley 3719 883 34 722 127 731 168 471 92 1060 93 936 31 1045 36 980 29

_ Station Ped


7** Lazona 1754 816 27 751 38 797 16 732 49 54 16 11 27 87 27 11 49

8** Harris 1761 839 27 812 - 846 - 797 49 - - - - 76 27 0 49

9** Williams 1854 894 1 844 49 880 27 852 1 77 27 1 49 3 1 1 1

10 PNR Access 1911 939 12 922 5 794 5 754 35 10 5 0 5 168 67 0 101

11 Gilbert 5541 1013 169 555 289 965 279 518 168 1707 221 1282 204 1856 294 1518 44

12 Lindsay 4579 1118 118 687 313 1042 184 689 169 1077 123 836 118 1339 256 999 84


*Refer to Figures 2 and 3 for intersection and roundabout locations

** Roundabout locations for 2031 Build Alternative (2-Lane Roundabouts)

R – Right turn


L – Left Turn




3.2.1.7 Gilbert Road Park and Ride (PNR) Traffic Volumes/Turning

Movement Counts

The development of the PNR traffic volumes/TMC’s and PNR trip distribution utilized

TDM trip projections, travel shed maps, the 2031 Build Alternative design plans dated

May 2012, meetings with Valley Metro and City of Mesa staff and engineering judgment.

From the TDM’s, drive access person trips were converted to vehicle trips for each

station and the Gilbert Road PNR, using 2008 NHTS occupancy factors provided by

Valley Metro. The number of peak and off-peak period vehicle trips entering and exiting

the stations/PNR, including kiss and riders, were then developed based on trip purpose.

Since the TDM assumes a PNR lot near the Mesa Drive Station, a Mesa Drive and

Gilbert Road PNR travel shed map was developed to understand PNR vehicle trips to

the Gilbert Road PNR facility.

In addition, based on input from City of Mesa and Valley Metro staff in September 2012,

it was requested that the AM peak period be studied as the Gilbert PNR AM users may

generate traffic impacts to the Main Street/Gilbert Road intersection. Therefore, the

following intersections were studied during the AM peak period: Main Street/Gilbert

Road, Main Street/PNR Access and the PNR access along Gilbert Road (as an

unsignalized intersection). Available historic AM traffic volumes/TMC’s and TDM traffic

volumes were available at Main Street/Gilbert Road and used as a basis for AM traffic

volume development for the 2031 No-Build, 2031 Build Alternatives and the Gilbert PNR

as described above.

An additional study was conducted to verify whether or not the peak period for general

purpose traffic in the vicinity of Gilbert Road would be different than the peak period for

PNR traffic. To accomplish this, 24 hour counts were conducted at the existing end-of-

line Sycamore Transit Center PNR to determine peak PNR usage at that facility and

then applying the same findings to the proposed end-of-line at Gilbert Road. The

results of this study found that the general purpose traffic and PNR peak periods occur

at the same time, therefore the PNR peak traffic near Gilbert Road was added to the

PM peak period traffic volume tables.

Therefore, based on the above methods, studies and engineering assumptions:

1. It is estimated that 2,022 daily total vehicle trips, including kiss and riders (KNR),

will utilize the Gilbert Road PNR facility.

See Table 12.

2. 20% of the daily total vehicle trips are estimated to be PM peak hour PNR trips.

This is 410 vehicles. (This is approximately 60% of the proposed PNR capacity of

700 vehicles. This is also relatively close to the high-end average percentage




utilization, 55%, of all other Valley Metro PNR’s over the last 6 months.)

See Table 12.

3. 15% of the daily total vehicle trips are estimated to be AM peak hour PNR trips.

This is 310 vehicles. (This is approximately 45% of the proposed PNR capacity of

700 vehicles.)

4. For both the AM and PM peak periods, it is estimated that 10% of the total PNR

trips are KNR. Because the TDM KNR vehicle trips used were only counted as one

trip in the TDM projected total vehicle trip, the actual KNR numbers need to be 2

trips (entering and exiting), and thus the KNR numbers are multiplied by 2.

See Table 13.

5. For the PM peak period, it is assumed that the PNR entering/exiting split is

20%/80%, respectively, for both the North and South Options.

See Table 13.

6. For the AM peak period, it is assumed that the PNR entering/exiting split is

80%/20%, respectively, for both the North and South Options.

7. For both the AM and PM peak periods, it is assumed that the KNR entering/exiting

split is 50%/50%.

See Table 13.

8. Gilbert Road PNR facility PM peak hour volumes are shown in Tables 12 and 13.

PNR trip distributions are shown in Figures 11 and 12 for the North and South PNR

Options, respectively.

9. The PNR and KNR volumes developed from the above, are included in the total

traffic volumes/TMC’s.

See Table 8 through Table 11.

TABLE 12: PNR PM PEAK HOUR VEHICLE TRIPS: NORTH AND SOUTH PNR

Station Daily Vehicle Trips*

(including Kiss-and-Riders) Peak Hour Vehicles

(including kiss-and-ride)

Mesa 1,022 210

Stapley 22 10

Gilbert 2,022 410

* From 2031 TDM "Drive Access to Station Activity" Note: Assume 20% of daily trips occur during PM peak hour




TABLE 13: PNR AND KNR PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES: NORTH AND SOUTH PNR

PNR and KNR Volume Split

Peak Hour Vehicle Trips

In % / Out % In Out

PNR (90%) 369 20% / 80% 74 295

KNR (10%) 41 50% / 50% 21 21

KNR trips*** 21 21

Total PM Peak Trips 116 337

Note: TDM vehicle trips are counted as one trip in TDM projected total vehicle trip. Thus KNR will be 2 trips (entering and exiting).

FIGURE 11: PM PEAK NORTH PNR TRIP DISTRIBUTIONS

FIGURE 12: PM PEAK SOUTH PNR TRIP DISTRIBUTIONS




3.2.1.8 Pedestrian and Bicycle Volumes

New traffic counts were performed at most signalized intersections within the study area

and included pedestrian and bicycle counts. These were used for the 2012 Existing

Conditions. Where missing data occurred, historical counts and/or engineering

judgment were used to develop the pedestrian and bicycle counts.

For the 2031 No-Build scenario, an annual growth rate of 0.5% was applied to the 2012

pedestrian and bicycle counts and for the 2031 Build Alternatives, TDM projected LRT

boardings and alightings were added to the 2031 Build Alternative background

pedestrian volumes at the respective LRT station location.

3.2.2 Roadway Geometry/Lane Configurations

As part of the traffic operations analysis using Synchro, roadway lane configurations are

required as part of the modeling software. The 2012 existing roadway geometry,

including lane configurations and turn lane storage lengths, was obtained from available

basemapping, aerial photography surveys, and field reviews. This information was then

used for the 2012 Existing conditions and used partially for the 2031 No-Build Synchro

models.

For the 2031 No-Build analysis, the 2012 existing roadway geometry was used for most

of the corridor. In addition, the CME project, to be completed by 2016, was used for the

segment of Main Street between Mesa Drive and North Edgemont, as shown on the

conceptual design plans dated May 2012. Based on these drawings, the following

locations require roadway improvements, lane configuration changes or restricted turn

movements as part of the CME project. These are:

CME-at-grade, center running, semi-exclusive LRT tracks from Mesa Drive to

North Edgemont with the Mesa Drive Station located just east of Mesa Drive;

The westbound (WB) right turn pocket is removed at Mesa Drive;

One new pedestrian signalized crossing added for the east end of the Mesa

Drive Station;

One new signalized intersection added at Lesueur with EB and WB left turn

pockets;

Only one eastbound (EB) travel lane provided between Mesa Drive and Hobson;

South Udall and South Olive become right-in/right-out

For the 2031 Build Alternative (4-Lane), the roadway geometry, lane configurations,

station locations, and PNR locations were based on the conceptual project design

drawings dated May 2012. Based on these drawings, the following locations would




require roadway improvements, lane configuration changes, or restricted movements

(compared to and in addition to the 2031 No-Build). These are:

Gilbert Road Extension – include at-grade, center running, and semi-exclusive

LRT tracks from the CME to Gilbert Road. This includes a station at Stapley

Drive and a station/PNR at Gilbert Road.

The WB and EB right turn pockets are removed from Horne and Stapley Drive.

One EB through lane and one EB left turn pocket at Gilbert Road are removed.

3 new signalized intersections are added at: Miller Street, North Harris Drive and

PNR Access Drive. These signalized locations will have EB and WB left turn

pockets.

1 new pedestrian signalized crossing added for the east end of the Stapley Drive

Station.

The following roads become right-in, right-out: North and South Ashland, North

Bellview, access to Apache Lanes/Rancho Grande, North Fraser Drive, Temple

Street, North and South Matlock, North Spencer, North Parcell, South Allen,

South Lazona, South Barkley, North Hunt Drive, and North Guthrie Drive.

For the 2031 Build Alternative (2-Lane), the roadway geometry, lane configurations,

station locations, and PNR locations were based on the conceptual project design

drawings dated May 2012. Based on these drawings, the following locations would

require roadway improvements, lane configuration changes, or restricted movements

compared to and in addition to the 2031 No-Build and/or the 2031 Build Alternative (4-

Lane). These locations are:

Removal of one EB and one WB through travel lane from Hobson to the Gilbert

PNR Access Road. From the PNR Access Road to Gilbert Road the Main Street

lane configuration is the same as the 2031 Build Alternative (4-Lane).

For the 2031 Build Alternative (2-Lane Roundabouts), the roadway geometry, lane

configurations, station locations, and PNR locations were based on the conceptual

design project drawings dated May 2012. Based on these drawings, the following

locations would require roadway improvements, lane configuration changes, or

restricted movements (compared to and in addition to the 2031 Build Alternative (2-

Lane). These locations are:

5 single-lane roundabouts added to the following locations instead of the

signalized intersections shown in the 2031 Build Alternative (2-Lane): Horne,

Miller Street, North Lazona Drive, North Harris Drive and South Williams.




9 new pedestrian signalized crossings added. These are located at the flared

entries of each roundabout (the South Williams roundabout has only one

signalized pedestrian crossing east of the roundabout due to the proximity to the

North Harris Drive roundabout.)

1 new pedestrian signalized crossing added to the Stapley Drive Station west

end entry location.

3.2.3 Other Traffic Operations Study Parameters

3.2.3.1 Design Speed Input

Speed limits used along Main Street include the following:

35 mph: from west of Mesa Drive to Stapley Drive

40 mph: between Stapley Drive and Gilbert Road

45 mph: east of Gilbert Road

20 mph: assigned as the speed through the roundabouts for the 2031 Build

Alternative (2-Lane Roundabouts).

3.2.3.2 Signal Timing and Phasing Input

The existing signal timing of 110 second cycle length and phasing information along the

study corridor was provided by the City of Mesa and was used for the 2012 existing

conditions scenario.

For the 2031 No-Build scenario, 100 second cycle lengths were used and optimized

along the corridor along with coding protected left turn movements along Main Street for

those intersections that are part of the CME project.

For the 2031 Build Alternatives (4-Lane) and (2-Lane) including the (2-Lane

Roundabouts), 100 second cycle and 110 second cycle lengths, respectively, were

used and optimized along the corridors along with coding protected left turn movements

along Main Street for all signalized intersections that will be integrated with LRT

operations.

For the 2031 Build Alternative (2-Lane Roundabouts), RODEL was used to calculate

LOS and delay. The LOS and delay are based on Highway Capacity Manual (HCM)

unsignalized LOS thresholds and account for additional delay (15 seconds) due to the

LRT gated operations, averaged over the peak hour.

The existing 20-mile LRT Line and CME LRT projects use a “predictive priority” signal

detection system, which allows LRT the ability to have priority over auto/general

purpose traffic. For the purposes of this traffic operations analysis, based on the

limitations of Synchro to model LRT operations, LRT is considered to operate in




coordination with general purpose traffic therefore LRT input into Synchro is limited and

coded only as bus blockage. More sophisticated software will be used to model traffic

and LRT operations in Final Design/next phase for the LPA.

3.2.3.3 On-Street Parking Input

Vehicles pulling into and out of parking spaces along Main Street will occur for the 2012

Existing, 2031 No-Build, and 2031 Build Alternatives (2-Lane) and (2-Lane

Roundabouts). These maneuvers have impacts on traffic flow and are coded into

Synchro. The number of these maneuvers during the PM peak hour considers the

number of existing and proposed parking spaces and are those shown on the

conceptual design project drawings dated May 2012. For the 2031 Build Alternative (4-

Lane) it is shown that all parking spaces along Main Street are removed.

3.2.3.4 Transit Input

Transit operations will have impacts on traffic flow and are coded into Synchro. Bus

operations, headways and bus stops are coded into Synchro based on existing and

proposed transit plans.

3.3 TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSIS RESULTS

Table 14 provides the overall PM Peak Hour average intersection level of service (LOS)

and delay utilizing the data in sections 3.2.1 through 3.2.3. Table 15 provides the AM

Peak hour average intersection LOS results at the 3 intersections near Gilbert Road

PNR.

Based on these results, all signalized intersections shown in the 2031 Build Alternative

(4-Lane) will operate at an acceptable Level of Service, as the City of Mesa allows LOS

E as acceptable during peak periods.

For the 2031 Build Alternative (2-Lane), except for the intersection of Main Street and

Stapley Drive, the intersections within the corridor operate at acceptable LOS. The

intersection of Main Street and Stapley Drive shows on overall intersection LOS F,

during the PM Peak period. Suggested mitigation is discussed in section 3.4.

Like the 2031 Build Alternative (2-Lane), the 2031 Build Alternative (2-Lane

Roundabouts) operates at acceptable LOS at each intersection along Main Street,

except at the intersection of Main Street and Stapley Drive. However, the 2031 Build

Alternative (2-Lane Roundabouts) shows substantially more delay than the 2031 Build

Alternative (2-Lane).

For the 3 intersections studied during the AM peak period, they will operate at

acceptable level of service in 2031 for all 2031 Build Alternatives.




3.4 TRAFFIC OPERATIONS KEY FINDINGS AND SUGGESTED MITIGATION

According to results shown in Table 14, the 2031 Build Alternative (4-Lane)-North PNR

option shows three Main Street intersections change overall intersection LOS compared

to the 2031 No-Build. These occur at:

Mesa Drive: from LOS F to LOS E (this improvement due to travel mode

shift/reduction of traffic volumes)

Horne Street: from LOS B to C

Gilbert Road: from LOS D to E.

The 2031 Build Alternative (4-Lane)-South PNR option shows five intersections change

overall intersection LOS compared to the 2031 No-Build. These occur at:

Mesa Drive: from LOS F to LOS E (this improvement due to travel mode

shift/reduction of traffic volumes)


Lazona Drive: from LOS A to B

Gilbert Road: from LOS D to E

Lindsay Road: from LOS D to E.

Both the 2031 Build Alternative (2-Lane)-North and South PNR options show 5

intersections change overall intersection LOS compared to the 2031 No-Build. These

occur at:

Mesa Drive: from LOS F to LOS D. (This improvement due to the reduced traffic

volumes from 4 lanes to 2 lanes)


Stapley Drive: from LOS D to F

Lazona Drive: from LOS A to B

Williams Drive: from LOS A to B.

Both the 2031 Build Alternative (2-Lane Roundabouts)-North and South PNR options

show 5 intersections change overall intersection LOS compared to the 2031 No-Build.

These occur at:

Mesa Drive: from LOS F to LOS D. (This improvement due to the reduced traffic

volumes from 4 lanes to 2 lanes)


Stapley Drive: from LOS D to F

Lazona Drive: from LOS A to C

Williams Drive: from LOS A to E.




TABLE 14: INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE RESULTS – PM PEAK HOUR

Main Street Signalized

Intersections

2012 Existing

Conditions

2031 No Build

2031

4-Lane

North P&R

2031

4-Lane

South P&R

2031

2-Lane

North P&R

2031

2-Lane

South P&R

2031

2-Lane Rbt North P&R

2031

2-Lane Rbt South P&R

Existing Signal

Proposed Signal

Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS

Mesa 39 D 83 F 73 E 73 E 47 D 47 D 45 D 45 D

Ped. Signal No signal 9 A 4 A 5 A 5 A 4 A 5 A 6 A

Lesueur No signal 13 B 12 B 11 B 11 B 11 B 12 B 14 B

Hobson 9 A 18 B 13 B 11 B 16 B 16 B 17 B 17 B

Ped. signal w/o Horne No signal 6 A 7 A

Horne 12 B 19 B 20 C 24 C 28 C 29 C 24 C* 24 C*

Ped. signal e/o Horne No signal 5 A 6 A

Ped. signal w/o Miller No signal 4 A 4 A

Miller No signal 15 B 12 B 14 B 14 B 23 C* 23 C*

Ped. signal e/o Miller No signal 5 A 5 A

Stapley 44 D 37 D 41 D 41 D 103 F 100 F 102 F 103 F

Ped. signal Stapley Station

No signal 3 A 4 A 8 A 6 A 5 A 4 A

Ped. signal w/o Lazona No signal 7 A 6 A

N. Lazona 8 A 9 A 7 A 12 B 12 B 12 B 25 C* 25 C*

Ped. signal e/o Lazona No signal 4 A 3 A

Ped. signal w/o Harris No signal 7 A 5 A

N. Harris No signal 5 A 5 A 9 A 9 A 34 C* 34 C*

Ped. signal e/o Harris No signal 7 A 5 A

S. Williams 5 A 8 A 7 A 6 A 10 B 12 B 44 E* 44 E*

Ped. signal e/o Williams No signal 5 A 8 A

P & R Access No signal 9 A 11 B 33 C 27 C 46 D 39 D

Gilbert 47 D 39 D 73 E 67 E 47 D 45 D 45 D 43 D

Lindsay 46 D 49 D 46 D 55 E 38 D 35 D 34 C 36 D

Gilbert Rd P&R Access No signal 425 F** 11 B** 3998 F** 11 B** 3998 F** 13 B** Source: HDR, Inc., Synchro 7 Report, 11/10/12 Notes: LOS = Level of Service, Delay is expressed in seconds (Table 4); e/o = east of; w/o = west of; Rbt = Roundabout * Roundabout location – Roundabout delay and LOS calculated by "RODEL" and uses unsignalized LOS definitions (Table 5). Additional averaged delay of 15 seconds added to overall peak hour delay due to LRT gated operations. ** Unsignalized location - Represents average approach delay and LOS for the outbound unsignalized P&R access intersection.




TABLE 15: INTERSECTION LOS RESULTS – AM PEAK HR AT GILBERT RD PNR

North Park and Ride Option South Park and Ride Option

2031 Build

4-Lanes 2031 Build

2-Lanes 2031 Build

4-Lanes 2031 Build

2-Lanes

Primary Street

Cross Street

Int. Delay (sec)

LOS Int. Delay

(sec) LOS

Int. Delay (sec)

LOS Int. Delay

(sec) LOS

Main Street

Gilbert Station

Ped Signal 11 B 13 B 8 A 18 B

Main Street

Gilbert Road

36 D 33 C 38 D 33 C

Gilbert Road

PNR Access

27 D* 36 E* 9 A* 9 A*

* Unsignalized location – Represents averaged approach LOS and corresponding delay using Table 5 LOS definitions




Table 16 compares LOS for the 2031 Build-North Option Alternatives to each other. For

the South Option PNR to the Build Alternatives, the differences are minor as stated in

Section 3.4.2. The analysis results show (for the signalized or roundabout /unsignalized

intersections):

TABLE 16: LOS COMPARISON OF 2031 BUILD ALTERNATIVES

2031 BUILD ALTERNATIVE (4-LANE)

LOS Intersection

A Lazona, Harris, Williams, PNR Access

B Lesueur, Hobson, Miller

C Horne

D Stapley, Lindsay

E Mesa, Gilbert

F -

2031 BUILD ALTERNATIVE (2-LANE)

LOS Intersection

A Harris

B Lesueur, Hobson, Miller, Lazona, Williams

C Horne, PNR Access

D Mesa, Gilbert, Lindsay

E -

F Stapley

2031 BUILD ALTERNATIVE (2-LANE ROUNDABOUTS)

LOS Intersection

A -

B Lesueur, Hobson,

C Horne*, Miller*, Lazona*, Harris*,Lindsay

D Mesa, PNR Access, Gilbert

E Williams*

F Stapley

* Unsignalized/Roundabout intersection

Note: All Build Alternative signalized pedestrian crossings

operate at LOS A, thus are not shown.




3.4.1 Main Street and Stapley Road

Evaluation of the LOS F results at Stapley Drive for the 2031 Build 2-Lane Alternative

indicates that the intersection’s low performance is mostly due to the large number of

right turning movements and cross street through volumes and the number of lanes

removed for this alternative: 2 through lanes, one eastbound and one westbound, and

the eastbound and westbound right turn lanes. This is 50% of the travel lanes along

Main Street. In comparison, Gilbert Road loses only 20% of the travel lanes along Main

Street for this same alternative.

Possible mitigation measures:

Continue to evaluate this intersection in future design phases including collecting

new traffic counts at Stapley when no construction may impact counts. New

traffic counts collected at Main Street and Stapley Road may have been affected

by the construction on Mesa Drive, thus traffic may have diverted to Stapley and

added diverted traffic to the southbound PM peak movement.

Add right turn lanes, 100 feet, to both eastbound and westbound directions. Re-

analysis results improve the overall intersection to LOS E/74 sec/vehicle from

LOS F/100 sec/vehicle in the PM peak.

Add dual left turn lanes, 200 feet, to both eastbound and westbound directions.

Preliminary results do not improve overall intersection LOS F results.

Use more sophisticated software to analyze the intersection and corridor, such

as VISSIM, that accounts for LRT operations along with auto operations to

achieve better/more accurate results.

Allow this intersection to go unmitigated. Drivers may divert to other less

congested intersections so they are not “stuck in traffic”. In this area, there are

other corridors that have the capacity to handle additional traffic volumes.

3.4.2 Park and Ride (PNR), North and South Options, Traffic Impacts

A comparison of the North to the South PNR option shows that there will be little

differences that occur relating to traffic delay and level of service based on the

assumptions of trip distributions and access/accessibility to the PNR’s. For the North

PNR, the eastbound movement out of the PNR onto Gilbert Road will experience

significant delays for this unsignalized location. Potential mitigation is to signalize this

location and/or add 2 additional access locations along Gilbert Road so that the

outbound traffic volume can “disperse” between 3 locations.

Based on a technical memo prepared by HDR for METRO: Gilbert Road Extension:

Park-and-Ride Facility Options Review, dated August 23, 2012, which assessed site

accessibility and traffic safety, site configuration and circulation needs, site capacity and




future transit interface needs, the North Option PNR presents more advantages than the

South Option PNR.

Results of the traffic operational analysis show that the 2031 Build Alternative (4-Lane)

with the North Option would yield the best traffic operational results as compared with

the other possible combinations of Build Alternatives with the PNR North or South

Options.

4.0 OTHER TRANSPORTATION IMPACTS ASSESSMENTS

This section provides a qualitative assessment of other impacts the 2031 Build and No-

Build Alternatives would have on streets, transit, parking, and bicycle and pedestrian

facilities.

This information will assist Valley Metro and the City of Mesa in selecting a preferred

alternative; understanding the potential impacts of the proposed project alternatives and

will assist in developing appropriate design strategies, where needed, to avoid or

minimize impacts.

In each alternative, the placement of a light rail guideway and station platforms in a

center-running configuration on Main Street would result in the removal of the existing

center median. This exclusive light rail guideway would also eliminate many of the

existing left turn pockets located at unsignalized intersections and driveways. New

signalized intersections or roundabouts with turning opportunities would be created.

On-street parking would be affected uniquely with each alternative as described in

section 4.4. Pedestrian and bicycle connectivity would be maintained or enhanced,

although the resulting facilities in each alternative would be different than existing

conditions.

The following sections describe the changes to the existing roadway conditions that

would result from implementation of each of the design alternatives based on the HDR

Build Alternative plans dated May 2012.

4.1 IMPACTS TO SIGNALIZATION

The existing Central Phoenix/East Valley (CP/EV) Starter Line and the Central Mesa

Extension project (to be operational in 2016) use a Predictive Priority Control system

with traffic signals. Predictive priority uses detection devices placed far upstream of

intersection crossings to estimate train arrival times at the intersections. With this

communication, adjustments can be made to traffic signal timing and train station

departures in advance of the arrival of the train at the downstream intersections. The

detection has to be far enough upstream from the intersection to provide sufficient time

to complete minimum phases for any vehicular and pedestrian traffic movements




initiated prior to detection. Under predictive priority, the basic traffic signal background

cycle will be maintained with changes made to length and sequencing of phases to

allow the phase serving LRT trains to be extended or advanced. Upon passage of the

LRT train through the intersection, the signal cycle would return to normal operation,

with no change in the background cycle length.

The City of Mesa plans to use the same Predictive Priority Control system for the Gilbert

Road Extension corridor for all the signalized intersection locations for all Build

Alternatives. The design of this system will be performed in the project development

phases and will use more advanced traffic analysis software that will determine the

signal timings to be used to integrate LRT operations along Main Street. It is

anticipated that all traffic control systems, software and hardware, at each of the

existing signalized intersections will need to be modified, but not replaced. New

signalized intersections will need to accommodate the appropriate control system

software and hardware. The design will be completed during the project development

phases.

In the 2031Build Alternative (2-Lane Roundabouts), traffic signals will not be required at

the 5 intersections proposed to use roundabouts. However they will still require

communications with approaching trains as they will utilize gates to control cross traffic

movements and also the signalized pedestrian crossings.

4.2 IMPACTS DUE TO TRAFFIC DIVERSION

The 2031 MAG Travel Demand Model runs were used to study the traffic diversion

occurring due to the reduction of travel lanes along Main Street for the 2031 Build

Alternative (2-Lane) during the PM peak periods. The reduction in capacity on Main

Street results in traffic shifting to other roadways in the network. Using the volume to

capacity ratios generated by the TDM, roadway link levels of service were developed.

Based on the TDM runs, the following information was determined based on evaluating

the differences in TDM Link LOS’s between the 2031 No-Build, 2031 Build Alternative

(4-Lane) and the 2031 Build Alternative (2-Lane) in relation to capacity impacts

(diversion impacts) along University Drive and Broadway:

The 2031 No-Build and the 2031 Build Alternative (4-Lane) have relatively the

same Link LOS’s along University and Broadway;

For the 2031 No-Build and Build Alternative (4-Lane), some roadway links show

LOS E and F. These locations are:

o EB University-Harris to Gilbert – LOS E

o EB Broadway- Stapley to Harris – LOS E

o EB University-Mesa to Stapley – LOS F




o EB Broadway-Mesa to Stapley – LOS F

For the 2031 Build Alternative (2-Lane), due to traffic diversion, the following

changes to the University and Broadway roadway link LOS’s can be seen from

the TDM:

o EB University: Harris to Gilbert changes from LOS E to LOS F

o EB Broadway: Harris to Gilbert changes from LOS D to LOS E.

Thus, according to the 2031 MAG TDM runs, if Main Street is reduced to 2 lanes of

traffic, two segments of roadway links change from LOS D to E and LOS E to F, as

shown above. Further more detailed traffic analysis should be performed in future

project development phases to confirm LOS changes and adequate mitigation, if

required. Mitigation may be as basic as revising/optimizing the signal phasing. All other

University and Broadway roadway links will be the same as the 2031 No-Build and/or

2031 Build Alternative (4-Lane) LOS.

4.3 TURNING MOVEMENTS

4.3.1 Impacts Common to all Build Alternatives

For all 2031 Build Alternatives median breaks and left-turn pockets would be eliminated

at the following intersections - these all become right-in, right-out movements:

Ashland, Bellview, Frasier, Temple, Matlock, Spencer, Parsell, Allen, S. Lazona,

Barkley, Hunt, Guthrie

Protected left turn movements would occur at all signalized intersections along the

corridor for the 2031 Build Alternatives (4-Lane) and (2-Lane).

Passenger vehicle U-turns can be accommodated at all signalized intersections for the

2031 Build Alternatives (4-Lane) and (2-Lane). Turning opportunities for larger vehicle

types such as delivery trucks (SU-30’s) will need to be further analyzed in future design

phases.

For the 2031 Build Alternative (2-Lane Roundabouts), all passenger and delivery

vehicle type U-turns can be accommodated at the roundabouts but U-turns of larger

vehicle types such as SU-30’s at the signalized intersections will need to be further

analyzed in future project development phases.

4.4 DESIGN AND OPERATING SPEEDS

For the 2031 Build Alternatives (4-Lane) and (2-Lane), the design and posted speeds

would be the same as existing conditions; 35 mph from Mesa Drive to Stapley Drive and

40 mph from Stapley Drive to Gilbert Road.




For the 2031Build Alternative (2-Lane Roundabouts), the design speeds for the

roundabout would be reduced to 20 mph. In between roundabouts, the design speed

can be the same as existing conditions.

4.5 IMPACTS TO TRANSIT

For all the 2031 Build Alternatives, the Valley Metro local bus route #40 would be

retained. Valley Metro Main Street LINK would no longer serve the Main Street corridor

west of Gilbert Road – the western terminus of this route would be at the proposed

Gilbert Road light rail station. LINK passengers wishing to continue west would transfer

to the LRT at Gilbert Road. Cross street bus routes on Mesa Drive (route 120), Stapley

Road (route 128) and Gilbert Road (route 136) would continue to operate as they do for

the 2031 No-Build conditions.

It is proposed that Route 30 on University Drive and Route 45 on Broadway Road would

divert on Gilbert Road to serve the end-of-line station at Gilbert Road. This is to be

confirmed in further agency discussions. See Section 2.3.4 of the EA for additional

information about the transit network associated with the 2031 Build Alternatives. (Note:

At the time of this report, the analysis did not include these bus reroutes. If the bus

reroutes are determined to be required, the traffic analysis will need to be revised

showing rerouted buses to the Gilbert Road Station PNR.)

4.6 IMPACTS TO ON-STREET PARKING

An inventory of existing on-street parking spaces along Main Street is documented in

Table 1 and repeated in Table 16 below for reference with respect to the impacts of the

light rail alternatives. Occupancy of on-street parking and parking maneuvers along

Main Street east of Downtown Mesa may be less than in Downtown Mesa because

businesses in this area tend to have proprietary off-street parking. On-street parking in

the Main Street study area primarily serves as a convenience to business patrons.

Table 17 documents the impacts to on-street parking that would be expected in each of

the proposed alternatives.




TABLE 17: ON-STREET PARKING IMPACTS

Main Street Segment

2031 Light Rail Alternative

Existing

On-Street

Parking

Proposed On-Street Parking

No Build

Alternative

2031 Build

(4-Lane)

2031 Build

(2-Lane)

2031 Build

(2-Lane

Roundabouts)

Existing* and Proposed

Signalized Intersections

North

Side

South

Side

North

Side

South

Side

North

Side

South

Side

North

Side

South

Side

Ashland* - Horne* 7 0 0 0 6 0 8 5

Horne - Miller 22 27 0 0 11 21 19 26

Miller - Stapley 11 10 0 0 7 5 19 9

Horne* - Stapley* 33 37 0 0 18 26 38 35

Stapley* - Lazona* 27 11 0 0 0 0 0 0

Lazona - Harris 15 19 0 0 10 9 20 17

Harris - Williams 16 11 0 0 8 7 10 8

Lazona* - Williams* 31 30 0 0 18 16 30 25

Williams* - Gilbert* 9 19 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total On-Street Parking 204

0

(204 spaces

removed)

84

(120 spaces

removed)

141

(63 spaces

removed)

4.7 IMPACTS TO BICYCLE FACILITIES

4.7.1 Build Alternative 4-Lane

Bicycle lanes on Main Street would be mostly retained, as shown in the May 2012

concept plans. The proposed elimination of numerous uncontrolled left turn

opportunities and the on-street parking would reduce the potential hazards faced by

bicyclists on Main Street.




FIGURE 14: BICYCLE RAMPS AT A

ROUNDABOUT (FHWA)

4.7.2 Build Alternative 2-Lane

Bicycle lanes on Main Street would be mostly retained, as shown in the May 2012

concept plans. The proposed elimination of numerous uncontrolled left turn

opportunities would reduce the potential hazards faced by bicyclists on Main Street.

4.7.3 Build Alternative (2-Lane Roundabouts)

Bicycle lanes would be mostly retained along the Main Street corridor, as shown in the

May 2012 concept plans. For safety reasons, the bicycle lanes should be dropped at

roundabout intersections. International

studies have shown that bicycle lanes

continuing through a roundabout expose

the rider to an increased risk of collisions

with vehicles that are turning right to exit

the roundabout.

At a roundabout, bicyclists may choose to

“take the lane” as they maneuver in the

circulatory travel lane through the

roundabout in the desired direction of

travel, as shown in Figure 13 from the

Washington State Department of

Transportation. Or the bicyclist may exit the

bicycle lane on a ramp ahead of the

roundabout and proceed to ride the

perimeter of the roundabout on the

sidewalk and cross side streets or Main

Street along with pedestrians on

crosswalks.

Design guidance from the Federal

Highway Administration (FHWA) for

modern roundabouts supports the

proposed design of roundabouts along

Main Street. FHWA recommends

terminating bicycle lanes well before the

entrance of the circulatory lane, so

FIGURE 13: BICYCLE ROUTE

THROUGH A ROUNDABOUT (WSDOT)




bicyclists may merge into the stream of motor traffic or move to and from the sidewalk

on a ramp, similar to what is shown in Figure 14.

Further design of bicycle facilities for the Build Alternative (2-Lane Roundabouts) will be

considered in future design phases and coordinated and approved by the City of Mesa.

4.8 IMPACTS TO PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES

4.8.1 Impacts Common to Build Alternatives

Sidewalks along Main Street

Sidewalks would be retained along both sides of Main Street. The existing curb would

be relocated in some areas, and in these areas the sidewalk would be reconstructed

behind the curb. Sidewalk reconstruction would conform to current ADA standards.

At the proposed park and ride location west of Gilbert Road, sidewalks along Main

Street would cross the access to the PNR lot. The access road into the park and ride

would be designed as a signalized intersection with full curb returns and pedestrian

signals.

Section 3.16 of the EA, Safety and Security, discusses schools near the study area and

students as pedestrians. The EA reports that to minimize the accident potential for

children crossing Main Street and the LRT tracks, Valley Metro will conduct a safety

education program for elementary and junior high school students. The program would

be similar to that carried out prior to operation of the current 20-mile LRT starter line.

4.8.2 2031 Build Alternatives (4-Lane) and (2-Lane)

Crosswalks would be maintained at all signalized intersections on Main Street. Specific

changes proposed through this alternative would be as follows:

Miller: Crosswalks would be added at this new signalized intersection

East of Stapley: New signalized mid-block crosswalk would provide pedestrian

access across Main Street and to the east entry to the center platform station

North Lazona: Crosswalk would be added on east leg of the signalized intersection

North Harris: Crosswalks would be added at this new signalized intersection

South Williams: Crosswalk would be added on the east leg of the signalized

intersection

Gilbert Road Station PNR Access: Crosswalks would be added to this new

signalized intersection on Main St. that would also provide access to the center

platform station.




FIGURE 15: TYPICAL ROUNDABOUT DESIGN, MAY 2012 CONCEPT PLAN

4.8.3 2031 Build Alternative (2-Lane Roundabouts)

Pedestrian crossings at roundabout intersections on Main Street will be designed

differently than in traditional signalized intersections, due to the presence of the light rail

alignment. Crosswalks at signalized intersections are situated close to the intersection

to allow for greater pedestrian visibility to motorists and to provide a shortest, direct

route for pedestrians. At a roundabout, traffic typically does not stop while yielding to

vehicles to the left and already in the roundabout. Modern roundabout design includes

splitter or “deflection” islands ahead of the point where vehicles enter the roundabout.

Crosswalks across Main Street at roundabouts would be signalized and set back from

the roundabout and would be signalized to ensure protected crossings in coordination

with LRT operations.

Special consideration should be given to the design of sidewalks and curb ramps at

roundabouts due to the potential shared use of these facilities by bicyclists and

pedestrians, as discussed in section 4.7.3

The proposed location of signalized crosswalks at roundabouts would require a

significant “out-of-direction” path of 150-200 feet for pedestrians intending to cross Main

Street east or west of the roundabout, as shown in Figure 15. This would occur at the

proposed roundabouts at Horne, Miller, N. Lazona Dr. N. Harris and S. Williams. Further

design concepts should be evaluated that locate the crosswalks closer to the

intersection/roundabout to minimize north-south pedestrian walk-time.




In addition, the following crosswalk new locations will be provided:

East of Stapley: New signalized mid-block crosswalk would provide pedestrian

access across Main Street and to the west entry to the center-platform station.

S. Lazona: New signalized pedestrian crossing would be added on west leg of the

intersection (unsignalized for vehicle traffic). It would provide pedestrian access

across Main Street and to the east entry to the center-platform station.

Gilbert Road Station PNR Access: Crosswalks would be added to this new

signalized intersection on Main Street which would also provide access to the center

platform station.

4.9 IMPACTS TO FREIGHT MOBILITY

There are no designated arterial truck routes within the City of Mesa. However, the

arterial system, typified within the Gilbert Road Extension study area by Main Street,

Broadway Road to the south, University Drive to the north, and the intersecting streets

of Stapley Drive and Gilbert Road accommodates truck traffic related to commercial

freight hauling to, from, through and within Mesa. In terms of freight mobility, Main

Street in this section of Mesa has little regional significance. However, for the pick-up

and delivery of goods to the businesses along Main Street and the adjacent

neighborhoods, Main Street plays a more important role.

Truck deliveries to businesses along Main Street may be impacted by light rail due to

the loss of some of the on-street loading opportunities afforded by the on-street parking

spaces and through the elimination of many left-turn access points and U-turning

opportunities. Neither of these types on impacts is considered to be significant. Truck

deliveries could be made from off-street locations within proprietary or shared parking

lots, delivery areas from alleys behind buildings fronting Main Street and/or loading

docks. Regarding left turn access and U-turn movements, these are not considered

significant impacts as typically trucks can change their routes so that these movements

can be avoided.

4.10 IMPACTS TO EMERGENCY SERVICES AND VEHICLES ACCESS

The introduction of light rail to the Main Street corridor may potentially affect how

emergency service providers respond to calls within or near the study area. Generally

several conditions may affect emergency response, as described below:

Reduced left-turn access due to light rail guideway for all the 2031 Build

Alternatives. This can be alleviated by coordinating with Fire, Life, Safety agencies

and providing revised routes and emergency access plans;




Improved opticom traffic control due to additional signalized intersections where the

traffic control system would provide intersection priority to emergency vehicles;

Reduced response time due to increased peak hour congestion on Main Street in

the 2031 Build Alternative (2-Lane) and (2-Lane Roundabouts). Again coordination

with affected agencies will need to occur in future design phases.

4.10.1 Medical Facilities

There are no hospitals or emergency medical clinics along Main Street within the study

area. In the vicinity are the following medical facilities:

Mesa Family Medical Center: University Drive east of Stapley Road

SouthWest Ambulance 1705 University Drive (west of Gilbert Road)

East Valley Vaccination and Examination Center (Evvax): 110 S Mesa Drive (south

of 1st Avenue)

Rural/Metro: 222 E. Main Street (west of Mesa Drive)

4.10.2 Law Enforcement

Mesa Police Department headquarters is in Downtown Mesa at 130 N. Robson. This

location is west of the study area. Two patrol divisions serve the study area. The Central

Patrol Division is located at headquarters, and the Red Mountain Patrol Division

Substation is located on University Drive at Greenfield.

4.10.3 Fire Protection

Mesa Fire Department headquarters is in Downtown Mesa at 13 W. 1st Street. This

location is west of the study area. None of the neighborhood fire stations are located

within the study area - they are located as follows:

Station 201: 360 E. 1st Street

Station 202: 830 S. Stapley Drive

Station 206: 815 N. Lindsay Road

Station 210: 1502 S. 24th Street

There would be no impacts to these facilities in any of the 2031 Build Alternatives.




5.0 IMPACTS ANTICIPATED DURING CONSTRUCTION -

MAINTENANCE OF TRAFFIC

The construction of the Gilbert Road Extension (GRE) project will include a number of

elements including utility relocations, roadway improvements, and track and station

construction. These construction elements are temporary and once completed, roadway

and access will be restored to normal conditions and operations.

Projects such as the GRE are typically divided into various construction segments.

Segmenting the project, in an orderly manner, allows for efficient and cost effective

construction. These various construction segments are typically:

Advance utility relocations

Demolition and earthwork

Track installation

Roadway and sidewalk construction

Station and park and ride construction

Systems installation, including substations and signal control facilities

Safety certification and testing

Commissioning

The sequence of construction for the GRE will be developed during the project

development phases along with a set of plans and specifications for individual contracts,

construction schedules and durations.

These construction elements will impact and create disruptions to auto, bus, pedestrian

and bicycle operations, as well as access to residences and businesses along the

corridor. Maintenance of traffic facilities (auto, bus, pedestrian and bicycles) will require

a traffic control plan to be developed during the project development phase and will be

developed in accordance with City of Mesa and Federal guidelines to minimize impacts

to traffic and maintain access to residences, businesses, community facilities and

services, including emergency services, and local streets. The traffic control general

plan will include measures to:

Maintain a minimum of one traffic lane in each direction along Main Street and

intersecting streets where construction activities are required. There may be

short duration (weekend) full closures for construction of trackwork at

intersections. Evaluation of such full closures versus longer construction in




stages at each intersection would be evaluated during the project development

phases.

Maintain transit operations in each direction along Main Street and all cross

streets. During project development, Valley Metro and their design staff will

coordinate transit operations for any temporary reroutes and bus stop relocations

that may be required during construction.

Impacts to residential and business access will occur. Community outreach and

access management planning will be required during the project development

phases.

Impacts to public services, such as garbage, utility and emergency services may

be affected during construction. Coordination with the appropriate City agency

and development of an access management plan will be required during the

project development phases.

Temporary closure of sidewalks and crosswalks is possible. Detours will be

established to safely guide pedestrians until the sidewalks and crosswalks are

restored per Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) accessibility guidelines.

Temporary closure of bicycle lanes may be required. Detours will be established

to safely guide bicyclists on detoured route. Proper wayfinding signs and

pavement markings will be used to guide bicyclists through detours/temporary

routes.

gilbert road extension: park-and-ride facility size

Documents