Transportation Master Plan

Share Transportation Master Plan on Facebook Share Transportation Master Plan on Twitter Share Transportation Master Plan on Linkedin Email Transportation Master Plan link
Draft Plan Available for Review

We have used what we have heard from you and your neighbors over the past 18 months to develop the Draft City of Mesa Transportation Master Plan (TMP). Thank you to everyone who shared their input and ideas during this process! Your input helped shape the draft TMP.

Recommendations in the Draft TMP include roadway, safety, intersection, pedestrian, and bicycle improvement needs.

Comments were accepted until August 2024 during the final review.

Click Here to Read the Draft Transportation Master Plan.

Submit comments below.




Mesa is changing – more people and businesses are moving here every day and the mobility needs of our residents are increasing. To provide our residents, visitors, and businesses with a transportation system that works, we need to face our transportation future head-on.

Mesa's Transportation Master Plan is a 25-year plan that considers how we will grow, where we will live, and how we will move.

Draft Plan Available for Review

We have used what we have heard from you and your neighbors over the past 18 months to develop the Draft City of Mesa Transportation Master Plan (TMP). Thank you to everyone who shared their input and ideas during this process! Your input helped shape the draft TMP.

Recommendations in the Draft TMP include roadway, safety, intersection, pedestrian, and bicycle improvement needs.

Comments were accepted until August 2024 during the final review.

Click Here to Read the Draft Transportation Master Plan.

Submit comments below.




Mesa is changing – more people and businesses are moving here every day and the mobility needs of our residents are increasing. To provide our residents, visitors, and businesses with a transportation system that works, we need to face our transportation future head-on.

Mesa's Transportation Master Plan is a 25-year plan that considers how we will grow, where we will live, and how we will move.

Submit a Comment

We want to hear from you. Share your thoughts about the Mesa Transportation Master Plan. Submit a comment below. 


Comments must be submitted by August 5, 2024, to be included in the final review.



You need to be signed in to comment in this Guest Book. Click here to Sign In or Register to get involved

I have lived near Greenfield and Adobe for 6 years now. Greenfield has been torn up almost this entire time. WHY?!!!!! I’m sick of living in perpetual construction zone. To make matters worse, frequently if I try to take Higley or Val Vista as an alternate, it’s blocked off as well.

Artemoushue 1 day ago

Thank you for all of your efforts, this is a very large document with alot to review.

Sun Circle Trail should be labeled throughout and incorporated into all maps as it is a Nationally recognized trail.

P 8 — Incorporate the subarea plans, review and verify. I cannot speak all Sub Area plans but there are areas that conflict with the Lehi Sub Area plan, I can only assume that with the immense undertaking of this project it would be a good idea to double check others. City of Mesa Lighting zones should also be considered as additional lighting is incorporated throughout.
P 21 Existing land use map should incorporate the land use map and categories of the 2050 general plan
P 30-31 — Reassess "Justice40 Disadvantaged Communities", there are areas that do not seem to meet the criteria identified
P47 street condition map has sections recently resurfaced in 2022-2023that are listed as poor condition, recheck the list of projects from last year they were likely completed after this document was started.
P 52 The crash data is good but I also think we need to consider # of crashes regardless of injury as well as those that are injurious and fatal. If an intersection is producing a higher than average number of minor incidents it is an indicator that we have an issue.
P 58 Biking in Mesa --Shared Use Path and Canal Trails sections. Horses are frequent transitors it would be useful identify areas intentionally designed for the safety of riders as well as bikers like the canal system
P 101, Table 5-2 Recommended New Road needs, ID# 118 include reference to equestrian uses
P110 — When it comes to referencing citywide, multimodal needs, a statement needs to be added to reflect equestrian use of many of those facilities. The river and the canal system are a good portion of the horse use areas, again making sure SunCIrcle Trail indicated throughout the plan.
P114: S-29 Remove sidewalk recommendation on Lehi Road this is an equestrian area, sidewalks are incompatible with the neighborhood uses. Sidewalks are often accompanied with additional lighting which in not in compliance with the lighting classification “dark skies” of the area. Even ribbon curbs are hazardous as concrete is a higher slip hazard.
P 118-119 ID B35 Remove: The neighborhood would most likely object to any new bicycle "facilities" being implemented along Lehi Road in that section bikes transit this section constantly without issue both mountain bikers and road cyclists. In the Lehi community along Lehi Road we have a horse path on both the north and the south side of Lehi Road. Horses have been hit by cars in this area not cyclists. So I would eliminate that from the project list.
P156 -157 ID P15 —Center Street is regularly use by equestrians to access in the river bottom so again we have to make sure whatever is constructed there acknowledges and incorporates the safe use by equestrians.
ID S29 and B35 — as noted above these two project areas are incompatible with the Lehi Sub Area Plan and the desires of the Lehi Community.
ID 118 is noted on the map on page 172. Add in description on 173 this road will intersect a major equestrian use multimodal path crossing and is the only way that horses can get out of the neighborhood to access, the Lehi Trail, which runs along the river bottom. So it needs to be emphasized that any road construction must allow for the safe use by equestrians.
157: B-35 mentioned above no bicycle facility needed, wide DG shoulders offer riding space; remove sidewalk fill in on Lehi Road.
P174 as noted earlier project S 29 and B 35 would not be acceptable to the Lehi community based upon the equestrian and livestock uses of the area

mcrosby 3 months ago

I appreciate the opportunity to submit public comments on these important matters. I am fully in support of the comments listed below, some submitted by a Lehi resident which I have appended here to my remarks.

Of particular concern to me is the absence of references to accommodations for equestrians that I know many citizens have voiced throughout this process, yet the Plan in its present form seems to omit. There are plenty of references and accommodations for cyclists, so let's not forget our friends with equestrian concerns please.

P 8 — Additional City of Mesa Plans and Studies Reviewed -- It would have been helpful for to have reviewed the Lehi Sub Area [PDF] Plan. I’ll note several areas below that are in direct conflict with plan.

P 30-31 — I'm guessing the project team didn't create the map on page 31 that indicated "Justice40 Disadvantaged Communities", but for the record, there are several areas labeled as "Disadvantaged Community" that doesn't make sense based upon the criteria given. One example is between Higley Road and Power Road north of the 202 -- that’s primarily vacant land to my knowledge, so it’s odd that that would be marked as a disadvantage community. The challenge in the map is that some area – such as east of Center street between Lehi Road and McKellips include two very diverse communities. The parcels along Lehi Rd, both sides, are distinctively different from the sections, just south of them. The northern edge of the “Justice40” area should be around Lynwood Lane, not all the way north to Lehi Road. Why is that a concern? Because several proposed projects reference later in this plan – sidewalks and bikes paths along Lehi Road-- could be considered as benefiting a “disadvantaged” area, when in fact those projects are too far away to have minimal benefit to the areas that really need them. When the policy goal of Justice40, as referenced on page 30, is that “40% of Federal investments should flow to disadvantaged communities”, projects such as those referenced above can get pushed on residents that don’t want or need them, to help meet that goal, instead of being used to benefit the residents that really need and want them. So, my question is – who created this map and how do we get the boundary lines corrected to accurately represent the needs of the community?

P 52 How Safe Are Our Streets -- this page is well laid out graphically. It’s concerning to read that there has been a 24% increase in fatal crashes since 2017 and 41% of all crashes were intersection related. We need to remember those statistics the next time, the legislature tries to pass legislation to get rid of photo radar cameras that identify speeders and probably more importantly, cameras that capture red light runners at intersections. As a community concerned about safety, we need to quit rewarding bad behavior. Those that choose to NOT follow the traffic rules should pay the price.

P 58 Biking in Mesa --Shared Use Path and Canal Trails sections. Equestrians are frequent users as well. While I realize the page is relating to biking, equestrian should be included in the list of possible users. Canal trails are one of the few places within the city that equestrians can use somewhat safely. So, equestrians should be listed there as an additional user when there is a surface that accommodates them safely.

P 58 & 60 The sections "Buffered and Protected Bike Lanes" and “How Comfortable Are Our Streets for Cyclists” underscore something that I’ve heard frequently--safety concerns from bicyclists when they are forced to ride next to traffic. We have to take a hard look at other communities such as Scottsdale and how they have worked to separate bicycle traffic from vehicle traffic. Just one recent example that should be looked at is Shea Boulevard heading east to the 101 freeway, on the south side. The bike lane is move away from the vehicle traffic lanes. This is a good example of how some communities, in this case Scottsdale, has made an effort to separate bicycle traffic from vehicle traffic. This link will provide more information and examples how safety concerns can be more effectively addressed: https://ww2.scottsdaleaz.gov/Assets/ScottsdaleAZ/Transportation/Trails/2019+Active+Transportation+Map.pdf Mesa is growing fast; new communities are being created. As a city we sell the image of a place where a recreational lifestyle is supported and promoted. Separating bikes lanes from traffic lanes should be a priority in the planning and design process.

P 75– Just an area that needs to be checked or compared to the general plan growth scenario. There is a small triangular parcel that is south of Thomas Road and east of the 24th St. alignment which, according to the last city council meeting was designated as "Sustain” but all of the rest of that area should be noted as "Conserve". There's also a section north of Thomas Road labeled "Sustain" and my understanding is that it should have been labeled as "Conserve"

P 101, Table 5-2 Recommended New Road needs, ID# 118 -- I realize this is a long-term future project, but it involves a road that will eventually intersect a major horse crossing for the NE Lehi Community. It's the only way that community has to access the new Lehi Trail. So the comment "Construct new two-lane roadway with appropriate bike and pedestrian facilities” should be corrected to "Construct a roadway with appropriate bike, pedestrian and equestrian facilities”. When completed this plan will be a key document that will be built on in the future, and we cannot afford to not have an equestrian use noted in relationship to that project.

P110 Citywide Multimodal Needs — When it comes to referencing citywide, multimodal needs, a statement needs to be added to reflect equestrian use of many of those facilities. So, adding a phrase such as "incorporate facilities for safe equestrian use" needs to be added. Specifically, ID P1, ID P5, ID P 6, ID P 15, ID P 34 and P 37. All of those project’s interface with Trails that equestrian riders utilize today. These projects are close to the Lehi community which has the highest concentration of horses and riders in the Mesa area. Acknowledging equestrian use and creating facilities that reflect that use is critical in this area and should be carefully considered is near properties zoned R43. This resource, Equestrian Design Guidebook for Trails, Trailheads, and Campgrounds https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/recreational_trails/publications/fs_publications/07232816/index.cfm should be utilized for all trail designs where the user could include equestrians. There are numerous safety issues that can be easily avoided if the recommendations in this guidebook are followed. One general guideline that comes to mind is that, what ever possible, bike paths and equestrian paths should be separated with as much space in between as possible, and proper signage confirming horses have the right of way and to maintain a safe distance. Often ALL users have to share the same path—such as using an underpass--, but as soon as possible a bifurcated trail is preferred, for the safety of ALL users.

P 114 Table 5-8 Recommended Sidewalk Improvement Needs; ID S29 Lehi Road. The Lehi Sub Area plan on page 24 item 5 reads “ sidewalk should not be required in Lehi. Residents are of the opinion that ribbon curbing is sufficient except adjacent to public buildings.” So even the mention of the idea of putting sidewalks down Lehi Road would create an uproar in our neighborhood. The main reason for this is that we have granite Horse Trails along both sides of Lehi Road, to accommodate the safe travel of horse riders along with other users, and it’s been that way for over 100 years. Any addition of sidewalks would create a hazard for equestrian users. Item S53 Lehi Road/Thomas Road; McDowell Road to South Canal should be scrutinized as well depending on how close it is to existing horse paths or impacts them in any way.

P 118-119 Recommended New Bicycle Facility Needs. ID B35 Lehi Road: South Canal to Center Street. The Lehi Community would most likely object to any new bicycle facilities being implemented along Lehi Road in that section primarily because we have bicycle traffic on the horse path. In general, concrete is not a safe surface for equestrians. And should be replaced with decomposed granite whenever possible. In the Lehi community along Lehi Road, we have a horse path on both the north and the south side of Lehi Road that bicyclist and pedestrians use safely as well. Recommend elimination of that proposed project.

P156 157 ID P30 and P15 Shared Use Path Need Question --Where can I find out more about these two proposed projects? It’s running along the north side of the 202 freeway and currently ends at Center street. The east side of Center Street is regularly used by equestrians to access in the river bottom so again we have to make sure whatever is constructed there acknowledges and incorporates the safe use of that area by equestrians.

Potential Project -- Another potential projects that I didn’t see on this plan was continuing that shared use path farther east, utilizing the excess ADOT right of way on the north side of the 202, eventually connecting up with McDowell Road, and then continuing along between McDowell and the 202 heading east. At the Stapley overpass, the path could head south, pickup the excess right of way long the south side of the 202 freeway until it meets the end of Lehi Road. At that point there’s easy access to the north side of the canal bank, where at that point, you can ride or bike all the way to Granite Reef dam without crossing another major street (Gilbert Rd, McDowell and Val Vista already have underpasses.) PLUS now the path connected it to the Rio Salado path. Question – what’s the process to explore this idea further? What are the next steps?

ID S29 Fill-in Sidewalk Gap – Lehi Road and B35 – Bicycle Facility Need—Lehi Road: South Canal to Center Street. As noted above these two proposed projects are incompatible with the Lehi Sub Area Plan and the desires of the Lehi Community.

P170 - 171 North Central Mesa – Travel Shed #7– Appreciate the careful reference that Lehi has an active equestrian community. That acknowledgment shows that you’ve carefully read the comments submitted by residents in the Lehi Community.

ID 118 is noted on the map on page 172 but is not described on page 173--Which I think was intended. The important note there as referenced earlier in my comments, this road will intersect a major equestrian use multimodal path crossing and is the only way that horse riders can get out of the neighborhood to access, the Lehi Trail, which runs along the river bottom. So it needs to be emphasized that any road construction must allow for the safe use by equestrians in surrounding communities.

P174 as noted earlier project S 29 and B 35 would not be acceptable to the Lehi community based upon the equestrian use of Lehi Road as a major thoroughfare in the Lehi community.

Just one final comment you mentioned the Sun Circle trail on page 150 and 151 under project ID P 38. I don’t think the Sun Circle Trail is correctly labeled on many of your maps. The Sun Circle Trail is a national trail that was established back in the 60s, where it follows the South Canal you can literally ride it all the way to the granite reef Dam. Attached is some additional documentation confirming the location of the trail. It’s a big deal to equestrians because it is one of the few places that we can ride safely for long distances. As the Sun Circle Trail (north side of the South Canal) crosses Val Vista, all users (pedestrians, bikes and equestrians ) are able to experience “Mesa’s most spectacular view” unobstructed.

Thank you for giving my input and these concerns condideration.
RJ Adams Jr.

RJ Adams 3 months ago

*On page 111 P42, page 163 P42, and page 164 P42 - Change Maricopa County Flood Control Department to Flood Control District of Maricopa County.
*Please consult with the City of Mesa Engineering Division (Drainage) with any proposed transportation plans to see if they conflict with any existing and/or proposed drainage/flood facilities within the City.

Mark_FCDMC 3 months ago

For the transit system, will you be able to add a service like We Ride Surprise or Chandler Flex? Biking and walking on neighborhood streets is nice. Trying to get out of the neighborhood to go to a nearby store, bus stop, school, or doctor's office for students and elderly can be challenging. Thanks for your consideration.

LWarnick 3 months ago

Thank you to Vice Mayor Heredia for providing a link to the plan and comment page in his e-mail. Wish I had time to comment during the decision process. I would have suggested that the light rail be extended to Higley Rd. I live in one of the winter visitor RV parks between Gilbert and Higley. My park has 1719 units. AZ thrivess economically on winter visitors. Many visit with out autos.
As for me, I lived in Chicago area were rail and the "L" were essential. Bus transportation moved the residents. As Phoenix area grows hopefully citizens will use the metro system more as it too grows. I also wish people would be more tolerant of other riders "who don't wear a suit and tie."

TomCatMe 3 months ago

I want the canal cycling paths to be increased and made available for even greater safety and protection. I also come from cities that support public transportation, which includes light rail and cycling. I want city of Mesa to increase its light rail and cycling infrastructure and also expansion of the canal cycling and pedestrian paths to create a harmonious route so as to give people the opportunity to walk, run and cycle year round. I am against anyone who is opposed to the above and light rail expansion or destruction of pedestrian and cycling pathways.

stphughes 3 months ago

I am an avid cyclist for both daily cycling and commuting. All year round. I want better and safer cycling infrastructure. Too many drivers, especially pickup and SUV drivers are reckless when it comes to their aggressive behavior against cyclists and pedestrians. Many people dont cycle because of dangerous reckless drivers.

stphughes 3 months ago

I cannot say enough places how against any light rail expansion, commuter rail or street car (depending on the section) down Dobson I am. I remain unconvinced by what I believe are inflated ridership numbers and do not see the community value. I do not want a people mover for Cubs Spring training that will go unused by Mesa residents year round. The canal pathways would be a much better served project and continue to be neglected in proposals with no actionable items outside of noting how unusable they currently are.

KMesa 4 months ago

I am a downtown mesa resident.35 years old incase you need that. I've lived between center, university and southern all my
Life. I'm all for this BUT it's weird that mesa drive and Broadway is always in construction. These projects need to be sped up. By the time it's done I'll be 60 it seems. Anyways my advice is to keep thinking on ways it could go wrong or whatever to avoid 24/7 and forever construction. Just please over analyze this. Nothing is more annoying than never ending construction on busy roads

Nope 4 months ago

I don't see any improvements noted for the intersections of US 60 at Ellsworth, Crismon, or Signal Butte relative to adding additional through lanes, dual left turn lanes or right turn lanes. During existing peak hours there is a need for some of these improvements, and definitely needed in the long term.

Ronk 4 months ago

Very impressed. Thank you to everyone involved!

Aeuro 4 months ago

Thank you for putting this plan together, it was awesome and so comprehensive! I would like to advocate for the Alma school rd & UPRR Railroad crossing improvements to be moved into the short term category. That train sits there blocking the intersection for 15+ minutes!

I look forward to the Corridor Study of University Drive from Gilbert to the west. It’s an interesting area.

Stapley Drive and University getting turn lanes is much needed! Very excited. And for the country club improvements!

I’m biased but I’d also hope to prioritize safety improvements along Rio salado and Alma School as well as Alma School and Main Street. That light rail stop is right by that railroad crossing where traffic gets blocked, it can get messy!

Thank you!

BritaMagnolia 4 months ago

As noted in this plan, more bike connections are needed to downtown. As streets are redone, particularly arterials, separated bike infrastructure is needed to effectively move people. Current bike lines against traffic on arterials are not used because, as this report notes, they are not safe. For biking to be a realistic alternative to driving, they must be a safe path.

I am disappointed at the lack of light rail expansion discussed. The light rail has been a huge boon for downtown. Expanding that system and connecting more destinations would also more effectively move people in our community while at the same time making our community more accessible.

Carver 4 months ago

Removed by moderator.

Gibby 7 months ago

Recker Rd north of Thomas going into and coming out of Red Mountian Ranch community are many, many vehicles that need to slow way, way down. The speed limit should be a 30 mph zone but 40-60 mph is the norm. I'd appreciate it if the city can add several speed-bumps to eliminate the speeders. There kids walking home from school, a park, bike riders, moms walking their baby carrages and dogs all while vehicles are speeding by... it is just a matter of time before there is a serious fatal accident.

Gibby 7 months ago

Regarding transportation in North Mesa, desperately need a right turn lane for eastbound McKellips to southbound Higley, it backs up daily. Even more so, there needs to be raised median islands on McKellips on either side of Gilbert Road - it’s suicide trying to make left turns. In saying that, please be respectful of the residents when planning medians, too often the focus is on business access when there is plenty of it.
Also, please improve the Mesa-side of the SRP Canal paths!! They’re used regularly by so many people and they’re substandard, at best . . . but just above using the very narrow, attached sidewalks along major roadways, so still a better option. It was okay until SRP decided to remove their asphalt path and put down some sort of surface that isn’t even - it’s terrible to walk/run/bike on that uneven surface. When I called, they say “that’s Mesa’s side”.
Would love to see six lanes on more of our north-south arterials, especially during the peak winter visitor season, the four lanes just don’t cut it with the “pace cars” maintaining the below-speed-limit driving. :)
Thanks for the opportunity to provide input!

TMak 7 months ago

I am a home owner on South Dobson rd. W.Broadway rd to West Southern is mostly residential properties. I am against rail car project for Rio Salado through Dobson rd to W. Southern Ave to North Country Club. There is no logical reason this part of Mesa doesn’t have anything to offer. Running a rail through residential neighborhoods should not be allowed. Since the rail on Main St brought in homeless from West Phoenix. The areas has declined and is dirty at Fry’s store West Main homeless living at bus stop area. Country Club and Southern rd Goodwill homeless pushing carts, urinating on North side of building. Rail on Main St doesn’t get enough riders to justify the cost of that project.

Kathy Home owner 7 months ago

Removed by moderator.

NoMore!! 7 months ago

Traffic Roundabouts create more problems than they solve.

Nate Caine 9 months ago
Page last updated: 06 Nov 2024, 11:07 PM