US 93: Wickenburg to Santa Maria River

Location/Design Concept Study and Environmental Studies

Home

SR 89 to Wickenburg Interim Bypass

Wickenburg   (SR 89) to Santa Maria River

Interim Improvement Project

Wickenburg Bypass

Related Studies

Study Team

Feedback

What's New

Location and Date: Wickenburg Town Council Chambers

July 6, 7:00 p.m.

Participants: Wickenburg Mayor and Town Council

                        Many local citizens

                        George Wallace, ADOT Studies Section

                        Rich DeBoer, ADOT Studies Section

                        Bert Bertleson, Sverdrup Civil

                        Don Smith, Sverdrup Civil

                        Berwyn Wilbrink, Sverdrup Civil

Subject: US 93, Wickenburg to Santa Maria River

                Location/Design Concept Study

                TRACS No. H 4871 01L

As part of the Town’s July 6, 1999 Meeting of the Common Council, ADOT was asked to attend concerning Agenda Item 2, which was a discussion / action on a request from the Mayor’s Transportation Oversight Committee (MTOC) for the adoption of a resolution requesting and supporting an interim bypass solution specified by the MTOC and Chamber of Commerce.

Bert Bertleson was invited by the Council to present a status report for the interim improvements feasibility study. Using a PowerPoint presentation (slides attached), Bert outlined the intent of the feasibility study, how it will be performed, and the time required to gather, analyze, and make a recommendation for improvements to be made. Eleven alternatives were initially considered, and reduced to three alternatives that were advanced for further study. Proposed improvements for Alternatives 4, 7 and 10 were presented. An evaluation matrix was presented comparing costs, timing for construction, traffic operation, and property/environmental issues.

Following his presentation, Bert noted these three alternatives required additional study before a recommendation could be made. Tasks to be completed included:

• Conduct a detailed traffic study / analysis
• Forecast availability of funding
• Review the results with the Steering Committee, ADOT Management, Public
• Publish results with a recommendation

 Following the presentation, the following comments were made by the Council (Responses by Bert Bertleson, if any, are in italics).

• How long should the interim solution maintain the traffic volumes? The formal bypass should be completed in 10-12 years. The interim should support the traffic for 12 years.
• What is the status of the existing Hassayampa Bridge? Of the two, the older bridge cannot be widened. Any improvements will require reconstruction. At some point, it will require reconstruction. (Structural sufficiency rating: 62).
• Alternative 4 is the only alternative that makes sense to him. Alternative 7 impacts the community center and requires a new bridge over Sols Wash. Alternative 10 keeps the traffic in the downtown area and is a hazard to pedestrians as the current parking provides a "buffer" between the trucks and the people.

• Both Alternatives 7 & 10 result in a 90-degree turn at an intersection for the US 93 traffic to continue. Alternative 4 does not incorporate such a turn so it should be carried forward. Alternative 4 does have a 90-degree turn at the US 93/US 60 intersection for the US 60 traffic, which has a significant amount of traffic.
• Perhaps the improvements would better serve the town if a grade-separated interchange were considered at the intersection with US 60.

• What is the design speed of the interim improvement projects? They are designed for 45 mph, but will most likely be posted for 35 mph operating speeds.
• The Alternatives 7 and 10 should be developed further to address circulation in the downtown area and provide better access to intersecting side streets
• Jack Burden Road should have better direct access onto Alternative 4, rather than using Constellation Road and El Recreo Road as an alternate connection to US 93.
• Old downtown streets such as Tegner and Wickenburg Way should maintain the parking to buffer the truck traffic from pedestrians.

• ADOT commented to the Town during the last study that they did not participate enough and make their (the Town’s) voice known. By passing this resolution, the Town’s perspective will be made known.
• The resolution does not conflict with Alternative 4, so why not support it.

Following the comments from the Council, Bert noted that the Council should defer action on the motion this evening for the following reasons:

• ADOT is listening to the Town, using multiple ways of gaining their input.
• ADOT has responded to questions presented thus far.
• The resolution only allows for Alternative 4 to proceed. Until the complete study of all of the alternatives is complete, we cannot be certain that Alternatives 7 or 10 may not provide a better solution for this situation.
• Voting on a solution before analysis is complete places ADOT in an awkward position.
• Council should allow the Study Team the opportunity to investigate all of the information before a conclusion is made.

• How close are the improvements to the proposed new pool? Plans for the pool have not been provided. We understand none of the current improvements directly impact the pool.
• Vulture Mine Road should be used from I-10 / Tonopah through to the current US 93 intersection north of town. It is the best solution for both the interim and ultimate bypass solutions.
• We should use Vulture Mine Road up to the Vulture Mine, then swing to the west side of town to bypass the ranches and private properties and ultimately tie into existing US 93.
• We should consider making Alternative 7 a one-way street up to the intersection of Yavapai, then return to Tegner. All alternatives considered should maintain the parking on the downtown streets.
• No more importance should be placed on the Chamber’s option than any other option being considered. Complete the study before a decision is made.
• Although trucks are paid by the mile, time and easy accessibility is also a factor. To that end, Vulture Mine Road should be improved to tie into the balance of the S/W route for the ultimate by pass route.
• Alternative 10 should be eliminated. The cost of one pedestrian accident is worth the added cost of Alternative 4.
• The Council should delay a vote until the Study Team has the time to do their job. The study should address parking vs. volume vs. pedestrian safety.
• The resolution adopted by the Chamber in December, 1998 should be approved tonight. The town cannot wait 10-12 years for a response. As the traffic increases, impacts to children using the sidewalks from the adjacent school could rise. As the high school is converted to an elementary school, the ages of the kids will shift from teens to young kids. Increased truck traffic will place them at greater risk.

Following comments from the public, the Council responded with the following:

With the information presented, the Council should not support Alternative 10 as it impacts pedestrians too much, won’t improve traffic enough, and is not as safe as the other alternatives. We should wait for the data to be collected.

The Council should delay action until the needed data is collected. The town needs a solution, and needs it fast. Let’s get going by making an informed decision.

The current motion is not restrictive. By no means should ADOT think that Alternative 10 is an acceptable solution. ADOT wanted our input, and the resolution will provide that input.

Does not care for any alternative submitted. Any alternative carried forward should remove the need for a 90-dgree curve at an intersection, and remove the need for traffic signals. The health of the town should also be considered, taking into account the air pollution that will result from any of the alternatives presented.

With no further discussion, a vote was taken:

5 in favor of the motion
1 opposed to the motion

Respectfully Submitted,

Berwyn S. Wilbrink, PE
Deputy Project Manager