Welcome! The Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) is conducting a corridor improvement study of US 93 between State Route (SR) 74 and the Santa Maria River (Figure 1). The study will determine the optimum location and design concept for a proposed bypass around Wickenburg and the widening of 35 miles of US 93 north of town. In addition, an Interim Improvement Design Concept Study is underway to investigate alternatives to alleviate traffic congestion in downtown Wickenburg until the ultimate bypass is completed.

This is the second in a series of public meetings designed to update the community on the progress of the studies and to gather your input on the proposed improvements.

The purpose of tonight’s meeting is to present information and receive public comments on:

• the recommended bypass route,
• the recommended alternative for widening US 93 north of town, and
• the recommended Interim Improvement Alternatives under consideration.

Need for the Project

Wickenburg Bypass

US 93 Widening

Interim Improvement Study

How Can You Participate?

What Happens Next?

Contact Information

Figures

US 93 is a primary highway route that links the metropolitan Phoenix area to northwest Arizona and beyond. The highway carries local, tourist, commercial, and through-traffic. Traffic volumes along the route have continually increased over the years. Now that US 93 is part of the National Highway System and has been designated as a North America Free Trade Agreement route, traffic volumes can be expected to increase even more rapidly, intensifying the need for highway improvements along the entire US 93 corridor.

Back to top

The US 93 route through downtown Wickenburg is no longer considered suitable for carrying the ever-increasing volume of traffic and high percentage of trucks. A bypass route is needed to remove through-traffic and ease congestion, especially at the intersection of US 93 and US 60 (Tegner Street and Wickenburg Way).

Just over two years ago, ADOT initiated a bypass study and, together with the public, identified 34 possible bypass alignments (Figure 2) and defined the factors that would be used in evaluating the routes (Figure 3). The

alignments were thoroughly analyzed, resulting in the elimination of several and the consolidation of most routes into two primary bypass corridors. At last year’s public meeting, the two corridors, the Northeast and Southwest, were presented. Due to strong public response, a Far West Corridor southwest of Vulture Peak was also added to the bypass study. These three corridors (Figure 4) were then evaluated for social and environmental impacts as well as design issues.

The Northeast Corridor was eventually discontinued from further study because of its potential negative socioeconomic consequences. It would affect neighborhoods by dividing residential areas, increasing noise levels, and displacing businesses and homes, as well as degrading the area’s visual character. The corridor’s proximity to rehabilitation centers, ranches, resorts, fairgrounds, and an historic ranch would indirectly harm those facilities.

In addition, the Northeast Corridor would have more impact on riparian areas and the Hassayampa River than the other corridors. The Northeast Corridor also would be more costly to construct due to the rugged terrain that it crossed and the large amount of private land required for right-of-way.

The initial evaluation showed that the Southwest and Far West Corridors were similar in many respects. No fatal flaws were found that eliminated either from further study. Therefore the corridors were combined to create a broad study corridor in which specific bypass routes could be developed and analyzed in more detail (Figure 5).

Of the several route alternatives investigated, two (the Southwest and Far West) were identified as most appropriate for a bypass alignment. Although both alternatives are comparatively similar, the Far West is favored because of its better horizontal and vertical alignment, traffic operations, constructability, and lesser visual impact. Therefore the Far West Route Alternative is recommended for further study (Figure 6).

Figure 3 – Factors Used in Bypass Corridor Evaluation

Back to top

US 93 Widening

In addition to investigating a bypass route, alternatives for widening US 93 from north of Wickenburg to the Santa Maria River have been under study. The alternatives for this improvement will retain the existing roadway for one direction of travel and widen the roadway to either side to provide a four-lane divided facility (Figure 7). From Wickenburg to just past SR 71, widening to the west side is recommended because adequate right-of-way already exists and topographical features are similar on either side. Beyond SR 71 to the Santa Maria River, widening to the east side is recommended to avoid costly drainage issues and to better fit the topography.

Back to top

Traffic volumes on Tegner Street and Wickenburg Way (US 93 and US 60, respectively) are projected to increase by 40% in the next 10 years and by 60% in 15 years. Because a US 93 bypass around downtown Wickenburg will not be implemented for many years, an interim improvement will be necessary as a near-term way of managing downtown traffic.

Thirteen possible interim improvement alternatives have been investigated (Figure 8). Each was evaluated based on cost, right-of-way, environmental impacts, traffic operations, and consistency with the town’s traffic circulation plan.

Three alternatives are recommended for further development – Alternatives 7, 10, and 13. Alternative 10, which would eliminate parking on Wickenburg Way and Tegner Street to provide room for two left-turn lanes, is currently being scoped by ADOT in a separate Project Assessment and is not included in the current interim improvement study.

Alternative 7 would replace the existing westbound bridge across the Hassayampa River with a new three-lane structure to increase traffic capacity (Figure 9). US 93 traffic would turn north onto Kerkes Street immediately after crossing the river. A new four-lane roadway would follow the west side of the river, then turn west at the Double D Farms property to rejoin US 93 just south of the Super 8 Motel.

Alternative 13 would add a new bridge over the river just north of the existing crossing (Figure 10). The bridge would cross the river at a skew in order to route US 93 traffic away from the community center and downtown area. Beyond the crossing, the roadway would turn north and follow the west bank of the river to near Bralliar Road, where it would rejoin US 93.

A Design Concept Study is currently underway to determine which of the two alternatives should be recommended for implementation.

Back to top

Your input this evening is very important to the outcome of the study. Before and after tonight’s presentation, Study Team representatives will be available for you to discuss the study project and ask questions. Following the presentation, the meeting will be opened for comments and questions from the audience. A court reporter will be on duty to ensure that the open session is recorded accurately.

Your input should be noted on the attached green Comment Sheet. Please hand it to a Study Team representative tonight or send it to Bert Bertleson by September 12, 2000.

Back to top

What Happens Next?

Following tonight’s meeting, the Study Team will review the input received from the public. The information will be used as the study work moves forward to the next level of investigation. This will include development of actual design concepts for the US 93 bypass and widening to the north of Wickenburg. Also, the final recommended Interim Improvement Alternative will be developed in detail. We will be returning to present our study progress to the public early next year.

Back to top

Visit the Project Web Page!

Back to top

Figure 1. Study Limits	Figure 2. Preliminary Bypass Alignments Studied.	Figure 4. Bypass Corridors Evaluated.
Figure 5. Combined Study Corridor.	Figure 6. Bypass Route Alternatives.	Figure 7. Widening of US 93.
Figure 8. Initial Interim Improvement Alternatives Studied.	Figure 9.Interim Improvement Alternative 7.	Figure 10. Interim Improvement Alternative 13.

Back to top