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

Summary:

A Public Scoping Meeting was held on June 3, 1999, from 6 to 8 p.m. at the Wickenburg Community Center, 160 North Valentine, Wickenburg, Arizona. The purpose of the meeting was to provide information about the study process to the general public and to provide an opportunity to gather public input on potential issues, concerns, and evaluation criteria for the proposed highway improvements.

Notice of the meeting was provided in the Wickenburg Sun. The meeting notice (attached) included a brief description of the study corridor and the purpose of the Location/Design Concept Study. It also listed persons to contact for more information or to comment on the study. In addition, letters announcing the meeting were sent to interested parties who had previously expressed a desire to receive information on the study.

Study Team members were available before and after the meeting to informally discuss the project. Three exhibits were utilized to facilitate discussion: a map of the entire study corridor with an enlargement of the possible bypass corridors around downtown Wickenburg, a flow chart depicting the study process, and a diagram of the possible typical sections for the proposed improvements.

An informational packet (attached) was passed out at the entrance to the meeting. The handout provided information on several items, including the purpose and agenda for the meeting, a description of the study, the progress of the study to date, and upcoming events. Explanations of the Steering Committee and the Interim Feasibility Study were also included. Reduced-scale copies of the meeting exhibits were attached. The meeting participants were encouraged to submit comments on the comment sheet included in the packet.

One hundred seventy-two people attended the meeting. The meeting began with an introduction of the Study Team, followed by descriptions of the proposed project and the study process. The results of the previous Corridor Feasibility Study were discussed with the assistance of a computer slideshow (attached) that listed the evaluation criteria, mapped the features to be avoided, and overlaid on the map the different corridors that had been evaluated. This process showed clearly why most of the suggested corridor locations were eliminated from further study and why the two proposed corridors were most suitable for the bypass. A computer-generated 3-D simulation was also used to show the proposed corridors superimposed on the local topography. After the presentation, an open question-and-answer session was held. The Study Team’s responses are shown in italics.

• What is the public process for interim improvements? We are only in the feasibility phase. The Design Concept stage will involve public meetings.
• An interim improvement alternative appeared in the paper. This was a surprise to the community and there is concern about the approval process.
• What are the projected costs and lengths of bypass corridors? We are at the beginning of the study and have not determined this information yet.
• Requested a review of the 13 corridor selection criteria. (Was done)
• Vulture Peak is a part of town; do not separate it with a freeway.
• What design year would have 23,000 ADT? 2020. How much of the future traffic is local? About 1/3.
• Readdress the Far West route and a connection to I-10.
• Concerned that an interim bypass will become permanent.
• Send southbound trucks down Vulture Mine Road and northbound through town as a short-term solution.
• Spend money on a permanent bypass rather than an interim solution.
• Why not put the road along the railroad?
• Will the southwest bypass have an interchange at Vulture Mine Road? No. This is based on Phase 1 input to avoid increased traffic past the school.
• People do not want the two proposed corridors. Why not choose the Far West route even though it costs more?
• Put the route from I-10 at Tonopah along the backside of Vulture Peak.
• Mining claims owned by foreigners.
• Concerned about air quality with the Southwest route.
• Concerned about federal funds.
• What is the procedure to condemn mining claims vs. private land? We are investigating this.
• Don’t want interim bypass; use funds on Far West bypass instead.
• Corridors go through a plot of private investment lands.
• Southwest corridor is too close to the airport and adjacent development.
• Is the funding and study for the interim bypass separate from the ultimate bypass? Yes.
• Did the steering committee eliminate the corridors from the original 34 studied? Who came up with the 34 original? Who did the Phase 1 study? (Referred back to the presentation)
• How does the Northeast corridor connect with US 60 from the west? It would have to use Constellation Road.
• It seems like the corridors avoid mountaintops. Was terrain the primary consideration? It was one of several criteria but was obviously a real constraint.
• The survey results show that the citizens prefer the Southwest corridor.
• Would the Town fund the improvements to Constellation Road? No, ADOT would.
• Wants development of the permanent bypass to be on a faster track.
• Requests a new study that focuses on future regional growth / regional planning.
• What is the timeframe for the interim improvement? The goal is to have it in place within 5 years.
• For the interim solution, take the parking off Tegner and Wickenburg Way.
• What is the rate at which traffic will increase? We have estimated the increase at 2.5% per year.
• Are we too far in the process to revisit the Far West route and I-10 connection? The I-10 connection is not a valid consideration.
• Is it possible to widen the existing intersection in town? Yes.
• Concerned that the interim solution can’t be built in 5 years.
• When will the south end of Grand Avenue be improved to 4-6 lanes? Do not have that answer.
• Why can the development of an interim solution take so much less time than the permanent bypass? It follows a different process and does not involve as many steps.
• Are traffic counts accurate – thinks they are higher.
• Is there a fast track for the permanent bypass? We are following a process prescribed by FHWA and ADOT.
• Request for information on our contract, scope of work, and how study is done.
• When is the next meeting? Late fall of this year.
• Who is the customer? Several, from the community to the motorist to various agencies.
• If the U.S. is prioritizing NAFTA funding, why will it take 10-12 years for bypass completion? The U.S. is not prioritizing funding.
• Will we make a recommendation on a bypass location at the October public meeting? That is the plan.
• Need a wireless microphone for the next meeting.
• NAFTA corridor will include I-10 to Tonopah, then northwest of Wickenburg.

Signed:     Laura J. Nordan
                Environmental Planner