SC Meeting Minutes - April 25, 2000

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

Steering Committee Meeting Minutes - April 25, 2000

Location and Time:

Tuesday, April 25, 2000 – 1:00 p.m.

Hassayampa River Preserve Conference Room

Participants:

Organization	Representative	Participating Alternate
ADOT	Rich DeBoer
Sverdrup Civil	Bert Bertleson
Bureau of Land Management	Mike Taylor	Angela Mogel
Maricopa County	Mike Sabatini	Tim Oliver
Yavapai County	Richard Straub	Gay Hendin (absent)
State Land Department	Sheila McCafferty (Absent)
Town of Wickenburg – Elected	Rusty Gant
Town of Wickenburg – Staff	Fred Carpenter
Wickenburg School District #9	Doug Price
Chamber of Commerce – Business	Royce Kardinal
Chamber of Commerce – Transportation Committee	Bill Green
Homeowners – Northeast	Jim Liggett
Homeowners – Southwest	Andy Anderson
B.O.O.T.	Jim Dickinson
Recreation Groups	Richard Wertz
Hassayampa River Preserve	Mike Rigney

Subject: US 93, Wickenburg to Santa Maria River

Location/Design Concept Study

TRACS No. 093 YV 161 H4871 01 L

Steering Committee Meeting

MEETING SUMMARY:

Open Comments: The meeting opened at approximately 1:10 with an opportunity for committee members to ask any questions before getting into the agenda items. The following issues/questions were raised:

J. Dickinson: The Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) is proposing a remediation project at the Vulture Mine Superfund Site near Motel 8 Downtown. They (ADEQ) have referred to Alternative 13 as a "Bypass" that would go through the site. B. Bertleson noted that Sverdrup was aware of ADEQ’s work and had been in contact with the ADEQ project manager. The reference to "bypass" by ADEQ is incorrect and they have been informed as such.

R. Gant: What is the projected end date of the study? B. Bertleson noted that 1 year away is still the target, although several additional issues have been raised since the project inception that may delay completion until Fall, 2001.

R. Wertz: Tom Foster has said that the interim project up the river is a foregone conclusion. In addition to the new alignment, both existing Hassayampa River bridges could be replaced with a single 5-lane in addition to the structures required for the interim project. B. Bertleson noted that Tom might be looking at issues that face the ADOT District that are outside the limits of this study’s scope.

Review / Approve 12/14/99 Meeting Minutes: Bertleson summarized what was covered at the last meeting, including the following key points:

The BLM was invited to participate in the committee. Mike Taylor presented the BLM’s position on the corridor study and alternatives analysis.
The study process does not address funding priorities. However, due to the magnitude of the bypass cost and a shortfall of funds for the projects statewide, the committee needs to be aware of the potential affects on implementing the bypass construction.
An evaluation of the interim alternatives through town is continuing.
The public meeting was postponed due to the need to look at the bypass corridors in greater detail and further evaluate several BLM concerns.

The minutes of the 12/14/99 meeting were recommended for approval by Bill Green and seconded by Andy Anderson. By vote, the minutes were approved.

Project Status Report: B. Bertleson summarized the progress completed since the previous steering committee meeting. Key points included:

Efforts have focused on the bypass area for specific alignment options within the single, wide, southern corridor.
Engineering evaluations are completed to a point, awaiting agency environmental input.
Meetings were held with the BLM to discuss evaluation criteria.
The goal is for a Public Meeting in early summer.
Field investigations are ongoing for drainage studies
The Southwest (SW) and Farwest (FW) corridors, although combined into a single study corridor, each have an identified alignment that is being evaluated further. Currently, there is no preferred alternative.
Fieldwork and evaluations have begun on the Interim DCR (Alternatives 7 & 13).
Alternatives have been identified north of Wickenburg, between SR 89 and the Santa Maria River crossing. These will continue to be developed further.

Bypass Corridor Evaluations (see exhibit slides attached): A presentation was made by Berwyn Wilbrink on the evaluation of the bypass corridors. At the previous steering committee meeting, the SW and FW corridors were combined into a single corridor for evaluation. Within this corridor, 7 alignments were developed (horizontally and vertically). The seven corridors were evaluated using the following criteria:

Corridor Width (Evaluate opportunities to develop independent roadways to best fit the landform).
Grade (Evaluate need for truck climbing lanes).
Earthwork (Need for deep cuts through hills and high embankments in fill areas).
Drainage (type and size of structures).
Constructability (possibilities for staged construction as well as site access).

After evaluating the alignments, two alternatives stood out as desired bypass solutions that met the geometric objectives.

Alternative F is located within the old SW corridor and is the most northerly alignment. It begins by crossing the Hassayampa River south of the Preserve, near the RR bridge crossing. It generally follows the northern boundaries of the BLM land on the north side of the Vulture Mountains. As the alignment passes Vulture Mine Road, it is hidden in a valley between Twin Peaks and a series of knolls located south of the Flying E Ranch. As the alternative heads north, it is located east of Black Mountain and west of Black hill.

Alternative G is located within the old FW corridor and is the most southerly alignment. It begins by crossing the Hassayampa River south of Alternative F where the footprint of the river is wider, but the topography is not as rugged. This alternative heads west following the south side of the Vulture Mountain foothills to a saddle located just south of Vulture Peak. It is located generally 2 to 3 miles south of the BLM’s northern boundary. After crossing Vulture Mine Road, it turns to head north following the south side of the Twin Peaks foothills. As the alternative approaches US 60, it is located west of Black Mountain and west of Black hill.

A preliminary video simulation of a flight above both alternatives was presented.

Don Smith described the environmental evaluation of the alternatives. They included:

Visual Impacts
Noise Impacts (to Trails, Parks)
Habitat Fragmentation
Habitat Reduction/Degradation
Reduced Recreation Opportunities
Severance to Jeep/Hiking Trails
Intrinsic Values (Impact on pristine environment)

While the engineering evaluation is quantifiable, the environmental evaluation includes features that are more qualitative and more difficult to achieve a consensus. There are many users of the BLM lands that must be considered. The users include the area residents as well as those from the Metropolitan Phoenix area. This evaluation is not complete and is on going.

Following the presentation, several comments were made as follows (responses are in italics):

Alternative F is too close to the Hassayampa River Preserve. Although it is closer than G, the alignment is not inside the Preserve.

Drainage impacts to the Preserve need to be evaluated from both alternatives where highway drainage could drain directly into the Preserve.
The visual aesthetics of the current RR bridge crossing of the Hassayampa should be evaluated compared to the new crossing of Alternative F. The new crossing could destroy a scenic treasure.
The vertical alignment of the southern alternative is flatter than the northern alternative.
Still need to evaluate how the northern connection to US 93 will tie into SR 89.
The northern alternative is much closer to the Flying E and Los Cab. Resorts.
Will a noise/vibration study be performed with respect to proximity to anything? D. Smith noted that FHWA has noise criteria identified for residences/hospitals/ parks/etc. The most restrictive criteria is 67dB before mitigation is required for noise abatement. Vibration is not an impact evaluation criteria.

Wildlife may be more sensitive to noise than the current standards indicate. ADOT may need to evaluate the noise and with more scrutiny towards the delicate nature of the Preserve.
Vibration / Noise over the new bridges should also be considered. D. Smith noted that since noise carries further than vibrations, the noise is the greater concern.

What is the cost per mile of the alternatives? The approximate cost per mile through mountainous terrain is $8-10 million. Each alignment will be estimated in greater detail, including bridge, drainage, earthwork, and pavement costs.

There are many trails north of the Vulture Mountains that are used daily by two guest ranches. These will be impacted by Alternative F.
The town desires that any alternative selected be located on the east side of Black Mountain so it will coincide with the industrial parks planned.
As noted during the scoping meetings, neither of the two alternatives should have a Traffic Interchange (TI) at Vulture Mine Road. While the current concept does not include one, the BLM and State Lands may desire access to their lands and resources from that location.

B. Bertleson noted that the evaluations will be completed and presented to the ID Team for review and comment. They will decide which of the following scenarios will be carried forward:

Option 1:The two alignments are too close by comparison to pick a clear preferred alignment at this time. Both will be carried forward to the public review process and evaluated in more detail.

Option 2:Following this evaluation series, there is enough information to determine that one alignment is preferred and it will be carried forward for detailed design concept development and evaluation.

Interim Improvement Projects: B. Bertleson provided an overview of the interim projects.

Alternative 10 (see attached exhibit) is being scoped in a Project Assessment (PA). Minor modifications to the intersection of Tegner and Wickenburg Way will improve the capacity of the intersection to meet the traffic needs for the next 10 years. This improvement is not a "final" answer to the congestion problems but an economical solution until a higher capacity roadway is constructed. The PA document will provide scope, cost and implementation information should the alternative be programmed for construction. It was agreed that Alternative 10 would not be implemented unless agreed upon mutually by ADOT and the Town.

The Transportation Oversight Committee has already met with ADOT’s Randy Blake to discuss improvements at the intersection. These discussions included added left turn signals and removing crosswalks. The crosswalks are a feature that restrict efficient timing of the lights. However, many disagree with Randy that they should be considered for removal due to the heavy school use they get. Improvements to the intersection will be scoped as part of the preparation of the PA.

Alternatives 7 and 13 (or a variation thereof) will be considered in a separate Design Concept Report. The two options (see attached exhibits) will be developed further, presented to the public for comment, and subsequently one selected as the recommended plan for improving traffic conditions until the ultimate bypass south of town can be funded and constructed.

J. Dickinson added that another alternative should be included in the evaluation. He desires that a one-way couplet be considered. This option would have NB traffic use Kerkes/Yavapai Streets and use Tegner Street for the SB movements. A one way couplet was considered as one of the initial alternatives for providing a short-term solution (Alternative 8). While it has some merits, the critical turning movement at the existing intersection with US 60 and US 93 does not change. In addition, NB traffic would be winding through narrow streets and mix with community center, chopping center and town hall traffic. It also does not meet the Town’s traffic circulation plan. This alternative was again dropped from further consideration.

Following the descriptions of the three alternatives (10, 7 & 13), the committee provided scoping issues, concerns and objectives that pertain to each alternative.

Alternative #10

Cross-walk safety for pedestrians.
Retain small town aesthetics to draw people downtown. Appearance is a high priority.
The iron barriers proposed earlier are not desired.
Operationally, even if restriped, some doubt if two 18-wheelers can turn simultaneously.
Concerns with the number of kids that use the intersection for school access.
Barriers could give many a false sense of security, especially kids.
If the parking is removed, concerns that the speed will rise.
The existing church nearby may become a charter school, adding to the children traffic.
The improvements are a step up for traffic, but a step down for the community.
Have the Town make the decision when the modifications are implemented.
Should be limited in time, not part of any final solution.
Improvements should allow cross traffic at Apache Street to cross. If the Tegner/Wickenburg Way signal delays traffic further, this situation will also get worse.
The modified intersection during off-peak hours could encourage locals to drive even faster than they do today.
If the street-side parking is removed, a plan should be made to provide for the lost spaces to the area businesses.
Perhaps a traffic signal is required at Yavapai.
Many locals turn left at Valentine to avoid the delays at Tegner.
Will ADOT consider a bridge for pedestrians?
Many oppose this concept entirely.
Barriers will prohibit patrons from entering/seeing businesses.

Alternative #7

Concept opposed by BOOT membership for the following:
New bridge across Hassayampa
New levy in river
Unsightly from west bank of Hassayampa
Makes using Yavapai Street difficult
Concept is tougher on east-side residents
Impedes hospital access
Doubt if locals want it
Raise in speeds likely
Increase in noise to local residents
Contrary to BOOT, several are in favor of the alternative.
Does match local traffic patterns.
Still requires a sharp right turn for NB traffic and a sharp left for SB.
Concerns for impacts to adjacent neighborhoods.
Concerns for impacts to business economy downtown.
The Town Hall is not in the flood plain.
Does not match the ultimate circulation plan for the community.
Impacts to the upstream/downstream river need to be evaluated.
Armoring will be required around the bridge abutments. Evaluations must include impacts of the armoring on the Preserve and other downstream features.
The height of the berm (roadway embankment) will be unsightly.
Will it provide enhanced flood protection to those west of the berm, and will it worsen the impacts to those on the east bank?
Will involve similar situation at Kerkes as there is today at Tegner.
Will economically impact property values on the east side of town greater than those on the west.
Will increase noise to downtown.
How will traffic be controlled during construction?
A 2-lane roadway fits the needs of the Town better.
Prefer modifications to keep the Wishing Well in tact.
Encourage business parking at the Town Center.
The wishing well, although not on a historic register, is an attraction.

Alternative #13

Opposed by BOOT even more so than Alternative 7.
Will be opposed by east side residents.
Offers greater visual challenges than Alternative 7.
Adversely effects the businesses on the east side more than the businesses on the west.
Will reduce property values on the east side.
Has all of the issues of Alternative #7, and more…
Is consistent with what the town has planned for future traffic circulation.
Town’s plan was to develop a road on east side of river anyway.
Saves the wishing well site.
The selection should be made by Town officials… this is the type of thing they were elected to do for the community.
It appears to have the greatest environmental impacts.
The intersection at the east end does not look operationally feasible
The alignment is removed from the neighborhoods that Alternative 7 is adjacent to.
The drainage issues are compounded by the addition of another river crossing.
Might encourage ADOT to abandon funding of the bypass that provides other benefits.
Alternative is supported by Town officials and Chamber of Commerce.

Public Meeting Presentation: The information presented today will continue to be refined for presentation to the public. The public meeting will include an explanation of the bypass and interim improvements, along with the evaluations of both. It will also present a recommendation. Having enough information to present a clear recommendation has been the key factor that has held up the public meeting.

The public meeting will likely be held in early summer. Prior to the meeting, we will discuss our presentation to the Steering Committee for their comment.

Open Discussion:

Dick Wertz:

One other alternative should be presented: a two-lane truck route built on the ultimate bypass alignment. This should be constructed without spending any money on Alternatives 10, 7 or 13.
Prepare an update of all costs on the various alternatives discussed to date to make a true comparison of the options before the town.

With no other discussion items, and the late hour, the meeting adjourned at 5:00 p.m.

This page updated: July 16, 2004.