Mr. Bertleson distributed copies of an evaluation matrix of the three bypass corridors. Evaluation factors were separated into three categories:

• Design Factors
• Social / Economic Factors
• Environmental Factors

Questions/Comments raised during the discussion included the following:

Horizontal Alignment:

• Provide the length of the existing roadway for comparison.

Vertical Alignment:

• Provide a comparison of the old/existing alignment.
• How will access to Constellation Road be provided. Will the profile of this road be raised significantly?

Access:

• What is the approximate width of the R/W for the new corridors? (300-400 feet, more in some areas depending on excavation and embankment heights)

Constructibility:

• Specify the crossing of the R/R on the NE option as well as the other two alternatives.

Cost:

• There are many more drainage ways that exist on the NE corridor, yet there are few bridges. Please provide information on how these crossings are made. (Most crossings were completed with box culverts at the bottom of embankment sections.)
• The Far West alternative was less costly due to reduced earthwork resulting from the flatter terrain.

Land Use Consistency:

• The NE corridor does not affect the Red Top recreation site.
• The Bradshaw Mountain Recreation Area was to be extended from Lake Pleasant towards the Hassayampa River, but is not addressed.

Rehabilitation Centers:

• NE corridor is very close to Rosewood Treatment Center.
• NE corridor is also very close to Rincon Ranch.

Right-of-Way:

• The comparison should address total takes, not just the % of each alignment that crosses private property.

Section 4(f) Involvement:

• Town representatives and the Hassayampa River Preserve were unaware of the BLM plans and need to be apprised of the modifications within their area.
• Mitigation is required for either western route, however the Southwest requires the least since it skirts the edge of the new recreation area.

Noise Impacts:

• The NE and SW corridors have similar descriptions. (The SW will be modified)

General comments:

• Is it reasonable to assume that trucks will depart from an 18-mile route to use a 22-23 mile route?
• The air quality discussion was not as detailed as was desired by Mr. Liggett, however, the same conclusions would most likely be drawn.
• Can the Southwest and Far West alternatives be combined to lessen the impacts to the BLM land?

Mr. Bertleson noted that following the results of this analysis, the NE corridor is not a likely candidate for the bypass. He had also requested that comments on the evaluation be submitted to Sverdrup within a 1 week.

Mr. Bertleson led a discussion on the probability of funding the various improvement projects. Initially, the interim improvement projects were envisioned to be $1-5 Million in size. Upon further evaluation, most of the alternatives resulted in $13-20 Million in cost. These size projects will compete with other major highway improvements across the State and within the County, and would not likely be funded for the next 10 years. The balance of the bypass improvements would then follow these "interim" projects, but no estimate could be made as to when these projects would be completed.

A new alternative was presented for the interim improvements: Build two lanes of the ultimate bypass to tie US 60 north to US 93, along the alignment of the ultimate bypass route. This improvement would include the interim improvements at Wickenburg Way and Tegner proposed by "Alternative 10", and include a modification of the R/R underpass just west of the Tegner intersection. This alternative would actually begin the construction of the bypass, and solve the truck problems in the downtown area.

This new alternative met strong objections from Royce Kardinal for the following reasons:

• US 60 was already too busy and congested.
• The added truck traffic to US 60 will move the problem from one street to another.
• Traffic signals are already being proposed on Wickenburg Way that will reduce the efficiency of this route as an alternate
• Adjacent businesses and residents are not prepared for that added truck noise.
• There is an incline grade for westbound traffic, west of the airport that will generate noise from either climbing trucks, or "Jake Brakes" from trucks going downhill.
• Added traffic will separate new neighborhoods that are developing nearby.
• All recent growth is moving to that side of town, making the roadway too congested already.
• Children ride their bicycles along US 60 to and from school, and the added traffic might present safety problems and difficulty crossing the street.

Rusty Gant offered the following:

• All of the interim alternatives presented to date will be difficult to accept.
• The new alternative presented does not solve the stated problems.
• The new alternative presented does not address the old bridge crossing of the Hassayampa.
• Increases congestion on Wickenburg Way.
• Town needs both the interim improvements (#4 or #7) and the ultimate bypass improvements.

Bill Green offered the following:

• Wickenburg Way is a parade route for major events.
• Wickenburg Way is the only East-West main street in community.
• Noise abatement will be required on Wickenburg Way.
• Residents are located directly behind the businesses lining the street.
• Two Schools have many children using Wickenburg Way as a means to get to school.

Dana Burden offered the following:

• Return to the idea of implementing the improvements at Tegner (Alt #10), and focus on the bypass sooner.

Jim Liggett offered the following:

• Perhaps a 2-lane interim improvement should be considered.

After additional debate about the merits of each alternative, it was agreed that further discussion should be postponed until more input on outstanding issues could be presented. A meeting with the BLM was being arranged to determine the extent of the 4(f) issues on the two western bypass routes. A traffic analysis was being completed that compares the traffic capacities of the three (# 4, 7 & 10) interim solutions. This analysis would determine how long each proposed improvement could sustain the projected traffic loads.

Due to the late hour, this discussion item was postponed to the next Steering Committee Meeting.

The meeting adjourned at approximately 5:00 p.m.. Several committee members expressed appreciation for the opportunity to discuss freely the issues presented at the meeting.