US 93: Wickenburg to Santa Maria River
Location/Design Concept Study and Environmental Studies
|
US 93: Wickenburg to Santa Maria River Location/Design Concept Study and Environmental Studies
|
|
SR 89 to Wickenburg Interim Bypass Wickenburg (SR 89) to Santa Maria River
|
Steering Committee Meeting Minutes - December 14, 1999 Location and Time: Tuesday, December 14, 1999 – 1:00 p.m. Hassayampa River Preserve Conference Room Participants:
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: The meeting started at approximately 1:10 p.m., with the introduction of Mike Taylor, Field Manager of the Phoenix Field Office of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Since all of the bypass alternatives will effect the BLM land in some way, Bert Bertleson had requested that Mike be included as a member of the Steering Committee. All agreed that insight into BLM policies and concerns would be beneficial to the committee, and Mike’s participation with the steering committee was well received. 1. Open Discussion: There was some confusion from the last meeting whether there was consensus on the interim improvements. It was clarified that while all may not agree on a specific interim improvement projects at this time, all had agreed that Alternative 10 would proceed to a Project Assessment for a possible near term improvement, and that a separate Design Concept Study for Alternatives 7 and 13 (or some variation) would be conducted to recommend an interim improvement project that could be constructed to serve US 93 traffic until funding for the ultimate bypass can be obtained. 2. Update on Bypass Corridor Evaluations: Mr. Bertleson presented a summary of the evaluations of all three bypass corridors (Northeast, Southwest, and Far West). The study team had reached consensus that the Northeast corridor was not a viable alternative and it was eliminated from further discussion. At the last Steering Committee meeting, it was suggested that the Far West corridor may be in jeopardy with respect to 4(f) issues crossing through BLM lands. After several meetings with the BLM, it was clarified that the BLM was not objecting to any of the alternatives at this time, but desired more detailed evaluations of the corridors before any decision was made to eliminate or support a corridor. FHWA, ADOT, Sverdrup, and representatives of the town have met with personnel from the BLM’s Phoenix Field Office to discuss the study progress and present the evaluations made to date. It was concluded that there were some misunderstandings between the various organizations due to different definitions or terms being applied to the public involvement and study process. The BLM would desire that all three of the initial corridors be carried forward with more detailed studies of specific alignments being made within each corridor. After reviewing the documentation compiled thus far, the BLM was not comfortable in eliminating the Southwest or Far West corridors at this time as each had too many similarities to distinguish a clear preference. Prior to the steering committee meeting, FHWA, ADOT and Sverdrup met with the BLM to discuss specifics on resolving a preferred corridor. It was agreed that a single wide corridor, that encompasses both the Southwest and Far West corridors, would be carried forward. The northeast corridor will not be evaluated any further. Within this wide band, several alternative alignments will be identified and evaluated. The comparison of these alternatives will be based on the same evaluation factors used for comparing corridors, with the addition of the following factors requested by BLM:
The following questions were generated by this change in approach: Question: What will be the difference between evaluating two versus one of the corridors? Response: All viable alternatives within the wide band will be drawn and evaluated. A single, wide band may allow alternatives to "shift" from one corridor to the other. Question: Didn’t the previous evaluations provide this level of comparison? Response: Although the input from the Steering Committee and Town is good, the comparisons were made from the perspective of the local residents around Wickenburg. As the alternatives are located further away from the town, what the alternatives will look like from perspectives south of Vulture Peak must also be considered, as well as the potential loss of recreational lands to statewide users. Question: Who is concerned with moving the alignments away from the town? Response: Numerous public groups use BLM land and are concerned with protecting it. The environmental documents will be reviewed by groups such as the Sierra Club and other public land "Watch Dogs" to ensure that all viable alternatives are considered and documented. Mike Taylor provided the following insight to the process from the BLM’s perspective:
Questions/Comments generated from Mr. Taylor’s discussion: Comment: The process will be similar as was originally proposed, only a bigger corridor will be considered. The multiple alignments will be evaluated and presented to the Steering Committee and to the public for comment. Comment: Wickenburg is not the only "public" concerned with the project and the alignment. Question: What meetings were held by the BLM with respect to the management plan? Response: Several meetings were held and documented. If desired, the BLM staff can provide summaries. Question: Why bend over backwards to outside agencies and activists? Response: The study process must follow national policies for documentation to avoid being challenged once the final decision is made. 3. Funding: Mr. Bertleson led a discussion on the funding of the bypass and interim
projects. Funding has not historically been a part of the study process. However, funding
has become an issue that must be recognized when planning any future improvements. Issues
that are associated with this project are:
Initially, implementation and construction scenarios were discussed that indicated construction could begin within 8 to 10 years if all goes well. The current limited funding availability has shifted this expectation to approximately 20 years from today for actual construction on the bypass. The bypass is no longer a near-term solution for the town’s problems. 4. Traffic Study Results: To date, Sverdrup has completed the following traffic studies:
The results of the Level of Service analysis were presented to the committee (attached). Mr. Bertleson pointed out that any of the three interim alternatives (4, 7, & 10) would function satisfactorily for the next 10-15 years. 5. Interim Improvement Projects: Mr. Bertleson provided an update on the
interim projects that are being considered:
Alternative 10 (Improve/Re-stripe the intersection at Tegner/Wickenburg Way). Sverdrup recommended preparing a project assessment to define scope, cost and implementation issues. During the preparation of the assessment, ADOT will consider added features to make the alternative more acceptable to the town and local merchants (i.e. installing higher barrier curb, pedestrian railing, etc.). The assessment could also suggest options for off-street parking. The document can be completed in the near future so as to expedite implementation. This would be considered a short term improvement plan. Alternative 7 (Construct new alignment on the west bank of the Hassayampa River to bypass the downtown area). The alternative will be developed and studied in detail as part of a separate Design Concept Study. During the study, information will be presented at a public meeting to obtain input. Later, a public hearing will be held to present the study recommendations. Many have offered suggestions as to what type of facility the interim improvement should represent. Although the length and location can be varied, it will be designed to meet the requirements for a State transportation facility. A sub-standard design (reduced profile within the flood plain or reduced lanes) will not be considered. Even though considered as an interim project, the facility will have four travel lanes and meet all ADOT design standards for safety and operations. Alternative 4 (Construct a new alignment beginning east of the Hassayampa, with a new river crossing that ultimately ties into Tegner Street). This alternative was eliminated due to the following:
Alternative 13: The town requested this alternative be considered in addition to Alternative 7. The alignment will require an additional crossing of the Hassayampa River, but ties into the Town’s long range roadway network better than Alternative 7 (see figure provided). The alternative routes the traffic further away from the community center than Alternative 7. 6. Public Meeting Presentation: Sverdrup had initially scheduled a public information meeting for January 5, 2000 to present the results of the evaluations of the corridors. As noted during the meeting today, there have been too many unresolved questions to identify a preferred corridor. To inform the public of the status of the study, a newsletter will be published in the newspaper. We will need to complete the evaluation of the alignments through the "wide" corridor and present these results to the steering committee before we can hold the public meeting. 7. Open Discussion: MAG and ADOT are holding meetings to discuss the NAFTA / Canamex corridor. Perhaps a speaker of that group (Carol Sanger) might be available to make a presentation to the Steering Committee in the future. The meeting adjourned at 5:00 p.m. Next Meeting: The next Steering Committee meeting will be scheduled following the evaluation of the alignments through the wide corridor. The committee meeting would again be conducted at the Hassayampa River Preserve from 1:00 to 5:00 p.m. |
|
