Arizona Department of Transportation Transportation Planning Division 206 S. 17th Avenue Mail Drop 310B Phoenix, Arizona 85007.3212 Jane Dee Hull Mary Lynn Tischer Governor Division Director Mary E. Peters Director Mary E. Peters Director November, 1999 I am pleased to present the second annual Arizona Highway System Status and Condition Report. This report is intended to provide useful information about the condition of the State Highway System in a format that is readily accessible to transportation professionals and non-professionals. This report was produced by the Planning Team of the Transportation Planning Division (TPD). The maps contained in this report were developed through the team’s Geographical Information System. There is a limited supply of hardcopies of this report, because we are producing this report in two other media. This report is available on CD-ROM and can also be viewed on our website. The TPD website is http://map.azfms.com. The statewide maps of Level of Service, Present Serviceabilty Rating, and Bridge Condition Rating are clickable. Just click on the area of interest and this information is displayed in more detail. To obtain this report on CD contact Lynn Sugiyama. Any comments, suggestions, or critiques should be directed to Joe Flaherty or Lynn Sugiyama of my staff. They can be contacted in the following ways:. Joe Flaherty PH. 602-712-7172 FAX 602-256-7563 Email jflaherty@dot.state.az.us Sincerely, Mary Lynn Tischer, Director Transportation Planning Division Lynn Sugiyama PH. 602-712-6883 FAX 602-256-7563 Email lsugiyama@dot.state.az.us (Click on blue outlined text to go directly to that area) TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION LEVEL OF DEVELOPMENT LEVEL OF SERVICE PRESENT SERVICEABILITY RATING BRIDGE SUFFICIENCY RATING CHANGE IN CONDITIONS Introduction The 1999 Arizona State Highway System Status and Condition Report is the second effort by the Arizona Department of Transportation’s Transportation Planning Division to present information in a graphic format that is useful to both a professional and lay audience. In the past, reports of this type consisted of numerous tables, with a vast amount of numbers. They also consisted of graphs, charts and a few maps. The Arizona state highway system route and lane mileage’s are 6,619 and 17,370 respectively. This includes frontage roads. There are 3,945 bridges on the system. The data that is used to develop various performance measures are collected throughout the year and are stored in individual databases. These databases are integrated in the Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS) database. The HPMS database is then incorporated into the ADOT Geographical Information System (GIS). The GIS is a powerful tool that is used for analysis and mapping. The GIS was used for all the maps in this report with the exception of the Bicycle Suitability Map. Maps of the state highway system following this introduction show the 1997 Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) volumes and the percent of commercial vehicles in the traffic stream. Following these maps is the Bicycle Suitability Map and a brief overview of it’s development The data to develop the maps for Level Of Service (LOS), Present Serviceabilty Rating (PSR), and the Bridge Sufficiency Rating (BSR) was collected in 1997. It is the latest available. The functional classification of the state highway system was updated in 1997 as was the level of development. The Functional Classification and the Level Of Development (LOD) maps are presented at the state level with insets where appropriate. The LOS, PSR, and BSR maps are presented at the county level again, with insets where appropriate. A verbal description of the information being depicted precedes each set of maps. As stated above this is the second effort to present this volume and type of information in a graphic format. It is the second edition of what is intended to be an annual report. We have included maps that show the changes in conditions from one year to the next. 1997 AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUME ON THE STATE HIGHWAY SYSTEM 160 15 163 64 389 APACHE 89 89A 564 98 MOHAVE 67 89 191 160 NAVAJO 264 COCONINO 93 64 264 89 180 191 64 87 66 40 S #Bullhead S # 68 S #Flagstaff Kingman City 99 40 40 77 89A 61 95 40 89 Sedona YAVAPAI 89A 17 S # S # Holbrook 99 191 87 179 93 377 180 89A 95 S # 77 260 S # Prescott Lake Havasu City 69 260 97 277 96 89 61 69 191 260 87 260 S # Parker S #St Johns 180A 169 60 60 17 LA PAZ 71 260 261 273 73 60 72 95 60 74 S # 188 60 MARICOPA Quartzsite 10 GILA 288 87 Phoenix 17 60 51 101L 191 88 10 88 S # 10 202L S # 60 87 202L GRAHAM 77 191T 85 79 87 YUMA S # 10 238 Casa Grande 347 S # 84 Yuma 8 S # Globe 202L 60 95 GREENLEE 101L 303L 287 177 Clifton S # 70 Florence 78 Safford S # 287 87 79 8 191 75 77 366 85 PINAL 95 10 266 191 77 COCHISE PIMA S # 10 Tucson 186 85 10 86 191 B19 386 181 83 80 90 286 19 SANTA CRUZ 82 S # Nogales 0 25 50 75 100 Miles 191 80 S # Sierra 80 90 Bisbee Vista 289 N 82 83 92 S # 80 Average Daily Traffic Volume 50 - 10,000 10,001 - 20,000 20,001 - 40,000 40,001 - 70,000 70,001 - 150,000 150,001 - 231,200 INSET 1997 AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC IN THE PHOENIX METROPOLITAN AREA 101L 60 101L 51 17 202L 202L SEE CENTRAL10PHOENIX INSET 143 < 10 < 303L 17 60 202L 10 N 0 5 10 15 20 Miles 87 Average Daily Traffic Volume 50 - 10,000 10,001 - 20,000 20,001 - 40,000 40,001 - 70,000 70,001 - 150,000 150,001 - 231,200 INSET 1997 AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC IN CENTRAL PHOENIX 17 51 60 10 202L < 10 N 0 1 2 3 4 5 Miles < 153 < 17 143 Average Daily Traffic Volume 50 - 10,000 10,001 - 20,000 20,001 - 40,000 40,001 - 70,000 70,001 - 150,000 150,001 - 231,200 INSET 1997 AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC IN THE TUCSON METROPOLITAN AREA 77 10 B10 < 86 19 N 0 5 10 15 20 Miles B19 10 Average Daily Traffic Volume 50 - 10,000 10,001 - 20,000 20,001 - 40,000 40,001 - 70,000 70,001 - 150,000 150,001 - 231,200 1997 PERCENTAGE OF COMMERCIAL VEHICLES ON THE STATE HIGHWAY SYSTEM 160 15 163 64 389 APACHE 89 89A 564 98 MOHAVE 67 89 191 160 NAVAJO 264 COCONINO 93 64 264 89 180 191 64 87 66 40 S #Bullhead S # 68 S #Flagstaff Kingman City 99 40 40 77 89A 61 95 40 89 Sedona YAVAPAI 89A 17 S # S # Holbrook 99 191 87 179 93 377 180 89A 260 95 S # Prescott S # 77 Lake Havasu City 69 260 277 96 89 61 69 191 260 87 260 S # Parker S #St Johns 180A 169 97 60 60 17 LA PAZ 71 260 261 273 73 60 72 95 60 74 188 60 Quartzsite 87 Phoenix MARICOPA 60 GREENLEE S # 10 GILA 288 101L 17 303L 51 101L 191 88 10 88 S # 10 202L S # 60 87 202L 77 191T 85 79 87 YUMA 10 238 Casa Grande 347 S # 84 Yuma 8 S # GRAHAM 202L 60 95 Globe 287 S # Clifton 177 S # 70 Florence 78 Safford S # 287 87 79 8 191 75 77 366 85 PINAL 95 10 266 191 77 COCHISE PIMA 10 S # Tucson 186 85 10 86 191 B19 386 181 83 80 90 286 19 SANTA CRUZ 82 S # Nogales 0 25 50 75 100 Miles 191 80 S # Sierra 80 90 Bisbee Vista 289 N 82 83 92 S # 80 Volume of Commercial Vehicles < 9% 10% - 19% 20% - 29% 30% - 39% 40% - 45% Bicycle Suitability Bicycle suitability ratings of more suitable and less suitable have been assigned by the Governors Arizona Bicycle Task Force (GABTF) to all of the roads on the State Highway System where bicycling is allowed. Characteristics considered in developing these ratings were: 1) average number of vehicles per lane per day, 2) lane width including shoulder and 3) the percentage of truck traffic to total traffic volume. All three factors were weighted and lane width had twice the assigned value of the other two characteristics. Information regarding grade ascent has also been provided to bicyclists to identify steep inclines along routes as an aid in planning tours. The Arizona Bicycle Suitability Map developed by ADOT contains suitability ratings and gradient information of roadways on the State Highway System. Approximately 47% of these routes have a suitability rating of more suitable. The map on the following page depicts the bicycle suitability ratings of the routes on the State Highway System. Map of Suitable Bicycle Routes on the State Highway System # Colorado City 15 #Fredonia # 160 # Page # Mexican Water 163 389 Littlefield 64 89 N Kayenta # Jacob Lake# 89A 564 98 67 89 191 160 #North Rim NAVAJO Tuba City # Chinle # Grand Canyon # # Hoover Dam APACHE 264 64 COCONINO 93 MOHAVE #Cameron Second # Mesa Ganado# Window Rock # 264 89 180 64 191 87 66 Seligman # 40 68 #Bullhead City #Williams # # # Sanders # Ash fork Kingman 99 Flagstaff 40 40 77 89A Winslow# 95 61 40 89 17 Sedona # Holbrook 99 # Cottonwood 89A Clarkdale Wikieup# 191 179 377 180 89A 77 260 95 # 87 # # 93 Camp Verde Prescott# Lake Havasu City # 69 260 97 277 Heber 180A #Snowflake 169 89 69 61 #Cordes Junction LA PAZ YAVAPAI 71 191 260 87 Show Low # 260 Payson# #Parker # St Johns # 96 60 60 Springerville # 17 # Young Hon Dah # 260 #Wickenburg 261 273 73 60 72 95 MARICOPA 74 188 60 # White River 87 GREENLEE #Hope GILA 288 60 60 Roosevelt # 10 101L # Ehrenberg 51 17 303L 101L 191 88 10 10 188 Phoenix # 202L # Globe 60 87 202L YUMA 60 79 87 Gila Bend # Casa Grande # 8 # # Morenci #Florence 78 #Winkelman 287 Coolidge# 347 84 Yuma 177 70 10 238 95 GRAHAM 77 191T 85 287 Safford # 87 191 75 79 8 77 366 85 PINAL 95 #San Luis 10 266 191 77 Ajo# 10 PIMA Willcox Tucson # 186 85 # Robles Junction 86 10 191 Benson 386 Bicycle Routes More Suitable Less Suitable Prohibited No Data # B19 #Green Valley #Lukeville 80 COCHISE 90 286 Tombstone # 82 Sonoita# 191 80 19 83 #Sasabe 289 # Sierra Vista 82 # Nogales 80 90 Bisbee # SANTA CRUZ 0 Prepared by: Arizona Dept of Transportation Transportation Planning Group tpd/jg \bikesuit.apr 11/96 181 83 80 92 #Douglas 20 40 60 80 Miles Functional Classification The 1991 Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) required each state to functionally reclassify its public roads and streets. The initial step in this process was to update the urban area boundaries by the middle of 1992. Extensive coordination and cooperation was essential throughout the updating of urban boundaries and the functional reclassification. ADOT worked with Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and California to assure continuity of functional classification across state lines. The Phoenix, Tucson, and Yuma Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) were fully involved in this process. ADOT worked closely with the MPOs to ensure continuity at the urban boundaries and provide assistance as needed. The rural Councils Of Governments (COGs) were consulted to provide input on functional reclassification within their regions. ADOT and the COGs coordinated with the Native American Tribes to reclassify roads on their reservations. The Bureau of Indian affairs provided considerable assistance in this process. ADOT coordinated with the U.S. Forest Service and the National Park Service, including officials at regional offices and individual parks and forests. Close coordination with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) continued throughout the process. The functional reclassification of Arizona’s public roadways was completed in December 1992. Arizona’s submittal was reviewed and approved by the FHWA and the Secretary of Transportation and reported to Congress in 1993. All roads that are part of the public road system are to be functionally classified as an integral system regardless of jurisdictional control of these roads. In other words, state highways, county roads, city streets, Forest Service roads, BIA roads, etc. are all part of the public road system. The classification process does not consider administrative or jurisdictional systems. The only way roads are separated into different classification systems is by their geographic location in rural, small urban, or urban areas. The FHWA’s document titled Highway Functional Classification: Concepts, Criteria, and Procedures (revised March 1989) was the principal reference for reclassification. ADOT employed the procedures required in this document. While differences exist between the procedures for rural, small urban and urban area classification, all used a ‘top down’ approach. As generally depicted on the following page, this approach delineates the highest functionally classified roadways first and then works progressively down the hierarchy of functional systems to conclude with the classification of local roads and streets. ADOT started this ‘top down’ approach by identifying the most important internal and external traffic generators for Arizona. The procedure enabled ADOT to functionally classify the State Highway System and share that information to facilitate efforts by the MPOs and COGs. Arizona based the functional reclassification on current use, not projected use. Due to the differences in the criteria used to functionally classify roads in rural, small urban, and urban areas it is simpler to categorize them as rural and urban for discussion purposes. Rural Principal Arterials All rural interstate mileage is in this category. They are the principal corridors of interstate travel. There are relatively few corridors used by most travelers going to and from adjacent states or Mexico. Principal arterials serve the highest volume long distance trips. The non interstate routes identified as principal arterials serve the same basic purposes as the interstates, but at lower volumes and speeds. Rural Minor Arterials These roads serve most of the larger communities not served by the principal arterial system. They provide interstate and intercounty service. The trip length and travel density is larger than on the collector systems. Travel is at relatively high speed with minimal interference to through movement. Rural Major Collectors The travel on these roads is of intracounty and regional importance, rather than statewide importance. These roads provide service to any county seat not on an arterial road. They also serve larger communities not directly served by the higher systems. Rural major collectors usually connect to rural arterials. Rural Minor Collectors These roads typically collect traffic from local roads and feed it onto major collectors or arterials. They tend to have lower traffic volumes then major collectors. If a minor collector carries a similar volume as a major collector trip distances are shorter. Also, they carry traffic on trips to less important traffic generators or they are parallel to a route of a higher classification. Urban Principal Arterials There are three types of urban principal arterials: interstate, other freeways and expressways, and others with little or no access control. The primary function of these roads is to provide the greatest mobility for through movement, any direct access to adjacent land is purely incidental. This system serves the highest volume traffic generators and trips of longer length. They have a high proportion of urban area travel on a minimum of mileage. Urban Minor Arterials These roads provide trips of moderate length and trips of lower travel mobility than urban principal arterials. Consequently the speed limit is lower than on urban principal arterials. Urban Collectors These roads distribute traffic from arterials and funnel traffic from local streets onto the arterial system. Frontage roads are classified independently of the controlled access facility they abut and are classified as collectors on the State Highway System. Local Roads Local roads in both urban and rural areas are a residual. There are no roads on the State Highway System that are functionally classified as local roads. The following maps show the current FHWA approved functional classification of the State Highway System. 1998 FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION OF THE STATE HIGHWAY SYSTEM 160 15 163 64 389 APACHE 89 89A 564 98 MOHAVE 67 89 191 160 NAVAJO 264 COCONINO 93 64 264 89 180 191 64 87 66 40 S #Bullhead S # 68 S #Flagstaff Kingman City 99 40 40 77 89A 61 95 40 89 Sedona YAVAPAI 89A 17 S # S # Holbrook 99 191 87 179 93 377 180 89A 95 260 S # Prescott S # 77 Lake Havasu City 69 260 277 96 89 61 69 191 260 87 260 S # Parker 60 60 17 LA PAZ 71 260 GILA 288 95 60 261 273 73 60 72 74 188 60 Quartzsite S # 10 S #St Johns 180A 169 97 87 Phoenix MARICOPA 17 303L 60 51 101L 191 88 10 10 88 S # 202L S # 60 87 202L GRAHAM 77 191T 85 79 87 YUMA 10 238 Casa Grande 347 S # 84 Yuma 8 S # Globe 202L 60 95 GREENLEE 101L 287 177 S # Florence Clifton S # 70 78 Safford S # 287 87 79 8 191 75 77 366 85 PINAL 95 10 266 191 77 COCHISE PIMA 10 S # Tucson 186 85 10 86 191 B19 386 181 83 80 90 286 19 SANTA CRUZ 82 S # Nogales 0 25 50 75 100 Miles 191 80 S # 80 90 Bisbee Sierra Vista 289 N 82 83 92 S # 80 Functional Classification Principal Arterial Interstate - Rural Principal Arterial Other - Rural Minor Arterial - Rural Major Collector - Rural Minor Collector - Rural Local - Rural Principal Arterial Interstate - Urban Principal Arterial Freeway - Urban Principal Arterial Other - Urban Minor Arterial - Urban Collector - Urban Level of Development Central to the ADOT assessment of State Highway System needs is the notion of Level Of Development (LOD), a planning tool introduced as an integrative concept in the State Highway System Plan. LOD provides a hierarchical ordering of System routes into five categories in terms of the relative importance of routes to the System as a whole. The assignment to a LOD category takes into account the route’s functional classification, level of significance, current and future daily traffic, current and future truck traffic, and other unique route characteristics (e.g., recreational use). The LODs are described briefly below, followed by a description of the role that the LOD concept plays in the assessment of System needs. Level of Development 1: Interstate and urban controlled access facilities form the backbone of the system. Among many functions served, LOD 1 routes provide the principal means of interstate travel, serve the greatest volume of traffic, link the state’s metropolitan areas, and provide the major truck routes. These routes are built and maintained to the highest standards. Level of Development 2: In terms of both use and function, LOD 2 routes are the most important non-controlled access routes statewide. For the most part, these routes were constructed as two lane rural highways designed to accommodate relatively low traffic volumes. With continuing growth, new demands are being placed on these highways to accommodate increased automobile and truck traffic. Hence, these routes are prime candidates for major reconstruction projects to provide the additional capacity to maintain both highway safety and performance. Level of Development 3: Routes without unique travel or service characteristics comprise the LOD 3 category. These are mainly two lane rural routes, which may be expanded to four lanes in urban areas. Most of the routes on the System are in this category. Level of Development 4: Highways bearing low traffic volumes and serving primarily as feeder routes with local significance compose the LOD 4 category. Level of Development 5: The last category in the hierarchy is comprised of routes which no longer serve a state level service role, together with routes that have never been built. Thus, LOD 5 routes are prime candidates to transfer from the state system. The following maps depict all state highways and the LOD to which they have been assigned. Note that over 90% of the total mileage is in rural areas, and that the LOD 2 network is much smaller than either the LOD 1 or 3 systems. It is apparent that LOD 3 routes comprise by far the largest category, especially on the rural system. Stability of Route Assignments to Levels of Development Because the assignment of a highway to a particular LOD is based on a set of standards, a highway may be reassigned to another LOD when the function or use of that highway changes. However, given the nature of the standards and current projections of population growth and travel in Arizona, such changes are likely to occur infrequently. It was assumed that the functions served by individual routes would not change sufficiently in the coming decade to warrant reassignment to another LOD. Value of the Level of Development Concept Much of the utility of the LOD concept lies in making explicit important differences among system components. The hierarchy of routes points out the fact the System is not homogeneous; rather it is comprised of interrelated parts which vary considerably in terms of functions served. LOD, then, may be viewed as a categorical system, which summarizes certain critical differences among routes. Differences which have implications for a variety of administrative, operational, and investment decisions. For example, recognition of such differences is important in defining appropriate construction or reconstruction projects. It is important in establishing priorities among routes competing for limited funds. THE LEVEL OF DEVELOPMENT ON THE STATE HIGHWAY SYSTEM 160 15 163 64 389 APACHE 89 89A 564 98 MOHAVE 67 89 191 160 NAVAJO 264 COCONINO 93 64 264 89 180 191 64 87 66 S #Bullhead 40 S # 68 S #Flagstaff Kingman City 99 40 40 77 89A 61 95 40 89 Sedona YAVAPAI 89A 17 S # S # Holbrook 99 191 87 179 93 377 180 89A 95 S # 77 260 S # Prescott Lake Havasu City 69 260 97 277 96 89 61 69 191 260 87 260 S # Parker S #St Johns 180A 169 60 60 17 LA PAZ 71 260 261 273 73 60 72 95 74 188 60 MARICOPA S # 10 GILA 288 60 Quartzsite 87 Phoenix 60 17 51 101L 191 88 10 88 S # 10 202L S # 60 87 202L GRAHAM 77 191T 85 79 87 YUMA S # 10 238 Casa Grande 347 S # 84 Yuma 8 S # Globe 202L 60 95 GREENLEE 101L 303L 287 177 Clifton S # 70 Florence 78 Safford S # 287 87 79 8 191 75 77 366 85 PINAL 95 10 266 191 77 COCHISE PIMA 10 S # Tucson 186 85 10 86 191 B19 386 181 83 80 90 286 19 SANTA CRUZ 82 S # Nogales 0 25 50 75 100 Miles 191 80 S # Sierra 80 90 Bisbee Vista 289 N 82 83 92 S # 80 Level of Development 1 2 3 4 5 INSET LEVEL OF DEVELOPMENT IN THE PHOENIX METROPOLITAN AREA 101L 60 101L 51 17 303L 202L < 10 < 202L SEE CENTRAL10 PHOENIX INSET 143 17 60 202L 10 N 0 5 10 15 20 25 Miles 87 Level of Development 1 2 3 4 5 INSET LEVEL OF DEVELOPMENT IN CENTRAL PHOENIX 17 51 60 10 202L < 10 N 0 1 2 3 4 5 Miles < 153 < 17 143 Level of Development 1 2 3 4 5 INSET LEVEL OF DEVELOPMENT IN THE TUCSON METROPOLITAN AREA 77 10 B10 < 86 19 B19 N 0 5 10 15 20 25 Miles 10 Level of Development 1 2 3 4 5 Level of Service The Level Of Service (LOS) is derived from the range of values of the volume/ capacity ratio (v/c). The v/c ratio is the ratio of demand flow rate (volume) to capacity for a traffic facility. The volume is the number of vehicles passing a point on a lane, roadway, or other trafficway during some time interval expressed in vehicles. The time interval used in developing the v/c ratios used in this report is equal to a day. The vehicles are expressed in Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT). The capacity is the maximum rate of flow at which vehicles can reasonably be expected to traverse a point or uniform segment of a lane or roadway during a specified time period under prevailing roadway, traffic, and control conditions. Capacity is also expressed as AADT. The LOS is a qualitative measure describing operational conditions within a traffic stream generally described in terms of such factors as speed and travel time, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions, comfort and convenience, and safety. The v/c ratios, the LOS and the the conditions they indicate are as follows: V/C Ratio 0 - 0.20 0.21 - 0.40 LOS A B 0.41 - 0.70 C 0.71 - 0.79 D 0.80 - 0.95 E >0.96 F Condition Free flow Free Flow with maneuverability slightly impeded Stable flow maneuverabilty noticeably restricted Stable flow, reduced speed maneuverabilty limited Near capacity, speeds are low but relatively uniform Volume at or near capacity, speeds are significantly reduced. The LOS data is mapped at the county level and inserts are used where appropriate. 1999 LEVEL OF SERVICE ON THE ARIZONA STATE HIGHWAY SYSTEM 160 15 163 64 389 APACHE 89 89A 564 98 MOHAVE 67 89 191 160 NAVAJO 264 COCONINO 93 64 264 89 180 191 64 87 66 #Bullhead S 40 # S 68 #Flagstaff S Kingman City 99 40 40 77 89A 61 95 40 89 Sedona YAVAPAI 89A 17 # S # S Holbrook 99 191 87 179 93 377 180 89A 95 260 # S Prescott # S 77 Lake Havasu City 69 260 277 96 89 61 69 191 260 87 260 # Parker S 60 60 17 LA PAZ 71 260 95 74 188 60 # S GILA 288 60 Quartzsite 261 273 73 60 72 10 #St Johns S 180A 169 97 87 Phoenix MARICOPA 60 17 303L 51 101L 191 88 10 10 88 # S 202L # S 60 87 202L GRAHAM 77 191T 85 79 87 YUMA 10 238 Casa Grande 347 84 Yuma 8 # S Globe 202L 60 95 GREENLEE 101L # S 287 Clifton # S 177 # Florence S 70 78 Safford # S 287 87 79 8 191 75 77 366 85 PINAL 95 10 266 191 77 COCHISE PIMA 10 # Tucson S 186 85 10 86 191 B19 386 181 83 80 90 286 19 SANTA CRUZ 82 # Nogales S 0 25 50 75 100 Miles 191 80 # S Sierra 80 90 Bisbee Vista 289 N 82 83 92 # S 80 LOS in Arizona 0 - 0.20 = A 0.21 - 0.40 = B 0.41 - 0.70 = C 0.71 - 0.79 = D 0.80 - 0.95 = E 0.96 - 2.0 = F Click on the county name (yellow outlined area) to go to county map LEVEL OF SERVICE IN APACHE COUNTY 160 64 191 S # Chinle 264 191 40 61 191 180 S # 180A St Johns 61 191 60 Eagar S # 60 260 261 273 N 0 10 20 30 40 50 Miles Level of Service 0 - 0.20 = A 0.21 - 0.40 = B 0.41 - 0.70 = C 0.71 - 0.79 = D 0.80 - 0.95 = E > 0.96 = F LEVEL OF SERVICE IN COCHISE COUNTY 10 # Willcox S 186 10 Benson # S 191 181 80 90 82 191 80 80 # S Sierra Vista 90 Bisbee # S 92 80 # Douglas S N 0 5 10 15 20 25 Miles Level of Service 0 - 0.20 = A 0.21 - 0.40 = B 0.41 - 0.70 = C 0.71 - 0.79 = D 0.80 - 0.95 = E > 0.96 = F LEVEL OF SERVICE IN COCONINO COUNTY S # Fredonia S # Page 89 89A 98 67 89 160 Grand # Canyon S 264 64 89 180 64 S # 99 Flagstaff 40 89A 17 # Sedona S 87 N 0 10 20 30 40 50 Miles Level of Service 0 - 0.20 = A 0.21 - 0.40 = B 0.41 - 0.70 = C 0.71 - 0.79 = D 0.80 - 0.95 = E > 0.96 = F LEVEL OF SERVICE IN GILA COUNTY # Pine S 87 260 # Payson S 288 188 60 88 # Globe S 77 N 0 10 20 30 40 50 Miles Level of Service 0 - 0.20 = A 0.21 - 0.40 = B 0.41 - 0.70 = C 0.71 - 0.79 = D 0.80 - 0.95 = E > 0.96 = F LEVEL OF SERVICE IN GRAHAM COUNTY 70 # Thatcher S # Safford S 191 366 266 191 N 0 5 10 15 20 25 Miles Level of Service 0 - 0.20 = A 0.21 - 0.40 = B 0.41 - 0.70 = C 0.71 - 0.79 = D 0.80 - 0.95 = E > 0.96 = F LEVEL OF SERVICE IN GREENLEE COUNTY 191 191T # S S # Clifton 78 75 Duncan Morenci # S N 0 5 10 15 20 25 Miles Level of Service 0 - 0.20 = A 0.21 - 0.40 = B 0.41 - 0.70 = C 0.71 - 0.79 = D 0.80 - 0.95 = E > 0.96 = F LEVEL OF SERVICE IN LA PAZ COUNTY # Parker S 72 95 10 60 # S Quartzsite 95 N 0 5 10 15 20 25 Miles Level of Service 0 - 0.20 = A 0.21 - 0.40 = B 0.41 - 0.70 = C 0.71 - 0.79 = D 0.80 - 0.95 = E > 0.96 = F LEVEL OF SERVICE IN MARICOPA COUNTY # S Wickenburg 60 74 60 87 88 SEE PHOENIX INSET 10 85 238 Gila Bend # S 8 85 N 0 10 20 30 40 Miles Level of Service 0 - 0.20 = A 0.21 - 0.40 = B 0.41 - 0.70 = C 0.71 - 0.79 = D 0.80 - 0.95 = E > 0.96 = F INSET LEVEL OF SERVICE IN THE PHOENIX METROPOLITAN AREA 101L 60 101L 51 17 303L 202L < 10 < 202L SEE 10 CENTRAL PHOENIX INSET 143 17 60 202L 10 N 0 5 10 15 20 Miles 87 Level of Service 0 - 0.20 = A 0.21 - 0.40 = B 0.41 - 0.70 = C 0.71 - 0.79 = D 0.80 - 0.95 = E > 0.96 = F INSET LEVEL OF SERVICE IN CENTRAL PHOENIX 17 51 60 10 202L < 10 < 153 < 17 N 0 1 2 3 4 5 Miles 143 Level of Service 0 - 0.20 = A 0.21 - 0.40 = B 0.41 - 0.70 = C 0.71 - 0.79 = D 0.80 - 0.95 = E > 0.96 = F LEVEL OF SERVICE IN MOHAVE COUNTY 15 389 93 66 68 S # S # Bullhead Kingman City 95 40 93 95 S # Lake Havasu City N 0 10 20 30 40 50 Miles Level of Service 0 - 0.20 = A 0.21 - 0.40 = B 0.41 - 0.70 = C 0.71 - 0.79 = D 0.80 - 0.95 = E > 0.96 = F LEVEL OF SERVICE IN NAVAJO COUNTY 163 564 87 77 Holbrook # S 99 377 77 277 260 Show Low # S 73 N 0 10 20 30 40 50 Miles Level of Service 0 - 0.20 = A 0.21 - 0.40 = B 0.41 - 0.70 = C 0.71 - 0.79 = D 0.80 - 0.95 = E > 0.96 = F LEVEL OF SERVICE IN PIMA COUNTY # Ajo S SEE TUCSON INSET 85 86 B19 386 83 286 N 0 10 20 30 40 50 Miles Level of Service 0 - 0.20 = A 0.21 - 0.40 = B 0.41 - 0.70 = C 0.71 - 0.79 = D 0.80 - 0.95 = E > 0.96 = F INSET LEVEL OF SERVICE IN THE TUCSON METROPOLITAN AREA 77 10 B10 < 86 19 N 0 5 10 15 20 Miles B19 10 Level of Service 0 - 0.20 = A 0.21 - 0.40 = B 0.41 - 0.70 = C 0.71 - 0.79 = D 0.80 - 0.95 = E > 0.96 = F LEVEL OF SERVICE IN PINAL COUNTY 88 60 79 87 10 287 347 177 # Florence S Casa Grande # S 84 287 8 79 87 77 10 N 0 5 10 15 20 25 Miles Level of Service 0 - 0.20 = A 0.21 - 0.40 = B 0.41 - 0.70 = C 0.71 - 0.79 = D 0.80 - 0.95 = E > 0.96 = F LEVEL OF SERVICE IN SANTA CRUZ COUNTY 19 83 82 289 # S Nogales N 0 5 10 15 20 Miles Level of Service 0 - 0.20 = A 0.21 - 0.40 = B 0.41 - 0.70 = C 0.71 - 0.79 = D 0.80 - 0.95 = E > 0.96 = F LEVEL OF SERVICE IN YAVAPAI COUNTY 40 89 89A Cottonwood # S 179 89A 260 Prescott # S 69 169 260 97 96 89 69 17 71 N 0 10 20 30 40 Miles Level of Service 0 - 0.20 = A 0.21 - 0.40 = B 0.41 - 0.70 = C 0.71 - 0.79 = D 0.80 - 0.95 = E > 0.96 = F LEVEL OF SERVICE IN YUMA COUNTY 95 Yuma 8 # S 280 < B8 95 # San Luis S N 0 5 10 15 20 25 Miles Level of Service 0 - 0.20 = A 0.21 - 0.40 = B 0.41 - 0.70 = C 0.71 - 0.79 = D 0.80 - 0.95 = E > 0.96 = F Present Serviceabilty Rating The Present Serviceabilty Rating (PSR) is derived from readings taken by a mechanical device that measures deviations in the roadway surface. The deviations provide a measure of the smoothness or roughness of the pavement. The PSR rates the pavement condition on a scale from 0 to 5, with 0 being very poor (undriveable) and 5 being excellent (new surface). The pavement rating ranges and the conditions they indicate are as follows: PSR 0 - 1.0 Condition Very Poor 1.1-2.0 Poor 2.1-3.0 Moderate 3.1-4.0 4.1-5.0 Good Excellent Indication Extremely deteriorated Has large pot holes,cracking,dist ress Barely tolerable for high speed traffic Relatively Smooth New or superior The PSR data is mapped at the county level and inserts are used where appropriate. 1999 PRESENT SERVICEABILITY RATING ON THE ARIZONA STATE HIGHWAY SYSTEM 160 15 163 64 389 APACHE 89 89A 564 98 MOHAVE 67 89 191 160 NAVAJO 264 COCONINO 93 64 264 89 180 191 64 87 66 #Bullhead S 40 # S 68 #Flagstaff S Kingman City 99 40 40 77 89A 61 95 40 89 17 # S Sedona YAVAPAI 89A # S Holbrook 99 191 87 179 93 377 180 89A 95 # S Prescott # S 77 260 Lake Havasu City 69 260 277 96 89 61 69 191 260 87 260 # Parker S #St Johns S 180A 169 97 60 60 17 LA PAZ 71 260 261 273 73 60 72 95 GILA 288 60 74 188 60 10 87 Phoenix MARICOPA 101L 17 303L 60 51 101L 191 88 10 10 88 # S 202L # S 60 87 202L GRAHAM 77 191T 85 79 87 YUMA 10 238 Casa Grande 347 84 Yuma 8 # S Globe 202L 60 95 GREENLEE # S Quartzsite # S 287 # S Clifton # S 177 70 Florence 78 Safford # S 287 87 79 8 191 75 77 366 85 PINAL 95 10 266 191 77 COCHISE PIMA 10 # Tucson S 186 85 10 86 191 B19 386 181 83 80 90 286 19 SANTA CRUZ 82 # Nogales S 0 25 50 75 100 Miles 191 80 # S Sierra 80 90 Bisbee Vista 289 N 82 83 92 # S 80 PSR in Arizona 4.1 - 5.0 = Excellent 3.1 - 4.0 = Good 2.1 - 3.0 = Moderate 1.1 - 2.0 = Poor 0 - 1.0 = Very Poor 5.1 - 9.9 = Unpaved click on county name (yellow outlined area) to go to county map ROAD CONDITIONS IN APACHE COUNTY 160 64 191 S # Chinle 264 191 40 61 191 180 S # 180A St Johns 61 191 60 Eagar S # 60 260 261 273 N 0 10 20 30 40 50 Miles Present Serviceability Rating 4.1 - 5.0 = Excellent 3.1 - 4.0 = Good 2.1 - 3.0 = Moderate 1.1 - 2.0 = Poor 0 - 1.0 = Very Poor Unpaved ROAD CONDITIONS IN COCHISE COUNTY 10 # Willcox S 186 10 Benson # S 191 181 80 90 82 191 80 Sierra Vista 80 # S 90 Bisbee # S 92 80 # Douglas S N 0 5 10 15 20 25 Miles Present Serviceability Rating 4.1 - 5.0 = Excellent 3.1 - 4.0 = Good 2.1 - 3.0 = Moderate 1.1 - 2.0 = Poor 0 - 1.0 = Very Poor Unpaved ROAD CONDITIONS IN COCONINO COUNTY # Fredonia S # Page S 89 89A 98 67 89 160 Grand # Canyon S 264 64 89 180 64 # S 99 Flagstaff 40 89A 17 # Sedona S 87 N 0 10 20 30 40 50 Miles Present Serviceability Rating 4.1 - 5.0 = Excellent 3.1 - 4 = Good 2.1 - 3.0 = Moderate 1.1 - 2.0 = Poor 0 - 1.0 = Very Poor Unpaved ROAD CONDITIONS IN GILA COUNTY # Pine S 87 260 # Payson S 288 188 60 88 # Globe S 77 N 0 10 20 30 40 50 Miles Present Serviceability Rating 4.1 - 5.0 = Excellent 3.1 - 4.0 = Good 2.1 - 3.0 = Moderate 1.1 - 2.0 = Poor 0 - 1.0 = Very Poor Unpaved ROAD CONDITIONS IN GRAHAM COUNTY 70 # # Safford Thatcher S S 191 366 266 191 N 0 5 10 15 20 25 Miles Present Serviceability Rating 4.1 - 5.0 = Excellent 3.1 - 4.0 = Good 2.1 - 3.0 = Moderate 1.1 - 2.0 = Poor 0 - 1.0 = Very Poor Unpaved ROAD CONDITIONS IN GREENLEE COUNTY 191 191T 78 75 Duncan # S S # Clifton Morenci # S N 0 5 10 15 20 25 Miles Present Serviceability Rating 4.1 - 5.0 = Excellent 3.1 - 4.0 = Good 2.1 - 3.0 = Moderate 1.1 - 2.0 = Poor 0 - 1.0 = Very Poor Unpaved ROAD CONDITIONS IN LA PAZ COUNTY # Parker S 72 95 10 60 # S Quartzsite 95 N 0 5 10 15 20 25 Miles Present Serviceability Rating 4.1 - 5.0 = Excellent 3.1 - 4.0 = Good 2.1 - 3.0 = Moderate 1.1 - 2.0 = Poor 0 - 1.0 = Very Poor Unpaved ROAD CONDITIONS IN MARICOPA COUNTY # S Wickenburg 60 74 60 87 88 SEE PHOENIX INSET 10 85 238 Gila Bend # S 8 85 N 0 10 20 30 40 Miles Present Serviceability Rating 4.1 - 5.0 = Excellent 3.1 - 4.0 = Good 2.1 - 3.0 = Moderate 1.1 - 2.0 = Poor 0 - 1.0 = Very Poor Unpaved INSET ROAD CONDITIONS IN THE PHOENIX METROPOLITAN AREA 101L 60 101L 51 17 202L 202L SEE CENTRAL10PHOENIX INSET 143 < 10 < 303L 17 60 202L 10 N 0 5 10 15 20 Miles 87 Present Serviceability Rating 4.1 - 5.0 = Excellent 3.1 - 4.0 = Good 2.1 - 3.0 = Moderate 1.1 - 2.0 = Poor 0 - 1.0 = Very Poor Unpaved INSET ROAD CONDITIONS IN CENTRAL PHOENIX 17 51 60 10 202L < 10 N 0 1 2 3 4 5 Miles < 153 < 17 143 Present Serviceability Rating 4.1 - 5.0 = Excellent 3.1 - 4.0 = Good 2.1 - 3.0 = Moderate 1.1 - 2.0 = Poor 0 - 1.0 = Very Poor Unpaved ROAD CONDITIONS IN MOHAVE COUNTY 15 389 93 66 68 # S # Bullhead S Kingman City 95 40 93 95 # S Lake Havasu City N 0 10 20 30 40 50 Miles Present Serviceability Rating 4.1 - 5.0 = Excellent 3.1 - 4.0 = Good 2.1 - 3.0 = Moderate 1.1 - 2.0 - Poor 0 - 1.0 = Very Poor Unpaved ROAD CONDITIONS IN NAVAJO COUNTY 163 564 87 77 Holbrook # S 99 377 77 277 260 Show Low # S 73 N 0 10 20 30 40 50 Miles Present Serviceability Rating 4.1 - 5.0 = Excellent 3.1 - 4.0 = Good 2.1 - 3.0 = Moderate 1.1 - 2.0 = Poor 0 - 1.0 = Very Poor Unpaved ROAD CONDITIONS IN PIMA COUNTY # Ajo S SEE TUCSON INSET 85 86 B19 386 83 286 N 0 10 20 30 40 50 Miles Present Serviceability Rating 4.1 - 5.0 = Excellent 3.1 - 4.0 = Good 2.1 - 3.0 = Moderate 1.1 - 2.0 = Poor 0 - 1.0 = Very Poor Unpaved INSET ROAD CONDITIONS IN THE TUCSON METROPOLITAN AREA 77 10 B10 < 86 19 N 0 5 10 15 20 Miles B19 10 Present Serviceability Rating 4.1 - 5.0 = Excellent 3.1 - 4.0 = Good 2.1 - 3.0 = Moderate 1.1 - 2.0 = Poor 0 - 1.0 = Very Poor Unpaved ROAD CONDITIONS IN PINAL COUNTY 88 60 79 87 10 287 347 177 # Florence S Casa Grande # S 84 287 8 79 87 77 10 N 0 5 10 15 20 25 Miles Present Serviceability Rating 4.1 - 5.0 = Excellent 3.1 - 4.0 = Good 2.1 - 3.0 = Moderate 1.1 - 2.0 = Poor 0 - 1.0 = Very Poor Unpaved ROAD CONDITIONS IN SANTA CRUZ COUNTY 19 83 82 289 # S Nogales N 0 5 10 15 20 Miles Present Serviceability Rating 4.1 - 5.0 = Excellent 3.1 - 4.0 = Good 2.1 - 3.0 = Moderate 1.1 - 2.0 = Poor 0 - 1.0 = Very Poor Unpaved ROAD CONDITIONS IN YAVAPAI COUNTY 40 89 89A Cottonwood # S 179 89A 260 Prescott # S 69 169 260 97 96 89 69 17 71 N 0 10 20 30 40 Miles Present Serviceability Rating 4.1 - 5.0 = Excellent 3.1 - 4.0 = Good 2.1 - 3.0 = Moderate 1.1 - 2.0 = Poor 0 - 1.0 = Very Poor Unpaved ROAD CONDITIONS IN YUMA COUNTY 95 Yuma 8 280 < # S B8 95 # San Luis S N 0 5 10 15 20 25 Miles Present Serviceability Rating 4.1 - 5.0 = Excellent 3.1 - 4.0 = Good 2.1 - 3.0 = Moderate 1.1 - 2.0 = Poor 0 - 1.0 = Very Poor Unpaved Bridge Sufficiency Rating Bridges are assigned a Sufficiency Rating based on the Structural Inventory and Appraisal (SA&I) form. This form contains information on bridge type, geometry, clearances, load rating, and traffic. The information on this form is used to develop the Bridge Sufficiency Rating (BSR) for each structure. Additionally, a notation is made on the form as to whether the bridge is functionally obsolete or structurally deficient. The BSR is used to categorize bridge needs as follows: BSR > 80 Category Good Condition 50 - 80 < 50 Eligible for rehabilitation Eligible for replacement The BSR data is mapped at the county level and inserts are used where appropriate. 1999 BRIDGES ON THE ARIZONA STATE HIGHWAY SYSTEM S S# S# ## S S S# # # S# S S # S# # S S# # S# S# S S# S# S# S# SS S# # ## S S # S# S# S # # S# S S# S# S # # S S # S# # S # S # S # # S S # S APACHE # S S# # # SS S S # S # S S# # S # S# # S# S# S # S # S # # S# S# S S# # S# # S # S # S # S MOHAVE # S# S # S # S # S # S S # S # S # S# # S # S # S # S # S # # S S # S S # S# ## S S # S # S # S NAVAJO # S # S # S # S # S S # # # S # SS # S # S # S # S # S # S# # S # S S # S # S # S # # COCONINO S# S # S S # S # S# # S # S S# # S # S S# # S S # S# # SS # S S # S # # S S# S # S # S # # S # S# # S S S# S # # # S# S # S S # # S S # S # S # S # S # # # S S S # S # S # S # S # S # S # S S # S# # S # S # S # S S # S # S# # S# S # S# S # # # S# S# S S # S # S S # # S # S# # S S S # # S# S S S # S # S # S# S # S# S S# # # S S # # # S# S S # S# S # S # # # S S S # # S # # S S S # # S S # S # # S # S # # # S S # S S # # # S # S # S S S S # # # # S S S S # # S # # S # # S # # S S # # S S S # # S S # # # S S S # S S # # # # # # S # S S S # S S S S # # S # S# S# S S# S# S# S# S# # # S # # # # # S S # # S S SS # S# S# S S S# S# S # # S S S S# # S# S # S# S# # # # S# S # S S# S# S S # S# S # S# S S S S # # # S # S# S S S# S# S ## # # S # S # S S# S S# # S # # S S# S# S S# # SS Bullhead S# S # S# # S S# S# # # S S# # S S # Flagstaff S # S Kingman S# S# # S # # S# S# S# S# # # S S S S# City # # S# # S# S S # # S# # S S S # S S S # S # # S S # # S # S S # # S S S # # # S# S # S # S # S S# S S # S # S # S # S # # S S # # S# S # S# S S# S# # S# S S# S # S# # # # S# S S # S # S S S S # S# S# S# S # S# S S# # # S# S # S S # S S# S # # S # Sedona # S S# # # S # S S # # S S # # S S # S S S # # # S # S S # S YAVAPAI # S # # S S Holbrook ## S # # S # # S S S S S # S # # S # # SS # S# S # # S # S# # S S# # S # S S# # S # S # # S S # S # S# S# S # S # S S# # S# S S # S# ## # # S S# # S S S S # # S # # S # S S # S S S # S # # S# S # # # S # S S S # S S # S # S # # S # S S # S # S # # S S # S # S # # S # S # S # S # S # S # # # S S S # # # S S S # S S # Prescott S # # # # S S S # # #SS S S S # # S # S# SS # S# S# S S # # # S# S S S Lake Havasu # S # # S # S S# # # # # S# S S St Johns S# # S# S ## S S# S S# S# # S# S# # S # S # # S S # S# S # City SS S# # S # S # ## S# S S # S# # S S# S # S# S S# S # # S S ## S S # S # S# # # S# S # S # # S# S # # S S S S # S# # # S # S S S # S S# S# # S# S# S# S S# # S S # S# # S# # # S # S# S# S S# # # S S # S S # S# S# S ## # S S# S# S# S# S# S# S# # # S# S S S# S# S S# # # SS S S# S# S# S # S# S # S # S# S S # # S S # # S S # S # S S # S S# # S S# # # S# # # Parker S S # S## S # SS # S # # S S # S S # S # S# # S # # S S # # S S S S LA PAZ # S # # S S# # S # S # S # S # S # # # S # S S S # # # S S S # # S # S # S S # S S # # S S # S # # S# S# # # S S S # S # S # # # S # S # SS S S# # S ## S# S # S S S S# SS # # # # S# S# # # # # # # SS S S# S S S S S S S# S# # # # S S S # # S S # S S # # S S# S# S # ## # S # S GILA # S # S # S # S # # S # S# S S # S # S # S # # # # S # S # S S S # S S # # # S S S # # # # S S S # S # # S # S # # S S S S # # # S S # # S S # S # # S S S # S # # # # # # S S S S S # # S S # # # S S S # # S S # S # # S S # # S # # S S # S S # S # S# # # S S # # S S # S # # S Quartzsite S # Phoenix S S # # # # # S S S S # S # # S S S # S # MARICOPA # S S # S # # S # S # # S S S # # # # S S S S #S ## S# # # # #S S S S # S # S S # # S# # S S S # # S# S# # # # S # # S # S S S # S # S S # # # S # # S# S S S S S# S# # S S# S S S# # # S S# S S# S S # # S # S# S # # S# S S# # SS # S S# S # S # # S S# # S# S # # # S# S S # S# S# S # S S # S# S # # S# S# S# SS S # # S # # S # S# # S# # S S S# # S S# S# S S# # # # S S S # S S S # S # S # # S S # # S # # S S S S # # # S S # S # S# # S S# S # # S # S S # S# S# # S S # # # S S# S # # # S S S S# # S S # # S SS # ## # # S # # # # # # # # # # # # S S # # # # # # # # S S S S S S S S S S S S S # ## # S S S S S # # S S S S # # S S S S# S S# S S # SGlobe # # S# # S S S SS # S S# # # # # # S # SS S S S# S # # S S S # # S S # # S SS S # # # S S # S # S S # # S# S# # # S S # # # # # # S # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # S S S S # S# # # # S S# # S S S S S S S S S S S# S S S S S S S S# # # S# S S # GRAHAM SS # S S# # S # # S # S S S# S# # S # S# S # S S S S# # S # # S # # S S S# S # # S # S# S # S# S# S# S # # # S S# # S S # S # # S S S S # S# S # S # S# S # # S S # S # S # S # S # # S S # S # # S # S S # S # S # # # S Clifton S S # # S S # S # S # # S S # # # # S S S S # S # # # # S S S# # S # # S # S S S # # S# # S S S # # # YUMA S# S# S S# # # S S S# # S S# # # S S S # # S SS S # S S # # S S# # # # # # S S S S # ## S # S S S # S # # # S S # S # # S S S # S Florence # S # # # S S# S # # S # S Casa # S S S # # # S S # # S# # # # S S S# # S# S S # S S# # S# S# S SS # # S# # S S S S # S # S S # # S # # # # S Grande S S S S # # S # S # # S S # S # S # S # S S Safford # # # S S # # S # S # # S S # S # S # # S S # S # # S # S S S S # # # # S S S # S S S # # S S # S# S # # S # # S S # # S S S # S # # # # # # # # # S S S S S S S S S # S # # # # # S S S S S # # # # S S S S # # S S # # S # # # # # S # S # S S S S S # S S # # # # # S S # S # S Yuma S S # S # S # # S # # S # S # # # # # S S S # # S S S S S # # # # S S # # # # # S S # # # # S S # # # # S # # S S S S S S S S S S S S # # # S S # S S S # S # S S # # S S # # # S # S S S # # S S # S # # S S # # S S # # # S # S # S S S # # S # # # # # S S S # S S S S # S S # # # S # S S S # S # S S# # # # # S S S # S # # # S # S S # S # # S S # S # # S # S S # # S # S # S S # S # # # # # S S S S S # # # # S# S S S SS # # S # S # # S # # S# S # S# # S S# # S # S S S # # S # # # # S # S S # S S# S S S # S S # S # # S S S # # PINAL S S # S # # # S# S S S # # S S # S # # S S # # S S # S # # S # S S # S # # S S # S # S # # S # S S # S # # S S # S # S # S # S # # S S # S # S# # S S # # S S # S# # S S # S # # S S # # S S # # S S # S # S# # # # S# S S S # # # S # S S S # # S# S S # S# S# # # # # S S S S S # S # # # S COCHISE S # # S S S# S # S # S # S # # S S # S # # # # S# S S S # S # PIMA S# S # S# # # S S# S # S S # # S S S# # S # S # # S S S# # S# S # S S Tucson # S # # S S # S S # # S S # # S S# # S # S # # # S S # S # S # S S S # # S S # S # # # S # # S S S # S S # S # # # S # S S# S # # S S S # # # # S S S # S # S # # S S S # # S S S S # S # # # # # S S # S # S # # S S S # SS# S S # # S S S# S S # S # # # S# S # S S# # # S S S# # S# S# S# S# # # S# S # S # # S # S# SS # S S S S S# S # # S# # S S # # S# S S S# # # S # # S# # S S# S# # S # S # S# S # S S # # # S# S # # S # S S S # # # # S # S S S S S # S S # # # S # S# # S S # # S S S # # # # # S S S S S # # # S S # # S S S S # S# # # S # S S # S# S S # S # S # S # S S# # S # S # S # S # S # # # S S S S # # S S # # S SS # SSS # S ## # S # # # S # S# # # S S # S# # # # # S S S # SS S # # S S S # # S S # S# # # S S SANTA # # S S # S # S # # # S S S S # S S # # S CRUZ # S # S S# # S S # S # # S S # # S# # S S S # # S S # # # S# S S S Bisbee # S# #S # S# S S# S# # # S S # S # S # S Sierra# # # S S S # S # # S # # S S S # S# # # S S S # S Vista # S # # S# S # S ## S S # S # # # S S# S# S S # S # # # S S S # S # # # S# S S # # S S S # S S# S # # S# S# S # SNogales S# S # S S# # S# S # # S S# S # # S # # S S # S 15 160 163 64 389 89 89A 564 98 67 89 191 160 264 64 93 264 89 180 191 64 87 66 40 68 99 40 40 77 89A 61 95 40 89 17 99 89A 191 87 179 93 377 180 89A 95 77 260 69 180A 169 260 97 277 96 89 61 69 191 260 87 260 60 60 17 71 260 261 273 73 60 72 95 288 60 74 188 60 87 10 17 303L 60 51 101L 191 88 88 10 10 202L 60 87 202L 202L 60 191T 85 79 87 177 70 10 238 95 77 GREENLEE 101L 78 287 347 287 84 8 191 87 75 79 8 77 366 85 95 10 266 191 77 10 186 85 10 86 191 B19 386 181 83 80 90 286 82 191 80 19 83 82 289 N 0 25 50 75 100 Miles 80 90 92 80 Bridges in Arizona # Good Condition S # S Eligible for Rehabilitation # Eligible for Replacement S Click on the county name (yellow outlined area) to go to the county map BRIDGE SUFFICIENCY RATING IN APACHE COUNTY S # S #S #S # #S S # #S 160 S # 64 S # S # # S #S S # 191 S # S # S # S # Chinle S #S # S # S # 264 S # S # 191 # S # S # S #S 40 S # S # # #S S #S S # S # # #S #S #S #S S #S 61 S #S # S # S #S S # #S #S # S # S # S #S ##S S # #S #S S #S S # # # S #S St Johns S # S # S # S # S #S # S #S #S #S #S #S #S #S # # #S #S Eagar S #S #S # S #S S # S # # #S S #S S # # S S # S #S # S # S # S #S # 191 180 180A 61 191 60 60 260 261 273 N 0 10 20 30 40 50 Miles Bridge Sufficiency Rating Good Condition S # Eligible for Rehabilitation S # Eligible for Replacement S # State Highway System Routes BRIDGE SUFFICIENCY RATING IN COCHISE COUNTY # S # S # S # #S S #S #S # #S # #S S #S # S S #S S #S #S #S #S #S #S # S #S S # #S # S #S #S #S # #S S # #S S # # S # S # S # # # S S # S #S S #S 10 #S #S S # # S #S S # # S # S #S S #S #S #S # #S S #S #S # S # #S S # #S # S # # S S #S S # S # Willcox #S S # # S # S ## S S # # S # S # S # S # S # S # S # S # S # S #S S #S # #S S #S # # S 186 10 Benson # #S #S # #S S # S # #S S # #S # S S S # #S #S #S #S #S # S S # S # S #S # S S # S # # S # S # S #S S # # #S S # S # S # S # S # S # S # S # S # S 80 #S S # S # # S # # S S 90 #S S # S #S S #S # #S #S # S #S # # S 82 # S # S # S # S # S # S S #S # # S # #S S 191 # S # S # S # S # #S #S S # S # S 191 # S 80 # S #S S # S #S S # # S # S # S #S #S # S # S #90S # # S Sierra S # # S # S # S # S Bisbee Vista # S # S # S # S #S S # # S S #S # #S S #S #80 #S #S # S #S S # S #S 92 # # S # S # S #S #S # S # S S #S #S # # S N 0 5 10 15 20 25 Miles 181 # S 80S # #S S # # S # S #S S # # S S # # S # S # S # S # S # S # S # S # S # S S # #S S # S # S # # Douglas #S S # S # #S S # S # S # S # S Bridge Sufficiency Rating S Good Condition # S Eligible for Rehabilitation # S Eligible for Replacement # State Highway System Routes BRIDGE SUFFICIENCY RATING IN COCONINO COUNTY S # Fredonia S # S # S #S ##Page S #S S # S #S S # # S # S # S # S # S #S #S S # # S #S S # #S # # S S #S # #S S # S # S # S # S # S # S # S # S # S # S # S # S # S #S # S # S # S # S # S # S # S # S # S #S # S # S # S Grand S # S ## S # S # S # Canyon S # S # S # S #S # S #S # S #S S # #S # #S S # 89 89A 98 S # 67 89 S # # S #S 160 264 64 S # S # S # 89 180 S # 64 S # S # S # S # S # S # S # S #S #S #S S # # S #S #S S # S # S # S # #S # S # S # S # S # # S # #S S #S #S S #S S #S S #S # # ##S S #S #S S #S # #S S ## Flagstaff S #S #S #S S # S #S # # S # S #S # S # S #S # S # S # S # S # S #S # S #S #S #S S #S # S # # S # S # # S #S S # # S # S S # # S #S # Sedona S # S # # S # S S #S S # 99 40 89A 17 87 S # N 0 10 20 30 40 50 Miles Bridge Sufficiency Rating S # Good Condition S # Eligible for Rehabilitation S # Eligible for Replacement State Highway System Routes BRIDGE SUFFICIENCY RATING IN GILA COUNTY # S# # S Pine S # S 87 # Payson S # S #S S # # S 260 # S # S # S S # # S # S # S # S # #S S # S # S #S # S S # # S # S # S #S S # # S #S S # 188 # S ## S S # S # S #S S ## SS #S #S # # S # S # #S S # S # S # #S S 288 # S # S # S # S # S # S 60 # S # S # S # S # S # S # S # S # #S S # S # S 88 # S # S # S # S # S #S S # S # #S # S # S # Globe #S #S # S #S #S #S S # #S S S # S #S #S #S # # S # S # S 77 # S #S S ## S #S S # # S # S # #S #S S N 0 5 10 15 20 25 Miles Bridge Sufficiency Rating S # Good Condition S # Eligible for Rehabilitation S # Eligible for Replacement State Highway System Routes BRIDGE SUFFICIENCY RATING IN GRAHAM COUNTY #S S #S #S # #S S #S #S #S #S # #S S #S #S # # S # S #S S #S # # S #S S #S # #70 S # S # S #S S #S #S # # S # S # S # S # S #S S # #S S # # Thatcher S Safford # S ## # #S S S S # S #S S ## S # S # S # S 366 S # # S # S #S #S #S S # 191 # S # # S SS #S # # #S S # S # S #S S # #S # S 266 # S # S # S 191 # S # S # S # S # S # S # S N 0 5 10 15 20 25 Miles Bridge Sufficiency Rating S # Good Condition S # Eligible for Rehabilitation S # Eligible for Replacement State Highway System Routes BRIDGE SUFFICIENCY RATING IN GREENLEE COUNTY 191 # S 191T # S Duncan # S #S Clifton #S S # # S # 78 Morenci S #S S #S # # S #S S # #S S # # S # S # # S S # S # S # S # S 75 # S # S # S # S # S #S S #S #S ## # #S # S # SS S # S # S #S S # N 0 5 10 15 20 25 Miles Bridge Sufficiency Rating Good Condition # S # Eligible for Rehabilitation S # Eligible for Replacement S State Highway System Routes BRIDGE SUFFICIENCY RATING IN LA PAZ COUNTY # S # S # S # S # #S S # Parker S # S 72 # S 95 # S # S # #S #S #S #S S # S # S # #S #S S # S # S 60 # S # S # S # S # S # S # #S S # S # #S #S #S S # #S S # S # S # S # S # S # S # SS ## #S S # #S # S #S #S #S #S # S #S S # S # S # S # S # #S S ## #S S #S # S #S S # #S #S # #S S S S # S # #S #S S # #S S # #S #S S #S # #S S # #S #S S S # # # S 10 S # # S # S S # S # S #S # # # S S Quartzsite #S # # S # S # S # S #S S # S # S # S SS #S ## S #S #S #S # # S # S # S # S #S S # # #S S S #S #S # # S 95 N 0 5 10 15 20 25 Miles Bridge Sufficiency Rating S Good Condition # S Eligible for Rehabilitation # S Eligible for Replacement # State Highway System Routes BRIDGE SUFFICIENCY RATING IN MARICOPA COUNTY # S # S # S # S # # S S # S # S # S # S #S # S # S # # # S # S S S # S # S # S 87 # S # S # S # S # S # S # # # S S #S # #S #S # #S S S S # #S S # S # # S S # S # #S S #S # #S S # S # # #S S #S S #S # S # S # S # S # # #S S S S # S # # S # S # S #S #S # # S S S S #S #88 #S # S #S # S #S # #S S # 10 # # S S #S S # # S #S S # # #S S S # S #S # #S S # #S S # # S # #S S # #S # S S SEE # S #S S S #S # #S # S # #S S # #S SS S #S # #S #S #S #S # #S # # #S # S #S # # #S # # #S # # #S # S # # #S # # S S S #S S S S #S S # # S # S S # # S S #S # S S #S S S S S # #S #S S # #S # S # S #S # S # S # # S S #S # S # S # S # S S S # S # #S # # S # # # S # S S S # S # # S S S # PHOENIX S # # # # S S S # S # S # S # S #S S # S # S # # S # S # S #S S # #S # # # # # # # # # # # # # #S # # S S S S S S # # # # S S # S S S S S S # # # # # # # # # #S # #S S # #S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S #S S INSET # S # S # S S # # S # S # # S S # S # S # S # S # S # S # S 85 # S # S # S S # 238 # S # S # S # S # S # Gila Bend S #S S # S # S # S S # S # S # S # # S S # # # S # S # S S # # S # S S # S # # # S # # S # SS S #8 S #S S # S # S #S S # S # S #S # # S #S S # S #S #S #S #S # # # S S #S S #S # # S # S # S # S # S # S 85 # S # S # S Wickenburg # S # # S # S #S # S #S #S S # #S S #S #S # # #S #S #S S S #S # #S # #S S S 60S # S # S # S #S # # S # S # S # S # S # # S S # S # S #S S ##S # #S S SS #S #S # #S #S S # #S S #S 74 #S #S #S #S # #S # #60 S # S # S #S S # #S S #S #S # N 0 10 20 30 40 Miles # S # S # S Bridge Sufficiency Rating # Good Condition S # Eligible for Rehabilitation S # Eligible for Replacement S State Highway System Routes INSET BRIDGE SUFFICIENCY RATING IN THE PHOENIX METROPOLITAN AREA # S # S # S # S # S 60 # S # S # S 303L # S # S # S # S # S # S #S #S #S #S #S # #S #S #S #S #S S #S # S 101L # S # S # S # S # S # S # S # S # S # #S S 17 # S # S # S # S 101L 51 # S # #S S # #S S < < # S # S # S # S # S # S # S # S # S # S # S # S # S # S # S # S # S # S # # #S S S # # S S # S # S # # S S 10 # # S S # S 202L #S #S #S #S #S #S #S #S #S #S #S S #S #S #S #S # #S #S # #S #S #S # #S #S #S # #S #S #S # # S S S #S S # #S S S #S #S S S # #S SEE 202L #S #S #S #S # # #S S # S S #S # # S # S # S # S # S # S # S # # S # # S S # # S S #S 10 S # S CENTRAL PHOENIX # # S S # S #S # ##S S S # # #S #S # S # S S # S #S #S # S S #S #S # #S S #S #S S#S #S #INSET S # S 143 # S # #S S # S #S 17 # # S # ######## S # # S S 60 # S S # S #S # #S #S # # S S #S #S #S #S #S #S #S #S #S #S SSS #S #SSSSS #S S #S # #S # #S S S S #S #S #S #S # #S # S 202L # S # S # S # S # S 10 87 # S # S # S # S # S N 0 5 10 15 20 Miles Bridge Sufficiency Rating Good Condition # S Eligible for Rehabilitation # S Eligible for Replacement # S State Highway System Routes INSET BRIDGE SUFFICIENCY RATING IN CENTRAL PHOENIX # S # S # S 17 # S # S 51 # S # S # S # S # S # S # S # S # S # S # S # S # S # S # S # S # S 10S # S # S # #S #S S # S #S # S # S # # S # S # S # S # S # S #S #S # # S # S #S # S #S # S #S #S S # S # S # S # S # S 10 # S # S # S # S # S # S #S #S #S #S # S S #17 # S # # S S #S S # S #S # S #S 202L # #S S #S # # #S S # S # S S # # S S # # S # S S # S #S #S # S #S # #S #S #S # S < # S 153 # S S # < # S # S < 60 # S # S # #S S S # # S # S N 0 1 2 3 4 5 Miles 143 # S #S # # S S Bridge Sufficiency Rating S # Good Condition Eligible for Rehabilitation S # Eligible for Replacement S # State Highway System Routes BRIDGE SUFFICIENCY RATING IN MOHAVE COUNTY # S # S # #S #S S #S #S #389S #S #S #S # #S #S #S S # S 15 # S # S # S # S # SS # #S S # #S S # # S # S 93 # S # S #S S # # S # S # S # S # S #S S # # S # S # # S #S S # # S #S S # S #S # S S # S # # # S # S #S # S 66 # #S # #S S S S # #S ## S # S # S S # S # S ## S # S # S # S # # S S # # S S 68 #S # # S S #S S # # # S S #S # S # #S #S S S # # # S #S # S S # S # #S S # # S S #S # #S # S #S S # #S S S # # S # #S S # #S S #S # S # #S #S S # ##S # S S #S #S #S # Bullhead # S S # S Kingman S # S # S # S # S # S City # # S S # S # S #95 S S # # S # S # S 40 # S # S # S # S # S # S # # S S # S # S # S # S # S # S # S # S # S # # S S # S # S # S 93 # #S #S #S # #S S # #S S #S S # S #S S # S #S # # #S S S 95 # # S # # S S # S # S # S # S #S S # S Lake Havasu # S #S # S # # S # # S S #S # S # # S S #S S #S City #S # #S S # N 0 10 20 30 40 50 Miles Bridge Sufficiency Rating S # Good Condition Eligible for Rehabilitation S # S # Eligible for Replacement State Highway System Routes BRIDGE SUFFICIENCY RATING IN NAVAJO COUNTY 163 564 #S S # # S # S # S # S # S # S # S # S # S # # S #S #S #S S # S # S # S # S # S 87 # S # S # S 77 Holbrook # # # S S S # S # S S # S # # #S # S S S #S #S #S #S #S #S S # S # #S S #S #S #S # #S S # #S S # S # #S S 99 # S # #S S # # S # S # S #S S # # # S S # # S S # S 377 # S 77 # S # S # S # S # S 277 # S # S # S # S ## S # S SS #S #S #S #S #260 #S S #S #S #S #S #S # # S # # # #S #S S SS Show S # Low S # S # #S S # S 73 # S # S N 0 10 20 30 40 50 Miles Bridge Sufficiency Rating Good Condition S # Eligible for Rehabilitation S # Eligible for Replacement S # State Highway System Routes BRIDGE SUFFICIENCY RATING IN PIMA COUNTY # S # S #S Ajo S ## S #S S # S # #S S # # S # S #S S #S # S # # S # # S #S S #S S #S SEE # S # # # S S # S # S #S S # TUCSON S #S # # S #S S INSET # # # S S # S # S # S # # S S # # # S S #S #S S # S S # # #S S #S # S S # # S S # S # # S # # S S # S # # S S # # S S # #S S # S S # S # S # S # S #S S # S # S #S # # S S # S # S # S # S # S # S #S # S S S # # # S # # S S S # # #S S S # # S # S # S S # #S S # # #86 S S # S # # # S # S # S S # S # S # # S # S # S # # S S #S # S #S # #S S # #S S #S B19 # # S # S S #S 386 #S #S # # # S S # S S # # S S # # # S S S # S # S # S # S # S # S # S # S # S #S # S S # # # S S 83 # S # # S #S S # S # S # S # S # S # S # S ## S # S 286 # S # S #S S ## S # S S # S # S 85 # S # S N 0 10 20 30 40 50 Miles Bridge Sufficiency Rating S # Good Condition S # Eligible for Rehabilitation S # Eligible for Replacement State Highway System Routes INSET BRIDGE SUFFICIENCY RATING IN THE TUCSON METROPOLITAN AREA # S #S S # #S S #S # # S # S # S # S # S 77 # S # #S #S #S #S #S S # S # S # #S #S #S #S S # S # S # S # S # S # S # S # S # #S S # S # #S #S #S #S S # S # S #S S #S #S #S #S # # S 86 # #S #S #S S N 0 5 10 15 20 Miles # #S S # S # S # S # S # S # S # S # S S # ##S # S S # S # S # S # # S #S S B10 # S # S # S #S S # # S # #S S #S #S # #SS S #S # #S #S S #S #S # S # # S # S # S #S S # #S S # # S # S S # #10 S # B19 19 S # S # S # S # S # S S # # S < # S 10S # # S #S S #S #S # # S Bridge Sufficiency Rating # Good Condition S Eligible for Rehabilitation # S Eligible for Replacement # S State Highway System Routes BRIDGE SUFFICIENCY RATING IN PINAL COUNTY # S 88 # S # S #S #S #S #S #S #S #S S #S # # S # #S S # S # S # S # S # S # S #S S # S # # #S #S #S #S S # #S #S #S S # 60 S #S #S # S # S # S # S # S # S #S # S S # S # # # S S # # S # S # #S S S # S # #S S S # ##S S # S # # S #S 79 S # # S S #S S 87 # # # S S 177 #S S # S #S S #S S # # #S # # S # S # S # # S S # S # S #S S # S 10S #S # # # #S S # S S # # Florence S # S #S S # S # #S S # S # #S #S # S S # S S # S #S # 287 S # # # # S S # S # S # S # S 347 #S S # S # S #S Casa S # #S # S #S # S # S # S # # Grande S # S # S # S # # S S # # # S S # S S #S S # S #S # S # S # 287 # S 84 # S # S # # # # # # S S # # # S S S S # S S S S # S # # S S # S # S # S # S # S # S # S # S # # S S # S # S #S # #S # # S S #S S #S S # S #S # #S S #S #S #S #S # 87 #S #S #S S #S # # S #S # S # #S #S #S # #S # #S # #S #S # #S #8S S S S S S S 79 # #S S S #S # S # #S # S # S # #S S #S S # #S S S ##S # # # S # S S# S 77 # S # # S # S #S # S # S # S #S S #S S # #S # # SS # S ## S # S # S # S # S 10 # S #S S # # S #S S # # S # S #S S # # S N 0 5 10 15 20 25 Miles # #S S # S #S S # # S # S # S Bridge Sufficiency Rating Good Condition # S Eligible for Rehabilitation # S Eligible for Replacement # S State Highway System Routes BRIDGE SUFFICIENCY RATING IN SANTA CRUZ COUNTY # S # S # S # S # S 19 # S # S # S # S # S # S # S #S S #S # # S # S # S # S #S S # 289 5 10 15 # S # S # S # #S #S #S S #S #S #S #S S # 83 # S # S # S # S # # # S SS S # # S # S # S # S # S # S # SS ## S # #S S # S # S # Nogales S # S # S # S # S N 0 # #S S # S # S # S # S # S # S 82S # # S # S # S 20 Miles Bridge Sufficiency Rating Good Condition S # S # Eligible for Rehabilitation Eligible for Replacement S # State Highway System Routes BRIDGE SUFFICIENCY RATING IN YAVAPAI COUNTY #S S # # #S #S #S S # S # #S S #S # # S ## S # #S S # S #S S #S #40 S #S S #S S #S #S #S #S #S # 89 Cottonwood # 89A S # # S S #S # 179 #S # #S S #S S # S S # S # S S #S # # S # S # # S # S # S # S # S 89A # S # S #260 S # #S S SS #S # ## S #S #S S # # S # S #S S #S # # 69 S #S S # S S #S S #S Prescott S ##S #S #169 # S #S #S #S # # #S S # #S S # S S #S # S # # #S # 260 S S #S ## S # S # S 97 # S #S S # 96 # S # S #S S # # S # S #S S # 89 # S # # S 69 # #S S #S S # S # S # S # S # S # S # S # S # S # S # S # S #S S # # S 17 # S # #S S # #S #S S #S #S # # #S # S S S # #S #S S # S # # S S #S S # # S # S # # S S 71 # # S # S #S S #S S #S # S # S # # S N 0 10 20 30 40 Miles Bridge Sufficiency Rating S # Good Condition S # Eligible for Rehabilitation Eligible for Replacement S # State Highway System Routes BRIDGE SUFFICIENCY RATING IN YUMA COUNTY S # S # S # S # S # S # S # S # S # S # S # S # S # 95 S # S # S # Yuma # S #S S #S # 280 # S #S S #S S # #S S # # # S #S #S #S # #S #S #S # S #S #S #S #S #S #S #S #S S # S #S S #S S # #S # S #S # S # S #S S # S # #S S # S # # S # B8 S # S #95S #S # S # # #S S #S S # S # # # S #S S #S 8 < S # San Luis N 0 5 10 15 20 25 Miles Bridge Sufficiency Rating # S Good Condition # S Eligible for Rehabilitation # S Eligible for Replacement State Highway System Routes Change in Condition The following two maps show the difference in Level of Service (LOS) and Present Serviceabilty Rating (PSR) in the 1999 Highway Status and Condition Report compared to the 1998 report. The Bridge Condition Index changes are not displayed because it is extremely difficult to present at the state level. We have included two bar charts that depict the percentage change in the LOS and PSR. The percentage is the portion of the State Highway System that improved, declined, or remained the same. A change in the in LOS in the range of 0.001 to 0.24 was considered a slight change. A change of greater than 0.25 was considered as significant. For the PSR a change of less than 0.49 was considered slight and a change greater than 0.50 was considered significant. 1997-98 CHANGES IN THE LEVEL OF SERVICE ON THE STATE HIGHWAY SYSTEM 160 15 163 64 389 APACHE 89 89A 564 98 MOHAVE 67 89 191 160 NAVAJO 264 COCONINO 93 64 264 89 180 64 191 87 66 #Bullhead S 40 # S 68 #Flagstaff S Kingman City 99 40 40 77 89A 61 95 40 89 Sedona YAVAPAI 89A 17 # S # S Holbrook 99 191 87 179 93 377 180 89A 95 260 # S Prescott # S 77 Lake Havasu City 69 260 97 277 96 89 61 69 191 260 87 260 # Parker S #St Johns S 180A 169 60 60 17 LA PAZ 71 260 261 273 73 60 72 60 74 # S 188 60 MARICOPA Quartzsite 10 GILA 288 95 87 Phoenix 60 17 51 101L 191 88 10 10 88 # S 202L # S 60 202L 87 GRAHAM 77 191T 85 79 87 YUMA Casa Grande 347 # S 84 Yuma 8 Clifton # S 177 # S Florence 10 238 # S Globe 202L 60 95 GREENLEE 101L 303L 70 78 287 Safford # S 287 87 79 8 191 75 77 366 85 PINAL 95 10 266 191 77 COCHISE PIMA 10 # Tucson S 186 85 10 86 191 B19 386 181 83 80 90 286 19 SANTA CRUZ 82 # Nogales S 0 25 50 75 100 Miles 191 80 # S Sierra Vista 289 N 82 83 80 90 Bisbee 92 # S 80 Changes in the LOS Improvement Slight Improvement No Change Slight Decline Decline CHANGES IN LOS BETWEEN 1998 & 1999 1000 33.2% 900 27.9% 800 NUMBER OF ROUTE SEGMENTS 700 21.6% 600 Improvement Slight Improvement 500 No Change Slight Decline Decline 400 300 8.2% 200 2.9% 100 2.8% 2.1 % 0.7% 0.4% 0.1% 0 Urban Rural LOCATION 1997-98 CHANGES IN THE PRESENT SERVICEABILITY RATING ON THE STATE HIGHWAY SYSTEM 160 15 163 64 389 APACHE 89 89A 564 98 MOHAVE 67 89 191 160 NAVAJO 264 COCONINO 93 64 264 89 180 64 191 87 66 #Bullhead S 40 # S 68 #Flagstaff S Kingman City 99 40 40 77 89A 61 95 40 89 Sedona YAVAPAI 89A 17 # S # S Holbrook 99 191 87 179 93 377 180 89A 260 95 # S Prescott # S 77 Lake Havasu City 69 260 277 96 89 61 69 191 260 87 260 # Parker S #St Johns S 180A 169 97 60 60 17 LA PAZ 71 260 261 273 73 60 72 95 60 74 # S 188 60 MARICOPA Quartzsite 10 GILA 288 87 Phoenix 60 17 51 101L 191 88 10 88 # S 10 202L # S 60 87 202L GRAHAM 77 191T 85 79 87 YUMA 10 238 Casa Grande 347 84 Yuma 8 # S Globe 202L 60 95 GREENLEE 101L 303L # S 287 177 # S Florence Clifton # S 70 78 Safford # S 287 87 79 8 191 75 77 366 85 PINAL 95 10 266 191 77 COCHISE PIMA 10 # Tucson S 186 85 10 86 191 B19 386 181 83 80 90 286 19 SANTA CRUZ 82 # Nogales S 0 25 50 75 100 Miles 191 80 # S Sierra Vista 289 N 82 83 80 90 Bisbee 92 # S 80 Changes in the PSR Improvement Slight Improvement No Change Slight Decline Decline CHANGES IN PSR BETWEEN 1998 & 1999 1000 32.4% 900 800 24.3% NUMBER OF ROUTE SEGMENTS 700 20.4% 600 Improvement Slight Improvement 500 No Change Slight Decline Decline 400 300 200 5.2% 5.2% 4.5% 3.2% 2.8% 100 1.3% 0.6% 0 Urban Rural LOCATION