Appendix E  Technical Memorandum #5 - Detailed Preferred Alignment, October 2011 Hidden Waters – Final Report Corridor Feasibility Study Maricopa County Department of Transportation January, 2012 EPS Job No. 10-092 Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction ......................................................................................................................1 1.1 2.0 Background ..................................................................................................................1 Selection of Preferred Alignment .....................................................................................3 2.1 Candidate Alignments ..................................................................................................3 2.2 Evaluation of the Candidate Alignments .......................................................................3 2.3 Description of the Preferred Alternative ........................................................................6 3.0 Design Considerations .....................................................................................................8 3.1 Functional Classification ...............................................................................................8 3.2 Design Vehicle .............................................................................................................8 3.3 Design Speeds .............................................................................................................8 3.4 Cross-Section ...............................................................................................................9 3.5 Vertical Geometry.........................................................................................................9 3.6 Horizontal Geometry ....................................................................................................9 3.7 Access Management Guidelines ................................................................................ 10 3.8 Roadway Intersections ............................................................................................... 10 3.9 Drainage Considerations ............................................................................................ 11 4.0 Preferred Alignment ....................................................................................................... 14 4.1 Special Interest Areas ................................................................................................ 14 4.2 Implementation Plan................................................................................................... 15 4.3 Planning Level Cost Estimate .................................................................................... 16 List of Figures Figure 1-1 Hidden Waters Parkway Study Area ........................................................................ 2 Figure 2-1 Candidate Alignments .............................................................................................. 4 Figure 2-2 Preferred Alignment ................................................................................................. 7 Figure 3-1 AZ Parkway: Indirect Left-turn Movements .............................................................. 8 Figure 3-2 AZ Parkway: 6-lane Urban Typical Section .............................................................. 9 Figure 3-3 Estimated Cross-Drainage Features ...................................................................... 11 Figure 4-1 Special Interest Areas ............................................................................................ 15 Hidden Waters – Final Tech Memo 5 Feasibility Study Maricopa County Department of Transportation i Preferred Alignment November 2011 EPS Job No. 10-092 List of Tables Table 2-1 Summary of Qualitative Evaluation............................................................................ 5 Table 3-1 AZ Parkway: Urban Design Speeds .......................................................................... 8 Table 3-2 Estimated Roadway Drainage Crossing Types and Discharges.............................. 12 Table 4-1 Summary of Planning Level Cost Estimate ............................................................. 16 Appendix Appendix A: Select details from Design Guideline Recommendations for the Arizona Parkway (MCDOT, 2008) Appendix B: Preferred Alignment Drawings Appendix C: Conceptual Plan and Profile Drawing of CAP Crossing Appendix D: Planning Level Cost Estimate Abbreviations Arizona Game and Fish Department Arizona Public Service Arizona State Land Department Bureau of Land Management Bureau of Reclamation Central Arizona Project Development Master Plan Maricopa Association of Governments Maricopa County Department of Transportation Master Planned Community Planned Area Development Salt River Project State Route Technical Advisory Committee Traffic Interchange Western Area Power Authority Hidden Waters – Final Tech Memo 5 Feasibility Study Maricopa County Department of Transportation AGFD APS ASLD BLM BOR CAP DMP MAG MCDOT MPC PAD SRP SR TAC TI WAPA ii Preferred Alignment November 2011 EPS Job No. 10-092 1.0 Introduction 1.1 Background The Interstate-10/Hassayampa Valley Roadway Framework Study (Hassayampa Framework Study) is a transportation planning document completed by the Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) in 2008 that identified a comprehensive roadway network to meet future traffic demands in northwest Maricopa County. The roadway network recommended by the Hassayampa Framework Study is comprised of freeways, parkways and major arterial roads. The Hidden Waters Parkway was identified as a major link in this recommended transportation framework. The Hidden Waters Parkway North (Hidden Waters Parkway) Feasibility Study Area is located west of the Phoenix metropolitan area in Maricopa County, Arizona (Figure 1-1). The area west of the White Tank Mountains within the Hassayampa River Valley has been identified as an area where intense growth is anticipated to occur in the future. Maricopa County Department of Transportation (MCDOT) commissioned the Hidden Waters Parkway North Parkway Feasibility Study in response to this anticipated growth and the future need for a highcapacity roadway within this corridor. The study area includes the northern section of the Hidden Waters Parkway, as shown on the Hassayampa Framework Study, from Interstate 10 (I-10) north to the future alignment of State Route 74 (SR74). The study area is approximately 28 miles long and two miles wide, primarily centered about the Hassayampa Framework Study proposed alignment (baseline alignment) for the Hidden Waters Parkway, except in the area from Northern Avenue to Bell Road where the study area expands to two miles west of the baseline alignment and from the south end of Douglas Ranch to Patton Road where the study area expands to two miles east of the baseline alignment. This results in the study corridor being a total of three miles wide in these two areas (refer to Figure 1-1 for a graphic depiction of the study area). The proposed Hidden Waters Parkway corridor passes adjacent to, or through, several entitled Master Plan Communities (MPC) including: Millennium Ranch, Hassayampa Ranch, Belmont, and Douglas Ranch. At build-out, it is estimated that these communities may contain over 187,000 dwelling units. The need for a parkway within the Hidden Waters corridor is based upon projected development and is linked directly to the development of the previously mentioned MPC’s. It is important to identify a recommended alignment for the Hidden Waters Parkway during the planning stages of the proposed MPC’s to ensure that adequate right-ofway will be preserved. The purpose of the Hidden Waters Parkway study is to document conditions along the parkway corridor, identify potential fatal flaws and develop an alignment alternative that meets the future traffic needs identified in the Hassayampa Framework Study. The recommended alternative will establish a roadway footprint that may be used as a guide for local agencies and development within the corridor. Hidden Waters – Final Tech Memo 5 Feasibility Study Maricopa County Department of Transportation 1 Preferred Alignment November 2011 EPS Job No. 10-092 Note: Roadway alignments shown are approximate based on the Hassayampa Framework Study and may be revised based on further, more detailed study. Figure 1-1 Hidden Waters Parkway Study Area Hidden Waters – Final Tech Memo 5 Feasibility Study Maricopa County Department of Transportation 2 Preferred Alignment November 2011 EPS Job No. 10-092 2.0 Selection of Preferred Alignment The purpose of this technical memorandum is to document the preferred alignment in detail and to present the additional design features that were considered during the development and refinement of the alignment. 2.1 Candidate Alignments Conceptual alignments for the Hidden Waters Parkway were initially developed in response to the opportunities and constraints identified in Technical Memos 1, 2 and 3 which include:       Existing/proposed residential communities Existing commercial and/or employment centers Current land ownership Environmental resources Existing/proposed utilities Existing drainage patterns The design team and members of the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) further refined the conceptual alignments. These refinements resulted in three candidate alternatives that were carried forward for further analysis (see Figure 2-1). Alignment 1 is based on the alignment developed during the Hassayampa Framework Study, and serves as the approximate center of the Hidden Waters Parkway study area. Alignment 2 was selected in response to existing/approved land plans and the stakeholder feedback received during the planning phase of this study. It incorporates the proposed circulation elements of the Hassayampa Ranch, Belmont, and Douglas Ranch MPCs. Alignment 3 was selected in response to the geomorphology, drainage patterns, utilities, etc. of the study area. A no-build alternative was also considered to evaluate how the existing roadway network would function if this project were not constructed. This alternative provides a valuable baseline for comparison when evaluating other alignments. 2.2 Evaluation of the Candidate Alignments The three candidate alignments were evaluated using a tiered format as described in Technical Memoranda 4 (TM4). The first tier of analysis evaluated the candidate alternatives for any fatal flaws, of which none were identified. The second tier of analysis qualitatively evaluated the candidate and no-build alternatives based upon a set of criteria identified through the agency and public scoping process. These criteria included the following: Consistency with proposed development Environmental impacts Utility impacts Drainage impacts Engineering complexity Hidden Waters – Final Tech Memo 5 Feasibility Study Maricopa County Department of Transportation System functionality Right of way requirements Buildings/property impacts Planning level cost estimate Stakeholder and community feedback 3 Preferred Alignment November 2011 EPS Job No. 10-092 Figure 2-1 Candidate Alignments Hidden Waters – Final Tech Memo 5 Feasibility Study Maricopa County Department of Transportation 4 Preferred Alignment November 2011 EPS Job No. 10-092 Corridor alternatives were evaluated using one of five rankings based upon the perceived response to each evaluation criteria question. Strong Disadvantage Disadvantage Neutral Strong Advantage Advantage All three candidate alternatives were qualitatively evaluated based upon the criteria described on the previous page. The results of this initial screening of the candidate alternatives are summarized in Table 2-1. Table 2-1 Summary of Qualitative Evaluation Evaluation Criteria Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 No Build Right of Way Requirements 686 ac 717 ac 695 ac N/A Cost (in millions) $266.3 $248.8 $232.30 N/A No Yes No No Proposed Development Environmental Impacts Utility Impacts Drainage Impacts Engineering Complexity System Functionality Buildings/Property Impacts Stakeholder/Community Feedback Recommended for Further Evaluation Note: The costs reported in Table 2-1 have been revised from what was reported in Technical Memo 4 to include estimates of roadway prism excavation, median retention, and sidewalks. Alternative 1 was not recommended for further consideration because it presented the greater impacts to proposed developments, existing utilities, drainage features, and existing buildings/properties. In addition this alternative is the most costly of the candidate alignments and was opposed by several key landowners/stakeholders. Alternative 3 was rated favorably in several qualitative categories including drainage impacts, engineering complexity and system functionality and also has the lowest estimated cost to construct. However, this candidate alternative was not recommended because it was the least compatible with the approved development master plans within the study area and was opposed by several key landowners/stakeholders. The No-build alternative was not recommended for further consideration because does not address future traffic demands or the regional connectivity needs of the study area. Hidden Waters – Final Tech Memo 5 Feasibility Study Maricopa County Department of Transportation 5 Preferred Alignment November 2011 EPS Job No. 10-092 Alternative 2 was recommended as the preferred alternative because it received the greatest support from key landowners/stakeholders and the public. In addition it is coincident with the approved development master plans and no special engineering challenges were identified with this alignment. 2.3 Description of the Preferred Alternative The preferred alternative is centered along the section line coincident with 339th Avenue between the I-10 traffic interchange and Camelback Road. From there, it generally follows the proposed parkway alignments of the approved circulation elements for the planned communities of Hassayampa Ranch, Belmont, and Douglas Ranch. It parallels the west side of Jackrabbit Wash, through the proposed Belmont MPC, and then turns to the east along the south side of the Central Arizona Project (CAP) Canal. The preferred alternative crosses the CAP canal approximately 500 feet west of the Hassayampa River siphon, then runs along the east side of the proposed Douglas Ranch development to Jomax Road. Between Jomax Road and Patton Road, the preferred alternative follows a northeasterly alignment. Then generally follows the 299th Avenue alignment between Patton Road and Lone Mountain Road. Between Lone Mountain Road and the future Carefree Highway, the alignment shifts west to 302nd Avenue. North of the future Carefree Highway, the preferred alternative alignment runs along the east side of an unnamed wash to the northern limit of the study area (i.e. potential location for the future SR 74 freeway). Hidden Waters – Final Tech Memo 5 Feasibility Study Maricopa County Department of Transportation 6 Preferred Alignment November 2011 EPS Job No. 10-092 Figure 2-2 Preferred Alignment Hidden Waters – Final Tech Memo 5 Feasibility Study Maricopa County Department of Transportation 7 Preferred Alignment November 2011 EPS Job No. 10-092 3.0 Design Considerations The Design Guideline Recommendations for the Arizona Parkway (MCDOT, August 2008) and the MCDOT Roadway Design Manual (2004) were used to further define the preferred alignment of the Hidden Waters Parkway. The following sub-sections detail the design criteria. 3.1 Functional Classification The functional classification for Hidden Waters Parkway is “Arizona Parkway” (AZ Parkway). The AZ parkway is a new roadway functional classification with a capacity approaching 90,000 vehicles per day (for a full 8-lane parkway section). The design guidelines for this study follow the Urban Arizona Parkway details. The unique design feature of the AZ parkway is the indirect-left turn concept (see Figure 3-1). Traditional direct left-turn movements are not permitted at AZ parkway intersections. This allows intersections to utilize two-phase signal cycles, which increase the capacity and safety of the roadway. Figure 3-1 AZ Parkway: Indirect Left-turn Movements 3.2 Design Vehicle 3.3 Design Speeds Design vehicle refers to the largest vehicle anticipated to frequently use a roadway. The choice of design vehicles influences the radii of intersection returns and curving roadways. The MCDOT Design Guideline Recommendations for the Arizona Parkway (p. 7) recommend a WB-50 design vehicle as defined by the AASHTO - Policy on Geometric Design of Highways. Many roadway geometric features (i.e. curve radii and superelevation rates) are dependent on the assumed velocity of traffic. The design speed is the maximum recommended speed that will ensure reasonable and safe vehicle operation. Table 3-1 summarizes the recommended design speeds for an AZ parkway in an urban setting for different terrain. Table 3-1 AZ Parkway: Urban Design Speeds Terrain Design Speed Level 55 mph Rolling 50 mph Mountainous 45 mph Hidden Waters – Final Tech Memo 5 Feasibility Study Maricopa County Department of Transportation 8 Preferred Alignment November 2011 EPS Job No. 10-092 3.4 Cross-Section The AZ parkway has phased options for 4-lane, 6-lane, and 8-lane roadway facilities (refer to Appendix A, Figure 14). Figure 3-2 presents a typical section for 6-lane urban parkway. The standard minimum right-of-way width is 200 feet. The urban street section has raised curb and gutter per MAG Detail 220-1, Type A; single curb allowable along median. A 2% cross-slope is recommended for roadway drainage. Figure 3-2 AZ Parkway: 6-lane Urban Typical Section The Arizona Parkway Intersection/Interchange - Operational Analysis and Design Concepts Study (MCDOT, 2009) provides recommendations for the size/number of lanes for the proposed parkways based upon the traffic projections from the Hassayampa Framework Study. The following recommendations were made for the Hidden Waters Parkway through the study area:    3.5 8-lane Parkway: between I-10 and Northern Parkway 6-lane Parkway: between Northern Parkway and Dove Valley Parkway 4-lane Parkway: between Dove Valley Parkway and the future SR 74 Freeway Vertical Geometry The maximum vertical gradient for the Hidden Waters parkway per the MCDOT Roadway Design Manual and AASHTO is 5% for an urban roadway on level terrain (see MCDOT RDM Section 5.11). The “minimum” preferred longitudinal slope is +/- 0.25% (per MCDOT RDM Section 5.11). Vertical curves are designed to ensure that adequate sight distance is provided and to increase the safety and comfort of driving. They should be provided on the Hidden Waters Parkway when the algebraic difference of longitudinal slopes is greater than 0.3% (per MCDOT RDM Section 5.11). 3.6 Horizontal Geometry Flat horizontal curves are recommended wherever possible per the MCDOT Roadway Design Manual. Superelevation rates and curve radii should be designed together as a function of the maximum side friction factor and the assumed maximum superelevation rate per AASHTO design guidelines (2004 AASHTO Green Book, Pages 146-147). The minimum radius for a horizontal curve at a design speed of 55 mph without superelevation is 1833 feet. The maximum superelevation rate recommended for urban roadways is 4%. The minimum horizontal curve radius for the Hidden Waters Parkway with superelevation is 1190 feet. Hidden Waters – Final Tech Memo 5 Feasibility Study Maricopa County Department of Transportation 9 Preferred Alignment November 2011 EPS Job No. 10-092 The parkway design guideline recommendations state that the roadway width should be tapered through the use of reverse curves. The transition taper lengths will vary depending upon the design speed, curve radius and lane offset. 3.7 Access Management Guidelines The access management guidelines for the Hidden Waters Parkway were taken directly from Section 4 of the Design Guideline Recommendations for the Arizona Parkway. The following general recommendations were made:         U-turn directional crossovers restricted to a maximum of eight per mile. Left-turns in any direction are prohibited at all intersections (full median break). Left-turns from a side-street or driveway onto the Parkway are prohibited. Left-turns from the Parkway to a side-street or driveway are discouraged due to conflicts between U-turns and right-turns. However, this can be accommodated by aligning the U-turn crossover with the side-street or driveway in order to facilitate left turns and Uturns. Intersections (full median breaks) preferably restricted to one-mile spacing and a minimum spacing of half-mile. No on-street parking Full median openings are only recommended at intersections with arterial or major collector streets. For a low-volume driveway, a 165’ minimum spacing (from centerline to centerline) is recommended. For a high-volume driveway, a 330’ minimum spacing (from centerline to centerline) is recommended. For additional detail, refer to the typical urban parkway access plan detail from the Design Guideline Recommendations for the Arizona Parkway (Figure 3, Appendix A). 3.8 Roadway Intersections The Hassayampa Framework Study recommends a network of freeways, parkways, and arterial roadways to accommodate the future traffic needs of the region. As a part of this integrated roadway network, the Hidden Waters Parkway will have three parkway-to-freeway interchanges, six at-grade parkway-to-parkway intersections, and numerous parkway to arterial intersections. The parkway-to-freeway interchanges located at I-10, the future Hassayampa Freeway, and the future SR 74 will be based upon ADOT’s recently completed Freeway-to-Parkway Interchange Templates (October 2010). Additional traffic analysis will be required to select an appropriate interchange template at each of these locations prior to future design efforts. The at-grade parkway-to-parkway interchanges will be based upon the Arizona Parkway indirect left-turn intersection design established in Design Guideline Recommendations for the Arizona Parkway (Figure 18, Appendix A). These intersections will be located along the Hidden Waters Parkway at intersections with the following parkways: (McDowell Parkway, Camelback Parkway, Northern Parkway, Wintersburg Parkway, Bell/Greenway Parkway, Deer Valley/Beardsley Parkway and Dove Valley Parkway). Parkway to arterial intersections will be based upon the parkway/arterial intersection detail from the Design Guideline Recommendations for the Arizona Parkway (Figure 6, Appendix A). Hidden Waters – Final Tech Memo 5 Feasibility Study Maricopa County Department of Transportation 10 Preferred Alignment November 2011 EPS Job No. 10-092 3.9 Drainage Considerations In Technical Memorandum 3, conceptual drainage facilities were estimated for the Hidden Waters Parkway baseline alignment. This analysis was revisited for the preferred alignment and refinements were made to number and size of proposed cross-drainage structures. The revised cross-drainage structure estimates are illustrated graphically in Figure 3-3. The estimated roadway drainage crossing types and discharges for the 100-year and 50-year storm events are summarized in Table 3-2. Figure 3-3 Estimated Cross-Drainage Features Hidden Waters – Final Tech Memo 5 Feasibility Study Maricopa County Department of Transportation 11 Preferred Alignment November 2011 EPS Job No. 10-092 Table 3-2 Estimated Roadway Drainage Crossing Types and Discharges Id 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 Station 14+00 33+83 55+45 80+02 84+24 105+72 115+68 122+10 134+32 137+37 162+76 174+95 186+16 192+07 205+17 218+06 222+84 232+22 236+56 241+94 254+44 261+55 269+37 282+59 301+59 308+36 314+51 337+56 360+80 379+85 383+89 398+26 411+05 417+43 422+57 431+05 447+81 461+32 470+74 499+72 509+15 517+46 529+45 548+00 Crossing Type Pipe Pipe Pipe Pipe Box Pipe Pipe Pipe Pipe Box Pipe Pipe Pipe Pipe Pipe Pipe Pipe Pipe Box Pipe Pipe Pipe Pipe Pipe Pipe Pipe Pipe Box Pipe Pipe Pipe Pipe Pipe Pipe Pipe Bridge Pipe Box Pipe Box Pipe Pipe Pipe Bridge Area (sq.mi.) 0.053 0.035 0.133 0.065 0.228 0.020 0.051 0.041 0.024 0.402 0.043 0.030 0.024 0.164 0.118 0.020 0.024 0.020 2.737 0.241 0.020 0.026 0.028 0.072 0.037 0.017 0.049 0.131 0.038 0.035 0.041 0.052 0.037 0.110 0.036 41.404 0.069 0.177 0.055 0.140 0.043 0.053 0.029 313.535 (acres) 33.7 22.3 85.4 41.4 146.2 12.9 32.6 26.3 15.1 257.2 27.3 19.2 15.5 105.1 75.7 13.0 15.5 13.1 1751.8 154.5 12.8 16.6 18.2 46.3 23.4 10.7 31.5 83.9 24.3 22.4 26.1 33.4 23.8 70.5 23.3 26498.6 44.3 113.5 34.9 89.5 27.3 33.6 18.9 200662. 2 Hidden Waters – Final Tech Memo 5 Feasibility Study Maricopa County Department of Transportation Peak Discharge (cfs) 100-yr 50-yr 64 43 43 29 150 100 73 49 344 230 27 18 72 48 57 38 19 13 382 256 32 21 23 15 23 15 150 100 97 65 12 8 17 11 14 9 1700 1139 118 79 18 12 23 15 14 9 70 47 53 36 25 17 64 43 175 117 52 35 31 21 36 24 60 40 43 29 128 85 42 28 5500 3685 87 58 268 179 93 62 239 160 73 49 90 60 84 56 33600 22512 Source Luke Wash Watershed Zone AE FDS (FCD 2007C020) Watershed 'PP' Luke Wash FDS Luke Wash Watershed Zone AE FDS (FCD 2007C020) Watershed 'PP' Luke Wash FDS (FCD 99-03) Jackrabbit Wash FDS (FCD 90-05) 12 Preferred Alignment November 2011 EPS Job No. 10-092 Id Station 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 575+95 584+90 669+07 726+55 746+56 757+03 774+01 784+58 792+57 797+95 816+50 826+57 829+80 838+82 844+19 854+03 863+38 871+84 881+98 895+72 905+77 915+50 924+20 928+82 956+65 1025+70 1040+74 1156+07 1166+70 1188+12 1325+79 1367+14 1439+29 1502+98 Crossing Type Pipe Pipe Box Box Pipe Pipe Pipe Box Pipe Box Pipe Pipe Box Pipe Pipe Box Box Pipe Pipe Pipe Pipe Pipe Pipe Pipe Box Pipe Box Pipe Pipe Box Box Pipe Box Box Area (sq.mi.) 2.458 2.458 25.224 0.906 0.092 0.057 0.035 0.372 0.043 0.182 0.045 0.034 0.554 0.021 0.103 1.180 0.301 0.017 0.056 0.027 0.062 0.069 0.034 0.052 0.237 0.089 0.511 0.028 0.071 0.128 3.042 0.024 1.139 2.368 (acres) 1573.0 1573.0 16143.4 580.0 59.2 36.4 22.2 238.3 27.7 116.5 28.5 21.9 354.5 13.6 65.7 754.9 192.9 10.9 36.0 17.1 39.6 44.1 21.5 33.6 151.8 57.1 326.8 17.8 45.6 81.6 1946.6 15.4 729.2 1515.6 Hidden Waters – Final Tech Memo 5 Feasibility Study Maricopa County Department of Transportation Peak Discharge (cfs) 100-yr 50-yr 115 77 130 87 3277 2196 210 141 65 44 32 21 20 13 472 316 55 37 231 155 57 38 43 29 703 471 27 18 131 88 1152 772 382 256 22 15 71 48 34 23 79 53 88 59 43 29 66 44 300 200 114 76 655 439 52 35 131 88 237 159 3900 2613 42 28 697 467 2300 1541 13 Source Watershed 'OO' Approx. FDS (FCD 2000C019) Daggs Wash FDS HEC-2 Jackrabbit Wash FDS (FCD 90-05) Watershed 'OO' Approx. FDS (FCD 2000C019) Upper Daggs/Star Wash Zone AE FDS (FCD 2006C006) Watershed 'OO' Approx. FDS Preferred Alignment November 2011 EPS Job No. 10-092 4.0 Preferred Alignment The design considerations discussed in the preceding section were used to generate detailed preferred alignment drawings. These drawings, presented in Appendix B, illustrate the alignment centerline, right-of-way lines, and proposed drainage features on aerial base-maps. The detailed preferred alignment is based upon the findings of this corridor feasibility study and may be subject to further refinements during design. 4.1 Special Interest Areas Two special analysis areas were identified during the candidate selection process (refer to Figure 4-1). The first of these two areas is located adjacent to the CAP Canal between the Waddell Road and Greenway Road alignments. This special interest area was identified because the preferred alignment passes in close proximity to existing and proposed overhead transmission lines, major drainage crossings of the CAP canal, a potential cultural resource site and a proposed wildlife linkage corridor. The second special interest area addresses the Hidden Waters Parkway CAP Canal crossing. Special Interest Area No. 1: The following observations were made about the preferred alignment within special interest area No. 1:      The preferred alignment provides a minimum 50ft buffer between the proposed curb and gutter and existing Western Area Power Authority (Western) transmission towers per Western’s design criteria. The alignment will require a multiple cell box culvert immediately downstream of the Daggs Wash flume across the CAP canal (Structure 47 at Sta. 668+75). The proposed box culvert should allow the preferred alignment to pass beneath Western’s 345kV transmission line with adequate clearance. Technical Memorandum No. 2 of this study recommended that an additional Class III cultural resource survey be completed prior to design to better assess the presence of cultural resources that may be affected by the preferred alignment through this special interest area. The preferred alignment passes through special interest area number 1 roughly adjacent to the CAP canal right-of-way. Arizona Game & Fish (AGFD) has expressed the concern that the proximity of the preferred alignment to the CAP canal will negatively impact east-west wildlife movement through the study area. In order to mitigate the potential impacts to this wildlife linkage zone, AGFD has recommended that the preferred alignment be shifted to the southeast along the CAP canal to create a buffer for wildlife movement in the future. This southeasterly shift was not incorporated into the detailed drawings of the preferred alignment. Although feasible, additional coordination between AGFD and the affected land owners/stakeholders will be required to revise the alignment. AGFD has requested that the future design of the Hidden Waters Parkway include elements to help promote/facilitate wildlife movement through the study area. Special Interest Area No. 2 was identified to investigate how the preferred alignment crosses the CAP Canal. The preferred alignment was shifted west of the Hassayampa siphon based upon feedback received from CAP representatives during the evaluation of candidate alignments. A conceptual plan and profile drawing was generated to investigate the CAP crossing in greater detail (see Appendix C). Hidden Waters – Final Tech Memo 5 Feasibility Study Maricopa County Department of Transportation 14 Preferred Alignment November 2011 EPS Job No. 10-092 A vertical alignment was selected to provide a minimum of 14.5 feet of clearance above the CAP Canal access roads, per CAP requirements. A 6.5 foot structure depth was assumed for the proposed bridge across the CAP Canal. Figure 4-1 Special Interest Areas 4.2 Implementation Plan The recent downturn in the economy has made the timing of the traffic volumes forecast in the MAG Hassayampa Framework Study less certain. It is understood that the need for the Hidden Waters Parkway will be driven by the proposed master planned communities within the study area and that right-of-way dedication and initial parkway construction efforts will likely coincide with the development of these communities. The existing and future freeways will likely serve as a catalyst to development within the study area. For this reason, it is thought that the southern portions of the Hidden Waters Parkway (adjacent to I-10) may be constructed first. As development progresses to the north, so will construction of the corresponding parkway segments. The northernmost portion of the parkway (north of Jomax Rd) will likely not be needed until the future SR 74 freeway is built. Ideally, the full-width parkway section would be built with the initial construction. However, the initial traffic volumes generated by these communities may not warrant the construction of the full six-lane facility. The Design Guideline Recommendations for the Arizona Parkway (MCDOT, 2008) provides phasing options to construct portions of the roadway as traffic volumes materialize. The first option involves a full width phased implementation of the parkway. Hidden Waters – Final Tech Memo 5 Feasibility Study Maricopa County Department of Transportation 15 Under this Preferred Alignment November 2011 EPS Job No. 10-092 scenario, the outside curb line would be constructed in its ultimate location in each direction with an extra-wide center median. Additional lanes, in each direction, can be added to the median as traffic volumes increase. Details illustrating the full-width phased implementation of the parkway have been provided in Appendix A (refer to Figures 14 and 15 of Appendix A). A second, half-street phasing implementation option could be considered for initial construction efforts. In this case, a half street of the proposed parkway could be constructed first and operated as a traditional arterial roadway allowing left-turns at intersections. The following general descriptions for a half street phased implementation were given in the parkway design guidelines:      4.3 Build outside curb and gutter in its ultimate location and construct three travel lanes and appropriate shoulders; Operate with one lane in each direction of travel and with a striped median lane (continuous two-way left-turn lane); Allow left-turns at intersections similar to a traditional street; Do not build crossovers until the development patterns (and accompanying access locations) on both sides of the roadway have been established in order to optimize the crossover locations. The minimum half-street width is approximately 44’ which corresponds to one-half of the six-lane urban section and will accommodate three travel lanes in the interim condition. Planning Level Cost Estimate The planning level cost estimate for the preferred alternative was revisited based upon the refined layout, recommended numbers of lanes (see section 3.4) and drainage analysis. Table 4-1 summarizes the revised planning level cost estimate. The cost estimate is based upon MCDOT’s 2010 construction cost worksheet. Roadway construction costs and utility relocations both include a 20% contingency cost. The revised detailed cost estimate is referenced in Appendix D. Table 4-1 Summary of Planning Level Cost Estimate Cost Category Factor Construction Preferred Alternative Phased Option No. 1 Phased Option No. 2 $88,700,000 $77,900,000 $56,700,000 Design (10% TO 15%) 12% $10,600,000 $9,300,000 $6,800,000 Construction Management 15% $13,300,000 $11,700,000 $8,500,000 Right-of-Way $104,000,000 $104,000,000 $104,000,000 Structures $21,500,000 $21,500,000 $10,800,000 Utility Relocation $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $8,900,000 $7,800,000 $5,700,000 $247,100,000 $232,300,000 $192,600,000 Administration (8% TO 13%) 10% Total The preferred alignment requires right-of-way from 113 parcels within the Whispering Ranch community. However, the impact to these properties will not affect the usable/buildable area of Hidden Waters – Final Tech Memo 5 Feasibility Study Maricopa County Department of Transportation 16 Preferred Alignment November 2011 EPS Job No. 10-092 the lots. It is anticipated that only one parcel will have impacts significant enough to require full property purchase. At the time of this study there are two existing structures that will be impacted by the proposed alignment. These impacts will need to be reevaluated prior to final design. Table 4-1 also provides estimates of how the initial construction costs could be modified if either of the two phased implementation strategies discussed in the previous section were implemented (assuming that the full right-of-way would be purchased with both phased implementation options). The full-width phased implementation option provides marginal cost savings at best (approximately 5%). The half-street phased option reduces the initial overall cost by approximately 23%. If desirable, an interim roadway could be constructed for the entire route using a reduced right-of-way width potentially saving up to an additional 20% of the ultimate project cost. Hidden Waters – Final Tech Memo 5 Feasibility Study Maricopa County Department of Transportation 17 Preferred Alignment November 2011 EPS Job No. 10-092 Appendix A  Select details from Design Guideline Recommendations for the Arizona Parkway (MCDOT, 2008) Hidden Waters – Final Tech Memo 5 Feasibility Study Maricopa County Department of Transportation Preferred Alignment November, 2011 EPS Job No. 10-092 Hidden Waters – Final Tech Memo 5 Feasibility Study Maricopa County Department of Transportation Preferred Alignment November, 2011 EPS Job No. 10-092 Hidden Waters – Final Tech Memo 5 Feasibility Study Maricopa County Department of Transportation Preferred Alignment November, 2011 EPS Job No. 10-092 Hidden Waters – Final Tech Memo 5 Feasibility Study Maricopa County Department of Transportation Preferred Alignment November, 2011 EPS Job No. 10-092 Hidden Waters – Final Tech Memo 5 Feasibility Study Maricopa County Department of Transportation Preferred Alignment November, 2011 EPS Job No. 10-092 Appendix B  Preferred Alignment Drawings Hidden Waters – Final Tech Memo 5 Feasibility Study Maricopa County Department of Transportation Preferred Alignment November, 2011 EPS Job No. 10-092 P ECT ROJ LIM ITS SR 74 BLACK MOUNTAIN ROAD CAREFREE HIGHWAY DOVE VALLEY ROAD LONE MOUNTAIN ROAD DIXILETA DRIVE B SH 22 MATCH LINE B E TE 22 T EE S H FUTURE HASSAYAMPA FREEWAY T EE 1 T1 9 9 SH EE SH GREENWAY ROAD UNION HILLS DRIVE BELL ROAD +23.67 MCDOT DEER VALLEY ROAD ROAD PEAKVIEW ROAD PATTON GREENWAY ROAD UNION HILLS DRIVE CACTUS AVENUE OLIVE AVENUE PEORIA AVENUE NORTHERN AVENUE NE LI Sta=1033 Off=0.00’ 0.00m Maricopa County Department of Transportation SR 74 BLACK MOUNTAIN ROAD CAREFREE HIGHWAY (ALIGNMENT) DOVE VALLEY ROAD LONE MOUNTAIN ROAD DIXILETA DRIVE PATTON ROAD HAPPY VALLEY ROAD JOMAX ROAD PINNACLE PEAK ROAD Sta=1202+27.27 Off=4.32’ 1.32m GLENDALE AVENUE MA TC H H 233 RD Sta=1419+53.75 Off=0.00’ 0.00m +77.07 Sta=1255 Off=0.00’ 0.00m Sta=1149+41.43 Off=0.00’ 0.00m BETHANY HOME ROAD TC A T2 X RD .68 Sta=1366+48 Off=0.00’ 0.00m L NA CA CAMELBACK ROAD A M E INE CH L MAT A CACTUS ROAD OLIVE AVENUE 0 ET 1 MA EY LL VA RD RD R SD LL HI Sta=1312+51.63 Off=0.00’ 0.00m P CA INDIAN SCHOOL ROAD N LI SHE JO Y PP HA RD EY LL VA SH 2T 424 TEE ESH E THOMAS ROAD .69 K EA EP CL NA PIN ER DE Y LE DS AR BE N IO UN D R LL BE H S I-10 0.00m Off=0.00’ Sta=1060+33 3:59:22 PM NORTHERN PARKWAY BETHANY HOME ROAD CAMELBACK ROAD INDIAN SCHOOL ROAD THOMAS ROAD 10/27/2011 PROJECT LIMITS 0.00m 0.00m Off=0.00’ Sta=993+17.56 +24.56 ’ Sta=929 Off=0.00 0.00m 2.04 Sta=837+7 Off=0.00’ 0.00m 0.00m Off=0.00’ Sta=749+04.91 E AV RD AY NW EE GR D LR EL DD WA US Fax (480) 503-2258 Phone (480) 503-2250 Off=0.00’ 0.00m Off=0.00’ Sta=458+54.75 Sta=383+60.88 Off=0.00’ 0.00m Sta=360+71.16 Off=11.10’ 3.38m 0.00m Off=0.00’ Sta=330+26.47 0.00m Off=0.00’ Sta=298+58.04 Sta=272+43.58 Off=0.00’ 0.00m E SH ESHTEE SHEET 11 SHEET 11 Sta=488+70.59 Sta=422+19.09 Off=0.00’ 0.00m Sta=242+15.88 Off=0.00’ .63 Sta=704+40 Off=0.00’ 0.00m SH CT Engineers, Planners & Surveyors CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY 2045 S. Vineyard Ave., Ste. 101, Mesa, Arizona 85210 ENGINEERING DIVISION DRAWING Sheet INDEX of 33 eps group, Inc. HIDDEN WATERS PARKWAY ALTERNATIVE 2 MARICOPA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 31 SHEET SHEET 31 SHEET 30 SHEET 30 SHEET 29 SHEET 29 2 32 3 T T EE H EES SHEET 28 SHEET 28 1 17 7 ET T E 0.00m SH 0.00m 4 Off=0.00’ 3 Sta=662+70.1 Off=0.00’ 0.00m 14 Sta=222+86.14 0.00m 7 Sta=636+76.0 Off=0.00’ 0.00m T1 Off=0.00’ +17.95 EE 21 T 21 EE ET SHSHE 200 T2 T EE EESH ’ SH ET T E SH 16 EE SH SHEET 27 SHEET 27 SH EE SHEET SHEET 16 16 SHEET SH 188 TEET 1 EESH SH Sta=210+28.84 0.74m SH Sta=576 Off=0.00 0.00m EE T 1 15 5 S:\Projects\2010\10-092\Civil\CAD\TM 5\Alt 2-Developer Framework\DGN\TT005_SS_Alternative2_KeyMap.dgn SHEET 6 33 T3 TEE3 EESH CA SHEET 26 SHEET 26 SHEET 25 SHEET 25 Off=2.44’ 2 112 T TEE ESH T1 T EE 13 3 SH Sta=168+80.24 0.18m Off=0.58’ Sta=115+55.88 0.18m Off=0.59’ E H EE SHEET 7 SHEET 5 SHEET 3 SHEET 2 SHEET 1 Sta=62+80.08 S SH SHEET 9 SHEET 8 SHEET 4 MATCH LINE STA 33+00 SEE BELOW LEFT 30+00 25+00 Proposed R/W Line 50’ 81’ Culvert Proposed EP 56’ 100’ R/W Proposed Pipe Section Line ASLD 20+00 Cst C L 15+00 10+00 Hidden Waters Pkway 56’ 100’ R/W The I-10 /Hidden Waters Exst Roadway Parkway Interchage (Right-of-way Limits Subject to Further Study) Proposed EP 81’ Section Line Exst Roadway Proposed R/W Line ASLD ASLD MATCH LINE STA 61+00 SEE SHEET 2 60+00 55+00 Proposed Pipe Culvert Proposed Pipe Proposed EP 56’ 68’ 56’ 100’ R/W 81’ 74’ 56’ Proposed R/W Line 68’ 50+00 Proposed EP 56’ 100’ R/W 40+00 Section Line 81’ MATCH LINE STA 33+00 SEE UPPER RIGHT 35+00 Cst C L 45+00 Hidden Waters Pkway Exst Roadway Proposed R/W Line Culvert SR 74 BLACK MOUNTAIN ROAD CAREFREE HIGHWAY (ALIGNMENT) DOVE VALLEY ROAD LONE MOUNTAIN ROAD DIXILETA DRIVE PATTON ROAD JOMAX ROAD 200 0 200 400 SCALE IN FEET MARICOPA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION HIDDEN WATERS PARKWAY ENGINEERING DIVISION CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY ALTERNATIVE 2 eps group, Inc. Engineers, Planners & Surveyors Sheet 1 of 33 Phone (480) 503-2250 Fax (480) 503-2258 MCDOT 2045 S. Vineyard Ave., Ste. 101, Mesa, Arizona 85210 Maricopa County Department of Transportation DEER VALLEY ROAD CACTUS AVENUE OLIVE AVENUE NORTHERN AVENUE BETHANY HOME ROAD CAMELBACK ROAD INDIAN SCHOOL ROAD THOMAS ROAD I-10 L NA CA UNION HILLS DRIVE P CA GREENWAY ROAD ASLD Hidden Waters Pkway Cst C L Sta 62+80.00 (Hidden Waters PkwyCst C)= L Sta 00+00.00 (Thomas Rd Cst C) L MATCH LINE STA 89+00 SEE BELOW LEFT 85+00 80+00 Proposed R/W Line 56’ Exst Roadway Proposed EP Exst R/W Exst Roadway Proposed Pipe Culvert Proposed R/W Line Proposed Box Culvert Section line Parcel Line Hidden Waters Pkway Proposed Pipe Culvert Exst R/W Proposed R/W Line Parcel Line PRIVATE LAND Section line Parcel Line Parcel Line SR 74 BLACK MOUNTAIN ROAD CAREFREE HIGHWAY (ALIGNMENT) DOVE VALLEY ROAD LONE MOUNTAIN ROAD DIXILETA DRIVE PATTON ROAD JOMAX ROAD 200 0 200 400 SCALE IN FEET MARICOPA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION HIDDEN WATERS PARKWAY ENGINEERING DIVISION CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY ALTERNATIVE 2 eps group, Inc. Engineers, Planners & Surveyors 2045 S. Vineyard Ave., Ste. 101, Mesa, Arizona 85210 Sheet 2 of 33 Phone (480) 503-2250 Fax (480) 503-2258 MCDOT DEER VALLEY ROAD CACTUS AVENUE OLIVE AVENUE NORTHERN AVENUE BETHANY HOME ROAD CAMELBACK ROAD INDIAN SCHOOL ROAD THOMAS ROAD I-10 L NA CA UNION HILLS DRIVE P CA GREENWAY ROAD Parcel Line Maricopa County Department of Transportation Proposed EP Exst Roadway INDIAN SCHOOL ROAD 100’ R/W 68’ 38’ Culvert 115+00 Sta 87+54.13 (Hidden Waters PkwyCst C)= L Sta 00+00.00 (Indian School Rd Cst C) L MATCH LINE STA 117+00 SEE SHEET 3 Proposed Pipe Proposed EP 110+00 Parcel Line PRIVATE LAND Proposed R/W Line 56’ 100+00 100’ R/W 95+00 90+00 Section line Parcel Line Parcel Line 105+00 PROPOSED BELMONT MPC PROPOSED BELMONT MPC Cst C L MATCH LINE STA 89+00 SEE UPPER RIGHT 56’ 81’ 100’ R/W THOMAS ROAD 68’ 50’ Exist R/W 81’ 100’ R/W 56’ Section line Proposed EP 75+00 70+00 MATCH LINE STA 61+00 SEE SHEET 1 65+00 PRIVATE LAND Cst C L 145+00 Hidden Waters Pkway Proposed EP 56’ 81’ 100’ R/W 56’ 68’ PRIVATE LAND Proposed R/W Line MATCH LINE STA 145+00 SEE BELOW LEFT Proposed R/W Line 81’ 68’ PRIVATE LAND 56’ Section Line Culvert 130+00 Exst R/W Proposed Pipe Parcel Line PROPOSED MILLENNIUM RANCH MPC PRIVATE LAND 100’ R/W PRIVATE LAND Parcel Line 140+00 Parcel Line PROPOSED MILLENNIUM RANCH MPC 135+00 Parcel Line 125+00 MATCH LINE STA 117+00 SEE SHEET 2 PRIVATE LAND 120+00 Parcel Line Proposed EP Proposed Pipe Culvert Exst R/W Proposed Box Culvert Parcel Line PRIVATE LAND Parcel Line Parcel Line MATCH LINE STA 172+00 SEE SHEET 4 68’ 44’ Exst R/W 170+00 165+00 160+00 Proposed EP 68’ 56’ 81’ Proposed R/W Line Proposed EP Exst R/W Section Line PROPOSED HASSAYAMPA RANCH MPC SR 74 BLACK MOUNTAIN ROAD CAREFREE HIGHWAY (ALIGNMENT) DOVE VALLEY ROAD PRIVATE LAND LONE MOUNTAIN ROAD DIXILETA DRIVE JOMAX ROAD 200 0 200 400 SCALE IN FEET MARICOPA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION HIDDEN WATERS PARKWAY ENGINEERING DIVISION CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY ALTERNATIVE 2 eps group, Inc. Engineers, Planners & Surveyors 2045 S. Vineyard Ave., Ste. 101, Mesa, Arizona 85210 Sheet 3 of 33 Phone (480) 503-2250 Fax (480) 503-2258 MCDOT DEER VALLEY ROAD UNION HILLS DRIVE CACTUS AVENUE OLIVE AVENUE NORTHERN AVENUE BETHANY HOME ROAD CAMELBACK ROAD INDIAN SCHOOL ROAD L NA CA GREENWAY ROAD P CA PATTON ROAD Parcel Line Culvert Maricopa County Department of Transportation 100’ R/W Proposed Pipe Existing R/W Section Line PRIVATE LAND THOMAS ROAD Proposed R/W Line 56’ Cst C L Parcel Line I-10 155+00 150+00 Hidden Waters Pkway PROPOSED HASSAYAMPA RANCH MPC 81’ 100’ R/W 145+00 PRIVATE LAND Sta 168+80.25 (Hidden Waters PkwyCst C)= L Sta 00+00.00 (Camelback Rd Cst C) L PROPOSED MILLENNIUM RANCH MPC + MATCH LINE STA 145+00 SEE UPPER RIGHT Parcel Line +00 185 Culvert Proposed R/W Line 44’ Proposed EP 0+ 20 81’ 44’ Proposed Pipe Proposed R/W Line H SE LIN E E SH ST EE A 2 00 T +5 5 0 100’ R/W Culvert 56’ MATCH LINE STA 172+00 SEE SHEET 3 Proposed Pipe 175+00 18 00 0+ 00 81’ PROPOSED HASSAYAMPA RANCH MPC PROPOSED HASSAYAMPA RANCH MPC 195 +00 100’ R/W Proposed Pipe 190+00 Parcel Line Culvert Section Line TC Proposed EP M 44’ A PROPOSED HASSAYAMPA RANCH MPC Hidden Waters Pkway Cst C L SR 74 BLACK MOUNTAIN ROAD CAREFREE HIGHWAY (ALIGNMENT) DOVE VALLEY ROAD LONE MOUNTAIN ROAD DIXILETA DRIVE PATTON ROAD JOMAX ROAD 200 0 200 400 SCALE IN FEET MARICOPA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION HIDDEN WATERS PARKWAY ENGINEERING DIVISION CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY ALTERNATIVE 2 eps group, Inc. Engineers, Planners & Surveyors Sheet 4 of 33 Phone (480) 503-2250 Fax (480) 503-2258 MCDOT 2045 S. Vineyard Ave., Ste. 101, Mesa, Arizona 85210 Maricopa County Department of Transportation DEER VALLEY ROAD CACTUS AVENUE OLIVE AVENUE NORTHERN AVENUE BETHANY HOME ROAD CAMELBACK ROAD INDIAN SCHOOL ROAD THOMAS ROAD I-10 L NA CA UNION HILLS DRIVE P CA GREENWAY ROAD PROPOSED HASSAYAMPA RANCH MPC Section Line 9+00 NE STA 22 MATCH LI FT LE W O EL SEE B Proposed EP Cst C L 225+00 215+00 Culvert 210+00 Proposed Pipe Hidden Waters Pkway PROPOSED BELMONT MPC Exst R/W 44’ 205+0 0 Proposed R/W Line 100’ R/W MA TC H L SE INE ST ES A HE 20 0+ ET 502 4 0 Sta 210+14.11(Hidden Waters PkwyCst C)= L Sta 00+00.00 ( Cst C) L Sta 222+72.67(Hidden Waters PkwyCst C)= L Sta 00+00.00 ( Bethany Home Road Cst C) L 220+00 0+ 00 PROPOSED HASSAYAMPA RANCH MPC 81’ 81’ 56’ Proposed R/W Line Exst R/W PROPOSED HASSAYAMPA RANCH MPC Proposed R/W Line Proposed Pipe 100’ R/W Proposed EP Culvert Proposed Pipe PROPOSED BELMONT MPC Culvert Section Line Sta 242+03.87(Hidden Waters PkwyCst C)= L Sta 00+00.00 ( Cst C) L 0 CH L INE S TA 25 SEE 7+00 SHEE T 6 255+0 235+0 81’ 44’ /W 100’ R Proposed R/W Line Proposed Pipe Exst R/W Culvert Proposed Pipe PROPOSED BELMONT MPC SR 74 BLACK MOUNTAIN ROAD CAREFREE HIGHWAY (ALIGNMENT) DOVE VALLEY ROAD LONE MOUNTAIN ROAD DIXILETA DRIVE PATTON ROAD JOMAX ROAD 200 0 200 400 SCALE IN FEET MARICOPA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION HIDDEN WATERS PARKWAY ENGINEERING DIVISION CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY ALTERNATIVE 2 eps group, Inc. Engineers, Planners & Surveyors Sheet 5 of 33 Phone (480) 503-2250 Fax (480) 503-2258 MCDOT 2045 S. Vineyard Ave., Ste. 101, Mesa, Arizona 85210 Maricopa County Department of Transportation DEER VALLEY ROAD UNION HILLS DRIVE CACTUS AVENUE OLIVE AVENUE NORTHERN AVENUE BETHANY HOME ROAD L NA CA GREENWAY ROAD P CA CAMELBACK ROAD MAT 0 230+0 0 /W 100’ R 81’ Proposed EP Culvert INDIAN SCHOOL ROAD Proposed R/W Line Culvert Proposed R/W Line THOMAS ROAD Proposed EP Proposed Pipe 56’ 9+00 TA 22 INE S T CH L RIGH MAT PPER SEE U I-10 Hidden Waters Pkway Cst C L 250+00 Proposed R/W Line Culvert Exst R/W 245+00 Proposed Box 240+00 PROPOSED BELMONT MPC Section Line Exst R/W 275+00 270+00 265+00 Proposed EP Cst CL 100’ R/W Culvert Proposed R/W Line 280+00 260+00 Hidden Waters Pkway Proposed Pipe 00 285+ STA INE T LEF CH L OW MAT BEL SEE Exst R/W PROPOSED BELMONT MPC Section Line 44’ MATCH LI NE STA 25 7+00 SEE SHEE T 5 PROPOSED BELMONT MPC 00 285+ Sta 272+43.58(Hidden Waters PkwyCst C)= L Sta 00+00.00 ( Cst C)L 81’ 81’ 56’ Proposed Pipe Proposed EP PROPOSED BELMONT MPC PROPOSED BELMONT MPC 100’ R/W Proposed R/W Line Proposed Pipe Culvert Proposed EP Cst CL +00 Hidden Waters Pkway TA 313 LINE S MATCH EET 7 SEE SH 300+00 295+00 Proposed R/W Line 81’ 56’ 100’ R/W Proposed EP 310+00 Sta 298+58.04(Hidden Waters PkwyCst C)= L Sta 00+00.00 ( Cst C) L 0 290+0 Proposed R/W Line Culvert PROPOSED BELMONT MPC 305+00 285+ Proposed Pipe PROPOSED BELMONT MPC Proposed EP Culvert PROPOSED BELMONT MPC SR 74 BLACK MOUNTAIN ROAD CAREFREE HIGHWAY (ALIGNMENT) Proposed R/W Line DOVE VALLEY ROAD PATTON ROAD JOMAX ROAD 200 0 200 400 SCALE IN FEET MARICOPA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION HIDDEN WATERS PARKWAY ENGINEERING DIVISION CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY ALTERNATIVE 2 eps group, Inc. Engineers, Planners & Surveyors Sheet 6 of 33 Phone (480) 503-2250 Fax (480) 503-2258 MCDOT 2045 S. Vineyard Ave., Ste. 101, Mesa, Arizona 85210 Maricopa County Department of Transportation DEER VALLEY ROAD CACTUS AVENUE OLIVE AVENUE NORTHERN AVENUE BETHANY HOME ROAD CAMELBACK ROAD INDIAN SCHOOL ROAD THOMAS ROAD I-10 L NA CA UNION HILLS DRIVE P CA GREENWAY ROAD PROPOSED BELMONT MPC Proposed Pipe LONE MOUNTAIN ROAD Proposed EP DIXILETA DRIVE Proposed R/W Line 100’ R/W 44’ 81’ MAT CH L INE STA SEE UPP 285+ ER R 00 IGH T 00 Culvert 3+00 A 31 E ST LIN 6 ET TCH SHE SEE PROPOSED BELMONT MPC Proposed R/W Line PROPOSED BELMONT MPC 0 341+0 E STA H LIN T RIGH MATC PPER SEE U 360+00 ASLD (PROPOSED BELMONT MPC) Proposed R/W Line Proposed EP Exst R/W Proposed R/W Line Proposed EP 44’ 100’ R/W 81’ 56’ Culvert 81’ 345+0 Proposed EP 100’ R/W 350+00 Cst C L 0 Proposed R/W Line 355+00 Hidden Waters Pkway ASLD (PROPOSED BELMONT MPC) Section Line Sta 360+71.11(Hidden Waters PkwyCst C)= L Sta 00+00.00 (Cst C) L Proposed EP Proposed Box MATCH LINE STA 369+00 SEE SHEET 8 Proposed R/W Line 365+00 100’ R/W Proposed EP 44’ 81’ 81’ Proposed EP 341+00 MATCH LINE STA SEE BELOW LEFT MA 56’ Cst C L 340+00 Culvert Proposed R/W Line Hidden Waters Pkway 335+00 Proposed Pipe ASLD (PROPOSED BELMONT MPC) Exst R/W 330+00 Proposed R/W Line Section Line 100’ R/W 00 315+ Proposed EP Sta 330+26.21(Hidden Waters PkwyCst C)= L Sta 00+00.00 (Northern Pkway Cst C) L PROPOSED BELMONT MPC 325+00 320+00 Exst R/W Proposed EP Proposed Pipe Culvert Proposed R/W Line PROPOSED BELMONT MPC SR 74 BLACK MOUNTAIN ROAD CAREFREE HIGHWAY (ALIGNMENT) DOVE VALLEY ROAD LONE MOUNTAIN ROAD DIXILETA DRIVE PATTON ROAD JOMAX ROAD 200 0 200 400 SCALE IN FEET MARICOPA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION HIDDEN WATERS PARKWAY ENGINEERING DIVISION CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY ALTERNATIVE 2 eps group, Inc. Engineers, Planners & Surveyors Sheet 7 of 33 Phone (480) 503-2250 Fax (480) 503-2258 MCDOT 2045 S. Vineyard Ave., Ste. 101, Mesa, Arizona 85210 Maricopa County Department of Transportation DEER VALLEY ROAD CACTUS AVENUE OLIVE AVENUE NORTHERN AVENUE BETHANY HOME ROAD CAMELBACK ROAD INDIAN SCHOOL ROAD THOMAS ROAD I-10 L NA CA UNION HILLS DRIVE P CA GREENWAY ROAD PROPOSED BELMONT MPC 00 395+ PROPOSED BELMONT MPC Exst R/W 390+00 0 Proposed R/W Line 385+0 Proposed EP 44’ 100’ R/W Section Line Proposed Pipe Proposed R/W Line 56’ Proposed EP 81’ 81’ Cst C L Sta 383+60.88 (Hidden Waters PkwyCst C)= L Sta 00+00.00 (Olive Ave Cst C) L 380+00 375+00 370+00 Hidden Waters Pkway +55 397 STA EFT INE HL WL TC LO BE MA SEE MATCH LINE STA 369+00 SEE SHEET 7 Proposed R/W Line Proposed EP ASLD (PROPOSED BELMONT MPC) Proposed Pipe Culvert PROPOSED BELMONT MPC Proposed R/W Line Proposed EP HL INE SE ST E S HE A 426 ET +00 9 81’ 56’ 5 A 397+5 LINE ST MATCH HT PER RIG SEE UP 425 +00 Cst C L Proposed EP Sta 422+19.09 (Hidden Waters Pkwy Cst C)= L Sta 00+00.00 (Cst C) L 00 0 405+0 0 Proposed R/W Line Proposed R/W Line Proposed R/W Line 81’ 400+0 Proposed EP Hidden Waters Pkway PROPOSED BELMONT MPC 44’ 100’ R/W PROPOSED BELMONT MPC 410+00 PROPOSED BELMONT MPC Proposed EP 420+ Culvert Section Line 415+00 Proposed Pipe 100’ R/W Culvert Proposed EP Proposed Pipe Exst R/W Culvert Proposed Pipe Proposed R/W Line Culvert Proposed EP PROPOSED BELMONT MPC Culvert Proposed EP Proposed R/W Line Proposed R/W Line MA Proposed Pipe TC Section Line SR 74 BLACK MOUNTAIN ROAD CAREFREE HIGHWAY (ALIGNMENT) DOVE VALLEY ROAD LONE MOUNTAIN ROAD DIXILETA DRIVE PATTON ROAD JOMAX ROAD 200 0 200 400 SCALE IN FEET MARICOPA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION HIDDEN WATERS PARKWAY ENGINEERING DIVISION CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY ALTERNATIVE 2 eps group, Inc. Engineers, Planners & Surveyors Sheet 8 of 33 Phone (480) 503-2250 Fax (480) 503-2258 MCDOT 2045 S. Vineyard Ave., Ste. 101, Mesa, Arizona 85210 Maricopa County Department of Transportation DEER VALLEY ROAD CACTUS AVENUE OLIVE AVENUE NORTHERN AVENUE BETHANY HOME ROAD CAMELBACK ROAD INDIAN SCHOOL ROAD THOMAS ROAD I-10 L NA CA UNION HILLS DRIVE P CA GREENWAY ROAD Exst R/W +00 455 44’ PROPOSED BELMONT MPC PROPOSED BELMONT MPC 44’ 100’ R/W 44’ 56’ 81’ 81’ 56’ Section Line Proposed EP 0 450+0 100’ R/W Proposed R/W Line 445+00 440+00 Cst CL 435+00 PROPOSED BELMONT MPC 44’ MATCH LINE STA 426+00 SEE SHEET 8 430+00 Crossing +00 454 STA FT E INE WL HL TC LO MA E E B E S Hidden Waters Pkway Proposed Bridge Proposed Pipe Culvert PROPOSED BELMONT MPC Proposed EP Proposed R/W Line Section Line Exst R/W Proposed EP MATCH LINE STA 482+00 SEE SHEET 10 Proposed R/W Line 100’ R/W 44’ 81’ 56’ 81’ 44’ PROPOSED BELMONT MPC 480+00 475+00 470+00 Cst CL 100’ R/W 465+00 Hidden Waters Pkway 460+00 455+00 MATCH LINE STA 454 +00 SEE UPPER RIGHT Sta 458+54.75(Hidden Waters PkwyCst C)= L Sta 00+00.00 ( Cst C) L PROPOSED BELMONT MPC Proposed Box Culvert Proposed EP Proposed Pipe Proposed R/W Line Culvert PROPOSED BELMONT MPC SR 74 BLACK MOUNTAIN ROAD CAREFREE HIGHWAY (ALIGNMENT) DOVE VALLEY ROAD LONE MOUNTAIN ROAD DIXILETA DRIVE PATTON ROAD JOMAX ROAD 200 0 200 400 SCALE IN FEET MARICOPA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION HIDDEN WATERS PARKWAY ENGINEERING DIVISION CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY ALTERNATIVE 2 eps group, Inc. Engineers, Planners & Surveyors Sheet 9 of 33 Phone (480) 503-2250 Fax (480) 503-2258 MCDOT 2045 S. Vineyard Ave., Ste. 101, Mesa, Arizona 85210 Maricopa County Department of Transportation DEER VALLEY ROAD CACTUS AVENUE OLIVE AVENUE NORTHERN AVENUE BETHANY HOME ROAD CAMELBACK ROAD INDIAN SCHOOL ROAD THOMAS ROAD I-10 L NA CA UNION HILLS DRIVE P CA GREENWAY ROAD Section Line Hidden Waters Pkway Proposed Pipe 100’ R/W 44’ 81’ 56’ 81’ Culvert MATCH LINE STA 511+00 SEE SHEET 11 505+00 44’ Proposed EP 500+00 495+00 Proposed R/W Line 44’ 100’ R/W 490+00 485+00 MATCH LINE STA 482+00 SEE SHEET 9 PROPOSED BELMONT MPC PROPOSED BELMONT MPC Cst C L 510+00 Sta 488+70.59(Hidden Waters PkwyCst C)= L Sta 00+00.00 ( Cactus Cst C) L Proposed EP Proposed Box Proposed R/W Line Culvert PROPOSED BELMONT MPC PROPOSED BELMONT MPC SR 74 BLACK MOUNTAIN ROAD CAREFREE HIGHWAY (ALIGNMENT) DOVE VALLEY ROAD LONE MOUNTAIN ROAD DIXILETA DRIVE PATTON ROAD JOMAX ROAD 200 0 200 400 SCALE IN FEET MARICOPA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION HIDDEN WATERS PARKWAY ENGINEERING DIVISION CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY ALTERNATIVE 2 eps group, Inc. Engineers, Planners & Surveyors Sheet 10 of 33 Phone (480) 503-2250 Fax (480) 503-2258 MCDOT 2045 S. Vineyard Ave., Ste. 101, Mesa, Arizona 85210 Maricopa County Department of Transportation DEER VALLEY ROAD CACTUS AVENUE OLIVE AVENUE NORTHERN AVENUE BETHANY HOME ROAD CAMELBACK ROAD INDIAN SCHOOL ROAD THOMAS ROAD I-10 L NA CA UNION HILLS DRIVE P CA GREENWAY ROAD Section Line 525 +00 56’ 515+00 520+ 5200 0+00 PROPOSED BELMONT MPC +00 511 STA 0 1 INE ET HL TC HE ES MA SE Proposed R/W Line 44’ 53 0+ 00 Proposed EP W Proposed Pipe 10 0’ R/ Culvert 81 ’ P A C 53 5+ 00 81 ’ 44 ’ Sta 511+93.40(Hidden Waters PkwyCst C)= L Sta 00+00.00 (Cst C) L W Proposed Pipe 44 ’ 10 0’ R/ Culvert PROPOSED BELMONT MPC 00 + Proposed EP 0 54 Proposed R/W Line 0 +5 2 54 Y NT PA COU ICO ED MAR A 2 ST T 1 E IN E L H S H E C T E S A RPORAT UNINCO E YE E F BUCK TOWN O M SR 74 BLACK MOUNTAIN ROAD CAREFREE HIGHWAY (ALIGNMENT) DOVE VALLEY ROAD LONE MOUNTAIN ROAD DIXILETA DRIVE PATTON ROAD JOMAX ROAD 200 0 200 400 SCALE IN FEET MARICOPA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION HIDDEN WATERS PARKWAY ENGINEERING DIVISION CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY ALTERNATIVE 2 eps group, Inc. Engineers, Planners & Surveyors Sheet 11 of 33 Phone (480) 503-2250 Fax (480) 503-2258 MCDOT 2045 S. Vineyard Ave., Ste. 101, Mesa, Arizona 85210 Maricopa County Department of Transportation DEER VALLEY ROAD CACTUS AVENUE OLIVE AVENUE NORTHERN AVENUE BETHANY HOME ROAD CAMELBACK ROAD INDIAN SCHOOL ROAD THOMAS ROAD I-10 L NA CA UNION HILLS DRIVE P CA GREENWAY ROAD PROPOSED DOUGLAS RANCH PAD Jackrabbit Wash Proposed R/W Line Proposed EP 570+00 56’ 100’ R/W 81’ 2+50 A 54 E ST 1 LIN ET 1 TCH SHE SEE 81’ MA MATCH LINE STA 571+50 SEE BELOW LEFT Section Line PROPOSED DOUGLAS RANCH PAD 44’ Parcel Line 565+00 Cst C L Crossing Proposed R/W Line 100’ R/W Hidden Waters Pkway CAP 560+00 555+00 550+00 545+00 Proposed Bridge Proposed EP PROPOSED DOUGLAS RANCH PAD 00 Proposed R/W Line CAP 575+ Proposed EP 590+00 585+00 Parcel Line Hidden Waters Pkway 600+0 PROPOSED DOUGLAS RANCH PAD Cst C L 81’ MA 44’ Proposed EP 100’ R/W Proposed R/W Line 595+0 0 CAP 580+00 Proposed EP 56’ 81’ Section Line Proposed R/W Line Proposed EP Proposed R/W Line SR 74 Culvert BLACK MOUNTAIN ROAD CAREFREE HIGHWAY (ALIGNMENT) DOVE VALLEY ROAD LONE MOUNTAIN ROAD DIXILETA DRIVE PATTON ROAD JOMAX ROAD 200 0 200 400 SCALE IN FEET MARICOPA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION HIDDEN WATERS PARKWAY ENGINEERING DIVISION CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY ALTERNATIVE 2 eps group, Inc. Engineers, Planners & Surveyors 2045 S. Vineyard Ave., Ste. 101, Mesa, Arizona 85210 Sheet 12 of 33 Phone (480) 503-2250 Fax (480) 503-2258 MCDOT DEER VALLEY ROAD CACTUS AVENUE OLIVE AVENUE NORTHERN AVENUE BETHANY HOME ROAD CAMELBACK ROAD INDIAN SCHOOL ROAD THOMAS ROAD L NA CA UNION HILLS DRIVE P CA GREENWAY ROAD Culvert I-10 Proposed Pipe 100’ R/W Proposed Pipe PROPOSED DOUGLAS RANCH PAD Maricopa County Department of Transportation TC HL INE SE EU STA PPE R R 571+5 0 IGH T Sta 576+52.61 (Hidden Waters PkwyCst C)= L Sta 00+00.00 (Cst C) L 00+00 STA 6 LINE H T F C E T L MA ELOW SEE B 570 0 +00 Section Line Parcel Line Proposed R/W Line 625+00 620+00 PROPOSED DOUGLAS RANCH PAD CAP 100’ R/W 44’ 81’ 81’ MATCH LINE STA 628+00 SEE BELOW LEFT 44’ 100’ R/W MATCH LINE STA 600+00 SEE SHEET 12 Proposed EP 615+00 Cst CL 610+00 605+00 CAP 600+00 Hidden Waters Pkway CAP Section Line PROPOSED DOUGLAS RANCH PAD Proposed EP Proposed R/W Line Hidden Waters Pkway Section Line 100’ R/W 650+00 CAP CAP Proposed R/W Line 44’ 100’ R/W 81’ 56’ MATCH LINE STA 656+00 SEE SHEET 14 PROPOSED DOUGLAS RANCH PAD 81’ Proposed EP Proposed EP SR 74 BLACK MOUNTAIN ROAD PROPOSED DOUGLAS RANCH PAD CAREFREE HIGHWAY (ALIGNMENT) LONE MOUNTAIN ROAD DIXILETA DRIVE PATTON ROAD JOMAX ROAD 200 0 200 400 SCALE IN FEET MARICOPA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION HIDDEN WATERS PARKWAY ENGINEERING DIVISION CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY ALTERNATIVE 2 eps group, Inc. Engineers, Planners & Surveyors Sheet 13 of 33 Phone (480) 503-2250 Fax (480) 503-2258 MCDOT 2045 S. Vineyard Ave., Ste. 101, Mesa, Arizona 85210 Maricopa County Department of Transportation DEER VALLEY ROAD CACTUS AVENUE OLIVE AVENUE NORTHERN AVENUE BETHANY HOME ROAD CAMELBACK ROAD INDIAN SCHOOL ROAD THOMAS ROAD L NA CA GREENWAY ROAD P CA UNION HILLS DRIVE PROPOSED DOUGLAS RANCH PAD Proposed R/W Line DOVE VALLEY ROAD 0kV Western 23 Lines Transmission Proposed EP I-10 Proposed R/W Line 645+00 Proposed EP Cst CL L 640+00 635+00 Proposed R/W Line MATCH LINE STA 628+00 SEE UPPER RIGHT CAP 630+00 Parcel Line 655+00 Sta 636+67.95 (Hidden Waters PkwyCst C)= Sta 00+00.00 (Cst C) L 6756+7 050+00 CAP 680 +00 Proposed EP PROPOSED DOUGLAS RANCH PAD Proposed R/W Line 81’ Proposed R/W Line Cst C L 56’ 81’ 100’ R/W 00 6706+7000+ 00 665+ Parcel Line 00 660+ CAP Hidden Waters Pkway Sta 662+66.76 (Hidden Waters PkwyCst C)= Sta 00+00.00 (Greenway Rd Cst C) L L 685 +00 44’ TC HL SEE INE S TA BE 6 LO W L 85+00 EFT Culvert Western 345kV ine ission L Transm 00 656+ STA INE 3 CH L ET 1 MAT SHE SEE Proposed Box 100’ R/W Proposed EP Proposed EP Proposed R/W Line Section Line PROPOSED DOUGLAS RANCH PAD MA Proposed EP 00 705+ +00 690+ 695+00 00 TCH LIN SEE ES T UP PER A 685+ 00 RIG HT 00 +00 44’ 100’ R/W PROPOSED DOUGLAS RANCH PAD Proposed EP 700+ 685 Hidden Waters Pkway Proposed R/W Line Proposed EP 81’ MA 13 TA 7 INE S 5 CH L ET 1 SHE SEE Parcel Line CAP Cst C L Proposed R/W Line 56’ 81’ Proposed EP SR 74 BLACK MOUNTAIN ROAD CAREFREE HIGHWAY (ALIGNMENT) DOVE VALLEY ROAD LONE MOUNTAIN ROAD DIXILETA DRIVE PATTON ROAD JOMAX ROAD 200 0 200 400 SCALE IN FEET MARICOPA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION HIDDEN WATERS PARKWAY ENGINEERING DIVISION CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY ALTERNATIVE 2 eps group, Inc. Engineers, Planners & Surveyors Sheet 14 of 33 Phone (480) 503-2250 Fax (480) 503-2258 MCDOT 2045 S. Vineyard Ave., Ste. 101, Mesa, Arizona 85210 Maricopa County Department of Transportation DEER VALLEY ROAD UNION HILLS DRIVE GREENWAY ROAD CACTUS AVENUE OLIVE AVENUE NORTHERN AVENUE BETHANY HOME ROAD CAMELBACK ROAD L NA CA INDIAN SCHOOL ROAD 100’ R/W P CA THOMAS ROAD PROPOSED DOUGLAS RANCH PAD PROPOSED DOUGLAS RANCH PAD Proposed R/W Line I-10 L MAT Sta 704+40.63 (Hidden Waters PkwyCst C)= Sta 00+00.00 ( Cst C) L 00 710+ Proposed R/W Line 730+00 PROPOSED DOUGLAS RANCH PAD Proposed EP 00 740+ 725+00 ASLD Proposed R/W Line 735+00 720+00 71 71 5+ 5+ 00 00 /W 100’ R Culvert 1+ 50 A 74 E ST T LIN LEF TCH OW MA BEL SEE CAP 44’ STA 713+00 SEE SHEET 14 Section Line Parcel Line Proposed Pipe CO U N /W 100’ R TY 81’ 56’ MATCH LINE 81 ’ C K D ASLD ASLD 755+00 56’ 750+00 Culvert 770+00 0 765+00 Proposed EP 81’ 56’ MA Proposed R/W Line MATCH LINE STA 770+00 SEE SHEET 16 Proposed Pipe 00 ASLD 745+ Culvert 100’ R/W TCH L SEE INE S TA UP 741 PER RIG +50 HT Proposed Pipe 760+ 00 U N IN TO CO W N RP O O F Cst CL RA B U Hidden Waters Pkway RANCH PAD TE Proposed R/W Line PROPOSED DOUGLAS M A EY E RI CO PA Proposed EP 81’ 44’ Proposed EP Proposed EP Proposed Bridge Proposed R/W Line Crossing Section Line Sta 749+04.91 (Hidden Waters PkwyCst C)= Sta 00+00.00 (Bell Rd Cst C) L L 100’ R/W 44’ Proposed R/W Line ASLD Hidden Waters Pkway SR 74 BLACK MOUNTAIN ROAD CAREFREE HIGHWAY (ALIGNMENT) DOVE VALLEY ROAD LONE MOUNTAIN ROAD DIXILETA DRIVE PATTON ROAD JOMAX ROAD 200 0 200 400 SCALE IN FEET MARICOPA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION HIDDEN WATERS PARKWAY ENGINEERING DIVISION CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY ALTERNATIVE 2 eps group, Inc. Engineers, Planners & Surveyors Sheet 15 of 33 Phone (480) 503-2250 Fax (480) 503-2258 MCDOT 2045 S. Vineyard Ave., Ste. 101, Mesa, Arizona 85210 Maricopa County Department of Transportation DEER VALLEY ROAD CACTUS AVENUE OLIVE AVENUE NORTHERN AVENUE BETHANY HOME ROAD CAMELBACK ROAD INDIAN SCHOOL ROAD THOMAS ROAD I-10 L NA CA UNION HILLS DRIVE P CA GREENWAY ROAD Cst CL 780+00 Culvert +00 MATCH LINE STA 798 SEE BELOW LEFT 795+00 790+00 Proposed R/W Line 81’ 81’ 44’ 100’ R/W ASLD Proposed Pipe Culvert 785+00 +00 +00 775 775 Proposed Pipe 00 770+ STA INE 5 CH L ET 1 MAT SHE SE E 00 770+ Proposed EP 100’ R/W Proposed Box Culvert ASLD 820+00 820+00 00 0 810+0 815+ E UNTY CKEY PA CO OF BU RICO D MA E T A R ORPO PRIVATE LAND NINC Section Line TOWN U /W 81’ HL INE SE ST ES HE A 826 +00 ET 17 805+00 44’ /W TC 100’ R MA 81’ Proposed Pipe MA 00 100’ R 800+ RANCH PAD Proposed EP Proposed R/W Line 44’ TCH LIN E ST SEE A 79 UPP 8+0 ER 0 RIG HT PROPOSED DOUGLAS E Y CKEY OUNT OF BU OPA C ARIC ED M ORAT CORP TOWN UNIN ASLD Proposed R/W Line +00 Pro pos ed Tra AP nsm S5 issi 00 on kV Lin e 44’ Proposed EP Culvert 825 Proposed Pipe Culvert Proposed R/W Line ASLD SR 74 BLACK MOUNTAIN ROAD CAREFREE HIGHWAY (ALIGNMENT) DOVE VALLEY ROAD LONE MOUNTAIN ROAD DIXILETA DRIVE PATTON ROAD JOMAX ROAD 200 0 200 400 SCALE IN FEET MARICOPA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION HIDDEN WATERS PARKWAY ENGINEERING DIVISION CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY ALTERNATIVE 2 eps group, Inc. Engineers, Planners & Surveyors Sheet 16 of 33 Phone (480) 503-2250 Fax (480) 503-2258 MCDOT 2045 S. Vineyard Ave., Ste. 101, Mesa, Arizona 85210 Maricopa County Department of Transportation DEER VALLEY ROAD UNION HILLS DRIVE CACTUS AVENUE OLIVE AVENUE NORTHERN AVENUE BETHANY HOME ROAD CAMELBACK ROAD INDIAN SCHOOL ROAD THOMAS ROAD L NA CA GREENWAY ROAD P CA I-10 PRIVATE LAND Proposed EP Section Line TO W 00 5+ PA TY CO U N B U O PRIVATE LAND Proposed R/W Line Proposed EP RP CO Culvert Proposed Pipe Culvert PRIVATE LAND 44’ PROPOSED DOUGLAS RANCH PAD Proposed Pipe Culvert 100’ R/W Proposed Pipe L 56’ Sta 837+72.04 (Hidden Waters PkwyCst C)= Sta 00+00.00 (Union Hills Drive Cst C) L 81’ 56’ U N IN TO +00 820 TA 6 S 1 E T LIN EE CH E SH T MA SE W N O F 82 TY +00 855 CO Cst CL +00 854 STA T E LEF LIN TCH LOW A E B M SEE RI 850+00 A Hidden Waters Pkway 845+00 M 44’ PRIVATE LAND N E D 81’ EY TE U K RA CO O PROPOSED DOUGLAS RANCH PAD 100’ R/W C PA U C K EY E TE D M A RI CO B RP RA O F CO 840+00 IN 835+00 N N 830+00 U Proposed Pipe PRIVATE LAND Parcel Line Proposed EP Culvert Parcel Line RATED RPO UNINCO 56’ 81’ EYE F BUCK TOWN O NTY PA COU MARICO Proposed Pipe Proposed Pipe Proposed Pipe Culvert Culvert Proposed EP 100’ R/W MA A 882+00 LINE ST MATCH ET 18 E SEE SH 875+00 44’ 81’ 865+00 100’ R/W 85 860+00 Proposed EP OUNTY Culvert 870+00 5+ 00 ICOPA C TC H SE LIN EU ES TA PP ER 85 4+ RI GH 00 T ED MAR Proposed Box Proposed R/W Line EYE RPORAT Cst CL PRIVATE LAND PROPOSED DOUGLAS RANCH PAD F BUCK UNINCO TOWN O Hidden Waters Pkway 880+00 Proposed R/W Line Culvert Proposed R/W Line PRIVATE LAND PRIVATE LAND SR 74 BLACK MOUNTAIN ROAD CAREFREE HIGHWAY (ALIGNMENT) DOVE VALLEY ROAD LONE MOUNTAIN ROAD DIXILETA DRIVE PATTON ROAD JOMAX ROAD 200 0 200 400 SCALE IN FEET MARICOPA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION HIDDEN WATERS PARKWAY ENGINEERING DIVISION CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY ALTERNATIVE 2 eps group, Inc. Engineers, Planners & Surveyors Sheet 17 of 33 Phone (480) 503-2250 Fax (480) 503-2258 MCDOT 2045 S. Vineyard Ave., Ste. 101, Mesa, Arizona 85210 Maricopa County Department of Transportation CACTUS AVENUE OLIVE AVENUE NORTHERN AVENUE BETHANY HOME ROAD CAMELBACK ROAD INDIAN SCHOOL ROAD THOMAS ROAD I-10 L NA CA DEER VALLEY ROAD P CA UNION HILLS DRIVE Section Line GREENWAY ROAD Section Line PROPOSED DOUGLAS RANCH PAD 910+00 +00 940 0 +5 938 TA S 9 INE T 1 HL EE TC SH E MA SE 00 935+ 44’ PROPOSED DOUGLAS RANCH PAD Proposed Pipe Culvert SR 74 BLACK MOUNTAIN ROAD CAREFREE HIGHWAY (ALIGNMENT) DOVE VALLEY ROAD LONE MOUNTAIN ROAD DIXILETA DRIVE PATTON ROAD JOMAX ROAD 200 0 200 400 SCALE IN FEET MARICOPA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION HIDDEN WATERS PARKWAY ENGINEERING DIVISION CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY ALTERNATIVE 2 eps group, Inc. Engineers, Planners & Surveyors Sheet 18 of 33 Phone (480) 503-2250 Fax (480) 503-2258 MCDOT 2045 S. Vineyard Ave., Ste. 101, Mesa, Arizona 85210 Maricopa County Department of Transportation DEER VALLEY ROAD Culvert 100’ R/W 44’ Proposed Pipe Proposed R/W Line UNION HILLS DRIVE CACTUS AVENUE OLIVE AVENUE NORTHERN AVENUE L NA CA GREENWAY ROAD P CA BETHANY HOME ROAD 44’ 81’ 56’ Proposed Pipe Proposed EP CAMELBACK ROAD 56’ 81’ NTY Culvert INDIAN SCHOOL ROAD 930+00 COU PRIVATE LAND THOMAS ROAD 44’ 44’ Proposed EP 56’ MAT Proposed R/W Line 100’ R/W E TOW Cst C L 925+00 00 915+ KEY PROPOSED DOUGLAS RANCH PAD PROPOSED DOUGLAS RANCH PAD Hidden Waters Pkway 920+00 910+ Section Line OPA Culvert PRIVATE LAND Sta 929+24.56(Hidden Waters PkwyCst C)= L Sta 00+00.00 (Cst C) L N OF BUC Section Line ARIC Proposed Pipe TOW 00 Proposed R/W Line CH L INE STA SEE 910+ UPP 00 ER R IGH T MATCH LINE STA 910+00 SEE BELOW LEFT Proposed Pipe Culvert N OF BUC KEY UNIN E COR POR ATE DM 44’ 81’ 100’ R/W Proposed EP PRIVATE LAND I-10 905+00 Section Line 81’ Proposed EP 44’ Proposed R/W Line 100’ R/W 895+00 890+00 885+00 MATCH LINE STA 882+00 SEE SHEET 17 Cst C L 900+00 Hidden Waters Pkway PROPOSED DOUGLAS RANCH PAD Hidden Waters Pkway 950+00 965 Culvert LIN E E S STA 9 67+ HE 00 ET 20 MA Proposed R/W Line SE Proposed EP TCH 100’ R/W 44’ 81’ MATC 81’ 44’ 100’ R/W 945+00 H LIN E STA 938+5 SEE S 0 HEET 18 Proposed EP 960+00 955+00 940+0 Proposed Pipe Proposed R/W Line +00 0 Cst C L SR 74 BLACK MOUNTAIN ROAD CAREFREE HIGHWAY (ALIGNMENT) DOVE VALLEY ROAD LONE MOUNTAIN ROAD DIXILETA DRIVE PATTON ROAD JOMAX ROAD 200 0 200 400 SCALE IN FEET MARICOPA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION HIDDEN WATERS PARKWAY ENGINEERING DIVISION CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY ALTERNATIVE 2 eps group, Inc. Engineers, Planners & Surveyors Sheet 19 of 33 Phone (480) 503-2250 Fax (480) 503-2258 MCDOT 2045 S. Vineyard Ave., Ste. 101, Mesa, Arizona 85210 Maricopa County Department of Transportation DEER VALLEY ROAD CACTUS AVENUE OLIVE AVENUE NORTHERN AVENUE BETHANY HOME ROAD CAMELBACK ROAD INDIAN SCHOOL ROAD THOMAS ROAD I-10 L NA CA UNION HILLS DRIVE P CA GREENWAY ROAD PROPOSED DOUGLAS RANCH PAD Hidden Waters Pkway Section Line Cst CL PROPOSED DOUGLAS RANCH PAD PROPOSED DOUGLAS RANCH PAD Proposed EP 44’ Proposed R/W Line HL INE SE ST ES A9 HE 96+ ET 00 21 R/W 100’ 00 PROPOSED DOUGLAS RANCH PAD MA TC PROPOSED DOUGLAS RANCH PAD SR 74 BLACK MOUNTAIN ROAD CAREFREE HIGHWAY (ALIGNMENT) DOVE VALLEY ROAD LONE MOUNTAIN ROAD DIXILETA DRIVE PATTON ROAD JOMAX ROAD 200 0 200 400 SCALE IN FEET MARICOPA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION HIDDEN WATERS PARKWAY ENGINEERING DIVISION CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY ALTERNATIVE 2 eps group, Inc. Engineers, Planners & Surveyors 2045 S. Vineyard Ave., Ste. 101, Mesa, Arizona 85210 Sheet 20 of 33 Phone (480) 503-2250 Fax (480) 503-2258 MCDOT DEER VALLEY ROAD CACTUS AVENUE OLIVE AVENUE NORTHERN AVENUE BETHANY HOME ROAD CAMELBACK ROAD INDIAN SCHOOL ROAD THOMAS ROAD I-10 L NA CA UNION HILLS DRIVE P CA GREENWAY ROAD Sta 993+17.56(Hidden Waters PkwyCst C)= L Sta 00+00.00 (Cst C) L Maricopa County Department of Transportation 7+ 96 A ST 19 NE ET LI E SH CH AT SEE 44’ M 995 81’ +00 56’ 56’ 81’ 990 +00 44’ 985+ 00 Proposed EP 44’ 00 975+ R/W 100’ 0 970 +0 980+00 Proposed R/W Line 00 5+ 2 10 00 0+ Cst CL 0 1015 1010+00 56’ 44’ 100’ R/W 1005+00 100 TC PROPOSED DOUGLAS RANCH PAD 100’ R/W 44’ 44’ 81’ 81’ MA 50 +00 0+0 Proposed EP 102 Hidden Waters Pkway Proposed R/W Line + 24 10 A 22 ST ET NE LI HE CH E S AT SE HL INE 995 SE ST +00 E S A9 HE 96+ ET 00 20 M PROPOSED DOUGLAS RANCH PAD Proposed EP Proposed R/W Line SR 74 BLACK MOUNTAIN ROAD CAREFREE HIGHWAY (ALIGNMENT) DOVE VALLEY ROAD LONE MOUNTAIN ROAD DIXILETA DRIVE PATTON ROAD JOMAX ROAD 200 0 200 400 SCALE IN FEET MARICOPA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION HIDDEN WATERS PARKWAY ENGINEERING DIVISION CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY ALTERNATIVE 2 eps group, Inc. Engineers, Planners & Surveyors Sheet 21 of 33 Phone (480) 503-2250 Fax (480) 503-2258 MCDOT 2045 S. Vineyard Ave., Ste. 101, Mesa, Arizona 85210 Maricopa County Department of Transportation DEER VALLEY ROAD CACTUS AVENUE OLIVE AVENUE NORTHERN AVENUE BETHANY HOME ROAD CAMELBACK ROAD INDIAN SCHOOL ROAD THOMAS ROAD I-10 L NA CA UNION HILLS DRIVE P CA GREENWAY ROAD PROPOSED DOUGLAS RANCH PAD PROPOSED DOUGLAS RANCH PAD PROPOSED DOUGLAS RANCH PAD Hidden Waters Pkway 0 Proposed EP HL INE SE STA ES 105 HE 2+0 ET 0 23 44’ Proposed Box 56’ 44’ Proposed EP Culvert Proposed R/W Line PROPOSED DOUGLAS RANCH PAD SR 74 BLACK MOUNTAIN ROAD CAREFREE HIGHWAY (ALIGNMENT) DOVE VALLEY ROAD LONE MOUNTAIN ROAD DIXILETA DRIVE PATTON ROAD JOMAX ROAD DEER VALLEY ROAD UNION HILLS DRIVE CACTUS AVENUE OLIVE AVENUE NORTHERN AVENUE BETHANY HOME ROAD CAMELBACK ROAD INDIAN SCHOOL ROAD L NA CA GREENWAY ROAD P THOMAS ROAD PROPOSED DOUGLAS RANCH PAD Section Line CA 200 0 200 400 SCALE IN FEET MARICOPA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION HIDDEN WATERS PARKWAY ENGINEERING DIVISION CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY ALTERNATIVE 2 eps group, Inc. Engineers, Planners & Surveyors Sheet 22 of 33 Phone (480) 503-2250 Fax (480) 503-2258 MCDOT 2045 S. Vineyard Ave., Ste. 101, Mesa, Arizona 85210 Maricopa County Department of Transportation I-10 MA TC 100’ R/W 44’ 44’ 56’ 81’ 56’ 56’ 81’ 56’ 105 0+0 1045+00 1035+00 1040+00 Proposed R/W Line 44’ Culvert 44’ Proposed Pipe 100’ R/W 1030+00 Cst C L 44’ MATCH LI NE STA 10 24+50 SEE SHEE T 21 1025+00 Sta 1033+22.98(Hidden Waters PkwyCst C)=L Sta 00+00.00 (Cst C)L 0 1065+0 Proposed R/W Line 56’ 44’ MA TC + 052 A1 ST 2 INE ET 2 HL HE TC E S SE 81’ 56’ MA 56’ 81’ 44’ /W 100’ R Proposed EP 44’ 0 1060+0 +00 1055 Cst CL HL INE SE STA E S 107 HE 9+0 ET 0 24 Sta 1060+33.74Hidden Waters PkwyCst C)= L Sta 00+00.00 (Cst C) L Hidden Waters Pkway 1075+00 PROPOSED DOUGLAS RANCH PAD 1070+00 PROPOSED DOUGLAS RANCH PAD 44’ /W 100’ R Proposed EP Proposed R/W Line PROPOSED DOUGLAS RANCH PAD PROPOSED DOUGLAS RANCH PAD Future Hassayampa Freeway/ 00 Hidden Waters Parkway Interchage Right-of-way Limits Subject to Further Study Approximate Location of Future Hassayampa Freeway SR 74 BLACK MOUNTAIN ROAD CAREFREE HIGHWAY (ALIGNMENT) DOVE VALLEY ROAD LONE MOUNTAIN ROAD DIXILETA DRIVE PATTON ROAD JOMAX ROAD 200 0 200 400 SCALE IN FEET MARICOPA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION HIDDEN WATERS PARKWAY ENGINEERING DIVISION CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY ALTERNATIVE 2 eps group, Inc. Engineers, Planners & Surveyors Sheet 23 of 33 Phone (480) 503-2250 Fax (480) 503-2258 MCDOT 2045 S. Vineyard Ave., Ste. 101, Mesa, Arizona 85210 Maricopa County Department of Transportation DEER VALLEY ROAD CACTUS AVENUE OLIVE AVENUE NORTHERN AVENUE BETHANY HOME ROAD CAMELBACK ROAD INDIAN SCHOOL ROAD THOMAS ROAD I-10 L NA CA UNION HILLS DRIVE P CA GREENWAY ROAD per Hassayampa FrameWork Study. (MAG 2008) IN CO F 108 1105+00 RP O O RA B TE U C D K EY E M A 81’ N 0+ 00 N W 1100+00 81’ U TO Proposed EP MATCH LINE STA 1107+00 SEE LOWER LEFT Cst CL Proposed R/W Line 44’ 100’ R/W Hidden Waters Pkway 1095+00 1090+00 00 1085+ PRIVATE LAND RI CO T MA PA CO 44’ U N 100’ R/W 00 9+ 107 TA 23 E S ET LIN HE CH ES SE TY Proposed EP Proposed R/W Line PRIVATE LAND Section Line Parcel Line PROPOSED (Typ) DOUGLAS +0 1110+00 0 RANCH PAD MATCH LI 00 81’ 100’ R/W 44’ Section Line ASLD Hidden Waters Pkway Cst CL SR 74 BLACK MOUNTAIN ROAD CAREFREE HIGHWAY (ALIGNMENT) DOVE VALLEY ROAD LONE MOUNTAIN ROAD DIXILETA DRIVE PATTON ROAD JOMAX ROAD 200 0 200 400 SCALE IN FEET MARICOPA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION HIDDEN WATERS PARKWAY ENGINEERING DIVISION CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY ALTERNATIVE 2 eps group, Inc. Engineers, Planners & Surveyors Sheet 24 of 33 Phone (480) 503-2250 Fax (480) 503-2258 MCDOT 2045 S. Vineyard Ave., Ste. 101, Mesa, Arizona 85210 Maricopa County Department of Transportation DEER VALLEY ROAD CACTUS AVENUE OLIVE AVENUE NORTHERN AVENUE BETHANY HOME ROAD CAMELBACK ROAD L NA CA INDIAN SCHOOL ROAD Proposed R/W Line UNION HILLS DRIVE P CA GREENWAY ROAD Proposed EP THOMAS ROAD 0 +0 135 A 1 25 T E S ET IN HE HL C ES T SE MA Proposed EP 1130+ Proposed R/W Line 1125+00 1120+00 44’ 100’ R/W (Typ) 81’ NE STA 11 07+00 SEE UPPER RIGHT 1115+00 Parcel Line PRIVATE LAND I-10 11 35 PRIVATE LAND 113 5+0 0 Hidden Waters Pkway 81’ 56’ 44’ Culvert MATCH LINE STA 1163+00 SEE LOWER LEFT Proposed EP PRIVATE LAND Proposed Pipe 1160+00 1155+00 1150+00 (Typ) Proposed R/W Line 44’ Parcel Line 100’ R/W 1145+00 PRIVATE LAND 56’ 44’ 1140+00 Cst C L 44’ Hidden Waters Pkway Cst C L Culvert 100’ R/W 44’ 56’ 56’ 81’ 56’ 56’ 81’ 44’ Proposed Pipe MATCH LINE STA 1191+00 SEE SHEET 26 Proposed EP PRIVATE LAND 1190+00 Proposed R/W Line 56’ 44’ 44’ Culvert Sta 1175+82.17(Hidden Waters PkwyCst C)= L Sta 00+00.00 (Peak View Rd Cst C) L 1185+00 (Typ) Proposed Pipe PRIVATE LAND Proposed R/W Line 1180+00 Parcel Line Proposed EP 1175+00 1170+00 1165+00 MATCH LINE STA 1163+00 SEE UPPER RIGHT 100’ R/W ASLD PRIVATE LAND 44’ Section Line 100’ R/W 44’ 81’ 56’ 56’ MA TC HL SE INE S E S T HE A 11 35+ ET 20 24 Sta 1149+4.47(Hidden Waters PkwyCst C)= L Sta 00+00.00 (Patton Rd Cst C) L 44’ Proposed EP Proposed R/W Line Section Line SR 74 BLACK MOUNTAIN ROAD CAREFREE HIGHWAY (ALIGNMENT) DOVE VALLEY ROAD LONE MOUNTAIN ROAD DIXILETA DRIVE PATTON ROAD JOMAX ROAD 200 0 200 400 SCALE IN FEET MARICOPA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION HIDDEN WATERS PARKWAY ENGINEERING DIVISION CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY ALTERNATIVE 2 eps group, Inc. Engineers, Planners & Surveyors Sheet 25 of 33 Phone (480) 503-2250 Fax (480) 503-2258 MCDOT 2045 S. Vineyard Ave., Ste. 101, Mesa, Arizona 85210 Maricopa County Department of Transportation DEER VALLEY ROAD CACTUS AVENUE OLIVE AVENUE NORTHERN AVENUE BETHANY HOME ROAD CAMELBACK ROAD INDIAN SCHOOL ROAD THOMAS ROAD I-10 L NA CA UNION HILLS DRIVE P CA GREENWAY ROAD PRIVATE LAND Proposed EP 81’ 56’ Proposed EP PRIVATE LAND Proposed R/W Line 44’ 100’ R/W 44’ 44’ 81’ 56’ 56’ Section Line MATCH LINE STA 1219+00 SEE LOWER LEFT Proposed R/W Line 44’ (Typ) 100’ R/W Parcel Line 1215+00 Cst C L 1210+00 PRIVATE LAND 44’ 1205+00 MATCH LINE STA 1191+00 SEE SHEET 25 PRIVATE LAND Hidden Waters Pkway 1200+00 1195+00 Sta 1202+27.18(Hidden Waters PkwyCst C)= L Sta 00+00.00 (Dixileta Dr Cst C) L 56’ 44’ 56’ 44’ 44’ 81’ 47+00 TA 12 INE S L H 7 C T 2 MAT SHEE SEE 1245+00 PRIVATE LAND 44’ Proposed EP 1240+00 Proposed R/W Line 1235+00 1230+00 Cst C L 100’ R/W Hidden Waters Pkway (Typ) 100’ R/W Proposed EP PRIVATE LAND SR 74 BLACK MOUNTAIN ROAD CAREFREE HIGHWAY (ALIGNMENT) DOVE VALLEY ROAD LONE MOUNTAIN ROAD DIXILETA DRIVE PATTON ROAD Proposed R/W Line JOMAX ROAD 200 0 200 400 SCALE IN FEET MARICOPA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION HIDDEN WATERS PARKWAY ENGINEERING DIVISION CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY ALTERNATIVE 2 eps group, Inc. Engineers, Planners & Surveyors Sheet 26 of 33 Phone (480) 503-2250 Fax (480) 503-2258 MCDOT 2045 S. Vineyard Ave., Ste. 101, Mesa, Arizona 85210 Maricopa County Department of Transportation DEER VALLEY ROAD UNION HILLS DRIVE CACTUS AVENUE OLIVE AVENUE NORTHERN AVENUE BETHANY HOME ROAD CAMELBACK ROAD INDIAN SCHOOL ROAD THOMAS ROAD L NA CA GREENWAY ROAD P CA I-10 Parcel Line 81’ Section Line 1225+00 MATCH LINE STA 1219+00 SEE UPPER RIGHT 1220+00 PRIVATE LAND Proposed R/W Line 44’ Proposed EP Proposed R/W Line + 75 Parcel Line 56’ 44’ 44’ 100’ R/W 00 81’ 56’ 12 8 0+ 81’ 00 PRIVATE LAND Proposed EP MATCH LINE STA 1304+00 SEE SHEET 28 Cst C L 1300+00 1300+00 Hidden Waters Pkway 44’ 1295+00 1295+00 Proposed EP 44’ 100’ R/W Proposed R/W Line L 1290+00 1290+00 00 Sta 1255+77.50 Hidden Waters PkwyCst C)= Sta 00+00.00 (Lone Mountian Rd Cst C) L 1285+ MATCH LINE STA 1275+00 SEE LOWER LEFT 56’ 56’ 100’ R/W 44’ 81’ MA Section Line PRIVATE LAND (Typ) 44’ Proposed EP 1275+00 1265+00 44’ 100’ R/W Parcel Line Cst C L 81’ TC PRIVATE LAND 1260+00 1255+00 Hidden Waters Pkway PRIVATE LAND 1270+00 0 125 H L SE INE S E SH TA 1 24 EE 7+ T 00 26 0+0 Section Line Proposed R/W Line 12 (Typ) 0 +0 75 12 T H A ST RIG E R N LI PE P H TC E U SE A M SR 74 BLACK MOUNTAIN ROAD CAREFREE HIGHWAY (ALIGNMENT) DOVE VALLEY ROAD LONE MOUNTAIN ROAD DIXILETA DRIVE PATTON ROAD JOMAX ROAD 200 0 200 400 SCALE IN FEET MARICOPA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION HIDDEN WATERS PARKWAY ENGINEERING DIVISION CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY ALTERNATIVE 2 eps group, Inc. Engineers, Planners & Surveyors Sheet 27 of 33 Phone (480) 503-2250 Fax (480) 503-2258 MCDOT 2045 S. Vineyard Ave., Ste. 101, Mesa, Arizona 85210 Maricopa County Department of Transportation DEER VALLEY ROAD CACTUS AVENUE OLIVE AVENUE NORTHERN AVENUE BETHANY HOME ROAD CAMELBACK ROAD INDIAN SCHOOL ROAD THOMAS ROAD I-10 L NA CA UNION HILLS DRIVE P CA GREENWAY ROAD PRIVATE LAND MATCH LINE STA 1332 +00 SEE LOWER LEFT 1320+ 56’ Cst C L 32’ 1315+00 1310+00 44’ 100’ R/W Proposed EP Hidden Waters Pkway 100’ R/W 44’ 81’ 56’ 500kV Transmittion Line 32’ 81’ MATCH LINE STA 1304+00 SEE SHEET 27 1305+00 00 PRIVATE LAND Proposed R/W Line 0 +000 300+ 133 13 00 1325+ Sta 1312+32.21(Hidden Waters PkwyCst C)= L Sta 00+00.00 (Dove Valley Rd Cst C) L Proposed Box Parcel Line PRIVATE LAND Culvert (Typ) Proposed EP Proposed R/W Line 32’ 1355 5+ +0 00 0 0 00 +0 0+ 1350 Parcel Line 0 (Typ) CH L SE INE ST E SH A 13 EE 60 T +0 136 29 0 0 +0 Cst C L 56’ 56’ 32’ 32’ 81’ PRIVATE LAND SR 74 BLACK MOUNTAIN ROAD CAREFREE HIGHWAY (ALIGNMENT) DOVE VALLEY ROAD LONE MOUNTAIN ROAD DIXILETA DRIVE PATTON ROAD Proposed R/W Line MA T Proposed EP 100’ R/W JOMAX ROAD 200 0 200 400 SCALE IN FEET MARICOPA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION HIDDEN WATERS PARKWAY ENGINEERING DIVISION CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY ALTERNATIVE 2 eps group, Inc. Engineers, Planners & Surveyors Sheet 28 of 33 Phone (480) 503-2250 Fax (480) 503-2258 MCDOT 2045 S. Vineyard Ave., Ste. 101, Mesa, Arizona 85210 Maricopa County Department of Transportation DEER VALLEY ROAD UNION HILLS DRIVE GREENWAY ROAD CACTUS AVENUE OLIVE AVENUE NORTHERN AVENUE BETHANY HOME ROAD CAMELBACK ROAD INDIAN SCHOOL ROAD L NA CA THOMAS ROAD Proposed EP 81’ 32+00 STA 13 H LINE T H MATC IG PER R SEE UP P CA I-10 Hidden Waters Pkway Proposed R/W Line 32’ PRIVATE LAND 100’ R/W 1340+0 1335+0 0 0 0 00 +0 5+ 13 45 Section Line +0 0 60 13 0 +0 PRIVATE LAND 65 0 (Typ) 100’ R/W Parcel Line Proposed EP Section Line Proposed R/W Line 32’ 81’ 81’ 56’ Culvert 32’ Proposed Pipe Crossing MATCH LINE STA 1389+00 SEE SHEET 30 Cst C L 56’ Proposed Culvert 1385+00 Hidden Waters Pkway 32’ 100’ R/W Proposed EP 1380+00 Proposed R/W Line 32’ 1370 1375+00 +00 M A 13 TC H SE LIN E E SH ST EE A 1 36 T 28 0+0 Sta 1366+56.97(Hidden Waters PkwyCst C)= L Sta 00+00.00 (Carefree Hwy Cst C) L SR 74 BLACK MOUNTAIN ROAD CAREFREE HIGHWAY (ALIGNMENT) DOVE VALLEY ROAD LONE MOUNTAIN ROAD DIXILETA DRIVE PATTON ROAD JOMAX ROAD 200 0 200 400 SCALE IN FEET MARICOPA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION HIDDEN WATERS PARKWAY ENGINEERING DIVISION CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY ALTERNATIVE 2 eps group, Inc. Engineers, Planners & Surveyors Sheet 29 of 33 Phone (480) 503-2250 Fax (480) 503-2258 MCDOT 2045 S. Vineyard Ave., Ste. 101, Mesa, Arizona 85210 Maricopa County Department of Transportation DEER VALLEY ROAD CACTUS AVENUE OLIVE AVENUE NORTHERN AVENUE BETHANY HOME ROAD CAMELBACK ROAD INDIAN SCHOOL ROAD THOMAS ROAD I-10 L NA CA UNION HILLS DRIVE P CA GREENWAY ROAD PRIVATE LAND 32’ 32’ 56’ 81’ 100’ R/W Proposed R/W Line PRIVATE LAND Hidden Waters Pkway 1445+00 PRIVATE LAND 32’ 100’ R/W 32’ 56’ 81’ 81’ 56’ (Typ) Proposed EP Proposed Box MATCH LINE STA 1445+00 SEE SHEET 31 Parcel Line 32’ Proposed EP 1440+00 Proposed R/W Line 1435+00 1430+00 1425+00 Cst C L 32’ 100’ R/W 1420+00 MATCH LINE STA 1417+00 SEE LOWER LEFT 56’ (Typ) Proposed EP Sta 1419+46.53(Hidden Waters PkwyCst C)= L Sta 00+00.00 (Black Mtn Rd Cst C) L MATCH LINE STA 1417+00 SEE UPPER RIGHT 1415+00 1410+00 Parcel Line 32’ Proposed EP 1405+00 1400+00 Proposed R/W Line 81’ PRIVATE LAND 32’ 100’ R/W 1395+00 MATCH LINE STA 1389+00 SEE SHEET 29 1390+00 Hidden Waters Pkway Cst C L Culvert Proposed R/W Line SR 74 BLACK MOUNTAIN ROAD CAREFREE HIGHWAY (ALIGNMENT) DOVE VALLEY ROAD LONE MOUNTAIN ROAD DIXILETA DRIVE PATTON ROAD JOMAX ROAD 200 0 200 400 SCALE IN FEET MARICOPA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION HIDDEN WATERS PARKWAY ENGINEERING DIVISION CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY ALTERNATIVE 2 eps group, Inc. Engineers, Planners & Surveyors Sheet 30 of 33 Phone (480) 503-2250 Fax (480) 503-2258 MCDOT 2045 S. Vineyard Ave., Ste. 101, Mesa, Arizona 85210 Maricopa County Department of Transportation DEER VALLEY ROAD CACTUS AVENUE OLIVE AVENUE NORTHERN AVENUE BETHANY HOME ROAD CAMELBACK ROAD INDIAN SCHOOL ROAD THOMAS ROAD I-10 L NA CA UNION HILLS DRIVE P CA GREENWAY ROAD PRIVATE LAND Proposed EP Proposed R/W Line MARICOPA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION HIDDEN WATERS PARKWAY ENGINEERING DIVISION CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY 32’ 1490+00 BLM ALTERNATIVE 2 Sheet 31 of 33 1500+00 PRIVATE LAND 1495+00 Proposed EP 81’ 81’ 1 4 5 0 +0 1460+0 0 1470+00 1465+0 0 0 1455+0 0 100’ R /W 32’ 0 3+0 147 STA E T N F LI LE ER TCH MA LOW SEE Parcel Line 200 Phone (480) 503-2250 0 200 Fax (480) 503-2258 MCDOT Proposed EP Proposed EP MATCH LINE STA 1501+00 SEE SHEET 32 81’ Section Line 32’ 81’ Proposed R/W Line 100’ R/W 32’ 100’ R /W (Typ) 100’ R/W Cst CL 1485+00 + 00 A 1445 INE ST L H C 0 30 MAT 1445+0 HEET SEE S Parcel Line SR 74 BLACK MOUNTAIN ROAD CAREFREE HIGHWAY (ALIGNMENT) DOVE VALLEY ROAD LONE MOUNTAIN ROAD DIXILETA DRIVE PATTON ROAD JOMAX ROAD DEER VALLEY ROAD 1480+00 1475+00 H LIN E STA SEE U 1473+ 00 PPER RIGH T MATC (Typ) Proposed R/W Line Maricopa County Department of Transportation GREENWAY ROAD UNION HILLS DRIVE CACTUS AVENUE OLIVE AVENUE NORTHERN AVENUE BETHANY HOME ROAD CAMELBACK ROAD INDIAN SCHOOL ROAD L NA CA THOMAS ROAD P CA I-10 PRIVATE LAND Hidden Waters Pkway Cst CL BLM BLM Proposed R/W Line Section Line Hidden Waters Pkway BLM SCALE IN FEET 400 eps group, Inc. 2045 S. Vineyard Ave., Ste. 101, Mesa, Arizona 85210 Engineers, Planners & Surveyors BLM MARICOPA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION HIDDEN WATERS PARKWAY ENGINEERING DIVISION CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY Sheet 32 of 81’ 81’ 32’ 1545+00 1540+00 100’ R/W Cst C L Proposed R/W Line Proposed EP 1550+00 BLM ALTERNATIVE 2 33 81’ 32’ 1515+00 1520+00 1530+00 1525+00 010 A 1529+ LINE ST MATCH T F ER LE SEE LOW 81’ 100’ R/W 1510+00 Proposed EP BLM 1555+00 32’ 100’ R/W 1500 1505+ 00 CH L INE STA SEE 1501 SHE +00 ET 3 1 M AT Proposed R/W Line 200 Phone (480) 503-2250 0 200 Fax (480) 503-2258 MCDOT Proposed EP MATCH LINE STA 1557+00 SEE SHEET 33 32’ 100’ R/W 1535+00 Culvert SR 74 BLACK MOUNTAIN ROAD CAREFREE HIGHWAY (ALIGNMENT) DOVE VALLEY ROAD LONE MOUNTAIN ROAD DIXILETA DRIVE PATTON ROAD JOMAX ROAD DEER VALLEY ROAD 1530+00 Proposed Box BLM Cst C L Maricopa County Department of Transportation GREENWAY ROAD MATCH LINE STA 1529+00 SEE UPPER RIGHT Section Line UNION HILLS DRIVE CACTUS AVENUE OLIVE AVENUE NORTHERN AVENUE BETHANY HOME ROAD CAMELBACK ROAD INDIAN SCHOOL ROAD L NA CA THOMAS ROAD P CA I-10 Hidden Waters Pkway Proposed EP Proposed R/W Line Section Line Hidden Waters Pkway Proposed R/W Line SCALE IN FEET 400 eps group, Inc. 2045 S. Vineyard Ave., Ste. 101, Mesa, Arizona 85210 Engineers, Planners & Surveyors +00 Hidden Waters Pkway Proposed R/W Line 32’ 0 157 Future SR 74 157 81’ 81’ 100 00 A 1557+ LINE ST MATCH EET 32 SEE SH ’ R/ W Proposed EP 4+1 BLM 0+0 0 1565+00 1560+00 Cst C L Future SR 74 /Hidden Waters 32’ Parkway Interchage (Right-of-way Limits Subject to Further Study) SR 74 BLACK MOUNTAIN ROAD CAREFREE HIGHWAY (ALIGNMENT) DOVE VALLEY ROAD LONE MOUNTAIN ROAD DIXILETA DRIVE PATTON ROAD JOMAX ROAD 200 0 200 400 SCALE IN FEET MARICOPA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION HIDDEN WATERS PARKWAY ENGINEERING DIVISION CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY ALTERNATIVE 2 eps group, Inc. Engineers, Planners & Surveyors Sheet 33 of 33 Phone (480) 503-2250 Fax (480) 503-2258 MCDOT 2045 S. Vineyard Ave., Ste. 101, Mesa, Arizona 85210 Maricopa County Department of Transportation DEER VALLEY ROAD CACTUS AVENUE OLIVE AVENUE NORTHERN AVENUE BETHANY HOME ROAD CAMELBACK ROAD INDIAN SCHOOL ROAD THOMAS ROAD I-10 L NA CA UNION HILLS DRIVE P CA GREENWAY ROAD 100 Proposed R/W Line ’ R/ W Proposed EP BLM Appendix C  Conceptual Plan and Profile Drawing of CAP Crossing Hidden Waters – Final Tech Memo 5 Feasibility Study Maricopa County Department of Transportation Preferred Alignment November, 2011 EPS Job No. 10-092 Section Line Section Line Proposed Grade @ PGL Exst Ground @ PGL CAP Canal Appendix D  Planning Level Cost Estimate Hidden Waters – Final Tech Memo 5 Feasibility Study Maricopa County Department of Transportation Preferred Alignment November, 2011 EPS Job No. 10-092 Alternative: Road Construction - Item Description Unit Unit Cost Preferred Alternative Quantity Total Phased Option 2 Quantity Total N.P.D.E.S. Lump Sum $ 31,858.71 1 $ 31,858.71 1 $ 31,858.71 1 $ 31,858.71 Community Relations Allowance $ 12,790.30 1 $ 12,790.30 1 $ 12,790.30 1 $ 12,790.30 Engineer's Field Office Lump Sum $ 139,708.51 1 $ 139,708.51 1 $ 139,708.51 1 $ 139,708.51 Roadway Excavation C YD $ 4.26 590,593 $ 2,516,495.34 429,522 $ 1,830,178.43 295,297 $ 1,258,247.67 Channel & Retention Basin Excavation C YD $ 2.88 347,136 $ 1,000,096.54 347,136 $ 1,000,096.54 173,568 $ 500,048.27 Subgrade Preparation SQ YD $ 1.59 1,527,396 $ 2,436,051.68 1,110,834 $ 1,771,673.95 763,698 $ 1,218,025.84 New Asphalt Concrete Pavement (see Pavement sheet) SQ YD $ 13.85 1,527,396 $ 21,154,440.76 1,110,834 $ 15,385,047.82 763,698 $ 10,577,220.38 Concrete Single Curb LF $ 14.42 312,422 $ 4,504,999.49 312,422 $ 4,504,999.49 156,211 $ 2,252,499.75 Concrete Curb & Gutter LF $ 12.36 312,422 $ 3,861,136.01 312,422 $ 3,861,136.01 156,211 $ 1,930,568.00 SQ YD $ 50.41 312,422 $ 15,748,651.58 312,422 $ 15,748,651.58 156,211 $ 7,874,325.79 Traffic Signing & Striping - 2 lanes LF $ 2.41 $ - 156,211 $ 375,895.32 Traffic Signing & Striping - 5 lanes LF $ 4.58 $ - Traffic Signing & Striping - 7 lanes LF $ 4.85 Concrete Sidewalk Std Det 230 Traffic Signal, Full Intersection EA $ 494,973.19 Interconnect/Traffic Signals LF $ 9.47 Traffic Signal, Future "Box-in" EA $ 6,049.47 42" & 48" RGRCP, Class III LF $ 154.00 Headwall (MAG details) Box Culvert (see Structure sheet) EA LS $ $ 5,941.91 250,000.00 156,211 $ 757,241.70 $ 156,211 $ 716,133.85 $ - $ - $ - 24 $ 11,879,356.67 24 $ 11,879,356.67 24 $ 11,879,356.67 156,211 $ 1,479,860.82 156,211 $ 1,479,860.82 156,211 $ 1,479,860.82 24 $ 145,187.34 24 $ 145,187.34 24 $ 145,187.34 10,716 $ 1,650,264.00 5,358 $ 825,132.00 5,358 $ 825,132.00 114 19 $ $ 677,377.56 4,750,000.00 114 19 $ $ 677,377.56 4,750,000.00 114 19 $ $ 677,377.56 4,750,000.00 $ 72,745,517.01 $ 64,759,189.59 $ 45,928,102.94 Subtotal Removal of Existing Improvements @ 2% Lump Sum 1 $ 1,454,910.00 1 $ 1,295,184.00 1 $ 918,562.00 Mobilization/Demobilization @ 4% Traffic Control @ 3% Lump Sum Lump Sum 1 1 $ $ 2,909,821.00 2,182,366.00 1 1 $ $ 2,590,368.00 1,942,776.00 1 1 $ $ 1,837,124.00 1,377,843.00 $ 79,292,614.01 $ 70,587,517.59 $ 50,061,631.94 $ 15,858,522.80 $ 14,117,503.52 $ 10,012,326.39 $ 95,151,136.82 $ 84,705,021.11 $ 60,073,958.33 SUBTOTAL Construction Contingency 20% TOTAL Right-of-Way - Item Description Right-of-Way Residental Structure Unit Acres EA Unit Cost $145,000.00 $400,000.00 Quantity 718 2 TOTAL Structures - Item Description Total $ $ 104,110,000.00 800,000.00 $ 104,910,000.00 718 2 Total $ $ 104,110,000.00 800,000.00 $ 104,910,000.00 $ $ 104,110,000.00 800,000.00 $ 104,910,000.00 Wash Bridge (Station 430+90) Sq Ft $190.00 50'x108' $ 1,026,000.00 50'x108' $ 1,026,000.00 50'x54' $ 513,000.00 Jackrabbit Wash Bridge (Station 548+40) CAP Canal Bridge (Station 756+50) Sq Ft Sq Ft $190.00 $190.00 800'x108' 200'x108' $ $ 16,416,000.00 4,104,000.00 800'x108' 200'x108' $ $ 16,416,000.00 4,104,000.00 800'x54' 200'x54' $ $ 8,208,000.00 2,052,000.00 $ 21,546,000.00 $ 21,546,000.00 $ 10,773,000.00 Unit Cost Quantity Total Total 718 2 Total Quantity Unit Quantity Quantity Unit Cost Utility - Item Description Total Quantity Unit TOTAL 10/18/2011 Phased Option 1 Quantity Total Quantity Total Quantity Total Quantity Total Relocate 12 kv Wood Pole (Tangent) EA $5,000.00 8 $40,000.00 8 $40,000.00 8 $40,000.00 Relocate 69 kv Steel Pole (Tangent) EA $20,000.00 1 $20,000.00 1 $20,000.00 1 $20,000.00 Subtotal Construction Contingency TOTAL 20% $ $60,000.00 12,000.00 $72,000.00 $ $ $60,000.00 2,400.00 62,400.00 $ $ $60,000.00 480.00 60,480.00