APPENDIX 5 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM NO. 5 – DETAILED PREFERRED ALIGNMENT 091337118 Final Report and Executive Summary 2008-046, TT005 Maricopa County Department of Transportation Hidden Waters Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study June 2010 TABLE OF CONTENTS DETAILED PREFERRED ALIGNMENT 1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 1.2 2. DEVELOPMENT OF PREFERRED ALTERNATIVES ............................................................................. 4 2.1 2.2 3. Process for Selecting the Preferred Alternatives .................................................................... 4 Description of the Preferred Alternatives................................................................................ 5 PREFERRED ALIGNMENT DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS...................................................................... 8 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 4. Study Background ..................................................................................................................... 1 Project Study Area..................................................................................................................... 2 Parkway Design Guidelines and Typical Cross-Sections ....................................................... 8 Crossing Features ...................................................................................................................... 8 Access Management Guidelines................................................................................................ 9 Gila River Crossing ................................................................................................................. 10 PREFERRED ALIGNMENT IMPLEMENTATION ................................................................................ 11 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 Detailed Preferred Alignment Drawings ............................................................................... 11 Project Development and Phasing Considerations ............................................................... 11 Planning-Level Cost Estimates ............................................................................................... 12 Next Steps ................................................................................................................................. 14 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 – Project Study Area .................................................................................................................... 3 Figure 2a – Preferred Alternative (South) .................................................................................................. 6 Figure 2b – Preferred Alternative (North) .................................................................................................. 7 LIST OF TABLES Table 1 – Planning-Level Cost Estimates ................................................................................................ 13 LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix TM5-1. Arizona Parkway Cross-Sections and Layouts Appendix TM5-2. Detailed Preferred Alignment Drawings 091337118 Technical Memorandum No. 5 Detailed Preferred Alignment i Maricopa County Department of Transportation Hidden Waters Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study May 2010 1. INTRODUCTION Technical Memorandum No. 5 (TM 5), entitled Detailed Preferred Alignment, provides more detailed information on the proposed location and characteristics of the preferred alignment for the Hidden Waters Parkway between Watermelon Road and Interstate 10. Specifically, TM 5 provides a summary of the study background and study area; a description of the preferred alternatives; standard crosssections and design considerations for the preferred alignment of the parkway facility; and plan view drawings on aerial photographs showing the preferred alignment centerline and right-of-way limits at a scale of 1” = 200’. The preferred alignment centerline and right-of-way limits are subject to more detailed design work that may necessitate some adjustments as roadway profiles, drainage requirements, and land development plans are further defined. Additional detailed information is included in the following companion documents: Existing and Future Corridor Features (TM 1), Environmental Overview (TM 2), Conceptual Drainage Report (TM 3), and Development and Evaluation of Candidate Alternative Alignments (TM 4). 1.1 Study Background In July 2008, the Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) completed the Interstate 10/Hassayampa Valley Transportation Framework Study (known as the Hassayampa Framework Study), which recommended a comprehensive roadway network to meet the future traffic demands that result when the area west of the White Tank Mountains is completely developed (hereafter referred to as buildout travel demand). This long-range regional transportation network included the “Arizona Parkway” as a new facility type to supplement more traditional roadway classifications in meeting projected travel demand within the study area. The Arizona Parkway utilizes a distinct intersection treatment that prohibits left turns at major cross-street intersections and controls intersection traffic movements with two-phased signal control. Left-turn movements are made indirectly using directional left-turn crossovers immediately downstream of the cross-street intersection. A north-south Arizona Parkway known as the Hidden Waters Parkway was demonstrated to be needed in the Hassayampa Framework Study that generally is offset about two miles to the west of the Hassayampa River. The northern portion of the Hidden Waters Parkway is proposed to cross Interstate 10 at 339th Avenue (where a traffic interchange already exists) and extend southward to Old U.S. Highway 80 (Old US 80). Similar to the Hassayampa Framework Study, the Interstate 8 and Interstate 10 Hidden Valley Transportation Framework Study (known as the Hidden Valley Framework Study), completed by MAG in October 2009, indicates the need for a network of Arizona Parkways to meet the future buildout travel demand for the area southwest of Interstate 10 (I-10) and north of Interstate 8 (I8). In the Hidden Valley Framework Study, the need was demonstrated for the Hidden Waters Parkway identified previously in the Hassayampa Framework Study to extend further south, generally following the Old US 80 alignment, to Watermelon Road in Gila Bend. In May 2009, the Maricopa County Department of Transportation (MCDOT) retained KimleyHorn and Associates, Inc. (KHA) to conduct a corridor feasibility study for the southern portion of the Hidden Waters Parkway between Watermelon Road and I-10. 091337118 Technical Memorandum No. 5 Detailed Preferred Alignment 1 Maricopa County Department of Transportation Hidden Waters Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study May 2010 1.2 Project Study Area The project study area for the proposed Hidden Waters Parkway is approximately 39 miles in length between Watermelon Road and I-10 and is roughly two miles wide, centered on the northsouth segment of Old US 80. North of the Cactus Rose Road/Old US 80 intersection, where Old US 80 diverges to the east, the study area broadens to a four-mile wide corridor, centered on the 347th Avenue section-line alignment, extending north to the Salome Highway. North of the Salome Highway, the study area width narrows back to two miles, following the 339th Avenue alignment north to I-10. The study area covers approximately 93.9 square miles. The project study area is shown in Figure 1. 091337118 Technical Memorandum No. 5 Detailed Preferred Alignment 2 Maricopa County Department of Transportation Hidden Waters Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study May 2010 me Hw y H as sa y amp a R r ive 331st Ave Sa lo 363rd Ave PA L O V E RD E HILLS 339th Ave W H I T E TA N K M O U N TA I N S Gila River B U C K E Y E H IL L S Project Study Area Buckeye GIL A B E ND MO UN TA IN S M AR La Paz County A Project Study Area Gila R P Gila County O Old US 80 IC Yavapai County M O U N TA IN S iver op Maric Watermelon Rd a Rd Yuma County Gila Bend Pinal County 0 1.25 2.5 Maricopa County 5 Miles Pima County Sept. 2009 Figure 1 – Project Study Area 091337118 Technical Memorandum No. 5 Detailed Preferred Alignment 3 Maricopa County Department of Transportation Hidden Waters Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study May 2010 2. DEVELOPMENT OF PREFERRED ALTERNATIVES 2.1 Process for Selecting the Preferred Alternatives Selection of the preferred alternatives was accomplished through a two-step process. The first step was to identify a series of conceptual alternatives that were subjected to a “fatal flaw” analysis. The conceptual alternatives were developed only to the extent necessary to conduct a meaningful comparative analysis that would produce up to three candidate alternatives that could be defined and evaluated in greater detail. The second step was to perform a more in-depth evaluation of the candidate alternatives and identify preferred alternatives. This process is discussed in greater detail in Technical Memorandum No. 4 – Development and Evaluation of Candidate Alternative Alignments. The conceptual alternatives, candidate alternatives, evaluation criteria, evaluation results, and preferred alternatives were all developed in consultation with the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) and stakeholders and were presented for general public input at public open house meetings. For alternatives development and evaluation purposes, the study area was divided into two separate segments: one south of the Old US 80 Bridge over the Gila River and one north of the Old US 80 Bridge over the Gila River. For the southern segment, endpoints common to all of the alternatives were designated as the Old US 80/Watermelon Road intersection for the southern terminus and as the eastern edge of the proposed new Gila River Bridge location recommended in the MCDOT Old U.S. Highway 80 Bridge (Gillespie Dam Bridge) Final Design Concept Report for the northern terminus. For the northern segment, the common endpoints were designated as the eastern edge of the proposed new Gila River Bridge location for the southern terminus and as the existing I-10/339th Avenue interchange for the northern terminus. After performing the fatal flaw assessment of the conceptual alternatives and then narrowing the conceptual alternatives to three candidate alternatives for the southern segment and four candidate alternatives for the northern segment, the candidate alternatives, along with a “no-build” alternative, were evaluated against a number of criteria. The evaluation criteria included the following: ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ Future development compatibility; System continuity and capacity; Irrigation impacts; Drainage impacts; Building/property impacts; Wildlife impacts; Cultural/archaeological impacts; Utility impacts; Public acceptability; and Cost. Most of the evaluation criteria do not lend themselves to numerical quantification, so the candidate alternatives evaluation was performed on a “qualitative” basis. The evaluation results 091337118 Technical Memorandum No. 5 Detailed Preferred Alignment 4 Maricopa County Department of Transportation Hidden Waters Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study May 2010 were discussed with the TAC members and stakeholders and were presented for public input at the third open house. There was general consensus that the evaluation results are reasonable and valid. After considering the evaluation results and the input received on the alternatives, preferred alternatives were selected. 2.2 Description of the Preferred Alternatives For the southern segment, Alternative C was selected as the preferred alternative. Alternative C generally follows the existing Old US 80 alignment for its entirety. For the northern segment, Alternative D was selected as the preferred alternative. Alternative D generally follows the 351st Avenue alignment in the bottom portion of the northern segment and then transitions to the existing 339th Avenue alignment in the top portion of the northern segment. The preferred alternatives for the southern and northern segments of the Hidden Waters Parkway are respectively shown in Figure 2a and Figure 2b. Also included in these figures are the proposed locations where other major roadways (i.e., freeways, parkways, and arterials) are expected to intersect the Hidden Waters Parkway, per the Hassayampa Framework Study and the Hidden Valley Framework Study and input from the TAC. These intersection/interchange locations are preliminary and subject to change. 091337118 Technical Memorandum No. 5 Detailed Preferred Alignment 5 Maricopa County Department of Transportation Hidden Waters Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study May 2010 Figure 2a – Preferred Alternative (South) 091337118 Technical Memorandum No. 5 Detailed Preferred Alignment 6 Maricopa County Department of Transportation Hidden Waters Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study May 2010 Figure 2b – Preferred Alternative (North) 091337118 Technical Memorandum No. 5 Detailed Preferred Alignment 7 Maricopa County Department of Transportation Hidden Waters Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study May 2010 3. PREFERRED ALIGNMENT DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS Once the preferred alternatives were selected, the preferred alignment was defined in greater detail in light of the following design considerations. 3.1 Parkway Design Guidelines and Typical Cross-Sections Guidelines to be followed for implementation of a parkway such as Hidden Waters Parkway are documented in the MCDOT publications Enhanced Parkway Study (August 2007), Design Guideline Recommendations for the Arizona Parkway (August 2008) and Arizona Parkway Intersection/Interchange Operational Analysis and Design Concepts Study (August 2009). Design guidelines for the Arizona Parkway are intended to provide a higher level of service than an arterial street but less than a freeway facility. Basic cross-section elements and design guidelines are summarized as follows: ƒ A 200-foot minimum right-of-way is recommended. ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ Additional right-of-way and/or easements may be needed for turn lanes, bus bays, drainage structures, drainage facilities, side slopes, utilities, and landscaping; Twelve-foot wide lanes are recommended, with four-foot wide inside paved shoulders and six-foot wide outside paved shoulders; An additional eight-foot minimum width public utility easement is recommended on each side of the parkway; Median width varies based on the number of lanes; Minimum design speeds for rolling terrain are 60 miles per hour (mph) in rural areas and 50 mph in urban areas; and WB-50 is the recommended design vehicle. Parkway typical cross-sections from the Design Guideline Recommendations for the Arizona Parkway are shown in Appendix TM5-1. The basic Hidden Waters Parkway design configuration will be a combination of four-, six-, and eight-lane parkways, depending on projected traffic volumes. 3.2 Crossing Features There are a number of locations where major roadways, utilities, drainage washes, and other features will cross the Hidden Waters Parkway that will require more detailed analyses during design of the parkway. The following design considerations relate to these crossing features: ƒ Minimum right-of-way width for at-grade parkway-to-parkway intersections of up to eight lanes is 225 feet on each approach, assuming 60-foot medians and dual right-turn lanes on both parkways; ƒ Additional right-of-way will need to be preserved at parkway-to-parkway intersections requiring grade separations (approximately fifteen acres of additional right-of-way for a typical grade-separated interchange and approximately 30 acres of additional right-of-way for a grade-separated interchange with fly-over ramps per the Arizona Parkway Intersection/Interchange Operational Analysis and Design Concepts Study, the design concepts of which are provided in Appendix TM5-1); 091337118 Technical Memorandum No. 5 Detailed Preferred Alignment 8 Maricopa County Department of Transportation Hidden Waters Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study May 2010 ƒ There are three anticipated parkway-to-parkway intersections within the project study area: ƒ Hidden Waters Parkway/Watermelon Road Parkway (grade-separated interchange with ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ 3.3 possible fly-over ramps); ƒ Hidden Waters Parkway/Southern Avenue Parkway (grade-separated interchange); and ƒ Hidden Waters Parkway/Yuma Parkway (at-grade intersection). The Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) recently initiated a study that will result in guidelines and design templates for parkway-to-freeway interchanges. The findings and recommendations of this ADOT study will ultimately need to be incorporated into the three anticipated parkway-to-freeway interchanges within the project study area: ƒ Hidden Waters Parkway/ Hassayampa Freeway (planned freeway); ƒ Hidden Waters Parkway/State Route 801 (planned freeway); and ƒ Hidden Waters Parkway/ I-10 (existing freeway). A railroad grade separation will be required where the Hidden Waters Parkway crosses the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) tracks; There are numerous washes throughout the study area that will require culverts, pipes, or bridges, which may result in the need for additional right-of-way; and The Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD) has recommended that all grade separation structures along the parkway – particularly those located within wildlife linkage zones – be designed to enhance wildlife movement through the area where feasible. Access Management Guidelines To preserve the operating efficiency of the parkway facility, a higher level of access management than what is applied to arterial streets is recommended. Because MCDOT will not have operational control over all parkway facilities, it will be up to those agencies with jurisdiction over the roadway to apply and enforce access management policies. The following are recommended as minimum access management guidelines (per the Design Guideline Recommendations for the Arizona Parkway) that may be supplemented by the responsible agency with jurisdiction over the roadway: ƒ Intersections (full median breaks) will preferably be restricted to one-mile spacing, with a ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ minimum spacing of one-half mile, and are only recommended where intersecting with arterial or major collector streets; Left turns in any direction are prohibited at all intersections; Left turns from a side-street or driveway onto the parkway are prohibited; Left turns from the parkway to a cross-street or driveway are discouraged due to conflicts between u-turns and right turns; U-turn directional crossovers are recommended to be restricted to a maximum of eight per mile; and Recommended minimum driveway spacing is 165 feet for low-volume segments and 330 feet for high-volume segments. The typical driveway will be limited to right-in/right-out maneuvers. 091337118 Technical Memorandum No. 5 Detailed Preferred Alignment 9 Maricopa County Department of Transportation Hidden Waters Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study May 2010 3.4 Gila River Crossing MCDOT has determined that the existing Old US 80 Bridge across the Gila River needs to be replaced with a new all-weather bridge crossing the Gila River approximately 1,000 feet downstream from the existing bridge. Relevant studies that have been completed by MCDOT include the Old U.S. Highway 80 Bridge (Gillespie Dam Bridge) Final Design Concept Report (September 2007), and the Old U.S. Highway 80 Bridge (Gillespie Dam Bridge) Final Value Engineering Report (May 2008). The Hidden Waters Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study has been conducted under the assumption that the Hidden Waters Parkway will cross the Gila River along the same alignment as the future recommended all-weather bridge crossing alternative identified in these two reports. Relevant findings and recommendations from these two reports include: ƒ The future recommended alternative (known as Alternative #4), includes a new bridge ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ approximately 1,000 feet downstream from the existing bridge; The proposed bridge location is south of the existing gas lines and directly north of the existing 500kV electrical lines; The proposed bridge would be 14-span and 1,800 feet long and would utilize AASHTO Type 6 Prestressed Concrete I-girders with a cast-in-place concrete deck slab supported on drilled shaft foundations; The proposed right-of-way for the new bridge is a minimum of 130 feet, with even greater right-of-way needed at the curved approaches to the new bridge; The proposed six-lane bridge is assumed to be 87 feet wide, with a design speed of 55 mph; The value engineering recommendation proposes to initially construct a new interim low-flow crossing of the Gila River along the same alignment as the proposed six-lane bridge (Alternative #4) that would ultimately be replaced by the proposed six-lane bridge; Acquisition of new right-of-way, 404 permitting, and environmental clearance will be required to implement the low-flow crossing; and While the low-flow crossing does not meet ultimate traffic demands, it will serve as an interim facility that can be replaced with the recommended six-lane bridge when warranted and when funding is available. The AGFD recommendation that all grade separation structures along the parkway be designed to enhance wildlife movement through the area should be addressed as part of future design efforts for the new bridge over the Gila River. 091337118 Technical Memorandum No. 5 Detailed Preferred Alignment 10 Maricopa County Department of Transportation Hidden Waters Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study May 2010 4. PREFERRED ALIGNMENT IMPLEMENTATION 4.1 Detailed Preferred Alignment Drawings The design considerations described previously were applied in developing the preferred alignment for the Hidden Waters Parkway. Detailed preferred alignment drawings were then created that show the parkway center line and right-of-way limits at a scale of 1 inch = 200 feet. The detailed preferred alignment drawings are provided in Appendix TM5-2. The preferred alignment centerline and right-of-way limits are subject to more detailed design work that may necessitate some adjustments as roadway profiles, drainage requirements, and land development plans are further defined. In developing the detailed preferred alignment drawings, existing roadway centerlines, section lines, right-of-way lines, and property lines were reviewed to determine the feasibility of following some or all of these lines to the greatest extent possible. In some cases, existing roadway centerlines, section lines, right-of-way lines, and property lines do not provide optimum roadway geometrics for the Hidden Waters Parkway because they contain numerous angle points and discontinuities or are not parallel to each other. To preserve the high-capacity functionality of the parkway, it was determined that the preferred alignment should remain as straight as possible. At major roadway and drainage wash crossings along the parkway, additional right-of-way will likely be required that will expand the right-of-way limits beyond the basic 200-foot parkway footprint. Areas that may potentially require additional right-of-way are noted in the detailed preferred alignment drawings as being subject to further study as land development and roadway improvement plans are further defined. 4.2 Project Development and Phasing Considerations It is important to recognize that the Hidden Waters Corridor Feasibility Study is a long-range transportation planning study and the earliest phase of project development. This study is intended to identify the “feasibility” of constructing a parkway facility at some future date to accommodate traffic demands that will be associated with future land development within and in close proximity to the Hidden Waters study area. No public funding is currently allocated for design, right-of-way acquisition, or construction of any elements of the Hidden Waters Parkway. The recommended center lines and right-of-way limits will be used to guide future planning efforts and ensure that subsequent land development proposals and transportation system plans are compatible with future construction of the Hidden Waters Parkway. Some refinement and negotiation of the parkway centerline and right-of way requirements may occur in later phases of the project as properties are developed and as transportation improvements are implemented. The following are key issues captured during this study’s stakeholder and public involvement process that should be taken into consideration as the recommendations of this study are carried forward into design and construction: ƒ Developer Participation – It is anticipated that land developers will participate in dedicating right-of-way and participating in project design and construction costs; 091337118 Technical Memorandum No. 5 Detailed Preferred Alignment 11 Maricopa County Department of Transportation Hidden Waters Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study May 2010 ƒ Funding Strategies – Long-term funding strategies need to be developed to position the ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ 4.3 Hidden Waters Parkway corridor to take advantage of available funding. When and how much funding is needed will be dependent on when and where development occurs, how much developer participation happens, and what the detailed designs call for; Access Management Strategies – Access management strategies that are consistent with the Arizona Parkway design guidelines should be implemented to ensure the Hidden Waters Parkway provides efficient traffic flow, safe operations, and reasonable local land access; Environmental Impacts – Specific impacts on environmental features, such as natural resources, wildlife habitats, cultural and archaeological resources, noise mitigation, and air quality will require further evaluation during future project development. Wildlife crossing facilities should be incorporated into the final project design where feasible; New Right-of-Way Requirements – Final roadway configurations will need to be developed through a more detailed design process to determine exactly how much land will need to be acquired to accommodate the future parkway; Landscaping Plans – Final project design should specify the type of landscaping to be used; Drainage Structures – Bridges and culverts along the new roadway should be designed during subsequent design efforts that ensure that the roadway is designed to provide all-weather crossings during major storm events. Opportunities to create drainage structures that accommodate wildlife movements across the parkway should also be designed; Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Transit Access – Future projects should be designed to accommodated alternative modes of travel and provide access to trails and neighborhoods in the area; Coordination with Other Planned Transportation Facilities – Implementation of the Hidden Waters Parkway should be coordinated with the implementation of other planned transportation facilities that intersect or impact the Hidden Waters Parkway (e.g., intersecting freeways, parkways, and arterials); Corridor Traffic Management – ITS (Intelligent Transportation Systems) should be implemented in conjunction with roadway construction to promote efficient traffic operations and management through the parkway corridor; and Jurisdictional Coordination – Implementation of corridor improvement, traffic management, and access management concepts should be coordinated among the responsible jurisdictions to ensure a safe, seamless, and efficient transportation facility. Planning-Level Cost Estimates Planning-level cost estimates were developed for the preferred Hidden Waters Parkway alignment. Because this study does not include preparation of an “engineered” roadway alignment and does not address detailed design issues for various features, the cost estimate was based on generalized unit costs. The planning-level unit cost estimates were applied to the Hidden Waters Parkway preferred alignment characteristics and are summarized in Table 1. The estimated cost for the Hidden Waters Parkway totals $605 million, excluding the construction costs of freeway-to-parkway interchanges at Interstate 10, the planned SR 801 Freeway, and the planned Hassayampa Freeway, which are subject to further study and design. 091337118 Technical Memorandum No. 5 Detailed Preferred Alignment 12 Maricopa County Department of Transportation Hidden Waters Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study May 2010 Table 1 – Planning-Level Cost Estimates Facility Characteristic South Segment Segment Length (miles) North Segment Total 20.17 19.07 39.24 14 1 15 Medium 2 2 4 Large 1 5 6 Total 17 8 25 346 523 869 Number of Drainage Crossings Small Right-of-Way Required (acres) Estimated Total Project Cost (Millions of 2010 $) Roadway Construction Cost $195 $185 $380 $50 $75 $125 $25 $20 $45 Gila River Bridge - $30 $30 UPRR Overpass - $25 $25 $270 $335 $605 Right-of-Way Major Structural Elements PGSI Total Estimated Project Cost Notes: 1) Due to wide fluctuations in construction bids in 2008 and 2009, no inflation factors were applied to convert unit costs for those years to 2010 construction costs. 2) Estimated project costs are rounded to the nearest $5 million. 3) Major structural elements do not include parkway-to-freeway interchanges at Interstate 10, the planned SR 801 Freeway, and the planned Hassayampa Freeway. These interchanges are subject to further study and design. A roadway construction unit cost estimate of $9.6 million per mile was used for a typical six-lane parkway. This unit cost was developed for the Turner Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study by averaging estimated roadway construction costs reported in recently completed MCDOT planning studies conducted for similar parkway facilities in 2007 and 2008. It excludes major structural elements for crossing features but does include 20% contingencies for addressing drainage requirements. To give a sense of the amount of required drainage facilities anticipated in the study area, the number of anticipated drainage crossings in the study area, and their relative size, were estimated based off of aerial photography. For right-of-way, a generalized estimate of $143,000 per acre was provided by MCDOT. The anticipated required right-of-way was estimated by taking the area of the proposed new right-ofway limits for the parkway and subtracting out the area of the existing public right-of-way that occurs within the proposed new right-of-way envelope. The major structural elements along Hidden Waters Parkway are anticipated to include a parkway-to-parkway grade-separated interchange (PGSI) with a fly-over at the Watermelon Parkway, a PGSI without a fly-over at the Southern Avenue Parkway, a new all-weather bridge over the Gila River, and a UPRR overpass. The PGSI unit cost estimates were developed as part 091337118 Technical Memorandum No. 5 Detailed Preferred Alignment 13 Maricopa County Department of Transportation Hidden Waters Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study May 2010 of the Arizona Parkway Intersection/Interchange Operational and Analysis and Design Concepts Study. The Gila River Bridge estimate is derived from the Old U.S. Highway 80 Bridge (Gillespie Dam Bridge) Final Design Concept Report. The UPRR overpass estimate is based on the Town of Wellton Railroad Crossing Alternatives Design Parameters Report prepared by KHA in June 2008. 4.4 Next Steps Agencies with primary responsibility for implementing the recommendations of this study are Maricopa County (Transportation, Planning, and Flood Control), Town of Buckeye, Town of Gila Bend, and ADOT. Among the critical long-range planning actions that need to commence are: ƒ Adoption of the Arizona Parkway designation and general preferred alignment for the Hidden ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ Waters Parkway; Right-of-way preservation in developing areas as needed to protect the long-term viability of the parkway facility; Preparation of Design Concept Reports for consideration in project programming; Appropriation of funding for design, right-of-way acquisition, and construction as needed for joint participation with land developers; and Coordination among the jurisdictions and key stakeholders on planning, design, and operational issues. While implementation timing of the Hidden Waters Parkway will be driven by land development, it is up to the public sector agencies to establish the transportation system planning framework now to be responsive to future land development interests while also protecting the broader longterm public interests. 091337118 Technical Memorandum No. 5 Detailed Preferred Alignment 14 Maricopa County Department of Transportation Hidden Waters Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study May 2010 APPENDIX TM5-1 ARIZONA PARKWAY CROSS-SECTIONS AND LAYOUTS 091337118 Technical Memorandum No. 5 Detailed Preferred Alignment Maricopa County Department of Transportation Hidden Waters Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study May 2010 Source: MCDOT Design Guideline Recommendations for the Arizona Parkway Figure 4.1 Parkway Grade-Separated Interchange Concept Design Page 4-2 APPENDIX TM5-2 DETAILED PREFERRED ALIGNMENT DRAWINGS 091337118 Technical Memorandum No. 5 Detailed Preferred Alignment Maricopa County Department of Transportation Hidden Waters Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study May 2010 A E H LIN M ATC LIMITS CH LI NE M A A T H C L IN E B PROJECT 4/21/2010 AT M MATCH LINE B MATCH LINE C 2:31:24 PM C LI MARICOPA DEPARTMENT OF COUNTY TRANSPORTATION HIDDEN WATERS PARKWAY CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY MCDOT PROJECT NO. TT005 RECOMMENDED FUTURE RIGHT-OF-WAY CORRIDOR Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. C 2010 KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. KEY MAP SHEET OF 37 MATCH LINE D PROJECT LIMITS MA MATCH LINE D K:\PHX_Systems\091337118 MCDOT Hidden Waters Pkwy\CADD\TT005\DesignFile\TT005_Key_Map.dgn NE H TC ON EL LEFT LINE ST A 28+00 SEE BE LOW MATCH LINE STA 56+00 SHT 2 MATCH S T LIMIT PROJEC MATCH LINE STA 28+00 SEE ABOVE RIGHT K:\PHX_Systems\091337118 MCDOT Hidden Waters Pkwy\CADD\TT005\DesignFile\TT005_SC_Plan+1.dgn 12:51:08 PM 4/21/2010 AD RO S 80 OLD U N LO Y ME KW ER SP AT ER ITS D W WAT LIM UDY NE /W EN AN ST R E PL DD ER NG /HI TH HA WY UR RC PK E OF T IN TT EC BJ SU LP LP RM TE WA Y S PKW ER N WAT HIDDE HIDDEN WATERS PKWY OLD US 80 SCALE: Hor: 1"=200’ Vert: N/A 100 0 100 200 SCALE IN FEET MARICOPA DEPARTMENT OF COUNTY TRANSPORTATION HIDDEN WATERS PARKWAY CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY MCDOT PROJECT NO. TT005 RECOMMENDED FUTURE RIGHT-OF-WAY CORRIDOR Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. C 2010 KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. SHEET 1 OF 37 LP LP MATCH LINE STA 84+00 SEE BELOW LEFT OLD US 80 MATCH LINE STA 112+00 SHT 3 MATCH LINE STA 84+00 SEE ABOVE RIGHT SHT 1 STA 56+00 MATCH LINE 4/20/2010 11:07:18 PM K:\PHX_Systems\091337118 MCDOT Hidden Waters Pkwy\CADD\TT005\DesignFile\TT005_SC_Plan+2.dgn HIDDEN WATERS PKWY HIDDEN WATERS PKWY OLD US 80 SCALE: Hor: 1"=200’ Vert: N/A 100 0 100 200 SCALE IN FEET MARICOPA DEPARTMENT OF COUNTY TRANSPORTATION HIDDEN WATERS PARKWAY CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY MCDOT PROJECT NO. TT005 RECOMMENDED FUTURE RIGHT-OF-WAY CORRIDOR Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. C 2010 KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. SHEET 2 OF 37 LP LP EE 00 S 140+ MATCH LINE STA 112+00 SHT 2 OW BEL T LEF 4/20/2010 STA LINE CH MAT OLD US 80 SHT 4 STA 168+00 MATCH LINE VE ABO SEE +00 E ST A1 40 TERS PKWY HIDDEN WA TCH LIN OLD US 80 MA K:\PHX_Systems\091337118 MCDOT Hidden Waters Pkwy\CADD\TT005\DesignFile\TT005_SC_Plan+3.dgn RIG HT 11:08:05 PM HIDDEN WATERS PK WY SCALE: Hor: 1"=200’ Vert: N/A 100 0 100 200 SCALE IN FEET MARICOPA DEPARTMENT OF COUNTY TRANSPORTATION HIDDEN WATERS PARKWAY CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY MCDOT PROJECT NO. TT005 RECOMMENDED FUTURE RIGHT-OF-WAY CORRIDOR Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. C 2010 KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. SHEET 3 OF 37 LP LP MATCH LINE STA 196+00 SEE BELOW LEFT MATCH LINE STA 168+00 SHT 3 4/20/2010 MATCH LINE STA 224+00 SHT 5 OLD US 80 MATCH LINE STA 196+00 SEE ABOVE RIGHT 11:08:53 PM K:\PHX_Systems\091337118 MCDOT Hidden Waters Pkwy\CADD\TT005\DesignFile\TT005_SC_Plan+4.dgn HIDDEN WATERS PKWY HIDDEN WATERS PKWY OLD US 80 SCALE: Hor: 1"=200’ Vert: N/A 100 0 100 200 SCALE IN FEET MARICOPA DEPARTMENT OF COUNTY TRANSPORTATION HIDDEN WATERS PARKWAY CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY MCDOT PROJECT NO. TT005 RECOMMENDED FUTURE RIGHT-OF-WAY CORRIDOR Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. C 2010 KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. SHEET 4 OF 37 LP LP MATCH LINE STA 252+00 SEE BELOW LEFT MATCH LINE STA 224+00 SHT 4 4/20/2010 MATCH LINE STA 280+00 SHT 6 OLD US 80 MATCH LINE STA 252+00 SEE ABOVE RIGHT 11:09:39 PM K:\PHX_Systems\091337118 MCDOT Hidden Waters Pkwy\CADD\TT005\DesignFile\TT005_SC_Plan+5.dgn HIDDEN WATERS PKWY HIDDEN WATERS PKWY OLD US 80 SCALE: Hor: 1"=200’ Vert: N/A 100 0 100 200 SCALE IN FEET MARICOPA DEPARTMENT OF COUNTY TRANSPORTATION HIDDEN WATERS PARKWAY CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY MCDOT PROJECT NO. TT005 RECOMMENDED FUTURE RIGHT-OF-WAY CORRIDOR Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. C 2010 KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. SHEET 5 OF 37 LP LP MATCH LINE STA 308+00 SEE BELOW LEFT GILA MOUNTAIN ROAD MATCH LINE STA 280+00 SHT 5 4/20/2010 MATCH LINE STA 336+00 SHT 7 OLD US 80 MATCH LINE STA 308+00 SEE ABOVE RIGHT HIDDEN WATERS PKWY OLD US 80 FORNES ROAD 11:10:25 PM K:\PHX_Systems\091337118 MCDOT Hidden Waters Pkwy\CADD\TT005\DesignFile\TT005_SC_Plan+6.dgn HIDDEN WATERS PKWY SCALE: Hor: 1"=200’ Vert: N/A 100 0 100 200 SCALE IN FEET MARICOPA DEPARTMENT OF COUNTY TRANSPORTATION HIDDEN WATERS PARKWAY CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY MCDOT PROJECT NO. TT005 RECOMMENDED FUTURE RIGHT-OF-WAY CORRIDOR Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. C 2010 KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. SHEET 6 OF 37 LP LP MATCH LINE STA 364+00 SEE ABOV E RIGHT HIDDEN WATERS PKWY MATCH LINE STA 364+00 SEE BELOW LEFT OLD US 80 MATCH LINE STA 392+00 SHT 8 MATCH LINE STA 336+00 SHT 6 4/20/2010 11:11:11 PM K:\PHX_Systems\091337118 MCDOT Hidden Waters Pkwy\CADD\TT005\DesignFile\TT005_SC_Plan+7.dgn HIDDEN WATERS PKWY OLD US 80 SCALE: Hor: 1"=200’ Vert: N/A 100 0 100 200 SCALE IN FEET MARICOPA DEPARTMENT OF COUNTY TRANSPORTATION HIDDEN WATERS PARKWAY CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY MCDOT PROJECT NO. TT005 RECOMMENDED FUTURE RIGHT-OF-WAY CORRIDOR Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. C 2010 KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. SHEET 7 OF 37 LP LP OLD US 80 9 MATCH LINE STA 448+00 SHT MATCH LINE STA 420+00 SEE ABOVE RIGHT MATCH LINE STA 420+00 SEE BELOW LEFT MATCH LINE STA 392+00 SHT 7 4/20/2010 11:12:01 PM K:\PHX_Systems\091337118 MCDOT Hidden Waters Pkwy\CADD\TT005\DesignFile\TT005_SC_Plan+8.dgn HIDDEN WATERS PKWY HIDDEN WATERS PKWY OLD US 80 SCALE: Hor: 1"=200’ Vert: N/A 100 0 100 200 SCALE IN FEET MARICOPA DEPARTMENT OF COUNTY TRANSPORTATION HIDDEN WATERS PARKWAY CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY MCDOT PROJECT NO. TT005 RECOMMENDED FUTURE RIGHT-OF-WAY CORRIDOR Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. C 2010 KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. SHEET 8 OF 37 LP LP MATCH LI NE STA 47 6+00 SEE BELOW LE FT PIERPO INT RO AD MATCH LINE STA 448+00 SHT 8 4/20/2010 MATCH LINE STA 504+ 00 SHT 10 ABOV 0 SEE 476+0 HIDDEN WATER S PKWY OLD US 80 E STA H LIN MATC K:\PHX_Systems\091337118 MCDOT Hidden Waters Pkwy\CADD\TT005\DesignFile\TT005_SC_Plan+9.dgn HT E RIG 11:13:17 PM OLD US 80 HIDDEN WATERS PKWY SCALE: Hor: 1"=200’ Vert: N/A 100 0 100 200 SCALE IN FEET MARICOPA DEPARTMENT OF COUNTY TRANSPORTATION HIDDEN WATERS PARKWAY CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY MCDOT PROJECT NO. TT005 RECOMMENDED FUTURE RIGHT-OF-WAY CORRIDOR Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. C 2010 KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. SHEET 9 OF 37 LP LP MATCH LINE STA 532+00 SEE BELOW LEFT LINE S TA 504 +00 SH T9 4/20/2010 OLD US 80 11 0+00 SHT NE STA 56 MATCH LI 0 SEE ABOV STA 5 32+0 CH L INE HIDDEN WATERS PKWY OLD US 80 MAT K:\PHX_Systems\091337118 MCDOT Hidden Waters Pkwy\CADD\TT005\DesignFile\TT005_SC_Plan+10.dgn E RIG H T MATCH 11:14:24 PM HIDDEN WATERS PKWY CANAL GILA BEND SCALE: Hor: 1"=200’ Vert: N/A 100 0 100 200 SCALE IN FEET MARICOPA DEPARTMENT OF COUNTY TRANSPORTATION HIDDEN WATERS PARKWAY CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY MCDOT PROJECT NO. TT005 RECOMMENDED FUTURE RIGHT-OF-WAY CORRIDOR Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. C 2010 KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. SHEET 10 OF 37 LP LP MATCH LINE STA 588+00 SEE BELOW LEFT MATCH LINE STA 560+00 SHT 10 4/20/2010 616+00 SHT 12 MATCH LINE STA OLD US 80 MATCH LINE STA 588+00 SEE ABOVE RIGHT HIDDEN WATERS PKWY SR OA D OLD US 80 OD GILA BEND CANAL WO 11:15:13 PM K:\PHX_Systems\091337118 MCDOT Hidden Waters Pkwy\CADD\TT005\DesignFile\TT005_SC_Plan+11.dgn HIDDEN WATERS PKWY SCALE: Hor: 1"=200’ Vert: N/A 100 0 100 200 SCALE IN FEET MARICOPA DEPARTMENT OF COUNTY TRANSPORTATION HIDDEN WATERS PARKWAY CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY MCDOT PROJECT NO. TT005 RECOMMENDED FUTURE RIGHT-OF-WAY CORRIDOR Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. C 2010 KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. SHEET 11 OF 37 LP LP MATCH LINE STA 644+00 SEE BELOW LEFT MATCH LINE STA 616+00 SHT 11 4/20/2010 OLD US 80 MATCH LINE STA 672+00 SHT 13 GILA BEND CANAL MATCH LINE STA 644+00 SEE ABOVE RIGHT 11:16:11 PM K:\PHX_Systems\091337118 MCDOT Hidden Waters Pkwy\CADD\TT005\DesignFile\TT005_SC_Plan+12.dgn HIDDEN WATERS PKWY HIDDEN WATERS PKWY OLD US 80 SCALE: Hor: 1"=200’ Vert: N/A 100 0 100 200 SCALE IN FEET MARICOPA DEPARTMENT OF COUNTY TRANSPORTATION HIDDEN WATERS PARKWAY CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY MCDOT PROJECT NO. TT005 RECOMMENDED FUTURE RIGHT-OF-WAY CORRIDOR Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. C 2010 KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. SHEET 12 OF 37 LP LP SEE BELOW LEFT MATCH LINE STA 700+00 MATCH LINE STA 672+00 SHT 12 4/20/2010 11:17:05 PM HIDDEN WATERS PKWY OLD US 80 MATCH LINE STA 728+00 SHT 14 MATCH LINE STA 700+00 SEE ABOVE RIGHT K:\PHX_Systems\091337118 MCDOT Hidden Waters Pkwy\CADD\TT005\DesignFile\TT005_SC_Plan+13.dgn GILA BEND CANAL HIDDEN WATERS PKWY OLD US 80 GILA BEND CANAL SCALE: Hor: 1"=200’ Vert: N/A 100 0 100 200 SCALE IN FEET MARICOPA DEPARTMENT OF COUNTY TRANSPORTATION HIDDEN WATERS PARKWAY CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY MCDOT PROJECT NO. TT005 RECOMMENDED FUTURE RIGHT-OF-WAY CORRIDOR Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. C 2010 KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. SHEET 13 OF 37 LP LP LEFT LOW SEE BE 756+00 E STA IN L H MATC H LINE STA 72 8+00 S HT 13 MATC 11:17:52 PM 4/20/2010 HIDDEN WATERS PKWY OLD US 80 MATCH LINE STA 784+00 SHT 15 MATCH LINE STA 756+00 SEE ABOVE RIGHT K:\PHX_Systems\091337118 MCDOT Hidden Waters Pkwy\CADD\TT005\DesignFile\TT005_SC_Plan+14.dgn GILA B END CA NAL HIDDEN WATERS PKWY OLD US 80 GILA BEND CANAL SCALE: Hor: 1"=200’ Vert: N/A 100 0 100 200 SCALE IN FEET MARICOPA DEPARTMENT OF COUNTY TRANSPORTATION HIDDEN WATERS PARKWAY CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY MCDOT PROJECT NO. TT005 RECOMMENDED FUTURE RIGHT-OF-WAY CORRIDOR Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. C 2010 KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. SHEET 14 OF 37 LP LP OW BEL SEE 2+00 MATCH LINE STA 784+ 00 SHT 14 LEFT 4/20/2010 81 STA NE H LI OLD US 80 C MAT 11:18:40 PM HIDDEN WATERS PKWY MATCH LINE STA 840+00 SHT 16 00 S EE A BOV 812+ E ST A RS PKWY HIDDEN WATE LIN TCH MA K:\PHX_Systems\091337118 MCDOT Hidden Waters Pkwy\CADD\TT005\DesignFile\TT005_SC_Plan+15.dgn ER IGH T GILA BEND CANAL OLD US 80 NAL GILA BEND CA SCALE: Hor: 1"=200’ Vert: N/A 100 0 100 200 SCALE IN FEET MARICOPA DEPARTMENT OF COUNTY TRANSPORTATION HIDDEN WATERS PARKWAY CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY MCDOT PROJECT NO. TT005 RECOMMENDED FUTURE RIGHT-OF-WAY CORRIDOR Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. C 2010 KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. SHEET 15 OF 37 LP LP MATCH LINE STA 868+ 00 SEE BELOW LEFT D OLD US 80 A N RO T 15 0 SH 40+0 TA 8 S E IN CH L MAT 4/20/2010 GILA BEND CANAL A HIDDE H LINE STA 8 96+00 SHT 17 IG ER V BO SEE N WAT E RS PK WY 00 OLD US 80 + 868 30 TA ES 7T H ND AV EN AL MATC IN HL TC MA K:\PHX_Systems\091337118 MCDOT Hidden Waters Pkwy\CADD\TT005\DesignFile\TT005_SC_Plan+16.dgn HT P RSO ATTE 11:19:26 PM HIDDEN WATERS PKWY UE N CA E AB GIL SCALE: Hor: 1"=200’ Vert: N/A 100 0 100 200 SCALE IN FEET MARICOPA DEPARTMENT OF COUNTY TRANSPORTATION HIDDEN WATERS PARKWAY CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY MCDOT PROJECT NO. TT005 RECOMMENDED FUTURE RIGHT-OF-WAY CORRIDOR Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. C 2010 KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. SHEET 16 OF 37 LP LP FT LE OW EL 924 +00 SEE B MATC H LINE STA 89 6+00 SH T 16 N WAT ER S PKW Y TA ES LIN H C OLD US 80 T 4/21/2010 12:51:39 PM HIDDE L MA NA CA ND E AB MATCH LINE STA 952+00 SHT 18 MATCH LINE STA 924+00 SEE ABOVE RIGHT K:\PHX_Systems\091337118 MCDOT Hidden Waters Pkwy\CADD\TT005\DesignFile\TT005_SC_Plan+17.dgn GIL HIDDEN WATERS PKWY OLD US 80 GILA BEND CANAL SCALE: Hor: 1"=200’ Vert: N/A 100 0 100 200 SCALE IN FEET MARICOPA DEPARTMENT OF COUNTY TRANSPORTATION HIDDEN WATERS PARKWAY CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY MCDOT PROJECT NO. TT005 RECOMMENDED FUTURE RIGHT-OF-WAY CORRIDOR Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. C 2010 KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. SHEET 17 OF 37 LEFT 980+00 SEE BELOW MATCH LINE STA 4/20/2010 MATCH LINE STA 952+00 SHT 17 V N E U E OLD US 80 MATCH LINE STA 1008+00 SHT 19 GILA BEND CANAL MATCH LINE STA 980+00 SEE ABOVE RIGHT 11:20:58 PM A K:\PHX_Systems\091337118 MCDOT Hidden Waters Pkwy\CADD\TT005\DesignFile\TT005_SC_Plan+18.dgn H LP LP 6T 31 HIDDEN WATERS PKWY OLD US 80 HIDDEN WATERS PKWY GILA BEND CANAL SCALE: Hor: 1"=200’ Vert: N/A 100 0 100 200 SCALE IN FEET MARICOPA DEPARTMENT OF COUNTY TRANSPORTATION HIDDEN WATERS PARKWAY CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY MCDOT PROJECT NO. TT005 RECOMMENDED FUTURE RIGHT-OF-WAY CORRIDOR Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. C 2010 KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. SHEET 18 OF 37 LP LP TCH LIN E ST A 11:21:46 PM 100 8+0 0 SH T 18 FT BELOW LE 36+00 SEE NE STA 10 MATCH LI 4/20/2010 MA HIDDEN WATERS PKWY OLD US 80 HIDDEN WATER S PKWY 00 A 1064+ LINE ST MATCH SHT 20 MATCH LINE ST A 1036+00 SEE AB OVE RIGHT K:\PHX_Systems\091337118 MCDOT Hidden Waters Pkwy\CADD\TT005\DesignFile\TT005_SC_Plan+19.dgn CANAL GILA BEND 80 OLD US GILA BEND CANAL SCALE: Hor: 1"=200’ Vert: N/A 100 0 100 200 SCALE IN FEET MARICOPA DEPARTMENT OF COUNTY TRANSPORTATION HIDDEN WATERS PARKWAY CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY MCDOT PROJECT NO. TT005 RECOMMENDED FUTURE RIGHT-OF-WAY CORRIDOR Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. C 2010 KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. SHEET 19 OF 37 LP LP LINE S TA 106 4+0 MATCH 11:22:31 PM 0 SHT 1 9 FT BELOW LE 92+00 SEE NE STA 10 MATCH LI 4/20/2010 HIDDEN WATERS PKWY OLD US 80 MATCH LI NE STA 11 20+00 SHT 21 MATCH LINE STA 1092+00 SEE ABOVE RIGHT HIDDEN WATERS PKWY ENTERPRISE ROAD K:\PHX_Systems\091337118 MCDOT Hidden Waters Pkwy\CADD\TT005\DesignFile\TT005_SC_Plan+20.dgn GILA BE ND CANA L SCALE: Hor: 1"=200’ Vert: N/A 100 0 100 200 SCALE IN FEET MARICOPA DEPARTMENT OF COUNTY TRANSPORTATION HIDDEN WATERS PARKWAY CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY MCDOT PROJECT NO. TT005 RECOMMENDED FUTURE RIGHT-OF-WAY CORRIDOR Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. C 2010 KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. SHEET 20 OF 37 LP LP WL EFT 4/20/2010 SEE +00 OV 00 S HT 2 2 HIDDEN WATERS PKWY MA TCH L MAT 11 STA INE CH L INE STA 1176 + AB EE 00 S 48+ K:\PHX_Systems\091337118 MCDOT Hidden Waters Pkwy\CADD\TT005\DesignFile\TT005_SC_Plan+21.dgn IG ER HT MA TCH MA LIN LIN TCH ES TA 114 8 TA ES 1 11:23:11 PM +0 120 T 0 SH BEL O 20 HIDDEN WA TERS PKWY SCALE: Hor: 1"=200’ Vert: N/A 100 0 100 200 SCALE IN FEET MARICOPA DEPARTMENT OF COUNTY TRANSPORTATION HIDDEN WATERS PARKWAY CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY MCDOT PROJECT NO. TT005 RECOMMENDED FUTURE RIGHT-OF-WAY CORRIDOR Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. C 2010 KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. SHEET 21 OF 37 T LEF OW BEL EE 00 S + 4 120 21 00 S HT STA 117 6+ I NE HL TCH STA LIN E 4/20/2010 +00 SHT 23 E RIGHT 1204+00 SEE ABOV MATCH LINE STA TC MA MA CH L INE STA 1232 PKWY HIDDEN WATERS MAT 11:23:58 PM K:\PHX_Systems\091337118 MCDOT Hidden Waters Pkwy\CADD\TT005\DesignFile\TT005_SC_Plan+22.dgn PKWY HIDDEN WATERS SCALE: Hor: 1"=200’ Vert: N/A 100 0 100 200 SCALE IN FEET MARICOPA DEPARTMENT OF COUNTY TRANSPORTATION HIDDEN WATERS PARKWAY CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY MCDOT PROJECT NO. TT005 RECOMMENDED FUTURE RIGHT-OF-WAY CORRIDOR Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. C 2010 KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. SHEET 22 OF 37 LP LP EB EL MATCH LINE STA 1288+00 SHT 24 E RIGHT 1261+00 SEE ABOV MATCH LINE STA K:\PHX_Systems\091337118 MCDOT Hidden Waters Pkwy\CADD\TT005\DesignFile\TT005_SC_Plan+23.dgn MA TC H LI MA NE TC ST H A LIN 12 61 +0 0S E 12 TA ES 0 32+ 12:52:16 PM H 0S OW LE 2 T2 FT 4/21/2010 HIDDEN WATERS PK WY HIDDEN WATERS PKWY SCALE: Hor: 1"=200’ Vert: N/A 100 0 100 200 SCALE IN FEET MARICOPA DEPARTMENT OF COUNTY TRANSPORTATION HIDDEN WATERS PARKWAY CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY MCDOT PROJECT NO. TT005 RECOMMENDED FUTURE RIGHT-OF-WAY CORRIDOR Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. C 2010 KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. SHEET 23 OF 37 MATCH LINE STA 1316+00 SEE BELOW LEFT MATCH LINE STA 1344+00 SHT 25 MATCH LINE STA 1316+00 SEE ABOVE RIGHT K:\PHX_Systems\091337118 MCDOT Hidden Waters Pkwy\CADD\TT005\DesignFile\TT005_SC_Plan+24.dgn D OA ER NT LIE CA MATCH LINE STA 1288+00 SHT 23 4/20/2010 11:26:09 PM UA AG LP LP HIDDEN WATERS PKWY HIDDEN WATERS PKWY SCALE: Hor: 1"=200’ Vert: N/A 100 0 100 200 SCALE IN FEET MARICOPA DEPARTMENT OF COUNTY TRANSPORTATION HIDDEN WATERS PARKWAY CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY MCDOT PROJECT NO. TT005 RECOMMENDED FUTURE RIGHT-OF-WAY CORRIDOR Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. C 2010 KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. SHEET 24 OF 37 LP LP MATCH LINE STA 1372+00 SEE BELOW LEFT MATCH LINE STA 1344+00 SHT 24 4/20/2010 MATCH LINE STA 1400+00 SHT 26 DESERT ROSE ROAD MATCH LINE STA 1372+00 SEE ABOVE RIGHT 11:27:05 PM K:\PHX_Systems\091337118 MCDOT Hidden Waters Pkwy\CADD\TT005\DesignFile\TT005_SC_Plan+25.dgn HIDDEN WATERS PKWY HIDDEN WATERS PKWY SCALE: Hor: 1"=200’ Vert: N/A 100 0 100 200 SCALE IN FEET MARICOPA DEPARTMENT OF COUNTY TRANSPORTATION HIDDEN WATERS PARKWAY CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY MCDOT PROJECT NO. TT005 RECOMMENDED FUTURE RIGHT-OF-WAY CORRIDOR Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. C 2010 KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. SHEET 25 OF 37 MATCH LINE STA 1428+00 SEE BELOW LEFT MATCH LINE STA 1400+00 SHT 25 4/20/2010 MATCH LINE STA 1456+00 SHT 27 MATCH LINE STA 1428+00 SEE ABOVE RIGHT 11:27:58 PM K:\PHX_Systems\091337118 MCDOT Hidden Waters Pkwy\CADD\TT005\DesignFile\TT005_SC_Plan+26.dgn HIDDEN WATERS PKWY HIDDEN WATERS PKWY SCALE: Hor: 1"=200’ Vert: N/A 100 0 100 200 SCALE IN FEET MARICOPA DEPARTMENT OF COUNTY TRANSPORTATION HIDDEN WATERS PARKWAY CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY MCDOT PROJECT NO. TT005 RECOMMENDED FUTURE RIGHT-OF-WAY CORRIDOR Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. C 2010 KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. SHEET 26 OF 37 LP LP LE FT 4/20/2010 OW SE E MATCH LINE STA 1512+0 0 SHT 28 HIDDEN WA TERS PKWY LIMITS SUBJECT TO FURTHER STUDY PLANNED HASSAYAMPA FREEWAY/HIDDEN WATERS PKWY INTERCHANGE R/W M 148 STA INE L H ATC E 0 SE 4+0 V ABO K:\PHX_Systems\091337118 MCDOT Hidden Waters Pkwy\CADD\TT005\DesignFile\TT005_SC_Plan+27.dgn IG ER HT MA TC MA HL IN TC H ES TA 148 4+ 00 14 TA ES N I L 11:28:43 PM 0 56+ BE L 26 HT 0S HIDDEN WATERS PKWY SCALE: Hor: 1"=200’ Vert: N/A 100 0 100 200 SCALE IN FEET MARICOPA DEPARTMENT OF COUNTY TRANSPORTATION HIDDEN WATERS PARKWAY CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY MCDOT PROJECT NO. TT005 RECOMMENDED FUTURE RIGHT-OF-WAY CORRIDOR Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. C 2010 KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. SHEET 27 OF 37 LP LP L OW SEE BE 540+00 STA 1 E IN L ATCH MATCH LINE STA 151 2+00 SHT 27 LEFT 4/20/2010 29 STA LINE 1568 HT +00 S +00 S EE A BOV E 1540 STA MAT CH L INE CH HIDDEN WATERS PKWY MAT K:\PHX_Systems\091337118 MCDOT Hidden Waters Pkwy\CADD\TT005\DesignFile\TT005_SC_Plan+28.dgn RIGH T M 11:29:33 PM HIDDEN WATERS PK WY SCALE: Hor: 1"=200’ Vert: N/A 100 0 100 200 SCALE IN FEET MARICOPA DEPARTMENT OF COUNTY TRANSPORTATION HIDDEN WATERS PARKWAY CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY MCDOT PROJECT NO. TT005 RECOMMENDED FUTURE RIGHT-OF-WAY CORRIDOR Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. C 2010 KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. SHEET 28 OF 37 LP LP D ROA OOL LEFT ELOW EE B S 0 0 96+ SCH STA CH L INE 15 STA 11:30:19 PM 1568 ARL ING +00 S HT 2 8 TON 4/20/2010 30 MATCH LINE STA 1624+00 SHT SEE AB OVE LINE ST A 1596+ 00 HIDDEN WATERS PKWY MATCH K:\PHX_Systems\091337118 MCDOT Hidden Waters Pkwy\CADD\TT005\DesignFile\TT005_SC_Plan+29.dgn RIGHT C MAT MAT E H LIN HIDDEN WATERS PKWY SCALE: Hor: 1"=200’ Vert: N/A 100 0 100 200 SCALE IN FEET MARICOPA DEPARTMENT OF COUNTY TRANSPORTATION HIDDEN WATERS PARKWAY CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY MCDOT PROJECT NO. TT005 RECOMMENDED FUTURE RIGHT-OF-WAY CORRIDOR Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. C 2010 KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. SHEET 29 OF 37 MATCH LINE STA 1652+00 SEE BELOW LEFT MATCH LINE STA 1624+00 SHT 29 12:08:06 PM 5/20/2010 HIDDEN WATERS PKWY AD RO IL RA MATCH LINE STA 1680+00 SHT 31 C FI CI MATCH LINE STA 1652+00 SEE ABOVE RIGHT PA K:\PHX_Systems\091337118 MCDOT Hidden Waters Pkwy\CADD\TT005\DesignFile\TT005_SC_Plan+30.dgn N IO UN LP LP HIDDEN WATERS PKWY SCALE: Hor: 1"=200’ Vert: N/A 100 0 100 200 SCALE IN FEET MARICOPA DEPARTMENT OF COUNTY TRANSPORTATION HIDDEN WATERS PARKWAY CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY MCDOT PROJECT NO. TT005 RECOMMENDED FUTURE RIGHT-OF-WAY CORRIDOR Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. C 2010 KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. SHEET 30 OF 37 LP LP MATCH LINE STA 1708+00 SEE ABOVE RIGHT K:\PHX_Systems\091337118 MCDOT Hidden Waters Pkwy\CADD\TT005\DesignFile\TT005_SC_Plan+31.dgn HIDDEN WATERS PKWY MARICOPA DEPARTMENT OF COUNTY TRANSPORTATION HIDDEN WATERS PARKWAY CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY MCDOT PROJECT NO. TT005 MATCH LINE STA 1736+00 SHT 32 RECOMMENDED FUTURE RIGHT-OF-WAY CORRIDOR SHEET 31 OF 37 MATCH LINE STA 1708+00 SEE BELOW LEFT DOBBINS ROAD 4/21/2010 PLANNED SR 801 FREEWAY/ HIDDEN WATERS PKWY INTERCHANGE R/W LIMITS SUBJECT TO FURTHER STUDY MATCH LINE STA 1680+00 SHT 30 12:52:43 PM HIDDEN WATERS PKWY SCALE: Hor: 1"=200’ 100 0 100 Vert: N/A SCALE IN FEET C 2010 KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. 200 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. LP LP MATCH LINE STA 1764+00 SEE BELOW LEFT BASELINE ROAD MATCH LINE STA 1736+00 SHT 31 GH HI MATCH LINE STA 1792+00 SHT 33 E M LO SA MATCH LINE STA 1764+00 SEE ABOVE RIGHT K:\PHX_Systems\091337118 MCDOT Hidden Waters Pkwy\CADD\TT005\DesignFile\TT005_SC_Plan+32.dgn W AY 11:32:39 PM 4/20/2010 HIDDEN WATERS PKWY HIDDEN WATERS PKWY 339TH AVENUE SCALE: Hor: 1"=200’ Vert: N/A 100 0 100 200 SCALE IN FEET MARICOPA DEPARTMENT OF COUNTY TRANSPORTATION HIDDEN WATERS PARKWAY CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY MCDOT PROJECT NO. TT005 RECOMMENDED FUTURE RIGHT-OF-WAY CORRIDOR Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. C 2010 KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. SHEET 32 OF 37 LP LP MATCH LINE STA 1820+00 SEE BELOW LEFT PLANNED SOUTHERN AVENUE PKWY/HIDDEN WATERS PKWY INTERCHANGE R/W LIMITS SUBJECT TO FURTHER STUDY 339TH AVENUE MATCH LINE STA 1848+00 SHT 34 MATCH LINE STA 1820+00 SEE ABOVE RIGHT MATCH LINE STA 1792+00 SHT 32 4/20/2010 11:33:24 PM K:\PHX_Systems\091337118 MCDOT Hidden Waters Pkwy\CADD\TT005\DesignFile\TT005_SC_Plan+33.dgn HIDDEN WATERS PKWY HIDDEN WATERS PKWY 339TH AVENUE SCALE: Hor: 1"=200’ Vert: N/A 100 0 100 200 SCALE IN FEET MARICOPA DEPARTMENT OF COUNTY TRANSPORTATION HIDDEN WATERS PARKWAY CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY MCDOT PROJECT NO. TT005 RECOMMENDED FUTURE RIGHT-OF-WAY CORRIDOR Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. C 2010 KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. SHEET 33 OF 37 LP LP HIDDEN WATERS PKWY MATCH LINE STA 1904+00 SHT 35 MATCH LINE STA 1876+00 SEE ABOVE RIGHT 339TH AVENUE MATCH LINE STA 1876+00 SEE BELOW LEFT BROADWAY ROAD MATCH LINE STA 1848+00 SHT 33 4/20/2010 11:34:12 PM K:\PHX_Systems\091337118 MCDOT Hidden Waters Pkwy\CADD\TT005\DesignFile\TT005_SC_Plan+34.dgn 339TH AVENUE HIDDEN WATERS PKWY SCALE: Hor: 1"=200’ Vert: N/A 100 0 100 200 SCALE IN FEET MARICOPA DEPARTMENT OF COUNTY TRANSPORTATION HIDDEN WATERS PARKWAY CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY MCDOT PROJECT NO. TT005 RECOMMENDED FUTURE RIGHT-OF-WAY CORRIDOR Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. C 2010 KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. SHEET 34 OF 37 LP LP MATCH LINE STA 1932+00 SEE BELOW LEFT LOWER BUCKEYE ROAD 339TH AVENUE MATCH LINE STA 1960+00 SHT 36 MATCH LINE STA 1932+00 SEE ABOVE RIGHT MATCH LINE STA 1904+00 SHT 34 4/20/2010 11:34:55 PM K:\PHX_Systems\091337118 MCDOT Hidden Waters Pkwy\CADD\TT005\DesignFile\TT005_SC_Plan+35.dgn HIDDEN WATERS PKWY 339TH AVENUE HIDDEN WATERS PKWY SCALE: Hor: 1"=200’ Vert: N/A 100 0 100 200 SCALE IN FEET MARICOPA DEPARTMENT OF COUNTY TRANSPORTATION HIDDEN WATERS PARKWAY CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY MCDOT PROJECT NO. TT005 RECOMMENDED FUTURE RIGHT-OF-WAY CORRIDOR Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. C 2010 KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. SHEET 35 OF 37 LP LP MATCH LINE STA 1988+00 SEE BELOW LEFT STUDY HIDDEN WATERS PKWY MATCH LINE STA 2016+00 SHT 37 PLANNED YUMA PKWY/HIDDEN WATERS PKWY INTERCHANGE R/W LIMITS SUBJECT TO FURTHER BUCKEYE ROAD MATCH LINE STA 1988+00 SEE ABOVE RIGHT MATCH LINE STA 1960+00 SHT 35 4/21/2010 12:53:14 PM K:\PHX_Systems\091337118 MCDOT Hidden Waters Pkwy\CADD\TT005\DesignFile\TT005_SC_Plan+36.dgn 339TH AVENUE HIDDEN WATERS PKWY 339TH AVENUE SCALE: Hor: 1"=200’ Vert: N/A 100 0 100 200 SCALE IN FEET MARICOPA DEPARTMENT OF COUNTY TRANSPORTATION HIDDEN WATERS PARKWAY CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY MCDOT PROJECT NO. TT005 RECOMMENDED FUTURE RIGHT-OF-WAY CORRIDOR Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. C 2010 KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. SHEET 36 OF 37 LP LP MATCH LINE STA 2044+00 SEE BELOW LEFT VAN BUREN STREET HIDDEN WATERS PKWY PLANNED INTERSTATE 10 FREEWAY/HIDDEN WATERS PKWY INTERCHANGE R/W LIMITS SUBJECT TO FURTHER STUDY ERS T AT E1 0 HIDDEN WATERS PKWY INT 339TH AVENUE PROJECT LIMITS ROOSEVELT STREET MATCH LINE STA 2044+00 SEE ABOVE RIGHT MATCH LINE STA 2016+00 SHT 36 4/20/2010 11:36:21 PM K:\PHX_Systems\091337118 MCDOT Hidden Waters Pkwy\CADD\TT005\DesignFile\TT005_SC_Plan+37.dgn 339TH AVENUE SCALE: Hor: 1"=200’ Vert: N/A 100 0 100 200 SCALE IN FEET MARICOPA DEPARTMENT OF COUNTY TRANSPORTATION HIDDEN WATERS PARKWAY CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY MCDOT PROJECT NO. TT005 RECOMMENDED FUTURE RIGHT-OF-WAY CORRIDOR Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. C 2010 KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. SHEET 37 OF 37