Final Report AASHTO U.S. BICYCLE ROUTE SYSTEM Task Assignment: MPD 068-14 Prepared for: Prepared by: In collaboration with: August 31, 2015 AASHTO U.S. Bicycle Route System Table of Contents Table of Contents 1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Background .............................................................................................................................. 1 2. Guiding Resource Documents .................................................................................................. 2 3. Corridor Goals......................................................................................................................... 4 3.1 USBR 66.................................................................................................................................... 4 3.2 USBR 70.................................................................................................................................... 4 3.3 USBR 79.................................................................................................................................... 4 3.4 USBR 90.................................................................................................................................... 4 3.4.1 Route WIthin the Phoenix and Tucson Metro Areas ............................................................ 4 4. Route Evaluation Criteria ........................................................................................................ 5 4.1 Roadway Factors...................................................................................................................... 5 4.2 Contextual Factors ................................................................................................................... 5 5. Route Alternatives and Scoring ............................................................................................... 8 6. Highest-Scoring Routes ......................................................................................................... 18 6.1 USBR 66.................................................................................................................................. 18 6.2 USBR 70.................................................................................................................................. 18 6.3 USBR 79.................................................................................................................................. 18 6.4 USBR 90 Within the Phoenix Area ......................................................................................... 18 6.5 USBR 90 Outside of the Phoenix Area ................................................................................... 18 7. Draft Recommended Routes ................................................................................................. 20 7.1 USBR 66.................................................................................................................................. 20 7.2 USBR 70.................................................................................................................................. 20 7.3 USBR 79.................................................................................................................................. 20 7.4 USBR 90 Within the Phoenix Area ......................................................................................... 20 7.4.1 West Valley Alternatives ..................................................................................................... 21 7.4.2 East Valley Alternatives through Pinal County.................................................................... 21 7.5 USBR 90 Outside of the Phoenix Area ................................................................................... 21 8. Stakeholder Review of Draft Recommended Routes .............................................................. 22 8.1 USBR 66.................................................................................................................................. 22 8.2 USBR 70.................................................................................................................................. 25 8.3 USBR 79.................................................................................................................................. 27 8.4 USBR 90.................................................................................................................................. 30 9. Roadway Owner Review of Updated Routes and Provision of Formal Concurrence ................. 34 9.1 USBR 66.................................................................................................................................. 34 9.1.1 Roadway Owners ................................................................................................................ 34 Final Report for Task Assignment MPD 068 - 14 August 2015 | i AASHTO U.S. Bicycle Route System 9.1.2 Roadway Owners Review and Comment Modifications..................................................... 35 9.2 USBR 70.................................................................................................................................. 36 9.2.1 Roadway Owners ................................................................................................................ 36 9.2.2 Roadway Owner Review Comments and Modifications ..................................................... 36 9.3 USBR 79.................................................................................................................................. 37 9.3.1 Roadway Owners ................................................................................................................ 37 9.3.2 Review Comments and Modifications ................................................................................ 37 9.4 USBR 90 Within the Phoenix Metro Area .............................................................................. 38 9.4.1 Roadway Owners ................................................................................................................ 38 9.4.2 Review Comments and Modifications ................................................................................ 38 9.5 USBR 90 Outside of the Phoenix Metro Area ........................................................................ 40 9.5.1 Roadway Owners ................................................................................................................ 40 9.5.2 10. Review Comments and Modifications ................................................................................ 40 Final Recommended Routes and AASHTO Submission ............................................................ 42 10.1 Final Recommended Routes .................................................................................................. 42 10.2 Routes to be Submitted to AASHTO for Designation ............................................................ 42 Appendices A. B. C. D. USBR Guiding Documents Turn-by-Turn Directions for Each USBR Formal Agency Concurrences for USBR 90 Formal Agency Concurrences for USBR 66 List of Figures Figure 1 - National Corridor Plan................................................................................................................. 3 Figure 2 - Segment (A) and Alternative (B) Scores for USBR 66.................................................................... 9 Figure 3 - Segment (A) and Alternative (B) Scores for USBR 70.................................................................. 10 Figure 4 - Segment Score for USBR 79 ........................................................................................................ 11 Figure 5 - Alternatives Score for USBR 79 ................................................................................................... 12 Figure 6 - Alternatives Identified for USBR 90 within Phoenix Metro Area................................................ 13 Figure 7 - Alternatives Scores for USBR 90 within Phoenix Metro Area ..................................................... 14 Figure 8 - Alternatives Score for USBR 90 Outside of Phoenix Metro Area................................................ 15 Figure 9 - Alternatives for USBR 90 south of Tucson (Alternatives M, N, O1, O2, O3, O4) ........................ 16 Figure 10 - Alternatives Scores for USBR 90 Outside of Phoenix Metro Area ............................................ 17 Figure 11 - Stakeholder Suggested Modifications for USBR 66 .................................................................. 24 Figure 12 - Stakeholder Suggested Modifications for USBR 70 .................................................................. 26 Figure 13 - Stakeholder Suggested Modifications for USBR 79 .................................................................. 29 Figure 14 - Stakeholder Suggested Modifications for USBR 90 .................................................................. 33 Final Report for Task Assignment MPD 068 - 14 August 2015 | ii AASHTO U.S. Bicycle Route System Figure 15 - Final Recommended Route for USBR 70................................................................................... 43 Figure 16 - Final Recommended Route for USBR 66................................................................................... 44 Figure 17 - Final Recommended Route for USBR 66 through the Flagstaff Area ....................................... 45 Figure 18 - Final Recommended Route for USBR 79................................................................................... 46 Figure 19 - Final Recommended Route for USBR 90 Within the Phoenix Metropolitan Area.................... 47 Figure 20 - Final Recommended Route for USBR 90 Outside of the Phoenix and Tucson Metropolitan Areas ........................................................................................................................................................... 48 Figure 21 - Final Recommended Route for USBR 90 in the Tucson Area ................................................... 49 List of Tables Table 1 - ADOT AASHTO USBRS Evaluation Criteria...................................................................................... 7 Table 2 - USBR 66 Stakeholder Identification ............................................................................................. 22 Table 3 - USBR 70 Stakeholder Identification ............................................................................................. 25 Table 4 - USBR 79 Stakeholder Identification ............................................................................................. 27 Table 5 - USBR 90 (Within the Phoenix Metro Area) Stakeholder Identification ....................................... 30 Table 6 - USBR 90 (Outside of Phoenix Metro Area) Stakeholder Identification ....................................... 30 Table 7 - Roadway Owners for USBR 66 ..................................................................................................... 34 Table 8 – Adjacent States for USBR 66........................................................................................................ 35 Table 9 - USBR 66 Route Modifications based on Roadway Owner Input ................................................. 35 Table 10 - Roadway Owners for USBR 70 ................................................................................................... 36 Table 11 - USBR 70 Route Modifications based on Roadway Owner Input ............................................... 36 Table 12 - Roadway Owners for USBR 79 ................................................................................................... 37 Table 13 - USBR 79 Route Modifications based on Roadway Owner Input ............................................... 37 Table 14 - Roadway Owners for USBR 90 Within the Phoenix Metro Area................................................ 38 Table 15 - USBR 90 Within Phoenix Metro Area Route Modifications based on Roadway Owner Input .. 39 Table 16 - Roadway Owners for USBR 90 Outside of Phoenix Metro Area ................................................ 40 Table 17 – Adjacent States for USBR 90 ..................................................................................................... 40 Table 18 - USBR 90 Outside of Phoenix Metro Area Route Modifications based on Roadway Owner Input .................................................................................................................................................................... 41 Final Report for Task Assignment MPD 068 - 14 August 2015 | iii AASHTO U.S. Bicycle Route System This page is intentionally left blank. Final Report for Task Assignment MPD 068 - 14 August 2015 | iv AASHTO U.S. Bicycle Route System 1. Introduction 1.1 Background The U.S. Bicycle Route (USBR) System is a developing national network of designated bicycle routes that will link urban, suburban, and rural areas using a variety of appropriate bicycling facilities including local streets, trails, pathways, and state highways. 1 The purpose of the USBR System is to facilitate travel between states over routes that are easily accessible and agreeable to bicyclists. 2 The USBR System is established by stitching together available roads and pathways to answer the question: What bicycle route options are available to travel across Arizona if you are unfamiliar with the state’s road network? USBRs are catalogued and designated by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Special Committee on U.S. Route Numbering. State Departments of Transportation (DOTs) work in coordination with local agencies, organizations, and volunteers to identify and develop the routes, which are then submitted for approval to AASHTO for USBR number designations. According to the Adventure Cycling Association (ACA), 18 states and the District of Columbia have established over 8,992 miles of the USBR System. Currently, more than 40 states are working to establish USBRs. The National Corridor Plan identifies 50-mile-wide corridors where a USBR could be recognized and developed. Arizona corridors documented in the National Corridor Plan include 66, 70, 79, and 90. AASHTO has not yet designated these corridors as USBRs. The purpose of this project is to complete the steps necessary for these corridors to receive USBR designation. The following tasks have been undertaken: ◢ Identify route alternatives for designation as USBRs within each of the four Arizona prioritized corridors (i.e., 66, 70, 79, and 90) as shown in Figure 1 below ◢ Evaluate route alternatives utilizing criteria established by the AASHTO Task Force on Numbered Bicycle Routes and ACA’s Route Criteria ◢ Obtain stakeholder and agency input regarding route alternatives ◢ Prepare draft routes and select a preferred route ◢ Secure agency agreements in the form of council resolutions of support or agency letters of support ◢ Develop a promotion plan to publicize the USBR System in Arizona ◢ Prepare a final report that includes the necessary documentation for submission to the AASHTO Special Committee on U.S. Route Numbering 1 2 http://www.adventurecycling.org/routes-and-maps/us-bicycle-route-system/ http://route.transportation.org/Pages/USBicycleRoutes.aspx Final Report for Task Assignment MPD 068 - 14 August 2015 | 1 AASHTO U.S. Bicycle Route System 2. Guiding Resource Documents The following AASHTO documents establish existing USBR policies and the processes for developing and designating routes. These documents are found in Appendix A and provide underlying information on the current state of USBRs and the requirements for a route to be officially designated. Purpose and Policy Statement, U.S. Numbered Bicycle Routes The Purpose and Policy Statement for U.S. Numbered Bicycle Routes was adopted in 1979 and most recently revised in 2009 by the AASHTO Special Committee on U.S. Route Numbering. This committee also sets policy for the numbering of the U.S. Interstate Highway System. The document defines the purpose of the USBR number and marking system and establishes policies for state DOTs for developing USBRs. It also provides recommended guidelines and standards for the implementation of USBRs, including the AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities and the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). Corridor and Route Criteria for U.S. Bike Routes System The route criteria developed by the AASHTO Task Force on Numbered Bicycle Routes serve as guiding principles for selecting and/or recognizing routes for inclusion in the USBR System. Primary considerations for selecting USBR corridors include: ◢ Ability to meet planning, design, and operational criteria established in the AASHTO Guide for Development of Bicycle Facilities ◢ Provide access to destinations with scenic, historic, cultural, and recreational values ◢ Link metropolitan areas and key attractions, including major existing and planned bike routes ◢ Offer services and amenities such as food and lodging Primary considerations for the selection of specific roads, streets, highways and pathways for inclusion into a proposed USBR include: ◢ Meet planning, design, and operational criteria in the AASHTO Guide for Development of Bicycle Facilities ◢ Use of low-traffic and/or off-road bikeways when possible ◢ Inclusion of spurs to target destinations ◢ Avoidance of unsuitable terrain, such as excessively hilly or winding roads National Corridor Plan In 2008, AASHTO's Board of Directors passed a resolution in support of the National Corridor Plan (Figure 1). The plan identifies 50-mile-wide corridors throughout the country where a USBR could be identified and developed. Arizona has four corridors that have not yet been designated by AASHTO as USBRs: 66, 70, 79, and 90. Final Report for Task Assignment MPD 068 - 14 August 2015 | 2 AASHTO U.S. Bicycle Route System Figure 1 - National Corridor Plan Final Report for Task Assignment MPD 068 - 14 August 2015 | 3 AASHTO U.S. Bicycle Route System 3. Corridor Goals The Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) Route Committee developed goals for each USBR corridor during Route Committee Meeting No. 1 (May 2014). The goals informed the identification and selection of route alternatives within each prioritized corridor, as well as the criteria used to select the preferred alternatives for each USBR. A summary of the corridor goals for each proposed USBR in Arizona is provided below. 3.1 USBR 66 1. Connect California and New Mexico via a route that includes iconic, scenic, or historic destinations that exist along Historic Route 66 2. Provide a comfortable route for cyclists 3.2 USBR 70 1. Elicit support from the Utah and Nevada DOTs 2. Ensure a coordinated effort while developing the preferred route alignment for submission to AASHTO for official designation 3.3 USBR 79 1. Provide a route between the Utah border and Phoenix that offers access to the Grand Canyon 2. Ensure the route has access to services necessary for cyclists 3. Provide a comfortable route for cyclists 4. Ensure the route provides connections to other USBRs and state cycling networks 3.4 USBR 90 1. Connect Phoenix to New Mexico via a route that provides access to Tucson. 2. Provide a comfortable route for cyclists 3. Provide a scenic route 4. Develop a route that is highly supported by relevant stakeholders 3.4.1 Route WIthin the Phoenix and Tucson Metro Areas 1. Provide a comfortable route for cyclists using a combination of on-street facilities and offstreet, separated shared-use paths 2. Create connections with established and planned bicycle-oriented infrastructure 3. Provide access to key destinations along the route Final Report for Task Assignment MPD 068 - 14 August 2015 | 4 AASHTO U.S. Bicycle Route System 4. Route Evaluation Criteria Route evaluation criteria, as shown in Table 1, were developed based on multiple sources including: ◢ USBR guiding resource documents ◢ Bicycle route criteria developed by other states ◢ ACA Route Selection Criteria for planning long-distance routes using existing roadways and shared-use paths Evaluation criteria reflect features and characteristics deemed important for routes that would be part of a USBR in Arizona. The criteria are divided into two categories: roadway factors and contextual factors. 4.1 Roadway Factors Roadway factors include measures such as average annual daily traffic (AADT), posted speed limit, and presence of paved shoulders. These are scored on a 4-factor scale (0 – 3). The scoring scheme for each criterion is informed by recognized sources such as AASHTO guiding documents and ACA criteria. For example, ACA criteria states that the ideal AADT is fewer than 1,000 vehicles-per-day (vpd); thus, routes that have fewer than 1,000 vpd receive a score of 3 for that criterion. Two roadway factors pertain to urban areas only. The first is side friction, a measure of features such as driveways or on-street parking. Routes that have a lot of vehicles turning in and out of driveways or shopping centers or those with many vehicles parked along the side of the road present challenges to cyclists who may be riding in a bicycle lane or along a shoulder. The second urban criterion is intersection comfortability, which describes the extent to which intersections facilitate bicycle crossings. Routes that score low in this criterion might include instances where a designated bike lane disappears as the road reaches a major intersection (e.g., to make way for a vehicle right-turn lane). Another example is where a separated shared-use path crosses an arterial street without intersection accommodations to help the cyclist cross the arterial. 4.2 Contextual Factors Contextual factors include those that cannot be easily scored on a 0 – 3 scale, but are equally important for routes that are part of the USBR System. For example, the U.S. Task Force on Numbered Bicycle Routes, Corridor and Route Criteria for the USBR System states that a primary consideration should be that the route “avoid[s] extremely hilly and limited visibility winding roads when feasible”. Another primary consideration is that routes should “include spurs to…multimodal nodes such as airports and rail, bus, and transit stations”.3 Further, contextual factors consider aspects of the route that may not be specific to the road itself, but instead to the attractions and services available along and near it. For example, the availability of services such as water, food, and lodging is essential for routes within the USBR System. Cyclists may ride along the route for many hours each day and require places to refill water, eat, and sleep. 3 US Task Force on Numbered Bicycle Routes. Corridor and Route Criteria for U.S. Bike Route System. Revised June 2006. Final Report for Task Assignment MPD 068 - 14 August 2015 | 5 AASHTO U.S. Bicycle Route System Contextual factors are split into two categories: segment- and route-level factors. Segment-level factors are evaluated for individual segments that constitute the route. Route-level factors are evaluated at the whole-route scale. These factors include criteria such as whether the route provides connections to the USBR proposals of neighboring states (i.e., California, New Mexico, Utah, and Nevada). It is not appropriate to evaluate individual segments against this criterion since there are only two segments per route that could connect to a neighboring state. However, it is essential that Arizona and neighboring states coordinate and agree on the location of inter-state connections. The other route-level factor pertains to the route’s ability to provide connections to other designated bicycle routes and systems within Arizona. For example, the Tucson region has implemented an urban loop, and cities within the Phoenix region have developed an extensive canal path system. Providing a connection to these facilities should be encouraged when determining final routes. Final Report for Task Assignment MPD 068 - 14 August 2015 | 6 AASHTO U.S. Bicycle Route System Table 1 - ADOT AASHTO USBRS Evaluation Criteria YES/ NO Contextual Factors Roadway Factors 3 2 1 0 20,000+ vpd Average daily traffic 0 -1000 vpd 1,000 - 10,000 vpd 10,000 - 20,000 vpd Average Daily Truck Traffic (data only for state-owned routes) 0 to 100 vpd 100-500 vpd 500-2000 vpd >2000 vpd < 25 mph 30 - 35 mph 40 - 45 mph > 50 mph Posted speed limit Type of bicycle infrastructure available Side friction (urban areas only) Major intersection crossings comfortability level (urban areas only) Shared-use path Bike lane or paved shoulder with effective width of 4’ or greater Paved shoulder with effective width of 2’ to 4’ Paved shoulder with effective width of less than 2’ or no shoulder Almost none Light Medium Heavy All intersections have bike facilities (e.g., bicycle buffer) Some intersections have bike facilities Few intersections have bike facilities No intersections have bike facilities Total (Score) Score Segment-Level Notes ACA criteria states that fewer than 1,000 vpd is ideal Effective shoulder width considers the pavement width that is usable for cycling. Shoulders that contain rumble strips have a reduced effective width because the portion of the shoulder with the rumble strip cannot be counted for this measurement. Consider heavily used on-street parking, high volume of right turns, side streets, and driveways Consider bike lane drops, approach widths, pavement markings, pedestrian signals, and medians at mid-block crossings (e.g., HAWK) Routing: easy to follow with limited turns; is well marked or has easily identified permanent landmarks to enable navigation (wayfinding) Destinations identified as important by the Office of Tourism (scenic, cultural, historical, recreational, universities, tourist attractions) are along or can be easily accessed (within 2.5 miles) by the segment. Analyst will make note of number of services to which the route connects. Note: Analyst can refer to http://arizonaguide.com/places-to-visit Other modes that provide inter-city travel (airports with commercial service, Amtrak station, intercity bus depot) are along or can be easily accessed (within 2.5 miles) of the segment Availability of services (bicycle shops, food/water, lodging/camping, convenience/grocery stores, hospitals) along the segment. Analyst will make note of and document number of services to which the route connects. Terrain: relatively flat to limited rolling; limited winding and sharp curves. Analyst will note length and % of steep grades. Route-Level Includes or intersects major existing and planned bicycle routes that are suitable for travel by touring bicycles (including urban shared-use paths) Neighboring-state existing or proposed USBRs are connected to the route Total (Yes) Final Report for Task Assignment MPD 068 - 14 August 2015 | 7 AASHTO U.S. Bicycle Route System 5. Route Alternatives and Scoring Route alternatives were scored by breaking each alternative into individual segments. Segments were identified as stretches of road or paths with similar characteristics, such as speed limit, traffic volumes, or grade. Segments were delineated when there was a significant change to the roadway characteristics. Each route alternative was broken into its respective segments, and each segment was evaluated using the AASHTO USBR System criteria. Scoring included a roadway factors score and a contextual factors score. To calculate the overall alternative score, each segment’s score was adjusted based on its contribution to the length of the route. The overall alternative final score was calculated by adding the adjusted scores for all of the segments within the route alternative with the route-level factors score. Figures 2 - 10 show the route segment alternatives and segment scoring results for each USBR. . Final Report for Task Assignment MPD 068 - 14 August 2015 | 8 AASHTO U.S. Bicycle Route System Figure 2 - Segment (A) and Alternative (B) Scores for USBR 66 Final Report for Task Assignment MPD 068 - 14 August 2015 | 9 AASHTO U.S. Bicycle Route System Figure 3 - Segment (A) and Alternative (B) Scores for USBR 70 Final Report for Task Assignment MPD 068 - 14 August 2015 | 10 AASHTO U.S. Bicycle Route System Figure 4 - Segment Score for USBR 79 Final Report for Task Assignment MPD 068 - 14 August 2015 | 11 AASHTO U.S. Bicycle Route System Figure 5 - Alternatives Score for USBR 79 Final Report for Task Assignment MPD 068 - 14 August 2015 | 12 AASHTO U.S. Bicycle Route System Figure 6 - Alternatives Identified for USBR 90 within Phoenix Metro Area Final Report for Task Assignment MPD 068 - 14 August 2015 | 13 AASHTO U.S. Bicycle Route System Figure 7 - Alternatives Scores for USBR 90 within Phoenix Metro Area Final Report for Task Assignment MPD 068 - 14 August 2015 | 14 AASHTO U.S. Bicycle Route System Figure 8 - Alternatives Score for USBR 90 Outside of Phoenix Metro Area Final Report for Task Assignment MPD 068 - 14 August 2015 | 15 AASHTO U.S. Bicycle Route System Figure 9 - Alternatives for USBR 90 south of Tucson (Alternatives M, N, O1, O2, O3, O4) Final Report for Task Assignment MPD 068 - 14 August 2015 | 16 AASHTO U.S. Bicycle Route System Figure 10 - Alternatives Scores for USBR 90 Outside of Phoenix Metro Area Final Report for Task Assignment MPD 068 - 14 August 2015 | 17 AASHTO U.S. Bicycle Route System 6. Highest-Scoring Routes The highest-scoring routes for each USBR (USBR 66, 70, 79, and 90) are described below. 6.1 USBR 66 The highest scoring route for USBR 66 includes Alternative A through Petrified Forest National Park, Alternative C along AZ-99 and Luepp Road, Alternative F through Flagstaff, and Alternative H through Oatman and into California. 6.2 USBR 70 The highest scoring route for USBR 70 uses Mohave County Road 91 instead of I-15 as the connection to and from Utah. However, as previously mentioned, this project does not intend to propose USBR 70 for designation without full concurrence and cooperation from both Nevada and Utah. This is important because if Arizona designates a route unfavorable to an adjacent state, the state is left without the option of creating a connection with Arizona’s route. 6.3 USBR 79 The highest scoring route for USBR 79 includes SR 64 through Grand Canyon National Park and continues south using Alternative A through Flagstaff, Sedona, Cottonwood, and Jerome to reach the City of Prescott. The route through Prescott uses Alternative D comprising Willow Creek Road, Whipple Street, and Montezuma Street. The connection between Prescott and Wickenburg does not have any alternatives and will follow SR 89 to Wickenburg. 6.4 USBR 90 Within the Phoenix Area The route within the Phoenix metropolitan area was split into three areas: west valley, central Phoenix, and east valley. ◢ Alternative B H A is the highest scoring route through the west valley and includes a segment of Lake Pleasant Parkway and a connection to New River and Skunk Creek trails. ◢ Alternative E B is the highest scoring route through central Phoenix (Central Alternatives) and includes Campbell Avenue, 36th Street, Oak Street, and 68th Street to eventually connect with Mill Avenue in Tempe. ◢ Alternative G C A is the highest scoring east valley alternative and takes riders through Mesa, Gilbert, and Queen Creek to eventually to Coolidge along SR 87 via Attaway Road. 6.5 USBR 90 Outside of the Phoenix Area ◢ The highest scoring routes for USBR 90 west of the Phoenix metropolitan area is Alternative Q (I-10, US 60) which connects to Wickenburg. The route also connects to USBR 79 at Wickenburg. ◢ South and east of the Phoenix metropolitan area, the highest scoring route alternatives follow SR 87 through Coolidge (Alternative I). Alternative I connects to the I-10 Frontage Road and then continue past Picacho Peak towards Tucson. Final Report for Task Assignment MPD 068 - 14 August 2015 | 18 AASHTO U.S. Bicycle Route System ◢ The highest scoring route in the Tucson metro area utilizes as much of the Tucson Urban Loop as possible. Local streets are utilized to fill gaps in the loop. ◢ The route south of Tucson follows the shoulders of I-10 and connects with New Mexico via Alternative M, which includes Safford, US 191, and SR 78. While the routes described above received the highest scores, they were not necessarily preferred by stakeholders and the ADOT Route Committee. Thus, the next step in the process refined the alternatives based on conversations with the committee and key stakeholders associated with each route, such as municipalities, tribal governments, and others. Engineering judgment and stakeholder preferences were elicited during these conversations; as a result, route modifications were made as necessary. Final Report for Task Assignment MPD 068 - 14 August 2015 | 19 AASHTO U.S. Bicycle Route System 7. Draft Recommended Routes The next step in the project is to present the highest scoring routes to the ADOT Route Committee for consideration as the USBR draft recommended routes. The highest scoring routes were also presented to the Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) Bicycle and Pedestrian Committee for input and review. In some cases, the highest-scoring route was not considered to be draft recommended route due to considerations such as engineering judgment, scenic quality, tourism, or the personal experiences of MAG and/or ADOT Route Committee members. The study team considered this input and identified the USBR draft recommended routes presented to stakeholders during the next phase of the study. 7.1 USBR 66 The draft recommended route for USBR 66 is the same as the highest-scoring route for USBR 66. No changes are recommended. 7.2 USBR 70 The draft recommended route for USBR 70 is the same as the highest-scoring route for USBR 66. No changes are recommended. However, designation decisions are contingent upon input from the Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT). 7.3 USBR 79 The draft recommended route for USBR 79 is the same as the highest-scoring route for USBR 79. No changes are recommended. No changes are recommended. However, the Route Committee recognized the tradeoffs between providing a scenic route through Sedona or providing a flatter and more comfortable route that bypasses Sedona and Oak Creek Canyon. The ADOT Route Committee agreed that providing a route through some of Arizona’s most popular and iconic areas is important, and that the highest-scoring route (SR 89A) should be pursued as the recommended route. However, the ADOT Route Committee also recognized the deficiencies and pitfalls of SR 89A for bicyclists; thus, decisions were contingent on stakeholder input obtained during the next phase of the project. 7.4 USBR 90 Within the Phoenix Area Identification of the USBR 90 draft recommended route in the Phoenix area required consideration of the future improvement plans of local agencies and municipalities. For example, a city’s roadway improvement plan may create a condition that transforms a currently unsuitable road into a highly suitable and desirable road for cyclists within the next two years. For some segments, the ADOT Route Committee determined that the highest scoring route for USBR 90 was not the draft recommended route to be shared with stakeholders. Specifically, there are three areas where deviations from the highest scoring routes were made in consideration of MAG and ADOT Route Committee member input, field review of existing conditions, and consideration of local agency improvement plans. Final Report for Task Assignment MPD 068 - 14 August 2015 | 20 AASHTO U.S. Bicycle Route System 7.4.1 West Valley Alternatives Because Lake Pleasant Parkway has minimal shoulders along the roadway, there was discussion about the road’s suitability for bicyclists. However, the City of Peoria is in the process of improving Lake Pleasant Parkway to include 8- to 12-foot shoulders, some segments with bike lanes, and new pavement surfaces. The New River Trailhead at Deer Valley Road will provide better access to the New River Trail when completed by summer 2016. As a result, in consideration of these near-term improvements, it was decided that USBR 90 should include Lake Pleasant Parkway and Deer Valley Road as the draft recommended route. 7.4.2 East Valley Alternatives through Pinal County Route and MAG committee members expressed concern about designating Hunt Highway as a draft recommended route. The study team’s field review confirmed that the newly completed sections of Hunt Highway between Empire Boulevard and Thompson Road and segments of Bella Vista Road lack paved shoulders and bicycle lanes. The study team decided that Hunt Highway is not a viable alternative for designation as a USBR. Alternative D utilizes SR 79 and routes bicyclists through Florence before connecting to US 60. Alternative D then follows the ACA Southern Tier Route through Apache Junction and Mesa before ultimately connecting to Tempe. SR 79 and US 60 provide wide, paved shoulders suitable for bicycling. Given the deficiencies of the Hunt Highway and SR 87 alternatives, it was decided that Alternative D (SR 79 and US 60) would serve as the draft recommended route. 7.5 USBR 90 Outside of the Phoenix Area Discussions for USBR 90 outside of the Phoenix area focused on route alternatives in southeast Arizona. Route alternatives require tradeoffs between route directness and scenic access to some of Arizona’s popular tourist destinations. This discussion pertained specifically to the following areas: ◢ The ADOT Route Committee felt that bypassing Bisbee and Tombstone is a disservice to the touring bicyclist. The USBR should connect to these destinations to provide an “Arizona experience.” The study team recognizes that some routes in this area lack wide shoulders; however, traffic volumes on many of these roads are sufficiently low. After consideration of field conditions and ADOT Route Committee input, it was decided that the draft recommended route would comprise SR 83 through Sonoita, SR 82, and SR 80 through Tombstone, Bisbee, and Douglas. ◢ In the Tucson area, ADOT Route Committee members suggested following the northern Loop along the Rillito River. The Loop consists of a network of shared-use paths that parallel a series of washes and drainage systems. The northern Loop provides scenic views of the Catalina Mountains, while the southern Loop provides better access to downtown Tucson. However, the northern loop includes network gaps that will be completed within the next 2 to 5 years. As such, after further discussion with the ADOT Route Committee, it was determined that the southern portion of the Loop would be the draft recommended route through Tucson. Following completion of the northern Loop, ADOT can apply to alter the USBR designation. Final Report for Task Assignment MPD 068 - 14 August 2015 | 21 AASHTO U.S. Bicycle Route System 8. Stakeholder Review of Draft Recommended Routes Draft recommended routes in accordance with those presented in Section 7 were distributed to stakeholders for review and comment. Stakeholders comprise three groups: The first group of stakeholders includes jurisdictions and land management agencies that have OWNERSHIP of the facilities (i.e., roadways, shared-use paths) that would be included within the proposed route. These stakeholders include ADOT, counties, cities, towns, other state and federal agencies, and tribal governments. The second group of stakeholders includes other jurisdictions and land management agencies that do not have ownership of facilities (i.e., roadways, shared-use paths) that would be included within the proposed route. Instead, these stakeholders manage the lands adjacent to the proposed route. These include counties, cities, towns, other state and federal agencies, and tribal governments. The third set of stakeholders are BICYCLING INTEREST groups, advocacy organizations, and event providers. Individuals within these organizations provide in-depth knowledge of the cycling environment within localities and regions throughout Arizona. They are also likely potential users of the USBR System. 8.1 USBR 66 Table 2 lists agencies and organizations that were asked to review and provide comment on the Draft USBR 66 Recommended Route and indicates if comments were received. Figure 11 shows the route modifications suggested by various stakeholders upon review of the Draft Recommended Route for USBR 66. Technical Memorandum 4 provides a complete list of all comments and suggestions received from stakeholders throughout the project. Table 2 - USBR 66 Stakeholder Identification Stakeholder Name Initial Point of Contact Comments Received ADOT Flagstaff District Audra Merrick, District Engineer  ADOT Holbrook District Lynn Johnson, District Engineer  ADOT Kingman District Mike Kondelis, District Engineer  Apache County Delwin Wengert, County Manager  Coconino County Cynthia Seelhammer, County Manager  Mohave County Mike Hendrix, County Administrator  Navajo County James Jayne, County Manager  Yavapai County Phil Bourdon, County Administrator City of Flagstaff Kevin Burke, City Manager   (through Flagstaff Metropolitan Planning Organzation (FMPO)) City of Holbrook Ray Alley, City Manager Final Report for Task Assignment MPD 068 - 14 - August 2015 | 22 AASHTO U.S. Bicycle Route System Stakeholder Name Initial Point of Contact Comments Received City of Kingman John Dougherty, City Manager  City of Williams Brandon Buchanan, City Manager  City of Winslow Stephen J Pauken, City Manager  Coalition of Arizona Bicyclists Bob Beane, President  Arizona Bicycle Club Kristi Moore, President - Flagstaff Biking Organization Anthony Quintile, Board Member Fort Mojave Indian Tribe Wayne Nelson, Tribal Planner, Roads Department Hualapai Tribe Philip Wisely, Director of Public Services  -  (telephone conversation indicating support) Navajo Nation Karen Benally, Planning Department Manager, Division of Transportation Kaibab National Forest Mike Williams, Forest Supervisor  Coconino National Forest Earl Stewart, Forest Supervisor  Petrified Forest National Park Brad Traver, Superintendent  Final Report for Task Assignment MPD 068 - 14 - August 2015 | 23 AASHTO U.S. Bicycle Route System Figure 11 - Stakeholder Suggested Modifications for USBR 66 Final Report for Task Assignment MPD 068 - 14 August 2015 | 24\ AASHTO U.S. Bicycle Route System 8.2 USBR 70 Table 3 lists agencies and organizations that were asked to review and provide comment on the Draft USBR 70 Recommended Route and indicates if comments were received. Figure 12 shows the route modifications suggested by various stakeholders upon review of the Draft Recommended Route for USBR 70. Technical Memorandum 4 provides a complete list of all comments and suggestions received from stakeholders throughout the project. Table 3 - USBR 70 Stakeholder Identification Stakeholder Name Initial Point of Contact ADOT Flagstaff District Audra Merrick, District Engineer Coalition of Arizona Bicyclists Bob Beane, President Mohave County Mike Hendrix, County Administrator Comments Received   Additionally, conference calls with representatives from UDOT and the Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT) were conducted. While neither agency had comments at that time, both indicated that they did not have current plans to peruse designation of USBR 70. Because the designation of USBR 70 in Arizona is contingent upon coordination with UDOT and NDOT, it was decided that USBR 70 would not be proposed for designation during this phase of USBR designation efforts. . Final Report for Task Assignment MPD 068 - 14 August 2015 | 25 AASHTO U.S. Bicycle Route System Figure 12 - Stakeholder Suggested Modifications for USBR 70 Final Report for Task Assignment MPD 068 - 14 August 2015 | 26 AASHTO U.S. Bicycle Route System 8.3 USBR 79 Table 4 lists agencies and organizations that were asked to review and provide comment on the Draft USBR 79 Recommended Route and indicates if comments were received. Figure 13 shows the route modifications suggested by various stakeholders upon review of the Draft Recommended Route for USBR 79. Technical Memorandum 4 provides a complete list of all comments and suggestions received from stakeholders throughout the project. Table 4 - USBR 79 Stakeholder Identification Stakeholder Name Initial Point of Contact Comments Received ADOT Flagstaff District Audra Merrick, District Engineer  ADOT Prescott District Alvin Stump, District Engineer  Coconino County Cynthia Seelhammer, County Manager  Maricopa County Tom Manos, County Manager  Yavapai County Phil Bourdon, County Manager  City of Cottonwood Mark Luffman, Cottonwood Bicycle Advisory Committee  Doug Bartosh, City Manager (responded to survey by providing contact information for future updates; did not provide comments)  (responded that he would forward the information to others) City of Flagstaff Kevin Burke, City Manager  (through FMPO) City of Prescott Craig McConnell, City Manager  City of Sedona Tim Ernster, City Manager  City of Williams Brandon Buchanan, City Manager  Town of Fredonia Christy Riddle, Town Manager - Town of Jerome Candace Gallagher, Town Manager - Town of Prescott Valley Larry Tarkowski, Town Manager - Town of Tusayan Will Wright, Town Manager - Town of Wickenburg Joshua Wright, Town Manager - Coconino National Forest Earl Stewart, Forest Supervisor  Kaibab National Forest Mike Williams, Forest Supervisor  Prescott National Forest Teresa Chase, Supervisor Final Report for Task Assignment MPD 068 - 14 - August 2015 | 27 AASHTO U.S. Bicycle Route System Stakeholder Name Initial Point of Contact Comments Received  Grand Canyon National Park Dave Uberuaga, Superintendent Navajo Nation Karen Benally, Department Manager - Prescott Alternative Transportation Bob McCarty, Operations Manager - Coalition of Arizona Bicyclists Bob Beane, President - Arizona Bicycle Club Kristi Moore, President - Flagstaff Biking Organization Anthony Quintile, Board Member Verde Valley Cyclists Coalition Lars Romig, President Final Report for Task Assignment MPD 068 - 14  - August 2015 | 28 AASHTO U.S. Bicycle Route System Figure 13 - Stakeholder Suggested Modifications for USBR 79 Final Report for Task Assignment MPD 068 - 14 August 2015 | 29 AASHTO U.S. Bicycle Route System 8.4 USBR 90 Table 5 and Table 6 list agencies and organizations that were asked to review and provide comment on the Draft USBR 90 (Within Phoenix Metro Area and Outside of Phoenix Metro Area, respectively) Recommended Route and indicate if comments were received. Figure 14 shows the route modifications suggested by various stakeholders upon review of the Draft Recommended Route for USBR 90. Technical Memorandum 4 provides a complete list of all comments and suggestions received from stakeholders throughout the project. Table 5 - USBR 90 (Within the Phoenix Metro Area) Stakeholder Identification Stakeholder Name Initial Point of Contact Comments Received ADOT Phoenix Maintenance District Mark Poppe, Assistant District Engineer Traffic and Electrical Operations  Maricopa County Tom Manos  City of Apache Junction George Hoffman, City Manager  City of Glendale Brenda Fischer, City Manager  City of Mesa Chris Brady, City Manager  City of Peoria Carl Swenson, City Manager  City of Phoenix Ed Zuercher, City Manager  City of Scottsdale Fritz Behring, City Manager  City of Tempe Andrew Ching, City Manager  Coalition of Arizona Bicyclists Bob Beane, President Flood Control District of Maricopa County William Wiley, District Chief Engineer and General Manager  Salt River Project Jim Duncan, Senior Analyst, Water Engineering  Phoenix Metro Bike Club Armando Charvet, President - Arizona Bicycle Club Kristi Moore, President - Tempe Bicycle Action Group Patrick Valandra, President - - Table 6 - USBR 90 (Outside of Phoenix Metro Area) Stakeholder Identification Stakeholder Name Initial Point of Contact Comments Received ADOT Prescott District Alvin Stump, District Engineer  ADOT Safford District William Harmon, District Engineer  ADOT Tucson District Roderick Lane, District Engineer Final Report for Task Assignment MPD 068 - 14 - August 2015 | 30 AASHTO U.S. Bicycle Route System Stakeholder Name Initial Point of Contact Comments Received ADOT Yuma District Paul Patane, District Engineer Cochise County Michael Ortega, County Administrator La Paz County Dan Field, County Administrator Pima County Chuck Huckelberry, County Administrator Pima Association of Governments Gabe Thum, Senior Transportation Planner Pinal County Greg Stanley, County Manager  Santa Cruz County Carlos Rivera, County Manager  City of Bisbee Jestin Johnson, City Manager  City of Coolidge Robert Flatley, City Manager - City of Douglas Carlos De La Torre, City Manager - City of South Tucson Luis Gonzales, City Manager - City of Tombstone Jack Wright, Public Works Director  City of Tucson Martha Durkin, Interim City Manager  Town of Florence Charles Montoya, Town Manager - Town of Marana Gilbert Davidson, Town Manager  Town of Quartzsite Skylor Miller, Town Manager - Colorado River Indian Tribes Gregory Fisher, Tribal Planner, Planning Department - Coronado National Forest Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor - Arizona Bicycle Club Kristi Moore, President - Coalition of Arizona Bicyclists Bob Beane, President - Cochise Bicycle Advocates John Wettack, President Greater Arizona Bicycling Association Wayne Cullop, President - Living Streets Alliance Duncan Benning, Bicycle Committee Chair - Perimeter Bicycling Association Richard DeBernardis, President - Santa Cruz Valley Bicycle Advocates Committee John Pilger, President - Final Report for Task Assignment MPD 068 - 14 -  -  -  August 2015 | 31 AASHTO U.S. Bicycle Route System Stakeholder Name Tucson-Pima County Bicycle Advisory Committee Initial Point of Contact David Bachman-Williams, Chair Final Report for Task Assignment MPD 068 - 14 Comments Received - August 2015 | 32 AASHTO U.S. Bicycle Route System Figure 14 - Stakeholder Suggested Modifications for USBR 90 Final Report for Task Assignment MPD 068 - 14 August 2015 | 33\ AASHTO U.S. Bicycle Route System 9. Roadway Owner Review of Updated Routes and Provision of Formal Concurrence After the initial set of comments and suggested modifications were collected from stakeholders, an updated set of recommended routes was developed. These routes were distributed to agencies that either owned or had operational authority over roadways, trails, or paths included in the route. Conference calls were offered to each roadway-owning agency to review the updated recommended route, and to discuss the specific route segments that the agency owned. Agencies were asked to provide formal, written concurrence for the route designation. Formal support could be given in the form of a letter of support signed by an administrative figure, such as a mayor, city manager, or county administrator, or as a formal resolution passed by a municipal council or a county board of supervisors. Both forms of concurrence are equally acceptable. These letters and resolutions of concurrence provided formal documentation of the agreed-upon route and recognition of the agency’s support for the route. The following section summarizes the results from this effort and includes any additional modifications that were made to the updated routes in order to achieve agency concurrence. 9.1 USBR 66 9.1.1 Roadway Owners Table 7 lists the agencies identified as roadway owners of roads and paths that are part of the USBR 66 Updated Route. Each of these stakeholders received the updated route and were contacted by email, telephone/conference call, or in-person to discuss the route segment(s) within their jurisdiction. The main point of contact at the agency is shown. Additionally, the table indicates whether formal concurrence was received from the agency. Table 8 lists adjacent states which provided concurrence of connection points. Table 7 - Roadway Owners for USBR 66 Roadway Owner Main Point of Contact Concurrence Received Apache County Ferrin Crosby, County Engineer Coconino County Tim Dalegowski, County Transportation Planner Mohave County Steve Latoski, County Public Works Director Mohave County did not provide concurrence4 Yavapai County Tim Stotler, County Assistant Engineer Yavapai County did not provide concurrence City of Flagstaff Martin Ince, Multi-Modal Planner (FMPO)  City of Kingman Frank Marbury, Assistant City Engineer  Apache County did not provide concurrence  4 Although Mohave County did not provide concurrence for the designation of USBR 66 along County-owned roads at this time, the County Board of Supervisors did pass a resolution supporting the “development and future designation of USBR 66…upon completion of infrastructure improvements necessary to establish facilities meeting minimum engineering standards for bikeway operation satisfactory to Mohave County.” Final Report for Task Assignment MPD 068 - 14 August 2015 | 34 AASHTO U.S. Bicycle Route System Roadway Owner Main Point of Contact Concurrence Received City of Williams Kyle Christiansen, City Public Works Director  City of Winslow Stephen J Pauken, City Manager  Kaibab National Forest Deirdre McLaughlin, ADOT Liaison to the Forest  Petrified Forest National Park Brad Traver, Superintendent  Table 8 – Adjacent States for USBR 66 Adjacent State Main Point of Contact Concurrence Received Caltrans Richard Dennis, Office of System and Freight Planning Chief, Division of Planning, District 8  New Mexico Department of Transportation Roza Kozub, Urban and Regional Planner Supervisor  9.1.2 Roadway Owners Review and Comment Modifications Table 9 lists comments for the USBR 66 Updated Route suggested by roadway owners and that led to route modification. These modifications will be reflected in the final recommended route that will be submitted to AASHTO. Table 9 - USBR 66 Route Modifications based on Roadway Owner Input Roadway Owner Comment No.* Resolution/Modification Comments are paraphrased 2 Suitability of Old Highway 66 east of Seligman: There are no shoulders and no room for bicyclists along this high-speed road. There is too much liability that comes with officially designating the route as fit for bicyclists, and the only way it can be considered is if the road was widened to include shoulders Initial suggested modification to have the route include I-40 between Williams and Seligman and then use AZ-66 west of Seligman 11 Use multi-modal path along US 89 in Flagstaff (on the north side of the road until Country Club, then it switches to the south side of the road with an underpass connection) Provide bicyclists the choice to remain on the road and use the shoulder or use the shared-use path. This will be noted on the map and the turn-by-turn directions. However, note that a couple of short section are shoulder-less and bicyclists would need to use lane (per ARS 28-815.A.4.) 20/ 21 The pavement along Old Highway 66 between SR 89 and Walnut Canyon is in very poor condition for more than two miles and will not be rehabilitated for a few years. Recommend using Townsend-Winona to SR 89 to reach the Flagstaff city center. In this stretch of SR 89, there is 1/3 mile that does not have shoulders and has high traffic. The rest of the route is well-suited for bicycling and has a much better surface than the alternative. Recommend route be modified to have bicyclists exit the I40 at Townsend-Winona Road and take the road to SR 89 and into Flagstaff. When the original Old Highway 66 is resurfaced/rehabbed, we can consider formally modifying the route. Final Report for Task Assignment MPD 068 - 14 August 2015 | 35 AASHTO U.S. Bicycle Route System Roadway Owner Comment No.* Resolution/Modification Comments are paraphrased 22 Just east of Williams, instead of using I-40, stay on Garland Prairie Rd down to Bearizona Blvd Modify as suggested. Bearizona Boulevard is scheduled to be paved in the next few years, which will make it even a better route. 26 The US 191 Frontage Road in Apache County needs to be improved in order to make the route bicycle-safe to current bike route standards. Modify route to avoid US 191 Frontage Road. Instead, remain on the shoulders of I-40 through that portion of the route *Comment numbers are consistent with those identified in the Appendix of Technical Memorandum 4. 9.2 USBR 70 9.2.1 Roadway Owners Table 10 lists the agencies identified as roadway owners of roads and paths that are part of the USBR 70 Updated Route. Each of these stakeholders was provided with the updated route and contacted via email, telephone/conference call, or in-person meetings to discuss the route segments within their jurisdiction. The main point of contact at the agency is shown. As previously described, roadway owners are ultimately asked to provide formal concurrence and support for the designation of the USBR for which they have partial ownership. Table 10 - Roadway Owners for USBR 70 Roadway Owner Main Point of Contact Mohave County 9.2.2 Steve Latoski, County Public Works Director Concurrence Received Mohave County did not provide concurrence Roadway Owner Review Comments and Modifications Table 11 lists comments for the USBR 70 Updated Route suggested by roadway owners and that led to a modification of the route. These route modifications will be reflected in the Final Recommended Route that will be submitted to AASHTO. Nevada Department of Transportation and Utah Department of Transportation were connected and do not have immediate plans to designate USBR 70. As such, ADOT will not seek to designate UBR 79 at this time. Table 11 - USBR 70 Route Modifications based on Roadway Owner Input Roadway Owner Comment No.* Resolution/Modification Comments are paraphrased 28 Use Mohave County 91 parallel and south of I-15 between Mesquite and the Beaver Dam Traffic Interchange Recommend to modify as suggested *Comment numbers are consistent with those identified in the Appendix of Technical Memorandum 4. Final Report for Task Assignment MPD 068 - 14 August 2015 | 36 AASHTO U.S. Bicycle Route System 9.3 USBR 79 9.3.1 Roadway Owners Table 12 lists the agencies identified as Roadway Owners of roads and paths that are part of the USBR 79 Updated Route. Each of these stakeholders was provided with the updated route and was contacted by email, telephone/conference call, or in-person meeting to discuss the route segments within their jurisdiction. The main point of contact at the agency is shown. As previously described, the roadway owners are ultimately asked to provide formal concurrence and support for the designation of the USBR for which they have partial ownership. Utah Department of Transportation was connected and does not have immediate plans to designate USBR 79. Table 12 - Roadway Owners for USBR 79 Roadway Owner Main Point of Contact Concurrence Received Yavapai County Byron Jaspers, County Engineer Yavapai County did not provide concurrence City of Prescott Ian Mattingly, City Traffic Engineer City of Prescott did not provide concurrence5 City of Williams Kyle Christiansen, City Public Works Director Grand Canyon National Park Vicky Stinson, ADOT liaison for Grand Canyon National Park 9.3.2  Grand Canyon National Park did not provide concurrence Review Comments and Modifications Table 13 lists comments for the USBR 79 Updated Route suggested by roadway owners and that led to a modification of the route. These route modifications will be reflected in the Final Recommended Route that will be submitted to AASHTO. Formal concurrence was not received from Utah regarding a connection point. Table 13 - USBR 79 Route Modifications based on Roadway Owner Input Roadway Owner Comment No. * Resolution/Modification Comments are paraphrased 38 Through Grand Canyon National Park, bicyclists should use the Grand Canyon Greenway shared-use path between the Kaibab Trailhead and Tusayan. This path will likely be very crowded with pedestrians, especially during peak times. 39 There is concern about promoting bicycling on the highway through the Park since it has narrow or no shoulders the whole time and there is a very high volume of traffic, including a lot of drivers who are unfamiliar with the area and/or operating large recreational vehicles. There are no alternatives to using the roadway through the Grand Canyon. The alternate route would be 89A north from Flagstaff all the way to the Utah border. This option is not favorable, as the Grand Canyon is the single biggest attraction along the proposed route. 5 Although the City of Prescott did not provide concurrence for USBR 79 at this time, the City did establish a Pedestrian and Bicycle Working Group for USBR 79 and this group has developed a proposal for discussion with Yavapai County on the development of USBR 79 on County land. Final Report for Task Assignment MPD 068 - 14 August 2015 | 37 AASHTO U.S. Bicycle Route System 9.4 USBR 90 Within the Phoenix Metro Area 9.4.1 Roadway Owners Table 14 lists the agencies identified as roadway owners of roads and paths that are part of the USBR 90 Updated Route Within the Phoenix Metro Area. Each of these stakeholders was provided with the updated route and was contacted by email, telephone/conference call, or in-person meeting to discuss the route segments within their jurisdiction. The main point of contact at the agency is shown. As previously described, the roadway owners are ultimately asked to provide formal concurrence and support for the designation of the USBR for which they have partial ownership. Table 14 - Roadway Owners for USBR 90 Within the Phoenix Metro Area Roadway Owner Main Point of Contact Concurrence Received Maricopa County Denise Lacey, County DOT Systems Planning Branch Manager  City of Apache Junction Larry Kirch, City Development Services Director  City of Glendale Purab Adabala, City Senior Transportation Analyst  City of Mesa Jim Hash, City Bicycle and Pedestrian Coordinator  City of Peoria Brandon Forrey, City Transportation Planning Engineer  City of Phoenix Joe Perez, City Bicycle Coordinator  City of Scottsdale Susan Conklu, City Transportation Planner  City of Tempe Susan Taaffe, City Public Works Supervisor Flood Control District of Maricopa County Scott Vogel, Engineering Division Manager  Salt River Project Jim Duncan, Senior Analyst, Water Engineering  9.4.2  Review Comments and Modifications Table 15 lists comments for the USBR 90 Updated Route Within the Phoenix Metro area suggested by roadway owners and that led to a modification of the route. These route modifications will be reflected in the Final Recommended Route that will be submitted to AASHTO. Final Report for Task Assignment MPD 068 - 14 August 2015 | 38 AASHTO U.S. Bicycle Route System Table 15 - USBR 90 Within Phoenix Metro Area Route Modifications based on Roadway Owner Input Roadway Owner Comment No.* Resolution/Modification Comments are paraphrased 50 Suggested alternative through Apache Junction: Left Old West Hwy for 3 1/2 miles Right S. Royal Palm Rd for 1 mile Left E. Superstition Blvd for1/2 mile Right Idaho Road for 1/2 mile Left Teepe St for 5 miles (turns into Adobe Road) Right N. 96th. St. for 1/2 mile Left E. Brown Road for 2 miles (crosses SH 202) Left N. 80th St. for 1 mile Right Adobe Road to continue original route With the addition of new bicycle lanes on Apache Trail, this alternative no longer provides better bicycle facilities to traverse through the City. The route using Apache Trail should be used. 58 Suggest an alternate route to avoid a section of Adobe Road that is owned by the County instead of the City of Mesa From Adobe St, turn left onto Mountain Rd Turn right onto Cholla St (Cholla turns into Quarterline Rd) Turn right onto 101st Pl Turn left onto Adobe St Turn right onto 96th St Modify as suggested 59 Suggested alternate route at cross-cut canal in Phoenix Heading west on Oak St, cross over canal bridge Turn right onto Cross Cut Canal Path Turn left onto Osborn Rd Turn right onto 40th St Turn left onto Campbell Ave Turn right onto 20th St Modify as suggested 60 Suggested alternate route for 20th Street between Bethany Home Rd and Maryland St in Phoenix From 20th St, turn left onto Clarmont Dr Turn right onto 18th St (18th St turns into Maryland St after 90 degree curve) Modify as suggested 61 Small segment of the New River Trail in Peoria has been paved between Mary Ann Dr and Albert Ln Adjust route to use newly paved section 66 The addition of bike lanes on Apache Trail has been approved and should be completed by June 1. Given these enhanced facilities, the route should be modified as follows: Stay on Old West Trail for an additional 0.9 miles to Apache Trail (instead of turning onto Royal Palms Rd) and follow for 2.3 miles Turn right onto Delaware St and continue for 1 mile Turn left onto Tepee St and follow original route Modify as suggested *Comment numbers are consistent with those identified in the Appendix of Technical Memorandum 4. Final Report for Task Assignment MPD 068 - 14 August 2015 | 39 AASHTO U.S. Bicycle Route System 9.5 USBR 90 Outside of the Phoenix Metro Area 9.5.1 Roadway Owners Table 16 lists the agencies identified as roadway owners of roads and paths that are part of the USBR 90 Updated Route outside of the Phoenix area. Each of these stakeholders was provided with the updated route and was contacted by email, telephone/conference call, or in-person meeting to discuss the route segments within their jurisdiction. The main point of contact at the agency is shown. As previously described, roadway owners are ultimately asked to provide formal concurrence and support for the designation of the USBR for which they have partial ownership. Concurrence was also requested from New Mexico Department of Transportation (DOT) and Caltrans regarding connection points. New Mexico DOT and Caltrans provided a formal letter of concurrence. Table 16 - Roadway Owners for USBR 90 Outside of Phoenix Metro Area Roadway Owner Main Point of Contact Concurrence Received City of Bisbee Thomas Klimek, City Public Works Director  City of Sierra Vista Sharon Flissar, City Engineer; Don Brush, City Community Development Director  City of Tombstone Dustin Escapule, City Mayor  City of Tucson Ann Chanecka, City Bicycle and Pedestrian Program Coordinator  Town of Marana Brian Varney, Town Planner  Cochise County Karen Lamberton, County Transportation Planner  Pima County Matt Zoll, County Bicycle Coordinator  Santa Cruz County Jesus Valdez, County Engineer  Table 17 – Adjacent States for USBR 90 Adjacent State Main Point of Contact Concurrence Received Caltrans Richard Dennis, Office of System and Freight Planning Chief, Division of Planning, District 8  New Mexico Department of Transportation Roza Kozub, Urban and Regional Planner Supervisor  9.5.2 Review Comments and Modifications Table 18 lists comments for the USBR 90 Updated Route outside of the Phoenix area that were suggested by roadway owners and led to a modification of the route. These route modifications will be reflected in the Final Recommended Route that will be submitted to AASHTO. Final Report for Task Assignment MPD 068 - 14 August 2015 | 40 AASHTO U.S. Bicycle Route System Table 18 - USBR 90 Outside of Phoenix Metro Area Route Modifications based on Roadway Owner Input Roadway Owner Comment No.* Resolution/Modification Comments are paraphrased 45 Use Old Sonoita Highway/Charolais Rd to Modify as suggested avoid section SR 83 near I-10  48 Use Davis Road and SR 191 between Tombstone and Douglas as an option for riders to avoid steep grades through Bisbee and Douglas Route along Davis Road will be included as an option on maps and the turn-by-turn  62 In Santa Cruz County, use Elgin Road instead of Lower Elgin to avoid an unpaved section Modify as suggested  63 A new section of the Loop Path in Tucson was just paved. The path now continues along the Santa Cruz west of I-19 to Silverlake Rd Modify route to utilize newly paved section of the Loop Path  64 Frye Blvd in Sierra Vista is not suitable for bicycling. Recommended modification is: West on Charleston Rd (turns into Martin Luther King Jr Pkwy); use shared-use path on north side of road Turn right onto Coronado Dr Turn left onto SR 90 Turn right to continue on SR 90 Modify as suggested  65 Mule Pass Tunnel on SR 80 in Bisbee is not suitable for bicycle travel and is not safe for bicycling. Instead use the following: From SR 80 NB, turn right to take ramp to West Blvd Turn right onto West Blvd Turn right onto N. Old Divide Rd Turn right to re-enter SR 80 Old Divide Rd was washed out a few years ago and is currently being reconstructed. There are very steep grades on the road, but low volumes. Modify as suggested  67 There are plans to extend the Loop Path further north so that there is an off-street path option from essentially Picacho to Vail. As these extensions are completed, the USBR 90 routing should be updated to use these improved facilities instead of the frontage roads. Adjust route as additional sections of the Loop Path are completed *Comment numbers are consistent with those identified in the Appendix of Technical Memorandum 4. Final Report for Task Assignment MPD 068 - 14 August 2015 | 41 AASHTO U.S. Bicycle Route System 10. Final Recommended Routes and AASHTO Submission 10.1 Final Recommended Routes The maps in Figures 15-21 show the Final Recommended Routes for each USBR. The Final Recommended Routes include the modifications suggested by stakeholders during the process of seeking agency concurrence if the modification resulted in the agency providing concurrence. In some instances, when modifications were suggested by an agency but concurrence was not obtained, modifications were not incorporated into the Final Recommended Route as the project team and ADOT Route Committee considered the non-modified route to be preferable for future designation. It should be noted that additional modifications may be made to the routes after they are formally designated as a USBRs by AASHTO. Modifications can be submitted to the AASHTO committee. It can be expected that modifications to the current recommended routes will occur as additional improvements are made to roads, paths, and trails throughout the state. Turn-by-turn directions for each of the Final Recommended Routes can be found in Appendix B. 10.2 Routes to be Submitted to AASHTO for Designation Of the four USBRs identified within Arizona, only USBR 90 will be submitted to AASHTO at this time. USBR 90 is the only route that received formal concurrence from all roadway owning agencies along the route; these concurrences can be found in Appendix C. The map and turn-by-turn directions reflect the supported route and will be included in the AASHTO designation application. While it is still desirable to seek concurrence and designation for USBRs 66, 70, and 79, these routes do not currently have unanimous approval from agencies and thus cannot be submitted for designation at this time. ADOT and bicycle advocates and agencies throughout Arizona will continue to work towards obtaining concurrence from agencies and adjacent states with ownership along USBRs 66, 70, and 79. If additional concurrences are received from the required stakeholders, each route will be submitted to AASHTO for formal USBR designation. Appendix D includes concurrences that have been obtained for USBR 66. ADOT intends to continue to discuss these routes with agencies along USBR 66 that did not provide concurrence. To date, no concurrences have been obtained for USBR 70 and only one concurrence has been obtained for USBR 79. Concurrence for USBR 70 will not be pursued until the Utah and Nevada state DOTS also pursue designation for the routes. Final Report for Task Assignment MPD 068 - 14 August 2015 | 42 AASHTO U.S. Bicycle Route System Figure 15 - Final Recommended Route for USBR 70 Final Report for Task Assignment MPD 068 - 14 August 2015 | 43\ AASHTO U.S. Bicycle Route System Figure 16 - Final Recommended Route for USBR 66 Final Report for Task Assignment MPD 068 - 14 August 2015 | 44\ AASHTO U.S. Bicycle Route System Figure 17 - Final Recommended Route for USBR 66 through the Flagstaff Area Final Report for Task Assignment MPD 068 - 14 August 2015 | 45\ AASHTO U.S. Bicycle Route System Figure 18 - Final Recommended Route for USBR 79 Final Report for Task Assignment MPD 068 - 14 August 2015 | 46 AASHTO U.S. Bicycle Route System Figure 19 - Final Recommended Route for USBR 90 Within the Phoenix Metropolitan Area Final Report for Task Assignment MPD 068 - 14 August 2015 | 47 AASHTO U.S. Bicycle Route System Figure 20 - Final Recommended Route for USBR 90 Outside of the Phoenix and Tucson Metropolitan Areas Final Report for Task Assignment MPD 068 - 14 August 2015 | 48 AASHTO U.S. Bicycle Route System Figure 21 - Final Recommended Route for USBR 90 in the Tucson Area Final Report for Task Assignment MPD 068 - 14 August 2015 | 49 AASHTO U.S. Bicycle Route System Appendix A USBR Guiding Documents Final Report for Task Assignment MPD 068 - 14 August 2015 | A - 1 AASHTO U.S. Bicycle Route System A1. Purpose and Policy Statement, U.S. Numbered Bicycle Routes Final Report for Task Assignment MPD 068 - 14 August 2015 | A - 2 Purpose and Policy U.S. Numbered Bicycle Routes Adopted October 14, 1979 Revised June 30, 1982 Revised May 15, 2009 Purpose The purpose of the U.S. bicycle route numbering and marking system is to facilitate travel between the states over routes which have been identified as being more suitable than others for cycling. Definition A bicycle route is any road, street, path or way which in some manner is specifically designated as being open to bicycle travel, regardless of whether such facilities are designated for the exclusive use of bicycles or are to be shared with other transportation modes. Policies 1. The Executive Committee of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials shall have full authority to review the U.S. numbered bicycle route system and the numbering and marking thereof, to make additions, changes, extensions, revisions or reductions in said route system and to revise the numbering or marking thereof. 2. Before approving any addition, change, extension, revision or reduction in the U.S. numbered bicycle route system, or the numbering or marking of any U.S. numbered bicycle route, the Executive Committee shall consult the State Highway or Transportation Department of the State or States through or within which such addition, change, extension, revision or reduction is located. 3. The State Highway or Transportation Department, by a favorable vote on the adoption of this purpose and policy, agrees and pledges its good faith that it will not erect U.S. markers on any route without the authorization, consent or approval of the Executive Committee of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, notwithstanding the fact that the changes proposed are entirely within that State. 4. U.S. Bicycle Routes must connect two or more states, a State and an international border, or two or more U.S. Bicycle Routes. 5. The bicycle route marker included in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices is recommended for use to all travel map makers, also for use by the State Highway and Transportation Departments. 6. Any proposal that would exploit the prestige of the U.S. numbered bicycle route system, especially when it appears to be for the purpose of benefiting businesses located along such a proposed route, shall constitute reason for denying any application to make such an addition to the system. 7. Since the U.S. numbered system was established by joint action of the State Highway or Transportation Departments, only those applications for change in or addition to the U.S. numbered system from the Member State Highway or Transportation Department involved shall be considered by the Executive Committee. Those local officials, organizations, groups, or individuals interested in a change or in an addition to the system should contact their State Highway or Transportation Department and not the Executive Committee. The Executive Committee shall consider only those applications from State Highway or Transportation Departments that are filed on the official form and are complete in all detail to the degree that the Executive Committee can evaluate the need for an adequacy of the proposed route from the application form submitted and without a representative of the State Highway or Transportation Department appearing before the Committee to supply additional information. 8. No person or group of persons shall be allowed to appear either before the Executive Committee or its Route Numbering Subcommittee except in the case of a State Highway or Transportation Department requesting reconsideration of an action by the Executive Committee in regard to an application filed by that Department. 9. In case a proposed change or addition to the U.S. numbered bicycle route system involves two or more States, the proposal shall be given official consideration only when all affected State Highway or Transportation Departments have filed applications to cover the complete proposal. 10. State DOTs should affirm that routes chosen for a US Bike Route are appropriate for bicycling. States are encouraged to utilize the AASHTO Guide for Development of Bicycle Facilities and/or their own state policies and procedures for selecting appropriate bicycling routes for a proposed US Bike Route. AASHTO U.S. Bicycle Route System A2. U.S. Task Force on Numbered Bicycle Routes, Corridor and Route Criteria for U.S. Bike Route System Final Report for Task Assignment MPD 068 - 14 August 2015 | A - 3 US Task Force on Numbered Bicycle Routes Corridor and Route Criteria for U.S. Bike Route System April 2006; Revised June 2006 It is the aim of the AASHTO Task Force on Numbered Bicycle Routes to encourage the development of a coordinated system of interstate bicycle routes. The Task Force is charged with developing a recommended national systemslevel or corridor-level plan for use in designating potential future U.S. bicycle routes. In developing this corridor plan, the task force recognized the need to establish guiding principles for selecting and/or recognizing routes for inclusion. The Route/Corridor Criteria provide guidance to the Task Force for developing the corridor-level plan. The Specific Route Criteria may be incorporated at a local level as the corridor plan is adopted by state and local agencies and state routes are designated. The criteria are broken down into Primary and Secondary considerations in order to prioritize the criteria. While the following criteria provide a guide for consistency, they are not intended to supersede state and local agencies' policies on designing cycling facilities nor are they intended to create a uniform approach which might be determined unfeasible, given the expanse and varying terrain and population densities across the U.S. When choosing a corridor/route and the specifics of a given route implementation, the totality of the route must be considered. It may well be that portions of a route do not meet these criteria but that when taken all together, they represent the best choice to achieve the goal of the route. Corridor Criteria - considerations when choosing corridors Primary Considerations - Corridors should meet as many of the following as practicable: 1. Meet the planning, design, and operational criteria in the AASHTO Guide for Development of Bicycle Facilities. . 2. Access destinations and regions with high tourism potential, including routes that incorporate important scenic, historic, cultural, and recreational values. 3. Link major metropolitan areas to connect key attractions and transportation nodes. 4. Reasonably direct in connecting cities or attractions. 5. Make natural connections between adjoining states, Canada, and Mexico when possible.. 6. Have more or less even distribution north to south, east to west, though route density will need to consider both population density (greater populations may equal higher route densities) and available, suitable roads. 7. Include major existing and planned bike routes, including both on-road facilities and off-road shared use paths and trails that are suitable for road bikes. Secondary Consideration 8. Offer services and amenities such as restaurants, accommodations, camping, bicycle shops, and convenience/grocery stores at appropriate intervals. Specific Route Criteria - considerations when choosing roads and trails Primary Considerations- Specific Routes should meet as many of the following as practicable: 1. Meet the planning, design, and operational criteria in the AASHTO Guide for Development of Bicycle Facilities. . 2. Offer services and amenities such as restaurants, accommodations, camping, bicycle shops, and convenience/grocery stores at appropriate intervals. 3. Go into the centers of metropolitan areas, using low-traffic and/or off-road bikeways when possible. Bypass routes could be considered to accommodate users who don't wish to enter the city or who are seeking a less urban experience. 4. Include spurs to target destinations (universities or other educational institutions, recreational areas, or other attractions) and to multimodal nodes such as airports and rail, bus, and transit stations. 5. Follow natural corridors and provide terrain suitable for cycling, avoiding extremely hilly and limited visibility winding roads when feasible. 6. Consider appropriate combinations of low daily traffic, low truck traffic, wide paved shoulders, lane striping, adequate sight distance, and traffic speed in order to be bicycle friendly. 7. In urban areas, be suitable for utility cycling (commuting, access to shopping, schools and universities, recreation centers, etc.). Consideration should be given to bicycle routes that can be used as evacuation routes for emergency situations. 8. Include major existing and planned bike routes, including both on-road facilities and off-road shared use paths and trails that are suitable for road bikes. Secondary Consideration 9. May include short stretches of high quality unpaved roads if needed to connect highly desirable paved road sections. (These roads should maintain the standard of road bike suitability). AASHTO U.S. Bicycle Route System Appendix B Turn-by-Turn Directions for Each USBR Final Report for Task Assignment MPD 068 - 14 August 2015 | A - 4 AASHTO U.S. Bicycle Route System B1. USBR 66 Turn by Turn Directions Final Report for Task Assignment MPD 068 - 14 August 2015 | A - 5 U.S. BICYCLE ROUTE 66 TURN-BY-TURN DIRECTIONS Updated: June 17, 2015 Turn Starting Point of Route or Realignment Route begins Route begins at Speedy's Convienience Store in the WB rest stop along I-40 Grants Rd I-40 underpass at Grants Rd Frontage Rd Allentown Rd Frontage Rd St. Anslem Rd S Frontage Rd Pine Springs Rd/ I-40 underpass 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 I-40 Segment Length (miles) 0.5 0.1 7.9 0.1 3.2 0.25 1.5 0.1 34.7 10 Park Rd 11 Petrified Forest Rd 6.1 22.5 12 US 180 13 US 180/Navajo Blvd 14 US 180/Hopi Dr 17.5 0.5 1.7 15 I-40 16 Main St 17 Overpass Rd 8.1 2.5 0.1 18 South frontage Rd/Jackrabbit Rd 19 I-40 underpass at Jackrabbit Rd 5 0.1 20 I-40 21 SR 87/I-40 Business 3rd St 22 * EB riders will use 2nd St 23 Hipkoe Dr/I-40 overpass 24 I-40 25 Townsend-Winona Rd/County Hwy 394 US 89 *starting at Snowflake Dr, there is an option to use the shared-use path (part of the Flagstaff Urban Trail System) on the north side of this road instead of using 26 the roadway shoulders) Beaver St 27 *EB cyclists will use San Francisco St 28 Butler Ave 29 Milton Rd 30 I-40 Business/Historic US 66 31 I-40 32 Hughes Ave 33 Brannigan Park Rd 34 Old Route 66 35 Parks-Wagon Wheel Rd/Old Hwy 66 36 Deer Farms Rd/Circle Pines Rd 37 Garland Prairie Rd 38 Bearizona Blvd/Route 51A 12.2 0.4 Turn location and Rd name/designation Turn left onto underpass Turn right onto the south Frontage Rd Turn right onto Allentown Rd Turn left onto north Frontage Rd Turn left after Exit 348 onto St. Anslem Rd Turn right onto S Frontage Rd Turn right onto Pine Springs Rd/I-40 underpass Turn left onto I-40 ramp Exit I-40 at Exit 311 for Petrified Forest Rd; turn right onto Park Rd Follow Park Rd into Petrified Forest National Park and over I-40 (Petrified Forest National Park) Turn right onto US 180 Turn right to continue on US 180/Navajo Blvd toward Holbrook Turn left onto US 180/Hopi Dr Turn left onto I-40 ramp Exit I-40 at Exit 277 towards Joseph City; turn right onto Hwy 40B/Main St Turn left onto overpass towards I-40 ramp Turn right onto south Frontage Rd/Jackrabbit Rd Turn right onto I-40 underpass road, just after Jackrabbit Trading Post Turn left onto I-40 Take Exit 257 towards Payson/Second Mesa/SR 87; turn left onto SR87/I-40 Business Turn right onto SR 87 towards Winslow/Payson; SR 87 turns into 3rd St (City of Winslow) 5.1 Turn right onto Hipkoe Dr/I-40 overpass 0.1 Turn left onto I-40 Take Exit 211 towards Winona and turn right onto Townsend Winona Rd/County Hwy 394 (Coconino 40.6 County) Turn left onto US 89 toward Flagstaff (ADOT/Coconino 10.2 County) Turn left onto Beaver St (City of Flagstaff) *EB cyclists will use San Francisco St 6.4 0.3 Turn right onto Butler Ave (City of Flagstaff) 0.2 Turn left onto Milton Rd (ADOT) Turn right onto I-40 Business/Historic US 66 (Coconino 0.3 County) 4.3 Enter onto I-40 Take Exit 185 and turn right; turn right onto Hughes 5.9 Ave/Transwestern Rd Turn left onto Brannigan Park Rd (Kaibab National 0.1 Forest/Coconino County) Follow the paved road onto Old Route 66 (Coconino 10 County) Continue on Wagon Wheel Rd/Old Hwy 66 (Coconino 2.5 County) 4.3 Turn left onto Deer Farms Rd (Coconino County) Circle Pines Rd will take a sharp turn and head south towards I-40; cross over I-40 on the overpass onto 4.6 Garland Prairie Rd After cattle guard, turn right onto Bearizona Blvd/ Route 0.26 51A (dirt road) (City of Williams) 1.9 Turn left onto Hwy 66 (City of Williams) General Direction of Travel West South West North West South West North West South Southwest West North West West West South West North West South West North West Northwest Southwest/West South West South West West North West West West West/South South West 1 Turn Starting Point of Route or Realignment 39 Hwy 66 40 Bill Williams Ave/Railroad Ave 41 I-40 Historic Route 66/Lewis Ave 42 *EB cyclists will take Park Ave 43 I-40 44 Old Route 66/Crookton Rd 45 Histroic Route 66 46 Andy Devine Ave/ Historic Route 66 47 Andy Devine Ave/ US 66 48 Historic Route 66/ underpass under I-40 49 Oatman Hwy/County Hwy 10 50 Oatman-Topock Hwy 51 I-40 Route ends at the bridge over the Colorado River, marking the state boundary between Arizona and Terminus California Segment Length (miles) Turn location and Rd name/designation General Direction of Travel Continue on Hwy 66 as it turns into Bill Williams 1.2 Ave/Railroad Ave (City of Williams) West 2.6 Turn left onto I-40 ramp West Take Exit 146 towards Ash Fork/Prescott; turn right onto 15.6 Historic Route 66 towards Ash Fork West 1.4 Turn right onto I-40 Take Exit 139 towards Crookton Rd; turn right onto 5.1 Crookton Rd/Historic Route 66 (Yavapai County) West West Turn left onto Historic Route 66/I-40 Business toward 17.5 Seligman (Yavapai County) West/Northwest At Kingman Airport, continue on Andy Devine Ave/SR 66 78.5 (City of Kingman) Northwest/Southwest At Y-intersection with the Casson's Circle, make a left 8.5 onto Historic Route 66 through the canyon (ADOT) 4.9 Turn right on McConnico Rd (underpass) (ADOT) Continue under I-40 on McConnico; turn left onto 0.5 Oatman Hwy (Mohave County) 22.8 Continue onto Oatman Topock Hwy (Mohave County) 24.7 Turn right onto I-40 0.75 Southwest/West Southwest Northwest Southwest/West South Route Ends 406.16 Total Mileage *Your actual mileage will vary 2 AASHTO U.S. Bicycle Route System B2. USBR 70 Turn by Turn Directions Final Report for Task Assignment MPD 068 - 14 August 2015 | A - 6 U.S. BICYCLE ROUTE 70 TURN-BY-TURN DIRECTIONS Updated: June 24, 2015 Turn Starting Point of Route or Realignment Route begins at the border of Arizona and Utah along Old Highway 91 1 Old Hwy 91/Mohave County Hwy 91 2 Mohave County Hwy 91 Route ends at border of Arizona and Nevada as road Terminus turns into Hillside Dr Segment Length (miles) Turn location and road name/designation General Direction of Travel Route begins 7.75 Cross under I-15 on Mohave County Hwy 91 9.4 17.15 Total Mileage *Your actual mileage will vary 1 AASHTO U.S. Bicycle Route System B3. USBR 79 Turn by Turn Directions Final Report for Task Assignment MPD 068 - 14 August 2015 | A - 7 U.S. BICYCLE ROUTE 79 TURN-BY-TURN DIRECTIONS Updated: June 24, 2015 Turn Route begins Starting Point of Route or Realignment At the entrance of the Kanab Airport (Kanab Airport Rd) in Kanab, Utah 1 proceed south along US 89A into Fredonia 2 US 89A 3 US 89A 4 US 89A 5 US 89 6 US 89A 7 SR 64/Desert View Dr 8 SR 64 9 SR 64 10 SR 64 Segment Length (miles) 4.6 Stay straight at Pratt St to stay on US 89A 39.1 Turn left at "Y" in Jacob Lake and follow US 89A Stay on US 89A and over Colorado River at Marble 41 Canyon (enter Navajo Indian Reservation) East 21.6 At T intersection, turn left on SR 64 towards Flagstaff At roundabout In Tusayan, take 2nd exit to continue 5.6 straight on SR 64 At second roundabout, take 2nd exit to continue 0.6 straight on SR 64 towards Flagstaff West 13 I-40 15.6 14 AZ 89 42.6 19 SR 89 US 93 Route ends at the roundabout in Wickenburg, AZ; cyclists may pick up USBR 90 in Wickenburg and Terminus continue on to New Mexico Southeast South 49.5 4 18 SR 89 South 14 At T intersection in Bitter Springs, turn right onto US 89 Stay straight at intersection with US 160/Navajo Trail 42.8 (towards Tuba City) Just south of Cameron, turn right onto SR 64/ Desert 15.6 View Dr Pass ranger station to enter Grand Canyon National Park; continue on SR 64/Rim Dr (Grand Canyon National 30.5 Park) 11 SR 64 12 Highway 66/RailRd Ave 15 Willow Creek Rd 16 Willow Creek Rd 17 Whipple St/Montezuma St Turn location and Rd name/designation General Direction of Travel At intersection with I-40, continue under the Hwy into Williams Highway 66/Railroad Ave (City of Williams) Turn left onto I-40 ramp Take exit 146 towards Ash Fork/Prescott; turn left on AZ 89 towards Prescott Turn right onto Willow Creek Rd (Yavapai County/City of Prescott) Continue straight through intersection with Pioneer 1 Pkwy to continue on Willow Creek Rd (City of Prescott) 6 Turn left onto Whipple St (City of Prescott) 2.4 Keep right onto White Spar Rd/ SR 89 Stay straight at intersection of SR 89 and AZ-71; 42.3 continue towards Wickenburg 9.7 Bear left/continue onto US 93 towards Wickenburg 6.1 Finish in Wickenburg, AZ South South West South South South West West South Southwest South East/South Southwest South Southeast 394.6 Toal Mileage * Your actual milage will vary 1 AASHTO U.S. Bicycle Route System B4. USBR 90 Turn by Turn Directions Final Report for Task Assignment MPD 068 - 14 August 2015 | A - 8 U.S. BICYCLE ROUTE 90 TURN-BY-TURN DIRECTIONS Updated: July 8, 2015 Turn Starting Point of Route Route begins Miles on this facility Turn location and Rd name/designation General Direction of Travel At the intersection between AZ Hwy 80 and State Line Rd/Chile Pepper Rd At intersection with G Ave, turn right to continue on SR 48.2 80 At the roundabout take the first exit to continue on SR 2 SR 80 22.3 80 **route alternative to avoid steep grades through Bisbee (for designated route, skip to Turn 3) 1 Proceed south along SR 80 towards Douglas 2a SR 80 3a US 191 4a Davis Rd **route alternate ends in Tombstone, proceed to Turn 5 3 SR 80 4 SR 80 5 West Blvd 6 Old Divide Rd 7 SR 80 8 SR 80 9 1st St 1.5 Turn right onto US 191 18.3 Turn left onto Davis Rd (Cochise County) 24 Turn right onto SR 80 Bear left at fork with Main St/Old Bisbee and continue 1.6 on SR 80 Northwest West North Northwest/West Northwest Turn right onto ramp for West Blvd; follow ramp around 1.7 and turn right onto West Blvd (City of Bisbee) Northwest West Blvd turns into Old Divide Rd (Cochise County) at a 0.35 sharp hairpin turn West 1.3 Turn right onto SR 80 North 11 Charleston Rd 12 Martin Luther King Jr Pkwy 13 Coronado Dr 5.5 At intersection with SR 90, keep right to stay on SR 80 15.8 Turn left onto 1st St (City of Tombstone) 0.1 Turn right onto Allen St (City of Tombstone) Turn left onto Summer St (City of Tombstone); Sumner St turns into Charleston Rd (City of Tombstone/Cochise 0.1 County) Cross State Route 90 to continue on Martin Luther King Jr Pkwy (City of Sierra Vista) *a shared use path is available on the south side of the 16.2 road 1 Turn right onto Coronado Dr (City of Sierra Vista) 0.85 Turn left onto SR 90 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 SR 90 SR 90 SR 82 Upper Elgin Rd Elgin Rd SR 83 SR 83 SR 83 Charolais Rd 2.5 8.7 10.8 4.75 4.65 1.1 2.7 19.5 6.1 23 SR 83 overpass 24 Overpass 0.4 <0.1 10 Allen St Southwest 25 Frontage Rd 2.3 26 Colossal Cave Rd 1.8 27 Mary Ann Cleveland Way 28 Old Vail Rd 5.1 1.9 29 Rita Rd 0.2 30 Julian Wash Greenway Path (The Loop) 31 Drexel Rd 6.7 1 32 Catalina Ave 0.1 33 The Julian Wash Greenway Path (The Loop) 4.1 Turn right to continue on SR 90 towards Huachuca City Turn left onto SR 82 Turn left onto upper Elgin Rd (Santa Cruz County) Turn left onto Elgin Rd (Santa Cruz County) Turn right onto SR 83 Keep left on SR 83 Turn right to continue on SR 83 through Sonoita Turn right onto Charolais Rd Turn right onto SR 83 Turn right before I-10 entrance ramp towards Marsh Station Rd/Frontage Rd Turn left onto Frontage Rd Turn right onto Colossal Cave Rd (Pima County/City of Tucson) Turn left onto Mary Ann Cleveland Way (Pima County/City of Tucson) At intersection with Houghton Rd, stay straight on Old Vail Rd (City of Tucson) Turn left onto Rita Rd (City of Tucson) Turn right onto The Loop Path at Julian Wash (Pima County) At end of the existing Loop Path, continue straight onto Drexel Rd (Pima County) Turn right onto Catalina Ave (Pima County) Turn left onto The Julian Wash Greenway Path (The Loop) (Pima County) At the end of the Trail, cross Park Ave and make a left to continue on the trail on the south side of Ajo Way (Pima County/City of Tucson) Northwest North/Northwest South West Southwest South West North West South West North West North North North North West North West West South Northwest West North West 1 Turn Starting Point of Route 34 The Loop Path adjacent to Ajo Way 35 The Loop Path adjacent to Ajo Way 36 The Loop Path adjacent to 6th Ave 37 The Loop Path adjacent to 44th St 38 The Loop Path 39 The Loop Path 40 Santa Cruz River Park Path (The Loop) 41 Santa Cruz River Park Path (The Loop) Santa Cruz River Park Path (adjacent to El Camino del 42 Cerro) 43 Santa Cruz River Park Path (The Loop) 44 Santa Cruz River Park Path (The Loop) 45 Santa Cruz River Park Path (The Loop) 46 Santa Cruz River Park Path (The Loop) 47 Ina Road 48 Santa Cruz River Park Loop Path 49 Twin Peaks Rd I-10 Frontage Rd/N Casa Grande Hwy (turns into Camino 50 Adelante Rd) Phillips Rd *EB/SB bicyclists must turn left on Phillips Rd/5th St (0.34 miles after exiting freeway at Picacho) to cross underneath the highway onto the east side and continue across Eisenhower St to reach Camino 51 Adelante Rd Eisenhower St (access road) *EB/SB bicyclists should be sure to keep right onto the access road/Peak Ln (toward Picacho) at the freeway interchange between SR 87 and I-10 (after passing 52 underneath the I-10 ) Miles on this facility At 2nd Ave, cross Ajo Way at the designated crossing 0.4 and continue on the path adjacent to Ajo Way 0.3 At 6th Ave, turn right to follow the Loop Path Turn left at the north side of 44th St at designated 0.5 crossing to continue on The Loop Path East 260 feet Northwest West North North North North North North West North East Northwest Southwest Merge onto SR 87 toward Coolidge 0.5 Hwy 287 Business SR 79/Main St Butte Ave SR 79/Pinal Pkwy Ave 8 0.8 0.5 15.8 59 US 60/Superstition Fwy 13.7 64 Tepee St 65 Adobe Rd/St North 0.25 Turn left onto Santa Cruz River Park Path (Pima County) Continue on Santa Cruz River Park path (do not follow the Rillito River Park Loop path that crosses underneath 1.7 I-10 and heads east) 0.7 Cross Orange Grove Road Turn left onto Walker Road/Santa Cruz River Park Loop Path (do not proceed north into Sports Park) (Pima 0.55 County/Town of Marana) 1.85 Turn left onto Ina Road (Town of Marana) Turn right onto Santa Cruz River Loop Path (West Bank) 0.2 (Town of Marana) At Twin Peaks Road, take ramp on left and make a right turn to continue eastbound on Twin Peaks Road. *Note: adhere to 'Walk you Bicycle' signage on this ramp (Town 3.5 of Marana) Turn left onto I-10 entrance ramp and continue on the I0.5 10 Frontage Rd Camino Adelante Rd turn into Phillips Rd as the road 33 curves to the west (ADOT) Turn right onto Eisenhower St toward SR 87/Coolidge/Florence (ADOT) 55 56 57 58 62 Apache Trail 63 Delaware Dr West West West 0.4 18.8 61 Old West Hwy General Direction of Travel 0.1 Bear right to continue on the separated Loop Path Cross 10th Ave at designated crossing and continue on 0.3 The Loop Path Cross under the freeway and continue adjacent to the 0.28 river on the Santa Cruz River Path (Pima County) Proceed under Silverlake Road and continue on the 0.95 Santa Cruz River Path Turn right onto pathway adjacent to El Camino del Cerro 8.4 (City of Tucson) 53 SR 87 54 SR 87 60 Goldfield Rd Turn location and Rd name/designation Northwest Stay in the right lane towards SR 87 North and the Casa Grande Ruins National Monument Turn right onto Hwy 287 East towards Florence At fork, stay in left lane and turn left towards Florence/Business SR 79 Turn right onto Butte Ave (ADOT) Turn left onto SR 79/Pinal Pkwy Turn left onto ramp for US 60 towards Phoenix Take exit 198 for Goldfield Rd and make a right onto Goldfield Rd (City of Apache Junction) North North East North East North Northwest 0.3 Turn left onto Old West Hwy (City of Apache Junction) Continue west onto Apache Trail (City of Apache 2.7 Junction) North 1.3 Turn right onto Delaware Dr (City of Apache Junction) 1 Turn left onto Tepee St (City of Apache Junction) Tepee St turns into Adobe Rd/St at Meridian St (City of 0.5 Mesa/Maricopa County) 0.5 Turn left onto Mountain Rd (City of Mesa) West North Northwest West West 2 Turn Starting Point of Route Miles on this facility Turn location and Rd name/designation General Direction of Travel 66 Mountain Rd Turn right onto Cholla Rd (Maricopa County/City of 0.25 Mesa) South 67 Cholla Rd 68 Quarterline Rd Cholla Rd turns into Quarterline Rd at Signal Butte Rd; 0.5 continue on Quarterline Rd (Maricopa County) 0.82 Turn right onto 101st Pl (Maricopa County) West West 69 70 71 72 0.25 0.69 0.5 2 North West North West 101st Pl Adobe Rd 96th St Brown Rd 73 80th St Turn left onto Adobe Rd (City of Mesa/Maricopa County) Turn right onto 96th St (Maricopa County) Turn left onto Brown Rd (City of Mesa) Turn left onto 80th St (City of Mesa) Turn right onto Adobe St (City of Mesa/Maricopa 0.5 County) 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 Adobe St 8th St Center St 7th Pl McDonald St 7th Pl Grand St 6th St 7.5 2.5 0.06 0.13 0.03 0.12 0.22 0.6 82 83 84 85 Cherry Rio Salado Pkwy Mill Avenue Curry Rd 0.25 5.5 0.6 0.75 86 College Ave 87 68th St 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 Oak St Cross Cut Canal Path Osborn Rd 40th St Campbell Ave 20th St Claremont St 18th St 96 Maryland Ave 97 Arizona Canal Trail (west side) 98 Arizona Canal Trail (east side) 99 Arizona Diversion Trail Crossing 1.4 Adobe St turns into 8th St at Gilbert Rd (City of Mesa) Turn left onto Center St (City of Mesa) Turn right onto 7th Pl (City of Mesa) Turn right onto MacDonald St (City of Mesa) Turn left onto 7th Pl (City of Mesa) Turn left onto Grand St (City of Mesa) Turn right onto 6th St (City of Mesa) Turn right onto Cherry (City of Mesa) Turn left onto Rio Salado Pkwy (City of Mesa/City of Tempe) Turn right onto Mill Avenue (City of Tempe) Turn right onto Curry Rd (City of Tempe) Turn left onto College Ave (City of Tempe) College Ave turns into 68th St at Continental Dr (City of Scottsdale) 1 Turn left onto Oak St (City of Scottsdale/City of Phoenix) Cross over canal at a bridge and continue straight; Turn right onto Cross Cut Canal Path (west side of 48th St) 2.51 (SRP/City Phoenix) 1 Turn left onto Osborn Rd (City of Phoenix) 1 Turn right onto 40th St (City of Phoenix) 1 Turn left onto Campbell Ave (City of Phoenix) 2.5 Turn right onto 20th St (City of Phoenix) 1.81 Turn left at Claremont Street (City of Phoenix) 0.25 turn right onto 18th St (City of Phoenix) 0.2 Turn right onto Maryland Ave (City of Phoenix) Turn left onto the Arizona Canal Trail (west side of canal) 0.23 (SRP/City of Phoenix) 230 feet after Trail crosses underneath Glendale Ave, turn right and cross over the canal bridge; turn left and continue on the EAST side of the canal Trail (SRP/City of Phoenix (east of 51st Ave)/City of Glendale (west of 51st 0.72 Ave)) South West West South West North West South West North West North East North North West North West North West North West North East Northwest 0.5 miles north of Cactus Rd underpass, turn right at fork (Thunderbird Paseo Park Sign) to cross the Channel (FCD 9.5 of Maricopa County/City of Glendale) Northwest Turn left onto Arizona Diversion Channel Trail NORTH 0.15 side (FCD of Maricopa County/ City of Glendale) Northeast Arizona Diversion Channel Trail (north side). (Arizona Diversion Channel Trail changes to Skunk Creek Trail at 101 the 73rd Ave alignment) At Trail fork 260 feet east of 59th Ave, keep left and continue on the north side of the Trail under 59th Ave (FCD of Maricopa County/City of Glendale (east of 73rd 0.68 Ave)/City of Peoria (west of 59th Ave)) At fork 0.2 miles east of 75th Ave, turn left onto concrete Path and cross Diversion Channel to the south side of the Channel. (FCD of Maricopa County/City of 2.8 Peoria) 102 Arizona Diversion Channel Crossing 160 feet west of 75th Ave, turn right onto asphalt Skunk 0.11 Creek Trail (FCD of Maricopa County/City of Peoria) South/West 100 Arizona Diversion Channel Trail (north side) Northwest Northwest 3 Turn Starting Point of Route 103 Skunk Creek Trail (south side) 104 Skunk Creek Trail (south side) 105 New River Trail bridge 106 New River Trail (west side) 107 New River Trail (west side) 108 New River Trail (west side) Miles on this facility Turn location and Rd name/designation General Direction of Travel At fork 0.2 miles east of 83rd Ave, keep right onto concrete Skunk Creek Trail (FCD of Maricopa County/City 1 of Peoria) West/Southwest Turn right onto New River Trail bridge and cross over 0.6 channel (FCD of Maricopa County/City of Peoria) On the north side of the bridge, turn right onto the New 0.08 River Trail (FCD of Maricopa County/City of Peoria) When Trail curves left, turn right over Trail bridge to 0.4 continue on New River Trail (City of Peoria) At fork 150 feet south of Beardsley Rd, keep right to 3 continue on New River Trail (City of Peoria) After Trail makes a 180 degree turn, exit trail and turn 1.25 right onto Deer Valley Rd (City of Peoria) Southwest Northwest North North Northeast 109 Deer Valley Rd 110 Lake Pleasant Pkwy 111 SR 74/Morristown New River Hwy 3.2 Turn right onto Lake Pleasant Pkwy (City of Peoria) 8.8 Turn left onto SR 74/ Morristown New River Hwy 24 Turn right onto US 60 towards Wickenburg West North Northwest/West 112 US 60 9.7 Enter roundabout and take 2nd exit to stay on US 60 Northwest 113 US 60 64.5 Enter roundabout and take 2nd exit to stay on US 60 Stay in the right lane and merge onto I-10 West 14.3 Westbound Take Exit 1 for Ehrenberg - Parker; turn right onto 29.7 Juneau Ave 200 ft Turn left onto Frontage Rd 114 US 60 115 I-10 116 Juneau Ave 117 Frontage Rd 118 Pedestrian bridge Terminus Route ends at the Ehrenberg pedestrian bridge, which marks the state line between California and Arizona Follow signs and paved path adjacent to the freeway to 0.6 enter onto pedestrian bridge over Colorado River At bridge end, follow path down to Hobsonway/Frontage road in California West/Southwest Southwest West North West Route Ends 573.24 Total Mileage * Your actual mileage will vary 4 AASHTO U.S. Bicycle Route System Appendix C Formal Agency Concurrences for USBR 90 Final Report for Task Assignment MPD 068 - 14 August 2015 | B - 1 RESOLUTION NO. 15-21 A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION, MARICOPA AND PINAL COUNTIES, ARIZONA, STATING ITS SUPPORT FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF U.S. BICYCLE ROUTE 90 THROUGH THE CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION. WHEREAS, bicycle tourism is a growing industry in North America, presently contributing approximately $47 billion dollars a year nationally to the economies of communities that provide facilities for such tourists; and WHEREAS, the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials ("AASHTO") has designated a corridor that crosses Arizona and connect the Arizona/New Mexico Border north of Douglas, AZ to the Arizona/California border near Ehrenburg, AZ and Blythe, CA to be developed as United States Bike Route 90 ("USBR 90"); and WHEREAS, the Arizona Department of Transportation is supportive of AASHTO designated bicycle routes through Arizona, subject to ongoing collaboration with affected jurisdictions to designate specific facilities the routes will traverse; and WHEREAS, the proposed USBR 90 traverses through the City of Apache Junction and a map (set forth in Exhibit A) depicting the preferred route is herein incorporated into this resolution by reference and is expected to provide a benefit to local residents and businesses; and WHEREAS, the City of Apache Junction has duly considered the proposed USBR 90 route and found it to be a suitable route through the Arizona corridor and desires that the route be formally designated so that it can be appropriately mapped and potentially signed, thereby promoting bicycle tourism in the Apache Junction area. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION, ARIZONA, THAT: Resolution No. 15-21 Page 1 of 2 1)It hereby expresses its approval and support for the development of USBR 90 through the City of Apache Junction as depicted on the attached map (Exhibit A) and requests that the appropriate government officials take action to officially designate the route accordingly as soon as possible. 2)The City of Apache Junction may choose to post and maintain signs for the bicycle route once the designation has been made. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION, ARIZONA THIS /) DAY OF 2015. DAY OF_; SIGNED AND ATTESTED TO THIS 7 / ATTEST: KATHLEEN CONNELLY City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: 5.5\ii5 R. JOEL STERN City Attorney Resolution No. 15-21 Page 2 of 2 , 2015. JOHN S. INSALACO Mayor EXHIBIT A Apache Junction USBR 90 5/27/2015 Michael Sanders Arizona Department of Transportation 206 S. 171h Avenue, MD 310B Phoenix, Arizona 85007 Dear Mr. Sanders: The City of Bisbee would like to offer our support for the designation of proposed U.S. Bicycle Route 90 (USBR 90) through the City. We recognize that bicycle tourism is a growing industry in North America, contributing $47 billion a year to the economies of communities that provide facilities for such tourists. As a community, we stand to benefit from this opportunity both economically and from the health and environmental related benefits of encouraging bicycle travel in our region . The U.S. Bicycle Route System is a bicycle based transportation system sponsored by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). Our City lies within a much larger corridor (USBR 90) that crosses Arizona and connects major historical and iconic landmarks, cities, and destinations in southern Arizona. The proposed route for USBR 90, as describe in Figure 1 below, will provide a benefit to our residents and businesses and we endorse having the route mapped and may choose to have it signed, thereby promoting bicycle tourism in our area. Therefore the City of Bisbee hereby expresses its support for USBR 90, and requests that the appropriate officials nominate the route for AASHTO designation as soon as this can be achieved. ~:-{/'£City Manager City of Bisbee Bisbee, AZ, 85603 520-249-5067/jjohnson@bisbeeaz.gov Figure 1 - United States Bicycle Route 90 through the City of Bisbee EXHIBIT 'A' Recommended U.S Bicycle Route 90 Proposed Route 4 0 0.5 1 Miles Data Disclaimer: The Town of Marana provides this map information "As Is" at the request of the user with the understanding that it is not guaranteed to be accurate, c orrec t or complete and conclusions drawn from such information are the responsibility of the user. In no event shall The Town of Marana become liable to users of these data, or any other party, for any loss or direct, indirect, special, incidental or consequential damages, including but not limited to time, money or goodwill, arising from the use or modification of the data. U:\Planning\Bike Data\US Bicycle Route 90.mxd JPC RESOLUTION NO. 2015-_.::::..35~A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA, STATING ITS SUPPORT FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF U.S. BICYCLE ROUTE 90. WHEREAS, bicycle tourism is a growing industry in North America, contributing to the economies of communities that provide facilities for such tourists; and WHEREAS, the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) has designated an east/west corridor crossing the state of Arizona to be developed as United States Bike Route 90 (USBR 90); and WHEREAS, the Arizona Department of Transportation is supportive of AASHTO designated bicycle routes through Arizona, subject to ongoing collaboration with affected jurisdictions to designate specific facilities the routes will traverse; and WHEREAS, the proposed USBR 90 traverses through Pima County using the following County-owned roads and share use paths, and is expected to provide a benefit to local residents and businesses: • • • • Colossal Cave Road between 1-10 and Dawn Drive Colossal Cave Road between the southern boundary of Acacia Elementary School and Mary Ann Cleveland Way Mary Ann Cleveland Way between Colossal Cave Road and Red Iron Trail The Loop Pathway including the Julian Wash Greenway and the Santa Cruz River Park alignments WHEREAS, Pima County has duly considered the proposed route and found it to be a suitable route through the Arizona corridor at this time and desires that the route be formally designated so that it can be appropriately mapped, thereby promoting bicycle tourism in our area. WHEREAS, remaining segments of The Loop including Harrison Greenway, Pantano Wash River Park, and Rillito River Park are currently in various stages of planning and design. Following completion of these segments, the preferred alignment through the jurisdiction will include the use of the following: • The Loop including the Harrison Greenway, Pantano Wash River Park, Rillito River Park and Santa Cruz River Park Page 1 of2 Upon the completion of this alignment, Pima County requests that the designated route for USBR 90 be formally modified to include the preferred alignment and that existing mapping be updated to reflect the preferred alignment. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF PIMA COUNTY AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. THAT the Board of Supervisors hereby expresses its approval and support for the development of USBR 90. Section 2. THAT, the various County officers and employees are authorized to take action to officially designate the route accordingly, including provisions to formally modify the route upon completion of the preferred alignment. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Chair and Board of Pima County this 2nd of June, 2015. Sh c:Pf'F\ LJ'{] ~ V'-GV'l;s-'~ Chair, Pima County Board of Supervisors ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: ~ney ANDREW FlAGG Page 2 of2 Julian Wash Greenway (The Loop) - J . -·~r ,a __, -.... 1 1 H 2 4 E""'""?3 ~des Santa Cruz River Park (The Loop) ! H City/Town US Bicycle Route 90, in Santa Cruz County, Arizona Recommended U.S. Bicycle Route 90 Interstate/Highway County Boundary 8 SR 3 Pima County 2 3 SR 8 ² 0 2.5 5 Miles 10 Cochise County Elgin Road SR 90 8 SR Upper Elgin Road Santa Cruz County Huachuca City ! H Sierra Vista ! H Updated: May 27, 2015 ! H RESOLUTION NO. 10178 A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SCOTTSDALE, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA, STATING ITS SUPPORT FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF U.S. BICYCLE ROUTE 90. WHEREAS, bicycle tourism is a growing industry in North America, contributing to the economies of communities that provide facilities for such tourists; and WHEREAS, the America Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) has designated an east/west corridor crossing the state of Arizona to be developed as United States Bike Route 90 (USER 90); and WHEREAS, the Arizona Department of Transportation is supportive of AASHTOdesignated bicycle routes through Arizona, subject to ongoing collaboration with affected jurisdictions to designate specific bikeways the routes will traverse; and WHEREAS, the proposed USBR 90, which traverses the CITY OF SCOTTSDALE as shown in the map attached hereto as Exhibit "A", is expected to provide a benefit to local residents and businesses; and WHEREAS, the CITY OF SCOTTSDALE has duly considered the proposed route and found it to be a suitable route and desires that the route be formally designated so that it can be appropriately mapped and potentially signed, thereby promoting bicycle tourism in the area. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the council of the city of Scottsdale as follows: Section 1. The Council hereby expresses its support for the development of USBR 90. Section 2. Staff is authorized to take action to officially designate USBR 90 within the City of Scottsdale. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Mayor and Council of the CITY OF SCOTTSDALE this 16'^ day of June, 2015. CITY OF SCOTTSDALE, an Arizona Municipal Corp ATTEST: Carolyn J^ger, City Q i ) ^ APPROVED AS TO FORM: Bruce Washburry City Attorney By: William Hylen, Senior Assistant City Attorney 13434521vi Resolution No. 10178 Page 1 of 1 RESOLUTION NO. 10178 RESOLUTION NO. R:I015.21 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF TITE CITY OF TEMPE, ARIZONA, TO ADOPT THE UNITED STATES BIKE ROUTE 90 THROUGH TEMPE. WHEREAS, the City of Tempe is a bicycle-friendly community with more than 175 miles of bikeways; and WHEREAS, bicycle tourism is a growing industry presently contributing approximately $47 billion dollars a year nationally to the economies of communities that provide facilities for bicycle tourism; and WHEREAS, the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials has designated a corridor in Tempe comprising of Rio Salado Parkway to Mill Avenue to Curry Road to College Avenue to be developed as part of United States Bike Route 90; and WHEREAS, the Arizona Department of Transportation and other stakeholders, have proposed a specific route to be designated as United States Bike Route 90, a map of which is herein incorporated into this resolution by reference; and WHEREAS, the proposed United States Bike Route 90 traverses through Tempe' including the Tempe Town Lake, Rio Salado, Papago Park and Downtown Tempe areas and is expected to provide a benefit to local residents and businesses; and WHEREAS, the City of Tempe has duly considered said proposed route, its connections to neighboring communities and determined it to be a suitable route through Tempe and desires route, be formally designated so that it may be appropriately mapped and potentially that signed, thereby promoting bicycle tourism in Tempe; G NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COI.JNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMPE, ARIZONA, that: l. The City Council hereby approves the portion of United States Bike Route Section 90 through Tempe comprising of Rio Salado Parkway to Mill Avenue to Curry Road to College Avenue. Section 2. That the Mayor is hereby authorized to take such further actions as may be needed to effectuate this approval. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COI.]NCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMPE, ARIZONA" THIS l9th day of March,2015. APPROVEDAS TO FORM: R. Baumann, City Attomey o il j''' :;,i '''r / i.l I t oE .o / \ I F \ -C oo J q t I - o I- .C F o P J - o E, t{- o oG' e -^"1 -J- (J City of Tempe Resolution No. R2015.21 I \I'L# . _* . i-.*{16+t ; --"_* $ a " ! in Tw sR ak Pe d Oro Valley Recommended U.S. Bicycle Route 90 H ! Julian Wash Greenway (The Loop) Santa Cruz River Park (The Loop) Ä ? Ina Rd Belmont Rd Sunset Rd El Camino Del Cerro Sweetwater Dr Grant Rd Speedway Blvd Tucson H ! Starr Pass Blvd South Tucson ico Old Vail R d Co los sa lC av e Rd Rita Rd oP Kolb Rd Wilmot Rd Alvernon Way Swan Rd Country Club Rd Palo Verde Rd Tucson Blvd Ri PIMA Via COCHISE Campbell Ave Ajo Way Park Ave 6th Ave H ! $ d " ! d Ol 0 1 2 ita no So 4 y Rd H ! n tio Sta Miles rsh Ma Hw ² $ a " ! AASHTO U.S. Bicycle Route System Appendix D Formal Agency Concurrences for USBR 66 Final Report for Task Assignment MPD 068 - 14 August 2015 | C - 1 £ ¤ 89 V U 64 WILLIAMS V U 64 £ ¤ 180 DEER . FA RM RD £ ¤ 89 BR PA AN RK NIG RO AN AD Old Rou te 66 TOWNSE ND -W INONA ROAD NAVAJO 40 § ¨ ¦ B-6 6 V U 99 FLAGSTAFF I-4 0 V U 89 YAVAPAI ¨ ¦ V § U 17 89A 87 0 £ ¤ 180 Major Road County Road Non County Road RD. FA RM DEE R BR A Old Rou te 66 NN IG WASHINGTON AN WILLIAMS PA R K RO V U 389 AD 40 § ¨ ¦ £ ¤ KANE 89A FREDONIA 89 V U 98 ± 89 INO NA RO AD I-4 0 B-6 6 FLAGSTAFF NAVAJO 0 SEDONA D -W 264 64 WILLIAMS V U 0 NS EN V U V U 180 40 I-4 40 § ¨ ¦ £ ¤ § ¨ ¦ TO W £ ¤ TUSAYAN Miles 5 89 89A MOHAVE FLAGSTAFF § ¨ ¦ 17 3 6 Miles V U 99 V U 89A YAVAPAI These data are for Planning purposes only. No warranty of accuracy is implied or given. March, 2015 § ¨ ¦ 17 VU U V 87 LA PAZ 260 GILA MARICOPA 99 87 £ ¤ PAGE 67 2.5 Miles 12 6 SAN JUAN £ ¤ V U 0 U V V V U U U.S. Bicycle Route 66