Route Transfer and Level of Development Study
DRAFT FINAL REPORT
October 2003
Route Transfer and Level of Development Study
DRAFT FINAL REPORT
October 2003
Prepared for: Prepared by:
Arizona Department of Transportation HDR Engineering, Inc
DRAFT FINAL REPORT
pg. i
Route Transfer and Level of Development Study
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter Page No.
1.0 Background and Study Objectives 1
2.0 Policies and Legal Framework 3
2.1 Transportation Board Policy on Route Transfers 4
3.0 Level of Development and Identification of Candidate Routes for Transfer 7
3.1 Level of Development Classification Criteria 8
4.0 Recommended Priorities for Transfer of Routes 11
5.0 Transfer Process 18
5.1 Issues with the Current Process 20
5.2 Potential Solutions to Process Issues 21
6.0 Benefits and Costs of Transfers 24
7.0 Conclusions and Recommendations 28
Appendices
A. Arizona Revised Statutes Related to Designation and Responsibility for
State Highways and State Routes
A- 1
B. Technical Advisory Committee Members A- 3
C. Schedule of Meetings A- 4
D. Notes from Stakeholder Meetings A- 5
pg. ii
DRAFT FINAL REPORT
Route Transfer and Level of Development Study
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES
Table Page No.
1. Criteria for Level of Development Classification 6
2. Proposed Candidate Routes for Transfer by Priority 13
3. Maintenance Costs for Typical Highway Segments 24
4. Benefit Cost Example, Part 1: Base Costs without Transfer 25
5. Benefit Cost Example, Part 2: Costs of Transfer 26
6. Benefit Cost Example, Part 3, ADOT Benefit- Cost Ratio 32
D- 1. Review of Possible Transfer Process Solutions 33
Figures Page No.
1. Level of Development Classifications, 2003 7
2. Route Transfer Process 19
DRAFT FINAL REPORT
pg. 1
Route Transfer and Level of Development Study
1.0 Background and Study Objectives
he Arizona State Highway System includes a number of routes that do not function as state
highways. Highways on the state system are intended to form a network for statewide and
regional travel. Highways within the state system that do not contribute to the mission and
purpose of the system create problems for ADOT and for transportation in Arizona:
• They use resources that could be going to meet statewide transportation needs.
• They generate administrative and liability costs that are disproportionate to their contribution to
the state highway system.
• Local jurisdictions often have different objectives from those of the state in terms of how these
roads are developed and used.
• Their presence on the state system sometimes prevents appropriate treatments as part of local
road functions. 1
The problem of rationalizing the state highway system has been recognized for many years. While
route transfers and abandonments regularly occur, there is concern that the pace of the transfers is
too slow and that they do not appear to follow consistent policy or procedures. The subject of route
transfers was a prominent feature of the 1990 Highway System Plan. In the late 1990’ s the
Transportation Board became more concerned about the problem and requested an inventory of
routes that were candidates for abandonment. A list of routes was collected from the districts and in
1999 a study was undertaken to identify a consistent statewide list of candidate routes and a
consistent procedure to increase the number of abandonments and transfers. In 2000, a re-evaluation
of the Level of Development ( LOD) was begun. For a variety of reasons, these studies
were not completed, although a limited number of routes continue to be transferred.
The three primary results of this study were:
1. Re- evaluation of LOD for all routes on the state highway system.
2. Recommendation of a new policy on route turnbacks that clarifies how ADOT and the
Transportation Board will deal with key issues in route transfers.
3. Development of a consistent priority list of candidate routes for transfer.
1.1 Study Process
The study first presented reviews of existing policies, laws, road system classifications, and previous
approaches to identifying and implementing route transfers. ADOT and local agency staff were
interviewed to identify issues with the existing transfer process, and the policies and practices of
other states that appear to be successful in implementing route transfers were reviewed.
Interviews conducted early in the study process found almost universal agreement on the need for a
more consistent approach to route transfers that includes:
1 For instance, local businesses usually prefer on- street parking, while state highway design criteria normally prohibit parking on
state highways.
T
pg. 2
DRAFT FINAL REPORT
Route Transfer and Level of Development Study
• Identification of the desired state highway system through clear criteria and designation of routes
that are now on the system, but which do not meet the criteria for inclusion
• Establishment of an abandonment and transfer process including required changes in policy and
procedures to support it.
Despite unanimity on these basic points, there was significant difference in the recommended
approach among, for example, criteria for inclusion of a road in the state system; whether there was
a need for a timeline for the abandonments; whether special funding allocation or adjustments in
current funding allocations should be part of the process; how to manage routes in the interim
between designation for potential abandonment and the actual change in responsibility; and many
other issues.
The LOD classification for state highways was updated from 1999 designations as a way to
determine routes that belonged on the state system and those that should be transferred to other
jurisdictions.
A technical advisory committee consisting of ADOT staff, an urban area representative, and a rural
area liaison was consulted throughout the study and made recommendations to the Transportation
Board.
The results of the LOD analysis and alternative suggestions for improving the transfer process were
discussed with ADOT District Engineers ( DEs) at internal meetings.
Stakeholder meetings were held to review preliminary study results with the MAG Street Committee,
PAG Planning Committee, and the Rural Summit, which included representatives of the rural
Councils of Government ( COGs).
Based on input from local agencies and from ADOT District staff, the Technical Advisory
Committee adopted a set of recommendations to the Arizona Transportation Board, which is
contained in this report. These recommendations include a revised policy on route transfers, a list of
candidate routes for transfer with priorities, revisions to the transfer process, and recommendations
for further study.
DRAFT FINAL REPORT
pg. 3
Route Transfer and Level of Development Study
2.0 Policies and Legal Framework
rizona statutes give the Transportation Board authority to accept, revise and remove routes on
the state highway system and describes procedures to remove ( abandon) routes no longer
serving a state function. ( ARS 28- 304 and 28- 7201 through 28- 7215).
It should be noted that this study often refers to transfer of highways rather than abandonment to avoid
the arbitrary implications of the word abandonment, particularly the implications that ADOT would
act unilaterally. However, the legal framework set up in Arizona law requires that the Transportation
Board abandon routes, at which point they revert to the underlying city or county agency or to
another agency identified in the intergovernmental agreement that implement the transfer.
Other legal terms that need clarification are state routes and state highways. State routes are designated by
the Transportation Board and may be either highways or the designated routes for future highways.
A highway is a route that has been constructed or improved and designated as a state highway by
order of the Board. Procedures for abandonment of highways and routes are the same except that
abandonment of paved highways requires that the surface be improved so as to be maintenance free
for five years.
Some state routes are designated over existing city street or county roads but are not yet state
highways because no construction has occurred. In other cases, planning routes may exist where no
road exists. Both of these are often referred to as paper routes. They are subject to the same transfer
or abandonment procedures as other routes. This study did not recommend abandonment or
transfer of any paper routes.
Requirements for abandonment of a state highway are contained in ARS 28- 7207, as follows:
If a roadway is a state roadway, the governing body may resolve that this state’s
interest in the roadway or portion of the roadway is abandoned. On
abandonment:
1. This state’s interest in the part of the roadway that is located outside the
boundaries of incorporated cities or towns vest in the county where the
roadway is located.
2. The state’s interest in the part of the roadway that is located within the
boundaries of an incorporated city or town vest in that city or town.
3. The director shall promptly notify the city, town or county affected by the
abandonment, and that county, city or town may maintain the roadway as
other county, city or town roadways are maintained or dispose of it as
provide in this article.
Requirements for abandonment of a state roadway are contained ARS 28- 7209, as follows:
A. If the board vacates or abandons a portion of a state route or state highway
pursuant to section 28- 304, the board shall:
1. Vacate or abandon the portion of the route or highway in cooperation with
an affected jurisdiction and in full recognition of the financial and
administrative impacts of the changes on the affected jurisdiction.
A
pg. 4
DRAFT FINAL REPORT
Route Transfer and Level of Development Study
2. Provide four years advance notice to the affected jurisdiction, except that,
by mutual agreement, the board and the affected jurisdiction may waive this
requirement for notification.
B. Before a paved highway is vacated or abandoned, the pavement before the vacating or
abandonment shall be in such a condition that additional surface treatment and major
maintenance of the highway are not required for at least five years, unless the board and the
affected jurisdiction agree to waive the requirement of this subsection.
As seen in these statutes, the actions of the Board in removing routes from the state highway system
must be undertaken in cooperation with local agencies. Even if ADOT were to undertake a
unilateral abandonment it would take years to accomplish and would likely run afoul of requirements
to cooperate with local authorities and to recognize the financial burden being placed on them. In
addition, actions of the Board in regard to establishing or abandoning state highways are subject to
review by the Superior Court.
2.1 Transportation Board Policy on Route Transfers
One purpose of this study is to recommend changes to Transportation Board Policy that would
improve the route transfer process. In proposing the following replacement to the existing Route
Abandonment Policy, most of the existing policy was adopted and expanded. The following
proposed policy introduces several important changes. It:
• Emphasizes transfer rather than abandonment
• States the purpose of abandonments positively in terms of attributes of the statewide network
that should be emphasized.
• Clarifies how routes will be identified for transfer and requires that ADOT maintain a list of
candidate routes for transfer.
• Sets priorities for transfers that should be most vigorously pursued.
• Drops language from the existing policy that refers to existing operating conditions of roads
rather than the purpose of the road in the state highway network.
This approach led to recommendation of the following revised policy for adoption by the
Transportation Board. The recommendation was adopted August 15, 2003 and is now a part of
Transportation Board Policies:
DRAFT FINAL REPORT
pg. 5
Route Transfer and Level of Development Study
ARIZONA TRANSPORTATION BOARD POLICIES
16. Transfer of State Routes Policy
1. It is the policy of Board that the State Highway System consist primarily of routes necessary to
provide a statewide network to serve the ever- changing environment with regard to the
statewide and regional movement of people and goods. Routes primarily providing land access
and local movement of people and goods should be the responsibility of local governments. The
Transportation Board will seek to transfer these routes to other jurisdictions. 2
2. The transfer of state highways will be carried out in cooperation with local jurisdictions and in
full recognition of their financial capabilities. 3
3. The ADOT will maintain and update biennially a list of state highways that do not serve as
integral parts of the State Highway System and therefore are eligible candidates for transfer.
Consistent with the Level of Development ( LOD) approach used by ADOT to determine future
development needs on State Highway Routes, this list shall consist of two parts:
LOD 4: will include those routes that do not serve a need as a part of the state highway
system, but serve significant state or national facilities. Maintenance and development
decisions on these routes will be based on appropriate service for the specific facility being
served. ADOT will not actively seek to transfer or abandon these routes, but will do so if an
appropriate jurisdiction can be found to operate the route. Improvements to these routes
which are primarily for the benefit of local development will normally be made only when a
local jurisdiction agrees to take over the route.
LOD 5: will include routes that are not necessary for a network of state routes and serve no
significant statewide interest. ADOT will actively work to transfer these routes to other
jurisdictions. ADOT will normally provide only minimal maintenance and essential safety
improvements. Other improvements will normally be considered only when accompanied by
an agreement to transfer the route to another jurisdiction.
ADOT will seek input from local jurisdictions in preparing the list and will present the list to the
Transportation Board for adoption. 4
2 The current policy reads:
“ 1. It is the Board’s policy that urban and regional transportation systems that are functionally classified as local roads and
primarily provide land access and local movement of people and goods should be the responsibility of local governments.”
The technical advisory ( TAC) recommends the new language in order to state positively the purpose of the State Highway
System and to eliminate mention of functional classification since it is Level of Development, rather than Functional Class that
has been used to determine which routes should be transferred.
3 This paragraph replaces Paragraph 4 of the existing policy. The TAC recommends elimination of language referring to
abandonment, since this implies unilateral action by the Board. The language implements ARS 28- 7209, requiring cooperation
with local jurisdictions in carrying out abandonments and transfers.
4 This is a new paragraph that does not exist in the current policy.
pg. 6
DRAFT FINAL REPORT
Route Transfer and Level of Development Study
4. In addition to routes currently classified as LOD 4 and LOD 5 it is also the policy of the
board to transfer other routes to local jurisdictions when bypasses or parallel routes are
constructed. In these cases transfer of the old route will be considered part of the project. 5
5. Priorities for transfer of these routes will be: 6 7
1. Routes for which local governments have expressed interest in acquiring;
2. Routes for which ADOT is constructing a bypass or alternate route;
3. Existing business routes not necessary for system continuity;
4. Other routes as ADOT construction and maintenance activities result in opportunities to
transfer or as requested improvements provide opportunity to negotiate transfers.
5 This paragraph replaces Paragraph 3 in the current policy.
6 This is a new paragraph that does not exist in the current policy.
7 Paragraph 2 of the current policy has been eliminated in this revision. The subject of the paragraph is covered by the
classification system used in the proposed Paragraph 3. Also, the TAC recommends that the function of the road in the state
highway network should be the primary consideration in retaining the road rather than the current condition of access and traffic
facilities. Existing Paragraph 2 reads:
“ The Board will transfer roads to local governments in accordance with state statute ( ARS 28- 7209) and in consideration of any
or all of the following factors:
• The majority of trips are local and short distance;
• They serve primarily local function as evidenced by:
- Lack of access control or limited/ partial access control,
- There are significant numbers of intersecting local streets or driveways,
- There are a large number of closely spaced signalized intersections;
- There are viable alternate routes.”
DRAFT FINAL REPORT
pg. 7
Route Transfer and Level of Development Study
3.0 Level of Development and Identification
of Candidate Routes for Transfer
Before identifying candidate routes for transfer, the role of each route in the state highway system
was considered. By applying LOD criteria, it was possible to identify a consistent network of roads
necessary to provide a statewide network that will serve the statewide and regional movement of
people and goods. Those routes that do not contribute to the state highway system are identified as
candidates for transfer.
Prior to the creation of a final recommended list of candidate routes for transfer, the results of the
LOD study were reviewed with ADOT DEs and with local government stakeholders. This review
led to several clarifications and revisions in the LOD designations and in the final candidate list.
3.1 Level of Development
The purpose of the highway LOD is the objective determination of standards for the targeted level
of performance and design characteristics for each highway on the state highway system. It is useful
to:
• Assist in the determination of investment priorities for the next update of the Five- Year
Construction Program.
• To determine those routes which should be considered for elimination from the state highway
system by transfer to local government control or abandonment.
The LOD divides the state highway system into five levels based on functional class, level of
significance and usage. These levels include:
LOD 1 Interstate and urban controlled access facilities designed for high volume, high
speed and full access control.
LOD 2 Other major facilities serving significant auto or truck traffic forming a network of
high capacity routes for long distance travel. In rural areas they are designed for high
speeds and continuous flow. In urban areas they are designed and maintained for
continuous flow with minimal interruptions. Where traffic volumes exceed 5,000 average
daily traffic ( ADT), designs are often multi- lane with expressway characteristics.
LOD 3 Other routes providing for long distance travel and regional links through urban
areas. These roads contain the majority of miles on the highway system, filling the
network to provide access to all areas of the state. In rural areas they are generally higher
speed routes, although with more variation in speed than would be acceptable on LOD
2. In larger urban and suburban areas they are designed for continuous flow, but with
more interruptions being acceptable than for LOD 2.
LOD 4 Lower volume rural routes connecting facilities or regions of statewide
significance. These routes are expected to stay on the state system because they serve
significant state or national facilities, including national parks and monuments and
institutions such as prisons and major research centers. However, they do not handle
significant volumes of through traffic and are not a significant part of the state system.
pg. 8
DRAFT FINAL REPORT
Route Transfer and Level of Development Study
They should be developed and maintained for safety and for minimum life cycle cost
with traffic flow and speed being secondary considerations.
LOD 5 Low volume routes without statewide significance that do not have a significant role
in the state highway system and that ADOT intends to transfer to local jurisdictions, or
in some cases, abandon. As such, they should receive only essential maintenance and
safety- related improvements. Other improvements should not be carried out without an
IGA that transfers the route to another jurisdiction.
The current designations were insufficient and needed to be updated. They were last updated in
1999, and the last review of criteria took place during the 1994 Highway System Plan update. Traffic
volumes had changed, population had shifted and the conditions of roadways and bridges changed
as a result of both wear and improvements.
Two specific items were left out of this LOD update. First, the update did not consider revising
design/ performance standards. It was assumed that the standards from the last Highway System
Plan update are sufficient until the new transportation plan is adopted. Second, the update did not
compare existing conditions with desired conditions. This would have required a needs study that
was well beyond the purpose of the Route Transfer Study.
3.2 Level of Development Classification Criteria
Classification of roads was based on information from Arizona’s Highway Performance Monitoring
System and the Function Class Study. Criteria used to classify road are shown in Table 1.
In practical terms the evaluation of LOD classification was carried out in stages:
1. A preliminary evaluation based strictly on projected traffic volumes and existing functional
class identified LOD 1, 2, and 3 routes.
2. Routes were added to LOD 2 and 3 to provide continuity, where necessary.
3. Parallel and spur routes ( including most business routes) were dropped to LOD 5.
4. All other routes not assigned to LOD 1, 2 or 3 were also assigned as “ preliminary LOD 5.”
5. Some “ Preliminary LOD 5” routes reassigned to LOD 4 because they served sites of
national and state interest.
6. Designations were reviewed with ADOT DEs for issues of accuracy.
7. The TAC the Transportation Board and local government stakeholder groups reviewed
designations for accuracy and for policy implications.
8. Final adjustments were made.
DRAFT FINAL REPORT
pg. 9
Route Transfer and Level of Development Study
The resulting designations are shown in the map featured as Figure 1 on the following page. Routes
shown in red are LOD 5 routes considered candidates for transfer.
8 In two cases the criteria of connecting at both ends was dropped. SR 69 from I- 17 to Prescott was retained because of its high
volume of through traffic, even though it did not connect to another LOD 2 at Prescott. SR 64, serving the South Rim of the
Grand Canyon was retained because of its high volume and the nationally significant destination.
Table 1. Criteria for Level of Development Classifications
Level of Development Classification Criteria
1 Freeways • Designated as interstate highway or urban freeway
2 Other major facilities • Rural routes with more than 5,000 ADT
• Connecting rural National Highway System ( NHS) routes with more than
1,500 ADT
• Key freight routes ( more than 1,000 articulated trucks per day)
• Urban and rural connecting routes to form a network in which LOD 2 routes
connect at both ends to LOD 1 or other LOD 2 routes8
3 Other statewide routes • Rural arterial and major collector routes with more than 1,500 ADT
• Urban arterial routes with more than 5,000 ADT
• Connecting routes necessary to form a network in which all LOD 3 routes
connect with LOD 1, LOD 2 or other LOD 3 routes
• Not including business routes and other routes with parallel state highways
of higher classification
4 Non- statewide routes
serving points of state and
national interest
• Routes that would normally be classified as LOD 5, as described below, but
• Serve a significant state or national facility
• Provide only access to a large population or land area
5 Routes without statewide
significance
• Classified as minor collector or local road
• Other routes with less than 1,500 ADT
• Business or parallel routes
• Spur routes
pg. 10
DRAFT FINAL REPORT
Route Transfer and Level of Development Study
Figure 1. Level of Development
DRAFT FINAL REPORT
pg. 11
Route Transfer and Level of Development Study
4.0 Recommended Priorities for Transfer of Routes
ne of the purposes of the route transfer study was to set priorities for transfer of routes from
the state highway system to other jurisdictions. Among the factors considered in establishing
priorities, not listed in priority order, were:
• Ongoing maintenance and operation costs of the route
• Operational issues related to local traffic and access
• Liability
• Cost of providing improvements to make the transfer
• Interest by local governments or others in acquiring the route
Early in the study it was determined that technical rankings of individual route segments would not
be helpful. Virtually all transfers arise as a result of local development needs or ADOT construction
projects and all transfers are negotiated. Even if a project were to rank high on the list, ADOT could
not normally affect transfer in the absence of opportunities over which it has little control. On the
other hand, if an opportunity arose to transfer a lower- ranked project, this would seldom be
rejected. However, certain types of transfers have more urgency. Consideration of factors noted
above and the urgency created to pursue transfers produced the following general priorities:
1. Routes already in negotiation.
It is very difficult to transfer a route unless the local government is interested in taking it. Getting
the transfer into negotiation may be the most difficult stage in the transfer process. In addition, a
key problem of the route transfer process is the length of time it often takes to perform a transfer.
This can result in loss of opportunities or increased cost of making the transfers. ADOT’s top
priority should be given to those routes already in negotiation with local governments.
2. Routes that will be left as business routes after construction of bypasses or parallel routes.
ADOT has a policy of transferring the remaining business routes when bypasses are constructed.
While these routes are not identified as LOD 5 until after construction takes place, by that time it is
often too late to negotiate a transfer. Therefore, it is important to place a high priority on the
transfer of these routes at the time the construction of the bypass takes place.
3. Business routes.
Of the routes identified as candidates for transfer, business routes represent the most expensive
routes for ADOT to maintain and the source of the greatest conflict between state highway design
and maintenance practices and local agency objectives for these roads. Therefore, of the routes
identified for transfer that are not already in negotiation, these are the highest priority. The
recommended policy would provide only minimal maintenance and essential safety improvements
unless a local agency agreed to take ownership of the route.
4. Other low volume, parallel or spur routes not serving a statewide travel function.
Like business routes, the recommended policy calls for providing only minimal maintenance and
essential safety improvements on these routes unless a local agency agreed to take over the route.
O
pg. 12
DRAFT FINAL REPORT
Route Transfer and Level of Development Study
5. Roads serving state or national facilities that do not otherwise serve statewide travel needs as
defined by LOD.
These routes could be transferred if an appropriate operator could be found. Under the proposed
policy, ADOT would provide normal maintenance on these routes, but would only make
improvements related to safety and to the facility being served. Other improvements would not be
carried out unless another jurisdiction agreed to take the route.
Table 2 ( on the following pages) shows “ Candidate Routes for Transfer.” The table is divided into
two parts. Part 1 includes those projects identified as LOD 5 plus route segments that would
become parallel or business routes with the completion of planned construction. Part 2 includes
roads serving state or national facilities that do not serve statewide travel needs. Within each priority
group, routes are listed by route number and the order does not represent additional priority.
Table 2. Proposed Candidate Routes for Transfer/ Abandonment by Transfer Priority
Rte. No. County Milepost Milepost LOD Comment Potential Receiving
Jurisdiction
PART 1: Routes not serving state network or significant statewide interest
Transfer Priority 1: Negotiations already taking place
B 10 Pima 247.6 253.35 5 Entire route within Tucson City of Tucson
B 19 Pima Entire Route 5 From Sahuarita to Tucson Pima County/ City of Sahuaita
B 19 Santa Cruz I- 19/ Country
Club Road TI SR 82 5 In Nogales - Border crossings are on B- 19, south of SR 82, and SR189 City of Nogales
B 40 Navajo Entire Route 5 At Winslow City of Winslow
B- 40 Coconino 200.5 204.22 5 " F- 40" portion of B- 40 - IGA is being drafted for turnback to the City City of Flagstaff
US 89 Coconino 418.74 420.33 2 89 within Flagstaff - IGA is being drafted for turnback to the City City of Flagstaff
SR 89A Coconino 374.2 374.84 3 Uptown Sedona - IGA already signed for turnback to City City of Sedona
SR 170 Gila/ Graham Jct US 70 Entire Route 5 Already negotiated with San Carlos Apache Tribe San Carlos Apache Tribe
SR 189 Santa Cruz I- 19 BR 19 5 Road serves only as a city street City of Nogales
Transfer Priority 2: Construction will leave segments as local roads with no statewide function
SR 69 Yavapai Jct69/ 89 Jct 69/ Fain Rd 5 Segment now functions as a city street. New construction of Fain Rd. is complete and
has made this road a parallel route. Fain Rd is still owned by the County. b
City of Prescott, Town of
Prescott Valley, Yavapai County
SR 74 Maricopa I- 17 Lake Pleasant
Rd 3a Current plans for L303 will eliminate need for this segment and allow for development
and a local road. City of Phoenix, City of Peoria
SR 89 Yavapai Jct89/ 89A Butterfield Rd 5 Segment now functions as a city street. New construction of Fain Rd. is complete and
has made this road a parallel route. Fain Rd is still owned by the County. b City of Prescott
US 93 US 60 Tegner St. ( MP
198.3) 2 a Construction of bypass will leave this segment as a parallel city street Town of Wickenburg
US 191
" Bowie
Spur"
Cochise I- 10 US 191 3 a Will become unnecessary to state system with planned improvements to 191 between
I- 10 and SR 266. Cochise County
SR 260 Yavapai 209 260/ 89A 3 a New construction will leave segment as city street City of Cottonwood
SR 260 Yavapai I- 17 Cherry Rd 3 a New construction will leave segment as city street City of Camp Verde
a These LOD designations will change to LOD 5 with construction of bypasses. b See also, SR89A under Transfer Priority 3: Business Routes
Table 2. Proposed Candidate Routes for Transfer/ Abandonment by Transfer Priority
Rte. No. County Milepost Milepost LOD Comment Potential Receiving
Jurisdiction
Transfer Priority 3: Business Routes
B 8 Yuma Entire Route 5 At Yuma Yuma Tucson
B 10 Cochise Entire Route 5 In Benson City of Benson
B 10 Cochise Entire Route except middle
section ( MP 339- 341) 5 At Willcox, but excepting middle section ( MP 339- 341) which is LOD 4 City of Willcox, Cochise County
B 10 Cochise Entire Route 5 At Bowie Cochise County
B 10 Cochise Entire Route 5 At San Simon Cochise County
B 40 Coconino 138.86 141 5 Seligman Yavapai County
B 40 Coconino 144.87 146.37 5 Ash Fork Yavapai County
B 40 Coconino Entire Route 5 At Flagstaff City of Flagstaff
B 40 Navajo 275 277.3 5 Joseph City, including accesses south of I- 40 Navajo County
B 40 Navajo 286 289.93 5 At Holbrook City of Holbrook
B 79 Pinal 131.86 134.02 5 At Florence City of Florence
B 95 La Paz Entire Route 5 Parallel to SR 95, between Parker and the Mohave County line La Paz County
SR 89A Yavapai 260 SR 89A/ Old
Main 4 This is an alternate route that functions as a city street. Town of Clarkdale, City of
Cottonwood
SR 89A Yavapai New SR 48 SR 89A/ Old
Main 4
This is an alternate route with deficiencies that are not economically feasible to bring
up to current ADOT standards, in order to function as a state route. City street through
Town of Jerome
Yavapai County, Town of
Jerome
SR 89A Coconino 401.99 420.33 3 Within the City of Flagstaff City of Flagstaff
US 180 Coconino 215.44 219.05 3 Within the City of Flagstaff City of Flagstaff
Transfer Priority 4: Other low volume, parallel, spurs or routes not connecting to the state system at each end
US 60 Maricopa Loop 303 McDowell Rd 5 Grand Ave. -- Serves primarily as a local access road
Maricopa County and Cities of
Phoenix, Glendale, Peoria, El
Mirage, Surprise
US 60 X Maricopa Sossaman Rd Meridian Rd 5 Between Sossaman Rd and Meridian Rd, north of US 60 Maricopa County, City of Mesa
SR 66 Mojave/
Coconino 0.36 61.806 5 Remainder of route has been transferred to local jurisdictions Mohave/ Coconino County
SR 71 Yavapai/ 87 109 5 Northwest of Wickenburg - very low volume Yavapai/ Maricopa County
Table 2. Proposed Candidate Routes for Transfer/ Abandonment by Transfer Priority
Rte. No. County Milepost Milepost LOD Comment Potential Receiving
Jurisdiction
Maricopa
SR 77 Navajo 396 408.93 5 Northeast of Holbrook Navajo County
SR 82 Cochise SR 90 SR 80 5 Very low volume Cochise County
SR 83 Santa Cruz SR82 South 5 Santa Cruz/ Cochise County
SR 85 X Maricopa on Van Buren Street in Phoenix,
from South of I- 10 and East of 17 5 South of Interstate 10, east of interstate 17, in Phoenix City of Mesa
SR 87 Maricopa From Baseline
Rd to the South
Between
Gaudalupe Rd
and Elliot Rd
5 South of US 60 City of Phoenix
SR 87 X Maricopa Entire Length 5 Near Gila County Line Maricopa County
SR 88 Maricopa Tortilla Flat SR 188 5 This is a strictly recreational route within the National Forest. The road is not paved. Maricopa County
SR 95 S Mohave 58.7401 To the West 5 From SR 95 to the western border, south of Lake Havasu City Mohave County
SR 95 S La Paz 39.231 45.8498 5 From SR 95 to the western border, just south of the Mohave County line La Paz County
SR 96 Yavapai From Bagdad
Hillside Rd
Thompson
Valley Rd 5 Northwest of Wickenburg, from SR 97 to the east Yavapai County
SR 97 Yavapai From US 93 Bagdad Hillside
Rd 5 Northwest of Wickenburg, from US 93 to the northeast Yavapai County
SR 99 Coconino 53 71 5 West of Winslow Coconino County
SR 99 Navajo 36 38 5 South of Winslow Navajo County
SR 180 A Apache SR61 US180 5 Very low volume Apache County
SR 181 Cochise SR 191 SR 186 5 Serves national monument, but most traffic uses SR 186 Cochise County
SR 187 Pinal I- 10 SR 87 5 Serves no statewide function Pinal County
SR 238 Pinal/ Maricopa 30 42 5 South of Phoenix, from SR 347 to the east Pinal/ Maricopa County
SR 261 Apache 401 409 5 Southwest of Springerville Apache County
SR 273 Apache From SR 260 Entire Length 5 Southwest of Springerville, west of SR 373, from SR 260 to the south Apache County
SR 277S Navajo SR 277 Pulp Mill 5 .48 mile stub serves only local mill Navajo County
SR 280 Yuma I- 8 BR 8 5 At Yuma City of Yuma
SR 288 Gila SR188 53.8 5 Mostly unpaved road serves mainly Tonto National Forest Tonto National Forest
SR 289 Santa Cruz From I- 19 Entire Length to 5 West of I 19, north of Nogales Santa Cruz County
Table 2. Proposed Candidate Routes for Transfer/ Abandonment by Transfer Priority
Rte. No. County Milepost Milepost LOD Comment Potential Receiving
Jurisdiction
the West
SR 373 Apache From SR 260 Entire Length 5 Southwest of Springerville Apache County
SR 473 Apache From SR 260 Entire Length 5 Apache County
Pine
Mountain
Rd Acc
Maricopa SR 87 SR 87X 5 From SR 87 to SR 87 X, just west of Gila county line Maricopa County
Frontage Roads and Segments Left from Construction
I- 10c Cochise 5 Mescal T Intesection ( T. I.) West Bound ( WB) Cochise County
5 SR 90 T. I. ( EB& WB) Cochise County
5 E. Benson T. I. ( WB& WB) Cochise County
5 Sibyl Rd. T. I. ( WB) Cochise County
5 W. Willcox T. I. ( WB) Cochise County
5 F. Grant T. I. ( WB) Cochise County
5 E. Willcox T. E. ( WB) Cochise County
5 Luzena T. E. ( EB) Cochise County
5 Barlett Ranch Rd. GS ( EB) Cochise County
5 E. Bowie T. I. ( EB& WB) Cochise County
5 Holt GS ( EB) Cochise County
5 Olga GS ( EB) Cochise County
5 Cochise Ave. GS ( EB) Cochise County
5 E. San Simon T. I. ( EB& WB) Cochise County
c Other frontage roads on I- 10 and I- 40 have not yet been inventoried for inclusion.
US 64 Coconino Various Various 5 New alignment of 64 left these segments on the Navajo Reservation that are no longer
needed for the State system Many of these segments no longer have a road surface. BIA/ Navajo Nation
US 89 Coconino Various Various 5 New alignment of 89 left these segments on the Navajo Reservation that are no longer
needed for the State system. Many of these segments no longer have a road surface BIA/ Navajo Nation
Table 2. Proposed Candidate Routes for Transfer/ Abandonment by Transfer Priority
Rte. No. County Milepost Milepost LOD Comment Potential Receiving
Jurisdiction
PART 2: Roads serving sites of national or state interest
BR 10 Cochise 339 341 4 Middle segment of business route through Willcox ( Serves national Monument) City of Willcox
SR 88 Maricopa US 60 Tortilla Flat 4 Provides access to a Natonal Forest/ Recreation area. Maricopa County
SR 95 Spur Mohave 167 169 4 In Havasu Wildlife Refuge -- Spur is scenic access to state park, could be transferred
to State Parks State Park
SR 186 Cochise I- 10 334 SR 181 4 From I 10 to the southeast, from MP 334 to intersection of SR 181 Cochise County
SR 210 Pima In Tucson 4 Serves Davis- Monthan AFB City of Tucson
SR 266 Graham US 191 West 4 Serves Grant State Prison Graham County
SR 564 Navajo From US 160 To the North 4 From US 160 to the north, between SR 98 and US 163 Navajo County
SR 366 Graham US 191 West 4 Serves Mt. Graham Obervatory Graham County
SR 386 Pima SR 86 South 4 Serves Observatory Pima County
pg. 18
DRAFT FINAL REPORT
Route Transfer and Level of Development Study
5.0 Transfer Process
he current process for abandoning or transferring routes from the state highway system is
featured in Figure 2 on the following page. The process begins with a determination that the
route should no longer be a part of the system. There are four ways in which this can occur:
1. The route is classified as LOD 5.
2. A bypass or parallel route is constructed making the route non- essential for the state system.
3. The DEs or other state official determines that the route no longer serves a state function.
4. A local government desires to take over the route.
The most common reason for beginning the discussion is a trigger event, such as construction of a
new route or the need for improvements that are not economical for the level of use the route
receives. In any case the ADOT DE discusses the potential abandonment with the local government
that would receive the route when abandoned. 9 In most cases the route will be transferred and the
discussion proceeds to the development of a draft agreement between the state and the jurisdiction.
Arizona law10 also provides a procedure whereby the Transportation Board can unilaterally abandon
a route. This procedure is depicted on the right side of the diagram. If no agreement is reached with
the local government, the state can provide a notice of intent to abandon the route. The notice
provides a 4- year waiting period during which the surface must be brought up to a standard that will
be maintenance- free for 5 years from the date of transfer. This procedure is rarely used, unless the
road ceases to carry traffic. When the Transportation Board formally abandons a route, the law calls
for the state to review the local jurisdiction’s financial condition and consider its needs in the
process, thus opening the door to dialogue and agreements beyond the limited improvements
required by law.
Regardless of the method of abandonment or transfer, the initial process includes a discussion
between the ADOT DE and the local government. The DE and the local government negotiate a
draft intergovernmental agreement regarding transfer of the road. The agreement will specify the
exact segment of road to be transferred and usually calls for improvements by ADOT as a condition
of local government acceptance of the road.
Both ADOT and the local government review and approve the proposed IGA before it goes
forward. The ADOT Process includes approval of the concept by the State Highway Engineer;
circulation of the proposal internally to identify technical or legal problems; preparation of legal
descriptions required; and notification of the Transportation Board. If improvements were funded
with federal dollars, the transfer must be approved by the Federal Highway Administration as well.
During this review and approval process one of the most significant issues is the programming of
funds for improvements required by the agreement. In reality the DE has probably been discussing
this with the Highway Administrator throughout the negotiating process; but before the final
agreement has been signed the funds must be identified and set aside.
9 Technically, any transfer is an abandonment by the state. Arizona Revised Statutes ( ARS) provide that the road revert to the
city or county depending on the jurisdiction in which it lies. Local jurisdictions can then abandoned the road or continue to
maintain it as a local street or road.
10 ARS 28- 304 and 28- 7201 through 28- 7215.
T
DRAFT FINAL REPORT
pg. 19
Route Transfer and Level of Development Study
The IGA may be delayed, stopped or modified at any point in this process. After reviews and
approvals by ADOT and the local agency, a final agreement can be signed and the Transportation
Board formally abandons the route. In this case the legal consequence of the abandonment is the
transfer of the route to the city, county or other designated agency.
Figure 2. Route Transfer Process
Route considered for transfer
or abandonment
ARIZONA REVISED
STATUTES
Transportation
Board Advised
Discussions with
local government
D. E. Discussion with
local government
Determine
abandonment process
COOPERATIVE PROCESS
D. E. negotiates draft
agreement with local
government
Draft intergovernmental
agreement approved
by local government
ADOT:
• Approves concept
• Circulates proposal
internally
• Prepares legal description
of abandonment
• Programs agreed
improvements
• Advises Transportation
Board
Final Intergovernmental
Agreement signed
Transportation
Board formally
abandons
route
Abandonment
moves to
cooperative
process
Or stopped
Transportation Board
Approves abandonment
ADOT notifies local
government to start
4- yr process
Unilateral process
continues
Required
improvements made
Required
elapsed time
Route is
abandonded
Reverts to
local
jurisdiction
pg. 20
DRAFT FINAL REPORT
Route Transfer and Level of Development Study
5.1 Issues with the Current Process
While the existing ad hoc process seems to work well in many cases, it often runs into difficulties. In
interviews with state and local officials a number of deficiencies were identified .
• Because there is no predetermined list of routes that belong and don’t belong on the state
system, some opportunities are missed and some routes transferred that might not be under a
more deliberate process.
• In several cases, Intergovernmental Agreements were not completed prior to major
improvements and remaining routes were not transferred as intended.
• There has been concern expressed that the level of improvements financed by the state exceeds
the value to the state of transferring some routes.
• In some cases, districts may be well into negotiations with local jurisdictions before the
Director’s office or the Transportation Board is aware of the proposed transfer and related
improvements.
• There has been concern expressed that the pace of transfers is too slow and too few routes are
being transferred.
• Negotiations of transfers are often lengthy. Lack of standard procedure and over- involvement of
ADOT headquarters staff and Attorneys General were identified as possible reasons.
• Negotiation of the terms of the transfer sometimes takes so long that city councils or county
commissions change before the deal is complete and the process must start over with new
officials. This concern was raised by city and county officials as well as by ADOT.
It is interesting to note that while the length of time required to negotiate and process a route
transfer was a concern, there were no suggestions for elimination of steps in the process or internal
reviews. Also, there were no legal issues identified that needed to be corrected. The solutions to
speeding the process concentrate on better information about ADOT’s intent, including keeping
lists of candidate routes for transfer, and better internal communication, including earlier
notification of senior staff and the Transportation Board.
5.2 Potential Solutions to Process Issues
Among the suggested solutions to improving the route transfer process:
1. Recognize that all route transfers must be negotiated and provide a framework for negotiation
that improves consistency and certainty of the process.
This recommendation received strong endorsement by local government stakeholders and is
included in the proposed Policy on Route Turnbacks.
2. Maintain an ongoing list of routes that ADOT desires to abandon or transfer to local control as a
part of the LOD structure.
Implementation of this suggestion is one of the primary purposes of this study. The list was
discussed in Chapter 2.
DRAFT FINAL REPORT
pg. 21
Route Transfer and Level of Development Study
3. Limit investment in routes to be transferred or abandoned to essential maintenance and safety
and make transfer of routes a condition for additional improvements.
This proposal actually has two purposes. First, to make it clear that resources will be limited for
routes that do not serve statewide travel needs. Second, the proposal seeks to create “ trigger
events” that will encourage local jurisdictions to take over routes when improvements are
desired. This proposal received little attention in stakeholder meetings, other than the common
comment that local agencies are strapped for funds as well.
4. Forward proposals for abandonment or transfer of routes to senior management prior to the
negotiation of IGAs.
ADOT has adopted this as the general policy. The Transportation Board requested to be kept in
the loop as well.
5. Provide a benefit- cost analysis to accompany proposals for abandonment or transfer showing
the expected costs and savings associated with the change.
This received significant comment from both ADOT staff and local stakeholders. ADOT staff
noted that a benefit- cost analysis should take account of liability and risk factors as well as direct
maintenance costs. ADOT staff believed it was important to transfer some routes even if the
direct benefits and costs did not justify the transfer. Local officials commented that a benefit-cost
analysis should take account of local costs as well as state.
6. Require an IGA transferring the remaining business route as a condition of constructing
bypasses. Make required improvements to the business route part of the bypass project.
While the concept of transferring routes at the time bypasses are built was favorably received,
ADOT staff commented that some local governments do not want the bypasses in the first
place, so this may not be an inducement to take the remaining business route. Also it was noted
that if improvements were required on the remaining route as a condition of improvement,
those expenditures would be outside the scope of the project and would require additional
funding. Some local officials commented that they recognized ADOT’s concern, but they did
not have the resources to take over the route.
7. When a state highway serves as a local road as well as a through route, as when a state
highway is the main street of a small town, make it subject to special design and maintenance
standards to allow it to serve both functions. Require local finance of improvements to provide
local access or community amenities.
This proposal received little discussion. ADOT has recently transferred some of these urban
routes leaving gaps in the state highway system. In addition to these proposals, which arose from
interviews and from initial TAC meetings, the following proposals for process improvement
came from stakeholder meetings.
8. Consider future as well as current conditions in establishing LOD and determining route to be
transferred.
There has been an attempt to do this in two ways. First, to the extent that traffic volume was
considered as a factor in defining LOD, future as well as present volume was considered.
Second, when planned construction changed the definition of routes an attempt was made to
take this into account. This happens most often with construction of bypasses and this was
explicitly included in the list of candidate routes for transfer.
pg. 22
DRAFT FINAL REPORT
Route Transfer and Level of Development Study
9. Consider the Strategic Highway Network when developing LOD.
This could be done in future studies. As a practical matter, no STRHNET route was proposed
for transfer to local jurisdiction.
10. Include Functional Class designation in IGAs transferring routes.
While local agencies need to be aware of potential changes, it would be inconsistent with
classification rules to specify the classification in a contract. Such a clause would probably not be
recognized by the Federal Highway Administration, which requires the functional class study.
Functional class is not dependent on which jurisdiction owns a road. It is based on an evaluation
of the role played by the road in the local, state and federal highway system. However, the same
event that results in the transfer, as when a bypass is constructed, may result in a change in
functional class.
However, this can be important if local agencies plan to apply for federal funding for future
improvements. If a local agency wishes to change the function class of a road there is a process
by which it can apply for consideration to ADOT.
11. Consider additions to the state highway system as well as transfers and abandonments.
The Transportation Board has the authority to add routes to the state system. However,
consideration of local roads for addition to the state highway system was beyond the scope of
this study. It is recommended that an application process be created through which additions to
the state system can be considered.
DRAFT FINAL REPORT
pg. 23
Route Transfer and Level of Development Study
6.0 Benefits and Costs of Route Transfers
s discussed in the previous section, there are several types of benefits of transferring routes to
local agencies when they no longer serve statewide transportation needs. The most tangible of
these are maintenance costs. One rural district provided data indicating showing state highways that
were really serving local road functions were costing more than $ 2,000 per mile, per year in routine
maintenance. In addition, nearly half were in need of surface treatment or other improvements. A
more detailed review of maintenance costs for a variety of road types indicated a wide range of
costs, sometimes in excess of $ 40,000 per mile, per year. These sample figures are shown in Table 3
on the following page.
Maintenance is only one of the ongoing costs of operating a road. Other costs, including periodic
surface treatments, other capital costs, administration, and risk/ liability must be considered as well.
There is a significant amount of administrative cost associated with having these routes on the state
system. Often these roads take a disproportionate amount of the District staff’s time, in part because
of inconsistent expectations about the treatment and development of these roads. When a route is
transferred, these costs may be avoided.
However, transfers of roads also have associated costs. Normally the road is repaved and other
improvements are often negotiated as well. Table 4 ( on the following page) shows a hypothetical
benefit cost analysis, which compares the cost to ADOT of continuing to operate a road with the
costs of transferring it to a local authority. In the example ADOT is incurring annual maintenance
and operating costs of $ 10,000 per year on the road segment. Eventually, surface treatment will be
required and these costs will be reduced.
For safety reasons certain small capital expenditures would probably be required in years 4 and 14 if
ADOT retains the route. An allocation of administrative costs would assign $ 1,000 per year to this
segment. A risk premium representing liabilities for emergency treatments and safety of $ 2,000 per
year is assigned. The total cost of keeping the route for 20 years is estimated at $ 434,000.
Discounted to present value, this puts today’s cost of retaining the route at $ 278,354.
A
pg. 24
DRAFT FINAL REPORT
Route Transfer and Level of Development Study
Table 4. ( Part 1)
Base: ADOT Costs without Transfer
Year
Annual
Maint/ Op
Surface
Treatment
Other
Construction Admin
Risk
Premium Total Cost
1 $ 10,000 $ 1,000 $ 2,000 $ 13,000
2 $ 10,000 $ 1,000 $ 2,000 $ 13,000
3 $ 10,000 $ 1,000 $ 2,000 $ 13,000
4 $ 10,000 $ 20,000 $ 1,000 $ 2,000 $ 33,000
5 $ 10,000 $ 1,000 $ 2,000 $ 13,000
6 $ 10,000 $ 1,000 $ 2,000 $ 13,000
7 $ 10,000 $ 1,000 $ 2,000 $ 13,000
8 $ 8,000 $ 130,000 $ 1,000 $ 2,000 $ 141,000
9 $ 8,000 $ 1,000 $ 2,000 $ 11,000
10 $ 8,000 $ 1,000 $ 2,000 $ 11,000
11 $ 8,000 $ 1,000 $ 2,000 $ 11,000
12 $ 8,000 $ 1,000 $ 2,000 $ 11,000
13 $ 8,000 $ 1,000 $ 2,000 $ 11,000
14 $ 8,000 $ 50,000 $ 1,000 $ 2,000 $ 61,000
15 $ 8,000 $ 1,000 $ 2,000 $ 11,000
16 $ 8,000 $ 1,000 $ 2,000 $ 11,000
17 $ 8,000 $ 1,000 $ 2,000 $ 11,000
18 $ 8,000 $ 1,000 $ 2,000 $ 11,000
19 $ 8,000 $ 1,000 $ 2,000 $ 11,000
20 $ 8,000 $ 1,000 $ 2,000 $ 11,000
Total $ 174,000 $ 130,000 $ 70,000 $ 20,000 $ 40,000 $ 434,000
Discounted
( 5.00%) $ 111,270 $ 87,989 $ 41,707 $ 12,462 $ 24,924 $ 278,354
Table 3. Maintenance Costs for Typical Highway Segments Recommended for Transfer to Local Jurisdictions
FY 2000 to 2002
Route Segment Length Total 3- yr Expenditure Expenditure Per Year Per Mile
170 Gila/ Graham Cos. 4.0 $ 54,187 $ 4,516
181 Cochise Co. 22.9 $ 56,127 $ 817
B- 40 Flagstaff 10.8 $ 1,330,442 $ 41,063
66 E. of Kingman 66.5 $ 214,955 $ 1,077
77 Navajo Co. 13.7 $ 100,551 $ 2,446
88 Unpaved segment 22.7 $ 281,624 $ 4,135
Total 140.6 $ 2,037,886 $ 4,831
DRAFT FINAL REPORT
pg. 25
Route Transfer and Level of Development Study
In the example, transferring the route will require immediate surface treatment and other negotiated
capital improvements totaling $ 250,000. However, future maintenance, administration and risks are
avoided. The present value of costs of the transfer is $ 238,095.
Table 4 ( Part 2)
Costs of Transfer
Year
Annual
Maint.
Surface
Treatment
Other
Construction Admin
Risk
Premium
Total
Cost
1 $ 0 $ 130,000 $ 120,000 $ 0 $ 0 $ 250,000
2 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
20 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
Total $ 0 $ 130,000 $ 120,000 $ 0 $ 0 $ 250,000
Discounted 5.00% $ 0 $ 123,810 $ 114,286 $ 0 $ 0 $ 238,095
In this example, a positive benefit- cost ratio of 1.17 would result from the transfer.
Table 4 ( Part 3)
Benefit/ Cost Ratio for ADOT Benefits $ 278,354 = .17
Costs $ 238,095
This example is calculated only from ADOT’s point of view. Local governments are reluctant to
accept these routes as a part of their city street and county road systems. They represent additional
maintenance, operation costs and risk, and are sometimes significantly larger facilities than they are
used to operating. As a condition of accepting the routes, most agreements include substantial
improvements to reduce future maintenance costs. Local agencies should also consider their own
benefits and costs as well. Cities and counties may find they can maintain roads at a lower cost than
the state. In many cases improvements to local traffic and improved development opportunities
outweigh increased costs, creating a win- win between ADOT and the local jurisdiction.
pg. 26
DRAFT FINAL REPORT
Route Transfer and Level of Development Study
7.0 Conclusions and Recommendations
he recommendations of this study are divided into primary and secondary recommendations.
Primary Recommendations
1. Adopt the proposed revised Board Policy on Route Turnbacks.
The proposed policy represents a change in approach to emphasize cooperation with local
agencies and concentrates on role of routes in the state highway system rather than existing
design characteristics. It also clarifies the treatment of routes identified for transfer in the interim
between identification and the negotiation of the transfer and does not assume a specific
timeline for transfer of most identified routes.
2. Adopt the proposed priority listing of potential transfers and update the list at least every two
years.
By maintaining a list of candidate routes, planning can be improved by both ADOT and local
agencies. In addition, the priorities emphasize those routes where meaningful negotiation is
possible and where planned construction of alternative routes will change the status of routes.
3. Prior to final adoption the new policy and listing should be sent to all cities, counties and
councils of government for comment.
Even though stakeholders were involved in the development of the policies and review of the
list of potential transfers, all affected cities and counties may not be aware of the policy or what
routes may be affected.
Other Recommendations
1. Replace the Level of Development designation with System Operational Classification as a tool
for determining intended future status and development needs of state highways.
The current LOD classification relies heavily on existing design characteristics rather than
desired performance. For instance, LOD 1 is determined only by whether the road is a freeway.
A revised structure based on target performance standards would be more compatible with
performance based planning and less ambiguous with regard to future project identification. The
TAC dubbed the desired classification structure as “ System Operational Classification.” It would
not be expected to change the priorities for transfer identified in this study.
2. Adopt internal procedures to ensure that:
a. Senior ADOT Management and the Transportation Board are informed of potential
route transfers early in negotiations.
b. The benefits and costs to ADOT of making transfers are considered early in the
negotiation process.
The purpose of this recommendation is to improve internal communication regarding issues that
may arise in the negotiation of route transfers. It responds to the criticism that the cost of some
transfers has seemed excessive. It seeks to put all the facts on the table while allowing for the
T
DRAFT FINAL REPORT
pg. 27
Route Transfer and Level of Development Study
fact that it may sometimes be in the best interest of all parties to transfer routes even when costs
of the transfer exceed direct future cost savings.
3. Consider setting aside limited funding during the next update of the 5- year program that would
accomplish one or two top priority transfers per year.
It is difficult to respond to immediate opportunities for transfer because negotiated
improvements as a condition of transfer must be included in the 5- Year Program before the
transfer can go forward. This recommendation would allow for some high priority transfers to
go forward more quickly.
4. Consider adopting special design and maintenance standards when a through state highway
serves local business ( as a small town main street) and require local finance of improvements
to provide local access or community amenities.
A significant problem identified in the course of this study is the conflict between desired local
development and state highway standards. Some states, notably Oregon and Maryland, have
identified alternative standards so that state highways passing through urban areas can better
meet the needs of local development as well as the state highway system. This also helps avoid
the need to transfer segments of routes that result in discontinuity of the remaining state
highway.
5. Adopt a process for consideration of routes that local agencies believe should be transferred to
the state system. Since ADOT does not have adequate resources to meet needs on the existing
State Highway System it should not be up to ADOT to identify these routes and routes should
be transferred to the state system through a negotiated process.
Local stakeholders identified this issue during the study. While Arizona law allows the
Transportation Board to consider bringing additional routes onto the system it is unclear to local
agencies how the process works. Development of a process for transferring routes onto the state
highway system was beyond the scope of this study.
6. A new inventory of frontage roads, maintenance roads and spur routes should be undertaken to
clarify their location and future intended use.
The treatment of these auxiliary roads in ADOT inventories is inconsistent and the status of
some of many of these roads is unclear. As a result they were not adequately addressed in this
study.
pg. 28
DRAFT FINAL REPORT
Route Transfer and Level of Development Study
This page intentionally left blank.
Route Transfer and Level of Development Study
pg. A- 1
DRAFT FINAL REPORT
Appendix A
Arizona Revised Statutes Related to Designation and Responsibility for
State Highways and State Routes
28- 101. Definitions
46. " State highway" means a state route or portion of a state route that is accepted and designated by
the board as a state highway and that is maintained by the state.
47. " State route" means a right- of- way whether actually used as a highway or not that is designated
by the board as a location for the construction of a state highway.
28- 6922. Director; powers and duties
A. The director of the department of transportation or the director's authorized and bonded agent
shall administer all highway and maintenance work and has the following powers and duties:
1. Direct the preparation of all plans and specifications for work on state highways or state routes.
2. Advertise for competitive bids for work on state highways or state routes and, on authorization
of the transportation board, award and enter into contracts for the work.
3. Direct the supervision of all construction work on state highways and state routes and is in
charge of maintenance and upkeep of these highways and routes.
28- 7041. State highways and routes defined
A. The state highways, to be known as state routes, consist of the highways declared before August
12, 1927 to be state highways, under authority of law, that the board, after receipt of a
recommendation from the director, may add to, abandon or change. If the board proceeds
contrary to the recommendations of the director, it shall file a written report with the governor
stating the reasons for the action.
B. The state highways consist of the parts of the state routes designated and accepted as state
highways by the board. A highway that has not been designated as a state route shall not become
a state highway and any portion of a state route shall not become a state highway until it has
been specifically designated and accepted by the board as a state highway and ordered to be
constructed and improved.
C. All highways, roads or streets that have been constructed, laid out, opened, established or
maintained for ten years or more by the state or an agency or political subdivision of the state
before January 1, 1960 and that have been used continuously by the public as thoroughfares for
free travel and passage for ten years or more are declared public highways, regardless of an error,
defect or omission in the proceeding or failure to act to establish those highways, roads or
streets or in recording the proceedings.
28- 7046. Opening, altering or vacating highway; review of order
A. If the director or the board desires to establish, open, relocate, alter, vacate or abandon a state
highway or a portion of a state highway, the director shall make and deliver a written report to
the board describing the highway or portion of the highway to be affected. If the board decides
that the public convenience will be served, it shall enter a resolution on its minutes approving
the proposed action and authorizing the director to proceed and to acquire any property for the
action by condemnation or otherwise.
Route Transfer and Level of Development Study
pg. A- 2
DRAFT FINAL REPORT
B. The superior court may review by certiorari the action of the board establishing, opening,
relocating, altering, vacating or abandoning state highways.
28- 7209. Vacated or abandoned highway; affected jurisdiction; procedure
A. If the board vacates or abandons a portion of a state route or state highway pursuant to section
28- 304, the board shall:
1. Vacate or abandon the portion of the route or highway in cooperation with an affected
jurisdiction and in full recognition of the financial and administrative impacts of the changes on
the affected jurisdiction.
2. Provide four years' advance notice to the affected jurisdiction, except as provided in paragraph 3
and except that, by mutual agreement, the board and the affected jurisdiction may waive this
requirement for notification.
3. Provide at least one hundred twenty days' advance notice to the affected jurisdiction for the
abandonment of new street improvements such as cul- de- sacs and reconnections of existing
streets resulting from highway projects.
B. Before a paved highway is vacated or abandoned, the pavement before the vacating or
abandonment shall be in such a condition that additional surface treatment and major maintenance
of the highway are not required for at least five years, unless the board and the affected jurisdiction
agree to waive the requirement of this subsection.
Route Transfer and Level of Development Study
pg. A- 3
DRAFT FINAL REPORT
Appendix B
Technical Advisory Committee Members
John Pein
ADOT Planning
Joe Hughes
Rural Transportation Advocacy Committee
Don Freeman
Pima Association of Governments
Rick Powers
ADOT District Engineer, Globe
Bill Alfier
ADOT District Engineer, Yuma
Steve Hansen
ADOT Right- of- Way
Route Transfer and Level of Development Study
pg. A- 4
DRAFT FINAL REPORT
Appendix C
Schedule of Meetings for Route Transfer and LOD Study
Entity Date Location
Technical Advisory Committee December 4, 2001 ADOT HQ
Transportation Board May 5, 2002 ADOT HQ
Technical Advisory Committee July 23, 2002 ADOT HQ
District Engineers September 12, 2002 ADOT HQ
Technical Advisory Committee September 23, 2002 ADOT HQ
Transportation Board November 7, 2002 ADOT HQ
MAG Street Committee December 10, 2002 MAG Offices
PAG Planning Committee January 8, 2003 PAG Offices
Rural Summit January 16, 2003 Prescott
Technical Advisory Committee March 19, 2003 ADOT HQ
Transportation Board July 10, 2003 ADOT HQ
Route Transfer and Level of Development Study
pg. A- 5
DRAFT FINAL REPORT
Appendix D
Notes from Stakeholder Meetings
Three stakeholder meetings were held in December 2002 and January 2003. One with the MAG
Street Committee, one with the PAG Planning Committee and one at a session of the Rural Summit.
Most of the discussion and comments revolved around three issues:
1. The process to be followed and the need for assurance that the Transportation Board did
not intend to wholesale abandon routes for which cities and counties would become
responsible.
In each meeting ADOT staff assured stakeholders that the intent of this study was to make the process more effective
and predictable and that ADOT intended to work closely with local governments and would not arbitrarily abandon
routes. At the Rural Summit, Board Member Radeke was able to convey this message himself.
2. The financial position of local jurisdictions makes taking on responsibility for new routes a
major hardship. For that reason local agencies feel that it would be difficult to transfer many
of the named routes.
3. Issues and questions about specific routes on the preliminary list.
In many cases these comments lead to clarifications and corrections.
Comments on Policy and Procedure
Following is a list of specific issues raised in the stakeholder meetings. These comments were
considered and often incorporated into the proposed Policy, Potential Transfer List and study
recommendations.
• There is a need to fund transfers if they are going to take place. Currently this is through the
normal five- year construction program process in which funds are programmed for
improvements that have been negotiated as conditions of transfer. A number of people felt that
if ADOT is to be aggressive it needs a separate fund.
• Need to consider future as well as present conditions. Need to take account of projects that are
committed or underway.
Comment: On the most recent project list an attempt was made to do this.
• Need to include the Strategic Highway Network into the process.
• Points of entry at the US/ Mexican border should be state/ federal, not local, function.
• LOD is misnamed. It seems to be a state functional class designation that should be part of the
ADOT planning process.
• There was agreement that transfers should be negotiated not arbitrary abandonments.
At the Rural Summit, Ingo Radke promised that this would be the case.
• If ADOT does a cost- benefit analysis it should take account of locals as well as state ( this came
from local agencies).
• Is there a way to make local agencies whole for new maintenance obligations assumed when they
take over formerly state routes? Some commenters wanted to be compensated by cash
Route Transfer and Level of Development Study
pg. A- 6
DRAFT FINAL REPORT
payments. Others wanted to make sure the improvements they were negotiating were fair
compensation for the obligations they were assuming.
• One person liked the idea of alternate standards for urban routes that are state highways when
they serve local businesses. It would have eliminated the need for turnback of 89A in Sedona.
• There should be policy guidelines for negotiation of transfers.
• Functional class should be part of the intergovernment agreement making the transfer. If the
functional class drops below collector, the route is no longer eligible for Federal funding.
The Federal rules by which functional class is designated would seem to preclude an agreement as to the class level
in the absence of the appropriate characteristics.
• The study should not be limited to transfers and abandonments, but should include routes to be
added to the state system. This issue was recently raised by a District Engineer as well.
Comments related to specific proposals are summarized in Table D- 1 below.
Table D- 1. Review of Possible Solutions with Consultant Comments
Possible Solutions Stakeholder Reactions Comments
Possible solutions included in meeting materials
Recognize that all route transfers must
be negotiated and provide a framework
for negotiation that improves consistency
and certainty of the process.
Stakeholders seemed to agree with this.
Ingo Radke specifically promised to treat
transfers this way.
The proposed policy establishes the
framework.
Maintain an ongoing list of routes that
ADOT desires to abandon or transfer to
local control as a part of the Level of
Development structure.
Not much reaction to this. The list is assumed in the proposed
policy
Limit investment in routes to be
transferred or abandoned to essential
maintenance and safety and make
transfer of routes a condition for
additional improvements.
Not much reaction to this from local
agencies.
This is built into the policy
Forward proposals for abandonment or
transfer of routes to senior management
prior to the negotiation of IGAs.
The Board also wants to know about
these early in the process.
This is an internal ADOT process issue.
How do we make sure this happens?
Provide a benefit- cost analysis to
accompany proposals for abandonment
or transfer showing the expected costs
and savings associated with the change.
Several stakeholders were adamant that
the benefit- cost should include local
agency as well as ADOT.
The compromises necessary to make it
acceptable to local stakeholders would
make it irrelevant to either state or local
as a planning tool.
It could be made a part of ADOT’s
internal process, but not part of the
public process.
Local agencies should also consider
benefits and costs from their point of
view.
Route Transfer and Level of Development Study
pg. A- 7
DRAFT FINAL REPORT
Table D- 1. Review of Possible Solutions with Consultant Comments
Possible Solutions Stakeholder Reactions Comments
Require an IGA transferring the
remaining business route as a condition
of constructing bypasses. Make required
improvements to the business route part
of the bypass project.
This did not generate much stakeholder
comment. Internally, ADOT wonders
how to program in the improvements to
the existing route.
When a through state highway serves
local business ( as a small town main
street) make it subject to special design
and maintenance standards. Require
local finance of improvements to provide
local access or community amenities.
While this was discussed, it did not
receive a clear positive or negative
response.
Sedona noted that if these standards
were in place they would not have
needed to take over the urban segment
of 89A.
This is more important if ADOT decides
to hang on to urban routes the serving
primarily local traffic and land access in
order to preserve system continuity.
Recommend first considering the
continuity issue. If roads that are urban
main streets are to be retained for the
sake of continuity then new standards
should be considered.
Establish a statewide fund to help
finance the highest priority transfers.
Strong recognition of the necessity of
funding the transfers. Some thought
such a fund would be useful.
The TAC believed that given the level of
unmet needs on the state and local
systems this would not be feasible.
Consider a limited fund during the next
update of the 5- year program that would
accomplish one or two top priority
transfers per year. The remainder would
go through the existing programming
process for needed improvements.
Potential solutions raised in stakeholder meetings
Consider future as well as present
conditions in establishing LOD and
determining route to be transferred.
This study considered projected as well as present traffic volumes. Any classification
system to replace LOD should consider future as well as present performance.
With regard to condition of facilities future updates could include consideration of
committed improvements.
Consider the Strategic Highway Network
when developing LOD
This can be done for existing state routes. The network itself is part of NHS. Network
connectors would be minimum LOD 4.
Include Functional Class designation in
IGAs transferring routes
Functional class implications should be reviewed when the transfer is negotiated.
Functional class cannot be written into and IGA.
Consider additions to the State Highway
System as transfers and abandonments
A process should be developed for consideration of routes that local agencies
believe should be transferred to the state system.
Since ADOT does not have adequate resources to meet needs on the existing State
Highway System it should not be up to ADOT to identify these routes.
Routes should be transferred to the State System through a negotiated process.
Route Transfer and Level of Development Study
pg. A- 8
DRAFT FINAL REPORT
Route- Specific Comments
The remaining segment of Old US 60 in Apache Junction is in need of $ 13 million of improvements
( but the commenter did not say it should not be transferred). Several specific pieces of routes in the
Phoenix area remain as State Highways we checked these out and found that all are, in fact, still on
the state system. They include:
• Grand Ave, between McDowell and Van Buren.
• A block of Van Buren between 7th and 19th Avenues.
• SR 87/ Arizona Ave/ Country Club Dr. between Ocotillo and McKellips
A segment of SR303/ Cotton Ln north of I- 10 is not on the state system. This is correct.
Aviation Highway ( SR 210) in Tucson should be at least LOD 4 as it serves an Air Force Base. ( It
has been changed in the most recent update.)
There are frontage roads around the state that are the subject of transfer or abandonment, but are
not shown on the study maps. ( Follow up research revealed that the inventory of these frontage roads is
inconsistent around the state and that inventories need to be updated before they can be systematically listed.)
SR 71 in Yavapai county is a through route. Is LOD 5 a mistake? ( We have confirmed that there is very low
traffic volume on this route.)
Why are SR 96 and 97 in Yavapai LOD 5? ( Answer, low volume, not through routes)
Why are not SR 89A and SR 260 around Cottonwood classed as LOD 2? They have high traffic
volumes. ( Answer, LOD 2 is intended to be network of high level routes for which volume is only one consideration.)
