170 likes | 296 Vues
The 2004 Route Transfer Study highlights significant challenges and missed opportunities in Arizona's route transfer process, as discussed in TAC meetings. Key issues include the slow pace of transfers, high costs of improvements, lengthy negotiations, and the lack of a definitive candidate route list. Stakeholder engagement and local government concerns over financial impacts were addressed. The report emphasizes the need for cooperation among local jurisdictions and identifies priorities for future route transfers, aiming to enhance regional transportation effectiveness while managing state resources efficiently.
E N D
Route Transfer February 2004 TAC Meetings
Problems with Previous Process(ADOT’s perspective) • No list of candidate routes • Opportunities missed to make transfers as highway segments bypassed • Improvements too expensive • Pace of transfers/abandonments too slow • Lengthy negotiations and administration
Technical Advisory Committee • John Pein ADOT Planning • Joe Hughes RTAC • Don Freeman PAG • Rick Powers District Engineer, Globe • Bill Alfier District Engineer, Yuma • Steve Hansen ADOT Right-of-Way
Study Schedule • 1st TAC Meeting (December 4, 2001) • Transportation Board (May 2, 2002) • 2nd TAC Meeting (July 23, 2002) • Review with ADOT DEs (September 2, 2002) • 3rd TAC Meeting (September 23, 2002)
Study Schedule (Continued) • November 2002 Transportation Board Discussion: • Consult with local stakeholders • Use Level of Development to Identify Routes • Local Government/Stakeholder Meetings • MAG (December 10, 2002) • PAG (January 8, 2003) • Rural Transportation Summit (January 16-17, 2003)
Study Schedule (Continued) • Technical Advisory Committee (March 2003) • Transportation Board • Transportation Board approves Route Transfer Policy (August 15, 2003)
Transfer of State Routes Policy • SHS provide for statewide and regional movements • Cooperate with local jurisdictions • Maintain a list of eligible transfer routes • Transfer bypassed and parallel routes
Priorities for Transfer • Local government interest • Bypass/Alternate route construction • Not needed for system continuity • Others
Summary of County/City Comments • Concern about wholesale abandonment of routes and forcing local agencies to take them • Concern about the financial impact on local governments • Questions about specific routes
Board Identified Issues • LOD / SOC • Internal ADOT procedures • Set-aside funding • Design and maintenance standards for urban highways • Local to State transfer • Frontage/Spur Road Inventory
Rural Transportation Summit Identified Issues • Change functional classification • Redistribute maintenance funds • Local government cost computations