Description of the Evaluation Matrix / Corridors Being Evaluated

SR 802: Williams Gateway Corridor Study / SR 202L to Florence Junction Evaluation of Alignment Alternatives 05/05/2009

Description of the Evaluation Matrix / Corridors being evaluated:

During the public meetings held in December 2008, several alignment concepts were developed and presented for consideration; A1, A2, B, C, and D. These alignments were all developed generally within the confines of Corridors 2 and 4 during the initial Tier 1 evaluation of this study, and which had received the greatest support from both the public and agency representatives. Since the public presentation, two other alignment concepts were submitted to the Study Team for consideration: Alignment B was divided into two concepts with B1 travailing parallel to and west of the CAP canal between Germann and Ocotillo Roads, and B2 traveling east of the CAP, and Alignment E was added as the most northern alignment concept through State Lands. Both of these new concepts, along with the other presented corridors, are shown on the attached Tier 2 Alignment Exhibit.

Tier 2 Evaluation Criteria and Agency Input in the Alternatives Evaluation:

The following table provides the Tier 2 Evaluation Criteria. The Study Team will complete a detailed evaluation of each alignment based on the criteria. For each criteria, the study team would like your evaluation of the various alignments, providing any insights you have on each of the criteria provided. While the Study Team will make all quantitative evaluations based on the actual footprint, length, location, and potential impacts, your input on qualitative evaluations is desired. It is important to note that this evaluation exercise is part of the comprehensive alignment evaluation process that includes bringing the public input and the completion/determination of the “Purpose and Need” that ADOT and FHWA is working on completing. Your input is critical at this phase. Please share any insights, pro or con, on the alignments that can be used in the evaluation of the alignment options.

At the end of the evaluation, provide to the Study Team your overall rating of each alignment, along with any comments that led you to your rating. These will all be compiled and shared when the Study Team completes its evaluation and recommendation for continued study as part of the DCR and EA process.

Criteria Description Performance Measures Comments

Mobility Connectivity to Regional Freeways / Provides seamless connections with existing State Highways, and major routes or planned regional facilities (i.e. freeways, State highways and regional arterials), located to serve the larger, regional area for the short and long term needs

Separation of Regional Freeways / State Sufficient lateral separation between freeway Highways, and major routes facilities, and freeway-to-freeway system interchanges

System Do the projects begin/end at logical Does the project end at a point of major traffic Linkage termini generation or tie to a facility that will generate significant traffic flows

Geometry Relationship of alignment alternative to Number of highly skewed (greater than 30 existing and planned cross roads and degrees from perpendicular) crossings of the major intersections alignment to cross roads

Traffic Access points to serve existing and Number of TIs (minimum spacing of 1 mile in Interchanges future arterial and regionally significant Maricopa and 2 miles in Pinal) and directness (TI) roads of access to major economic nodes in the area

Infrastructure Relationship of alignment alternative to Compatibility with adopted transportation plans Compatibility existing and planned transportation and future traffic management systems (i.e. infrastructure and traffic management RSRSM, SATS, ADOT Planning, etc.) systems SR 802: Williams Gateway Corridor Study / SR 202L to Florence Junction Evaluation of Alignment Alternatives 05/05/2009

Water Impacts to natural drainage features Number of crossings or direct impacts to Resources natural washes (drainage features identified on USGS maps), FEMA floodplain features

Impacts to man-made (i.e. Flood Number of crossings or direct impacts to man- Retarding Structures and the Central made drainage features Arizona Canal) drainage features

Utility Conflicts Impacts to existing and planned facilities Number of conflicts with major existing and planned utility facilities

Right-of-Way Impacts to properties Number of parcels and number of acres directly impacted

Estimated Estimated planning level construction Compares planning level costs of each Construction cost alignment alternative. Freeway cost of $35 Cost million per mile (plus major structures, interchanges; excluding R/W) based on historic data

Biological Potential impact to protected wildlife and Acres of habitat disturbed Resources their habitat, and protected plants

Cultural Potential impact to known historic and Number of historic and prehistoric sites Resources prehistoric sites impacted based on site records

Geological Potential impact to known subsurface Degree of impact to known subsidence areas Resources problem sites

Socioeconomic Impacts to businesses and residences Number of buildings directly impacted

Noise Potential impact to existing residences, Number of sensitive receivers within 1000 feet planned residences and/or other sensitive receivers/land uses SR 802: Williams Gateway Corridor Study / SR 202L to Florence Junction Evaluation of Alignment Alternatives 05/05/2009

Visual Quality Impacts to existing residences, planned Number of residential properties where distinct residences and/or other desirable background features (e.g. Superstition vantage points Mountains, San Tan Mountains, etc) from the proposed alignment alternatives are partially or otherwise obstructed General Plan Relationship of alignment alternative to Proximity to compatible existing land uses Consistency existing development such as commercial, industrial, or economic nodes and to non-compatible existing land uses (parks, schools, residential)

Relationship of alignment alternative to Proximity to adopted land uses such as adopted land uses where development commercial, industrial, or economic nodes and and growth are expected to non-compatible adopted land uses (parks, schools, residential)

. SR 802: Williams Gateway Corridor Study / SR 202L to Florence Junction Evaluation of Alignment Alternatives 05/05/2009

Once you have completed providing input to the evaluation criteria, provide us with your preference and rating of the various alignments under consideration.

Alignment Description Agency Rating Rationale / Comments for Rating provided (See Below for Options) Maricopa County Option: A-1 Northern Alignment North of Section Line

Maricopa County Option: A-2 Southern Alignment Follows Section Line

Pinal County Option: B-1 Southern Option, south of FRS Structures North-South segment is west of the CAP Canal

Pinal County Option: B-2 Southern Option, south of FRS Structures North-South segment is east of the CAP Canal

Pinal County Option: C Central Option Crosses Rittenhouse FRS

Pinal County Option: D Northern Option Crosses Vineyard FRS

Pinal County Option: E Most Direct East-West Concept Crosses Rittenhouse FRS Improvements to US 60 Required to Florence Jct.

Rating Scale: 1 = Not Desired Feature 2 = Poor Feature 3 = Neutral Feature 4 = Acceptable Feature 5 = Desired Feature NA = Not Applicable