Arizona Department of Transportation

Arizona Department of Transportation Transportation Planning Division 206 S. 17 th Avenue Mail Drop 3B Phoenix, Arizona 85007.3212 Jane Dee Hull Governor Mary E. Peters Director Mary Lynn Tischer Division Director Mary E. Peters Director ovember, 1999 I am pleased to present the second annual Arizona Highway System Status and Condition Report. This report is intended to provide useful information about the condition of the State Highway System in a format that is readily accessible to transportation professionals and non-professionals. This report was produced by the Planning Team of the Transportation Planning Division (TPD). The maps contained in this report were developed through the team s Geographical Information System. There is a limited supply of hardcopies of this report, because we are producing this report in two other media. This report is available on CD-ROM and can also be viewed on our website. The TPD website is http://map.azfms.com. The statewide maps of Level of Service, Present Serviceabilty Rating, and Bridge Condition Rating are clickable. Just click on the area of interest and this information is displayed in more detail. To obtain this report on CD contact Lynn Sugiyama. Any comments, suggestions, or critiques should be directed to Joe Flaherty or Lynn Sugiyama of my staff. They can be contacted in the following ways:. Joe Flaherty Lynn Sugiyama PH. 2-712-7172 PH. 2-712-6883 FAX 2-256-7563 FAX 2-256-7563 Email jflaherty@dot.state.az.us Email lsugiyama@dot.state.az.us Sincerely, Mary Lynn Tischer, Director Transportation Planning Division

TABLE OF COTETS ITRODUCTIO FUCTIOAL CLASSIFICATIO LEVEL OF DEVELOPMET LEVEL OF SERVICE PRESET SERVICEABILITY RATIG BRIDGE SUFFICIECY RATIG CHAGE I CODITIOS

Introduction The 1999 Arizona State Highway System Status and Condition Report is the second effort by the Arizona Department of Transportation s Transportation Planning Division to present information in a graphic format that is useful to both a professional and lay audience. In the past, reports of this type consisted of numerous tables, with a vast amount of numbers. They also consisted of graphs, charts and a few maps. The Arizona state highway system route and lane mileage s are 6,619 and 17,370 respectively. This includes frontage roads. There are 3,945 bridges on the system. The data that is used to develop various performance measures are collected throughout the year and are stored in individual databases. These databases are integrated in the Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS) database. The HPMS database is then incorporated into the ADOT Geographical Information System (GIS). The GIS is a powerful tool that is used for analysis and mapping. The GIS was used for all the maps in this report with the exception of the Bicycle Suitability Map. Maps of the state highway system following this introduction show the 1997 Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) volumes and the percent of commercial vehicles in the traffic stream. Following these maps is the Bicycle Suitability Map and a brief overview of it s development The data to develop the maps for Level Of Service (LOS), Present Serviceabilty Rating (PSR), and the Bridge Sufficiency Rating (BSR) was collected in 1997. It is the latest available. The functional classification of the state highway system was updated in 1997 as was the level of development. The Functional Classification and the Level Of Development (LOD) maps are presented at the state level with insets where appropriate. The LOS, PSR, and BSR maps are presented at the county level again, with insets where appropriate. A verbal description of the information being depicted precedes each set of maps. As stated above this is the second effort to present this volume and type of information in a graphic format. It is the second edition of what is intended to be an annual report. We have included maps that show the changes in conditions from one year to the next.

1997 AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUME O THE STATE HIGHWAY SYSTEM 1 15 3 163 APACHE 64 A 564 MOHAVE 98 67 1 AVAJO 93 COCOIO 64 264 264 180 64 66 68 Bullhead City 95 Kingman YAVAPAI 17 Sedona A A Flagstaff 99 99 Holbrook 61 95 2 Prescott Lake Havasu City Parker Quartzsite LA PAZ 72 95 93 97 MARICOPA 71 96 74 303L A 179 Phoenix GILA Globe 3 180 69 180A 169 69 1L 17 17 51 1L 2 88 188 2 288 88 2 GRAHAM 61 2 73 2 273 261 St Johns GREELEE Yuma 95 95 YUMA 8 85 85 238 Casa 347 Grande 84 8 PIAL 79 1 2 2 Florence 79 70 366 266 Safford T Clifton 78 75 85 86 PIMA 386 B19 Tucson COCHISE 186 286 2 19 SATA CRUZ 82 83 ogales 90 82 80 80 83 80 90 Sierra Bisbee Vista 80 92 181 0 25 50 75 0 Miles Average Daily Traffic Volume 50 -,000,001-20,000 20,001 -,000,001-70,000 70,001-150,000 150,001-231,200

ISET 1997 AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC I THE PHOEIX METROPOLITA AREA 1L 51 1L 303L 17 17 SEE CETRAL PHOEIX ISET < < 143 0 5 15 20 Miles Average Daily Traffic Volume 50 -,000,001-20,000 20,001 -,000,001-70,000 70,001-150,000 150,001-231,200

ISET 1997 AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC I CETRAL PHOEIX 17 51 < 17 153 < < 143 0 1 2 3 4 5 Miles Average Daily Traffic Volume 50 -,000,001-20,000 20,001 -,000,001-70,000 70,001-150,000 150,001-231,200

ISET 1997 AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC I THE TUCSO METROPOLITA AREA 86 < B 19 B19 0 5 15 20 Miles Average Daily Traffic Volume 50 -,000,001-20,000 20,001 -,000,001-70,000 70,001-150,000 150,001-231,200

1997 PERCETAGE OF COMMERCIAL VEHICLES O THE STATE HIGHWAY SYSTEM 1 15 3 163 APACHE 64 A 564 MOHAVE 98 67 1 AVAJO 93 COCOIO 64 264 264 180 64 66 68 Bullhead City 95 Kingman YAVAPAI 17 Sedona A A Flagstaff 99 99 Holbrook 61 Lake Havasu City Parker Quartzsite LA PAZ 93 A 95 2 72 95 97 MARICOPA 71 96 Prescott 74 303L 179 69 180A 169 2 2 69 1L 17 17 51 Phoenix 1L 88 188 2 288 88 GILA Globe 3 180 GRAHAM 61 2 73 2 273 261 St Johns GREELEE Yuma 95 95 YUMA 8 85 85 238 Casa 347 Grande 84 8 PIAL 79 1 2 2 Florence 79 70 366 266 Safford T Clifton 78 75 85 86 PIMA 386 B19 Tucson COCHISE 186 286 2 19 SATA CRUZ 83 90 82 80 80 83 80 82 90 Sierra Bisbee Vista 80 92 ogales 181 0 25 50 75 0 Miles Volume of Commercial Vehicles < 9% % - 19% 20% - 29% 30% - 39% % - 45%

Bicycle Suitability Bicycle suitability ratings of more suitable and less suitable have been assigned by the Governors Arizona Bicycle Task Force (GABTF) to all of the roads on the State Highway System where bicycling is allowed. Characteristics considered in developing these ratings were: 1) average number of vehicles per lane per day, 2) lane width including shoulder and 3) the percentage of truck traffic to total traffic volume. All three factors were weighted and lane width had twice the assigned value of the other two characteristics. Information regarding grade ascent has also been provided to bicyclists to identify steep inclines along routes as an aid in planning tours. The Arizona Bicycle Suitability Map developed by ADOT contains suitability ratings and gradient information of roadways on the State Highway System. Approximately 47% of these routes have a suitability rating of more suitable. The map on the following page depicts the bicycle suitability ratings of the routes on the State Highway System.

Map of Suitable Bicycle Routes on the State Highway System 15 # Littlefield # Colorado City 3 # Fredonia Jacob Lake# A Page # 564 163 Kayenta # 1 # Mexican Water 64 98 67 # Hoover Dam 93 MOHAVE Grand Canyon # COCOIO # orth Rim 64 Tuba City # # Cameron 1 264 AVAJO Second # Mesa # Chinle APACHE Ganado # 264 Window Rock# 180 64 Yuma # 95 # San Luis # Bullhead City 95 # Ehrenberg 68 Lake Havasu City # # Parker # Kingman 66 93 Wikieup # LA PAZ # Hope YUMA Seligman # Gila Bend # # Ash fork Prescott # YAVAPAI Wickenburg # MARICOPA # Williams Cottonwood A Clarkdale # # 95 2 95 72 95 8 97 71 96 85 85 74 303L A Camp Verde # 69 180A 169 # Snowflake 2 2 Heber # 69 1L # Cordes Junction 17 17 Phoenix # 51 A Sedona # 1L 238 347 179 Casa Grande 84 # 8 PIAL # Flagstaff Coolidge# Payson# # Florence 2 2 Show Low 2 # Roosevelt # 99 # Young Winslow# 17 99 88 188 GILA # Globe # Winkelman # Holbrook Hon Dah # # White River GRAHAM Safford # # Sanders 288 79 1 2 79 188 3 70 73 180 366 266 61 2 # St Johns Springerville# 273 261 T # Morenci 61 GREELEE 75 78 Ajo# PIMA Tucson # Willcox Bicycle Routes More Suitable Less Suitable Prohibited o Data 85 # Lukeville 86 386 286 # Sasabe 186 # Robles Junction Benson B19 # # Green Valley 83 80 90 82 Sonoita# 19 82 2 # ogales SATA CRUZ Tombstone # COCHISE 80 83 80 # Sierra 90 Vista Bisbee # 80 92 # Douglas 181 0 20 80 Miles Prepared by: Arizona Dept of Transportation Transportation Planning Group tpd/jg \bikesuit.apr 11/96

Functional Classification The 1991 Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) required each state to functionally reclassify its public roads and streets. The initial step in this process was to update the urban area boundaries by the middle of 1992. Extensive coordination and cooperation was essential throughout the updating of urban boundaries and the functional reclassification. ADOT worked with Colorado, ew Mexico, Utah, and California to assure continuity of functional classification across state lines. The Phoenix, Tucson, and Yuma Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) were fully involved in this process. ADOT worked closely with the MPOs to ensure continuity at the urban boundaries and provide assistance as needed. The rural Councils Of Governments (COGs) were consulted to provide input on functional reclassification within their regions. ADOT and the COGs coordinated with the ative American Tribes to reclassify roads on their reservations. The Bureau of Indian affairs provided considerable assistance in this process. ADOT coordinated with the U.S. Forest Service and the ational Park Service, including officials at regional offices and individual parks and forests. Close coordination with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) continued throughout the process. The functional reclassification of Arizona s public roadways was completed in December 1992. Arizona s submittal was reviewed and approved by the FHWA and the Secretary of Transportation and reported to Congress in 1993. All roads that are part of the public road system are to be functionally classified as an integral system regardless of jurisdictional control of these roads. In other words, state highways, county roads, city streets, Forest Service roads, BIA roads, etc. are all part of the public road system. The classification process does not consider administrative or jurisdictional systems. The only way roads are separated into different classification systems is by their geographic location in rural, small urban, or urban areas. The FHWA s document titled Highway Functional Classification: Concepts, Criteria, and Procedures (revised March 19) was the principal reference for reclassification. ADOT employed the procedures required in this document. While differences exist between the procedures for rural, small urban and urban area classification, all used a top down approach. As generally depicted on the following page, this approach delineates the highest functionally classified roadways first and then works progressively down the hierarchy of functional systems

to conclude with the classification of local roads and streets. ADOT started this top down approach by identifying the most important internal and external traffic generators for Arizona. The procedure enabled ADOT to functionally classify the State Highway System and share that information to facilitate efforts by the MPOs and COGs. Arizona based the functional reclassification on current use, not projected use. Due to the differences in the criteria used to functionally classify roads in rural, small urban, and urban areas it is simpler to categorize them as rural and urban for discussion purposes. Rural Principal Arterials All rural interstate mileage is in this category. They are the principal corridors of interstate travel. There are relatively few corridors used by most travelers going to and from adjacent states or Mexico. Principal arterials serve the highest volume long distance trips. The non interstate routes identified as principal arterials serve the same basic purposes as the interstates, but at lower volumes and speeds. Rural Minor Arterials These roads serve most of the larger communities not served by the principal arterial system. They provide interstate and intercounty service. The trip length and travel density is larger than on the collector systems. Travel is at relatively high speed with minimal interference to through movement. Rural Major Collectors The travel on these roads is of intracounty and regional importance, rather than statewide importance. These roads provide service to any county seat not on an arterial road. They also serve larger communities not directly served by the higher systems. Rural major collectors usually connect to rural arterials. Rural Minor Collectors These roads typically collect traffic from local roads and feed it onto major collectors or arterials. They tend to have lower traffic volumes then major collectors. If a minor collector carries a similar volume as a major collector trip distances are shorter. Also, they carry traffic on trips to less important traffic generators or they are parallel to a route of a higher classification. Urban Principal Arterials There are three types of urban principal arterials: interstate, other freeways and expressways, and others with little or no access control. The primary function of these roads is to provide the

greatest mobility for through movement, any direct access to adjacent land is purely incidental. This system serves the highest volume traffic generators and trips of longer length. They have a high proportion of urban area travel on a minimum of mileage. Urban Minor Arterials These roads provide trips of moderate length and trips of lower travel mobility than urban principal arterials. Consequently the speed limit is lower than on urban principal arterials. Urban Collectors These roads distribute traffic from arterials and funnel traffic from local streets onto the arterial system. Frontage roads are classified independently of the controlled access facility they abut and are classified as collectors on the State Highway System. Local Roads Local roads in both urban and rural areas are a residual. There are no roads on the State Highway System that are functionally classified as local roads. The following maps show the current FHWA approved functional classification of the State Highway System.

1998 FUCTIOAL CLASSIFICATIO OF THE STATE HIGHWAY SYSTEM 1 15 3 163 APACHE 64 A 564 MOHAVE 98 67 1 AVAJO 93 COCOIO 64 264 264 180 64 66 68 Bullhead City 95 Kingman YAVAPAI A 17 Sedona A Flagstaff 99 99 Holbrook 61 LA PAZ 93 95 2 Lake Havasu City Parker 72 95 Quartzsite 97 96 MARICOPA 71 Prescott 74 303L A 179 GILA 3 180 69 180A 169 2 2 69 1L 17 17 51 Phoenix 1L 88 188 2 288 88 Globe GRAHAM 61 2 73 2 273 261 St Johns GREELEE Yuma 95 95 YUMA 8 85 85 238 Casa 347 Grande 84 8 PIAL 79 1 2 2 79 Florence 70 366 266 Safford T Clifton 78 75 85 86 PIMA 386 B19 Tucson COCHISE 186 286 2 19 SATA CRUZ 82 83 ogales 90 82 80 80 83 80 90 Sierra Bisbee Vista 80 92 181 0 2 5 50 75 0 Miles Functional Classification Principal Arterial Interstate - Rural Principal Arterial Other - Rural Minor Arterial - Rural Major Collector - Rural Minor Collector - Rural Local - Rural Principal Arterial Interstate - Urban Principal Arterial Freeway - Urban Principal Arterial Other - Urban Minor Arterial - Urban Collector - Urban

Level of Development Central to the ADOT assessment of State Highway System needs is the notion of Level Of Development (LOD), a planning tool introduced as an integrative concept in the State Highway System Plan. LOD provides a hierarchical ordering of System routes into five categories in terms of the relative importance of routes to the System as a whole. The assignment to a LOD category takes into account the route s functional classification, level of significance, current and future daily traffic, current and future truck traffic, and other unique route characteristics (e.g., recreational use). The LODs are described briefly below, followed by a description of the role that the LOD concept plays in the assessment of System needs. Level of Development 1: Interstate and urban controlled access facilities form the backbone of the system. Among many functions served, LOD 1 routes provide the principal means of interstate travel, serve the greatest volume of traffic, link the state s metropolitan areas, and provide the major truck routes. These routes are built and maintained to the highest standards. Level of Development 2: In terms of both use and function, LOD 2 routes are the most important non-controlled access routes statewide. For the most part, these routes were constructed as two lane rural highways designed to accommodate relatively low traffic volumes. With continuing growth, new demands are being placed on these highways to accommodate increased automobile and truck traffic. Hence, these routes are prime candidates for major reconstruction projects to provide the additional capacity to maintain both highway safety and performance. Level of Development 3: Routes without unique travel or service characteristics comprise the LOD 3 category. These are mainly two lane rural routes, which may be expanded to four lanes in urban areas. Most of the routes on the System are in this category. Level of Development 4: Highways bearing low traffic volumes and serving primarily as feeder routes with local significance compose the LOD 4 category.

Level of Development 5: The last category in the hierarchy is comprised of routes which no longer serve a state level service role, together with routes that have never been built. Thus, LOD 5 routes are prime candidates to transfer from the state system. The following maps depict all state highways and the LOD to which they have been assigned. ote that over 90% of the total mileage is in rural areas, and that the LOD 2 network is much smaller than either the LOD 1 or 3 systems. It is apparent that LOD 3 routes comprise by far the largest category, especially on the rural system. Stability of Route Assignments to Levels of Development Because the assignment of a highway to a particular LOD is based on a set of standards, a highway may be reassigned to another LOD when the function or use of that highway changes. However, given the nature of the standards and current projections of population growth and travel in Arizona, such changes are likely to occur infrequently. It was assumed that the functions served by individual routes would not change sufficiently in the coming decade to warrant reassignment to another LOD. Value of the Level of Development Concept Much of the utility of the LOD concept lies in making explicit important differences among system components. The hierarchy of routes points out the fact the System is not homogeneous; rather it is comprised of interrelated parts which vary considerably in terms of functions served. LOD, then, may be viewed as a categorical system, which summarizes certain critical differences among routes. Differences which have implications for a variety of administrative, operational, and investment decisions. For example, recognition of such differences is important in defining appropriate construction or reconstruction projects. It is important in establishing priorities among routes competing for limited funds.

THE LEVEL OF DEVELOPMET O THE STATE HIGHWAY SYSTEM 1 15 3 163 APACHE 64 A 564 MOHAVE 98 67 1 AVAJO 93 COCOIO 64 264 264 180 64 68 Bullhead 95 City Lake Havasu City Parker Quartzsite 66 Kingman LA PAZ YAVAPAI MARICOPA 17 Sedona A 179 95 2 Prescott 72 95 93 97 71 96 74 303L A Phoenix A Flagstaff 99 99 GILA Globe Holbrook 3 180 69 180A 169 69 1L 17 17 51 1L 2 88 188 2 288 88 2 GRAHAM 61 2 73 2 273 261 61 St Johns GREELEE Yuma 95 95 YUMA 8 85 85 238 347 Casa Grande 84 8 PIAL 79 1 2 2 Florence 79 70 366 266 Safford T Clifton 78 75 85 86 PIMA 386 B19 Tucson COCHISE 186 286 2 19 SATA CRUZ 82 83 ogales 90 Sierra Vista 82 80 80 83 80 90 92 Bisbee 80 181 0 25 50 75 0 Miles Level of Development 1 2 3 4 5

ISET LEVEL OF DEVELOPMET I THE PHOEIX METROPOLITA AREA 1L 51 1L 303L 17 17 SEE CETRAL PHOEIX ISET < < 143 0 5 15 20 25 Miles Level of Development 1 2 3 4 5

ISET LEVEL OF DEVELOPMET I CETRAL PHOEIX 17 51 < 17 153 < < 143 0 1 2 3 4 5 Miles Level of Development 1 2 3 4 5

ISET LEVEL OF DEVELOPMET I THE TUCSO METROPOLITA AREA 86 < B 19 B19 0 5 15 20 25 Miles Level of Development 1 2 3 4 5

Level of Service The Level Of Service (LOS) is derived from the range of values of the volume/ capacity ratio (v/c). The v/c ratio is the ratio of demand flow rate (volume) to capacity for a traffic facility. The volume is the number of vehicles passing a point on a lane, roadway, or other trafficway during some time interval expressed in vehicles. The time interval used in developing the v/c ratios used in this report is equal to a day. The vehicles are expressed in Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT). The capacity is the maximum rate of flow at which vehicles can reasonably be expected to traverse a point or uniform segment of a lane or roadway during a specified time period under prevailing roadway, traffic, and control conditions. Capacity is also expressed as AADT. The LOS is a qualitative measure describing operational conditions within a traffic stream generally described in terms of such factors as speed and travel time, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions, comfort and convenience, and safety. The v/c ratios, the LOS and the the conditions they indicate are as follows: V/C Ratio LOS Condition 0-0.20 A Free flow 0.21-0. B Free Flow with maneuverability slightly impeded 0.41-0.70 C Stable flow maneuverabilty noticeably restricted 0.71-0.79 D Stable flow, reduced speed maneuverabilty limited 0.80-0.95 E ear capacity, speeds are low but relatively uniform >0.96 F Volume at or near capacity, speeds are significantly reduced. The LOS data is mapped at the county level and inserts are used where appropriate.

1999 LEVEL OF SERVICE O THE ARIZOA STATE HIGHWAY SYSTEM 1 15 3 163 APACHE 64 A 564 MOHAVE 67 98 1 AVAJO 93 COCOIO 64 264 264 180 64 66 68 Bullhead 95 City LA PAZ 93 YAVAPAI MARICOPA A 17 Sedona A 179 A 95 2 Lake Havasu City Parker 72 95 Quartzsite Kingman 97 71 96 Prescott 74 303L 99 GILA 99 Holbrook 3 180 69 180A 169 2 2 69 1L 17 17 51 Phoenix 1L Flagstaff 88 188 2 288 88 Globe GRAHAM 61 2 73 2 273 261 61 St Johns GREELEE Yuma 95 95 YUMA 8 85 85 238 Casa 347 Grande 84 8 PIAL 79 1 2 2 79 Florence 70 366 266 Safford T Clifton 78 75 85 86 PIMA 386 B19 Tucson COCHISE 186 286 2 19 SATA CRUZ 82 83 ogales 90 82 80 80 83 80 90 Sierra Bisbee Vista 80 92 181 0 25 50 75 0 Miles LOS in Arizona 0-0.20 = A 0.21-0. = B 0.41-0.70 = C 0.71-0.79 = D 0.80-0.95 = E 0.96-2.0 = F

LEVEL OF SERVICE I APACHE COUTY 1 64 Chinle 264 61 180 61 180A St Johns 2 Eagar 273 261 0 20 30 50 Miles Level of Service 0-0.20 = A 0.21-0. = B 0.41-0.70 = C 0.71-0.79 = D 0.80-0.95 = E > 0.96 = F

LEVEL OF SERVICE I COCHISE COUTY Willcox 186 Benson 90 80 181 82 80 Sierra Vista 90 92 Bisbee 80 Douglas 80 0 5 15 20 25 Miles Level of Service 0-0.20 = A 0.21-0. = B 0.41-0.70 = C 0.71-0.79 = D 0.80-0.95 = E > 0.96 = F

LEVEL OF SERVICE I COCOIO COUTY Fredonia Page A 98 67 1 Grand Canyon 264 64 180 64 Flagstaff 99 A Sedona 17 0 20 30 50 Miles Level of Service 0-0.20 = A 0.21-0. = B 0.41-0.70 = C 0.71-0.79 = D 0.80-0.95 = E > 0.96 = F

LEVEL OF SERVICE I GILA COUTY Pine Payson 2 288 188 88 Globe 0 20 30 50 Miles Level of Service 0-0.20 = A 0.21-0. = B 0.41-0.70 = C 0.71-0.79 = D 0.80-0.95 = E > 0.96 = F

LEVEL OF SERVICE I GRAHAM COUTY 70 Thatcher Safford 366 266 0 5 15 20 25 Miles Level of Service 0-0.20 = A 0.21-0. = B 0.41-0.70 = C 0.71-0.79 = D 0.80-0.95 = E > 0.96 = F

LEVEL OF SERVICE I GREELEE COUTY T Morenci Clifton 78 75 Duncan 0 5 15 20 25 Miles Level of Service 0-0.20 = A 0.21-0. = B 0.41-0.70 = C 0.71-0.79 = D 0.80-0.95 = E > 0.96 = F

LEVEL OF SERVICE I LA PAZ COUTY Parker 72 95 Quartzsite 95 0 5 15 20 25 Miles Level of Service 0-0.20 = A 0.21-0. = B 0.41-0.70 = C 0.71-0.79 = D 0.80-0.95 = E > 0.96 = F

LEVEL OF SERVICE I MARICOPA COUTY Wickenburg 74 SEE PHOEIX ISET 88 85 238 8 Gila Bend 85 0 20 30 Miles Level of Service 0-0.20 = A 0.21-0. = B 0.41-0.70 = C 0.71-0.79 = D 0.80-0.95 = E > 0.96 = F

ISET LEVEL OF SERVICE I THE PHOEIX METROPOLITA AREA 1L 51 1L 303L 17 17 SEE CETRAL PHOEIX ISET < < 143 0 5 15 20 Miles Level of Service 0-0.20 = A 0.21-0. = B 0.41-0.70 = C 0.71-0.79 = D 0.80-0.95 = E > 0.96 = F

ISET LEVEL OF SERVICE I CETRAL PHOEIX 17 51 < 17 153 < < 143 0 1 2 3 4 5 Miles Level of Service 0-0.20 = A 0.21-0. = B 0.41-0.70 = C 0.71-0.79 = D 0.80-0.95 = E > 0.96 = F

LEVEL OF SERVICE I MOHAVE COUTY 15 3 93 66 95 Bullhead City 68 Kingman 93 95 Lake Havasu City 0 20 30 50 Miles Level of Service 0-0.20 = A 0.21-0. = B 0.41-0.70 = C 0.71-0.79 = D 0.80-0.95 = E > 0.96 = F

LEVEL OF SERVICE I AVAJO COUTY 163 564 99 Holbrook 3 2 2 Show Low 73 0 20 30 50 Miles Level of Service 0-0.20 = A 0.21-0. = B 0.41-0.70 = C 0.71-0.79 = D 0.80-0.95 = E > 0.96 = F

LEVEL OF SERVICE I PIMA COUTY Ajo SEE TUCSO ISET 85 86 386 B19 83 286 0 20 30 50 Miles Level of Service 0-0.20 = A 0.21-0. = B 0.41-0.70 = C 0.71-0.79 = D 0.80-0.95 = E > 0.96 = F

ISET LEVEL OF SERVICE I THE TUCSO METROPOLITA AREA 86 < B 19 B19 0 5 15 20 Miles Level of Service 0-0.20 = A 0.21-0. = B 0.41-0.70 = C 0.71-0.79 = D 0.80-0.95 = E > 0.96 = F

LEVEL OF SERVICE I PIAL COUTY 88 79 1 347 Casa Grande 2 Florence 84 2 8 79 0 5 15 20 25 Miles Level of Service 0-0.20 = A 0.21-0. = B 0.41-0.70 = C 0.71-0.79 = D 0.80-0.95 = E > 0.96 = F

LEVEL OF SERVICE I SATA CRUZ COUTY 19 83 82 2 ogales 0 5 15 20 Miles Level of Service 0-0.20 = A 0.21-0. = B 0.41-0.70 = C 0.71-0.79 = D 0.80-0.95 = E > 0.96 = F

LEVEL OF SERVICE I YAVAPAI COUTY Cottonwood A 2 A 179 97 96 Prescott 69 169 2 69 17 71 0 20 30 Miles Level of Service 0-0.20 = A 0.21-0. = B 0.41-0.70 = C 0.71-0.79 = D 0.80-0.95 = E > 0.96 = F

LEVEL OF SERVICE I YUMA COUTY 95 Yuma < 280 8 95 B8 San Luis 0 5 15 20 25 Miles Level of Service 0-0.20 = A 0.21-0. = B 0.41-0.70 = C 0.71-0.79 = D 0.80-0.95 = E > 0.96 = F

Present Serviceabilty Rating The Present Serviceabilty Rating (PSR) is derived from readings taken by a mechanical device that measures deviations in the roadway surface. The deviations provide a measure of the smoothness or roughness of the pavement. The PSR rates the pavement condition on a scale from 0 to 5, with 0 being very poor (undriveable) and 5 being excellent (new surface). The pavement rating ranges and the conditions they indicate are as follows: PSR Condition Indication 0-1.0 Very Poor Extremely deteriorated 1.1-2.0 Poor Has large pot holes,cracking,dist ress 2.1-3.0 Moderate Barely tolerable for high speed traffic 3.1-4.0 Good Relatively Smooth 4.1-5.0 Excellent ew or superior The PSR data is mapped at the county level and inserts are used where appropriate.

1999 PRESET SERVICEABILITY RATIG O THE ARIZOA STATE HIGHWAY SYSTEM 1 15 3 163 APACHE 64 A 564 MOHAVE 98 67 1 AVAJO 93 COCOIO 64 264 264 180 64 66 68 Bullhead 95 City LA PAZ 93 YAVAPAI MARICOPA A 17 Sedona A 179 A 95 2 Lake Havasu City Parker 72 95 Quartzsite Kingman 97 71 96 Prescott 74 303L 99 GILA 99 Holbrook 69 180A 169 2 2 69 1L 17 17 51 Phoenix 1L Flagstaff 88 188 2 288 88 Globe 3 180 GRAHAM 61 2 73 2 273 261 61 St Johns GREELEE Yuma 95 95 YUMA 8 85 85 238 Casa 347 Grande 84 8 PIAL 79 1 2 2 79 Florence 70 366 266 Safford T Clifton 78 75 85 86 PIMA 386 B19 Tucson COCHISE 186 286 2 19 SATA CRUZ 82 83 ogales 90 82 80 80 83 80 90 Sierra Bisbee Vista 80 92 181 0 25 50 75 0 Miles PSR in Arizona 4.1-5.0 = Excellent 3.1-4.0 = Good 2.1-3.0 = Moderate 1.1-2.0 = Poor 0-1.0 = Very Poor 5.1-9.9 = Unpaved

ROAD CODITIOS I APACHE COUTY 1 64 Chinle 264 61 180 61 180A St Johns 2 Eagar 273 261 0 20 30 50 M iles Present Serviceability Rating 4.1-5.0 = Excellent 3.1-4.0 = Good 2.1-3.0 = Moderate 1.1-2.0 = Poor 0-1.0 = Very Poor Unpaved

ROAD CODITIOS I COCHISE COUTY Willcox 186 Benson 90 80 181 82 80 Sierra Vista 90 92 Bisbee 80 Douglas 80 0 5 15 20 25 Miles Present Serviceability Rating 4.1-5.0 = Excellent 3.1-4.0 = Good 2.1-3.0 = Moderate 1.1-2.0 = Poor 0-1.0 = Very Poor Unpaved

ROAD CODITIOS I COCOIO COUTY Fredonia Page A 98 67 1 Grand Canyon 264 64 180 64 Flagstaff 99 A Sedona 17 0 20 30 50 Miles Present Serviceability Rating 4.1-5.0 = Excellent 3.1-4 = Good 2.1-3.0 = Moderate 1.1-2.0 = Poor 0-1.0 = Very Poor Unpaved

ROAD CODITIOS I GILA COUTY Pine Payson 2 288 188 88 Globe 0 2 0 30 50 Miles Present Serviceability Rating 4.1-5.0 = Excellent 3.1-4.0 = Good 2.1-3.0 = Moderate 1.1-2.0 = Poor 0-1.0 = Very Poor Unpaved

ROAD CODITIOS I GRAHAM COUTY 70 Thatcher Safford 366 266 0 5 15 20 25 Miles Present Serviceability Rating 4.1-5.0 = Excellent 3.1-4.0 = Good 2.1-3.0 = Moderate 1.1-2.0 = Poor 0-1.0 = Very Poor Unpaved

ROAD CODITIOS I GREELEE COUTY T Morenci Clifton 78 75 Duncan 0 5 15 20 25 Miles Present Serviceability Rating 4.1-5.0 = Excellent 3.1-4.0 = Good 2.1-3.0 = Moderate 1.1-2.0 = Poor 0-1.0 = Very Poor Unpaved

ROAD CODITIOS I LA PAZ COUTY Parker 72 95 Quartzsite 95 0 5 15 20 25 Miles Present Serviceability Rating 4.1-5.0 = Excellent 3.1-4.0 = Good 2.1-3.0 = Moderate 1.1-2.0 = Poor 0-1.0 = Very Poor Unpaved

ROAD CODITIOS I MARICOPA COUTY Wickenburg 74 SEE PHOEIX ISET 88 85 238 8 Gila Bend 85 0 20 30 Miles Present Serviceability Rating 4.1-5.0 = Excellent 3.1-4.0 = Good 2.1-3.0 = Moderate 1.1-2.0 = Poor 0-1.0 = Very Poor Unpaved

ISET ROAD CODITIOS I THE PHOEIX METROPOLITA AREA 1L 51 1L 303L 17 17 SEE CETRAL PHOEIX ISET < < 143 0 5 15 20 Miles Present Serviceability Rating 4.1-5.0 = Excellent 3.1-4.0 = Good 2.1-3.0 = Moderate 1.1-2.0 = Poor 0-1.0 = Very Poor Unpaved

ISET ROAD CODITIOS I CETRAL PHOEIX 17 51 < 17 153 < < 143 0 1 2 3 4 5 Miles Present Serviceability Rating 4.1-5.0 = Excellent 3.1-4.0 = Good 2.1-3.0 = Moderate 1.1-2.0 = Poor 0-1.0 = Very Poor Unpaved

ROAD CODITIOS I MOHAVE COUTY 15 3 93 66 95 68 Bullhead City Kingman 93 95 Lake Havasu City 0 20 30 50 Miles Present Serviceability Rating 4.1-5.0 = Excellent 3.1-4.0 = Good 2.1-3.0 = Moderate 1.1-2.0 - Poor 0-1.0 = Very Poor Unpaved

ROAD CODITIOS I AVAJO COUTY 163 564 99 Holbrook 3 2 2 Show Low 73 0 20 30 50 Miles Present Serviceability Rating 4.1-5.0 = Excellent 3.1-4.0 = Good 2.1-3.0 = Moderate 1.1-2.0 = Poor 0-1.0 = Very Poor Unpaved

ROAD CODITIOS I PIMA COUTY Ajo SEE TUCSO ISET 85 86 386 B19 83 286 0 20 30 50 Miles Present Serviceability Rating 4.1-5.0 = Excellent 3.1-4.0 = Good 2.1-3.0 = Moderate 1.1-2.0 = Poor 0-1.0 = Very Poor Unpaved

ISET ROAD CODITIOS I THE TUCSO METROPOLITA AREA 86 < B 19 B19 0 5 15 20 Miles Present Serviceability Rating 4.1-5.0 = Excellent 3.1-4.0 = Good 2.1-3.0 = Moderate 1.1-2.0 = Poor 0-1.0 = Very Poor Unpaved

ROAD CODITIOS I PIAL COUTY 88 79 1 347 Casa Grande 2 Florence 84 2 8 79 0 5 15 20 25 Miles Present Serviceability Rating 4.1-5.0 = Excellent 3.1-4.0 = Good 2.1-3.0 = Moderate 1.1-2.0 = Poor 0-1.0 = Very Poor Unpaved

ROAD CODITIOS I SATA CRUZ COUTY 19 83 82 2 ogales 0 5 15 20 Miles Present Serviceability Rating 4.1-5.0 = Excellent 3.1-4.0 = Good 2.1-3.0 = Moderate 1.1-2.0 = Poor 0-1.0 = Very Poor Unpaved

ROAD CODITIOS I YAVAPAI COUTY Cottonwood A 2 A 179 97 96 Prescott 69 169 2 69 17 71 0 20 3 0 Miles Present Serviceability Rating 4.1-5.0 = Excellent 3.1-4.0 = Good 2.1-3.0 = Moderate 1.1-2.0 = Poor 0-1.0 = Very Poor Unpaved

ROAD CODITIOS I YUMA COUTY 95 Yuma < 280 8 95 B8 San Luis 0 5 15 20 25 Miles Present Serviceability Rating 4.1-5.0 = Excellent 3.1-4.0 = Good 2.1-3.0 = Moderate 1.1-2.0 = Poor 0-1.0 = Very Poor Unpaved

Bridge Sufficiency Rating Bridges are assigned a Sufficiency Rating based on the Structural Inventory and Appraisal (SA&I) form. This form contains information on bridge type, geometry, clearances, load rating, and traffic. The information on this form is used to develop the Bridge Sufficiency Rating (BSR) for each structure. Additionally, a notation is made on the form as to whether the bridge is functionally obsolete or structurally deficient. The BSR is used to categorize bridge needs as follows: BSR Category > 80 Good Condition 50-80 Eligible for rehabilitation < 50 Eligible for replacement The BSR data is mapped at the county level and inserts are used where appropriate.

1999 BRIDGES O THE ARIZOA STATE HIGHWAY SYSTEM 1 15 163 64 3 APACHE A 564 98 MOHAVE 67 1 AVAJO 264 93 64 COCOIO 264 180 64 66 68 99 Bullhead Kingman Flagstaff City A 95 61 17 Sedona 99 YAVAPAI Holbrook A 93 179 3 180 A 95 2 Prescott 69 180A Lake Havasu 169 St Johns 2 97 2 City 96 61 69 2 2 17 Parker LA PAZ 71 2 261 273 73 72 288 GILA 95 74 188 Quartzsite Phoenix MARICOPA 1L 51 303L 17 1L 88 88 Globe GRAHAM 85 T 79 1 Clifton YUMA 70 238 78 95 Casa Florence 2 347 Grande Safford 84 2 75 Yuma 8 79 8 366 85 95 PIAL 266 PIMA COCHISE Tucson 186 85 86 386 B19 83 181 80 90 286 82 SATA 80 19 CRUZ 83 80 82 90 Sierra Bisbee Vista 80 2 92 ogales GREELEE 0 25 50 75 0 Miles Bridges in Arizona Good Condition Eligible for Rehabilitation Eligible for Replacement

BRIDGE SUFFICIECY RATIG I APACHE COUTY 1 64 Chinle 264 61 180 180A St Johns 61 Eagar 2 261 273 0 1 0 20 30 50 Miles Bridge Sufficiency Rating Good Condition Eligible for Rehabilitation Eligible for Replacement State Highway System Routes

BRIDGE SUFFICIECY RATIG I COCHISE COUTY Willcox 186 Benson 181 80 90 82 80 80 90 Sierra Vista Bisbee 80 92 Douglas 0 5 15 20 25 Miles Bridge Sufficiency Rating Good Condition Eligible for Rehabilitation Eligible for Replacement State Highway System Routes

BRIDGE SUFFICIECY RATIG I COCOIO COUTY Fredonia Page A 98 67 Grand Canyon 64 264 1 180 64 99 Flagstaff A 17 Sedona 0 20 30 50 Miles Bridge Sufficiency Rating Good Condition Eligible for Rehabilitation Eligible for Replacement State Highway System Routes

BRIDGE SUFFICIECY RATIG I GILA COUTY Pine Payson 2 188 288 88 Globe 0 5 15 20 25 Miles Bridge Sufficiency Rating Good Condition Eligible for Rehabilitation Eligible for Replacement State Highway System Routes

BRIDGE SUFFICIECY RATIG I GRAHAM COUTY 70 Thatcher 366 Safford 266 0 5 15 20 25 Miles Bridge Sufficiency Rating Good Condition Eligible for Rehabilitation Eligible for Replacement State Highway System Routes

BRIDGE SUFFICIECY RATIG I GREELEE COUTY T Clifton Morenci 78 75 Duncan 0 5 15 20 25 Miles Bridge Sufficiency Rating Good Condition Eligible for Rehabilitation Eligible for Replacement State Highway System Routes

BRIDGE SUFFICIECY RATIG I LA PAZ COUTY Parker 72 95 Quartzsite 95 0 5 15 20 25 Miles Bridge Sufficiency Rating Good Condition Eligible for Rehabilitation Eligible for Replacement State Highway System Routes

BRIDGE SUFFICIECY RATIG I MARICOPA COUTY Wickenburg 74 SEE PHOEIX ISET 85 238 Gila Bend 8 85 88 0 20 30 Miles Bridge Sufficiency Rating Good Condition Eligible for Rehabilitation Eligible for Replacement State Highway System Routes

ISET BRIDGE SUFFICIECY RATIG I THE PHOEIX METROPOLITA AREA 1L 51 1L 17 303L SEE CETRAL PHOEIX ISET 143 17 < < 0 5 15 20 Miles Bridge Sufficiency Rating Good Condition Eligible for Rehabilitation Eligible for Replacement State Highway System Routes

ISET BRIDGE SUFFICIECY RATIG I CETRAL PHOEIX 17 51 17 153 143 < < < 0 1 2 3 4 5 Mi les Bridge Sufficiency Rating Good Condition Eligible for Rehabilitation Eligible for Replacement State Highway System Routes

BRIDGE SUFFICIECY RATIG I MOHAVE COUTY 15 3 93 66 68 Bullhead Kingman City 95 93 95 Lake Havasu City 0 20 30 50 Miles Bridge Sufficiency Rating Good Condition Eligible for Rehabilitation Eligible for Replacement State Highway System Routes

BRIDGE SUFFICIECY RATIG I AVAJO COUTY 564 163 Holbrook 99 3 2 2 Show Low 73 0 20 30 50 Miles Bridge Sufficiency Rating Good Condition Eligible for Rehabilitation Eligible for Replacement State Highway System Routes

BRIDGE SUFFICIECY RATIG I PIMA COUTY Ajo SEE TUCSO ISET 85 86 386 B19 83 286 0 20 30 50 Mile s Bridge Sufficiency Rating Good Condition Eligible for Rehabilitation Eligible for Replacement State Highway System Routes

ISET BRIDGE SUFFICIECY RATIG I THE TUCSO METROPOLITA AREA B 86 19 B19 < 0 5 15 20 Miles Bridge Sufficiency Rating Good Condition Eligible for Rehabilitation Eligible for Replacement State Highway System Routes

BRIDGE SUFFICIECY RATIG I PIAL COUTY 88 79 1 Florence 2 347 Casa Grande 84 2 8 79 0 5 15 20 25 Miles Bridge Sufficiency Rating Good Condition Eligible for Rehabilitation Eligible for Replacement State Highway System Routes

BRIDGE SUFFICIECY RATIG I SATA CRUZ COUTY 2 19 82 ogales 83 0 5 15 20 Miles Bridge Sufficiency Rating Good Condition Eligible for Rehabilitation Eligible for Replacement State Highway System Routes

BRIDGE SUFFICIECY RATIG I YAVAPAI COUTY Cottonwood 179 A 2 69 Prescott 169 2 97 96 69 17 71 A 0 20 30 Miles Bridge Sufficiency Rating Good Condition Eligible for Rehabilitation Eligible for Replacement State Highway System Routes

BRIDGE SUFFICIECY RATIG I YUMA COUTY 95 Yuma 95 < 280 B8 8 San Luis 0 5 15 20 25 Miles Bridge Sufficiency Rating Good Condition Eligible for Rehabilitation Eligible for Replacement State Highway System Routes

Change in Condition The following two maps show the difference in Level of Service (LOS) and Present Serviceabilty Rating (PSR) in the 1999 Highway Status and Condition Report compared to the 1998 report. The Bridge Condition Index changes are not displayed because it is extremely difficult to present at the state level. We have included two bar charts that depict the percentage change in the LOS and PSR. The percentage is the portion of the State Highway System that improved, declined, or remained the same. A change in the in LOS in the range of 0.001 to 0.24 was considered a slight change. A change of greater than 0.25 was considered as significant. For the PSR a change of less than 0.49 was considered slight and a change greater than 0.50 was considered significant.

1997-98 CHAGES I THE LEVEL OF SERVICE O THE STATE HIGHWAY SYSTEM 1 15 3 163 APACHE 64 A 564 MOHAVE 98 67 1 AVAJO 93 COCOIO 64 264 264 180 66 64 68 Bullhead 95 City Lake Havasu City Parker Quartzsite Kingman LA PAZ YAVAPAI MARICOPA 17 Sedona A 179 95 2 Prescott 72 95 93 97 71 96 74 303L A Phoenix A Flagstaff 99 GILA 99 Holbrook 69 180A 169 69 1L 17 17 51 1L 2 2 88 188 2 288 88 Globe 3 180 GRAHAM 61 2 73 2 273 261 61 St Johns GREELEE Yuma 95 95 YUMA 8 85 85 238 Casa 347 Grande 84 8 PIAL 2 79 Florence 2 79 1 70 366 266 Safford T Clifton 78 75 85 86 PIMA 386 B19 Tucson COCHISE 186 286 2 19 SATA CRUZ 82 83 ogales 90 82 80 80 83 80 90 Sierra Bisbee Vista 80 92 181 0 25 50 75 0 Mil es Changes in the LOS Improvement Slight Improvement o Change Slight Decline Decline

CHAGES I LOS BETWEE 1998 & 1999 00 33.2% 900 800 27.9% 700 UMBER OF ROUTE SEGMETS 0 500 0 21.6% Improvement Slight Improvement o Change Slight Decline Decline 300 8.2% 200 0 0 0.7% 2.9% Urban 2.1 % 0.4% 2.8% Rural 0.1% LOCATIO

1997-98 CHAGES I THE PRESET SERVICEABILITY RATIG O THE STATE HIGHWAY SYSTEM 1 15 3 163 APACHE 64 A 564 MOHAVE 98 67 1 AVAJO 93 COCOIO 64 264 264 180 64 66 68 Bullhead City 95 Kingman YAVAPAI Sedona A A 17 Flagstaff 99 99 Holbrook 61 95 2 Prescott Lake Havasu City Parker Quartzsite LA PAZ 72 95 93 97 MARICOPA 71 96 74 303L A 179 69 180A 169 69 1L 17 17 51 Phoenix 1L 2 2 88 188 2 288 88 GILA Globe 3 180 GRAHAM 61 2 73 2 273 261 St Johns GREELEE Yuma 95 95 YUMA 8 85 85 238 Casa 347 Grande 84 8 PIAL 79 1 2 2 Florence 79 70 366 266 Safford T Clifton 78 75 85 86 PIMA 386 B19 Tucson COCHISE 186 286 2 19 SATA CRUZ 82 83 ogales 90 82 80 80 83 80 90 Sierra Bisbee Vista 80 92 181 0 25 50 75 0 Miles Changes in the PSR Improvement Slight Improvement o Change Slight Decline Decline

CHAGES I PSR BETWEE 1998 & 1999 00 32.4% 900 800 700 24.3% UMBER OF ROUTE SEGMETS 0 500 0 20.4% Improvement Slight Improvement o Change Slight Decline Decline 300 200 4.5% 5.2% 5.2% 0 2.8% 3.2% 1.3% 0.6% 0 Urban Rural LOCATIO