US 89 near Page suffers massive road collapse!

[NE2]

Construction began Tuesday on paving N20: http://azdailysun.com/news/local/new-page-detour-on-schedule/article_1fbcdb97-fdd6-5769-ac68-a2d7f24d82bb.html

[Rover_0]

From the ADOT US-89 webpage, a couple of updates:

• N-20 paving began in mid-June, and
• ADOT identified a long-term solution in moving the road up the hill a bit and using a gravity buttress at the bottom of the slope.

I still think that the best long-term solution from a cost and planning standpoint is to simply make the N-20 detour US-89 permanently.

[J N Winkler]

I still think that the best long-term solution from a cost and planning standpoint is to simply make the N-20 detour US-89 permanently.

Cost, maybe; planning, no.  Opening a new corridor over Indian reservation land is an absolute poison pill for ADOT.

[Rover_0]

I still think that the best long-term solution from a cost and planning standpoint is to simply make the N-20 detour US-89 permanently.

Cost, maybe; planning, no.  Opening a new corridor over Indian reservation land is an absolute poison pill for ADOT.

My main reasoning for the realignment was that the Navajo Nation wanted N-20 paved. But I guess having a major corridor is another thing, no?

[J N Winkler]

My main reasoning for the realignment was that the Navajo Nation wanted N-20 paved. But I guess having a major corridor is another thing, no?

The paving currently being done is temporary in nature and is "payment" for the wear and tear that results from N-20 handling US 89 detour traffic.  Re-routing US 89 onto N-20 permanently brings other issues into play.

*  The cost of redeveloping N-20 to ADOT standards for a two-lane state highway has been estimated at $180 million.

*  It is unlikely that the Navajo Nation would grant a permanent easement for a state highway in the N-20 corridor.  In the past these have been given, but times have changed, with time-limited easements being now quite difficult to get--the BIA struggled to obtain a 75-year easement in connection with a nearby bridge project and the Navajos would like to prune easement length still further, to 25 years or less.

*  N-20 runs through land whose title has been disputed between the Hopis and the Navajos.  In the 1970's, this disagreement resulted in a moratorium on all construction on the land involved, informally called the "Bennett freeze" after the then Secretary of the Interior.  The moratorium has since been lifted but now a new procedure is in place which calls for any proposed improvements to be cleared with the Navajos and the Hopis.

*  N-20 runs through prime grazing land and previous attempts to pave it further south than 13 miles of Page have been nixed on this basis.  If ADOT took over the highway, it would want to fence it to its standards, which would attract objections from agricultural users.

*  Within the Navajo Nation itself, only the Coppermine Chapter has consistently advocated paving N-20 or transferring it to ADOT to manage as a state highway (their motivation is economic development).  Neighboring chapters have either remained neutral or raised deal-breaking objections.  (The Coppermine Chapter covers the part of the Navajo reservation directly south of Page and contains the length of N-20 that was already paved at the time of the US 89 slide.)

*  Since N-20 is on Indian reservation land, minority-protection and environmental justice issues have a very concentrated effect on the highway planning process, and greatly complicate obtaining the required clearances for construction.

*  ADOT policy calls for an existing state highway to be abandoned or relinquished to another agency when it is bypassed by another state highway segment.  If N-20 were redeveloped as a state highway, presumably the existing US 89 would be relinquished, which would attract opposition from parties which currently benefit from the status quo.  (It is not clear whether the ADOT board could make an exception to this policy on the basis that upgrading N-20 connects Page to the south with a total of four paved lanes and thus allows four-laning existing US 89 to be postponed.)

When ADOT studied the option of re-routing US 89 onto N-20 in 2005, the conclusion was "not feasible."

[NE2]

ADOT policy calls for an existing state highway to be abandoned or relinquished to another agency when it is bypassed by another state highway segment.

Can you elaborate on this? Obviously it doesn't apply to business loops, or to routes serving different communities (otherwise SR 79 would be bypassed by I-10). US 89 would continue to be part of the shortest route from Page to the North Rim (and just barely the shortest from US 160), so could it really be said to be bypassed?

[J N Winkler]

ADOT policy calls for an existing state highway to be abandoned or relinquished to another agency when it is bypassed by another state highway segment.

Can you elaborate on this? Obviously it doesn't apply to business loops, or to routes serving different communities (otherwise SR 79 would be bypassed by I-10). US 89 would continue to be part of the shortest route from Page to the North Rim (and just barely the shortest from US 160), so could it really be said to be bypassed?

The relevant policy (No. 16, "Transfer of state routes") stipulates:

In addition [. . .] 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.

This policy has to be read in conjunction with another (no. 5), which says that the Arizona state highway network places priority on interconnecting communities and regions.

The thinking is that if N-20 is improved as an additional route to Page, it will be seen as a bypass of existing US 89 between Bitter Springs (the US 89/US 89A junction) and Page, and ADOT will want to transfer it to another agency.  The length of present US 89 between the Gap (N-20 southern terminus) and Bitter Springs would remain on the state highway system because it is part of the logical connection between Flagstaff and far northern Arizona.

Essentially, the length of US 89 between Bitter Springs and Page would have to go because Bitter Springs does not count as a community in its own right, and the US 89 Alternate corridor is not considered to serve a region distinct from US 89 north of Page.

Business loops etc. are addressed by a separate portion of the route transfer policy.

[NE2]

OK, but what about Page to the North Rim? If the North Rim didn't count as a community equivalent, SR 67 wouldn't exist.

[J N Winkler]

OK, but what about Page to the North Rim? If the North Rim didn't count as a community equivalent, SR 67 wouldn't exist.

That could be posed as an argument against transferring the Bitter Springs-Page length of US 89.  However, the North Rim is open seasonally only, and if ADOT decided to go ahead and transfer this segment, then its use as a fast route from Page to the North Rim could be factored in when deciding what improvements to make before the transfer.

I actually suspect the requirement to consider the transfer as part of the total project (to build the bypassing segment of state highway) is framed as an obstacle to upgrading N-20 because none of the likely counterparties for a transfer agreement--county, BIA, Navajo Nation--has the resources to take on this mileage.  This means that upgrading N-20 makes sense in an (expensive) scenario where ADOT takes on N-20 while keeping existing US 89 as state highway, not in (a cheaper) one where N-20 becomes a replacement for US 89 and the Bitter Springs-Page length is transferred.  If ADOT commits to the cheaper option and the US 89 transfer can't be added to the package, then N-20 upgrades fall by the wayside too.

[Rover_0]

My main reasoning for the realignment was that the Navajo Nation wanted N-20 paved. But I guess having a major corridor is another thing, no?

The paving currently being done is temporary in nature and is "payment" for the wear and tear that results from N-20 handling US 89 detour traffic.  Re-routing US 89 onto N-20 permanently brings other issues into play.

*  The cost of redeveloping N-20 to ADOT standards for a two-lane state highway has been estimated at $180 million.

*  It is unlikely that the Navajo Nation would grant a permanent easement for a state highway in the N-20 corridor.  In the past these have been given, but times have changed, with time-limited easements being now quite difficult to get--the BIA struggled to obtain a 75-year easement in connection with a nearby bridge project and the Navajos would like to prune easement length still further, to 25 years or less.

*  N-20 runs through land whose title has been disputed between the Hopis and the Navajos.  In the 1970's, this disagreement resulted in a moratorium on all construction on the land involved, informally called the "Bennett freeze" after the then Secretary of the Interior.  The moratorium has since been lifted but now a new procedure is in place which calls for any proposed improvements to be cleared with the Navajos and the Hopis.

*  N-20 runs through prime grazing land and previous attempts to pave it further south than 13 miles of Page have been nixed on this basis.  If ADOT took over the highway, it would want to fence it to its standards, which would attract objections from agricultural users.

*  Within the Navajo Nation itself, only the Coppermine Chapter has consistently advocated paving N-20 or transferring it to ADOT to manage as a state highway (their motivation is economic development).  Neighboring chapters have either remained neutral or raised deal-breaking objections.  (The Coppermine Chapter covers the part of the Navajo reservation directly south of Page and contains the length of N-20 that was already paved at the time of the US 89 slide.)

*  Since N-20 is on Indian reservation land, minority-protection and environmental justice issues have a very concentrated effect on the highway planning process, and greatly complicate obtaining the required clearances for construction.

*  ADOT policy calls for an existing state highway to be abandoned or relinquished to another agency when it is bypassed by another state highway segment.  If N-20 were redeveloped as a state highway, presumably the existing US 89 would be relinquished, which would attract opposition from parties which currently benefit from the status quo.  (It is not clear whether the ADOT board could make an exception to this policy on the basis that upgrading N-20 connects Page to the south with a total of four paved lanes and thus allows four-laning existing US 89 to be postponed.)

When ADOT studied the option of re-routing US 89 onto N-20 in 2005, the conclusion was "not feasible."

Fair enough. It's interesting that you mention four-laning US-89 and using N-20 (in addition to a rebuilt US-89) to postpone it. I would assume this would be due to costs, ROW, etc., right?

I'm aware that ADOT has planned to four-lane US-89 all the way up through Cameron and to US-160 (with a roundabout at AZ-64 and an interchange at US-160), and perhaps four-laning 89 up to Page isn't terribly far away, either. If the diagram for the US-89 repair is true in that that the entire slope above the highway is being moved, additional lanes aren't quite as far-fetched as originally thought. But that's just my observation.

[andy3175]

Getting a bit off topic, but I found this 2003 report that lists the prioritization by Arizona DOT that describes its criteria for state routes that could be transferred to another jurisdiction, along with current (and some now-former) state routes that fit into those criteria:

http://www.azdot.gov/mpd/priority_programming/pdf/study/rtranstudy.pdf

Regards,
Andy

[J N Winkler]

Fair enough. It's interesting that you mention four-laning US-89 and using N-20 (in addition to a rebuilt US-89) to postpone it. I would assume this would be due to costs, ROW, etc., right?

The cost of four-laning US 89 from the Gap to Page has been estimated at $125 million.  So the purpose of pushing N-20 upgrades as an alternative to four-laning is really to sweeten the pill:  same lane capacity, half of it on a more direct route for a Flagstaff-Page itinerary, for only $55 million more than four-lane widening.  The likely problem I see with this argument is traffic volumes.  A four-lane US 89 is estimated to have an AADT around 3,500, which is less than typical AADT trigger thresholds for widening to four-lane divided (10,000 VPD in flat terrain down to as low as 5,000 VPD in mountainous terrain).

I'm aware that ADOT has planned to four-lane US-89 all the way up through Cameron and to US-160 (with a roundabout at AZ-64 and an interchange at US-160), and perhaps four-laning 89 up to Page isn't terribly far away, either. If the diagram for the US-89 repair is true in that that the entire slope above the highway is being moved, additional lanes aren't quite as far-fetched as originally thought. But that's just my observation.

Seasonality of traffic demand is another consideration.  The North Rim (open only mid-May to October) gets about 10% of the visitation of the South Rim (total GCNP visitation was 4.4 million in 2012).  Doing a back-of-the-envelope calculation and assuming that one-third of the daily traffic on US 89 north of the Gap represents year-round base demand, it is easy to see how the seasonal ADT on US 89 could be as high as, say, 7,000 VPD when the North Rim is open.  It is also true that the spillover traffic the North Rim attracts from the South Rim is more likely to go up rather than down, as the South Rim becomes more congested and more of a handful to visit.  Based on these considerations and the general rule that you build for the thirtieth highest hour (accounting for seasonal effects), it should be possible to build a case for four-laning US 89 at least some of the distance north of US 160.

On the flip side, this argument favors four-laning the existing US 89 rather than upgrading N-20 because traffic from the south bound for the North Rim has to stay on US 89 all the way to Bitter Springs.

[Rover_0]

Another bump and another update:

US-89T has been opened!

(Local story)

While fencing is being put up, it will only be open during daylight hours and have a 25 MPH speed limit. No word on just how long fencing will take, though I'd wager it being no more than a month or two.

I also want to see what the US-89T shields look like.

[mapman1071]

OK, but what about Page to the North Rim? If the North Rim didn't count as a community equivalent, SR 67 wouldn't exist.

That could be posed as an argument against transferring the Bitter Springs-Page length of US 89.  However, the North Rim is open seasonally only, and if ADOT decided to go ahead and transfer this segment, then its use as a fast route from Page to the North Rim could be factored in when deciding what improvements to make before the transfer.

I actually suspect the requirement to consider the transfer as part of the total project (to build the bypassing segment of state highway) is framed as an obstacle to upgrading N-20 because none of the likely counterparties for a transfer agreement--county, BIA, Navajo Nation--has the resources to take on this mileage.  This means that upgrading N-20 makes sense in an (expensive) scenario where ADOT takes on N-20 while keeping existing US 89 as state highway, not in (a cheaper) one where N-20 becomes a replacement for US 89 and the Bitter Springs-Page length is transferred.  If ADOT commits to the cheaper option and the US 89 transfer can't be added to the package, then N-20 upgrades fall by the wayside too.

AZ 67 does not meet US 89 it Meets US 89A at Jacob Lake, AZ

[vdeane]

Since I've never been to the desert this may be a stupid question, but why are the fences needed?

[NE2]

AZ 67 does not meet US 89 it Meets US 89A at Jacob Lake, AZ

whoosh

[Billy F 1988]

Since I've never been to the desert this may be a stupid question, but why are the fences needed?

That's to keep livestock off the N-20/Temporary US 89 roadway. It won't be completely up for some time yet because they still have to get the fencing erected. That's the reasoning for the fencing because N20 is a local road for Navajo residents along the Navajo reservation area exactly where US 89 between Bitter Springs and Page collapsed. There are some along N20/Temporary US 89 that have livestock and cattle that do have a tendency to roam away from private land onto N20, other times they're led off to the next grazing field often crossing N20. Horses sometimes cross N20. So, there 'ya go. That's why the fencing is needed during the paving of N20/Temporary US 89.

[corco]

To expand on that, in the west there's an open range provision in most states. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_range

Basically, fences are built to keep animals out, not to pen animals in. If you, as a driver, hit livestock, you are responsible to reimburse the rancher for the price of the livestock  in addition to paying for your own car damage.  The state doesn't need a road full of cows and people hitting cows, so they put fences up to keep animals out.

[vdeane]

Yeah, we have no such thing as open range farming.  Farmers maintain their own fences, and I doubt there would be any liability on a motorist who hit livestock - they'd just be roadkill like any other.  The idea of open range farming just seems weird to me.

[J N Winkler]

The Western states' open-range policy makes sense in its natural context--the climate is generally arid, so pasturage takes a long time to recover from grazing and livestock densities are therefore very low.  What is really weird is to make farmers liable for keeping animals off the road, and then not to build any fences at all, as the Germans did with the early Autobahnen.

[vdeane]

In that case, the farmers are responsible for the fences

[Rover_0]

Don't know if this is the signage on the entire US-89T route, but I did find this:



Image found here.

[707]

Looking on the bright side, at least we got a new U.S. Highway out of this. Not to mention, the Navajo tribe finally got the paved road they've been asking for.

[blanketcomputer]

US 89 is scheduled to reopen later this month according to ADOT.

[Rover_0]

US-89 will reportedly re-open today.

Also, there are some photos with this article.