Early this morning, a portion of US 89 just south of Page collapsed due to a "geological event" (rumors are either earthquake in the area or landslide). I just drove this road last week to go pick up a car, and this road seemed just fine! Wow! How long is something like this going to take to fix? We aren't too far out from Spring Break, not sure how many boaters go to Lake Powell for that, but it would definitely impact travel!
Pictures courtesy of "FlagScanner" on Facebook via ADOT
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net%2Fhphotos-ash3%2F11066_487415657960858_709973058_n.png&hash=d7999ce4fcd22122828439d16b96142c79066391)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net%2Fhphotos-snc6%2F734889_487415487960875_1272818574_n.png&hash=ef5b01dcc223ef1ca5ff6ab3502c6ba513b13baf)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net%2Fhphotos-ash3%2F537111_487415481294209_1306525699_n.jpg&hash=3664fa2031218965d99e434b2b094778909bb955)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net%2Fhphotos-ash3%2F45712_487415534627537_986196900_n.png&hash=166d2e2cd6737836ce6a59a13b030609a030894d)
Good thing they kept the old road around.
Quote from: NE2 on February 20, 2013, 02:11:10 PM
Good thing they kept the old road around.
You mean US-89A?
Anyways, I wonder what the timescale will be to repair this. Something similar to the UT-14 landslide? I wonder if they'll have "Detour US-89" signs up US-160 and AZ-98 until this is fixed.
I don't see any major realignments coming from this once all is said and done--what about anyone else?
Well, I wouldn't want to do it with a boat trailer or a Miata, but.... Shoot! just keep the road open!
It looks like the soil under the road slumped. That's going to take a while to rebuild from soil stabilization upward.
1m45s AZDOT video from the scene here:
http://youtu.be/lo7GHtpP5g4
I saw something similar, but on a smaller scale, near Nara Visa, New Mexico, in the mid 1990's.
NMDOT ever so helpfully erected a sign (just before the "Road Closed" sign,) telling drivers to "Seek Alt Route." WOW!
Just read a local article criticizing ADOT for not putting up any signs letting drivers know that US 89A to Lee's Ferry, Fredonia, and Kanab is still open. Apparently the signs only say "Road Closed 45 Miles Ahead" at the turnoff for US 160 to Tuba City, and is apparently giving the impression that the 160/AZ98 detour is the only one. Given that the highway is most likely going to be closed for months at a minimum, businesses affected are understandably upset.
ADOT now has a link specifically related to the US 89 closure:
http://www.azdot.gov/us89/
Arizona governer Jan Brewer is declaring a state of emergency (http://www.azcentral.com/news/politics/articles/20130301governor-declares-state-emergency-collapsed-ariz-highway.html), primarily for federal funding to fix the US-89 landslide.
And now, AzDOT has received $2M (http://southwest.construction.com/southwest_construction_news/2013/0305-adot-receives-2m-in-federal-aid-to-investigate-us-89-landslide.asp) in federal funding to assess the damage.
I've been thinking, but I wonder if it might be more cost-effective in the long term if AzDOT were to pave all of N-20 (from The Gap to Page) and reroute US-89 up that road. US-89A then gets extended south to The Gap, and old US-89 from Page to Antelope Pass either becomes a State Route spur or BIA route.
Of course, I say this being not really sure how road transfers between AzDOT and BIA works. From what I can tell, however, N-20 appears to have much less change in terrain and geological activity along its route than does US-89.
As of March 5, the estimated cost to fix US-89 is estimated to be around $35M. (http://azdot.gov/CCPartnerships/News/NRel3414.asp)
I'm home for the week in Kanab, and after a conversation with a gas station clerk, it appears that the road has slipped about another 30 feet. Also, they said that AzDOT is considering paving N-20 the whole way from The Gap to Page and possibly rerouting US-89 up that way. They weren't sold on the idea, as N-20 is quite sandy in spots, but there are sandy areas north of Kanab on US-89 that haven't had any issues as far as I can remember.
Yes, I know gas station employees aren't the most reliable sources, but they are often a gauge of local talk.
http://azdailysun.com/news/local/p-m-update-highway-repair-timetable-in-dispute/article_bf0c9054-8c34-11e2-89d9-0019bb2963f4.html (http://azdailysun.com/news/local/p-m-update-highway-repair-timetable-in-dispute/article_bf0c9054-8c34-11e2-89d9-0019bb2963f4.html)
Highlights:
- Timetable could possibly be up to two years to repair US89, which agrees with what Rover_0 said about the road continuing to shift and being far from a stable situation
- With the timetable growing more each day, ADOT is really starting to come on board with the idea of paving N-20 as an alternate
QuoteBut the Arizona Department of Transportation calls the timetable premature, saying no official estimate of the repair schedule is possible until tests have confirmed the extent of the landslide and the stability of the slope, which would then lead to a repair plan.
Translated to: We have no clue what the hell is happening and how to stop the mountain from sliding away, and have no idea if we can even fix this.
It's really a shame, because I drove this road less than a week before the collapse, and told my friends that were with me that we needed to come back to that road because the views were absolutely breathtaking. If the road is indeed continuing to slide down the hill, this route may not ever reopen and may have to be realigned, and I will never get the chance to go back for those photos. :-(
Quote from: Sonic99 on March 14, 2013, 02:42:59 AM
http://azdailysun.com/news/local/p-m-update-highway-repair-timetable-in-dispute/article_bf0c9054-8c34-11e2-89d9-0019bb2963f4.html (http://azdailysun.com/news/local/p-m-update-highway-repair-timetable-in-dispute/article_bf0c9054-8c34-11e2-89d9-0019bb2963f4.html)
Highlights:
- Timetable could possibly be up to two years to repair US89, which agrees with what Rover_0 said about the road continuing to shift and being far from a stable situation
- With the timetable growing more each day, ADOT is really starting to come on board with the idea of paving N-20 as an alternate
QuoteBut the Arizona Department of Transportation calls the timetable premature, saying no official estimate of the repair schedule is possible until tests have confirmed the extent of the landslide and the stability of the slope, which would then lead to a repair plan.
Translated to: We have no clue what the hell is happening and how to stop the mountain from sliding away, and have no idea if we can even fix this.
It's really a shame, because I drove this road less than a week before the collapse, and told my friends that were with me that we needed to come back to that road because the views were absolutely breathtaking. If the road is indeed continuing to slide down the hill, this route may not ever reopen and may have to be realigned, and I will never get the chance to go back for those photos. :-(
Well, there's hope that if N-20 is paved and becomes a US-89 realignment, then old US-89 becomes either an SR or N spur to the cut area. SR-89S, anyone? :P
It may be worth contrasting this with the US 87 closure at Massacre Hill, Wyoming (which has I-90 to carry through traffic). It's been closed since 1998 by a landslide.
https://www.aaroads.com/west/us-087_wy.html
Wow. That's gotta suck for some businesses utilizing the chunk of US 89 that collapsed. ADOT may as well re-route that part of US 89 between Bitter Springs and Page. I bet a lot of residents and business owners count on that area of roadway to get to where they need to be. Now they're pissed because more tax money is coming out of their pockets to pay ADOT for the re-routing of US 89 away from the collapse corridor.
Well, why I think it might be better to permanently re-route US-89 along N-20...the Antelope Cut is a geologically active area, while the worst terrain problem N-20 has is that it's a sandy area. Another landslide will happen at The Cut--it's a matter of when--but the odds of a devastating landslide like this are much smaller along N-20.
Why put so much time into paving a temporary detour, fixing the section of road, only for it to possibly fail again?
As for the sand--as one from nearby Kanab, I can tell you that it didn't stop UDOT* from getting US-89 over the sandy area north of town near the Coral Pink Sand Dunes SP back in the 1940s or 1950s (if not earlier). If the Arizona and Navajo DOTs can work out a transfer to get N-20 permanently under AzDOT jurisdiction, then I think that they'd save a lot more time and money in the long run. US-89 between Page and Antelope Pass becomes a SR or BIA spur.
While I'm at it, if I-17 were ever to be built up to Page (or beyond), I wouldn't be surprised if it more closely followed N-20 than US-89 for the reasons I've stated before.
*Or its equivalent at the time.
Does US 89 need to go to Page? US 89A could probably take US 89 with N-20 being paved N-20.
I mean, yeah. The thing is that Page is already ridiculously isolated from the rest of Arizona, so it should probably have a numbered, state highway connection to the rest of the state besides 98. Flagstaff is the county seat, so there should be a direct, state or US numbered connection from Page to Flagstaff lest Page becomes even more isolated.
Lake Powell is also a fairly significant tourist destination, so a numbered route there is probably a good thing.
It looks to me like the present US 89 is a relocation, since it is built to relatively modern standards. A superficial inspection of Google Maps suggests that N-20 is a more direct route from US 89 to Page, but there is no StreetView imagery for N-20. I guess my question is this: presumably the N-20 corridor existed when options for relocating US 89 were under consideration. So why, then, was N-20 not chosen for the new US 89? Might those reasons still apply today? (I don't buy sand as a rationale because that particular problem was defeated in the mid-1930's when the old US 80 plank road in Imperial County was relocated onto a permanent, all-weather alignment.)
My guess--and at this point it is just a guess--is that ADOT will bite the bullet and spend what it takes to rebuild US 89 through the slide area.
Quote from: J N Winkler on March 16, 2013, 07:28:45 PM
It looks to me like the present US 89 is a relocation, since it is built to relatively modern standards.
US 89A is the old road.
A couple of updates:
AzDOT is more seriously considering N-20 as at least a temporary detour to US-89. According to the Kanab-based Southern Utah News (http://www.sunews.net/index.cfm), AzDOT representatives considered that if US-89 is deemed irreparable, then N-20 could become the new US-89. There are also some alternative plans.
The Arizona Daily Sun (http://azdailysun.com/news/local/state-weighs-using-navajo-road-as-hwy-bypass/article_c51a81a4-9242-11e2-8a2e-0019bb2963f4.html) says that if US-89 could be repaired, then N-20 could then become US-89T ("Temporary," I assume) while the mainline is being fixed. If Page once had AZ-89L, then they can have US-(or AZ-)89T!
Quote from: vdeane on March 15, 2013, 12:25:44 PM
Does US 89 need to go to Page? US 89A could probably take US 89 with N-20 being paved N-20.
yes. when Page was built in 1957 as a company town for the Glen Canyon Dam project, Arizona and Utah decided that it should be served by a US route, and 89 was realigned.
so all US-89 rerouting plans will likely involve it continuing to serve Page.
Saw an article that ADOT is considering designating N-20 as "US-89T" for "Temporary" to allow ADOT funds to pave and maintain the roadway. Honestly, from everything I have heard from ADOT, I wouldn't be surprised if the current US-89 is NEVER repaired and is removed, and the N-20 route becomes permanent. There is still uncertainty about what caused it to fail in the first place, and I believe I heard that it is still shifting and sliding and is far from stable.
The co-designation of N-20 as US 89T has now gone through (http://www.azfamily.com/news/Arizona-approves-Navajo-road-as-closure-bypass-199467671.html). It is to be paved to accommodate truck traffic (at present only 13 miles are paved, the remaining 31 being unpaved), and the work is to take four months. If and when repairs to the collapsed section of US 89 are finished, the newly paved N-20 will be relinquished to the Navajo Nation.
I continue to think it is improbable that ADOT will give up on the current US 89 alignment and shift the designation to N-20 permanently. The Native American tribes are far less willing to grant permanent easements for state highways traversing their reservations than they were in the past. There is apparently already a precedent of a 75-year easement being granted in relation to a BIA road, as well as talk of easements as short-lived as 25 years being offered for proposed new roads. The general rule of thumb (which may or may not apply in this case) is that inability to obtain a perpetual easement across Native American lands is a poison pill for state DOTs.
Moving on to a discussion of the slide itself:
Google StreetView image centered at slide location (looking south along US 89) (http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Page,+AZ&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Page,+Coconino,+Arizona&t=k&vpsrc=6&layer=c&cbll=36.653553,-111.632381&panoid=u9J_X11k2ciUBGAHskVpbg&cbp=12,167.8,,0,1.67&ll=36.653315,-111.632316&spn=0.004364,0.009645&z=17)
In the slide zone, there are two prominent horns of rock along US 89 along the east side which are readily visible in satellite imagery. The center of the slide is almost exactly due west of the northern of the two horns. The general lie of the land is sloping downward from east to west, with US 89 occupying a sidelong alignment and on a fairly steep upward grade in the northbound direction. The top of the slide is just under the US 89 pavement.
One approach that could be tried--and this is far easier to see using Google Earth (which has adequate point elevation data to make a fly-through of this area useful) rather than Google Maps--is to relocate US 89 to the east of its existing alignment through the slide area, on a new line running behind the ridgeline that rises just to the east of US 89. The rock through this area might be more solid, but one problem (aside from the considerable expense of rock removal) is that there is an even higher ridge to the east, with its own debris slopes that might later give rise to rockfall problems on a relocated US 89. Meanwhile, the sidehill viaduct ADOT is also considering through the slide area might wind up isolated from the rest of US 89 by further slides, since it seems US 89 in this area is basically on a series of talus slopes. I think it will take ADOT some time and a considerable amount of geotechnical investigation to find a foolproof solution.
Construction began Tuesday on paving N20: http://azdailysun.com/news/local/new-page-detour-on-schedule/article_1fbcdb97-fdd6-5769-ac68-a2d7f24d82bb.html
From the ADOT US-89 webpage, a couple of updates:
- N-20 paving (http://azdot.gov/CCPartnerships/News/NRel3502.asp) began in mid-June, and
- ADOT identified a long-term solution (http://azdot.gov/CCPartnerships/News/NRel3521.asp) 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.
Quote from: Rover_0 on July 18, 2013, 03:24:22 PMI 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.
Quote from: J N Winkler on July 18, 2013, 04:11:33 PM
Quote from: Rover_0 on July 18, 2013, 03:24:22 PMI 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?
Quote from: Rover_0 on July 18, 2013, 05:16:02 PMMy 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."
Quote from: J N Winkler on July 18, 2013, 08:07:11 PMADOT 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?
Quote from: NE2 on July 18, 2013, 08:16:07 PMQuote from: J N Winkler on July 18, 2013, 08:07:11 PMADOT 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 (http://www.azdot.gov/Board/PDF/Board_Policies_010411.pdf) (No. 16, "Transfer of state routes") stipulates:
QuoteIn 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.
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.
Quote from: NE2 on July 18, 2013, 10:22:44 PMOK, 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.
Quote from: J N Winkler on July 18, 2013, 08:07:11 PM
Quote from: Rover_0 on July 18, 2013, 05:16:02 PMMy 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.
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
Quote from: Rover_0 on July 19, 2013, 02:12:52 PMFair 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).
QuoteI'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.
Another bump and another update:
US-89T has been opened! (http://azdot.gov/media/News/news-release/2013/08/28/from-navajo-route-20-to-us-89t-shorter-detour-opens-to-page-lake-powell)
(Local story) (http://www.lakepowellchronicle.com/v2_news_articles.php?heading=0&page=77&story_id=3913)
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.
Quote from: J N Winkler on July 18, 2013, 10:44:41 PM
Quote from: NE2 on July 18, 2013, 10:22:44 PMOK, 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
Since I've never been to the desert this may be a stupid question, but why are the fences needed?
Quote from: mapman1071 on August 29, 2013, 10:13:38 PM
AZ 67 does not meet US 89 it Meets US 89A at Jacob Lake, AZ
whoosh
Quote from: vdeane on August 29, 2013, 10:30:50 PM
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.
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.
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.
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.
In that case, the farmers are responsible for the fences ;)
Don't know if this is the signage on the entire US-89T route, but I did find this:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.fnfinc.com%2Fsystem%2Fmain_images%2F36%2Foriginal%2FFinal%2520Sign.png%3F1377530093&hash=b540b0fa6c5e09c1682ce2cb99a1186df05f7877)
Image found here. (http://www.fnfinc.com/projects/89t-detour-cmar)
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. :D
US 89 is scheduled to reopen later this month according to ADOT (http://azdot.gov/media/News/news-release/2015/03/11/us-89-scheduled-to-reopen-this-month-following-2013-landslide-weather-permitting).
US-89 will reportedly re-open today. (http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/arizona/2015/03/26/years-highway-page-reopening/70517008/)
Also, there are some photos with this article. (http://ktar.com/22/1820092/Landslidedamaged-US-89-finally-reopens-in-Arizona)