Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Project Timing And Agency Coordination topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee told downtown‑mile underpass depends on BNSF, Army Corps and ADOT approvals
Summary
Staff said the long‑planned downtown underpass (referred to in the meeting as the Rio/Riyota project) has 90% plans but construction timing depends on BNSF and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; commissioners explored community advocacy and short‑term city actions to improve pedestrian crossings while the larger project remains stalled.
Carlton, the staff presenter, told the committee the downtown mile/Rio underpass concept has reached about 90% design in prior phases but that key implementation decisions and timing remain outside municipal control. "It's BNSF on the downtown mile and then the Army Corps of Engineer on the Rio project," he said, explaining that property ownership and federal permitting have driven multi‑year delays.
Why it matters: The underpass would create a safer, grade‑separated connection across the rail and highway corridor and has been discussed for more than a decade in planning documents; committee members emphasized how the absence of a safe crossing forces pedestrians to take risky routes.
Commissioners and attendees discussed options short of a full underpass: petitions and public lobbying to spur ADOT and BNSF, council engagement and even the possibility of a ballot measure to fund a narrower, city‑led pedestrian crossing. Staff said some quick, city‑funded pedestrian improvements (for example a button‑activated flashing beacon near Phoenix underpass approach) might be feasible independent of the larger BNSF/Army Corps projects but that ADOT and rail permissions would still be required for some alignments.
Staff suggested continuing to coordinate with Mountain Line and to study whether moving a bus stop could create a safer desire line for a new crossing. The committee agreed to pursue additional feasibility follow‑ups and to consult MetroPlan and council channels about advocacy and funding paths.
Ending: No formal vote was taken; staff said they would explore near‑term mitigation options and return with options and potential advocacy pathways.
