Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement 3-1

3 Public Agency Coordination

Agencies, nongovernmental groups, and the public have been engaged throughout the planning 

process for the APRCS, as required by federal law and regulation. CEQ’s NEPA implementing 

regulations require agency and public participation in defining and evaluating the impacts of a 

proposed action and its alternatives (40 CFR §§ 1503.1 and 1506.6). This chapter summarizes 

the regulations that mandate the need for public involvement, agency and public coordination 

to date, the scoping process, public outreach associated with the Alternatives Analysis process, 

and the public hearings held following the release of the Draft Tier 1 EIS. Section 3.7 addresses 

the accommodations made for minority and low-income populations, as well as persons with 

disabilities, to support their involvement in the public involvement process. The final section of 

this chapter discusses the thorough coordination with local agencies and municipalities 

undertaken as part of the APRCS. 

3.1 Regulatory Requirements

The APRCS public and agency participation and coordination efforts meet the requirements 

found in NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and the associated CEQ implementing regulations (40 

CFR §§ 1503.1 and 1506.6). The Tier 1 EIS follows both FRA’s Procedures for Considering 

Environmental Impacts (Environmental Procedures) (64 FR 28545, May 26, 1999) and the FTA 

and FHWA regulations (23 CFR § 771.111) as well as requirements for early coordination with 

appropriate public agencies, public involvement, and project development. 

The APRCS has also followed efficient environmental reviews for project decision-making (23 

U.S.C. § 139) requirements when:

 defining the purpose and need (§139 [f][1]), and 

 determining the range of alternatives to be considered (§139 [f][4][A]).

In addition, 23 U.S.C. §139 (g)(1)(A) requires the preparation of a coordination plan to ensure 

public and agency participation in and comment on the environmental review process for a 

project.

The APRCS has also followed USDOT federal requirements for public participation, including 

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. § 2000D et seq.) and Executive Order (EO) 

12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and LowIncome Populations (1994).

Public and agency coordination efforts were initiated during the scoping phase of the study, 

including during the development and refinement of alternatives. Coordination has continued 

throughout the process.
3 Public Agency Coordination

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement 3-2

3.2 Agency Coordination

3.2.1 Coordination Plan

23 U.S.C. § 139 (g)(1) requires the preparation of a plan for coordinating public and agency 

participation during the environmental review process. The APRCS Coordination Plan was 

published on April 5, 2012 and is included in the Public and Agency Coordination Appendix. The 

purpose of the Coordination Plan was to facilitate and document the lead agencies’ structured 

interaction with the public and other agencies as well as to inform the public and other 

agencies of how that interaction would be accomplished. The Coordination Plan promotes an 

efficient and streamlined environmental review process and project management through 

coordination, scheduling, and early resolution of issues. The Coordination Plan includes a Tribal 

Coordination Plan, which has specific coordination requirements with the various tribes having 

an interest in the study. 

Lead, Cooperating, and Participating Agencies

The Coordination Plan identifies the lead, cooperating, and participating agencies involved in 

the study and defines their roles and responsibilities during the environmental review process. 

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) has been identified as the lead federal agency, with 

ADOT serving as the local sponsor and proponent. Several cooperating and participating 

agencies have also been identified in the coordination plan as well as stakeholders. Table 3-1

summarizes the roles and responsibilities of the lead, proponent, participating, and cooperating 

agencies. The Scoping Report located in the Public and Agency Coordination Appendix includes 

agency correspondence.

Table 3-1. Agency Roles and Responsibilities

Agency

Agency 

Designation

Roles and Responsibilities

FRA USDOT 

Lead

Primary responsibilities are to ensure compliance with NEPA and 

prepare the environmental document. Request participation 

from other agencies, provide project information, conduct 

corridor reviews, hold scoping meetings, provide pre-draft and 

pre-final documents; brief participating agencies prior to issuing 

Draft Tier 1 EIS, ensure documentation is adequate and legally 

sufficient for related decisions, and make final decisions on key 

milestones.
3 Public Agency Coordination

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement 3-3

Table 3-1. Agency Roles and Responsibilities

Agency

Agency 

Designation

Roles and Responsibilities

ADOT Local Sponsor Serves as project sponsor. Share in the responsibility to manage 

the coordination process, prepare the Tier 1 EIS, and provide 

opportunities for public and participating/cooperating agency 

involvement.

FHWA and FTA Cooperating Participate early in the NEPA process and provide comments and 

guidance so that the Tier 1 EIS satisfies their agency 

requirements. Participate in developing the purpose and need 

and alternatives and in the scoping process. Develop information 

and analysis/ provide staff support, participate in public 

involvement activities; review draft environmental documents, 

and provide comments.

Other Federal, 

State, Regional and 

Local Agencies

Participating Participate in developing the purpose and need and alternatives 

and identify potential impacts during scoping and the Draft Tier 1 

EIS. 

Participating agencies include:

Federal Agencies

 Federal Aviation Administration

 National Park Service

 Natural Resource Conservation 

Service

 US Army Corps of Engineers 

 US Bureau of Indian Affairs

 US Bureau of Land Management

 US Bureau of Reclamation

 US Environmental Protection Agency

 US Fish and Wildlife Service 

 US Forest Service: Coronado 

National Forest

 Western Area Power Administration

State Agencies

 Arizona Air National Guard

 Arizona Corporation Commission

 Arizona Department of Corrections

 Arizona Department of 

Environmental Quality

 Arizona Department of Housing

 Arizona Department of Public Safety

 Arizona Game and Fish Department

 Arizona State Land Department

 Arizona State Parks
3 Public Agency Coordination

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement 3-4

Local and Regional Agencies

 Central Arizona Governments 

 City of Apache Junction

 City of Avondale 

 City of Casa Grande

 City of Chandler

 City of Coolidge

 City of El Mirage

 City of Eloy

 City of Glendale

 City of Litchfield Park

 City of Maricopa

 City of Mesa

 City of Peoria

 City of Phoenix

 City of South Tucson

 City of Surprise

 City of Tempe

 City of Tolleson

 City of Tucson

 Laveen Community Council

 Maricopa Association of 

Governments

 Maricopa County Department of 

Transportation

 Maricopa County Flood Control 

District

 Pima Association of Governments

 Pima County

 Pinal County

 Town of Florence

 Town of Gilbert

 Town of Guadalupe

 Town of Marana

 Town of Oro Valley

 Town of Queen Creek

 Town of Youngtown

 Tucson Department of 

Transportation

 Valley Metro Regional Public 

Transportation Authority 

Tribes

 Ak-Chin Indian Community

 Gila River Indian Community 

 Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian 

Community

Transportation and Utilities

 Central Arizona Project

 National Railroad Passenger 

Corporation (AMTRAK)

 Phoenix-Mesa Gateway Airport 

Authority 

 Salt River Project

 Sun Tran Tucson

 Tucson Airport Authority
3 Public Agency Coordination

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement 3-5

Stakeholders such as non-government and private organizations with an interest in the study 

were also identified in the coordination plan and invited to participate in the process.

The lead, cooperating, and participating agencies have worked cooperatively throughout the 

study’s environmental process. During the process, the main goal has been to ensure that all 

agency concerns are satisfactorily addressed.

Agencies identified in the coordination plan were invited to participate by providing input to 

scoping, contributing to development of the purpose and need, providing input into the 

development and refinement of the alternatives, and identifying potential effects. Official 

comment periods for the public as well as for participating and cooperating agencies included 

the scoping period and following issuance of the Draft Tier 1 EIS, which are now complete.

Government and Tribal Coordination

Government agencies throughout the corridor have been actively engaged in the APRCS. These 

agencies were sent scoping information and requests to become participating and cooperating 

agencies during the process. Feedback was solicited from the following government and other 

agencies through direct contact:

 Elected officials

 Governmental agencies and 

stakeholders

 Interested organizations

 Community groups

Additional participating agencies identified in the Coordination Plan and the Tribal Coordination 

Plan included various tribal communities in Arizona: 

 Chemehuevi Indian Tribe

 Cocopah Tribe

 Colorado River Indian Tribes

 Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation

 Fort Mojave Indian Tribe

 Fort Sill Apache Tribe

 Fort Yuma-Quechan Tribe

 Havasupai Tribe

 Hopi Tribe

 Hualapai Tribe

 Kaibab-Paiute Tribe

 Mescalero Apache Tribe

 Moapa Band of Paiute Indians

 Navajo Nation

 Paiute Indian Tribe of Las Vegas

 Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah

 Pascua Yaqui Tribe

 Pueblo of Zuni
3 Public Agency Coordination

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement 3-6

 San Carlos Apache Tribe

 San Juan Southern Paiute Tribe

 Tohono O’odham Nation

 Tonto Apache Indian Community

 Ute Mountain Ute

 White Mountain Apache Tribe

 Yavapai-Apache Nation

 Yavapai-Prescott Tribe

The Scoping Report located in the Public and Agency Coordination Appendix includes a list of 

governments, agencies, and organizations contacted.

3.2.2 Project Kickoff Meeting with Stakeholders

On March 10, 2011, ADOT hosted the ADOT Intercity Rail Study stakeholder kickoff meeting at 

the Sheraton Wild Horse Pass Conference Center in Chandler, Arizona. The kickoff meeting 

introduced the study to participating agencies and stakeholders. The meeting was designed as 

an exposition, with attendees receiving an overview presentation and then participating in 

information-building activities at booths developed around the following themes: 

 Why passenger rail in Arizona?

 Why this project now? 

 Different types of rail

 Mobility benefits

 How would I get to my destination?

 Quality of life

 Economic vitality

 Can rail help shape a community? 

 What about the environment?

 Stay involved

A summary of the project kickoff meeting is included in the Scoping Report located in the Public 

and Agency Coordination Appendix.

3.2.3 Corridor Support Team Meetings

At key points in the study process, ADOT held Corridor Support Team (CST) meetings to gain 

input from stakeholders and help guide the study. The CST was composed of all agencies within 

the corridor, with meetings held in the three study area counties to make project information 
3 Public Agency Coordination

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement 3-7

conveniently accessible. ADOT held three rounds of CST meetings during the project scoping 

and assessment of the alternatives in the study, as identified in the Public Involvement Plan. 

June 2011 CST Meetings

ADOT held the first round of CST meetings in June 2011 on the dates and at the locations listed 

in Table 3-2 below. 

Table 3-2. Corridor Support Team Meetings, June 2011

Date Location Participants

June 21, 2011 Tucson: Tucson Convention Center 31

June 23, 2011 Coolidge: Arizona Central College 24

June 28, 2011 Phoenix: Burton Barr Library 56

Total: 111

ADOT distributed 370 email invitations on June 10, 2011, using Constant Contact, an internetbased email distribution service. The CST invitation list is included in the Scoping Report located 

in the Public and Agency Coordination Appendix.

The June meetings focused on developing the purpose and need (Purpose and Need Workshop) 

and offered participants the opportunity to think critically about a potential alignment of a rail 

line and stations while considering land use and future development throughout the corridor. 

The meetings offered participants the opportunity to talk about criteria that would be used to 

narrow the range of alternatives and shape the final recommendation. 

The meeting included a brief overview of the study, the schedule, and the purpose of the 

workshop. Participants then attended three workshops. 

The Purpose and Need Workshop was designed to help participants understand the study 

process and create an appropriate purpose and need statement. Participants were encouraged 

to discuss passenger rail service in order to effectively identify the need for such a service as 

well as potential benefits and outcomes.

The Range of Alternatives Workshop offered participants the opportunity to think critically 

about a potential rail alignment and station locations while considering land use and future 

development along the corridor. Large maps were used to show corridors of the study, and 

yarn was used to illustrate route alternatives. 

The Evaluation Framework Workshop offered participants the opportunity to talk about criteria 

that would be used to narrow the range of alternatives and shape the final recommendation. 
3 Public Agency Coordination

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement 3-8

Five main categories (community acceptance, safety, environment, financial feasibility, and 

mobility) were offered to help lead the conversation. 

Participants evaluated the meeting at the end of each day.

August 2012 CST Meetings

On July 19, 2012, ADOT sent 450 email invitations for the second round of CST meetings to an 

established list that included staff at local, regional, tribal, and state agencies. Staff included 

representatives from public works, economic and community development, and engineering 

departments. 

The second round of CST meetings was held on August 15, 16, and 23, 2012, at the locations 

listed in Table 3-3. The objective of the meetings was to review the seven preliminary 

alternatives, rate the alternatives, and develop a plan for a local and regional system.

Table 3-3. Corridor Support Team Meetings, August 2012

Date Location Participants

August 15, 2012 Tucson: University of Arizona University Services Annex 24

August 16, 2012 Casa Grande: City of Casa Grande Council Chambers 15

August 23, 2012 Phoenix: Burton Barr Library 42

Total: 81

The first part of the meeting involved a brief overview of the study, the schedule and purpose 

of the study, and information about the input received from the public during the 2011 scoping 

phase. Participants were then given three cards, each with a different question, and asked to 

deposit the card into a colored ballot box corresponding to the appropriate preliminary 

alternative. The alternative rating exercise was followed by a Station Area Planning (SAP) 

exercise. The SAP exercise was designed to inform and educate local community staff on land 

use, urban form, and transportation decisions that needed to be made in order to “ready” their 

communities for a potential future commuter/intercity rail transit station. After the meeting, 

Community Readiness Assessment forms were mailed out to the municipalities to be 

completed and returned to ADOT. The final step was a one-on-one meeting with each 

community along the alternative rail corridors to review their self-assessment forms as well as 

discuss future planning efforts to prepare for potentially hosting a passenger rail station. 

April 2013 CST Meeting

One final CST meeting was held April 13, 2013. The meeting started with a review of the study’s 

progress and a recap of the passenger rail vision, the study process, and the preliminary 
3 Public Agency Coordination

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement 3-9

alternatives being carried forward for further analysis. Three criteria were identified as 

contributing to the selection of the final alternatives: public input, agency input, and technical 

evaluation. Following a review of the alternatives, participants were engaged in an exercise 

designed to shape the final alternatives by identifying areas of concern, modifying alignments 

that had been identified, and making additional comments. 

A complete summary of all CST meetings can be found in the Scoping Report located in the 

Public and Agency Coordination Appendix.

3.3 Public Coordination

3.3.1 ADOT Intercity Rail Study Participation Plan

The ADOT Intercity Rail Study Participation Plan was finalized on October 31, 2011. (The study 

name was later changed to the Arizona Passenger Rail Corridor Study.) This public involvement 

plan was developed for the Draft Tier 1 EIS and addresses public involvement strategies to be 

used throughout the study (see the Public and Agency Coordination Appendix). 

ADOT’s goal was to have a high number of Arizonans participate in the study and provide input 

to ensure public support and to meet the requirements of the NEPA. To meet this goal, ADOT 

sought to make participation convenient by offering a variety of opportunities for personal 

interaction, making the information interesting and meaningful, and soliciting opinions and 

advice from audiences in order to improve the participation process. As public comments have 

been received and evaluated, the public involvement plan has been updated to ensure that 

coordination is timely, thorough, effective, and relevant.

A Corridor Support Team (CST) was originally formed as a direct result of the March 2011 

project kickoff meeting with the intent of keeping public agency partners, the business 

community, and community leaders involved in the study process. The ADOT Intercity Rail 

Study Participation Plan established the schedule and framework for CST meetings, scoping 

meetings / outreach, and the alternatives analysis meetings / outreach. The plan also identified 

participants, values for the participants, opportunities for personal interaction, virtual 

participation options, publicity requirements, and earned media responsibilities. 

The plan also identifies the public meeting notification procedure to follow for the scoping and 

AA processes. Two widely publicized public meetings were held in each of the three counties 

through which the corridor alternatives pass. The public meetings were duplicated in virtual 

format to increase convenience, thereby increasing participation. Those wishing to participate 

had the opportunity to “attend” a meeting online, viewing the same information presented at 

the physical meetings, and submitting input directly through the website. ADOT combined the 
3 Public Agency Coordination

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement 3-10

transcripts from the physical meetings and the input received online for the study record. 

Comments posted to ADOT’s Facebook page related to the study during this time frame also 

were added to the record.

3.3.2 Public Outreach Techniques

To reach as many community members as possible, ADOT used a wide variety of public 

involvement tools throughout the APRCS. Because of the length of the study corridor, emphasis 

was placed on electronic communication and on taking advantage of already scheduled events 

to avoid single-purpose meetings that often limit participation. Informational materials 

produced on an ongoing basis included public meeting announcements, brochures, media 

releases, fact sheets, and preference surveys that have helped indicate public preferences 

throughout the AA and Tier 1 EIS development. ADOT has made these materials public on the 

ADOT website and distributed them at public events.

ADOT held corridor-wide community status updates at public events and with public and 

environmental resource agency staffs as the alternatives were refined and less effective options 

were removed from further study. Since March 2011, over 10,000 project preference surveys 

have been completed by members of the public, both in person and through the project 

website. These surveys have led to a better understanding of what individuals within the 

corridor communities believe is important and which alternatives best meet their expectations.

3.3.3 Identification of Environmental Justice Populations during Public Outreach

Public and agency outreach was undertaken throughout the corridor and communicated widely 

by a variety of outlets and sources during the study. At a Tier 1 level of analysis, with no specific 

alignment or project identified and only a broad corridor definition, identifying specific 

environmental justice populations that could be disproportionately affected was not feasible. 

Potentially affected minority and low-income populations represent about 45 percent and 

16 percent, respectively, of the study corridor, but insufficient information exists to identify 

how many of them, if any, could be affected. As a result, the Tier 1 EIS relied on broad 

demographic information for public outreach, as well as the discussion on Title VI and 

Environmental Justice in Chapter 5, Existing Conditions and Environmental Consequences, 

rather than a targeted localized analysis to identify potentially affected populations. In Tier 2 

analyses, with a specific alignment or alignments under consideration, the effects of a project 

on environmental justice populations would be more thoroughly investigated following FTA’s 

Environmental Justice Policy Guidance (FTA 2012) and incorporated into the public involvement 

element of the work.
3 Public Agency Coordination

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement 3-11

3.4 Scoping for the Draft Tier 1 EIS

Scoping was conducted early in the APRCS process to identify major issues and help establish 

the scope of the NEPA analysis. The main goals of scoping were to:

 Inform stakeholders and the public about the APRCS and its intent

 Identify key concerns of stakeholders and the public regarding passenger rail service in 

this region

 Identify environmental issues

 Identify opportunities beyond those already presented in for public input 

Scoping meetings were designed for two audiences, resulting in two separate scoping meeting 

agendas: one for agencies and one for the general public. 

Meeting times and locations were advertised through a variety of avenues including but not 

limited to the Federal Register, local newspapers in each affected county, direct invitations, 

social media, the ADOT website, email, television, and radio. 

3.4.1 Notification Techniques

Notice of Intent

FRA published the Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare a Tier 1 EIS in the October 6, 2011, Federal 

Register. 

The NOI alerted interested parties of the EIS process; solicited public and agency input on the 

scope of a Tier 1 EIS; and provided information on the nature of the analysis to be conducted, the 

purpose and need for the proposed action, the possible alternatives to be considered in the 

preparation of the Tier 1 EIS, and potentially significant impacts to the natural and built 

environment associated with those alternatives. The notice invited public participation in the EIS 

process. The dates, times, and locations of public scoping meetings were announced in the NOI 

along with comment submission directions and the comment closing date. All interested parties 

were invited to submit comments on or before November 4, 2011. The comment period was later 

extended to November 14, 2011.

The NOI reported the date, time, and location of public scoping meetings to be held in each of 

the three counties associated with the study:

 Maricopa County - October 11, 2011. Burton Barr Central Library, 1221 North Central 

Avenue, Phoenix, AZ, from 3 p.m. to 7 p.m.
3 Public Agency Coordination

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement 3-12

 Pima County - October 13, 2011. Pima Community College, Northwest Campus, 7600 

North Shannon Road, Tucson, AZ, from 3 p.m. to 7 p.m.

 Pinal County - October 19, 2011. Central Arizona College, Signal Peak Campus, 8470 

North Overfield Road, Coolidge, AZ from 3 p.m. to 7 p.m.

A copy of the NOI is included in the Scoping Report located in the Public and Agency 

Coordination Appendix.

Legal Advertisements and Additional Scoping Notification

In addition to the advertisement in the Federal Register, newspaper legal advertisements were 

placed in daily newspapers associated with each of the four counties. These advertisements not 

only alerted the agencies and public to the NOI public hearings but also invited interested 

parties to attend open houses and events on the same subject on other dates in other locations 

within the counties. 

Paid legal and display advertisements, as listed in the Public and Agency Coordination Appendix, 

announced the public scoping open houses and events in local and regional newspapers 

between September and October 2011 to comply with NEPA requirements. Table 3-4 lists the 

newspapers and dates of publication for these advertisements.

Table 3-4. Public Scoping Open House and Event Newspaper Advertisements

Newspaper Publication Dates Advertisement Type

Arizona Daily Star September 22 and 27, 2011 Legal Ad

Arizona Republic September 22 and 27, 2011 Legal Ad

TriValley Central September 21 and 22, 2011 Legal Ad

TriValley Central October 12, 2011 Display Ad

The legal advertisements alerted the public that FRA, FTA, and ADOT were preparing an AA and 

EIS to study the proposed development of passenger rail service between Tucson and Phoenix. 

The notice invited the public to several open houses and events to be held in Pima, Pinal, and 

Maricopa counties in order to solicit public input on the scope of the project. The legal ads 

offered special assistance, such as sign language interpretation, and provided a contact person 

so that special arrangements could be made at the open houses and events. Copies of the legal 

advertisements are included in the Public and Agency Coordination Appendix.

Extensive email list distribution, media releases, social media communication, and earned 

media resulting from interest in the study were relied upon to make the scoping process known 
3 Public Agency Coordination

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement 3-13

to interested stakeholders and the public. Television, radio, and print/online media also 

covered the initial meeting and the scoping process. The details of the notification effort are 

listed in the Scoping Report located in the Public and Agency Coordination Appendix.

Additional information regarding publicity and notices is included in the Public and Agency 

Coordination Appendix.

3.4.2 Scoping Activities and Events

Agency Scoping

On October 4, 2011, ADOT distributed 111 scoping meeting invitations to state and local 

agencies as well as to Tribes. Attachments to the meeting invitations included a meeting 

agenda, study segment map, description of the segment areas, schedule of study milestones, 

comment form, and a state map showing the study area. All the identified stakeholders and CST 

members were invited to participate in the meeting and webinar.

The agency scoping meeting was held at ADOT’s downtown Phoenix campus on October 11, 

2011. This meeting was also conducted as a webinar to accommodate participants throughout 

the study area. 

The meeting started with a PowerPoint presentation which described the study, the AA/Tier 1 

EIS process, and the study objectives. This was followed by a presentation of the environmental 

issues known to date followed by a discussion of the agency mandate, the agency’s decisionmaking process, and the agency’s key interests. The final three segments of the meeting 

included a presentation of the potential controversial issues associated with the passenger rail 

study, how to ensure a successful agency coordination process, and specific recommended 

actions for moving forward. The meeting was then opened for discussion followed by a 

question and answer period. 

A total of 66 agency representatives attended the meeting in person, and 34 participated via 

webinar. During the meeting, questions were asked about noise modeling, required 

agreements with the Gila River Indian Community regarding the proposed corridor through 

their land, ridership projections, whether FTA would allow ADOT to conduct ridership modeling, 

the point at which changes can be made to the plan, and the time frame for the EIS process. 

By the end of the day on November 14, 2011, 14 agencies and stakeholders submitted written 

comments to ADOT. Eight of the comments were in letter or memo format, four were on the 

supplied comment forms, and two were email messages. 
3 Public Agency Coordination

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement 3-14

Most comments were regarding flooding concerns, impacts to wildlife corridors, habitat 

impacts, and impacts to priority vulnerable species.

The agency scoping meeting summary and examples of the invitation and materials distributed 

are included in the Scoping Report located in the Public and Agency Coordination Appendix. 

Public Scoping Open Houses and Events

ADOT held scoping open houses and events in Pima, Pinal, and Maricopa counties beginning on 

October 7, 2011, with the final event held on November 1, 2011. A total of 141 people signed in 

at the scoping open houses, and hundreds more stopped by ADOT booths at community events 

and spoke with ADOT members. 

The scoping process included eight public scoping open houses and four public events. The 

locations are shown in Table 3-5 and Table 3-6, respectively. 

Table 3-5. Public Scoping Open House Locations

Date City Location/Address Attendees

10/11/11 Phoenix Burton Barr Library: Auditorium

1221 North Central Avenue, Phoenix, AZ

51

10/13/11 Tucson Pima Community College: Northwest Campus

7600 North Shannon Road, Tucson, AZ

16

10/18/11 Florence Town of Florence Town Hall

775 North Main Street, Florence AZ

7

10/19/11 Coolidge Central Arizona College: Signal Peak Campus

8470 North Overfield Road, Coolidge, AZ

6

10/24/11 Chandler Chandler Downtown Library

22 S. Delaware Street, Chandler, AZ

13

10/25/11 Eloy City of Eloy Council Chambers

628 North Main Street, Eloy, AZ

9

10/27/11 Casa Grande City of Casa Grande Council Chambers

510 East Florence Blvd., Casa Grande, AZ

21

11/1/11 Mesa Mesa Main Library

64 East First Street, Mesa, AZ

18

The scoping open houses provided participants an opportunity to ask the project team 

questions as well as submit feedback. These open houses featured displays and exhibits 

detailing the analysis area and AA and NEPA process. Participants were asked to register to 
3 Public Agency Coordination

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement 3-15

receive future communication follow-up and were given an informative booklet and comment 

form.

A primary element of participation was a video lasting slightly less than 2 minutes. A running 

video presentation provided an overview of the NEPA and AA process. The video was available 

online and on a digital video disc (DVD). The video was accompanied by a 12-page booklet and 

a 12-question survey. The booklet and survey, which contained basic project information as 

well as the 12 questions, were available in hard copy and online. The online survey was 

available between October 7 and November 14, 2011. The public scoping booklet, scoping

comment form, copies of the scoping event exhibits, and photos of the events are included in 

the Scoping Report located in the Public and Agency Coordination Appendix.

In addition to traditional public open houses, ADOT sought out and, when possible, attended 

community events scheduled during the scoping period. To supplement the open houses, 

exhibits were set up at selected local community events within the study area. Participation in 

these events maximized ADOT’s ability to engage the public in their local surroundings. The 

table below includes the locations of these public events.

Table 3-6. Public Scoping Events

Date Location/Address

10/7/11 University of Arizona: Campus Mall

1303 East University Boulevard, Tucson, AZ

10/8/11 Second Saturdays Downtown

44 North Stone Avenue, Tucson, AZ

10/12/11 Arizona State University: Campus Mall

Tempe, AZ 85287

10/14/11 through 

10/16/11 (3-day event)

Tucson Meet Yourself - Event Exhibitor Booth

Pima County Plaza, 130 West Congress Street, Tucson AZ

Additional Scoping Activities

Project Website

The ADOT project website (www.azdot.gov/passengerrail) also served as a primary tool for 

communication during the scoping process. Stakeholders and members of the public could

access additional study information, maps, and meeting materials on this site. The survey 

distributed at open houses and events was also made available for electronic completion on the 

website.
3 Public Agency Coordination

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement 3-16

The following information is available on the website:

 Previous study overview documents

 Environmental process information

 Information about different types of rail transit and technologies

 Case studies about the impact of passenger rail service

 Stakeholder meeting presentations

 Statement of project need

 Calendar of events

 CST meeting material

 Maps of corridor alternatives

 Do-It-Yourself Participation Kits

To make participation as accessible as possible, and understanding that not all people have 

Internet access or the ability to attend a meeting or event, ADOT also offered Do-It-Yourself 

participation kits, which included a DVD of the short project video, copies of the scoping 

booklet and comment form, and postage-paid envelopes to return the comment form. People 

were able to request kits for as many people as they would like by calling the project hotline 

(see below), emailing the project team, faxing ADOT’s Community Relations Division, or mailing 

a written request to ADOT Community Relations. A total of 31 kits were requested and mailed.

Project Hotline

An automated project hotline was established as an additional means of soliciting feedback. 

Respondents were free to leave comments for the study team on this hotline. All calls received 

were requests for Do-It-Yourself Participation Kits, which were shipped upon request. 

3.4.3 Public Scoping Comments

Between October 7, 2011, and November 14, 2011, ADOT received 3,075 written comment

submissions. This includes 2,784 survey responses along with 291 additional comment

submissions that did not follow the survey format. The survey results are presented in the

Scoping Report located in the Public and Agency Coordination Appendix.

Summary of Comments

In general, comments reflected a need for an additional transportation option between Tucson 

and Phoenix and a preference for rail. Traveling I-10 by car is often not viewed favorably due to 
3 Public Agency Coordination

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement 3-17

heavy truck traffic, dust storms, and crashes, making many people likely to avoid the trip. 

Respondents indicated that if they had a viable alternative, they would make the trip more 

frequently.

The primary themes identified from the responses listed in Table 3-7 helped the APRCS team 

analyze the data. Many of the 3,075 respondents had multiple comments in their submissions, 

yielding 14,218 unique public scoping comments that pertained to these six primary categories. 

Additional unique scoping comments did not fit into these common themes.

For each of the six key comment categories, an individual table of subcategories was prepared. 

These are included in the Scoping Report located in the Public and Agency Coordination

Appendix. The information provided a good indication of the issues that need to be addressed

in the technical analysis, which is a primary purpose of scoping.

Among the comments received, slightly over 6 percent indicated opposition to some element of 

passenger rail between Tucson and Phoenix. The majority of the opposed comments cited: 

 Concerns about using taxpayer dollars to fund a rail project

 Fixing problems on I-10 before building something that is not an absolute necessity 

Table 3-7. Public Scoping Comment Themes

Comment Category # Unique Comments % of Total Unique Comments

Mobility 6,858 48%

Environment 1,858 13%

Operational Characteristics 1,841 13%

Safety and Security 1,720 12%

Financial Feasibility 1,199 8%

Economic Development 742 5%

Total Comments in Comment 

Theme Categories

14,218

Mobility

Forty-eight percent of the comments received related to mobility. Mobility between Tucson 

and Phoenix is unreliable because I-10, the only major corridor between the two major urban 

areas, is congested; and, as such, an alternative transportation option is viewed as an 

improvement to mobility. 
3 Public Agency Coordination

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement 3-18

Environment

Thirteen percent of the comments received related to the environment. In general, 

respondents did not view a new high-capacity travel choice as having a negative impact. The 

exception to this would be if the facility were located outside an existing transportation 

corridor. People who favor passenger rail said they would oppose a system that would forge a 

new corridor and adversely affect the natural environment. Air quality improvements were 

listed most often in terms of environmental issues, and “green” or “sustainable” were words 

used to describe a desirable transportation option.

Operational Characteristics

Thirteen percent of the comments received related to operational characteristics. People said 

they wanted a train with fewer stops that can travel at a higher speed.

In addition, responses frequently mentioned intermodal connections at stations. Although the 

light rail system in the metropolitan Phoenix area has expanded the Arizona public’s view with 

regard to public transportation, more than 3,500 comments expressed concern about reaching 

a final destination after alighting a train. People indicated that they would ride the train if 

connections were available but communicated a sense of skepticism because these connections 

are not already in place. 

Safety and Security

Twelve percent of the comments received related to safety and security. Driving on I-10 is 

viewed as challenging. Due to high traffic volumes, high truck traffic volumes, accidents, and 

dust storms, many people said they feel unsafe making the trip by car. A desire for another 

transportation option was clear in the comments.

Financial Feasibility

Eight percent of the comments received related to financial feasibility. Comments relating to 

financial feasibility tended to correlate with respondents indicating an opposition to rail, 

although some (approximately 1 percent) were in favor of or neutral toward rail and mentioned

financial feasibility as a factor.

Economic Development

Five percent of the comments received related to the economic development. Respondents 

expressed the opinion that a link exists between the development of a transportation option 

and economic development, primarily indicating that such an option would spur global 

competitiveness and economic growth.
3 Public Agency Coordination

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement 3-19

3.5 Alternatives Analysis (AA) Public Outreach

In addition to the extensive scoping outreach conducted, two phases of public participation, 

which included extensive communication with stakeholders and the public throughout the 

corridor, were held during the preparation of the AA and leading to the identification of the 

alternatives to be analyzed in the Tier 1 EIS. The outreach programs were held in Fall 2012 and 

Spring 2014 at public venues in conjunction with scheduled events in communities within the 

corridor. These responses helped to reduce the number of alternatives considered during the 

evaluation process from the approximately 150 possible original corridors to 7, and eventually 

to the final 2 corridor alternatives evaluated in detail in the Tier 1 EIS.

3.5.1 Notification of Public Outreach

Several strategies were employed to encourage community participation and receive feedback 

from Arizonans during the AA process. Publicity and notices are detailed below and are 

included in the Scoping Report located in the Public and Agency Coordination Appendix.

Paid display advertisements announced the beginning of the outreach process and directed 

readers to the study website for dates and locations where information would be available.

Table 3-8, below, details the publications and dates of these advertisements.

Table 3-8. October 2012 Outreach Newspaper Advertisements

Newspaper Publication Date

Apache Junction News October 15, 2012

Arizona Daily Star October 10, 2012

Arizona Republic October 14, 2012

Coolidge Examiner October 10, 2012

East Valley Tribune October 10, 2012

Eloy Enterprise October 11, 2012

Florence Reminder/Blade Tribune October 11, 2012

Maricopa Monitor October 12, 2012

TriValley Dispatch October 10, 2012

Tucson Weekly October 11, 2012

3.5.2 Alternatives Analysis Events

The AA process included ADOT participation in an information booth at 16 community events.

As a result of the efforts, ADOT was able to reach out to community members who would not 
3 Public Agency Coordination

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement 3-20

have otherwise participated. Information booklets, reporting what was heard from the public 

the previous year, maps of all seven alternatives being considered at this stage of the study, a 

high-level evaluation of the alternatives, a comment form, and self-addressed prepaid envelope 

were distributed at the events. In total, ADOT passed out 1,909 booklets. Additionally, the 

events provided participants an opportunity to ask ADOT questions regarding the study as well 

as submit feedback. 

Each information booth was staffed by two to three ADOT representatives, accompanied by the 

following displays and information:

 10-foot by 10-foot tent with a 6-foot table

 “Add your voice” branding banner

 Two A-frame display boards of the alternatives 

 Detailed table display of all seven alternatives

 Informational takeaway booklet with comment form, postage-paid envelope, and link to 

the project website/electronic participation materials

 Promotional items printed with project branding such as drink cozies, keychain 

flashlights, magnetic chip clips, and microfiber eyeglass cleaning wipes 

The information booklet and the comment form are included in the Scoping Report located in 

the Public and Agency Coordination Appendix. Photos of the events are also included in the 

Scoping Report. The locations and dates of events attended by ADOT members are listed in 

Table 3-9.

Table 3-9. Fall 2012-Spring 2013 Outreach Events

Date City Location/Address

10/6/12 Coolidge Coolidge Days

San Carlos Park, Coolidge

10/12/12 -

10/14/12

Tucson Tucson Meet Yourself

Downtown Tucson

10/17/12 Phoenix CityScape Lunch Hour

Washington and 1st Avenue in Downtown Phoenix

10/20/12 Maricopa Stagecoach Days

Pacana Park, Maricopa

10/27/12 Gilbert Gilbert Fall Music and Halloween Festival

Freestone Park, Gilbert
3 Public Agency Coordination

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement 3-21

Table 3-9. Fall 2012-Spring 2013 Outreach Events

Date City Location/Address

10/27/12 –

10/28/12

Phoenix Arizona State Fair

Arizona State Fairgrounds, Phoenix

11/6/12 Casa 

Grande

Art in the Alley

“The Alley” behind the Cook E Jar Restaurant, Casa Grande

11/9/12 Mesa Mesa 2nd Friday Night Out

Main Street, Mesa

11/10/12 Tucson U of A on the Mall

University of Arizona Campus, Tucson

11/10/12 Tucson Tucson Second Saturday

Downtown Tucson, Tucson

11/10/12 Chandler Rock the Block

Dr. A.J. Chandler Park

11/14/12 Tempe ASU on the Mall

Arizona State University Campus

11/16/12 Gilbert 28th Annual Gilbert 5k and 1-Mile Run

Freestone Park, Gilbert

11/17/12 Phoenix Harvest Festival 

Encanto Park, Phoenix

12/1/12 Marana Marana Holiday Festival and Tree Lighting

Municipal Complex Courtyard, Marana

12/2/12 Phoenix F.Q. Story Historic District Home Tours

Downtown Phoenix

12/8/12-

12/9/12

Mesa Mesa Arts Festival

Mesa Arts Center

3/16/13-

3/18/13

Sacaton Mul-Chu-Tha Rodeo and Fair

Sacaton Fairgrounds

3.5.3 Project Website

The project website (www.azdot.gov/passengerrail) continued as a primary tool for 

communication during the Fall 2012 outreach process. Stakeholders and community members 

could access additional study information, including potential alternatives. Over the course of 

the two-month outreach process, the website was viewed 23,591 times.

Stakeholders and community members could access additional study information that had been 

added since the scoping process.
3 Public Agency Coordination

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement 3-22

3.5.4 Results of the Fall 2012-Spring 2013 Public Outreach

Community outreach efforts generated a significant amount of data and survey responses 

between October and December 2012. Public involvement statistics from this period include:

 1,909 Information booklets were distributed

 3,599 survey responses were collected, both physically and online

 543 emails in support of rail were received

 11 formal letters were submitted

 922 individuals asked to be included in the study email distribution list

In general, comments reflected strong support for passenger rail between Tucson and Phoenix.

Many respondents felt that rail is the future and were happy to see that alternative travel 

options were being studied. It was clear that a balance between time of travel and serving the 

most population centers was important, along with financial feasibility. The following pages 

present the information collected from the survey responses. 

Question 1: For each alternative, please indicate your preference for each one using one of the 

following rankings: 

1. Strongly in Favor of

2. In Favor of

3. Neither in Favor of nor Against

4. Against

5. Strongly Against

The main focus of the surveying instrument was to identify which of the seven alternatives from 

this stage of the study were favored among the community. Below are trends ADOT heard from 

the community at the events.

Blue Alternative: 

 Better than nothing 

 Could serve as an interim solution to build ridership 

Green Alternative: 

 Provides fast travel time and most direct route
3 Public Agency Coordination

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement 3-23

Orange Alternative: 

 Connects Tucson International, Phoenix-Mesa Gateway, and Phoenix Sky Harbor 

airports

 Connects universities and the East Valley

Purple Alternative: 

 Connects Cities of Casa Grande, Chandler, and Tempe

 Provides an economic development opportunity for the GRIC

 Route provides a balance between the East Valley, I-10, and communities to the west 

Red Alternative: 

 Provides the best access to Maricopa

 Potential to connect to existing Amtrak station

Teal Alternative: 

 Connects population centers, including the East Valley

 Proposes fewer stops than the other routes through the East Valley 

Yellow Alternative:

 Recognition that it could use existing UP right-of-way

 Connects population centers in the East Valley

Questions 2 and 3: In what city/town would you most likely get on the train or bus and get off 

the train or bus?

The survey asked participants their home and work zip codes to identify the locations from 

which responses were provided. Using only the home zip code data, the team identified that 

98 percent of those who provided this information live in Maricopa, Pima, and Pinal counties;

and 59 percent live in Tucson, Phoenix, and Mesa. 

Table 3-10 and Table 3-11, respectively, indicate the number of responses received based on 

city and county.

Table 3-10. Fall 2012-Spring 2013 Responses by City 

City Responses

Percent of 

Total

City Responses

Percent of 

Total

1. Tucson 904 39.3% 25. Eloy 8 0.3%

2. Phoenix 367 16.0% 26. Laveen 7 0.3%

3. Mesa 119 5.2% 27. Paradise Valley 7 0.3%
3 Public Agency Coordination

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement 3-24

Table 3-10. Fall 2012-Spring 2013 Responses by City 

City Responses

Percent of 

Total

City Responses

Percent of 

Total

4. Tempe 96 4.2% 28. Sun City 6 0.3%

5. Chandler 91 4.0% 29. Sahuarita 6 0.3%

6. Gilbert 86 3.7% 30. Gold Canyon 6 0.3%

7. Casa Grande 86 3.7% 31. Cave Creek 5 0.2%

8. Scottsdale 64 2.8% 32. Fountain Hills 5 0.2%

9. Maricopa 61 2.7% 33. Buckeye 4 0.2%

10. San Tan Valley 49 2.1% 34. El Mirage 4 0.2%

11. Glendale 49 2.1% 35. New River 3 0.1%

12. Queen Creek 38 1.7% 36. Tolleson 3 0.1%

13. Surprise 31 1.3% 37. Waddell 3 0.1%

14. Peoria 30 1.3% 38. Oracle 3 0.1%

15. Marana 25 1.1% 39. Sacaton 3 0.1%

16. Vail 22 1.0% 40. Kearny 2 0.1%

17. Goodyear 21 0.9% 41. Unknown 2 0.1%

18. Florence 15 0.7% 42. Luke Air Force Base 1 0.0%

19. Coolidge 12 0.5% 43. Wittman 1 0.0%

20. Avondale 11 0.5% 44. Youngtown 1 0.0%

21. Litchfield Park 11 0.5% 45. Cortaro 1 0.0%

22. Apache Junction 11 0.5% 46. Nogales 1 0.0%

23. Green Valley 9 0.4% 47. Mammoth 1 0.0%

24. Arizona City 8 0.3%

TOTAL 2,299

Table 3-11. Fall 2012-Spring 2013 Responses by County

County Responses Percent of Total

Maricopa 1,065 45.32%

Pima 968 41.12%

Pinal 266 11.32%

Other 51 2.17%

TOTAL 2,350

Taking a closer look at the responses, ADOT used zip code data to identify the cities and towns 

from which respondents were commuting back and forth. The top 10 cities and towns of 

commutes are detailed in Table 3-12. The data in Table 3-12 show that a majority of the
3 Public Agency Coordination

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement 3-25

respondents live and work in the same city. A total of 19 respondents stated they commute 

between Tucson and Phoenix (13 originating in Phoenix and 6 originating in Tucson).

Table 3-12. Top Ten Commute Cities

Origin City

Destination City

Casa 

Grande

Chandler Gilbert Maricopa Mesa Phoenix

San Tan 

Valley

Scottsdale Tempe Tucson

Casa Grande 48 3 0 0 0 5 0 1 3 2

Chandler 1 38 2 1 5 22 0 4 15 2

Gilbert 0 7 33 1 8 14 0 2 9 1

Maricopa 2 4 0 25 2 13 0 1 3 1

Mesa 1 1 5 0 64 24 0 4 12 2

Phoenix 2 5 0 2 4 287 0 20 17 6

San Tan 

Valley

0 2 3 0 6 7 20 2 3 0

Scottsdale 0 1 0 0 0 19 0 33 7 1

Tempe 1 1 2 1 2 17 0 6 44 2

Tucson 0 0 1 0 4 13 0 4 2 862

Question 4: What ways would you plan on arriving at the rail or bus station to begin your trip?

ADOT asked participants what modes of transportation would be used to access rail or bus 

stations. Table 3-13 shows the results.

Table 3-13. Responses by Access Mode

Mode

Park 

and 

Ride

Carpool 

or 

Vanpool

Dropped 

Off 

(personal 

vehicle)

Connecting 

Light Rail 

Station

Bus or Public 

Transportation

Street 

Car

Bike Walk

Responses 2,367 426 1,912 746 722 326 553 377

Percentage 31.9% 5.7% 25.7% 10.0% 9.7% 4.4% 7.4% 5.1%

Participants were asked to select their top three choices. Potential user preference by access mode 

is shown graphically in Figure 3-1. The top three modes of arriving at a bus or rail station are: 

1. Park and Ride

2. Dropped Off (Personal Vehicle)

3. Connecting Light Rail Station
3 Public Agency Coordination

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement 3-26

Figure 3-1. Responses by Access Mode

Question 5: What do you need to have available at the rail or bus station to arrive at your final 

destination? Table 3-14 shows the distribution of the departure mode at the destination end of 

the trip.

Table 3-14. Responses by Departure Mode

Mode

Rental 

Car

Connecting 

Light Rail 

Station

Bus or Public 

Transportation

Street 

Car

Local 

Shuttle 

Service

Taxi

Bike 

Rentals

Bike 

Amenities

Pedestrian 

Pathways

Responses 1,041 1,955 1,984 890 1,451 1,023 334 459 690

Percentage 38.4% 72.1% 73.1% 32.8% 53.5% 37.7% 12.3% 16.9% 25.4%
3 Public Agency Coordination

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement 3-27

Participants were asked to select their top three choices. Potential user preference by 

departure mode is shown graphically in Figure 3-2. The top three modes of departing from a 

bus or rail station to complete a trip were: 

1. Bus

2. Connecting Light Rail Station

3. Local Shuttle Service

Figure 3-2. Responses by Departure Mode

Question 6: Rank the following criteria that will be used to help evaluate the alternative, with 

one being the most important and six the least important: 

The order in which the priorities were ranked by participants is as follows: 

4. Community Acceptance

5. Financial Feasibility

6. Safety

7. Mobility

8. Environment

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

80.00%
3 Public Agency Coordination

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement 3-28

9. Operating Characteristics

The results of the participant preferences are shown in Table 3-15.

Table 3-15. Priority of Evaluation Categories

Ranking Value 1 2 3 4 5 6

Average 

Ranking

Community Acceptance 723 510 405 359 361 379 3.10

Environment 431 429 495 410 429 576 3.62

Financial Feasibility 625 545 495 418 328 356 3.13

Operating 

Characteristics

325 413 502 547 496 419 3.64

Mobility 437 502 434 442 505 416 3.48

Safety 568 401 446 467 481 457 3.45

3.5.5 Spring 2014 Alternatives Analysis Public Outreach

The public and agency outreach associated with the final alternatives began in the spring of 

2014. During the intervening time, the alternatives and the information to be shared during the 

public outreach program were further refined to help gain as much public and agency input 

about the key factors identified in the Level 2 outreach.

Notification of Public Outreach

In the spring of 2014, public comments, stakeholder input, and technical analysis led to the 

narrowing of seven alternatives in Level 2 to three final alternatives in Level 3. The outreach 

effort in the spring of 2014 focused on eliciting the public’s and agency’s preferences among 

the three remaining options. 

News releases were issued by ADOT on March 4, April 2, and May 12, 2014, to encourage 

participation in the outreach process. These news releases resulted in extensive media 

coverage in press, radio, and television. At least 24 media sources produced articles on the 

study and broadcast them throughout communities in the corridor.

Alternatives Analysis Events

As in previous levels of the outreach program, the AA public process included ADOT

participation in an information booth at 13 community events throughout the corridor as 

indicated in Table 3-16. An updated information booklet was prepared with the latest 

information available from the study, including the findings from earlier outreach, maps of the 

three Final Alternatives with defining characteristics and performance information, a comment 
3 Public Agency Coordination

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement 3-29

form, and self-addressed prepaid envelope. These were distributed at the events and available 

on the ADOT project website. In total, ADOT distributed 1,400 booklets during the Level 3 

Outreach. Additionally, as before, the events provided participants an in-person opportunity to 

discuss the project with study team members as well as submit feedback. 

Table 3-16. Spring 2014 Outreach Events

Date City Location/Address

3/7/14

3/8/14

Chandler Ostrich Festival

2250 S. McQueen Road, Chandler

3/15/14 Gila River Mul-Chu Tha

Sacaton Fairgrounds

3/28/14

3/29/14

3/30/14

Tempe Tempe Festival of the Arts

Mill Avenue, Tempe

4/5/14 Marana Marana Main Street Festival

Main Street and Civic Center Drive, Marana

4/5/14 Peoria Peoria Arts Festival

Osuna Park, 10510 N 83rd, Peoria

4/12/14 Gilbert Gilbert Global Village Festival

Gilbert Civic Center

4/15/14 Mesa ADOT SR 24 Opening Event

State Route 24, Mesa

4/16/14 Tucson City of Tucson Downtown

Stone Avenue and Pennington Street

4/17/14 Tucson University of Arizona

University Blvd. and Tyndall Blvd., Tucson

4/18/14

4/19/14

Tucson Pima County Fair

Old Pueblo Hall, Pima County Fairgrounds, Tucson

4/26/14 Mesa Celebrate Mesa

Pioneer Park, 526 E. Main Street, Mesa

5/15/14 Phoenix CityScape

Washington Street at 1st Street, Phoenix

6/17/14 Florence Florence Chamber of Commerce

Holiday Inn Express, 240 W. Highway 287

Project Website

As with earlier outreach phases, the project website (www.azdot.gov/passengerrail) continued 

to be a primary tool for communication of project-related information. Interested citizens could 
3 Public Agency Coordination

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement 3-30

access additional study information at any time and could submit project preferences and 

surveys. Over the course of the four-month outreach process between March and June 2014, 

7,873 individuals viewed the website.

Results of the Spring 2014 Outreach Effort

During Level 3 public outreach, 1,400 information booklets were distributed; and 5,085 surveys, 

plus an additional 43 emails/letters, were received. The comments were generally consistent 

with previous outreach findings, with strong support for a rail option between Tucson and 

Phoenix. The public placed a high priority on short travel time, system reliability, and 

minimizing the cost of the trip for passengers. 

Paired Attribute Comparison

For the Level 3 Outreach, an additional technique was used to collect more focused information 

about project priorities from survey participants. In cooperation with the University of Arizona, 

the survey instrument used in Level 3 was modified to include a paired comparison of some of 

the proposed rail alternatives’ attributes to assess preferences in more depth than a simple 

question about preferred alternatives. The surveys distributed included random questions 

about the critical features or characteristics of the study alternatives compared to each other to 

test the strength of the preferences when asked in different contexts. For example, a 

comparison of travel speed to the cost of the trip might assign a higher priority to trip cost, but 

a comparison of travel speed to reliability of service might suggest travel speed is more 

important. By comparing the results among select pairings, the priorities for various features 

among the participants can be expected to emerge. While the survey was not designed to be 

statistically valid, the large number of responses adds a level of confidence to the results and 

provides insight into what attributes associated with a passenger rail system are most valued.

On a straight preference basis, among the three Final Alternatives, excluding the No Build 

Alternative, the Yellow Alternative is supported by 46 percent of the nearly 4,000 participants 

who responded to that question. The Green was preferred by 32 percent and the Orange by 

22 percent. In addition to the overall preference, reviewing the attribute (key decision variable) 

comparisons produced the results shown in Table 3-17.

Reliability is the clear priority for those responding to the survey, while construction cost and 

impacts to private property are less important. More detail about this process can be found in 

the Public and Agency Coordination Appendix.
3 Public Agency Coordination

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement 3-31

Table 3-17. Paired Comparisons of Select Features

Features Selected for Comparison Number Percent of Total

Policy Q1 – Travel Time vs. Cost of Construction

Provide fastest overall travel time 1,203 79.20%

Limit cost of construction 316 20.80%

Policy Q2 – Reliability vs. Impacts to Private Property

Limit service disruptions and maintains schedule reliability 1,208 79.63%

Limit impacts to private property 309 20.37%

Policy Q3 – Cost of Trip vs. Cost of Construction

Limit the cost of the trip 1,301 78.71%

Limit the cost of construction 352 21.29%

Policy Q4 – Reliability vs. Cost of Trip

Limit service disruptions and maintains schedule reliability 1,352 81.59%

Limit the cost of a trip 305 18.41%

Policy Q5 – Cost of Construction vs. Impacts to Private Property

Limit the cost of construction 545 54.12%

Limit impacts to private property 462 45.88%

Policy Q6 – Cost of Trip vs. Travel Time

Limit cost of trip 425 42.00%

Provide fastest overall travel time 587 58.00%

The results in Figure 3-3 show the significance of the variables among the respondents.

Figure 3-3. Relative Weights of Key Decision Variables

0.54

0.2

0.16

0.05 0.06

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

Reliability Travel Time Travel cost Construction Cost Impacts
3 Public Agency Coordination

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement 3-32

3.6 Public Hearings

As part of the NEPA process, FRA and ADOT circulated the Draft Tier 1 EIS for a 50-day review 

and comment period beginning on September 11, 2015. During this period, the document was 

made available to interested and concerned parties, including residents, property owners, 

community groups, the business community, elected officials, and public agencies. In addition 

to being available online on the ADOT, EPA, and FRA websites, copies of the Draft Tier 1 EIS 

were available at the following locations: 

Burton Barr Branch 

Phoenix Public Library

1221 North Central Ave.

Phoenix, AZ 85004

Pima Community College 

Northwest Campus 

Library

7600 North Shannon Road

Tucson, AZ 85709

Downtown Branch 

Chandler Public Library

22 South Delaware Street

Chandler, AZ 85225

Central Arizona College 

Signal Peak Campus 

Library

8470 North Overfield Road

Coolidge, AZ 85128

ADOT Research Library

206 South 17th Ave.

Phoenix, AZ 85007

Southeast Regional 

Library – Gilbert

775 North Greenfield Road

Gilbert, AZ 85234

During the review and comment period, FRA and ADOT held a series of formal public hearings 

on the Draft Tier 1 EIS on September 15, 16, and 17, 2015 from 5:30 p.m. to 7:00 p.m., with 

video presentations beginning at 5:45 p.m. and 6:20 p.m. FRA and ADOT presented the same 

information was presented at each of the following locations: 

Tuesday, September 15

Burton Barr Branch Phoenix Public Library

First Floor Pulliam Auditorium

1221 North Central Avenue

Phoenix, AZ 85004

Thursday, September 17

Central Arizona College

Signal Peak Campus, Room M101

8470 North Overfield Road

Coolidge, AZ 85128

Wednesday, September 16

Tucson Convention Center

Leo Rich Theater

260 South Church Avenue

Tucson, AZ 85701

The purpose of the hearings was to give interested parties an opportunity to meet the project 

team and to formally submit comments in person, on comments cards or electronically on the 

Draft Tier 1 EIS. Attendance at the hearings was not required in order to submit comments. 

Responses to substantive comments received have been addressed in the Final Tier 1 EIS. All 

comments and responses are listed in the Public and Agency Coordination Appendix.
3 Public Agency Coordination

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement 3-33

Additional Public Comment Period Activities

Project Website

The ADOT project website (www.azdot.gov/passengerrail) was also a primary tool for providing 

updated information during the Draft Tier 1 EIS review and comment period. Using the website, 

stakeholders and members of the public could:

 View a 13-minute video presentation on the Draft Tier 1 EIS; 

 Access and/or download the Draft Tier 1 EIS, appendices, and additional study 

information; and 

 Submit written comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS.

Project Hotline

ADOT established an automated project hotline as an additional means of soliciting feedback. 

Callers were given an opportunity to leave spoken comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS on this 

hotline. 

3.6.1 Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS

Between September 3, 2015, and October 30, 2015, ADOT received 499 written comment 

submissions online. In addition, 13 comment forms were filled out and either handed in, 

mailed, or faxed. Formal letters were received from 15 government agencies, jurisdictions, 

utilities, and stakeholder groups. 

Commenting Agencies 

The following participating agencies and stakeholder groups submitted comments, either online 

or by letter, on the Draft Tier 1 EIS:

Federal Agencies

 U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency

 National Park Service)

 US Bureau of Land Management

o Arizona State Office

o Lower Sonoran Field Office

o Tucson Field Office

State Agencies

 Arizona Corporation Commission

 Arizona Game and Fish Department

Local and Regional Agencies

 City of Coolidge

 City of Eloy

 City of Mesa

 City of Phoenix

 City of Tucson
3 Public Agency Coordination

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement 3-34

 Maricopa Association of 

Governments

 Pima County

 Town of Florence

 Town of Gilbert

 Town of Queen Creek

Tribes

 Gila River Indian Community 

 Tohono O’odham Nation

Transportation and Utilities

 Phoenix-Mesa Gateway Airport 

Authority 

 Tucson Airport Authority

 Tucson Electric Power

 Union Pacific Railroad Company

Non-Governmental Organizations

 Pima Community Access Program

 Valley of the Sun United Way

Stakeholder Groups

 Audubon Arizona

 AZ Public Interest Research Group

 Coalition for Sonoran Desert 

Protection

 Environment Arizona

 Local Initiatives Support Corp.

 Physicians for Social Responsibility

 Sierra Club

 Sky Island Alliance

 Southern Arizona Leadership Council

 Southern Arizona Lodging and 

Resort Association

 Southwest Energy Efficient Project

 Visit Tucson
3 Public Agency Coordination

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement 3-35

Agency and Stakeholder Comments

Public agencies and stakeholder groups generally addressed issues pertaining to their particular 

geography, interest, or expertise. Agency and stakeholder letters received, as well as agency 

comments submitted online, are presented, with responses, in the Public and Agency 

Coordination Appendix. 

Summary of Federal, State, and Tribal Agency Comments

Many of the comments received by government and regulatory agencies included requests for 

project-specific data, requests for comprehensive, Study-Area wide inventories of 

environmental features, or system-wide analyses of impacts. Analysis for this Tier 1 EIS was 

conducted for one-mile wide corridor alternatives to allow flexibility for avoiding 

environmentally sensitive areas, reducing costs, and addressing engineering constraints during 

Tier 2 analysis and design. Detailed analysis of corridor alternatives this wide would have 

resulted in an overstatement of the potential environmental effects, while analyzing corridors 

that are too narrow in Tier 1 limits flexibility in future design. For this reason, detailed data and 

analysis will be addressed in Tier 2 environmental studies. Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS 

from federal, state, and tribal entities included the following:

Federal Agencies

 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Requested area-wide inventories and detailed 

analyses of a broad range of environmental resources, or commitments to coordinate 

with agencies and perform these studies in Tier 2. 

This type of detailed analysis will be conducted during Tier 2 along with any site-specific 

consultation with relevant resource agencies.

 U.S. Department of the Interior / National Park Service: NPS requested to become a 

cooperating agency on this study. Also requested a Section 4(f) Evaluation of potentially 

affected resources, specifically drawing FRA and ADOT’s attention to the following

o Casa Grande Ruins National Monument

o Pueblo Grande Ruin and Irrigation Sites National Historic Landmark 

o San Xavier del Bac Mission National Historic Landmark 

o Ventura Cave National Historic Landmark

o Air Force Facility Missile Site 8 National Historic Landmark

o Gatlin Site National Historic Landmark

o Taliesin West National Historic Landmark

o Juan Bautista de Anza National Historic Trail designated historic corridor, auto 

tour route, and recreation retracement route (de Anza Trail)
3 Public Agency Coordination

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement 3-36

 Potential impacts to parks and recreation areas, specifically Section 4(f) properties 

would depend on the alignment within the designated corridor and refined during Tier 2 

analysis. Specific types and degrees of impacts on individual resources (such as ROW 

acquisition and impacts on characteristics of a resource) would not be known until 

further design of rail facilities takes place. These would be evaluated in Tier 2 NEPA 

documents. The Section 4(f) and 6(f) Resources Appendix includes a table of the public

parks and recreational resources located within the mile-wide corridor alternatives, plus 

a 0.25-mile buffer around them to account for proximity effects such as increased noise. 

 U.S. Department of the Interior / US Bureau of Land Management: BLM requested to 

become a cooperating agency on this study, and identified the de Anza Trail for 

inclusion in the Tier 1 study, and disclosed prior rights (a recreation and public purposes 

lease in place until 2028) on a parcel of BLM land along Schnepf Road. Also, based on a 

review of Master Title Plats for federal mineral estate status within the corridor 

alternatives, BLM administers subsurface mineral estate of lands within the alternatives.

The de Anza Trail corridor was added to the Corridor Aerial Atlas Appendix. The BLM 

parcel on Schnepf Road as identified by the BLM comment letter, does not lie within the 

Yellow or Orange Corridor Alternative. 

The southern portion of both corridor alternatives coincides in places with the Juan 

Bautista de Anza National Historic Trail designated historic corridor, auto tour route, and 

recreation retracement route. As defined by the National Trails System Act (16 U.S.C. §§ 

1241-1251), a National Historic Trail is an extended trail which follows as closely as 

possible and practicable the original trail or route of travel of national historical 

significance. While the historic corridor is not afforded protection under the NHPA, the 

Historic Trail designation is intended to identify and protect the remains of this overland 

route for public use and enjoyment. The Anza Trail corridor appears on Maps 1-11 and 

21-27 of the Corridor Aerial Atlas Appendix. 

Section 4(f) and cultural resources planning, and avoidance alternatives will be 

considered for appropriate resources during Tier 2 environmental analysis.

Prior existing rights, including subsurface mineral estate, will be investigated and 

addressed during Tier 2 environmental studies.

State Agencies

 Arizona Corporation Commission (Commission): Presented an overview of the Draft Tier 

1 EIS generally advocating passenger rail service and the Yellow Corridor Alternative in 

particular. Affirmed the Commission’s role in inspecting all aspects of any new or 
3 Public Agency Coordination

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement 3-37

existing railroad infrastructure, including crossing improvements, to ensure safety in 

construction, operation, and maintenance.

 Arizona Game and Fish Department: Requested a number of specific changes to the 

Final Tier 1 EIS to provide more complete available information on wildlife species, 

movement, and habitat within the Study Area, and measures to mitigate potential 

effects resulting from implementation of passenger rail service.

The Final Tier 1 EIS was revised to comply with AGFD’s requests to the extent possible, 

with resolution on the outstanding issues deferred to Tier 2. 

Tribes

 Gila River Indian Community

o Cultural Resources Management Program (GRIC-CRMP): Requested to be a 

consulting party under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, and 

explained the need for FRA and ADOT to directly request GRIC-CRMP to conduct a 

Class III archaeological survey of the unsurveyed parts of a future passenger rail 

facility on GRIC lands in Tier 2. Also requested that ADOT identify Traditional Cultural 

Properties in accordance with documentation protocols for Section 4(f) resources.

FRA and ADOT sent a letter to GRIC in September 2013 inviting them to participate 

in Section 106 consultation. Section 106 consultation will continue during the Tier 2 

studies. GRIC-CRMP will be consulted to obtain available cultural resource data and 

discuss requirements for future data collection and analysis of the area of potential 

effects of proposed alignments that intersect GRIC land.

o Department of Environmental Quality (GRIC DEQ): Because the Yellow Corridor 

Alternative intersects GRIC land, FRA and ADOT need to comply with GRIC DEQ 

ordinances and regulations, including any applicable permits or authorizations 

required. The Orange Corridor options do not intersect with GRIC land.

FRA and ADOT will comply with GRIC DEQ environmental regulations in Tier 2 

studies and subsequent actions located within GRIC boundaries.

o Department of Transportation: Requests that FRA and ADOT coordinate with GRIC 

Department of Transportation in subsequent Tier 2 studies, regarding alternatives, 

sensitive noise and vibration receptors, socioeconomic impacts, Section 4(f)

resources, and farmlands. Requests that FRA and ADOT investigate “last mile” 

connections between community centers and rail stations once station locations 

have been determined in Tier 2 studies.
3 Public Agency Coordination

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement 3-38

FRA and ADOT will undertake these analyses in Tier 2.

 Tohono O’odham Nation: Requested that a “complete Class III (100%) survey” as well as 

a Cultural Landscape Survey be completed for both corridor alternatives before 

selecting a final route. Also requested that presentations on this project be made to the 

Chairman of the Tohono O’odham Nation, the Tohono O’odham Nation Legislative 

Council Cultural Preservation Committee, and eventually to the full Legislative Council. 

FRA and ADOT respect the interests of this and other tribal governments. The Yellow 

Corridor Alternative with Orange corridor options within Tempe and Pinal County was 

identified as the preferred alternative based on multiple factors; available cultural 

resource data at the Tier 1 Study level, for the two alternative corridors did not 

sufficiently differ, in the context of all environmental and non-environmental factors 

considered, to set one corridor alternative above another as the preferred corridor 

alternative. There is not enough information at the Tier I Study level to require or 

perform a Cultural Class III as requested for a Tier 1 document. Section 106 and Tribal 

consultation for resources will be conducted at Tier 2 when an alignment is known.

Most of the concerns raised by agencies would be addressed in future Tier 2 analyses, which

would cover far less than a one-mile wide corridor. Actual construction activities for a 

passenger rail facility would occur within a railroad ROW ranging from 66 to 400 feet wide, and 

determined at Tier 2 upon funding. Environmental study boundaries for future Tier 2 analysis 

would address a much narrower area within and around the ultimate ROW required. More indepth environmental analysis, as well as coordination and consultation with state and federal 

agencies (e.g., State Historic Preservation Office, USFWS) on specific resource areas would be 

undertaken once alignment boundaries were more firmly established and funding was allotted.

During Tier 2, input from engineers, transit demand planners, and government agencies, as well 

as environmental data would be used to develop alignment options.

Summary of Public Comments

Over 500 public comments were submitted on the Draft Tier 1 EIS, as follows:

 499 written comments submitted online

 13 written comments submitted on comment cards or faxed

 28 oral comments taken at public hearings

Most of these expressed either support of (nearly 88 percent of those indicating a preference) 

or opposition to passenger rail service between Tucson and Phoenix, with the majority of those 

in support preferring the Yellow Corridor Alternative. Fewer than 4 percent of the public 
3 Public Agency Coordination

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement 3-39

comments mentioned environmental resource categories and none resulted in revisions to the 

environmental analysis in the Tier 1 EIS. A breakdown of the environment-related comments, as 

shown in Table 3-7, illustrates the topics addressed, followed by a brief description of the 

comment themes. 

Public comments received on the Draft Tier 1 EIS are arranged in a table, with responses to 

each comment, in the Public and Agency Coordination Appendix. 

Table 3-18. Public Comment Themes

Comment Category

Number of Comments 

Expressing Benefits

Number of Comments 

Expressing Concerns

Air Quality 5 1

Biological Resources 3 2

Cultural Resources 0 1

Economic 1 1

Energy 3 0

Traffic 2 0

Air Quality: Commenters were in favor of improved air quality resulting from reduced traffic 

volumes and motor vehicle emissions associated with establishing passenger rail service. One 

commenter expressed opposition to pollution associated with diesel technology. The cost 

estimate developed for the AA assumed diesel-electric motive power for pricing purposes, and 

the environmental analysis was conducted assuming diesel locomotives. During Tier 2 studies, 

additional air quality analysis, including a quantification of MSAT emissions, will be conducted 

based on the technology chosen by the project sponsor at the time of project implementation. 

It should be noted that while the cost estimate developed for the AA assumed diesel-electric 

motive power for pricing purposes and the environmental analysis was conducted for diesel 

locomotives, an additional air quality analysis will be conducted during the Tier 2 NEPA studies. 

Additional Tier 2 air quality analysis will quantify MSAT emissions from the technology chosen 

by the project sponsor at the time of project implementation. 

At this time, no specific engine technology has been selected. It is assumed that new 

technology will be implemented by the project sponsor. EPA has established emission 

standards for pollutants for newly manufactured and remanufactured locomotives (see 73 FR 

25098, Locomotive and Commercial Marine Rule). EPA is projecting that 1 PM2.5 and NOx 

emissions will drop as a result of these standards.
3 Public Agency Coordination

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement 3-40

Biological Resources: Comments included support of the preferred alternative as being less 

environmentally damaging of the two corridor alternatives. Commenters also expressed 

concerns about interruptions to wildlife connectivity, and questions about the AGFD study.

Cultural Resources: A commenter inquired about potential impacts to historic districts in and 

around downtown Phoenix.

Economic Impacts: One commenter asked about the potential for adverse impacts to 

communities located along a passenger rail route where the train does not stop. Another 

commenter touted the economic benefit passenger rail could bring to station areas, particularly 

the Tucson and Phoenix hubs, stating that this would mitigate the significant construction cost.

Energy: Commenters favored mass transit over automobile travel.

Traffic: Commenters cited existing and future traffic congestion and advocated passenger rail 

as one means of providing relief.

3.7 Accommodations for Minority, Low-Income, and Persons with Disabilities

All public meetings were held in accessible facilities in compliance with the Americans with 

Disabilities Act of 1990. Every effort has been made to respond to members of the public who 

require a sign language interpreter, an assistive learning system, a translator, or other 

accommodations to facilitate participation in the planning process. Meetings throughout the 

corridor were held at different times of day and in all geographic regions and accommodated 

disabled participants. 

EO 12898 requires that, as part of the environmental evaluation of the alternatives, the EIS 

must address environmental justice issues. To comply with this requirement, community 

demographics and socioeconomic impacts were considered in analyzing the alternatives. The 

public participation process ensured “full and fair participation by potentially affected 

communities” throughout the duration of the study. In addition to traditional public open 

houses, ADOT sought out and, when possible, attended community events scheduled during 

the scoping period. To supplement the open houses, exhibits were set up at selected local 

community events within the study area, including one in the Gila River Indian Community. 

Participation in these events maximized ADOT’s ability to engage the public in their local 

surroundings. ADOT also proactively coordinated with the tribes, inviting them to Corridor 

Study Team and Scoping meetings, and arranging individual meetings to discuss potential 

impacts of passenger rail through tribal lands. 
3 Public Agency Coordination

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement 3-41

3.8 Additional Agency Coordination 

In addition to the engagement and outreach techniques described previously in this chapter, 

ADOT held individual meetings with nearly all local municipal participating agencies within the 

study area throughout the study process. This coordination included briefings to local municipal 

staff as well as formal presentations to elected municipal boards, committees, and councils. 

Additionally, throughout the EIS process, multiple meetings were held with the communities 

located along the three final corridor alternatives (Green, Orange, and Yellow) defined as part 

of the AA. The purpose of these meetings was to update those particular communities on study 

progress. 

As the corridor alternatives being carried forward in the EIS began to take shape, it was 

apparent that certain agencies required further coordination to assist with the analysis of 

potential corridor impacts and identification of fatal flaws. These agencies included the 

commercial airports (Phoenix Sky Harbor, Phoenix-Mesa Gateway, and the Tucson International 

Airport), the Arizona Game and Fish Department, UP, major universities in the region, and the 

GRIC. The project team met with UP multiple times to discuss potential impacts to their freight 

rail corridors located throughout the study area and within the corridor alternatives. 

FRA initiated formal tribal consultation process with GRIC. The project team met with GRIC staff 

and committees during different stages of the study and ultimately presented on corridor 

alternative selection decisions to the GRIC Tribal Council. The Agency Coordination Plan at the 

end of the Public and Agency Coordination Appendix (prepared in accordance with Section 6002 

of Pub. L. 109-59) outlines tribal outreach activities during the study.