Final Tier 1 Environmental 

Impact Statement

Appendices

ARIZONA PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR STUDY

December 2016

Submitted by:

Arizona Department of Transportation

Multimodal Planning Division

Submitted to:

U.S. Department of Transportation

Federal Railroad Administration 

Appendices
 

Land Use Appendix
Land Use Appendix-1 

Land Use Appendix

Table L-1. Existing Land Use Percentages within the Corridor Alternatives

Yellow Corridor Alternative Orange Corridor Alternative

Land Use Type Total Acres Percentage Total Acres Percentage

Vacant 21,526 27.43% 27,368 32.71%

Agriculture and Rangeland 18,938 24.13% 20,781 24.83%

Residential 11,161 14.22% 8,799 10.52%

Utilities/Transportation 8,932 11.38% 8,543 10.21%

Industrial 5,248 6.69% 4,196 5.01%

Open Space 4,427 5.64% 4,137 4.94%

Commercial 2,485 3.17% 2,802 3.34%

Undevelopable 1,057 1.35% 1,823 2.18%

Institutional 2,339 2.98% 1,797 2.15%

Public 1,521 1.94% 1,260 1.51%

Office 800 1.02% 894 1.07%

Mixed Use/Other 35 0.04% 1,278 1.53%

Table L-2. Future Land Use Percentages within the Corridor Alternatives

Yellow Corridor Alternative Orange Corridor Alternative

Land Use Type Total Acres Percentage Total Acres Percentage

Residential 28,941 36.74% 30,249 36.02%

Mixed Use/Other 20,824 26.43% 21,530 25.64%

Industrial 8,073 10.25% 7,443 8.86%

Utilities/Transportation 5,420 6.88% 6,339 7.55%

Open Space 3,741 4.75% 5,524 6.58%

Commercial 4,561 5.79% 5,300 6.31%

Agriculture and Rangeland 2,144 2.72% 2,140 2.55%

Institutional 2,001 2.54% 1,703 2.03%

Office 1,204 1.53% 1,670 1.99%

Undevelopable 747 0.95% 1,110 1.32%

Public 1,123 1.43% 969 1.15%
Land Use Appendix 

Land Use Appendix-2 

Table L-3. Land Ownership within the Corridor Alternatives 

Yellow Corridor Alternative Orange Corridor Alternative

Landowner Total Acres Percentage Total Acres Percentage

Private Land 63,114 80.43% 63,466 75.84%

State

Arizona State Land 

Department

13,186 16.80% 17,123 20.46%

Arizona State Parks 413 0.53% 413 0.49%

Federal

Bureau of Reclamation 141 0.18% 1,821 2.18%

National Park Service 97 0.12% N/A N/A

Bureau of 

Land Management 

48 0.06% 161 0.19%

Tribal

Gila River Indian

Community

1,278 1.63% N/A N/A

Salt River Pima-Maricopa 

Indian Community

N/A N/A 402 0.48%

Local

Local Parks and Recreation 198 0.25% 295 0.35%
Land Use Appendix 

Land Use Appendix-3 

Table L-4. Study Corridor Consistency with Land Use and Transportation Policies

Region Agency/Jurisdiction Plan or Study 

Consistent with 

Relevant Land Use 

Policies

Consistent with 

Relevant 

Transportation 

Policies

Yellow

Orange 

No 

Build

Yellow

Orange 

No 

Build

State of 

Arizona

Arizona Arizona State Rail Plan 

2011

n/a n/a X X 

Pima 

County

Town of Marana General Plan 2010 n/a n/a X X 

Pima County Comprehensive Plan - 

Regional Plan Policies 

2001, amended 2012

n/a n/a X X 

City of Tucson General & Sustainability 

Plan 2013 

X X X X 

Pinal 

County

City of Coolidge General Plan 2003 X X X X 

City of Coolidge Comprehensive 

Transportation Feasibility 

Study - 2012

n/a n/a X X 

City of Coolidge Municipal Airport 

Master Plan

X X X X 

City of Eloy General Plan 2011 X X X X 

Town of Florence General Plan 2020 n/a n/a X X 

Pinal County Comprehensive Plan 2009 X X X X 

Maricopa 

County

Town of Gilbert General Plan 2012 n/a n/a X X 

Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan 2020 X X X X 

City of Mesa General Plan 2002 X X X X 

City of Phoenix General Plan 2002 X X X X 

City of Tempe General Plan 2030 X X X X 

Town of Queen Creek General Plan 2008 n/a n/a X X 

Town of Queen Creek Town Center Plan 2011 n/a n/a X X 

n/a – None of the goals or policies in the land use element were pertinent to the potential impacts of a passenger rail system 

on land use, therefore the project is presumed to not conflict with relevant policies; or there was no land use element as part of 

the plan (i.e., transportation feasibility study).

 
 

Public and Agency Coordination Appendix
Passenger Rail Corridor Study – Tucson to Phoenix Scoping Report 

Scoping Report 

April 2012 

Prepared for: 

Arizona Department of Transportation 

Federal Railroad Administration 

Federal Transit Administration 

Prepared by: 

Parsons Brinkerhoff 

KDA Creative 
Passenger Rail Corridor Study – Tucson to Phoenix Scoping Report 

    i

Table of Contents 

Executive Summary ........................................................................................................ 1 

Key Themes........................................................................................................................... 2 

1.0 Introduction ......................................................................................................... 3 

1.1 Description of Project ............................................................................................. 3 

1.2 Alternatives............................................................................................................... 6 

 No-Build Alternative .................................................................................................. 

 Project Alternatives ................................................................................................... 

1.3 Pre-Scoping Activities ............................................................................................. 6 

 March 10, 2011 Project Kickoff Meeting with Stakeholders ............................... 

 June 2011 Corridor Support Team Meetings ........................................................ 

 Meeting Summary ..................................................................................................... 

1.4 Scoping Process ...................................................................................................... 8 

1.5 Notification of Scoping .......................................................................................... 8 

 Email Distribution ....................................................................................................... 

 Media Releases ......................................................................................................... 

 Social Media .............................................................................................................. 

 Earned Media ............................................................................................................ 

 Paid Advertising ......................................................................................................... 

1.6 Scoping Events ...................................................................................................... 11 

 Agency Scoping Meeting ....................................................................................... 

 Public Open Houses and Events............................................................................. 

1.7 Additional Scoping Activities .............................................................................. 13 

 Project Web Site ........................................................................................................ 

 Do-it-Yourself Meeting Kits ....................................................................................... 

 Project Hotline ........................................................................................................... 

2.0 Public Scoping Comments ............................................................................... 14 

2.1 Summary of Comments ....................................................................................... 14 

2.2 Results of Multiple Choice Questions ................................................................. 14 

 Purpose/Frequency Analysis Related to Preferred Mode ................................. 

 Geographic Distribution for Personal Vehicle as Preferred Travel Choice ..... 

 Geographic Distribution for Train as Preferred Travel Choice ........................... 

2.3 Results of Free Response Questions ................................................................... 24 

 Common Themes ...................................................................................................... 

3.0 Next Steps .......................................................................................................... 32 
Passenger Rail Corridor Study – Tucson to Phoenix Scoping Report 

    ii 

List of Figures 

1 Corridors Identified in Precious Studies ................................................................ 5 

2 Scoping Survey Responses by City..................................................................... 15 

3 Survey Responses by Zip Code ........................................................................... 16 

4 Personal Vehicle as Preferred Travel Choice (%) ............................................ 18 

5 Train as Preferred Travel Choice (%) .................................................................. 19 

List of Tables 

1. CST Meeting Locations 

2. Newspaper Advertisements 

3. Public Scoping Meeting Locations 

4. Public Scoping Events 

5. Preferred Travel Choice

6. Travel Between Phoenix and Tucson 

7. Reason for Travel Between Phoenix and Tucson 

8. Frequency of Travel 

9. Purpose/Frequency for All Respondents 

10. Purpose/Frequency for Respondents Who Prefer Train 

11. Purpose/Frequency for Respondents Who Prefer Personal Vehicle 

Appendices 

A Project Kickoff Meeting Summary 

B Corridor Support Team Invitation List 

C Corridor Support Team Meetings Summary 

D Notice of Intent 

E Notices and Newspaper Advertisements 

F Agency Scoping Summary 

G Public Scoping Booklet 

H Scoping Comment Form 

I Scoping Event Exhibits 

J Photographs from Scoping Events 

 
Passenger Rail Corridor Study – Tucson to Phoenix Scoping Report 

    1

Executive Summary 

October 2011 marked an unprecedented opportunity for Arizonans to add their 

voice and response, as part of public scoping activities in support of the Arizona 

Department of Transportation (ADOT) Passenger Rail Corridor Study, Tucson to 

Phoenix, conducted by ADOT, the Federal Railroad Administration, and the 

Federal Transit Administration. For people traveling between Tucson and Phoenix, 

Arizona’s two largest urban areas, there are limited options. This study is looking 

at the potential for a future transportation option connecting the urban area. 

Public input, along with multi-agency and stakeholder cooperation, is essential 

to understanding and addressing the needs and expectations along the 

Interstate 10 (I-10) corridor between Tucson and Phoenix. 

Scoping is conducted early in a study of this nature and helps define its direction. 

For this study, the scoping process included opportunities for all interested parties 

to have a voice, and the opportunity for the study team to refine its focus so that 

the study truly meets the needs and expectations of the Arizona community. 

The study team heard from interested parties, including public agencies, Tribal 

communities, community leaders, businesses, residents, employees, and 

students—the next step in a dialogue about transportation options that has been 

unfolding for decades. In development of its Statewide Transportation Planning 

Framework (Building a Quality Arizona, or bqAZ) and Long-Range Transportation 

Plan (LRTP), ADOT has continued to hear that its customers view public 

transportation options as a need and priority. In fact, in the Spring of 2011, more 

than 2,400 members of the Arizona community weighed in on the State’s LRTP, 

with 59 percent indicating that they would prefer reducing traffic congestion 

through improvements to public transportation and making it easier to walk and 

bike instead of building more highways. 

To maximize participation in the Passenger Rail Corridor Study, Tucson to Phoenix, 

ADOT endeavored to make participation as convenient as possible. To that end, 

one key element of participation was a one-minute and fifty-second video, 

accompanied by a simple 12-page booklet and a 12-question survey. The video 

was available online or on DVD and the booklet and survey, which contained 

basic project information as well as the 12 questions, also were available in hard 

copy and online. 

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

possible, attended community events scheduled during the scoping period. 

ADOT held 12 scoping events (four in each county within the study area) 

beginning October 7, 2011. The final event was held November 1, 2011, and the 

comment period ended November 14. A total of 141 people signed in to the 12 

scoping events, and hundreds more stopped by the project information booths 

at community events and spoke with project team members. 
Passenger Rail Corridor Study – Tucson to Phoenix Scoping Report 

    2 

There were 3,965 people who viewed the project video online, and 2,845 

participated online. 

Key Themes 

Reception overall is very favorable to a transportation option to relieve traffic 

along the I-10 corridor between Phoenix and Tucson, although many 

respondents indicated concern about the lack of multimodal connections at 

stops and the termini. In response to that concern, the study is taking a proactive 

approach to determining what connections would be needed at stops and 

termini to make the system successful, and is coordinating closely with local 

communities and other stakeholders to ensure the system is planned with multimodal connections in the forefront of the development process. 

In answer to the question “What would be your preferred travel choice between 

Phoenix and Tucson?” in which there were 2,972 responses: 

 77.2 percent of respondents chose “train” 

 21.1 percent chose “personal vehicle” 

 Bus, bike, and air each received less than 1 percent of responses 

Forty-six percent of all the comments received can be summarized in the 

following 10 sub-categories (with study team response listed for each): 

1. Want a train with fewer stops that can travel at a higher speed. 

Response—the intent is to develop a plan to accommodate both higher 

speed service with few stops as well as a local service designed to 

provide an alternative for commuters. 

2. Are concerned about current and future traffic on the I-10 corridor. 

Response—the project will assess the ability of an alternative mode to 

serve the needs of the Tucson-Phoenix Corridor by evaluating both bus 

and rail option between the two metro areas. 

3. Want more travel options. Response—the Passenger Rail Corridor Study 

will focus on non-automotive choices within the Tucson-Phoenix Corridor. 

4. Are concerned about safety on the I-10 corridor. Response—one of the 

considerations in evaluating rail and bus options is safety. In general, rail 

at least will have a lower potential for crashes than auto. 

5. Like the idea of multi-tasking on the train instead of driving the I-10 corridor. 

Response—both bus and rail options offer the ability to focus on other 

activities during the trip. 

6. Would utilize the train to visit friends or relatives. Response—access to 

other modes could make travel for personal reasons more appealing to 

some, which could increase overall demand for travel, but only because 

an alternative is available. 
Passenger Rail Corridor Study – Tucson to Phoenix Scoping Report 

    3 

7. Believe the train would help improve air quality. Response—the effect on 

air quality will be evaluated in determining the benefits and 

disadvantages of the various alternatives being considered. 

8. Believe the train would provide a good commute option as the region 

grows. Response—the plan is to operate a dual service to include 

commuter rail service along the route. The alternatives will be evaluated 

for the ability to satisfy that need. 

9. Would utilize the train to get to Sky Harbor Airport. Response—among the 

alternatives being developed, several provide station access to Sky 

Harbor Airport. The attractiveness of that location for ridership will be 

determined in the course of the study. 

10. Support a train corridor that would have minimal impact on the 

environment, primarily indicating a preference for the use of I-10 or 

existing rail right-of-way. Response—most alternatives rely on existing travel 

corridors and transportation facilities. 

6.3 percent of all comments indicated an overall opposition to the concept of 

passenger rail between Tucson and Phoenix. The vast majority of the opposed 

comments cited: 

 Imposing higher taxes to fund the project. Response—at this time there is 

no funding source identified for the construction or operation of this 

project and there is no assumption of what that source may be.

 Finding better use for taxpayer dollars. Response—the study includes a 

cost-benefit analysis that will help in the comparison of alternatives. One 

alternative considered will be a no build alternative.

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

necessity. Response—the study takes in to full account improvements to I10 that are underway and planned.
Passenger Rail Corridor Study – Tucson to Phoenix Scoping Report 

    4 

1.0 Introduction 

The purpose of this report is to summarize the comments, issues and concerns 

raised during the scoping process for the Arizona Department of Transportation’s 

(ADOT) Passenger Rail Corridor Study, Tucson to Phoenix , a study of a highcapacity travel option and associated corridor between Tucson and Phoenix. 

This summary will provide a basis for ADOT, the Federal Railroad Administration 

(FRA) and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) to determine the appropriate 

scope for the Alternatives Analysis (AA), Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement 

(EIS) and Service Development Plan. 

Specific documents related to the scoping process can be found in the 

appendices at the end of this document. These include: 

A Project Kickoff Meeting Summary 

B Corridor Support Team Invitation List 

C Corridor Support Team Meetings Summary 

D Notice of Intent 

E Notices and Newspaper Advertisements 

F Agency Scoping Summary 

G Public Scoping Booklet 

H Scoping Comment Form 

I Scoping Event Exhibits 

J Photographs from Scoping Events 

It is important to note that during the scoping process, the study was referred to 

as the "ADOT Intercity Rail Study," but that name was subsequently changed to 

better reflect the scope of the study and the numerous agency and public 

comments received during scoping. "Passenger Rail" provides a broader 

definition of the type of rail system being considered, to include intercity, 

commuter, and local trip patterns. "Corridor Study" is intended to reflect that 

connections are being reviewed within a broader corridor that would be 

recommended to form a complete system. 

1.1 Description of Project 

This study is intended to further assess needs and demands for a high-capacity 

travel option and associated corridor between Tucson and Phoenix. The study 

area includes portions of Maricopa, Pima, and Pinal counties. The study will 

evaluate whether such an option is indeed needed, identify suitable alternatives 

within the study area and assess the overall scope and cost of the proposed 

high-capacity travel option in this corridor. 

This study is a Tier 1 EIS. A Tier 1 EIS analyzes, at a general level, the natural, built, 

and social environment that may be affected in each corridor being considered. 

A Tier 1 EIS identifies project impacts in the corridors so they can be compared 
Passenger Rail Corridor Study – Tucson to Phoenix Scoping Report 

    5 

against each other. Once a preferred corridor is chosen, a Tier 2 EIS will be 

completed as segments of the project are programmed for construction. A Tier 2 

EIS not only identifies specific impacts, but shows how impacts will be mitigated, 

clearing a project for construction. 

ADOT’s Statewide Transportation Planning Framework Study, completed in 

March 2010, concluded that Arizona will not be able to address future 

congestion by continuing to rely almost exclusively on roadways to move people. 

High-capacity services such as rail offer an efficient and attractive form of 

transportation. Intercity mobility between the Tucson and Phoenix metropolitan 

areas has been identified by ADOT as a market where demand exists. The study 

area and corridors highlighted in previous studies are depicted in Figure 1. 

Figure 1 – Corridors Identified in Previous Studies 
Passenger Rail Corridor Study – Tucson to Phoenix Scoping Report 

    6 

1.2 Alternatives 

Multiple alternative options will be assessed as part of this study, as described 

below. 

No-Build Alternative

This alternative represents a no-build option from Tucson to Phoenix. It serves as a 

minimum investment alternative that recognizes only projects already 

programmed for construction. 

Baseline Alternative 

The Baseline or Transportation Systems Management (TSM) Alternative provides a 

foundation against which to measure the effectiveness of all Build Alternatives. It 

is required by federal guidelines and incorporates TSM improvements consisting 

primarily of low-cost capital and operations improvements such as intersection 

widening and traffic signal or ITS enhancements to improve system operation. 

Project Alternatives

At this point in the study, specific alternatives have not yet been identified. 

Consideration of previous studies within the region and the findings of this 

scoping process will enable the project team to develop potential alternatives. 

The alternatives will depict different routes and station locations. Some 

alternatives may include solutions other than rail. 

1.3 Pre-Scoping Activities 

Scoping is conducted early in a study of this nature to identify major issues and 

help establish the scope of the study. Scoping is a requirement of the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) process. 

March 10, 2011 Project Kickoff Meeting with Stakeholders

On Thursday, March 10, 2011, ADOT hosted the ADOT Intercity Rail Study Kick-Off 

meeting at the Sheraton Wild Horse Pass Conference Center. The meeting was 

designed as an expo, with attendees receiving an overview presentation and 

then participating in information-building activities at a number of “booths” set 

up around the room. The booth titles were as follows: 

 Why passenger rail in Arizona? 

 Why this project now? 

 Different Types of Rail 

 Mobility Benefits 
Passenger Rail Corridor Study – Tucson to Phoenix Scoping Report 

    7 

 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 kick-off meeting is included in Appendix A: Project 

Kickoff Meeting Summary. 

June 2011 Corridor Support Team Meetings

As part of the study process, periodic CST meetings were held at key points to 

gain input from stakeholders and help guide the study. The first round was held in 

June 2011 on the dates and at the locations listed below. Two additional rounds 

for CST meetings will be held during the study as identified in the project 

Participation Plan. 

ADOT distributed 370 email invitations using Constant Contact, an internet based 

email distribution service, on June 10, 2011. In addition, ADOT staff and team 

members used word-of-mouth techniques to increase interest in the workshops. 

A list of the CST invitation list can be found in Appendix B: CST Invitation List. 

Table 1 – CST Meeting Locations 

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 

Meeting Summary

ADOT project manager, Mike Kies, 

welcomed participants and thanked them 

for their attendance. He then gave a brief 

overview of the study, the schedule, and 

the purpose of the workshop. Participants 

then rotated among three workshop 

stations: Purpose and Need, Range of 

Alternatives, and Evaluation Framework. 

Participants evaluated the meeting at the 

end of each day. A summary of the June 

2011 meeting is included in Appendix C: CST 

Meeting Summary. Participants in the Range of Alternatives workshop

in Tucson
Passenger Rail Corridor Study – Tucson to Phoenix Scoping Report 

    8 

1.4 Scoping Process 

The scoping period provides an opportunity to inform the public and 

stakeholders about the project and obtain their insights about critical concerns 

and opportunities. Within this study, a variety of efforts were used to engage the 

public and stakeholders to solicit input. 

The main goals of scoping were to: 

 Inform stakeholders and the public about the study process and 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 previous studies 

A primary element of participation was a one-minute and fifty-second video, 

accompanied by a simple 12-page booklet and a 12-question survey. The video 

was available online and on DVD and the booklet and survey, which contained 

basic project information as well as the 12 questions, also were available in hard 

copy and online. The online survey was available between October 7 and 

November 14, 2011. 

In additional to traditional public open houses, ADOT sought out and, when 

possible, attended community events scheduled during the scoping period. 

ADOT held 12 scoping events (four in each county, Maricopa, Pinal, and Pima) 

beginning October 7, 2011. The final event was held November 1, 2011. The 

comment period ended November 14, 2011. A total of 141 people signed in to 

the 12 scoping events and hundreds more stopped by our booths at community 

events and spoke with project team members. 

Section 1.4 details notification and publicity for the events, and Section 1.5 

provides details of the events. Public and stakeholder involvement efforts will 

extend beyond the scoping phase and throughout the study. 

1.5 Notification of Scoping 

The Notice of Intent (Appendix D: Notice of Intent) was published in the Federal 

Register on October 6, 2011. Additional publicity and notices are detailed below 

and are included in Appendix E: Notices and Newspaper Advertisements. 

Email Distribution

ADOT routinely uses email for communication with the public. For this scoping 

effort, ADOT sent emails to its existing subscribed distribution list of more than 
Passenger Rail Corridor Study – Tucson to Phoenix Scoping Report 

    9 

100,000 people at key points throughout the public comment period. The notices 

were as follows: 

October 7, 2011: The time is now! 

The Arizona Department of Transportation wants you to add your voice to 

Arizona’s discussion about travel options between Tucson and Phoenix. 

Participate online now at www.azdot.gov/passengerrail. Your comments will 

help shape the future. Online participation is available through November 14, 

2011. 

A list of events was available on the website as well. 

October 28, 2011: There’s still time to add your voice! 

The Arizona Department of Transportation wants you to add your voice! Join the 

more than 1,500 who have commented on travel options between Tucson and 

Phoenix. If you have already participated – thank you! Participate online now at 

www.azdot.gov/passengerrail. Online participation is available through 

November 14, 2011. 

November 10, 2011: It’s not too late to add your voice! 

The Arizona Department of Transportation wants you to add your voice to the 

2,300 people who have commented on travel options between Phoenix and 

Tucson. If you have already participated – thank you! Online participation is 

through November 14, 2011. Participate online now at 

www.azdot.gov/passengerrail. 

Media Releases

ADOT’s Media Team issued the following news releases: 

September 27: Initial news release to Phoenix, Tucson, and Pinal County media 

September 29: Tucson-focused news release to Tucson media to publicize 

upcoming events in Tucson 

October 4: Tucson media release reminder 

October 5: Phoenix-focused news release sent to Phoenix media to publicize 

upcoming events in the Phoenix area, and news release emailed to project 

stakeholder email distribution list 

October 12: Tucson media release reminder, Pinal County-focused news release 

to publicize upcoming events in Pinal County 

October 17: East Valley newspapers news release to publicize upcoming events 

in the East Valley, Pinal County media release reminder 
Passenger Rail Corridor Study – Tucson to Phoenix Scoping Report 

    10 

Social Media

ADOT’s Social Media Team posted to the ADOT Facebook page 

(www.facebook.com/AZDOT) on October 7, 17, and 31, and November 10, 2011 

to encourage participation in scoping. In addition, ADOT posted information 

about the project and a call to action for participation at 

adotblog.blogspot.com on October 7 (“ADOT launches intercity rail study 

looking at potential Phoenix to Tucson link”) and October 17, 2011 (“Intercity Rail 

Study examines environmental impact, alternatives). During the scoping 

comment period the project also received 18 Twitter hits, meaning that other 

individuals tweeted about the project encouraging their followers to participate. 

Earned Media

The emails, media outreach and social media resulted not only in high numbers 

of participants in the process, but also in earned media coverage, which 

boosted participation. Earned media is a cost effective method of releasing 

information through promotional efforts other than paid advertisements. Several 

Phoenix and Tucson media outlets produced articles and news stories regarding 

the study. 

Television Coverage: 

October 5 ABC-15 Phoenix 

October 5 and 6 KVOA Tucson Channel 4 (NBC) 

October 7 and 11 KPHO Phoenix Channel 5 (CBS) 

October 10 Fox 11 Tucson 

October 13 KOLD Tucson Channel 13 (CBS) 

Radio Coverage: 

September 28 KJZZ National Public Radio 

October 5 KTAR 92.3 FM Phoenix Talk Radio

October 12 KFYI 550 AM Phoenix Talk Radio 

Print/Online Media Coverage: 

October 5 and 10 AZ Daily Star 

October 5 and 14 Inside Tucson Business 

October 8 and 11 East Valley Tribune 

October 8 and 29, November 10 TriValleyCentral.com/Casa Grande Dispatch 

October 10 Daily Wildcat (University of Arizona) 

October 12 State Press (Arizona State University) 

October 13 Cronkite News 

October 19 TriValleyCentral.com/Arizona City Independent 

October 20 GoldCanyonToday.com 

October 27 SanTanValleyToday.com 
Passenger Rail Corridor Study – Tucson to Phoenix Scoping Report 

    11 

November 2 WillcoxRangeNews.com 

November 10 Arizona Republic 

Paid Advertising

Paid legal and display advertisements announced the scoping open houses and 

events in local and regional newspapers between September 2011 and October 

2011. The table below details the publications and dates of these advertisements. 

Table 2 – Newspaper Advertisements 

Newspaper Publication Date Advertisement Type 

Arizona Daily Star September 22, 2011 Legal Ad 

Arizona Daily Star September 27, 2011 Legal Ad 

Arizona Republic September 22, 2011 Legal Ad 

Arizona Republic September 27, 2011 Legal Ad 

TriValley Central September 21, 2011 Legal Ad 

TriValley Central September 22, 2011 Legal Ad 

TriValley Central October 12, 2011 Display Ad 

1.6 Scoping Events

Agency Scoping Meeting

An agency scoping meeting was held on October 11, 2011 at ADOT. This 

meeting was also conducted as a webinar to accommodate participants 

throughout the study area. Early in the study process, an extensive list of 

stakeholders was identified to participate in the study via Corridor Support Teams 

(CSTs). All the identified stakeholders and CST members were invited to 

participate in the meeting and webinar. Sixty-six people attended the meeting in 

person and 34 participated via webinar. 

ADOT distributed 111 invitations were mailed to state and local agencies as well 

as Tribes on October 4, 2011. Attached to the meeting invitations was a meeting 

agenda, project segment area map, description of the segment areas, schedule 

of milestones, comment form, and a map of the study area. 

The Agency Scoping meeting summary is included in Appendix F: Agency 

Scoping Summary. Included in the summary are samples of the invitation and 

materials distributed. 
Passenger Rail Corridor Study – Tucson to Phoenix Scoping Report 

    12 

Public Open Houses and Events

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

events. 

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

questions regarding the study as well as submit feedback. These open houses 

were held in a come-and-go format featuring displays and exhibits detailing the 

study area and process. A running video presentation provided an overview of 

the study. Participants were asked to sign in to receive future communication 

follow-up and were given an informative booklet and comment form. 

The public scoping booklet is included in Appendix G: Public Scoping Booklet, 

the scoping comment form is included in Appendix H: Scoping Comment Form, 

and the copies of the scoping event exhibits are included in Appendix I: Scoping 

Event Exhibits. Photos of the events are included in Appendix J: Photographs of 

Scoping Events. A total of 141 participants signed in at the open houses. The 

locations and dates are included below. 

Table 3 – Public Scoping Meeting Locations 

Date City Location/Address Time Attendees

10/11/11 Phoenix Burton Barr Library: Auditorium 

1221 N. Central Ave., Phoenix, AZ 3pm – 7pm 51 

10/13/11 Tucson 

Pima Community College: Northwest 

Campus 

7600 N. Shannon Road, Tucson, AZ 

3pm – 7pm 16 

11/18/11 Florence Town of Florence Town Hall 

775 North Main Street, Florence AZ 3pm – 7pm 7 

11/19/11 Coolidge 

Central Arizona College: Signal Peak 

Campus 

8470 North Overfield Road, Coolidge, AZ 

3pm – 7pm 6 

11/24/11 Chandler 

Chandler Downtown Library: Copper 

Room 

22 S. Delaware Street, Chandler, AZ 

3pm – 7pm 13 

11/25/11 Eloy City of Eloy Council Chambers 

628 North Main Street, Eloy, AZ 3pm – 7pm 9 

10/27/11 Casa 

Grande 

City of Casa Grande Council Chambers 

510 East Florence Blvd., Casa Grande, AZ 3pm – 7pm 21 

11/1/11 Mesa Mesa Main Library 

64 East First Street, Mesa, AZ 

3pm – 

6:30pm 18 

To supplement the open houses, local events within the study area were 

selected at which to set up exhibits. Participation in these events maximized the 

study team’s ability to engage the public during the conduct of their daily 

business. The table below includes information about the locations of these 

public events. 
Passenger Rail Corridor Study – Tucson to Phoenix Scoping Report 

    13 

Table 4 – Public Scoping Events 

Date Location/Address Time 

10/7/11 University of Arizona: Campus Mall 

1303 E. University Blvd., Tucson, AZ 11am – 2pm 

10/8/11 Second Saturdays Downtown 

44 N. Stone Ave., Tucson, AZ 6pm – 9pm 

10/12/11 Arizona State University: Campus Mall 

Tempe, AZ 85287 10am – 2pm 

10/14-16 

Tucson Meet Yourself 

Pima County Plaza surrounding 130 W. Congress, Tucson 

AZ 

11/14: 11am – 1pm & 3pm 

– 7pm; 11/15: 3 pm – 7pm; 

11/16: 2pm – 6pm 

1.7 Additional Scoping Activities 

Project Web Site

The project Web site (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 Web site. 

The following information is available on the Web site: 

 Previous study overview documents 

 Environmental process information 

 Types of rail information 

 Case studies about the impact of rail 

 Stakeholder meeting presentations 

 Statement of project need 

 Calendar of events 

Do-It-Yourself Meeting 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 meeting 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 a kit 

for as many people as they would like by calling the project hotline (see below), 

emailing the project team, faxing ADOT’s Communication and Community 

Partnerships Division (CCP), or mailing a written request to CCP. A total of 31 kits 

were requested and mailed. 
Passenger Rail Corridor Study – Tucson to Phoenix Scoping Report 

    14 

Project Hotline

An automated project hotline was established as an additional means of 

soliciting feedback. Respondents were free to leave comments for the project 

team on this hotline. All calls received were requests for Do-It-Yourself Meeting 

Kits which were shipped upon request. 

2.0 Public Scoping Comments 

Between October 7, 2011 and November 14, 2011, the study team received 

3,075 written comments. This includes 2,784 survey responses along with 

291additional comments submitted that did not follow the survey format. 

2.1 Summary of Comments 

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

between Tucson and Phoenix and a preference for rail. Six point three percent of 

the comments indicated an overall opposition to the concept of passenger rail 

between Tucson and Phoenix. The vast majority of the opposed comments 

cited: 

 Imposing higher taxes to fund the project 

 Finding better use for taxpayer dollars 

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

necessity 

Traveling I-10 by car is often not viewed as ideal due to heavy truck traffic, dust 

storms and accidents, making many people to likely avoid the trip. If they had 

an improved option, respondents indicated that they would make the trip more 

frequently. 

Of the 12 questions in the survey, four were multiple-choice, allowing for 

statistical analysis. Multiple choice survey responses are listed in Section 2.2 with 

associated result statistics. Section 2.3 provides additional analysis of the free 

response questions. 

2.2 Results of Multiple Choice Questions 

Home ZIP and Work ZIP 

This question helped the study team understand the origin of the comments. 

Predictably, the largest number of responses came from within the study area; 

however, there were comments from all over the state and even outside the 

state, indicating widespread interest in development of a rail system for Arizona 
Passenger Rail Corridor Study – Tucson to Phoenix Scoping Report 

    15 

and the Southwest. Figure 2 shows how the survey responses were distributed by 

city. 

 

Figure 2 
Passenger Rail Corridor Study – Tucson to Phoenix Scoping Report 

    16 

Figure 3 shows how the survey responses were distributed by Zip Code, another 

way at looking at the information gained from the surveys. 

Figure 3 
Passenger Rail Corridor Study – Tucson to Phoenix Scoping Report 

    17 

What would be your preferred travel choice between Phoenix and Tucson? 

The Passenger Rail Corridor Study, Tucson to Phoenix is evaluating transportation 

alternatives to the personal vehicle—this could be one of several transportation 

modes. The team needed to understand peoples’ preferences with regard to 

mode to help focus the study so it can be most responsive to Arizonans’ needs 

and expectations. The survey included five transportation modes: personal 

vehicle, bus, bike, train, and air. The results indicate that rail is the mode on which 

respondents believe the study should focus. 

Table 5 – Preferred Travel Choice 

Personal 

Vehicle 

Bus Bike Train Air 

Total 589 17 8 2156 23 

Percentage 21.2% 0.6% 0.3% 77.4% 0.8% 

Auto, 

21.2% Bus, 0.6%

Bike, 

0.3%

Train, 

77.4%

Air, 0.8%

Auto

Bus

Bike

Train

Air
Passenger Rail Corridor Study – Tucson to Phoenix Scoping Report 

    18 

Geographic Distribution for Personal Vehicle as Preferred Travel Choice

Figure 4 shows that the higher percentages of personal vehicle preference are 

outside the urban areas, which is consistent with the purpose of the study: to 

study a travel choice between the two urban areas. People outside the urban 

areas did indicate that they would use the system if they were easily connected 

to it. 

Figure 4 
Passenger Rail Corridor Study – Tucson to Phoenix Scoping Report 

    19 

Geographic Distribution for Train as Preferred Travel Choice

Figure 5 shows the concentration of desire for a passenger rail option in the two 

urban areas; however, it also shows a relatively even distribution, indicating 

desire for rail throughout the state. 

Figure 5 
Passenger Rail Corridor Study – Tucson to Phoenix Scoping Report 

    20 

Do you travel between Phoenix and Tucson and any points between? 

This was a yes or no question and was important to ensure that the study team 

had reached users of the corridor. The results indicate that the survey reached 

corridor users. 

Table 6 –Travel Between Phoenix and Tucson 

Yes No 

Total 2320 182 

Percentage 93% 7% 

Yes

93%

No

7%
Passenger Rail Corridor Study – Tucson to Phoenix Scoping Report 

    21 

If you do travel between Phoenix and Tucson and any points between, why? 

The team wanted to understand why people are traveling between Tucson and 

Phoenix. Respondents were given six options to check: work, play, school, shop, 

recreate, and other. The largest number of respondents indicated that they 

travel the distance for recreation—many people mentioned trips to Sky Harbor 

Airport and sporting/cultural venues. The “other” category, which also had 

substantial responses, was primarily indicated as “visit family and friends.” 

A majority of people who listed their trip purpose in the “other” category 

indicated they would like to make the trip more often and would if they had a 

more desirable transportation alternative. The driving conditions on Interstate 10 

appear to preclude trips between Tucson and Phoenix. In addition, this 

information correlates with the large number of respondents who said that 

passenger rail would spur economic development, not only in Tucson and 

Phoenix, but also in areas between (if a station were to be located there). 

Common mentions of where intermediate stations should be located included 

Casa Grande, Florence, and Maricopa. 

Table 7 – Reason for Travel Between Phoenix and Tucson 

Work Play/ 

Recreate 

School Shop Other 

Total 688 983 46 190 597 

Percentage 24.7% 35.3% 1.7% 6.8% 21.4% 

Work, 24.7%

Play/Recreate, 

35.3%

School, 

1.7%

Shop, 6.8%

Other, 21.4%

Work

Play/Recreate

School

Shop

Other
Passenger Rail Corridor Study – Tucson to Phoenix Scoping Report 

    22 

How often do you make this trip? 

This question helped the study team begin to shape an idea of the travel 

preferences within the corridor. Respondents were given the following travel 

frequencies from which to choose for this question: daily, weekly, monthly, a few 

times a month, a few times a year, and other. Additional analysis and crossreferencing of the multiple-choice questions are included on the following pages. 

Table 8 – Frequency of Travel 

Daily Weekly Monthly Few 

Times/ 

Month 

Few 

Times/ 

Year 

Other

Total 60 195 492 349 1162 249 

Percentage 2.2% 7.0% 17.7% 12.5% 41.7% 8.9% 

Daily, 2.2%

Weekly, 

7.0%

Monthly, 

17.7%

FewMonth, 

12.5%

FewYear, 

41.7%

Other, 8.9%

Daily

Weekly

Monthly

FewMonth

FewYear

Other
Passenger Rail Corridor Study – Tucson to Phoenix Scoping Report 

    23 

Purpose/Frequency Analysis Related to Preferred Mode

The tables below tell a story about how respondents’ trip purpose and frequency 

relate to their mode preference. The data shows a cross reference between two 

questions, “What would be your preferred travel choice between Tucson and 

Phoenix?” (responses on page 17) and “How Often Do You Make This Trip?” 

(responses on page 20). The purple shading shows that the more frequently 

people travel, the more they indicate preference for a train. 

Table 9 - Purpose/Frequency for All Respondents

Daily Weekly Monthly Few 

Times/ 

Month 

Few 

Times/ 

Year 

Total 

Work 3% 5% 9% 7% 12% 37% 

Play/ 

Recreate 

0% 3% 10% 6% 32% 50% 

School 0% 1% 1% 1% 1% 3% 

Shop 0% 1% 3% 2% 5% 10% 

 Total 3% 10% 23% 15% 50% 100% 

Table 10 - Purpose/Frequency for Respondents Who Prefer Train 

Daily Weekly Monthly Few 

Times/ 

Month 

Few 

Times/ 

Year 

Total 

Work 3% 6% 9% 7% 12% 37% 

Play/ 

Recreate 

3% 6% 12% 9% 17% 48% 

School 0% 1% 1% 1% 1% 3% 

Shop 0% 1% 1% 2% 6% 12% 

 Total 6% 14% 25% 18% 37% 100% 

Table 11 - Purpose/Frequency for Respondents Who Prefer Personal Vehicle 

Daily Weekly Monthly Few 

Times/ 

Month 

Few 

Times/ 

Year 

Total 

Work 3% 5% 9% 8% 14% 39% 

Play/ 

Recreate 

0% 2% 9% 3% 35% 50% 

School 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 1% 

Shop 0% 1% 3% 1% 5% 10% 

 Total 3% 9% 22% 12% 54% 100% 
Passenger Rail Corridor Study – Tucson to Phoenix Scoping Report 

    24 

2.3 Results of Free Response Questions 

The Free-Response Questions were categorized as follows: 

Effect of New High-Capacity Travel Choice 

1. How might a new high-capacity travel choice between Phoenix and Tucson 

affect you? 

2. How might a new high-capacity travel choice affect your community? 

3. How might a new high-capacity travel choice effect your environment? 

4. Are there any specific environmental concerns or are there issues of 

resources that you are aware of that the project team should consider in the 

Tier I EIS? 

Trip Characteristics 

5. What is your typical destination? 

6. How could your trip be improved? 

Alternative Corridors 

7. Are there any ideas that make more sense than others? Do you have any 

other ideas? Anything missing? 

Forty-six percent of the comments can be summarized in the following 10 subcategories. Respondents said that they: 

 Want a train with fewer stops that can travel at a higher speed. 

 Are concerned about current and future traffic on the I-10 corridor. 

 Want more travel options. 

 Are concerned about safety on the I-10 corridor. 

 Like the idea of multi-tasking on the train instead of driving the I-10 corridor. 

 Would utilize the train to visit friends or relatives. 

 Believe the train would help improve air quality. 

 Believe the train would provide a good commute option as the region 

grows. 

 Would utilize the train to get to Sky Harbor Airport. 

 Support a train corridor that would have minimal impact on the 

environment, primarily indicating a preference for the use of I-10 or 

existing rail right-of-way. 
Passenger Rail Corridor Study – Tucson to Phoenix Scoping Report 

    25 

Common Themes

The study team conducted a number of word searches to extrapolate common 

themes and words used by participants in the completed surveys. There were no 

prompts to encourage the use of these themes or words by the project team. 

The following themes were identified and further broken down into 

subcategories (on the following pages) to help the project team analyze the 

data. 

Comment Category # Unique 

Comments 

% of Total 

Unique 

Comments 

Financial Feasibility 1,199 8% 

Operational 

Characteristics 

1,841 13% 

Safety and Security 1,720 12% 

Mobility 6,858 48% 

Environment 1,858 13% 

Economy 742 5% 

For each of the six key comment categories, the tables on the following pages 

list specific word searches that were conducted and the frequency within the 

subcategory and also overall frequency (right column). This breakdown gives the 

study team a good indication of the issues that need to be addressed by the 

project, which is a primary purpose of scoping. 

Economy

5%

Financial 

Feasibility

9%

Safety and 

Security

12%

Operational 

Characteristics

13%

Environment

13%

Mobility

48%
Passenger Rail Corridor Study – Tucson to Phoenix Scoping Report 

    26 

Mobility 

Forty-eight percent of the comments received related to mobility as determined 

by the word searches listed in the left column. 

I-10 is congested and can be unreliable because it is the only major corridor 

between the two major urban areas; as such, another transportation option is 

viewed as an improvement to mobility. 

Mobility 

Sub-category # 

Comments

% Subcategory % 

Overall 

Travel 1561 23% 10.81% 

Traffic 876 13% 6.07% 

Option/Options 871 13% 6.03% 

Work/Working 649 9% 4.49% 

Visit/Visiting 585 9% 4.05% 

Live/Living 422 6% 2.92% 

Commute 408 6% 2.82% 

Airport 379 6% 2.62% 

Congestion 238 3% 1.65% 

Stress 228 3% 1.58% 

Convenience/Convenient 223 3% 1.54% 

Relax/Relaxing 200 3% 1.38% 

Reliable 80 1% 0.55% 

Delay 56 1% 0.39% 

Accessibility/Accessible 50 1% 0.35% 

Alleviate 24 0% 0.17% 

Dependable 8 0% 0.06% 
Passenger Rail Corridor Study – Tucson to Phoenix Scoping Report 

    27 

Environment 

Thirteen percent of the comments received related to the environment as 

determined using the word searches listed in the left column. 

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 corridor were to 

be located outside an existing transportation corridor. People who favor 

passenger rail said they would oppose a system that would forge a new corridor 

and impact 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 transportation option. 

Environment 

Sub-category # 

Comments

% Subcategory % 

Overall 

Air Quality/Pollution/Smog 451 24% 3.12% 

Impact 367 20% 2.54% 

Green/Greener/Sustainable 190 10% 1.32% 

Land 148 8% 1.02% 

Efficient 122 7% 0.84% 

Emissions/Exhaust 117 6% 0.81% 

Habitat/Wildlife 107 6% 0.74% 

Noise/Loud/Sound 92 5% 0.64% 

Energy 82 4% 0.57% 

Waste 72 4% 0.50% 

Climate 25 1% 0.17% 

Quality Of Life 25 1% 0.17% 

Tribal 19 1% 0.13% 

Quiet 16 1% 0.11% 

Water Quality 12 1% 0.08% 

Beauty/Aesthetics 8 0% 0.06% 

Warming 4 0% 0.03% 

Biodiversity 1 0% 0.01% 
Passenger Rail Corridor Study – Tucson to Phoenix Scoping Report 

    28 

Operational Characteristics 

Operational characteristics 

Sub-category # 

Comments 

% Subcategory % Overall 

Speed/Time 1218 59% 8.43% 

Station/Stop(s) 353 17% 2.44% 

Frequency/Frequent 243 12% 1.68% 

Frequent 225 11% 1.56% 

Fare 27 1% 0.19% 

Thirteen percent of the comments received related to operational 

characteristics as determined using the word searches listed in the left column. 

People said they want a train with fewer stops that can travel at a higher speed. 

In addition, there was frequent mention of intermodal connections at stations. 

Although the light rail system in Phoenix has expanded the Arizona public’s view 

with regard to public transportation, there is concern expressed in the 3,500+ 

comments with 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. 
Passenger Rail Corridor Study – Tucson to Phoenix Scoping Report 

    29 

Safety and Security 

Safety and Security 

Sub-category # Comments % Subcategory % Overall 

Safe/Safety 683 40% 4.73% 

Speed 461 27% 3.19% 

Danger/Dangerous 284 17% 1.97% 

Accident/Crash 269 16% 1.86% 

Security 19 1% 0.13% 

Reckless 4 0% 0.03% 

Twelve percent of the comments received related to safety and security as 

determined using the word searches listed in the left column. 

Driving I-10 is viewed as challenging. Due to high traffic volumes, high truck traffic 

volumes, accidents and dust storms, many people said they are uncomfortable 

making the trip by car. A desire for another transportation option was clear in the 

comments. 
Passenger Rail Corridor Study – Tucson to Phoenix Scoping Report 

    30 

Financial Feasibility 

Financial feasibility 

Sub-category # Comments % Subcategory % Overall 

Cost 348 29% 2.41% 

Money 203 17% 1.41% 

Tax 157 13% 1.09% 

Spend/Spending 132 11% 0.91% 

Expense/Expensive 131 11% 0.91% 

Fund/Funding 73 6% 0.51% 

Waste 72 6% 0.50% 

Price 49 4% 0.34% 

Dollars 34 3% 0.24% 

Nine percent of the comments received related to financial feasibility as 

determined using the word searches listed in the left column. 

Comments related to financial feasibility tended to correlate with respondents 

indicating an opposition to rail, although there were some (approximately 1 

percent) that were in favor of or neutral toward rail and mentioned financial 

feasibility as a factor. 
Passenger Rail Corridor Study – Tucson to Phoenix Scoping Report 

    31 

Economic Development 

Five percent of the comments received related to the economy as determined 

using the word searches listed in the left column. 

Respondents expressed a link between the development of a transportation 

option and economic development, primarily indicating that such an option 

would spur global competitiveness and economic growth.

Economy 

Sub-category # 

Comments

% Subcategory % 

Overall 

Benefit/Beneficial 241 32% 1.67% 

Opportunity/Opportunities 236 32% 1.63% 

Jobs/Employment 136 18% 0.94% 

Growth 102 14% 0.71% 

Housing 24 3% 0.17% 

Stimulus 3 0% 0.02% 
Passenger Rail Corridor Study – Tucson to Phoenix Scoping Report 

    32 

3.0 Next Steps in the AA/EIS Process

The information obtained from the public and stakeholders during the scoping 

process will be used as the study moves forward. Next steps in the process 

include the following: 

 Review key concerns from scoping and incorporate, as appropriate, in 

the Purpose and Need and alternatives evaluation process 

 Finalize study purpose and need 

 Conduct initial screening of alternatives 

 Conduct subsequent rounds of public and stakeholder outreach 

Additional rounds of public involvement will be held to present and evaluate 

corridor locations and present environmental impacts. 
Passenger Rail Corridor Study – Tucson to Phoenix Scoping Report 

    33

Appendix A: Project Kickoff Meeting Summary 
1

March 10, 2011 Stakeholder Kickoff Meeting

On Thursday, March 10, 2011, ADOT hosted the ADOT Intercity Rail Study Kick-Off meeting at 

the Sheraton Wild Horse Pass Conference Center. The meeting was designed as an expo, with 

attendees receiving an overview presentation and then participating in information-building 

activities at a number of “booths” set up around the room. You’ll find a video of booth highlights 

at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TGc57w-wDwE

The booth titles were as follows:

 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

Highlights of some of the booth activities and what we heard are included below.

Booth Title: Why Passenger Rail in Arizona?

This booth contained a 4-minute video (looped for presentation purposes) of participants in bqAZ

2050 Statewide Transportation Planning Framework (November 2008) commenting on passenger 

rail, as well as two display boards, one with “Fun Facts” about passenger rail in Arizona and one 

with facts about the history of passenger rail in Arizona.
2

In addition there was a blank flip chart posing the question “Why Passenger Rail in Arizona?” 

and one participant wrote: “Why Not?”

Booth Title: Why This Project Now?

Display boards depicted the following statements with applicable images and large sheets were 

available on a table along with colored sticky dots and the following instructions: place a green 

dot if you agree this is a good answer to “why this project now”—a red dot if you disagree.

Preserving the Environment?

18 Green 

1 Red

Participants cited rail as a way to prevent excessive widening of the I-10 corridor and building 

new roadway alignments which would destroy the natural environment. 

Cost to Commute by Auto?

16 Green

Texting While Driving?

1 Green

15 Red

People did acknowledge it’s a problem but not that it’s a reason to have intercity rail

Airport Security Delays?

1 Green

14 Red

People did not see the intercity rail as an alternative to air travel. Generally, air travel is for longer 

distances and the trip between Phoenix and Tucson is not perceived to be one that is typically 

made by air.

Multitasking While on a Train?

14 Green

2 Red

Most people enjoyed this aspect of riding transit, especially those that had experienced 

multitasking on transit trips previously. The few negative respondents indicated that while this 

was a positive aspect it was not a reason to pursue this project now.
3

Federal High Speed Rail $?

9 Green

1 Yellow

The yellow dot for federal high speed rail meant that the participant thought intercity rail was 

something that we should be doing anyway and that the federal funding wasn’t the main reason 

to be doing it now.

Traffic Congestion?

20 Green

1 Yellow

Most people felt that intercity rail would alleviate traffic congestion on I-10. This was the number 

one reason most people felt we should build intercity rail between Phoenix and Tucson. They 

have perceived an increase in travel times along the corridor and only foresee it to get longer.

The yellow dot under traffic congestion means that it might help but the participant was skeptical 

that it would actually help alleviate congestion on I-10.

Global Competitiveness?

13 Green

1 Red

Many people cited established rail network in Europe and the emerging rail network in China. 

Suburban Sprawl?

15 Green

1 Red

Participants expressed that rail can help to focus growth.

Energy Independence?

15 Green

1 Red

Unemployment?

4 Green

6 Red

Most people saw this as providing jobs for designers and potentially construction industry, but it 

was not clear to respondents how the intercity rail would spur economic development.
4

Air Pollution?

13 Green

1 Red

Participants said that intercity rail would result in fewer cars on the road and improved air 

pollution.

Booth Title: Different Types of Rail

Summary of Events

Many individual discussions took place at the ‘Different Types of Rail’ booth involving agency 

representatives, public patrons, and various other stakeholders. Peter Gariepy, an Amtrak 

Representative, was also in attendance providing information on current Amtrak service to 

Arizona as well as discussing the potential of resuming service to the Phoenix region. Materials 

provided to engage in discussion included a rolling PowerPoint presentation detailing five 

different types of rail, a board identifying various rail system examples in the western United 

States, and an interactive board asking about the types of trips each of the rail modes service. 

Additional discussion and comments at the URS booth throughout the ADOT Intercity Rail 

Agency Kickoff meeting include the following:

• What is the difference between intercity and high speed rail?

• What is the difference between high speed and conventional intercity rail?

• What will this project be? Intercity of High speed?

• The example board needs to include more projects from Denver, CO

• Airports are the gateway to the world – Therefore connections to airports are very 

important. This comment came from Mesa Gateway Airport

• How does this project compare to what is being planned in California?

• Where will the stops/stations be located?

• Will this project compete with other FTA funding that is being sought from other Arizona 

agencies?

• Will this service connect to Queen Creek?

• Public enthusiasm is high in the Tucson area for a connection to Phoenix region. 

Comment came from PAG representative.

• The connection between Phoenix and Tucson is only a part of a larger statewide 

passenger rail network that should eventually create interstate connections. 

• Amtrak stated strong interest in providing passenger service to Phoenix again.

What kind of Trip would you take on...

The following comments were written on the URS interactive board asking people what kind of 

trips they would take on each identified rail mode:

 Streetcar – Shopping and Dining, Grocery Shopping

 Light Rail – Work, Dining, Cross town travel, Link to airport

 Commuter Rail – Work, Visit grandchildren in Mesa

 Conventional Rail – Events at Picacho Peak, Attend meetings in Tucson, ASU vs. UA 

Football Game

 High Speed Rail – Napa Valley, Trip to LA or San Diego
5

Booth Title: Mobility Benefits 

At the mobility benefits booth, participants were able to leave comments on a display board 

showing three categories. A study team representative was available to explain the activity and 

the mobility benefit display is included below. Comments received are summarized in the 

following table: 

Mobility Benefit Comment

Time Savings/Speed (None)

Access • Focus stations at locations with good transit 

connections

Transportation Alternative • I value having the additional time to do work or read 

during my commute

• More time to read and relax. Less stress of dealing 

with traffic congestion. Healthier, happier workers, 

fathers, students, people. 

• I want to work on the way. Need wi-fi!

Though few people provided comments in writing, in conversations with the study team 

representatives, most participants felt that the opportunity to use their time to accomplish work or 

other leisure activities was a significant benefit. Secondarily, the opportunity to avoid traffic 

congestion was also expressed as a benefit. In several cases, participants stated that they were 

willing to use a transit mode that was slower than driving if it meant that they could arrive at their 

destination conveniently.

. 
6

Booth Title: How Would I Get to My Destination?

The activities focusing on urban area connections allowed participants the opportunity to indicate 

important activity centers or destinations on maps of Phoenix and Tucson and identify which are 

the most important. 

Results of the mapping activity (following pages) showed that most participants felt that the 

important activity centers were located within the downtown core in Tucson (including U of A and 

the downtown business district). Within Phoenix, the majority of activity centers were dispersed 

from downtown Phoenix and the Phoenix/Sky Harbor International Airport east to Tempe roughly 

along the existing METRO light rail transit corridor. Many other activity centers were also 

identified throughout the city.

The third activity included a slideshow of transit examples in peer regions throughout the western 

United States. Photo examples included commuter rail, light rail, bus, park-and-ride, zip car, 

shuttle service, and taxi service. These examples were intended to show the alternative methods 

of making connections from between intercity rail service and a rider’s initial point of origin or final 

destination. A survey using labeled containers and marbles allowed each participant the 

opportunity to “vote” using three marbles to indicate the importance of each of the nine 

connection options. 

The table below provides a summary of the survey results: 

Connection Type Number of 

Votes

Public Transit Service 60

Private Taxi Service 3

Daily Auto Rental 7

Hourly Auto Rental 11

Free Public Parking at Intercity Rail Station 18

Paid Public Parking at Intercity Rail Stations 7

Walking 29

Cycling 12

Other 1 (carpool)

Results of the survey activity show that public transit is considered the “preferred” method for 

making an urban connection, however, support for providing access to vehicles (through rentals 

or parking) is also shown. Additionally, pedestrian (walking) and cycling connections were also 

supported as important ways to complete the trip.
7
8

Phoenix Area Participant Identified Activity Center Map
Tucson Area Participant Identified Activity Center Map Tucson Area Participant Identified Activity Center Map
10

Booth Title: Quality of Life

Display and handout materials, along with team members focused on the land use and 

sustainability aspects of the study, were available for thought-provoking discussion with 

participants on how intercity rail could affect quality of life. Comment forms at the booth posed 

three questions:

1. Which element presented on the display most defines and improved your personal quality 

of life?

2. How can we better design various transportation modes to function together, creating a 

fully integrated and more intelligent system of transportation?

3. Is it important that we find alternative fuel sources and reduce energy consumption for 

transportation?

Responses were as follows:

Which element presented on the display most defines and improves your personal quality 

of life?

 Multimodal Mobility

 Economic Vitality

 Livability

 Energy Independence

 No single element can be chosen without considering all of the others. Quality of life is 

truly improved when all other focuses are improved.

How can we better design various transportation modes to function together, creating a 

fully integrated and more intelligent system of transportation?

 Stop widening freeways and start investing in transit; use funding for I-10 Broadway 

Curve widening to put rail alongside/within the freeway.

 More interconnectivity.

 TOD and implementing an enhanced LRT/BRT system working together. The system 

needs to be safe, reliable, and economical.

 Adequately fund all moves. High speed or intercity rail that requires car rental in your 

destination city is not effective.

 Make sure there is shade for pedestrians, bicycle racks, good connectivity to buses/LRT 

so people can make a choice not to drive.

 Meet consumer needs at LRT/rail stations (e.g., co-locating convenience stores, dry 

cleaners, etc. open during all hours of transit operation).

 Any intercity Tucson/Phoenix project must include a stop in Pinal County. If not, why 

would we support it? We would rather devote the resources to implementing commuter 

rail.

Is it important that we find alternative fuel sources and reduce energy consumption for 

transportation?

 Yes! (comment received multiple times)

Other comments: Essential for a rail stop in Pinal County – begin building ridership and changing 

travel mindsets now, at the beginning. (multiple comments received about this)
11

Booth Title: Economic Vitality

Display and handout materials, along with team members were available for thought-provoking 

discussion with participants on how intercity rail could affect economic vitality. Comment forms at 

the booth posed three questions:

1. What trigger points would cause you to use intercity passenger rail? Highway 

congestion? Fuel costs? Time savings?

2. Do you feel the establishment of intercity passenger rail can help stimulate 

economic development and job creation in the Sun Corridor, between Phoenix and 

Tucson?

3. In what other ways do you believe intercity passenger rail can support the state 

and local economy?

Responses were as follows:

What trigger points would cause you to use intercity passenger rail? Highway 

congestion? Fuel costs? Time savings?

 All of these – able to relax, do work, etc. while traveling between cities is a big driver.

 All add to convenience.

 All of the above – it if makes it easier to conduct business between cities, I will ride it.

 Convenience, employment, fuel costs, inability to drive long distances.

Do you feel the establishment of intercity passenger rail can help stimulate economic 

development and job creation in the Sun Corridor, between Phoenix and Tucson?

 Absolutely! While also maintaining the distinct differences of those communities.

 Of course! It will help market the region as a single entity to businesses wanting to locate 

in Arizona – not Phoenix or Tucson, but vitality of the Sun Corridor.

 Yes! (comment received multiple times)

In what other ways do you believe intercity passenger rail can support the state and local 

economy?

 Maintaining quality of the environment so people want to visit Arizona.

 Focus growth and development at nodes rather than “everywhere”.

 It’s all about marketing the interconnected region from business development and 

location to tourism. It extends the reach of tourists to see and do more.

 Savings on transportation costs per household will increase discretionary spending 

ability.

Booth Title: Can Rail Help Shape a Community?

Display and handout materials, along with team members were available for thought-provoking 

discussion with participants on how intercity rail could help shape a community. Comment forms 

at the booth posed three questions:
12

1. Would you be willing to live in a community that is more compact and denser than 

most conventional subdivisions today, if it had easy access to day-to-day 

amenities (e.g., shopping, services, and transportation options)?

2. Would you want to live in a place where you could walk, bike, or take transit to 

most of your regular destinations?

3. If reasonably priced housing was available with easy access to local and 

regional/intercity transit (1/2 to 1 mile), would you be interested in living there? At 

what stage of your life would this be most appealing?

Responses were as follows:

Would you be willing to live in a community that is more compact and denser than most 

conventional subdivisions today, if it had easy access to day-to-day amenities (e.g., 

shopping, services, and transportation options)?

Yes (all comments received)

Comment: Tempe is on its way and I would choose to live there

Would you want to live in a place where you could walk, bike, or take transit to most of 

your regular destinations?

Yes (all comments received)

Comment: Currently live in such a place, but would like to see the infrastructure expand

If reasonably priced housing was available with easy access to local and regional/intercity 

transit (1/2 to 1 mile), would you be interested in living there? At what stage of your life 

would this be most appealing?

Yes (all comments received)

Comments:

 While still young and ready to start a family

 All stages of life

 Senior years – when I can get rid of my car (side comment: how does this effort dovetail 

with ADOT’s effort to widen the Broadway curve?)

 Young and single

 Empty nester

 After retirement

 Mid-twenties (and all other stages)

 For raising families in such an environment, it is important to also have access to good 

public schools.
13

Booth Title: What About the Environment?

The Environmental booth featured a rolling PowerPoint presentation of five slides providing an 

overview of NEPA and some of its attributes. The slides, presenting relevant bulleted lists, were 

titled as follows:

• What Is NEPA?

• Benefits of NEPA

• Misconceptions about NEPA

• Key Process Issues in NEPA

• Key Technical EIS Issues

Members of the environmental team were at the booth greeting attendees, making introductions, 

answering questions, and initiating discussions regarding the importance of the environmental 

review and clearance process. A quantity of printed information newsletters was placed at several 

access points and team members encouraged meeting attendees to take one. The 4-page color 

newsletter featured the following items:

• “Passenger Rail is coming to Arizona!” (Introduction column)

• Project Study Area Map

• “You are Invited to Participate in the NEPA Process” (4 paragraphs) 

• “The Environmental Impact Statement Process” (Straight-line process diagram)

• “Stakeholders Have a Role in the EIS Process” (Cooperating & participating agencies 

defined)

• “Why Are We Doing an EIS for this Project? (Explanatory text with a flow chart)

• “Your continued attention and input ...” (Stressed the importance of continuing 

participation)

• “NEPA benefits projects and their stakeholders by...” (Benefits of the process)

• “Stay Tuned for the Next Steps” (Alerts reader to look for NOI and Scoping)

• “A Policy Created to Protect the Environment” (Language and purpose of NEPA 

legislation)

• “For More Information Contact...” (ADOT Project Manager and Environmental Planner)

At the end of the meeting, 88 of these newsletters had been taken.

Meeting attendees were encouraged to participate in an “Alternative Selection” exercise. 

Participants were provided with a diagram of a hypothetical project involving three routes 

between two population centers (Town A and Town B). Each alternative route (1, 2, and 3) 

passed over, around, or through a variety of areas of environmental concern. A companion sheet 

provided a table listing the environmental concerns, and spaces to score the three build 

alternatives and the No Build alternative with respect to the severity of impact to each one.

Players were asked to total the number of Severe, Moderate, or None impact scores for each 

alternative, then choose one of the alternatives. Approximately 40 Comparison Table sheets were 

taken; and 37 Diagram sheets were taken. 
14

Comments Received

• One Comparison Table sheet stated the following:

o The No Build Alternative presumes that everyone drives to make this trip.

o Can’t really gauge the severity (or lack thereof) of effects from the No Build.

• Under “Based on the results, which alternative would you pick?”, the answer given was:

o The “Severe” effect on Archaeological and Historic Sites for Alternative #3 may 

be a fatal flaw; not enough information to say.

• Under “Was the decision easy or difficult to make? Why?”, the answer provided was:

o Need more information.

Although we believe the exercise was a good one, the participants could have used more 

instruction than time permitted. We received an overall positive verbal response from attendees 

about the exercise.

Booth Title: Stay Involved

A map of the study area and blank flip chart were provided with the title “Where should the mobile 

meeting unit go?” The suggestions provided on the materials and in conversation were as 

follows:

• Westgate Events in Glendale

• Avondale Libraries and American 

Sports Center

• DMV Offices

• Libraries

• Farmers Markets

• July 1-2 AZ Celebration of Freedom 

in Mesa

• Downtown Tempe

• Sun Devils Stadium

• ASU Poly—Mesa

• MACFEST—Mesa

• Mesa downtown second Friday 

events

• Mesa Celebration of Freedom (July 

4)

• Sacaton, GRIC

• Blackwater, GRIC

• Phx-Mesa Gateway Airport

• Downtown Gilbert Farmer’s Market

• Bashas

• W.L. Gore

• Westmarc

• Town of Florence: Anthem, 

Downtown, Florence Gardens

• Pinal Town Hall April 23-24

• Central AZ College

• Tucson 4th Avenue Street Fair

• Raytheon Tucson

• Airport Terminals

• Existing Light Rail Terminals

• Aviation events

• Williams Rail Days

It was also suggested that we contact and coordinate with: EV Partnership, Greater Phoenix 

Leadership, APS, SRP, TEP, Chambers of Commerce, Drachman Institute, PIRG, Parents of 

Students, the Tucson Living Streets Alliance, Tucson Airport Authority. 
Passenger Rail Corridor Study – Tucson to Phoenix Scoping Report 

    34

Appendix B: Corridor Support Team Meeting Invitation List 
Arizona Department of Transportation Passenger Rail Study

CST Distribution List

First Name Last Name Position Organization

John McNamara AECOM

Vijay Rajvanshi AECOM

Louis J. Manuel, Jr. Chairman Ak-Chin Indian Community

Bart Smith Senior Planner Ak-Chin Indian Community

Peter Gariepy Senior Analyst, State Partnership Amtrak

Jonathan Hutchinson Senior Director, Corridor Development Amtrak

Jack Rich Director of Product Management Amtrak

Corinne Nystrom First Vice President Arizona Airports Association

Nancy Welch Vice President Arizona Center for Civic Leadership - Flinn Foundation

Don Cardon Director Arizona Commerce Authority

Jessica Smothermon Director of Research and Population Statistics Arizona Commerce Authority

Jacky Alling Vice President of Programs Arizona Community Foundation

Ernest Johnson Executive Director Arizona Corporation Commission

Brian Lehman Railroad Safety Section Supervisor Arizona Corporation Commission

Chris Watson Assistant Supervisor Railroad Safety Arizona Corporation Commission

Amber Chapa Director of Community Relations Arizona Department of Environmental Quality

Kurt Maurer Deputy Director Arizona Department of Environmental Quality

Kathy Blodgett Community Development & Revitalization Administrator Arizona Department of Housing

Cindy Coen Assistant Deputy Director, Programs Arizona Department of Housing

Mike Trailor Director Arizona Department of Housing

Ray Schweinsburg Research Supervisor Arizona Game and Fish Department

Reuben Teran Project Evaluation Specialist Arizona Game and Fish Department

Kelly Wolff-Krauter Habitat Program Manager Arizona Game and Fish Department

Val Iversen Executive Director Arizona Housing Alliance

Tom Belshe Deputy Director Arizona League of Cities and Towns

Kenneth Strobeck Executive Director Arizona League of Cities and Towns

Gene Holmerud Arizona Operation Lifesaver/Arizona Passenger Railroad

Robert Bohannan President Arizona Rail Passenger Association

Anthony Haswell Vice President Arizona Rail Passenger Association

Diane Brown Executive Director Arizona Public Interest Research Group

Maria Baier State Land Commissioner Arizona State Land Department

Mark Edelman Planning and Engineering Section Arizona State Land Department

Vanessa Hickman Deputy Commissioner Arizona State Land Department

Michele Green Project Manager, Real Estate Division Planning Section Arizona State Land Department

Lillian Moodey Manager, Engineering Section Arizona State Land Department

Tim Bolton Principal Planner Arizona State Land Department

Renee Bahl Director Arizona State Parks

Neil Calfee Director of University Real Estate Development Arizona State University

Kellogg Kevin Urban Laureate Arizona State University

Steve Nielsen Assistant Vice President - University Real Estate Development Arizona State University

Julia Rosen Associate Vice President of Innovation and Entrepreneurship Arizona State University 

Kevin Kellogg Urban Laureate Arizona State University - Stardust Center

Jim Dickey Executive Director Arizona Transit Association

David Martin President Associated General Contractors - Arizona Chapter

Kurt Creagor Executive Director ASU Stardust Center for Affordable Homes and the Family

Goldstein Beau Acting Eng Coordinator, Pima Agency BIA

Hunter Ryan Realty Specialist BIA

Walker Jonah Realty Officer BIA - Pima

Latonya Finch BNSF

DJ Mitchell Assistant Vice President for Passenger Operations BNSF

Cathy Norris BNSF

Norris Cathy BNSF BNSF RR

Shultz Martin Sr Policy Director Brownstein Hyatt Farber

Martin Shultz Senior Policy Director Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck

Janna Day Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP

Nina Siquieros Superintendent Bureau of Indian Affairs - Papago Agency

Cecilia Martinez Superintendent Bureau of Indian Affairs - Pima Agency

Bob Maxwell Regional Transportation Planner Bureau of Indian Affairs - Western Regional Office

Julie Decker Bureau of Land Management

Jim Kenna State Director Bureau of Land Management

Angela Mogel AZ Realty Program Lead Bureau of Land Management

Lorri Gray-Lee Regional Director Bureau of Reclamation

Scott Friedson CAAG

Bill Leister Transportation Manager CAAG

Brian Tapp Executive Director CAAG

Jack Tomasik Regional Planning Director CAAG

Center for Biological Diversity

John Dugan Sr. Vice President Cinnabar Southwest, LLC

Fred Baker Planning Manager City of Apache Junction

George Hoffman City Manager City of Apache Junction

Bryant Powell Assistant City Manager City of Apache Junction

Shirley Gunther Intergovernmental City of Avondale

Rogene Hill Assistant City Manager City of Avondale

Marie Lopez Rogers Mayor City of Avondale

Leila DeMaree Senior Planner City of Casa Grande

Kevin Louis Public Works Director City of Casa Grande

Greg Smith Deputy Public Works Director City of Casa Grande

Page 1
Arizona Department of Transportation Passenger Rail Study

CST Distribution List

First Name Last Name Position Organization

Jim Thompson City Manager City of Casa Grande

Paul Tice Planning and Development Director City of Casa Grande

Patrice Kraus Intergovernmental Relations City of Chandler

Patrick McDermott Community Development Director City of Chandler

Alton Bruce Growth Management Director City of Coolidge

Jill Dusenberry Assistant City Manager City of Coolidge

Bob Flatley City Manager City of Coolidge

Sue Laybourn Planner City of Coolidge

Susanna Strulde Public Works Director City of Coolidge

Scott Chesney Economic Development Director City of El Mirage

George Flores Community Development Director City of El Mirage

Leah Hubbard Intergovernmental City of El Mirage

Belinda Cruz Planner City of Eloy

Rick Miller Interim Planning Director City of Eloy

John Mitchell City Engineer / Public Works Director City of Eloy

Ruth Osuna City Manager City of Eloy

Jenna Goad Intergovernmental Programs Administrator City of Glendale

Terry Johnson Deputy Transportation Director City of Glendale

Brent Stoddard Intergovernmental City of Glendale

Brian Dalke Deputy Manager City of Goodyear

Romina Khananisho Intergovernmental Programs Manager City of Goodyear

Mike Cartsonis Planner City of Litchfield Park

Darryl Crossman City of Litchfield Park

Sonny Culbreth City of Litchfield Park

Diane Landis Councilmember City of Litchfield Park

Brent Billingsley Transportation Manager City of Maricopa

Paul Jepson Intergovernmental City of Maricopa

Kellee Kelley Transit Coordinator City of Maricopa

Scott Butler Government Relations Coordinator City of Mesa

Dan Cleavenger Transportation Director City of Mesa

Mike James Transit Services Director City of Mesa

Todd Kennedy City of Mesa

Jeff Martin City of Mesa

John Wesley Planning Director City of Mesa

Jeffrey McVay Planning City of Mesa 

Ron Aames Councilmember City of Peoria

Lisa Estrada Intergovernmental Affairs Coordinator City of Peoria

Andy Granger Engineering Director City of Peoria

David Moody Transportation Planning Director City of Peoria

Arthur Othon City of Peoria

John Schell Director of Intergovernmental Affairs City of Peoria

Kreuzwiesner Shawn Engineering Planning Manager City of Peoria

Daluddung Susan Deputy City Manager City of Peoria

Jorie Bresnahan Public Transit Dept. City of Phoenix

Jane Morris City Manager's Office City of Phoenix

Danny Murphy Aviation Director City of Phoenix

Tom Remes Intergovernmental Liaison City of Phoenix

Debra Stark Planning Director City of Phoenix

Ed Zuercher Assistant City Manager City of Phoenix

Carol Johnson City of Phoenix 

Eric Buskirk Planner II City of Phoenix Aviation Department

Brad Lundahl Intergovernmental City of Scottsdale

Dave Meinhart Transit and Transportation Planning Director City of Scottsdale

David Richert Acting City Manager City of Scottsdale

Charles Potucek City Manager City of Sierra Vista

Angel Lopez Public Works City of South Tucson

Enrique Serna City Manager City of South Tucson

Michael Celaya Intergovernmental City of Surprise

Kathy Rice Assitant City Manager City of Surprise

Karen Savage Senior Transportation Planner City of Surprise

Sharon Wolcott Councilmember City of Surprise

Don Bessler Public Works Director City of Tempe

Hugh Hallman Mayor City of Tempe

Chad Heinrich Government Relations City of Tempe

Greg Jordan City of Tempe

Jeff Kulaga Assistant City Manager City of Tempe

Jyme Sue McLaren Deputy Community Development Manager City of Tempe

Bonnie Richardson Community Development City of Tempe

Amber Wakeman Assistant to the City Council City of Tempe

Robert Yabes Principal Planner City of Tempe

Reyes Medrano Jr. City Manager City of Tolleson

Donovan Durband Council Aide City of Tucson

Albert Elias Director of Housing and Development City of Tucson

Jim Glock Transportation Director City of Tucson

Mike Letcher City Manager City of Tucson

Mac Hudson Aide to Regina Romero City of Tucson

Mary Okoye Intergovernmental Relations Director City of Tucson

Regina Romero Councilmember City of Tucson

Page 2
Arizona Department of Transportation Passenger Rail Study

CST Distribution List

First Name Last Name Position Organization

Karin Uhlich Councilmember City of Tucson

Gene Holmerud Coalition of AZ Bicyclists/AZ Rail Passenger Association

Elisa DeLaVara District Director Congressman Pastor's Office

Richard Patrick Legislative Director Congressman Pastor's Office

Bobby Blake General Superintendent & SLE Copper Basin Railway Inc.

Dan Klocke Vice President - Development Downtown Phoenix Partnership

Ray Cabrera Downtown Phoenix Partnership

Marilyn Robinson Associate Director Drachman Institute/University of Arizona

Roc Arnett President & CEO East Valley Partnership

Clifton Meek Lead Reviewer Environmental Protection Agency

Wendy Messenger Environmental Protection Specialist Federal Railroad Administration

Leslie Rogers Federal Transit Administration

Nate Banks Senior Engineering Manager - Program Management & Techincal SFHWA

Ken Davis Senior Engineering Manager - Operations FHWA

Mary Frye Environmental Program Manager FHWA

Georgi Jasenovec Community Planner FHWA

Karla Petty Arizona Division Administrator FHWA

Ed Stillings Engineering Development Coordinator FHWA

Clinton M. Pattea President Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation

Alfonso Rodriguez Director Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation

Guy Mikkelsen Director Foundation for Senior Living

David Schwartz Executive Director Friends of Transit, Inc.

White David Community Manager Gila River Indian Community

William R. Rhodes Governor Gila River Indian Community

Sasha Saliego Transportation Planner Gila River Indian Community

Douglas Torres Director Gila River Indian Community

Todd Sanders Vice President of Public Affairs Greater Phoenix Chamber of Commerce

Barry Broome President & Chief Executive Officer Greater Phoenix Economic Council

Lisa Atkins Vice President Greater Phoenix Leadership

Johnson Steve Engineer GRIC DOT

Mark McLaren HDR

Kelso Trent HDR

Steve Farley State Representative District 28 House of Representatives

Jack Allen Jacobs

Anthony Scolaro Jacobs

Kristin Bornstein KDA Creative

Perkins David Kimley-Horn and Associates

Keri Lazarus Silvyn Lewis and Roca LLP

Liz Geare Lewis and Roca LLP

Jennifer Pena Deputy City Clerk Litchfield Park

Kimber Lanning Director Local First Arizona

Teresa Brice Executive Director Local Initiatives Support Corporation - Phoenix

Eric Anderson Transportation Director Maricopa Association of Governments

Marc Pearsall Senior Transit Planner Maricopa Association of Governments

Nathan Pryor Intergovernmental Policy Coordinator Maricopa Association of Governments

Dennis Smith Executive Director Maricopa Association of Governments

Tim Strow Transportation Planner Maricopa Association of Governments

Kevin Wallace Transit Program Manager Maricopa Association of Governments

Kuspert Johanna Planner, Rule Writer Maricopa County Air Quality Department

Radigan Meg Educator/Program Director Maricopa County Department of Public Health

Mendoza Rebecca Injury Prevention Health Educator Maricopa County Department of Public Health

Denise Lacey Senior Planner Maricopa County Department of Transportation

Tim Oliver Systems Planning Branch Manager Maricopa County Department of Transportation

Peggy Rubach Bicycle/Multimodal Planner Maricopa County Department of Transportation

Mitch Wagner Senior Planner Maricopa County DOT Planning Division

Amir Motomedi Maricopa County Flood Control District

Wulf Grote Director of Planning and Development METRO

Farry John Director, Communication & Govt Relations Metro

Sue Clark-Johnson Executive Director Morrsion Institute for Public Policy

David Daugherty Director of Research Morrsion Institute for Public Policy

Mike Garey National Association of Rail Passengers

Diana Yazzie Devine Director Native American Connections, Inc.

Richard Travis Nexxus Consulting

Cherie Campbell Transportation Planning Director PAG

Carlos DeLeon Director of Transit Services PAG

Gary Hayes Executive Director PAG

Ryan Cook Parsons Brinkerhoff

Heiss Parsons Brinkerhoff

Steve Hogan Parsons Brinkerhoff

Jennifer Love Senior Planner Parsons Brinkerhoff

Frank Medina Parsons Brinkerhoff

Don Smith Environmental Manager Parsons Brinkerhoff

Scott Pitera Parsons Brinkerhoff

Artemio Hoyos Tribal Planner Pascua Yaqui Tribe

Peter Yucupicio Chairman Pascua Yaqui Tribe

Kerwin Brown Passport Railroad

Stanley Taylor Founder and Chairman Passport Railroad

Don Keuth President Phoenix Community Alliance

Page 3
Arizona Department of Transportation Passenger Rail Study

CST Distribution List

First Name Last Name Position Organization

Sean Sweat Phoenix Downtowner

Casey Denny Deputy Director Phoenix-Mesa Gateway Airport & Arizona Airports Association

Lynn Kusy Executive Director Phoenix-Mesa Gateway Airport, WGAA Admin Offices

Jeremy Papuga Transit Planning and Operations Manager Pima Association of Governments

Arlan Colton Planning Director Pima County

Priscilla Cornelio Director of Transportation Pima County

Charles Huckelberry County Administrator Pima County

Fritz Behring County Manager Pinal County

Kathy Borquez Special Projects Manager Pinal County

Ken Buchanan Assistant County Manager Pinal County

Doug Hansen Principal Transportation Planner Pinal County

Tim Kanavel Economic Development Manager Pinal County

David Snider Supervisor Pinal County

David Maestas Transportation Planner Pinal County

Jerry Stabley Planning Director Pinal County

Greg Stanley Director Public Works Pinal County

David Snider Supervisor District 3 Pinal County Board of Supervisors

Andy Smith Transportation Planner Pinal County Department of Public Works

Jordan Rose Executive Director Pinal Partnership

Sandie Smith President & CEO Pinal Partnership

Leslie Dornfeld President Plan-ET

Robert Smith Associate Vice President Planning, Design, and Construction University of Arizona

Corky Poster Senior Fellow / Architect Planner Poster Frost Mirto

Petrich Mike Finance PPRR

Serena Unrein Public Interest Advocate Public Interest Research Group

Brad Ross Manager Infrastructure Resolution Copper Co.

Ben Patton Senior Planning Advisor Ridenour, Heinton & Lewis, PLLC

Chris Webb Director of Project Management Rose Law Group

Jane Pearson Associate Director Saint Lukes Health Initiative

Diane Enos President Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community

Phil Matthews Director of Design Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community

Greg Lucero County Manager and SEAGO Chairman Santa Cruz County

Sara Dial President and CEO Sara Dial & Associates, Inc.

Jeff Gauvin Vice President/Community Development Officer Social Sustainability Group, Wells Fargo Bank

Ted Hullar Campaign Chair Solar Bullet

Carla Nelson Campaign Manager Solar Bullet

Matt Novak Solar Bullet

Ivar Sanders Solar Bullet

Greg Smith Solar Consultant Solar Bullet

Jim Holway Joint Venture Program Director Sonoran Institute

Luther Propst Executive Director Sonoran Institute

Dave Richins Sun Corridor Legacy Program Director Sonoran Institute

Ronald Shoopman President Southern Arizona Leadership Council

Jay Smyth Chair Southwest Rail Corridor Coalition

Gene Caywood Southwest Rail Corridor Coalition/Arizona Rail Passenger Association

Anthony Escarcega Southwest Rail Passenger Association

Mary McLain Sun Tran Tucson Valley Metro

Kate Riley Sun Tran Tucson Valley Metro

James Poggemeyer Preconstruction Project Manager Sundt Construction

Mike Hutchinson Director Superstition Vistas

Jeff Denzack ULI Smart Growth Committee Chair Swaback Partners

Gerald Dixon Partner The Gadsden Company, LLC

Adam Weinstein Partner The Gadsden Company, LLC

Pat Graham Director The Nature Conservancy - Arizona

Cheryl Lombard Government Relations Director The Nature Conservancy - Arizona

Jim Pederson Chairman The Pederson Group

Joan Navarro Office of Business Affairs The University of Arizona

Ned Norris, Jr. Chairman Tohono O'odham Nation

Fred Stevens Planner Tohono O'odham Nation

Jason Bayer Economic Development Director Town of Buckeye

Steve Cleveland Town Manager Town of Buckeye

David Johnson Intergovernmental Affairs Town of Buckeye

Scott Lowe Public Works Town of Buckeye

Paul Ward Senior Project Manager Town of Buckeye Engineers Office/W.C. Scoutten

Gary Neiss Town Administrator Town of Carefree

Usama Abujbarah Town Manager Town of Cave Creek

Mark Eckhoff Community Development Director Town of Florence

Jess Knudson Deputy Town Manager Town of Florence

Himanshu Patel Town Manager Town of Florence

Mark Thompson Town Planner I Town of Florence

Richard Davis Town Manager Town of Fountain Hills

Fredrick Buss Town Manager Town of Gila Bend

Eric Fitzer Planning and Economic Development Director Town of Gila Bend

Mike Gillespie Town Engineer Town of Gilbert

Michelle Gramley Intergovernmental Town of Gilbert

Herb Jeff Town Traffic Engineer Town of Gilbert

Tami Ryall Deputy Manager Town of Gilbert

Kurt Sharp Management Assistant Town of Gilbert

Page 4
Arizona Department of Transportation Passenger Rail Study

CST Distribution List

First Name Last Name Position Organization

Greg Tilque Development Services Director Town of Gilbert

Bill Hernandez Town Manager Town of Guadalupe

Gary Eide Town Manager Town of Kearny

Keith Brann Town Engineer Town of Marana

Gilbert Davidson Town Manager Town of Marana

Steve Huffman Intergovernmental Affairs Administrator Town of Marana

Scott Leska Capital Improvement Division Manager Town of Marana

Carol McGorray Councilmember Town of Marana

Jeorge Riveros Traffic Engineer Town of Marana

Lisa Shafer Interim Planning Director Town of Marana

T VanHook Director of Community Development Town of Marana

Craig Civalier Town Engineer Town of Oro Valley

Greg Caton Manager's Office Town of Oro Valley

Joe Hornat Councilmember Town of Oro Valley

Aimee Ramsey Transit Service Administrator Town of Oro Valley

Dave Andrews Deputy City Manager Town of Paradise Valley

Tom Condit Town Engineer Town of Queen Creek

Wendy Kaserman Intergovernmental Affairs Town of Queen Creek

John Kross Town Manager Town of Queen Creek

Rosanna Gabaldon Councilmember Town of Sahuarita

Farhad Moghimi Public Works Director/ Town Engineer Town of Sahuarita

Sarah More Planning Director Town of Sahuarita

Dylan Parry Assistant Planner Town of Sahuarita

Jim Stahle Town Manager Town of Sahuarita

Becky Brothers Public Works Director Town of Superior

Olga Lopez Vice Mayor Town of Superior

Melanie Oliver Town Manager Town of Superior

Gary Edwards Town Manager Town of Wickenburg

Mark Hannah Public Works Director Town of Youngtown

Lloyce Robinson Town Manager Town of Youngtown

Bonnie Allin President and Chief Executive Officer Tucson Airport Authority

Jordan Feld Director of Planning Tucson Airport Authority

Robert Medler Tucson Chamber of Commerce

George Caria Tucson Department of Transportation

Tom Fisher Project Manager Tucson Department of Transportation

Joe Snell President & CEO Tucson Regional Economical Opportunities, Inc.

David Welsh Sr. VP Strategic Partnerships Tucson Regional Economical Opportunities, Inc.

Zoe Richmond Director of Public Affairs Union Pacific Railroad

J.S. Wilmoth Union Pacific Railroad

David Heineking Director of Parking and Transportation University of Arizona

Steve Betts Chairman Urban Land Institute - Phoenix

Debra Sydenhan Executive Director Urban Land Institute - Phoenix

Kammy Horne URS

Rick Pilgrim URS

Jennifer Pyne URS

Joe Racosky URS

Kathleen Tucker Regulator US Army Corps of Engineers

Debra Bills US Fish and Wildlife

Steve Spangle US Fish and Wildlife

Jim Upchurch Forest Supervisor US Forest Service - Coronado National Forest

Diane Brossart Executive Director Valley Forward

Jay Hicks Director/Chair Valley Forward

Stephen Banta Chief Executive Officer Valley Metro Light Rail

David Boggs Valley Metro RPTA

Stuart Boggs Transit Planning Manager Valley Metro RPTA

Ketcherside Carol Planning Director Valley Metro RPTA

Bryan Jungwirth Chief of Staff Valley Metro RPTA

Ben Limmer Planning Manager Valley Metro RPTA - Rail

Marty Bressor Principal Engineer Wass Gerke & Associates, Inc

Dave Moran Wass Gerke & Associates, Inc

Jack Lunsford President & CEO Westmarc

Peter Hemingway Senior Vice President Wood/Patel

Kristin Almquist

Walker Marisa

Dudley Matt City of Glendale

Harry Mitchell Congressman (Former)

Robert Young Transportation Systems Division Manager Pima County Department of Transportation

Dina Higgins Councilmember City of Mesa

Adam Mcanally Supervisor Ray Carrol's Office Pima County

Belinda Akes Executive Director Eloy Chamber of Commerce

Kevin Burke Assistant to the Town Manager Town of Oro Valley

Grant Anderson Willdan

John Jones Planner

Dick Johnson Citizen

Matt Carpenter Regional Transportation Planner ADOT

Page 5
Passenger Rail Corridor Study – Tucson to Phoenix Scoping Report 

    35

Appendix C: Corridor Support Team Meeting Summary 
Corridor Support Team Meetings: Round 1

June 21, 2011 – June 28, 2011

Tucson, Coolidge, and Phoenix

The Arizona Department is conducting a study to identify potential corridors for a new high‐

capacity travel choice between Phoenix and Tucson.  As part of the process, Corridor

Support Team (CST) meetings are being held at key points to continually gain input from

stakeholders and help guide the study.  The first round was held at the locations listed below.  

Two additional rounds for CST meetings will be held during the study as identified in the

project Participation Plan.   

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

Meeting Notification

ADOT distributed 370 email invitations using Constant Contact on June 10, 2011.  In addition,

ADOT staff and team members used work‐of‐mouth techniques to increase interest in the

workshops.   

Meeting Summary

ADOT project manager, Mike Kies, welcomed

participants and thanked them for their

attendance.  He then gave a brief overview of the

study, the schedule, and the purpose of the

workshop.  Participants then rotated between

three workshops: Purpose and Need, summarized

starting on Page 2, Range of Alternatives (Page 15),

and Evaluation Framework (Page 29).  Participants

evaluated the meeting at the end of each day.  A

summary of their feedback on the events is

included starting on Page 39.

(The photo to the right shows a group participating

in the Range of Alternatives workshop in Tucson.)  
2

Purpose and Need Workshop Summary

The Purpose and Need workshop was designed to help participants understand the process

of the study and create a defensible purpose and need statement.  Participants were

encouraged to base discussions on the assumption that the project was successful and

complete and to develop a list of needs that identify potential benefits and outcomes, as well

as determining how to measure the success.

Southern CST Group 1:

What are the elements of a successful project?

1. Travel time between Phoenix and Tucson needs to be less than two hours.  

2. Integrated system with local and express service and local connections.  

3. Easy to use.  

4. Easily understood.

5. Easily accessible.

6. Frequent.

7. Dependable.

8. Economical.

9. Improves safety.

10. Improves quality of life.

11. Creates wealth and redevelopment opportunities.

12. Increases sustainability and mixed use development.

13. Amenities on train allow for multiple uses.

14. Improved air quality.

15. Solar powered train.  

16. System in place before I‐10 is widened (money savings).

17. Improved public health (reduces health care costs).

18. Connections to all activity centers with minimal transfers.

19. Alternative route to move people in emergency situations.  

20. End of the line mobility choice (example: bikes, pedestrian, etc.)

21. Dedicated corridor right‐of‐way.

22. Help with energy independence.
3

Going through the process (numbers correlate to the list above):

Elements of Success

NeedPositiveOutcomeOpportunityOther

What else would create this

success?

How could

success be

measured?

1.  Travel time between

Tucson  and Phoenix less

than 2 hours       

banning trucks, increasing

speed, controlled growth

9. Improves safety

     

Miles traveled,

number of

accidents

11. Creates

wealth/redevelopment

opportunities

In terms

of jobs

created

in

corridor

X   

build a baseball stadium,

bring development in

(example: Motorola)

Additional comments regarding the process:

9.   Implies not safe now, concern about how we describe because don’t want to say

unsafe today.  In future the time it takes to travel between is the safety issue (unsafe

to take 5 hours to drive from Phoenix to Tucson), increases possibility of more

accidents.

11. Creating wealth in the areas, ability for commerce in the Sun Corridor

General Comments/Questions:

 Do you take current needs into account or just the future needs?

We are looking at a possible rail line but need to look at all solutions, including

pedestrian mobility, etc., as a holistic approach.

Southern CST Group 2:

What are the elements of a successful project?

1. Maintains today’s level of service on I‐10.

2. Faster and more convenient than car.

3. Privately operated.

4. Well developed stations with destinations.
4

5. Ability to work and do other things while riding.

6. Adds to economic and personal success of commuters.

7. Reduces carbon emissions.

8. Gets you to where you want to go – secondary locations.

9. Economic opportunity.

10. Facilitates tourism.

11. Financially self sufficient.

12. Uses smallest footprint possible by using the existing right‐of‐way and corridors.  

13. Easy to access.

14. No negative impact to cargo movement.

15. Spawns secondary development impacts on businesses like rental cars.  

16. More focused planning and development – high employment areas.  

17. Dependable.  

18. No impacts on other modes.  

19. Public relation acceptance and the experience should be positive.  

20. Corporate cooperation.

21. High ridership.

22. Capacity to reduce congestion on I‐10.

23. Train that gets from Tucson to Phoenix in one hour.  

Going through the process:

Elements of Success

NeedPositiveOutcomeOpportunityOther

What else would create

this success?

How could

success be

measured?

2.  Faster and more

convenient than car X      

more roads, wider roads,

buses, congestion

management, airports

7.  Reduces carbon

emissions

      

increase land use density,

decrease population, use

alternative vehicles, tax

program encouraging

conversion of cars to

natural gas, expansion of

bike lanes
5

Elements of Success

NeedPositiveOutcomeOpportunityOther

What else would create

this success?

How could

success be

measured?

9.  Economic opportunity sitting on train

gives time be

productive and

generates other

opportunities

(employees able

to get to their

job and using

computer ‐ one

generates the

next)

economic

developm

ent in key

areas ‐ 

may not

make us

successful

Mixed land use ‐ revenue

generation, create

employment

Additional comments regarding the process:

2.  Successful because not fighting congestion and cause is capacity deficiency (not

meeting demand)

7.  Cannot tell people to buy and use electric cars

9.  Station distance for a fast train means only a few places where economic

development could occur.  Why not just add the money to the local economy? This will

be used in screening process.

General Comments/Questions:

 Who is the lead agency on this project? Will there be cooperating agencies?  If so,

who are they?

 If the FRA and FTA each have their own interpretation of how to implement NEPA,

how are we/you going to deal with that?

 A lot of these success elements will be included as part of the Evaluation Criteria for

the Alternatives Analysis.

 What are other states doing by way of Purpose and Need for intercity rail projects?

Answer: Their Purpose and Need statements tend to focus on three elements 1)

Modal Choice 2) Dependability 3) Transportation Solution.

 Success for this project could be judged/determined by its ability to obviate the need

to expand I‐10 to five lanes.  Someone had mentioned earlier that a successful project

would maintain the current level of service on I‐10. That is an important point—not

promising that the project will deliver more than it possibly can, given projections of

population, employment, and traffic growth. The Purpose and Need should not

overstate the solution to the transportation problem.
6

 The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act included funding for rail lines and

touted High‐Speed Rail as the wave of the future. However, some states turned

down the funding for these projects. Hopefully ADOT is positioning itself to be ready

to take advantage of funding like this when it becomes available.

Central CST Group 1:

What are the elements of a successful project?

1. Self‐funded through rider fares.

2. Available, with convenient hours of operation.

3. A system/route that works for passengers and freight.

4. Station locations that best serve Pinal County’s population.

5. Serves planned (and existing) population and job centers.

6. Helps attract economic development.

7. Integrates into both larger (interstate) and smaller (local) comprehensive

transportation planning strategies.

8. Improves air quality.

9. Reduces reliance on petroleum‐based fuels.

10. Allows for both High‐Speed service as well as local connections.

11. Serves all three areas—both ends and the part in between.

12. Has multiple access points within Pinal County.

13. Encourages the use of alternate transportation modes in surrounding communities.

14. Fully connected with other transportation modes.

15. Relieves I‐10 congestion.

16. Serves as an emergency (evacuation) route.

17. Must not have too many stops. Every 10 miles is too much.

18. Financially self‐sustaining and self‐sufficient.

19. A safe system, in terms of security.

20. Preserves Pinal County’s existing lifestyle and environment while providing the

modern conveniences that transit offers.
7

Going through the process:

Elements of Success

NeedPositiveOutcomeOpportunityOther

What else would create

this success?

How could success

be measured?

6. Attracts economic

development

X* X X   ‐Vehicle maintenance

facility in Pinal County

‐Airport(s)

‐Int’l. Trade Center(s)

‐Inland Ports

‐Better overall

economy

‐More jobs  

‐Stops= seed points

for development

8. Improves air quality;

reduces carbon footprint;

decreases dependence on

petroleum‐based fuels

X X X More electric vehicles (But

then, how is that

electricity produced? Coal?

Nuclear power?)

Populations in rural

areas typically

prefer to attract

jobs rather than

protect or

minimize  carbon

footprint

20. A safe system

‐ Improve the entire

transp. system and overall

safety is improved.

‐ Important to phrase

correctly: be careful not to

imply that existing system

& design standards are

unsafe.

X    More airplanes.

Everyone stays home.

No conflicts

between.

passenger and

freight usage

Additional comments regarding the process:

6. One participant objected to labeling economic development as an opportunity rather

than a need. He insisted that economic development in the Pinal County area is a

genuine need.

Coordinate new transportation with multimodal systems already in place that have

been tied to planned development.

New transportation infrastructure must partner with communities to create centers

for economic development.

Too many stops kills us; too few stops kills us. A stop in the wrong location would

harm the economy.

Strategically placed stops will self‐generate development.
8

8. Increase options for mobility. The more options people have, the less dominant any

one option becomes. If bus, air, bike, or car are also available, one can choose mode

based on other things such as convenience.

20. Which alternatives are safest?  

At what speeds do safety issues change?  

Does the alternative have grade crossings in high‐activity areas?  

Would it impede automobile traffic?  

Can passengers safely cross tracks to get onto and off of platforms on the other side?  

These are all criteria for evaluating alternatives.

General Comments/Questions:

 If jobs come to Pinal, county residents may not need to commute to the cities

and the existing transportation system may not need to be improved.

 Forty to sixty percent of Pinal County’s workforce currently commutes to

employment centers outside of Pinal; we would like to see this export of labor

reverse to an import of workers flowing to jobs located here.

 Locate stops in places which can be developed to encourage employers to build

there; set up transit centers.

 Maximize the effectiveness and future economic opportunities of existing and

planned Centers or Hubs.  

 Stops are important, but the economic development engines are already in place.

 Right now, we are sitting in the future economic center of the Megapolitan.

Central CST Group 2:

What are the elements of a successful project?

1. Meets or exceeds ridership targets

2. Has high ridership

3. Large ridership within Pinal County

4. Supported by local governments and communities

5. From home to destination with minimal transfers

6. Shifts the culture from being automobile‐based to using rail

7. Achieves national awards (not grants) and recognition

8. Collaborates with existing and future public transportation systems

9. Less expensive comparable to driving

10. Comparable in time and comfort to driving

11. Ability to multitask while traveling

12. Operation and Maintenance self‐funded without future government subsidy

13. An affordable ticket

14. Reduction in accidents and fatalities per person‐mile

15. Provides additional services to citizens and commuters

16. Compatible with land uses
9

17. Supports economic development

18. Does not bypass Pinal County

19. Gets people to business opportunities in Pinal County

Going through the process:

Elements of Success

NeedPositiveOutcomeOpportunityOther

What else would create

this success?

How could

success be

measured?

1.  Meets or Exceeds

Ridership Targets

X     More modal choices for

personal transportation

14. Reduction in

accidents and Fatalities   

X        

Additional comments regarding the process:

1. This boils down to the problem of insufficient capacity in the existing transportation

system. Capacity increases are planned to take place (e.g., highway widening), but

future growth is projected to exceed the increase in capacity. Other reasons for high

ridership are:

- Choices in transportation mode

- Opportunity for transit‐oriented development

14. This is more of a secondary outcome than a current transportation problem.

General Comments/Questions:

 With gasoline prices going up, a transit option will become more important.

 We need to be able to answer the question of who would work here (in Pinal County)

and how they would get to and from work.  A train alone would only be part of the

solution.

 There are places across the U.S. where there used to be daily train service. In

Michigan, there were commuter trains from Pontiac to downtown Detroit in the late

1980s. Eventually they disappeared—I don’t know exactly why. Now they’re talking

about building a new line down Woodward Avenue. These points are all important to

the Alternatives Evaluation Criteria
10

Northern CST Group 1

Prior to the exercise, one of the stakeholders present expressed a concern about the

accuracy of the projected population, employment, and travel time data. He cited the

findings of the 2010 Census vs. the projections that had been made prior to that, and

mentioned how the growth was not nearly as robust as what was projected. He stated that it

was important that we “stress test” our assumptions.

Another stakeholder countered with the opinion that, whether projections are reached in

2050, 2040, 2060, or whenever, eventually there will be a greater need for additional

transportation capacity and modal choice.

Jack Allen, project team member, responded that the concern about the projections was a

valid point, that they should be verified throughout the process. We then moved on to the

exercise.

What are the elements of a successful project?

1. Drive time Phoenix to Tucson on I‐10 less than 4 hours in 2050.

2. Ability for both metro areas to remain competitive in a global economy.

3. Helps develop or support the Sun Corridor.

4. Limits stations to targeted growth areas in the Sun Corridor.

5. Protects/preserves the cultural and environmental assets of the region.

6. Supports compact vs. dispersed development.

7. Provides the fastest way to get to Tucson from Phoenix, with only one or two stops.

8. Meets both express and local needs; i.e., express to Tucson and the “milk run” as

well.

9. Accommodates safety measures for all modes and encourages use of all modes.

10. Improves air quality.

11. Not a stand‐alone (single mode) corridor, but rather integrated with the regional

transit system (on the same right‐of‐way).

12. Supports sustainability.

13. Can find another connecting mode at each station or “hub”.

14. Is low‐cost and affordable (to passengers).

15. Incorporates wildlife corridors, with minimal impact to the environment; i.e., minimal

physical and carbon footprint.

16. High public acceptability; creates synergies with local jurisdictions.

17. High ridership/performance; cost‐effective.

18. Chosen alternative must also improve mobility of freight (goods).

19. Improved personal productivity while riding.

20. Multimodal connectivity.

21. Can be expanded beyond Maricopa County and Tucson.

22. Helps save money.
11

Going through the process:

Elements of Success

NeedPositiveOutcomeOpportunityOther

What else would create

this success?

How could success

be measured?

1.  Drive time from Phoenix to

Tucson less than 4 hours in

2050

X X X   ‐Build a Parallel Freeway

‐More airline service

‐Managed Lanes

‐Increase connectivity

through other means, e.g.

telecommuting

Drive time  

5.  Develop Sun Corridor

Economy (piggybacks on 3)

X X X    

Additional comments regarding the process:

3, 5 & 9.  (Regarding all of these) These outcomes imply a coordinated approach to planning

and implementation. Not just ADOT and the Federal agencies, but local jurisdictions need

to work together with state and regional planning efforts.

Additional comments regarding the process:

 The marriage of transportation and land use has to happen early. We don’t have the

Federal dollars to do this, and then decide it could have been better.    

Northern CST Group 2:

What are the elements of a successful project?

1. Allows more modal choices for commuters.

2. Supports walkable, sustainable communities along the route.

3. Won’t have to keep widening I‐10 and other highways.

4. Minimize impacts to/improve air and water quality.

5. Travel times shorter than using my automobile.

6. Less congestion and less fuel consumption.

7. Amenities on board the train.

8. Better use of my personal time.

9. Offers recreational use through establishment or connections to destination spots.

10. Creates jobs and economic opportunities.

11. Is able to grow/expand to meet future capacity needs.

12. Affordable, saves people money on gasoline.
12

13. Is part of a multimodal corridor not a stand‐alone route.

14. Connects to major airports.

15. Ridership exceeds expectations.

16. Reduces sprawl.

17. Connects research labs with universities.

18. Represents energy independence.

19. Uses ROW for solar panel installations.

20. Self‐funding, financially sustainable.

21. Connects to other modes of transport.

22. Is a defining element of the Sun Corridor for the rest of the world.

Going through the process:

Elements of Success

NeedPositiveOutcomeOpportunityOther

What else would create

this success?

How could

success be

measured?

3. Not having to widen I‐

10 to 24 lanes   

X        

16.  Reduces Sprawl

X X   

‐Environmentally

responsive politicians

‐Growth Boundaries

‐Locate job centers

proximate to population

centers

Additional comments regarding the process:

3.  Maintaining the current footprint of the highway could be defended both from an

environmental as well as a financial standpoint   

16.  Someone threw out the phrase “controlled sprawl.” If you plan the route strategically in

a way that will prevent sprawl, it will help in focusing growth and development

General Comments/Questions:

 Question: We’re dealing with FRA and FTA. They each have different expectations

and interpretations of how the NEPA process is carried out. How is that going to

work in this project?

Answer: ADOT and the project team are aware of that situation, as are FRA and FTA.

We have been coordinating with both agencies at an early stage, keeping them
13

apprised of what our approach is, looking for their input and guidance along the way,

so that in the end we have a process and a document that satisfies both agencies.

Northern CST Group 3:

What are the elements of a successful project?

1. Easy to get to

2. Cost effective

3. Enjoyable / comfortable

4. Safe

5. Punctual / reliable

6. Promotes economic growth

7. High level of community acceptance (e.g. METRO has become a part of the fabric)

8. Concentrates future growth within the Megapolitan (Phoenix – Tucson) Sun Corridor;

reduces sprawl; “smart sprawl” transition from agricultural land

9. Creates a paradigm shift, not just thinking to always build more freeways, but more in

terms of sustainability

10. Benefits are perceived by those who may not use the rail facility; i.e., broad overall

community acceptance

11. Goes where you want to go with ease of access to final destination

12. High ridership: No empty seats

13. Promotes regional cooperation

14. Provides enhanced mobility to groups such as students as well as commuters and

business

15. It is part of an integrated system (including autos, and regional/other states/other

modes/other local transportation systems); provides options

16. Reduces carbon footprint; is environmentally friendly

Going through the process:

Elements of Success

NeedPositiveOutcomeOpportunityOther

What else would create

this success?

How could

success be

measured?

9.  Paradigm shift from

auto to rail

X    

‐Education

‐Explanation

‐Example set by METRO

‐Price of gasoline

attaining $4, $5, or $6 per

gallon
14

Elements of Success

NeedPositiveOutcomeOpportunityOther

What else would create

this success?

How could

success be

measured?

12. High ridership; No

empty seats    X        

15. Is part of an

integrated system

      

Enhances

and defines

the

transportati

on system

Additional comments regarding the process:

Mr. Allen concluded by stating to the group that we hoped they now all understood that

the Success Elements they had mentioned may not all appear in the Project Need

Statement published as part of the NOI, because they don’t all necessarily have a

transportation problem at their root. But these ideas, if they don’t fit into the Purpose

and Need, will play a role elsewhere in the Alternatives Analysis process, possibly under

Evaluation Criteria.
15

Range of Alternatives Workshop Summary

The Range of Alternative workshop offered participants the opportunity to think critically

about a potential alignment of a rail line and stations considering land use and future

development throughout the corridor.  Participants used large maps showing corridors of

ongoing studies and yarn to illustrate route alternatives.   

To encourage discussion, larger groups were divided into groups of ten or less participants.  

In the time allotted, groups were able to develop two alternatives.  Below is a summary of

the comments observed through group discussions.  

A “Range of Alternatives” (ROA) workshop was held as part of each CST meeting. In this

session, participants were divided into small groups, and provided with a map of the overall

study area, which included outlines of corridors identified in previous transportation studies.

The groups were then asked to identify potential rail alignments and potential station

locations using string, stickers, and markers. Groups were also asked to record the overall

purpose or goal of each alignment, as well as the type of service (local service or express

service) that would best serve that purpose.  

Below is a summary of the information gleaned from each CST meeting, including

breakdowns on the frequency with which specific corridors and station locations were

identified by workshop participants.  

Northern CST

The Northern CST meeting, held in Phoenix, had the highest attendance of the three

locations, with seven separate groups participating in the ROA workshop. These groups

identified local service alignments with an average length of 120 miles, and an average travel

time of 86 minutes. The participants also located an average of 3.6 stations per alignment.

The groups also identified an express service, which would follow the same alignment as

local service but with fewer intermediate stops and a faster travel time. The express option

had an average of 1.6 stations and average of 71 minutes of travel time.  A number of trip

purposes or goals were recorded for each potential alternative. The most common of these

were:

 Creating a commuter route connected to residential areas,  

 Creating connections to future and existing employment centers, and  

 Providing connections to airports and future light rail / BRT systems.

The overall results for the Northern CST are summarized in Table 1 and Table 2.    

    
16

       Table 1: Northern CST Alignment Results Summary

Local Service Express Service

Average Distance

(miles)

120 120

Average Travel Time

(min)

86 71

Average Interim

Stations  

3.6 1.6

Stated Trip Purposes ‐ Commuter route connected to residential areas

‐ Connections to future and existing employment centers

‐ Modal connections to airports and future light rail / BRT

Table 2: Northern CST Desired Station Location Summary

Location

Station Type

End‐of‐Line

Station

Interim Station

Local Service Express Service

Downtown Phoenix 9    

PHX Sky Harbor Airport 2 4 3

Downtown Tempe/ ASU 1 3   

South Tempe 1    

Chandler 1   

Williams ‐ Gateway 4 1

Wildhorse Pass 1   

Maricopa 2   

Casa Grande 6 1

Florence 2   

Coolidge 2 3

Eloy 2   

Marana 12   

Downtown Tucson 8 1   

Tucson International

Airport

5    

   

In the Northern CST, the most desired end‐of‐line stations were downtown Phoenix and

downtown Tucson.  The most desired intermediate stations were Phoenix Sky Harbor

Airport, downtown Tempe/ASU, Williams‐Gateway, Casa Grande, and Marana.  Phoenix Sky

Harbor Airport and Coolidge were the most desired intermediate stations for express service.
17

Along with specific alignments, station locations, and trip purposes, general comments and

observations were sought from participants. In the Northern CST ROA workshop, these

general comments included a discussion on how end‐of‐line stations should be multi‐purpose

in nature, and should serve different markets for employment and entertainment centers,

and offer adequate parking for commuter trips.  There was also an emphasis placed on

connecting the future alignment to existing and planned transportation infrastructure.

Specific examples included Amtrak, proposed streetcars, airports, park‐and‐ride facilities, and

car sharing locations.  

Other considerations suggested included working closely with Native American Communities

and minimizing harmful impacts on sensitive wildlife areas. Comments also represented the

debate of whether the proposed system should accommodate future growth, or focus on

areas with existing population and employment centers.   

  

Participant Comments During Exercise

 Hard to choose the end of a line in a vacuum for a variety of purposes including

parking and employment centers.

 Phoenix and Tucson should be hubs.

 We need to think ahead and not be constrained by current thinking.  Need to think

about where the train could go past Phoenix and Tucson.

 Discussion of the purpose of the study and the difference between commuter and

high‐speed rail.  

 It is not just an employment train you need service along the way.

 The airport in Tucson should be the end of the line, because it’s the longest distance

from downtown Phoenix.  

 Look at stations near park and rides and employment areas.  

 It appears that the greatest number of alternatives are north of Picacho Peak.

 Focus on planning for the future by accommodating employment and future growth,

park and rides, and airports.  

 Consider Marana ‐ a large growth area.  There is an existing transit service, freeway

right‐of‐ways, it’s a central location, and there is residential and employment.  

 Another alternative is an express service.  

 Discussion of driving a car versus taking a train.

 Mentioned Amtrak service in Maricopa and the possibility of a stop there.  

 A major challenge is the Gila River Indian Community.  A “casino stop” or a “gaming

car” should be considered.

 Think of I‐10 as I‐5 between San Diego and Orange County.

 Tucson is very central city oriented – not a lot of options other than I‐10 into

downtown.  

 In scoping, we need to give the public more information on employment densities,

growth areas, etc.  

 Make sure to get input from students.  
18

 Look at existing multimodal areas, there are not a lot of options to get into Phoenix.

(light rail, bus, pedestrian)

 Education employment

 There is an issue with travelling at a high speed through Mesa.  

 How would northwest valley users get to Tempe?  It takes too long on a bus.

 Wherever the end of the line station is spurs growth.

 Agreement with an alignment through the east valley, but there is more residential

than employment.

 Discussion of looking into the future versus what we know now.  

 Where are future land uses planned?

 Tucson downtown will be connected with the University of Arizona by streetcar.  

 Why would we have stops in between?  Isn’t the purpose to concentrate growth in

two growth areas?

 Avoid stations in Pinal County and focus on urban centers.  Do not encourage growth

in suburban/rural areas.

 Marana and Casa Grande are thought to be the areas that are well on their way.

 Sky Harbor Airport is pushing up against capacity issues.  One benefit of connecting

airports would be to relieve this issue.

 Arizona Game and Fish Department are aware of habitat corridors and would like to

have this information on the maps.  

 Express routes would be intermingles with routes that have stops.

 It would be a missed opportunity if the train does not go into downtown Phoenix.  

There is less of a reason for people from Phoenix to go to Tucson than people from

Tucson to go to Phoenix.

 Need a good handle on where people are actually going.  This means we need good

trip purpose information.  Why would people ride the train?

 We need to build more in concentrated dense populations.  This is sustainable.  If this

is good then we need to mindful of what our transportation system is encouraging.   

 The City of Mesa is talking about the east valley end of the line station – citing ST‐LU

study and future employment projected in the south Tempe area.  

 Airport connections are important and bring in a lot of traffic.

 Keep people in the middle off freeways.   

 Will Pinal County expand or not?  It is not a given that Pinal County will or should

grow.

 There should be a stop in Coolidge with a transit center.

 Control sprawl

 Consider universities.

 How do we pick up speed?  A straight alignment?  Fewer stops?

 Travel time versus drive time.  Who cares?  You can get work done while on a train.

 Marana was mentioned as a growth area.  

 Casa Grande mentioned as a valuable connection.

 The Amtrak connection in Maricopa is important but hard to justify because you

would need to cross the Gila River Indian Community.
19

 Stay north of the existing I‐10/Union Pacific for cost purposes in terms of crossing.

 Alignments off I‐10 promote sprawl.

 Why not pick the two farthest points in both Phoenix and Tucson and fill it in with

stations?

 There is a lot of growth on the west side.  We cannot ignore the west valley.

 I would prefer to have an express schedule first with another route later that serves

more stations.  

 It should go all the way to Wickenburg.

 The end of the line in Phoenix should connect to the light rail, bus stations, and

airport.  

 It’s hard to get through Phoenix to get to the rail station.

 If I needed to drive a half hour to access a rail station, I would almost rather drive to

Tucson.  The purpose is to take people off the road.  

 Even with a train, in 2050 we would need another freeway.

 Connect to the west side along I‐10.

 Have a high‐speed line between Phoenix and Tucson and use smaller commuter lines

to connect to the high‐speed line.  

 Use local commuter lines to get people south of Phoenix then use high speed to

Tucson.  

 Will environmental issues be the biggest problem?  Can’t we share corridors? Or can

this route parallel the Union Pacific corridor without using their right of way?

 There is a lot of development in Casa Grande and Eloy.  This cannot be bypassed.  

 We don’t need to make the trip as short as possible, the goal is to have a choice other

than driving.  

 You need to consider traffic coming from I‐8.

 Sky Harbor definitely needs to be on the route, but not necessarily a stop.

 Maricopa, Casa Grande, and Buckeye are major growth areas.  

 I don’t see that a route through Oro Valley would be supported.  

 The corridor in the east valley could shape future development and employment.

 You cannot stop at all cities.

 Could you travel at higher speeds if you avoid a route through an existing

development?

 The light rail could be used to access the high‐speed line.  

 I view high speed as a longer trip like one from Phoenix to Los Angeles or Vegas.  

Phoenix to Tucson should be a commuter rail.

 We need to connect with Amtrak.

 Union Pacific will have a huge interest because of the frequency they move trains

through the area.  

 We need to connect with light rail, Union Pacific, and Amtrak.

 Union Pacific has low interest in passenger rail between Queen Creek and Buckeye.  

 Pinal County has many towns with substance, but how do you choose which one to

go through?

 Gilbert and Queen Creek would have high ridership.
20

 Should there be a stop in Eloy adjacent to the rail yard?

 The only reason for a stop in mesa would be a connection to the light rail.  Mesa

would like to see a stop at Williams Gateway Airport.  

 Gila River Indian Community needs a stop.  

 The end of the line in Tucson should be downtown.  

 Need to consider the outer points between Tucson and Phoenix.   

 Right‐of‐way is key.  The cost of the right‐of‐way is a factor in the decision on where

to locate the rail line.   

 Phoenix‐Mesa Gateway Airport to outer Tucson would be a better location for high‐

speed rail.   

 Airport to airport is important.

 Downtown Phoenix, adjacent to light rail connections, would be optimal for the end

of the line in Phoenix.  

 The West Valley has potential for future growth, not the east due to land availability.

 Right‐of‐way along I‐10 will be difficult to acquire plus the population density.

 Needs to run adjacent to the North South Corridor, through Coolidge.

 There needs to be economic development support to run the line through Pinal

County.  Consider use of the existing line.  It is necessary to benefit the community to

justify a stop/station.

 Don’t go through Oro Valley.

 The North South Corridor will shape future economic development for the region.  

 Use the existing railroad alignment.

 If we are going to pursue high speed rail, I wouldn’t foresee it going between

Phoenix and Tucson; rather HSR between Phoenix and LA – need to attach to

Amtrak.

 Use the old Amtrak station as the end of the line for Phoenix.  

 I‐10 should be looked at since it offers an existing right‐of‐way.

 I‐10 could also cause issues with Indian reservations, some of which might be

unavoidable. Reservation should be given a stop (such as Wildhorse Pass).

 Should not have to worry about regional airports if going forward with high‐speed

rail, since high‐speed rail eliminates the need for regional airports (ex: Europe).

 Express and commuter must accompany one another.

 The more service options with passenger (Ex: local, express, limited), the less likely

the system can work along with freight.

 We all need to accept that this passes through Gila River Indian Community they will

get nothing out of it.

Central CST  

The Central CST meeting was held in Coolidge, with three large groups participating in the

ROA workshop. The participants identified several alignment alternatives with an average

distance of 128 miles, an average travel time of 94 minutes for local service, and 78 minutes

for express service, where the express service would follow the same alignment as local

service, but with fewer intermediate stops and a shorter travel time. The alignments included
21

an average of 3.6 station locations per alternative for local service, and 1.5 for express

service. Participants voiced their opinions on various trip purposes, which included:

 A connection to employment and residential centers,

 Serving existing population centers,

 Having the highest overall travel speed,  

 Maximizing connections and service area, and

 The service of existing and future employment centers.

The overall results for the Central CST are summarized in Table 3 and Table 4.   

  

     Table 3: Central CST Results Summary

Local Service Express Service

Average Distance

(miles)

128 128

Average Travel Time

(min)

94 78

Average Interim

Stations  

3.6 1.5

Stated Trip Purposes ‐ Connections to employment and residential centers

‐ Serve existing population

‐ Highest overall speed

‐ Maximize connections

‐ Serve existing and future employment centers

Table 4: Central CST Desired Station Location Summary

Location

Station Type

End‐of‐Line

Station

Interim Station

Local Service Express Service

Downtown Phoenix 4   

PHX Sky Harbor Airport 2   

Downtown Tempe/ ASU     1

Williams ‐ Gateway 2   

Wildhorse Pass 1   

Apache Junction 1   

Maricopa 1   

Casa Grande 3 1

Coolidge 2 1

Eloy 4   

Marana 6   

Downtown Tucson 4 2   
22

Tucson International

Airport

2   

                                          

Downtown Phoenix and downtown Tucson were the most desired end‐of‐line stations for

the Central CST.  The most desired intermediate stations were Casa Grande, Eloy, and

Marana.  The intermediate stations identified for express service were downtown

Tempe/ASU, Casa Grande, and Coolidge.   

Comments during the Central CST meeting put a heavy emphasis on connecting residential

and employment centers. Comments also stated repeatedly that the future system must

accommodate both existing and future populations, mentioning the North – South Corridor

specifically as an opportunity to serve the largest potential future population.  However,

other discussion focused on the importance of focusing on existing populations, going as far

as to suggest population percentage within a certain distance of an alignment as an

important evaluation criterion.

Participant Comments During Exercise

 The route should go through the east valley and have several stops between Phoenix

and Tucson, including Mesa, Apache Junction, Florence, Casa Grande/Coolidge,

Picacho, Marana, and Tucson.

 The route should run adjacent to I‐10 with stops in Casa Grande and Marana.  

 The end of the line in Phoenix should be at Sky Harbor Airport because it is a

multimodal hub.   

 The end of the line should not be in downtown Phoenix because there is little parking

available.

 An end of the line at Sky Harbor would be difficult because there are not a lot of

options of placed to walk from there.  If this were the case, people would be forced

to find another alternative for transportation.  

 Coolidge or Casa Grande would be an ideal location for a station as long as there

were plans to extend rail or run bus routes to neighboring communities like the City

of Maricopa.  

 A station should be constructed in Apache Junction or Gilbert predominantly because

of the expected population growth.  

 Industrial and retail growth will follow the population growth in the East Valley.  

 Intercity rail needs to be attractive to the general public and people who need to get

between Tucson and Phoenix quickly.

 Don’t build too many stops in Pinal County, this will only slow down the train.  

 Downtown Tucson needs to be the end of the line in Tucson.  

Southern CST  
23

The Southern CST meeting was held in Tucson, with four groups participating in the ROA

workshop. The participants of Southern CST identified routes with an average distance of 126

miles, and average travel time of 96 minutes for local service, and an average express service

travel time of 76 minutes. Local service alignments had an average of 4.8 stations, while

express alignments had an average of 1.3. The purposes and goals of Southern CST

alignments included:

 The prioritization of commuter service,  

 Serving employment centers,

 Serving existing populations,

 Proving opportunities for in‐fill development,

 Creating multi‐modal connections, and

 The creation of a primarily inter‐city system, which connected the edges of urban

areas.  

The overall results for the Southern CST are summarized in Table 5 and Table 6.

    Table 5: Southern CST Results Summary

Local Service Express Service

Average Distance

(miles)

126 126

Average Travel Time

(min)

96 76

Average Interim

Stations  

4.8 1.3  

Stated Trip Purposes ‐ Commuter service

‐ Connect to edges of urban areas

‐ Primarily inter‐city

‐ Serve employment centers

‐ Serve existing population, in‐fill development

‐ Multimodal connectivity   

Table 6: Southern CST Desired Station Location Summary

Location

Station Type

End‐of‐Line

Station

Interim Station

Local Service Express Service

Downtown Phoenix 7   

PHX Sky Harbor Airport 1 3   

Mesa (Center St & Main St)     1

Chandler 1   

Williams ‐ Gateway 2   

Wildhorse Pass 1   
24

Apache Junction 1   

Casa Grande 3 1

Coolidge 2   

Florence 1 1

Picacho   1   

Marana 5   

Oro Valley 1   

Tangerine Road 1   

Downtown Tucson 3 3 1

Tucson International

Airport 5   

In the Southern CST the most desired end‐of‐line locations were downtown Phoenix and the

Tucson International Airport.  The most desired intermediate station locations were PHX Sky

Harbor Airport, Casa Grande, Marana, and downtown Tucson.  The intermediate stations

identified for express service were Mesa (light rail end‐of‐line), Casa Grande, Florence, and

downtown Tucson.

The participants in the Southern CST ROA workshop also offered differing comments on

whether the future rail system should focus on existing or future populations, repeatedly

mentioning the future growth projections along the North – South corridor.  Other

comments included how proposed alignments should avoid conflicts with existing Union

Pacific Railroad corridors, and how the Tucson International Airport provides an important

multi‐modal connection. The ideas of speed and efficiency were also repeated often,

suggesting that too many stops, or too long of an overall travel time would make the system

less attractive to travelers.  

Potential Corridor Selection Frequency

The specific alignments identified in each ROA workshop included a wide range of potential

routes and alternatives. However, the majority of the alignments identified fell into a set of

existing or planned transportation corridors discussed and analyzed in previous

transportation studies within the region. For the purposes of this study, a corridor is a

specifically identified linear area which could potentially accommodate a HCT system. These

major corridors include:

 The existing Interstate 10 corridor between Tucson and Phoenix,

 The North – South Freeway Corridor in eastern Pinal County connecting to Interstate

10 near Eloy,

 The Southeast branch of the Union Pacific Railroad (stretching approximately from

Florence, through Queen Creek and Gilbert, to Phoenix in northwest) in conjunction

with the Sunset Line or Interstate 10 south of Eloy,
25

 The Union Pacific corridor running north‐south through Chandler and connecting to

the UP Sunset Corridor or Interstate 10 south of Eloy,

 The Maricopa corridor, which utilizes the Maricopa –Casa Grande Highway and State

Route 347 connecting to Interstate 10, and

 The corridor following State Route 79 connecting to the UP Southeast Branch or

State Route 60.

Table 7 describes the frequency that each of these corridors was chosen for potential

intercity rail alignments in each of the ROA workshops. Overall, the Interstate 10 and North –

South corridors were identified most often, with the Southeast Branch also receiving high

scores. It is important to note that these corridors are not mutually exclusive, and that

portions of two or more could be utilized in the same alignment.

                                                Table 7: Corridor Selection Frequency

Corridor North Central South Total

Interstate 10 5 4 3 12

North ‐ South Freeway 6 3 3 12

Southeast Branch 6 3 2 11

Chandler 1    2 3

Maricopa 1 1    2

State Road 79     1 1

Potential Station Location Selection Frequency  

The potential station locations identified in the three ROA workshops varied. However, some

station locations were chosen more often than others. Table 8 below shows a breakdown of

each potential station location, and the frequency with which it was chosen throughout the

ROA workshop process. The totals listed in the table include end‐of‐line stations,

intermediate stations for local service, and intermediate stations for express service. It is

important to note that these locations are broad generalized areas, and should not be

interpreted as specific sites or properties  

      Table 8: Total Station Location Selection Frequency  

Location

Station Type

End‐of‐Line Interim Station

Local Service Express Service

Downtown Phoenix 20

PHX Sky Harbor Airport 5 7 3
26

Downtown Tempe/ ASU 1 3 1

Mesa (Center St & Main St) 1

South Tempe 1

Chandler 2

Williams ‐ Gateway 8 1

Wildhorse Pass 3

Apache Junction 2

Maricopa 3

Casa Grande 12 3

Coolidge 6 4

Florence 3 1

Eloy 6

Picacho State Park 1

Marana 23

Oro Valley 1

Tangerine Road 1

Downtown Tucson 15 6 1

Tucson International

Airport

12

Participant Comments During Exercise:

 The map seems highly focused on population and activity centers.   

 The end point in Tucson should be the airport – it’s the farthest south.  

 Can there be more than two end points?

 I see commuter rail service connecting in the future to the high‐speed rail.  

 Not all travel between Phoenix and Tucson should be considered airport travel.  

Many people from Tucson go to Phoenix for baseball games.   

 You need to separate freight from commuter.  

 Picacho Peak is a seasonal destination.

 The North South Corridor would work because there is more opportunity for

development in the area, as opposed to a fully developed corridor.  Additionally,

Phoenix‐Mesa Gateway Airport is in close proximity.

 Preference would be to use an ADOT corridor as opposed to a Union Pacific one.  

 We need a station at Superstition Vista assuming development.  

 We need to be careful not to add too many stops, as this will compromise the speed.  

The speed plays a major component in decision to take the train or drive.  

 Six stops are too many.

 Major uses for this train would be work, medical services, and special events.  

 What problem will this train solve?  This is based on growth that is not sustainable.  

There are opportunities to look at economic development spots.  
27

 There is a lack of mobility in Arizona.  People cannot just walk to work.  

 This rail line would be a regional connectivity maker.

 Tucson and Oro Valley will still be a parking lot, even with the rail line.  

 There is disbelief regarding 2 homes per job statistic in Pinal County.  All projections

show growth down by Tucson.  

 Rumors that Raytheon will relocate in Alabama, if that’s the case the end of the line

should be at the University of Arizona.  

 There definitely needs to be connectors to the airports.  

 Would like to take a train to a Diamondbacks game from Tucson.  

 There needs to be a stop in the Marana area.  Marana will grow and Tangerine will be

a major corridor.  

 You need to consider population differences between Phoenix and Tucson, and also

the lack of population between the two.  

 There needs to be access to the Phoenix‐Mesa Gateway Airport and Chandler,

Gilbert, and Mesa.  

 There are existing buses that serve Oro Valley and Raytheon.

 Just because a station is built does not mean that every train needs to stop at it.  

 There should be a stop at Arizona State University – they have the light rail.  

 The end of the line in Tucson should be at the Depot, as the street cars either start or

stop at this location.  The Phoenix end of the line should be downtown, not the

airport.

 Wild Horse Pass is a good location for a public private partnership opportunity.  

 Superstition Center would be a good location and opportunity to partner with

Arizona State Land.  

 Need to avoid duplicate service with the light rail in Phoenix.   

 The I‐10 corridor route will spur further economic development.  

 We need to maximize a route through/adjacent to Arizona State University.

 Coolidge airport is becoming a regional airport.

 Do not forget the Orange Grove/Marana area.  It is quickly growing due to

development.  

 A station should be located at Orange Grove due to the expansion of the streetcar.

 Tangerine road would be a possible connection between Oro Valley and Marana, but

this connection would most likely meet opposition due to the open space needs of

the residents along SR 77.

 There is a danger in connecting airport to airport.  We’d be better off following

commuter rail routes between metro areas, like a stop at Mesa for high‐speed rail.  

 High‐speed rail could take more than one route.  

 You don’t necessarily need to locate near populated centers to bring people to the

line.  

 Tourism is key to move people to places and to get interest for people to take the rail

rather than drive.   

 A stop in Mesa is favored over a stop in Phoenix, because there are already alternate

modes of transportation in Phoenix.  

 Consider where population is located now as opposed to where population will grow.  
28

Conclusion

In total, among all ROA workshops, downtown Phoenix, downtown Tucson, and the Tucson

International Airport were the most desirable end‐of‐line station locations.  The most desired

intermediate stations for local service identified by participants were PHX Sky Harbor Airport,

Williams‐Gateway, Casa Grande, Coolidge, Eloy, Marana, and downtown Tucson. The

intermediate stations desired for express service were PHX Sky Harbor, Casa Grande, and

Coolidge.

The alignment segments and end‐of‐line location preferences from the Corridor Support

Team meetings provided valuable input to the study process.  The focus of the ROA

workshops suggests a strong preference for a corridor with a very time‐efficient direct link

between Phoenix and Tucson, with provisions for local or commuter rail access to specific

intermediate station locations.
29

Evaluation Framework Workshop Summary

The Evaluation Framework breakout workshop offered participants the opportunity to talk

about criteria that will be used to narrow the range of alternatives and shape the final

recommendation.  Five main categories were offered to help lead the conversation,

Community Acceptance, Safety, Environment, Financial Feasibility and Mobility.  When

alternatives have been developed, the criteria will be used to help select a recommended

alternative for further study.

The tables below summarize the ideas most often frequently mentioned within each

category.  A full list of input from the workshops follows the tables.

Community Acceptance

Criteria # %

Capture Population/Employment & Potential for Local/Regional

Economic Development 21 35

Political and Community Support 17 28

Compatible with Existing and Future Land Use Plans 12 20

Promotes Sustainable Land Use 8 13

Compatible with Other Projects/Studies 2 3

Environment

Criteria # %

Improve Air Quality 11 31

Cultural/Archeological Resources Preservation 8 23

Wildlife Corridor Preservation 7 20

Geologic/Seismic Issue Avoidance 3 9

Preservation of Open Space 2 6

Flood Plain Avoidance 2 6

Mobility

Criteria # %

Access and Connectivity 29 60

Travel Time 13 27

Frequency of Service 4 8

Ridership 2 4
30

Financial Feasibility

Criteria # %

Cost to Users 19 31

Funding Availability 15 24

ROI and Cost/Benefit 10 16

Right of Way 10 16

O&M Costs 8 13

Safety

Criteria # %

Safety and Security at stations and on system 9 43

Separating operations from other modes/Grade Separations 8 38

Safe Maintenance and Emergency Access 4 19

Community Acceptance

 Land use

 Economic development

 Employment centers

 How do communities feel about possibly not being able to access a line in their

community?

 This is a fatal flaw in the community’s opinion

 Public understands what needs the form

 Want to build, not just study

 Will it provide a direct benefit to them?

 Get other people to use it

 Financial fears

 Community support with tax and fares

 Buy in

 Accept land use changes

 Rail‐based vs. highway based land use

 Affect region as a whole

o Suggest this as a sixth category

o Think about this more holistically

 Don’t look at transportation solutions in a vacuum

 Evaluate and compare between land use changes and the various options

o Example: 16 lanes of freeway versus 10 lanes and an alternative option

 Cooperate on a shared vision

 Land use and transportation working together

o Federal government is doing this: land use, housing, and transportation

 How well does this contribute to the corridor as an economic region?

 Look at existing plans and beyond
31

o Compatibility between intercity service and other services

 Approval of governing board

 Build off of other on‐going studies (North‐South Corridor)

 Seen as regional benefit to entire sun corridor, not just Tucson to Phoenix

 Identify economic benefits‐locally/regionally

 Level of convenience

 Availability of supporting services

 Ownership of operations

 Residential/employment density near stations

 Required changes to master plans

 Impact to existing developments

 Perceived benefit to community

 Pinal County Comprehensive Plan as a measure of compatibility

 Pinal County equal weight to Phoenix and Tucson

 Accessibility in Pinal County stations

 Local understanding

 Is there a cost benefit based on location

 Tribal acceptance

 Doesn’t cut off access

 Identify rail in general plan

 Noise impacts

 Education program

 Compatibility with Arizona State Land Department

 Political support

 Economic opportunities

 Time of day opportunities

 Jobs and residential along with rail

 Mixed use and affordability

 Investment

 Property value

 Room for parking

 Attractiveness of rail

 Compliance with local ordinances

 Connectivity with local transportation services and infrastructure

 Sell it! Marketing

 Complementary corridor enhancements

 Integrated operation and system

 Right‐of‐way takes

 Political realities

 Reasonable cost for passengers

 Business acceptance

 Time of day opportunities and compact developments

 Appeal of access – pedestrian, bicycles, wheelchairs
32

 Political will  

 Voter appeal and approval

 Catchment ten plus miles

 Not in my backyard

 Access to other modes to reach a destination

 Tolerance to pay for it

 Home and business displacement

 Access to green lying opportunities

 Marketing and education



Safety

 Safe access control

 State of good repair

 Limited at grade crossings

 Pedestrian safety

 Provision of emergency access and maintenance

 Safety from other modes/operations

 Safety benefits of mode shift (freight/people)

 Number of at grade crossings

 Controls for separating interaction between modes

 Double tracking

 Communications systems

 Personal safety and stations/terminals

 Access and appeal for bike, pedestrians, and wheelchairs

 Shifting from auto to rail

 Reduction in pollution

 More air quality from friendly fuel and power

 Wildlife safety

 Personal safety and security

 Accidents or incidents along I‐10 pose a challenge

o Possibly identify an alternative to avoid this situation

 Safety and security at stations

 Perception of safety of the system

 Dedicated track/travel way

 No at‐grade crossings

o Helps with speed

o Safety

o Financially feasibility

 Weather related

o Crash possibility under a dust storm

 Bomb threats

 Security against undocumented individuals

 Community cohesion
33

 Type of mode/technology (commuter and user)

 Separate operating environments

 Personal security

 Safe access environment

 Public perception of safety and security

 Ability to access stations safely

 Access to emergency services

 Construction and maintenance of right‐of‐way

 Safety perception of technology

 Security of the system

Environment

 Grade separation (wildlife, water flow, and traffic flow)

 Indian community lands ‐ possibility

 BLM – possibility  

 Environmental benefits versus consequences to local community

 Fastest travel time may be most beneficial

 Renewable energy opportunities

 Cultural resources

 Amount of cultural resources, habitat, etc that cannot be mitigated

 Source power for trains

 Sense of priorities for transportation

 Compatibility with adopted and proposed environmental plans

 Mitigation benefit of an alternative to I‐10 is a positive factor

 Alternative energy – solar train

 Air quality – power source

 Carbon footprint

 Sustainable growth patterns

 Public health benefits

 Environmental justice while maintaining accessibility

 Endanger species

 Archeological resources

 Water issues

 Getting people out of cars

 Geology and seismic

 Community cohesion

 Reduction in congestion

 Seismic and fissures

 Tribal

 Archaeological, cultural and historic

 Air quality

 Wildlife

 Open space
34

 Flood plains

 Doesn’t cut off access

 Preserving open space

 Noise from rail and horn

 Mitigation – minimize impact and avoidance

 Litigation

 Heat island effect

 Pollution and air quality

 Power production (including solar)

 LEED design

 Change in vehicle miles traveled and reducing emissions

 Constructability

 Noise and vibration

 Visual

 Balance impacts and benefits

 Sustainability of construction and materials

 Wildlife considerations

 Treatment of corridor in urban areas

 Traffic impacts of the stations and corridor

 Reduction in VMT/VHT

 Air quality

 Compliance with health standards

 PM10 compliance

 Wildlife corridors

 Reliance on existing corridor

 Public health effects

 Green

 Health benefits of transit

 Cultural resources

 NEPA

Financial Feasibility

 Fuel costs

 Affordability

 Funding availability

 Alternative funding options (TIF and PPP)

 Governance effect on funding

 Operation and maintenance costs

 Cost of boarding  

 Cost of doing nothing

 Cost of congestion

 Cost of alternative modes

 Use costs
35

 Allocation of funds among modes

 Fossil fuels versus solar (or other)

 Motive power

 Access to airports – it’s a cheap method to solve airline short‐hauls

 Cost of trip  

 Price difference between various modes

 Price is less significant at level one

 Cost sharing (example: UP line and utility corridors)

 Operations cost saving (FedEx and UPS)

 Is the project worth it?

 Financial buy‐in from community

 Understand that “free” freeway is not really “free”

o Response to accidents

o Air quality (Example: Maricopa air quality – out of compliance)

 Reallocating funds to other modes

 Social justice – affordability to those that cannot afford vehicles

 Cost to maintain a vehicle – factor into analysis

 Creating regional nodes of wealth

 Financial feasibility of region – maximize efficiency of the Sun Corridor region

 Cost estimate includes operating costs

 Economic development potential

 Transfer of development rights

 Federal rating (funding status)

 Local entitlements

 Right‐of‐way acquisition

 Operational ownership and costs

 Local match and participation

 Use of existing or planned facilities

 Cost compared to other options

 Investments avoided by building project

 Cost to ride based on location

 Right‐of‐way savings‐opportunities to co‐locate (rail and North South Corridor)

 Level of subsidy

 Cost ripple effect (opportunity cost and excessive cost)

 Reduction in congestion based costs

 Individual costs (taxes/time tax loss of productivity)

 Operation and maintenance costs

 Environmental mitigation costs (balance the impact with the design)

 Utility and right‐of‐way costs

 Cost per trip

 Catchment area of rail riders

 Funding availability (public and private)

 Geography of alignment
36

 Size/level of subsidy

 Competition with funding for other transit projects

 Speed is a function of cost

 Collaboration/partnering with other projects

 Mode of power

 Process

 Environmental litigation

 Return on investments

 Cost of existing tracks versus building new ones

 Operating subsidies compared to other modes

 Private cost of travel

 Speed correlates to cost  

 Travel time correlates to cost

 Cost per rider

 Lifecycle costs

 Parking costs as part of total travel cost

 Proven technology

 Opportunities to share right‐of‐way

 Return on investment and the cost benefit

 Economic development benefit

 Right‐of‐way, utilities, substructures

 Constructability

 Private public partnership opportunities

 Federal funding opportunities

 Viability of regional/state funding at a local level

 Reasonable cost for users

Mobility

 Door‐to‐door (travel time to terminal)

 Frequency

 Availability of modes and connections

 Convenience and the ability to get to and from

 Doesn’t cut off access

 Part of a larger system

 Supportive services/land use

 Span of service and operational days

 Accessibility (seniors, persons with disabilities, and bikes)

 Travel experience and comfort

 Proximity to major airports

 Density at station areas

 Adequate parking

 Consider catchment area appropriate for mode

 Ability to get from home to station

 OVTT to IVTT
37

 Number of modes of access

 Speed – getting from A to B in the shortest amount of time

 Mode specific demand

 Trip purpose

 Travel time compared to auto

 Corridor versus mode travel time

 Reduction in travel time

 Total travel time (home to destination)

 Aging population effects  

 Proximity of people and jobs

 Connectivity between modes

 Accessibility – appeal to pedestrians, bikes and wheel chairs

 Feeders to hubs (airports)

 Consider total cost of trip (initial origin to destination point)

 Comfort and individual experience

 Total travel time

 Airport connections?

 Destinations (employment centers)

 Service characteristics

 Ridership numbers and types

 Long term liability of mode

 Choice of modes

 Quick travel times

 Ease of access (home to origin)

 Support to economic opportunity

 Job opportunities

 Ties to the overall region and community

 Convenience and frequency of service

 Dependability

 Affordability

 Attractive to new development

 Getting from point A to point B

 Purpose of getting from point A to point B

 How do you get to intercity service

 Providing choices of getting places

 Connection population to jobs

 Frequency of service

 Ability to reach activity centers

 Faster and easier than by car

 User cost

 Comfort

 Other uses (work or leisure while using)

 How convenient and reliable?
38

 Timeliness (schedule adherence)

 Mode shift (reduction in lane miles and autos)

 Availability of supplemental alternatives

 Elimination of barriers for all users

 Connectivity to other services or transportation connections
39

Criteria Category Ranking:

Based on discussion at the workshops and participants’ personal and professional judgment,

all were asked to rank the five criteria categories in the order of importance (one being the

most important and five being the least important).  The following summarizes participants’

responses.  Mobility was ranked as most important with environmental ranked as least.  

TOTAL Community

Acceptance Environment FinancialFeasibility Mobility Safety

5 16 36 9 2 23

4 17 31 14 6 20

3 14 10 28 22 14

2 22 11 25 18 11

1 16 0 12 40 20

Average 3.02 4.06 2.80 1.93 3.20

Mode 2 5 3 1 5

Median 3 4 3 2 3
40

CST Meeting Evaluations

1. Please check the box for the meeting you are evaluating:

Meeting Responses Percentage

Southern Region – June 21,

2011

26 35

Central Region – June 21, 2011 20 27

Northern Region – June 21,

2011

28 38

Total: 74   

2. How did you hear about the meeting?

Meeting Responses Percentage

Email 65 88

Word of Mouth 5 7

Other (please specify)* 4 5

Total: 74   

*Other responses:

 Phone

 Valley Forward

 Co‐workers

3. Please rate the value of the overall meeting on a scale of 1 to 4 (1 = not valuable and 4

= very valuable).

Ranking 1 2 3 4 Total

Total number

of Responses

0 1 32 41 74

Percentage 0% 1% 45% 55%  ‐

       Average: 3.54

4. Please rate the effectiveness of each workshop on a scale of 1 to 4 (1 = not effective

and 4 = very effective).

Purpose and Need

Ranking 1 2 3 4 Total

Total number

of Responses

4 15 34 19 72

Percentage 6% 21% 47% 26%  ‐

       Average: 2.94
41

What was most valuable about the session?

 Getting clarification on process and criteria, and feeling consulted.

 Need more participation and less examples.

 Enjoy brainstorming.

 Good brainstorming.

 Input from all.

 Understanding what challenges will be faced.  

 Stated purpose and needs.  

 Defining the need.  

 Overview of the process.

 Understanding the EIS process.  

 Good discussion.

 Interactive aspect.

 Identifying of them.  The facilitator did a good job with a confusing topic.

 Exposure to a range of thoughts on local needs.  

 Refocus on basic principles of the intercity rail study.

 Ability to express candid opinions.

 Discussions.

 Getting the people to express their views.  

 Future transportation corridors.

 Defining purpose and need.  

 Explained EIS process.

 Identifying goals and rating alternatives.

 Discussion and ideas.

 Good comments.

 Hear others perceptions and perspectives.

 Relating needs to outcomes.

 Somewhat vague.

 Alternative.

 Talking about land use and rail in one conversation.

 Group discussion.

 Looking at options and playing with their “time” outcomes.

 Understanding that not all “measures of success” will be part of the EIS

evaluation rubric.

 Explanation of the concept of purpose and need.  

 The interaction and better focus as to what the expectations (roles) are for

stakeholders.  

 Encouraged thinking.

 Discussion of need versus outcome versus opportunity.

 Hearing comments from participants.  

What would have made the session more productive?
42

 More time and more takeaway materials (for example: the intro

presentation).

 Working to refine one example.

 Felt a little like the facilitator had an idea of what the purpose and need are

and less that our input was being solicited.

 We were not asked to contribute to the purpose and need.  The process was

simply explained.  

 More time.

 Less explanation by consultant.  More clarity.

 Did not fill the columns of the flip chart.

 Focus.  

 More time in each segment.

 This was really confusing and perhaps if it had had more time allotted it

would have had an identifying product.  

 A look at some preconference materials.  

 A bit more clarity on what is the difference between “making a project a

success” and “need vs. positive outcome”.

 Little more time.  

 A little more time.  

 It is good as it is.  

 Focus on the North South Corridor.

 More agency representation.

 More group interaction and discussion.

 Less lecture and more discussion.  We did not finish.  

 More people in the room (last session of the day).

 More discussion of unmet needs as opposed to desirable outcomes.

 Realistic evaluation of possibility of Union Pacific lines.  

 The evaluation criteria workshop did not work.

 Not focused.

 Little more time.

 Less discussion on FTA/FRA.

 More employment and residential housing density and travel demand maps

would have been helpful in alignment and station discussion.  

 Needed to be a little longer.  

 Suggest preparing participants in advance of meeting to shorten the amount

of time it takes to get up to speed.  

Range of Alternatives

Ranking 1 2 3 4 Total

Total number

of Responses

1 6 26 37 70

Percentage 1 9 37 53  ‐

       Average: 3.41
43

What was most valuable about the session?

 Everyone had reasons and justifications.

 Fun to plan routes.

 Fun.

 Strong exercise that included travel‐time trade‐off.

 Seeing possible available routes.

 Comparing options.  Discussing land use plans.  

 Interactive ability to create alternative.

 Looking at the options and hearing what others thought.

 Five categories is useful for breaking out challenges.  

 Likes maps, pins, and yarn exercise.

 Hands on work with the maps was good.  

 Very comprehensive.

 Interesting and hopefully useful in this wide region.  

 Getting a look at ideas proposed by colleagues that included options I hadn’t

considered.  

 Thinking globally and providing specific comments on high level topics.  

 Good discussion on all alternatives.  

 Site discussions.

 Open discussion.

 Workshop participation.  

 Discussion of how refined.

 Identification of options.

 Letting others in my group know about projects and issues related to Pinal

County.

 Realizing the political and physical realities and roadblocks to select routes

and station locations.  

 Interacting among participants regarding station and route locations.

 Start looking at issues.

 Hearing different viewpoints.

 Discussion of considerations for station placement.

 Maps, string, matrix and discussions.  

 Looking at 5 areas.

 Hearing the various opinions the participants.

 Drawing on a map.

 Hearing other viewpoints.

 Good discussion.

 Good refinement of corridor alternatives.

 This was good to have the discussion between everyone to decide the best

discussion.

 Ability to hear other stakeholder’s views.

 Working together to come u p with alternatives.
44

 Actually seeing routes.

 Fun but will probably be revised and revised.   

What would have made the session more productive?

 More time.

 Wanted to think more deeply than time allowed.

 Could have spent more time and would have been good to get more

representatives from other regions.  Also would be nice to have comp plans

and general plans as reference material.  

 To better define specific questions posed by each segment, i.e. what is the

true purpose and need?

 Cost information.

 None – Well done.

 Employment and population numbers.  

 More time.

 More time for discussion.

 Mileage matrix of cities on I‐10 on railroad now.  

 General and comprehensive plans as part of base map to see where future

growth in jobs and housing will occur.  

 Moe time.

 Needed to be a little longer.  

 Introductions.  More group facilitators.  Seems like there were already some

preconceived notions regarding alignments and stations that were being

advocated by group leaders.  

 Good like it was.  

 Understanding that the “yarn” was just one piece of the puzzle and not the

end all.  Maybe a map of the MAG commuter rail system and five corridors so

people could see that addition connectivity.  

Evaluation Framework

Ranking 1 2 3 4 Total

Total number

of Responses

2 1 29 35 67

Percentage 3 2 43 52  ‐

       Average: 3.45

What was most valuable about the session?

 Unity of the region on this project.  

 Understanding of how used for EIS.

 Highly visual feedback on decision and option required.  

 Varied input from diverse inputs.

 Identifying priorities and issues.  

 Hearing range of concerns and interests.  

 Brainstorming.
45

 Good discussion.

 This is the most important workshop as it will ensure the study outcome.  

 To hear the different ideas.

 Working and refining key issues.

 Comprehensive ideas floated.  I liked the sixth criteria of regionality.  

 Shared ideas.  

 Actual exercise of the alignments.  

 Route mapping.

 “Hands on” exercise.  Seeing population centers and how to serve the

greatest needs.  

 Right questions asked.

 Detail and specificity of prioritization was very important.  

 Getting perspective from others.  

 Realizing the interrelatedness of the issues.

 Discussion about safety and feasibility.

 Good overall discussion.

 Hearing others perspectives.

 How we define success.

 Hearing what criteria are important to stakeholders.

 Hearing different viewpoints.

 Hearing concerns and issues presented by participants.

 Understanding the framework and process.

 Gets good ideas into process.

What would have made the session more productive?

 Seemed to re‐hash earlier discussion.

 More information on barriers of each leg: archeological, road crossing, land

ownership pushback.  

 Time allotment.

 More time to discuss.  

 More time.

 Good format for open exchange.  

 More input.

 It was very productive.

 Sharing routes at the end.

 Allowing a few minutes for each group to discuss how/why their

alternative(s) were chosen.

 More time to prepare.

 More space between sessions and groups as noise was a bit of a barrier.

 More group interaction and participation.  

 More time.  

 More time.  The session needed its own room.

 Just a little more time.  
46

 Better explanation of what end results are needed.  

5. Overall today, what was most valuable to you?

 To know this is working and chugging along.

 Everyone in the session talking about common problems with mobility.

 Thinking about needs.

 Yes.

 Very good.  Fulfills the needs for public involvement.

 Just hearing what others said.  

 Geographical discussion with regard to rail transport.

 Workshop session.

 Route alternatives and dialog with each other.  

 A feeling of progress – at long last.  

 Group thinking and sharing.  

 Understanding the process and who ADOT has selected to complete it.  

 Networking and sharing thoughts on this topic.  

 Background on EIS process.  

 Listening to others shared vision.  

 Hearing the thoughts of others.  

 Routes!

 Ideas presented by participants and hearing input from more than Pima.   

 Understanding the process and factors that weigh.  

 Learning about the study process.

 The background information and a chance to participate.

 Regional view.

 Ability to express my opinion.

 Overall discussions.

 Hearing different views.

 Ability to be a part of the concepts and issues.  

 Range of Alternatives exercise.  

 Mapping.

 Seeing opinions on routes.  

 Networking and providing input from the middle (rural communities between

Phoenix and Tucson).

 It was all very useful.

 Listening to colleagues and new ways to view issues.  

 The overall insight into the process and roles the stakeholders play within it.

 Group discussions.  

 Hearing others.  

 Hearing about the timeline.  The discussion that brought out different

viewpoints and ideas.  

 Meeting other stakeholders and hearing their views.  

 Big picture.
47

 Brainstorming ideas with diversified audience.  The process was well

organized.  

 Understanding issues of others.  

 Evaluation issues.  

 Evaluation and alternatives workshops.

 Yes, good to see progress.  

 Gave me a larger picture of what it will take to get the rail lines completed.  

 Priceless – wide variance of opinions.  

 Speaking for alternative modes, pedestrians, and bikes.  

 Financing, alignments, and political support.  

 Evaluation and alternative discussions.

 Evaluation Framework workshop.

6. What can we improve upon in the future?

 More time.  

 Make it less than 3 years.  

 Probably 95% of the ideas offered are ones you have thought of.  For real

additional value you need a continuous online forum for input.  

 Purpose and need discussion focus.

 Simplify the purpose and need session.  

 Nothing.  Great start to project.  

 Keep an open dialogue.

 Handouts from opening presentation.  

 Need to have non‐rail supporters to get issues out before plan is out to

public.  

 More hands on exercises.  

 Smaller groups and more interaction.  

 Figure out how to secure the funding that Ohio, New Jersey, and Florida gave

back.  

 Have similar meetings.

 Have comprehensive and general plan information available.  

 Don’t try to do too much.  Less sessions and more time per each one.  

 Good job.  Thanks for the water and snacks.  

 Provide more information on project schedule, etc. via a webpage.  

 Great vide.

 Thank you for doing this important study.  This is so important to our region.  

 Main room was too crowded and acoustics were horrible.  Seemed a bit

unorganized at first, but improved.  

 Need more time.  

 Longer workshop.

 Discuss possible timelines – 30 years, 10 years, 5 years, to actually seriously

plan versus talk.  

 We already knew most of the introduction, maybe shorten for professionals.  
48

 Space permitting, separating sessions for clarity.  

 It was great.  

7. Additional comments

 Nice to see all the consultants and firms working together collaboratively.

 Thanks.  Very good seminars and presentations.  

 Future land use opportunities are critical.

 Good job.  

 Sun corridor needs to be the focus.  Just as I‐10, I‐17, I‐19 transformed the

spatial and economic form of Arizona, the passenger rail can ensure Arizona’s

sustainability.  

 Excellent preparation by facilitators who were well equipped to guide and

take questions.    

 Keep up the good work.

 Interesting to see the difference between the Phoenix and Tucson

workshops.  

 Do breakouts in separate rooms so no competition with discussions.  It was

hard to focus on one session when another was going on right behind you.  

 Great sessions.  

 Facilitators did a great job.  

 Would like to get copies of the power point and other charts.  

 Please keep me posted.
Passenger Rail Corridor Study – Tucson to Phoenix Scoping Report 

    36

Appendix D: Notice of Intent 
1 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

Federal Transit Administration

Environmental Impact Statement for Implementation of Passenger Rail Service

between Tucson, Arizona and Phoenix, Arizona

AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) and Federal Transit

Administration (FTA)

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS).

SUMMARY: The FRA and FTA are issuing this Notice of Intent (NOI) to advise other

agencies and the public that they will jointly prepare an EIS to study the implementation

of passenger rail service between Tucson, Arizona and Phoenix, Arizona and to serve

communities in between the two metropolitan areas (the proposed action).  

The FRA, FTA, and Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) will use a tiered

process, as described in the regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ)

implementing the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 USC 4321 et seq.) at 40

CFR §§ 1502.20 and 1508.28 (NEPA) and FTA’s environmental procedures at 23 CFR §§

771.111(g) and 774.7. This EIS is the first planning‐level tier of the two‐tiered

environmental review process for the proposed action.  

FRA and FTA are issuing this Notice to alert interested parties, to solicit public

and agency input on the scope of the Tier 1 EIS, provide information on the nature of

the proposed project, including the purpose and need for the proposed action, possible

alternatives to be considered in the preparation of the Tier 1 EIS,  potentially significant
2 

impacts to the natural and built environment of those alternatives, and invite public

participation in the EIS process.  

The Tier 1 EIS will be prepared in accordance with the National Environmental

Policy Act (NEPA), the CEQ regulations implementing NEPA, the FRA's Procedures for

Considering Environmental Impacts as set forth in 64 FR 28545 dated May 26, 1999

(Environmental Procedures), and FTA’s Environmental Impact and Related Procedures,

in 23 CFR part 771. The EIS will also address Section 106 of the National Historic

Preservation Act, Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act of 1966 (49

U.S.C. 303) and other applicable Federal and state laws and regulations to the extent

relevant for a planning‐level Tier‐1 document. In addition, the Tier1 study will

incorporate the alternatives analyses process required by Federal transit law (49 USC §

5309) and regulation (49 CFR part 611) for a project proposed for New Starts funding.  

Environmental Review Process: The FRA and FTA will use a tiered process, as provided

for in 40 CFR 1508.28 and in accordance with FRA guidance, in the completion of the

environmental review of the proposed action. ‘‘Tiering’’ is a staged environmental

review process applied to environmental reviews for complex projects. The Tier 1 EIS

will address broad corridor‐level issues and alternatives. Subsequent tiers will analyze

site‐specific component projects and alternatives based on the decisions made in Tier 1.

Tier 1: The Tier 1 assessment will result in a NEPA document with the

appropriate level of detail for corridor‐level decisions and will address broad overall

issues of concern, including but not limited to:

 Confirming the purpose and need for the proposed action.
3 

 Confirming the study area appropriate to assess reasonable alternatives.

 Developing evaluation criteria to identify alternatives that meet the

purpose and need of the proposed action and those that do not.

 Identifying the range of reasonable alternatives to be considered,

including the no action alternative, consistent with the current and

planned use of the corridor and the existing services within and adjacent

to the study area.

 Identifying the general alignment(s) of the reasonable alternatives.

 Identifying right‐of‐way requirements for the reasonable alternatives.

 Identifying the infrastructure and equipment investment requirements

for the reasonable alternatives.  

 Specifying the future no‐build alternative that reflects already planned

highway and transit developments in the study area expected to be in

place by the project design year.

 Specifying the New Starts baseline alternative that addresses the

proposed action’s purpose and need to the maximum extent possible

without a new transit fixed guideway.

 Identifying the operational changes required for the reasonable

alternatives.

 Describing and evaluating the potential environmental impacts and

mitigation associated with the proposed alternatives in the level of detail

appropriate for a Tier 1 EIS.
4 

 Establishing the timing and sequencing of independent actions to

implement the proposed action.

 Evaluating the transit alternatives under the New Starts criteria specified

in 49 USC § 5309 and 49 CFR part 611.   The transit alternatives may be

subsets of the full build alternatives that provide intercity rail service.

 Identifying the Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA), FTA’s planning level

alternative for the New Starts program, through an Alternatives Analysis

process.

Tier 2: The Tier 2 assessments will not be included in this study but will be

identified as future actions to address components of the planning level alternative

selected at the conclusion of the Tier 1 EIS.   

This Tier 1 EIS preparation will include initial planning level elements  of a Service

Development Plan; present corridor route alternatives; and provide conceptual

engineering designs of track, ancillary facilities, stations, and other major design

features to a level sufficient to allow for meaningful understanding and comparison of

alternatives. The Tier 1 EIS will provide programmatic assessment of environmental

effects associated with the construction, operation, and maintenance components of

the proposed action. The Tier 1 EIS will evaluate a range of reasonable corridor‐level

alternatives to include the “Baseline Conditions” and “No Action” Alternatives.  Build

alternatives may occur along existing rail line(s) or may be on a new alignment.  The EIS

will provide for: 1) an FTA‐compliant Alternatives Analysis and 2) an FTA‐compliant Tier

1 Environmental Impact Statement.
5 

DATES: Public Scoping meetings will be held on the following dates, locations, and

times:

  

October 11, 2011 in the Burton Barr Central Library, 1221 N. Central Avenue, Phoenix,

AZ, from 3:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.;

October 13, 2011 in the Pima Community College, Northwest Campus, 7600 North

Shannon Road, Tucson, AZ, from 3:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.;  and

October 19, 2011 in the Central Arizona College, Signal Peak Campus, 8470 N. Overfield

Road, Coolidge, AZ from 3:00 p.m. to 7:00.

The buildings used for the meetings are accessible to persons with disabilities.

Any individual who requires special assistance, such as a sign language interpreter, to

participate in the meetings should contact Kristin Bornstein at KDA Creative, telephone

(602) 368‐9644, five days prior to the meeting.

To ensure all significant issues are identified and considered, the public will be

invited to comment on the proposed action. Comments by members of the public on

the scope of the Tier 1 EIS, including the proposed action’s purpose and need, the

alternatives to be considered, the impacts to be evaluated, and the methodologies to be

used in the evaluations will be accepted at the public scoping meetings. Those attending

the public scoping meetings will be asked to register at the meeting location. At the

meeting, comments may also be submitted in written form, or orally one‐on‐one to a

stenographer. Interested parties may also submit their comments in writing or via email

to the persons identified below, on or before November 4, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION REGARDING THE SCOPING MEETINGS, PLEASE CONTACT:  
6 

Ms. Kristin Bornstein, KDA Creative, 4545 E. Shea Blvd., Suite 210, Phoenix, AZ

85028, telephone (602) 368‐9644, email Kristin@kdacreative.com

Information and documents regarding the environmental review process will

also be made available through appropriate means, including the project Web site:

http://www.azdot.gov/intercityrail

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION ABOUT THE PROJECT CONTACT:

Ms. Andrea Martin, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New Jersey Ave, SE,

Mail Stop 20, Washington DC 20590, telephone (202) 493–6201;  

Ms. Amy Zaref, telephone (202) 641‐8050 or Mr. Alex Smith, Federal Transit

Administration Region 9, 201 Mission St., Suite 1650, San Francisco, CA 94105,

telephone (415) 744‐3133

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Description of Project Area

The study area is located within the Sun Corridor region, an area defined by the

limits of three contiguous Arizona counties: Maricopa, Pinal, and Pima. In 2011, the area

is characterized by urban densities at the northern and southern limits of the study area

(Phoenix Metropolitan Area in Maricopa County and Tucson Metropolitan Area in Pima

County, respectively) and smaller, rural communities located between these urban

centers (primarily located in Pinal County).  Historic rapid employment and population

growth throughout the region is well‐documented. In general, the growing regional,

intercity, and commuter travel demand generated by the historic growth has been

accommodated by an automobile‐dominated surface transportation network anchored
7 

by Interstate 10—the primary contiguous high capacity facility in the region. Additional

surface transportation facilities include rural state routes such as State Route 79, and

local roadway networks serving the cities and communities in the study area. There are

no public transportation services that directly connect the Phoenix and Tucson urban

centers. Mobility between these cities is predominantly served by private automobile;

additionally, commercial air service and private bus/shuttle services are available.  

II. Identification for Project Need

In March 2010 the ADOT completed the Statewide Transportation Planning

Framework study. This study concluded that Arizona cannot address future congestion

by continuing to rely almost exclusively on roadways to move people. High capacity

services such as rail offer an efficient and attractive form of transportation to move

people and the Tier 1 EIS will investigate passenger rail as a viable transportation

solution.  

Existing and future travel patterns, existing transit services, travel times, and

population growth in the study area all demonstrate an existing as well as an evolving

mobility need. The mobility need clearly indicates five study area markets where

demand exists or will exist in the reasonably foreseeable future:

1) Intercity mobility between the Tucson and Phoenix Metropolitan Areas.  

2) Commuter mobility between Phoenix and nearby suburban communities within

Maricopa County.

3) Commuter mobility between Tucson and nearby suburban communities within Pima

County.
8 

4) Commuter mobility between activity centers in Pinal County and the Phoenix

Metropolitan Area.

5) Commuter mobility between activity centers in Pinal County and the Tucson

Metropolitan Area.

Current travel conditions are represented by the following:

Travel demand in the Sun Corridor historically has been significant. Over 51,000

daily trips occurred on two north‐south roads, Interstate 10 (I‐10) and State Route 79

(SR 79) in 2008. Twenty‐two percent of the daily vehicle traffic on these roads

completed a commute‐type trip, i.e., departing from and returning to the same location.

From 2006 to 2008, daily inter‐county commute trips within the three counties

exceeded 75,000. Daily commute trips from Maricopa to Pima numbered 2,980, and

commute trips in the reverse direction numbered 2,260. The commute from Pinal

County to Maricopa County represented about 68 percent of all inter‐county commute

trips (51,625), with the second most desired trip (13,265) being in the reverse direction,

between Maricopa and Pinal counties, representing about 18 percent of all inter‐county

commute trips. By 2050, as Pinal County’s employment grows significantly, these latter

figures are expected to increase accordingly.

In 2011, the only modes of surface transportation available for travel between

Phoenix and Tucson and the area in between are private auto or common carrier (bus);

with the majority of commuter, regional, and intercity travel using I‐10 and SR 79.  

Despite recent widening of sections of I‐10 in the study area, the interstate still
9 

experiences well‐documented increasing durations of severe congestion and failed

operation.  

Need for Intercity Mobility

The 2050 projected travel demand in the Sun Corridor is expected to have a

substantial adverse effect on the Sun Corridor’s surface transportation network. A

comparison of 2010 travel times with those modeled by ADOT’s statewide travel

demand model for 2050 indicates peak‐period travel times would increase by over 100

percent for most trips, resulting in lost time and productivity. For example, the duration

of a trip from Phoenix to Tucson—which now takes approximately 95 minutes—would

increase to nearly 51⁄2 hours by 2050, assuming drivers are willing to travel that long to

cover the distance between the two urban areas. This also assumes I‐10 has been

widened to as many as ten lanes during this period, indicating the need for parallel

transportation options along the I‐10 corridor. Further, the continued and growing

demand to use I‐10 as the primary intercity and commuter route in the corridor will

contribute to growing congestion, reduced capacity, and reduced dependability on the

facility.  

In lieu of increasing capacity through continued highway widening, rail would facilitate

mobility within existing and future travel markets by providing additional transportation

capacity using an additional dependable travel mode.

Need for Commuter Mobility

By 2050, the employment and population makeup of the Sun Corridor will be

substantially different than it is in 2011, and as a result, the Sun Corridor is projected to
10 

become one of the expansive urban areas across the United States that will account for

the majority of the country’s future growth. In 2050, while the Phoenix and Tucson

areas will continue as major population and employment centers, the area between

Phoenix and Tucson will experience tremendous population and employment growth,

creating a singular urbanized corridor in the three counties. With a projected population

nearing 12 million people by 2050, the urbanized corridor will be characterized by dense

employment and population centers in and around Phoenix and Tucson and similar

population and employment centers in western Pinal County, generally along high‐

capacity transportation corridors.  

Statewide, Arizona’s population is projected to more than double in the next 40 years,

from 6.4 million to 16 million, with most development resulting from growth occurring

within the Sun Corridor region. Forecasted population change in the Sun Corridor is

summarized below. Between the years 2009 and 2050:

 Maricopa County population is projected to increase by 90 percent from

4,023,000 to 7,622,700  

 Pima County population is projected to increase by 96 percent from 1,018,000 to

1,990,300  

 Pinal County population is projected to increase by 494 percent from 356,000 to

2,113,000—the highest growth rate of any identified megapolitan region in the

nation

Employment growth projections for the same three‐county area in the next 40 years are

even more dramatic. From 2009 to 2050:
11 

 Maricopa County employment is projected to increase by 132 percent  

 Pima County population is projected to increase by 87 percent  

 Pinal County employment is projected to increase by 850 percent  

The substantial new population and employment in Pinal County between the

existing major urban areas will be distinguished by its focus on high‐density activity

centers in accordance with the region’s long‐range planning objectives. The

redistribution of employment and population towards the center of the Sun Corridor

will add to existing commuter and intercity mobility needs in the region. Within the

planning horizon, commuter mobility to activity centers in Pinal County from Maricopa

and Pima Counties will make up a substantial portion of the overall region’s mobility

needs. Further, the overall increase in  travel demand within the corridor will further

burden an already capacity‐deficient system.  

III. Alternatives to Be Considered

This study will satisfy the requirements of NEPA as well as FTA requirements for an

Alternative Analysis that will permit consideration for New Starts funding. Under the

New Starts Program, alternatives for consideration in the Alternatives Analysis process

will include:

 A No‐build alternative (also known as no‐action: future condition in the study

area implementing only currently approved transportation plans),

 A Baseline alternative (future condition in the study area without the proposed

high‐capacity guideway improvements and implementing only transportation

systems management [TSM] type improvements), and
12 

 Build alternatives to address the need of passenger rail service between Tucson,

Arizona and Phoenix, Arizona.

A range of conceptual alignments by segment, alternative endpoints, and

modes/technologies that have been identified in previous plans and studies have been

proposed to constitute the potential build alternatives.  However, alignment concepts

specific to this study area will be further defined during scoping and the alternatives

development process.  Definition of compatible local transit systems to serve as a

complement to the Build network would be part of alternatives development. Build

alternatives will need to address the need for both intercity mobility and commuter

mobility, and could potentially include the pairing of any combination of alignments and

endpoints to define an overall alternative. Each alternative as defined would have

independent utility to serve the mobility needs in the corridor as defined by the project

need (See Section II).

IV. Probable Effects

The FRA, FTA, and ADOT will evaluate direct, indirect and cumulative changes to the

social, economic, and physical environment—including land use and socioeconomic

conditions, ecology, water resources, historic and archaeological resources, visual

character and aesthetics, contaminated and hazardous materials, transportation, air

quality, noise and vibration, and environmental justice. The analysis will be undertaken

consistent with the National Environmental Policy Act, Council on Environmental Quality

regulations defined previously, Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, the

Endangered Species Act, Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, FRA’s Environmental
13 

Procedures, FTA regulations, ADOT guidance, and Section 4(f) of the Department of

Transportation Act of 1966, along with other applicable Federal and state regulations in

the level of detail appropriate for a Tier 1 EIS.

V. Scoping Process

FRA, FTA, and ADOT invite all interested individuals, organizations, Native American

groups, and Federal, state, and local agencies to comment on the scope of the Tier 1 EIS.

Comments are invited from all interested agencies and the public to ensure the full

range of issues related to the Tier 1 EIS are addressed and all significant issues are

identified. In particular, FRA, FTA, and ADOT are interested in identifying areas of

environmental concern where there might be a potential for significant impacts. Public

agencies with jurisdiction are requested to advise FRA, FTA, and ADOT of the applicable

permit and environmental review requirements of each agency, and the scope and

content of the environmental information that is germane to the agency’s statutory

responsibilities in connection with the proposed action. Public agencies are requested to

advise FRA, FTA, and ADOT if they anticipate taking a major action in connection with

the proposed action and if they wish to cooperate in the preparation of the Tier 1 EIS.  

Comments are encouraged on specific social, economic, or environmental issues to

be evaluated, and on reasonable alternatives that may be less costly, more cost‐

effective, or have fewer environmental or community impacts while achieving similar

transportation objectives.

ADOT will be leading the outreach activities during the public scoping process,

beginning with the scoping meetings identified under DATES above. Following the public
14 

scoping process, public outreach activities will include meetings with the regional

Corridor Support Teams established for the study, as well as meetings with interested

parties or small groups. Those wishing to participate in one of the Corridor Support

Teams may do so by registering on the project Web site at

http://www.azdot.gov/intercityrail

The scoping meetings described in this notice will also be the subject of

additional public notification including periodic updates to the project website to reflect

the project’s status. In addition, newsletters will be circulated to a broad constituency to

ensure people are informed about the proposed action.  Additional opportunities for

public participation will be announced through mailings, notices, advertisements, and

press releases.

VI. FTA New Starts Process

Federal transit law requires that the transit alternatives proposed for New Starts

funding undergo an evaluation separate from the NEPA evaluation. The New Starts

evaluation considers national criteria that are used to compare projects across the

nation competing for New Starts funding.  These criteria include:  cost, cost‐

effectiveness, transit system user benefits, economic development effects, operating

efficiencies, environmental benefits, transit‐supportive land use patterns served by the

project, the financial plan for building the project, the financial plan for operating the

resulting transit system, and the size of the state or local financial commitment to the

project.  FTA provides detailed guidance on how to perform this analysis and oversees

its execution closely.
15 

VII. Paperwork Reduction Act

The Paperwork Reduction Act seeks, in part, to minimize the cost to the taxpayer

of the creation, collection, maintenance, use, dissemination, and disposition of

information. Consistent with this goal and with principles of economy and efficiency in

government, it is the policy of FRA and FTA to limit insofar as possible distribution of

complete printed sets of environmental documents. Accordingly, unless a specific

written request for a complete printed set of environmental documents is received by

the close of the scoping process by the Contact identified under ADDRESSES, the FRA,

FTA, and ADOT will distribute only the executive summary and a Compact Disc (CD) of

the complete environmental document. A complete printed set of the environmental

document will be available for review at ADOT's offices and select repositories; an

electronic copy of the complete environmental document will also be available on the

project Web site: http://www.azdot.gov/intercityrail

Issued in Washington, DC:  

Mark E. Yachmetz,

Associate Administrator for Railroad Policy and Development,  

Federal Railroad Administration

Leslie T. Rogers,

Regional Administrator,  

Federal Transit Administration Region 9
Passenger Rail Corridor Study – Tucson to Phoenix Scoping Report 

    37

Appendix E: Notices and Newspaper Advertisements 
Legal Ads

TriValley Central – Sept 28

The Federal Railroad Administration, Federal Transit Administration, and Arizona Department of

Transportation are preparing an Alternatives Analysis and Environmental Impact Statement to study the

implementation of passenger rail service between Tucson and Phoenix.  Open houses and events are

being held in Pima, Pinal, and Maricopa counties to solicit public input on the scope of the project.

Events in Pinal County include the following: October 18, Town of Florence Town Hall, 775 N. Main St.

Florence, AZ 85132, 3 pm – 7 pm; October 19, Central Arizona College Signal Peak Campus, 8470 N.

Overfield Rd., Coolidge, AZ 85128, 3 pm – 7 pm; October 25, City of Eloy Council Chambers, 628 N. Main

St., Eloy, AZ 85131, 3 pm – 7 pm; October 27, City of Casa Grande Council Chambers, 510 E. Florence

Blvd., Casa Grande, AZ 85122, 3 pm – 7 pm.  Additional opportunities for involvement in the study will

take place in mid‐2012 and early 2013.  Any individual who requires special assistance, such as a sign

language interpreter, to participate in the meetings, or anyone seeking additional information, should

contact Kristin Bornstein at KDA Creative, 602‐368‐9644, five days prior to the meeting.  Participation is

also available online staring October 7, 2011 at www.azdot.gov/intercityrail.  Comments are due

November 14, 2011.

Arizona Daily Star – Sept 27

The Federal Railroad Administration, Federal Transit Administration, and Arizona Department of

Transportation are preparing an Alternatives Analysis and Environmental Impact Statement to study the

implementation of passenger rail service between Tucson and Phoenix.  Open houses and events are

being held in Pima, Pinal, and Maricopa counties to solicit public input on the scope of the project.

Events in Pima County include the following: October 7, University of Arizona, Main Campus Mall, 11

am – 2 pm; October 8, 2nd Saturdays Downtown, 44 N. Stone Ave., Tucson, AZ 85701, 6 pm – 9 pm;

October 13, Pima Community College Northwest Campus, 7600 N. Shannon Rd., Tucson, AZ 85709, 3 pm

– 7 pm; October 14‐16, Tucson Meet Yourself Event, Pima County Plaza, Tucson, AZ 85701 – Oct. 14: 11

am – 1 pm and 3 pm – 7 pm, Oct. 15: 3 pm – 7 pm, Oct. 16: 2 pm – 6 pm.  Additional opportunities for

involvement in the study will take place in mid‐2012 and early 2013.  Any individual who requires special

assistance, such as a sign language interpreter, to participate in the meetings, or anyone seeking

additional information,  should contact Kristin Bornstein at KDA Creative, 602‐368‐9644, five days prior

to the meeting.  Participation is also available online staring October 7, 2011 at

www.azdot.gov/intercityrail.  Comments are due November 14, 2011.

Arizona Republic – Sept 27

The Federal Railroad Administration, Federal Transit Administration, and Arizona Department of

Transportation are preparing an Alternatives Analysis and Environmental Impact Statement to study the
implementation of passenger rail service between Tucson and Phoenix.  Open houses and events are

being held in Pima, Pinal, and Maricopa counties to solicit public input on the scope of the project.

Events in Maricopa County include the following: October 11, Burton Barr Library Auditorium, 1221 N.

Central Ave., Phoenix, AZ 85004, 3 pm – 7 pm; October 12, Arizona State University, Main Tempe

Campus Mall, 10 am – 2 pm; October 24, Chandler Downtown Library Copper Room, 22 S. Delaware St.,

Chandler, AZ 85225, 3 pm – 7 pm; November 1, Mesa Main Library Saguaro Room, 64 E. First St., Mesa,

AZ 85201, 3 pm – 6:30 pm.  Additional opportunities for involvement in the study will take place in mid‐

2012 and early 2013.  Any individual who requires special assistance, such as a sign language interpreter,

to participate in the meetings, or anyone seeking additional information, should contact Kristin

Bornstein at KDA Creative, 602‐368‐9644, five days prior to the meeting.  Participation is also available

online staring October 7, 2011 at www.azdot.gov/intercityrail.  Comments are due November 14, 2011.
Let’s talk about a new 

way to travel between 

Tucson and Phoenix!

*For open houses, persons with a disability may request a 

reasonable accommodation such as a sign language 

interpreter by contacting Kristin Bornstein at 602-368-9644 or 

email at kristin@kdacreative.com. Requests should be made as 

early as possible to allow time to arrange the accommodation.

101211

Participate Online

(October 7 - November 14)

To request a kit, call 

855.250.7245 (toll-free)or 

email intercityrail@azdot.gov.

A list of open houses and 

events in Pinal County is 

included to the right.

Plesase submit your comments through 

November 14, 2011.

ADOT Intercity Rail Study

c/o KDA Creative

4545 E. Shea Blvd. Ste 210

Phoenix, AZ 85028

Mail:

Email:

Phone:

Fax:

October 18

Town of Florence*

Town Hall

775 North Main Street

Florence, AZ 85132

3 pm - 7 pm

October 25

City of Eloy*

Council Chambers

628 North Main Street

Eloy, AZ 85131

3 pm - 7 pm

October 27

City of Casa Grande*

Council Chambers

510 East Florence Boulevard

Casa Grande, AZ 85122

3 pm - 7 pm

October 19

Central Arizona College*

Signal Peak Campus

Room M101

8470 North Overfield Road

Coolidge, AZ 85128

3 pm - 7 pm

intercityrail@azdot.gov

855.250.7245 (toll-free)

602.368.9645

at www.azdot.gov/intercityrail

Order a Do-It-Yourself 

Participation Kit

Visit Us In Person

Contact Us

Open Houses 
Sunday, January 8, 2012 10:24 AM

Page 1 of 3

Subject:	
  ADOTĀĀĀws:	
  Open	
  houses	
  forĀĀĀtercityĀĀailĀĀtudy	
  begin	
  in	
  Pinal	
  County	
  on	
  Oct.	
  18	
  

Date:ĀWednesday,	
  October	
  12,	
  2011	
  1:28	
  PM	
  

From:ĀADOTĀĀews	
  <news@azdot.gov>Ā

To:ĀADOTĀĀews	
  <news@azdot.gov>Ā

Ā

 

For Immediate Release: Oct. 12, 2011 

Contact: ADOT Public Information Office 

news@azdot.gov -or- 800-949-8057 

Open houses for intercity rail study begin in Pinal County 

on Oct. 18

Community members can participate in person or online for I-10 travel 

options

 

PHOENIX — The Arizona Department of Transportation is launching a series of 

open houses in Pinal County to explore the feasibility and potential impacts of a 

Phoenix to Tucson rail link, and we want to hear from the communities along this 

I-10 corridor. 

 

Four open houses will be held in Pinal County beginning on Oct. 18. Eight 

additional open houses are being held in Pima and Maricopa counties. All it takes is 

three simple steps to participate in ADOT’s intercity rail study: watch a video, read 

a booklet and take a survey at one of the open houses or online at www.azdot.gov/

intercityrail <http://www.azdot.gov/intercityrail> . The Pinal County open house 

schedule is as follows: 

 

October 18, 3 p.m. - 7 p.m. 

Town of Florence Town Hall 

775 N. Main Street in Florence 

 

October 19, 3 p.m. - 7 p.m. 

Central Arizona College Signal Peak Campus, Room M101 

8470 N. Overfield Road in Coolidge 

 

October 25, 3 p.m. - 7 p.m. 

City of Eloy Council Chambers 

628 N. Main Street in Eloy 
Page 2 of 3

 

October 27, 3 p.m. - 7 p.m. 

City of Casa Grande Council Chambers 

510 E. Florence Boulevard in Casa Grande 

 

The schedule of all meeting times and locations is available at www.azdot.gov/

intercityrail <http://www.azdot.gov/intercityrail> or by calling toll-free 

855.250.7245. 

 

For those who cannot attend one of the scheduled open houses, online participation 

is encouraged at www.azdot.gov/intercityrail <http://www.azdot.gov/intercityrail> 

or via email to intercityrail@azdot.gov. Community members can view a brief 

video, read the project booklet and take a short survey on the website. 

 

ADOT is even offering free “Do it Yourself Participation Kits” with informational 

materials and a DVD outlining the study. Orders for this kit can be submitted to 

www.azdot.gov/intercityrail <http://www.azdot.gov/intercityrail> and will be 

mailed out with a postage-paid return envelope for completed surveys. 

 

All comments must be received by Nov. 14. 

 

As part of the study, rail connections will be evaluated as a possible alternative to 

support the movement of people and commerce along Interstate 10 between 

Phoenix and Tucson. ADOT launched the study earlier this year to complete an 

alternatives analysis and environmental impact statement for a high capacity 

transportation connection between the state’s two metropolitan areas. This study is 

expected to be complete in 2013. 

 

Should the study indicate that such a rail line is feasible, ADOT would implement 

further planning and development activities based upon the timeframe identified in 

the feasibility study, and when funding is available. However, the future of 

passenger rail in the state will depend on decisions that rest with Arizona’s 

policymakers and with the support of the public. 

 

# # # 

 

 
Page 3 of 3

Ā

!

Ā

Confidentiality and Nondisclosure Notice: This email transmission and any attachments are 

intended for use by the person(s)/entity(ies) named above and may contain confidential/

privileged information. Any unauthorized use, disclosure or distribution is strictly prohibited. If 

you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by email, and delete or destroy 

all copies plus attachments. 

. 

Ā
Sunday, January 8, 2012 10:20 AM

Page 1 of 3

 

 ᵹ

  ḱ 
  +"*( ) )) #*)

     $


 ᵹ      $


  $


    %ᵹ

For Immediate Release: Sept. 27, 2011

Contact: ADOT Public Information Office

news@azdot.gov -or- 800-949-8057

Open houses set to seek comments on Phoenix-Tucson travel options

12 meetings launch formal study exploring transportation alternatives to using I-10

PHOENIX — Following the March adoption of the State Rail Plan by the Arizona Transportation Board, the

Arizona Department of Transportation is launching a series of open houses to explore the feasibility and

potential impacts of a Phoenix to Tucson rail link.

Four open houses will be held in each county within the study area – Maricopa, Pinal and Pima. Open house

sessions begin Oct. 7 in Tucson and run into early November. A full schedule of meeting times and locations is

available at www.azdot.gov/intercityrail or by calling toll-free 855.250.7245.

For those who cannot attend one of the scheduled open houses, online participation is welcomed at

www.azdot.gov/intercityrail or via email to intercityrail@azdot.gov. Starting Oct. 7, community members can view

a brief video, read the project booklet and take a short survey on the website.

ADOT is even offering free “Do it Yourself Participation Kits” with informational materials and a DVD outlining

the study. This kit can be ordered on Oct. 7 at www.azdot.gov/intercityrail and will be mailed out with a postagepaid return envelope for completed surveys.

Comments must be received by Nov. 14.

As part of the study, rail connections will be evaluated as a possible alternative to support the movement of

people and commerce along Interstate 10 between Phoenix and Tucson. ADOT launched the study earlier this

year to complete an alternatives analysis and environmental impact statement for a high capacity transportation

connection between the state’s two metropolitan areas. This study is expected to be complete in 2013.

Should the study indicate that such a rail line is feasible, ADOT would implement further planning and

development activities based upon the timeframe identified in the feasibility study, and when funding is

available. Infrastructure costs for a new, double-tracked intercity passenger line between Phoenix and Tucson

was estimated in the State Rail Plan at roughly $15 million per mile, including right-of-way. This does not

include the purchase of trains or ongoing maintenance and operations expenses. A more detailed cost analysis

will be included as a part of the study.
Page 2 of 3

However, the future of passenger rail in the state will depend on decisions that rest with Arizona’s policymakers

and with the support of the public. ADOT is also studying how to accommodate a larger portion of future freight

movements by rail, and the implementation of an intercity rail system would be coordinated with key freight rail

improvements.

Meeting schedule:

Pima County

October 7, 10 a.m. - 2 p.m.

University of Arizona Main Campus Mall

1303 E. University Boulevard in Tucson

October 8, 6 p.m. - 9 p.m.

Second Saturday

44 N. Stone Avenue in Tucson

October 13, 3 p.m. - 7 p.m.

Pima Community College Northwest Campus

7600 N. Shannon Road in Tucson

October 14-16, times vary

Tucson Meet Yourself Event Exhibitor Booth, Pima County Plaza

130 W. Congress in Tucson

Pinal County

October 18, 3 p.m. - 7 p.m.

Town of Florence Town Hall

775 N. Main Street in Florence

October 19, 3 p.m. - 7 p.m.

Central Arizona College Signal Peak Campus, Room M101

8470 N. Overfield Road in Coolidge

October 25, 3 p.m. - 7 p.m.

City of Eloy Council Chambers

628 N. Main Street in Eloy

October 27, 3 p.m. - 7 p.m.

City of Casa Grande Council Chambers

510 E. Florence Boulevard in Casa Grande

Maricopa County

October 11, 3 p.m. - 7 p.m.

Burton Barr Library Auditorium

1221 N. Central Ave. in Phoenix

October 12, 10 a.m. - 2 p.m.

Arizona State University Campus Mall

1151 S. Forest Avenue in Tempe
Page 3 of 3

October 24, 3 p.m. - 7 p.m.

Chandler Downtown Library Copper Room

22 S. Delaware Street in Chandler

November 1, 3 p.m. - 6:30 p.m.

Mesa Main Library Saguaro Room

64 E. First Street in Mesa

# # #

SUBSCRIBER SERVICES: 

Manage Preferences | Delete Profile | Help

Sent on behalf of ADOT by GovDelivery, Inc. • 206 S. 17th Ave • Phoenix, AZ 85007 • 602.712.7355
Sunday, January 8, 2012 10:27 AM

Page 1 of 2

Subject:	
  ADOTĀĀĀws:	
  Open	
  houses	
  forĀĀĀtercityĀĀailĀĀtudyĀĀomeĀĀo	
  the	
  EastĀĀalleyĀ

Date:ĀTuesday,	
  October	
  18,	
  2011	
  11:31	
  AM	
  

From:ĀADOTĀĀews	
  <news@azdot.gov>Ā

To:ĀADOTĀĀews	
  <news@azdot.gov>Ā

Ā

 For Immediate Release: Oct. 18, 2011 

Contact: ADOT Public Information Office 

news@azdot.gov -or- 800-949-8057 

Open houses for intercity rail study come to the East Valley 

Community members can participate in person or online for I-10 travel 

options

 

PHOENIX — What do you think about Phoenix to Tucson travel options as we plan 

for our transportation future? The Arizona Department of Transportation is bringing 

two open houses for its intercity rail study to the East Valley over the next two 

weeks, and now is the time for community members to get involved. 

 

These events are part of a series of 12 open houses being held in Maricopa, Pinal 

and Pima counties. All it takes is three simple steps to participate in ADOT’s 

intercity rail study: watch a video, read a booklet and take a survey at one of the 

open houses or online at www.azdot.gov/intercityrail <http://www.azdot.gov/

intercityrail> . The East Valley open house schedule is as follows: 

 

October 24, 3 p.m. - 7 p.m. 

Chandler Downtown Library Copper Room 

22 S. Delaware Street in Chandler 

 

November 1, 3 p.m. - 6:30 p.m. 

Mesa Main Library Saguaro Room 

64 E. First Street in Mesa 

 

The schedule of all meeting times and locations is available at www.azdot.gov/

intercityrail <http://www.azdot.gov/intercityrail> or by calling toll-free 

855.250.7245. 

 

For those who cannot attend one of the scheduled open houses, online participation 

is encouraged at www.azdot.gov/intercityrail <http://www.azdot.gov/intercityrail> 
Page 2 of 2

or via email to intercityrail@azdot.gov. Community members can view a brief 

video, read the project booklet and take a short survey on the website. 

 

ADOT is even offering free “Do it Yourself Participation Kits” with informational 

materials and a DVD outlining the study. Orders for this kit can be submitted to 

www.azdot.gov/intercityrail <http://www.azdot.gov/intercityrail> and will be 

mailed out with a postage-paid return envelope for completed surveys. You can also 

call toll-free at 855.250.7245 to place an order for this kit. 

 

All comments must be received by Nov. 14. 

 

As part of the study, rail connections will be evaluated as a possible alternative to 

support the movement of people and commerce along Interstate 10 between 

Phoenix and Tucson. ADOT launched the study earlier this year to complete an 

alternatives analysis and environmental impact statement for a high capacity 

transportation connection between the state’s two metropolitan areas. This study is 

expected to be complete in 2013. 

 

Should the study indicate that such a rail line is feasible, ADOT would implement 

further planning and development activities based upon the timeframe identified in 

the feasibility study, and when funding is available. However, the future of 

passenger rail in the state will depend on decisions that rest with Arizona’s 

policymakers and with the support of the public. 

 

# # # 

 

 

 

Ā

!

Ā

Confidentiality and Nondisclosure Notice: This email transmission and any attachments are 

intended for use by the person(s)/entity(ies) named above and may contain confidential/

privileged information. Any unauthorized use, disclosure or distribution is strictly prohibited. If 

you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by email, and delete or destroy 

all copies plus attachments. 

. 

Ā
Sunday, January 8, 2012 10:27 AM

Page 1 of 2

Subject:	
  ADOTĀĀĀws	
  Alert:	
  Intercity	
  Rail	
  Study	
  Public	
  Open	
  Houses	
  

Date:ĀMonday,	
  October	
  17,	
  2011	
  3:22	
  PM	
  

From:ĀADOTĀĀews	
  <news@azdot.gov>Ā

To:ĀADOTĀĀews	
  <news@azdot.gov>Ā

Ā

For Immediate Release: October 17, 2011 

Contact: ADOT Public Information Office 

news@azdot.gov -or- 1.800.949.8057 

 

News Alert: Intercity Rail Study Public Open Houses

WHO:

The Arizona Department of Transportation

The Federal Railroad Administration

The Federal Transit Administration

WHAT:

Public open houses to discuss ADOT’s study assessing travel options along Interstate 10 

between Phoenix and Tucson. The meetings serve as the formal start of the study and provide 

the public with an opportunity to learn about the study and provide comment.

WHEN/WHERE:

October 18, 3 p.m. - 7 p.m.

Town of Florence Town Hall 

775 N. Main Street in Florence

October 19, 3 p.m. - 7 p.m.

Central Arizona College Signal Peak Campus, Room M101 

8470 N. Overfield Road in Coolidge

October 25, 3 p.m. - 7 p.m.

City of Eloy Council Chambers 

628 N. Main Street in Eloy 

October 27, 3 p.m. - 7 p.m.

City of Casa Grande Council Chambers 

510 E. Florence Boulevard in Casa Grande

WHY:

To provide the public with a first look at this study, which will explore the feasibility and 

potential impacts of an intercity rail or other mass-transit connection as an alternative to I-10. 
Page 2 of 2

The public will be invited to learn about the study and provide comments at this early phase of 

the study process.

VISUAL:

Video is available via FTP: ftp://ftp.azdot.gov/ADOTVideo/MediaAccess 

Username: adotvideo_media Password: Adotmedia_2011 (case sensitive)

More Information: 

Contact the ADOT Office of Public Information at 1-800-949-8057 or news@azdot.gov. 

Public questions can be directed to 1-855-250-7245 or intercityrail@azdot.gov.

# # #

 

Ā

!

Ā

Confidentiality and Nondisclosure Notice: This email transmission and any attachments are 

intended for use by the person(s)/entity(ies) named above and may contain confidential/

privileged information. Any unauthorized use, disclosure or distribution is strictly prohibited. If 

you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by email, and delete or destroy 

all copies plus attachments. 

. 

Ā
Sunday, January 8, 2012 10:26 AM

Page 1 of 2

Subject:ĀĀĀws	
  Alert:	
  ADOT'sĀĀĀtercity	
  Rail	
  Study	
  Public	
  Open	
  Houses	
  Con@nue	
  This	
  WeekĀ

Date:ĀWednesday,	
  October	
  12,	
  2011	
  2:19	
  PM	
  

From:ĀADOTĀĀews	
  <news@azdot.gov>Ā

To:ĀADOTĀĀews	
  <news@azdot.gov>Ā

Ā

For Immediate Release: October 12, 2011 

Contact: ADOT Public Information Office 

news@azdot.gov -or- 1.800.949.8057 

 

News Alert:

ADOT’s Intercity Rail Study Public Open Houses Continue 

This Week

WHO:

The Arizona Department of Transportation

The Federal Railroad Administration

The Federal Transit Administration

WHAT:

Public open houses to discuss ADOT’s study assessing travel options along Interstate 10 

between Phoenix and Tucson. The meetings serve as the formal start of the study and provide 

the public with an opportunity to learn about the study and provide comment.

WHEN/WHERE:

October 13, 3 p.m. - 7 p.m.

Pima Community College Northwest Campus 

7600 N. Shannon Road in Tucson

October 14-16

Tucson Meet Yourself Event Exhibitor Booth, Pima County Plaza

130 W. Congress in Tucson

Oct. 14: 11 a.m. – 1 p.m. and 3 p.m. – 7 p.m. 

Oct. 15: 3 p.m. – 7 p.m. 

Oct. 16: 2 p.m. – 6 p.m. 

WHY:

To provide the public with a first look at this study, which will explore the feasibility and 

potential impacts of an intercity rail or other mass-transit connection as an alternative to I-10. 

The public is invited to learn about the study and provide comments during this early phase of 

the study process.
Page 2 of 2

VISUAL:

Video is available via FTP: ftp://ftp.azdot.gov/ADOTVideo/MediaAccess 

Username: adotvideo_media Password: Adotmedia_2011 (case sensitive)

More Information: 

Contact the ADOT Office of Public Information at 1-800-949-8057 or news@azdot.gov. 

Public questions can be directed to 1-855-250-7245 or intercityrail@azdot.gov.

# # #

 

Ā

!

Ā

Confidentiality and Nondisclosure Notice: This email transmission and any attachments are 

intended for use by the person(s)/entity(ies) named above and may contain confidential/

privileged information. Any unauthorized use, disclosure or distribution is strictly prohibited. If 

you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by email, and delete or destroy 

all copies plus attachments. 

. 

Ā
Sunday, January 8, 2012 10:23 AM

Page 1 of 1

 

 

 ) ( !*( ) ), "( +

- 


Ǘ
 - 



 

 
 


The Arizona Department of Transportation wants you to add your voice to the 2,300 people who have commented on travel

options between Phoenix and Tucson. If you have already participated – thank you!

Online participation is through November 14, 2011.

Participate online now at:

http://www.azdot.gov/intercityrail/addingyourvoice1.asp

SUBSCRIBER SERVICES: 

Manage Preferences | Delete Profile | Help

Sent on behalf of ADOT by GovDelivery, Inc. • 206 S. 17th Ave • Phoenix, AZ 85007 • 602.712.7355
1

Amy Rosar

From: Arizona Department of Transportation [adot@service.govdelivery.com]

Sent: Friday, October 28, 2011 10:30 AM

To: Amy Rosar

Subject: There’s still time to add your voice!

 

 

The Arizona Department of Transportation wants you to add your voice! Join the more than 1,500 

who have commented on travel options between Tucson and Phoenix. 

If you have already participated – thank you!

Participate online now at http://www.azdot.gov/intercityrail/addingyourvoice1.asp

Online participation is available through November 14, 2011 

 

SUBSCRIBER SERVICES: 

Manage Preferences | Delete Profile | Help

Sent on behalf of ADOT by GovDelivery, Inc. • 206 S. 17th Ave • Phoenix, AZ 85007 • 602.712.7355 
Sunday, January 8, 2012 10:22 AM

Page 1 of 1

 

ḱ
  

 +- !+) ***) ", )

.
Ā

.
Ā


 

 
 


The Arizona Department of Transportation wants you to add your voice! Join the more than

1,500 who have commented on travel options between Tucson and Phoenix.

If you have already participated – thank you!

Participate online now at http://www.azdot.gov/intercityrail/addingyourvoice1.asp

Online participation is available through November 14, 2011

SUBSCRIBER SERVICES: 

Manage Preferences | Delete Profile | Help

Sent on behalf of ADOT by GovDelivery, Inc. • 206 S. 17th Ave • Phoenix, AZ 85007 • 602.712.7355
1

Amy Rosar

From: Arizona Department of Transportation [adot@service.govdelivery.com]

Sent: Friday, October 07, 2011 7:14 AM

To: Amy Rosar

Subject: The time is now!

 

The Arizona Department of Transportation wants you to add your voice to Arizona’s discussion about travel options 

between Tucson and Phoenix.

Participate online now at http://www.azdot.gov/intercityrail/ .

Your comments will help shape the future.

Online participation is available through November 14, 2011.

Update your subscriptions, modify your password or email address, or stop subscriptions at any time on your Subscriber Preferences Page. You will need to use your email address 

to log in. If you have questions or problems with the subscription service, please contact support@govdelivery.com. 

This service is provided to you at no charge by the Citizen's Transportation Oversite Committee.

Sent on behalf of ADOT by GovDelivery, Inc. • 206 S. 17th Ave • Phoenix, AZ 85007 • 602.712.7355 
Sunday, January 8, 2012 10:22 AM

Page 1 of 1

 

 +!) ' ( (+"( *

, 


, 



 

The Arizona Department of Transportation wants you to add your voice to Arizona’s discussion about travel

options between Tucson and Phoenix.

Participate online now at http://www.azdot.gov/intercityrail/ .

Your comments will help shape the future.

Online participation is available through November 14, 2011.

Update your subscriptions, modify your password or email address, or stop subscriptions at any time on your Subscriber Preferences Page. You will need to

use your email address to log in. If you have questions or problems with the subscription service, please contact support@govdelivery.com

This service is provided to you at no charge by the Citizen's Transportation Oversite Committee

Sent on behalf of ADOT by GovDelivery, Inc. • 206 S. 17th Ave • Phoenix, AZ 85007 • 602.712.7355
1

Amy Rosar

From: Arizona Department of Transportation [adot@service.govdelivery.com]

Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2011 7:04 AM

To: Amy Rosar

Subject: It’s not too late to add your voice!

 The Arizona Department of Transportation wants you to add your voice to the 2,300 people who have commented on 

travel options between Phoenix and Tucson. If you have already participated – thank you! 

 Online participation is through November 14, 2011. 

 Participate online now at: 

http://www.azdot.gov/intercityrail/addingyourvoice1.asp

SUBSCRIBER SERVICES: 

Manage Preferences | Delete Profile | Help

Sent on behalf of ADOT by GovDelivery, Inc. • 206 S. 17th Ave • Phoenix, AZ 85007 • 602.712.7355 
Passenger Rail Corridor Study – Tucson to Phoenix Scoping Report 

    38

Appendix F: Agency Scoping Summary 
1

Arizona Department of Transportation

Passenger Rail Study: Tucson to Phoenix

Environmental Impact Statement

Agency Scoping Meeting and Webinar  

Tuesday, October 11, 2011, 9:00 a.m. – 1:00 p.m.  

ADOT Administration Building Board Room

206 S. 17th Avenue, Phoenix, Arizona

Summary

Participants

A copy of the sign in sheet is attached in the Appendix A: Meeting Materials

Peter Gariepy, Amtrak (Webinar)

Jonathon Hutchison, Amtrak (Webinar)

Chris Watson, Arizona Corporation Commission (ACC)

Kurt Maurer, Arizona Department of Environmental

Quality (ADEQ) (Webinar)

Sara Allred, Arizona Department of Transportation

(ADOT)  

Herman Bernal, ADOT  

Matt Carpenter, ADOT  

Misty Dayzie, ADOT  

Javier Gurrola, ADOT (Webinar)

Mike Kies, ADOT  

Michael Klein, ADOT  

Owen Mills, ADOT  

Scott Omer, ADOT

Susan Ridenour, ADOT  

David Grandmaison, Arizona Game and Fish

Department (AGFD)

Kristin Terpening, AGFD (Webinar)

Ray Schweinsburg, AGFD

Kelly Wolff‐Krauter, AGFD

Chip Young, AGFD

Tim Bocton, Arizona State Land Department (ASLD)

Michelle Green, ASLD

David Jacobs, Arizona State Parks  

Susan Morrison, Transcon Environmental on behalf of

theBureau of Indian Affairs Pima Agency (BIA)

Martin Lucero, Central Arizona Association of

Governments (CAAG)

Tom Fitzgerald, Central Arizona Project (CAP)

(Webinar)  

Giao Pham, City of Apache Junction  

Rogene Hill, City of Avondale  

Kristen Sexton, City of Avondale (Webinar)

Leila Demaree, City of Casa Grande  

Duane Eitel, City of Casa Grande  

C. Alton Bruce, City of Coolidge

Jose Macias, City of El Mirage  

Rick Miller, City of Eloy (Webinar)

John Mitchell, City of Eloy  

Matt Dudley, City of Glendale  

Diane Landis, City of Litchfield Park  

Kellee Kelley, City of Maricopa  

Mike James, City of Mesa (Webinar)

Jeff Martin, City of Mesa (Webinar)

Mark Melnychenko, City of Phoenix  

Chris Anders, City of Phoenix Aviation

Erik Buskirk, City of Phoenix Aviation  

Curt Upton, City of Phoenix (Webinar)

Robert Yabes, City of Tempe (Webinar)

Karen Savage, City of Surprise  

George Caria, City of Tucson (Webinar)

John Zukas, City of Tucson (Webinar)

Jennifer Donofrio, City of Tucson Department of

Transportation

Jessica Lofgreen, City of Tucson Department of

Transportation  

Clifton Meek, Environmental Protection Agency
2

(EPA)(Webinar)

Henry Keith, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)

Rebecca Swiecki, Federal Highway Administration

(FHWA)

Amy Zaref, Federal Transit Administration (FTA)

Valarie Swick, Flood Control District of Maricopa

County (FCDMC)  

Trent Kelso, HDR (Webinar)

Jack Allen, Jacobs  

Betsi Phoebus, Jacobs

Anthony Scolaro, Jacobs  

Amy Rosar, KDA Creative  

Micah Henry, Maricopa Association of Governments

(MAG)

Marc Pearsall, MAG

Nathan Pryor, MAG (Webinar)

Tim Strow, MAG  

Vincent Lopez, Maricopa County Department of Public

Health

Denise Lacey, Maricopa County Department of

Transportation  

Christina Berglund, Parsons Brinkerhoff (Webinar)

Steve Hogan, Parsons Brinkerhoff  

Jennifer Love, Parsons Brinkerhoff (Webinar)

Scott Pitera, Parsons

Brinkerhoff (Webinar)

Don Smith, Parsons Brinkerhoff (Webinar)

Sarah Squires, Parsons Brinkerhoff (Webinar)

Walter Fix, Phoenix‐Mesa Gateway Airport  

Jeremy Papuga, Pima Association of Governments  

Daniel Signor, Pima County (Webinar)

Robert Young, Pima County Department of

Transportation (Webinar)

Doug Hansen, Pinal County (Webinar)

David Maestas, Pinal County (Webinar)

Kurt Sharp, Town of Gilbert  

Jennifer Christelman, Town of Marana (Webinar)

Scott Leska, Town of Marana (Webinar)

Aimee Ramsey, Town of Oro Valley (Webinar)

Tom Condit, Town of Queen Creek

Farhad Moghimi, Town of Sahuarita (Webinar)

Mark Hannah, Town of Youngtown (Webinar)

Jordan Feld, Tucson Airport Authority (TAA) (Webinar)

Zoe Richmond, Union Pacific Rail Road (Webinar)

Tom Amparano, University of Arizona (Webinar)

Stuart Boggs, Valley Metro RPTA  

Robert Forest, Valley Metro RPTA

Ben Limmer, Valley Metro RPTA

Meeting Notification

ADOT distributed 111 invitations to state and local agencies as well as tribes on October 4, 2011.  

Attached to the meeting invitations was a meeting agenda, project segment area map, description of

the segment areas, schedule of milestones, comment form, and a map of the study area.  All invitation

material can be found in Appendix B: Invitations.     

Meeting Summary

Mike Kies, ADOT Multimodal Planning Division Project Manager, started the meeting by thanking

participants for attending and reminded them that their input was valuable to the study.  He mentioned

that the notice of intent was published in the national registrar on Thursday, Oct 6, 2011 and that the

team was now in the process of completing a Tier 1 environmental study.  

Mike Kies presented information about the study including the Study Area, Process, and Project

Objectives.  Jack Allen, Jacobs, presented information about the content of a Tier 1 EIS and how the
3

agencies can participate throughout the process.  A copy of the powerpoint

presentation can be found in Appendix A: Meeting Materials is attached to these minutes.

After briefly the presentation, the study team asked participants to state any concerns, issues or

comments.  Written comments can be found in Appendix C: Written Agency Comments.

Open Discussion

Kellee Kelley, City of Maricopa:  Traversing Pinal County with a straight line route may not be the best

solution.  It is important to ensure that ADOT solicit input from all agencies within Pinal County

and provide opportunities for these agencies to interact in this planning process.  

John Mitchell, City of Eloy:  Eloy concluded a corridor study along I‐10 and are the focal point of the

North‐South Corridor Study being conducted by ADOT.  Eloy requests that both transportation

planning studies (North‐South Corridor and Passenger Rail) come together seamlessly.  There

needs to be coordination between the various studies.  

Valerie Swick, FCDMC:  As a regulatory agency, we want to ensure there is minimum impact to flood

plains.  There are a lot of area drainage master plans that the Flood Control District of Maricopa

County would like to provide so they are considered during this study.

Action Item; Contact FCDMC and collect any relevant drainage master plans.

Jack Allen, Jacobs: Are there any particular geographic areas that you are most concerned about or that

we need to be aware of?

Valarie Swick, FCDMC: We just completed a large one in the Rainbow Valley area.  We have done several

in Maricopa County.  Rainbow Valley is not really developed at this point and we do not have as

many plans, but we have gathered a lot of information.   

Ben Limmer: Valley Metro RPTA: Three general concerns.   

1.  The funding at the federal level is limited and likely to be limited over the next six to seven

years.  All of us need to be conscious of funding constraints as this study moves forward. There

is only so much money in Federal the pot.   

2.  When METRO reviews the ridership numbers projected by MAG, we think it is a little lower

than it should be on the southeast commuter corridor.  Our ridership projections have often

been lower than expected.  The feeder lines at both the ends of the proposed project in Phoenix

and Tucson need to be fully evaluated to provide more travel options for people to travel to

their final destination.   
4

Action Item; Meet with Valley Metro RPTA to discuss ridership

projection process proposed for this project

3.  The population and employment projections contained in the powerpoint presentation were

based on a good economy. What if these projections are too high and growth never reaches

that point?  How do we modify those projections between we thought back in the early 2000’s

and today?

Robert Forest, Valley Metro RPTA:  Be conscious of all Valley Metro studies being conducted.  We need

to consider how this potential rail system will cross existing and planned tracks or feed into the

system.  

Action Item; Contact Valley Metro RPTA to discuss all Valley Metro studies being conducted

and ho they can effect this study.

Chris Anders, City of Phoenix Aviation: We are interested in this project because connectivity to and

from the airport and the rest of the transit network is critical to get passengers to their final

destinations.  How will this proposed project be connected to Sky Harbor Airport?  Also, we

need to consider safety; this project can not propose obstructions in the flight path.  FAA will

require that clear zones surrounding Sky Harbor be maintained.   

Keith Henry FAA:  I share the same concerns as Mr. Anders. Additionally, we need to consider

obstructions to not just Sky Harbor but all airports.

Dianne Landis, City of Litchfield Park:  The west valley is growing and when you think of Phoenix please

don’t forget about the west valley and commuters that are destine to Phoenix.  Consider West

Valley concerns throughout this study.  Think of potential routes going to Goodyear and

Avondale, or as far west as possible.  The cities in the west valley are prepared to work together

to figure out how to connect commuters in the West Valley to this potential project.   

Walt Fix, Phoenix‐Mesa Gateway Airport:  Phoenix‐Mesa Gateway Airport has always been interested in

increasing freight movement.  Phoenix‐Mesa Gateway Airport will likely be a medium hub

airport in the future, as it is the same size as Tucson.  There is a Union Pacific line that runs near

the Phoenix‐Mesa Gateway Airport, and this route should be considered during this study.  

Karen Savage, City of Surprise:  We have the same concerns as far as connections in the west valley to

the recommended project from this study.  We need to find ways to get people to the proposed

stations to connect to the rail system, such as feeder connections at the proposed end of the

line.  

Stuart Boggs, Valley Metro RTPA: We are concerned about the segment of the trip from the train station

to the ultimate destination.  The rail can get you most of the way, but not always to the ultimate

destination.  We need both roads and rail for a complete system.  
5

Mike Kies, ADOT:  We want to talk to all transit agencies throughout the

potential corridor to discuss either new or existing transit service to connect to the rail.   

Action Item; Meet with all transit agencies within the study area to discuss potential transit

service that can connect with the proposed project.

Kurt Sharp, Town of Gilbert: We are interested because there is a portion of the Union Pacific line going

through Gilbert.  There are two stations identified in Gilbert’s general plan.  The Town of Gilbert

shares funding concerns and connectivity concerns.

Micah Henry, MAG: I defer all commenting to Tim Strow with MAG.

Tim Strow, MAG: This is a great project.  One of MAGs concerns is that the member agencies concerns

are addressed and that we don’t duplicate efforts.  It would be helpful to go through the MAG

committee process to introduce the project at an early stage to the member agencies.  

Action Item; Schedule presentations to the appropriate MAG Committees

Denise Lacy, MCDOT:  Our concerns fall in line with MAGs and other local agencies.  This study is great,

but we need to ensure there is connectivity to other modes of transportation.  How do we best

plan to utilize the rail service for those who are outside of the Phoenix area?  We would like to

ensure the future transportation framework involves minimal impact by the corridors.  

Jose Macias, City of El Mirage:  The City of El Mirage shares the same concerns as the Cities of Litchfield

Park and Surprise.  We are a small community and want to be considered as a feeder.  We have

mostly freight industries within our city limits.

Tom Condit, Town of Queen Creek:  There is a Union Pacific line that runs through town and we are

excited to have an opportunity for a commuter rail line through town as well.  Funding is a

major concern.  Existing corridors should be considered that could potentially serve future

population centers.  

Ben Limmer, Valley Metro RPTA:  It’s best to look at timing and sequencing of multiple agency projects

to acquire funding.  Not all agencies can ask for money at the same time because there is only so

much to go around.

Scott Omer, ADOT:  I have no additional concerns at this time and think this project is phenomenal.  I

agree with comments stated here so far and want to reiterate the importance of utilizing

regional partners to reduce duplication of efforts.  I hope that throughout the process we can

remember that this is one of many planning studies going on throughout the state.  We

understand that it is the responsibility of the local COG to plan for your areas and we want to

coordinate with you and gain your expertise.   
6

Herman Bernal, ADOT:  I am here to observe the meeting and have no

comments.  

Ray Schweinsburg, AZGFD:  We are concerned about wildlife connectivity.  All infrastructure being built

and proposed has a lasting impact on wildlife connectivity.  Another issue is that we may not

have the appropriate data to make the alternative selection and would like to work on that.   

Sara Allred, ADOT: It is important to ensure that we have connectivity to the existing transit systems and

that this rail line would provide additional support.

Misty Dayzie, ADOT:  I am here to observe and keep tribal communities in mind.

Chip Young, AZGFD:  I share the same concerns as Mr. Schweinsburg.  It is important to communicate

with one another to ensure wildlife connectivity is maintained to the best of abilities.

Ray Schweinsburg, AZGFD:  There are many different kinds of species that may be affected and we may

not have all the data needed at this time to be included in the Environmental Assessment (EA).  

When Arizona Game and Fish Department is engaged from an early stage, additional studies can

be conducted to help ADOT with the EIS as to not hold up the study’s progress.

Dave Grandmaison, AZGFD:  Arizona Game and Fish Department was able to conduct a study in

conjunction with ADOT’s SR 95 project in the Kingman District.  We worked with ADOT and

FHWA to identify desert tortoise habitats and evaluate each corridor that was proposed to help

get more information that would be useful for that EIS.  For the Tier 1 work, there have been

several studies conducted statewide resulting in a lot of useful data.  Once we reach the Tier 2

stage more specific evaluations can be conducted.  

Susan Morrison, BIA:  I have not additional comments at this time.  

Mark Melnychenko, City of Phoenix:  There are a number of stakeholders that have talked about

multimodal connectivity.  There needs to be a seamless connection between rail, bus, and auto

as well as a connection to the airport.  The City of Phoenix is a designated recipient for FTA

funds.   

Matt Dudley, City of Glendale: I would like to support MAGs position and tie into all efforts that MAG

has put together.  We want to look at operations and how it will be funded if it becomes a

reality.  We need to look at the priorities and take into consideration all agencies needs.  Review

special events planning and the transit going to those cities for events.   

David Jacobs, Arizona State Parks:   What is the confidence level of the 2050 population projections this

study is using?  In the past population projections have not been very accurate. There should

also be presentations made to affected tribes and to Arizona State Parks Board.  
7

Action Item; Present this project to the Arizona State Parks Board.

Tim Bolton, ASLD: At this stage of the process, we have procedural needs.  We are familiar with these

types of projects that encompass wide areas of land.  We would like to get the data as early as

possible to provide the study team with the most detailed data available.  Arizona State Land

Department is responsible for a lot of land and resources are very scarce.  

Jennifer Donofrio, City of Tucson Department of Transportation:  Once this study is complete, who will

manage the future studies?  Will that responsibility fall on the local agencies?  

Jack Allen, Jacobs:  This will be determined mostly based upon the funding source.  If it is a local

assistance project, the local agency may lead with a larger agency supporting.  It depends on the

size and location of the study.  We are setting up this study to be the most flexible once we get

to that stage.  

Jessica Lafgreen, City of Tucson Department of Transportation:  Most of my concerns have been

addressed regarding wildlife connectivity.  

Chris Watson, ACC:  I appreciate the opportunity to listen to where we are in the study.  The commission

is concerned about railroad safety.

Jeremy Papuga, PAG: My concerns have been addressed.  The project team is off to a great start.  We

need to consider the end of the line connections and focus on communication with regional

partners.  We need to consider alignment and stops to maintain the desired speed and

consistency.

Matt Carpenter, ADOT:  I am here to listen to questions and concerns.

Vincent Lopez, Maricopa County Public Health Department:  The department’s main interest in this

study is to improve health of residents; by improving air quality and reducing obesity.   

Kelly Wolff‐Krauter, AZGFD:  We have expressed our concerns but wanted to express that this will

provide access restrictions to recreation.  This will be a moving barrier for wildlife.  There are

many studies ongoing in both the east and west valley.   We have the geo‐spatial planning tool

coming out which could also be used as a resource.

Marc Pearsall MAG:  We are starting a regional transportation plan.  One concern is to look at

Environmental Justice (title VI) issues and land use versus economic impacts.  The entire study

area is urbanizing, and there is a lot of infrastructure that has been built to encourage sprawl,

and there is a concern that recommendations from this project could continuing to encourage

sprawl.  We need to try to recommend infrastructure that will provide smart solutions to all this

sprawl that has been created.
8

Mike Klein, ADOT: I would like to support the issues brought up by airports.  

There are several airports adjacent throughout the study area that need to be considered.  The

modal choice issue is important.  We’ve seen other major corridors (ex. San Francisco, CA),

where traffic has been removed from airports because of an improved rail system.  Having a rail

line in place may influence airports ability to develop.   

Michelle Green, ASLD:  There are 9.3 million acres in Arizona managed by the Arizona State Land

Department.  We are working on a plan for Superstition Vistas with a multimodal alignment that

we will continue to work with ADOT to develop.  There have been situations in the past where

people call state land “public land” and color the land green.  This is inaccurate and can lead to

legal recourse if not addressed properly.  When you look at that information please remember

that this land is used to generate revenue and apply to open space.  We need to consider that in

several cases final plans for these lands are not completed.   

Action Item; Schedule a meeting with ASLD to discuss the Superstition Vistas development

Alton Bruce, City of Coolidge:  I am very pleased that FTA is on board with this study.  ADOT has taken

advantage of a great opportunity to intertwine commuter rail with local transit.  I am pleased

with coordination among other studies.  I want to remind you that connectivity is an important

factor.  Coolidge is working closely with Pinal County to provide transit in the area with

assistance from ADOT.  We all recognize that the CAAG population projections seem high, but

we did project a range of populations in Pinal County.  I don’t foresee a great deal of growth in

Pinal County by 2050.  The fundamentals that drive growth in Pinal County are still there, but we

face water supply, employment and housing issues. We believe that the projected growth in

Pinal County will be realized.  I am looking forward to participating in this process.  

Erik Buskirk City of Phoenix:  I support the comments stated by the other aviation representatives.  

Rogene Hill, City of Avondale:  The concerns of the west valley have been mentioned.  The west valley

needs the Wellton line of the UPRR reinstated for service, and needs to connect with the FRA

Golden Triangle project (FRA Southwest Multi‐State Rail Planning Study).  A corridor between

Phoenix and Los Angeles would be an economic driver for the West Valley.  The issue of limited

federal resources will be a driver to determine rail development within the state.  I wonder

about using bus service for the Phoenix to Tucson route, but have heard from others in the past

that it didn’t work.  How could rail build ridership when a bus didn’t work?  Also, feeder lines are

a major concern.   

Steve Hogan, Parsons Brinkerhoff:  A bus alternative will be part of the analysis, as well as highway and

aviation improvements.  The difference between bus and rail is mainly speed.  If designed

correctly, a rail line can get people between Phoenix and Tucson much faster than bus service.  

A bus can take as long as an automobile, sometimes longer and still has to face the same traffic
9

congestion challenges as autos.  We still need to consider many more

details before ruling out the option of a bus service between Phoenix and Tucson.   

Giao Pham, City of Apache Junction:  For this study to be successful you need to break it down into a

realistic implementation plan.  The public cannot envision what will happen in 40 years.  Keep it

simple and tell them what can be expected in the near future.  We would like to plan ahead and

make sure that land use is available for a future rail line and that it is not already planned for

commercial development.  Also use social media to help get more people thinking about mass

transit and multimodal transportation.  We have to begin to change the mindset of residents for

rail to be successful.

Leila DeMaree, City of Casa Grande:  We need to coordinate with other studies on both a local and state

level to ensure all studies connect.  Looking at the map, Casa Grande is at the mid‐point (focal

point) between Phoenix and Tucson.  We should try to maximize the existing infrastructure to

minimize the cost of new infrastructure.  The City of Casa Grande would like to see right‐of‐way

through the city utilized.  Casa Grande has a population of almost 50,000.  At max build‐out it

would be near a million.   

Duane Eitel, City of Casa Grande:  Please make sure that population projections are realistic.   

Rebecca Swiecki, FHWA:  FHWA has no issues at this time.   

Susan Ridenour, ADOT:  No additional concerns at this time.  

Amy Zaref, FTA:  FTA and FRA are working jointly to manage this process.  

Clifton Meek, EPA:  EPA is excited to hear that there is so much concern and focus on providing

multimodal connectivity throughout the project area and EPA is definitely supportive of any

projects elements that would further reduce the vehicle miles traveled, as well as policies that

will increase density and mixed use in station areas.  Where possible, we’d like to see stations in

existing downtown hubs in order to avoid additional impacts from growth inducement.   

Additionally, we’d like to see alignments that stick to existing transportation corridors as much

as possible and avoid dividing public lands and natural conservation areas.  We concur with all of

the statements made by AZGFDand think it would be important for you to coordinate

consistently with EPA, the Army Corps, and AZGFD throughout the process to identify specific

avoidance and minimization measures for impacts to waters, wildlife, and habitat connectivity.   

Finally, it would be important to consider Environmental Justice concerns when studying.   

Are you putting together a SAFETEA‐LU coordination plan for this project?  If not, can you send

out meeting minutes with participant names and contact information?
10

Jack Allen, Jacobs: With an Environmental Impact Statement process we begin

with scoping and invite all agencies to participate.  From information received during scoping, a

Purpose and Need Statement and Alternatives Analysis process will take begin. At this point all

agencies are once again engaged and asked to participate.  At certain points throughout the

study individual agencies will be contacted for more specific data.  With all the needed

information, a draft EIS is developed and distributed to all agencies for review and comment.

Generally agency participation peaks during the early stages.  However, a lot of the agencies

don’t always agree with what is stated in the EIS.  The coordination plan will construct the roles

and responsibilities of the lead and coordinating agencies.  For example, the population

projections need to be addressed up front because there is conflicting information and this is a

driver for the Purpose and Need Statement.  We don’t want this to hold up the study down the

road so it will be addressed early.  This coordination plan will be a living document and

referenced throughout the study.    

Steve Hogan, Parsons Brinkerhoff:  It should be clear that there is a responsibility from the agencies

standpoint as well.  The coordination plan will specify a response time which comments will be

due back to the study team.  It is not just FRA, FTA and ADOT’s responsibility to get agencies

involved; agencies need to be active participants in the process.  

Rogene Hill, City of Avondale:  I did not hear mention of the proposed Interstate 11 corridor which could

be designated as a federal highway. Would a future rail line corridor be encompassed in the

right‐of‐way?

Mike Kies, ADOT:  There has been a lot of discussion of a potential new interstate between Phoenix and

Las Vegas.  At this point, a study would need to be conducted to evaluate the feasibility of

upgrading this route.  The Nevada Department of Transportation will be leading a feasibility

study of this corridor with ADOT as a partner, the idea would be to review a multimodal corridor

including the potential for both passenger and freight rail service.

Curt Upton, City of Phoenix:  We recommend this project reference “livability principles” in the planning

of this corridor.  For example, one of the principles is “Support Existing Communities”.  This

could help guide the phasing and location of station locations – with a higher priority given to

providing access to populations that exist today and a lesser priority given to speculative

developments that may be entitled, but not necessarily realistic or in locations that require

inefficient public infrastructure utilization.  

Kurt Maurer, ADEQ:  Issues we’d be following include impacts on air and water quality, both during

construction, as well as operation and maintenance.  Additionally we’re interested in energy

conservation and efficiency.  

Jordan Feld, TAA:  TAA commends FRA, FTA, ADOT, and the consulting team for their efforts to

coordinate this environmental process to date and into the future.  TAA feels connecting major
11

airports with Passenger Rail is critical to smart growth in Arizona.  

Conversely, development of Passenger Rail that does not connect major airports will miss

opportunities for reducing vehicle congestion and fostering economic development in the study

area.  TAA would like the environmental process to consider differences in congestion reduction

and economic development potential between alternatives in which major airports are directly

connected by Passenger Rail versus alternatives in which major airports are not directly

connected.  

Doug Hansen, Pinal County:  We have been listening and all our comments have been addressed.

Stuart Boggs, Valley Metro RPTA:  There have been numerous studies dating back to the 1970’s.  We

have studied this a lot but it has never amounted to anything.  People are going to ask if this is

just another study that will sit on the shelf.   

Jack Allen, Jacobs:  We want agencies and the public to understand that we intend to move this study

forward.  We want to use the past studies as much as possible, but we develop criteria to help

us determine what can and cannot be used from past studies.

Mike Kies, ADOT:  Are there any additional issues and concerns that have not been addressed today?

Michelle Green, ASLD:  I want to clarify the open space issue.  Typically we don’t designate open space,

but at times the commissioner will designate open space.  We also designate right‐of‐way to

ADOT and other agencies for free because it adds value to our land; however this can

sometimes lead to lawsuits.  It is best to always check first with the State Land Department.  

Duane Eitel, City of Casa Grande:  Safety is a big issue.  Also, please consider the airport in Casa Grande,

it should be included in the study.  

Marc Pearsall, MAG:  We need to look at multimodal connections and on‐demand services.  Economic

development is greatly viewed in this state, and we have been asked how we get goods and

services into the state.  How do we get industrial here in Arizona?  This project could greatly

help with economic development.   

Alton Bruce, City of Coolidge:  Pinal County’s Comprehensive Plan really took a good look at economic

development and it is great that this has been considered in this plan.  

Giao Pham, City of Apache Junction:  Ensure that activity centers are included in the plan.  Additionally,

think about evacuation plans and emergency management.   

Clifton Meek EPA: It is exciting to hear that there is so much emphasis on multimodal  

Questions
12

Q: How will noise modeling be conducted on this study; in particular where

rail will be located close to airports?   

A: A Tier 1 Environmental study will discuss what procedures will be undertaken in the future.  At this

stage, we will not look at project specific analysis.  We may be able to use some criteria without a

formal noise analysis.

Q: Has there been agreements with the Gila River Indian Community about having a new corridor

through their land?

A:  We will develop a tribal coordination plan and we intend to sit down with them to discuss the

project.   

Q: Are ridership projections included at this point?

A: We will look at ridership during all three evaluation steps and will analyze specific travel markets in

step 1.  At step 2 we will do a sketch forecast from a general perspective based on the Arizona

statewide traffic model.  At step 3, ADOT will have mode choice added to the state model and do

more detailed analysis.   

Q:  Since we currently do not have rail in the state, will FTA allow ADOT to conduct ridership modeling?

A: FTA will do a peer review of all modeling produced for this study.  By the time the study reaches step

3 of the evaluation process we hope to have an FTA approved model.   

Q: At what point can major changes be made to the plan?  What’s the drop dead date? Year?

A: Changes can occur throughout the process.  This study will establish a corridor not a specific

alignment.  If the impact was significant enough, a new alignment within the preferred corridor can be

evaluated.  

Q: What time frame are we talking about?  5 years? 20 years?

A:  The Tier 1 process defines a general alignment and characteristics (stations, frequency, etc.)  In Tier

2, you will see a more defined EIS.  A completion date for Tier 2 is unknown.

Mike Kies again thanked everyone for their participation and concluded the meeting at 11:35 a.m.  

   
Appendix A: Meeting Materials

   
Arizona Department of Transportation  

Intercity Rail Study Environmental Impact Statement

Agency Scoping Meeting and Webinar

Tuesday, October 11, 2011, 9:00 a.m. – 1:00 p.m.  

ADOT Administration Building Board Room

206 S. 17th Avenue, Phoenix, Arizona

1. Introductions                  (15 minutes)

2. Project Description – PowerPoint             (30 minutes)

3. Environmental Issues Known to Date (Map)     (15 minutes)

4. Agency Representatives             (2 Hours)

a. Agency Mandate

b. Agency’s Decision‐making Process Regarding Proposed Actions

c. Agency’s Key Interests Regarding the Proposed Action

5. Potentially Controversial Issues Associated with the Proposed Action (45 minutes)

6. Success vs. Failure of the Agency Coordination Process     (15 minutes)

7. Specific Recommended Actions Moving Forward       (15 minutes)
11/18/2011

1

Arizona Department of 

Transportation

Intercity Rail Study

Tuesday, October 11, 2011, 9:00 a.m. MST

Join the Conference Call by dialing

1-877-820-7831

Access Code 774047#

Please keep your phone muted throughout the Webinar 

except when you “have the floor.” You will be able to 

ask questions, provide comments, and “raise your 

hand” online at any time during the Webinar.

Arizona Department of 

Transportation

Intercity Rail Study
11/18/2011

2

ADOT Intercity Rail Study

Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement

Agency Scoping Meeting

October 11, 2011

Welcome to Today’s Meeting

• Introduction/Webinar “Rules”

• Project Description and Overview

– Purpose and Need

– Alternatives

• AA / Tier 1 EIS, (Includes SDP)

– Purpose

– Process

• Agency Comments

– Process

– E i tl nv ronmental

– Other Areas of Concern

– Assumptions

•Agency Coordination

• Moving Forward
11/18/2011

3

Project Study Area

Process Outline for an AA/Tier 1 EIS
11/18/2011

4

• Relieve Traffic Congestion 

Project Objectives

• Provide Alternative Transportation Choices

• Improve Travel Dependability

• Better Accommodate Future Travel Markets

Population Projections for Maricopa, Pima, and Pinal Counties, 2009 and 2050

County 2009 populationa 2050 populationb, c Percent

Change

Maricopa 4,023,000 7,622,700 90%

Pima 1 018 000 1 990 300 96%

Project Objectives - What are the transportation

needs this project will solve?

Pima 1,018,000 1,990,300 96%

Pinal 356,000 2,113,000 494%

Total 5,397,000 11,726,000 117%

a Arizona Department of Commerce Population Estimates, July 1, 2009

b Arizona Statewide Transportation Planning Framework Study, 2010

c population living in households

Employment Projections for Maricopa, Pima, and Pinal Counties, 2009 and 2050

County 2009 employmenta 2050 employmentb Percent

Change

Maricopa 1,815,000 4,205,700 132%

Pima 449,000 837,500 87%

Pinal 110,000 1,044,700 850%

Total 2,374,000 6,087,900 156%

a Arizona Department of Commerce Labor Force and Nonfarm Employment, 2010 b Arizona Statewide Transportation Planning Framework Study, 2010

Greater demand to serve existing and emerging 

travel markets is expected and foreseeable.
11/18/2011

5

2010 and 2050 travel time comparison for trips in Study Area

Origin and destination (trip distance)

Congested travel time (minutes) Percent

Increase

2010a 2050 baselineb

Project Objectives - What are the transportation

needs this project will solve?

Apache Junction to Coolidge (45 miles) 56 142 154%

Eloy to Phoenix‐Mesa Gateway Airport (59 miles, by

way of I‐10c

) 63 167 165%

Phoenix to Marana (73 miles) 64 220 244%

Marana to Tucson (24 miles) 21 104 395%

Phoenix to Tucson (105 miles) 95 324 241%

a estimated using Yahoo! Maps driving directions b estimated using 2050 Arizona Statewide Travel Demand Model c Interstate 10     d United States Route 60

Regional mobility will be subject to greater and 

greater congestion in the foreseeable future.

Project Objectives - What are the transportation

needs this project will solve?

Travel markets in the study area are emerging 

and growing.
11/18/2011

6

Where People Live and Work Today

Where People will Live and Work in the Future
11/18/2011

7

Three-Level Alternatives Development and Screening to 

Identify a Range of Reasonable Alternatives to Carry 

Forward into the EIS

Project Elements will be Assessed Independently

• End-of-Line and Intermediate Stations

• Route Location

• Service Type (Mode, Connections)

• Community Acceptance 

Potential Screening Criteria will Consider 

Multiple Disciplines

Qualitative

• Environment

• Financial Feasibility

• Operational Characteristics

• Mobility

Quantitative • Safety
11/18/2011

8

Alternative Example – A Complete Corridor Alternative 

Accounting for End of Line, Route Location, and Service Type

Alternatives Screening – Alternatives Will Be Screened to 

Establish a Range of Reasonable Alternatives

Resulting Range is Subjected to Detailed Impact Analysis
11/18/2011

9

• A Range of Reasonable Build Alternatives

• Includes No-Build and Baseline Alternatives

• Expected completion in 2013 

Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)

• Examines the general alignment of reasonable 

corridor alternatives 

What an AA/SDP/Tier 1 EIS Will Achieve:

• Provides a planning-level assessment of the 

environmental effects of construction, 

operation, and maintenance of the proposed 

action

• Results in a Record of Decision (ROD) 

approving the general alignment of the 

Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA)
11/18/2011

10

SAFETEA-LU Section 6002 Enhances Accountability: 

Expediting the Process

• Defines Lead, Cooperating, and Participating Agencies

• Describes Specific Levels of Involvement for Each

• Establishes Milestones Where Agency Review And Feedback 

Take Place (Purpose And Need, Alternatives, Impact 

Methodologies)

Proactive Agency Engagement Throughout 

the Process Supports Expedited Delivery
11/18/2011

11

Tier 1 

• Public Scoping

• Alternatives Analysis

Moving Forward

• Draft Tier 1 EIS

• Locally Preferred Corridor Alternative

• Final Tier 1 EIS

• Record of Decision

Beyond Tier 1

• Completion of additional project Completion of additional, project-specific specific 

environmental documentation will be required 

prior to final design and construction of any 

segment of the corridor

Arizona Department of 

Transportation

Thank you for your 

parti i ti ticipation.
11/18/2011

12

Existing Conditions

Future Conditions
11/18/2011

13

Previous Study Corridors

Study Corridor Segments
11/18/2011

14

High-Level Project Schedule




Appendix B: Invitations   
October 3, 2011

To:  Agency Representatives

From:   Arizona Intercity Rail Study Project Team

Subject: Agency Scoping for the Arizona Intercity Rail Study Tier 1 Environmental Impact

Statement

The Federal Transit Administration and the Federal Railroad Administration, in cooperation with

the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT), are preparing a Tier 1 Environmental Impact

Statement (EIS) for the Arizona Intercity Rail Study.  

Your agency, government entity, or organization has been identified as one that may have an

interest in this project. We are soliciting your agency’s input early in the process regarding the

purpose and need, potential alternatives, and potential environmental or socioeconomic

impacts/issues that should be considered in the Tier 1 EIS.  In addition, we are requesting that

you provide comments that relate to your agency with regard to future permitting and

approvals needed for the project.

You, or your delegate, are requested to represent your agency at the Agency Scoping meeting

being held on Tuesday, October 11, 2011 from 9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. in the Transportation

Board Room of the ADOT Administration Building located at 206 S. 17th Avenue in Phoenix,

Arizona.  

If you cannot attend the meeting in person, you may participate at the same time and date via

Webinar, by logging into https://www2.gotomeeting.com/register/364966426 and following

the instructions. You can reserve your webinar seat ahead of time at this web address as well.  

A meeting agenda, study area map, project milestones and schedule, and comment

form are included in this mailing. Additional information is available on the project web

site, http://www.azdot.gov/intercityrail. If you have questions regarding this invitation

or how to provide comments, please contact Susan Ridenour at 602‐712‐4706.
Arizona Intercity Rail Study EIS Agency Scoping Meeting

Arizona Intercity Rail Study Environmental Impact Statement

Agency Scoping Meeting and Webinar

Tuesday, October 11, 2011, 9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.  

ADOT Board Room, 206 S. 17th Avenue, Phoenix, Arizona

The Agency and Public Scoping process is one of the initial steps in the development of an

Environmental Impact Statement, as outlined in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA),

[42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.]. The Tier 1 EIS is one of several decision‐making tools being developed

over the next several years. Below are key milestones and deliverables of the EIS process with

approximate timeframes, interspersed with key milestones and deliverables of parallel

processes and analyses required by the Federal Railroad Administration and Federal Transit

Administration, the co‐lead agencies of this study.

NEPA Scoping               Fall 2011

Complete Initial Screening of Alternatives

Purpose and Need             Winter 2012

Capacity Deficiency Assessment

Travel Forecast Modeling   

Review and Approval of Final Purpose and Need   

Alternatives               Winter 2012

Conceptual Alternatives Analysis (AA)

Preliminary AA Environmental Scan

Complete Conceptual Alternatives Analysis Evaluation

Draft Service Development Plan

Impact Analysis             Summer 2012  

    Administrative Environmental Impact Statement

Draft Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement     Winter 2013   

Public Hearings              

Complete Final Alternatives Evaluation

Final Tier 1 EIS              Spring 2013   

Select Locally Preferred Alternative

Record of Decision             Spring 2013

Final Service Development Plan
Project Study Area          

Alignment

Segment

Length

(miles) County Adjacent Jurisdictions Land

Ownership Major Features Existing/PlannedAlignment Previous Study

1 28.7 Maricopa Phoenix; Avondale; Goodyear;

Gila River I.C.

Tribal Land South and west of South Mountain; Wild

Horse Pass

Loop 202 South Mountain Transportation

Corridor Study Draft

Environmental Impact

Statement

2 5.9 Maricopa Phoenix Downtown Phoenix; Sky Harbor Sky Train Valley Metro Light Rail; UP

Rail alignment

MAG Commuter Rail System

Study

3 4.0 Maricopa Phoenix; Tempe Downtown Tempe Valley Metro Light Rail;

Tempe Streetcar; UP Rail

alignment

MAG Commuter Rail System

Study; Tempe Streetcar

Environmental Assessment;

4 4.4 Maricopa Phoenix, Tempe   East of PHX Sky Harbor I‐10; SR 143 I‐10: State Route 51 (Piestewa

Freeway) to Loop 202 (Santan

Freeway) Corridor

Improvement Study

5 8.3 Maricopa Tempe; Mesa ASU, Mesa Valley Metro Light Rail; UP

Rail alignment;

MAG Commuter Rail System

Study; Mesa Extension

6 2.2 Maricopa Tempe Downtown Tempe Tempe Streetcar; UP Rail

alignment

MAG Commuter Rail System

Study; Tempe Streetcar

Environmental Assessment;

SEGMENTS

Assessment;

7 1.5 Maricopa Phoenix; Tempe Downtown Phoenix US 60 bqAZ

8 6.1 Maricopa Tempe; Mesa US 60 bqAZ

9 23.6 Maricopa;

Pinal

Mesa; Apache Junction State Trust US 60 bqAZ; Superstition Vistas

Scenario Report

11 7.5 Maricopa Phoenix, Tempe, Chandler East of South Mountain Park I‐10 I‐10: State Route 51 (Piestewa

Freeway) to Loop 202 (Santan

Freeway) Corridor

Improvement Study

12 7.4 Maricopa Tempe; Chandler W. Chandler Blvd CDB; Wild Horse Pass UP Rail; Tempe Branch MAG Commuter Rail System

Study

13 77.4 Maricopa;

Pinal

Goodyear BLM Phoenix West extension;

UP Rail alignment; Loop

303; Hassayampa Freeway

MAG Commuter Rail System

Study; Valley Metro Phoenix

West extension; I‐8 and I‐10

Hidden Valley Study; Pinal

County Comprehensive Plan

14 27.8 Maricopa;

Pinal

Gila River I.C.; Maricopa; Ak‐Chin

I.C.; Casa Grande

Tribal Land Downtown Maricopa; Wild Horse Pass SR 347; Maricopa‐Casa

Grande Freeway

MAG Commuter Rail System

Study; bqAZ

15 13.9 Maricopa;

Pinal

Gila River I.C. Tribal Land Wild Horse Pass I‐10 bqAZ

16 12.2 Maricopa Chandler; Gilbert Downtown Chandler Chandler Branch; UP Rail

Alignment

MAG Commuter Rail System

Study

17 26.4 Maricopa;

Pinal

Gilbert; Mesa; Queen Creek South‐East Branch; UP Rail

Alignment

MAG Commuter Rail System

Study

18 16.1 Pinal Queen Creek, Florence North‐South Corridor MAG Commuter Rail System

Study; ADOT North‐South

Corridor Study; Superstition

Vistas Final Report and

SEGMENTS

Strategic Actions

20 6.8 Pinal Gila River I.C. Tribal Land SR 587 bqAZ

21 25.1 Pinal Gila River I.C. Tribal Land UP Rail Alignment; SR 87 MAG Commuter Rail System

Study; bqAZ

22 9.1 Pinal Florence; Gila River I.C. State Trust;

Tribal Land

UP Rail Alignment bqAZ

23 5.4 Pinal Florence UP Rail Alignment bqAZ

24 9.3 Pinal Florence North‐South Corridor ADOT North‐South Corridor

Study; bqAZ

26 12.1 Pinal Gila River I.C.; Casa Grande Tribal Land;

State Trust

I‐10 I‐10 Widening; bqAZ

27 9.8 Pinal Casa Grande Hassayampa Freeway I‐8 and I‐10 Hidden Valley

Study; Pinal County

Comprehensive Plan

28 12.6 Pinal Coolidge Central Arizona College Hassayampa Freeway I‐8 and I‐10 Hidden Valley

Study; Pinal County

Comprehensive Plan

29 3.9 Pinal Gila River I.C.; Coolidge Tribal Land Downtown Coolidge UP Rail Alignment bqAZ

30 31.0 Pinal Florence State Trust Downtown Florence SR 79 Superstition Scenarios Report;

bqAZ

31 14.7 Pinal Casa Grande Downtown Casa Grande UP Rail Alignment bqAZ

32 9.8 Pinal Casa Grande I‐10 I‐10 Val Vista to Earley Road

Widening; bqAZ

33 12.5 Pinal Casa Grande; Eloy Downtown Eloy I‐10; UP Rail Alignment I‐10: I‐8 to State Route 87

Widening Project; bqAZ

34 15.4 Pinal Coolidge; Eloy UP Rail Alignment bqAZ

35 17.8 Pinal Coolidge State Trust;

Bureau of

North‐South Corridor ADOT North‐South Corridor

Study; bqAZ

SEGMENTS

Bureau of

Reclamation

Study; bqAZ

36 3.1 Pinal State Trust I‐10; UP Rail Alignment I‐10 Corridor Study: I‐8 to

Tangerine Road; bqAZ

37 18.3 Pinal State Trust I‐10; UP Rail Alignment I‐10 Corridor Study: I‐8 to

Tangerine Road; bqAZ

38 23.8 Pinal Marana State Trust;

BLM

East North‐South Corridor North‐South Freeway

39 50.6 Pinal; Pima Oro Valley; Tucson State Trust;

BLM

West of Coronado National Forest;

Downtown Tucson

SR 79; SR 77 bqAZ

40 3.9 Pima Marana Downtown Marana I‐10; UP Rail Alignment I‐10 Corridor Study: I‐8 to

Tangerine Road; bqAZ

41 40.5 Pima Marana; Tucson State Trust;

Bureau of

Reclamation

West of Saguaro National Park;

Downtown Marana

PAG RTP

42 21.2 Pima Marana; Tucson Downtown Marana; Downtown Tucson I‐10; UP Rail Alignment I‐10 Corridor Study: I‐8 to

Tangerine Road; I‐10: Ina Road

to Ruthrauff Road Study; I‐10

Ruthrauff Road to Prince Road

Widening Project; bqAZ

43 4.6 Pima Tucson; San Xavier I.R. Downtown Tucson I‐10, I‐19, UP Rail

Alignment

bqAZ

SEGMENTS
Arizona Intercity Rail Study EIS ‐ Agency Scoping Meeting

Agency Comment Form

To prepare for the Agency Scoping Meeting, and to provide the lead agencies with relevant

information from your agency regarding this project, we respectfully request your agency to

respond to the questions below, complete this form, and/or be prepared to discuss these topics

during the meeting/webinar on October 11, 2011 between 9:00 a.m. and 1:00 p.m. MST.

Please complete this form and either bring it to the Agency Scoping Meeting on October 11,

send it via email to Kristin Bornstein at Kristin@kdacreative.com, or fax it to 602‐385‐1620.  

Name of Agency:  

Name of Agency Contact:

Agency Address:

Agency Contact Telephone Number and Email:

Does your agency want to provide input into the decisions regarding this project?

What actions, permits, or approvals (if known) would be required by your agency that needs

to be discussed in the Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement for the Arizona Intercity Rail

Study?

Are there specific concerns/issues/opportunities/information regarding this project that you

can provide to the Project Team?  

Other?  
Appendix C: Written Agency Comments
1 

Arizona Intercity Rail Study EIS  

Agency Scoping Comments

November 14, 2011

Comments received on Agency Comment Forms, Email, and Mailed Letters: 

No.

Comment

Received  

(1) Agency

Comment

Form

(2) Email

(3) Letter Agency

Does your agency want to provide input

into the decisions regarding this project?

What actions, permits, or approvals (if

known) would be required by your

agency that needs to be discussed in the

Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement

for the Arizona Intercity Rail Study?

Are there specific

concerns/issues/opportunities/informati

on regarding this project that you can

provide to the Project Team? Other Comments Response from the Study Team

1 1 10/13/11

City of Maricopa

Kellee Kelley

PO Box 610

Maricopa, AZ 85139

(520) 316‐6948

Kellee.kelley@maricopa.az.gov

Yes as this project is essential for the

entire state and the counties that it will

serve.

There are no requirements needed at this

level of this study.

Public participation has been found to be

difficult; many times it is because of the

public’s lack of awareness in participating,

social isolation and language barriers or

lack of trust of government.  I ask that

staff and consultants engage the public

and overcome the challenges to fully

engage the public as the state looks to

meet future mobility needs.  

N/A

2 1 10/31/11

Maricopa Association of

Governments (MAG)

Marc Pearsall

302 N. 1st Ave., Ste 300

Phoenix, AZ 85003

(602) 452‐5094

mpearsall@azmag.gov

Yes.  MAG is a member of ADOT’s Project

Management Team/Stakeholders and

plans to participate and provide input

throughout the duration of the project.

Comply with current‐standard EIS

guidelines used by FTA/FRA/FHWA for

corridor evaluations.

Comply with current‐standard Clean

Air/PM‐10 guideline assumptions.  

Please refrain from duplication of the

study work.  MAG has recent Commuter

Rail, Transit Framework and assorted

transit studies available to ADOT for

review.  Please coordinate with the

assumptions of these studies and their

conclusions and recommendations for the

MAG region.  

Please continue to keep MAG Region

communities involved.  Please present the

project to the MAG committees including

TRC, TPC, Management and Regional

Council.  Please set meetings up through

Marc Pearsall or Eileen Yazzie at MAG.

3 1 10/31/11

City of Phoenix

Aviation Department

Chris Andres

3400 E. Sky Harbor Blvd., Ste 3300

(602) 273‐4317

chris.andres@phoenix.gov

Yes, potential connection to the 44th

Street SkyTrain Station on Washington

Street would provide transportation hub

that connects downtown Phoenix and

Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport

through light rail, bus service, private

vehicles, and potentially commuter rail.  

Traffic volume, circulation, and access

impacts of adding intercity rail should be

assessed.

A Federal Aviation Administration Form

7460‐1 is required to determine the

project’s potential impacts to airspace.  In

addition, utilization of 44th Street as an

alignment would impact runway 26

Runway Protection Zone (PRZ).  FAA

approval is required if improvements are

made on Airport property.

If an intercity station is considered along

Washington Street (alignment segment

#2) it should be located west of 38th

Street, consistent with the

recommendation made in the MAG

Commuter Rail Study.

N/A

4 1 10/31/11

Pima County

Daniel Signor, Sr. Planner

201 N. Stone Ave, 2nd Floor

Tucson, AZ 85702

(520) 792‐6803

daniel.signor@pima.gov

Yes. A list can be provided at a later date. Two of the three route impact Pima

County.  They are the eastern and

westernmost.  There are very limited

areas within Pima County jurisdiction in

the Oracle Road corridor that would be

affected.   

The two affected routes contain multiple

items that should be addressed in an EIS.  

The Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan has

identified the following sensitive areas:

N/A
2 

No.

Comment

Received  

(1) Agency

Comment

Form

(2) Email

(3) Letter Agency

Does your agency want to provide input

into the decisions regarding this project?

What actions, permits, or approvals (if

known) would be required by your

agency that needs to be discussed in the

Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement

for the Arizona Intercity Rail Study?

Are there specific

concerns/issues/opportunities/informati

on regarding this project that you can

provide to the Project Team? Other Comments Response from the Study Team

 Wildlife movement corridors

 Habitat for priority vulnerable

species, including:

 Albert’s towhee along wash

 Bell’s vereo

 Pygmy owl

 Rufous winged sparrow

 Southwestern willow

flycatcher

 Swainson’s hawk

 Western burrowing owl

 Western yellow‐billed

cuckoo

 Allan’s big‐eared bat

 Arizona shrew

 California leaf‐nosed bat

 Lesser long‐nosed bat

 Merriam’s mouse

 Mexican long‐nosed bat

 Pale townsend’s big‐eared

bat

 Western red bat

 Western yellow bat

 Desert box turtle

 Giant spotted whiptail

 Ground snake

 Tucson shovel‐nosed snake

 Pima pineapple cactus

(federally endangered)

 Primary Conservation Areas for:

 Pygmy owl

 Western burrowing owl

 Pale townsend’s big‐eared

bat

 Redback whiptail

 Tucson shovel‐nose snake

 Pima pineapple cactus

(federally endangered)
3 

No.

Comment

Received  

(1) Agency

Comment

Form

(2) Email

(3) Letter Agency

Does your agency want to provide input

into the decisions regarding this project?

What actions, permits, or approvals (if

known) would be required by your

agency that needs to be discussed in the

Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement

for the Arizona Intercity Rail Study?

Are there specific

concerns/issues/opportunities/informati

on regarding this project that you can

provide to the Project Team? Other Comments Response from the Study Team

 The Conservation Land System

designations include Special

Species Management Areas,

Multiple Use Management

Areas, and Important Riparian

Areas, which guidelines to set

aside 80%, 66.67%, and 90%

Natural Open Space,

respectively, if any land within

the specific designation is

rezoned.  

The routes contain significant sized

washes, and a mix of riparian habitat

types.  

Both routes contain areas designated as

priorities to purchase under 2010 Bond

Act for preservation of open space.   

5 2 11/7/11

City or Peoria

Ron Aames

Councilmember

N/A N/A N/A As the City of Peoria's representative on

regional transportation board of directors

agency (RPTA) and community

stakeholder groups, I support the old

union station located in downtown

Phoenix as the terminus for the Phoenix‐

Tucson intercity rail. The end point of the

rail corridor is key for long term planning

and future connectivity with commuter

rail.  

  

The City of Peoria has made it a priority to

support and dedicate resources to multi‐

modal planning and economic

development activities to support the

present and future needs of our citizens.

City, county, state and other stakeholder

collaboration across the Phoenix

metropolitan area will need to continue to

focus on transit (rail and bus) as well as

roads complimentary to each other to

meet the 21st century's urban

transportation needs.  

  

We understand that a successful network
4 

No.

Comment

Received  

(1) Agency

Comment

Form

(2) Email

(3) Letter Agency

Does your agency want to provide input

into the decisions regarding this project?

What actions, permits, or approvals (if

known) would be required by your

agency that needs to be discussed in the

Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement

for the Arizona Intercity Rail Study?

Are there specific

concerns/issues/opportunities/informati

on regarding this project that you can

provide to the Project Team? Other Comments Response from the Study Team

of rail throughout the region will depend

on the success of the Phoenix‐Tucson

intercity rail project. Thank you for

allowing me the opportunity to express

support for the project.

6 2 11/1/11

City of Peoria

Susan J. Daluddung

Deputy City Manager

N/A N/A N/A On behalf of the City of Peoria, I would like

to take this opportunity to share our

strong support for the Intercity Rail

between Phoenix and Tucson. The City of

Peoria has submitted comments on the

State Rail Plan and we appreciate the

opportunity to be heard once again now

with the Phoenix‐Tucson corridor.

Although the rail does not directly involve

the West Valley at this time, it is our

practice to engage our city in any regional

planning. The terminus is a critical

component for us. The old Phoenix Union

Station would be an ideal terminus to

expand for future commuter rail

opportunities along Grand Avenue via the

existing Burlington Northern Santa Fe

(BNSF) rail line and the Union Pacific

Wellton mainline. We will continue to

move forward with our multi‐modal

transportation objectives and hope that

thoughtful consideration is given for any

decision making to include the West Valley

for potential rail opportunities. Multi‐

modal transportation is a priority for

Peoria and we thank you for allowing us to

share our comments with you.  

7 3 10/5/11

City of Surprise

Robert Beckley

Public Works Director

16000 N. Civic Center Plaza

Surprise, AZ 85374

(623) 222‐6000

N/A N/A N/A See letter #1 below

8 3 10/27/11

Amtrak

Jonathan Hutchison

Senior Director, Corridor

Development – West

(510) 238‐2671

N/A N/A N/A See letter #2 below.
5 

No.

Comment

Received  

(1) Agency

Comment

Form

(2) Email

(3) Letter Agency

Does your agency want to provide input

into the decisions regarding this project?

What actions, permits, or approvals (if

known) would be required by your

agency that needs to be discussed in the

Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement

for the Arizona Intercity Rail Study?

Are there specific

concerns/issues/opportunities/informati

on regarding this project that you can

provide to the Project Team? Other Comments Response from the Study Team

9 3 10/27/11

National Park Service

Cheryl Eckhardt

Environmental Compliance

Specialist

12795 W. Alameda Pkwy

Denver, CO 80225

N/A N/A N/A See letter #3 below.

10 3 Pima County

Arlan Colton

Planning Director

N/A N/A N/A See letter #4 below

3 11/14/11

Pima County

Daniel Signor

Senior Planner

N/A N/A N/A See letter #5 below

3 11/3/11

Pima County DOT

Maggie Shaw

Transportation Systems Division

N/A N/A N/A See letter #6 below

3 10/13/11

Pima County  

Regional Flood Control District

Greg Saxe

Environmental Planning Manager

N/A N/A N/A See letter #7 below

3 11/7/11

Pima County

Office of Sustainability and

Conservation

Sherry Ruther

Environmental Planning Manager

N/A N/A N/A See letter #8 below





Letter #1  

City of Surprise

Letter #2  

Amtrak
October 27, 2011 

Mr. Michael Kies 

Assistant Director of Planning and Programming 

ADOT – Multimodal Planning Division 

206 S. 17th Street 

Phoenix, AZ 85007 

Dear Mr. Kies: 

The National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) appreciates the opportunity to 

comment on the Environmental Impact Statement for the Arizona Department of 

Transportation’s (ADOT) Intercity Rail Study. Similar to ADOT, Amtrak believes intercity 

rail along the I-10 corridor can facilitate responsible land usage, economic development, and 

enhanced mobility. 

During Amtrak’s forty years, the corporation has actively partnered with states on developing 

services similar to those envisioned along the I-10 corridor. One approach to consider is 

utilizing the existing railroad alignment as a precursor to a future greenfield corridor, or as 

stand-alone infrastructure systematically upgraded to better accommodate ADOT’s desired 

level of intercity service (5-7 round trips), along with improved freight mobility. 

The incremental approach, which is being actively pursued by 15 other states, is perhaps the 

most feasible given today’s political climate. Additionally, such a strategy enables states to 

methodically achieve a series of thresholds stemming from improvements in reliability, 

frequency, and travel time reduction, thereby demonstrating the relationship between 

investment and passenger acceptance. 

For example, in the I-10 corridor, a strategy based on incremental improvements could first 

include reactivating the Wellton Branch enabling Amtrak to serve downtown Phoenix. If 

coupled with daily Sunset Limited service, the resulting increases in ridership might aid 

ADOT’s efforts in offering an initially modest level of I-10 corridor service. Experience has 

shown that ridership increases exponentially relative to frequency. Therefore, the success of 

these initial trains would serve as the foundation for additional improvements until ADOT’s 

goals for frequency, reliability, and running times had been achieved. Concurrent with this 

approach could be equally important undertakings to upgrade intermodal connections, and 

improve the economic productivity of parcels adjacent to station areas. 

Amtrak is poised to assist ADOT realize its goals for intercity rail, because when supported by 

robust intermodal connections and a level of service reflective of passengers’ needs, the mode 
 

could be an invaluable asset assisting Arizona achieve its economic, environmental, and 

mobility goals. Thank you again for the opportunity to comment. 

Sincerely, 

Jonathan Hutchison 

Senior Director, Corridor Development - West 

510-238-2671 
Letter #3  

National Park Service
1

ER-11/0911

United States Department of the Interior

National Park Service

Intermountain Region 

12795 West Alameda Parkway 

PO Box 25287 

Denver, Colorado 80225-0287 

OFFICIAL CORRESPONDENCE SENT VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL

NO HARD COPY TO FOLLOW

October 27, 2011 

Andrea Martin

Federal Railroad Administration 

1200 New Jersey Ave, SE., Mail Stop 20 

Washington, DC 20590 

Subject: National Park Service Comments on the Notice of Intent to Prepare a Draft Environmental 

Impact Statement for the Implementation of Passenger Rail Service between Tucson and 

Phoenix, Arizona 

Dear Ms. Martin:

After reviewing the materials provided on the projects website and discussing the project with the project 

manager at a public meeting in Eloy, Arizona, Casa Grande Ruins National Monument (CAGR) currently 

has no objections to the Arizona Intercity Rail. However, due to the nature of the project, the large study 

area, the potential for negative impacts to monument resources, and the uncertainty of the potential routes 

CAGR would like to be considered as a consulting party as the project moves forward. 

While we cannot express any actual concerns at this time, because the actual routes have not been 

determined, we would like to make you aware of the following potential concerns and issues:

• The Building a Quality Arizona (bqAZ) corridor has the potential of impacting cultural and 

natural resources, viewshed, and natural soundscapes within the monument boundary. Of 

particular concern would be the potential for impacts to the Great House from the vibrations 

caused by commuter rail traffic.

• Lands both immediately adjacent and disconnected of the current CAGR boundary that are being 

considered for boundary expansion. In particular the bqAZ and ADOT North-South Corridor 

Study pose the potential to impact the cultural and natural resources in the areas of potential 

expansion. 

Again, these are just potential concerns and as the project progresses we will be able to make more 

specific and informed comments regarding the potential impacts these routes pose. 
2

If you have any questions, please contact Derek Toms, Chief of Resources, Casa Grande Ruins National 

Monument at (520) 723-3172 x37. Thank you for the opportunity to comment and we look forward to 

working with you as this project moves forward. 

 

Sincerely,

Cheryl Eckhardt

Environmental Compliance Specialist 

 

cc: 

NPS, WASO-EQD

NPS, CAGR (Toms)
Letter #4

Pima County – Arlan Colton


Letter #5

Pima County – Daniel Signor



Letter #6

Pima County Department of Transportation

Letter #7

Pima County Regional Flood Control District


Letter #8

Pima County Office of Sustainability and Conservation




Passenger Rail Corridor Study – Tucson to Phoenix Scoping Report 

    39

Appendix G: Public Scoping Booklet 
Postage Paid 

Input Forms 

Included Due 

November 

14, 2011
Arizona Department of Transportation is 

studying transportation options for the future.

Phoenix and Tucson are Arizona’s largest metropolitan areas, 

and they are connected by Interstate 10. It is the most heavily 

traveled corridor in our state, and it is reaching capacity. 

Previous studies have shown that I-10, even with additional lanes, 

is not sufficient to meet the demand in the future.

(See “Study Process” Page 10)

I-10

2

Interstate 10 is full 

of cars and trucks 

today. Traffic is 

heavy, and travel 

times are 

unpredictable.
We need high capacity travel choices, characterized 

as providing faster, more convenient, more reliable 

service for a larger number of travellers.

3

LOCAL TRANSIT SERVICES

COMMUTER SERVICES

REGIONAL/INTERCITY SERVICES

LOCAL BUS

Station Spacing: 2 to 4 blocks

Maximum Speed: 45 mph

STREET CAR

Station Spacing: 2 to 4 blocks

Maximum Speed: 45 mph

BUS RAPID TRANSIT (BRT)

Station Spacing: 1⁄2 to 1 mile

Maximum Speed: 45-65 mph

LIGHT RAIL

Station Spacing: 1⁄2 to 1 mile

Maximum Speed: 65 mph

EXPRESS BUS

Station Spacing: Limited stops at origin/destination points

Maximum Speed: 65 mph 

COMMUTER RAIL

Station Spacing: 5 to 10 miles 

Maximum Speed: 79 mph 

INTERCITY BUS

Station Spacing: Towns and Cities 

Maximum Speed: 75 mph 

REGIONAL/INTERCITY RAIL

Station Spacing: 100+ miles 

Maximum Speed: 150+ mph 

REGIONAL/INTERCITY RAIL

Station Spacing: 20 to 60 miles 

Maximum Speed: 110 mph 

Go to Page 12 for 

more information 

on how to submit 

your comments!
As metropolitan regions continued to expand throughout the 

second half of the 20th century their boundaries began to blur, 

creating a new scale of geography now known as the megaregion. 

Interlocking economic systems, shared natural resources and 

ecosystems, and common transportation systems link these 

population centers together. Most of the nation's rapid population 

growth, and an even larger share of its economic expansion, is 

expected to occur in 10 or more emerging megaregions: large 

networks of metropolitan regions, each megaregion covering 

thousands of square miles and located in every part of the country. 

“

“

Phoenix to Tucson area is regionally 

and nationally significant...

--- www.america2050.org

Source: Regional Plan Association (2005)

4
...and our connection to Nevada 

and Southern California is vital.

The ADOT Intercity Rail Study is a necessary step in the development 

process. Connecting Phoenix to Tucson with high capacity travel 

choices creates mobility options in the Sun Corridor and connects to 

the larger regional and national networks.

5
vision is to enhance mobility by providing travel 

choices connecting Arizona communities to 

each other and to other states.

In 2008 and 2009, ADOT worked with communities around 

the state to develop “Building a Quality Arizona...” a vision 

for our transportation system 50 years into the future, 

leading to development of a State Rail Plan.

6
Talk of intercity rail began years ago, and there 

are limitless ideas of where a rail line could go. We 

will start from these previous concepts. There 

could be more after we hear from you. 

7

Go to Page 12 for 

more information 

on how to submit 

your comments!
8

Between now and build-out, residential will double and employment will 

triple in the corridor, as shown in these maps. 

Entitled residential development is also shown for reference (orange 

color), depicting preliminary residential projects that have the requisite 

approvals to build. 
9

How can high capacity 

travel choices fit into this 

future residential and 

employment vision?

Go to Page 12 for 

more information 

on how to submit 

your comments!
10

The Federal Railroad Administration, Federal Transit Administration, 

and Arizona Department of Transportation are preparing an 

Alternatives Analysis and Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement 

(EIS) to study the implementation of passenger rail service between 

Tucson and Phoenix. The graphic below outlines the study process.

STUDY PROCESS

Public 

Meetings

Identify

Concerns

Late 2011 We are here 2013

PUBLIC 

INPUT

Public

Meetings

Present 

Corridor 

Locations

Public

Hearings

Present

Impacts

Locally Preferred 

Alternative

Tier 1

Final EIS

Record 

of Decision

Alternative 

Analysis

Scoping Purpose and 

Need Notice of Intent

Tier 1 

Environmental 

Impact Statement

This study is a required step if 

a new travel option is to be 

implemented. 

Implementation depends on 

funding for construction and 

operation, which is not 

available at this time.
11

Economics

Social Conditions - Community 

Impact Assessment

Recreational Lands and Facilities

Geology

Visual Resources and Views

Floodplains

Farmlands

Indirect and Cumulative Impacts

Temporary Construction Impacts

Archaelogical and Historic Sites

Vegetation and Wildlife

Air and Water Quality

Noise and Vibration

Energy and Utilities

Hazardous Materials

Water Resources

Land Use

Population and Employment

Environmental Justice / Title VI

One of the purposes of an Environmental Impact Statement 

(EIS) is to identify and analyze elements of the natural, built, 

and social environment that may be affected by a proposed 

action or project. For a Tier 1 EIS such as the one being 

prepared for the Arizona Intercity Rail Study, 

analysts will assess the potential range of 

impacts that could occur in each corridor 

being considered. More detailed study will be 

completed at a later stage.

 

The study team has begun collecting existing 

data, and already has identified areas of 

concern pertinent to the environmental 

categories identified below. 

Are there other aspects of 

the environment that should 

be analyzed in the EIS? 

This current scoping period is 

the best time for you to 

provide feedback to be 

included in the techincal 

analysis.
12

To request a kit, call 855.250.7245 (toll-free)

or email intercityrail@azdot.gov.

A list of all open houses and 

events is available at 

www.azdot.gov/intercityrail.

Plesase submit your comments through November 14, 2011.

ADOT Intercity Rail Study

c/o KDA Creative

4545 E. Shea Blvd. Ste 210

Phoenix, AZ 85028

Mail:

Email:

Phone:

Fax:

intercityrail@azdot.gov

855.250.7245 (toll-free)

602.368.9645

@ArizonaDOT

www.facebook.com/AZDOT

http://adotblog.blogspot.com

at www.azdot.gov/intercityrail

Visit Us In Person

Contact Us

In this study, let’s explore future options 

for travel between Phoenix and Tucson!

Participate Online

(October 7 - November 14)

Order a Do-It-Yourself 

Participation Kit
Passenger Rail Corridor Study – Tucson to Phoenix Scoping Report 

    40

Appendix H: Scoping Comment Form 
Home ZIP

Work ZIP

How might a new high-capacity travel choice between Phoenix and 

Tucson affect you?

How might a new high-capacity travel choice affect your community?

How might a new high-capacity travel choice affect your environment? A 

list of environmental considerations is provided on page 4 of this survey.

What would be your preferred travel choice between Phoenix and Tucson?

 Personal Vehicle

 Bus

 Bike

 Train

 Air

Thank you for providing your input! 

Please return comments using the 

included postage paid envelope 

by November 14, 2011 www.azdot.gov/intercityrail

Comment Form
Return this survey by November 14, 2011 by one of the following:

1) Use the provided postage paid envelope.

2) Mail to: ADOT Intercity Rail Study 

 c/o KDA Creative 

 4545 E. Shea Blvd. Ste. 210

 Phoenix, AZ 85028

3) Fax to: 602.368.9645 

Do you travel between Phoenix and Tucson?

 Yes

 No

If yes, why?

 Work

 Play

 School

 Shop

 Recreate

 Other

What is your typical destination? (Please be specific, provide cross streets 

or general vicinity)

How often do you make this trip?

 Daily

 Weekly

 Monthly

 A few times a month

 A few times a year

 Other

How could your trip be improved?

2

Please continue to 

pages 3 & 4 and 

provide additional 

input on maps!
This map shows corridors that were identified in previous studies where new 

high capacity travel options could be located. We will use these corridors, 

and any new ideas generated by YOU, as a starting points, and refine 

corridors from there.

Are there ideas that make more sense than others? Do you have any other 

ideas? Anything missing?

3
Listed above are environmental elements that we will study when 

considering a new high-capacity travel option. 

Are there any other environmental concerns?

4

Archaelogical and Historic Sites

Vegetation and Wildlife

Air and Water Quality

Noise and Vibration

Energy and Utilities

Hazardous Materials

Water Resources

Land Use

Population and Employment

Environmental Justice / Title VI

Economics

Social Conditions - Community Impact Assessment

Recreational Lands and Facilities

Geology

Visual Resources and Views

Floodplains

Farmlands

Indirect and Cumulative Impacts

Temporary Construction Impacts
Passenger Rail Corridor Study – Tucson to Phoenix Scoping Report 

    41

Appendix I: Scoping Event Exhibits 
Visit Us In 

Person

* For open houses, persons with a disability may request a reasonable 

accommodation such as a sign language interpreter by contacting Kristin 

Bornstein at 602-368-9644 or email at kristin@kdacreative.com. Requests should 

be made as early as possible to allow time to arrange the accommodation.

October 11

Burton Barr Library*

Auditorium

1221 N. Central Ave.

Phoenix, AZ 85004

3 pm - 7 pm

October 12

Arizona State University

Campus Mall

1151 South Forest Avenue 

Tempe, AZ 85287

10 am - 2 pm

November 1

Mesa Main Library*

Saguaro Room

64 East First Street

Mesa, AZ 85201

3 pm - 6:30 pm

October 24

Chandler Downtown Library*

Copper Room

22 S. Delaware St.

Chandler, AZ 85225

3 pm - 7 pm 

Open Houses & Events

Maricopa County Pinal County Pima County

October 8

2nd Saturdays Downtown

44 N. Stone Avenue

Tucson, AZ 85701

6 pm - 9 pm

October 13

Pima Community College*

Northwest Campus

7600 N. Shannon Road

Tucson, AZ 85709

3 pm - 7pm

October 14-16

Tucson Meet Yourself Event

Pima County Plaza

Surrounding 130 W. Congress

Tucson, AZ 85701

Oct. 14: 11 am - 1 pm 

& 3 pm - 7pm

Oct. 15: 3 pm - 7 pm

Oct. 16: 2 pm - 6 pm

October 7

University of Arizona

Main Campus Mall

1303 E. University Boulevard

Tucson, AZ 85719

11 am - 2 pm

October 18

Town of Florence*

Town Hall

775 North Main Street

Florence, AZ 85132

3 pm - 7 pm

October 25

City of Eloy*

Council Chambers

628 North Main Street

Eloy, AZ 85131

3 pm - 7 pm

October 27

City of Casa Grande*

Council Chambers

510 East Florence Boulevard

Casa Grande, AZ 85122

3 pm - 7 pm

October 19

Central Arizona College*

Signal Peak Campus

Room M101

8470 North Overfield Road

Coolidge, AZ 85128

3 pm - 7 pm
To request a kit, 

call 855.250.7245 

(toll-free) or email 

intercityrail@azdot.gov.

Order a 

Do-It-Yourself 

Participation Kit
at 

www.azdot.gov/

intercityrail

Participate 

Online

(October 7 - November 14)
Economics

Social Conditions - Community 

Impact Assessment

Recreational Lands and Facilities

Geology

Visual Resources and Views

Floodplains

Farmlands

Indirect and Cumulative Impacts

Temporary Construction Impacts

Archaelogical and Historic Sites

Vegetation and Wildlife

Air and Water Quality

Noise and Vibration

Energy and Utilities

Hazardous Materials

Water Resources

Land Use

Population and Employment

Environmental Justice / Title VI

Are there other aspects of the 

environment that should be 

analyzed in the EIS? 

This current scoping period is the 

best time for you to provide 

feedback to be included in the 

techincal analysis.
Previous Study Corridors Board 
Where People Live and Work Today 
Where People Will Live and Work in the Future 

 
Add your 

voice!
LOCAL TRANSIT SERVICES

COMMUTER SERVICES

LOCAL BUS

Station Spacing: 2 to 4 blocks

Maximum Speed: 45 mph

STREET CAR

Station Spacing: 2 to 4 blocks

Maximum Speed: 45 mph

BUS RAPID TRANSIT (BRT)

Station Spacing: 1⁄2 to 1 mile

Maximum Speed: 45-65 mph

LIGHT RAIL

Station Spacing: 1⁄2 to 1 mile

Maximum Speed: 65 mph

EXPRESS BUS

LOCAL TRANSIT SERVICES

COMMUTER SERVICES

LOCAL BUS

Station Spacing: 2 to 4 blocks

Maximum Speed: 45 mph

STREET CAR

Station Spacing: 2 to 4 blocks

Maximum Speed: 45 mph

BUS RAPID TRANSIT (BRT)

Station Spacing: 1⁄2 to 1 mile

Maximum Speed: 45-65 mph

LIGHT RAIL

Station Spacing: 1⁄2 to 1 mile

Maximum Speed: 65 mph

EXPRESS BUS

Station Spacing: Limited stops at origin/destination points

Maximum Speed: 65 mph 

LOCAL TRANSIT SERVICES
COMMUTER SERVICES

REGIONAL/INTERCITY SERVICES

LIGHT RAIL

Station Spacing: 1⁄2 to 1 mile

Maximum Speed: 65 mph

EXPRESS BUS

Station Spacing: Limited stops at origin/destination points

Maximum Speed: 65 mph 

COMMUTER RAIL

Station Spacing: 5 to 10 miles 

Maximum Speed: 79 mph 

INTERCITY BUS

Station Spacing: Towns and Cities 

COMMUTER SERVICES
REGIONAL/INTERCITY SERVICES

Station Spacing: Limited stops at origin/destination points

Maximum Speed: 65 mph 

COMMUTER RAIL

Station Spacing: 5 to 10 miles 

Maximum Speed: 79 mph 

INTERCITY BUS

Station Spacing: Towns and Cities 

Maximum Speed: 75 mph 

REGIONAL/INTERCITY RAIL

Station Spacing: 100+ miles 

Maximum Speed: 150+ mph 

REGIONAL/INTERCITY RAIL

Station Spacing: 20 to 60 miles 

Maximum Speed: 110 mph 

REGIONAL/INTERCITY SERVICES

COMMUTER RAIL

Station Spacing: 5 to 10 miles 

Maximum Speed: 79 mph 

INTERCITY BUS

Station Spacing: Towns and Cities 

Maximum Speed: 75 mph 

INTERREGIONAL/INTERCITY RAIL

Station Spacing: 100+ miles 

Maximum Speed: 150+ mph 

REGIONAL/INTERCITY RAIL

Station Spacing: 20 to 60 miles 

Maximum Speed: 110 mph 

REGIONAL / INTERCITY SERVICES
Passenger Rail Corridor Study – Tucson to Phoenix Scoping Report 

    42

Appendix J: Photographs from Scoping Events 




COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING

Preliminary Analysis on ADOT Rail 

Study Public Survey

Andisheh Ranjbari

Yi-Chang Chiu, Ph.D.

Xiaoyu Zhu, Ph.D.

Dept of Civil Engineering and Engineering Mechanics

University of Arizona

April 2014
COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING

Confidential Internal Discussions Only

The 3 Alternatives
COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING

Confidential Internal Discussions Only

Basic Statistics

Order

G O Y Count %

1 2 3 209 12.48%

1 3 2 282 16.84%

2 1 3 84 5.01%

2 3 1 182 10.87%

3 1 2 282 16.84%

3 2 1 625 37.31%

Blank 11 0.66%

Total 1675

Choice Alternative

Green 491 29.31%

Orange 367 21.91%

Yellow 809 48.30%

Blank 8 0.48%

Total 1675
COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING

Confidential Internal Discussions Only

Basic Statistics

PolicyQ1

Fastest overall travel time 489 80.30%

Limit cost of construction 120 19.70%

PolicyQ2

Limits service disruptions and 

maintains schedule reliability 494 80.98%

Limits impacts to private 

property 116 19.02%

PolicyQ3

Limiting the cost of the trip 488 75.54%

Limiting the cost of 

construction 158 24.46%

PolicyQ4

Limits service disruptions 

and maintains schedule 

reliability

554 85.23%

Limits the cost of a trip 96 14.77%

PolicyQ5

Limiting cost of 

construction 217 54.11%

Limiting impacts to private 

property 184 45.89%

PolicyQ6

Limits cost of trip 153 38.15%

Provides fastest overall travel 

time 248 61.85%
COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING

Confidential Internal Discussions Only

Importance of Decision Variables

Five decision variables were included in the survey:

 Overall travel time

 Cost of construction

 Schedule reliability

 Cost of the trip

 Impacts to private property

Reliability Travel Time Travel 

Cost

Construction 

Cost

Impacts

Reliability 1 3.52 5.77 18.17 4.26

Travel Time 0.28 1 1.62 4.08 4.68

Travel Cost 0.17 0.6 1 3.09 3.66

Construction 

Cost

0.06 0.25 0.32 1 1.17

Impacts 0.23 0.21 0.27 0.85 1

Pair-wise Comparisons Table
COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING

Confidential Internal Discussions Only

Analysis of Decision Variables

The relative importance of decision variables was calculated 

by the AHP (Analytic Hierarchical Process) method:

0.58

0.19

0.13

0.06 0.04

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

Reliability Travel Time Travel cost Construction 

Cost

Impacts

Relative Weights of Decision Variables

Reliability Travel Time Travel Cost Construction Cost Impacts

0.58 0.19 0.13 0.06 0.04
COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING

Confidential Internal Discussions Only

Analysis Results

Ordered Logit Model used for analysis. 

Estimate Std. t-value Pr(>|t|)

Orange:(intercept) -1.142526 0.96485 0.236354

Yellow:(intercept) -0.684609 0.911793 0.4527502

Orange:factor(OrgCounty)2 0.014521 0.179166 0.9354046

Yellow:factor(OrgCounty)2 -0.154283 0.199715 0.4398093

Orange:factor(OrgCounty)3 -0.91385 0.159871 1.09E-08***

Yellow:factor(OrgCounty)3 -1.427495 0.175989 4.44E-16***

Orange:factor(DestCounty)2 -0.117933 0.237579 0.6196162

Yellow:factor(DestCounty)2 -0.228731 0.251134 0.3624034

Orange:factor(DestCounty)3 -0.562321 0.159908 0.0004372***

Yellow:factor(DestCounty)3 -0.777569 0.17725 1.15E-05***

Estimate Std. t-value Pr(>|t|)

Orange:(intercept) 0.423545 0.060677 2.94E-12***

Yellow:(intercept) 0.813433 0.06346 2.2E-16***

Orange:I(Purpose==3) -0.325526 0.151495 0.031653*

Yellow:I(Purpose==3) -0.097421 0.154062 0.527159

Orange:I(Purpose==1) 0.20932 0.111301 0.060018.

Yellow:I(Purpose==1) 0.335578 0.117611 0.004327**
COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING

Confidential Internal Discussions Only

Analysis Results

Estimate Std. t-value Pr(>|t|)

Orange:(intercept) -0.549925 0.559841 0.325958

Yellow:(intercept) -0.021611 0.527875 0.967344

Orange:factor(EgressMode)1 0.988854 0.564777 0.079968.

Yellow:factor(EgressMode)1 0.828505 0.533443 0.120393

Orange:factor(EgressMode)2 0.979569 0.58216 0.092444.

Yellow:factor(EgressMode)2 1.098062 0.554528 0.047684*

Orange:factor(EgressMode)3 0.789351 0.568175 0.164749

Yellow:factor(EgressMode)3 0.623426 0.53732 0.245947

Orange:factor(EgressMode)4 1.187819 0.570178 0.037229*

Yellow:factor(EgressMode)4 1.226748 0.540599 0.023254*

Orange:factor(EgressMode)5 1.326741 0.597877 0.026481*

Yellow:factor(EgressMode)5 1.561424 0.575413 0.006656**

Estimate Std. t-value Pr(>|t|)

Orange:factor(PolicyQ1)1 1.040191 0.771281 0.177448

Yellow:factor(PolicyQ1)1 1.287954 0.721026 0.074054.

Orange:factor(PolicyQ1)2 1.192276 0.788477 0.130502

Yellow:factor(PolicyQ1)2 1.75033 0.74178 0.018293*

Orange:factor(PolicyQ4)1 1.060612 0.770751 0.1687979

Yellow:factor(PolicyQ4)1 1.508699 0.720803 0.036342*

Orange:factor(PolicyQ4)2 1.138805 0.792202 0.1505707

Yellow:factor(PolicyQ4)2 1.382575 0.74521 0.0635559.

Orange:factor(PolicyQ6)1 1.244139 0.782643 0.1119105

Yellow:factor(PolicyQ6)1 1.557094 0.734816 0.0340883*

Orange:factor(PolicyQ6)2 0.904423 0.775717 0.2436475

Yellow:factor(PolicyQ6)2 1.059408 0.726411 0.1447266
COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING

Confidential Internal Discussions Only

Preliminary Interpretations

Origin/Destination stations:

 People traveling from Casa Grande liked Green.

 People traveling from Pinal county (mostly San

Tan Valley, Coolidge and Florence) and also in

Gilbert and Queen Creek liked Yellow, and then

Orange. Similar result found for people going to

San Tan Valley, Gilbert and Queen Creek.

 People with origin/destination in Goodyear and

people with destination in Chandler liked Green.

 People going to Mesa or PHX-Mesa Gateway

Airport liked Orange.
COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING

Confidential Internal Discussions Only

Interpretation of the Analysis Results

Access/Egress mode, Trip Purpose, Time, No. of Parties:

 Access mode is not an important factor, but people with

egress mode of Walk/Bicycle liked Yellow and Orange.

People with egress mode Bus also liked Yellow the most.

 People with Trip Purpose of Airport Connection liked

Green, and those with Trip Purpose of Business liked

Yellow and then Orange.

 Time and No. of Parties are not important.
COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING

Confidential Internal Discussions Only

Interpretation of the Analysis Results

Policy Questions:

 People who cared about cost of construction

rather than travel time, liked Yellow.

 People who cared about impacts to private

property rather than reliability, liked Orange.

 People who cared about reliability rather than

travel cost, liked Yellow and then Orange.

 People who cared about travel time more

than travel cost, liked Green.
Passenger Rail Corridor Study 

Tucson to Phoenix 

SAFETEA-LU 

SECTION 6002 COORDINATION PLAN 

Submitted by: 

Arizona Department of Transportation 

Multimodal Planning Division 

206 S. 17th Avenue, Mail Drop 310B

Phoenix, AZ 85007 

Submitted to: 

Federal Transit Administration 

Federal Rail Administration 

Version 1.0 | April 5, 2011 
SAFETEA-LU Section 6002 Coordination Plan 

Table of Contents 

I. Purpose of the SAFETEA-LU Section 6002 Coordination Plan ........................................................ i

II. Project Description and Scope ....................................................................................................... 1

III. Tier I EIS ....................................................................................................................................... 2

IV. Project History ............................................................................................................................... 3

V. Project Purpose and Need ............................................................................................................. 4

VI. Agency Roles and Responsibilities ................................................................................................ 5

VII. Agency Coordination, Community Involvement, and Scheduling .................................................. 16

VIII. Tribal Coordination ...................................................................................................................... 22

IX. Project Schedule and Documentation .......................................................................................... 27

List of Figures 

Figure 1: Project Location ........................................................................................................................... 2

Figure 2: SAFETEA-LU Issue Resolution Process .................................................................................... 21

List of Tables 

Table 1: Lead, Sponsor, and Participating Agencies and Project Stakeholders for the Arizona Passenger 

Rail Corridor Study Tier I EIS......................................................................................................... 7

Table 2: Summary of Project Deliverables, Participation, and Results for the Arizona Passenger Rail 

Corridor Study Tier I EIS ............................................................................................................. 18

Table 3: Tribal Coordination Contacts for the Arizona Passenger Rail Corridor Study Tier I EIS ................ 23
SAFETEA-LU Section 6002 Coordination Plan 

1 

I. Purpose of the SAFETEA-LU Section 6002 Coordination Plan 

Section 6002 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users 

(SAFETEA-LU) requires that a project’s lead agencies establish a plan for coordinating public and agency 

participation during the environmental review process. Section 6002 applies to all projects for which an 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is prepared. 

The purposes of the SAFETEA-LU Section 6002 Coordination Plan (Coordination Plan) are to facilitate and 

document the lead agencies’ structured interaction with the public and other agencies, as well as inform 

the public and other agencies of how that interaction will be accomplished. The Coordination Plan is 

meant to promote an efficient and streamlined environmental review process and project management 

through coordination, scheduling, and early resolution of issues. The Federal Railroad Administration 

(FRA) and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), as joint lead federal agencies, and the Arizona 

Department of Transportation (ADOT), as project sponsor, have prepared this Coordination Plan to 

accompany the Tier I EIS, Alternatives Analysis and Service Development Plan that will be developed for 

the implementation of passenger rail service between Tucson and Phoenix, Arizona (Figure 1). 

FRA, FTA, and ADOT have solicited comments from the public and interested agencies regarding the 

purpose and need for the proposed action, project alternatives, methods to be used in evaluating the 

project alternatives, and the level of detail required in the analysis of each project alternative. This 

Coordination Plan describes the roles of the lead agency, project sponsor, and the cooperating and 

participating agencies. It establishes the timeline for agency review and comment on such items as the 

purpose and need, the range of alternatives, and the Tier I EIS, and it establishes the public involvement 

procedures that will be used to inform the community about the project. The Coordination Plan will be 

updated as needed over the course of the project to reflect any changes in content that may be required. 

In this Coordination Plan, the FRA, FTA, and ADOT have included a Tribal Coordination Plan specific to this 

project to guide coordination with the various Tribes that have an interest in this project. 

This information is also available to all interested parties on the project website at: 

http://www.azdot.gov/passengerrail/ 

II. Project Description and Scope 

The implementation of a high-capacity transportation option is proposed between Tucson and Phoenix, 

Arizona to provide for existing and future local and regional travel demands. ADOT is developing an 

environmental document in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) 

process, FRA procedural requirements, and FTA guidance for environmental review. The resulting 

document, a Tier I EIS, will address the effects on the environment from a high-capacity facility totaling 

about 120 miles in length between these two cities. 
SAFETEA-LU Section 6002 Coordination Plan 

2 

III. Tier I EIS 

A Tier I EIS analyzes, at a general level, the natural, built, and social environment that may be affected in 

each corridor being considered. A Tier I EIS identifies project impacts in the corridors so they can be 

compared against each other. Once a preferred corridor is chosen, a Tier 2 EIS will be completed as 

segments of the project are programmed for construction. A Tier 2 EIS not only identifies specific impacts, 

but shows how impacts will be mitigated, clearing a project for construction. 

Figure 1: Project Location 
SAFETEA-LU Section 6002 Coordination Plan 

3 

Through the NEPA process, the project team will develop a range of alternative alignments, in addition to 

a No Action Alternative, that will satisfy the purpose and need in accordance with NEPA. The build 

alternatives will include stations as well as maintenance and operations facilities if needed. The study area 

extends beyond the westernmost and easternmost conceptual alignments and, because the project is 

intended to link the two largest population centers in the state, the study area also encompasses the 

urban centers of Tucson and Phoenix. 

Alternative alignments will be identified as part of the Alternatives Analysis and each will undergo 

multidisciplinary consideration, leading to a reasonable set of alternatives to study in detail in the Tier I 

EIS. The environmental analyses will focus on the required infrastructure improvements needed to 

implement a high-capacity transportation option within the project limits either along existing highway or 

rail lines, on a new alignment, or a combination of both. The Tier I EIS will be coordinated with the 

appropriate level of conceptual engineering and community involvement tasks. 

IV. Project History 

Alternative modes of travel, including passenger rail service between Tucson and Phoenix, have been a 

topic of discussion at the state government level for nearly 20 years, but over the past five years, ADOT 

has engaged their districts, the Tribal governments, and all nine of the state’s MPOs and COGs in a 

collaborative long-range transportation planning effort titled “Building a Quality Arizona” (bqAZ). The 

process began with four separate Regional Framework studies covering the entire state, except for the 

portions within MAG’s and PAG’s long-range planning areas. Each regional team prepared three 

alternative 2050 scenarios, which ADOT used, along with input from MAG and PAG, to develop three 

corresponding statewide scenarios. After an evaluation process, a Recommended Statewide Scenario 

emerged, with input from stakeholders, the public, and elected officials, all of which played a critical role 

in its development and refinement. 

Working at the statewide, regional, and local levels, the bqAZ team developed a broad array of interim 

planning reports to feed into the Statewide Long-Range Transportation Plan. Several of these reports 

recommended further examination of passenger rail service between Tucson and Phoenix, including the 

following: 

x 2050 Statewide Transportation Planning Framework 

x Statewide Rail Framework Study 

x Arizona State Rail Plan 

x MAG Regional Transit Framework Study 

x MAG Central Phoenix Framework Study 

x MAG Regional Transportation Plan 

x PAG Regional Transportation Plan 
SAFETEA-LU Section 6002 Coordination Plan 

4 

V. Project Purpose and Need 

Purpose of the Proposed Action 

The purpose of the proposed action is to serve as a critical contribution to correcting identified future 

system capacity deficiencies, limitations in modal choice of travel, and a growing unpredictability and 

inefficiency in the transportation system. 

In satisfying the purpose for the proposed action, the transportation solution also can achieve the 

following objectives: 

x Increase efficient access to employment opportunities and activity centers in Maricopa, Pima, and 

Pinal counties; 

x Provide reliable travel times and safe travel in a congested environment, as forecasted in several 

previous studies; 

x Recommend an alignment(s) and technology to connect the suburban and rural areas located 

adjacent to and between the Tucson and Phoenix metropolitan areas; and 

x Facilitate continued development of a comprehensive, multimodal and inter-connected 

regional/multi-regional transportation network that offers effective mobility choices for current and 

future needs, ensuring better connectivity to other systems beyond the Tucson to Phoenix corridor. 

Need for the Proposed Action 

There is a clearly demonstrated need in the Corridor for a major transportation facility to address existing 

and anticipated unpredictability and inefficiencies in the transportation system, limitations in modal 

choice of travel, and future system capacity deficiencies. This need can be evidenced from the following: 

x Limitations of currently available transportation modes: The transportation modes available for travel 

between Tucson and Phoenix are private auto, common carrier (bus), limited commercial air service, 

and ridesharing. The vast majority of commuter, regional, and intercity travel utilizes Interstate 10, 

the only major roadway connecting the two metropolitan areas. Expanding the opportunities for 

travel between and within the metropolitan areas is a critical need given the reliance on a single mode 

and a single primary roadway. 

x Population and Employment Growth: Statewide, Arizona’s population is projected to more than 

double in the next 40 years, from 6.4 million to 16 million, with most of the increase in the Sun 

Corridor. By 2050, the area between Tucson to Phoenix will be characterized by dense employment 

and population centers in and around the Tucson and Phoenix metropolitan areas and similar 

population and employment centers throughout Pinal County. 
SAFETEA-LU Section 6002 Coordination Plan 

5 

x Mobility Limitations and Travel Time Increases: Mobility between the Tucson and Phoenix 

metropolitan areas and within the urban areas is negatively impacted by growing congestion within 

the Corridor. Despite recent widening of sections of Interstate 10 in the study area, the construction 

of new transit and roadway facilities, increasing and broadening durations of severe congestion and 

failing operation occur frequently and are expected to worsen as the population and employment in 

the corridor grow. Future expansion of Interstate 10 and the construction of an additional NorthSouth Corridor freeway as well as additional transit improvements will be insufficient to accommodate 

the forecasted travel demand in the corridor. For example, the duration of a trip from Tucson to 

Phoenix—which now takes approximately 105 minutes under free-flow conditions—could increase to 

over 5 hours by 20501. Travel times within the urban areas are also expected to worsen substantially 

during that period as employment fills the corridor in the existing metro regions and extends into 

Pinal County. 

VI. Agency Roles and Responsibilities 

SAFETEA-LU requires the identification of lead, cooperating, and participating agencies in association with 

the development of a Tier I EIS. 

Federal Joint Lead Agencies

The FRA and FTA are the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) lead agencies responsible for NEPA 

analysis, management of the SAFETEA-LU Section 6002 process, and independent review of the Tier I EIS. 

The FRA and FTA will ensure that the project sponsor (ADOT) complies with all commitments in the Tier I 

Record of Decision (ROD) and that the Tier I EIS is appropriately supplemented if changes in the project 

become necessary. 

Project Sponsor 

ADOT is the local lead agency and project sponsor. The project sponsor shares in the responsibility to 

manage the SAFETEA-LU Section 6002 process, prepare the Tier I EIS, and provide opportunities for public 

and participating/cooperating agency involvement. 

Cooperating Agencies 

A cooperating agency is defined as “any Federal agency other than a lead agency which has jurisdiction by 

law or special expertise with respect to any environmental impact involved in a proposal (or a reasonable 

alternative) for legislation or other major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human 

environment” (40 C.F.R. § 1508.5). A State, regional or local agency of similar qualifications, or a Native 

American Tribal Government when the effects are on lands of tribal interest, may, by agreement with the 

lead agencies, become a cooperating agency. “A cooperating agency may adopt without re-circulating an 

EIS of a lead agency when, after an independent review of the statement, the cooperating agency 

 

1

 This assumes I-10 has been widened to 5 lanes in each direction and the North-South Corridor has been built 
SAFETEA-LU Section 6002 Coordination Plan 

6 

concludes that its comments and suggestions have been satisfied” (40 C.F.R. § 1506.3). The roles and 

responsibilities of cooperating agencies include the following: 

x Participating in the NEPA process starting at the earliest possible time, especially with regard to the 

development of the purpose and need statement, project alternatives, methodologies, and the level 

of detail for the analysis of project alternatives. 

x Identifying, as early as practicable, any issues of concern regarding the project’s potential 

environmental or socioeconomic impacts. Cooperating agencies may also participate in the issue 

resolution process. 

x Identifying, as early as practicable, any issues that could substantially delay or prevent the granting of 

permits or other approvals needed for the project. 

x Sharing information that may be useful to the lead agencies and other cooperating and participating 

agencies. 

x Making support staff available for meetings and sharing of expertise upon FRA/FTA request as 

appropriate. 

x Participating in the scoping process. The scoping process will be designed so that agencies that have 

interest in the project as a result of initial scoping activities are invited to participate and still have an 

opportunity for involvement. 

x Providing meaningful and timely input on unresolved issues. 

Participating Agencies

All federal, state, tribal, regional, or local governmental agencies that may have an interest in the project 

are invited to serve as participating agencies. The roles and responsibilities of these agencies include the 

following: 

x Participating in the NEPA process starting at the earliest possible time, especially with regard to the 

development of the purpose and need statement, project alternatives, methodologies, and the level 

of detail for the analysis of project alternatives. 

x Identifying, as early as practicable, any issues of concern regarding the project’s potential 

environmental or socioeconomic impacts. Participating agencies may also participate in the issue 

resolution process. 

x Participating in the scoping process. The scoping process will be designed so that agencies that have 

interest in the project as a result of initial scoping activities are invited to participate and still have an 

opportunity for involvement. 

x Providing meaningful and timely input on unresolved issues. 

Stakeholders

Stakeholders include organizations with an interest in the project, but who do not qualify as cooperating 

or participating agencies. It usually includes private or public interests with a potential role in the project, 

but with limited or specialized influence over its conduct. 
SAFETEA-LU Section 6002 Coordination Plan 

7 

Given the planning level of impact identification and analysis associated with this Tier I EIS, the lead and 

sponsoring agencies have only identified the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) as a cooperating 

agency at this stage of the Arizona Passenger Rail Corridor Study. An agency may request that its status 

change from participating to cooperating at any time during the study, as issues are identified that require 

that agency to play a larger role in the study. These changes would be made to the table below and logged 

in the Coordination Plan’s revision history. 

The list of lead, sponsor, and participating agencies, along with stakeholders, is provided in Table 1. 

Table 1: Lead, Sponsor, and Participating Agencies and Project Stakeholders for the Arizona Passenger 

Rail Corridor Study Tier I EIS 

Agency Name Status Contact Person/ 

Title/Phone Address and e-mail Proposed Role* 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

(FRA) 

Kyle Gradinger 

Transportation Industry 

Analyst 

202-493-6191 

Andréa E. Martin 

Environmental 

Protection 

Specialist 

202-493-6201 

1200 New Jersey Avenue 

SE Mail Stop 20 

Washington, DC 20590 

kyle.gradinger@dot.gov 

andrea.martin@dot.gov 

Joint Lead 

Agency 

Federal Transit 

Administration 

(FTA) 

Alexander Smith 

Community Planner 

Region 9 

415-744-3133 

Amy Zaref 

Environmental 

Protection Specialist 

202-641-8050 

201 Mission Street 

Suite 1650 

San Francisco, CA 94105 

alexander.smith@dot.gov

amy.zaref@dot.gov 

Joint Lead 

Agency 

Arizona 

Department of 

Transportation 

(ADOT) 

Michael Kies, 

Project Manager, 

Multimodal Planning 

Division 

602-712-8140 

Joanie Cady 

Environmental Planner 

602-712-8633 

206 S. 17th Avenue 

MD 310B 

Phoenix, AZ 85007 

mkies@adot.gov

1611 W. Jackson Street 

MD EM02 

Phoenix, AZ 85007 

jcady@azdot.gov 

Project 

Sponsor 
SAFETEA-LU Section 6002 Coordination Plan 

8 

Table 1: Lead, Sponsor, and Participating Agencies and Project Stakeholders for the Arizona Passenger 

Rail Corridor Study Tier I EIS 

Agency Name Status Contact Person/ 

Title/Phone Address and e-mail Proposed Role* 

Arizona Air 

National Guard 

Brigadier General 

Michael Colangelo 

Commander 

602-302-9321 

3200 E. Old Tower Road 

Phoenix, AZ 

Participating 

Agency 

Arizona 

Corporation 

Commission 

Brian Lehman 

Railroad Section Safety 

Supervisor 

602-262-5601 

2200 N. Central Avenue 

Suite 300 

Phoenix, AZ 85004 

blehman@azcc.gov 

Participating 

Agency 

Arizona 

Department of 

Corrections 

Charles Ryan 

Director 

602-542-5497 

1601 W. Jefferson 

Phoenix, AZ 85007 

directoroffice@azcorrections.gov

Participating 

Agency 

Arizona 

Department of 

Environmental 

Quality 

Kurt Maurer 

Deputy Director 

602-771-4500 

1110 W. Washington Street 

Phoenix, AZ 85007 

kem@azdeq.gov

Participating 

Agency 

Arizona 

Department of 

Housing 

Cindy Coen 

Assistant Deputy 

Director, Programs 

1110 W. Washington Street 

Suite 310, 

Phoenix, AZ 85007 

Cindy.Coen@azhousing.gov

Participating 

Agency 

Arizona 

Department of 

Public Safety 

Robert Halliday, 

Director 

602-223-2464 

2102 W. Encanto Boulevard 

Phoenix, AZ 85009 

rhalliday@azdps.gov 

Participating 

Agency 

Arizona Game and 

Fish Department 

Chip Young 

Project Evaluation 

Specialist 

623-236-7486 

5000 W. Carefree Highway 

Phoenix, AZ 85086 

cyoung@azgfd.gov 

Participating 

Agency 

Arizona State 

Land Department 

Michelle Green 

Project Manager, Real 

Estate Division 

Planning 

602-364-2502 

Tim Bolton 

Principal Planner 

520-209-4263 

1616 W. Adams 

Phoenix, AZ 85007 

mgreen@land.az.gov

177 N. Church Street 

Suite 1104 

Tucson, AZ 85701 

tbolton@land.az.gov 

Participating 

Agency 

Arizona State 

Parks 

Renée Bahl 

Director 

1300 W. Washington Street 

Phoenix, AZ 85007 

rbahl@azstateparks.gov

Participating 

Agency 
SAFETEA-LU Section 6002 Coordination Plan 

9 

Table 1: Lead, Sponsor, and Participating Agencies and Project Stakeholders for the Arizona Passenger 

Rail Corridor Study Tier I EIS 

Agency Name Status Contact Person/ 

Title/Phone Address and e-mail Proposed Role* 

Arizona State 

University 

Neil Calfee 

Director of University 

Real Estate 

Development 

P.O. Box 874204 

Tempe, AZ 85287 

neil.calfee@asu.edu

Stakeholder 

Burlington, 

Northern, and 

Santa Fe Railroad 

(BNSF) 

Cathy Norris 

Executive Director, 

Government Affairs 

P.O. Box 630317 

Littleton, CO 80163 

cathy.norris@bnsf.com

Stakeholder 

Center for Desert 

Archaeology 

Andy Lauernzi 

520-882-6946 

ext. 14 

300 N. Ash Alley 

Tucson, AZ 85701 

alaurenzi@cdarc.org 

Stakeholder 

Central Arizona 

Association of 

Governments 

Brian Tapp 

Executive Director 

480-474-9300 

Bill Leister 

Transportation 

Manager 

520-827-1021 

1075 S. Idaho Road 

Suite 300 

Apache Junction, AZ 85219 

btapp@caagcentral.org

1075 S. Idaho Road 

Suite 300 

Apache Junction, AZ 85219 

bleister@caagcentral.org 

Participating 

Agency 

Central Arizona 

Project 

Thomas Curry 

Environmental 

Compliance Supervisor

623-869-2353 

P.O. Box 43020 

Phoenix, AZ 85080-3020 

tcurry@cap-az.com 

Participating 

Agency 

City of Apache 

Junction 

George Hoffman 

City Manager, 

480-474-5095 

300 E. Superstition Boulevard

Apache Junction, AZ 85119 

ghoffman@ajcity.net 

Participating 

Agency 

City of Avondale 

Tracy Stevens 

Manager, Planning Div.

Kristen Sexton 

Transit Coordinator 

623-333-1000 

11465 W. Civic Center Drive 

Avondale, AZ 85323 

tstevens@avondale.org 

11465 W. Civic Center Drive 

Avondale, AZ 85323 

ksexton@avondale.org 

Participating 

Agency 

City of Casa 

Grande 

Jim Thompson 

City Manager 

520-421-8637 

City Hall, 

510 E. Florence Blvd., 

Casa Grande, AZ 85122 

ptice@casagrandeaz.gov 

Participating 

Agency 
SAFETEA-LU Section 6002 Coordination Plan 

10 

Table 1: Lead, Sponsor, and Participating Agencies and Project Stakeholders for the Arizona Passenger 

Rail Corridor Study Tier I EIS 

Agency Name Status Contact Person/ 

Title/Phone Address and e-mail Proposed Role* 

City of Chandler 

Pat McDermott 

Planning/Community 

Development Director, 

480-782-2210 

Transportation & 

Development 

215 E. Buffalo Street 

Chandler, AZ 85225 

Patrick.mcdermott@chandleraz.g

ov 

Participating 

Agency 

City of Coolidge 

C. Alton Bruce 

Growth Management 

Director 

520-723-6075 

131 W. Pinkley Avenue 

Coolidge, AZ 85228 

abruce@coolidgeaz.com 

Participating 

Agency 

City of El Mirage José Macias 

623-972-8116 

12145 NW Grand Avenue 

El Mirage, AZ 85335 

jmacias@cityofelmirage.org

Participating 

Agency 

City of Eloy 

Ruth Osuna 

City Manager 

520-466-9201 

628 N. Main Street 

Eloy, AZ 85131 

rosuna@ci.eloy.az.us 

Participating 

Agency 

City of Flagstaff 

Mark Landsiedel 

Community Development 

Director 

928-213-2605 

211 W. Aspen Avenue 

Flagstaff, AZ 86001 

mlandsiede@flagstaffaz.gov 

Stakeholder 

City of Fountain 

Hills 

Paul Mood 

Development Services 

Director 

480-816-5129 

16705 E. Avenue of the 

Fountains 

Fountain Hills, AZ 85268 

pmood@fh.az.gov 

Stakeholder 

City of Glendale 

Matt Dudley 

Planning Manager 

623-930-3507 

5850 W. Glendale Avenue 

Glendale, AZ 85301 

mdudley@glendaleaz.com 

Participating 

Agency 

City of Litchfield 

Park 

Diane Landis 

Councilmember 

214 W. Wigwam Boulevard 

Litchfield Park, AZ 85340 

dlandis@litchfield-park.org 

Participating 

Agency 

City of Maricopa 

Kellee Kelley 

Transit Coordinator 

520-316-6828 

45145 W. Madison Avenue 

P.O. Box 610 

Maricopa, AZ 85139 

kellee.kelley@maricopa-az.gov 

Participating 

Agency 

City of Mesa 

Christopher J. Brady 

City Manager 

480-644-2066 

John Wesley, AICP 

Planning Director, 

480-644-2181 

P.O. Box 1466 

Mesa, AZ 85211-1466 

commanager@mesaaz.gov 

P.O. Box 1466 

Mesa, AZ 85211-1466 

john.wesley@mesaaz.gov 

Participating 

Agency 
SAFETEA-LU Section 6002 Coordination Plan 

11 

Table 1: Lead, Sponsor, and Participating Agencies and Project Stakeholders for the Arizona Passenger 

Rail Corridor Study Tier I EIS 

Agency Name Status Contact Person/ 

Title/Phone Address and e-mail Proposed Role* 

City of Nogales 

George Lineiro 

Director Planning and 

Zoning 

520-285–5747 

1450 N. Hohokam Drive 

Nogales, AZ 85621 

glineiro@nogalesaz.gov Stakeholder 

City of Paradise 

Valley 

Eva Cutro 

Community 

Development Director 

480-348-3522 

6401 E Lincoln Drive 

Paradise Valley, AZ 85253-

4399 

ecutro@paradisevalleyaz.gov 

Stakeholder 

City of Peoria 

Susan Daluddung 

Deputy City Manager 

623-773-7300 

8401 W. Monroe Street 

Peoria, AZ 85345 

susan.daluddung@peoriaaz.gov 

Participating 

Agency 

City of Phoenix 

Debra Stark 

Planning Director 

602-262-6284 

Chris Andres 

Planner 

Aviation Dept. 

Phoenix City Hall 

200 W. Washington Street 

Phoenix, AZ 85003 

debra.stark@phoenix.gov 

3400 E. Sky Harbor 

Boulevard 

Suite 3300 

Phoenix, AZ 85034 

chris.andres@phoenix.gov 

eric.buskirk@phoenix.gov 

Participating 

Agency 

City of Scottsdale 

David Richert 

City Manager 

480-312-2800 

3939 N. Drinkwater 

Boulevard 

Scottsdale, AZ 85251 

drichert@ScottsdaleAZ.gov 

Stakeholder 

City of South 

Tucson 

Enrique Serna 

City Manager 

520-792-2424 

1601 S. 6th Avenue 

South Tucson, AZ 85713 

eserna@southtucson.org 

Participating 

Agency 

City of Surprise 

Karen Savage 

Senior Transportation 

Planner 

623-222-6132 

16000 N. Civic Center Plaza 

Surprise, AZ 85374 

karen.savage@surpriseaz.gov 

Participating 

Agency 

City of Tempe Jeff Kulaga 

Assistant City Manager 

31 East Fifth Street 

Tempe, AZ 85281 

jeff_kulaga@tempe.gov 

Participating 

Agency 

City of Tolleson 

Reyes Medrano, Jr. 

City Manager 

623-936-7111 

9555 W. Van Buren Street 

Tolleson, AZ 85353 

rmedrano@tollesonaz.org

Participating 

Agency 
SAFETEA-LU Section 6002 Coordination Plan 

12 

Table 1: Lead, Sponsor, and Participating Agencies and Project Stakeholders for the Arizona Passenger 

Rail Corridor Study Tier I EIS 

Agency Name Status Contact Person/ 

Title/Phone Address and e-mail Proposed Role* 

City of Tucson 

Richard Miranda 

Acting City Manager 

520-791-4204 

Tom Fisher 

Proj. Mgr., Tucson DOT 

520-837-6752 

255 W. Alameda Street 

Tucson, AZ 85701 

stephanie.brooks@tucsonaz.gov 

201 N. Stone Ave. 6th Floor 

Tucson, AZ 85701 

tom.fisher@tucsonaz.gov 

Participating 

Agency 

Community of Sun 

City 

Paul Hermann 

Executive Director 

623-977-5000 

16824 N. 99th Avenue 

Sun City, AZ 85351 

scvc@suncityaz.org 

Stakeholder 

Environmental 

Protection Agency 

(EPA) 

Clifton Meek 

Life Scientist 

Region 9 

415-972-3370 

415-947-8026 fax 

Environmental Review Office 

Transportation Team 

75 Hawthorne St. CED-2 

San Francisco, CA 94105 

meek.clifton@epa.gov 

Participating 

Agency 

Federal Aviation 

Administration 

(FAA) 

William C. Withycombe 

Western-Pacific Region 

Regional Administrator 

310-725-3550 

Phillip Thornton 

Phoenix Coordinator 

P.O. Box 92007 

Los Angeles, CA 90009-2007 

3800 E. Sky Harbor 

Boulevard 

Phoenix, AZ 85034-4486 

phillip.thornton@faa.gov 

Participating 

Agency 

Federal Highway 

Administration 

(FHWA) 

Karla Petty 

Division Administrator 

Rebecca Swiecki 

Environmental 

Reviewer 

4000 N. Central Avenue Suite 

1500 

Phoenix, AZ 85012 

karla.petty@dot.gov

rebecca.swiecki@dot.gov 

Cooperating 

Agency 

Green Valley 

Community 

Coordinating 

Council 

Stan Riddle 

President 

520-648-1936 

101-18 South La Cañada 

Green Valley, AZ 85614 

info@gvccc.org 

Stakeholder 

Laveen 

Community 

Council 

Krag Klages 

President 

P.O. Box 488 

Laveen, AZ 85339 

council@laveen.org 

Participating 

Agency 

Maricopa 

Association of 

Governments 

Eileen Yazzie 

Transportation 

Programming Manager 

602-452-5058 

302 N. 1st Avenue 

Suite 300 

Phoenix, AZ 85003 

eyazzie@azmag.gov

Participating 

Agency 
SAFETEA-LU Section 6002 Coordination Plan 

13 

Table 1: Lead, Sponsor, and Participating Agencies and Project Stakeholders for the Arizona Passenger 

Rail Corridor Study Tier I EIS 

Agency Name Status Contact Person/ 

Title/Phone Address and e-mail Proposed Role* 

Maricopa County 

Department of 

Public Health 

Vincent Lopez 

Injury Prevention 

Health Educator 

602-526-0218 

4041 N. Central Avenue 

Suite 700 

Phoenix, AZ 85012 

vincentlopez@mail.maricopa.gov

Stakeholder 

Maricopa County 

Department of 

Transportation 

Tim Oliver 

Systems Planning 

Branch Manager 

602-506-3994 

2901 W. Durango Street 

Phoenix, AZ 85009 

timoliver@mail.maricopa.gov

Participating 

Agency 

Maricopa County 

Flood Control 

District 

Valerie Swick 

Project Manager 

602-506-2929 

2901 W. Durango St. 

Phoenix, AZ 85009 

vas@mail.maricopa.gov 

Participating 

Agency 

National Park 

Service 

Christine Lehnertz 

Regional Director 

Pacific West Region 

415-623-2100 

333 Bush Street, Suite 500 

San Francisco, CA 94104-

2828 

Chris_Lehnertz@nps.gov

Participating 

Agency 

National Railroad 

Passenger 

Corporation 

(AMTRAK) 

Jonathan Hutchinson 

Senior Director 

Corridor Development 

510-238-2671 

Peter Gariepy 

Senior Analyst 

State Partnerships 

510-238-4847 

530 Water St., 5th Floor 

Oakland, CA 94607 

hutchij@amtrak.com 

peter.gariepy@amtrak.com 

Participating 

Agency 

Natural Resource 

Conservation 

Service 

David McKay 

State Conservationist 

602-280-8810 

230 N. 1st Avenue 

Suite 503 

Phoenix, AZ 85003 

david.mckay@az.nrcs.usda.gov 

Participating 

Agency 

Phoenix-Mesa 

(Williams) 

Gateway Airport 

Casey Denny 

Deputy Director 

Walter Fix 

Proj. Coordinator 

Business Development 

480-998-7709 

5835 S. Sossaman Road 

Mesa, AZ 85212 

cdenny@phxmesagateway.org 

5835 S. Sossaman Road 

Mesa, AZ 85212 

wfix@phxmesagateway.org 

Participating 

Agency 

Pima Association 

of Governments 

Jeremy Papuga 

Transit Planning 

Operations Manager 

177 N. Church Avenue 

Suite 405 

Tucson, AZ 85701 

jpapuga@pagnet.org

Participating 

Agency 
SAFETEA-LU Section 6002 Coordination Plan 

14 

Table 1: Lead, Sponsor, and Participating Agencies and Project Stakeholders for the Arizona Passenger 

Rail Corridor Study Tier I EIS 

Agency Name Status Contact Person/ 

Title/Phone Address and e-mail Proposed Role* 

Pima County Arlan Colton 

Planning Director 

201 N. Stone 

2

nd Floor 

Tucson, AZ 85701 

arlan.colton@dsd.pima.gov

Participating 

Agency 

Pinal County Fritz Behring 

County Manager 

P.O. Box 827 

Florence, AZ 85132 

fritz.behring@pinalcountyaz.gov

Participating 

Agency 

Salt River Project 

Richard Hayslip 

Associate General 

Manager 

602-236-6699 

1521 N. Project Drive 

Tempe, AZ 85281-1298 

Participating 

Agency 

Sun Tran Tucson 

Mary McLain 

Assistant General 

Manager 

4220 S. Park Avenue 

Tucson, AZ 85714 

mary.mclain@tucsonaz.gov

Participating 

Agency 

Town of Benson 

Mark Fenn 

Mayor 

520-586-2245 

ext. 2019 

P.O. Box 2223 

Benson, AZ 

ggomez@cityofbenson.com 

Stakeholder 

Town of Florence 

Himanshu Patel 

Town Manager 

520-868-7500 

775 N. Main St. 

P.O. Box 2670, 

Florence, AZ 85132 

himanshu.patel@florenceaz.gov 

Participating 

Agency 

Town of Gilbert 

Patrick Banger 

Town Manager 

480-503-6864 

90 E Civic Center Drive, 

Gilbert, AZ 85296 

patrick.banger@gilbertaz.gov 

Participating 

Agency 

Town of 

Guadalupe 

Bill Hernandez 

Town Manager 

480-505-5367 

9241 S. Avenida Del Yaqui, 

Guadalupe, AZ 85283 

rmarellano@guadalupeaz.org 

Participating 

Agency 

Town of Marana 

Gilbert Davidson 

Town Manager 

520-382-1908 

11555 W. Civic Center Drive 

Marana, AZ 85653 

gdavidson@marana.com 

Participating 

Agency 

Town of Oro 

Valley 

Greg Caton 

Interim Town Manager 

520-229-4725 

11000 N. La Cañada Drive 

Oro Valley, AZ 85737 

gcaton@orovalleyaz.gov 

Participating 

Agency 

Town of Queen 

Creek 

Tom Condit 

Development Services 

Director 

480-358-3901 

22350 S. Ellsworth Road 

Queen Creek, AZ 85142 

tom.condit@queencreek.org 

Participating 

Agency 

Town of Sahuarita 

Farhad Moghimi 

Town Engineer/ 

Pub.Wks 

520-822-8852 

375 W. Sahuarita Center Way

Sahuarita, AZ 85629 

fmoghimi@ci.sahuarita.az.us 

Stakeholder 
SAFETEA-LU Section 6002 Coordination Plan 

15 

Table 1: Lead, Sponsor, and Participating Agencies and Project Stakeholders for the Arizona Passenger 

Rail Corridor Study Tier I EIS 

Agency Name Status Contact Person/ 

Title/Phone Address and e-mail Proposed Role* 

Town of 

Youngtown 

Mark Hannah 

Proj/Prog/Grants Mgr. 

623-933-8286 

12030 Clubhouse Square 

Youngtown, AZ 85363 

mhannah@youngtownaz.org 

Participating 

Agency 

Tucson Airport 

Authority 

Jordan Feld 

Director of Planning 

7005 S. Plumber Avenue 

Tucson, AZ 85756 

jfeld@tucsonairport.org

Participating 

Agency 

Tucson 

Department of 

Transportation 

Tom Fisher 

Project Manager 

149 N. Stone Avenue 

Tucson, AZ 85726 

tom.fisher@tucsonaz.gov

Participating 

Agency 

U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers 

(USACE) 

Sallie McGuire 

Chief, AZ Branch 

Regulatory Division

602-458-9297 

Kathleen Tucker 

Environmental Planner 

602-230-6956 

3636 North Central Avenue 

Suite 900 

Phoenix, AZ 85012 

Sallie.McGuire@usace.army.mil

Kathleen.A.Tucker@usace.army.

mil

Participating 

Agency 

U.S. Bureau of 

Indian Affairs 

Bob Maxwell 

Regional 

Transportation Planner, 

Western Regional 

Office 

Cecilia Martinez 

Superintendent, Pima 

Agency 

P.O. Box 10 

Phoenix, AZ 85001 

bob.maxwell@bia.gov 

P.O. Box 8 

Sacaton, AZ 85247 

cecilia.martinez@bia.gov 

Participating 

Agency 

U.S. Bureau of 

Land Management 

Jim Kenna 

State Director 

1 N. Central Avenue 

Suite 800 

Phoenix, AZ 85004 

jim_kenna@blm.gov

Participating 

Agency 

U.S. Bureau of 

Reclamation 

Lorri Gray-Lee 

Regional Director 

P.O. Box 61470 

Boulder City, NV 89006 

lgray@usbr.gov

Participating 

Agency 

U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service 

(USFWS) 

Debra Bills 

Asst. Field Supv. for 

Central Arizona 

602-242-0210 

Jean Calhoun 

Asst. Field Supv. for 

Southern Arizona 

520-670-6144 

2321 W. Royal Palm Road 

Suite 103 

Phoenix, AZ 85021

Debra_Bills@fws.gov 

201 N. Bonita Avenue 

Suite 141 

Tucson, AZ 85745 

Jean_Calhoun@fws.gov 

Participating 

Agency 
SAFETEA-LU Section 6002 Coordination Plan 

16 

Table 1: Lead, Sponsor, and Participating Agencies and Project Stakeholders for the Arizona Passenger 

Rail Corridor Study Tier I EIS 

Agency Name Status Contact Person/ 

Title/Phone Address and e-mail Proposed Role* 

U.S. Forest 

Service: Coronado 

National Forest 

Jim Upchurch 

Forest Supervisor 

300 W. Congress Street, 

Tucson, AZ 

85701jupchurch01@fs.fed.us 

Participating 

Agency 

Union Pacific 

Railroad 

Zoë Richmond, Director 

of Public Affairs 

1301 E. Harrison Street 

Phoenix, AZ 85034 

zrichmond@up.com

Stakeholder 

University of 

Arizona 

Jaime Gutierrez 

VP External Relations 

520-621-1501 

P.O. Box 210158 

Tucson, AZ 85721 

jaimeg@email.arizona.edu 

Stakeholder 

Valley Metro 

Regional Public 

Transportation 

Authority (RPTA) 

Stuart Boggs, Transit 

Planning Manager 

101 N. 1st Avenue 

Suite 1300 

Phoenix, AZ 85003 

sboggs@valleymetro.org

Participating 

Agency 

Western Area 

Power 

Administration 

Matthew Blevins 

NEPA Document Mgr. 

Corporate Svcs. Office 

800-336-7288 

John Holt 

Desert Southwest 

Region 

602-605-2592 

P.O. Box 281213, 

Lakewood, CO 80228-8213 

blevins@wapa.gov

P.O. Box 6457 

Phoenix, AZ 85005 

holt@wapa.gov 

Participating 

Agency 

*Agency and group roles will be determined by each organization’s response to the cooperating/participating agency 

invitation letters they receive. 

VII. Agency Coordination, Community Involvement, and Scheduling 

The lead agencies and project sponsor are responsible for preparation of the Tier I EIS, including 

coordination of agency and public involvement. Table 2 summarizes the activities and anticipated 

schedule for key coordination points of the study process, which will include scoping, development of the 

purpose and need, and an initial alternatives screening. Anticipated completion timeframes are indicated 

in the schedule at the end of this document. Comment periods, where applicable, may be altered upon 

agreement by the FRA, FTA, ADOT. The lead agencies and project sponsor have agreed to work 

cooperatively to identify and resolve issues that could delay the completion of the environmental review 

process. 
SAFETEA-LU Section 6002 Coordination Plan 

17 

Issues Resolution 

When different agencies coordinate on a project, individual agency mission statements and directives 

sometimes are in conflict with one another. In the event of a minor disagreement among agencies on a 

project-related issue, the lead and sponsoring agencies may, after due consideration of the concerns of 

the participating agencies, decide to proceed without resorting to any dispute resolution process. When 

there is disagreement on important issues of concern, the lead agencies may decide that the most 

effective approach would be to reconcile the disagreement in a formal or informal manner. 

A more serious dispute may need to be escalated to a higher level. This requires taking into consideration 

the time required to assemble and present information to the higher-level decision makers, and the time 

needed for negotiations to take place. The FRA, FTA, and ADOT will establish specific timelines and specify 

the consequences of deadlines being missed. Missed deadlines may involve referrals to yet higher-level 

decision makers. Figure 2 illustrates the Issue Resolution Process established in SAFETEA-LU. 

 All agencies will be notified of the availability of draft and final Tier I EIS documents and given appropriate 

comment opportunities (see Table 2). The lead and sponsoring agencies will also coordinate with agencies 

on completion of necessary permits following the Tier I ROD, if appropriate. 

Coordination Plan

Participating agencies will be given 30 days to review and comment on the draft Coordination Plan. 

Following the comment period, the Coordination Plan will be revised and submitted to the FRA and FTA 

for approval. A project website is available to the public at http://www.azdot.gov/passengerrail/. The 

primary contact person designated for public involvement (PI) is Kristin Bornstein. 

Revisions to the Coordination Plan

If any dates specified in the Coordination Plan are moved forward in the schedule (to an earlier date), 

concurrence will be sought from the affected cooperating agencies, if any are identified. Following 

concurrence, a revised Coordination Plan will be issued. The modified Coordination Plan will be identified 

by a modification number and date. Changes in cooperating or participating agencies will be made as 

necessary. The public will be informed of modifications to the Coordination Plan by posting the modified 

Coordination Plan to the project website.
SAFETEA-LU Section 6002 Coordination Plan 

18 

 

Table 2: Summary of Project Deliverables, Participant Activities, and Results. 

Deliverable Content Participants Actions Results 

Project Initiation Package Project history and preliminary 

purpose and need data Project sponsor 

ADOT submits draft 

package for FRA/FTA 

review

FRA and FTA accepts 

package and 

authorizes ADOT to 

prepare NOI and 

initiate a Tier I EIS 

Notice of Intent (NOI)

Project description, scoping 

information, and contact 

information 

Project sponsor FRA and FTA review 

and approve NOI 

NOI published in 

Federal Register

SAFETEA-LU Section 

6002 and Tribal

Coordination Plan 

Project description , draft purpose 

and need, agency roles and 

responsibilities, agency 

coordination process, project 

schedule, agency contact 

information, and the community 

involvement plan 

Lead agencies 

and project 

sponsor 

Cooperating and 

Participating 

agencies

FRA, FTA, and ADOT 

draft SAFETEA-LU 

Section 6002

Coordination Plan 

Comment on draft 

plan 

SAFETEA-LU Section 

6002 and Tribal 

Coordination Plan 

acceptance 

Scoping Report 

Project description (i.e. scope, 

history, purpose and need, range 

of alternatives) and summary of 

preliminary issue identification 

Lead agencies 

and project 

sponsor 

Invite agencies to 

participate; review 

and approve report 

Agency and public 

scoping materials; 

approved Scoping 

Report 

Agency scoping materials and 

meeting summary 

Lead, 

cooperating, and 

participating 

agencies; 

stakeholders

 Meeting participation Agency scoping 

comments 
SAFETEA-LU Section 6002 Coordination Plan 

19 

 

Deliverable Content Participants Actions Results 

Public scoping materials and 

meeting summaries Public

Meeting participation; 

submit on-line 

comments 

Public scoping 

comments 

Draft Tier I EIS

x Project purpose and need 

x Description of alternatives 

retained and not retained; 

identification of preferred 

alternative (if possible) 

x Affected environment 

description 

x Impacts assessment 

x Summary of agency & public 

outreach 

Lead agencies 

and project 

sponsor 

Develop draft Tier I 

EIS and publish 

Notice of Availability 

(NOA) 

Draft Tier I EIS 

comment summary 

Cooperating 

agencies 

Provide comments on 

draft Tier I EIS prior 

to NOA 

Lead agencies 

Legal review of draft 

Tier I EIS prior to 

NOA 

All agencies 

Provide comments on 

draft Tier I EIS within 

45 days of NOA 

Public 

Provide comments on 

draft Tier I EIS within 

45 days of NOA 

Final Tier I EIS 

 Revised alternatives discussion 

and impact analysis based on 

comments, as needed; summary 

of substantive public hearing 

comments and how addressed; 

identification of and rationale for 

the recommended alternative 

Lead agencies 

and project 

sponsor 

Develop final Tier I 

EIS Publish NOA in Federal 

Register and distribute 

Final Tier I EIS for 

comment 

Cooperating 

agencies 

Provide comments on 

final Tier I EIS 

All agencies 

Provide comments 

within 30 days of 

NOA 
SAFETEA-LU Section 6002 Coordination Plan 

20 

 

Deliverable Content Participants Actions Results 

Public 

Provide comments 

within 30 days of 

NOA 

Tier I Record of Decision 

(ROD) 

Summary of Final Tier I EIS 

comments; identification and 

description of selected alternative; 

explanation of rationale for 

selection 

Lead agencies, 

project sponsor, 

and EPA 

Develop Tier I ROD Tier I ROD published in 

Federal Register
SAFETEA-LU Section 6002 Coordination Plan 

21 

Figure 2: SAFETEA-LU Issue Resolution Process 

Note: Where two steps are not separated by a "yes" or "no" decision diamond, both steps must be taken.
SAFETEA-LU Section 6002 Coordination Plan 

22 

VIII. Tribal Coordination 

A Tribal Coordination Plan has also been developed to encourage early and continuing coordination with 

Tribal representatives whose communities and cultural sites might be affected by the project as well as 

ensure that Tribal input will be incorporated into the decision-making process. The Tribal Coordination 

Plan identifies the Tribes with ancestral claims or interests in the study area with whom the FRA and FTA 

will consult. The four Southern Tribes are the most directly affected in the APRCS study area and, among 

them, the Gila River and Ak-Chin communities. 

The following presents the approach for establishing and maintaining general project coordination with 

Tribal representatives and community members during preparation of the Tier I EIS pursuant to NEPA and 

Section 6002 of SAFETEA-LU. The Tribal Coordination Plan does not include formal Section 106 

Consultation, which will be undertaken at the project-specific Tier 2 level. 

The goals of the Tribal Coordination Plan are to: 

x Engage in an open exchange of information about the project, its potential impacts, and 

appropriate mitigation; and 

x Avoid, protect, and/or restore significant natural and cultural resources. 

The FRA, FTA, and ADOT responsibilities regarding coordination with Tribal representatives, department 

staff, and community members pursuant to NEPA and Section 6002 of SAFETEA-LU are a separate process 

from the Section 106 consultation described above. Key project coordination points are provided below, 

including which agency is responsible for activities during that coordination point, the information 

required at each coordination point, and who is responsible for disseminating that information. 

Lead Agencies

As noted earlier in the Coordination Plan, the FRA and FTA are the lead agencies in the NEPA review 

process. Each agency is also responsible for providing opportunities to Tribal representatives and 

community members to identify issues and concerns during project scoping as well as provide input to the 

development and evaluation of alternatives. ADOT, as project sponsor, will assist the FRA and FTA in 

implementing the Tribal coordination program. 

Agency and Tribal Coordination

The coordination program with Tribal entities, with particular emphasis on the four Southern Tribes and, 

more specifically, on the Gila River and Ak-Chin Indian Communities which are directly affected by 

potential alignments, will begin with scoping meetings with Tribal government representatives and 

community members. This program will begin with a letter from the FTA Administrator to the Tribal leaders 
SAFETEA-LU Section 6002 Coordination Plan 

23 

asking them to participate, along with their designated Tribal government department heads, in the 

coordination meetings regarding the Arizona Passenger Rail Corridor Study. Teleconferences may be 

substituted, as necessary, for face-to-face meetings to optimize participation opportunities and reduce 

travel inconveniences. These meetings will be held independent of the typical NEPA scoping meetings with 

the general public and federal, state, and local agencies to ensure Tribal issues and concerns are identified 

and addressed. The meetings will be conducted in mutually agreed upon locations, either in a group setting 

or with each individual Tribe based upon Tribal preferences. General project information will be included in 

the scoping invitation letter. Summaries of the Tribal scoping meetings will be prepared and made available 

to all meeting attendees, as well as to key Tribal representatives that were unable to attend. 

Subsequent meetings will be scheduled based on Tribal interest on the progress of the project. 

Recommended attendees for these meetings will include project team members and staff members from 

the Tribal departments for natural resources, environmental quality, economic development, cultural 

resources, planning, and/or transportation. Tribes will be encouraged to identify a person or department 

to serve as the lead contact for coordination efforts. Project updates will be distributed regularly to ensure 

Tribal awareness of important milestones in project development. Separate meetings will be conducted 

with community members of each affected district within a Tribal community that is geographically 

located in the tri-county study area, all of which will be designed to take place within the same general 

timeframe as public information meetings for the study as it proceeds. 

The initial contact information for each Tribe (to the best of our knowledge at this time) regarding general 

project coordination is provided below (Table 3). Following the response to the invitation letters to 

participate in the Tier I EIS process, the list of agencies and Tribes will be updated to include only those 

that elect to participate. 

Tribal Coordination Contacts

Initial contacts for general project coordination with Tribal representatives for planning and 

transportation were identified in ADOT’s Tribal Transportation Consultation Process Reference Manual 

(October 2009) and through coordination with ADOT’s Environmental Planning Group Historic 

Preservation Team (Table 3). 
SAFETEA-LU Section 6002 Coordination Plan 

24 

Table 3: Tribal Coordination Contacts for the Arizona Passenger Rail Corridor Study Tier I EIS

Tribe Contact Person Address Email Address Proposed 

Role* 

Ak-Chin Indian

Community

Louis Manuel Jr.

Chairman 

42507 W. Peters and 

Nall Road

Maricopa, AZ 85138 

520-568-1000

Lmanuel@ak-chin.nsn.us Participating 

Agency 

Chemehuevi 

Indian

Tribe

Charles Wood 

Chairman

P.O. Box 1976

Havasu Lake, CA 92363 

760-858-4301

Chair1cit@yahoo.com Participating 

Agency 

Cocopah Tribe Sherry Cordova 

Chairwoman 

County 15th & Avenue G

Somerton, AZ 85350 

928-627-2102, 

cocotcsec@cocopah.co

m

Participating 

Agency 

Colorado River

Indian Tribes

Eldred Enas 

Chairman 

26600 Mohave Road 

Parker, AZ 85344 

928-669-9211

feedback@critonline.co

m

Participating 

Agency 

Fort McDowell

Yavapai Nation

Clinton Pattea 

President 

P.O. Box 17779

Fountain Hills, AZ 85269 

480-837-5121

cpattea@ftmcdowell.org Participating 

Agency 

Fort Mojave Indian

Tribe

Timothy Williams 

Chairman 

500 Merriman Avenue 

Needles, CA 92363 

760-629-4591

Timothywilliams@fortmo

have.com

Participating 

Agency 

Fort Sill Apache

Tribe

Jeff Houser 

Chairman

Route 2, Box 121 

Apache, OK 73006 

580-588-2298 

jeff@fortsillapache.com Participating 

Agency 

Fort YumaQuechan

Tribe

Mike Jackson Sr. 

President 

P.O. Box 1899

Yuma, AZ 85366 

760-572-0213

m.jackson@quechantrib

e.com

Participating 

Agency 

Gila River Indian

Community

Gregory Mendoza 

Governor 

P.O. Box 97

Sacaton, AZ 85147 

520-562-9841

executivemail@gric.nsn.

us

Participating 

Agency 

Havasupai Tribe

Don E. 

Watahomigie 

Chairman 

P.O. Box 10

Supai, AZ 86435 

928-448-2731

htchair@havasupainsn.govParticipating 

Agency 

Hopi Tribe

LeRoy 

Shingoitewa 

Chairman 

P.O. Box 123

Kykotsmovi, AZ 86039 

928-734-3100

Lshingoitewa@hopi.nsn.

us

Participating 

Agency 

Hualapai Tribe Louis Benson 

Chairwoman

P.O. Box 179

Peach Springs, AZ 

86434 

928-769-2216

wwhatoname@hualapainsn.gov

Participating 

Agency 

Kaibab-Paiute 

Tribe

Manual Savala

Chairman

HC 65 Box 2

Fredonia, AZ 86022 

928-643-7245

msavala@kaibabpaiutensn.gov

Participating 

Agency 

Mescalero Apache

Tribe

Mark Chino 

Chairman

P.O. Box 227 

Mescalero, NM 88340 

575-464-4494 

mchino@matisp.net Participating 

Agency 
SAFETEA-LU Section 6002 Coordination Plan 

25 

Table 3: Tribal Coordination Contacts for the Arizona Passenger Rail Corridor Study Tier I EIS

Tribe Contact Person Address Email Address Proposed 

Role* 

Moapa Band of

Paiute Indians

William Anderson 

Chairman 

P.O. Box 340 

Moapa, NV 89025 

702-865-2787 

mbobchair@mvdsl.com Participating 

Agency 

Moapa Band of

Paiute Indians

Deanna Domingo 

Chairwoman 

P.O. Box 340 

Moapa, NV 89025 

702-865-2081 

ddomingo@mvdsl.com Participating 

Agency 

Navajo Nation Ben Shelly 

President 

P.O. Drawer 9000

Window Rock, AZ 86515 

928-871-6000

gbowman@opvp.org Participating 

Agency 

Paiute Indian Tribe 

of Las Vegas

Lucille Campa 

Chairwoman 

One Paiute Drive

Las Vegas, NV 89106 

702-386-3926

contact@lvpaiute.com Participating 

Agency 

Paiute Indian Tribe 

of Utah

Jeanine Borchardt 

Chairwoman

440 N. Paiute Drive

Cedar City, UT 84721 

435-586-1112

jeanine.borchardt@ihs.g

ov

Participating 

Agency 

Pascua Yaqui 

Tribe

Peter Yucupicio 

Chairman 

7474 S. Camino de 

Oeste

Tucson, AZ 85746 

520-883-5000

Peter.S.Yucupicio@pasc

uayaqui-nsn.gov Participating 

Agency 

Pueblo of Zuni

Norman C. 

Cooeyate 

Governor 

P.O. Box 339

Zuni, NM 87327 

505-782-4481

ncooey@ashiwi.org Participating 

Agency 

Salt River PimaMaricopa Indian 

Community

Diane Enos 

President 

Route 1, Box 216 

10005 E. Osborn Road 

Scottsdale, AZ 85256 

480-362-7400

Diane-enos@srpmicnsn.gov

Participating 

Agency 

San Carlos 

Apache

Tribe

Terry Rambler 

Chairman 

P.O. Box 0

San Carlos, AZ 85550 

928-475-2361

chairman_rambler@scapachetribe.com

Participating 

Agency 

San Juan 

Southern

Paiute Tribe

Evelyn James 

President 

P.O. Box 1989

Tuba City, AZ 86045 

928-283-4589

sanjuan_paiute_tribe@y

ahoo.com 

Participating 

Agency 

Tohono O’odham

Nation

Ned Norris Jr. 

Chairman 

P.O. Box 837

Sells, AZ 85634 

520-383-2028

ned.norris@tonationnsn.gov

Participating 

Agency 

Tonto Apache 

Indian

Community

Ivan Smith 

Chairman 

Town Apache 

Reservation #30

Payson, AZ 85541 

928-474-5000

ismith@tontoapache.org

Participating 

Agency 

Ute Mountain Ute Gary Hayes 

Chairman

P.O. Box JJ 

Towaoc, CO 81334 

970-565-3751, ext. 727 

ghayes@utemountain.or

g

Participating 

Agency 

White Mountain

Apache Tribe

Ronnie Lupe 

Chairman 

P.O. Box 1150

Whiteriver, AZ 85941 

928-338-4346

rlupe@wmat.us Participating 

Agency 
SAFETEA-LU Section 6002 Coordination Plan 

26 

Table 3: Tribal Coordination Contacts for the Arizona Passenger Rail Corridor Study Tier I EIS

Tribe Contact Person Address Email Address Proposed 

Role* 

Yavapai-Apache

Nation

David Kwail 

President

2400 W. Datsi Street

Camp Verde, AZ 86322 

928-567-3649

knightpipe@yantribe.org

Participating 

Agency 

Yavapai-Prescott

Tribe 

Ernest Jones Sr. 

President 

530 E. Merritt Street

Prescott, AZ 86301

928-445-8790 

ejones@ypit.com Participating 

Agency 

Coordination

Expressions of interest in the project by interested and participating Tribes will be addressed by the FRA, 

FTA, and ADOT. Those expressions may range from requests to participate in the alternatives development 

process and requests for the opportunity to comment on environmental documents, interests in 

participating in pedestrian ground surveys, and descriptions of use areas or sites. This coordination may 

include holding meetings, providing information at specific points during preparation of the EIS, and/or 

providing a notice of availability of public meetings and documents. 

Participating agencies, which includes Tribal representatives, will be invited to take part in various 

workshops during the course of the APRCS. To ensure Tribal participation, separate workshops will be 

planned and conducted with Tribal leaders and designated department heads on the development and 

evaluation of alternatives and the methodologies proposed for assessing impacts to resources on Tribal 

lands. Similarly, information meetings in the Tribal communities through which the proposed project may 

pass will be scheduled as a separate component of the overall agency and public outreach program. 
SAFETEA-LU Section 6002 Coordination Plan 

27 

IX. Project Schedule and Documentation 

This section includes the key milestones and decision-making deadlines for each agency approval. 

Additional details regarding the project, the environmental process, public and agency coordination goals 

and approach, and public outreach tools can be found in the Project Coordination and Public Involvement 

Plans located at: http://www.azdot.gov/passengerrail/. 

Documentation and Coordination Protocol

In keeping with FRA and FTA policies and procedures, documentation and record keeping are 

fundamental elements of the process. The Tier I EIS will be a comprehensive public document that 

provides sufficient evidence of analysis supporting environmental findings. All information must be 

catalogued in a central location, including supporting records and materials used or generated during EIS 

preparation, summaries of stakeholder meetings, written comments received, and records related to 

interagency, intergovernmental and Tribal coordination. 

An open and timely communication flow is essential in keeping a large-scale EIS project on track and to 

inform communities of recent project developments. The communications protocol would be a means of 

distributing project information consistently to appropriate representatives via a record of conversation 

form, meeting summary, or another agreed upon format developed to document coordination for the 

administrative record. 
 

Range of Alternatives Technical Memorandum
Passenger Rail Corridor Study 

Tucson to Phoenix 

RANGE OF ALTERNATIVES 

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 

Submitted by: 

Arizona Department of Transportation 

Multimodal Planning Division 

206 S. 17th Avenue, Mail Drop 310B

Phoenix, AZ 85007 

Submitted to: 

Federal Transit Administration 

Federal Rail Administration 

Version 1.0 | April 4, 2012 
Range of Alternatives Technical Memorandum 

Table of Contents 

1.0 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 1 

2.0 Previous Study Corridors .............................................................................................................. 2 

3.0 Alternatives ................................................................................................................................. 5 

3.1 No-Build Alternative ................................................................................................................. 5 

3.2 Baseline Alternative ................................................................................................................. 5 

3.3 Alignment Segments ................................................................................................................ 6 

3.3.1 Maricopa County Alignment Segments ............................................................................. 9 

3.3.2 Pinal County Alignment Segments .................................................................................. 11 

3.3.3 Pima County Alignment Segments .................................................................................. 13 

3.4 Stations .................................................................................................................................. 13 

3.4.1 Station Types .................................................................................................................. 13 

3.4.2 Maricopa County Stations............................................................................................... 17 

3.4.3 Pinal County Stations ...................................................................................................... 20 

3.4.4 Pima County Stations...................................................................................................... 22 

3.5 Modes .................................................................................................................................... 24 

4.0 Community Support Team Meetings – Range of Alternatives Workshop Summary..................... 25 

4.1 Northern CST ......................................................................................................................... 27 

4.2 Central CST............................................................................................................................. 28 

4.3 Southern CST ......................................................................................................................... 30 

4.4 Corridor Selection Frequency ................................................................................................. 32 

4.5 Potential Station Location Selection Frequency ...................................................................... 33 

5.0 Scoping ...................................................................................................................................... 34 

6.0 Initial Screening ......................................................................................................................... 34 

7.0 Bundled Alternatives .................................................................................................................. 35 

8.0 Next Steps ................................................................................................................................. 35 
Range of Alternatives Technical Memorandum 

1 

1.0 Introduction 

The “Range of Alternatives” (ROA) for the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) Passenger Rail 

Corridor Study (APRCS) consists of all reasonable routes, station locations and modes that will be 

evaluated as part of the study. This memorandum describes the process carried out to develop the 

initial range of alternatives, details the components of an alternative including alignment segments and 

stations, summarizes the stakeholder input gained from an interactive ROA workshop and the public 

scoping process and presents the initial screening results and subsequent bundled conceptual 

alternatives. 

An alternative consists of two system hubs connected by a specific route. 

The objective of this phase of the study was to consider all unique alignment segments and, upon 

assessing their contribution to the project’s goals, to combine them into bundled alternatives consisting 

of alignment, stations and modes. The initial segments utilized in the ROA process were identified based 

on previous planning initiatives and corridor studies conducted throughout the APRCS study area. The 

locations of possible system hubs, which in turn define the ends of the study system, were determined 

from land use and socioeconomic information, as well as agency and public scoping input. The overall 

process is illustrated in Figure 1. 

 Figure 1: Range of Alternatives Process 
Range of Alternatives Technical Memorandum 

2 

2.0 Previous Study Corridors 

All alignment segments used in developing the initial ROA are based on efforts of previous studies. 

These studies include state-wide transportation plans by ADOT, major corridor studies, as well as transit 

studies and regional transportation programs of the Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG), the 

Pima Association of Governments (PAG), and Pinal County. Although many studies have evaluated the 

corridors represented by these segments, the main sources used to develop the initial APRCS segments 

were the following: 

x ADOT Statewide Transportation Planning Framework Study (bqAZ) 

x ADOT North-South Corridor Study 

x ADOT I-10 Phoenix / Tucson Bypass Study 

x MAG Commuter Rail System Study 

x MAG Regional Transportation Program (RTP) 

x PAG Regional Transportation Program (RTP) 

x Pinal County Comprehensive Plan 

These previous study corridors are shown graphically in Figure 2 and Figure 3. 
Range of Alternatives Technical Memorandum

Figure 2: Previous Study Corridors (Northern Study Area)

3 
Range of Alternatives Technical Memorandum

Figure 3: Previous Study Corridors (Southern Study Area)

4 
Range of Alternatives Technical Memorandum 

5 

3.0 Alternatives 

The alternatives to be evaluated in the study will reflect those that best meet the Purpose and Need. 

While not required in an Alternatives Analysis, a No-Build and a Baseline Alternative are required as part 

of the Tier I EIS process. With that in mind, the federally mandated alternatives are identified now and 

will be further refined once the Tier I EIS is completed later in the project. 

3.1 No-Build Alternative 

A No-Build Alternative is required by NEPA to be part of the study process. It includes all transportation 

facilities and services programmed for implementation within the APRCS study area. This alternative 

includes roadway and highway improvements identified in the Transportation Improvement Programs 

(TIPs) of the MAG, Central Arizona Association of Governments (CAAG), and PAG, but no additional 

significant improvements. Programmed improvements include: 

x Interstate 10: Construction of local express lanes between 32nd Street and Loop 202.

x Interstate 10: Roadway widening from four to six general purpose lanes and the addition of an 

HOV lane from Loop 202 to Riggs Road.

x Interstate 10: Roadway widening and lane additions between Florence Boulevard and State 

Route 87.

x Interstate 10: Roadway widening from six to eight lanes between Ina Road and Prince Road.

x Interstate 19: Roadway widening from four to eight lanes between San Xavier Road and 

Interstate 10.

x State Route 77: Roadway widening from four to six lanes between Tangerine Road and the Pima 

County line.

x Maricopa-Casa Grande Highway: Roadway widening from two to four lanes between State 

Route 84 and State Route 347. 

3.2 Baseline Alternative 

A Baseline Alternative includes all programmed transportation facilities and service improvements 

included in the No-Build Alternative, as well as transportation system management (TSM) 

enhancements. TSM would include relatively low-cost safety, operational, and capacity enhancements 

to the existing transportation system. This alternative would not include a major guideway investment 

and would represent a less-capital intensive improvement strategy to address project goals within the 

study area. The Baseline Alternative would be mainly focused on increased bus service and selected 

facility improvements, and serves as the basis of performance comparison in the Federal Transportation 

Administration’s (FTA) “New Starts” grant process. 
Range of Alternatives Technical Memorandum 

6 

3.3 Alignment Segments 

Forty-three separate alignment segments were identified based on the transportation plans and 

corridor studies discussed in Section 2.0. The individual segments can be combined to form 151 unique 

alignments connecting the Tucson and Phoenix metropolitan areas. The segments fall within various 

county and local government jurisdictions, as well as different types of land ownership classifications 

including tribal land, State Trust land, and property controlled by the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) and 

the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The segments vary in length from 1.5 miles to 69.1 miles, and 

also vary in width from a narrow one- quarter mile corridor to a swath over 5 miles wide. Where 

possible, segments follow an existing or planned transportation corridor such as the Interstate 10 rightof-way, a Union Pacific (UP) Railroad alignment, or alignment options for the concurrent North-South 

Corridor Study. All alignment segments are shown in Figure 4 and Figure 5 and described in the 

following section. 
Range of Alternatives Technical Memorandum

Figure 4: Alignment Segments (Northern Study Area) 

7 
Range of Alternatives Technical Memorandum

Figure 5: Alignment Segments (Southern Study Area) 

8 
Range of Alternatives Technical Memorandum 

9 

3.3.1 Maricopa County Alignment Segments 

Sixteen alignment segments fall within Maricopa County. The length of the alignment segments within 

Maricopa County ranges from 1.5 miles (Segment 7) to 69.1 miles (Segment 13). The 16 segments 

provide potential access to major features such as Downtown Phoenix, PHX Sky Harbor, Tempe / 

Arizona State University, as well as Chandler and the Gila River Indian Community. Table 1 provides a 

breakdown of each Maricopa County alignment segment and describes adjacent jurisdictions, land 

ownership, other existing or planned transportation alignments within the segment, as well as previous 

studies that have evaluated that segment. 
Range of Alternatives Technical Memorandum 

10 

Table 1: Maricopa County Alternative Segments Summary 

Alignment

Segment 

Length

(Miles)

Adjacent 

Jurisdictions 

Land 

Status 

Major Features Existing/Planned

Alignment 

Previous 

Study 

1 28.7 

Phoenix; 

Avondale; 

Gila River Indian 

Community 

Tribal Land South and west of 

South Mountain; 

Wild Horse Pass 

SR 202 SR 202 

Corridor 

2 5.9 

Phoenix Private Downtown 

Phoenix; PHX Sky 

Harbor 

UP Rail MAG 

Commuter Rail 

3 3.9 

Phoenix; Tempe Private Downtown 

Tempe 

UP Rail MAG 

Commuter Rail 

4 4.4 Phoenix, Tempe Private PHX Sky Harbor I-10; SR 143 I-10 Widening

5 8.3 

Tempe; Mesa Private ASU UP Rail; Metro 

LR 

MAG 

Commuter 

Rail; Mesa 

Extension 

6 2.2 

Tempe Private Downtown 

Tempe 

UP Rail MAG 

Commuter Rail 

7 1.5 

Phoenix; Tempe Private Downtown 

Phoenix 

US 60 bqAZ

8 6.0 Tempe; Mesa Private None US 60 bqAZ

9 23.5 

Mesa; Apache 

Junction 

State Trust None US 60 bqAZ; 

Superstition 

Vistas Report 

11 7.5 

Phoenix, Tempe,

Chandler 

Private East of South 

Mountain Park 

I-10 I-10 Widening

12 7.4 

Tempe; Chandler Private W. Chandler Blvd 

CBD*; Wild Horse 

Pass 

UP Rail; Tempe 

Branch 

MAG 

Commuter Rail 

13 69.1 

Goodyear BLM None Future Interstate Hassayampa 

Framework 

Study 

14 27.7 

Gila River Indian 

Community; 

Maricopa; 

Ak-Chin Indian 

Community; 

Casa Grande 

Tribal Land Downtown 

Maricopa; Wild 

Horse Pass 

SR 347; 

Maricopa-Casa 

Grande Freeway 

bqAZ

15 13.9 

Gila River Indian 

Community 

Tribal Land Wild Horse Pass I-10 I-10 Widening; 

bqAZ 

16 12.3 

Chandler; Gilbert Private Downtown 

Chandler 

Chandler Branch; 

UP Rail 

MAG 

Commuter Rail 

17 26.3 

Gilbert; Mesa; 

Queen Creek 

Private None South-East 

Branch; UP Rail 

MAG 

Commuter Rail 

*Central Business District 
Range of Alternatives Technical Memorandum 

11 

3.3.2 Pinal County Alignment Segments 

Nineteen alignment segments are located within Pinal County. The segments vary in length from 3.1 

miles (Segment 36) to 28.3 miles (Segment 19). The Pinal County segments provide potential access to 

Downtown Florence, Coolidge, Casa Grande, Eloy, Sacaton, and the Central Arizona Community College. 

Table 2 provides a breakdown of each Pinal County segment and describes adjacent jurisdictions, land 

ownership, other existing or planned transportation alignments within the segment, as well as previous 

studies related to that segment. 
Range of Alternatives Technical Memorandum 

12 

Table 2: Pinal County Alternative Segments Summary 

Alignment

Segment 

Length

(Miles)

Adjacent 

Jurisdictions 

Land 

Status 

Major Features Existing/Planned

Alignment 

Previous 

Study 

18 15.0 Queen Creek, 

Florence 

Private None North-South 

Corridor 

North-South 

Corridor Study 

20 6.7 Gila River Indian 

Community 

Tribal Land None SR 587 bqAZ

21 25.1 Gila River Indian 

Community 

Tribal Land None UP Rail 

Alignment; SR 87 

bqAZ

22 9.1 

Florence; Gila 

River Indian 

Community 

State Trust; 

Tribal Land 

None UP Rail 

Alignment 

bqAZ

23 5.0 Florence Private None UP Rail 

Alignment 

bqAZ

24 10.4 Florence Private None North-South 

Corridor 

bqAZ

26 12.1 

Gila River Indian 

Community; 

Casa Grande 

Tribal Land; 

State Trust 

None I-10 I-10 Widening; 

bqAZ 

27 9.8 

Casa Grande Private None Future 

Interstate 

Hassayampa

Framework 

Study 

28 12.6 

Coolidge Private Central Arizona 

College 

Future 

Interstate 

Hassayampa

Framework 

Study 

29 3.8 

Gila River Indian 

Community; 

Coolidge 

Tribal Land Downtown 

Coolidge 

UP Rail 

Alignment 

bqAZ

30 8.0 

Florence State Trust Downtown 

Florence 

SR 79 Superstition 

Scenarios 

Report 

31 14.7 Casa Grande Private Downtown Casa 

Grande 

UP Rail 

Alignment 

bqAZ

32 9.8 Casa Grande Private None I-10 I-10 Widening; 

bqAZ 

33 12.5 Casa Grande; 

Eloy 

Private Downtown Eloy I-10; UP Rail 

Alignment 

bqAZ

34 15.4 Coolidge; Eloy Private None UP Rail 

Alignment 

bqAZ

35 17.8 Coolidge State Trust; 

BOR 

None North-South 

Corridor 

North-South 

Corridor Study 

36 3.1 None State Trust None I-10; UP Rail 

Alignment 

bqAZ

37 18.3 None State Trust None I-10; UP Rail 

Alignment 

bqAZ

38 23.8 Marana State Trust; 

BLM 

None East North-South 

Corridor 

North-South 

Corridor Study 
Range of Alternatives Technical Memorandum 

13 

3.3.3 Pima County Alignment Segments 

Five alignment segments fall within Pima County. The segments vary in length from 3.9 miles (Segment 

40) to 50.9 miles (Segment 39). The segments within Pima County provide access to Marana, Oro Valley, 

Downtown Tucson, and the Tucson International Airport (TIA). Table 3 provides a breakdown of each 

Pima County segment and describes adjacent jurisdictions, land ownership, other existing or planned 

transportation alignments within the segment, as well as related previous studies. 

Table 3: Pima County Alternative Segments Summary 

Alignment

Segment 

Length

(Miles)

Adjacent 

Jurisdictions 

Land 

Status 

Major Features Existing/Planned

Alignment 

Previous 

Study 

39 50.9 

Oro Valley; 

Tucson 

State Trust; 

BLM 

West of Coronado 

National Forest; 

Downtown 

Tucson 

SR 79; SR 77 bqAZ

40 3.9 Marana Private Marana 10; UP Rail bqAZ

41 38.5 

Marana; Tucson State Trust; 

BOR 

West of Saguaro 

National Park; 

Downtown 

Marana 

None PAG RTP

I-10 Bypass 

42 21.2 

Marana; Tucson Private Marana; 

Downtown 

Tucson 

10; UP Rail bqAZ

43 6.8 

Tucson; San 

Xavier Indian 

Reservation 

Private Downtown 

Tucson 

10, I19, UP Rail 

Alignment 

bqAZ

3.4 Stations

Thirty-eight potential station locations were identified as part of the ROA process. The locations of these 

potential stations are based on data collection, assessment of existing and future conditions, previous 

studies, and stakeholder and agency input workshops which are described in Sections 4.0 and 5.0 of this 

document. 

Section 3.4.1 describes the different station types used to create Bundled Alternatives. All potential 

station locations are described by county in Sections 3.4.2 through 3.4.4. 

3.4.1 Station Types 

Stations will be paired with segments to create Bundled Alternatives. Different types of stations – 

System Hub, Regional, and Local -- are proposed according to service characteristics, land use and urban 

form. An overview of these station types and service characteristics is provided below. Subsequent 

work tasks will describe the land use and urban form characteristics of each station type in more detail. 
Range of Alternatives Technical Memorandum 

14 

System Hub Stations

System hubs serve as an end-of-line station of the passenger rail corridor for both Intercity and 

Commuter Rail service. Only a select group of locations were identified as potential system hubs. These 

include Downtown Phoenix, Tempe/ASU, PHX Sky Harbor, Downtown Tucson, and TIA. 

Intermediate Stations 

Intermediate stations include both regional stations and local stations, as described below. 

Regional Stations – Serve Intercity and Commuter Rail service and function as major intermediate 

stations. Regional stations will have multiple access options, transit supportive land use policies and will 

be transportation gathering centers for the corridor. The location of the regional stations was 

determined by considering anticipated travel characteristics and agency and public preferences related 

to how intercity travel is likely to evolve over time. In general, regional stations are located at 

downtown locations, a central location in the corridor to aid in gathering and distributing trips, at major 

commercial airports, and at the edge of the urban areas to serve as a collector location for trips traveling 

to the opposite end of the corridor. 

Local Stations – Serve Commuter Rail only. The function of local stations is to help move daily trips 

efficiently throughout the corridor. Agencies and the public selected locations that represented the 

most likely candidates to carry daily trips throughout the corridor based on where major activities are 

located within each community and their proximity to the identified segments. 

Figure 6 and Figure 7 show all 38 potential station locations identified throughout the study area. 
Range of Alternatives Technical Memorandum

Figure 6: Potential Stations (Northern Study Area) 

15 
Range of Alternatives Technical Memorandum

Figure 7: Potential Stations (Southern Study Area) 

16 
Range of Alternatives Technical Memorandum

17 

3.4.2 Maricopa County Stations

Nineteen potential stations have been identified within Maricopa County. Table 4 describes the 

potential connections that Maricopa County stations have to existing and planned transportation 

corridors and major activity centers. 

Seven locations connect to existing or planned high capacity transit (HCT) systems, including Metro Light 

Rail, and 16 of the 19 locations are located within illustrative HCT peak corridors described in the MAG 

RTP. Nine locations also connect to regional bike plan corridors, and eight locations are located adjacent 

to existing private rail alignments. Major features of the station locations include the MC-85 and US-60 

Grand Avenue corridors, along with direct connections to activity centers including the Central Avenue 

corridor, Downtown Phoenix, ASU, Mill Avenue, Downtown Tempe, Mesa Arts Center, and PHX Sky 

Harbor. 
Range of Alternatives Technical Memorandum

18 

Table 4: Maricopa County Station Connection Summary 

Station Connects to 

Planned / 

Existing HCT 

Connects to RTP

Illustrative 

Transit Corridors 

Connects to 

Regional Bike 

Plan Corridor 

Connects to 

Existing Freight 

Rail Alignment 

Major Features

Avondale No Yes Yes Yes MC 85 Corridor

Buckeye No Yes No Yes MC 85 Corridor

Chandler No Yes Yes Yes Chandler Municipal Center

S. Price Corridor Hi 

Tech Center

No No No No Employment Centers

W. Chandler Blvd. 

CBD

No Yes Yes Yes SR-202 & I-10 Park-and-Ride

Wild Horse Pass No No No No

Gila River Indian

Community

Gilbert No Yes Yes Yes

Businesses and 

entertainment

Glendale Yes Yes No Yes US-60 Corridor

Goodyear No Yes No Yes MC-85 Corridor

Mesa No Yes Yes No

Mesa Arts Center / Civic 

Center

LRT End Station East Yes Yes Yes No Downtown Mesa

Phoenix Mesa 

Gateway Airport

No No No No Planned Terminal

Peoria No Yes No No US-60 Corridor

Downtown Phoenix Yes

Yes

Yes No

Businesses and 

Entertainment

PHX Sky Harbor Yes Yes Yes No PHX Sky Harbor Airport

LRT End Station 

West

Yes Yes No No I-10 and 79th Avenue

Queen Creek No Yes No No

Businesses and 

Entertainment

Surprise Yes Yes No Yes US-60 Corridor

Tempe / ASU Yes

Yes

Yes No

ASU

Businesses and 

Entertainment 

Source: MAG Regional Transportation Plan (2010 Update), MAG Regional Bike Map (2008)

Table 5 describes the demographic characteristics associated with each Maricopa County station, using a 

5-mile circular buffer to represent the station’s catchment area. Within the 5-mile area around the 

station, Glendale has the highest population with 473,130 people and Downtown Phoenix has the 

highest employment with 438,494 people. Downtown Phoenix and Buckeye share the largest lowincome populations at 13%. Downtown Phoenix also has the largest population with zero automobile 

ownership, and LRT End Station West has the largest minority population among the Maricopa County 

stations. 

Table 5: Maricopa County Station Catchment Area Summary 
Range of Alternatives Technical Memorandum

19 

Station Population

Within

5 Mile Buffer

Employment

Within

5 Mile Buffer

% Low Income 

(Under 25k) 

Within

5 Mile Buffer

% Zero Auto

Ownership 

Within

5 Mile Buffer

% Minority 

Population 

Within

5 Mile Buffer

Avondale 146,272 43,648 6% 3% 41%

Buckeye 28,036 5,568 13% 3% 34%

Chandler 268,853 95,790 4% 3% 24%

S. Price Corridor Hi 

Tech Center

190,551 81,200 4% 3% 26%

W. Chandler Blvd. CBD 160,763 102,779 4% 3% 26%

Wild Horse Pass 102,745 68,327 3% 2% 24%

Gilbert 357,349 116,076 5% 5% 25%

Glendale 473,130 120,298 8% 9% 41%

Goodyear 41,947 8,447 8% 3% 32%

Mesa 354,700 132,374 8% 7% 28%

LRT End Station East 339,922 114,315 7% 6% 25%

Phoenix Mesa 

Gateway Airport

80,845 10,325 4% 12% 37%

Peoria 298,071 81,514 8% 7% 28%

Downtown Phoenix 361,949 438,494 13% 14% 47%

PHX Sky Harbor 310,313 353,611 12% 2% 17%

LRT End Station West 311,937 76,932 7% 7% 49%

Queen Creek 65,488 7,146 4% 2% 22%

Surprise 176,430 26,855 9% 4% 17%

Tempe / ASU 303,518 308,421 11% 9% 34%

Source: Demographic data originates from the AZ Statewide Model at the Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) level, and 2010 US Census
Range of Alternatives Technical Memorandum

20 

3.4.3 Pinal County Stations

Nine potential stations have been identified within Pinal County. Table 6 describes the potential 

connections of each station to existing and planned transportation corridors and major activity centers. 

No locations connect to existing or planned HCT systems, while four locations are located within 

illustrative HCT corridors described in the Pinal County Multimodal Circulation Plan. Five locations also 

connect to designated multi-use trail corridors, and five locations are located adjacent to existing private 

rail alignments. Major features of the station locations include the Interstate 10 and North-South 

Corridor Study corridors, along with direct connections to the downtown businesses of Apache Junction, 

Casa Grande, Coolidge, Florence, Maricopa, and Sacaton. 

Table 6: Pinal County Station Connection Summary 

Station Connects to 

Planned / 

Existing HCT

Connects to 

Circulation Plan 

Illustrative Transit 

Corridors

Connects to 

Regional 

Bike Plan 

Corridor

Connects to 

Existing Freight 

Rail Alignment

Major Features

Apache Junction No No Yes Yes Downtown 

Businesses 

Casa Grande No No Yes Yes

Downtown 

Businesses

Central Arizona 

College

No No No No

Campus 

Facilities

Coolidge No Yes No Yes

Downtown 

Businesses

Eloy No Yes Yes Yes I-10 Corridor

Florence No Yes Yes No

Downtown 

Businesses

Maricopa No Yes Yes Yes

Downtown 

Businesses

Sacaton No No No No

Downtown 

Businesses

Superstition Vistas 

(Future Activity 

Center)

No No No No

North-South 

Study Corridor

Source: Pinal County Comprehensive Plan (2009)

Table 7 describes the demographic characteristics associated with each Pinal County station, using a 5-

mile circular buffer to represent the station’s catchment area. Within the 5-mile area around the station, 

Apache Junction has the highest population with 90,645 people, while employment was highest in Casa 

Grande at 16,123 employees. Sacaton has the largest low-income and minority populations with 12% 

and 81%, respectively. Coolidge and Casa Grande share the highest zero automobile ownership 

households within all Pinal County stations. 
Range of Alternatives Technical Memorandum

21 

Table 7: Pinal County Station Catchment Area Summary 

Station Population

Within

5 Mile Buffer

Employment

Within

5 Mile Buffer

% Low Income 

(Under 25k) 

Within

5 Mile Buffer

% Zero 

Auto

Ownership 

Within

5 Mile 

Buffer

% Minority 

Population 

Within

5 Mile 

Buffer

Apache Junction 90,645 13,869 9% 6% 12%

Casa Grande

51,020 16,123 8% 8% 32%

Central Arizona College 9,282 1,762 5% 7% 37%

Coolidge 16,077 2,833 9% 8% 38%

Eloy 10,556 1,796 10% 7% 43%

Florence 8,064 4,372 8% 5% 31%

Maricopa 41,555 3,158 9% 4% 36%

Sacaton 3,780 1,527 12% 4% 81%

Superstition Vistas 

(Future Activity Cetner)

5,666 152 6% 2% 19%

Source: Demographic data originates from the AZ Statewide Model at the Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) level, and 2010 US Census
Range of Alternatives Technical Memorandum

22 

3.4.4 Pima County Stations

Ten potential stations have been identified within Pima County. Table 8 describes the potential 

connections of these stations to existing and planned transportation corridors and major activity 

centers. Three Downtown Tucson locations connect to an existing or planned HCT system and eight 

locations connect to planned transit corridors described in the PAG RTP. The three Downtown Tucson 

stations connect to a regional bike plan corridor, and five of the total locations are located adjacent to 

existing private rail. Major features of stations within Pima County include the Interstate 10 and State 

Route 77 corridors, along with direct connections to major activity centers such as TIA, Downtown 

Tucson, and the University of Arizona. 

Table 8: Southern Station Connections Summary 

Station Connects to 

Planned / 

Existing HCT

Connects to RTP

Illustrative Transit 

Corridors

Connects to 

Regional 

Bike Plan 

Corridor

Connects to 

Existing Freight 

Rail Alignment

Major Features

Marana

(Ina Rd / I-10) No Yes No Yes I-10 Corridor

Marana (Marana Rd / 

Sandario Rd) No Yes No Yes I-10 Corridor

Marana

(Tangerine Rd / I-10) No Yes No Yes I-10 Corridor

Oro Valley No Yes No No

SR-77 Corridor

Commercial 

Center

Historic Train Depot Yes Yes Yes Yes

Businesses and 

Entertainment

Raytheon No No No No

Employment 

Center

Rio Nuevo Yes Yes Yes No

Businesses and 

Entertainment

Tucson International 

Airport

No Yes No No

TIA Airport 

Facilities

University of Arizona Yes Yes Yes No

Campus 

Facilities

U of A Research 

Center

No No No Yes

Employment 

Center

Source: PAG 2040 Regional Transportation Plan
Range of Alternatives Technical Memorandum

23 

Table 9 describes the demographic characteristics associated with Pima County stations, using a 5-mile 

circular buffer to represent the station’s catchment area. Within the 5-mile area around the station, 

Historic Depot has the highest population with 281,495 people and University of Arizona has the highest 

employment with 186,525 people. All three Downtown Tucson locations share the highest percentage 

of low income population and zero automobile ownership with 19% and 13%, respectively. The 

Raytheon station location has the largest percentage of minority population of all Pima County stations 

with 43%. 

Table 9: Southern Station Catchment Area Summary 

Station Population

Within

5 Mile Buffer

Employment

Within

5 Mile Buffer

% Low Income 

(Under 25k) 

Within

5 Mile Buffer

% Zero 

Auto

Ownership 

Within

5 Mile 

Buffer

% Minority 

Population 

Within

5 Mile 

Buffer

Marana (Ina Rd / I-10) 4,564 3,867 6% 2% 17%

Marana (Marana Rd / 

Sandario Rd) 8,730 4,135 7% 3% 17%

Marana 

(Tangerine Rd / I-10) 17,079 5,182 6% 3% 16%

Oro Valley 39,897 7,152 4% 2% 11%

Historic Depot 281,495 167,558 19% 13% 32%

Raytheon 100,142 40,100 13% 9% 43%

Rio Nuevo 270,865 157,257 19% 13% 33%

Tucson International 

Airport

113,898 54,520 14% 9% 42%

University of Arizona 277,862 186,525 19% 13% 30%

University of Arizona 

Research Center

27,458 19,281 7% 3% 24%

Source: Demographic data originates from the AZ Statewide Model at the Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) level, and 2010 US Census 
Range of Alternatives Technical Memorandum

24 

3.5 Modes 

Three transportation modes were examined to connect Tucson and Phoenix metropolitan areas: bus, 

rail and air. Personal auto was not considered as a mode in this analysis because it has been and is 

being addressed as part of other studies within the region, such as the North-South Corridor Study. The 

characteristics and feasibility of each mode are detailed below.

Bus

Average Cost per Mile: $0.92 

CO2 Emissions: 56 g/pass-mile 

Energy Use : 749 BTU/pass-mile 

Implementation Status: No current plans for exclusive right-of-way for buses between Tucson and 

Phoenix. There is existing bus service on I-10. 

Potential Service Characteristics: Opportunity for stations in many intermediate communities between 

Tucson and Phoenix, offering a range of connection options. 

Rail

Average Cost per Mile: $0.63 

CO2 Emissions: 160 g/pass-mile 

Energy Use: 1850 BTU/pass-mile 

Implementation Status: Rail connection between Tucson and Phoenix identified in State Rail Plan. 

Potential Service Characteristics: Opportunity for stations in a limited number of communities between 

Tucson and Phoenix. 

Air

Average Cost per Mile: $16.13 

CO2 Emissions: 243 g/pass-mile 

Energy Use: 3260 BTU/pass-mile 

Implementation Status: No current plans for expansion of air service between Tucson and Phoenix. 

 

Potential Service Characteristics: Limited to stations in Mesa, Phoenix, and Tucson. 

Due to the cost and limited service characteristics of air, only the bus and rail modes were advanced. 

 

 Bureau of Transportation Statistics, 2011 
Range of Alternatives Technical Memorandum

25 

4.0 Community Support Team Meetings – Workshop Summary 

In June 2011, three separate Corridor Support Team (CST) meetings were held as part of the Study 

where agency representatives throughout the corridor were invited to participate in the development of 

the range of alternatives for this study. The goal of these meetings was to inform stakeholders of the 

purpose of the study, as well as to gain valuable input that could be utilized throughout the project. The 

meetings were held at three separate locations: Tucson, Coolidge, and Phoenix, and included several 

work sessions focusing on different aspects of the study. 

A ROA workshop was held as part of each CST meeting. In this session, participants were divided into 

small groups, and provided with a map of the overall study area which included outlines of the 

alignment segments identified in previous transportation studies. The groups were asked to identify 

potential rail alignments and potential station locations using string, stickers, and markers. Groups were 

also asked to record the overall purpose or goal of each alignment, as well as the type of service (local 

service or express service) which would best serve that purpose. 

This section is a summary of the information gathered from each CST meeting. It also contains 

breakdowns on the frequency with which specific alignments and station locations were identified by 

workshop participants. Figure 8 shows the overall total results of the three ROA workshops, including 

the frequency with which alignment segments and stations were selected. 
Range of Alternatives Technical Memorandum

Figure 8: ROA Workshop Results Summary 

26 
Range of Alternatives Technical Memorandum

27 

4.1 Northern CST 

The Northern CST meeting, held in Phoenix, had the highest attendance, with seven separate groups 

participating in the ROA workshop. These groups identified local service alignments with an average 

length of 120 miles, and an average travel time of 86 minutes. The participants also located an average 

of 3.6 stations per alignment. The groups also identified an express service, which would follow the 

same alignment as local service but with fewer intermediate stops and a faster travel time. The express 

option had an average of 1.6 stations and average of 71 minutes of travel time. A number of trip 

purposes or goals were recorded for each potential alternative. The most common of these were: 

x Creating a commuter route connected to residential areas; 

x Creating connections to future and existing employment centers; and 

x Providing connections to airports and future light rail / BRT systems. 

The overall results for the Northern CST are summarized in Table 10 and Table 11. These tables 

summarize the recommendations by the workshop participates, detailing the overall recommended 

alignment and the number of times a specific station location was desired, respectively. 

 Table 10: Northern CST Alignment Results Summary 

Local Service Express Service

Average Distance (miles) 120 120

Average Travel Time (min) 86 71 

Average Number of 

Intermediate Stations 

3.6 1.6

Stated Trip Purposes - Commuter route connected to residential areas

- Connections to future and existing employment centers 

- Modal connections to airports and future light rail / BRT 
Range of Alternatives Technical Memorandum

28 

Table 11: Northern CST Desired Station Location Summary 

Location 

Station Type

System Hub 

Intermediate Station

Local Service Express Service

Downtown Phoenix 9

PHX Sky Harbor 2 4 3

Tempe/ ASU 1 3

South Tempe 1

Chandler 1

Williams - Gateway 4 1

Wildhorse Pass 1

Maricopa 2

Casa Grande 6 1

Florence 2

Coolidge 3 2

Eloy 2

Marana 12

Downtown Tucson 8 1

Tucson International Airport 5

 

In the Northern CST, the most desired system hub locations were Downtown Phoenix and Downtown 

Tucson. The most desired intermediate stations were PHX Sky Harbor, Tempe/ASU, Williams-Gateway, 

Casa Grande, and Marana. Phoenix Sky Harbor and Coolidge were the most desired intermediate 

stations for express service. 

Along with specific alignments, station locations, and trip purposes, general comments and observations 

were sought from participants. In the Northern CST ROA workshop, these general comments included a 

discussion of how system hubs should be multi-purpose in nature, and should serve different markets 

for employment and entertainment centers, and offer adequate parking for commuter trips. There was 

also an emphasis placed on connecting the future alignment to existing and planned transportation 

infrastructure. Specific examples included Amtrak, proposed streetcars, airports, park-and-ride facilities, 

and carsharing locations. 

Other considerations suggested included working closely with Native American Communities and 

minimizing harmful impacts on sensitive wildlife areas. Comments also represented the debate of 

whether the proposed system should consider future growth, or focus on areas with existing population 

and employment centers. 

4.2 Central CST 

The Central CST meeting was held in Coolidge, with three groups participating in the ROA workshop. The 

participants identified several alignment alternatives with an average distance of 128 miles, an average 

travel time of 94 minutes for local service, and 78 minutes for express service, where the express service 

would follow the same alignment as local service, but with fewer intermediate stops resulting in a 
Range of Alternatives Technical Memorandum

29 

shorter travel time. The alignments included an average of 3.6 station locations per 

alternative for local service, and 1.5 for express service. Participants voiced their opinions on various trip 

purposes, which included: 

x A connection to employment and residential centers; 

x Serving existing population centers; 

x Having the highest overall travel speed; 

x Maximizing connections and service area; and 

x The service of existing and future employment centers. 

The overall results for the Central CST are summarized in Table 12 and Table 13. These tables 

summarize the recommendations by the workshop participates, detailing the overall recommended 

alignment and the number of times a specific station location was desired, respectively. 

 

Table 12: Central CST Results Summary 

Local Service Express Service

Average Distance (miles) 128 128

Average Travel Time (min) 94 78

Average Number of Intermediate

Stations 

3.6 1.5

Stated Trip Purposes - Connections to employment and residential centers

- Serve existing population 

- Highest overall speed

- Maximize connections

- Serve existing and future employment centers 

 Table 13: Central CST Desired Station Location Summary 

Location 

Station Type

System Hubs 

Intermediate Station

Local Service Express Service

Downtown Phoenix 4

PHX Sky Harbor 2

Tempe/ ASU 1

Williams - Gateway 2

Wildhorse Pass 1

Apache Junction 1

Maricopa 1

Casa Grande 3 1

Coolidge 2 1

Eloy 4

Marana 6

Downtown Tucson 4 2

Tucson International Airport 2
Range of Alternatives Technical Memorandum

30 

Downtown Phoenix and Downtown Tucson were the most desired system hub locations for the Central 

CST. The most desired intermediate stations were Casa Grande, Eloy, and Marana. The intermediate 

stations identified for express service were Tempe/ASU, Casa Grande, and Coolidge. 

Comments received during the Central CST meeting heavily emphasized connecting residential and 

employment centers. Comments also stated repeatedly that the future system must accommodate both 

existing and future populations, mentioning the North South Corridor specifically as an opportunity to 

serve the largest potential future population. However, other discussion focused on the importance of 

existing populations, going as far as to suggest population percentage within a certain distance of an 

alignment as an important evaluation criterion. 

4.3 Southern CST 

The Southern CST meeting was held in Tucson, with four groups participating in the ROA workshop. The 

participants of Southern CST identified routes with an average distance of 126 miles, and average travel 

time of 96 minutes for local service, and an average express service travel time of 76 minutes. Local 

service alignments had an average of 4.8 stations, while express alignments had an average of 1.3. The 

purposes and goals of Southern CST alignments included: 

x The prioritization of commuter service; 

x Serving employment centers; 

x Serving existing populations; 

x Providing opportunities for in-fill development; 

x Creating multi-modal connections; and 

x The creation of a primarily inter-city system, connecting the edges of urban areas. 

The overall results for the Southern CST are summarized in Table 14 and Table 15. These tables 

summarize the recommendations by the workshop participates, detailing the overall recommended 

alignment and the number of times a specific station location was desired, respectively. 

 Table 14: Southern CST Results Summary 

Local Service Express Service

Average Distance (miles) 126 126

Average Travel Time (min) 96 76

Average Number of Intermediate

Stations 

4.8 1.3 

Stated Trip Purposes - Commuter service

- Connect to edges of urban areas

- Primarily inter-city

- Serve employment centers

- Serve existing population, in-fill development

- Multi-modal connectivity 
Range of Alternatives Technical Memorandum

31 

In the Southern CST the most desired system hub locations were Downtown Phoenix 

and the Tucson International Airport. The most desired intermediate station locations were PHX Sky 

Harbor, Casa Grande, Marana, and Downtown Tucson. The intermediate stations identified for express 

service were Mesa (light rail terminal), Casa Grande, Florence, and Downtown Tucson. 

The participants in the Southern CST ROA workshop also offered differing comments regarding whether 

the future rail system should focus on existing or future populations, repeatedly mentioning the future 

growth projections along the North South corridor. Other comments included how proposed 

alignments should avoid conflicts with existing Union Pacific Railroad corridors, and how the TIA 

provides an important multi-modal connection. The ideas of speed and efficiency were also reiterated, 

suggesting that too many stops, or too long of an overall travel time would make the system less 

attractive to travelers. 

Table 15: Southern CST Desired Station Location Summary 

Location 

Station Type

System Hub Intermediate Station

Local Service Express Service

Downtown Phoenix 7

PHX Sky Harbor 1 3

Mesa (Center St & Main St) 1

Chandler 1

Williams - Gateway 2

Wildhorse Pass 1

Apache Junction 1

Casa Grande 3 1

Coolidge 2

Florence 1 1

Picacho 1

Marana 5

Oro Valley 1

Tangerine Road 1

Downtown Tucson 3 3 1

Tucson International Airport 5
Range of Alternatives Technical Memorandum

32 

4.4 Corridor Selection Frequency 

The specific alignments identified in each ROA workshop included a wide range of potential routes and 

alternatives. However, the majority of the alignments identified fell into a set of existing or planned 

transportation corridors discussed and analyzed in previous transportation studies within the region. For 

the purposes of this study, a corridor is a specifically identified linear area which could potentially 

accommodate a HCT system. These major corridors include: 

x The existing Interstate 10 corridor between Tucson and Phoenix; 

x The North South Corridor in eastern Pinal County connecting to Interstate 10 near Eloy; 

x The Southeast branch of the Union Pacific Railroad (stretching approximately from Florence, 

through Queen Creek and Gilbert, to Phoenix in the northwest) in conjunction with the Sunset 

Line or Interstate 10 south of Eloy; 

x The UP corridor running north-south through Chandler and connecting to the Sunset Line or 

Interstate 10 south of Eloy, 

x The Maricopa corridor, which utilizes the Maricopa – Casa Grande Highway and State Route 347 

connecting to Interstate 10, and 

x The corridor following State Route 79 connecting to the UP Southeast Branch or State Route 60. 

Table 16 describes the frequency that each of these corridors was chosen for potential intercity rail 

alignments in each of the ROA workshops. Overall, the Interstate 10 and North South Corridor were 

identified most often, with the Southeast Branch also receiving high scores. It is important to note that 

these corridors are not mutually exclusive, and that portions of two or more could be utilized in the 

same alignment. 

 Table 16: Corridor Selection Frequency 

Corridor North Central South Total

Interstate 10 5 4 3 12

North South Corridor 6 3 3 12

Southeast Branch 6 3 2 11

Chandler 1 2 3

Maricopa 1 1 2

State Route 79 1 1
Range of Alternatives Technical Memorandum

33 

4.5 Potential Station Location Selection Frequency 

The potential station locations identified in the three ROA workshops varied. However, some station 

locations were chosen more often than others. Table 17 below shows a breakdown of each potential 

station location, and the frequency with which it was chosen throughout the ROA workshop process. 

The totals listed in the table include system hubs, intermediate stations for local service, and 

intermediate stations for express service. It is important to note that these locations are broad 

generalized areas, and should not be interpreted as specific sites or properties. 

 Table 17: Total Station Location Selection Frequency 

Location 

Station Type

System Hub Intermediate Station

Local Service Express Service

Downtown Phoenix 20

PHX Sky Harbor 5 7 3

Tempe/ ASU 1 3 1

Mesa (Center St & Main St) 1

South Tempe 1

Chandler 2

Williams - Gateway 8 1

Wildhorse Pass 3

Apache Junction 2

Maricopa 3

Casa Grande 12 3

Coolidge 6 4

Florence 3 1

Eloy 6

Picacho State Park 1

Marana 23

Oro Valley 1

Tangerine Road 1

Downtown Tucson 15 6 1

Tucson International Airport 12

In total, among all ROA workshops, Downtown Phoenix, Downtown Tucson, and the Tucson 

International Airport were the most desirable system hub locations. The most desired intermediate 

stations for local service were PHX Sky Harbor, Williams-Gateway, Casa Grande, Coolidge, Eloy, Marana, 

and Downtown Tucson. The intermediate stations desired for express service were PHX Sky Harbor, Casa 

Grande, and Coolidge. 
Range of Alternatives Technical Memorandum

34 

5.0 Scoping 

Public scoping was conducted between October 7th and November 1st, 2011. During the scoping process 

the project team conducted 12 scoping events throughout the study area and received feedback on the 

project. Details of the scoping process are detailed in the Scoping Report. 

No additional routing options or potential stations were identified during scoping. Participants 

confirmed the proposed potential stations and alignments to be examined as part of this study process. 

6.0 Initial Screening 

The initial screening process was conducted evaluating the route locations, stations and service types. 

The screening of route alignments focused on the potential route locations using detailed analysis 

parameters in the categories of infringement on sensitive environments, length, potential ridership, 

institutional considerations, existing transportation uses, and compatibility with local land use plans. 

The screening of potential station locations was conducted for both commuter and intercity station 

locations using analysis parameters related to potential transportation connections and travel markets. 

The screening process is detailed in the Initial Screening Working Paper. 
Range of Alternatives Technical Memorandum

35 

7.0 Bundled Alternatives 

Stations and alignments were combined to create bundled alternatives based on results of initial 

screening. The bundled alternatives, described below, connect Tucson and the Phoenix area with 

various system hub locations throughout each region. The alignments follow the segments previously 

identified with stations connecting the core areas of existing and future population and employment 

centers. 

The bundled alternatives include the following: 

x I-10 HOV/Busway - utilize exclusive guideway and HOV improvements on I-10 to provide bus 

service connecting Tucson to Phoenix. 

x UP - utilize the existing UP rail corridor between Tucson to Phoenix. 

x I-10 - utilize the I-10 corridor between Tucson and Phoenix. 

x North-South/UP Southeast Branch – utilize the I-10 corridor to the new North South Corridor, 

connecting to the UP Southeast Branch into Phoenix. 

x I-10/UP Chandler Branch - utilize either the I-10 or UP Sunset Line right of way between Tucson 

and Casa Grande, north to Sacaton to connect to the UP Chandler Branch. 

x Central Pinal/Eastern Maricopa - utilize the I-10 corridor to the new North South Corridor, 

connecting to the US 60 corridor. 

x Western Pinal/UP Tempe Branch - utilize either the I-10 or UP Sunset Line right of way between 

Tucson and Casa Grande, traverse west to connect to the City of Maricopa and then north to the 

UP Tempe Branch, ending in Downtown Tempe. 

The bundled alternatives will be refined in the Alternatives Analysis process. 

8.0 Next Steps 

The ROA process introduces all possible route alignments and system hub locations that have been 

evaluated as part of the APRCS study process. The information from the ROA process will be utilized in 

the Alternatives Analysis. 
 

Section 4(f) and 6(f) Resources Appendix
Section 4(f) and 6(f) Resources Appendix-1 

Section 4(f) and 6(f) Resources Appendix

The resources listed in the following tables are shown on Maps 1-91 of the Corridor Aerial Atlas 

Appendix.

Table F-1. 6(f) Resources in the Corridor Alternatives

Name of Resource Type of Resource Jurisdiction or Owner

Southern Hub to Eloy – Yellow and Orange Corridor Alternatives

Santa Cruz River Park Park – county and city Tucson P&R/

Pima NRPR

Armory Park (previously Military Plaza Park) 

and Senior Center

Park – city Tucson P&R

Menlo Park Park – city Tucson P&R

David G. Herrera and Ramon Quiroz Park 

(previously Oury Park)

Park – city Tucson P&R

Catalina Park Park – city Tucson P&R

El Rio Golf Course Recreation Area – public 

golf course

Tucson P&R

Francisco Elias Esquer Park Park – city Tucson P&R

Manuel Valenzuela Alvarez Park Park – city Tucson P&R

Juhan Park Park – city Tucson P&R

Silverbell Municipal Golf Course Recreation Area – public 

golf course

Tucson P&R

Jacobs Park Park – city Tucson P&R

Flowing Wells High School Tennis Courts Recreation Area – school Tucson P&R

Flowing Wells Park Park – county Pima NRPR

Wildwood Neighborhood Park Park – county Pima NRPR

Denny Dunn Neighborhood Park Park – county Pima NRPR

Orna Mae Harn District Park (formerly 

Marana Park)

Park – city Marana P&R

Picacho Peak State Park Park – state Arizona State Parks

Eloy to Northern Hub – Yellow Alternative

East Park Park – city Coolidge P&R
Section 4(f) and 6(f) Resources Appendix

Section 4(f) and 6(f) Resources Appendix-2 

Table F-1. 6(f) Resources in the Corridor Alternatives

Name of Resource Type of Resource Jurisdiction or Owner

Kleinman Park and Softball Fields Park – city Mesa P&R

Escalante Park Park – city Tempe RS

Alegre Park Park – city Tempe RS

Selleh Park Park – city Tempe RS

Meyer Park Park – city Tempe RS

Hudson Park Park – city Tempe RS

Clark Park Park – city Tempe RS

Papago Park Park – city Phoenix P&R

Papago Municipal Golf Course Recreation Area – public 

golf course

Phoenix P&R

Nuestro Park Park – city Phoenix P&R

Central Park Park – city Phoenix P&R

Eloy to Northern Hub – Orange Alternative

Augusta Ranch Park Park – city Mesa P&R

Kingsborough Park Park – city Mesa P&R

Emerald Park Park – city Mesa P&R

Sherwood Park Park – city Mesa P&R

Dobson Ranch Golf Course Recreation Area – public 

golf course

Mesa P&R

Rotary Park Park – city Tempe RS

Selleh Park Park – city Tempe RS

Alegre Park Park – city Tempe RS

Escalante Park Park – city Tempe RS

Riverview Softball Complex/Soccer Field Recreation Area – athletic 

fields

Mesa P&R

Papago Park Park – city Phoenix P&R

Papago Municipal Golf Course Recreation Area – public 

golf course

Phoenix P&R
Section 4(f) and 6(f) Resources Appendix

Section 4(f) and 6(f) Resources Appendix-3 

Table F-1. 6(f) Resources in the Corridor Alternatives

Name of Resource Type of Resource Jurisdiction or Owner

Nuestro Park Park – city Phoenix P&R

Central Park Park – city Phoenix P&R

Source: Arizona State Parks, 2013; National Park Service, 2013a. a During Tier 2 additional research would be conducted on “consolidated” or group 6(f) Land and Water Conservation Fund

grants

Table F-2. Wildlife/Waterfowl Refuges in the Study Corridors

Name of Resource Type of Resourcea Jurisdiction or Owner

Southern Hub to Eloy – Yellow and Orange Alternatives

Sweetwater Wetlands Park Urban park Tucson Water Department

Floodprone Land Acquisition 

Program (FLAP) Properties

Land acquired for species 

protection

Pima County Regional Flood 

Control District

Wal-Mart Conservation Easement Conservation easement for species 

protection

Pima NRPR

DOT Section 7 Land acquired for species 

protection

Pima County

Cortaro-Hartman Land acquired for species 

protection

Pima County

Open Space Bond Acquisition Land acquired for species 

protection and wildlife 

connectivity

Pima County

Hartman Vistas (two parcels) Natural, undisturbed open space; 

land acquired for species 

protection

Marana P&R

Los Morteros Conservation Areab Cultural resources conservation 

area managed as open space

Pima County

Eloy to Northern Hub – Yellow Alternative

Riparian Preserve at Neely Ranch Refuge Gilbert P&R

Lo Piano Bosque Habitat Refuge Tempe RS

Hayden Butte Preserve Refuge Tempe RS

Eloy to Northern Hub – Orange Alternative

Lo Piano Bosque Habitat Refuge Tempe RS
Section 4(f) and 6(f) Resources Appendix

Section 4(f) and 6(f) Resources Appendix-4 

Table F-2. Wildlife/Waterfowl Refuges in the Study Corridors

Name of Resource Type of Resourcea Jurisdiction or Owner

Source: Pima County 2013b. 

Notes:

a Coordination will be required during Tier 2 with officials with jurisdiction over these resources to determine the local, county, 

or state significance and confirm the primary purpose of identified refuges and lands acquired for species and habitat 

protection. b Los Morteros is not foremost a wildlife refuge, nor is it listed on the NRHP. However, it does have qualities (publicly accessible 

open space and probable NRHP eligibility under criterion A or C) that could potentially qualify it for Section 4(f) protection 

pending coordination with Pima County during Tier 2.

Table F-3. Parks and Recreation Areas in the Study Corridors

Name of Resource Type of Resource Jurisdiction or Owner

Southern Hub to Eloy – Yellow and Orange Alternatives

Juan Bautista de Anza National Historic Trail Designated Historic Corridor National Park Service

Barazza-Aviation Urban Pathway Extension 

(planned)

Recreation Area – trail Tucson P&R

Pima County Enhanced Corridors, 

Greenways, Trails, Trailheads, and Paths 

(approximately 45 existing and planned 

resources)

Recreation Area – trails Pima County NRPR

The Loop Recreation Area – trails Pima County NRPR

Verdugo Park Park – city Tucson P&R

Santa Rosa Park Park – city Tucson P&R

El Paso & Southwestern Greenway 

(planned)

Recreation Area – trail Tucson P&R

Mission Gardens (part of the Tucson Origins 

Heritage Park)

Park – city Tucson P&R / 

Rio Nuevo Multipurpose 

Facilities District Board

Parque de Orlando y Diego Mendoza (18th & 

Convent Mini Park)

Park – city Tucson P&R

Jardin de Caesar Chavez (previously Five 

Points Park)

Park – city Tucson P&R

Rosendo S. Perez Park Park – city Tucson P&R

Parque de San Cosmê Park – city Tucson P&R

Library Park Park – county Pima County Public 

Library

La Placita Park/La Placita Gazebo Park – city Tucson P&R
Section 4(f) and 6(f) Resources Appendix

Section 4(f) and 6(f) Resources Appendix-5 

Table F-3. Parks and Recreation Areas in the Study Corridors

Name of Resource Type of Resource Jurisdiction or Owner

Veinte De Agosto Park Park – city Tucson P&R

Sunset Park Park – city Tucson P&R

El Presidio Plaza Park – city Tucson P&R

Jacome Plaza Park – city Tucson P&R

Presidio San Agustîn Del Tucson Park – city Tucson P&R

Iron Horse Park Park – city Tucson P&R

Arroyo Chico Linear Park (planned) Park – city Tucson P&R

Garden of Gethsemane Park – city Tucson P&R

Bonita Park Park – city Tucson P&R

Gateway Park Park – city Tucson P&R

Alene Dunlap Smith Garden (sculpture 

garden)

Park – city Tucson P&R

Dunbar School Park (previously John Spring 

Junior High School)

Park – city Tucson P&R / Dunbar 

Coalition

Estevan Park Park – city Tucson P&R

De Anza Park Park – city Tucson P&R

Manzo Elementary School Recreation Area – school Tucson Unified School 

District

Riverview Park Park – city Tucson P&R

Richey Elementary School Recreation Area – school Tucson Unified School 

District

Pascua Neighborhood Center Recreation Area – recreation 

center

Tucson P&R

Miracle Mile Manor Park (planned) Park – city Tucson P&R

Jacinto Park Park – city Tucson P&R

Nash Elementary School Recreation Area – school Amphitheater School 

District

Christopher Columbus Park Park – city Tucson P&R

Palo Verde Park Park – city Tucson P&R
Section 4(f) and 6(f) Resources Appendix

Section 4(f) and 6(f) Resources Appendix-6 

Table F-3. Parks and Recreation Areas in the Study Corridors

Name of Resource Type of Resource Jurisdiction or Owner

Rillito River Park and Trail Park – county Pima County NRPR

Dan Felix Memorial Community Park 

(includes Pegler Recreation Area)

Park – county Pima County NRPR

Prickley Pear Park Park – county Pima County NRPR

Cañada del Oro River Park and Trail 

(planned)

Park – county Pima County 

NRPR/Marana P&R

Ted Walker Regional Park Park – county Pima County NRPR

Mike Jacob Sports Park Recreation Area – athletic 

fields

Pima County NRPR

Santa Cruz Multi-use Path and Marana 

Shared-use Paths (4 segments)

Recreation Area – trails 

(4 segments)

Marana P&R

Central Arizona Project Trail Recreation Area – National 

Recreation Trail

Pima County NRPR/

Bureau of Reclamation

Crossroads at Silverbell District Park Park – city Marana P&R

Continental Ranch Neighborhood Park Park – city Marana P&R

Cascada District Parks (North and South, 

planned)

Park – city Marana P&R

El Rio Neighborhood Park Park – city Marana P&R

El Rio Neighborhood Park Expansion 

(planned)

Park – city Marana P&R

Rillito Vista Neighborhood Park Park – county Pima County NRPR

Rillito Vista Neighborhood Park Expansion 

(planned)

Park – county Pima County NRPR

Barnett Linear Park (planned) Park – city Marana P&R

San Lucas Community Park Park – city Marana P&R

Sanders Grove Community Park (planned) Park – city Marana P&R

Multi-Use Trail Corridors at Red Rock and 

Picacho Peak State Park (3 planned

segments)

Recreation Area – trails 

(3 segments)

Pinal County

Eloy to Northern Hub – Yellow Alternative

Pinal County Multi-Use Trail Corridors 

(approximately 12 planned resources)

Recreation Area – trails Pinal County

HoHoKam Park Park – city Coolidge P&R
Section 4(f) and 6(f) Resources Appendix

Section 4(f) and 6(f) Resources Appendix-7 

Table F-3. Parks and Recreation Areas in the Study Corridors

Name of Resource Type of Resource Jurisdiction or Owner

Walker Park Park – city Coolidge P&R

North Park Park – city Coolidge P&R

Coolidge Community Center Recreation Area – recreation 

center

Coolidge P&R

Nutt Park Park – city Coolidge P&R

San Carlos Park Park – city Coolidge P&R

Main Street Park Park – city Coolidge P&R

Coolidge Youth Center Recreation Area – recreation 

center

Coolidge P&R

Palo Verde Park Park – city Coolidge P&R

Kenilworth Sports Complex Recreation Area – athletic 

fields

Coolidge P&R

Queen Creek Paths, Trails and Trailheads 

(approximately 15 existing and planned 

resources)

Recreation Area – trails Queen Creek P&R

Frances Brandon Pickett Elementary School Recreation Area – school Queen Creek Unified 

School District

Queen Creek High School Recreation Area – school Queen Creek Unified 

School District

East Park Site (planned) Park – city Queen Creek P&R

Founders Park Park – city Queen Creek P&R

Jack Barnes Elementary School Recreation Area – school Queen Creek Unified 

School District

Queen Creek Middle School Recreation Area – school Queen Creek Unified 

School District

Gilbert Paths, Trails, Trailheads, and Offstreet Bicycle Corridors (approximately 

19 existing and planned resources)

Recreation Area – trails Gilbert P&R

Rittenhouse Basin (planned) Recreation Area – park Gilbert P&R

Marathon Trail (planned) Recreation Area – trail Gilbert P&R

Williams Field Pool Recreation Area – swimming 

pool

Gilbert P&R

Cosmo Dog Park Park – city Gilbert P&R
Section 4(f) and 6(f) Resources Appendix

Section 4(f) and 6(f) Resources Appendix-8 

Table F-3. Parks and Recreation Areas in the Study Corridors

Name of Resource Type of Resource Jurisdiction or Owner

Crossroads District Park Park – city Gilbert P&R

Crossroads District Park Expansion (planned) Park – city Gilbert P&R

Santan Vista Trail Recreation Area – trail Gilbert P&R

Rodeo Park Park – city Gilbert P&R

Maricopa Trail Recreation Area – trail Maricopa County P&R

Sun Circle/Maricopa Trails Recreation Area – trail Maricopa County P&R

Heritage Trail Recreation Area – trail Gilbert P&R

John Allen Park Park – city Gilbert P&R

Village II Park Park – city Gilbert P&R

Heritage Annex Recreation Area – parks 

facility

Gilbert P&R

Water Tower Plaza Park – city Gilbert P&R

Veterans Park (formerly Library Park) Park – city Gilbert P&R

Page Park Park – city Gilbert P&R

Vaughn Avenue Park Park – city Gilbert P&R

Gilbert Community Center Recreation Area – recreation 

center

Gilbert P&R

Mesquite Aquatics Center Recreation Area – swimming 

pool

Gilbert P&R

Villa Madeira Park Park – city Gilbert P&R

Oak Tree Park Park – city Gilbert P&R

McQueen Park Park – city Gilbert P&R

Target Areas for Parks (3 proposed areas) Park – city Mesa P&R

Heritage Park Park – city Mesa P&R

Guerrero Rotary Park Park – city Mesa P&R

Downtown Urban Plaza (planned) Park – city Mesa P&R

Broadway Recreation Center Recreation Area – recreation 

center

Mesa P&R
Section 4(f) and 6(f) Resources Appendix

Section 4(f) and 6(f) Resources Appendix-9 

Table F-3. Parks and Recreation Areas in the Study Corridors

Name of Resource Type of Resource Jurisdiction or Owner

Stapley Park Park – city Mesa P&R

Gateway Park Park – city Mesa P&R

Beverly Park Park – city Mesa P&R

Mesa Education Center (formerly Powell 

Junior High School; planned to be converted 

to a sports complex)

Recreation Area – athletic 

fields and planned sports 

complex 

Mesa P&R

Webster Recreation Center Recreation Area – recreation 

center

Mesa P&R

Mesa Multi-use Paths (2 planned segments) Recreation Area – recreation 

center

Mesa P&R

Victory Park Park – city Tempe RS

Esquer Park Park – city Tempe RS

Daumler Park Park – city Tempe RS

Connolly Field at Connolly Middle School Recreation Area – athletic 

fields

Tempe Elementary 

School District

Tempe Multi-Use Paths (5 segments) Recreation Area – trails Tempe RS

Creamery Park Park – city Tempe RS

Daley Park Park – city Tempe RS

Clark Park Recreation Center Recreation Area – recreation 

center

Tempe RS

Birchett Park Park – city Tempe RS

Mitchell Park Park – city Tempe RS

Jaycee Park Park – city Tempe RS

Westside Multi-Generational Center and 

Cahill Senior Center

Recreation Area –

community center

Tempe RS

“A” Mountain Trail Recreation Area – trail Tempe RS

Tempe Beach Park Park – city Tempe RS

Tempe Town Lake Park – city Tempe RS

Rio Salado Park Park – city Tempe RS

Tempe Women’s Club Park Park – city Tempe RS
Section 4(f) and 6(f) Resources Appendix

Section 4(f) and 6(f) Resources Appendix-10

Table F-3. Parks and Recreation Areas in the Study Corridors

Name of Resource Type of Resource Jurisdiction or Owner

Rolling Hills Golf Course Recreation Area – public golf 

course

Tempe RS

Moeur Park Park – city Tempe RS

Phoenix Municipal Stadium Recreational Area – stadium City of Phoenix

Phoenix Greyhound Park Recreational Area – stadium City of Phoenix

Hilaria Rodriguez Park Park – city Phoenix P&R

Sohu Park Park – city Phoenix P&R

Kana Park Park – city Phoenix Housing 

Department

Eastlake Park Park – city Phoenix P&R

Lewis Park Park – city Phoenix P&R

Verde Park Park – city Phoenix P&R

Montgomery Stadium Recreational Area – stadium Phoenix Elementary 

School District No. 1

Heritage and Science Park Park – city Phoenix P&R

Civic Space Park Park – city Phoenix P&R

Patriots Square Park Park – city Phoenix P&R

Grant Park Park – city Phoenix P&R

Matthew Henson Park Park – city Phoenix P&R

Harmon Park Park – city Phoenix P&R

Woodland Parkway Park – city Phoenix P&R

University Park Park – city Phoenix P&R

Eloy to Northern Hub – Orange Alternative

Pinal County Multi-Use Trail Corridors and 

Open Space (approximately 14 planned 

resources)

Recreation Area – trails Pinal County

Florence Shared-use and multi-use paths 

and trails, pedestrian corridors, off-highway 

vehicle trails, and trailheads (approximately 

25 existing and planned resources)

Recreation Area – trails Florence P&R
Section 4(f) and 6(f) Resources Appendix

Section 4(f) and 6(f) Resources Appendix-11

Table F-3. Parks and Recreation Areas in the Study Corridors

Name of Resource Type of Resource Jurisdiction or Owner

Power Line Corridor (planned) Recreational Area – trail Florence P&R

Gila River Corridor (planned) Recreational Area – trails Florence P&R

Gila River North Side Community Park 

(planned)

Park – town Florence P&R

Poston Butte Special Use Park (planned) Park – town BLM

Skyview Farms Community Park (planned) Park – town Florence P&R

Dobson Farms Community Park (planned) Park – town Florence P&R

Magma Dam Basin Community Park 

(planned)

Park – town Florence P&R

Magma Dam Basin Special Use Park 

(planned)

Park – town Florence P&R

Community Park No. 5 (planned) Park – town Florence P&R

Community Park No. 4 (planned) Park – town Florence P&R

Community Park No. 8 (planned) Park – town Florence P&R

Great Western Trail Recreational Area – trail Multiple

Target Areas for Parks (9 proposed areas) Park – city Mesa P&R

Mesa Multi-use Paths (8 existing and 

planned segments)

Recreation Area – recreation 

center

Mesa P&R

Desert Edge Discovery Park (planned) Park – city Mesa P&R

Hawes Road and Medina Avenue Park 

(planned)

Park – city Mesa P&R

Enid Park Park – city Mesa P&R

Brimhall Aquatic Complex Recreation Area – swimming 

pool

Mesa P&R

Brimhall Junior High School Recreation Area – school Mesa P&R

Holmes Park Park – city Mesa P&R

Countryside Park Park – city Mesa P&R

Harmony Park Park – city Mesa P&R

Sun Circle Trail Recreation Area – trail Maricopa County P&R
Section 4(f) and 6(f) Resources Appendix

Section 4(f) and 6(f) Resources Appendix-12

Table F-3. Parks and Recreation Areas in the Study Corridors

Name of Resource Type of Resource Jurisdiction or Owner

Silvergate Park Park – city Mesa P&R

Mesa Tierra No. 3 Subdivision Mini-park Park – city City of Mesa

McAfee Place Unit 2 Mini-park Park – city City of Mesa

Sunset Mesa Subdivision Mini-park Park – city City of Mesa

Heritage Park Park – city Mesa P&R

Powell Estates Subdivision Mini-park Park – city City of Mesa

Mesa Education Center (formerly Powell 

Junior High School; planned to be converted 

to a sports complex)

Recreation Area – athletic 

fields and planned sports 

complex 

Mesa P&R

Rhodes Aquatic Complex Recreation Area – swimming 

pool

Mesa P&R

Rhodes Junior High School Recreation Area – school Mesa P&R

Ehrhardt Park Park – city Tempe RS

Daumier Park Park – city Tempe RS

Connolly Field at Connolly Middle School Recreation Area – athletic 

fields

Tempe Elementary 

School District

Cole Park Park – city Tempe RS

Esquer Park Park – city Tempe RS

Victory Park Park – city Tempe RS

Riverview Golf Course Recreation Area – public golf 

course

Mesa P&R

Riverview Park Park – city Mesa P&R

Mesa Rio Salado Pathway (planned) Recreation Area – trail Mesa P&R

ASU Karsten Golf Course Recreation Area – public golf 

course

Arizona State University

Tempe Multi-Use Paths (4 segments) Recreation Area – trails Tempe RS

Rio Salado Park Park – city Tempe RS

Tempe Beach Park Park – city Tempe RS

Tempe Town Lake Park – city Tempe RS
Section 4(f) and 6(f) Resources Appendix

Section 4(f) and 6(f) Resources Appendix-13

Table F-3. Parks and Recreation Areas in the Study Corridors

Name of Resource Type of Resource Jurisdiction or Owner

Tempe Women’s Club Park Park – city Tempe RS

Rolling Hills Golf Course Recreation Area – public golf 

course

Tempe RS

Moeur Park Park – city Tempe RS

Desert Arboretum Park Park – city Arizona Board of Regents

“A” Mountain Trail Recreation Area – trail Tempe RS

Phoenix Municipal Stadium Recreational Area – stadium City of Phoenix

Phoenix Greyhound Park Recreational Area – stadium City of Phoenix

Hilaria Rodriguez Park Park – city Phoenix P&R

Sohu Park Park – city Phoenix P&R

Kana Park Park – city Phoenix Housing 

Department

Eastlake Park Park – city Phoenix P&R

Lewis Park Park – city Phoenix P&R

Verde Park Park – city Phoenix P&R

Montgomery Stadium Recreational Area – stadium Phoenix Elementary 

School District No. 1

Heritage and Science Park Park – city Phoenix P&R

Civic Space Park Park – city Phoenix P&R

Patriots Square Park Park – city Phoenix P&R

Grant Park Park – city Phoenix P&R

Harmon Park Park – city Phoenix P&R

Matthew Henson Park Park – city Phoenix P&R

Woodland Parkway Park – city Phoenix P&R

University Park Park – city Phoenix P&R

Sources: Florence 2008. Gilbert 2006; 2013. Marana 2010a; 2010b. Maricopa County Parks and Recreation 2013. Mesa 2002; 

2012. Pima County 2012; 2013a. Pinal County 2007. Queen Creek 2005. Tempe 2013. Tucson 2006; 2012.
Section 4(f) and 6(f) Resources Appendix

Section 4(f) and 6(f) Resources Appendix-14

Table F-4. Sites Listed on the National Register of Historic Places in the Corridor Alternatives

Name of Resource Type of 

Resource

Criterion/

Criteria City/Town

Southern Hub to Eloy – Yellow and Orange Corridor Alternatives

Solomon Warner House and Mill Building A and C Tucson

El Tiradito Shrine A Tucson

Barrio Libre District A and C Tucson

Barrio Anita District A and C Tucson

Barrio El Hoyo District A and C Tucson

Barrio El Hoyo Historic District District A and C Tucson

Barrio El Membrillo Historic District District A and C Tucson

Barrio Santa Rosa District A and C Tucson

Feldman’s Historic District District A and C Tucson

Menlo Park Historic District District A and C Tucson

Ghost Ranch Lodge District A and C Tucson

Marist College Historic District District A and C Tucson

University of Arizona Campus Historic District District A and C Tucson

Armory Park Historic Residential District District A, B, and C Tucson

Velasco House Building A, B, and C Tucson

Copper Bell B&B Building C Tucson

Dodson-Esquivel House Building C Tucson

Bray-Valenzuela House Building C Tucson

Schwalen-Gomez House Building B Tucson

Blixt-Avitia House Building C Tucson

Sosa-Carillo-Fremont House Building C Tucson

El Paso and Southwestern Railroad Depot Building A and C Tucson

H. Levi Manning House Building B and C Tucson

El Presidio Historic District District A, C, and D Tucson
Section 4(f) and 6(f) Resources Appendix

Section 4(f) and 6(f) Resources Appendix-15

Table F-4. Sites Listed on the National Register of Historic Places in the Corridor Alternatives

Name of Resource Type of 

Resource

Criterion/

Criteria City/Town

Cordova House Building C Tucson

Pima County Courthouse Building C Tucson

Fox Commercial Building Building A and C Tucson

Old Adobe Patio Building C Tucson

Arizona Daily Star Building Building A and C Tucson

Fox Theatre Building A and C Tucson

Valley National Bank Building Building A and C Tucson

Arizona Hotel Building A and C Tucson

J.C. Penney – Chicago Store Building A and C Tucson

U.S. Post Office and Courthouse Building A and C Tucson

First Hittinger Block Building A and C Tucson

Rebeil Block Building A and C Tucson

Tucson Warehouse Historic District District A and C Tucson

Hotel Congress Building A and C Tucson

Rialto Theatre Building A and C Tucson

Rialto Building Building A and C Tucson

Julian-Drew Building Building A and C Tucson

Fourth Avenue Underpass Bridge A and C Tucson

Coronado Hotel Building C Tucson

Iron Horse Expansion Historic District District A and C Tucson

Pie Allen Historic District District A Tucson

Sixth Avenue Underpass Bridge A and C Tucson

Stone Avenue Underpass Bridge A and C Tucson

Ronstadt House Building A, B, and C Tucson
Section 4(f) and 6(f) Resources Appendix

Section 4(f) and 6(f) Resources Appendix-16

Table F-4. Sites Listed on the National Register of Historic Places in the Corridor Alternatives

Name of Resource Type of 

Resource

Criterion/

Criteria City/Town

West University Historic District District A and C Tucson

John Spring Neighborhood Historic District District A and C Tucson

Ronstadt-Sims Adobe Warehouse Building A and C Tucson

Sabedra-Huerta House Building A and C Tucson

Antonio Matus House and Property Building A and C Tucson

Pascua Cultural Plaza Plaza/dirt lot A Tucson

USDA Tucson Plant Materials Center Buildings A and C Tucson

Picacho Pass Skirmish Site/Overland Mail Company 

Stage Station at Picacho Pass

Battlefield A Red Rock

Eloy to Northern Hub – Yellow Corridor Alternative

Verdugo Homestead Historic District District A and C Randolph

Coolidge Woman’s Club Building A Coolidge

Casa Grande Ruins National Monumenta District A, C, and D Coolidge

Rittenhouse Elementary School Building A Queen Creek

Ammo Bunker (S-1008) Building A and C Williams Air 

Force Base

Ammo Bunker (S-1007) Building A and C Williams Air 

Force Base

Gilbert Elementary School Building A and C Gilbert

West Second Street Historic District District A and C Mesa

West Side – Clark Addition Historic District District A and C Mesa

Wilbur Street Historic District District A and C Mesa

Temple Historic District District A and C Mesa

Irving School Building A and C Mesa

Sirrine House Building C Mesa

Alhambra Hotel Building A Mesa

Strauch House Building C Mesa
Section 4(f) and 6(f) Resources Appendix

Section 4(f) and 6(f) Resources Appendix-17

Table F-4. Sites Listed on the National Register of Historic Places in the Corridor Alternatives

Name of Resource Type of 

Resource

Criterion/

Criteria City/Town

Spangler-Wilbur House Building C Mesa

Alma Ward Meeting House Building A Mesa

Borden Homes Historic District District A and C Tempe

Borden Milk Company Creamery and Ice Factory Building A and C Tempe

E.M. White Dairy Barn Building C Tempe

Morrow-Hudson House Building B and C Tempe

Elias-Rodriguez House Building C Tempe

Roosevelt Addition Historic District District C Tempe

University Park Historic District District A and C Tempe

Tempe Woman’s Club Building A and C Tempe

Grady Gammage Memorial Auditorium Building C Tempe

Selleh House Building B and C Tempe

Hiatt House Building C Tempe

B.B. Moeur Activity Building Building A and C Tempe

Elliott House Building C Tempe

Byron Redden House Building C Tempe

C.P. Mullen House Building C Tempe

B.H. Scudder Rental House Building C Tempe

W.A. Moeur House Building B and C Tempe

Hugh Laird House Building B and C Tempe

Farmer-Goodwin House Building A and C Tempe

President’s House Building C Tempe

Main Building Tempe Normal School Building A and C Tempe

Industrial Arts Building Building A and C Tempe
Section 4(f) and 6(f) Resources Appendix

Section 4(f) and 6(f) Resources Appendix-18

Table F-4. Sites Listed on the National Register of Historic Places in the Corridor Alternatives

Name of Resource Type of 

Resource

Criterion/

Criteria City/Town

Matthews Hall Building A and C Tempe

Administration/Science Building Building A and C Tempe

St. Mary’s Church – Our Lady of Mount Carmel 

Catholic Church

Building C Tempe

Frankenberg House Building C Tempe

Harrington-Birchett House Building C Tempe

Harry Walker House Building C Tempe

Samuel C. Long House Building C Tempe

Tempe Hardware Building Building A and C Tempe

Goodwin Building Building B and C Tempe

Andre Building Building A and C Tempe

Vienna Bakery Building A and C Tempe

Roy Hackett House Building A and C Tempe

C.T. Hayden House Building A and C Tempe

Gonzalez-Martinez House Building C Tempe

Tempe Beach Stadium Terraced 

Stadium 

Bleacher

A and C Tempe

1931 Tempe Bridge Bridge A and C Tempe

Tempe Concrete Arch Highway Bridge Bridge C Tempe

Tovrea Castle Building A and C Phoenix

Pueblo Grande Ruin District A and D Phoenix

Pay’n Takit No. 13 Building A and C Phoenix

Bethlehem Baptist Church Building C Phoenix

Arizona Compress & Warehouse Company Building A and C Phoenix

Phoenix Building and Loan House Building C Phoenix
Section 4(f) and 6(f) Resources Appendix

Section 4(f) and 6(f) Resources Appendix-19

Table F-4. Sites Listed on the National Register of Historic Places in the Corridor Alternatives

Name of Resource Type of 

Resource

Criterion/

Criteria City/Town

Burgess A. Hadsell House Building C Phoenix

Verde Park Pumphouse Building A Phoenix

Eyrich-Kohl House Building C Phoenix

Garfield Historic District District A and C Phoenix

Jim Ong’s Market Building A and C Phoenix

Swindall Tourist Inn Building A and C Phoenix

Immaculate Heart of Mary Building C Phoenix

Arizona Citrus Growers Association Warehouse Building A and C Phoenix

Smurthwaite House Building C Phoenix

Phoenix Union High School Historic District District A, B, C, and D Phoenix

Monroe School Building A and C Phoenix

Phoenix Townsite District C Phoenix

Dr. Roland Lee Rosson House Building C Phoenix

F.S. Baird Machine Shop Building A and C Phoenix

Phoenix Union Colored High School Building A and C Phoenix

St. Mary’s Church Building C Phoenix

U.S. Post Office Building A and C Phoenix

Hotel Westward Ho Building A and C Phoenix

Phoenix Elementary School District No. 1 

Administration Building

Building A and C Phoenix

J.T. Whitney Funeral Home Building A and C Phoenix

Clinton Campbell House Building C Phoenix

H.M. Coe House Building C Phoenix

Steinegger Lodging House Building A and C Phoenix

Security Building Building A and C Phoenix
Section 4(f) and 6(f) Resources Appendix

Section 4(f) and 6(f) Resources Appendix-20

Table F-4. Sites Listed on the National Register of Historic Places in the Corridor Alternatives

Name of Resource Type of 

Resource

Criterion/

Criteria City/Town

San Carlos Hotel Building A and C Phoenix

Professional Building Building A and C Phoenix

Heard Building Building A, B, and C Phoenix

Fry’s Building-Baxter Block District A and C Phoenix

Sun Mercantile Building Building A and C Phoenix

Lightning Delivery Co. Warehouse Building A and C Phoenix

Gerardo’s Building Building A and C Phoenix

Arvizu’s El Fresnal Grocery Store Building A and C Phoenix

Ong Yut Geong Wholesale Market Building A and C Phoenix

Phoenix Seed & Feed Company Building A and C Phoenix

Western Wholesale Drug Company Warehouse Building A and C Phoenix

Hotel St. James Building A and C Phoenix

Chambers Transfer & Storage Company – Central 

Warehouse

Building A and C Phoenix

Chambers Transfer & Storage Company Building A and C Phoenix

Anchor Manufacturing Company Building A and C Phoenix

Union Station Building C Phoenix

Storage Warehouse Building A and C Phoenix

C.A. Larson House Building C Phoenix

House at 818 South 1st Avenue Building C Phoenix

Higuera Grocery Building A and C Phoenix

W.E. Adams House Building C Phoenix

M.J. Sharp House Building C Phoenix

Yaun Ah Gim Groceries Building A and C Phoenix

Dunbar School Building A Phoenix
Section 4(f) and 6(f) Resources Appendix

Section 4(f) and 6(f) Resources Appendix-21

Table F-4. Sites Listed on the National Register of Historic Places in the Corridor Alternatives

Name of Resource Type of 

Resource

Criterion/

Criteria City/Town

Title and Trust Building Building A and C Phoenix

Maricopa County Courthouse Building A and C Phoenix

Orpheum Theater Building A and C Phoenix

Firestone Building A and C Phoenix

First Baptist Church Building A and C Phoenix

First Presbyterian Church Building C Phoenix

J.W. Walker Building – Central Arizona Light & 

Power

Building A and C Phoenix

6th Avenue Hotel – Windsor Hotel Building A and C Phoenix

Valley Plumbing & Sheet Metal Building C Phoenix

Overland Arizona Company Building A and C Phoenix

Adams School Building A and C Phoenix

Durand Grocery Building A and C Phoenix

Anderson-Johannes House Building C Phoenix

Woodland Historic District District A Phoenix

Phoenix Carnegie Library and Library Park Building A and C Phoenix

Evans House Building C Phoenix

El Zaribah Shrine Auditorium Building A and C Phoenix

Roosevelt Historic District District A, B, and C Phoenix

Oakland Historic District District A Phoenix

Eloy to Northern Hub – Orange Corridor Alternative

Roosevelt Addition Historic District District C Tempe

Tempe Hardware Building Building A and C Tempe

Goodwin Building Building B and C Tempe

Andre Building Building A and C Tempe
Section 4(f) and 6(f) Resources Appendix

Section 4(f) and 6(f) Resources Appendix-22

Table F-4. Sites Listed on the National Register of Historic Places in the Corridor Alternatives

Name of Resource Type of 

Resource

Criterion/

Criteria City/Town

Vienna Bakery Building A and C Tempe

Roy Hackett House Building A and C Tempe

C.T. Hayden House Building A and C Tempe

Gonzalez-Martinez House Building C Tempe

Tempe Beach Stadium Terraced 

Stadium 

Bleacher

A and C Tempe

1931 Tempe Bridge Bridge A and C Tempe

Tempe Concrete Arch Highway Bridge Bridge C Tempe

Tovrea Castle Building A and C Phoenix

Pueblo Grande Ruin District A and D Phoenix

Pay’n Takit No. 13 Building A and C Phoenix

Bethlehem Baptist Church Building C Phoenix

Arizona Compress & Warehouse Company Building A and C Phoenix

Phoenix Building and Loan House Building C Phoenix

Burgess A. Hadsell House Building C Phoenix

Verde Park Pumphouse Building A Phoenix

Eyrich-Kohl House Building C Phoenix

Garfield Historic District District A and C Phoenix

Jim Ong’s Market Building A and C Phoenix

Swindall Tourist Inn Building A and C Phoenix

Immaculate Heart of Mary Building C Phoenix

Arizona Citrus Growers Association Warehouse Building A and C Phoenix

Smurthwaite House Building C Phoenix

Phoenix Union High School Historic District Building A, B, C, and D Phoenix

Monroe School Building A and C Phoenix
Section 4(f) and 6(f) Resources Appendix

Section 4(f) and 6(f) Resources Appendix-23

Table F-4. Sites Listed on the National Register of Historic Places in the Corridor Alternatives

Name of Resource Type of 

Resource

Criterion/

Criteria City/Town

Phoenix Townsite District C Phoenix

Dr. Roland Lee Rosson House Building C Phoenix

F.S. Baird Machine Shop Building A and C Phoenix

Phoenix Union Colored High School Building A and C Phoenix

St. Mary’s Church Building C Phoenix

U.S. Post Office Building A and C Phoenix

Hotel Westward Ho Building A and C Phoenix

Phoenix Elementary School District No. 1 

Administration Building

Building A and C Phoenix

J.T. Whitney Funeral Home Building A and C Phoenix

Clinton Campbell House Building C Phoenix

H.M. Coe House Building C Phoenix

Steinegger Lodging House Building A and C Phoenix

Security Building Building A and C Phoenix

San Carlos Hotel Building A and C Phoenix

Professional Building Building A and C Phoenix

Heard Building Building A, B, and C Phoenix

Fry’s Building-Baxter Block District A and C Phoenix

Sun Mercantile Building Building A and C Phoenix

Lightning Delivery Co. Warehouse Building A and C Phoenix

Gerardo’s Building Building A and C Phoenix

Arvizu’s El Fresnal Grocery Store Building A and C Phoenix

Ong Yut Geong Wholesale Market Building A and C Phoenix

Phoenix Seed & Feed Company Building A and C Phoenix

Western Wholesale Drug Company Warehouse Building A and C Phoenix
Section 4(f) and 6(f) Resources Appendix

Section 4(f) and 6(f) Resources Appendix-24

Table F-4. Sites Listed on the National Register of Historic Places in the Corridor Alternatives

Name of Resource Type of 

Resource

Criterion/

Criteria City/Town

Hotel St. James Building A and C Phoenix

Chambers Transfer & Storage Company – Central 

Warehouse

Building A and C Phoenix

Chambers Transfer & Storage Company Building A and C Phoenix

Anchor Manufacturing Company Building A and C Phoenix

Union Station Building C Phoenix

Storage Warehouse Building A and C Phoenix

C.A. Larson House Building C Phoenix

House at 818 South 1st Avenue Building C Phoenix

Higuera Grocery Building A and C Phoenix

W.E. Adams House Building C Phoenix

M.J. Sharp House Building C Phoenix

Yaun Ah Gim Groceries Building A and C Phoenix

Dunbar School Building A Phoenix

Title and Trust Building Building A and C Phoenix

Maricopa County Courthouse Building A and C Phoenix

Orpheum Theater Building A and C Phoenix

Firestone Building A and C Phoenix

First Baptist Church Building A and C Phoenix

First Presbyterian Church Building C Phoenix

J.W. Walker Building – Central Arizona Light & 

Power

Building A and C Phoenix

6th Avenue Hotel – Windsor Hotel Building A and C Phoenix

Valley Plumbing & Sheet Metal Building C Phoenix

Overland Arizona Company Building A and C Phoenix

Adams School Building A and C Phoenix
Section 4(f) and 6(f) Resources Appendix

Section 4(f) and 6(f) Resources Appendix-25

Table F-4. Sites Listed on the National Register of Historic Places in the Corridor Alternatives

Name of Resource Type of 

Resource

Criterion/

Criteria City/Town

Durand Grocery Building A and C Phoenix

Anderson-Johannes House Building C Phoenix

Woodland Historic District District A Phoenix

Phoenix Carnegie Library and Library Park Building A and C Phoenix

Evans House Building C Phoenix

El Zaribah Shrine Auditorium Building A and C Phoenix

Roosevelt Historic District District A, B, and C Phoenix

Oakland Historic District District A Phoenix

Source: National Park Service, 2013b.

Notes: 

a Except for the Casa Grande Ruins National Monument, the official with Section 4(f) jurisdiction over all of the NRHP-listed 

properties in this table is SHPO. The officials with Section 4(f) jurisdiction over the monument are NPS and SHPO.

Table F-5. Schools with Potentially Public Recreational Resources in the Corridor Alternatives

Name of Resource Jurisdiction

Southern Hub to Eloy – Yellow and Orange Corridor Alternatives

Carrillo K-5 Magnet School Tucson Unified School District

Safford K-8 Magnet Tucson Unified School District

Menlo Park Elementary School Tucson Unified School District

Davis Bilingual Elementary Magnet School Tucson Unified School District

Roskruge Bilingual K-8 Magnet School Tucson Unified School District

Tucson High Magnet School Tucson Unified School District

Arizona School for the Deaf and Blind State of Arizona

Montessori Schoolhouse Montessori Schoolhouse (public charter school)

Tully Elementary Magnet School Tucson Unified School District

Walter Douglas Elementary School Flowing Wells Unified School District

Sentinel Peak High School Flowing Wells Unified School District
Section 4(f) and 6(f) Resources Appendix

Section 4(f) and 6(f) Resources Appendix-26

Table F-5. Schools with Potentially Public Recreational Resources in the Corridor Alternatives

Name of Resource Jurisdiction

Centennial Elementary School Flowing Wells Unified School District

J. Robert Hendricks Elementary School Flowing Wells Unified School District

Marana Middle School Marana Unified School District

Estes Elementary School Marana Unified School District

Marana High School Marana Unified School District

Red Rock Elementary School Red Rock Elementary School District

Picacho Elementary School Picacho Elementary School District No. 33

Eloy to Northern Hub – Yellow Corridor Alternative

Poston Butte High School Florence Unified School District

Circle Cross Ranch K-8 School Florence Unified School District

Cortina Elementary School Higley Unified School District

Higley High School Higley Unified School District

Chaparral Elementary School Higley Unified School District

Higley Elementary and Middle School Higley Unified School District

Williams Field High School Higley Unified School District

Desert Hills High School The Leona Group (public charter school)

Mesquite Elementary School Gilbert Unified School District

Gilbert High School Gilbert Unified School District

Benjamin Franklin Charter School Benjamin Franklin Charter School (public)

Burk Elementary School Gilbert Unified School District

Gilbert Junior High School Gilbert Unified School District

Mesquite Junior High School Gilbert Unified School District

Gilbert Elementary School Gilbert Unified School District

Neely Traditional Academy Gilbert Unified School District

Oak Tree Elementary School Gilbert Unified School District
Section 4(f) and 6(f) Resources Appendix

Section 4(f) and 6(f) Resources Appendix-27

Table F-5. Schools with Potentially Public Recreational Resources in the Corridor Alternatives

Name of Resource Jurisdiction

Playa del Rey Elementary School Gilbert Unified School District

Lincoln Elementary School Mesa Public Schools 

Burke Basic School Burke Basic School (public charter school)

New Horizon School for the Performing Arts New Horizon (public charter school)

Franklin School Mesa Public schools

Franklin West Elementary School Mesa Public schools

Lincoln Elementary School Mesa Public schools

Heritage Academy Heritage Academy (public charter school)

Pedro W. Guerrero Elementary School Mesa Public Schools

Adams Elementary School Mesa Public Schools

East Valley Academy Mesa Public Schools

Thew Elementary School Tempe Elementary School District

Curry Elementary School Tempe Elementary School District

Broadmor Elementary School Tempe Elementary School District

Tempe High School Tempe Union High School District

ASU Arizona Board of Regents

Gilliland Middle School Tempe Elementary School District

Scales Technology Academy Tempe Elementary School District

Gateway Community College Maricopa Community Colleges

Gateway Early College High School Maricopa Community Colleges

David Crockett Elementary School Balsz Elementary School District No. 31

Academy of Excellence Academy of Excellence (public charter school)

Wilson Primary and Elementary School Wilson Elementary School District No. 7

Augustus H. Shaw Junior Elementary School Phoenix Elementary School District No. 1

Booker T. Washington Child Development Center Booker T. Washington Child Development 

Center, Inc.
Section 4(f) and 6(f) Resources Appendix

Section 4(f) and 6(f) Resources Appendix-28

Table F-5. Schools with Potentially Public Recreational Resources in the Corridor Alternatives

Name of Resource Jurisdiction

Phoenix Preparatory Academy Phoenix Elementary School District No. 1

Faith North Montessori School Phoenix Elementary School District No. 1

Silvestre S. Herrera Elementary School Phoenix Elementary School District No. 1

Lowell Elementary School Phoenix Elementary School District No. 1

Paul Dunbar Lawrence Elementary School Phoenix Elementary School District No. 1

Eloy to Northern Hub – Orange Corridor Alternative

Canyon Rim Elementary School Gilbert Unified School District

Augusta Ranch Elementary School Gilbert Unified School District

Noah Webster School Noah Webster School (public charter school)

Madison Elementary School Mesa Public Schools

Marilyn Thiele Wilson Elementary School Mesa Public Schools

Franklin South Elementary School Mesa Public Schools

Brimhall Junior High School Mesa Public Schools

Pioneer Elementary School Gilbert Unified School District

Montessori Education Centre Montessori Education Centre (public charter 

school)

Sun Valley High School The Leona Group (public charter schools)

Porter Elementary School Mesa Public Schools

Mesa High School Mesa Public Schools

Lindbergh Elementary School Mesa Public Schools

Keller Elementary School Mesa Public Schools

Harris Elementary School Gilbert Unified School District

Holmes Elementary School Mesa Public Schools

EduPrize School EduPrize (public charter schools)

Sequoia Secondary School Sequoia Schools (public charter schools)

Sequoia Elementary School Sequoia Schools (public charter schools)
Section 4(f) and 6(f) Resources Appendix

Section 4(f) and 6(f) Resources Appendix-29

Table F-5. Schools with Potentially Public Recreational Resources in the Corridor Alternatives

Name of Resource Jurisdiction

Lincoln Elementary School Mesa Public Schools

Burke Basic School Burke Basic School (public charter school)

Ida Redbird Elementary School Mesa Public Schools

Rhodes Junior High School Mesa Public Schools

Roosevelt Elementary School Mesa Public Schools

Washington Elementary School Mesa Public Schools

Mesa Community College Mesa Community Colleges

Bustoz School Facility Tempe Elementary School District

Ward Traditional Academy Tempe Elementary School District

Curry Elementary School Tempe Elementary School District

Thew Elementary School Tempe Elementary School District

Laird Elementary School Tempe Elementary School District

Fees College Preparatory School Tempe Elementary School District

Gateway Community College Maricopa Community Colleges

Gateway Early College High School Maricopa Community Colleges

David Crockett Elementary School Balsz Elementary School District No. 31

Academy of Excellence Academy of Excellence (public charter school)

Wilson Primary and Elementary School Wilson Elementary School District No. 7

Augustus H. Shaw Junior Elementary School Phoenix Elementary School District No. 1

Booker T. Washington Child Development Center Booker T. Washington Child Development 

Center, Inc.

Phoenix Preparatory Academy Phoenix Elementary School District No. 1

Faith North Montessori School Phoenix Elementary School District No. 1

Silvestre S. Herrera Elementary School Phoenix Elementary School District No. 1

Lowell Elementary School Phoenix Elementary School District No. 1

Paul Dunbar Lawrence Elementary School Phoenix Elementary School District No. 1
Section 4(f) and 6(f) Resources Appendix

Section 4(f) and 6(f) Resources Appendix-30

References

Arizona State Parks. 2013. Grant Programs. “Grant Award Recipient Library.” 

http://azstateparks.com/grants/library.html. Accessed June 12, 2013.

Florence, Town of. 2008. Parks, Trails, and Open Space Master Plan. “Park and Recreation 

Documents.” http://www.florenceaz.gov/studies-and-documents. Accessed July 7, 

2013.

Gilbert, Town of. 2006. Parks and Trails Map. http://www.gilbertaz.gov/areamaps/trails.cfm. 

Accessed July 20, 2013.

Gilbert, Town of. 2013. Parks, Recreation, and Trails Master Plan. Draft, June 13, 2013. 

http://www.gilbertaz.gov/parksmasterplan/1306025-draft%20plan%202.pdf. Accessed 

July 7, 2013.

Marana, Town of. 2010a. Marana Parks, Recreation, Trails and Open Space Master Plan.

http://www.marana.com/DocumentCenter/Home/View/4870. Accessed July 7, 2013.

Marana, Town of. 2010b. Shared Use Path. http://www.marana.com/index.aspx?NID=790. 

Accessed July 7, 2013.

Maricopa County Parks and Recreation. 2013. The Maricopa Trail.

http://www.maricopa.gov/parks/MaricopaTrail/Default.aspx. Accessed July 20, 2013.

Mesa, City of. 2002. City of Mesa Parks and Recreation Plan. 

http://www.mesaaz.gov/Government/pdf/park_plan.pdf. Accessed July 7, 2013.

Mesa. City of. 2012. 2012 Parks and Recreation Bond Program.

http://mesaazlongrangeparks.ecndigitaledition.com/magazine.aspx. Accessed July 7, 

2013.

National Park Service. 2013a. Land and Water Conservation Fund. “Project List by County and 

Summary Reports.” http://waso-lwcf.ncrc.nps.gov/public/index.cfm. Accessed June 12, 

2013.

National Park Service. 2013b. National Register of Historic Places. 

http://www.nps.gov/history/nr/index.htm. Accessed June 19, 2013.

Pima County. 2012. Pima Regional Trail System Master Plan. 

http://www.pima.gov/nrpr/pdfs/Pima_Regional_Trail_System_Master_Plan_May2012.

pdf. Accessed July 7, 2013.

Pima trails map direct: http://www.pima.gov/nrpr/pdfs/Trails_MP_map_2012.pdf

Pima County. 2013a. About the Loop. http://www.pima.gov/theloop/. Accessed July 7, 2013.
Section 4(f) and 6(f) Resources Appendix

Section 4(f) and 6(f) Resources Appendix-31

Pima County. 2013b. Multi-species Conservation Plan. 

http://www.pima.gov/cmo/sdcp/MSCP/MSCPdocs/MSCP_Public_Draft_Appendices.pdf. 

Accessed June 12, 2013.

Pinal County. 2007. Pinal County Open Space and Trails Master Plan. 

https://pinalcountyaz.gov/DEPARTMENTS/PLANNINGDEVELOPMENT/Pages/TrailsPlan.a

spx. Accessed July 7, 2013.

Pinal map direct: 

http://www.pinalpartnership.com/open_space_documents/Open_Space_Trail_MP_Reg

ion_Base_20100825.pdf

Queen Creek, Town of. 2005. Town of Queen Creek Parks, Trails and Open Space Master Plan.

http://www.queencreek.org/departments/parks-recreation/parks-trails/parks-trailsopen-space-master-plan. Accessed July 7, 2013.

Tempe, City of. 2013. Parks. https://www.tempe.gov/index.aspx?page=576. Accessed July 7, 

2013.

Tucson, City of. 2006. Parks & Recreation Ten-Year Strategic Service Plan

http://cms3.tucsonaz.gov/sites/default/files/parks/stratplan.pdf. Accessed July 7, 2013.

Tucson, City of. 2012. El Paso & Southwestern Greenway Master Plan. 

http://cms3.tucsonaz.gov/sites/default/files/bicycle/masterplandocument_final_may20

12.pdf. Accessed July 7, 2013.
 

Socioeconomic Conditions Appendix
Socioeconomic Conditions Appendix-1 

Socioeconomic Conditions Appendix

Table S-1. Historical Growth in the State and Region

Geography 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

Percent 

Change 

1970-2010

Annual 

Growth 

Rate

Population

State of Arizona 1,775,399 2,716,546 3,665,228 5,130,632 6,392,017 260.0% 3.3% 

Maricopa

County

971,228 1,509,052 2,122,101 3,072,149 3,817,117 293.0% 3.5%

Pima

County

351,667 531,443 666,880 843,746 980,263 178.7% 2.6%

Pinal

County

68,579 90,918 116,379 179,727 375,770 447.9% 4.3%

Tri-County 

Region

1,391,474 2,131,413 2,905,360 4,095,622 5,173,150 271.8% 3.3%

Coolidge 5,314 6,851 6,927 7,786 11,825 122.5% 2.0% 

Eloy 5,381 6,240 7,211 10,375 16,631 209.1% 2.9% 

Florence 2,173 3,391 7,510 17,054 25,536 1,075.1% 6.4% 

Gilbert 1,971 5,717 29,188 109,697 208,453 10,476.0% 12.4% 

Maranaa n/a 1,674 2,187 13,556 34,961 1,988.5% 10.7% 

Mesa 63,049 152,453 288,091 396,375 439,041 596.3% 5.0% 

Phoenix 584,303 789,704 983,403 1,321,045 1,445,632 147.4% 2.3%

Queen Creeka n/a n/a 2,667 4,316 26,361 888.4% 12.1% 

Tempe 63,550 106,743 141,865 158,625 161,719 154.5% 2.4%

Tucson 262,933 330,537 405,390 486,699 520,116 97.8% 1.7%

Households

Maricopa

County

318,714 554,759 952,041 1,132,886 1,382,002 333.6% 3.7%

Pima

County

118,623 195,459 298,207 332,350 381,880 221.9% 3.0%

Pinal

County

19,652 28,411 52,732 61,364 118,826 504.7% 4.6%

Tri-County

Region

456,989 768,629 1,302,980 1,526,600 1,882,708 312.0% 3.6%

Employment

Maricopa

County

365,896 711,898 1,623,198 2,327,675 2,854,526 680.1% 5.3%

Pima

County

122,936 241,602 518,088 658,638 767,050 523.9% 4.7%

Pinal

County

20,035 33,483 85,246 139,536 252,016 1,157.9% 6.5%

Tri-County

Region

508,867 986,983 2,226,532 3,125,849 3,873,592 661.2% 5.2%

Source: US Census Bureau, 1970, 1980, 1990, 2000 and 2010 Census. 

a

Percent change and annual growth are calculated from 1980 to 2010 for Marana and 1990 to 2010 for Queen Creek
Socioeconomic Conditions Appendix 

Socioeconomic Conditions Appendix-2 

Table S-2. State and Regional Population Projections

Geography 2012 2020 2030 2040 2050

Percent 

Change 

2012-

2050

Annual 

Growth 

Rate

Pima

County

990,400 1,100,000 1,243,100 1,379,600 1,518,200 53.3% 1.2%

Pinal

County

389,200 493,200 681,600 934,900 1,240,200 218.7% 3.2%

Maricopa

County

3,884,700 4,506,900 5,359,500 6,174,900 6,925,300 78.3% 1.6%

Tri-County

Region

5,264,300 6,100,100 7,284,200 8,489,400 9,686,700 84.0% 1.7%

State of 

Arizona

6,498,600 7,485,000 8,852,800 10,218,200 11,562,500 77.9% 1.6%

Source: Arizona Department of Administration, Office of Employment and Population Statistics, Medium Series, December 2012
Socioeconomic Conditions Appendix 

Socioeconomic Conditions Appendix-3 

Table S-3. Employment

Demographics

State Counties Cities and Towns

Arizona Maricopa 

County

Pima 

County

Pinal 

County Coolidge Eloy Florence Gilbert Marana Mesa Phoenix Queen Creek Tempe Tucson

Population 16 years 

and over 4, 967,615 2,942,044 783,593 281,615 8,063 13,232 23,712 148,766 26,535 344,685 1,095,145 17,007 139,215 415,909

In Labor Force 3,049,419 1,914,675 471,912 148,888 4,963 4,272 3,323 112,293 17,517 217,602 731,486 12,465 97,661 258,549 

61.4% 65.1% 60.2% 52.9% 61.6% 32.3% 14% 75.5% 66% 63.1% 66.8% 73.3% 70.2% 62.2%

Civilian Labor Force 3,029,669 1,909,467 466,139 148,540 4,903 4,272 3,323 111,913 17,440 217,460 730,530 12,406 97,607 254,552 

61% 64.9% 59.5% 52.7% 60.8% 32.3% 14% 75.2% 65.7% 63.1% 66.7% 72.9% 70.1% 61.2%

Armed Forces 19,750 5,208 5,773 348 60 - - 380 77 142 956 59 54 3,997 

0.4% 0.2% 0.7% 0.1% 0.7% 0% 0% 0.3% 0.3% 0% 0.1% 0.3% 0% 1%

Employed Civilian 

Labor Force

2,733,537 1,738,238 419,155 131,512 4,367 3,528 3,039 104,414 16,308 197,739 659,805 11,787 88,103 226,353 

55% 59.1% 53.5% 46.7% 54.2% 26.7% 12.8% 70.2% 61.5% 57.4% 60.2% 69.3% 63.3% 54.4%

Unemployed Civilian 

Labor Force

296,132 171,229 46,984 17,028 536 744 284 7,499 1,132 19,721 70,725 619 9,504 28,199 

6% 5.8% 6% 6% 6.6% 5.6% 1.2% 5% 4.3% 5.7% 6.5% 3.6% 6.8% 6.8%

Agriculture, Forestry, 

Fishing and Hunting, 

Mining

39,402 10,817 4,043 5,083 128 252 218 540 127 1,038 2,974 33 221 1,345 

 1.4% 0.6% 1.0% 3.9% 2.9% 7.1% 7.2% 0.5% 0.8% 0.5% 0.5% 0.3% 0.3% 0.6% 

Construction 197,357 126,170 28,311 9,883 356 269 234 5,735 665 17,170 55,536 689 4,607 15,541 

7.2% 7.3% 6.8% 7.5% 8.2% 7.6% 7.7% 5.5% 4.1% 8.7% 8.4% 5.8% 5.2% 6.9%

Manufacturing 205,896 140,325 31,025 13,278 74 250 149 11,667 2,117 16,030 50,619 1,218 6,744 14,465 

7.5% 8.1% 7.4% 10.1% 1.7% 7.1% 4.9% 11.2% 13.0% 8.1% 7.7% 10.3% 7.7% 6.4%

Wholesale Trade 67,300 47,925 7,271 2,832 - 15 - 3,080 301 4,554 17,858 385 2,094 3,848 

2.5% 2.8% 1.7% 2.2% - 0.4% - 2.9% 1.8% 2.3% 2.7% 3.3% 2.4% 1.7%

Retail Trade 336,310 214,431 49,826 15,182 461 349 331 12,378 1,866 26,460 77,268 1,053 10,193 27,728 

12.3% 12.3% 11.9% 11.5% 10.6% 9.9% 10.9% 11.9% 11.4% 13.4% 11.7% 8.9% 11.6% 12.2%

Transportation and 

Warehousing, Utilities

134,729 89,321 16,363 6,616 216 93 89 5,367 764 9,402 32,764 770 3,783 8,418 

4.9% 5.1% 3.9% 5.0% 4.9% 2.6% 2.9% 5.1% 4.7% 4.8% 5.0% 6.5% 4.3% 3.7%

Information 50,813 34,596 7,096 2,629 - 35 15 2,477 388 3,900 12,936 210 2,180 4,075 

1.9% 2.0% 1.7% 2.0% - 1.0% 0.5% 2.4% 2.4% 2.0% 2.0% 1.8% 2.5% 1.8%

Finance and 

Insurance, Real Estate 

and Rental, Leasing

218,378 168,345 22,529 8,718 150 151 98 10,455 832 15,964 64,610 1,136 6,872 11,011 

 8.0% 9.7% 5.4% 6.6% 3.4% 4.3% 3.2% 10.0% 5.1% 8.1% 9.8% 9.6% 7.8% 4.9% 
Socioeconomic Conditions Appendix 

Socioeconomic Conditions Appendix-4 

Table S-3. Employment

Demographics

State Counties Cities and Towns

Arizona Maricopa 

County

Pima 

County

Pinal 

County Coolidge Eloy Florence Gilbert Marana Mesa Phoenix Queen Creek Tempe Tucson

Professional, 

Scientific, 

Management, 

Administrative, Waste 

Management

311,224 217,062 47,916 11,496 437 129 220 11,759 1,769 24,131 91,575 1,575 11,511 26,033 

 11.4% 12.5% 11.4% 8.7% 10.0% 3.7% 7.2% 11.3% 10.8% 12.2% 13.9% 13.4% 13.1% 11.5% 

Educational Services, 

Health Care, Social 

Services

595,017 357,624 107,562 26,774 1,277 873 396 23,055 4,175 42,179 125,577 2,330 20,579 59,693 

 21.8% 20.6% 25.7% 20.4% 29.2% 24.7% 13.0% 22.1% 25.6% 21.3% 19.0% 19.8% 23.4% 26.4% 

Arts, Entertainment, 

Recreation, 

Accommodation, Food 

Services

288,175 169,692 46,695 11,519 304 379 200 9,315 1,313 19,704 67,283 820 12,948 28,336 

 10.5% 9.8% 11.1% 8.8% 7.0% 10.7% 6.6% 8.9% 8.1% 10.0% 10.2% 7.0% 14.7% 12.5% 

Other Services (Except 

Public Administration)

132,726 84,092 22,971 5,398 190 256 137 3,903 545 10,073 34,368 659 3,658 12,885 

4.9% 4.8% 5.5% 4.1% 4.4% 7.3% 4.5% 3.7% 3.3% 5.1% 5.2% 5.6% 4.2% 5.7%

Public Administration 156,210 77,838 27,547 12,104 774 477 952 4,683 1,446 7,134 26,437 909 2,713 12,975 

5.7% 4.5% 6.6% 9.2% 17.7% 13.5% 31.3% 4.5% 8.9% 3.6% 4.0% 7.7% 3.1% 5.7%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 American Community Survey, DP03: Selected Economic Characteristics, 5-year estimates.
Socioeconomic Conditions Appendix 

Socioeconomic Conditions Appendix-5 

Table S-4. Race and Ethnicity (2010 US Census)

Geography Total 

Population

Total 

Minority

Non-Hispanic or Latino Hispanic or Latino

White 

Black or 

African 

American

American 

Indian 

and 

Alaska 

Native

Asian

Native

Hawaiian 

and 

Other 

Pacific 

Islander

Some 

Other 

Race

Two or 

More 

Races

White 

Black or 

African 

American

American 

Indian 

and 

Alaska 

Native

Asian

Native 

Hawaiian 

and 

Other 

Pacific 

Islander

Some 

Other 

Race

Two or 

More 

Races

STATE

State of 

Arizona

6,392,017

100.0%

2,696,370

42.2%

4,667,121

73.0%

259,008

4.1%

296,529

4.6%

176,695

2.8%

12,648

0.2%

761,716

11.9%

218,300

3.4%

971,474

15.2%

19,907

0.3%

39,103

0.6%

6,186

0.0%

1,689

0.0%

753,121

11.8%

103,669

1.6%

COUNTY

Maricopa 

County

3,817,117

100.0%

1,577,062

41.3%

2,240,055

58.7%

177,490

4.6%

59,252

1.6%

128,301

3.4%

6,723

0.2%

605

0.2%

8,274

2.1%

61,610

15.8%

1,472

0.4%

2,931

0.8%

447

0.1%

115

0.0%

51,544

13.2%

7,157

1.8%

Pima County 980,263

100.0%

438,563

44.7%

541,700

55.3%

31,075

3.2%

23,558

2.4%

24,592

2.5%

1,336

0.1%

1,461

0.1%

17,739

1.8%

187,051

19.1%

3,599

0.4%

9,047

0.9%

1,139

0.1%

288

0.0%

119,178

12.2%

18,500

1.9%

Pinal County 375,770

100.0%

155,284

41.3%

220,486

58.7%

16,007

4.3%

17,410

4.6%

6,114

1.6%

1,489

0.4%

487

0.1%

6,800

1.8%

51,527

13.7%

1,208

0.3%

3,539

0.9%

378

0.1%

76

0.0%

42,726

11.4%

7,523

2.0%

Tri-County 

Total

5,173,150

100.0%

2,170,909

42.0%

3,002,241

58.0%

224,572

4.3%

100,220

1.9%

159,007

3.1%

9,548

0.2%

7,456

0.1%

95,586

1.8%

785,304

15.2%

17,836

0.3%

31,663

0.6%

5,441

0.1%

1,431

0.0%

646,101

12.5%

86,744

1.7%

CITIES AND TOWNS

Coolidge 11,825

100.0%

6,672

56.4%

5,153

43.6%

868

7.3%

445

3.8%

103

0.9%

9

0.1%

10

0.1%

275

2.3%

2,265

19.2%

60

0.5%

225

1.9%

12

0.1%

4

0.0%

2,085

17.6%

311

2.6%

Eloy 16,825

100.0%

13,487

81.1%

3,144

18.9%

1,602

9.6%

378

2.3%

723

4.3%

941

5.7%

44

0.3%

151

0.9%

3,712

22.3%

83

0.5%

193

1.2%

32

0.2%

17

0.1%

5,258

31.6%

353

2.1%

Florence 25,536

100.0%

13,487

53.4%

11,911

46.6%

1,545

6.1%

3,571

14.0%

218

0.9%

19

0.1%

18

0.1%

276

1.1%

4,279

16.8%

63

0.2%

110

0.4%

8

0.0%

0

0.0%

3,282

12.9%

236

0.9%

Gilbert 208,453

100.0%

56,523

27.1%

151,930

72.9%

6,606

3.2%

1,394

0.7%

11,877

5.7%

406

0.2%

264

0.1%

4,902

2.4%

18,553

8.9%

381

0.2%

342

0.2%

233

0.1%

43

0.0%

9,034

4.3%

2,488

1.2%

Marana 34,961

100.0%

10,911

31.2%

24,050

68.8%

806

2.3%

282

0.8%

1,280

3.7%

34

0.1%

76

0.2%

703

2.0%

4,604

13.2%

68

0.2%

151

0.4%

42

0.1%

13

0.0%

2,262

6.5%

590

1.7%

Mesa 439,041

100.0%

156,536

35.7%

282,505

64.3%

14,101

3.2%

8,359

1.9%

8,174

1.9%

1,532

0.3%

555

0.1%

8,062

1.8%

56,086

12.8%

1,188

0.3%

2,018

0.5%

319

0.1%

140

0.0%

49,023

11.2%

6,979

1.6%

Phoenix 1,445,632

100.0%

773,059

53.5%

672,573

46.5%

86,788

6.0%

23,327

1.6%

43,894

3.0%

2,055

0.1%

2,242

0.2%

24,876

1.7%

279,385

19.3%

6,820

0.5%

9,039

0.6%

1,703

0.1%

500

0.0%

264,972

18.3%

27,458

1.9%

Queen Creek 26,361

100.0%

6,845

26.0%

19,516

74.0%

841

3.2%

123

0.5%

709

2.7%

31

0.1%

30

0.1%

545

2.1%

2,527

9.6%

54

0.2%

66

0.3%

23

0.1%

8

0.0%

1,490

5.7%

398

1.5%
Socioeconomic Conditions Appendix 

Socioeconomic Conditions Appendix-6 

Table S-4. Race and Ethnicity (2010 US Census)

Geography Total 

Population

Total 

Minority

Non-Hispanic or Latino Hispanic or Latino

White 

Black or 

African 

American

American 

Indian 

and 

Alaska 

Native

Asian

Native

Hawaiian 

and 

Other 

Pacific 

Islander

Some 

Other 

Race

Two or 

More 

Races

White 

Black or 

African 

American

American 

Indian 

and 

Alaska 

Native

Asian

Native 

Hawaiian 

and 

Other 

Pacific 

Islander

Some 

Other 

Race

Two or 

More 

Races

Tempe 161,719

100.0%

61,008

37.7%

100,711

62.3%

9,021

5.6%

3,870

2.4%

9,035

5.6%

618

0.4%

312

0.2%

4,060

2.5%

16,746

10.4%

530

0.3%

801

0.5%

182

0.1%

27

0.0%

13,481

8.3%

2,325

1.4%

Tucson 520,116

100.0%

274,793

52.8%

245,323

47.2%

23,362

4.5%

8,776

1.7%

14,211

2.7%

951

0.2%

792

0.2%

10,393

2.0%

117,326

22.6%

2,638

0.5%

5,378

1.0%

709

0.1%

196

0.0%

78,447

15.1%

11,614

2.2%

BLOCK GROUPS INTERSECTED BY THE CORRIDOR ALTERNATIVES

Tract 1131.00

Block Group 2

2,025

100.0%

791

39.1%

1,234

60.9%

200

9.9%

60

3.0%

78

3.9%

3

0.1%

4

0.2%

60

3.0%

207

10.2%

10

0.5%

7

0.3%

2

0.1%

2

0.1%

138

6.8%

20

1.0%

Tract 1132.01

Block Group 2

1,338

100.0%

1,254

93.7%

84

6.3%

30

2.2%

10

0.7%

3

0.2%

1

0.1%

2

0.1%

8

0.6%

592

44.2%

26

1.9%

34

2.5%

0

0.0%

0

0.0%

491

36.7%

57

4.3%

Tract 1132.02

Block Group 2

885

100.0%

803

90.7%

82

9.3%

52

5.9%

13

1.5%

2

0.2%

1

0.1%

1

0.%

5

0.6%

275

31.1%

2

0.2%

5

0.6%

0

0.0%

0

0.0%

392

44.3%

55

6.2%

Tract 1133.00

Block Group 2

1,615

100.0%

1,544

95.6%

71

4.4%

221

13.7%

28

1.7%

13

0.8%

0

0.0%

5

0.3%

8

0.5%

686

42.5%

14

0.9%

10

0.6%

0

0.0%

1

0.1%

513

31.8%

45

2.8%

Tract 1133.00

Block Group 3

1,712

100.0%

1,455

85.0%

257

15.0%

100

5.8%

33

1.9%

3

0.2%

0

0.0%

0

0.0%

24

1.4%

597

34.9%

10

0.6%

34

2.0%

6

0.4%

3

0.2%

601

35.1%

44

2.6%

Tract 1134.00

Block Group 1

684

100.0%

389

56.9%

295

43.1%

98

14.3%

36

5.3%

4

0.6%

0

0.0%

0

0.0%

0

0.0%

32

4.7%

0

0.0%

0

0.0%

0

0.0%

0

0.0%

218

31.9%

1

0.1%

Tract 1135.02

Block Group 1

2,638

100.0%

2,526

95.8%

112

4.2%

247

9.4%

23

0.9%

1

0.0%

0

0.0%

1

0.0%

16

0.6%

1,215

46.1%

23

0.9%

43

1.6%

10

0.4%

0

0.0%

884

33.5%

63

2.4%

Tract 1136.01

Block Group 1

2,006

100.0%

1,394

69.5%

612

30.5%

350

17.4%

149

7.4%

63

3.1%

26

1.3%

2

0.1%

64

3.2%

360

17.9%

13

0.6%

14

0.7%

2

0.1%

0

0.0%

302

15.1%

49

2.4%

Tract 1136.02

Block Group 1

1,385

100.0%

1,263

91.2%

122

8.8%

47

3.4%

25

1.8%

2

0.1%

0

0.0%

1

0.1%

4

0.3%

578

41.7%

11

0.8%

8

0.6%

0

0.0%

0

0.0%

550

39.7%

37

2.7%

Tract 1136.02

Block Group 2

2,015

100.0%

1,806

89.6%

209

10.4%

197

9.8%

102

5.1%

18

0.9%

8

0.4%

0

0.0%

26

1.3%

610

30.3%

22

1.1%

22

1.1%

1

0.0%

0

0.0%

738

36.6%

62

3.1%

Tract 1137.00

Block Group 2

1,499

100.0%

1,187

79.2%

312

20.8%

494

33.0%

18

1.2%

22

1.5%

0

0.0%

0

0.0%

63

4.2%

288

19.2%

10

0.7%

13

0.9%

1

0.1%

0

0.0%

252

16.8%

26

1.7%

Tract 1137.00

Block Group 3

1,334

100.0%

772

57.9%

562

42.1%

140

10.5%

32

2.4%

63

4.7%

3

0.2%

0

0.0%

14

1.0%

275

20.6%

20

1.5%

4

0.3%

0

0.0%

0

0.0%

202

15.1%

19

1.4%
Socioeconomic Conditions Appendix 

Socioeconomic Conditions Appendix-7 

Table S-4. Race and Ethnicity (2010 US Census)

Geography Total 

Population

Total 

Minority

Non-Hispanic or Latino Hispanic or Latino

White 

Black or 

African 

American

American 

Indian 

and 

Alaska 

Native

Asian

Native

Hawaiian 

and 

Other 

Pacific 

Islander

Some 

Other 

Race

Two or 

More 

Races

White 

Black or 

African 

American

American 

Indian 

and 

Alaska 

Native

Asian

Native 

Hawaiian 

and 

Other 

Pacific 

Islander

Some 

Other 

Race

Two or 

More 

Races

Tract 1138.01

Block Group 1

1,138

100.0%

489

43.0%

649

57.0%

80

7.0%

19

1.7%

87

7.6%

0

0.0%

0

0.1%

33

2.9%

164

14.4%

3

0.3%

7

0.6%

0

0.0%

0

0.0%

82

7.2%

13

1.1%

Tract 1138.02

Block Group 2

997

100.0%

806

80.8%

191

19.2%

78

7.8%

13

1.3%

3

0.3%

2

0.2%

4

0.4%

15

1.5%

375

37.6%

7

0.7%

13

1.3%

9

0.9%

0

0.0%

270

27.1%

17

1.7%

Tract 1138.02

Block Group 1

17

100.0%

15

88.2%

2

11.8%

8

47.1%

0

0.0%

0

0.0%

0

0.0%

0

0.0%

0

0.0%

2

11.8%

0

0.0%

1

5.9%

0

0.0%

0

0.0%

4

23.5%

0

0.0%

Tract 1139.00

Block Group 1

1,372

100.0%

1,268

92.4%

104

7.6%

176

12.8%

4

0.3%

6

0.4%

0

0.0%

0

0.0%

8

0.6%

522

38.0%

14

1.0%

30

2.2%

0

0.0%

0

0.0%

466

34.0%

42

3.1%

Tract 1140.00

Block Group 1

2,407

100.0%

1,510

62.7%

897

37.3%

348

14.5%

90

3.7%

100

4.2%

3

0.1%

5

0.2%

31

1.3%

487

20.2%

41

1.7%

17

0.7%

2

0.1%

0

0.0%

350

14.5%

36

1.5%

Tract 1140.00

Block Group 2

207

100.0%

201

97.1%

6

2.9%

12

5.8%

6

2.9%

4

1.9%

0

0.0%

0

0.0%

0

0.0%

75

36.2%

0

0.0%

5

2.4%

0

0.0%

0

0.0%

95

45.9%

4

1.9%

Tract 1141.00

Block Group 1

2,401

100.0%

1,454

60.6%

947

39.4%

449

18.7%

84

3.5%

24

1.0%

7

0.3%

1

0.0%

20

0.8%

422

17.6%

30

1.2%

22

0.9%

3

0.1%

0

0.0%

384

16.0%

8

0.3%

Tract 1142.00

Block Group 1

1,539

100.0%

1,410

91.6%

129

8.4%

153

9.9%

39

2.5%

31

2.0%

4

0.3%

1

0.1%

16

1.0%

524

34.0%

17

1.1%

15

1.0%

0

0.0%

0

0.0%

570

37.0%

40

2.6%

Tract 3184.00

Block Group 2

1,789

100.0%

783

43.8%

1,006

56.2%

101

5.6%

35

2.0%

70

3.9%

0

0.0%

3

0.2%

45

2.5%

216

12.1%

5

0.3%

17

1.0%

1

0.1%

1

0.0%

271

15.1%

18

1.0%

Tract 3184.00

Block Group 3

1,235

100.0%

778

63.0%

457

37.0%

16

3.7%

46

3.7%

17

1.4%

1

0.1%

1

0.1%

29

2.3%

191

15.5%

8

0.6%

8

0.6%

0

0.0%

0

0.0%

440

35.6%

21

1.7%

Tract 3187.00

Block Group 1

1,989

100.0%

693

34.8%

1,296

65.2%

118

5.9%

27

1.4%

92

4.6%

3

0.2%

1

0.1%

78

3.9%

204

10.3%

6

0.3%

6

0.3%

4

0.2%

1

0.1%

122

6.1%

31

1.6%

Tract 3187.00

Block Group 2

686

100.0%

219

31.9%

467

68.1%

61

8.9%

12

1.7%

34

5.0%

0

0.0%

5

0.7%

18

2.6%

51

7.4%

4

0.6%

3

0.4%

0

0.0%

0

0.0%

26

3.8%

5

0.7%

Tract 3188.00

Block Group 1

1,309

100.0%

616

47.1%

693

52.9%

190

14.5%

53

4.0%

84

6.4%

9

0.7%

1

0.1%

46

3.5%

92

7.0%

4

0.3%

18

1.4%

0

0.0%

0

0.0%

90

6.9%

29

2.2%

Tract 3188.00

Block Group 2

1,522

100.0%

740

48.6%

782

51.4%

143

9.4%

98

6.4%

61

4.0%

1

0.1%

2

0.1%

42

2.8%

138

9.1%

0

0.0%

14

0.9%

0

0.0%

0

0.0%

212

13.9%

29

1.9%

Tract 3188.00

Block Group 3

1,449

100.0%

731

50.4%

718

49.6%

145

10.0%

63

4.3%

73

5.0%

9

0.6%

7

0.5%

38

2.6%

157

10.8%

3

0.2%

11

0.8%

1

0.1%

0

0.0%

211

14.6%

13

0.9%
Socioeconomic Conditions Appendix 

Socioeconomic Conditions Appendix-8 

Table S-4. Race and Ethnicity (2010 US Census)

Geography Total 

Population

Total 

Minority

Non-Hispanic or Latino Hispanic or Latino

White 

Black or 

African 

American

American 

Indian 

and 

Alaska 

Native

Asian

Native

Hawaiian 

and 

Other 

Pacific 

Islander

Some 

Other 

Race

Two or 

More 

Races

White 

Black or 

African 

American

American 

Indian 

and 

Alaska 

Native

Asian

Native 

Hawaiian 

and 

Other 

Pacific 

Islander

Some 

Other 

Race

Two or 

More 

Races

Tract 3188.00

Block Group 4

1,777

100.0%

745

41.9%

1,032

58.1%

75

4.2%

46

2.6%

78

4.4%

5

0.3%

4

0.2%

33

1.9%

205

11.5%

4

0.2%

5

0.3%

1

0.1%

0

0.0%

255

14.4%

34

1.9%

Tract 3189.00

Block Group 2

1,363

100.0%

438

32.1%

925

67.9%

47

3.4%

40

2.9%

36

2.6%

1

0.1%

4

0.3%

15

1.1%

156

11.4%

1

0.1%

9

0.7%

1

0.1%

0

0.0%

113

8.3%

15

1.1%

Tract 3189.00

Block Group 3

1,453

100.0%

447

30.8%

1,006

69.2%

44

3.0%

18

1.2%

43

3.0%

1

0.1%

1

0.1%

50

3.4%

154

10.6%

7

0.5%

6

0.4%

2

0.1%

0

0.0%

101

7.0%

20

1.4%

Tract 3189.00

Block Group 4

1,305

100.0%

308

23.6%

997

76.4%

24

1.8%

24

1.8%

31

2.4%

0

0.0%

3

0.2%

35

2.7%

113

8.7%

1

0.1%

3

0.2%

2

0.2%

0

0.0%

56

4.3%

16

1.2%

Tract 3190.00

Block Group 1

3,743

100.0%

865

23.1%

2,878

76.9%

163

4.4%

20

0.5%

151

4.0%

10

0.3%

7

0.2%

116

3.1%

238

6.4%

11

0.3%

6

0.2%

6

0.2%

0

0.0%

110

2.9%

27

0.7%

Tract 3190.00

Block Group 2

809

100.0%

159

19.7%

650

80.3%

18

2.2%

5

0.6%

21

2.6%

0

0.0%

4

0.5%

17

2.1%

55

6.8%

2

0.2%

4

0.5%

0

0.0%

0

0.0%

28

3.5%

5

0.6%

Tract 3190.00

Block Group 3

474

100.0%

83

17.5%

391

82.5%

13

2.7%

8

1.7%

18

3.8%

0

0.0%

1

0.2%

7

1.5%

22

4.6%

0

0.0%

2

0.4%

1

0.2%

0

0.0%

9

1.9%

2

0.4%

Tract 3190.00

Block Group 4

4,081

100.0%

1,256

30.8%

2,825

69.2%

168

4.1%

43

1.1%

224

5.5%

5

0.1%

6

0.1%

157

3.8%

411

10.1%

11

0.3%

9

0.2%

4

0.1%

0

0.0%

162

4.0%

56

1.4%

Tract 3191.01

Block Group 1

1,849

100.0%

896

48.5%

953

51.5%

127

6.9%

70

3.8%

416

22.5%

0

0.0%

5

0.3%

47

2.5%

108

5.8%

2

0.1%

1

0.1%

3

0.2%

0

0.0%

89

4.8%

28

1.5%

Tract 3191.01

Block Group 2

1,093

100.0%

821

75.1%

272

24.9%

59

5.4%

35

3.2%

155

14.2%

21

1.9%

0

0.0%

27

2.5%

102

9.3%

13

1.2%

13

1.2%

0

0.0%

0

0.0%

384

35.1%

12

1.1%

Tract 3191.03

Block Group 1

2,112

100.0%

1,254

59.4%

858

40.6%

88

4.2%

50

2.4%

703

33.3%

2

0.1%

7

0.3%

98

4.6%

133

6.3%

10

0.5%

2

0.1%

3

0.1%

0

0.0%

144

6.8%

14

0.7%

Tract 3191.03

Block Group 2

816

100.0%

458

56.1%

358

43.9%

22

2.7%

20

2.5%

97

11.9%

3

0.4%

3

0.4%

16

2.0%

126

15.4%

1

0.1%

17

2.1%

2

0.2%

0

0.0%

143

17.5%

8

1.0%

Tract 3191.03

Block Group 3

1,576

100.0%

722

45.8%

854

54.2%

98

6.2%

49

3.1%

154

9.8%

4

03%

4

0.3%

38

2.4%

184

11.7%

7

0.4%

6

0.4%

0

0.0%

2

0.1%

154

9.8%

22

1.4%

Tract 3191.04

Block Group 1

1,189

100.0%

578

48.6%

611

51.4%

60

5.0%

32

2.7%

140

11.8%

0

0.0%

4

0.3%

30

2.5%

96

8.1%

7

0.6%

15

1.3%

1

0.1%

1

0.1%

169

14.2%

23

1.9%

Tract 3191.04

Block Group 2

2,232

100.0%

986

44.2%

1,246

55.8%

196

8.8%

118

5.3%

233

10.4%

10

0.4%

0

0.0%

67

3.0%

171

7.7%

15

0.7%

11

0.5%

2

0.1%

1

0.0%

128

5.7%

34

1.5%
Socioeconomic Conditions Appendix 

Socioeconomic Conditions Appendix-9 

Table S-4. Race and Ethnicity (2010 US Census)

Geography Total 

Population

Total 

Minority

Non-Hispanic or Latino Hispanic or Latino

White 

Black or 

African 

American

American 

Indian 

and 

Alaska 

Native

Asian

Native

Hawaiian 

and 

Other 

Pacific 

Islander

Some 

Other 

Race

Two or 

More 

Races

White 

Black or 

African 

American

American 

Indian 

and 

Alaska 

Native

Asian

Native 

Hawaiian 

and 

Other 

Pacific 

Islander

Some 

Other 

Race

Two or 

More 

Races

Tract 3191.04

Block Group 3

955

100.0%

541

56.6%

414

43.4%

36

3.8%

34

3.6%

102

10.7%

1

0.1%

6

0.6%

27

2.8%

142

14.9%

2

0.2%

5

0.5%

0

0.0%

1

0.1%

173

18.1%

12

1.3%

Tract 3191.04

Block Group 4

726

100.0%

390

53.7%

336

46.3%

59

8.1%

28

3.9%

156

21.5%

0

0.0%

0

0.0%

23

3.2%

54

7.4%

2

0.3%

1

0.1%

2

0.3%

0

0.0%

57

7.9%

8

1.1%

Tract 3192.01

Block Group 1

1,479

100.0%

858

58.0%

621

42.0%

107

7.2%

68

4.6%

55

3.7%

1

0.1%

0

0.0%

38

2.6%

235

15.9%

11

0.7%

7

0.5%

3

0.2%

0

0.0%

305

20.6%

28

1.9%

Tract 3192.01

Block Group 2

1,645

100.0%

1,070

65.0%

575

35.0%

88

5.3%

53

3.2%

48

2.9%

3

0.2%

0

0.0%

46

2.8%

392

23.8%

5

0.3%

6

0.4%

3

0.1%

0

0.0%

380

23.1%

47

2.9%

Tract 3192.01

Block Group 3

714

100.0%

520

72.8%

194

27.2%

22

3.1%

8

1.1%

27

3.8%

4

0.6%

1

0.1%

16

2.2%

240

33.6%

0

0.0%

6

0.8%

1

0.1%

0

0.0%

179

25.1%

16

2.2%

Tract 3192.02

Block Group 1

1,555

100.0%

980

63.0%

575

37.0%

86

5.5%

32

2.1%

36

2.3%

3

0.2%

0

0.0%

24

1.5%

446

28.7%

1

0.1%

12

0.8%

2

0.1%

1

0.1%

320

20.6%

17

1.1%

Tract 3192.02

Block Group 2

1,677

100.0%

703

41.9%

974

58.1%

162

9.7%

84

5.0%

61

3.6%

4

0.2%

6

0.4%

57

3.4%

152

9.1%

11

0.7%

4

0.2%

2

0.1%

0

0.0%

117

7.0%

43

2.6%

Tract 3193.00

Block Group 1

2,420

100.0%

1,339

55.3%

1,081

44.7%

119

4.9%

69

2.9%

98

4.0%

9

0.4%

5

0.2%

55

2.3%

427

17.6%

12

0.5%

28

1.2%

19

0.8%

2

0.1%

454

18.8%

42

1.7%

Tract 3194.02

Block Group 1

1,991

100.0%

449

22.6%

1,542

77.4%

60

3.0%

25

1.3%

84

4.2%

10

0.5%

1

0.1%

49

2.5%

146

7.3%

1

0.1%

0

0.0%

5

0.3%

0

0.0%

57

2.9%

11

0.6%

Tract 3194.02

Block Group 2

2,097

100.0%

642

30.6%

1,455

69.4%

76

3.6%

44

2.1%

83

4.0%

9

0.4%

1

0.0%

46

2.2%

219

10.4%

1

0.0%

5

0.2%

5

0.2%

3

0.1%

117

5.6%

33

1.6%

Tract 3194.03

Block Group 1

1,366

100.0%

712

52.1%

654

47.9%

202

14.8%

81

5.9%

33

2.4%

39

2.9%

1

0.1%

42

3.1%

133

9.7%

17

1.2%

11

0.8%

0

0.0%

0

0.0%

144

10.5%

9

0.7%

Tract 3194.03

Block Group 2

1,233

100.0%

174

14.1%

1,059

85.9%

21

1.7%

7

0.6%

42

3.4%

2

0.2%

1

0.1%

16

1.3%

55

4.5%

2

0.2%

2

0.2%

2

0.2%

0

0.0%

13

1.1%

11

0.9%

Tract 3194.03

Block Group 4

1,094

100.0%

476

43.5%

618

56.5%

96

8.8%

52

4.8%

33

3.0%

14

1.3%

2

0.2%

31

2.8%

131

12.0%

1

0.1%

13

1.2%

0

0.0%

1

0.1%

86

7.9%

16

1.5%

Tract 3194.04

Block Group 1

1,433

100.0%

338

23.6%

1,095

76.4%

39

2.7%

22

1.5%

33

2.3%

2

0.1%

1

0.0%

22

1.5%

122

8.5%

1

0.1%

12

0.8%

3

0.2%

0

0.0%

53

3.7%

28

2.0%

Tract 3194.04

Block Group 2

1,900

100.0%

338

17.8%

1,562

82.2%

34

1.8%

24

1.3%

38

2.0%

8

0.4%

1

0.1%

23

1.2%

96

5.1%

1

0.1%

7

0.4%

2

0.1%

0

0.0%

91

4.8%

13

0.7%
Socioeconomic Conditions Appendix 

Socioeconomic Conditions Appendix-10

Table S-4. Race and Ethnicity (2010 US Census)

Geography Total 

Population

Total 

Minority

Non-Hispanic or Latino Hispanic or Latino

White 

Black or 

African 

American

American 

Indian 

and 

Alaska 

Native

Asian

Native

Hawaiian 

and 

Other 

Pacific 

Islander

Some 

Other 

Race

Two or 

More 

Races

White 

Black or 

African 

American

American 

Indian 

and 

Alaska 

Native

Asian

Native 

Hawaiian 

and 

Other 

Pacific 

Islander

Some 

Other 

Race

Two or 

More 

Races

Tract 3195.00

Block Group 1

1,442

100.0%

319

22.1%

1,123

77.9%

16

1.1%

15

1.0%

51

3.5%

6

0.4%

3

0.2%

30

2.1%

132

9.2%

0

0.0%

0

0.0%

2

0.1%

0

0.0%

41

2.8%

23

1.6%

Tract 3195.00

Block Group 2

1,169

100.0%

319

27.3%

850

72.7%

58

5.0%

10

0.9%

53

4.5%

1

0.1%

2

0.2%

18

1.5%

126

10.8%

0

0.0%

0

0.0%

0

0.0%

0

0.0%

40

3.4%

11

0.9%

Tract 3195.00

Block Group 3

730

100.0%

228

31.2%

502

68.8%

32

4.4%

30

4.1%

25

3.4%

5

0.7%

0

0.0%

17

2.3%

48

6.6%

1

0.1%

7

1.0%

2

0.3%

0

0.0%

43

5.9%

18

2.5%

Tract 3195.00

Block Group 4

2,108

100.0%

685

32.5%

1,423

67.5%

78

3.7%

48

2.3%

99

4.7%

8

0.4%

2

0.1%

68

3.2%

238

11.3%

12

0.6%

4

0.2%

7

0.3%

0

0.0%

97

4.6%

24

1.1%

Tract 3196.00

Block Group 1

1,320

100.0%

397

30.1%

923

69.9%

15

1.1%

13

1.0%

46

3.5%

44

3.3%

4

0.3%

25

1.9%

132

10.0%

9

0.7%

3

0.2%

0

0.0%

0

0.0%

93

0.7%

13

0.1%

Tract 3196.00

Block Group 4

1,668

100.0%

630

37.8%

1,038

62.2%

90

5.4%

57

3.4%

53

3.2%

0

0.0%

5

0.3%

38

2.3%

155

9.3%

6

0.4%

19

1.1%

1

0.1%

1

0.1%

176

10.6%

29

1.7%

Tract 3197.04

Block Group 1

1,483

100.0%

661

44.6%

822

55.4%

95

6.4%

32

2.2%

52

3.5%

9

0.6%

3

0.2%

53

3.6%

208

14.0%

7

0.5%

13

0.9%

3

0.2%

0

0.0%

156

10.5%

30

2.0%

Tract 3197.05

Block Group 1

1,708

100.0%

939

55.0%

769

45.0%

189

11.1%

97

5.7%

39

2.3%

1

0.1%

1

0.1%

37

2.2%

254

14.9%

6

0.4%

33

1.9%

4

0.2%

0

0.0%

244

14.3%

34

2.0%

Tract 3201.00

Block Group 1

1,418

100.0%

314

22.1%

1,104

77.9%

36

2.5%

14

1.0%

82

5.8%

2

0.1%

1

0.1%

32

2.3%

102

7.2%

1

0.1%

0

0.0%

3

0.2%

0

0.0%

34

2.4%

7

0.5%

Source: US Census Bureau, 2010 Census

Note: Block Groups shown in red have a minority population greater than 50 percent of the total
Socioeconomic Conditions Appendix 

Socioeconomic Conditions Appendix-11

Table S-5. Elderly Population and Low-Income Households. 

Demographics

Alternatives Counties Cities and Towns

Orange Yellow Maricopa 

County

Pima 

County

Pinal 

County

Coolidge Eloy Florence Gilbert Marana Mesa Phoenix Queen 

Creek

Tempe Tucson

Total 

Population

302,846 385,242 3,841,819 981,048 368,374 11,609 16,583 25,866 208,850 34,520 443,875 1,462,368 25,849 164,139 3,841,819 

100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Total Elderly 

Population (65 +)

42,087 30,095 468,702 153,043 53,046 1,358 1,327 3,751 13,575 5,109 67,469 122,839 1,396 13,459 468,702 

13.9% 7.8% 12.2% 15.6% 14.4% 11.7% 8.0% 14.5% 6.5% 14.8% 15.2% 8.4% 5.4% 8.2% 12.2%

Total 

Households 116,769 131,960 1,402,149 382,814 122,746 3,873 3,534 4,530 68,577 12,745 166,806 516,181 7,298 64,409 203,198 

100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Households that 

earn less than 

$15,000/year

19,734 22,718 155,013 56,523 13,783 436 989 389 3,506 493 18,247 73,605 284 10,101 40,278 

16.9% 17.2% 11.1% 14.8% 11.2% 11.3% 28.0% 8.6% 5.1% 3.9% 10.9% 14.3% 3.9% 15.7% 19.8%

Source: Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 American Community Survey, B1001, B19001, DP03, and S0101: Selected Economic Characteristics, 5-year estimates.
 

Title VI and Environmental Justice Appendix
Title VI and Environmental Justice Appendix-1 

Title VI and Environmental Justice Appendix

Table T-1. Race and Ethnicity

Subject

Orange 

Corridor 

Blocks 

Yellow 

Corridor 

Blocks 

Arizona

Pima

Pinal

Maricopa

Tri-County 

Total 

Tucson

Marana 

Eloy

Coolidge

Florence

Queen 

Creek

Gilbert

Mesa

Tempe

Phoenix

Total population 320,856 395,757 6,392,017 980,263 375,770 3,817,117 5,173,150 520,116 34,961 16,631 11,825 25,536 26,361 208,453 439,041 161,719 1,445,632

Total minority 

population

139,671

43.5%

182,733

46.2%

2,696,370

42.2%

438,563

44.7%

155,284

41.3%

1,577,062

41.3%

2,170,909

42.0%

274,793

52.8%

10,911

31.2%

13,487

81.1%

6,672

56.4%

13,625

53.4%

6,845

26.0%

56,523

27.1%

156,536

35.7%

61,008

37.7%

773,059

53.5%

Total NonHispanic/Latino

216,970

67.6%

267,731

67.7%

4,496,868

70.4%

641,461

65.4%

268,793

71.5%

2,688,376

70.4%

3,598,630

69.6%

303,808

58.4%

27,231

77.9%

6,983

42.0%

6,863

58.0%

17,558

68.8%

21,795

82.7%

177,379

85.1%

323,288

73.6%

127,627

78.9%

855,755

59.2%

White 181,185

56.5%

213,024

53.8%

3,695,647

57.8%

541,700

55.3%

220,486

58.7%

2,240,055

58.7%

3,002,241

58.0%

245,323

47.2%

24,050

68.8%

3,144

18.9%

5,153

43.6%

11,911

46.6%

19,516

74.0%

151,930

72.9%

282,505

64.3%

100,711

62.3%

672,573

46.5%

Black or African 

American

14,841

4.6%

20,777

5.2%

239,101

3.7%

31,075

3.2%

16,007

4.3%

177,490

4.6%

224,572

4.3%

23,362

4.5%

806

2.3%

1,602

9.6%

868

7.3%

1,545

6.1%

841

3.2%

6,606

3.2%

14,101

3.2%

9,021

5.6%

86,788

6.0%

American Indian 

and Alaska 

Native

6,560

2.0%

8,901

2.2%

257,426

4.0%

23,558

2.4%

17,410

4.6%

59,252

1.6%

100,220

1.9%

8,776

1.7%

282

0.8%

378

2.3%

445

3.8%

3,571

14.0%

123

0.5%

1,394

0.7%

8,359

1.9%

3,870

2.4%

23,327

1.6%

Asian 7,256

2.3%

14,048

3.5%

170,509

2.7%

24,592

2.5%

6,114

1.6%

128,301

3.4%

159,007

3.1%

14,211

2.7%

1,280

3.7%

723

4.3%

103

0.9%

218

0.9%

709

2.7%

11,877

5.7%

8,174

1.9%

9,035

5.6%

43,894

3.0%

Native Hawaiian 

and other 

Pacific Islander

810

0.3%

1,978

0.5%

10,959

0.2%

1,336

0.1%

1,489

0.4%

6,723

0.2%

9,548

0.2%

951

0.2%

34

0.1%

941

5.7%

9

0.1%

19

0.1%

31

0.1%

406

0.2%

1,532

0.3%

618

0.4%

2,055

0.1%

Some other race 450

0.1%

627

0.2%

8,595

0.1%

1,461

0.1%

487

0.1%

5,508

0.1%

7,456

0.1%

792

0.2%

76

0.2%

44

0.3%

10

0.1%

18

0.1%

30

0.1%

264

0.1%

555

0.1%

312

0.2%

2,242

0.2%

Two or more 

races

5,868

1.8%

8,376

2.1%

114,631

1.8%

17,739

1.8%

6,800

1.8%

71,047

1.9%

95,586

1.8%

10,393

2.0%

703

2.0%

151

0.9%

275

2.3%

276

1.1%

545

2.1%

4,902

2.4%

8,062

1.8%

4,060

2.5%

24,876

1.7%

Hispanic/Latino 103,886

32.4%

128,026

32.3%

1,895,149

29.6%

338,802

34.6%

106,977

28.5%

1,128,741

29.6%

1,574,520

30.4%

216,308

41.6%

7,730

22.1%

9,648

58.0%

4,962

42.0%

7,978

31.2%

4,566

17.3%

31,074

14.9%

115,753

26.4%

34,092

21.1%

589,877

40.8%

White 52,082

16.2%

62,808

15.9%

971,474

15.2%

187,051

19.1%

51,527

13.7%

546,726

14.3%

785,304

15.2%

117,326

22.6%

4,604

13.2%

3,712

22.3%

2,265

19.2%

4,279

16.8%

2,527

9.6%

18,553

8.9%

56,086

12.8%

16,746

10.4%

279,385

19.3%

Black or African 

American

1,169

0.4%

1,519

0.4%

19,907

0.3%

3,599

0.4%

1,208

0.3%

13,029

0.3%

17,836

0.3%

2,638

0.5%

68

0.2%

83

0.5%

60

0.5%

63

0.2%

54

0.2%

381

0.2%

1,188

0.3%

530

0.3%

6,820

0.5%

American Indian 

and Alaska 

Native

2,285

0.7%

2,989

0.8%

39,103

0.6%

9,047

0.9%

3,539

0.9%

19,077

0.5%

31,663

0.6%

5,378

1.0%

151

0.4%

193

1.2%

225

1.9%

110

0.4%

66

0.3%

342

0.2%

2,018

0.5%

801

0.5%

9,039

0.6%
TitleVI and Environmental Justice Appendix 

Title VI and Environmental Justice Appendix-2 

Table T-1. Race and Ethnicity

Subject

Orange 

Corridor 

Blocks 

Yellow 

Corridor 

Blocks 

Arizona

Pima

Pinal

Maricopa

Tri-County 

Total 

Tucson

Marana 

Eloy

Coolidge

Florence

Queen 

Creek

Gilbert

Mesa

Tempe

Phoenix

Asian 393

0.1%

477

0.1%

6,186

0.1%

1,139

0.1%

378

0.1%

3,924

0.1%

5,441

0.1%

709

0.1%

42

0.1%

32

0.1%

12

0.1%

8

0.0%

23

0.1%

233

0.1%

319

0.1%

182

0.1%

1,703

0.1%

Native Hawaiian 

and other 

Pacific Islander

88

0.0%

120

0.0%

1,689

0.0%

288

0.0%

76

0.0%

1,067

0.0%

1,431

0.0%

196

0.0%

13

0.0%

17

0.1%

4

0.0%

0

0.0%

8

0.0%

43

0.0%

140

0.0%

27

0.0%

500

0.0%

Some other race 41,957

13.1%

52,807

13.3%

753,121

11.8%

119,178

12.2%

42,726

11.4%

484,197

12.7%

646,101

12.5%

78,447

15.1%

2,262

6.5%

5,258

31.6%

2,085

17.6%

3,282

12.9%

1,490

5.7%

9,034

4.3%

49,023

11.2%

13,481

8.3%

264,972

18.3%

Two or more 

races

5,912

1.8%

7,306

1.8%

103,669

1.6%

18,500

1.9%

7,523

2.0%

60,721

1.6%

86,744

1.7%

11,614

2.2%

590

1.7%

353

2.1%

311

2.6%

236

0.9%

398

1.5%

2,488

1.2%

6,979

1.6%

2,325

1.4%

27,458

1.9%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2010d. From 2010 Census.
TitleVI and Environmental Justice Appendix 

Title VI and Environmental Justice Appendix-3 

Table T-2. Household Income

Subject

Orange 

Corridor Alt.

Block Groups

Yellow 

Corridor Alt.

Block Groups

Arizona

Pinal

Pima

Maricopa

Tri-County 

Total

Tucson

Marana

Eloy

Coolidge

Florence

Queen Creek

Gilbert

Mesa

Tempe

Phoenix

Total Households 117,193 129,632 2,326,468 118,826 381,880 1,382,002 1,882,708 207,313 11,487 3,703 4,258 2,425 6,483 64,297 165,910 64,227 515,701

Less than 

$10,000

11,396

9.7%

13,704

10.6%

163,071

7.0%

7,532

6.3%

31,558

8.3%

84,008

6.1%

123,098

6.5%

22,653

10.9%

287

2.5%

489

13.2%

397

9.3%

122

5.0%

96

1.5%

1,377

2.1%

9,234

5.6%

6,414

10.0%

40,698

7.9%

$10,000 to 

$14,999

7,362

6.3%

7,371

5.7%

119,317

5.1%

5,215

4.4%

23,090

6.0%

60,559

4.4%

88,864

4.7%

16,253

7.8%

244

2.1%

482

13.0%

230

5.4%

112

4.6%

100

1.5%

1,204

1.9%

7,172

4.3%

3,122

4.9%

27,253

5.3%

$15,000 to 

$19,999

6,573

5.6%

7,374

5.7%

119,054

5.1%

6,098

5.1%

22,764

6.0%

62,628

4.5%

91,490

4.9%

15,149

7.3%

304

2.6%

287

7.8%

350

8.2%

242

10.0%

75

1.2%

1,360

2.1%

8,740

5.3%

3,322

5.2%

25,963

5.0%

$20,000 to 

$24,999

7,225

6.2%

7,222

5.6%

132,708

5.7%

6,807

5.7%

23,541

6.2%

70,528

5.1%

100,876

5.4%

14,486

7.0%

344

3.0%

281

7.6%

229

5.4%

133

5.5%

106

1.6%

1,236

1.9%

9,289

5.6%

3,256

5.1%

31,110

6.0%

$25,000 to 

$29,999

7,551

6.4%

8,526

6.6%

129,795

5.6%

6,385

5.4%

23,260

6.1%

70,700

5.1%

100,345

5.3%

14,620

7.1%

397

3.5%

251

6.8%

239

5.6%

224

9.2%

199

3.1%

1,937

3.0%

10,221

6.2%

3,658

5.7%

28,846

5.6%

$30,000 to 

$34,999

7,339

6.3%

7,238

5.6%

133,236

5.7%

6,344

5.3%

24,148

6.3%

73,541

5.3%

104,033

5.5%

14,927

7.2%

538

4.7%

152

4.1%

375

8.8%

217

8.9%

221

3.4%

2,175

3.4%

10,684

6.4%

3,201

5.0%

29,795

5.8%

$35,000 to 

$39,999

6,963

5.9%

6,570

5.1%

124,658

5.4%

6,593

5.5%

21,130

5.5%

70,789

5.1%

98,512

5.2%

12,387

6.0%

554

4.8%

157

4.2%

269

6.3%

129

5.3%

183

2.8%

2,510

3.9%

9,363

5.6%

4,466

7.0%

26,648

5.2%

$40,000 to 

$44,999

6,353

5.4%

6,326

4.9%

124,736

5.4%

6,852

5.8%

19,610

5.1%

71,713

5.2%

98,175

5.2%

11,307

5.5%

426

3.7%

238

6.4%

344

8.1%

142

5.9%

214

3.3%

2,366

3.7%

9,911

6.0%

3,183

5.0%

28,550

5.5%

$45,000 to 

$49,999

5,325

4.5%

5,265

4.1%

106,265

4.6%

5,855

4.9%

17,226

4.5%

61,888

4.5%

84,969

4.5%

9,240

4.5%

599

5.2%

210

5.7%

231

5.4%

192

7.9%

267

4.1%

2,356

3.7%

8,204

4.9%

2,857

4.4%

24,587

4.8%

$50,000 to 

$59,999

10,431

8.9%

10,980

8.5%

197,879

8.5%

11,741

9.9%

31,267

8.2%

115,827

8.4%

158,835

8.4%

16,476

7.9%

1,039

9.0%

419

11.3%

297

7.0%

250

10.3%

438

6.8%

5,278

8.2%

15,248

9.2%

5,445

8.5%

41,446

8.0%

$60,000 to 

$74,999

12,773

10.9%

13,387

10.3%

248,566

10.7%

15,533

13.1%

38,003

10.0%

151,093

10.9%

204,629

10.9%

19,651

9.5%

1,699

14.8%

366

9.9%

560

13.2%

295

12.2%

814

12.6%

7,619

11.8%

18,714

11.3%

6,195

9.6%

52,371

10.2%

$75,000 to 

$99,999

13,099

11.2%

14,987

11.6%

286,189

12.3%

16,803

14.1%

43,507

11.4%

179,870

13.0%

240,180

12.8%

19,596

9.5%

1,857

16.2%

231

6.2%

382

9.0%

188

7.8%

1,578

24.3%

11,298

17.6%

20,597

12.4%

7,035

11.0%

60,235

11.7%

$100,000 to 

$124,999

7,108

6.1%

9,530

7.4%

176,826

7.6%

8,556

7.2%

26,209

6.9%

117,834

8.5%

152,599

8.1%

10,354

5.0%

1,389

12.1%

48

1.3%

178

4.2%

93

3.8%

815

12.6%

10,071

15.7%

11,948

7.2%

4,685

7.3%

37,432

7.3%

$125,000 to 

$149,999

3,668

3.1%

5,047

3.9%

98,457

4.2%

3,811

3.2%

14,195

3.7%

68,856

5.0%

86,862

4.6%

4,739

2.3%

896

7.8%

42

1.1%

102

2.4%

58

2.4%

571

8.8%

5,141

8.0%

7,301

4.4%

2,813

4.4%

22,155

4.3%

$150,000 to 

$199,999

2,457

2.1%

3,789

2.9%

85,914

3.7%

2,875

2.4%

11,570

3.0%

62,514

4.5%

76,959

4.1%

3,285

1.6%

484

4.2%

35

0.9%

48

1.1%

10

0.4%

537

8.3%

4,720

7.3%

5,306

3.2%

2,384

3.7%

19,616

3.8%
TitleVI and Environmental Justice Appendix 

Title VI and Environmental Justice Appendix-4 

Table T-2. Household Income

Subject

Orange 

Corridor Alt.

Block Groups

Yellow 

Corridor Alt.

Block Groups

Arizona

Pinal

Pima

Maricopa

Tri-County 

Total

Tucson

Marana

Eloy

Coolidge

Florence

Queen Creek

Gilbert

Mesa

Tempe

Phoenix

$200,000 or more 1,570

1.3%

2,316

1.8%

79,797

3.4%

1,826

1.5%

10,802

2.8%

59,654

4.3%

72,282

3.8%

2,190

1.1%

430

3.7%

15

0.4%

27

0.6%

18

0.7%

269

4.1%

3,649

5.7%

3,978

2.4%

2,191

3.4%

18,996

3.7%

Median HH 

Income (2010 $)

50,448 51,310 45,521 55,054 45,521 to 

55,054

37,025 67,542 31,671 40,529 41,642 81,916 79,989 50,079 47,443 48,823

Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2013a. From 2006-2010 American Community Survey.

Notes:

a

Median data not available for aggregated or partial geographies
Title VI and Environmental Justice Appendix 

Title VI and Environmental Justice Appendix-5 

Table T-3. Languages Spoken and Ability to Speak English in the Corridor Alternatives

Language / 

Share of Total Population (Age 5+)

Pima 

County

Pinal 

County

Maricopa 

County

Tri-County 

Total

Total Population 5 years and older 910,971 323,526 3,508,559 4,743,056

Speaks English only 652,880

71.7%

248,571

76.8%

2,578,035

73.5%

3,479,486

73.4%

Spanish or Spanish Creole 214,187

23.5%

62,381

19.3%

721,778

20.6%

998,346

21.0%

Speaks English 

“less than very well”

69,641

7.6%

20,052

6.2%

321,949

9.2%

411,642

8.7%

Chinese 5,645

0.6%

288

0.1%

18,960

0.5%

24,893

0.5%

Speaks English 

“less than very well”

2,988

0.3%

82

0.0%

9,733

0.3%

12,803

0.3%

Vietnamese 2,720

0.3%

482

0.1%

15,493

0.4%

18,695

0.4%

Speaks English 

“less than very well”

1,670

0.2%

257

0.1%

9,682

0.3%

11,609

0.2%

German 4,253

0.5%

1,305

0.4%

13,098

0.4%

18,656

0.4%

Speaks English 

“less than very well”

494

0.1%

87

0.0%

1,920

0.1%

2,501

0.1%

Tagalog 2,625

0.3%

932

0.3%

14,292

0.4%

17,849

0.4%

Speaks English 

“less than very well”

629

0.1%

215

0.1%

3,944

0.1%

4,788

0.1%

Arabic 2,324

0.3%

223

0.1%

12,190

0.3%

14,737

0.3%

Speaks English 

“less than very well”

1,238

0.1%

25

0.0%

5,066

0.1%

6,329

0.1%

French (incl. Patois, Cajun) 2,969

0.3%

708

0.2%

10,366

0.3%

14,043

0.3%

Speaks English 

“less than very well”

616

0.1%

17

0.0%

1,940

0.1%

2,573

0.1%

Navajo 1,144

0.1%

1,451

0.4%

9,789

0.3%

12,384

0.3%

Speaks English 

“less than very well”

200

0.0%

209

0.1%

1,559

0.0%

1,968

0.0%
Title VI and Environmental Justice Appendix 

Title VI and Environmental Justice Appendix-6 

Table T-3. Languages Spoken and Ability to Speak English in the Corridor Alternatives

Language / 

Share of Total Population (Age 5+)

Pima 

County

Pinal 

County

Maricopa 

County

Tri-County 

Total

African languages 1,856

0.2%

164

0.1%

9,597

0.3%

11,617

0.2%

Speaks English 

“less than very well”

876

0.1%

5 

0.0%

3,555

0.1%

4,436

0.1%

Other Asian languages 1,030

0.1%

243

0.1%

10,329

0.3%

11,602

0.2%

Speaks English 

“less than very well”

274

0.0%

74

0.0%

3,603

0.1%

3,951

0.1%

Other Native North American 

languages

4,278

0.5%

2,197

0.7%

3,773

0.1%

10,248

0.2%

Speaks English 

“less than very well”

567

0.1%

253

0.1%

392

0.0%

1,212

0.0%

Korean 1,467

0.2%

807

0.2%

7,517

0.2%

9,791

0.2%

Speaks English 

“less than very well”

809

0.1%

46

0.0%

3,708

0.1%

4,563

0.1%

Serbo-Croatian 385

0.0%

34

0.0%

8,724

0.2%

9,143

0.2%

Speaks English 

“less than very well”

160

0.0%

24

0.0%

3,766

0.1%

3,950

0.1%

Other Indo-European languages 266

0.0%

183

0.1%

7,130

0.2%

7,579

0.2%

Speaks English 

“less than very well”

81

0.0%

54

0.0%

2,865

0.1%

3,000

0.1%

Hindi 785

0.1%

57

0.0%

6,726

0.2%

7,568

0.2%

Speaks English 

“less than very well”

54

0.0%

23

0.0%

1,604

0.0%

1,681

0.0%

Italian 1,441

0.2%

351

0.1%

5,513

0.2%

7,305

0.2%

Speaks English 

“less than very well”

225

0.0%

40

0.0%

1,168

0.0%

1,433

0.0%

Other Indic languages 358

0.0%

4 

0.0%

6,166

0.2%

6,528

0.1%

Speaks English 

“less than very well”

96

0.0%

3 

0.0%

1,885

0.1%

1,984

0.0%

Russian 1,507

0.2%

58

0.0%

4,875

0.1%

6,440

0.1%

Speaks English 617 27 1,494 2,138
Title VI and Environmental Justice Appendix 

Title VI and Environmental Justice Appendix-7 

Table T-3. Languages Spoken and Ability to Speak English in the Corridor Alternatives

Language / 

Share of Total Population (Age 5+)

Pima 

County

Pinal 

County

Maricopa 

County

Tri-County 

Total

“less than very well” 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Persian 1,079

0.1%

41

0.0%

4,757

0.1%

5,877

0.1%

Speaks English 

“less than very well”

279

0.0%

11

0.0%

1,805

0.1%

2,095

0.0%

Other Pacific Island languages 566

0.1%

727

0.2%

4,390

0.1%

5,683

0.1%

Speaks English 

“less than very well”

236

0.0%

98

0.0%

1,290

0.0%

1,624

0.0%

Polish 757

0.1%

562

0.2%

4,213

0.1%

5,532

0.1%

Speaks English 

“less than very well”

179

0.0%

178

0.1%

1,079

0.0%

1,436

0.0%

Japanese 1,107

0.1%

189

0.1%

4,027

0.1%

5,323

0.1%

Speaks English 

“less than very well”

385

0.0%

11

0.0%

1,543

0.0%

1,939

0.0%

Other and unspecified languages 205

0.0%

55

0.0%

3,752

0.1%

4,012

0.1%

Speaks English 

“less than very well”

10

0.0%

7 

0.0%

1,839

0.1%

1,856

0.0%

Other Slavic languages 381

0.0%

101

0.0%

2,729

0.1%

3,211

0.1%

Speaks English 

“less than very well”

70

0.0%

14

0.0%

794

0.0%

878

0.0%

Gujarati 235

0.0%

59

0.0%

2,564

0.1%

2,858

0.1%

Speaks English 

“less than very well”

41

0.0%

10

0.0%

654

0.0%

705

0.0%

Greek 441

0.0%

63

0.0%

2,207

0.1%

2,711

0.1%

Speaks English 

“less than very well”

41

0.0%

0 

0.0%

359

0.0%

400

0.0%

Scandinavian languages 598

0.1%

57

0.0%

1,738

0.0%

2,393

0.1%

Speaks English 

“less than very well”

46

0.0%

23

0.0%

211

0.0%

280

0.0%

Other West Germanic languages 434

0.0%

225

0.1%

1,733

0.0%

2,392

0.1%
Title VI and Environmental Justice Appendix 

Title VI and Environmental Justice Appendix-8 

Table T-3. Languages Spoken and Ability to Speak English in the Corridor Alternatives

Language / 

Share of Total Population (Age 5+)

Pima 

County

Pinal 

County

Maricopa 

County

Tri-County 

Total

Speaks English 

“less than very well”

37

0.0%

19

0.0%

150

0.0%

206

0.0%

Portuguese or Portuguese Creole 498

0.1%

243

0.1%

2,155

0.1%

2,896

0.1%

Speaks English 

“less than very well”

172

0.0%

31

0.0%

533

0.0%

736

0.0%

Thai 358

0.0%

35

0.0%

1,524

0.0%

1,917

0.0%

Speaks English 

“less than very well”

155

0.0%

21

0.0%

782

0.0%

958

0.0%

Urdu 318

0.0%

56

0.0%

1,504

0.0%

1,878

0.0%

Speaks English 

“less than very well”

105

0.0%

56

0.0%

384

0.0%

545

0.0%

Hebrew 585

0.1%

38

0.0%

1,234

0.0%

1,857

0.0%

Speaks English 

“less than very well”

26

0.0%

0 

0.0%

154

0.0%

180

0.0%

Laotian 370

0.0%

387

0.1%

984

0.0%

1,741

0.0%

Speaks English 

“less than very well”

235

0.0%

10

0.0%

514

0.0%

759

0.0%

Armenian 118

0.0%

13

0.0%

1,527

0.0%

1,658

0.0%

Speaks English 

“less than very well”

18

0.0%

1 

0.0%

385

0.0%

404

0.0%

Mon-Khmer/Cambodian 369

0.0%

75

0.0%

1,181

0.0%

1,625

0.0%

Speaks English 

“less than very well”

251

0.0%

27

0.0%

412

0.0%

690

0.0%

Hungarian 245

0.0%

3 

0.0%

1,163

0.0%

1,411

0.0%

Speaks English 

“less than very well”

72

0.0%

3 

0.0%

281

0.0%

356

0.0%

French Creole 56

0.0%

118

0.0%

507

0.0%

681

0.0%

Speaks English 

“less than very well”

0 

0.0%

0 

0.0%

224

0.0%

224

0.0%

Yiddish 84 0 305 389
Title VI and Environmental Justice Appendix 

Title VI and Environmental Justice Appendix-9 

Table T-3. Languages Spoken and Ability to Speak English in the Corridor Alternatives

Language / 

Share of Total Population (Age 5+)

Pima 

County

Pinal 

County

Maricopa 

County

Tri-County 

Total

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Speaks English 

“less than very well”

0 

0.0%

0 

0.0%

14

0.0%

14

0.0%

Hmong 47

0.0%

40

0.0%

14

0.0%

101

0.0%

Speaks English 

“less than very well”

0 

0.0%

0 

0.0%

0 

0.0%

0 

0.0%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2013c. From 2007-2011 American Community Survey.
  

    

Tribal Coordination and Consultation Appendix




























































































































 

Visual and Aesthetic Scenic Resources Appendix
Visual and Aesthetic Scenic Resources Appendix

V.1 Methodology and Regulatory Setting

Aerial photography and GIS data pertaining to existing railroad and transportation corridors, land 

ownership, wilderness areas, and hydrology were reviewed to identify the existing visual environment 

and potential scenic resources along the proposed Yellow and Orange corridor alternatives. Aerial 

photography was used to determine the proximity of visual resources. 

V.2 Affected Environment

The study corridor is located between Tucson and Phoenix, Arizona, in the northeastern reaches of the 

Sonoran Desert as shown in the Corridor Aerial Atlas Appendix, Figures 1-91. For the purposes of this 

Tier 1 visual and aesthetic scenic resources (VASR) assessment, the corridor alternatives were divided 

into two sub-areas, southern and northern. The southern corridor alternatives extend from the 

proposed system hub in downtown Tucson to Eloy. The northern corridor alternatives extend from Eloy 

to the proposed northern hub in downtown Phoenix.

V.2.1 Landscape Character

The visual landscape character includes diverse images of natural and man-made features and contains 

three landscape characters: 1) Urban and Suburban, 2) Agricultural, and 3) Undeveloped Desert. These 

landscape characters are described below and the location of each is shown in Figure 5-26. 

 Urban and Suburban: The urban and suburban landscape character is visible in both the northern 

and southern portions of the corridor alternatives, primarily within the Tucson and Phoenix 

metropolitan areas. Multi-story commercial and residential buildings, interstates, highways, city 

streets, and a mixture of industrial and commercial land uses characterize the urban landscape. 

Single-family residences; “big-box” retail and commercial developments; local, collector, and arterial 

streets; and neighborhood parks characterize the suburban landscape. The urban and suburban

landscape character also contains a mixture of industrial and commercial uses including large public 

facilities and local infrastructure. Views of distant mountain ranges are often screened by single- and 

multi-level buildings in the foreground. Historic buildings, structures, and districts with regional 

architecture are also located within urban and suburban landscape character and possess unique

visual qualities. 

 Agricultural: The agricultural landscape character is visible within the northern and southern 

portions of the corridor alternatives. Foreground view are dominated by large, generally flat, 

irrigated agricultural fields consisting of cultivated row crops and pecan groves arranged in a gridlike pattern. Views of distant mountain ranges frame the background views. More urban-based 

elements such as rural roads, railroads, and small residential and commercial developments also 

arranged in a grid-like pattern, can also be seen in this landscape unit. 

 Undeveloped Desert: The undeveloped desert landscape character is also visible within the 

northern and southern portions of the corridor alternatives. Foreground views are dominated by 

undisturbed, native desert vegetation on natural terrain. Background views are dominated by 
Visual and Aesthetic Scenic Resources Appendix 

Visual Appendix-2 

distant mountain ranges and rock outcroppings. The Upper Sonoran Desertscrub plant communities, 

which include palo verde-saguaro, creosotebush, and mesquite-acacia communities are 

characteristic of this landscape character (Dunham 1978). 

V.2.2 Viewing Audience

Several viewing audiences can be categorized into groups dependent on what they see as they move 

through, past, or within the corridor alternatives. Each viewer group has a different visual sensitivity, 

depending on the frequency and duration of their views, as well as their visual expectation and 

relationship to the visual resource. Viewer groups are listed below from least sensitive to most sensitive. 

 Automobile drivers: Automobile drivers view the corridor alternatives from highways or local 

streets. Generally, the visual sensitivity of automobile drivers traveling along highways or local 

streets is low due to the driver’s focus on driving and not the surrounding VASR. 

 Owners/employees/patrons of commercial and retail establishments: This group includes those 

who work or visit commercial and retail establishments in the corridor alternatives. The sensitivity 

for this group is low because these viewers would view the corridor alternatives while engaging in 

common daily activities such as shopping or commuting to and from work, and may not have strong 

relationships with the visual resources in the corridor alternatives. 

 Train and automobile passengers: Although train and automobile passengers would view the 

corridor alternatives while traveling at high speeds, the duration of a train or automobile 

passenger’s viewing experience would be longer than automobile drivers because they are not 

concentrating on driving. Some train and automobile passengers would be more sensitive than 

others; passengers traveling as tourists would be more sensitive than commuting passengers. 

Generally, the visual sensitivity of train and automobile passengers would be moderate. 

 Recreationists: Recreationists would generally view the corridor alternatives while traveling at low 

speeds while engaging in recreational activities such as walking, running, hiking, biking, or horseback 

riding. Views from recreation trails and areas, and scenic overlooks are typically assessed as having 

high visual importance. The duration of recreationists’ viewing experience may be longer than 

automobile drivers and train or automobile passengers. Recreationists are sensitive viewers because 

of their extended views of the corridor alternatives and for their sensitivity to changes in visual 

quality of the recreational environment. Generally, the visual sensitivity of recreationists would be 

moderate to moderately high.

 Residents: This group consists of persons living within the corridor alternatives. Residents are a 

sensitive viewer group because they would experience frequent, extended, and consistent views of 

a passenger rail system. Residents are most concerned with visual quality of where they live because

it affects their quality of life. Residents are generally considered as having a high visual sensitivity. 

V.2.3 Public Land Use Plans and Policies for Scenic Resources

Regional and local land use policies provide information on the viewers’ values for visual resources and 

help predict viewers’ response to visual change. Federal, state and local governments have jurisdiction 
Visual and Aesthetic Scenic Resources Appendix 

Visual Appendix-3 

over land located within the proposed corridor alternatives. Several entities provide scenic and/or visual 

resource policies, goals, and objectives as part of their land use planning process. This section provides a 

review of the plans, policies, objectives and goals applicable to scenic and visual resources within or 

adjacent to the corridor alternatives. 

Bureau of Land Management, Phoenix District Office - Lower Sonoran Record of Decision and 

Approved Resource Management Plan

Numerous parcels of BLM-managed lands are located in the vicinity of the corridor alternatives; three 

small BLM parcels in Pinal County are located within the northern corridor alternatives. The Lower 

Sonoran Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan provides overall direction for 

management of all resources on BLM-administered land in the Lower Sonoran Field Office (BLM 2012). 

The objectives and policies applicable to VASR within or adjacent to the corridor alternatives support the 

management of BLM public lands that maintains the scenic quality, natural landscapes, undisturbed 

views, and other high-quality visual resources. 

To maintain the scenic value of high-quality visual resources, BLM established a set of objectives for four 

different classes of visual resources. Visual resources are categorized into each class depending on the 

quality of the visual resource. The Visual Resource Inventory handbook (BLM 1986) and Guidelines for a 

Quality Built Environment (BLM 2010) outline the visual classes and objectives for each class. Visual 

Resource Management (VRM) classes are categories assigned to BLM lands based on scenic quality, 

sensitivity level, and distance zones (BLM 2012). All three BLM parcels located within the corridor 

alternatives are classified as Class IV visual resources, which allows for visual modifications, but also 

requires efforts to consider design options that help reduce visual contrast between the proposed 

project and the landscape setting. The objective for Class IV resources is as follows: “Class IV: 

(Modification of the landscape character) includes areas where changes may subordinate the original 

composition and character. But the changes should reflect what could be a natural occurrence in the 

characteristic landscape” (BLM 2012). 

One of the Lower Sonoran Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan visual 

objectives also supports the preservation of dark night skies for stargazing and nighttime military 

training.

Pima County Comprehensive Plan

Pima County is located in the southern study area and includes Tucson. Three documents make up the 

Pima County Comprehensive Plan: Rezoning and Special Area Plan Policies, Land Use Intensity Legend,

and Regional Plan Policies. Both Rezoning and Special Area Plan Policies and Regional Plan Policies

reference scenic resources. 

Rezoning and Special Area Plan Policies defines special areas as those sites that are “...typically 

composed of multiple parcels that share a unique physical feature or location over a relatively large 
Visual and Aesthetic Scenic Resources Appendix 

Visual Appendix-4 

area” (Pima County 2012). Three special areas are identified in the document as containing scenic 

qualities, however none are located within the corridor alternatives. 

Regional Plan Policies relates the importance of scenic resources as part of the conservation of cultural 

resources (Pima County 2012). To better address the diversity of cultural resources within the County, 

the County recommended the creation of conservation districts. The County conservation districts are 

defined as areas possessing 

"...architectural character, visual patterns, archaeological potential, cultural significance, 

scenic, historic, land use or natural features which are representative of and contribute 

to Pima County’s local or regional identity.” (Pima County 2012)

While no conservation districts are located with the corridor alternatives, these documents illustrate the 

County’s commitment to persevering scenic and cultural resources. Pima County is currently updating 

the comprehensive plan and a draft was released for public comment in fall 2014 (Pima County 2014). If 

the study advances to Tier 2, the comprehensive plan update should be reviewed for changes to the 

policies and goals applicable to VASR within or adjacent to the Pima County portions of the corridor 

alternatives.

Pinal County Comprehensive Plan

Portions of the northern corridor alternatives are located in Pinal County, south of Maricopa County. 

The Pinal County Comprehensive Plan guides development based on a plan adopted in 2009 and a 2012 

update (Pinal County 2012). Policies applicable to VASR within or adjacent to the corridor alternatives

support strategies to protect scenic viewsheds and dark skies through outdoor lighting regulations and 

working cooperatively with other organizations. 

Pinal County Open Space and Trails Master Plan

The Pinal County Open Space and Trails Master Plan (2007) is the foundation for the Open Space and 

Recreation Element of the Pinal County Comprehensive Plan (2012). While there are no policies directly 

applicable to the corridor alternatives VASR, the Pinal County Open Space and Trails Master Plan does 

mention the importance of scenic resources as part of its vision statement. The statement emphasizes 

the importance of conserving the county’s rural and natural open space character and existing scenic 

areas and view corridors. 

Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan 

Portions of the northern corridor alternatives are located in Maricopa County near the Phoenix

metropolitan area. In Maricopa County, land use planning goals and policies are guided by the Maricopa 

County comprehensive plan, Maricopa 2020, Eye to the Future, which was adopted in October 1997 and 

revised in August 2002 (Maricopa County 2002). The Environment and Open Space Plan Element of the 

plan guides the relationship between people and their environment. The policies applicable to VASR

within or adjacent to the corridor alternatives support development that is compatible with the existing 

visual character and quality of the site.
Visual and Aesthetic Scenic Resources Appendix 

Visual Appendix-5 

Maricopa County has also developed scenic overlays along several transportation corridors to provide 

differentiated development guidelines to protect the scenic quality of these routes. While none of the 

designated routes are within the corridor alternatives, the plans demonstrate the County’s desire to 

conserve and protect these unique resources (Maricopa County 2002). 

City of Tucson General Plan

Land use decisions are guided by the City of Tucson General Plan (City of Tucson 2001). Policies 

applicable to VASR within or adjacent to the corridor alternatives support the preservation of scenic 

views of natural features and community landmarks.

Tucson Scenic Corridor Zone 

To protect the city's unique visual setting and promote its economic well-being, the Tucson established 

Scenic Corridor Zones to assure design sensitivity to the natural scenic quality of the city (City of 

Tucson 1995). These regulations apply to designated scenic routes as defined in the Major Streets and 

Routes Plan (City of Tucson 2000) and provide guidance on new development within the Scenic Corridor 

Zones. There are no designated scenic routes within the corridor alternatives. 

City of Mesa General Plan

Land use decisions within the City of Mesa are guided by the City of Mesa General Plan (City of 

Mesa 2002). Policies applicable to VASR adjacent to or within the corridor alternatives include the 

preservation of significant natural environmental features and scenic resources within the planning 

area.

City of Mesa Falcon Field Sub-Area Plan 

The Falcon Field Sub-Area Plan provides a vision for the Falcon Field area in northeast Mesa, outside the 

northern corridor alternatives. The sub-area plan guides future land development (City of Mesa 2007). 

Policies applicable to VASR within or adjacent to the corridor alternatives include the preservation of the 

natural desert viewshed north of the Loop 202 Red Mountain Freeway for the benefit of visitors, 

existing development, and future development. This viewshed could potentially be visible from the 

corridor alternatives. 

City of Phoenix General Plan

Land use decisions within the City of Phoenix are guided by the General Plan 2002 (City of 

Phoenix 2002). Policies and goals applicable to VASR within or adjacent to the corridor alternatives

support the identification and maintenance of scenic corridors within the city. None of the scenic 

corridors are located within the corridor alternatives. The Phoenix general plan also supports the 

preservation of significant views and access to cultural and visual landmarks. Phoenix is currently 

updating the general plan and a draft was released for public comment in fall 2014 (City of 

Phoenix 2014). If the study advances to Tier 2, the general plan update should be reviewed for changes 

to the policies and goals applicable to VASR within or adjacent to the Phoenix portions of the corridor 

alternatives.
Visual and Aesthetic Scenic Resources Appendix 

Visual Appendix-6 

References

Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT). [n.d.]. Railroads [GIS Data]. Retrieved from 

http://www.azdot.gov/mpd/gis/about.asp. 

Arizona State Land Department. 1990. Arizona Wilderness Areas [GIS Data]. Retrieved from 

http://www.azland.gov/alris/layers.html. 

_____. 1993. Streams – Ephemeral and Perennial [GIS Data]. Retrieved from 

http://www.azland.gov/alris/layers.html. 

_____. 2011. Arizona Roads (TIGER/Line) [GIS Data]. Retrieved from 

http://www.azland.gov/alris/layers.html. 

_____. 2012. Public Land Ownership [GIS Data]. September. Retrieved from 

http://www.azland.gov/alris/layers.html. 

Arizona State Land Department, Arizona Land Resource Information System (ALRIS). 2012. Arizona Cities 

(Points) [GIS Data]. February 2012. Retrieved from http://www.azland.gov/alris/layers.html. 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM). [n.d.] Visual Resource Management Designations [GIS Data]. 

Retrieved from http://www.blm.gov/az/st/en/prog/maps/gis_files.html. 

_____. 1986. Manual H-840-1 – Visual Resource Inventory. Website: 

http://www.blm.gov/style/medialib/blm/wo/Information_Resources_Management/policy/blm_

handbook.Par.31679.File.dat/H-8410.pdf. Accessed November 2014.

_____. 2010. Guidelines for Quality Built Environment. Website: 

http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wo/Planning_and_Renewable_Resources/recrea

tion_images/national_programs/VRM.Par.62809.File.dat/GQBE_WEB.pdf. Accessed 

November 2014.

_____. 2012. Lower Sonoran Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan. Website: 

https://www.blm.gov/epl-front-office/projects/lup/11856/40127/42156/01-LSDA_RODARMP_FINAL_2012-09-19_web-with-Links_sans-map-pages.pdf. Accessed November 2014. 

City of Mesa. 2002. City of Mesa General Plan. Website: 

http://www.mesaaz.gov/planning/LongRangePlanning.aspx. Accessed November 2014. 

_____. 2007. Falcon Field Sub-Area Plan. Website: 

http://www.mesaaz.gov/planning/PDF/FalconField/FinalPlan/FFSub-AreaPlanAdopted04-02-

2007.pdf. Accessed November 2014. 

City of Phoenix. 2012. General Plan 2002. Website: 

https://www.phoenix.gov/pddsite/Pages/pzgp2002.aspx. Accessed November 2014. 
Visual and Aesthetic Scenic Resources Appendix 

Visual Appendix-7 

_____. 2014. planPHX Fall 2014 General Plan. Website: 

https://www.phoenix.gov/pddsite/Documents/PlanPhx%20Draft%20General%20Plan%20Updat

e-Printable.pdf. Accessed November 2014.

City of Tucson. 1995. Land Use Code of the City of Tucson. Website: 

http://www4.tucsonaz.gov/files/pdsd/codes-ordinances/Complete_LUC_Sept2012.pdf. 

Accessed November 2014. 

_____. 2000. Major Streets and Routes Plan. Website: 

http://pdsd.tucsonaz.gov/files/pdsd/plans/msr.pdf. Accessed November 2014.

_____. 2001. City of Tucson General Plan. Website: http://pdsd.tucsonaz.gov/files/pdsd/generalplan/generalplan.pdf. Accessed November 2014.

Dunham, Daniel A. 1978. Plant Communities of Southeastern Arizona. New Mexico Geological Society

Guidebook. City of Albuquerque, Transportation Department. Website:

http://nmgs.nmt.edu/publications/guidebooks/downloads/29/29_p0357_p0360.pdf. Accessed 

November 2014.

Google Inc. 2012. Aerial Imagery of Arizona. Retrieved from https://maps.google.com/. 

Maricopa County. 2002. Maricopa 2020, Eye to the Future. Website: 

http://www.maricopa.gov/planning/Resources/Plans/ComprehensivePlan.aspx. Accessed 

November 2014. 

National Park Service (NPS). 2012. National Register of Historic Places [GIS Data]. Retrieved from 

http://nrhp.focus.nps.gov/natreg/docs/Download.html#spatial. 

Pima County. 2012. Pima County Comprehensive Plan Update. Website: 

http://webcms.pima.gov/UserFiles/Servers/Server_6/File/Government/Pima%20Prospers/2001

%20Pima%20County%20Comprehensive%20Plan.pdf. Accessed November 2014.

_____. 2014. Pima Prospers: Pima County Comprehensive Plan Initiative. Website: 

http://webcms.pima.gov/government/pima_prospers/. Accessed November 2014.

Pinal County. 2007. Pinal County Open Space and Trails Master Plan. Website: 

http://pinalcountyaz.gov/Departments/OpenSpaceTrails/Documents/FINAL%20Open%20Space

%20and%20Trails%20Master%20Plan.pdf. Accessed November 2014. 

_____. 2012. Pinal County Comprehensive Plan. Website: 

http://pinalcountyaz.gov/Departments/PlanningDevelopment/ComprehensivePlanUpdate/Docu

ments/00.Comprehensive%20Plan%202012.pdf. Accessed November 2014.
 

Waters of the United States Appendix
Waters of the US Appendix-1 

Waters of the United States Appendix

The regulatory framework pertaining to Waters of the US, also referred to as jurisdictional waters, is the 

Clean Water Act of 1972 (as amended) (CWA). Section 404 of the CWA is discussed below. Sections 401 

and 402 of the Clean Water Act are discussed in Section 5.15, Water Quality. Because none of the rivers 

or streams in the corridor alternatives have been adjudicated as navigable, the Rivers and Harbors Act of 

1899 (33 U.S.C. §401) and US Coast Guard permitting would not apply.

The principal goal of the CWA is to establish water quality standards to restore and maintain the 

chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation’s jurisdictional waters by preventing point 

(concentrated output) and nonpoint (widely scattered output) pollution sources. For regulatory and 

permitting purposes, the corridor alternatives are located in the Corps’ Los Angeles District. 

Section 404 of the CWA regulates the discharge of earthen fill, concrete, and other construction 

materials into Waters of the U.S., and authorizes the Corps to issue permits regulating such discharges. 

The limits of Waters of the U.S. are defined through a preliminary or approved jurisdictional delineation 

(JD) accepted by the Corps. A JD determines the limits of the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) of each 

watercourse. A preliminary JD assumes all drainages within a given area are subject to the jurisdiction of 

the Corps. An approved JD requires that all ephemeral drainages display a significant nexus to the 

downstream traditional navigable water (TNW), the closest of which is the Santa Cruz River that flows 

through the southern portion of the corridor alternatives. 

The discharge of fill material below the OHWM of jurisdictional waters is regulated by the Corps and 

would require a Section 404 Permit in the design stage, in addition to mitigation. The most common 

types of Section 404 permits for transportation projects are 1) Nationwide Permit (NWP) No. 14 (Linear 

Transportation Projects), which authorizes projects with less than 0.50 acre of permanent loss of 

jurisdictional waters, and 2) individual permits, which are required for projects that affect more than 

0.50 acre of jurisdictional waters or cause impacts to jurisdictional wetlands or other special aquatic 

sites. An individual permit requires mitigation to minimize or offset the impacts to jurisdictional waters 

with no net loss of the functions and values of the water resource.

The Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI) hydrography data and the Nationwide Rivers 

Inventory (NRI) were used to compile GIS data for locations of potential Waters of the U.S. No NRI 

segments are located in the corridor alternatives. The majority of ESRI-mapped streams are unnamed 

washes. Perennial and intermittent streams, and lakes and ponds designated on USGS maps, are likely 

to be determined jurisdictional unless non-jurisdictional conditions can be documented.

In conjunction with the Tier 2 NEPA documents, a more detailed impact analysis of potentially 

jurisdictional waters would be conducted, including field surveys, at which time there is the potential for 

Waters of the U.S. to be identified and delineated. Smaller streams with an OHWM and connections to 

jurisdictional streams that were not included in the mapping databases may be found. Coordination 
Waters of the United States Appendix

Waters of the US Appendix-2 

would take place with the Corps to determine which water resources are jurisdictional or nonjurisdictional for Section 404 permitting purposes and mitigation requirements.

Table US-1. Named Rivers, Streams, Washes and Lakes in the Corridor Alternatives

Name Jurisdictional Status County

Southern Hub to Eloy – Yellow and Orange Corridor Alternatives

Old Julian Wash TBDa Pima

18th Street Wash TBD Pima

Santa Cruz River Jurisdictional Pima

Arroyo Chico Wash TBD Pima

High School Wash TBD Pima

El Rio Wash TBD Pima

El Rio Golf Course Lake TBD Pima

Bronx Wash TBD Pima

Flowing Wells Wash Jurisdictional Pima

Silvercroft Wash TBD Pima

Painted Hills Wash TBD Pima

West Speedway Wash TBD Pima

Camino de Oeste Wash TBD Pima

Roger Wash TBD Pima

Silverbell Golf Course Lake TBD Pima

Sweetwater Wetlands TBD Pima

Sweetwater Wash Jurisdictional Pima

Lakes at Columbus Park (2) TBD Pima

Del Cerro Wash Jurisdictional Pima

Rillito River/Rillito Creek Jurisdictional Pima

Pegler Wash TBD Pima

Carmack Wash TBD Pima

Cañada del Oro Jurisdictional Pima

Hardy Wash TBD Pima

Cañada Agua 1 Wash TBD Pima

Picture Rocks Wash TBD Pima

Cañada Agua 2 Wash TBD Pima

Prospect Wash TBD Pima
Waters of the United States Appendix

Waters of the US Appendix-3 

Table US-1. Named Rivers, Streams, Washes and Lakes in the Corridor Alternatives

Name Jurisdictional Status County

Guild Wash TBD Pima

Eloy to Northern Hub – Yellow Corridor Alternative

Gila River Jurisdictional Pinal

Queen Creek Jurisdictional Pinal

East Maricopa Floodway Jurisdictional Maricopa

Crossroads District Park Lake TBD Maricopa

Western Skies Golf Club Lakes (2) TBD Maricopa

Stonebridge Lakes (2) TBD Maricopa

Crystal Point Estates Lake TBD Maricopa

Playa Del Rey Lake TBD Maricopa

El Dorado Lakes (2) TBD Maricopa

Salt River/Tempe Town Lake Jurisdictional Maricopa

Eloy to Northern Hub –Orange Corridor Alternative

Bogart Wash TBD Pinal

Picacho Reservoir TBD Pinal

Gila River Jurisdictional Pinal

Queen Creek Jurisdictional Pinal

Augusta Ranch Lakes (2) TBD Maricopa

Desert Sands Golf Course Lake TBD Maricopa

Superstition Springs Lakes (21) TBD Maricopa

Val Vista Lakes (3) TBD Maricopa

Emerald Park Lake TBD Maricopa

Fiesta Lake TBD Maricopa

Dobson Ranch Lakes (3) TBD Maricopa

Shalimar Country Club Lake TBD Maricopa 

Karsten Golf Course Lake TBD Maricopa 

Salt River/Tempe Town Lake Jurisdictional Maricopa

Indian Bend Wash Jurisdictional Maricopa

Source: Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI) GIS Data

Notes: a TBD = jurisdictional status to be determined during Tier 2.