Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement 2-1

2 Alternatives Considered

This chapter summarizes the routing alternatives considered for the APRCS. The Alternatives 

Analysis (AA) Report, available in the Alternatives Analysis Appendix, documents the 

assessment of opportunities in the study corridor that led to the selection of the corridor 

alternatives evaluated in the Tier 1 EIS. Included as an appendix to this Tier 1 EIS, the AA 

provides supporting documentation to the information presented in this chapter.

2.1 Rail Alternatives

As discussed and/or illustrated in the Alternatives Analysis Report and AA Appendix, each rail 

alternative is assumed to have similar characteristics, including:

 150 mph maximum design speed

 125 mph maximum operating speed with segments of lower speed where required 

because of design constraints (mostly in urbanized area)

 Blend of intercity and commuter operations

o Intercity trains provide express service by stopping only at regional stations, such 

as airports

o Commuter trains provide local service by stopping at all stations

 Single track system and a 60-foot cross section with dual track at stations and where 

directional conflicts are identified by operations modeling 

 Coordination and collaboration with the freight rail operators within the study area

 Adherence to UP’s “Commuter Rail Principles,” where applicable 

 As identified as part of the FRA Southwest Multi-State Rail Planning Study, a future 

connection to a larger western network that is envisioned to include a high speed rail 

connection between Phoenix, Las Vegas, and Los Angeles

2.2 Prior Studies

The Sun Corridor megaregion has been evaluated for rail passenger service on a number of 

occasions in the past several decades. ADOT studied rail options throughout the state in 1993,

and a passenger rail feasibility study was conducted in 1994. Those efforts led to an evaluation 

of high-speed rail in the Tucson-Phoenix Corridor in 1998. MAG completed a Commuter Rail 

Study in 2010 for the Phoenix metropolitan area, which provides a basis for some of the 

analysis in the AA related to commuter services. While information from past studies provided 

a foundation for alternatives criteria and a comparison for study results, the alternative 

corridors developed for this analysis are based largely on new original work, new data 

collection, and additional public involvement. 
2 Alternatives Considered

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement 2-2

2.3 Alternatives Screening and Selection Process

The AA began with a broad range of possible alternatives designed to identify all reasonable 

connections between Tucson and Phoenix meeting the Project’s purpose and need. All available 

modes were initially considered, including automobile, air, rail, and bus rapid transit (BRT).

Automobile travel has been thoroughly analyzed in the study corridor; a comprehensive 

implementation plan is in place for expanding capacity, but the projected capacity will not fully 

satisfy future transportation demand. Therefore, infrastructure to support automobile travel 

will not meet the purpose and need and was not considered further in this analysis. Air travel 

was not competitive in terms of time or cost and fails to satisfy the purpose and need because 

it will not effectively serve destinations between the Tucson and Phoenix hubs. Expanding 

existing bus service was also found not to be competitive with rail or BRT (operating in a 

dedicated guideway) alternatives in terms of travel time and would be subject to the same 

reliability limitations as present roadway operations (e.g., congestion, crashes). This left rail and 

BRT as the primary modal choices to be evaluated further. 

The remaining passenger rail and BRT alternatives were refined through progressive levels of 

analysis, which are listed below and explained in more detail throughout this section.

 Level 1 Initial Screening: Range of Alternatives 

 Level 2 Evaluation: Conceptual Alternatives

 Level 3 Evaluation: Final Alternatives

2.3.1 Level 1 Initial Screening

Range of Alternatives 

The initial screening evaluated BRT as well as a range of rail alternatives made up of 43 corridor 

segments linking 38 potential station locations, which produced more than 150 unique corridor 

alternatives between Tucson and Phoenix. The range of alternatives process introduced all 

reasonable routes and station locations to be evaluated in the Level 1 initial screening, 

including those based on public and agency comments. The information from the range of 

alternatives process was used in the initial screening of corridors and provided a fatal flaw 

and/or risk assessment to help select routes that best meet the project purpose and need.

Figure 2-1 shows the route segments that were evaluated as part of the initial screening 

process. 

The details of the initial screening process are documented in the Range of Alternatives Report 

(ADOT Multimodal Planning Division 2012) and Initial Screening Report (ADOT Multimodal 

Planning Division 2013a), both included in the Alternatives Analysis Appendix. The possible route
PIMA COUNTY MARICOPA COUNTY PINAL COUNTY

GILA COUNTY

PINAL COUNTY

Tohono O'odham Nation

!"a

!"`

)e

Q?Á

Q?¿

Q?É

Q?Æ

UAõ

UAå

UAÖ

Q? ̈

!"c

!"a

)e

UAÖ

!"a

UAå

Q?Ê

Q?É

!"a

!"d

Q?È

Ak-Chin

Indian 

Community

Gila River

Indian 

Community

)e

Salt River 

Pima-Maricopa

 Indian Community

Santa Cruz River

Salt River

Gila River

Queen Creek

Verde River

UAÛ

UAð

e

e

e

MARICOPA COUNTY

Eloy

Tohono O'odham

Nation San Xavier

District

Florence

Marana

Mesa

Gilbert

Oro 

Valley

Superior

Glendale

Peoria

Scottsdale

Goodyear

Sky Harbor International

Airport

Phoenix-Mesa

Gateway

Airport

Tucson

International

Airport

Coolidge

Casa

Grande

Surprise

Buckeye

San Tan

Valley

Catalina

Foothills

Tucson

Phoenix

Guadalupe Tempe

Avondale

!(6

!(

36

!(

40

!(

23

!(2

!(

20

!(

11 !(12

!(

22

!(

32

!(

27

!(

26

!(

16

!(

33

!(

28

!(

15

!(

31

!(

34

!(

18

!(

35

!(

37

!(

30

!(

42

!(9

!(

38

!(

21

!(

17

!(

14

!(

39

!(

13

!(

29

!(

24

!(4

!(3

!(1

!( !(

43 41

!(8

!(5

!(7

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement 2-3

2 Alternatives Considered

Figure 2-1. Route Segments That Define the Range of Alternatives

e

Airport

Route Segments

Rail Connections

Interstate

State or US Highway

Railroad

Major Drainage

Federal Land

National Forest

Tribal Land

State Trust Land

City Boundary

Le g e nd

0 5 10

Miles

Sources: Esri 2014; Arizona Department of Transportation 2013;

Arizona Land Resource Information System 2013

N

!(1

Note: Segments are colored

differently to identify individual links.

e
2 Alternatives Considered

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement 2-4

segments and locations served were screened based on broad assessments of land use 

compatibility, environmental impacts, travel markets, and cost. Throughout the initial screening 

process, the evaluation methodology established an appropriate level of analysis to identify a set 

of complete alternatives. The screening criteria relied as much as possible upon qualitative 

measures, with minimal use of quantitative assessments. Qualitative assessments were made to 

establish a tiered ranking of the measurements and included the input of the public, agencies, 

and professionals with pertinent expertise. 

A complete alternative, defined for purposes of the initial screening, comprised three elements 

that were assessed independently: alignment, locations served (including hub stations, regional 

stations, and local stations), and service type (mode and connections). These details, which are 

discussed later in this chapter, were developed only for purposes of the analysis in the AA 

because locations served and service type were necessary components in determining effective 

and viable routes. 

FRA determined that the route of a future passenger rail system must first be considered in its 

regional context, as it would influence roadway networks, future planning processes, and 

environmental issues spanning portions of three counties, numerous jurisdictions, and multiple 

independent planning processes. Given the existing and projected 

rapid growth in and around the study area, it is vital to identify a preferred corridor alternative 

as early as feasible, so that planning decisions can consider a future passenger rail system, and 

before new development reduces alignment options or increases ROW acquisition costs. This 

Tier 1 EIS evaluates only the corridor alternatives that were identified through the AA’s levels of 

screening and evaluation (Figure 2-2). General locations for rail stations were identified in the 

AA but were used primarily for travel forecasting purposes. Details such as alignment and 

specific alternative station locations, and the environmental impacts associated with them, 

would be evaluated in subsequent Tier 2 analyses.

Among the initial list of alternatives that could link the Tucson and Phoenix hub locations, 

alternatives deemed viable by the initial analysis were those that served population centers 

between Tucson and Phoenix with a relatively direct route (i.e., minimal or no reverse direction 

travel). As noted, more than 150 possible 1-mile-wide corridor options were identified that 

addressed those requirements.

Conceptual Alternatives

After completing the initial screening analysis, the range of reasonable alternatives was refined 

from the 150 possible alternatives to seven conceptual alternatives and associated station 

locations. The initial screening found that these seven alternatives would provide the most 
2 Alternatives Considered

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement 2-5

Figure 2-2. Screening Process Developed for the Alternatives Analysis
2 Alternatives Considered

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement 2-6

effective movement in terms of service, travel time, generalized cost (based on distance), 

accessibility, and potential environmental effects.

Public and agency input indicated that impacts to undeveloped land should be minimized by 

considering routes parallel to other, existing linear transportation corridors. Therefore, all 

seven conceptual alternatives focused on the use of existing transportation corridors such as I10, Union Pacific Railroad (UP) freight lines, proposed new freeway alignments, or other 

existing transportation facilities. Figure 2-3 shows existing railroads within the study corridor. In 

general, all seven conceptual alternatives attempted to minimize greenfield (previously 

undisturbed land) impacts, although one alternative relies on a proposed multimodal corridor 

in a largely agricultural portion of the three-county Study Area. These seven conceptual 

alternatives selected for further analysis are described below and shown in Figure 2-4. The 

geographical descriptions in this Tier 1 EIS move from south to north, originating in Tucson and 

ending in Phoenix. These conceptual alternatives include high-level operating assumptions as 

described in section 3.2 of Alternatives Analysis Appendix. 

 Blue Alternative – A BRT alternative along I-10 between Tucson and Phoenix in 

dedicated lanes)

 Green Alternative — A rail alternative connecting Tucson and Phoenix along I-10 and 

the UP Tempe Branch 

 Orange Alternative — A rail alternative along 1) I-10, 2) the planned North-South 

Corridor, 3) an exclusive transit corridor planned in the proposed Superstition Vistas 

development on ASLD lands, and 4) the US 60 Superstition Freeway

 Teal Alternative — A rail alternative along 1) I-10, 2) the planned North-South Corridor, 

3) the Southeast Branch of the UP Phoenix Subdivision, and 4) Rittenhouse Road. The 

Teal Alternative represents a combination of the Orange and Yellow Alternatives

 Yellow Alternative — A rail alternative along the existing UP corridor, including the 

Southeast Branch of the UP Phoenix Subdivision and the UP Sunset Route (although the 

UP Sunset Route was later removed, as discussed in Section on the evaluation of 

conceptual alternatives).

 Purple Alternative — A rail alternative along I-10 from Tucson, turning north through 

the Gila River Indian Community (GRIC) north of Casa Grande to join the UP Chandler 

Branch into Phoenix.
Florence

Marana

Mesa

Gilbert

Oro 

Valley

PIMA COUNTY MARICOPA COUNTY PINAL COUNTY

GILA COUNTY

PINAL COUNTY

Tohono O'odham Nation

Ak-Chin

Indian 

Community

Gila River

Indian 

Community

Salt River 

Pima-Maricopa

 Indian Community

Santa Cruz River

Salt River

Gila River

Queen Creek

Verde River

Superior

Glendale

Peoria

Scottsdale

Goodyear

Sky Harbor International

Airport

Phoenix-Mesa

Gateway

Airport

Tucson

International

Airport

MARICOPA COUNTY

Coolidge

Eloy

Casa

Grande

Surprise

Buckeye

Tohono O'odham

Nation San Xavier

District

San Tan

Valley

Copper Basin Ra ilway

UP Sunset Route

BNSFGrandAvenue

UPWelltonBranch

UPSunsetRoute

Union Pacific Railroad

UPTempeBranch

UPChandler Branch

UPPhoenixSubd vi is oi n

UP Sunset Route

Catalina

Foothills

Tucson

Phoenix

Guadalupe

Airport

Interstate

State or US Highway

Railroad

Major Drainage

Federal Land

National Forest

Tribal Land

State Trust Land

City Boundary

Le g e nd

0 5 10

Miles

Sources: Esri 2014; Arizona Department of Transportation 2013;

Arizona Land Resource Information System 2013

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement 2-7

2 Alternatives Considered

Figure 2-3. Existing Railroads within the Study Corridor
PIMA COUNTY MARICOPA COUNTY PINAL COUNTY

GILA COUNTY

PINAL COUNTY

Tohono O'odham Nation

!"a

!"`

)e

Q?Á

Q?¿

Q?É

Q?Æ

UAõ

UAå

UAÖ

Q? ̈

!"c

!"a

)e

UAÖ

!"a

UAå

Q?Ê

Q?É

!"a

!"d

Q?È

Ak-Chin

Indian 

Community

Gila River

Indian 

Community

)e

Salt River 

Pima-Maricopa

 Indian Community

Santa Cruz River

Salt River

Gila River

Queen Creek

Verde River

UAÛ

UAð

e

e

MARICOPA COUNTY

e

Tohono O'odham

Nation San Xavier

District

Florence

Marana

Mesa

Gilbert

Phoenix

Oro 

Valley

Superior

Glendale

Peoria

Scottsdale

Goodyear

Sky Harbor International

Airport

Phoenix-Mesa

Gateway

Airport

Tucson

International

Airport

Coolidge

Eloy

Casa

Grande

Surprise

Buckeye

San Tan

Valley

Catalina

Foothills

Tucson

Guadalupe Tempe

2 Alternatives Considered

Figure 2-4. Conceptual Alternatives (Level 2)

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement 2-8

e

Airport

Conceptual Segments

Common Corridor

Interstate

State or US Highway

Railroad

Major Drainage

Federal Land

National Forest

Tribal Land

State Trust Land

City Boundary

Le g e nd

0 5 10

Miles

Sources: Esri 2014; Arizona Department of Transportation 2013;

Arizona Land Resource Information System 2013

N

e
2 Alternatives Considered

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement 2-9

 Red Alternative — A rail alternative running along I-10 from Tucson, continuing along 

the Maricopa-Casa Grande Highway into the City of Maricopa, then following SR 347 to 

join the UP Tempe Branch into Phoenix

2.3.2 Level 2 Screening

Evaluation of Conceptual Alternatives

The Level 2 evaluation consisted of a more detailed evaluation of the seven conceptual 

alternatives identified in the Level 1 initial screening assessment. In Level 2, each alternative 

was evaluated based on specific information about conditions, including environmental 

impacts, potential travel performance (predictability and dependability, potential travel market, 

and travel time), preliminary operating and capital costs, practicality of the proposed project 

within local government plans, and public input. 

The Level 2 screening indicated that the Orange Alternative scored the highest, given a 

multitude of mobility, environmental, agency/public input, and financial considerations 

documented in the Level 2 Screening Report (ADOT Multimodal Planning Division 2013b). The 

Blue (BRT), Green, Purple, and Teal alternatives were determined to have a medium level of 

feasibility. The Red Alternative was considered one of the least feasible due to a lower 

performance in the evaluation criteria. Similarly, the Yellow Alternative, based on the goal of 

sharing the UP Sunset Route in southern Arizona from Tucson to Eloy, was also considered one 

of the least feasible alternatives. However, subsequent coordination with UP and a 

reconfiguration of the Yellow Alternative in southern Arizona improved the feasibility. 

UP expressed major concerns about shared passenger service on the UP Sunset Route as it is 

one of UP’s busiest and most vital freight routes with plans for over 100 trains per day. This 

would likely prevent effective shared use as a joint passenger and freight corridor. The southern 

section of the Yellow Alternative was eliminated due to this conflict, as other viable routes like 

I-10 exist within the same corridor. The northern portion of the alternative following the UP 

Phoenix Subdivision remained a viable connection between Eloy and Phoenix and rated 

favorably in the alternatives screening process. 

A separate analysis of major conflicts in the AA determined that three of the seven conceptual 

alternatives were either fatally flawed or had other characteristics that rendered them

noncompetitive, and they were eliminated from further study or development. The eliminated 

alternatives and a summary of the reasons for the findings are listed below and are shown in 

Figure 2-5. 
PIMA COUNTY MARICOPA COUNTY PINAL COUNTY

GILA COUNTY

PINAL COUNTY

Tohono O'odham Nation

!"a

!"`

)e

Q?Á

Q?¿

Q?É

Q?Æ

UAõ

UAå

UAÖ

Q? ̈

!"c

!"a

)e

UAÖ

!"a

UAå

Q?Ê

Q?É

!"a

!"d

Q?È

Ak-Chin

Indian 

Community

Gila River

Indian 

Community

)e

Salt River 

Pima-Maricopa

 Indian Community

Santa Cruz River

Salt River

Gila River

Queen Creek

Verde River

UAÛ

UAð

e

e

e

MARICOPA COUNTY

Tohono O'odham

Nation San Xavier

District

BNSF Railway

Florence

Marana

Mesa

Gilbert

Phoenix

Oro 

Valley

Glendale

Peoria

Scottsdale

Goodyear

Sky Harbor International

Airport

Phoenix-Mesa

Gateway

Airport

Tucson

International

Airport

Coolidge

Eloy

Casa

Grande

Surprise

Buckeye

San Tan

Valley

Catalina

Foothills

Tucson

Guadalupe Tempe

Figure 2-5. Alternatives Eliminated from Detailed Study in the Tier 1 EIS

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement 2-10

2 Alternatives Considered

e

Airport

Eliminated Segments

Common Corridor

Interstate

State or US Highway

Railroad

Major Drainage

Federal Land

National Forest

Tribal Land

State Trust Land

City Boundary

Le g e nd

0 5 10

Miles

Sources: Esri 2014; Arizona Department of Transportation 2013;

Arizona Land Resource Information System 2013

N

e
2 Alternatives Considered

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement 2-11

Eliminated Conceptual Alternatives 

The following conceptual alternatives were eliminated from further consideration during the 

Level 2 evaluation. 

 Blue Alternative – The Blue (BRT) Alternative would not meet the project purpose and 

need, as the alternative would be subject to unpredictable highway conditions on I-10 

including increased congestion, traffic accidents, and inclement weather events that 

would make bus operation, even in a dedicated lane, unsafe or unreliable. In addition, 

the Blue Alternative was least popular among the public, based on submitted comments 

and survey results. High-level operating cost estimates also indicated that that longterm operation and maintenance costs for bus service would be much greater than a rail 

alternative and would have substantially lower passenger capacity. 

 Purple Alternative – This rail corridor would use I-10 from Tucson north and would 

establish a new corridor through the GRIC population center at Sacaton, continuing 

north along the UP Chandler Branch into Phoenix. Coordination with GRIC cultural 

resources staff and Natural Resources Committee indicated that the portion of the 

corridor through the GRIC would adversely affect Tribal cultural and historic resources

and community cohesion and would have a significant effect on property in allocated 

lands. 

Red Alternative – The proposed corridor is longer in distance than other alternatives, 

would attract a relatively low ridership, and would affect the GRIC in a manner similar to 

the Purple alternative. These limitations were reflected during the second public 

outreach phase, when the public ranked the alternative the least favorable overall. 

After considering the results of the Level 2 screening and the presence of fatal flaws, the Green, 

Orange, Teal, and Yellow alternatives emerged as potential final alternatives. These alternatives 

advanced to Level 3 screening, which provided additional analysis and rationale for further 

refinements to the alternatives and the resulting elimination of additional alternatives from 

detailed consideration in the Tier 1 EIS.

2.3.3 Level 3 Screening

Analyses of the Teal Alternative were covered under the evaluation of the Yellow and Orange 

corridor alternatives. As a result, the Teal Alternative was assumed to be part of the Yellow and 

Orange corridor alternatives, leaving the three final alternatives: Green, Yellow, and Orange. 

The only area of the Teal Alternative not common to either the Orange or the Yellow 

alternatives is a 5-mile section along the Copper Basin Railroad corridor. 
2 Alternatives Considered

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement 2-12

The Level 3 evaluation analyzed the three remaining final alternatives in greater detail 

regarding community acceptance and accessibility, environmental impacts, financial feasibility, 

ease of implementation, operating characteristics, mobility, and safety. Additional screening 

and ongoing stakeholder coordination resulted in the elimination of the Green Alternative from 

detailed consideration. 

 Green Alternative — The shortest alternative between the two hub stations, the Green 

Alternative received comments of support from many participants in the public 

outreach process and from some agencies; however, the Green Alternative did not 

attract ridership comparable to other alternatives, did not effectively serve as many key 

population centers within the study corridor, and presented a high degree of potential 

cultural resource impacts. 

The GRIC Tribal Historic Preservation Officer, Transportation Technical Team, Natural 

Resources Standing Committee, and Tribal Council voiced concerns about potential 

impacts to cultural and community resources. A passenger rail system paralleling I-10 

would require additional easement beyond that of the existing highway. The additional 

land required from the Community would necessitate the acquisition of a large number 

of allotted parcels, requiring extensive and lengthy ROW and landowner coordination. 

Due to cultural resource impacts, ROW challenges, and no advantage in ridership, the 

Green Alternative was no longer advanced for further study. This was presented to the 

GRIC Tribal Council, and the Council accepted the removal of the Green Alternative from 

the study with the understanding that complementary transit connections to the GRIC 

would be included. 

Based on the three levels of alternatives screening, the Orange and Yellow corridor alternatives 

were carried forward for analysis at a corridor level with the intent of providing a basis for 

identifying corridor-level impacts and understanding system performance.

2.4 Alternatives Evaluated in the Tier 1 EIS

Based on the findings in the AA and an assessment of fatal flaws or duplication of study 

segments, two corridor alternatives were carried forward for detailed analysis along with the 

No Build Alternative in the Tier 1 EIS. These corridor alternatives were evaluated for potential 

environmental impacts in the Tier 1 EIS extend between downtown Tucson and downtown 

Phoenix. Connections to TUS and into the Phoenix metropolitan area’s West Valley, as shown in 

Figure 2-6, illustrate the potential for a more comprehensive future rail system. In response to 

public and agency input, ADOT and FRA commit to include TUS in required future (Tier 2) 

studies as the southern terminus of a passenger rail system from Tucson to Phoenix. 
PIMA COUNTY MARICOPA COUNTY PINAL COUNTY

GILA COUNTY

PINAL COUNTY

Tohono O'odham Nation

!"a

!"`

)e

Q?Á

Q?¿

Q?É

Q?Æ

UAõ

UAå

UAÖ

Q? ̈

!"c

!"a

)e

UAÖ

!"a

UAå

Q?Ê

Q?É

!"a

!"d

Q?È

Ak-Chin

Indian 

Community

Gila River

Indian 

Community

)e

Salt River 

Pima-Maricopa

 Indian Community

Santa Cruz River

Salt River

Gila River

Queen Creek

Verde River

UAÛ

UAð

e

e

MARICOPA COUNTY

e

Tohono O'odham

Nation San Xavier

District

Florence

Marana

Mesa

Gilbert

Phoenix

Oro 

Valley

Glendale

Peoria

Scottsdale

Goodyear

Sky Harbor International

Airport

Phoenix-Mesa

Gateway

Airport

Tucson

International

Airport

Coolidge

Eloy

Casa

Grande

Surprise

Buckeye

San Tan

Valley

Catalina

Foothills

Tucson

Guadalupe Tempe

Figure 2-6. Corridor Alternatives Carried Forward for Detailed Study

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement 2-13

2 Alternatives Considered

e

Airport

Orange Corridor

Alternative

Yellow Corridor

Alternative

Common Corridor

Interstate

State or US Highway

Railroad

Major Drainage

Federal Land

National Forest

Tribal Land

State Trust Land

City Boundary

Le g e nd

0 5 10

Miles

Sources: Esri 2014; Arizona Department of Transportation 2013;

Arizona Land Resource Information System 2013

N

e
2 Alternatives Considered

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement 2-14

FTA requires that the AA be used to inform local officials and community members on the 

benefits, costs, and impacts of transportation options so that the community can identify a 

preference. This phase is complete when local and regional decision makers select a locally 

preferred alternative, and it is adopted by the MPO into the region's long-range transportation 

plan. A locally preferred alternative, typically the final result of an AA, was identified in the 

Draft Tier 1 EIS and identified by FRA as the preferred alternative in the Record of Decision and 

this Final Tier 1 EIS. 

2.4.1 Yellow Corridor Alternative

This corridor alternative is a modification of the original Level 2 Yellow Alternative proposed 

within the existing UP corridor. The Yellow Corridor Alternative is a 1-mile-wide corridor that 

would follow the I-10 ROW between Tucson and Eloy and then follow the UP corridor between 

the City of Eloy and downtown Phoenix. It is anticipated that the Yellow Corridor Alternative 

would adhere to UP guidelines for coordination of services along active UP freight lines. The 

Yellow Corridor Alternative and its characteristics, as evaluated in the Tier 1 EIS, are shown in 

Figure 2-6. With selection of this corridor alternative, a future alignment could be designed 

anywhere within the corridor. ADOT would obtain permission from GRIC to study any alignments 

encroaching on GRIC land.

2.4.2 Orange Corridor Alternative

The Orange Corridor Alternative connects Tucson and Phoenix following existing and planned 

freeway alignments. The Orange Corridor Alternative extends 0.5 mile on each side of I-10 

between Tucson and Eloy, in common with the Yellow Corridor Alternative. From their common 

point near Eloy to the Phoenix metropolitan area, the Orange Corridor Alternative would follow 

whichever potential north-south route is ultimately selected for the planned North-South

Corridor, which is currently under study as a possible expressway with a high-capacity mode 

such as rail. From the vicinity of Phoenix-Mesa Gateway Airport into Tempe, the Orange 

Corridor Alternative follows the existing US 60 (Superstition Freeway), SR Loop 101 (Price 

Freeway), and SR Loop 202 (Red Mountain Freeway). From Tempe into Phoenix, this corridor 

alternative follows the UP corridor in the vicinity of Sky Harbor Airport. Should this corridor 

alternative be selected, a future alignment could be designed anywhere within the 1-mile-wide 

corridor. ADOT would obtain permission from the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community

(SRP-MIC) to study any alignments encroaching on SRP-MIC land. The Orange Corridor

Alternative is shown in Figure 2-6.
2 Alternatives Considered

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement 2-15

2.4.3 No Build Alternative

Under the No Build Alternative, no passenger rail system would be developed between Tucson 

and Phoenix. The No Build Alternative assumes that existing and committed projects within the 

study corridor would occur. This includes all transportation facilities and services programmed 

for implementation within the three-county Study Area, including transit, roadway, and 

highway Improvements identified in the Transportation Improvement Programs (TIPs) of MAG, 

Central Arizona Association of Governments (CAG), the Sun Corridor Metropolitan Planning

Organization (SCMPO) and PAG, including major and minor roadway and transit improvements

as well as other significant projects in the planning, design, or construction phases. 

Transportation projects programmed or under construction include the following:

 Planned Extensions of Valley Metro Light Rail System:

o Gilbert Road Extension: 1.9 miles in design from Main Street to Gilbert Road in Mesa

o Phoenix West Extension: Addition from State Capitol, following I-10 to 79th Avenue 

o Northwest Phase II Extension: 2.0 miles to be added from Dunlap and 19th Avenues 

to Metrocenter Mall

 Tempe Streetcar Addition

o Network loop serving downtown Tempe along Rio Salado Parkway, Mill Avenue, Ash 

Avenue, and University Drive

 North-South Corridor

o New, approximately 50-mile-long expressway in Pinal County connecting Apache 

Junction to I-10 south of Eloy

 State Route 202L – South Mountain Freeway 

o Extension of State Route 202L connecting Chandler and West Phoenix, via new route 

south of the Phoenix South Mountain Park/Preserve

 Interstate 10 

o Construction of local express lanes between 32nd Street and Loop 202

o Roadway widening from four to six general purpose lanes and the addition of a high 

occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane from Loop 202 to Riggs Road

o Roadway widening and lane additions between Florence Boulevard and State Route 

87

o Roadway widening from six to eight lanes between Ina Road and Prince Road
2 Alternatives Considered

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement 2-16

o Widening from four to six general purpose lanes and two HOV lanes across the GRIC 

between Riggs Road and McCartney Road

 Interstate 19

o Roadway widening from four to eight lanes between San Xavier Road and Interstate 

10

 State Route 77 

o Roadway widening from four to six lanes between Tangerine Road and the Pima 

County line

 Maricopa-Casa Grande Highway 

o Roadway widening from two to four lanes between State Route 84 and State Route 

347 

The Tucson Streetcar, Sun Link, began passenger operations on July 25, 2014, and is also a 

transportation element of the No Build Alternative. This new streetcar system, which connects 

the Mercado neighborhood, downtown Tucson, and the University of Arizona along Congress 

Street, 4th Avenue, University Boulevard, and 2nd Street, boarded its millionth rider on May 21, 

2015, six weeks ahead of the projected milestone. 

The projects listed above are not analyzed in this Tier 1 EIS except as part of the cumulative 

impact analysis. With any of the alternatives being considered, the programmed projects may 

be developed regardless of the decision of whether to establish passenger rail service between 

Tucson and Phoenix. The No Build Alternative provides a baseline analysis so that the 

anticipated effects from construction and operating a passenger rail system in either the Yellow 

or Orange corridor alternative may be compared to the effects of not constructing and 

operating a passenger rail system. In the case of some environmental resource categories, 

these effects were estimated based on travel demand and ridership estimates provided in 

Chapter 4, Transportation Impacts.

2.5 Conclusion

The Corridor Alternatives evaluated in detail as part of this Tier 1 EIS were selected as a result 

of analyses carried out as part of the AA and previous studies. The AA includes the development 

of the original Range of Alternatives, the Initial Screening (Level 1) of unique corridor 

possibilities, the bundling of alternatives and station locations into Conceptual Alternatives, the 

Level 2 screening of Conceptual Alternatives and identification of fatal flaws, the selection of 

Final Corridor Alternatives, and the elimination of the Green Alternative due to lower ridership, 

right-of-way challenges, and a high degree of potential cultural resource impacts in addition to 
2 Alternatives Considered

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement 2-17

further coordination with the Gila River Native American Community during the Level 3 

screening. The Yellow and Orange corridor alternatives and the No Build Alternative form the 

basis of this Tier 1 EIS and are evaluated and compared in the following chapters.