Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement 1-1

1 Purpose and Need

As part of its mission to provide a safe, efficient, cost-effective transportation system, the 

Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) wishes to serve commuter and intercity travel 

needs and enhance travel opportunities within Maricopa, Pima, and Pinal counties. Statewide 

and regional transportation planning efforts undertaken from 2007 to 2010 (“Building a Quality 

Arizona,” or bqAZ) have recommended implementing passenger rail to add travel capacity to 

what highways already provide. For this reason, ADOT is studying passenger rail service options 

between the cities of Tucson and Phoenix to provide more travel choices in this 115-mile-long 

corridor. Passenger rail service would provide an alternative travel mode and would reduce 

travel times over highway travel. By providing an alternative to private single-passenger vehicle 

travel within the study corridor, passenger rail would avoid traveler delays caused by highway 

congestion, enhance highway safety, and reduce pollutant emissions on Interstate 10 (I-10). 

ADOT’s 2010 Statewide Rail Framework Study (ADOT 2010) and 2011 State Rail Plan 

(ADOT 2011) include a passenger rail vision for the state. The first step in the implementation of 

the plan would be to link Tucson and Phoenix, the state’s largest metropolitan areas. Both the 

State Rail Plan and the 2010 Statewide Rail Framework Study (ADOT 2010) showed that of all 

possible locations within Arizona, a passenger rail line between the Tucson and Phoenix 

metropolitan areas would serve the most people. Such a line could connect communities within 

the region and form the starting point for later rail connections to other regions.

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) is leading this Arizona Passenger Rail Corridor Study

(APRCS): Tucson to Phoenix (also referred to as “the study” in this document). FRA provides 

financial and technical assistance for intercity passenger rail systems (focusing on regional 

trips). FTA, which is serving as a cooperating agency on the APRCS, provides financial and 

technical assistance to local public transit systems, including commuter rail. Because the APRCS 

addresses both intercity travel and commuter transit trips, both FRA and FTA have a role in 

project planning. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) provided guidance on the 

feasibility of using existing highways, such as I-10, as potential rail corridors since agency and 

public scoping identified existing highways such as I-10 as potential passenger rail corridors.

This study examines and evaluates different route corridors between the Tucson and Phoenix 

areas.

As the federal lead agency, FRA is responsible for compliance with the National Environmental 

Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) and determined that a Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement was an 

appropriate document for examining the regional context of a future passenger rail system 

before focusing on the more detailed Tier 2 analysis that considers site-specific effects.
1 Purpose and Need

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement 1-2

1.1 The Need for Passenger Rail Service

Between 1990 and 2010, the combined population of Maricopa, Pima, and Pinal counties 

increased by over 78 percent, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, from 2.9 million to nearly 

5.2 million, with an over 61 percent increase between 1991 and 2010 in the number of nonfarm 

jobs. This three-county Study Area forms part of a clustered network of cities—a megaregion—

known informally as the “Sun Corridor” (See Figure 1-1). Travel patterns, available transit 

services, and trip times indicate that the need to move people from one place to another is also 

growing. Based on population and travel forecasts, and the amount of available open land 

within the corridor, travel markets are expected to continue to grow in the future; however, 

opportunities to increase the carrying capacity of the region’s roadway network are limited. 

The Tucson and Phoenix metropolitan areas will continue to be major population and 

employment centers within the region. Most of Arizona’s developable land is situated between 

these cities, and development of this area is projected to form a continuous urban corridor 

connecting the metropolitan areas. As a result of recent and projected growth, the City of Casa 

Grande joined with the Pinal County communities of Eloy and Coolidge to form a new 

metropolitan planning organization (MPO), the Sun Corridor MPO, in 2013. With Arizona on a 

steady economic upswing after experiencing a downturn in the second half of the last decade, 

the increasing development in the corridor is projected to contribute to a need for increased 

commuter and intercity mobility within the corridor which will have to be addressed.

Travel between Tucson and Phoenix currently takes place almost entirely on I-10, the only highcapacity freeway between the two cities. Increasing congestion along this highway is

lengthening travel times. Based on forecasts from studies conducted within this corridor, even 

a planned widening of the existing interstate to eight lanes and the construction of a planned 

new North-South Corridor will not provide adequate capacity to meet the expected demand in 

the year 2035 (ADOT 2007d, 2012).

As western Pinal County continues to develop, traffic congestion on area highways will cause an 

increase in travel times within the three-county Study Area. Considering the projected 

population growth and current travel patterns, Table 1-1 illustrates trip lengths projected using 

the Arizona Travel Demand Model (version 2). These projected increases in travel time have the 

potential to discourage mobility of people and cargo, stifle productivity, and increase the cost 

of goods in the region.

Available transportation choices between Tucson and Phoenix are currently limited to private 

automobile, common carrier (bus), commercial flights, and ridesharing, with most travelers—

commuter, regional, and intercity—using I-10. Despite recent widening of sections of the 
!"$a

!"e$

!"e$

!"$c

!"$a

!"$`

!"$d

!"$b

Study Corridor

PINAL

PHOENIX

?Ñ

PIMA

COCONINO MOHAVE

NAVAJO APACHE

GILA

YAVAPAI

YUMA

MARICOPA

COCHISE

LA PAZ

GRAHAM

SANTA 

CRUZ

GREENLEE

TUCSON

ELOY

YUMA

MARANA

SIERRA 

VISTA

QUARTZSITE

FLAGSTAFF

BENSON

GILA 

BEND

WILLIAMS

CHINO VALLEY

PRESCOTT

BULLHEAD 

CITY

SHOW LOW

KINGMAN

CAMP VERDE

PAGE

ST JOHNS

PARKER

SNOWFLAKE

PAYSON

LAKE HAVASU 

CITY

SEDONA

NOGALES

CLIFTON

HOLBROOK

WINSLOW

SAFFORD

DOUGLAS

CLARKDALE

FREDONIA

SPRINGERVILLE

BISBEE

WILLCOX

COLORADO CITY

!"$a

I{

I{

I|

I|

I£

I£

Ix

Iv

Iv

Iv

Iz

Iy I¡ I}

I}

I£

I£

I¢ I£

I¢

I¢

Iv

Iv

I¢

Iy

I£

I£

I£

Iv

? ̧

?Ñ

?Ñ

?Ç

?È

?Ç

Að

?Ä

?Ä ?Â

?Å

?Â

Aà

Aá

?¿ ?Á

AÛ

?Ê

?É

Aã

?» Aò ?1⁄4

?«

Aé

?É

?É

Aë

?Ô ?¬

Aû

?Ç

?Ë

?o

?1

AÌ

AÌ

?Ë

?a

?a

?a

?©

?1⁄2

?É

Purpose and Need

Figure 1-1. State Map

1

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement 1-3

Interstate

US Highway

State Highway

Sun Corridor Megaregion

Study Corridor

Study Area

County Boundary

City Boundary

Le g e nd

?@

IJ

!"#$

0 20 40

Miles

Sources: Esri 2014; Arizona Department of Transportation 2013; Arizona Land

Resource Information System 2013; AECOM Global Cities Institute

N
1 Purpose and Need

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement 1-4

interstate within the study corridor, motorists on I-10 experience severe congestion and traffic 

jams of increasing frequency and duration. 

The growing demand placed on I-10 as the primary intercity route in the corridor—and the 

resulting congestion—will increase the likelihood of traffic collisions, which will further reduce 

the overall effectiveness and reliability of I-10 to serve commuter and intercity travel needs. 

Table 1-1. 2010, 2035, and 2050 Travel Time Comparison for Trips in Study Corridor

Origin and destination (trip distance)

Congested travel time (minutes)a

2010

2035 

baseline

Percent 

increase 

over 2010

2050

Percent 

increase 

over 2010

Apache Junction to Coolidge via US 60 

(37 miles) 

54 72 33% 97 80%

Eloy to Phoenix-Mesa Gateway Airport 

by way of I-10 (56 miles) 

62 93 50% 122 97%

Phoenix to Marana (93 miles) 85 106 25% 134 58%

Marana to Tucson (25 miles) 33 43 30% 51 55%

Tucson to Phoenix by way of I-10 

(116 miles) 

113 142 26% 180 59%

a Estimated using Arizona Travel Demand Model, version.2 (AZTDM2). 

Increasing capacity by adding lanes to this highway cannot be accomplished in some sections, 

and adding lanes may not be the best solution to address the anticipated demand. An 

alternative transportation mode, such as passenger rail, could help meet the demand of 

existing and future travel markets by providing additional transportation capacity that would 

help serve the increasing travel demand and not be affected by unpredictable highway 

conditions.

1.1.1 Commuter Travel Need

Demand for commuter services, where most travelers make a same-day round trip during peak 

commuting periods, exists within the Tucson and Phoenix metro areas. Ridership on other 

fixed-route transit systems serving these cities has exceeded projected figures. Demand for this 

type of service is expected to grow in the future, as population growth in the service area is 

projected to remain high over the next few decades. 

The average trip to work within the study area has grown longer as residential development has 

spread from the major cities to outlying areas and as population growth has increased traffic 
1 Purpose and Need

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement 1-5

congestion. As development in Pinal County proceeds, commuter activity will continue to 

expand in the areas between Tucson and Phoenix, with major daily commutes taking place 

between Pinal County and neighboring Maricopa and Pima counties. Emerging travel markets 

that would benefit from commuter service include:

 Tucson and suburban communities extending into Pinal County 

 Phoenix and suburban communities extending into Pinal County

 Activity centers in Pinal County and the Tucson Metropolitan Area

 Activity centers in Pinal County and the Phoenix Metropolitan Area

US Census data indicate that Arizona's population grew by 81 percent between 1990 and 2010, 

from approximately 3.7 million to over 6.6 million. Projected population and job growth in the 

Sun Corridor are shown in Table 1-2. Only about 17 percent of the state's land is privately 

owned; because the majority of this private land is located within the Sun Corridor megaregion, 

population and employment growth are likewise focused in this region. 

Table 1-2. Projected Population and Employment Growth within the Sun Corridor

Maricopa County Pima County Pinal County

2010 Population 3,763,853 956,082 349,688

2035 Projected Population 5,684,351 1, 277,301 728,729

Percent Increase from 2010 51.0% 33.6% 108.4%

2010 Jobs 1,597,898 337,218 51,788

2035 Projected Jobs 2,636,798 472,599 244,096

Percent Increase from 2010 65.0% 40.1% 371.3%

Sources: US Census Bureau, Arizona Department of Administration, Office of Employment and Population Statistics 2014, US 

Bureau of Labor Statistics (Population); and Maricopa Association of Governments, Pima Association of Governments, and 

Central Arizona Governments geographic growth forecasts (Jobs).

In Pinal County, high-density activity centers are expected to develop to serve the substantial 

infill of population and employment, in keeping with the region's long-range plans. Within 

the 2035 planning horizon, daily travel to these Pinal County activity centers from Maricopa and 

Pima counties will add to the region's total mobility needs. The overall increase in travel 

demand within the corridor will further tax a transportation system that already exceeds its 

capacity. 
1 Purpose and Need

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement 1-6

Recent regional travel conditions are represented by the following:

 A 2008 photo license plate survey of highway vehicles conducted by the Maricopa and 

Pima Associations of Governments (MAG and PAG, respectively), indicated that more 

than 51,000 daily trips were observed on I-10 and State Route (SR) 79, two primary 

north-south roads in the study area. Of these trips, 22 percent (11,220) completed a 

commute-type trip, where the vehicle traveling from one county to the next was 

observed returning at the same location.

 Data from the Census Transportation Planning Package (CTPP) from 2006-2010 indicate 

that daily inter-county commute trips within the three counties exceeded 80,000. Daily 

commute trips from Maricopa County to Pima County (i.e., Phoenix metropolitan area 

to Tucson metro area) averaged 2,565, and commute trips in the reverse direction 

numbered 2,375. The commute from Pinal County to Maricopa County represented 

about 72 percent of all the inter-county commute trips (57,600), with the second most 

frequent trip (11,570) being in the reverse direction, between Maricopa and Pinal 

counties, representing about 14 percent of all inter-county commute trips. By 2035, as 

Pinal County's employment is anticipated to more than double, the trips between Pinal 

and Maricopa counties could be expected to increase accordingly. About 2.6 percent of 

commuters in the United States are “super commuters,” travelling at least 50 miles one 

way (US Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics 2014). In 

Phoenix, the number of super commuters approaches 8.6 percent; and the most heavily 

traveled route in the Unites States among super commuters is the trip from Tucson to 

Phoenix (Nusca 2012). Meanwhile, Phoenix is the only metropolitan area in the United 

States with a population over 1 million without a commuter or regional passenger rail 

system.

1.1.2 Intercity Travel Need

Travel between Tucson and Phoenix for non-work purposes also accounts for many trips. As 

population and travel demand grow, intercity travel by auto and air will suffer from increasing 

congestion and time delays—especially in metropolitan areas, at and around airports, and on 

weekends and holidays. This decline in transportation service and the quality of the travel 

experience adversely affects intercity travelers, other users of the system, commercial carriers, 

and the general public.

As shown in Table 1-1, a statewide demand model indicates the duration of a trip from Phoenix 

to Tucson will increase by 59 percent by 2050, from under 2 hours to 3 hours, even if I-10 is 

widened to eight lanes between these cities and the proposed North-South Corridor 

multimodal facility between East Mesa and Eloy is constructed and opened.
1 Purpose and Need

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement 1-7

Round-the-clock bus and flight schedules currently offered by private carriers between Tucson 

and Phoenix show that demand exists for a transportation solution other than the automobile 

that offers convenient, safe, and reliable intercity travel between these two metropolitan areas.

1.1.3 Need for Improved Connectivity within the Region and Beyond

Several modes of passenger service—both intercity and commuter—are currently available in 

the Tucson to Phoenix corridor, including conventional intercity rail (Amtrak, which provides 

limited service in the study area because access to stations is poor and travel schedules include 

infrequent departure and arrival times that often do not match peak schedule demand), 

common carrier (private bus), commercial airline, and ridesharing options. Public transit service 

such as bus and light rail is also available within urban communities. While each mode partially 

addresses some aspect of the region’s travel needs, most operate independently of one 

another. They could be considered emerging elements of a regional transit network but are 

missing the unified plan and strong backbone that tie a network together. A reliable Tucson-toPhoenix rail connection could provide this backbone, close the gap that currently exists for 

potential commuters and intercity travelers, and create and deliver a robust customer base for 

a future network of commuter and intercity services.

Described below are the existing non-automobile travel choices within the study corridor, along 

with their passenger-carrying capacity, where available.

Urban Public Transit Services

The Phoenix (Maricopa County) and Tucson (Pima County) metropolitan areas are both served 

by local and regional fixed-route bus and commuter express bus service. Additionally, a light rail 

system in the Phoenix region connects the communities of Mesa, Phoenix, and Tempe. The line 

is 26 miles long as of spring 2016, with a 2-mile eastward extension in design. In Tucson, service 

on a 4-mile modern streetcar line linking downtown Tucson with the University of Arizona 

campus was inaugurated in 2014. Combined, the Tucson and Phoenix metro area fixed-route 

bus and rail services board over 69 million unlinked passenger trips annually, on a par with 

Minneapolis and Houston’s bus ridership, which rank the 15th and 16th highest in the nation, 

respectively (American Public Transportation Association 2013). 

Commuter express bus service operates in the I-10 corridor in both the Tucson and Phoenix 

urban areas, with routes extending nearly to their respective borders with Pinal County. In the 

Phoenix region, a public park-and-ride facility located at 40th Street and Pecos Road is utilized 

by Pinal County residents, according to a 2005 passenger survey, to access the I-10 East RAPID, 

a heavily used commuter express bus route with over 166,000 annual riders into Phoenix. 
1 Purpose and Need

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement 1-8

Public transit service in Pinal County is limited but growing. The Cotton Express is a local 

circulator that operates four routes within Coolidge; and the Central Arizona Regional Transit 

(CART) travels between Florence, Coolidge, Central Arizona College, and Casa Grande. 

Currently, CART buses run every 90 minutes. A Tucson-to-Phoenix train with a station located 

along this 20-mile east-west CART route could extend passenger service beyond the localized 

connection. This could serve a substantial number of commuters from these established 

communities and the growing areas surrounding them and may increase ridership on CART. 

Passenger Rail

Amtrak’s Sunset Limited line, which travels from New Orleans to Los Angeles, stops at two 

locations within the study area, Tucson and the City of Maricopa (in Pinal County). Trains run 

three times a week, stopping on Tuesday, Thursday, and Sunday evenings in the westbound 

direction and Monday, Thursday, and Saturday mornings in the eastbound direction. Although 

they connect parts of the study area by passenger rail, these Amtrak trains do not provide 

intercity service between Tucson and Phoenix. Currently no transit connection is available from 

the City of Maricopa to Phoenix.

Private Intercity Bus

Greyhound Lines makes six intercity trips from Tucson to Phoenix each weekday with a 

55-passenger bus. Bus service begins at the Greyhound terminal near Tucson’s central business 

district and ends at the Greyhound terminal near Sky Harbor International Airport. Six trips are 

operated each weekday between Tucson and Phoenix as well. Some of these trips have 

intermediate stops in the City of Casa Grande (Pinal County). 

Arizona Shuttle is a common carrier that makes 18 daily round-trips between Tucson and 

Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport using 29-passenger buses. Three stops are in the 

Tucson area: Craycroft (east Tucson), University of Arizona Campus (central Tucson), and Ina 

Road at I-10 (north Tucson). 

Based on the total number of trips and vehicle carrying capacity, the daily capacity of these 

scheduled services between Tucson and Phoenix is approximately 1,000 person-trips in each 

direction.

Commercial Aviation (Intercity Aviation)

US Airways/American Airlines operates daily nonstop flights between Phoenix Sky Harbor 

International Airport (PHX) and Tucson International Airport (TUS). Between 7 and 10 weekday 

trips operate from PHX to TUS depending upon the day of the week, while 6 to 12 weekday 

trips are operated from TUS to PHX depending upon the day of the week. Most flights use a 

90-passenger plane, while one trip each weekday uses a 140-passenger plane. Based on the 
1 Purpose and Need

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement 1-9

range of flights offered each weekday and the types of planes operated, the daily passenger 

capacity between PHX and TUS is 950, while the daily passenger capacity between TUS and PHX 

is 1,130, depending upon the day of the week. According to the US Bureau of Transportation 

Statistics (BTS 2014), the 2010 daily average number of passengers on these flights was 545 and 

574, respectively.

Ridesharing

Public and private ridesharing options within the study area include vanpooling and carpool 

ride-matching services. The largest public rideshare operator is Valley Metro in Phoenix, which 

coordinates vanpools originating in and destined to all three study area counties. In FY 2013, 

Valley Metro owned 412 vanpool vehicles having an annual ridership of 1,227,297 (Valley 

Metro 2013). 

The preceding information demonstrates the need for both commuter and intercity 

transportation services to provide connectivity between local and regional routes within and 

throughout the study corridor. All three needs are addressed in the APRCS.

1.2 Purpose of a Passenger Rail System in Arizona 

The need for improved intercity and commuter services and regional connectivity throughout 

the entire Tucson-to-Phoenix corridor is the driving purpose behind the development of a highcapacity passenger rail system serving the communities between Tucson and Phoenix. The 

APRCS would help ensure coordination between agencies in defining the project, providing a 

corridor so that local and regional planning agencies can limit development to preserve rightsof-way, pursuing opportunities for funding, and ensuring plan compatibility with communities 

along the studied corridor alignment(s). The APRCS also strives to achieve efficiencies by 

undertaking a single analysis of alternatives and potential environmental consequences and by 

proposing a single infrastructure investment that would serve both travel markets.

The overall 115-mile corridor between Tucson and Phoenix is being studied to address intercity 

travel needs in an area where the demand for such travel is growing while opportunities for 

highway expansion are limited. An intercity connection could serve as a foundation for 

commuter service overlays in the urban areas, designed with the ability to grow along with 

commuter travel demand, reaching into and across Pinal County from both ends. Commuter 

services could span the entire corridor within the forecast timeframe of this study as Pinal 

County’s employment base grows to rival Pima County’s and establishes new patterns of daily 

trip interchanges from Pima and Maricopa counties to daytime destinations in Pinal County and 

back. 
1 Purpose and Need

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement 1-10

By evaluating both intercity and commuter travel needs simultaneously, the APRCS reports on 

all aspects of the alternative corridors and addresses the combined requirements of the Federal 

lead and cooperating agencies. The purpose of proposed passenger rail service in Arizona is to

provide high capacity intercity and commuter transit service in the identified study corridor that 

addresses the identified transportation problems within the larger framework of promoting 

regional connectivity throughout Arizona and the Southwestern United States. The purpose of 

proposed passenger rail service in Arizona includes:

 Providing transportation alternatives to the automobile within the Tucson-to-Phoenix 

travel corridor and reduce the growth in traffic congestion

 Increasing access to existing and planned employment and activity centers within the 

three-county study area

 Supporting reliable travel times and safe travel within an increasingly congested region 

that currently affords few transportation alternatives to the private automobile

 Facilitating continued development of a comprehensive, multimodal, and 

interconnected regional and multiregional transportation network that provides 

mobility choices for existing and future needs and allows connectivity to systems 

beyond the Tucson-to-Phoenix corridor

In satisfying these stated purposes, a transportation solution would also achieve the following 

beneficial outcomes:

 Support economic vitality by providing efficient, dependable, and convenient access to 

economic activity centers in the Sun Corridor

 Efficiently and predictably accommodate local, regional, commuter, and intercity

movement of travelers throughout the corridor

 Enhance system linkages, multimodal connections, and accessibility to major population 

centers 

 Support regional plans and policies that call for a balanced transportation system

 Incur potentially lower capital and operating costs than traditional highway facilities

 Avoid, reduce, minimize, or otherwise mitigate impacts on the environment

1.3 Program Area of Analysis

This Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) complies with NEPA, which requires that 

Federal agencies analyze a range of reasonable alternatives in an EIS (42 U.S.C. § 4332[c][iii]).
1 Purpose and Need

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement 1-11

To meet this requirement, this Tier 1 EIS evaluates potential environmental impacts of the 

alternatives broadly, over 1-mile-wide corridors, rather than along specific alignments within 

the three-county Study Area shown on Figure 1-1. The corridors provide a sufficiently flexible 

regional context for the best location of a passenger rail system while providing opportunities 

for alignment alternatives within the corridor to account for engineering and environmental 

constraints as well as public input when Tier 2 studies examine the corridor in greater detail. As 

described in Chapter 5, Existing Conditions and Environmental Consequences, a future 

alignment is likely to affect a corridor of 200 feet or less, so the impact analysis also includes a 

discussion of the representative effects for the narrower corridor. 

Additional public input and more refined engineering studies would be undertaken as part of a 

Tier 2 NEPA review. The Tier 2 NEPA review would identify and analyze the potential impacts of 

alignment alternatives within the corridor selected at Tier 1. 

1.4 Connected Actions

1.4.1 Station Locations 

This Tier 1 EIS does not identify specific station locations for analysis. An Alternatives Analysis 

(AA) undertaken as part of the APRCS included conceptual station locations to provide a basis 

for corridor definition and ridership forecasting. As part of the AA, various types of stations 

were developed to provide context for station decision-making and local commitments. 

However, the exact locations of stations would require more analysis and further agency and 

community input. These would be part of independent localized studies and a Tier 2 NEPA 

document for a passenger rail facility.

1.4.2 Airport Connections

Public input throughout the development of the Alternatives Analysis and Draft Tier 1 EIS (DEIS) 

indicated airport access to be an important consideration as a feature of future passenger rail 

service. Comments on the DEIS from agencies, jurisdictions, and the public strongly urged that 

the study corridor extend to Tucson International Airport (TUS). While a connection to TUS was 

not evaluated in the Tier 1 environmental analysis, the AA included coordination with Tucson, 

South Tucson, PAG and TUS related to airport connectivity, and public and stakeholder input 

were gathered regarding how best to connect with TUS. The conceptual ridership analysis 

developed for the AA includes TUS at the southern end. 

Based on public and agency input, ADOT and FRA will commit to evaluating the connection of 

passenger rail service to TUS in future (Tier 2) studies. As noted elsewhere in this EIS, ADOT 

anticipates that a Tucson-to-Phoenix passenger rail system would be funded incrementally, and 

that construction and operations would be implemented in phases. The specific phasing of a 
1 Purpose and Need

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement 1-12

future passenger rail system is not known at this time but would be determined as funding is 

allocated and as part of Tier 2 NEPA review.

1.4.3 Southwest Regional Context

Each alternative rail corridor was assumed to connect in the future to a larger regional western 

states rail network connecting California, Arizona, and Nevada, including the California HighSpeed Rail System. As identified as part of the Southwest Multi‐State Rail Planning Study (FRA 

2014), the western network is envisioned to include a high-speed rail connection between 

Phoenix, Las Vegas, and Los Angeles. High-level design and system performance assumptions 

were made to be compatible with the potential future regional network shown in Figure 1-2.

1.5 Final Tier 1 EIS, Preferred Alternative, and FRA Decision 

The Tier 1 NEPA process for the corridor study began formally in October 2011 with the 

publication of the Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS. This and other milestones are shown in 

Table 1-3.

Table 1-3. Milestones in the NEPA Process for the APRCS

Milestone Date

Notice of Intent published in the Federal Register October 6, 2011

Public Scoping Meetings October 7 through 

November 1, 2011

Public Scoping Comment Period October 6 through 

November 14, 2011

Agency Scoping Meeting October 11, 2011

DEIS Notice of Availability published in the Federal Register September 11, 2015

Public Hearings on the DEIS September 15, 16, and 

17, 2015

DEIS Comment Period September 11 through 

October 30, 2015

ROD/FEIS Notice published in the Federal Register Winter 2016/2017
1 Purpose and Need

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement 1-13

Source: Southwest Multi-State Rail Planning Study (FRA 2014)

The DEIS presented: the purpose and need for the study; the range of corridor alternatives and 

the alternative screening process; the existing environmental setting; potential adverse and 

beneficial effects from implementation of a passenger rail system; and potential measures to 

avoid, minimize, or mitigate potential adverse environmental effects.

The DEIS also informed resource agencies, decision makers, interested parties, and the public 

about the differences between the No Build Alternative and the Corridor Alternatives carried 

forward for evaluation in the DEIS. FRA circulated the DEIS for 50 days for public review and 

comment (September 11, 2015 through October 30, 2015), and public hearings were held in 

Phoenix, Tucson, and Coolidge/Casa Grande, Arizona on September 15, 16, and 17, 2015, 

respectively. In addition, comments were solicited online from September 11 to October 30, 

2015, providing opportunities for the public to comment on the DEIS. All comments received on 

Figure 1-2. Future Western Regional Rail Network
1 Purpose and Need

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement 1-14

the DEIS are listed in two appendices: Agency Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS and Public 

Comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS. 

FRA filed the Final Tier 1 EIS (FEIS) with EPA upon signature by ADOT and the FRA.

1.5.1 Modifications to the Tier 1 EIS from Draft to Final

Like the DEIS, the FEIS documents the NEPA process and as such, includes updated information 

on public and agency outreach and coordination that had not yet occurred at the time of the 

publication of the DEIS. This information, as well as summary of agency and public comments, 

has been added to Chapter 3. Public Agency Coordination. Substantive additions or text 

revisions to the FEIS resulting from agency and public comments received on the DEIS during 

the review and comment period are listed on the following pages and identified in the EIS by 

the use of underlined type.

Land Use

Subsurface mining rights administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in areas not 

mapped as BLM Lands were added as a land use consideration to be analyzed in Tier 2 studies.

Parklands and Recreation Areas

The Juan Bautista de Anza National Historic Trail was included among the potentially affected 

resources. The Anza Trail corridor was also added to Maps 1-11 and 21-27 of the Corridor Aerial 

Atlas Appendix. 

Biological Resources

The Wildlife Linkages figure was modified to disclose all of the linkages that fall within the map 

boundaries.

Tables listing Species of Greatest Conservation Need and Species of Economic and Recreation 

Importance were added.

The statement, “a passenger rail system may present opportunities to improve wildlife 

connectivity” was modified to read: “a passenger rail system may present opportunities to 

improve wildlife connectivity by siting the corridors to minimize habitat and connectivity 

fragmentation, identifying current and potential important wildlife movement areas, and 

designing facilities to provide maximum permeability for safe wildlife movement.”

Mitigation measures were added to provide further protection to the western burrowing owl.

The following Potential Mitigation Measures were added in their respective locations:
1 Purpose and Need

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement 1-15

 Conduct preconstruction surveys for removal and translocation of Sonoran desert 

tortoise and western burrowing owl.

 Design sufficient wildlife crossing structures to facilitate movement of large and small 

species of wildlife across the landscape, including appropriate funnel fencing associated 

with crossing areas, and appropriate right-of-way (ROW) fencing to allow for, or restrict 

as necessary, wildlife movement.

 A Habitat Restoration Plan should be developed for all temporary impacts to native 

vegetation and provided to land management / resource agencies for review prior to 

project construction.

 Edge effects should be addressed and minimized through: the use of existing 

infrastructure, monitoring of adjacent habitats, and the development of adaptive 

management strategies for toxins, invasive species and habitat conversion.

 Conduct special status species and wildlife movement studies/surveys prior to the Tier 2 

NEPA analysis, in order for the data to inform the NEPA process. These studies should be 

identified with the approximate timelines in relation to the preparation of the Tier 2 

NEPA.

Visual and Aesthetic Scenic Resources

The Juan de Bautista de Anza National Historic Trail was included among the potentially 

affected resources, and the trail corridor was added to the Visual Resource map figures. 

Although not entirely on BLM land, and not subject to BLM Visual Resource Management 

guidelines, the intent of the Historic Trails designation is to provide experiences similar to those 

of first-time explorers to the extent possible.

Cultural Resources

The Juan de Bautista de Anza National Historic Trail was included among the potentially 

affected resources, and the trail corridor was added to the Visual Resource map figures. 

Although the trail corridor is not a “property” and not protected under Section 106, the Historic 

Trail designation merits consideration with regard to potential physical, operational, and 

construction impacts of a passenger rail system.