I-10 Multimodal Corridor Study Final Report 03-08-13€¦ · The study is called the I-10, Phoenix...

Task Assignment MPD 09-11 | Final Report| March 2013Interstate 10 – Phoenix to California Border, Multimodal Corridor Profile Study A-1

Appendix A: Planning and Environmental Linkages Questionnaire and Checklist

Interstate 10 – Phoenix to California Border, Multimodal Corridor Profile StudyTask Assignment MPD 09-11 | Final Report| March 2013A-2

Planning and Environmental LinkagesQuestionnaire and Checklist

The Planning and Environmental Linkage (PEL) process, a specific product of implementing SAFETEA-LU,1

seeks to develop subarea and corridor studies that can be used more directly to inform the NEPA2 process. Effective, conceptual-level transportation planning studies that follow the PEL process provide opportunities both to identify important issues of concern early and to build the agency, stakeholder, and public understanding necessary to successfully address them. Such early, integrated planning is not driven solely by regulatory requirements and the quest for more efficient and effective processes, although those are desirable results. Transportation and environmental professionals—as well as those in metropolitan planning organizations, state and federal resource agencies, and nongovernmental organizations—are finding that early collaboration helps achieve broader transportation and environmental stewardship goals through better decisions regarding programs, planning, and projects.

This document has been developed by the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) to provide guidance, particularly to transportation planners and environmental planners, regarding how to most effectively link the transportation planning and NEPA processes. By considering the questions and issues raised in this questionnaire, transportation planners will become more aware of potential gaps in their subarea or corridor studies, better understand the needs of future users of the studies, and be reminded of the benefits of wider and/or deeper collaboration with agencies, the public, and other stakeholders. Environmental planners who fill out the checklist will assume a new role in the transportation planning process: becoming an advocate for early awareness of environmental issues before the NEPA process begins.

This questionnaire and checklist will be used to effectively influence the scope, content, and process employed for ADOT transportation planning studies that focus on specific transportation corridors or on transportation network subareas (versus statewide transportation studies). Completion of this questionnaire and checklist will support the PEL process and serve dual objectives:3

provide guidance to transportation planners on the level of detail needed to ensure that information collected and decisions made during the transportation planning study can be used during the NEPAprocess for a proposed transportation projectprovide the future NEPA study team with documentation on the outcomes of the transportation planning process, including the history of decisions made and the level of detailed analysis undertaken

When conducting a transportation planning study that links to the future NEPA process, major issues include:4

identifying the appropriate level of environmental analysis for the studyidentifying the appropriate level of agency, stakeholder, and public involvementdefining unique study concurrence points for seeking agreement from relevant resource agencies, stakeholders, and members of the public

1 Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (Public Law 109-59)2 National Environmental Policy Act of 19693 Objectives are based on the Federal Highway Administration’s online document: Case Studies: Colorado: Colorado Department of

Transportation: Tools and Techniques to Implement PEL, <www.environment.fhwa.dot.gov/integ/case_colorado2.asp> (accessed October 24, 2011).

4 Further guidance is available in the Federal Highway Administration’s Guidance on Using Corridor and Subarea Planning to Inform NEPA, dated April 5, 2011, available online at <www.environment.fhwa.dot.gov/integ/corridor_nepa_guidance.pdf>.


developing a process to ensure that the study will be recognized as valid within the NEPA process identifying when to involve resource agencies in the study, and to what extent they influence decisionmakingidentifying how to persuade U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) reviewers to accept the use of these studies in the NEPA process

These issues should be considered throughout the transportation planning study process. Users of this ADOT Planning and Environmental Linkages Questionnaire and Checklist should review the entire document at the beginning of the study to familiarize themselves with whatever local and general issues may be operative. The questionnaire is provided in two parts: one to be completed by transportation planners at the beginning of the study and one to be completed at the end. The checklist (Part 3) should be used by environmental planners throughout the study and should be finalized at the end of the study.

Upon completion of the transportation planning study, this document should be included as an appendix to the study’s final report to document how the study meets the requirements of 23 Code of Federal Regulations § 450.212 or § 450.318 (Subpart B: Statewide Transportation Planning and Programming or Subpart C: Metropolitan Transportation Planning and Programming, respectively).

The flowchart on the following page outlines the major inputs, decision points, and outcomes that occur during implementation of a transportation planning study using the PEL process.


Interstate 10 – Phoenix to California Border, Multimodal Corridor Profile Study

5 ADOT Planning and Environmental Linkages Questionnaire and Checklist

Questionnaire for Transportation Planners – Part 1

This part of the questionnaire should be completed by transportation planners at the beginning of the transportation planning study. Please note that planners should also review the second part of the questionnaire to understand what additional issues will need to be considered and documented as the study progresses.

Project identification

What is the name of the study? What cities and region does it cover? What major streets are covered? For corridor studies, what are theintended termini?The study is called the I-10, Phoenix to California Border, Multimodal Corridor Profile Study. The study focuses on the “I-10 Corridor” between the California border near Ehrenberg, Arizona, and Central Avenue in downtown Phoenix. The study area is defined as a two-mile wide corridor centered about I-10 and includes portions of La Paz and Maricopa County, Arizona, and the cities and towns of Ehrenberg, Quartzsite, Tonopah, Buckeye, Goodyear, Avondale, Tolleson, and Phoenix. The major highways that intersect the I-10 Corridor include US 95, SR 95, US 60, SR 85, SR 303L, SR 101L, and I-17.

Who is the study sponsor?The Arizona Department of Transportation, Multimodal Planning Division

Briefly describe the study and its purpose.The primary purpose and need for this study is to consolidate the myriad planning documents for the I-10 Corridor and develop a clear vision of the transportation roles of the I-10 Corridor.Within La Paz County (WACOG region), the study will also:

Formulate a multimodal transportation plan that incorporates highway and transit travel modes and complements the area’s current and future development patterns.

Analyze the physical layout and number of general purpose and special-use travel lanes needed to serve the future I-10 Corridor travel demand.

Plan for and address freight needs within and through the I-10 Corridor.Consider community character and potential impacts throughout the planning process. Determine changes in access patterns within the I-10 Corridor that could encourage better multimodal cohesion and connectivity and

improve safety.Within Maricopa County, MAG member agencies have adopted the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and Interstate 10 – Hassayampa Valley Roadway Framework Study which serve similar purposes for the I-10 Corridor within the MAG region. Therefore, this study will focus on compiling the recommendations from these studies and others into a single resource focused on the I-10 Corridor. New alternatives and improvements will not be recommended within the MAG region. The report document will be developed in a framework approach that can be applied to other corridor studies.

Who are the primary study team members (include name, title, organization name, and contact information)?See roster at end of Part 1.

Does the team include advisory groups such as a technical advisory committee, steering committee, or other? If so, include roster(s) as attachment(s).Yes, see roster at end of Part 1.

Have previous transportation planning studies been conducted for this region? If so, provide a brief chronology, including the years the studies were completed. Provide contact names and locations of the studies and study websites.Yes. An extensive list is attached at the end of Part 1. The major drivers include:What Moves you Arizona (ADOT 2011 LRTP); Statewide Transportation Planning Framework (bqAZ) (ADOT 2010); La Paz Transportation Plan (ADOT 2010); Interstate 10 – Hassayampa Roadway Framework Study (MAG 2007); I-10 Profile Study (ADOT 2005), Regional Transportation Plan (MAG 2004),


What current or near-future planning (or other) studies in the vicinity are underway or will be undertaken? What is the relationship of this study to those studies? Provide contact names and locations of the studies and study websites.METRO I-10 High-capacity Transit Study; MAG Southwest Transit Study, ADOT Perryville Road TI Study; MCDOT Parkway Studies; MAG Gila Bend SATS; South Mountain Freeway EIS; SR 30 EA; SR 303L (south of I-10) EA;

Study objectives

What are your desired outcomes for this study? (Mark all that apply.)Stakeholder identificationStakeholder roles/responsibilities definitionTravel study area definitionPerformance measures development Development of purpose and need goals and other objectivesAlternative evaluation and screeningAlternative travel modes definition

Scheduling of infrastructure improvements over short-,mid-, and long-range time framesEnvironmental impactsMitigation identificationDon't knowOther ____________________________________

Have system improvements and additions that address your transportation need been identified in a fiscally constrained regional transportation plan?No. The RTP identified system improvements to address needs through 2026; this study incorporates other recommendations beyond the 2026 timeframe from studies such as ADOT Long-Range Transportation Plan and the I-10/Hassayampa Roadway Framework Study which were not fiscally constrained.

Will a purpose and need statement5 be prepared as part of this effort? If so, what steps will need to be taken during the NEPA process to make this a project-level purpose and need statement?Yes, however the statement will be relatively broad; Project specific statements will need to consider the latest travel demand and socioeconomic data and evaluate purpose and need for the specific demand being served.

Establishment of organizational relationships

Is a partnering agreement in place? If so, who are signatories (for example, affected agencies, stakeholders, organizations)? Attach the partnering agreement(s).Yes, the major stakeholders (PMT) are represented. No formal agreement is in place.

What are the key coordination points in the decision-making process?The review and comment on key deliverables (Working Paper #1, #2, and the Final Report) as well as public outreach.

Planning assumptions and analytical methods

Is the time horizon of the study sufficiently long to consider long-term (20 years or more from completion of the study) affects of potential scenarios?Yes, the study will evaluate existing, short-range (2015-2020), and long-range (2030-2035) conditions.

What method will be used for forecasting traffic volumes (for example, traffic modeling or growth projections)? What are the sources of data being used? Has USDOT validated their use?Traffic forecasts from the ADOT Statewide Travel Demand Model will be used outside the MAG region. The ADOT model is in development and will be reviewed by USDOT in the future. The MAG Travel Demand Model will be used within its extents which includes most of Maricopa County. The MAG model has been validated by USDOT.

5 For an explanation of purpose and need in environmental documents, please see the Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA’s)

“NEPA and Transportation Decisionmaking: The Importance of Purpose and Need in Environmental Documents,” <Purpose and Need>. This website provides links to five additional resources and guidance from FHWA that should be helpful in understanding therelationship between goals and objectives in transportation planning studies and purpose and need statements of NEPA documents.



Will the study use FHWA’s Guide on the Consistent Application of Traffic Analysis Tools and Methods6? If not, why not? How will traffic volumes from the travel demand model be incorporated, if necessary, into finer-scale applications such as a corridor study?Yes. The team will use agency model forecasts. The methods and tools will be reviewed with the PMT.

Do the travel demand models base their projections on differentiations between vehicles?Yes. The model predicts personal vehicles and commercial vehicles (light or heavy trucks).

Data, information, and tools

Is there a centralized database or website that all State resource agencies may use to share resource data during the study?No, not at this time.

Project Management Team (PMT) and Technical Advisory Committee (TAC)Name Organization Contact informationScott Omer ADOT – MPD [email protected] Hammit ADOT [email protected] Gibson ADOT [email protected] Grentz ADOT – Communications [email protected] Kemp ADOT – Communications [email protected] Mills ADOT – VPM [email protected] Steele ADOT – MPD [email protected] Killough ADOT – MPD [email protected] Cady ADOT - EPG [email protected] Busby ADOT – MPD [email protected] Andersion ADOT – MPD [email protected] Feek ADOT – MPD [email protected] Garcia ADOT – Communications [email protected] Horne ADOT - EPG [email protected] Kies ADOT [email protected] Lopez ADOT [email protected] Williams ADOT – OES [email protected] Stillings FHWA [email protected] Swiecki FHWA [email protected] LaBianca HDR [email protected] Spargo HDR [email protected] Barnum HDR [email protected] Simmons La Paz County [email protected] Strow MAG [email protected] Hazlett MAG [email protected] Oliver Maricopa County [email protected] Lacey Maricopa County [email protected] Mitchell Western Arizona Council of Governments [email protected]

Former members of PMT and TAC that took new assignments during study durationName Organization Contact informationMeesa Otani FHWA [email protected] Cain HDR [email protected] Honsberger HDR [email protected]

6 FHWA November 2011 publication: <Traffic Analysis Tools and Methods>


Previous Planning StudiesStudy or Report Organization Date publishedInterstate 10 Final Environmental Impact Statement ADOT Oct-1978CANAMEX Corridor Study ADOT Jan-2000Tonopah/Arlington Area Plan, Maricopa County 2020 Eye to the Future Maricopa County Sep-2000City of Phoenix General Plan - Land Use Map and Street Classification Map Phoenix Dec-2001High Occupancy Lanes and Value Lanes Study ADOT Jan-2002City of Avondale General Plan Avondale Jun-2002SR 85, Gila Bend to I-10, Final Design Concept Report ADOT Jun-2002Northwest Area Transportation Study MAG Jan-2003Town of Quartzsite General Plan Quartzsite Jan-2003I-10 National Freight Study ADOT May-2003High-Capacity Transit Study MAG Jun-2003SR 85 Corridor Area Plan, Maricopa County 2020 Eye to the Future Maricopa County Aug-2003Statewide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan ADOT Aug-2003Southwest Area Transportation Study MAG Sep-2003Regional Transportation Plan MAG Nov-2003Regional Freight Assessment MAG Apr-2004HOV lanes-Issues and Options for Enforcement ADOT Jun-2004Maricopa County Regional Trail System Plan Maricopa County Aug-2004MoveAZ - Long-Range Transportation Plan ADOT Sep-2004Interstate 10 West, Corridor Profile Study ADOT May-2005City of Tolleson General Plan Tolleson Dec-2005Interstate 10 (Papago) Median Widening, Final Design Concept Report, SR 85 to SR 303L and SR 303L to SR 101L ADOT Mar-2006Freeway Bottleneck Study MAG May-2006Arizona's Wildlife Linkages Assessment Multiple Dec-2006Interstate 10 (Papago) Outside Widening, Final Design Concept Report, Sarival Avenue to SR 101L ADOT Feb-2007City of Blythe General Plan 2025 Blythe Mar-2007I-10 Integrated Corridor Management System (ICMS) MAG Aug-2007Interstate 10 - Hassayampa Valley Roadway Framework Study MAG Sep-2007RPTA Freeway Express Bus BRT Operating Plan RPTA Oct-2007Internal Truck Travel Survey and Truck Model Development Study MAG Dec-2007Arizona Multimodal Freight Analysis Study ADOT Jan-2008Arizona State Airports System Plan ADOT Jan-2008RPTA Park-and-Ride Reprioritization Study RPTA Apr-2008Statewide Transportation Framework Study - Western Arizona MAG Apr-2008Western Arizona Regional Transportation Coordination Plan WACOG Apr-2008Arizona Rural Transit Needs Study ADOT May-2008Buckeye General Plan Update Buckeye May-2008Interstate 10 (Papago Freeway) Widening, SR 101L to Interstate 17, Initial Design Concept Report ADOT Sep-2008Hazardous Materials Commodity Flow Study: I-10 Corridor from SR 85 to California ADEM Dec-2008MAG and PAG External Travel Study MAG Jul-2009I-8 and I-10/Hidden Valley Roadway Framework Study MAG Aug-2009RPTA Comprehensive Arterial Bus Rapid Transit Planning Study RPTA Sep-2009MAG Regional Transit Framework Study MAG Mar-2010ADOT Statewide Transportation Planning Framework - bqAZ ADOT Mar-2010Regional Transportation Plan - 2010 Update MAG Mar-2010Commuter Rail System Study MAG May-2010Turner Parkway Feasibility Study MCDOT May-2010Hidden Waters Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study MCDOT Jun-2010La Paz Transportation Planning Study (PARA) ADOT Jun-2010McDowell Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study MCDOT Jun-2010MAG Transportation Improvement Program FY 2011-2015 MAG Jul-2010ADOT State Transportation Improvement Program FY 2011-2014 ADOT Mar-2011City of Goodyear General Plan Progress Report Goodyear Mar-2011Northern Parkway (Hassayampa Section) Corridor Feasibility Study MCDOT Jun-2011RPTA Short Range Transit Plan RPTA Sep-2011ADOT Long-Range Transportation Plan (What Moves You Arizona) ADOT Nov-2011Hidden Waters Parkway North Feasibility Study MCDOT Jan-2012



Questionnaire for Transportation Planners – Part 2

This part of the questionnaire should be completed by transportation planners at the end of the transportation planning study. This completed document should become an appendix to the study’s final report to document how the study meets the requirements of 23 Code of Federal Regulations § 450.212 or § 450.318.

Purpose and need for this study

How did the study process define and clarify corridor-level or subarea-level goals (if applicable) that influenced modal infrastructure improvements and/or the range of reasonable alternatives?The Study evaluated improvements based on goals developed with input from the Technical Advisory Committee. While the project purpose differed in Maricopa County versus La Paz County, the overall goals and objectives for the entire I-10 Corridor study area are the same:

Compile planned and potential projects to assist ADOT and regional and local agencies in the preservation of transportation right-of-way.Document planned and potential improvements to assist local governments in identifying compatible land use and zoning for adjacent development.Identify environmental issues and concernsCompile planned and potential projects for consideration in the priority programming process.Evaluate the appropriateness of current and emerging intelligent transportation systems (ITS) technologies.Forecast future travel demand within the I-10 Corridor. Travel forecasts from ADOT’s statewide model will be used within La Paz County and MAG’s travel forecasts will be used within Maricopa County.Document alternative transportation opportunities that are being considered and studied.

What were the key steps and coordination points in the decision-making process? Who were the decision-makers and who else participated in those key steps?Coordination points for the project included:

Scoping process with stakeholdersFour TAC meetings (Work Plan, Current and Future Conditions, Plan for Improvements and Draft Final Report)Identifying project stakeholders, and determining list of stakeholders for focus interviewsAgreement on traffic forecast methodology using Maricopa Association of Governments and ADOT forecastsPublic meeting in Quartzsite November 8, 2012Coordinated wildlife connectivity opportunities with AZ Game and Fish

The TAC (as identified on previous page) were the decision makers for the project. Resource and regulatory agencies were contacted during the study for input. How should this study information be presented in future NEPA document(s), if applicable? Are relevant findings documented in a format and at a level of detail that will facilitate reference to and/or inclusion in subsequent NEPA document(s)?7

The Interstate 10 – Phoenix to California Border, Multimodal Corridor Profile Study is documented in a format that will serve as a reference or supporting document; the document identifies environmental issues in the corridor.

Were the study’s findings and recommendations documented in such a way as to facilitate an FHWA or Federal Transit Administration decision regarding acceptability for application in the NEPA process? Does the study have logical points where decisions were made and where concurrencefrom resource or regulatory agencies, stakeholders, and the public was sought? If so, provide a list of those points.FHWA (Ed Stillings, Ken Davis, Meesa Otani) participated in the TAC meetings and discussions of how the study should be implemented and how PEL should be incorporated. Decisions were made by the TAC which is composed of a variety of stakeholders.Study findings and recommendations were acceptable to agencies and are well documented in the Study.The public and stakeholder outreach is documented in the Public Involvement Summary Report (incorporated by reference); a public meeting was held in Quartzsite, Arizona, La Paz County, on November 8, 2012.The study involved coordination and interviews with agencies identifying issues and understanding needs and concerns in the corridor (rather than concurrence).

7 For an explanation of the types of documents needed under the NEPA process and the nature of the content of those documents,

please see “NEPA Documentation: Improving the Quality of Environmental Documents,”<Documentation>.


Establishment of organizational relationships – tribes and agencies8

Tribe or agencyDate(s) contacted Describe level

of participationDescribe the agency’s primary concerns

and the steps needed to coordinate with the agency during NEPA scoping.9

TribalColorado River Indian

TribesJuly 11, 2012, October 17, 2012

Interview10,Stakeholder11

See interview notes

Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation

October 22, 2012 Stakeholder None identified.

Gila River Indian Community


Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community


Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc.


FederalBureau of Indian AffairsBureau of Land

ManagementJuly 24, 2012,October 17, 2012

Interview,Stakeholder

See interview notes

Bureau of Reclamation June 19, 2012,October 17, 2012


See interview notes

Federal Highway Administration

Throughout study Technical Advisory Committee Refer to meeting notes

U.S. Army Corpsof Engineers

October 17, 2012 Stakeholder None identified

U.S. Department of Health Service


U.S. Departmentof Agriculture


StateArizona Department of

Public SafetyAugust 2, 2012,October 17, 2012


See interview notes

Arizona Game and Fish Department

November 19, 2012,October 17, 2012


See interview notes

Arizona State Land Department

June 20, 2012,October 17, 2012


See interview notes

CountyMaricopa County

Department of Transportation.

Throughout study,June 25, 2012

Technical Advisory Committee,Interview

Refer to meeting notes,See interview notes

La Paz County Throughout study,July 19, 2012



8 Users may add rows to this table to accommodate additional tribes and agencies. Unused rows may be deleted.9 If the transportation planning study final report does not adequately document interactions (for example, meeting minutes, resolutions,

letters) with the relevant agencies, append such information to the end of this questionnaire and checklist.10 The interview entailed a list of open-ended questions and the questions and notes from interviews are included in the Report (Appendix C).11 Stakeholders were sent study newsletter and a notice of availability of the Draft Final Report.



Establishment of organizational relationships – tribes and agencies8

Tribe or agencyDate(s) contacted Describe level

of participationDescribe the agency’s primary concerns

and the steps needed to coordinate with the agency during NEPA scoping.9

LocalMaricopa Association of

GovernmentsThroughout study,July 12, 2012



Central Arizona Project July 2 and 9, 2012 Interview,Stakeholder

See interview notes

Arizona Public Service June 18, 2012 Interview,Stakeholder

See interview notes

Salt River Project June 8, 2012 Interview,Stakeholder

See interview notes

Phoenix International Raceway

June 11, 2012 Interview,Stakeholder

See interview notes

Transportation agenciesMetro June 20, 2012 Interview,

StakeholderSee interview notes

Palo Verde Transit Authority


See interview notes

ADOT Phoenix Engineering District

June 7, 2012,October 17, 2012


See interview notes

ADOT Yuma Engineering District

June 29, 2012,October 17, 2012


See interview notes

Establishment of organizational relationships – stakeholders and members of the public12

Public and stakeholders Date(s) contacted Describe levelof participation

Describe the primary concerns expressedby members of the public and stakeholders.

PublicMembers of the public Refer to Public Involvement Summary ReportStakeholdersList of stakeholders entails

over 700 entities and is part of project file

October 17, 2012 Stakeholder Refer to Public Involvement Summary Report

California Department of Transportation


See interview notes

Planning assumptions and analytical methods

Did the study provide regional development and growth assumptions and analyses? If so, what were the sources of the demographic and employment trends and forecasts?Yes, the study used growth projections identified as part of the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) Statewide Travel Demand Model (TDM) and (for the Maricopa region) the Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) socioeconomic projections (2009).

12 Users may add rows to this table to accommodate additional stakeholders.


What were the future-year policy and/or data assumptions used in the transportation planning process related to land use, economic development, transportation costs, and network expansion? Traffic forecasts for the Study were derived from ADOT’s Statewide TDM and (for the Maricopa region) the MAG TDM. As such, the planning assumptions inherent in those two models were carried forward. Were the planning assumptions and the corridor vision/purpose and need statement consistent with each other and with the long-range transportation plan? Are the assumptions still valid?This study compiles planning assumptions of exhaustive existing studies in the region including the MAG RTP and La Paz PARA and the multimodal approach in the Statewide Long Range Transportation Plan.

Data, information, and tools

Are the relevant data used in the study available in a compatible format that is readily usable? Are they available through a centralized web portal?Yes.No web portal.Are the completeness and quality of the data consistent with the quality (not scale or detail) of inputs needed for a NEPA project-level analysis13?Yes, but given the long-range nature of the Study, updates will be necessary during project(s) development.Are the data used in the study regularly updated and augmented? If regularly updated, provide schedule and accessibility information.MAG updates traffic and socioeconomic data regularly (updates to the socioeconomic projections are expected in the later part of 2013); the Western Arizona Council of Governments (WACOG) updates La Paz County traffic and socioeconomic data periodically.Have the environmental data been mapped at scales that facilitate comparison of effects across different resources and at sufficient resolution to guide initial NEPA issue definition? If not, what data collection and/or manipulation would likely be needed for application to the NEPA scoping process?Yes. Additional data collection will be necessary for environmental considerations such as water quality, biology, cultural resources and wildlife corridor evaluation.

Did the study incorporate models of, for example, species/habitat locations (predictive range maps), future land use, population dynamics, stormwater runoff, or travel demand? What models were used? Did the study adequately document what models were used, who was responsible for their use, and how they were used (with respect to, for example, calibration, replicability, contingencies, and exogenous factors)?The Study utilized existing environmental, travel demand, and socio-economic data obtained from a variety of sources. The sources of this data were verified by the TAC as representing the best available information.In scoping, conducting, and documenting the planning study, participants have come across documents and leads from agency staff and other sources that the environmental planners may be able to use in conducting their studies. List any applicable memoranda of understanding, cost-share arrangements, programmatic agreements, or technical studies that are underway but whose findings are not yet published, etc.Wildlife connectivity information (for La Paz County). In all instances, the data on wildlife connectivity should be checked to ensure it is the latest available information.

Development of alternatives

Were resource agencies, stakeholders, and members of the public engaged in the process of identifying, evaluating, and screening out modes, corridors, a range of alternatives,14 or a preferred alternative (if one was identified—the latter two refer to corridor plans)? If so, how? Did these groups review the recommendation of a preferred mode(s), corridor(s), range of alternatives (including the no-build alternative), or an alternative? Were the participation and inputs of these groups at a level acceptable for use in purpose and need statements or alternatives development sections in NEPA documents? If not, why not?n/a

Describe the process of outreach to resource agencies, the public, and other stakeholders. Describe the documentation of this process and of the responses to their comments. Is this documentation adequate in breadth and detail for use in NEPA documents?Technical Advisory Committee, interviews with stakeholders, e-newsletter, and public meeting (refer to Public Involvement Summary Report for additional information.)

13 For an explanation of the types of information needed to evaluate impacts in environmental documents, please see FHWA’s “NEPA

and Transportation Decisionmaking: Impacts,”<Analysis of Impacts>. This website provides links to six additional resources and guidance that should be helpful in understanding the types of impacts that need to be assessed, their context, and their intensity.

14 For an explanation of the development of alternatives in environmental documents, please see FHWA’s “NEPA and Transportation Decision-making: Development and Evaluation of Alternatives,”<Alternatives>.



If the study was a corridor study, describe the range of alternatives considered (if any), screening process, and screening criteria. Include what types of alternatives were considered (including the no-build alternative) and how the screening criteria were selected. Was a preferred alternative selected as best addressing the identified transportation issue? Are alternatives’ locations and design features specified?This Study focused on corridor improvements and did not include a range of alternatives.Also regarding whether the study was a corridor study, for alternatives that were screened out, summarize the reasons for their rejection. Are defensible, credible rationale articulated for their being screened out? Did the study team take into account legal standards15 needed in the NEPA process for such decisions? Did the study team have adequate information for screening out the alternatives?n/aWhat issues, if any, remain unresolved with the public, stakeholders, and/or resource agencies?Wildlife connectivity, interchange design, cultural resources, biology and 404 permits.

Formally joining PEL with the NEPA process

Lead federal agencies proposing a project that will undergo the NEPA process will want to most effectively leverage the transportation planning study’s efforts and results. How could a Notice of Intent (for an environmental impact statement16) refer to the study’s findings with respect to preliminary purpose and need and/or the range of alternatives to be studied?No alternatives were identified. The study’s findings largely consolidated information and recommendations from other sources, and therefore would not necessarily be referenced in a NOI. Most of the projects identified will not require an EIS.Could a Notice of Intent in the NEPA process clearly state that the lead federal agency or agencies will use analyses from prior, specific planning studies that are referenced in the transportation planning study final report? Does the report provide the name and source of the planning studies and explain where the studies are publicly available? If not, how could such relevant information come to the environmental planners’ attention and be made available to them in a timely way?Yes, documents referenced in the Study are summarized in the Study Appendices and the internet address (URL) for each (when available) is included.List how the study’s proposed transportation system would support adopted land use plans and growth objectives.The recommendations that are included in the Study are a response to the needs identified in adopted land use and planning documents for the study corridor. What modifications are needed in the goals and objectives as defined in the transportation study process to increase their efficient and timely application in the NEPA process?No modification to the goals and objectives will be required.Jurisdictional delineations of waters of the United States frequently change. Housing and commercial developments can alter landscapes dramatically and can be constructed quickly. Noise and air quality regulations can change relatively rapidly. Resource agencies frequently alter habitat delineations to protect sensitive species. Will the study data’s currency, relevance, and quality still be acceptable to agencies, stakeholders, and members of the public for use in the NEPA process? If not, what will be done to rectify this problem? Who will be responsible for any needed updating?When a project is ready for design, information from the study will need to be reevaluated and updated. The environmental data from this Study was not used for screening purposes and will not be relevant to the future NEPA process.

Other issues

Are there any other issues a future NEPA study team should be aware of (mark all that apply)? In the space below the check boxes, explain the nature and location of any issue(s) checked.

Public and/or stakeholders have expressed specific concernsUtility problemsAccess or right-of-way issuesEncroachments into right-of-wayNeed to engage—and be perceived as engaging—specific landowners, citizens, citizen groups, or other stakeholders

Contact information for stakeholdersSpecial or unique resources in the areaFederal regulations that are undergoing initial promulgation or revisionOther ____________________________________

During outreach, stakeholders expressed concern regarding several issues, notably wildlife linkages (Arizona Game and Fish) and involvement in process (several participants in the November 8, 2012, Quartzsite public meeting). Concerns related to business encroachment and right of way issues associated with the West Quartzsite TI were raised at the Quartzsite public meeting.

15 23 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) § 771.123(c), 23 CFR § 771.111(d), 40 CFR § 1502.14(a), 40 CFR § 1502.14(b) and (d),

23 CFR § 771.125(a)(1); see FHWA Technical Advisory T 6640.8A, October 30, 1987, <FHWA Technical Advisory T 6640.8A>.16 While Notices of Intent are required by some federal agencies for environmental assessments, they are optional for FHWA. Please

see “3.3.2 Using the Notice of Intent to Link Planning and NEPA,” in Guidance on Using Corridor and Subarea Planning to Inform NEPA (Federal Highway Administration, April 5, 2011), <Notice of Intent>.


Concurrence

By signature, we concur that the transportation planning document meets or exceeds the following criteria in terms of acceptability for application in NEPA projects:

Public involvement (outreach and level of participation)

Stakeholder involvement (outreach and level of participation)

Resource agencies’ involvement and participation

Documentation of the above efforts

Applicability of the general findings and conclusions for use, by reference, in NEPA documents

Approved by: _________________________________ Date: ______________

JENNIFER TOTH

State EngineerArizona Department of Transportation

Approved by: _________________________________ Date: ______________

SCOTT OMER

DirectorMultimodal Planning Division, Arizona Department of Transportation

Approved by: _________________________________ Date: _______________

KARLA PETTY

Division AdministratorFederal Highway Administration



Checklist for Environmental Planners – Part 3

By completing this checklist, environmental planners will be able to systematically evaluate the transportation planning study with regard to environmental resources and issues. It provides a framework for future NEPA studies by identifying those resources and issues that have already been evaluated, and those that have not. The role of environmental planners during the study’s various stages is laid out in the flowchart on page 3. This role includes timely advocacy for resources and issues that will later be integral to NEPA processes.

Checklist for environmental planners

Resource or issue

Is the resource orissue present in

the area?

Are impacts to theresource or issue

involvementpossible?

Are the impacts mitigable?

Discuss the level of review and method of review for this resource or issue and provide the name and location of any study or other information

cited in the planning document where it is described in detail. Describe how the planning

data may need to be supplemented during NEPA.Natural environment

Sensitive biological resources

YesNoUnknownNot applicable



a. Coordination with Arizona Game and Fish regarding wildlife connectivity potential.

b. The review was a general biological overview –the work consisted primarily of literature research.

c. Each project will require a biological review or evaluation in final design.

d. Should consider limited wildlife connectivity improvements – connectivity opportunities.

Wildlife corridorsYesNoUnknownNot applicable



Information provided by the Arizona Wildlife Linkages Workgroup was reviewed and is present in Section 7 of the Final Report. Outreach to the Arizona Game and Fish department identified that county specific wildlife corridor information is being prepared. Subsequent studies should refer to the Department’s website for additional information.

Invasive speciesYesNoUnknownNot applicable



Invasive species should be investigated during final design and standard investigative techniques applied.

Wetland areasYesNoUnknownNot applicable



n/a

Riparian areasYesNoUnknownNot applicable



n/a

100-year floodplainYesNoUnknownNot applicable



Evaluate during final design.

Clean Water Act Sections 404/401waters of the United States




Not directly evaluated; 401/404 permits to be obtained during final design.

Prime or unique farmland




Areas located near I-10 will need to be evaluated during final design.



Resource or issue


the area?






data may need to be supplemented during NEPA.

Farmland of statewide or local importance




Unknown at this time.

Sole-source aquifersYesNoUnknownNot applicable



Further evaluation necessary during final design.

Wild and scenic riversYesNoUnknownNot applicable



Unknown at this time.

Visual resourcesYesNoUnknownNot applicable



Limited evaluation and recommendations in report; visual resources to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis in final design.

Designated scenic road/byway




n/a

Cultural resources

Archaeological resources




Literature review; class 3 survey to be undertaken during final design.

Historical resourcesYesNoUnknownNot applicable



Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) resources

Section 4(f)17 wildlife and/or waterfowl refuge




4(f) and 6(f) resources not identified at this time; an evaluation will be needed during final design.

Section 4(f) historic site




Section 4(f) recreational site




Section 4(f) parkYesNoUnknownNot applicable



17 Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act of 1966 (49 U.S. Code § 303, as amended); see <Section 4(f)>.




Resource or issue


the area?







Section 6(f)18 resourceYesNoUnknownNot applicable



Human environment

Existing developmentYesNoUnknownNot applicable



Cursory review of existing studies and aerial photography.

Planned developmentYesNoUnknownNot applicable



Review of existing studies and planning documents as cited in Study.

DisplacementsYesNoUnknownNot applicable



Not addressed.

Access restrictionYesNoUnknownNot applicable



Not addressed

Neighborhood continuity





Community cohesionYesNoUnknownNot applicable




Title VI/Environmental justice populations19




Review and evaluation of U.S. Census data (2010) at Census Tract level.

Physical environment

UtilitiesYesNoUnknownNot applicable



Hazardous materialsYesNoUnknownNot applicable



18 Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act19 refers to Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and 1994 Executive Order 12898 on environmental justice



Resource or issue


the area?







Sensitive noise receivers20




Air qualityYesNoUnknownNot applicable



Other (list)YesNoUnknownNot applicable



20 under FHWA’s Noise Abatement Criterion B: picnic areas, recreation areas, playgrounds, active sports areas, parks, residences, motels, hotels, schools, churches, libraries, and hospitals



Identification of potential environmental mitigation activities

Could the transportation planning process be integrated with other planning activities, such as land use or resource management plans? If so, could this integrated planning effort be used to develop a more strategic approach to environmental mitigation measures?Yes, the compilation of information from numerous sources into one planning document will aid in integrating land use planning within the corridor. Understanding the improvements planned throughout the corridor may aid in developing strategic implementation plans for environmental mitigation measures (for example, wildlife crossings). With respect to potential environmental mitigation opportunities at the PEL level, who should ADOT consult with among federal, State, and local agencies and tribes and how formally and frequently should such consultation be undertaken?Due to the range of projects identified through the Study, it is suggested that consultation occur with specific entities as identified on a project by project basis. Off-site and compensatory mitigation areas are often creatively negotiated to advance multiagency objectives or multiple objectives within one agency. Who determined what specific geographic areas or types of areas were appropriate for environmental mitigation activities? How were these determinations made?n/a.

To address potential impacts on the human environment, what mitigation measures or activities were considered and how were they developed and documented?While mitigation measures are generally discussed in the Study, no specific mitigation actions were advanced as a result of this Study.

Prepared by: _________________________________ Date: ______________

________________________

Environmental Planning Group, Arizona Department of Transportation

This page is intentionally left blank.

Task Assignment MPD 09-11 | Final Report| March 2013Interstate 10 – Phoenix to California Border, Multimodal Corridor Profile Study B-1

Appendix B: Evaluation criteria

Interstate 10 – Phoenix to California Border, Multimodal Corridor Profile StudyTask Assignment MPD 09-11 | Final Report| March 2013B-2

CriteriaPreservationDoes the project address a deficiency related to the quality of service (pavement roughness, structure suitabilitiy, geometry)?

Community characterDoes the project improve connectivity and access to important educational, medical, major employment, or recreational facilities?Is the project compatible and consistent with local and regional transportation plan goals and priorities?Is the project supported by local and regional agencies?Movement of people, goods, and servicesDoes the project improve level of service of I-10 or adjacent roads?Does the project adversely affect businesses (displacements, alteration of access to I-10, etc.)?Does the project adversely affect residential neighborhoods (displacements, alteration of access to I-10, noise, etc.)?Does the project include alternative modes of travel or links among modes of travel?Safety and securityDoes the project improve safety?Does the project address any design criteria deficiencies?Environment and natural resourcesDoes the project impact any protected wetlands or cultural or biological resources? Would the project likely receive required permits and approvals? Has application of the Cumulative Effects Assessment and Alternatives Processa been considered to identify impacts?GeneralHave project costs been minimized?Does the cost/benefit ratio of the project equate to an efficient use of the agencie’s limited funds? Is the project constructable and does it meet current engineering criteria?Note: a Transposition Research Board. An Ecological Approach to Integrating Conservation and Highway Planning Volume 2

Task Assignment MPD 09-11 | Final Report| March 2013Interstate 10 – Phoenix to California Border, Multimodal Corridor Profile Study C-1

Appendix C: Stakeholder and public outreach information

Interstate 10 – Phoenix to California Border, Multimodal Corridor Profile StudyTask Assignment MPD 09-11 | Final Report| March 2013C-2

Agency - Key issuesArizona Department of Public Safety (DPS)• Consider locations where accidents and/or roadway incidents can

be taken off the freeway (including the shoulder)• Add signage related to vehicle removal law – “Minor crashes move off

the roadway”; note: “roadway” includes the shoulder as well• Rural areas should provide turn-around opportunities along the

median for officers and/or emergency crews• A possible solution might include improving the parallel roads along

I-10 to handle larger volumes and detours during construction, accidents, events, etc.

• Traffic signal coordination is important• HOV variable speeds are difficult for law enforcement to calibrate the

speeds at which vehicles are driving• Consider law enforcement traffic incident management in planning

for the I-10 corridorArizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD)• Major concern has to do with fragmentation of wildlife habitat. • Other indirect issues include invasive species and pollution of

waterways. • Mitigation, especially when considered in advance can address

many of the concerns.• Future freeways, parkways and Interchanges will need to be designed

to allow for habitat connectivity through the region.• NEPA corridor studies should disclose effects, and/or conduct

a thorough evaluation of broader impacts, including induced development. .

ADOT Phoenix Engineering District• Truck traffic should be limited to the right lane, except when passing• Buckeye, Loop 303 area, SR 85 area, Goodyear, and Litchfield are

areas with high potential growth• Real-time communication is important• Amazon moved their distribution warehouse to Goodyear• Include ADOT Valley Project Management in project discussionsADOT Yuma Engineering District• Traffic congestion at the Quartzsite interchanges during the winter is a

problem• Development to fill out from Maricopa County line to Buckeye area

(mile post 112), several planned near mile post 100• LaPaz County, Quartzsite, and Buckeye should be engaged in project

discussionsArizona Public Service (APS)• ADOT abandonment rule should allow more flexibility to utility

relocation and should allow utilities to be within ADOT right-of-way• Frost Zero, a California-based frozen foods business near the Loop 303

and Camelback Road area will bring more traffic to the study area• New residential and commercial center at Verrado Way• Century Link, Southwest Gas, Cox Communications, First One

Communications, and Westcor should all be engaged in the project discussions.

• Study the I-17 corridor from Northern Avenue to Durango curve to access impact to the rest of the transportation network

Agency - Key issuesArizona State Land Department (ASLD)• Butler and Harquahala Valley are water-rich areas that will see

development in the future• Significant amount of clean-energy development in the region

surrounding the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating StationBureau of Land Management (BLM)• Congestion during high-peak hours need to be alleviated• Additional modes of transportation should be key factors; it is

important to change the choice of a 1-person commuter• Solar development in certain pockets of I-10 are being built on public,

private, federal and state lands, and will likely affect the shape of growth in the future

Bureau of Reclamation (BOR)• Look out beyond typical 20-year planning horizon (for example, BOR

operates on a 50-year planning horizon)• Others you should speak with include CAP, ASLD, BLM, CAP, and other

irrigation districtsCalifornia Department of Transportation• Additional growth is planned in Palm Springs which will likely produce

additional traffic in the area and along nearby on- and off-ramps• Desert tortoises should be an important consideration for

development; they have proven to be an issue for some projects• Alternative routes to California ensure seamless connections• Suggest installing cameras on poles along I-10 to California border• Real-time communication is importantCentral Arizona Project (CAP)• Improved facilities in the west valley would help business• CAP is looking into establishing a permit from BLM to transfer bridge

and crossing rights to the BOR• Ongoing discussions to establish the CAP corridor as a recreational

trail• Clearances for the CAP canal should be an important consideration

for developing transportation facilities• Power lines from Palo Verde will be crossing freeway, from Palo Verde

to the Sun Valley substation, and then to the Morgan substation• The Liberty Parker Line power line at Buckeye should be considered as

part of the study effortColorado River Indian Tribes (CRIT)• Significant traffic is traveling north from I-10 towards destinations along

the Colorado River• Coordination with neighbors in California is the practice for agencies

in the region and should be continued• The region needs improved transit service• Industry is beginning to locate in the area – will require careful

coordination of infrastructure to support• Floodplain between Exit 1 and Exit 5 (Tyson Wash and others), with

drainage coming off the Dome Rock Mountains (to the north) is a concern in the region of I-10

• The Colorado River Indian Tribes are considering developing their lands north of and in the vicinity of I-10

• The region has a rich history which should be considered

The first phase of the stakeholder and public outreach process included:

● establishing a project web site: www.azdot.gov/i10corridorstudy ● conducting in-person and telephone interviews of key stakeholders

● distributing an e-newsletters to members of the public and other stakeholders with interests in the I-10 Corridor

The followings sections provide additional details related to the outcomes of this outreach.

Stakeholder InterviewsThe stakeholder interview questions included:

1. In your opinion what are some of the local and regional issues this study must address? What improvements are needed to existing roads and transportation services as they relate to I-10?

2. How would the area be affected by improved transportation facilities in the I-10 Corridor (e.g., growth, economic development)?

3. What growth/developments and socio-economic changes do you see occurring over the next 20 years in your particular locality or region?

4. Are there any “fatal flaws” such as economic, physical, environmental constraints, specific preservation areas, or community concerns that would be an obstacle to the development of transportation facilities in the I-10 Corridor?

5. Is integration of new technologies within the corridor important (e.g., intelligent transportation systems)? If so, what kind of technologies?

6. Are there any recent data sources, or other information about future development projects, such as residential and/or commercial, schools, or others that we should know about? Any current discussions with private or public sector that you are able to share with us?

7. What other groups, agencies, organizations, or individuals do you recommended we include in our outreach efforts? How would you like to be involved as this study unfolds?

8. Are there any other issues you would like to express?

A list of the stakeholder interviewees and their key issues or concerns are presented in the following table. The interview notes for each interviewee are provided in on the following pages.


Agency - Key issuesLa Paz County• Build a roundabout at Exit #1 on south side, similar to roundabout on

north side• Address oversized load movement currently unable to travel on some

areas of I-10 due to weight and clearance problems• Plans to build a landfill in La Paz county will bring solid waste from

California and add traffic to the region and corridor• Others to speak with include the La Paz County ManagerMaricopa Association of Governments (MAG)• Local and regional issues in the MAG region have been addressed

through other plans and studies• Must consider the developing warehousing facilities along I-10 and

the need to access the transportation network (primarily west valley)• Expansion of the Freeway Management System and coordination

between transportation agencies is critical for efficient operation of the freeway system

Maricopa County Department of Transportation (MCDOT)• A comprehensive drainage plan is needed for the area west of the

White Tanks• The Avondale Boulevard bridge over the Gila River needs to be

widened to accommodate PIR traffic (add one lane)• Consider the improvements planned for Buckeye airport• Others to speak with include: Arizona Motor Transport Association,

Maricopa County Development Services, Tonopah Community Association, Desert Creek homeowners association (vicinity of Hassayampa Freeway), WESTMARC, and Rock Products Association

METRO• We lose sight of the fact that Phoenix is just a stop along an important

east-west route (I-10)• Need to determine how to get freight through• Within the region, must consider the multimodal needs of the corridor• Additional lanes are not an answer to congestionPalo Valley Verde Transit Authority• Additional emergency call box systems are needed to provide safety

precautions along the west corridor• Electric charging stations should be planned for in the future; Eastern

Riverside has a plan underway to push electric vehicles in western California

• A new Visitor Center just west of the Arizona/California border will provide a rest area and break point for travelers between Arizona and California

• Include Board of Supervisors (4th, 80th, and 45th district), Hayday Farms, Mark Fisher (Farm representative), Conway Trucking, State prisons, and Palo Verde Hospital in project discussions

Agency - Key issuesPhoenix International Raceway (PIR)• There is significant congestion when there are simultaneous events at

Westgate and PIR• PIR will become more of the “center of town” and will certainly create

traffic problems as additional development occurs• PIR intends to grow and expand existing facilities.Salt River Project (SRP)• Congestion at major interchanges cause serious problems• Improvements to the corridor would encourage additional industrial

business west of Phoenix• Growth potential near the Hassayampa water aquifer site• Real-time communication is important

NewsletterSeparate study newsletters were developed for stakeholders in La Paz County and Maricopa County to reflect the different goals and objectives for the study in each county. The newsletters are very similar to the text and graphics presented for the project web site. The newsletters were distributed electronically using ADOT CCP e-mail lists from previous planning studies in the I-10 Corridor. A copy of the newsletter is presented after the interviewee notes.

Public MeetingA public meeting was held November 8, 2012, in Quartzsite. The following documents from the public outreach are presented at the end of this appendix:

● Newspaper notice ● Sign-in sheets ● Comment cards ● Meeting summary notes


HDR Engineering, Inc. 3200 E. Camelback Road Suite 350 Phoenix, AZ 85018-2311

Phone (602) 522-7700 Fax (602) 522-7707 www.hdrinc.com

Page 1 of 2

MemoTo: I 10 Multimodal Corridor Profile Study

CC: File

Compiled by: Janet Gonzalez, HDR Stakeholder Interview NotesInterviewee:Alvin Stump, Arizona Department of

Transportation

Date: July 2, 2012 Conducted: June 29, 2012

Introduction (to be read at the start of each)The I 10 Multimodal Corridor Profile Study is being conducted by ADOT. The main objectives of the study are to evaluatethe existing transportation system and determine current and future needs, as well as transportation systemrequirements for the future. The intent of the study is to consider a range of mobility options, including personal andcommercial vehicles, rail, and public transit and air service.

The Plan process is flexible to address other issues or priorities as they are identified through outreach efforts. The projectis anticipated to be completed in approximately 6 months and will involve stakeholder and public outreach. Part of thatoutreach involves input from you and we appreciate your willingness to participate in this survey.

Stakeholder Questions1. In your opinion what are some of the local and regional issues this study must address? What improvements are

needed to existing roads and transportation services as they relate to I 10?Safety considerations should be addressed. As an example, there are currently issues with people falling asleepwhile driving in the study area between Buckeye and Quartzite. Quartzite has a lot of visitors in the winter whichcauses issues with the interchange and high traffic volumes. When widening roads, daytime lane closures aredifficult and should be planned into the schedule in the evenings when the roads are the least utilized.

2. How would the area be affected by improved transportation facilities in the I 10 Corridor (e.g., growth, economicdevelopment)?Improved transportation facilities would improve the flow of traffic. As development arises from improvedtransportation facilities, more traffic would fill the freeway. More development would then also increase andpropel the need for improvements.

3. What growth/developments and socio economic changes do you see occurring over the next 20 years in yourparticular locality or region?Commercial and residential development would certainly fill out the Buckeye area from about the MaricopaCounty line – mile post 112 out west for 15 20 miles. Definitely see additional traffic in the west portion of thestudy area. Quartzite is an area that will likely grow significantly.

4. Are there any "fatal flaws" such as economic, physical, environmental constraints, specific preservation areas, orcommunity concerns that would be an obstacle to the development of transportation facilities in the I 10Corridor?Not at this time.

5. Is integration of new technologies within the corridor important (e.g., intelligent transportation systems)? If so,what kind of technologies?Yes. Variable message signs are important. Fast response post accident traffic control would be better served byconveying information to drivers to provide enough distance to adjust their commutes. Construction updates to



Page 2 of 2

planned work events is also important for driver commute planning.6. Are there any recent data sources, or other information about future development projects, such as residential

and/or commercial, schools, or others that we should know about? Any current discussions with private or publicsector that you are able to share with us?There are several developments planned near mile post 100. Some include thoughts on private interchanges. Willforward information via e mail.

7. What other groups, agencies, organizations, or individuals do you recommend we include in our outreach efforts?How would you like to be involved as this study unfolds?Should include LaPaz County, Quartzite and Buckeye area communities in the discussion. Would like to continueto be engaged via e newsletter distribution.

8. Are there any other issues you would like to express?There are a lot of oversized loads and high truck volumes on the I 10. 25% to 45% of the traffic on the I 10 comesfrom truck volumes. It’s important to include this in the planning process and in the maintenance program ofkeeping the corridor maintained. Truck traffic wears down the freeway faster then does car traffic.

Additional Comments:

N/A

Thank you for your time!


HDR Engineering, Inc. 3200 E. Camelback RoadSuite 350Phoenix, AZ 85018-2311

Phone (602) 522-7700Fax (602) 522-7707www.hdrinc.com

Page 1 of 2

MemoTo: I-10 Multimodal Corridor Profile Study

CC: File

Compiled by: Janet Gonzalez, HDR

Stakeholder Interview Notes Interviewee: Angelita Bulletts, Bureau of Land Management

Date: July 27, 2012 Conducted: July 24, 2012

Introduction (to be read at the start of each) The I-10 Multimodal Corridor Profile Study is being conducted by ADOT. The main objectives of the study are to evaluate the existing transportation system and determine current and future needs, as well as transportation system requirements for the future. The intent of the study is to consider a range of mobility options, including personal and commercial vehicles, rail, and public transit and air service. The Plan process is flexible to address other issues or priorities as they are identified through outreach efforts. The project is anticipated to be completed in approximately 6 months and will involve stakeholder and public outreach. Part of that outreach involves input from you and we appreciate your willingness to participate in this survey.

Stakeholder Questions

1. In your opinion what are some of the local and regional issues this study must address? What improvements are needed to existing roads and transportation services as they relate to I-10? I-10 constructed to meet traffic congestion from 20 years ago. The corridor is very much in need of expansion during high-peak hours. Relieving congestion should be the first priority. The study should certainly consider additional modes of transportation to be just as important as automobile movement. It’s important to change the choice of a 1-person commuter.

2. How would the area be affected by improved transportation facilities in the I-10 Corridor (e.g., growth, economic development)? Positively impacted. Growth would be expanded because of the additional areas for people to stop and shop, eat, and/or dine.

3. What growth/developments and socio-economic changes do you see occurring over the next 20 years in your particular locality or region? Growth will likely continue along the outer reaches of the I-10 – south of Phoenix to Tucson. Sees more growth from Phoenix to Tucson, then Phoenix to California.

4. Are there any "fatal flaws" such as economic, physical, environmental constraints, specific preservation areas, or community concerns that would be an obstacle to the development of transportation facilities in the I-10 Corridor? There is solar development in certain pockets of the I-10 that are being built on public, private, federal and state lands. This will impact the shape and way the city grows in the future.

5. Is integration of new technologies within the corridor important (e.g., intelligent transportation systems)? If so, what kind of technologies? Yes. Real-time messaging is important. Satellite and real-time video feeds are great to show traffic in key areas of the valley.

6. Are there any recent data sources, or other information about future development projects, such as residential and/or commercial, schools, or others that we should know about? Any current discussions with private or public



Page 2 of 2

sector that you are able to share with us? Same as answer to #4. Solar development will likely shape the growth of the valley in areas with growth opportunities.

7. What other groups, agencies, organizations, or individuals do you recommend we include in our outreach efforts? How would you like to be involved as this study unfolds? None at this time. Contact by e-mail distribution.

8. Are there any other issues you would like to express? None at this time.

Additional Comments: N/A Thank you for your time!




Page 1 of 2


CC: File

Compiled by: Michael LaBianca Stakeholder Interview Notes Interviewee: Ben Limmer, METRO Abhishek Dayal, METRO




1. In your opinion what are some of the local and regional issues this study must address? What improvements are needed to existing roads and transportation services as they relate to I-10? We lose sight of the fact that Phoenix is just a stop along an important east-west route (I-10), a huge freight corridor for the nation. Need to determine how to get freight through. Within the region, must consider the multimodal needs of the corridor. Additional lanes are not an answer to congestion; think of alternatives to improve mobility (examples include HOT lanes, tolls, whatever options are available to address needs). Tolls are a challenge, given the neeed for local service.

2. How would the area be affected by improved transportation facilities in the I-10 Corridor (e.g., growth, economic development)? Multimodal enhancements would facilitate more focused growth. View I-10 as critical to the regions economic development, downtown Phoenix, warehousing to the west will continue to expand westward.

3. What growth/developments and socio-economic changes do you see occurring over the next 20 years in your particular locality or region? West Valley development is occurring more slowly than anticipated. There is a lot of potential within the SR 101. South Mountain (transportation corridor) will hasten development south of I-10. The central Phoenix area is changing demographically as affluent households are moving in to the central corridor.

4. Are there any "fatal flaws" such as economic, physical, environmental constraints, specific preservation areas, or community concerns that would be an obstacle to the development of transportation facilities in the I-10 Corridor? Not observed. Economics is driving everything. Luke Air Force Base may be a (growth) factor in the West Valley, an area which lacks major employment. Capacity of I-10 is a limiting factor.

5. Is integration of new technologies within the corridor important (e.g., intelligent transportation systems)? If so,



Page 2 of 2

what kind of technologies? Various lane configurations, HOT, HOV+3, toll, transit only lane, express lanes – all options should be on the table.

6. Are there any recent data sources, or other information about future development projects, such as residential and/or commercial, schools, or others that we should know about? Any current discussions with private or public sector that you are able to share with us? See specific development plans; 101 Corridor, Maryvale Core Plan (contact Jacob Zonn, City of Phoenix Planning Department).

7. What other groups, agencies, organizations, or individuals do you recommend we include in our outreach efforts? How would you like to be involved as this study unfolds? Maricopa Association of Governments. Email updates are sufficient.

8. Are there any other issues you would like to express? Consider development of high-capacity transit, in particular in the West Valley.

Additional Comments: Thank you for your time!




Page 1 of 2


CC: File


Stakeholder Interview Notes Interviewee: Bob Garza, Arizona Public Service

Date: June 19, 2012 Conducted: June 18, 2012



1. In your opinion what are some of the local and regional issues this study must address? What improvements are needed to existing roads and transportation services as they relate to I-10? Consideration should be made for future growth of utilities. ADOT abandonment rule – flexibility should be given to allow utilities more leeway. Allow utilities to be within the ADOT ROW. There should be a partnership between the groups and contractors should be a part of the discussion to avoid unnecessary claims during construction sequencing before growth and widening efforts are started.

2. How would the area be affected by improved transportation facilities in the I-10 Corridor (e.g., growth, economic development)? Commercial growth will be back. As the economy picks up, commercial business will pick-up in the downtown and surrounding areas. Cooperation is needed between ADOT and APS. On the west end of the study area, businesses from California are coming in to set up their shops. Frost Zero, a frozen foods business is a California-based business near the Loop 303 / Camelback area.

3. What growth/developments and socio-economic changes do you see occurring over the next 20 years in your particular locality or region? Massive growth with malls, strip malls, commercial businesses and residential. Estrella Falls Mall is a large development near the corridor. Verrado has a new residential and commercial area currently under development. The ability to get in and get out of the study area fast will be the key to successful growth. The Loop 303 and I-10 will likely be a huge hot spot, as it is at the center of various connections.

4. Are there any "fatal flaws" such as economic, physical, environmental constraints, specific preservation areas, or community concerns that would be an obstacle to the development of transportation facilities in the I-10 Corridor? 401 permits are important and key to growth. The area west of Verrado (with the exception of the power plant area) may be easier to implement then the other denser areas east of that. SRP serves 35th Avenue to 101. Establishing a corridor within the median for future rail or transit opportunities would be smart to plan for.




Page 2 of 2

what kind of technologies? Yes. Should join trench with fiber optics networks as construction is being completed. It’s important for the utility companies to know when upcoming projects are going to affect the system and vice versa.

6. Are there any recent data sources, or other information about future development projects, such as residential and/or commercial, schools, or others that we should know about? Any current discussions with private or public sector that you are able to share with us? The Verrado area has started projects on their development site. There has been a lot of discussion about commercial activity. Any existing / future developments will be positively affected by I-10 improvements. More commercial activity will also lead to residential growth.

7. What other groups, agencies, organizations, or individuals do you recommend we include in our outreach efforts? How would you like to be involved as this study unfolds? Century Link, Southwest Gas, Cox Communications, First One Communications (west-valley focused), Westcor. Sue Maybee (APS) from the Asset Team should be added to the discussion. Miguel Bravo (APS) from the Economics Development should also be added to the discussion – [email protected]. E-newsletter.

8. Are there any other issues you would like to express? ADOT should look at studying the I-17 corridor. It is the one piece of freeway that is being ignored – from Northern to the Durango Curve. The speed changes, then bottlenecks, then the curve opens back up near the airport. Should be developed and upgraded to the level of standard of the I-10.





Page 1 of 2


CC: File

Compiled by: Michael LaBianca Stakeholder Interview Notes Interviewee: Brent Espin, Bureau of Reclamation Pete Castaneda, Bureau of Reclamation




1. In your opinion what are some of the local and regional issues this study must address? What improvements are needed to existing roads and transportation services as they relate to I-10? Modernizing infrastructure, ensuring the capacity to handle anticipated growth. Look out beyond typical 20 year planning horizon (for example, BOR operates on a 50-year planning horizon).

2. How would the area be affected by improved transportation facilities in the I-10 Corridor (e.g., growth, economic development)? Areas that may impact BOR include:

1. SRP facilities, approximately every ½ mile in the West Valley 2. Central Arizona Project crossings (2 exist with in the corridor) 3. Various irrigation districts in the Tonopah area 4. Transmission line crossings

3. What growth/developments and socio-economic changes do you see occurring over the next 20 years in your

particular locality or region? Additional (electrical) transmission capacity added to system.

4. Are there any "fatal flaws" such as economic, physical, environmental constraints, specific preservation areas, or community concerns that would be an obstacle to the development of transportation facilities in the I-10 Corridor? (New) endangered species habitat. Need to stay abreast of regulatory changes. Bureau of Land Management Resource Management Plans – bible for accessing federal lands.

5. Is integration of new technologies within the corridor important (e.g., intelligent transportation systems)? If so, what kind of technologies? Role of BOR limited to power and water.



Page 2 of 2

6. Are there any recent data sources, or other information about future development projects, such as residential and/or commercial, schools, or others that we should know about? Any current discussions with private or public sector that you are able to share with us? n/a

7. What other groups, agencies, organizations, or individuals do you recommend we include in our outreach efforts? How would you like to be involved as this study unfolds? Central Arizona Project; ASLD; BLM; CAP; other irrigation districts. Email is fine – appreciate the project awareness and a seat at the table ([email protected].)





Page 1 of 2


CC: File


Stakeholder Interview Notes Interviewee: David Lane, Palo Valley Verde Transit Authority




1. In your opinion what are some of the local and regional issues this study must address? What improvements are needed to existing roads and transportation services as they relate to I-10? Gas costs a lot less in Arizona then in California. A lot of California residents cross over to Arizona (Flying J) to get gas. This is a problem for the border cities when it comes to tax revenue. Additional call box systems are needed to provide safety precautions.

2. How would the area be affected by improved transportation facilities in the I-10 Corridor (e.g., growth, economic development)? Not applicable.

3. What growth/developments and socio-economic changes do you see occurring over the next 20 years in your particular locality or region? Significant commercial growth near and mid-term. Goals are to draw more people off the I-10, with numbers currently at 10.2 million people.

4. Are there any "fatal flaws" such as economic, physical, environmental constraints, specific preservation areas, or community concerns that would be an obstacle to the development of transportation facilities in the I-10 Corridor? Not applicable.

5. Is integration of new technologies within the corridor important (e.g., intelligent transportation systems)? If so, what kind of technologies? Yes. This is very important. Especially for all the visitors and truck drivers that travel between Arizona and California. Emergency notification systems are important. Eastern Riverside will be pushing electric vehicles forward. Pads along the I-10 with charging stations for those vehicles that require charging would be beneficial to encourage “greener” infrastructure improvements.




Page 2 of 2

Brewing is designing a new off and on ramp 300-feet west from the California/Arizona border. A new Visitor Center at this location will include a park, information kiosks, dog run area, restrooms, farmers market, and demonstration farm. This Visitor Center will be advertised via billboards, etc., and will encourage people to stop and enjoy the area before heading to their destination.

7. What other groups, agencies, organizations, or individuals do you recommend we include in our outreach efforts? How would you like to be involved as this study unfolds? Riverside County Board of Supervisor (BOS) – 4th District (John Benoit), BOS 80th District (Manual Perez), BOS 45th District (Mary Bonomect – Governor), Farming Industry – Hayday Farms (Dale Tyson – [email protected]), Mark Fisher (other farmer – don’t have contact information), Conway Trucking, State Prisons – two within City limits, Palo Verde Hospital (Peter Klune – [email protected]). E-newsletter.

8. Are there any other issues you would like to express? California is usually adversely impacted by improvements in Arizona. It’s hard to compete for labor and fuel because it is cheaper in Arizona. Farmers in California are precluded from buying fuel in Arizona.





Page 1 of 2


CC: File

Compiled by: Michael LaBianca Stakeholder Interview Notes Interviewee: Gordon Taylor, Arizona State Land Department




1. In your opinion what are some of the local and regional issues this study must address? What improvements are needed to existing roads and transportation services as they relate to I-10? Refer to some of the studies Maricopa County Department of Transportation is conducting. MCDOT has made changes to some of the alignments shown in the framework studies (Denise Lacey, MCDOT). Need to consider the implications of the propose I-11 corridor. Large master planned communities in the west valley (e.g., Belmont, Douglas Ranch)

2. How would the area be affected by improved transportation facilities in the I-10 Corridor (e.g., growth, economic development)? Butler and Harquahala Valley are water-rich areas that will see development in the future. There is a significant amount of speculation zoning in the far West Valley. Improved interchanges will encourage development.

3. What growth/developments and socio-economic changes do you see occurring over the next 20 years in your particular locality or region? The Arizona State Land Department does conceptual planning for those areas it anticipates growth in the next 20 years (conceptual planning manadated by the 1998 Growing Smarter / 2000 Growing Smarter Plus legislation). Much of the Department’s (planning) resources have been focused on the Superstition Vistas area; it is anticipated that that area will develop before the far West Valley does. Significant amount of clean-energy development in the region surrounding the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station.

4. Are there any "fatal flaws" such as economic, physical, environmental constraints, specific preservation areas, or community concerns that would be an obstacle to the development of transportation facilities in the I-10 Corridor? Habitat corridors must be considered; cultural sites.

5. Is integration of new technologies within the corridor important (e.g., intelligent transportation systems)? If so, what kind of technologies?



Page 2 of 2

Automatic message signs are good investment for safety. 6. Are there any recent data sources, or other information about future development projects, such as residential

and/or commercial, schools, or others that we should know about? Any current discussions with private or public sector that you are able to share with us? Refer to Maricopa County for information, especially pertaining to renewable projects.

7. What other groups, agencies, organizations, or individuals do you recommend we include in our outreach efforts? How would you like to be involved as this study unfolds? John Verdugo, Maricopa County Development Services, would have information on the many alternative energy projects proposed for Maricopa County. Salt River Project, Arizona Game and Fish. Email updates are fine, will share with Mark Edelman, Planning Director, Arizona State Land Department.

8. Are there any other issues you would like to express? Refer to the Arizona State Land Department mission, focus on maximizing the development value of the land.





Page 1 of 2


CC: File

Compiled by: Michael LaBianca, HDR Stakeholder Interview Notes Interviewee: Greg Fisher, Colorado River Indian Tribes

Date: August 3, 2012 Conducted: July 11, 2012



1. In your opinion what are some of the local and regional issues this study must address? What improvements are needed to existing roads and transportation services as they relate to I-10? Concern with existing traffic from Quartzsite heading north towards Parker, AZ. There is a significant amount of traffic along this route. Many of the tourists don’t go through Quartzsite, travel from California exiting in Ehrenberg and heading north. This is especially the case in summer and during spring break. Any planning for this area should include neighbors from Blythe, Needles (California communities). Quartzsite exit ramps are great, Exit 1 needs work. Exit 5 needs work as well, and could be wider (overpass on I-10).

2. How would the area be affected by improved transportation facilities in the I-10 Corridor (e.g., growth, economic development)? Transit study needs to be done for the area. Lake Havasu City has transit services, and Parker provides transit services for the elderly. It would be beneficial to provide a means by which the workforce on the reservation would be able to travel to Quartzsite and Vicksburg for employment. A park and ride type facility would be beneficial.

3. What growth/developments and socio-economic changes do you see occurring over the next 20 years in your particular locality or region? There is a lot of industry beginning to develop in the region. Discussions are ongoing regarding a refinery, with interest from overseas buyers. Trucks are currently hauling goods out of Parker.

4. Are there any "fatal flaws" such as economic, physical, environmental constraints, specific preservation areas, or community concerns that would be an obstacle to the development of transportation facilities in the I-10 Corridor? There is a major floodplain between Exit 1 and Exit 5 (Tyson Wash and others), with drainage coming off the Dome Rock Mountains (to the north). Tribe is looking to develop this land, however, need to first address issues with flooding. There are culverts that are at end of useful life and need to be addressed.




Page 2 of 2

what kind of technologies? Yes, integration of technologies is very important. Proximity to the border has resulted in problems associated with illegal immigrants. The prison in Blythe and other factors are resulting in a changing population. Emergency services are responsive, and communication is critical as there are limited alternative routes through the region.

6. Are there any recent data sources, or other information about future development projects, such as residential and/or commercial, schools, or others that we should know about? Any current discussions with private or public sector that you are able to share with us? There has been discussion of a “fuel station” in Ehrenberg, the California side has a conversion station for trucks. Ehrenberg is looking at attracting a hotel for travelers on I-10 and tourists visiting the region. The Colorado River Indian tribes are considering development options for the land north of Exit 5 (commercial development).

7. What other groups, agencies, organizations, or individuals do you recommend we include in our outreach efforts? How would you like to be involved as this study unfolds? LaPaz County, area chamber(s) of commerce.

8. Are there any other issues you would like to express? There is a lot of history in the region that should be considered; General Patton, intaglios, river attraction(s); “Parker Strip is one of the best places on the river”.

Additional Comments: Mr. Fisher will let tribal council know what is going on (with regard to I-10 Corridor Profile study). Thank you for your time!




Page 1 of 2


CC: File


Stakeholder Interview Notes Interviewee: Captain Jeff King, Arizona Department of Public

Safety

Date: August 2, 2012 Conducted: August 2, 2012



1. In your opinion what are some of the local and regional issues this study must address? What improvements are needed to existing roads and transportation services as they relate to I-10? Study must look into locations where we can take accidents and/or roadway incidents off the freeway (including the shoulder). Accidents without a place to go cause traffic backup, and sometimes secondary accidents. A space for accidents / wreckage would be beneficial at regular intervals and/or on off-ramps. Officers are currently required to push, pull, and/or drag cars off the roadway (which includes the shoulder) to a clear area of safety. Signage, related to the removal law is important – “Minor crashes move off the roadway.” “Roadway,” includes the shoulder as well. In rural areas, there should be places along the median to allow turn-around opportunities for officers and/or emergency crews.

2. How would the area be affected by improved transportation facilities in the I-10 Corridor (e.g., growth, economic development)? Ideally, improved facilities would improve mobility and improve commerce. In areas with bad sight lines, such as the Sun Valley Parkway area with a flood berm, and in areas with sound walls, signage can help businesses thrive and attract customers from the freeway.

3. What growth/developments and socio-economic changes do you see occurring over the next 20 years in your particular locality or region? Growth will likely continue along the outer reaches of the I-10 – west of Phoenix.

4. Are there any "fatal flaws" such as economic, physical, environmental constraints, specific preservation areas, or community concerns that would be an obstacle to the development of transportation facilities in the I-10 Corridor? Many businesses would need to be moved from the central Phoenix region to the west (99th Avenue) if considerable expansion were to be deemed necessary. This would present some economic issues. A better solution might be to improve the parallel roads along the I-10 to handle larger volumes and detours during construction, accidents, events, etc. Light rail expansion would help to absorb some travelers. The bus stop at



Page 2 of 2

Verrado is good, but likely needs to be more frequent; examples like this help to alleviate traffic on the freeway. 5. Is integration of new technologies within the corridor important (e.g., intelligent transportation systems)? If so,

what kind of technologies? Yes. We need to rely on technology for short-term and more permanent improvements. DMS boards, real-time traffic counting, and meter ramps are very important. Coordination with traffic signals within the study area and beyond are important to accept on main line and coordinate with events, incidents, construction, etc. Electronic reporting on the field is a new technology in law enforcement. Some insurance companies are including bar codes on their cards to make reporting more efficient for clients and law enforcement personnel. Some newer cars now have better crash protection, including impact sensors, etc. The use of roundabouts is a nice strategy in traffic control. HOV variable speeds are sometimes difficult for law enforcement to calibrate the speeds at which vehicles are driving. They also sometimes cause accidents with vehicles trying to get on/off the lanes onto either slower or faster moving traffic.

6. Are there any recent data sources, or other information about future development projects, such as residential and/or commercial, schools, or others that we should know about? Any current discussions with private or public sector that you are able to share with us? Fairly connected to ADOT/MAG websites, housing and commercial news. There is a new Navajo Nation Casino planned 12 miles west of Twin Arrows which will increase traffic to and from that area, likely coming from Phoenix. On the AZTEC Committee (via MAG) to stay updated on activities.

7. What other groups, agencies, organizations, or individuals do you recommend we include in our outreach efforts? How would you like to be involved as this study unfolds? Contact by e-mail distribution. [email protected]. City of Buckeye Development Group. All Chambers of Commerce in study area. Municipalities in study area, especially the ones west of Buckeye.

8. Are there any other issues you would like to express? Consider law enforcement and traffic incident management in planning for the future of the I-10 corridor.





Page 1 of 2


CC: File


Stakeholder Interview Notes Interviewee: Julie Kliewer, ADOT Phoenix Engineering District




1. In your opinion what are some of the local and regional issues this study must address? What improvements are needed to existing roads and transportation services as they relate to I-10? Need to look at ways to increase capacity, especially east of the 101. Need to maximize what we have. There is a large amount of truck traffic, and that should be limited to the right lane only, except when passing. There may be a need for additional lanes west of Verrado. On and off ramp traffic flows need to be kept clear.

2. How would the area be affected by improved transportation facilities in the I-10 Corridor (e.g., growth, economic development)? Buckeye area seems to have a lot of potential for economic growth – i.e., warehousing, larger commercial uses. The area around the 303 shows a lot of potential as well – i.e., warehousing and economic development. There may be potential around the 85 with opportunities for additional residential growth in Goodyear and Litchfield, which will then also attract businesses. The future program needs to make it easier for those residents in outlying areas to get to work.

3. What growth/developments and socio-economic changes do you see occurring over the next 20 years in your particular locality or region? South Mountain will have business growth on the reservation. There will be more growth between Phoenix and Tucson (via I-10 east), which will then tie into the California route (via I-10 west), and also into Phoenix/Las Vegas routes (via 85). There will be more development and warehousing needs. Casa Grande will likely house a lot of new development as well.

4. Are there any "fatal flaws" such as economic, physical, environmental constraints, specific preservation areas, or community concerns that would be an obstacle to the development of transportation facilities in the I-10 Corridor? If future projects need to take a lot of right-of-way land, homeowners that are upside down on their homes will likely be in financial strain if their homes are only bought at market value, considering our current home values. Funding will also certainly be an issue. We need to think of new ways to approach the funding of projects.



Page 2 of 2

5. Is integration of new technologies within the corridor important (e.g., intelligent transportation systems)? If so, what kind of technologies? This is very important. Technologies can help to increase capacity, and can help to allow for better traffic flow with real-time information. More real-time information and alternative route suggestions will be good to spread traffic and avoid heavy concentrations.

6. Are there any recent data sources, or other information about future development projects, such as residential and/or commercial, schools, or others that we should know about? Any current discussions with private or public sector that you are able to share with us? Heard Amazon is talking about moving to Goodyear. Certain more warehousing-type of operations will likely be attracted to the study area’s infrastructure. There are likely individuals that own land on the corridor that will want to sell at the “right time.”

7. What other groups, agencies, organizations, or individuals do you recommend we include in our outreach efforts? How would you like to be involved as this study unfolds? Chaun Hill with the State Engineering Valley Project Management Group - 602.712.6268. E-newsletter.

8. Are there any other issues you would like to express? Not at the moment.





Page 1 of 2


CC: File


Stakeholder Interview Notes Interviewee: Lee Baumgarten, Phoenix International Raceway




1. In your opinion what are some of the local and regional issues this study must address? What improvements are needed to existing roads and transportation services as they relate to I-10? The more Phoenix grows outward, the more the Phoenix International Raceway (PIR) is becoming the “center of town.” There is significant congestion when there are simultaneous events at Westgate and PIR. At capacity, there could be 60,000 football and 70,000 race fans on the freeway before and after a game. There is a major facility located 5 miles off the interstate on Avondale and Litchfield and Estrella Parkway.

2. How would the area be affected by improved transportation facilities in the I-10 Corridor (e.g., growth, economic development)? The southwest valley will continue to grow. The City and State need to work together to plan appropriately. PIR intends to grow and expand its existing facilities. They are planning capital improvements to add to the visitor experience.

3. What growth/developments and socio-economic changes do you see occurring over the next 20 years in your particular locality or region? The PIR used to be more rural, and is slowly starting to become the center of town. With additional growth, it will become more urbanized which will certainly create traffic problems as more home are developed.

4. Are there any "fatal flaws" such as economic, physical, environmental constraints, specific preservation areas, or community concerns that would be an obstacle to the development of transportation facilities in the I-10 Corridor? The Tres Rios Project is an example of significant environmental impacts. This project will likely have environmental challenges to overcome.

5. Is integration of new technologies within the corridor important (e.g., intelligent transportation systems)? If so, what kind of technologies? Finding alternative opportunities will be important. Rail can certainly be an added benefit, and should be explored further. Real-time overhead VMS boards work great. Additional boards should be installed.

6. Are there any recent data sources, or other information about future development projects, such as residential



Page 2 of 2

and/or commercial, schools, or others that we should know about? Any current discussions with private or public sector that you are able to share with us? N/A

7. What other groups, agencies, organizations, or individuals do you recommend we include in our outreach efforts? How would you like to be involved as this study unfolds? E-newsletter.

8. Are there any other issues you would like to express? Not at this time.





Page 1 of 2


CC: File


Stakeholder Interview Notes Interviewee: Steven Lopez, Salt River Project




1. In your opinion what are some of the local and regional issues this study must address? What improvements are needed to existing roads and transportation services as they relate to I-10? Congestion at major interchanges: US 60, Interchange 143, 202, 17, and 101. There are several on/off ramps outside of these interchange zones that have congestion problems. One example that comes to mind is the Dysart Road, off the I-10. Happy Valley and the 303 and 85 interchanges would benefit from improvements.

2. How would the area be affected by improved transportation facilities in the I-10 Corridor (e.g., growth, economic development)? The area would become more attractive to existing and future businesses along the I-10. Improvements to the I-10 corridor would encourage additional industrial business west of Phoenix. Intersections outside of the I-10, but within the study area and adjacent to the on/off ramps would benefit from improvements. The nicer we make the I-10 facilities and overall trip experience, the more tourism we will draw in from California etc., which benefits the Arizona bottom line.

3. What growth/developments and socio-economic changes do you see occurring over the next 20 years in your particular locality or region? The amount of available land from Tonopah to Central Phoenix is phenomenal. The I-10 is a huge growth corridor, and will only continue to fill in as the economy starts to turn around.

4. Are there any "fatal flaws" such as economic, physical, environmental constraints, specific preservation areas, or community concerns that would be an obstacle to the development of transportation facilities in the I-10 Corridor? Certainly environmental. Development and/or changes to areas that haven’t already been influenced will need to be approached sensitively.

5. Is integration of new technologies within the corridor important (e.g., intelligent transportation systems)? If so, what kind of technologies? Providing additional traffic monitoring signs is important as they provide information that is more effective for travelers to plan for their trips.



Page 2 of 2

6. Are there any recent data sources, or other information about future development projects, such as residential and/or commercial, schools, or others that we should know about? Any current discussions with private or public sector that you are able to share with us? There is growth potential near the Hassayampa water aquifer site. If the aquifer is as large as has been speculated, it will certainly be a catalyst for development.

7. What other groups, agencies, organizations, or individuals do you recommend we include in our outreach efforts? How would you like to be involved as this study unfolds? Environmental Groups. E-newsletter.

8. Are there any other issues you would like to express? Real-time accident and weather data on the corridor would be beneficial for traveler communication and to avoid accidents. For example, dust storms happen unexpectedly and if there was a way to communicate that to travelers, it would certainly make a difference.





Page 1 of 2


CC: File

Compiled by: Michael LaBianca Stakeholder Interview Notes Interviewee: John Hauskins, Denise Lacey Tim Oliver Clemenc Ligocki



Stakeholder Questions 1. In your opinion what are some of the local and regional issues this study must address? What improvements are

needed to existing roads and transportation services as they relate to I-10? Freeway interchanges were identified (in the MAG region) through framework studies approximately every 2 miles; these should all be called out in the plan. Currently we are experiencing some challenges with the proposed interchanges, such as approval from FHWA (example Perryville). Traffic capacity of I-10 (west of the MAG region) probably warrants 6-lanes at some point, not justified at this time (capacity) in rural areas. Areas like Quartzsite see great increase in visitation during winter months. SR 30 intersection – how will this affect operations? Have you accounted for interstate to “parkway” connections? An interstate to parkway interchange template has been developed. Plans for the future configuration of the SR 85 and I-10 intersection accommodate a parkway to the north (Turner Parkway); improvements such as this provide Buckeye with development opportunities. The Avondale bridge over the Gila River needs to be widened to accommodate PIR traffic (add one lane). Automalls on I-10 (example, Avondale) are right up against I-10, and present challenge for additional right-of-way with any roadway expansion. There as several high-voltage power lines (2) proposed for the region north of I-10 and west of the White Tanks. The area needs a comprehensive drainage plan for the area west of the White Tanks. Consider the improvements planned for Buckeye airport. UP has the “first rights” to development of the Wellton line (railroad).

2. How would the area be affected by improved transportation facilities in the I-10 Corridor (e.g., growth, economic development)? Three lanes in each direction would be beneficial from a safety perspective (regardless of whether they are warranted by travel demand) – such a configuration would allow trucks the opportunity to pass slower vehicles while keeping passing lane open. This would also be beneficial to pavement preservation, as it would provide



Page 2 of 2

better distribution of traffic. Should talk with the Arizona Motor Transport Association (Karen E. Rasmussen).

3. What growth/developments and socio-economic changes do you see occurring over the next 20 years in your particular locality or region? Must consider existing entitlements, area is planned and will likely be developed (eventually). Anticipate that in next couple of years construction activity will be coming back. Should be speaking with the Arizona Department of Commerce (current name?); realtor’s association; Chambers of Commerce.

4. Are there any "fatal flaws" such as economic, physical, environmental constraints, specific preservation areas, or community concerns that would be an obstacle to the development of transportation facilities in the I-10 Corridor? No fatal flaws seen – here are some observed issues that should be considered: funding is a challenge; there are likely archaeological sites (not fatal flaw); the Central Arizona Project (CAP) canal; rest areas (proximity to right of way); width of the Colorado River Bridge (would need to be widened with freeway widening); and, the location of Port of entry, rest areas and other infrastructure in the corridor may be constraints to widening.

5. Is integration of new technologies within the corridor important (e.g., intelligent transportation systems)? If so, what kind of technologies? Extremely important, and necessary for improved safety in the corridor. An example of the type of intelligent transportation systems currently being deployed in Arizona is the “connected vehicle study”, a connected vehicle mobility application.1


There are a number of renewable energy projects (solar) in the west valley that are in development (going through Maricopa County Development Services). Tim Oliver has a map he can provide with the I-10 team if helpful.

7. What other groups, agencies, organizations, or individuals do you recommend we include in our outreach efforts? How would you like to be involved as this study unfolds? (refer to entities identified previously in responses) Maricopa County Development Services Tonopah Community Association Desert Creek homeowners association (vicinity of Hassayampa Freeway) WESTMARC Rock Products Association Association of General Contractors

8. Are there any other issues you would like to express? Hopeville is a community in the corridor that is protected (this was a community that was relocated previously). There is an elementary school at 339th Avenue in the vicinity of I-10 to be aware of. I-10 is of critical importance to the Phoenix area. While we often view it as such, it is important to remember that the corridor links the east and west coasts of the nation, and is a critical national infrastructure.


1 The concept of connected vehicle mobility applications is that they capture real-time data from equipment located on-board vehicles (automobiles, trucks, and buses) and within the infrastructure. The data are transmitted wirelessly and are used by transportation managers in a wide range of dynamic, multi-modal applications to manage the transportation system for optimum performance.




Page 1 of 2


CC: File

Compiled by: Michael LaBianca, HDR Stakeholder Interview Notes Interviewee: Tim Strow and Roger Herzog, Maricopa Association of Governments

Date: August 6, 2012 Conducted: July 12, 2012



1) In your opinion what are some of the local and regional issues this study must address? What improvements are needed to existing roads and transportation services as they relate to I-10? The study needn’t address local, regional issues in the Maricopa Association of Governments’ (MAG) region as these needs have been addressed through other plans/studies. Refer to the Hassayampa Framework Study and others, one of the considerations is the SR 85/I-10 interchange; questions include how to fund, potential reconstruction of the interchange, and how does project fit in to overall plan. Another critical issue is how South Mountain Transportation Corridor will I-10, this connection is critical to the operations of the freeway from I-17 to the Loop 101. Other factors to consider include: the I-17 truck bypass reconstruction (anticipated); Intelligent transportation systems (traffic can truly benefit); SR 30 and capacity relief it will offer I-10.

2) How would the area be affected by improved transportation facilities in the I-10 Corridor (e.g., growth, economic development)? I-10 is a key facility for the region and nation. Look at how the entire system operates – all critical to the continued operation and efficiency of I-10. Today, being competitive is all about speed and reliability. Consider the developing distribution facilities (warehousing) – what are the corridors and sub-corridors that serve them and what are their needs? These are critical questions in assuring that we can move products to the marketplace.

3) What growth/developments and socio-economic changes do you see occurring over the next 20 years in your particular locality or region? MAG is currently updating the region’s socioeconomic forecasts. The west valley is anticipated to be a large growth area with significant industrial and light industrial development.

4) Are there any "fatal flaws" such as economic, physical, environmental constraints, specific preservation areas, or community concerns that would be an obstacle to the development of transportation facilities in the I-10 Corridor? Funding is always a major concern, with changes in taxes, revenue sources, not a given.



Page 2 of 2

5) Is integration of new technologies within the corridor important (e.g., intelligent transportation systems)? If so, what kind of technologies? Yes, integration of technologies is very important. (Sarath C. Joshua Ph. D joined the meeting). Currently PB MAG is conducting a study of managed lanes. Freeway Management System (FMS) on I-10 currently extends to 83rd Avenue, and is programmed out to 99th Avenue. There are lots of problems with interruptions in the corridor (crashes), Arizona Department of Public Safety (DPS) is involved in helping to address. DPS plays a critical role with transportation agencies, when things break down – DPS takes control. DPS is knowledgeable about ITS, crash and traffic incident management (and resultant secondary crashes). Requires a higher level of coordination with adjoining arterial network. Would like to see FMS extended to Buckeye (minimum); the Regional Transportation Plan includes extension of FMS to 99th Avenue. Dynamic Messaging Signs are useful. There is the ability to share significant information in the corridor. Sharing of information beneficial to all modes (transit is able to keep abreast of travel times. MAG is currently able to access the freeway cameras. ITS still requires people to operate, some cities have the ability to monitor 24 hours a day. MAG made effort in 2007 to get research and implementation of ITS funded through the U.S. DOT (not accepted).

6) Are there any recent data sources, or other information about future development projects, such as residential and/or commercial, schools, or others that we should know about? Any current discussions with private or public sector that you are able to share with us? Refer to earlier mention of update to the MAG socioeconomic projections. The Bureau of Land Management is processing numerous applications for (utility scale) solar facilities.

7) What other groups, agencies, organizations, or individuals do you recommend we include in our outreach efforts? How would you like to be involved as this study unfolds? Arizona Department of Public Safety, Bureau of Land Management.

8) Are there any other issues you would like to express? None at this time.

Additional Comments: (Tim Strow is a participating member of the I-10 Multimodal Corridor Profile Study Technical Advisory Committee) Thank you for your time!




Page 1 of 2


CC: File


Stakeholder Interview Notes Interviewee: Aaron Ashcroft, Central Arizona Project Tom Fitzgerald, Central Arizona Project

Date: July 9, 2012 Conducted: July 2, 2012 and July 9, 2012



1. In your opinion what are some of the local and regional issues this study must address? What improvements are needed to existing roads and transportation services as they relate to I-10? There is an existing agreement with the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) for existing CAP canal crossings. Agreement establishes bridges and may need to establish additional ROW as the valley continues to grow. Looking into establishing a permit from Bureau of Land Management to transfer the rights to the BOR. There is currently really no reason for the BLM to manage land that the BOR maintains, and adds a layer to the process as requests must currently go through BLM for permits. There are ongoing discussions to establish the CAP corridor as a recreational trail. This has received support from trail plans for Maricopa County, Scottsdale and others. The CAP corridor has also been identified as a national recreational trail. For a recreational trail, a continuous trail running along the outside of the fence would be needed. Access to canal is most important. Drainage from runoff on freeway corridor needs to be controlled for water quality concerns at the canal. (TF)

2. How would the area be affected by improved transportation facilities in the I-10 Corridor (e.g., growth, economic development)? Improved transportation facilities would facilitate economic growth and development in the area. CAP staff regularly travels to the west valley and encounters considerable traffic. Another travel lane and/or improved connectivity would ease the flow of traffic. (AA)

3. What growth/developments and socio-economic changes do you see occurring over the next 20 years in your particular locality or region? The canal system used to be in the middle of nowhere, and is now in an urban area. Projections for growth to go through Tonopah. Working on recharging basins, acquiring water and ensuring 100-year supplies. There will be more growth, capacity increase and crossings required in the future. Will need to decide how that impacts operations and maintenance, access to the canal, and the overall well-being of the community. (TF)

4. Are there any "fatal flaws" such as economic, physical, environmental constraints, specific preservation areas, or community concerns that would be an obstacle to the development of transportation facilities in the I-10



Page 2 of 2

Corridor? CAP clearance requirements are an important consideration of the development of transportation facilities in the I-10 corridor. Bridges that cross the CAP canal are expensive and must meet specific clearance requirements. Cost will be important when considering improvements and/or physical constraints of crossing canals in the study area. (AA)

5. Is integration of new technologies within the corridor important (e.g., intelligent transportation systems)? If so, what kind of technologies? Yes. Real-time message signs are important for drivers. The faster the information is shared, the easier it is to plan for alternative routes. (AA)

6. Are there any recent data sources, or other information about future development projects, such as residential and/or commercial, schools, or others that we should know about? Any current discussions with private or public sector that you are able to share with us? 303 linking, Turner Parker. Douglas Ranch is a development. 500 – 230 KV lines from Palo Verde will be crossing freeway, from Palo Verde to the Sun Valley substation, and then to the Morgan substation, formerly the T55. There is a smaller substation on the south side of the I-10. The Bidler Water Company has been recharging water for years into the aquifer and would like to take water out of the well sites and sell to the canals. (TF)

7. What other groups, agencies, organizations, or individuals do you recommend we include in our outreach efforts? How would you like to be involved as this study unfolds? Tom Fitzgerald with CAP runs the Land group. Phone number is 623.869.2209. Add Tom to the e-mail list – [email protected]. Contact by e-mail distribution. (AA)

8. Are there any other issues you would like to express? The Liberty Parker Line power line at Buckeye will need to be considered as part of this study effort. New Mexico solar farms are looking at getting energy over to California. There may be a need to a number 2 line in the near future along the corridor to leverage the connection between the two states. (TF)





Page 1 of 2


CC: File


Stakeholder Interview Notes Interviewee: Tom Simmons, La Paz County

Date: July 26, 2012 Conducted: July 19, 2012



1. In your opinion what are some of the local and regional issues this study must address? What improvements are needed to existing roads and transportation services as they relate to I-10? ADOT needs to build a roundabout at Exit #1 on the south side just as what has been built on the north side of the freeway. Intersections at Quartzite should be addressed. The area is a ghost town in the summer, but attracts 200,000 people in the winter. Should look into studying the on/off ramps to ease the gridlock during the high-peak season. Study should also look at the oversized loads that are unable to go through the I-10 because of weight and/or height. This creates problems for frontage roads.

2. How would the area be affected by improved transportation facilities in the I-10 Corridor (e.g., growth, economic development)? Improved facilities would help a lot. Economic development is good, and people spending money is great for the local economy.

3. What growth/developments and socio-economic changes do you see occurring over the next 20 years in your particular locality or region? La Paz County completed a PARA study in 2009. The study showed a population of 22,347 in 2009, and an anticipated population of 28,000 in 2030 at a moderate growth scale, and 42,734 at an aggressive growth scale.

4. Are there any "fatal flaws" such as economic, physical, environmental constraints, specific preservation areas, or community concerns that would be an obstacle to the development of transportation facilities in the I-10 Corridor? None come to mind.

5. Is integration of new technologies within the corridor important (e.g., intelligent transportation systems)? If so, what kind of technologies? Real-time message sharing is important.




Page 2 of 2

Yes. Landfill in the La Paz area. There are plans to expand and bring solid waste from California. This would certainly add traffic to the region and to the corridor.

7. What other groups, agencies, organizations, or individuals do you recommend we include in our outreach efforts? How would you like to be involved as this study unfolds? Dan Field, County Manager should be included. Contact by e-mail distribution.

8. Are there any other issues you would like to express? None at this time.





Page 1 of 2


CC: File


Stakeholder Interview Notes Interviewee: Tom Ainsworth, California Department of

Transportation




1. In your opinion what are some of the local and regional issues this study must address? What improvements are needed to existing roads and transportation services as they relate to I-10? There are no alternate routes outside of the I-10 into California. Establishing alternate routes is key to ensuring connections are made seamlessly, while paying special attention to maintaining the flow of traffic while clearing accidents, road construction or other circumstances that may prevent the clear flow of traffic.

2. How would the area be affected by improved transportation facilities in the I-10 Corridor (e.g., growth, economic development)? Traffic may be increased by overall economic activity, which may adversely impact improved facilities. New facilities should plan for the growth of activity along the corridor.

3. What growth/developments and socio-economic changes do you see occurring over the next 20 years in your particular locality or region? Additional growth is planned in Palm Springs. Housing will likely produce more traffic and backup traffic throughout that area and on the on-ramps and off-ramps.

4. Are there any "fatal flaws" such as economic, physical, environmental constraints, specific preservation areas, or community concerns that would be an obstacle to the development of transportation facilities in the I-10 Corridor? Any improvements to the corridor will certainly need to consider environmental concerns. Desert tortoises have proven to be an issue for some projects. Funding is certainly a concern, especially for operations and maintenance. Projects are more and more considering private funding in order to get projects off the ground.

5. Is integration of new technologies within the corridor important (e.g., intelligent transportation systems)? If so, what kind of technologies? Cameras should be installed on poles all the way to the Arizona / California border. This is important for safety. Real-time communication is great and should continue to the border as well; truckers especially benefit when transporting goods to know what times to leave a warehouse.



Page 2 of 2

6. Are there any recent data sources, or other information about future development projects, such as residential and/or commercial, schools, or others that we should know about? Any current discussions with private or public sector that you are able to share with us? N/A

7. What other groups, agencies, organizations, or individuals do you recommend we include in our outreach efforts? How would you like to be involved as this study unfolds? E-newsletter.

8. Are there any other issues you would like to express? Not at the moment.





Page 1 of 2

MemoTo: Client, ADOT

CC: Michael LaBianca (HDR), and Mike Book (HDR)

Compiled by: Michael LaBianca Stakeholder Interview NotesInterviewee: Scott Sprague; Chip Young; RaySchweinsburg; Dana Warnecke; Bill Knowles; JeffGagnon; Justin Feek

Date: November 20, 2012 Conducted: November 19, 2012

Introduction (to be read at the start of each)The I 10 Multimodal Corridor Profile Study is being conducted by ADOT. The main objectives of the study are to evaluatethe existing transportation system and determine current and future needs, as well as transportation systemrequirements for the future. The intent of the study is to consider a range of mobility options, including personal andcommercial vehicles, rail, and public transit and air service.

The Plan process is flexible to address other issues or priorities as they are identified through outreach efforts. The projectis anticipated to be completed in approximately 6 months and will involve stakeholder and public outreach. Part of thatoutreach involves input from you and we appreciate your willingness to participate in this survey.

Stakeholder Questions1. In your opinion what are some of the local and regional issues this study must address? What improvements are

needed to existing roads and transportation services as they relate to I 10?

It is recognized that even with additional lanes, habitat loss as a result of roadway footprint is relatively small.Major concern has to do with fragmentation of wildlife habitat. Wildlife crossings represent several concerns, (1)direct mortality with vehicles, and (2) animals ability to cross the highway (i.e., permeability). I 10 crossesPlomosa Mountains (approximately 10 miles east of Quartzsite), prime Bighorn sheep habitat. For Bighorn sheep,need overpass to maintain full permeability, often designed with exclusion fencing to ‘funnel’ wildlife to crossing.

Research is necessary to identify where the best locations are for designing crossing. These should be done inadvance to incorporate outcomes into design (although it was noted that they may also be done concurrentlywith NEPA environmental process to save time). It may be difficult to find funding for research, best to get upfront with this issue and address as early as possible – cost effective means of getting to an acceptable solution.

There are specific species that they (AZ G&F) are concerned about. There are county (specific) environmentallinkages information In addition to the state wide assessment that was done some years ago. This information isavailable on the Arizona Game and Fish website, refer to “Maricopa County Wildlife Connectivity Assessment”(note: the La Paz County data is forthcoming).

There are also other indirect issues that have an impact, such as invasive species, pollution of waterways.Mitigation, especially when considered in advance can address many of the concerns. Issues that come up withcorridor projects include impacts to riparian areas, use of groundwater resources, riparian crossings and design(habitat linkages typically tied to washes).

While Construction projects represent risk to habitat and special status species, there is always an opportunity tomitigate past problems and address issues with any project.

Another concern of the agency is access to public lands. Oftentimes culverts are used to cross roadway and this



Page 2 of 2

activity competes with wildlife looking for crossings. In addition, ROW fencing often presents problems inproximity to culverts as it often narrows down collecting trash and debris that further limits wildlife access.Arizona Game and Fish advocates pushing back fencing around culverts, and maintaining culvert crossings. It wasalso noted that some energy dissipating designs are not wildlife friendly (for example ‘rip wrap’).

2. How would the area be affected by improved transportation facilities in the I 10 Corridor (e.g., growth, economicdevelopment)?

NEPA corridor studies often do not disclose effects, and/or conduct a thorough evaluation of broader impacts,including induced development. These indirect and cumulative impacts can have significant environmental effects.

Railroads corridors along the interstate can have significant impact to wildlife, especially freight. High frequencyfreight corridors act as a ‘moving fence’. [Note: follow up with Mike Keis, ADOT, for additional information on theLos Angeles, California to Phoenix ‘bullet train’)

3. What growth/developments and socio economic changes do you see occurring over the next 20 years in yourparticular locality or region?

Concerns with widening in the vicinity of the White Tank Mountains. The Buckeye Flood Retention Dam is inproximity to I 10 here. Interchanges planned to connect to future freeways (as identified in the HassayampaFramework Study) will need to be designed to allow for habitat connectivity through the region.

There are a number of solar projects being considered for the area north of the I 10 Corridor. One project that ismoving forward is the Saddle Mountain project. MCDOT is currently planning several parkway projects in theBuckeye area; the interchanges with I 10 will require design for wildlife crossing.

4. Are there any "fatal flaws" such as economic, physical, environmental constraints, specific preservation areas, orcommunity concerns that would be an obstacle to the development of transportation facilities in the I 10Corridor?

No fatal flaws to speak of need to keep aware of the changes in species status which would have a significantimpact (ex. Desert tortoise). Can mitigate around most any issues, however, where possible avoid, then minimize,and finally mitigate; wildlife concerns need to be addressed.

5. Is integration of new technologies within the corridor important (e.g., intelligent transportation systems)? If so,what kind of technologies?There is a much better understanding today of wildlife crossings that should be applied to corridor plans.

6. Are there any recent data sources, or other information about future development projects, such as residentialand/or commercial, schools, or others that we should know about? Any current discussions with private or publicsector that you are able to share with us?

Refer to discussion on the recent databases and habitat information available through the Arizona Game and FishDepartment website.

7. What other groups, agencies, organizations, or individuals do you recommend we include in our outreach efforts?How would you like to be involved as this study unfolds?

Reach out to non governmental organizations such as the Nature Conservancy, Sonoran Institute, Arizona DesertBighorn Sheep Society.

Justin Feek, ADOT project manager, extended review of the Technical Advisory Committee draft Plan to theArizona Game and Fish (Chip Young, point of contact).

8. Are there any other issues you would like to express? See above.

Additional Comments:

Thank you for your time!


The Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) is conducting a long range planning study forInterstate 10 called the I 10 Multimodal Corridor Profile Study. The study area for this projectextends from downtown Phoenix (Central Avenue) to the Arizona/California border. Interstate10 and Interstate 40 are the only interstate highways that cross the entire state of Arizona. As acontinuous coast to coast national transportation route, I 10 is a principal freight route thatconnects the southern California deep sea ports with major metropolitan areas inArizona, Texas, and Florida. The intent of the study is to take a comprehensive look at theplanning studies that have been completed for this corridor and create a document thatillustrates the projects and possible planning needs in the study area.

The goal of the study is different for the different segments of I 10 in Maricopa and La Pazcounties. Each county has its own primary goal.

Maricopa County• Consolidate multiple planning documents into one document. Within Maricopa County,there are two studies that serve as the primary guide for the I 10 corridor: the MAG RegionalTransportation Plan and the Interstate 10 Hassayampa Valley Transportation FrameworkStudy. The I 10 Corridor Study will focus on compiling the recommendations from thesestudies and others into a single planning resource focused on the I 10corridor. New alternatives and improvements will not be recommended within MaricopaCounty.

La Paz County• Consolidate multiple planning documents into one document.• Develop a clear vision for future transportation needs along the I 10 corridor. The segmentof I 10 that traverses La Paz County has not had the same level of planning when compared to

the Maricopa County segment; therefore, ADOT staff analyzed the I 10 corridor through La PazCounty for transportation needs that included a range of mobility options, including personaland commercial vehicles, rail, air service and public transit.

The I 10 Corridor Study began in summer 2011 and is scheduled for completion in winter 2012.

Given the length of the corridor, a wide variety of interests will be affected, making publicparticipation in the study process essential. The study team will meet with agencyrepresentatives to gather information about the study area.

Visit azdot.gov/i10corridorstudy for more information about the study, or contact the studyteam.• Email: [email protected]• Mail: ADOT c/o I 10 Multimodal Corridor Profile Study, 3200 E. Camelback Rd., Suite350, Phoenix, AZ 85018• Project Hotline: 888.968.3617

This email list will not be shared for non ADOT purposes. If you would like to share this with others, feel freeto forward this email. If you have received this update as a forward and you would like to receive theseupdates automatically, please send your email address to [email protected].


The Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) is conducting a long range planning study forInterstate 10 called the I 10 Multimodal Corridor Profile Study. The study area for this project extendsfrom downtown Phoenix (Central Avenue) to the Arizona/California border. Interstate 10 and Interstate40 are the only interstate highways that cross the entire state of Arizona. As a continuous coast to coastnational transportation route, I 10 is a principal freight route that connects the southern California deepsea ports with major metropolitan areas in Arizona, Texas, and Florida. The intent of the study is to takea comprehensive look at the planning studies that have been completed for this corridor and create adocument that illustrates the projects and possible planning needs in the study area.

The goal of the study is different for the different segments of I 10 in Maricopa and La Paz counties.Each county has its own primary goal.

Maricopa County• Consolidate multiple planning documents into one document. Within Maricopa County, there aretwo studies that serve as the primary guide for the I 10 corridor: the MAG Regional TransportationPlan and the Interstate 10 Hassayampa Valley Transportation Framework Study. The I 10 CorridorStudy will focus on compiling the recommendations from these studies and others into asingle planning resource focused on the I 10 corridor. New alternatives and improvements, beyondthose identified in the MAG Plan, will not be recommended within Maricopa County.

La Paz County• Consolidate multiple planning documents into one document.• Develop a clear vision for future transportation needs along the I 10 corridor. The segment of I10 that traverses La Paz County has not had the same level of planning when compared tothe Maricopa County segment; therefore, ADOT staff analyzed the I 10 corridor through La Paz Countyfor transportation needs that included a range of mobility options, including personal and commercialvehicles, rail, air service and public transit.

The I 10 Corridor Study began in summer 2011 and is scheduled for completion in winter 2012.

Given the length of the corridor, a wide variety of interests will be affected, making publicparticipation in the study process essential. The study team will meet with agency representatives togather information about the study area.

Visit azdot.gov/i10corridorstudy for more information about the study, or contact the study team.• Email: [email protected]• Mail: ADOT c/o I 10 Multimodal Corridor Profile Study, 3200 E. Camelback Rd., Suite 350,Phoenix, AZ 85018• Project Hotline: 888.968.3617

This email list will not be shared for non ADOT purposes. If you would like to share this with others, feel freeto forward this email. If you have received this update as a forward and you would like to receive theseupdates automatically, please send your email address to [email protected].


CA

Salome Highway

Vick

sbur

g R

oad

Buckeye

Wintersburg Goodyear

Avondale

Tolleson

Tonopah GlendaleCentennial

EhrenbergBlythe

QuartzsiteVicksburg

MARICOPACOUNTY

LA PAZCOUNTY

YUMACOUNTY

AZ

Phoenix

Win

ters

burg

Roa

d

10

10

10

6060

17101

303

5195

95

85

City

Study areaInterstate 10

Major road

State boundaryCounty boundary

0 5 102.5miles

1 in = 10 miles

STUDY DESCRIPTION

WE WOULD LIKE TO HEAR FROM YOU

MEETING LOCATIONThursday, November 8, 20126:00 to 8:00 p.m.

Quartzsite Town Hall

CONTACT INFORMATION

OR

YOU ARE INVITEDI-10 MULTIMODAL CORRIDOR PROFILE STUDY OPEN HOUSE

www.azdot.gov/i10corridorstudy

Task Assignment MPD 09-11 | Final Report| March 2013Interstate 10 – Phoenix to California Border, Multimodal Corridor Profile Study D-1

Appendix D: I-10 construction projects

Interstate 10 – Phoenix to California Border, Multimodal Corridor Profile StudyTask Assignment MPD 09-11 | Final Report| March 2013D-2

Project number Start milepost Start End Milepost End Year Scope Length (miles)I-10-1(1) West of Colorado River 0.09 East of Colorado River 1960 grade, drain, Colorado River bridge 0.37I-10-1(21) 0.09 California 1.62 East of Ehrenberg TI 1979 grade, drain, structure 1.53I-10-1(8) 1.62 Ehrenberg East 6.22 La Paz TI 1964 grade, drain, structure 4.60

I-10-1(20) 6.22 La Paz TI (now Tom Wells Road ) 11.84 Dome Rock TI 1964 grade, drain, structure 5.62

I-10-1(15) 11.84 Dome Rock TI 17.22 West Quartzsite TI 1964 grade, drain, structure 5.38I-10-1(5) 17.22 West Quartzsite TI 20.38 East Quartzsite TI (now Riggles Avenue) 1965 grade, drain, interchanges 3.16I-10-1(11) 20.38 East Quartzsite TI 26.11 Gold Nugget TI 1961 grade, drain, structure 5.73I-10-1(19) 26.14 Gold Nugget TI 30.16 West of US 60 1963 grade, drain, interchanges 4.02I-10-2(24) 30.11 West of US 60 39.48 New Water Mountain bridge 1967 grade, drain 9.37I-10-1(27) 39.48 Bouse Wash Section 49.46 Bouse Wash 1968 grade, drain , structure 9.98I-10-1(30) 49.46 Bouse Wash 59.46 Lone Mountain 1969 grade, drain, structure 10.00I-10-1(33) 59.46 Lone Mountain 70.92 Maricopa County line 1967 grade, drain, structure 11.46I-10-2 (7) 70.92 Yuma County Line 80.58 Burnt Well 1968 grade, drain, structure 9.66I-10-2(10) 80.58 Burnt Well 90.92 443rd Avenue 1972 grade, drain, structure 10.34I-10-2(13) 90.92 443rd Avenue 100.92 East of Wintersburg Road 1972 grade, drain, structure 10.00I-10-2(16) 100.70 East of Wintersburg Road 105.17 Hassayampa River 1975 grade, drain, structure 4.47I-10-2(61) 105.17 Hassayampa River 112.49 Oglesby Road (now SR 85) 1976 grade, drain, structure 7.32I-10-2(28) 112.49 SR 85 115.96 Cemetery Road 1977 grade, drain 3.37I-10-2(64) 112.75 SR 85 114.84 Miller Road 1977 structures not applicableI-10-2(31) 115.96 Cemetery Road 122.34 Perryville Road 1977 grade, drain, structure 6.38I-10-2(34) 122.34 Perryville Road 127.40 East of Reems Road 1985 grade, drain, structure 5.06

I-IG-10-2(37) 127.40 East of Reems Road 129.93 Dysart Road 1980 grade, drain, structure 2.53I-10-2(44) 129.93 Dysart Road 130.30 Agua Fria River 1980 Agua Fria River bridges 0.30I-10-2(75) 130.30 Agua Fria River 131.38 115th Avenue 1984 grade, drain, channel 1.38I-10-2(78) 131.68 115th Avenue 133.66 99th Avenue 1982 structures not applicableI-10-2(70) 131.68 115th Avenue 133.94 99th Avenue 1986 grade, drain, channel 2.26I-10-2(40) 134.10 95th Avenue 136.10 79th Avenue 1986 grade, drain, pave, structures 2.00I-10-2(81) 133.94 99th Avenue 137.85 67th Avenue 1989 grade, drain, pave, structures, channel 3.91I-10-2(82) 137.85 67th Avenue 139.38 55th Avenue 1989 grade, drain, pave, structures, channel 1.53I-10-2(108) 139.38 55th Avenue 140.42 47th Avenue 1990 grade, drain, pave, structures, channel 1.04I-10-2(107) 139.65 51st Avenue 1989 structure and pump stationI-10-2(109) 140.42 47th Avenue 141.41 39th Avenue 1989 grade, drain, pave, structures, channel 0.99I-10-2(106) 140.65 43rd Avenue 1990 structure and pump stationI-10-2(110) 141.41 39th Avenue 142.76 27th Avenue 1990 grade, drain, pave, structures, channel 1.35I-10-2(105) 140.65 35th Avenue 1990 structureI-10-2(208) 142.76 27th Avenue 143.60 21st Avenue 1991 grade, drain, pave, structure, I-17 system TI 0.84

ACI-10-2(117) 142.65 27th Avenue 1990 structureI-10-2(129) 143.60 21st Avenue 143.87 19th Avenue 1991 grade, drain, pave, structure 0.27I-10-3(235) 143.77 19th Avenue 144.18 15th Avenue 1991 grade, drain, pave, structure 0.59I-10-3(120) 144.18 15th Avenue 144.52 9th Avenue 1993 grade, drain, pave, structure 0.34

ACI-10-3(82) 144.66 7th Avenue 1993 structureI-10-3(240) 144.83 5th Avenue 1990 structure

ID-IR-10-3(88) 144.94 3rd Avenue 145.44 3rd Street 1991 grade, drain, pave, deck park tunnel 0.50

Task Assignment MPD 09-11 | Final Report| March 2013Interstate 10 – Phoenix to California Border, Multimodal Corridor Profile Study E-1

Appendix E: Previous studies and reports

Interstate 10 – Phoenix to California Border, Multimodal Corridor Profile StudyTask Assignment MPD 09-11 | Final Report| March 2013E-2

Interstate 10, 91st Avenue to Junction I-10, Final Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) StatementDate completed or adopted: October 1978Lead agency: ADOT, FHWAAuthor: ADOT

Study area: I-10, 91st Avenue to 20th StreetPurpose: The purpose of the EIS and Section 4(f) Statement is to document the potential environmental and social impacts of the proposed action. Recommendations relative to I-10: This study provides background information related to the planning and construction of I-10 between 91st Avenue and downtown Phoenix. This section of I-10 represented the last piece of I-10 across the United States and one of the most controversial sections of I-10 within Arizona. A mitigation measure described in the EIS was the dedication of a 50-foot-wide median for future high-capacity transit use. METRO is currently evaluating alternatives for high-capacity transit within the I-10 corridor, including use of the open median.

Further information: none

Tonopah/Arlington Area Plan, Maricopa County 2020 Eye to the FutureDate completed or adopted: September 2000Lead agency: Maricopa CountyAuthor: Maricopa County Planning and Development Department

Study area: The Tonopah/Arlington planning area is located west of the Phoenix metropolitan area. The boundaries include the Central Arizona Project canal to the north, the Hassayampa River to the east, the Centennial Wash to the south, and approximately 456th Avenue to the west. I-10, between mileposts 88 and 105, is located within the study area.Purpose: The purpose of the area plan is to define land use, transportation, environmental, and economic development goals, objectives, and policies for the Tonopah/Arlington planning area. The study presents an inventory and analysis of the existing and future characteristics of the area related to those four elements.Recommendations relative to I-10: The study area is currently served by interchanges at 339th Avenue, Wintersburg Road, and 411th Avenue. The Wintersburg interchange serves the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station. The plan recommends pursuing continued preservation of the existing interchanges as well as the construction of new interchanges as demand increases.Further information: www.maricopa.gov/Planning/

City of Phoenix General Plan – Land Use Map and Street Classification MapDate completed or adopted: December 2001 (adopted), 2002 (ratified)Lead agency: City of PhoenixAuthor: City of Phoenix

Study area: Citywide plan. Purpose: Long-range, state-mandated plan that contains elements such as Land Use, Circulation, Growth Areas, and Open Space.Recommendations relative to I-10: Majority of future land use recommended along I-10 are industrial followed by high density (15 + dwelling units/acre) residential. Street classification map located a future freeway interchange in between 59th and 51st Avenues.Further information: phoenix.gov/PLANNING/gpindex.html

High Occupancy Lanes and Value Lanes StudyDate completed or adopted: December 2002 (Final Report)Lead agency: ADOT in partnership with MAGAuthor: Parsons Transportation Group Inc.Study area: This study evaluated existing, planned and potential enhancements to all HOV facilities, including HOV lanes, HOV ramp meter bypass ramps, direct access to and from HOV lanes, and HOV direct connectors (ramps) between freeways in Maricopa County.Purpose: The purpose of the study was to provide information to update the 1994 MAG HOV Plan and to assess the feasibility of converting HOV lanes to high-occupancy toll (HOT) lanes.Recommendations relative to I-10: HOV/HOT lanes and value lanes are feasible and generally accepted by the public though a public relations campaign is needed before implementation. Action items included adding a DCR and EA to the MAG and ADOT funding programs for Value/HOT lanes on I-10 from 79th Avenue to 3rd Avenue.Further information: none

City of Avondale General PlanDate completed or adopted: June 2002Lead agency: City of AvondaleAuthor: City of AvondaleStudy area: Avondale’s planning area boundaries are approximately Indian School Road on the north, Litchfield Road on the west, Patterson Road to the south, and 115th/107th/109th Avenues on the east. Avondale is adjacent to Tolleson and Phoenix to the east, Goodyear to the west, and Litchfield Park to the north. Purpose: The General Plan presents objectives and policies that would guide the anticipated growth of Avondale with respect to land use, economic development, growth area, cost of development, housing, conservation, redevelopment and rehabilitation, open space, environmental planning and conservation, recreation, circulation, bicycling, water resources, public services and facilities, public buildings, and safety elements.Recommendations relative to I-10: Approximately 4 miles of I-10 are located within Avondale’s planning area. The General Plan recommends a new underpass at El Mirage Road and I-10 and a new interchange at 107th Avenue and I-10.Further information: www.avondale.org

SR 85, Gila Bend to I-10, Final Location Design Concept ReportDate completed or adopted: June 2002Lead agency: Arizona Department of TransportationAuthor: BRW Inc.Study area: SR 85 is a north-south corridor located west of the Phoenix metropolitan area. The study area for the LDCR began at I-8 in Gila Bend and ended at I-10 (milepost 113) in Buckeye. Purpose: The purpose of the LDCR was to identify and prioritize improvements along SR 85 that would ultimately result in a four-lane, divided, fully access-controlled roadway. Recommendations relative to I-10: The recommended alternative included converting SR 85 into a freeway-like facility between the Gila River and I-10. No major changes were proposed at the I-10 and SR 85 system traffic interchange.Further information: www.azdot.gov/Highways/Valley_Freeways/SR85/


Northwest Area Transportation StudyDate completed or adopted: 2003Lead agency: MAGAuthor: unknown

Study area: Northwest Maricopa CountyPurpose: The Northwest Area Transportation Study transportation planning effort presented recommendations for transportation improvements in the southwest valley to be considered for inclusion in the 2003 MAG Regional Transportation Plan.Recommendations relative to I-10: Study recommendations that were ultimately advanced may be found in the MAG RTP.Further information: none

Town of Quartzsite General PlanDate completed or adopted: January 2003Lead agency: Town of QuartzsiteAuthor: Town of Quartzsite

Study area: Citywide plan. No other cities or towns are immediately adjacent to Quartzsite.Purpose: Long-range, state-mandated plan that contains elements such as Land Use, Transportation, Growth Areas, and Open Space.Recommendations relative to I-10: The major land use along I-10 is General Commercial. The Transportation Element contains discussion about wanting a general aviation airport located in or near town. Element also provides background information and existing conditions for I-10 and SR 95. Does suggest that an alternate route for connecting I-10 to SR 95 should be considered because of current traffic congestion problems. The Plan also has winter and summer traffic counts.Further information: www.ci.quartzsite.az.us/General%20Plan.html

The National I-10 Freight Corridor StudyDate completed or adopted: May 2003Lead agency: Texas Department of TransportationAuthor: Wilbur Smith AssociatesStudy area: The study included the entire stretch of I-10 beginning at the Pacific Ocean in Santa Monica and ending at the Atlantic Ocean in Jacksonville, Florida. The study team included representatives from department of transportations from California, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida.Purpose: The purpose of the study was to assess the importance of freight moving on I-10 to the corridor states and the nation, identify current and future traffic operations and safety problems along I-10, and identify and evaluate strategies including intermodal multimodal strategies, needed to facilitate freight flow along I-10.Recommendations relative to I-10: The study evaluated alternatives to improve freight movement along I-10 including: widen I-10 as much as needed; deploy ITS technologies along the corridor; separate truck traffic from automotive traffic; use of rail intermodal or waterway intermodal; urban truck bypass; and truck productivity. The study concluded that the most feasible solutions directly affect I-10: additional lanes, ITS, and separation of autos and trucks. Other complementary scenarios would be beneficial (truck productivity, truck bypass, multimodal approaches), but not feasible as stand alone strategies.Further information: www.I10freightstudy.org

High-Capacity Transit StudyDate completed or adopted: June 30, 2003 (Final Report)Lead agency: MAGAuthor: IBI Group

Study area: MAG regionPurpose: The study projected travel demand in the MAG region with a forecast horizon of 2040. Focus of the study was to identify provide transit technologies that were capable of meeting the levels of travel demand projected in the MAG region while also serving several types of trips, both long-range and shorter distance. The study focused on commuter rail, light rail transit, and bus rapid transit. Recommendations relative to I-10. Recommended bus rapid transit on I-10 from the Loop 101 interchange to the Loop 303 interchange. Bus rapid transit currently exists on I-10 from the Loop 101 interchange east. Further information: www.azmag.gov/Projects/Project.asp?CMSID=1094

SR 85 Corridor Area Plan, Maricopa County 2020 Eye to the FutureDate completed or adopted: August 2003Lead agency: Maricopa CountyAuthor: Maricopa County Planning and Development DepartmentStudy area: The planning area extends approximately 5 miles east and west of SR 85 between I-8 on the south and I-10 on the north. Purpose: This area plan identifies planning area goals, objectives, and policies for land use, transportation, environment/environmental effects, economic development, growth areas, open space, water resources, and cost of development.Recommendations relative to I-10: SR 85 serves as a truck bypass route for I-10 through the metropolitan Phoenix area. Further information: none

Statewide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Date completed or adopted: August 4, 2003Lead agency: ADOTAuthor: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

Study area: State of ArizonaPurpose: The study provides a long-term plan for a system of shared roadways and bicycle and pedestrian facilities for the ADOT State Highway System. The study includes identification of all existing bicycle and pedestrian plan. It also includes design and maintenance guidelines for consideration by all agencies in Arizona. Recommendations relative to I-10: Contains information on shoulder width, relative costs of shoulder improvements, provides a bicycle score (I-10 is not a desirable bicycle corridor), average daily traffic volumes, etc. In this plan, I-10 is not considered a high-priority implementation corridor. A portion of SR 95, just south of I-10, is an implementation corridor. Further information: www.azbikeped.org/statewide-bicycle-pedestrian.htmlAn update to the study is currently underway, see: www.azbikeped.org/


Southwest Area Transportation StudyDate completed or adopted: September 2003Lead agency: MAGAuthor: Wilbur Smith AssociatesStudy area: The study area is bounded on the west by the Maricopa County line, on the north it is bounded by a line parallel to I-10, one mile to the north of that highway, until that line reaches the projected alignment of Camelback Road. The alignment of Camelback Road forms the remainder of the study area’s northern boundary, except where the boundary swings north around Luke Air Force Base, which is fully included in the study area. The eastern boundary of the study area is 19th Avenue north of the Gila River Indian Community (GRIC) and the eastern boundary of Maricopa County south of the GRIC. (The GRIC is fully outside the study area.) The southern boundary of the study area is I-8.Purpose: The Southwest Area Transportation Study transportation planning effort presented recommendations for transportation improvements in the southwest valley to be considered for inclusion in the 2003 MAG Regional Transportation Plan.Recommendations relative to I-10: Study recommendations that were ultimately advanced may be found in the MAG RTP.Further information: none

Regional Transportation Plan (RTP)

Date completed or adopted: Adopted by MAG Regional Council, November 2003 (Most recently approved July 2010)

Lead agency: Maricopa Association of GovernmentsAuthor: HDR Engineering, Inc.Study area: Maricopa County, Arizona (i.e., the MAG Region)Purpose: The RTP is a comprehensive, performance based, multimodal and coordinated regional plan, covering the period through Fiscal Year (FY) 2031. Covering all major modes from a regional perspective, including freeways/highways, streets, public mass transit, airports, bicycles and pedestrian facilities, goods movement and special needs transportation. Key transportation-related activities are addressed, such as transportation demand management, system management, safety, security and air quality conformity analysis. The RTP is prepared, updated, and adopted by MAG, the regional planning agency for the Maricopa County area. Recommendations relative to I-10: The RTP identified major improvements to increase the capacity of I-10. The improvements include the addition of general purpose lanes between I-17 and State Route 85, as well as an extension of HOV lanes as far west as Loop 303. (UPDATE) HOV lanes have been added between the Loop 101 (Agua Fria) and Loop 303, providing a continuous HOV connection between Loop 303 and I-17. New traffic interchanges are also added at El Mirage Road, Bullard Avenue, and Perryville Road. Construction work has been completed to add HOV and general purpose lanes in the median of I-10 between Sarival Avenue and Loop 101, general purpose lanes along the outside of I-10 between Sarival Avenue and Dysart Road, and one general purpose lane in each direction between Verrado Way and Sarival Avenue. Future Corridor Improvements: A project to increase general purpose lane capacity along the segment between Loop 101 (Agua Fria) and I-17 is identified for implementation in Phase II. This work would be developed in coordination with construction of the Loop 202 (South Mountain) interchange at I-10 and possible improvements to the I-10/I-17 interchange, which may be identified as part of a broader solution to central area freeway congestion. The addition of one general purpose lane in each direction along the segment between SR 85 and Verrado Way is programmed for Phase V. Construction of new traffic interchanges at Perryville Road and El Mirage Road are identified in Phase II and Phase IV, respectively.Further information: www.azmag.gov/

Regional Freight AssessmentDate completed or adopted: April 2004Lead agency: MAGAuthor: MAG

Study area: Maricopa CountyPurpose: The purpose of the study was to provide an overview of the goods movement process within Maricopa County. The study presents an inventory of the various aspects of freight transportation including freight flows, tonnage, types of commodities, and modes of transport.Recommendations relative to I-10: There is a high density of industrial land uses adjacent to I-10 in the area west of downtown Phoenix. These areas are large generators of freight and provide locations for intermodal connections. There is no specific description of flows along I-10; however, it is noted as a major truck route within Maricopa County.Further information: An update to this study is currently underway by MAG.

HOV Lanes: Issues and Options for EnforcementDate completed or adopted: June 2004 (Final Report)Lead agency: ADOTAuthor: Marketing Intelligence, LLC

Study area: Maricopa CountyPurpose: To explore options for dealing with the problem of HOV lane enforcement, specifically freeway HOV lane enforcement. Follow-up to the 2002 Value Lanes Study which recommended more HOV lanes and future Value Lanes.Recommendations relative to I-10: No specific recommendations for I-10. Key recommendations have to do with enforcement needed for HOV lanes in general. Further information: none

Maricopa County Regional Trail System PlanDate completed or adopted: August 2004Lead agency: Maricopa CountyAuthor: Maricopa County Trail Commission

Study area: Maricopa CountyPurpose: The purpose is to develop a comprehensive system of nonmotorized trail corridors in Maricopa County. The trail system identifies three goals: provide a shared use, nonmotorized trail system to connect the Maricopa County Regional Parks together; link metropolitan areas, municipal trails, communities, and neighborhoods with regional nonmotorized multi-modal corridors; provide open space corridors to protect natural and cultural resources from development.Recommendations relative to I-10: There are no specific recommendations made relative to I-10: however, a number of existing or proposed trails cross I-10 in the study area including Segment 1 of the Sun Circle Trail near the Agua Fria River and Segment 35 of the Maricopa Trail near Jackrabbit Trail. Further information: none


MoveAZ – Long-Range Transportation PlanDate completed or adopted: September 2004Lead agency: ADOTAuthor: Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

Study area: Maricopa CountyPurpose: This report is one of several planning activities conducted by ADOT and fits within a larger set of activities used by the agency to identify transportation needs, develop solutions, and deliver specific projects to address these solutions. The plan has three main goals: 1. To provide a strategic direction for transportation planning in the State; 2. To conduct in-depth analysis of actual projects and programs using performance based planning techniques; and 3. To coordinate with regional planning agencies and the general public throughout the planning process.Recommendations relative to I-10: With respect to I-10 within Maricopa County, the plan refers to the recommendation in the MAG RTP. In La Paz County, no improvements are proposed along I-10. Further information: none

Interstate 10 West, Corridor Profile StudyDate completed or adopted: May 2005Lead agency: Arizona Department of Transportation Author: Parsons BrinkerhoffStudy area: I-10, Wintersburg TI (MP 98) to SR 101L (MP 134). The Interstate 10 West, Corridor Profile Study is the precursor to the current study, although the study area did not extend as far east and west as the current study. Purpose: The study identified issues within the corridor relative to performance criteria, economic development, environmental concerns, and statewide strategic opportunities. The study also prioritized improvements for the corridor. The study provides a 2005 snapshot of the corridor and conditions. Recommendations relative to I-10: The study noted that, beyond the improvements identified in the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), several segments of I-10 should be widened further such that Sun Valley to SR 85 increased to 6-lanes; SR 85 to Loop 303 to 8-lanes; Loop 303 to SR 101 to 12 lanes, including 2 HOV lanes. The study also identified future structure widening (to accommodate increased lanes) and new traffic interchanges and a system interchange with the Loop 303. The study also identifies improvements planned for intersecting routes. Transit services are also recommended as part of the study, including commuter rail along the Union Pacific Railroad between downtown Phoenix and Buckeye. In addition to the RTP identified park-and-ride lots at Litchfield and Miller Roads, the study recommends a facility at 339th Avenue. The study notes that due to increasing congestion, it may be advisable in the future to expand the bicycle prohibition limit further west. Further information: none

City of Tolleson General PlanDate completed or adopted: Adopted December 2005Lead agency: City of TollesonAuthor: Dava and Associates, Inc.Study area: Tolleson is adjacent to the City of Avondale to the west, and the City of Phoenix to the north, south, and east. Purpose: Long-range, state-mandated plan that contains elements such as Land Use, Circulation, Growth Areas, and Open Space.Recommendations relative to I-10: Improve 91st Avenue from I-10 to Van Buren; prevent freeways or highways from bisecting Tolleson; future land use along I-10 corridor is a mix of commercial, residential, industrial and mixed-use; all three growth areas include I-10 Further information: www.tollesonaz.org/DocumentView.aspx?DID=211

Interstate 10 (Papago) Median Widening, Final Design Concept Report, SR 85 to SR 303L and SR 303L to SR 101LDate completed or adopted: April 2006Lead agency: Arizona Department of Transportation Author: HDR Engineering, Inc.Study area: I-10 from SR 85 to SR 101L, excluding a 2-mile segment from 2200 feet east of Citrus Road to 1700 feet east of Sarival Avenue where I-10 will be realigned to the north of the existing alignment. The project is located in ADOT’s Phoenix District within Maricopa County in south-central Arizona.Purpose: The purpose of the project is to reduce congestion, improve access to employment centers and enhance regional mobility of goods and services by increasing the capacity of I-10. The addition of one general purpose lane in each direction from SR 85 to SR 101L would provide needed relief and remove the “bottleneck” that existed at Dysart Road.Recommendations relative to I-10: Add one general purpose lane and one HOV lane in each direction, with widening occurring into the median. The project will result in a total of five lanes in each direction between Dysart Road and Loop 101, and four lanes in each direction between Sarival Avenue and Dysart Road. New lanes were opened to traffic in early 2010.Further information: www.azdot.gov/Highways/Valley_Freeways/I10/Papago/index.asp

MAG Regional Freeway Bottleneck StudyDate completed or adopted: May 2006Lead agency: MAGAuthor: HDR Engineering, Inc.

Study area: The study boundary includes the freeway system in metropolitan Phoenix area in 2001.Purpose: The primary purpose of the Bottleneck Study was to look at solutions in bottleneck locations on the existing freeway system. The secondary purpose was to research long-range capacity enhancement techniques for the freeway system.Recommendations relative to I-10: Three of the bottleneck segments identified in the study were located along I-10: I-10/Loop 202 Eastbound, 99th Avenue to 32nd Street (on Loop 202) in the AM peak period; Loop 202/I-10 Westbound, Dobson Road to 35th Avenue (on I-10) in the AM peak period; and I-10/Loop 202 Eastbound, 27th Avenue (on I-10) to Dobson Road in the PM peak period. Some of the recommendations for eliminating the bottlenecks included: widening sections of I-10 especially through the deck park tunnel (done), eliminating lane drops (done), adding auxiliary lanes (done), implementing ramp metering and/or reducing metering rates accompanied by increased ramp storage (done), and adding a second HOV lane as a high-occupancy toll lane. Further information: www.azmag.gov

Arizona’s Wildlife Linkages AssessmentDate completed or adopted: December 2006Lead agency: ADOTAuthor: Arizona Wildlife Linkages Workgroup

Study area: State of ArizonaPurpose: The Arizona Wildlife Linkages Workgroup is a collaborative effort between public and private sector organizations formed to address habitat fragmentation through a comprehensive, systematic approach. Through this partnership and commitment, a statewide assessment was conducted to identify large blocks of protected habitat, the potential wildlife movement corridors between as well as through them, and the factors threatening to disrupt these linkage zones. The report provides a starting point for detailed consultation and coordination among the organizations and agencies that have a major role to play in maintaining habitat connectivity.Recommendations relative to I-10: There are four linkage areas that span I-10 (Dome Rock Mountains, Ranegras Plain, Bighorn Belmont-Saddle Mountain, and Central Arizona Project Canal. In each case, I-10 is identified as a “threat” to the wildlife habitat and connectivity. The main concern is vehicle-animal collisions.Further information: www.azdot.gov/inside_adot/OES/AZ_WildLife_Linkages/assessment.asp


Interstate 10 (Papago) Outside Widening, Final Design Concept Report, Sarival Avenue to SR 101LDate completed or adopted: February 2007Lead agency: ADOTAuthor: HDR Engineering, Inc.Study area: Interstate 10 from approximately 1,700’ east of Sarival Avenue (milepost (MP) 126.03) to SR 101L (MP 133.66). Purpose: This DCR describes the development, evaluation and recommendation to add general purpose, System Traffic Interchange, and auxiliary lanes to the outside of Interstate 10 from approximately Sarival Avenue to SR 101L. The recommendations include the ultimate improvements necessary for the freeway to operate at a minimum of LOS D for the design year 2030. The purpose of the study was to reach consensus on a recommended alternative to increase the capacity of I-10 within the study area. Recommendations relative to I-10: The recommended alternative substantiates the ultimate I-10 lane configuration identified in the I-10 West Corridor Profile Study Final Report. A long-range implementation plan was developed to identify possible phasing of the interim and ultimate improvements necessary to meet the projected 2030 traffic volumes discussed in the report.Further information: valleyfreeways.com/Highways/Valley_Freeways/I10/Papago/index.asp

City of Blythe General Plan 2025Date completed or adopted: March 2007Lead agency: City of BlytheAuthor: City of Blythe Planning Department

Study area: Planning area of Blythe, California, located just west of the Colorado River.Purpose: Provide goals, objectives, and policies for the future development of Blythe as it relates to land use, circulation, parks and recreation, open spaces, and safety. Recommendations relative to I-10: noneFurther information: none

I-10 Integrated Corridor Management System (ICMS)Date completed or adopted: August 2007Lead agency: MAGAuthor: Kimley-Horn and AssociatesStudy area: The Concept of Operations for an Integrated Corridor Management System (ICMS) was prepared for the I-10 Corridor, Van Buren Street, McDowell Road, and Maricopa County 85 (MC 85) corridor, from SR 85 to approximately 7th Avenue (Deck Park Tunnel). Purpose: The main objective of the I-10 ICMS Concept of Operations was to develop, with stakeholders, a comprehensive, integrated plan to manage and reduce congestion in the I-10 Corridor. The study identified a number of goals and objectives for project, such as maximizing throughput, while improving safety and mobility. The study focused on making efficient use of technologies and resources to manage day-to-day demands and optimize the multi-modal network.Recommendations relative to I-10: The ICMS Concept of Operations identified recommended procedures, roles and responsibilities for the partner agencies within the corridor under a variety of different scenarios. The study recommended a series of near-term and longer-term recommendations. Near-term recommendations included among other things, Traffic Signal Optimization Programs. Longer-term recommendations focused on FMS deployment and arterial ITS infrastructure.Further information: www.azmag.gov/Documents/pdf/cms.resource/ICMS_2009-04-07_I10-Integrated-Corridor-Management-System-Final-Report_94081.pdf.

Interstate 10 – Hassayampa Valley Roadway Framework StudyDate completed or adopted: September 2007Lead agency: MAGAuthor: AECOMStudy Area: The Study covers approximately 1,400 square miles in western Maricopa County, bounded generally by State Route 303L on the east, the 459th Avenue section line on the west, SR 74 alignment on the north, and the Gila River on the south. Purpose: The Study is the first of several long-range planning studies that MAG will conduct in developing areas of Maricopa County—and in some cases, adjacent counties. The purpose of these studies is to initiate the transportation planning process in areas that are expected to experience intense growth in population and employment over the next 30 to 50 years. The objectives of the Study include: develop a conceptual network of roadways that will provide access throughout the study area to preserve I-10 as an interstate travel and freight corridor; identify potential traffic interchange locations on I-10; prioritize future improvements; study alternative transportation modes; evaluate funding options; and specify future corridors requiring right-of-way preservation.Recommendations relative to I-10: The recommended roadway network includes new freeway-to-freeway traffic interchanges, freeway-to-arterial traffic interchanges, and freeway-to-parkway traffic interchanges. Based on build-out conditions, the study identified the ultimate number of lanes that will be required along I-10 to meet travel demand. The implementation plan includes timeframes for preserving right-of-way, constructing traffic interchanges, and widening I-10.Further information: www.bqaz.org

RPTA Freeway Express Bus BRT Operating PlanDate Completed or Adopted: October 2007Lead Agency: RPTAAuthor: PB

Study Area: Phoenix metropolitan area/Maricopa CountyPurpose: Develop a detailed operating plan for the freeway express/BRT routes identified in the Regional Transportation Plan as well as identify vehicle and infrastructure investments needed to support said routes.Recommendations relative to I-10: not available at this timeFurther information: www.valleymetro.org/publications_reports/info/freeway_express_bus_brt_operating_plan

Arizona Multimodal Freight Analysis StudyDate completed or adopted: November 2007Lead agency: ADOTAuthor: Wilbur Smith Associates

Study area: State of ArizonaPurpose: The study presents an overview of freight industry trends, a summary of freight flows specific to the Arizona freight market, the findings from interviews and surveys conducted with Arizona businesses and transportation providers across all modes that support the business logistics of firms in the state.Recommendations relative to I-10: There are no specific recommendations related to I-10; however, the study provides an overview and data related to truck, rail, and air freight flows into, out of, and within Arizona.Further information: none


Internal Truck Travel Survey and Truck Model Development StudyDate completed or adopted: December 2007Lead agency: MAGAuthor: Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

Study area: Maricopa CountyPurpose: The purpose of the study was to develop a methodology for the truck travel model for the MAG region. Truck movements are a major consideration for the economic vitality of the region, congestion and travel demand management, air quality conformity analysis, and road infrastructure improvements. This study also provides a review of the current truck model, methodology for the surveys, analyses of the survey data along with key findings and lessons learned during the survey tasks, model development methodology, and model calibration and validation results.Recommendations relative to I-10: noneFurther information: none

Arizona State Airports System Plan Date completed or adopted: January 2008Lead agency: ADOTAuthor: Wilbur Smith Associates

Study area: State of Arizona, primarily focused on public use airportsPurpose: The purpose is to provide a framework for integrated planning, operation, and development of Arizona’s aviation assets through 2030. The plan created four goals and used these goals to evaluate each airport’s role in the statewide system and determine the performance of Arizona’s airports.Recommendations relative to I-10: Four airports located near the I-10 corridor were examined: Buckeye (General Aviation – Community), Phoenix-Goodyear (Reliever), Glendale (Reliever),and Phoenix Sky Harbor (Commercial Service).Further information: www.azdot.gov/mpd/airport_development/ArizonaStateAirportsSystemPlanSASP.asp

Buckeye General Plan UpdateDate completed or adopted: January 2008Lead agency: Town of BuckeyeAuthor: Town of Buckeye

Study area: Town of Buckeye planning areaPurpose: The General Plan is a policy document that is meant to guide decision-making related to development within the Town’s Planning AreaRecommendations relative to I-10: The General Plan has adopted the road network developed in the Interstate 10/Hassayampa Valley Roadway Framework Study. Further information: none

RPTA Park-and-Ride Reprioritization StudyDate completed or adopted: 2008Lead agency: RPTAAuthor: PB

Study area: Phoenix metropolitan area/Maricopa CountyPurpose: To develop implementation priorities for the 13 regional park-and-ride facilities identified in the RTP and funded by Proposition 400. The study updates the recommendations of the 2001 MAG Park & Ride Plan, which was developed prior to adoption of the RTP and passage of Proposition 400. The Park-and-Ride Reprioritization Study provides recommendations to ensure that park-and-ride implementation are aligned with operational requirements, especially regarding express bus and bus rapid transit needs.Recommendations relative to I-10: The study includes a revised schedule of implementation for park-and-ride facilities in the region. Implementation schedule changes are not recommended for the two park-and-ride facilities in the I-10 corridor. The facilities are the East Buckeye park-and-ride scheduled for 2011, and the I-10 and Elliot park-and-ride scheduled for 2017.Further information: www.valleymetro.org/images/uploads/projects/PR_Final_Report-04-11-08.pdf

Statewide Transportation Framework Study – Western ArizonaDate completed or adopted: Working Paper #2, Draft April 2008Lead agency: ADOTAuthor: Parsons Brinkerhoff

Study area: Western Arizona, counties of Mohave, La Paz, and YumaPurpose: The Working Paper #2 presents an inventory and analysis of the existing and future conditions of western Arizona. The information provides a base from which decisions related to land use, development and transportation can be made.Recommendations relative to I-10: No direction recommendations were made related to I-10. The study provides an overview of the major social and environmental conditions in the area surrounding I-10. Further information: www.bqaz.org

Western Arizona Regional Transportation Coordination PlanDate completed or adopted: April 2008Lead agency: WACOGAuthor: WACOG

Study area: Western Arizona, counties of Mohave and La Paz Purpose: The document fulfills a mandate of SAFETEA-LU legislation and FTA funding guidelines to document the coordination of transit services in adjacent communities. The plan identifies current services as well as unmet needs.Recommendations relative to I-10: No direct recommendations were made related to I-10. The study provides detailed information related to the transit services that are currently in place in communities surrounding the I-10 corridor.Further information: none


Arizona Rural Transit Needs StudyDate completed or adopted: May 2008 (Final Report)Lead agency: ADOTAuthor: Cambridge Systematics, Inc.Study area: Rural Arizona is defined as all areas of the state that are not within one of the five existing urbanized areas of Arizona (Phoenix, Tucson, Yuma, Flagstaff, and Prescott)Purpose: The study provided regionally-based solutions to rural public transportation in Arizona. The study focused on a 10-year planning horizon and developed projects for future transit demand, identified potential solutions, and developed a plan for future services and service improvements. Recommendations relative to I-10: La Paz County was not recommended for new or expanded 5311 program services given low population and transit demands.Further information: www.azdot.gov/mpd/Community_Grant_Services/ArizonaRuralTransitNeedsStudy.asp

Interstate 10 (Papago Freeway) Widening, SR 101L to Interstate 17, Initial Design Concept ReportDate completed or adopted: September 2008Lead agency: Arizona Department of Transportation Author: HDR Engineering, Inc.Study area: I-10 from approximately State Route 101 Loop (SR 101L) (milepost [MP] 133.5) to Interstate 17 (I-17) (MP 143.0), a distance of approximately 9.5 miles.Purpose: The study identified improvements to reduce congestion, improve access to employment centers, and enhance regional mobility of goods and services by increasing the capacity of I-10. A long-range implementation plan is being developed to identify possible phasing of improvements necessary to meet the projected 2030 traffic volumes discussed in the report.Recommendations relative to I-10: Recommended alternative, “Two-Lane Outside Widening” would construct two additional lanes in each direction to the outside of the existing I-10 lanes. Due to the shortage of funding for the recommended alternative, this study and project were put on hold.Further information: none

MAG and PAG External Travel StudyDate completed or adopted: July 2009 (Final Report)Lead agency: MAG and PAGAuthor: Alliance Transportation Group, Inc.Study area: MAG and PAG Regions - I-17, SR 87, US 60, SR 79, SR 77, I-10, I-19, SR 85, I-8, SR 89, US 93, SR 101 on-rampPurpose: To provide external to external trip data for MAG and PAG travel demand models. As part of the study, a video license plate capture and classification count was capture at external stations and a few internal sites in the MAG region during fall 2008. There was one site station along the I-10 in the study area at 75th Avenue.Recommendations relative to I-10: No specific recommendations for I-10. The report documented the data collection, reduction, and review for the study areas. Does have information on travel patterns. Further information: www.azmag.gov

Interstate 8 and Interstate 10/Hidden Valley Transportation Framework StudyDate completed or adopted: August 2009Lead agency: MAGAuthor: AECOMStudy area: The Study covers more than 2,000 square miles in Maricopa and Pinal counties. The boundaries are Overfield Road (just east of I-10) on the east, 459th Avenue (seventeen miles east of the Maricopa County line) on the west, the Gila River on the north, and Interstate 8 on the south. Purpose: This Study is an extension of the I-10/Hassayampa Valley Roadway Framework Study. The purpose of both studies is to initiate the transportation planning studies in areas expected to experience significant growth in the next 30 to 50 years.The objectives of the study include: develop conceptual network of freeways, parkways, and arterials; identify potential system and service traffic interchanges on I-10, I-8, and new freeways; and to identify potential public transit corridors.Recommendations relative to I-10: None, the study area does not include any portions of the I-10 Corridor.Further information: www.bqaz.org

Pedestrian Safety Action PlanDate completed or adopted: June 2009Lead agency: ADOTAuthor: Kimley Horn

Study area: The study incorporates all highways within Arizona.Purpose: The purpose of the Plan was to recommend actions that when funded and implemented will reduce the number and rate of pedestrian crashes, fatalities, and injuries on the Arizona State Highway System. The Plan established a framework and practical and achievable strategies to improve pedestrian safety on the State Highway System.Recommendations relative to I-10: The interchange of 7th Avenue and I-10 was identified as one of the highest pedestrian crash locations. Countermeasures proposed at this location focus on pavement markings, signage, and pedestrian signals.Further information: http://mpd.azdot.gov/mpd/systems_planning/

RPTA Comprehensive Arterial Bus Rapid Transit Planning StudyDate completed or adopted: September 2009 – Completion dateLead agency: Valley Metro/RPTAAuthor: PBStudy area: The Arizona Avenue, Grand Avenue, Scottsdale Road/Rural Road, South Central Avenue/Baseline Road, and Chandler Boulevard arterial bus rapid transit (BRT) lines.Purpose: the study identifies demand for BRT and defining operational characteristics, capital infrastructure needs, and fleet requirements for the arterial BRT lines.Recommendations relative to I-10: noneFurther information: www.valleymetro.org/images/uploads/projects/Final_Comprehensive_BRT_Report.pdf


MAG Regional Transit Framework StudyDate completed or adopted: Final report issued January 2010.Lead agency: Maricopa Association of Governments

Author:HDR Engineering, Inc., URS Corporation, AECOM, Hexagon Transportation, Ordonez & Vogelsang, WestGroup Research

Study area: The MAG Region includes 25 incorporated cities and towns within Maricopa County and the contiguous urbanized area, three Native American Indian Communities, and Maricopa County.Purpose: The MAG Regional Transit Framework (RTF) identified and prioritized needs for regional transit improvements to supplement the existing RTP through 2030, with consideration for longer range transportation needs through 2050. The MAG RTF is one of several studies that are occurring throughout the State of Arizona to identify future transportation needs.Recommendations relative to I-10: The study presents three alternative transit investment frameworks, each with increased investment in transit service, frequency, and capital improvements along the I-10 West corridor.Further information: www.bqaz.org/frameFinalReport.asp?mS=m12

2010 Statewide Transportation Planning Framework - bqAZDate Completed or Adopted: March 2010Lead Agency: ADOTAuthor: AECOMStudy Area: The study incorporates all of Arizona. Outside of Maricopa and Pima counties, the state was divided into four regions: Central Region, Eastern Region, Northern Region, and Western Region. The plan incorporated the adopted plans within Maricopa County (RTP, Hassayampa Framework Study, and Hidden Valley Framework Study) and Pima County (RTP). Purpose: The purpose of the study was to produce a draft list of critical transportation needs and representative projects to bring about sustainable development patterns through the year 2030. The potential project include all modes of travel.Recommendations relative to I-10: Within Maricopa County, the recommendations were the same as the Hassayampa Framework Study and RTP. Within La Paz County, the recommendations included widening I-10, adding intercity bus service from the California border to downtown Phoenix, and a new minor transit center and local transit service in Quartzsite.Further information: www.bqaz.gov

MAG Commuter Rail Systems StudyDate Completed or Adopted: May 2010Lead Agency: MAGAuthor: URS CorporationStudy Area: The system study planning area is defined as a two mile buffer around each of the five rail lines that are under review: Grand Avenue (BNSF), Yuma West (UPRR), Southeast (UPRR), Tempe (UPRR), and Chandler (UPRR).Purpose: The purpose of this study is to define and prioritize a network of corridors and the elements that will be needed in order to implement commuter rail service in the MAG region. The study provides information on ridership forecasts, operating strategies, and capital and operating costs associated with each corridor.Recommendations relative to I-10: The Grand Avenue corridor was ranked as a “Middle Tier” corridor. This rail corridor travels within the study area and under I-10 around 19th AvenueFurther information: www.azmag.gov/Projects/Project.asp?CMSID=1076


Hidden Waters Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study, Watermelon Road to Interstate 10Date Completed or Adopted: June 2010Lead Agency: MCDOTAuthor: Kimley-Horn and Associates

Study Area: The study area goes from Watermelon Road in Gila Bend to the I-10 and 339th Avenue interchange. The area includes a two-mile wide buffer area centered on the north-south segment of Old U.S. Highway 80 and on 339th Avenue. South of I-10, the study area widens to four-miles between 331st Avenue and 363rd Avenue.Purpose: The purpose of this study was to examine the feasibility of the Hidden Waters Parkway corridor and to identify a preferred alignment for right-of-way preservation. Recommendations relative to I-10: The Hidden Waters Parkway corridor would connect to I-10 as an expansion of the existing 339th Avenue traffic interchange. The development of this interchange would be coordinated with ADOT and their freeway-to-parkway interchange templates..Further information: www.mcdot.maricopa.gov/technical/studies/studies.htm

McDowell Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study, 339th Avenue to Dean RoadDate Completed or Adopted: June 2010Lead Agency: MCDOTAuthor: PBS&JStudy Area: The McDowell Parkway corridor runs parallel to I-10 approximately 1 to 2 miles north between 339th Avenue and Dean Road (219th Avenue alignment). The study area considered a two-mile wide buffer around the alignment identified in the I-10/Hassayampa Valley Roadway Framework Study.Purpose: The purpose of this study was to examine the feasibility of the McDowell Parkway corridor and to identify a preferred alignment for right-of-way preservation. Recommendations relative to I-10: The Tonopah Parkway would connect to I-10 as an expansion of the existing 411th Avenue traffic interchange. The development o fthis interchange would be coordinated with ADOT and their freeway-to-parkway interchange template. Further information: www.mcdot.maricopa.gov/technical/studies/studies.htm

City of Goodyear General Plan Annual Report, 2010Date Completed or Adopted: March 2011Lead Agency: City of GoodyearAuthor: City of GoodyearStudy Area: The general plan includes all of the annexed areas within the City of Goodyear..Purpose: The purpose of the report is to document the progress on the implementation of the goals and objectives of the General Plan.Recommendations relative to I-10: The report did not include any recommendations directly related to I-10, but does provide an overview of the trends and projections for the CIty of Goodyear. Further information: www.ci.goodyear.az.us

Northern Parkway/Tonopah Parkway Corridor Feasibility StudyDate Completed or Adopted: June 2011Lead Agency: MCDOTAuthor: Kimley-Horn and AssociatesStudy Area: The study area includes the Northern Parkway, an east-west corridor centered on the Northern Avenue section line from the Tonopah Parkway (411th Avenue alignment) to Turner Parkway (267th Avenue alignment) and Tonopah Parkway, a north-south corridor centered on 411th Avenue section line from I-10 to Northern Parkway. The study area considered a two-mile wide buffer around the alignment identified in the I-10/Hassayampa Valley Roadway Framework Study.Purpose: The purpose of this study was to examine the feasibility of the Northern and Tonopah Parkway corridors and to identify a preferred alignment for right-of-way preservation. Recommendations relative to I-10: The study did not include any recommendations along I-10. I-10 was included in the area considered in the environmental scan for the study. Further information: www.mcdot.maricopa.gov/technical/studies/studies.htm

Bicycle Safety Action PlanDate completed or adopted: September 2012Lead agency: ADOTAuthor: Kimley Horn

Study area: The study incorporates all highways within Arizona.Purpose: The purpose of the Plan was to recommend actions that when funded and implemented will reduce the number and rate of bicyclecrashes, fatalities, and injuries on the Arizona State Highway System. The Plan established a framework and practical and achievable strategies to improve bicycle safety on the State Highway System.Recommendations relative to I-10: The interchange of 7th street and I-10 was identified as one of the highest bicycle crash locations. Specific improvements at this location were not identified. A number of general strategies were developed that would be applicable at any interchange along I-10.Further information: http://mpd.azdot.gov/mpd/systems_planning/

RPTA Short Range Transit ProgramDate Completed or Adopted: September 2011Lead Agency: RPTAAuthor: RPTA

Study Area: Phoenix metropolitan area / Maricopa CountyPurpose: The Short Range Transit Program (SRTP) identifies those regional transit service and capital improvements programmed in the Transit Life Cycle Program (TLCP) during the next five years (Fiscal Years [FY] 2010/11 to 2015/16) and provides support for regional transit projects contained in the Maricopa Association of Governments Regional Transportation Plan (MAG RTP). The SRTP provides a description of current operating and capital conditions and also forecasts operating and capital plans for the next five years. This report incorporates public transit plans from several sources and in turn provides information that can be incorporated into other regional plans. Plans that feed into the SRTP include the transit element of the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), RPTA’s Master Facilities Plan, local area transportation plans, and the Transit Performance Report (TPR).Recommendations relative to I-10: The SRTP includes transit service and capital investments recommended in the I-10 corridor. These investments are also identified in other regional planning documents and include I-10 park-and-rides and I-10 West LRT. Further information: www.valleymetro.org/images/uploads/projects/BOARD_DRAFT_FY_2011_Short_Range_Transit_Program.pdf


What Moves You Arizona, Long-Range Transportation PlanDate Completed or Adopted: November 2011.Lead Agency: ADOTAuthor: Wilbur Smith Associates

Study Area: The study incorporates all of Arizona. Purpose: “What Moves You Arizona” is the current long-range transportation plan and advances the bqAZ vision by defining a preferred investment strategy. The Plan serves as a guide for Arizona’s transportation planning and capital delivery programs through 2035. The Plan defines ADOT’s roles and responsibilities, assesses multimodal transportation needs for Arizona, identifies potential transportation revenues, prioritizes investments, and outlines considerations for plan implementation. Recommendations relative to I-10: The study does not reference specific projects along the I-10 Corridor. The Recommended Investment Choice funding distribution includes 34 percent for highway preservation, 29 percent for highway modernization, 27 percent for highway expansion, and 10 percent for non-highway. Further information: www.whatmovesyouarizona.gov

Hidden Waters Parkway North Feasibility Study, Interstate 10 to State Route 74Date Completed or Adopted: January 2012Lead Agency: MCDOTAuthor: EPS GroupStudy Area: The Hidden Waters Parkway North corridor goes from 339th Avenue and I-10 to SR 74. The study area considered a two-mile wide buffer around the alignment identified in the I-10/Hassayampa Valley Roadway Framework Study.Purpose: The purpose of this study was to examine the feasibility of the McDowell Parkway corridor and to identify a preferred alignment for right-of-way preservation. Recommendations relative to I-10: The Hidden Waters Parkway corridor would connect to I-10 as an expansion of the existing 339th Avenue traffic interchange. The development of this interchange would be coordinated with ADOT and their freeway-to-parkway interchange templates.Further information: www.mcdot.maricopa.gov/technical/studies/studies.htm

Yuma Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study, Salome Highway to Palo Verde RoadDate Completed or Adopted: Active, anticipated completion date March 2012.Lead Agency: MCDOTAuthor: Kimley-Horn and Associates.Study Area: The Yuma Parkway corridor runs along the Buckeye/Yuma Road section line from a half-mile west of Salome Highway to a half-mile east of Palo Verde Road. The study area considered a two-mile wide buffer around the alignment identified in the I-10/Hassayampa Valley Roadway Framework Study.Purpose: The purpose of this study was to examine the feasibility of the McDowell Parkway corridor and to identify a preferred alignment for right-of-way preservation. Recommendations relative to I-10: The study did not include any recommendations along I-10. The Yuma Parkway terminates on the eastern end just south of I-10 and Palo Verde Road.

Further information: www.mcdot.maricopa.gov/technical/studies/studies.htm

MAG Central Phoenix Transportation Framework StudyDate Completed or Adopted: Active, anticipated completion date October 2012.Lead Agency: MAGAuthor: Partners for Strategic Action, Inc.Study Area: The study area encompasses much of the metropolitan core and is bounded generally by SR 101L to the west, north and east and by SR 202L and the Gila River Indian Community to the south.Purpose: The purpose of the study is to develop an environmentally sustainable multimodal transportation network, to determine and prioritize capacity, operational and safety improvements, and form a framework for regional connections and roadways in the study areas.Recommendations relative to I-10: The study has not yet been completed. However, I-10 is a primary transportation corridor, and traverses the study area from SR 101L on the west, through Central Phoenix, to SR 202L on the south.Further information: www.bqaz.org/phxCommunications.asp?mS=m14

METRO Phoenix West AA

Date Completed or Adopted: METRO’s preliminary recommendations (July 2011). Planning is underway with the light rail extension anticipated to open in 2021.

Lead Agency: METRO/City of PhoenixAuthor: URS Corporation

Study Area: The study area extends along the I-10 freeway west of downtown Phoenix toSR-101 (Loop 101) in Maricopa County, Arizona. The north and south boundaries of the study area include Thomas and Buckeye Roads, respectively. Purpose: The purpose of the Alternatives Analysis is to identify potential high capacity transit improvements for the West Valley. This area is one of several areas identified as extensions of the 20-mile light rail starter line that will eventually help create the 57-mile high capacity transit system approved by voters in 2004.Recommendations relative to I-10: A portion of the recommended route would follow the I-10 freeway between I-17 and the 79th Avenue Park-and-Ride. The train would operate within the I-10 freeway median from I-17 for approximately three miles before transitioning to the north side of I-10 near 47th Avenue. From 47th Avenue to 79th Avenue, it would remain on the north side of the I-10.Further information: www.valleymetro.org/images/uploads/lightrail_future_ext_uploads/Phoenix-West-Project-Update_7-11.pdf

Task Assignment MPD 09-11 | Final Report| March 2013Interstate 10 – Phoenix to California Border, Multimodal Corridor Profile Study F-1

Appendix F: Right-of-way plan inventory

Interstate 10 – Phoenix to California Border, Multimodal Corridor Profile StudyTask Assignment MPD 09-11 | Final Report| March 2013F-2

Project Number Start End Year Basic Right-of-Way Width (feet)

I-10-3 (1) 145 Durango Street Interchange 1957 no

informationI-10-3(1)-145 / I-10-3(2)-147 23rd Avenue 3rd Street 1958 300

I-10-1(16) 17 Quartzsite East TI Quartzsite West TI 1959 300I-10-1 (16) 6 East of La Paz TI West of W.Quartzsite TI 1960 400

I-10-1(17) 26 Gold Nugget Mine Section 1961 400

I-10-3(3) 148 3rd Street 16th Street 1961 300

I-10-2(1)71 P.E. Yuma/Maricopa Co.Line Buckeye 1962 varies from

300 to 400

I-10-1(9) 0 Ehrenberg East - Riverside Drive East of La Paz TI 1963 400

I-10-1(9) 0 Ehrenberg East Section 1963 400I-10-1(23) 30 Brenda East Section 1965 400I-10-1(26)39 Bouse Wash Section 1965 400I-10-1(29)49 Bouse Wash Section Lone Mountain Section 1965 400I-10-1(29)59 Lone Mountain Section Maricopa County line 1965 400I-10-2(6)71 Yuma Co Line Burnt Well Section 1965 400I-10-2(9)81 Burnt Well Tonopah Section 1966 400

I-10-2(12)91 Tonopah East Section Tonopah West Section 1966 varies from 308 to 408

I-10-2(15)101 Tonopah Buckeye Section 1967 308

I-10-2(24) 51st Avenue 27th Avenue 1967 no information

I-10-2(30)116 Cemetery Road Perryville Road 1967 varies from 308 to 370

I-10-1-841 Ehrenberg Rest Areas 1969 400IR-I-10-2(21) 27th Avenue JCT I-17 1971 300

I-10-2(52) Buckeye Washshed section 1971 308

I-IR-10-3(91) JCT I-17 Grand Avenue 1972 no information

I-10-2(27) Buckeye Cemetery Road 1973 308I-10-2(33) Perryville Rd Bullard Avenue 1975 370

I-10-2(36) Bullard Avenue Dysart Road 1975 varies from 308 to 400

I-10-2(39) Dysart Road 91st Avenue 1978 varies from 400 to 550

I-10-2-703 Wintersburg Road TI 1979 308I-10-1-851 Bouse Wash Rest Area 1980 400

I-10-2(73) 91st Avenue 51st Avenue 1980 varies from 610 to 630

I-10-1-714 Tyson Wash Plomosita Wash 1982 400

QI-10-2 (120) 79th Avenue(Park and Ride Lot) 1985 no

information

I-10-2-911 Hassayampa River Bridge 1985 308

M-504-3-701 (Buckeye Road - SR85) 59th Avenue 35th Avenue 1987 no

informationM-805-9-901 (17th Avenue - SR 85) JCT 17th Avenue Van Buren Street 1987 70

RBA-600-9-701 Broadway Road JCT US 60 1989 36010 LA 017 H3037 01R West Quartzsite TI 1993 300010 LA 019 H4731 01R East Quartzsite TI 1999 400

010 MA 128 H5319 01R Litchfield Road TI 2002 no information

010 MA 120 H5449 01R Verrado Way TI 2002 308

I-010-B-800 Litchfield Road TI 2002 no information

010 MA 116 H5549 01R Watson Road TI 2003 308010 MA 129 H6510 01R Dysart Road TI 2004 308010 MA 125 H6879 01R Cotton Lane 91st Avenue 2007 404

I-010-B-701 Bullard Avenue TI 2007 varies from 308 to 404

010 MA 094 H6877 01R Tonopah TI Cotton Lane TI 2008 308

Task Assignment MPD 09-11 | Final Report| March 2013Interstate 10 – Phoenix to California Border, Multimodal Corridor Profile Study G-1

Appendix G: Existing bridges

Interstate 10 – Phoenix to California Border, Multimodal Corridor Profile StudyTask Assignment MPD 09-11 | Final Report| March 2013G-2

Milepost

ADOT structure number

Bridge name District Year built Bridge type Spans

Max span

length (feet)

Structure length (feet)

Skew (degrees)

Roadway approach

width (feet)

Bridge roadway

width (feet)

Allowable vertical

clearance (feet)

Sufficiency rating

Condition index

0.01 619 Ehrenberg Bridge Yuma 1960 Steel 5 246 1113 15 97 94 16.89 S 65.78 Rehab0.62 1704 Poston Road TI UP Yuma 1977 Steel continuous 2 99 198 0 44 44 16.41 95.30 Good5.84 767 Tom Wells Road TI UP Yuma 1963 Steel continuous 4 77 247 0 28 28 16.15 F 86.23 Good11.95 755 Dome Rock TI OP EB Yuma 1963 Concrete continuous 3 33 90 0 38 37.9 14.16 94.00 Good11.95 756 Dome Rock TI OP WB Yuma 1963 Concrete continuous 3 33 90 0 38 38 14.94 95.01 Good17.5 826 West Quartzsite TI UP Yuma 1964 Steel continuous 4 78 249 0 28 28 15.92 F 76.77 Rehab18.09 813 Quartzsite Pedestrian OP Yuma 1964 Steel continuous 2 78 299 0 0 5 16.7 Good18.61 791 Tyson Wash Bridge EB Yuma 1964 Concrete continuous 14 30 410 0 42 42 0 97.11 Good18.61 792 Tyson Wash Bridge WB Yuma 1964 Concrete continuous 14 30 410 0 42 42 0 97.11 Good18.89 1451 SR 95 UP Yuma 2001 Prestress concrete 2 132 269 10 68 68 17.41 96.57 Good19.90 2726 Riggles Avenue TI UP Yuma 2001 Prestress concrete 2 130 260 8 68 68 17.41 96.70 Good26.65 769 Gold Nugget TI UP Yuma 1963 Steel continuous 4 78 250 0 26 26 16.09 F 91.43 Good31.17 1201 Brenda TI UP Yuma 1967 Concrete continuous 3 138 377 25 30 30 17.73 83.16 Good33.78 1202 Ramsey Mine Road UP Yuma 1967 Concrete continuous 3 125 330 0 26 26 16.23 98.98 Good37.11 1203 Wash Bridge EB Yuma 1967 Concrete continuous 5 35 164 45 38 38 0 97.14 Good37.11 1204 Wash Bridge WB Yuma 1967 Concrete continuous 5 35 164 45 38 38 0 97.14 Good39.37 1205 New Water Mountain Bridge EB Yuma 1967 Concrete continuous 4 30 111 45 38 38 0 97.14 Good39.37 1206 New Water Mountain Bridge WB Yuma 1967 Concrete continuous 4 30 111 45 38 38 0 97.14 Good45.34 1207 Vicksburg Road TI UP Yuma 1967 Concrete continuous 3 127 332 10 34 32.5 15.9 97.92 Good52.24 1410 CAP Canal Bridge WB Yuma 1982 Prestress concrete 2 73 152 17 66 65.6 0 97.12 Good52.25 1409 CAP Canal Bridge EB Yuma 1982 Prestress concrete 2 65 137 17 77 77.2 0 97.12 Good53.94 1384 Hovatter Road TI UP Yuma 1970 Concrete continuous 3 125 352 0 40 40 16.24 97.98 Good54.34 1411 CAP Canal Bridge EB Yuma 1982 Prestress concrete 1 92 96 22 50 50 0 96.11 Good54.35 1412 CAP Canal Bridge WB Yuma 1982 Prestress concrete 1 92 96 22 42 41.8 0 97.12 Good59.15 1414 CAP Canal Bridge WB Yuma 1982 Prestress concrete 1 103 107 30 42 42 0 97.12 Good59.16 1413 CAP Canal Bridge EB Yuma 1982 Prestress concrete 1 103 107 30 42 42 0 97.12 Good59.47 1282 Sore Finger Road UP Yuma 1968 Concrete continuous 3 125 330 0 26 26 16.71 97.98 Good69.60 1283 Avenue 75 E TI UP Yuma 1968 Concrete continuous 3 71 331 10 26 26 16.2 98.99 Good72.71 1208 Aguila Road UP Yuma 1967 Concrete continuous 3 126 331 10 26 26 16.33 98.94 Good81.21 1209 Salome Road TI UP Yuma 1967 Concrete continuous 3 143 376 20 28 28 15.99 98.00 Good94.15 1523 411th Avenue TI UP Yuma 1971 Concrete continuous 2 120 245 15 40 40 16.58 98.87 Good95.30 1524 Old Camp Wash Bridge WB Yuma 1971 Concrete continuous 3 35 94 0 38 38 0 97.15 Good95.30 1525 Old Camp Wash Bridge EB Yuma 1971 Concrete continuous 3 35 94 0 38 38 0 97.12 Good96.21 1526 Belmont Road UP Yuma 1971 Concrete continuous 2 120 245 15 28 28 17 99.88 Good96.53 1527 Coyote Wash Bridge WB Yuma 1971 Concrete continuous 3 40 107 0 38 38 0 96.14 Good96.53 1528 Coyote Wash Bridge EB Yuma 1971 Concrete continuous 3 40 107 0 38 38 0 97.12 Good98.29 1529 Wintersburg Road TI UP Yuma 1971 Concrete continuous 2 120 245 15 28 28 16.38 97.42 Good101.40 1647 355th Avenue UP Yuma 1974 Concrete continuous 2 125 253 15 26 26 15.92 98.88 Good103.44 1644 339th Avenue TI UP Yuma 1974 Concrete continuous 2 125 253 15 28 28 16.55 80.66 Good


Milepost



Max span

length (feet)


Skew (degrees)

Roadway approach

width (feet)

Bridge roadway

width (feet)

Allowable vertical

clearance (feet)

Sufficiency rating

Condition index

104.69 1645 Hassayampa River Bridge WB Yuma 1974 Prestress concrete continuous 15 79 1180 10 38 42 0 84.39 Good104.69 1646 Hassayampa River Bridge EB Yuma 1974 Prestress concrete continuous 15 79 1180 10 38 42 0 84.39 Good107.60 1664 Johnson Road UP Yuma 1974 Concrete continuous 2 125 253 15 26 26 16.58 99.92 Good109.68 2078 Palo Verde Road TI UP Yuma 1988 Prestress concrete continuous 2 133 271 15 94 104.7 16.83 98.74 Good112.75 1725 SR 85 Ramp B UP Phoenix 1976 Prestress concrete continuous 2 140 274 22 22 26 17.29 95.62 Good112.83 1727 SR 85 Ramp C OP Phoenix 1976 Prestress concrete 1 162 166 33 22 26 17.74 89.20 Good112.92 1726 SR 85 Ramp C UP Phoenix 1976 Prestress concrete continuous 2 148 280 21 22 26 17.56 96.66 Good114.84 1728 Miller Road TI OP EB Phoenix 1976 Concrete continuous 3 72 161 21 38 42 17.82 88.69 Good114.84 1729 Miller Road TI OP WB Phoenix 1976 Concrete continuous 3 72 161 21 38 42 16.74 89.79 Good116.97 1681 Watson Road OP EB Phoenix 1975 Concrete continuous 3 77 142 20 38 42 16.7 F 91.18 Good116.97 1682 Watson Road OP WB Phoenix 1975 Concrete continuous 3 77 142 20 38 42 17.11 F 91.18 Good120.26 2668 Verrado Way TI UP Phoenix 2003 Prestress concrete continuous 2 118 242 15 96 92 17.28 94.92 Good121.67 1683 Jackrabbit Trail TI OP EB Phoenix 1975 Concrete continuous 4 59 177 0 38 42 16.81 82.00 Good121.67 1684 Jackrabbit Trail TI OP WB Phoenix 1975 Concrete continuous 4 59 177 0 38 42 16.72 84.89 Good122.69 1705 Perryville Road OP EB Phoenix 1978 Prestress concrete 1 126 129 10 38 42 17.21 F 91.29 Good122.69 1706 Perryville Road OP WB Phoenix 1978 Prestress concrete 1 126 129 10 38 42 17.24 F 91.29 Good123.69 1707 Citrus Road OP EB Phoenix 1978 Prestress concrete 1 126 129 0 38 42 16.72 95.42 Good123.69 1708 Citrus Road OP WB Phoenix 1978 Prestress concrete 1 126 129 0 38 42 16.64 95.42 Good124.69 1709 Cotton Lane TI OP EB Phoenix 1978 Prestress concrete 1 150 153 0 38 42 16.7 94.99 Good124.69 1710 Cotton Lane TI OP WB Phoenix 1978 Prestress concrete 1 150 153 0 38 42 16.8 95.06 Good125.19 1711 RID Canal Bridge EB Phoenix 1978 Prestress concrete continuous 4 70 282 30 38 42 0 93.96 Good125.19 1712 RID Canal Bridge WB Phoenix 1978 Prestress concrete continuous 4 70 282 30 38 42 0 94.02 Good125.69 1713 Sarival Avenue OP EB Phoenix 1978 Prestress concrete 1 126 129 0 38 42 14.85 94.99 Good125.69 1714 Sarival Avenue OP WB Phoenix 1978 Prestress concrete 1 126 129 0 38 42 14.62 95.06 Good126.67 1715 Estrella Parkway TI OP Phoenix 1978 Prestress concrete 1 150 153 0 38 42 15.69 92.05 Good127.15 1849 Airport Wash Bridge EB Phoenix 1978 Concrete continuous 7 30 202 15 38 42 0 94.99 Good127.15 1850 Airport Wash Bridge WB Phoenix 1978 Concrete continuous 7 30 202 15 38 42 0 95.06 Good127.67 1717 Bullard Avenue OP Phoenix 1978 Prestress concrete 1 138 141 19 152 152 16.17 85.00 Good128.45 1719 UPRR Overpass Phoenix 1978 Prestress concrete continuous 3 54 137 0 209 209 22.93 90.81 Good128.68 1721 Litchfield Road TI OP Phoenix 1978 Prestress concrete 1 160 163 0 153 153 16.13 90.81 Good129.67 1723 Dysart Road TI OP Phoenix 1978 Prestress concrete 1 160 163 0 153 153 16.42 87.42 Good129.67 1724 Dysart Road TI OP WB Phoenix 1978 Prestress concrete 1 160 163 0 38 42 16.34 87.95 Good130.00 1852 Agua Fria River Bridge EB Phoenix 1978 Prestress concrete continuous 20 75 1502 15 177 176.8 0 86.60 Good130.00 1853 Agua Fria River Bridge WB Phoenix 1978 Prestress concrete continuous 20 75 1502 15 54 58 0 92.56 Good131.68 1856 Avondale Boulevard TI OP Phoenix 1981 Prestress concrete 1 150 153 12 167 166.8 16.54 85.00 Good131.68 1857 Avondale Boulevard TI OP WB Phoenix 1981 Prestress concrete 1 150 153 12 54 58 16.55 85.00 Good131.70 1817 Papago West Drain Bridge Avondale Boulevard Phoenix 1982 Concrete continuous 3 40 108 10 60 80 0 97.75 Good132.66 1858 107th Avenue OP EB Phoenix 1981 Prestress concrete 1 126 128 0 66 70 17.06 F 87.07 Good132.66 2307 107th Avenue TI OP Phoenix 2009 Prestress concrete 2 98 200 1 185 214.8 15.6 F 81.00 Good

Interstate 10 – Phoenix to California Border, Multimodal Corridor Profile StudyTask Assignment MPD 09-11 | Final Report| March 2013G-4

Milepost



Max span

length (feet)


Skew (degrees)

Roadway approach

width (feet)

Bridge roadway

width (feet)

Allowable vertical

clearance (feet)

Sufficiency rating

Condition index

132.68 1818 Papago West Drain Bridge 107th Avenue Phoenix 1982 Prestress concrete 1 78 80 4 55 55 0 F 78.68 Rehab133.66 1860 99th Avenue TI OP Phoenix 1981 Prestress concrete 1 150 153 0 167 83.4 16.57 F 79.00 Rehab133.66 2201 SB SR 101L to WB I-10 Ramp Phoenix 1998 Prestress concrete continuous 6 205 1140 0 28 28 16.53 F 87.70 Good133.66 2204 WB I-10 to NB SR 101L Ramp Phoenix 1998 Prestress concrete continuous 4 205 756 0 36 36 17.33 90.50 Good133.68 1819 Papago West Drain Bridge 99th Avenue Phoenix 1982 Prestress concrete 1 78 81 0 84 86 0 77.95 Rehab134.00 2202 SB SR 101L to EB I-10 Ramp Phoenix 1998 Prestress concrete continuous 6 205 978 0 36 36 16.93 89.41 Good134.00 2203 EB I-10 to NB SR 101L Ramp Phoenix 1998 Prestress concrete continuous 18 164 2483 0 28 28 18.08 F 89.28 Good134.00 2205 Ramp 91B Phoenix 1998 Prestress concrete 1 145 149 0 26 26 16.54 92.93 Good134.67 1820 91st Avenue TI UP Phoenix 1984 Prestress concrete continuous 2 156 317 1 80 76 16.78 79.15 Rehab134.67 1821 91st Avenue Papago Drain Bridge Phoenix 1984 Prestress concrete 1 85 88 0 80 56 0 90.58 Good135.66 1822 83rd Avenue TI UP Phoenix 1984 Prestress concrete continuous 2 164 333 3 116 112.5 16.29 74.44 Rehab136.10 2187 79th Avenue HOV TI OP Phoenix 1990 Prestress concrete 6 131 470 0 64 64 16.53 92.59 Good136.68 1843 75th Avenue TI UP Phoenix 1984 Prestress concrete continuous 2 169 343 2 116 114 16.43 70.33 Rehab137.65 1845 67th Avenue TI UP Phoenix 1984 Prestress concrete continuous 2 164 333 1 115 115 16.31 75.68 Rehab138.13 1846 63rd Avenue UP Phoenix 1984 Prestress concrete continuous 2 160 325 1 40 40 16.58 100.00 Good138.13 1854 63rd Avenue Papago Drain Bridge Phoenix 1984 Prestress concrete 1 85 88 0 40 40.5 0 100.00 Good138.66 1855 59th Avenue TI UP Phoenix 1984 Prestress concrete continuous 2 164 333 1 80 112 16.43 F 69.02 Rehab139.65 1930 51st Avenue TI UP Phoenix 1985 Prestress concrete continuous 2 164 333 0 98 94 16.21 F 67.48 Rehab139.65 1975 51st Avenue Papago Drain Bridge Phoenix 1985 Prestress concrete 1 72 75 0 98 98 0 72.25 Rehab140.65 1931 43rd Avenue TI UP Phoenix 1985 Prestress concrete continuous 2 164 333 4 98 94 16.4 F 66.70 Rehab141.15 1932 39th Avenue UP Phoenix 1985 Prestress concrete continuous 2 138 281 2 40 40 16.35 95.41 Good141.66 1933 35th Avenue TI UP Phoenix 1985 Prestress concrete continuous 2 162 317 3 98 94 16.48 F 68.25 Rehab142.16 1934 31st Avenue UP Phoenix 1985 Prestress concrete continuous 2 164 333 2 40 40 16.32 95.41 Good142.65 1956 27th Avenue OP EB Phoenix 1986 Prestress concrete 1 125 130 0 84 84 17.7 66.00 Rehab142.65 1957 27th Avenue OP WB Phoenix 1986 Prestress concrete 1 125 130 0 96 96 16.81 84.00 Good142.83 1935 EB I-10 main line Bridge at I-17 Phoenix 1988 Steel continuous 47 200 7111 0 76 76 14.99 F 81.00 Good142.83 1936 WB I-10 main line Bridge at I-17 Phoenix 1988 Steel continuous 47 200 7111 0 76 76 16.48 F 81.00 Good142.83 1938 NB & SB I-17 to WB I-10 Ramp Bridge Phoenix 1986 Prestress concrete continuous 6 126 737 0 38 37.9 17.04 96.87 Good143.02 1939 EB I-10 to SB I-17 Ramp OP Phoenix 1988 Steel continuous 11 162 1473 99 36 36 25.52 F 90.85 Good143.08 1942 SB I-17 to WB I-10 Ramp UP Phoenix 1987 Prestress concrete continuous 3 120 313 0 40 40 17.04 80.03 Good143.11 1940 EB I-10 to NB I-17 Ramp level 4 Phoenix 1988 Steel continuous 24 230 3940 99 24 24 17.2 F 85.74 Good143.14 1941 NB I-17 to WB I-10 Ramp level 2 Phoenix 1988 Steel continuous 4 252 896 99 36 36 17.09 F 85.34 Good143.16 1945 SB I-17 to EB I-10 Ramp level 2 Phoenix 1990 Steel continuous 14 219 2372 99 36 36 22.26 90.69 Good143.19 1947 WB I-10 to NB I-17 Ramp OP Phoenix 1985 Steel continuous 13 160 2016 99 36 36 17.8 F 92.66 Good143.21 1946 WB I-10 to SB I-17 Ramp level 4 Phoenix 1990 Steel continuous 12 219 2183 0 25 25.5 17.09 94.39 Good143.24 1944 NB I-17 to EB I-10-Ramp OP Phoenix 1990 Steel continuous 9 168 1367 99 24 24 20.05 F 93.61 Good143.74 1955 WB I-10 to 19th Avenue Ramp Phoenix 1988 Prestress concrete continuous 5 143 676 0 24 24 0 96.87 Good143.77 1954 19th Avenue to EB I-10 Ramp Phoenix 1988 Prestress concrete continuous 4 128 476 0 24 24 0 96.87 Good144.41 1967 11th Avenue pedestrian OP Phoenix 1988 Prestress concrete continuous 2 165 311 0 0 8 18.16 Good


Milepost



Max span

length (feet)


Skew (degrees)

Roadway approach

width (feet)

Bridge roadway

width (feet)

Allowable vertical

clearance (feet)

Sufficiency rating

Condition index

144.66 1958 7th Avenue TI UP Phoenix 1988 Prestress concrete continuous 2 142 278 0 102 102 16.71 F 93.40 Good144.66 2033 7th Avenue pedestrian OP Phoenix 1988 Prestress concrete 1 116 447 0 0 8 16.97 Good144.72 1960 HOV Ramp I-10 to 5th Avenue Phoenix 1988 Prestress concrete continuous 4 134 461 0 42 42.2 0 97.55 Good144.83 1959 5th Avenue UP and pedestrian UP Phoenix 1988 Prestress concrete continuous 2 171 382 15 37 37.4 17.43 F 75.97 Rehab144.84 1961 HOV Ramp 5th to 3rd Avenue Phoenix 1988 Prestress concrete continuous 4 135 480 0 42 42.4 0 97.77 Good144.94 1962 3rd Avenue UP and pedestrian UP Phoenix 1988 Prestress concrete continuous 3 111 306 13 37 37.3 26.98 F 76.07 Rehab145.19 1963 Central Avenue Bridge NB Phoenix 1989 Concrete continuous 13 39 351 0 35 35 0 F 79.55 Rehab145.19 1964 Central Avenue Bridge SB Phoenix 1989 Concrete continuous 13 39 351 0 35 35 0 F 76.55 Rehab145.19 2001 Deck At Central Avenue Phoenix 1990 Prestress concrete continuous 3 129 255 99 70 0 16.18 F 78.10 RehabNotes: CAP = Central Arizona Project; EB = eastbound; I = Interstate; HOV = high-occupancy vehicle; NB = northbound; OP = overpass; RID = Roosevelt Irrigation District; SB = southbound; SR = State Route; TI = traffic interchange; UP = underpass; UPRR = Union Pacific Railroad; WB = westbound;

Task Assignment MPD 09-11 | Final Report| March 2013Interstate 10 – Phoenix to California Border, Multimodal Corridor Profile Study H-1

Appendix H: Existing reinforced concrete box culverts

Interstate 10 – Phoenix to California Border, Multimodal Corridor Profile StudyTask Assignment MPD 09-11 | Final Report| March 2013H-2

ADOT Structure Number

Milepost Structure Name Year Built Cells Width

(feet)Length (feet)

Sufficiency Rating

Condition Index

5358 1.2 RCB EB and WB 1949 3 10 32 69.99 Rehab5359 1.8 Cinnabar Wash RCB EB 1949 8 10 87 94.08 Good5360 1.8 Cinnabar Wash RCB WB 1963 8 10 86 97.08 Good5361 2.8 RCB EB and WB 1949 4 10 43 71.84 Rehab5363 4.1 RCB EB 1949 9 10 98 97.08 Good5364 4.1 RCB WB 1963 9 10 112 97.08 Good5365 7.0 La Paz Arroyo RCB EW 1949 4 12 59 71.30 Rehab5367 8.2 Gonzales Wash RCB WB 1950 5 12 74 94.04 Good5368 8.5 Gonzales Wash RCB EB 1950 2 10 21 93.18 Good5369 8.6 Gonzales Wash RCB EB 1950 2 10 21 93.18 Good5370 8.8 Gonzales Wash RCB WB 1950 4 12 73 93.18 Good5371 9.3 Gonzales Wash RCB 1950 4 12 72 71.30 Rehab5373 9.5 Gonzales Wash RCB 1950 4 12 75 71.30 Rehab5375 9.8 Gonzales Wash RCB EW 1950 4 12 60 71.30 Rehab5378 10.0 RCB EB and WB 1963 2 10 21 80.66 Good5379 10.2 Gonzales Wash RCB 1950 4 12 72 71.30 Rehab5381 10.3 Gonzales Wash RCB EW 1950 3 12 54 71.30 Rehab5383 11.1 RCB EB and WB 1932 2 10 21 71.30 Rehab5385 12.6 RCB EB and WB 1953 2 10 21 71.30 Rehab5387 14.0 RCB EB and WB 1963 3 8 27 71.30 Rehab5389 15.2 RCB EB and WB 1953 3 10 32 71.30 Rehab5391 16.2 La Cholla Wash RCB E 1953 9 10 98 96.07 Good5392 16.2 La Cholla Wash RCB W 1963 9 10 97 96.07 Good5393 17.8 RCB EB and WB and SFR 1964 3 10 37 72.25 Rehab5395 18.2 RCB EB-WB and SFR 1964 3 10 32 91.46 Good5397 18.5 RCB EB and WB 1964 6 10 64 72.25 Rehab5399 18.7 RCB EB and WB 1964 3 10 37 72.25 Rehab5401 19.6 RCB EB and WB 1964 4 10 43 70.98 Rehab5403 19.9 RCB EB and WB 1964 4 10 49 70.98 Rehab5405 20.8 RCB EB and WB 1960 4 10 60 70.00 Rehab5407 22.1 RCB EB and WB 1960 6 10 91 70.00 Rehab6103 26.8 Italian Wash RCB EB and WB 1953 6 10 64 70.00 Rehab5409 28.8 RCB EB and WB 1953 6 10 64 70.00 Rehab6110 30.4 RCB EB 1969 3 9 29 95.78 Good6111 30.4 RCB WB 1969 2 10 25 95.78 Good6108 30.7 RCB EB 1953 3 10 37 82.17 Good6109 30.7 RCB WB 1967 3 10 37 82.17 Good6200 31.5 RCB WB 1969 2 10 24 82.12 Good6238 31.5 RCB EB 1969 2 10 24 97.38 Good6239 31.6 RCB EB 1969 6 10 93 97.38 Good



(feet)Length (feet)

Sufficiency Rating

Condition Index

6240 31.6 RCB WB 1969 5 10 64 97.28 Good6241 32.5 RCB EB 1969 2 10 25 97.38 Good6242 32.5 RCB WB 1969 2 10 25 97.28 Good6243 32.6 RCB EB 1969 2 10 21 97.38 Good6244 32.6 RCB WB 1969 2 10 21 97.28 Good6245 34.0 RCB EB 1969 3 10 38 97.38 Good6246 34.0 RCB WB 1969 3 10 38 97.28 Good6247 34.1 RCB EB 1969 3 10 33 97.38 Good6248 34.1 RCB WB 1969 3 10 33 97.28 Good6249 34.2 RCB EB 1969 4 10 44 97.38 Good6250 34.2 RCB WB 1969 3 10 33 97.28 Good6251 34.3 RCB EB 1969 2 10 21 97.38 Good6252 34.3 RCB WB 1969 2 10 21 97.28 Good6253 35.2 RCB EB 1967 6 10 64 97.38 Good6254 35.2 RCB WB 1969 6 10 64 97.28 Good6255 35.2 RCB WB 1974 3 10 34 97.28 Good6256 35.2 RCB EB 1967 3 10 32 97.38 Good6257 39.9 RCB EB 1967 2 10 29 97.38 Good6258 39.9 RCB WB 1967 2 10 29 97.28 Good6259 40.2 RCB EB 1967 2 10 24 97.38 Good6260 40.3 RCB WB 1967 2 10 24 97.28 Good6261 42.8 RCB EB 1967 4 8 35 97.38 Good6262 42.8 RCB WB 1967 4 8 35 97.28 Good6263 43.0 RCB EB 1967 3 8 26 97.38 Good6264 43.0 RCB WB 1967 3 8 26 97.28 Good6265 43.1 RCB EB 1967 4 8 35 97.38 Good6266 43.1 RCB WB 1967 4 8 35 97.28 Good6267 43.4 RCB EB 1967 3 10 32 97.36 Good6268 43.4 RCB WB 1967 3 10 32 97.28 Good6269 43.7 RCB EB 1967 3 8 26 97.36 Good6270 43.7 RCB WB 1967 3 8 26 97.28 Good6271 44.0 RCB EB 1967 3 8 26 96.89 Good6272 44.0 RCB WB 1967 3 8 26 96.89 Good6273 44.2 RCB EB 1967 3 8 26 96.89 Good6274 44.2 RCB WB 1967 3 8 26 96.89 Good6275 48.2 RCB EB 1967 2 10 21 96.93 Good6276 48.2 RCB WB 1967 2 10 21 96.93 Good6277 51.8 RCB EB 1970 3 10 32 96.93 Good6278 51.8 RCB WB 1970 3 10 32 96.93 Good6205 65.6 RCB WB 1968 2 10 21 96.93 Good

Task Assignment MPD 09-11 | Final Report| March 2013Interstate 10 – Phoenix to California Border, Multimodal Corridor Profile Study H-3



(feet)Length (feet)

Sufficiency Rating

Condition Index

6204 65.6 RCB EB 1968 2 10 21 96.93 Good6281 67.6 RCB EB 1968 3 10 32 96.93 Good6282 67.6 RCB WB 1968 3 10 32 96.93 Good6283 67.6 RCB EB 1968 3 10 32 97.29 Good6284 67.6 RCB WB 1968 3 10 32 97.29 Good6207 67.7 RCB EB 1968 3 10 32 97.29 Good6286 67.7 RCB WB 1968 3 10 32 97.29 Good6208 67.7 RCB EB 1968 3 10 32 97.29 Good6288 67.7 RCB WB 1968 3 10 32 97.29 Good6289 67.8 RCB EB 1968 3 10 32 97.29 Good6290 67.8 RCB WB 1968 3 10 32 97.29 Good6206 67.8 RCB EB 1968 3 10 32 97.29 Good6292 67.8 RCB WB 1968 3 10 32 97.29 Good6209 67.9 RCB EB 1968 3 10 32 97.29 Good6294 67.9 RCB WB 1968 3 10 32 97.29 Good6210 68.0 RCB EB 1968 3 10 32 97.29 Good6296 68.0 RCB WB 1968 3 10 32 97.29 Good6297 68.1 RCB EB 1968 3 10 32 97.29 Good6298 68.1 RCB WB 1968 3 10 32 97.29 Good6299 68.1 RCB EB 1968 3 10 32 97.29 Good6300 68.1 RCB WB 1968 3 10 32 97.29 Good6211 69.2 RCB EB 1972 4 10 43 97.29 Good6212 69.2 RCB WB 1972 4 10 43 97.29 Good6213 69.3 RCB EB 1972 4 10 43 97.29 Good6214 69.3 RCB WB 1972 4 10 43 82.13 Good6215 69.4 RCB EB 1972 4 10 43 82.13 Good6216 69.4 RCB WB 1972 4 10 43 82.13 Good6217 70.5 RCB EB 1972 3 10 32 97.29 Good6218 70.5 RCB WB 1972 3 10 32 97.23 Good6219 70.5 RCB EB 1972 3 10 32 97.29 Good6220 70.5 RCB WB 1972 3 10 32 97.23 Good6221 70.6 RCB EB 1972 3 10 32 97.29 Good6222 70.6 RCB WB 1972 3 10 32 97.23 Good6223 70.6 RCB EB 1972 3 10 32 97.29 Good6224 70.6 RCB WB 1972 3 10 32 97.23 Good6225 70.6 RCB EB 1972 3 10 32 97.29 Good6226 70.6 RCB WB 1972 3 10 32 97.23 Good6227 70.7 RCB EB 1972 3 10 32 97.29 Good6228 70.7 RCB WB 1972 3 10 32 97.23 Good6229 70.7 RCB EB 1972 3 10 32 97.29 Good



(feet)Length (feet)

Sufficiency Rating

Condition Index

6230 70.7 RCB WB 1972 3 10 32 97.23 Good6231 70.7 RCB EB 1972 3 10 32 97.29 Good6232 70.7 RCB WB 1972 3 10 32 97.23 Good6382 74.1 RCB EB 1972 3 10 32 97.12 Good6383 74.1 RCB WB 1972 3 10 32 97.12 Good6384 74.1 RCB EB 1972 3 10 32 97.12 Good6385 74.1 RCB WB 1972 3 10 32 97.12 Good6386 74.1 RCB EB 1972 3 10 32 97.12 Good6387 74.1 RCB WB 1972 3 10 32 97.12 Good6388 74.2 RCB EB 1972 3 10 32 97.12 Good6389 74.2 RCB WB 1972 3 10 32 97.12 Good6390 76.2 RCB EB 1973 3 10 32 97.12 Good6391 76.2 RCB WB 1973 3 10 32 97.12 Good6392 76.2 RCB EB 1973 3 10 32 97.12 Good6393 76.2 RCB WB 1973 3 10 32 97.12 Good6394 76.2 RCB EB 1973 3 10 32 97.12 Good6395 76.2 RCB WB 1973 3 10 32 97.12 Good6396 76.3 RCB EB 1973 3 10 32 97.12 Good6397 76.3 RCB WB 1973 3 10 32 97.12 Good6398 76.3 RCB EB 1973 3 10 32 97.12 Good6399 76.3 RCB WB 1973 3 10 32 97.12 Good6400 80.8 RCB WB 1968 10 10 125 81.93 Good6401 80.9 RCB EB 1968 10 10 125 97.12 Good6403 81.7 RCB WB 1968 3 10 37 97.10 Good6402 81.7 RCB EB 1968 3 10 37 97.10 Good6405 81.8 RCB WB 1968 3 10 37 97.10 Good6404 81.8 RCB EB 1968 3 10 37 97.10 Good6407 81.8 RCB WB 1968 3 10 37 97.10 Good6406 81.8 RCB EB 1968 3 10 37 97.10 Good6408 82.0 RCB EB 1968 3 10 32 97.10 Good6409 82.0 RCB WB 1968 3 10 32 97.10 Good6410 82.1 RCB EB 1968 3 10 32 97.10 Good6411 82.1 RCB WB 1968 3 10 32 97.10 Good6412 82.2 RCB EB 1968 3 10 32 97.10 Good6413 82.2 RCB WB 1968 3 10 32 97.10 Good6414 82.3 RCB EB 1968 3 10 32 97.10 Good6415 82.3 RCB WB 1968 3 10 32 97.10 Good6416 82.5 RCB EB 1968 2 10 21 97.10 Good6417 82.5 RCB WB 1968 2 10 21 97.10 Good6418 82.7 RCB EB 1968 2 10 24 97.10 Good

Interstate 10 – Phoenix to California Border, Multimodal Corridor Profile StudyTask Assignment MPD 09-11 | Final Report| March 2013H-4



(feet)Length (feet)

Sufficiency Rating

Condition Index

6419 82.7 RCB WB 1968 2 10 24 97.10 Good6420 83.3 RCB EB 1968 3 10 32 97.10 Good6421 83.3 RCB WB 1968 3 10 32 97.10 Good6422 84.4 RCB EB 1968 3 10 32 97.10 Good6423 84.4 RCB WB 1968 3 10 32 97.10 Good6424 84.4 RCB EB 1968 3 10 32 97.10 Good6425 84.4 RCB WB 1968 3 10 32 97.10 Good6426 85.5 RCB EB 1968 2 10 24 97.21 Good6427 85.5 RCB WB 1968 2 10 24 97.26 Good6428 86.8 RCB EB 1968 6 10 74 97.21 Good6429 86.8 RCB WB 1968 6 10 74 97.26 Good6430 87.1 RCB EB 1968 6 10 64 97.21 Good6431 87.1 RCB WB 1968 6 10 64 97.26 Good6433 88.1 Tenneman Wash RCB WB 1968 2 10 24 97.26 Good6432 88.1 Tenneman Wash RCB EB 1968 2 10 24 97.21 Good6435 89.2 RCB WB 1968 6 10 74 97.10 Good6434 89.2 RCB EB 1968 6 10 74 97.21 Good6436 89.4 RCB EB 1968 2 10 21 97.21 Good6437 89.4 RCB WB 1968 2 10 21 97.26 Good6439 89.6 RCB WB 1968 3 10 37 97.26 Good6438 89.6 RCB EB 1968 3 10 37 97.21 Good6441 90.4 RCB WB 1968 4 10 49 97.26 Good6440 90.4 RCB EB 1968 4 10 49 97.21 Good6442 90.8 RCB EB 1970 6 10 64 97.21 Good6443 90.8 RCB WB 1970 6 10 64 97.26 Good6445 92.0 RCB WB 1970 3 10 45 97.26 Good6444 92.0 RCB EB 1970 3 10 45 97.21 Good6446 93.1 RCB EB 1970 3 10 33 97.21 Good6447 93.1 RCB WB 1970 3 10 33 97.26 Good6448 93.8 RCB EB and WB 1970 6 10 74 73.70 Rehab6449 94.3 RCB EB and WB 1970 2 10 29 72.48 Rehab

6450 94.3 RCB Ramp "B" 1970 2 10 21 97.91 Good6451 94.9 RCB North Frontage Road 1970 3 10 37 99.92 Good6452 94.9 RCB EB and WB 1970 3 10 45 72.48 Rehab6453 96.8 RCB EB and WB 1970 2 10 21 72.48 Rehab6454 97.7 RCB EB and WB 1970 3 10 32 72.48 Rehab6455 98.2 Four Mile Wash RCB 1970 4 10 43 72.48 Rehab6724 98.3 Ramp A RCB 1980 5 10 53 97.43 Good6726 98.3 Ramp C RCB 1980 5 10 53 97.43 Good6592 98.3 Wintersburg Road RCB 1970 2 10 29 84.77 Good



(feet)Length (feet)

Sufficiency Rating

Condition Index

6456 98.4 RCB EB and WB 1970 2 10 21 70.10 Rehab6725 98.4 RCB Ramp B 1980 5 8 43 97.43 Good6457 99.2 RCB EB 1970 5 10 53 96.89 Good6458 99.2 RCB WB 1970 5 10 53 96.99 Good6459 100.2 RCB EB and WB 1970 2 10 21 70.10 Rehab6564 101.4 RCB EB and WB 1974 2 10 21 70.10 Rehab6565 101.5 RCB EB and WB 1974 2 10 21 70.10 Rehab6566 101.7 RCB EB and WB 1974 3 10 32 70.10 Rehab6567 104.3 RCB EB and WB 1974 4 10 43 70.00 Rehab6833 109.7 Palo Verde Road RCB 1988 4 10 43 84.64 Good6577 120.7 RCB 1975 4 10 43 70.00 Rehab6578 121.7 RCB Ramp "C" EB 1975 5 10 54 97.81 Good6579 121.7 RCB Ramp "D" WB 1975 5 10 53 97.77 Good6661 122.3 RCB 1978 5 10 62 70.00 Rehab6789 134.9 RID Canal RCB 1984 3 10 32 70.00 Rehab6790 134.9 Drain Channel RCB 1983 8 12 107 100.00 Good6799 135.7 Papago Drain RCB 1984 5 12 64 72.87 Rehab6760 136.7 Papago Drain RCB 1985 4 12 51 71.38 Rehab

6776 137.767th Avenue Papago Drain RCB 1983 3 12 39 89.20 Good

6777 138.759th Avenue Papago Drain RCB 1984 2 12 25 78.92 Rehab

Task Assignment MPD 09-11 | Final Report| March 2013Interstate 10 – Phoenix to California Border, Multimodal Corridor Profile Study I-1

Appendix I: Horizontal and vertical geometry tables

Interstate 10 – Phoenix to California Border, Multimodal Corridor Profile StudyTask Assignment MPD 09-11 | Final Report| March 2013I-2

Vertical alignment data, eastbound I-10

PVI StationPVI

ElevationApproach Grade (%)

Departure Grade (%)

Curve Length (feet)

Curve Type

9+20.72 303.90 0.2000 2.5884 800 Sag27+07.61 247.56 2.5884 -1.9712 2400 Crest333+50 701.55 2.8200 -0.3220 1600 Crest358+00 693.60 -0.3220 4.0500 5000 Sag

386+00 807.00 4.0500 5.0000 400 Sag404+00 897.00 5.0000 0.1346 2200 Crest

456+00 904.00 0.1349 2.5000 800 Sag476+00 954.00 2.5000 1.7802 800 Crest519+00 1050.55 1.7802 1.9300 600 Crest527+00 1051.10 1.9300 1.2370 1000 Crest561+00 1093.15 1.2370 2.3000 1200 Sag578+00 1132.25 2.3000 1.7033 1000 Crest891+00 950.30 -0.2089 -1.6000 2400 Crest911+50 916.70 -1.6000 -0.8209 1000 Sag934+00 898.23 -0.8209 -0.8989 No Curve -954+00 880.25 -0.8989 0.2500 1000 Sag969+00 884.00 0.2500 0.0000 800 Crest994+50 884.00 0.0000 0.7571 800 Sag

1026+00 907.85 0.7571 0.4100 800 Crest1039+00 913.18 0.4100 1.1147 800 Sag1081+00 960.00 1.1147 1.3571 800 Sag1095+00 979.00 1.3571 0.8000 800 Crest1110+00 991.00 0.8000 1.3115 800 Sag1171+00 1071.00 1.3115 1.4625 No Curve -1195+00 1106.10 1.4625 1.3600 No Curve -1210+00 1126.50 1.3600 1.5000 No Curve -1225+00 1149.00 1.5000 1.7000 800 Sag1245+00 1183.00 1.7000 1.9710 800 Sag1276+00 1244.10 1.9710 1.6127 800 Crest1313+00 1304.00 1.6127 2.2000 800 Sag1325+00 1330.40 2.2000 1.9782 800 Crest1340+00 1360.07 1.9782 2.3467 800 Sag1352+00 1388.23 2.3467 1.9000 800 Crest1619+00 1593.00 -1.2179 0.3158 1600 Sag1657+00 1605.00 0.3158 -1.7500 800 Crest1701+00 1528.00 -1.7500 -0.2376 800 Sag1751+50 1512.00 -0.2376 -1.0943 800 Crest1778+00 1487.00 -1.0943 0.4444 800 Sag1805+00 1475.00 -0.4444 -0.7500 800 Crest


PVI StationPVI


Departure Grade (%)

Curve Length (feet)

Curve Type

1819+00 1464.50 -0.7500 0.7778 800 Sag1837+00 1478.50 0.7778 -0.2344 800 Crest1869+00 1471.00 -0.2344 -1.2273 800 Crest1913+00 1417.00 -1.2273 -1.4781 800 Crest1955+00 1354.92 -1.4781 -0.8218 800 Sag2020+00 1301.50 -0.8218 -0.9375 No Curve -2040+00 1282.75 -0.9375 -0.4435 800 Sag2071+00 1269.00 -0.4435 -1.1000 800 Crest2101+00 1236.00 -1.1000 -0.6515 800 Sag2120+00 1223.62 -0.6515 -0.4120 800 Sag2130+00 1219.50 -0.4120 -0.7840 800 Sag2140+00 1211.66 -0.7840 -0.4737 800 Sag2172+00 1195.50 -0.4737 0.1250 800 Sag2184+00 1198.00 0.1250 -0.2380 800 Crest2194+00 1195.62 -0.2380 0.0238 800 Sag2210+00 1196.00 0.0238 -0.0294 No Curve -2244+00 1195.00 -0.0294 0.1667 800 Sag2274+00 1200.00 0.1667 0.3850 800 Sag2288+00 1205.39 0.3850 -0.2500 800 Crest2298+00 1202.89 -0.2500 -0.0179 800 Sag2340+00 1202.14 -0.0179 0.1064 No Curve -2365+00 1204.80 0.1064 0.0308 No Curve -2425+00 1206.65 0.0308 0.1335 No Curve -2510+00 1218.00 0.1335 0.2293 No Curve -2530+00 1222.59 0.2293 0.5980 800 Sag2540+00 1228.57 0.5980 -0.1400 800 Crest2550+00 1227.17 -0.1400 0.1324 800 Sag2584+00 1231.67 0.1324 0.2222 No Curve -2614+00 1238.33 0.2222 0.3940 800 Sag2669+00 1260.00 0.3940 0.1522 800 Crest2713+00 1266.70 0.1522 0.9469 800 Sag2745+00 1297.00 0.9469 1.9412 800 Sag2779+00 1363.00 1.9412 1.4878 800 Crest2820+00 1424.00 1.4878 -0.3488 1400 Crest2863+00 1409.00 -0.3488 -0.2321 800 Sag2919+00 1396.00 -0.2321 -0.0465 800 Sag2962+00 1394.00 -0.0465 0.0500 800 Sag3000+50 1395.93 0.0500 -0.0500 800 Crest3039+00 1394.00 -0.0500 0.0455 800 Sag


PVI StationPVI


Departure Grade (%)

Curve Length (feet)

Curve Type

3072+00 1395.50 0.0455 0.3875 800 Sag3112+00 1411.00 0.3875 0.1186 800 Crest3140+00 1414.32 0.1186 0.2954 800 Sag3166+00 1422.00 0.2954 0.1231 800 Crest3231+00 1430.00 0.1231 0.0189 800 Crest3284+00 1431.00 0.0189 -0.2069 800 Crest3313+00 1425.00 -0.2069 -0.2692 800 Crest3339+00 1418.00 -0.2692 0.1822 800 Sag3371+00 1423.83 0.1822 -0.1667 800 Crest3394+00 1420.00 -0.1667 0.0435 800 Sag3417+00 1421.00 0.0435 -0.1000 800 Crest3437+00 1419.00 -0.1000 0.1000 800 Sag3458+00 1421.00 0.1000 -0.4296 800 Crest3483+00 1410.36 -0.4296 -0.3636 800 Sag3539+00 1390.00 -0.3636 -0.1084 800 Sag3594+00 1384.04 -0.1084 0.2942 800 Crest3620+00 1376.39 0.2942 -0.0610 800 Sag3692+00 1372.00 -0.0610 -0.1717 800 Crest

3729+86.75 1565.50 -0.1717 -0.0184 No Curve -3757+00 1365.00 -0.0184 -0.1117 No Curve -3851+00 1354.50 -0.1117 -2.0310 No Curve -3884+00 1348.00 -2.0310 -0.3529 No Curve -3934+00 1330.00 -0.3529 -0.1071 No Curve -3962+00 1327.00 -0.1071 -0.3866 No Curve -4080+00 1281.38 -0.3866 -0.2841 No Curve -4142+00 1266.00 -0.2841 -0.3419 No Curve -4200+50 1246.00 -0.3419 -0.2658 No Curve -4240+00 1235.50 -0.2658 -0.2794 No Curve -4287+00 1222.39 -0.2794 -0.1295 800 Sag4307+00 1219.80 -0.1295 0.1443 800 Sag4337+00 1224.13 0.1443 0.4724 800 Sag4395+00 1252.00 0.4724 -1.1175 1600 Crest4449+00 1192.70 -1.1175 0.5548 1600 Sag4491+00 1216.00 0.5548 0.8056 800 Sag4534+00 1250.64 0.8056 1.1340 800 Sag4574+00 1296.00 1.1340 0.3043 800 Sag4597+00 1303.00 0.3043 -0.3352 800 Crest4561+00 1281.55 -0.3352 0.1050 800 Sag4681+00 1283.65 0.1050 -0.7703 800 Sag



PVI StationPVI


Departure Grade (%)

Curve Length (feet)

Curve Type

4710+00 1261.31 -0.7793 -0.5087 800 Sag4778+00 1226.72 -0.5087 -0.4775 No Curve -4862+00 1190.00 -0.4370 -0.6579 800 Crest4900+00 1165.00 -0.6579 -0.5273 800 Sag4930+00 1149.18 -0.5273 -0.3354 800 Sag4944+00 1144.50 -0.3354 -0.6950 800 Crest4960+00 1133.38 -0.6950 -0.5000 800 Sag5018+00 1104.00 -0.5000 -0.0556 800 Sag5063+00 1101.50 -0.0556 -0.1266 No Curve -5092+00 1097.83 -0.1266 -0.0600 No Curve -5107+00 1096.93 -0.0600 0.0656 No Curve -5169+00 1101.00 0.0656 -0.3067 800 Crest5184+00 1096.40 -0.3067 0.4077 800 Sag5210+00 1107.00 0.4077 -0.2500 800 Crest5236+00 1100.50 -0.2500 0.1154 800 Sag5262+00 1103.50 0.1154 -0.1096 800 Crest5314+00 1097.80 -0.1096 0.0890 No Curve -5337+00 1099.85 0.0891 -0.8028 1000 Crest5349+00 1090.00 -0.8028 0.3871 1400 Sag5380+00 1102.00 0.3871 -1.0227 1000 Crest5402+00 1080.50 -1.0227 0.5156 1600 Sag5434+00 1096.00 0.5156 -0.1000 1000 Crest5454+00 1094.00 -0.1000 -1.0698 1200 Crest5497+00 1048.00 -1.0698 -0.6875 2200 Sag5537+00 1038.89 -0.6875 1.8222 1200 Sag5560+00 1080.00 1.8222 -1.2400 1800 Crest5574+00 1062.68 -1.2400 1.1470 1000 Sag5596+50 1088.45 1.1470 -0.9000 3300 Crest5618+00 1069.10 -0.9000 0.3400 1000 Sag5629+50 1073.00 0.3400 -0.9533 1100 Crest5640+00 1063.00 -0.9533 0.5903 1000 Sag5654+50 1071.56 0.5903 -0.5594 1900 Crest5670+00 1062.88 -0.5594 0.2000 1000 Sag5684+00 1065.69 0.2000 -0.3171 1800 Crest5698+00 1061.25 -0.3171 0.2365 1000 Sag5735+00 1070.00 0.2365 -0.2000 1600 Crest5750+00 1067.00 -0.2000 0.2000 1000 Sag5765+00 1070.00 0.2000 -0.2000 1200 Crest5780+00 1067.00 -0.2000 0.2000 1000 Sag


PVI StationPVI


Departure Grade (%)

Curve Length (feet)

Curve Type

5810+00 1073.00 0.2000 -0.2000 1000 Crest5820+00 1071.00 -0.2000 0.1446 1000 Sag5848+00 1075.05 0.1446 -0.0932 1000 Crest5870+00 1073.00 -0.0932 0.3611 1000 Sag5888+00 1079.50 0.3611 -0.0227 1000 Crest5910+00 1079.00 -0.0227 -0.2085 1000 Crest5929+00 1075.00 -0.2085 -2.6000 1400 Crest5944+00 1035.00 -2.6000 0.6250 1000 Sag5960+00 1046.00 0.6250 -0.5333 1000 Crest5973+00 1039.07 -0.5333 0.7266 1200 Sag6008+00 1064.50 0.7266 0.1781 800 Crest6034+00 1069.19 0.1781 1.1900 1000 Sag6058+00 1097.75 1.1900 -0.6269 1500 Crest6071+00 1089.60 -0.6269 0.5123 1000 Sag6095+00 1102.89 0.5123 -0.0959 800 Crest6124+00 1099.11 -0.0959 0.7061 1000 Sag6157+00 1122.41 0.7061 1.2947 1000 Sag6174+00 1142.42 1.2947 0.1422 1000 Crest6210+00 1149.54 0.1422 -0.1952 1000 Crest6264+00 1139.00 -0.1952 -0.9412 1000 Crest6298+00 1102.00 -0.9412 -0.4130 1000 Sag6321+00 1097.50 -0.4130 -0.0172 1000 Sag6350+00 1097.00 -0.0172 0.0462 No Curve -

6371+86.10 1098.00 0.0462 -0.5285 1000 Crest6405+00 1080.49 -0.5285 1.1007 1000 Sag6420+00 1097.00 1.1007 -1.5405 1700 Crest6442+00 1063.11 -1.5405 -0.4195 1000 Sag6458+50 1056.19 -0.4195 1.1361 1000 Sag6474+00 1072.15 1.1361 -2.0929 2100 Crest

6489+49.83 1041.36 -2.0929 -0.3125 1000 Sag6511+00 1034.64 -0.3125 1.1307 1000 Sag6640+00 1014.77 -1.0030 -0.1679 1000 Sag6668+00 1010.07 -0.1679 1.4312 1000 Sag6685+00 1034.40 1.4312 -2.0396 2400 Crest6709+00 985.45 -2.0396 1.6049 2400 Sag6735+50 1027.98 1.6049 -1.8999 2250 Crest6753+00 995.08 -1.8999 0.8892 1000 Sag6783+00 1021.92 0.8892 -1.9850 1000 Crest6799+00 990.16 -1.9850 0.1258 800 Sag


PVI StationPVI


Departure Grade (%)

Curve Length (feet)

Curve Type

6828+50 993.87 .1258 1.8100 800 Sag6841+50 1017.40 1.8100 -1.7408 1200 Crest6853+50 996.51 -1.7408 -0.2124 750 Sag6885+00 989.82 -0.2124 0.2012 1000 Sag

6909+51.45 994.75 0.2012 0.1949 No Curve -6926+75.05 998.22 0.1949 0.2012 No Curve -

6933+00 999.50 0.2012 1.8143 1000 Sag6947+00 1024.90 1.8143 -1.5833 1400 Crest6959+00 1005.90 -1.5833 0.2504 1000 Sag6970+00 1008.65 0.2504 0.1217 No Curve -6982+00 1010.11 0.1217 1.8000 1000 Sag6999+00 1040.50 1.8000 -1.5000 1400 Crest7014+00 1018.00 -1.5000 0.2600 1000 Sag7039+00 1024.50 0.2600 1.7308 1000 Sag7052+00 1047.00 1.7308 -1.9308 1400 Crest7065+00 1023.45 -1.9308 0.2000 1000 Sag7085+00 1027.45 0.2000 -1.4639 1000 Crest7103+00 1001.10 -1.4639 2.0239 1000 Sag7118+00 1031.60 2.0239 -0.4550 1000 Crest7156+00 1014.30 -0.4550 0.5453 1000 Sag7188+00 1031.75 0.5453 -0.2500 1000 Crest7209+00 1026.50 -0.2500 0.3970 1000 Sag7242+00 1039.60 0.3970 -0.2500 1000 Crest7262+00 1034.60 -0.2500 0.3125 1000 Sag7294+00 1044.60 0.3125 -0.3842 1000 Crest7313+00 1037.30 -0.3842 0.5851 1000 Sag7350+00 1059.18 0.5851 -0.5000 1000 Crest7366+00 1051.18 -0.5000 0.5000 1000 Sag7385+00 1060.70 0.5000 -0.4000 1000 Crest7414+50 1048.90 -0.4000 0.5000 1000 Sag7428+50 1055.85 0.5000 -0.3800 1000 Crest7443+55 1050.10 -0.3800 0.5000 1000 Sag7461+00 1058.89 0.5000 -0.6200 1000 Crest7473+25 1051.30 -0.6200 0.8400 1000 Sag7487+50 1063.08 0.8400 -1.3725 1300 Crest

7499+74.81 1046.22 -1.3725 2.2200 800 Sag7527+00 1106.86 2.2200 0.5840 1000 Crest


Vertical alignment data, westbound I-10

PVI StationPVI


Departure Grade (%)

Curve Length (feet)

Curve Type

9+47.50 303.95 0.1526 2.6000 800 Sag26+00 346.92 2.6000 -1.9800 2400 Crest46+00 307.32 -1.9800 1.1000 1200 Sag92+50 362.00 1.1000 4.0000 800 Sag

118+00 464.00 4.0000 -1.8571 2400 Crest146+00 412.00 -1.8571 +2.0385 800 Sag

159+00 438.5 +2.0385 0.3182 1400 Crest181+00 445.50 0.3182 1.1023 800 Sag225+00 494.00 1.1023 2.5750 1600 Sag243+00 540.35 2.5750 1.6659 1800 Crest265+00 577.00 1.6659 1.1000 800 Crest275+00 588.00 1.100 2.0035 800 Sag295+00 628.00 2.0035 1.4906 800 Crest321+50 667.50 1.4906 2.8333 800 Sag333+50 701.50 2.8333 -0.2361 1600 Crest358+50 695.48 -0.2361 4.1200 3000 Sag397+00 852.12 4.1200 0.2050 2400 Crest

NA 860.75 0.2050 2.3000 900 SagNA 888.33 2.3000 1.4910 1000 Crest

456+00 909.95 1.4910 2.5000 1000 Sag477+00 962.45 2.5000 1.9750 2300 Crest

NA 998.00 1.9750 1.6000 1200 Crest515+00 1030.00 1.6000 2.0585 800 Sag530+00 1062.00 2.0585 1.1765 1000 Crest561+00 1093.15 1.1765 2.2956 800 Sag578+00 1134.50 2.2956 1.7361 1000 Crest614+00 1197.00 1.7361 0.3333 1000 Crest638+00 1205.00 0.3333 -0.8515 800 Crest663+00 1184.00 -0.8515 -0.3613 800 Sag686+50 1175.51 -0.3613 -1.2812 1000 Crest715+00 1139.00 -1.2812 2.2333 1200 Crest730+00 1105.50 2.2333 -1.5000 800 Sag757+00 1065.00 -1.5000 -1.0000 800 Sag768+00 1054.00 -1.0000 -1.0238 No Curve -810+00 1011.00 -1.0238 -1.0571 No Curve -845+00 974.00 -1.0571 -0.8261 No Curve -868+00 955.00 -0.8261 -0.2089 800 Sag

NA NA -0.2089 -1.6000 2400 Crest911+50 916.70 -1.6000 -0.8209 1000 Sag


PVI StationPVI


Departure Grade (%)

Curve Length (feet)

Curve Type

934+00 898.23 -0.8209 -0.8989 No Curve -954+00 880.25 -0.8989 0.2500 1000 Sag969+00 884.00 0.2500 0.0000 800 Crest994+50 884.00 0.0000 0.7571 800 Sag

1026+00 907.85 0.7571 0.4100 800 Crest1039+00 913.18 0.4100 1.1137 800 Sag1081+00 960.00 1.1137 1.3571 800 Sag1095+00 979.00 1.3571 0.8000 800 Crest1110+00 991.00 0.8000 1.3115 800 Sag1171+00 1071.00 1.3115 1.4673 No Curve -1195+00 1106.10 1.4673 1.3600 No Curve -1210+00 1126.50 1.3600 1.5000 No Curve -1225+00 1149.00 1.5000 1.7000 800 Sag1245+00 1183.00 1.7000 1.9710 800 Sag1276+00 1244.10 1.9710 1.6127 800 Crest1313+00 1304.00 1.6127 2.2000 800 Sag1325+00 1330.40 2.2000 1.9782 800 Crest1340+00 1360.07 1.9782 2.3467 800 Sag1352+00 1388.23 2.3467 1.9000 800 Crest

1367+66.67 1418.00 1.9000 1.5000 800 Crest1391+00 1453.00 1.5000 2.0000 800 Sag1419+00 1509.00 2.0000 0.2128 3200 Crest1440+00 1504.53 0.2128 1.2686 600 Sag1460+00 1530.32 1.2686 1.4767 400 Sag1484+50 1566.50 1.4767 3.7516 1000 Sag1500+00 1624.65 3.7516 0.3094 2000 Crest1523+50 1632.15 0.3094 4.1460 1200 Sag1555+00 1757.00 4.1460 -3.6053 2400 Crest1591+00 1627.22 -3.6053 -1.3728 800 Sag1620+50 1587.94 -1.3728 0.3549 1600 Sag1658+00 1601.25 0.3549 -1.7500 800 Crest1701+00 1526.00 -1.7500 -0.2772 800 Sag1751+50 1512.00 -0.2772 -1.0943 800 Crest1778+00 1487.00 -1.0943 -0.3519 800 Sag1805+00 1473.50 -0.3519 -0.8846 800 Crest1818+00 1462.00 -0.8846 0.7317 800 Sag1838+50 1477.00 0.7317 -0.3797 800 Crest1878+00 1462.00 -0.3797 -1.3429 800 Crest1913+00 1415.00 -1.3429 -1.5127 800 Crest


PVI StationPVI


Departure Grade (%)

Curve Length (feet)

Curve Type

1950+00 1359.03 -1.5127 -0.8144 800 Sag1966+00 1346.00 -0.8144 -0.1875 800 Sag1982+00 1343.00 -0.1875 -1.4474 800 Crest2001+00 1315.50 -1.4474 -0.8421 800 Sag2020+00 1299.50 -0.8421 -0.7490 No Curve -2040+00 1284.52 -0.7490 -0.5309 800 Sag2073+00 1267.00 -0.5309 -1.1429 800 Crest2101+00 1235.00 -1.1429 -0.6515 800 Sag2120+00 1222.62 -0.6515 -0.3620 800 Sag2130+00 1219.00 -0.3620 -0.8340 800 Sag2140+00 1210.66 -0.8340 -0.4737 800 Sag2172+00 1196.50 -0.4737 0.1250 800 Sag2184+00 1197.00 0.1250 -0.2380 800 Crest2194+00 1194.62 -0.2380 0.0238 800 Sag2210+00 1195.00 0.0238 -0.0294 No Curve -2244+00 1194.00 -0.0294 0.1667 800 Sag2274+00 1199.00 0.1667 0.3850 800 Sag2288+00 1204.39 0.3850 -0.2500 800 Crest2298+00 1201.89 -0.2500 -0.0179 800 Sag2340+00 1201.14 -0.0179 0.0593 No Curve -2425+00 1206.18 0.0593 0.1332 No Curve -2510+00 1217.50 0.1332 0.2375 No Curve -2530+00 1222.25 0.2375 0.6050 800 Sag2540+00 1228.30 0.6050 -0.1300 800 Crest2550+00 1227.00 -0.1300 0.1357 800 Sag2585+00 1231.75 0.1357 0.2500 No Curve -2614+00 1239.00 0.2500 0.4000 800 Sag2669+00 1261.00 0.4000 0.1957 800 Crest2711+00 1269.22 0.1957 0.8260 800 Sag2741+00 1294.00 0.8260 2.0750 800 Sag2781+00 1377.00 2.0750 1.5000 800 Crest2817+00 1431.00 1.5000 0.5833 1400 Crest2841+00 1417.00 -0.5833 -0.3636 800 Sag2863+00 1409.00 -0.3636 -0.2453 800 Sag2916+00 1397.59 -0.2453 -0.0435 800 Sag2962+00 1394.00 -0.0435 0.0500 800 Sag3000+50 1395.93 0.0500 -0.0500 800 Crest3039+00 1394.00 -0.0500 0.0606 800 Sag3072+00 1396.00 0.0606 0.3875 800 Sag



PVI StationPVI


Departure Grade (%)

Curve Length (feet)

Curve Type

3112+00 1411.50 0.3875 0.1186 800 Crest3140+00 1414.82 0.1186 0.3146 800 Sag3166+00 1423.00 0.3146 0.1231 800 Crest3231+00 1431.00 0.1231 0.0189 800 Crest3284+00 1432.00 0.0189 -0.2069 800 Crest3313+00 1426.00 -0.2069 -0.2692 800 Crest3339+00 1419.00 -0.2692 0.1822 800 Sag3371+00 1424.83 0.1822 -0.1667 800 Crest3394+00 1421.00 -0.1677 0.0435 800 Sag3417+00 1422.00 0.0435 -0.1000 800 Crest3437+00 1420.00 -0.1000 0.1000 800 Sag3458+00 1422.10 0.1000 -0.4296 800 Crest3483+00 1411.36 -0.4296 -0.3636 800 Sag3539+00 1391.00 -0.3636 -0.1084 800 Sag3594+00 1385.04 -0.1084 -0.2942 800 Crest3620+00 1377.39 -0.2942 -0.0610 800 Sag3692+00 1373.00 -0.0610 -0.1717 800 Crest

3729+86.75 1366.50 -0.1717 -0.0184 No Curve -3757+00 1366.00 -0.0184 -0.1117 No Curve -3851+00 1955.50 -0.1117 -2.0310 No Curve -3884+00 1949.00 -2.0310 -0.3529 No Curve -3934+00 1331.00 -0.3529 -0.1071 No Curve -3962+00 1328.00 -0.1071 -0.3866 No Curve -4080+00 1282.38 -0.3866 -0.2841 No Curve -4142+00 1267.00 -0.3419 -0.3419 No Curve -4200+50 1247.00 -0.3419 -0.2658 No Curve -4240+00 1236.50 -0.2658 -0.2784 No Curve -4287+00 1223.39 -0.2784 -0.1295 800 Sag4307+00 1220.80 -0.1295 0.1443 800 Sag4337+00 1225.13 0.1443 0.5153 800 Sag4394+00 1254.50 0.5153 -1.1068 1600 Crest4449+00 1193.70 -1.1068 0.5548 2000 Sag4491+00 1217.00 0.5548 0.8056 800 Sag4536+00 1253.25 0.8056 1.1731 800 Sag4575+00 1299.00 1.1731 0.2800 800 Crest4600+00 1306.00 0.2800 -0.3253 800 Crest4652+00 1287.68 -0.3253 -0.2628 No Curve -4670+00 1282.95 -0.2628 0.1955 800 Sag4681+00 1285.10 0.1955 -0.7711 1000 Crest4708+00 1264.28 -0.7711 -0.5059 800 Sag


PVI StationPVI


Departure Grade (%)

Curve Length (feet)

Curve Type

4756+00 1240.00 -0.5059 -0.4763 No Curve -4788+00 1224.76 -0.3810 -0.4509 No Curve -4854+00 1195.00 -0.4509 -0.6522 800 Crest4900+00 1165.00 -0.6522 -0.5273 800 Sag4930+00 1149.18 -0.5273 -0.3332 800 Sag4960+00 1133.78 -0.3332 -0.4832 800 Crest4985+00 1121.70 -0.4832 -0.5061 No Curve -5018+00 1105.00 -0.5061 -0.0556 800 Sag5063+00 1102.50 -0.0556 -0.1407 No Curve -5092+00 1098.49 -0.1407 -0.0600 No Curve -5107+00 1097.59 -0.0600 0.0860 No Curve -5122+00 1098.88 0.0860 0.0664 No Curve -5169+00 1102.00 0.0664 -0.3067 800 Crest5184+00 1097.40 -0.3067 0.4077 800 Sag5210+00 1108.00 0.4077 -0.2500 800 Crest5236+00 1101.50 -0.2500 0.1154 800 Sag5262+00 1104.50 0.1154 -0.1096 800 Crest5314+00 1098.80 -0.1096 0.0890 No Curve -5337+00 1100.85 0.0891 -0.8208 1000 Crest5349+00 1091.00 -0.8208 0.3871 1400 Sag5380+00 1103.00 0.3871 -1.0227 1000 Crest5402+00 1079.50 -1.0227 0.5156 1600 Sag5434+00 1097.00 0.5156 -0.1000 1000 Crest5454+00 1095.00 -0.1000 -1.0698 1200 Crest5497+00 1049.00 -1.0698 -0.0454 1000 Sag5537+00 1038.89 -0.0454 1.8657 1200 Sag5560+00 1081.00 1.8657 -1.2400 1800 Crest5574+00 1063.64 -1.2400 1.1436 1000 Sag5596+00 1088.80 1.1436 -0.9500 3200 Crest5617+00 1068.85 -0.9500 0.4800 1000 Sag5629+00 1024.61 0.4800 -0.9645 1200 Crest5640+00 1064.00 -0.9645 0.5517 1000 Sag5654+50 1022.00 0.5517 -0.5252 1900 Crest5670+00 1063.86 -0.5252 0.2000 1000 Sag5684+00 1066.66 0.2000 -0.3150 1800 Crest5698+00 1062.25 -0.3150 0.2365 1000 Sag5735+00 1071.00 0.2365 -0.2000 1600 Crest5750+00 1068.00 -0.2000 0.2000 1000 Sag5765+00 1071.00 0.2000 -0.2000 1200 Crest5780+00 1068.00 -0.2000 0.2000 1000 Sag


PVI StationPVI


Departure Grade (%)

Curve Length (feet)

Curve Type

5810+00 1074.00 0.2000 -0.2000 1000 Crest5820+00 1072.00 -0.2000 0.1447 1000 Sag5858+00 1877.50 0.1447 0.0800 1000 Crest5873+00 1078.70 0.0800 0.3611 1000 Sag5891+00 1085.20 0.3611 -0.1800 1000 Crest5911+00 1081.60 -0.1800 -0.3991 1000 Crest5929+00 1074.09 -0.3991 -2.6060 1300 Crest5944+00 1036.00 -2.6061 0.7924 1000 Sag5958+50 1046.49 0.7924 -0.5291 1000 Crest5973+00 1038.82 -0.5291 0.7623 1000 Sag6008+00 1065.00 0.7623 0.2015 800 Crest6034+00 1070.67 0.2015 1.1667 1000 Sag6058+50 1099.25 1.1667 -0.6920 1400 Crest6071+00 1090.60 -0.6920 0.5123 1000 Sag6095+00 1102.89 0.5123 -0.0966 800 Crest6124+00 1100.09 -0.0966 0.6933 1000 Sag6155+45 1121.93 0.6933 1.4000 1000 Sag6173+00 1146.43 1.4000 0.1651 1000 Crest6204+50 1151.63 0.1651 -0.1955 1000 Crest6264+00 1140.00 -0.1955 -0.9485 1000 Crest6298+00 1102.25 -0.9485 -0.4257 1000 Sag6321+00 1097.96 -0.4257 0.0400 1000 Sag

6371+86.10 1100.00 0.0400 -0.5556 1000 Crest6405+00 1081.59 -0.5556 1.1340 1000 Sag6420+00 1098.60 1.1340 -1.6990 1700 Crest6440+00 1064.62 -1.6990 -0.4374 1000 Sag6459+00 1056.31 -0.4374 1.2593 1000 Sag6474+00 1071.68 1.2593 -2.1787 2000 Crest

6489+00.15 1042.52 -2.1787 -0.3582 1000 Sag6511+00 1034.64 -0.3582 1.1973 1000 Sag6640+00 1015.27 -0.9630 -0.1857 1000 Sag6668+00 1010.07 -0.1857 1.4547 1000 Sag6685+00 1034.80 1.4547 -2.0696 2400 Crest6709+00 985.13 -2.0696 1.5823 2400 Sag6735+50 1027.06 1.5823 -1.7988 2100 Crest6753+00 995.25 -1.7988 0.9089 1000 Sag6783+00 1022.35 0.9089 -2.0131 1000 Crest6799+00 990.14 -2.0131 0.1342 800 Sag6828+50 994.10 0.1342 1.8154 800 Sag6841+50 1017.70 1.8154 -1.7458 1200 Crest



PVI StationPVI


Departure Grade (%)

Curve Length (feet)

Curve Type

6853+50 996.75 -1.7458 -0.2121 800 Sag6887+00 989.64 -0.2121 0.2149 1000 Sag

6909+85.82 994.55 0.2149 0.2316 No Curve -6926+52.49 998.41 0.2316 0.2149 No Curve -

7065+00 1021.96 -1.9308 0.2000 1000 Sag7085+00 1025.96 0.2000 -1.4700 1000 Crest7103+00 999.50 -1.4700 2.0108 1000 Sag7118+00 1030.00 2.0108 -0.4556 1000 Crest7156+00 1014.30 -0.4556 0.5453 1000 Sag7188+00 1031.75 0.5453 -0.2500 1000 Crest7209+00 1026.50 -0.2500 0.3967 1000 Sag7242+00 1039.60 0.3967 -0.2500 1000 Crest7262+00 1034.60 -0.2500 0.3125 1000 Sag7294+00 1044.60 0.3125 -0.3842 1000 Crest7313+00 1037.30 -0.3842 0.5846 1000 Sag7350+00 1059.18 0.5846 -0.5000 1000 Crest7366+00 1051.18 -0.5000 0.5000 1000 Sag7385+00 1060.70 0.5000 -0.4000 1000 Crest7414+50 1048.90 -0.4000 0.5000 1000 Sag7428+50 1055.85 0.5000 -0.3800 1000 Crest7443+45 1050.10 -0.3800 0.5000 1000 Sag7461+00 1058.79 0.5000 -0.6900 1000 Crest7473+25 1050.34 -0.6900 0.8900 1000 Sag7486+00 1061.89 0.8900 -0.8400 1000 Crest

7500+97.70 1049.31 -0.8400 2.2200 1000 Sag7527+00 1106.86 2.2200 0.5840 1000 Crest


Horizontal alignment data, eastbound I-10

Location As-Built PI Station Degree of Curve (Dc)

Length (feet) Deflection Angle Superelevation

(feet/feet)Colorado River NA NA NA NA NAWest of Ehrenberg TI 24+64.05 15 1̂5’28” 3090.28 15 1̂5’28” Left 0.020East of Ehrenberg TI 60+22.68 0^30’00” 4004.11 20^01’14” Left

PT at 370+33.27 0 1̂5’04.25” 2113.79 5 1̂8’34 Right 0.015PC at 423+29.40 1^00’00” 4279.44 42^47’40” Left 0.015

Spiral Curve SC 473+38.43 1^30’00” 1378.06 20^40’15” 0.015Spiral Curve SC at 505+34.11 1^30’00” 1678.28 25 1̂0’45” 0.015

PC at 552+98.71 0^30’00” 1572.78 7^51’50” Right 0.015630+91.72 0^30’00” 3196.11 15^58’50” Left 0.015

Quartzsite Interchange PC 1033+00 0 1̂2’00” 1000.00 2^00’00” Right 0.0151162+87.32 0 1̂2’00.5” 2033.19 4^04’00” Left NA1283+71.34 0^06’00” 2066.67 2^04’00” Right NA1370+60.60 0^06’00” 15250.00 15 1̂5’00” Right 0.015NA 0^36’00” 5093.06 30^33’30” Right 0.015PC at 1540+65.58 0^30’17.44” 10496.66 52^29’00” Left 0.0151574+19.06 0^30.00524’ 1405.48 7^01’43.06” Left 0.015PC at 2218+08.55 0^06’00.6” 1727.54 1^43’50” Right No SuperPC at 4215+70.45 0 1̂0’02” 2858.99 4^46’44” Right 0.015PC at 4414+65.59 0^09’58.25” 2267.58 3^46’05” Left No SuperPC at 4920+96.90 0 1̂0’00” 2039.83 3^23’59” Right 0.015PC at 5845+81.69 0^30’00” 1020.11 5^06’02” Right 0.0245882+91.17 0^30’00” 2040.22 10 1̂2’04” Left 0.024PC at 5909+87.14 0^30’00” 1020.11 5^06’02” Right 0.024

SR85 5978+62.77 0^29’52” 7267.74 36 1̂0’06” 0.024Verrado Way 6350+89.14 0^30’09” 4202.33 21^06’40” 0.024W. of Perryville 6462+35.28 0^45’19” 1323.91 10^00’00” 0.036E. of Perryville 6481+73.56 0^59’26” 1026.45 10 1̂0’07” 0.039W. of SR303L 6556+02.51 0 1̂4’58” 1717.43 4 1̂7’00” NCW. of SR303L 6574+00.56 0 1̂5’00” 1878.41 4^41’46” NCE. of SR303L 6620+58.42 0 1̂5’00” 1827.38 4^34’06” NCE. of SR303L 6638+87.96 0 1̂4’58” 1831.69 4^34’06” NCW. side Bullard 6725+15.73 1^00’34” 1929.59 19^28’46” 0.039W. side Litchfield 6759+93.16 0^59’26” 1963.67 19^27’12” 0.039W. side Avondale Blvd 6917+88.10 0^45’00” 1666.67 12^30’00” 0.029W. side 107th 6979+66.61 0^45’22” 1454.96 11^00’00” 0.029E. side 99th 7057+25.27 0 1̂4’58” 962.56 2^24’00” NCEast of 99th Avenue 7057+25.26 0˚14’58” 962.56 2˚24’00” NCEast of 91st Avenue 7102+16.58 0˚15’00” 1626.67 4˚04’00” NCWest of 83rd Avenue 7151+30.09 0˚14’57” 912.80 2˚16’32” NC

Horizontal alignment data, eastbound I-10



(feet/feet)East of 83rd Avenue 7169+64.66 0˚15’00” 829.23 2˚04’23” NCEast of 83rd Avenue 7177+93.89 0˚15’00” 829.23 2˚04’23” NCEast of 83rd Avenue 7189+97.99 0˚08’01” 756.45 1˚00’39” NCWest of 75th Avenue 7202+55.25 0˚15’00” 829.23 2˚04’23” NCWest of 75th Avenue 7210+84.48 0˚15’00” 829.23 2˚04’23” NCWest of 67th Avenue 7262+66.11 Angle Point n/a n/a NCEast of 59th Avenue 7319+83.04 0˚29’55” 583.51 2˚54’34” NCEast of 59th Avenue 7326+41.14 0˚14’59” 731.26 1 4̊9’33” NCEast of 51st Avenue 7377+69.47 0˚15’03” 1324.14 3˚19’13” NCWest of 39th Avenue 7433+71.10 0˚14’58” 2456.51 6˚07’38” NCEast of 39th Avenue 7450+27.09 1˚13’10” 931.68 11˚21’45” 0.039East of 35th Avenue 7472+73.87 1˚05’50” 1871.97 20˚32’21” 0.048West of 31st Avenue 7495+33.45 0 4̊4’41” 1453.59 10 4̊9’36” 0.029


Horizontal alignment data, westbound I-10



(feet/feet)West of Ehrenberg TI 24+57.09 0^29’45.4” 3076.43 15 1̂5’28” LeftEast of Ehrenberg TI 58+30.23 0^32’54.3” 3650.57 20^01’14” Left

PT at 367+26.14 0 1̂5’00” 1806.67 4^31’00” Right 0.015PT at 404+86.93 0^30’00” 2473.33 12^22’00” Left 0.013PC at 407+79.86 0^30’00” 1665.83 8 1̂9’45” Right 0.015PC at 431+45.30 0^45’00” 3466.67 26^00’00” Left 0.015

Spiral Curve 0^45’00” 3154.70 23^39’37” Left NASpiral Curve PCC at 463+00 1^30’00” 418.98 6 1̂7’05” NASpiral Curve SC 474+09.89 1^27’31.6” 1041.55 15 1̂1’38” 0.015Spiral Curve SC at 502+74.58 1^27’31.6” 1742.76 25^25’23” 0.015

PC at 552+98.71 0^29’42.9” 1587.86 7^51’30” Right 0.015630+74.49 0^30’17” 3165.43 15^58’50” Left 0.015

Quartzsite Interchange PC 1033+00 0 1̂1’57” 1003.84 2^00’00” Right 0.0151162+83.49 0 1̂2’03” 2025.53 4^04’00” Left NA1360+64.85 0^05’59” 17349.92 17 1̂9’00” Right NAPC 1466+10.57 0^40’00” 4583.75 30^33’30” Right 0.015PC at 1540+65.58 0^30.29077’ 2624.88 13 1̂5’05.8” Left 0.015PT at 1589+17.84 0^40’ 2227.38 14^50’57.2” Left 0.0151578+10.43 0^40’00” 2227.38 14^50’57.2” Left 0.015PC at 2218+08.55 0^05’59.4” 1733.58 1^43’50” Right No Super5978+62.77 0^29’52” 7267.74 36 1̂0’06” 0.0246350+89.14 0^30’09” 4202.33 21^06’40” 0.024PC at 4215+70.45 0^09’58” 2875.67 4^46’44” Right 0.015PC at 4414+65.59 0 1̂0’01.75” 2254.42 3^45’06” Left No SuperPC at 4905+51.42 0 1̂0’00” 2039.83 3^23’59” Right 0.015PC at 5842+21.35 0^30’00” 1738.11 8^41’26” Left 0.0245890+44.34 1 1̂5’00” 1780.96 22 1̂5’43” Right 0.060PC at 5906+59.66 0^45’00” 1809.52 13^34’17” Left 0.036

SR85 5978+27.52 0^30’09” 7199.59 36 1̂0’06” 0.024Verrado Way 6351+09.27 0^29’52” 4242.12 21^06’40” 0.024W. of Perryville 6462+44.73 0^44’41” 1342.76 10^00’00” 0.036E. of Perryville 6481+63.95 1^00’34” 1007.28 10 1̂0’07” 0.039W. of SR303L 6557+83.12 0 1̂5’02” 2078.01 5 1̂2’26” NCW. of SR303L 6579+46.28 0 1̂5’00” 2247.94 5^37’11” NCE. of SR303L 6615+08.02 0 1̂5’00” 2205.35 5^30’48” NCE. of SR303L 6637+10.77 0 1̂5’02” 2200.16 5^30’48” NCW. side Bullard 6725+34.27 0^59’26” 1966.30 19^28’46” 0.039W. side Litchfield 6759+74.64 1^00’34” 1927.00 19^27’12” 0.039W. side Avondale Blvd 6918+22.47 0^45’00” 1666.67 12^30’00” 0.029

Horizontal alignment data, westbound I-10



(feet/feet)W. side 107th 6979+78.36 0^44’39” 1478.38 11^00’00” 0.029E. side 99th 7057+22.71 0 1̂5’02” 957.44 2^24’00” NCEast of 99th Avenue 7057+22.70 0˚15’02” 957.45 2˚24’00” NCEast of 91st Avenue 7106+72.14 0˚15’00” 1626.67 4˚04’00” NCWest of 83rd Avenue 7151+27.51 0˚15’03” 907.64 2˚16’32” NCEast of 83rd Avenue 7169+64.66 0˚15’00” 829.23 2˚04’23” NCEast of 83rd Avenue 7177+93.89 0˚15’00” 829.23 2˚04’23” NCEast of 83rd Avenue 7189+99.66 0˚07’58” 759.81 1˚00’39” NCWest of 75th Avenue 7202+58.60 0˚15’00” 829.23 2˚04’23” NCWest of 75th Avenue 7210+87.83 0˚15’00” 829.23 2˚04’23” NCWest of 67th Avenue 7262+68.29 Angle point n/a n/a NCEast of 59th Avenue 7319+86.34 0˚29’35” 590.09 2˚54’34” NCEast of 59th Avenue 7331+40.32 0˚15’04” 1856.03 4˚39’39” NCEast of 59th Avenue 7347+50.67 0˚14’59” 1229.28 3˚04’16” NCEast of 51st Avenue 7375+21.72 0˚23’58” 1238.62 4˚56’52” NCEast of 51st Avenue 7385+13.01 0˚15’01” 744.67 1˚51’50” NCWest of 39th Avenue 7433+65.42 0˚15’02” 2445.18 6˚07’38” NCEast of 39th Avenue 7450+08.81 1˚14’52” 910.66 11˚21’45” 0.039East of 35th Avenue 7472+64.32 1˚04’31” 1909.97 20˚32’21” 0.048West of 31st Avenue 7495+23.41 0 4̊5’19” 1433.56 10 4̊9’36” 0.029

Task Assignment MPD 09-11 | Final Report| March 2013Interstate 10 – Phoenix to California Border, Multimodal Corridor Profile Study J-1

Appendix J: Corridor type site assessment criteria

Interstate 10 – Phoenix to California Border, Multimodal Corridor Profile StudyTask Assignment MPD 09-11 | Final Report| March 2013J-2

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURENatural Resources Conservation Service

PART I (To be completed by Federal Agency)

1. Name of Project

2. Type of Project

PART II (To be completed by NRCS)

3. Date of Land Evaluation Request

5. Federal Agency Involved

6. County and State

1. Date Request Received by NRCS

YES NO

4.Sheet 1 of

NRCS-CPA-106(Rev. 1-91)

2. Person Completing Form

4. Acres Irrigated Average Farm Size

7. Amount of Farmland As Defined in FPPA

Acres: %

FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATINGFOR CORRIDOR TYPE PROJECTS

6. Farmable Land in Government Jurisdiction

Acres: %

3. Does the corridor contain prime, unique statewide or local important farmland? (If no, the FPPA does not apply - Do not complete additional parts of this form).

5. Major Crop(s)

8. Name Of Land Evaluation System Used 9. Name of Local Site Assessment System 10. Date Land Evaluation Returned by NRCS

Alternative Corridor For SegmentCorridor A Corridor B Corridor C Corridor D

PART III (To be completed by Federal Agency)

A. Total Acres To Be Converted DirectlyB. Total Acres To Be Converted Indirectly, Or To Receive ServicesC. Total Acres In Corridor

PART IV (To be completed by NRCS) Land Evaluation Information

A. Total Acres Prime And Unique FarmlandB. Total Acres Statewide And Local Important FarmlandC. Percentage Of Farmland in County Or Local Govt. Unit To Be ConvertedD. Percentage Of Farmland in Govt. Jurisdiction With Same Or Higher Relative Value

PART V (To be completed by NRCS) Land Evaluation Information Criterion Relative value of Farmland to Be Serviced or Converted (Scale of 0 - 100 Points)PART VI (To be completed by Federal Agency) CorridorAssessment Criteria (These criteria are explained in 7 CFR 658.5(c))

1. Area in Nonurban Use2. Perimeter in Nonurban Use3. Percent Of Corridor Being Farmed4. Protection Provided By State And Local Government5. Size of Present Farm Unit Compared To Average6. Creation Of Nonfarmable Farmland

MaximumPoints

15102020102557. Availablility Of Farm Support Services

8. On-Farm Investments9. Effects Of Conversion On Farm Support Services

10. Compatibility With Existing Agricultural Use

202510

160TOTAL CORRIDOR ASSESSMENT POINTS

PART VII (To be completed by Federal Agency)

Relative Value Of Farmland (From Part V) 100

Total Corridor Assessment (From Part VI above or a local siteassessment) 160

TOTAL POINTS (Total of above 2 lines) 260

1. Corridor Selected: 2. Total Acres of Farmlands to be Converted by Project:

5. Reason For Selection:

Signature of Person Completing this Part:

3. Date Of Selection: 4. Was A Local Site Assessment Used?

YES NO

DATE

NOTE: Complete a form for each segment with more than one Alternate Corridor

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0

Clear Form

NRCS-CPA-106 (Reverse)

CORRIDOR - TYPE SITE ASSESSMENT CRITERIA

The following criteria are to be used for projects that have a linear or corridor - type site configuration connecting two distantpoints, and crossing several different tracts of land. These include utility lines, highways, railroads, stream improvements, and floodcontrol systems. Federal agencies are to assess the suitability of each corridor - type site or design alternative for protection as farmlandalong with the land evaluation information.

(1) How much land is in nonurban use within a radius of 1.0 mile from where the project is intended?More than 90 percent - 15 points 90 to 20 percent - 14 to 1 point(s)Less than 20 percent - 0 points

(2) How much of the perimeter of the site borders on land in nonurban use?More than 90 percent - 10 points90 to 20 percent - 9 to 1 point(s)Less than 20 percent - 0 points

(3) How much of the site has been farmed (managed for a scheduled harvest or timber activity) more than five of the last10 years?More than 90 percent - 20 points90 to 20 percent - 19 to 1 point(s)Less than 20 percent - 0 points

(4) Is the site subject to state or unit of local government policies or programs to protect farmland or covered by private programs to protect farmland?Site is protected - 20 pointsSite is not protected - 0 points

(5) Is the farm unit(s) containing the site (before the project) as large as the average - size farming unit in the County ?(Average farm sizes in each county are available from the NRCS field offices in each state. Data are from the latest available Census ofAgriculture, Acreage or Farm Units in Operation with $1,000 or more in sales.)As large or larger - 10 pointsBelow average - deduct 1 point for each 5 percent below the average, down to 0 points if 50 percent or more below average - 9 to 0 points

(6) If the site is chosen for the project, how much of the remaining land on the farm will become non-farmable because of interference with land patterns?Acreage equal to more than 25 percent of acres directly converted by the project - 25 pointsAcreage equal to between 25 and 5 percent of the acres directly converted by the project - 1 to 24 point(s)Acreage equal to less than 5 percent of the acres directly converted by the project - 0 points

(7) Does the site have available adequate supply of farm support services and markets, i.e., farm suppliers, equipment dealers, processing and storage facilities and farmer's markets?All required services are available - 5 pointsSome required services are available - 4 to 1 point(s)No required services are available - 0 points

(8) Does the site have substantial and well-maintained on-farm investments such as barns, other storage building, fruit treesand vines, field terraces, drainage, irrigation, waterways, or other soil and water conservation measures?High amount of on-farm investment - 20 pointsModerate amount of on-farm investment - 19 to 1 point(s)No on-farm investment - 0 points

(9) Would the project at this site, by converting farmland to nonagricultural use, reduce the demand for farm supportservices so as to jeopardize the continued existence of these support services and thus, the viability of the farms remaining in the area?Substantial reduction in demand for support services if the site is converted - 25 pointsSome reduction in demand for support services if the site is converted - 1 to 24 point(s)No significant reduction in demand for support services if the site is converted - 0 points

(10) Is the kind and intensity of the proposed use of the site sufficiently incompatible with agriculture that it is likely tocontribute to the eventual conversion of surrounding farmland to nonagricultural use?Proposed project is incompatible to existing agricultural use of surrounding farmland - 10 pointsProposed project is tolerable to existing agricultural use of surrounding farmland - 9 to 1 point(s)Proposed project is fully compatible with existing agricultural use of surrounding farmland - 0 points

I-10 Multimodal Corridor Study Final Report 03-08-13€¦ · The study is called the I-10, Phoenix...

Documents

Transcript of I-10 Multimodal Corridor Study Final Report 03-08-13€¦ · The study is called the I-10, Phoenix...