Statewide Transportation Investment Strategy
May 16, 2008 Arizona Department of Transportation
Introduction Arizona is in a new era. As one of the nation's fastest-growing states, reality demands both a shift in the way we think about transportation and a new paradigm for planning. The state of Arizona is at a transportation funding crossroads; to put it simply, current funding cannot keep pace with the growing transportation needs of the state. We are only a few years away from the point at which Arizona can only pay to maintain existing roads; there will be no money for new road construction, or meaningful roadway improvements. Over the past four to five years, costs of building infrastructure have risen dramatically; yet the principal current revenue sources � like the state and federal gasoline tax and the vehicle license tax � have diminished and have not maintained their buying power. The gas tax, in particular, has yielded less real revenue for several reasons, including more fuel-efficient vehicles and the lack of any adjustment for inflation since the early 1990s. Consequently, not only do our tax dollars buy less; we also now pay a "time tax" � the time we must now spend stuck in traffic, away from our homes, families and communities. To do nothing is our worst option. With this in mind, the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) and local/regional leaders from across the state have embarked on the development of a new Statewide Transportation Planning Framework. Built with input from regional transportation planning entities, transit organizations, tribal governments, land management agencies, conservation groups, business and community leaders, and the Governor's Growth Cabinet, the Framework uses a comprehensive, statewide planning process to determine "multimodal" (roads, bus, rail, and more) transportation improvements and integrate those improvements with land use, community and economic development planning strategies. The guiding principles of the framework planning effort, as directed by the Governor, are as follows: Achieving multimodal balance (e.g. an appropriate balance among modes of transportation) Supporting smart growth and sustainable land use Tribal community involvement Supporting economic development and business community involvement Environmental and conservation community involvement Statewide collaboration with Councils of Governments (COGs), Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) and tribal governments
In establishing these principles, and to meet the equally important goals of sustainability and smart growth, the Governor recognizes that successful implementation of the Transportation Planning Framework will require environmentally sensitive planning and design, including critical, integrated land use/transportation strategies such as: Developing interconnected, integrated multimodal transportation systems both on a statewide basis and within the regions. Planning responsible urban growth patterns that have a strong jobs-to-housing balance, a hierarchy of mixed use activity centers, and a focus on creating quality, multimodal communities created from compact neighborhoods that embody a sense of place.
May 16, 2008
Page 1
M
Stimulating infill development within existing urban areas to utilize vacant land or redevelopment sites currently served with existing infrastructure, integrate with their surrounding neighborhoods, and provide a mix of activities that can thrive with multimodal connectivity to their surroundings. Facilitating public policy debate and decisions on transportation, smart growth, reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, improved air quality and energy independence, with an emphasis on the interrelated nature of these factors.
The development of the Preliminary Critical Needs Definition is one of the most important elements of the Statewide Planning Framework process. Its purpose is to identify the immediate and shortterm needs of transportation systems throughout the state, and to assist ADOT and the Governor's Office to better understand the magnitude of the transportation needs that cannot be met with currently available funding. Working in conjunction with the various COGs, MPOs, District Engineers and tribal governments, ADOT determined that the total identified transportation improvement needs are approximately $165 billion. As a result of the delineation of more than $165 billion required in transportation improvements across the state, no single statewide finance mechanism will suffice to meet these needs and a staged approach will be necessary to address these critical priorities. ADOT then worked with its regional partners to identify the highest priority needs within each region to build a Statewide Transportation Investment Strategy. In so doing it was determined that a portion of any new statewide sustainable transportation finance mechanism should be returned to cities, towns, counties and tribal governments throughout the state to fund local transportation improvements, which could include roads of regional significance, principal arterial roadways, transit extensions and enhancements, bicycle improvements, and pedestrian improvements. Recommended Statewide Transportation Investment Strategy The following table, attached spreadsheet and graphic illustrations, present the recommended Statewide Transportation Investment Strategy. The 30-year $42.583 billion program was determined to be distributed across modes in the following fashion:
Strategic Highway Projects Strategic Rail and Transit Projects and Programs Local Mobility Projects and Programs Transportation Enhancement and Walkable/Bikeable Communities
58% 18% 20% 4% 100%
49% 12% 39% 100%
$ 24.698 billion $ 7.665 billion $ 8.517 billion $ 1.703 billion
(1) (2)
(3) (4)
(5)
TOTAL
(1) Identified $23.421 for distribution in the following manner: MAG Region PAG Region Other Thirteen Counties TOTA L
$42.583 billion
$ 11.476 billion $ 2.811 billion $ 9.134 billion $ 23.421 billion
(2) Includes a conservation fund of $1.277 billion, or 3% of the total program, that will focus on ensuring connectivity of wildlife movement, biological habitat preservation and visual and scenic resource preservation as they relate to major transportati on improvements.
May 16, 2008
Page 2
M
(3) Identified for distribution in the following manner: Public Transit Projects and Programs High Speed Intercity Rail/Commuter Rail Light Rail, Modern Street Car and Related High Capacity Transit TOTA L
$ 1.215 billion $ 5.450 billion $ 1.000 billion $ 7.665 billion
(4) Identified for distribution in the following manner: 60% to MAG Region for distribution to cities, towns, tribes and county on a per capita basis 38% to remaining fourteen counties distributed to cities, towns, and counties using the HURF formula 2% to tribes outside of MAG Region on a per capita basis (5) Identified for distribution to cities, towns, tribes and counties on a per capita basis
Summary Observations The following provides highlights of key observations and recommended policy direction with regard to the Recommended Statewide Transportation Investment Strategy. Multimodal Balance for Improved Quality of Life The Strategic Rail and Transit Projects and Programs identified in this document focus on providing longer-distance commuter service in the vicinity of major metropolitan areas, intercity connectivity between those areas, and resources to expand or initiate rural and tribal transit, rideshare and vanpool programs statewide. As urban growth accelerates in Pinal County as an extension of both the Phoenix and Tucson Metropolitan Areas, the long-range concept of implementing higher speed, intercity rail between Phoenix and Tucson appears to be more feasible. It could potentially operate compatibly with peak-period-oriented commuter rail service, using much of the same infrastructure. Such improvements will reinforce current local and regional investments in Maricopa and Pima Counties, and will ensure that our major city pairs continue to enjoy the synergies that are critical to our state's economic future. A related benefit will be the opportunity to join forces with the major freight railroads on capital projects to benefit both freight operations and intercity personal mobility. Expanding rural and tribal transit services is a high priority statewide since the recently completed Rural Transit Needs Feasibility Study indicated that only 18 percent of needs are currently being met. The service expansion is intended to take a variety of forms and to dramatically enhance existing services or initiate new service where none exists today. This will include expanding transit connector programs, like that currently operating between Yuma and Wellton, as well as initiating new services between the three major Mohave County cities (Kingman, Bullhead City and Lake Havasu City) and between activity centers in Graham and Greenlee Counties. Additional programs include a statewide rideshare program, a statewide vanpool program, and enhanced elderly and disabled transportation services. Again, the proposed improvements will reinforce investments already made by local governments. High Capacity Roadway Corridor Development for Economic Sustainability The improvements identified for the highest capacity roadways, including interstate highways and other freeways, can clearly provide a wide variety of economic benefits to the state of Arizona, including enhanced mobility and safety. Widening existing interstate highways; building new corridors; improving interchange performance; building new, properly-spaced interchanges; and efficiently managing traffic flow will provide regional connectivity between activity centers, such as Phoenix, Tucson, Flagstaff, Prescott, Yuma
May 16, 2008
Page 3
M
and the Tri-City area of Mohave County, thus guiding and reinforcing growth within those economic hubs and along the Sun Corridor Megapolitan. In addition, such improvements strongly support transcontinental freight movement through the Southwest on corridors such as the interstate highways, and enhance and concentrate economic development opportunities along these routes (and at their intersections with other modes of travel, such as railroads and airports). These opportunities include intermodal goods movement, warehousing/distribution and new activity center development. State Highway System Improvements for Connectivity Enhancement The improvements identified for other state highways could also provide a variety of economic benefits to the state of Arizona, including enhanced mobility, safety and livability along the corridors. Widening existing state highways, improving existing intersections and constructing new intersections, adding safety and mobility enhancements (e.g. intersection lighting, passing lanes, climbing lanes), and managing traffic flow all support intercity connectivity and economic development. Such actions also reinforce the greater concentration of existing activity centers and improvement in quality of life. Flexibility to Address Local Transportation Needs The cost estimates identified through the Critical Needs Definition process of the Statewide Transportation Planning Framework program illustrate that local needs greatly exceed anticipated funding from the Highway User Revenue Fund (HURF) and other existing sources. Even if additional funding can be obtained, it will be necessary to make difficult choices between critical improvements off the State Highway System. As a result it is recommended that a percentage of the proceeds from any new statewide, sustainable transportation finance mechanism should be directed to the individual cities, towns, counties and tribes--enabling them to prioritize their transportation needs (including pedestrian, bicycle, bus transit, rail transit, roadway, bridge, traffic system management, etc.). Increased Mobility and Connectivity for Tribal Governments The improvements identified to enhance tribal mobility could clearly provide a wide variety of economic benefits to tribal governments, as well as enhanced mobility, greater safety and improved livability along transportation corridors. Widening existing interstates and state highways, improving existing intersections and interchanges, constructing new intersections and interchanges, and adding safety and mobility enhancements (such as intersection lighting, passing lanes and climbing lanes), will support connectivity between activity centers, enhance economic development opportunities within and between them, and improve quality of life through enhanced mobility and safety. Similarly, new or improved transit services within tribal communities can provide mobility choices to access healthcare, shopping, educational facilities and community services. Enhanced Environmental Mitigation The Critical Needs Definition process identified the need to construct or improve major transportation facilities that traverse areas of Arizona with unique environmental characteristics. Any transportation program must take special care to preserve and protect these areas, both for the sake of their plant and animal inhabitants, and as part of the state's natural heritage for the benefit of future generations. In addition, the Arizona economy is highly dependent on tourism, which in turn depends on the spectacular and remarkably diverse natural environment and destinations.
May 16, 2008 Page 4 M
It is therefore recommended that the formulation of any sustainable transportation finance mechanism to address critical transportation needs include funds to effect enhanced environmental mitigation. This effort would be in addition to existing requirements for avoidance and mitigation under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and applicable state laws. The program would focus on (a) ensuring connectivity of wildlife movement (e.g., adequate wildlife crossings of new and improved facilities), (b) biological habitat preservation, particularly in areas containing designated threatened, endangered or sensitive species, and (c) preservation of visual and scenic resources for both users and neighbors of transportation facilities. It would go beyond traditional mitigation measures associated with federal-aid highway projects, helping to attain the objectives of the Multiagency Wildlife Linkages Project and the Natural Infrastructure Geographic Information Systems Project. It is the intent of the Statewide Transportation Planning Framework program to work jointly with conservation groups who are building coalitions to advocate for improved smart growth policies in Arizona. Leveraging Transportation Enhancements for Transit Oriented Development and Walkable/Bikeable Communities In accordance with the guiding principles of the Statewide Transportation Planning Framework program, it is recommended that a designated percentage of new transportation funding be earmarked for transportation enhancements for transit oriented development and walkable/bikeable communities. It is envisioned that transportation enhancements could complement a variety of the Statewide Transportation Planning Framework's guiding principles, such as achieving multimodal balance. For example, the location of a rail station can stimulate surrounding community development with appropriate modal connectivity (transit oriented development). Smart Growth and sustainable land use can be achieved through the development of well planned, compact communities around a series of high density activity centers linked to their surrounding neighborhoods through an interconnected circulation system. Economic sustainability can be achieved through the revitalization of existing downtown areas or the development of new mixed use activity areas that become the focal points for pedestrian-friendly urban areas with a sense of place. Potential Public Private Partnership (PPP) Opportunities It has become apparent that a number of potential new high capacity roadway corridors could be excellent candidates for a PPP, including such projects as the North-South Freeway corridor through Pinal County from US 60 on the north to I-10 on the south; the Val Vista Expressway/Freeway corridor through Pinal and Maricopa Counties from the future SR 303L extension on the west to the future North-South Freeway corridor on the east; SR 303L extension south of SR 801 to I-8 in Maricopa County; SR 801 extension from SR 303L to SR 85; and the Hassayampa Freeway corridor from US 93 on the north to the future SR 303L extension in Maricopa County on the south. Each of these corridors: � � � Serve the anticipated rapid urban growth within the Sun Corridor Megapolitan. Have logical termini at other existing or future high capacity corridors. Traverse large property holdings, future master planned communities and mixed use developments where developers view such transportation investments as major assets and may be willing to dedicate right-of-way. � Have parallel routes for users not willing to pay for the use of such a corridor.
May 16, 2008
Page 5
M
As a result, in anticipation of the potential to implement a statewide sustainable transportation finance mechanism, it may be appropriate to target funding to stimulate development of such corridors. Currently, several development/property owner groups have emerged along these corridors to explore the opportunity of advancing corridor development through PPPs. In addition, ADOT, Federal Highway Administration, Maricopa Association of Governments and Pinal County have begun discussions with regard to initiating corridor studies in conjunction with an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) process to establish a corridor location as early as possible for each of these major transportation improvements, potentially enabling right-of-way dedications from adjacent developers and property owners. Conclusion The Statewide Transportation Investment Strategy outlines a comprehensive approach to transportation that will guide how our state grows and reinforce regional and local transportation investments. It fulfills the guiding principles, as directed by the Governor, to create: Interconnected multimodal transportation systems on a statewide basis and within regions. Responsible urban growth patterns that have a strong jobs-to-housing balance, mixed use activity centers, and a focus on serving multimodal communities created from compact neighborhoods that embody a sense of place. Infill development within existing urban areas to utilize vacant land or redevelopment sites currently served with existing infrastructure that could thrive with multimodal connectivity to their surroundings. Public policy debate and decisions that recognize the interrelation of transportation investments, sustainable land use, smart growth, preservation of our natural heritage, reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, improved air quality and energy independence.
The attached tables provide a detailed listing of strategic highway, rail and transit projects and programs. The tables include their location within the state and length (where applicable), their county location, anticipated beneficiaries and how each project or program relates to the overall Statewide Transportation Planning Framework guiding principles. Following the tables are the statewide maps identifying project improvement locations, and maps and tables for each county with identified project/program locations and their estimated values. Also attached is a summary listing of the funding distribution for Local Mobility Projects and Programs, as well as the Transportation Enhancement and Walkable/Bikeable Communities, funds by county, municipalities and tribal community. Although each project or program area does not address each guiding principle, they collectively move Arizona forward to a very large extent with regard to: Achieving multimodal balance through targeted rail and bus transit, and roadway investments. Linking land use, transportation and economic development planning to achieve smart growth decision-making. Respecting the environmental context of these projects or programs through the use of context sensitive planning and design processes, and programming resources in advance to address project enhancement and environmental mitigation. Creating economic opportunity on both state lands as well as tribal communities, while providing redundant routes and enhancing mobility and safety for residents statewide.
May 16, 2008
Page 6
M
Strategic Highway Projects
Project/ Program Project/Program Description Interstate Improvements (d, e) I-10: Widen to 6-lane from Verrado Way to 459th Avenue 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 US/SR 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 I-10 Mini-stack Capacity Reconstruction I 10: Widen to 6-lane from Riggs Road to I-8 I-10: Widen to 6-lane from Tucson to Benson I-17: Widen to 6-lane from New River to Cordes Junction I-17: Widen to 6-lane from Cordes Junction to Flagstaff I-17 Durango Curve Capacity Reconstruction I-19: Widen to 6-lane from Nogales to the County Line I-19: Widen to 8-lane from the County Line to Tucson I-40: Widen to 6-lane from McConnico TI to Jct US 93 South I-40: Widen to 6-lane from Golf Course Road to Townsend Winona Road Improvements (d, e) SR 64: Passing Lane System SR 74: Widen to 4-lane from I-17 to US 60 SR 77: Widen to 6-lane from Tangerine Road to Oracle Junction SR 77: Widen to 4-lane from Duece of Clubs to Pinedale Road SR 85: Widen to 6-lane from I-10 to I-8 SR 86: Widen to SR 89: Widen to SR 90: Widen to SR 92: Widen to Glenn/Kachina 4-lanefrom Kinney to Kitt Peak Turnoff 4-lane from Chino Valley to I-40 7-lane from Jct SR 92 to Central 7-lane from Campus Drive to From To Miles Estimated Cost (in millions of dollars) County Benefit COG/MPO/Tribal Community
Minimize impact to conservation areas Provide benefit to tribal communities Potentially utilize State Lands for corridor development Provide connectivity Support between existing and intracontinental emerging economic and regional activity centers freight movement
MP 90 MP 150 MP 167 MP 262 MP 242 MP 263 MP 195 MP 0 MP 30 MP 44 MP 160 MP 186 MP 1 MP 81 MP 343 MP 120 MP 131 MP 329 MP 321 MP 321 MP 188 MP 5 MP 256 MP 420 MP 213 MP 338 MP 442 MP 104 MP 32 MP 91
MP 120 MP 200 MP 310 MP 263 MP 340 MP 200 MP 30 MP 64 MP 72 MP 214 MP 240 MP 25 MP 91 MP 358 MP 155 MP 166 MP 363 MP 324 MP 325 MP 201 MP 10 MP 260 MP 446 MP 252 MP 347 MP 482 MP 120 MP 70 MP 118
30 33 48 21 77 5 30 34 28 54 54 24 10 15 35 35 34 3 4 13 5 4 26 39 9 40 16 38 27
450 619 500 730 525 1,015 1,250 510 1,403 577 1,041 30 600 85 150 501 247 340 15 30 130 295 44 411 351 100 438 320 280 155
Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa, Pinal Pima, Cochise Yavapai Yavapai, Coconino Maricopa Santa Cruz Pima Mohave Coconino Coconino Maricopa Pima, Pinal Navajo Maricopa Pima Yavapai Cochise Cochise Mohave Pima Gila Apache Pinal, Gila Navajo Coconino Mohave Yuma, La Paz Cochise, Graham
MAG MAG MAG, GRIC, CAAG PAG, SEAGO NACOG, FMPO, CYMPO NACOG, FMPO, CYMPO MAG �
� � �
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
� � � � � �
SEAGO PAG, San Xavier Indian Reservation WACOG FMPO, NACOG NACOG MAG PAG, CAAG NACOG MAG PAG, Tohono O'odham Nation CYMPO, NACOG SEAGO SEAGO WACOG PAG CAAG NACOG, Navajo Nation, The Hopi Tribe CAAG NACOG FMPO, NACOG, Navajo Nation, The Hopi Tribe � WACOG, MAG YMPO, WACOG SEAGO � � � �
� �
� �
SR 95: Widen to 4-lane from I-40 to Lake Havasu City SR 210: Extension from Alvernon Way to Valencia Road
� �
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � M � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
SR 260: Widen to 4-lane - Lions Sprigs Draw Section SR 264: Widen to 4-lane from US 191 South to the County Line 24 US 60:Widen to 4-lane from Jct 79 to Globe 25 US 60: Widen to 4-lane from Rim Road to Bourdon Ranch Road 26 US 89:Widen to 4-lane from I-40 to Tuba City 27 US 93:Widen to 4-lane from SB Ranch Road to Carrow Stephens 28 US 95: Widen to 4-lane from Avenue 9E to the County Line 29 US 191: Widen to 4-lane from I-10 to Jct US 70 30 New Roadway Corridors Fain Connector/Fain Road/SR-89A/ Great Western Corridor 31 SR 802 from the County Line to US 60 32 Initiate Yuma Expressway: from Avenue D to Avenue 15E 33 Sahuarita Road from Mission Road to SR 83 34 Vanderslice Road from Courtwright Road to Bullhead City Parkway 35 Acceleration/Expansion of Programmed Projects I-10: Broadway Curve from SR 202L to SR 51 36 I-17: McDowell Road to SR 101L 37 SR 202L: South Mountain Freeway from I-10 W to I-10 E 38 SR 303L: Enhanced Local Access from SR 801 to I-17 US 60: Grand Avenue Spot Projects SR 101L: Pima Freeway, HOV and General Purpose Lanes from I-17 to SR 51 41 SR 101L: Pima Freeway, General Purpose Lanes from SR 51 to Shea Boulevard 42 SR 101L: Pima Freeway, General Purpose Lanes from Shea Boulevard to SR 202L 43 SR 101L: Agua Fria Freeway, HOV and General Purpose Lanes from I-10 to I-17 44 SR 801 from SR 202L to SR 303L 45 SR 802 from SR 202L to Pinal County Line 46 Potential PPP Projects (c) SR 303L: Extension from SR 801 to I-8 47 Val Vista Freeway from SR 303L to N-S Corridor 48 Hassayampa Freeway from US 93 to SR 303L 49 Pinal County N-S Corridor from US 60 to I-10 50 SR 801 Extension from SR 85 to SR 303L 51 39 40 Notes:
� � � � � � � �
SR 169 Maricopa County Line Avenue D Mission Rd Courtwright Road MP 147 MP 202 I -10 W SR 801 NA I -17 SR 51 Shea Boulevard I -10 SR 202L SR 202L SR 801 SR 303L US 93 US 60 SR 85
SR-89 US 60 Avenue 15E SR 83 Bullhead Parkway MP 161 MP 215 I -10 E I -17 NA SR 51 Shea Boulevard SR 202L I -17 SR 303L Pinal County Line I-8 Pinal County N-S Corridor SR 303L I -10 SR 303L
35 9 17 24 14 14 13 24 28
289 771 170 231 30 900 (a) 1,053 (a) 1,100 (a) 1,400 (a) 13 (a) 93 (a)( b) 135 (a)(b) 36(a)(b) 257 (a)(b) 1,800(a)(b) 177 (a)(b) 368 340 630 393 94
Yavapai Pinal Yuma Pima Mohave Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Pinal Maricopa, Yavapai Pinal Maricopa
CYMPO, NACOG, FMPO CAAG, MAG YMPO PAG, Tohono O'odham Nation WACOG MAG MAG MAG MAG MAG MAG MAG MAG MAG MAG MAG CAAG, MAG, Tohono O'odham Nation Ak-Chin Indian Community, GRIC, CAAG, MAG MAG, NACOG CAAG, MAG, GRIC MAG �
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � May 16, 2008
7 10 17 23 14 5 49 46 84 53 10
(a) Supplemental funding provided to address enhanced local access, community priorities and other project scope changes (b) Acceleration funding provided to facilitate project implementation in advance of current construction program (c) Estimated cost shown is 10% of the construction cost as public sector contribution to induce project (d) Development Costs included within Interstate and US/SR Improvement categories (e) Maintenance Costs included within Interstate and US/SR Improvement categories
Strategic Rail and Transit Projects and Programs
Project/ Program Project/Program Description Public Transit Projects and Programs From To Miles Estimated Cost (in millions of dollars) County Benefit COG/MPO/Tribal Community
Minimize impact to conservation areas Provide benefit to tribal communities Potentially utilize State Lands for corridor development Support Provide connectivity between existing and intracontinental emerging economic and regional activity centers freight movement
52
Connecting Communities Bus Transit Program
222
CAAG, CYMPO, FMPO, MAG, NACOG, PAG, SEAGO, WACOG, YMPO, Ak-Chin Indian Community, Cocopah Tribe, Colorado Ricer Indian Tribes, Fort McDowell Apache, Cochise, Yavapai Nation, Fort Mohave Indian Tribe, Fort YumaCoconino, Gila, Graham, Greenlee, La Quechan Tribe, Gila River Indian Community, Havasupai Paz, Maricopa, Tribe, The Hopi Tribe, Hualapai Tribe, Kaibab-Paiute Mohave, Navajo, Tribe, Navajo Nation, Pascua Yaqui Tribe, Pueblo of Pima, Pinal, Santa Zuni, Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community, San Cruz, Yavapai, Yuma Carlos Apache Tribe, Tohono O'Odham Nation, Tonto Apache Indian Community, White Mountain Apache Tribe, Yavapai-Apache Nation, Yavapai-Prescott Tribe �
�
�
53
Enhancing Public Transportation Programs
225
CAAG, CYMPO, FMPO, NACOG, SEAGO, WACOG, YMPO, Ak-Chin Indian Community, Cocopah Tribe, Colorado Ricer Indian Tribes, Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation, Fort Apache, Cochise, Mohave Indian Tribe, Fort Yuma-Quechan Tribe, Gila Coconino, Gila, River Indian Community, Havasupai Tribe, The Hopi Graham, Greenlee, La Tribe, Hualapai Tribe, Kaibab-Paiute Tribe, Navajo Paz, Mohave, Navajo, Nation, Pascua Yaqui Tribe, Pueblo of Zuni, Salt River Pinal, Santa Cruz, Pima-Maricopa Indian Community, San Carlos Apache Yavapai , Yuma Tribe, Tohono O'Odham Nation, Tonto Apache Indian Community, White Mountain Apache Tribe, YavapaiApache Nation, Yavapai-Prescott Tribe � CAAG, CYMPO, FMPO, MAG, NACOG, PAG, SEAGO, WACOG, YMPO, Ak-Chin Indian Community, Cocopah Apache, Cochise, Tribe, Colorado Ricer Indian Tribes, Fort McDowell Coconino, Gila, Yavapai Nation, Fort Mohave Indian Tribe, Fort YumaGraham, Greenlee, La Quechan Tribe, Gila River Indian Community, Havasupai Paz, Maricopa, Tribe, The Hopi Tribe, Hualapai Tribe, Kaibab-Paiute Mohave, Navajo, Tribe, Navajo Nation, Pascua Yaqui Tribe, Pueblo of Pima, Pinal, Santa Zuni, Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community, San Cruz, Yavapai, Yuma Carlos Apache Tribe, Tohono O'Odham Nation, Tonto Apache Indian Community, White Mountain Apache Tribe, Yavapai-Apache Nation, Yavapai-Prescott Tribe
�
�
54
Transit Serving Elderly, Persons with Disabilities and Tribal Populations in Rural Areas
286
�
�
�
55
Statewi de Vanpool and Rideshare Programs
400
CAAG, CYMPO, FMPO, MAG, NACOG, PAG, SEAGO, WACOG, YMPO, Ak-Chin Indian Community, Cocopah Apache, Cochise, Tribe, Colorado Ricer Indian Tribes, Fort McDowell Coconino, Gila, Yavapai Nation, Fort Mohave Indian Tribe, Fort YumaGraham, Greenlee, La Quechan Tribe, Gila River Indian Community, Havasupai Paz, Maricopa, Tribe, The Hopi Tribe, Hualapai Tribe, Kaibab-Paiute Mohave, Navajo, Tribe, Navajo Nation, Pascua Yaqui Tribe, Pueblo of Pima, Pinal, Santa Zuni, Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community, San Cruz, Yavapai, Yuma Carlos Apache Tribe, Tohono O'Odham Nation, Tonto Apache Indian Community, White Mountain Apache Tribe, Yavapai-Apache Nation, Yavapai-Prescott Tribe � CAAG, CYMPO, FMPO, MAG, NACOG, PAG, SEAGO, WACOG, YMPO, Ak-Chin Indian Community, Cocopah Tribe, Colorado Ricer Indian Tribes, Fort McDowell Apache, Cochise, Yavapai Nation, Fort Mohave Indian Tribe, Fort YumaCoconino, Gila, Graham, Greenlee, La Quechan Tribe, Gila River Indian Community, Havasupai Paz, Maricopa, Tribe, The Hopi Tribe, Hualapai Tribe, Kaibab-Paiute Mohave, Navajo, Tribe, Navajo Nation, Pascua Yaqui Tribe, Pueblo of Pima, Pinal, Santa Zuni, Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community, San Cruz, Yavapai, Yuma Carlos Apache Tribe, Tohono O'Odham Nation, Tonto Apache Indian Community, White Mountain Apache Tribe, Yavapai-Apache Nation, Yavapai-Prescott Tribe �
�
�
56
Transit/Rail Planning, Marketing and Other Related Programs
82
�
�
High Speed Intercity Rail/Commuter Rail/Light Rail High Speed Urban-Urban Rail Connections Commuter Rail in Urban Corridors Light Rail, Modern Streetcar and Related High Capacity Transit MAG, PAG, CAAG, Gila River Indian Community, Salt Ri ver Pima-Maricopa Indian Community, Pascua Yaqui Tribe, Tohono O'odham Nation, Ak-Chin Indian Community � MAG, PAG �
57
5,450
Maricopa, Pinal, Pima
�
�
58
1,000
Maricopa, Pima
� M May 16, 2008
ARIZONA
UTAH
NEVADA ARIZONA
NAVAJO APACHE
MOHAVE
COCONINO
12
24 27
10 18 28 21
Flagstaff
11
35
YAVAPAI
Prescott
31
6
NEW MEXICO
ARIZONA
A NI OR NA F O LI IZ CA AR
15 23 26
LA PAZ
49 13 40 1 39 16 51 47
5
44
37 7 38
41 2
42
Phoenix Metropolitan Area
43 46 3 32 50 25
GILA
GREENLEE
45
36
YUMA
29 33 Yuma
MARICOPA
48
PINAL
GRAHAM
14
30
PIMA
ARI REP ZON UB A LIC OF ME XI
Tucson Metropolitan Area
17
22 4
34 9
COCHISE
CO
0
12.5 25 Miles
50
SA NTA CRUZ
8
20
19
Statewide Transportation Investment Strategy
Roadway Investments
X X X
May 16, 2008
Interstate Improvements US/SR Improvements New Corridors
X X
Potential PPP Roadway Projects Acceleration/Expansion of Programmed Projects
Programmed or Recently Completed Improvements for State Trade Corridors
ARIZONA
UTAH
NEVADA ARIZONA
NAVAJO APACHE
MOHAVE
COCONINO
12
24 27
10 18 28 21
Flagstaff
11
35
YAVAPAI
Prescott
31
6
NEW MEXICO
ARIZONA
A NI OR NA IF O L IZ CA AR
15 23 26
LA PAZ
49 13 40 1 39 16 51 47
5
44
37 7 38
41 2
42
Phoenix Metropolitan Area
43 46 3 32 50 25
GILA
GREENLEE
45
36
YUMA
29 33 Yuma
MARICOPA
48
PINAL
GRAHAM
14
30
PIMA
REP U
Tucson Metropolitan Area
17
22 4
ARI ZON A BLI CO FM EXI
34 9
COCHISE
CO
0
12.5 25 Miles
50
SA NTA CRUZ
8
20
19
Statewide Transportation Investment Strategy
Roadway Investments on Natural Infratstructure
X X X
May 16, 2008
Interstate Improvements US/SR Improvements New Corridors
X X
Potential PPP Roadway Projects Acceleration/Expansion of Programmed Projects Programmed or Recently Completed Improvements for State Trade Corridors
Sensitive Biological Lands
Pinal County Open Space Plan
AWC Roadless Character Area
ARIZONA
UTAH
NEVADA ARIZONA
NAVAJO APACHE
MOHAVE
COCONINO
Flagstaff
YAVAPAI
Prescott
NEW MEXICO
ARIZONA
A NI OR NA F O LI IZ CA AR
LA PAZ GILA
GREENLEE
Phoenix Metropolitan Area
YUMA
MARICOPA PINAL GRAHAM
Yuma
PIMA
ARI REP ZON UB A LIC OF ME XI
Tucson Metropolitan Area
COCHISE
0
15
30 Miles
60
CO
SA NTA CRUZ
Statewide Transportation Investment Strategy
High Speed Intercity and Commuter Rail Services
Intercity Rail Corridor Commuter Rail Services
May 16, 2008
ARIZONA
UTAH
NEVADA ARIZONA
NAVAJO APACHE
MOHAVE
COCONINO
Flagstaff
YAVAPAI
Prescott
NEW MEXICO
ARIZONA
A NI OR NA F O LI IZ CA AR
LA PAZ GILA
GREENLEE
MARICOPA YUMA
Phoenix Metropolitan Area
PINAL
GRAHAM
Yuma
PIMA
ARI REP ZON UB A LIC OF ME XI
Tucson Metropolitan Area
COCHISE
CO
SA NTA CRUZ
0
12.5 25 Miles
50
Statewide Transportation Investment Strategy
Rural Public Transportation Program
Potential New Connectors Current Connectors Public Transit Service Provider
May 16, 2008
Additional Community Served by Provider Potential New Service Provider
ARIZONA
UTAH
NEVADA ARIZONA
NAVAJO APACHE
MOHAVE
COCONINO
Flagstaff
YAVAPAI
Prescott
NEW MEXICO
ARIZONA
A NI OR NA IF O L IZ CA AR
LA PAZ GILA
GREENLEE
MARICOPA YUMA
Phoenix Metropolitan Area
PINAL
GRAHAM
Yuma
PIMA
ARI REP ZON UB A LIC OF ME XI
Tucson Metropolitan Area
COCHISE
CO
0
12.5 25 Miles
50
SA NTA CRUZ
Statewide Transportation Investment Strategy
Elderly and Persons with Disabilities Program
Secondary Service Area Potential Growth
May 16, 2008
Primary Transit Service
UTAH ARIZONA
Apache County Transporation Investment Strategy
NEW MEXICO
ARIZONA
Strategic Highway Projects
X
US/SR Improvements
Rural Public Transportation Program
NAVAJO
APACHE
Potential New Connectors
Current Connectors Public Transit Service Provider
24
Potential Service Provider
Additional Community Served by Provider
Elderly and Persons with Disabilities Program Primary Transit Service Secondary Service Area Potential Growth Local Mobility Project City
St. Johns
Springerville Eagar
GREENLEE
0 5 10 Miles
May 16, 2008
20
Project/ Program
Project/Program Description Strategic Highway Projects
Estimated Cost
US/SR Improvements SR 264: Widen to 4-lane from US 191 South to the 24 County Line Strategic Highway Projects Total Strategic Rail and Transit Projects and Programs Public Transit Projects and Programs 52 53 54 55 56 Connecting Communities Bus Transit Program Enhancing Public Transportation Programs Transit Serving Elderly, Persons with Disabilities and Tribal Populations in Rural Areas Statewide Vanpool and Rideshare Programs Transit/Rail Planning, Marketing and Other Related Programs
411,000,000 411,000,000
10,000,000 11,462,484 3,246,624 4,613,320 369,066 29,691,494
Strategic Rail and Transit Projects and Program Total Local Mobility Projects and Programs Apache County Eagar Springerville St Johns White Mountain Apache Tribe Navajo Nation Local Mobility Projects and Programs Total Transportation Enhancement and Walkable/Bikeable Communities Apache County Eagar Springerville St Johns White Mountain Apache Tribe Navajo Nation Transportation Enhancement and Walkable/Bikeable Communities Total
86,040,958 10,360,451 4,823,976 9,028,894 373,753 55,020,465 165,648,497
2,392,170 1,237,666 576,275 1,078,597 103,253 15,199,945 20,587,905
Apache County Total
626,927,896
May 16, 2008
GRAHAM
30
Willcox
SA N TA C R UZ
COCHISE
Tombstone
Huachuca City
Sierra 20 Vista
19
Bisbee
Douglas
REPUBLIC OF MEXICO
ARIZONA
0
2.5
5 Miles
Cochise County Transportation Investment Strategy
Strategic Highway Projects
X X
Interstate Improvements US/SR Improvements
Rural Public Transportation Program Potential New Connectors Public Transit Service Provider Additional Community Served by Provider
Elderly and Persons with Disabilities Program Primary Transit Service Potential Growth Secondary Service Area
Local Mobility Project City
May 16, 2008
ARIZONA NEW MEXICO
4
Benson
10
Project/ Program
Project/Program Description Strategic Highway Projects
Estimated Cost
Interstate Improvements 4 I-10: Widen to 6-lane from the County Line to Benson 212,917,000
US/SR Improvements 19 20 30 SR 90: Widen to 7-lane from Jct SR 92 to Central SR 92: Widen to 7-lane from Campus Drive to Glenn/Kachina US 191: Widen to 4-lane from I-10 to the County Line 15,000,000 30,000,000 11,481,000 269,398,000
Strategic Highway Projects Total Strategic Rail and Transit Projects and Programs Public Transit Projects and Programs 52 53 54 55 56 Connecting Communities Bus Transit Program Enhancing Public Transportation Programs Transit Serving Elderly, Persons with Disabilities and Tribal Populations in Rural Areas Statewide Vanpool and Rideshare Programs Transit/Rail Planning, Marketing and Other Related Programs
15,000,000 20,591,306 5,832,264 8,287,409 662,993 50,373,972
Strategic Rail and Transit Projects and Program Total Local Mobility Projects and Programs Cochise County Benson Bisbee Dougl as Huachuca City Sierra Vista Tombstone Willcox Local Mobility Projects and Programs Total Transportation Enhancement and Walkable/Bikeable Communities Cochise County Benson Bisbee Dougl as Huachuca City Sierra Vista Tombstone Willcox Transportation Enhancement and Walkable/Bikeable Communities Total
104,543,442 4,664,533 6,465,396 16,921,232 1,800,864 42,994,394 1,584,367 3,823,145 182,797,373
14,586,876 1,322,782 1,833,476 4,798,572 510,694 12,192,474 449,299 1,084,179 36,778,352
Cochise County Total
539,347,697
May 16, 2008
Fredonia
ARIZONA
UTAH
Page
MOHAVE
27 COCONINO
12
Williams
YAVAPAI
11
Flagstaff
6
Sedona
GILA
Coconino County Transportation Investment Strategy
Strategic Highway Projects
X X
Interstate Improvement US/SR Improvements Local Mobility Project City
Rural Public Transportation Program Current Connectors Potential New Connectors Public Transit Service Provider Additional Community Served by Provider
Elderly and Persons with Disabilities Program
Primary Transit Service
Potential Growth
0
Secondary Service Area
5 10 Miles 20
May 16, 2008
NAVAJO
Project/ Program
Project/Program Description Strategic Highway Projects
Estimated Cost
Interstate Improvements 6 11 I-17: Widen to 6-lane from the County Line to Flagstaff 382,000,000 1,041,000,000
I-40: Widen to 6-lanes from Golf Course Road to Townsend Winona Road US/SR Improvements 12 27 SR 64: Passing Lane System from I-40 to Tusayan US 89:Widen to 4-lane from I-40 to Tuba City
30,000,000 438,000,000 1,891,000,000
Strategic Highway Projects Total
Strategic Rail and Transit Projects and Programs Public Transit Projects and Programs 52 53 54 55 56 Connecti ng Communities Bus Transit Program Enhancing Public Transportation Programs Transit Serving Elderly, Persons with Disabilities and Tribal Populations in Rural Areas Statewide Vanpool and Rideshare Programs Transit/Rail Planning, Marketing and Other Related Programs 15,000,000 20,139,370 5,704,258 8,105,518 648,441 49,597,587
Strategic Rail and Transit Projects and Program Total Local Mobility Projects and Programs Coconino County Flagstaff Fredonia Page Williams Sedona Havasupai Tribe The Hopi Tribe Hualapai Tribe Kaibab Paiute Tribe Navajo Nation Local Mobility Projects and Programs Total Transportation Enhancement and Walkable/Bikeable Communities Coconino County Flagstaff Fredonia Page Williams Sedona Havasupai Tribe The Hopi Tribe Hualapai Tribe Kaibab Paiute Tribe Navajo Nation Transportation Enhancement and Walkable/Bikeable Communities Total
120,970,288 87,627,231 1,589,707 10,182,718 4,504,170 4,439,722 508,102 1,145,102 2,020 5,051 23,451,478 254,425,589
8,377,617 17,074,766 309,765 1,984,172 877,668 865,110 140,368 316,456 558 1,395 6,478,702 36,426,577
Coconino County Total
2,231,449,753
May 16, 2008
COCONINO
Star Valley Payson
23
NAVAJO
GILA
Miami
25
Globe
GRAHAM
PINAL
Hayden
Winkelman
Gila County Transportation Investment Strategy
Strategic Highway Projects
X
US/SR Improvements Local Mobility Project City
Rural Public Transportation Program Potential New Connectors Public Transit Service Provider Additional Community Served by Provider
Elderly and Persons with Disabilities Program
Primary Transit Service
Potential Growth
0
Secondary Service Area
3
6 Miles
12
May 16, 2008
Project/ Program
Project/Program Description Strategic Highway Projects
Estimated Cost
US/SR Improvements 23 25 SR 260: Widen to 4-lane (Lions Springs Draw Section) US 60:Widen to 4-lane from the County Line to Globe 44,000,000 144,000,000 188,000,000
Strategic Highway Projects Total Strategic Rail and Transit Projects and Programs Public Transit Projects and Programs 52 53 54 55 56 Connecting Communities Bus Transit Program Enhancing Public Transportation Programs Transit Serving Elderly, Persons with Disabilities and Tribal Populations in Rural Areas Statewide Vanpool and Rideshare Programs Transit/Rail Planning, Marketing and Other Related Programs
10,000,000 8,414,815 2,383,405 3,386,721 270,937 24,455,878
Strategic Rail and Transit Projects and Program Total Local Mobility Projects and Programs Gila County Globe Hayden Miami Payson Winkleman Star Valley White Mountain Apache Tribe San Carlos Apache Tribe Tonto Apache Tribe Local Mobility Projects and Programs Total Transportation Enhancement and Walkable/Bikeable Communities Gila County Globe Hayden Miami Payson Winkleman Star Valley White Mountain Apache Tribe San Carlos Apache Tribe Tonto Apache Tribe Transportation Enhancement and Walkable/Bikeable Communities Total
48,676,133 9,642,948 1,147,633 2,515,272 19,851,993 564,810 2,580,888 1,529,356 4,832,524 133,339 91,474,896
6,096,237 2,091,614 248,929 545,578 4,306,017 122,511 559,810 422,500 1,335,032 36,836 15,765,064
Gila County Total
319,695,838
May 16, 2008
GILA
GREENLEE
GRAHAM
Pima Thatcher
PINAL
Safford
30
COCHISE
Strategic Highway Projects
X
Graham County Transportation Investment Strategy
Rural Public Transportation Program Potential New Connectors Potential Service Provider
US/SR Improvements Local Mobility Project City
Elderly and Persons with Disabilities Program
Primary Transit Service
Potential Growth
Secondary Service Area
0 2.5 5 Miles 10
May 16, 2008
Project/ Program
Project/Program Description Strategic Highway Projects
Estimated Cost
US/SR Improvements 30 US 191: Widen to 4-lane from the County Line to Jct US 70 143,519,000 143,519,000
Strategic Highway Projects Total Strategic Rail and Transit Projects and Programs Public Transit Projects and Programs 52 53 54 55 56 Connecting Communities Bus Transit Program Enhancing Public Transportation Programs Transit Serving Elderly, Persons with Disabilities and Tribal Populations in Rural Areas Statewide Vanpool and Rideshare Programs Transit/Rail Planning, Marketing and Other Related Programs
10,000,000 5,425,169 1,536,620 2,183,475 174,678 19,319,942
Strategic Rail and Transit Projects and Program Total Local Mobility Projects and Programs Graham County Pima Safford Thatcher San Carlos Apache Tribe Local Mobility Projects and Programs Total Transportation Enhancement and Walkable/Bikeable Communities Graham County Pima Safford Thatcher San Carlos Apache Tribe Transportation Enhancement and Walkable/Bikeable Communities Total
31,053,856 2,096,812 9,413,025 4,575,776 4,647,668 51,787,137
4,146,669 581,856 2,612,075 1,269,759 1,283,964 9,894,323
Graham County Total
224,520,402
May 16, 2008
APACHE
Greenlee County Transporation Investment Strategy
Elderly and Persons with Disabilities Program
ARIZONA NEW MEXICO
Primary Transit Service Potential Growth Local Mobility Project City
GREENLEE
Secondary Service Area
Clifton
GRAHAM
Duncan
0
2
4 Miles
8
May 16, 2008
Project/ Program
Project/Program Description
Estimated Cost
Strategic Rail and Transit Projects and Programs Public Transit Projects and Programs 52 53 54 55 56 Connecting Communities Bus Transit Program Enhancing Public Transportation Programs Transit Serving Elderly, Persons with Disabilities and Tribal Populations in Rural Areas Statewide Vanpool and Rideshare Programs Transit/Rail Planning, Marketing and Other Related Programs 10,000,000 1,247,177 353,249 501,953 40,156 12,142,535
Strategic Rail and Transit Projects and Program Total Local Mobility Projects and Programs Greenlee County Clifton Duncan Local Mobility Projects and Programs Total Transportation Enhancement and Walkable/Bikeable Communities Greenlee County Clifton Duncan Transportation Enhancement and Walkable/Bikeable Communities Total
10,841,533 2,985,394 933,798 14,760,725
1,434,130 724,460 226,603 2,385,193
Greenlee County Total
29,288,453
May 16, 2008
M OMOHV VE H A AE
F LI CA
A IF NIAL OR C
NI OR A
A
YAVAPAI
ON IZ AR
Parker
LA PAZ
Quartzsite
MARICOPA
YUMA YUMA
29
La Paz County Transportation Investment Strategy
Strategic Highway Projects
X
US/SR Improvements Local Mobility Project City
Rural Public Transportation Program Potential New Connectors
Elderly and Persons with Disabilities Program
Primary Transit Service Potential Growth
0
Secondary Service Area
2.5 5 Miles 10
May 16, 2008
Project/ Program
Project/Program Description Strategic Highway Projects
Estimated Cost
US/SR Improvements 29 US 95: Widen to 4-lane from the County Line to the County Line transportation benefits accrue to Yuma County 0
Strategic Highway Projects Total Strategic Rail and Transit Projects and Programs Public Transit Projects and Programs 52 53 54 55 56 Connecting Communities Bus Transit Program Enhancing Public Transportation Programs Transit Serving Elderly, Persons with Disabilities and Tribal Populations in Rural Areas Statewide Vanpool and Rideshare Programs Transit/Rail Planning, Marketing and Other Related Programs
10,000,000 3,264,772 924,711 1,313,977 105,118 15,608,578
Strategic Rail and Transit Projects and Program Total Local Mobility Projects and Programs La Paz County Parker Quartzsite Colorado River Indian Tribes Local Mobility Projects and Programs Total Transportation Enhancement and Walkable/Bikeable Communities La Paz County Parker Quartzsite Colorado River Indian Tribes Transportation Enhancement and Walkable/Bikeable Communities Total
48,267,129 13,731,386 15,071,034 7,541,727 84,611,276
1,909,940 915,343 1,004,644 2,083,476 5,913,403
La Paz County Total
106,133,257
May 16, 2008
Wickenburg
YAVAPAI
LA PAZ
13
Cave Creek Surprise
39
Carefree
GILA
49
El Mirage
40
1
Youngtown Litchfield Park Buckeye Goodyear
51
44
Paradise 42 Peoria 37 Valley Glendale Scottsdale Phoenix 2
7 36 Tolleson Guadalupe 38
41
Fountain Hills
Tempe
43
MARICOPA
Avondale
47
45
Mesa Gilbert Queen Creek
46
Apache Junction
Chandler
PINAL
16
Gila Bend
Strategic Highway Projects Interstate Improvements X X US/SR Improvements
X X X
Maricopa County Transportation Investment Strategy
Elderly and Persons with Disabilities Program Primary Transit Service Potential Growth Local Mobility Project City Secondary Service Area
New Corridors Acceleration/Expansion of Programmed Projects
Potential PPP Roadway Projects
Rural Public Transportation Program Potential New Connectors Public Transit Service Provider Additional Community Served by Provider
May 16, 2008
Current Connectors
0 2.5 5 Miles
10
Project/ Program
Project/Program Description Strategic Highway Projects
Estimated Cost
Project/ Program
Project/Program Description Local Mobility Projects and Programs
Estimated Cost
Project/ Program
Project/Program Description Transportation Enhancement and Walkable/Bikeable Communities Total
Estimated Cost
Interstate Improvements 1 2 7 I-10: Widen to 6-lane from Verrado Way to 459th Avenue I-10 Mini-stack I-17 Durango Curve 450,000,000 619,000,000 1,250,000,000
Maricopa County Avondale Buckeye Carefree Cave Creek 600,000,000 501,000,000 Chandler El Mirage Gila Bend 900,000,000 1,053,000,000 1,100,000,000 1,400,000,000 13,000,000 93,000,000 135,000,000 36,000,000 257,000,000 1,800,000,000 177,000,000 Gilbert Glendale Goodyear Guadalupe Mesa Paradise Valley Peoria Phoenix Scottsdale Surpri se Tempe Tolleson 368,000,000 588,750,000 94,000,000 11,434,750,000 Wickenburg Youngtown Litchfield Park Queen Creek Fountain Hills Apache Junction 20,000,000 172,019,449 244,432,610 19,554,609 Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation Gila River Indian Community Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Communtiy Tohono O'odham Nation Local Mobility Projects and Programs Total 2,115,000,000 600,000,000 3,171,006,668
313,017,478 95,798,816 35,092,345 5,088,570 6,583,095 318,857,454 44,284,645 2,734,899 239,057,798 334,775,119 63,832,266 7,672,911 618,938,031 19,148,437 190,764,730 2,038,513,600 324,254,045 121,917,101 229,007,734 8,975,441 8,393,930 8,512,718 6,254,355 21,984,168 33,829,872 379,847 1,138,160 3,728,026 8,846,984 617,425 5,112,000,000
Mari copa County Avondale Buckeye Carefree Cave Creek Chandl er El Mirage Gila Bend Gi l bert Glendale Goodyear Guadalupe Mesa Paradise Valley Peoria Phoenix Scottsdale Surprise Tempe Tolleson Wickenburg Youngtown Litchfi el d Park Queen Creek Fountai n Hills Apache Junction Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation Gi la River Indian Community Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Communtiy Tohono O'odham Nation Transportation Enhancement and Walkable/Bikeable Communities Total
63,241,518 19,355,030 7,089,998 1,028,086 1,330,037 64,421,417 8,947,194 552,554 48,298,831 67,637,395 12,896,562 1,550,222 125,049,186 3,868,718 38,541,781 411,857,818 65,511,735 24,631,924 46,268,333 1,813,383 1,695,895 1,719,895 1,263,619 4,441,644 6,834,930 76,744 229,952 753,204 1,787,430 124,743 1,032,819,778
US/SR Improvements 13 16 SR 74: Widen to 4-lane from I-17 to US 60 SR 85: Widen to 6-lane from I-10 to I-8
Acceleration/Expansion of Programmed Projects 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 I-10: Broadway Curve from SR 202L to SR 51 I-17: McDowell Road to SR 101L SR 202L: South Mountain Freeway from I-10 W to I-10 E SR 303L: Enhanced Local Access from SR 801 to I-17 US 60: Grand Avenue Spot Projects SR 101L: Pima Freeway, HOV and General Purpose Lanes from I-17 to SR 51 SR 101L: Pima Freeway, General Purpose Lanes from SR 51 to Shea Boulevard SR 101L: Pima Freeway, General Purpose Lanes from Shea Boulevard to SR 202L SR 101L: Agua Fria Freeway, HOV and General Purpose Lanes from I-10 to I-17 SR 801 from SR 202L to SR 303L SR 802 from SR 202L to Pinal County Line
Potential PPP Projects (c) 47 49 51 SR 303L: Extension from SR 801 to I-8 Hassayampa Freeway from US 93 to SR 303L SR 801 Extension from SR 85 to SR 303L
Strategic Highway Projects Total
Strategic Rail and Transit Projects and Programs Public Transit Projects and Programs 52 54 55 56 Connecting Communities Bus Transit Program Transi t Serving Elderly, Persons with Disabilities and Tri bal Populations in Rural Areas Statewi de Vanpool and Rideshare Programs Transi t/Rai l Planning, Marketing and Other Related Programs
High Speed Intercity Rail/Commuter Rail/Light Rail 57 58 Hi gh Speed Urban-Urban Rail Connections Commuter Rail in Urban Corridors Light Rail, Modern Streetcar and Related High Capacity Transit
Strategic Rail and Transit Projects and Program Total
Maricopa County Total
20,750,576,446
May 16, 2008
UTAH
ARIZONA
Colorado City
Mohave County Transporation Investment Strategy
Strategic Highway Projects
X X X
Interstate Improvements US/SR Improvements New Corridors Programmed or Recently Completed Improvements for State Trade Corridors
ARIZONA
NEVADA NEVADA
Rural Public Transportation Program
COCONINO
Potential New Connectors
Public Transit Service Provider Elderly and Persons with Disabilities Program Primary Transit Service Secondary Service Area Potential Growth
MOHAVE
Kingman Bullhead City
10
35 28 21
Local Mobility Project City
YAVAPAI
Lake Havasu City
LA PAZ
0
5
10 Miles
20
May 16, 2008
Project/ Program
Project/Program Description Strategic Highway Projects
Estimated Cost
Interstate Improvements I-40: Widen to 6-lane from McConnico TI to Jct US 93 10 South US/SR Improvements 21 28 SR 95: Widen to 4-lane from I-40 to Lake Havasu City
577,000,000
130,000,000 320,000,000
US 93:Widen to 4-lane SB Ranch Road to Carrow Stephens New Roadway Corridors Vanderslice Road from Courtwright Road to Bullhead 35 Parkway Strategic Highway Projects Total
30,000,000 1,057,000,000
Strategic Rail and Transit Projects and Programs Public Transit Projects and Programs 52 53 54 55 56 Connecting Communities Bus Transit Program Enhancing Public Transportation Programs Transit Serving Elderly, Persons with Disabilities and Tribal Populations in Rural Areas Statewide Vanpool and Rideshare Programs Transit/Rail Planning, Marketing and Other Related Programs 15,000,000 31,112,525 8,812,285 12,521,897 1,001,752 68,448,459
Strategic Rail and Transit Projects and Program Total Local Mobility Projects and Programs Mohave County Bullhead City Colorado City Kingman Lake Havasu City Fort Mojave Indian Tribe Hualapai Tribe Kaibab Paiute Tribe Local Mobility Projects and Programs Total Transportation Enhancement and Walkable/Bikeable Communities Mohave County Bullhead City Colorado City Kingman Lake Havasu City Fort Mojave Indian Tribe Hualapai Tribe Kaibab Paiute Tribe Transportation Enhancement and Walkable/Bikeable Communities Total
144,776,890 43,510,560 4,645,985 29,447,345 60,847,599 780,840 1,364,703 192,937 285,566,860
17,898,016 10,663,182 1,138,597 7,216,695 14,911,990 215,715 377,013 53,301 52,474,508
Mohave County Total
1,463,489,827
May 16, 2008
UTAH ARIZONA
Navajo County Transporation Investment Strategy
Strategic Highway Projects
X
US/SR Improvements
COCONINO
NAVAJO
APACHE
Rural Public Transportation Program Potential New Connectors
Current Connectors Public Transit Service Provider
Potential Service Provider
Additional Community Served by Provider
Elderly and Persons with Disabilities Program Primary Transit Service Secondary Service Area
Winslow Holbrook
Potential Growth Local Mobility Project City
Snowflake Taylor
15
Show Low
26
Pinetop-Lakeside
GILA
0 5 10 Miles
May 16, 2008
20
Project/ Program
Project/Program Description Strategic Highway Projects
Estimated Cost
US/SR Improvements SR 77: Widen to 4-lane from Deuce of Clubs to Pinedale 15 Road 26 US 60: Widen to 4-lane from Rim Road to Bourdon Ranch Road
150,000,000 100,000,000 250,000,000
Strategic Highway Projects Total Strategic Rail and Transit Projects and Programs Public Transit Projects and Programs 52 53 54 55 56 Connecting Communities Bus Transit Program Enhancing Public Transportation Programs Transit Serving Elderly, Persons with Disabilities and Tribal Populations in Rural Areas Statewide Vanpool and Rideshare Programs Transit/Rail Planning, Marketing and Other Related Programs
10,000,000 17,954,796 5,085,501 7,226,290 578,103 40,844,690
Strategic Rail and Transit Projects and Program Total Local Mobility Projects and Programs Navajo County Pinetop/Lakeside Holbrook Show Low Snowflake Taylor Winslow White Mountain Apache Tribe The Hopi Tribe Navajo Nation Local Mobility Projects and Programs Total Transportation Enhancement and Walkable/Bikeable Communities Navajo County Pinetop/Lakeside Holbrook Show Low Snowflake Taylor Winslow White Mountain Apache Tribe The Hopi Tribe Navajo Nation Transportation Enhancement and Walkable/Bikeable Communities Total
102,848,529 6,770,431 8,818,628 16,068,597 8,022,107 6,664,770 15,987,319 10,651,957 5,870,951 27,153,652 208,856,941
7,926,085 1,162,318 1,513,943 2,758,586 1,377,200 1,144,178 2,744,632 2,942,708 1,621,908 7,501,463 30,693,021
Navajo County Total
530,394,652
May 16, 2008
MARICOPA
PINAL
Marana
YUMA
14
Oro Valley Tucson
4
COCHISE
18 Miles
PIMA
17
South Tucson 22
Sahuarita
9
34
REP U
ARI ZON BL A REP IC OF UB L IC M EXIC OF O ME X IC O
SA NTA CRUZ
Pima County Transportation Investment Strategy
Strategic Highway Projects
X X X
Interstate Improvement US/SR Improvements
Rural Public Transportation Program Public Transit Service Provider Additional Community Served by Provider Local Mobility Project City
Elderly and Persons with Disabilities Program
Primary Transit Service
New Corridors
Programmed or Recently Completed Improvements for State Trade Corridors
Potential Growth
Secondary Service Area
0 4.5 9
May 16, 2008
Project/ Program
Project/Program Description Strategic Highway Projects
Estimated Cost
Interstate Improvements 4 9 I-10: Widen to 6-lane from Tucson to the County Line I-19: Widen to 8-lane from Tucson to the County Line SR 77: Widen to 6-lane from Tangerine Road to the County Line SR 86: Widen to 4-lane from Kinney to Kitt Peak Turnoff SR 210: Extension from Alvernon Way to Valencia Road 517,083,000 1,403,000,000
US/SR Improvements 14 17 22 59,500,000 247,000,000 295,000,000
New Roadway Corridors 34 Sahuarita Road from Mission Road to Jct SR 83 231,000,000 2,752,583,000
Strategic Highway Projects Total
Strategic Rail and Transit Projects and Programs Public Transit Projects and Programs 52 54 55 56 Connecting Communities Bus Transit Program Transit Serving Elderly, Persons with Disabilities and Tribal Populations in Rural Areas Statewide Vanpool and Rideshare Programs 20,000,000 43,202,589 61,389,114 4,911,129
Transit/Rail Planning, Marketing and Other Related Programs High Speed Intercity Rail/Commuter Rail/Light Rail High Speed Urban-Urban Rail Connections 57 Commuter Rail in Urban Corridors 58 Light Rail, Modern Streetcar and Related High Capacity Transit
1,435,000,000 400,000,000 1,964,502,832
Strategic Rail and Transit Projects and Program Total Local Mobility Projects and Programs Pima County Marana Oro Valley Sahuarita South Tucson Tucson Pascua Yaqui Tribe Tohono O'odham Nation Local Mobility Projects and Programs Total Transportation Enhancement and Walkable/Bikeable Communities Pima County Marana Oro Valley Sahuarita South Tucson Tucson Pascua Yaqui Tribe Tohono O'odham Nation Transportation Enhancement and Walkable/Bikeable Communities Total
499,450,081 23,047,196 33,977,906 12,064,744 4,855,219 555,736,317 3,348,624 9,641,814 1,142,121,901
91,885,880 7,458,088 10,995,273 3,904,159 1,571,152 147,841,774 925,090 2,663,646 267,245,062
Pima County Total
6,126,452,795
May 16, 2008
Apache Junction Superior
MARICOPA
32
Queen Creek
25
GILA
Maricopa
3
48
Casa Grande
Coolidge
Florence
Kearny Winkelman
50
PINAL
GRAHAM
Eloy
Mammoth
14
PIMA
024 Miles 8
May 16, 2008
Strategic Highway Projects Interstate Improvements X X US/SR Improvements X New Corridors X Potential PPP Roadway Projects Programmed or Recently Completed Improvements for State Trade Corridors
Pinal County Transportation Investment Strategy
Rural Public Transportation Program Potential New Connectors Public Transit Service Provider
Elderly and Persons with Disabilities Program Primary Transit Service Secondary Service Area Potential Growth
Potential New Service Provider
Local Mobility Project City
Project/ Program
Project/Program Description Strategic Highway Projects
Estimated Cost
Project/ Program
Project/Program Description Local Mobility Projects and Programs
Estimated Cost
Interstate Improvements 3 I 10: Widen to 6-lane from Riggs Rd to I-8 500,000,000
Pinal County Apache Junction Casa Grande 25,500,000 207,000,000 Coolidge Eloy Florence 771,000,000 Kearny Mammoth 340,000,000 393,000,000 2,236,500,000 Superior Queen Creek Winkleman Maricopa Gila River Indian Communtiy 20,000,000 43,688,087 12,374,176 17,583,200 1,406,656 Pinal County Apache Junction 1,600,000,000 1,695,052,119 Casa Grande Coolidge Eloy Florence Kearny Mammoth Superior Queen Creek Winkleman Maricopa Gila River Indian Communtiy Ak-Chin Indian Community Tohono O'odham Nation Transportation Enhancement and Walkable/Bikeable Communities Total Ak-Chin Indian Community Tohono O'odham Nation Local Mobility Projects and Programs Total Transportation Enhancement and Walkable/Bikeable Communities
188,654,077 35,705,900 34,305,980 8,642,529 11,754,051 21,690,846 2,376,167 1,861,630 3,437,994 526,159 4,226 16,834,970 8,644,803 749,526 803,064 335,991,922
US/SR Improvements SR 77: Widen to 6-lane from County Line to Oracle 14 Junction 25 US 60:Widen to 4-lane from Jct SR 79 to Globe
New Roadway Corridors 32 SR 802 from the County Line to US 60
Potential PPP Projects (c) 48 50 Val Vista Freeway from SR 303L to N-S Corridor Pinal County N-S Corridor from US 60 to I-10
Strategic Highway Projects Total
Strategic Rail and Transit Projects and Programs Public Transit Projects and Programs 52 53 54 55 56 Connecting Communities Bus Transit Program Enhancing Public Transportation Programs Transit Serving Elderly, Persons with Disabilities and Tribal Populations in Rural Areas Statewide Vanpool and Rideshare Programs Transit/Rail Planning, Marketing and Other Related Programs
31,558,388 9,431,098 9,061,333 2,282,775 3,104,630 5,729,263 627,624 491,718 908,087 138,976 1,116 4,446,667 2,388,212 207,064 221,854 70,598,805
High Speed Intercity Rail/Commuter Rail/Light Rail 57 High Speed Urban-Urban Rail Connections Commuter Rail in Urban Corridors
Strategic Rail and Transit Projects and Program Total
Pinal County Total
4,338,142,846
May 16, 2008
PIMA
8
SANTA CRUZ
Patagonia
COCHISE
Nogales
ARIZONA REPUBLIC OF MEXICO
Strategic Highway Projects
X
Santa Cruz County Transportation Investment Strategy
Rural Public Transportation Program Potential New Connectors Elderly and Persons with Disabilities Program Primary Transit Service Secondary Service Area Potential Growth
0 2 4 Miles 8
Interstate Improvement Local Mobility Project City
Potential New Service Provider
May 16, 2008
Project/ Program
Project/Program Description Strategic Highway Projects
Estimated Cost
Interstate Improvements 8 I-19: Widen to 6-lane from Nogales to the County Line 510,000,000 510,000,000
Strategic Highway Projects Total Strategic Rail and Transit Projects and Programs Public Transit Projects and Programs 52 53 54 55 56 Connecting Communities Bus Transit Program Enhancing Public Transportation Programs Transit Serving Elderly, Persons with Disabilities and Tribal Populations in Rural Areas Statewide Vanpool and Rideshare Programs Transit/Rail Planning, Marketing and Other Related Programs
10,000,000 6,943,443 1,966,655 2,794,536 223,563 21,928,197
Strategic Rail and Transit Projects and Program Total Local Mobility Projects and Programs Santa Cruz County Nogales Patagonia Local Mobility Projects and Programs Total Transportation Enhancement and Walkable/Bikeable Communities Santa Cruz County Nogales Patagonia Transportation Enhancement and Walkable/Bikeable Communities Total
39,783,018 28,928,423 1,219,155 69,930,596
5,945,540 6,092,051 256,742 12,294,333
Santa Cruz County Total
614,153,126
May 16, 2008
COCONINO
MOHAVE
18
YAVAPAI
Chino Valley
Sedona
31
Clarkdale Jerome Cottonwood Prescott Valley
6
Camp Verde
Prescott
DeweyHumbolt
LA PAZ
GILA
49
MARICOPA Peoria
5
Strategic Highway Projects X Interstate Improvements
X X X
Yavapai County Transportation Investment Strategy
Rural Public Transportation Program Current Connectors Public Transit Service Provider Additional Community Served by Provider Local Mobility Project City Potential New Connectors
May 16, 2008
New Corridors Potential PPP Roadway Projects Programmed or Recently Completed Improvements for State Trade Corridors
US/SR Improvements
Elderly and Persons with Disabilities Program Primary Transit Service Secondary Service Area Potential Growth
0 3.5 7 Miles 14
Project/ Program
Project/Program Description Strategic Highway Projects
Estimated Cost
Project/ Program
Project/Program Description Local Mobility Projects and Programs
Estimated Cost
Interstate Improvements 5 6 I-17: Widen to 6-lane from New River to Cordes Junction I-17: Widen to 6-lane from Cordes Junction to County Line 525,000,000 633,000,000
Yavapai County Camp Verde Chino Valley Clarkdale 340,000,000 Cottonwood Jerome 289,000,000 Prescott Prescott Valley 41,250,000 1,828,250,000 Sedona Peoria Dewey-Humboldt Yavapai-Apache Tribe 20,000,000 33,526,773 9,496,095 13,493,563 1,079,485 Yavapai County Camp Verde Chino Valley 350,000,000 427,595,916 Clarkdale Cottonwood Jerome Prescott Prescott Valley Sedona Peoria Dewey-Humboldt Yavapai-Apache Tribe Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe Transportation Enhancement and Walkable/Bikeable Communities Total Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe Local Mobility Projects and Programs Total Transportation Enhancement and Walkable/Bikeable Communities
138,419,563 10,520,746 12,084,640 3,608,233 10,648,210 323,564 39,974,911 32,920,227 7,682,203 33,337 3,951,408 750,536 183,846 261,101,424
US/SR Improvements 18 SR 89: Widen to 4-lane from Chino Valley to I-40
New Roadway Corridors 31 Fain Connector/Fain Road/SR-89A/ Great Western Corridor
Potential PPP Projects (c) 49 Hassayampa Freeway from US 93 to SR 303L
Strategic Highway Projects Total Strategic Rail and Transit Projects and Programs Public Transit Projects and Programs 52 53 54 55 56 Connecting Communities Bus Transit Program Enhancing Public Transportation Programs Transit Serving Elderly, Persons with Disabilities and Tribal Populations in Rural Areas Statewide Vanpool and Rideshare Programs Transit/Rail Planning, Marketing and Other Related Programs
22,335,195 2,994,398 3,439,511 1,026,970 3,030,677 92,092 11,377,596 9,369,703 2,186,497 9,488 1,124,643 207,343 50,789 57,244,902
High Speed Intercity Rail/Commuter Rail/Light Rail 57 High Speed Urban-Urban Rail Connections Commuter Rail in Urban Corridors
Strategic Rail and Transit Projects and Program Total
Yavapai County Total
2,574,192,242
May 16, 2008
LA PAZ
LA PAZ
MARICOPA
29
YUMA
CA LI F AR OR N IZ O N IA A
33
Yuma Yuma
Wellton
Somerton San Luis
AR REP UBL IZON A IC OF ME XIC O
PIMA
Strategic Highway Projects
X X
Yuma County Transportation Investment Strategy
Rural Public Transportation Program Current Connectors
New Corridors Local Mobility Project City
US/SR Improvements
Elderly and Persons with Disabilities Program Primary Transit Service Secondary Service Area Potential Growth
0 2.5 5 Miles 10
May 16, 2008
Project/ Program
Project/Program Description Strategic Highway Projects
Estimated Cost
US/SR Improvements US 95: Widen to 4-lane from Avenue 9E to the County 29 Line New Roadway Corridors Initiate Yuma Expressway: from Avenue D to Avenue 33 15E Strategic Highway Projects Total Strategic Rail and Transit Projects and Programs Public Transit Projects and Programs 52 53 54 55 56 Connecting Communities Bus Transit Program Enhancing Public Transportation Programs Transit Serving Elderly, Persons with Disabilities and Tribal Populations in Rural Areas Statewide Vanpool and Rideshare Programs Transit/Rail Planning, Marketing and Other Related Programs
280,000,000
170,000,000 450,000,000
15,000,000 30,229,283 8,562,116 12,166,418 973,313 66,931,130
Strategic Rail and Transit Projects and Program Total Local Mobility Projects and Programs Yuma County Somerton San Luis Welton Yuma Cocopah Tribe Fort Yuma-Quechan Tribe Local Mobility Projects and Programs Total Transportation Enhancement and Walkable/Bikeable Communities Yuma County Somerton San Luis Welton Yuma Cocopah Tribe Fort Yuma-Quechan Tribe Transportation Enhancement and Walkable/Bikeable Communities Total
133,686,535 9,807,871 23,066,101 1,981,693 89,301,922 1,035,396 36,365 258,915,884
18,137,736 2,720,912 6,399,026 549,764 24,774,248 286,038 10,046 52,877,771
Yuma County Total
828,724,784
May 16, 2008
FINAL INITIATIVE LANGUAGE
20% LOCAL AND 4% ENHANCEMENT DISTRIBUTIONS SUMMARY
CITIES/TOWNS/COUNTIES/TRIBAL PROJECTIONS
20% Local Mobility
JURISDICTION APACHE EAGAR SPRINGERVILLE ST JOHNS Total COCHISE BENSON BISBEE DOUGLAS HUACHUCA CITY SIERRA VISTA TOMBSTONE WILCOX Total COCONINO FLAGSTAFF FREDONIA PAGE WILLIAMS SEDONA Total GILA GLOBE HAYDEN MIAMI PAYSON WINKLEMAN STAR VALLEY Total GRAHAM PIMA SAFFORD THATCHER Total GREENLEE CLIFTON DUNCAN Total LA PAZ PARKER QUARTZSITE Total MARICOPA TRIBAL COMMUNITIES AVONDALE BUCKEYE CAREFREE CAVE CREEK CHANDLER EL MIRAGE GILA BEND GILBERT GLENDALE GOODYEAR GUADALUPE MESA PARADISE VALLEY PEORIA PHOENIX SCOTTSDALE SURPRISE TEMPE TOLLESON WICKENBURG YOUNGTOWN LITCHFIELD PARK QUEEN CREEK FOUNTAIN HILLS APACHE JUNCTION Total $8.52 Billion HURF Proportion Dist. /1 $86,040,958 $10,360,451 $4,823,976 $9,028,894 $110,254,279 $104,543,442 $4,664,533 $6,465,396 $16,921,232 $1,800,864 $42,994,394 $1,584,367 $3,823,145 $182,797,373 $120,970,288 $87,627,231 $1,589,707 $10,182,718 $4,504,170 $4,439,722 $229,313,837 $48,676,133 $9,642,948 $1,147,633 $2,515,272 $19,851,993 $564,810 $2,580,888 $84,979,677 $31,053,856 $2,096,812 $9,413,025 $4,575,776 $47,139,469 $10,841,533 $2,985,394 $933,798 $14,760,725 $48,267,129 $13,731,386 $15,071,034 $77,069,549 $313,017,478 $14,330,594 $95,798,816 $35,092,345 $5,088,570 $6,583,095 $318,857,454 $44,284,645 $2,734,899 $239,057,798 $334,775,119 $63,832,266 $7,672,911 $618,938,031 $19,148,437 $190,764,730 $2,038,513,600 $324,254,045 $121,917,101 $229,007,734 $8,975,441 $8,393,930 $8,512,718 $6,254,355 $21,984,168 $33,829,872 $379,847 $5,112,000,000
4% Enhancement
$1.70 Billion Population Distribution /2 $2,392,170 $1,237,666 $576,275 $1,078,597 $5,284,708 $14,586,876 $1,322,782 $1,833,476 $4,798,572 $510,694 $12,192,474 $449,299 $1,084,179 $36,778,352 $8,377,617 $17,074,766 $309,765 $1,984,172 $877,668 $865,110 $29,489,099 $6,096,237 $2,091,614 $248,929 $545,578 $4,306,017 $122,511 $559,810 $13,970,695 $4,146,669 $581,856 $2,612,075 $1,269,759 $8,610,359 $1,434,130 $724,460 $226,603 $2,385,193 $1,909,940 $915,343 $1,004,644 $3,829,927 $63,241,518 $2,895,329 $19,355,030 $7,089,998 $1,028,086 $1,330,037 $64,421,417 $8,947,194 $552,554 $48,298,831 $67,637,395 $12,896,562 $1,550,222 $125,049,186 $3,868,718 $38,541,781 $411,857,818 $65,511,735 $24,631,924 $46,268,333 $1,813,383 $1,695,895 $1,719,895 $1,263,619 $4,441,644 $6,834,930 $76,744 $1,032,819,779 Total $88,433,128 $11,598,117 $5,400,251 $10,107,491 $115,538,987 $119,130,319 $5,987,314 $8,298,872 $21,719,803 $2,311,558 $55,186,868 $2,033,666 $4,907,324 $219,575,724 $129,347,905 $104,701,998 $1,899,472 $12,166,891 $5,381,838 $5,304,833 $258,802,937 $54,772,370 $11,734,561 $1,396,562 $3,060,850 $24,158,010 $687,321 $3,140,698 $98,950,372 $35,200,525 $2,678,668 $12,025,100 $5,845,535 $55,749,828 $12,275,662 $3,709,854 $1,160,401 $17,145,917 $50,177,070 $14,646,729 $16,075,678 $80,899,476 $376,258,996 $17,225,923 $115,153,845 $42,182,343 $6,116,656 $7,913,133 $383,278,871 $53,231,839 $3,287,453 $287,356,628 $402,412,514 $76,728,829 $9,223,133 $743,987,217 $23,017,154 $229,306,512 $2,450,371,418 $389,765,781 $146,549,025 $275,276,067 $10,788,824 $10,089,825 $10,232,614 $7,517,974 $26,425,812 $40,664,802 $456,591 $6,144,819,779
FINAL INITIATIVE LANGUAGE
20% LOCAL AND 4% ENHANCEMENT DISTRIBUTIONS SUMMARY
CITIES/COUNTIES/TRIBES PROJECTIONS
20% Local Distribution
JURISDICTION MOHAVE BULLHEAD CITY COLORADO CITY KINGMAN LAKE HAVASU CITY Total NAVAJO PINETOP/LAKESIDE HOLBROOK SHOW LOW SNOWFLAKE TAYLOR WINSLOW Total PIMA MARANA ORO VALLEY SAHUARITA SOUTH TUCSON TUCSON Total PINAL APACHE JUNCTION CASA GRANDE COOLIDGE ELOY FLORENCE KEARNY MAMMOTH SUPERIOR QUEEN CREEK WINKLEMAN MARICOPA Total SANTA CRUZ NOGALES PATAGONIA Total YAVAPAI CAMP VERDE CHINO VALLEY CLARKDALE COTTONWOOD JEROME PRESCOTT PRESCOTT VALLEY SEDONA PEORIA DEWEY-HUMBOLDT Total YUMA SOMERTON SAN LUIS WELTON YUMA Total NON-MARICOPA TRIBAL COMM. Total Cities,Towns,Counties, Tribes Cities, Towns and Tribes Counties Total Tribal Communities $8.52 Billion HURF Proportion Dist. /1 $144,776,890 $43,510,560 $4,645,985 $29,447,345 $60,847,599 $283,228,379 $102,848,529 $6,770,431 $8,818,628 $16,068,597 $8,022,107 $6,664,770 $15,987,319 $165,180,379 $499,450,081 $23,047,196 $33,977,906 $12,064,744 $4,855,219 $555,736,317 $1,129,131,463 $188,654,077 $35,705,900 $34,305,980 $8,642,529 $11,754,051 $21,690,846 $2,376,167 $1,861,630 $3,437,994 $526,159 $4,226 $16,834,970 $325,794,529 $39,783,018 $28,928,423 $1,219,155 $69,930,596 $138,419,563 $10,520,746 $12,084,640 $3,608,233 $10,648,210 $323,564 $39,974,911 $32,920,227 $7,682,203 $33,337 $3,951,408 $260,167,043 $133,686,535 $9,807,871 $23,066,101 $1,981,693 $89,301,922 $257,844,121 $170,400,000 $8,519,991,419 $6,324,231,315 $2,011,029,510 $184,730,594
4% Enhancement Dist.
$1.70 Billion Population Distribution /2 $17,898,016 $10,663,182 $1,138,597 $7,216,695 $14,911,990 $51,828,481 $7,926,085 $1,162,318 $1,513,943 $2,758,586 $1,377,200 $1,144,178 $2,744,632 $18,626,942 $91,885,880 $7,458,088 $10,995,273 $3,904,159 $1,571,152 $147,841,774 $263,656,326 $31,558,388 $9,431,098 $9,061,333 $2,282,775 $3,104,630 $5,729,263 $627,624 $491,718 $908,087 $138,976 $1,116 $4,446,667 $67,781,673 $5,945,540 $6,092,051 $256,742 $12,294,334 $22,335,195 $2,994,398 $3,439,511 $1,026,970 $3,030,677 $92,092 $11,377,596 $9,369,703 $2,186,497 $9,488 $1,124,643 $56,986,771 $18,137,736 $2,720,912 $6,399,026 $549,764 $24,774,248 $52,581,685 $47,075,676 $1,704,000,000 $1,356,156,997 $297,871,998 $49,971,005 Total $162,674,906 $54,173,742 $5,784,582 $36,664,040 $75,759,589 $335,056,859 $110,774,614 $7,932,748 $10,332,571 $18,827,182 $9,399,307 $7,808,948 $18,731,951 $183,807,321 $591,335,961 $30,505,285 $44,973,179 $15,968,903 $6,426,371 $703,578,091 $1,392,787,789 $220,212,464 $45,136,998 $43,367,313 $10,925,304 $14,858,680 $27,420,109 $3,003,791 $2,353,348 $4,346,081 $665,135 $5,342 $21,281,637 $393,576,202 $45,728,559 $35,020,474 $1,475,897 $82,224,930 $160,754,758 $13,515,144 $15,524,151 $4,635,203 $13,678,887 $415,657 $51,352,507 $42,289,930 $9,868,700 $42,825 $5,076,051 $317,153,814 $151,824,270 $12,528,782 $29,465,126 $2,531,457 $114,076,170 $310,425,806 $217,475,676 $10,223,991,419 $7,680,388,312 $2,308,901,508 $234,701,600
Notes: 1. Distribution based on 60 percent to Maricopa County cities,towns,county and tribes based on population and 38 percent to the remaining 14 counties, towns and cities based on the HURF distribution that is proportionally reduced by the Maricopa County gain and 2% to tribes in remaining 14 counties based on population. 2. Distribution to cities, towns, counties and tribes based on population. These are estimates and may materially change due to changes in population and fuel distribution factors over time.
