Statewide transportation investment strategy (final report)

              June 19, 2008 Page 1 N
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” transportation improvements ( roadways,
rail, bus, bicycle, pedestrian) and integrate those improvements with land use, community and
economic development planning and open space preservation strategies.
The guiding principles of the framework planning program, 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.
June 19, 2008 Page 2 N
􀂃 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 security, 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 short-term
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 58% $ 24.698 billion ( 1) ( 2)
􀂃 Strategic Rail and Transit Projects
and Programs 18% $ 7.665 billion ( 3)
􀂃 Local Mobility Projects and Programs 20% $ 8.517 billion ( 4)
􀂃 Transportation Enhancement and
Walkable/ Bikeable Communities 4% $ 1.703 billion ( 5)
TOTAL 100% $ 42.583 billion
( 1) Identified $ 23.421 for distribution in the following manner:
􀂃 MAG Region 49% $ 11.476 billion
􀂃 PAG Region 12% $ 2.811 billion
􀂃 Other Thirteen Counties 39% $ 9.134 billion
􀂃 TOTAL 100% $ 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
transportation improvements.
June 19, 2008 Page 3 N
( 3) Identified for distribution in the following manner:
􀂃 Public Transit Projects and Programs $ 1.215 billion
􀂃 High Speed Intercity Rail/ Commuter Rail Projects $ 5.450 billion
􀂃 Light Rail, Modern Street Car and Related High Capacity Transit Projects $ 1.000 billion
􀂃 TOTAL $ 7.665 billion
( 4) Identified for distribution in the following manner:
􀂃 60% to MAG Region for distribution to cities, towns, tribes and Maricopa 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 that
contributed to the development of 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 traffic interchange performance; building new,
properly- spaced interchanges; and efficiently managing traffic flow will provide regional
June 19, 2008 Page 4 N
connectivity between activity centers, such as Phoenix, Tucson, Flagstaff, Prescott, Yuma
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, bus pullouts, transit shelters), 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
June 19, 2008 Page 5 N
economy is highly dependent on tourism, which in turn depends on the spectacular and
remarkably diverse natural environment and destinations.
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 and utilize context sensitive planning and design processes to
plan improvements. 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 Multi-agency
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 and help fund improvements.
June 19, 2008 Page 6 N
􀃠 Have parallel routes for users not willing to pay for the use of such a corridor.
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 security.
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, 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.
Benefit
County COG/ MPO/ Tribal Community
1
I- 10: Widen to 6- lane from Verrado Way to 459th
Avenue MP 90 MP 120 30 450 Maricopa MAG
􀂥 􀂥 􀂥 􀂥
2 I- 10 Mini- stack Capacity Reconstruction MP 150 619 Maricopa MAG 􀂥 􀂥 􀂥
3 I- 10: Widen to 6- lane from SR 202L to Riggs Road MP 160 MP 167 7 150 Maricopa MAG 􀂥 􀂥 􀂥 􀂥
4 I- 10: Widen to 6- lane from Riggs Road to I- 8 MP 167 MP 200 33 500 Maricopa, Pinal MAG, GRIC, CAAG 􀂥 􀂥 􀂥 􀂥 􀂥
5
I- 10: Widen to 6- lane from I- 19 Junction to Houghton
Road MP 262 MP 275 13 198 Pima PAG 􀂥 􀂥 􀂥
6 I- 10: Widen to 6- lane in Benson MP 300 MP 310 10 213 Cochise SEAGO 􀂥 􀂥 􀂥 􀂥
7
I- 17: Widen to 6- lane from New River to Cordes
Junction MP 242 MP 263 21 525 Yavapai NACOG, FMPO, CYMPO
􀂥 􀂥 􀂥 􀂥
8 I- 17: Widen to 6- lane from Cordes Junction to Flagstaff MP 263 MP 340 77 1,015 Yavapai, Coconino NACOG, FMPO, CYMPO
􀂥 􀂥 􀂥
9 I- 17 Durango Curve Capacity Reconstruction MP 195 MP 200 5 1,100 Maricopa MAG 􀂥 􀂥 􀂥
10 I- 19: Widen to 6- lane from Nogales to the County Line MP 0 MP 30 30 510 Santa Cruz SEAGO 􀂥 􀂥 􀂥
11 I- 19: Widen to 6- lane from the County Line to Tucson MP 30 MP 64 34 1,088 Pima PAG, San Xavier Indian Reservation 􀂥 􀂥 􀂥 􀂥
12
I- 40: Widen to 6- lane from McConnico TI to Jct US 93
South MP 44 MP 72 28 577 Mohave WACOG 􀂥 􀂥 􀂥
13
I- 40: Widen to 6- lane from Golf Course Road to
Townsend Winona Road MP 160 MP 214 54 1,041 Coconino FMPO, NACOG 􀂥 􀂥 􀂥
14 SR 64: Passing Lane System MP 186 MP 240 54 30 Coconino NACOG 􀂥 􀂥
15 SR 74: Widen to 4- lane from I- 17 to US 60 MP 1 MP 25 24 600 Maricopa MAG 􀂥 􀂥 􀂥
16
SR 77: Widen to 6- lane from Tangerine Road to County
Line MP 81 MP 88 7 60 Pima PAG
􀂥 􀂥
17 SR 77: Widen to 4- lane from Oracle Junction to Oracle MP 91 MP 101 10 70 Pinal CAAG
􀂥 􀂥
18
SR 77: Widen to 4- lane from Duece of Clubs to Pinedale
Road MP 343 MP 358 15 150 Navajo NACOG
􀂥 􀂥
19 SR 85: Widen to 6- lane from I- 10 to I- 8 MP 120 MP 155 35 501 Maricopa MAG 􀂥 􀂥 􀂥
20 SR 86: Widen to 4- lanefrom Kinney to Kitt Peak Turnoff MP 131 MP 166 35 247 Pima PAG, Tohono O'odham Nation
􀂥 􀂥 􀂥
21 SR 89: Widen to 4- lane from Chino Valley to I- 40 MP 329 MP 363 34 340 Yavapai CYMPO, NACOG 􀂥 􀂥 􀂥
22 SR 90: Widen to 7- lane from Jct SR 92 to Central MP 321 MP 324 3 15 Cochise SEAGO 􀂥 􀂥
23
SR 92: Widen to 7- lane from Campus Drive to
Glenn/ Kachina MP 321 MP 325 4 30 Cochise SEAGO 􀂥 􀂥
24 SR 95: Widen to 4- lane from I- 40 to Lake Havasu City MP 188 MP 201 13 130 Mohave WACOG
􀂥 􀂥
25 SR 210: Extension from Alvernon Way to Valencia Road MP 5 MP 10 5 295 Pima PAG
􀂥 􀂥 􀂥
26 SR 260: Widen to 4- lane - Lions Sprigs Draw Section MP 256 MP 260 4 44 Gila CAAG
􀂥
27
SR 264: Widen to 4- lane from Burnside Junction to
Summit MP 441 MP 467 26 411 Apache NACOG, Navajo Nation, The Hopi Tribe
􀂥 􀂥 􀂥
28 SR 347: Widen to 6- lane from Maricopa to I- 10 MP 173 MP 189 16 208 Pinal CAAG 􀂥 􀂥 􀂥
29 SR 347: UPRR Overpass 35 Pinal CAAG 􀂥 􀂥
30 US 60: Gold Canyon Reroute MP 200 MP 206 6 300 Pinal CAAG 􀂥 􀂥 􀂥 􀂥
31
US 60: Widening & improvments from Jct SR 79 to
Globe MP 213 MP 252 39 351 Pinal, Gila CAAG
􀂥 􀂥 􀂥
32
US 60: Widen to 4- lane from Rim Road to Bourdon
Ranch Road MP 338 MP 347 9 100 Navajo NACOG
􀂥 􀂥
33
US 89: Widen to 4- lane from Gray Mountain to Jct US
160 MP 442 MP 482 40 438 Coconino FMPO, NACOG, Navajo Nation, The Hopi Tribe 􀂥 􀂥 􀂥 􀂥
34
US 93: Widen to 4- lane from SB Ranch Road to Carrow
Stephens MP 104 MP 120 16 320 Mohave WACOG, MAG 􀂥 􀂥 􀂥
35
US 95: Widen to 4- lane from Avenue 9E to the County
Line MP 32 MP 70 38 280 Yuma, La Paz YMPO, WACOG
􀂥 􀂥 􀂥
36 US 191: Widen to 4- lane from I- 10 to Jct US 70 MP 91 MP 118 27 155 Cochise, Graham SEAGO 􀂥 􀂥 􀂥
37
Fain Connector/ Fain Road/ SR- 89A/
Great Western Corridor SR 169 SR- 89 35 289 Yavapai CYMPO, NACOG, FMPO
􀂥 􀂥 􀂥
38 SR 802 from the County Line to N- S Corridor Maricopa County Line N- S Corridor 4 328 Pinal CAAG, MAG 􀂥 􀂥 􀂥 􀂥
39
Initiate Yuma Expressway: from Avenue D to Avenue
15E Avenue D Avenue 15E 17 170 Yuma YMPO
􀂥 􀂥 􀂥
40
Vanderslice Road from Courtwright Road to Bullhead
City Parkway Courtwright Road Bullhead Parkway 14 30 Mohave WACOG
􀂥 􀂥
Strategic Highway Projects
Project/
Program Project/ Program Description From To Miles
Estimated Cost
( in millions of
dollars)
Minimize
impact to
conservation
areas
Support
intracontinental
and regional
freight movement
Provide
benefit to
tribal
communities
Potentially
utilize State
Lands for
corridor
development
Provide connectivity
between existing
and emerging
economic activity
centers
US/ SR Improvements ( d, e)
New Roadway Corridors
Interstate Improvements ( d, e)
N June 19, 2008
Benefit
County COG/ MPO/ Tribal Community
Provide
benefit to
tribal
communities
Potentially
utilize State
Lands for
corridor
development
Provide connectivity
between existing
and emerging
economic activity
centers
Strategic Highway Projects
Project/
Program Project/ Program Description From To Miles
Estimated Cost
( in millions of
dollars)
Minimize
impact to
conservation
areas
Support
intracontinental
and regional
freight movement
41 I- 10: Broadway Curve from SR 202L to SR 51 MP 147 MP 161 14 900 ( a) Maricopa MAG 􀂥 􀂥 􀂥 􀂥
42 I- 17: McDowell Road to SR 101L MP 202 MP 215 13 1,053 ( a) Maricopa MAG 􀂥 􀂥 􀂥
43 SR 202L: South Mountain Freeway I- 10 W I- 10 E 24 1,100 ( a) Maricopa MAG 􀂥 􀂥 􀂥
44 SR 303L: Enhanced Local Access ( f) SR 801 I- 17 28 1,400 ( a) Maricopa MAG 􀂥 􀂥 􀂥
45 US 60: Grand Avenue Spot Projects NA NA 13 ( a) Maricopa MAG 􀂥 􀂥 􀂥
46
SR 101L: Pima Freeway, HOV and General Purpose
Lanes I- 17 SR 51 7 93 ( a)( b) Maricopa MAG
􀂥 􀂥 􀂥 􀂥
47 SR 101L: Pima Freeway, General Purpose Lanes SR 51 Shea Boulevard 10 135 ( a)( b) Maricopa MAG
􀂥 􀂥 􀂥 􀂥 􀂥
48 SR 101L: Pima Freeway, General Purpose Lanes Shea Boulevard SR 202L 17 36 ( a)( b) Maricopa MAG
􀂥 􀂥 􀂥 􀂥
49
SR 101L: Agua Fria Freeway, HOV and General Purpose
Lanes I- 10 I- 17 23 257 ( a)( b) Maricopa MAG
􀂥 􀂥 􀂥
50 SR 801 SR 202L SR 303L 14 1,800 ( a)( b) Maricopa MAG 􀂥 􀂥 􀂥
51 SR 802 SR 202L Pinal County Line 5 177 ( a)( b) Maricopa MAG 􀂥 􀂥 􀂥
52 SR 982/ Sahuarita Corridor on Pima Mine Road I- 19 Houghton Road 24 231 ( b) Pima PAG 􀂥 􀂥
53 Grant Road/ SR 110 I- 10 Tanque Verde Road 8 93 ( a)( b) Pima PAG 􀂥 􀂥 􀂥
54 Houghton Road/ SR 983 Pima Mine Road Tanque Verde Road 18 117 ( a)( b) Pima PAG 􀂥 􀂥 􀂥
55 Kolb Road/ SR110 I- 10 Tanque Verde Road 9 41 ( a)( b) Pima PAG 􀂥 􀂥 􀂥
56 Tangerine Road/ SR 989 I- 10 Oracle Road 12 43 ( a) Pima PAG 􀂥 􀂥 􀂥
57 Valencia Road/ SR 910 Ajo Way I- 19 10 87 ( a)( b) Pima PAG 􀂥 􀂥
58 Valencia Road/ SR 910 I- 19 Houghton Road 9 51 ( a) Pima PAG 􀂥 􀂥 􀂥 􀂥
59 Wilmot Road/ SR 210 Pima Mine Road Valencia Road 10 143 ( a)( b) Pima PAG 􀂥 􀂥 􀂥
60 22nd Street/ SR 210 I- 10 Aviation Parkway 4 60 ( a) Pima PAG 􀂥 􀂥 􀂥
61 SR 303L: Extension from SR 801 to I- 8 SR 801 I- 8 49 368 Maricopa CAAG, MAG, Tohono O'odham Nation 􀂥 􀂥 􀂥 􀂥
62 Val Vista Freeway from SR 303L to N- S Corridor SR 303L Pinal County N- S Corridor 46 229 Pinal Ak- Chin Indian Community, GRIC, CAAG, MAG 􀂥 􀂥 􀂥 􀂥
63 Hassayampa Freeway Network ( g) US 93 SR 303L 114 630 Maricopa, Yavapai MAG, NACOG 􀂥 􀂥 􀂥
64 Pinal County N- S Corridor from US 60 to I- 10 US 60 I- 10 53 360 Pinal CAAG, MAG, GRIC 􀂥 􀂥 􀂥 􀂥
65 SR 801 Extension from SR 85 to SR 303L SR 85 SR 303L 10 94 Maricopa MAG 􀂥 􀂥
Notes:
Potential PPP Projects ( c)
Acceleration/ Expansion of Programmed Projects
( 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
( f) Includes study of potential traffic interchages at Reems Road, Bullard Avenue, and Litchfield Road
( g) Includes Hassayampa Freeway ( US 60 to SR 303L), SR 74 Extension ( US 60 to Hassayampa Freeway), and White Tank Freeway ( US 60 to Hassayampa
Freeway)
N June 19, 2008
Benefit
County COG/ MPO/ Tribal Community
66 Connecting Communities Bus Transit Program 222
Apache, Cochise,
Coconino, Gila,
Graham, Greenlee, La
Paz, Maricopa,
Mohave, Navajo,
Pima, Pinal, Santa
Cruz, Yavapai, Yuma
CAAG, CYMPO, FMPO, MAG, NACOG, PAG, SEAGO,
WACOG, YMPO, Ak- Chin Indian Community, Cocopah
Tribe, Colorado Ricer Indian Tribes, Fort McDowell
Yavapai Nation, Fort Mohave Indian Tribe, Fort Yuma-
Quechan Tribe, Gila River Indian Community, Havasupai
Tribe, The Hopi Tribe, Hualapai Tribe, Kaibab- Paiute
Tribe, Navajo Nation, Pascua Yaqui Tribe, Pueblo of
Zuni, Salt River Pima- Maricopa Indian Community, San
Carlos Apache Tribe, Tohono O'Odham Nation, Tonto
Apache Indian Community, White Mountain Apache
Tribe, Yavapai- Apache Nation, Yavapai- Prescott Tribe
􀂥 􀂥 􀂥
67 Enhancing Public Transportation Programs 225
Apache, Cochise,
Coconino, Gila,
Graham, Greenlee, La
Paz, Mohave, Navajo,
Pinal, Santa Cruz,
Yavapai, Yuma
CAAG, CYMPO, FMPO, NACOG, SEAGO, WACOG, YMPO,
Ak- Chin Indian Community, Cocopah Tribe, Colorado
Ricer Indian Tribes, Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation, Fort
Mohave Indian Tribe, Fort Yuma- Quechan Tribe, Gila
River Indian Community, Havasupai Tribe, The Hopi
Tribe, Hualapai Tribe, Kaibab- Paiute Tribe, Navajo
Nation, Pascua Yaqui Tribe, Pueblo of Zuni, Salt River
Pima- Maricopa Indian Community, San Carlos Apache
Tribe, Tohono O'Odham Nation, Tonto Apache Indian
Community, White Mountain Apache Tribe, Yavapai-
Apache Nation, Yavapai- Prescott Tribe
􀂥 􀂥 􀂥
68
Transit Serving Elderly, Persons with Disabilities and
Tribal Populations in Rural Areas
286
Apache, Cochise,
Coconino, Gila,
Graham, Greenlee, La
Paz, Maricopa,
Mohave, Navajo,
Pima, Pinal, Santa
Cruz, Yavapai, Yuma
CAAG, CYMPO, FMPO, MAG, NACOG, PAG, SEAGO,
WACOG, YMPO, Ak- Chin Indian Community, Cocopah
Tribe, Colorado Ricer Indian Tribes, Fort McDowell
Yavapai Nation, Fort Mohave Indian Tribe, Fort Yuma-
Quechan Tribe, Gila River Indian Community, Havasupai
Tribe, The Hopi Tribe, Hualapai Tribe, Kaibab- Paiute
Tribe, Navajo Nation, Pascua Yaqui Tribe, Pueblo of
Zuni, Salt River Pima- Maricopa Indian Community, San
Carlos Apache Tribe, Tohono O'Odham Nation, Tonto
Apache Indian Community, White Mountain Apache
Tribe, Yavapai- Apache Nation, Yavapai- Prescott Tribe
􀂥 􀂥 􀂥
69 Statewide Vanpool and Rideshare Programs 400
Apache, Cochise,
Coconino, Gila,
Graham, Greenlee, La
Paz, Maricopa,
Mohave, Navajo,
Pima, Pinal, Santa
Cruz, Yavapai, Yuma
CAAG, CYMPO, FMPO, MAG, NACOG, PAG, SEAGO,
WACOG, YMPO, Ak- Chin Indian Community, Cocopah
Tribe, Colorado Ricer Indian Tribes, Fort McDowell
Yavapai Nation, Fort Mohave Indian Tribe, Fort Yuma-
Quechan Tribe, Gila River Indian Community, Havasupai
Tribe, The Hopi Tribe, Hualapai Tribe, Kaibab- Paiute
Tribe, Navajo Nation, Pascua Yaqui Tribe, Pueblo of
Zuni, Salt River Pima- Maricopa Indian Community, San
Carlos Apache Tribe, Tohono O'Odham Nation, Tonto
Apache Indian Community, White Mountain Apache
Tribe, Yavapai- Apache Nation, Yavapai- Prescott Tribe
􀂥 􀂥 􀂥
70
Transit/ Rail Planning, Marketing and Other Related
Programs
82
Apache, Cochise,
Coconino, Gila,
Graham, Greenlee, La
Paz, Maricopa,
Mohave, Navajo,
Pima, Pinal, Santa
Cruz, Yavapai, Yuma
CAAG, CYMPO, FMPO, MAG, NACOG, PAG, SEAGO,
WACOG, YMPO, Ak- Chin Indian Community, Cocopah
Tribe, Colorado Ricer Indian Tribes, Fort McDowell
Yavapai Nation, Fort Mohave Indian Tribe, Fort Yuma-
Quechan Tribe, Gila River Indian Community, Havasupai
Tribe, The Hopi Tribe, Hualapai Tribe, Kaibab- Paiute
Tribe, Navajo Nation, Pascua Yaqui Tribe, Pueblo of
Zuni, Salt River Pima- Maricopa Indian Community, San
Carlos Apache Tribe, Tohono O'Odham Nation, Tonto
Apache Indian Community, White Mountain Apache
Tribe, Yavapai- Apache Nation, Yavapai- Prescott Tribe
􀂥 􀂥 􀂥
High Speed Intercity Rail/ Commuter Rail/ Light Rail
71
High Speed Urban- Urban Rail Connections
Commuter Rail in Urban Corridors
5,450 Maricopa, Pinal, Pima
MAG, PAG, CAAG, Gila River Indian Community, Salt
River Pima- Maricopa Indian Community, Pascua Yaqui
Tribe, Tohono O'odham Nation, Ak- Chin Indian
Community
􀂥 􀂥 􀂥
72
Light Rail, Modern Streetcar and Related High Capacity
Transit
1,000 Maricopa, Pima MAG, PAG 􀂥 􀂥
Minimize impact
to conservation
areas
Provide
benefit to
tribal
communities
Potentially
utilize State
Lands for
corridor
development
Provide connectivity
between existing and
emerging economic
activity centers
Support
intracontinental
and regional
freight movement
Public Transit Projects and Programs
Strategic Rail and Transit Projects and Programs
Project/
Program Project/ Program Description From To Miles
Estimated Cost
( in millions of
dollars)
N June 19, 2008
13
8
1 9 2
5
10
11
34
21
33
27
26
19 31
20
63
32
14
24
22
61 3
62
64
37
16
35
18
36
15
38
42
43
44
45 46 47
49 48
50
51
7
41
23
4
39
25
65
40
6
57 5859
53
55
54
56
17
28
29
30
52
60
12
ARIZONA
REPUBLIC OF MEXICO
NEW MEXICO
ARIZONA
UTAH
ARIZONA
ARIZONA
NEVADA
CALIFORNIA
ARIZONA
MeTtruAocrpesooalnitan
Flagstaff
Yuma
Prescott
N AVAJ O
APA C H E
M O H AVE CO C O N IN O
Y UM A M A R IC O PA
PI M A
SCARNUTZA
CO C H I S E
PI N A L G R A H AM
G I LA
G R E E N L E E
YAVA PA I
MePthrAoorpeeonaliixtan
LA PA Z
June 19, 2008
0 12.5 25 50
Miles
Interstate Improvements
US/ SR Improvements
X
X
SRotaadtewwayi dInev eTsrtamnesnptso rtation Investment Strategy
X New Corridors
X Potential PPP Roadway Projects
X PArcocgerlearmatmioend/ EPxrpoajencstison of
fPCororom gSprtaalemtetem Tder aIdmd oepr r CoRoverecrmiednoetrnlysts
13
8
1 9 2
5
10
11
34
21
33
27
26
19 31
20
63
32
14
24
22
61 3
62
64
37
16
35
18
36
15
38
42
43
44
45 46 47
49 48
50
51
7
41
23
4
39
25
65
40
6
57 58
59
53
55
54
56
17
28
29
30
52
60
12
ARIZONA
REPUBLIC OF MEXICO
NEW MEXICO
ARIZONA
UTAH
ARIZONA
ARIZONA
NEVADA
CALIFORNIA
ARIZONA
MeTtruAocrpesooalnitan
Flagstaff
Yuma
Prescott
N AVAJ O
APA C H E
M O H AVE CO C O N IN O
Y UM A
M A R IC O PA
PI M A
SCARNUTZA
CO C H I S E
PI N A L G R A H AM
G I LA
G R E E N L E E
YAVA PA I
MePthrAoorpeeonaliixtan
LA PA Z
June 19, 2008
Interstate Improvements
US/ SR Improvements
X
X
SRotaadtewwayi dInev eTsrtamnesnptso ortna Sttiaotne LIannvdesstment Strategy
X New Corridors
X Potential PPP Roadway Projects X PArcocgerlearmatmioend/ EPxrpoajencstison of
IPmropgrroavmemmeendt so rf oRre Scetanttely T Craodmep Cleotrerdid ors
State Land
0 12.5 25 50
Miles
13
8
1 9 2
5
10
11
34
21
33
27
26
19 31
20
63
32
14
24
22
61 3
62
64
37
16
35
18
36
15
38
42
43
44
45 46 47
49 48
50
51
7
41
23
4
39
25
65
40
6
57 58
59
53
55
54
56
17
28
29
30
52
60
12
ARIZONA
REPUBLIC OF MEXICO
NEW MEXICO
ARIZONA
UTAH
ARIZONA
ARIZONA
NEVADA
CALIFORNIA
ARIZONA
MeTtruAocrpesooalnitan
Flagstaff
Yuma
Prescott
N AVAJ O
APA C H E
M O H AVE CO C O N IN O
Y UM A
M A R IC O PA
PI M A
SCARNUTZA
CO C H I S E
PI N A L G R A H AM
G I LA
G R E E N L E E
YAVA PA I
MePthrAoorpeeonaliixtan
LA PA Z
The Hopi Tribe
NNaavtaiojon
HaTvraisbuepai
HuTarilbaepai
KaibaTbri- bPeaiute
WAhpitaec hMeo Turnibtaein
Zuni Tribe
TontoTr- iAbpeache
YavaNpaait- iAopnache
YaIvnadpiaain- P Trreisbceott
HuTarilbaepai
YFaovrat pMaci DNoawtieolnl
InPdimiaSnaa- ltCM oRamirvicemoru pnai ty
CGoiImlan mdRiauivnneirt y
CoAImkn- mdCiauhnninity
ToIhnodniaon O N'Oatdiohnam
ASpaanch Cea Trlroibse
PasqTuraib Yeaqui
RSeasInne drXviaaavntiieorn
Cocopah Tribe
Fort YumTraib- Qeuechan
CIonRTldroiviirbaeaenrd o
FInodrti aMno Thraibvee
June 19, 2008
Interstate Improvements
US/ SR Improvements
X
X
SRotaadtewwayi dInev eTsrtamnesnptso ortna Ttriiobnal ICnovmemsutmniteienst Strategy
X New Corridors
X Potential PPP Roadway Projects X PArcocgerlearmatmioend/ EPxrpoajencstison of
IPmropgrroavmemmeendt so rf oRre Scetanttely T Craodmep Cleotrerdid ors
Tribal Community
0 12.5 25 50
Miles
13
8
1 9 2
5
10
11
34
21
33
27
26
19 31
20
63
32
14
24
22
61 3
62
64
37
16
35
18
36
15
38
42
43
44
45 46 47
49 48
50
51
7
41
23
4
39
25
65
40
6
57 5859
53
55
54
56
17
28
29
30
52
60
12
ARIZONA
REPUBLIC OF MEXICO
NEW MEXICO
ARIZONA
UTAH
ARIZONA
ARIZONA
NEVADA
CALIFORNIA
ARIZONA
MeTtruAocrpesooalnitan
Flagstaff
Yuma
Prescott
N AVAJ O
APA C H E
M O H AVE CO C O N IN O
Y UM A M A R IC O PA
PI M A
SCARNUTZA
CO C H I S E
PI N A L G R A H AM
G I LA
G R E E N L E E
YAVA PA I
MePthrAoorpeeonaliixtan
LA PA Z
June 19, 2008
0 12.5 25 50
Miles
Interstate Improvements
US/ SR Improvements
XX
SRotaadtewwayi dInev eTsrtamnesnptso ortna Ntiaotunr aIln Ivnfersasttmruecntutr eStrategy
X New Corridors
X Potential PPP Roadway Projects X PArcocgerlearmatmioend/ EPxrpoajencstison of
IPmropgrroavmemmeendt so rf oRre Scetanttely T Craodmep Cleotrerdid ors
AWC Roadless Character Area
Pinal County Open Space Plan
Sensitive Biological Lands
ARIZONA
REPUBLIC OF MEXICO
NEW MEXICO
ARIZONA
UTAH
ARIZONA
ARIZONA
NEVADA
CALIFORNIA
ARIZONA
MePthrAoorpeeonaliixtan
MeTtruAocrpesooalnitan
Flagstaff
Yuma
Prescott
N A VA J O
A PA C H E
M OH A V E C O C O N IN O
Y U M A M A R I C O PA
PI M A
SCARNUTZA
C O C H I S E
PI N A L G R A H A M
G I LA
G R E E N L E E
YAV A PA I
LA PA Z
June 19, 2008
0 15 30 60
Miles
High Speed Intercity and Commuter Rail Services
Intercity Rail Corridor
Commuter Rail Services
Statewide Transportation Investment Strategy
ARIZONA
REPUBLIC OF MEXICO
NEW MEXICO
ARIZONA
UTAH
ARIZONA
ARIZONA
NEVADA
CALIFORNIA
ARIZONA
MePthrAoorpeeonaliixtan
TAMureectsaroopnolitan
Flagstaff
Yuma
Prescott
N A VA J O
A PA C H E
M OH A V E C O C O N IN O
Y U M A
M A R I C O PA
PI M A
SCARNUTZA
C O C H I S E
PI N A L G R A H A M
G I LA
G R E E N L E E
YAV A PA I
LA PA Z
June 19, 2008
Current Connectors
Potential New Connectors
0 12.5 25 50
Miles
Rural Public Transportation Program
Public Transit Service Provider
Additional Community Served by Provider
Potential New Service Provider
Statewide Transportation Investment Strategy
ARIZONA
REPUBLIC OF MEXICO
NEW MEXICO
ARIZONA
UTAH
ARIZONA
ARIZONA
NEVADA
CALIFORNIA
ARIZONA
MePthrAoorpeeonaliixtan
MeTtruAocrpesooalnitan
Flagstaff
Yuma
Prescott
N A VA J O
A PA C H E
M OH A V E C O C O N IN O
Y U M A
M A R I C O PA
PI M A
SCARNUTZA
C O C H I S E
PI N A L G R A H A M
G I LA
G R E E N L E E
YAV A PA I
LA PA Z
June 19, 2008
Primary Transit Service
0 12.5 25 50
Miles
Elderly and Persons with Disabilities Program
Secondary Service Area
Potential Growth
Statewide Transportation Investment Strategy
A P A C H E
St. Johns
Springerville
Eagar
June 19, 2008
0 4.5 9 18
Miles
ITSAnrtparvaanectssheptegmo yCretonautt niotny
X US/ SR Improvements
Strategic Highway Projects
PRruorgarl aPmublic Transportation
PCootnennetciatlo Nrsew
PPruobvliicd eTrransit Service
SAedrdviteido nbayl CProomvimdeurnity
EDlidsearbliyli taineds PPreorgsoranms with
Primary Transit Service
Secondary Service Area
Potential Growth
Current Connectors
27
PPorotevindteiarl Service
NEW MEXICO
N AVAJ O
G R E E N L E E
ARIZONA
UTAH
ARIZONA LPorocjael cMt oCbitiylity
27
SR 264: Widen to 4- lane from Burnside Junction to
Summit
411,000,000
Strategic Highway Projects Total 411,000,000
66 Connecting Communities Bus Transit Program 10,000,000
67 Enhancing Public Transportation Programs 11,462,484
68
Transit Serving Elderly, Persons with Disabilities and
Tribal Populations in Rural Areas
3,246,624
69 Statewide Vanpool and Rideshare Programs 4,613,320
70
Transit/ Rail Planning, Marketing and Other Related
Programs
369,066
29,691,494
Apache County 86,040,958
Eagar 10,360,451
Springerville 4,823,976
St Johns 9,028,894
White Mountain Apache Tribe 373,753
Navajo Nation 55,020,465
165,648,497
Apache County 2,392,170
Eagar 1,237,666
Springerville 576,275
St Johns 1,078,597
White Mountain Apache Tribe 103,253
Navajo Nation 15,199,945
20,587,905
626,927,896
June 19, 2008
Transportation Enhancement and
Walkable/ Bikeable Communities Total
Apache County Total
US/ SR Improvements
Strategic Rail and Transit Projects and Programs
Public Transit Projects and Programs
Strategic Rail and Transit Projects
and Program Total
Local Mobility Projects and Programs
Local Mobility Projects and Programs Total
Transportation Enhancement and
Walkable/ Bikeable Communities
Strategic Highway Projects
Project/
Program
Project/ Program Description Estimated Cost
C O C H I S E
Bisbee
Benson
Willcox
Douglas
Tombstone
SVieisrtraa
Huachuca City
June 19, 2008
0 2.5 5 10
Miles
Cochise County Transportation Investment Strategy
22
23
6
36 G R A H AM
S A N TA C R U Z
ARIZONA
REPUBLIC OF MEXICO
ARIZONA
NEW MEXICO
LPorocjael cMt oCbitiylity
X US/ SR Improvements
Strategic Highway Projects
X Interstate Improvements
Rural Public Transportation Program
Potential New Connectors
Public Transit Service Provider
bAyd dPirtioovnidael rCommunity Served
EDlidsearbliyli taineds PPreorgsoranms with
Primary Transit Service
Secondary Service Area
Potential Growth
6 I- 10: Widen to 6- lane in Benson 212,917,000
22 SR 90: Widen to 7- lane from Jct SR 92 to Central 15,000,000
23
SR 92: Widen to 7- lane from Campus Drive to
Glenn/ Kachina
30,000,000
36 US 191: Widen to 4- lane from I- 10 to the County Line 11,481,000
Strategic Highway Projects Total 269,398,000
66 Connecting Communities Bus Transit Program 15,000,000
67 Enhancing Public Transportation Programs 20,591,306
68
Transit Serving Elderly, Persons with Disabilities and
Tribal Populations in Rural Areas
5,832,264
69 Statewide Vanpool and Rideshare Programs 8,287,409
70
Transit/ Rail Planning, Marketing and Other Related
Programs
662,993
50,373,972
Cochise County 104,543,442
Benson 4,664,533
Bisbee 6,465,396
Douglas 16,921,232
Huachuca City 1,800,864
Sierra Vista 42,994,394
Tombstone 1,584,367
Willcox 3,823,145
182,797,373
Cochise County 14,586,876
Benson 1,322,782
Bisbee 1,833,476
Douglas 4,798,572
Huachuca City 510,694
Sierra Vista 12,192,474
Tombstone 449,299
Willcox 1,084,179
36,778,352
539,347,697
June 19, 2008
Project/
Program
Project/ Program Description Estimated Cost
US/ SR Improvements
Interstate Improvements
Transportation Enhancement and
Walkable/ Bikeable Communities Total
Cochise County Total
Strategic Highway Projects
Strategic Rail and Transit Projects and Programs
Local Mobility Projects and Programs
Transportation Enhancement and
Walkable/ Bikeable Communities
Strategic Rail and Transit Projects
and Program Total
Public Transit Projects and Programs
Local Mobility Projects and Programs Total
Flagstaff
C O C O N I N O
Williams
Page
Fredonia
June 19, 2008
0 5 10 20
Miles
Coconino County Transportation Investment Strategy
LPorocjael cMt oCbitiylity
14
33
13
8
UTAH
ARIZONA
Sedona
YAVA PA I
M O H AVE
N AVA J O
G I LA
Rural Public Transportation Program
Public Transit Service Provider
bAyd dPirtioovnidael rCommunity Served
Current Connectors
Potential New Connectors
Strategic Highway Projects
X Interstate Improvement
X US/ SR Improvements
EDlidsearbliyli taineds PPreorgsoranms with
Primary Transit Service
Secondary Service Area
Potential Growth
8
I- 17: Widen to 6- lane from the County Line to Flagstaff
382,000,000
13 I- 40: Widen to 6- lanes from Golf Course Road to
Townsend Winona Road
1,041,000,000
14
SR 64: Passing Lane System from I- 40 to Tusayan
30,000,000
33 US 89: Widen to 4- lane from I- 40 to Tuba City 438,000,000
Strategic Highway Projects Total 1,891,000,000
66 Connecting Communities Bus Transit Program 15,000,000
67 Enhancing Public Transportation Programs 20,139,370
68
Transit Serving Elderly, Persons with Disabilities and
Tribal Populations in Rural Areas
5,704,258
69 Statewide Vanpool and Rideshare Programs 8,105,518
70
Transit/ Rail Planning, Marketing and Other Related
Programs
648,441
49,597,587
Coconino County 120,970,288
Flagstaff 87,627,231
Fredonia 1,589,707
Page 10,182,718
Williams 4,504,170
Sedona 4,439,722
Havasupai Tribe 508,102
The Hopi Tribe 1,145,102
Hualapai Tribe 2,020
Kaibab Paiute Tribe 5,051
Navajo Nation 23,451,478
254,425,589
Coconino County 8,377,617
Flagstaff 17,074,766
Fredonia 309,765
Page 1,984,172
Williams 877,668
Sedona 865,110
Havasupai Tribe 140,368
The Hopi Tribe 316,456
Hualapai Tribe 558
Kaibab Paiute Tribe 1,395
Navajo Nation 6,478,702
36,426,577
2,231,449,753
June 19, 2008
Transportation Enhancement and
Walkable/ Bikeable Communities Total
Coconino County Total
Strategic Highway Projects
Strategic Rail and Transit Projects and Programs
Local Mobility Projects and Programs
Transportation Enhancement and
Walkable/ Bikeable Communities
Strategic Rail and Transit Projects
and Program Total
Public Transit Projects and Programs
Local Mobility Projects and Programs Total
Project/
Program
Project/ Program Description Estimated Cost
US/ SR Improvements
Interstate Improvements
PI N A L
G I L A
N AVAJ O
G R A H AM
CO C O N IN O
Payson 26
Globe
Miami
Hayden Winkelman
VSatlalery
37
June 19, 2008
0 3 6 12
Miles
Gila County Transportation Investment Strategy
LPorocjaelc Mt oCbitiylity
EDlidsearbliyli taineds PPreorgsoranms with
Primary Transit Service
Secondary Service Area
Potential Growth
Rural Public Transportation Program
Potential New Connectors
Public Transit Service Provider
bAyd dPirtoiovnidael rCommunity Served
X US/ SR Improvements
Strategic Highway Projects
26 SR 260: Widen to 4- lane ( Lions Springs Draw Section) 44,000,000
31 US 60: Widen to 4- lane from the County Line to Globe 144,000,000
Strategic Highway Projects Total 188,000,000
66 Connecting Communities Bus Transit Program 10,000,000
67 Enhancing Public Transportation Programs 8,414,815
68
Transit Serving Elderly, Persons with Disabilities and
Tribal Populations in Rural Areas
2,383,405
69 Statewide Vanpool and Rideshare Programs 3,386,721
70
Transit/ Rail Planning, Marketing and Other Related
Programs
270,937
24,455,878
Gila County 48,676,133
Globe 9,642,948
Hayden 1,147,633
Miami 2,515,272
Payson 19,851,993
Winkleman 564,810
Star Valley 2,580,888
White Mountain Apache Tribe 1,529,356
San Carlos Apache Tribe 4,832,524
Tonto Apache Tribe 133,339
91,474,896
Gila County 6,096,237
Globe 2,091,614
Hayden 248,929
Miami 545,578
Payson 4,306,017
Winkleman 122,511
Star Valley 559,810
White Mountain Apache Tribe 422,500
San Carlos Apache Tribe 1,335,032
Tonto Apache Tribe 36,836
15,765,064
319,695,838
June 19, 2008
Project/
Program
Project/ Program Description Estimated Cost
Public Transit Projects and Programs
Strategic Highway Projects
US/ SR Improvements
Strategic Rail and Transit Projects and Programs
Transportation Enhancement and
Walkable/ Bikeable Communities
Transportation Enhancement and
Walkable/ Bikeable Communities Total
Gila County Total
Strategic Rail and Transit Projects
and Program Total
Local Mobility Projects and Programs
Local Mobility Projects and Programs Total
G I LA
G R E E N L E E
CO C H I S E
P I N A L
Pima
Thatcher Safford
June 19, 2008
0 2.5 5 10
Miles
Graham County Transportation Investment Strategy
LPorocjael cMt oCbitiylity
36
G R A H A M
X US/ SR Improvements
Strategic Highway Projects Rural Public Transportation Program
Potential New Connectors
Potential Service Provider
EDlidsearbliyli taineds PPreorgsoranms with
Primary Transit Service
Secondary Service Area
Potential Growth
36
US 191: Widen to 4- lane from the County Line to Jct US
70
143,519,000
Strategic Highway Projects Total 143,519,000
66 Connecting Communities Bus Transit Program 10,000,000
67 Enhancing Public Transportation Programs 5,425,169
68
Transit Serving Elderly, Persons with Disabilities and
Tribal Populations in Rural Areas
1,536,620
69 Statewide Vanpool and Rideshare Programs 2,183,475
70
Transit/ Rail Planning, Marketing and Other Related
Programs
174,678
19,319,942
Graham County 31,053,856
Pima 2,096,812
Safford 9,413,025
Thatcher 4,575,776
San Carlos Apache Tribe 4,647,668
51,787,137
Graham County 4,146,669
Pima 581,856
Safford 2,612,075
Thatcher 1,269,759
San Carlos Apache Tribe 1,283,964
9,894,323
224,520,402
June 19, 2008
Project/
Program
Project/ Program Description Estimated Cost
Strategic Highway Projects
US/ SR Improvements
Strategic Rail and Transit Projects and Programs
Public Transit Projects and Programs
Strategic Rail and Transit Projects
and Program Total
Graham County Total
Local Mobility Projects and Programs
Local Mobility Projects and Programs Total
Transportation Enhancement and
Walkable/ Bikeable Communities
Transportation Enhancement and
Walkable/ Bikeable Communities Total
G R E E N L E E
Duncan
Clifton
June 19, 2008
0 2 4 8
Miles DRAFT
ITSGnrtrarveaneetssneptlgmeoyeret nCatot iuonnt y
EDlidsearbliyli taineds PPreorgsoranms with
Primary Transit Service
Secondary Service Area
Potential Growth
G R A H AM
APA C H E
ARIZONA
NEW MEXICO
LPorocjael cMt oCbitiylity
66 Connecting Communities Bus Transit Program 10,000,000
67 Enhancing Public Transportation Programs 1,247,177
68
Transit Serving Elderly, Persons with Disabilities and
Tribal Populations in Rural Areas
353,249
69 Statewide Vanpool and Rideshare Programs 501,953
70
Transit/ Rail Planning, Marketing and Other Related
Programs
40,156
12,142,535
Greenlee County 10,841,533
Clifton 2,985,394
Duncan 933,798
14,760,725
Greenlee County 1,434,130
Clifton 724,460
Duncan 226,603
2,385,193
29,288,453
June 19, 2008
Project/
Program
Project/ Program Description Estimated Cost
Transportation Enhancement and
Walkable/ Bikeable Communities Total
Greenlee County Total
Strategic Rail and Transit Projects and Programs
Public Transit Projects and Programs
Strategic Rail and Transit Projects
and Program Total
Local Mobility Projects and Programs
Local Mobility Projects and Programs Total
Transportation Enhancement and
Walkable/ Bikeable Communities
CALIFORNIA
ARIZONA
Y UM A
L A P A Z
M O H AVE
Parker
Quartzsite
June 19, 2008
0 2.5 5 10
Miles
DRAFT
Strategic Highway Projects
La Paz County Transportation Investment Strategy
Rural Public Transportation Program
Potential New Connectors
EDlidsearbliyli taineds PPreorgsoranms with
Primary Transit Service
LPorocjael cMt oCbitiylity Secondary Service Area
Potential Growth
X US/ SR Improvements
35
CALIFORNIA
YUMA
MOHAVE
YAVAPAI MARICOPA
35
US 95: Widen to 4- lane from the County Line to the
County Line
transportation benefits
accrue to Yuma County
0
66 Connecting Communities Bus Transit Program 10,000,000
67 Enhancing Public Transportation Programs 3,264,772
68
Transit Serving Elderly, Persons with Disabilities and
Tribal Populations in Rural Areas
924,711
69 Statewide Vanpool and Rideshare Programs 1,313,977
70
Transit/ Rail Planning, Marketing and Other Related
Programs
105,118
15,608,578
La Paz County 48,267,129
Parker 13,731,386
Quartzsite 15,071,034
Colorado River Indian Tribes 7,541,727
84,611,276
La Paz County 1,909,940
Parker 915,343
Quartzsite 1,004,644
Colorado River Indian Tribes 2,083,476
5,913,403
106,133,257
June 19, 2008
La Paz County Total
Strategic Highway Projects
Public Transit Projects and Programs
Strategic Rail and Transit Projects
and Program Total
Local Mobility Projects and Programs
Local Mobility Projects and Programs Total
Transportation Enhancement and
Walkable/ Bikeable Communities
US/ SR Improvements
Strategic Rail and Transit Projects and Programs
Strategic Highway Projects Total
Project/
Program
Project/ Program Description Estimated Cost
Transportation Enhancement and
Walkable/ Bikeable Communities Total
M A R I C O P A
1
63
65
15
19
61
46
47
48
43
50
44
45
42
49
9 41
2
51
P I N A L
LA PA Z
G I LA
YAVA PA I
63
63
3
Tempe Mesa
Peoria
Phoenix
Gilbert
Buckeye Tolleson
Surprise
Goodyear
Glendale
Chandler
Carefree
Avondale
Youngtown
Guadalupe
Gila Bend
El Mirage
Wickenburg
Scottsdale
CCreaveek
QCureeeenk
FoHunilltsain
Litchfield Park
PaVraalldeiyse
Apache Junction
June 19, 2008
0 2.5 5 10
Miles
T MaricoIpnave Csotmunetnyt TSrtarnastepgoyrtation
Rural Public Transportation Program LPorocjael cMt oCbitiylity
Potential New Connectors
Public Transit Service Provider
SAedrdviteido nbayl CProomvimdeurnity
Current Connectors
Strategic Highway Projects EDlidsearbliyli taineds PPreorgsoranms with
Primary Transit Service
Secondary Service Area
Potential Growth
New Corridors
Acceleration/ Expansion of Programmed Projects X X
Interstate Improvements
US/ SR Improvements
X Potential PPP Roadway Projects
X X
Maricopa County 313,017,478 Maricopa County 63,241,518
1
I- 10: Widen to 6- lane from Verrado Way to 459th
Avenue
450,000,000 Avondale 95,798,816 Avondale 19,355,030
2 I- 10 Mini- stack Capacity Reconstruction 619,000,000 Buckeye 35,092,345 Buckeye 7,089,998
3 I- 10: Widen to 6- lane from SR 202L to Riggs Rd 150,000,000 Carefree 5,088,570 Carefree 1,028,086
9 I- 17 Durango Curve 1,100,000,000 Cave Creek 6,583,095 Cave Creek 1,330,037
Chandler 318,857,454 Chandler 64,421,417
15 SR 74: Widen to 4- lane from I- 17 to US 60 600,000,000 El Mirage 44,284,645 El Mirage 8,947,194
19 SR 85: Widen to 6- lane from I- 10 to I- 8 501,000,000 Gila Bend 2,734,899 Gila Bend 552,554
Gilbert 239,057,798 Gilbert 48,298,831
41 I- 10: Broadway Curve from SR 202L to SR 51 900,000,000 Glendale 334,775,119 Glendale 67,637,395
42 I- 17: McDowell Road to SR 101L 1,053,000,000 Goodyear 63,832,266 Goodyear 12,896,562
43
SR 202L: South Mountain Freeway from I- 10 W
to I- 10 E
1,100,000,000 Guadalupe 7,672,911 Guadalupe 1,550,222
44
SR 303L: Enhanced Local Access from SR 801
to I- 17
1,400,000,000 Mesa 618,938,031 Mesa 125,049,186
45 US 60: Grand Avenue Spot Projects 13,000,000 Paradise Valley 19,148,437 Paradise Valley 3,868,718
46
SR 101L: Pima Freeway, HOV and General Purpose
Lanes from I- 17 to SR 51
93,000,000 Peoria 190,764,730 Peoria 38,541,781
47
SR 101L: Pima Freeway, General Purpose Lanes from SR
51 to Shea Boulevard
135,000,000 Phoenix 2,038,513,600 Phoenix 411,857,818
48
SR 101L: Pima Freeway, General Purpose Lanes from
Shea Boulevard to SR 202L
36,000,000 Scottsdale 324,254,045 Scottsdale 65,511,735
49
SR 101L: Agua Fria Freeway, HOV and General Purpose
Lanes from I- 10 to I- 17
257,000,000 Surprise 121,917,101 Surprise 24,631,924
50 SR 801 from SR 202L to SR 303L 1,800,000,000 Tempe 229,007,734 Tempe 46,268,333
51 SR 802 from SR 202L to Pinal County Line 177,000,000 Tolleson 8,975,441 Tolleson 1,813,383
Wickenburg 8,393,930 Wickenburg 1,695,895
61 SR 303L: Extension from SR 801 to I- 8 368,000,000 Youngtown 8,512,718 Youngtown 1,719,895
63 Hassayampa Freeway Network 588,750,000 Litchfield Park 6,254,355 Litchfield Park 1,263,619
65 SR 801 Extension from SR 85 to SR 303L 94,000,000 Queen Creek 21,984,168 Queen Creek 4,441,644
Strategic Highway Projects Total 11,434,750,000 Fountain Hills 33,829,872 Fountain Hills 6,834,930
Apache Junction 379,847 Apache Junction 76,744
Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation 1,138,160 Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation 229,952
66 Connecting Communities Bus Transit Program 20,000,000 Gila River Indian Community 3,728,026 Gila River Indian Community 753,204
68
Transit Serving Elderly, Persons with Disabilities and
Tribal Populations in Rural Areas
172,019,449 Salt River Pima- Maricopa Indian Communtiy 8,846,984 Salt River Pima- Maricopa Indian Communtiy 1,787,430
69 Statewide Vanpool and Rideshare Programs 244,432,610 Tohono O'odham Nation 617,425 Tohono O'odham Nation 124,743
70
Transit/ Rail Planning, Marketing and Other Related
Programs
19,554,609 5,112,000,000 1,032,819,778
High Speed Intercity Rail/ Commuter Rail/ Light Rail
71
High Speed Urban- Urban Rail Connections
Commuter Rail in Urban Corridors
2,115,000,000
72
Light Rail, Modern Streetcar and Related High Capacity
Transit
600,000,000
3,171,006,668
20,750,576,446
June 19, 2008
Estimated Cost
Transportation Enhancement and
Walkable/ Bikeable Communities Total
Project/ Program Description Estimated Cost
Local Mobility Projects and Programs
Transportation Enhancement and
Walkable/ Bikeable Communities Total
Project/
Program
Project/ Program Description
Public Transit Projects and Programs
Acceleration/ Expansion of Programmed Projects
Potential PPP Projects
Project/
Program
Strategic Rail and Transit Projects
and Program Total
Maricopa County Total
Local Mobility Projects and Programs Total
Project/
Program
Project/ Program Description Estimated Cost
Strategic Highway Projects
Interstate Improvements
US/ SR Improvements
Strategic Rail and Transit Projects and Programs
ARIZONA
M O H A V E
34
24
12
Kingman
Colorado City
Bullhead City
Lake Havasu City
June 19, 2008
0 5 10 20
Miles
MTroIanhnSvastevrpseaot tmrCetogaeuytninott ny
X US/ SR Improvements
Strategic Highway Projects
PRruorgarl aPmublic Transportation
PCootnennetciatlo Nrsew
PPruobvliicd eTrransit Service
EDlidsearbliyli taineds PPreorgsoranms with
Primary Transit Service
Secondary Service Area
Potential Growth
X Interstate Improvements
X New Corridors
LA PA Z
CO C O N IN O
YAVA PA I
40
NEVADA
ARIZONA
UTAH
fPCororom gSprtaalemtetem Tder aIdmd oepr r CoRoverecrmiednoetrnlysts
LPorocjaelc Mt oCbitiylity
12
I- 40: Widen to 6- lane from McConnico TI to Jct US 93
South
577,000,000
24 SR 95: Widen to 4- lane from I- 40 to Lake Havasu City 130,000,000
34
US 93: Widen to 4- lane SB Ranch Road to Carrow
Stephens
320,000,000
40
Vanderslice Road from Courtwright Road to Bullhead
Parkway
30,000,000
Strategic Highway Projects Total 1,057,000,000
66 Connecting Communities Bus Transit Program 15,000,000
67 Enhancing Public Transportation Programs 31,112,525
68
Transit Serving Elderly, Persons with Disabilities and
Tribal Populations in Rural Areas
8,812,285
69 Statewide Vanpool and Rideshare Programs 12,521,897
70
Transit/ Rail Planning, Marketing and Other Related
Programs
1,001,752
68,448,459
Mohave County 144,776,890
Bullhead City 43,510,560
Colorado City 4,645,985
Kingman 29,447,345
Lake Havasu City 60,847,599
Fort Mojave Indian Tribe 780,840
Hualapai Tribe 1,364,703
Kaibab Paiute Tribe 192,937
285,566,860
Mohave County 17,898,016
Bullhead City 10,663,182
Colorado City 1,138,597
Kingman 7,216,695
Lake Havasu City 14,911,990
Fort Mojave Indian Tribe 215,715
Hualapai Tribe 377,013
Kaibab Paiute Tribe 53,301
52,474,508
1,463,489,827
June 19, 2008
Project/
Program
Project/ Program Description Estimated Cost
Strategic Highway Projects
Interstate Improvements
US/ SR Improvements
Strategic Rail and Transit Projects and Programs
Public Transit Projects and Programs
Transportation Enhancement and
Walkable/ Bikeable Communities Total
Mohave County Total
New Roadway Corridors
Strategic Rail and Transit Projects
and Program Total
Local Mobility Projects and Programs
Local Mobility Projects and Programs Total
Transportation Enhancement and
Walkable/ Bikeable Communities
N A V A J O APA C H E
G I LA
ARIZONA
UTAH
18
32
CO C O N IN O
Taylor
Winslow
Show Low
Holbrook
Snowflake
Pinetop- Lakeside
June 19, 2008
0 5 10 20
Miles DRAFT
TNraIanvnSvastejrposao ttCmretogaeuytnniott ny
X US/ SR Improvements
Strategic Highway Projects
PRruorgarl aPmublic Transportation
PCootnennetciatlo Nrsew
PPruobvliicd eTrransit Service
SAedrdviteido nbayl CProomvimdeurnity
EDlidsearbliyli taineds PPreorgsoranms with
Primary Transit Service
Secondary Service Area
Potential Growth
Current Connectors
PPorotevindteiarl Service
LPorocjael cMt oCbitiylity
18
SR 77: Widen to 4- lane from Deuce of Clubs to Pinedale
Road
150,000,000
32
US 60: Widen to 4- lane from Rim Road to Bourdon
Ranch Road
100,000,000
Strategic Highway Projects Total 250,000,000
66 Connecting Communities Bus Transit Program 10,000,000
67 Enhancing Public Transportation Programs 17,954,796
68
Transit Serving Elderly, Persons with Disabilities and
Tribal Populations in Rural Areas
5,085,501
69 Statewide Vanpool and Rideshare Programs 7,226,290
70
Transit/ Rail Planning, Marketing and Other Related
Programs
578,103
40,844,690
Navajo County 102,848,529
Pinetop/ Lakeside 6,770,431
Holbrook 8,818,628
Show Low 16,068,597
Snowflake 8,022,107
Taylor 6,664,770
Winslow 15,987,319
White Mountain Apache Tribe 10,651,957
The Hopi Tribe 5,870,951
Navajo Nation 27,153,652
208,856,941
Navajo County 7,926,085
Pinetop/ Lakeside 1,162,318
Holbrook 1,513,943
Show Low 2,758,586
Snowflake 1,377,200
Taylor 1,144,178
Winslow 2,744,632
White Mountain Apache Tribe 2,942,708
The Hopi Tribe 1,621,908
Navajo Nation 7,501,463
30,693,021
530,394,652
June 19, 2008
Transportation Enhancement and
Walkable/ Bikeable Communities
Transportation Enhancement and
Walkable/ Bikeable Communities Total
Navajo County Total
Public Transit Projects and Programs
Strategic Rail and Transit Projects
and Program Total
Local Mobility Projects and Programs
Local Mobility Projects and Programs Total
Strategic Highway Projects
US/ SR Improvements
Strategic Rail and Transit Projects and Programs
Project/
Program
Project/ Program Description Estimated Cost
REPUBLIC OF MEXICO
P I M A Tucson
Marana
Sahuarita
Oro Valley
South Tucson
June 19, 2008
0 4 8 16
Miles
DRAFT
Strategic Highway Projects
Pima County Transportation Investment Strategy
Rural Public Transportation Program
Local Mobility Project City
M A R IC O PA
SCARNUTZA
PI N A L
20
16
5
11
25
ARIZONA
REPUBLIC OF MEXICO
X New Corridors
Y U M A
C O C H I S E
EDlidsearbliyli taineds PPreorgsoranms with
Primary Transit Service
Secondary Service Area
Potential Growth
Public Transit Service Provider
bAyd dPirtioovnidael rCommunity Served
fPCororom gSprtaalemtetem Tder aIdmd oepr r CoRoverecrmiednoetrnlysts
52
59
57 58 55 54
60 53
56
X oAfc cPerloegraratimonm/ Eedxp Parnosjeiocnts
X US/ SR Improvements
X Interstate Improvement
5
I- 10: Widen to 6- lane from I- 19 Junction to Houghton
Road
198,000,000
11 I- 19: Widen to 6- lane from Tucson to the County Line 1,088,000,000
16
SR 77: Widen to 6- lane from Tangerine Road to the
County Line
59,500,000
20
SR 86: Widen to 4- lane from Kinney to Kitt Peak
Turnoff
247,000,000
25
SR 210: Extension from Alvernon Way to Valencia
Road
295,000,000
52
SR 982/ Sahuarita Corridor on Pima Mine Road from I-
19 to Houghton Road
231,000,000
53 Grant Road/ SR 110 from I- 10 to Tanque Verde Road 92,565,125
54
Houghton Road/ SR 983 from Pima Mine Road to
Tanque Verde Road
116,821,125
55 Kolb Road/ SR110 from I- 10 to Tanque Verde Road 40,604,125
56 Tangerine Road/ SR 989 I- 10 to Oracle Road 42,827,625
57 Valencia Road/ SR 910 from Ajo Way to I- 19 87,042,625
58 Valencia Road/ SR 910 from I- 19 to Houghton Road 51,210,125
59
Wilmot Road/ SR 210 from Pima Mine Road to Valencia
Road
143,316,125
60 22nd Street/ SR 210 from I- 10 to Aviation Parkway 59,696,125
Strategic Highway Projects Total 2,752,583,000
66 Connecting Communities Bus Transit Program 20,000,000
68
Transit Serving Elderly, Persons with Disabilities and
Tribal Populations in Rural Areas
43,202,589
69 Statewide Vanpool and Rideshare Programs 61,389,114
70
Transit/ Rail Planning, Marketing and Other Related
Programs
4,911,129
High Speed Intercity Rail/ Commuter Rail/ Light Rail
71
High Speed Urban- Urban Rail Connections
Commuter Rail in Urban Corridors
1,435,000,000
72
Light Rail, Modern Streetcar and Related High Capacity
Transit
400,000,000
1,964,502,832
Pima County 499,450,081
Marana 23,047,196
Oro Valley 33,977,906
Sahuarita 12,064,744
South Tucson 4,855,219
Tucson 555,736,317
Pascua Yaqui Tribe 3,348,624
Tohono O'odham Nation 9,641,814
1,142,121,901
Pima County 91,885,880
Marana 7,458,088
Oro Valley 10,995,273
Sahuarita 3,904,159
South Tucson 1,571,152
Tucson 147,841,774
Pascua Yaqui Tribe 925,090
Tohono O'odham Nation 2,663,646
267,245,062
6,126,452,795
June 19, 2008
Transportation Enhancement and
Walkable/ Bikeable Communities Total
Pima County Total
Strategic Highway Projects
Strategic Rail and Transit Projects and Programs
Local Mobility Projects and Programs
Transportation Enhancement and
Walkable/ Bikeable Communities
Strategic Rail and Transit Projects
and Program Total
Public Transit Projects and Programs
Local Mobility Projects and Programs Total
Acceleration/ Expansion of Programmed Projects
Project/
Program
Project/ Program Description Estimated Cost
US/ SR Improvements
Interstate Improvements
PI N AL
4
G R A H AM
M AR IC O PA G I LA
62
64
38 31
17
PI M A
Apache Junction
Coolidge Florence
Casa Grande
Maricopa
Eloy
Kearny
Mammoth
Winkelman
Superior
QCureeeekn
29
28
30
June 19, 2008
0 2 4 8
Miles DRAFT Pinal County Transportation Investment Strategy
Local Mobility Project City
Rural Public Transportation Program
Potential New Connectors
Public Transit Service Provider
Potential New Service Provider
Elderly and Persons with Disabilities Program
Primary Transit Service
Secondary Service Area
Potential Growth
IPmropgrroavmemmeendt so rf oRre Scetanttely T Craodmep Cleotrerdidors
Strategic Highway Projects
New Corridors
Potential PPP Roadway Projects X
X
X Interstate Improvements X US/ SR Improvements
Pinal County 188,654,077
4 I- 10: Widen to 6- lane from Riggs Rd to I- 8 500,000,000 Apache Junction 35,705,900
Casa Grande 34,305,980
17 SR 77: Widen to 4- lane from Oracle Junction to Oracle 70,000,000 Coolidge 8,642,529
28 SR 347: Widen to 6- lane from Maricopa to I- 10 208,000,000 Eloy 11,754,051
29 SR 347: UPRR Overpass 35,000,000 Florence 21,690,846
30 US 60: Gold Canyon Reroute 300,000,000 Kearny 2,376,167
31
US 60: Widen to 4- lane from Jct SR 79 to the County
Line
207,000,000 Mammoth 1,861,630
Superior 3,437,994
38 SR 802 from the County Line to N- S Corridor 328,000,000 Queen Creek 526,159
Winkleman 4,226
62 Val Vista Freeway from SR 303L to N- S Corridor 228,500,000 Maricopa 16,834,970
64 Pinal County N- S Corridor from US 60 to I- 10 360,000,000 Gila River Indian Communtiy 8,644,803
Strategic Highway Projects Total 2,236,500,000 Ak- Chin Indian Community 749,526
Tohono O'odham Nation 803,064
Local Mobility Projects and Programs Total 335,991,922
66 Connecting Communities Bus Transit Program 20,000,000
67 Enhancing Public Transportation Programs 43,688,087 Pinal County 31,558,388
68
Transit Serving Elderly, Persons with Disabilities and
Tribal Populations in Rural Areas
12,374,176 Apache Junction 9,431,098
69 Statewide Vanpool and Rideshare Programs 17,583,200 Casa Grande 9,061,333
70
Transit/ Rail Planning, Marketing and Other Related
Programs
1,406,656 Coolidge 2,282,775
High Speed Intercity Rail/ Commuter Rail/ Light Rail Eloy 3,104,630
71
High Speed Urban- Urban Rail Connections
Commuter Rail in Urban Corridors
1,600,000,000 Florence 5,729,263
1,695,052,119 Kearny 627,624
Mammoth 491,718
Superior 908,087
Queen Creek 138,976
Winkleman 1,116
Maricopa 4,446,667
Gila River Indian Communtiy 2,388,212
Ak- Chin Indian Community 207,064
Tohono O'odham Nation 221,854
70,598,805
4,338,142,846
June 19, 2008
Project/
Program
Project/ Program Description Estimated Cost
US/ SR Improvements
Interstate Improvements
Pinal County Total
Strategic Highway Projects
Strategic Rail and Transit Projects and Programs
Strategic Rail and Transit Projects
and Program Total
Public Transit Projects and Programs
New Roadway Corridors
Potential PPP Projects
Transportation Enhancement and
Walkable/ Bikeable Communities Total
Project/
Program
Project/ Program Description Estimated Cost
Local Mobility Projects and Programs
Transportation Enhancement and
Walkable/ Bikeable Communities
Nogales
Patagonia
June 19, 2008
0 2 4 8
Miles
Strategic Highway Projects
Santa Cruz County Transportation Investment Strategy
Rural Public Transportation Program EDlidsearbliyli taineds PPreorgsoranms with
Local Mobility Project City
SCARNUTZA
PI M A
10
ARIZONA
REPUBLIC OF MEXICO
Potential New Service Provider
C O C H I S E
Primary Transit Service
Secondary Service Area
Potential Growth
X Interstate Improvement Potential New Connectors
DRAFT
10 I- 19: Widen to 6- lane from Nogales to the County Line 510,000,000
Strategic Highway Projects Total 510,000,000
66 Connecting Communities Bus Transit Program 10,000,000
67 Enhancing Public Transportation Programs 6,943,443
68
Transit Serving Elderly, Persons with Disabilities and
Tribal Populations in Rural Areas
1,966,655
69 Statewide Vanpool and Rideshare Programs 2,794,536
70
Transit/ Rail Planning, Marketing and Other Related
Programs
223,563
21,928,197
Santa Cruz County 39,783,018
Nogales 28,928,423
Patagonia 1,219,155
69,930,596
Santa Cruz County 5,945,540
Nogales 6,092,051
Patagonia 256,742
12,294,333
614,153,126
June 19, 2008
Project/
Program
Project/ Program Description Estimated Cost
Interstate Improvements
Transportation Enhancement and
Walkable/ Bikeable Communities Total
Santa Cruz County Total
Strategic Highway Projects
Strategic Rail and Transit Projects and Programs
Local Mobility Projects and Programs
Transportation Enhancement and
Walkable/ Bikeable Communities
Strategic Rail and Transit Projects
and Program Total
Public Transit Projects and Programs
Local Mobility Projects and Programs Total
Y A V A P A I
8
CO C O N IN O
M A R IC O PA
21
37
7
63
Sedona
Peoria
LA PA Z M O H AV E
G I LA
Jerome
Prescott
Clarkdale
Cottonwood
Camp Verde
Chino Valley
HDuemwbeoy- lt
Prescott Valley
June 19, 2008
0 3.5 7 14
Miles
D
Strategic Highway Projects
Yavapai County Transportation Investment Strategy
Rural Public Transportation Program EDlidsearbliyli taineds PPreorgsoranms with
Local Mobility Project City
Primary Transit Service
Secondary Service Area
Potential Growth
Potential New Connectors
Public Transit Service Provider
bAyd dPirtioovnidael rCommunity Served
Current Connectors
fPCororom gSprtaalemtetem Tder aIdmd oepr r CoRoverecrmiednoetrnlysts
X
X
X
New Corridors
PPorotejencttisal PPP Roadway
US/ SR Improvements
X Interstate Improvements
Yavapai County 138,419,563
7 I- 17: Widen to 6- lane from New River to Cordes Junction 525,000,000 Camp Verde 10,520,746
8
I- 17: Widen to 6- lane from Cordes Junction to County
Line
633,000,000 Chino Valley 12,084,640
Clarkdale 3,608,233
21 SR 89: Widen to 4- lane from Chino Valley to I- 40 340,000,000 Cottonwood 10,648,210
Jerome 323,564
37
Fain Connector/ Fain Road/ SR- 89A/
Great Western Corridor
289,000,000 Prescott 39,974,911
Prescott Valley 32,920,227
63 Hassayampa Freeway Network 41,250,000 Sedona 7,682,203
Strategic Highway Projects Total 1,828,250,000 Peoria 33,337
Dewey- Humboldt 3,951,408
Yavapai- Apache Tribe 750,536
66 Connecting Communities Bus Transit Program 20,000,000 Yavapai- Prescott Indian Tribe 183,846
67 Enhancing Public Transportation Programs 33,526,773 261,101,424
68
Transit Serving Elderly, Persons with Disabilities and
Tribal Populations in Rural Areas
9,496,095
69 Statewide Vanpool and Rideshare Programs 13,493,563 Yavapai County 22,335,195
70
Transit/ Rail Planning, Marketing and Other Related
Programs
1,079,485 Camp Verde 2,994,398
High Speed Intercity Rail/ Commuter Rail/ Light Rail Chino Valley 3,439,511
71
High Speed Urban- Urban Rail Connections
Commuter Rail in Urban Corridors
350,000,000 Clarkdale 1,026,970
427,595,916 Cottonwood 3,030,677
Jerome 92,092
Prescott 11,377,596
Prescott Valley 9,369,703
Sedona 2,186,497
Peoria 9,488
Dewey- Humboldt 1,124,643
Yavapai- Apache Tribe 207,343
Yavapai- Prescott Indian Tribe 50,789
57,244,902
2,574,192,242
June 19, 2008
Local Mobility Projects and Programs Total
Transportation Enhancement and
Walkable/ Bikeable Communities
Transportation Enhancement and
Walkable/ Bikeable Communities Total
Project/
Program
Project/ Program Description Estimated Cost
Local Mobility Projects and Programs
Project/
Program
Project/ Program Description Estimated Cost
Strategic Highway Projects
Interstate Improvements
US/ SR Improvements
Strategic Rail and Transit Projects and Programs
Public Transit Projects and Programs
Yavapai County Total
New Roadway Corridors
Potential PPP Projects
Strategic Rail and Transit Projects
and Program Total
Y U M A
Yuma
Yuma
Wellton
Somerton
San Luis
June 19, 2008
0 2.5 5 10
Miles
D
X US/ SR Improvements
Strategic Highway Projects
Yuma County Transportation Investment Strategy
EDlidsearbliyli taineds PPreorgsoranms with
LPorocjael cMt oCbitiylity
X New Corridors
LA PA Z
35
39
ARIZONA
REPUBLIC OF MEXICO
M A R I C O PA P I M A
ARIZONA
CALIFORNIA
Rural Public Transportation Program
Current Connectors Primary Transit Service
Secondary Service Area
Potential Growth
LA PA Z
35
US 95: Widen to 4- lane from Avenue 9E to the County
Line
280,000,000
39
Initiate Yuma Expressway: from Avenue D to Avenue
15E
170,000,000
Strategic Highway Projects Total 450,000,000
66 Connecting Communities Bus Transit Program 15,000,000
67 Enhancing Public Transportation Programs 30,229,283
68
Transit Serving Elderly, Persons with Disabilities and
Tribal Populations in Rural Areas
8,562,116
69 Statewide Vanpool and Rideshare Programs 12,166,418
70
Transit/ Rail Planning, Marketing and Other Related
Programs
973,313
66,931,130
Yuma County 133,686,535
Somerton 9,807,871
San Luis 23,066,101
Welton 1,981,693
Yuma 89,301,922
Cocopah Tribe 1,035,396
Fort Yuma- Quechan Tribe 36,365
258,915,884
Yuma County 18,137,736
Somerton 2,720,912
San Luis 6,399,026
Welton 549,764
Yuma 24,774,248
Cocopah Tribe 286,038
Fort Yuma- Quechan Tribe 10,046
52,877,771
828,724,784
June 19, 2008
Project/
Program
Project/ Program Description Estimated Cost
Strategic Highway Projects
US/ SR Improvements
Strategic Rail and Transit Projects and Programs
Public Transit Projects and Programs
Transportation Enhancement and
Walkable/ Bikeable Communities Total
Yuma County Total
New Roadway Corridors
Strategic Rail and Transit Projects
and Program Total
Local Mobility Projects and Programs
Local Mobility Projects and Programs Total
Transportation Enhancement and
Walkable/ Bikeable Communities
20% Local Mobility 4% Enhancement
$ 8.52 Billion $ 1.70 Billion
JURISDICTION HURF Proportion Dist. / 1 Population Distribution / 2 Total
APACHE $ 86,040,958 $ 2,392,170 $ 88,433,128
EAGAR $ 10,360,451 $ 1,237,666 $ 11,598,117
SPRINGERVILLE $ 4,823,976 $ 576,275 $ 5,400,251
ST JOHNS $ 9,028,894 $ 1,078,597 $ 10,107,491
Total $ 110,254,279 $ 5,284,708 $ 115,538,987
COCHISE $ 104,543,442 $ 14,586,876 $ 119,130,319
BENSON $ 4,664,533 $ 1,322,782 $ 5,987,314
BISBEE $ 6,465,396 $ 1,833,476 $ 8,298,872
DOUGLAS $ 16,921,232 $ 4,798,572 $ 21,719,803
HUACHUCA CITY $ 1,800,864 $ 510,694 $ 2,311,558
SIERRA VISTA $ 42,994,394 $ 12,192,474 $ 55,186,868
TOMBSTONE $ 1,584,367 $ 449,299 $ 2,033,666
WILCOX $ 3,823,145 $ 1,084,179 $ 4,907,324
Total $ 182,797,373 $ 36,778,352 $ 219,575,724
COCONINO $ 120,970,288 $ 8,377,617 $ 129,347,905
FLAGSTAFF $ 87,627,231 $ 17,074,766 $ 104,701,998
FREDONIA $ 1,589,707 $ 309,765 $ 1,899,472
PAGE $ 10,182,718 $ 1,984,172 $ 12,166,891
WILLIAMS $ 4,504,170 $ 877,668 $ 5,381,838
SEDONA $ 4,439,722 $ 865,110 $ 5,304,833
Total $ 229,313,837 $ 29,489,099 $ 258,802,937
GILA $ 48,676,133 $ 6,096,237 $ 54,772,370
GLOBE $ 9,642,948 $ 2,091,614 $ 11,734,561
HAYDEN $ 1,147,633 $ 248,929 $ 1,396,562
MIAMI $ 2,515,272 $ 545,578 $ 3,060,850
PAYSON $ 19,851,993 $ 4,306,017 $ 24,158,010
WINKLEMAN $ 564,810 $ 122,511 $ 687,321
STAR VALLEY $ 2,580,888 $ 559,810 $ 3,140,698
Total $ 84,979,677 $ 13,970,695 $ 98,950,372
GRAHAM $ 31,053,856 $ 4,146,669 $ 35,200,525
PIMA $ 2,096,812 $ 581,856 $ 2,678,668
SAFFORD $ 9,413,025 $ 2,612,075 $ 12,025,100
THATCHER $ 4,575,776 $ 1,269,759 $ 5,845,535
Total $ 47,139,469 $ 8,610,359 $ 55,749,828
GREENLEE $ 10,841,533 $ 1,434,130 $ 12,275,662
CLIFTON $ 2,985,394 $ 724,460 $ 3,709,854
DUNCAN $ 933,798 $ 226,603 $ 1,160,401
Total $ 14,760,725 $ 2,385,193 $ 17,145,917
LA PAZ $ 48,267,129 $ 1,909,940 $ 50,177,070
PARKER $ 13,731,386 $ 915,343 $ 14,646,729
QUARTZSITE $ 15,071,034 $ 1,004,644 $ 16,075,678
Total $ 77,069,549 $ 3,829,927 $ 80,899,476
MARICOPA $ 313,017,478 $ 63,241,518 $ 376,258,996
TRIBAL COMMUNITIES $ 14,330,594 $ 2,895,329 $ 17,225,923
AVONDALE $ 95,798,816 $ 19,355,030 $ 115,153,845
BUCKEYE $ 35,092,345 $ 7,089,998 $ 42,182,343
CAREFREE $ 5,088,570 $ 1,028,086 $ 6,116,656
CAVE CREEK $ 6,583,095 $ 1,330,037 $ 7,913,133
CHANDLER $ 318,857,454 $ 64,421,417 $ 383,278,871
EL MIRAGE $ 44,284,645 $ 8,947,194 $ 53,231,839
GILA BEND $ 2,734,899 $ 552,554 $ 3,287,453
GILBERT $ 239,057,798 $ 48,298,831 $ 287,356,628
GLENDALE $ 334,775,119 $ 67,637,395 $ 402,412,514
GOODYEAR $ 63,832,266 $ 12,896,562 $ 76,728,829
GUADALUPE $ 7,672,911 $ 1,550,222 $ 9,223,133
MESA $ 618,938,031 $ 125,049,186 $ 743,987,217
PARADISE VALLEY $ 19,148,437 $ 3,868,718 $ 23,017,154
PEORIA $ 190,764,730 $ 38,541,781 $ 229,306,512
PHOENIX $ 2,038,513,600 $ 411,857,818 $ 2,450,371,418
SCOTTSDALE $ 324,254,045 $ 65,511,735 $ 389,765,781
SURPRISE $ 121,917,101 $ 24,631,924 $ 146,549,025
TEMPE $ 229,007,734 $ 46,268,333 $ 275,276,067
TOLLESON $ 8,975,441 $ 1,813,383 $ 10,788,824
WICKENBURG $ 8,393,930 $ 1,695,895 $ 10,089,825
YOUNGTOWN $ 8,512,718 $ 1,719,895 $ 10,232,614
LITCHFIELD PARK $ 6,254,355 $ 1,263,619 $ 7,517,974
QUEEN CREEK $ 21,984,168 $ 4,441,644 $ 26,425,812
FOUNTAIN HILLS $ 33,829,872 $ 6,834,930 $ 40,664,802
APACHE JUNCTION $ 379,847 $ 76,744 $ 456,591
Total $ 5,112,000,000 $ 1,032,819,779 $ 6,144,819,779
20% LOCAL AND 4% ENHANCEMENT DISTRIBUTIONS SUMMARY
FINAL INITIATIVE LANGUAGE
CITIES/ TOWNS/ COUNTIES/ TRIBAL PROJECTIONS
20% Local Distribution 4% Enhancement Dist.
$ 8.52 Billion $ 1.70 Billion
JURISDICTION HURF Proportion Dist. / 1 Population Distribution / 2 Total
MOHAVE $ 144,776,890 $ 17,898,016 $ 162,674,906
BULLHEAD CITY $ 43,510,560 $ 10,663,182 $ 54,173,742
COLORADO CITY $ 4,645,985 $ 1,138,597 $ 5,784,582
KINGMAN $ 29,447,345 $ 7,216,695 $ 36,664,040
LAKE HAVASU CITY $ 60,847,599 $ 14,911,990 $ 75,759,589
Total $ 283,228,379 $ 51,828,481 $ 335,056,859
NAVAJO $ 102,848,529 $ 7,926,085 $ 110,774,614
PINETOP/ LAKESIDE $ 6,770,431 $ 1,162,318 $ 7,932,748
HOLBROOK $ 8,818,628 $ 1,513,943 $ 10,332,571
SHOW LOW $ 16,068,597 $ 2,758,586 $ 18,827,182
SNOWFLAKE $ 8,022,107 $ 1,377,200 $ 9,399,307
TAYLOR $ 6,664,770 $ 1,144,178 $ 7,808,948
WINSLOW $ 15,987,319 $ 2,744,632 $ 18,731,951
Total $ 165,180,379 $ 18,626,942 $ 183,807,321
PIMA $ 499,450,081 $ 91,885,880 $ 591,335,961
MARANA $ 23,047,196 $ 7,458,088 $ 30,505,285
ORO VALLEY $ 33,977,906 $ 10,995,273 $ 44,973,179
SAHUARITA $ 12,064,744 $ 3,904,159 $ 15,968,903
SOUTH TUCSON $ 4,855,219 $ 1,571,152 $ 6,426,371
TUCSON $ 555,736,317 $ 147,841,774 $ 703,578,091
Total $ 1,129,131,463 $ 263,656,326 $ 1,392,787,789
PINAL $ 188,654,077 $ 31,558,388 $ 220,212,464
APACHE JUNCTION $ 35,705,900 $ 9,431,098 $ 45,136,998
CASA GRANDE $ 34,305,980 $ 9,061,333 $ 43,367,313
COOLIDGE $ 8,642,529 $ 2,282,775 $ 10,925,304
ELOY $ 11,754,051 $ 3,104,630 $ 14,858,680
FLORENCE $ 21,690,846 $ 5,729,263 $ 27,420,109
KEARNY $ 2,376,167 $ 627,624 $ 3,003,791
MAMMOTH $ 1,861,630 $ 491,718 $ 2,353,348
SUPERIOR $ 3,437,994 $ 908,087 $ 4,346,081
QUEEN CREEK $ 526,159 $ 138,976 $ 665,135
WINKLEMAN $ 4,226 $ 1,116 $ 5,342
MARICOPA $ 16,834,970 $ 4,446,667 $ 21,281,637
Total $ 325,794,529 $ 67,781,673 $ 393,576,202
SANTA CRUZ $ 39,783,018 $ 5,945,540 $ 45,728,559
NOGALES $ 28,928,423 $ 6,092,051 $ 35,020,474
PATAGONIA $ 1,219,155 $ 256,742 $ 1,475,897
Total $ 69,930,596 $ 12,294,334 $ 82,224,930
YAVAPAI $ 138,419,563 $ 22,335,195 $ 160,754,758
CAMP VERDE $ 10,520,746 $ 2,994,398 $ 13,515,144
CHINO VALLEY $ 12,084,640 $ 3,439,511 $ 15,524,151
CLARKDALE $ 3,608,233 $ 1,026,970 $ 4,635,203
COTTONWOOD $ 10,648,210 $ 3,030,677 $ 13,678,887
JEROME $ 323,564 $ 92,092 $ 415,657
PRESCOTT $ 39,974,911 $ 11,377,596 $ 51,352,507
PRESCOTT VALLEY $ 32,920,227 $ 9,369,703 $ 42,289,930
SEDONA $ 7,682,203 $ 2,186,497 $ 9,868,700
PEORIA $ 33,337 $ 9,488 $ 42,825
DEWEY- HUMBOLDT $ 3,951,408 $ 1,124,643 $ 5,076,051
Total $ 260,167,043 $ 56,986,771 $ 317,153,814
YUMA $ 133,686,535 $ 18,137,736 $ 151,824,270
SOMERTON $ 9,807,871 $ 2,720,912 $ 12,528,782
SAN LUIS $ 23,066,101 $ 6,399,026 $ 29,465,126
WELTON $ 1,981,693 $ 549,764 $ 2,531,457
YUMA $ 89,301,922 $ 24,774,248 $ 114,076,170
Total $ 257,844,121 $ 52,581,685 $ 310,425,806
NON- MARICOPA TRIBAL COMM. $ 170,400,000 $ 47,075,676 $ 217,475,676
Total Cities, Towns, Counties, Tribes $ 8,519,991,419 $ 1,704,000,000 $ 10,223,991,419
Cities, Towns and Tribes $ 6,324,231,315 $ 1,356,156,997 $ 7,680,388,312
Counties $ 2,011,029,510 $ 297,871,998 $ 2,308,901,508
Total Tribal Communities $ 184,730,594 $ 49,971,005 $ 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.
20% LOCAL AND 4% ENHANCEMENT DISTRIBUTIONS SUMMARY
CITIES/ COUNTIES/ TRIBES PROJECTIONS
FINAL INITIATIVE LANGUAGE