F I N A L R E P O R T Compilation of Evaluation Data for Designation of the CANAMEX Corridor Through the Maricopa Region Prepared for Arizona Department of Transportation Maricopa Association of Governments August 2000 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. TABLE OF CONTENTS Compilation of Evaluation Data for Designation of the CANAMEX Corridor Through the Maricopa Region TABLE OF CONTENTS .................................................................................................................... I LIST OF EXHIBITS ......................................................................................................................... I 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY......................................................................................................... 1 1.1 PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES ...................................................................................... 1 1.2 ROUTE ALTERNATIVES.............................................................................................. 1 1.3 EVALUATION CRITERIA............................................................................................ 1 1.3.1 Costs ......................................................................................................................... 4 1.3.2 Travel Time .............................................................................................................. 4 1.3.3 Length....................................................................................................................... 4 1.3.4 Level of Service........................................................................................................ 6 1.3.5 Access to Freight Terminals..................................................................................... 6 1.3.6 Constructibility ......................................................................................................... 6 1.3.7 Safety........................................................................................................................ 6 1.3.8 Environmental Impacts............................................................................................. 7 1.3.9 Title VI and Environmental Justice Impacts ............................................................ 8 1.3.10 Major Community Impacts....................................................................................... 8 2. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 9 2.1 PURPOSE......................................................................................................................... 9 2.2 STUDY PROCESS .......................................................................................................... 9 3. ROUTE DEFINITIONS .......................................................................................................... 10 4. ROUTE COMPARISONS ....................................................................................................... 30 4.1 OVERVIEW OF EVALUATION CRITERIA .............................................................. 30 4.1.1 Costs ....................................................................................................................... 30 4.1.2 Travel Time ............................................................................................................ 33 4.1.3 Primary Data Source(s) .......................................................................................... 34 4.1.4 Length..................................................................................................................... 35 4.1.5 Level of Service...................................................................................................... 36 4.1.6 Access to Freight Terminals................................................................................... 38 4.1.7 Constructibility ....................................................................................................... 40 4.1.8 Safety...................................................................................................................... 41 4.1.9 Environmental Impacts........................................................................................... 42 4.1.10 Title VI and Environmental Justice Impacts .......................................................... 47 4.1.11 Major Community Impacts..................................................................................... 48 5. REFERENCES ...................................................................................................................... 49 APPENDIX ................................................................................................................................... 51 Final Report August 2000 Compilation of Evaluation Data for Designation of the CANAMEX Corridor Through the Maricopa Region i LIST OF EXHIBITS Exhibit ES1A Route Alternatives 1-4 .......................................................................................... 2 Exhibit ES1B Route Alternatives 5-8........................................................................................... 3 Exhibit ES2 Summary of Evaluation Data ................................................................................... 5 Exhibit ES3 - Regulatory Compliance Summary......................................................................... 7 Exhibit 1 - Physical and Operational Characteristics for Route 1.............................................. 12 Exhibit 2 - Physical and Operational Characteristics for Route 2.............................................. 13 Exhibit 3 - Physical and Operational Characteristics for Route 3.............................................. 14 Exhibit 4 - Physical and Operational Characteristics for Route 4.............................................. 15 Exhibit 5 - Physical and Operational Characteristics for Route 5.............................................. 16 Exhibit 6 - Physical and Operational Characteristics for Route 6.............................................. 17 Exhibit 7 - Physical and Operational Characteristics for Route 7.............................................. 18 Exhibit 8 - Physical and Operational Characteristics for Route 8.............................................. 19 Exhibit 9 - Route 1 ..................................................................................................................... 20 Exhibit 10 - Route 2 ................................................................................................................... 21 Exhibit 11 - Route 3 ................................................................................................................... 22 Exhibit 12 - Route 4 ................................................................................................................... 23 Exhibit 13 - Route 5 ................................................................................................................... 24 Exhibit 14 - Route 6 ................................................................................................................... 25 Exhibit 15 - Route 7 ................................................................................................................... 26 Exhibit 16 - Route 8 ................................................................................................................... 27 Exhibit 17 - Unique Segments which Make Up Routes............................................................. 28 Exhibit 18 - Future Sun Valley Parkway Alignment.................................................................. 29 Exhibit 19 - Minimum Roadway Cross-Section ........................................................................ 32 Exhibit 20 - Total Capital Construction and Right-Of-Way Acquisition Costs by Route ......... 33 Exhibit 21 - Peak and Off-Peak Travel Time ............................................................................. 35 Exhibit 22 - Route Lengths......................................................................................................... 36 Exhibit 23 -Level of Service Criteria for Urban and Rural Roadways for Current Conditions . 37 Exhibit 24 - Level of Service Criteria for Future Conditions..................................................... 37 Exhibit 25 - Trucking and Warehouse Facility Densities .......................................................... 39 Exhibit 26 - Route Alternative Length within Areas of at Least 0.41 Trucking and Warehouse Facility Sites Per Square Mile ............................................................................................ 40 Exhibit 27 - Qualitative Assessment of Construction Difficulty and Relative Adverse Impacts of Construction ................................................................................................................... 41 Exhibit 28 - Truck-Involved Crashes by Route Alternative....................................................... 42 Exhibit 29 - Regulatory Compliance Evaluation Summary ....................................................... 46 Exhibit 30 -Title VI and Environmental Justice Impacts ........................................................... 48 Final Report August 2000 Compilation of Evaluation Data for Designation of the CANAMEX Corridor Through the Maricopa Region i 1. 1.1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES The Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) and the Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) are cooperating in the designation of a specific route for the CANAMEX Corridor in the Maricopa Region. As part of the route designation process, ADOT and MAG will perform a high-level evaluation of eight alternative routes that were selected in MAG-sponsored forums with agency representatives and stakeholders from within the MAG region. The evaluation will assess each alternative route using ten evaluation criteria. The evaluation of alternative CANAMEX Corridor routes in the Maricopa Region will result in the selection of a preferred route and a planning-level cost estimate for constructing route improvements. Kimley-Horn and Associates, under contract to ADOT, provided technical assistance to ADOT and MAG in support of the high-level evaluation of route alternatives. Specifically, available information was compiled for each alternative route according to each evaluation criterion. A field review of route conditions was conducted to supplement and confirm compiled information. 1.2 ROUTE ALTERNATIVES From an initial list of fifteen route alternatives, eight CANAMEX Corridor route alternatives in the Maricopa Region were identified for further consideration. For the purpose of this study, all routes were defined with common termini; the I-10/I-8 interchange near Casa Grande, Arizona on the south and the SR 93/Vulture Mine Road intersection near Wickenburg, Arizona on the north. The Wickenburg Bypass was not directly considered in the definition of CANAMEX route alternatives. However, issues associated with the use of the Wickenburg Bypass, as a segment of the CANAMEX Corridor will be considered in future continuing development of the preferred route alternative. Exhibit ES1A and Exhibit ES1B illustrate the eight route alternative, between the north and south termini. 1.3 EVALUATION CRITERIA ADOT and MAG will evaluate and select a preferred CANAMEX route from among eight route alternatives using ten evaluation criteria. The evaluation criteria are listed below. Costs Travel Time Length Level of Service Access to Freight Terminals Constructibility Safety Environmental Impacts Title VI and Environmental Justice Impacts Major Community Impacts Exhibit ES2 summarizes for each route alternative the data gathered for each evaluation criterion. Criterion assessment results are provided below for two of the ten criteria (Environmental Impacts and Major Community Impacts). To facilitate the review of criteria-related data, criterion definitions (developed by ADOT and MAG) and measure(s) of effectiveness are summarized below for each evaluation criterion. Final Report August 2000 Compilation of Evaluation Data for Designation of the CANAMEX Corridor Through the Maricopa Region 1 1.3.1 Costs MAG/ADOT CRITERION DEFINITION Capital cost of land acquisition and construction including all new infrastructure plus any rehabilitation of pavement, shoulders, medians, bridge and culvert structures, and roadway appurtenances. MEASURES OF EFFECTIVENESS Order-of-magnitude (planning-level) capital construction and right-of-way acquisition costs, in 2000 dollars, to upgrade existing roadway facilities or to construct new roadway infrastructure to a minimum pavement cross-section of 40-feet on 200-feet of right-of-way. Planning-level design, construction, and right-of-way acquisition costs for route segments currently programmed by MAG or ADOT (i.e., SR 202L). Planning-level costs for constructing projects and implementing transportation improvement needs on route segments. 1.3.2 Travel Time MAG/ADOT CRITERION DEFINITION Measured or estimated for peak and off-peak periods, for cross-regional trips. MEASURES OF EFFECTIVENESS Off-peak travel time (based on free-flow speed) expressed in minutes, between route alternative termini. Peak period travel time, expressed in minutes, between route alternative termini. 1.3.3 Length MAG/ADDOT CRITERION DEFINITION Total estimated or measured distance for the route through the Maricopa Region. MEASURES OF EFFECTIVENESS Length in miles between route termini for each route alternative. Final Report August 2000 Compilation of Evaluation Data for Designation of the CANAMEX Corridor Through the Maricopa Region 4 ES2 - Evaluation Criteria Upgrade Capital Cost (millions) Programmed Capital Costs (millions) Existing Peak (minutes) Existing OffPeak (minutes) Future Peak (minutes) (2) Future OffPeak (minutes) (2) Length (miles) Access to Freight Terminals (2) Level of Service Existing (Threshold is the Summation of LOS C or worse for Rural Roadways and LOS E or worse for Urban Roadways) Future (Threshold is LOS D or Worse) (2) Existing (Threshold is Route Alternatives within Areas with 0.41 Trucking and Warehouse facilities Sites Per Square Mile) Length (miles) Percentage (of total) Length (miles) Percentage (of total) Length (miles) Percentage (of total) Constructability Construction Difficulty Construction Impacts on Surrounding Area Safety Tractor Trailer Involved Crashes (November 1996 through October 1999) 1 $25 $0 156 156 139 131 145.4 1.0 1% 13.4 9% 0.0 0% Moderate Low 72 2 $121 $0 155 155 157 157 149.9 0.5 0% 10.9 7% 0.0 0% Low Moderate 74 3 $31 $225 154 152 150 120 138.0 9.9 7% 48.7 35% 0.7 1% Moderate Low 241 4 $132 $225 153 151 168 146 142.6 9.4 7% 46.2 32% 0.7 1% Low Moderate 243 5 $18 $225 154 152 148 120 126.2 9.9 8% 57.5 46% 0.7 1% Low High 261 6 $121 $0 151 146 188 153 141.5 13.1 9% 64.5 46% 11.4 8% Low Moderate 540 7 $25 $0 153 147 169 126 136.9 13.6 10% 67.0 49% 11.4 8% Moderate Low 538 8 $7 $0 152 147 167 126 125.1 13.6 11% 75.8 61% 11.4 9% Low High 558 Notes (1) Does not include upgrading SR 303 to parkway facility or for constructing the Wickenburg Bypass. (2) Only data within MAG Planning Region were available for this criterion. Environmental Impacts Title VI (2) Low Income (Route Alternative Within or Adjacent to Area with One or More Households in Poverty Per Acre) Major Community Impacts Minority Elderly Disabled Gender (Route Alternative Within or (Route Alternative Within or (Route Alternative Within or (Route Alternative Within or Adjacent to Area with Greater Adjacent to Area with Greater Adjacent to Area with Greater Adjacent to Area with Greater than Forty-Nine Percent than Twenty-One Percent than Twenty Percent Percent than Three Percent Population Population Aged 60 Years and with Disability or Female Population) Percent Racial Minority Older) Transportation Limitations) Population) Length (miles) Percentage (of total) Length (miles) Percentage (of total) Length (miles) Percentage (of total) Length (miles) Percentage (of total) Length (miles) Percentage (of total) 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 2.9 2% 14.0 10% 0.0 0% 6.2 4% 2.5 2% 2.9 2% 14.0 10% 0.0 0% 6.2 4% 2.5 2% 3.7 3% 14.6 12% 0.8 1% 9.0 7% 2.8 2% 10.1 7% 20.8 15% 1.0 1% 9.1 6% 5.9 4% 10.1 7% 20.8 15% 1.0 1% 9.1 7% 5.9 4% 10.9 9% 21.3 17% 1.8 1% 12.0 10% 6.2 5% See Major Community Impacts Section in Executive Summary Route Route Length Travel Time See Environmental Section within Executive Summary Criteria Construction Cost of Land and Construction (1) 1.3.4 Level of Service MAG/ADOT CRITERION DEFINITION Qualitative measure of highway operation under given traffic, physical, and operational conditions. MEASURE OF EFFECTIVENESS Percentage of total miles for each route alternative exceeding ADOT level of service criteria for urban and rural roadways under current traffic, physical, and operational conditions. Percentage of total miles for each route alternative exceeding level of service D under 2020 traffic, physical, and operational conditions. 1.3.5 Access to Freight Terminals MAG/ADOT CRITERION DEFINITION Route within acceptable distance to terminal destinations. MEASURE OF EFFECTIVENESS Percentage of total miles for each route alternative located within or adjacent to areas with trucking and warehouse facility densities of greater than 0.41 sites per square mile. 1.3.6 Constructibility MAG/ADOT CRITERION DEFINITION Minimal difficulty in constructing a project and minimal significant short-term impacts on the immediate surrounding area. MEASURES OF EFFECTIVENESS Qualitative rating of relative degree of construction difficulty expressed as high, moderate, or low levels of difficulty. Qualitative rating of relative adverse impacts of construction on surrounding areas expressed as high, moderate, or low levels of adverse impacts. 1.3.7 Safety MAG/ADOT CRITERION DEFINITION Suitable geometrics and environment for truck traffic and crash history. MEASURE OF EFFECTIVENESS Truck-involved crash frequency for the period, November 1996 through October 1999 Final Report August 2000 Compilation of Evaluation Data for Designation of the CANAMEX Corridor Through the Maricopa Region 6 1.3.8 Environmental Impacts MAG/ADOT CRITERION DEFINITION Air quality, visual impacts, species habitat impacts, sensitive noise receptors, proximity to existing/future historic properties, or high-density archaeological sites, and proximity to wilderness areas. MEASURES OF EFFECTIVENESS Listing of fatal environmental flaws that preclude upgrading a particular route segment or selecting a particular route alternative. Rating of significance of environmental regulatory requirements (in the form of a regulatory compliance matrix). CRITERION ASSESSMENT RESULTS Information for this criterion was compiled based on limited field review, limited research, and environmental judgement based on experience with similar projects. It is therefore difficult to make absolute projections about regulatory issues. While this regulatory assessment and field review did not note fatal flaws that would prevent the upgrading of a particular route nor preclude the selection of any route alternative, further analysis may identify significant impediments to upgrade and/or selection of a specific route alternative. Additional study of the preferred route alternative is recommended to determine more precisely the status of the various regulatory issues, as well as to insure that other previously unidentified regulatory issues are not overlooked. Specific design details will affect regulatory compliance. As an example, if the preferred route alternative requires minimal upgrading of the existing roadway and limited construction activity it will be less likely to have significant regulatory compliance issues. Conversely, if the preferred route is requires substantial upgrading, with extensive construction activity, the regulatory compliance issues will be more complex. Exhibit ES3 summarizes the results of the regulatory compliance evaluation. Exhibit ES3 - Regulatory Compliance Summary Route Clean Water Act Endangered Species Act Regulatory Constraint National Historic Prevention Act NEPA Prime Otherwise Designated Soils Route 303 Low Low Low Low Moderate Sun Valley Parkway Low Low/Moderate Low Low Low Significant Significant Significant Significant Low Low Low Moderate/ Significant Moderate Low Wickenburg Vulture Mine Riggs Road/19th Ave. Final Report August 2000 Compilation of Evaluation Data for Designation of the CANAMEX Corridor Through the Maricopa Region 7 It should be noted that the rating system is not a ranking system (i.e. a significant rating is not three times as difficult as a low rating), but is meant to convey the potential level of regulatory compliance complexity that the various routes may encounter. No matter what rating each route segment is assigned, it will require some level of documentation. A low rating is anticipated to require less evaluation, documentation, and potential compensatory mitigation as a high rating. While these ratings do take in to account the potential applicability of each regulation for each route, a low rating is not meant as a final indication that a regulation is not applicable. 1.3.9 Title VI and Environmental Justice Impacts MAG/ADOT CRITERION DEFINITION Impacts on persons who have limited transportation opportunities, including elderly, disabled, and lowincome individuals. MEASURES OF EFFECTIVENESS Percent of total route length within or adjacent to areas with greater than 21 percent racial minority population, as tabulated in the 1995 special census. Percent of total route length within or adjacent to areas with greater than 20 percent population aged 60 years and older, as tabulated in the 1995 special census. Percent of total route length within or adjacent to areas with one or more household in poverty per acre, as tabulated in the 1995 special census. Percent of total route length within or adjacent to areas with greater than 3 percent population with disability or transportation limitations, as tabulated in the 1995 special census. Percent of total route length within or adjacent to areas which are comprised of 50 percent or more females, as tabulated in the 1995 special census. 1.3.10 Major Community Impacts MAG/ADOT CRITERION DEFINITION Major impacts, including economic development to existing and planned residential neighborhoods located near the corridor. MEASURES OF EFFECTIVENESS Public perceptions on advantages and disadvantages of each route alternative. Public support and opposition for each route alternative. CRITERION ASSESSMENT RESULTS Assessment of agency, stakeholder, and public input during the route designation and development process is an ongoing responsibility of MAG and ADOT. Refer to the “Joint Recommendation for the CANAMEX Corridor Through the Maricopa Region” for a summary of public input. Final Report August 2000 Compilation of Evaluation Data for Designation of the CANAMEX Corridor Through the Maricopa Region 8 2. 2.1 INTRODUCTION PURPOSE The Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) and the Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) are cooperating in the evaluation of route alternatives and the designation of a specific route for the CANAMEX Corridor in the Maricopa Region. As part of the route designation process, ADOT and MAG will perform a high-level evaluation of eight alternative routes that were selected in MAGsponsored forums with agency representatives and stakeholders from within the MAG region. The evaluation will assess each alternative route using the following ten evaluation criteria. • • • • • • • • • • Capital cost of land acquisition and construction Travel time Route length Level of service Access to freight terminals Constructibility Safety Environmental impacts Title VI and environmental justice impacts Major community impacts The ADOT/MAG evaluation of alternative CANAMEX Corridor routes in the Maricopa Region will result in the designation of a preferred route and a planning-level cost estimate for constructing route improvements. The purpose of this study is to provide technical assistance to ADOT and MAG in support of the ADOT/MAG evaluation of route alternatives (the purpose of this study is not to evaluate or select a preferred route alternative). Specifically, available information was gathered and organized for each alternative route according to the evaluation criteria listed above. A field review of existing route conditions was conducted to supplement and confirm gathered information. 2.2 STUDY PROCESS Scoping Meetings. Scoping meetings were held with ADOT and MAG representatives in lateDecember 1999 to refine the scope of study, confirm the alternative CANAMEX Corridor routes to be considered, and refine the evaluation criteria. During and following the scoping meetings, ADOT and MAG provided data and information related to route characteristics and the evaluation criteria in the form of geographic information system (G.I.S.), databases, video-logs, and printed material including study reports and planning/programming documents. Data Collection, Review, and Organization. Agency-provided data and information were reviewed and organized by route segment for each evaluation criterion to facilitate data presentation. During the review of agency-provided information, it was observed that some of the databases contained incomplete data and/or did not reflect current conditions. In other instances, agency-provided data did not consistently cover the entire study area within which the route alternatives exist. For example, 2020 travel time data provided by MAG typically covered only the MAG Planning Region (some of the route segments lay outside of the MAG region) and data provided by ADOT included only information for the State Highway System (three route segments are not State Highways). Correcting and updating agencyprovided data was beyond the scope of this study. However, multiple data sources were not used for a given criterion to ensure data consistency for each criterion. Final Report August 2000 Compilation of Evaluation Data for Designation of the CANAMEX Corridor Through the Maricopa Region 9 As a supplement, interviews were conducted with public agency representatives to obtain additional detailed information for on-going projects. Interviews were conducted to gather information on the following on-going projects. • • • I-10, I-8 to Maricopa Traffic Interchange Design Concept Report, by CH2MHill for ADOT US 60, SR 303L to SR 74, by Dibble & Associates for ADOT 59th Avenue Truck Bypass Study, by Lima & Associates for MCDOT As a supplement to agency-provided travel time data, travel time and delay studies were also conducted to obtain information on peak periods travel characteristics on urban freeways in the Phoenix metropolitan area. Engineering and Environmental Field Reviews. Field reviews were conducted in mid-January to review non-interstate route segments and to record operational and geometric conditions, and environmentally sensitive areas along the route. Field reviews were only conducted for existing roadway facilities. Evaluation Criteria Summaries. Information and data pertaining to each evaluation criterion was summarized and presented for each route alternative (this report). 3. ROUTE DEFINITIONS During scoping meetings, eight CANAMEX route alternatives were designated for consideration in the study. For the purpose of this study, all routes were defined with common termini; the I-10/I-8 interchange near Casa Grande, Arizona on the south and the SR 93/ Vulture Mine Road intersection near Wickenburg, Arizona on the north. To facilitate data extraction and presentation, “functional terminal points” were defined beyond the route termini and designated as the “Southern Terminus” and “Northern Terminus” for all routes. Exhibits 1-8 define physical and operational characteristics for route segments that make up the eight alternative routes. Exhibits 9-16 show graphical illustrations of each route. Route segments that comprise the eight alternatives are shown in Exhibit 17. Route segments consist of both existing roadways and non-existing (future) roadways. The following points summarize route segments that do not currently exist and how these route segments were treated in the study. Sun Valley Parkway, Bell Road to US 60. Sun Valley Parkway currently extends approximately 15 miles in a north-south orientation between I-10 and a point on Sun Valley Parkway where the roadway transitions to an east-west orientation on the existing Bell Road alignment. For Route Alternatives 1, 3, and 7, it was assumed that a new segment of Sun Valley Parkway would be constructed north from Bell Road, to intersect with US 60 in the vicinity of the intersect of US 60 and SR 74, a distance of approximately 14 miles. For the purposes of this study it was assumed that the alignment for Sun Valley Parkway generally followed an alignment developed by the Maricopa County Department of Transportation (MCDOT) shown in Exhibit 18. Establishment of the future alignment for Sun Valley Parkway was not part of this study nor was an assessment of the feasibility of the MCDOT alignment shown in Exhibit 18. It was assumed that Sun Valley Parkway would be constructed as a capital cost requirement for Routes 1, 3, and 7. State Route 303 L, I-10 to US 60. SR 303 L, between I-10 and US 60 is currently planned as a 4lane expressway. Because construction of SR 303 L is not currently included in the current MAG Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP), it was assumed that Route Alternatives 5 and 8 would follow the current Cotton Lane/SR 303 L alignment between I-10 and US 60. It was also assumed that Cotton Lane/SR 303 L would be upgraded as a capital cost requirement for Routes 5 and 8. Final Report August 2000 Compilation of Evaluation Data for Designation of the CANAMEX Corridor Through the Maricopa Region 10 State Route 202 L, 19th Avenue to I-10. This segment of SR 202 L is part of the planned South Mountain freeway facility which connects I-10, southeast of Phoenix at a future interchange on the Pecos Road alignment with I-10, west of Phoenix at a future interchange on the 62nd Avenue alignment. Because this facility is currently included in the MAG TIP, it was assumed that Route Alternatives 3, 4, and 5 would utilize the future SR 202 L alignment between 19th Avenue and I-10, west of Phoenix. It was assumed that SR 202 L would be constructed as a capital cost requirement for Routes 3, 4, and 5. 19th Avenue, Riggs Road to (future) State Route 202 L. During the scoping meetings for this study, Route Alternatives 3, 4, and 5 were defined as following a future 19th Avenue alignment between Riggs Road and future SR 202 L. It was assumed that 19th Avenue would be upgraded as a capital cost requirement for Routes 3, 4, and 5. Wickenburg Road, I-10 to Indian School Road. Wickenburg Road currently does not have an interchange with I-10. Rather, Wickenburg Road ends at Indian School Road, north of the I-10 alignment and proceeds west for approximately 6.5 miles to the I-10/Tonopah interchange at milepost 94. In this study, it was assumed that Route Alternatives 2, 4, and 6 would access Wickenburg Road via a reconstructed interchange at the 355th Avenue overpass and proceed north on the existing 355th Avenue alignment to the intersection of Wickenburg Road and Indian School Road. It was assumed that the 355th Avenue interchange would be reconstructed as a capital cost requirement for Routes 2, 4, and 6. Wickenburg Bypass. ADOT is currently conducting a study to develop and evaluate alternative roadway alignments and design concepts for a bypass of Wickenburg, Arizona. Direction received during scoping for this study indicated that if the preferred bypass alignment is located southwest of Wickenburg, all CANAMEX route alternatives would utilize the bypass facility to access the Northern Terminus of the route alternatives. Due to uncertainty of the selected bypass alignment, route alternatives considered in this study were assumed to follow existing roads including US 60, SR 93, and Vulture Mine Road as each route proceeds to the Northern Terminus. Therefore, evaluation criteria for route length, travel time, capital costs of construction, and level of service does not reflect the ultimate connection of CANAMEX route alternatives to the Wickenburg Bypass. It was assumed that existing roadways would be upgraded as a capital cost requirement for Routes 2, 4, and 6. Final Report August 2000 Compilation of Evaluation Data for Designation of the CANAMEX Corridor Through the Maricopa Region 11 Exhibit 1 - Physical and Operational Characteristics for Route 1 Final Report August 2000 Compilation of Evaluation Data for Designation of the CANAMEX Corridor Through the Maricopa Region 12 Exhibit 2 - Physical and Operational Characteristics for Route 2 Final Report August 2000 Compilation of Evaluation Data for Designation of the CANAMEX Corridor Through the Maricopa Region 13 Exhibit 3 - Physical and Operational Characteristics for Route 3 Final Report August 2000 Compilation of Evaluation Data for Designation of the CANAMEX Corridor Through the Maricopa Region 14 Exhibit 4 - Physical and Operational Characteristics for Route 4 Final Report August 2000 Compilation of Evaluation Data for Designation of the CANAMEX Corridor Through the Maricopa Region 15 Exhibit 5 - Physical and Operational Characteristics for Route 5 Final Report August 2000 Compilation of Evaluation Data for Designation of the CANAMEX Corridor Through the Maricopa Region 16 Exhibit 6 - Physical and Operational Characteristics for Route 6 Final Report August 2000 Compilation of Evaluation Data for Designation of the CANAMEX Corridor Through the Maricopa Region 17 Exhibit 7 - Physical and Operational Characteristics for Route 7 Final Report August 2000 Compilation of Evaluation Data for Designation of the CANAMEX Corridor Through the Maricopa Region 18 Exhibit 8 - Physical and Operational Characteristics for Route 8 Final Report August 2000 Compilation of Evaluation Data for Designation of the CANAMEX Corridor Through the Maricopa Region 19 Vulture Mine Road US 93 SR 303L Sun Valley Parkway Wickenburg Road US 60 I-10 SR 202L I-17 SR 85 19th Avenue I-10 Riggs Road I-10 I-8 Legend Candidate Routes N Route 1 Urban Boundaries Exhibit 9 - Route Alternative 1 Vulture Mine Road US 93 SR 303L Sun Valley Parkway Wickenburg Road US 60 I-10 SR 202L I-17 SR 85 19th Avenue I-10 Riggs Road I-10 I-8 Legend Candidate Routes N Route 2 Urban Boundaries Exhibit 10 - Route Alternative 2 Vulture Mine Road US 93 SR 303L Sun Valley Parkway Wickenburg Road US 60 I-10 SR 202L I-17 SR 85 19th Avenue I-10 Riggs Road I-10 I-8 Legend Candidate Routes N Route 3 Urban Boundaries Exhibit 11 - Route Alternative 3 Vulture Mine Road US 93 SR 303L Sun Valley Parkway Wickenburg Road US 60 I-10 SR 202L I-17 SR 85 19th Avenue I-10 Riggs Road I-10 I-8 Legend Candidate Routes N Route 4 Urban Boundaries Exhibit 12 - Route Alternative 4 Vulture Mine Road US 93 SR 303L Sun Valley Parkway Wickenburg Road US 60 I-10 SR 202L I-17 SR 85 19th Avenue I-10 Riggs Road I-10 I-8 Legend Candidate Routes N Route 5 Urban Boundaries Exhibit 13 - Route Alternative 5 Vulture Mine Road US 93 SR 303L Sun Valley Parkway Wickenburg Road US 60 I-10 SR 202L I-17 SR 85 19th Avenue I-10 Riggs Road I-10 I-8 Legend Candidate Routes N Route 6 Urban Boundaries Exhibit 14 - Route Alternative 6 Vulture Mine Road US 93 SR 303L Sun Valley Parkway Wickenburg Road US 60 I-10 SR 202L I-17 SR 85 19th Avenue I-10 Riggs Road I-10 I-8 Legend Candidate Routes N Route 7 Urban Boundaries Exhibit 15 - Route Alternative 7 Vulture Mine Road US 93 SR 303L Sun Valley Parkway Wickenburg Road US 60 I-10 SR 202L I-17 SR 85 19th Avenue I-10 Riggs Road I-10 I-8 Legend Candidate Routes N Route 8 Urban Boundaries Exhibit 16 - Route Alternative 8 Vulture Mine Road # US 93 # # # US 60 # # SR 303L # # I-10 # # # # I-17 SR 202L Sun Valley Parkway Wickenburg Road # # I-10 19th Avenue # SR 85 # # Riggs Road I-10 # # I-8 ## Legend Candidate Routes # Candidate Route Segment Nodes Urban Boundaries Exhibit 17 - Route Segments N Exhibit 18 - Future Sun Valley Parkway Alignment Final Report August 2000 Compilation of Evaluation Data for Designation of the CANAMEX Corridor Through the Maricopa Region 29 4. ROUTE COMPARISONS 4.1 OVERVIEW OF EVALUATION CRITERIA ADOT and MAG will evaluate and designate a preferred CANAMEX route from among eight route alternatives using ten evaluation criteria. The evaluation criteria are listed below. Costs Travel Time Length Level of Service Access to Freight Terminals Constructibility Safety Environmental Impacts Title VI and Environmental Justice Impacts Major Community Impacts Definitions for each criterion were developed by ADOT and MAG and provided during scoping meetings for this study. To facilitate the presentation of data in this study, measure(s) of effectiveness were defined for each criterion. The following sections summarize for each criterion: ADOT/MAG criterion definition; Measure(s) of effectiveness for each criterion; The assessment methodology used in the study to quantify the measures of effectiveness; Primary source(s) of information and data used to quantify each measure of effectiveness; and A presentation of criterion assessment results. 4.1.1 Costs ADOT/MAG CRITERION DEFINITION Capital cost of land acquisition and construction including all new infrastructure plus any rehabilitation of pavement, shoulders, medians, bridge and culvert structures, and roadway appurtenances. MEASURE(S) OF EFFECTIVENESS Order-of-magnitude capital construction and right-of-way acquisition costs, in 2000 dollars, to upgrade existing roadway facilities or to construct new roadway infrastructure to a minimum roadway cross-section of 40-feet on 200-feet of right-of-way. Planning-level design, construction, and right-of-way acquisition costs for route segments currently programmed (i.e., SR 202L). Planning-level costs for constructing projects and implementing transportation improvement needs on route segments. Final Report August 2000 Compilation of Evaluation Data for Designation of the CANAMEX Corridor Through the Maricopa Region 30 PRIMARY DATA SOURCE(S) ADOT Five-Year Construction Program MAG Transportation Improvement Program MAG Long-range Plan ADOT Corridor Profile Studies Engineering Field Review Maricopa County Department of Transportation (right-of-way acquisition costs) ADOT Roadway Design Guidelines CRITERION ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY Order-of-magnitude construction cost estimates were developed for route segments that do not currently exist and that are not programmed for design, right-of-way, and/or construction. The development of costs for new route segments was based on constructing the roadway cross section shown in Exhibit 19 and did not establish or consider a specific route alignment. These route segments include the following. Sun Valley Parkway, Bell Road to US 60 19th Avenue, Riggs Road to (future) State Route 202 Note that SR 202 L has not been included in this type of route segment because it has been programmed for design and construction in the MAG TIP and the MAG Long-Range Transportation Plan. Order-of-magnitude construction cost estimates were also developed for route segments that were assessed, on the basis of a field review, to have less than minimum cross-section (refer to Exhibit 19) and roadway alignment characteristics for accommodating increased truck traffic volumes. The route segments for which construction cost estimates were developed include the following. SR 303 L/Cotton Lane, I-10 to US 60 Wickenburg Road, Indian School Road to Vulture Mine Road Vulture Mine Road, Wickenburg Road to SR 93 Riggs Road, I-10 to 19th Avenue Note that SR 303 L/Cotton Lane has been included in this type of route segment because its development as a 4-lane parkway facility has not yet been programmed. The minimum roadway cross-section standard used in the development of order-of-magnitude construction cost estimates for the two types of route segments listed above is shown in Exhibit 19. The cost estimate includes alignment improvements to provide a 60-mile per hour design speed for horizontal and vertical curves. Construction cost estimates also included allocations for drainage, bridge, and interchange improvements. Order-of-magnitude right-of-way acquisition costs were developed using the following input from the Maricopa County Department of Transportation. Final Report August 2000 Compilation of Evaluation Data for Designation of the CANAMEX Corridor Through the Maricopa Region 31 R /W R /W 2 0 0 ' D E S IR A B L E R O A D W AY CL 40' 20 ' V A R IE S 20' V A R IE S 2 3 ' M IN . 8' 12' 1 2' 8' S T D C -0 2 .2 0 S T D C -0 2 .2 0 T Y P IC A L S E C T IO N N O T TO S CA LE E x h ib it 1 9 - Ty p ic a l S e c tio n K im le y -H o rn a n d A ss o c ia te s , In c . $32,000 to $35,000 per acre for populated areas $12,000 to $15,000 per acre for unpopulated areas Order-of-magnitude construction and right-of-way acquisition costs are summarized on worksheets in Appendix A. All costs are expressed in 2000 dollars. In addition to estimating the cost of capital improvements on each route alternative, available agency documents and databases containing route-specific improvement plans were obtained and reviewed. Principal sources of information on transportation improvement plans and needs included the MAG Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), the MAG Long-Range Transportation Plan (LRTP), and ADOT Multi-Modal Corridor Profile Analysis Study reports. For CANAMEX route alternatives that will be developed or improved as part of an approved program such as the MAG TIP, the programmed cost of design, right-of-way acquisition, and construction was used directly in the development of capital costs of route improvements. Other route improvements contained in the MAG LRTP and ADOT Multi-Modal Corridor Profile Analysis Studies are summarized in Appendix B. CRITERION ASSESSMENT RESULTS Exhibit 20 lists the total capital construction and right-of-way acquisition costs along with the costs of programmed improvements necessary for achieving the minimum cross-section shown in Exhibit 19. Because programmed improvements do not include the upgrade of SR 303 L to a parkway facility and the construction of the Wickenburg Bypass, these costs are not included in Exhibit 20. Exhibit 20 - Total Capital Construction and Right-Of-Way Acquisition Costs by Route Route Upgrade Programmed Capital Cost Capital Costs (millions) (millions) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 4.1.2 $25 $121 $31 $132 $18 $121 $25 $7 $0 $0 $225 $225 $225 $0 $0 $0 Travel Time ADOT/MAG CRITERION DEFINITION Measured or estimated for peak and off-peak periods, for cross-regional trips. Final Report August 2000 Compilation of Evaluation Data for Designation of the CANAMEX Corridor Through the Maricopa Region 33 MEASURE(S) OF EFFECTIVENESS Off-peak travel time (based on free-flow speed) for existing and 2002 conditions, expressed in minutes, between route alternative termini. Peak period travel time for existing and 2002 conditions, expressed in minutes. 4.1.3 Primary Data Source(s) Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS) database (1998 version, released in November of 1999) containing posted speed limits and route segment distances Peak period travel time and delay studies Travel demand model estimates of 2020 travel times for route segments with the MAG Planning Region. CRITERION ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY Off-peak travel time was estimated for each route alternative using HPMS posted speed and segment length data. For the purpose of this study, the free flow speed was assumed to be equal to the posted speed. Resulting travel time therefore represents the time required to traverse each route segment at the assumed free flow speed. For route segments that do not exist, posted speed limits were established based on the speed limits of similar types of roadway facilities and segment lengths defined in GIS data. Peak period travel time was estimated separately for route segments located in urban and rural areas. Urban travel times were estimated using the results of a peak period travel time studies conducted on the following urban freeway segments. I-10, Riggs Road to Junction I-17 I-17, Junction I-10 to Junction I-10 I-10, Junction I-17 to SR 101 L The results of the peak period travel time and delay studies are provided in Appendix C. Urban area travel time data were combined with route segment travel times estimated using postedspeed limits. Future (2020) travel time estimates were developed by MAG using its travel demand model. The travel time data from the MAG model, however, were limited to those route segments that are included in the model (i.e., 2020 travel times were provided for only route segments in the MAG planning region). CRITERION ASSESSMENT RESULTS Exhibit 21 lists peak and off-peak travel time estimates for each CANAMEX route alternative for current and 2020 conditions. Final Report August 2000 Compilation of Evaluation Data for Designation of the CANAMEX Corridor Through the Maricopa Region 34 Exhibit 21 - Peak and Off-Peak Travel Time Route Existing Existing Future Future Peak Off-Peak Peak Off-Peak (minutes) (minutes) (minutes) (minutes) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 4.1.4 156 155 154 153 154 151 153 152 156 155 152 151 152 146 147 147 139 157 150 168 148 188 169 167 131 157 120 146 120 153 126 126 Length ADOT/MAG CRITERION DEFINITION Total estimated or measured distance for the route through Maricopa County. MEASURE(S) OF EFFECTIVENESS Length in miles between route termini for each route alternative. PRIMARY DATA SOURCE(S) • Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS) database (1998 version, released in November of 1999) containing route segment distances in miles. CRITERION ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY Route lengths were estimated using route segment lengths contained in HPMS database. For route egments that do not exist, segment lengths were established using route alignment information contained in published documents. CRITERION ASSESSMENT RESULTS Exhibit 22 lists route lengths for each CANAMEX route alternative. Final Report August 2000 Compilation of Evaluation Data for Designation of the CANAMEX Corridor Through the Maricopa Region 35 Exhibit 22 - Route Lengths 4.1.5 Route Length (miles) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 145.4 149.9 138.0 142.6 126.2 141.5 136.9 125.1 Level of Service ADOT/MAG CRITERION DEFINITION Qualitative measure of highway operation under given traffic, physical, and operational conditions. MEASURE(S) OF EFFECTIVENESS Percentage of total miles for each route alternative exceeding ADOT level of service criteria for urban and rural roadways under current traffic, physical, and operational conditions. Percentage of total miles for each route alternative exceeding level of service D under 2020 traffic, physical, and operational conditions. PRIMARY DATA SOURCE(S) Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS) database (1998 version, released in November of 1999) containing daily route segment volumes and capacities. MAG travel demand model outputs from the EMME 2 model containing 2020 level of service projections. ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY ADOT has established criteria to categorize the acceptability of level of service on the State Highway System. According to existing ADOT criteria, the quality of traffic performance on roadway segments in urban areas is considered less than desirable for levels of service (LOS) E or worse. For rural roadway segments LOS C or worse is considered to be less than desirable. This definition is consistent with definitions used in recent multi-modal corridor profile analysis studies prepared for ADOT. Daily volumes and daily capacities contained in the ADOT HPMS database were used to calculate daily volume-to-capacity ratios for each of the route segments that make up the CANAMEX route alternatives. Daily volume-to-capacity ratios were weighted by the length of each route segment. Volume-to-capacity ratio threshold for various levels of service were obtained from the Highway Capacity Manual (1994 Edition) and used to translate volume-to-capacity ratios to corresponding levels of service. Final Report August 2000 Compilation of Evaluation Data for Designation of the CANAMEX Corridor Through the Maricopa Region 36 The EMME 2 travel demand model maintained by MAG was used to estimate future level of service conditions in 2020. Travel demand model network and modeling parameters such as number of lanes, and facility type were defined by MAG and are consistent with operational MAG models developed for 2020 conditions. Level of service projections from the MAG model was not amenable to assessment of ADOT level of service criteria. Therefore, level of service D or worse were used in the assessment of future level of service. CRITERION ASSESSMENT RESULTS Exhibit 23 lists the percentage of total route alternative miles that exceed ADOT level of service criteria for urban and rural roadways for current conditions. Exhibit 23 -Level of Service Criteria for Urban and Rural Roadways for Current Conditions Route Length (miles) Percentage (of total) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1.0 0.5 9.9 9.4 9.9 13.1 13.6 13.6 1% 0% 7% 7% 8% 9% 10% 11% Exhibit 24 lists the percentage of total route alternative miles that are level of service D or worse for future conditions (Year 2020). Exhibit 24 - Level of Service Criteria for Future Conditions Route Length (miles) Percentage (of total) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 13.4 10.9 48.7 46.2 57.5 64.5 67.0 75.8 9% 7% 35% 32% 46% 46% 49% 61% Final Report August 2000 Compilation of Evaluation Data for Designation of the CANAMEX Corridor Through the Maricopa Region 37 4.1.6 Access to Freight Terminals ADOT/MAG CRITERION DEFINITION Route within acceptable distance to terminal destinations. MEASURE(S) OF EFFECTIVENESS Percentage of total miles for each route alternative located within or adjacent to areas with trucking and warehouse facility densities of greater than 0.41 sites per square mile. PRIMARY DATA SOURCE(S) Trucking and Warehouse Facility Density Map prepared by MCDOT ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY Exhibit 25 illustrated densities of trucking and warehouse facilities in Maricopa County. Low densities correspond to densities of 0.41-0.82 sites per square mile. High densities correspond to densities of 1.65-2.06 sites per square mile. Using a banding technique, the number of miles of each route alternative within or adjacent to areas with trucking and warehouse densities of at least 0.41 sites per square mile. Final Report August 2000 Compilation of Evaluation Data for Designation of the CANAMEX Corridor Through the Maricopa Region 38 Exhibit 25 - Trucking and Warehouse Facility Densities Final Report August 2000 Compilation of Evaluation Data for Designation of the CANAMEX Corridor Through the Maricopa Region 39 CRITERION ASSESSMENT RESULTS Exhibit 26 lists the miles and percentage of total route alternative within or adjacent to areas of at least 0.41 trucking and warehouse facility sites per square mile. Exhibit 26 - Route Alternative Length within Areas of at Least 0.41 Trucking and Warehouse Facility Sites Per Square Mile 4.1.7 Route Length (miles) Percentage (of total) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.7 0.7 11.4 11.4 11.4 0% 0% 1% 1% 1% 8% 8% 9% Constructibility ADOT/MAG CRITERION DEFINITION Minimal difficulty in constructing a project and minimal significant short-term impacts on the immediate surrounding area. MEASURE(S) OF EFFECTIVENESS Qualitative rating of relative degree of construction difficulty, expressed as a high level of difficulty, a moderate level of difficulty, or a low level of difficulty. Qualitative rating of relative adverse impacts of construction on surrounding areas expressed as a high level of adverse impacts, a moderate level of adverse impacts, or a low level of adverse impacts. PRIMARY DATA SOURCE(S) Assessment of this criterion was based on engineering judgement resulting principally from the field review of selected route alternatives. ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY The rating of the relative degree of construction difficulty is based on area conditions and the complexity of construction techniques that may be required to upgrade a particular route segment. Constructibility was not assessed for the construction of new routes because of uncertainties associated with route alignment. Route alternatives were categorized as having one of three levels of construction difficulty. A "high" level of construction difficulty denotes complex construction techniques in urbanized or developed areas and therefore requires special strategies for maintenance of commuter traffic volumes during construction; a "moderate" level of construction difficulty denotes normal Final Report August 2000 Compilation of Evaluation Data for Designation of the CANAMEX Corridor Through the Maricopa Region 40 construction complexity in less developed areas where traffic maintenance during construction requires less complex strategies; and a "low" level of construction difficulty denotes construction in low traffic volume undeveloped areas. The rating of relative adverse impacts of construction on existing surrounding areas is based on the intensity of residential and commercial development subject to adverse impacts from construction activities. Adverse construction impacts were not assessed for the construction of new routes because of uncertainties associated with route alignment. Route alternatives were categorized as having one of three levels of adverse impacts of construction on surrounding areas. A "high" level of adverse impacts denotes highly developed and urbanized areas; a "moderate" level of adverse impacts denotes moderate development densities; and a "low" level of adverse impacts denotes undeveloped areas. For example, route alternatives 5 and 8 were rated as “high” because of the highly developed residential areas along SR 303 L. Route alternatives 2, 4, and 6 were rated as “moderate” because of impacts to less intense urbanized areas along Vulture Mine Road, north of US 60. CRITERION ASSESSMENT RESULTS Exhibit 27 lists for each route alternative the qualitative rating of the level of relative degree of construction difficulty and the qualitative rating of the level of relative adverse impacts of construction on surrounding areas. Exhibit 27 - Qualitative Assessment of Construction Difficulty and Relative Adverse Impacts of Construction Route 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 4.1.8 Construction Construction Difficulty Impacts on Surrounding Area Moderate Low Moderate Low Low Low Moderate Low Low Moderate Low Moderate High Moderate Low High Safety ADOT/MAG CRITERION DEFINITION Suitable geometrics and environment for truck traffic and accident history. MEASURE(S) OF EFFECTIVENESS Truck-involved crash frequency for the period, November 1996 through October 1999 Final Report August 2000 Compilation of Evaluation Data for Designation of the CANAMEX Corridor Through the Maricopa Region 41 PRIMARY DATA SOURCE(S) ALIS accident database maintained by ADOT ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY A three-year accident database was requested from ADOT and queried by route segment, for the frequency of truck-involved crashes for the period, November 1996 through October 1999. CRITERION ASSESSMENT RESULTS Exhibit 28 lists the total number of truck-involved crashes recorded by the State of Arizona for each route alternative for the period, November 1996 through October 1999. Exhibit 28 - Truck-Involved Crashes by Route Alternative 4.1.9 Route Tractor Trailer Involved Accidents 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 72 74 241 243 261 540 538 558 Environmental Impacts ADOT/MAG CRITERION DEFINITION Air quality, visual impacts, species habitat impacts, sensitive noise receptors, proximity to existing/future historic properties, or high-density archaeological sites, and proximity to wilderness areas. MEASURE(S) OF EFFECTIVENESS Listing of fatal environmental flaws that preclude upgrading a particular route segment or selecting a particular route alternative. Rating of significance of environmental regulatory requirements (in the form of a regulatory compliance matrix). Final Report August 2000 Compilation of Evaluation Data for Designation of the CANAMEX Corridor Through the Maricopa Region 42 PRIMARY DATA SOURCE(S) Statewide GIS database provided by ADOT Environmental Field Review ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY Environmental data contained in the GIS database provided by ADOT was used to develop the following maps for the study area in which the route alternatives are located (maps are provided in Appendix D). Archaeological Survey Sites American Indian Reservation Boundaries; Air Quality Designations for Carbon Monoxide, Ozone, and PM 10 Vegetation Designations for Riparian and Biotic Areas Land Use Designations for Local, State, Federal, Wilderness, and Private Lands Fault Lines As a supplement to the information contained on the maps, environmental field reviews were conducted to identify potential environmental impacts that may result from improvements to upgrade route alternatives (refer to Section 3.2). Present-day freeway facilities including I-10, I-17, and I-8 and new route segments (such as Sun Valley Parkway between Bell Road and US 60) were not subjected to environmental field reviews. Similarly, route segments currently under design and/or construction (US 60, Beardsley Road to the Morristown Overpass and SR 85, I-10 to I-8) and route segments that are currently funded (SR 202 L) have or will be subjected to environmental mitigation requirements as part of the route development process. The segments that were subjected to environmental field review are listed below. Sun Valley Parkway, I-10 to Bell Road State Route 303 L, I-10 to US 60 Wickenburg Road, I-10 to Vulture Mine Road Vulture Mine Road, Wickenburg Road to SR 93 Riggs Road, I-10 to (future) 19th Avenue US 60/SR 93, SR 74 to Vulture Mine Road As a result of the environmental field review, selected regulatory compliance issues were reviewed in the context of route improvements that may be required to upgrade routes as recommended in Section 3.2. The following describes the regulations that were considered in this compliance assessment. Section 404/401 of the Clean Water Act. The Clean Water Act (CWA) regulates water quality issues and activities within “Waters of the US”. Those areas considered jurisdictional (Waters of the US) under the CWA and subsequent guidance include wetlands, bodies of water, perennial and intermittent water channels, and ephemeral washes. Section 404 of the CWA is administered by the US Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and regulates fill activities within Waters of the U.S. Section 401 of the act, administered by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ), regulates water quality certification and is required with a Section 404 authorization. The Section 404/401-approval process is dependent on the amount of impact, the quality of the jurisdictional area, and the general location of the project. Projects that have a minimal impact on the aquatic environment and are related to a specific activity (such as road building) may qualify for a Nationwide Permit program. Projects that do not meet the activity specific restrictions or other limits of the Nationwide program are required to apply for an Individual Permit. Nationwide Final Report August 2000 Compilation of Evaluation Data for Designation of the CANAMEX Corridor Through the Maricopa Region 43 authorizations are normally processed in 60 to 90 days and an Individual Permit application process can take from 6 to 12 months. The applications involve a biological assessment, protected species evaluations and cultural resource evaluations. Most Army Corps of Engineers authorizations require compensatory mitigation. Endangered Species Act. The United State Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) administers the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The act requires the protection of species listed on the federal Threatened and Endangered Species list and in many cases also protects listed species’ habitat. Species are listed after evaluation by the USFWS. The USFWS and the Arizona National Heritage Program maintain lists of the protected species by County. The act requires that areas be evaluated for the potential for listed species and/or the existence of suitable habitat. It defines protocolspecific surveys to determine if species inhabit areas deemed to have suitable habitat. If inhabitation is documented for USFWS listed species, the project will require coordination with the USFWS and other agencies to determine the potential impacts of the project to the identified species. The USFWS has the authority to deny authorization for the proposed impact, but in most instances grants a permit with very specific mitigation requirements. State and Federal land management agencies, such as the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) also have specific species identified for protection. This normally require adherence to specific agency mandated management guidelines. National Historic Preservation Act. The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) establishes protection for historic and archeological sites. Historic sites over 50 years in age and archaeological sites deemed eligible or potentially eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) are protected under NHPA. The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), a division of Arizona State Parks, administers the act and is responsible for determining site eligibility. The SHPO also administers/maintains records of all identified sites. This information can be used to identify socalled "hot-spots" of activity. These hot-spot areas are used to evaluate the potential for archeological activity in a given area. Areas of long-term disturbance such as agricultural areas are normally considered to be less likely to contain eligible sites. Undisturbed areas or areas near potential congregation spots are given higher potentials for the occurrence of archaeological sites. Undisturbed areas that have not been previously evaluated for historic or cultural resources will likely require a site evaluation prior to activity. If sites are discovered they must be evaluated against a series of criterion that determine their NRHRP status. If the sites are deemed eligible, mitigation, normally in the form of data recovery must be conducted prior to project activity at the site. If the site is deemed exceptionally valuable under one of the criterion data recovery may not be possible and the site will require avoidance. Prime, Statewide, or Other Protected Farm Land Soils. The U.S. Department of Agriculture defines prime farmland soils as those that are best suited to economically produce agricultural crops. The soil characteristics that are used for this determination vary but include an adequate supply of moisture (precipitation or irrigation). The Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) normally lists the prime soils for a given area. Some areas also provide listings for statewide or regional important soils that are identified based on specific attributes unique to that area. Projects that involve the conversion of these soils into areas of non-production require an evaluation by the NRCS or other designated local agricultural agency. National Environmental Policy Act. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires that projects involving a federal action be evaluated under the guidelines established by the Council of Environmental Quality (CEQ). Many federal and state agencies have also developed guidelines for compliance with NEPA. NEPA requires that the project be evaluated for potential impacts to the natural and social environment. The level of detail for such documentation varies with the complexity of the project. A project that is considered a categorical exclusion or that results in a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) requires relatively minimal documentation while projects with significant impacts require extensive analysis and documentation. Final Report August 2000 Compilation of Evaluation Data for Designation of the CANAMEX Corridor Through the Maricopa Region 44 CRITERION ASSESSMENT RESULTS Segment-Specific Assessments--Section 404/401 of the Clean Water Act. Sun Valley Parkway is an existing divided highway constructed through primarily undeveloped valley floor desert range. Route alternatives containing State Route 303 L, Sun Valley Parkway, and Riggs Road cross drainageways that will require evaluation to determine their Section 404 jurisdictional status. Given that upgrades to these segments will be confined to existing right-of-way, impacts to jurisdictional areas will likely be avoided. If however, construction requires activities outside of the existing right-of-way, in areas designated within identified Waters of the US, a Section 404 authorization will be required. If these activities are determined to be minimal, the project may be eligible for authorization under the Nationwide Permit program. The Wickenburg Road and Vulture Mine Road segments traverses several alluvial fans and through large tracts of open range. These route segments also traverse numerous ephemeral drainageways of varying size. These drainageways may be considered jurisdictional and may require a jurisdictional determination evaluation. Many of the existing crossings of washes are at-grade. Upgrading the roadway will require significant activity within jurisdictional areas and will likely require an individual Section 404 permit application. Segment-Specific Assessments--Endangered Species Act. All route segments are within Maricopa County, which is documented by the USFWS to contain twelve listed floral and faunal species. The preferred route alternative will require evaluation for potential habitat for these twelve species along with BLM-listed species on BLM lands. State Route 303 L is located adjacent to agricultural areas and portions of Vulture Mine Road are adjacent to residential areas. As a result, these segments are not likely to contain potential protected species habitat. However, potential habitat may exist for several listed species along all other route segments reviewed. Depending on the preferred route alternative, more intensive biological assessments may be required to determine the status of the potential habitat and may require species-specific surveys to document the status of species such as the cactus ferruginous pygmy owl (Glaucidium brasilianum cactorum), the peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus), and others. Additionally, those portions of Wickenburg Road and Vulture Mine Road within BLM jurisdiction will be subject to protected species and general wildlife management guidelines of the BLM. Segment-Specific Assessments--National Historic Preservation Act. State Route 303 L and portions of Vulture Mine Road are located in areas of agricultural activity and/or residential development. Based on the disturbed nature of the surrounding areas, there is a low potential for intact archaeological sites. However, development activity may result in structures that are potentially eligible as historic sites. The Sun Valley Parkway, Riggs Road, and Wickenburg Road route segments are located in a generally undisturbed open range and will have a higher potential for archaeological sites. If the present-day right-of-way was surveyed during the original construction of the road, further surveys may not be required. Construction activity outside of the right-of-way may require additional surveys to identify eligible sites. Wickenburg Road, Vulture Mine Road, and Riggs Road route segments have a higher potential for archaeological and historical sites based on its past mining history, proximity to the Gila River Indian Community lands, and proximity to large washes and mountain peaks (generally considered congregation areas for indigenous people). It is likely that surveys for these areas will identify numerous archaeological or historical sites. Segment-Specific Assessments--Prime, Statewide, or Other Protected Farmland Soils. State Route 303 L passes through areas of agricultural activity that may be designated as prime or important farmland soils. These areas are also irrigated. Agency-coordination will be required along with proper documentation. Segment-Specific Assessments--National Environmental Policy Act. The triggering mechanism for NEPA is a federal action, which includes funding, management activity, permitting, or other indirect actions. Lands included within federal agency jurisdiction are considered to be subject to Final Report August 2000 Compilation of Evaluation Data for Designation of the CANAMEX Corridor Through the Maricopa Region 45 federal management. Therefore, the portion of the Wickenburg Road and Vulture Mine Road traversing BLM land will be subject to NEPA compliance. The other routes, such as Riggs Road, may require NEPA compliance based on funding, policy actions or other federal actions. In addition, route alternatives that are adjacent to sensitive noise receptors and/or residential areas may experience adverse noise and air quality impacts that warrant mitigation. These assessments should be conducted for the preferred route alternative. The assessment of this criterion is based on a limited field review, limited research, and environmental judgement based on experience with similar projects. It is therefore difficult to make absolute projections about regulatory issues. While this regulatory assessment and field review did not note fatal flaws that would prevent the upgrading of a particular route nor preclude the selection of any route alternative, further analysis may identify issues that are a significant impediment to upgrade and/or selection of a specific route alternative. Additional study of the preferred route alternative is recommended to determine more precisely the status of the various regulatory issues, as well as to insure that other previously unidentified regulatory issues are not overlooked. Specific design details will affect regulatory compliance. As an example, if a preferred route alternative requires minimal upgrading of the existing roadway and limited construction activity it will be less likely to have significant regulatory compliance issues. Conversely, if the preferred route is requires substantial upgrading, with extensive construction activity the regulatory compliance issues will be more complex. Exhibit 29 summarizes the results of the regulatory compliance evaluation. Exhibit 29 - Regulatory Compliance Evaluation Summary Route Clean Water Act Endangered Species Act Regulatory Constraint National Historic Prevention Act NEPA Prime Otherwise Designated Soils Route 303 Low Low Low Low Moderate Sun Valley Parkway Low Low/Moderate Low Low Low Significant Significant Significant Significant Low Low Low Moderate/ Significant Moderate Low Wickenburg Vulture Mine Riggs Road/19th Ave. It should be noted that the rating system is not a ranking system (i.e. a significant rating is not three times as difficult as a low rating), but is meant to convey the potential level of regulatory compliance complexity that the various routes may encounter. No matter what rating each route segment is assigned, it will require some level of documentation. A low rating is anticipated to require less evaluation, documentation, and potential compensatory mitigation as a high rating. While these ratings do take in to account the potential applicability of each regulation for each route, a low rating is not meant as a final indication that a regulation is not applicable. Final Report August 2000 Compilation of Evaluation Data for Designation of the CANAMEX Corridor Through the Maricopa Region 46 4.1.10 Title VI and Environmental Justice Impacts ADOT/MAG CRITERION DEFINITION Impacts on persons who have limited transportation opportunities, including elderly, disabled, and lowincome individuals. MEASURE(S) OF EFFECTIVENESS Percent of total route length within or adjacent to areas with greater than 21 percent racial minority population, as tabulated in the 1995 special census. For reference, the MAG 1995 Special Census reported a Maricopa County average minority population of 28.1 percent. Percent of total route length within or adjacent to areas with greater than 20 percent population aged 60 years and older, as tabulated in the 1995 special census. For reference, the MAG 1995 Special Census reported a Maricopa County average elderly population (60 years and older) of 16.1 percent. Percent of total route length within or adjacent to areas with one or more household in poverty per acre, as tabulated in the 1995 special census. For reference, the MAG 1995 Special Census reported Maricopa County average households in poverty of 10.4 percent. Percent of total route length within or adjacent to areas with greater than 3 percent population with disability or transportation limitations, as tabulated in the 1990 Census. For reference, the 1990 Census reported a Maricopa County average population with mobility or self-care limitation of 5.6 percent. Percent of total route length within or adjacent to areas which are comprised of 50 percent or more females, as tabulated in the 1995 Special Census. For reference, the MAG 1995 Special Census reported an average female population of 49.8 percent. PRIMARY DATA SOURCE(S) MAG Transportation Management Systems, July 1999 ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY Appendix E contains copies of five maps from the MAG Transportation Management Systems dated July 1999. The limit of these maps does not include all segments of every route alternative. These maps depict racial minority populations, person’s aged 60 years and older, households in poverty, populations with disability or transportation limitations, and gender within the MAG planning region. The measures of effectiveness were developed on the basis of in information provided on the maps in Appendix E. Using a banding technique, the number and percentage of miles for each route alternative were measured for each of the metrics stated as measures of effectiveness. CRITERION ASSESSMENT RESULTS Exhibit 30 lists the miles and percentage of total route alternative miles within or adjacent to area designations stated as measures of effectiveness. Final Report August 2000 Compilation of Evaluation Data for Designation of the CANAMEX Corridor Through the Maricopa Region 47 Exhibit 30 -Title VI and Environmental Justice Impacts Route 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Low Income Minority Elderly Disabled Gender Length (miles) Percentage (of total) Length (miles) Percentage (of total) Length (miles) Percentage (of total) Length (miles) Percentage (of total) Length (miles) Percentage (of total) 0.0 0.0 2.9 2.9 3.7 10.1 10.1 10.9 0% 0% 2% 2% 3% 7% 7% 9% 0.0 0.0 14.0 14.0 14.6 20.8 20.8 21.3 0% 0% 10% 10% 12% 15% 15% 17% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 1.0 1.0 1.8 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 1% 1% 0.0 0.0 6.2 6.2 9.0 9.1 9.1 12.0 0% 0% 4% 4% 7% 6% 7% 10% 0.0 0.0 2.5 2.5 2.8 5.9 5.9 6.2 0% 0% 2% 2% 2% 4% 4% 5% 4.1.11 Major Community Impacts ADOT/MAG CRITERION DEFINITION Major impacts, including economic development to existing and planned residential neighborhoods located near the corridor. MEASURE(S) OF EFFECTIVENESS Public perceptions on advantages and disadvantages of each route alternative. Public support and opposition for each route alternative. ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY MAG and ADOT obtained agency, stakeholder, and the general public perspectives during the route designation process using surveys, public forums, open houses, and informational meetings. In addition, members of the MAG Regional Council were asked to submit written assessments of the potential advantages and disadvantages of each route alternative. Input was requested by January 26, 2000. PRIMARY DATA SOURCE(S) Stakeholder inputs recorded at Stakeholder Forums. Advantages/disadvantages and support/opposition received from MAG Regional Council members. CRITERION ASSESSMENT RESULTS Assessment of this criterion was the responsibility of MAG and ADOT. Final Report August 2000 Compilation of Evaluation Data for Designation of the CANAMEX Corridor Through the Maricopa Region 48 5. REFERENCES 1. Arizona Intelligent Transportation Systems/Commercial Vehicle Operations Business Plan, ADOT, Revised March 1999. 2. Arizona Loop 101 South, Concept Drainage Report, Price Expressway, Santan Freeway - 56th Street to Dobson Road, Gila Drain Alternative, Final Report, HDR Engineering, Inc., February 1993. 3. Arizona Loop 101 South, Concept Drainage Report, South Mountain Freeway, I-10 Papago to I-10 Maricopa, Volume I: Main Report (Draft), HDR Engineering, Inc., June 1992. 4. Airports & Highways, Arizona’s Five-Year Transportation Facilities Construction Program, ADOT, FY 2000-04. 5. Census Boundaries, Census Data, MAG, 1995. 6. Census Summary, Tape File 3-A, CD, MAG, 1990. 7. Congestion Management System, MAG, April 4, 1995. 8. Current Status of Environmental Justice Activities, Memo by C. Burbank and C. Adams, U.S. Department of Transportation, October 1, 1999. 9. Grand Avenue, Major Investment Study, Environmental Overview, ADOT, September 1999. 10. Grand Avenue, Major Investment Study, Final Report, ADOT, September 1999. 11. Guidance on Title VI and Environmental Justice, ADOT Environmental Planning Section, July 30, 1997. 12. HOV Study, State Route 51 - Jct. I-10 to Shea Blvd., Alternatives Selection Report, Stanley Consultants, Inc., January 1998. 13. I-8 / B-8 / SR 280 Multimodal Corridor Profile, Final Report, Parsons Brinckerhoff, December 1998. 14. I-10 Design Concept Report, Transmittal by Michael Kies, CH2MHILL, December 10, 1999. 15. Implementing Title VI Requirements in Metropolitan and Statewide Planning, Memo by G. Linton and K. Wykle, U.S. Department of Transportation, October 7, 1999. 16. Interim Region 9 Guidance, Addressing Environmental Justice in the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), Federal Highway Administration, Federal Transit Administration, Region 9, May 9, 1997. 17. Intermodal Management System, MAG, April 1995. 18. Local Input on Major Community Impacts of the CANAMEX Corridor Study, Memo by J. Bourey, MAG, December 28, 1999. 19. Long Range Transportation Plan, Summary and 1999 Update, MAG, June 1999. 20. MAG Transportation Management Systems Report FY 2000 Update, MAG, July 1999. Final Report August 2000 Compilation of Evaluation Data for Designation of the CANAMEX Corridor Through the Maricopa Region 49 21. Phoenix to Tucson Corridor Profile Analysis Study, Final Report, Science Applications International Corporation, July 1999. 22. Scope of Work, 51st/59th Avenue Corridor Truck Bypass Contingency Study, Maricopa County Department of Transportation, July 22, 1999. 23. Section XI, Title VI Considerations, MAG Management Systems Report - FY 2000 Update. 24. September 1, 1994 through August 31, 1999 Summaries of Motor Vehicle Crashes in Maricopa County by Vehicle Body Style, Facsimile Transmittal by N. Crandall, ADOT, December 9, 1999. 25. Southwest Valley Transportation Study, Final Report, Maricopa County Department of Transportation, June, 1997. 26. Special Census for Maricopa County, Summary Tables, CD, MAG, September 1995. 27. SR 85 Multimodal Corridor Profile, Final Report, Parsons Brinckerhoff, December 1998. 28. Stakeholder Forum Short List of Alternative Routes for the Canamex Corridor Through Maricopa County, Memo by C. Voigt, MAG, November 30, 1999. 29. Stakeholder Forum for the Joint MAG-ADOT Canamex Corridor Study, Memo by J. Bourey & M. Peters, MAG, October 22, 1999. 30. Strategic Plan for Statewide Deployment of Intelligent Transportation Systems in Arizona, Final Report, ADOT, December 1998. 31. Transportation Improvement Program, MAG, June 1999. 32. Transportation Management Systems, MAG, July 1999. 33. US 60 Show Low to New Mexico Multimodal Corridor Profile Study, Final Report, Leigh, Scott & Cleary, Inc., July 13, 1999. 34. White Tank Grand Avenue Area Plan, Draft 2.0, Maricopa County Planning and Development Department Final Report August 2000 Compilation of Evaluation Data for Designation of the CANAMEX Corridor Through the Maricopa Region 50 APPENDIX Final Report August 2000 Compilation of Evaluation Data for Designation of the CANAMEX Corridor Through the Maricopa Region 51 A. CAPITAL COST WORKSHEETS Final Report August 2000 Compilation of Evaluation Data for Designation of the CANAMEX Corridor Through the Maricopa Region 52 ITEMIZED COST ESTIMATE Project Location: Maricopa County, Canamex Corridor Truck Operations Study Route: Various TRACS No.: 999 MA 000 P 5499 09 P LOOP 303 Shoulder Widening Federal Reference No.: NA ITEM DESCRIPTION 2010011 2020201 2020036 2030301 2030901 3030022 4090003 6080105 7040003 8050003 UNIT CLEARING AND GRUBBING SAW CUTTING REMOVAL OF ASPHALTIC CONCRETE PAVEMENT ROADWAY EXCAVATION BORROW AGGREGATE BASE, CLASS 2 ASPHALTIC CONCRETE (MISCELLANEOUS STRUCTURAL) SIGNING PAVEMENT MARKING SEEDING (CLASS II) L.SUM L.FT. SQ.YD. CU.YD. CU.YD. CU.YD. TON L.SUM L.FT. ACRE QUANTITY 1 10,560 1,173 1,695 1,956 1,173 1,320 1 10,560 4.85 UNIT PRICE AMOUNT $500.00 $3.00 $4.00 $10.00 $11.00 $35.00 $60.00 $300.00 $1.00 $2,000.00 $500 $31,680 $4,700 $16,950 $21,520 $41,070 $79,200 $300 $10,560 $9,700 $216,180 Construction Subtotal 10 2 2 35 1 2 19 40 Drainage Items (10%) Quality Control (2%) Water Supply/Dust Palliative (2%) Maintenance/Protection of Traffic (35%) Erosion Control (1%) Construction Survey (2%) Mobilization (19%) Construction Engineering and Contingencies (40%) PROJECT COST PER MILE Miles TOTAL PROJECT COST Final Report August 2000 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 21,700 4,400 4,400 75,700 2,200 4,400 41,100 86,500 $ 457,000 $ 7,038,000 15.4 Compilation of Evaluation Data for Designation of the CANAMEX Corridor Through the Maricopa Region 53 ITEMIZED COST ESTIMATE Project Location: Maricopa County, Canamex Corridor Truck Operations Study Route: Various TRACS No.: 999 MA 000 P 5499 09 P Riggs Road Shoulder Widening Federal Reference No.: NA ITEM DESCRIPTION 2010011 2020201 2020036 2030301 2030901 3030022 4090003 6080105 7040003 8050003 UNIT CLEARING AND GRUBBING SAW CUTTING REMOVAL OF ASPHALTIC CONCRETE PAVEMENT ROADWAY EXCAVATION BORROW AGGREGATE BASE, CLASS 2 ASPHALTIC CONCRETE (MISCELLANEOUS STRUCTURAL) SIGNING PAVEMENT MARKING SEEDING (CLASS II) L.SUM L.FT. SQ.YD. CU.YD. CU.YD. CU.YD. TON L.SUM L.FT. ACRE QUANTITY 1 10,560 1,173 1,695 1,956 1,173 1,320 1 10,560 4.85 UNIT PRICE AMOUNT $500.00 $3.00 $4.00 $10.00 $11.00 $35.00 $60.00 $300.00 $1.00 $2,000.00 $500 $31,680 $4,700 $16,950 $21,520 $41,070 $79,200 $300 $10,560 $9,700 $216,180 Construction Subtotal 10 2 2 35 1 2 19 40 Drainage Items (10%) Quality Control (2%) Water Supply/Dust Palliative (2%) Maintenance/Protection of Traffic (35%) Erosion Control (1%) Construction Survey (2%) Mobilization (19%) Construction Engineering and Contingencies (40%) PROJECT COST PER MILE Miles TOTAL PROJECT COST Final Report August 2000 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 21,700 4,400 4,400 75,700 2,200 4,400 41,100 86,500 $ 457,000 $ 4,936,000 10.8 Compilation of Evaluation Data for Designation of the CANAMEX Corridor Through the Maricopa Region 54 ITEMIZED COST ESTIMATE Project Location: Maricopa County, Canamex Corridor Truck Operations Study Route: Various TRACS No.: 999 MA 000 P 5499 09 P 19th Avenue Federal Reference No.: NA ITEM DESCRIPTION 2010011 2030301 2030901 3030022 4090003 6080105 7040003 8050003 9030011 UNIT CLEARING AND GRUBBING ROADWAY EXCAVATION BORROW AGGREGATE BASE, CLASS 2 ASPHALTIC CONCRETE (MISCELLANEOUS STRUCTURAL) SIGNING PAVEMENT MARKING SEEDING (CLASS II) BARBED WIRE FENCE, TYPE 1 L.SUM CU.YD. CU.YD. CU.YD. TON L.SUM L.FT. ACRE L.FT. QUANTITY 1.00 8,474 3,911 5,345 6,930 1 10,560 4.85 10,560 UNIT PRICE AMOUNT $5,000.00 $10.00 $11.00 $35.00 $60.00 $300.00 $1.00 $2,000.00 $5.00 $5,000 $84,740 $43,030 $187,090 $415,800 $300 $10,560 $9,700 $52,800 $809,020 Construction Subtotal 10 2 2 10 1 2 19 40 Drainage Items (10%) Quality Control (2%) Water Supply/Dust Palliative (2%) Maintenance/Protection of Traffic (10%) Erosion Control (1%) Construction Survey (2%) Mobilization (19%) Construction Engineering and Contingencies (40%) Right-Of-Way 12.12 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $18,000.00 $ 81,000 16,200 16,200 81,000 8,100 16,200 153,800 323,700 218,160 TOTAL PROJECT COST PER MILE $ 1,724,000 $ 5,862,000 ACRE Miles TOTAL PROJECT COST Final Report August 2000 3.4 Compilation of Evaluation Data for Designation of the CANAMEX Corridor Through the Maricopa Region 55 ITEMIZED COST ESTIMATE Project Location: Maricopa County, Canamex Corridor Truck Operations Study Route: Various TRACS No.: 999 MA 000 P 5499 09 P Federal Reference No.: NA Wickenburgh Road (I-10 to Vulture Mine Road) ITEM DESCRIPTION 2020036 2030301 2030401 2030501 2030506 2030901 3030022 4090003 6010002 6050002 6050101 6080105 7040003 8050003 UNIT REMOVAL OF ASPHALTIC CONCRETE PAVEMENT ROADWAY EXCAVATION DRAINAGE EXCAVATION STRUCTURAL EXCAVATION STRUCTURE BACKFILL BORROW AGGREGATE BASE, CLASS 2 ASPHALTIC CONCRETE (MISCELLANEOUS STRUCTURAL) STRUCTURAL CONCRETE (CLASS S) (F'C = 3,000) REINFORCING STEEL PLACE DOWELS SIGNING PAVEMENT MARKING SEEDING (CLASS II) SQ.YD. CU.YD. CU.YD. CU.YD. CU.YD. CU.YD. CU.YD. TON CU.YD. LB. EACH L.SUM L.FT. ACRE QUANTITY 11,733.00 8,474 612 4,107 2,222 14,748 5,345 6,930 637 86,880 21 1 10,560 4.85 UNIT PRICE AMOUNT $4.00 $10.00 $20.00 $10.00 $50.00 $20.00 $35.00 $60.00 $300.00 $0.60 $250.00 $300.00 $1.00 $2,000.00 $46,940 $84,740 $12,240 $41,070 $111,120 $294,960 $187,090 $415,800 $191,030 $52,130 $5,150 $300 $10,560 $9,700 $1,462,830 Construction Subtotal 2 2 30 1 2 19 40 Quality Control (2%) Water Supply/Dust Palliative (2%) Maintenance/Protection of Traffic (30%) Erosion Control (1%) Construction Survey (2%) Mobilization (19%) Construction Engineering and Contingencies (40%) $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 29,300 29,300 438,900 14,700 29,300 278,000 585,200 $ 2,868,000 $ 52,772,000 1.00 $5,000,000 $ 5,000,000 TOTAL PROJECT COST $ 57,772,000 PROJECT COST PER MILE Miles 18.4 SUBTOTAL PROJECT COST Interchange L. SUM Final Report August 2000 Compilation of Evaluation Data for Designation of the CANAMEX Corridor Through the Maricopa Region 56 ITEMIZED COST ESTIMATE Project Location: Maricopa County, Canamex Corridor Truck Operations Study Route: Various TRACS No.: 999 MA 000 P 5499 09 P Federal Reference No.: NA Vulture Mine Road (Wickenburgh Road to 93) ITEM DESCRIPTION 2020036 2030301 2030401 2030501 2030506 2030901 3030022 4090003 6010002 6050002 6050101 6080105 7040003 8050003 UNIT REMOVAL OF ASPHALTIC CONCRETE PAVEMENT ROADWAY EXCAVATION DRAINAGE EXCAVATION STRUCTURAL EXCAVATION STRUCTURE BACKFILL BORROW AGGREGATE BASE, CLASS 2 ASPHALTIC CONCRETE (MISCELLANEOUS STRUCTURAL) STRUCTURAL CONCRETE (CLASS S) (F'C = 3,000) REINFORCING STEEL PLACE DOWELS SIGNING PAVEMENT MARKING SEEDING (CLASS II) SQ.YD. CU.YD. CU.YD. CU.YD. CU.YD. CU.YD. CU.YD. TON CU.YD. LB. EACH L.SUM L.FT. ACRE QUANTITY 11,733.00 8,474 612 4,107 2,222 14,748 5,345 6,930 637 86,880 21 1 10,560 4.85 UNIT PRICE AMOUNT $4.00 $10.00 $20.00 $10.00 $50.00 $20.00 $35.00 $60.00 $300.00 $0.60 $250.00 $300.00 $1.00 $2,000.00 $46,940 $84,740 $12,240 $41,070 $111,120 $294,960 $187,090 $415,800 $191,030 $52,130 $5,150 $300 $10,560 $9,700 $1,462,830 Construction Subtotal 2 2 30 1 2 19 40 Quality Control (2%) Water Supply/Dust Palliative (2%) Maintenance/Protection of Traffic (30%) Erosion Control (1%) Construction Survey (2%) Mobilization (19%) Construction Engineering and Contingencies (40%) PROJECT COST PER MILE Miles TOTAL PROJECT COST Final Report August 2000 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 29,300 29,300 438,900 14,700 29,300 278,000 585,200 $ 2,868,000 $ 62,810,000 21.9 Compilation of Evaluation Data for Designation of the CANAMEX Corridor Through the Maricopa Region 57 B. ROUTE-SPECIFIC PROJECTS AND NEEDS Final Report August 2000 Compilation of Evaluation Data for Designation of the CANAMEX Corridor Through the Maricopa Region 58 Final Report August 2000 Compilation of Evaluation Data for Designation of the CANAMEX Corridor Through the Maricopa Region 59 Final Report August 2000 Compilation of Evaluation Data for Designation of the CANAMEX Corridor Through the Maricopa Region 60 Final Report August 2000 Compilation of Evaluation Data for Designation of the CANAMEX Corridor Through the Maricopa Region 61 Final Report August 2000 Compilation of Evaluation Data for Designation of the CANAMEX Corridor Through the Maricopa Region 62 Final Report August 2000 Compilation of Evaluation Data for Designation of the CANAMEX Corridor Through the Maricopa Region 63 C. TRAVEL TIME AND DELAY DATA Final Report August 2000 Compilation of Evaluation Data for Designation of the CANAMEX Corridor Through the Maricopa Region 64 Final Report August 2000 Compilation of Evaluation Data for Designation of the CANAMEX Corridor Through the Maricopa Region 65 D. ENVIRONMENTAL MAPS Final Report August 2000 Compilation of Evaluation Data for Designation of the CANAMEX Corridor Through the Maricopa Region 66 Vulture Mine Road US 93 # Y # Y # Y # Y # Y Y # Y# #Y # Y # Y US 60 # Y# Y # Y# Y I-10 # Y# Y # Y Y# Y Y# Y# Y# Y# Y# Y# # Y# Y# # Y# # Y# Y# Y Y# Y# Y# Y# Y# Y# Y Y# Y# Y# Y# Y# Y ## Y Y Y # Y# Y# Y # Y# Y# Y# Y # Y Y# # Y# Y# Y# Y# Y# # Y# Y# Y # # Y # Y# Y Y# Y# Y# # Y # Y # Y # Y Y# # Y # Y # Y # # Y # Y# Y Y # # Y Y Y# Y# Y Y# # Y # # Y# Y # # Y # Y# Y# Y Y # Y Y# Y# Y# Y# # Y# Y# Y# Y # # Y Y# Y# Y# Y# Y Y # # Y # # Y # Y Y# Y # Y # Y# Y # # Y # Y# Y Y # # Y # Y Y # Y# # # Y Y Y # Y # # # Y # Y Y Y Y # # Y# Y Y Y # # Y # # Y # # Y Y Y # Y# Y # # # # Y Y # Y # # # Y Y# Y# Y Y# Y # # Y # Y # Y# YI-17 # Y# # Y# Y# # Y# Y Y Y# Y# Y# Y Y Y Y# # # Y Y # # Y # # Y Y Y # Y # Y Y # # Y# Y # Y Y # # Y Y # # # Y# Y Y Y# Y# Y# Y# # Y# # Y # Y Y # Y # Y# Y# Y Y# Y# # # # Y# Y Y Y # Y # # Y Y # YI-10 # Y # Y Y# Y# # Y# YY# Y Y# Y# # # Y Y # Y # Y# # # Y Y Y # Y Y# Y# # Y # Y # Y# Y # Y # Y # Y # Y# Y Y# Y# Y# Y# # # Y# Y# Y Y# Y# # Y# Y # Y# Y # Y Y# # Y # # Y Y# Y# Y# Y# Y # Y # Y # Y SR 85 19th Avenue # Y # Y # Y # Y # Y SR 202L # Y SR 303L Wickenburg Road Sun Valley Parkway # Y# Y# Y# Y # Y Riggs Road I-10 # Y# Y# Y# Y # Y# Y# Y# Y # Y# YY# Y # Y# Y # # Y # Y# Y # Y I-8 Legend Candidate Routes # Y Archeological Survey Sites Archeological Survey Sites N Vulture Mine Road US 93 SR 303L Sun Valley Parkway Wickenburg Road US 60 I-10 SR 202L I-17 SR 85 19th Avenue I-10 Riggs Road I-10 I-8 Legend Candidate Routes American Indian Reservation Fort McDowell Reservation Gila River Reservation Papago Reservation Salt River Reservation Gila Bend Reservation American Indian Reservation Boundaries N Vulture Mine Road US 93 SR 303L Sun Valley Parkway I-10 SR 202L I-17 I-10 19th Avenue SR 85 Wickenburg Road US 60 Riggs Road I-10 I-8 Legend Candidate Routes CO and Ozone PM10 Air Quality N Vulture Mine Road US 93 SR 303L Wickenburg Road Sun Valley Parkway US 60 I-10 SR 202L I-17 SR 85 19th Avenue I-10 Riggs Road I-10 I-8 Legend Candidate Routes 233 Biotic 4 238 a 171 241 b 179 254 c 183 261 d 213 267 f 224 268 x 229 306 z 232 309 Riparian Areas Biotic and Riparian Habitats N Vulture Mine Road US 93 SR 303L Sun Valley Parkway I-10 SR 202L I-17 I-10 19th Avenue SR 85 Wickenburg Road US 60 Riggs Road I-10 I-8 Legend Candidate Routes Maricopa County General Land Use Private State County Wilderness Areas Federal State Park Land Land Uses N Vulture Mine Road US 93 SR 303L Sun Valley Parkway I-10 SR 202L I-17 I-10 19th Avenue SR 85 Wickenburg Road US 60 Riggs Road I-10 I-8 N Legend Candidate Routes Fault Lines Fault Lines Final Report August 2000 Compilation of Evaluation Data for Designation of the CANAMEX Corridor Through the Maricopa Region 73 E. TITLE VI AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE MAPS Final Report August 2000 Compilation of Evaluation Data for Designation of the CANAMEX Corridor Through the Maricopa Region 74 Final Report August 2000 Compilation of Evaluation Data for Designation of the CANAMEX Corridor Through the Maricopa Region 75 Final Report August 2000 Compilation of Evaluation Data for Designation of the CANAMEX Corridor Through the Maricopa Region 76 Final Report August 2000 Compilation of Evaluation Data for Designation of the CANAMEX Corridor Through the Maricopa Region 77 Final Report August 2000 Compilation of Evaluation Data for Designation of the CANAMEX Corridor Through the Maricopa Region 78 Final Report August 2000 Compilation of Evaluation Data for Designation of the CANAMEX Corridor Through the Maricopa Region 79 Final Report August 2000 Compilation of Evaluation Data for Designation of the CANAMEX Corridor Through the Maricopa Region 80