Due in part to a funding shortfall, the Arizona Department of Transportation was unable to develop 76 miles of planned freeways, including the South Mountain Freeway segment. The unfunded corridor, however, remained part of the planned Regional Freeway System.

In 2001, ADOT and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) began an updated study through an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to determine if such a freeway was still needed, to meet the needs of the traveling public, where it should be located, and potential environmental, social and economic effects. The updated EIS was required due to the many changes in the study area since the original 1988 Environmental Assessment was completed.

A final decision on the alignment of the South Mountain Freeway – including a decision on if the roadway will be constructed – will be made at the conclusion of the environmental process.

Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) are required for all major federal actions (or those involving federal monies) that could have a significant effect on the environment as required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

National Environmental Policy Act

NEPA was signed into law on January 1, 1970, in response to public sentiment that federal agencies should take a lead in providing greater protection for the environment. NEPA is the basic national charter for protection of the environment. It sets policy goals and provides a means for carrying out the policy. Additional NEPA facts include:

NEPA procedures are intended to insure that environmental information is available to public officials and citizens before decisions are made and actions taken. The intent is to help public officials make decisions that are based on an understanding of environmental consequences, and take actions that protect, enhance, and restore the environment.

NEPA is designed to encourage and facilitate public involvement which affects the quality of the human environment.

NEPA is designed to identify and assess reasonable alternatives to proposed actions. The intent is to diminish adverse environmental effects and to protect the environment.

NEPA is designed to be both proactive and reactive. It requires that reasonable alternatives be considered and it requires that the human environment be restored when possible following environmental damage.

NEPA encourages federal agencies to use a systematic, interdisciplinary approach to agency decision-making.

For more information on NEPA and the Federal Highway Administration's involvement, visit the FHWA Environmental Review Toolkit site.

Environmental Impact Statement Process

The first step in preparing the EIS for this project was to determine whether there was a need for transportation improvement in the corridor. Based on recent traffic analysis and public comment received since July 2001, there appears to be a purpose and need to continue the study and complete the EIS. Analysis of conservative expectations for population growth, future traffic and mobility needs in the Valley shows that it is only prudent to assume that additional transportation options will be required.

The EIS study process will examine the potential social, economic and environmental impacts of a variety of alternatives – including the 1988 route and the no-build option – along with ways to lessen those impacts. Additional alternatives identified by local community groups, organizations and interested citizens are also being considered by the project team. At meetings held in 2003, the public was shown the alternatives advanced for further study and shared questions, comments and concerns with members of the study team.

A key component of the study process includes extensive public involvement and ongoing opportunities for community members to express opinions and concerns. Local residents, community leaders, governmental agencies and elected officials continue to be involved in the decision-making process. The project team will also continue to meet with village planning committees, service organizations, homeowners associations, other neighborhood groups throughout the study area, and the Gila River Indian Community. In addition, a South Mountain Citizens Advisory Team (CAT) composed of a diverse group of organizations effected by the South Mountain Freeway Corridor has been established and meets regularly.

The goal of the process is to receive extensive, high-quality public input on how to meet the region's existing and future transportation needs in accordance with the Regional Transportation Plan.

The goal of this study is to determine the best way to serve the transportation and mobility needs of people in the entire Phoenix metropolitan region.

Why does this process take so long?

This is a complex and important research project. Engineers, researchers and environmental scientists must determine the impacts of new information that is discovered throughout the process. This process is one of discovery. Therefore, much of the data for this project must be updated to include the best available, most accurate information. That said, ADOT and FHWA are committed to concluding this study as quickly as possible and coming to resolution on the future of the proposed South Mountain Freeway.

The western section was narrowed to three alternatives: W55, W71 and W101. The W55 alternative would connect to I-10 at roughly 55th Avenue, W71 at 71st Avenue, and W101 at the existing Loop 101/I-10 system interchange.

In response to budget concerns and impacts of the proposed freeway, two changes resulted. One of these changes was to shift the W55 alignment between Lower Buckeye road and I-10 to connect at 59th Avenue. This shift results in less of an impact to the service traffic interchanges on I-10 from 75th Avenue to 43rd Avenue as well as to money saved through ramp reconfigurations.

There is one action alternative in the eastern section, E1. It generally follows the same alignment as in the 1988 Design Concept Report and connects to I-10 at the Pecos Road/I-10/Loop 202 Santan Freeway system interchange. ADOT remains committed to evaluating other alternatives in the eastern segment should any become available for study.

Identifying the Alternatives

Numerous potential alternatives have been suggested. Early in the study, workshops were held with citizens; civic organizations; the Ahwatukee, Estrella, Laveen and South Mountain village planning committees; Maricopa County Farm Bureau; and the Southwest Mayors and Managers group. Participants were invited to draw alignments on study area maps and aerial photos, and to indicate cultural or environmental constraints. From these workshops more than 30 potential alternatives were identified for the entire corridor.

These 30 public alternatives were grouped into corridors for review by the technical team, which then narrowed them to nine “Technical Alternatives.” The nine alignments were presented to the potentially affected local jurisdictions, including Tolleson, Avondale, Goodyear, Chandler, Phoenix, Maricopa County, MAG and the Gila River Indian Community (GRIC).

Where Would it Connect to I-10 East?

If built, the South Mountain Freeway would likely connect to I-10 east at the current interchange of I-10 and Loop 202 (Santan Freeway). The only option available at this time would have a freeway follow the Pecos Road alignment, remaining just north of the boarder between Phoenix and the GRIC. The Pecos Road alignment was first proposed in the mid-1980s.

Gila River Indian Community

Since the beginning of the study in 2001, ADOT and FHWA have been working with the GRIC to determine if a portion of a freeway might be located on community land to the south of Pecos Road. To date, no GRIC options have been approved by the community for further study.

The GRIC Tribal Council has opposed construction of the South Mountain Freeway on tribal lands since August 2000 when a formal resolution was approved. That resolution was readopted by the Tribal Council in 2005.

GRIC has sole authority to decide if and where a freeway might be studied or built on its land. Therefore, if an eastern preference must be identified without GRIC alternatives, options would include either the Pecos Road alignment or not building the South Mountain Freeway.

Is Not Building the Freeway Really an Option?

Not building a freeway remains an option. If this option is selected, the proposed project would not take place and the environmental effects from taking no action would be evaluated. It is possible, however, that a new study for the area could be initiated at some point in the future. While ADOT has been charged to study the proposed South Mountain Freeway by the Maricopa Association of Governments, the regional transportation planning body, ADOT has not taken a formal position on the roadway and will not do so until the study is complete and all alternatives evaluated.

Background on the Alternatives

Need Exists for South Mountain Freeway

An extensive analysis of population trends, land use plans and travel demand shows clearly that there is a traffic problem in the Southwest and Southeast areas of the Valley. Congestion will continue to worsen if transportation plans fail to appropriately address increases in population and vehicles.

At this point in the study process it has been determined that while planned transit and roadway improvements must be part of the solution to the Valley's future transportation needs, a purpose and need exists to include a new freeway in the South Mountain Corridor. The no-build option, however, remains an alternative and is being studied at the same level of detail as the action alternatives.

The process of identifying alternative routes for the South Mountain Freeway has included local governments, businesses, MAG, the GRIC and the general public. The process began with a public “scoping” phase, during which a number of alternatives, enhanced transit options and several conceptual alignments were proposed.

• 1983 The Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) prepares planning studies for the Phoenix metropolitan area that identify corridors for an integrated freeway network. The South Mountain Transportation Corridor is defined as a roughly two-mile wide corridor from I-10 near 51st Avenue, around South Mountain, to I-10 near Chandler Boulevard.
• 1985 Maricopa County voters approve a half-cent sales tax to fund construction of the MAG Regional Freeway System, including a 22-mile freeway connecting I-10 in Chandler with I-10 in west Phoenix.
• 1988 A Location/Design Concept Report and a state-level Environmental Assessment are completed for the South Mountain Freeway, designating an alignment along Pecos Road and the Gila River Indian Community border and north to I-10 between 55th and 63rd avenues. This refined corridor is adopted by the State Transportation Board.
• 1994 Due to a funding shortfall, ADOT identifies 76 miles of planned freeways as "unfunded segments" and later drops some of those segments from the system. The South Mountain Transportation Corridor is designated for potential development as a toll road.
• 1996 A consortium of private companies proposes to build the South Mountain Freeway as a toll road. The consortium would later withdraw its proposal, saying the project was not financially feasible. The South Mountain Transportation Corridor remains a part of the MAG Regional Freeway System but designated as "unfunded."
• 1999 ADOT announces plans to accelerate completion of the entire Regional Freeway System by seven years. The acceleration plan includes an unspecified portion of the South Mountain Transportation Corridor, which remains largely unfunded.
• 2000 In anticipation of initial construction of the South Mountain Freeway, the City of Phoenix conducts a local study of Ahwatukee Foothills area transportation needs that includes an assessment of freeway options.
• 2001 ADOT begins preparation of a new Location/Design Concept Report and EIS to examine a broad range of alternatives to the 1988 South Mountain Freeway concept.
• Summer/Fall 2001 The South Mountain Corridor Team collects base information and issues on the transportation corridor.
• Fall/Winter 2001 South Mountain Corridor Team determines that there is a purpose and need to continue the EIS study.
• Fall 2003 ADOT, FHWA, and the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers concur on the Alternatives Screening. Three build alternatives plus options are carried forward into the EIS for more detailed analysis.
• Fall 2004 Voters approved funding MAG's Regional Transportation Plan – including South Mountain Freeway.
• June 2006 ADOT announces the W55 (55th Avenue) Alternative as the “preliminary preferred alternative” based on community input, economic impacts, and traffic information.
• 2007 Public information meetings were held throughout the year to communicate with and receive input from members of the community.
• 2009 MAG updates the Regional Transportation Plan, includes reducing the South Mountain Freeway’s footprint to eight lanes with a connection to I-10 at 59th Avenue.
• 2013 Draft EIS released and public hearing is expected to occur following a final review of the document by the Federal Highway Administration. Final decision on the South Mountain Freeway will follow the release of the Draft EIS, public hearing and comment

When the Draft EIS is released to the public, it will detail the options considered in the Southwest Valley and describe the reasons why the 59th Avenue Alternative was selected as the preferred option for the Western Section. The Draft EIS will also detail the Pecos Road option being considered in the Eastern Section area of the study. If other options become available to study, the process will take those into account. The Draft EIS also will discuss the "No-Build Alternative" for the entire South Mountain Freeway to examine the effects of not building the freeway as proposed by MAG.

The Draft EIS will be made available for at least 90 days for the public to review. During that comment period, one public hearing will be held on the contents of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement.

From there, the public will have another 60-day opportunity to comment on the Final EIS. The comments received during both 90-day and 60-day comment periods will be used by ADOT and FHWA in making a final decision regarding the project. That final decision will be presented in the Record of Decision by FHWA. ADOT will begin acquiring complete the right-of-way acquisition process after the final decision is made.

As part of the final decision-making process, ADOT will work with the MAG regarding the study recommendation and the regional support to fund the project as part of the Regional Transportation Plan approved by voters. Should a build alternative be selected for the South Mountain Freeway, the Regional Transportation Plan designates the construction funding available in Phases I and II of the Regional Transportation Plan.

On November 8, 1994, voters of Maricopa County defeated Proposition 400 that proposed extension of the current one-half cent transportation excise tax an additional ten years (through 2016) and imposed a new one-half cent transportation excise tax through 2016. Proceeds of the new tax would have been divided equally for freeway and public transportation purposes.

On December 13, 1994, former Governor Symington presented a plan to complete the Regional Freeway System. The plan included additional funding from higher sales tax forecasts, a greater allocation of MAG Federal funds earmarked for freeways and ADOT generated budget savings. The plan further recommended deletion of certain corridors and corridor segments, proposed higher bonding levels and included corridor scope reductions to lighting, landscaping, structure widths and freeway lanes.

On November 20, 1996, the MAG Regional Council approved a Freeway / Expressway Plan for the Lifecycle Program, FY98 - 2006, that: advanced projects, added a Grand Avenue Improvement Project, added a project to complete the I-10 / Santan / South Mountain TI, west 1/2, and added a "Set a Side" project for a South Mountain expressway in lieu of a Toll Road (privatization project).

Also on November 20, 1996, the MAG Regional Council identified funding for a Long Range Plan, FY2007 - 2015. Previously Unfunded Red Mountain, Santan, and Sky Harbor segments were prioritized, and a Grand Avenue Improvement Project was added and prioritized.

In April 1999, the State Legislature passed SB1201 which provided State Infrastructure Bank (SIB) funding to assist in financing the acceleration of the Regional Freeway Program by the end of 2007. Governor Jane Dee Hull, ADOT and MAG have prepared plans to complete the Regional Freeway System by the end of 2007 using innovative financing alternatives.

The concept of a Lifecycle Program refers to a programming approach that includes the usual five year programming period and also recognizes the need to forecast and allocate funds through the full life of major funding sources. As a result, the enclosed Regional Freeway Program covers the full period of the Proposition 300 one-half cent tax extending through fiscal year 2006. In this manner, the resources for construction of the Regional Freeway System can be fully managed both from a short and long term perspective, ensuring that the maximum benefit is returned to the taxpayer. Additionally, the ADOT Lifecycle Program reflects a fiscal balance between anticipated revenues and expenditures. Construction of the Regional Freeway Program has been scheduled on that basis. This management tool ensures that both ADOT and MAG maintain a realistic planning and construction schedule predicated upon funding, and provides periodic reports to the public and other governmental agencies.

Program Scheduling Assumptions:

• Project delivery system improved
• Early Completion General Plans
• Early acquisition of Right of Way
• Completion of Environmental Corridor Studies
• No major design changes after 30% plans are completed
• Support of major stakeholders (cities, county, utility companies & federal agencies)
• Availability of Design-Build contracting

Program Financing Assumptions:

• $200 million new State Infrastructure Bank (SIB) / Highway Expansion and Extension Loan Program (HELP)
• $250 million of Grant Anticipation Notes (GAN)
• Continued funding from ADOT statewide program
• Continued ADOT and MAG federal aid funding
• Future Vehicle License Tax initiatives will be revenue neutral
• Interest rates are stable
• Project costs maintained within program inflation contingency

The Lifecycle Program for the Regional Freeway System provides an effective management tool and a comprehensive view of planned construction. This philosophy will assist in maximizing transportation dollars and provide a focus on future transportation needs.

1. What is the status of the Draft EIS?
The study team, led by the Arizona Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration, evaluated the proposed South Mountain Freeway, analyzing the engineering options and potential environmental impacts. The Draft Environmental Impact statement  contains the results of this analysis, and was released for public review and comment on April 26. April 26th begins a 90-day public comment period that will conclude on July 24, 2013.

2. How can I be involved and submit my comments on the Draft EIS?
Public comments are a vital component in the decision-making process and one of the many criteria used in evaluating alternatives. The public is encouraged to review the Draft EIS, participate in the public hearing and provide comments on the Draft EIS. Comments can be submitted via the following methods:

• Email: projects@azdot.gov

• Mail:

Loop 202 South Mountain Freeway Study
Arizona Department of Transportation
1655 West Jackson Street, MD 126F
Phoenix, Arizona 85007

• Online: azdot.gov/SouthMountainFreeway
• At the public hearing:

Tuesday, May 21, 2013 from 10:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.
Phoenix Convention Center, North Ballroom
100 North 3rd Street,
Phoenix, Arizona 85004

Three-minute verbal comments can be made at the Public Hearing. Court reporters will also be available to take individual verbal comments; comments provided to a court reporter are not subject to the three-minute limit. Comment forms will be available for written comments.

• Phone: 602.712.7006

All comment methods are considered equal.

After the public hearing, community forums will be held at various locations in the Study Area to allow for additional opportunity to provide Draft EIS comments. Times and locations of the forums will be posted on this website and published in newspapers and local publications.

All public comments received during the 90-day public review period for the Draft EIS will be considered and included in the Final EIS and the project’s administrative record.

3. Where can I obtain a copy of or view the Draft EIS?
Once published on April 26, 2013, the Draft EIS will be available through a variety of methods, including:

• By download from this website
• For review at area libraries, including:
• Phoenix Public Library – Ironwood Branch, 4333 East Chandler Boulevard, Phoenix, AZ 85048
• Phoenix Public Library – Burton Barr Central Library, 1221 North Central Avenue, Phoenix, AZ 85048
• Sam Garcia Western Avenue Library, 495 East Western Avenue, Avondale, AZ 85323
• Tolleson Public Library, 9555 West Van Buren Street, Tolleson, AZ 85353
• For review by appointment, at the ADOT Environmental Planning Group, 1611 West Jackson Street, Phoenix, AZ 85007, (602) 712-7767
• For print at the FedEx Office Print and Ship Center, 4940 East Ray Road, Phoenix, AZ 85044
• For review at the upcoming public hearing on May 21, 2013.

4. Will there be a public vote on the proposed freeway?
No public vote will be held as part of the Draft EIS review process. The public is encouraged to participate and submit their comments on the Draft EIS during the 90-day comment period. 

The proposed Loop 202 South Mountain Freeway has been a critical part of the Maricopa Association of Governments’ (MAG) Regional Freeway Program since it was first included in funding approved by Maricopa County voters in 1985. It was also part of the Regional Transportation Plan funding passed by Maricopa County voters in 2004 through Proposition 400.

5. Where will the proposed South Mountain Freeway be located?
The proposed freeway is divided into two segments, an eastern section and a western section. The eastern section connects to I-10 adjacent to the current Loop 202 Santan Freeway, and the western section veers north to connect the freeway loop to I-10. For the eastern section, the proposed alignment follows Pecos Road. This alignment was first proposed in 1985 and affirmed in the 1988 Environmental Assessment. For the western section, the proposed freeway alignment is called the “W59 Alternative,” which provides a north-south connection of the South Mountain to I-10 near 59th Avenue. A “no build” option also is being evaluated, as required by federal law.

6. When would the freeway be built?
If the outcome of the study is a build alternative, then the timing of construction will depend upon the completion of final design, right-of-way acquisition, and utility relocation. A corridor implementation plan developed by ADOT will identify how to construct the overall project, including the length and sequence of construction segments. The current Regional Freeway and Highway Program identifies construction funding for the freeway to begin in fiscal year 2015.

7. Once an alignment is decided, will we still have an opportunity to provide input?
This study, which began in July 2001, is expected to be completed in 2014. During the study process, community members have had and will continue to have various opportunities to ask questions, express opinions and provide comments about the proposed action.

The Draft EIS will have a 90-day comment period—twice the duration that federal regulations require. A public hearing will be held on May 21, 2013 where individuals may provide comments for up to three minutes in front of a study team panel, or provide comments with no specific time limit to a court reporter. Comment forms will be available for written comment. At any time during the 90‑day period, comments may be made using email, phone, this project website, and by mail.

8. What happens after the Draft EIS comment period ends?
After July 24, 2013 (the end of the 90-day comment period), the study team will review and address all comments received, regardless of how they are submitted, in the Final EIS document. A 60‑day comment period will also be available after publication of the Final EIS.

9. What does the outcome of the Gila River Indian Community’s vote mean for the South Mountain Freeway study? Will an alignment on the Gila River Indian Community be considered?
The Gila River Indian Community’s (GRIC or Community) vote on February 7, 2012 represents an important milestone for the South Mountain Freeway Study.

At the request of the Gila River Indian Community in January 2010, the Arizona Department of Transportation and Maricopa Association of Governments worked together to identify a potential freeway alignment on Community land. The alignment followed a route consistent with the Community’s 1998 Gila Borderlands Regional Planning Study. When no “fatal flaws” were identified, in late 2011 the Community Council passed a resolution to hold a Community-wide referendum on the freeway. The referendum asked members whether they supported an on-Community alignment, supported an off-Community alignment, or whether they supported a “no-build” alternative.

The GRIC election on February 7, 2012 preferred the “no-build” option for construction of the Loop 202 South Mountain Freeway. This means, moving forward, an alignment of the South Mountain Freeway cannot be located on the Gila River Indian Community. The Pecos Road Alternative will be carried forward in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), as well as the consideration of a No-Build Alternative.  The Community’s position regarding “no-build” will be considered as part of the Draft EIS.

As the process moves forward, ADOT and MAG will continue to coordinate with the Community on remaining concerns and potential methods for mitigating those concerns.

10. Why not do what was done with the Loop 101 in Scottsdale: pay the Gila River Indian Community for the land and place the freeway there?
ADOT, FHWA and MAG continue to discuss a range of transportation-related topics with the Community. Ultimately, it is up to the Community, as a sovereign nation, to decide whether they will allow an alignment on its land. In late 2011, the Gila River Indian Community passed a resolution to hold a Community-wide referendum on whether to allow a potential freeway alignment on Community land. In February 2012, a vote by the community favored a "no-build" option for construction of the Loop 202 (South Mountain Freeway). The vote by the Community essentially leaves only two options: an alignment along Pecos Road or the no-build alternative. The Community position will be considered as part of the Draft EIS.

Since the vote in February 2012, landowners within the Community began pursuing their own referendum for an alignment within the Community. Questions regarding those efforts should be directed to the Community. ADOT and FHWA will continue to seek input from the public, agencies, and jurisdictions regarding the proposed action through the EIS process and, if an action alternative were to be selected in the record of decision, through the design phase and construction.

11. Who makes the final decision?
The final decision on the freeway alignment is a cooperative effort, involving ADOT, FHWA and MAG. As a corridor that is part of a comprehensive regional plan developed by MAG, ADOT serves as the agency responsible for implementation of the plan, with FHWA providing the federal oversight required to access federal funds. FHWA is the lead federal agency responsible for implementing the requirements of NEPA, the governing federal law, and is responsible for the ultimate decision regarding the proposed action.

12. How is public input used?
Public comments are a vital component in the decision-making process. Public comment has been solicited from project inception and through key milestones in the EIS process. The interests and needs of the public, along with all other social, economic, and environmental issues and impacts, must be fully analyzed and included in the Draft and Final EIS. Comments made during development of the Draft EIS have been used to adjust plans, explore new questions, or make changes—all within the scope of NEPA. Public comments received on the Draft EIS will be reviewed and addressed in the Final EIS document. Public comments received on the Final EIS will also be considered and addressed as appropriate.

More information about the entire public involvement process up to publication of the Draft EIS is available in Chapter 6, Comments and Coordination, of the Draft EIS.

13. Will there be a public hearing?
Yes, a public hearing will be held on May 21, 2013 at the Phoenix Convention Center North Ballroom from 10 AM to 8 PM. During this public hearing, public comments on the Draft EIS can be made before a study team panel or given individually to a court reporter. Comment forms will be available for written comment.

The Draft EIS will have a 90-day comment period—twice the duration that federal regulations require. During the 90-day comment period, this website will also have comment forms available. In addition, community forums will be held at various locations in the Study Area after the public hearing. At these community forums, technical staff will be available to answer questions and explain study material. The study video will be available for viewing. For the whole 90‑day period, comments may also be made using email, phone, online on this project website, and by mail. A 60‑day comment period will also be available after publication of the Final EIS.

For more information regarding previous meetings, please visit: http://www.southmountainfreeway.com/meeting_notices.asp#meetings

14. Why was the 55th Avenue Alternative moved to 59th Avenue?
Responding to budget shortfalls created by declining revenue from the Prop 400 sales tax, MAG began to study methods to reduce freeway costs. There was also public concern about the number of potential residential and business acquisitions. From this analysis, two key changes were made:

• Reduction of the proposed freeway to eight lanes from ten, which would allow the needed right-of-way to be reduced
• Shifted the alignment to connect with I-10 at 59th Avenue

15. Why is ADOT conducting a second environmental study?
Much has changed in this area since the 1988 State-level Environmental Assessment was completed. The Draft EIS has been prepared in light of new development in the area, changes in design standards and environmental regulations, and changes in procedures needed to be followed to qualify for federal funding (which this project intends to seek).

16. Has a decision been made on the purpose and need for a freeway?
Yes, based on projections of population and employment growth in the region, projected increases in vehicle miles traveled, and projections of where new residences and businesses will be built, the study team determined that there is a need for an a connection between I-10 (Maricopa Freeway) in the southeastern region and I-10 (Papago Freeway) in the western region.

In 2010, the region’s freeways were congested and operated poorly, but conditions in 2035 would be substantially worse than the limited areas of stop-and-go driving experienced in 2010. By 2035, eastbound and westbound motorists on I-10 between Loop 101 (Agua Fria Freeway) and Loop 202 (Santan Freeway) will experience stop-and-go driving for at least 3 hours every day.

The study team concluded that without a major transportation facility in the Study Area, the region will suffer even greater congestion and travel delays than experienced today, and will have limited options for moving people and goods safely through the Phoenix metropolitan region.

17. If the E1 Alternative (the Preferred Alternative in the Eastern Section that largely follows the Pecos Road alignment) is not a foregone conclusion, then why has ADOT purchased right-of-way along that alignment?
ADOT purchased some right-of-way in the corridor along Pecos Road when it was adopted as the alignment in 1988. Currently, ADOT is acquiring right-of-way to preserve the viability of the corridor and to minimize future relocation of homes and businesses as part of the agency’s long-range planning efforts. Should another alternative be adopted as a result of this study, ADOT can dispose of the land that has been acquired but is no longer needed.

18. What factors were considered in designating a Preferred Alternative?
Upon confirming the purpose and need for the proposed action, a multidisciplinary process was undertaken to identify a range of reasonable alternatives to be studied in detail in the Draft EIS. The process involved identifying, comparatively screening, and eliminating alternatives based on:

• input from the public
• a comparison of modal choices
• a multidisciplinary set of criteria evenly applied
• the historical context of the proposed action
• projected conditions with and without the alternatives being considered

The identification of the W59 Alternative and E1 Alternative as the Preferred Alternatives, was based on a balanced consideration of overall transportation needs; consistency with regional and long-range planning goals; environmental, economic, and societal impacts; operational differences; estimated costs; and regional support and public input.

19. What about truck traffic that might be generated by a new highway?
One of the factors considered in this study was (1) the amount of truck traffic that would be generated if an action alternative were to become the Selected Alternative and (2) its potential impact on the surrounding community. The MAG regional travel demand model forecasts approximately 10 percent truck traffic on an implemented South Mountain Freeway in 2035. The forecast truck traffic is based on existing traffic studies and projected socioeconomic data. This percentage is similar to current traffic conditions on I-10 between Loop 101 and I-17 and on US 60.

20. Will anything other than a freeway be considered?
Nonfreeway alternatives were considered. Among other things, the study took into account improving existing freeways, improving or expanding other travel modes, strategies to reduce travel demand (including local land use controls), and various roadway configurations. This study examined not only the potential impacts from improvements, but also the consequences of building nothing. As proposed by MAG, the South Mountain Freeway would be part of the Regional Freeway and Highway System—a multimodal approach to improve traffic in the Valley as part of the Regional Transportation Plan. Other transportation improvements like mass transit and local roads are specified in the Regional Transportation Plan and were considered during the evaluation of this proposed new freeway.

21. Is it possible that nothing will be built?
Yes, that was one of the options studied. It is important to recognize, however, that impacts can occur through choosing to do nothing. A No-Action Alternative was thoroughly evaluated in the Draft EIS. Until the ROD is issued, and if it were to have an action alternative as the Selected Alternative, a No-Action Alternatives is still a possibility. Selection of the No-Action Alternative would not preclude proposal of a project similar to the proposed action in the future.

22. How long will this study take to complete?
The study began in July 2001. Traditionally, this type of study takes 5–7 years to complete. However, the duration of the EIS process will ultimately be determined by issues and impacts that are discovered during the course of the study. Based on current progress, ADOT anticipates that a final decision will be reached by the mid 2014.

23. Where would the corridor join I-10 to the west of Phoenix
ADOT and FHWA have identified the 59th Avenue interchange with I‑10 (the W59 Alternative) as the Preferred Alternative for the Study Area’s Western Section. This is an adjustment from an earlier decision identifying 55th Avenue (the W55 Alternative) as the Western Section preliminary preferred alternative.

24. Is it likely that construction of a new road or freeway would require the acquisition of existing homes or businesses?
It is likely that the proposed South Mountain Freeway would include the need to acquire a number of existing homes and/or businesses. One purpose of the EIS process is to determine the extent of new right-of-way that would be needed for each reasonable alternative. ADOT continues to work with all Valley municipalities to protect possible freeway alignments as part of a commitment to measured growth. With changes to the Regional Transportation Plan, ADOT already owns more than 80 percent of the needed right-of-way along Pecos Road, should the E1 Alternative become the Selected Alternative for the Eastern Section. According to the Draft EIS, implementation of the W59 Alternative would mean potential displacement of 41 businesses and 733 residences. Implementation of the E1 Alternative would mean potential displacement of 138 residences.

25. Isn’t the real purpose of a South Mountain Freeway simply to act as a bypass to divert trucks from downtown Phoenix?
The primary purpose of the proposed freeway is not to create a "truck bypass" for downtown Phoenix. The proposed freeway is part of a transportation system developed to improve mobility in the region by increasing capacity and providing alternatives to allow traffic—including truck traffic—to bypass already congested routes. Like other “loop” freeways in the Phoenix metropolitan area, the proposed South Mountain Freeway would be a commuter corridor, helping to move local traffic between the eastern and western portions of Maricopa County.

Commercial trucks would use the proposed freeway. As with all other freeways in the MAG region, trucks would use it for the through‑transport of freight, for transport to and from distribution centers, and for transport to support local commerce. And as with travel on all other freeways in the MAG region, the primary users of the proposed action would be automobiles.

26. How is an Environmental Impact Statement different from the Environmental Assessment that was conducted in 1988?
The 1988 State-level Environmental Assessment (EA) was prepared to satisfy State requirements only. To make any resulting project eligible for federal funding, the current study has to satisfy federal requirements and comply with NEPA. Under this Act, an EIS was required because the proposed project has the potential of creating significant impacts on the environment and surrounding communities. In this case, an EIS differs from an EA in that it must address in detail a number of reasonable alternatives for meeting the transportation needs in the corridor.

27. Will the current study be influenced by the 1988 Environmental Assessment?
The EIS process underway—and its Draft EIS—neither supplement nor update the 1988 State-level Environmental Assessment. The ongoing EIS process is an entirely separate study and does not depend on data collected in 1988. The 1988 Environmental Assessment was prepared to satisfy State requirements only. To make any resulting project eligible for federal funding (which this project intends to seek), the current study must satisfy federal requirements and comply with NEPA.

28. The future is light rail so why would ADOT even consider building another freeway, which will only add to our congestion and air pollution problems?
The study has considered a variety of transportation modes and alternatives, travel reduction strategies, improving existing roads, and taking no action. Alternatives considered included previous freeway proposals as well as transportation system management/transportation demand management, transit (e.g., commuter rail, light rail, expanded bus services), arterial street network improvements, land use controls, new freeways, and a No-Action Alternative. The freeway option was determined to best meet purpose and need for the proposed action following a screening process. In addition, a freeway would result in additional benefits, including those related to system linkage, regional mobility, and consistency with regional and local long-range plans.

29. If ADOT builds a freeway, will it be built wide enough so it doesn’t have to be torn up and rebuilt in a few years?
The South Mountain Freeway would be constructed as an eight-lane freeway (three general purpose lanes and one HOV lane in each direction). This change from the original 10-lane planning concept would still meet the transportation needs outlined in the proposed project’s purpose and need criteria, but would reduce costs at a time when revenues have dropped significantly.

30. What can we do to get Pecos Road taken off the board?
A Pecos Road alignment for a portion of the proposed South Mountain Freeway was identified in a State-level Environmental Assessment completed in 1988, and that alignment was adopted by the State Transportation Board.

The E1 Alternative, as known as the Pecos Road alignment, is the only action alternative developed for the Eastern Section. Therefore, ADOT, with concurrence from FHWA, identified the E1 Alternative as its Preferred Alternative in the Eastern Section. The identification—while not a final determination, and one that can be changed—was based on the data and conclusions presented throughout the Draft EIS. The identification of the E1 Alternative as the Preferred Alternative, in summary, rests on a balanced consideration of overall transportation needs; consistency with regional and long-range planning goals; environmental, economic, and societal impacts; operational differences; estimated costs; and regional support and public inputs.

If new alternatives are presented for ADOT/FHWA consideration prior to the issuance of a ROD, the agencies will determine whether those alternatives are reasonable and should be considered in the EIS process.

31. If it won’t help traffic congestion (in Ahwatukee) why consider building a freeway?
When ADOT determines whether a freeway should be built, the agency must consider numerous factors, including local and regional transportation needs, project costs, and environmental considerations. Decisions regarding freeway projects are based on the transportation needs of the entire Phoenix metropolitan area as part of a comprehensive, multimodal, regional approach to transportation solutions. Furthermore, the proposed South Mountain Freeway was proposed as part of a regional plan (the RTP), which is developed collaboratively by citizens and leaders from across the MAG region.

32. Were other viable alternatives in Ahwatukee, other than the Pecos Road alignment, being considered?
Other alternatives were considered during the alternatives analysis phase of the study, but were eliminated from consideration because of their substantial impacts or their inability to satisfy the purpose and need of the proposed action; these alternatives were located north of Pecos Road. In the first tier of the screening and alternatives development process, three Chandler Boulevard alternatives were evaluated. In the second tier of the screening and alternatives development process, the sole surviving Chandler Boulevard alternative was eliminated from further evaluation because of:

• substantial impacts on existing residences, including hundreds of residential displacements
• substantial disruption to community character and cohesion, splitting Ahwatukee Foothills Village
• impacts on commercial frontage along Chandler Boulevard and developments
• loss of road network capacity by unplanned loss of portions of Chandler Boulevard and Ray Road

33. Does the study evaluate potential increases in crime that might result from having a freeway built through our community?
In response to an inquiry , a member of the City of Phoenix Police Department staff met with the South Mountain Citizens Advisory Team to address this issue. The police officer provided the following information:

• Crime changes are influenced by a wide variety of factors and it would be difficult to determine whether a new freeway had any effect.
• Based on experience, there did not appear to be any correlation between crime rates and freeways.
• The City of Phoenix Police Department does not have any statistics specific to crime adjacent to freeways.
• Crime suspects who use freeways to get away are typically the easiest to catch.
• Crime seems to be more related to what is built adjacent to freeways.

34. Would the potential freeway be built below existing ground?
The study team analyzed the belowground option with a smaller freeway configuration (eight lanes), with the results of this analysis included in the Draft EIS. The team anticipates that the change to a smaller configuration would not change the overall conclusions from the original analysis. That analysis indicated that, in an effort to reduce impacts by depressing the freeway in the Eastern Section, ADOT would:

• need to spend an additional $400 million for construction and right-of-way
• displace an additional 300 residences
• maintain additional pump stations and detention basins for the life of the freeway
• would still have noise-related impacts requiring mitigation (i.e., noise barriers and their associated costs and visual impacts)

Because the belowground option would result in substantially greater costs and residential displacements, this option was previously eliminated from further study. Freeways in the region all have above- and belowground segments, as is proposed with this corridor.

35. Where would the interchanges be located?
Potential traffic interchange locations are being considered at approximately 1‑mile intervals, at major street crossings. ADOT has been working with local communities and jurisdictions regarding potential locations. The following locations are proposed in the Draft EIS:

Western Section
Van Buren Street
Buckeye Road
Lower Buckeye Road
Broadway Road
Southern Avenue
Baseline Road
Dobbins Road
Elliot Road

Eastern Section
51st Avenue
17th Avenue
Desert Foothills Parkway
24th Street
40th Street

The locations are not final. ADOT will continue to coordinate with the affected jurisdictions regarding the proposed interchanges.

36. Will the City of Phoenix be able to influence the study?
The City of Phoenix represents the citizenry of a major portion of the Study Area and is an active participant in the EIS process, as are the other municipalities and regional planning organizations in this area. As a member agency of MAG, the City will have an opportunity to grant funding/approval should the project advance.

37. Would the high water table near the Salt River preclude construction of a depressed freeway?
Yes. Analysis reported in the Draft EIS states that in the north central portion of the Western Section, near the Salt River, the depth-to-groundwater level ranges from 35 to 50 feet below ground surface. Such depths would definitely affect any decision to construct extensive lengths of depressed freeway. Other water-related factors that negatively influenced consideration of depressed freeways in this portion of the Study Area included linear features such as floodwater conveyance channels or irrigation district conveyance canals and ditches.

38. Would this freeway be part of the planned CANAMEX highway?
No. In the Maricopa County area, the CANAMEX Corridor is to follow I‑10 from Tucson to I‑8 near Casa Grande, I‑8 west to SR 85 near Gila Bend, SR 85 north to I‑10 northwest of Buckeye, I‑10 west to Wickenburg Road, Wickenburg Road to Vulture Mine Road west of Wickenburg, and then connect with the planned US 93/US 60 Wickenburg Bypass. The CANAMEX Corridor’s proposed routing avoids any congestion associated with the Phoenix metropolitan area.

39. How would the existing Santan/Interstate 10 Interchange connect to the west?
The E1 Alternative would connect to the existing I-10 (Maricopa Freeway)/Loop 202 (Santan Freeway)/Pecos Road system traffic interchange. The E1 Alternative would replace the Pecos Road connection. The system traffic interchange was constructed in 2000–2002 to accommodate the western leg of the Loop 202—the proposed freeway.

40. Will anything be built through South Mountain Park/Preserve?
Federal restrictions prohibit intrusion of a federal project such as the proposed freeway into a park like South Mountain Park/Preserve, unless it can be shown that there is no feasible and prudent alternative to avoid such an intrusion. As documented in the Draft EIS, the study team has not identified any feasible and prudent alternative(s) to avoid impacts on the park. Approximately 1 mile of the proposed freeway would pass through a remote, southwestern edge of the park. The amount of land in the park that would be affected by the freeway is 31.3 acres. This represents less than 0.2 percent of the entire park. ADOT is working closely with park stakeholders to minimize impacts and address various concerns.

41. Can the Pecos Road corridor be changed?
The E1 Alternative, also known as the Pecos Road alignment, is the only action alternative developed for the Eastern Section. Therefore, ADOT, with concurrence from FHWA, identified the E1 Alternative as its Preferred Alternative in the Eastern Section. The identification—while not a final determination, and one that can be changed—was based on the data and conclusions presented throughout the Draft EIS. The identification of the E1 Alternative as the Preferred Alternative, in summary, rests on a balanced consideration of overall transportation needs; consistency with regional and long-range planning goals; environmental, economic, and societal impacts; operational differences; estimated costs; and regional support and public inputs.

If new alternatives are presented for ADOT/FHWA consideration prior to the issuance of a ROD, the agencies will determine whether those alternatives are reasonable and should be considered in the EIS process.

42. What are the other alternatives?
Through the study’s public involvement efforts in the EIS process, over 30 alternative freeway routes were initially proposed. The study team evaluated the suitability of each of these alternatives in meeting the project’s purpose and need criteria. The screening of these action alternatives resulted in three alternatives (W59, W71, and W101) identified in the Western Section of the Study Area and one (E1) in the Eastern Section of the Study Area. Along with a No-Action Alternative, these alternatives, with variations, are described and analyzed in detail in the Draft EIS.

43. Will storm water runoff be controlled? Where will the water go?
If the Preferred Alternatives identified in the Draft EIS were to become the Selected Alternatives, they would be designed to control stormwater runoff and prevent flooding. The rates of discharge would not be greater than existing rates of discharge. Runoff from the completed freeway would be directed to existing and new drainage facilities. Existing drainage facilities with inadequate capacity would be improved to handle increased runoff flows. New runoff detention facilities might be required in some locations to limit the maximum rate of runoff released to existing drainage facilities.

In the Western Section, these drainage facilities ultimately discharge to the Salt River. The drainage design features of the E1 Alternative would be such that drainage patterns from the South Mountains toward the Gila River would not be altered. Currently, drainage flows generally from the north to the south, passing under Pecos Road through a series of culverts following natural drainages/washes. The E1 Alternative would include small drainage basins and channels on the northern side of the freeway to treat the water quality and meter and direct drainage flows under the freeway and onto the Gila River Indian Community land in the same manner as they are currently.

44. Will there be access to the Gila River Indian Community from the traffic interchanges in the Eastern Section?
Federal law obligates ADOT and FHWA to allow access to the proposed freeway from the Community. Traffic interchanges would provide the Gila River Indian Community access to the freeway. Connection from the Community to the planned E1 Alternative service traffic interchanges that are bordered by Community land would be the responsibility of the Community, in coordination with appropriate jurisdictions.

45. If we can look forward to a level of service "F" in the future, what level of service do we have now?
Current level of service (LOS) varies according to the time of day. Level of service "F" is currently experienced on some freeways during morning and evening rush hours. Traffic projections show, however, that without improvements to the Regional Freeway and Highway System, this condition is likely to occur more often and have longer duration in the future.

46. What is pass-through traffic?
Traffic that neither starts nor ends in the Valley is referred to as “pass-through.” An example is I-10 traffic that originates in Los Angeles and passes through the Phoenix area, without stopping, on the way to El Paso.

47. Has anyone looked at Riggs Road as a truck bypass?
During initiation of the EIS process, ADOT approached the Community Natural Resources Standing Committee with a request to study alternatives on Community land as far south as Riggs Road, a possible route often-suggested by the public. Expansion of 51st Avenue, Beltline Road, and Riggs Road within Community boundaries would require approval of the Community. Such approval has not been granted.

Nearly two-thirds of any alternative using Riggs Road would be on Community land. While the Riggs Road Alternative would serve some mobility needs, particularly of those living in the Maricopa area, meeting this travel demand would not address any specifically identified planning goals for an integrated regional transportation network. The Regional Transportation Plan identifies the proposed freeway as a critical link in the Regional Freeway and Highway System, both in terms of completing the system and in optimizing overall system performance as well as that of specific existing links such as Loop  202 (Santan Freeway). The Riggs Road Alternative would not complete the Loop 202 system, thereby causing substantial out-of-direction travel for motorists. This alternative would not meet the proposed action’s purpose and need and was eliminated from further consideration.

Trucking destinations in the Phoenix metropolitan area (either distribution centers or for local commerce) would require trucks to enter congested areas. Choosing to travel on the proposed freeway versus I-10 would not translate to any substantial travel time benefits. A representative of the trucking industry confirmed that “true” through‑truck traffic (not having to stop in the metropolitan area) would continue to use the faster, designated, and posted bypass system of I-8 and SR 85.

48. What kind of freeway design would be needed for the Pecos Road alignment?
Traffic studies show that a freeway, similar to the Pima Freeway or Red Mountain Freeway would be needed on the Pecos Road alignment. Specific details and potential impacts are presented in the Draft EIS. The freeway would contain three 12-foot-wide general purpose lanes and one HOV lane in each direction, separated by a median barrier with shoulders adjacent.

49. Have you determined how many vehicles would be likely to use the highway?
The study team’s analysis used an estimated that 120,000 to 175,000 vehicles per day would use the South Mountain Freeway each day in 2035.

50. Will trucks carrying hazardous cargo be allowed to use the highway?
Yes, the only freeway locations in the Valley where hazardous cargo is prohibited is I-10 (Papago Freeway) through the Deck Park Tunnel and on Loop 202 (Red Mountain Freeway) along the mile-long bridge above the Salt River in Tempe. Such restrictions on this freeway are not anticipated at this time.

51. What impact would a freeway along Pecos Road have on the area’s air quality?
The carbon monoxide project-level air quality analysis demonstrated that regardless of the Western Section action alternative selected (if any), no receptors in the Eastern Section would violate the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), based on projected 2035 traffic. Although a meaningful evaluation of ozone concentrations at the project level is not possible, the action alternative is included in the RTP that has been determined by FHWA and the Federal Transit Administration to conform to the State Implementation Plan.

Levels of carbon monoxide near the proposed new fully directional interchanges along the Community boundary are projected to increase; these areas would not, however, violate the NAAQS, based on projected 2035 traffic. It is important to note that no residential receptors currently exist on Community land near the proposed interchanges and few residential receptors exist near the proposed freeway.

The air quality analysis showed that the E1 Alternative would conform to all relevant air quality requirements.

52. How do you know what the air quality impact will be before the freeway is built?
Air quality impacts were estimated through sophisticated computer modeling based on predictions of the amount and nature of traffic under worst-case scenarios. The emissions models are based on extensive emissions testing that the U.S. EPA has conducted on thousands of vehicles representative of the ages and models of the vehicle fleet on the roads today. MAG provided regional air quality analysis. To the extent that individual pollutants can be modeled for project-specific impacts, ADOT conducted such analyses. These are reported in the Draft EIS. ADOT also conducted detailed analysis of Valley weather patterns, at the request of the public. A professional meteorologist was part of the study team conducting such analyses.

53. Would the proposed South Mountain Freeway handle all of the excess traffic that is anticipated in 2035?
No, there is no single freeway that could accomplish that. This proposed freeway is seen as a part of the overall system improvements and expansion that will be needed to handle our future traffic. To address future needs, the Regional Transportation Plan includes several new and expanded freeways, improvements to I-10 at the Broadway Curve and enhancements to US 60, bus transit expansion, and additional studies into light rail transit. All of these projects are designed to work together to better meet the region’s transportation needs.

Implementation of the freeway would not completely solve the regional system-wide capacity deficiency in 2035. The proposed freeway’s additional operating capacity would alleviate about 55 percent of the projected 11 percent regional system capacity shortfall when incorporating the most optimistic scenario for adoption and performance of non-freeway improvements.

54. We don’t trust your traffic projections. We think they are flawed. Who will ensure that the projections are accurate? Who will gather the data?
The traffic assessment for the Study Area employed the MAG travel demand model (TransCAD software platform), as certified by FHWA and reviewed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for air quality conformity. The model projects demand for multiple modes of travel, including automobile, bus, and light rail. Key model inputs used to forecast travel demand included:

• socioeconomic data based on the adopted general plans of MAG members, along with population and economic forecasts and the existing and planned transportation infrastructure as identified by MAG members
• the anticipated average number of vehicle trips within the region (including those to and from the region’s households) on a daily basis (this number is monitored regularly by MAG)
• the distribution of transportation modes used by travelers in the MAG region (also monitored regularly by MAG)
• the capacity of the transportation infrastructure to accommodate regional travel
• the future transportation infrastructure established using RTP-planned projects and improvements and from known arterial street network improvements assumed to be made by the County, Cities, and private developers

The Draft EIS provides more detail on the data inputs to the modeling effort and discussions of the assumptions used.

55. How has passage of the proposed extension of Maricopa County's ½ cent transportation sales tax (Proposition 400) in the November 2004 election affected the future of the proposed South Mountain Freeway?
Passage of Proposition 400 provides the primary source of funding for construction of the proposed South Mountain Freeway. Funding for the Regional Transportation Plan includes $9 billion in regional freeway improvements in Maricopa County. Consistent with federal planning guidelines, funding for transportation projects is based on revenue sources that are considered to be reasonably available for the planning period. This assumes that for planning purposes, funding sources with a long history of providing funding in the past will continue into the future.

56. Why did ADOT select the 55th Avenue alignment as the preferred western alignment and not the proposed 71st Avenue or Loop 101 alignments?
The W55th Avenue (now W59) Alternative was identified as the preliminary preferred alternative (and, with publication of the Draft EIS, the Preferred Alternative in the Western Section) after comparing each of the Western Section proposed South Mountain Freeway alternatives in terms of addressing:

• regional transportation needs
• consistency with regional and long-range planning
• environmental and societal impacts
• traffic operational efficiencies
• estimated costs
• regional and public support

The South Mountain Citizen’s Advisory Team (SMCAT) recommended the W101 Alternative. However, the study team considered the input of all stakeholders—including regional leaders, municipalities, historical planning, and public/SMCAT input—to identify the W55 Alternative (now the W59 Alternative) as the Preferred Alternative. The Draft EIS has detailed discussion regarding the relative merits and problems with the four action alternatives fully evaluated in the Western Section. The No-Action Alternative also underwent detailed evaluation.

57. Would the Eastern or the Western Section be constructed first?
If the Preferred Alternative were to become the Selected Alternatives in the Record of Decision, the construction schedule would be determined as part of the construction implementation plan. Upon completion of the initial design phase, the final right-of-way acquisition process and other “early construction” tasks such as utility relocations would begin. Also, the corridor would be divided into multiple final design segments to establish the construction implementation plan. The termini of these segments would be determined through consideration of several factors, including:

• traffic performance and continuity
• off-site drainage considerations
• impacts to residential areas
• earthwork management
• construction contract management

The proposed construction implementation plan would schedule construction of the corridor to begin at the I-10 (Papago Freeway) system traffic interchange and continue south to approximately Baseline Road. Additional construction would begin near the I-10 (Maricopa Freeway) system traffic interchange and continue along Pecos Road, through the South Mountains, and end at approximately 51st Avenue. Finally, these two roadway lengths would be connected by constructing the remaining freeway segments between Baseline Road and 51st Avenue.

The duration of construction is anticipated to be 5–6 years. Construction sequencing and duration could change based on several factors, including funding availability, traffic volumes, coordination with other major freeway projects, earthwork balancing, utility relocation schedules, and regional priorities.

58. Is this freeway going to have elevated interchanges?
It is anticipated that most of the interchanges would be elevated, with the proposed freeway’s main line elevated over arterial cross streets.

59. Is there a guarantee ADOT will buy the homes and businesses that lie within proposed right-of-way lines on the maps?
The right-of-way lines are based on the best information available today. The lines are identified to show the area of impacts and are a good estimate of the area necessary to construct a freeway. Some refinement of these lines would take place during the design phase, which would identify the exact properties that would need to be acquired. With specific questions about proposed right-of-way impacts, contact the ADOT Right-of-Way Group at 602.712.7316.

60. What if I own property in an alignment?
New right-of-way maps are available; please check those carefully. Determination of the final right-of-way to be acquired would be made during the design phase and would involve coordination with local and regional governments if an action alternative were to become the Selected Alternative. If you have any concerns about a specific property related to the proposed South Mountain Freeway, you can contact the ADOT Right-of-Way Group at 602.712.7316.

• Freeway Alternatives (overview of study area)
• Right-of-Way Key Map
• Interchange Locations
• Map 1: Pecos Road and 40th Street
• Map 2: Pecos Road and 32nd Street
• Map 3: Pecos Road and 24th Street
• Map 4: Pecos Road and Desert Foothills Parkway
• Map 5: Pecos Road and Central Avenue
• Map 6: Pecos Road and 17th Avenue
• Map 7: Pecos Road and Chandler Boulevard
• Map 8: Main Ridge South
• Map 9: Main Ridge North
• Map 10:Alta Ridge
• Map 11: 51st Avenue
• Map 12: Elliot Road
• Map 13: Dobbins Road
• Map 14: Baseline Road
• Map 15: Salt River
• Map 16: Broadway Road
• Map 17: Buckeye Road
• Map 18: Van Buren Street
• Map 19: I-10 67th Avenue
• Map 20: I-10 59th Avenue
• Map 21: I-10 51st Avenue

 

Regional Freeway System Maps
The ADOT Regional Freeway System Maps provide a comprehensive look at Valley freeways.

During rush hour, traffic often comes to a halt on the freeway even when nothing is blocking a lane. What's going on?

Why can't freeways keep up with demand?

Why aren't traffic lights better synchronized? It seems drivers catch every red light.

Speeding, tailgating, swerving from lane to lane. When people slip behind the wheel, why does civility take a back seat?

During rush hour, is it faster to take freeways or surface streets?

Mysteries of gridlock unlocked
Answers to commuters' 5 common questions

by Scott Craven, The Arizona Republic, Oct. 20, 2004

Accidents. Construction. Merging lanes.

Despite all the hype over Proposition 400, which would extend the half-cent sales tax in Maricopa County for transportation, it's these things that occupy our collective consciousness and conspire to make our daily commutes a misery. Like death and taxes, that bottleneck through Tempe (or Glendale or north Scottsdale) is a sure thing.

But what if it all suddenly made sense? Would new insight into what put the "rush" into rush hour make it bearable? Would you then be able to achieve a Zen-like state behind the wheel, forgiving those drivers who trespass against you, especially when they merged at the last possible second as if unaware the lane was ending?

Probably not. You'd still be as frustrated as commuters like Jeannette Passaretti of Peoria.

"Everybody drives like they have to be in first place," she says. "But there is no first place."

For fighting the stop-and-go traffic every weekday, you deserve answers to a few burning questions on every motorist's mind.

Here they are:

1) During rush hour, traffic often comes to a halt on the freeway even when nothing is blocking a lane. What's going on?

Physics is going on. At peak travel periods, traffic moves in waves in which a drop (a motorist slows to allow someone to change lanes) can have a ripple effect, says Mark Schlappi, systems analysis program manager for the Maricopa Association of Governments.

"When traffic gets really dense, with little room between cars, any little thing can cause a slowdown," Schlappi says. "It's a chain reaction that can slow down things a lot."

Imagine a single-lane road dense with cars in which a driver brakes for a dog. The car behind him must stop as well as the next car and so on down the line. The dog moves off the road, the first driver accelerates and the motorist behind him hesitates slightly (to allow a safe distance between the two) and accelerates as well, as does the motorist behind him and so on.

The dog is long gone and yet a mile or two down the road, drivers are slowing because of the traffic wave caused by the first driver. By the time the motorists to the rear resume speed, they have no idea what caused the slowdown.

Similar, more massive, waves occur on freeways.

Drivers who allow a comfortable space between the motorists ahead of them have a positive effect on traffic flow, says Doug Nintzel, spokesman for the Arizona Department of Transportation. Unfortunately, motorists often drive with little space between them. As soon as someone hits the brakes, everyone behind him is affected.

2) Why can't freeways keep up with demand?

There simply are too many cars and not enough land or money to handle them all, Nintzel says.

"We'll never get rid of rush hour," he says. "It's just not possible in a metropolitan area the size of Phoenix."

Freeways would have to be wider, longer and more plentiful, none of which is feasible, Schlappi says. There is a limited amount of money for construction as well as a lack of space.

"If you build freeways everywhere they are needed, people will have to be displaced," Schlappi says. "Few want that to happen. Not many people are willing to move to make room for a freeway."

Measures have been taken to smooth traffic flow as much as possible, from information signs (warning drivers of problems ahead) to metered on-ramps.

But the only way to alleviate congestion is to get people out of their cars and into buses, carpools or light rail, Nintzel says.

Tim Wolf, ADOT's assistant state engineer for transportation technology, says, "We can't build enough freeways to take care of all the traffic, but we can use technology to improve on problems."

Eventually, wireless networks installed along major freeways will beam information about road conditions up ahead, with suggested alternate routes, Wolf says. Federal and state officials are discussing the technology's standards, hoping to start installing necessary equipment within three to five years.

Wolf envisions a day when each car can send and receive data along this wireless network. A computer in the BMW up ahead can sense its driver braking and alert those cars behind it. Or a traffic light will notify waiting drivers just how many more seconds until it turns green, or if an approaching car may run the red light.

3) Why aren't traffic lights better synchronized? It seems drivers catch every red light. William Chung is always seeing red.

The 64-year-old Scottsdale resident, who drives throughout the Valley on surface streets, can't remember a time he has cruised more than a mile before hitting a stoplight.

"I get stopped at every other light," Chung says. "It's so irritating. You waste time. You waste gas."

Not true, says Jim Sparks, a Phoenix traffic engineer. Nearly every light is timed. But to explain the problem, it's important to have some background.

In the 1960s, engineers placed traffic lights at mile and half-mile intersections. Lights were on a 60-second cycle (measured green to green) and simple to synchronize. In the early 1980s, Sparks says, drivers demanded left-turn arrows at busy intersections, and signal cycles increased to 90 seconds to accommodate them. To maintain synchronization, every intersection's cycle had to increase. Drivers at red lights now had a longer wait.

Phoenix, like other Valley cities , controls its traffic lights via computer network. Lights are timed to enhance traffic flow Such timing could ease traffic flow if not for two problems, Sparks says.

The first is traffic speed. Lights in Phoenix are synchronized for 36-40 mph. Ideally, motorists at 38 mph would catch one green light after another, Sparks says. But most motorists drive 10-15 mph above that.

The second obstacle is too many cars. During peak travel periods, cycles are too short to allow all cars through. Extending the cycles would not work with lights spaced just a half-mile apart, Sparks says.

"At the vast majority of intersections, people only have to wait for one or two changes of the light to get through," Sparks says. "That's better than in most cities."

Also complicating things are freeway interchanges and traffic lights at quarter-mile intersections. Freeways require longer cycles because of consistently heavy volume. Lights at the quarter mile are impossible to synchronize and thus operate via detectors, triggered by approaching cars.

4) Speeding, tailgating, swerving from lane to lane. When people slip behind the wheel, why does civility take a back seat?

Speaking of the back seat, you need look no further to partially explain the evolution of rudeness, says Leon James, a professor of psychology at the University of Hawaii who has spent nearly 20 years analyzing driving behaviors. James, also known as Dr. Driving (http://www.drdriving.org/), refers to the back seat as "road-rage nursery."

"Children spend hours just sitting there with little to do but watch," James says. "Not only do they learn bad driving behavior, but also that it's acceptable since Mom and Dad do it."

A recent study by insurance company Liberty Mutual bears this out. The study, released in August, found that teens mirror their parents' bad driving habits, from speeding to talking on the cellphone while driving.

The media also contribute to the problem, James says, as movies and TV shows are filled with everything from car chases to irate drivers.

"We learn it is OK to be rude in certain situations," he says. "And driving is certainly one of these situations."

Lyn Warder of Phoenix says she has seen more than her share of impolite drivers. What bothers her most are drivers who commit an egregious act and then act as if it was her fault.

"It really fries me when they've done something horribly wrong, rude and inconsiderate, and they (make an obscene gesture) as if I'm the one to blame," Warder says. "It seems people repeat the bad behavior that's done to them, as if trying to get even with the next guy."

Rude behavior also can be a byproduct of the detachment drivers feel when cocooned in a metal shell, James says. While most people would not curse someone for leaving a grocery cart in the middle of the soup aisle, drivers frequently will vent their frustration with obscenities and hand gestures when stuck behind a slow-moving vehicle, James says.

That detachment also helps to explain the "It's them, not me" mentality of most motorists, James says. He says that while 35 percent admit to aggressive driving habits, those same people say that 85 percent of other drivers are too aggressive.

"As long as that gap remains, people won't feel a need to change their behavior," James says. "It will always be the other guy's fault."

5) During rush hour, is it faster to take freeways or surface streets?

It depends. For shorter distances, around eight miles or less, it might be best to stick to the streets, Nintzel says. Just getting on the freeway could delay you several minutes, based on lines at the light as well as traffic backed up from ramp metering. Taking the streets to avoid those delays could give you a head start.

For longer commutes, it's usually best to fight the crowds and squeeze onto the freeways, Nintzel says. Though you will start at a disadvantage, time will quickly be made up along a route with zero traffic lights.

"Even with the bottlenecks, the freeway is going to get you there faster over longer distances," Nintzel says. Freeway construction and expansion have relieved traffic on city streets, Nintzel says. As a result, travel times may be longer when taking surface streets, but fewer cars could mean less stress when behind the wheel.

Terms

Asphaltic concrete – A mixture of asphalt cement and high quality aggregate compacted to form a pavement.

Box culvert – A structure less than 20 feet in width, which is built under a roadway and permits drainage to pass from one side of a roadway to the other.

Cattle guard – A grate to keep domestic animals from wandering onto a highway.

Chip seal – A road preservation technique using liquid asphalt with a layer of rock "chips."

Design – Pre-construction surveys, studies, photos, drafting, etc. that provide the instructions as to how the actual construction work is to be performed.

Frontage road – A surface street paralleling a controlled access highway (such as a freeway) for the purpose of permitting access to properties facing the highway.

Grade and drain – Leveling, compacting and constructing the roadbed prior to paving.

Guardrail – A rail, usually of flexible metal, secured to uprights and erected as a barrier between or beside lanes of a highway.

Landscaping – The installation of irrigation systems, plants, grass, gravel or structures to enhance the appearance of a highway and/or reduce erosion.

Level of Service (LOS) – Level of service, as it applies to traffic, is a measurement of the severity of congestion at a given point. LOS is graded from "A" to "F," with "A" being optimum conditions and "F" being one step better than gridlock.

Material sites – Areas where road construction materials such as aggregate rock and landfill can be obtained.

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) – NEPA was signed into law in 1970 in response to public sentiment that federal agencies should take a lead in providing greater protection for the environment. NEPA is the basic national charter for protection of the environment. It sets policy goals and provides a means for carrying out the policy.

Obligation – The commitment of funds to a project when it is advertised for bidding.

Overlay – Putting one or more layers of asphaltic concrete over an existing pavement.

Partnering – Preparing and committing to a plan of action through the team process, which includes the proactive cooperation of all key stakeholders and identifying all issues early-on to remove obstacles to the success of team goals.

Pavement preservation – An action to maintaining the surface of the pavement to extend its useful life.

Planking – The wood or rubber matting on rail/highway crossings.

Portland Cement Concrete – A high-grade concrete used to construct pavement and structures.

Preliminary engineering – Work accomplished during the design stages of a project.

Pump station – A facility which pumps water out of depressed section of roadways.

Realignment – A construction project that changes the location of an existing roadway in order to achieve a safer or more efficient design.

Regional Area Road Fund (RARF) – Funding comes from a county authority to enact transportation excise taxes through voter approval.

Retaining wall – A wall designed to prevent the banks of a depressed roadway or the uphill slope of a mountainside roadway from sliding onto the highway, or down slope wall to support the roadway.

Roadside improvements – The installation of curbs, sidewalks, gutters or other items aimed at enhancing safety, utility, condition or appearance of a roadway.

Scour protection – Preventive action to reduce damage to roadway structures near or in riverbeds.

Seal coat – A coating applied to the surface of a road to preserve the pavement.

Shoulder – The area to the side of a roadway, which may or may not be paved or improved.

Traffic management – Installation of signals, signs or pavement markings to control traffic flow.

Turn bay – An additional lane added to a roadway to permit turning traffic to pull aside prior to turning.

Two-way left turn – A designated lane located in the center of a roadway from which left turns may be made from either direction.

Utility adjustments – Work involving the installation or relocation of lines, pipes, etc.

Acronyms and Abbreviations

AADT – Annual average daily traffic

AAR – Association of American Railroads

AASHTO – American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials

AC – Asphaltic concrete

ACEC – Area of critical environmental concern

ACFC – Asphaltic concrete finishing course

ACHP – Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

ADA – Americans with Disabilities Act

ADOT – Arizona Department of Transportation

ADPS – Arizona Department of Public Safety

ADT – Average daily traffic

ANSI – American National Standards Institute

AREA – American Railway Engineering Association

AREMA – American Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of-Way Association

ARS – Arizona Revised Statues

ASLD – Arizona State Land Department

ASTM – American Society for Testing and Materials

ATQI – Arizona Transportation Quality Initiative

ATRC – Arizona Transportation Research Center

AVE – Arithmetic mean

BDRY – Boundary

BIA – Bureau of Indian Affairs

BLM – Bureau of Land Management of the U.S. Department of the Interior

BLVD – Boulevard

BMP – Best management practice

BNSF – Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad

Board – Surface Transportation Board

BOD – Biological oxygen demand

BR – Bridge

Btu – British thermal unit(s)

C – Celsius

CAA – Clean Air Act of 1970

CAAA – Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990

CANAMEX – The CANAMEX Trade Corridor was defined by Congress in the 1995
National Highway Systems Designation Act. According to federal law, the corridor in Arizona, follows I-19 from Nogales to Tucson, I-10 from Tucson to Phoenix, US 93 in the vicinity of Phoenix to the Nevada Border. ADOT and MAG have approved an I-10 to State Route 85 to US 93 route for CANAMEX traffic to avoid the metro area.

CBC – Concrete box culvert

CEQ – Council on Environmental Quality

CERCLA – Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act

CERCLIS – Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System

CFR – Code of Federal Regulations

CG – Cattle guard

CL – City limits

CN – Canadian National Railroad

CN/IC – Canadian National/Illinois Central (Railroads)

CO – Carbon monoxide

CO2 – Carbon dioxide

CS – Commercial standards

CTY – City

CWA – Clean Water Act

CY – Calendar year

CYN – Canyon

dB – decibel(s)

dBA – A-weighted decibel(s)

DCR – Design Concept Report

DE – District engineer

DME – District materials engineer

DOE – U.S. Department of Energy

DOI – U.S. Department of the Interior

DOT – U.S. Department of Transportation

DR – Drain

DVUR – Daily Vehicle Usage Report

EA – Environmental Assessment

EB – Eastbound

ECP – Environmental clearance process

EIC – Employee in charge (of on-track safety)

EIS – Environmental Impact Statement

EPA – U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

EPCA – Energy Policy and Conservation Act

ERS – Environmental resource score

ESA – Endangered Species Act of 1973

EX – Excavation

F – Fahrenheit

FAPG – Federal-Aid Policy Guide

FC – Finishing course

FHWA – Federal Highway Administration

FMS – Freeway Management System

FOIA – Freedom of Information Act

FR – Frontage road

FRA – Federal Railroad Administration

FWS – U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

FY – Fiscal year (ADOT FY: July 1 - June 30)

GC – Grade

GIS – Geographic information system

GOHS – Governor's Office of Highway Safety

GPS – Global positioning system

GR – Guardrail

GRIC – Gila River Indian Community

GRIN – Gila River Indian News

HOV – High occupancy vehicle (also known as the "Diamond Lane" or "Carpool Lane" on the freeway).

hp – Horsepower

HPMS – Highway Performance Monitoring System

HSO – Health and safety officer

HSP – Health and safety plan

HURF – Highway User Revenue Fund

HWY – Highway

I – Interstate (for example: I-10)

ICC – Interstate Commerce Commission

IR – Inconsistent and responsive application

JCT – Junction

kg – Kilogram(s)

kW – Kilowatt(s)

kWh – Kilowatt-hour(s)

Ldn – Day-night equivalent sound level

Leq(h) – Hourly energy-averaged sound level

LK – Lake

LL – Lower limit (in reference to Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction).

LLC – Limited Liability Corporation

LN – Line

LOS – Level of service

LT – Lighting

MAG – Maricopa Association of Governments

MGT – Management

MOA – Memorandum/memoranda of agreement

MOU – Memorandum/memoranda of understanding

MP – Milepost

mph – Mile(s) per hour

MRS – Multiple resource score

MT – Mountain

N/A – Not applicable

NAAQS – National Ambient Air Quality Standards

NBS – National Bureau of Standards

NCHRP – National Cooperative Highway Research Program

NEPA – National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

NHI – National Highway Institute

NHL – National historic landmark

NHPA – National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended

NHTSA – National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

NOAA – National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration

NOx – Nitrogen oxide; oxides of nitrogen

NPDES – National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

NPL – National Priorities List

NPR – No permit required

NPS – National Park Service

NRHP – National Register of Historic Places

NSPE – National Society of Professional Engineers

O3 – Ozone

O&M – Operations and maintenance

OP – Overpass

OSHA – Occupational Safety and Health Administration

PA – Project assessment

PCCP – Portland Cement, Concrete Pavement

PE – Professional engineer

PH – Phase

PL – Percentage of lot within LL (in reference to Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction).

P.L. – Public law

PM – Particulate matter

PM10 – Particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter

POR – Party of record

PPE – Personal protective equipment (for roadway worker safety)

PSD – Prevention of significant deterioration

PT – Total percentage of lot within UL and LL (in reference to Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction).

PU – Percentage of lot within UL (in reference to Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction).

QA – Quality assurance

QC – Quality control

RACF – Resource Access Control Facility

RARF – Regional Area Road Fund (a voter-approved excise tax primarily used for controlled access highway construction in the metropolitan areas).

RCRA – Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

RCRIS – Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System

RES – Reservation

RLS – Registered land surveyor

RMM – Railway maintenance machine

RMP – Ramp

RNG – Range

RR – Railroad

RRX – Railroad crossing

R/W – Right-of-way

SACP – Safety Assurance and Compliance Program (of the Federal Railroad Administration)

SC – Seal coat

SEA – Section of environmental analysis (of the Surface Transportation Board)

SGN – Sign(s)

SHPO – State Historic Preservation Office

S/L – Signal lights (traffic lights).

SO2 – Sulfur dioxide

SOP – Standard operating procedure

SR – State route

ST PARK – State park

Stat. – Statute

STR – Structure

SWLK – Sidewalk

T&E – Threatened and endangered species, as determined by the Endangered Species Act of 1973

TCD – Traffic control device

TCS – Traffic counting station

TEA-21 – Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century

TI – Traffic interchange

TV – Target value (in reference to Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge
Construction).

UL – Upper limit (in reference to Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge
Construction).

UP – Underpass

U.S. – United States

U.S.C. – United States Code

USDOT – United States Department of Transportation

USGS – United States Geological Survey

USS – United States Standard

VLY – Valley

VMT – Vehicle miles traveled

WB – Westbound

Maricopa County 1980-2030

According to the Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG), the region's designated planning agency, the population of the Phoenix Metropolitan Area grew by 45 percent in the 1990s to 3.1 million residents. That growth is expected to continue in the coming decades. MAG's projections show that the population will double, to 6.2 million, by 2030. Much of the growth during the 1990's occurred in the Southeast and Southwest Valley, where much of the projected future growth also is expected to occur.

Travel demand and the vehicle miles driven in the Valley are expected to increase even more than the population, according to MAG projections. Even with anticipated improvements in light rail, bus service, trip reduction programs and planned expansion of existing roads implemented in connection to voter-approval of the Regional Transportation Plan in 2004, vehicle traffic is expected to exceed the capacity of the Southwest Valley streets and highways by as much as 29 percent by 2030.

How would construction of a freeway or other major transportation improvement in the South Mountain Corridor affect the problem? While construction of a single new freeway will not solve the Valley's entire traffic congestion problem, an I-10-to-I-10 connection south and west of South Mountain would have a positive impact. MAG estimates that up to 190,000 vehicles per day would use the freeway by 2030, reducing the demand on other Valley roads.

Travel Time
MAG has conducted a travel-time analysis for 2030 showing the effects with and without the proposed South Mountain Freeway.

• Draft Public Comments (October 2008)
  
  
• Draft Cumulative and Secondary Impacts (October 2008)
  
  
• Draft Estimated Costs (September 2008)
  
  
• Draft Social Conditions (September 2008)
  
  
• Draft Cultural Resources (August 2008)
  
  
• Draft Section 4(f) and 6(f) resources (August 2008)
  • Northwestern Section of the Western Section (August 2008)
  • Southwestern Section of the Western Section (August 2008)
  • Northeastern Section of the Western Section (August 2008)
  • Southeastern Section of the Western Section (August 2008)
  • Eastern Section (August 2008)
  • Maricopa County Trails Sytem - Western Section (August 2008)
  
  
• Draft Economic Impacts (July 2008)
  
  
• Draft Utilities (July 2008)
  
  
• Draft Prime and Unique Farmland (July 2008)
  • Prime and Unique Farmland Within the Study Area (July 2008)
    
    
• Draft Environmental Justice (June 2008)
  
  
• Draft Noise (June 2008)
  
  
• Draft Social Conditions (June 2008)
  
  
• Draft Energy (May 2008)
  
  
• Draft Geotechnical (May 2008)
  
  
• Draft Hazardous Materials (May 2008)
  • Hazardous Materials Sites and Facilities (May 2008)
  • ADWR Well Locations (May 2008)
       
    
• Draft Utilities (May 2008)
  
  
• Draft Biological Resources (April 2008)
  
  
• Draft Land Use (April 2008)
  
  
• Draft Visual Resources (April 2008)
  
  
• Draft Floodplains (March 2008)
  
  
• Draft Jurisdictional Waters (March 2008)
  
  
• Draft Water Resources (March 2008)
  
  
• E1 Alternative - Initial Screening (February 2008)
  
  
• E1 Alternative - Profile options at the South Mountains' ridges (February 2008)
  
  
• E1 Alternative - Profile options along Pecos Road section (February 2008)
  
  

• August 2007 Matrix - Summary of Impacts (Eastern and Western sections) (Updated August 2007)
  
  
• Draft Energy Report Summary (August 2007)
  
  
• Draft Geotechnical Report Summary (August 2007)
  
  
• Draft Social Conditions Report Summary (August 2007) and related figures:
  
• Community Facilities - Western Section (December 2005)
• Community Facilities - Eastern Section (December 2005)
• Employee Concentration - Major Industries (December 2005)
• Population Growth - 2000 to 2030 (December 2005)
• Employment Growth - 2000 to 2030 (December 2005)

• Draft Biology Report Summary (January 2006) and related table and figure:
  • Threatened and Endangered Species Table (January 2006)
• Biology Report Map (January 2006)
  
  
• Draft Cultural Resources Report Summary (January 2006)
  
  
• Draft Economic Impact Report Summary (January 2006)
  
  
• Draft Hazardous Materials Report Summary (Updated January 2006) and related figures:
• W55 Alternative Map (December 2005)
• W71 Alternative Map (December 2005)
• W101 EPR Alternative Map (December 2005)
• W101 EFR Alternative Map (December 2005)
• W101 CPR Alternative Map (December 2005)
• W101 CFR Alternative Map (December 2005)
• W101 WPR Alternative Map (December 2005)
• W101 WFR Alternative Map (December 2005)
• W101 W99 Alternative Map (December 2005)
  
  
• Draft Section 4(f) and 6(f) Resources Report Summary (Updated January 2006) and related figures:
  • Eastern Section (January 2006)
  • Western Section - Northwestern Section (January 2006)
  • Western Section - Southwestern Section (January 2006)
  • Western Section - Northeastern Section (January 2006)
  • Western Section - Southeastern Section (January 2006)
  • Maricopa County Trails System -- Eastern Section (November 2005)
  • Maricopa County Trails System-- Western Section (November 2005)
    
    
• Draft Utilities Report Summary (Updated January 2006) and related figures:
  • Power (September 2005)
  • Gas (September 2005)
  • Water (September 2005)
  • Sewer (September 2005)
  • Railroad (September 2005
    
    
• Draft Air Quality Report Summary (February 2006)
  
  
• Draft Cumulative and Secondary Report Summary (March 2006)
  
  
• Draft Public Comment Report Summary (March 2006)
  
  
• Draft Traffic Report Summary (March 2006)
  
  
• Construction Cost Estimate (April 2006)
  
  
• Draft Cost Estimate Report Summary (April 2006)
  
  
• Project Information Matrix (April 2006)
  
  
• Draft Right-of-Way Cost Estimate Report Summary (April 2006)

• Draft Farmland Report Summary (October 2005)
  
  
• Draft Floodplain Report Summary (October 2005)
     
  
• Draft Jurisdictional Waters Report Summary (October 2005)
  
  
• Draft Water Resources Report Summary (October 2005)
     
• Draft Environmental Justice Report Summary (November 2005) and related figures:
  
  • Minority Populations Map (November 2005)
  • Low Income Populations Map (November 2005)
  • Elderly Populations Map (November 2005)
  • Disabled Populations Map (November 2005)
  • Female Head of Household with Children Map (November 2005)
    
    
• Draft Visual Resources Report Summary (November 2005) and related figures:
  • Proposed Traffic Interchange at 55th Avenue and I-10 (November 2005)
  • Proposed Traffic Interchange at 71st Avenue and I-10 (November 2005)
  • Proposed Traffic Interchange at 99th Avenue/I-10/SR 101L (November 2005)
  • Generic Traffic Interchange for Eastern and Western Alternatives (November 2005)
  • Proposed Southern Road Cut, West End of South Mountain Park/Preserve (November 2005)
    
    
• Draft Land Use Report Summary (December 2005) and related figures:
  • Jurisdictions' Planning Area (December 2005)
  • Existing Land Use (December 2005)
  • Future Land Use (December 2005)
    
    
• Draft Noise Report Summary (Updated December 2005) and related figures:
• Barrier Locations - Western Section, Northern Portion (November 2005)
• Barrier Locations - Western Section, Southern Portion (November 2005)
• Barrier Locations - Eastern Section, Western Portion (November 2005)
• Barrier Locations - Eatsern Section, Eastern Portion (November 2005)