DOCSLIB.ORG

Public Workshops Summary

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Public Workshops Summary SUMMARY OF STAKEHOLDER AND PUBLIC OUTREACH AND PREFERENCES ON POSSIBLE ROUTE ALTERNATIVES NORTH–SOUTH CORRIDOR STUDY ADOT Project No.: 999 PN 000 H7454 01L Federal Aid No.: STP-999-A(365)X Prepared for: Arizona Department of Transportation Prepared by: GORDLEY GROUP 2540 N. Tucson Blvd. Tucson, AZ 85716 HDR ENGINEERING, INC. 3200 E. Camelback Road, Ste. 350 Phoenix, AZ 85018 March 2012 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................... 2 AGENCY STAKEHOLDER OUTREACH.................................................................................................. 3 Overview ............................................................................................................................................... 3 Preferences........................................................................................................................................... 3 PUBLIC WORKSHOPS ............................................................................................................................ 7 Overview ............................................................................................................................................... 7 Notification ............................................................................................................................................ 7 Workshops ............................................................................................................................................ 7 Participation .......................................................................................................................................... 8 Comments............................................................................................................................................. 8 Most Important Factors in their Selection for a Possible Route Alternative....................................... 9 Themes.......................................................................................................................................... 9 Toll Roads ......................................................................................................................................... 9 Themes........................................................................................................................................ 10 Public Workshop Segment Preferences.......................................................................................... 10 Segment Themes......................................................................................................................... 11 Additional Comment Themes....................................................................................................... 13 Other Comments Received ............................................................................................................. 13 Themes........................................................................................................................................ 13 FIGURES Figure 1. Local Agency Preferences..................................................................................................... 4 Figure 2. Regional, State and Federal Agency Preferences................................................................. 5 Figure 3. Public Preferences............................................................................................................... 12 TABLES Table 1. Agency Preferences................................................................................................................ 6 Table 2. Public Workshop Newspaper Circulation................................................................................ 7 Table 3. Public Workshop Participation ................................................................................................ 8 Table 4. Most Important Factors ........................................................................................................... 9 Table 5. Toll Road Preferences ............................................................................................................ 9 Table 6. Public Segment Preferences................................................................................................. 10 APPENDICES Appendix A. Nov. 1, 2011, Agency Stakeholder Progress Meeting Minutes Appendix B. Summary of Agency Stakeholder Preferences Regarding Possible Route Alternatives Appendix C. Public Workshop Notification Appendix D. Public Workshop Materials Appendix E. Public Workshop Comments on Factors Appendix F. Public Workshop Comments on Funding Appendix G. Public Workshop Comments on Segments Appendix H. Public Workshop Comment Form Summary Appendix I. Public Workshop Additional Comments North–South Corridor Study DRAFT Summary of Stakeholder and Public Outreach and Preferences for Possible Route Alternatives ADOT Project No.: 999 PN 000 H7454 01L, Federal Aid No.: STP-999-A(365)X Page 1 of 13 INTRODUCTION This document summarizes the agency and public outreach and input received on possible route alternatives for the North–South Corridor during the fall and winter of 2011. Following the scoping phase of the study, the team developed a number of possible route alternatives based on agency and public input and detailed analysis of drainage, utilities, ground water subsidence and fissures, and economic development opportunities in the area. The study team will further screen the possible route alternatives by using the input received from the agency and public outreach, along with detailed screening criteria, to recommend a smaller set of alternatives to carry forward into the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and Location/Design Concept Report (L/DCR). North–South Corridor Study DRAFT Summary of Stakeholder and Public Outreach and Preferences for Possible Route Alternatives ADOT Project No.: 999 PN 000 H7454 01L, Federal Aid No.: STP-999-A(365)X Page 2 of 13 AGENCY STAKEHOLDER OUTREACH Overview The Arizona Department of Transportation and Federal Highway Administration meet regularly with North–South Corridor Study agency stakeholders to discuss study progress and obtain feedback. At the Nov. 1, 2011, stakeholder progress meeting, the study team gave an overview of the screening process and reviewed updated route alternatives. The study team requested feedback from agency stakeholders on the possible route alternatives via an eight-page Agency Stakeholder Input Form. The Agency Stakeholder Input Form (also available electronically) included each segment of the possible route alternatives and asked whether the agency finds a particular segment favorable or unfavorable, and why. Only one form was accepted per agency; it was assumed that the study representatives for each agency would obtain the input necessary to complete the form. Completed forms were due back by Dec. 12, 2011. A total of 17 forms were received. Meeting minutes for the Nov. 1, 2011, stakeholder progress meeting are in Appendix A. Preferences Local agencies in general favored: • The end of Superstition Freeway terminus over the two other northern termini. • Central alternatives paralleling the Central Arizona Project canal. • The furthest of the eastern alternatives in the southern half, along with the terminus two miles east of the existing SR 87 interchange. Local agencies in general did not favor: • The western alternatives. • The far eastern alternatives in the northern half. In general, regional, state and federal agencies combined favored: • The Ironwood Road terminus over the two other northern termini and the SR 87 interchange over the other southern terminus. • The use of existing routes such as Ironwood Road, Hunt Highway and SR 87 over all other route alternatives. In general, regional, state and federal agencies combined did not favor: • The far eastern segment in the middle of the corridor. Figure 1 (below) provides a graphic overview of local agency preferences. Figure 2 (below) provides a graphic overview of regional, state and federal agency preferences. The preferences range from red (unfavorable) to green (favorable). A detailed report of agency stakeholder input is in Appendix B. North–South Corridor Study DRAFT Summary of Stakeholder and Public Outreach and Preferences for Possible Route Alternatives ADOT Project No.: 999 PN 000 H7454 01L, Federal Aid No.: STP-999-A(365)X Page 3 of 13 Figure 1. Local Agency Preferences North–South Corridor Study DRAFT Summary of Stakeholder and Public Outreach and Preferences for Possible Route Alternatives ADOT Project No.: 999 PN 000 H7454 01L, Federal Aid No.: STP-999-A(365)X Page 4 of 13 Figure 2. Regional, State and Federal Agency Preferences North–South Corridor Study DRAFT Summary of Stakeholder and Public Outreach and Preferences for Possible Route Alternatives ADOT Project No.: 999 PN 000 H7454 01L, Federal Aid No.: STP-999-A(365)X Page 5 of 13 Table 1. Agency Preferences SEGMENT FAVORABLE UNFAVORABLE NO RESPONSE A 8 7 2 B 8 5 4 C 6 3 8 D 7 3 7 E 5 4 8 F 7 2 8 G 7 0 10 H 6 2 9 I 7 4 6 J 4 7 6 K 3 6 8 L 4 3 10 M 3 7 7 N 2 10 5 O 2 7 8 P 3 4 10 Q 2 6 9 R 2 11 4 S 1 11 5 T 1 9 7 U 3 6 8 V 3 5 9 W 0 11 6 X 3 5 9 Y 5 5 7 Z 7 5 5 AA 7 5 5 AB 4 4 9 AC 2 6 9 AD 4 5 8 AE 2 7 8 AF 3 7 7 AG 2 6 9 AH 4 5 8 AI 3 4 10 AJ 3 4 10 AK 5 4 8 AL 5 4 8 AM 4 4 9 AN 4 4 9 AO 2 5 10 North–South Corridor Study DRAFT Summary of Stakeholder and Public Outreach and Preferences for Possible Route Alternatives ADOT
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Canada-Mexico Relationship: the Unfinished Highway Olga Abizaid Bucio
    POLICY PAPER DOCUMENT DE POLITIQUE DOCUMENTO DE POLÍTICA FPP-04-8 The Canada-Mexico Relationship: The Unfinished Highway Olga Abizaid Bucio EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This paper sets out to illustrate the nature of the Canada-Mexico bilateral relationship and to identify some of the potential areas for mutual cooperation. In the remarkably short span of the last ten years, Canada and Mexico have developed a more dynamic and mature relationship based on frequent exchanges within ad hoc working groups and informal exchanges that cover a broad range of economic, political and social issues, including human rights, elections, good governance, federalism, and trade; all of them priority areas for Canada's foreign policy. While this strategy has enabled both countries to deal with these issues in a very flexible way and with visible and concrete results, thus facilitating the strengthening of their bilateral relationship, this relationship is practiced in so many areas at lower levels of government that although effective it remains invisible for the people who are not involved in it directly. The challenge for these two countries as they try to redefine their foreign policy (and with it their role in the world) is to build on the achievements of this bilateral relationship and to use them as a basis for joint actions in other regional settings. RESUMEN Este trabajo busca elucidar la naturaleza de las relaciones entre Canadá y México e identificar algunas de las áreas en las que ambos países podrían colaborar. En un lapso de apenas diez años, estos países han sido capaces de establecer una relación más dinámica y madura basada en intercambios frecuentes en grupos de trabajo ad hoc y encuentros informales que abarcan una amplia gama de asuntos económicos, políticos, y sociales, incluyendo derechos humanos, elecciones, buen gobierno, federalismo, y comercio, todos ellos asuntos prioritarios dentro de la agenda de política exterior de Canadá.
    [Show full text]
  • Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America: an Overview and Selected Issues
    Order Code RS22701 August 2, 2007 Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America: An Overview and Selected Issues M. Angeles Villarreal Analyst in International Trade and Finance Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division Jennifer E. Lake Analyst in Domestic Security Domestic Social Policy Division Summary The Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP) is a three-country initiative that is intended to increase cooperation and information sharing in an effort to increase and enhance prosperity in the United States, Canada, and Mexico. The SPP was endorsed by the leaders of the three countries, but it is not a signed agreement or treaty and, therefore, contains no legally binding commitments or obligations. The goals of the prosperity components of the SPP are to increase cooperation and sharing of information in order to improve productivity, reduce the costs of trade, and enhance the quality of life. The goal of the security components of the SPP is to coordinate the security efforts undertaken by each of the three participating nations to better protect citizens from terrorist threats and transnational crime while promoting the safe and efficient movement of legitimate people and goods. Congressional interest in the SPP concerns possible implications related to national sovereignty, transportation corridors, cargo security and border facilitation. This report will not be updated. Background The Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP) is a trilateral initiative, launched in March 2005, that is intended to increase cooperation and information sharing in an effort to increase and enhance prosperity in the United States, Canada, and Mexico. The SPP is a government initiative that was endorsed by the leaders of the three countries, but it is not a signed agreement or treaty and, therefore, contains no legally binding commitments or obligations.
    [Show full text]
  • The NAFTA Corridors Offshoring U.S
    The NAFTA Corridors Offshoring U.S. Transportation Jobs to Mexico RICHARD D. VOGEL ¡Pobre México! Tan lejos de Dios, y tan cerca de los Estados Unidos. (Poor Mexico! So far from God, and so close to the United States.) —General Porfirio Díaz, President of Mexico, 1877–1911 Capital’s relentless search for cheap labor constantly alters the flow of surface transportation in North America with widespread conse- quences. The end-of-century deindustrialization of the United States and importation of cheap commodities from the Far East through the West Coast reversed historical east-west transportation patterns and established Los Angeles and Long Beach as the largest ports in the nation. To minimize transportation costs, which for many products are higher than the cost of production, intermodal transportation of containerized imports was developed. Manufactured goods are packed into mobile shipping containers at factories in the Far East and travel by ship, train, and truck to distribution centers and, ultimately, consumer outlets across the United States. Currently, intermodal transportation of cheap imported commodities is the lifeline of the American economy. In 2004, the Port of Los Angeles processed 7.3 mil- lion container units and Long Beach handled 5.8 million. These two ports alone accounted for 68 percent of the West Coast total and are, by far, the largest employers in California. U.S. workers, who have seen so many lucrative manufacturing jobs moved overseas, assumed that import transportation and distribution jobs could not be off- shored and were, therefore, relatively secure. Current transportation trends are proving labor’s assumption to be dead wrong.
    [Show full text]
  • North American Trade Corridors: an Initial Exploration Stephen Blank Pace University
    Pace University DigitalCommons@Pace Faculty Working Papers Lubin School of Business 5-1-2006 North American Trade Corridors: An Initial Exploration Stephen Blank Pace University Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.pace.edu/lubinfaculty_workingpapers Part of the International Business Commons Recommended Citation Blank, Stephen, "North American Trade Corridors: An Initial Exploration" (2006). Faculty Working Papers. Paper 50. http://digitalcommons.pace.edu/lubinfaculty_workingpapers/50 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Lubin School of Business at DigitalCommons@Pace. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Working Papers by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@Pace. For more information, please contact [email protected]. North American Trade Corridors : An Initial Exploration by Stephen Blank, Ph.D. Stephen Blank is Professor of International Business at the Lubin School of Business, Pace University. Abstract ABSTRACT The North American economic system cannot b e meaningfully visualized in terms of trade among three nations. A more accurate and useful map would focus on the elements of deep structural integration that distinguish the North American economy - on continental production, distribution and supply chai n systems characteristic of many North American industries, on emerging cross -border regional development projects , and on “trade corridors” that link major transportation and production hubs. This paper examines the North American trade corridor phenomenon. The great increase in the volume of materials moving north and south has generated competition among businesses, cities , and municipalities to build channels for these flows. Trade corridors thus illustrate a dialogue between firms seeking to build grea ter efficiencies into their production systems and supply chains and groups of local business and metropolitan government leaders offering solutions to help create these efficiencies.
    [Show full text]
  • Christian Action Ministry Newsletter
    Christian Action Ministry Newsletter Involving the Christian in Community Action March—April, 2008 Vol. 18, Number 2 The NAFTA Superhighway --- and beyond By Kay Trudell and Bob Garvey or the past two years, written a book titled Toward a a number of reputa- According to research done by North American Community, ble, conservative, pro the Mountain States Legal in which he advocated replac- God Bless the Tsar Christian values or- Foundation, within the past ing the currencies of the US, A thought provoking article Fganizations have been writing two years the powerful Coun- Canada, and Mexico with a on the relationship of leaders about the coming NAFTA cil on Foreign Relations (CFR) new currency called the and Israel Superhighway, a super toll published a report that called “Amero”. This would be simi- Page 3 road system which will bisect for the formation of a North lar to the current “Euro” of a the United States from north to American Union overseen by now united Europe --- no mere If you would like to be south, from Mexico to Canada, fantasy in 2008. Wall Street added to our mailing and provide de facto economic Journal editor Robert Bartley opening and integration of the also wrote: “I think the nation- list, please call borders and economies of the state is finished. NAFTA 655-0280, email, or three countries of North Amer- should evolve into something contact our website ica. We have both received like the European Union, with extensive mailings and/or open borders not only for online research on this issue goods and investment, but for from such organizations as the people.” Other CFR members Mountain States Legal Foun- who also favor this “open bor- dation, Selous Foundation for ders” policy are Madeline Al- Public Policy Research, Eagle bright, former Secretary of Forum president Phyllis State under President Bill Clin- In the Schlafly, Concerned Women ton; and veteran TV news re- Works for America, The Conservative porter Tom Brokaw.
    [Show full text]
  • The Contradictions of Regionalism in North America
    The contradictions of regionalism in North America ANN CAP LING AND KIM RICHARD NOS SAL* Abstract. Students of regionalism almost reflexively include North America in their lists of regions in contemporary global politics. Inevitably students of regionalism point to the integrative agreements between the countries of North America: the two free trade agreements that transformed the continental economy beginning in the late 1980s- the Canada-US Free Trade Agreement that came into force on 1 January 1989, and the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) between the United States, Mexico, and Canada, that came into force on 1 January 1994- and th~ Secutity and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP), launched in March 2005. These agreements, it is implied, are just like the integrative agreements that forge the bonds of regionalism elsewhere in the world. We argue that this is a profound misreading, not only of the two free trade agreements of the late 1980s and early 1990s and the SPP mechanism of 2005, but also of the political and economic implications of those agreements. While these integrative agreements have created considerable regionalisation in North America, there has been little of the regionalism evident in other parts of the world. We examine the contradictions of North America integration in order to explain why North Americans have been so open to regionalisation but so resistant to regionalism. Introduction Announcing his candidacy for the presidency in November 1979, Ronald Reagan articulated a vision for what he termed a 'North American Accord' between Canada, the United States and Mexico, promising that he would 'work toward the goal of using the assets of this continent ..
    [Show full text]
  • NAFTA Superhighway Order Encourages the Privatization of Taxpayer-Funded Corridor As the Trunk of a Tree, One That Hooks U.S
    —————— 1992 —————— If you look at the map over there, I think it is NAFTA [Ed note: While EO#12803 does not mention “super- self-evident what it means to the whole country, highways,” a brief description is included because this not just to Texas. And if you look at the NAFTA Superhighway Order encourages the privatization of taxpayer-funded corridor as the trunk of a tree, one that hooks U.S. assets, including roads designated as a part of up Mexico and all those markets down there with Memory Hole the international superhighway/supercorridor system.] the industrial heartland of our country, as well as A review of NAFTA Superhighway history Executive Order #12803: the most important economic centers in Canada. reveals that the marketing of this concept “Infrastructure Privatization” I urge this committee to give careful consid- began well over a decade ago. In that time, eration to this concept. As this trade grows, the Signed by President George H.W. Bush on a growing number of highways have been current I–35 won't be able to handle it. It will de- April 30, 1992, EO#12803 encourages designated as “high priority corridors”— a teriorate. We won't take advantage of all the privatization of U.S. infrastructure assets that are rating that allows easier access to federal funds. imaginative opportunities that this superhighway “financed in whole or in part by the Federal Lobbyist seeking to create an designation can give us. (p.687) Government and needed for the functioning international infrastructure have referred The designation of I–35 corridor as a super- of the economy.” The Order defines privatization to the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • US-Mexico Economic Relations
    U.S.-Mexico Economic Relations: Trends, Issues, and Implications M. Angeles Villarreal Specialist in International Trade and Finance March 31, 2010 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov RL32934 CRS Report for Congress Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress U.S.-Mexico Economic Relations: Trends, Issues, and Implications Summary Mexico has a population of about 111 million people, making it the most populous Spanish- speaking country in the world and the third-most populous country in the Western Hemisphere. Based on a gross domestic product (GDP) of $875 billion in 2009 (about 6% of U.S. GDP), Mexico has a free market economy with a strong export sector. Economic conditions in Mexico are important to the United States because of the proximity of Mexico to the United States, the close trade and investment interactions, and other social and political issues that are affected by the economic relationship between the two countries. The United States and Mexico have strong economic ties through the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which has been in effect since 1994. In terms of total trade, Mexico is the United States’ third-largest trading partner, while the United States ranks first among Mexico’s trading partners. In U.S. imports, Mexico ranks third among U.S. trading partners, after China and Canada, while in exports Mexico ranks second, after Canada. The United States is the largest source of foreign direct investment (FDI) in Mexico. These links are critical to many U.S. industries and border communities. In 2009, 12% of total U.S. merchandise exports were destined for Mexico and 11% of U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Profile of North Texas 2009
    Regional Economic Profile Prole of North Texas A regional economic prole produced by the North Texas Commission 2009 N ORTH T EXAS C OMMISSION AN INTRODUCTION TO NORTH TEXAS Welcome to North Texas! When companies look for a place to build business while providing a good home for their employees, they look no further than the 12-county region that includes Dallas, Fort Worth and all the cities in between. More than 6 million people call North Texas home and for many good reasons: there are 25 FORTUNE 500 companies headquartered here, the cost of living ranks below the national average and DFW International Airport is the third busiest airport in the world. North Texas is more than cowboys and oil wells these days. Our diverse economy provides a healthy workforce for those in health care, technology and logistics. As the 4th largest metro- politan region in the U.S. and growing, North Texas is quickly becoming the region of choice. Metropolitan Planning Area Map Courtesy of North Central Texas Council of Governments Population North Texas has 12 cities of more than 100,000 people. 1,400,000 1,306,350 Estimated Population of 12 Largest North Texas Cities 1,200,000 1,000,000 800,000 720,250 600,000 370,450 400,000 263,800 228,350 212,250 168,500 137,850 120,950 121,850 107,250 200,000 100,800 0 Dallas Fort Worth Arlington Plano Garland Irving Grand Prairie Mesquite Carrollton McKinney Denton Frisco Source: North Central Texas Council of Governments (4/09) 2 ECONOMIC INDICATORS North Texas Leads the State's Economy Major North Texas Industries North Texas represents the following percentages in Texas: (07/08) North Texas has a strong diverse economy • 3% of Texas' land area • 29% of Texas' retail sales WORLD CENTER OF AVIATION • 26% of Texas' population • 29% of personal income • There are more than 850 aviation-related businesses in • 28% of Texas' employ- • 32% of Texas' Gross North Texas - more than any other area of its size in the ment Domestic Product world.
    [Show full text]
  • Plan Puebla Panama: an Economic Tool That Thwarts Sustainable Development and Facilitates Terrorism
    William & Mary Environmental Law and Policy Review Volume 30 (2005-2006) Issue 3 Article 2 April 2006 Plan Puebla Panama: An Economic Tool That Thwarts Sustainable Development and Facilitates Terrorism Paulette L. Stenzel Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmelpr Part of the Environmental Law Commons, and the Transportation Law Commons Repository Citation Paulette L. Stenzel, Plan Puebla Panama: An Economic Tool That Thwarts Sustainable Development and Facilitates Terrorism, 30 Wm. & Mary Envtl. L. & Pol'y Rev. 555 (2006), https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmelpr/vol30/iss3/2 Copyright c 2006 by the authors. This article is brought to you by the William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmelpr PLAN PUEBLA PANAMA: AN ECONOMIC TOOL THAT THWARTS SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT AND FACILITATES TERRORISM PAULETTE L. STENZEL* INTRODUCTION The Plan Puebla Panama ("PPP") is a major economic development plan that has been promoted by leaders of Mexico and all Central American countries. Its various mechanisms, if implemented, will provide significant support for the Central American Free Trade Agreement ("CAFTA"), which is expected to be implemented by all parties in 2006.1 The PPP's mechanisms will have major economic, social, cultural, and environmental effects throughout the Western Hemisphere. On a regional level, imple- mentation of the PPP's programs will affect the environment, working conditions, social relations, and economics of daily life in Central America. It has the potential to distort the essence of life by destroying cultural roots, which will in turn thwart sustainable development and facilitate terrorism. The PPP is not merely a proposal.
    [Show full text]
  • United States/Nafta Superhighway
    RESISTANCEunited TO states/ THE I-69 “NAFTAn.a.f.t.a. SUPERHIGHWAY” superhighway by Indiana Eco-Anarchists and dor highway associated with Plan Puebla been dubbed the “biggest engineering Collectivo Incendio Panama (PPP), an even more notorious and construction project in the history of ‘development project’ in Central Ameri- the U.S.”[1] It’s planned to be 1,200 feet A New Road ca. Throughout its route, I-69 will wide and consume 146 acres (almost 1/4 mean the destruction of thou- of a square mile) per mile. Because the The U.S. government sands of acres of vitally important corridors will contain high-speed passenger is currently poised to roll out forests and wetlands, the eviction and freight rails and underground water, a new strip of asphalt all the of thousands of farmers from their gas, and petroleum pipelines, as well as way from Laredo, Texas up to family farms and the elimination of multiple high-speed truck and passenger Port Huron, Michigan. Currently, hundreds of rural communities. vehicle lanes, they will be constructed at the I-69 exists as a stretch of highway Resistance to the highway has grade level and permanently divide the connecting Port Huron, Michigan (where existed since NAFTA’s passage. I-69 has areas through which they pass. To make nearly half of all the North American Free been on the drawing boards for more matters worse, the extensive grading and Trade Agreement (NAFTA) traffic crosses than 15 years. While its Michigan segment construction of barriers to protect the the U.S.-Canada border) to Indianapolis, has long been completed, construction in high-speed traffic will alter air currents Indiana.
    [Show full text]
  • The Potential for Reserved Truck Lanes and Truckways in Florida
    The Potential for Reserved Truck Lanes and Truckways in Florida ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The CUTR project team consisted of: Stephen L. Reich, Program Manager, Principal Investigator Janet L. Davis, Senior Research Associate Martin Catalá, Research Associate Anthony J. Ferraro, Research Associate The Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) project team consisted of: Gina Bonyani, Project Manager, Systems Planning Office Douglas McLeod, Systems Planning Office CUTR would like to thank the following individuals from the FDOT Central Office for their input and support: Warren Merrell, Manager, Systems Planning Office Bob Krzeminski, Systems Management, Systems Planning Office In addition, CUTR would like to thank the following individuals and their staff from the FDOT for their assistance during the site visits to the FDOT District Offices: Michael Tako Nicolaisen and Larry Slayback, District One Lea Gabbay, District Two Jerry Campbell, District Three Gus Schmidt, Doug O’Hara, and Shi-Chiang Li, District Four Dawn Bisplinghoff, District Five Rory Steinmiller, Rafael De Arazoza, and Christopher Dube, District Six Waddah Farah and Judy Lenczyk, District Seven Joey Gordon, Turnpike District CUTR would also like to acknowledge all those who attended the site visit presentations. The team would also like to thank the following individuals, agencies, and staff for their assistance and contributions during this project: John K. Gilchrist, Rail System Planner, FDOT Rail Office David A. Wagner, Chief Operating Officer, Port of New Orleans Rafael Garcia, Jr., Bridge Director, City of Laredo (Texas) Bridge System Carlos Y. Benavides III, President, Camino Colombia Toll Road The Texas Department of Transportation, Laredo District James J. Snyder, Director, International Intermodal Corridor Coordination, State of New Jersey Department of Transportation Robert L.
    [Show full text]