DOCSLIB.ORG

Gateway Region Maps

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Gateway Region Maps GATEWAY REGION MAPS We Put You in the Best Possible Position to Succeed UTAH COLORADO INTERSTATE 15 Central to major centers of commerce and ports EDMONTON CANADA CALGARY ARIZONA GREAT FALLS • 137 nm (52 min) to California, the world’s sixth NEVADA IDAHO FALLS largest economy SALT LAKE CITY LAS VEGAS LAS VEGAS • 290 nm (1 hr 43 min) to Texas, the world’s 11th INTERSTATE USA INTERSTATE 11 PHOENIX 15 INTERSTATE INTERSTATE largest economy ARIZONA TUCSON 25 93 40 INTERSTATE FLAGSTAFF NOGALES 40 ALBUQUERQUE HERMOSILLO INTERSTATE • 117 nm (44 min) to Mexico, the second largest INTERSTATE 40 40 INTERSTATE economy in Latin America 40 ARIZONA MEXICO 93 MEXICO CITY • 316 nm (1 hr 52 min) to Long Beach, California INTERSTATE 17 INTERSTATE 11 CANAMEX CORRIDOR • 266 nm (1 hr 35 min) to San Diego International PROPOSED ROUTE INTERSTATE 11 Airport, California INTERSTATE 10 INTERSTATE CALIFORNIA 10 PHOENIX INTERSTATE • 290 nm (1 hr 43 mins) to El Paso, Texas 11 CHANDLER MARICOPA / INTERSTATE AK-CHIN 25 CASA GRANDE INTERSTATE INDIAN Close to major transportation corridors YUMA 8 COMMUNITY INTERSTATE 10 NEW MEXICO INTERSTATE LAS CRUCES • 18 miles to Interstate 10 and the Canamex tradeMEXICO TUCSON INTERSTATE 10 10 corridor INTERSTATE EL PASO HIGHWAY LEGEND 19 CUIDAD INTERSTATE JUAREZ 10 • 5 miles or less to the proposed Interstate 11, EXISTING MAJOR HIGHWAY NOGALES linking Las Vegas and Phoenix, a Canamex route TEXAS STATE ROUTE MEXICO that bypasses the congestion of I-10 through PROPOSED INTERSTATE ROUTE Phoenix CANAMEX CORRIDOR • 5 miles to Interstate 8 CHANDLER PHOENIX 26.7 miles MARICOPA COUNTY LOS ANGELES 460 miles PINAL COUNTY Ready Access KEY TO BOUNDARIES INTERSTATE 10 Centrally located away from metropolitan congestion City of Maricopa PINAL COUNTY ARIZONA MARICOPA COUNTY Ak-Chin Indian • Close proximity to ready labor pools from Ak-Chin 347 Community and other Native American communities, the cities Ak-Chin Major Interstate Highway of Maricopa, Casa Grande, Chandler, Tempe, and Southern Dunes Golf Club State Highway Phoenix. MARICOPA SANTA CRUZ Proposed Interstate Route • Close to rapidly developing residential communities UltraStar COMMERCE Multi-tainment Center CENTER Union Pacific Railroad Vekol Market Ak-Chin Circle AK-CHIN Harrah’s Ak-Chin Casino • Less than 5 minutes to Santa Cruz Commerce INDIAN COMMUNITY Center INTERSTATE AK-CHIN 11 PROPOSED Ak-Chin INDIAN COMMUNITY • 8 miles (10 minutes) to Hwy 347 Farms & MARICOPA-CASA GRANDE HWY Community ADOBE Headquarters INTERSTATE OFFICE 10 • 12 miles (15 minutes) to Hwy 84 INTERSTATE SUITES ARIZONA 11 387 ARIZONA PROPOSED 347 ARIZONA ARIZONA 84 287 For leasing info: CASA GRANDE 520-568-3246 SAN DIEGO 344 miles INTERSTATE 8 [email protected] TUCSON 80 miles 0 1 5 10 INTERSTATE www.akchinairport.com MILES NOGALES, MEX 145 miles 10 BROKERS WELCOME A DEVELOPMENT OF THE AK-CHIN INDIAN COMMUNITY Date: 04/08/2018.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Interstate 11 Update
    Management Comm ittee Maricopa Association of Governments June 9, 2010 Interstate 11 Update © 2010, All Rights Reserved. 1 Bordering States COG/MPO DISCUSSIONS TiTourism and RRtiecreation . GEORGE:ST . GEORGE:ST Scottsdale of Utah? California California Las Las Navajjj o Nation relates Population: Population:Vegas Vegas Grand Canyon more to New Mexico TOURISM TOURISM 60 M60 M by 2050!by 2050! 1717 II --1717 2525 High-tech High -tech Bedroom Bedroom Extension? Extension? communitycommunity community community industry along II --2525 People People Businesses Businesses Eager/ Springerville Second homes provide shopping/ services to Western New ECONOMIC DE Tourists Tourists Mexico Mexico Commercial Vehicles agriculture agriculture V Mexico’s fastest ELOPMENT growing states are in the north (Sonora, Chihuahua, and Nuevo Leon) Leon) Keyyy CONNECTIONS to Guaymas, Hermosillo, Punta Colonet maquiladoras Proposed Interstate 11 Corridor © 2010, All Rights Reserved. 2 Arizona Arizona COG/MPO DISCUSSIONS .. Commercial Trucking .. Distribution throughout Southwest USA R e c r e a t i o n .. Elevation in Central Arizona (SR(SR--89/SR89/SR--69)69) Pearce Pearce Growth Growth .. USUS--95/SR95/SR--95 Corridor95 Corridor Ferry Ferry Limitations CANAMEX.. CANAMEX .. Natural Resources .. Copper in Safford Area InIn-- .. Emerging Industries rn rn EX?EX? migggration eeee .. Welton Oil Refinery MMMM Warehousing.. Warehousing WestWest CANACANA .. Sun Corridor Megaregion Population Prescott.. Prescott will double Copppper pp mining mining Phoenix.. Phoenix Tucson.. Tucson Agrarian Agrarian Industrial Industrial .. Recreation and Tourism Incoming Incoming Informal Truck Bypasses Commerce! Warehousing/Distribution Hub Proposed Interstate 11 Corridor © 2010, All Rights Reserved. 3 2006 Tonnage of TrailerTrailer--onon--FlatcarFlatcar and ContainerContainer--onon--FlatcarFlatcar Intermodal Moves Proposed Interstate 11 Corridor © 2010, All Rights Reserved.
    [Show full text]
  • Highway Boondoggles 6 Big Projects
    HIGHWAY BOONDOGGLES 6 Big Projects. Bigger Price Tags. Limited Benefits. HIGHWAY BOONDOGGLES 6 Big Projects. Bigger Price Tags. Limited Benefits. WRITTEN BY: GIDEON WEISSMAN AND BRYN HUXLEY-REICHER FRONTIER GROUP MATTHEW CASALE AND JOHN STOUT U.S. PIRG EDUCATION FUND DECEMBER 2020 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors wish to thank Kevin Brubaker of Environmental Law & Policy Center, Clint Richmond of Massachusetts Sierra Club, Chris DeScherer and Sarah Stokes of Southern En- vironmental Law Center, Wendy Landman of WalkBoston, Jenna Stevens of Environment Florida, Ben Hellerstein of Environment Massachusetts, Abe Scarr of Illinois PIRG and Bay Scoggin of TexPIRG for their review of drafts of this document, as well as their insights and suggestions. Thanks also to Frontier Group interns Christiane Paulhus and Hannah Scholl, and Susan Rakov, Tony Dutzik, David Lippeatt and Adrian Pforzheimer of Frontier Group for editorial support. The authors bear responsibility for any factual errors. Policy recommendations are those of NCPIRG Education Fund. The views expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of our funders or those who provided review. Project maps included in this report should be considered approximations based on publicly avail- able information and not used for planning purposes. 2020 NCPIRG Education Fund. Some Rights Reserved. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial No Derivatives 3.0 Unported License. To view the terms of this license, visit creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0. With public debate around important issues often dominated by special interests pursu- ing their own narrow agendas, NCPIRG Education Fund offers an independent voice that works on behalf of the public interest.
    [Show full text]
  • FHWA AMRP FY 2020 Enacted.Pdf
    United States Department of Transportation FY 2020 Annual Modal Research Plans Federal Highway Administration May 1, 2019 Nicole Nason Administrator Contents Executive Summary.............................................................................................................................................. 2 Chapter 1: Introduction/Agency‐Wide Research Approach ................................................................ 8 Chapter 2. High Priority Project Descriptions ........................................................................................ 16 Chapter 3 ‐ FY 2020 Program Descriptions ............................................................................................. 34 Chapter 4 – FY 2021 Program Descriptions .......................................................................................... 250 FHWA FY2020‐FY2021 AMRP– March 2019 Page 1 Executive Summary The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) addresses current issues and emerging challenges, creates efficiencies in the highway and transportation sector, and provides information to support policy decisions through its Research and Technology (R&T) programs. FHWA conducts advanced and applied research; coordinates and collaborates with other research organizations, both nationally and internationally, to leverage knowledge; and develops and delivers solutions to address highway transportation needs. FHWA is uniquely positioned to identify and address highway issues of national significance and build effective partnerships that leverage and
    [Show full text]
  • Summary / Overview of Proposed I-11 Corridor
    Alternative Interstate 11 Corridor From Wickenburg to Mexico Border Prepared by: Sanjeev Ramchandra, M.Ed. [email protected] June 2016 Updated: December 2017 Summary / Overview of Proposed I-11 Corridor To Las Vegas • I-11 still replaces the existing US 93 corridor but a new corridor south of Wickenburg is proposed. • I-11 corridor uses existing highway contours with no urban sprawl and no new desert destruction. • I-11 provides quicker and safer travel to Lukeville border crossing and subsequently to Rocky Point. • I-11 between I-10 and I-8 becomes a southern bypass around Phoenix for I-10 through traffic. • I-11 is an alternate to I-19 for some truck traffic and reduces congestion from Nogales to Tucson. • I-11 generates additional sales tax revenues from To Rocky Point vacationers for state and local governments in AZ. Phoenix West Valley I-11 Corridor (see map) 1) I-11 shares US 60 from Wickenburg to L303. 2) I-11 replaces Loop 303 from US 60 to SR 30. 3) I-11 replaces SR 30 from Loop 303 to SR 85. 1 4) I-11 replaces SR 85 from SR 30 to Gila Bend. 5) I-111 replaces SR 30 from Loop 303 to L202. 6) I-311 replaces Loop 303 from US 60 to I-17. 7) SR 85 freeway segment links I-10 and I-11. 6 A) DO NOT put I-11 west of White Tank Mtns. B) DO NOT extend Loop 303 south of SR 30. C) DO NOT convert SR 74 into a freeway.
    [Show full text]
  • Socioeconomic Assessment for the Tonto National Forest
    4. Access and Travel Patterns This section examines historic and current factors affecting access patterns and transportation infrastructure within the four counties surrounding Tonto National Forest (TNF). The information gathered is intended to outline current and future trends in forest access as well as potential barriers to access encountered by various user groups. Primary sources of data on access and travel patterns for the state’s national forests include the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT), the Arizona Department of Commerce (ADOC), and the circulation elements of individual county comprehensive plans. Indicators used to assess access and travel patterns include existing road networks and planned improvements, trends in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) on major roadways, seasonal traffic flows, and county transportation planning priorities. Additional input on internal access issues has been sought directly from forest planning staff. Various sources of information for the area surrounding TNF cite the difficulty of transportation planning in the region given its vast geographic scale, population growth, pace of development, and constrained transportation funding. In an effort to respond effectively to such challenges, local and regional planning authorities stress the importance of linking transportation planning with preferred land uses. Data show that the area surrounding Tonto National Forest saw relatively large increases in VMT between 1990 and 2000, mirroring the region’s relatively strong population growth over the same period. Information gathered from the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) and county comprehensive plans suggest that considerable improvements are currently scheduled for the region’s transportation network, particularly when compared to areas surrounding Arizona’s other national forests.
    [Show full text]
  • Southern Arizona Future Connectivity Corridor Feasibility Assessment Report
    I-11 I-11 I-11 and Intermountain West Corridor Study & Southern Arizona Future INTERMOUNTAIN WEST CORRIDOR STUDY Connectivity Corridor Feasibility Assessment Report Prepared for and July 2014 I-11 AND INTERMOUNTAIN WEST CORRIDOR STUDY Southern Arizona Future Connectivity Corridor Feasibility Assessment Report Prepared for Nevada Department of Transportation and Arizona Department of Transportation July 2014 Prepared by and . DISCLAIMER The contents of this planning document are based on information available to the Arizona Department of Transportation and the Nevada Department of Transportation (herein referred to as the Sponsoring Agencies) as of the date of this report. Accordingly, this report may be subject to change. The Sponsoring Agencies’ acceptance of this report as evidence of fulfillment of the objectives of this planning study does not constitute endorsement/approval of any recommended improvements nor does it constitute approval of their location and design or a commitment to fund any such improvements. Additional project‐level environmental impact assessments and/or studies of alternatives will be necessary. The Sponsoring Agencies do not warrant the use of this report, or any information contained in this report, for use or consideration by any third party. Nor do the Sponsoring Agencies accept any liability arising out of reliance by a third party on this report, or any information contained in this report. Any use or reliance by third parties is at their own risk. iv Contents 1. Introduction and Overview ........................................................................1 2. Corridor Context ........................................................................................5 3. Existing and Future Conditions Overview .................................................. 11 4. Evaluation Framework and Alternatives Development .............................. 17 5. Alternatives Evaluation Summary and Results .......................................... 21 6.
    [Show full text]
  • I-15 Corridor System Master Plan Update 2017
    CALIFORNIA NEVADA ARIZONA UTAH I-15 CORRIDOR SYSTEM MASTER PLAN UPDATE 2017 MARCH 2017 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The I-15 Corridor System Master Plan (Master Plan) is a commerce, port authorities, departments of aviation, freight product of the hard work and commitment of each of the and passenger rail authorities, freight transportation services, I-15 Mobility Alliance (Alliance) partner organizations and providers of public transportation services, environmental their dedicated staff. and natural resource agencies, and others. Individuals within the four states and beyond are investing Their efforts are a testament of outstanding partnership and their time and resources to keep this economic artery a true spirit of collaboration, without which this Master Plan of the West flowing. The Alliance partners come from could not have succeeded. state and local transportation agencies, local and interstate I-15 MOBILITY ALLIANCE PARTNERS American Magline Group City of Orem Authority Amtrak City of Provo Millard County Arizona Commerce Authority City of Rancho Cucamonga Mohave County Arizona Department of Transportation City of South Salt Lake Mountainland Association of Arizona Game and Fish Department City of St. George Governments Bear River Association of Governments Clark County Department of Aviation National Park Service - Lake Mead National Recreation Area BNSF Railway Clark County Public Works Nellis Air Force Base Box Elder County Community Planners Advisory Nevada Army National Guard Brookings Mountain West Committee on Transportation County
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Register/Vol. 65, No. 233/Monday, December 4, 2000
    Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 233 / Monday, December 4, 2000 / Notices 75771 2 departures. No more than one slot DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION In notice document 00±29918 exemption time may be selected in any appearing in the issue of Wednesday, hour. In this round each carrier may Federal Aviation Administration November 22, 2000, under select one slot exemption time in each SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION, in the first RTCA Future Flight Data Collection hour without regard to whether a slot is column, in the fifteenth line, the date Committee available in that hour. the FAA will approve or disapprove the application, in whole or part, no later d. In the second and third rounds, Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the than should read ``March 15, 2001''. only carriers providing service to small Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. hub and nonhub airports may L. 92±463, 5 U.S.C., Appendix 2), notice FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: participate. Each carrier may select up is hereby given for the Future Flight Patrick Vaught, Program Manager, FAA/ to 2 slot exemption times, one arrival Data Collection Committee meeting to Airports District Office, 100 West Cross and one departure in each round. No be held January 11, 2000, starting at 9 Street, Suite B, Jackson, MS 39208± carrier may select more than 4 a.m. This meeting will be held at RTCA, 2307, 601±664±9885. exemption slot times in rounds 2 and 3. 1140 Connecticut Avenue, NW., Suite Issued in Jackson, Mississippi on 1020, Washington, DC, 20036. November 24, 2000. e. Beginning with the fourth round, The agenda will include: (1) Welcome all eligible carriers may participate.
    [Show full text]
  • 1. Purpose and Need
    1. Purpose and Need 1.1 Proposed Action The proposed project involves traffic improvements to United States Highway 93 (U.S. 93) in the Boulder City, Nevada, area. The project limits are between a western boundary at the end of Interstate 515 (I-515) on U.S. 93/United States Highway 95 (U.S. 95) in Henderson (U.S. 95 Milepost [MP] 59.10), approximately 1.6 kilometers (km) (1 mile) north of the Railroad Pass Hotel and Casino, and an eastern boundary on U.S. 93, approximately 1.2 km (0.75 miles) east of the Hacienda Hotel and Casino. The eastern boundary is coincident with the planned western end of the U.S. 93 Hoover Dam Bypass project Nevada Interchange (see Section 2.1). The Boulder City/U.S. 93 Corridor Study covers a total distance of approximately 16.7 km (10.4 miles) on the present route of U.S. 93 (Figure 1-1). U.S. 93 is the major commercial corridor for interstate and international commerce, and it is the single route through Boulder City, functioning as a principal urban arterial. It is a direct north-south link between Phoenix and Las Vegas, which are two of the fastest-growing areas in the United States (U.S.), and it carries a high volume of east-west traffic from Interstate 40 (I-40) to Las Vegas and to Interstate 15 (I-15). U.S. 93, in combination with other highways, creates a continuous Canada to Mexico (CANAMEX) corridor through the U.S. between Calgary, Alberta, and Nogales, Sonora (Figure 1-2).
    [Show full text]
  • Route Restriction Information: Table 4
    R17-6-412, Table 4 – Updated April 06, 2021 Table 4. Permanent Highway Restrictions, Requirements, Conditions, and Allowances For “Transport Subject To” requirements see end of document. Route Restriction Location Transport Subject to: Height Length Width Weight (in lbs) (MP = Milepost) Escort requirements: F = front escort, R = rear escort, F/R = front and rear escort, and LE = law enforcement escort Interstate 8 MP 0.00 (California State R17-6-405; R17-6-406; Over 14’ - 16’ = R Line) to MP 21.06 (Dome R17-6-408; R17-6-409 Valley Road TI) Interstate 8 MP 21.06 Westbound (Dome R17-6-405; R17-6-406; 15’ 11” Over 14’ - 16’ = R Valley Road TI Underpass - R17-6-408; R17-6-409 Structure 1325) Interstate 8 MP 21.06 (Dome Valley R17-6-405; R17-6-406; Over 14’ - 16’ = R Road TI) to MP 30.80 R17-6-408; R17-6-409 (Avenue 29E - Wellton TI) Interstate 8 MP 30.80 Westbound R17-6-405; R17-6-406; 15’ 11” Over 14’ - 16’ = R (Avenue 29E - Wellton R17-6-408; R17-6-409 Underpass - Structure 1332) Interstate 8 MP 30.80 (Avenue 29E - R17-6-405; R17-6-406; Over 14’ - 16’ = R Wellton TI) to MP 144.55 R17-6-408; R17-6-409 (Vekol Valley Road TI) Interstate 8 MP 144.55 (Vekol Valley R17-6-405; R17-6-406; 15’ 11” Over 14’ - 16’ = R Road Underpass - Structure R17-6-408; R17-6-409 550) Interstate 8 MP 144.55 (Vekol Valley R17-6-405; R17-6-406; Over 14’ - 16’ = R Road TI) to MP 151.70 R17-6-408; R17-6-409 (Junction SR 84) Interstate 8 MP 151.70 Eastbound R17-6-405; R17-6-406; 15’ 10” Over 14’ - 16’ = R (Junction SR 84 Underpass - R17-6-408; R17-6-409 Structure 1063)
    [Show full text]
  • National Hazardous Materials Route Registry (March 31, 2021)
    32306 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 115 / Thursday, June 17, 2021 / Notices under which such actions were taken Resource Conservation and Recovery Office hours are from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., are described in the Environmental Act (RCRA) [42 U.S.C. 6901–6992(k)]. ET., Monday through Friday, except for Assessment (EA) approved on December 10. Executive Orders: E.O. 11990 Federal holidays. 17, 2020, in FHWA’s FONSI issued on Protection of Wetlands; E.O. 11988 Legal Basis and Background May 26, 2021, and other documents in Floodplain Management; E.O. 12898, the project file. The EA, FONSI and Federal Actions to Address Paragraphs (a)(2) and (b) of section other project records are available by Environmental Justice in Minority 5112 of title 49 United States Code contacting FHWA or the Georgia Populations and Low Income (U.S.C.) permit States and Tribal Department of Transportation at the Populations; E.O. 11593 Protection and governments to designate and limit addresses listed above. The EA and Enhancement of Cultural Resources; highway routes over which hazardous FONSI can also be reviewed and E.O. 13007 Indian Sacred Sites; E.O. materials (HM) may be transported, downloaded from the project website at 13287 Preserve America; E.O. 13175 provided the State or Tribal government https://majormobilityga.com/projects/ Consultation and Coordination with complies with standards prescribed by eastsideic/. Indian Tribal Governments; E.O. 11514 the Secretary of Transportation (the This notice applies to all Federal Protection and Enhancement of Secretary) and meets publication agency decisions as of the issuance date Environmental Quality; E.O.
    [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]