December 7, 2007

Cascabel Working Group
6590 N. Cascabel Road
Benson, AZ 85602

Dear Cascabel Working Group:

You have my permission to publicly display or distribute the following text that I sent 7 December 2007 to the members of the State Transportation Board of the Arizona Department of Transportation:

Please consider my following thoughts about the I-10 Bypass Study:

SAN PEDRO AND ARAVAIPA ROUTES DON'T SATISFY THE I-10 BYPASS CRITERIA:

1. ROUTES WOULD NOT SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCE TUCSON TRAFFIC.
The URS Draft Report (November 2007; pages ES-7,9) states that the San Pedro or Aravaipa routes would reduce Tucson traffic by only 7% in the year 2030 (percentage based on 196,000 vehicles per day on I-10 through Tucson; percentage would be less than 5% if based on Pima Association of Governments forecast of 300,000 vehicles per day).

2. ROUTES WOULD BE UNJUSTIFIABLE AND UNACCEPTABLE SHORTCUTS.
The small savings in distance (4% to 10%; as shown by the URS Draft Report, pages ES-9,10) would not justify the enormous social, environmental, economic, and financial costs of these routes. Furthermore, almost all of the Public Meeting attendees think that there is no distance savings great enough to justify a highway in these rare and treasured areas for which Arizona is renowned and loved. At the November 29 meeting in Tucson, Mr. Buskirk estimated that 95% of Public Meeting attendees were opposed to these bypasses. The URS Draft Report (page 3-8) shows that truckers (Arizona Trucking Association, Puerto Nuevo) also don't want these routes.

3. ROUTES WOULD BE INEFFECTIVE AND UNNECESSARY ALTERNATIVES TO I-10.
The URS Draft Report (page ES-10) states that San Pedro or Aravaipa alternative routes, requiring route decisions near Willcox and Casa Grande, "would only apply to long distance and through trips".
Therefore, these routes would not serve the congested urban segments of I-10, which have the highest probability of incidents and severe traffic disruption. An emergency "lifeline" alternative route to I-10
already exists (US 191-US 70-US 60, included in the "Initial Potential Corridors" of the URS Draft Report (Figure 3.5, page 3-7), with route access near Willcox and Phoenix).

4. ROUTES WOULD CAUSE GROWTH, AND THE FUTURE NEED CAN'T BE PROVEN.
Present conditions indicate that routes through the San Pedro or Aravaipa would cause much more growth than they would serve. The future need for these routes can not be proven with population
projections, which consider only past conditions to predict the population of a future Arizona that will have very different and unpredictable conditions.

Sincerely,
Jon Sjogren