ARIZONA & MEXICO
gzQP301iFyz gzQP301iFyz
Table 3: Origin of visitors by place of residence Table 3. Origin of visitors by place of residence, 2007-08 State in Mexico Percent of visitor parties Baja California 0.89 Sinaloa 0.1 Sonora 98.91 Other 0.1 Sum 100 City in Mexico Percent of visitor parties Agua Prieta 13.37 Caborca 0.15 Cananea 0.93 Cibuta 0.62 Cumpas 0.76 Esqueda 0.18 Guaymas 0.3 Hermosillo 1.32 Imuris 1.56 Magdalena 2.45 Mexicali 0.61 Naco 3.11 Nogales 46.9 Puerto Penasco 0.08 San Luis RC 24.1 Santa Ana 0.76 Sasabe 0.17 Sonoita 1.19 Other 1.44 SUM 100 Source: Source: Pavlakovich-Kochi and Charney, and Charney, 2008, Table 2008, 19. Table 19. The most popular shopping destinations in the state were three Arizona Malls: the Arizona Mills Mall in Tempe, the Tucson Mall and Park Mall in Metro Tucson. Among non-mall stores, Wal-Mart was the most popular in every destination county. Casinos in both Tucson and Phoenix were the most popular attraction visited, followed by the Zoos. HISTORICAL TRENDS – A COMPARISON BETWEEN THE 2001 AND 2007-08 STUDIES Visitor volume at U.S.-Mexico border ports grew from 22.91 million non-U.S. citizen crossings in 2001 to 24.02 million in 2007-08, a 4.92 percent increase. Air passengers from Mexico arriving in Arizona through Phoenix and Tucson airports increased 33.5 percent, from 15,075 passengers in 2001 to 20,126 in 2007- 08. 2 The overall party size decreased from 2.2 to 1.8, which contributed significantly to the growth in the number of parties. The 4.92 percent increase in volume, combined with the smaller party size, resulted in an increase of 28.37 percent in the number of parties. 2 Charney, Alberta H and Vera Pavlakovich-Kochi, The Economic Impact of Mexican Visitors to Arizona, 2001, https://ebr.eller.arizona.edu/research/MexicanVisitors.pdf 67 • ARIZONA & MEXICO • ARIZONA TOWN HALL • APRIL 2016
A contributing factor to both the decrease in party size and the increase in the number of parties was the shift from crossers traveling by car to pedestrian crossers during this period. Pedestrian party sizes are substantially smaller than car-crossers, e.g., car passenger persons per party was 2.0 and pedestrian persons per party was 1.53 in Nogales in 2007-08), so the increase in pedestrian traffic in this period reduced the share of Mexican visitor parties crossing in vehicles from 70.34 percent in 2001 to 55.02 percent in 2007-08. Correspondingly, the share of pedestrian parties increased from 29.58 to 44.88. Air passengers increased from 0.08 percent of all parties to 0.10 percent. By far the most significant change observed in the behavior of Mexican visitors between 2001 and 2007-08 was the increase in the share of visitor parties that spent the night. The share of visitor parties increased from 4 percent in 2001 to 16 percent in 2007-2008. Since Maricopa County is three hours from the border, almost all visitors to Maricopa spent the night in both studies. Very few parties to the border communities spent the night, so the increase in overnight visitors was attributable to visitors to Pima County, where overnight visitors increased from 15 to 87 percent of visiting parties. Tucson is in the midrange of driving time from the border, allowing both day-trip visitors and overnight visitors. The increase in the share of visitor parties that chose to spend the night had several effects. First, there was a substantial increase in parties that stayed in hotels (from 2.5 percent of all parties in 2001 to 9.6 percent in 2007-08). Second, once Mexican visitors make the decision to spend the night, their choice of potential destinations is increased. The result was a substantial increase in visitor parties to the Phoenix Metro area from under 140 thousand to over 538 thousand, a 380 percent increase. Third, since overnight visitor parties spend substantially more than day-trip visitor parties, total expenditures substantially increased from $857 thousand to almost $2.7 billion. Because of the increase in visitors to Maricopa County, that area had the largest percentage increase in expenditures during the 2001-2007-08 period (Table 4). Table 4: Expenditures by County, from 1991, 2001, 2007-08 Surveys and 2013 Estimates ditures 1991, 2001, by County, 2007-08 from Surveys 1991, Table and 2001, 4. Table 2013 Expenditures 2007-08 Table 4. Estimates 4. Expenditures 4. Surveys Table by County, 4. and by Expenditures by Table 2013 County, by from Estimates 4. Expenditures 1991, from by from Table 2001, County, 1991, 1991, 4. 2007-08 2001, Expenditures Table by from 2001, County, 2007-08 4. Surveys 1991, Expenditures from 2001, Surveys by and Table County, 1991, 2007-08 2013 and 4. and by 2001, Expenditures Estimates and from County, 2013 Surveys 2007-08 2013 1991, Estimates from and 2001, Surveys by 1991, 2013 County, 2007-08 Estimates 2001, and from 2013 Surveys 2007-08 1991, Estimates and Surveys 2001, 2013 2007-08 and Estimates 2013 Surveys Estimat an sExpenditures $millions Expenditures Expenditures $millions Expenditures $millions Expenditures $millions Expenditures $millions Expenditures $millions $millions Expenditures $millions 2001 1991 % County 2007-08 County 2001 County % County 2013 2007-08 1991 Est. County % 1991 1991 % % % County 2013 1991 2001 Est. % County % 2001 1991 2001 % % % 2007-08 County 2001 1991 2007-08 % % % 1991 2001 % 2007-08 % 2013 % Est. 2001 1991 2013 2007-08 2013 Est. % Est. 2001 % Est. % 2013 2007-08 % % Est. 2001 2007-08 2013 % Est. % 2013 2007 % E .9 96.8 164.3 11.3 23.9Cochise Cochise 186.4 96.8 6.9 11.3 Cochise 164.3Cochise 186.4 173164.3 23.9 6.9 23.9 164.3 23.9 7.796.8Cochise 164.3 23.9 17396.8 11.3 11.3 23.9 Cochise 96.8 164.3 11.3 7.7 186.4 164.3 186.4 96.8 11.3 23.9 186.4 6.9 6.9 23.9 6.9 11.3 186.4 164.3 96.8 6.9 173 96.8 186.4 173 6.9 23.9 11.3 173 173 7.7 11.3 6.9186.4 96.8 7.7 173 7.7 7.7186.4 11.3 6.9 1737.7 6 .4 36.5 16.4 4.3 2.4Maricopa Maricopa 694.2 36.5 25.8 4.3 Maricopa 16.4Maricopa 632.4 694.2 2.4 25.8 2.4 Maricopa 2.4 28.0 16.4 2.4 36.5Maricopa 632.4 16.4 4.3 4.3 Maricopa 4.3 2.4 36.5 28.0 16.4 4.3 694.2 16.4 694.2 36.5 4.3 2.4 25.8 694.2 25.8 2.4.3 25.8 694.2 36.5 16.4 632.4 36.5 25.8 632.4 694.2 4.3 632.428.0 25.8 4.3 632.4 694.2 36.5 28.0 28.0694.2 25.8 632.4 4.328.025 .8 289.5 108.5 33.8 15.8Pima Pima 289.5 976.4 Pima 36.3 33.8 Pima108.5Pima 825.4 976.4 108.5 108.5 15.8 36.3 15.8 Pima 108.5 36.6 15.8 289.5Pima 825.4 289.5 108.5 15.8 289.5 33.8 33.8 15.8 Pima 289.5 36.6 108.5 33.8 976.4 108.5 289.5 976.4 33.8 15.8 36.3 976.4 15.8 36.3 33.8 289.5 36.3 976.4 108.5 825.4289.5 36.3 825.4 976.4 15.8 33.8 825.436.6 33.8 36.3 289.5 825.4 976.4 36.6 36.6976.4 36.3 825.4 33.836.636 .0 242.5 268.5 28.3 39.0Santa Cruz Santa 242.5 491.3 Santa Cruz Cruz 18.3 28.3 Santa 268.5 CruzSanta 491.3 268.5 286268.5 39.0 Cruz18.3 39.0 Santa 268.5 12.7 39.0 242.5 Cruz Santa 242.5 268.5 39.0 286 242.5 Cruz 28.3 28.3 39.0 Santa 242.5 12.7 268.5 28.3 491.3 Cruz 268.5 242.5 491.3 28.3 39.0 18.3 491.3 39.0 18.3 28.3 242.5 18.3 491.3 268.5286242.5 18.3 491.3 286 39.0 28.3 286 28612.7 28.3 18.3 242.5 28612.7491.3 18.3 28.3 28612.718 .0 191.2 130.6 22.3 19.0Yuma Yuma 191.2 271 Yuma 10.1 22.3 Yuma130.6Yuma 282.2 27130.6 19.0 10.1 19.0 Yuma 130.6 12.5 19.0 191.2Yuma 282.2 191.2 130.6 19.0 191.2 22.3 22.3 19.0 Yuma 191.2 12.5 130.6 22.3271 130.6 191.2 271 22.3 19.0 271 10.1 271 19.0 10.1 22.3 191.2 10.1 130.6 271 282.2191.2 10.1 282.2 19.0 22.3 271 282.212.5 22.3 10.1 191.2 282.2 2712.5 10.1 282.2 271 22.312.510 .0 1 0.1 0.0Unallocated Unallocated 69.4 1 2.6 0.1 Unallocated Unallocated 69.4 58 0.0 2.6 0.0 Unallocated 0.02.6 1Unallocated 10.0 581 0.1 1 0.1 Unallocated 0.1 0.02.6 0.1 169.4 69.4 0.1 0.0 12.6 69.4 2.6 0.0 2.6 0.1 2.6 69.4 1 58 2.6 69.4 58 10.0 0.1 58 58 2.60.1 2.6 69.4 2.6 58 1 2.6 69.4 2.6 0.1 582.6 2 .0 857.4 688.3 100.0 99.9Total 2688.7 Total 857.4 Total 100.0 99.9 Total 688.32688.7 Total 2257 100.0 688.3 100.0 Total 100.0 688.3 857.4Total 857.4 100.0 2257 688.3 857.4 99.9 100.0 99.9 Total 857.4 100.0 688.3 99.9 2688.7 688.3 2688.7 857.4 100.0 99.9 2688.7 100.0 99.9 100.0 2688.7 857.4 688.3 2257857.4 2688.7 100.0 2257 99.9 2257 100.0 100.0 99.9 2688.7 857.4 100.0 2257 100.02688.7 2257 99.9 100.0100 ovich-Kochi y, 2008, Table and 42 Charney, and Charney Source: 2008, and Table Source: Hoogasian 42 and Pavlakovich-Kochi Charney estimates Source: and and Pavlakovich-Kochi for Source: Charney, Hoogasian and 2013. and and 2008, Charney, Pavlakovich-Kochi 2008, estimates Table Source: Table and 2008, 422008, Charney, Pavlakovich-Kochi Source: and 42 Table for and Table Charney 2013. and 42 42 Pavlakovich-Kochi and 2008, Charney, and 42 and Table Charney Source: and and 2008, 42 Hoogasian and Charney, Pavlakovich-Kochi and Table and Charney Hoogasian estimates 42 Charney, estimates 2008, and and Charney Table estimates for Hoogasian 2008, and 2013. for 42013. Charney, Table and for for Hoogasian Charney estimates for 2013. 42 and 2013. 2008, Charney and Table estimates for Hoogasian 2013. 42 and and for Hoogasian Charney estimate 2013. a APRIL 2016 • ARIZONA TOWN HALL • ARIZONA & MEXICO • 68
- Page 19 and 20: • Request the Arizona Congression
- Page 21 and 22: ARIZONA & MEXICO BACKGROUND REPORT
- Page 23 and 24: TRANSITIONS IN THE MEXICAN ECONOMY
- Page 25 and 26: lost revenue from petroleum exports
- Page 27 and 28: Table 1: Mexican States and Populat
- Page 29 and 30: Exhibit 1: Arizona's Merchandise Ex
- Page 31 and 32: Exhibit 4: Selected U.S. Dollar Exc
- Page 33 and 34: Map 1: United States Ports of Entry
- Page 35 and 36: Table 2: Traffic at United States P
- Page 37 and 38: Traded goods are grouped into 98 co
- Page 39 and 40: Two other Mexico Federal roads have
- Page 41 and 42: Figure 3: Mexico’s Port infrastru
- Page 43 and 44: THE MAQUILADORA/IMMEX SECTOR - A KE
- Page 45 and 46: Whereas exports and imports to and
- Page 47 and 48: total). Sonora’s share is about 6
- Page 49 and 50: Several other sectors, such as fabr
- Page 51 and 52: THE ROLE OF ARIZONA IN THE U.S.-MEX
- Page 53 and 54: Nogales and the wholesale prices pa
- Page 55 and 56: REGIONAL IMPACT OF FRESH PRODUCE FR
- Page 57 and 58: Department of Transportation (ADOT)
- Page 59 and 60: Santa Cruz County’s dependence on
- Page 61 and 62: SUMMARY The fresh produce industry
- Page 63 and 64: of the largest Latin American produ
- Page 65 and 66: Table 1: Roles and Responsibilities
- Page 67 and 68: Map 1: Electricity Transmission Poi
- Page 69: MEXICAN VISITORS: PARTY CHARACTERIS
- Page 73 and 74: non-U.S. citizens is assumed to be
- Page 75 and 76: positive message to potential visit
- Page 77 and 78: WORKFORCE TRENDS AND ECONOMIC DEVEL
- Page 79 and 80: Among the many responsibilities of
- Page 81 and 82: with the City of San Luis Incubator
- Page 83 and 84: mutually beneficial initiatives. In
- Page 85 and 86: CONCLUSION Through cooperation and
- Page 87 and 88: New Car Plants in Mexico, 2005-19 S
- Page 89 and 90: Town Hall Date Subject ARIZONA TOWN
A contributing factor to both the decrease in party size and the increase in the number of parties was<br />
the shift from crossers traveling by car to pedestrian crossers during this period. Pedestrian party sizes<br />
are substantially smaller than car-crossers, e.g., car passenger persons per party was 2.0 and<br />
pedestrian persons per party was 1.53 in Nogales in 2007-08), so the increase in pedestrian traffic in this<br />
period reduced the share of Mexican visitor parties crossing in vehicles from 70.34 percent in 2001 to<br />
55.02 percent in 2007-08. Correspondingly, the share of pedestrian parties increased from 29.58 to 44.88.<br />
Air passengers increased from 0.08 percent of all parties to 0.10 percent.<br />
By far the most significant change observed in the behavior of Mexican visitors between 2001 and<br />
2007-08 was the increase in the share of visitor parties that spent the night. The share of visitor parties<br />
increased from 4 percent in 2001 to 16 percent in 2007-2008. Since Maricopa County is three hours from<br />
the border, almost all visitors to Maricopa spent the night in both studies. Very few parties to the border<br />
communities spent the night, so the increase in overnight visitors was attributable to visitors to Pima<br />
County, where overnight visitors increased from 15 to 87 percent of visiting parties. Tucson is in the<br />
midrange of driving time from the border, allowing both day-trip visitors and overnight visitors.<br />
The increase in the share of visitor parties that chose to spend the night had several effects. First, there<br />
was a substantial increase in parties that stayed in hotels (from 2.5 percent of all parties in 2001 to 9.6<br />
percent in 2007-08). Second, once Mexican visitors make the decision to spend the night, their choice<br />
of potential destinations is increased. The result was a substantial increase in visitor parties to the<br />
Phoenix Metro area from under 140 thousand to over 538 thousand, a 380 percent increase. Third, since<br />
overnight visitor parties spend substantially more than day-trip visitor parties, total expenditures<br />
substantially increased from $857 thousand to almost $2.7 billion. Because of the increase in visitors to<br />
Maricopa County, that area had the largest percentage increase in expenditures during the 2001-2007-08<br />
period (Table 4).<br />
Table 4: Expenditures by County, from 1991, 2001, 2007-08 Surveys and 2013 Estimates<br />
ditures 1991, 2001, by County, 2007-08 from Surveys 1991, Table and 2001, 4. Table 2013 Expenditures 2007-08 Table 4. Estimates 4. Expenditures 4. Surveys Table by County, 4. and by Expenditures by Table 2013 County, by from Estimates 4. Expenditures 1991, from by from Table 2001, County, 1991, 1991, 4. 2007-08 2001, Expenditures Table by from 2001, County, 2007-08 4. Surveys 1991, Expenditures from 2001, Surveys by and Table County, 1991, 2007-08 2013 and 4. and by 2001, Expenditures Estimates<br />
and from County, 2013 Surveys 2007-08 2013 1991, Estimates from and 2001, Surveys by 1991, 2013 County, 2007-08 Estimates 2001, and from 2013 Surveys 2007-08 1991, Estimates and Surveys 2001, 2013 2007-08 and Estimates 2013 Surveys Estimat an<br />
sExpenditures $millions<br />
Expenditures Expenditures $millions<br />
Expenditures $millions<br />
Expenditures $millions Expenditures $millions Expenditures $millions $millions Expenditures $millions<br />
2001 1991 % County 2007-08 County 2001 County % County 2013 2007-08 1991 Est. County % 1991 1991 % % % County 2013 1991 2001 Est. % County % 2001 1991 2001 % % % 2007-08 County 2001 1991 2007-08 % % % 1991 2001 % 2007-08 % 2013 % Est. 2001 1991 2013 2007-08 2013 Est. % Est. 2001 % Est. % 2013 2007-08 %<br />
% Est. 2001 2007-08 2013 % Est. % 2013 2007 % E<br />
.9 96.8 164.3 11.3 23.9Cochise Cochise 186.4 96.8 6.9 11.3 Cochise 164.3Cochise 186.4 173164.3 23.9 6.9 23.9 164.3 23.9 7.796.8Cochise 164.3 23.9 17396.8 11.3 11.3 23.9 Cochise 96.8 164.3 11.3 7.7 186.4 164.3 186.4 96.8 11.3 23.9 186.4 6.9 6.9 23.9 6.9 11.3 186.4 164.3 96.8 6.9 173 96.8 186.4 173 6.9 23.9 11.3 173 173 7.7 11.3 6.9186.4 96.8 7.7 173 7.7 7.7186.4 11.3 6.9 1737.7<br />
6<br />
.4 36.5 16.4 4.3 2.4Maricopa Maricopa 694.2 36.5 25.8 4.3 Maricopa 16.4Maricopa 632.4 694.2 2.4 25.8 2.4 Maricopa 2.4 28.0 16.4 2.4 36.5Maricopa 632.4 16.4 4.3 4.3 Maricopa 4.3 2.4 36.5 28.0 16.4 4.3 694.2 16.4 694.2 36.5 4.3 2.4 25.8 694.2 25.8 2.4.3 25.8 694.2 36.5 16.4 632.4 36.5 25.8 632.4 694.2 4.3 632.428.0<br />
25.8 4.3 632.4 694.2 36.5 28.0 28.0694.2 25.8 632.4 4.328.025<br />
.8 289.5 108.5 33.8 15.8Pima Pima 289.5 976.4 Pima 36.3 33.8 Pima108.5Pima 825.4 976.4 108.5 108.5 15.8 36.3 15.8 Pima 108.5 36.6 15.8 289.5Pima 825.4 289.5 108.5 15.8 289.5 33.8 33.8 15.8 Pima 289.5 36.6 108.5 33.8 976.4 108.5 289.5 976.4 33.8 15.8 36.3 976.4 15.8 36.3 33.8 289.5 36.3 976.4 108.5 825.4289.5 36.3 825.4 976.4 15.8 33.8 825.436.6<br />
33.8 36.3 289.5 825.4 976.4 36.6 36.6976.4 36.3 825.4 33.836.636<br />
.0 242.5 268.5 28.3 39.0Santa Cruz Santa 242.5 491.3 Santa Cruz Cruz 18.3 28.3 Santa 268.5 CruzSanta 491.3 268.5 286268.5 39.0 Cruz18.3 39.0 Santa 268.5 12.7 39.0 242.5 Cruz Santa 242.5 268.5 39.0 286 242.5 Cruz 28.3 28.3 39.0 Santa 242.5 12.7 268.5 28.3 491.3 Cruz 268.5 242.5 491.3 28.3 39.0 18.3 491.3 39.0 18.3 28.3 242.5 18.3 491.3 268.5286242.5 18.3 491.3 286 39.0 28.3 286 28612.7<br />
28.3 18.3 242.5 28612.7491.3 18.3 28.3 28612.718<br />
.0 191.2 130.6 22.3 19.0Yuma Yuma 191.2 271 Yuma 10.1 22.3 Yuma130.6Yuma 282.2 27130.6 19.0 10.1 19.0 Yuma 130.6 12.5 19.0 191.2Yuma 282.2 191.2 130.6 19.0 191.2 22.3 22.3 19.0 Yuma 191.2 12.5 130.6 22.3271 130.6 191.2 271 22.3 19.0 271 10.1 271 19.0 10.1 22.3 191.2 10.1 130.6 271 282.2191.2 10.1 282.2 19.0 22.3 271 282.212.5<br />
22.3 10.1 191.2 282.2 2712.5<br />
10.1 282.2 271 22.312.510<br />
.0 1 0.1 0.0Unallocated Unallocated 69.4 1 2.6 0.1 Unallocated Unallocated 69.4 58 0.0 2.6 0.0 Unallocated 0.02.6<br />
1Unallocated 10.0 581 0.1 1 0.1 Unallocated 0.1 0.02.6<br />
0.1 169.4 69.4 0.1 0.0 12.6 69.4 2.6 0.0 2.6 0.1 2.6 69.4 1 58 2.6 69.4 58 10.0 0.1 58 58 2.60.1 2.6 69.4 2.6 58 1 2.6 69.4 2.6 0.1 582.6<br />
2<br />
.0 857.4 688.3 100.0 99.9Total 2688.7 Total 857.4 Total 100.0 99.9 Total 688.32688.7 Total 2257 100.0 688.3 100.0 Total 100.0 688.3 857.4Total 857.4 100.0 2257 688.3 857.4 99.9 100.0 99.9 Total 857.4 100.0 688.3 99.9 2688.7 688.3 2688.7 857.4 100.0 99.9 2688.7 100.0 99.9 100.0 2688.7 857.4 688.3 2257857.4 2688.7 100.0 2257 99.9 2257 100.0 100.0 99.9 2688.7 857.4 100.0 2257 100.02688.7 2257 99.9 100.0100<br />
ovich-Kochi y, 2008, Table and 42 Charney, and Charney Source: 2008, and Table Source: Hoogasian 42 and Pavlakovich-Kochi Charney estimates Source: and and Pavlakovich-Kochi for Source: Charney, Hoogasian and 2013. and and 2008, Charney, Pavlakovich-Kochi 2008, estimates Table Source: Table and 2008, 422008, Charney, Pavlakovich-Kochi Source: and 42 Table for and Table Charney 2013. and 42 42 Pavlakovich-Kochi and 2008, Charney, and 42 and Table Charney Source: and and 2008, 42 Hoogasian and Charney, Pavlakovich-Kochi and Table and Charney Hoogasian estimates 42 Charney, estimates 2008, and and Charney Table estimates for Hoogasian 2008, and 2013. for 42013.<br />
Charney, Table and for for Hoogasian Charney estimates for 2013. 42 and 2013. 2008, Charney and Table estimates for Hoogasian 2013. 42 and and for Hoogasian Charney estimate 2013. a<br />
APRIL 2016 • <strong>ARIZONA</strong> TOWN HALL • <strong>ARIZONA</strong> & <strong>MEXICO</strong> • 68
Change language