2002 Arizona transportation factbook: transportation relevant statistical information |
Previous | 1 of 1 | Next |
|
|
Small
Medium
Large
Extra Large
Full-size
Full-size archival image
|
This page
All
|
Transportation Factbook
ARIZONA
2002
Transportation Transportation Relevant Statistical Information
Transportation Planning Division
Arizona Department of Transportation
206 South Seventeenth Avenue Phoenix, Arizona 85007-3213
Arizona Governor's Award for Quality
Janet Napolitano
Governor
Victor Mendez
Director
January 2003 I am pleased to present the 2002 Arizona Transportation Factbook. This document provides a broad range of statistics and information that are relevant in understanding Arizona's transportation system. This resource book is an update of the 1998 Factbook. We hope that policy makers, planners and transportation system users will continue to benefit from this reference guide. The cooperation of the federal, state and local agencies in providing the basic data for this publication is acknowledged and greatly appreciated. We welcome your input on improving the content of future editions of the Arizona Transportation Factbook. Comments and suggestions should be forwarded to: ADOT Transportation Planning Division 206 South 17th Avenue Mail Drop 330B Phoenix, Arizona, 85007 or you may call (602) 712-8239. Sincerely,
Victor Mendez, Director
Preface
The 2002 Arizona Transportation Factbook has been developed to provide an overview of transportation demographics in Arizona. Statistical information contained in this report was compiled from various governmental agencies at federal, state and local levels. Efforts have been made to utilize the most current and complete data available at time of publication. The majority of the data is from 2002, while some data was only available from 2000 and 2001 records. It should also be taken into consideration that most data for 2002 was not available until mid-2002 or later. These factors are the result of individual agencies data compilation and tabulation processes and whether they are fiscal year or calendar year based. For more current data, it is suggested that the user contact the referenced contributing agencies to obtain the most current data, as needed.
� ADOT 2002
Table of Contents Table
ADOT Structure and Districts.......................1 Demographic Profiles....................................6 Arizona Highway System.............................16
$
Highway Finance.......................................26 Motor Vehicles...........................................36 Regional Freeways.......................................42 Public Transit............................................47 Rail..........................................................53 Aviation...................................................59 Bicycles....................................................66
ADOT Structure & Districts
Organization of ADOT On February 14th, 1912, Arizona became the 48th state in the United States of America. The Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) was established by the State Legislature in July 1974 by combining the former Arizona Highway Department, originally established in 1927, and the State Department of Aeronautics, originally established in 1962. The Department has a compelling mission - that of providing mobility to Arizona's residents and visitors through a safe and efficient transportation system. ADOT serves as the State's public agency to plan, develop, maintain, and operate facilities for the efficient movement of people and goods by surface and air throughout the state. The Department has statutory responsibility for carrying out its programs under Arizona Revised Statutes, Titles 28, 35,and 41. ADOT is currently organized according to the diagram below.
CITIZENS
GOVERNOR STATE TRANSPORTATION BOARD ADOT DIRECTOR ADOT DEPUTY DIRECTOR
INTERMODAL TRANSPORTATION DIVISION
MOTOR VEHICLE DIVISION
TRANSPORTATION PLANNING DIVISION
AERONAUTICS DIVISION
CHIEF OF STAFF
TRANSPORTATION SERVICES GROUP
1
ADOT Structure & Districts
State Transportation Board Districts Arizona is divided into six transportation districts. State law empowers the State Transportation Board to prioritize individual highway and airport projects as well as award all highway contracts. The board consists of seven members appointed by the governor. District One is represented by two members and the remaining districts each have one member.
APACHE C OC ON I N O MOHAVE
5
NAVAJO
6
LA PAZ
YAVAPAI
MARICOPA
GILA
GREENLEE
YUMA
1
PIMA
PI N AL
4
GRAHAM COCHISE
2
SANTA CRUZ
3
2
ADOT Structure & Districts
Engineering Districts The state is divided into nine engineering districts, each represented by district engineers. Districts are involved in the initial identification of state highway needs and are responsible for construction, as well as operation and maintenance of the state highway facilities within their jurisdiction. The Phoenix area has two district offices. One is responsible for construction activities and the other is in charge of highway operation and maintenance.
COCONINO MOHAVE
Flagstaff Kingman
APACHE NAVAJO
Holbrook
Prescott
YAVAPAI GILA
Phoenix
LA PAZ MARICOPA YUMA
Yuma
GREENLEE
Globe
GRAHAM PINAL
Safford
PIMA
District Headquarters
Tucson
COCHISE SANTA CRUZ
3
ADOT Structure & Districts
Councils of Government (COG) & Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) By Governor's executive order, Arizona is divided into several planning and development districts for the purpose of performing and coordinating comprehensive planning on an area wide or regional basis. Councils of Governments (COGs) and Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) are established by the agreement of local governments within each of these planning areas for the purpose of carrying out the intent of the Executive Order. ADOT recognizes and assists the non-metropolitan COGs as area wide transportation planning agencies through the provision of technical and financial support. Advisory assistance is provided to the COGs through ADOTs local assistance program. Transportation planning funds are made available by ADOT to all the rural COGs which include CAAG, NACOG, SEAGO, and WACOG. MAG, PAG, FMPO, and YMPO are designated by the Governor as the Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) for the Phoenix, Tucson, Flagstaff, and Yuma metropolitan areas, respectively. As such, these agencies are responsible for developing comprehensive longrange transportation plans including both long-range and system management elements, the five-year Transit Plan, and the Transportation Improvement Programs (TIPs). Specific transportation planning responsibilities of the MPOs and/or COGs are outlined in their annual work programs, which are approved at the local, state, and federal levels. Typical planning activities include: the development of goals and objectives; issue review; data collection and analysis; forecasting needs and deficiencies; developing and selecting alternative plans; and performing special transportation studies. Public input and impact analyses are very important aspects of regional plan development. Priority programming for certain federally funded programs are also an important planning responsibility.
4
ADOT Structure & Districts
Councils of Governments (COGs) & Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs)
COCONINO MOHAVE
APACHE NAVAJO
NACOG
FMPO
CYAG
WACOG
YAVAPAI LA PAZ MARICOPA
GILA
GREENLEE
MAG YMPO
YUMA
CAAG
PINAL
GRAHAM
PAG
PIMA SANTA CRUZ
SEAGO
COCHISE
5
Demographic Profiles Demographic
Arizona Total Population 2000
1980 1990 2000 Percent change (1980-1990) Percent change (1990-2000) 2,717,866 3,665,228 5,130,632 34.9% 40.0%
Population Characteristics 2000
Male Female Race One race White persons Black or African American persons American Indian / Alaska Native persons Asian persons Native Hawaiian / Other Pacific Islander Other Two or more races Hispanic or Latino* Not Hispanic or Latino White persons not Hispanic / Latino 2,561,057 2,569,575 4,984,106 3,873,611 158,873 255,879 92,236 6,733 596,774 146,526 1,295,617 3,835,015 3,274,258 1,901,327 2.64 1,287,367 3.18 613,960 2,189,189 1,901,327 287,862 38,830 49.9% 50.1% 97.1% 75.5% 3.1% 5.0% 1.8% 0.10% 11.6% 2.9% 25.3% 74.7% 63.8%
Housing 2000
Total households Persons per household Total families Persons per family Nonfamily households Total housing units Occupied Vacant Median household income (est.)**
67.7% 32.3% 86.9% 13.1%
� ADOT 2002
6
Demographic Profiles
Arizona (continued) Employment 2000
Population 16 years and over In labor force Civilian labor force Employed Unemployed Percent unemployment Armed forces Not in labor force
**In 2000 inflation adjusted dollars. Source: U.S. Census Bureau
3,794,826 2,397,588 2,385,684 2,230,169 155,515 6.5% 11,904 1,397,238
*Hispanics may be of any race (white, black, Asian, etc.) thus, are also in applicable one race categories.
� ADOT 2002
7
Demographic Profiles
Maricopa County Total Population 2000
1980 1990 2000 Percent change (1980-1990) Percent change (1990-2000) 1,509,175 2,122,101 3,072,149 40.6% 44.8% 1,536,473 1,535,676 2,982,680 2,376,359 114,551 56,706 66,445 4,406 364,213 89,469 763,341 2,308,808 2,034,530 1,132,886 2.67 763,110 3.21 369,776 1,250,231 1,132,886 117,345 45,358 2,327,675 1,504,252 1,498,223 1,427,292 70,931 4.7% 6,029 823,423 50.0% 50.0% 97.1% 77.4% 3.7% 1.8% 2.2% 0.1% 11.9% 2.9% 24.8% 75.2% 66.2%
Population Characteristics 2000
Male Female Race One race White persons Black or African American persons American Indian / Alaska Native persons Asian persons Native Hawaiian / other Pacific Islander Other Two or more races Hispanic or Latino* Not Hispanic or Latino White persons not Hispanic / Latino
Housing 2000
Total households Persons per household Total families Persons per family Nonfamily households Total housing units Occupied Vacant Median household income (1999 est.)
67.4% 32.6% 90.6% 9.4%
Employment 2000
Population 16 years and over In labor force Civilian labor force Employed Unemployed Percent unemployment Armed forces Not in labor force
*Hispanics may be of any race (white, black, Asian, etc.) thus, are also in applicable One race categories. Source: U.S. Census Bureau
8
Demographic Profiles
Pima County Total Population 2000
1980 1990 2000 Percent change (1980-1990) Percent change (1990-2000) 531,443 666,880 843,746 25.5% 26.5% 412,562 431,184 816,677 633,387 25,594 27,178 17,213 1,088 112,217 27,069 247,578 596,168 518,720 332,350 2.47 212,092 3.06 120,258 366,737 332,350 34,387 36,758 658,638 397,215 391,673 370,768 20,905 5.3% 5,542 261,423 48.9% 51.1% 96.8% 75.1% 3.0% 3.2% 2.0% 0.1% 13.3% 3.2% 29.3% 70.7% 61.5%
Population Characteristics 2000
Male Female Race One race White persons Black or African American persons American Indian / Alaska Native persons Asian persons Native Hawaiian / other Pacific Islander Other Two or more races Hispanic or Latino* Not Hispanic or Latino White persons not Hispanic / Latino
Housing 2000
Total households Persons per household Total families Persons per family Nonfamily households Total housing units Occupied Vacant Median household income (1999 est.)
63.8% 36.2% 90.6% 9.4%
Employment 2000
Population 16 years and over In labor force Civilian labor force Employed Unemployed Percent unemployment Armed forces Not in labor force
*Hispanics may be of any race (white, black, Asian, etc.) thus, are also in applicable One race categories. Source: U.S. Census Bureau
9
Demographic Profiles
Population Changes in Arizona Cities and Towns Places
Apache Junction Avondale Benson Bisbee Buckeye Bullhead City Camp Verde Carefree Casa Grande Cave Creek Chandler Chino Valley Clarkdale Clifton Colorado City Coolidge Cottonwood Douglas Duncan Eagar El Mirage Eloy Flagstaff Florence Fountain Hills Fredonia Gila Bend Gilbert Glendale Globe Goodyear
1980
9,935 8,168 4,190 7,154 3,434 10,719 3,824 964 14,971 1,712 29,673 2,858 1,512 4,245 1,439 6,851 4,550 13,058 603 2,791 4,307 6,240 34,743 3,391 2,771 1,040 1,585 5,717 97,172 6,886 6,886
1990
18,100 16,169 3,824 6,288 5,038 21,951 6,243 1,666 19,082 2,925 90,533 4,837 2,144 2,840 2,426 6,927 5,918 12,822 622 4,025 5,001 7,211 45,857 7,510 10,030 1,207 1,747 29,188 148,134 6,092 6,092
% change
(1980-1990)
2000
31,814 35,883 4,711 6,090 6,537 33,769 9,451 2,927 25,224 3,728 176,581 7,835 3,422 2,596 3,334 7,786 9,179 14,312 812 4,033 7,609 10,375 52,894 17,054 20,235 1,036 1,980 109,697 218,812 7,486 18,911
% change
(1990-2000)
82.18% 97.96% -8.74% -12.11% 46.71% 104.79% 63.26% 72.82% 27.46% 70.85% 205.10% 69.24% 41.80% -33.10% 68.59% 1.11% 30.07% -1.81% 9.78% 44.21% 16.11% 15.56% 31.99% 121.47% 261.96% 16.06% 10.22% 410.55% 52.45% -11.97% -11.97%
75.77% 121.92% 23.2% -3.15% 29.75% 53.84% 51.39% 75.69% 32.19% 27.45% 95.05% 61.98% 59.61% -8.59% 37.43% 12.40% 55.10% 11.62% 30.55% 0.20% 52.15% 43.88% 15.35% 127.08% 101.74% -14.17% 13.34% 275.83% 47.71% 23.49% 202.19%
10
Demographic Profiles
Population Changes in Arizona Cities and Towns (continued) Places
Guadalupe Hayden Holbrook Huachuca City Jerome Kearny Kingman Lake Havasu City Litchfield Park Mammoth Marana Mesa Miami Nogales Oro Valley Page Paradise Valley Parker Patagonia Payson Peoria Phoenix Pima Pinetop/Lakeside Prescott Prescott Valley Quartzsite Queen Creek Safford Sahuarita St. Johns
1980
4,506 1,205 5,785 1,661 420 2,646 9,257 15,909 3,657 1,906 1,674 152,404 2,716 15,683 1,489 4,907 11,085 2,542 980 5,068 12,171 789,704 1,599 2,315 19,865 2,284 1,193 1,378 7,010 1,200 3,368
1990
5,458 909 4,686 1,782 403 2,262 12,722 24,363 3,303 1,845 2,187 288,091 2,018 19,489 6,670 6,598 11,671 2,897 888 8,377 50,618 983,403 1,725 2,422 26,455 8,858 1,876 2,667 7,359 1,629 3,294
% change
(1980-1990)
2000
5,228 892 4,917 1,751 329 2,249 20,069 41,938 3,810 1,762 13,556 396,375 1,936 20,878 29,700 6,809 13,664 3,140 881 13,620 108,364 1,321,045 1,989 3,582 33,938 23,535 3,354 4,316 9,232 3,242 3,269
% change
(1990-2000)
21.13% -24.56% -19.00% 7.28% -4.05% -14.51% 37.43% 53.14% -9.68% -3.20% 30.65% 89.03% -25.70% 24.27% 347.95% 34.46% 5.29% 13.97% -9.39% 65.29% 315.89% 24.53% 7.88% 4.62% 33.17% 287.83% 57.25% 93.54% 4.98% 1.29% -2.20%
-4.21% -1.87% 4.93% -1.74% -18.36% -0.57% 57.75% 72.14% 15.35% -4.50% 519.84% 37.59% -4.06% 7.13% 345.28% 3.20% 17.08% 8.39% -0.79% 62.59% 114.08% 34.33% 15.30% 47.89% 28.29% 165.69% 78.78% 61.83% 25.45% 99.02% -0.76%
11
Demographic Profiles
Population Changes in Arizona Cities and Towns (continued) Places
San Luis Scottsdale Sedona Show Low Sierra Vista Snowflake Somerton South Tucson Springerville Superior Surprise Taylor Tempe Thatcher Tolleson Tombstone Tucson Wellton Wickenburg Willcox Williams Winkelman Winslow Youngtown Yuma Unincorp. areas Total
Source: U.S. Census Bureau
1980
1,946 88,822 5,319 4,298 24,937 3,510 3,969 6,554 1,452 4,600 3,723 1,915 106,920 3,374 4,433 1,632 330,537 911 3,535 3,243 2,266 1,060 7,921 2,254 42,481 670,617 2,717,866
1990
4,212 130,069 7,720 5,019 32,983 3,679 5,282 5,093 1,802 3,468 7,122 2,418 141,865 3,763 4,434 1,220 405,390 1,066 4,515 3,122 2,532 676 8,190 2,542 54,923 822,613 3,665,228
% change
(1980-1990)
2000
15,322 202,705 10,192 7,695 37,775 4,460 7,266 5,490 1,972 3,254 30,848 3,176 158,625 4,022 4,974 1,504 486,699 1,829 5,082 3,733 2,842 443 9,520 3,010 77,515 1,085,196 5,130,632
% change
(1990-2000)
116.44% 46.44% 45.14% 16.78% 32.27% 4.81% 33.08% -22.29% 24.10% -24.61% 91.30% 26.27% 32.68% 11.53% 0.02% -25.25% 22.65% 17.01% 27.72% -3.73% 11.74% -36.23% 3.40% 12.78% 29.29% 22.67% 34.86%
263.77% 55.84% 32.02% 53.32% 14.53% 21.23% 37.56% 7.80% 9.43% -6.17% 333.14% 31.35% 11.81% 6.88% 12.18% 23.28% 20.06% 71.58% 12.56% 19.57% 12.24% -34.47% 16.24% 18.41% 41.13% 31.92% 40.00%
12
Demographic Profiles
Native American Population and Area Geographical Area
Cocopah Reservation Colorado River Reservation AZ, CA (part) Ft. Apache Reservation Ft. McDowell Reservation Ft. Mohave Reservation and Off-Reservation Trust Land AZ, CA, NV (part) Ft. Yuma Reservation AZ, CA (part) Gila River Reservation Havasupai Reservation Hopi Reservation and Off-Reservation Trust Land Hopi Reservation Hopi Off-Reservation Trust Land Hualapai Reservation and Off-Reservation Trust Land Hualapai Reservation Hualapai Off-Reservation Trust Land Kaibab Reservation Maricopa (Ak Chin) Reservation Navajo Nation Reservation and Off-Reservation Trust Land AZ, NM, UT (part) Navajo Nation Reservation (part) Navajo Nation Off-Reservation Trust Land (part) Pascua Yaqui Reservation Salt River Reservation San Carlos Reservation Tohono O'odham Reservation and Off-Reservation Trust Land Tohono O'odham Reservation Tohono O'odham Off-Reservation Trust Land Tonto Apache Reservation
Population
1,025 7,466 12,429 824 773
Housing Units
970 2,956 3,532 275 294
Land Area *
10.02 360.54 2,627.61 38.55 36.59
36 11,257 503 6,946 6,815 131 1,353 1,353 0 196 742 104,565 104,532 33 3,315 6,405 9,385 10,787 10,483 304 132
18 2,901 161 2,512 2,480 32 475 475 0 88 234 40,975 40,955 20 785 2,526 2,497 3,572 3,492 80 38 197 60 2 65,068
3.28 583.75 276.15 2,531.77 2,531.46 0.31 1,600.85 1,590.66 10.19 188.75 32.93 15,874.49 15,864.72 9.77 1.87 80.96 2,910.71 4,453.31 4,453.23 0.08 0.13 1.00 2.21 20.57 31,636.04
Yavapai-Apache Nation Reservation 743 182 Yavapai-Prescott Reservation Zuni Reservation and 0 Off-Reservation Trust Land NM, AZ (part) 179,064 All Areas
* Land area in square miles.
Source: GCT-PH1, Population, Housing Units, Area and Density: 2000 U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 Summary File 1
13
Demographic Profiles
County Statistics County
Apache Cochise Coconino Gila Graham Greenlee La Paz Maricopa Mohave Navajo Pima Pinal Santa Cruz Yavapai Yuma Total
Source: U.S. Census Bureau
Land Area
(sq. miles) 11,204.88 6,169.45 18,617.42 4,767.70 4,629.32 1,847.00 4,499.95 9,203.14 13,311.64 9,953.18 9,186.27 5,369.59 1,237.63 8,123.30 5,514.09 113,634.57
Population 2000
69,423 117,755 116,320 51,335 33,489 8,547 19,715 3,072,149 155,032 97,470 843,746 179,727 38,381 167,517 160,026 5,130,632
Housing Units 2000
31,621 51,126 53,443 28,189 11,430 3,744 15,133 1,250,231 80,062 47,413 366,737 81,154 13,036 81,730 74,140 2,189,189
Civilian Labor Force 2000
21,071 45,702 59,647 19,981 12,094 3,694 7,139 1,498,223 65,048 33,722 391,673 66,695 13,953 71,714 56,016 2,385,684
� ADOT 2002
14
Demographic Profiles
County Statistics County 2002 Registered Vehicles
60,971 130,886 125,965 69,675 29,163 9,964 27,881 2,666,394 211,244 99,346 125,965 160,765 46,715 223,974 142,302 4,692,924
2002 Lane Miles
8,032.31 5,785.38 10,482.66 3,676.57 3,049.85 1,282.15 3,382.50 31,874.21 12,782.89 7,538.09 10,482.66 8,023.99 2,466.93 6,480.27 6,185.40 124,571.28
1999 Daily Vehicle 2001 Vehicle Miles of Travel Gas Gallonage
(000s) (000s) 27,329 49,702 130,859 28,050 10,808 3,714 29,479 1,374,121 102,438 63,124 130,859 70,229 24,812 79,185 85,539 2,478,712 2,435 4,141 6,559 1,849 795 268 1,919 65,212 6,259 3,976 17,330 6,777 1,033 6,733 3,013 128,299
2001 Diesel Gallonage
(000s) 40,724 49,847 39,166 15,236 15,188 7,565 25,604 120,594 47,994 28,226 39,166 58,581 13,467 45,500 48,023 657,629
Apache Cochise Coconino Gila Graham Greenlee La Paz Maricopa Mohave Navajo Pima Pinal Santa Cruz Yavapai Yuma Total
Sources: ADOT, Motor Vehicle Division, Highway P rformance Monitoring System, Financial Management Services e
� ADOT 2002
15
Arizona Highway System Arizona
Functional Classification System
15
Littlefield Colorado City Fredonia
89
389
ALT
89
ALT
Page
163 564 98
Kayenta
160
Teec Nos Pos
Jacob Lake
89
191
67
Hoover Dam North Rim Grand Canyon
89
Tuba City
160
87
N AVA J O
A PA C H E
Chinle
M O H AV E
93 66
Peach Springs
COCONINO
180 64
Seligman
64
264
Second Mesa
191 264
Ganado
89
264
Window Rock
68
Bullhead City Kingman
40
Ash Fork Williams
99
87 77
Winslow
191
40
Flagstaff
40
Sanders
95
40 40
99 377
Joseph City
40
Topock Lake Havasu City
ALT
89 93 97 96 89
89
Cottonwood
ALT
40 40
Holbrook
61
Y A V A PA I
Prescott
17
179
87
89 169 69
260
Camp Verde
77
180
191
St. Johns
95
260 87 260
Payson Young
Snowflake
277 260
Show Low
473
61 60
180
Eagar
Parker
L A PA Z
72 60
71
Wickenburg
17
74 87
60
95
Quartzsite Ehrenberg
260
373
188
288
60 73
273
Alpine
GREENLEE
10
60 101
303 51
101 202
GILA
88
Apache Jct. Globe Superior
PHOENIX
60
202
170
M A R I C O PA
85
95
Yuma Yuma
10
60 87
287 Florence
GRAHAM
70
Winkleman Thatcher
191
238
Mobile
347 387
177
YUMA
8
Morenci Clifton Safford
191
70
8
85
Gila Bend
Casa Grande
84
78
8
87
79 77 366
Fort Grant
75
Duncan
95
San Luis
PINAL
Why
10
77
191 266
Bowie Willcox
Ajo
86 85
Lukeville
PIMA
Robles Jct.
San Simon
86
Tucson
10 10
10
386 286 83
Benson
10
186 191 181
19
Sonoita
90 80
82
Principal Arterial Interstate (Rural) Principal Arterial Other (Rural) Minor Arterial (Rural) Major Collector (Rural) Minor Collector (Rural) Principal Arterial Interstate (Urban) Principal Arterial Expressway (Urban) Principal Arterial Other (Urban) Minor Arterial (Urban)
Source: ADOT, Transportation Planning Division
Tombstone
COCHISE
191
80
Douglas
Sasabe
289
189
S A N TA CRUZ
Nogales
82
83
Sierra Vista
90
92
Bisbee
80
16
Arizona Highway System
Urban
� ADOT 2002
� ADOT 2002
Urban Principal Arterials There are three types of urban principal arterials: Interstate; other freeways and expressways; and other principal arterials with no or little control of access. The primary function of these roads is to provide the greatest mobility for thorough movement. Any direct access to adjacent land is purely incidental. The higher mobility associated with these arterials are associated with higher posted speed limits and partially or fully controlled access facilities. In both small urban and urbanized areas, the principal arterial system should serve the highest traffic volume generators, carry trips of longer length, have a high proportion of the urban area travel on a minimum of mileage, and carry the major portion of the trips entering and leaving the urban area.
Urban Minor Arterials In small urban and urbanized areas, the minor arterial system should provide trips of moderate length, trips of lower travel mobility than urban principal arterials, and serve to accommodate longer trips within the community. Consequently, the speed limit is lower on these roads than on urban principal arterials.
� ADOT 2002
Urban Collectors Urban collectors distribute traffic from arterials, funnel traffic collected from local streets into the arterial system and may penetrate residential neighborhoods.
17
Arizona Highway System
identified as principal arterials rank highest in terms of: access to important traffic generators not currently served by Arizona's Interstate Highways (e.g., Las Vegas and Salt Lake City) volume of commercial traffic, particularly heavy truck traffic total traffic volume vehicle miles of travel.
� ADOT 2002
Urban Local Streets The primary function of the urban local street system is to provide direct access to abutting land. They provide access to higher functional systems lowest travel mobility, and comprise all streets not on one of the higher systems.
� ADOT 2002
Rural
Rural Minor Arterial Roads Rural minor arterials serve most of the larger communities not served by the principal arterial system. Following rural principal arterials, minor arterials are the most heavily traveled rural highways. They serve other traffic generators capable of attracting travel over long distances as do the larger communities. Rural minor arterials provide interstate and inter-county service and trip length and travel density greater than those served by collector systems.
� ADOT 2002
Rural Principal Arterial Highways Rural principal arterial highways are the most traveled, long distance rural roads. They are the principal corridors of interstate travel and statewide travel. Principal arterials provide highspeed travel and minimal interference to through movement. All Interstate highway mileage is included, and non-interstate routes
18
Arizona Highway System
importance equivalent to towns such as consolidated schools, shipping points, regional parks, and important mining and agricultural areas. These collectors serve the principal business area or a concentration of community facilities in rural communities with a population of between 500 and 5000 and rural major collectors tend to connect to rural arterials.
� ADOT 2002
Arizona's Rural Collector System Arizona's rural collector system serves travel of intra-county and regional importance, rather than statewide importance. Regardless of traffic volume, travel distances are shorter than on arterial routes and posted speed limits tend to be more moderate than those on arterial highways. All rural state highways that are not arterial highways will be on the rural collector system.
� ADOT 2002
Rural Minor Collector Roads Rural minor collectors tend to have lower traffic volumes than major collectors. They collect traffic from local roads and tend to feed predominantly residential traffic from side streets into major collectors or arterials. Rural minor collectors are spaced at intervals consistent with population density and bring all developed areas within a reasonable distance of a major collector or higher classification road.
� ADOT 2002
Rural Major Collector Roads Major collectors provide service to any county seat not on an arterial route and to the larger communities not directly served by the higher systems. They serve other traffic generators of the greatest intra-county
19
Arizona Highway System
� ADOT 2002
Rural Local Roads Rural local roads will comprise all rural roads that do not meet the criteria for arterial and collector systems. They serve primarily to provide access to land uses adjacent to collector and arterial roadways. The main function of most local roads is to get to and from residences. Rural local roads may also serve some scattered business and industry, and land uses generating modest traffic.
Source: FHWA, Functional Classification Guidelines
� ADOT 2002
� ADOT 2002
� ADOT 2002
� ADOT 2002
� ADOT 2002
� ADOT 2002
20
Arizona Highway System
Total Road Mileage and Travel by Functional Classification 2000 Arizona's 55,194 miles of roads and streets are grouped into functional classes according to the type of service they provide. In 2000, the arterial system (including the Interstate System) and collector system accounted for 26.4% of the total roads and streets, but carried
Total 2000 mileage: 55,194 100%
88.4% of total travel in the state. The Interstate System accounts for only 2.1% of Arizona's total miles of roadway, but it carries 25.5% of the travel in the state. Local roads in Arizona account for 73.6% of the state's total road miles, but they carry only 11.6% of total travel.
Total 2000 travel (daily vehicle miles): 135,862,000 100%
Interstate 34,651,000 (25.5%)
Interstate 1,167 (2.1%) Other arterials 4,884 (8.8%)
80%
Collectors 8,530 (15.5%)
80%
60%
Other arterials 67,126,000 (49.4%)
60%
40%
Locals 40,613 (73.6%)
40%
20%
Collectors 18,331,000 (13.5%)
20%
Locals 15,754 (11.6%)
Roads and streets in urban areas account for only 33.2% of total mileage, but 64.1% of total travel in Arizona.
Total urban mileage: 18,305 (33.2%) Total rural mileage: 36,889 (66.8%) Daily urban miles traveled: 87,064,000 (64.1%) Daily rural miles traveled : 48,798,000 (35.9%)
Mileage Travel (daily miles)
0
Urban Rural
20
40
60
80
100
Source: ADOT, Arizona's Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS) 1999 & 2000
21
Arizona Highway System
2000 Jurisdictional Control of Arizona Streets and Highways Compared to the U.S. The majority of all the streets and highways in Arizona (66.5%), as well as in the nation (75.7%), are under the control of local governments (county and municipal.) Arizona's percentage of roads under federal jurisdiction is over six times that of the nation as a whole because of the large areas of Indian reservations, national forests, and national parks in the state.
Arizona
100%
Federal 21.5% Federal 3% State 21.4%
United States
100%
80%
State 12.0%
80%
60%
60%
40%
Local 66.5%
Local 75.7%
40%
20%
20%
2000 Jurisdictional Control of Arizona Streets and Highways Jurisdiction City & County State Federal Total Rural Mileage 19,229 5,819 11,841 36,889 % 34.8 10.5 21.5 66.8 Urban Mileage 17,466 787 52 18,305 % 31.7 1.4 0.1 33.2 Total Mileage 36,695 6,606 11,893 55,194 % 66.5 11.9 21.6 100
Sources: ADOT, Arizona's Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS) 1999 & 2000; USDOT FHWA, Highway Statistics 2000 ,
22
Arizona Highway System Arizona
FY 2003-2007 Five Year Highway Construction Program (dollars in 000s)
FY 2003 System Preservation Safety Program $21,132 Roadside Facilities $400 Public Transit $6,500 Pavement Pres. $82,359 Operational Facilities $7,863 Bridge Pres. $13,597 Totals $131,851 System Management Program Operating Contingencies $16,220 Operating Suppor t $4,941 Development Support $47,453 Totals $68,614 System Improvements Roadside Facilities Improvements $13,234 Minor Capacity/Oper. Spot Improvements $28,204 Major Capacity/ Oper. Spot Improvements $64,027 Corridor Imp. $261,357 Totals $366,822 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 Total
$16,343 $14,590 $14,140 $14,140 $80,345 $2,900 $600 $400 $400 $4,700 $6,500 $6,500 $6,500 $6,500 $32,500 $77,210 $97,000 $84,000 $99,000 $439,569 $8,764 $6,800 $6,800 $6,800 $37,027 $19,080 $22,896 $21,850 $16,750 $94,173 $130,797 $148,386 $133,690 $143,590 $688,314
$16,800 $4,901 $45,127 $66,828
$16,800 $4,901 $45,072 $66,773
$16,800 $4,901 $45,072 $66,773
$16,800 $83,420 $4,901 $24,545 $45,072 $227,796 $66,773 $335,761
$21,353 $23,950
$16,520 $25,325
$9,345 $24,375
$11,355
$71,807
$23,950 $125,804
$47,207 $106,401 $63,202 $69,530 $350,367 $232,346 $192,742 $305,185 $283,425 $1,275,055 $324,856 $340,988 $402,107 $388,260 $1,823,033
Total Resource Allocations
$567,287
$522,481 $556,147
$602,570 $598,623 $2,847,108
MAG Freeway System Total Highway Program
$1,179,900 $4,027,008
Source: ADOT, Five Year Transportation Facilities Construction Program, FY 2003-2007
23
Arizona Highway System
Priority Programming Process
Highway Projects
PUBLIC REQUESTS COUNCILS OF GOVERNMENTS STATE HWY PLAN CORRIDOR STUDIES PAVEMENT MGMT SYSTEM FEDERAL HWY ADMINISTRATION SAFETY STUDIES
PROJECTS PRIORITIZED AND BALANCED WITH REVENUE FORECASTS PRIORITY PLANNING COMMITTEE STATE TRANSPORTATION BOARD FINAL FIVE YEAR HIGHWAY AND AVIATION PROGRAM
Public Participation
ADOT DIRECTOR GOVERNOR STATE OF ARIZONA
ADOT PLANNING DIVISION AND DISTRICT ENGINEERS
SUFFICIENCY RATINGS
Airport Projects
PUBLIC REQUESTS COUNCILS OF GOVERNMENTS FEDERAL AVIATION ADM REGIONAL AIRPORT PLANS STATE AIRPORT PLAN NATIONAL AIRPORT PLAN AIRPORT MASTER PLANS
ADOT AERONAUTICS AND PLANNING DIVISION
TENTATIVE FIVE YEAR CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM
AIRPORT MANAGERS
PUBLIC HEARING ON TENTATIVE PROGRAM
Source: ADOT, Five Year Transportation Facilities Construction Program, FY 2003-2007
� ADOT 2002
24
Arizona Highway System
2000 Pavement Condition of Arizona Roads Compared to U.S. Average Arizona
0.3% fair
United States
8.5% fair 20.9% very good
15.5% good
Urban & Rural Interstate
84.2% very good 2.7% fair 9.7% very good
70.6% good 6.8% very good
21.5% fair
Other Freeways & Expressways
87.6% good 8.5% fair 25.8% very good 71.7% good 20.9% fair 11.5% very good
Other Principal Arterials
65.7% good 10% fair 20.3% very good 67.6% good 23% fair 10.3% very good
Minor Arterials
69.7% good 28.7% fair 13.2% very good 66.7% good 4.5% very good 40.7% fair
Collectors
58.1% good
Sources: USDOT, FHWA, Highway Statistics 2000
54.8% good
25
Highway Finance Highway
Highway User Revenue Fund (HURF) The State of Arizona taxes motor fuels and collects fees relating to the registration and operation of motor vehicles, including gasoline and use fuel taxes, motor carrier fees, motor vehicle registration fees, vehicle license taxes (VLT), and other miscellaneous fees. Revenues are deposited in the Arizona Highway User Revenue Fund (HURF) and are then distributed to the cities, towns and
$
counties and to the State Highway Fund. These fees and taxes are a major source of revenue to the state for highway construction, improvements and other related expenditures. In spite of a sluggish economy, FY 2002 HURF collections totaled $1,076.4 million, an increase of $45.5 million or 4.4% over FY 2001 revenue collections.
Source: ADOT, Financial Management Services, HURF FY 2002 Year-End Report
FY 2002 HURF Actual Revenue Distribution Flow (dollars in millions)
GAS 434.8 USE FUEL 161.5 REG 138.2 MC 29.3 OP LIC 14.7 VLT 270.7 OTHER 27.2
HURF COLLECTIONS
1,076.4
HIGHWAY USER REVENUE FUND 1.0 ECON STR FUND 194.4***** COUNTIES 19% 52.1 DPS TRANSFER
1,023.3
516.8 50.5%
281.4*** 30.7**** CITIES & CITIES OVER TOWNS 27.5% 300,000 3%
STATE HIGHWAY FUND 78.6 * URBAN C/A 12.6% & 2.6% 438.2 ADOT DISCRETIONARY
19.7 PAG
58.9 MAG
6.6 ** MVD 3RD PARTIES
* The 12.6% statutory and 2.6% non-statutory allocations from the State Highway Fund share of HURF distributions. ** With the elimination of the VLT distribution to the State Highway Fund, a distribution is made from the State Highway Fund to MVD Third Parties for the collection of VL . T *** One half distributed on basis of incorporated population and one half on the basis of county origin of gasoline sales and city or town population within each county. **** Distributed to Phoenix, Tucson and Mesa based on population. ***** Distributed based on a portion of gasoline distribution and diesel fuel consumption and on a portion of unincorporated population. The split is as follows: 85/15 in FY 97, 80/20 in FY 98, 76/24 in FY 99 and 72/28 in FY 00 and thereafter.
26
Highway Finance
Arizona Highway User Revenue Fund Revenue Collections by Category (dollars in thousands)
FY 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 GAS TAX 363,953 366,377 397,463 409,137 418,400 434,818 USE FUEL TAX MOTOR CARRIER 124,748 142,167 160,312 156,599 155,859 161,507 90,186 63,846 34,150 36,563 32,678 29,347 LICENSE TAX 175,253 176,950 220,126 236,547 251,613 270,641 REGISTRATION OTHER 101,528 101,722 131,952 140,345 132,269 138,210 41,294 36,425 38,775 40,409 40,147 41,873
$
TOTAL* 896,962 887,487 982,779 1,019,599 1,030,965 1,076,395
* Details may not add to the total due to individual rounding.
Fuel Tax Revenues in Arizona GASOLINE FY GALLONS REVENUE
DIESEL
GALLONS REVENUE
ALL FUEL
TOTAL REVENUE
1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 1997 2002
93,476,264 197,683,180 465,891,936 834,255,832 1,351,949,477 1,683,748,765 2,021,962,006 2,545,408,146
$4,619,853 $9,772,422 $23,040,023 $57,886,910 $105,330,191 $286,237,290 $363,953,161 $434,818,000
NA 10,496,392 38,685,733 101,217,012 219,602,638 311,035,547 588,407,453 687,590,579
NA $542,820 $1,934,287 $7,085,191 $17,568,211 $52,876,043 $124,748,225 $161,507,000
$4,619,853 $10,315,242 $24,974,310 $64,972,101 $122,898,402 $339,113,333 $488,701,386 $596,325,000
Vehicle License Tax Distribution FY 2002 Actual *
HURF 44.99% $270.6 Million
Vehicle License Tax $601.6 Million
DO AZ
Counties (Highway Purposes) 5.83% $35.1 Million
LTAF II** State Highway Fund 0.0%
County General Fund 24.59% $147.9 Million
Cities/Towns Fund 24.59% $147.9 Million
State General Fund (School Aid)*** 0.0% $0.1 Million
State Highway Fund **** 0.0%
* The distribution percentage for each recipient based on statutory distribution. ** LTAF II until September 30, 2003 and the State Highway Fund thereafter. *** The State General Fund, along with all the other recipients, receive a share of the VLT from alternative fuel vehicles, rental vehicles and privately owned vehicles used as a school bus, ambulance or fire fighting service. **** $6.6 million was paid out of the State Highway Fund to the MVD Third Parties per HB 2026 and HB 2055 from the 1998 and 2001 legislatures, respectively. The reimbursements were previously paid from the State Highway Fund share of VL before it was eliminated on December 1, 2000. T
Source: ADOT, Financial Management Services, HURF FY 2002 Year-End Report
27
Highway Finance
HURF Distribution to Arizona Cities and Counties FY 2001-2002 COUNTY
Apache
$
COUNTY AMOUNT
$6,199,004
CITY
Eagar Springerville St. Johns
CITY AMOUNT
$1,191,131 $574,917 $962,617 $356,920 $458,836 $1,085,610 $131,380 $2,871,182 $114,913 $282,725 $7,771,416 $153,222 $1,000,933 $434,798 $417,314 $706,297 $84,039 $182,611 $1,287,910 $41,139 $147,855 $686,525 $298,681 $192,167 $60,050 $960,461 $1,003,522
Cochise
$6,817,723
Benson Bisbee Douglas Huachuca City Sierra Vista Tombstone Willcox
Coconino
$10,145,130
Flagstaff Fredonia Page Sedona Williams
Gila
$3,177,018
Globe Hayden Miami Payson Winkelman
Graham
$2,075,495
Pima Safford Thatcher
Greenlee La Paz
$654,673 $2,977,044
Clifton Duncan Parker Quartzsite
28
Highway Finance
HURF Distribution to Arizona Cities and Counties FY 2001-2002 COUNTY
Maricopa
$
COUNTY AMOUNT
$78,141,082
CITY
Apache Junction Avondale Buckeye Carefree Cave Creek Chandler El Mirage Fountain Hills Gila Bend Gilbert Glendale Goodyear Guadalupe Litchfield Park Mesa Paradise Valley Peoria Phoenix Queen Creek Scottsdale Surprise Tempe Tolleson Wickenburg Youngtown
CITY AMOUNT
$17,705 $2,227,397 $486,294 $180,793 $231,317 $10,946,942 $472,641 $1,254,816 $123,073 $6,798,272 $13,579,198 $1,174,462 $325,016 $236,188 $30,129,033 $849,451 $6,719,894 $100,405,369 $261,343 $12,573,651 $1,916,742 $9,853,831 $309,570 $316,690 $186,356 $3,170,589 $312,808 $1,884,203 $3,933,158
Mohave
$9,600,944
Bullhead City Colorado City Kingman Lake Havasu City
29
Highway Finance
HURF Distribution to Arizona Cities and Counties FY 2001-2002 COUNTY
Navajo
$
COUNTY AMOUNT
$7,023,776
CITY
Pinetop/Lakeside Holbrook Show Low Snowflake Taylor Winslow
CITY AMOUNT
$469,237 $646,204 $1,006,018 $584,342 $416,804 $1,249,362 $1,023,489 $2,242,212 $417,681 $43,757,098 $245,354 $2,352,179 $1,876,861 $578,551 $770,635 $1,139,728 $167,397 $131,344 $241,107 $9,017 $157 $2,106,681 $89,155
Pima
$37,208,961
Marana Oro Valley South Tucson Tucson Sahuarita
Pinal
$9,606,612
Apache Junction Casa Grande Coolidge Eloy Florence Kearny Mammoth Superior Queen Creek Winkelman
Santa Cruz
$2,578,805
Nogales Patagonia
� ADOT 2002
� ADOT 2002
30
Highway Finance
HURF Distribution to Arizona Cities and Counties FY 2001-2002 COUNTY
Yavapai
$
COUNTY AMOUNT
$9,273,650
CITY
Camp Verde Chino Valley Clarkdale Cottonwood Jerome Prescott Prescott Valley Sedona Peoria
CITY AMOUNT
$779,167 $645,324 $282,545 $757,505 $26,784 $2,794,255 $1,936,673 $595,644 $46 $601,199 $1,273,507 $151,748 $6,414,401 $312,115,380
Yuma
$8,952,614
Somerton San Luis Wellton Yuma
County Totals
$194,432,532
Cities Totals
Source: ADOT, Financial Management Services, HURF FY 2002 Year End Report -
� ADOT 2002
� ADOT 2002
� ADOT 2002
� ADOT 2002
31
Highway Finance
Regional Area Road Fund (RARF) The Maricopa County Transportation Excise Tax, often referred to as the "1/2 cent sales tax", is levied upon business activities in Maricopa County, including retail sales, contracting, restaurant and bar receipts, and other activities. The transportation excise tax revenues are deposited in the Maricopa County Regional Area Road Fund (RARF) which is administered by the Arizona Department of Transportation. The revenues deposited into the RARF account are the principal source of
$
funding for the Regional Freeway System in Maricopa County and are dedicated by statute to the purchase of right-of-way, design, and construction of controlled access highways. The Maricopa County transportation excise tax collections totaled $267.6 million in FY 2002, an increase of $2.8 million or 1.1 % over FY 2001. This represents the slowest growth rate since the inception of the tax in FY 1986.
FY 2002 Maricopa County Regional Area Road Fund SOURCE* Retail Sales Contracting Utilities Restaurant & Bar Rental of Real Property Rental of Personal Property Other** Total REVENUE $131,393,323 $41,217,803 $18,431,792 $21,748,268 $24,529,320 $13,928,408 $16,314,429 $267,563,343 PERCENT 49.1 15.4 6.9 8.1 9.2 5.2 6.1
*Division of collections to business categories is imputed upon reported taxable income. **Other includes operations of amusement places, intrastate telecommunications services, job printing, engraving, embossing and publication, publication of newspapers, magazines, and other periodicals, intrastate transportation of persons, freight or property, and intrastate operation of pipelines for oil or natural or artificial gas. Source: ADOT, Financial Management Services, RARF FY 2002 Year-End Report
32
Highway Finance
Federal Funding for Arizona The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) was enacted into law on June 9th, 1998, providing Federal funding through Fiscal Year 2003. TEA-21 provides Arizona with a record amount of Federal-aid revenue. TEA-21 Arizona funding levels are expected to total $2.7 billion over the six-year
$
period. This level is 80% higher than the amount provided under the prior Federal Transportation Act (ISTEA). On an average annual basis, the Department expects to receive $348 million in Federal-aid apportionments with another $108 million allocated to local governments.
Estimated Federal Aid Highway Apportionments & Allocation (millions of dollars)*
DESCRIPTION
APPORTIONMENTS Interstate Maintenance National Highway System Surface Transportation Bridge Congestion Air Quality Highway Planning & Research Metro Planning Minimum Guarantee SUBTOTAL APPORTIONMENT DISTRIBUTION BY ENTITY MAG PAG ADOT Optional Use by MAG, PAG & Other Locals Other Locals SUBTOTAL SPECIAL PROJECTS Public Lands/Forest Highways High Priority Projects Title II Safety Projects SUBTOTAL TOTAL APPORTIONMENTS & ALLOCATIONS
ESTIMATED FY 02
AZ APPORTIONMENTS $119.9 127.8 143.8 15.7 42.2 10.6 3.1 68.0 $531.1 87.0 17.7 400.0 16.3 10.1 $531.1 12.5 11.5 4.2 $28.2 $559.3
ESTIMATED FY 03
AZ APPORTIONMENTS $121.2 129.5 145.3 15.9 42.6 9.3 3.2 67.8 $534.8 87.9 17.9 402.6 16.4 10.0 $534.8 12.5 11.5 4.3 $28.3 $563.1
Apportionments include estimated Revenue Aligned Budget Authority (RABA). Portion of State Transportation Funds are flexed to FTA for transit projects statewide ($6.5 million). *This publication was written before the Federal Fiscal Year of 2002 was completed, therefore FY 2002 Apportionments are estimations only. Source: ADOT, Financial Management Services, Office of Resource Administration, Federal-Aid Highway Program Federal FY 2001 Report, Statewide Transportation Improvement Program Federal FY 2002-04.
33
Highway Finance
Local Transportation Assistance Fund
Cities and towns in Arizona receive up to $23 million each year from the state lottery fund. Each city and town receives a portion of Local Transportation Assistance Fund (LTAF) Places
Apache Junction Avondale Benson Bisbee Buckeye Bullhead City Camp Verde Carefree Casa Grande Cave Creek Chandler Chino Valley Clarkdale Clifton Colorado City Coolidge Cottonwood Douglas Duncan Eagar El Mirage Eloy Flagstaff Florence Fountain Hills Fredonia Gila Bend Gilbert
$
FY 02 First Adjusted Total Distribution
1,228,273 41,003 124,591 28,554 10,000 26,916 10,000 10,000 12,284 115,964 241,320 20,993 10,000 86,073 2,260,734 10,619 114,600 177,550 38,082 75,972 17,171 10,000 77,282 639,879 7,342,097 11,083 20,092 195,540
monies based on its population. These monies must be used for any transportation purpose, except that Phoenix and Tucson must expend the monies for public transportation. Places
Glendale Globe Goodyear Guadalupe Hayden Holbrook Huachuca City Jerome Kearny Kingman Lake Havasu City Litchfield Park Mammoth Marana Mesa Miami Nogales Oro Valley Page Paradise Valley Parker Patagonia Payson Peoria Phoenix Pima Pinetop/Lakeside Prescott
FY 02 First Adjusted Total Distribution
179,079 220,818 25,879 33,277 58,146 188,988 53,451 16,898 148,996 21,293 1,020,285 44,797 19,300 14,168 20,665 44,142 53,3412 90,549 10,000 22,303 65,053 58,282 315,026 94,044 115,691 10,000 10,919 668,051
34
Highway Finance
Places
Prescott Valley Quartzsite Queen Creek Safford Sahuarita St. Johns San Luis Scottsdale Sedona Show Low Sierra Vista Snowflake Somerton South Tucson Springerville Superior
Source: Arizona Department of Revenue
FY 02 First Adjusted Total Distribution
134,009 18,427 26,971 51,130 25,197 19,300 93,307 1,146,323 56,945 44,142 211,510 25,006 41,057 29,974 11,029 17,826
Places
Surprise Taylor Tempe Thatcher Tolleson Tombstone Tucson Wellton Wickenburg Willcox Williams Winkelman Winslow Youngtown Yuma Total
FY 02 First Adjusted Total Distribution
209,653 18,481 870,471 22,166 27,517 10,000 2,720,606 10,155 28,745 20,610 15,751 10,000 52,140 17,225 434,212 $23,000,000
$
� ADOT 2002
35
Motor Vehicles Motor
Driver License and Vehicle Registration All Arizona residents operating a motor vehicle on Arizona streets or highways must obtain a valid driver license or instruction permit. Arizona issues an "extended driver license that does not expire until age 65. However, your photo and vision screening will need to be updated every 12 years. Drivers 60 and over will receive a 5-year license. Temporary residents such as out-of-state students and their spouses, or military personnel and their family members may apply for a 5-year license regardless of age. If you are new to the state, you will be required to show your out-ofstate driver license when you apply for an Arizona license. There is no "grace" period for new residents to obtain an Arizona driver license. Arizona is a member of the National Driver Register, a nationwide computer system providing information about problem drivers. When you apply for an Arizona driver license, the information from your application is checked against this system. Residents, unless exempt, must register vehicles and they must also certify that they meet financial responsibility requirements. Arizona statue requires every motor vehicle, trailer, or semi-trailer moved, operated, or left standing on any highway, unless exempt from state statute, be properly registered. When you buy a vehicle, Arizona law requires that you apply for a title within 30 days of purchase. If your vehicle was registered in another state and you wish to operate it in Arizona, you must register it as soon as you become an Arizona resident.
Licensed Drivers, Population, and Registered Vehicles The number of registered vehicles in Arizona has consistently grown at approximately the same rate as
millions 5 4 3 2 1 1975 1980 1985 1990 Licensed Drivers 2002
Arizona's population. In 2002, there were 1.29 registered vehicles for every licensed driver.
Registered Vehicles
Source: ADOT, Motor Vehicle Division, MV988 MV630419 (as of 05/31/02). Source: ADOT, Motor Vehicle Division, MV650653-2 (as of 04/01/02).
36
Motor Vehicles
Driver License Point System Under A.R.S. section 28-3306(A)(3), if a driver accumulates eight or more points in a 12-month period, the Motor Vehicles Division shall either order the driver to successfully complete the curriculum of a licensed traffic CONVICTION
Conviction of violating A.R.S section 28-1381, driving or actual physical control of a vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs. Conviction of violating A.R.S. section 28-1382, driving or actual physical control of a vehicle while under the extreme influence of intoxicating liquor. Conviction of violating A.R.S. section 28-693, reckless driving. Conviction of violating A.R.S. section 28-708, racing on highways. Conviction of violating A.R.S. section 28-695, aggressive driving. Conviction or judgment of violating A.R.S. section 28-662, 28-663, 28-664, or 28-665, relating to a driver's duties after an accident. Conviction or judgment of violating A.R.S. section 28-672(C), failure to comply with a red traffic-control signal, failure to yield the right of way when turning left at an intersection, or failure to comply with a stop sign, and the failure results in an accident causing death to another person. Conviction or judgment of violating A.R.S. section 28-672(A), failure to comply with a red traffic-control signal, failure to yield the right of way when turning left at an intersection, or failure to comply with a stop sign, and the failure results in an accident causing serious physical injury to another person. Conviction or judgment of violating A.R.S. section 28-701, speeding. Conviction or judgment of violating A.R.S. section 28-644(A)(2), driving over or across, or parking in any part of a gore area. Conviction or judgment of violating any other traffic regulation that governs a vehicle moving under its own power.
survival school or suspend the driver's Arizona driver license. In addition, the Division shall suspend the Arizona driving privilege of a driver not licensed by Motor Vehicles. The Division shall assign points to a driver as follows: POINTS 8 8 8 8 8 6 6
4 3 3 2
Upon receipt of a conviction or judgment which brings the licensee's total points to 8 or more in a 12-month period, the Motor Vehicle Division shall determine that: 1) The licensee shall be
Source: Arizona Administrative Code, R17-4-404
suspended and how long, and/or 2) The licensee should be required to attend and successfully complete approved training and educational sessions.
37
Motor Vehicles
Vehicle Registration Trends The number of registered vehicles in Arizona has increased steadily
millions
from about 100,000 in the 1930's to 4,692,924 in 2002.
5 4 3 2 1 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000
Commercial Vehicles
Passenger Cars & Non-Commercial Trucks
All Vehicles
2002 Registration by Vehicle Type Private passenger vehicles account for 74.4% of all vehicles registered in Arizona. Commercial vehicles comprise 8.8% of all registered vehicles, and trailers make up 10.5%.
Total Vehicle Registrations: 4,692,924
100% 75% 50% 25%
3,491,650
411,132 PASSENGER VEHICLES COMMERCIAL VEHICLES
490,791 TRAILERS
299,351 OTHER
DO AZ
Other includes buses, taxis, motorcycles, mopeds, off-road and government vehicles.
Source: ADOT, Motor Vehicle Division, MV988 MV630419 (as of 05/31/02)
38
Motor Vehicles
2002 Licensed Drivers by Age Of the 3,638,692 licensed drivers in Arizona, 1.5% are under the age of 18, 4.0% are 18-20 years old, and 6.5% are 21-24 years of age. Approximately 40.7% of all drivers in Arizona are between the ages of 25 and 44, 32.7% are between 45 and 64, and finally, 14.6% of all Arizona drivers are over the age of 64.
percent of total drivers
30 19.2% 20 10 1.5% 4.0% 6.5% 21.5% 19.4% 13.3% 14.6%
15-17
18-20
21-24
35-44 25-34 Years of age
45-54
55-64
65+
Source: ADOT, Motor Vehicle Division, MV650653-2 (as of 04/01/02)
2002 Licensed Drivers by Gender The 3,638,692 licensed drivers in Arizona were almost equally comprised of men and women in 2002. There were 1,844,440 licensed males (50.7%) and
millions of licensed drivers 1.8 1.2 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 51.1% 54.3% 45.7% 48.9%
1,794,252 licensed females (49.3%). The number of male drivers exceeded the number of female drivers by 50,188.
50.7%
49.3%
1980
Source: ADOT, Motor Vehicle Division, MV650653-2 (as of 04/01/02)
1990
2002
39
Motor Vehicles
1995-2001 Motor Vehicle Accident Fatalities The traffic fatality rate in Arizona has decreased steadily since 1995, yet in 2001, the number of traffic accidents has steadily
Fatality rate (fatalities per 100 million VMT)
increased compared to the number recorded in 1995. In 2001, Arizona still attained a higher fatality rate than the U.S. average.
5 4 3 2
1 95 96 97 Arizona 98 99 United States 00 01
1995-2001 Alcohol-Related Accidents and Fatalities
Year
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
Total Alcohol Related Accidents
7,947 7,748 7,348 7,610 7,756 8,048 8,095
Percent of All Accidents
6.98 6.86 6.44 6.33 6.16 6.13 6.15
Total Alcohol Related Fatalities
261 272 249 268 267 266 258
Percent of Total Fatalities
25.17 27.34 26.24 27.35 26.07 25.67 24.64
Source: ADOT, Arizona Motor Vehicle 2001 Crash Facts
� ADOT 2002
40
Motor Vehicles Motor
Restraint Usage by Drivers and Vehicle Occupants
2000 Driver Restraint Usage
SEVERITY OF INJURY RESTRAINT IN USE % OF NO RESTRAINT RESTRAINT USED USED % OF NO RESTRAINT NOT REPORTED % OF UNKNOWN
No injury Possible injury Injury Fatality Unknown Total
167,928 24,554 14,725 177 1.088 208,472
80.55 11.78 7.06 0.08 0.52 100
7,132 1,631 3,620 261 295 12,939
55.12 12.60 27.98 2.02 2.28 100
9,690 1,413 1,897 80 13,789 26,869
36.06 5.26 7.06 0.30 51.32 100
2000 Front Seat Passenger Restraint Usage
SEVERITY OF INJURY RESTRAINT IN USE % OF NO RESTRAINT RESTRAINT USED USED % OF NO RESTRAINT NOT REPORTED % OF UNKNOWN
No injury Possible injury Injury Fatality Unknown Total
46,450 7,769 4,523 68 288 59,098
78.60 13.15 7.65 0.12 0.49 100
3,572 996 1,537 80 25 6,210
57.52 16.04 24.75 1.29 0.40 100
2,267 382 520 21 236 3,426
66.17 11.15 15.18 0.61 6.89 100
2000 Rear Seat Passenger Restraint Usage
SEVERITY OF INJURY RESTRAINT IN USE % OF NO RESTRAINT RESTRAINT USED USED % OF NO RESTRAINT NOT REPORTED % OF UNKNOWN
No injury Possible injury Injury Fatality Unknown Total
22,650 2,841 1,398 13 116 27,018
83.83 10.52 5.17 0.05 0.43 100
3,508 716 897 58 30 5,209
67.34 13.75 17.22 1.11 0.58 100
1,418 226 201 10 60 1,915
74.05 11.80 10.50 0.52 3.13 100
2000 Child Restraint Usage (less than five years old)
SEVERITY OF INJURY RESTRAINT IN USE % OF NO RESTRAINT RESTRAINT USED USED % OF NO RESTRAINT NOT REPORTED % OF UNKNOWN
No injury Possible injury Injury Fatality Unknown Total
11,502 890 437 13 72 12,914
89.07 6.89 3.38 0.10 0.56 100
601 92 147 15 5 860
69.88 10.70 17.09 1.74 0.58 100
358 42 31 2 32 465
76.99 9.03 6.67 0.43 6.88 100
Source: ADOT, Arizona Motor Vehicle Crash Facts, 2000
41
Regional Freeways
Maricopa County Regional Freeway System As of May 31, 2002 the Arizona Department of Transportation has opened 91.1 miles of regional freeways throughout the Phoenix metropolitan area. The completion of Loop 101 on the Pima freeway between Scottsdale Road and Pima Road marked a major accomplishment. There are 13.5 miles of freeway currently under construction on the Red Mountain, State Route 51, Grand Avenue and the Santan Corridors. The current Life Cycle Program will complete a total of 146.7 miles of freeways by the end of calendar year 2007. There remains 12.3 miles of unfunded freeway on the South Mountain Corridor, Loop 202. The Regional Freeway System is funded by several primary revenue sources: the Maricopa County transportation excise tax, ADOT's share of HURF monies dedicated to Maricopa County for controlled access highways, federal funds and ADOT has allocated $240 million from ADOT discretionary funding.
Regional Freeway System Construction (centerline miles) Corridor Agua Fria Grand Avenue* Hohokam Pima Price Red Mountain Santan Sky Harbor South Mtn. Connection** State Route 51 Total Open 22.0 0 3.1 28.2 9.4 16.5 1.5 2.4 0 8.0 91.1 Under Construction 0 0.7 0 0 0.5 4.5 5.6 0 0 2.2 13.5 Planned Funded Unfunded 0 3.8 0 0 0 9.9 18.7 0.9 8.8 0 42.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12.3 0 12.3 Total 22.0 4.5 3.1 28.2 9.9 30.9 25.8 3.3 21.1 10.2 159.0
* Intersection improvements. The Grand Avenue mileage was defined and represents the eight intersections added to the program. ** Funded South Mountain R/W protection and interim construction. Source: ADOT, Regional Freeway System, Life Cycle Certification, July 31, 2002
42
Regional Freeways
Maricopa County Regional Freeway System
17
LOOP
Fr i
a
101
Scottsdale Rd.
ua
B l a c k Canyon
60
Bell Rd.
Cave Creek Rd.
G
d
5 1 s t Ave.
19th Ave.
ra
LOOP
56th St.
Ag
n
101
LOOP
101
Shea Blvd.
A
Nor ther n Ave.
v
e
Via de Ventura McDonald Drive
75th Ave.
Pima
51
Thomas Rd.
143
LOOP
Pima Rd.
87
Red Mountain Re d
Bush Hwy.
McDowell Rd.
Pa p a g o Papago
10 10 17 Maricopa
Hohokam
LOOP
202
R e d Mtn.
5 1 s t Ave.
Main Street
202
88
LOOP
S k y Harbor
Baseline Rd.
202
153
Superstition
60
Power Rd.
Maricopa
Pr i c e
LOOP
101
87
Gilber t Rd.
Higley Rd.
LOOP
Santan
202
S o u t h Mountain
10
Existing Regional Freeway System Existing Non-Regional Freeway System Under Construction
Source: ADOT, Regional Freeway System, Life Cycle Certification, July 31, 2002
Funded Segments Unfunded Segments
� ADOT 2002
43
Regional Freeways
Maricopa Urban Region Travel Trip Purposes 2002 Home-based to work Other home-based trips Other trips Total trips Trips 2,200,000 5,300,000 3,100,000 10,600,000 Percent 21 50 29 100
millions of vehicle miles traveled daily 80 60 40 20 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995
80,000,000
2002
Modes of Travel 2002 Auto driver Auto passenger Transit
Mode Share Percent 63 36 1
Source: Maricopa Association of Governments, 2002 Traffic Assignment for 1541 zones (urban portions of Maricopa County).
� ADOT 2002
44
Regional Freeways
Tucson Metropolitan Area Travel Trip Purposes 2000 Home-based to work Home to school Home to shopping Home to other Non-home trips Total trips Trips 637,532 397,939 346,013 1,101,053 882,835 3,365,372 Percent 19.0 11.8 10.3 32.7 26.2 100
millions of vehicle miles traveled daily 15 10 5 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995
17,684,396
2000
Modes of Travel 2000 Drove alone Car pooled Transit Walked Other means Worked at home
Source: Pima Association of Governments
Mode Share Percent 73.8 14.7 2.5 2.6 2.7 3.6
45
Regional Freeways
PAG Regional Roadway Network
10
TANGERINE RD
77
INA RD
ORA CLE RD
SK YL INE
SANDARIO RD
PRINCE RD
SWAN GRANT RD
MAIN AVE
ALVERNON WAY
SPEEDWAY BLVD BROADWAY BLVD 22ND ST GOLF LINKS
AJO WAY
VALENCIA RD
86
19
BUS
HOUGHTON RD
IRVINGTON RD
KOLB RD
10
19
83
8 Lanes 6 Lanes 4 Lanes (or one-way 2 lanes) 2 Lanes (or one-way 1 lanes)
Source: Pima Association of Governments, January 2001
46
Public Transit
Public Transit in Arizona Public transit serves several different functions in Arizona. It gives mobility to persons without access to an automobile and to those who do not drive. It provides important links between rural communities and metropolitan areas. In urban and rural areas it is important in reducing traffic congestion and pollution by providing an alternative to the single occupant vehicle. It also supports Arizona's tourism industry by enabling visitors to access congested areas. In recent years, planning for all modes of transportation has been Intercity Bus Service Intercity bus service operates along the major travel corridors in Arizona. It provides passenger service to 83 communities, connecting these cities with other major urbanized areas in Arizona and other states. Arizona's geographic location along with the east-west interstate routes of I-40 in the north and I-10 and I-8 in the south, have resulted in maintaining fairly frequent service along these corridors. The demand for transportation between California and Texas, the two most populous states, has influenced the levels of service more than demand in Arizona. Routes operating between California and Texas run primarily on I-10, while those serving San Diego split off to I-8. Service between Albuquerque, New Mexico and Las Vegas, Nevada operate on I-40. Routes operating between the Midwest and California operate on I-15. Although the I-15 route does not stop in Arizona, it does serve St. George, Utah and Mesquite, Nevada and connects to I-70, serving Denver, Colorado and all points east. Demand for north-south service from the Mexican border also supports a high level of service in the I-19/I-10 corridor, particularly from Nogales to Phoenix. combined under the ISTEA legislation and EPA mandates for clean air, limiting construction of new highway capacity. Therefore, public transit services operated by both public and private sectors are an integral part of the overall transportation network. The public sector typically operates local and regional bus services, program transportation services and school pupil transportation. The private sector typically operates intercity services, in charter and regional markets, and contract services.
47
Public Transit
Statewide Transportation for the Elderly and Disabled The Section 5310 program provides assistance in meeting the transportation needs of elderly persons and persons with disabilities where public transportation services are unavailable, insufficient or inappropriate. This Federal Transit Administration (FTA) program provides capital assistance for transportation to private non-profit organizations, Indian tribes and limited public agencies statewide. The program is administered by ADOT and coordinated at the regional level by the Councils of Governments and Metropolitan Planning Organizations.
2002 Section 5310 Program Statistics Vehicles Vehicle miles Passenger trips Total cost Cost per vehicle (avg.) Cost/passenger trip Transportation for Rural and Small Urban Areas The Section 5311program provides capital, administrative and operating assistance for public transportation programs in rural and small urban areas (under 50,000 population).
257 2,883,613 1,171,917 $7,477,219 $34,299 $2.92
This FTA program is administered by ADOT. Councils of Governments review and comment on applications received for projects in their planning areas.
2002 Section 5311 Program Statistics Passenger trips Passenger (project) miles Total cost Farebox recovery ratio Cost/passenger trip Fare/passenger trip Cost/project mile
Source: ADOT, Transportation Planning Division, Transit Team
742,000 2,550,000 $3,540,250 22% $7.00 $2.00 $2.05
48
Public Transit
FY 2002 Section 5310 Service Locations
Kayenta
M O H AV E
A PA C H E
Havasupai Meadview Peach Springs/ Hualapai Bullhead City Kingman Ft. Mohave Indian Res. Lake Havasu City Parker
L A PA Z Y A V A PA I COCONINO
Chinle Sawmill Ganado Kykotsmovi
N AVA J O
Flagstaff
Winslow Holbrook
Window Rock
Cottonwood
Prescott Camp Verde Payson Show Low Springerville
Quartzsite
YUMA
Yuma
Surprise Sun City GILA Whiteriver Scottsdale Glendale Mesa Apache Jct. Miami Phoenix Tempe Buckeye Globe San Carlos Chandler Superior Kearny Florence Morenci M A R I C O PA Hayden Coolidge Clifton Casa Eloy Mammoth G R A H A M Grande PINAL Oracle Safford Duncan Pascua Yaqui Tribe PIMA Willcox Tucson Tohono O'odham Nation Green Valley COCHISE Si S A N T Aerra Vista CRUZ Nogales Pearce Douglas
GREENLEE
Patagonia Bisbee
Elderly and Persons with Disabilities Transportation Program Locations
Source: ADOT, Transportation Planning Division, Transit Team
49
Public Transit
FY 2002 Section 5311 Service Locations
Kayenta
A PA C H E
Tuba City
M O H AV E
Chinle Oraibi Keams Canyon Ganado Kykotsmovi Window N AVA J O Rock
COCONINO
Moenkopi
Bullhead City Kingman Cottonwood Lake Havasu City
Y A V A PA I
Show Low/ Pinetop
L A PA Z GILA
Salt River Indian Res.
M A R I C O PA
GREENLEE
Miami Globe
Coolidge
YUMA PINAL
GRAHAM
Ajo Why
PIMA
Marana Tucson
COCHISE S A N TA CRUZ
Sells Sierra Vista
Pearce Bisbee
Rural and small urban areas public transportation program locations Communities served by Section 5311 providers
Source: ADOT, Transportation Planning Division, Transit Team
50
Public Transit
Phoenix Metropolitan Area Transit Services The Regional Public Transit Authority (RPTA) provides a structure to enable the various cities in Maricopa County to operate a unified transit system. The cities of Phoenix, Mesa, Tempe, Scottsdale, Chandler, Peoria, Gilbert, Glendale, Avondale and El Mirage participate in RPTA along with Maricopa County. Fixed route and demand response services funded by these cities and regional services funded through RPTA operate under the Valley Metro banner.
2002 Valley Metro Fixed Route Statistics Size of fleet Average vehicle age Passengers Passengers per vehicle (revenue) hour Passengers per vehicle (revenue) mile Operating cost per passenger Operating cost per vehicle (revenue) mile Revenue per passenger Farebox recovery ratio
Source: Valley Metro
610 vehicles 5.99 years 40,194,801 28.21 1.89 $2.39 $4.52 $0.66 27.8%
� ADOT 2002
51
Public Transit
Tucson Metropolitan Area Transit Services Transit services in the Tucson metropolitan area are provided by both the City of Tucson and Pima County. The City of Tucson operates Sun Tran, which services Tucson, South Tucson, the T wn of Oro Valley, o and portions of unincorporated Pima County. 2002 Tucson Sun Tran Statistics Passengers Miles of service Farebox revenue Operating costs Passengers per vehicle mile Operating cost per passenger Operation subsidy per passenger Farebox recovery ratio
Source: Tucson Sun Tran
Intergovernmental agreements are in place to provide service outside city limits. Pima County operates specialized services in the unincorporated county area, regional services from Marana to Tucson, Ajo to Tucson, and demand response services in Ajo.
13,628,899 7,590,767 $6,709,956 $30,811,579 1.80 $2.26 $1.77 22%
Flagstaff Metropolitan Area Transit System Mountain Line, unlike other systems in the state, is a new transit service, which began in October, 2001. The City of Flagstaff passed a transit tax in May 2000 and the below plan is being implemented over the next four years. FY 05 est. 16 500,000 3.73 3.30 .75 20% % Difference +167% +233% -12% 0% 0% 18%
Size of fleet Passengers Operating cost/passenger Operating cost/mile Revenue per passenger Farebox recovery ratio
FY 02 6 150,000 4.22 3.30 .75 17%
Source: Transportation Vision 21 Task Force, Final Report and City of Flagstaff
52
Rail
General System Overview With a total of 2,068 miles of main, branch, and industrial rail lines, the Arizona rail network provides an important link to the national rail system. There are eleven railroad companies currently providing service in the state. Two are interstate Class 1 freight railroads, one is an interstate Class 1 passenger railroad, five are Class 2 and 3 intrastate freight railroads, two are intrastate tourist passenger railroads, and one is an intrastate industrial railroad. Freight Service As respect to the Class 1 carriers, Arizona is a bridge state, providing service between the Pacific Rim ports in California and the Midwest and Eastern markets. The two major railroads (BNSF, UP) also provide destination service to Arizona for building supplies from the Pacific Northwest and origin service for mining material to the Midwest. The smaller home-based railroads provide a variety of rail services, such as coal, limber, mining, and chemicals (see Freight Tonnage map). Passenger Service Amtrak provides transcendental passenger service to the northern and southern regions of the state. Amtrak leases track space from BNSF (Southwest Chief) for the northern route providing connecting service between Chicago and Los Angeles. On leased track from UP (Sunset Limited), Amtrak provides service between Florida and Los Angeles. Additionally, there are two tourist railroads that provide service to the Grand Canyon and access along the Verde River watershed (see Rail Passenger Service map).
FY 2000 Passenger Ridership (in hundreds) CITY Phoenix* Benson Tucson Yuma Winslow Flagstaff Williams Kingman Grand Canyon Clarkdale SERVICE Amtrak (Sunset Limited) Amtrak (Sunset Limited) Amtrak (Sunset Limited) Amtrak (Sunset Limited) Amtrak (Southwest Chief) Amtrak (Southwest Chief) Amtrak (Southwest Chief) Amtrak (Southwest Chief) Grand Canyon Railway Co. Arizona Central Railway Co. FY 00 8.0 1.9 25.9 2.5 2.2 44.9 5.0 3.1 19.0 7.2
* Phoenix passengers are bused to Tucson Depot. Source: ADOT Transportation Planning Division, Transit Team ,
53
Rail
Track Mileage RAILROAD Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Union Pacific (UP) Black Mesa & Lake Powel (SRP)l Coronado (BNSF) Apache Arizona & California Arizona Central (Verde River) Arizona Eastern Copper Basin Grand Canyon Magma (Superior)* San Manuel* San Pedro & Southwestern Tucson Cornelia & Gila Bend* Totals Combined Total: 2,068
* Lines that are currently out of service. Source: ADOT, Transportation Planning Division, Transit Team
MAIN LINE 593 597
BRANCH LINE INDUSTRIAL LINE 141 94 42 42 106 38 133 55 64 28 29 61
1190
44 742
136
� ADOT 2002
54
Rail
General Commodities Transported RAILROAD Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Union Pacific (UP) Black Mesa & Lake Powel (SRP)l Coronado (BNSF) Apache Arizona & California Arizona Central (Verde River) Arizona Eastern Copper Basin Grand Canyon Magma (Superior)* San Manuel* San Pedro & Southwestern Tucson Cornelia & Gila Bend*
* Lines that are currently out of service. Source: ADOT, Transportation Planning Division, Transit Team
COMMODITIES Intermodal (80%), mixed freight (20%) Intermodal (60%), mixed freight (40%) Coal (100%) Coal (100%) Grain (30%), Chemicals (30%), Paper (40%) Mixed Freight (85%), Chemicals (15%) Passengers (95%), Coal (5%) Copper Products (100%) Copper Products (100%) Passengers (100%) N/A N/A Chemicals (90%), Copper Products (10%) N/A
� ADOT 2002
55
Rail
Arizona Railroads
15
Littlefield Colorado City Fredonia
89
389
ALT
89
ALT
Page
Jacob Lake
89
67
Hoover Dam North Rim Grand Canyon
Bl ac kM es a & 98 La ke 89 Po w0 16ell Tuba
City
163 564
Kayenta
160
Teec Nos Pos
191
87
N AVA J O
A PA C H E
Chinle
M O H AV E
93
COCONINO
Fe
64
264
Second Mesa
191 264
Ganado
Grand Canyon
Burl
68
Bullhead City
rt n No ingto
Peach anta p in S hSern gs
66
Seligman
180 64
89
264
Window Rock
Kingman
40
Ash Fork
Williams
95
99 Burlington No rthern Santa 40 Fe Flagstaff 4 0
Winslow
87 77
40
Topock Lake Havasu City
No rth ern Sa nta Fe
89
93 97
Y A V A PA I
Bu rlin gto n
96 89
ALT Ariz ona 89 Cen tral 17 Cottonwood ALT
40
99
Joseph Burli 40 City Holbrook
n ngto
Fe anta rn S 40 rthe No Sanders
61
191
n g gto rlin Bur
Apache Apache
179
87
89 169 69
Prescott
260
Camp Verde
377 260 87 260
Payson Young
77
180
191
St. Johns
Fe aF a ant n rn S t t he Nr Nor
95
Snowflake
277 260
Show Low
473
61 60
260
180
Parker
L A PA Z
72
95
Quartzsite Ehrenberg
& ona Ariz 6 0
ia forn 71 Cali
Wickenburg
17
74 87
Eagar
373 273
60
188
288
60 73
Alpine
GREENLEE
10
Union Paci
85
60 101
303 51
101
GILA
202
fic PHOENIX
202
8Phelps-Dodge Cyprus Mine 8
Apache Jct. Globe Superiar on o
n n nio Un
60
170
M A R I C O PA
95
Yuma
iific ac Pa
10
ific Y nion PaA UM c U
238
Mobile
347 387
87
Casa Grande
84
287 Florence
Ma
Ariz gma
60
GRAHAM
70
Winkleman
191
177
Phelps-Dodge Cliftoni Morenc
Clifton
191
8
85
Gila Ben d
Gila Bend
8
Copper Basin
79
8
San Luis A jojo dge A s-Do Phelp
87
PINAL
77
Tucs on-C orne li a &
10
Fort Grant
Ari zon Thatcher a Er 366 Saffoad t se rn
191 266
78
z e uel A M Man S San
ic ciif P Pa ion Un
75
70
Duncan
c iic c cif Pa o ion Un
77
Tucson
Why
86
PIMA
386
85
Robles Jct.
86
Bowie San Simon Willcox Union10 10
Lukeville
10 UnionBPacnific 10 enso
83 286
Sasabe
186 191 181
Paci fic
In Service Out of Service Abandoned
Source: ADOT, Transportation Planning Division, Transit Team
19
Sonoita
90 80
82
ro an d San Pe
Tombstone
COCHISE
191
80 80
Douglas
ic ic P if n Pac U Unio
289
rn estern So hw & Sout
S A N TA CRUZ
Nogales
82
83
Sierra Vista
90
92
Bisbee
189
56 56
Rail
2000 Arizona Freight Tonnage (in million gross tons)
15
Littlefield Colorado City Fredonia
89
389
ALT
89
ALT
Page
Jacob Lake
89
67
Hoover Dam North Rim Grand Canyon
Bl ac kM es a & 98 La ke 89 Po w0 16ell Tuba
City
163 564
Kayenta
160
Teec Nos Pos
191
9
87
N AVA J O
A PA C H E
Chinle
M O H AV E
93
COCONINO
Fe
64
264
Second Mesa
191 264
Ganado
Grand Canyon
Burl
68
Bullhead City
rt n No ingto
Peach anta p in S hSern gs
66
126
Seligman
180 64
89
264
Window Rock
Kingman
40
Ash Fork
Wi l i a 13l0ms
95
99 Burlington No rthern Santa 40 Fe Flagstaff 4 0
Winslow
87 77
40
Topock Lake Havasu City
No rth ern Sa nta Fe
89
93 97
Y A V A PA I
Bu rlin gto n
96 89
ALT Ariz ona 89 Cen tral 17 Cottonwood ALT
14140
99
Joseph Burli 40 City Holbrook
n ngto
Fe anta rn S 40 rthe No Sa 150nders
61
191
n g gto rlin Bur
95
r 1P0escott
89
.5
Apache Apache
179
87
260
377 260 87 260
Payson Young
169 69
Camp Verde
Snowflake
7 1.5 7
180
191
Fe aF a ant n rn S t t he Nr Nor
277 260
Show Low
473
1t0 S . Johns
60
61 60
260
180
Parker
L A PA Z
72
95
Quartzsite Ehrenberg
3
&C ona Ariz 6 0
7 rnia 1 alifo
Wickenburg
17
Eagar
373 273
12
303
74 87
60 101
51 101
188
288
60 73
Alpine
GREENLEE
10
Union Paci
85
GILA
202
fic PHOENIX
202
8Phelps-Dodge Cyprus Mine 8
Apache Jct.
iion Un U
60
M A R I C O PA 0
95
Yuma
10
7
87
06 0
Ma
Globe Superiar on o
170
iffiic ac Pa
ific Y nion PaA UM c U
69
8
238
347 387
Ariz gma
GRAHAM
70
Winkleman
191
8
85
Gila Ben d
8
San Luis
73
A jojo dge A s-Do Phelp
Gila Bend
Casa Grande
84
287 Florence
Copper Basin
79
2
177
1
Phelps-Dodge Cliftoni Morenc
Clifton
191
87
0
0
77
Tucson
PINAL
77
Tucs on-C orne li a &
10
Fort Grant
Ari zon Thatcher a Er 366 Saffoad t se rn
191 266
78
75
2
z e uel A M Man S San
ic ciif P Pa ion Un
70
iffic ac Pa iion U Un
Duncan
65
86
Why
86
PIMA
Robles Jct.
85
79
191 83 90 80
82
Bowie San Simon Willcox Union10 10
Lukeville
10 UnionBPacnific 10 enso
386 286
Sasabe
186 181
Paci fic
ro an d San Pe
Freight Tonnage
19 8
Sonoita
Tombstone
COCHISE
191
80 80
Douglas
ic ic P if n Pac U Unio
289
rn estern So hw & Sout
S A N TA CRUZ
Nogales
82
83
Sierra Vista
0 1.97
92
Bisbee
189
Source: ADOT, Transportation Planning Division, Transit Team
57
Rail
2000 Arizona Rail Passenger Service (passenger loading in 00's)
15
Littlefield Colorado City Fredonia
89
389
ALT
89
ALT
Page
Jacob Lake
89
67
Hoover Dam
Grand Canyon
19Rim
North
Bl ac kM es a & 98 La ke 89 Po w0 16ell Tuba
City
163 564
Kayenta
160
Teec Nos Pos
191
87
N AVA J O
A PA C H E
Chinle
M O H AV E
93
COCONINO
Fe
64
264
Second Mesa
191 264
Ganado
Grand Canyon
Burl
68
Bullhead City
rt n No ingto
Peach anta p in S hSern gs
66
Seligman
180 64
89
264
Window Rock
3.1
Kingman
40
Ash Fork
95
99 Burlington No rthern Santa 540 Fe Williams 44.9 40
87 77
40
Topock Lake Havasu City
No rth ern Sa nta Fe
89
93 97
Y A V A PA I
Bu rlin gto n
96 89
Clarkdale
ALT
ALT Flagstaff Ariz ona 89 7.2 Central 17
2.2
87
Winslow
40
Joseph Burli 40 City Holbrook
n ngto
Fe anta rn S 40 rthe No Sanders
61
191
n g gto rlin Bur
Apache Apache
179
89 169 69
Prescott
260
Camp Verde
377 260 87 260
Payson Young
77
180
191
St. Johns
Fe aF a ant n rn S t t he Nr Nor
95
Snowflake
277 260
Show Low
473
61 60
260
180
Parker
L A PA Z
72
95
Quartzsite
& ona Ariz 6 0
ia forn 71 Cali
Wickenburg
17
74 87
101 202
Eagar
373 273
60
188
288
60 73
Alpine
GREENLEE
GILA
88
Apache Jct. Globe
iion Un U
60
170
iffiic ac Pa
M A R I C O PA
2.5
Yuma San Luis
95
ific Y nion PaA UM c U
85
10
60
238
347 387
87
Casa Grande
287 Florence
Mag
ma
Ari
Suzorna pe ior
GRAHAM
70
Winkleman
191
177
Morenci Clifton
191
8
85
Gila Ben d
Gila Bend
8
84
Copper Basin
79
8
87
PINAL
77
Tucs on-C orne li a &
10
77
Fort Grant
Ari zon Thatcher a Er 366 Saffoad t se rn
191 266
78
z e uel A M Man S San
ic ciif P Pa ion Un
75
70
iffic ac Pa iion U Un
Duncan
Ajo
Why
86
PIMA
Robles Jct.
25.9
86
Tucson
Union Pacific
85
Lukeville
10
386 286
Sasabe
1.9
Benson
Bowie San Simon Willcox Union10 10
10
186 191 181
Paci fic
83
Passenger Totals Tourist Routes Amtrak Routes Passenger Depots
* Phoenix passengers are bused to Tucson Depot
Source: ADOT, Transportation Planning Division, Transit Team
19
Sonoita
90 80
82
ro an d San Pe
Tombstone
COCHISE
191
80 80
Douglas
ic ic P if n Pac U Unio
289
rn estern So hw & Sout
S A N TA CRUZ
Nogales
82
83
Sierra Vista
90
92
Bisbee
189
58
Aviation
2001 Aviation Facilities In 2001, there were 201 airports and 108 heliports in the State of Arizona. Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport was ranked the 6th busiest airport in the nation and 7th in the nation in number of enplaned passengers. Tucson International Airport was the state's second leading terminal and was ranked 66th in the nation for the number of enplaned passengers during the same period.
2000 Aviation Statistics for Commercial Service Airports AIRPORT Ernest A. Love Field Flagstaff-Pulliam Grand Canyon National Park Kingman Laughlin-Bullhead City International Lake Havasu City Municipal Page Municipal Phoenix Sky Harbor International Show Low Municipal Sierra Vista Tucson International Yuma International
Source: ADOT, Aeronautics Division
ENPLANEMENTS 4,682 33,371 411,416 1,656 75,020 8,569 2,131 17,568,859 2,857 6,073 1,816,412 50,337
COMMERCIAL OPERATIONS 4,422 7,623 142,616 1,976 3,441 6,310 2,300 488,663 5,892 5,944 107,583 13,716
GENERAL OPERATIONS 315,578 42,877 19,759 33,924 46,921 42,690 7,545 64,647 14,924 114,056 143,360 79,826
� ADOT 2002
� ADOT 2002
59
Aviation
CY 2001 Commercial and General Operations Operations refer to either take-offs or landings of an aircraft. In 2001 there were a total of 880,077 commercial operations and 3,431,433 general aviation operations in Arizona. For the same year, the top 10 Arizona airports in terms of combined commercial and general aviation operations included: Phoenix-Sky Harbor Int'l (553,310), Phoenix-Deer Valley (370,779), Prescott-Ernest A. Love Field (320,000), Mesa-Falcon Field (274,665), Tucson-Tucson Int'l (250,943), Chandler Municipal (249,811), Scottsdale (206,553), Tucson-Ryan Field (174,461), Grand Canyon National Park (162,375), and Williams Gateway (158,481).
CY 2001 Total Commercial and General Operations TOTAL COMMERCIAL AIRPORT OPERATIONS OPERATIONS Ajo Municipal 1,975 Avi Suquilla 14,000 3,000 Bagdad 10,000 Benson Municipal 1,975 Bisbee-Douglas Int'l 5,400 2,000 Bisbee Municipal 20,550 1,700 Bowie 800 Buckeye Municipal 25,000 Casa Grande Municipal 20,000 Chandler Municipal 249,811 1,650 Chinle Municipal 2,400 Cibecue 200 Cochise College 50,000 Cochise County 7,300 Colorado City Municipal 9,000 Coolidge Municipal 9,680 3,000 Cottonwood 16,000 Douglas Municipal 11,000 Eagle Airpark 28,000 Eloy Municipal 52,000 500
GENERAL OPERATIONS 1,975 11,000 10,000 1,975 3,400 18,850 800 25,000 20,000 248,161 2,400 200 50,000 7,300 9,000 6,680 16,000 11,000 28,000 51,500
60
Aviation
TOTAL OPERATIONS Ernest A. Love Field 320,000 Estrella Sailport 23,000 Falcon Field 274,665 Flagstaff Pulliam 50,500 Flying J Ranch 100 Forepaugh 120 Ganado 700 Gila Bend Municipal 11,000 Glendale Municipal 110,000 Gr. Canyon Bar Ten Airstrip 2,500 Grand Canyon Caverns 3,200 Grand Canyon Ntl. Park 162,375 Grand Canyon West 22,600 Grande Valley 5 Greenlee County 6,726 H.A. Clark Memorial Field Holbrook Municipal 5,300 Kayenta 4,626 Kearny 790 Kingman 35,900 Lake Havasu City 49,000 Laughlin-Bullhead City Int'l 50,362 Marana NW Regional 86,110 Marble Canyon 2,500 Nogales Int'l 28,500 Page Municipal 22,239 Payson 35,000 Pearce Ferry 1,200 Phoenix Goodyear 142,000 Phoenix Sky Harbor Int'l 553,310 Phoenix-Deer Valley Muni. 370,779 Pinal Airpark 22,910 AIRPORT COMMERCIAL OPERATIONS 4,422 6,748 7,623 GENERAL OPERATIONS 315,578 23,000 267,917 42,877 100 120 700 11,000 107,689 2,500 3,200 19,759 22,600 5 3,076 5,400 3,900 4,626 790 33,924 42,690 46,921 84,110 2,500 26,200 7,545 33,350 1,200 141,947 64,647 363,691 22,910
2,311
142,616
3,650 5,400 1,400
1,976 6,310 3,441 2,000 2,300 14,694 1,650 53 488,663 7,088
61
Aviation
TOTAL OPERATIONS Pleasant Valley 56,000 Polacca 5,300 Rolle Airfield 4,900 Ryan Field 174,461 Safford Regional 14,100 San Carlos Apache 12,000 San Manuel 5,000 Scottsdale 206,553 Sedona 50,000 Seligman 45,000 Sells 800 Show Low Municipal 20,816 Sierra Vista Municipal 120,000 Springerville Babbitt Field 7,500 St. Johns Industrial Airpark 10,500 Stellar Airpark 36,000 Sun Valley 1,800 Superior Municipal 100 Taylor 17,000 Temple Bar 1,800 Tucson Int'l 250,943 Tuweep 100 Valle 22,500 Whiteriver 4,906 Wickenburg 22,300 Williams Gateway 158,481 Window Rock 2,800 Winslow-Lindbergh Regional 26,700 Yuma Int'l 93,542 Total 4,311,510 AIRPORT
Source: ADOT, Aeronautics Division
COMMERCIAL OPERATIONS
18 1,000
7,548 12,000
5,892 5,944 2,500 4,000
1,000 400 107,583
1,475 300 4,256 3,650 13,716 880,077
GENERAL OPERATIONS 56,000 5,300 4,900 174,443 13,100 12,000 5,000 199,005 38,000 45,000 800 14,924 114,056 5,000 6,500 36,000 1,800 100 16,000 1,400 143,360 100 22,500 3,431 22,000 154,225 2,800 23,050 79,826 3,431,433
62
Aviation
FY 2003-2007 Aeronautics Airport Development Program PROJECT Commercial Service/Reliever Public and Secondary Special Total Annual Development 2003 $4,099,946 $1,876,744 $900,000 2004 2005 2006 2007 TOTALS $8,310,991 $9,805,955 $10,916,042 $10,576,191 $43,709,125 $3,394,347 $900,000 $2,319,209 $900,000 $2,413,723 $900,000 $2,239,050 $900,000 $12,243,073 $4,500,000
$6,876,690 $12,605,338 $13,025,164 $14,229,765 $13,715,241 $60,452,198
Source: ADOT, Aeronautics Division
FY 2002 Aviation Revenue Revenue totaling $13.6 million is derived annually from aviation operations in Arizona. Six main sources of revenue collection and the amount of revenue they generated in FY 2002 are: Aviation Fuel Sales - $510,378 Investment/Loan Transactions - $2,036,81 Aircraft Registration Fees - $74,815 Flight Property Tax* - $6,528,347 Lieu Tax - $3,544,012 Grand Canyon Airport - $940,401 *50% is allocated to the General Fund
2001 Primary and Secondary Airport Systems In Arizona, there are currently 65 airports within the Primary Airport System. They include 8 primary commercial service airports, 5 nonprimary commercial service airports, 9 relievers, 33 general aviation airports, 9 Native American airports, and 1 future airport in La Paz County. There are currently 30 airports within the Secondary Airport System, including 8 publicly owned airports, 5 privately owned airports, 4 government-owned airports, 12 airports owned by tribal governments, and 1 future airport in Greenlee County. Locations of these primary and secondary airports are indicated in the following two maps.
63
Aviation
Primary Airport System
Colorado City Page Kayenta
A PA C H E
Tuba City Grand Canyon West Grand Canyon National Park Chinle
COCONINO
M O H AV E
Valle
N AVA J O
Ganado Window Rock
LaughlinBullhead Int'l
Kingman
Williams H.A. Clark Memorial Flagstaff-Pulliam Winslow-Lindberg Reg Sedona Cottonwood Prescott Ernest A. Love Field Taylor St. Johns Industrial Taylor
Eagle Airpark
Y A V A PA I
Lake Havasu
Bagdad
Avi Suquilla
Payson
Show Low Cibeque Springerville
L A PA Z
Quartzsite
Wickenburg Pleasant Valley
Deer Valley Scottsdale Glendale Falcon Field
GILA
Whiteriver
GREENLEE
Buckeye Goodyear Stellar
Phoenix Sky-Harbor
Williams-Gateway Chandler
Globe-SCRA
M A R I C O PA
Yuma Int'l
YUMA
Gila Bend
Estrella Sailport Casa Grande Eloy
GRAHAM
Coolidge
Greenlee City
PINAL
Safford Reg
Pinal Airpark Ajo Marana NW Reg Ryan Field Tucson Int'l Cochise City
PIMA
Benson
Commercial Service-Primary Commercial Service-Other Reliever Airports General Aviation-Public Use Airports Native American Airports Future Airports
Source: ADOT, Aeronautics Division
COCHISE S A N TA CRUZ
Nogales Int'l Sierra Vista Bisbee-Douglas
Bisbee
Cochise College
Douglas
64
Aviation
FY 2003-2007 Aeronautics Airport Development Program
Marble Canyon Rock Point Grand Canyon Bar 10 Shonto Pinon Lukachukai
Tuweep
Pearce Ferry Temple Bar
Rocky Ridge
COCONINO
Hualapai Polacca Grand Canyon Caverns
A PA C H E
M O H AV E
N AVA J O
Seligman
Pine Springs
Sun Valley
Y A V A PA I
L A PA Z
Forepaugh
GILA M A R I C O PA
Memorial Grande Valley Ak Chin Superior
GREENLEE
San Carlos
YUMA
Rolle
PINAL
Kearny
GRAHAM
Flying J
O'Conner Field San Manuel
PIMA
Sells
Bowie
COCHISE S A N TA CRUZ
Tombstone
Ownership of Secondary Airports Public Private Native American Government Future
Source: ADOT, Aeronautics Division
65
Bviyclo Aicatiesn
Statewide Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan The Statewide Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan is just underway and will be completed in 2003. This will be the first State of Arizona Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan and it will be incorporated into the State's Long-Range Transportation Plan. With input from representatives throughout Arizona, bicycle/pedestrian goals, objectives, and policies will be developed. The major intent of the Statewide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan (Plan) is to provide a long-term plan for a system of shared roadways and bicycle/pedestrian facilities for roadways under ADOT jurisdiction. This includes the definition of the roles of state and local government in the continual development of the bicycle and pedestrian transportation system in Arizona. With the advent of multi-modal transportation planning, and given that most of the major metropolitan areas in Arizona have implemented bicycle/pedestrian plans, it is now desirable that ADOT develop a bicycle/pedestrian plan that encompasses all of Arizona. This Plan will define how roadways under ADOT jurisdiction will be integrated into the existing bicycle/pedestrian plans of each MPO, and the role that ADOT plays in advancing these bicycle/pedestrian plans. For rural areas of the state, the Plan will provide local jurisdictions with guidance in making transportation decisions related to bicycle and pedestrian travel. Most importantly, a statewide bicycle/pedestrian plan will guide ADOT in making transportation decisions impacting bicycling and pedestrian activity, and ensure that these nonmotorized modes of transportation are given due consideration as a viable part of Arizona's multi-modal transportation system. In addition, the Plan will also: - Classify existing roadways on their bicycle suitability. - Locate gaps and determine continuity issues int the network. - Develop a matrix and map of facilities. - Develop model ordinances for use by local communities. - Develop a safety and educational campaign.
� ADOT 2002
66
Bviyclo Aicatiesn
Bicycle Safety and Traffic Accidents In Arizona, children 14 years old and younger are involved in 21% of fatal bicycle accidents and 23% of bicycle-related injuries. Statewide, 83% of the fatalities involving bicyclists and 92% of injuries Statewide Bicycle Crashes 2001 TOTAL Number of crashes 1,993 Persons killed 29 Persons injured 1,758 261 Property damage only involving bicyclists occur in urban areas. Riding against traffic is the number one cause of accidents involving bicycles and motor vehicles in urban areas.
URBAN 1,839 24 1,621 245
RURAL 154 5 137 16
1997-2001 Bicycle Fatality/Injury Comparison YEAR 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 TOTAL KILLED 31 23 26 25 29
PERSONS KILLED MALE FEMALE
TOTAL INJURED 2,067 1,954 1,986 1,915 1,757
PERSONS INJURED MALE FEMALE NOT REPORTED
2001 Bicycle Accident Fatalities and Injuries by Age
AGE GROUP TOTAL TOTAL
0-4 5-9 10-14 15-19
1 2 3 2
1 2 3 2 2 4 5 3 0 2 2 0 26
0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 3
11 96 283 242
11 79 216 191
0 17 67 51 46 49 54 30 4 2 2 22 344
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
20-24 2 25-34 5 35-44 5 45-54 4 55-64 1 65-74 2 75++ 2 Not recorded 0 Totals 29
175 129 235 186 289 235 163 132 52 48 32 30 17 14 115 93 1,710 1,364
Source: ADOT, Arizona Motor Vehicle 2001 Crash Facts
67
Object Description
| TITLE | Arizona transportation factbook |
| CREATOR | Arizona Dept. of Transportation. Transportation Planning Division. |
| SUBJECT | Transportation--Arizona--Statistics--Periodicals; |
| Browse Topic |
Business and industry Transportation |
| DESCRIPTION | This title contains one or more publications. These reports provide a broad range of statistics and information relevant to understanding Arizona's transportation system. |
| Language | English |
| Publisher | Arizona Dept. of Transportation. Transportation Planning Division. |
| Material Collection |
State Documents |
| Source Identifier | TRT 5.3:A 64 |
| Location | 29855959 |
| REPOSITORY | Arizona State Library, Archives and Public Records--Law and Research Library. |
Description
| TITLE | 2002 Arizona transportation factbook: transportation relevant statistical information |
| DESCRIPTION | 71 pages (PDF version). File size: 4054.204 KB. This document provides a broad range of statistics and information relevant to understanding Arizona's transportation system. This resource book is an update of teh 1998 factbook. |
| TYPE | Text |
| Acquisition Note | Captured 2002-05-20 by repository. |
| RIGHTS MANAGEMENT | Copyright to this resource is held by the creating agency and is provided here for educational purposes only. It may not be downloaded, reproduced or distributed in any format without written permission of the creating agency. Any attempt to circumvent the access controls placed on this file is a violation of United States and international copyright laws, and is subject to criminal prosecution. |
| DATE ORIGINAL | 2002 |
| Time Period |
2000s (2000-2009) |
| ORIGINAL FORMAT | Born digital |
| Source Identifier | TRT 5.3:A 64/2002 |
| DIGITAL IDENTIFIER | 2002factbook.pdf |
| DIGITAL FORMAT | PDF (Portable Document Format) |
| REPOSITORY | Arizona State Library, Archives and Public Records--Law and Research Library. |
| Full Text | Transportation Factbook ARIZONA 2002 Transportation Transportation Relevant Statistical Information Transportation Planning Division Arizona Department of Transportation 206 South Seventeenth Avenue Phoenix, Arizona 85007-3213 Arizona Governor's Award for Quality Janet Napolitano Governor Victor Mendez Director January 2003 I am pleased to present the 2002 Arizona Transportation Factbook. This document provides a broad range of statistics and information that are relevant in understanding Arizona's transportation system. This resource book is an update of the 1998 Factbook. We hope that policy makers, planners and transportation system users will continue to benefit from this reference guide. The cooperation of the federal, state and local agencies in providing the basic data for this publication is acknowledged and greatly appreciated. We welcome your input on improving the content of future editions of the Arizona Transportation Factbook. Comments and suggestions should be forwarded to: ADOT Transportation Planning Division 206 South 17th Avenue Mail Drop 330B Phoenix, Arizona, 85007 or you may call (602) 712-8239. Sincerely, Victor Mendez, Director Preface The 2002 Arizona Transportation Factbook has been developed to provide an overview of transportation demographics in Arizona. Statistical information contained in this report was compiled from various governmental agencies at federal, state and local levels. Efforts have been made to utilize the most current and complete data available at time of publication. The majority of the data is from 2002, while some data was only available from 2000 and 2001 records. It should also be taken into consideration that most data for 2002 was not available until mid-2002 or later. These factors are the result of individual agencies data compilation and tabulation processes and whether they are fiscal year or calendar year based. For more current data, it is suggested that the user contact the referenced contributing agencies to obtain the most current data, as needed. � ADOT 2002 Table of Contents Table ADOT Structure and Districts.......................1 Demographic Profiles....................................6 Arizona Highway System.............................16 $ Highway Finance.......................................26 Motor Vehicles...........................................36 Regional Freeways.......................................42 Public Transit............................................47 Rail..........................................................53 Aviation...................................................59 Bicycles....................................................66 ADOT Structure & Districts Organization of ADOT On February 14th, 1912, Arizona became the 48th state in the United States of America. The Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) was established by the State Legislature in July 1974 by combining the former Arizona Highway Department, originally established in 1927, and the State Department of Aeronautics, originally established in 1962. The Department has a compelling mission - that of providing mobility to Arizona's residents and visitors through a safe and efficient transportation system. ADOT serves as the State's public agency to plan, develop, maintain, and operate facilities for the efficient movement of people and goods by surface and air throughout the state. The Department has statutory responsibility for carrying out its programs under Arizona Revised Statutes, Titles 28, 35,and 41. ADOT is currently organized according to the diagram below. CITIZENS GOVERNOR STATE TRANSPORTATION BOARD ADOT DIRECTOR ADOT DEPUTY DIRECTOR INTERMODAL TRANSPORTATION DIVISION MOTOR VEHICLE DIVISION TRANSPORTATION PLANNING DIVISION AERONAUTICS DIVISION CHIEF OF STAFF TRANSPORTATION SERVICES GROUP 1 ADOT Structure & Districts State Transportation Board Districts Arizona is divided into six transportation districts. State law empowers the State Transportation Board to prioritize individual highway and airport projects as well as award all highway contracts. The board consists of seven members appointed by the governor. District One is represented by two members and the remaining districts each have one member. APACHE C OC ON I N O MOHAVE 5 NAVAJO 6 LA PAZ YAVAPAI MARICOPA GILA GREENLEE YUMA 1 PIMA PI N AL 4 GRAHAM COCHISE 2 SANTA CRUZ 3 2 ADOT Structure & Districts Engineering Districts The state is divided into nine engineering districts, each represented by district engineers. Districts are involved in the initial identification of state highway needs and are responsible for construction, as well as operation and maintenance of the state highway facilities within their jurisdiction. The Phoenix area has two district offices. One is responsible for construction activities and the other is in charge of highway operation and maintenance. COCONINO MOHAVE Flagstaff Kingman APACHE NAVAJO Holbrook Prescott YAVAPAI GILA Phoenix LA PAZ MARICOPA YUMA Yuma GREENLEE Globe GRAHAM PINAL Safford PIMA District Headquarters Tucson COCHISE SANTA CRUZ 3 ADOT Structure & Districts Councils of Government (COG) & Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) By Governor's executive order, Arizona is divided into several planning and development districts for the purpose of performing and coordinating comprehensive planning on an area wide or regional basis. Councils of Governments (COGs) and Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) are established by the agreement of local governments within each of these planning areas for the purpose of carrying out the intent of the Executive Order. ADOT recognizes and assists the non-metropolitan COGs as area wide transportation planning agencies through the provision of technical and financial support. Advisory assistance is provided to the COGs through ADOTs local assistance program. Transportation planning funds are made available by ADOT to all the rural COGs which include CAAG, NACOG, SEAGO, and WACOG. MAG, PAG, FMPO, and YMPO are designated by the Governor as the Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) for the Phoenix, Tucson, Flagstaff, and Yuma metropolitan areas, respectively. As such, these agencies are responsible for developing comprehensive longrange transportation plans including both long-range and system management elements, the five-year Transit Plan, and the Transportation Improvement Programs (TIPs). Specific transportation planning responsibilities of the MPOs and/or COGs are outlined in their annual work programs, which are approved at the local, state, and federal levels. Typical planning activities include: the development of goals and objectives; issue review; data collection and analysis; forecasting needs and deficiencies; developing and selecting alternative plans; and performing special transportation studies. Public input and impact analyses are very important aspects of regional plan development. Priority programming for certain federally funded programs are also an important planning responsibility. 4 ADOT Structure & Districts Councils of Governments (COGs) & Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) COCONINO MOHAVE APACHE NAVAJO NACOG FMPO CYAG WACOG YAVAPAI LA PAZ MARICOPA GILA GREENLEE MAG YMPO YUMA CAAG PINAL GRAHAM PAG PIMA SANTA CRUZ SEAGO COCHISE 5 Demographic Profiles Demographic Arizona Total Population 2000 1980 1990 2000 Percent change (1980-1990) Percent change (1990-2000) 2,717,866 3,665,228 5,130,632 34.9% 40.0% Population Characteristics 2000 Male Female Race One race White persons Black or African American persons American Indian / Alaska Native persons Asian persons Native Hawaiian / Other Pacific Islander Other Two or more races Hispanic or Latino* Not Hispanic or Latino White persons not Hispanic / Latino 2,561,057 2,569,575 4,984,106 3,873,611 158,873 255,879 92,236 6,733 596,774 146,526 1,295,617 3,835,015 3,274,258 1,901,327 2.64 1,287,367 3.18 613,960 2,189,189 1,901,327 287,862 38,830 49.9% 50.1% 97.1% 75.5% 3.1% 5.0% 1.8% 0.10% 11.6% 2.9% 25.3% 74.7% 63.8% Housing 2000 Total households Persons per household Total families Persons per family Nonfamily households Total housing units Occupied Vacant Median household income (est.)** 67.7% 32.3% 86.9% 13.1% � ADOT 2002 6 Demographic Profiles Arizona (continued) Employment 2000 Population 16 years and over In labor force Civilian labor force Employed Unemployed Percent unemployment Armed forces Not in labor force **In 2000 inflation adjusted dollars. Source: U.S. Census Bureau 3,794,826 2,397,588 2,385,684 2,230,169 155,515 6.5% 11,904 1,397,238 *Hispanics may be of any race (white, black, Asian, etc.) thus, are also in applicable one race categories. � ADOT 2002 7 Demographic Profiles Maricopa County Total Population 2000 1980 1990 2000 Percent change (1980-1990) Percent change (1990-2000) 1,509,175 2,122,101 3,072,149 40.6% 44.8% 1,536,473 1,535,676 2,982,680 2,376,359 114,551 56,706 66,445 4,406 364,213 89,469 763,341 2,308,808 2,034,530 1,132,886 2.67 763,110 3.21 369,776 1,250,231 1,132,886 117,345 45,358 2,327,675 1,504,252 1,498,223 1,427,292 70,931 4.7% 6,029 823,423 50.0% 50.0% 97.1% 77.4% 3.7% 1.8% 2.2% 0.1% 11.9% 2.9% 24.8% 75.2% 66.2% Population Characteristics 2000 Male Female Race One race White persons Black or African American persons American Indian / Alaska Native persons Asian persons Native Hawaiian / other Pacific Islander Other Two or more races Hispanic or Latino* Not Hispanic or Latino White persons not Hispanic / Latino Housing 2000 Total households Persons per household Total families Persons per family Nonfamily households Total housing units Occupied Vacant Median household income (1999 est.) 67.4% 32.6% 90.6% 9.4% Employment 2000 Population 16 years and over In labor force Civilian labor force Employed Unemployed Percent unemployment Armed forces Not in labor force *Hispanics may be of any race (white, black, Asian, etc.) thus, are also in applicable One race categories. Source: U.S. Census Bureau 8 Demographic Profiles Pima County Total Population 2000 1980 1990 2000 Percent change (1980-1990) Percent change (1990-2000) 531,443 666,880 843,746 25.5% 26.5% 412,562 431,184 816,677 633,387 25,594 27,178 17,213 1,088 112,217 27,069 247,578 596,168 518,720 332,350 2.47 212,092 3.06 120,258 366,737 332,350 34,387 36,758 658,638 397,215 391,673 370,768 20,905 5.3% 5,542 261,423 48.9% 51.1% 96.8% 75.1% 3.0% 3.2% 2.0% 0.1% 13.3% 3.2% 29.3% 70.7% 61.5% Population Characteristics 2000 Male Female Race One race White persons Black or African American persons American Indian / Alaska Native persons Asian persons Native Hawaiian / other Pacific Islander Other Two or more races Hispanic or Latino* Not Hispanic or Latino White persons not Hispanic / Latino Housing 2000 Total households Persons per household Total families Persons per family Nonfamily households Total housing units Occupied Vacant Median household income (1999 est.) 63.8% 36.2% 90.6% 9.4% Employment 2000 Population 16 years and over In labor force Civilian labor force Employed Unemployed Percent unemployment Armed forces Not in labor force *Hispanics may be of any race (white, black, Asian, etc.) thus, are also in applicable One race categories. Source: U.S. Census Bureau 9 Demographic Profiles Population Changes in Arizona Cities and Towns Places Apache Junction Avondale Benson Bisbee Buckeye Bullhead City Camp Verde Carefree Casa Grande Cave Creek Chandler Chino Valley Clarkdale Clifton Colorado City Coolidge Cottonwood Douglas Duncan Eagar El Mirage Eloy Flagstaff Florence Fountain Hills Fredonia Gila Bend Gilbert Glendale Globe Goodyear 1980 9,935 8,168 4,190 7,154 3,434 10,719 3,824 964 14,971 1,712 29,673 2,858 1,512 4,245 1,439 6,851 4,550 13,058 603 2,791 4,307 6,240 34,743 3,391 2,771 1,040 1,585 5,717 97,172 6,886 6,886 1990 18,100 16,169 3,824 6,288 5,038 21,951 6,243 1,666 19,082 2,925 90,533 4,837 2,144 2,840 2,426 6,927 5,918 12,822 622 4,025 5,001 7,211 45,857 7,510 10,030 1,207 1,747 29,188 148,134 6,092 6,092 % change (1980-1990) 2000 31,814 35,883 4,711 6,090 6,537 33,769 9,451 2,927 25,224 3,728 176,581 7,835 3,422 2,596 3,334 7,786 9,179 14,312 812 4,033 7,609 10,375 52,894 17,054 20,235 1,036 1,980 109,697 218,812 7,486 18,911 % change (1990-2000) 82.18% 97.96% -8.74% -12.11% 46.71% 104.79% 63.26% 72.82% 27.46% 70.85% 205.10% 69.24% 41.80% -33.10% 68.59% 1.11% 30.07% -1.81% 9.78% 44.21% 16.11% 15.56% 31.99% 121.47% 261.96% 16.06% 10.22% 410.55% 52.45% -11.97% -11.97% 75.77% 121.92% 23.2% -3.15% 29.75% 53.84% 51.39% 75.69% 32.19% 27.45% 95.05% 61.98% 59.61% -8.59% 37.43% 12.40% 55.10% 11.62% 30.55% 0.20% 52.15% 43.88% 15.35% 127.08% 101.74% -14.17% 13.34% 275.83% 47.71% 23.49% 202.19% 10 Demographic Profiles Population Changes in Arizona Cities and Towns (continued) Places Guadalupe Hayden Holbrook Huachuca City Jerome Kearny Kingman Lake Havasu City Litchfield Park Mammoth Marana Mesa Miami Nogales Oro Valley Page Paradise Valley Parker Patagonia Payson Peoria Phoenix Pima Pinetop/Lakeside Prescott Prescott Valley Quartzsite Queen Creek Safford Sahuarita St. Johns 1980 4,506 1,205 5,785 1,661 420 2,646 9,257 15,909 3,657 1,906 1,674 152,404 2,716 15,683 1,489 4,907 11,085 2,542 980 5,068 12,171 789,704 1,599 2,315 19,865 2,284 1,193 1,378 7,010 1,200 3,368 1990 5,458 909 4,686 1,782 403 2,262 12,722 24,363 3,303 1,845 2,187 288,091 2,018 19,489 6,670 6,598 11,671 2,897 888 8,377 50,618 983,403 1,725 2,422 26,455 8,858 1,876 2,667 7,359 1,629 3,294 % change (1980-1990) 2000 5,228 892 4,917 1,751 329 2,249 20,069 41,938 3,810 1,762 13,556 396,375 1,936 20,878 29,700 6,809 13,664 3,140 881 13,620 108,364 1,321,045 1,989 3,582 33,938 23,535 3,354 4,316 9,232 3,242 3,269 % change (1990-2000) 21.13% -24.56% -19.00% 7.28% -4.05% -14.51% 37.43% 53.14% -9.68% -3.20% 30.65% 89.03% -25.70% 24.27% 347.95% 34.46% 5.29% 13.97% -9.39% 65.29% 315.89% 24.53% 7.88% 4.62% 33.17% 287.83% 57.25% 93.54% 4.98% 1.29% -2.20% -4.21% -1.87% 4.93% -1.74% -18.36% -0.57% 57.75% 72.14% 15.35% -4.50% 519.84% 37.59% -4.06% 7.13% 345.28% 3.20% 17.08% 8.39% -0.79% 62.59% 114.08% 34.33% 15.30% 47.89% 28.29% 165.69% 78.78% 61.83% 25.45% 99.02% -0.76% 11 Demographic Profiles Population Changes in Arizona Cities and Towns (continued) Places San Luis Scottsdale Sedona Show Low Sierra Vista Snowflake Somerton South Tucson Springerville Superior Surprise Taylor Tempe Thatcher Tolleson Tombstone Tucson Wellton Wickenburg Willcox Williams Winkelman Winslow Youngtown Yuma Unincorp. areas Total Source: U.S. Census Bureau 1980 1,946 88,822 5,319 4,298 24,937 3,510 3,969 6,554 1,452 4,600 3,723 1,915 106,920 3,374 4,433 1,632 330,537 911 3,535 3,243 2,266 1,060 7,921 2,254 42,481 670,617 2,717,866 1990 4,212 130,069 7,720 5,019 32,983 3,679 5,282 5,093 1,802 3,468 7,122 2,418 141,865 3,763 4,434 1,220 405,390 1,066 4,515 3,122 2,532 676 8,190 2,542 54,923 822,613 3,665,228 % change (1980-1990) 2000 15,322 202,705 10,192 7,695 37,775 4,460 7,266 5,490 1,972 3,254 30,848 3,176 158,625 4,022 4,974 1,504 486,699 1,829 5,082 3,733 2,842 443 9,520 3,010 77,515 1,085,196 5,130,632 % change (1990-2000) 116.44% 46.44% 45.14% 16.78% 32.27% 4.81% 33.08% -22.29% 24.10% -24.61% 91.30% 26.27% 32.68% 11.53% 0.02% -25.25% 22.65% 17.01% 27.72% -3.73% 11.74% -36.23% 3.40% 12.78% 29.29% 22.67% 34.86% 263.77% 55.84% 32.02% 53.32% 14.53% 21.23% 37.56% 7.80% 9.43% -6.17% 333.14% 31.35% 11.81% 6.88% 12.18% 23.28% 20.06% 71.58% 12.56% 19.57% 12.24% -34.47% 16.24% 18.41% 41.13% 31.92% 40.00% 12 Demographic Profiles Native American Population and Area Geographical Area Cocopah Reservation Colorado River Reservation AZ, CA (part) Ft. Apache Reservation Ft. McDowell Reservation Ft. Mohave Reservation and Off-Reservation Trust Land AZ, CA, NV (part) Ft. Yuma Reservation AZ, CA (part) Gila River Reservation Havasupai Reservation Hopi Reservation and Off-Reservation Trust Land Hopi Reservation Hopi Off-Reservation Trust Land Hualapai Reservation and Off-Reservation Trust Land Hualapai Reservation Hualapai Off-Reservation Trust Land Kaibab Reservation Maricopa (Ak Chin) Reservation Navajo Nation Reservation and Off-Reservation Trust Land AZ, NM, UT (part) Navajo Nation Reservation (part) Navajo Nation Off-Reservation Trust Land (part) Pascua Yaqui Reservation Salt River Reservation San Carlos Reservation Tohono O'odham Reservation and Off-Reservation Trust Land Tohono O'odham Reservation Tohono O'odham Off-Reservation Trust Land Tonto Apache Reservation Population 1,025 7,466 12,429 824 773 Housing Units 970 2,956 3,532 275 294 Land Area * 10.02 360.54 2,627.61 38.55 36.59 36 11,257 503 6,946 6,815 131 1,353 1,353 0 196 742 104,565 104,532 33 3,315 6,405 9,385 10,787 10,483 304 132 18 2,901 161 2,512 2,480 32 475 475 0 88 234 40,975 40,955 20 785 2,526 2,497 3,572 3,492 80 38 197 60 2 65,068 3.28 583.75 276.15 2,531.77 2,531.46 0.31 1,600.85 1,590.66 10.19 188.75 32.93 15,874.49 15,864.72 9.77 1.87 80.96 2,910.71 4,453.31 4,453.23 0.08 0.13 1.00 2.21 20.57 31,636.04 Yavapai-Apache Nation Reservation 743 182 Yavapai-Prescott Reservation Zuni Reservation and 0 Off-Reservation Trust Land NM, AZ (part) 179,064 All Areas * Land area in square miles. Source: GCT-PH1, Population, Housing Units, Area and Density: 2000 U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 Summary File 1 13 Demographic Profiles County Statistics County Apache Cochise Coconino Gila Graham Greenlee La Paz Maricopa Mohave Navajo Pima Pinal Santa Cruz Yavapai Yuma Total Source: U.S. Census Bureau Land Area (sq. miles) 11,204.88 6,169.45 18,617.42 4,767.70 4,629.32 1,847.00 4,499.95 9,203.14 13,311.64 9,953.18 9,186.27 5,369.59 1,237.63 8,123.30 5,514.09 113,634.57 Population 2000 69,423 117,755 116,320 51,335 33,489 8,547 19,715 3,072,149 155,032 97,470 843,746 179,727 38,381 167,517 160,026 5,130,632 Housing Units 2000 31,621 51,126 53,443 28,189 11,430 3,744 15,133 1,250,231 80,062 47,413 366,737 81,154 13,036 81,730 74,140 2,189,189 Civilian Labor Force 2000 21,071 45,702 59,647 19,981 12,094 3,694 7,139 1,498,223 65,048 33,722 391,673 66,695 13,953 71,714 56,016 2,385,684 � ADOT 2002 14 Demographic Profiles County Statistics County 2002 Registered Vehicles 60,971 130,886 125,965 69,675 29,163 9,964 27,881 2,666,394 211,244 99,346 125,965 160,765 46,715 223,974 142,302 4,692,924 2002 Lane Miles 8,032.31 5,785.38 10,482.66 3,676.57 3,049.85 1,282.15 3,382.50 31,874.21 12,782.89 7,538.09 10,482.66 8,023.99 2,466.93 6,480.27 6,185.40 124,571.28 1999 Daily Vehicle 2001 Vehicle Miles of Travel Gas Gallonage (000s) (000s) 27,329 49,702 130,859 28,050 10,808 3,714 29,479 1,374,121 102,438 63,124 130,859 70,229 24,812 79,185 85,539 2,478,712 2,435 4,141 6,559 1,849 795 268 1,919 65,212 6,259 3,976 17,330 6,777 1,033 6,733 3,013 128,299 2001 Diesel Gallonage (000s) 40,724 49,847 39,166 15,236 15,188 7,565 25,604 120,594 47,994 28,226 39,166 58,581 13,467 45,500 48,023 657,629 Apache Cochise Coconino Gila Graham Greenlee La Paz Maricopa Mohave Navajo Pima Pinal Santa Cruz Yavapai Yuma Total Sources: ADOT, Motor Vehicle Division, Highway P rformance Monitoring System, Financial Management Services e � ADOT 2002 15 Arizona Highway System Arizona Functional Classification System 15 Littlefield Colorado City Fredonia 89 389 ALT 89 ALT Page 163 564 98 Kayenta 160 Teec Nos Pos Jacob Lake 89 191 67 Hoover Dam North Rim Grand Canyon 89 Tuba City 160 87 N AVA J O A PA C H E Chinle M O H AV E 93 66 Peach Springs COCONINO 180 64 Seligman 64 264 Second Mesa 191 264 Ganado 89 264 Window Rock 68 Bullhead City Kingman 40 Ash Fork Williams 99 87 77 Winslow 191 40 Flagstaff 40 Sanders 95 40 40 99 377 Joseph City 40 Topock Lake Havasu City ALT 89 93 97 96 89 89 Cottonwood ALT 40 40 Holbrook 61 Y A V A PA I Prescott 17 179 87 89 169 69 260 Camp Verde 77 180 191 St. Johns 95 260 87 260 Payson Young Snowflake 277 260 Show Low 473 61 60 180 Eagar Parker L A PA Z 72 60 71 Wickenburg 17 74 87 60 95 Quartzsite Ehrenberg 260 373 188 288 60 73 273 Alpine GREENLEE 10 60 101 303 51 101 202 GILA 88 Apache Jct. Globe Superior PHOENIX 60 202 170 M A R I C O PA 85 95 Yuma Yuma 10 60 87 287 Florence GRAHAM 70 Winkleman Thatcher 191 238 Mobile 347 387 177 YUMA 8 Morenci Clifton Safford 191 70 8 85 Gila Bend Casa Grande 84 78 8 87 79 77 366 Fort Grant 75 Duncan 95 San Luis PINAL Why 10 77 191 266 Bowie Willcox Ajo 86 85 Lukeville PIMA Robles Jct. San Simon 86 Tucson 10 10 10 386 286 83 Benson 10 186 191 181 19 Sonoita 90 80 82 Principal Arterial Interstate (Rural) Principal Arterial Other (Rural) Minor Arterial (Rural) Major Collector (Rural) Minor Collector (Rural) Principal Arterial Interstate (Urban) Principal Arterial Expressway (Urban) Principal Arterial Other (Urban) Minor Arterial (Urban) Source: ADOT, Transportation Planning Division Tombstone COCHISE 191 80 Douglas Sasabe 289 189 S A N TA CRUZ Nogales 82 83 Sierra Vista 90 92 Bisbee 80 16 Arizona Highway System Urban � ADOT 2002 � ADOT 2002 Urban Principal Arterials There are three types of urban principal arterials: Interstate; other freeways and expressways; and other principal arterials with no or little control of access. The primary function of these roads is to provide the greatest mobility for thorough movement. Any direct access to adjacent land is purely incidental. The higher mobility associated with these arterials are associated with higher posted speed limits and partially or fully controlled access facilities. In both small urban and urbanized areas, the principal arterial system should serve the highest traffic volume generators, carry trips of longer length, have a high proportion of the urban area travel on a minimum of mileage, and carry the major portion of the trips entering and leaving the urban area. Urban Minor Arterials In small urban and urbanized areas, the minor arterial system should provide trips of moderate length, trips of lower travel mobility than urban principal arterials, and serve to accommodate longer trips within the community. Consequently, the speed limit is lower on these roads than on urban principal arterials. � ADOT 2002 Urban Collectors Urban collectors distribute traffic from arterials, funnel traffic collected from local streets into the arterial system and may penetrate residential neighborhoods. 17 Arizona Highway System identified as principal arterials rank highest in terms of: access to important traffic generators not currently served by Arizona's Interstate Highways (e.g., Las Vegas and Salt Lake City) volume of commercial traffic, particularly heavy truck traffic total traffic volume vehicle miles of travel. � ADOT 2002 Urban Local Streets The primary function of the urban local street system is to provide direct access to abutting land. They provide access to higher functional systems lowest travel mobility, and comprise all streets not on one of the higher systems. � ADOT 2002 Rural Rural Minor Arterial Roads Rural minor arterials serve most of the larger communities not served by the principal arterial system. Following rural principal arterials, minor arterials are the most heavily traveled rural highways. They serve other traffic generators capable of attracting travel over long distances as do the larger communities. Rural minor arterials provide interstate and inter-county service and trip length and travel density greater than those served by collector systems. � ADOT 2002 Rural Principal Arterial Highways Rural principal arterial highways are the most traveled, long distance rural roads. They are the principal corridors of interstate travel and statewide travel. Principal arterials provide highspeed travel and minimal interference to through movement. All Interstate highway mileage is included, and non-interstate routes 18 Arizona Highway System importance equivalent to towns such as consolidated schools, shipping points, regional parks, and important mining and agricultural areas. These collectors serve the principal business area or a concentration of community facilities in rural communities with a population of between 500 and 5000 and rural major collectors tend to connect to rural arterials. � ADOT 2002 Arizona's Rural Collector System Arizona's rural collector system serves travel of intra-county and regional importance, rather than statewide importance. Regardless of traffic volume, travel distances are shorter than on arterial routes and posted speed limits tend to be more moderate than those on arterial highways. All rural state highways that are not arterial highways will be on the rural collector system. � ADOT 2002 Rural Minor Collector Roads Rural minor collectors tend to have lower traffic volumes than major collectors. They collect traffic from local roads and tend to feed predominantly residential traffic from side streets into major collectors or arterials. Rural minor collectors are spaced at intervals consistent with population density and bring all developed areas within a reasonable distance of a major collector or higher classification road. � ADOT 2002 Rural Major Collector Roads Major collectors provide service to any county seat not on an arterial route and to the larger communities not directly served by the higher systems. They serve other traffic generators of the greatest intra-county 19 Arizona Highway System � ADOT 2002 Rural Local Roads Rural local roads will comprise all rural roads that do not meet the criteria for arterial and collector systems. They serve primarily to provide access to land uses adjacent to collector and arterial roadways. The main function of most local roads is to get to and from residences. Rural local roads may also serve some scattered business and industry, and land uses generating modest traffic. Source: FHWA, Functional Classification Guidelines � ADOT 2002 � ADOT 2002 � ADOT 2002 � ADOT 2002 � ADOT 2002 � ADOT 2002 20 Arizona Highway System Total Road Mileage and Travel by Functional Classification 2000 Arizona's 55,194 miles of roads and streets are grouped into functional classes according to the type of service they provide. In 2000, the arterial system (including the Interstate System) and collector system accounted for 26.4% of the total roads and streets, but carried Total 2000 mileage: 55,194 100% 88.4% of total travel in the state. The Interstate System accounts for only 2.1% of Arizona's total miles of roadway, but it carries 25.5% of the travel in the state. Local roads in Arizona account for 73.6% of the state's total road miles, but they carry only 11.6% of total travel. Total 2000 travel (daily vehicle miles): 135,862,000 100% Interstate 34,651,000 (25.5%) Interstate 1,167 (2.1%) Other arterials 4,884 (8.8%) 80% Collectors 8,530 (15.5%) 80% 60% Other arterials 67,126,000 (49.4%) 60% 40% Locals 40,613 (73.6%) 40% 20% Collectors 18,331,000 (13.5%) 20% Locals 15,754 (11.6%) Roads and streets in urban areas account for only 33.2% of total mileage, but 64.1% of total travel in Arizona. Total urban mileage: 18,305 (33.2%) Total rural mileage: 36,889 (66.8%) Daily urban miles traveled: 87,064,000 (64.1%) Daily rural miles traveled : 48,798,000 (35.9%) Mileage Travel (daily miles) 0 Urban Rural 20 40 60 80 100 Source: ADOT, Arizona's Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS) 1999 & 2000 21 Arizona Highway System 2000 Jurisdictional Control of Arizona Streets and Highways Compared to the U.S. The majority of all the streets and highways in Arizona (66.5%), as well as in the nation (75.7%), are under the control of local governments (county and municipal.) Arizona's percentage of roads under federal jurisdiction is over six times that of the nation as a whole because of the large areas of Indian reservations, national forests, and national parks in the state. Arizona 100% Federal 21.5% Federal 3% State 21.4% United States 100% 80% State 12.0% 80% 60% 60% 40% Local 66.5% Local 75.7% 40% 20% 20% 2000 Jurisdictional Control of Arizona Streets and Highways Jurisdiction City & County State Federal Total Rural Mileage 19,229 5,819 11,841 36,889 % 34.8 10.5 21.5 66.8 Urban Mileage 17,466 787 52 18,305 % 31.7 1.4 0.1 33.2 Total Mileage 36,695 6,606 11,893 55,194 % 66.5 11.9 21.6 100 Sources: ADOT, Arizona's Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS) 1999 & 2000; USDOT FHWA, Highway Statistics 2000 , 22 Arizona Highway System Arizona FY 2003-2007 Five Year Highway Construction Program (dollars in 000s) FY 2003 System Preservation Safety Program $21,132 Roadside Facilities $400 Public Transit $6,500 Pavement Pres. $82,359 Operational Facilities $7,863 Bridge Pres. $13,597 Totals $131,851 System Management Program Operating Contingencies $16,220 Operating Suppor t $4,941 Development Support $47,453 Totals $68,614 System Improvements Roadside Facilities Improvements $13,234 Minor Capacity/Oper. Spot Improvements $28,204 Major Capacity/ Oper. Spot Improvements $64,027 Corridor Imp. $261,357 Totals $366,822 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 Total $16,343 $14,590 $14,140 $14,140 $80,345 $2,900 $600 $400 $400 $4,700 $6,500 $6,500 $6,500 $6,500 $32,500 $77,210 $97,000 $84,000 $99,000 $439,569 $8,764 $6,800 $6,800 $6,800 $37,027 $19,080 $22,896 $21,850 $16,750 $94,173 $130,797 $148,386 $133,690 $143,590 $688,314 $16,800 $4,901 $45,127 $66,828 $16,800 $4,901 $45,072 $66,773 $16,800 $4,901 $45,072 $66,773 $16,800 $83,420 $4,901 $24,545 $45,072 $227,796 $66,773 $335,761 $21,353 $23,950 $16,520 $25,325 $9,345 $24,375 $11,355 $71,807 $23,950 $125,804 $47,207 $106,401 $63,202 $69,530 $350,367 $232,346 $192,742 $305,185 $283,425 $1,275,055 $324,856 $340,988 $402,107 $388,260 $1,823,033 Total Resource Allocations $567,287 $522,481 $556,147 $602,570 $598,623 $2,847,108 MAG Freeway System Total Highway Program $1,179,900 $4,027,008 Source: ADOT, Five Year Transportation Facilities Construction Program, FY 2003-2007 23 Arizona Highway System Priority Programming Process Highway Projects PUBLIC REQUESTS COUNCILS OF GOVERNMENTS STATE HWY PLAN CORRIDOR STUDIES PAVEMENT MGMT SYSTEM FEDERAL HWY ADMINISTRATION SAFETY STUDIES PROJECTS PRIORITIZED AND BALANCED WITH REVENUE FORECASTS PRIORITY PLANNING COMMITTEE STATE TRANSPORTATION BOARD FINAL FIVE YEAR HIGHWAY AND AVIATION PROGRAM Public Participation ADOT DIRECTOR GOVERNOR STATE OF ARIZONA ADOT PLANNING DIVISION AND DISTRICT ENGINEERS SUFFICIENCY RATINGS Airport Projects PUBLIC REQUESTS COUNCILS OF GOVERNMENTS FEDERAL AVIATION ADM REGIONAL AIRPORT PLANS STATE AIRPORT PLAN NATIONAL AIRPORT PLAN AIRPORT MASTER PLANS ADOT AERONAUTICS AND PLANNING DIVISION TENTATIVE FIVE YEAR CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM AIRPORT MANAGERS PUBLIC HEARING ON TENTATIVE PROGRAM Source: ADOT, Five Year Transportation Facilities Construction Program, FY 2003-2007 � ADOT 2002 24 Arizona Highway System 2000 Pavement Condition of Arizona Roads Compared to U.S. Average Arizona 0.3% fair United States 8.5% fair 20.9% very good 15.5% good Urban & Rural Interstate 84.2% very good 2.7% fair 9.7% very good 70.6% good 6.8% very good 21.5% fair Other Freeways & Expressways 87.6% good 8.5% fair 25.8% very good 71.7% good 20.9% fair 11.5% very good Other Principal Arterials 65.7% good 10% fair 20.3% very good 67.6% good 23% fair 10.3% very good Minor Arterials 69.7% good 28.7% fair 13.2% very good 66.7% good 4.5% very good 40.7% fair Collectors 58.1% good Sources: USDOT, FHWA, Highway Statistics 2000 54.8% good 25 Highway Finance Highway Highway User Revenue Fund (HURF) The State of Arizona taxes motor fuels and collects fees relating to the registration and operation of motor vehicles, including gasoline and use fuel taxes, motor carrier fees, motor vehicle registration fees, vehicle license taxes (VLT), and other miscellaneous fees. Revenues are deposited in the Arizona Highway User Revenue Fund (HURF) and are then distributed to the cities, towns and $ counties and to the State Highway Fund. These fees and taxes are a major source of revenue to the state for highway construction, improvements and other related expenditures. In spite of a sluggish economy, FY 2002 HURF collections totaled $1,076.4 million, an increase of $45.5 million or 4.4% over FY 2001 revenue collections. Source: ADOT, Financial Management Services, HURF FY 2002 Year-End Report FY 2002 HURF Actual Revenue Distribution Flow (dollars in millions) GAS 434.8 USE FUEL 161.5 REG 138.2 MC 29.3 OP LIC 14.7 VLT 270.7 OTHER 27.2 HURF COLLECTIONS 1,076.4 HIGHWAY USER REVENUE FUND 1.0 ECON STR FUND 194.4***** COUNTIES 19% 52.1 DPS TRANSFER 1,023.3 516.8 50.5% 281.4*** 30.7**** CITIES & CITIES OVER TOWNS 27.5% 300,000 3% STATE HIGHWAY FUND 78.6 * URBAN C/A 12.6% & 2.6% 438.2 ADOT DISCRETIONARY 19.7 PAG 58.9 MAG 6.6 ** MVD 3RD PARTIES * The 12.6% statutory and 2.6% non-statutory allocations from the State Highway Fund share of HURF distributions. ** With the elimination of the VLT distribution to the State Highway Fund, a distribution is made from the State Highway Fund to MVD Third Parties for the collection of VL . T *** One half distributed on basis of incorporated population and one half on the basis of county origin of gasoline sales and city or town population within each county. **** Distributed to Phoenix, Tucson and Mesa based on population. ***** Distributed based on a portion of gasoline distribution and diesel fuel consumption and on a portion of unincorporated population. The split is as follows: 85/15 in FY 97, 80/20 in FY 98, 76/24 in FY 99 and 72/28 in FY 00 and thereafter. 26 Highway Finance Arizona Highway User Revenue Fund Revenue Collections by Category (dollars in thousands) FY 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 GAS TAX 363,953 366,377 397,463 409,137 418,400 434,818 USE FUEL TAX MOTOR CARRIER 124,748 142,167 160,312 156,599 155,859 161,507 90,186 63,846 34,150 36,563 32,678 29,347 LICENSE TAX 175,253 176,950 220,126 236,547 251,613 270,641 REGISTRATION OTHER 101,528 101,722 131,952 140,345 132,269 138,210 41,294 36,425 38,775 40,409 40,147 41,873 $ TOTAL* 896,962 887,487 982,779 1,019,599 1,030,965 1,076,395 * Details may not add to the total due to individual rounding. Fuel Tax Revenues in Arizona GASOLINE FY GALLONS REVENUE DIESEL GALLONS REVENUE ALL FUEL TOTAL REVENUE 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 1997 2002 93,476,264 197,683,180 465,891,936 834,255,832 1,351,949,477 1,683,748,765 2,021,962,006 2,545,408,146 $4,619,853 $9,772,422 $23,040,023 $57,886,910 $105,330,191 $286,237,290 $363,953,161 $434,818,000 NA 10,496,392 38,685,733 101,217,012 219,602,638 311,035,547 588,407,453 687,590,579 NA $542,820 $1,934,287 $7,085,191 $17,568,211 $52,876,043 $124,748,225 $161,507,000 $4,619,853 $10,315,242 $24,974,310 $64,972,101 $122,898,402 $339,113,333 $488,701,386 $596,325,000 Vehicle License Tax Distribution FY 2002 Actual * HURF 44.99% $270.6 Million Vehicle License Tax $601.6 Million DO AZ Counties (Highway Purposes) 5.83% $35.1 Million LTAF II** State Highway Fund 0.0% County General Fund 24.59% $147.9 Million Cities/Towns Fund 24.59% $147.9 Million State General Fund (School Aid)*** 0.0% $0.1 Million State Highway Fund **** 0.0% * The distribution percentage for each recipient based on statutory distribution. ** LTAF II until September 30, 2003 and the State Highway Fund thereafter. *** The State General Fund, along with all the other recipients, receive a share of the VLT from alternative fuel vehicles, rental vehicles and privately owned vehicles used as a school bus, ambulance or fire fighting service. **** $6.6 million was paid out of the State Highway Fund to the MVD Third Parties per HB 2026 and HB 2055 from the 1998 and 2001 legislatures, respectively. The reimbursements were previously paid from the State Highway Fund share of VL before it was eliminated on December 1, 2000. T Source: ADOT, Financial Management Services, HURF FY 2002 Year-End Report 27 Highway Finance HURF Distribution to Arizona Cities and Counties FY 2001-2002 COUNTY Apache $ COUNTY AMOUNT $6,199,004 CITY Eagar Springerville St. Johns CITY AMOUNT $1,191,131 $574,917 $962,617 $356,920 $458,836 $1,085,610 $131,380 $2,871,182 $114,913 $282,725 $7,771,416 $153,222 $1,000,933 $434,798 $417,314 $706,297 $84,039 $182,611 $1,287,910 $41,139 $147,855 $686,525 $298,681 $192,167 $60,050 $960,461 $1,003,522 Cochise $6,817,723 Benson Bisbee Douglas Huachuca City Sierra Vista Tombstone Willcox Coconino $10,145,130 Flagstaff Fredonia Page Sedona Williams Gila $3,177,018 Globe Hayden Miami Payson Winkelman Graham $2,075,495 Pima Safford Thatcher Greenlee La Paz $654,673 $2,977,044 Clifton Duncan Parker Quartzsite 28 Highway Finance HURF Distribution to Arizona Cities and Counties FY 2001-2002 COUNTY Maricopa $ COUNTY AMOUNT $78,141,082 CITY Apache Junction Avondale Buckeye Carefree Cave Creek Chandler El Mirage Fountain Hills Gila Bend Gilbert Glendale Goodyear Guadalupe Litchfield Park Mesa Paradise Valley Peoria Phoenix Queen Creek Scottsdale Surprise Tempe Tolleson Wickenburg Youngtown CITY AMOUNT $17,705 $2,227,397 $486,294 $180,793 $231,317 $10,946,942 $472,641 $1,254,816 $123,073 $6,798,272 $13,579,198 $1,174,462 $325,016 $236,188 $30,129,033 $849,451 $6,719,894 $100,405,369 $261,343 $12,573,651 $1,916,742 $9,853,831 $309,570 $316,690 $186,356 $3,170,589 $312,808 $1,884,203 $3,933,158 Mohave $9,600,944 Bullhead City Colorado City Kingman Lake Havasu City 29 Highway Finance HURF Distribution to Arizona Cities and Counties FY 2001-2002 COUNTY Navajo $ COUNTY AMOUNT $7,023,776 CITY Pinetop/Lakeside Holbrook Show Low Snowflake Taylor Winslow CITY AMOUNT $469,237 $646,204 $1,006,018 $584,342 $416,804 $1,249,362 $1,023,489 $2,242,212 $417,681 $43,757,098 $245,354 $2,352,179 $1,876,861 $578,551 $770,635 $1,139,728 $167,397 $131,344 $241,107 $9,017 $157 $2,106,681 $89,155 Pima $37,208,961 Marana Oro Valley South Tucson Tucson Sahuarita Pinal $9,606,612 Apache Junction Casa Grande Coolidge Eloy Florence Kearny Mammoth Superior Queen Creek Winkelman Santa Cruz $2,578,805 Nogales Patagonia � ADOT 2002 � ADOT 2002 30 Highway Finance HURF Distribution to Arizona Cities and Counties FY 2001-2002 COUNTY Yavapai $ COUNTY AMOUNT $9,273,650 CITY Camp Verde Chino Valley Clarkdale Cottonwood Jerome Prescott Prescott Valley Sedona Peoria CITY AMOUNT $779,167 $645,324 $282,545 $757,505 $26,784 $2,794,255 $1,936,673 $595,644 $46 $601,199 $1,273,507 $151,748 $6,414,401 $312,115,380 Yuma $8,952,614 Somerton San Luis Wellton Yuma County Totals $194,432,532 Cities Totals Source: ADOT, Financial Management Services, HURF FY 2002 Year End Report - � ADOT 2002 � ADOT 2002 � ADOT 2002 � ADOT 2002 31 Highway Finance Regional Area Road Fund (RARF) The Maricopa County Transportation Excise Tax, often referred to as the "1/2 cent sales tax", is levied upon business activities in Maricopa County, including retail sales, contracting, restaurant and bar receipts, and other activities. The transportation excise tax revenues are deposited in the Maricopa County Regional Area Road Fund (RARF) which is administered by the Arizona Department of Transportation. The revenues deposited into the RARF account are the principal source of $ funding for the Regional Freeway System in Maricopa County and are dedicated by statute to the purchase of right-of-way, design, and construction of controlled access highways. The Maricopa County transportation excise tax collections totaled $267.6 million in FY 2002, an increase of $2.8 million or 1.1 % over FY 2001. This represents the slowest growth rate since the inception of the tax in FY 1986. FY 2002 Maricopa County Regional Area Road Fund SOURCE* Retail Sales Contracting Utilities Restaurant & Bar Rental of Real Property Rental of Personal Property Other** Total REVENUE $131,393,323 $41,217,803 $18,431,792 $21,748,268 $24,529,320 $13,928,408 $16,314,429 $267,563,343 PERCENT 49.1 15.4 6.9 8.1 9.2 5.2 6.1 *Division of collections to business categories is imputed upon reported taxable income. **Other includes operations of amusement places, intrastate telecommunications services, job printing, engraving, embossing and publication, publication of newspapers, magazines, and other periodicals, intrastate transportation of persons, freight or property, and intrastate operation of pipelines for oil or natural or artificial gas. Source: ADOT, Financial Management Services, RARF FY 2002 Year-End Report 32 Highway Finance Federal Funding for Arizona The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) was enacted into law on June 9th, 1998, providing Federal funding through Fiscal Year 2003. TEA-21 provides Arizona with a record amount of Federal-aid revenue. TEA-21 Arizona funding levels are expected to total $2.7 billion over the six-year $ period. This level is 80% higher than the amount provided under the prior Federal Transportation Act (ISTEA). On an average annual basis, the Department expects to receive $348 million in Federal-aid apportionments with another $108 million allocated to local governments. Estimated Federal Aid Highway Apportionments & Allocation (millions of dollars)* DESCRIPTION APPORTIONMENTS Interstate Maintenance National Highway System Surface Transportation Bridge Congestion Air Quality Highway Planning & Research Metro Planning Minimum Guarantee SUBTOTAL APPORTIONMENT DISTRIBUTION BY ENTITY MAG PAG ADOT Optional Use by MAG, PAG & Other Locals Other Locals SUBTOTAL SPECIAL PROJECTS Public Lands/Forest Highways High Priority Projects Title II Safety Projects SUBTOTAL TOTAL APPORTIONMENTS & ALLOCATIONS ESTIMATED FY 02 AZ APPORTIONMENTS $119.9 127.8 143.8 15.7 42.2 10.6 3.1 68.0 $531.1 87.0 17.7 400.0 16.3 10.1 $531.1 12.5 11.5 4.2 $28.2 $559.3 ESTIMATED FY 03 AZ APPORTIONMENTS $121.2 129.5 145.3 15.9 42.6 9.3 3.2 67.8 $534.8 87.9 17.9 402.6 16.4 10.0 $534.8 12.5 11.5 4.3 $28.3 $563.1 Apportionments include estimated Revenue Aligned Budget Authority (RABA). Portion of State Transportation Funds are flexed to FTA for transit projects statewide ($6.5 million). *This publication was written before the Federal Fiscal Year of 2002 was completed, therefore FY 2002 Apportionments are estimations only. Source: ADOT, Financial Management Services, Office of Resource Administration, Federal-Aid Highway Program Federal FY 2001 Report, Statewide Transportation Improvement Program Federal FY 2002-04. 33 Highway Finance Local Transportation Assistance Fund Cities and towns in Arizona receive up to $23 million each year from the state lottery fund. Each city and town receives a portion of Local Transportation Assistance Fund (LTAF) Places Apache Junction Avondale Benson Bisbee Buckeye Bullhead City Camp Verde Carefree Casa Grande Cave Creek Chandler Chino Valley Clarkdale Clifton Colorado City Coolidge Cottonwood Douglas Duncan Eagar El Mirage Eloy Flagstaff Florence Fountain Hills Fredonia Gila Bend Gilbert $ FY 02 First Adjusted Total Distribution 1,228,273 41,003 124,591 28,554 10,000 26,916 10,000 10,000 12,284 115,964 241,320 20,993 10,000 86,073 2,260,734 10,619 114,600 177,550 38,082 75,972 17,171 10,000 77,282 639,879 7,342,097 11,083 20,092 195,540 monies based on its population. These monies must be used for any transportation purpose, except that Phoenix and Tucson must expend the monies for public transportation. Places Glendale Globe Goodyear Guadalupe Hayden Holbrook Huachuca City Jerome Kearny Kingman Lake Havasu City Litchfield Park Mammoth Marana Mesa Miami Nogales Oro Valley Page Paradise Valley Parker Patagonia Payson Peoria Phoenix Pima Pinetop/Lakeside Prescott FY 02 First Adjusted Total Distribution 179,079 220,818 25,879 33,277 58,146 188,988 53,451 16,898 148,996 21,293 1,020,285 44,797 19,300 14,168 20,665 44,142 53,3412 90,549 10,000 22,303 65,053 58,282 315,026 94,044 115,691 10,000 10,919 668,051 34 Highway Finance Places Prescott Valley Quartzsite Queen Creek Safford Sahuarita St. Johns San Luis Scottsdale Sedona Show Low Sierra Vista Snowflake Somerton South Tucson Springerville Superior Source: Arizona Department of Revenue FY 02 First Adjusted Total Distribution 134,009 18,427 26,971 51,130 25,197 19,300 93,307 1,146,323 56,945 44,142 211,510 25,006 41,057 29,974 11,029 17,826 Places Surprise Taylor Tempe Thatcher Tolleson Tombstone Tucson Wellton Wickenburg Willcox Williams Winkelman Winslow Youngtown Yuma Total FY 02 First Adjusted Total Distribution 209,653 18,481 870,471 22,166 27,517 10,000 2,720,606 10,155 28,745 20,610 15,751 10,000 52,140 17,225 434,212 $23,000,000 $ � ADOT 2002 35 Motor Vehicles Motor Driver License and Vehicle Registration All Arizona residents operating a motor vehicle on Arizona streets or highways must obtain a valid driver license or instruction permit. Arizona issues an "extended driver license that does not expire until age 65. However, your photo and vision screening will need to be updated every 12 years. Drivers 60 and over will receive a 5-year license. Temporary residents such as out-of-state students and their spouses, or military personnel and their family members may apply for a 5-year license regardless of age. If you are new to the state, you will be required to show your out-ofstate driver license when you apply for an Arizona license. There is no "grace" period for new residents to obtain an Arizona driver license. Arizona is a member of the National Driver Register, a nationwide computer system providing information about problem drivers. When you apply for an Arizona driver license, the information from your application is checked against this system. Residents, unless exempt, must register vehicles and they must also certify that they meet financial responsibility requirements. Arizona statue requires every motor vehicle, trailer, or semi-trailer moved, operated, or left standing on any highway, unless exempt from state statute, be properly registered. When you buy a vehicle, Arizona law requires that you apply for a title within 30 days of purchase. If your vehicle was registered in another state and you wish to operate it in Arizona, you must register it as soon as you become an Arizona resident. Licensed Drivers, Population, and Registered Vehicles The number of registered vehicles in Arizona has consistently grown at approximately the same rate as millions 5 4 3 2 1 1975 1980 1985 1990 Licensed Drivers 2002 Arizona's population. In 2002, there were 1.29 registered vehicles for every licensed driver. Registered Vehicles Source: ADOT, Motor Vehicle Division, MV988 MV630419 (as of 05/31/02). Source: ADOT, Motor Vehicle Division, MV650653-2 (as of 04/01/02). 36 Motor Vehicles Driver License Point System Under A.R.S. section 28-3306(A)(3), if a driver accumulates eight or more points in a 12-month period, the Motor Vehicles Division shall either order the driver to successfully complete the curriculum of a licensed traffic CONVICTION Conviction of violating A.R.S section 28-1381, driving or actual physical control of a vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs. Conviction of violating A.R.S. section 28-1382, driving or actual physical control of a vehicle while under the extreme influence of intoxicating liquor. Conviction of violating A.R.S. section 28-693, reckless driving. Conviction of violating A.R.S. section 28-708, racing on highways. Conviction of violating A.R.S. section 28-695, aggressive driving. Conviction or judgment of violating A.R.S. section 28-662, 28-663, 28-664, or 28-665, relating to a driver's duties after an accident. Conviction or judgment of violating A.R.S. section 28-672(C), failure to comply with a red traffic-control signal, failure to yield the right of way when turning left at an intersection, or failure to comply with a stop sign, and the failure results in an accident causing death to another person. Conviction or judgment of violating A.R.S. section 28-672(A), failure to comply with a red traffic-control signal, failure to yield the right of way when turning left at an intersection, or failure to comply with a stop sign, and the failure results in an accident causing serious physical injury to another person. Conviction or judgment of violating A.R.S. section 28-701, speeding. Conviction or judgment of violating A.R.S. section 28-644(A)(2), driving over or across, or parking in any part of a gore area. Conviction or judgment of violating any other traffic regulation that governs a vehicle moving under its own power. survival school or suspend the driver's Arizona driver license. In addition, the Division shall suspend the Arizona driving privilege of a driver not licensed by Motor Vehicles. The Division shall assign points to a driver as follows: POINTS 8 8 8 8 8 6 6 4 3 3 2 Upon receipt of a conviction or judgment which brings the licensee's total points to 8 or more in a 12-month period, the Motor Vehicle Division shall determine that: 1) The licensee shall be Source: Arizona Administrative Code, R17-4-404 suspended and how long, and/or 2) The licensee should be required to attend and successfully complete approved training and educational sessions. 37 Motor Vehicles Vehicle Registration Trends The number of registered vehicles in Arizona has increased steadily millions from about 100,000 in the 1930's to 4,692,924 in 2002. 5 4 3 2 1 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 Commercial Vehicles Passenger Cars & Non-Commercial Trucks All Vehicles 2002 Registration by Vehicle Type Private passenger vehicles account for 74.4% of all vehicles registered in Arizona. Commercial vehicles comprise 8.8% of all registered vehicles, and trailers make up 10.5%. Total Vehicle Registrations: 4,692,924 100% 75% 50% 25% 3,491,650 411,132 PASSENGER VEHICLES COMMERCIAL VEHICLES 490,791 TRAILERS 299,351 OTHER DO AZ Other includes buses, taxis, motorcycles, mopeds, off-road and government vehicles. Source: ADOT, Motor Vehicle Division, MV988 MV630419 (as of 05/31/02) 38 Motor Vehicles 2002 Licensed Drivers by Age Of the 3,638,692 licensed drivers in Arizona, 1.5% are under the age of 18, 4.0% are 18-20 years old, and 6.5% are 21-24 years of age. Approximately 40.7% of all drivers in Arizona are between the ages of 25 and 44, 32.7% are between 45 and 64, and finally, 14.6% of all Arizona drivers are over the age of 64. percent of total drivers 30 19.2% 20 10 1.5% 4.0% 6.5% 21.5% 19.4% 13.3% 14.6% 15-17 18-20 21-24 35-44 25-34 Years of age 45-54 55-64 65+ Source: ADOT, Motor Vehicle Division, MV650653-2 (as of 04/01/02) 2002 Licensed Drivers by Gender The 3,638,692 licensed drivers in Arizona were almost equally comprised of men and women in 2002. There were 1,844,440 licensed males (50.7%) and millions of licensed drivers 1.8 1.2 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 51.1% 54.3% 45.7% 48.9% 1,794,252 licensed females (49.3%). The number of male drivers exceeded the number of female drivers by 50,188. 50.7% 49.3% 1980 Source: ADOT, Motor Vehicle Division, MV650653-2 (as of 04/01/02) 1990 2002 39 Motor Vehicles 1995-2001 Motor Vehicle Accident Fatalities The traffic fatality rate in Arizona has decreased steadily since 1995, yet in 2001, the number of traffic accidents has steadily Fatality rate (fatalities per 100 million VMT) increased compared to the number recorded in 1995. In 2001, Arizona still attained a higher fatality rate than the U.S. average. 5 4 3 2 1 95 96 97 Arizona 98 99 United States 00 01 1995-2001 Alcohol-Related Accidents and Fatalities Year 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Total Alcohol Related Accidents 7,947 7,748 7,348 7,610 7,756 8,048 8,095 Percent of All Accidents 6.98 6.86 6.44 6.33 6.16 6.13 6.15 Total Alcohol Related Fatalities 261 272 249 268 267 266 258 Percent of Total Fatalities 25.17 27.34 26.24 27.35 26.07 25.67 24.64 Source: ADOT, Arizona Motor Vehicle 2001 Crash Facts � ADOT 2002 40 Motor Vehicles Motor Restraint Usage by Drivers and Vehicle Occupants 2000 Driver Restraint Usage SEVERITY OF INJURY RESTRAINT IN USE % OF NO RESTRAINT RESTRAINT USED USED % OF NO RESTRAINT NOT REPORTED % OF UNKNOWN No injury Possible injury Injury Fatality Unknown Total 167,928 24,554 14,725 177 1.088 208,472 80.55 11.78 7.06 0.08 0.52 100 7,132 1,631 3,620 261 295 12,939 55.12 12.60 27.98 2.02 2.28 100 9,690 1,413 1,897 80 13,789 26,869 36.06 5.26 7.06 0.30 51.32 100 2000 Front Seat Passenger Restraint Usage SEVERITY OF INJURY RESTRAINT IN USE % OF NO RESTRAINT RESTRAINT USED USED % OF NO RESTRAINT NOT REPORTED % OF UNKNOWN No injury Possible injury Injury Fatality Unknown Total 46,450 7,769 4,523 68 288 59,098 78.60 13.15 7.65 0.12 0.49 100 3,572 996 1,537 80 25 6,210 57.52 16.04 24.75 1.29 0.40 100 2,267 382 520 21 236 3,426 66.17 11.15 15.18 0.61 6.89 100 2000 Rear Seat Passenger Restraint Usage SEVERITY OF INJURY RESTRAINT IN USE % OF NO RESTRAINT RESTRAINT USED USED % OF NO RESTRAINT NOT REPORTED % OF UNKNOWN No injury Possible injury Injury Fatality Unknown Total 22,650 2,841 1,398 13 116 27,018 83.83 10.52 5.17 0.05 0.43 100 3,508 716 897 58 30 5,209 67.34 13.75 17.22 1.11 0.58 100 1,418 226 201 10 60 1,915 74.05 11.80 10.50 0.52 3.13 100 2000 Child Restraint Usage (less than five years old) SEVERITY OF INJURY RESTRAINT IN USE % OF NO RESTRAINT RESTRAINT USED USED % OF NO RESTRAINT NOT REPORTED % OF UNKNOWN No injury Possible injury Injury Fatality Unknown Total 11,502 890 437 13 72 12,914 89.07 6.89 3.38 0.10 0.56 100 601 92 147 15 5 860 69.88 10.70 17.09 1.74 0.58 100 358 42 31 2 32 465 76.99 9.03 6.67 0.43 6.88 100 Source: ADOT, Arizona Motor Vehicle Crash Facts, 2000 41 Regional Freeways Maricopa County Regional Freeway System As of May 31, 2002 the Arizona Department of Transportation has opened 91.1 miles of regional freeways throughout the Phoenix metropolitan area. The completion of Loop 101 on the Pima freeway between Scottsdale Road and Pima Road marked a major accomplishment. There are 13.5 miles of freeway currently under construction on the Red Mountain, State Route 51, Grand Avenue and the Santan Corridors. The current Life Cycle Program will complete a total of 146.7 miles of freeways by the end of calendar year 2007. There remains 12.3 miles of unfunded freeway on the South Mountain Corridor, Loop 202. The Regional Freeway System is funded by several primary revenue sources: the Maricopa County transportation excise tax, ADOT's share of HURF monies dedicated to Maricopa County for controlled access highways, federal funds and ADOT has allocated $240 million from ADOT discretionary funding. Regional Freeway System Construction (centerline miles) Corridor Agua Fria Grand Avenue* Hohokam Pima Price Red Mountain Santan Sky Harbor South Mtn. Connection** State Route 51 Total Open 22.0 0 3.1 28.2 9.4 16.5 1.5 2.4 0 8.0 91.1 Under Construction 0 0.7 0 0 0.5 4.5 5.6 0 0 2.2 13.5 Planned Funded Unfunded 0 3.8 0 0 0 9.9 18.7 0.9 8.8 0 42.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12.3 0 12.3 Total 22.0 4.5 3.1 28.2 9.9 30.9 25.8 3.3 21.1 10.2 159.0 * Intersection improvements. The Grand Avenue mileage was defined and represents the eight intersections added to the program. ** Funded South Mountain R/W protection and interim construction. Source: ADOT, Regional Freeway System, Life Cycle Certification, July 31, 2002 42 Regional Freeways Maricopa County Regional Freeway System 17 LOOP Fr i a 101 Scottsdale Rd. ua B l a c k Canyon 60 Bell Rd. Cave Creek Rd. G d 5 1 s t Ave. 19th Ave. ra LOOP 56th St. Ag n 101 LOOP 101 Shea Blvd. A Nor ther n Ave. v e Via de Ventura McDonald Drive 75th Ave. Pima 51 Thomas Rd. 143 LOOP Pima Rd. 87 Red Mountain Re d Bush Hwy. McDowell Rd. Pa p a g o Papago 10 10 17 Maricopa Hohokam LOOP 202 R e d Mtn. 5 1 s t Ave. Main Street 202 88 LOOP S k y Harbor Baseline Rd. 202 153 Superstition 60 Power Rd. Maricopa Pr i c e LOOP 101 87 Gilber t Rd. Higley Rd. LOOP Santan 202 S o u t h Mountain 10 Existing Regional Freeway System Existing Non-Regional Freeway System Under Construction Source: ADOT, Regional Freeway System, Life Cycle Certification, July 31, 2002 Funded Segments Unfunded Segments � ADOT 2002 43 Regional Freeways Maricopa Urban Region Travel Trip Purposes 2002 Home-based to work Other home-based trips Other trips Total trips Trips 2,200,000 5,300,000 3,100,000 10,600,000 Percent 21 50 29 100 millions of vehicle miles traveled daily 80 60 40 20 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 80,000,000 2002 Modes of Travel 2002 Auto driver Auto passenger Transit Mode Share Percent 63 36 1 Source: Maricopa Association of Governments, 2002 Traffic Assignment for 1541 zones (urban portions of Maricopa County). � ADOT 2002 44 Regional Freeways Tucson Metropolitan Area Travel Trip Purposes 2000 Home-based to work Home to school Home to shopping Home to other Non-home trips Total trips Trips 637,532 397,939 346,013 1,101,053 882,835 3,365,372 Percent 19.0 11.8 10.3 32.7 26.2 100 millions of vehicle miles traveled daily 15 10 5 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 17,684,396 2000 Modes of Travel 2000 Drove alone Car pooled Transit Walked Other means Worked at home Source: Pima Association of Governments Mode Share Percent 73.8 14.7 2.5 2.6 2.7 3.6 45 Regional Freeways PAG Regional Roadway Network 10 TANGERINE RD 77 INA RD ORA CLE RD SK YL INE SANDARIO RD PRINCE RD SWAN GRANT RD MAIN AVE ALVERNON WAY SPEEDWAY BLVD BROADWAY BLVD 22ND ST GOLF LINKS AJO WAY VALENCIA RD 86 19 BUS HOUGHTON RD IRVINGTON RD KOLB RD 10 19 83 8 Lanes 6 Lanes 4 Lanes (or one-way 2 lanes) 2 Lanes (or one-way 1 lanes) Source: Pima Association of Governments, January 2001 46 Public Transit Public Transit in Arizona Public transit serves several different functions in Arizona. It gives mobility to persons without access to an automobile and to those who do not drive. It provides important links between rural communities and metropolitan areas. In urban and rural areas it is important in reducing traffic congestion and pollution by providing an alternative to the single occupant vehicle. It also supports Arizona's tourism industry by enabling visitors to access congested areas. In recent years, planning for all modes of transportation has been Intercity Bus Service Intercity bus service operates along the major travel corridors in Arizona. It provides passenger service to 83 communities, connecting these cities with other major urbanized areas in Arizona and other states. Arizona's geographic location along with the east-west interstate routes of I-40 in the north and I-10 and I-8 in the south, have resulted in maintaining fairly frequent service along these corridors. The demand for transportation between California and Texas, the two most populous states, has influenced the levels of service more than demand in Arizona. Routes operating between California and Texas run primarily on I-10, while those serving San Diego split off to I-8. Service between Albuquerque, New Mexico and Las Vegas, Nevada operate on I-40. Routes operating between the Midwest and California operate on I-15. Although the I-15 route does not stop in Arizona, it does serve St. George, Utah and Mesquite, Nevada and connects to I-70, serving Denver, Colorado and all points east. Demand for north-south service from the Mexican border also supports a high level of service in the I-19/I-10 corridor, particularly from Nogales to Phoenix. combined under the ISTEA legislation and EPA mandates for clean air, limiting construction of new highway capacity. Therefore, public transit services operated by both public and private sectors are an integral part of the overall transportation network. The public sector typically operates local and regional bus services, program transportation services and school pupil transportation. The private sector typically operates intercity services, in charter and regional markets, and contract services. 47 Public Transit Statewide Transportation for the Elderly and Disabled The Section 5310 program provides assistance in meeting the transportation needs of elderly persons and persons with disabilities where public transportation services are unavailable, insufficient or inappropriate. This Federal Transit Administration (FTA) program provides capital assistance for transportation to private non-profit organizations, Indian tribes and limited public agencies statewide. The program is administered by ADOT and coordinated at the regional level by the Councils of Governments and Metropolitan Planning Organizations. 2002 Section 5310 Program Statistics Vehicles Vehicle miles Passenger trips Total cost Cost per vehicle (avg.) Cost/passenger trip Transportation for Rural and Small Urban Areas The Section 5311program provides capital, administrative and operating assistance for public transportation programs in rural and small urban areas (under 50,000 population). 257 2,883,613 1,171,917 $7,477,219 $34,299 $2.92 This FTA program is administered by ADOT. Councils of Governments review and comment on applications received for projects in their planning areas. 2002 Section 5311 Program Statistics Passenger trips Passenger (project) miles Total cost Farebox recovery ratio Cost/passenger trip Fare/passenger trip Cost/project mile Source: ADOT, Transportation Planning Division, Transit Team 742,000 2,550,000 $3,540,250 22% $7.00 $2.00 $2.05 48 Public Transit FY 2002 Section 5310 Service Locations Kayenta M O H AV E A PA C H E Havasupai Meadview Peach Springs/ Hualapai Bullhead City Kingman Ft. Mohave Indian Res. Lake Havasu City Parker L A PA Z Y A V A PA I COCONINO Chinle Sawmill Ganado Kykotsmovi N AVA J O Flagstaff Winslow Holbrook Window Rock Cottonwood Prescott Camp Verde Payson Show Low Springerville Quartzsite YUMA Yuma Surprise Sun City GILA Whiteriver Scottsdale Glendale Mesa Apache Jct. Miami Phoenix Tempe Buckeye Globe San Carlos Chandler Superior Kearny Florence Morenci M A R I C O PA Hayden Coolidge Clifton Casa Eloy Mammoth G R A H A M Grande PINAL Oracle Safford Duncan Pascua Yaqui Tribe PIMA Willcox Tucson Tohono O'odham Nation Green Valley COCHISE Si S A N T Aerra Vista CRUZ Nogales Pearce Douglas GREENLEE Patagonia Bisbee Elderly and Persons with Disabilities Transportation Program Locations Source: ADOT, Transportation Planning Division, Transit Team 49 Public Transit FY 2002 Section 5311 Service Locations Kayenta A PA C H E Tuba City M O H AV E Chinle Oraibi Keams Canyon Ganado Kykotsmovi Window N AVA J O Rock COCONINO Moenkopi Bullhead City Kingman Cottonwood Lake Havasu City Y A V A PA I Show Low/ Pinetop L A PA Z GILA Salt River Indian Res. M A R I C O PA GREENLEE Miami Globe Coolidge YUMA PINAL GRAHAM Ajo Why PIMA Marana Tucson COCHISE S A N TA CRUZ Sells Sierra Vista Pearce Bisbee Rural and small urban areas public transportation program locations Communities served by Section 5311 providers Source: ADOT, Transportation Planning Division, Transit Team 50 Public Transit Phoenix Metropolitan Area Transit Services The Regional Public Transit Authority (RPTA) provides a structure to enable the various cities in Maricopa County to operate a unified transit system. The cities of Phoenix, Mesa, Tempe, Scottsdale, Chandler, Peoria, Gilbert, Glendale, Avondale and El Mirage participate in RPTA along with Maricopa County. Fixed route and demand response services funded by these cities and regional services funded through RPTA operate under the Valley Metro banner. 2002 Valley Metro Fixed Route Statistics Size of fleet Average vehicle age Passengers Passengers per vehicle (revenue) hour Passengers per vehicle (revenue) mile Operating cost per passenger Operating cost per vehicle (revenue) mile Revenue per passenger Farebox recovery ratio Source: Valley Metro 610 vehicles 5.99 years 40,194,801 28.21 1.89 $2.39 $4.52 $0.66 27.8% � ADOT 2002 51 Public Transit Tucson Metropolitan Area Transit Services Transit services in the Tucson metropolitan area are provided by both the City of Tucson and Pima County. The City of Tucson operates Sun Tran, which services Tucson, South Tucson, the T wn of Oro Valley, o and portions of unincorporated Pima County. 2002 Tucson Sun Tran Statistics Passengers Miles of service Farebox revenue Operating costs Passengers per vehicle mile Operating cost per passenger Operation subsidy per passenger Farebox recovery ratio Source: Tucson Sun Tran Intergovernmental agreements are in place to provide service outside city limits. Pima County operates specialized services in the unincorporated county area, regional services from Marana to Tucson, Ajo to Tucson, and demand response services in Ajo. 13,628,899 7,590,767 $6,709,956 $30,811,579 1.80 $2.26 $1.77 22% Flagstaff Metropolitan Area Transit System Mountain Line, unlike other systems in the state, is a new transit service, which began in October, 2001. The City of Flagstaff passed a transit tax in May 2000 and the below plan is being implemented over the next four years. FY 05 est. 16 500,000 3.73 3.30 .75 20% % Difference +167% +233% -12% 0% 0% 18% Size of fleet Passengers Operating cost/passenger Operating cost/mile Revenue per passenger Farebox recovery ratio FY 02 6 150,000 4.22 3.30 .75 17% Source: Transportation Vision 21 Task Force, Final Report and City of Flagstaff 52 Rail General System Overview With a total of 2,068 miles of main, branch, and industrial rail lines, the Arizona rail network provides an important link to the national rail system. There are eleven railroad companies currently providing service in the state. Two are interstate Class 1 freight railroads, one is an interstate Class 1 passenger railroad, five are Class 2 and 3 intrastate freight railroads, two are intrastate tourist passenger railroads, and one is an intrastate industrial railroad. Freight Service As respect to the Class 1 carriers, Arizona is a bridge state, providing service between the Pacific Rim ports in California and the Midwest and Eastern markets. The two major railroads (BNSF, UP) also provide destination service to Arizona for building supplies from the Pacific Northwest and origin service for mining material to the Midwest. The smaller home-based railroads provide a variety of rail services, such as coal, limber, mining, and chemicals (see Freight Tonnage map). Passenger Service Amtrak provides transcendental passenger service to the northern and southern regions of the state. Amtrak leases track space from BNSF (Southwest Chief) for the northern route providing connecting service between Chicago and Los Angeles. On leased track from UP (Sunset Limited), Amtrak provides service between Florida and Los Angeles. Additionally, there are two tourist railroads that provide service to the Grand Canyon and access along the Verde River watershed (see Rail Passenger Service map). FY 2000 Passenger Ridership (in hundreds) CITY Phoenix* Benson Tucson Yuma Winslow Flagstaff Williams Kingman Grand Canyon Clarkdale SERVICE Amtrak (Sunset Limited) Amtrak (Sunset Limited) Amtrak (Sunset Limited) Amtrak (Sunset Limited) Amtrak (Southwest Chief) Amtrak (Southwest Chief) Amtrak (Southwest Chief) Amtrak (Southwest Chief) Grand Canyon Railway Co. Arizona Central Railway Co. FY 00 8.0 1.9 25.9 2.5 2.2 44.9 5.0 3.1 19.0 7.2 * Phoenix passengers are bused to Tucson Depot. Source: ADOT Transportation Planning Division, Transit Team , 53 Rail Track Mileage RAILROAD Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Union Pacific (UP) Black Mesa & Lake Powel (SRP)l Coronado (BNSF) Apache Arizona & California Arizona Central (Verde River) Arizona Eastern Copper Basin Grand Canyon Magma (Superior)* San Manuel* San Pedro & Southwestern Tucson Cornelia & Gila Bend* Totals Combined Total: 2,068 * Lines that are currently out of service. Source: ADOT, Transportation Planning Division, Transit Team MAIN LINE 593 597 BRANCH LINE INDUSTRIAL LINE 141 94 42 42 106 38 133 55 64 28 29 61 1190 44 742 136 � ADOT 2002 54 Rail General Commodities Transported RAILROAD Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Union Pacific (UP) Black Mesa & Lake Powel (SRP)l Coronado (BNSF) Apache Arizona & California Arizona Central (Verde River) Arizona Eastern Copper Basin Grand Canyon Magma (Superior)* San Manuel* San Pedro & Southwestern Tucson Cornelia & Gila Bend* * Lines that are currently out of service. Source: ADOT, Transportation Planning Division, Transit Team COMMODITIES Intermodal (80%), mixed freight (20%) Intermodal (60%), mixed freight (40%) Coal (100%) Coal (100%) Grain (30%), Chemicals (30%), Paper (40%) Mixed Freight (85%), Chemicals (15%) Passengers (95%), Coal (5%) Copper Products (100%) Copper Products (100%) Passengers (100%) N/A N/A Chemicals (90%), Copper Products (10%) N/A � ADOT 2002 55 Rail Arizona Railroads 15 Littlefield Colorado City Fredonia 89 389 ALT 89 ALT Page Jacob Lake 89 67 Hoover Dam North Rim Grand Canyon Bl ac kM es a & 98 La ke 89 Po w0 16ell Tuba City 163 564 Kayenta 160 Teec Nos Pos 191 87 N AVA J O A PA C H E Chinle M O H AV E 93 COCONINO Fe 64 264 Second Mesa 191 264 Ganado Grand Canyon Burl 68 Bullhead City rt n No ingto Peach anta p in S hSern gs 66 Seligman 180 64 89 264 Window Rock Kingman 40 Ash Fork Williams 95 99 Burlington No rthern Santa 40 Fe Flagstaff 4 0 Winslow 87 77 40 Topock Lake Havasu City No rth ern Sa nta Fe 89 93 97 Y A V A PA I Bu rlin gto n 96 89 ALT Ariz ona 89 Cen tral 17 Cottonwood ALT 40 99 Joseph Burli 40 City Holbrook n ngto Fe anta rn S 40 rthe No Sanders 61 191 n g gto rlin Bur Apache Apache 179 87 89 169 69 Prescott 260 Camp Verde 377 260 87 260 Payson Young 77 180 191 St. Johns Fe aF a ant n rn S t t he Nr Nor 95 Snowflake 277 260 Show Low 473 61 60 260 180 Parker L A PA Z 72 95 Quartzsite Ehrenberg & ona Ariz 6 0 ia forn 71 Cali Wickenburg 17 74 87 Eagar 373 273 60 188 288 60 73 Alpine GREENLEE 10 Union Paci 85 60 101 303 51 101 GILA 202 fic PHOENIX 202 8Phelps-Dodge Cyprus Mine 8 Apache Jct. Globe Superiar on o n n nio Un 60 170 M A R I C O PA 95 Yuma iific ac Pa 10 ific Y nion PaA UM c U 238 Mobile 347 387 87 Casa Grande 84 287 Florence Ma Ariz gma 60 GRAHAM 70 Winkleman 191 177 Phelps-Dodge Cliftoni Morenc Clifton 191 8 85 Gila Ben d Gila Bend 8 Copper Basin 79 8 San Luis A jojo dge A s-Do Phelp 87 PINAL 77 Tucs on-C orne li a & 10 Fort Grant Ari zon Thatcher a Er 366 Saffoad t se rn 191 266 78 z e uel A M Man S San ic ciif P Pa ion Un 75 70 Duncan c iic c cif Pa o ion Un 77 Tucson Why 86 PIMA 386 85 Robles Jct. 86 Bowie San Simon Willcox Union10 10 Lukeville 10 UnionBPacnific 10 enso 83 286 Sasabe 186 191 181 Paci fic In Service Out of Service Abandoned Source: ADOT, Transportation Planning Division, Transit Team 19 Sonoita 90 80 82 ro an d San Pe Tombstone COCHISE 191 80 80 Douglas ic ic P if n Pac U Unio 289 rn estern So hw & Sout S A N TA CRUZ Nogales 82 83 Sierra Vista 90 92 Bisbee 189 56 56 Rail 2000 Arizona Freight Tonnage (in million gross tons) 15 Littlefield Colorado City Fredonia 89 389 ALT 89 ALT Page Jacob Lake 89 67 Hoover Dam North Rim Grand Canyon Bl ac kM es a & 98 La ke 89 Po w0 16ell Tuba City 163 564 Kayenta 160 Teec Nos Pos 191 9 87 N AVA J O A PA C H E Chinle M O H AV E 93 COCONINO Fe 64 264 Second Mesa 191 264 Ganado Grand Canyon Burl 68 Bullhead City rt n No ingto Peach anta p in S hSern gs 66 126 Seligman 180 64 89 264 Window Rock Kingman 40 Ash Fork Wi l i a 13l0ms 95 99 Burlington No rthern Santa 40 Fe Flagstaff 4 0 Winslow 87 77 40 Topock Lake Havasu City No rth ern Sa nta Fe 89 93 97 Y A V A PA I Bu rlin gto n 96 89 ALT Ariz ona 89 Cen tral 17 Cottonwood ALT 14140 99 Joseph Burli 40 City Holbrook n ngto Fe anta rn S 40 rthe No Sa 150nders 61 191 n g gto rlin Bur 95 r 1P0escott 89 .5 Apache Apache 179 87 260 377 260 87 260 Payson Young 169 69 Camp Verde Snowflake 7 1.5 7 180 191 Fe aF a ant n rn S t t he Nr Nor 277 260 Show Low 473 1t0 S . Johns 60 61 60 260 180 Parker L A PA Z 72 95 Quartzsite Ehrenberg 3 &C ona Ariz 6 0 7 rnia 1 alifo Wickenburg 17 Eagar 373 273 12 303 74 87 60 101 51 101 188 288 60 73 Alpine GREENLEE 10 Union Paci 85 GILA 202 fic PHOENIX 202 8Phelps-Dodge Cyprus Mine 8 Apache Jct. iion Un U 60 M A R I C O PA 0 95 Yuma 10 7 87 06 0 Ma Globe Superiar on o 170 iffiic ac Pa ific Y nion PaA UM c U 69 8 238 347 387 Ariz gma GRAHAM 70 Winkleman 191 8 85 Gila Ben d 8 San Luis 73 A jojo dge A s-Do Phelp Gila Bend Casa Grande 84 287 Florence Copper Basin 79 2 177 1 Phelps-Dodge Cliftoni Morenc Clifton 191 87 0 0 77 Tucson PINAL 77 Tucs on-C orne li a & 10 Fort Grant Ari zon Thatcher a Er 366 Saffoad t se rn 191 266 78 75 2 z e uel A M Man S San ic ciif P Pa ion Un 70 iffic ac Pa iion U Un Duncan 65 86 Why 86 PIMA Robles Jct. 85 79 191 83 90 80 82 Bowie San Simon Willcox Union10 10 Lukeville 10 UnionBPacnific 10 enso 386 286 Sasabe 186 181 Paci fic ro an d San Pe Freight Tonnage 19 8 Sonoita Tombstone COCHISE 191 80 80 Douglas ic ic P if n Pac U Unio 289 rn estern So hw & Sout S A N TA CRUZ Nogales 82 83 Sierra Vista 0 1.97 92 Bisbee 189 Source: ADOT, Transportation Planning Division, Transit Team 57 Rail 2000 Arizona Rail Passenger Service (passenger loading in 00's) 15 Littlefield Colorado City Fredonia 89 389 ALT 89 ALT Page Jacob Lake 89 67 Hoover Dam Grand Canyon 19Rim North Bl ac kM es a & 98 La ke 89 Po w0 16ell Tuba City 163 564 Kayenta 160 Teec Nos Pos 191 87 N AVA J O A PA C H E Chinle M O H AV E 93 COCONINO Fe 64 264 Second Mesa 191 264 Ganado Grand Canyon Burl 68 Bullhead City rt n No ingto Peach anta p in S hSern gs 66 Seligman 180 64 89 264 Window Rock 3.1 Kingman 40 Ash Fork 95 99 Burlington No rthern Santa 540 Fe Williams 44.9 40 87 77 40 Topock Lake Havasu City No rth ern Sa nta Fe 89 93 97 Y A V A PA I Bu rlin gto n 96 89 Clarkdale ALT ALT Flagstaff Ariz ona 89 7.2 Central 17 2.2 87 Winslow 40 Joseph Burli 40 City Holbrook n ngto Fe anta rn S 40 rthe No Sanders 61 191 n g gto rlin Bur Apache Apache 179 89 169 69 Prescott 260 Camp Verde 377 260 87 260 Payson Young 77 180 191 St. Johns Fe aF a ant n rn S t t he Nr Nor 95 Snowflake 277 260 Show Low 473 61 60 260 180 Parker L A PA Z 72 95 Quartzsite & ona Ariz 6 0 ia forn 71 Cali Wickenburg 17 74 87 101 202 Eagar 373 273 60 188 288 60 73 Alpine GREENLEE GILA 88 Apache Jct. Globe iion Un U 60 170 iffiic ac Pa M A R I C O PA 2.5 Yuma San Luis 95 ific Y nion PaA UM c U 85 10 60 238 347 387 87 Casa Grande 287 Florence Mag ma Ari Suzorna pe ior GRAHAM 70 Winkleman 191 177 Morenci Clifton 191 8 85 Gila Ben d Gila Bend 8 84 Copper Basin 79 8 87 PINAL 77 Tucs on-C orne li a & 10 77 Fort Grant Ari zon Thatcher a Er 366 Saffoad t se rn 191 266 78 z e uel A M Man S San ic ciif P Pa ion Un 75 70 iffic ac Pa iion U Un Duncan Ajo Why 86 PIMA Robles Jct. 25.9 86 Tucson Union Pacific 85 Lukeville 10 386 286 Sasabe 1.9 Benson Bowie San Simon Willcox Union10 10 10 186 191 181 Paci fic 83 Passenger Totals Tourist Routes Amtrak Routes Passenger Depots * Phoenix passengers are bused to Tucson Depot Source: ADOT, Transportation Planning Division, Transit Team 19 Sonoita 90 80 82 ro an d San Pe Tombstone COCHISE 191 80 80 Douglas ic ic P if n Pac U Unio 289 rn estern So hw & Sout S A N TA CRUZ Nogales 82 83 Sierra Vista 90 92 Bisbee 189 58 Aviation 2001 Aviation Facilities In 2001, there were 201 airports and 108 heliports in the State of Arizona. Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport was ranked the 6th busiest airport in the nation and 7th in the nation in number of enplaned passengers. Tucson International Airport was the state's second leading terminal and was ranked 66th in the nation for the number of enplaned passengers during the same period. 2000 Aviation Statistics for Commercial Service Airports AIRPORT Ernest A. Love Field Flagstaff-Pulliam Grand Canyon National Park Kingman Laughlin-Bullhead City International Lake Havasu City Municipal Page Municipal Phoenix Sky Harbor International Show Low Municipal Sierra Vista Tucson International Yuma International Source: ADOT, Aeronautics Division ENPLANEMENTS 4,682 33,371 411,416 1,656 75,020 8,569 2,131 17,568,859 2,857 6,073 1,816,412 50,337 COMMERCIAL OPERATIONS 4,422 7,623 142,616 1,976 3,441 6,310 2,300 488,663 5,892 5,944 107,583 13,716 GENERAL OPERATIONS 315,578 42,877 19,759 33,924 46,921 42,690 7,545 64,647 14,924 114,056 143,360 79,826 � ADOT 2002 � ADOT 2002 59 Aviation CY 2001 Commercial and General Operations Operations refer to either take-offs or landings of an aircraft. In 2001 there were a total of 880,077 commercial operations and 3,431,433 general aviation operations in Arizona. For the same year, the top 10 Arizona airports in terms of combined commercial and general aviation operations included: Phoenix-Sky Harbor Int'l (553,310), Phoenix-Deer Valley (370,779), Prescott-Ernest A. Love Field (320,000), Mesa-Falcon Field (274,665), Tucson-Tucson Int'l (250,943), Chandler Municipal (249,811), Scottsdale (206,553), Tucson-Ryan Field (174,461), Grand Canyon National Park (162,375), and Williams Gateway (158,481). CY 2001 Total Commercial and General Operations TOTAL COMMERCIAL AIRPORT OPERATIONS OPERATIONS Ajo Municipal 1,975 Avi Suquilla 14,000 3,000 Bagdad 10,000 Benson Municipal 1,975 Bisbee-Douglas Int'l 5,400 2,000 Bisbee Municipal 20,550 1,700 Bowie 800 Buckeye Municipal 25,000 Casa Grande Municipal 20,000 Chandler Municipal 249,811 1,650 Chinle Municipal 2,400 Cibecue 200 Cochise College 50,000 Cochise County 7,300 Colorado City Municipal 9,000 Coolidge Municipal 9,680 3,000 Cottonwood 16,000 Douglas Municipal 11,000 Eagle Airpark 28,000 Eloy Municipal 52,000 500 GENERAL OPERATIONS 1,975 11,000 10,000 1,975 3,400 18,850 800 25,000 20,000 248,161 2,400 200 50,000 7,300 9,000 6,680 16,000 11,000 28,000 51,500 60 Aviation TOTAL OPERATIONS Ernest A. Love Field 320,000 Estrella Sailport 23,000 Falcon Field 274,665 Flagstaff Pulliam 50,500 Flying J Ranch 100 Forepaugh 120 Ganado 700 Gila Bend Municipal 11,000 Glendale Municipal 110,000 Gr. Canyon Bar Ten Airstrip 2,500 Grand Canyon Caverns 3,200 Grand Canyon Ntl. Park 162,375 Grand Canyon West 22,600 Grande Valley 5 Greenlee County 6,726 H.A. Clark Memorial Field Holbrook Municipal 5,300 Kayenta 4,626 Kearny 790 Kingman 35,900 Lake Havasu City 49,000 Laughlin-Bullhead City Int'l 50,362 Marana NW Regional 86,110 Marble Canyon 2,500 Nogales Int'l 28,500 Page Municipal 22,239 Payson 35,000 Pearce Ferry 1,200 Phoenix Goodyear 142,000 Phoenix Sky Harbor Int'l 553,310 Phoenix-Deer Valley Muni. 370,779 Pinal Airpark 22,910 AIRPORT COMMERCIAL OPERATIONS 4,422 6,748 7,623 GENERAL OPERATIONS 315,578 23,000 267,917 42,877 100 120 700 11,000 107,689 2,500 3,200 19,759 22,600 5 3,076 5,400 3,900 4,626 790 33,924 42,690 46,921 84,110 2,500 26,200 7,545 33,350 1,200 141,947 64,647 363,691 22,910 2,311 142,616 3,650 5,400 1,400 1,976 6,310 3,441 2,000 2,300 14,694 1,650 53 488,663 7,088 61 Aviation TOTAL OPERATIONS Pleasant Valley 56,000 Polacca 5,300 Rolle Airfield 4,900 Ryan Field 174,461 Safford Regional 14,100 San Carlos Apache 12,000 San Manuel 5,000 Scottsdale 206,553 Sedona 50,000 Seligman 45,000 Sells 800 Show Low Municipal 20,816 Sierra Vista Municipal 120,000 Springerville Babbitt Field 7,500 St. Johns Industrial Airpark 10,500 Stellar Airpark 36,000 Sun Valley 1,800 Superior Municipal 100 Taylor 17,000 Temple Bar 1,800 Tucson Int'l 250,943 Tuweep 100 Valle 22,500 Whiteriver 4,906 Wickenburg 22,300 Williams Gateway 158,481 Window Rock 2,800 Winslow-Lindbergh Regional 26,700 Yuma Int'l 93,542 Total 4,311,510 AIRPORT Source: ADOT, Aeronautics Division COMMERCIAL OPERATIONS 18 1,000 7,548 12,000 5,892 5,944 2,500 4,000 1,000 400 107,583 1,475 300 4,256 3,650 13,716 880,077 GENERAL OPERATIONS 56,000 5,300 4,900 174,443 13,100 12,000 5,000 199,005 38,000 45,000 800 14,924 114,056 5,000 6,500 36,000 1,800 100 16,000 1,400 143,360 100 22,500 3,431 22,000 154,225 2,800 23,050 79,826 3,431,433 62 Aviation FY 2003-2007 Aeronautics Airport Development Program PROJECT Commercial Service/Reliever Public and Secondary Special Total Annual Development 2003 $4,099,946 $1,876,744 $900,000 2004 2005 2006 2007 TOTALS $8,310,991 $9,805,955 $10,916,042 $10,576,191 $43,709,125 $3,394,347 $900,000 $2,319,209 $900,000 $2,413,723 $900,000 $2,239,050 $900,000 $12,243,073 $4,500,000 $6,876,690 $12,605,338 $13,025,164 $14,229,765 $13,715,241 $60,452,198 Source: ADOT, Aeronautics Division FY 2002 Aviation Revenue Revenue totaling $13.6 million is derived annually from aviation operations in Arizona. Six main sources of revenue collection and the amount of revenue they generated in FY 2002 are: Aviation Fuel Sales - $510,378 Investment/Loan Transactions - $2,036,81 Aircraft Registration Fees - $74,815 Flight Property Tax* - $6,528,347 Lieu Tax - $3,544,012 Grand Canyon Airport - $940,401 *50% is allocated to the General Fund 2001 Primary and Secondary Airport Systems In Arizona, there are currently 65 airports within the Primary Airport System. They include 8 primary commercial service airports, 5 nonprimary commercial service airports, 9 relievers, 33 general aviation airports, 9 Native American airports, and 1 future airport in La Paz County. There are currently 30 airports within the Secondary Airport System, including 8 publicly owned airports, 5 privately owned airports, 4 government-owned airports, 12 airports owned by tribal governments, and 1 future airport in Greenlee County. Locations of these primary and secondary airports are indicated in the following two maps. 63 Aviation Primary Airport System Colorado City Page Kayenta A PA C H E Tuba City Grand Canyon West Grand Canyon National Park Chinle COCONINO M O H AV E Valle N AVA J O Ganado Window Rock LaughlinBullhead Int'l Kingman Williams H.A. Clark Memorial Flagstaff-Pulliam Winslow-Lindberg Reg Sedona Cottonwood Prescott Ernest A. Love Field Taylor St. Johns Industrial Taylor Eagle Airpark Y A V A PA I Lake Havasu Bagdad Avi Suquilla Payson Show Low Cibeque Springerville L A PA Z Quartzsite Wickenburg Pleasant Valley Deer Valley Scottsdale Glendale Falcon Field GILA Whiteriver GREENLEE Buckeye Goodyear Stellar Phoenix Sky-Harbor Williams-Gateway Chandler Globe-SCRA M A R I C O PA Yuma Int'l YUMA Gila Bend Estrella Sailport Casa Grande Eloy GRAHAM Coolidge Greenlee City PINAL Safford Reg Pinal Airpark Ajo Marana NW Reg Ryan Field Tucson Int'l Cochise City PIMA Benson Commercial Service-Primary Commercial Service-Other Reliever Airports General Aviation-Public Use Airports Native American Airports Future Airports Source: ADOT, Aeronautics Division COCHISE S A N TA CRUZ Nogales Int'l Sierra Vista Bisbee-Douglas Bisbee Cochise College Douglas 64 Aviation FY 2003-2007 Aeronautics Airport Development Program Marble Canyon Rock Point Grand Canyon Bar 10 Shonto Pinon Lukachukai Tuweep Pearce Ferry Temple Bar Rocky Ridge COCONINO Hualapai Polacca Grand Canyon Caverns A PA C H E M O H AV E N AVA J O Seligman Pine Springs Sun Valley Y A V A PA I L A PA Z Forepaugh GILA M A R I C O PA Memorial Grande Valley Ak Chin Superior GREENLEE San Carlos YUMA Rolle PINAL Kearny GRAHAM Flying J O'Conner Field San Manuel PIMA Sells Bowie COCHISE S A N TA CRUZ Tombstone Ownership of Secondary Airports Public Private Native American Government Future Source: ADOT, Aeronautics Division 65 Bviyclo Aicatiesn Statewide Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan The Statewide Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan is just underway and will be completed in 2003. This will be the first State of Arizona Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan and it will be incorporated into the State's Long-Range Transportation Plan. With input from representatives throughout Arizona, bicycle/pedestrian goals, objectives, and policies will be developed. The major intent of the Statewide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan (Plan) is to provide a long-term plan for a system of shared roadways and bicycle/pedestrian facilities for roadways under ADOT jurisdiction. This includes the definition of the roles of state and local government in the continual development of the bicycle and pedestrian transportation system in Arizona. With the advent of multi-modal transportation planning, and given that most of the major metropolitan areas in Arizona have implemented bicycle/pedestrian plans, it is now desirable that ADOT develop a bicycle/pedestrian plan that encompasses all of Arizona. This Plan will define how roadways under ADOT jurisdiction will be integrated into the existing bicycle/pedestrian plans of each MPO, and the role that ADOT plays in advancing these bicycle/pedestrian plans. For rural areas of the state, the Plan will provide local jurisdictions with guidance in making transportation decisions related to bicycle and pedestrian travel. Most importantly, a statewide bicycle/pedestrian plan will guide ADOT in making transportation decisions impacting bicycling and pedestrian activity, and ensure that these nonmotorized modes of transportation are given due consideration as a viable part of Arizona's multi-modal transportation system. In addition, the Plan will also: - Classify existing roadways on their bicycle suitability. - Locate gaps and determine continuity issues int the network. - Develop a matrix and map of facilities. - Develop model ordinances for use by local communities. - Develop a safety and educational campaign. � ADOT 2002 66 Bviyclo Aicatiesn Bicycle Safety and Traffic Accidents In Arizona, children 14 years old and younger are involved in 21% of fatal bicycle accidents and 23% of bicycle-related injuries. Statewide, 83% of the fatalities involving bicyclists and 92% of injuries Statewide Bicycle Crashes 2001 TOTAL Number of crashes 1,993 Persons killed 29 Persons injured 1,758 261 Property damage only involving bicyclists occur in urban areas. Riding against traffic is the number one cause of accidents involving bicycles and motor vehicles in urban areas. URBAN 1,839 24 1,621 245 RURAL 154 5 137 16 1997-2001 Bicycle Fatality/Injury Comparison YEAR 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 TOTAL KILLED 31 23 26 25 29 PERSONS KILLED MALE FEMALE TOTAL INJURED 2,067 1,954 1,986 1,915 1,757 PERSONS INJURED MALE FEMALE NOT REPORTED 2001 Bicycle Accident Fatalities and Injuries by Age AGE GROUP TOTAL TOTAL 0-4 5-9 10-14 15-19 1 2 3 2 1 2 3 2 2 4 5 3 0 2 2 0 26 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 3 11 96 283 242 11 79 216 191 0 17 67 51 46 49 54 30 4 2 2 22 344 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 20-24 2 25-34 5 35-44 5 45-54 4 55-64 1 65-74 2 75++ 2 Not recorded 0 Totals 29 175 129 235 186 289 235 163 132 52 48 32 30 17 14 115 93 1,710 1,364 Source: ADOT, Arizona Motor Vehicle 2001 Crash Facts 67 |