Performance audit, Arizona Department of Transportation, highway maintenance

              Debra K. Davenport
Auditor General
Performance Audit
Arizona Department
of Transportation—
Highway Maintenance
Performance Audit Division
JUNE • 2007
REPORT NO. 07-03
A REPORT
TO THE
ARIZONA LEGISLATURE
The is appointed by the Joint Legislative Audit Committee, a bipartisan committee composed of five senators
and five representatives. Her mission is to provide independent and impartial information and specific recommendations to
improve the operations of state and local government entities. To this end, she provides financial audits and accounting services
to the State and political subdivisions, investigates possible misuse of public monies, and conducts performance audits of
school districts, state agencies, and the programs they administer.
The Joint Legislative Audit Committee
Audit Staff
Copies of the Auditor General’s reports are free.
You may request them by contacting us at:
Office of the Auditor General
2910 N. 44th Street, Suite 410 • Phoenix, AZ 85018 • (602) 553-0333
Additionally, many of our reports can be found in electronic format at:
www.azauditor.gov
Melanie M. Chesney, Director
Shan Hays, Manager and Contact Person
Brent Nelson, Team Leader
Brian Miele
Jay Rasband
Senator Robert Blendu, Chair Representative John Nelson, Vice-Chair
Senator Carolyn Allen Representative Tom Boone
Senator Pamela Gorman Representative Jack Brown
Senator Richard Miranda Representative Peter Rios
Senator Rebecca Rios Representative Steve Yarbrough
Senator Tim Bee (ex-officio) Representative Jim Weiers (ex-officio)
DEBRA K. DAVENPORT, CPA
AUDITOR GENERAL
STATE OF ARIZONA
OFFICE OF THE
AUDITOR GENERAL
WILLIAM THOMSON
DEPUTY AUDITOR GENERAL
2910 NORTH 44th STREET • SUITE 410 • PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85018 • (602) 553-0333 • FAX (602) 553-0051
June 5, 2007
Members of the Arizona Legislature
The Honorable Janet Napolitano, Governor
Victor Mendez, Director
Arizona Department of Transportation
Transmitted herewith is a report of the Auditor General, A Performance Audit of the Arizona
Department of Transportation—Highway Maintenance. This report is in response to a May
22, 2006, resolution of the Joint Legislative Audit Committee. The performance audit was
conducted as part of the sunset review process prescribed in Arizona Revised Statutes
§41-2951 et seq. I am also transmitting with this report a copy of the Report Highlights for
this audit to provide a quick summary for your convenience.
As outlined in its response, the Arizona Department of Transportation agrees with all of the
findings and plans to implement all of the recommendations.
My staff and I will be pleased to discuss or clarify items in the report.
This report will be released to the public on June 6, 2007.
Sincerely,
Debbie Davenport
Auditor General
Enclosure
The Office of the Auditor General has conducted a performance audit of the Arizona
Department of Transportation (ADOT) pursuant to a May 22, 2006, resolution of the
Joint Legislative Audit Committee. This is the second in a series of three reports and
was conducted as part of the sunset review process prescribed in Arizona Revised
Statutes (A.R.S.) §41-2951 et seq. This audit focuses on the Intermodal Transportation
Division’s (Division) highway maintenance activities including how maintenance
monies are spent, the overall highway pavement conditions, and how needed
maintenance work is identified and planned. The first audit focused on the use of
consultants to design and manage construction projects, the process for inspecting
projects under construction, and audits conducted on consultant and construction
contracts. The final audit report will address the 12 statutory sunset factors.
ADOT was established in 1974 to plan, develop, design, construct, maintain, and
operate the State’s highway transportation infrastructure for moving people and
goods by surface and air throughout Arizona. The State’s transportation infrastructure
value exceeded $9 billion as of June 30, 2006, and the Division had 922 employee
positions assigned to highway maintenance activities. ADOT has nine districts that
provide highway maintenance services within their assigned geographic areas and
four groups with state-wide maintenance duties. In addition, eight employees in the
Materials Group measure pavement conditions and administer pavement
preservation projects done by contractors. As of December 31, 2005, Arizona’s
highway system included 18,503 travel lane miles, which measure roadway capacity,
or more than 27,000 maintenance lane miles including ramps, passing lanes, and
shoulders. For fiscal year 2007, ADOT has a total of $124.3 million in funding for
highway maintenance, and plans to spend $103.3 million for pavement preservation.
Maintenance monies support numerous activities (see
pages 11 through 17)
The Division provides various road-related and pavement maintenance. Legislative
appropriations for maintenance—approximately $118.6 million in fiscal year 2007—
represent approximately 10 percent of ADOT’s total highway monies, and almost 9
Office of the Auditor General
SUMMARY
page i
of 10 of these dollars are spent on nonpavement features and other costs such as
employee leave, supervision, and utilities. Nonpavement features are extensive
including roadside items such as highway shoulders, drainage structures, guardrails,
and fences; traffic control features such as signs, signals, and pavement markings;
landscaping and vegetation; and rest areas. Although the Division’s maintenance
crews perform most maintenance activities, division expenditures for contractor-provided
maintenance have increased. Specifically, the Division spent $17.5 million
on contractor-provided maintenance in fiscal year 2006, compared to $4.1 million in
fiscal year 1997.
Expenditures for pavement preservation projects come primarily from federal and
state monies made available through ADOT’s Five-Year Transportation Facilities
Construction Program. Contractors perform these projects, which usually involve
replacing 1 to 3 inches of pavement or overlaying existing pavement with 1 to 3
inches of asphalt. These projects are intended to extend the life of pavement before
more costly reconstruction is needed. In fiscal year 2006, ADOT estimates it spent
$77.3 million on 25 pavement preservation projects for an estimated 399 lane miles
and plans to spend $103.3 million for pavement preservation, which includes $5.5
million for preventive maintenance, in fiscal year 2007.
ADOT also receives monies that are earmarked for highway maintenance in
Maricopa County. In November 2004, Maricopa County voters approved Proposition
400, which extended the County’s half-cent transportation excise tax, of which a
portion is allocated to ADOT for regional landscape maintenance and litter pickup.
The Division received $5.7 million each year in fiscal years 2006 and 2007 and used
these monies for landscape maintenance, litter control, and pavement sweeping.
Most Arizona pavement rated satisfactory (see pages 19
through 24)
Most road pavement in Arizona’s state highway system has received satisfactory
ratings, and overall ratings were higher in 2005 than in 1995.1 Well-maintained
pavement provides several benefits, including increased safety, fewer auto repair
expenses, improved quality of the overall road network, and higher user comfort.2
The Division evaluates pavement quality using various measures including the
International Roughness Index (IRI), a nationally accepted measure of road
smoothness. Arizona’s roads compared favorably with contiguous states’, and
ratings generally showed improvement in 2005 compared to 1995. Interstate roads,
which often have the highest traffic volume, received better ratings than state routes
and U.S. highway roads, which have a lower percentage of high traffic volume
1 The Division’s road condition measurement focuses on pavement condition and does not address nonpavement
features such as guardrails, shoulders, and drainage systems.
2 Kreis, Doug, Lenahan O’Connell, and Brian Howell. Long-Term Maintenance Needs Planning. Lexington, KY: Kentucky
Transportation Center, College of Engineering, University of Kentucky, September 2005.
State of Arizona
page ii
segments. Finally, a consumer satisfaction survey showed that Arizona residents are
generally satisfied with highway maintenance efforts, but still want improvements in
all maintenance areas.
Division should improve method to determine
maintenance needs and allocate maintenance dollars
(see pages 25 through 35)
The Division should improve how it identifies annual maintenance needs and
allocates maintenance monies to maximize the state highway system’s life
expectancy, operational efficiency, appearance, and safety. ADOT has received
increased funding for maintenance, but because of increased associated costs and
maintenance demands, the Division reported that it has reduced its ability to provide
adequate highway system maintenance, such as pavement preventive maintenance
activities. Highway maintenance expenditures increased 56.6 percent between fiscal
years 1997 and 2006, averaging a 5.1 percent annual increase. At the same time,
asphalt costs increased 171 percent, traffic volume increased by 59 percent, and
travel lane miles increased by 8 percent. Division officials said the majority of the new
miles were in urban areas and are therefore more costly to maintain because of
heavy traffic volume and landscaping, median barriers, lighting, and other features.
In addition, some maintenance crews are affected by an increased number of
emergency incidents that reduce time and money available for planned maintenance
because the crews must respond to the incidents and repair damaged features,
such as guardrails and fences, in a timely manner.
The Division does not have integrated, systematic, state-wide processes to identify
maintenance needs. The districts plan annual work based on their historical activity
and current budget, not on an analysis and prioritization of everything that needs to
be done. In addition, the Division has not established adequate criteria such as
maintenance and inspection frequency guidelines to help districts plan needed
maintenance. Further, lacking an adequate process for identifying and prioritizing
state-wide needs, ADOT generally allocates maintenance funding on a historical
basis rather than by documented needs. This could result in one district’s inability to
complete higher-priority work while another district completes lower-priority work.
Further, this method does not consider roadway miles, traffic volume, population,
and other factors that may affect district maintenance workload.
The Division is developing four computerized systems to help measure its
maintenance needs, but these systems will not identify all needed maintenance. The
Division should implement a more systematic approach for addressing maintenance
needs by establishing frequency schedules, when applicable, for maintenance
activities; identifying all needed maintenance state-wide; estimating monies and
Office of the Auditor General
page iii
resources required to perform the needed maintenance; providing a prioritization
method to ensure that the most important and cost-effective maintenance is
performed within resource constraints; and providing a systematic method for
allocating resources to meet maintenance needs.
Other pertinent information (see pages 37 through 39)
The Division uses a combination of paid contractors, the Adopt-a-Highway program,
prison labor, and in-house maintenance crews to provide litter control along the state
highway system. In the greater Phoenix area, where a Maricopa County excise tax
provides monies for landscape maintenance and litter pickup, the Division plans litter
pickup for each roadway once a week. Most of this work is done by private
contractors paid with the excise tax monies, augmented by the Adopt-a-Highway
sponsor program. The Tucson and Flagstaff districts also use the Adopt-a-Highway
sponsor program, but on a much smaller scale than the Phoenix area. In other
districts, ADOT’s maintenance crews do only spot litter pickup on a public complaint
basis or when they observe debris on roadways that may pose safety hazards. The
Adopt-a-Highway volunteer program supplements maintenance crew litter pickup in
the rural districts.
State of Arizona
page iv
Office of the Auditor General
TABLE OF CONTENTS
continued
1
11
11
12
16
16
19
19
21
21
23
25
25
29
31
35
Introduction & Background
Finding 1: Maintenance monies support numerous
activities
Maintenance receives about 10 percent of ADOT’s highways
funding
Maintenance appropriations pay for many services
Five-Year Program funds pavement preservation
Proposition 400 monies support landscape maintenance and litter
pickup in Maricopa County
Finding 2: Most Arizona pavement rated satisfactory
Division uses several criteria and methods to rate pavement
Arizona pavement smoothness compares favorably with other
states
Arizona pavement quality better in 2005 than in 1995
Arizona interstate roads rated better than other roads
Finding 3: Division should improve method to
determine maintenance needs and allocate
maintenance dollars
Funding, demands, and costs increasing
Division lacks adequate planning process
Division can further improve needs measurement
Recommendations
page v
State of Arizona
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Other Pertinent Information
Agency Response
Tables:
1 Summary of Centerline Miles, Travel Lane Miles,
and Maintenance Lane Miles
December 31, 1996 through December 31, 2005
2 Intermodal Transportation Division—Highway Maintenance
Activities Schedule of Revenues and Expenditures, in Thousands
Fiscal Years 2005, 2006, and 2007
(Unaudited)
3 Maintenance Expenditures by Broad Category
Fiscal Year 2006
(Unaudited)
4 Comparison of IRI
for State Highway System Roadways between
Arizona and Surrounding States
Calendar Year 2005
5 Percentage of Arizona Interstate, State Route, and U.S. Highway
Roads Receiving a Satisfactory Rating in Roughness, Rut Depth,
Cracking, Patching, and Flushing
Calendar Year 2005
6 Percentage Changes in Construction Costs
As of August 2006
37
2
6
13
21
23
27
continued
page vi
Office of the Auditor General
TABLE OF CONTENTS
concluded
30
38
39
4
12
22
26
Tables: (Concl’d)
7 Comparisons of District Budget and FTE Allocations to
District Maintenance Lane Miles and Traffic Volume
Fiscal Year 2006
8 Adopt-a-Highway Sponsor Program Statistics
By District
Fiscal Year 2006
(Unaudited)
9 Adopt-a-Highway Volunteer Program Statistics
By District
Fiscal Year 2006
(Unaudited)
Figures:
1 Nine Maintenance Districts
2 Distribution of Special-Line-Item Appropriated Monies
To State-wide, Regional, and District Functions
Totaling $118.6 Million
Fiscal Year 2007
In Millions
(Unaudited)
3 Comparison of the Percentage of Arizona Highway System Roads
Receiving Good or Satisfactory or Poor or Objectionable Ratings
in Roughness, Cracking, Rut Depth, Patching, and Flushing
Calendar Years 1995 and 2005
4 Highway Maintenance Actual Expenditures and Pavement Preservation Bid
Amounts
Fiscal Years 1997 through 2006
and Estimated Expenditures
Fiscal Years 2007 through 2011
page vii
State of Arizona
page viii
The Office of the Auditor General has conducted a performance audit of the Arizona
Department of Transportation (ADOT) pursuant to a May 22, 2006, resolution of the
Joint Legislative Audit Committee. This is the second in a series of three reports and
was conducted as part of the sunset review process prescribed in Arizona Revised
Statutes (A.R.S.) §41-2951 et seq. This audit focuses on ADOT highway maintenance
activities, including how maintenance monies are spent, the overall condition of
highway pavement, and how needed maintenance work is identified and planned.
The first audit focused on using consultants to design and manage construction
projects, the process for inspecting projects under construction, and audits
conducted on consultant and construction contracts. The final audit report will
address the 12 statutory sunset factors.
ADOT responsible for maintaining transportation
infrastructure
ADOT was established in 1974 and is responsible for planning, developing,
designing, constructing, maintaining, and operating the State’s highway
transportation infrastructure for moving people and goods by surface and air
throughout Arizona. The State’s transportation infrastructure value exceeds
$9 billion as of June 30, 2006, and ADOT’s Strategic Plan notes that
protecting this substantial investment for Arizona’s taxpayers is of paramount
importance.
The Intermodal Transportation Division (Division), one of ADOT’s six divisions,
is responsible for ADOT’s highways program. As such, the Division provides
comprehensive highway management activities, including highway design,
construction, and maintenance. The Division’s maintenance mission is “to
maximize the life expectancy, operational efficiency, safety and appearance
of the state highway system.” In addition to pavement maintenance, the
Division maintains other roadway features such as guardrails, shoulders, and
drainage systems (see textbox). The Division’s maintenance activities also
include snow and ice removal, weed and litter control, and responding to
accidents and other emergencies. Finally, the Division operates a traffic
The State’s
transportation
infrastructure value
exceeds $9 billion.
Office of the Auditor General
INTRODUCTION
& BACKGROUND
page 1
Examples of roadway
features ADOT
maintains:
􀁺􇩃 Cattle guards
􀁺􇩄 Drainage systems
􀁺􇩇 Guardrails
􀁺􇩌 Landscaping
􀁺􇩌 Lighting
􀁺􇩍 Median barriers
􀁺􇩒 Rest areas
􀁺􇩒 Right-of-way fencing
􀁺􇩓 Shoulders
􀁺􇩓 Signage
􀁺􇩓 Striping
􀁺􇩔 Traffic signals
operations center that is intended to help maintain
public safety and reduce urban congestion by
monitoring roadways, providing public information,
and managing traffic-related incidents state-wide.
The Division maintains an expanding state-wide
road system that includes interstate highways,
which have uniform design standards and cross
state lines; U.S. routes, which cross state lines and
whose design standards are not uniform; and state
routes, which are unique to Arizona. This system
comprises nearly 7,000 centerline miles, a measure
that disregards the number of lanes, or more than
18,000 travel lane miles, a measure of roadway
capacity. When ramps, passing lanes, and
shoulders are included, the Division is responsible
for maintaining more than 27,000 maintenance lane
miles. All three measures have increased in the past
10 years, as shown in Table 1. Most highway growth
added capacity through more lanes, rather than
new highways. Thus, travel lane miles increased
more than centerline miles. Maintenance miles
exceed travel lane miles because they include
paved shoulders, ramps, and auxiliary and passing
lane miles.
Organization, staffing, and maintenance activities
The Division’s maintenance responsibilities are divided among several organizational
units. Altogether, 922 of the Division’s 2,223 FTE positions are assigned to highway
maintenance. These employees are assigned to 4 groups with state-wide
responsibilities and 9 districts responsible for defined geographical areas. In
addition, a section in the Materials Group with 8 employees not funded by
maintenance has responsibilities that include administering pavement preservation
projects. Specifically:
􀁺􇩔 The state-wide Maintenance Group (6 FTE funded by maintenance
appropriation), headed by the State Maintenance Engineer, provides support
services to groups and districts that do maintenance work. This group allocates
maintenance appropriations to the other groups and districts that have
maintenance-funded employees. The group also operates and maintains
ADOT’s maintenance management system (PeCoS) that ADOT uses to plan
State of Arizona
page 2
Table 1: Summary of Centerline Miles, Travel Lane Miles,
and Maintenance Lane Miles
December 31, 1996 through December 31, 2005
Centerline Travel Lane Maintenance
December 31 Miles Miles Lane Miles1
1996 6,596 17,130 Not reported
1997 6,605 17,160 Not reported
1998 6,608 17,363 Not reported
1999 6,608 17,381 Not reported
2000 6,611 17,407 24,958
2001 6,651 17,554 25,423
2002 6,785 18,067 25,851
2003 6,786 18,184 26,095
2004 6,816 18,449 27,000
2005 6,800 18,503 27,568
Net increase over
period reported 204 1,373 2,610
Percentage increase
over period reported 3.1% 8.0% 10.5%
1 Includes unpaved roads, which totaled 180 lane miles as of December 31, 2005.
Source: Auditor General staff analysis of information in FHWA Highway
Statistics reports, ADOT’s Highway Performance Management System,
and Annual State Highway System Logs. Maintenance lane miles were
not reported until 2000.
and report completed maintenance work, as well as preparing and maintaining
performance guidelines that describe highway roadway maintenance work
activities. In addition, the group assists districts with contracts for roadway
maintenance services and materials. Finally, the group administers outdoor
advertising permits and encroachment permits on highway right-of-ways.
􀁺􇩔 The state-wide Traffic Engineering Group’s Traffic Operations Section (48 FTE
funded by maintenance appropriation) provides signing and striping, which
involves painting traffic lines on pavement, for interstate highways and
manufactures most of the highway signs. It also maintains highway lighting and
traffic signals.
􀁺􇩔 The state-wide Natural Resources Group (33 FTE
funded by maintenance appropriation) is responsible for
managing land and vegetation along roadway corridors
throughout the State for safety and maintenance, which
includes providing weed and erosion control. This group
has regional operations in Flagstaff, Phoenix, Prescott,
and Tucson.
􀁺􇩔 The Transportation Technology Group (19 FTE funded
by maintenance appropriation) houses the Traffic
Operations Center in Phoenix that operates 24 hours
every day and is part of the Freeway Management
System (see textbox). Among other duties, the Center
monitors freeway cameras and traffic volume sensors,
and controls variable message signs and traffic
interchange signals. It operates in part to help manage
congestion caused by heavy traffic or accidents.
􀁺􇩎 Nine Engineering Districts (816 FTE funded by maintenance appropriation) have
responsibility for highway maintenance work within their established geographic
areas, as shown in Figure 1 (see page 4). Four of the nine districts—Flagstaff,
Phoenix, Prescott, and Tucson—have regional responsibility for highway
striping, signing, and traffic signals for all nine districts. The five other districts do
not perform these duties. District duties also vary based upon climate and
geographic differences. District maintenance responsibilities extend from the
right-of-way fence on one side of the road to the right-of-way fence on the other
side, and include:
􀁺􇩓 Surface maintenance, such as filling potholes, sealing cracks, and leveling
pavement;
􀁺􇩓 Shoulder maintenance, such as repairing unpaved shoulders;
Office of the Auditor General
page 3
Freeway Management System—Transportation
technology system used on 100 miles of freeway
in the Phoenix area. System includes
management of ramp meters, closed-circuit
cameras, variable-message signs, and other
communication systems used for monitoring and
controlling traffic to reduce congestion, enhance
safety, and save fuel.
Traffic Operations Center-—24-hour facility
intended to help maintain public safety and
reduce urban congestion by monitoring real-time
traffic conditions in the Phoenix area as well as
state-wide weather and roadway conditions,
providing timely public information on traffic
conditions, and managing traffic-related incidents
state-wide.
Districts are responsible
for maintenance in their
geographic areas.
􀁺􇩒 Roadside maintenance, such as guardrail and
fence repair;
􀁺􇩄 Drainage maintenance, such as cleaning out
ditches to ensure water properly drains off
pavement;
􀁺􇩋 Keeping roadways free from obstructions and
debris; and
􀁺􇩓 Snow and ice removal.
􀁺􇩔 The Materials Group’s state-wide Pavement
Management Section (8 FTE, not funded by
maintenance appropriation) administers pavement
preservation projects done by contractors. The
projects, which include removing and replacing the
top few inches of pavement, prolong the time before
a road requires more expensive reconstruction,
according to ADOT officials. The section also
surveys highway conditions and tests roads for
cracking, roughness, and other characteristics used
for planning pavement preservation projects.
In addition to in-house crews, the Division uses contractors to provide
maintenance services. For example, contractors perform median cable barrier
repair, rest area maintenance, pavement sweeping, landscape maintenance,
and litter pickup, and provide services for all pavement preservation projects.
According to division officials, ADOT uses contractors for any maintenance,
reconstruction, or construction project valued at $50,000 or more. Laws 2007,
Chapter 77, §1 increases this contracting threshold to $189,000 and beginning
in fiscal year 2009 provides for annual inflation adjustments.
Budget
ADOT’s Highways Program had available monies of almost $1.2 billion for fiscal year
2007, with $118.6 million of this amount, or about 10 percent, provided for highway
maintenance in a special line-item appropriation. Beginning in fiscal year 2006, the
Legislature appropriated highway program revenues to maintenance using a special
line item. Prior to that year, the maintenance amount was noted in a General
Appropriations Act footnote, but it was not a special line-item appropriation.
According to the appropriations report for fiscal year 2006, the special line item was
created to highlight highway maintenance expenditures. Including $5.7 million
State of Arizona
page 4
Figure 1: Nine Maintenance Districts
Source: ADOT Web site map of construction and maintenance districts.
provided from Proposition 400 transportation excise tax revenues, ADOT has a total
of $124.3 million for highway maintenance activities in fiscal year 2007.
The highway maintenance line item is funded mostly by revenue from the State
Highway Fund with some monies coming from the Safety Enforcement and
Transportation Infrastructure Fund. The Division’s highway maintenance actual and
estimated revenues and expenditures for fiscal years 2005 through 2007 are shown
in Table 2 (see page 6). The highway maintenance appropriation is nonlapsing until
2 months after fiscal year-end, allowing the Division 14 months to expend
maintenance monies. As Table 2 shows, the Division’s total expenditures for highway
maintenance were approximately $106.7 million in fiscal year 2005 and $113.5 million
for fiscal year 2006, compared with $127.9 estimated for fiscal year 2007. In fiscal
years 2005 and 2006, the Division expended approximately 38 percent of its
expenditures on employee salaries and benefits. The other operating expense
category is large because it includes maintenance materials, equipment costs,
contractor-provided maintenance, and costs for maintaining maintenance facilities
throughout the State.
In addition to maintenance expenditures funded directly from its operating budget,
the Division also expends significant amounts that come from two other sources, as
follows:
􀁺􇩔 The State Transportation Board approves pavement preservation projects in
ADOT’s Five-Year Transportation Facilities Construction Program that are funded
by state monies and federal highway trust monies. In fiscal years 2005 and
2006, the Division reported that it spent an estimated $90 million and $77.3
million, respectively, for such projects, and has projects with estimated costs
totaling $93.4 million planned for fiscal year 2007.
􀁺􇩔 The Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) also allocates monies from
the special half-cent transportation excise tax authorized by voters as
Proposition 400 in November 2004 to the Division, which it uses for landscape
maintenance, litter control, and sweeping for the Maricopa Regional Freeway
system. The allocations for each of fiscal years 2006 and 2007 were $5.9 million,
of which the Division received $5.7 million. Over the 20-year life of Proposition
400, MAG has earmarked $279 million total for these maintenance activities
administered by the Division.
Scope and methodology
This audit focused on how the Division spent special line-item monies for highway
maintenance, highway conditions, and how the Division identified and planned
needed maintenance activities. The audit includes the following findings and
associated recommendations:
A special tax provides
monies for landscape
maintenance, litter
control, and sweeping
for the Maricopa
Regional Freeway
system.
Office of the Auditor General
page 5
State of Arizona
page 6
Table 2: Intermodal Transportation Division—Highway Maintenance
Activities Schedule of Revenues and Expenditures, in Thousands1
Fiscal Years 2005, 2006, and 2007
(Unaudited)
2005 2006 2007
(Actual) (Actual) (Estimate)
Revenues:
Appropriations
State Highway Fund2 $106,112.0 $110,818.7 $118,087.1
Safety Enforcement and Transportation Infrastructure Fund3 558.7 558.7 558.7
Transportation excise taxes4 5,700.0 5,700.0
Total revenues 106,670.7 117,077.4 124,345.8
Expenditures and operating transfers:
Personal services and related benefits 40,430.1 42,687.1 45,900.0
Professional and outside services 847.4 1,253.5 1,109.6
Travel 730.7 712.6 760.0
Other operating5 60,840.8 66,097.2 77,668.4
Equipment 3,816.0 2,764.5 2,470.0
Total expenditures 106,665.0 113,514.9 127,908.0
Excess (deficiency) of revenues over expenditures6 $ 5.7 $ 3,562.5 $ (3,562.2)
1 The table includes only the Arizona Department of Transportation’s (ADOT) operating revenues and expenditures relating to the
Intermodal Transportation Division’s highway maintenance activities. Consequently, the table does not include pavement
preservation capital expenditures used for pavement overlay projects included in ADOT’s 5-year construction program paid with
highway construction monies. In addition, the table is presented on a budgetary basis, in which expenditures are reported in the
budget year incurred.
2 Consists of the Division’s portion of the Department’s appropriation from State Highway Fund monies used to pay for its highway
maintenance activities. The State Highway Fund receives monies from the Highway User Revenue Fund, and fuel and motor
carrier taxes.
3 Consists of the Division’s portion of the Department’s appropriation from Safety Enforcement and Transportation Infrastructure
Fund monies used to pay for its highway maintenance activities. This Fund receives monies primarily from motor vehicle licenses
and registration fees.
4 Consists of monies from the special half-cent transportation excise tax authorized by voters as Proposition 400 in November
2004, which is allocated by MAG.
5 Consists of various highway maintenance costs such as payments for utilities; landscaping; cable barrier and guardrail repair; rest
area maintenance; traffic control; equipment, building, and land rental; general repair and maintenance; and materials.
6 The estimated deficiency of revenues over expenditures for fiscal year 2007 will be funded with unexpended Proposition 400
monies carried forward from fiscal year 2006.
Source: Auditor General staff analysis of financial information provided by the Arizona Department of Transportation for fiscal years
2005, 2006, and 2007.
􀁺􇩍 Monies provided for highway maintenance activities represent about 10 percent
of ADOT’s highway program funding and support more than 250 different
maintenance activities provided throughout the State.
􀁺􇩁 Arizona’s state highway system as a whole has mostly smooth and good-quality
pavement, and was in better condition in 2005 than in 1995. In addition,
Arizona’s state-maintained roads compare favorably with roads in contiguous
states based upon data published by the Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA).
􀁺􇩔 The Division could better measure and identify annual maintenance work
needed to maximize the state highway system’s life expectancy, operational
efficiency, appearance, and safety. The Division has taken steps to better
measure maintenance needs, but needs to do more, including identifying work
that should be done but cannot be accomplished with existing resources, and
establishing guidelines for maintenance and inspection frequencies and work
priorities.
In addition, the report contains other pertinent information on the Division’s litter
control activities.
Auditors used a variety of methods to review and study the issues addressed in this
audit. Audit methods included interviews with management and staff at ADOT, the
Division, and the Federal Highway Administration. Auditors reviewed various policies
and procedures, including performance guidelines for conducting maintenance work
activities, to understand the type of work performed by the Division. Auditors also
reviewed and analyzed budget requests for the state highway maintenance program.
Further, auditors observed maintenance crews and made site visits to ten
maintenance facilities.
Auditors also used the following methods in each finding area:
􀁺􇩔 To determine how highway maintenance monies were spent and to identify
changing spending patterns and maintenance activities, auditors reviewed Joint
Legislative Budget Committee (JLBC) appropriations reports for fiscal years
2006 and 2007, budget allocation reports prepared by the State Maintenance
Engineer for the same periods, a state-wide activity spending report from
PeCoS for fiscal year 2006, and ADOT’s plan for highway construction, called
the Five-Year Transportation Facilities Construction Program, for fiscal years 2007
through 2011, and previous plans back to fiscal year 1997. The Division uses
PeCoS to report labor, equipment, materials, and other costs by more than 250
maintenance activity codes. Auditors consulted with the State Maintenance
Engineer about how to categorize activity and program costs from PeCoS into
fewer meaningful higher-level classifications to illustrate how maintenance
monies were used. The PeCoS system provides the only source of information
Office of the Auditor General
page 7
on expenditures by maintenance type. Auditors compared total costs reported
in PeCoS to total costs in Advantage, ADOT’s financial and accounting software
system, and concluded that PeCoS costs were reasonably complete for high-level
category analysis. Finally, auditors obtained revenue and spending data on
pavement preservation and maintenance activities funded by Proposition 400
from division officials for fiscal years 2006 and 2007 to document other highway
maintenance spending.
􀁺􇩔 To evaluate changes in state-maintained highway pavement conditions, auditors
obtained a spreadsheet with annual highway condition ratings at each milepost
for calendar years 1995 to 2005. This data was from ADOT’s Pavement
Management System (PMS), which is the Division’s system for tracking
pavement quality. Auditors analyzed and summarized this data on six rating
criteria to determine how roadway pavement conditions had changed from 1995
to 2005. Specifically, auditors used rating criteria the Division uses to evaluate
pavement quality, including measures of pavement roughness; the percentage
of pavement with cracking; the depth of ruts or height of ridges in the pavement;
the percentage of pavement with patching; flushing, which measures the extent
of asphalt oil seeping up from pavement; and friction, which measures a
vehicle’s ability to stop on pavement. Auditors sampled 50 ratings from the
downloaded highway condition rating spreadsheet for the years 1995 and 2005
from each rating factor used in the analysis and compared them to source data
in PMS and found without exception that spreadsheet data matched PMS data.
To evaluate PMS data reliability, auditors interviewed division employees who
gather roadway condition data, observed employees gathering data, reviewed
equipment calibration logs, and verified internal controls over data recording,
and concluded that internal controls were adequate. Auditors also compared
state road condition data reported by the FHWA in its annual Highway Statistics
publications from 1995 to 2004 to determine how Arizona roads compared to
surrounding state roads. However, the FHWA does not collect data for the
purpose of comparison, and cautions that not all states use the same collection
and measurement methods. Auditors concluded that data for the surrounding
states was reasonably comparable by consulting with an FHWA official,
reviewing a FHWA document detailing each state’s International Roughness
Index (IRI) measurement and collection methods, and reviewing a California
Department of Transportation study completed in July 2004, which compared
the methodologies different states use to gather IRI data.
􀁺􇩔 To evaluate the Division’s ability to identify, quantify, and estimate costs for
maintenance activities needed to maximize the state highway system’s life
expectancy, operational efficiency, safety, and appearance, auditors interviewed
maintenance supervisors at all levels within the Division to determine how they
identified, measured, and documented highway maintenance needs. Auditors
also evaluated division methods and processes for preparing highway
State of Arizona
page 8
maintenance budget requests. To determine an appropriate inflationary index to
use when comparing historical financial information, auditors interviewed an
economist and department chair for the Western Bureau of Labor Statistics
Information Office, an Arizona State University (ASU) professor with Realty
Studies at the ASU Polytechnic College, and ADOT’s Chief Economist. Auditors
analyzed state-wide activity reports the State Maintenance Engineer provided
from PeCoS data for fiscal years 1997 through 2006 and compared spending
by maintenance activity between fiscal years 1997 and 2006 to identify
significant differences or trends in work activities and spending levels, evaluated
spending for pavement preservation during the same period, and compared
annual maintenance expenditures to annual construction expenditures to
identify significant trends or inequities. Finally, auditors reviewed literature on
how preventive maintenance activities could reduce overall highway life-cycle
costs if done at the right time.
􀁺􇩔 To gather information regarding division litter control activities, auditors
interviewed maintenance managers and the ADOT Adopt-a-Highway
coordinator, who provided highway miles and litter pickup frequencies for
adopted highway segments. Auditors analyzed activity reports from PeCoS to
compare district litter efforts and a Phoenix district log sheet for June 2006
showing daily litter pickup by route and milepost performed by contractors.
Auditors reviewed provisions in a 5-year Inmate Work Contract executed in 2005
between ADOT and the Department of Corrections that included inmate litter
pickup activities. Finally, auditors reviewed Proposition 400 provisions, MAG
regional transportation plan updates, and MAG reports on Proposition 400’s
implementation to understand litter funding from that source.
􀁺􇩔 To complete the report’s Introduction and Background section, auditors
interviewed agency officials and compiled unaudited information from the ADOT
Web site, State Highway System Logs, and other agency-prepared documents.
To document historical changes in the number of centerline miles, lane miles,
and maintenance lane miles, auditors reviewed annual FHWA Highway Statistics
reports and State Highway System Logs, which contain detail on such things as
the miles of state-maintained roadways by route and maintenance district, as
well as detailed information on roadway characteristics, including surface and
shoulder widths and pavement composition.
This audit was conducted in accordance with government auditing standards.
The Auditor General and staff express appreciation to the Director of the Arizona
Department of Transportation, the State Engineer, the State Maintenance Engineer,
and their staff for their cooperation and assistance throughout the audit.
Office of the Auditor General
page 9
State of Arizona
page 10
Office of the Auditor General
page 11
Maintenance monies support numerous activities
The Division uses maintenance monies to provide many different types of
maintenance activities around the State. Legislative appropriations for maintenance
represent about 10 percent of ADOT’s total $1.2 billion in highway monies. Nearly 9
of 10 maintenance dollars are spent on maintenance activities related to
nonpavement features, such as highway shoulders, drainage, and guardrails.
Expenditures for pavement preservation projects come primarily from federal and
state monies made available through ADOT’s Five-Year Transportation Facilities
Construction Program. The Division also spends Proposition 400 monies that are
earmarked for landscaping, litter control, and sweeping in Maricopa County.
Maintenance receives about 10 percent
of ADOT’s highways funding
In fiscal year 2007, the Legislature appropriated
approximately $118.6 million for highway maintenance.
This amount represents approximately 10 percent of the
$1.2 billion total for ADOT’s highways program.
The Division allocates maintenance monies to be used at
state-wide, district, and regional levels, as shown in the
textbox and Figure 2 (see page 12). In fiscal year 2007, it
allocated approximately 70 percent ($83.2 million) of its
total maintenance monies to its nine districts, another 13
percent ($14.8 million) to regional activities provided by
the Flagstaff, Phoenix, Prescott, and Tucson districts, and
17 percent ($20.6 million) to its state-wide maintenance
functions. The district regional activities include traffic
engineering functions such as highway striping, signing,
and traffic signals.
FINDING 1
Division’s allocation of fiscal year 2007
special line-item appropriation to district,
state-wide, and regional functions
(In millions)
Source: Auditor General staff analysis of ADOT’s Allocation Report
for the FY 2007 Highway Maintenance Budget and fiscal
year 2007 budget data provided by the Division’s Phoenix
Maintenance District.
Districts: State-wide:
Phoenix $21.5 Traffic Engineering $8.2
Tucson 10.7 Maintenance Group 7.5
Flagstaff 9.9 Natural Resources 3.4
Globe 8.9 Transportation Tech 1.5
Holbrook 8.1
Prescott 6.7 Regional:
Safford 6.7 Phoenix $5.7
Kingman 5.8 Prescott 3.2
Yuma 4.9 Tucson 3.1
Flagstaff 2.8
The Maintenance
Management System
tracks maintenance
costs for more than 250
activities.
State of Arizona
page 12
In addition to these appropriated operating budget monies, ADOT uses monies from
the Transportation Facilities Construction Program for pavement preservation.
Specifically, ADOT’s pavement management section has planned projects totaling
$103.3 million for fiscal year 2007 for pavement preservation projects approved by
the State Transportation Board in ADOT’s 2007-2011 Five-Year Transportation
Facilities Construction Program. The Division also received $5.7 million in fiscal year
2007 from Proposition 400 monies, which it will use for regional landscape
maintenance, litter control, and sweeping on state highways in Maricopa County.
(See page 16 for more details on these two funding sources.)
Maintenance appropriations pay for many services
The Division provides a wide array of road-related maintenance in addition to
pavement maintenance, which composes less than 10 percent of maintenance
expenditures. The Division uses a Maintenance Management System called PeCoS
and has defined more than 250 activities to which maintenance costs are assigned.
For summary purposes, in consultation with the State Maintenance Engineer,
auditors grouped these activities into 10 broad categories. As Table 3 illustrates (see
page 13), 7 of the 10 categories are related specifically to the Division’s direct
maintenance activities. The other three categories comprise various activities and
costs that could not be grouped with one of the seven maintenance categories.
Figure 2: Distribution of Special-Line-Item Appropriated Monies
To State-wide, Regional, and District Functions
Totaling $118.6 Million
Fiscal Year 2007
In Millions
(Unaudited)
Source: Auditor General staff analysis of ADOT’s Allocation Report for the FY 2007 Highway
Maintenance Budget and fiscal year 2007 budget data provided by the Division’s
Phoenix Maintenance District.
State-wide $20.6
(17%)
Regional $14.8
(13%)
Districts $83.2
(70%)
Office of the Auditor General
page 13
Table 3: Maintenance Expenditures by Broad Category
Fiscal Year 2006
(Unaudited)
Category Labor Equipment Materials
Service
Contracts Other1 Total
Direct Maintenance:
Roadside $ 7,797,747 $ 2,986,481 $ 2,538,651 $ 5,715,587 $ 19,038,466
Traffic 3,942,935 1,014,964 7,441,147 31,237 12,430,283
Other direct maintenance2 3,161,610 2,954,964 157,106 3,782,936 10,056,616
Paved surfaces3 2,216,706 1,116,023 3,207,443 3,094,595 9,634,767
Landscape and vegetation 2,630,043 672,775 1,330,487 2,938,347 7,571,652
Rest area 96,171 28,307 18,663 1,975,120 $ 312,364 2,430,625
Winter 894,403 417,361 1,056,807 2,368,571
Subtotal 20,739,615 9,190,875 15,750,304 17,537,822 312,364 63,530,980
Other Maintenance Costs: 5
Other operating
expenditures 8,424,478 249,788 30,012 12,488,169 21,192,447
Unallocated equipment
costs6 10,637,813 1,866,372 12,504,185
State-wide maintenance 10,308,361 620,199 362,516 11,291,076
Subtotal 18,732,839 11,507,800 392,528 14,354,541 44,987,708
Total $39,472,454 $20,698,675 $16,142,832 $17,537,822 $14,666,905 $108,518,6884
1 This includes expenditures such as utilities, travel, office supplies, and equipment direct billing, which according to ADOT officials, is fuel surcharges
from ADOT Equipment Services. The rest area other expenditures are for utilities.
2 Includes miscellaneous maintenance-related activities such as contracted miscellaneous maintenance, materials handling, building and yard
maintenance, encroachment permits, and staff and equipment loaned to other than the assigned crew.
3 Excludes pavement preservation expenditures for pavement overlay projects included in ADOT’s 5-year construction program that are paid for with
highway construction monies.
4 This amount includes $106,273,126 reported in the PeCoS state-wide maintenance activity report and $2,245,562 in additional equipment costs that
were not included in the PeCoS report. ADOT’s financial accounting system, ADVANTAGE, shows $113,514,900 in maintenance expenditures for
fiscal year 2006. ADOT officials stated the $4,996,212 (4.4 percent) difference might be attributable to maintenance materials purchases, which are
recorded as expenditures on ADVANTAGE, but not recorded as expenditures in the PeCoS system until used, and some costs that are not recorded
in PeCoS. They also attributed differences to carry-over funds captured in different fiscal years in the two systems and to materials costs, which in
PeCoS are average inventory costs while ADVANTAGE uses actual purchase costs.
5 Includes expenditures such as leave, supervision, training, and recordkeeping that cannot be matched to a specific daily maintenance activity, but
are essential for operations.
6 Unallocated equipment costs represent equipment costs, including the cost of maintaining and repairing equipment, remaining after charging
equipment usage to direct maintenance categories.
Source: Auditor General staff analysis of expenditure data from the Division’s PeCoS maintenance management system and ADOT’s financial
accounting system for fiscal year 2006.
Categories related directly to Division’s maintenance programs—
Auditor-grouped categories for direct maintenance represent costs coded to
specific PeCoS activity codes that directly impact the preservation, rehabilitation,
and enhancement of highway pavement, shoulders, and other highway features.
These categories composed 59 percent of expenditures for fiscal year 2006:
􀁺􇩒 Roadside maintenance ($19 million)—These expenditures were for activities
such as litter pickup and maintenance of roadside features, including
shoulders, drainage structures, guardrails, and fences. These activities
included $5.7 million in contract services and $13.3 million of in-house
activities.
􀁺􇩔 Traffic maintenance ($12.4 million)—These expenditures were for maintaining
traffic control features such as signs, signals, and pavement markings. Thirty-one
thousand dollars was spent on contract services; the remainder was for
in-house activities.
􀁺􇩏 Other direct maintenance ($10.1 million)—These expenditures were for
various miscellaneous maintenance-related activities, including contracted
miscellaneous maintenance ($3.7 million), materials handling, encroachment
permits and related activities, building and yard maintenance, and contracted
prison labor. In fiscal year 2006, ADOT expended approximately $3.8 million
for contracted services in this category, and the remainder was for in-house
activities.
􀁺􇩐 Paved surfaces ($9.6 million)—These expenditures were for pavement
maintenance activities such as crack filling, seal coats, flushing, and patching.
These activities included $3.1 million in contract services and $6.5 million for
in-house activities.
􀁺􇩌 Landscape and vegetation maintenance ($7.6 million)—These expenditures
were for activities such as landscape maintenance, mowing, and vegetation
control. Three million dollars was spent on contracted services in this
category, while $4.6 million was expended on in-house activities.
􀁺􇩒 Rest area maintenance ($2.4 million)—These expenditures were for interstate
and noninterstate rest area maintenance. Almost $2 million was spent for
contract services, over $300,000 for rest area utilities, and the remainder for
other in-house activities.
􀁺􇩗 Winter maintenance ($2.4 million)—These expenditures were for activities
such as snow removal and de-icing. The fiscal year 2006 amount was
approximately half the winter maintenance total expended in fiscal year 2005
and varies annually based upon the weather. All these expenditures were for
in-house activities.
State of Arizona
page 14
Categories not directly coded in PeCoS to specific maintenance
programs or activities—These auditor-grouped categories include
expenditures such as leave, supervision, training, and recordkeeping that cannot
be matched to a specific daily maintenance activity, but are essential for
operations. Division officials state they are planning future PeCoS changes that will
allow them to better distribute some of these costs directly to maintenance
activities. The following nonspecific cost categories composed 41 percent of fiscal
year 2006 expenditures:
􀁺􇩏 Other operating expenditures ($21.2 million)—These expenditures included
activities such as leave ($5.5 million), other operating expenditures ($5.2
million), roadway utilities ($3.5 million), training ($1.9 million), nonhighway
utilities ($1.3 million), professional and outside services ($1 million),
recordkeeping ($610,235), and to nine other expenditure classifications.
􀁺􇩕 Unallocated equipment costs ($12.5 million)—These expenditures were
related to costs associated with ADOT-owned and rented equipment not
included in the direct maintenance categories. ADOT’s maintenance crews
reported the hours that equipment was used in each activity, and PeCoS
converted that information into a dollar amount and charged the amount to the
appropriate category, such as roadside maintenance. Unallocated costs
represented equipment costs, including the cost of maintaining and repairing
equipment, remaining after charging equipment usage to direct maintenance
categories.
􀁺􇩓 State-wide maintenance ($11.3 million)—These expenditures were not directly
coded to maintenance categories or were for services benefiting state-wide
programs. These included supervision ($4.8 million), administrative support
($2.8 million), other support activity ($1.9 million), salaries for Traffic
Operations Center employees ($1 million), transport equipment ($0.7 million),
and the remainder for contract support services. All these expenditures were
for in-house activities.
As shown by Table 3 (see page 13), the largest expenditure was for division staff
labor, which totaled nearly $39.5 million for fiscal year 2006. The remaining
expenditure types in descending amount order were equipment, contractors,
materials, and other operating expenses. In fiscal year 2006, the Division paid
contractors more than $17.5 million to provide highway maintenance services,
which represented 15.9 percent of maintenance spending that year. By
comparison, the Division spent $4.1 million, or 5.9 percent of maintenance
spending, for contractor services in fiscal year 1997. According to an ADOT
official, contractor usage increased because the Division received maintenance
appropriation increases in response to highway system growth and the Division
Office of the Auditor General
page 15
used the increased funding to hire contractors because its staffing levels did not
increase during the period, but actually decreased. The Division had 951
maintenance employees in fiscal year 1997 and 922 (29 fewer) in fiscal year
2006.
Five-Year Program funds pavement preservation
Another substantial funding source involves monies adopted by the State
Transportation Board for pavement preservation projects in ADOT’s Five-Year
Transportation Facilities Construction Program. Contractors perform these projects,
which usually involve removing and replacing 1 to 3 inches of pavement or overlaying
existing pavement with 1 to 3 inches of asphalt. According to an ADOT official, the
projects are generally designed to add about 10 years of additional life to pavement.
In fiscal year 2006, ADOT spent $77.3 million on 25 pavement preservation projects
for an estimated 399 lane miles, and plans to spend $103.3 million for pavement
preservation in fiscal year 2007. Approximately 90 percent of these monies ($93.4
million) are planned for pavement preservation projects, which include removing and
replacing a layer of pavement, but additional monies will be used for preventive
maintenance ($5.5 million) and for spot pavement preservation projects ($4.4
million), which remove and replace a layer of pavement in a small area.
Proposition 400 monies support landscape maintenance
and litter pickup in Maricopa County
ADOT also receives monies for specific highway maintenance activities in Maricopa
County. In November 2004, Maricopa County voters approved Proposition 400,
which extended the County’s one-half cent transportation excise tax, of which a
portion is allocated for regional landscape maintenance and litter pickup. The MAG
Transportation Policy Committee (Committee) determines the uses and allocations of
Proposition 400 monies, while ADOT implements them. The Committee identified
approximately $279 million of Proposition 400 monies that will be provided in fiscal
years 2006 through 2025 for litter pickup and landscape maintenance in the MAG
region. In fiscal years 2006 and 2007, MAG approved $5.9 million per year, of which
ADOT uses $5.7 million for landscape maintenance ($3.5 million), litter control ($1.8
million), and sweeping ($0.4 million). According to ADOT management, $200,000
from each year’s allocation was to be spent on a litter prevention and education
program under a MAG solicitation. (See Other Pertinent Information, pages 37
through 39, for information on ADOT’s litter control activities.)
Pavement preservation
usually involves
replacement or overlay
of 1 to 3 inches of
asphalt.
State of Arizona
page 16
ADOT did not spend the full amount it received in the first year of the Proposition 400
program. Specifically, in fiscal year 2006, ADOT spent only about 37.3 percent of the
$5.7 million allocated to it from Proposition 400 monies. According to ADOT officials,
monies were not spent because they became available in January 2006, halfway
through the fiscal year. ADOT intends to supplement its fiscal year 2007 Proposition
400 allocation with the unspent portion of the fiscal year 2006 monies. Proposition
400 monies are intended to supplement and not supplant other monies; as such,
ADOT officials indicate that ADOT segregates these monies from its appropriated
maintenance monies and accounts for Proposition 400 maintenance activities
separately from its other maintenance activities.
Office of the Auditor General
page 17
State of Arizona
page 18
Most Arizona pavement rated satisfactory
Road pavement in Arizona’s state highway system has generally received
satisfactory ratings, and overall ratings were higher in 2005 than in 1995. Well-maintained
pavement provides several benefits, and the Division evaluates
pavement quality using various measures. Arizona’s roads compared favorably with
contiguous states’ and improved in measured criteria in the last 10 years. These
measures indicate that Arizona’s state highway system has mostly smooth and
good-quality pavement. While all road types were improved in 2005 compared to
1995, interstate roads, which have the highest traffic volume, received better ratings
than state routes and U.S. highway roads. Lastly, a 2005 consumer satisfaction
survey showed that Arizona residents were generally satisfied with highway
maintenance efforts, but still wanted improvements in all maintenance areas.
Division uses several criteria and methods to rate
pavement
Well-maintained pavement provides several benefits and the Division uses several
criteria to evaluate pavement quality. A 2005 research report by the Kentucky
Transportation Center at the University of Kentucky says that well-maintained
pavement provides various benefits including increased safety, fewer auto repair
expenses, improved quality of the overall road network, and higher user comfort.1
The Division’s foremost measure is the IRI, which measures roadway smoothness
and is a nationally accepted pavement quality measure used by other states and the
FHWA. The Division uses the IRI and other measures to evaluate pavement quality
(see textbox on page 20). Division manuals and agency officials specify how these
measures are applied to rate pavement as satisfactory, tolerable, or objectionable
(see textbox on page 20).
Specialized division crews survey all Arizona highways and collect data to evaluate
pavement conditions through observation or using special equipment. Crews
annually measure pavement for roughness, cracking, rut depth, patching, and
1 Kreis, Doug, Lenahan O’Connell, and Brian Howell. Long-Term Maintenance Needs Planning. Lexington, KY: Kentucky
Transportation Center, College of Engineering, University of Kentucky, 2005.
Office of the Auditor General
page 19
FINDING 2
The Division uses the
nationally accepted IRI,
among other
measures, to assess
quality.
flushing. ADOT officials state that they intend to collect friction data biennially, but
equipment difficulties and other work priorities make regular collection of this data
inconsistent. The Division has standardized its data collection methods to ensure
rating uniformity. For example, crews always measure pavement conditions in the
increasing milepost direction for single-lane roads and in the right lane for each side
of a divided highway. Crews regularly calibrate all equipment used for measuring IRI
and friction to ensure consistent and accurate readings. The Division has separated
data collection and data uploading duties, and an employee checks collected data
against prior-year information to identify any significant inconsistencies. Division
officials stated that collected condition data is used to perform analyses and
generate reports for planning needed pavement preservation and rehabilitation
projects.
The Division’s road condition measurement focuses on pavement condition and
does not address nonpavement features such as guardrails, shoulders, and
drainage systems. However, the Division plans to evaluate these features using Level
of Service (LOS) indicators in connection with the Maintenance Budgeting System,
which is under development (see Finding 3, pages 31 through 32 for more
information on the LOS indicators).
The Division has
standardized data
collection methods.
State of Arizona
page 20
Division’s rating criteria to evaluate pavement quality:
Measure Description of Measure Satisfactory Objectionable
Arizona
Averages
Roughness
(IRI)
Aggregate measure of vehicle
bounce in inches as computed
by infrared sensors over a 1-
mile of roadway.
less than
94
greater than
143 78
Cracking Percentage of linear feet of
cracking measured over a
1,000 square foot area at each
milepost.
less than
10%
greater than
30% 2.4%
Rut Depth Depressions or ridges in
roadway wheel path, in inches.
less than
0.25 in.
greater than
0.51 in. 0.12 in.
Patching Percentage of surface treat-ment
measured over a 1,000
square foot area at each
milepost.
less than
10%
greater than
30% 1.8%
Flushing Extent of asphalt oil seeping up
from pavement decreasing
friction or stopping ability, rated
on a 5-point scale.
greater than
or equal to 3
less than
or equal to 2 4
Friction The ability of the pavement to
stop a vehicle, rated on a 100-
point scale.
greater than
or equal to
43
less than or
equal to
34
61
Source: Auditor General staff summary of information in ADOT’s Preliminary Engineering and Design Manual and
information received in interviews with ADOT officials.
Arizona pavement smoothness compares favorably with
other states
According to state IRI data the FHWA publishes annually in its Highway Statistics
reports, Arizona road smoothness compares favorably to roads in the five
surrounding states.1,2 The FHWA classifies the road surface as good if it has an IRI
score of less than 95, similar to the Division’s ranking of road smoothness as
satisfactory if the IRI score is below 94. As shown in Table 4, in 2005—the most recent
year for which data is available—Arizona’s percentage of interstate roads with good
ratings was higher than all five
contiguous states, while two other states
ranked higher in the percentage of other
roads with good ratings. Arizona’s
ratings were different for urban than for
rural roads. Most Arizona noninterstate
roads are considered rural, and for
those roads, nearly 79 percent had a
good rating. For urban noninterstate
roads, only 48 percent had a good
rating. By comparison, the five
contiguous states’ percentage of urban
noninterstate roads with good ratings
ranged from approximately 25 percent in
California to approximately 78 percent in
Nevada.
Arizona pavement quality
better in 2005 than in 1995
Arizona road ratings for smoothness,
cracking, rut depth, and flushing were
better in 2005 than they were 10 years
earlier in 1995. As shown in Figure 3 on page 22, a comparison of data from
2005–the most recent data available–and data from 1995 shows that the percentage
of Arizona roads receiving good or satisfactory ratings for these measures has
increased. Similarly, the percentage of roads receiving poor or objectionable ratings
was as low in 2005 as in 1995 in every category. Some measures have not changed
substantially in recent years. For example, over 97 percent of roads had satisfactory
ratings for patching in 1995, and in 2005 the percentage of roads with satisfactory
ratings was still between 97 and 98 percent.
The percentage of
Arizona roads with good
or satisfactory ratings
has increased.
Office of the Auditor General
page 21
Table 4: Comparison of IRI
for State Highway System Roadways between
Arizona and Surrounding States
Calendar Year 2005
Interstate Highways
Percentage with
Good Rating1
Lane Miles
Reported
Arizona 95.2% 1,165
New Mexico 92.8 1,000
Nevada 88.1 561
Utah 72.5 939
Colorado 50.8 956
California 50.2 2,458
Other Roads
Nevada 96.4% 1,573
New Mexico 78.4 1,935
Arizona 70.5 1,554
Utah 59.1 1,237
California 53.0 5,172
Colorado 52.8 2,614
1 A “good” rating is defined as roads receiving an IRI rating of less than 95.
Source: Auditor General staff analysis of roadway condition data in Highway
Statistics 2005 published by FHWA.
1 An FHWA official stated that pavement condition data is supposed to be reported on a 2-year cycle, preferably with one-half
of each state’s highway system reported each year, but many states report a large portion of the data every year.
2 U.S. Department of Transportation. Federal Highway Administration. Office of Highway Policy Information, Highway
Statistics 2005.
State of Arizona
page 22
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Roughness Cracking Rut Depth Patching Flushing
Percentage of Roads with Good or Satisfactory Ratings
Category
1995 2005
Percentage of Roads with Poor or Objectionable Ratings
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Roughness Cracking Rut Depth Patching Flushing
Category
1995 2005
1 Figures exclude percentage of roads rated between good or satisfactory and poor or objectionable.
2 Rut depth data is for 2004 because, according to an ADOT official, ADOT does not have complete data for 2005 due to a transition
in its data collection method during the year.
Source: Auditor General staff analysis of roadway condition data from ADOT’s Pavement Management System.
Figure 3: Comparison of the Percentage of Arizona Highway System Roads
Receiving Good or Satisfactory or Poor or Objectionable Ratings1
in Roughness, Cracking, Rut Depth,2 Patching, and Flushing
Calendar Years 1995 and 2005
Adequate maintenance and preservation is needed to maintain the favorable ratings.
ADOT officials cautioned that the need for highway maintenance activities is not
diminished by the current quantity of good or satisfactory pavement ratings because
adequate maintenance is still required to maintain favorable ratings. Increased
ratings after 1995 could in part be attributed to a substantial increase in the amount
of pavement preservation completed in fiscal years 1998 and 1999. ADOT officials
stated that not enough preventive maintenance and pavement preservation work has
been completed in recent years, and this would eventually lead to declined ratings.
During the audit, the officials were unable to quantify how much needed preventive
maintenance and pavement preservation work was not being completed (see
Finding 3, pages 25 to 35). However, after the end of audit fieldwork, ADOT’s
Materials Group provided unaudited data which estimated that anticipated pavement
preservation project budgets for fiscal years 2008 through 2012, totaling $590 million,
were $300 million less than needed to maintain Arizona highways at fiscal year 2007
condition ratings.
Arizona interstate roads rated better than other roads
Pavement ratings differ by road system type, with Arizona’s interstate roads receiving
the best ratings despite having the highest traffic volume. As shown in Table 5,
Office of the Auditor General
page 23
Table 5: Percentage of Arizona Interstate, State Route, and U.S.
Highway Roads Receiving a Satisfactory Rating in
Roughness, Rut Depth, Cracking, Patching, and Flushing1
Calendar Year 2005
Interstate
State
Route
U.S.
Highway
Road miles surveyed 2,342 3,683 1,990
Miles with high traffic volume2 91.8% 23.8% 13.6%
Road condition ratings
Roughness 91.3% 65.3% 63.6%
Rut Depth3 94.0 92.8 92.0
Cracking 98.7 95.2 90.6
Patching 98.9 98.1 96.3
Flushing 99.4 96.8 96.6
1 See textbox on page 20 for descriptions of ratings and rating criteria.
2 Percentage of roads with average daily traffic volume of more than 10,000 vehicles in 2004.
3 Rut depth data is for 2004 because, according to an ADOT official, ADOT does not have
complete data for 2005 due to a transition in its data collection method during the year.
Source: Auditor General staff analysis of road condition data from ADOT’s Pavement Management
System.
interstate roads have superior smoothness and slightly better ratings in other
measures when compared to state route and U.S. highway roads. Nearly all
interstate roads—almost 92 percent—have daily traffic volume of more than 10,000
vehicles, while less than one-fourth of state routes and only about 14 percent of U.S.
highways have traffic volumes that high.
Arizona citizens generally satisfied with highway
maintenance
According to a consultant survey, most Arizona citizens are generally satisfied with
highway maintenance efforts, but want more maintenance. In 2005, an ADOT
consultant conducted a state-wide telephone survey of 403 residents to obtain public
perception of Arizona’s highway maintenance program.1 Consultants asked
residents to rate current and desired maintenance levels for paved roadway
surfaces, road shoulders, roadside, vegetation, landscaping, drainage, structures,
traffic control and safety, rest areas, and snow and ice removal. The survey found that
although 79 percent of polled residents were generally satisfied with current highway
maintenance efforts in each category, they also wanted improved maintenance in all
categories. The survey also found that urban residents rated maintenance more
favorably than rural residents. Residents surveyed also indicated they were more
satisfied with ADOT road maintenance when compared to local road maintenance.
State of Arizona
page 24
Arizona citizens are
mostly satisfied with
highway maintenance,
but want more.
1 According to the December 2005 consultant report by the Dye Management Group, Inc., the telephone survey was
statistically valid. The report does not identify the survey's margin of error.
Division should improve method to determine
maintenance needs and allocate maintenance
dollars
The Division should improve its method of identifying annual maintenance needs and
allocating maintenance monies to maximize the life expectancy, operational
efficiency, appearance, and safety of the state highway system. Although funding has
increased, materials and other costs have also risen along with maintenance
demands. Although ADOT officials cite an increasing gap between needed
maintenance and resources, the Division’s approach for allocating monies relies
mainly on modifying the previous year’s allocations instead of on identified needs.
The Division is taking steps to better identify maintenance needs through data
system improvements, but it should establish a more systematic method that
identifies all needed maintenance and allocates funding according to prioritized
needs.
Funding, demands, and costs increasing
ADOT has received increased funding for maintenance, but associated maintenance
costs and demands have also increased. Highway maintenance funding has
gradually increased and pavement preservation funding has fluctuated, but will
increase in the future. However, division officials believe increased material costs
reduce their ability to do some maintenance. They also cited increased maintenance
demands caused by lane mile additions, rising traffic volume, public expectations,
environmental laws, more sophisticated equipment, and other factors that reduce
their ability to provide adequate highway system maintenance.
Funding increasing—As shown in Figure 4 (see page 26), highway maintenance
monies have gradually increased while pavement preservation spending has
fluctuated but is planned to increase in fiscal year 2008.
Added lane miles and
rising traffic volume
have increased
maintenance demands.
Office of the Auditor General
page 25
FINDING 3
Highway maintenance expenditures increased 56.6 percent between fiscal years
1997 and 2006, averaging a 5.1 percent annual increase. During that same time
period, estimated pavement preservation expenditures fluctuated from $66 million
to $115.5 million, except for fiscal years 1998 and 1999, which had $169.8 million
and $196.2 million, respectively, because of increased federal funding. Although
estimated pavement preservation expenditures declined between fiscal years 2001
and 2006, ADOT’s Five-Year Transportation Facilities Construction Program shows
increased funding for fiscal years 2007 through 2011.
Materials costs escalating—Highway maintenance materials costs are
increasing and division officials believe they are doing less preventive maintenance
as a result. ADOT’s Arizona Transportation Research Center (Center) reported
substantial construction price increases in the past 10 years as of August 2006,
based upon the Producer Price Index.1 For example, as shown in Table 6 (see
page 27), the Center found that the price of asphalt had increased by 171 percent,
while labor had risen by 33 percent. The price of lumber—the only measured
commodity that did not have a substantial increase—had actually gone down by
1 percent, but lumber has little relevance to maintenance activities. In addition, the
Associated General Contractors of America issued an alert in September 2006
stating that construction materials inflation had increased far faster than consumer
goods inflation since 2004 and was expected to be between 6 and 8 percent
Asphalt prices
increased 171 percent
from 1997 to 2006.
State of Arizona
page 26
$0
$50
$100
$150
$200
$250
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Fiscal Year
Millions
Highway Maintenance Pavement Preservation
Figure 4: Highway Maintenance Actual Expenditures and Pavement Preservation Bid Amounts1
Fiscal Years 1997 through 20062
and Estimated Expenditures
Fiscal Years 2007 through 2011
1 Semmens, John and Jeff Romine. Price Trends for Major Roadway Inputs. Final Report 622. Phoenix: Arizona
Transportation Research Center and Maricopa Association of Governments, Dec. 2006.
1 The Materials Group was only able to provide bid amounts for pavement preservation projects for fiscal years 1997 through 2006. ADOT officials
believe these amounts are a close approximation of actual expenditures for the projects.
2 Pavement preservation amounts for fiscal years 1997 to 2006 exclude “minor pavement preservation” projects that began in fiscal year 1998 and
were budgeted between $1 million and $4 million per year, and “preventive maintenance” projects that began in fiscal year 2005 and were budgeted
at $5 million each year.
Source: Auditor General staff analysis of data obtained from ADOT’s Maintenance Group, Materials Group, and the 2007-2011 Five-Year Transportation
Facilities Construction Program.
annually.1 After the end of our audit fieldwork, ADOT officials provided an inflation
index they were developing specifically for their maintenance inputs including
materials, vehicle fuels, and electricity. The index is designed to be weighted
according to the mix of maintenance materials and is based upon changes in the
Producer Price Index. ADOT officials reported they intend to continually update
this index to document how price increases affect ADOT’s maintenance budget.
The Division’s fiscal year 2008 budget request
stated that because of increased materials
costs, districts have reduced pavement
preventive maintenance such as fog sealing,
seal coating, and crack sealing. According to
ADOT officials, these activities significantly
extend the useful life of pavement and have the
highest return on investment (see textbox). A
2005 University of Kentucky study reported that
routine maintenance must be carried out in a
timely manner at specified intervals if serious
damage to highways is to be prevented and
maintenance costs are to be reduced.
Maintenance demands increasing—Growing maintenance demands
between 1997 and 2006 also affect the amount of maintenance activities required.
Specifically:
􀁺􇩔 Travel lane miles increased 8 percent between fiscal years 1997 and 2006
and maintenance lane miles increased 10.5 percent between fiscal years
2001 and 2006. Division officials said the majority of these were urban lane
miles, which are more costly to maintain because of heavy traffic volume, and
landscaping, median barriers, lighting, and other features not present in rural
lane miles.
Office of the Auditor General
page 27
Table 6: Percentage Changes in Construction Costs
As of August 2006
Asphalt Diesel Gasoline Labor Lumber
Portland
Cement
Concrete Plastic Steel
Past year 77% 1% 21% 3% -6% 11% 20% 11%
Past 5 years * 147 151 11 4 33 38 59
Past 10 years 171 205 216 33 -1 48 39 49
*There is a gap in the data for asphalt that prevents a calculation of the price change over this time span.
Source: Arizona Transportation Research Center, Report 622, Price Trends for Major Roadway Inputs, December 2006.
Examples of Pavement Preventive Maintenance
Fog sealing—A light spray application of an asphalt mixture to
restore or rejuvenate pavement surfaces. It may delay more
costly overlays for 1 to 2 years.
Seal coating—An application of liquid asphalt and cover
material to seal and restore surface life, flexibility, and skid
resistance.
Crack sealing—Cleaning and then filling pavement cracks with
asphalt materials to prevent passage of water through and into
the road's base or sub-grade.
1 Associated General Contractors of America. AGC’s Construction Inflation Alert. Arlington, VA: Associated General
Contractors of America, Sept. 2006.
1 Labi, Samuel and Kumares C. Sinha. The Effectiveness of Maintenance and its Impact on Capital Expenditures.
Springfield, VA: National Technical Information Service, June 2003.
2 Auditors used the GDP price deflator index for state and local governments to adjust fiscal year 2001 expenditures.
􀁺􇩔 Traffic volume throughout the state highway system increased 59 percent
between fiscal years 1997 and 2006. Increasing traffic loads cause higher
pavement costs because more frequent roadway rehabilitation is needed.1 In
addition, increased traffic often dictates that maintenance work has to be
done at off-peak driving times when labor costs are higher because crews
must work at night and on the weekends.
􀁺􇩉 Increased emergency incidents reduce time and money available for planned
maintenance because crews must respond to incidents and repair damaged
features, such as guardrails and fences, in a timely manner. Division internal
reports show that the time ADOT maintenance crews spent on emergency
responses alone, excluding time spent repairing any highway features
damaged by accidents, increased 25 percent between fiscal years 2004 and
2006. Although state-wide expenditures for emergency responses and six
related activities for repairing damaged features represented less than 4
percent of maintenance spending in fiscal year 2006, emergency responses
can affect some crews more than others. For example, between fiscal years
2004 and 2006, the Cordes Junction maintenance crew had an average of
346 emergency responses annually, consuming almost 9 percent of its total
crew hours, while three nearby crews averaged less than 2 percent of total
crew hours for emergency responses.
􀁺􇩏 Other demands also increase ADOT’s maintenance costs and workload,
according to an ADOT official. For example, the official stated that public
expectations now require ADOT to use de-icing chemicals instead of less-expensive
cinders to clear roads in winter. In addition, the official said that
more time and activities are required to comply with more stringent federal
and state environmental laws, and using more sophisticated equipment such
as cameras to manage traffic increases the number of features that must be
maintained.
Gap between resources and needs reported—According to ADOT
officials there is a widening gap between current resources and maintenance
needs. However, lacking an adequate planning process, the officials were unable
to provide specific details regarding needed maintenance work that was not
getting done. Division maintenance expenditures, excluding pavement
preservation and Proposition 400 monies, represented $6,339 per travel lane mile
(adjusted for inflation) in fiscal year 2001 and were $6,019, or approximately 5
percent, less per travel lane mile in fiscal year 2006, illustrating a potential resource
decrease.2
Similar to the maintenance gap, ADOT officials reported a gap between resources
and pavement preservation needs. After the end of audit fieldwork, ADOT’s
Materials Group provided unaudited data regarding the size of the gap.
State of Arizona
page 28
Traffic volume increased
59 percent between
fiscal years 1997 and
2006.
Specifically, the Materials Group estimated that pavement preservation project
budgets for fiscal years 2008 through 2012, which are anticipated to total $590
million, would be $300 million less than needed to maintain Arizona highways at
fiscal year 2007 condition ratings. Although the Materials Group could not quantify
the resource gap in previous years, one official stated that materials cost increases
caused the Materials Group to reschedule past pavement preservation projects to
later years, and that it would soon be about 2 years behind on its projects.
Division lacks adequate planning process
The Division does not have an adequate and comprehensive planning process for
state highway maintenance. The districts plan annual work based on their historical
activity and current budget, not on an analysis and prioritization of everything that
needs to be done. Lacking an adequate planning process, ADOT allocates
maintenance funding mainly on a historical basis, rather than by documented needs.
ADOT should establish frequency guidelines for conducting inspections and
addressing problems found in the inspections as well as for performing scheduled
maintenance where applicable, and should also establish work priorities to facilitate
a more systematic needs-based allocation to help plan needed maintenance.
Division does not identify all needed work—State-wide and district
maintenance planning is based on annual budgets and not upon annual work that
needs to be done. Therefore, the Division is unable to demonstrate which activities
are not getting done because of the perceived funding gap. Districts create their
annual maintenance plans to fit their allotted budget using previous years’ activity
as a starting point. District subunits, called “orgs,” identify each anticipated
maintenance activity’s amount and cost and enter them into PeCoS to create the
district consolidated work plan. Submitted plans must conform to budgets
provided to the org and district.
Allocations not based on documented needs—Because the Division does
not have a systematic approach to identify needed maintenance activities and
priorities, it cannot allocate maintenance monies based upon state-wide needs
and priorities. Instead, the Division allocates the total annual maintenance budgets
to the regions, districts, and other maintenance groups based mainly on their
historical budgets. This could prevent one district from performing higher-priority
work, while another district does lower-priority work. Further, this method does not
consider roadway miles, traffic volume, population, and other factors that may
determine district or region maintenance workload. Division officials reported that
they allocated a $2.8 million budget increase in fiscal year 2007 for maintaining
new features based on needs, inventory growth, recent cost increases, and other
metrics. However, auditors could not verify this because ADOT lacked
ADOT allocates
maintenance funding
mainly on a historical
basis instead of
according to needs.
Office of the Auditor General
page 29
documentation showing how allocations were calculated. As shown in Table 7,
districts differ in budget and employee resources considering their maintenance
lane miles (MLM) and traffic volume, measured in daily vehicle miles traveled
(VMT).
Although Table 7 shows potential inequities among districts, one measure by itself
is not sufficient to demonstrate inequity, and a combination of measures, including
relative road quality, may provide better allocations. For example, it may be
appropriate for a district with relatively high urban miles to receive more funding per
mile than a district with high rural mileage that is less costly to maintain. In addition,
a district with more unsatisfactory pavement ratings may need more resources
than a district with relatively high overall pavement ratings. Districts may also differ
in the number and type of nonpavement features that they must maintain. The
Division’s allocation method is not needs-based and does not address specific
factors that dictate resources needed to provide adequate maintenance.
Division should develop maintenance frequency schedules and
establish work priorities—The Division has not developed adequate
guidelines to aid districts in identifying maintenance needs. Although the Division
has established written Performance Guidelines for 253 maintenance activities, few
of these include the frequency at which specific activities should be provided. The
Division should establish frequency guidelines for conducting inspections and
addressing problems discovered during inspections. In addition, the Division
should establish frequency guidelines for maintenance activities where
appropriate. Because maintenance needs are affected by several variables
State of Arizona
page 30
Table 7: Comparisons of District Budget and FTE Allocations to
District Maintenance Lane Miles and Traffic Volume1
Fiscal Year 2006
Budget
per Mile
Budget
per VMT
Miles
per FTE
VMT
per FTE
Average district ratio per
category $2,796 $1.47 43 105,980
Lowest district ratio per category 1,627 0.53 28 30,860
Highest district ratio per
category 4,745 3.39 68 253,025
1 Traffic volume is measured by daily vehicle miles traveled (VMT). A “vehicle miles traveled” unit is
one vehicle traveling the distance of one mile. Thus, total vehicle miles traveled is the total mileage
traveled by all vehicles.
Source: Auditor General staff analysis of data from ADOT’s Allocation Report for the FY 2007 Highway
Maintenance Budget, the 2005 State Highway System Log, and VMT data provided by the
Transportation Planning Division.
including accidents, weather, and traffic volume, the Division should consider
these factors in developing the frequency guidelines. The Division also lacks
specific state-wide guidelines on how to prioritize maintenance work to ensure that
the most important work is completed first within available resources. Moreover,
the Division does not have guidelines on how districts should report any needed
work that cannot be done with available resources in order to enable the Division
to allocate monies appropriately.
The Division could facilitate a more systematic needs-based allocation by
establishing maintenance and inspection frequency schedules and work priorities.
First, establishing these frequency schedules would help districts quantify annual
maintenance needs, leading to a determination of state-wide needs. Second,
establishing priorities for maintenance activities would help ensure that one district
does not perform lower-priority work while another is unable to provide higher-priority
maintenance work. The Division could then use all this data, combined with
road mileage by highway type, pavement conditions, number of various
nonpavement features, and other factors to develop an equitable resource
allocation.
Similar approaches can identify needed maintenance work and allocate monies.
For example, Texas uses a model not only to identify needs, but also to allocate
monies based on those needs.1 Under the Texas model, district allocations are
based on combining several individual roadway feature and condition factor
formulas. Formulas include many important variables such as state average costs,
lane miles, traffic flow, rainfall, and mowing/litter acres.
Division can further improve needs measurement
The Division is taking steps to better measure maintenance needs through data
system improvements, but could do more by considering a new approach to identify
needs and allocate funding. The Division is developing four computerized systems
to help measure maintenance needs and funding requirements. However, because
the systems are still being developed and put into operation, auditors could not
confirm that they will perform as anticipated, and implementing the systems by
themselves will not identify all needed maintenance. In addition to the steps it is
already taking, the Division should consider taking an integrative approach to
systematically identify needed maintenance and to allocate monies.
Some steps taken to improve—The Division is developing several
computerized systems to help it measure maintenance needs and funding
requirements, but these systems by themselves will not identify all needed
maintenance. Specifically:
Office of the Auditor General
page 31
Texas uses a needs-based
approach to
identify maintenance
needs and allocate
funding.
1 Graff, Joe S. “Texas Department of Transportation Maintenance Budget Allocation.” Paper presented at the 1997
AASHTO/TRB Maintenance Management Conference, Saratoga Springs, NY.
􀁺􇩎 New system to determine overall funding needs—The Maintenance
Budgeting System (MBS) is intended to determine funding required for
maintaining six groupings of road system features at specified condition
levels. For example, one grouping is “paved surfaces,” which includes
potholes, cracking, unpaved shoulders, and four other roadway features (see
textbox). The MBS will use cost data from PeCoS and condition assessments
expressed as letter grades from Level of Service (LOS) ratings to estimate
funding needed to maintain the six broad highway features categories at
specified condition levels (see textbox). An ADOT official explained that the
letter grades will be determined based upon the percentage of system
components that require maintenance. However, while the Division has raw
LOS condition data, it has not yet developed official letter grades. According
to an ADOT official, the MBS system will be finalized in July 2007 and used for
the fiscal year 2009 budget. Although the MBS system may help estimate
funding by feature groupings, it will not identify where and when specific
maintenance is needed, nor funding for each feature type in the grouping.
􀁺􇩒 Replacement system to track highway features—The Division is implementing
a new feature inventory system (FIS) that will use Global Positioning System
(GPS) technology to record exact locations of all roadway features, such as
guardrails, fences, and drainage pipes, and will record essential attributes of
each feature. According to an ADOT official, no other state transportation
department has successfully implemented a GPS-based FIS system. FIS is
important to help identify which features need to be maintained. For example,
it will help supervisors know the location of drainage pipes that need cleaning
State of Arizona
page 32
Maintenance Budgeting System
The Division is working with a consultant to develop an MBS to estimate operating budget needed to
maintain components of the highway system at specific LOS letter grades. For example, if the
Legislature wanted an A grade for one indicator and a B grade for another, the MBS would estimate
funds needed to accomplish that level of service.
Level of Service Indicators
Maintenance LOS ratings will be expressed as letter grades A, B, C, D, and F, with plus and minus
grades used if finer gradations are desired. LOS grades will be assigned to these six broad roadway
feature groupings:
􀁺􇩐 Paved surfaces (7 items, including potholes, cracking, and unpaved shoulders)
􀁺􇩒 Roadside (9 items, including guardrail, litter, fences, unpaved ditches, and drainage)
􀁺􇩔 Traffic (4 items, including signposts, delineators, striping, and pavement markings)
􀁺􇩖 Vegetation (7 items, including trees and brush in clear zone, and sign marker visibility)
􀁺􇩌 Landscape (12 items, including litter, irrigation, pruning and trimming)
􀁺􇩒 Rest Areas (24 items, including parking lots, sidewalks, trash bins, and restrooms)
ADOT is developing a
new system to use letter
grades to help identify
overall maintenance
needs and estimate
funding required.
or what materials are needed for various repairs without visiting repair sites.
The new FIS was developed because the old system did not include new
feature types added since the 1970s. Although a December 2005 report by
the ADOT Information Technology Group stated that the new FIS was
completed in March 2003, it has not yet been populated with data and the
Division does not have a firm timetable of when the system will be fully
functional. Although the FIS will help quantify features in the highway system,
it does not include feature condition ratings, which could be useful in
identifying the timing and location of needed nonpavement maintenance
activities.
􀁺􇩒 Redesigned maintenance management system—Maintenance work crews
use the PeCoS maintenance management system to plan and track
maintenance activity costs and accomplishments. The Division expects to fully
implement a major upgrade to PeCoS in August 2008. This upgrade is
intended to be a new system rather than an enhancement because the
original database structure has not significantly changed since the 1970s. The
Division intends that the new PeCoS will provide an interface with other ADOT
databases including LOS ratings and the FIS. In addition, ADOT expects the
new system to reduce redundant data entry, increase data accuracy, reduce
technical support costs, and enhance the user interface. However, the system
will not prioritize nor identify specific maintenance work that needs to be done.
􀁺􇩒 Replacement system to identify needed pavement maintenance—The
Highway Pavement Management Application (HPMA) replaces an older
application and was designed to use pavement inventory, condition data, and
decision trees for identifying the time, location, and type of pavement
preservation and preventive maintenance treatments needed. The application
also considers various pavement treatment costs and available funding to
suggest an appropriate prioritized treatment plan. The Materials Group reports
that as of January 2007, it began producing specific reports that identify
pavement segments for pavement preservation projects at various funding
levels, and they are still refining how the system will be used. Although district
staff will have access to the system to view the HPMA-suggested prioritized
treatment plan for pavement preservation, the HPMA has not been set up for
planning the type of pavement maintenance activities provided by in-house
maintenance crews. The Division does not have estimates of when the
maintenance crew pavement activities will be implemented in the HPMA.
The Division considers these computerized systems to be the cutting edge of
technology and expects them to greatly assist in planning maintenance needs.
Because these systems are either not fully developed or not yet fully used, auditors
could not confirm that the systems will accomplish their intended benefits. In
addition, they will not be sufficient to identify all needed state-wide maintenance.
Office of the Auditor General
page 33
More systematic approach needed—As the Division continues to implement
its computerized systems, it should further implement a new overall, integrative
planning approach to identify needed maintenance throughout the state highway
system and to more systematically allocate maintenance monies among districts
and groups. A more systematic approach would:
􀁺􇩥 establish frequency schedules, as appropriate, for maintenance activities;
􀁺􇩩 identify all needed maintenance state-wide;
􀁺􇩥 estimate monies and resources required to perform the needed maintenance;
􀁺􇩰 provide a prioritization method to ensure that the most important and cost-effective
maintenance is performed within resource constraints; and
􀁺􇩰 provide a systematic method for allocating resources to meet maintenance
needs.
This approach could also identify maintenance that could not be provided with
current resources and identify funding gaps.
State of Arizona
page 34
Recommendations:
1. To better ensure that the state highway system’s life expectancy, operational
efficiency, appearance, and safety are maximized, the Division should:
a. Develop and implement guidelines on how to identify annually needed
maintenance work which would include frequency schedules, as
appropriate, and periodic inspections to identify needed work;
b. Develop and implement guidelines on how to prioritize maintenance work
to ensure that the most important state-wide maintenance needs are met
first within available resources;
c. Identify, quantify, and prioritize maintenance that needs to be done
annually; and
d. Identify work that cannot be done with existing resources to identify any
maintenance funding gap.
2. To ensure that state-wide maintenance needs are addressed, the Division
should develop and implement a methodology to allocate monies to districts
and regions based on state-wide needs and priorities, and each district’s and
region’s relative needs and roadway responsibilities (for example, lane miles
and traffic flow).
Office of the Auditor General
page 35
State of Arizona
page 36
Office of the Auditor General
OTHER PERTINENT
INFORMATION
page 37
During this audit, auditors collected other pertinent information regarding the various
activities and methods used in litter pickup along state-maintained roadways.
ADOT provides for litter pickup on state roads
The Division is responsible for managing litter control throughout the state highway
system, but litter pickup activities vary state-wide. ADOT uses a combination of paid
contractors, the Adopt-a-Highway program, prison labor, and in-house maintenance
crews to provide litter control on roads in the state highway system.
Litter control practices vary across the State—Because of Proposition 400
funding beginning in fiscal year 2006, Maricopa County roads receive the most
litter control attention of highways state-wide (see textbox). According to an ADOT
Phoenix District official, the Division plans for each of the 276 greater Phoenix area
roadway miles covered by the program to receive weekly litter pickup. Most of this
work is done by private contractors paid for with Proposition 400 monies,
augmented by the Adopt-a-Highway sponsor program (see page 38). The Tucson
and Flagstaff districts also use the Adopt-a-Highway sponsor
program, but on a much smaller scale than Phoenix. ADOT
officials explained that highways in districts other than
Phoenix, Tucson, and Flagstaff receive substantially less litter
control attention because of less available money and limited
interest in highway sponsorship through the Adopt-a-Highway
program. In these districts, ADOT’s maintenance crews do
mostly spot litter pickup on a public complaint basis or when
they observe debris on roadways that may pose safety
hazards. The Adopt-a-Highway volunteer program also
provides supplemental litter pickup in all nine districts
throughout the State.
Proposition 400
In November 2004, Maricopa County voters
approved the extension of its half-cent
transportation excise tax, which continues during
the calendar years 2006 through 2025. Based
on estimated revenues, a total of approximately
$279 million will be allocated to pay for litter
pickup and landscape maintenance.
State of Arizona
page 38
Division uses multiple methods for litter pickup
The Division uses five methods for litter control on roads in the state highway system:
􀁺􇩐 Proposition 400 contractors—According to an ADOT Phoenix district official,
Proposition 400 monies (see textbox, page 37) fund litter control for 276
roadway miles in the Maricopa County Regional Freeway system. In fiscal year
2006, $1.8 million was designated from Proposition 400 monies to pay for this
litter control and $200,000 was used for a litter prevention and education
campaign. The official explained that the Division receives these monies and
hires contractors to pick up litter on roadway shoulders, medians, and
pavement. The Division has a full-time inspector who verifies contractor work
quality to ensure adequate litter control.
􀁺􇩁 Adopt-a-Highway sponsors—The Adopt-a-Highway
sponsor program allows businesses and other
organizations that contract directly with one of
several pre-approved maintenance providers to
remove litter in the busier urban areas where more
frequent litter removal is necessary. As shown in
Table 8, the Division reports that as of January 2007,
119 groups sponsored more than 370 roadway
miles in the Phoenix, Tucson, and Flagstaff districts.
According to the program coordinator, most litter
control paid by sponsors is done every other week.
However, in Flagstaff and Tucson, some sponsored
litter pickup is done only 12 to 18 times a year. In
Maricopa County, the Division has a full-time
inspector who ensures the quality of sponsored litter
control done by contractors, according to a Phoenix
district official. Division officials state that for
Maricopa County, sponsored and Proposition 400
work are coordinated to ensure weekly litter pickup
on each roadway segment.
Table 8: Adopt-a-Highway Sponsor Program Statistics
By District
Fiscal Year 2006
(Unaudited)
District
Number of
Sponsors
Sponsored
Miles
District
Centerline Miles1
Phoenix 113 352.6 545.7
Tucson 2 14.2 972.8
Flagstaff 4 4.0 833.0
Total 119 370.8 2,351.5
1 The most recent centerline mile information is from December 31, 2005.
Source: Auditor General staff analysis of data provided by the program
coordinator in ADOT’s Communication and Community
Partnerships Office and ADOT’s 2005 State Highway System Log.
Office of the Auditor General
page 39
􀁺􇩁 Adopt-a-Highway volunteers—Under the
Adopt-a-Highway volunteer program,
volunteer associations such as civic
groups and schools pick up litter
approximately twice a year on their
adopted highway segment. As shown in
Table 9, as of February 2006, ADOT had
2,235 volunteer groups enrolled in the
program throughout the State caring for
an estimated 2,467 roadway miles.
􀁺􇩐 Prison labor—ADOT maintenance
districts use contracted prison labor to
perform litter pickup along some Arizona
highways. According to ADOT records,
ADOT used nearly 86,000 hours of inmate
labor in fiscal year 2006 at a total cost of
almost $62,000. Under its agreement with
the Department of Corrections (DOC),
ADOT coordinates with prison officials to
set work hours, work locations, and job
assignments subject to DOC agreement
and the availability of inmate workers.
DOC provides security supervision, and
ADOT is responsible for inmate labor
expenses at $0.50 per hour, Correctional
Officer supervision expenses at the DOC
rate in accordance with its policy,
transportation costs at the state rate per
mile, and other related costs. Agency officials state that inmate labor is typically
limited to areas within close proximity of the prison and more rural areas.
􀁺􇩉 In-house maintenance crews—ADOT officials stated that maintenance crews
pick up litter in rural regions on a complaint basis or when crews observe items
on the roadway that could pose safety hazards. According to ADOT officials, in-house
maintenance crews assume limited responsibility for litter control
because they emphasize roadway functionality and safety, with litter pickup
being a lower priority. ADOT records show that in fiscal year 2006, approximately
$1 million was spent on litter pickup performed by in-house maintenance crews
throughout the State. According to ADOT officials, in-house maintenance crews
are also responsible for collecting litter bags filled by Adopt-a-Highway
volunteers.
Table 9: Adopt-a-Highway Volunteer Program Statistics
By District
Fiscal Year 2006
(Unaudited)
District
Number of
Volunteer
Groups
Adopted
Miles
District
Centerline Miles2
Flagstaff 216 356.6 833.0
Globe 461 265.0 898.3
Holbrook 173 173.0 921.6
Kingman 131 250.8 577.8
Phoenix 102 119.7 545.7
Prescott 337 349.8 587.8
Safford 349 349.0 816.6
Tucson 371 449.7 972.8
Yuma 95 153.5 647.3
Total 2,235 2,467.11 6,800.9
1 According to the program coordinator, the Safford and Holbrook districts
did not have exact information regarding the number of miles cared for so
a minimum estimation of 1 mile per group was used. It is likely that this
value is higher since the program encourages groups to adopt 2-mile
segments, and most districts have a mixture of groups that adopt 1-mile
and those that adopt 2-mile segments.
2 The most recent centerline mile information is from December 31, 2005.
Source: Auditor General staff analysis of data provided by the program
coordinator in ADOT’s Communication and Community Partnerships
Office and the ADOT 2005 State Highway System Log.
State of Arizona
page 40
Office of the Auditor General
AGENCY RESPONSE
State of Arizona
page 42
05-02 Department of Administration—
Financial Services Division
05-03 Government Information
Technology Agency (GITA) &
Information Technology
Authorization Committee (ITAC)
05-04 Department of Economic
Security—Information Security
05-05 Department of Economic
Security—Service Integration
Initiative
05-06 Department of Revenue—Audit
Division
05-07 Department of Economic
Security—Division of
Developmental Disabilities
05-08 Department of Economic
Security—Sunset Factors
05-09 Arizona State Retirement
System
05-10 Foster Care Review Board
05-11 Department of Administration—
Information Services Division
and Telecommunications
Program Office
05-12 Department of Administration—
Human Resources Division
05-13 Department of Administration—
Sunset Factors
05-14 Department of Revenue—
Collections Division
05-15 Department of Revenue—
Business Reengineering/
Integrated Tax System
05-16 Department of Revenue Sunset
Factors
06-01 Governor’s Regulatory Review
Council
06-02 Arizona Health Care Cost
Containment System—
Healthcare Group Program
06-03 Pinal County Transportation
Excise Tax
06-04 Arizona Department of
Education—Accountability
Programs
06-05 Arizona Department of
Transportation—Aspects of
Construction Management
06-06 Arizona Department of
Education—Administration and
Allocation of Funds
06-07 Arizona Department of
Education—Information
Management
06-08 Arizona Supreme Court,
Administrative Office of the
Courts—Information
Technology and FARE Program
06-09 Department of Health
Services—Behavioral Health
Services for Adults with Serious
Mental Illness in Maricopa
County
07-01 Arizona Board of Fingerprinting
07-02 Arizona Department of Racing
and Arizona Racing
Commission
Performance Audit Division reports issued within the last 24 months
Future Performance Audit Division reports
Arizona School Facilities Board