Annual report Arizona. Citizen's Transportation Oversight Committee

              ~
cmZENSTRANSPORTATION C-. c OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE
'::
'"~
=- - ... 4i ~ '"
ERockneIIRocli Arnett, Chairman
JackW. Lunsford, Memberat Large
TerryRainey, MaricopaCountyDistrict1
Vocant, MoricopoCountyDistrict2
Nelsonladd, MaricopaCountyQ~ f ! Ii
GeorgeDavis, Maricopa( o, Q!} tY"" 111~ 0lf
Vacant, MaricopaCountyDistrict5
2006 ANNUAL REPORT
Citizen's f6! irtolion
R Rockne " Roc" Arnett, Chairman
F. Rockne " Roc" Arnett, Chairman
Jack W. Lunsford, Member At Large
Terry Rainey, Maricopa County District 1
Vacant, Maricopa County District 2
Nelson Ladd, Maricopa County District 3
George Davis, Maricopa County District 4
Vacant, MaricopaCountyDistrict 5
Citizen's Transportation Oversight Committee 2006 Annual Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Section 1: Introduction & Program Update 1
Citizen's TransportationOversightCommittee 1
RegionalTransportationPlan Life CycleProgram 2
Major Milestonesin 2006 3
ProgramChangesin 2006 4
ProgramTrends 5
Design Conceptsand EnvironmentalStudies 6
Section 2: Administra tive 7
Meetings 7
Member Infonnation 8
AdministrativeAgendaItems 8
Section 3: Informational Agenda Items 10
Program Related Items 10
Studies 12
Air Quality and Other Subjects 15
Section 4: Appendix 18
Appendix A: Program Changes in 2006 19
Appendix B: CTOC 2006 Issues Database 20
Appendix C: CTOC Statute 21
Appendix D: Financial Compliance Report 22
Appendix E: 2005 Perfonnance Audit Status 23
Appendix F: CTOC Budget 24
Appendix G: July 2006 Certification Maps 25
Citizen's Transportation Oversight Committee 2006 Annual Report
SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION & PROGRAM
UPDATE
CITIZEN'S
On April 21, 1994, House Bill 2342 establisheda Citizen's TransportationOversight
Committee( CTOC) to facilitatecitizen involvementin the decisionmaking processof
freeway planning and construction. Their primary responsibilities included review
and advisory functions concerning the Regional Transportation Plan, the
Transportation Improvement Plan ( TIP), changes to the plan, and on the priorities
regarding Proposition 300 freeways for corridor and segment development. An
annual audit must be performed by an outside audit firm of the expendituresof the
RegionalArea Road Fund ( RARF), alongwith necessarypublic hearings. Members
were appointedfor a period of three years by each of the governing bodies of cities
and towns and tribal councils in Maricopa County. The Governor appoints a
Chairperson and a Member at Large. Staff and coordination support was to be
providedby the SpecialAssistantfor the RegionalFreewaySystem.
House Bill 2172 was passed in 1996 that repealedthe existingCTOC and createda
new seven member CTOC with the same statutory responsibilitiesas the original
committee. The new CTOC is authorized to; review and make recommendations
regarding any proposed major revision to the MAG Transportation Improvement
Program; consult with the StateAuditor Generalregardingthe required Performance
Audit of the RegionalFreewaySystem; receiveand make recommendationsto MAG
regarding citizens complaints relative to MAG's statutory responsibility over the
Regional Freeway System; and receive, review and make recommendationsto the
State Transportation Board regarding citizens complaints about the Regional
Freeway System. The seven- member committee consists of five members
appointed by each of the members of the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors.
The Governor appoints a Chairman and Member at Large. Members previously
appointed by the local jurisdictions under the old legislation could opt to complete
their originalterm.
Arizona House Bill 2456, which was passed in the Spring 2004 session of the
Arizona Legislature, redefined the role of the CTOC. The CTOC Board will be
involved in all matters relatingto the RegionalTransportationPlan ( RTP). The RTP
is a comprehensivemulti- modaland coordinatedregional plan. The RTP covers all
major modes of transportation from a regional perspective, including
freeways/ highways, streets, public mass transit, airports, bicycles and pedestrian
facilities. The RTP is developed through a cooperativeeffort among government,
businessand public interestgroups.
1
Citizen's Transportation Oversight Committee 2006 Annual Report
ARS Â  28- 6356 provides CTOC's new roles. The CTOC Board plays a number of
importantroles in the regional transportationprocess. It reviewsand advises MAG,
RPTA and the State Transportation Board on matters relating to the RTP; the
Transportation Improvement Program ( TIP); the ADOT Five- Year Construction
Program and the Life Cycle management programs. This includes making
recommendationson any proposed major amendment of the RTP, on criteria for
establishing priorities, and on the Five Year PerformanceAudit of the RTP. The
CTOC Board will conduct an annual FinancialCompliance Report of expenditures
from the regional area road fund, the public transportation fund and receive the
auditor'sreport.
The CTOC Chairperson is a voting member of the MAG Regional Council and
TransportationPolicyCommitteeon mattersrelatedto the RegionalFreewaySystem
and Regional Transportation Plan, and a nonvoting member of ADOT's Priority
PlanningAdvisoryCommittee.
REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN LIFE CYCLE PROGRAM
Arizona House Bill 2292, which was passed in the Spring 2003 session of the
Arizona Legislature, established the Transportation Policy Committee which was
tasked with developing a Regional Transportation Plan for Maricopa County, and
established the process for an election to extend the current % cent County
Transportation Excise Tax. The Regional Transportation Plan includes both new
freeway corridors to serve growth in the region and improvementsto the existing
system to reduce current and future congestion. The Regional TransportationPlan
also addresses quality of life issues such as noise mitigation, maintenance, litter
control and landscaping. The Regional Transportation Plan has three major
components: Freeways/ Highways, TransitandArterialRoads.
On November 2, 2004, voters in Maricopa County approved Proposition 400 to
extend the existing half- cent Sales Tax for transportationfor an additional twenty
years to 2026. The current tax expired December31, 2005. The extension began
January 1, 2006.
The Regional Transportation Plan Freeway Program ( RTPFP) is funded by three
primaryrevenuesources: the extensionof the MaricopaCountytransportationexcise
tax ( often referred to as the one- half cent sales tax or Regional Area Road Funds
RARF), the Arizona Department of Transportation's ( ADOT) funds dedicated to
MaricopaCountyand federal funds.
Per ARS 42- 6105. E, 56.2 percent of all sales tax collections will be distributed to
freeways and state highways; 10.5 percent will be distributed to arterial street
improvementsa; nd 33.3 percentwill be distributedto the publictransportationfund.
2
- u- - - - - -- - - ---
Citizen's Transportation Oversight Committee 2006 Annual Report
The RTPFP Life Cycle Program includes both new facilities and improvements to the
existing system. Operation and maintenance of the system are also addressed.
Projects include new freeway corridors, additional lanes on existing facilities, new
interchanges at arterial cross streets, high occupancy vehicle ramps at system
interchanges, noise mitigationand maintenanceand operationsprograms.
The concept of a Life Cycle Program refers to a programming approach that
forecastsand allocatesfunds through the full life of a majorfunding source. The Life
Cycle Program covers the project program through fiscal year 2026, and reflectsa
fiscal balance between anticipated revenues and expenditures. The Life Cycle
Programprovidesthe necessarymanagementtools to ensure both ADOT and MAG
maintainrealisticplanning and constructionschedules, predicateduponfunding, and
provideperiodicreportsto the publicand othergovernmentalagencies.
MAJOR MILESTONES IN 2006
0 SR85 from SouthernAvenue to 1- 10 utilityconstructionproject was advertisedin
April 2006.
0 The Black Canyon Freeway ( 1- 17) from 16thStreet to Buckeye Road screen wall
construction project was advertised in April 2006.
0 The Maricopa Freeway ( 1- 10) at Ray Road TI improvement project was
advertised in May 2006 and awarded in July 2006.
0 The Agua Fria Freeway ( SR101 Loop) at Bethany Home Road north half TI
construction project was advertised in May 2006 and awarded in July 2006.
0 Quiet Pavement VII ( 1- 10, Dysart Road - 6ih Avenue) project was advertised in
June 2006.
0 The Agua Fria Freeway ( SR101 Loop) at Bethany Home Road south half of TI
was opened in August 2006. A ribbon cutting ceremony was held Thursday,
August 3,2006.
0 The Superstition Freeway ( US60) at Higley Road TI improvement project was
advertised in August 2006 and awarded in November 2006.
0 The Papago Freeway( 1- 10) at 43rdAvenueI 51stAvenue TI improvementproject
was advertised in September 2006 and awarded in November 2006.
0 The Agua Fria Freeway ( SR101 Loop) from 1- 10to 1- 17 Freeway Management
System ( FMS) construction project was advertised in September 2006 and
awardedin November2006.
3
Citizen's Transportation Oversight Committee 2006 Annual Report
0 Quiet Pavement Phase VIIIconstruction project was advertised in October 2006.
0 The BlackCanyon Freeway ( 1- 17) at Jomax Road I DixiletaDrive TI construction
project was advertised in December 2006.
0 The SuperstitionFreeway ( US60) fromValVista Driveto Power Road landscape
construction project was advertised in December 2006.
0 SR85 from MC85 to Southern Avenue roadway construction project was
advertised in December 2006.
PROGRAM CHANGES IN 2006
The detail information are shown in Appendix ' A'
0 Incorporatedlocallyacceleratedprojects.
0 Combinedtwo projectsinto one projectfor constructionefficiency.
0 RepackagedSR85 corridor projects.
0 Repackaged Freeway ManagementSystem ( FMS) projects based on the latest
FMS plan.
0 Created new landscape projects.
0 Deferredtwo TI projectsto FY 2007from FY2006.
0 Incorporated Statewide Transportation Acceleration Needs ( STAN) advanced
projects.
0 Updated design, RMI and construction costs based on latest estimates.
0 Modifiedsome design and RMI projectschedulesto align with study schedules.
0 Modifiedsome constructionprojectschedulesto alignwith design schedules.
0 Repackaged1- 17RMI and constructionprojectsbasedon latest information.
0 Separated design and RMI projects from multi- phased projects.
0 Adjusted South Mountain and Bob Stump Memorial Parkway ( SR303 Loop)
projects based on the latest plan.
0 UpdatedAsphalt RubberNoise Mitigationprojects.
0 Minor project name changes to reflect updated project limits.
0 Created TI improvement subprogram project on Agua Fria Freeway at
Thunderbird Road.
0 Created new construction project at the 1- 10/ SR303 Loop TI.
4
Citizen's Transportation Oversight Committee 2006 Annual Report
0 Created item for the Williams Gateway Freeway Corridor for continuous funding
of RMI protection.
0 Created TI improvements subprogram for continuous funding of TI improvement
projects.
0 Deleted design and construction of 1- 10, SR303 Loop - Sarival Road project
because scope is included in other project.
0 Deleted future design and study funding because these projects are covered by
the Management Consultant item.
PROGRAM TRENDS
For the last six months of year 2006, revenue growth rates for the Transportation
ExciseTax Revenueshave slowedcomparedto previousyear. This is primarilydue
to weakerthan anticipatedretailsales in MaricopaCounty.
2006 bid amounts on several Regional Transportation Plan Freeway Program
constructionprojects have not demonstrateda clear trend ( some reflect higher costs
than estimatedwhile others reflectlower costs). Overall, bid amounts came closeto
ADOT's estimateswith more bids receivedcomparedto previousyear. Construction
material costs have appeared to stabilizefrom the rapid increases that have been
seen over the last two years. Althoughthe increaseshave moderated, there has not
beena significantdeclinefor key commoditiesto previouslevels.
However, based on numerous studies currently underway, construction and RMI
costs for two new freeways ( South Mountain and Bob Stump Memorial Parkway,
SR303 Loop) and major corridor improvement projects ( 1- 10 and 1- 17) reflect
significantlyhighercosts than initialestimates, whichwere developed in 2003. These
higher estimates are due to increased costs for construction materials and
substantial increases in real estate values, which result in higher right- of- waycosts.
Scope refinements identified during design studies have also led to certain cost
increases. The Departmentwill have better informationto determinethe magnitude
of cost increases as studies progress. If these cost increases continue long term,
they will have a substantial impact on the program and the Department's ability to
deliverthe programas currentlyplanned, within the originallyanticipatedtimeframe.
ADOT will continue to monitor market conditions and costs throughout fiscal year
2007 to determine if higher construction and right- of- way costs are short- term in
natureor reflectgeneral long- termtrends.
ADOT also is updating cost estimates for the RTP Freeway Program based upon the
results of design and scoping studies currently underway. The information from this
work will be incorporated into ADOT's cost estimates as they become available.
5
Citizen's Transportation Oversight Committee 2006 Annual Report
AOOT will monitor and review these trends closely and will continue assessingthe
potentialfinancial impactto the program.
DESIGN CONCEPTS AND ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES
An Environmental Impact Statement ( EIS) / Design Concept Report ( OCR) is
underwayfor the South MountainFreewayCorridor( SR202Loop).
A OCR/ CategoricalExclusion ( CE) is underway for the Red Mountain Freeway
Corridor( SR202 Loop) betweenSR51and the Pima Freeway( SR101Loop).
A OCR/ EnvironmentalDocument ( ED) is underwayfor the Red Mountain Freeway
Corridor( SR202Loop) betweenthe Pima Freeway( SR101Loop) and Gilbert Road.
A OCR/ ED is underway for the 1- 10corridor between Sarival Road and the Agua Fria
Freeway ( SR101 Loop).
A OCR/ EIS is underway for the 1- 10corridor between SR51 and the Santan Freeway
( SR202 Loop).
A OCR/ Environmental Assessment ( EA) is underway for the 1- 10 Reliever ( SR801)
between SR85 and the South Mountain Freeway ( SR202 Loop).
A OCR/ EA is underway for the Bob Stump Memorial Parkway ( SR303 Loop)
between the 1- 10Reliever ( SR801) and 1- 10.
A OCR/ ED is underway for the Williams Gateway Freeway ( SR802).
A OCR/ EA is underway for the Bob Stump Memorial Parkway ( SR303 Loop)
between 1- 10and Grand Avenue ( US60).
A OCR is underway at the SR85/ 1- 8 TI.
A OCR/ EA was completed for the Bob Stump Memorial Parkway ( SR303 Loop)
between Happy Valley Road and 1- 17. The State Transportation Board adopted the
recommended alignment in December 15, 2006.
6
Citizen's Transportation Oversight Committee 2006 Annual Report
SECTION 2 ADMINISTRATIVE
CTOC statutory authority and responsibilitiesare defined in the Arizona Revised
Statutes, AR. S. Â  28- 6356 ( shown in Appendix ' C'). This section of the report
provides a summary of CTOC membership and regular CTOC administrative
responsibilities.
MEETINGS
The Citizen's Transportation Oversight Committee ( CTOC) met five times in 2006
includingone joint public hearing. The committeereviewedand discussed a broad
rangeof topics.
The regular CTOC meetings for January, May and November were held at the
Arizona Departmentof Transportation, TransportationBoard Room, 206 South 17th
Avenue, Phoenix, Arizona.
The regular CTOC meeting for September was held at the Valley Metro I RPTA
Office, 302 North 1stAvenue,# 700, Phoenix, Arizona.
A Joint Public Hearing with the Maricopa Association of Governments Regional
Council ( MAG), the Regional Public Transit Authority ( RPTA) and the State
TransportationBoard ( STB) was held at the MAG Officesat 302 North 1stAvenue, in
Phoenix. The meetingdates follow:
Tuesday, January 31,2006
Friday, March 10, 2006
Tuesday, May23,2006
Tuesday, September 26, 2006
Tuesday, November 28, 2006
Regular Meeting
Joint Public Hearing at MAG
Regular Meeting
Regular Meeting at Valley Metro
Regular Meeting
7
Citizen's Transportation Oversight Committee 2006 Annual Report
MEMBERS
The following is a list of current members as of December 2006.
MEMBER TERM EXPIRES
F. Rockne " Roc" Arnett, Chairman
Jack W. Lunsford, Member at Large
Terry Rainey, Supervisor's District 1
Vacant, Supervisor's District 2
Nelson Ladd, Supervisor's District 3
George Davis, Supervisor's District 4
Vacant, Supervisor's District 5
January 2008
January 2008
June 2007
January 2008
March 2007
ADMINISTRATIVE AGENDA ITEMS
Financial Compliance Report
Under AR. S. Â  28- 6356, subsection F. 5, CTOC is required to conduct an
Independent Financial Compliance Report of the Regional Freeway System and
RTP expenditures. The firm of Deloitte& Touche, L. L. P. was contractedto perform
the agreed- uponprocedures.
Deloitte & Touche conducted the Financial Compliance Report for the Maricopa
Regional Area Fund, management and the Citizens Transportation Oversight
Committee solely to assist in evaluating the Fund's compliance with the Arizona
RevisedStatuteduring the year endingJune 30, 2006. This agreed- uponprocedure
8
Citizen's Transportation Oversight Committee 2006 Annual Report
was conducted in accordance and to attest to the standards established by the
American Instituteof Certified PublicAccountants. Deloitte& Touche confirm the
classificationson the expenditures agree and that the classificationswere approved
to be spent for those services. They examine expenditures in comparison to the
project; they verify projects were not over expended. The findings on those
procedures revealed there were no exceptions found on any of the procedures. The
report on the MaricopaArea Regional Fund and ADOTwent very wellthis year, as
they do historically. The reportwas a positivereportwithno exceptions.
Annual Budaet
The annual proposed CTOC Budget for 2006- 2007 totaled $ 43,000, which included
report fees, employee expenses, transcriptionactivities, routine business costs and
other administrativecosts.
The proposed budget included $ 15,000 for personal services, $ 4,000 for employee
related expenses, $ 15,000 for professional and outside services, $ 1,000 for travel
expenses and $ 8,000 for other operatingexpenses. Budget Report inAppendixF.
9
Citizen's Transportation Oversight Committee 2006 Annual Report
SECTION 3 INFORMATIONAL AGENDA ITEMS
There were numerous presentations made to CTOC that provided the Committee and
the public with background information and an opportunity to discuss and comment on
a variety of transportation issues. The following is a list of a number of the agenda
items presented at the meetings in 2006.
PROGRAM RELATED ITEMS
Tentative FY2007 - FY2011 Reaional Freeway System and
Reaional Transportation Plan Freeway Proarams
ADOT presented the Tentative FY 2007 - 2011 Five- Year Transportation Facilities
ConstructionProgramin the MAGregionto CTOCat the May23, 2006 meetingand at
the Joint Public Hearing with MAG Regional Council, the Transportation Board,
RegionalPublicTransitAuthorityand Metroon March 10, 2006.
They anticipate the Transportation Board will approve the FY 2007- 2011 MAG
Regional Transportation Plan Freeway program and Regional Freeway System
Programat its June 23,2006 meeting. The materialand constructioncost increases
have significantly impacted the program, causing them to revise and modify the
program. Ten projectstotaling over $ 100 millionhadto be deferredfrom 2006 to 2007
to keep the program in balance. In the FY 2007- 2011program 15 projects had to be
deferredone or two fiscal years and 23 projectshad cost changestotaling $ 87 million.
The Five- Year Program includes new freeway construction, new HOV and general
purpose lanes, interim corridor development, right- of- wayprotection, existing freeway,
Grand Avenue corridor improvements, new traffic interchangesand new HOV ramp
connections. With regard to the South MountainCorridor, constructioncan begin on
the west side in the year 2011, but construction on the east side will depend on
whether or not the Gila River Indian Communityallows them to study alternativeson
communityland. The new Governorof the Gila River IndianCommunityhas indicated
a desireto moveforward with a vote in the nearfuture that would allow residentsof the
communityto vote whether or not they want ADOT to proceed with the study on their
lands. The program also calls for the continuationof the quiet pavement program,
adding an additional 34 miles of rubberizedasphalt throughout the valley. In current
program, we will spend $ 654.4 million in 2007, $ 286.1 million in 2008, $ 554 million in
2009, $ 605.4 million in 2010 and $ 884.2 million in 2011 for a total program cost of
$ 2.98 billion.
10
Citizen's Transportation Oversight Committee 2006 Annual Report
Valle v Metro - RPTA 20- Year Strateaic Vision and Plan
Valley Metro is looking at a Twenty- Year Strategic Plan and Efficiency Study. Their
Boarddevelopeda draft vision, missionand goalsthat will go to their Boardon October
19,2006. Under Proposition400, the agencywent from $ 7 millionto more than $ 100
millionand needsto look at things differently. The purposein this presentationis to get
inputon the future of their organization.
The Twenty- Year Strategic Plan is critically important for Valley Metro, RPTA and
DepartmentAgencies. It has been underwaysince March 2006. Proposition400 was
a huge catalyst. RPTA's environmentis changingwith organizationchanges, outside
pressures including oil prices and growth related issues. Interviews have been held
with stakeholders including RPTA's member agencies, ADOT and MAG. Comments
heard included safe service, secure service, timely, reliable, on- time, convenient,
affordable, access to jobs, medical facilities and delivery on Proposition 400.
Challengesincludefunding and cooperationbetweenmembershipsgetting the service
out. On June 22nd, a Retreatfor their Boardwas facilitatedto put togetherthe mission
and vision statements. A follow up meetingwas held on September7th. Priorto that,
input was used from interviews and meetings on the mission and vision. The draft
mission statement and vision statementwere shared. A session on goals also was
held. Fromthat point outreachto the businesscommunityis needed.
" Efficiency - Effectiveness Study" that focuses on Proposition 400 and accountabilitv.
This separate effort has been underway since March or April 2006. The focus has
been on how the reporting is going to work particularlyon fixed routes, bus service,
para- transit service and rail service. A technical advisory committee is working to
come up with performancemeasuresto report on performanceunder the Proposition
400 context. Audits will take placeon five- yearintervals. Four specificgoals includea
system of preservationand safety, access and mobility, sustaining environmentand
accountabilityand planning. They looked at what is currently being reported, what is
the industry'sbest practiceand how to ensure Proposition400 requirementsare being
met. A proposed framework was developed and includes recommendations of
detailed performance measures including fare box recovery ratio, cost per revenue
mile and so on. The intent of the process was to have as much congruence as
possiblebetweenwhat railwas goingto reportandwhat buswas going to report. Next
steps are to continue with the technical advisorycommittee schedule, a testing of the
frameworkand a measurementmanualwith consistentdefinitions.
11
Citizen's Transportation Oversight Committee 2006 Annual Report
Status Report on STAN Fundina
This " StatewideTransportationAccelerationNeedsAccount" was approvedduringthe
last Legislative Session and allocates funding to assist the ADOT in transportation
needs statewide. It provides $ 307millionfor projects including the accelerationof
highways. Eligibility criteria included project readiness, Environmental Studies
underway or nearly completed and Design Concept Reports at 30 percent or more.
Construction projects were identified and prioritized as to their readiness including
right- of- ways. MAG members have been reviewing and prioritizing projects and a
processfor narrowing projects is in place to recommendprojectsto send to the MAG
RegionalCouncilfor approval at a December13, 2006 meeting. They will reviewand
possiblyapprovethe recommendations. Those recommendationswill be forwardedto
ADOT and the State Transportation Board to review and possibly approve at their
December 15th meeting. The recommended list of projects include: ( 1) 1- 10from
VerradoWay to Sarival Road, construct5.7 miles of general purpose lanes for $ 46.9
million, moving west toward SR 85; ( 2) 1- 17from Anthem Way to Carefree Highway,
construct 5.1 miles of general purpose lanes for $ 33.1 million, continuing a dramatic
amount of construction on 1- 17 during the next several years. ( 3) Loop 303,
recommendationis a partial traffic interchangeat Bell Road and Loop 303 due to the
dramatic business growth and a second piece is to construct bridge structures at
Cactus and Waddell Roads and the Loop 303; ( 4) Loop 101 from Tatum to Princess
Drive, add 5.2 miles of HOV lanes to Loop 101 Freeway;( 5) Loop 101 Price Freeway
from Baseline Road to Santan Freeway, add 5 miles of HOV lanes; and ( 6) Williams
Gateway Freeway, from Loop 202 to MeridianRoad, adding $ 20.3 million for right- of-way
protection. Senator Verschoor, Chair of the Senate Transportation Committee
indicatedhe plans to initiatefurther STANfunding this legislativeyear for an additional
$ 200 million.
Status of Reaional Transportation Plan Fundina for Litter,
Landscapina and Sweepina
The Maintenance Program includes funding for litter, landscaping, sweeping,
prevention and education. In terms of litter, the proposed program calls for weekly
pickups in urban and suburban areas, more crews assigned to urban and suburban
areas, and hot spot crews on call for same- dayresponse. With regardto landscaping,
the proposedprogram includes additionaltrimmingfor aesthetics, more weed control,
and the clean- up of less visible areas. The sweeping portion of the program calls for
increased urban sweeping in sensitive areas with PM- 10 Compliant Sweepers and
additional sweeping in non- urban areas where curbs are installed. The proposed
preventionand education componentincludes$ 300,000to be administeredby ADOT
and MAG. The program started January30,2006 with the first litter crew. By the end
of the first week, at leastthree new litterpickupcrewswill be working in the EastValley
andWest Valley with five to sevenmore plannedin the comingweeks.
12
Citizen's Transportation Oversight Committee 2006 Annual Report
STUDIES
East Vallev Pinal County Plannina Studies
The Corridor Definition Studies were intended to address long- range transportation
needs in rapidly growing areas of Pinal County. Initially, ADOT examined population,
employmentand travel demands in 2030 and forecastedthe need for future capacity.
ADOT also reviewed environmental, geographic and community constraints. ADOT
met with the public to review its findings and changed its recommendationbased on
input from the public to focus on build- out. The study demonstrates the need to
integrate land- use policies with future transportation planning. State land is a
significantvariable in how western Pinal Countydevelopsso they worked closelywith
the State Land Department to determine their development plans. There has been
significantland use development in the Gold Canyonarea; therefore, they are looking
at re- routingthe US60 in that area. The Design Concept Report and Environmental
Statement are in our Five- Year Construction Program for FY 2006. We are
recommendingthe Williams Gateway as a freeway. Approximately one third of the
freeway is located in MaricopaCounty so MAG looked at more precisely locating that
corridor within Maricopa County as part of the Corridor Definition Study. The
north/ southfreeway is forked at the end because they were unable at the planning
level to identify which of the two alternativeswas preferable. We are now doing a
separateanalysisof just those alternatives. The traffic model developedas part of the
study indicatedthe need for future State highwaysto meet travel demand in the fairly
distantfuture. As Pinal County continuesto grow, the State system, which is primarily
a two lane State highway, will need to be expandedto meet growth. Therefore, the
State infrastructurethey see being necessaryat build- out includes the constructionof
several new freeways as well as significant upgrading of existing State highways.
Their recommendationsdeal with State facilities and the system only works if they
have a mature local arterial system. The recommendationsreflect general planning
level corridors, not exact alignments. The alignments will be determined by future
studies based on demand, level of build- out and engineering feasibility. The
north/ southcorridor option will be recommendedto the State TransportationBoard in
2006, following additional study. Continuingcoordinationand cooperationare needed
to create an integratedregionaltransportationsystem. Pinal County understandsthey
will haveto participatewith ADOT in addressingthe transportationchallengesthat high
growth creates. We are lookingat coordinatingland use planningwith State and local
transportation planning. ADOT is working with the county and local governments
through its Small Area TransportationStudies Program. A formal resolutionwill be
presentedto the TransportationBoard requesting adoption of the recommendations
developed by the Corridor Definition Studies into the MoveAZ Long- Range
Transportation Plan. By formally incorporatingthem into MoveAZ, they can legally
continue to do the studies necessary to develop the transportation system in Pinal
County.
13
Citizen's Transportation Oversight Committee 2006 Annual Report
Williams Gateway Study
In February 2006, the State Transportation Board approved a plan produced by
TransportationPlanning Division, which allowedfor the study of two corridorsfor future
construction projects. A few years ago an alternative alignment for the US60 was
proposed by BRW, Consultantsfor further study. The contract will include both the
US60 re- route and the Williams Gateway Freeway extension from the Maricopa
County/ PinalCounty line to its logicalterminus. The conceptual plan for the US60 re-route
is to start it where the SuperstitionFreewayends, move it around Gold Canyon,
to where the RenaissanceFestivalis held. ADOT developedthe scopeof work in April
2006 and assembled a Statement of Qualifications package with Engineering
ConsultantServices. The projectwas advertisedon May3rd and May 10, 2006 and
opportunity week commencedon May15th. The Statementsof Qualificationsare due
May 24th and selection approval will occur on June 6th. The draft and final
engineeringand environmentalstudies will take the next two to three years. ADOT
and Consultant responsibilities include holding public meetings, coordinating with
stakeholders and MAG, preparing and reviewing engineering documents, preparing
environmentalstudies, maintainingand updatingthe scheduleand preparinga detailed
constructioncost estimate.
The UDCR components include an alternatives selection report, long- term
improvement plans, a corridor implementation plan, a traffic report, a geo-technical/
pavementanalysis, a drainagereportand an evaluationof neededstructures.
Hassayampa Study
Development is being reviewed outside of the east and west valleys and areas
surrounding the valley are adding traffic and pressures to the transportation system.
The HassayampaValley, west of the west valley, Hidden Valley and Northern Pinal
County are included in Framework Studies to review corridors. The Hassayampa
Valley Framework Study is underway; presentations have been made. The
Hassayampa is roughly 1,500 square miles. Currently, the Metropolitan area is
roughly2,000 square miles. 1- 10is an importantcorridornot only for movementfor the
communitiesbut the lifelineto Long Beachand freight. Issues includethe White Tank
Mountains separating the area from the rest of the valley. A study review team has
been meetingto discuss the framework, meetwith developersand other stakeholders
and review alternatives including more than 45 different transportation plans.
Assumptions found that the HassayampaValley build- out will be 2- 3 million people,
generating 8 million trips per day, assuming 50 percent of the trips to schools,
shoppingand work will stay within the study area and that about 3 milliontrips daily will
leavethe HassayampaValley. The conceptualframeworkincludes identifyinghigh
14
Citizen's Transportation Oversight Committee 2006 Annual Report
capacity corridors spaced at six to ten miles, consideringmedium capacity corridors,
being sensitive to the White Tanks environment and developing multi- modal
transportation. Preliminary Network Assessment data was gathered on centerline
miles by facility type, lane miles by facilitytype, lane miles by 1,000 persons, Phoenix
Urban Area Transportation service comparisonand peer City Transportationservice
comparison. Future activities include a Study ReviewTeam meetingon December7,
2006, a Developerand Public Informationforum on December 14th, a release of the
draft projectworking papers in January2007 and recommendationsfor MAGby March
2007. In regard to the Hidden Valley Roadway Framework Study, a consortium of
agencies is working to address needs as well as prioritize improvements. The area
includesapproximately1,800square miles and could include3 million people by build-out.
There are 5 million people in Phoenix, about 3 million in Hassayampa, 3 million in
HiddenValley for a total of approximately12millionpeople in the MetropolitanPhoenix
area at build- out. The schedule for this is to get a general framework by December
2007 and recommendationfor MAGandCMG by July 2008.
AIR QUALITY AND OTHER SUBJECTS
Air Qualitv Issues & Overview
The Transportation Planning Division, Air Quality Policy Branch is responsible for
implementing provisions required in the Clean Air Act, statewide consultation for
transportation, air quality planning, conducting transportation related air quality
planningand research projectsto ensure that air qualitystandards are met throughout
Arizona. The Clean Air Act provides the principalframework of national, state and
local efforts to protect air quality. Under the Clean Air Act, EPA is responsible for
setting standards, also known as NationalAmbientAir Quality Standards( NMQS) for
pollutantswhich are consideredharmfulto peopleand the environment. The CleanAir
Act requires states to develop State ImplementationPlans ( SIPs) that explain how
each state will do its job under the Clean Air Act. The six criteria pollutantsidentified
under the NMQS; lead, nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, particulate
matter, and ozone. The only two countiesin the country are in non- attainmentfor lead
and no states are in non- attainmentfor nitrogenoxides. Arizona does not violate the
standard for Carbon Monoxide; however, Texas, California, Nevada, Oregon and
Montana still have programs. SoutheastArizona's copper mines cause the regionto
violate the S02 standard and the nation's EPA exceeds the standard for Particulate
Matter. The TPD Air Quality Policy Branch determinesthe feasibility of commitments
to air quality and transportation control measuresfor inclusion in the non- attainment
area plans and active participation during the development of State Implementation
Plans. If a control measure is adopted through the ADOT governing board, the
Transportation Planning Air Quality Policy Branch monitors the measures and
preparesthe required progress reports. Transportationconformity is a way to ensure
that federal funding and approval are given to those transportation activities that are
consistentwith air qualitygoals. Underthe ConformityRule, transportationcontrol
15
Citizen's Transportation Oversight Committee 2006 Annual Report
measures are strategies that are specifically identified and committed to in State
Implementation Plans and are either listed in Section 108 of the Clean Air Act or will
reduce transportation- related emissions by reducing vehicle use or improving traffic
flow. Regardless of where they get funding, regionally significant transportation
projects must be evaluated against the State Implementation Plan.
Maricopa County is meeting EPA requirements for lead, sulfur dioxide, carbon
monoxide, nitrogen oxides, and particulate matter fine standards. The region now
must work to reduce pollution for new eight hour ozone standards and the current
particulate matter standard PM10. A 3,000 square mile area of Maricopa and Pinal
Counties has been designated a non- attainment area because it does not meet the
Federal air qualitystandards for particulates smaller than ten microns in diameter. A
PM10 Plan for Maricopa County was approved by the U. S. EnvironmentalProtection
Agency. The plan shows how MaricopaCountywill attain federal PM10 standardsby
2006. The plan has 77 measures to reduce particulate pollution from all significant
sources. The region, however, continuesto violatethe healthstandardsfor PM 10and
a new more stringent plan will be needed by December 31, 2007. Transportationis
not the only contributing factor, with most being related to construction and earth
moving. ADOT's commitments: 1) developmentof intelligenttransportationsystems;
2) expansion of public transportation systems; 3) carpools, rideshare, preferential
parking, and alternative work schedules; 4) constructing HOV lanes; 5) tougher
enforcementof vehicle registrationand test compliance; 6) roadwayimprovementsthat
reduce congestion; and 7) paving, vegetating, and curbing shoulders and stabilizing
unpavedaccess pointsonto paved roads.
The Air Quality Policy branch is actively involved in funding research projects that
includeways to mitigate and improveair quality. They recently completedan Arizona
State University Study related to tire wear emissionsfor asphalt rubber and Portland
cementconcretepavementsurfaces. The study concludedemission rates of tire wear
per kilometerdriven at PCC road surface are 1.4- 2times higherthan emissionrates of
tire wear at AR- ACFC road surface. They also undertooka study to identifyemission
sources in Pinal County. The State already submitted a 309 plan, which covered all
the national park and wilderness areas, but a Regional Haze 308 Plan will be
submittedto address visibility in National Parks. The eight hour Ozone Plan and PM
10 5% plans are due in 2007, while the S02 MaintenancePlans are due in 2006/ 07.
New rules for toxins might requireADOT to look at toxics on their hot spot analysis.
ADEQ/ EPAwill be revisingthe conformityrequirementsand the EPA rule for Hot Spot
Analysis will most likely be finalized by the end of this year. They will begin their own
researchproject to look at PM 10 control measuresthey can do in the MAG regionto
help enforce and address existing TCMs. The Governorhad an ExecutiveOrder last
year to look at climate change and a report will be in place in a month and the
Governor will make a recommendationon addressinggreenhouse gases. They will
also watch air quality monitors in Pinal, Maricopa, and Yuma countiesfor PM 2.5 and
PM2.5- 10 standards.
16
Citizen's Transportation Oversight Committee 2006 Annual Report
Statewide Growth and Transportation
A summaryof action itemsfrom meetingsheldwith other councilsof governmentsheld
across the State were discussed using visual depictionsof the State in 2000 with 5.5
million people and a projectionof 16 million in the State. There is tremendousgrowth
in Pima County, Pinal County and MaricopaCounty. In Arizona, only approximately
thirty percentof the land is availablefor development, the rest is forest park land. Ifwe
are going to continue to grow, we need to look at statewide mobility. There is an
increasingamount of work being done with Pinal County, includingthe MOVEArizona
Plan, Hidden Valley Study and incorporating a companion study on Hassayampa
Valley. These are major planning areas with a build- out population of two to three
million people west of the White Tank Mountains. Housing units in Maricopa County
and Pinal County approved or in the pipelineto be approved are estimated to be 1.5
million, which translates to four million people. The City of Maricopa has grown from
1,000 to 20,000 and is on its way to 100,000. And has one way in, causing major
issues.
Money for transportation relies on four areas: 1) local taxes - Proposition 400, this year
raising approximately $ 360 million, enjoying double- digit growth over the last 15- 16
months; 2) federal funds - increasing speculation the Highway Trust Fund is going to
go broke, which is not true, the next reauthorization will be put in place in 2009 and will
not include large increases; 3) private sector; 4) State Highway User Revenue Fund -
FY2005, $ 1.23 billion with 50 percent going to ADOT for distribution to cities and towns
and counties.
Fuel taxes are declining. They have beenfixed at 18 cents since 1991. In 1995, they
represented 57 percent of the funding and it will fall to 50 percent by 2010 and will
continueto fall if the gas tax isn't changed.
Leaislative HURF Transfer
The legislaturehas swept a variety of funds in an attemptto balancethe State budget,
with as much as $ 800 million comingfrom the HURF Fund and Vehicle LicenseTags.
The funds will not be returnedall at once, but there was clearly an understandingafter
last year's transfer of $ 118 millionfrom HURFto the General Fund that the legislature
would restore at least that amount. Several bills have been introduced and upon
CTOC's decisionthey could endorse repayingthe $ 118 million to HURF. One way in
which communities can participate locally in funding freeway acceleration is to have
greater bonding authority within the municipalitiesthemselves. Public Safety and
Transportation issues are currently funded out of the cap of 6 percent of the city's
assessedvalue, but a bill introducedlast year would let citizens of the cities determine
if theywanted to move those issuesto the 20 percentcap.
17
Citizen's Transportation Oversight Committee 2006 Annual Report
SECTION 4 APPENDIX
APPENDIX A PROGRAM CHANGES IN 2006
APPENDIX B CTOC 2006 ISSUES DATABASE
APPENDIX C CTOC STATUTE
APPENDIX D FINANCIALCOMPLIANCEREPORT
APPENDIX E 2005 PERFORMANCEAUDIT STATUS
APPENDIX F CTOC BUDGET
APPENDIX G JULY 2006 CERTIFICATIONMAPS
18
Citizen's Transportation Oversight Committee 2006 Annual Report
APPENDIX A
PROGRAM CHANGES IN 2006
19
DRAFT ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE RTP FREEWAY PROGRAM
FY 07 - FY 11
RTP Program Modification ( 6- 5- 06)
10 RC 43rd Ave 07 None $ 625 $ 0
-'-
10 RC 51st Ave 07 07 $ 875 $ 1,840
10 RC Bullard Ave TI 06 07 $ 11,000 $ 11,000
10 RD 303L - Dysart Rd 09 None $ 4,620 $ 0
10 RD SAadrviavanlceRmde- nDtysart Rd, City None 07 $ 0 $ 2,800
10 RD ASdavriavnacl eRmde- nDt ysart Rd, City None 08 $ 0 $ 1,900
10 RD 303L - Sarival Rd None 09 $ 0 $ 1,200
10 RC 303L - Dysart Rd 11 None $ 84,000 $ 0
10 RC ASdavriavanlceRmde- nDtysart Rd, City None 08 $ 0 $ 44,000
10 RC Sarival Rd - Dysart Rd, Pavement None 08 $ 0 $ 6,000 '
Preservation Fund
10 RC ASdavriavnacl eRmde- nDt ysart Rd, City None 09 $ 0 $ 35,000
10 RC 303L - Sarival Rd None 11 $ 0 $ 22,000
'
10 RD ADdyvsaanrtcRemd e- n1t01L, Agua Fria, City None 07 $ 0 $ 2,805
10 RC Dysart Rd - 101L, Agua Fria, City None 08 $ 0 $ 51,000 I Advancement
10 RD/ RW SR51 - 40th St, CD Road 10 None $ 20,000 $ 0
10 RD SR51 - 40th St, CD Road None 10 $ 0 $ 10,000
--. --..
10 RW SR51 - 40th St, CD Road None 10 $ 0 $ 10,000
10 LD Sarival Rd - Dysart Rd None 10 $ 0 $ 320
DRAFT ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE RTP FREEWAY PROGRAM
FY 07 . FY 11
RTP Program Modification ( 6- 5- 06) 2
17 RC 101L - SR 74, Carefree Highway 07 07 $ 179,000 $ 182,000
17 LD 101L - SR 74, Carefree Highway None 08 $ 0 $ 720
---
17 LC 101L - SR 74, Carefree Highway None 09 $ 0 $ 3,000
17 RC Greenway Rd I Thunderbird Rd 07 None $ 8,000 $ 0
( Drainage Improvements)
17 RC Peoria Ave I Cactus Rd ( Drainage 07 07 $ 9,000 $ 17,000
Improvements)
17 RD Dove Valley Rd, City Advancement None 07 $ 0 $ 1,800
17 RC Dove Valley Rd, City Advancement None 08 $ 0 $ 16,600
17 RC Jomax Rd I Dixileta Dr 06 07 $ 29,700 $ 40,000
US60, GRAND AVENUE ,
60 RD 303L, Estrella - 101L, Agua Fria 07 07 $ 1,320 $ 1,900
60 RC 303L, Estrella - 101L, Agua Fria
60 RD 101 L, Agua Fria - McDowell Rd 09 09 $ 1,375 $ 2,700
US60, SUPERSTITION
60 RD 1- 10- 101L, Price 08 08 $ 440 $ 700
60 LC Gilbert Rd - Power Rd 07 07 $ 4,100 $ 5,100
SR85
85
RD/ RW I
RU MP 120.54 - MP 122.99 06 09 $ 1,200 $ 1,200
85 RC MC85 - Southern Ave 06 07 $ 10,129 $ 8,500
85 RD/ RW I
RU Southern Ave - 1- 10 06 07 $ 6,231 $ 3,900
85
RD/ RW I
RU 1- 8to 1- 10 06 07 $ 347 $ 347
DRAFT ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE RTP FREEWAY PROGRAM
FY 07 - FY 11
RTF Program Modification ( 6- 5- 06) 3
85
RD/ RWI
RU 1- 8to 1- 10 None 07 $ 0 $ 9,700
85
RD/ RWI
RU 1- 8to 1- 10 None 08 $ 0 $ 10,200
85
RD/ RWI
RU 1- 8to 1- 10 None 09 $ 0 $ 11,100
85 RC MP139.01 - 141.71 07 07 $ 18,878 $ 17,300
85 RC MP130.71 - MP 137.00 08 08 $ 15,665 $ 20,900
85 UC MP 139.01 - 141.71, Utilities None 07 $ 0 $ 1,100
85 RC Southern Ave - 1- 10 07 07 $ 8,602 $ 11,200
SR67
87 RW Forest Boundary - New Four Peaks None 07 $ 0 $ 400
US93
93 RC Wickenburg By- Pass 07 07 $ 26,800 $ 29,000
101L, AGUA FRIA
101 RC 1- 10- MC85 08 09 $ 3,500 $ 3,500
101L, PIMA
101 FMS 1- 17 - Princess Dr 07 07 $ 8,410 $ 6,600
101 FMS Princess Dr - 202L, Red Mountain 07 07 $ 6,000 $ 8,400
101 FMS 1- 10- 1- 17 07 07 $ 5,885 $ 6,885
101 RC Scottsdale Rd - Hayden Rd, Local None $ 0
101L, PRICE
101 FMS Baseline Rd - 202L, Santan 10 None $ 5,500 $ 0
202L. RED MOUNTAIN
I
DRAFT ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE RTP FREEWAY PROGRAM
FY 07 - FY 11
RTP Program Modification ( 6- 5- 06) 4
202 RD Rural Rd - 101L, WB 08 08 $ 495 $ 800
202 RD 1- 10/ SR51TI- 101L, EB 08 08 $ 3,300 $ 4,800
303L. ESTRELLA
303 RD/ RW Happy Valley Rd - 1- 17, Interim 07 None $ 40,000 $ 0
303 RD Happy Valley Rd - 1- 17, Interim None 07 $ 0 $ 14,000
303 RW Happy Valley Rd - 1- 17, Interim None 07 $ 0 $ 26,000 I
303 RD/ RW 1- 10- US60, Grand Ave 07 07 $ 5,000 $ 5,000
303 RD/ RW 1- 10- US60, Grand Ave 07 07 $ 10,000 $ 10,000
303 RD/ RW 1- 10- US60, Grand Ave 08 08 $ 10,000 $ 10,000
303 RD/ RW 1- 10- US60, Grand Ave 09 None $ 10,000 $ 0
303 RD 1- 10- US60, Grand Ave None 09 $ 0 $ 4,500
303 RW 1- 10- US60, Grand Ave None 09 $ 0 $ 5,500
303 RD/ RW 1- 10- US60, Grand Ave 10 None $ 10,000 $ 0
303 RD 1- 10- US60, Grand Ave None 10 $ 0 $ 4,500
303 RW 1- 10- US60, Grand Ave None 10 $ 0 $ 5,500
SYSTEMWIDE
"- n-
SW MiSe Asphalt Rubber Noise Mitigation 07 06 $ 5,222 $ 9,300
SW MiSe Asphalt Rubber Noise Mitigation 07 07 $ 18,278 $ 14,200
SW FMS Freeway Management System 11 11 $ 3,370 $ 1,270
Projects
SW FMS FMS Preservation None 07 $ 0 $ 720
SW FMS FMS Preservation None 08 $ 0 $ 720
SW FMS FMS Preservation None 09 $ 0 $ 720
SW FMS FMS Preservation None 10 $ 0 $ 720
DRAFT ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE RTP FREEWAY PROGRAM
FY 07 . FY 11
RTP Program Modification( 6.5.06) 5
SW FMS FMS Preservation None 11 $ 0 $ 720 To preserve/ maintain existing FMS system New
SW FMS FMS Rehabilitation ( Design) None 09 $ 0 $ 400 Rehabilitation of the existing FMS system New
SW FMS FMS Rehabilitation ( Construction) None 10 $ 0 $ 3,600 Rehabilitation of the existing FMS system New
TOTAL: Cost Increases Including New Projects: $ 61,235 K
Acceleration Related Costs: $ 96.485 K
Ii
Loan Repayments:
I
1- 10, Sari va] Rd . Dysart Rd ( Design): $ 4,620,000 in FY 2009
1- 10, Sari val Rd . Dysart Rd ( Construction): $ 84,000,000 in FY 201 1
1- 10, Dysart Rd - lOlL, Agua Fria ( Design): $ 2,805,000 in FY 2013
1- 10, Dysart Rd - 10 I L, Agua Fria ( Construction): $ 51,000,000 in FY 2014
1- 17, Dixileta Dr ( Design): $ 1,000,000 in FY 201 I
1- 17, Dixileta Dr ( Construction): $ 8,200,000 inFY 2012
1- 17, Dove VaHey Rd ( Design): $ 1,800,000 in FY 2021
1- 17, Dove VaHey Rd ( Construction): $ 16,600,000 in FY 2022
Local Government Projects within ADOT Corridor:
101L ( Pima), Scottsdale Rd - Hayden Rd City of Scottsdale: $ 4,244,000 in FY 2007
101 L ( Pima), Havden Rd - Princess Dr, City of Scottsdale: $ 4,341,000 in FY 2008
--
DRAFT ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE FY 2008 - FY 2011 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN FREEWAY PROGRAM
FYC8- FY11 RTP Proposed Changes ( 2- 5- 07)
Based on expected duration of study, this RIW project
will not be read in FY08, 17207
Design will not be ready to advertise construction
pro'ect in FY09, 12406
Design will not be ready to advertise construction
ro'ect in FY10, 11307
Design will not be ready to advertise construction
ro'ect in FY11, 40010
Design will not be ready to advertise construction
ro'ect in FY11, 40111
Based on expected duration of study, this design
pro'ect will not be read in FY08, 10103
Design will not be ready to advertise construction
ro'ect in FY09, Based on latest cost estimates, 12407
IScope of this project is included in 1- 10/ 303LTI design
ro'ect. 43309
! Scope of this project is included in 1- 10/ 303LTI
Iconstruction ro'ect. 43011
ICreate this RIW project in FY08 and use latest cost
Iestimates, New
Create this RIW project in FY09 and use latest cost
estimates, New
Iecsretiamteatethsi, s RIW project in FY08 and use latest cost New
IIeCsrteimataetethsi. s RIW project in FY08 and use latest cost New
, Delay this project to FY09 to align roadway construction
' schedule, 43608
IDelay this project to FY10 to align roadway construction
schedule. 43509
Create this project from the deleted project and use
latest cost estimates, New
IBased on latest cost estimates, 40309
Based on latest cost estimates,
40608
DRAFT ARIZONADEPARTMENTOF TRANSPORTATION
PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE FY 2008 - FY 2011 REGIONALTRANSPORTATIONPLAN FREEWAYPROGRAM
FY() 8- FY11 RTP Proposed Changes ( 2- 5- 07) 2
99th Avenue
99 RD 1- 10- MC85 08 09 500 500
99 RC 1- 10- MC85 09 10 3,500 3,500
101L, Agua Fria
101 RD Beardsley Rd 11 11 2,600 700
101 RC Thunderbird Rd None 08 0 3,000
SR153, Skv Harbor
153 RC Superior Ave - UniversityDr 08 09 16,000 16,000
153 LD Superior Ave - UniversityDr 08 09 60 60
153 LC Superior Ave - UniversityDr 09 10 610 610
202L, South Mountain
202
RW&
RD 51st Ave - 1- 10West 08 None 30,000 0
202 RW 51st Ave - 1- 10West None 08 0 15,000
202 RD 51st Ave - 1- 10West None 09 0 15,000
202 RW&
RD 51st Ave - 1- 10 West 09 09 33,000 50,000
202 RC 51st Ave - 1- 10 West 09 None 60,000 0
202 RC 51st Ave - 1- 10West None 09 0 30,000
202 RC 51st Ave - 1- 10 West None 10 0 30.000
202 RD 1- 10EasUSantan TI - 51st Ave 08 09 10,000 10,000
202L, Red Mountain
202 RD Rural Rd - 101L, WB 08 08 800 2,600
202 RC Rural Rd - 101L, WB 09 09 9,000 32,000
202 RD 1- 10/ SR51TI- 101L, EB 08 08 4,800 9,200
DRAFT ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE FY 2008 - FY 2011 REGIONALTRANSPORTATIONPLANFREEWAYPROGRAM
FY08- FY11 RTP Proposed Changes ( 2- 5- 07) 3
202 RC 1- 10/ SR51TI- 101L, EB 09 I 09 60,000 105,500
' 1"! PIQ",,""
il
Based on latest cost estimates. 41209
202 RD Rural Rd - 101L 11 11 1,430 1,760
Based on latest cost estimates. 41411
SR303L
303 RC Happy Valley Rd - 1- 17, Interim 08 None 70,000 0 Delete this project and create two new projects ( one 41408
roject in FY08 and one proiect in FY09).
303 RC HappyValleyRd- 1- 17, Interim 09 None 100,000 0 Delete this project and create two new projects ( one 43209
Happy Valley Rd - Lake Pleasant Rd,
Iproject in FY08 and one proiect in FY09\.
303 RC None 08 0 177,000
Create this project in FY08 from the deleted project and New
Interim use latest cost estimates.
303 RC Lake Pleasant Rd - 1- 17, Interim None 09 0 134,000 Create this project in FY09 from the deleted project and New
use latest cost estimates.
303 RW Lake Pleasant Rd - 1- 17 None 08 0 40,000 Create this project in FY08 from the deleted project and New
use latest cost estimates.
303 RD 1- 10- US60, Grand Ave 08 08 10,000 10,000 Change phase to " RW" from " Design" 40908
303 RC 1- 10/ 303LTI Phase 1,1- 10Re-alianment
None 11 0 135,000
Create new construction project at 1- 10/ 303LTI. New
SRB02, Williams Gateway
802 RW 202L, Santan - Meridian Rd None 11 0 2,000 Continuous funding for RIW protection New
I\ f
System Wide SW\
SW Noise Asphalt Rubber Noise Mitigation 08 08 21,000 14,500
Advance $ 6.5 million to FY07 in order to advertise 41508
Maintenance ( Landscape, litter &
Quiet Pavement IX oroiect.
sw Maint
sweep)
08 08 10,000 11,600
Based on latest cost estimates. 42908
SW RC Tllmprovements 08 08 3,300 300 Use $ 3M for Agua Fria Freeway at Thunderbird Rd TI 12708
improvements.
SW RC TI Improvements None 10 0 3,000 Continuous funding for TI improvement projects. New
SW RC Tllmprovements None 11 0 3,000 Continuous funding for TI improvement projects. New
SW RD Design Funding for FY2011 & 2012
Construction Proiects
09 None 4,072 0 This project will be covered by Management 10609
Consultants.
SW RD DCR/ EIS Study for Future Projects 09 None 1,000 0 This project will be covered by Management 10509
Consultants.
TOTAL:
:
i
' I
Citizen's Transportation Oversight Committee 2006 Annual Report
APPENDIX B
CTOC 2006 ISSUES DATABASE
20
"...""."" """""""""",...,,,'--,-"'., -"' j.._".,,,._,_-~- -.............-
Wedn~ day, March 28, 2007 Page 1of 8
CTOC 2006 ISSUES
Date Issue Source Issue Request Form Agency Impacted Issue Type Summary/ Comment
01/ 31/ 2006 Roc Arnett East Valley Pinal Study Meeting minutes ADOT Planning Asked if the conceptual freeway and the State
highway systems for the north/ south freeway
in the East Valley Pinal Study could be
developed.
01/ 31/ 2006 Roc Arnett Liter Problems Meeting minutes ADOT Local Ask how liter hot spots were identified.
01/ 31/ 2006 George Davis Adopt- a- Highway Meeting minutes ADOT Freeway Questioned if ADOT pursued highway
sponsorship and if there was a cost
associated with adopting a highway.
01/ 31/ 2006 Jack Lunsford HURF Funding Meeting minutes Legislature Financial CTOCapproved supporting the restoration of
$ 118 million to HURF from the State General
Fund by the 2006 Legislature.
01/ 31/ 2006 Jack Lunsford HURF Funds Meeting minutes ADOT Financial Commented that a bill was introduced last
year to let citizens determine if they want to
increase DPS and transportation issues 6%
cap to 20%.
01/ 31/ 2006 Dianne Barker HURF Funds Meeting minutes ADOT Financial Expressed concern regarding raising the 6%
cap - she feels it's a serious issue and it
needs to be discussed thoroughly.
01/ 31/ 2006 William Crowley HURF Funds Meeting minutes ADOT Financial He stated he supports both issues the
restoration of $ 118 million and raising the cap
to 20%.
01/ 31/ 2006 William Crowley Bus Shelters Meeting minutes RPTA Multimodal He feel there should be more bus shelters for
citizens instead of covered parking at the park
and ride lots.
, "---;,"",-"., """",-,,,,,,,,- ' "'.."'"-"""'--'''''''''".'@''"'',""""",,-,,, -",,,,,,"'-'''''.''''''''''. "'-",,'",,--""'''''
Wednesday, March 28, 2007 Page 2 of 8
Date Issue Source Issue Request Form Agency Impacted Issue Type Summary/ Comment
01/ 31/ 2006 Jack Lunsford L101 Stack Meeting minutes ADOT Freeway Expressed concern about the lack of
communication with the people in the west
valley regarding the depressed section of
Loop 101 Freeway.
01/ 31/ 2006 Terry Rainey HOV Lanes Meeting minutes ADOT Planning Questioned why HOV lanes were not part of
original design on Pima Freeway.
03/ 03/ 2006 Joe Ryan Light Rail Email MAG Transit Submitted a document to forward to MAG
regarding his suggestion for a wide- body
vehicle with written plans instead of the light
rail.
03/ 10/ 2006 Robin Petty Light Rail Meeting minutes RPTA Transit Concerned about light rail night construction
and power outages occurring to local residents
with disabilities.
03/ 10/ 2006 Richard Tracy Pollution Meeting minutes MAG Air Quality He feels we should take down Terminal two at
Sky Harbor to move people east and west
easier and reduce traffic to Sky Harbor Airport.
03/ 10/ 2006 Dan Cook Funding Meeting minutes ADOT Financial Asked ADOT- Aviation if they could find
funding for a terminal area storm drain.
03/ 10/ 2006 William Crowley Buses Meeting minutes RPTA Transit Asked why current plans don't show bus
routes extending further distances out to
benefit more citizens.
03/ 10/ 2006 Martin Shultz Transportation Meeting minutes ADOT Planning Feels we should accelerate transportation
plans and must plan more for transportation
outside of Maricopa County.
0311012006 Deborah Williams Scheduling Meeting minutes RPTA Transit Asked why it takes ten- years from the offset of
a public transit plan to the actually service
being available. Is there anyway to shorten the
process?
,,, """"',.".""""-"""" ",-,-,,,",,,---",' ,,.,,,,,,--,,,,"'---""".' ',","""' ,, """__" I,..""" til'W","',,,,,,,,,,_,,-,,,",, ~""._",."",.".,~
Wedn~ day, March 28, 2007 Page 3 of8
Date Issue Source Issue Request Form Agency Impacted Issue Type Summary/ Comment
05/ 02/ 2006 Joe Ryan South Mountain Freeway Email ADOT Planning Recommends the South Mountain Freeway
parallel 99th Avenue an add connectors to and
from Loop 101.
05/ 19/ 2006 Roc Arnett Freeway Ramp Email ADOT Freeway Inquired about the possibility of constructing a
connecting ramp between US60 and Dobson
WB on- ramp with a braided freeway to
freeway WB to NB ramps to Loop 101.
05/ 22/ 2006 Jim Jochim South Mountain Freeway Maillnewspaper ADOT Freeway Feels the President of the United States by
Executive Order, should shrink the size of the
Indian Reservation so we can build the South
Mountain Freeway.
05/ 22/ 20< J6 Joe Ryan Light Rail Email ADOT Freeway Stated he is against Light Rail and thinks the
money should go to more freeways to
accommodate the extreme growth in the
county.
05/ 23/ 2006 George Davis South Mountain Freeway Meeting minutes ADOT Freeway Ask when construction of the South Mountain
Freeway might start and be completed.
05/ 23/ 2006 Nelson Ladd Tire Pollutants Meeting minutes ADOT Air Quality Asked what is being done to address
pollutants that come off of tires and freeway
pavement.
05/ 23/ 2() 06 Roc Arnett Air Quality Budget Meeting minutes ADOT Air Quality The question was asked how much money
was in the budget for ADOT's Air Quality
Control Program.
05/ 23/ 2Q06 Nelson Ladd Williams Gateway Freeway. Meeting minutes ADOT Planning Asked if the bids for the Williams Gateway
Freeway were cost bids or open ended and
also who coordinates the studies that are done.
OS/ 23/ 2006 George Davis Freeways Planned Meeting minutes ADOT Freeway Asked if ADOT is going to be able to construct
the primary freeways promised the voters in
the last election in Proposition 400.
"-' ri""~"'"''''.'''-''''-'''-''''-''''---''''''''''__''''''"'', I'''''___'--''",."'''' '''"''-''''~--'''''''''''''-'''''&''''_'"'"'''' IJ, ~"",.,,,.,,,,,, ",-",,',",,"""''' '''',_,"',,,,',,,",
Wedn~ day, March 28, 2007 Page 4 of8
'.," m
Date Issue Source Issue Request Form Agency Impacted Issue Type Summary/ Comment
05/ 30/ 2006 JimJochim ADOT Mail/ newspaper ADOT Administrative He feels ADOT should have a turnover of new
fresh leadership and offer " incentive
retirement plans" again.
06/ 13/ 2006 Jim Jochim Right- of- Way costs Letter / Memo ADOT Administrative States the high right- of- way costs ADOT is
putting out for land could be better used to
hire a top of the line consulting firm to get
ADOT running more effectively.
07/ 05/ 2006 Joe Ryan South Mountain Freeway Email ADOT Planning Questioning who actually has the final
decision on the alignment of the future South
Mountain Freeway.
07/ 07/ 2006 Jim Jochim South Mt. Fwy. & ADOT Letter / Memo ADOT Planning Upset with the 55th Ave. choice for the S. Mtn.
Fwy., alignment and disregard for
Ahwatukee's objections against it. Also
unhappy with political favoritism he feels
ADOT shows.
07/ 15/ 2006 Joe Ryan Elevated Rail Email RPTA Planning Recommends light- weight elevated vehicles to
be used for our transportation needs and for
greater safety, lower cost and less congestion
on existing routes.
08/ 08/ 2006 Gary Green Light Rail Safety Email RPTA Planning Submitted an article regarding a bicyclist killed
by Light Rail and wanted to emphasize the
dangers of the Light Rail and safety
precautions needed.
08/ 09/ 2006 Gary Green Light Rail Safety Email RPTA Planning Submitted an article regarding an ambulance
and a Light Rail Train crash. Both vehicles
thought they had triggered the emergency
switch that overrides lights at the intersection.
08/ 11/ 2006 Gary Green Light Rail Safety Email RPTA Planning Submitted an article regarding a bus and Light
Rail Train crash again emphasizing the
precautious needed with Light Rail Transit.
Page 5
--,' "'., - -"," ,...,~ " ,, ~'""",_',._.,,,",,,...,,,,"',,,,,'.
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
"-""".,.,..'''''''''''''''
Date Issue Source Issue Request Form Agency Impacted Issue Type Summary/ Comment
09/ 08/ 2006 Joe Ryan Light Rail Email RPTA Transit Stated he feels the cost for Light Rail has
gotten completely out of hand. Costs have
grown greatly since the original cost planned.
09/ 08/ 2006 Fred Pinkney 20- Yr. Trans. Plan Email ADOT Financial Concerned the Light Rail officials can alter
Proposition 400 down the road for financial
purposes.
09/ 14/ 2006 Bob Poole Transportation Email ADOT Planning Commented on a newTransportation Study
done by the Reason Foundation called the
Galvin Mobility Project which focused on
mobility and congestion solutions.
09/ 14/ 2006 Joe Ryan Light Rail Email RPTA Transit He explained how federal policies are
distorting local transit planning creating more
problems.
09/ 26/ 2006 David Carey Bus Transit Meeting minutes RPTA Transit Asked for increased bus services for the
disable and problems they encounter using
the bus.
09/ 26/ 2006 Bob McKnight Deck Park/ Concrete Meeting minutes Other Other Commented about accidents in the Deck Park
Tunnel and suggested headlights being
required. Also suggested the use of Fly Ash
for the concrete shortage.
09/ 26/ 2006 Joe Ryan Freeways Meeting minutes ADOT Planning Feels the freeways are too costly, congested
and slow.
09/ 26/ 2006 Dianne Barker Bus Transit Meeting minutes RPTA Planning Commented on the county's growth, stating
she feels we need to continue plans for more
buses and increase the flexibility of the plan.
09/ 26/ 2006 Nelson Ladd HOV Lanes Meeting minutes FHWA Financial Asked if Federal funding was available for
HOV lanes.
""""--- '" ,...' ... I'"'' ,. ..,.,.-...-
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
~- - - _ r""",. an. ~, .. ''''.: 1'--- ' m. lli
Page60f8
Date Issue Source Issue Request Form Agency Impacted Issue Type Summary/ Comment
09/ 26/ 2006 Roc Arnett RPTA 20- Yr. Plan Meeting minutes RPTA Administrative He asked what accountability measures are in
. place to assure the RPTA standards set in the
2004 legislation.
09/ 26/ 2006 Roc Arnett Mission Statement Meeting minutes RPTA Transit He suggested RPTA have a more direct and
positive mission statement to develop and
deliver integrative services.
09/ 26/ 2006 Joe Ryan RPTA 20- Yr. Plan Meeting minutes RPTA Multimodal He asked about the timing of incorporating the
cost elements into the planning system of the
RPTA 20- Year Strategic Vision and Plan.
09/ 26/ 2006 Terry Rainey HOV Lanes Meeting minutes ADOT Planning Asked if there was a way in the future to plan
HOV lanes on new freeways when there built.
09/ 26/ 2006 Bob McKnight Public Transit Meeting minutes Local Gov. Transit He asked why private transit wasn't more
available.
10/ 13/ 2006 Robert Poole Freeway Study Email ADOT Planning According to various national transportation
studies America's urban areas need to add
104,000 lane miles of expressways, arterials
and local roads in order to catch up with
growth in vehicle miles traveled and eliminate
the worst level of ( Service F) congestion.
10/ 23/ 2006 Joe Ryan Light Rail Email RPTA Planning Stated the Light Rail is going to raise havoc
with our Intelligent Transportation System by
over riding the pattern of light cycles of the ITS
for street traffic therefore adding to congestion.
11/ 03/ 2006 Joe Ryan Transportation Email MAG Planning Strongly feels we need a high- speed elevated
transportation system and that it would be far
more efficient than light rail and freeways.
11/ 07/ 2006 Ethan Clark Congestion Email ADOT Planning Suggests a third lane be added to the Loop
101/ US60 and a second dedicated off ramp
for traffic going SB on the 101to either
EBIWBon the U860.
--, -,.--......-. -"'''',=- ~-
Page 70f8
Date Issue Source Issue Request Form Agency Impacted Issue Type Summary/ Comment
11/ 28/ 2006 Jack Lunsford Hassayampa Study Meeting minutes ADOT Financial Stated that if the government promotes this
future route it would be considered " self-serving",
if businesses promote this it would
be visionary.
11/ 28/ 2006 Nelson Ladd Hassayampa Study Meeting minutes ADOT Financial Asked if the cost associated with the future
rou. te included highways and right- of- way and
if there could be exchanges of federal lands.
11/ 28/ 2006 William Crowley Hassayampa Study Meeting minutes ADOT Planning Asked about the " Canamex" location and
where there going to get water.
11/ 28/ 2006 Jack Lunsford Loop 101 Meeting minutes ADOT Freeway Asked when the general purpose and HOV
lans will be constructed going north on the
Loop 101.
11/ 28/ 2006 Nelson Ladd Red Mountain Freeway Meeting minutes ADOT Planning He asked what was involved in the decision of
the Red Mountain Freeway alignment.
11/ 28/ 2006 William Crowley HOV & Gen. Purpose Lanes Meeting minutes ADOT Freeway Ased if HOV and general purpose lanes in
TEf,- 21 will be added to the regional freeway
system.
11/ 28/ 2006 Dianne Barker Air pollution Meeting minutes MCDOT Air Quality Sh stated that Maricopa County has 23
pollution monitors around the valley and their
website shows the pollution levels for the
publics information.
11/ 28/ 2006 Bob McKnight Railroad Meeting minutes Other Multimodal He. feels the Union Pacific should put railroad
arqund Gila Bend and SR85 as well as the
Haj; sayampa area.
I
11/ 28/ 2006 George Davis Hassayampa Study Meeting minutes ADOT Planning Asd if the population growth is going to
continue to be ahead of the roads.
Date Issue Source Issue Request Form Agency Impacted Issue Type Summary/ Comment
11/ 30/ 2006 Joe Ryan Economy Email Local Gov Financial Feels MAG Metro planners are lowering th
valley's economic potential with the
transportation decisions they are making.
"""'-~---, ..' ' ,,'" if" r ,,""-, __"",,-" r'iI__"'''''''- """' ","" .,.,.,,_'"
Wednesday, March 28,2007 Page 8 of8
Citizen's Transportation Oversight Committee 2006 Annual Report
APPENDIX C
CTOC STATUTE
21
28- 6356. CitizenstransDortationoversil! htcommittee
A. A citizens transportation oversight committee is established in counties with a population of one
million two hundred thousand or more persons and that have levied a transportation excise tax pursuant to
section 42- 6104 or 42- 6105.
B. The citizens transportation oversight committee consists ofthe following m" emberswho are not
elected officials of or employed by this state or any county, city or town in this state:
1. One member who serves as chairperson ofthe committee and who is appointed by the governor
pursuant to section 38- 211.
2. One member who represents each supervisorial district in the county and who is appointed by
the board of supervisors. The board of supervisors shall consult with the mayors of each city and town
located within each supervisorial district regarding appointments. At all times during the term, each
member appointed pursuant to this paragraph shall legally reside in a different city or town located in the
county. Members appointed pursuant to this paragraph shall have expertise in transportation systems or
issues.
3. One member who resides in the county and who isappointed by the governor pursuant to section
38- 211.
C. Members shall be appointed for terms of three years.
D. The chairperson shall also serve as:
1. A nonvoting member of the departmental committee established by section 28- 6951 only for
issues relating to the regional transportation plan. The chairperson may appoint a designee to attend
meetings of the departmental committee.
2. A voting member of the governing body of the regional planning agency in the county for all
matters relating to the regional transportation plan.
3. A voting member ofthe transportation policy committee ofthe regional planning agency under
section 28- 6308 in the county for all matters relating to the regional transportation plan.
E. The citizens transportation oversight committee shall meet at least once each calendar quarter.
F. The citizens transportation oversight committee shall:
1. Review and advise the board, the governor, the director, the governing body of the regional
planning agency and the board of directors of the regional public transportation authority on matters
relating to all projects funded pursuant to section 42- 6104 and in the regional transportation plan.
2. Review and make recommendations regarding any proposed major amendment ofthe regional
transportation plan by the governing body of the regional planning agency pursuant to section 28- 6353.
3. Annually review and comment on the criteria developed pursuant to section 28- 6354, subsection
B.
4. Hold public hearings and issue public reports as it deems appropriate.
5. Annually contract with an independent auditor who is a certified public accountant to conduct a
financial compliance audit of all expenditures from the regional area road fund and the public
transportation fund and receive the auditor's report. The department shall reimburse the committee for the
cost ofthis audit from the highway user revenue fund pursuant to section 28- 6538, subsection B, paragraph
1.
6. In consultation with the auditor general, set parameters for the performance audit prescribed in
section 41- 1279.03, subsection A, paragraph 6 in the county, review the results of the auditor general's
performance audit and make recommendations to the regional planning agency, the regional public
transportation authority, the department, the speaker of the house of representatives, the president of the
senate and the governor.
G. The committee may:
1. Receive written complaints from citizens regarding adverse impacts of any transportation
project funded in the regional transportation plan, determine which complaints warrant further review and
make recommendations to the state transportation board regarding the complaints.
2. Receive written complaints from citizens relating to the regional planning agency's
responsibilities as prescribed in this chapter, determine which complaints warrant further reviewand make
recommendations to the regional planning agency regarding the complaints.
3. Make recommendations to the regional planning agency, the regional public transportation
authority and the state transportation board regarding transportation projects and public transportation
systems funded in the regional transportation plan, the transportation improvement program, the
department's five year construction program and the life cycle management program.
H. Failure by the citizens transportation oversight committee to act does not bar the governing
body of the regional planning agency or the board of directors of the regional public transportation
authority from taking action.
I. Members of the committee are not eligible to receive compensation or reimbursement for
expenses.
H. B. 2456
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
purposes that is acqui red for the regi onal fl ~~ Wd'y::'' y::. L~ 1F1RI EEWAYASNDOTHER
ROUTESON THE STATEHIGHWAYSYSTEMRELATEDTO THE REGIONALTRANSPORTATION
PLANwith monies from the regional area road fund or monies distributed from
the highway user revenue fund pursuant to section 28- 6538. subsection B,
paragraph 1. The department shall determine the amount of the reimbursement
according to the fair rental value of the property based on an independent
appraisal. The department shall allocate and reimburse the amount to the
fund from which the monies were taken.
Sec. 17. Section 28- 6356. Arizona Revised Statutes. as amended by Laws
2003. chapter 217. section 6. is amended to read:
28- 6356. Citizens transDortation oversiqht committee
A. A citizens transportation oversight committee is establi$ hed in
counties with a population of one million two hundred thousand or more
persons and that have levied a transportation excise tax pursuant to section
42- 6104 OR 42- 6105.
B. The citizens transportation oversight committee consists of the
following members who are not elected officials of or employed by this state
or any county. city or town ~ n this state:
1. One member who serves as chairperson of the committee and who is
appointed by the governor pursuant to section 38- 211.
2. One member who represents each supervisorial district in the county
and who is appointed by the board of supervisors. The board of supervisors
shall consult with the mayors of each city and town located within each
supervisorial district regarding appointments. At all times during the term.
each member appointed pursuant to this paragraph shall legally reside in a
different city or town located in the county. Member~ appointed pursuant to
this paragraph shall have expertise in transportation systems or issues.
3. One member who resides in the county and who is appointed by the
governor pursuant to section 38- 211.
C. Members shall be appointed for terms of three years.
D. The chairperson shall also serve as:
1. A nonvoting member of the departmental committee established by
section 28- 6951 only for issues relating to the regional r,~~ wa'y ::. y::. L~ 1II
TRANSPORTATIONPLAN. The chairperson may appoint a designee to attend
meetings of the departmental committee.
2. A voting member of the governing body of the regional planning
agency in the county for all matters relating to the regional r I
TRANSPORTATION PLAN.
3. A VOTINGMEMBEROF THE TRANSPORTATION POLICY COMMITTEEOF THE
REGIONALPLANNINGAGENCYUNDERSECTION28- 6308 IN THECOUNTYFORALL MATTERS
RELATINGTO THE REGIONALTRANSPORTATION PLAN.
E. The citizens transportation oversight committee shall meet at least
once each calendar quarter.
- 15 -
- - - - - -
H. B. 2456
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
F. The citizens transportatio~ oversight committe~ shall:
1. Review and advise the board, the governor, the director. the
governing bOdy of the regional planning agency and the board of directors of
the regional public transportation authority on matters relating to all
projects funded pursuant to section 42- 6104 AND IN THE REGIONAL
TRANSPORTATION PLAN.
2. Review and make recommendations regarding any proposed major
levi~ iullAMENDMENTof the regional transportation plan by the governing body
of the regionalplanningagency PURSUANTTO SECTION 28- 6353. FUI LIlt:
JJU I JJU~ to:~ U r Lli i ~ JJa I a !: I I a JJII, " III a. j v I I to: V i ~ i v II" IIIto: a II ~ a II a J J i L i VII V I J e 1 to: L i UII
vr a LJall~ JJvlLaLiuli JJlvjto: l.. L rUIIJto: J J. lur~ uaIiL Lv ~ to: l.. Liuli 42- 6104.
3. Annually review and comment on the criteria developed pursuant to
section 28- 6354, subsection B.
4. Hold public hearings and issue public reports as it deems
appropriate.
5. Annually contract with an independent auditor who is a certified
public accountant to conduct a financial compliance audit of all expenditures
from the regional area road fund and the public transportation fund and
receive the auditor's report. The department shall reimburse the committee
for the cost of this audit from the highway user revenue fund pursuant to
section 28- 6538. subsection B, paragraph 1.
6. In consultation with the auditor general. set parameters for the
performance audit prescribed in section 41- 1279.03. subsection A, paragraph
6 in the county, revi ew the resul ts of the audi tor general's performance
audit and make recommendations to the regional planning agency. the regional
public transportation authority, the department, the speaker of the house of
representatives, the president of the senate and the governor.
G. The committee may: .
1. Receive written complaints from citizens regarding adverse impacts
of any transportation project funded JJUI~ uallL Lu ~ to: l.. Livll 42 6104 IN THE
REGIONALTRANSPORTATIONPLAN, determine which complaints warrant further
review and make recommendations to the state transportation board regarding
the complaints.
2. Receivewritten complaints from citizens relating to the regional
planningagency'sresponsibilitiesas prescribedin this chapter, determine
whi ch compl ai nts warrant further revi ew and make recommendati ons to the
regional planning agency regarding the complaints.
3. Make recommendations to the regional planning agency, the regional
public transportation authority and the state transportation board regarding
TRANSPORTATIONprojects AND PUBLIC TRANSPORTATIONSYSTEMS funded J. lul~ uaIiL Lv
~ to: divlI 42- 6104 in the regional transportation plan. the transportation
improvement program, the department's five year construction program and the
1i f e cyc1e management pro gram rU I LI, e I toY: i VIIa1 r I tot: o\: IIay ~ y ~ LeIII.
H. Failure by the citizens transportation oversight committee to act
does not bar the governing body of the regional planning agency or the board
- 16 -
H. B, 2456
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
of directors of the regional public transportation authority from taking
action.
I. Members of the committee are not eligible to receive compensation
or reimbursement for expenses.
Sec. 18. Section 28- 6357, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended to
read:
28- 6357. Soecial assistant for the reqional transoortation Dlan
A. The director shall appoint a special assistant for the regional
f, t: t: way :> y:> Lt: 1IITRANSPORTATIONPLAN to provide coordination among the
department of transportation, the regional planning agency and the local
entities that are members of the regional planning agency on the regional
f, t: eway ::> y::> LelllTRANSPORTATION PLAN.
B. The duties of the special assistant for the regional f, et: way ::> y:> Lelil
TRANSPORTATION PLAN include:
1. Life cycl e management for the fundi ng and programmi ng of the
regional f, t: t: woy ::> y:> Lt: 1TIIRANSPORTATIONPLAN, including ombudsman services and
oversight of gathering, analyzing, reporting, forecasting, coordinating,
monitoring and executing information and programs related to the regional
freeway ::> y::> LelllTRANSPORTATIONPLAN.
2. Administrative support for the activities of the citizens
transportation oversight committee established pursuant to section
28- 6356. The special assistant fur Lile leyiullal freeway ::>, pLelliis eligible
to receive reimbursement for expenses incurred by providing administrative
support for the activities of the citizens transportation oversight committe~
from monies distributed from the highway user revenue fund pursuant to
section 28- 6538, subsection B. paragraph 1.
3. Preparation and dissemination of reports on the status and the
progress of the regional fr et: way :> y::> lt: 1TI1RANSPORTATIOPNLANto the citizens
transportation oversight committee, the governor. the speaker of the house
of representatives. the president of the senate. the regional planning agency
and other interested governmental agencies and citizens.
4. Coordination of public hearings of the citizens oversight committee
on the regional f, eeway :> y::> LelTliRANSPORTATIOPNLAN.
C. The special assistant for the regional freeway :> y::> Lelli
TRANSPORTATION PLANis eligible to receive compensation pursuant to section
38- 611. Notwithstanding the limitations imposed in section 28- 6305, the
compensation OF THE SPECIAL ASSISTANTshall be paid from the regional area
road fund.
Sec. 19. Section 28- 7561. Arizona Revised Statutes. is amended to
read:
28- 7561. Bonds oavable from transoortation excise taxes
A. The board is designated as the body having sole and exclusive power
to authorize and issue bonds or incur long- term obligations payable in whole
or in part from monies in a regional area road fund established by chapter
17. article 1 of this title. The board may act for and on behalf of a county
- 17 -
Citizen's Transportation Oversight Committee 2006 Annual Report
APPENDIX D
FINANCIAL COMPLIANCE REPORT
22
.. .,~.
Deloittect,
INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS' REPORT ON APPLYING
AGREED- UPON PROCEDURES
Citizens Transportation Oversight Committee
Phoenix, Arizona
Deloitte & Touche LLP
Su ite 1200
2901 N. Central Avenue
Phoenix, AZ 85012- 2799
USA
Tel:+ 16022345100
Fax:+ 16022345186
www. deloitte. com
We have performed the procedures enumerated below, which were agreed to by the Maricopa Regional
Area Road Fund's ( the " Fund") management and the Citizens Transportation Oversight Committee
( the " Committee"), solely to assist you in evaluating the Fund's compliance with Arizona R~ vised
Statutes 28.6301 through 28.6392 during the year ended June 30, 2006. The Fund's management is
responsible for the Fund's compliance with those requirements. This agreed- upon procedures engagement
was conducted in accordance with attestation standards established by the American Institute of Certified
Public Accountants. The sufficiency ofthese procedures is solely the responsibility of those parties
specified in this report. Consequently, we make no representation regarding the sufficiency of the
procedures described below either for the purpose for which this report has been requested or for any
other purpose.
1. We obtained an Excel report listing all payments made to contractors or consultants from the Fund
during the year ended June 30,2006. We inquired of management whether this report was extracted
from the accounting system (" ADVANTAGE") and was a complete listing, and we were informed
thMITwas. -
2. We randomly selected the following 25 expenditures from the listing obtained in number one above,
covering different corridors( i. e., Loop 101,1- 10) and phases ( Le., Construction, Design):
Acceptance
Date Customer Name Invoice
1 7/ 15/ 2005 AAA LANDSCAPING H529903CG5
2 8/ 12/ 2005 PULICECONSTRUCTION INC H625901CH5
3 9/ 2/ 2005 WESTERNAREA POWER ADMIN ARUT270405B
4 8/ 12/ 2005 M ANDERSONCONSTRUCTIONCORP H566603CH5
5 8/ 12/ 2005 PULICE CONSTRUCTION INC H560901CH6
6 9/ 20/ 2005 SALTRIVER PROJECT CUT248803A
7 9/ 27/ 2005 PARSONSBRINCKERHOFF QUADE - RPE04032I5
8 10/ 14/ 2005 VALLEYCREST LANDSCAPE INC H538503CJ5
9 11/ 29/ 2005 BNSFRAILWAYCOMPANY CRR245603A
10 1/ 12f2006 NESBITTCONTRACTINGCO INC H640501CA6
11 2/ 10/ 2006 MEADOWVALLEY CONTRACTORS H578205CB6
12 12/ 16/ 2005 PULICECONSTRUCTION INC H578301CL6
13 1/ 12/ 2006 FNF CONSTRUCTIONINC H591201CA6
14 2/ 10/ 2006 PULICE CONSTRUCTIONINC H591301CB6
15 12/ 16/ 2005 PULICE CONSTRUCTION INC H568604CL5
16 3/ 27/ 2006 CORRALDYBAS GROUP INC RPE06006C6
17 3/ 14/ 2006 QWEST CUT259004A
18 3/ 27/ 2006 PARSONSBRINCKERHOFFQUADE RPE05028C6
19 5/ 5/ 2006 SALTRIVER PROJECT CUT215600D
20 4/ 14/ 2006 PULICE CONSTRUCTIONINC H591101CD6
21 4/ 21/ 2006 SALTRIVER PROJECT CUT241002H
22 5/ 8/ 2006 STANLEYCONSULTANTSINC RPE06012E6
23 5/ 12/ 2006 RECONINC RPH57814E6
24 6/ 8/ 2006 PARSONSBRINCKERHOFFQUADE RPE05028F6
25 6/ 16/ 2006 SOUTHWESTASPHALT PAVING H665001CF6
Amount
$ 185,070
4,805
190,000
38,385
2,025
20,808
99,897
8,388
214,596
484,639
234,187
1,675,000
1; 604,602
1,850,672
4,288,372
55,566
1,666,596
1,704
5,909
168,675
40,904
240,781
294,825
20,962
2,815,507
Project
Number
Trans
Number
H529903C RPH52993507
H625901C RPH62591508
H578201C ARUT270405B
H566603C RPH56663508
H560901C RPH56091508
H566601C CUTI48803A
H57830lD RPE04032509
H538503C RPH53853510
H56000 1C CRR245603A
H640501CRPH64051601
HS78205CRPH57825602
H578301C RPH5783151A
H591201C RPH59121601
H591301C RPH59131602
H568604C RPH56864512
H68910 lD RPE06006603
H561001C CUTI50904A
H688301L RPE05028603
HS53201C CUTI15600D
H591101C RPH59111604
H538101C CUTI41002H
H64790lD RPE06012605
HS78104C RPH57814605
H687001L RPE05028606
H6~ SOOlC RPH6~ SOl~ O~
Member of
Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu
. . ..,.
For each selection, we performed the following procedures:
a. We agreed Construction and Design expenditures to ADVANTAGE Payment Estimates and, if
the projects were completed, to the Progress and Final Payment Reports. No exceptions were
noted.
b. Through inquiries of ADOT personnel and through examinationofthe detail for contractor or
consultant payments for fiscal year 2006, we noted there were no Right of Way phase
expenditures.
c. We obtained the object codes and activity codes used to classify the expenditures from the
ADVANTAGE Payment Estimates. We compared these codes to the Fund's Project Charging
Guidelines as an allowable cost without exception.
d. We compared to the project number for all of the selected expenditures to the Maricopa
Association of Governments Regional Freeway Life Cycle Program ( the " MAG Program") for
the year in which the project originated, without exception. We determined that the total
expenditures to date for the project did not exceed the budgeted amount per the MAG Program
plus third- party contributions and approved budget increases.
We were not engaged to, and did not, perform an examination, the objective of which would be the
expression of an opinion on the specified elements, accounts, or items. Accordingly, we do not express
such an opinion. Had we performed additional procedures, other matters might have come to our attention
that would have been reported to you.
This report is intended solely for the information and use of the specified parties listed above and is not
intended to be and should not be used by anyone other than these specified parties.
~~~ ol o.. J... LI. P
- 2-
Citizen's Transportation Oversight Committee 2006 Annual Report
APPENDIX E
2005 PERFORMANCE AUDIT STATUS
23
~. 4CC'T
Arizona Department of Transportation
Intermodal Transportation Division
206 South Seventeenth Avenue Phoenix, Arizona 85007- 3213
Janet Napolitano
Governor
October 16, 2006
SamElters
StateEngineer
Victor M. Mendez
Director
Ms. Debra K. Davenport
Auditor General
Arizona Auditor General's Office
2910 North 44th Street, Suite 410
Phoenix, Arizona 85018- 7243
RE: Six Month Status Update of the 2005 Performance Audit of Arizona Department of
Transportation, Maricopa County Regional Freeway System
Dear Ms. Davenport:
The following information summarizes the Arizona Department of Transportation's implementation of
the six recommendations contained in the 2005 Auditor General's Report, # OS- CR!.
Recommendation
1. Continue to improve and implement successful project management practices, both through the
completion of the Accelerated Program and in the implementation of new RFS programming,
including the current change order review and approval process.
Action
ADOT has initiated comprehensive project management practices through the completion of the 2007
Accelerated Program which accelerated completion from the previously scheduled 2014 Regional
Freeway System by seven years. Completion of the 137 mile Regional Freeway System is presently
scheduled for mid 2008 when construction of the Red Mountain Freeway from Power Road to U. S. 60 is
finished. A detailed description of the revised change order review and approval process is contained in
the attached ADOT and MAG Change Order Policy. Refer to Attachment 1. This policy has been
adopted by both ADOT and MAG as the formal process required for all project changes in the
implementation of Proposition 400 program including the Regional Transportation Plan.
2. Develop and implement a memorialization and retention policy for documentation of approved
project changes and key project decision which enable easy documentation location and view.
Action
The Valley Transportation Management Office in cooperation with DMJM- Harris, Administrative
Management Consultant are in the process of developing and implementing a memorialization and
retention policy to document approval project changes and key project decisions through two formalized
activities. The first action involved the collection and retention of all historic project documentation to
be included in project files as well as contained in a historic overview of project files for all Regional
Freeway System projects including Loops 101 and 202, State Route 51 and 143. Included in these files
are two projects which were identified in the 1985 Regional Freeway Plan but will also be included in
implementation of the Regional Transportation Plans. These freeways are the Estrella Freeway, Loop
303 and the South Mountain Freeway, Loop 202. Documentation of approved change orders and key
project decisions is being incorporated in the project history files contained in the new Data Warehouse.
Completion of this undertaking is anticipated in 2007.
a. ADOT should consider developing a checklist to keep in the centralized project files that
indicates all the types of documentation to be included in the files, so that at any point, a project
file could save reasonably be expected to provide a comprehensive overview of changes to athe
project and/ or other key project decisions throughout the project's development.
Action
Development of a draft project checklist is in process with a draft document ( refer to Attachment 2)
currently being reviewed by all involved highway development teams. A final project checklist is
scheduled for management review and approval by December 2006. Inclusion of the approved checklist
will be added to both prior project files as well as new project files beginning in January 2007.
3. Develop a single database, or a system of coordinated databases, which is capable of generating
reports that track, present and explain the history of a project's incremental and cumulative
development including budgeted to actual costs, timeline and scope changes. Ideally, this system
should allow queries and reports for individual projects, whole corridors, and the Accelerated
Program ( and/ or Proposition 400 program) overall.
Action
The recommendation is in process and represents the transition of extensive project information
previously maintained by the management consultant into ADOT's new Data Warehouse. Refer to
ADOT's March 1, ' 06, July 17, ' 06 and August 10, ' 06 correspondenceto your office for plan details.
a. Additionally, in the process of establishing a method of retrieving consolidated data, we
recommend that ADOT examine opportunities to allocated indirect and/ or apply direct project
costs currently captured as " system- wide" expenditures for the purposes of Life Cycle
Certification Reporting on corridor- specified obligations.
Action
DMJM- Harris, ADOT Regional Freeway System and Regional Transportation Plan management
consultant completed the documentation of a Construction Cost Workbook which contains the financial
history of all project construction costs. This compendium of direct and indirect costs, provide ADOT
management with twenty years of project costs and is the definitive history to reference baseline
expenditures, projected versus actual costs, inflation, changes in project costs due to change orders,
modifications and project scope change etc. The workbook will prove invaluable as a financial tool for
past and current project costs as well as a basis to assist in projecting future costs. Additionally in July
ADOT published the attached two documents which track all construction and right- of- way costs as well
as the financial status for both the Regional Freeway System and the firs year of the Regional
Transportation Plan. The intent of quantifying costs and revenues was to ensure compliance and
implementation of firewalls to separate funding between the Regional Freeway System and the Regional
Transportation Plan. Compilation of financial data will be easier for future tracking and auditing
functions. These documents identified as Attachments 3 and 4 are included for review
b. We also recommend that ADOT define and track right- of- way acquisition budgets and budget
changes to watch for opportunities to increase its ability to anticipate the impact of right- of- way
acquisition process on overall project budget.
Action
2
During the twenty years of the development and construction of the Regional Freeway System, the
Department has gained considerable knowledge and experience in the most volatile factor in highway
implementation cost which is the changing real estate market and its impact on right of way acquisition
costs.
Estimating the initial cost of right of way for the Regional Freeway System has been difficult as cost
variances have been significant over the span of twenty years. ADOT examined the right of way cost
issues and strategized periodically on methods to keep right of way costs down. These efforts resulted
on millions of dollars saved on right of way acquisition and relocation costs. However, controlling
escalating right of way costs continues to be a challenge for ADOT. Right of way costs consistently
have trended higher than projected costs. In a study titled " Escalating Cost of Right of Way" ADOT
investigated the issues and concerns related to the escalation of the cost of right of way for completion of
the Regional Freeway System. Data contained in this study provided baseline costs which have been
incorporated in projecting right- of- way costs. The study, although have a valuable premier on the
history of right- of- way cost trends in Maricopa County did not negate the remaining ten years of real
estate appreciation from 1995 to 2005 which experienced the highest rate of inflation in a decade due to
land speculation and growth throughout the Phoenix Metropolitan area
Following receipt of the Auditors General's recommendations, ADOT assigned an interdisciplinary team
to review, identify and address issues and concerns related to the escalation of right of ways costs and
examination of Maricopa County's real estate market. The intent of this review was to identify " lessons
learned" ITom completion of the Regional Freeway System and identify strategy which could be
incorporated in the acquisition of right- of- way for the Regional Transportation Plan. Also the team was
directed to address the following:
1. Analyze the impact of the escalating right- of- way costs in Phase One 2006- 2011 ofthe RTP.
2. Identify and evaluate alternatives to assist in containing right- of- way costs.
3. Recommend a plan that included identification and possible impacts of national and regional
trends upon Arizona's economy which may affect real estate values in Maricopa County and
to explore options to mitigate costs through innovative or alternative financial measures.
A team has been selected and will pursue this assignment from 2006 into 2007. Team member include
the following personnel:
Eric Anderson, MAG Director
Sabra Mousavi
Mike Bruder
Pat Stone
Steve Wilcox
Chuck Eaton
John McGee
Diane Ohde
Bill Hayden
The team's initial meeting and objective included a discussion of the problem's magnitude, a review of
assumptions used to project right- of- way costs and an assessment of what and how ADOT has done to
address this problem and the dynamics of the real estate market in Maricopa County. The team also
discussed increasing advanced right- of- way funding, emphasizing the importance of the " red letter"
process with local governments, buying right- of- way using a time installment method, working more
closely with the State Department of Real Estate and seeking input from the business sector involved with
the realty market. The team will begin to document the escalation of market costs and consider future
economic consequences to the Department in developing realistic budgets for prioritizing funding. The
team anticipates providing its preliminary report in December 2006.
4. Require comparisons of historical budgets and estimated completion dates - andthememorialized
explanation for all prior changes to them - when evaluating newly proposed change. Proposed
3
changes should also require the presentation of impact on key performance indicators established
for the RFS program and other metrics on comparison to enable analysis of cost- efficiency and
effectiveness ( e. g. budgeted, estimated and actual costs per mile for similar projects.)
Action
ADOT staff continues in its implementation of this recommendation and anticipates documentation ofthis
activity in early 2007.
5. Define key performance indicators for the RFS program that will help ADOT, MAG and STB
recognize trends of performance that might trigger greater analysis for opportunities to improve
cost- efficiency and effectiveness. For example, consider setting and tracking program success at
delivering project within 95 percent the original schedule, or having actual project costs come
within 10 percent of the first design estimate ( plus inflation) and/ or other indicators, as proposed
by ADOT, MAG and/ or STB.
Action
Combined efforts involving ADOT, MAG and DMJM- Harris will continue during the fourth quarter of
2006 and is anticipated to be completed by mid 2007.
6. Require separate tracking, monitoring, and reporting on the completion, including funding and
actual costs, of the Accelerated Program separately of the funding, costs, and timelines for
initiatives resulting from passage of Proposition 400.
Action
The recommendation has been identified as one of the major tasks to be included in the Data Warehouse
assignment. This project also required the combined efforts and input from Valley Transportation staff,
DMJM- Harris and MAG. An interim report is anticipated in early 2007. a major first steps in this action
was the preparation and distribution of the attached " 2006 Annual Report on the status of the
implementation of Proposition 400" Refer to Attachment 5
Please contact Bill Hayden, Manager of ADOT's Regional Freeway Transportation Plan Life Cycle
Office, if you have additional questions regarding this status update or the completion schedule for
implementation of your recommendations.
Again, thank you for your staffs assistance and cooperation in implementing the Audit's constructive
recommendations.
Sincerely,
Bill Hayden
Attention: Kim Hildebrand, AU John McGee, ADOT
Dennis Smith, MAG
Eric Anderson, MAG
Sabra Mousavi, ADOT
Mike Bruder, ADOT
Brian McInnis~ ADOT
Doan Bui, ADOT
Diane Ohde, ADOT
Steve Wilcox, DMJM- Harris
Copies to: Chuck Eaton, DMJM- Harris
David P. Jankofsky, ADOT
John Bogert, ADOT
SamE1ters~ ADOT
Dan Lance, ADOT
Attachments
4
Citizen's Transportation Oversight Committee 2006 Annual Report
APPENDIX F
CTOC BUDGET
24
CITIZEN'S TRANSPORTATION OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE
Proposed FY 2006- 2007 Budget
* Includes $ 13,000 for FY06 Financial Compliance Audit and meeting transcription costs.
The difference between FY05 & 06 " Professional & Outside Services" includes the last payment for the 5 Yr. Performance Audit, originally $ 255,000.
** Includes meeting costs, mailings, printing, publication, advertising, equipment usage, room fees and refreshments.
ctoc/ ctoc budgeU2006- 2007
APPROPRIA TION DESCRIPTION ALLOCA TION
0600 Personal Services $ 15,000
0610 Employee Related Expenses $ 4,000 -
0620 Professional & Outside Services * $ 15,000
0650 Travel - In State $ 1,000
0700 Other Operating Expenses ** $ 8,000
Total Operating Budget $ 43,000
Citizen's Transportation Oversight Committee 2006 Annual Report
APPENDIX G
JULY 2006 CERTIFICATIONMAPS
25
Regional Freeway System
January 2007 Certification
Deer Valley Rd.
Bell Rd.
---,-
< J5 ~
2001AwardRecipient
Northern Ave.
< J5 ~
. c
Q;
0-
McDowell Rd.
Existing Regional Freeway System
Existing Non- Regional Freeway System
Under Construction
Under Study
Remaining Life Cycle Cost
( Millions) 2007 - 2008
+- VJ
L!)
c0
>- c
0U
Shea Blvd.
ui
. c ~
L!)
( j)
" 5
D
U)
<=
0
()
< J5 ~
. c
Q;
Mcdonald IDrive
0
E
D... '~".,
2007
$ 80
. TotalLife Cycle Program Miles: 137 Miles
. Grand Ave Tllmprovement Locations ( Year open to traffic) :
27th Ave/ Thomas ( 03), 43rd Ave/ Camelback ( 04), 51stAve/ BethanyHome ( 04),
55th Ave/ Maryland ( 04), 59th Ave/ Glendale ( 06), 67th Ave/ Northern ( 05),
75th Ave/ Olive ( 04) and 91st Ave Ramps @ 101 L( 03)
.4DCT
. Year open to traffic
Obligated construction cost, millions
* Corridor under EnvironmentalImpact Statement / DesignConcept Report
Note: Thismap does not include Proposition 400 projects. The South Mountain and SkyHarbor corridors funding are included in the RTPFreeway Program.
Design $ 0
R/ W $ 30
Construction $ 15
Total $ 45
Obligated
Roadway Construction $ 370
January 2007 Certification
Regional Transportation Plan
Freeway Program
2006 - 2025
New River Rd.
. a74.............. ..~ A. nth. e. m.. W. ay .. Carefree Hwy.
Dove Valley Rd.
- Lone Mountain Rd.
Dixileta Dr. ......
« ~ Happy Valley Rd.
. c i" n
' d
""
"'"
< D
< D 0
~ 0U.......
~ co
E :: J
Q
-- '. Altlana
. . CfvY: JrJ
~ QUal/ fy
Bell Rd.
2001Award Recipient
c0
> C00
.:: L
00
ca
0
E
a..
Shea Blvd.
.
.
>~ 0
u
Q~
---- Baseline Rd.
85
.........
...
..
..
...
...
Riggs Rd.
* Corridor under Environmental Study / Design Concept Report
Riggs Rd.
Remaining LifeCycle Cost: $ 10.05 billion
Obligated as of January 2007 Certification: $ 435 million
( fA ADDT
New Freeway
New HOVand General Purpose Lanes
New HOVLanes
New General Purpose Lanes
Interim Corridor Development
Right of Way Protection
Existing Freeway
Grand Avenue Corridor Improvements
New Traffic Interchange
New HOVRamp Connection
"~.,
Sa nta n
Pecos Rd. ! Williams Gateway*