What moves you Arizona : transportation plan for 2035 : Arizona's long-range transportation plan

              Arizona Long-Range Transportation Plan Page | i
WHAT MOVES YOU ARIZONA
A TRANSPORTATION PLAN FOR 2035
ARIZONA’S LONG-RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
ADOPTED BY THE ARIZONA STATE TRANSPORTATION BOARD ON
NOVEMBER 18, 2011
Page | ii Final Report
CONTENTS
1. Executive Summary ...................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Plan Purpose ........................................................................................................ 2
1.2 Goals, Objectives, and Performance Measures ........................................................ 2
1.3 Long-Range Needs, Revenues, and Investment Levels ............................................. 3
1.3.1 Needs ....................................................................................................... 3
1.3.2 Revenues .................................................................................................. 4
1.3.3 Investment Levels ...................................................................................... 6
1.4 Recommended Investment Choice at Revenue Baseline ........................................... 7
1.5 Investment Outcomes and Gap Analysis ................................................................. 8
1.5.1 Outcomes by Planning Level ....................................................................... 8
1.6 Considerations for Plan Implementation ................................................................10
1.6.1 Advancing the RIC ....................................................................................10
1.6.2 Next Steps ...............................................................................................12
2. Plan Development ........................................................................................................13
2.1 Plan Building Blocks .............................................................................................13
2.2 Plan Requirements and Vision ...............................................................................15
2.2.1 Building a Quality Arizona (bqAZ) ...............................................................15
2.2.2 Federal and State Requirements .................................................................16
2.2.3 Existing Conditions – Transportation in Arizona............................................16
2.3 Plan Technical Components and Assessment Levels ................................................18
2.3.1 Defining Needs, Revenues, and Investment Choices ....................................18
2.3.2 Plan Investment Levels ..............................................................................19
2.4 Opportunities for Input and Outreach ....................................................................19
2.4.1 Committees and Decision Structure ............................................................19
2.4.2 Stakeholder and Public Outreach ................................................................21
3. Goals, Objectives, and Performance Measures ................................................................27
3.1 Development Process ...........................................................................................28
3.1.1 Goals and Objectives .................................................................................28
3.1.2 Performance Measures ..............................................................................29
3.2 ADOT Interest Areas ............................................................................................30
3.2.1 Linking Goals to bqAZ................................................................................30
3.2.2 ADOT Roles and Interest Areas ..................................................................32
3.3 Future Implications and Next Steps .......................................................................35
4. Multimodal Needs ........................................................................................................36
4.1 Existing Conditions ..............................................................................................36
4.1.1 State Highway System ...............................................................................36
4.1.2 Non-Highway Modes .................................................................................37
4.1.3 Needs Categories ......................................................................................39
4.2 Capital Highway and Bridge Needs ........................................................................39
4.2.1 Analysis Tools ...........................................................................................39
4.2.2 Needs on the Existing State Highway System ..............................................40 Arizona Long-Range Transportation Plan Page | iii
4.2.3 Highway Needs for “New” Facilities ............................................................41
4.2.4 Bridge Needs – State Highway System ........................................................43
4.2.5 Highway and Bridge Needs Summary .........................................................43
4.3 Capital Needs – Non-Highway ...............................................................................44
4.3.1 Public Transportation ................................................................................44
4.3.2 Freight and Passenger Rail.........................................................................46
4.3.3 Aviation ...................................................................................................49
4.4 Multimodal Operating Costs ..................................................................................50
4.5 Full State Needs Summary ...................................................................................51
4.6 Plan “Vision” Level Needs Assessment ...................................................................51
4.6.1 bqAZ ........................................................................................................52
4.6.2 Vision Components ...................................................................................53
5. Transportation Revenues ..............................................................................................56
5.1 Revenue Sources .................................................................................................56
5.1.1 Highway Revenues ....................................................................................56
5.1.2 Revenues for Non-Highway Modes .............................................................59
5.2 Baseline Revenue Forecast ...................................................................................60
5.2.1 2009 Revenue Summary and Projected Growth ...........................................60
5.2.2 Baseline Revenue Forecast Summary ..........................................................63
5.2.3 ADOT Discretionary Revenues ....................................................................63
5.3 Bridging the “Needs versus Revenue” Gap` ...........................................................67
5.3.1 Full State Needs and Vision Needs versus Revenue Gap ...............................67
5.3.2 Generating Revenues from Existing Sources ................................................68
5.3.3 Non-Traditional Revenue Sources ...............................................................69
6. Investment Alternatives and Outcomes ..........................................................................71
6.1 Introduction to Alternative Investment Choices ......................................................71
6.2 Expenditure Patterns and Investment Priorities ......................................................73
6.3 Baseline Alternative Investment Choices ................................................................74
6.4 Recommended Investment Choice ........................................................................76
6.4.1 Funding Allocations ...................................................................................76
6.4.2 Performance Summary ..............................................................................79
6.5 Performance Assessment at Revenue Baseline .......................................................80
6.5.1 Funding Allocations ...................................................................................80
6.5.2 Quantitative Performance Comparisons .......................................................80
6.6 Comparison of RIC with Full State and Vision Levels ...............................................84
7. Considerations for Plan Implementation .........................................................................86
7.1 Benefits of Implementation ..................................................................................86
7.2 Advancing Plan Goals and Objectives ....................................................................87
7.2.1 Access Management ..................................................................................88
7.2.2 Complete Streets ......................................................................................88
7.2.3 Context Sensitive Solutions ........................................................................89
7.2.4 Green Certification ....................................................................................89
7.2.5 Demand Management ...............................................................................89
7.2.6 Safety ......................................................................................................90 Page | iv Final Report
7.2.7 Expansion Operations and Maintenance (O&M) ...........................................90
7.2.8 System Modernization ...............................................................................91
7.2.9 Data, Methods, Models, and Research ........................................................91
7.2.10 Education and Outreach ............................................................................92
7.3 Implementation Strategies ...................................................................................92
TABLES
Table 1-1: Plan Goals and Performance Measures ................................................................. 3
Table 1-2: 25-Year Full State Needs - Capital and Operating Costs ......................................... 4
Table 1-3: Planning Level Investment Outcomes and Policy Implications ................................ 9
Table 1-4: Strategies by Plan Goal Area ..............................................................................10
Table 2-1: Transportation in Arizona* .................................................................................17
Table 2-2: Outreach e-Newsletters .....................................................................................23
Table 2-3: Common Interest Group Workshops - Plan Goals and Objectives ...........................25
Table 2-4: Investment Choice Workshops ...........................................................................26
Table 3-1: Performance Measures by Plan Goal Area ............................................................31
Table 3-2: bqAZ Goals, Plan Goals, and ADOT’s Role ............................................................33
Table 4-1: Condition of State-Maintained Roadways .............................................................37
Table 4-2: Commuter Mode Choice Profile ...........................................................................37
Table 4-3: Capital Needs on Arizona’s Existing State Highway System ...................................40
Table 4-4: Projected Capital Costs for ITS, Interchange Improvements, and Safety Needs ......42
Table 4-5: Improvement Costs and Number of Bridges Improved ..........................................43
Table 4-6: Cost Estimate of Total Highway and Bridge Needs by Functional Area....................43
Table 4-7: Preservation Needs for Urban Transit Systems .....................................................45
Table 4-8: Urban Transit Expansion Needs Estimate .............................................................45
Table 4-9: Rural Transit Needs Estimate .............................................................................46
Table 4-10: Estimated Passenger Rail Needs .......................................................................49
Table 4-11: Total Airport Needs 2010-2035 .........................................................................50
Table 4-12: Surface Passenger Transportation Operating Costs .............................................50
Table 4-13: 25-Year Full State Needs - Capital and Operating Costs ......................................51
Table 4-14: Vision Level Needs Estimate, FY 2011 to FY 2035 ...............................................52
Table 4-15: Summary Comparison of Full State Needs and Vision Level Needs .......................52
Table 5-1: FY 2009 Apportionment to Arizona by Federal Program ........................................57
Table 5-2: FY 2009 HURF Receipts .....................................................................................58
Table 5-3: 2009 Revenues and Growth Rates for Baseline Forecast by Program Category .......61
Table 5-4: HURF and RARF Economic Indicators ..................................................................62
Table 5-5: Revenue Baseline – Arizona State Revenues ........................................................63
Table 5-6: Baseline Revenue Forecast with Disbursements ...................................................65
Table 5-7: Options for Revenue-Generating Mechanisms and Potential Net Revenues .............68
Table 5-8: Non-traditional Options for Revenue-Generating Mechanisms ................................70 Arizona Long-Range Transportation Plan Page | v
Table 6-1: Sample Components of Alternative Investment Choices ........................................72
Table 6-2: Five-Year ADOT Expenditures by Improvement Category ......................................74
Table 6-3: AIC “Grades” ....................................................................................................79
Table 6-4: AIC and RIC Funding Distribution by Category .....................................................80
Table 6-5: Comparison of Goal Area Grades by Funding Level ...............................................85
Table 7-1: Strategies by Plan Goal Area ..............................................................................88
Table 7-2: Plan Policies - Considerations for Implementation ................................................93
FIGURES
Figure 1-1: Plan Forecast State Transportation Funds ............................................................ 5
Figure 1-2: RIC – Funding Distribution ................................................................................. 7
Figure 2-1: Plan Building Blocks .........................................................................................14
Figure 2-2: Plan Decision Structure .....................................................................................20
Figure 4-1: Highway Investment Needs (Existing System) by Category ..................................41
Figure 5-1: Historic State and Federal Transportation Revenues by Mode, FY 1991-2009 ........61
Figure 5-2: Plan Forecast State Transportation Funds ...........................................................66
Figure 6-1: ADOT Highway Spending, 2006-2010 ................................................................73
Figure 6-2: RARF Highway Spending, 2006-2010 .................................................................75
Figure 6-3: AIC A – Funding Distribution .............................................................................77
Figure 6-4: AIC B – Funding Distribution .............................................................................77
Figure 6-5: RIC – Funding Distribution ................................................................................78
Figure 6-6: Percentage of ADOT Roadway Miles below “Good” Pavement Threshold (PSR) ......82
Figure 6-7: Estimated User Costs ........................................................................................83
Figure 6-8: Estimated Travel Delay .....................................................................................83
Figure 6-9: Bridge Conditions .............................................................................................84
APPENDIX
Appendix A: Examples of Significant Transportation Infrastructure Projects ............................95
Arizona Long-Range Transportation Plan Page | 1
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
What Moves You Arizona is the Arizona Department of Transportation’s (ADOT) Long-Range Transportation Plan (LRTP). The LRTP, or “Plan,” defines visionary, yet pragmatic, investment choices Arizona will make over the next 25 years to maintain and improve its multimodal transportation system. The Plan is not rigid or fixed. It is part of a continuous process of planning, implementation, operation, and preservation and will evolve over time to reflect and be responsive to future changes in needs, resources, and priorities. The Plan:
 Provides strategic direction to guide future investments in transportation -- it does not identify a specific list of projects for implementation;
 Documents existing conditions with an eye toward future trends that could influence both system performance and investment needs, as developed for the Plan’s Transportation in Arizona (TIA) Report (May 2010) http://www.whatmovesyouarizona.gov/PDF/TIA_ExecSum_0610.pdf;
 Defines State transportation system goals, objectives and performance measures
that reflect input from Arizona’s stakeholders and transportation planning partners;
 Incorporates the comprehensive land use and 2050 vision developed in Building a Quality Arizona (bqAZ) as a framework for the State’s desired future;
 Recognizes that ADOT’s role is evolving from a traditional highway agency toward a more multimodal transportation department;
 Assesses future needs and anticipated revenues for the State’s multimodal transportation network;
 Considers an array of outcome-based programmatic investment choices to illustrate likely future system performance under different investment mixes;
 Establishes ADOT’S preferred Recommended Investment Choice (RIC), which provides the Department with a capital investment strategy through 2035 while
Arizona DOT faces a daunting challenge: prioritizing nearly $89 billion of transportation needs over the next 25 years with only $26 billion of expected revenue. Despite this, ADOT is moving toward becoming a multimodal transportation agency by committing increased funding to non-highway modes, providing expanded travel choice. ADOT has used a combination of technical information and public input to develop a fiscally-constrained Long-Range Transportation Plan Recommended Investment Choice that emphasizes infrastructure preservation and modernization while addressing system expansion, and travel choice needs.
“What Moves You Arizona” is the State’s new Long-Range Transportation Plan – it advances the bqAZ vision by defining a preferred investment strategy. Page | 2 Final Report
meeting federal and State requirements for long-range statewide transportation planning;
 Is fiscally constrained – the RIC at baseline includes no new taxes and applies realistic, conservative revenue growth rates coupled with modest assumptions about inflation; and
 Focuses on implementation, not only through the development of the RIC, but also by acknowledging needed changes to mid- and long-range policies, planning and programming linkages, and interagency partnerships.
This Plan is strategic in nature, examining investment types for ADOT’s capital program; it does not examine nor recommend any specific projects.
1.1 Plan Purpose
The Plan replaces MoveAZ, ADOT’s previous LRTP completed in 2004. It addresses federal statutes, which require states to undertake statewide long-range transportation planning over at least a 20-year horizon, and satisfies Arizona Statutes, A.R.S. § 28-506, which requires that the investment strategy identified in the Plan reflect reasonably expected revenues. The LRTP’s Recommended Investment Choice focuses on the State System; investment priorities for local facilities are beyond the scope of this effort.
The Plan serves as both the principal high-level capital programming guide for ADOT and as documentation of broader statewide transportation investment needs. The fiscally-constrained element of the Plan applies to the Arizona State Highway System and other modes in which ADOT has interest. However, the Plan was developed in partnership with the State’s transportation planning partners, which include Arizona’s stakeholders, metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs), and councils of government (COGs). As such, information on multimodal needs, including local road spending, is included in investment levels beyond baseline.
1.2 Goals, Objectives, and Performance Measures
Establishing a meaningful strategic direction to drive system investment decisions is a critical part of the statewide transportation planning process. Plan goals and objectives define investment priorities and describe how ADOT will work with its transportation planning partners to achieve a shared transportation vision. Plan-level performance measures establish a means of determining how different investment strategies will contribute to achieving these goals and objectives, and provide a basis for establishing program and project-level measures to guide plan implementation. As
The Plan will guide ADOT’s future capital programming.
ADOT’s role is evolving from a traditional highway agency toward a more multimodal transportation department. Arizona Long-Range Transportation Plan Page | 3
such, these strategic LRTP elements were developed in coordination and collaboration with the State’s transportation planning partners.
The bqAZ Vision and Guiding Principles provide broad guidance for transportation planning and implementation for all public agencies and private companies that deliver and/or influence transportation infrastructure and services throughout the State. In this way, the Vision and Guiding Principles served as the focal point for development of Plan goals and objectives. Likewise, performance measures that link directly to Plan goals and objectives were established and applied to understand the outcomes of transportation investments over the Plan horizon. A summary of the resultant eight goal areas and associated measures is shown in Table 1-1.
Table 1-1: Plan Goals and Performance Measures
Plan Goal
Performance Measures Improve Mobility and Accessibility Congestion, speed, and travel delay
Preserve and Maintain the State Transportation System
Pavement and bridge deficiencies; maintenance spending Support Economic Growth Congestion, speed, travel delay, and resources available for economic initiatives Job growth/job retention
Link Transportation and Land Use
Congestion, speed, travel delay, and improved access management Consider Natural, Cultural, and Environmental Resources Change in vehicle-related emissions, level of environmental certification
Enhance Safety and Security
Fatalities and serious injuries Strengthen Partnerships N/A – Focus on implementation policies
Promote Fiscal Stewardship
N/A – Focus on implementation policies
1.3 Long-Range Needs, Revenues, and Investment Levels
The statewide long-range planning process is about making choices regarding how Arizona should invest in transportation over the next 25 years. To inform these decisions, substantial analysis was undertaken to develop long-range needs and revenues.
1.3.1 Needs
For the Plan, 25-year needs on the State’s multimodal transportation system were assessed. These Full State Needs quantify the costs over the 25-year Plan timeframe required to address expected deficiencies and to achieve across-the-board acceptable performance on the State Transportation System. Full State Needs are estimated at $88.9 billion through 2035 as detailed in Table 1-2.
The Plan recognizes the economic importance of Arizona’s highways. Page | 4 Final Report
Table 1-2: 25-Year Full State Needs - Capital and Operating Costs
(2009 $ Millions)
Mode
Capital Needs Estimate
Operations Estimate
Total Highways $41,905 $5,676 $47,581
Bridges
$1,434
$67
$1,501 Aviation $10,390 N/A $10,390
Freight Rail
$500
N/A
$500 Intercity Passenger Rail $2,564 $2,098 $4,662
Transit
$16,034
$8,184
$24,218
Total
$72,827
$16,025
$88,852
 Needs are defined as the amount of spending required to achieve defined performance benchmarks. For the Plan, needs were developed consistent with current ADOT policies for system conditions and performance using “minimum tolerable (acceptable) conditions” to define a deficient (unacceptable) condition (like pavement condition, bridge condition, or congestion). Needs for the State Transportation System were aggregated over 25 years.
 The State Transportation System is the multimodal transportation system in the State. This includes the State Highway System, the system of State Routes, U.S. Highways, and Interstate Highways, which is owned and operated by ADOT, as well as transit, aviation and rail modes for which ADOT has an interest in advocating or supporting. The roles of ADOT were developed by considering the ability of ADOT to meet and/or influence Plan goals and objectives both today and over the Plan horizon.
Full State Needs includes estimates of capital investment costs for highways, aviation, freight rail, passenger rail, and transit, as well as maintenance and operations costs through 2035 for highways, transit, and passenger rail.
1.3.2 Revenues
If the 25-year Full State Needs define the upper limit of spending required to achieve an across-the-board well-performing State Transportation System, the baseline revenue forecast shows how close – or not – expected revenues might come to meeting Full State Needs. The baseline revenue forecast developed for the Plan, shown in Figure 1-1, assumes a continuation of existing transportation funding sources and no new funding sources or revisions to existing user fee rates over the 25-year planning horizon. (For additional baseline revenue information, please refer to Table 5-6.) Arizona Long-Range Transportation Plan Page | 5
Figure 1-1 also details the budget for State Highway System investments from FY 2010 to FY 2035:
 More than 60 percent of expected revenues are “outside ADOT’s control;” that is, they are allocated for ADOT maintenance or operations, distributed to local governments, or are available to other agencies (see Table 5-6);
 When considering all funds available for investment on the State Highway System, ADOT’s total projected State transportation budget sums to $26.2 billion from 2010 through 2035;
 Of this total funding, $9.28 billion is available for investment on the State Highway System in the Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) and Pima Association of Governments (PAG) regions only, leaving $16.92 billion in statewide discretionary revenues; and
 Of ADOT’s $16.92 billion in discretionary funding, $13.54 billion is Federal funding available for federally-eligible projects, while $3.38 billion is from Arizona’s Highway User Revenue Fund (HURF).
Figure 1-1: Plan Forecast State Transportation Funds
(2009 $ Billions)
Source: Wilbur Smith Associates for ADOT’s 2035 LRTP
ADOT "Controlled" Funds,
$16.92 B
Total "State System" Dedicated Funds,
$9.28 B
Funds Distributed to Specific Programs/ Agencies, $45.45 B
Total $71.65 Billion Page | 6 Final Report
1.3.3 Investment Levels
To better understand the effects of the investment of anticipated revenues on meeting Full State Needs and advancing Plan goals and objectives, Alternative Investment Choices were developed and compared, and a Recommended Investment Choice was defined. These investment analyses were developed using baseline revenues.
 An Alternative Investment Choice (AIC) is a means of showing impacts of infrastructure investment mixes on system performance. For the Plan, AICs were defined at baseline revenue by considering investment mixes among preservation, modernization, and expansion improvements.
 The fiscally constrained Recommended Investment Choice (RIC) was also defined at baseline revenue. The RIC reflects ADOT’s investment priorities given the availability of baseline revenues only.
Planning provides a course of action to better understand not only “what” should be done, but how much proposed investments will cost. For the purposes of comparison and in working toward the bqAZ 2050 vision, three planning level investment scenarios were considered in the Plan: the RIC at Baseline, a Vision level consistent with bqAZ implementation, and a “middle” level between the Baseline and Vision defined by Full State Needs.
 Baseline: This scenario defines the fiscally constrained RIC for ADOT. It provides a strategy for ADOT capital programming assuming no new funding sources or revisions to existing user fee rates over the Plan’s 25-year horizon. The investments considered under this scenario are limited to a total of $26.2 billion.
 Vision: This scenario provides the needs, revenues, and outcomes “ceiling” by quantifying and qualifying the outcomes of implementing the first 25 years of the bqAZ 2050 vision. The total cost of implementing the bqAZ 2050 vision scenario over the 25-year Plan horizon is $250.1 billion in 2009 constant dollars, which includes both the State system and local roads.
 Full State Needs: This scenario provides a needs and revenue assessment in between Baseline and Vision and shows the impacts on system performance if ADOT were to implement all needed investments for the State Transportation System, or “needs,” which total $88.9 billion over 25 years. Note that the State Transportation System includes all roads owned and operated by ADOT and excludes local roads.
Three Plan Levels are examined – Baseline, Full State Needs, and Vision. Arizona Long-Range Transportation Plan Page | 7
1.4 Recommended Investment Choice at Revenue Baseline
Figure 1-2 shows the Plan’s Recommended Investment Choice which, at revenue baseline, provides the long-term implementation strategy developed in the Plan. The purpose of the RIC is to drive the allocation of resources and influence project selection, yet be flexible enough that ADOT can continue to accommodate changing and emerging priorities over time, both internally and with the State’s planning partners.
The funding allocations defined under the RIC underscore ADOT’s priorities to both preserve the current system and to expand travel choices for all Arizonans, while investing to create/retain jobs. In addition to the technical analysis and ADOT staff input, these priorities were developed using input received through stakeholder outreach, input from committees, and public questionnaires.
Figure 1-2: RIC – Funding Distribution
Source: Wilbur Smith Associates for ADOT’s 2035 LRTP
A survey instrument used to solicit input about transportation investment priorities helped to finalize and reinforced the long-range investment decisions for the Plan. Survey responses focused on the following themes:
Highway Preservation 34%
Highway Modernization 29%
Highway Expansion 27%
Non-Highway 10%
ADOT’s priority for transportation is to preserve the integrity of the existing system. Page | 8 Final Report
 Broad support for system preservation: nearly half of all respondents (44%) highlighted system preservation as their “number one” long-term transportation concern; and,
 Recognition of the need for increased travel choices: noted as the second most important planning concern of respondents.
The impact of the RIC on system performance is limited because of the realities of the diminishing long-range revenues. At the same time, the RIC allocations across categories and modes show the commitment of ADOT to:
 Preserve the State Highway System with few unmet highway preservation and rural transit needs;
 Improve mobility and accessibility through modest State Highway System expansion and funding support for mode choice, non-highway modes, and intermodal connectivity – despite limited funding, ADOT is making a strategic commitment to increased investment in the non-highway modes;
 Support economic development via rail and transit investment; and
 Increase safety and efficiency via system modernization.
Implementation of the Plan’s Recommended Investment Choice (RIC) will be gradual and must recognize and appreciate differences between the RIC investment mix and the existing MAG and PAG Regional Transportation Plans (RTPs), which reflect voter-approved regional transportation taxes. In the short term there will be challenges implementing the Plan because of differences between the expansion-based MAG and PAG RTPs and ADOT’s RIC. The current RTP for the MAG region includes significant funding for highway expansion and a lower level of funding for system preservation. As the MAG region transportation system ages, it is expected that future RTPs will include higher levels of funding for system maintenance and preservation. ADOT and the MAG and PAG Transportation Management Areas (TMAs) have pledged to continue to work together in a cooperative fashion to address these differences in the future as part of the updates of the RTPs and State LRTP.
1.5 Investment Outcomes and Gap Analysis
1.5.1 Outcomes by Planning Level
The current baseline revenue forecast for Arizona falls well short of the estimated Full State Needs and Vision investment levels. These investment levels, detailed in Table 1-3, show the cost to advance Plan goals and objectives beyond revenue baseline.
RIC implementation must recognize the differences between the RIC and adopted MAG/PAG Regional Transportation Plans. Arizona Long-Range Transportation Plan Page | 9
Table 1-3: Planning Level Investment Outcomes and Policy Implications
Components
Summary
Outcomes
Policy Implications Recommended Investment Choice (RIC) 25-year Fiscally Constrained Cost: $26.2 billion
Revenues available for:
 State Highway System and State-owned/operated freeways;
 Capital investment for rural transit, commuter rail, passenger rail, and freight rail; and ADOT investment, if applicable.
 Prioritizes asset preservation
 Moderate investment in system modernization, improving safety and efficiency
 Limited congestion mitigation
 Some funding support for mode choice and intermodal connectivity
Fiscally constrained scenario assumes no revenue increases over Plan horizon, prioritizes system preservation, and invests in non-highway modes
State funds for system operations and maintenance are not included in RIC total of $26.2 billion as covered by mandated distributions from revenues (see Table 5-6).
RIC allocation for State Highway System roads and bridges:
 Preservation $8.9 B
 Modernization $7.6 B
 Expansion $7.1 B
 Non-Highway modes $2.6 B
 Total $26.2 B Full State Needs 25-year Cost: $88.9 billion
Full State Needs cover:
 State Highway System and State-owned/operated freeways;
 Operations and maintenance for all State-owned/operated modes;
 Urban/rural capital transit needs for Preservation and Expansion;
 Passenger and freight rail; and
 Aviation capital needs.
 Performance-based
 Brings the State Transportation System to acceptable performance standards as defined by ADOT criteria
 Job growth
Implementation requires significant funding beyond baseline; costs are based on both engineering and economic criteria and reflect system conditions and current trends
State Highway Needs allocation for State Highway System roads and bridges:
 Preservation $6.5 B
 Modernization $9.1 B
 Expansion $27.7 B
 Non-Highway modes $29.6 B
 Operations/Maintenance of new facilities/services $16.0 B
 Total $88.9 B bqAZ Vision Level Needs 25-year Cost: $250.1 billion
bqAZ Vision Level Needs cover:
 State Highway System and State-owned/operated freeways;
 Operations and maintenance for all State-owned/operated modes;
 Capital and operations needs for local roads and streets;
 Urban/rural capital transit needs for Preservation and Expansion;
 Passenger and freight rail; and
 Aviation capital needs.
 Long-range land use and transportation scenario supports aggressive growth strategy for the State
 Job growth
Implementation requires significant funding beyond baseline; costs are based on bqAZ Vision
Vision level needs allocation:
 State Highway Preservation/Maintenance/Operations $17.1 B
 State Highway System Modernization/Expansion $127.7 B
 Local Roads $48.5 B
 Non-Highway modes $56.8 B
 Total $250.1 B Page | 10 Final Report
In considering the gap between Baseline, Full State Needs, and Vision investment levels:
 Arizona’s Full State Needs total $88.9 billion. Baseline revenues to meet these needs are projected to be $26.2 billion from FY 2010 to FY 2035. The funding gap between Arizona’s Full State Needs and baseline revenues under ADOT control is $62.7 billion.
 Arizona’s 2035 Vision Level – primarily defined by bqAZ – has an approximate price tag of $250.1 billion. The funding gap between Arizona’s Vision Level and baseline revenues under ADOT control is $223.9 billion, some of which would be the responsibility of other agencies, such as funds for local highway needs and transit operations.
1.6 Considerations for Plan Implementation
1.6.1 Advancing the RIC
For the purposes of documentation and recommendations for the LRTP, policies for Plan implementation were explored by considering the advancement of Plan goals and objectives beyond the RIC via specific activities or “strategies.” Strategies were developed to help ADOT look “beyond the RIC” to advance broader goals and objectives both within the Department and across the State.
Table 1-4 provides summary strategies considered to advance LRTP goals and objectives.
Table 1-4: Strategies by Plan Goal Area
Plan Goal Area
Potential Policies/Strategies Mobility, Accessibility, and Connectivity Access Management Complete Streets Methods, Models, and Data Research
Preservation and Maintenance
Expanded Maintenance and Operations Policy Economic Development Job creation/retention Access Management Complete Streets Demand Management System Modernization (Bottleneck Reduction, System Operations, Traffic Signal Timing)
Transportation and Land Use
Access Management Natural, Cultural, and Environmental Resources Context Sensitive Solutions Education and Outreach “Green” Certification
Safety and Security
System Modernization (Rural Safety) Performance Measurement and Management Methods, Models, and Data Research Reporting
Fewer than 30% of Arizona’s transportation needs can be addressed with expected baseline revenues. Arizona Long-Range Transportation Plan Page | 11
High-productivity transportation investments can both enhance freight mobility to increase the global competitiveness of local businesses, and support the needs of the workforce and employers in moving to and from jobs. The result is a “win-win” outcome for the economy, where increased transportation spending leads to short term construction jobs and longer term economic health and vitality that both retains jobs and creates new jobs.
All policies and strategies reviewed for the Plan (detailed in Section 7) have merit when considering implementation across goals and objective over time; however, the following specific strategies were identified as a potential course of action for advancing Plan goals and objectives:
 ADOT’s Access Management Guidelines introduces access management requirements for new development to both improve transportation-land use coordination and better support economic development. To further advance Plan objectives, retrofit access management guidelines will be considered.
 Complete Streets, Context Sensitive Solutions (CSS), and other sustainability/livability concepts, have been or are being considered by ADOT and are important for Plan implementation.
 Green Certification: ADOT will explore the application of assessment methodologies that enable an agency to assess how well projects and programs comply with environmental best practices across a range of “green” considerations.
 Transportation Demand Management (TDM): Even with State and metropolitan programs already in place, there is a role for ADOT to advance a statewide TDM program designed to reduce congestion and enhance mobility.
 Operations and Maintenance Policies for Expansion Projects: The assessment of on-going maintenance and operations costs by ADOT and all planning partners over the long-term is necessary prior to project level programming for all expansion projects to ensure sustainable preservation funding over time.
 An effective modernization program should include a commitment to technology implementation via transportation system management and operations concepts.
 Research: A summary of peer practices regarding successes in Complete Streets, Context Sensitive Solutions, TDM, and other policy areas seen as “difficult” to implement agency-wide will be essential in making the case for broad implementation of these and/or similar policies.
 Education and Outreach provide an alternative to more formal polices. For example, safety education to increase seat belt usage and decrease distracted driving may be warranted. Additionally, outreach may help ADOT to better coordinate and collaborate with all planning partners, with ADOT taking the lead in educating partners on Plan goals and objectives, and on the RIC. For decisions that Page | 12 Final Report
are intrinsically local in nature (land use decisions, for example), ADOT will serve as a catalyst to bring the right stakeholders together and facilitate meaningful discussion.
Aside from the specific strategies identified to advance Plan goals and objectives beyond the RIC, it is important to note that Plan implementation over time will become more focused on the integration of community concerns into the planning process. Enhancements in local communities, where citizens can see their tax dollars at work, will be particularly important in building statewide support should ADOT consider revenue generating mechanisms in the future.
1.6.2 Next Steps
This Plan is designed as a living document that will evolve over time to inform and foster the public policy discussion concerning the role transportation will have as Arizona emerges from the current economic downturn and how future transportation investment decisions will be made. The Plan concludes that there will not be enough money to finance those investments Arizonans think are necessary to preserve the quality of the transportation system, provide the transportation choices that improve Arizona’s quality of life, attract/retain jobs, and serve as the catalyst for recovery. The public outreach component of the Plan, which informed the policies and recommended investment choice, served to confirm the direction outlined in the Plan and underscore that Arizonans are supportive of a comprehensive approach to transportation investment, providing increased modal travel choices, and maintaining a high quality multimodal transportation system statewide.
What Moves You Arizona can serve as a strategy and investment tool to aid local officials in public dialogue on transportation that ultimately involves State officials, local government leaders, tribal governments, and the myriad of stakeholders and interest groups that make Arizona such a great place to live. These decision-makers will ultimately have to determine the timing and extent of the next transportation initiative in Arizona.
“What Moves You Arizona” is intended to inform the public dialogue on transportation choices. Arizona Long-Range Transportation Plan Page | 13
2. PLAN DEVELOPMENT
What Moves You Arizona is the update for the existing statewide long-range transportation plan (LRTP), MoveAZ, completed in 2004. The new Plan satisfies both State and federal requirements for statewide long-range transportation planning and serves as a guide for Arizona’s transportation planning and capital delivery programs through 2035. The 25-year Plan meets the requirements within the Arizona Revised Statutes for developing a fiscally-constrained Plan that is based on a realistic baseline revenue forecast, which assumes modest revenue growth only.
The Plan was developed to advance ADOT’s efforts toward the comprehensive multimodal transportation vision developed in Building a Quality Arizona (bqAZ). This section describes the process for Plan development, from defining the “building blocks” of the LRTP – including the aggregation of Plan requirements and existing conditions through technical and implementation analyses (the Plan “assessment” levels) to better define the steps toward implementing bqAZ. It also describes the opportunities for stakeholder input and outreach, including stakeholders within ADOT, planning partners in the State, and the public.
2.1 Plan Building Blocks
Figure 2-1 shows the “building blocks” of the LRTP. It is important to note that each step toward Plan completion also included extensive public and stakeholder outreach as described in Section 2.4.
Development of the long-range transportation plan is built upon an exceptional array of previous work, including bqAZ. The final Plan is technically-based, includes an extensive public outreach effort, and is designed to surpass State and federal requirements for statewide transportation planning.
Core terms for the reader to understand include:
- Baseline revenue forecast;
- Transportation need;
- Alternative investment choice; and
- Recommended investment choice.
ADOT also developed a long-range plan decision-making structure that included three separate committees, each with representation from regional planning partners and sister state agencies, plus participation from the Federal Highway Administration.
“What Moves You Arizona” is the State’s new Long-range Transportation Plan – it advances the bqAZ vision by defining a preferred investment strategy. Page | 14 Final Report
Plan Implementation
Plan Technical Analysis
Plan Requirements and Vision
Figure 2-1: Plan Building Blocks
The Plan building blocks can be organized by recognizing three basic steps targeted at building on and advancing Arizona’s planning and partnership efforts to date:
 Plan Requirements and Vision: Section 2.2 summarizes the LRTP’s initial activities, recognizing that transportation planning requires the acknowledgement of previous and concurrent plans, federal and state requirements, and existing conditions as developed for the Plan’s Transportation in Arizona (TIA) report, finalized in May 2010. Initial activities also included the development of collaborative Plan goals, objectives, and performance measures, which are discussed in Section 3. Development of Plan goals and objectives included stakeholder and public outreach and involvement while the performance measures included close collaboration within ADOT and planning partners.
 Plan Technical Analysis: To define ADOT’s direction for long-range transportation planning and programming, 25-year baseline revenues were estimated, along with multimodal transportation needs. These activities were conducted using ADOT-specific criteria and recognize national policy trends. Using the projected available revenues and 25-year multimodal needs as a base, investment choices were developed and considered by ADOT and were vetted thoroughly via the Plan committee structure and through extensive stakeholder and public contact. Plan performance measures were used to compare the outcomes of Plan implementation over time. These technical activities are presented in Section 5: Multimodal Needs, Section 6: Transportation Revenues, and Section 7: Investment Choices and Outcomes.
bqAZ, Federal and State Requirements, and Transportation in Arizona (TIA)
Plan Goals, Objectives, and Performance Measures
Plan Analysis: 25-Year Revenues and Multimodal Needs
Plan Investment Choices and Outcomes
Plan Policies, Capital Programming, and Partnerships Arizona Long-Range Transportation Plan Page | 15
 Plan Implementation: Implementing the LRTP will occur incrementally over time and will require commitment to adjusting and delivering a capital program that is responsive to Plan recommendations, as well as commitments from the State’s transportation planning partners. Section 7 details strategies and policies for Plan implementation.
2.2 Plan Requirements and Vision
2.2.1 Building a Quality Arizona (bqAZ)
In 2008 and 2009, ADOT worked with organizations, stakeholders, and Arizonans across the State to develop the bqAZ Statewide Transportation Planning Framework, a shared vision for Arizona’s transportation future. The bqAZ process was designed to gather input from residents and stakeholders on critical issues related to how the State should direct growth, consider the environment, ensure safety and security, and promote economic vitality while moving people and goods throughout Arizona.
The bqAZ process considered three transportation future scenarios: Personal Vehicle Mobility, Transit Mobility, and Focused Growth. As a result of extensive public and stakeholder outreach and involvement, the recommended framework presented a multimodal transportation system that recognized and strengthened the relationship between land use and transportation by connecting activity and employment centers statewide. The comprehensive vision, which incorporated elements of all three scenarios, was accepted by the State Transportation Board in January 2010 and provided the foundation for the LRTP update.
As the State’s transportation vision, bqAZ defined:
 Growth choices and scenarios through 2050;
 Needs for State, regional, and local systems to support chosen growth scenarios; and
 Fiscally unconstrained multimodal investments for State, regional, and local needs.
Within the constraints and requirements of both federal and State long-range transportation planning, ADOT’s Plan at revenue baseline focuses on:
 25-year needs on the State Transportation System as well as in areas where ADOT has a vested financial interest (local system needs are not included); and,
 Fiscally constrained multimodal investments to pay for needs on the State Transportation System.
Beyond revenue baseline, analyses for the Plan considered the “ceiling” of investments for 25-year implementation of bqAZ, or Vision level, as well as a “middle” investment level of Full State Needs. These investment levels are described in more detail in Section 2.3.2: Plan Investment Levels. Page | 16 Final Report
2.2.2 Federal and State Requirements
The Plan was developed under the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) and meets all federal and State requirements.
The idea of fiscal constraint is important to understand when comparing bqAZ to ADOT’s LRTP and MPO Regional Transportation Plans (RTPs). By federal requirements, fiscal constraint need not apply to a non-project-specific statewide LRTP; however, according to Arizona statute, ADOT’s Plan must be fiscally constrained, whereas bqAZ provides an unconstrained vision.
For the Plan, fiscal constraint was applied by forecasting revenues available for investment in the State’s multimodal transportation system assuming no significant increases in State or federal transportation funding.1 As such, the Plan’s Recommended Investment Choice (RIC) applies ADOT’s 25-year investment priorities to constrained transportation revenues.
2.2.3 Existing Conditions – Transportation in Arizona
ADOT’s 25-year Plan was developed to provide a step toward meeting the needs identified in bqAZ. This, of course, includes understanding today’s system, today’s needs, and ADOT’s priorities in conjunction with realistic growth, population, and system condition projections. The TIA report documents these existing conditions.2 The TIA provides details of the State’s existing multimodal transportation system (summarized in Table 2-1) and outlines considerations for the State’s transportation future, including concerns related to system demand, condition and performance, and revenue shortfalls. The TIA can be found on the Plan website at http://www.whatmovesyouarizona.gov/PDF/TIA_ExecSum_0610.pdf.
The TIA also highlights issues and key considerations critical for Plan development and implementation, including the following transportation challenges:
 Preservation: Arizona, like most states, is tasked with maintaining an aging State Transportation System. Many of Arizona’s highways and bridges were constructed during the 1960s and will soon require significant rehabilitation. Over time, pavement rehabilitation and bridge needs will continue to grow without significant additional investment.
1 Arizona utilizes a Risk Analysis Process (RAP) to develop official forecasts for HURF and RARF revenues. The RAP process relies on the judgments of a panel of 15 economic and financial experts – the RAP Panel. The official forecast results from September 2010 provided the growth rates for the HURF and RARF for the Plan as detailed in Section 5.
2 The TIA report and executive summary are available at www.whatmovesyouarizona.gov under “library” and provide all citations for the table and summary shown in Section 2.2.3 of the LRTP. The TIA provides a summary of the existing conditions for Plan development with data available through May 2010.
The “TIA” Report provides details of the State’s multimodal transportation system. Arizona Long-Range Transportation Plan Page | 17
Table 2-1: Transportation in Arizona* People 6.4 million (2010) Travel 63 billion vehicle miles annually 75 percent of population live in Tucson and Phoenix metro areas 13 percent of all Arizonans are 65 or older 300,000 visitors living in Arizona in winter months
Highways
129,780 total lane miles
19,912 lane miles operated and maintained by ADOT
1,170 lane miles of interstates: I-10, I-40, I-17, I-8, and I-19
Good or better pavement conditions on most roads
>70 percent of investment used to expand current system (2006-2010 ADOT investment patterns) Bridges 7,348 structures 2,040 bridges operated and maintained by ADOT Currently most bridges in acceptable or better condition
Transit
40 transit systems
Transit use increased more than 50 percent (2002-2009)
Riders concentrated in metro areas of Phoenix, Tucson, and Flagstaff
>200,000 passengers per day ride Valley Metro in Phoenix
ADOT provides elderly, disabled, and rural transit funds
Amtrak: Sunset Limited and Sunset Chief cross-state routes Cross-border Six international border crossings with Mexico (the largest at Nogales) 13,000 vehicles and 13,000 pedestrians cross at Nogales daily
Freight
557 million tons move through Arizona annually
75 percent (by weight) on Arizona Highways, including I-10 and I-40
25 percent (by weight) by rail (BNSF and UP)
>1 percent (by weight) via air Air 12 commercial airports 71 reliever and general aviation airports serve non-commercial air Access to commercial airports is largely 1-hour driving time or less Passenger boardings total more than 23 million enplanements annually 8.5 million visitors arrive in Arizona by air annually
Non-motorized
Bike and pedestrian travel primarily for recreation
Safety is of great concern for bicyclists and pedestrians
Important for livable communities, health, and quality of life
*Existing conditions as detailed in the TIA report, May 2010.
 Transportation Choices: The transportation system must also provide for increases (and changes) in the State’s population and accompanying increases in traffic volumes. Congestion will continue to increase, especially in the Sun Corridor that includes an area that stretches from Central Yavapai County to Nogales and Sierra Vista, as the State’s population is projected to increase to more than 11 million by 2035 – more than a 70 percent increase from today’s 6.4 million Arizonans. Maricopa County will see the largest growth in population, adding 2.8 million people. Arizonans 65 and older will increase from 13 to 20 percent of the total population, adding another layer of transportation challenges, including safety needs and the desire for public transportation options to access services, recreation, and health care. Page | 18 Final Report
 Shrinking Revenues: The national recession reduced available revenues and created fiscal constraints that will limit Arizona’s ability to fund future transportation infrastructure improvements. Thus, Arizona is in a fiscally challenging situation, and action is required to keep State, local, and regional communities competitive and prosperous. Of particular concern is the State’s ability to maintain and operate new facilities and services, including transit, funded by project-specific revenue sources that do not include a continuing stream of revenue to support associated future preservation, maintenance, or operations.
2.3 Plan Technical Components and Assessment Levels
2.3.1 Defining Needs, Revenues, and Investment Choices
Sections 4, 5, and 6 document technical activities and outcomes related to the development of 25-year Full State Needs, estimated revenues, and investment choices. Because these technical components are important for all Plan activities and are discussed throughout this document (including references in the goals and objectives, performance, and implementation sections), definitions are provided below, with more detail available in each respective technical section:
 Need: Amount of spending required to achieve defined performance benchmarks. For the Plan, needs were developed consistent with current ADOT policies for system conditions and performance using “minimum tolerable conditions3.” Needs for the State Transportation System were aggregated over 25 years. As detailed in Section 4.1.3: Needs Categories, three improvement categories were used to aggregate capital multimodal transportation needs in the State: preservation, modernization, and expansion.
 Baseline Revenue Forecast: Revenue projection that assumes a continuation of existing transportation funding sources and no new funding sources or revisions to existing user fee rates over the planning horizon. For the Plan, the 25-year baseline revenue forecast was compared with the 25-year needs to determine the funding
“gap” between needs and revenues.
 Alternative Investment Choice (AIC): Means of showing impacts of infrastructure investment on system performance. For the Plan, AICs were defined at revenue baseline by considering
investment mixes between preservation, modernization, and expansion improvements.
3 Minimum acceptable conditions for transportation system condition and performance were defined by ADOT for all technical assessments.
Different ways of allocating capital revenues are presented through “Alternative Investment Choices.” Arizona Long-Range Transportation Plan Page | 19
 Recommended Investment Choice (RIC): Reflects ADOT’s investment priorities given the availability of baseline revenues only. The purpose of the RIC is to drive the allocation of resources and influence project selection, yet be sufficiently general to allow ADOT to continue to accommodate changing and emerging priorities over time, both internally and with the State’s planning partners.
2.3.2 Plan Investment Levels
The RIC provides ADOT’s priorities for multimodal system investment given the availability of baseline revenues. Planning, of course, should provide a course of action to better understand not only what should be done, but how much it might cost. The following planning levels – or scenarios – were developed and applied to quantify and qualify Plan outcomes if new revenues become available:
 Baseline: This scenario defines the fiscally-constrained RIC for ADOT. It provides a strategy for ADOT capital programming assuming a baseline revenue forecast with
no new funding sources or revisions to existing user fee rates over the Plan’s 25-year horizon.
 Full State Needs: This planning level scenario provides a needs and revenue assessment
between the baseline and bqAZ needs. The Full State Needs investment level shows the impacts on system performance if ADOT were to implement all needed investments for the State Transportation System, as described in more detail in Section 5.
 Vision: This scenario provides the needs, revenues, and outcomes “ceiling” by quantifying and qualifying the outcomes of implementing the first 25 years of the 2050 bqAZ vision on both the State system and local roads.
2.4 Opportunities for Input and Outreach
2.4.1 Committees and Decision Structure
This decision-making structure for Plan development is shown in Figure 2-2. Responsibilities were delegated to committees and individuals as follows:
 Project Management Team (PMT): The PMT provided day-to-day oversight and management of the long-range transportation planning process. Membership included the internal ADOT team with representatives from ADOT Multimodal Planning Division (MPD), ADOT Communication and Community Partnerships Division (CCP), two of the State’s MPOs, and the Plan’s consultant team.
Three Plan levels are examined: Baseline, Full State Needs, and Vision Level. Page | 20 Final Report
Figure 2-2: Plan Decision Structure
 Technical Advisory Committee (TAC): The TAC provided input and feedback on
technical issues and topics. The TAC included ADOT staff, MPOs, and the FHWA.
TAC involvement facilitated multi-agency support and will support implementation of
the Plan.
 Steering Team: The Steering Team ensured that the Plan development process
had broad-based support and a commitment to multi-agency implementation. As a
working group, the Steering Team provided the primary link between ADOT and its
planning partners. In addition to responsibility
for reviewing and recommending content for
the Plan, the Steering Team provided oversight
of the overall planning process. Membership
included ADOT management level staff, one
executive level staff member from each COG and MPO, as well as the FHWA.
 Policy Committee: The Policy Committee deliberated and endorsed key strategic
decisions required to complete and implement the LRTP, including the LRTP goals
and objectives, revenue assumptions, performance measures, investment
alternatives, and investment allocations for non-highway modes. Membership
included the Steering Team plus a State Transportation Board member, the ADOT
Executive Leadership Team, Statewide and Valley Project Management, one elected
official policy board member from each COG and MPO, other State agencies, and the
FHWA Division Administrator.
 ADOT Executive Team: This team served as needed for policy-level discussions
and included ADOT Director John Halikowski and key ADOT executive staff.
 State Transportation Board: Arizona’s State Transportation Board is responsible
for final the review, approval, and adoption of the Plan.
Additional information regarding these committees can be found in the LRTP Public Involvement
Plan available on the Plan website under “library” at
http://www.whatmovesyouarizona.gov/PDF/FINAL_PP.pdf.
Plan Development
Plan
Adoption
Project
Management
Team (PMT)
Technical Advisory
Committee (TAC)
Steering Team Policy Committee ADOT Director
State
Transportation
Board
The decision-making structure
for “What Moves You Arizona”
involved federal, state, and
local partners.
Arizona Long-Range Transportation Plan Page | 21
2.4.2 Stakeholder and Public Outreach
In accordance with federal and State regulations and ADOT procedures, a comprehensive LRTP outreach program was designed and implemented to encourage participation from stakeholders and the public throughout the LRTP process. ADOT utilized the input, opinions, and suggestions obtained through this process to develop the Plan. Full details on the outreach and involvement activities and input received are available in the study library at the project website: www.whatmovesyouarizona.gov.
A Participation Plan was developed in May 2009 that outlined the approach for ensuring effective communication and education and detailed how stakeholders and public would be engaged in Plan development. In May 2009, an e-newsletter was distributed to 5,549 individuals to prompt review and comment. The e-newsletter announced that ADOT would be examining those transportation and community planning choices with the launch of the Arizona LRTP, called What Moves You Arizona, and that the draft Participation Plan had been posted online and placed in public repositories across the State for a 45-day public comment period.
In addition to providing additional background, the e-newsletter indicated that the LRTP would identify transportation investments that Arizona will make over the next 25 years based on available funding. The public was invited to visit www.whatmovesyouarizona.gov to review the Participation Plan and provide written comments to ADOT. ADOT placed print and online advertisements with 30 publications across Arizona and distributed copies of the Participation Plan to 139 locations, including public libraries, Councils of Governments (COGs), Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs), and ADOT District offices. Comments were accepted online, in writing, by phone, fax, or email to provide the most opportunity for people to comment. In total 32 comments were received regarding the Participation Plan and were responded to by the study team.
After working with the COGs and MPOs on a collaborative decision-making structure, the Participation Plan was finalized and posted to the project website in June 2010. The Participation Plan guided the public involvement efforts through the LRTP process and focused on the two main technical work phases:
 Goals and Objectives (Summer/Fall 2010); and,
 Alternative Investment Choices (Spring 2011).
In addition to the Plan committees defined in Figure 2-2, the public and stakeholder participation program included the following elements:
ADOT developed an extensive outreach program to involve Arizona’s citizens in developing the Plan. Page | 22 Final Report
 Videos;
 Email campaigns;
 ADOT Facebook page;
 Meeting-in-a-Box and surveys;
 Advertising campaigns;
 Workshops; and
 Presentations.
Outreach Videos
ADOT produced three videos for the LRTP, made all three available at www.whatmovesyouarizona.gov, and widely publicized their availability. The second and third videos also were accompanied by surveys that gathered input for the Goals and Objectives and Investment Choices phases, respectively.
 The first video was produced in late 2009 and provided a link between the conclusion of the bqAZ Statewide Transportation Planning Framework and the Plan kick-off. The video used images from the past to show how much change occurred in the past 40 years to provide a perspective about the importance of looking 40 years into the future. The video was used at the concluding public events for bqAZ and ended with a call to action for the LRTP.
 The second video was developed specifically to introduce “What Moves You Arizona,” and featured ADOT Public Information Officers from across the State and scenes of Arizona’s diverse communities. It described the challenges that the State faces as it grows and how transportation is an integral part of everyday life, the State’s economy, and the State’s future. The video also included a call to action for viewers to be involved in long-range planning as a legacy for future Arizona generations.
 The third video was developed specifically to inform stakeholders and the public about the anticipated gap between transportation needs and anticipated revenues so viewers could better understand the tough choices that ADOT must make with regard to transportation investments. In addition to being available online at the project website and on ADOT’s YouTube channel, ADOT reached out to television stations across the State to air the LRTP video and played it at the Investment Choice Workshops. The video was available in DVD format in both English and Spanish. More than 2,500 people viewed the video online and a total of 66 DVD requests were fulfilled during the Investment Choices comment period.
Email Campaigns
Table 2-2 details the e-newsletters that were developed and distributed during LRTP development. Arizona Long-Range Transportation Plan Page | 23
Table 2-2: Outreach e-Newsletters
Date
Distribution
Description May 6, 2009 5,549 Announced study and encouraged review of participation plan
July 20, 2010
5,987
Encouraged viewing of video and participation in goals and objectives survey December 4, 2010 6,157 Documented goals and objectives for study
March 23, 2011
Approximately 37,000
Encouraged viewing of the Investment Choices video and completion of the accompanying survey April 13, 2011 Approximately 37,000 Encouraged viewing of the Investment Choices video and completion of the accompanying survey
April 18, 2011
Approximately 37,000
Encouraged viewing of the Investment Choices video and completion of the accompanying survey
Facebook
On its official Facebook page, ADOT posted a link to the Investment Choices video and a call to action for Arizonans to fill out the short survey.
Meeting-in-a-Box and Surveys
A “meeting-in-a-box” kit was used to encourage local community groups to conduct their own meeting to provide input into the study. The kits were designed to gather input on the draft Plan goals and objectives. In total, 12 kits were distributed and one completed kit was returned. In conjunction with the kits, a brief survey was developed to receive comments on the goals and objectives. In total, 412 people responded to the survey.
In March 2011, a second survey was distributed to accompany the third video asking for input on the investment choices. This second round of advertising was intended to guide Arizonans to the website to view the video and complete the survey. There were 2,385 responses to the survey.
These responses helped finalize the long-range investment decisions developed for the Plan and included the following themes:
 Broad support for system preservation: nearly half of all respondents (44%) highlighted system preservation as their “number one” long-term
transportation concern;
 A recognition of the need for travel choices: noted as the second most important planning concern of respondents; Page | 24 Final Report
 An understanding of the importance of non-motorized movements in conjunction with efforts to reduce traffic congestion; and
 An understanding of the economic importance of transportation investments: more than 90 percent of all respondents noted that the projected transportation funding shortfall may jeopardize Arizona’s ability to thrive.
Advertising Campaigns
ADOT placed 30 newspaper advertisements running in publications statewide between May 5, 2009 and May 13, 2009. The intent of this initial advertising campaign was to announce the availability of the draft Participation Plan, encouraging review and comments. ADOT placed 26 newspaper advertisements in publications statewide between March 20, 2011 and March 24, 2011. Additionally, ADOT placed radio advertisements on 23 stations statewide between March 21, 2011 and March 25, 2011. The intent of this advertising campaign was to announce the availability of a video describing the investment types identified by the study and survey. Participants were encouraged to contact the study team to request a video and survey or to visit the study website.
Common Interest Group Workshops on Goals and Objectives
In accordance with federal guidelines, stakeholder groups representing tribal, economic, and other interests were invited to participate in workshops focused on a discussion of goals and objectives and, in a separate set of workshops, future investment strategies.
As detailed in Table 2-3, ADOT hosted eight special interest group workshops with a total attendance of 91 participants to review and receive comments on the draft goals and objectives prepared for the study. Workshops were held over a period of two days. Invitations to the workshops were distributed electronically to a total of 765 individuals on July 2, 2010. Arizona Long-Range Transportation Plan Page | 25
Table 2-3: Common Interest Group Workshops - Plan Goals and Objectives Date Location Time Groups Participants Invitations Distributed Wednesday, July 21, 2010
ADOT – Human Resource Development Center 1130 N. 22nd Avenue Phoenix, AZ 85009 10 a.m. to noon
Economic Development/
Underserved Populations 17
119 8
89 1 p.m. to 3 p.m.
Tribal Communities/
Major Freight Users 18
111 6
182 Thursday, July 22, 2010
Hilton Garden Inn Airport North 3838 E. Van Buren Street Phoenix, AZ 85008 10 a.m. to noon
Resource Agencies/
Sustainable Planning Professionals 10
51 14
73 1 p.m. to 3 p.m.
Natural Resources/
Development Community 4
83 14
57 Total: 91 765
The format for the workshops included a brief presentation followed by a facilitated dialogue structured around Plan goals and objectives. Discussion focused on:
 Congestion and traveler expectations;
 ADOT’s role in transit services;
 Highway preservation and maintenance needs;
 Economic development and related investments; and
 Participant concerns on environmental impacts.
Investment Choice Workshops
To solicit comments on the investment types identified in the Plan, ADOT hosted 12 Investment Choice workshops (Table 2-4) with a total attendance of 121 participants. Workshops were held statewide in six cities: Flagstaff, Lake Havasu City, Payson, Phoenix, Tucson, and Yuma. A total of 2,207 initial email invitations were distributed electronically on March 1, 2011. A follow-up email was distributed on March 17, 2011 to remind invitees to register. These workshops were targeted to tribal communities, stakeholders, special interest groups, and elected officials.
Page | 26 Final Report
Table 2-4: Investment Choice Workshops
Date
Location
Time
Group
Participants Wednesday, March 23, 2011 Best Western Inn 801 N. Beeline Highway Payson, AZ 85441 4:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. Tribal/ Stakeholder/ Elected Official (combined group) 8
Thursday, March 24, 2011
Pima County Public Works Department 201 N. Stone Avenue Conference Room C Tucson, AZ 85701
10 a.m. to noon
Tribal
8
1:30 p.m. to 3:30 p.m.
Stakeholder
13
4:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m.
Elected Official (combined group)
2 Tuesday, March 29, 2011 Yuma City Hall One City Plaza Room 190 Yuma, AZ 85364 1:30 p.m. to 3:30 p.m. Tribal/ Stakeholder/ Elected Official (combined group) 8
Monday, April 4, 2011
Hilton Garden Inn Phoenix North Airport 3838 E. Van Buren Street Phoenix, AZ 85009
10 a.m. to noon
Tribal
14
1:30 p.m. to 3:30 p.m.
Stakeholder
25
4:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m.
Elected Official
5 Thursday, April 7, 2011 Aquatic Center 100 Park Avenue Lake Havasu City, AZ 86403 1:30 p.m. to 3:30 p.m. Tribal/ Stakeholder/ Elected Official (combined group) 8
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
Aquaplex 1702 N. 4th Street Flagstaff, AZ 86004
10 a.m. to noon
Tribal
8
1:30 p.m. to 3:30 p.m.
Stakeholder
16
4:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m.
Elected Official
6
Total Participants:
121
Investment Choice Workshops were organized to provoke discussion on the gap between long-range transportation needs and anticipated revenues. A facilitated World Café exercise was conducted, whereby a series of simultaneous conversations is encouraged in response to predetermined questions. Participants changed tables during the process, visiting a total of four tables, each focused on two of the eight goals. The main focus of the exercise was to better understand participant reactions to investment types and their impact on Plan goals and objectives.
Presentations
During the LRTP process, ADOT had multiple opportunities to present information regarding LRTP interim analysis and recommendations. The following organizations requested and received presentations:
 American Planning Association Arizona Chapter;
 Arizona Rural Transportation Summit 2011;
 American Council of Engineering Companies (ACEC) Arizona Roads and Streets Conference 2011; and,
 Arizona Airports Association 2010 Fall Conference.
Arizona Long-Range Transportation Plan Page | 27
3. GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND PERFORMANCE MEASURES
Establishing meaningful strategic direction to drive system investment decisions and approaches to program implementation is a critical part of the planning process. Plan goals and objectives help define investment priorities and describe how the State will work together with its partners to achieve a shared transportation vision.
The Plan describes ADOT’s responsibilities for supporting the implementation of the bqAZ Vision. The goals, objectives, and performance measures developed for the LRTP serve as both the Plan’s foundation and the path forward for directly linking the bqAZ Vision to the implementation of transportation improvements and services. Similarly, Plan goals, objectives, and performance measures detailed in this section include outcome-based objectives, which reflect the measureable improvements in transportation that ADOT will strive to achieve, and process-based objectives, which reflect commitments to new processes and improved partnerships needed to achieve those outcomes.
An important objective of the Plan was to expand the use of performance measurement in Arizona’s planning processes. A set of high-level measures were established for the Plan to support selection of the Recommended Investment Choice by providing a means to quantify plan outcomes and compare the likely trade-offs between the Alternative Investment Choices. The performance measures are intended to provide a framework for better integrating plan goals and objectives into ADOT’s capital programming activities and for improving tracking and reporting on Plan implementation.
Transportation planning begins by establishing a set of goals and objectives. The six bqAZ guiding principles were adopted as bedrock goals; goals for system preservation, partnership, and fiscal stewardship were added as ADOT priorities. Modal objectives were developed for each goal area and high-level performance measures identified. This performance-based planning framework is the foundation for ADOT’s accountability to its partners, stakeholders, and the public. The high-level performance measures identified in the Plan will serve as the basis for defining program and project–level measures that will help link capital programming and project selection to the Plan, and support monitoring and reporting of improvements in the transportation system performance.
This section outlines ADOT’s new role in each mode: as an owner, partner, or participant (or in a few areas, having no role). By identifying a strong role in all modes, ADOT is taking decisive steps toward becoming a true multimodal transportation agency. Page | 28 Final Report
3.1 Development Process
3.1.1 Goals and Objectives
The bqAZ Vision and Guiding Principles provided broad guidance for transportation planning for all public agencies and private companies that provide and influence transportation infrastructure and services throughout the State. In this way, the Vision and Guiding Principles served as the focal point for development of Plan goals, objectives, and performance measures.
The Plan outlines ADOT’s roles and responsibilities to implement bqAZ. The bqAZ Guiding Principles, therefore, were used as the starting point for the creation of the Plan goals and objectives. Draft Plan goals and objectives were directly based on bqAZ language and concepts, and influenced by consideration of goals and objectives from both recent and prior ADOT plans, and strategic frameworks in long-range plans from other states.
The original draft goals and objectives – and ADOT’s role in delivering these goals and objectives – were reviewed and modified based on comments from the Project Management Team and the Steering Team, as well as stakeholder and public comment. Draft goals and objectives were modified in response to comments received during each review cycle. The final eight Plan goals listed below were reviewed, vetted, and approved by the Policy Committee and include a summary of the objectives and the Plan performance metrics recommended for each goal:
 Improve mobility and accessibility
- Implement critical and cost-effective investments in infrastructure to expand access to transportation and optimize mobility and reliability in the transportation of passengers and freight.
- Summary performance measures: Apply quantitative performance measures for the areas of congestion, speed, and delay.
 Preserve and maintain the system
- Maintain, preserve, and extend the service life of existing and future State Transportation System infrastructure.
- Summary performance measures: Measure pavement and bridge deficiencies, maintenance spending, and ability of investments to meet urban and rural needs.
 Support economic growth
- Develop and operate a State Transportation System that provides for the reliable movement of people and freight throughout the State to create/retain jobs and support a competitive and thriving economy for Arizona.
- Summary performance measures: Assess how well the State is facilitating and promoting economic growth via metrics related to job growth/retention, congestion, speed, and travel delay.
The Plan’s Vision and Goals used bqAZ as a focal point. Arizona Long-Range Transportation Plan Page | 29
 Link transportation and land use
- Protect the capacity of the State Transportation System by developing policies and partnerships that strengthen the coordination of transportation and land use planning and the implementation of associated policies and activities.
- Summary performance measures: Measure congestion, speed, travel delay, and improvements in access management as indicators of the relationship between land use and congestion/travel delay.
 Consider natural, cultural, and environmental resources
- Be a good steward of Arizona’s natural, cultural, and environmental resources while improving and maintaining the transportation system.
- Summary performance measures: Vehicle-related emissions and resources available for economic initiatives.
 Enhance safety and security
- Continue to improve transportation system safety and ensure the security of the transportation system.
- Summary performance measures: Reduce fatalities and serious injuries.
 Strengthen partnerships
- Develop and nurture partnerships that support the coordination and integration of ADOT’s investment in the State’s transportation infrastructure with public and private organizations and agencies responsible for transportation, land use, conservation and environmental planning, and freight infrastructure.
- Summary performance measures: Develop and implement policies to coordinate and collaborate with the State’s planning partners.
 Promote fiscal stewardship
- Provide a sound financial base for Arizona’s transportation system through responsible management of public assets and resources and identification and implementation of funding strategies to ensure long-term balanced investment in the State Transportation System.
- Summary performance measures: Compare the benefits of investment choices to better understand benefits and costs of programmatic investment mixes.
3.1.2 Performance Measures
Plan performance measures were established in conjunction with the development of the goal areas and associated objectives and are included in the description of the goals in the previous section. Performance measures for the Plan were built on current ADOT measures and included significant interaction with ADOT staff, PMT, TAC, and the Steering Team to gain input on potential measures. Key considerations that influenced the selection of measures included: Page | 30 Final Report
 State statutory requirements for specific measurement categories;
 Experiences and approaches used in other states;
 An emphasis on measuring system performance changes that are influenced by plan-level resource allocation decisions (as opposed to program and project-level
decisions);
 The need to use “indirect” or “proxy” measures in some areas due to the inability to conduct or support direct measurement of outcomes and impacts; and
 A focus on system results where ADOT can have a direct impact or influence.
Table 3-1 summarizes the Plan performance measures developed during the review process. These measures will evolve over time to reflect changes in policies, priorities, data availability, and resources. Performance measures were established to address the outcome-oriented objectives for each of the first six goal areas. The last two goal areas, Strengthen Partnerships and Promote Fiscal Stewardship, are process-oriented, and are thus not directly affected by decisions about the allocation of resources to different types of investment. Similarly, measures were not developed to cover process-oriented objectives under the first six goal areas. During Plan implementation, measures will be developed to both track progress on the process-oriented objectives and to inform program and project-level decisions. This effort may include development of measures that assess the specific safety, environmental impacts, and other considerations of individual project decisions, as well as broad-based efforts to assess qualitative considerations (e.g., through regular partner surveys).
The use of some performance measures requires the identification of benchmarks to classify values into a small set of easily understood categories, such as acceptable/unacceptable or good/fair/poor. Others require identifying target values. However, for all performance measures more important than the absolute value is the trend defined by successive values. Trends help to answer the important question of whether implemented strategies and policies have led to system conditions moving in the right direction and progress being made in meeting goals and objectives.
3.2 ADOT Interest Areas
3.2.1 Linking Goals to bqAZ
A priority for the development of the Plan goals was to establish a transparent link to bqAZ. Five of the eight Plan goals are drawn directly from the bqAZ Guiding Principles. The language of the goals has been adjusted – in some cases narrowed and in others broadened – to reflect ADOT’s direct accountability as an owner/operator of the State Transportation System. In addition, many of the Plan objectives are based directly on portions of the bqAZ strategies.
Performance measures help agencies determine if their investments have the desired effect on system quality. Arizona Long-Range Transportation Plan Page | 31
Three goals that were not included in bqAZ have been added to the Plan to highlight ADOT’s priorities:
Table 3-1: Performance Measures by Plan Goal Area Improve Mobility and Accessibility
- Percentage of roadway miles at acceptable congestion levels – Applies volume to capacity ratios (V/C) to different road functional classes to assess how well the overall highway system will accommodate current and future travel demand - an unacceptable congestion level may be one where mobility has been degraded to the point where the user no longer feels comfortable, safe, and satisfied with the transportation service provided
- Average speed during peak periods in urban areas – Assesses of the quality of travel in urban areas
- Total annual (or average daily) hours of delay – Provides an indication of how well the system is being operated (particularly in urban areas)
- Amount of rural highways “improved” – Provides a means to compare how different investment strategies will lead to improved transportation system access System Preservation and Maintenance
- Percentage of State System lane miles with “fair” or better pavement conditions – describes anticipated pavement conditions for the overall systems based on widely accepted engineering standards
- Number of structurally deficient bridges – Identifies how many bridges on the State Highway System cannot be maintained above a specified federal condition standard
- Percent of required maintenance spending – Assesses the degree to which current maintenance levels will be sustained under different system expansion assumptions
- Percent of rural transit preservation needs met – Provides an output-based assessment of how future spending will meet estimated needs Support Economic Growth
- Number of jobs created/retained
- Percentage of roadway miles at acceptable congestion levels
- Average speed during peak periods in urban areas
- Total annual (or average daily) hours of delay
- Amount of rural highways “improved”
- Resources available to support economic initiatives Link Transportation and Land Use
- Percentage of roadway miles at acceptable congestion levels
- Average speed during peak periods in urban areas
- Total annual (or average daily) hours of delay
- Level of improved access management Consider Natural, Cultural, and Environmental Resources
- Change in vehicle-related emissions
- Level of environmental certification Enhance Safety and Security
- Number of fatalities, by mode
- Number of crashes, by mode Strengthen Partnerships
(Quantitative performance measures are not applicable to this goal area. Measures associated with project/program implementation will be established to determine how well ADOT is achieving the partnership objectives.) Promote Fiscal Stewardship
- Relative benefits of investment choices
(Implementation measures will be established to determine how well ADOT is achieving the partnership objectives.)
Page | 32 Final Report
 System Preservation and Maintenance: This additional goal highlights an important component of ADOT’s mission.
 Strengthen Partnerships: Since bqAZ is a multi-agency vision, ADOT does not have lead responsibility for the implementation of all of the Guiding Principles. However, ADOT can support bqAZ implementation where it is not the lead agency through effective coordination with the State’s transportation planning partners and other State and federal agencies.
 Promote Fiscal Stewardship: Neither the 2050 bqAZ vision nor the Plan can be implemented without a strong financial foundation. The Fiscal Stewardship goal for the Plan reflects the importance of responsible management of existing resources and the need to identify new funding and financing strategies to support Arizona’s transportation system in the long term.
3.2.2 ADOT Roles and Interest Areas
Table 3-2 provides a comparison of the final Plan goals and objectives with those developed in bqAZ. Since implementation of bqAZ is the responsibility of many public and private partners, work completed for the Plan articulates the role ADOT expects to have for both highway and non-highway modes over the 25-year Plan horizon (also shown in Table 3-2). ADOT’s role is defined in terms of both decision-making and funding responsibility. The roles reflected in the Plan are not necessarily the role that ADOT has in 2011; rather, they are roles ADOT will undertake by 2035 to implement the Plan.
Four distinct roles were identified:
 Owner-Operator: ADOT is responsible for maintaining, operating, and enhancing infrastructure to achieve the goal and related objectives.
 Partner: ADOT will partner with others and will share a role in funding and decision-making to achieve the goal and related objectives.
 Participant: ADOT will support public and private transportation delivery entities by providing policy support, guidelines, and/or complementary and opportunistic funding to advance the goals and objectives of the Plan.
 None: ADOT does not participate in funding or decision-making and will not engage in this over the life of the Plan. Arizona Long-Range Transportation Plan Page | 33
Table 3-2: bqAZ Goals, Plan Goals, and ADOT’s Role
bqAZ Guiding Principle
Plan Goal
ADOT’s Role Improve Mobility and Accessibility Improve Mobility and Accessibility
Develop a multimodal system, moving people and freight that offers transportation choices and connects all of Arizona, while linking the State nationally and globally. Reduce traffic delay to enhance economic activity and provide more time for our families and enjoying other pursuits.
Implement critical and cost-effective investments in infrastructure to expand access to transportation and optimize mobility and reliability in the transportation of passengers and freight.
Highways: Owner/Operator
Urban Transit: Participant
Rural Transit: Partner
Passenger Rail: Participant
Freight Rail: Participant
Air: Participant
Bicycle/Pedestrian: Partner System Preservation and Maintenance System Preservation and Maintenance
Maintain, preserve, and extend the service life of existing and future State Transportation System infrastructure.
Highways: Owner/Operator
Urban Transit: None
Rural Transit: Partner
Passenger Rail: None
Freight Rail: None
Air: Participant
Bicycle/Pedestrian: None Support Economic Growth Support Economic Growth
Build a seamless transportation system that moves people and goods to ensure that Arizona’s economy is competitive and thriving. Work toward an integrated system of roads, transit, passenger rail, non-motorized modes, aviation, and freight options to ensure Arizona’s economic vitality.
Develop and operate a State Transportation System that provides predictable freight and people movement throughout the State to create/retain jobs and support a competitive and thriving economy for Arizona.
Highways: Owner/Operator
Urban Transit: Participant
Rural Transit: Participant
Passenger Rail: Participant
Freight Rail: Participant
Air: Participant
Bicycle/Pedestrian: Participant Promote a Development Pattern that Links Transportation and Land Use Link Transportation and Land Use
Develop a multimodal transportation system that recognizes and strengthens the relationship between land use and transportation and connects activity and employment centers statewide. Population growth, community development, economic diversification, and transportation are directly related, and a comprehensive transportation system can be achieved by working with communities to provide suitable mode choices.
Protect the capacity of the State Transportation System by developing policies and partnerships that strengthen the coordination of transportation and land use planning and implementation.
Highways: Owner/Operator
All Transit: Participant
Passenger Rail: Participant
Freight Rail: Participant
Air: Participant
Bicycle/Pedestrian: Participant Page | 34 Final Report
bqAZ Guiding Principle
Plan Goal
ADOT’s Role Consider Arizona’s Environment and Natural Resources Consider Natural, Cultural, and Environmental Resources
Being responsible to Arizona’s citizens, provide access to transportation options that are sensitive to the environment and help reduce congestion. Ensure that the environment is an integral component of transportation planning and development.
Be good stewards of Arizona’s natural, cultural, and environmental resources while improving and maintaining the transportation system.
Highways: Owner/Operator
All Transit: Partner
Passenger Rail: Participant
Freight Rail: Participant
Air: Participant
Bicycle/Pedestrian: Partner Ensure Safety and Security Enhance Safety and Security
Design, build, operate, and maintain a transportation system that promotes safety and security, reducing the risk of injury and property damage on or near transportation facilities.
Continue to improve transportation system safety and ensure the security of the transportation system.
Highways: Owner/Operator
Urban Transit: Participant
Rural Transit: Partner
Passenger Rail: Participant
Freight Rail: Participant
Air: Participant
Bicycle/Pedestrian: Partner Partnerships Strengthen Partnerships
Develop and nurture partnerships that support coordination and integration of ADOT’s planning and investment in State transportation infrastructure with public and private organizations and agencies responsible for land use, conservation and environmental planning, and freight infrastructure.
ADOT will work with the appropriate agencies or private parties to advance the Partnership objectives. Fiscal Stewardship Promote Fiscal Stewardship
Provide a sound financial base for Arizona’s transportation system through responsible management of public assets and resources and identification and implementation of funding strategies to ensure long-term balanced investment in the State Transportation System.
ADOT will work with the appropriate agencies or private parties to advance the Fiscal Stewardship objectives.
Arizona Long-Range Transportation Plan Page | 35
3.3 Future Implications and Next Steps
The performance measures developed as part of this Plan provide a strategic level assessment of how different investment choices will likely affect system performance. However, not all of the measures will be directly applicable to capital programming and project-level decisions; additional measures will need to be developed as part of Plan implementation to help ensure shorter-term, more tactical level decisions align with Plan goals and objectives. For example, measuring total vehicle-related emissions will not help ADOT assess how project selection decisions and different design options will influence performance for environmental considerations related to water runoff, habitat protection, and noise mitigation. Adequately considering these issues during the programming and project development processes will require ADOT to establish specific measures that address them. Similarly, there are several areas where qualitative measures will be required to assess ADOT performance. The Department will explore ways to track performance in these areas by developing mechanisms such as annual partner surveys. Page | 36 Final Report
4. MULTIMODAL NEEDS
This section details Arizona’s 25-year State Transportation System needs and provides a basis for understanding the long-range funding gap between needs, improvements, and available revenues.
4.1 Existing Conditions
4.1.1 State Highway System
There are 60,465 centerline miles and 129,780 lane miles of highways across the State, of which 6,953 centerline miles and 19,912 lane miles are operated and maintained by the ADOT and comprise the State Highway System4. Table 4-1 shows that these highways are generally in “good” condition for travelers, with 99 percent of rural interstates and 97 percent of urban interstates and expressways defined as being in “acceptable” or better condition.5 Arizona has 7,348 bridges and other structures and ADOT maintains 2,040 bridges on the State system.
Arizona’s population is concentrated in the State’s largest metropolitan areas, largely in the Sun Corridor; however, the State has a vast and diverse rural culture and corresponding vast and diverse transportation needs. Forty-two percent of Arizona’s land is federally owned non-Indian land, and nearly 28 percent is Indian Reservation land. The federal government maintains 22 percent of the roads in Arizona through its Federal Lands and Highways Program due to the large number of national parks and federal lands. There are 22 federally recognized American Indian Tribes and Native Nations with reservation land in Arizona. This tribal land encompasses 27,736,000 acres and includes 1,324 centerline miles of highways. Tribal governments have jurisdictional decision-making authority over non-State owned roads and improvements on their
4 Mileages differ slightly from those reported in the TIA Report, as the TIA Report used Highway Statistics tables from the FHWA, whereas the HERS-ST analysis used a modified version of the HPMS data that was not submitted to the FHWA. The newer version of the HPMS dataset captured recent transfers of mileage responsibility and categorization, including the addition of E-ramps and crossings of state highway facilities, which are under ADOT responsibility.
5 Roads are designated as “rural” in areas with populations of less than 5,000 for federal reporting purposes.
Arizona’s State Highway System is in very good condition now, but over time conditions will worsen without sufficient investment. In addition portions of the system are now experiencing unacceptable levels of congestion, which impacts transportation efficiency, safety, health, and the State’s ability to attract and retain jobs. Including new facilities, ADOT’s 25-year multimodal transportation needs total nearly $89 billion, including $73 billion for capital improvements and $16 billion for operations costs.
Implementing the bqAZ 2050 vision requires much more revenue. The analysis shows that state and local needs to implement the first 25 years of bqAZ total $250 billion. Arizona Long-Range Transportation Plan Page | 37
reservation land, as well as any proposed projects to accommodate and improve regional traffic circulation.
Table 4-1: Condition of State-Maintained Roadways
Federal
Functional Classification
Centerline Miles
Centerline Miles in Acceptable or Better Conditions Rural Interstate 981 974
Rural Principal Arterial
1,132
1,082 Rural Minor Arterial 1,156 1,141
Rural Major Collector
2,361
2,297 Urban Interstate 188 182
Urban Expressway
172
167 Urban Principal Arterial 446 397
Urban Minor Arterial
350
317 Urban Collector 169 138
Total: All State-Maintained Roads
6,953
6,695
Source: ADOT’s HERS-ST database dated November 13, 2009; numbers may not add due to rounding
4.1.2 Non-Highway Modes
Transit
The 2008 National Transit Database identifies 90 public transportation operators in Arizona’s urban and rural areas. Arizona’s transit services are primarily focused in the State’s largest urbanized areas of Phoenix and Tucson, as well as in the Flagstaff and Yuma metropolitan areas. To understand existing transit use in the State, Table 4-2 provides a comparison of transit and highway travel for the work commute.
Table 4-2: Commuter Mode Choice Profile
Phoenix
Tucson
Yuma Drove alone 74.8% 75.2% 74.4%
Carpooled
14.3%
12.2%
15.3% Public transportation 2.3% 2.6% 1.8%
Taxicab
0.1%
0.0%
0.1% Motorcycle 0.4% 0.5% 0.5%
Bicycle
0.7%
1.2%
0.3% Walked 1.8% 2.9% 3.9%
2000 U.S. Census, Journey to Work
Although significant transit usage is limited to a few locations, including the major travel corridors leading to downtown Phoenix, the use and importance of transit is growing. Between 2002 and 2007, transit ridership increased 48 percent across the State and added another 9 percent in 2008. Transit will continue to be important Arizona’s demographics and transportation needs evolve. Today, driving and carpooling are the most used travel modes for the commute trip. Page | 38 Final Report
Passenger and Freight Rail
Intercity passenger rail services are currently provided by Amtrak, and ADOT is looking to these services to provide an important travel alternative – as is the nation as a whole. Amtrak’s Sunset Limited route traverses 1,995 miles between New Orleans, Tucson, and Los Angeles. The route crosses the southern tier of Arizona on the Sunset Route of the Union Pacific (UP) Railroad with stations in Benson, Tucson, Maricopa, and Yuma. The Southwest Chief route travels 2,256 miles between Chicago, Flagstaff, and Los Angeles. The route crosses the north-central tier of Arizona on the Transcontinental Route of the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway (BNSF). There are four stations in Arizona served by the Southwest Chief: Winslow, Flagstaff, Williams Junction (connection to the Grand Canyon Railroad discussed below), and Kingman. Valley Metro plans to implement commuter rail services to provide travel choice within the MAG metropolitan region.
Aviation and Air Travel
There are 12 major commercial airports in Arizona offering flights to 110 out-of-state destinations, including 16 international destinations. The largest commercial service airports in the State are Phoenix Sky Harbor International and Tucson International. Commercial service airports also support general aviation activity; additionally, there are another 71 general aviation airports in the State providing air access for privately owned planes. Collectively, Arizona’s commercial airports record 23 million deplanements/enplanements annually (arriving or departing passengers). In 2008, 8.5 million out-of-state visitors traveled to Arizona by air, accounting for roughly 25 percent of all overnight visitor travel in Arizona. Underscoring aviation’s importance to tourism and Arizona’s economy is the fact that more than half of all travel spending by visitors to Arizona is attributable to visitors who traveled by air and that the State owns and operates Grand Canyon National Park Airport, a major tourist flight destination.
Non-motorized
Arizona’s bicycle and pedestrian facilities accommodate a range of activities, from recreational outings to everyday commuting to travel back and forth from work and school. While bicycle and pedestrian improvements are implemented primarily by local governments, major construction and reconstruction highway projects in the State consider provisions for bicycle travel per design guidelines, and local agencies may fund the incorporation of bicycle lanes on the State Highway System.
ADOT has begun development of a statewide bicycle and pedestrian plan to consider strengthening existing provisions, determine needs and funding, as well as recommended policies associated with non-motorized travel in the State. “Complete Streets” concepts – supporting highways that are safe and accommodating for all users – may be explored to accommodate all users of the State Highway System, with a focus on bicycle and pedestrian safety. Arizona Long-Range Transportation Plan Page | 39
4.1.3 Needs Categories
For the Plan’s multimodal needs assessment, three general categories of capital investments were considered: preservation, modernization, and expansion, as defined below. The aviation mode uses slightly different terminology to express these same concepts:
 Preservation: Activities that protect transportation infrastructure by sustaining asset condition or extending asset service life; preservation includes regular maintenance and resurfacing of pavements, replacing aged transit vehicles, upgrading rail track, and airport runway rehabilitation.
 Modernization: Highway improvements that upgrade efficiency, functionality, and safety without adding capacity; examples of modernization activities include widening of narrow lanes, access control, bridge replacement, hazard elimination, lane reconstruction, aviation upgrades, and bus system upgrades.
 Expansion: Improvements that add transportation capacity through the addition of new facilities and or services; expansion activities include adding new highway lanes, expanding bus service, construction of new highway facilities, and adding rail passenger service or facilities.
4.2 Capital Highway and Bridge Needs
4.2.1 Analysis Tools
HERS-ST
The Highway Economic Requirements System - State Version (HERS-ST) model, developed by FHWA, was used to determine 25-year State Highway System needs. HERS-ST is a performance-based highway investment model that considers engineering principles, system deficiencies, and economic criteria to determine required statewide improvements. A roadway condition database known as the Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS) provides the input information for this analysis. ADOT updates Arizona’s component of the HPMS annually and provides it to FHWA.
NBIAS
Bridge needs were analyzed with the National Bridge Investment Analysis System (NBIAS) model. NBIAS is an analysis tool developed by the FHWA that estimates bridge maintenance, improvement, and replacement needs. Much like HERS-ST, the NBIAS model forecasts bridge performance and identifies improvements based on economic indicators. The 2009 National Bridge Inventory (NBI) database was used as an input – along with various other policy and cost variables specific to Arizona and as identified by ADOT – to identify structurally deficient and/or functionally obsolete bridges. Page | 40 Final Report
New Facilities and Other Capital State Highway System Needs
The Full State Needs assessment includes expansion needs that will be met as new roadways are built on new rights of way. These needs cannot be considered in HERS-ST, which only assesses conditions and needs on existing roadways. To identify a group of facilities that would advance Plan goals and objectives and could be constructed within the 25-year timeframe of the Plan, the bqAZ study, regional long-range transportation plans from the State’s MPOs, and other planning sources were reviewed.
Aside from new facilities, the HERS-ST analysis is not all-inclusive in terms of estimating roadway needs. The development of non-HERS needs, for example routine maintenance, is documented in Section 4.4.
4.2.2 Needs on the Existing State Highway System
The 25-year capital needs on the existing State Highway System total $22.6 billion (in constant 2009 dollars), or roughly $900 million per year over the 25-year Plan horizon.6 These needs are shown in Table 4-3.
Table 4-3: Capital Needs on Arizona’s Existing State Highway System
(2009 $ Millions)
Need Type
Total Urban
Total Rural
Total
(Rural + Urban) Preservation $4,047 $2,373 $6,420
Modernization
$1,363
$2,861
$4,224 Expansion $9,089 $2,833 $11,922
Total
$14,499
$8,067
$22,566
Source: Wilbur Smith Associates for ADOT’s 2035 LRTP; roads are designated as “rural” in areas with populations of less than 5,000 for federal reporting purposes.
Figure 4-1 illustrates the improvement costs for each of the three investment categories. Of the estimated $22.6 billion in needs on existing facilities:
 Preservation needs total $6.4 billion, or approximately 28 percent of total needs on the existing system;
 Modernization needs total $4.2 billion, or 19 percent of the total existing State Highway System needs; and,
 Expansion needs/adding lanes on the existing system account $11.9 billion, or 53 percent of existing State Highway System needs.
6 Estimated of Full State Needs were developed by Wilbur Smith Associates for the ADOT LRTP. The Full State Needs technical memo provides documentation of all data sources and model inputs used in the development of Full State Needs. Arizona Long-Range Transportation Plan Page | 41
Figure 4-1: Highway Investment Needs (Existing System) by Category
(2009 $ Billions)
Source: Wilbur Smith Associates for ADOT’s 2035 LRTP
4.2.3 Highway Needs for “New” Facilities
Needs for “new” facilities are defined as additions to the highway network on new rights-of-way that meet Plan goals and objectives. The HERS-ST model does not identify expansion needs for new facilities on new location. Therefore, to develop a 25-year forecast of needs for new facilities, the following State and metropolitan plans and capital programs were reviewed and new roadways consistent with Plan goals and objectives were identified as “needed” within 25 years:
 Arizona State Transportation Improvement Program Fiscal Years 2010-2013, Arizona Department of Transportation, 2009;
 ADOT’s Statewide Transportation Investment Strategy, Arizona Department of Transportation, 2008;
 Building a Quality Arizona, Statewide Transportation Planning Framework Final Report, Arizona Department of Transportation, 2010;
 Regional Transportation Plan, Central Yavapai Metropolitan Planning Organization, 2006;
Preservation $6.4 B 28.4%
Modernization $4.2 B 18.7%
Expansion $11.9 B 52.9%
HERS-ST Needs = $22.6 B Page | 42 Final Report
 Draft Regional Transportation Plan, Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG), 2010;
 2040 Regional Transportation Plan, Pima Association of Governments, 2010;
 2010-2033 Regional Transportation Plan, Yuma Metropolitan Planning Organization, 2010;
 Flagstaff Pathways 2030 Regional Transportation Plan (Draft for Public Release), Flagstaff Metropolitan Planning Organization, 2009;
 Building a Quality Arizona, Regional (Northern, Western, Eastern, and Central) Framework Studies, Arizona Department of Transportation, 2008-2010;
 Interstate 10 - Hassayampa Valley Roadway Framework Study, Arizona Department of Transportation, 2007; and
 Interstate 8 and Interstate 10 Hidden Valley Transportation Framework Study, Arizona Department of Transportation, 2009.
For the Plan, only major facilities identified in these studies, such as potential new freeways, were considered. In reviewing planned projects consistent with Plan goals and objectives, new location highway needs totaling $15.8 billion were identified (listed in Appendix A). Facilities in rural areas account for $5.6 billion of the total, with the remaining $10.2 billion accounting for facilities in urbanized areas.
Other Highway Needs
In addition to the improvement costs that could be calculated from HERS-ST and review of current regional and corridor study plans, other methodologies were developed to estimate capital costs related to the following activities
 Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) and traffic management systems;
 Interchange improvements and minor rehabilitation; and,
 Safety.
The projected capital costs of these activities, amounting to $3.6 billion, are shown in Table 4-4.
Table 4-4: Projected Capital Costs for ITS, Interchange Improvements, and Safety Needs
(2009 $ Millions)
Activity
Cost Traffic Management, ITS, Rest Area Upgrades, Interchange Rehabilitation, etc. $1,675
Safety
$1,875
Total for Other Highway Capital Needs
$3,550
Source: Wilbur Smith Associates for ADOT’s 2035 LRTP Arizona Long-Range Transportation Plan Page | 43
4.2.4 Bridge Needs – State Highway System
Arizona’s bridge needs on the State Highway System total $1.4 billion over the 25-year Plan horizon. As shown in Table 4-5, improvements for 893 bridges were identified, including 604 bridge replacements and 195 bridge widenings, which cost $1.2 billion and $44.0 million respectively.
Table 4-5: Improvement Costs and Number of Bridges Improved
(2009 $ Millions)
Improvement Category
Number of Bridges
Cost Replacement 604 $1,227.3
Raising
0
$0 Widening 195 $44.0
Strengthening
94
$59.3 Maintenance (MR&R) N/A* $103.8
Total
893
$1,434.4
Source: Wilbur Smith Associates for ADOT’s 2035 LRTP;
*NBIAS does not provide the number of bridges needing maintenance, repair, and rehabilitation (MR&R), only dollar amounts.
4.2.5 Highway and Bridge Needs Summary
The 25-year State Highway System needs described in the previous sections are summarized in Table 4-6. Arizona’s State Highway System needs – including needs on existing roads, costs of new facilities, bridge needs, and other safety and ITS capital needs – total $43.3 billion over the 25-year Plan horizon.
Table 4-6: Cost Estimate of Total Highway and Bridge Needs by Functional Area
(2009 $ Millions)
Area/Type
Preservation
Modernization
Expansion
Total Existing State Highway System $6,420 $4,224 $11,922 $22,566
New State Highway System
$0
$0
$15,789
$15,789 Other Capital Needs $0 $3,550 $0 $3,550
Bridge Needs
$104
$1,330
$0
$1,434
Total Highway/Bridge
$6,524
$9,104
$27,711
$43,339
Source: Wilbur Smith Associates for ADOT’s 2035 LRTP
Page | 44 Final Report
4.3 Capital Needs – Non-Highway
ADOT’s current primary area of responsibility is to own, manage, and operate the State Highway System. To support the bqAZ multimodal transportation vision, this Plan describes new roles for ADOT in non-highway modes. Depending on the specific mode over the 25-year timeframe of the Plan ADOT’s role will change into either a participant or a partner, with the difference in these being the amount of decision-making authority and funding participation the Department will have. As such, non-highway needs on the State System are described in this section; over time, and if new revenues become available, ADOT intends to strengthen its responsibilities and investments in non-highway modes.
4.3.1 Public Transportation
The public transportation (transit) needs assessment includes the following:
 Urban preservation needs (or “state-of-good-repair” needs): These needs include bus and light rail vehicle replacement and rehabilitation, as well as the maintenance and rehabilitation of supporting infrastructure; these needs were estimated by considering Arizona’s share of transit assets in relationship to the 2010 Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA) National State-of-Good-Repair Study and the needs-based 2008 AASHTO Bottom Line Report. Urban preservation needs for transit may involve both capital and operational expenditures, which are funded through separate revenue streams.
 Urban expansion aggregated from all metropolitan-area LRTPs in the State, along with the 2008 Arizona Statewide Transportation Investment Strategy7.
 Rural preservation and expansion needs as detailed in ADOT’s 2008 Rural Transit Needs Study.
Transit - Urban Preservation Needs
The 2010 Federal Transit Administration’s National State-of-Good-Repair Study (SGR) serves as the foundation for understanding the nation’s – and Arizona’s – transit needs. The study provides ratings for all transit assets, as well as the funding levels required to attain a “good” or better condition rating by increasing transit investments over a 20-year period. The FTA SGR study found that a 20-year investment of nearly $10 billion annually in preservation and modernization expenditures would bring all transit assets in the U.S. to good or better condition or to a state-of-good-repair. This information was used to develop a prorated estimate of Arizona’s existing system preservation needs over the 25-year Plan horizon, along with factors and other key data from the 2008 AASHTO Bottom Line Report and the FTA National Transit Database.
7 Derived from “Statewide Transportation Investment Strategy,” Arizona Department of Transportation, Transmittal Letter from Victor Mendez to State Transportation Board, State of Arizona, May 16, 2008. Arizona Long-Range Transportation Plan Page | 45
The 25-year state-of-good-repair transit needs were estimated at $5.3 billion for Arizona, of which $4.3 billion is for urban bus system preservation needs. These preservation needs are shown in Table 4-7.
Table 4-7: Preservation Needs for Urban Transit Systems
(2009 $ Millions)
Bus
Light Rail
Total Estimate of 25-Year State of Good Repair (SGR) Needs for Arizona $4,254 $1,066 $5,321
Source: Wilbur Smith Associates for ADOT’s 2035 LRTP
Transit - Urban Expansion Needs
To develop the urban expansion needs for the Plan, the RTPs from all MPO areas in the State were analyzed along with the 2008 Arizona Statewide Transportation Investment Strategy. Expansion needs were aggregated to include the following:
 High capacity transit corridor service to link intra-urban activity centers such as Bus Rapid Transit (Express Bus);
 Expanded light rail service; and,
 Additional regular bus service to fill gaps and to link to other services.
From the review of these sources, total urban transit expansion needs are estimated at $10.1 billion over the 25-year planning period. As shown in Table 4-8, urban expansion needs estimates for the Maricopa Association of Governments and the Pima Association of Governments represent more than $9.7 billion. Needs for other urban areas of the State were derived largely from the Connecting Communities and Enhancing Public Transportation elements of the Investment Strategy document, as well from the Central Yavapai, Yuma, and Flagstaff MPO plans.
Table 4-8: Urban Transit Expansion Needs Estimate
(2009 $ Millions)
Agency
Cost Maricopa Association of Governments $5,411
Pima Association of Governments
$4,265 Other $414
Total
$10,090
Source: Wilbur Smith Associates for ADOT’s 2035 LRTP
Transit – Rural Preservation and Expansion Needs
ADOT’s 2008 Rural Transit Needs Study identifies current and future unmet transportation needs for the low-income, age 60 and over, and disabled populations in rural areas. The study concluded that the existing van and small bus fleet in Arizona would need to increase from nearly 400 vehicles in 2007 to 1,750 by 2016. The study cites a gradual increase of new vehicle Page | 46 Final Report
purchases for system expansion as well as purchases for normal replacement when vehicles reach the end of their useful lives, and the report recommends a total vehicle purchase estimate of 3,250 over the 10-year period. The scenario reaches a cost of $133 million by year 10. The study does not provide 10-year costs, but these costs are estimated to be $183 million in 2006 dollars, or approximately $194 million in 2009 dollars. The 25-year rural transit preservation and expansion needs estimates are shown in Table 4-9. Total needs are estimated at $623 million, of which more than 83 percent is allocated to normal replacement of the expanded system of vans and small buses.
Table 4-9: Rural Transit Needs Estimate
(2009 $ Millions)
Investment
Cost Expansion $105
Preservation (SGR)
$518
Total
$623
Source: Wilbur Smith Associates for ADOT’s 2035 LRTP
4.3.2 Freight and Passenger Rail
This assessment of freight and passenger rail needs draws from recently completed studies, including the 2009 Multimodal Freight Analysis, bqAZ and the framework studies, including the Statewide Rail Framework Study (2010).
The State’s railroads, while not owned or operated by ADOT, are a critical part of Arizona’s multimodal and intermodal transportation system and, likewise, an important part of the statewide and national economies. Goods moving on freight railways typically require truck transport on either or both ends of the trip, making highways the necessary enabler for freight rail transport. Both the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway Company and Union Pacific have significant intermodal operations in Arizona; because of the State’s proximity to Mexico, many of the State’s jobs depend on rail freight, freight movements, and foreign trade.
Passenger rail serves multiple purposes. “Amtrak-type” passenger rail provides intercity service from areas outside of Arizona; regional light rail services are being implemented in the MAG metropolitan area to provide a mode choice for residents of the region. Over the longer term, there may be support for implementation of an interregional commuter rail service, for example between Phoenix and Tucson, to provide long distance commuters an alternative to driving. Currently, Amtrak is the only provider of intercity passenger rail in the State and additional investments in passenger rail will probably require the coordination and cooperation of Amtrak, the private freight companies operating in the State, and ADOT and its public sector partners. ADOT will continue to work with both the public and private sectors on freight and passenger rail issues and opportunities. Arizona Long-Range Transportation Plan Page | 47
Freight Rail Needs
The Plan freight rail needs analysis is based upon the Class I and Short Line carriers in Arizona, where Class I railroads are those with operating revenues of at least $378.8 million in 2009. The needs analysis focuses on the following:
 Attaining a state-of-good-repair for freight rail assets;
 Improving functionality and safety by modernizing the system; and,
 Expanding the system to serve anticipated growth.
The following sources were used to summarize long-term freight rail investment needs in the State:
 bqAZ;
 Arizona State Rail Plan Draft;
 ADOT’s 2009 Railroad Inventory and Assessment;
 Multimodal Freight Analysis Study; and,
 Follow-up discussions with the railroads.
The multimodal transportation system in Arizona includes two Class 1 Railroads, BNSF and UP. Needs for these Class 1 Railroads and additional general needs of short line railroads are summarized as follows:
 BNSF has begun triple‐tracking through New Mexico and will pursue triple‐tracking through Arizona when the economy recovers. Additionally, facility access, elimination of grade crossings, and realignments of the rail bed were cited as potential needs in Flagstaff in the 2009 Multimodal Freight Analysis Study. The improvements would improve the operational efficiency and safety of rail operations there.
 UP’s primary asset in Arizona is its east-west Sunset Route. The UP Railroad is planning to improve the Sunset Route into a high‐capacity route (double‐tracked throughout Arizona), which will increase its use in the future. Double-tracking the line potentially would triple its practical capacity.
 For Arizona’s short lines, the primary need is for track and structure upgrades to allow for heavier carloads. The 2007 Railroad Inventory and Assessment cited four Arizona short lines with the need for track and structure upgrades to handle 286,000 pound rail cars.
For freight rail, asset preservation and capacity investments are handled by the private rail companies who own the tracks and the rail cars in the State. However, using the available sources to estimate freight rail needs results in a total of approximately $500 million through 2035. Under the Plan, ADOT might consider complementary and opportunistic funding partnerships with private freight rail carriers where it helps to advance the goals and objectives of the Plan. Page | 48 Final Report
Passenger Rail Needs
The passenger rail needs analysis for the Plan focuses on state-of-good-repair, modernization, and expansion as detailed in the following sources:
 The Federal Railroad Administration’s 2009 High Speed Rail Strategic Plan;
 2010 Statewide Rail Framework Study;
 MAG Commuter Rail Strategic Plan (2008); and,
 Amtrak Report on Accessibility and Compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (2009) and internal route performance initiative.
Passenger rail in Arizona can be further divided by exploring needs for Amtrak, interregional commuter rail, and regional commuter rail, as described below:
 Amtrak currently provides intercity passenger rail service nationwide and, in Arizona, operates the Southwest Chief on the BNSF’s Transcon Line and the Sunset Limited on UP’s Sunset Route. There are eight Amtrak stations in Arizona: four served by the Southwest Chief and four by the Sunset Limited. For purposes of the Plan, Amtrak needs were summarized by considering station and safety needs as cited in Amtrak reports and by ADOT.
 The need for improved interregional rail service between Phoenix and Tucson has been documented by the 2008 High Speed Passenger Rail Strategic Plan and the 2010 Statewide Rail Framework Study. ADOT is beginning an Alternatives Analysis/Envir